Alamo Area MPO Policy Board Alamo Area MPO Policy Board J. Tullos - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Alamo Area MPO Policy Board Alamo Area MPO Policy Board

• J. Tullos
• J. Tullos Wells

ells

Vice C Vice Chair, Board of Directors air, Board of Directors

Joseph Black Joseph Black

Rail Dir Rail Direct ctor

• r

May 19, 2014

Lone Star Rail District -- Lone Star Rail District -- Who Are We?

• An

An independent public entity created by the Legislature in independent public entity created by the Legislature in 1997 to provide commuter rail service between Georgetown 1997 to provide commuter rail service between Georgetown and San Antonio and San Antonio

• Required approvals obtained –

Required approvals obtained – first meeting in 2003 irst meeting in 2003

• Membership consists of 18 jurisdictions:

Membership consists of 18 jurisdictions:

• Cities
• Counties
• Transit Providers
• Transportation Commission
• Metropolitan Planning Organizations
• 20-person Board of Directors

20-person Board of Directors

• Elected officials
• Private sector representatives
• Transit/ Transportation representatives

1

• Public Safety

Public Safety Issues Issues with trains of up to 2 miles in length running through the urban cores of cities up and down the Austin-San Antonio corridor

• Reduced Mobility

Reduced Mobility as population growth and trade growth (two positive indicators for the region) result in increased congestion

• NAFTA Traffic

NAFTA Traffic is growing every year; many businesses in the corridor self-identify as NAFTA-related

• Economic Development

Economic Development is needed, supporting job creation and mitigating the effects of a negative world economy

• Lack of Transportation Choices

Lack of Transportation Choices in the corridor leaves people no alternatives to highway travel

• Decreasing Reliability

Decreasing Reliability as congestion increases, and both productive time for commuters and freight deliveries is negatively affected

• Air Quality

Air Quality is negatively affected by sole reliance on highway mode

2

What are the Challenges in the Region? What are the Challenges in the Region?

3

I-35 between San Antonio and Georgetown is one of the deadliest and most congested stretches of highway in the country. ACCIDENTS ACCIDENTS

• Between San Antonio and Georgetown
• ~100 fatalities per year
• ~9,000 accidents annually

CONGESTION AND CONGESTION AND TRADE TRADE

• 80% of Mexico’s trade with the U.S. and Canada runs through the I-35

corridor

• Truck traffic on I-35 is projected to continue to grow in the next 20 years,

from 3,000 to ~15,000 trucks per day

• Dozens of freight trains per day pass through highly populated urban

communities with ~140 at-grade crossings

Problems In the I-35 Corridor Problems In the I-35 Corridor

4

• Trains are three times cleaner

three times cleaner than trucks on a ton-mile basis

• Trains are four times more fuel efficient

four times more fuel efficient than trucks

• One ton of freight can be hauled

484 miles on one gallon of fuel

• One train can remove 300

remove 300 trucks trucks from the highways

• Passenger rail could remove 3 to

3 to 5 million 5 million car trips car trips per year per year from the highways in the I-35 corridor

Source s Source s: Union Pacific and Lone Star Rail District

A A Part of the Solution is Part of the Solution is Rail Rail

5

First Step: Freight Rail First Step: Freight Rail Bypass Bypass

5

• 80+ miles of

80+ miles of new grade- new grade- separated freight rail line separated freight rail line from Seguin to Taylor.

• 40+ miles of

40+ miles of improved improved freight rail line freight rail line from San Antonio to Seguin.

• 79 mph

79 mph maximum freight train speed, current average is in the 20 mph range.

• Dozens of train

Dozens of trains per day per day (up to 55 in San Antonio) taken

• ut of urban cores in Central

and South Central Texas

6

In Partnership with Union Pacific In Partnership with Union Pacific

“Union Pacif “Union Pacific Railr c Railroad has been w ad has been working rking cooperativ cooperatively with the Dist ely with the District on its A ict on its Austin-San stin-San Ant Antonio Corridor pr

• nio Corridor project f
• ject for se

r several y ral year ars…W s…We belie believe that both Union Pacif e that both Union Pacific and the District ha c and the District have made substanti made substantial pr l progr

• gress…and anticipat

ss…and anticipate that an that an eventual agreement will resul entual agreement will result in the ability of the in the ability of the District t District to pr provide passenger ser ide passenger service and relocation ice and relocation

• f thr
• f through freight in the A

ugh freight in the Austin-San Ant stin-San Antonio

• nio

Corridor…” Corridor…”

Jerr Jerry Wilmo y Wilmoth, General Manager h, General Manager – Netw etwork Infrastructure, Union rk Infrastructure, Union Pacific Railr cific Railroad, Ma ad, May 1 y 16, , 20 2012 12 le lett tter t er to T T ravis Cou is County Judge Samuel ty Judge Samuel Biscoe Biscoe

7

Second Step: LSTAR Second Step: LSTAR Passenger Rail Passenger Rail Service Service

• 118

118 miles of passenger rail miles of passenger rail from San Antonio north to Williamson County

• Primarily routed in existin

Primarily routed in existing rail right-of-way g rail right-of-way upon relocation of Union Pacific’s through freight operations to urban bypass line

• At least 16

At least 16 stations stations at full service, linking communities and destinations all along the corridor

• 32

32 round trips round trips a a day day at full service, seven days a week, including midday and evening service

• Express service of 75

Express service of 75 minutes or minutes or less less at full service between downtown San Antonio and downtown Austin

• Local Freight

Local Freight service will continue

7

8

An “Education Corridor” An “Education Corridor”

8

9

An “Education Corridor” An “Education Corridor”

9

10

An “Education Corridor” An “Education Corridor”

10

11

An “Education Corridor” An “Education Corridor”

11

12

How Do We Pay For It? How Do We Pay For It?

• With a combination of state and federal funds,

and public-private partnership opportunities

• Local jurisdiction Operations & Maintenance

(O&M) funding commitments (TIFs, etc.) are critical to securing capital investment

• Current local funding agreements in place:

Austin Austin and San Marcos San Marcos

• Currently in discussions with San Antonio, Bexar

San Antonio, Bexar County, VIA, County, VIA, and and Kyle Kyle

• Agreements planned for completion in 2014:

Travis County, Hays County, Bexar Travis County, Hays County, Bexar County, ACCD, County, ACCD, Alamo CCD, Alamo CCD, Kyle, New Braunfels, Schertz, San Kyle, New Braunfels, Schertz, San Antonio, … Antonio, …

12

13

• Raised:

Raised: $7.7 million in federal funding, $8.7 million state appropriation, $20 million AAMPO, $20 million CAMPO funds

• Completed

Completed feasibility, ridership, preliminary revenue/ cost studies, and financial benefits/ economic impact studies

• Developed

Developed local funding concepts and completed agreements with Austin and San Marcos; other agreements to be complete in 2014-2015

• Sign

Signed ed Union Pacific Memorandum of Understanding in late 2010; 2014 update in process

What’s Happened So Far? What’s Happened So Far?

14

What’s Happening Now? What’s Happening Now?

• Consultant under contract for NEPA

Environmental studies; actual EIS EIS work starts this month

• Continuing freight bypass studies

freight bypass studies with Union Pacific

• Continuing joint service planning

joint service planning in the future passenger corridor with Union Pacific

• Continuing local funding discussions

local funding discussions and compl completing ting ag agreements reements for annual Operations & Maintenance (O&M) costs

• TTI Air Quality study

TTI Air Quality study of LSRD projects is underway

14

Capital Capital Fu Funding Design Design Constructio Construction Commissioning Commissioning Operations Operations

Local funding is the gateway gateway to capital funding from public and private sources.

15

Local Local Fu Funding

Tim Timing ng

• New development influenced by rail opportunity
• Initiates value capture from land speculation, zoning and other entitlements

Project Sequence Project Sequence

16

What Happens Next? What Happens Next?

• Engineering

Engineering and environmental studies environmental studies are scheduled at 3 years

• After federal approval, move to final

final design design and construction construction

• Solicit interest from potential private

private sector partners sector partners

• Federal

Federal and state funding state funding requests requests (e.g. HSIPR, RRIF, TIFIA, appropriations, reauthorization)

• First train

First train runs runs in 5-6 years; full first phase system complete in 8 years

16

17

What Happens Next? What Happens Next?

• Engineering

Engineering and environmental studies environmental studies are scheduled at 3 years

• After federal approval, move to final

final design design and construction construction

• Solicit interest from potential private

private sector partners sector partners

• Federal

Federal and state funding state funding requests requests (e.g. HSIPR, RRIF, TIFIA, appropriations, reauthorization)

• First train

First train runs runs in 5-6 years; full first phase system complete in 8 years

17

www www.LoneSt .LoneStarRail.com arRail.com