High-Speed Transportation Opportunities Greater Planning Council

September 12, 2019

Kevin Feldt North Central 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 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, 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 & 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 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