SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Texas Transportation Thread (Roads, Rails & Skies)

171K views 226 replies 50 participants last post by  jonathaninATX 
#1 ·
See less See more
1
#117 ·
First Quarter 2015 Ridership numbers for Texas

Source : http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2015-q1-ridership-APTA.pdf

Light Rail
Dallas / DART - 92,500 (2015)
Houston / Metrorail - 46,400 (2015)

Suburban/Regional/Commuter Rail
Dallas-Fort Worth / Trinity Railway Express - 7,800 (2015)
Austin Suburbs / Cap Metrorail - 3,200 (2015)
Denton / A-Train - 1,700 (2015)

Bus Ridership per City
Houston / Metro Bus - 222,200 (2015)
San Antonio / VIA Metropolitan Transit - 129,700 (2015)
Dallas / DART Bus - 116,000 (2015)
Austin / Capital Metropolitan Trp Auth - 102,300 (2015)
El Paso / El Paso Mass Transit Dept - 46,800 (2015)
Corpus Christi / Corpus Christi Regional TA - 20,200 (2015)
Lewisville / Denton County Transportation Auth - 10,000 (2015)
Odessa / Midland Odessa Urban Transit Distri - 6,600 (2015)
 
#125 ·
Both Arlington and Grand Prairie have turned down rail and other forms of public transportation numerous times in the past. Hopefully they're beginning to change their mind. This revitalization is currently taking place in Grand Prairie. I'm glad they are at least considering passenger rail now as shown in the renderings.

If that line were ever built it would pass through Trinity Groves in Dallas, Downtown Grand Prairie (shown), Downtown Arlington, and down Lancaster Rd to Downtown Fort Worth. Makes too much sense because all of these are currently being redeveloped.

http://merriman-maa.com/portfolio/
 
#126 ·
Both Arlington and Grand Prairie have turned down rail and other forms of public transportation numerous times in the past. Hopefully they're beginning to change their mind. This revitalization is currently taking place in Grand Prairie. I'm glad they are at least considering passenger rail now as shown in the renderings.

If that line were ever built it would pass through Trinity Groves in Dallas, Downtown Grand Prairie (shown), Downtown Arlington, and down Lancaster Rd to Downtown Fort Worth. Makes too much sense because all of these are currently being redeveloped.
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I had in mind. I'm glad I wasn't the first to think this is a good idea, hopefully some attitudes will change eventually.
 
#127 ·
From the Japanese Side

Texas bullet train 'one step' closer to reality

The project has "moved one step forward," President Koei Tsuge told reporters in Tokyo Thursday. His company, whose formal name is Central Japan Railway, runs Japan's busiest bullet train service -- the Tokaido Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka.

Private enterprise is leading the effort to connect Dallas and Houston with a 90-minute rail link. The company behind the project, Texas Central Partners, recently raised $75 million in its first round of fundraising.

Investor demand went as high as $90 million, a JR Tokai source says, expressing surprise at the level of interest. On the regulatory front, a federal assessment of the project's environmental impact is underway.

TCP aims to raise $150 million in investment by next year.
JR Tokai will also rally support at home for the Dallas-Houston rail project. To help cover the estimated cost of more than $10 billion, it plans to approach the Japan Bank for International Cooperation and the public-private Japan Overseas Infrastructure Investment Corp. for Transport & Urban Development to provide lending and investment.
 
#128 ·
For America to be competitive with the rest of the developed world into the future, I think that high speed rail is crucial from a transportation perspective. Our oil supply won't last forever, and when it begins to run low, airline travel will become prohibitively expensive. I don't see an alternative to preserve high-speed domestic transportation in America other than high-speed rail. It will take many decades to build up the rail network to where it needs to be, so it is good that it appears we may finally be getting started. I worry, though, about the private nature of the line, and that we may end up with a series of lines of roughly this length throughout the country that don't connect as well as they should because of separate private ownership.
 
#129 ·
#142 ·
Alignment Alternatives Analysis Report

From Page 22:
Two alternatives for the Downtown Houston geographic group, DH‐1 and DH‐2, have potential to create significant environmental impacts, thereby resulting in higher per mile costs (TCR’s Last Mile Analysis Report 2015a). Given the cost to build the Downtown Houston potential route alternatives, they do not meet the economic viability of the Project purpose and need. Accordingly, FRA eliminated DH‐1 and DH‐2 from further consideration for this Project.
Page 35:
The eight potential route alternatives that FRA carried forward from the Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening and the three common segments were then pieced together to create potential end‐to‐end alignment alternatives, or alignment alternatives from downtown Dallas to the Houston terminus at the intersection of US 290/IH‐610.
 
#143 ·
I-14

US Highway 190 to be renamed, designated as Interstate 14



BELL COUNTY -
Officials announced on Tuesday that US Highway 190 will become Interstate 14.

The designated Central Texas Corridor begins in West Texas and generally follows US Highway 190 through Killeen, Belton, Bryan-College Station, Huntsville, Livingston, Woodville and Jasper before terminating on State Highway 63 at the Sabine River.

The I-14 corridor designation amendment was sponsored in the U.S. Senate by Texas Senator John Cornyn.

It was authored and presented in the U.S. House of Representatives by Texas Congressman Brian Babin of Woodville with support from Congressman Blake Farenthold of Corpus Christi, both members of the House Transportation Committee.

"This major milestone in the improvement of transportation in Texas would not have been possible without the determined support of Senator Cornyn, Congressman Babin and Congressman Farenthold," said John Thompson, chairman of the Gulf Coast Strategic Highway Coalition.

The Strategic Highway Coalition has been working for more than a decade in support of Texas highway improvements that will improve access between major U.S. Army installations at Fort Bliss, Fort Hood and Fort Polk and the Texas strategic deployment seaports that support them – the Port of Corpus Christi and the Port of Beaumont.

A stretch of US 190 serving the Fort Hood-Killeen area and extending approximately 25 miles west from Interstate 35 from Belton to Copperas Cove is already at interstate highway standard. It will be renamed as I-14 and added to the national interstate highway system once a technical review is completed and the new designation is approved by the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Texas Transportation Commission. That process could be completed within the next year.

Thompson stressed the future importance of a new interstate that will provide a safer, more efficient route across Central Texas while providing much needed connections between I-35 at Belton, I-45 at Huntsville and future I-69 at Livingston.

A feasibility study of upgrading the US 190 corridor prepared for the Texas Department of Transportation and completed in 2012 set the stage for designation of future Interstate 14 by Congress. It recognized the benefits of a high volume east-west highway that will serve a vast section of Texas between Interstate 20 and Interstate 10. "By creating a more efficient interstate highway system in the heart of Texas, Interstate 14 will allow the state to attract more economic development and jobs," Thompson said.

He anticipates that to the extent possible the future interstate will consist of upgrades to the existing US 190 roadway and that additional studies will be needed to determine specific local routing alternatives. US 190 improvements will take place incrementally over time as funding becomes available and traffic demand grows with the state's population and freight traffic, he said.
 
#144 ·
It's a horribly indirect and winding route and doesn't really go anywhere, does it? Ugh why, there are much more important possible road projects in this part of the state. If they want a pretty blue and red sign to stick on 190 up in Killeen it should be signed as I-135.

IMO, 71 should become I-12
 
#145 ·
The lower Rio Grande Valley is a place I travel to a lot for work. The area is home to close to 2 million people, though the population is rather spread out. That being said, many of the towns have relatively vibrant downtowns. The region also has very poor public transportation, but traffic can get bad and there is a low-income segment of the population that would likely benefit substantially from better public transportation in this quickly growing area. With that in mind, I decided to draw out a fantasy commuter rail line on an underused freight rail line that happens to run from Harlingen through McAllen, passing through numerous downtowns. If implemented, freight could still pass along the line at night (though very little currently passes along these tracks). The line runs into Union Pacific tracks just past downtown Harlingen, and UP operates two routes through Brownsville and into Mexico, and an additional route that bypasses Brownsville into Mexico. At this point, I chose the route to Brownsville that my observations over the last three years indicate to be by far the less used of the two. This route misses San Benito (which is far more populous than Los Fresnos), but seems more feasible due to the higher freight traffic on the other route.
 
#148 ·
It's actually more like 1.3 million. Still a good size though. About as big as Albuquerque.

I think a better routing for your map of a hypothetical RGV regional rail would be to take the tracks that go through San Benito between Harlingen and Brownsville. One of the few big destinations that any passenger rail could serve right at the doorstep would be the big Valley Baptist and VA medical center, also a proposed site of the UT med school IIRC. Also they built a rail bypass around Brownsville, so that ROW when it enters Brownsville proper would be available as a dedicated transit line.

That said, its hard for me to imagine a successful transit rail project existing in such an extremely sprawled out region where existing public bus transit systems are hardly used. There few concentrated employment centers in the RGV aside from the university and the hospital complexes. McAllen has that one random skyscraper in its downtown and the other cities are just small towns. McAllen could make better use of a BRT on N. 10th street up to University Dr. in Edinburg IMO.

Also those rails are mostly owned by a short line railroad and not in the best condition, it bet it would take a bit of effort to renew them into a smooth ride.

There are just many other things much more worthy of public money than something like this.
 
#152 · (Edited)
It's actually more like 1.3 million. Still a good size though. About as big as Albuquerque.
Bigger than Albuquerque, Tucson, El Paso, Fresno, Bakersfield, Chihuahua City, or Mexicali (the other metros in the same size range as TX's RGV in the border states region of US and Mexico).

The RGV consists of 4 counties in Texas; Starr, Willacy, Cameron, and Hidalgo counties. That is two metropolitan statistical areas centered around McAllen and another around Brownsville/Harlingen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_statistical_areas_of_the_United_States

This is their population as of 2014.

RGV
McAllen-Edinburg, TX Combined Statistical Area: 894,028
Brownsville-Harlingen-Raymondville, TX Combined Statistical Area: 442,295
Total RGV: 1,336,323

1. Rio Grande Valley, TX: 1,336,323
2. Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM Combined Statistical Area: 1,165,798
3. Fresno-Madera, CA Combined Statistical Area: 1,120,522
4. Mexicali-Calexico, CA-MEX: 1,102,342
5. Tucson-Nogales, AZ Combined Statistical Area: 1,051,211
6. El Paso-Las Cruces, TX-NM Combined Statistical Area: 1,050,374
7. Chihuahua City: 958,000
8. Bakersfield, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 874,589

If you include the parts of RGV directly across the border in Mexico (Reynosa and Matamoros) from the parts of RGV in TX and combine it, then its just slightly less than 3 million people. Over 1.6 million people live in Reynosa-Matamoros across the border from McAllen-Brownsville-Harlingen/Rio Grande Valley in TX which has over 1.3 million people, combined with its Mexico side thats just a little less than 3 million people.

Rio Grande Valley, TX-MEX: 2,948,323

TX has another metro like this with the El Paso-Ciudad Juarez-Las Cruces area too, which has 2.8 million people. In Cali they have San Diego-Tijuana which has 5.1 million people and Mexicali-Calexico which has more than 1.1 million people.

The RGV and El Paso metros when you take into account the TX and Mexico sides combined are actually larger than ATX or SA metros.

Laredo is another one that is growing fast both sides of the border and should be the next big one over 1 million. BTW, the RGV side in Mexico is the fastest growing area in all of North America. So it will continue to grow at breakneck speed. Laredo-Nuevo Laredo had 775k people in 2010, by now its probably close to 850k and heading towards 1 million too.
 
#149 ·
I think a better routing for your map of a hypothetical RGV regional rail would be to take the tracks that go through San Benito between Harlingen and Brownsville. One of the few big destinations that any passenger rail could serve right at the doorstep would be the big Valley Baptist and VA medical center, also a proposed site of the UT med school IIRC. Also they built a rail bypass around Brownsville, so that ROW when it enters Brownsville proper would be available as a dedicated transit line.
I'm aware of the bypass into Mexico, but my impression from what I've seen when I've been down there is that Union Pacific still runs a lot more freight on the line through San Benito than on the one through Los Fresnos. It would be great to have a station in San Benito, but one in Los Fresnos could still be useful, especially if there is a bus route put in that connects it to Port Isabel and South Padre Island. Are your observations on the rail traffic different? I would think that it would be easier to get a deal to use the less busy of the two Union Pacific lines.

That said, its hard for me to imagine a successful transit rail project existing in such an extremely sprawled out region where existing public bus transit systems are hardly used
I believe the bus system is fairly recent, only in McAllen, and pretty limited. hardly a useful public transit option for many people. What Makes the Red route seems feasible is that there are so many towns lined up like they are with tracks already through the center of them.

Also those rails are mostly owned by a short line railroad and not in the best condition, it bet it would take a bit of effort to renew them into a smooth ride.
Some significant maintenance would definitely be necessary, but it's still better than starting from nothing. Tracks are periodically replaced on any functioning rail line.

The line to Edinburg has been discussed periodically in the last few years among city leadership. The benefit of doing that over BRT is that a lot of the infrastructure is already there instead of having to overhaul existing streets, and the route is better.
 
#150 ·
I have no idea how freight moves in the RGV, I am just a travel/geography nerd hanging out on SSC.. I just know that the track directly between Harlingen and Brownsville doesn't have any industry or branches attached to it but the other one does, including a link to the Harlingen "port"(barge canal). There just needs to be a connector track between Olmito Yard north of downtown Harlingen and the track that goes to the east. Maybe that's why more trains use the San Benito line? Because otherwise they'd have to stop and back up into the yard?

A freight train can always take a slightly more circuitous route but a commuter train's viability would be completely spoiled if it took too long.
 
#151 ·
A freight train can always take a slightly more circuitous route but a commuter train's viability would be completely spoiled if it took too long.
That's true. I didn't think the route I had outlined was particularly circuitous, especially if the train has a decent top speed since there are not many sharp curves. I figured that it would be more difficult to get a decent deal with Union Pacific to use the tracks if it happens to be the route they prefer to ship freight on, but I don't know much how such arrangements are made. One other (small) benefit of the line I drew is that it has an easier (possibly bus) connection to the airport in Harlingen, which I think is the busiest of the three international airports in the valley. I do agree though, that the route through San Benito would likely be the ideal route.
 
#153 ·
2. Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Las Vegas, NM Combined Statistical Area: 1,165,798
Haha, who came up with this one? It's a 123 mile drive from downtown Albuquerque to Las Vegas, and these towns are separated by significant mountain ranges. That being said, the Rail Runner commuter service runs from Santa Fe through Albuquerque to Belen, and it would seem that the layout of towns in relation to the tracks in the lower Rio Grande Valley would lend itself better to such a service than what the Rail Runner passes through.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top