The Texas Department of Transportation anticipates issuing an amendment to this report in early 2014 to reflect recent developments on important rail initiatives in the state. CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Chapter 4 – Passenger Rail Systems

To improve the coordination of the planning, construction, operation and maintenance of a statewide passenger rail system in the State of Texas, S.B. 1382 (Section 201.6012- 6013, Transportation Code), an act passed by the 81st Texas Legislature and approved by the governor on June 19, 2009, requires TxDOT to prepare and update annually a long-term plan for a statewide passenger rail system. The plan must include the following information useful for the development of the vision, goals, and objectives for the passenger rail system for Texas: • A description of existing and proposed passenger rail systems; • Information regarding the status of passenger rail systems under construction; • An analysis of potential interconnectivity difficulties; • Ridership projections for proposed passenger rail projects; and • Ridership statistics for existing passenger systems.

This chapter provides the information required by Section 201.6012-6013, Transportation Code, plus additional information pertinent to understanding the challenges, issues, and opportunities for developing passenger rail services in Texas. Passenger rail services are divided into six categories in this chapter and are defined as follows: • High-speed rail is defined as rail operating at speeds of at least 150 mph non- stop or with limited stops between cities. • Intercity passenger rail is defined as rail serving several cities operating at slower speeds than high speed over long-distances with more frequent stops. • Commuter and regional rail is defined as rail primarily serving work commuters between communities in an urban area or region. • Light rail is defined as public transportation operating on rail within an urban area. Light rail vehicles are electric rail cars operating either in rights-of-way separated from other traffic or in city streets mixed with general traffic. • Trolley and streetcars are defined as local public transportation using vehicles that run on rails to provide short-trip urban circulation. Vehicles range from vintage trolleys to modern multi-section articulated streetcars. • Tourism rail is defined as rail operating generally for entertainment and sightseeing purposes.

Table 4-1 lists the providers of existing passenger rail services in Texas by category: Amtrak, local transit authorities, municipalities, and non-profit agencies.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-1 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

The Texas Rail Plan (TRP) focuses on high-speed rail (HSR), intercity passenger rail (IPR), and commuter and regional rail; however, light rail, streetcar and trolley systems are also covered as referenced by their connectivity with the other types of passenger services (see Table 4-1). Furthermore, tourism rail is included because some tourist rail services, such as the Hill Country Flyer and the Grapevine Vintage Railroad, are affected by freight and non-tourist passenger train operations and offer potential as future corridors for non-tourist passenger rail services.

Table 4-1: List of All Passenger Rail Providers and Services in Texas Providers Service Name

High-Speed No high-speed rail service provided currently N/A Rail

Intercity Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited, Amtrak Passenger Rail Heartland Flyer

Dallas Area Rapid Transit and Fort Worth Trinity Railway Express Commuter and Transportation Authority Regional Rail Denton County Transportation Authority A-train Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority MetroRail

Dallas Area Rapid Transit DART Rail Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris METRORail Light Rail County (METRO) City of Austin Urban Rail (in planning)

Trolley and Island Transit (City of Galveston) Galveston Island Trolley (not in Streetcar service) McKinney Avenue Transit Authority McKinney Avenue Trolley City of Dallas Streetcar (in construction) City of El Paso Streetcar (in planning) San Antonio VIA Metropolitan Transit Streetcar (in planning)

Rusk, Palestine and Pacific Railroad, LLC Texas State Railroad Austin Steam Train Association Hill Country Flyer City of Grapevine Grapevine Vintage Railroad Tourism Rail Texas Transportation Museum Longhorn and Western Railroad DBR Entertainment Inc. Jefferson and Cypress Bayou Railway

The primary sources of data for this chapter are the rail and transit agencies operating or proposing rail services. As discussed later in this chapter, there are many public entities within Texas which have the authority to design, construct and operate passenger rail in the state. TxDOT’s role is to coordinate the efforts of these entities to provide a cohesive passenger rail plan for the state. Figure 4-1 shows an example of passenger rail in operation.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-2 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-1: DART Light Rail Passengers Boarding TRE Commuter Train in Dallas

4.1 – High-Speed Passenger Rail Service in Texas

While no high-speed rail (HSR) service currently operates in Texas, it could provide the growing population an alternative to driving or flying within the state. Evaluation of the population, automobile, and air transport trends, as well as the economic connectivity of the cities within Texas, points to a need for providing high-capacity, high-quality transportation services and accommodations.

High-Speed Rail Initiatives

High-speed passenger trains that run frequently could be competitive with air travel between urban regions within 200 to 500 miles. The motivation and need that prompted the state of Texas to pursue HSR in the 1980’s and 1990’s still exists. Higher speeds, more advanced systems, and more passenger amenities differentiate HSR from existing intercity passenger rail service, currently provided by Amtrak. Although demand for intercity travel in Texas may support a HSR system, additional improvements to existing track or construction of new, separate facilities are required to create improved intercity passenger service with higher speeds.

The combination of speeds faster than 150 mph that drastically reduce travel time with passenger amenities unavailable to auto and air passengers (such as dining cars, meeting rooms, and more passenger space, and the addition of High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail) would expand travel options. The rail planning process must examine how to incorporate High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) into the state’s transportation network and the role of private and public entities in bringing HSIPR to Texas.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-3 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

A summary of the Texas TGV franchise proposal from the 1990’s and the state’s HSIPR planning efforts thus far are provided to show the progress and issues facing HSIPR implementation in the state.

Past HSIPR Proposals

Research conducted by private entities and the state and federal government in the late 1980’s and the 1990’s predicted that a system of faster trains serving the state’s largest cities would support significant passenger volumes.

In 1989, the Texas Legislature created the Texas High Speed Rail Authority (THSRA) as a separate state agency to determine whether high-speed rail in Texas was feasible. THSRA was to determine the best-qualified applicant for award of a franchise to design, build, and operate a high-speed rail service in the state. A 50-year franchise was awarded in 1991 to a consortium of businesses, designated as the Texas TGV (TTGV) Corporation. According to ridership projections generated for the TTGV Corporation, the potential share of high-speed rail in the Texas Triangle between Austin, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio was 11.9 million passengers, or one-quarter of the total intercity travel market.1 A planned securities offering in the fall of 1993 failed when one of the backers withdrew its commitment, and the franchise agreement with TTGV was subsequently rescinded in 1994. Although demand appeared to justify high-speed rail services in the state, funding issues and other pressures prevented the project from moving forward. The THSRA was formally abolished in 1995.

The TTGV initiative demonstrated the potential for HSIPR, showing that demand existed for high-speed train service between Texas’ largest cities. Amtrak officials corroborated the TTGV analysis, believing there is a demand for high-speed passenger rail services in Texas.2 At the time of the Texas TGV project studies, initial ridership projections for total intercity travel between the metropolitan areas of Austin, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio (the Texas Triangle) using all modes were predicted to reach 45.5 million travelers by 2010.

Since the Texas TGV proposal, other proposals have been submitted to the FRA or the State of Texas. All have indicated operating revenues would exceed operating expenses, and all proposed routes to serve the cities of Austin, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Table 4-2 summarizes these estimates.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-4 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-2: Ridership and Operation Revenue and Expenses Estimates for Proposed Texas HSIPR Projects Operation Revenue & Expenses Entity Ridership Estimates Estimates French National Between Dallas and San Antonio: Operating revenues would exceed Railway Corporation operating and maintenance expenses 3.3 million passengers/year by 2018 (SNCF) by 2018 with net income used to contribute to 58% of the funds needed 2009 12.1 million passengers/year by 2025 for initial capital investments Within the Texas Triangle system, a total of 89,000 passengers per day by 2023 and Operating revenues would exceed over 100,000 after 2023: expenses (exclusive of debt service, depreciation, taxes, and fixed TRHC— * Between Dallas and San Antonio, 13,000- charges) in the fourth year of Triangle 55,000 passengers per day operation (in 2015), assuming only Railroad Holding 3,000 passengers per day. * Between Austin and Houston, 11,300- Company 51,000 passengers per day Operating revenues would exceed 2009 expenses, inclusive of debt service, in * Between Dallas and Houston, 17,900- 2025 when construction is complete 81,000 passengers/day and ridership is about 108,000 passengers per day. (Based on projected population growth) Between San Antonio and Dallas: Federal Operating revenues would exceed Railroad operating and maintenance expenses Administration 3.2-8.1 million passenger trips/year, (inclusive of taxes, but unclear if depending on rail technology with higher inclusive of interest) by the year 2020 levels of ridership corresponding to faster 1997 speeds (by 2020) regardless of rail technology selected Texas TGV For the Texas Triangle between Houston, Specific estimates unavailable, Austin/San Antonio, and Dallas/Fort Worth, however Texas TGV stated operating 1991 11.9 million passengers. revenues would exceed expenses For the entire Texas Triangle rail system, Fastrak 8.46 million trips by 2015 Fastrak stated operating revenues would exceed expenses 1991 Between Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth, 4.89 million trips in the year 2015

By the late 1990’s, the FRA began to encourage the incremental development (largely through safety improvements) of faster passenger train systems through the designation of “High-Speed Rail Corridors” (HSRCs) around the country, including two such corridors in Texas. Currently, the FRA is encouraging states to cooperatively determine and fund planned improvements along their corridors.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-5 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Federally Designated High-Speed Rail Corridors

Since 1991, eleven high-speed rail corridors have been authorized. Five were authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and six were authorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998. To date, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has designated all eleven corridors.

The two rail corridors in Texas that have received federal designation as future high- speed rail corridors, the “South Central” and “Gulf Coast,” are depicted in Figure 4-2. The Gulf Coast corridor was designated in 1998; the South Central corridor was designated in 2000. These two corridors coincide with portions of existing Amtrak routes. Although these two corridors are not directly connected, TxDOT recognized the potential for connecting the two mega-regions of Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston and is currently conducting a preliminary engineering and an environmental study to establish high- speed passenger rail service between these two mega-regions.

The South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor (stretching from San Antonio through Dallas/Fort Worth and on to Texarkana and Little Rock on one branch and from Dallas/Fort Worth to Tulsa on the other) essentially follows the same routes as Amtrak’s Texas Eagle and Heartland Flyer services. The Gulf Coast High-Speed Rail Corridor (GCHSRC) runs east from Houston to Beaumont, New Orleans, and Mobile. A separate branch of the Gulf Coast High-Speed Rail Corridor connects New Orleans with Atlanta.

The high-speed rail corridor designation from the FRA allowed states to apply for limited federal funds for high-speed rail corridor studies, and also to make capital improvements to existing rail lines through the 1103(f) program of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005, thereby potentially improving safety and mobility with the long-term goal of improving track speeds for passenger rail. Competition is intense for the limited funds available from this program, and the funds allotted for Texas rail improvements to date have been minimal.

In 1999, TxDOT received a $125,000 appropriation from the USDOT (Section 1103 funds) for the study of the GCHSRC from Houston to the Texas–Louisiana state line. The funds were used to perform an assessment of the existing infrastructure on the Amtrak’s Sunset Limited route (on the GCSHRC) to determine the feasibility and costs associated with incremental implementation of higher speed rail services on the corridor.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-6 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-2: Federally Designated High Speed Rail Corridors in Texas Source: Federal Railroad Administration, 2010

Modifications to FRA HSR Corridors

Since the establishment of ISTEA in 1991, there have been several requests for extensions of various corridors, with only 11 having been approved. In June 2003, TxDOT asked the FRA to designate an extension of the South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor that would extend from the Houston area through Bryan/College Station to the Killeen/Temple area, connecting the two Texas corridors. This “Brazos Express Corridor” would provide a connection between Texas’ populated I-35 corridor and Houston, its largest city, and include communities that do not currently have passenger rail services. The FRA declined to designate the extension based on the agency’s vision at the time for the future of intercity passenger rail. SAFETEA-LU revised the language dealing with high-speed rail corridor development so that program funds will only be available for corridor development versus planning activities. There have also been discussions about connecting the two Texas corridors via an extension from Meridian, Mississippi, through Shreveport, Louisiana, to Dallas.

Another proposed modification for the South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor is an extension from Little Rock to Memphis. This proposed connection would connect two existing Amtrak routes, the Texas Eagle and the City of New Orleans, and may enhance

Revised 05/12/2014 4-7 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

regional access to the existing national rail network. TxDOT is supporting the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department in studying the feasibility of this extension as well as the efforts in developing a Service Development Plan for the portion of the South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor between Texarkana and Little Rock.

Along the FRA-designated high-speed rail corridors, TxDOT may apply for project funding to improve highway-railroad crossings through the SAFETEA-LU Section 1103(f) grant program, which would increase safety for motorists and enhance the movement of both passenger and freight trains. The types of projects potentially eligible for federal funding include adding or replacing signals, changing the crossing gate apparatus to a four-quad gate or similar barrier system, constructing highway-rail grade separations along the rail corridor, or closing lightly-used crossings altogether. It is anticipated that such improvements will yield decreases in travel times and thereby increase passenger ridership. By utilizing existing rail corridors and infrastructure, new or increased levels of passenger rail service offers cost-effective transportation that has lower environmental impacts and is easier to implement compared to initiating new rail corridors.

Chapter 6 discusses other federal funding sources, such as the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. While the Section 1103 (f) grant program requires HSRC designation, the HSIPR Program did not require designation as an eligibility criterion. To date, Texas has received over $31 million in funding through the HSIPR Program.

Current HSIPR Initiatives

TxDOT is currently in the process of advancing two potential HSIPR corridors within Texas: Oklahoma City to South Texas and Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston.

TxDOT, in cooperation with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, is evaluating a range of passenger rail service options in an 850-mile corridor from Oklahoma City to South Texas through the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (TOPRS). The TOPRS commenced in 2012 and is expected to be completed by fall 2014. It will document the costs, benefits, and impacts of rail service alternatives compared to a no- build alternative in a service-level environmental impact statement (EIS). TxDOT and the study team conducted public and agency scoping meetings in March and April 2013 and have compiled all comments into a scoping report. The alternatives analysis report should be complete in early 2014.

Additionally, TxDOT was awarded a $15 million grant from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in May 2011 for the Preliminary Engineering and NEPA work for new core express service (high-speed rail) in the DFW-Houston corridor. Agreements are being finalized among FRA, TxDOT, the Texas Central Railway (the private entity pursuing the development of high-speed rail within the corridor), and consultants being hired to perform the environmental studies. Studies will be coordinated with the North

Revised 05/12/2014 4-8 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), the Gulf Coast Rail District (GCRD) and the FRA.

4.2 – Intercity Passenger Rail Services in Texas

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is currently the sole provider of intercity passenger rail service in Texas. As shown in Figure 4-3, the passenger rail network within Texas from the early 20th century was considerably reduced prior to establishment of Amtrak. Amtrak currently serves most of the state’s major urban areas, although not all major urban areas are directly connected. Amtrak’s partnership with motor coach services provides bus connections from Amtrak stations to other areas of the state.

Figure 4-4 provides a map of the three current Amtrak routes in Texas: the Heartland Flyer, Texas Eagle, and Sunset Limited. The Heartland Flyer, a 206-mile corridor between Fort Worth and Oklahoma City, is a state-supported train that is jointly funded by Texas and Oklahoma. The Texas Eagle (San Antonio to Chicago) and the Sunset Limited (Los Angeles to New Orleans) are the two long-distance trains fully funded by Amtrak.

State funding is a requirement of Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), where Amtrak is required to work with state partners to establish a consistent cost-sharing methodology across all routes of less than 750 miles, in order to ensure a fair and equitable treatment of all states. Under Section 209, Amtrak adopted a cost-sharing methodology and protocol, the Amtrak Performance Tracking (APT) system, in October 2010 to determine and allocate costs for state- supported Amtrak routes. This methodology and protocol was mutually agreed upon by all affected states, except Indiana, and approved by the Surface Transportation Board (STB) in March 2012, with an effective date in April 2012. With the subsidies, each participating state will have more influence with Amtrak on the planning and operations of the corresponding service plan. In October 2013, the methodology was implemented for payment of the FY 2014 Heartland Flyer services.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-9 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-3: Passenger Rail in Texas 1908, 1930, 1950, 1970 Source: Texas Transportation Institute, The History of Rail Passenger Service in Texas 1820-1970, 1976

Revised 05/12/2014 4-10 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-4: Current Texas Amtrak Routes Source: Texas Transportation Institute, 2012

A description of the three intercity services, such as the route, stations, and schedule, along with their performance follows. Measures of performance discussed include the number of boardings and alightings (deboardings) at each station, the on-time performance (OTP), which gives the percentage of time the trains arrive at the endpoint of the route according to the published schedule, and the financial performance.

The Heartland Flyer—Fort Worth to Oklahoma City

Beginning in June 1999, Amtrak and the State of Oklahoma initiated intercity corridor service on the 206-mile Heartland Flyer route, reinstating passenger rail service in North Texas and Oklahoma for the first time in more than 20 years. The Heartland Flyer, with service between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, runs one trip daily in each direction and serves the Texas cities of Fort Worth and Gainesville, providing connections to the Texas Eagle at Fort Worth (Figure 4-5). In Texas, the Heartland Flyer operates on 72 miles of BNSF Railway (BNSF) tracks.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-11 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) approached TxDOT for assistance in providing operational funding for the Heartland Flyer in 2006. TxDOT reviewed ODOT’s proposal, as well as Amtrak’s performance and costs, and the Texas Transportation Commission (TTC) approved $1.8 million in funding for FY 2007. TxDOT and ODOT have also partnered to continue providing funding for FY 2008 and 2009, with TxDOT’s contribution totaling $1.99 million each of those years. For FY 2011 and FY 2012, TxDOT’s contribution paid-to-date has been $1.70 million and $1.11 million, respectively.

State-supported Amtrak Intercity Corridor service along the Heartland Flyer route was introduced in spite of ridership projections that would give rail only a small share of the total travel between markets on this corridor. In the first year of operation, 25,247 total boardings and alightings were made in Texas; this figure Figure 4-5: Heartland Flyer Route jumped to 60,450 by 2000. The annual Source: Amtrak number of boardings and alightings in Texas by FY 2012 was 82,938.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-12 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-6: Heartland Flyer at Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center Source: TxDOT

A 2010 study of the Heartland Flyer conducted by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI)3 provides several interesting findings about the passengers, trip purpose, and the economic and transportation impacts: • Passengers cited comfort and cost advantages as the two main reasons why they chose the train for their trip. • Nearly 30% of Heartland Flyer travelers reported that they would forgo their trip if the service was discontinued. • In FY 2009, passengers spent $18 million on lodging, meals, shopping, and entertainment, resulting in nearly $1.4 million in sales tax revenue to the communities served by the Heartland Flyer. • Most passengers traveled between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. Passengers were mostly from the central Oklahoma metropolitan region (Oklahoma City/Norman), followed by the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, and then the Tulsa area.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-13 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

• About two-thirds of the passengers arrived at their boarding station by private vehicle. Of those, most were dropped off or picked up by a friend or family member. The others parked their private vehicle at the station. • Most passengers reported “visiting family or friends” or “leisure/recreation” as their trip purpose. • The median trip frequencies are approximately one round trip per year. • The Heartland Flyer diverted 39,000 vehicle-trips during FY 2009, resulting in an estimated reduction of 7.9 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on corridor roadways.

The Heartland Flyer train consists of one locomotive, one coach, one snack coach, one coach, and one NPCU (cab car), and has 198 to 210 passenger seats. The schedule and ridership are given in Table 4-3 and Figure 4-7, respectively. The annual boardings and alightings by station are shown in Table 4-4.

To further increase passenger demand, Oklahoma and Texas are evaluating improvements that could decrease run times on the route. Presently, the Heartland Flyer takes approximately 4 hours and 15 minutes to travel from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth, about 45 minutes longer than the same trip by car. TxDOT received a $3.8 million grant from the first round of HSIPR grants, funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), to upgrade the signals along the Texas portion of the route to allow for an increase in speeds to 79 mph. This upgrade will reduce the run time by approximately 17 minutes, making train travel more competitive with travel by car.

Additionally, another station has been proposed to provide a stop for the cities of Krum and Denton at the cities’ request. In March 2009, TxDOT requested that Amtrak start a planning study to determine the feasibility of adding a new station in the area. On August 4, 2010, Amtrak provided TxDOT with ridership, revenue, and operating cost estimates from a profit and loss analysis it performed on the proposed new station. Amtrak has forwarded the request for the station to the host railroad, BNSF. In July 2010, TxDOT requested support and financial assistance from the cities of Krum and Denton for this project.

Also in 2010, TxDOT requested HSIPR funding for a preliminary engineering and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) study to determine the best location for the new passenger rail station. Although unsuccessful at securing federal funding, TxDOT continues to search for means to fund the project through North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) and local governments. This project will increase ridership on the state-supported Heartland Flyer Corridor, improving revenue on the route and providing station access to the City of Denton, TX (Pop. 113,383), and Denton County, TX (662,614)4.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-14 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-3: Heartland Flyer Schedule (as of April 2013) Southbound Southbound City Northbound Northbound Arrival/Departure Arrival/Departure Daily 8:25 a.m. Oklahoma 9:39 p.m. Daily City, OK Daily 8:49 a.m. Norman, OK 9:04 p.m. Daily Daily 9:06 a.m. Purcell, OK 8:47 p.m. Daily Daily 9:31 a.m. Pauls Valley, 8:21 p.m. Daily OK Daily 10:23 a.m. Ardmore, OK 7:28 p.m. Daily Daily 11:05 a.m. Gainesville 6:47 p.m. Daily Daily 12:39 p.m. Fort Worth 5:25 p.m. Daily Source: Amtrak

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000 Alightings and Boardings Total 10,000

- 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year

Figure 4-7: Heartland Flyer Total Annual Boardings and Alightings Source: Amtrak Government Affairs, 2013

Revised 05/12/2014 4-15 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-4: Heartland Flyer Amtrak Station Total Annual Boardings and Alightings

Fiscal Year Fort Worth Gainesville Total 1999 19,827 5,420 25,247 2000 44,123 16,327 60,450 2001 40,875 15,118 55,993 2002 36,942 11,798 48,740 2003 35,362 8,981 44,343 2004 40,469 10,240 50,709 2005 47,015 11,823 58,838 2006 44,896 10,505 55,401 2007 46,788 9,589 56,377 2008 67,190 9,249 76,439 2009 61,181 8,018 69,199 2010 67,669 8,603 76,272 2011 70,821 8,099 78,920 2012 74,883 8,055 82,938 Source: Amtrak Government Affairs, 2013

On-Time Performance

The on-time performance for the Heartland Flyer dropped considerably in 2006 to a low of 28.6% in 2007, but improved to 83.8% in 2009, as shown in Figure 4-8. Over the last three years, on-time performance fell slightly each year to 59.2% in FY 2012.

100.0% 85.8% 90.0% 83.8% 81.4% 79.6% 76.3% 75.1% 80.0% 71.2% 64.7% 70.0% 59.2% 60.0% 51.6% 50.0% 44.9% 40.0% 28.6%

Time Performance Time 30.0% -

On 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year

Figure 4-8: On-Time Performance of Heartland Flyer for FY 2001–2012 Source: Amtrak Government Affairs, 2013

Revised 05/12/2014 4-16 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Causes of Delay

Amtrak categorized delays in three categories as presented in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5: Amtrak Delay Categories Type of Delay Delay Code Delay Description 1. Amtrak Responsibility Passenger HLD All delays related to passengers, checked baggage, large Related groups, etc. Hold for CON Holding for connections from other trains or buses Connection Total Other All other delays: delays/miscellaneous; crew & system; locomotive failure; car failure; initial terminal delay; servicing; passenger-related accessibility; late train make- up; injury delay; mail/baggage work 2. Host Railroad Responsibility Freight Train FTI Delays from freight trains Interference Slow Order DSR Temporary slow orders, except heat and cold orders Delays Routing RTE Routing/dispatching delays including diversions, late track bulletins, etc. Signal DCS Signal failure or other signal delays, wayside defect Delays detector false alarms, defective road crossing protection, efficiency tests, drawbridge stuck open Maintenance DMW Maintenance of way delays including holds for track repairs of Way or maintenance of way foreman to clear Total Other All other delays: passenger train interference, detours, debris 3. Other Minutes of Delay: Third-Party Responsibility Weather- WTR All severe weather delays, landslides or washouts, Related earthquake, heat or cold orders Total Other All other delays: police-related, trespassers, unused recovery time Source: Amtrak Government Affairs

For the 24-month period of March 2011 to February 2013, the Heartland Flyer experienced a total of 61,550 minutes of delay (average of 2,565 delay minutes per month) operating between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. Amtrak delays totaled 6,758 minutes (11%) of delay for the 24-month period (average of 282 delay minutes per month) for passenger holds, engine failures, crew-related issues, and other issues. BNSF delays totaled 52,367 minutes (85%) for the 24-month period (average of 2,182 delay minutes per month,) for freight train interference, slow orders, passenger train

Revised 05/12/2014 4-17 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

interference, and other issues. Other minutes of delay totaled 2,425 minutes (4%) for the 24-month period (average of 101 delay minutes per month). Detailed delay information is shown in Table 4-6 and Figure 4-9.

Table 4-6: Delays for Heartland Flyer (March 2012 to February 2013)

Source: Amtrak (Detailed data for March 2011 through February 2012 not shown for clarity)

4,500 4,000 3,500

3,000 2,500 Total Minutes 2,000 Amtrak Delays

Delay Minutes Delay 1,500 Host Railroad Delays 1,000 Other Minutes of Delay 500 0 Jul-11 Jul-12 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jun-11 Jun-12 Oct-11 Oct-12 Apr-11 Apr-12 Sep-11 Feb-12 Sep-12 Feb-13 Dec-11 Dec-12 Aug-11 Aug-12 Nov-11 Nov-12 Mar-11 Mar-12 May-11 May-12 Month Figure 4-9: Delay Minutes for Heartland Flyer by Category March 2011 to February 2013 Source: Amtrak

Revised 05/12/2014 4-18 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Financial Performance

In FY 2012, Amtrak reported that the Heartland Flyer generated total revenue of $5.4 million. Total direct costs, including fully allocated overhead were $9.0 million, resulting in a $3.6 million annual loss.5 In FY 2011, route revenues of $5.9 million were exceeded by total direct costs of $8.5 million, for a loss of $2.6 million. In FY 2010, route revenues of $5.3 million were exceeded by total direct costs of $7.5 million, for a loss of $2.2 million. Annual subsidies from both Texas and Oklahoma offset these losses. Though Section 209 and subsidy requirement processes, each state is seeking greater control and influence over the state-supported routes, potentially establishing service and performance standards.

The Texas Eagle—San Antonio to Chicago

Amtrak provides daily service on the Texas Eagle between San Antonio and Chicago via Fort Worth, Dallas, and St. Louis, for a distance of 1,305 miles (Figure 4-10). In Texas, the Texas Eagle operates on 404.1 miles of UP track, except between Temple and Fort Worth where the trains operate on 126 miles of BNSF track. Multiple stops are made in Texas (see Table 4-7). The Texas Eagle joins the Sunset Limited in San Antonio and continues to Los Angeles for a total route length of 2,728 miles between Chicago to Los Angeles.

Figure 4-10: Texas Eagle Route Source: Amtrak

Ridership on the Texas Eagle has grown in the past few years after facing several threats of discontinued service. As of May 2010, the train consists of one locomotive, one transition sleeper, one sleeper, one diner, one lounge, and three coaches (one sleeper and one coach operate to/from Los Angeles as through service three times a week), and has a total of 210 passenger seats. Seasonal adjustments may include one additional coach and sleeper on the Texas Eagle portion of the route.

The schedule of the Texas Eagle is given in Table 4-7. After San Antonio, the Texas Eagle connects with and follows the schedule of the Sunset Limited. Current service

Revised 05/12/2014 4-19 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

between San Antonio and Los Angeles continues as a three-times-per-week connection with the Sunset Limited at San Antonio. Figure 4-11 shows the Texas Eagle at the Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center.

Table 4-7: Texas Eagle Schedule for Texas Cities (as of April 2013) Westbound Eastbound Westbound City Eastbound Arrival/Departure Arrival/Departure Daily 5:58 a.m. Texarkana 8:43 p.m. Daily Daily 7:50 a.m. Marshall 7:31 p.m. Daily Daily 8:28 a.m. Longview 6:15 p.m. Daily Daily 9:25 a.m. Mineola 5:15 p.m. Daily 11:30 a.m. (arrive) 3:40 p.m. (depart) Daily Dallas Daily 11:50 a.m. (depart) 3:20 p.m. (arrive) 1:25 p.m. (arrive) 2:20 p.m. (depart) Daily Fort Worth Daily 2:10 p.m. (depart) 1:58 p.m. (arrive) Daily 2:52 p.m. Cleburne 1:00 p.m. Daily Daily 4:00 p.m. McGregor 11:51 a.m. Daily Daily 4:43 p.m. Temple 11:25 a.m. Daily Daily 5:36 p.m. Taylor 10:22 a.m. Daily Daily 6:30 p.m. Austin 9:31 a.m. Daily Daily 7:12 p.m. San Marcos 8:32 a.m. Daily Daily 9:55 p.m. (arrive) San Antonio 7:00 a.m. Daily Source: Amtrak

Figure 4-11: Eastbound and Southbound Texas Eagle Trains at Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center

In 1996, Amtrak announced that it would terminate the Texas Eagle, which at the time ran three times a week between Chicago and Los Angeles. Several concerned parties

Revised 05/12/2014 4-20 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

contacted TxDOT to see if the department could do something to retain service. Amtrak pushed the termination date back several times until, in 1997, the 75th Texas Legislature passed acts directing TxDOT to loan $5.6 million in general revenue funds to Amtrak with the provision that Amtrak maintain the Texas Eagle for a specified period. The loan was to be repaid with interest by July 31, 1999. Amtrak repaid the loan in full two months prior to the deadline in May of 1999.

During the period specified in the loan, Amtrak was able to increase the profitability of the Texas Eagle by adding the capability to carry mail and express freight, a practice it later discontinued. Amtrak was also able to increase the number of Texas Eagle trains to daily operations between San Antonio and Chicago.

Also during the period, the Texas Eagle Marketing and Performance Organization (TEMPO) was also founded at the request of the Texas Eagle Mayors’ Coalition to establish a mechanism for local input to Amtrak on issues affecting the Texas Eagle. Part of TEMPO’s mission is to promote and improve passenger rail service along the Texas Eagle route with particular emphasis on Texas and Arkansas, and to increase public awareness of the economic benefits of passenger rail service. One of the major achievements of TEMPO is its participation in the Texas Eagle local revenue management project. Beginning in 1999, the project allows those familiar with local travel trends to shift pricing to maximize ridership and revenue.

All of the efforts in the late 1990’s to keep the Texas Eagle Amtrak route alive proved effective. Ridership has steadily increased since 1998 (see Figure 4-12 and Table 4-8), with only three years of slight declines. 350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

Alightings and Boardings Total 50,000

- 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year

Figure 4-12: Texas Eagle Total Annual Boardings and Alightings Source: Amtrak Government Affairs, 2013

Revised 05/12/2014 4-21 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-8: Texas Eagle Amtrak Station Total Boardings and Alightings

Worth

Total Dallas Taylor Austin

Fiscal Temple Mineola Marshall Cleburne Longview McGregor Fort San Marcos Year San Antonio 1998 24,310 757 10,245 859 5,487 1,310 545 9,042 22,955 1,473 12,377 2,346 91,706 1999 20,712 797 11,052 766 3,773 1,242 717 13,392 23,547 1,470 12,455 2,437 92,360 2000 28,608 1,560 15,598 1,575 5,679 2,004 1,279 25,543 30,598 3,093 14,551 3,240 133,328 2001 30,277 2,055 18,595 1,944 7,215 2,080 1,524 28,700 34,074 2,902 15,172 3,128 147,666 2002 24,651 1,800 15,991 1,648 6,660 2,251 1,398 24,436 29,782 2,440 16,926 3,144 131,127 2003 29,281 2,646 18,646 2,590 8,006 1,776 1,531 28,845 31,981 2,308 20,720 3,696 152,026 2004 31,440 2,847 20,934 3,248 10,431 2,444 1,614 32,611 33,409 3,923 23,692 5,076 171,669 2005 29,790 3,421 21,365 3,235 10,732 2,715 1,849 38,467 35,922 4,068 25,428 5,905 182,897 2006 28,266 3,587 20,863 3,896 11,314 2,868 1,948 36,734 32,305 3,577 24,449 5,641 175,448 2007 27,408 3,084 19,388 3,464 10,349 2,382 1,831 38,281 27,374 3,888 21,610 5,469 164,528 2008 32,120 3,741 23,829 3,981 12,914 3,141 2,135 40,822 35,579 4,376 27,920 6,406 196,964 2009 32,525 4,399 25,404 3,908 15,163 4,238 2,455 42,926 39,230 4,952 28,828 6,988 211,016 2010 37,593 5,283 31,968 4,551 15,426 4,240 3,130 50,530 47,053 6,568 34,033 8,709 249,084 2011 44,252 6,555 39,167 4,752 16,471 4,644 3,590 58,073 54,498 7,165 35,469 9,021 283,657 2012 46,749 7,294 41,638 4,979 17,856 4,988 4,536 66,813 55,764 6,965 49,126 10,025 316,733 Source: Amtrak Government Affairs, 2013

On-Time Performance

The on-time performance for the Texas Eagle dropped considerably in years 2006-2008 to a low of 17.9% in 2008, but improved to 75.2% in 2009 because of a reduction in delays caused by the host railroad, as shown in Figure 4-13. In FY 2010, on-time performance for the Texas Eagle fell to 69.6% with a further decline in FY 2011 to 55.8%, and an increase in FY 2012 to 65.8%.

Causes for Delay

For the 24-month period of March 2011 to February 2013, the Texas Eagle experienced a total of 500,907 minutes of delay (average of 20,871 delay minutes per month) operating between San Antonio and Chicago. Amtrak delays totaled 84,666 minutes (17%) of delay for the 24-month period (average of 3,528 delay minutes per month) for passenger holds, engine failures, crew-related issues, and other issues. Host-railroad delays totaled 348,041 minutes (69%) for the 24-month period (average of 14,502 delay minutes per month,) for freight train interference, slow orders, passenger train interference, and other issues. Other minutes of delay totaled 68,200 minutes (14%) for the 24-month period (average of 2,842 delay minutes per month). Detailed delay information is shown in Table 4-9 and Figure 4-14.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-22 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 75.2% 69.6% 65.8% 70.0% 62.6% 55.8% 60.0% 52.3% 53.1% 50.0% 38.9% 40.0% Time Performance Time - 30.0% 26.8%

On 21.5% 19.7% 17.9% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year

Figure 4-13: On-Time Performance of the Texas Eagle for Fiscal Years 2001–2012 Source: Amtrak Government Affairs, 2013

Table 4-9: Delays for Texas Eagle (March 2012 to February 2013)

Source: Amtrak (Detailed data for March 2011 through February 2012 not shown for clarity)

Revised 05/12/2014 4-23 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000 Total Minutes

15,000 Amtrak Delays

Delay Minutes Delay Host Railroad Delays 10,000 Other Minutes of Delay 5,000

0 Jul-11 Jul-12 Jan-13 Jan-12 Jun-11 Jun-12 Oct-12 Oct-11 Apr-11 Apr-12 Sep-12 Feb-13 Sep-11 Feb-12 Dec-12 Dec-11 Aug-12 Aug-11 Nov-12 Nov-11 Mar-11 Mar-12 May-11 Month May-12 Figure 4-14: Delay Minutes for Texas Eagle by Category March 2011 to February 2013 Source: Amtrak

Financial Performance

In FY 2012, Amtrak reported the Texas Eagle generated total revenue of $28.5 million; total direct costs (fully allocated overhead) were $61.1 million, for a $32.6 million annual loss. In FY 2011, Amtrak reported the Texas Eagle generated total revenue of $26.7 million; total direct costs (fully allocated overhead) were $55.1 million, for a $28.4 million annual loss. In FY 2010, route revenues of $24.4 million were exceeded by total direct costs of $51.0 million, for a loss of $26.6 million. Figure 4-15 shows the Texas Eagle in operation.

Figure 4-15: Texas Eagle Entering the Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center from Tower 55

Revised 05/12/2014 4-24 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

The Sunset Limited—New Orleans to Los Angeles

The Sunset Limited is an east-west route that traverses Texas for 937 miles on Union Pacific (UPRR) track on its way between New Orleans to Los Angeles (Figure 4-16).

Figure 4-16: Sunset Limited Route Source: Amtrak

The route originally extended east to Orlando, FL; however, since Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, Sunset Limited services east of New Orleans have not yet resumed. The Southern High-Speed Rail Commission has plans to reinstate service in the future. In Texas, the Sunset Limited provides service to major cities and towns such as Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso, with stops in smaller towns and cities, including Beaumont, Del Rio, Sanderson, and Alpine (as shown in Figure 4-17). After leaving Texas, the route continues through New Mexico, Arizona, and California before terminating in Los Angeles.

This route is currently scheduled to run three times a week in each direction, providing transportation options for trips within the state as well as to destinations outside of Texas. The Sunset Limited travels a total of some 3,000 miles as it crosses five states. More than 900 miles of tracks are within Texas. Based on an average operating speed of less than 40 mph, the westbound and eastbound Texas portion is covered in 21 hours, 34 minutes, and 22 hours, 30 minutes, respectively. It takes three days to travel the entire route. For example, starting the trip in New Orleans, LA, on a Monday, the train departs around noon and arrives in Los Angeles, CA, Wednesday morning (see Table 4-10).

Revised 05/12/2014 4-25 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-17: Amtrak’s Sunset Limited near Alpine, Texas

Table 4-10: Sunset Limited Schedule for Texas Cities (as of April 2013) Westbound Eastbound Westbound City Eastbound Arrival/Departure Arrival/Departure MoWeSa 3:48 p.m. Beaumont 2:05 p.m. TuFrSu 6:18 p.m. (arrive) 12:10p.m. (depart) MoWeSa Houston TuFrSu 6:55 p.m. (depart) 11:10 a.m. (arrive) 12:05 a.m. (arrive) 6:25 a.m. (depart) TuThSu San Antonio TuFrSu 2:45 a.m. (depart) 4:50 a.m. (arrive) TuThSu 5:49 a.m. Del Rio 1:02 a.m. TuFrSu TuThSu 8:24 a.m. Sanderson 10:36 p.m. MoThSa TuThSu 10:38 a.m. Alpine 8:45 p.m. MoThSa 1:22 p.m.(arrive) 3:35 p.m. (depart) TuThSu El Paso MoThSa 1:47 p.m. (depart) 3:10 p.m. (arrive) Source: Amtrak

The Sunset Limited consists of two locomotives, one baggage car, one transition sleeper, one sleeper, one diner, one lounge, two coaches, one coach, and one sleeper, and has 140 to 210 seats passenger seats in three coaches. Seasonal adjustments may include one baggage/coach car added to consist.

The Sunset Limited experienced a decline in ridership between FY 1998 and FY 2002 and again between FY 2003 and FY 2006; however, it has since shown an increase. The total number of boardings and alightings by station are provided in Table 4-11 and charted in Figure 4-18.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-26 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-11: Sunset Limited Amtrak Station Total Boardings and Alightings Fiscal San Year El Paso Alpine Sanderson Del Rio Antonio Houston Beaumont Total 1998 12,388 1,868 190 1,031 22,413 15,633 2,070 55,593 1999 13,680 2,083 364 1,472 14,636 15,843 2,506 50,584 2000 13,147 2,468 289 1,677 15,782 16,978 2,295 52,636 2001 12,015 2,210 243 1,232 14,766 17,206 2,416 50,088 2002 9,169 1,631 153 970 12,711 16,216 1,678 42,528 2003 10,165 1,796 194 1,135 15,401 19,661 1,708 50,060 2004 9,222 1,665 148 1,140 15,319 16,177 1,519 45,190 2005 9,195 1,651 127 1,137 14,672 12,134 1,209 40,125 2006 8,184 2,027 259 1,453 13,922 10,855 903 37,603 2007 8,672 2,659 157 1,590 13,500 13,214 1,384 41,176 2008 7,908 2,979 140 1,418 16,031 14,891 1,662 45,029 2009 7,552 2,915 171 1,627 16,279 16,191 1,769 46,504 2010 10,415 3,862 216 1,881 20,538 18,351 2,135 57,398 2011 11,470 4,322 344 2,242 22,916 19,637 2,401 63,332 2012 12,329 4,416 255 2,175 23,412 20,327 2,724 65,638 Source: Amtrak Government Affairs, 2013

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

Alightings and Boardings Total 10,000

- 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year

Figure 4-18: Sunset Limited Total Annual Boardings and Alightings Source: Amtrak Government Affairs, 2013

Revised 05/12/2014 4-27 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

On-Time Performance

After a very low OTP of 4.3% in FY 2004, the Sunset Limited’s on-time performance increased to 87.5% in FY 2010, as shown in Figure 4-19, with a decrease to 79.9% in FY 2011 and further decrease to 67.2% in FY 2012.

100.0% 87.5% 90.0% 79.2% 79.9% 80.0% 67.2% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 33.0% 27.2%

Time Performance Time 26.2%

- 30.0% 16.9% On 20.0% 15.0% 13.5% 7.1% 10.0% 4.3% 0.0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year

Figure 4-19: On-Time Performance of Sunset Limited for FYs 2001–2011 Source: Amtrak Government Affairs, 2013

Causes for Delay

For the 24-month period of March 2011 to February 2013, the Sunset Limited experienced a total of 273,099 minutes of delay (average of 11,379 delay minutes per month) operating between New Orleans and Los Angeles. Amtrak delays totaled 50,890 minutes (19%) of delay for the 24-month period (average of 2,120 delay minutes per month) for passenger holds, engine failures, crew-related issues, and other issues. Host railroad delays totaled 172,278 minutes (63%) for the 24-month period (average of 7,178 delay minutes per month), for freight train interference, slow orders, passenger train interference, and other issues. Other minutes of delay totaled 49,931 minutes (18%) for the 24-month period (average of 2,080 delay minutes per month). Detailed delay information is shown in Table 4-12 and Figure 4-20.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-28 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-12: Delays for Sunset Limited (March 2012 to February 2013)

Source: Amtrak (Detailed data for March 2011 through February 2012 not shown for clarity)

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000 Total Minutes

8,000 Amtrak Delays

6,000 Delay Minutes Delay Host Railroad Delays

4,000 Other Minutes of Delay

2,000

0 Jul-11 Jul-12 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jun-11 Jun-12 Oct-11 Oct-12 Apr-11 Apr-12 Sep-11 Feb-12 Sep-12 Feb-13 Dec-11 Dec-12 Aug-11 Aug-12 Nov-11 Nov-12 Mar-11 Mar-12 May-11 May-12 Month

Figure 4-20: Delay Minutes for Sunset Limited by Category March 2011 to February 2013 Source: Amtrak

Revised 05/12/2014 4-29 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Financial Performance

In FY 2012, Amtrak reported that the Sunset Limited generated total revenue of $13.0 million, while total direct costs (fully allocated overhead) were $53.6 million, for a $40.5 million annual loss. In FY 2011, Amtrak reported that the Sunset Limited generated total revenue of $12.7 million, while total direct costs were $50.1 million, for a $37.4 million annual loss. In FY 2010, route revenues of $24.4 million were exceeded by total direct costs of $51.0 million, for a loss of $26.6 million.

Overall Amtrak System and Trends in Texas

The investment in Amtrak has given travelers in Texas choices for intercity travel. The intercity corridor service of the Heartland Flyer has proven to be a successful transportation alternative between Oklahoma and Texas. On long-distance routes, ridership has steadily increased for the Texas Eagle, and the Sunset Limited route continues to recover after a loss in ridership in 2004 through 2006 and the loss of service to states east of Louisiana because of damages from the 2005 hurricanes.6 This section provides an overview of the overall Amtrak system in Texas, with information on funding, stations, boardings and alightings, and changes considered for the Amtrak system.

Funding

Future plans for Amtrak depend on the funding approved by the U.S. Congress and system planning decisions made by Amtrak that will be constrained by the approved funding. PRIIA authorized about $3.0 billion in operating funding including Amtrak’s Office of the Inspector General and $5.3 billion in capital funding not including debt service for the life of the authorization through the end of FY 2013. PRIIA authorized another $1.9 billion to fund the capital grant program for states managed by the FRA.

As previously discussed, Section 209 of PRIIA requires states wanting to provide Amtrak service on routes shorter than 750 miles to subsidize the routes, to include direct costs, allocated overhead and capital costs, as determined by the Amtrak Performance Tracking (APT) system. Amtrak will continue to fully fund routes longer than 750 miles. Additionally, any new Amtrak service will likely have to receive all of its funding from the involved states or local entities wanting to develop them.

As part of the ARRA, Amtrak received $1.3 billion for capital investments, including $446 million for security and life safety improvements and $842 million for rebuilding and modernizing infrastructure and equipment. A total of $2.7 million was provided to Texas. A new shelter and platform for the Beaumont station received $1.25 million of that funding, and the remainder will go towards the Mobility First program aimed at improving accessibility to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act by July 26, 2010. In additional, Amtrak has partnered with states to improve services with other ARRA related grants, such as the signal improvements along the Heartland Flyer route, being operated on the rail line owned and maintained by BNSF, to reduce overall trip time between Fort Worth and Oklahoma City.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-30 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Amtrak Stations

Amtrak does not own any passenger rail stations in Texas; stations are usually owned by the cities or by the freight rail operator. Some stations are used by more than one route, such as the Heartland Flyer and Texas Eagle using the Fort Worth station, and in some cases such as the Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) shared with local commuter services as well. Table 4-13 lists all the stations used by Amtrak and their ownership, services, and intermodal connections. The total number of available short-term and long-term parking spaces available at each station listed by Amtrak is also provided. The number does not include private parking facilities near each station unless otherwise noted.

Alpine, TX (ALP) | Texas Eagle, Heartland Flyer Routes 102 West Holland Street, Alpine, TX 79830

Alpine’s station building was built in 1946, and a waiting area, train platform and a limited amount of parking are located on-site. It is served by 6 trains per week (3 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 4,416 boardings and alightings were recorded at Alpine.

Austin, TX (AUS) | Texas Eagle Route 250 North Lamar Blvd., Austin, TX 78703

Austin is served by a brick station building built in 1947 for the Missouri Pacific Railroad with a waiting area, train platform, ticket office, and a limited amount of on-site parking. It is served by 2 trains daily (1 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 41,638 boardings and alightings were recorded at Austin.

Beaumont, TX (BMT) | Sunset Limited Route 2255 West Cedar St., Beaumont, TX 77704

Beaumont is served by a new station building completed in 2012 with covered benches adjacent to the train platform. The city acquired connecting property that will eventually host a police substation with public restrooms. It is served by 6 trains per week (3 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 2,724 boardings and alightings were recorded at Beaumont.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-31 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Cleburne, TX (CBR) | Texas Eagle Route 206 North Border Street, Cleburne, TX 76031

Cleburne Intermodal Transportation Depot was completed in 1999 and serves as a local bus station as well as an Amtrak station with a waiting area, restrooms, and limited parking facilities on-site. Additionally, it serves as a dispatching station for CLETRAN (Cleburne’s local transit system). It is served by 2 trains daily (1 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 4,536 boardings and alightings were recorded at Cleburne.

Dallas, TX (DAL) | Texas Eagle Route 400 South Houston Street, Dallas, TX 75202

Dallas Union Station was built in 1916, and serves as a station for Trinity Railway Express (TRE), Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light rail and local bus service in addition to Amtrak service. The waiting area is equipped with public restrooms during station hours and a ticket counter. Limited short-term parking and ample hourly and contract parking is also located on site. It is served by 2 Amtrak trains daily (1 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 55,764 boardings and alightings were recorded at Dallas. Photo Credit: Ron Reiring

Del Rio, TX (DRT) | Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited Routes 100 North Main Street, Del Rio, TX 78840

Del Rio is served by an intermodal station that offers local bus service in addition to Amtrak service. The waiting area is equipped with public restrooms during station hours, however station hours do not coincide with early morning train arrivals and departures, and limited short-term parking is available on-site, with long-term street parking available off-site. It is served by 6 trains per week (3 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 2,175 boardings and alightings were recorded at Del Rio.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-32 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

El Paso, TX (ELP) | Texas Eagle, Sunset Limited Routes 700 West San Francisco Street, El Paso, TX 79901

El Paso Union Depot was completed in 1906 and serves as El Paso’s Amtrak Station in addition to office space and a parking facility for El Paso Sun Metro (local bus – although no bus service exists at Union Depot). A waiting area is located inside with public restrooms and a ticket counter. Extremely limited street parking is located off-site, and no parking is available on-site. It is served by 6 trains per week (3 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 12,329 boardings and alightings were recorded at El Paso.

Fort Worth, TX (FTW) | Texas Eagle, Heartland Flyer Routes 1001 Jones St., Fort Worth, TX 76102

The Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center, built in 2002, serves as a local transportation hub for Amtrak, Trinity Railway Express (TRE), intercity bus service, local bus service (“The T”), as well as a rental car facility, taxi service and bikeshare. The waiting area is equipped with public restrooms during station hours, a ticket counter, and limited short term parking is located on site. Contract parking is available adjacent to the facility offsite. It is served by 4 Amtrak trains daily (1 each direction for both the Heartland Flyer and Texas Eagle Routes). During the 2012 fiscal year, 141,696 boardings and alightings were recorded at Fort Worth.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-33 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Gainesville, TX (GNS) | Heartland Flyer Route 605 East California Street, Gainesville, TX 76240

The Gainesville depot was completed in 1902 for the Gulf Coast & Santa Fe Railroad and contains a waiting area, restrooms, a limited amount of parking located on-site, as well as a railroad museum in an area separate from the Amtrak facilities. It is served by 2 trains daily (1 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 8,055 boardings and alightings were recorded at Gainesville. Photo Credit: Ron Reiring

Houston, TX (HOU) | Sunset Limited Route 902 Washington Ave, Houston, TX 77002

The current Amtrak station is the fourth Houston passenger depot, constructed by the Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) in 1960, and provides a waiting area, restrooms, and a limited amount of parking located on-site. Current plans call for the Amtrak site to be moved when the new Burnett Plaza station is completed. It is served by 6 trains weekly (1 each direction 3 times per week). During the 2012 fiscal year, 20,327 boardings and alightings were recorded at Houston.

Longview, TX (LVW) | Texas Eagle Route 905 Pacific Avenue, Longview, TX 75602

Longview is served by the Longview depot which was completed in 1940 and provides a waiting area, restrooms, and a limited amount of parking located on-site. It underwent major renovation of the main building, and was re- poened in May, 2014. Amtrak services were moved back into the original waiting space and ticket office, sharing the facility with Longview Transit and Greyhound. The rest of the building is used for city offices and meeting space. It is served by 2 trains daily (1 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 49,126 boardings and alightings were recorded at Longview.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-34 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Marshall, TX (MHL) | Texas Eagle Route 800 North Washington Street, Marshall, TX 75670

The Marshall station was built in 1912 by the Texas and Pacific Railroad and provides a waiting area, restrooms, and a limited amount of parking located on-site in addition to a museum on its second and third floors. It is served by 2 trains daily (1 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 10,125 boardings and alightings were recorded at Marshall.

Photo Credit: Ron Reiring

McGregor, TX (MCG) | Texas Eagle Route 1 Amtrak Boulevard, McGregor, TX 76657

The McGregor depot, built in 1904, provides a waiting area, restrooms, ticket counter, and a limited amount of parking located on-site. It is served by 2 trains daily (1 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 4,988 boardings and alightings were recorded at McGregor.

Mineola, TX (MHL) | Texas Eagle Route 115 West Front Street, Mineola, TX 75773

The Marshall station was built in 1951 and underwent a thorough renovation that was completed in 2006. It provides a waiting area, restrooms, a limited amount of parking located on-site, as well as a railroad museum that shares the facility’s space. It is served by 2 trains daily (1 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 6,956 boardings and alightings were recorded at Mineola.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-35 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

San Antonio, TX (SAS) | Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle Routes 350 Hoefgen Street, San Antonio, TX 78205

Amtrak has been operating in its current facility in San Antonio since 1998. It provides a waiting area, restrooms, and a bike share station adjacent to the building. No parking is available at this location. It is served by 2 trains daily (1 each direction for the Texas Eagle route) as well as 6 additional trains per week (1 each direction, 3 times per week for the Sunset Limited route). During the 2012 fiscal year, 70,161 boardings and alightings were recorded at San Antonio.

Sanderson, TX (SND) | Sunset Limited, Texas Eagle Routes 201 West Downie Street, Sanderson, TX 79848

Sanderson is a flag stop, which means that the Sunset Limited/Texas Eagle only pauses to pick-up or discharge riders if they have made a reservation; otherwise, the train continues through town. Until recently, a depot stood on-site, however it has been demolished and all that remains is the small Union Pacific storage building and Amtrak informational sign. It is served by 6 trains per week (3 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 255 boardings and alightings were recorded at Sanderson.

San Marcos, TX (SMC) | Texas Eagle Route 338 South Guadalupe Street, San Marcos, TX 78666

The San Marcos Intermodal Station, in operation since 2001, serves Amtrak, Greyhound, taxi, and interurban coach passengers. It provides a waiting area, restrooms, and a limited amount of parking on site. It is served by 2 trains daily (1 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 7,294 boardings and alightings were recorded at San Marcos.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-36 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Taylor, TX (TAY) | Texas Eagle Route 338 South Guadalupe Street, San Marcos, TX 78666

Only a platform exists at Taylor for Amtrak service, which shares a site with a Union Pacific office building. A small shelter with picnic tables has been constructed adjacent to the building and train platform. It is served by 2 trains daily (1 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 4,979 boardings and alightings were recorded at Taylor.

Temple, TX (DRT) | Texas Eagle Route 315 West Avenue B, Temple, TX 76501

Amtrak service in Temple is located in the former Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe station, built in 1911. The waiting area is equipped with public restrooms during station hours, a ticket office, and ample parking available on-site. It is served by 2 trains daily (1 each direction). During the 2012 fiscal year, 17,856 boardings and alightings were recorded at Temple.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-37 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-13: Detailed Amtrak Station Information

Alpine Austin Beaumont Cleburne Dallas

City of Beaumont / City of Cleburne / Owner UPRR UPRR City of Dallas UPRR BNSF Railway

2255 West Cedar 206 North Border 102 West Holland 250 North Lamar 400 South Street, Street, Address Street, Blvd., Houston Street, Beaumont, TX Cleburne, TX Alpine, TX 79830 Austin, TX 78703 Dallas, TX 75202 77704 76031

Route TE, SL TE SL TE TE Platform Type Single Single Single Single Double (x3) Length (approx) 470' 850' 715' 30' / 100' 460' Concrete / Brick Construction Concrete Asphalt Concrete Brick Pavers Pavers Covered Covered Shelter none none Fully Covered Benches Benches Lighting Fully Lit Fully Lit Fully Lit Unlit Fully Lit Amenities Benches none benches Benches Benches Yellow Safety Tactile Paver Yellow Safety none / chain link Tactile Paver Passenger Safety Line, Tactile Strip Line fence Strip Paver Strip

ADA Fully Accessible Fully Accessible Fully Accessible Fully Accessible Fully Accessible

Depot

7:00 a.m. – M-F: 7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. – Hours N/A N/A 8:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m.

Seating Capacity 18 60 25 66 114 Restrooms Yes Yes No Yes Yes Vending No Yes No Yes Yes ATM No No No No No Ticket Counter No Yes No No Yes Quik-Trak No Yes No No Yes Local/Amtrak Telephones No No No Payphone phone Local Bus, Light Rail, Shared Uses UPRR Office none none CLETRAN Commuter Rail dispatch center Parking Short Term 37 50 4 10 5 Long Term ST=LT ST=LT 6 33 84 (pay lot)

2 reserved 2 reserved 2 reserved 6 reserved 4 reserved ADA Facilities spaces spaces spaces spaces spaces

Revised 05/12/2014 4-38 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Del Rio El Paso Fort Worth Gainesville Houston

Fort Worth City of City of Del Rio / Owner City of El Paso Transportation Gainesville / UPRR UPRR Authority BNSF Railway

100 North Main 700 West San 605 East 902 Washington 1001 Jones St., Street, Francisco Street, California Street, Ave, Address Fort Worth, TX Del Rio, TX El Paso, TX Gainesville, TX Houston, TX 76102 78840 79901 76240 77002

Route TE/ SL TE, SL TE, HF HF SL Platform Type Single Single Double Single Double Length (approx) 440' 1100' 700' 200' 1000' Concrete / Brick Asphalt / Brick Construction Concrete Asphalt Concrete Pavers Pavers Shelter none none Fully Covered Partial Awning Fully Covered Lighting Fully Lit Fully Lit Fully Lit Fully Lit Fully Lit Amenities Benches none Benches Benches none Yellow Safety Yellow Safety Tactile Paver Yellow Safety Yellow Safety Passenger Safety Line, Tactile Line / Chain Link Strip Line Line Paver Strip Fence

ADA Fully Accessible Fully Accessible Fully Accessible Fully Accessible Fully Accessible

Depot 8:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. – 8:00 a.m. – 11:15 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. – Hours 5:00 p.m. 4:30 p.m. 6:00 pm. 6:45 p.m. 7:30 p.m. Seating Capacity 0 52 85 14 100 Restrooms No Yes Yes Yes Yes Vending No Yes Yes No Yes ATM No Yes Yes No No Ticket Counter No Yes Yes No Yes Quik-Trak No No Yes No No

Telephones Payphone No Payphone No Payphone

Intermodal Intermodal Sun Metro Shared Uses Station Transportation Museum none Offices / Parking (bus/coach) Center Parking Short Term 31 5 15 15 22 Long Term 5 0 None ST=LT ST=LT 3 reserved 3 reserved 2 reserved 3 reserved 2 reserved ADA Facilities spaces spaces spaces spaces spaces

Revised 05/12/2014 4-39 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Longview Marshall McGregor Mineola San Antonio

City of Longview / City of Mineola / VIA Metropolitan Owner UPRR BNSF Railway UPRR UPRR Transit

800 North 905 Pacific 1 Amtrak 350 Hoefgen Washington 115 West Front Avenue, Boulevard, Street, San Address Street, Suite 2, Street, Mineola, Longview, TX McGregor, TX Antonio, TX Marshall, TX TX 75773 75602 76657 78205 75670

Route TE TE TE TE TE, SL Platform Type Single Single Single Single Single Length (approx) 720' 300' 350' 265' 550' Asphalt / Construction Concrete Brick Pavers Concrete Brick Pavers Concrete Shelter - - Partial Awning Partial Awning Fully Covered Lighting Fully Lit Fully Lit Fully Lit Fully Lit Fully Lit Amenities - - Benches Benches none

Yellow Safety Yellow Safety Yellow Safety Passenger Safety Tactile Paver none Line line, Tactile Paver Line

ADA Fully Accessible Fully Accessible Fully Accessible Fully Accessible Fully Accessible

Depot M-F: 7:00 a.m. – Caretaker opens 4:00 p.m., and closes Mon-Sun: 7:00 a.m. – 4:30 - 8:30 p.m., waiting room as 9:00 a.m. – Hours 9:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. Sa-Su: 7:00 – needed (10:45 6:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m., a.m. – 1:00 p.m., 5:00 – 8:30 p.m. 3:00 – 5:00 p.m.) Seating Capacity 14 26 20 48 33 Restrooms Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vending Yes No (gift shop) No No Yes ATM No No No No No Ticket Counter Yes Yes No No Yes Quik-Trak No No No Yes Yes Local/Amtrak/Toll- Telephones No Payphone Payphone Payphone Free none (adjacent to UPRR Yard Shared Uses Museum none Museum bike share Facility station) Parking Short Term 15 48 15 25 0 Long Term ST=LT ST=LT ST=LT ST=LT 0 2 reserved 4 reserved 2 reserved 2 reserved ADA Facilities 1 reserved space spaces spaces spaces spaces

Revised 05/12/2014 4-40 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

San Marcos Sanderson Taylor Temple

Capital Area Rural City of Temple / Owner UPRR UPRR Transportation BNSF System 338 South 201 West Downie 315 West Guadalupe 118 East First Street, Avenue B, Address Street, Street, Sanderson, TX Temple, TX San Marcos, TX Taylor, TX 76574 79848 76501 78666 Route TE TE, SL TE TE Platform Type Single Single Single Single Length (approx) 300' 180' 200' 830'

Construction Concrete Asphalt Asphalt Brick Pavers

Shelter Fully Covered none Fully Covered None Lighting Fully Lit none Fully Lit Fully Lit Amenities Benches none Benches, Tables none Yellow Safety Tactile Paver Passenger Safety none none Line / Chain Link Strip Fence

ADA Fully Accessible none Fully Accessible Fully Accessible

Depot M-F: 7:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m.; Sa: 7:00 a.m. – 12:00 M-F: 9:30 a.m. –- Hours p.m., 2:00 – 9:00 N/A N/A 6:00 p.m. p.m.; Su: 8:00 a.m. – 12:00p.m., 2:00 – 7:00 p.m. Seating Capacity 41 0 20 37 Restrooms Yes No No Yes Vending Yes No No Yes ATM No No No No Ticket Counter No No No Yes Quik-Trak No No No No

Telephones Payphone No No Payphone

Greyhound, UPRR Yard Shared Uses Interurban coach, none Museum Office taxi Parking Short Term 2 0 23 50 Long Term 30 0 ST=LT 30 4 reserved 2 reserved 2 reserved ADA Facilities None spaces spaces spaces

Revised 05/12/2014 4-41 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Connecting Services—Amtrak Thruway Motor Coach Service Program

Amtrak’s Thruway Motor Coach Service Program facilitates intermodal connections between Amtrak and motor coach services by providing through ticketing, scheduling, and bus/train reservations. Routes for Amtrak’s Thruway Motor Coach Service in Texas are limited to Houston-Longview, Houston-Galveston, Galveston-Longview, and Killeen/Fort Hood-Temple (Table 4-14).

Table 4-14: List of Connecting Bus Services Amtrak Stations with Thruway or Intercity Bus Destinations Operator Connections Shreveport, LA CJ Limo Nacogdoches Lone Star Coaches Longview Houston Lone Star Coaches Texas Eagle Galveston Lone Star Coaches Fort Hood Southwestern Coaches Temple Killeen Southwestern Coaches

Sunset Limited Houston Galveston Kerrville Bus La Marque Kerrville Bus San Antonio: Connecting Brownsville Valley Transit Services for Both Texas Harlingen Valley Transit Eagle and Sunset Limited McAllen Valley Transit Routes Laredo Greyhound Lines Source: Amtrak

Amtrak Thruway Motor Coach schedules are all coordinated with the Amtrak passenger rail schedules so the motor coach arrives before a train arrives and departs after the train departs. The motor coach schedules for the Texas Eagle are given in Figure 4-21 and in Figure 4-22 for the Sunset Limited.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-42 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-21: Texas Eagle Amtrak Thruway Motor Coach Schedule Source: Amtrak

Figure 4-22: Sunset Limited Amtrak Thruway Motor Coach Schedule Source: Amtrak

Figure 4-23 illustrates Amtrak’s thruway motor coach services in Texas.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-43 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-23: Amtrak Thruway Motor Coach Service in Texas Source: Amtrak

Ridership

Amtrak ridership in Texas continues to trend upward (Figure 4-24) after a ridership decrease in the mid-1990’s resulting from Amtrak reducing services in an effort to cut costs and improve financial performance. During that time period, Amtrak presented to TxDOT a shared funding cost proposal for the Texas Eagle service; however, no state- level funding source was available. The “reduction in service” strategy faltered as revenues decreased more than anticipated and expected cost savings were insufficient to compensate for the decline in revenue.7 Amtrak’s decision to cut back did not help, and eventually train service was returned to a daily service, which resulted in an increase in ridership. The inauguration of the Heartland Flyer from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City in June 1999 and the expansion of the Texas Eagle to daily service May 2000 helped boost Amtrak ridership figures in Texas. Over the last four years, ridership in Texas has consistently increased to over 450,000 passengers in FY 2012.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-44 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 Alightings and Boardings Total 50,000 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year

Figure 4-24: Total Annual Boardings and Alightings for Amtrak Stations in Texas Source: Amtrak Government Affairs, 2013

Funded Intercity Passenger Rail Improvement Projects

Crossing Signal Timing, BNSF Fort Worth Subdivision

Under FRA Grant/Cooperative Agreement FR-HSR-0081-11-01-00 (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5 funding), the FRA has obligated $3.47 million (100%) in federal funding for the final design and construction of signal improvements along 15 rail segments from MP 346.9 to MP 410.5 on the BNSF Fort Worth Subdivision (Fort Worth to Gainesville) to upgrade current circuitry to support an increase of operating speed up to 79 mph for the Amtrak Heartland flyer service. The improvements are estimated to improve running time by approximately 17 minutes, thus resulting in an increase in on-time performance. Construction of these improvements is expected to be completed by the end of 2013, with inspection and commissioning expected to be performed in early 2014.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-45 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Tower 55 Multimodal Improvement Project

Under FRA Grant/Cooperative Agreement FR-TII-0004-11-01-00 (Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law 111-117, funding), the FRA has obligated $34 million (33.6%) in federal funding, along with $67.3 million (66.4%) matching funding from BNSF, UP, TxDOT and City of Fort Worth for final design and construction of track, signal, at-grade crossing, bridge and roadway infrastructure improvements along the BNSF’s Fort Worth and Wichita Falls Subdivisions and UP’s Duncan, Choctaw, Fort Worth and Dallas Subdivisions. The project will reduce delays to both passenger and freight trains, improve on-time performance for Amtrak’s Heartland Flyer and Texas Eagle, increase capacity at Tower 55, and avoid diversions associated with Tower 55 congestion. As a result, this project will increase the efficiency of the railroad transportation system, reduce air emissions in and around Tower 55, and improve the livability of the local community north of Tower 55, through improved pedestrian access and safety, at-grade crossing closures, and roadway improvements for better automobile circulation and emergency vehicle access. The project is scheduled to be completed in February 2015.

Proposed Intercity Passenger Rail Changes

Texas Eagle Re-Route

With the funded improvements at Tower 55 in Fort Worth and along the Trinity Railway Express, discussions between various stakeholders to relocate Amtrak’s Texas Eagle to the TRE between Dallas and Fort Worth are on-going. This proposed relocation will allow the Texas Eagle to avoid operation along Union Pacific’s heavily utilized rail lines between these cities, as well as across Tower 55, and improve on-time performance.

Sunset Limited Re-Route

As mentioned previously, Amtrak has considered plans to re-route the Sunset Limited line between Houston and El Paso via San Antonio to instead run from Houston to Dallas/Fort Worth before continuing to El Paso. The shift in routes would reintroduce rail service between Dallas and Houston and include new stops in several mid-sized West Texas markets, including Abilene and Midland-Odessa. The potential exists to develop a 240-mile intercity service route between Houston and Dallas. Passenger rail corridors that could replace the overly-burdened demand for short airline trips between the two primary air hubs in Texas might be worth consideration as a long-term mobility option.

Increase Service

Daily passenger service on the Sunset Limited would expand the usefulness of this system by providing the convenience of regular daily departures. The initial success of the addition of service on the Texas Eagle, as evidenced by increased ridership at Texas stations, provides support for this type of investment. Additionally, improvements to the tracks to increase speeds from their current average speed of less than 40 mph would

Revised 05/12/2014 4-46 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

significantly improve the viability of this service. Within Texas, the potential to develop a service along this route would rest with either service between San Antonio and Houston (200 miles) or Houston to New Orleans (350 miles). Initial discussions between Amtrak and Union Pacific to establish daily service focused on the necessary infrastructure requirements to accommodate increased passenger train volumes.

Southwest Chief Re-Route through Amarillo

Potential re-route of Amtrak’s Southwest Chief from its current route through western Kansas, southeastern Colorado and northeastern New Mexico to the BNSF Transcon route (through southern Kansas, the Texas Panhandle, and eastern New Mexico) has recently been discussed between BNSF, Amtrak and the affected states. BNSF has identified required improvements along the current corridor to maintain existing passenger rail operating conditions. The railroad does not require higher track speeds and improved ride quality for its current freight traffic volumes on this segment of the Southwest Chief route. Reduced track speeds will make the Southwest Chief less desirable for passenger rail service due to longer trip times.

Maintaining service on the current route will involve annual maintenance plus one-time major capital investments. Annual maintenance costs are estimated at approximately $10 million, and the needed one-time capital investment at approximately $100 million. Discussions between Amtrak, BNSF, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico are underway to determine equitable contribution for required costs for the required improvements. Decisions and financial commitments are anticipated by the end of 2014, before Amtrak’s current maintenance contract with BNSF expires in January 2016.

In preparation of this potential re-route, TxDOT recently evaluated potential sites for a passenger rail stations in the Amarillo area. Three candidate sites along the BNSF Hereford Subdivision were identified that were in the downtown Amarillo area and have relatively easy access to the existing highway and roadway network, as well as other transportation service options, such as intercity and local bus.

Additional New Routes

Potential service enhancements or changes that have been considered include:

Dallas/Fort Worth to Meridian, Mississippi: Amtrak would like to strengthen southern rail links to the Northeast by providing connections to Amtrak’s Crescent route from New York to New Orleans. The addition of this service would greatly improve passenger rail accessibility from Dallas/Fort Worth to other urban centers in the southeastern U.S. such as Atlanta and also to East Coast destinations such as Washington, D.C. TxDOT is working with Amtrak to develop a portion of this route, which is being promoted by passenger rail advocates in East Texas, who would like to see a route developed between Dallas and Shreveport, Louisiana (190 miles).

Revised 05/12/2014 4-47 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Fort Worth to Denver, Colorado: Several West Texas communities have expressed support in the past for passenger rail service in the Panhandle of Texas. The potential service, currently dubbed the “Caprock Express,” would operate from Fort Worth through the cities of Abilene, Lubbock, and Amarillo en route to La Junta, Colorado Springs, and Denver, Colorado. The 840-mile distance of this route would make this a long-distance service. San Antonio to Laredo to Monterrey, Mexico: As part of their Network Growth Strategy in published in 2000, Amtrak considered adding passenger rail service between San Antonio and Monterrey, a route of approximately 375 miles. Amtrak had previously held discussions with Mexican authorities concerning alignment and right-of-way issues. Monterrey is a leading industrial and corporate center in Mexico with strong historic, economic, and social ties to Texas. At this time, Amtrak has not advanced development of establishing passenger rail service along this route. However, TxDOT is currently considering various levels of passenger rail service along this route as part of its Texas- Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (TOPRS).

4.3 – Planning and Prioritizing High Speed and Intercity Corridors

Both the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) at Texas A&M University and the Center for Transportation Research (CTR) at the University of Texas at Austin have developed a set of criteria to evaluate high-speed passenger rail investment in the state.

The TTI’s May 2009 report titled “Potential Development of an Intercity Passenger Transit System in Texas” used 15 criteria to evaluate potential city-pair corridors for prioritizing rail investments in Texas. The evaluation criteria in the report (shown in Table 4-15) considered the population and demographics, travel demand, and the transportation capacity of the 18 potential city pair corridors. From those criteria, TTI ranked the corridors using different evaluation methods. In both methods, the Dallas/ Fort Worth to Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth to Austin/San Antonio corridors were deemed preferred corridors.

The TTI report also discussed the need to determine the best routes. A large inverted “V” shape (“Λ”) would be similar to the I-35 and I-45 configuration connecting the cities of Austin, San Antonio, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Houston, with a possible extension between Austin or San Antonio to Houston that could create a triangle of high-speed rail service in Texas. A small lambda shape (“λ”) with a high-speed rail line connecting Houston to a San Antonio–Dallas/Fort Worth high-speed line somewhere between Austin and Waco has also been proposed.

The Dallas/Fort Worth–Houston city-pair is currently not a designated high-speed-rail (HSR) corridor, whereas the Dallas/Fort Worth–San Antonio city-pair forms the southern part of the South Central designated HSR corridor. The TTI report also noted the need for further study to determine the most efficient routes.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-48 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Another report8 jointly prepared by representatives several Texas universities in 2013, in cooperation with TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, examined the placement of high-speed rail within the I-35, I-45, I-20 and SH-6 highway right-of-way, concluding it was suitable to introduce high speed passenger rail service. Several plans exist elsewhere in the nation for different high-speed rail systems to utilize existing freeway right-of-way. Florida’s high-speed rail system was planned to be located primarily within the median of I-4. The XpressWest (formerly known as DesertXpress) high-speed train connecting the Los Angeles area with Las Vegas plans to use the right- of-way of I-15. Use of existing right-of-way avoids many property acquisition delays and costs associated with securing new right-of-way, and minimizes public and environmental impacts. Future studies of route alignments should consider the feasibility of using existing right-of-way.

Table 4-15: TTI’s Evaluation Criteria for Ranking Passenger Rail Study Corridors Category Criteria Number of core-based statistical areas9 (CBSAs) along corridor Total population of CBSA counties along corridor (2000) Growth in total population of CBSA counties along corridor (2000-2040) Population & Total population per mile of the corridor (2000) Demographics Percent of total corridor population age 65 or older (2040) Total employees (2005) Total enrollment at public or private universities along corridor (Fall 2006) Average corridor average annual daily traffic (AADT) (2006) Intercity Percent annual growth in average corridor AADT (1997-2006) Travel Air passenger travel between corridor airports (2006) Demand Percent annual growth in air travel between corridor airports (1996-2006) Average volume-capacity ratio on subject highways in corridor (2002) Intercity Average percent trucks on subject highways in corridor (2002) Travel Load factor on corridor flights, weighted by boarding Capacity passengers (2006) Average number of corridor flights per day (2006) Source: Texas Transportation Institute, 200910

The CTR’s evaluation criteria focuses more on examining how potential city-pair corridors meet the goals and optimize the benefits of providing passenger train service in Texas. The goal-oriented evaluation criteria recommended to guide the evaluation of potential city-pair corridors are presented in Table 4-16.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-49 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-16: CTR’s Evaluation Criteria for Passenger Rail Corridors Criteria Travel Demand Generates rail ridership for self-sufficient operations Serves cities with relatively high number of potential rail users Serves areas with population growth, employment centers, and significant metropolitan GDP Capacity Increases capacity where current or anticipated demand exceed or approach air, rail, and road capacity Provides emergency transportation capacity Diversified Investment Diversifies transportation options and public investment Travel Time Offers competitive travel time Route Planning Provides seamless and efficient route alignment that optimizes rail technology and market niche Integrated into metropolitan area and statewide transportation planning Intermodal Complements and competes with intercity modes and connects with intra-city transit Environment and Land use Efficiently uses right-of-way Serves cities in non-attainment for air quality Source: Center for Transportation Research, January 2010

Identification of New Corridors

The FRA Rail Corridor Planning Guide makes a number of recommendations that should be considered in development of passenger rail corridors. These are largely based on successful American experiences and examples abroad. According to this guide, a series of essential steps should take place to ensure the success of a potential corridor. These steps, generally, should consider: 1. Preliminary route analysis, including station identification and scheduling fundamentals; 2. Analysis of physical rail line characteristics, both existing and proposed, including track plans, signaling systems, and communication systems; 3. Operations support facilities; 4. A future operating plan with a 20-year horizon or greater; 5. Operations modeling analysis;

Revised 05/12/2014 4-50 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

6. Highway crossings; 7. Environmental and historic impacts; 8. Cost estimates; 9. Prioritization of corridor projects; and 10. A corridor transportation plan report.

National High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Strategic Plan

Released in April 2009 by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the FRA, the National High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Strategic Plan contains strategy, definitions, and guidelines for development of passenger rail corridors across the country. In the near term, this plan proposes investment in infrastructure, equipment, and intermodal connections that will lay the foundation for an efficient high-speed passenger rail network of corridors 100 to 600 miles in length.

The plan offers the following definitions used in identifying corridors: • HSIPR – Core Express: Frequent, express service between major population centers 200–600 miles apart, with few intermediate stops. Top speed of at least 150 mph on completely grade-separated, dedicated rights-of-way (with the possible exception of some shared track in terminal areas). Intended to relieve air and highway capacity constraints. • HSIPR – Regional: Relatively frequent service between major and moderate population centers 100–500 miles apart, with some intermediate stops. Top speeds of 110–150 mph, grade-separated, with some dedicated and some shared track (using positive train control technology). Intended to relieve highway and, to some extent, air capacity constraints. • HSIPR – Emerging: Developing corridors of 100–500 miles, with strong potential for future HSIPR regional and/or express service. Top speeds of up to 90–110 mph on primarily shared track (eventually using positive train control technology), with advanced grade crossing protection or separation. Intended to develop the passenger rail market and provide some relief to other modes. • Conventional Rail: Traditional intercity passenger rail services of more than 100 miles with as little as one to as many as 7–12 daily frequencies; may or may not have strong potential for future high-speed rail service. Top speeds of up to 90 mph, generally on shared track. It is intended to provide travel options and develop the passenger rail market for further development.

The near-term investment strategy seeks to: • Advance new core express high-speed corridor services; • Develop emerging and regional high-speed corridor services; and

Revised 05/12/2014 4-51 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

• Upgrade reliability and service on conventional intercity rail services, and prepare for potential increased levels of service.

Evaluation of Potential Corridor Ridership

TxDOT is in the process of developing a Statewide Ridership Model that will provide high-level ridership estimates along with a benefit-cost analysis for many different potential intercity passenger rail corridors across the state with levels of service ranging from Core Express to Emerging, as described previously. The ridership model is based on the current Texas Statewide Analysis Model, which is the primary tool for evaluating large intercity transportation projects throughout Texas. The high-level estimates of annual ridership; capital, operating and maintenance, and equipment costs, and revenue from ridership as well as user benefits may be utilized by TxDOT to determine which corridors warrant further detailed analysis for the implementation of intercity passenger rail should funding become available.

TxDOT High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Planning Efforts

In 2009, 2010 and 2011, the FRA issued Notices of Funding Availability for planning funds. Funds available for high-speed intercity passenger rail planning were authorized under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Public Law 111-5 and Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law 111-117, for a number of uses, including studies that lead to corridor investment plans and the development of state rail plans. TxDOT prepared and submitted planning fund applications for three corridors: Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston; Oklahoma City to South Texas; and Austin to Houston.

Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston

This corridor mostly parallels I-45, incorporating cities west of the interstate highway (such as Bryan/College Station) in addition to those along the interstate (such as Corsicana, Conroe, and Huntsville). Project funding will be used to complete necessary preliminary corridor service planning studies for new and/or improved high-speed intercity passenger rail along an approximate 240-mile corridor between Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston.

Under FRA Grant/Cooperative Agreement FR-HSR-0067-11-01-00 (2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 111-5, funding), the FRA has obligated $15 million (100%) in federal funding for the new core express service on an approximately 250-mile corridor between Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston metropolitan areas. Routes to be considered for development are located on the UP West Belt Subdivision, the BNSF Teague Line, and a new roadbed generally paralleling I-45. The purpose of completing the preliminary engineering and environmental review for the new service from Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston is to evaluate potential routes and identify a preferred alternative that meets the identified service level for this corridor, including a top operating speed of at least 150 mph. Preliminary engineering will build on previously prepared conceptual design studies and result in schematic plans of the preferred

Revised 05/12/2014 4-52 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

alignment including track, grade separated roadway-rail crossings, stations and maintenance and yard facilities. The NEPA documentation will establish the purpose and need for the service and evaluate potential social, economic, and environmental impacts of the various alternative routes.

Completion of the project will result in selection of a preferred route for HSIPR development between Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston, and provide improved data which will enhance the understanding of the corridor’s potential for pubic/private partnership development opportunities for the service. The project is scheduled to be completed in June 2017.

Oklahoma City to South Texas

The 850-mile corridor from Oklahoma City to South Texas includes the cities of Dallas/Fort Worth, Waco, Austin, San Antonio, Laredo, Corpus Christi, and Brownsville.

Under FRA Grant/Cooperative Agreement FR-HSR-0105-12-01-00 (Ominibus Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law funding), the FRA has obligated $5.6 million (80%) and TxDOT is providing matching funds in the amount of $1.4 million (20%), for the preparation of an Investment Plan consisting of a Service Development Plan and Service Level Environmental Impact Statement for the Oklahoma City to South Texas corridor, extending through Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio. The Dallas/Fort Worth to San Antonio corridor is the most densely populated and fastest-growing corridor in Texas.

An additional $7 million in funding is being provided for the Corridor Investment Plan from other contributions to the project by TxDOT ($1.4 million); TxDOT Strategic Projects Division (formerly Texas Turnpike Authority Division) ($500,000); NCTCOG ($1.4 million); Oklahoma Department of Transportation ($700,000); and FHWA Statewide Planning and Research Funds ($3 million).

Total funds contributed for the Oklahoma to South Texas Corridor Investment Plan are $14 million. The project is scheduled to be completed in December 2014.

Austin to Houston

This corridor lies roughly parallel to US 290 and incorporates the intermediate cities of Bryan/College Station, Giddings, Brenham, and Hempstead. The Austin to Houston Passenger Rail Study11, completed in December 2011, analyzed the feasibility of implementing passenger rail service between Austin and Houston, including possible service to Bryan/College Station. This analysis consisted of identifying the characteristics of existing rail infrastructure and operations in the studied corridors, analyzing potential alternative alignments for passenger rail operations and determining required infrastructure and impacts for potential passenger rail service in the area.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-53 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

The inventory and data collection for the existing corridor included photography, aerials, and track charts and operational information for the existing Capital Metro track from Austin to Giddings. Data for the abandoned Southern Pacific track between Giddings and Hempstead was identified by utilizing old drawings of the track, aerial photography and quadrant maps, and field observations and photos. The field observations included both a visual inspection of the potential passenger rail routes, as well as environmental and historical fatal-flaw evaluations of the existing corridor area.

Potential alignment alternatives were determined by utilizing the data from the existing corridor inventory as well as aerial photography, contours, land use demographics, and floodplain areas. Potential alignments included routes between Austin and Hempstead (direct), Austin and Hempstead via Bryan/College Station, Austin and Hempstead via Giddings and Bryan/College Station, and Austin and Hempstead via Brenham and Bryan/College Station. A connection to the proposed Gulf Coast Rail District’s (GCRD) commuter rail line undergoing independent analysis at Hempstead was assumed for the end limits of the alignments.

The alignment alternatives were analyzed for environmental fatal flaws, such as public- owned lands, hazardous waste sites, wetlands and water bodies, threatened and or endangered species, historic structures, and archeological sites. Similarly, a fatal-flaw analysis for the potential passenger rail profile was implemented. These were identified in exhibits and used to determine an alignment to be carried forward for railroad operations modeling. It should be noted that the routes studied do not constitute preferred routes, which would require an extensive environmental study outlined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as public outreach and preliminary engineering.

The modeled alignments utilized the Capital Metro alignment between Austin and Giddings with curve modifications incorporated in order to increase train speeds. The curve modifications result in allowable speeds between 65 mph and 110 mph, an increase over the current allowable maximum speed of 25 mph.

Between Giddings and Hempstead, two different corridors were evaluated: an alignment adjacent to U.S. 290 and an abandoned Southern Pacific Railway corridor. The modeled alignment between Giddings and Hempstead considered maximum allowable speeds of up to 110 mph. Curved sections of track have limiting speeds ranging from 48 mph and 80 mph.

Three possible corridors were analyzed in developing an alignment to Bryan/College Station: Giddings to Bryan/College Station, Brenham to Bryan/College Station, and Hempstead to Bryan/College Station. Each alignment to Bryan/College Station was modeled for maximum allowable speeds of up to 110 mph. Curved sections of track along each corridor will have limiting speeds.

The intercity passenger routes modeled include stops at rail stations in Austin, Elgin, Giddings, Brenham, Hempstead and College Station. In the absence of a ridership

Revised 05/12/2014 4-54 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

analysis study, station locations were determined to be the areas with the greatest population along each corridor. The alignment for each corridor explored can be seen in Figure 4-25.

Figure 4-25: Alignments Studied Between Austin and Hempstead Source: Austin to Houston Passenger Rail Study, 2011

The operational feasibility of implementing the passenger rail system was investigated by utilizing Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) software. The modeling exercise also assisted in establishing a slate of infrastructure improvements that may be required to implement passenger rail, as well as prepare conceptual train timetables.

A base case model was developed for the entire corridor under review, and, in addition to existing freight rail operations on Capital Metro tracks between Austin and Elgin, includes the addition of four intercity passenger train movements between Austin and/or Hempstead and College Station. The intercity passenger trains modeled had morning departures from each end point, with evening returns. Various planning cases were modeled for passenger operation, each yielding a minimum 90% on-time performance while maintaining freight operations.

Lastly, a list of corridor requirements, based on the alternative and additional infrastructure defined through RTC modeling was prepared for passenger rail

Revised 05/12/2014 4-55 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

implementation. This analysis defined the need for repairs or replacement of existing life- expired assets, trip time improvements, and the maximum frequencies for passenger service on the corridor with existing freight traffic. Order-of-magnitude capital costs estimates for the modeled alignment and additional infrastructure improvements were also prepared as well as order-of-magnitude costs for right-of-way acquisition.

These three studies (i.e., Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston, Oklahoma City to South Texas, and Austin to Houston) would not only cover the three corridors that link many of Texas’ most populous cities, the information gathered would provide further information that would help TxDOT, public officials, and citizens to make informed decisions about passenger rail: • Detailed ridership forecasts would apply travel demand models to clarify the most promising corridors and outline the revenue implications of shorter trip times made possible by higher speed train services, and allow station locations and service frequencies to be determined. • Engineering studies (including train operation models) and environmental analyses could specify intercity corridors capable of accommodating higher speed train services, both along current freight rail corridors or within separate green field alignments. • Cost estimates for capital and operating costs of passenger rail alternatives (different technologies and equipment operating at different speeds on specific corridors) could allow comparisons among alternatives. • Risk analyses could examine passenger rail alternatives and outline risks for project implementation, list escalation factors for cost elements, and test revenue alternatives.

With this information, Texans will be clearly informed about the trade-offs among passenger rail alternatives and make decisions about passenger rail investments. This kind of deliberate study has distinguished states that have received more funding from the FRA for HSIPR projects, and such studies would be required if TxDOT seeks project funding from the federal government for passenger rail improvements.

To date, the FRA has not granted funding for planning of the Austin to Houston high- speed intercity passenger rail corridor.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-56 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

4.4 – Commuter Rail Service in Texas

Commuter rail primarily serves commuters on daily trips between suburban and urban areas and may operate within freight rail corridors. Currently, three commuter rail services operate in Texas: the Trinity Railway Express between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, the A-train between the cities of Denton and Carrollton, and the MetroRail Red Line between downtown Austin and the city of Leander. Transportation agencies in North Central Texas and Austin are considering expansion of existing commuter rail. Transportation agencies in the Houston-Galveston region and the cities in Hidalgo County in the Lower Rio Grande Valley are considering new commuter rail investments, as are other cities and agencies in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The entities and additional information about the existing and proposed commuter and regional rail services are provided in this section of the TRP. Figure 4-26 shows the interurban (regional rail) system existing in the North Central Texas area from 1901 to 1948, a system some of the communities hope to recreate, as discussed in this section.

Operation and Establishment of Commuter Rail

The three existing commuter rail services in Texas are operated by local transit authorities, but other entities may also initiate and operate commuter rail. The state legislature allows for the formation of commuter rail districts, under certain conditions, to facilitate the planning and implementation of rail intended primarily for daily commuting. The 75th Texas Legislature passed the first bill to authorize the formation of an intermunicipal commuter rail district in 1997 (Chapter 173, Transportation Code). In 2007, the 80th Texas Legislature authorized the creation of a commuter rail district in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (H.B. 2510; Chapter 174, Texas Transportation Code). The districts are considered public bodies and political subdivisions of the state. Other commuter rail services are being developed or considered by agencies created under Texas permissive statutes for the establishment of metropolitan transportation authorities and coordinated county transportation districts. In the North Texas region, commuter rail is also often referred to as regional passenger rail. The 79th Texas Legislature in 2005 authorized creation of a freight rail district in a county with a population of 3.3 million or more (Chapter 171, Transportation Code), and the 81st Texas Legislature in 2009 added that a freight rail district may exercise the powers of an intermunicipal commuter rail district created under Chapter 173, Transportation Code.12

Revised 05/12/2014 4-57 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-26: Inter-urban Railways 1901–1948 Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments

As specified in the 1997 bill authorizing an intermunicipal commuter rail district (Chapter 173, Transportation Code), a district may be created to provide commuter rail service between two municipalities if each has a population of more than 450,000 and they are located not farther than 100 miles apart as determined by TxDOT. The district may be created by resolutions stating support for the formation of the district from each municipality or county. The bill set forth the steps for creating a district, establishing the board, the powers and duties of the district, and how the district should operate. The district has the power of eminent domain, may issue revenue bonds, and may acquire,

Revised 05/12/2014 4-58 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

construct, develop, own, operate, and maintain the rail facilities. A municipality located within the district that wants to be served by the district is required to pay for construction of a commuter rail station.

The first commuter rail district formed in response to the passage of the bill was the Lone Star Rail District (originally established as the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District). The district is currently in the preliminary engineering and environmental study stages for a commuter rail service between Georgetown and San Antonio called the LSTAR.

In 2007, Harris County, the City of Houston, and Fort Bend County created the Gulf Coast Rail District (GCRD) under authority granted by the State of Texas in Section 171 of the Transportation Code. Chapter 171 authorized freight rail districts; however, Section 171.053 extends the purpose of the chapter to include the powers of an intermunicipal commuter rail district created under Chapter 173, including the powers related to a commuter rail facility and other types of passenger rail services, including intercity rail services.13 The GCRD is governed by a board of directors consisting of 14 appointees and three ex officio members. The GCRD chairman is jointly appointed by the Harris County Commissioners Court and the mayor of the City of Houston. Other members include the chairman of the Port of Houston Authority and appointments by Harris County, Fort Bend County, Galveston County, Waller County, Montgomery County, the City of Houston, small municipalities in Harris County, and small municipalities in Fort Bend County. The GCRD works with public and private partners to develop and implement a systematic approach for improvement of the regional freight and passenger rail networks for the benefit of the region’s residents and economy.14

In response to the 2007 bill authorizing the formation of a commuter rail district along the Texas-Mexico border, the Hidalgo County Commissioners Court created the Hidalgo Commuter Rail District to provide passenger rail services between Brownsville and the urban areas of McAllen-Pharr-Edinburg. The general provisions for the commuter rail district are similar to the intermunicipal commuter rail districts; however, some notable differences are that the commuter rail district may only be created by resolution from a county commissioner’s court rather than a municipality, and the commuter rail district may impose any kind of tax except an ad valorem tax, if approved by the majority of voters in an election on the tax proposition.

Commuter rail offers an alternative option for residents in urban areas with travel delays caused by roadway congestion. The TTI’s 2012 Urban Mobility Study analyzed roadway congestion in 439 U.S. urban areas to the year 2011. In Texas, the Houston region ranked 4th, the Dallas/Fort Worth region ranked 10th, and the Austin region ranked 15th in their respective categories. Figure 4-27 shows the increasing annual hours of delay per auto commuter for the years of 1982, 2000, and 2011.15

Revised 05/12/2014 4-59 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-27: Travel Delay Source: Texas Transportation Institute, 2012 Urban Mobility Report

Existing Commuter Rail

Trinity Railway Express

Current Service The Trinity Railway Express (TRE) (see Figure 4-28) represents one of the most significant joint services between the two largest metroplex cities since the construction of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in the early 1970s. The TRE commuter rail service is provided by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T). The map in Figure 4-29 shows the TRE system. The first phase of the TRE (10 miles) was opened in December 1996, providing service between Dallas and Irving. In 2001, the TRE service was extended to the Intermodal Transit Center and Texas & Pacific Stations in downtown Fort Worth. The system now covers 34 miles serving 10 permanent stations, with special event service to Victory Station near American Airlines Center (AAC) for all sporting events, concerts, and other special events at AAC.16

Revised 05/12/2014 4-60 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-28: Trinity Railway Express at Dallas Union Station Source: TxDOT

Figure 4-29: Trinity Railway Express Rail Route and Stations Source: TRE

Revised 05/12/2014 4-61 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

The Downtown Irving/Heritage Crossing was formerly known as the South Irving station prior to July 30, 2012 and the Bell Station was previously known as the Hurst/Bell station. Connection with Amtrak is possible at both the Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) and Dallas Union Station stations, as shown in Figure 4-30.

Figure 4-30: TRE Connections in Context of Regional Rail System Source: DART

TRE operates every day except Sundays and holidays.17 The number of trains increased to provide midday and evening service in December 1997. One year later in December 1998, Saturday service was added. The TRE schedule offers 22 eastbound trains throughout the day (Fort Worth to Dallas) and 25 westbound trains (Dallas to Fort Worth). On Saturday, nine eastbound trains and 10 westbound trains provide service between Dallas and Fort Worth. The vehicle fleet consists of 13 rail diesel cars,

Revised 05/12/2014 4-62 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

commonly known as RDCs; nine locomotives (seven F59PH and two F59PHI); 17 bi- level coaches; and eight bi-level cab cars. The RDC cars are not currently in service.1819

Except for a slight decrease in 2004 and 2005, the annual ridership increased from inception until 2009, especially after 2001 when TRE was extended to Fort Worth (see Figure 4-31). From FY 2007 to FY 2010, TRE ridership included passengers on the “Big Tex Express” a weekend shuttle from a remote parking lot to the State Fair of Texas. The end of that service in FY 2011, combined with employment downturns in the Dallas central business district and the Dallas medical district is recognized as an explanation of the decrease in ridership in FY 2010 and FY 2011. Additionally, the TRE fare was effectively doubled during that time period.20

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000 Ridership Annual

500,000

0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year

Figure 4-31: TRE Annual Ridership (FY 1997 to FY 2012) Source: DART21

DART and The T jointly own the rail corridor on which TRE operates and has entered into joint use agreements with freight carriers to use the tracks; therefore, TRE vehicles must meet the FRA’s crash worthiness standards. TRE dispatches passenger and freight trains and ensures that commuter trains receive priority.

Planned Improvements Projects, including the addition of a one-mile siding near Richland Hills, the addition of 100 new parking spaces, and some local street realignments were completed in 2010 to facilitate train meets and passenger safety and convenience. The Belt Line Road grade separation project was completed in January 2012. Design is complete for a double tracking project near Valley View at an estimated cost of $14 million, but construction is

Revised 05/12/2014 4-63 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

not yet scheduled. The proposed construction is funded by a 2009 FRA grant awarded with 50% matching local funds to facilitate the rerouting of Amtrak’s Texas Eagle from the existing UP tracks between Dallas and Fort Worth, and avoid passing through Tower 55 in Fort Worth, onto the TRE line. That rerouting is now considered to be feasible, dependent upon agreement on liability insurance issues that are still in negotiation.22

There are no additional major capital projects scheduled at this time other than routine capital maintenance projects for state of good repair. Positive train control (PTC) will be implemented in accordance with the federal mandate.23

As DART negotiated with various freight railroads for right-of-way acquisition over the last 25 years for the light rail system, it purchased approximately 250 miles of rail lines that have been and could be used to further expand commuter rail operations in the future. In addition to the right-of-way to Denton now being used by the Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) A-train, there are also rail right-of-way links to Sherman and Rockwall County. DART has no current plans to extend service to these locations, but maintaining the option to expand the regional rail network will become increasingly important as the Metroplex continues to grow. Through the acquisitions above, DART also controls an easement within an existing freight line for potential commuter service from the DART Westmoreland LRT station to Duncanville. The Cotton Belt rail line, between Fort Worth and Wylie is also included in the above acquisition total mileage.24

On August 19, 2013, a new express bus service was initiated connecting the city of Arlington and the TRE at the CentrePort station. Known as MetroArlingtonExpress (MAX), the weekday service operates northbound trips departing the College Park bus stop in a surface parking lot at the southeast corner of Center Street and UTA Blvd. The first express bus departs the UTA stop at 5:35 a.m. and the last trip departs at 9:41 p.m. Southbound trips return to Arlington beginning at 6:20 a.m., with the last trip departing CentrePort at 8:55 p.m.25 The new service is provided under a two-year contract between the City of Arlington and DART/The T. It is funded by a partnership that includes the City of Arlington, UTA, and the Arlington Chamber of Commerce.26 The municipality, university, and businesses are sharing the estimated $700,000 annual cost.27 DART owns the buses and the T controls the CentrePort Station. A future bus stop in also planned for the Arlington entertainment district near the professional football and baseball stadiums. Service to the entertainment district is anticipated to begin in November 2013.

In 2005, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) produced a comprehensive Regional Rail Corridor Study in partnership with DART, The T, and DCTA. The study’s goal was to provide data and recommendations to decision makers on the best way to implement expanded passenger rail and other transit services in 11 corridors around the Dallas/Fort Worth region.28 Concurrent to the regional planning effort, DCTA was moving forward in developing the A-train service. Immediately following the regional effort, The T initiated a strategic plan, and subsequent corridor-specific planning and engineering efforts to pursue implementation of the corridors identified in the regional plan from southwest Fort Worth, through downtown

Revised 05/12/2014 4-64 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Fort Worth, and into the north end of DFW International Airport, now known as TEXRail. Meanwhile, NCTCOG has actively pursued regional agreements to advance intercity passenger rail development and connections to and from the region, and initiated the next level of individual corridor planning on a number of corridors.

Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) A-train

DCTA is a coordinated county transportation authority created by House Bill 3323, under Chapter 460 of the Texas Transportation Code, approved by the 77th Texas Legislature and signed into law by the governor in 2001. On November 5, 2002, the voters in Denton County approved the formation of DCTA. The DCTA Board of Directors represents every geographic area of the county. Three cities additionally approved a 0.5% sales tax in an election in September 2003: Denton, Highland Village, and Lewisville. DCTA has concentrated its focus on implementing the A-train service between Denton and Carrollton. However, it adopted a future service plan in early 2012 that reflects a general direction for the agency’s rail expansion, dependent upon future revenue opportunities, as included in the proposed future service plan.29

In summer 2010, DCTA began construction on the infrastructure needed for the A-train, a 21-mile-long regional passenger rail line connecting Denton and Carrollton. The route generally follows the eastern side of I-35 East using existing railroad right-of-way. It began service June 18, 2011, (revenue service June 20, 2011) serving five stations including the terminal transfer station offering connection to the DART Green Line in Carrollton (see Figure 4-32). The rail route was approved by the DCTA Board of Directors in May 2005, the draft EIS was completed in 2007, and the final EIS was completed in 2008. The North Central Texas Regional Toll Revenue Funding Initiative (RTRFI) provided 80% of the project funds. The remaining 20% of the funding comes from DCTA local 0.5% sales tax revenues. The Regional Transportation Council approved the RTRFI funding in August 2008.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-65 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-32: DCTA “A-train” Source: Denton County Transportation Authority

Current Service The system began service with DART-owned RDC vehicles and began phasing in 11 new Stadler GTW 2/6 articulated rail vehicles in June 2012 (Figure 4-33). Full integration of the Stadler GTW fleet was accomplished by December 2012, with the last RDC vehicle returned to DART in February 2013.30 A FRA waiver was requested in 2009 and received June 4, 2012, which allows the vehicle to operate in the agency’s rail corridor concurrently with traditional compliant equipment. DCTA partnered with Stadler to make modifications and enhancements to the GTW to comply with the required safety guidelines. Modifications include changes to the fuel tank design, window glazing and passenger and operator seats. The cars are ADA compliant, and seat 104 with standing room for 96 in every vehicle. 31

Revised 05/12/2014 4-66 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-33: DCTA’s A-train at Trinity Mills Station Source: DCTA

A-train service operates daily, except Sundays and holidays. The A-train weekday schedule offers 27 northbound trains and 27 southbound trains. Mid-day rail service was implemented on August 20, 2012.32 On Saturdays, nine trains operate northbound and nine trains run southbound, beginning service just before 8 a.m. and running until late night (the last southbound train departs Denton at 11:04 PM and the last northbound train departs Dallas at 11:53 PM). Extended Friday evening service consists of one northbound and one southbound train in operation past the regular weekday commute times. The same provider maintains and operates both the DCTA and TRE rail service.

As shown in Table 4-17, A-train ridership has continued to grow year over year since service launch June 20, 2011. DCTA projects ridership will reach nearly 500,000 passenger trips in FY 2013.33

Table 4-17: DCTA A-train Ridership Since Service Initiation Fiscal Year Passenger Trips 2011 130,846 (06/20/11 – 09/30/11) 2012 387,478 2013 379,590 (10/01/12 – 06/30/13) Source: DCTA, 2013

Revised 05/12/2014 4-67 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Planned Improvements In February 2012, DCTA completed a vision service plan that includes some subsets of the regional plan, as shown in Figure 4-34. The two highest priority expansion corridors are the extension of the A-train service farther into Carrollton, as noted in the region’s Mobility 2035, 2013 Update, to allow connections with the proposed Cotton Belt and Frisco lines, and development of part of the Frisco Corridor. While no other plans are underway for expansion or additional stations, the entity indicates an openness to creating partnerships.34

Figure 4-34: DCTA Long Range Service Plan Source: DCTA, February 2012

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority MetroRail

Current Service On March 22, 2010, Capital Metro’s 32-mile MetroRail Red Line between downtown Austin and Leander opened to the public (route shown in Figure 4-35). Approved by the voters in a 2004 referendum, the MetroRail Red Line operates in an existing freight corridor originally established in the late 1800s. Each train holds 108 seated passengers

Revised 05/12/2014 4-68 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

and an additional 92 standing passengers. Local connecting bus service from each station runs on varying schedules.

Figure 4-35: Capital Metro’s Commuter MetroRail Route and Station Map Source: Capital Metro

Capital Metro provided initial Red Line service during the morning and afternoon peak weekday commuter periods and added all day service weekdays in 2011. In March 2012, the agency began providing service on Friday and Saturday nights until midnight.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-69 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

For the first week of service, riding the train was free, and daily ridership estimates ranged from a low of 2,353 passenger boardings per day to a high of 2,942. When riding the train was no longer free, ridership declined. At the end of May 2010, ridership was 19,783 passenger boardings per month. When the transit authority added all day service in 2011, ridership began to steadily increase. In May 2012, ridership was 51,997 passenger boardings per month. Figure 4-36 depicts monthly ridership from start-up in March 2010 through May 2012.35 Ridership peaks each year in March when Austin hosts large conventions and a music festival. The FY 2012 ridership was 575,120 passenger trips.

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

-

Figure 4-36: Capital MetroRail Red Line Monthly Ridership, March 2010–May 2012 Source: Capital Metro

Planned Improvements MetroRail Green Line

Future connections are being considered along a 28-mile route utilizing existing Capital Metro freight tracks from downtown Austin to Elgin (Green Line). The proposed commuter rail, also known as the Giddings Line, is located within the Austin-Round Rock Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in Travis, Bastrop, and Lee Counties. The Austin- Round Rock MSA is a rapidly growing metropolitan area that was home to nearly 1.7 million people in 2009. The Austin MSA currently ranks fifth among the top 50 U.S. metropolitan areas based on net migration as a percent of total population. Population projections for 2020, 2030, and 2040 for the Austin MSA are 2.3 million, 3.0 million, and

Revised 05/12/2014 4-70 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

3.9 million, respectively, signaling that the growth rate is expected to continue increasing over the next 30 years. Consistent with this expected increase in population, forecasts also indicate that the region’s employment is targeted to almost double between 2010 and 2035, increasing from 885,000 employed persons to 1.6 million employed persons by 2035.

Green Line service would connect downtown Austin, Decker Lake, Manor, and Elgin with a proposed initial service of 20-minute frequency headways during peak periods at 8 station stops. Early draft projected ridership was estimated to be 7,000-12,000 daily riders, equivalent to 1.8 to 3.1 million annual riders, in 2030. 36

The proposed Green Line is a part of Capital Metro’s Project Connect Initiative to plan for the growing population and increased congestion in the capital area. The proposed passenger rail improvements are needed in order to address the region’s projected deterioration in air quality, projected population growth, and the associated decrease in mobility. The travel time from Elgin to the downtown Austin station will be approximately 50 minutes. The alternatives analysis, which has not begun for the proposed Green line, will provide initial ridership estimates. Figure 4-37 depicts the proposed rail line, beginning in Elgin, running through Manor, and traveling to downtown Austin.

Figure 4-37: Capital Metro Proposed Green Line Source: Capital Metro

Revised 05/12/2014 4-71 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Proposed Commuter Rail

Interest in increasing the number of commuter rail lines in Texas is evident in the formation of commuter rail districts and the recommendations for passenger rail in metropolitan transportation plans (MTPs) and the studies completed for new rail projects. One important component in developing these plans and studies has been the consideration for connecting to the proposed high-speed rail intercity passenger rail corridors, such as the Oklahoma City to south Texas corridor and the Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston corridor.

This section provides more information about the regional passenger rail plans in North Central Texas and the specific corridor projects, as well as those in other regions around the state.

The most extensive system of commuter rail proposed for Texas is in the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) area. A combination of regional rail and light rail extensions of the DART system was recommended in Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas-Fort Worth Area, 2009 Amendment. It was refined in the next regional plan, Mobility 2035: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for North Central Texas, and most recently in the latest long-range transportation plan, Mobility 2035 – 2013 Update.37 The updated plan continues the rail recommendations from the previous MTPs. (see Figure 4-38) The Mobility 2035 – 2013 Update plan includes a fiscally constrained recommended regional rail plan, as well as a rail vision plan foreseeing future extensions and additional lines (see Figure 4-39).

Revised 05/12/2014 4-72 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-38: Funded Recommendations – Passenger Rail Improvements in the North Central Texas Mobility 2035 – 2013 Update Plan Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments

Revised 05/12/2014 4-73 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-39: Rail Vision Considerations North Central Texas Mobility 2035 – 2013 Update Plan Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments

There is also a conceptual plan for the general integration of high speed rail and higher speed rail in the region (see Figure 4-40). In the newest MTP, the Regional Transportation Council has affirmed the three-station concept for HSR. This concept recommends three HSR stations in the region: Fort Worth, Arlington/DFW Airport, and Dallas. These stations would provide much of the region with accessibility to HSR.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-74 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-40 High/Higher Speed Passenger Rail Recommendations North Central Texas Mobility 2035 – 2013 Update Plan Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments

NCTCOG received a positive Transportation Conformity Determination from the U.S. Department of Transportation on the Mobility 2035 – 2013 Update. The 2013 Update was approved by the RTC on June 13, 2013. The Transportation Conformity Determination was provided on July 19, 2013.38

NCTCOG completed conceptual engineering and funding studies for the Frisco, McKinney, and Waxahachie corridors included in the regional plan, as detailed below. The McKinney and Waxahachie corridors have seen no further action. However, the Frisco Corridor is included in the FY 2014-2015 Unified Planning Work Program for a study similar to the Innovative Finance Initiative that occurred for the Cotton Belt Corridor in the 2010–2012 timeframe. The Cotton Belt corridor crosses the northern sector of the Metroplex in a primarily east-west configuration. The approach emphasized the possibilities of developing the service with heavy private sector involvement.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-75 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Mobility 2035, 2013 Update Appendix G: Corridor Fact Sheets include a detailed description of transit and roadway corridors in the regional transportation system. Descriptions of projects at various stages in the planning and development process are included. Facility and station locations in the descriptions are approximate and used for regional analysis purposes only.

The fact sheets are accessible online at: http://www.nctcog.org/trans/mtp/2035/documents/AppendixG.pdf

TEX Rail (Formerly Known as Southwest-to-Northeast) Rail Corridor

The T completed a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in 2008 for the proposed Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor regional passenger rail service, known as TEX Rail since April 2011. The proposed rail route uses existing freight and DART- owned rail lines connecting southwest and downtown Fort Worth with Grapevine and the north entrance of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. (Figure 4-41). The DEIS was updated using an Environmental Assessment, which was completed in early 2013. The final Environmental Impact Statement is projected to be completed in October 2013.

A Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts application was submitted and accepted in 2011 and an updated submittal was completed in September 2012. Preliminary engineering is complete, with final engineering and design expected to begin in early 2014. Pending funding approval by the FTA, The T predicts the start of construction in 2014, with initiation of service in 2016. Service is expected to be initiated with approximately 20 trains in each direction on weekdays and 10 in each direction on weekends. The projected 2035 ridership is approximately 18,000 passengers per day.39,40

In August 2013, the Fort Worth Transportation Authority Board of Directors took action to redefine the TEX Rail as a minimum operable segment (MOS) that is planned to begin at the existing Trinity Railway Express (TRE) T&P Station in downtown Fort Worth and extend to DFW International Airport’s Terminal B. Favorable ridership projections coupled with lower project costs are strong factors for FTA support.41

Revised 05/12/2014 4-76 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-41: TEX Rail Proposed Commuter Rail (2012) Source: Fort Worth Transportation Authority

Cotton Belt Rail Express

Of the regional passenger rail lines identified in the regional plan, the Cotton Belt corridor, shown in Figure 4-42, is the only other passenger rail project in North Texas included in local transit agency implementation plans. Two sections make up this corridor, the T’s TEX Rail and DART’s eastern section. The DART section of the corridor was included in the agency’s long range service plan adopted in 2006, and remains a priority for implementation.

The DART 2030 Transit System Plan included this proposed commuter rail line that links communities northeast of Dallas with communities in the northwest of Dallas and the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. The plan estimated capital costs of $515 million for the line, called the Cotton Belt Rail Express. The express service recommended for the 26-mile Cotton Belt would have 20-minute peak headways. DART purchased the Cotton Belt railroad in 1990, when negotiating a package of right-of-way acquisitions for the DART system, in anticipation of future passenger service. In the meantime, DART permits local freight use of the tracks. The DART 2030 Plan (Figure 4-44) depicts the Cotton Belt service as “Express Rail.”

Revised 05/12/2014 4-77 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-42: Proposed Cotton Belt Line Source: Mobility 2035, 2013 Update, Appendix G. Corridor Fact Sheets

Revised 05/12/2014 4-78 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-43: DART 2030 Transit System Plan Rail Element Source: DART 2030 Transit System Plan

To pursue speedier implementation than allowed by DART resources, the DART Board of Directors, the Regional Transportation Council (RTC), and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority Board of Directors authorized the Regional Transportation Council of the North Central Texas Council of Governments to initiate consideration for innovative financing strategies. The DART 2030 Service Plan had the project scheduled for implementation between 2025 and 2030. NCTCOG awarded a contract in 2010 for planning services to consider ways to speed up implementation and be conducted in two phases. The first phase concentrated on recommending funding strategies, the second phase was to be on a project financing plan.

The Cotton Belt Rail Express rail would connect with more than 12 cities and the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, including the following existing rail services and proposed rail projects: • DCTA A-train (upon extension to the downtown Carrollton station)

Revised 05/12/2014 4-79 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

• DART Light Rail – Red Line • DART Light Rail – Green Line • DART Light Rail – Orange Line • TEX Rail (under development) • Proposed Frisco Regional Rail Corridor • Proposed McKinney Rail Corridor

The regional effort was known as the Cotton Belt Innovative Finance Initiative (iFi) (See Table 4-18). The first phase of the corridor planning project examining potential funding options was completed in fall 2011. The full Cotton Belt corridor considered was 62 miles in length, with the limits from Southwest Fort Worth to Plano/Richardson, with 24 potential stations and a projected 33,000 daily passenger trips.42 The final report proposed a mix of public- and private-sector financing options. While federal funding through grants or loans would be part of that mix, much of the funding would come from local sources, including those not used before for infrastructure projects.

Table 4-18: Cotton Belt Innovative Finance Initiative Potential Revenue Sources

Direct Development value capture, public-private joint development tax revenue sharing, enhanced farebox recovery, parking, transit availability payment, new member equity payment/connection fee, vehicle registration fee, air freight revenue, loans and grants, federal funding, advertising, naming rights, non-transportation corridor access concessions (fiber optics), capital and operational cost savings Indirect Fort Worth & Western Railroad, toll revenues, vehicle manufacturing facility, smart card Policy Fair fare, structured finance entity, smart card data

NCTCOG considered the development of the Cotton Belt corridor as a possible model to expand the passenger rail network and implement the other proposed corridors included in the regional plan. While the follow-up Cotton Belt iFi Phase 2 scope of work was being drafted by NCTCOG in August 2012, a private sector group provided a letter of interest indicating an intention to present an unsolicited proposal in November 2012. Parties active in the discussion included DART, NCTCOG, and The T.43

DART and the region continue to seek implementation of the Cotton Belt service, even though a proposal was never received.44 In the past year, the memorandum of understanding between DART and NCTCOG expired and state legislation (SB 1333) being pursued to assist with service development was not approved by the 83rd Legislature. The Cotton Belt project remains in the DART long range plan, with the revenue service date uncertain. The DART Board is considering options for the corridor,

Revised 05/12/2014 4-80 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

with the intent of implementing service sooner than allowed by the current long-range financial plan.

DART and The T have reached agreement regarding use of the DART-owned Cotton Belt right-of-way west of DFW Airport, which is part of the TEX Rail project.

Frisco Regional Rail Corridor

The regional 2014–2015 Unified Work Program includes a project to investigate development of the Frisco Corridor through a public-private venture. It follows a NCTCOG conceptual engineering and funding study completed in May 2010,45 for a proposed regional passenger rail service in the 30-mile Frisco Corridor. The existing rail corridor terminates in the south at the TRE station in Downtown Irving and at the north in north Frisco (Figure 4-44). BNSF owns most of the corridor; however, the City of Dallas and DART own some portions. BNSF considers the corridor an integral part of its national network. On average, 8 to 12 freight trains per day were using the corridor during NCTCOG’s first study. This corridor remains in the Mobility 2035 Plan, 2013 Update. The section of the corridor in Denton County is also included as a priority future rail corridor in the DCTA Service Plan.

The Frisco Corridor rail could connect with the following existing rail services and proposed rail projects: • TRE commuter rail; • Existing DART Green Line LRT service to downtown Dallas; • DCTA “A-train” (when service extends from the Trinity Mills Station to the Downtown Carrollton Station); • DART Orange Line LRT service at DFW International Airport (set to open December 15, 2014); and • Proposed Cotton Belt Corridor rail.

The study considered light rail (LRT), light rail new technology (LRNT), and commuter rail, concluding LRT would not be appropriate for the Frisco corridor because freight trains also use the corridor. Therefore only LRNT or commuter rail were considered. The 2030 daily rail passenger volume expected for the Frisco Corridor ranges from a low of 900 for the 4-station route alternative (using only a portion of the corridor between downtown Carrollton and Downtown Irving) and a high of 5,700 for the 10-station full corridor (between Downtown Irving and North Frisco). The conceptual study provides a foundation for future environmental studies required for implementation and identifies funding strategies needed to reach the implementation phase.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-81 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-44: Proposed Frisco Regional Rail Corridor Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments46

Revised 05/12/2014 4-82 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

McKinney Rail Corridor

In July 2010, NCTCOG concluded a conceptual engineering and funding study47 for a proposed regional rail service in the 17.7-mile McKinney Corridor, an existing rail corridor terminating at the south in Plano and at the north in McKinney (Figure 4-45). DART owns the corridor. This corridor remains in the Mobility 2035 Plan, 2013 Update as light rail new technology (LRNT).

The McKinney Corridor rail could connect with the following existing rail services and proposed rail projects: • Existing DART Red Line LRT rail service to downtown Dallas, and • Proposed Cotton Belt Corridor rail.

The study considered light rail (LRT), light rail new technology (LRNT) and commuter rail, with LRT and LRNT considered the most appropriate for consideration for the McKinney Corridor. The 2030 daily rail passenger volume expected for the McKinney Corridor ranges from a low of 3,830 for the 8-station LRNT route alternative that combines service with a Cotton Belt LRNT service and a high of 5,560 for the 11-station LRT route that combines service with the DART Red Line. The conceptual study provides a foundation for future environmental studies required for implementation and identifies the funding strategies needed to reach the implementation phase.

Waxahachie Rail Corridor

In November 2010, NCTCOG completed a conceptual engineering and funding study48 for a proposed regional rail service in the Waxahachie corridor, an existing rail corridor terminating at the south in Waxahachie and at the north in Dallas (Figure 4-46). BNSF owns the right-of-way from the Waxahachie CBD station to Forest Lane/MLK Boulevard in Dallas. North of Forest Lane/MLK to Dallas Union Station is owned by the UP. This corridor was included in the long-term metropolitan transportation plan Mobility 2030– 2009 Amendment, and remains in the Mobility 2035 Plan, 2013 Update.

The Waxahachie Rail Corridor would connect with the following existing rail services: • Existing TRE commuter rail, and • Existing DART lines at Union Station.

The study considered light rail (LRT), but it was rejected early on and five alternatives were developed for light rail new technology (LRNT) or commuter rail technology The 2030 daily rail passenger volume expected for the Waxahachie corridor ranges from a low of 2,100 for a 6-station 20.7-mile route with a Southport terminus to a high of 5,900 estimated daily passenger trips for a 16-station 64.5-mile route alternative that would interline with TRE and have a terminus at the Fort Worth T&P Station. Two 30.9-mile alternatives with a Dallas Union Station terminus, produced predicted passenger trips of 4,300 to 4,600 in 2030. The conceptual study provides a foundation for future

Revised 05/12/2014 4-83 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

environmental studies required for implementation and identifies the funding strategies needed to reach the implementation phase.

Figure 4-45: Proposed McKinney Rail Corridor Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments49

Revised 05/12/2014 4-84 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-46: Proposed Waxahachie Rail Corridor Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments

Revised 05/12/2014 4-85 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Lone Star Rail District

Delays from traffic congestion caused by inefficiencies of automobile use and unpredictability from accidents and weather, coupled with a lack of competitive transportation alternatives and injuries and deaths along the Austin-San Antonio I-35 corridor point to a need for a more efficient and safer form of transportation. VMT totals on this corridor are predicted to rise substantially through 2035, further exacerbating these problems.

The Austin–San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District (ASA-ICRD) was formed in November 2002, with a 14-member board representing local jurisdictions and regional transportation planning entities as the agency in charge of providing a safer, more efficient alternative. The district formally changed its name to Lone Star Rail District (LSRD) in October 2009 and named the future commuter rail service LSTAR. In 2013, the Board included 20 members representing 16 local jurisdictions and agencies.

Significant technical work has been completed on the proposed passenger rail project, including conceptual engineering, alternatives analysis, station location studies, station economic impact analyses, capital and operations-and-maintenance cost estimates, service plans, joint operations planning, ridership studies, and financial and economic benefit studies. In January 2010, LSRD began preliminary work on the environmental studies that will update project costs, finalize station locations, and present a financial plan.

The locally-preferred alternative (adopted by the San Antonio and Austin MPOs in 2005) is a 117-mile regional passenger rail system located in the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UP) rail corridor for most of its length. Fifteen stations are proposed along the route, which is anchored by the Austin and San Antonio metropolitan areas with potential additional stations in Schertz, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Kyle/Buda, Round Rock, and Georgetown (see Figure 4-47). A sixteenth station in south San Antonio will be studied in the environmental clearance process.

Cooperation with UP is critical, because the route uses the existing UP corridor. LSRD executed agreements with UP for initial feasibility studies on the freight bypass in 2009 and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in October 2010 further refining the studies and potential terms and conditions. In 2012, LSRD completed alternative alignments analysis on the freight bypass and will advance three alignments in the federal environmental review process. LSRD is combining the passenger rail system and the freight bypass in one environmental impact statement that is anticipated to begin in 2013. The passenger rail route and the freight bypass corridor are shown in Figure 4-47.

The project received $5.9 million in general revenue for FY 2010–2011. The project has been awarded federal metropolitan mobility funds from Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) in the amounts of $5 million in both FY 2009 and FY 2010, and $10 million over FY 2013, FY 2014 and FY 2015. The CAMPO funds are being used to conduct the federal environmental process.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-86 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-47: Proposed Route and Stations for LSTAR Source: Lone Star Rail District

Revised 05/12/2014 4-87 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

LSTAR’s implementation is expected to benefit the economy, users of I-35, commuters, and faculty, staff, and students of the corridor’s many universities (such as the University of Texas at San Antonio, Texas State University in San Marcos, St. Edward’s University, Huston-Tillotson University, and The University of Texas at Austin).

Proposed service includes both local and express trains. Overall trip time for the express trains between downtown Austin to downtown San Antonio, with stops in San Marcos and New Braunfels, is planned at 75 minutes. Planned service also includes up to 32 trains per day, and the service will operate at up to 90 mph in some places at some point in the future. LSRD has estimated that LSRD has estimated that the rail line would carry between 1.4 and 5.0 million passengers a year by 2030.

The next step of the project is the environmental study, funded by TxDOT and CAMPO.

Houston Regional Commuter Rail

In 2008, the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) released the Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study, evaluating the feasibility of implementing commuter rail service along multiple corridors in the eight-county H-GAC region. Five corridors were identified from information gathered from the Houston Freight Study (Figure 4-49).50 Potential commuter rail corridors were ranked by factors such as cost, right-of-way availability, and capacities or freight volumes. The H-GAC Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study analyzed routing viability along each corridor, potential ridership, potential station locations, and the operability, logistics, and challenges associated with connecting these corridors to the existing and proposed transit network. The study of a commuter rail system for the Houston-Galveston metropolitan region concluded that such a rail system is feasible to develop. Such a system would be compatible with the existing freight rail system, and could be implemented in a way that does not hinder the necessary growth of the freight rail system. The corridors shown comprise the proposed commuter rail system to be carried forward for additional studies. Since 2008, three regional transportation agencies have continued evaluation of three commuter rail corridors: the Hempstead Corridor parallel to US 290 to the northwest; US 90A corridor from the Texas Medical Center to Missouri Center in Fort Bend County; and the Gulf Freeway/State Highway 3 corridor from Houston to Galveston.

In 2012, the GCRD examined the feasibility of operating commuter rail along the UP Eureka Subdivision that runs parallel to US 290 through northwest Harris County to Hempstead in Waller County (Figure 4-50). The high level of commuter demand and transfer of a majority of freight rail operations to the UP Navasota Subdivision, with improvements, make it a candidate for commuter rail that operates in a shared freight rail corridor.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-88 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-48: Potential Houston Area Commuter Rail Corridors Source: Houston-Galveston Area Council Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study, 2008

Figure 4-49: Proposed Hempstead Commuter Rail Corridor Source: Gulf Coast Rail District, 2012

Revised 05/12/2014 4-89 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

The study examined two commuter rail service options for the Hempstead Corridor. The primary analysis focused on commuter rail operations for 45 miles from Hempstead to Loop 610. At the Loop 610 terminal, commuters would transfer to buses for transit service to final employment destinations. A longer term scenario assumed the commuter line would be completed with an additional six miles of travel directly into downtown Houston. The study estimates commuter rail service extending from Hempstead to near Loop 610 would generate about 6,000 daily boardings by 2035. Although no specific alignments were studied, when the connection to downtown Houston is included and current plans for parallel highways are incorporated, daily boardings on commuter rail increases to 22,500 by 2035. The Hempstead Corridor commuter rail start-up service to Loop 610 would cost approximately $290.7 million to construct within the UP right-of-way and $6.6 million to operate and maintain annually. Extension of the rail service to downtown Houston is estimated to cost an additional $254.2 million for new rail right-of- way and construction. The downtown extension would increase annual operations and maintenance to $21.3 million. Costs associated with the use of the UP right-of-way would be added after UP review of freight operational issues associated with the commuter rail service plan, an effort planned during the next year.51 According to the GCRD, the initial service plan to Loop 610 is not considered financially feasible because of the low estimated ridership; however, the full corridor from Hempstead to downtown Houston generates very favorable cost-effectiveness metrics.52 Next steps needed to advance the Hempstead Corridor commuter rail project include: determine how the rail can be extended to downtown Houston, identify and secure a funding mechanism to construct and operate a Houston region commuter rail system, and advocate corridor preservation.53 The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO), Texas, initiated the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the U.S. 90A Southwest Commuter Rail Corridor project (see Figure 4-50) in 2011). METRO has completed the conceptual engineering, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and public meetings were held in June 2012. The METRO Board of Directors placed the project on hold in September 2012 to reassess investment priorities in the region via the Transit Re- imagining Plan.54 The project goals are to provide passenger service from Missouri City to the Texas Medical Center without a transfer, provide competitive or better travel times, provide stations to serve communities along corridor, and provide additional capacity on the METRORail Red Line.55 Public outreach efforts resulted in extension of the original plan an additional mile from Beltway 8 to Missouri City. The project is expected to have a ridership of 13,000.56 The corridor is currently served by bus commuter service. METRO has not identified a schedule or the resources for further implementation.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-90 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-50: U.S. 90A/Southwest Rail Corridor Alternatives Source: METRO Capital Programs Committee, May 201257

The City of Galveston and Galveston County sponsored an alternatives analysis of potential transit investments in the primary corridor connecting Houston and Galveston along Gulf Freeway (Interstate 45 South) and State Highway 3. The alternatives analyzed included express bus and bus rapid transit in either Gulf Freeway or State Highway 3 and commuter rail along the UP right-of-way for the Galveston, Houston, and Henderson Railroad (Galveston Subdivision). The study was published in June 2010 and concluded local and federal funding is not currently available for the large capital improvements that would be needed to implement bus rapid transit or commuter rail. The implementation strategy is for commuter rail to be the locally preferred alternative in the long-term; however, in the short-term bus service is recommended for State Highway 3 to link the communities in the corridor. Mid-term improvements could include capital improvements in the corridor that will support the implementation of commuter rail in the future, such as grade separations and park and ride facilities at locations that could be rail stations in the long-term. The study recommended the GCRD, Galveston County, and Houston METRO pursue negotiations with UP to purchase or lease the rail corridor right-of-way.58

Revised 05/12/2014 4-91 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Hidalgo County Commuter Rail

Hidalgo County’s 2010 population was 775,000, up from 569,000 in 2000, a 36% increase, which was almost double that of the state’s rate of growth. The Hidalgo County MPO forecasts the county population in 2030 will be approximately 1,644,000, or more than double the 2010 population. The Hidalgo Commuter Rail District is proposing a future commuter rail line to meet the needs of the growing population, connecting cities in Hidalgo County and also cities in adjacent Cameron County (see Figure 4-51). There are 11 proposed stations located in Mission, McAllen, Edinburg, Pharr, San Juan, Alamo/Donna, Weslaco, and Mercedes.

Hidalgo County conducted a feasibility study for the proposed rail system in August 2011 that included an assessment of station locations, needs assessment, and cost analysis. The study included preliminary ridership projections based on train speed—the ridership is projected to be approximately 30,000 boardings per day with an operating speed of 35 miles per hour. The commuter rail district has not identified a source of funding for construction or operations and so the project is currently pending identification of a viable funding strategy.

Figure 4-51. Proposed Hidalgo County Commuter Rail Source: Hidalgo County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study

Revised 05/12/2014 4-92 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

4.5 – Light Rail Service in Texas

As of 2012, light rail transit (LRT) services in the state are provided in the DART service area cities and in Houston, with passenger rail services in these areas operated by the local transit authorities. Information in this section is provided for informational purposes to illustrate the connections between intercity and regional passenger rail services to light rail transit services. Existing light rail service and projects within specific urban areas are discussed below.

Light Rail in Operation or in Development

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)

Current Service DART initiated light rail transit (LRT) operations on June 14, 1996, with the opening of an 11-mile segment of the 20-mile Starter System. In mid-2013, there are 85 miles of DART LRT in service and 7.7 miles of extensions in active development.59 Ridership continues to grow, with the agency noting that automatic passenger counters are more accurate than the previous manual counting method and data produced are 15% higher than in previous calculations.60 There is also continued community support and increasing property values along its light rail corridors. Almost 16 years after its light rail opening, DART celebrated its 250 millionth light rail passenger trip in June 2012.61

DART’s LRT system is comprised of four routes known as the Red, Blue, Green and Orange Lines and is the largest light rail system in the country. Figure 4-52 provides a map of the DART system, including lines in service and those under construction or scheduled to open by 2016. The map also includes connection to the TRE and A-train commuter rail lines. DART’s LRT system operates in a right-of-way separated from freight traffic, with short sections running in city streets.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-93 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-52: DART Current and Future Rail Services to 2016 Source: DART62

A history of the rail segment development is provided in Table 4-19.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-94 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-19: History of DART Rail Development (In Service as of September 2013) Service Initiation Date Service Description June 14, 1996 DART Rail opens with 11.2 miles of service Red Line service from Pearl to Westmoreland Stations Blue Line Service from Pearl to Illinois Stations January 1997 DART extends 6 miles northward parallel to North Central Expressway (Pearl to Park Lane Stations; includes a 3.5-mile subway from downtown Dallas to the new Mockingbird Station. May 31, 1997 DART completes the 20-mile Starter System with the opening of the 3-mile extension of the Blue Line south from Illinois Station to Ledbetter Station December 18, 2000 Cityplace Station, the Southwest’s first subway station, opened 120-feet underneath North Central Expressway September 24, 2001 White Rock Station opens, 3 miles northeast of Mockingbird Station May 6, 2002 LBJ/Skillman Station opens, 3.5 miles north of White Rock Station July 1, 2002 7 new stations (Park Lane, Walnut Hill, Forest Lane, LBJ/Central, Spring Valley, Arapaho Center, and Galatyn Park) open, extending the Red Line more than 9 miles November 18, 2002 2 new stations (Forest/Jupiter and Downtown Garland) extend the Blue Line more than 4 miles December 9, 2002 3 stations (Bush Turnpike, Downtown Plano, and Parker Road) open, bringing the system to a total of 44 miles and 34 stations November 2004 Special event service becomes available to Victory Station at American Airlines Center (AAC) September 14, 2009 3 miles and 4 stations (Deep Ellum, Baylor University Medical Center, Fair Park, and MLK Jr. in South Dallas) of the Green Line go into service, as well as daily service to Victory Station December 6, 2010 The 28-mile, 20-station $1.8 billion Green Line is completed when it opens 24 miles and 15 stations; also going into service is the Lake Highlands Station, DART’s first infill station on the Blue Line. [In June 2011, the Denton County Transportation Authority’s A-train commuter rail service allows passengers to transfer to the Green Line at the Trinity Mills Station in Carrollton.] July 30, 2012 A 5.4 mile segment of the Orange Line initiates service at 3 stations (University of Dallas, Las Colinas Urban Center, and Irving Convention Center) December 3, 2012 A 3.9 mile addition to the Orange Line opens, including 2 stations (North Lake College and Belt Line) December 3, 2012 A 4.5 mile addition to the Blue Line is completed from Garland to Rowlett, including 1 station in downtown Rowlett

In FY 2008–FY 2010, LRT operated at a 10-minute peak headway and 20- to 30-minute off-peak headway. The Red Line had a combined 5-minute headway in the a.m. peak from Parker Road to downtown Dallas. In FY 2011, effective December 2010 with the Green Line opening, DART modified headways on the LRT system from 10-minute peak to 15-minute peak. Mid-day and evening headways remain at 20- or 30-minute levels. The Red Line has a combined 7.5 minute headway in the peak with added Orange Line

Revised 05/12/2014 4-95 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

service between Parker Road and Bachman Station. The services run from approximately 5:00 a.m. to midnight.63 In August 2013, the system consists of 85 miles of rail serving 61 stations and is comprised of 163 vehicles.64

Between 2008 and 2010, DART transitioned its LRT fleet to Super Light Rail Vehicle (SLRV) service. These vehicles are greater in length and add passenger capacity, seating approximately 100 passengers, compared with the 75-seat capacity of the previous vehicles. Standing passengers on the vehicle can nearly double the capacity of the non-SLRV equipment. It also allowed the agency to move to level boarding, allowing passengers with disabilities, as well as strollers and bicycles, to step or roll directly onto the trains without using mechanical lifts.65

The rail system annual ridership in FY 2008 was 19.4 million, with an average weekday ridership of 71,500 and an average weekend ridership of 50,500. Annual ridership in FY 2009 was 19 million and in FY 2010 was 17.8 million. Average daily weekday ridership in FY 2009 was 64,800 and 58,800 in FY 2010. Meanwhile, average daily weekend ridership in FY 2009 was 54,800 (up 8.5% over the previous year), but down to 47,500 in FY 2010.66 However, ridership continued to increase in FY 2011, with 22.3 million annual passenger trips; 71,600 average weekday rides, 46,100 average Saturday rides, and 28,200 average Sunday rides. The FY 2012 ridership continued increasing and with the introduction of automated passenger counters figures were deemed more accurate than those produced by the previous manual count process. The FY 2012 ridership increased to 27.7 million passenger trips, with an average weekday ridership of 90,224; average Saturday ridership of 52,489 and average Sunday ridership of 32,955. Annual ridership since inception of service is depicted in Figure 4-53.

30,000,000

25,000,000

20,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000 Ridership Annual

5,000,000

- 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Fiscal Year

Figure 4-53: DART Rail Total Annual Ridership Sources: National Transit Data (FY 1996-2010), DART (FY 2011–2012) 67

Revised 05/12/2014 4-96 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Planned Improvements Additional DART LRT development underway and expected to be in service before 2016 is shown in Table 4-20.

Table 4-20: DART Rail Under Development and Expected in Service by 2016 Expected Date of Service Description Service Initiation December 15, 2014 4.7 mile extension of Orange Line into DFW International Airport near Terminal A Fall 2016 2.6 mile extension of Blue Line south from Ledbetter Station to the UNT-Dallas Campus, including two new stations and rehabilitation and improvements to the existing Ledbetter Station to accommodate the extension.

In 2011, the alternatives analysis for the Blue Line extension was completed, and preliminary engineering and a local environmental assessment began. The Final Local Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed in May 2013. The DART Board approved moving forward with a Construction Management/General Contract (CM/GC) design services contract and a CM/GC construction services contract in June 2013. Revenue service is expected in the fall of 2016. The earlier revenue service date (previously expected in 2019) was made possible by taking advantage of project savings found during the Blue Line Rowlett extension and the Orange Line construction projects. It was also aided by securement of a TIFIA loan in the amount of $120M for the Irving-3 (I-3) DFW connection, freeing up capital funds and lower debt service payments resulting from interest rates lower than budgeted. The Blue Line extension includes a new rail station in the vicinity of the South Central Police Subdivision just north of Camp Wisdom Road and a second new station near the University of North Texas Dallas Campus.

There are two other DART projects with undetermined implementation schedules, but in an active planning stage.

In May 2010, DART completed the alternatives analysis/draft environmental impact statement for what is known as the D2 Study, evaluating an additional light rail alignment in downtown Dallas. As DART was preparing to make recommendations for a preferred alternative, several circumstances changed that caused DART to defer that action. First, NCTCOG and the City of Dallas received an FTA TIGER grant award for a streetcar project with an interface at Union Station. Secondly, major high speed rail discussions were initiated in the region. These two rail-related issues, in conjunction with the City of Dallas supporting development of a new major convention hotel near Union Station,68 prompted continued evaluation of the new downtown alignment that was assisted by a $700,000 federal grant award in early 2011.69

The Downtown Dallas Transit (D2) Study is now in Phase II, launched in February 2013. In the effort, DART will review and develop new downtown alternatives as necessary,

Revised 05/12/2014 4-97 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

taking into account the potential new rail connections at Union Station. The most significant purpose and need for the second alignment in the CBD remains LRT operational flexibility. In order to sustain the DART rail system, an alternative route through the business district must be developed to allow for increased capacity (vehicles and riders) in the core and the ability to allow trains to bypass conditions outside of DART’s control such as a fire in the central business district that shut down rail services for several hours while fire trucks blocked the transit mall.70

DART anticipates substantial FTA New Starts assistance to fund the additional downtown alignment. The agency believes the possibility of grant assistance increased with the Congressional passage of MAP-21 that included a new funding category for Core Capacity.71

The DART Board adopted the DART 2030 Transit System Plan in October 2006 (Figure 4-54), that guided the system development occurring since that time.

Figure 4-54: DART 2030 Transit System Plan Rail Element Source: DART 2030 Transit System Plan

Revised 05/12/2014 4-98 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

The 2030 Transit System Plan includes recommendations for DART’s core services (bus, light rail, commuter rail, and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes) and includes a discussion of issues such as land use and economic development, system accessibility, bicycle and pedestrian integration, and policies relative to DART’s role in regional transit initiatives. Those rail projects not yet in development were placed in a deferred / unfunded status due to the economic slowdown of the last several years.72

The DART Board has initiated a revision to the DART 2030 Transit System Plan and is in the early stages of identifying the goals and objectives for the effort. It is anticipated that the new plan will focus on sustainability, including low cost initiatives to grow ridership, maintaining the system in a state of good repair, and regional connectivity. Projects in the 2030 Plan that were deferred will be reviewed and evaluated for potential inclusion in the 2040 Plan along with any new projects that may be identified. The 2040 Plan is expected to be completed in FY 2016 and will be financially constrained.73

Houston/Harris County METRORail

Current Service The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas (METRO) opened a 7.5-mile light rail line, the Red Line, in January 2004 that provides service from the University of Houston-Downtown campus, through downtown, Midtown, the Museum District, the Texas Medical Center (TMC), and Reliant Park. Annual ridership is provided in Figure 4- 56, and the route for this service is shown in Figure 4-55. The Red Line has 16 stations and uses 18 electric light rail vehicles with a capacity of 181 standing and 64 seated riders each.74 There are two transit centers and one park-and-ride lot along the line—the Downtown Transit Center, TMC Transit Center and Fannin South Park and Ride Lot. To improve safety, add reliability, and increase speeds, the project was built in semi- exclusive or limited access diamond lanes along most of the in-street route and has priority signalization at intersections.

METRORail Red Line ridership peaked in FY 2008 with an average weekday ridership of 40,567 driven by a peak in gas prices in summer 2008. In FY 2012, the rail line carried an annual passenger load of 11.3 million riders with an average weekday ridership of 37,400.75 The ridership trend line is shown as Figure 4-56. Year-to-date (YTD) April 2013 Red Line ridership indicates a 3.2% average weekday increase over the previous year (from 36,717 to 37,975 average weekday ridership YTD comparison).76 METRO recently purchased 19 Siemens S70 light rail vehicles to accommodate growth.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-99 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

*Service began January 2004 Figure 4-55: Existing Houston METRORail Red Line Source: METRO Planned Improvements In November 2003, the residents of the METRO service area voted to implement the METRO Solutions transit system plan. The plan calls for major multimodal transit improvements across the region with one quarter of the one-cent sales tax going to general mobility projects through 2014 and authorization to issue $640 million in bonds for the first 10 years of the plan. METRO Solutions includes plans to expand rail—

Revised 05/12/2014 4-100 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

expanding light rail an additional 64.8 miles and adding eight miles of commuter rail (see Figure 4-56). In addition to rail, the plan includes High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane implementation, additional transit centers and park and ride facilities, and additional local bus service. The expansion represents METRO’s effort to serve the projected two million new residents projected in Houston area by 2035 (the target year of full build out of the plan).

Figure 4-56: METRO Solutions Transit System Plan, 2003 Source: METRO77

The METRORail Expansion is the mid-term light rail transit plan to expand the existing METRORail system by adding five lines—North, Southeast, East, Uptown, and University. The program includes the design and construction of approximately 31 rail miles, 53 stations, a storage facility at the Southeast line, a service and inspection facility at the East End line, a storage and inspection facility at the University line, and the procurement of 73 light rail vehicles. The expansion also includes the capacity to increase the existing Red Line fleet by procuring 19 additional vehicles and expansion of the existing Rail Operator Center (ROC).78 For the METRORail Expansion plan for the

Revised 05/12/2014 4-101 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

five additional lines, the ridership forecast for 2015 at full build-out is 108,000 average weekday boardings. Light rail line extensions are shown in Figure 4-57. The July 2013 status for implementation of light rail in each corridor is discussed in the paragraphs below.

Figure 4-57: METRORail Expansion Plan Source: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County

The Southeast and North lines are funded through federal FTA Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGA) and are scheduled for completion in 2014. The total construction cost for the two lines is $1.6 billion dollars. Each line is receiving a $450 million dollar FFGA each and marks the first time rail projects in Houston have received federal funding.79 The North line (red in Figure 4-57) is a 5.28 mile double track light rail line between the University of Houston-Downtown and Northland Commons, with eight stations, and is an expansion of the existing Red Line with an operating fleet of 14 vehicles. The Southeast line (purple in Figure 4-57) is a 6.56 mile double track line from downtown to Palm Center, with 10 stations, a storage facility and a fleet of 15 vehicles. The Southeast line estimated opening year (FY 2014) ridership is 17,200 average weekday boardings and 28,700 forecast in FY 2030.80 The North line estimated FY 2015 ridership is 12,000 average weekday boardings (this estimate is for the points from University of Houston Downtown to the Northline Commons shopping area).81

Revised 05/12/2014 4-102 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

The East End line (green in Figure 4-57) is a 3.34-mile line double track light rail line from downtown to Magnolia Transit Center, with six stations, a service and inspection facility and a fleet of 10 vehicles. The project is 100% locally funded, is under construction and is scheduled for completion in 2015. The total cost of the corridor is $559 million. The City of Houston will also contribute $20.6 million to the cost of an underpass for East End light-rail line. The East End line estimated opening year (FY 2015) ridership is 8,500 average weekday boardings and 17,000 forecast in FY 2030.82

The METRORail Expansion plan for additional rail lines is dependent on funding. METRO’s current ability to leverage local share funding is restricted by a commitment of sales tax revenues to the General Mobility Program. This program provides 25% of all METRO sales tax revenue from a 1 cent local sales tax to fund general mobility projects for Harris County, the City of Houston, and the 14 smaller cities that are part of the METRO service area. On November 6, 2012 the voters approved an extension of the General Mobility Program from 2014 through 2025.

Proposed Light Rail

The City of Austin is planning an urban (light) rail project. The proposed urban rail line is included in the Capital Area MPO 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. The initial phase is designed to connect four major activity centers in Austin, the central business district, the State Capitol complex, the University of Texas, and the newly developed Mueller neighborhood, a mixed-use development. There are currently 26,268 work trips within the central core, and the proposed urban rail project is slated to provide mobility choices in and round the central area of Austin. A future extension of the urban rail line will connect downtown Austin with the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. Both lines will connect with Capital Metro’s Red Line, Capital Metro’s Bus Rapid Transit lines that are currently being developed, as well as the local fixed route bus system.

The City of Austin began the alternatives analysis for the urban rail project in early 2013, and the study is slated to be completed mid-2014. Capital Metro is party to an interlocal agreement with the City of Austin and Lone Star Rail District to jointly work together to advance the Austin Urban Rail Project. The first phase of the urban rail line is tentatively planned to be complete in the year 2021. The initial ridership estimates range from 9,000 to 11,000 boardings daily; however, more accurate ridership projections are going to be a component of the alternatives analysis. The City may include funding for planning, design, and engineering for the urban rail project as part of a future city bond election. 83

Revised 05/12/2014 4-103 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

4.6 – Trolley and Streetcar Service in Texas

Trolleys and streetcars provide short-trip urban circulation. Five cities in Texas currently operate or plan to develop a trolley or streetcar. The term trolley typically refers to an electric vehicle that operates over fixed rails. A trolley vehicle is typically a vintage rail car or historic replica.84 The Galveston Island Trolley and the McKinney Avenue Trolley in Dallas are two examples. A streetcar is another term that can be used interchangeably to describe the same vehicle. However, the term streetcar has been used more often in the last decade to refer to a modern multi-section articulated vehicle. Cities in Texas that have been engaged in planning activities for some form of trolley or streetcar project are Fort Worth, Dallas, San Antonio, and El Paso. Streetcar implementation is underway in the City of Dallas.

Existing Trolleys

Galveston Island Trolley The Galveston Island Trolley is a heritage streetcar owned by the City of Galveston, Texas. The modern vehicles look like vintage electric trolleys, but the four rail cars are diesel-electric powered. Therefore, there are no overhead wires in Galveston. Without an overhead catenary, there is technically no trolley wheel to make the connection for electricity, but the transit service retains its vintage designation anyway. The Galveston Island Trolley is shown in Figure 4-58.

Figure 4-58: Galveston Island Trolley Vehicle Photo by Jon Bell, July 2002

The first urban rail public transit system in Galveston began operation in 1867. Mules pulled the original vehicles until electric trolleys were introduced in 1891. The trolleys remained in service until May 1938.

The new era Galveston Island Trolley opened in 1988. The rail line was originally 4.8 miles long and operated in a loop from the historic Strand District in downtown

Revised 05/12/2014 4-104 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Galveston to the Seawall. The City expanded the downtown loop in 1995 and extended the rail line from downtown to the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) in 2005. As of 2008, the total trolley network length was 6.7 miles, as illustrated in Figure 4-59.

The municipal transit system, Island Transit, operated the trolley; however, the City suspended trolley operation in September 2008 due to heavy damage to the track bed and rail cars from Hurricane Ike.85 As of June 2012, the City is continuing efforts to secure funding to complete needed repairs and restore service. The Federal Transit Administration has agreed to provide financial support to assist in restoring the tracks as part of a 2008 Section 5309 New Starts Grant.86 The City continues discussions with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to fund repair of the rail cars. The City of Galveston has not projected a date to restore trolley service.87

Revised 05/12/2014 4-105 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-59: Galveston Island Rail Trolley Source: Island Transit

Revised 05/12/2014 4-106 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Annual ridership on the Galveston Island Trolley as reported to the National Transit Database for FY 2001 through FY 2008 is shown in Figure 4-60. The trolley has been out of service since September 2008.

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000 Annual Ridership 10,000

- 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008* Fiscal Year

*Trolley operation suspended in September 2008 due to damage from Hurricane Ike. Figure 4-60: Galveston Island Trolley Ridership FY 2001–2008 Source: National Transit Database for 2001-2007 and Island Transit for 2008

McKinney Avenue Trolley

The McKinney Avenue Transportation Authority (MATA)88 operates fare-free, air- conditioned and heated rail vintage trolleys every day of the year in Dallas’ Uptown Neighborhood. The service started in July 1989 as a tourist attraction but is now integrated with the other transit services offered by DART and referred to as the “M- Line.” Figure 4-61 presents the route map. MATA set a new system ridership record of 433,108 passengers served in 2012.89

In 2013, construction began on an Olive Street extension (the red dashed line on the map). All MATA service was stopped on August 13, 2013 to accommodate the rail construction. MATA reinitiated service in October 2013.90

Revised 05/12/2014 4-107 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-61: McKinney Avenue Trolley Source: MATA, http://www.mata.org

Another project, known as the Dallas Urban Circulator Project, consists of the construction of a 0.65 mile (3,432 feet) trackway loop connecting the Olive Street extension of the MATA’s M-Line to the current M-Line terminus at St. Paul Street and Ross Avenue and providing a direct connection to DART’s St. Paul LRT Station (the blue

Revised 05/12/2014 4-108 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

dashed line on the map). The project has received FTA funding. No vehicles are included in the project. The project is under development by DART and the City of Dallas. An Invitation for Bids was issued June 18, 2013, and selection of a contractor is anticipated in September 2013.91

Trolleys and Streetcars in Development

Union Station to Oak Cliff Dallas

In December 2010, FTA awarded a $23 million TIGER grant to support streetcar service from downtown Dallas to Oak Cliff. The project is a collaborative endeavor between the City of Dallas, NCTCOG, and DART. The approximately 1.6-mile, single at-grade, dedicated streetcar track extends from near Union Station in downtown Dallas to the Colorado Boulevard and Beckley Avenue intersection in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas, as depicted in Figure 4-62. FTA adopted the project description, environmental determinations, and all mitigation commitments presented in the environmental documents and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in July 2011. In February 2012, FTA also approved an environmental re-evaluation supporting a passing track in the Zang Boulevard right-of-way at the Zang Boulevard and Oakenwald Street stop. A design-build contract for project development was awarded in August 2012, along with the purchase of two modern streetcar vehicles.92

Revised 05/12/2014 4-109 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-62: Union Station to Oak Cliff Streetcar Line Source: Environmental Re-Evaluation Document93

Two vehicles manufactured by the Brookville Equipment Corporation are being acquired. The vehicles use the same sort of propulsion system as light rail and will offer low floor/ADA compliant boarding. The Liberty Modern Streetcar, shown in Figure 4-63, uses

Revised 05/12/2014 4-110 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

a battery energy storage system (ESS) to power the car’s four traction motors when off- wire. Approximately 1 mile of the 1.6 mile track will require ESS power, allowing the vehicle to cross the Houston Street Viaduct over the Trinity River without use of overhead power supply lines..94

Figure 4-63: Vehicle Selected for Union Station to Oak Cliff Streetcar Service Source: DART

Revenue service is targeted for December 2014. The City of Dallas, NCTCOG, and DART are also pursuing extension of the streetcar line to additionally serve the Bishop Arts District, as included in the NCTCOG Mobility 2035, 2013 Update.

Proposed Trolleys and Streetcars

San Antonio Streetcar

VIA Metropolitan Transit is working with the FTA, TxDOT, City of San Antonio and Bexar County to develop a modern streetcar for downtown San Antonio. The streetcar is a rail urban circulator that will operate primarily in downtown along approximately 4.5 miles of rail in the public right-of-way, with overhead electric lines as the source of power. The streetcar will operate as two routes; an east-west route that will serve two transit hubs: the Westside Multimodal Center and the Robert Thompson Transit Station located just east of downtown, and a north-south route connecting the Pearl District on the north side of downtown with Southtown.95

Revised 05/12/2014 4-111 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

The modern streetcar is expected to increase the attractiveness of walking and biking for residents and employees of the center city. Several other public and private investments have already been made or are planned in an effort to improve the urban environment in downtown San Antonio. The proposed streetcar demonstrates an effort to leverage these commitments by forming a direct and permanent link between new residential developments, employment centers, and other community assets. The schedule for implementation of the modern streetcar is late 2017. VIA performed an alternatives analysis and completing the detailed screening of eight potential alternatives, selecting the preferred route that was announced on September 10, 2013. The annual ridership projected for this alternative is 1.4 million riders for the first year of operation.96

The modern streetcar is included in VIA’s Short Term Capital Program for 2012 to 2018. Implementation is pending approval of funding by all partners. The capital program includes the modern streetcar, the two transit facilities on the west and east ends of downtown and general improvements to downtown patron amenities, a transit center near Brooks City-Base, and a park and ride facility in the US 281 corridor. In addition to these capital investments, VIA will make improvements to bus services, including the recent implementation of bus rapid transit, and develop plans for other high capacity transit corridors.97

The Short Term Capital Program is $256.1 million, and the capital cost of Phase I of the streetcar element is $210 million of that total. The majority of the funding for the streetcar is expected from local resources. VIA will provide $24 million from farebox revenues, $45 million from bonds backed by sales tax and $9 million in cash reserves. The City of San Antonio will use bonding authority to leverage $32 million in funds from various sources, and TxDOT will fund $92 million. In addition, the Federal Transit Administration is providing $8 million in Surface Transportation Program Metro Mobility (STPMM) funds. VIA is currently following the federal planning requirements for alternatives analysis to be eligible to compete for FTA capital investment funds under the New Starts and Small Starts programs for additional projects, including possible extension of the streetcar network in the future.98

El Paso Streetcar

In 2010, the Texas Department of Transportation sponsored an El Paso Rail Transit Study in cooperation with the City of El Paso. The purpose of the study was to provide an engineering feasibility analysis for up to four possible routes and order-of-magnitude costs, as well as a market, benefit, and constraint analysis for a rail transit system in downtown El Paso. There were no fatal flaws identified during the engineering evaluation. Four possible alignments were developed to serve the viable markets. The streetcar was envisioned to operate in mixed traffic or in bus lanes. Different types of equipment were considered, including light rail vehicles, modern streetcar, vintage- replica streetcars, and renovated historical vehicles. The vintage-replica type of streetcars (trolleys) seemed to be most compatible with the project concept. Four cars would be needed to provide a 10 to 15-minute headway plus two spare vehicles. The order-of-magnitude cost estimates for the different alignments ranged from $88 million to

Revised 05/12/2014 4-112 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

$92 million. The estimates of cost include streetcar track, utilities, stations, streetcar vehicles, and a maintenance facility for rail.99

The return on investment assessment was based on comparison of the conceptual El Paso streetcar to the experiences for similar projects in Little Rock, Memphis, Portland, and Tampa. Two growth scenarios were developed for El Paso, pivoting from a baseline scenario assuming no streetcar to illustrate possible development levels resulting from the implementation of the streetcar. The moderate scenario estimated a transit-oriented development impact of $360 million, four times the estimated order-of-magnitude cost of the proposed El Paso streetcar. A second higher growth scenario was based on the Portland modern streetcar experience, showing significantly higher commercial and residential development in the streetcar corridor. This scenario estimated a transit- oriented development impact of greater than $1 billion or 10 times the estimated order- of-magnitude cost of the El Paso streetcar.100

In May 2012, the City of El Paso authorized $1.3 million for preliminary engineering and an environmental assessment for the El Paso streetcar project. In September 2012, the El Paso City Council expressed its desire to preserve the history of El Paso by refurbishing vintage streetcars already in the city’s possession. Amendments to the proposed routing were directed by the city council to allow for refurbishment of eight original Presidents' Conference Committee (PCC) streetcars rather than pursuit of vintage-replica vehicles for the project. Final design of the system was completed in June 2013.101

The route map is shown in Figure 4-64.102 The route has two loops. The first begins at the intersection of Franklin and Santa Fe Streets, runs east on Franklin, south on Kansas, west on Father Rahm and north on Santa Fe. The second loop runs east on Franklin, north on Stanton, west on Baltimore, and south on Oregon.103

Revised 05/12/2014 4-113 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-64 – Proposed El Paso Streetcar Route Source: City of El Paso

The City had been advised that approximately $90 million in state funding could be made available to El Paso for a transportation project that yields significant economic impact.104 The current estimated system cost is $90 million. Once funding is secured, the general time frame for implementation includes an approximate two-year construction period.105

4.7 – Tourist Trains in Texas

Texas State Railroad Tourist Train

The Texas State Railroad (TSR) has been in operation as a tourist steam locomotive passenger train since 1976. “The Official Railroad of Texas” is 25 miles of historic, dedicated track parallel to Highway 84 through the piney forests between the two East Texas towns of Palestine and Rusk (see Figure 4-65). Round-trip excursions are offered from both ends. The trip is 1-1/2 hours from either depot to the other, with a break before the return trip. Additional passenger service is operated for special events throughout the year.106

On September 1, 2007, the Texas Legislature transferred ownership of the TSR from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to the American Heritage Railroad Company, a private company. A bill analysis for the legislation indicated the annual ridership of the Texas State Railroad was 50,000.107 108 In August 2012, Iowa Pacific Holdings acquired ownership of this line and operates as the Rusk, Palestine & Pacific Railroad, LLC.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-114 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Rusk

Palestine

Figure 4-65: Map of Texas State Railroad Route Source: Texas State Railroad, http://www.texasstaterr.com

Austin Steam Train / Austin Western Railroad

The Austin Steam Train Association operates tourist trains called the Hill Country Flyer and the Bertram Flyer on tracks of historical significance and on some tracks used for freight and Capital Metro’s commuter rail operations (MetroRail Red Line). Ridership in 2010 and 2011 was approximately 25,800 in 2010 and 25,384, respectively.109

The Giddings to Austin tracks, originally built in 1871, were the first railroad tracks built into Austin. The tracks were extended west to Burnet in 1882, to Granite Mountain in 1885 (where the pink granite from the area was shipped to Austin via railroad to build the Texas Capitol building), and then finally to Llano in 1892. The City of Austin purchased the 163-mile Giddings-to-Llano line in 1986. It is now owned by Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 110

Austin Western Railroad operates the freight rail service on the Giddings-Llano line (see historic map of line in Figure 4-66). Since the beginning of Capital Metro’s commuter rail operations, freight service operates at night. Commodities shipped by the freight rail service include aggregates, crushed limestone, calcium bicarbonate, lumber, beer, chemicals, plastics, and paper.111

Revised 05/12/2014 4-115 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-66: Portion of 1956 Timetable Map of Giddings-Llano Line Source: Austin Steam Train, http://www.austinsteamtrain.org/history.php

Grapevine Vintage Railroad

The Grapevine Vintage Railroad provides tourist rides between the Fort Worth Stockyards and the City of Grapevine (see Figure 4-67). The Fort Worth & Western Railroad company (FWWR) started the service in 1996. The City of Grapevine subsequently took over and renamed it in December 2000. The train operates on track shared with freight trains and owned by DART. The City of Grapevine reports there are no issues with sharing the track. However, in the Tower 60 area, freight trains on the intersecting tracks owned by BNSF and UP tracks are given priority when there is a schedule conflict, causing delays for the Grapevine Vintage Railroad. Ridership for calendar year 2009 was 70,264 for the longer Grapevine to Fort Worth Stockyards route and 18,098 for the shorter Trinity River Run route.112

In the Fort Worth Stockyards, the Grapevine Vintage Railroad pulls into the Stockyards Station, now the largest train station in the Southwest with more than 85,000 square feet of shopping, dining, and meeting facilities.

Two trains depart from Grapevine and from Fort Worth Stockyards in the afternoon according to the following seasonal schedule. Between Memorial Day and Labor Day, trains run Friday through Sunday. Between September and November and February through May 31, they run Saturday and Sunday. During special events, times and schedules are subject to change. The trip time from Grapevine and the Stockyards is 1 hour 30 minutes. The trip time from the Stockyards to Grapevine is 1 hour 15 minutes. A shorter service called the “Trinity River Run” departs from and returns to the Stockyards in one hour. 113

Revised 05/12/2014 4-116 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-67: Grapevine Vintage Railroad Route Map Source: https://www.grapevinetexasusa.com/ThingsToDo/GrapevineVintageRailroad/

Longhorn & Western Railroad

The Texas Transportation Museum in San Antonio offers train rides on a 3,700-foot track completed in 1991, located adjacent to the Longhorn Siding on the UP’s mainline.114 The train operates on Saturday and Sunday, with intermittent operations on Friday. The LW Railroad operates on a closed loop track and does not share its track with freight or other passenger trains. Visitors can ride the full sized train every hour on the half hour beginning at 10:30 a.m. on both Saturday and Sunday each week.

Jefferson and Cypress Bayou Railway

Located in Jefferson and operated by a private company, the Jefferson and Cypress Bayou Railway offers 45-minute rides on open car coach seats pulled by a reproduction of a 1870s steam locomotive along three miles of narrow gauge near the Big Cypress River. The Bayou Railway operates on a closed loop track and does not share its narrow-gauge track with freight or other passenger trains. The train operates each Saturday between March and June, and Friday and Saturday between June and September. Intermittent operations exist between September and March. This train also operates for special events.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-117 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

4.8 – Interconnectivity

Passenger rail service benefits from having connectivity with other rail services as well as commercial air, intercity bus and local transit services.

All modes potentially accessible at rail stations were inventoried and identified: commercial air, rail, intercity bus, local bus, demand-response transit service, taxi, pedestrian and bicycle. Availability and distance to connection from Amtrak station for each mode was noted. A simple rating for distance from the station was applied to indicate ease and convenience of connections to the other modes.

Commercial Airport Connectivity

Connectivity to commercial airports is identified, with the distance and available modes to travel between a rail station and the closest airport within 60 miles provided. In most cases, airports are served through available taxi service, in others there is also a shuttle, public transit bus or rail connection.

There are 26 commercial airports in Texas, and 14 of those are within 60 miles of an Amtrak station. Of the 19 Amtrak rail stations in Texas, only two (Alpine and Sanderson in West Texas) do not have a commercial airport within 60 miles.

Accessibility of stations to commercial airports is summarized In Table 4-21.

Intercity Bus Connectivity

The intercity bus business has seen consolidation of operators in the industry, and in some cases fewer cities served, including elimination at some Amtrak-served cities.

Intercity bus carriers provide service throughout the state, especially to locations without commercial air service or rail. Current providers in Texas are Aguila Express, All Aboard America, Arrow Trailways of Texas, Coach USA (a Stagecoach subsidiary), Concho Coach Lines, Crucero, Greyhound Lines, Inc., Jefferson Lines, Megabus, and Valley Transit Co. (a Greyhound subsidiary). Connections to intercity bus in Amtrak-served locations are sometimes available at the rail station or nearby, but several are located elsewhere in the city or region, and are not always easily accessible from the rail station. These provide future opportunities for cooperation on intermodal facilities, particularly if there is also a local transit provider to participate in such projects.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-118 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-21 Amtrak Station Connectivity to Commercial Airports Amtrak Station Commercial Airport, Commercial Airports in Texas near Distance and Access Amtrak Stations and Airport Code Alpine No commercial airport. Austin AUS 8 mi.; bus, taxi Beaumont BPT 14 mi.; taxi, bus Cleburne** DAL 56 mi., ACT Waco Regional DFW 58 mi.; bus, taxi AUS Austin-Bergstrom Dallas DAL 7 mi.: LRT/bus BPT Beaumont-Port Arthur (combined), bus, taxi; DAL Dallas Love Field DFW 21 mi.: CR/bus DFW Dallas-Fort Worth International (combined), LRT/bus DRT Del Rio * (combined), taxi ELP El Paso Del Rio * ** DRT 2 mi.; taxi, bus GGG East Texas Regional (Longview) El Paso ELP 8 mi.; taxi, bus GRK Killeen-Fort Hood Regional Fort Hood (coach) GRK 8 mi., taxi HOU Houston Hobby Fort Worth DFW 25 mi.: CR/bus IAH Houston Intercontinental-Bush (combined), taxi SAT San Antonio TYR Tyler Regional DAL 33 mi.:

CR/LRT/bus (combined) Gainesville DFW 57 mi., taxi Galveston (coach) HOU 42 mi, no service. Houston HOU: 12 mi., bus, taxi; IAH: 22 mi., bus, taxi Killeen (coach) GRK 9 mi.; taxi, bus Longview GGG: 9 mi., taxi Marshall GGG: 30 mi., taxi McGregor ACT: 25 mi., taxi Mineola TYR: 30 mi., taxi Nacogdoches (coach) No commercial airport. San Antonio SAT 9 mi.; bus, taxi San Marcos AUS: 34 mi.; bus, taxi Sanderson No commercial airport. Taylor** AUS 39 mi.; bus, taxi. GRK 60 mi.; taxi Temple GRK 33 mi.; bus, taxi * Commercial air service discontinued to Del Rio in May, 2013. ** Airport bus service is local or on-demand, not intercity. Hub airports shown in bold.

Source: Potential Development of an Intercity Passenger Transit System in Texas, Report 0- 5930-2 Project 0-5930, Texas Transportation institute, May 2010, p. 8; Mapquest and Google Maps, accessed July-August, 2013.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-119 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

In addition to the U.S.-based intercity carriers listed, several Mexican or Mexican-based subsidiaries of U.S. intercity bus companies provide service in the state, particularly to the largest cities (Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso). Americanos USA, Autobus Adame, Autobuses Latinos, El Conejo, El Expreso, and Tornado are some of the carriers operating in Texas cities. Route and schedule information for some of these carriers is available through ticketing arrangements with Greyhound, but information for others can be difficult to find or is only available by phone, and some of them do not provide information on the Web.

Figure 4-68 shows intercity bus routes within Texas including Amtrak Thruway coach service, and Table 4-22 summarizes availability of and distance to intercity bus service at Amtrak rail stations in Texas. Of the 19 Amtrak stations in Texas, five do not have intercity bus service available: Cleburne, McGregor, Mineola, Sanderson and Taylor.

Figure 4-68 – Intercity Bus Service in Texas

Revised 05/12/2014 4-120 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-22 Intercity Bus Connections at Amtrak Rail and Thruway Coach Stations Station Intercity Carriers Routes/Cities served Bus Proximity Alpine 2 All Aboard America , 500 ft. north. 2/day service to Midland/Odessa 0 Greyhound, 1.5 mi. E Throughout Texas and national connections Austin 0 Greyhound, 6.5 mi. N Throughout Texas and national connections 0 Megabus, (Kerrville) 2 mi. N Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio, and major US cities 0 Turimex 4 mi. E Throughout Texas and Mexico 0 Omnibus, 4 mi. NE Throughout Texas and Mexico Beaumont X Greyhound 7 mi. NE in Rose City, Throughout Texas and national TX; and 21 mi. SE in Port Arthur. connections Cleburne X (no intercity service) Dallas 1 Greyhound, 1200 ft. E Throughout Texas and national connections 0 Megabus (Kerrville), 0.7 mi. NE via Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and local bus major US cities 0 Tornado, 2.5 mi. S Midland, Odessa, points NE and E; San Antonio, Houston; points in Mexico 0 Omnibus, 3 mi. S Throughout Texas and Mexico 0 Turimex, 2.5 mi. S Throughout Texas and Mexico 0 El Conejo Throughout Texas and Mexico 0 El Expreso Throughout Texas, other major cities, and Mexico Del Rio 3 Aguila Express San Antonio El Paso 0 Greyhound, 1400 ft. SE Midland, Odessa, points NE and E; San Antonio, Houston 0 Tornado, 1500 ft. SE Midland, Odessa, points NE and E; San Antonio, Houston; points in Mexico X El Paso-Los Angeles Limo, 0.7 mi. NM, CO, AZ, NV, CA; points in Mexico SE 0 Omnibus, 0.5 mi. SE Throughout Texas and Mexico Fort Hood X Arrow Trailways (Amtrak thruway) Motor Coach connection 2/day to Temple Amtrak station via Killeen. Fort Worth 3 Greyhound shares station Throughout Texas and national connections 0 Tornado, 6 mi. S Major Texas cities; points in Mexico Gainesville 0 Greyhound, 1.3 mi. N OK and points N, Dallas and connections Galveston 3 Lone Star Coaches (Amtrak Motor coach connection to Houston thruway) and Longview Amtrak Houston 3 Greyhound shares station Throughout Texas and national connections 0 Tornado, 1.8 mi. N and 2.5 mi. SE Major Texas cities; points in Mexico 0 Megabus, 0.9 mi. S Austin, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio, and major US cities 0 El Expreso, 2.1 mi. S Throughout Texas, other major cities, and Mexico

Revised 05/12/2014 4-121 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Station Intercity Carriers Routes/Cities served Bus Proximity 0 Turimex, 4.8 mi. SE Throughout Texas and Mexico 0 Omnibus, 6.3 mi. SE Throughout Texas and Mexico 0 El Conejo, 4.4 ml. SE Throughout Texas and Mexico Killeen 3 Arrow Trailways (Amtrak thruway) Motor Coach connection 2/day to Temple Amtrak station. Longview 3 Greyhound shares station Throughout Texas and national connections 3 Bossier City Limousine (Amtrak Motor coach connection E to thruway) Shreveport/Bossier City LA 3 Lone Star Coaches (Amtrak Motor coach connection S to Houston thruway) Amtrak and Galveston Marshall 0 Greyhound, 6 mi. SW Throughout Texas and national connections McGregor X Mineola X Nacogdoches X Lone Star Coaches (Amtrak Highway stop with no connections thruway) San Antonio 0 Greyhound, 1.5 mi. NW 0 Megabus, 1.5 mi. NW Austin, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, and major US cities 0 Tornado, 6 mi. SW Major Texas cities; points in Mexico 0 Omnibus, 1.4 mi. N Throughout Texas and Mexico 0 Turimex, 1.3 mi. NW Throughout Texas and Mexico San Marcos 3 Greyhound shares station Throughout Texas and national connections 0 Tornado, 0.4 mi. S Major Texas cities; points in Mexico Sanderson X Taylor X (no intercity service at station - Other central Texas cities CARTS bus station 1 mi. west) Temple 2 Greyhound, 600 ft. N Throughout Texas and national connections 3 Arrow Trailways (Amtrak thruway) Motor Coach connection 2/day to Killeen and Fort Hood Proximity of Connections: 3 Good = On-site or adjacent to station 2 Fair = < 600 ft. 1 Poor = 600 - 1320 ft 0 None = >1320 ft. X Not available

Local Transit Connectivity

There are 19 Amtrak rail stations in Texas, and four thru-coach connecting cities. All but three rail stations (Alpine, Gainesville, and Sanderson) have local transit service available, and all have taxi service. One of the coach connecting stations (Fort Hood) has no public transit service, since the coach stop is located on-base.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-122 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

The inventory shown in Table 4-23 identifies availability and proximity for various local transit modes, including which local transit service buses have bike racks. Notes on accessibility deficiencies or quality of connections suggest possible needed improvements. Inclusion of information and contact for local transit providers in Amtrak on-line station information can be helpful as well. Web links to local cities or Chambers of Commerce can be useful, but direct links to transportation service providers may be more helpful to travelers. Availability of local transit information on the “Great American Stations” website (http://www.greatamericanstations.com/) for train passengers is therefore also noted.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-123 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-23 Amtrak Station Connectivity to Local Transit

Transit info. on Transit

Great American Hours of Station Accessibility Notes LRT Taxi Stations Operation Streetcar on buseson R=Racks

Local Bus Local website (Approx.) Commuter Rail Commuter Sidewalks in Alpine X X X 3 X X N/A N/A surrounding area. Sidewalks to Capital Metro bus stops on Capital Metro: adjacent streets and Capital Metro - Y 4:45 AM-1:00 AM to trail system. Austin 0 X X 3 2 R CARTS - N CARTS: CARTS Interurban 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM station 3 mi. E. Shared Bike implementation 2013. Local bus routes more than 1,250 ft. from Beaumont Transit station. Re-routing on Beaumont System: Beaumont X X X 3 0 X 11th St. could serve Transit - N 6:00 AM - 9:30 station. Sidewalks on PM 11th. St 600+ ft. from platform. Station in Cleburne Intermodal Terminal. Cletran Local: Cletran provides 7 AM-8 PM M-F county-wide demand- Cleburne X X X 3 3 X Cletran - Y 9 AM-7 PM Sa; response service, and 3 trips/day to Fort limited stop service to Worth M-F downtown Fort Worth. Sidewalks in surrounding area. CR, LRT, bus share station. Extensive pedestrian walkways; TRE: 5 AM - 11 signed bike routes PM DART, TRE, connect to regional Dallas 3 3 0/3 3 3 R DART LRT: 4:30 & M-Line - Y trail system. M-Line AM-1:00 AM; bus: trolley via bus or LRT. 5AM-1 AM Oak Cliff Streetcar under construction will stop at Union Station. City demand- Demand-response Del Rio response: van service available. Del Rio X X X 3 3 X Transportation M-Sa 6 AM-7 PM, Sidewalks throughout - Y Su 8 AM - 5 PM downtown area.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-124 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Transit info. on Transit

Great American Hours of Station Accessibility Notes LRT Taxi Stations Operation Streetcar on buseson R=Racks

Local Bus Local website (Approx.) Commuter Rail Commuter Local bus stop on site with connection to Sun Metro Union Sun Metro bus: El Paso X X X 3 2 R Sun Metro -Y Plaza Transit 6 AM - 6 PM Terminal 800 ft. SE. Sidewalks throughout area into downtown. Station on-base at Copeland Soldiers Serv. Ctr. Motor Fort Hood X X X 3 X X N/A N/A Coach connection (coach) 2/day to Temple Amtrak station via Killeen. TRE, Fort Worth T local bus and Greyhound on-site share station. DFW TRE:5 AM - 11 Airport shuttle 1.2 mi. Fort Worth T PM; N. Extensive Fort Worth 3 X X 3 3 R & TRE - Y Fort Worth T bus: pedestrian walkways; 5 AM - 11 PM signed bike routes 1,500 - 2,000 ft. N connect to regional trail system. Two Bike Share stations on site. City walking trail begins one blk. S; Gainesville X X X 3 X X N/A N/A sidewalks in downtown area. Greyhound 1.3 mi. N. Service by Lone Star Coaches. Shared facility with museum. Island Transit Transfer Island Transit Ctr. 0.7 mi. SE. Galveston Local bus: X X X* 3 3 R N/A Sidewalks in area. (coach) 6:30 AM - 6:30 Galveston Cruise PM. Terminal 2 blks. N. * Trolley service suspended since 2008 Hurricane Ike damage.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-125 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Transit info. on Transit

Great American Hours of Station Accessibility Notes LRT Taxi Stations Operation Streetcar on buseson R=Racks

Local Bus Local website (Approx.) Commuter Rail Commuter Thru Coach N to Nacogdoches and Houston Metro: Longview, S to LRT M-Th 4:30 Galveston. AM-12 AM; Greyhound shares F-Sa 4:30 AM- Houston station. Bus stop and Houston X 0 X 3 2 R 2:20 AM, METRO - Y bike route 1 blk., Su 4:40 AM-11:40 lighted sidewalk PM access under IH-45 to Bus 6:00 AM- trail system and 12AM downtown. Shared Bike 2000 + ft. SE Thru Coach connection 2/day to Temple Amtrak Killeen The HOP bus: X X X 3 3 R N/A station. The HOP bus (coach) 6:15 AM-6:15 PM center 1 blk. W. Sidewalks in downtown area. Thru Coach S to Nacogdoches, Houston and Longview Transit Galveston, and E to bus: Shreveport/Bossier Longview M-F 6:15 AM-7:15 City, LA. Station Longview X X X 3 3 X Transit - Y PM, shares with Sa 7:15 Am-6:15 Greyhound and PM Longview Transit local bus service. Local sidewalks in area and into downtown to NW. Pedestrian access via tunnel under tracks. GoBus Flex Local sidewalks to Marshall X X X 3 3 X GoBus - Y demand: downtown area. Local M-F 6 AM - 6 PM GoBus flex route bus stop at station.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-126 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Transit info. on Transit

Great American Hours of Station Accessibility Notes LRT Taxi Stations Operation Streetcar on buseson R=Racks

Local Bus Local website (Approx.) Commuter Rail Commuter Heart Of Texas COG Rural Transit District demand-response service within HOT COG Rural McLellan Co. No Transit District McGregor X X X 3 3 X N sidewalk from station demand service: to paved SH 317 M-F 6 AM - 6 PM (800+ ft.), discontinuous sidewalks in central area of town. ETCOG GoBus demand-response bus available. Pedestrian GoBus Flex connection to Mineola X X X 3 3 X N demand: downtown area on M-F 6 AM - 7 PM sidewalks. RR ped. crossing unpaved adjacent to station. The District (Brazos Transit District) provides fixed-route and demand- Nacogdoches response local service X X X 3 0 X N/A N/A (coach) in Nacogdoches city and County. Coach stop is on highway, inaccessible to local bus. Adjacent to VIA Thompson Transit VIA bus: Primo Center. Walkways BRT 4:20 AM - and connections to San Antonio X X 0 3 3 X VIA - Y 12:30 AM. Convention Center, Local bus 4:30 downtown, Hemisfair AM - 10:30 PM Park and Alamodome. Rubber-tired trolley 0.5 mi. W.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-127 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Transit info. on Transit

Great American Hours of Station Accessibility Notes LRT Taxi Stations Operation Streetcar on buseson R=Racks

Local Bus Local website (Approx.) Commuter Rail Commuter Local/Interurban CARTS CARTS bus routes Interurban 4 and Greyhound share trips/day: 8:10- multi-modal station. 10:00 AM, 2:30- San Marcos X X X 3 3 R CARTS - Y Sidewalk connections 4:10 PM Local: 7 to downtown and AM-6 PM; marked/separated on-demand: 7 AM bicycle routes and -4 PM; trails. Stop is adjacent to UP service building. Sanderson X X X X X X N/A N/A Paved streets into central area of town. Local demand- response/Interurban Interurban 3 CARTS bus routes. trips/day: CARTS Interurban 7:00 AM - 2:00 station 1 mi. W at Taylor X X X 3 3 X N PM; 1103 W 2nd St. Local on-demand Sidewalk connections 7:00 AM-4:30 PM to downtown; ped./bicycle trail 0.5 mi. E. Thru Coach connections 2/day to Killeen and Fort Hood. The HOP bus: Local bus stops one Temple X X X 3 3 R The HOP bus - Y 6:15 AM-6:15 PM blk. E. Sidewalk connections discontinuous to downtown area N. 3 Good = On-site or adjacent to station 2 Fair = < 600 ft. Proximity of 1 Poor = 600 - 1320 ft. Connections: 0 None = >1320 ft. X Not available

The descriptions of Amtrak stations in Table 4-14 in Section 4.2.indicate which Amtrak stations currently have intermodal connections. Sixteen of the 19 Texas Amtrak rail stations have local bus or other transit services available; Alpine, Gainesville and Sanderson do not. Three of the four Thruway Motor Coach stations have local bus

Revised 05/12/2014 4-128 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

transit service available. As shown in the schedules given in Figure 4-21 and Figure 4-22 in Section 4.2., Amtrak motor coach arrival and departure schedules are coordinated with the rail schedule to allow for seamless transfer between Amtrak motor coach and passenger rail services.

Existing and proposed commuter, regional, light rail and streetcar/trolley services have very good connectivity with other rail services and transit services, as evident in current and proposed connections between rail and buses in the Capital Metro, Houston METRO, El Paso Sun Metro, Fort Worth T, San Antonio VIA and DART systems, as described in sections 4.4 through 4.6. The development of intermodal stations has helped and will continue to help improve interconnectivity in the state. An inventory of existing and proposed intermodal transit stations is provided in Table 4-24 and Table 4- 25, respectively.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-129 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-24 Existing Intermodal Facilities in Texas

City Terminal Name Transit Providers Served Austin CARTS Central Terminal Capital Metro, CARTS CARTS, Greyhound, Coach USA Bastrop Bastrop CARTS Station (Megabus) Cletran urban bus, City County Cleburne Cleburne Intermodal Terminal Transportation (regional bus), Amtrak Brownsville Metro local bus, Valley Transit, La Plaza at Brownsville El Expreso, Tornado, Líneas Brownsville Multimodal Terminal Panamericanas, Omni-Express, Transpaís and Autobuses Americanos. DART light rail and local bus, TRE Dallas Dallas Union Station commuter rail, Amtrak Dallas DART Downtown East DART, Megabus Del Rio Multimodal Transit Del Rio Transit, Aguila Express Del Rio Center Downtown Denton Transit DCTA local bus and A-Train Denton Center El Paso El Paso Union Plaza Amtrak, Sun Metro local bus Fort Worth Intermodal The T local bus, TRE commuter rail, Fort Worth Transportation Center Amtrak, Greyhound CARTS, Greyhound, Arrow Georgetown Georgetown CARTS Station Trailways Alamo Regional Transit, Coach USA Kerrville Kerrville Intermodal Facility (Megabus) Laredo El Metro Transit El Metro local bus, Greyhound, Tornado, Laredo Center Autobuses Latinos Greyhound, Longview Transit local bus, Longview Historic Longview Train Depot Amtrak Lubbock Downtown Transfer Plaza Citibus local bus, Greyhound Metro McAllen (local bus), Noreste, Líneas Panamericanas, El Expreso, Greyhound/ McAllen Metro McAllen Central Station VTC, Autobuses Americanos, Turimex, Tornado, Autobuses Adame, Transpaís Round Rock Round Rock CARTS Station CARTS, Greyhound, Arrow Trailways CAT (local bus), CARTS, Greyhound, San Marcos San Marcos CARTS Station Amtrak Sherman TAPS Intermodal Terminal Local bus (including TAPS), Greyhound Taylor Taylor CARTS Station CARTS, Greyhound Waco Intermodal Transit Waco Transit, Greyhound Waco Center Wichita Wichita Falls Intermodal Falls Ride, Greyhound, Jefferson Lines Falls Travel Center

Revised 05/12/2014 4-130 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Table 4-25 Planned and Proposed Intermodal Facilities in Texas

Proposed Transit Providers City/Terminal Name to be Served VIA and VIA BRT (2015) San Antonio Westside VIA streetcar Multimodal Transit Center Greyhound (Ph. 1 complete; Ph. 2 begun) Austin-San Antonio Commuter Rail Amtrak Commuter rail Amtrak Freight rail Houston: Northern Intermodal METRORail light rail Facility Intercity bus carriers Local bus Local bus Paris Intercity carriers Tyler Transit, E. Texas Connects Tyler Smith County Regional (rural transit), Greyhound, future Multimodal Facility commuter rail

Abilene – feasibility study TBD conducted

Victoria – feasibility study TBD conducted

Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity

An inventory was made of pedestrian and bicycle connections and facilities at Amtrak locations, and a rating given based on the distance of the connection or facilities from the station. For pedestrian facilities (continuous paved sidewalk connections) only two Amtrak locations have no facilities. The Nacogdoches thru-coach stop is at a service station on a state highway with no sidewalks, and the Sanderson rail station is in an unincorporated town of less than 1,000. Of the other 18 rail stations, 13 have sidewalks at the station and connections to the city or town in which they are located (rating of 3, on-site or adjacent). Two locations have a rating of 2 (less than 600 ft.) and three have a rating of 1 (600-1,250 ft.). The poorer ratings result from the station being on or adjacent to railroad property and having no paved direct connection between the station platform and the local sidewalk network.

Links or information about local bike trails or services on Amtrak station website pages might be helpful to travelers. Notes on deficiencies or quality of connections shown in Table 4-23 above suggest possible needed improvements. One recent development is the availability of shared bike (short-term rental) facilities. Through a pre-approved

Revised 05/12/2014 4-131 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

subscription, members may rent bicycles short-term through rental stations and return them to another bike station in the city. Two rail stations in large cities (Fort Worth, San Antonio) have shared bike stations at the Amtrak station, Houston has bike stations nearby in downtown, and Austin is implementing shared bike in 2013, with the locations not yet determined. Current Amtrak policy allows walk-on and folding bikes on some trains, but none of the Texas routes allow for bikes to be brought onto their trains (checked baggage only). Amtrak is currently working on revising the policy for the Texas routes in an effort to improve bicycle connectivity in this area. Amtrak’s bicycle guidance can be found at http://www.amtrak.com/bring-your-bicycle-onboard.

Pedestrian and bicycle connections and proximity ratings are summarized in Table 4-26.

Table 4-26 Amtrak Station Connectivity to Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Local Bus Bicycle S = Shared Pedestrian Station R = Racks Route or Bike Facilities on buses Trail available (sidewalks or trail) Alpine X X X 3 Austin 2 R 3 S (in 2013) 3 Beaumont 0 0 X 1 Cleburne 3 X X 3 Dallas 3 R 2 X 3 Del Rio 3 X X 3 El Paso 2 R X X 3 Fort Hood* X X X 3 Fort Worth 3 R 0 3 S 3 Gainesville X X X 2 Galveston* 3 R X X 3 Houston 2 R 2 0 S 1 Killeen* 3 R X X 3 Longview 3 0 X 3 Marshall 3 X X 3 McGregor 3 X X 1 Mineola 3 X X 3 Nacogdoches* 0 X X X San Antonio 3 R 0 3 S 3 San Marcos 3 R 3 X 3 Sanderson X X X X Taylor 3 0 X 3 Temple 2 R X X 2 *Thru coach Proximity of Good 3 On-site or adjacent to station stops Connections: Fair 2 < 600 ft. Poor 1 600 - 1250 ft. None 0 >1250 ft. Not available X

Revised 05/12/2014 4-132 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Potential Connectivity Improvements

Short-Term Improvements Inventory of existing connections also suggest proposed improvements needed at stations, either service or capital, to create or strengthen intermodal connectivity. Some cases are simple, such as paving a rail crossing for pedestrians adjacent to the station or extending sidewalks to connect to other modes or to existing sidewalks. Others may be construction of station or intermodal facilities, extension or re-routing of local transit to serve or stop at a rail station, or diversion of routes to meet departing or arriving trains. Some locations include local initiatives to improve connectivity to stations. In Longview, the city and MPO are funding a pedestrian-transit access study, focused on the Amtrak station, to be completed in December 2013. The city has also acquired a parcel adjacent to the station for parking and bus transfer improvements to be done in FY 2014.

A summary of proposed short-term (five years or less) improvements are in Table 4-27.

Table 4-27 Proposed Short-Term Improvements Station Short-Term Improvements Alpine ASDP* design FY 14 Austin Install platform seating Beaumont Sidewalk connection from station to street Re-routing of local bus to meet trains Cleburne None proposed Dallas None proposed Del Rio Sidewalk connection to south El Paso Install platform seating Fort Hood None proposed Fort Worth None proposed Gainesville Pave sidewalk crossing tracks near station Galveston None proposed Houston Pave sidewalk, add lighting from station platform to adjacent sidewalk and street; ASDP* design FY 14 Killeen None proposed Longview Station renovation in progress; ASDP* design FY 14 Marshall Station expansion scheduled; ASDP* design FY 14 McGregor Pave and light street and sidewalk from station to Main St./SH 317; ASDP* design FY 14 Mineola Pave sidewalk crossing tracks near station Nacogdoches None proposed San Antonio None proposed San Marcos None proposed Sanderson Construct paved platform Taylor None proposed Temple None proposed * Accessible Station Development Plan, Amtrak’s ADA compliance capital improvement program.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-133 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Long-Term Improvements Long-term improvements (more than five years out) are intended to bring the safety, functionality or convenience for passengers in line with Amtrak station planning guidelines, or which improve the connectivity of the station with the surrounding area. These are higher-value or durable improvements requiring longer lead times for programming, design, funding and implementation.

Table 4-28 below lists proposed long-term improvements at rail stations.

Table 4-28 Proposed Long-Term Improvements Station Long-Term Improvements Alpine Improve platform, add shelter Austin None proposed Beaumont None proposed Cleburne None proposed Dallas None proposed Del Rio Improve platform El Paso None proposed Fort Hood None proposed Fort Worth None proposed Gainesville None proposed Galveston None proposed Houston Construction of new North Intermodal Center Killeen None proposed Longview None proposed Marshall Increase platform length and height McGregor Improve platform, add shelter; pave parking Mineola Improve platform, add shelter Nacogdoches None proposed San Antonio Station may relocate to West Side Multimodal Ctr. San Marcos None proposed Sanderson Add shelter and lighting Taylor Improve platform, add shelter Temple None proposed

Revised 05/12/2014 4-134 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Connectivity in Major Urban Areas

Austin

Austin’s Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CMTA) connects Austin to the surrounding towns of Lago Vista, Leander, Cedar Park, Georgetown, Round Rock, Pflugerville, and Del Valle via approximately 50 different bus routes and 8 Express bus routes. It also connects Leander to downtown Austin via CMTA’s 32 mile, 9-stop MetroRail commuter rail service known as the Red Line as shown in the system map.

MetroBus routes connect to MetroRail at the Downtown Station, the MLK Station, and the Kramer Station.

The downtown station is within a 1 to 3 block walk of connecting to approximately 21 different MetroBus routes. At the MLK station, one MetroBus route traverses around the State Capitol Building complex, while another traverses around the University of Texas Campus. At the Kramer Station, Congress Avenue, the MetroBus route connects MetroRail to the Domain (a retail, restaurant, theater, and dense residential center), Austin Community College’s Northridge Campus, and University of Texas’ Pickle Research Center. Figure 4-69 shows the CMTA Red Line and its stations.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-135 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-69: CMTA Red Line

CMTA’s bus circulation route shows that approximately ½ of the bus routes penetrate downtown Austin, and approximately 1/6th of the bus routes are within 4 to 5 block proximity of Austin’s Amtrak Station. MetroRail’s downtown station stop is approximately 1 ¼ miles east of the Amtrak Station. Concurrently, CMTA also operates a bus service that provides circulation around the University of Texas’ campus and surrounding area.

Currently, CMTA is in the process of constructing a BRT line, named MetroRapid. Construction for Phase 1 – North Lamar to South Congress via Route 801 began in 2012 and is anticipated to be operational in late 2013. Phase 2 stations – for Route 803, Burnet to South Lamar, are also under construction and should be operational in 2014.

Route 803 will provide direct connectivity to Seaholm Station, which is adjacent to Austin’s Amtrak Station. The overall transit plan for Central Texas is shown in Figure 4- 70.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-136 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-70: Project Connect – Central Texas Transit Plan

Austin is also served by MegaBus operations, with direct routes to San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas. The MegaBus facility is located adjacent to the University of Texas campus near Martin Luther King Boulevard and Guadalupe Street, which is also on the CMTA MetroBus route that connects to the MetroRail line at the MLK Station.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-137 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Greyhound also serves Austin, with a terminal located north of the downtown area west of IH-35 and north of US 290, approximately 1 mile east of MetroRail’s Highland station.

Currently, two direct bus routes serve Austin’s Bergstrom International Airport (ABIA). One provides direct connectivity from downtown Austin, while the other provides service from CMTA’s North Lamar Transit Center in north Austin.

Dallas / Fort Worth

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) serves 13 cities around the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex with rail and bus routes. In addition to Dallas, the cities served by DART are Addison, Carrollton, Cockrell Hills, Farmers Branch, Garland, Glenn Heights, Highland Park, Irving, Plano, Richardson, Rowlett, and University Park. Via the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) DART also serves DFW International Airport and downtown Fort Worth.

The Trinity Railway Express (TRE) connects Fort Worth, Richland Hills, Arlington (at CentrePoint Station only), Irving, and the Dallas Medical Center area to Dallas at Amtrak’s Union Station. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Red, Blue, Green, and Orange LRT lines connect the outlying areas of Dallas to Union Station. The TRE and its stations are shown in Figure 4-71, and the downtown Dallas LRT stations in Figure 4- 72.

DART’s Red Line serves Plano, Richardson, Addison, University Park and Highland Park to the north of Union Station, and the Convention Center, the Dallas Zoo, and Westmoreland to the south and southwest of downtown Dallas.

DART’s Blue Line serves Garland and Rowlett to the north and northeast of Union Station, while reaching the Veteran’s Administration Hospital to the southeast.

To the east and southeast of Union Station, DART’s Green Line serves Fair Park, site of the annual Texas State Fair and the Cotton Bowl, and Buckner Station near Balch Springs. To the north and northwest of Union Station, the Green Line reaches Dallas Love Field, and serves Highland Park, University Park, Farmers Branch and Carrollton. At the North Carrollton station the Green Line has a connection with Denton County Transit Authority’s (DCTA) A-Train, which connects Carrollton to Denton.

DART’s Orange Line connects Union Station to Irving to the east, where, at the Orange Line’s Belt Line Station a connection to the future Cotton Belt Commuter Rail Project is planned which would provide passenger rail service to the north end of DFW International Airport. The Orange Line then traverses to the north of Union Station paralleling the Red Line, but terminating near I-635, except for weekday rush hour only trips to Plano.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-138 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-71: Trinity Railway Express Connections to DART

An extensive bus network connects the cities not reached by LRT lines and/or the TRE to either Dallas itself, or connections to the LRT network. Incidentally, the City of Arlington is not a participant in DART’s network as the residents in 3 separate ballots rejected to dedicate portions of its sales tax revenue to either DART or the Fort Worth “T” (Fort Worth’s transportation network), which would have amounted to an approximate $75M annual investment ($50M DART, $25M The T).

In August, 2013, funding from the City of Arlington, UT – Arlington, DART, The T, and local businesses started a bus service named Metro Arlington Express (MAX) that connects the University of Texas – Arlington campus to TRE’s CentrePoint Station. MAX is planned on being a 2-year (until 2015) experiment and will only be continued if approved by voters in an upcoming ballot.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-139 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-72: Dallas Central Business District Rail Stations Map

Dallas is also served by MegaBus with two locations, one in downtown Dallas, and the other in Grand Prairie. The MegaBus downtown arrival/departure location is at the East Transfer Center, with connectivity to DART’s Red, Blue, Green, and Orange lines, and proximity to Union Station. The Grand Prairie site is located at 710 Davis Street, and is not in proximity to any DART or TRE stations.

Greyhound Bus’ Dallas Terminal is located at Lamar and Congress, just south of DART’s West Transfer Station and northeast of Union Station.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-140 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

El Paso

There are no regional commuter and/or transit rail networks in El Paso and the surrounding area; however El Paso’s Sun Metro transit agency services the region with nearly 50 bus routes in addition to two downtown circulator routes and 12 express routes. There are 27 bus routes connecting the region to the Downtown Transit Center, including the downtown circulator routes which access Amtrak’s Union Depot. The downtown routes and transit facilities are shown in Figure 4-73.

Figure 4-73: Sun Metro Route Map

In addition, Sun Metro is currently constructing a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) like route along Mesa Street. The Rapid Transit System (RTS), as it is referenced by Sun Metro, is named Brio, and will connect the Downtown Transit Center to the Westside Transit Center (Figure 4-74). It is anticipated to begin operations in July, 2014. Upon completion of the Mesa Corridor RTS, Sun Metro will begin construction of the Alameda Corridor in the spring of 2014 with anticipated operations in spring, 2015. Additionally, Sun Metro plans on a third and fourth RTS corridor along Dyer Street and Montana Street, tentatively scheduled to be operational in 2016 and 2017 respectively.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-141 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-74: Proposed Brio BRT Route Overview

Revised 05/12/2014 4-142 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Houston

The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) operates both a bus and light rail network within Houston and the surrounding 14 municipalities. METRO’s bus network is rather expansive, with Park & Ride facilities located throughout the region.

METRO’s LRT Main Street line’s northern terminus is approximately ½ mile east of Houston Amtrak Station. The northernmost terminus of this 16-station LRT route is at the University of Houston’s Downtown Campus. The route then traverses south, down Main Street, to the Downtown Transit Center (next to Houston METRO’s main office at 19th and Main Street) where it connects to bus service, then continues south to the southernmost location just south of Reliant Stadium at the Fannin Park and Ride. The Houston Downtown/Midtown transit routes and facilities are shown in Figure 4-75.

Figure 4-75: Houston Metro Downtown/Midtown Bus & LRT Route Overview

Revised 05/12/2014 4-143 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Houston Metro has a system of commuter buses that connect the outlying communities to downtown Houston and the Main Street LRT at the Fannin South Station, Wheeler Station, the Downtown Transit Center, the University of Houston Downtown Campus, and the Magnolia Transit, which is also the eastern terminus of the current LRT route under construction from Magnolia Transit Center to Downtown predominantly via a route along Harrisburg Boulevard. This LRT segment is scheduled to be open in 2015. An expansive downtown bus circulation network parallels the Main Street LRT line on adjacent N/S streets on both the East and West sides of the LRT line, with over 10 E/W bus routes crossing the LRT line .

Metro bus routes connect to Houston’s Amtrak Station, as do Greyhound service and Thruway Motorcoach (providing bus service to Houston’s Amtrak Station from Galveston).

Houston is served by MegaBus. The MegaBus arrival/departure location is near IH-45 and Fannin Street, approximately one block south of METRO’s Main Street LRT station stop at St. Joseph Street. Connectivity from the MegaBus location to the Amtrak Station could be made via the LRT line to the UH-Downtown station location.

Although regional planners continue to propose commuter rail opportunities in the Houston region, to date there are no commuter rail lines in operation.

San Antonio

San Antonio’s VIA Metropolitan Transit connects the surrounding areas to San Antonio with over 90 bus routes, which includes six express bus routes into downtown from all parts of San Antonio. A transit circulator in downtown San Antonio operates along four streetcar routes that cover most of the downtown area, including popular tourist stops. The streetcars are rubber-tired vehicles designed to look like turn-of-the-20th-century trolleys. Amtrak’s historic San Antonio Sunset Station can be accessed from downtown via one of these routes.

VIA also operates Primo, a BRT service. The VIA Primo route travels primarily along Fredericksburg Road and Medical Drive connecting the University of Texas at San Antonio campus to the South Texas Medical Center and downtown San Antonio at the Robert Thompson Transit Center. The Robert Thompson Transit Center is adjacent to the Alamodome and Amtrak’s Sunset Station. The Primo route and stations are shown in Figure 4-76.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-144 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-76: Primo BRT Route Overview

San Antonio is served by MegaBus operations with direct routes to Houston, Austin, and Dallas. The MegaBus facility is located downtown, approximately 8/10 of a mile from Sunset Station, and 3/10 of mile from the Greyhound Station.

San Antonio’s Greyhound station is located on North St. Mary’s Street, approximately one linear mile NW from Sunset Station.

Currently, San Antonio’s VIA is advancing a new streetcar network for downtown San Antonio, with the preferred route announced on September 10, 2013 (Figure 4-77). This streetcar alignment would provide connectivity near Sunset Station, as well as the proposed L-STAR Austin to San Antonio commuter rail station stop at the Westside Multimodal Transit Center. VIA has $210 million in federal, state and city funds as well as its sales tax revenue to build the system. The agency would have to pursue more state and federal dollars to make up for a minimum $70 million shortfall. The project is scheduled to begin operation in late 2017.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-145 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

Figure 4-77: “Preferred” VIA Streetcar Route

Revised 05/12/2014 4-146 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

4.9 – Safety Oversight

Regardless of the passenger rail system previously reviewed, safety is always paramount in providing or establishing passenger rail service. All freight railroads adhere to this same philosophy for their respective operations.

Federal regulations regarding safety planning for passenger rail systems exist from two different agencies, both part of the USDOT. The applicability of these regulations depends on the operating environment in which the passenger system operates. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for safety on high-speed intercity passenger rail and commuter rail systems, as well as any passenger system operating over the freight rail network. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is responsible for all other passenger rail systems, which include light rail, streetcar, and trolley.

Details of TxDOT’s role in overseeing and coordinating the safety programs of the various passenger rail system within Texas are included in Chapter 5.

4.10 – Summary

Passenger rail service can be categorized as high speed, intercity, commuter, light rail, trolley, streetcar and tourism rail. While definitions vary, high speed is generally considered to be greater than 110 mph on a dedicated track. Intercity is service that is not primarily used for commuter service and operates at speeds slower than high speed. Commuter service primarily serves commuters on daily trips between suburban and urban areas and may run on freight corridors. Light rail generally serves commuters but is typically operated within urban areas on dedicated corridors with specialized equipment and is usually electrified. Tourism rail typically serves sightseeing or entertainment purposes. Trolleys & streetcars provide short-trip urban circulation, are usually electric-powered, and operate with vehicle traffic in city streets and roadways.

Texas currently does not have high-speed rail service, and though an attempt in the 1990’s to start HSR service failed to reach implementation, interest in offering an alternative to air and auto has continued and grown. Higher speeds, more advanced systems, longer distances, and more passenger amenities differentiate HSR from current Amtrak and intercity passenger rail. The addition of HSR service in Texas would expand travel options. The rail planning process must include how to incorporate HSR into the state’s transportation network and the role of private and public entities in bringing HSR to Texas.

In Texas, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Inc. (Amtrak) is the sole provider of IPR service. It serves most of the state’s major urban areas. Two long distance trains are fully funded by Amtrak: the Texas Eagle (San Antonio to Chicago) and the Sunset Limited (Los Angeles to New Orleans). There is also one corridor train, defined as a route less than 750 miles, in Texas. The Heartland Flyer provides a daily round trip between Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Fort Worth, Texas. This route is subsidized by TxDOT in equal partnership with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-147 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

While Amtrak’s annual ridership in Texas was more than 320,000 in FY 09, it remains a small component of the Texas intercity transportation network. Despite sizable gains in the state’s employment and population base, Amtrak has experienced only moderate growth in its Texas ridership. This indicates that competing modes (i.e., air carriers and motor vehicles) are capturing most of the increases in total demand for intercity travel in Texas. One of the purposes of the TRP is to identify what improvements or changes could be made in Texas for intercity passenger rail to better compete with other modes. Some of those improvements may include additional routes and frequencies and/or improved connections with local rail and bus transit.

Local transit systems are also critical to the success of a statewide passenger rail system. The system must facilitate the entire trip to meet the expectations of the users. Local transit can be broken down into many different types of facilities and services. Those include commuter rail, light rail, trolley, streetcar, and local bus services, which could include normal route service, express bus service, and bus rapid transit (BRT). Many of the largest cities in Texas have studied the need to have intermodal transfer facilities, such as the existing Fort Worth ITC, where riders could move from one service to the other. The use of these facilities for intercity and high speed rail could provide for the necessary local connections. Working with local planners will help facilitate this discussion and lead to the optimization of the location of these facilities to best serve the users.

For Texas to further develop a statewide passenger rail system, studies of corridors determined to have the highest ridership potential must be conducted. Corridor studies would include public outreach and consider all speeds and types of service. Some portions of the corridors could have multiple service types to best serve specific travel demands. There are also other considerations when a service is envisioned to share track with an existing freight line such as safety, liability, capacity, and increased maintenance costs. UP and BNSF, in conjunction with the Association of American Railroads (AAR), have adopted principles addressing use of their freight network for passenger rail purposes.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-148 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

References & Citations

1 Charles River Associates, Inc., “Independent Ridership and Passenger Revenue Projections for the Texas TGV Corporation Higher speed Rail System in Texas,” September 1993. Rail ridership forecast based on scenario that encompasses broadest range of high-speed rail service options (e.g., connecting services to airlines at DFW International Airport and stops in university cities, Waco and Bryan-College Station. 2 This conclusion is based on Amtrak’s own experience with introducing high-speed passenger rail services in other densely populated parts of the country such as the Northeast Corridor. Even moderate improvements, such as the introduction of the Acela Regional (this included electrification and the refurbishment of rolling stock prior to the introduction of the Acela Express which uses new rolling stock on the same route) between New York and Boston resulted in dramatic ridership gains. The Acela Regional recorded a 55% jump in ridership in February 2000 compared to the figures posted by the non-improved Northeast Direct service in February 1999. 3 Sperry, Benjamin R. and Morgan, Curtis A. Measuring the Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail: A Study of the Heartland Flyer Corridor, Texas Transportation Institute Report 169116-1, April 2010. 4 North Central Texas Council of Governments, Census 2010 Data, http://www.nctcog.org/ris/census/2010/reports.asp, Accessed June 2012. 5 Amtrak September 2011 Monthly Performance Report, http://www.amtrak.com/. 6 Amtrak Government Affairs, November 2007. 7 Interview with Amtrak official and General Accounting Office, “Intercity Passenger Rail: Outlook for Improving Amtrak’s Financial Health,” March 1998. 8 Mattingly, et al. Examining Use of Public Rights-of-Way for High-Speed Passenger Rail and Freight Transportation. Report No. 0-6698. Texas Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, August 2013. 9 Instead of using number of cities of a certain size along travel corridor, TTI used the CBSA because of the availability of data. 10 Morgan, C. A. (2009). Potential Development of an Intercity Passenger Transit System in Texas. Texas Department of Transportation, Texas Transportation Institute. 11 Austin to Houston Passenger Rail Study. Rep. Texas Department of Transportation, Dec. 2011. Web. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/rail/austin_houston_final.pdf. 12 Texas Transportation Code, http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.171.htm, Accessed June 21, 2012. 13 Texas Transportation Code, Title 5, Railroads, Subtitle I, Special Districts, Chapter 171, Freight Rail Districts, http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.171.htm, Accessed June 23, 2012. 14 http://www.gcfrd.org/default.htm, Accessed June 24, 2012. 15 Texas Transportation Institute, 2011 Urban Mobility Report. 16 Bill Farquhar, TRE chief operating officer, June 2012. 17 Trinity Railway Express webpage. http://www.trinityrailwayexpress.org/traininfo.html, accessed March 2010. 18 TRE 2013 updated information provided by email correspondence from Tom Neville, DART Senior Manager – Railroad Management, including information provided by Norma de la Garza-Navarro, DART VP- Commuter Rail/Railroad Management, and Kay Shelton, DART General Planning Consultant Project Manager, August 20, 2013.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-149 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

19 Bill Farquhar, TRE chief operating officer, June 2012. 20 Bill Farquhar, TRE chief operating officer, June 2012. 21 http://www.dart.org/about/dartfacts.asp, accessed June 25, 2013. 22 Bill Farquhar, TRE chief operating officer, June 2012. 23 Norma delaGarza-Navarro, DART vice president for commuter rail, June 2012. 24 Ibid. 25 Email correspondence from Norma de la Garza, August 20, 2013. 26 www.ridethemax.com/#!faqs/c21vo, Accessed August 20, 2013. 27 http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/08/17/5088638/a-lots-riding-on-max-arlington.html , Accessed August 20, 2013. 28 Report can be viewed at www.nctcog.org/trans/transit/planning/rrcs/. 29 DCTA Long Range Service Plan Executive Report, http://www.dcta.net/images/stories/pdfs/resources/dcta_fin_executive_report.pdf, Accessed June 2012. 30 Email communications with Kristina Brevard, DCTA VP – Marketing & Communications, July 25, 2013. 31 Joint Media Release, DCTA & Stadler US Inc., “Denton County Transportation Authority and Stadler Rail Group Achieve Industry First: Federal Railroad Administration Approves First Integrated Use of Stadler GTW Rail Vehicle for Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA), Dallas, Texas, June 4, 2012. 32 Dee Leggett, vice president of planning and communications, DCTA, June 2012. 33 Email communications with Kristina Brevard, DCTA VP – Marketing & Communications, July 25, 2013. 34 Ibid. 35 Ridership Numbers for Capital Metro Red Line from Jennifer Govea, Capital Metro Planning, June 2012. 36 Todd Hemingson, Capital Metro Planning, July 2013. 37 Mobility 2035 – 2013 Update information provided by email correspondence from Kevin Feldt, NCTCOG Program Manager for Streamlined Project Delivery, including information provided by Chad Edwards, Senior Program Manager, and Tom Shelton, Senior Program Manager for Streamlined Project Delivery, August 1, 2013. 38 Ibid. 39 Email correspondence from Rob Harmon, Chief Financial Officer, Fort Worth Transportation Authority, June 26, 2013. 40 TEXRail Environmental Impact Statement/Preliminary Engineering Southwest-to-Northeast Rail Corridor http://www.texrail.com/faq.aspsw2nerail.com/default.asp. 41 Email correspondence from Rob Harmon, Chief Financial Officer, Fort Worth Transportation Authority, August 19, 2013. 42 Fact Sheet: Expanding Passenger Rail Through Innovation, NCTCOG, September 2011. 43 Conversation with Tom Shelton, NCTCOG Transportation Department, August 17, 2012. 44 Email correspondence from Stephen L. Salin, DART VP – Rail Planning Growth and Regional Development, July 2, 2013. 45 North Central Texas Council of Governments, Frisco Corridor: Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study, May 2010.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-150 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

46 North Central Texas Council of Governments, Frisco Corridor: Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study, May 2010. 47 North Central Texas Council of Governments, McKinney Corridor: Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study, May 2010. 48 North Central Texas Council of Governments, Waxahachie Corridor: Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study, November 2010. 49 North Central Texas Council of Governments, McKinney Corridor: Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study, May 2010. 50 Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study, Houston-Galveston Area Council, September 2008. 51 Klotz Associates, Inc. and TranSystems Corporation, Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail for Gulf Coast Rail District, February 2012. 52 Presentation by Gulf Coast Rail District Board Member Nancy Edmonson before Transportation Policy Council for the Houston-Galveston Transportation Management Area, June 22, 2012. 53 Klotz Associates, Inc. and TranSystems Corporation, Executive Summary: Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail for Gulf Coast Rail District, February 2012. 54 http://www.ridemetro.org/CurrentProjects/90A-Southwest_RailCorridor.aspx , Accessed July, 2013.21, 2012. 55 http://www.ridemetro.org/AboutUs/Board/working_meetings/2012/Presentations/052412/Capital/Presentatio n-US-90A.pdf, Accessed June 21, 2012. 56 http://ridemetro.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=366 , Accessed June 21, 2012. 57 http://www.ridemetro.org/AboutUs/Board/working_meetings/2012/Presentations/052412/Capital/Presentatio n-US-90A.pdf, Accessed June 21, 2012. 58 The Goodman Corporation, Results Summary for the Galveston-Houston Mobility Corridor Alternatives Analysis for the City of Galveston, June 2010. 59 DART, http://www.dart.org/about/expansion/otherprojects.asp, Accessed August 14, 2013. 60 DART, http://www.dart.org/about/dartfacts.asp, Accessed June 25, 2013. 61 “A Ridership Milestone: DART marks 250,000,000 light rail passenger trips Monday,” June 4, 2012, DART. Accessed at dart.org/news/news.asp?ID=1016. 62 http://www.dart.org/ShareRoot/images/newsroom/jpgs/currentandfutureservicesmar13.jpg, Accessed August 19, 2013. 63 DART Reference Book – Version 2.0, March 2011. Accessed at http://www.dart.org/about/dartreferencebookmar11.pdf June 2012. 64 DART, http://www.dart.org/about/dartfacts.asp, Accessed June 25, 2013. 65 http//dart.org/factsheet/slrv/default.asp Accessed August 27, 2012. 66 DART Reference Book – Version 2.0, March 2011. 67 FY 1996-2010 – National Transit Database, Table: TS2.1 TimeSeriesOpExpSveMode TOS. Accessed at www.ntdprogram.gov/ntd program/data.htm, June 2012; FY 2011 – DART. Accessed at http://www.dart.org/news/dartrailhistory.asp, June 2012; FY 2012 - DART – http://www.dart.org/about/dartfacts.asp, Accessed June 25, 2013.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-151 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

68 Email correspondence with Stephen L. Salin, DART VP – Rail Planning Growth and Regional Development, July 2, 2013. 69 http://dart.org/about/expansion/downtowndallas.asp. Accessed June 2012. 70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 http://www.ridemetro.org/FinancialAuditInformation/Pdfs/2011/2011_NTD_Annual_Report.pdf , Accessed June 21, 2012. 75 Vincent Sanders, Lead Transportation Systems Planner, Trvael Demand Forecasting & Analysis, Service Design & Development, July 2013. 76 http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Documents/pdfs/Ridership%20Reports/2012/0412_Ridership_Report_FY12. pdf, Accessed June 21, 2012. 77 http://www.h- gac.com/NR/rdonlyres/emebl62ciaiew35cafaduivwtei3lgl2x74puovjmrj5ccb6c7b56k6rwqcxqr6sdiuu3j5hntz6 3dhut45kzty6oha/2025+rtp+exec , Accessed, May 2007. 78 http://www.ridemetro.org/FinancialAuditInformation/Pdfs/Budgets/FY2012-Business-Plan-Budget- 092911.pdf , Accessed June 21, 2012. 79 http://ridemetro.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=375, Accessed June 21, 2012 80 http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/TX_Houston_Southeast_Corridor_LRT_complete_profile.pdf, Accessed June 24, 2012. 81 Vincent Sanders, Lead Transportation Systems Planner, Travel Demand Forecasting & Analysis, Service Design & Development, July 2013 82 http://www.ridemetro.org/CurrentProjects/pdfs/North-Line-Financial-Plan_Appendicies/Appendix-D.pdf, Accessed June 24, 2012. 83 Kyle Keahey, Urban Rail Lead, July 2013. 84 www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/vintagetrolley.htm. Accessed August 23, 2012. 85 http://www.islandtransit.net/main.htm. Accessed June 22, 2012 86 Section 5309 New Starts Funding (2008). 87 Conversation with David Smith, Fleet Manager, City of Galveston, June 2012) 88 McKinney Avenue Transit Authority http://www.mata.org 89 “McKinney Avenue Trolley: Ask a Motorman,” Accessed at http://mckinney-avenue-trolley.tumblr.com/ on August 21, 2013. 90 http://www.mata.org/, Accessed August 21, 2013. 91 Email correspondence from Jay Kline, DART AVP – Systems Planning and Streetcar Program Manager, June 26, 2013. 92 Conversation with Jay Kline, AVP – Systems Planning & Streetcar Program Manager, DART, August 27, 2012.

Revised 05/12/2014 4-152 CHAPTER FOUR – PASSENGER RAIL

93 http://www.dart.org/about/expansion/dallasstreetcar.asp. Accessed June 2012. 94 DART New Release, March 11, 2013, Accessed at www.dart.org/news/news.asp?ID=1055 on August 21, 2013. 95 VIA Metropolitan Transit Short Term Capital Program, 2012. 96 Telephone conversation with Brian Buchanan, VIA Chief Development Officer, June 22, 2012; VIA Public Meeting and Open House, Streetcar Exhibits, September 18, 2013. 97 VIA Metropolitan Transit Short Term Capital Program, 2012. 98 Conversation with Jesse Balleza, VIA Vice President, Strategic Planning & Project Development on May 13, 2014. 99 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and HNTB Corporation, El Paso Rail Transit Study for Texas Department of Transportation, November 2010 100 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and HNTB Corporation, El Paso Rail Transit Study for Texas Department of Transportation, November 2010. 101 Email correspondence with Yvette M. Hernandez, City of El Paso, Project Manager, July 2, 2013. 102 Email correspondence with Yvette M. Hernandez, City of El Paso, Project Manager, July 1, 2013. 103 Email correspondence with Yvette M. Hernandez, City of El Paso, Project Manager, July 2, 2013. 104 City of El Paso, Texas, Agenda Item, Department Head’s Summary form, May 15, 2012, Accessed at http://www.elpasotexas.gov/muni_clerk/agenda/05-15-12/05151210.pdf on August 21, 2013. 105 Email correspondence with Yvette M. Hernandez, City of El Paso, Project Manager, July 2, 2013. 106 http://www.texasstaterr.com/schedule.php, accessed June 22, 2012 and May 6, 2014, and telephone call to Reservations 1-888-987-2461 on June 23, 2012 107 House Bill 3113 Analysis: http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/pdf/ba80r/hb3113.pdf 108 http://www.texasstaterr.com/press.php, Accessed March 31, 2010. 109 Newsletter of the Austin Steam Train Association, Winter 2012, No. 68. http://www.austinsteamtrain.org/pdfs/Call%20Board/winter12cb.pdf. 110 http://www.austinsteamtrain.org/railroad.html, Accessed March 31, 2010. 111 http://www.watcocompanies.com/Railroads/AWRR/AWRR%20main%20page.htm Accessed March 2010. 112 Email communication with Paul McCallum, Executive Director of Grapevine Convention and Visitors Bureau. 113 https://www.grapevinetexasusa.com/ThingsToDo/GrapevineVintageRailroad/DirectionsSchedule/tabid/273/ Default.aspx 114 http://www.txtransportationmuseum.org/LW.htm

Revised 05/12/2014 4-153