[dustin]

On the 10 pm news on channel 11 last night, they had a story about a high speed rail line proposed from DFW to Houston and San Antonio. They called it the Texas Tbone (assuming because the line makes a T right in the middle of the state). Anyways, it looks like it is a Maglev train that could reach speeds of 300+ mph, making the trip to Houston in a little over an hour. I personally love the idea of regional high speed trains. Granted this is going to cost our national debt to build, but what are people's thoughts?

Here is the link to the cbs story:
http://cbs11tv.com/local/high.speed.train.2.651755.html

And a link to a semi-official looking page about the route:
http://www.thsrtc.com/articles.asp?id=261

[safly]

Let's DO THIS! Get the Koreans to fund it.

[DrkLts]

I'm all for it!

[longhornz32]

Personally I'd love the idea but like someone said how do we fund this? The Trans Texas Corridor is a horrible plan and the website seems to link the two together. If the rail would be privately funded I'm all for it. The rail in Europe is incredible but when an entire European country is smaller than Texas the reason why high speed rail hasn't caught on is obvious.

[Prairie Pup]

I know I saw a plan for a "T-Bone" shaped high-speed rail system plotted out on a map of Texas and sitting in a drawer in the UTA Library back around 1980. The idea for such a system has been around awhile, it keeps getting pulled out and dusted off every now and then. This sort of plan, with a parallel freight rail system, would be an acceptable alternative to the TCC for me. I have long advocated letting AA and WN buy into such a plan and run the operations and reservations using their existing systems. Think of the number of planes it would take off of short haul, inefficient flights, that could be rededicated to longer, more cost-effective flights. Hope someone in power sees the logic here.

[ghughes]

Well, Pup, I don't have any power but I really like your idea. Code sharing. United does it in Colorado with buses. Would require the termini to be at airports, I think, but why not?

[Prairie Pup]

Would require the termini to be at airports...

I would put the end-points at local transportation hubs; Union Station in Dallas, the Intermodal Terminal/Jones Street Station in Fort Worth. That would help people get to where they need to go. The key to making high speed rail competitive is going to be the time factor. By the time you leave home and drive to the airport, park, check-in an hour before the domestic flight, 2 for international (double that on holidays), que to board, wait on the tarmac, taxi to the runway, then at the other end taxi, wait for a gate, que up to deplane, grab checked bags, transport or find your ride, etc. add an hour or three if bad weather...
a train from city center to city center would be competitive time-wise, and as fossil (jet) fuel prices increase trains will become more cost-competitive.

The San Antonio leg should be extended to Monterrey, customs/immigration prescreen, clearance onboard as in Europe. Their terminal could be the central bus station. I don't know downtown Houston well enough to be able to guess where the best location for their HSRail station should be.

[djold1]

I don't know downtown Houston well enough to be able to guess where the best location for their HSRail station should be.

Galveston?

[Keller Pirate]

Of course, DFW airport is the terminus for the North end of this scheme, leaving Dallas and Ft Worth proper out in the cold. I have to question groups like this that are taking trips to Europe to see high speed rail. Have they never visited before and ridden on their own dime? If construction and operations were imminent I could understand a field trip to examine operations, but this just looks like some people out for a free ride.

I’m all for a good HSR project, but these don’t look like the folks that are going to make it happen. Did anyone notice that Kay Granger was missing from their list of supportive area politicians?

[Sam Stone]

Who knows how far off all this is? It's too bad. . .

It's my dream to have a high speed rail network connecting all the major cities and then a light rail network connecting them to smaller cities. Imagine being able to take a less than two hour train ride down to Austin then transferring to a line that could take you out to the Hill Country towns. Once there, you could rent a car or scooter to get around. Stay in Fredericksburg for a day, hop on the train, hang out in Marble Falls. A system like that could really transform Texas into a bigger tourist destination and also keep a lot of our own tourism dollars here.

[Prairie Pup]

Fort Worth Weelky article on the "T-Bone"

http://www.fwweekly.com/content.asp?sectio...type=Metropolis

Does anyone recognize the elevated monorail train pictured in the article? MagLev?

This article states 200 mph (322 kph) as the train's speed.

Am I right in being concerned that there may be a Beta/VHS or BlueRay/HDDVD shakeout in the high-speed rail "format" arena? Worldwide there are the German, Anglo-French (Chunnel), and Japanese rail systems, and then the MagLev and other monorail systems as well. Hasn't China announced a MagLev line from central Shanghai to SHA? Since there are no functioning H-S lines in the US yet could the Texas project "set the standard" for other, interconnecting systems nationwide?

[Keller Pirate]

There was a good story in the Wall Street Journal today about high speed rail. Touring Europe at 200 MPH.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1205283034...ersonal_journal

I don't think their links last more than a day, so hurry, there are some good pictures.

[lens314]

Fort Worth Weelky article on the "T-Bone"

http://www.fwweekly.com/content.asp?sectio...type=Metropolis

Does anyone recognize the elevated monorail train pictured in the article? MagLev?

This article states 200 mph (322 kph) as the train's speed.

Am I right in being concerned that there may be a Beta/VHS or BlueRay/HDDVD shakeout in the high-speed rail "format" arena? Worldwide there are the German, Anglo-French (Chunnel), and Japanese rail systems, and then the MagLev and other monorail systems as well. Hasn't China announced a MagLev line from central Shanghai to SHA? Since there are no functioning H-S lines in the US yet could the Texas project "set the standard" for other, interconnecting systems nationwide?

Yup, that pic in the FW Weekly article is Deutsche Bahn's version of MagLev. At least the livery of the train is Deutsche Bahn.

There is a functioning high speed rail line in the US. It goes from Boston to DC via New York, Philly and Baltimore.

I think if these high speed projects ever get off the ground, they will all use rail instead of MagLev. I believe Maglev is too expensive for long hauls, but I could be wrong.
Here is a link that has links to other states projects with high speed rail:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_ra...e_United_States

For example, Florida's version from Miami to Orlando to Tampa has been in works for at least 2 decades. I remember finding the plans for Florida's High Speed Rail in my local library when I was ~10.

[ghughes]

Am I right in being concerned that there may be a Beta/VHS or BlueRay/HDDVD shakeout in the high-speed rail "format" arena? Worldwide there are the German, Anglo-French (Chunnel), and Japanese rail systems, and then the MagLev and other monorail systems as well. Hasn't China announced a MagLev line from central Shanghai to SHA? Since there are no functioning H-S lines in the US yet could the Texas project "set the standard" for other, interconnecting systems nationwide?

I wouldn't look for standards too quickly. I think whenever we (in the US) finally build some HS rail it will in some rather specific high density locations. Certainly we have some good spots here in Texas with the T-bone route. But aside from maybe OKC I cannot imagine ridership supporting any other external connections unless New Orleans has a growth spurt. Then there's Ohio and Illinois to St. Louis. The east coast has a start, too, that could eventually see Boston to DC coverage. The west coast will handle San Diego to LA and SF to Sacramento. LA to SF would be a possibility but the route would be very difficult (expensive) to construct due to terrain.

The real secret would be to think regionally. At the risk of lighting a firestorm I will claim Amtrak should be doing that now. Air service on long hauls will even trump HS Rail just like it trumps conventional.

[lens314]

I wouldn't look for standards too quickly. I think whenever we (in the US) finally build some HS rail it will in some rather specific high density locations. Certainly we have some good spots here in Texas with the T-bone route. But aside from maybe OKC I cannot imagine ridership supporting any other external connections unless New Orleans has a growth spurt. Then there's Ohio and Illinois to St. Louis. The east coast has a start, too, that could eventually see Boston to DC coverage. The west coast will handle San Diego to LA and SF to Sacramento. LA to SF would be a possibility but the route would be very difficult (expensive) to construct due to terrain.

The real secret would be to think regionally. At the risk of lighting a firestorm I will claim Amtrak should be doing that now. Air service on long hauls will even trump HS Rail just like it trumps conventional.

The Boston to DC allready has a high speed line as I mentioned previously, the Acela Express, run by Amtrak:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express

[ghughes]

Oops, my bad. I thought it only went NYC to Boston.

[Prairie Pup]

http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=8377

Ft. Worth Business Press update

Group wants high-speed rail on track

BY LESLIE WIMMER
September 08, 2008

By 2020, North Texans may be able to board high-speed rail cars for trips to Austin, Houston or San Antonio.

High-speed rail was the topic at the Sept. 3 Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition meeting, where state and local transportation leaders discussed the benefits of high-speed rail to connect the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex to other large cities in Texas, and eventually link to rail systems planned in other states across the United States.

“We are working to bring cities, counties and research institutions together and our goal is to provide high-speed rail to Houston, Austin, San Antonio and North Texas,” said Tarrant County Commissioner Gary Fickes.

Fickes is also a member of the executive committee of the Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corp., a nonprofit group of cities, counties, local transportation groups, universities and various corporations across Texas collaborating on plans to bring high-speed rail to Texas by 2020.

Transportation Corporation members, including Fickes, Harris County Judge Robert Eckles and David Dean, CEO of Dean International in Dallas, were the featured speakers at the Coalition meeting.

The rail system the Transportation Corp. is researching would have cars that can travel at an average of 200 miles per hour, much like systems in Germany, France, Spain and Japan that travel at speeds close to 400 miles per hour for short distances, Dean said.

The Transportation Corp. refers to the transit route from Dallas/Fort Worth to Austin, Houston and San Antonio as the Texas T-Bone Corridor, because when mapped out, the lines are in the shape of the letter T.

Dean said he doesn’t think interest in the high-speed rail system in the corridor would be a problem because of an already congested transportation system in the region and the increased cost of gas.

“It’s not a matter of ‘if you build it they will come,’ they’re already here,” Dean said.

The high-speed rail stops also will open up opportunity for major transit-oriented development projects, Dean said, and for riders to travel from city to city for sporting events, for jobs or for professors to visit other universities across the state.

The lines could also be a resource for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to use in situations such as severe hurricanes or flooding, Dean said.

[Electricron]

I strongly favor a public/private partnership to build the Texas T-Bone. For that to work, the Texas Legislature will have to change some laws. The last time Texas looked at HSR, the Legislature didn't want anything to do with its finances.

History of 1980-1990 Texas High Speed Rail Authority
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/20071...1.html#bioghist

1987 In June of that year the 70th Legislature directed the Texas Turnpike Authority (TTA) to study the feasibility of high speed rail service in the "Texas Triangle" - Dallas-Houston, Dallas-San Antonio, and San Antonio-Houston.
1988 The TTA study began in February 1988.
1989 The Texas High-Speed Rail Authority (THSRA) was created in 1989 by the 71st Legislature.
1990 In July 1990, two letters of intent were received - from Texas High-Speed Rail Joint Venture (later renamed Texas FasTrac) and the Texas TGV Consortium.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was published in September 1990.
1991 Two groups responded to the RFP - Texas TGV and Texas FasTrac, submitting franchise applications and the required franchise fees by the deadline of January 1991.
Franchise application hearings opened in March 1991.
A proposal for decision was entered in May 1991. This proposal recommended that the Authority find that high-speed rail in Texas was in the "public interest" and that the Texas TGV consortium was the best qualified applicant. Texas TGV accepted the terms of the franchise order.
In June 1991 Southwest Airlines and Texas FasTrac filed motions for rehearing in the proceeding and Texas TGV filed replies to the motions.
Because the Board took no actions on the motions by July 1991, the motions were overruled by operation of law.
1992 Texas TGV was awarded the franchise to build, operate, and maintain a high-speed rail system in Texas. The franchise agreement was signed in January 1992.
The Equity Financing Commitment (EFC) became the most important milestone. Texas TGV failed to meet its deadline to evidence $170 million in equity financing agreements by December 1992, after meeting all the other deadlines. This deadline was extended for one year.
The franchise agreement also called for the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed project, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The board selected Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc. to prepare the EIS. A contract was signed in April 1992.
In December 1992, work on the EIS project was halted due to concerns over EIS consultant expenditures. Work was delayed until March 1993 for contract negotiations.
1993 The high-speed rail franchise agreement required that an independent ridership study be conducted so that the public would have a more complete examination of the revenue potential of the proposed high-speed rail project. The study had to be initiated within 60 days of the execution date of the franchise agreement. It was funded by the franchisee, Texas TGV, now also known as the Texas High-Speed Rail Corporation. The consultant chosen to conduct the study was Charles River Associates, which presented its findings to the Board at its September 2, 1993 meeting. The final printed report was released in October 1993. The study examined ridership with different alignments and different air connect relationships. It was intended to be used by Texas TGV to refine ridership estimates using different assumptions, different line haul times, and different market response strategies. The Authority considered this report to be "one of the most complete and exhaustive examinations of the high speed ground transportation demand and revenues ever completed for any corridor in the United States."
Another milestone required by the franchise agreement was the Baseline Implementation Plan. It was submitted in March 1993. This plan detailed financing, engineering, designing, program management, construction, and operation elements of the high speed rail project.
In May 1993, the EIS work summary and cost plan were reformed and contract issues were resolved. By December 1993 sufficient detail on the Alternative Analyses component of the project was done so work could proceed with baseline studies on different issues required by the EIS.
After the ridership study was completed and the EIS process was well underway, Texas TGV prepared its EFC offering to investors. The offering was $200 million in convertible equity notes and was issued on November 29, 1993. The notes were to be priced and sold on December 11, 1993. The corporation offering a counter guarantee, Morrison Knudsen, withdrew its counter guarantee offer on December 10, 1993 and the notes offering was withdrawn. At the Boards December 17, 1993 meeting, Texas TGV reported it was unlikely to make the December 31, 1993 EFC deadline.
1994 In January 1994 Texas TGV halted work on the baseline studies and dismissed its contractors due to financial deadlines in the franchise agreement. By March 1994, a draft alternative chapter of the EIS was completed and circulated for comments, but never released. By October 1994, due to cessation of environmental activity by Texas TGV, the THSRA board terminated its contract with the EIS consultant.
The Authority refused to extend additional accommodations to Texas TGV and in early 1994 began termination proceedings against Texas TGV. A settlement was negotiated that rescinded the franchise agreement, repaid all outstanding general revenue funds to the state, and made available to the state all non-proprietary information that Texas TGV developed during the project. The information included a considerable amount of work prepared for an environmental impact statement, a required component of this project.
The settlement agreement did not allow the Authority to collect the $2.5 million abandonment bond. The Attorney General's Office publicly disagreed with this, and encouraged the Authority to collect the bond. The Authority felt the time and effort to collect the abandonment bond would diminish its net value to the Authority and prolong the time rural land owners would be affected by the presence of the franchise, so that issue was not pursued. Lack of federal support and lobbying against the HSR plan by Southwest Airlines were among the reasons that no other franchise applications were awarded and a high-speed rail system was not built. At one point the Authority was scheduled to become part of the Railroad Commission at the beginning of the 1996 fiscal year. Instead, the 74th Legislation abolished the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority and repealed its legislative authorization. Its functions were not absorbed by any agency.

What killed the previous Texas TGV plan? Simply, the inability to guarantee bonds without some State financial support. If the State had guarantee up to $200 million in bonds, I believe we would have had sections of HSR rail in operation by 2000.

That's why I suggest and recommend a public-private partnership. California is relying upon lots of public financing to build their 800 mile HSR system. The Texas T-Bone should cost less than half of California's today, because it's only around 400 miles, because rural land in Texas is cheaper, and because labor is cheaper in Texas.

Link to today's Texas T-Bone web site:
http://www.thsrtc.com/



Today, TXDOT is in the slow process of adding at least two extra lanes (one in each direction) along rural I-35 and I-45 at considerably more expense than it would take to build the Texas HSR lines. I wonder if they would have had if Texas had built the HSR lines by 2000? It'll cost more in the future to add more lanes to I-35 and I-45. TXDOT is consuming most of these Interstate's available ROW today. Both rural I-35 and I-45, after the present round of expanding these freeways is completed, will reach traffic gridlock in just a few more years. That's why TXDOT proposed the ill received Trans Texas Corridors paralleling them.

Eventually, Texas will have to build HSR. A good idea will keep resurfacing. The only question is when will Texas build it?

[Prairie Pup]

This sounds like good news. I like hearing Fort Worth mentioned as a rail hub, and like seeing Little Rock and Tulsa (assume OKC) included in the preliminary plans. I wonder if asking for another line to Tyler and Shreveport would be out of the question? That route could be the start of a future link to either Jackson/Birmingham/Atlanta or to New Orleans/Mobile/Jacksonville. Fingers crossed...

Posted on Sun, Apr. 05, 2009

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1300567.html

Texas Seeks to Expand Rail Corridor from Fort Worth
By GORDON DICKSONgdickson@star-telegram.com

Texas may finally be ready to expand passenger rail service from Fort Worth to Central and South Texas and embrace the concept of high speed rail.

On March 20, the Texas Department of Transportation formally requested funding for a feasibility analysis for expansion of the rail corridor from Fort Worth to Killeen/Fort Hood, Houston and San Antonio.

"I would like to offer the professional assistance of my staff to meet this important requirement," Transportation Department Executive Director Amadeo Saenz wrote to U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Fort Worth is part of a federally designated South Central High Speed Corridor, which envisions speedy trains connecting not only Texas cities but also Little Rock and Tulsa. For more than a decade, Congress provided scarcely any funding for high speed rail but in October it set aside $1.5 billion for high speed rail and invited states and private developers to bid for the funding.

Rail advocates say trains could travel up to 110 mph on existing rail corridors running parallel to freight lines or up to 200 mph on elevated or fenced tracks.

Amtrak operates daily service from Fort Worth to San Antonio and from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City. But the trains can travel no more than 79 mph. A trip from Fort Worth to Austin is 3  1/2 hours by road or four hours, 20 minutes by Amtrak.

[Electricron]

It would be better news if TXDOT actually got the funding to do the feasibility analysis.

After feasibility studies comes alternate analysis, which is followed by environmental impact.
Before construction could begin, some agency will have to run the show with the ability to finance it.

I would feel better of the ultimate project if that agency was formed now.

More than a decade ago we had an agency, without funding. Feasibility study was performed then. What we need now is an agency with funding mechanisms in place, not another feasibility study.

[Keller Pirate]

Oddly, the Federal High Speed Rail Corridor plan doesn't include Houston in the same region as DFW-Austin-San Antonio. I don't know why the feds would think we wouldn't want Houston included with the rest of Texas. Their plan looks like the wishbone.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203

[Electricron]

Oddly, the Federal High Speed Rail Corridor plan doesn't include Houston in the same region as DFW-Austin-San Antonio. I don't know why the feds would think we wouldn't want Houston included with the rest of Texas. Their plan looks like the wishbone.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203

I thought Houston to Temple leg had finally been included, just that it hasn't been marked onto any maps yet.

[Keller Pirate]

The Ft Worth to Little Rock HSR line got a mention on ABC.

High Speed Rail

[FoUTASportscaster]

I got a chuckle out of this.

Chicago to St. Louis and Milwaukee; Miami to Orlando, Fla.; Eugene, Ore., to Seattle; and Ft. Worth, Texas to Little Rock, Ark.

Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Miami, Orlando, Eugene (through Portland), Seattle, Fort Worth and........Little Rock? All big cities with professional sports teams (with the exception of Eugene) and Little Rock. Seems to me that a better corridor could have been named, like LA to SF.

[Prairie Pup]

Fort Worth and........Little Rock? All big cities with professional sports teams (with the exception of Eugene) and Little Rock. Seems to me that a better corridor could have been named, like LA to SF.

Which sports team in Fort Worth are you referencing? Perhaps a Dallas or Arlington team

The California corridor should at least have Acela-class service now. Seems to me that the corridors mentioned (the Eugene-SEA to a lesser extent) originate from cities that are major regional air travel hubs.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Agreed. Eugene serves Portland and Seattle, which are transit friendly and more conducive to using the intercity train service.

While referencing Fort Worth, I was referencing the region, which has plenty. Generally speaking, the bigger the market, the bigger the customer base for both intercity trains and sports teams. There would be a stop in DTFW along with DTD. Arlington, home to two teams, won't have a direct stop. It is part of the region though and residents there can still use the train in FW of Dallas.

[AndyN]

Texas portions of the Federal High Speed Rail program as posted by Electricron:


Here's the FRA's 10 designate HSR corridors web page link:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203



Quick Facts:

South Central Corridor (? mph) > The South Central Corridor extends southward from Tulsa, OK, to Oklahoma City, Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio, TX with a branch from Little Rock, AR through Texarkana and Dallas, TX.
Segment Mileage Top Speed (goal) Travel Time (goal)
Tulsa to Fort Worth 322 n/a mph n/a
Little Rock via Dallas/Forth Worth to San Antonio 672 n/a mph n/a
Using discretionary Next Generation High Speed Rail Program technology demonstration funding, FRA together with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation performed precision aerial digital mapping of the developing high-speed corridor between Dallas-Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, and Tulsa.
Texas has requested federal funding to perform an initial feasibility study of high-speed service on the Texas portion of the corridor. However, all eligible funding for these activities is earmarked for other projects in the FRA budget. The state has also begun a study to identify the risk levels at grade crossings along the corridor.

The Gulf Coast Corridor (110 mph) > The Gulf Coast Corridor links New Orleans, Louisiana with Houston, Texas; Mobile, Alabama; Meridian, Mississippi; and Birmingham, Alabama. The States are aiming to upgrade existing rail lines to 110 mph service and are preparing a strategic plan.
Segment Mileage Top Speed (goal) Travel Time (goal)
Houston to New Orleans 362 110 mph n/a hr
Mobile to New Orleans 139 110 mph n/a hr
New Orleans to Atlanta 521 110 mph n/a hr

This post has been edited by AndyN: 15 April 2009 - 10:51 PM
Reason for edit: Split out of state lines to new topic

[Prairie Pup]

Here is the story from the AP carried in the S-T.

http://www.star-telegram.com/190/story/1320879.html


There is a quote in it that should concern Fort Worth (high-speed) rail-transit advocates:

"Chris Lippincott, spokesman for the Texas Department of Transportation, said his office was excited about advancing plans to build high-speed lines from San Antonio to Dallas and then up to Little Rock and Tulsa. But he added that the "nation's rail needs will exceed a single injection of money," citing estimates that just staying even with current level of congestion in his state will cost $313 billion over the next 20 years."

Did Mr. Lippincott just accidentally leave the "-Fort Worth" out of "Dallas-Fort Worth", as in SA to DFW to LR and Tulsa, or was this intentional? One can almost understand how airlines, even AA, occasionally omit the -FW from D-FW when landing, or that national weather maps always show Dallas but never Fort Worth, but this is the TxDOT spokesman! Are plans underway at staff level to eliminate Fort Worth as a major rail hub of the future?

It looks as though the first proposed rounds of high-speed rail spending are intended to upgrade existing rail corridors to be able to handle advanced transit (ie high-speed). Perhaps now is the time for Fort Worth and Dallas to join togther (a la DFW Airport) with the COG and it's RTC to engineer plans for a comprehensive east-west rail transit corridor through the region that could accomodate future high-speed rail between the city centers, perhaps alongside the UP mainline tracks. A widened, flattened, straightened corridor would be useful for TRE-type service regionally (especially to the upcoming transportation super-mess in east-central Arlington) as well as future HS rail between the cities and to points further afield, in Texas and in surrounding states. We as a state have probably missed out on the first round of funding due to lack of a HS rail authority and no ready-to-roll plans for a system, but we should be ready for round two!

[Electricron]

Here is the story from the AP carried in the S-T.

http://www.star-telegram.com/190/story/1320879.html

We as a state have probably missed out on the first round of funding due to lack of a HS rail authority and no ready-to-roll plans for a system, but we should be ready for round two!

Whereas TXDOT and Texas doesn't have a Passenger Rail Authority set up, TXDOT does have a Rail Plan (Improvement Plan) that qualifies for ARRA (Stimulus) funding. Whereas Texas doesn't have HSR corridor plans sufficiently developed for immediate construction, there are grade separation and intersection improvement projects (Tower 55 for instance) that should qualify for some ARRA funding. Amtrak, Dart and the T are in negotiations over Amtrak switching to the TRE corridor, therefore the TRE corridor should soon qualify for some ARRA funding too. Texas is the second largest State in the union, and should qualify for a significant share of ARRA funds.
The Texas Legislature should take steps and pass legislation this year to form a real statewide Passenger Rail Authority, and finance it. Failing to do so this session will mean other States will get a significant portion of Texas's share of Federal rail funds.

There are two rail advocate groups lobbying the Legislature this year.

Texas Rail Advocates
http://www.texasrailadvocates.org/
This group advocates using faster diesel propelled trains on existing freight right-of-ways as shown on the US HSR national map. An interesting article on BNSF's views is on their home page: BNSF chief talks about passenger rail
From Fort Worth Star-Telegram, April 1, 2009
WASHINGTON — BNSF Railway’s CEO Matt Rose testified Wednesday before Congress, but not about freight rail issues. The chairman of the Fort Worth-based rail company spoke about the future of high-speed passenger rail at a hearing of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development. "As a freight railroad CEO, a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, and an early supporter of the One Rail coalition, I’ve had a lot of opportunity to think about what our country’s vision for passenger rail ought to be," he told lawmakers. Here are some excerpts from his prepared testimony before the subcommittee, headed by Rep. John Olver, D-Mass.
"It is possible to increase speeds from 79 mph to 90 mph on tracks that both freight and passenger trains use."
"At sustained speeds in excess of 90 mph, passenger train operations will need to be segregated from freight operations on separate track."


Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation
http://www.thsrtc.com/
This group advocates very high speed electric powered rail using a public-private partnership in a brand new right-of-way called the Texas T-bone. Here's their April newsletter:
http://www.thsrtc.com/april_thsrtc.pdf

IMHO: I believe many Texas advocates for high speed rail support both organizations, the former as a back-up of the latter. I think we all would prefer having 200-220 mph trains vs 90-110 mph trains in Texas. Being realistic, I believe Texans should shoot for the 200-220 mph train for probable financially feasible Texas T-bone, and the 90-110 mph trains towards Oklahoma City and Texarkana, and in the future to South Texas and West Texas, which probably aren't financially feasible. We don't have to have the fastest trains on every possible rail corridor.

[FoUTASportscaster]

There is a quote in it that should concern Fort Worth (high-speed) rail-transit advocates:

"Chris Lippincott, spokesman for the Texas Department of Transportation, said his office was excited about advancing plans to build high-speed lines from San Antonio to Dallas and then up to Little Rock and Tulsa. But he added that the "nation's rail needs will exceed a single injection of money," citing estimates that just staying even with current level of congestion in his state will cost $313 billion over the next 20 years."

Did Mr. Lippincott just accidentally leave the "-Fort Worth" out of "Dallas-Fort Worth", as in SA to DFW to LR and Tulsa, or was this intentional? One can almost understand how airlines, even AA, occasionally omit the -FW from D-FW when landing, or that national weather maps always show Dallas but never Fort Worth, but this is the TxDOT spokesman! Are plans underway at staff level to eliminate Fort Worth as a major rail hub of the future?

I wouldn't put too much stock in it. Like the the current Texas Eagle, it goes from San Antonio to Dallas then up to Little Rock. It likely will pass through Fort Worth. If they are going to make DFW to OKC trips high speed, then the only available tracks are the BNSF in Fort Worth. Just for the sake of connectivity, Fort Worth has to be in the mix.

My hope is that the TRE tracks will be used for the higher spped route and then inter and intra city transit will benefit. Think of the ridership gains if the TRE could travel between FW and Dallas in 30 or 45 minutes instead of the hour it takes now.

[Electricron]

Texas Senate OKs high-speed rail corporation
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news...n1.4abba85.html

A Texas high-speed rail corporation would be created to begin planning for a 200-mph rail system linking the state's five largest urban areas under legislation that the Senate approved Tuesday.
The measure by Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, would direct the seven-member board of the corporation to plan and develop the rail transit system, using federal funds for the early stages of the project and then seeking private financing for construction.
Senators approved the bill on a 25-4 vote, sending it to the House.
"Texas could see high-speed rail on the ground and operational within a decade," said Carona, who leads the Senate's transportation committee.
Although Texas considered a high-speed rail system – linking Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio and Austin – nearly two decades ago, the idea was dropped because the consortium selected to construct the system was unable to get state funding.
Carona said high-speed rail now appears more viable, thanks to new federal priorities, even though significant state funding is still unlikely.
"The state has grown since then and our population has grown substantially," he said. "In the years to come, air travel is apt to become more expensive, not less, and high-speed rail provides an alternative for our transportation needs."
Another major change from the previous effort is that the system would likely be centered on the major airports in the state, he said.
The project will depend on "creative private capital" as the main source of funding, using such mechanisms as revenue bonds paid off with passenger fares, Carona said.

It'll be interesting to see what the Texas House does.

[FoUTASportscaster]

The project will depend on "creative private capital" as the main source of funding, using such mechanisms as revenue bonds paid off with passenger fares, Carona said.

Seems like I am Debbie downer all of a sudden, but this is a proposal doomed to failure. If the private sector could have done it, it would be done by now. This will need government help, like all transportation projects nowadays. Unless they are thinking that the feds are going to pay a huge amount, this train won't leave the station.

[Electricron]

Hello? Are you reading what you're replying to. Revenue bonds paid off with passenger fares is public financing. This is the same bonding mechanisms NTTR uses to build tollroads in North Texas, the same bonding mechanism that Dallas plans to use to build the new Convention Center Hotel, and the same mechanism DFW airport uses to finance new runways, terminals, and other airport improvements.
I agree private capital will be required, but I believe the state is planning to help finance this HSR plan, if only just enough to qualify for Federal funds, and provide a means to collect private funds by issuing bonds.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Perhaps it is you not reading what you are replying to (I would suspect so since the moderator has repeatedly asked you not to quote the post immediately above yours, but you continue to do so). If bonds could be issued, that could be paid for with passenger fares, the private sector would have done so long ago. The fact is, fares will not cover the cost, and other government funds must be made available if this is to come to fruition.

[Keller Pirate]

Saw this from Money magazine,

AUSTIN, Texas -(Dow Jones)- An estimated $13 billion in new federal money for high-speed passenger rail service should go to a single project that demonstrates its effectiveness, the top executive of freight railroad Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. (BNI) said Thursday.....

...Separately, Rose noted in an interview after Thursday's event that he has seen little momentum for development of high-speed passenger rail in Texas, despite the new federal stimulus money.

A high-speed "triangle" linking Dallas, Houston and San Antonio has been proposed in the past with little to show for it.

"I don't think there's anybody in (Washington, D.C.) talking about a Texas corridor right now," Rose said.

The rest of the story. http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articl...17_FORTUNE5.htm

[dustin]

Not much in terms of big news in this story in the startlegram yesterday, but worth the read anyways:

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1565225.html