Again with the half truths.
Much of SH 130 was designed and built so that double tracks can be accommodated from Georgetown through Austin. There's even consideration for tracks to leave the median where the UP intersects north of Austin. There's even consideration for tracks to leave or enter the median at SH 45 south of Austin. The expansion south of SH 45 south can be reconfigured for tracks in the median....but.....
Initial study, freight bypass using existing corridors costs too much, between
http://www.austinchamber.com/public-pol ... ilPres.pdf
* Grade Separations ($1.2 Billion) Bridges to separate the railroad from streets
* Grade Crossing Closures ($3.5 Million) Closing and rerouting the street at the intersection with the railroad
* Improvements to Existing Railroad Infrastructure ($183 Million) Improving capacity and connectivity on existing rail lines
* New Railroad Corridors ($1.4 - $2.4 Billion)
* Total estimated cost of improvements: Approx. $3.8 Billion
SH 130 Study
http://lonestarrail.com/images/uploads/ ... 90209_.pdf
The SH 130 corridor has been broken into six separate design segments and two separate construction projects. Originally conceived as a multimodal corridor, the northern 49 miles (Segments 1-4) were designed to accommodate a double track rail line running within the center median. In order to verify that such a rail line could be accommodated, Segment 1-4 designers prepared Rail Compatibility Reports to demonstrate that freight rail could actually be constructed within the corridor. While the primary focus of the design was on freight rail, that same space might also facilitate construction of commuter rail facilities. Similar rail compatibility requirements are not, however, a current requirement for the Segment 5-6 construction project; in fact, that Developer is not even required to consider the potential for future rail construction.
With regard to constructing a rail line within the SH 130 corridor, three potential alignment options were considered. The intent of this study was to review each of those options and to assess whether there were any impediments within the various construction segments, as they are currently constructed (1-4), or as they are currently designed (5-6) (i.e. failing to meet design standards, insufficient physical space to locate construction elements, etc.), that could be considered “fatal flaws” for that given option, and that would thus prevent the implementation of that option.
The only viable option was Option 1, which would place the commuter rail alignment within the SH 130 median. The benefits to utilizing the center median include:
• All ROW that would be required for track construction already has, or will be, obtained as part of one of the two SH 130 projects.
• With the SH 130 project already having been through the environmental review process, no complications related to permitting are anticipated for this alignment.
• The commuter rail equipment in use today is able to negotiate the same horizontal curves and profile grades that high speed highway facilities are designed to. As such, it is possible to construct a commuter rail line in the center median which can mimic the geometry of the adjoining mainlanes.
HOWEVER, while Segments 1-4 were required by TxDOT to be rail compatible, and they could accept a commuter rail in the median, TxDOT eliminated those design requirements for Segments 5 & 6. As a result, those last two segments contain features that make use of the overall SH 130 corridor for rail virtually impossible:
• The SH 45 SE interchange contains bridge piers that directly obstruct any median- running rail alignment.
• Serious vertical and horizontal clearance restrictions exist at all overpass and interchange locations.
Design of Segments 5 and 6 are currently at the 30%-60% level and unless those critical issues are addressed immediately, use of the SH 130 corridor for rail is FATALLY FLAWED.
Segments 1-4 criteria required clearances of 23’-0” over railroads and 26’-6” over electrified light rail. Criteria for Segments 5 & 6 do require a clearance of 23’-0” over railroads, but since the requirement for “rail compatibility” in Segments 5 & 6 was eliminated, those clearances were only applied at locations where new roadways passed over existing railroads. There was no consideration given to construction of a new railroad underneath structures that are being built over highway lanes constructed as part of those Segments.
It is important to note that original design studies for the ASA commuter rail project anticipated the use of bi-level coaches having approximate heights of 18 feet. While clearance requirements imposed on Segments 1-4 (23’-0”) would accommodate such cars, the 16’-6” clearances used under bridges in Segments 5 & 6 would not do so.
I would like to point out that single level HSR cars could be just 13.1 feet tall. Talgo Series 8 car specifications
http://www.talgoamerica.com/series8-passengerCars.aspx
Talgo Series 8 Passenger Coaches
Pneumatic Brake Equipment = Three disc brakes per axle (two on the wheels)
Electric Brake Equipment = Regenerative (4200 kW) and rheostatic (3200 kW)
Maximum Width = 9.65 feet (2.942 m)
Height = 13.1 feet (4 m)
Maximum Commercial Speed = 217 mph (350 km/h)
Maximum Lateral Acceleration in Curve = 1.2 m/s2
Maximum Cant Deficiency = 7.2 inches
Track Gauge = 56.496 inches (1435 mm)
Maximum Axle Weight = 17 Tons
Type of Operation = Single Trainset or Multiple Mode
Sense of Travel = Push – Pull (Bi-directional)
Car Body Length = 43.1 feet (13.14 m)
Car Body Width = 9.65 feet (2.942 m) wide
So, even Sections 5 & 6 of SH 130 could accommodate single level trains if just one of the fatal flaws mentioned above were fixed. But, here's a juicy fact, not double stacked containers freight trains.
Tall freight trains using SH130 as the bypass needed for Lone Star commuter trains to run on existing UP tracks have to enter and exit SH130 within Sections 1 thru 4. A high speed train could just as easy if the one fatal fall design isn't corrected. So, the SH 130 median is easily available for TXHSR and wouldn't even require an Environmental Assessment, because the Environmental Impact Study has already been completed with double track rail line running in its median.
To refresh real facts derived from the links I provided:
*Corridor already owned by TXDOT
*Rail already included within the EISA
*EISA completed with Federal approval
*Overpasses already built over 23 feet tall
*All that is missing is finding the money for laying tracks, building stations, and buying trains.....
That's why it is the easiest and simplest HSR corridor through Austin. Every other potential corridor requires starting with Step 1.....
As for costs, the second link in this reply lists them:
SECTION 9.0 - CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
Costs to build a commuter rail line along the SH 130 corridor from near Georgetown, south to Seguin, and from there continuing along existing rail lines to Kelly USA southwest of San Antonio, were developed at an “order of magnitude” level. Costs shown do not address any modifications that would need to be made to the SH 130 / SH 45 S interchange, or to any elements of Segments 5 & 6 as they are currently designed, in order to ensure they would support construction of a commuter rail system. Design documents that are currently available do not contain sufficient data to make such an analysis at this time.
Seven elements of cost were tabulated:
Track: (including rail, ties, ballast, subgrade, and drainage) = $1,900 million
Structures: (along the US 130 corridor and the UP Flatonia Subdivision) = $450 million
Stations: (six along US 130, one at Kelly USA) = $85 million
Vehicles: (rolling stock) = $140 million
Maintenance Facility: = $75 million
Maintenance Equipment: = $20 million
Right – of – Way: (stations, layover yard, maintenance facility) = $25 million
Total Project Cost = $ 2,695 million
Note: That's closer to my up tp $3 Billion than your $1.2 Billion. Whether the stations are placed on the SH130 corridor or the existing UP corridor, those costs should remain nearly the same. Ideally, you'll want to move the UP trains to Seguin, so new tracks costs on Sections 5 & 6 should remain, but you can reduce those costs somewhat by leaving SH 130 at SH 45 and connecting to the UP corridor just north of San Marcus, where both the ex-MoPac and ex-MKT rail corridors remain in service. Just route the new bypass to the corridor of choice, which of course will vary depending upon which trains (passenger of freight) will be using the new bypass line. Even so, you will still have to spend some more money upgrading the tracks between San Marcus and San Antonio. So can we call the track costs a wash?
I've provided publicly released official links to the data I've been suggesting for my last few posts. The facts I've been stating weren't invented by me.