High-Speed Transportation Opportunities Greater Dallas Planning Council
September 12, 2019
Kevin Feldt North Central Texas Council of Governments
1 High-Speed Rail Recommendations High Speed Rail
2 DFW High-Speed Rail Projects High Speed Rail
DFW High-Speed Transportation Connection Study NCTCOG
Dallas to Houston Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Rail Project High-Speed Transportation Study Texas Central Railway (TCR) NCTCOG
3 We Are Here
4 February 11, 2018 Dallas
Dallas to Houston Bryan/College Station/Huntsville
Houston FRA Preferred Alignment Potential Stations 5 Current TCR Activity Highlights • Building the Project Every Day • Working with Design/Build Partner • Preparing for Construction Activity • Petition for Rulemaking Granted by FRA • Rule of Particular Applicability Source: Texas Central Railway • Final Rule Expected in 2020 • Environmental Impact Statement • Record of Decision Expected 1Q 2020
6 Other Activities • Perkins + Will Study for Dallas • Lot E Feasibility
• No Fatal Flaw
7 Source: Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam Dallas Station
Lot E
Source: Texas Central Railway 8 Fort Worth to Laredo
9 Fort Worth to Laredo
• Generally Parallels IH 35 • Fort Worth • Waco • Temple • Killeen • Austin • San Antonio • Laredo* • Investigate High-Speed Transportation (HST) Options • Corridors • Technology • Modes of Travel
*In Laredo, the end point/station location will be studied as to not 10 preclude extending an alignment to Monterrey, Mexico Project Background
2017 2019 2020 Future
Previous Study Current Study Future Study TOPRS ROD and FEIS Bridge – Previous to Future Further Corridor Tier 1 NEPA Study Evaluation Tier 2 NEPA Study
11 Project Purpose • “Bridge” to Tier 2 Environmental Study • Investigate High-Speed
Transportation (HST) Options Fort Worth
• Corridors Waco • Technology Killeen-Temple • Modes of Travel Austin San Antonio
Laredo
12 TOPRS Tier 1 Corridor Analysis
13 Technologies/Modes Analyzed
High-Speed & Hyperloop Maglev Higher-Speed Trains
Regional Rail Guaranteed Transit
14 City Pairs Analyzed
Study Corridor Fort Worth Waco Killeen-Temple Austin San Laredo Antonio
Fort Worth – Laredo: All Stops Fort Worth Waco Killeen-Temple Austin San Laredo Antonio Fort Worth – Austin – San Antonio – Laredo Fort Worth Austin San Laredo Antonio
Fort Worth – Austin – Laredo Fort Worth Austin Laredo
Fort Worth – Laredo Fort Worth Laredo
15 Project Schedule
Stakeholder Coordination
March April May June July August
Review Technology & Design Criteria Corridor Development Review Previous Studies
August September October November December January
Corridor Development Final Report
16 Fort Worth to Dallas
17 Fort Worth to Dallas High-Speed Transportation Study • Previous Efforts • TxDOT • DFW Core Express Service • NCTCOG • Station Area Studies • Corridor Analysis • New Project Next Steps • Complete Agreements with FRA and FTA • Complete Scope of Work • Publish RFP – October? • Hire Consultant • Notice to Proceed – February?
Source: Hua Yang 18 DFW Core Express Service Alternatives Analysis
Irving
Grand Prairie Downtown Dallas Downtown Arlington Fort Worth
19 19 Potential Arlington Station and Alignment Options
20 Potential Fort Worth Station and Alignment Options
21 Alignment Corridors Analyzed by NCTCOG
Proposed Texas Central HSR Alignment Corridors Analyzed 22 22 New Project Scope of Work
Phase 1 – Alternative Development
• Public & Agency Involvement Includes a technology forum
NEPA • Alternative Development Includes alignments & technology -
• Alternative Screening Pre • Conceptual Engineering
Phase 2 – Engineering & Environmental
• NEPA Documentation & Record of Decision
NEPA • Preliminary Engineering • Financial & Project Management Plans
23 Source: AECOM Technology
Source: AECOM 24 Two Primary Technologies
Characteristic High-Speed Rail Hyperloop Top Speed ~220 mph ~700 mph Headway 30 minutes 2 minutes Station Spacing 250 miles 250 miles Person Capacity 2,400/hour/direction1 16,000/hour/direction2 Operation Scheduled Service On Demand Access Multiple Stops Point to Point Cost ~$60m/mile ??? Freight No Yes
Notes: 1 Estimate based on NCTCOG calculations combining stated headway and train set capacity from TCR 2 Estimate from Virgin Hyperloop One
25 What is Hyperloop? • New Mode of Transportation • Moving Passengers and Freight • Near-Vacuum Tube • Electric Propulsion • Autonomous Pod Levitates Above the Track • Glides Over Long Distances
Cargo pod
26 Source: Virgin Hyperloop One Passenger pod Virgin Hyperloop One (VHO) • VHO One of Several Firms • Several Meetings With Staff • Hyperloop On The Hill Event • Nevada Test Track • Passenger Pod Tour • Certification Center • Research and Development
Source: Kevin Feldt 27 Nevada Test Track
28 Source: Kevin Feldt Passenger Pod Tour
Source: Kevin Feldt
Source: NCTCOG 29 VHO Certification Center Phasing and Timing
Phase Timing Length of Track 1.5 km (straight) A 18 months (0.9 mi) 3 to 5 km B 9 months (1.9 to 3.1 mi) C 9 Months 0 6 to 8 km D 9 Months (3.7 to 5.0 mi)
30 Hyperloop Design Parameters ✓Need For Service/Access Road Along The Guideway ✓Vacuum Buildings Every 5 Miles X Design Elements XMaximum Vertical Grade XMinimum Horizontal Curve
31 747 In-flight Turn Radius Calculate the radius of the turn using this formula, slightly modified from Wikipedia to give nmi instead of feet: velocity2 Radius of turn in nautical miles = 68579 x tan(bank) Which gives us: 4902 7.51 nmi = 68579 x tan(25°)
So the turn itself would be about 15 nautical miles wide (≈ 91,000 feet) not accounting for wind.
Source: Wikipedia 32 Typical Section DRAFT
Vertical Clearance* 4 m 13.1 ft
Tube 5 m 16.4 ft
* Horizontal and vertical clearances allow for the area needed to construct, operate and maintain the 10 to 10.6 m guideway and supporting facilities. 32.9 to 34.9 ft ** Minimum vertical clearance over roadways is 5 m Vertical or 16.5 ft. Vertical clearance of 5.6 m or 18.5 ft would be required over interstate highways and other Clearance roadway corridors designated for freight. Vertical Over clearance over passenger or freight railroads would be Roadway** 7 m or 23 ft. 5 to 5.6 m 16.5 to 18.5 ft
Horizontal Horizontal Clearance* Tube Clearance* 4 m 5 m 4 m 13.1 ft 16.4 ft 13.1 ft 13 m 33 42.7 ft Typical Section DRAFT
Vertical Clearance* 4 m 1 m 13.1 ft 3.3 ft 9 m 29.5 ft Tub e5 m 16.4 ft * Horizontal and vertical clearances allow for the area needed to construct, operate and maintain the guideway and supporting facilities. ** Minimum vertical clearance over roadways is 5 m or 16.5 ft. Vertical clearance of 5.6 m or 18.5 ft would be required over interstate Vertical highways and other roadway corridors Clearance designated for freight. Vertical clearance over Over passenger or freight railroads would be 7 m or Roadway** 23 ft. 5 to 5.6 m 16.5 to 18.5 ft
Horizontal Horizontal Clearance* Tub Tub Clearance* 4 m 5e m e5 m 4 m 13.1 ft 16.4 ft 16.4 ft 13.1 ft 19 m 62.3 ft 34 Typical Section DRAFT
* Horizontal and vertical clearances allow for the area needed to construct, operate and maintain the guideway and supporting facilities. Vertical ** Minimum vertical clearance over roadways is 5 m or 16.5 ft. Vertical clearance of 5.6 m or 18.5 ft Clearance* would be required over interstate highways and other roadway corridors designated for freight. 4 m Vertical clearance over passenger or freight railroads would be 7 m or 23 ft. 13.1 ft
Tube 5 m 16.4 ft
10 to 10.6 m 32.9 to 34.9 ft Vertical Clearance Over Roadway** 5 to 5.6 m 16.5 to 18.5 ft
Horizontal Horizontal Clearance* Tube AV/Roadway Tube Clearance* 4 m 5 m 8.5 m 5 m 4 m 13.1 ft 16.4 ft 28 ft 16.4 ft 13.1 ft
26.5 m = 87 ft 35 Potential Certification Track Alignments
36 Certification Center • Working with Dallas Regional Chamber • Anticipate RFP Published in November • Will be Interactive (No “Cone of Silence”) • Three Focus Areas • Land • Regulatory • Funding • Involvement • Universities • Trade Groups • Transportation Industry • Planners • Engineers • Contractors • Finance and Funding Key Components
37 Contact
Kevin Feldt Program Manager [email protected] (817) 704-2529
38