FRA to Texas Central: Looks like the Utility Corridor for Dallas-Houston bullet train
September 15th, 2015
FRA Completes High-Speed Rail Corridor Alternatives Analysis
September 15, 2016 - Special to TRA - The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) announced yesterday that the first stage analysis of a high speed rail corridor between Houston and Dallas points toward using high tension electric utility rights-of-way between the two cities.
According to a news release from the FRA, the agency undertook an independent evaluation of potential corridor alternatives as the first stage in a two-part process to determine the feasible alternatives to be evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In the first phase, FRA narrowed the potential corridor alternatives, as documented in theCorridor Alternatives Analysis Technical Report.
FRA’s evaluation resulted in the Utility Corridor being identified as the only feasible end-to-end corridor based on operational, technological and environmental constraints. The Utility Corridor is the only corridor that demonstrates the potential to meet Texas Central High-Speed Railway’s (TCR) purpose and technical requirements.
FRA evaluated a total of four potential corridor alternatives, three from existing federal and state planning documents, and TCR’s proposed Utility Corridor:
• BNSF Corridor
• UPRR Corridor
• I-45 Greenfield Corridor
In addition to evaluating dedicated high-speed rail corridors, FRA also studied other transportation alternatives to meet TCR’s purpose, including high-speed rail alternatives – Higher-Speed Rail Service, Conventional Speed Rail Service, Direct Bus Service, and I-45 Expansion.
FRA determined that the Utility Corridor is the only feasible corridor with the potential to accommodate TCR’s proposed high-speed
rail system. Furthermore, FRA determined that the high-speed rail alternatives (Higher-Speed Rail Service, Conventional Speed Rail Service, Direct Bus Service, and I-45 Expansion) do not meet the purpose of the project as identified by TCR. FRA has determined that portions of these corridors, combined with the Utility Corridor, may befeasible and should be retained for further investigation even though the agency has determined that the BNSF, UPRR, and I-45 Greenfield Corridors are not feasible as end-to-end corridors.
Next Steps
Next, FRA will identify and evaluate potential alignment alternatives within the Utility Corridor in the second stage of the two-part process to determine the feasible alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS. FRA will independentlyevaluate potential alignment alternatives proposed by TCR based on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) screening criteria. In addition to the No Build Alternative, against which all Build Alternatives will becompared and evaluated as required by NEPA, FRA will identify and determine the feasible Build Alternatives in the second part of the alternatives analysis.
- - - - -
Summary:
Current Activity
• FRA's preliminary analysis identified the Utility Corridor as the only feasible alternative
• Public input considered in this evaluation
• Refinement of Project
Purpose and Need
• Planning for environmental analysis/investigations
Project Status
FRA completed the Scoping Summary Report in April 2015. The report documents the outreach activities that occurred during the public scoping period. It also summarizes the approximately 4,400 public and agency comments received during the public scoping period.
Coming up Next on the Project
FRA will identify and evaluate potential alignments within the Utility Corridor based on potential alignment alternatives proposed by TCR.
The results of the second part of the alternatives analysis process will determine the Build Alternatives, as well as the No Build Alternative, which will be evaluated in the EIS.
September 15, 2016 - Special to TRA - The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) announced yesterday that the first stage analysis of a high speed rail corridor between Houston and Dallas points toward using high tension electric utility rights-of-way between the two cities.
According to a news release from the FRA, the agency undertook an independent evaluation of potential corridor alternatives as the first stage in a two-part process to determine the feasible alternatives to be evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In the first phase, FRA narrowed the potential corridor alternatives, as documented in theCorridor Alternatives Analysis Technical Report.
FRA’s evaluation resulted in the Utility Corridor being identified as the only feasible end-to-end corridor based on operational, technological and environmental constraints. The Utility Corridor is the only corridor that demonstrates the potential to meet Texas Central High-Speed Railway’s (TCR) purpose and technical requirements.
FRA evaluated a total of four potential corridor alternatives, three from existing federal and state planning documents, and TCR’s proposed Utility Corridor:
• BNSF Corridor
• UPRR Corridor
• I-45 Greenfield Corridor
In addition to evaluating dedicated high-speed rail corridors, FRA also studied other transportation alternatives to meet TCR’s purpose, including high-speed rail alternatives – Higher-Speed Rail Service, Conventional Speed Rail Service, Direct Bus Service, and I-45 Expansion.
FRA determined that the Utility Corridor is the only feasible corridor with the potential to accommodate TCR’s proposed high-speed
rail system. Furthermore, FRA determined that the high-speed rail alternatives (Higher-Speed Rail Service, Conventional Speed Rail Service, Direct Bus Service, and I-45 Expansion) do not meet the purpose of the project as identified by TCR. FRA has determined that portions of these corridors, combined with the Utility Corridor, may befeasible and should be retained for further investigation even though the agency has determined that the BNSF, UPRR, and I-45 Greenfield Corridors are not feasible as end-to-end corridors.
Next Steps
Next, FRA will identify and evaluate potential alignment alternatives within the Utility Corridor in the second stage of the two-part process to determine the feasible alternatives to be evaluated in the EIS. FRA will independentlyevaluate potential alignment alternatives proposed by TCR based on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) screening criteria. In addition to the No Build Alternative, against which all Build Alternatives will becompared and evaluated as required by NEPA, FRA will identify and determine the feasible Build Alternatives in the second part of the alternatives analysis.
- - - - -
Summary:
Current Activity
• FRA's preliminary analysis identified the Utility Corridor as the only feasible alternative
• Public input considered in this evaluation
• Refinement of Project
Purpose and Need
• Planning for environmental analysis/investigations
Project Status
FRA completed the Scoping Summary Report in April 2015. The report documents the outreach activities that occurred during the public scoping period. It also summarizes the approximately 4,400 public and agency comments received during the public scoping period.
Coming up Next on the Project
FRA will identify and evaluate potential alignments within the Utility Corridor based on potential alignment alternatives proposed by TCR.
The results of the second part of the alternatives analysis process will determine the Build Alternatives, as well as the No Build Alternative, which will be evaluated in the EIS.