The cost of fixing Texas traffic is mindboggling

AUSTIN -- Texans will need to spend a mind-boggling $14.2 billion a year through 2030 to keep up with the state's growing traffic needs and fix miles of aging highways and bridges, according to a report released Wednesday.

That amount would be more than double the $6 billion a year the Texas Department of Transportation is appropriated.

The report by the transportation department's 2030 Committee, a panel of experts that spent six months researching the needs of highways, bridges, rail lines and ports, is sure to draw fire during the next legislative session that begins in January. Lawmakers have said they want to tear down and rebuild the administration of the oft-criticized transportation department -- and one of the common accusations is that the department's leaders manipulate statistics to get what they need from the Legislature.

But this time, the report was conducted by "an esteemed panel of experts," Texas Transportation Commission chairwoman Deirdre Delisi said. When asked Wednesday morning if she was worried that lawmakers simply wouldn't believe the numbingly high numbers in the report, Delisi said:

"To quote Popeye, 'They are what they are.' ... The needs are real," she said. Delisi was appointed chairwoman in April and within a month assembled the outside panel of business leaders to provide an objective assessment of the state's needs.

Details of the report are being presented today to the transportation commission during a workshop in Austin. The main presenter is Michael Walton, a civil engineering professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

Also serving on the panel is Roger Nober, executive vice president at Fort Worth-based BNSF.

Researchers from the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M and the University of Texas at Austin Center for Transportation Research assisted in the six months of work.

The panel surveyed the needs of each urban and metro area in the state, using resources such as the recently updated Mobility 2030 plan in Dallas-Fort Worth, and concluded that $313 billion would need to be spent from 2009-2030 to prevent congestion from getting worse. That amount would include:

• $89 billion to repair and maintain existing roads.
• $36 billion to repair and replace structurally deficient bridges.
• $171 billion to build and expand roads, mostly in metro areas, to prevent growth-related congestion from getting worse.
• $17 billion to improve safety on rural roads, and connect rural producers to markets.

Although some recent studies suggest that people are driving less, especially in an era of higher gas prices, the panel accepted data from metropolitan planners, including the North Central Texas Council of Governments, that projects the number of vehicle miles traveled in Texas will continue to increase dramatically through 2030.

"Texas will grow by seven to 17 million people during that time," Walton said Wednesday.

The report will be posted online later this afternoon at on TxDot's home page.

Check back to Honkin' Mad! for more on this topic later today.

2030 Committee Members

Ken Allen, San Antonio H-E-B	David M. Laney, Dallas Law Office of David M. Laney, PC
Ruben Bonilla, Corpus Christi Port of Corpus Christi Commission	David Marcus, El Paso Marcus, Fairall, Bristol + Co.,LLP
Jon Cannon, Dallas FedEx Kinko's	Drayton McLane, Jr., Temple McLane Group
Drew Crutcher, Odessa Landgraf, Crutcher & Associates, Inc.	Roger Nober, Fort Worth Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation
Judge Ed Emmett, Houston Harris County Commissioners Court	Gary Thomas, Dallas Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Tom Johnson, Austin Associated General Contractors of Texas	C. Michael Walton, Austin The University of Texas at Austin

Comments

[Garl B. Latham]

Why do groups such as this even MENTION "the needs of...rail lines," when their ENTIRE budget proposal deals with HIGHWAYS and the presumed "dramatic" increase in future motor vehicle traffic?!

Oh, THAT's right: to distract us from their REAL intent! [Among other things, it's called "window dressing."]

The best Deirdre Delisi can manage is a weak misquotation of a cartoon character and a continued insistence that her cohorts are "an esteemed panel of experts," therefore able to both predict and prepare for our collective transportation future.

Yes, I suppose the total "cost of fixing" [sic] things is pretty hard to swallow...but far MORE "mindboggling" is how absolutely BLIND our "leaders" continue to be!

As I've so often said, my disgust knows no bounds!

I'll leave you all with a simple prediction: if we DO spend 313 BILLION dollars (_sounds_ like a lot of money, doesn't it?) over the next 22 years in the way these "esteemed experts" have suggested, worsening congestion will NOT be prevented, air quality will NOT be improved, general mobility will NOT be increased, and we'll have that much LESS time and money left to spend upon passenger and freight transportation alternatives before achieving essential gridlock.

You know, when that day comes, we'll have no one but ourselves to blame - for allowing people such as this to act with impunity.

Since it is not possible for Deirdre Delisi to be objective regarding transportation issues, it is not possible for her to assemble a group of "leaders" to "provide an objective assessment of [Texas' transportation] needs." Period.

It isn't often that I feel a desire to use foul language in order to sweeten my prose; therefore, I think I'll stop right now!

Merry Christmas.

Garl, in Dallas

[Garl B. Latham]

After reading the committee's executive summary report, I sent along this comment:

"I have no questions at this time for your 'esteemed panel of experts.' I simply wish to quote one portion of the recently released executive summary of your draft report:

"'...intercity passenger rail MIGHT [emphasis mine] complement [Texas'] long-term mobility strategy. A comprehensive assessment of intercity passenger rail is needed to determine its value to Texas.'

"The goal is not to determine the overall level of investment, mind you, nor the specific technologies to be used, the individual routes and services to be offered, or the several stations to be established.

"No...according to your tidy little group, a (shall we say) 'STUDY' will be required to determine IF WE NEED PASSENGER TRAINS AT ALL!!

"With people like you working overtime to ensure our dependence upon automobiles remains unchecked for yet another generation (or two), I have absolutely NO HOPE for the world my children will inherit."

We'll see if anyone responds.

Should we place a wager on it?!

Hmmm...

Garl

[Garl B. Latham]

You know...

It isn't as though I relish my opportunities to pick apart such diatribe, although it seems so easy to do. In fact, it is often depressing.

Still, we all do what we can. Besides, SOMEONE needs to call these "experts" on their idiocy. If I don't, and no one else with adequate knowledge chooses to do so, then we give them free rein - and that's no solution, since it has been "experts" like this who have successfully brought us our existing "transportation" (read: "highway") network.

Perhaps I should hesitate before questioning such a "nationally renown research team of transportation experts." To be honest, I probably would keep my mouth shut, no matter how I might feel, if we were discussing any topic _besides_ transportation! But, as with the old joke, these folks "have stopped preachin' and started meddlin'!"

The ultimate insult, almost too much to bear, is TXDOT's assertion that, "for many years, Texas led the [U.S.] in transportation infrastructure development." Our "Highway Department" [sic] is, of course, speaking of "HIGHWAY development" and precious little else.

Interestingly, the "renown experts" almost immediately follow that statement with this comment: "the impact of this farsightedness is dramatic."

Yes; yes, it is.

It is dramatic how we have no reasonable alternative to travel by private automobile throughout the vast majority of our beloved state.

It is dramatic how we collectively wring our hands over things like urban congestion and air quality, then decide to dig our hole even deeper!

It is dramatic how we continue to live out the definition of "insanity": doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result! [Isn't it funny how being insane seemingly qualifies one to be considered an "expert"?!]

It is dramatic how the only "justification" for spending the entire projected 2030 budget on road projects, as specifically stated in the executive summary*, is the fact that there are several roadway plans already on the drawing board, yet nothing regarding transport options. In other words, due to Tex-DOT's REFUSAL to plan and deal straightforwardly - dare I say PROACTIVELY - with rail-based alternatives, we're stuck with MORE OF THE SAME!! [*The acatual statement was: "The timeframe of this report did not permit an in-depth analysis of other transportation modes...".]

It is dramatic how anyone, especially an "expert," can actually believe* that an unaltered mid-twentieth century technology is representative of the future! [*At least, that is our presumption. We can only _imagine_ what actually goes on behind closed doors and who might directly or indirectly benefit, financially or otherwise, from our autocentric status quo.]

It is dramatic how our the lives of our children - and _their_ children - have become so meaningless to us who are ultimately responsible for their welfare!

It is dramatic how we speak out of one side of our mouths regarding a universal willingness to embrace technological change, yet have become so firmly entrenched within the cabins of our precious little cars that we fear (yes, FEAR) even the _discussion_ of change!

I'm sorry; I must needs pause here. I'm becoming quite ill.

Garl

[Garl B. Latham]

Well, since I'm already feeling sick...

"Tex-DOT" claims they have no alternative but to take an auto-centric approach to [ahem] "planning," since they've wasted the past generation in their continual refusal to even ACKNOWLEDGE alternatives to the "pave-and-drive" mentality of the past half-century, plus.

Therefore, since I hesitate to call "experts" LIARS, I'll accept that statement as the truth! The ONLY reason no railroad options are currently on the table is because the "experts" have no idea what they might be!

[Sounds pretty fantastic, doesn't it?!]

So, in order to get things started, I'd like to post a few ideas of my own.

We'll begin with intercity passenger train service, since the N.C.T.C.O.G. has already developed a plan (yes, that's right - a real, live PLAN!) for regional service.

Amongst the immediate priorities:

1. The so-called "South Central High Speed Rail Corridor," as already defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation [sic]. This involves routes from "Dallas/Fort Worth" (wherever THAT is!) to Austin and San Antonio, Oklahoma City and Tulsa, and Texarkana and Little Rock.

2. Potential branches off the South Central lines, including service to Shreveport, Louisiana via Longview.

3. Intercity service to Houston and Galveston, via College Station.

4. Passenger operations between Texas and Colorado, potentially involving an "auto train" concept service. A logical north central Texas terminal for the handling of motor vehicles would be Saginaw. Passenger routes to connect that location with our regional system for those who are not driving (such as by way of trains running north from downtown Fort Worth) need to be established.

5. Other routes as advocated by independent groups, like the Texas Association of Railroad Passengers. They include a restoration of service due west to Abilene, Sweetwater and points beyond, passenger trains to Lubbock and Amarillo, trains through Decatur and Wichita Falls, and an oft-promised Amtrak line due east into the deep South, serving Birmingham, Atlanta and Savannah.

Is the actual implementation of these routes solely under Texas' purview? Perhaps not; but, SOMEONE will eventually draw up plans for the way long distance trains will tie in with Texas' various urban lines! If we fail to take the initiative, other entities may be making these decisions FOR us...altering our landscape for generations to come.

More to follow.

GBL

[Garl B. Latham]

Since the N.C.T.C.O.G. has worked so long to develop a logical proposal for regional passenger train service, I feel TXDOT's local efforts should be centred on ways to tie the COG's plans into future intercity operations.

One way this can be accopmlished is through the active development of "gateways" - i.e., junction points where convenient connections between all services will be possible.

Locations which fit the bill for potential secondary gateways include:

1. Carrollton - the intersection of DART's Green Line to Dallas, DCTA's "A Train" to Denton, the Cotton Belt corridor to Fort Worth, and the former Frisco Railway alignment between Irving and Denison.

2. Garland - the junction point where DART's Blue Line meets today's Kansas City Southern and Dallas, Garland and Northeastern main lines, offering logical routes between (for example) Dallas, Greenville, Sulphur Springs, Mount Pleasant and and Texarkana.

3. The Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport - where DART's Orange Line can interface with both the Cotton Belt and Trinity Railway Express services.

4. Waxahachie - the location where regional service to both Fort Worth and Dallas can seamlessly dovetail with through intercity express trains along corridors to Waco/Austin/San Antonio and College Station/Houston/Galveston.

5. Saginaw - where three existing main lines (the former Santa Fe and Burlington [Fort Worth and Denver] routes of today's BNSF, and the Union Pacific's former Rock Island line) intersect, and where (as already mentioned) an auto-train terminal should be constructed.

There are others; but, you get the idea.

The vital importance of both Fort Worth and Dallas as primary gateways hopefully go without saying...although Fort Worth's Intermodal Transportation Center and Dallas' Union Terminal will require tremendous capital investment to prepare for the future.

Since the Texas & Pacific building should have been identified as Fort Worth's primary intercity passenger train depot all along, it's possible that any major improvements should be concentrated, at least initially, upon the T&P location.

More to follow...but, perhaps, not until I finish preparing for Christmas with my girls - and the predictable aftermath!

GBL

[Garl B. Latham]

After reading back through my previous comments in this thread, I regret intimating that anyone is a "liar."

Of course, there are many types of "liars" - and even those who lie only to themselves, out of ignorance, with no malice aforethought, may fit the category as defined.

Still, it is not my intent to be rude, much less un-Christian.

Therefore, I will henceforth refrain from accusing ANYone of lying. In return, I humbly request that those who worked on the 2030 committee plan refrain from labeling themselves, or even accepting the appellation, "expert" - at least when dealing with these issues.

After all, misleading yourself is no longer harmless if you decide to broadcast the things you believe. Speaking out of ignorance and willfully touting credentials as an "expert" whilst disseminating inaccuracies is NOT the same thing as making the occasional honest mistake. Having the purest of intentions doesn't absolve one of responsibility when other's lives are at stake.

I know several of the committee members - one of them personally. I wouldn't want to hurt his feelings for anything, nor make him feel as though I question his abilities within his _true_ areas of expertise.

I suppose this is my ultimate point: if there is one thing in this ol' world that _I_ understand, it's North American intercity railroad passenger train logistics - the planning, design, operation and maintenance of what SHOULD be a comprehensive continent-wide system, one which includes every aspect of service...from interconnectivity with local transit at one end of the spectrum to the proverbial "intermodal" connections available at the other.

If Tex-DOT's 2030 plan was acceptable, I'd buy into it. Oh, I may not agree with every aspect of the document; but, I'd at least feel good about reading it.

As it stands, however, the plan is NOT acceptable - and I am both surprised and disappointed with some of the people I've noticed who offered the document their seal of approval.

I'm tired.

GBL

[Garl B. Latham]

Let's see...

Six comments so far, all of them from me, with four of 'em being posted within the past six hours!

Does that make me "Honkin' Mad"?!

Hmmm...

Everyone else in my household is settled (at last) for a long winter's nap - and that's where I'm a-headin'!

Best wishes to all.

Garl

[Garl B. Latham]

Well...

The various members of my family are now (relatively) quiet, enjoying their presents, so I thought I'd get back to the topic at hand - at least for a few minutes.

Before going any farther, I'd like to make clear that I am completely in support of railway-based freight service. There is absolutely no reason the two worlds - freight AND passenger operations - cannot be successfully integrated. In fact, it is not only possible for the two types of trains to share the same rights-of-way, but the same infrastructure, as well.

This, of course, runs contrary to the commonly accepted wisdom of the day, where it is presumed that the only intercity operations which could possibly attract ridership would be operating at speeds that either prevent them from sharing the "freight" track (say, maximum speeds in the 100 to 110 m/h range) or from even sharing the same physical corridor (such as for true high-speed operations, where trains "cruise" at 125 m/h, or greater).

Still, the facts are incontrovertible: it is both logical and reasonable to plan for intercity services to rely, at least initially, upon CONVENTIONAL technology, with passenger and freight trains working side-by-side.

This would enable the track OWNERS, the so-called "freight" railroads*, to share the benefits of any track, signal and terminal improvements put in place for the establishment of resurrected/expanded passenger operation. After all, it is only fair to place the needs of the private companies at the top of the list!

With something for everyone, the railroads would receive an improved physical plant and increased overall capacity, while the general public would get the benefit of finer freight operations and the promise of a new generation of passenger trains to ride!

[*With all due respect to the industry, there IS no such thing as a "freight railroad"! That appellation is part of a highly successful marketing strategy, but nothing more. In the early 1980s, once deregulation occurred and the final privately operated passenger trains ran their last miles, the private railroads wished to distance themselves from every vestige of traditional passenger service - and one way to do so was to (shall I say) "re-brand" their image. Yet, even today, these three things remain absolutely true: 1) freight operations have been, from day one, the backbone of railroading, 2) the vast majority of today's "passenger railroads" DO NOT OWN their own trackage and must contract with the track owners - the [ahem] "freight railroads" - for operational rights, and 3) the railroad's primary business concern has nothing to do with any inherent operational incompatibilities and everything to do with things like the threat of increased ad valorem taxation and passenger liability (imagine; it's a MONEY issue)!]

Now, please note I AM NOT advocating the seizure of private property, nor do I claim that railroad capacity has no monetary value. ANY plan for increases/resurrected passenger service MUST be accompanied by a whole pot-full of cash! HOWEVER, that cash should NOT be spent on duplicating infrastructure, with one independent line for freight service only and the other for passengers. THAT's because...

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE EXAMPLE of a society establishing a true high-speed system before fully developing its basic railway network! NOT ONE! This "high-speed or nothing" mindset is typical of U.S. thinking - and it’s one of the reasons so many areas of the country have ended up with just that: NOTHING!

Besides, we have a century-plus of historical precedent on our side, which proves the ability of a properly operated and maintained railroad to handle parcels and people, simultaneously.

Would true high-speed train service running along the proverbial "Texas Triangle" (Fort Worth/Houston/San Antonio) be nice - and successful?! Absolutely! Still, our collective inability to establish such an operation IN NO WAY JUSTIFIES the fact we now have only one passenger train heading each way, daily, between Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio, or that there is but one train, operating THREE TIMES WEEKLY, during the MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, between San Antonio and Houston, or that there is currently NO PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE WHATSOEVER between Fort Worth and Houston!

Investing in conventional passenger train services would put rail-based options back in the public's consciousness.

It would greatly improve existing freight operations - a _vital_ part of our economy.

It would prove to a (justifiably?) cynical public that passenger trains indeed have a place in tomorrow's world. [After all, in EVERY INSTANCE where serious investment has been made to improve CONVENTIONAL intercity service in the U.S., it has been successful!]

It would help establish the market in advance of any additional improvements, such as the creation of TRUE "high-speed" routes.

It would create an immediate need for domestically produced designs and materials, and provide an economic "stimulus package" with a reach far beyond that which could be achieved by pouring more concrete and adding to an already untenable level of congestion.

It would offer the much-touted "alternative mode" we've so often discussed.

It would give rural markets the same level of service as our major metropolitan areas (more on that, later).

It would present us with a chance neither individuals or societies are oft' given: the opportunity to go back and correct some grave mistakes of the past!

With free acknowledgement of my personal bias, I STILL see no downside!

More to follow.

I trust everyone's Christmas is going well.

GBL

[Garl B. Latham]

My gracious. I can't let my guard down for one minute!

I had barely completed my travels over the river and through the woods to Mother-in-law's house before being presented with Christmas Day's edition of The Dallas Morning News. A front page story (single column and below the fold; but, front page, nonetheless) was declaring a renewed interest the U.S. D.O.T.'s "South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor" proposal - the same project mentioned again by yours truly only yesterday.

The skip included a map and several interesting quotations from various sources, a few coming courtesy of Tex-Dot's own executive director, Amadeo Saenz.

Unfortunately, it seems so easy for people like this to live down to all my expectations. I often wonder if they truly _are_ idiots, or just believe WE all are!

Does it pay them in some way to disseminate false information, or do they honestly believe what they're saying?!

The ultimate question, of course, is this: why have men like Amadeo Saenz been given the job they now hold? More to the point, why is ignorance and/or dishonesty not an adequate reason for their dismissal?!

Is it because his BOSS desires for it to continue?!

Wait a minute...I KNOW the answer!

It's the same reason which allows Deirdre Delisi to hold HER job!

You don't need to actually KNOW anything; you simply need to be a willing toady for the Governor! Just check both your conscience and your common sense at the door, and charge blindly ahead!

HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN?!

My sincere prayer is to be given wisdom, so that I may know how to constructively channel my anger.

I also pray that I'll never literally HATE these folks. Maybe they can't help being the way they are! [Of course, that's still not an excuse for them to continue holding their jobs!]

HOW LONG...

GBL

[Garl B. Latham]

I've been wondering...

How much have I contributed to this mess?

After all, had I been willing all along to diligently work on solutions, then write down my findings for others to see, it might be more difficult for people like Amadeo Saenz and Deirdre Delisi and U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and others to do so much damage.

No more!

I am SO SICK of this!

Yesterday, in The Dallas Morning News, Saenz had the audacity to say that, "perhaps 'rail or transit'* [sic] is the answer in [the Interstate 35] corridor, but...".

There's always a "but," isn't there?!

[*As a side note, I must wonder aloud...precisely what does the man mean, or think he means, by the phrase "rail or transit"?!]

Anyway, let me let y'all in on a little secret:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE" ANSWER!! "THE ANSWER" DOES NOT EXIST! In fact, it has NEVER EXISTED! To search for a literal, singular answer will do nothing but waste time and resources, and cast aspersions on whatever solutions (yes, plural) we eventually DO apply toward addressing this matter.

Conversely, trains ARE part of the mix! They MUST be! However, no one (to my knowledge) has seriously advocated the elimination of all automobiles or commercial aircraft along the Interstate 35 corridor in exchange for trains! The idea isn't (or shouldn't be) pitting one mode against another, but allowing all to exist and flourish, each interconnected in some way and each doing what it does best.

Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? In fact (and this is the scary thing): IT IS!

As we're reminded by the old cliche, this isn't rocket science!

On the other hand, it IS railroading - and, perhaps, I've been shortchanging myself all these years by downplaying the importance of my God-given talents.

Maybe, just maybe, there ARE a whole bunch of people who honestly need someone to take them by the hand and patiently lead them.

Maybe, just maybe...it should be me.

I'll try to get back to a few more facts and figures later today.

GBL

[Garl B. Latham]

I mentioned earlier how the T&P Building should serve as Fort Worth's primary intercity terminal station.

That's not necessarily a reflection upon the I.T.C. (but, could someone PLEASE come up with a better NAME?! For goodness' sakes! Central Station, perhaps? Jones Street Station? Bass Memorial Station?). It's just that the I.T.C. was, from the outset, made to protect the absolute MINIMUM needs for passenger and railway operations, with NO consideration for the future.

Offence intended.

How many have actually seen how the building overflows with people and trains during the afternoon? TODAY! We're currently dealing with three arrivals and three departures of Amtrak services within a span of approximately five hours - not an outrageous amount, by any means. When that number increases, as it surely will, what are the solutions?

Oh, THAT's right.

Even now, DART (by way of the T.R.E.) has "suddenly" (read: "publicly") bought into the idea of rerouting Amtrak's Texas Eagle service over the Trinity Railway Express main line, in theory to aid in the development of commuter train operations over the Cotton Belt between Fort Worth and Grapevine.

What a random excuse; unless...

The powers-that-be are just now beginning to realise that:

1. Amtrak isn't going away, no matter how many would-be "railroaders" have predicted otherwise over the years (including one very vocal high-level employee who used to work for DART);

2. The I.T.C. is WOEFULLY inadequate to do even its _current_ job, much less handle future demands, and was purposefully "designed" that way from day one in order to save money (call it "form over function");

3. It will take some _serious_ money in order to effectively alter that fact;

4. No one wishes to take ultimate responsibility for the matter;

5. There is (apparently) no plan in place to get a grip on these things, even if money [cough, gag] wasn't an issue;

6. Amtrak is NOT going away;

7. Even the slightest increase in _through_ traffic, such as a new regional line (call it, say, the Cotton Belt alignment), will be enough to drive the facility to the precipice;

8. Two of the three main intercity service improvements now in the works - increased frequencies between Little Rock and San Antonio, and both route and service expansion north to Oklahoma - will have a direct effect upon the I.T.C.; and

9. Did I happen to mention that AMTRAK ISN'T GOING AWAY?!

Sorry; I'm being called to dinner.

I'll be back later this evening to review what will be necessary to make ANY downtown station work properly, and why the budget required to deal with these things would be better spent on the T&P Building.

Politically untenable? Perhaps. So...we'll just need to accept the realities of the golden rule, eh? "He who has the gold, rules!"

BALDERDASH!

GBL

[Garl B. Latham]

You know, for years I've complained of the way Dallas is run by developers. So, what's Fort Worth's excuse?!

As an ultimate recent example of "what-WERE-they-thinking?!" (or, more accurately, why can't the needs of trains be considered when redeveloping a TRAIN station?!), the powers-that-be allowed a PARKING STRUCTURE to be built RIGHT ON TOP OF THE REMAINING TRACK/PLATFORM AREA behind the T&P Building!

AAAGHH!!

Still, it would more cost-effective to relocate the T&P's parking garage than it would be to build a true passenger concourse facility at the I.T.C.!

At times like this, I only wish the moron(s) who signed off on the parking garage's construction in the first place could/would be held accountable.

You see, no matter _where_ the main downtown passenger station is located - the I.T.C. or the T&P Building - we MUST have both multiple tracks and platforms available AND grade-separated passenger access.

It isn't just a safety issue, although it amazes me how we can design a new big city depot where baggage-toting passengers are REQUIRED to cross trackage at grade!

No, in this day and age, it is also a matter of "security"!

At today's I.T.C., there is no way to adequately secure the arrival and departure platforms! The fact that most Amtrak crews check passenger identification is meaningless and does practically _nothing_ to ensure only ticketed patrons are boarding the trains. If it was ever decided, for any reason, as a long-term policy or a short-term emergency measure, to secure the platforms and allow only ticketed passengers access to trainside, IT WOULD NOT BE REASONABLY POSSIBLE - at least not without the deployment of an unsustainable number of armed officers standing guard throughout every portion of the station area!

Far be it from me to be a fear monger. After all, I honestly believe the vast majority of security measures, _especially_ regarding trains, are ridiculous! [Item: how can we expect to "secure" our railroad corridors when we can't even keep graffiti off the sides of freight equipment?!]

My essential points are simply these: WE'RE NOT THINKING THESE THINGS THROUGH, WE'RE NOT PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE, and WE'RE NOT BEING HONEST WITH OURSELVES!

How about:

1. Being honest concerning the station improvements which will be necessary to start even ONE more regular service through the I.T.C. (such as the Cotton Belt line);

2. Being honest concerning the downside of rerouting the current Fort Worth - Dallas schedules off the UP (nee T&P) and onto the TRE (nee Rock Island);

3. Being honest concerning the monetary and operational costs of relocating Amtrak's through-train servicing facilities away from the existing I.T.C. boarding platform areas (and, while we're at it, being honest that it HAS to be something that's being discussed, right now, behind closed doors);

4. Being honest concerning the relative ease of dovetailing any necessary station work at both depots with work being planned for Tower 55;

5. Being honest concerning the fairness of expecting both the UP and the BNSF to help pitch in even with passenger-only capital projects, if those projects directly address Tower 55's traffic issues;

6. Being honest concerning both security and safety issues in and around our public passenger train facilities; and

7. Being honest concerning the long-term needs of regional AND intercity services, for passenger convenience, train handling, equipment maintenance, etc.

That's not all. It's just that my fingers are gettin' tired!

Why aren't we discussing the removal of Davidson, nee Centennial, nee Lancaster Yard to a newer and larger location farther west, then using that site to construct a smaller, newer, cleaner and quieter _passenger_ servicing facility?

Why aren't we discussing the financial impact of Fort Worth's historic, current and continued _natural_ role as the primary junction point, maintenance base and crew terminal for passenger railroading in north central Texas?

Why aren't we discussing stations at the same time we're discussing interlocking plants, or intercity trains at the same time we're discussing regional services, or terminal improvements at the same time we're discussing additional main lines?!

[sigh]

Sometimes, I wish I could delve into this stuff without becoming agitated! Then again, maybe that's what it'll take to stay the course and not give up!

More to follow.

GBL

[Garl B. Latham]

Question:

What do Houston and Alpine have in common?

Well, let's see. They're both nice places to visit and they're both seats of county government.

They are also, currently, precisely _equal_ in the world of intercity passenger train service!

Now, there's no denying that's little more than an indication of the horrific depths our woefully inadequate "system" of passenger trains has reached. But, it's also an indication how, with passenger trains, a relatively small hamlet in the trans-Pecos region can rate right up there with one of the largest cities in the western hemisphere!

According to Tex-Dot in its 2030 plan, one of the main concerns to the creators of the document is "rural competitiveness and safety" - a way to tie small towns and rural areas more closely to major markets through alternative transport modes.

One way to do that is through expanded and improved rail-based freight and passenger service!

This desire to assist in the continued health and future prosperity of locations far removed from our urban areas is one reason why:

1. Long distance intercity passenger trains are a vital part of the transport mix;

2. It is logical to invest in such a way that both passenger and freight train services are beneficiaries; and

3. Our existing through railroad main lines should be adequately improved _before_ any grade-separated, limited-stop, new right-of-way operations are even seriously _discussed_!

"Intermodalism" can offer people living in outlying areas multiple "car-free" options for travel. For example, should someone in Ranger who's traveling to New York City by airplane be required to drive to D/FW Airport first, or should they be able to board a passenger train in their own hometown, which will (essentially) carry them directly to their airline's departure gate?

Is it more likely for someone in Hillsboro to drive back into Dallas so they might board an airplane bound for San Antonio, or would they just shrug, sigh and join the southbound hordes using Interstate 35? Now, what if a passenger train, even one traveling at "conventional" speeds (call it a maximum of 79 m/h), could take them from _their_ hometown directly _to_ San Antonio, where convenient connections might be made with local rail-based transit in order for them to reach their final destination?

What is less disruptive to farm and ranch land: a second or third main line track added to an existing right-of-way, or a completely new cross-country alignment?!

What holds greater promise for local development and positive economic impact: a grade-separated route running outside of a town's boundaries, or a grade-level route running right _through_ town, complete with a depot and ancillary facilities?!

One way we can prove to rural areas that their future matters as much as ours is to recreate a synergistic railroad network where the Alpine's of Texas get as much of a fair shake as the Houston's!

It is possible with trains! In fact, in a society where alternative transportation goals take centre stage, it is, arguably, ONLY possible with trains!

More to follow.

GBL

[Garl B. Latham]

Here's another question:

What does Interstate 35 mean to you?

Some folks might automatically think of it as "Texas' Main Street" (and I've actually heard that appellation used) - the primary route south to Waco, Austin and San Antonio.

Others will immediately picture an easy way north to the border and on into Oklahoma.

There will, of course, be those who'll envision Interstate 35W and their daily commute.

If we were to leave Texas and visit some friends up in Yankeeville...what then? Ask a man living in Kansas City, for instance, and he might say it's a direct roadway to and from Des Moines.

And you know what? All of these answers - and a multitude of others - would be absolutely correct!

Now, think with me for a moment: what is a _technical_ definition of Interstate 35? Well...it's a controlled-access freeway which connects Laredo with Duluth, Minnesota.

So, why should we build and maintain a major divided highway in order to connect Texas and Minnesota? After all, how many people actually drive from Laredo to Duluth?! I bet we could save a tremendous amount of the taxpayer's money if we just gave everyone who currently drives from Laredo to Duluth an airplane ticket and abandoned the roadway, outright!

Has anyone among us ever been subjected to that ridiculous argument? I thought not.

Still, how often have we been asked the same sort of things about passenger train services? Why do we even _need_ long distance runs in this day and age? After all, we could just buy everybody an airplane ticket and...

Nope; that's not the way it works.

Long haul national network routes actually exist as a series of interconnected short- to medium-haul routes, able to (borrowing from our highway example) serve the passenger traveling from San Antonio to Fort Worth AND the passenger traveling from Wichita to Minneapolis - as _well_ as those going from San Antonio to Minneapolis!

Furthermore (and this is an important point), they can efficiently carry someone who's traveling between, say, San Marcos and Denton! Seamless routes don't ignore those who board and alight at the smaller intermediate locations, nor do they penalise those who travel _through_ major terminal areas.

I don't know HOW many times I've heard the ignorant claim that "Amtrak's problem" (and would to God there was but one!) was its insistence upon running all those empty cross-country trains, which (naturally) have no place in a "modern" society.

Hmmm...

Where do I begin?!

First of all, I dare ANYONE to show me a SINGLE example of an "empty Amtrak train"! Those bad ol' trains no one wants to use DO NOT EXIST! Surely, there are some days and seasons which claim higher ridership than others, but there is not a route or service in existence today that is generally underutilised (nor, while I'm at it, is there one that is a product of political mumbo-jumbo and maintains no practical operational purpose)!

Secondly, the train's primary competition is the private automobile, not the commercial jet airliner! Want to hear an interesting little fact? According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based upon current travel patterns, someone is far more likely to DRIVE from here to Minnesota than they are to "fly"! [One of the reasons may be that our hypothetical driver isn't _really_ going from "D/FW" to Minneapolis, but from Decatur to Rochester!]

Thirdly, it's those bad ol' conventional long distance trains which connect the most unlikely of city pairs! How many comfortable, all weather, full-service modes of transportation can _you_ think of that could take you from McGregor to Pauls Valley?! Don't like my example? Then combine any two points you may wish - presuming they're both along an existing route.

Do y'all want to know what Amtrak's single biggest problem _really_ is?! It's the fact that there are nowhere near _enough_ long distance trains!

Some day; some day.

More to follow.

GBL

[Garl B. Latham]

I know a nice older couple who are spending their retirement years in a modest but comfortable home near Granbury.

They have a married daughter whom they love very much. This daughter currently resides up in Springfield, Illinois with _her_ family.

These dear Texans enjoy going to visit her and, naturally, having the chance to spend a bit of "quality time" with their only grandchildren.

Their visits were beginning to wear on them, however, due to their established pattern of travel.

You see, they _were_ driving from Hood County into the 'Metromess' (and what a nerve-wracking journey _that_ was for them!) just to get to D/FW Airport, board an airplane enroute to St. Louis, THEN rent an automobile and _drive_ almost 100 miles _more_ to Springfield!

Whew!

That ramble essentially took an entire day.

After "objectively"(!) reviewing their needless torture, I suggested a nice trip on the train. Yes, it would take more time; but, it would be far more relaxing, mostly overnight and during evening and morning mealtimes rather than ALL DAY LONG, and far simpler to negotiate.

Now they can have a friend take them to the train station in Cleburne, thereby avoiding all the traffic and associated headaches (both literal and metaphorical) which come with big city driving. They can board their through train at that depot for a direct trip to Springfield...then dine, drink and doze to their heart's content.

The next morning, not long after breakfast, they're hugging their grandchildren on the Springfield station platform! They are rested and refreshed; they never had to drive at _all_, much less in city traffic; they never rented a car, changed modes of transportation or otherwise experienced any of our "modern conveniences"! They simply relaxed and relied on the "old fashioned" train!

Is it always that simple? Of course not. Today, there are far too many places one cannot reach by passenger train at ALL, primarily due to our government's failure to think, plan and invest. However, the example I gave is real! It is not contrived, nor is it far-fetched. Rather, it is a _good_ example of what could once again become fairly commonplace, here in Texas and throughout these United States, if we'd only WAKE UP to see the inherent value of conventional long distance passenger transportation by train!

My "grid-and-gateway" route matrix system proposal would allow practically seamless interconnectivity between lines at various junction points, creating the sort of passenger train network that could offer reasonable and attractive alternatives to countless more retired couples who're just looking for a convenient way to go see their grandchildren!

And, while we were at it, we'd be providing reasonable and attractive alternatives for all those university students and business travelers and holiday makers and young families who really aren't asking for much - just a nice way to travel that doesn't involve white knuckles or strip searches or traffic jams.

The most frustrating thing of all? We have a solution right before us, which sits languishing for lack of appreciation and understanding!

I don't know whether to scream or cry - or both.

More to follow.

GBL

[Garl B. Latham]

In March of this year, I was invited to present some of my ideas at the national Transportation Research Forum - which just happened to be held in Fort Worth!

My speech was entitled "The 'Grid and Gateway' Concept: An Effective Approach to Modern Intercity Passenger Train Operations."

I know, I know...not very sexy! But, it was well received and gave me an audience of professionals who were willing to provide insight and suggestions.

Following is a small portion of my original abstract, which I trust may help explain the basic idea behind the "grid-and-gateway" concept (mentioned briefly in my previous comment).

"Historically, intercity passenger trains were operated as part of a grid-type route matrix, where a multiple number of parallel and intersecting main lines existed. Passengers wishing to connect between services could do so not only at the various terminal points, but also at certain intermediate stations. The towns where these junctions were located became collectively known as 'Gateway Cities'.

"This 'Grid-and-Gateway' operational pattern emphasized the railroad's strengths while positively dealing with its limitations.

"Certainly, there is much to say in support of new, dedicated, high-speed corridors operating between major urban areas (and their airports) throughout the U.S.; however, the political will necessary to bring this about has not yet become evident and, so far, such public works programmes are viewed by many as being prohibitively expensive.

"Therefore, the initial thrust for major investments in the U.S. intercity passenger railway system will need to concentrate upon existing infrastructure, using trains able to share guideway space with other (commuter/intermodal/freight) traffic.

"If tied to a thorough understanding of the complexity of railroad operations, a fairly conservative investment could bring the U.S. a rebuilt, revitalized system of intercity passenger trains. The traditional railway alternative, far from being outmoded and unnecessary, should be considered a foundational part of our total transportation network."

Hey...I'M sold!

More to follow.

GBL

[Garl B. Latham]

I think I'll quit for a while.

Although I'm always ready to talk 'train', I'm not sure how many more comments I should post in conjunction with this specific article.

It's just that I am SICK AND TIRED of seeing the Texas D.O.T. push us around! They are wasting our chances and our resources, and generally taking advantage of our people, our land, and our opportunities for the future.

Where do we go from here?!

I wish I knew.

Garl