Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
High-SpeedTransportation Opportunities
Greater Dallas Planning Council
September 12, 2019
Kevin Feldt
North Central Texas Council of Governments
2
High Speed RailHigh-Speed Rail Recommendations
3
High Speed RailDFW High-Speed Rail Projects
Fort Worth to Laredo High-Speed Transportation Study
NCTCOG
Dallas to HoustonHigh-Speed Rail ProjectTexas Central Railway (TCR)
DFW High-SpeedTransportation Connection Study
NCTCOG
4 February 11, 2018
We Are Here
5
Dallas to Houston
Dallas
Houston
Bryan/College Station/Huntsville
FRA Preferred Alignment
Potential Stations
6
Current TCR Activity Highlights
•Building the Project Every Day
•Working with Design/Build Partner
• Preparing for Construction Activity
• Petition for Rulemaking Granted by FRA• Rule of Particular Applicability
• Final Rule Expected in 2020
• Environmental Impact Statement• Record of Decision Expected 1Q 2020
Source: Texas Central Railway
7
Other Activities
•Perkins + Will Study for Dallas
• Lot E Feasibility
• No Fatal Flaw
Source: Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam
8
Dallas Station
Source: Texas Central Railway
Lot E
9
Fort Worth to Laredo
10
Fort Worth to Laredo
• Generally Parallels IH 35• Fort Worth
• Waco
• Temple
• Killeen
• Austin
• San Antonio
• Laredo*
• Investigate High-Speed Transportation (HST) Options• Corridors• Technology• Modes of Travel
*In Laredo, the end point/station location will be studied as to not
preclude extending an alignment to Monterrey, Mexico
11
Project Background
2017
Previous StudyTOPRS ROD and FEIS
Tier 1 NEPA Study
Future
Future StudyFurther Corridor
EvaluationTier 2 NEPA Study
2019 2020
Current StudyBridge – Previous to Future
12
Project Purpose
Fort Worth
Waco
Austin
San Antonio
Laredo
Killeen-Temple
• “Bridge” to Tier 2 Environmental Study
• Investigate High-Speed Transportation (HST) Options• Corridors
• Technology
• Modes of Travel
13
TOPRS Tier 1 Corridor Analysis
14
Technologies/Modes Analyzed
MaglevHigh-Speed &Higher-Speed Trains
Hyperloop
Guaranteed TransitRegional Rail
15
City Pairs Analyzed
Fort Worth Laredo
Study Corridor
Fort Worth – Laredo: All Stops
Fort Worth – Austin – San Antonio – Laredo
Fort Worth – Austin – Laredo
Fort Worth – Laredo
Fort Worth Waco Killeen-Temple Austin San Antonio
Laredo
Fort Worth Waco Killeen-Temple Austin San Antonio
Laredo
Fort Worth Austin San Antonio
Laredo
Fort Worth Austin Laredo
16
Project Schedule
March April May June July August
September October November December JanuaryAugust
Review Technology & Design Criteria
Review Previous StudiesCorridor Development
Corridor Development Final Report
Stakeholder Coordination
17
Fort Worth to Dallas
18
Fort Worth to Dallas High-SpeedTransportation Study• Previous Efforts
• TxDOT• DFW Core Express Service
• NCTCOG• Station Area Studies• Corridor Analysis
• New Project Next Steps• Complete Agreements with FRA and FTA• Complete Scope of Work• Publish RFP – October?• Hire Consultant• Notice to Proceed – February?
Source: Hua Yang
19
DFW Core Express Service Alternatives Analysis
Downtown Dallas
Downtown Fort Worth
Arlington
Grand Prairie
Irving
19
20
Potential Arlington Station and Alignment Options
21
Potential Fort Worth Station and Alignment Options
22
Alignment Corridors Analyzed by NCTCOG
22
Proposed Texas Central HSRAlignment Corridors Analyzed
23
New Project Scope of Work
• Public & Agency Involvement
• Alternative Development
• Alternative Screening
• Conceptual Engineering
Phase 1 – Alternative Development
• NEPA Documentation & Record of Decision
• Preliminary Engineering
• Financial & Project Management Plans
Phase 2 – Engineering & Environmental
Includes a technology forum
Includes alignments & technology
Pre
-NEP
AN
EPA
24
Technology
Source: AECOM
Source: AECOM
25
Two Primary Technologies
Characteristic High-Speed Rail Hyperloop
Top Speed ~220 mph ~700 mph
Headway 30 minutes 2 minutes
Station Spacing 250 miles 250 miles
Person Capacity 2,400/hour/direction1 16,000/hour/direction2
Operation Scheduled Service On Demand
Access Multiple Stops Point to Point
Cost ~$60m/mile ???
Freight No Yes
Notes: 1 Estimate based on NCTCOG calculations combining stated headway and train set capacity from TCR2 Estimate from Virgin Hyperloop One
26
What is Hyperloop?
•New Mode of Transportation• Moving Passengers and Freight
• Near-Vacuum Tube
• Electric Propulsion
•Autonomous Pod Levitates Above the Track
•Glides Over Long Distances
Passenger pod
Cargo pod
Source: Virgin Hyperloop One
27
Virgin Hyperloop One (VHO)
•VHO One of Several Firms
• Several Meetings With Staff
•Hyperloop On The Hill Event
•Nevada Test Track
•Passenger Pod Tour
•Certification Center• Research and Development
Source: Kevin Feldt
28
Nevada Test Track
Source: Kevin Feldt
29
Passenger Pod Tour
Source: Kevin Feldt
Source: NCTCOG
30
VHO Certification Center Phasing and Timing
Phase Timing Length of Track
A 18 months1.5 km (straight)
(0.9 mi)
B 9 months3 to 5 km
(1.9 to 3.1 mi)
C 9 Months 0
D 9 Months6 to 8 km
(3.7 to 5.0 mi)
31
Hyperloop Design Parameters
✓Need For Service/Access Road Along The Guideway
✓Vacuum Buildings Every 5 Miles
X Design Elements
X Maximum Vertical Grade
X Minimum Horizontal Curve
32
747 In-flight Turn Radius
Calculate the radius of the turn using this formula, slightly
modified from Wikipedia to give nmi instead of feet:
Which gives us:
So the turn itself would be about 15 nautical miles wide(≈ 91,000 feet) not accounting for wind.
Source: Wikipedia
Radius of turn in nautical miles = velocity2
68579 x tan(bank)
7.51 nmi = 4902
68579 x tan(25°)
33
Typical Section DRAFT
* Horizontal and vertical clearances allow for the area needed to construct, operate and maintain the guideway and supporting facilities.** Minimum vertical clearance over roadways is 5 m or 16.5 ft. Vertical clearance of 5.6 m or 18.5 ft would be required over interstate highways and other roadway corridors designated for freight. Vertical clearance over passenger or freight railroads would be 7 m or 23 ft.
5 m16.4 ft
Tube
4 m13.1 ft
4 m13.1 ft
13 m42.7 ft
4 m13.1 ft
Vertical Clearance*
5 m16.4 ft
Tube
10 to 10.6 m32.9 to 34.9 ft
Vertical Clearance
Over Roadway**5 to 5.6 m
16.5 to 18.5 ft
Horizontal Clearance*
Horizontal Clearance*
34
Typical Section DRAFT
* Horizontal and vertical clearances allow for the area needed to construct, operate and maintain the guideway and supporting facilities.** Minimum vertical clearance over roadways is 5 m or 16.5 ft. Vertical clearance of 5.6 m or 18.5 ft would be required over interstate highways and other roadway corridors designated for freight. Vertical clearance over passenger or freight railroads would be 7 m or 23 ft.
5 m16.4 ft
Tube 4 m
13.1 ft4 m
13.1 ft
Horizontal Clearance*
19 m62.3 ft
4 m13.1 ft
Vertical Clearance*
5 m16.4 ft
Tube
9 m29.5 ft
Horizontal Clearance*
5 m16.4 ft
Tube
1 m3.3 ft
Vertical Clearance
Over Roadway**5 to 5.6 m
16.5 to 18.5 ft
35
Typical Section DRAFT* Horizontal and vertical clearances allow for the area needed to construct, operate and maintain the guideway and supporting facilities.** Minimum vertical clearance over roadways is 5 m or 16.5 ft. Vertical clearance of 5.6 m or 18.5 ft would be required over interstate highways and other roadway corridors designated for freight. Vertical clearance over passenger or freight railroads would be 7 m or 23 ft.
5 m16.4 ft
Tube
4 m13.1 ft
4 m13.1 ft
26.5 m = 87 ft
4 m13.1 ft
Vertical Clearance*
5 m16.4 ft
Tube
10 to 10.6 m32.9 to 34.9 ft
Vertical Clearance
Over Roadway**5 to 5.6 m
16.5 to 18.5 ft
Horizontal Clearance*
Horizontal Clearance*
8.5 m28 ft
AV/Roadway
5 m16.4 ft
Tube
36
Potential Certification Track Alignments
37
Certification Center• Working with Dallas Regional Chamber• Anticipate RFP Published in November
• Will be Interactive (No “Cone of Silence”)• Three Focus Areas
• Land • Regulatory• Funding
• Involvement • Universities• Trade Groups• Transportation Industry
• Planners• Engineers• Contractors
• Finance and Funding Key Components
