Appendix C 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Route 

Alternatives Analysis

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Final Route Alternatives 

Analysis Technical 

Memorandum 

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail 

Study 

June 23, 2014 

Prepared by CH2M HILL 

FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

iii

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Contents 

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... v 

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1

2.0 Development of Initial Range of Alternatives ........................................................... 2-1

2.1 Initial Fatal Flaw Analysis .............................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Route Alternatives Carried Forward into Route Alternatives Analysis ........ 2-4

3.0 Route Alternatives Analysis Criteria and Methodology ............................................ 3-1

3.1 Criteria Development Process ....................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Final Criteria ................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Criteria Analysis Methodology ....................................................................... 3-5

4.0 Route Alternatives Analysis Results ......................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Northern Section ............................................................................................ 4-3

4.2 Central Section ............................................................................................. 4-10

4.3 Southern Section ......................................................................................... 4-17

5.0 Conclusions and Next Steps ..................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 References ................................................................................................................. 6-1

FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

v

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

DGNO Dallas Garland and Northeastern Railroad 

DUS Dallas Union Station 

EIS environmental impact statement 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

IH Interstate Highway 

ITC Intermodal Transportation Center 

KCS Kansas Southern Railway 

LCSB Laredo-Columbia Solidarity Bridge 

NLCD National Land Cover Database 

mph miles per hour 

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

N/A not applicable 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

O-D origin-destination 

SAT San Antonio International Airport 

SCT Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes 

Study Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study 

TOPRS Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study 

TRE Trinity Railway Express 

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

1-1

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

TECHNICAL MEMORANDU M

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study 

Draft Route Alternatives Analysis 

TO: Texas Department of Transportation 

FROM: CH2M HILL 

DATE: May 16, 2014 

1.0 Introduction 

This memorandum provides an overview of the Route Alternatives Analysis conducted to 

establish the set of route alternatives, including routes and rail service-level alternatives, to 

be carried forward into the service-level environmental impact statement (EIS) for the TexasOklahoma Passenger Rail Study (TOPRS). The memorandum includes an overview of the 

initial range of alternatives and feasibility screening, the alternatives carried forward into the 

Route Alternatives Analysis, the Route Alternatives Analysis criteria, and the key findings and 

results of the Route Alternatives Analysis. This memorandum concludes with 

recommendations of route alternatives to be carried forward and not to be carried forward 

into the EIS, as well as an explanation of next steps. The information in this memorandum 

will ultimately be described in the full Alternatives Analysis Report, which will provide a 

detailed description of the route and station location alternatives, alternatives analysis 

methodology, service-level descriptions, performance and cost modeling, and results from 

each type of analysis. The results of the Alternatives Analysis Report will be summarized in 

the EIS. 

FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-1

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

2.0 Development of Initial Range of Alternatives 

2.1 Initial Fatal Flaw Analysis 

After the completion of the NEPA Service-level EIS scoping process during March and April 

2013, the TOPRS team developed 12 initial route alternatives (four in each of the three 

geographic segments) to provide additional or new passenger rail service between 

Oklahoma City and south Texas, as described in the Initial Development of Alternatives 

Technical Memorandum (CH2M HILL 2013). Each initial alternative included both a 

proposed route, some with minor route options, and two of three possible service-level 

operating features: conventional (emerging), higher speed rail (regional), or high-speed rail 

(core express) service. The geographic segments, which have significantly different 

population and travel characteristics, were delimited as follows: 

 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth

 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio

 Southern Section: San Antonio to south Texas.

In addition, the Northern Section of the Program Corridor was extended north of Oklahoma 

City to Edmond, Okla., based on preliminary ridership information and stakeholder input. In 

the Southern Section, based on stakeholder input at Laredo and Harlingen, an option was 

added to extend the southern end of the Program Corridor across the U.S.-Mexico border to 

Monterrey, Mexico, to capture significant ridership generators. In the case of service to 

Monterrey, the Study is considering the effect of ridership generated by potential extensions 

to Monterrey but not the route impact, which is the subject of a separate approval by the 

Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT) in Mexico. 

In the Initial Development of Alternatives Technical Memorandum, routes were initially 

screened to determine overall feasibility by considering the following: 

 Findings from the Oklahoma City to South Texas Infrastructure Analysis (Texas

Department of Transportation [TxDOT] 2013a)

 Concurrence from the railroads that the use of existing railroad rights-of-way would be

suitable for joint freight and passenger rail operations

The Oklahoma City to South Texas Infrastructure Analysis is a 2013 study of the possibility 

of operating high-speed or higher speed rail in the rights-of-ways of interstate highways 

within the Study area. The findings in this report established that interstate highways are 

designed with curve radii that are too small for high- or higher speed railroad operation, that 

railroad vertical clearance needs are often higher than highway clearances at existing 

overpasses, and that many operational limitations of both highways and railroads make 

shared rights-of-way problematic for all but short stretches of a new rail alignment. 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-2

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Figure 2-1, which is from the Initial Development of Alternatives Technical Memorandum, 

shows the alternative routes that were considered in the initial fatal flaw analysis. The 

following routes (described in the Initial Development of Alternatives Technical 

Memorandum) were eliminated from further consideration because either they use a 

railroad right-of-way, which led the railroad to request their removal from further study, or 

they use a shared highway right-of-way for most of their length. 

 N3 (uses Interstate Highway [IH]-35)

 C3 (uses IH-35)

 S1 (uses IH-35)

 S3 (uses IH-37)

A segment option between Dallas and Fort Worth included the possible use of Union Pacific 

Railroad (UPRR) track. During subsequent stakeholder meetings, UPRR advised TxDOT that 

they would not consider adding new intercity passenger trains to this corridor and so that 

segment option was removed from the study. 

The routes alternatives eliminated from further consideration are shown in grey on Figure 1. 

A segment option for high-speed service over IH-30 between Dallas and Fort Worth was 

retained because the Study team was advised by the North Central Texas Council of 

Governments that they have reserved space on the highway for an elevated high-speed 

railway alignment (CH2M HILL, 2012) and requested that it be included in the study. 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-3

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Figure 2-1: Screened Route Alternatives 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-4

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

2.2 Route Alternatives Carried Forward into Route Alternatives Analysis 

The route alternatives carried forward into the Route Alternatives Analysis are shown on 

Figure 2-2 and described below. Each route alternative includes two of three of the following 

service-level alternatives: 

 Conventional Service (referred to as emerging corridors by the Federal Railroad

Administration [FRA]) would be operated at speeds up to 79 to 90 miles per hour (mph).

This service-level alternative is associated with route alternatives that would use existing

railroad rights-of-way. It is not an option on greenfield1 corridors because it would not be

cost-effective to construct a new alignment for a low level of service.

 Higher Speed Service (referred to as regional corridors by FRA) would be operated at

speeds up to 110 to 125 mph. This service-level alternative is associated with all route

alternatives. Where used on an existing railroad right-of-way, it indicates construction of

a shared right-of-way with separate tracks for freight and passenger service. Where used

on a greenfield corridor, it indicates a new alignment built for future high-speed rail

service but without electrification, without full double track, and with some grade

crossings remaining.

 High-Speed Service (referred to as core express by FRA) would be operated at speeds up

to 220 to 250 mph. The entire right-of-way would be fenced and fully grade separated.

The entire alignment would be electrified and double tracked. This service-level

alternative is associated only with greenfield corridors because existing railroad

alignments are neither compatible with the speeds required nor do they have the

required room for separation of freight and high speed passenger services.

Figure 2-2 is a map of the route alternatives that were carried into the Route Alternatives 

Analysis screening, while Figures 2-3 though 2-5 focus on each geographic section. 

Section 2.2.1 through Section 2.2.3 provide descriptions of the route alternatives for each 

geographic section. Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 identify the service levels for each route 

alternative in the three geographic sections, respectively. 

1 A greenfield corridor in this context refers to a possible new railroad alignment built on a new right-of-way acquired for 

that purpose. In this memorandum, a greenfield corridor designation is used to represent a typical new alignment, not a 

specific alignment (which would be identified at a later project-level EIS). 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-5

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Figure 2-2: Route Alternatives Carried Forward into the Route Alternative 

Analysis 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-6

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

2.2.1 Northern Section Route Alternatives 

Figure 2-3: Northern Section Overview
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-7

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

N1 This alternative would begin at Edmond, Okla., and 

follow the BNSF south to a connection with a regional 

railroad to Chickasha, Okla. It would then follow the 

UPRR to Bowie, Okla., where the route can either 

(Option N1A) continue on UPRR track to Fort Worth or 

(Option N1B) transition back to the BNSF for entry into 

Fort Worth at the Intermodal Transportation Center 

(ITC). It would then continue to Dallas Union Station 

(DUS) via the Trinity Railway Express (TRE). 

N2 This alternative would begin at Edmond, Okla., and follow the 

BNSF south to Norman, Okla., where the route would transition 

into a new greenfield alignment. It would follow this alignment to 

a point near Krum, Texas, where it would transition onto the 

Kansas Southern Railway (KCS) and the Dallas Garland and 

Northeastern Railroad (DGNO) to DUS, entering from the west, 

and then continue to the Fort Worth ITC on 

a new high-speed alignment built over IH-30. 

N4 This alternative would begin at Edmond, Okla., and 

follow the BNSF south to Metro Junction, just north of 

Krum, Texas. Option N4A would continue to the Fort 

Worth ITC on the BNSF (as does the existing Amtrak 

Heartland Flyer) and then continue to DUS via the TRE. 

Option N4B would continue to DUS over the 

KCS/DGNO and then reverse direction to Fort Worth 

over the TRE. Option N4C would continue to DUS over 

the KCS and then continue to Fort Worth over the TRE. 

TABLE 2-1 

Northern Section Route Alternatives and Service Levels 

Alternative/ 

Option 

Conventional 

(Emerging) 

Higher Speed 

(Regional) 

High Speed 

(Core Express) 

N1 (A and B) Yes Yes No 

N2 No Yes Yes

N4 (A, B, C) Yes Yes No 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-8

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

2.2.2 Central Section Route Alternatives 

Figure 2-4: Central Section Overview 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-9

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

C1 This alternative would begin at DUS and follow the TRE to the Fort Worth 

ITC. From there C1 would run on the existing BNSF line south to Temple 

(the same route as Amtrak’s Texas Eagle), where it would use an existing 

connection to continue on to the UPRR track to Taylor. At Taylor, this 

alternative would continue to operate over the UPRR to Austin and San 

Antonio, coordinating schedules with Lone Star Rail District trains which 

are planned to operate along this line. 

C2 Option C2A would begin at DUS and follow the TRE to the Fort Worth ITC 

and then run on the UPRR south to Hillsboro. Option C2B would begin at 

the Fort Worth ITC and follow the TRE to DUS. It would then run on the 

BNSF south to Waxahachie, where it would enter a rebuilt abandoned 

railroad corridor to Hillsboro. These options can be combined to provide 

a “loop” service where trains travel to and from Dallas and Fort Worth 

before returning south. All of these options would then continue south 

from Hillsboro through Waco to Taylor. At Taylor conventional service 

trains would follow the UPRR through Austin and San Antonio, 

coordinating schedules with the proposed Lone Star regional rail service. 

Higher speed service would enter a new greenfield right-of-way through 

the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and south to just north of the 

San Antonio International Airport (SAT). After looping through SAT, service 

would then continue over the UPRR, ending at the former San Antonio 

Missouri Pacific station (now the VIA Transit Center), just west of 

downtown San Antonio. For the higher speed service, downtown Austin 

would be served either by a connection to the planned extension of 

Austin’s urban rail (which is not a part of this study) to Austin-Bergstrom 

International Airport from downtown or by having some trains follow the 

UPRR from Taylor to the Austin Amtrak station (partial C1 alternative), 

coordinating schedules with the Lone Star Rail District trains planned to operate 

along this line (which are part of this study). 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-10

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

C4 Option C4A would begin at the Fort Worth ITC and follow the TRE to 

DUS, where it would then follow the BNSF south toward Waxahatchi 

and enter a high-speed greenfield corridor to travel south to Hillsboro 

and Taylor. Option C4B would begin at both the Fort Worth ITC and 

DUS, with trains following a high-speed alignment above IH-30 to 

Arlington, where the lines would merge and turn south to Hillsboro on a 

high-speed greenfield alignment to Taylor and south, following the 

same alignment as the C2 higher-speed alternative. Alternative C4 also 

has an option of direct service to downtown Austin via connections with 

trains operating over the UPRR from Taylor to Austin, which would 

coordinate schedules with the proposed Lone Star Rail District. 

TABLE 2-2 

Central Section Route Alternatives and Service Levels 

Alternatives Conventional Higher Speed High Speed 

C1 Yes Yes No 

C2 (A and B) Yes Yes No 

C4 (A and B) No Yes Yes 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-11

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

2.2.3 Southern Section Alternatives 

Figure 2-5: Southern Section Overview
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-12

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

S2 This alternative would begin at the San Antonio VIA Transit 

Center station and continue southwest on the UPRR, 

ending at Laredo. While there is a freight railroad 

connection to the KCS de Mexico at that point, it is too 

congested by existing freight operations to consider for 

extended passenger rail service to Monterrey. 

S4 This alternative would begin at the San Antonio VIA Transit 

Center station and continue southeast on the UPRR to 

George West, where the line would enter a greenfield 

right-of-way to Alice. At Alice, there would be a stop where 

this alternative would divide into three 

legs, each of which could have direct service to San 

Antonio or shuttle service to Alice. The first leg would travel 

west along the KCS Railway to San Diego, Texas, where it 

would enter a greenfield right-of-way to Pescadito and then 

rejoin the KCS Railway to end at the Laredo International 

Airport. While there is a freight railroad connection to the 

KCS de Mexico from that line, it is too congested by 

existing freight operations to consider for extended 

passenger rail service to Monterrey. The second leg would 

travel south along rebuilt abandoned track to McAllen, 

where a connection could be made to Harlingen and Brownville over a proposed 

commuter rail service (which is not part of this study). This leg could also be extended 

into Mexico over a greenfield border crossing and then follow another route of the 

KCS de Mexico to Monterrey. The third leg would travel east along the KCS Railway to 

Corpus Christi to a new station facility at Corpus Christi International Airport. 

S5 This alternative would begin at the San Antonio VIA Transit 

Center station and continue southeast on the UPRR to 

Odem, where a shuttle train or bus would provide service 

from Odem to Corpus Christi. The type of service (train or 

bus) from Odem to Corpus Christi will be determined 

during the EIS analysis when specific ridership data is 

available. This route alternative would continue south 

from Odem along the UPRR to Brownsville, stopping at a 

new station near the Brownsville Transit Center. A 

proposed commuter rail service (which is not a part of this 

study) could connect to Harlingen and McAllen. 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

2-13

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

S6 This alternative was added as a result of stakeholder 

meetings in Laredo, at which attendees expressed a desire 

for direct service from San Antonio to Monterrey, Mexico, 

with a new stop northwest of Laredo near the LaredoColumbia Solidarity Bridge (LCSB). This alternative would 

begin at the San Antonio VIA Transit Center station and 

continue on a direct line to the station at the LCSB. It would 

then cross on a new railway bridge to join a new line that 

has been approved for construction in Mexico, which would 

continue to Monterrey, Mexico. This study only examines the 

U.S. component of this new line, but it does consider the ridership 

impact of such a connection. 

TABLE 2-3 

Southern Section Route Alternatives and Service Levels 

Alternatives Conventional Higher Speed High Speed 

S2 Yes Yes No 

S4 No Yes Yes

S5 Yes Yes No 

S6 No Yes Yes

FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

3-1

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

3.0 Route Alternatives Analysis Criteria and Methodology 

3.1 Criteria Development Process 

Screening criteria for the Route Alternatives Analysis were developed based on a number of 

considerations. First, criteria were included that evaluate whether routes are aligned with 

the project Purpose and Need, which are identified in Table 3-1. As a result, analyses 

completed in other technical memoranda for this study (such as ridership, travel time, and 

cost) are included. In addition, the criteria were designed to compare consistency of the 

route alternatives with local and regional goals, as well as the level of community and 

agency support for each alternative. The final criteria reflect stakeholder comments and 

input received during individual stakeholder meetings and during the scoping process. A 

record of comments received during the scoping process is included in the Texas-Oklahoma 

Passenger Rail Program Scoping Report, which was completed in November 2013 (TxDOT 

2013b). Finally, criteria were developed to evaluate potential effects of routes on 

environmental resources. This criteria development process and the methodologies used to 

evaluate each criterion are described below. 

The Route Alternatives Analysis criteria development process included identification of an 

initial list of criteria and metrics, and determination of criteria alignment with the project 

Purpose and Need elements. Additionally, throughout the development process, the criteria 

were reviewed and evaluated to verify they meet the following additional overall goals: 

1. Tie directly to the project goals and objectives

2. Are measureable (quantitatively or qualitatively)

3. Identify thresholds over or under which alternatives could potentially be rejected

4. Are based on data available through this Study

5. Differentiate among alternatives

3.2 Final Criteria

Table 3-2 lists the final criteria that were used to screen alternatives for the Route 

Alternatives Analysis. The criteria are grouped into four categories: alignment attributes, 

operational criteria, infrastructure criteria, and environmental criteria, according to the 

topics they address. The measure used to evaluate each criterion is shown in Table 3-2, 

along with threshold values, when applicable. In addition, the source of data used to 

evaluate each criterion is included, as well as the elements of the project Purpose and Need 

related to each, as identified and numbered in Table 3-1. Section 3-3 describes the 

methodology used to evaluate each criterion3. 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

3-2

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

TABLE 3-1 

Summary of Overall Program Purpose and Need 

No. Elements of Purpose and Need 

Purpose 

Overall To enhance intercity mobility by providing new, improved, and, where feasible, high-speed 

passenger rail service as a transportation alternative that is competitive with automobile, 

bus, and/or air travel. 

P1 Provide infrastructure for a high-quality intercity rail service that will reduce travel times, 

increase schedule reliability, and increase traveler comfort. 

P2 Encourage more efficient and environmentally sensitive modes of intercity travel. 

P3 Provide an equitable and affordable intercity travel alternative to automobile, bus, and air 

service. 

P4 Enhance interconnectivity between intercity rail services, regional transit services, and 

major regional airports. 

P5 Enhance environmental sustainability by facilitating regional land use and transit-oriented 

development plans within the Program corridor. 

P6 Enhance interregional access to employment, entertainment, recreation, health, and 

shopping opportunities for existing and future residents in the Program corridor. 

P7 Coordinate with and do not negatively affect freight rail operations or facilities. 

P8 Be a cost-efficient investment where the projected train service revenue meets or exceeds 

operations and maintenance costs, based on service level. 

Need 

N1 Population and economic growth will increase travel demand, generate additional 

congestion, and reduce automobile and transit reliability and thereby require regional 

mobility alternatives. 

N2 Limited intercity passenger rail service and capacity restrict both mobility and economic 

development. 

N3 Declining air quality resulting from increased travel demand and congestion requires more 

environmentally sustainable modes of travel. 

N4 Growth in truck and rail freight has negative impacts on the safety of the transportation 

system. 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

3-3

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

TABLE 3-2 

Route Alternatives Analysis Criteria

Criterion 

No. Criterion Measure Threshold Data Sourcea 

Related 

Purpose & 

Need 

Elementsb 

Alternative Attributes 

1a Access to Stations Total population 

of cities served by 

stations 

N/A U.S. 

Census 

(2010) 

P3, P4

1b Access to Stations 

with endpoint cities 

removed 

Total population 

of cities served by 

stations with 

endpoint cities 

removed 

N/A U.S. 

Census 

(2010) 

P3, P4

2 Ridership for each 

Alternative 

Ridership (annual 

trips) 

N/A CONNECT 

model 

P3, P6, N1, 

N2 

3 Length of Route Length of route in 

miles 

N/A Route 

design files 

N/A

4 Cost to Construct 

Alternative 

Total Capital Cost 

for Alternative ($) 

N/A CONNECT 

model with 

local data 

P8 

Operational Criteria 

5 Revenue/ 

Operating Cost 

Ratio 

Revenue/ 

Operating Cost 

(%) 

Conventional: 

50% cost 

recovery; 

higher-speed: 

75% cost 

recovery; highspeed: 100% 

cost recovery 

CONNECT 

model 

P8 

6 Reduce Travel 

Times

Time reduction 

vs. Automobile 

N/A CONNECT 

model 

P1, P6

7 Enhance Mode 

Share on Rail 

Rail mode share 

(%) 

N/A CONNECT 

model 

P6, N1

Infrastructure Criteria 

8 Capital Cost per 

Passenger Mile 

Capital Cost per 

Passenger Mile 

($) 

N/A CONNECT 

model and 

local cost 

enhancements 

P8 

9 Minimize Right-ofWay/ Real Estate 

Impacts 

Acres of nontransportation 

right-of-way within 

study area 

N/A Study route 

right-of-way 

P2 

10 Provides Additional 

Improvements to 

National Railroad 

Network 

Professional 

judgment (value 

of improvements 

and risk reduction 

evaluation) 

N/A Analysis of 

railroad 

infrastructure and 

operations 

P5, P7, N4
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

3-4

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Criterion 

No. Criterion Measure Threshold Data Sourcea 

Related 

Purpose & 

Need 

Elementsb 

Environmental Criteria c 

Minimize Impacts on Natural Resources

11a Wetlands Acres within study 

area

N/A National 

Land Cover 

Data Base 

P2 

11b Critical Habitat Acres within study 

area 

N/A U.S. Fish 

and 

Wildlife 

Service 

Data 

P2 

Minimize Impacts on Cultural/Recreational Resources 

12a National and State 

Historic Places 

Number of 

Historic Sites 

N/A National 

Register of 

Historic 

Places, 

State 

Historic 

Data 

P2 

12b River and Stream 

Crossings 

Number of river 

and stream 

crossings 

N/A Number of 

river and 

stream 

crossings 

P2 

12c Parks and Open 

Space 

Acres within study 

area 

N/A ESRI parks 

data and 

Texas 

Parks & 

Wildlife 

data 

P2 

Minimize Impacts on Social Resources

13a Prime Farmland Acres within study 

area 

N/A Natural 

Resources 

Conservation 

Service, 

U.S. Dept. 

of 

Agriculture 

P2 

13b Sensitive Receptors Number of 

schools, places of 

worship, and 

hospitals within 

study area 

N/A USGS, 

ESRI, and 

Texas 

Education 

Agency 

data 

P2, N3
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

3-5

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Criterion 

No. Criterion Measure Threshold Data Sourcea 

Related 

Purpose & 

Need 

Elementsb 

13c Environmental 

Justice 

Number of 

census blocks 

with % minority 

greater than state

N/A US Census 

(2010) 

P2 

Notes:

N/A = not applicable 

USGS = U.S. Geological Survey 

a FRA’s CONNECT rail planning model is described in Section 3.3.1.1 of this memorandum. 

b Purpose and Need statement numbers are listed in Table 3-1. 

c The study area for environmental impacts equals 250 feet on either side of centerline, unless alternative uses existing 

infrastructure. 

3.3 Criteria Analysis Methodology 

A summary of the methodology used to determine values for each screening criterion is 

included below. The criteria are grouped into the following related sets: 

 Alternative attributes

 Operational criteria

 Infrastructure criteria

 Environmental criteria

As explained in Section 3.3.1 below, alternative attributes were not used independently to 

compare alternatives; however, the criteria listed under operational, infrastructure, and 

environmental were used for comparison of alternatives and screening. Within each of these 

three groups, criteria are listed in order of priority, placing those with established thresholds 

first. Because no environmental fatal flaws were identified, potential environmental impacts 

were not used to screen out alternatives but, when appropriate, were used to support 

screening decisions. 

3.3.1 Alternative Attributes 

Criteria numbers 1 through 4 (see Table 3-2) describe attributes of each route alternative 

that are not used independently to compare alternatives but that instead help explain 

differences between route alternatives that are identified using the operational, 

infrastructure, and environmental criteria. For example, criterion number 3, Length of Route, 

is useful for understanding why some routes have greater potential to affect environmental 

resources; a longer route is likely to affect more acres of resources than a shorter one. 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

3-6

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Other alternative attributes, such as the Ridership subcriteria and Cost to Construct 

Alternative criterion, were used to calculate operational and infrastructure criteria (for 

example, criterion number 5, Revenue/Operating Cost Ratio, and number 8, Capital Cost per 

Passenger Mile). 

Section ridership (listed as “Ridership” in the tables below) is the ridership within a section 

assuming the other two sections also implement an assumed level of passenger rail 

improvements. An assumed set of routes and service levels were used in the ridership 

forecasts developed in FRA’s CONNECT model (further described below) to represent the 

sections outside of the section alternatives being immediately analyzed (for example, when 

evaluating ridership for each Northern section alternative, an assumed route and service 

level was used for each of the Central and Southern sections to represent the entire 

system). The assumed routes and service levels used in the CONNECT modeling were based 

on the initial alternatives described in Section 2.1 and include: 

 Northern: N4 route. Conventional service, 4 daily roundtrips

 Central: C3A/C3B route. High speed rail. 16 daily roundtrips

 Southern: S2 route. Conventional service. 4 daily roundtrips + S5 route. Conventional

service. 4 daily roundtrips

Because these ridership forecasts from CONNECT were estimated prior to the evaluation of 

route alternatives (and prior to the recommendations in this report to eliminate routes from 

further consideration) they include assumed routes and service levels that in some cases 

are not carried forward for further consideration. As a result, these ridership forecasts 

should be used as relative measures to compare alternatives within a section and not as a 

refined estimate of ridership across the system. Refined ridership estimates will be 

developed for each alternative carried forward to the EIS. 

3.3.2 Operational Criteria 

3.3.2.1 Background/Overview of the CONNECT Model 

Many of the operational screening criteria values were estimated using FRA’s CONNECT 

model. CONNECT is a tool that enables sketch-level, regional, high-speed/intercity 

passenger rail planning in the context of a user-defined network. The tool is intended for use 

at the outset of the planning process, before alignment and operational plans are 

developed. CONNECT can support the analysis of multiple network configurations and 

compare the relative operational and financial performance of varying network configuration 

and service plan scenarios. CONNECT is not a substitute for detailed corridor and network 

planning; however, used in the early stages of the planning process, it can help narrow a 

wide range of potential scenarios and help in selecting only the most compelling to carry into 

more detailed analysis. 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

3-7

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

CONNECT’s approach to forecasting the potential ridership of a proposed rail service 

comprises three broad stages. In the first stage, the total divertible intercity travel market is 

estimated for each existing mode. In the second stage, CONNECT estimates the number of 

trips that would be diverted to rail from each of the existing modes. Most results are 

reported at the origin-destination (O-D) level, with some outputs aggregated further to the 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), corridor, and network levels. All outputs are reported by 

CONNECT in ranges, to avoid implying more precision than is appropriate. For purposes of 

this analysis, the median ridership value is presented in the tables below. 

CONNECT calculates capital costs using a simplified costing model driven by the 

infrastructure and operating characteristics defined by the user. This model relies on unit 

costs derived from domestic and international averages, which may not reflect local 

conditions. In this study, some local conditions were accounted for in the cost section but 

not the ridership section (which uses comparable data valid across the U.S.). The next phase 

of this work will use local ridership data to augment the CONNECT data. Operating and 

maintenance costs are estimated based on a simplified service plan consisting of daily 

frequencies and average speeds.2

3.3.2.1.1 Criterion 5: Revenue/Operating Cost Ratio 

This criterion assesses the ratio of fare revenue to operating costs for the CONNECT 

scenario that most closely represents the proposed alignment. For example, an alternative 

with a score of 0% would have none of its operating costs covered by fare revenues, 

whereas an alternative with a score of 100% would have all of its operating costs covered by 

fare revenues. Both fare revenue and total operating cost are direct outputs of CONNECT. 

3.3.2.1.2 Criterion 6: Reduce Travel Times 

This criterion compares rail travel time to automobile travel time for the CONNECT scenario 

that most closely represents the proposed alignment. This helps to identify the alternatives 

that would provide travel time savings compared to automobile travel. Rail travel times were 

not compared to air travel times because generally rail alternatives would not have a shorter 

city to city travel time than air travel (train station to train station versus airport to airport). If 

total journey time (door to door) and frequency of service were considered, rail travel times 

could be competitive with air travel. However this level of detailed analysis exceeds the 

scope of this study. At a later stage in the study, analysis will be done to consider the 

feasibility of making rail options cost competitive with air travel. Both rail and automobile 

2 In the context of this Route Alternatives Analysis, CONNECT results are used for comparative purposes only. CONNECT is 

designed to predict passenger rail demand between MSA pairs and so has limited ability to distinguish between 

different alternatives that serve a given MSA pair. Route Alternatives Analysis results are not intended to be forecasts 

of anticipated ridership or cost. 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

3-8

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

travel times are direct outputs of CONNECT. Note that CONNECT auto travel times do not 

anticipate change with the introduction of rail service. 

3.3.2.1.3 Criterion 7: Enhance Mode Share on Rail 

This criterion assesses the rail mode share for the CONNECT scenario that most closely 

represents the proposed alignment. Rail mode share is a direct output of CONNECT. 

3.3.3 Infrastructure Criteria 

3.3.3.1 Criterion 8: Capital Cost per Passenger Mile 

This criterion assesses the ratio of capital cost to passenger miles for the CONNECT scenario 

that most closely represents the proposed alignment. Both capital cost and passenger miles 

are direct outputs of CONNECT. 

3.3.3.2 Criterion 9: Minimize Right-of-Way/Real Estate Impacts 

Potential impacts on right-of-way were estimated for each route alternative and service-level 

option by calculating the total right-of-way required for each, then subtracting the area 

representing transportation land use (highways and rail) from the total. 

3.3.3.3 Criterion 10: Provide Additional Improvements to National Railroad Network 

Benefits to the national railroad network were determined for each route alternative and 

service-level option by considering factors such as existing freight or local commuter rail 

service on alignments, proposed capacity improvements for the host railroad, improvements 

in rail safety and speed (including grade separations), and mitigation measures that would 

enhance the national rail network. 

3.3.4 Environmental Criteria 

Potential effects of route alternatives on environmental resources were estimated using a 

study area of 250 feet on each side of the route alternative centerline. Environmental 

criteria are grouped according to the type of resource they address into impacts on natural 

resources, cultural/recreational resources, and social resources. Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) was used to calculate acreages and counts of potentially affected resources, 

as described below. 

3.3.4.1 Criterion 11a: Wetlands 

This criterion assesses the acres of wetlands potentially affected by each route alternative. 

Calculations were completed using National Land Cover Database (NLCD) data and included 

the following categories: open water, woody wetlands, and emergent herbaceous wetlands. 

National Wetlands Inventory data were also evaluated, but complete coverage of the study 

area was not available; therefore, the values were not included in the screening comparison. 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

3-9

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

3.3.4.2 Criterion 11b: Critical Habitat 

This criterion assesses the acres of critical habitat of federally endangered species 

potentially affected by each route alternative. The calculations were completed using U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service data. 

3.3.4.3 Criterion 12a: National and State Historic Places 

This criterion assesses the potential effects of each route alternative on national and state 

historic places. Potential effects were estimated by counting the number of national and 

state historic sites and districts within 250 feet of each side of the route alternative 

centerline. National and state historic places data were obtained from the U.S. National Park 

Service National Register of Historic Places, the Texas Historical Commission, Oklahoma 

Department of Transportation, and the “Exploring Oklahoma History” website. 

3.3.4.4 Criterion 12b: River and Stream Crossings 

This criterion assesses the potential effects of each alternative on rivers and streams. Using 

the USGS National Hydrography Dataset, potential effects were estimated by counting the 

number of times the centerline of each route alternative would cross a river or stream. In 

addition, because archaeological resources are often found along waterways, this criterion is 

considered a proxy for likelihood of finding cultural resources along an alternative. 

3.3.4.5 Criterion 12c: Parks and Open Space 

This criterion assesses the acres of parks and open space potentially affected by each route 

alternative. The calculations were completed using data obtained from ESRI and the Texas 

Parks and Wildlife Department. 

3.3.4.6 Criterion 13a: Prime Farmland 

This criterion assesses the acres of prime farmland potentially affected by each route 

alternative. The calculations were completed using U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resources Conservation data. 

3.3.4.7 Criterion 13b: Sensitive Receptors 

This criterion assesses the number of sensitive receptors potentially affected by each route 

alternative. Potential effects were estimated by counting the number of schools, places of 

worship, and hospitals within 250 feet of each side of the route alternative centerline. This 

criterion captures potential noise, vibration, and air quality at the appropriate level of 

analysis for this study. 

3.3.4.8 Criterion 13c: Environmental Justice 

This criterion assesses potential disproportionate effects of each route alternative on 

environmental justice populations. Potential effects were estimated by counting the number 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

3-10

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

of U.S. Census blocks along route alternatives with a higher percentage of minority residents 

than that of the state in which they are located. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2011 5-

year American Community Survey were used. 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

4-1

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

4.0 Route Alternatives Analysis Results 

The Route Alternatives Analysis compared study route alternatives and service-level options 

by geographic section (Northern, Central, and Southern), with the objective of screening out 

alternatives that are fatally flawed or that performed considerably less well than other 

alternatives within the same geographic section. The sections of this memorandum below 

discuss the values for each screening criterion by geographic section and whether any route 

alternatives or service-level options are recommended not to be carried forward into the EIS. 

In the case where no route alternative meets the threshold criteria, the best performing one 

from that section will be carried into the EIS. 

The data tables in this section present values for each screening criterion for each of the 

geographic sections of the Study. The values in these tables are shaded using green, yellow 

or red to indicate each alternative’s performance relative to the other alternatives or, in 

some cases, relative to a threshold. The performance level associated with each of these 

colors is provided in Table 4-1, but in general, green indicates the best performance among 

the alternatives and red indicates the poorest performance among the alternatives. The 

results of each assessment are included in Tables 4-2 through 4-4, respectively, for the 

Northern, Central, and Southern Section route alternatives. 

TABLE 4-1 

Criteria Key and Definitions 

Criterion Green Yellow Red 

Revenue/Operating 

Cost Ratio a

CONV over 50% 25-50% 0–25%

HrSR over 75% 50-75% 0–50%

HSR over 100% 50–100% 0–50%

Reduce Travel Times Savings in travel 

time of more than 

50% compared to 

auto 

Savings in travel 

time of 25 to 50% 

compared to auto 

Savings in travel 

time of 25% or 

less compared to 

auto 

Enhance Mode Share on Rail Over 20% rail mode 

share 

10%–20% rail 

mode share 

0–10% rail mode 

share 

Capital cost Under $16 (capital 

cost per annual 

passenger mile) 

$16 - $100 (capital 

cost per annual 

passenger mile) 

Over $100 (capital 

cost per annual 

passenger mile) 

Minimize Right-of-Way/Real Estate 

Impacts 

Lowest impact of all 

alternatives 

Intermediate 

impact 

Highest impact of 

all alternatives 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

4-2

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Criterion Green Yellow Red 

Provide Additional Improvements 

to National Railroad Network 

The alternative 

provides new and 

substantial benefits 

to the existing rail 

network 

The alternative 

provides some 

important benefits 

to the existing rail 

network 

The alternative 

provides only 

limited benefits to 

the existing rail 

network 

Environmental Criteria 

(Criteria 11 to 13) 

Low area of 

potential impact 

compared to other 

alternatives 

Area of potential 

impact similar to 

other alternatives 

High area of 

potential impact 

compared to other 

alternatives 

a

  Revenue/Operating Cost Ratio criterion is analyzed by service‐level option:

CONV= conventional rail

HrSR = higher speed rail

HSR = high‐speed rail
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

4.1 Northern Section Table 4-2 presents values for each screening criterion in the Northern Section, including Alternatives N1 (A and B). Green, yellow, and red shading in the table indicate the relative performance of routes for each criteindicate that the service-level does not apply to a given route alternative. Keys describing the range of valuecolor can be found in Table 4-1. TABLE 4-2 Northern Sectiona

Crit. 

No. 

Alternatives 

Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b N1/N1A N1/N1B N2 N4/N4A N4/

Alternative Attributes 

1a 

Access to Stations (total population of cities along route) 

* 8,120,000 8,120,000 8,190,000 8,240,000 8,240

1b 

Access to Stations with Endpoint Cities Removed (total population of cities along route) 

* 121,000 121,000 192,000 239,000 239,

2 

Ridership (millions of passengers per year) 

CONV 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.3

HrSR 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.42 0.4HSR 0.46 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. 

No. 

Alternatives 

Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b N1/N1A N1/N1B N2 N4/N4A N4/

3 Length of Route (miles) * 273 272 250 260 264 Cost to Construct Alternative ($) 

CONV $0.66 billion $0.66 billion $0.65 billion $2.94 

HrSR $4.35 billion $4.34 billion $1.69 billion $4.60 billion $6.10 HSR $5.24 billion 

 Operational Criteria 

5 

Revenue/ Operating Cost Ratio (100% covers operating cost with revenue – above 100% indicates surplus available for capital cost) 

CONV 20% 19% 27% 31

HrSR 23% 23% 25% 24% 26HSR 29% 

6 

Reduce Travel Time (percent time savings compared to auto) 

CONV 9% 9% 14% 14

HrSR 30% 30% 33% 33% 33HSR 68% 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. 

No. 

Alternatives 

Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b N1/N1A N1/N1B N2 N4/N4A N4/

7 

Enhance Mode Share on Rail (% rail mode share) 

CONV 12% 12% 12% 12

HrSR 17% 17% 17% 17% 17HSR 21% 

 Infrastructure Criteria 

8 Capital Cost per Passenger Mile 

CONV $10.60 $10.60 $10.50 $47

HrSR $46.20 $46.20 $19.10 $52.00 $69HSR $52.80 

9 

Minimize Right-ofWay/Real Estate Impacts (acres) 

N2 is higher because it is a greenfield route that is not adjacent to an existing transportation corridor. 

CONVcHrSR 680 730 2,680 1,270 1,2HSR 2,680 

10 

Provide Additional Improvements to National Railroad Network 

CONV 

HrSR N/A HSR N/A 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. 

No. 

Alternatives 

Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b N1/N1A N1/N1B N2 N4/N4A N4/

 Environmental Criteria Minimize Impacts on Natural Resources 

11a 

Wetlands (acres; NLCD) 

N4/N4C (HrSR) is highest due to proximity to White Rock Creek and Trinity River (and their associated wetlands) west of Dallas. 

CONVcHrSR 20 10 30 10 2HSR 30 

11b 

Critical Habitat (acres) 

Critical habitat in the Northern Section is a reflection of the number of acres of the Canadian River and its floodplain within the buffer area (critical habitat for the Arkansas River shiner). 

CONVcHrSR 5 5 50 34 3HSR 50 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. 

No. 

Alternatives 

Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b N1/N1A N1/N1B N2 N4/N4A N4/

Minimize Impacts on Cultural/Recreational Resources 

12a 

National and State Historic Places (count) 

The number of historic sites is generally a reflection of the number of cities/towns the route alternative passes through. 

CONVcHrSR 10 11 5 20 1HSR 5 

12b River and Stream Crossings (count) 

CONVc

HrSR 260 230 320 300 30HSR 280 

12c 

Parks and Open Space (acres state and local parks) 

N4/N4C (HrSR) is higher because it passes through the open space south of Lake Louisville for about 4.5 miles. 

CONVcHrSR 130 140 150 110 21HSR 130 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. 

No. 

Alternatives 

Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b N1/N1A N1/N1B N2 N4/N4A N4/

Minimize Impacts on Social Resources 

13a Prime Farmland (acres) 

CONVc

HrSR 7,880 7,660 4,720 6,250 5,5HSR 4,570 

13b 

Sensitive Receptors (count) 

The number of sensitive receptors is generally a reflection of the number of cities/towns the route alternative passes through. 

CONV 5 6 12 1HrSR 5 6 11 12 1HSR 14 

13c 

Environmental Justice (census blocks with % minority greater than state) 

CONV 90 90 100 12

HrSR 90 90 110 100 12HSR 110 

a Cells shaded gray indicate that the service level does not apply to this route.b Service‐Level Option: CONV= conventional rail; HrSR = higher speed rail; HSR = high‐speed railc Acreage impacts for conventional rail alternatives are considered to have minimal impact for right‐of‐way and most environmental resources becau

infrastructure.* This criterion does not distinguish between service levels.
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Based on the relative performance of routes for the different criteria shown in Table 4-2, the following route Northern Section are recommended not to be carried forward into the EIS:  N1 (including sub-alternatives N1A and N1B and both conventional and higher speed service levels) – T

cost ratio does not meet the required threshold for this alternative. The anticipated ridership and populaproposed station are very low. The significant investment in infrastructure required for this alternative w

commensurate increase in ridership. The environmental benefits of this route are similar to other higher which provides no compelling reason to further study this alternative.

 N2 (including both higher speed and high speed service levels) – The revenue to operating cost ratio do

threshold. This alternative would have the highest potential impact on non-transportation right-of-way, aenvironmental effects would be similar to N4A, which performs much better in terms of operational criteinvestment in infrastructure required for this alternative would not produce a commensurate increase in alternative would avoid potential issues with farming stakeholders without sacrificing improvements to m

 N4A (higher-speed service level) – The capital cost per passenger mile is excessive for this option at six 

and providing a lower revenue to operating cost ratio than the conventional service indicating that the mconventional speed service option.

 N4B (conventional and higher speed service level) – This alternative has a much higher capital cost per 

similar alternatives N4A and N4C and would also enter the TRE at a location that would be difficult to ha

as well as requiring reversing the trains in DUS that the other alternatives would not need.

 N4C (conventional and higher speed service level) – This alternative would perform the most poorly from 

perspective including the greatest potential effects on wetlands as well as parks and open space. It trav

through suburban Dallas subject to many grade crossing issues and potential delays at a KCS yard alonN4A at the conventional service level has the same benefits without the negative effects.

Based on the relative performance of routes for the criteria shown in Table 4-2, the following route alternati

Section are recommended to be carried forward into the EIS: 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

 N4A (conventional speed level) – This route alternative covers most of the same line that has been upgr

ODOT as part of an on-going rail passenger improvement program and therefore represents a good use further built-upon. While Route alternative N4A does not meet the revenue to operating cost threshold icost per passenger mile for the Northern Section alternatives and will therefore be carried forward to re

Section in the EIS.

4.2 Central Section Table 4-3 presents values for each screening criterion in the Central Section, including routes C1, C2 (A and Green, yellow, and red shading in the table indicates the relative performance of routes for each criterion; c

that the service-level does not apply to a given route alternative. Keys describing the range of values represbe found in Table 4-1.
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

TABLE 4-3 Central Sectiona

Crit. 

No. 

Alternatives 

Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b C1 C2/C2A C2/C2B C4/C4A 

Alignment Attributes 

1a 

Access to Stations (total population of cities along route) 

* 10,890,000 11,020,000 11,020,000 11,020,000 

1b 

Access to Stations with Endpoint Cities Removed (total population of cities along route) 

* 1,960,490 2,080,000 2,080,000 2,080,000 

2 

Ridership (millions of passengers per year) 

CONV 1.2 1.7 1.7

HrSR 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 HSR 2.7 

3 Length of Route (miles) * 230 320 320 330 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. 

No. 

Alternatives 

Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b C1 C2/C2A C2/C2B C4/C4A 

4 Cost to Construct Alternative ($) 

CONV $1.38 billion $1.51 billion $1.54 billion 

HrSR $4.22 billion $6.58 billion $5.19 billion $4.22 billion HSR $5.65 billion 

 Operational Criteria 

5 

Revenue/ Operating Cost Ratio (100% covers operating cost with revenue 

– above 100%

indicates surplus

available forcapital cost)

CONV 60% 89% 87% 

HrSR 82% 87% 89% 89% HSR 114% 

6 

Reduce Travel Time (percent time savings compared to auto) 

CONV 16% 21% 21% 

HrSR 35% 37% 37% 37% HSR 67% 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. 

No. 

Alternatives 

Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b C1 C2/C2A C2/C2B C4/C4A 

7 

Enhance Mode Share on Rail (% rail mode share) 

CONV 11% 16% 16% 

HrSR 23% 23% 23% 23% HSR 27% 

 Infrastructure Criteria 

8 Capital Cost per Passenger Mile 

CONV $7.90 $5.40 $5.50 

HrSR $6.80 $10.80 $8.50 $6.90 HSR $8.00 

9 

Minimize Right-of Way/Real Estate Impacts (acres) 

CONVc

HrSR 1,200 1,750 1,780 3,740 HSR 3,720 

10 

Provide Additional Improvements to National Railroad Network 

CONV 

HrSR HSR 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. 

No. 

Alternatives 

Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b C1 C2/C2A C2/C2B C4/C4A 

 Environmental Criteria Minimize Impacts on Natural Resources

11a 

Wetlands (acres; NLCD) 

The higher value for C1 is a result of its proximity to the Brazos River, the North Bosque River, and their tributaries. 

CONVcHrSR 510 390 430 430 HSR 420 

11b Critical Habitat (acres) 

CONVc

HrSR 0 0 0 0 HSR 0 

Minimize Impacts on Cultural/Recreational Resources 

12a 

National and State Historic Places (count) 

CONVc

HrSR 3 4 10 10 HSR 8 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. 

No. 

Alternatives 

Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b C1 C2/C2A C2/C2B C4/C4A 

12b River and Stream Crossings (count) 

CONVc

HrSR 360 360 370 370 HSR 330 

12c 

Parks and Open Space (acres state and local parks) 

CONVc

HrSR 450 260 300 300 HSR 280 

Minimize Impacts on Social Resources 

13a Prime Farmland (acres) 

CONVc

HrSR 10,800 10,290 10,400 10,400 HSR 10,250 

13b 

Sensitive Receptors (count) 

CONV 14 14 16 

HrSR 13 13 15 15 HSR 18 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. 

No. 

Alternatives 

Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b C1 C2/C2A C2/C2B C4/C4A 

13c 

Environmental Justice (census blocks with % minority greater than state) 

CONV 150 150 150 

HrSR 140 140 140 140 HSR 140 

a Cells shaded gray indicate that the service level does not apply to this route.b Service‐Level Option: CONV= conventional rail; HrSR = higher speed rail; HSR = high‐speed railc Acreage impacts for conventional rail alternatives are considered to have minimal impact for right‐of‐way and most environmental resources becau

rail infrastructure.* This criterion does not distinguish between service levels.

Based on the relative performance of routes for the different criteria shown in Table 4-3, the following route Section is recommended not to be carried forward into the EIS:  C1 (conventional and higher speed service levels) – This alternative shows the least benefit in terms of 

the lowest potential ridership of all alternatives, has the lowest Revenue/Operating Cost Ratio and the hpassenger-mile as well as significant environmental concerns.

 C2A (conventional service level) – This alternative is comparable to C2B in operating performance and e

requires trains to cross the already highly congested Tower 55 in Ft. Worth. It is unlikely that consistent 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

obtained for this crossing which will severely limit service options. Since C2B provides a better alignmeninterference, it is recommended that C2A be dropped in favor of continuing C2B. 

 C2 (A and B) (higher-speed service level) - These alternatives have significantly higher costs per passeng

revenue to operating cost ratio when compared the C4 higher speed options. They also carry significant coordinating a joint right-of-way with the UPRR.

Based on the relative performance of routes for the criteria shown in Table 4-3, the following route alternati

are recommended to be carried forward into the EIS: 

 C2B (conventional service level). C2B has the lowest capital cost of the central section route alternative

revenue/operating cost ratios. Unlike C2A, it avoids crossing the highly congested Tower 55 in Ft. Worthrecommended to be carried forward into the EIS.

 C4 (A and B) (higher-speed and high speed service levels). C4 (A and B) have the highest revenue/opera

biggest travel time savings compared to auto travel, and are comparable with other route options in the 

of potential environmental effects. Therefore they are recommended to be carried forward into the EIS.

4.3 Southern Section Table 4-4 presents values for each screening criterion in the Southern Section, including routes S2, S4, S5, and red shading in the table indicate the relative performance of routes for each criterion; cells shaded gray service-level does not apply to a given route alternative. Keys describing the range of values represented by in Table 4-1. In the Southern Section, several criteria were evaluated using an additional scenario where trains continue Mexico. For each criterion that included this analysis scenario, the results “if Monterrey is included” are incbelow the original criterion (that includes trains stopping in south Texas). These additional values are identinumber that ends in “- M.” 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

TABLE 4-4 Southern Section a

Crit. No. Alternatives Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b S2 S4 S5 

Alternative Attributes 

1a Access to Stations (total population of cities along route) * 2,470,000 3,100,000 2,840,000 1b 

Access to Stations with Endpoint Cities Removed (total population of cities along route) * 

236,000 865,000 610,000 

2 Ridership (millions of passengers per year) 

CONV 0.058 0.35 

HrSR 0.069 0.32 0.39 HSR 0.33 

2 - M 

Ridership if Monterrey is included (millions of passengers per year) 

CONV 

HrSR 0.68 HSR 0.77 

3 Length of Route (miles) * 155 420 280 4 Cost to Construct Alternative ($)

CONV $0.17 billion $0.31 billion HrSR $2.37 billion $2.46 billion $4.29 billion HSR $3.59 billion 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. No. Alternatives Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b S2 S4 S5 

4-M

Cost to Construct Alternative if Monterrey is included - cost to build in Mexico included ($) 

CONV 

HrSR $2.98 billion HSR $4.86 billion 

 Operational Criteria 

5 

Revenue/Operating Cost Ratio (100% covers operating cost with revenue – above 100% indicates surplus available for capital cost) 

CONV 7% 24% 

HrSR 7% 20% 26% HSR 12% 

5 - Ma 

Revenue/Operating Cost Ratio if Monterrey is included – operating and maintenance cost in Mexico not included 

CONV 

HrSR 61% HSR 31% 

5 - Mb 

Revenue/Operating Cost Ratio if Monterrey is included (100% covers operating cost with revenue – above 100% indicates surplus available for capital cost)c

CONV 

HrSR 45% HSR 30% 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. No. Alternatives Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b S2 S4 S5 

6 Reduce Travel Time (percent time savings compared to auto) 

CONV 22% 12% 

HrSR 46% 25% 34% HSR 56% 

6 - M 

Reduce Travel Time if Monterrey is included (percent time savings compared to auto) 

CONV 

HrSR 40% HSR 59% 

7 Enhance Mode Share on Rail (% rail mode share) 

CONV 6% 15% 

HrSR 7% 11% 17% HSR 13% 

7 - M 

Enhance Mode Share on Rail if Monterrey is included (% rail mode share) 

CONV 

HrSR 15% HSR 18% 

 Infrastructure Criteria 

8 Capital Cost (capital cost per passenger mile) 

CONV $19.30 $3.40 

HrSR $225.10 $42.20 $40.70 HSR $51.60 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. No. Alternatives Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b S2 S4 S5 

8 - Ma 

Capital Cost if Monterrey is included – cost to build in Mexico not included (capital cost per passenger mile) 

CONV 

HrSR $10.40 HSR $13.60 

8 - Mb 

Capital Cost if Monterrey is included – cost to build in Mexico included (capital cost per passenger mile) 

CONV 

HrSR $12.60 HSR $18.40 

9 

Minimize Right-of-Way/Real Estate Impacts (acres) 

S2 is the shortest route and is located on or adjacent to an existing transportation corridor. 

CONVdHrSR 750 4,640 1,350 HSR 4,640 

10 

Provide Additional Improvements to National Railroad Network 

CONV 

HrSR N/A HSR N/A 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. No. Alternatives Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b S2 S4 S5 

Environmental Criteria Minimize Impacts on Natural Resources 

11a 

Wetlands (acres; NLCD) 

S5 (HrSR) is higher because it travels through a coastal wetlands area. 

CONVdHrSR 160 370 640 HSR 370 

11b Critical Habitat (acres) 

CONVd

HrSR 0 0 0 HSR 0 

Minimize Impacts on Cultural/Recreational Resources 

12a National and State Historic Places (count) 

CONVd

HrSR 1 4 1 HSR 4 

12b 

River and Stream Crossings (count) 

S4 is longer because of the multiple legs included in this route – the higher number of stream crossings reflects this. 

CONVdHrSR 140 320 190 HSR 320 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. No. Alternatives Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b S2 S4 S5 

12c 

Parks and Open Space (acres state and local parks) 

S4 is longer because of the multiple legs included in this route – the higher value for acres of parks potentially affected reflects this. 

CONVdHrSR 6 250 110 HSR 250 

Minimize Impacts on Social Resources 

13a 

Prime Farmland (acres) 

S4 is longer because of the multiple legs included in this route – the higher value for acres of prime farmland potentially affected reflects this. 

CONVdHrSR 5,920 11,500 9,030 HSR 11,500 

13c Sensitive Receptors (count) 

CONV 1 5 

HrSR 1 20 5 HSR 20 
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Crit. No. Alternatives Analysis Criteria 

Service 

Level b S2 S4 S5 

13b Environmental Justice (census 

blocks with % minority greater than state) 

CONV 50 120 

HrSR 50 220 120 HSR 220 

a Cells shaded gray indicate that the service level does not apply to this route.b Service‐Level Option: CONV= conventional rail; HrSR = higher speed rail; HSR = high‐speed railc Mexico operating and maintenance costs are assumed to be 35% less than US operating and maintenance costs on a per‐unit basisd Acreage impacts for conventional rail alternatives are considered to have minimal impact for right‐of‐way and most environmental resources because they 

infrastructure.* This criterion does not distinguish between service levels.

Based on the relative performance of routes for the different criteria shown in Table 4-4, the following alternSection are recommended not to be carried forward into the EIS:  S2 (conventional and higher speed service levels) – This alternative would have the lowest revenue to o

the conventional and higher-speed alternatives. It also has a cost per passenger-mile three times higher 

alternatives.

 S4 (high speed service level) – This alterative would have significantly higher capital cost per passenger

revenue to operating cost ratio than the higher speed option indicating that we would have exhausted thlevel.

 S5 (higher speed service level) – This alterative would have a significantly higher capital cost per passen

revenue to operating cost ratio compared to the conventional speed option. The S4 higher speed servic
in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

cost per passenger mile than the S5 higher speed option indicating that there is no advantage in pursuioption. In addition, this alternative has the highest area of potential wetlands effects, and the S5 conven(operating the train within the existing rail ROW with limited rail improvements) would avoid most effects 

 S6 (high speed service level) – This alterative has significantly higher capital cost per passenger-mile an

operating cost ratio than the higher speed option indicating that we would have exhausted the market a

Based on the relative performance of routes for the criteria shown in Table 4-4, the following route alternatiSection are recommended to be carried forward into the EIS:  S4 (higher-speed service level). While S4 has the greatest potential effect parks and open space, it is th

factor of 2 or 3, to serve the population centers which contribute to operational performance. So while tcriterion is highest for this alternative, this is a condition that could be avoided with project level refinemwould not be expected to be a fatal flaw.

 S5 (conventional speed service level). This alternative avoids the potential effects on wetlands seen for 

alternative.

 S6 (higher-speed service level)Route alternatives S4 and S6 both allow extension to Monterrey, Mexico. Without that extension these alterrecommended to be carried forward because they do not meet the revenue to operating cost ratio thresholdalso does not meet the revenue to operating cost threshold but it has the highest ratio and the lowest capitmile for the Southern Section alternatives and will therefore be carried forward to represent the Southern S

FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

5-1

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

5.0 Conclusions and Next Steps 

Based on the analysis performed as part of the Route Alternatives Analysis, it is 

recommended that the following route alternatives be carried forward into the EIS: 

 N4A – Conventional Speed Service

 C2B – Conventional Speed Service

 C4A/B – Higher Speed and High Speed Service

 S4 – Higher Speed Service with future Monterrey Extension

 S5 – Conventional Speed Service

 S6 – Higher Speed Service with future Monterrey Extension

Figure 5-1 shows the route alternatives and options that are recommended to be carried 

forward for evaluation in the EIS. Once TxDOT reviews and approves the range of 

alternatives to be carried forward into the EIS, they will be provided to FRA for concurrence. 

The range of alternatives will then be presented to stakeholders and the public for their 

comments. Once the range of alternatives has been finalized, specific analysis of the route 

alternatives will begin as part of the EIS. 
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

5-2

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

Figure 5-1: Route Alternatives and Options Recommended for Evaluation in 

the EIS
FINAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

6-1

in coordination with Oklahoma DOT 

6.0 References 

CH2M HILL. 2012. Meeting notes from meeting with North Central Texas Council of 

Governments, October 19. 

CH2M HILL. 2013. Initial Development of Alternatives Technical Memorandum. June. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2013a. Oklahoma City to South Texas 

Infrastructure Analysis. Final Report. Prepared by HNTB, Knudson, and SAM Inc. June 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2013b. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail 

Program Scoping Report. Prepared by CH2M HILL. November.