Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project 

Alignment Alternatives Analysis Report 

November 6, 2015
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................... ii

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

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2

2.0   Purpose and Need for the Project ................................................................................................... 6

3.0 Description of Proposed Project...................................................................................................... 7

4.0 Description of Potential Route Alternatives.................................................................................. 10

4.1 Bardwell Geographic Group........................................................................................................... 12

4.2 Corsicana Geographic Group ......................................................................................................... 13

4.3 IH‐45 Geographic Group ................................................................................................................ 14

4.4 Middle Geographic Group ............................................................................................................. 15

4.5 Hockley Geographic Group ............................................................................................................ 16

4.6 Downtown Houston Geographic Group ........................................................................................ 18

5.0 Alternatives Evaluation.................................................................................................................. 19

5.1 Level I Screening ............................................................................................................................ 19

5.2 Level I Screening Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 22

5.3 Level II Screening ........................................................................................................................... 24

5.4 Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening................................................................... 24

5.5 Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening Results...................................................... 29

5.6 Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening......................................................................... 32

6.0 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 35

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5‐1: Level I Screening Results............................................................................................................ 21

Table 5‐2: Ratio Methodology .................................................................................................................... 24

Table 5‐3: Environmental Evaluation Criteria............................................................................................. 26

Table 5‐4: Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening Results.................................................. 30

Table 5‐5: Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening Results and Standard Deviation ...........32

Table 5‐6: Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening Results ........................................................ 34

Table 6‐1: Draft Alignment Alternative Development Segmentation ........................................................ 35

Table 6‐2: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternatives ............................................................................ 37
iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1‐1: Utility Corridor............................................................................................................................ 4

Figure 3‐1: Shinkansen Trainset.................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3‐2: At‐grade Typical Section ............................................................................................................. 8

Figure 3‐3: Retained Fill Typical Section ....................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3‐4: Viaduct Typical Section............................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4‐1: Potential Route Alternatives..................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4‐2: Bardwell Geographic Group ..................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4‐3: Corsicana Geographic Group.................................................................................................... 13

Figure 4‐4: IH‐45 Geographic Group........................................................................................................... 14

Figure 4‐5: Middle Geographic Group ........................................................................................................ 15

Figure 4‐6: Hockley Geographic Group....................................................................................................... 17

Figure 4‐7: Downtown Houston Geographic Group ................................................................................... 18

Figure 5‐1:  Potential Route Alternatives FRA Carried Forward to Level II Screening ................................23

Figure 5‐2: Standard Deviation Example .................................................................................................... 31

Figure 6‐1 Draft Alignment Alternatives Carried Forward to the Draft EIS ................................................ 36

Figure 6‐2: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternative A.......................................................................... 38

Figure 6‐3: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternative B.......................................................................... 39

Figure 6‐4: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternative C.......................................................................... 40

Figure 6‐5: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternative D ......................................................................... 41

Figure 6‐6: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternative E.......................................................................... 42

Figure 6‐7: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternative F .......................................................................... 43

APPENDICES

Appendix A – GIS Methodology

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

ACS American Community Survey

BA Bardwell Geographic Group

BNSF BNSF Railroad

CAD computer‐aided design

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CR Corsicana Geographic Group

CS Common Segment Geographic Group

DH Downtown Houston Geographic Group

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ Environmental Justice

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FM1488 Farm to Market 1488

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GNIS Geographic Names Information Service

IH‐10 Interstate Highway 10

IH‐45 Interstate Highway 45

IH‐610 Interstate Highway 610
iv

HC Hockley Geographic Group

km/h kilometer per hour

kV kilovolt

MD Middle Geographic Group

mph mile per hour

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NLCD National Land Cover Dataset

NRCS National Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWI National Wetland Inventory

ROW Right‐of‐Way

SH 99 State Highway 99

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database

STB Surface Transportation Board

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TCR Texas Central High‐Speed Railway

THC Texas Historical Commission

TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation

TXNDD Texas Natural Diversity Database

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

US 290 U.S. Highway 290

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report forms the framework for conducting an environmental impact analysis in accordance with

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. The purpose of this

report is to document the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) independent evaluation of potential

route alternatives for the proposed Dallas to Houston High‐Speed Rail Project (Project).

FRA initiated a NEPA evaluation of Texas Central High‐Speed Railway, LLC’s and its affiliates (TCR or the

Proponent) proposal to construct and operate a private, for‐profit, high‐speed passenger rail system

connecting Dallas and Houston using the Japanese N700‐I Tokaido Shinkansen high‐speed rail

technology. The Project encompasses an approximately 240‐mile‐long corridor between the two cities.

TCR’s proposed high‐speed rail system requires a fully sealed corridor with grade‐separated crossings

and dedicated right‐of‐way (ROW) that is approximately 125 feet wide in order to accommodate a two‐

track railroad and an access road. It requires a “closed” system, meaning that the train must run on

dedicated high‐speed rail tracks for passenger rail service only and cannot travel on existing or planned

freight rail lines or share tracks with other passenger services, such as Amtrak.  

FRA has the authority to regulate the safety of railroads, including the Project. For the Project, FRA may

issue a Rule of Particular Applicability (regulations that apply to a specific railroad or a specific type of

operation), a series of waivers, or another action to ensure the Project is operated safely. This regulatory

action(s) constitutes a federal action requiring an environmental review under NEPA.  

As required by NEPA, FRA initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to document the possible

environmental impacts of the Project. This evaluation is required by 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1500‐1508), and the FRA’s implementing

regulations, FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, as set forth in 64 FR 28545 (1999).

An EIS is being prepared by the FRA in cooperation with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Surface Transportation

Board (STB), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Texas Department of Transportation

(TxDOT) is providing technical assistance to FRA in the preparation of the EIS.

Supporting the early development of the EIS, this report defines the scope of the Project and the

reasonable alternatives FRA will evaluate in the EIS. FRA’s alignment alternatives analysis reflects FRA’s

independent evaluation and judgment in its capacity as the federal lead agency for the EIS. Given that

TCR, the Proponent of the Project, is a private railroad, it is incumbent on TCR to develop feasible

alternatives that would achieve its operational criteria for FRA’s consideration and evaluation. This

report serves as the basis for evaluating those potential route alternatives in relation to the Project’s

purpose and need. FRA concludes the report by identifying the potential route alternatives, or build

alternatives that fully meet the Project’s purpose and need and that FRA will carry forward for

evaluation in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS potential alignments will continue to be refined and evaluated

as potential environmental impacts are identified, as required by NEPA. The No Build or No Action

Alternative, as required by NEPA, will serve as the basis for comparison of the environmental impacts of

the build alternatives and will be evaluated in the Draft EIS.  
2

This document provides the:

 Project background

 Evaluation of potential route alternatives

 Alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration

 Alternatives carried forward for further consideration  

1.1 Background  

A formal alternatives analysis is critical to the decision‐making process and to ultimately fulfill

obligations under NEPA. Section 102(C) of NEPA requires that agencies “include in every

recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly

affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on:

(i) The environmental impact of the proposed action;

(ii) Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be

implemented;

(iii) Alternatives to the proposed action;

(iv) The relationship between local short‐term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and

enhancement of long‐term productivity; and

(v) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the

proposed action, should it be implemented.”

CEQ NEPA regulations regarding the analysis of alternatives require agencies to:  

“(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives

which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been

eliminated;

(b) Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed

action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits;

(c) Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency;

(d) Include the alternative of no action;

(e) Identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft

statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law prohibits the

expression of such a preference; and

(f) Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or

alternatives.” (40 CFR 1502.14)

As described in FRA’s Corridor Alternatives Analysis Technical Report, dated August 10, 2015 and

available online at https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L16978), FRA undertook a two stage

alternatives analysis screening process. The first stage identified corridor alternatives for the proposed

high‐speed rail system from which potential route alternatives within corridors could be developed. The

second stage in FRA’s alternatives analysis screening process is documented in this report. The results of

this alternatives analysis provide the basis for in‐depth environmental studies of the most feasible and

practical potential route alternatives in the Draft EIS.  

1.1.1 FRA’s Corridor Alternatives Analysis

FRA completed a corridor‐level alternatives analysis to identify and evaluate the potential corridors that

could become “alternatives” in the EIS. This first step narrowed the universe of potential alternatives by
3

identifying viable high‐speed rail corridors within which specific high‐speed rail potential route

alternatives could be developed.  

FRA developed the range of potential corridors using the high‐speed rail corridors identified in previous

studies and those using existing linear infrastructure corridors. FRA did not complete any engineering or

design work as part of this analysis. The four potential high‐speed rail corridors FRA evaluated included:

 BNSF Corridor

 UPRR Corridor

 IH‐45 Greenfield Corridor

 Utility Corridor

FRA also considered alternatives to high‐speed rail service that included higher‐speed and conventional

speed rail services, direct bus service, and expansion of Interstate Highway 45 (IH‐45).  

Through the corridor alternatives analysis, FRA determined that the Utility Corridor be retained for

further investigation of potential route alternatives during the next stage of the alternatives analysis.

The Utility Corridor follows the CenterPoint Energy and Oncor Electric Delivery high‐voltage electrical

transmission lines (345 to 500 kilovolts (kV)). The utility easement does not extend into downtown

Dallas or downtown Houston. The easement originates near Palmer and terminates near Hockley to the

south. Therefore, between Dallas and Palmer, the Utility Corridor follows and uses the Union Pacific

Railroad (UPRR) Corridor to the downtown Dallas area. Between Hockley and Houston, the Utility

Corridor follows and uses the UPRR Eureka Subdivision into downtown Houston. Figure 1‐1 shows the

Utility Corridor, which includes the use of the UPRR Corridor, in the terminus areas in Dallas and

Houston.

FRA also determined that portions of the BNSF Railroad (BNSF), UPRR, and IH‐45 Greenfield Corridors be

retained for further investigation in the event that constraints arise along the Utility Corridor that

warrant potential route alternatives within portions of these eliminated corridors that avoid the

constraints.
4

Figure 1‐1: Utility Corridor
5

1.1.2 TCR’s Last Mile Analysis

As part of this Project, TCR proposed terminus stations in Dallas and Houston that would serve intercity

travel demand and commerce, provide for economic redevelopment, and provide connectivity with

each region’s major transit and roadway systems. TCR’s station analysis is documented in its Last Mile

Analysis Report (TCR 2015a), dated March 27, 2015, and available online at

http://www.texascentralhighspeedrail.com/page4/index.html. In its report, TCR’s stated goal in locating

stations was to minimize impacts, maximize multi‐modal connectivity, optimize ridership with respect to

revenue, and optimize adjacent land‐uses to provide long‐term local development opportunities.

TCR also determined that its stations should be configured to support near‐term operating goals and

allow for future expansions and extensions (stations as well as tracks) so that the Project could serve as

an extendable passenger rail network spine, connecting with regional transportation services.

Both Dallas and Houston have multiple commercial and economic centers spread across their respective

metropolitan areas, including each having a downtown central business district. These many commercial

centers are served by highly developed highway and roadway networks. Consequently, TCR determined

that it was appropriate to consider opportunities for “downtown” and “suburban” locations in Dallas

and Houston. TCR also identified an intermediate station to serve the Bryan/College Station area along

the UPRR Corridor and a Shiro Station area along the Utility Corridor.

Based on its screening criteria, TCR determined that the most viable terminus locations in Dallas and

Houston along the Utility Corridor are Downtown Dallas (noted in their report as Last Mile Alternative C)

and U.S. Highway 290/Interstate Highway 610 (US 290/IH‐610) in Houston (noted in their report as Last

Mile Alternative B). TCR determined that a station near Shiro is viable due to its proximity to

Bryan/College Station and Huntsville.  

1.1.3 TCR’s Step 2 Screening of Alternative Alignments  

After completing its Step 1 Screening of Alternatives and Last Mile Analysis, TCR initiated its next level of

analysis to develop potential alignment alternatives within the Utility Corridor. TCR issued its Step 2

Screening of Alternative Alignments Report (TCR 2015b) dated November 5, 2015 (available online at

http://www.texascentralhighspeedrail.com/page4/index.html). In its report, TCR proposed a Base

Alignment paralleling the existing CenterPoint Energy and Oncor Electric Delivery utility easements and

recommended 21 potential route alternatives. TCR identified constraints along the Base Alignment,

including “areas of environmental concern, construction complexity, geometric challenges, economic

impact and other major concerns," in six geographic areas from which it identified the potential route

alternatives. These potential route alternatives were created using the alignment objectives and design

guidelines developed by TCR. The six geographic areas include:

 Corsicana (CR)

 Bardwell (BA)

 Interstate Highway 45 (IH‐45)

 Middle (MD)

 Hockley (HC)

 Downtown Houston (DH)

TCR completed a two‐phase alternatives analysis. In its Phase 1 Analysis, TCR quantitatively evaluated

the Base Alignment and the potential route alternatives using the following criteria:
6

 Engineering: alignment length and adjacency to the existing utility line

 Alignment geometry: superelevation,1 total number of curves, and curves and speed restrictions

 Viaduct length and major structures: total viaduct length and number of complex structures

 Crossings: major road crossings, moderate road crossings, minor road crossings, freight

crossings, and utility crossings

 Hydrology: tier 1 hydrologic features – Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

crossings and tier 2 hydrologic features – other crossings

 Environmental: streams, waterbodies and wetlands; natural resources and land cover; cultural

resources; environmental justice; and hazardous sites  

In its Phase 2 Analysis, TCR qualitatively evaluated the Base Alignment and the potential route

alternatives using project delivery concerns. TCR’s Phase 2 Analysis evaluation criteria included capital

cost, construction duration, and constructability.

TCR concluded its Step 2 Screening of Alignment Alternatives Report (2015b) by recommending four

end‐to‐end alignment alternatives to FRA for further evaluation in the Draft EIS.  

2.0   PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

As defined by TCR, the purpose of the privately proposed Project is to provide reliable, safe and

economically viable passenger rail transportation using proven high‐speed rail technology between

Dallas and Houston. It would provide a convenient and competitive alternative to automobile travel on

IH‐45 or air travel between the two major metropolitan areas and introduce rail capacity in the vicinity

of the corridor. To achieve TCR’s economic viability and safety requirements, the Project must meet the

following technical requirements:

 Technological: bullet train vehicle and operating procedures based on the N700‐I Tokaido

Shinkansen

 Operational: approximate 90 minute travel time between Dallas and Houston, with achievable

speeds exceeding 200 miles per hour (mph) in a fully sealed corridor  

 Environmental: minimal impacts to the natural and built environments by maximizing adjacency

to existing infrastructure ROW

FRA, in accordance with federal requirements, must ensure that the system can be operated safely. As

the federal lead agency for the NEPA analysis, FRA is obligated to avoid and minimize impacts to the

human and natural environment. FRA must also ensure that the Project complies with all applicable

federal laws and executive orders.

Current transportation options between Dallas and Houston rely on automobile and air travel. Due to

increasing congestion on IH‐45, automobile travel times between the two regions are projected to

increase as travel speeds decrease. Flights between the two regions are approximately 65 minutes, in

addition to the recommended airport arrival time at the gate approximately 60 minutes before the

scheduled departure time. Flights are sensitive to inclement weather and other delay‐causing events

from inside and outside of Texas. As a result of these constraints, combined with the distance between

                                                            

1

   Superelevation is the vertical distance between the heights of inner and outer edges or the slope of the railroad

rails.
7

the two metropolitan areas and potential ridership demand, TCR identified an opportunity to develop a

profitable privately‐financed and operated high‐speed passenger rail system. The mobility and

congestion issues on the IH‐45 corridor that TCR’s proposed Project potentially addresses represents

identification of the typical “need” for a FRA project, which FRA usually addresses through service‐level

corridor planning.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

As described in Section 2.0, Purpose and Need, the Dallas to Houston High‐Speed Rail Project must meet

specific technological and operational criteria. This includes the deployment of an electric‐powered,

high‐speed rail system based on Central Japan Railway Company’s N700‐I Tokaido Shinkansen. To

minimize risk and enhance passenger safety, the Project would operate in a fully sealed corridor. A fully

sealed corridor is not interconnected with any other railroad systems and the high‐speed rail train will

either travel below or above existing roadways and other infrastructure. This will enable trains to

achieve speeds exceeding 200 mph and maintain the 90‐minute travel time between Dallas and

Houston.  

Figure 3‐1: Shinkansen Trainset  

Source: TCR
8

The following figures illustrate at‐grade, retained fill and viaduct typical sections of the train

infrastructure requirements.  

Figure 3‐2: At‐grade Typical Section

Source: TCR

Figure 3‐3: Retained Fill Typical Section

Source: TCR
9

Figure 3‐4: Viaduct Typical Section

Source: TCR
10

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES

FRA’s responsibility is to evaluate the alternatives that TCR developed and proposed. TCR proposed

potential route alternatives in six geographic groups – Corsicana, Bardwell, IH‐45, Middle, Hockley and

downtown Houston – to help avoid known environmental or engineering constraints it identified along

the Base Alignment. Figure 4‐1 shows the 21 potential route alternatives. Note that some geographic

groups overlap one another. The potential route alternatives were developed based on conceptual

engineering completed as of June 25, 2015.

Common segments (CS) of the Base Alignment are located between several of the geographic groups:

Dallas to the north end of the Bardwell geographic group; the south end of the IH‐45 geographic group

to the north end of the Hockley geographic group; and the south end of the Hockley geographic group

to the north end of the downtown Houston geographic group. These common segments did not contain

known environmental and/or engineering constraints. Therefore, TCR did not propose potential route

alternatives in these areas. Given that there were no recommended potential route alternatives within

these common segments, FRA collected data for purposes of identifying fatal flaws, but did not conduct

an evaluation for the purpose of narrowing the range of alternatives. Descriptions of the common

segments that will be carried forward in the Draft EIS are provided below.

North Terminus Common Segment (CS‐1)

CS‐1 begins on the south side of downtown Dallas and parallels the existing UPRR freight line towards

IH‐45. CS‐1 crosses the Trinity River on the west side of IH‐45 and parallels IH‐45 until the Ellis County

line.

Grimes County Common Segment (CS‐2)

CS‐2 parallels the CenterPoint Energy utility easement and begins just south of the northern border of

Grimes County. CS‐2 parallels the utility easement through the entire county, passing west of Singleton,

Roans Prairie and Plantersville and ends at the southern border of the county.

South Terminus Common Segment (CS‐3)

CS‐3 extends southeast from just south of Cypress along US 290. Just west of Beltway 8, CS‐3 continues

to IH‐610 along the existing UPRR freight line and Hempstead Road.  
11

Figure 4‐1: Potential Route Alternatives
12

Descriptions of the potential route alternatives by geographic area are provided below.

4.1Bardwell Geographic Group

The Bardwell potential route alternatives (Figure 4‐2) fall within Ellis, Navarro and

Freestone counties between the cities of Ferris and Wortham. In addition to the

Base Alignment, three potential route alternatives were proposed to improve

geometric design and to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. Two of the

potential route alternatives extend to the west of Bardwell Lake and one extends

to the east.

Note: only one color is shown where potential route alternatives overlap one

another to indicate that they share an alignment in this area.

Figure 4‐2: Bardwell Geographic Group

Source:  Texas Central High‐Speed Railway Step 2 Screening of Alignment Alternatives Report

4.1.1 Bardwell Base (BA Base)

BA Base begins west of Ferris and joins the utility easement near Palmer. BA Base extends along the

utility easement, curving southwest at Reagor Springs, staying west of Bardwell Lake. Extending

southeast, it closely follows several utility easements east of Rankin and Barry, and west of Currie. BA

Base ends near Wortham on the western side of the utility easement.  

4.1.2 Bardwell 1 (BA‐1)

BA‐1 diverges from the Base Alignment (BA Base) north of Palmer where it employs a more direct route

to curve west of Bardwell Lake, staying north and west of the utility easement. BA‐1 rejoins BA Base at

Barry.

  
13

4.1.3 Bardwell 2 (BA‐2)

BA‐2 diverges from the Base Alignment (BA Base) west of Ferris and closely parallels BA Base near

Palmer. It curves to the eastern side of the utility easement, closer to Bardwell Lake and rejoins BA Base

just south of the Navarro County line.

4.1.4 Bardwell 3 (BA‐3)

BA‐3 diverges from the Base Alignment (BA Base) near Ferris and crosses over IH‐45, extending east of

Palmer. BA‐3 continues east of IH‐45 until it re‐crosses IH‐45 near Alma and passes east of Oak Grove.

BA‐3 crosses the utility easement and rejoins BA Base northeast of Pursley.   

4.2 Corsicana Geographic Group

The Corsicana potential route alternatives are within Ellis, Navarro and Freestone

counties and extend between approximately Rankin and Wortham. One base

alignment and two potential route alternatives were proposed (Figure 4‐3).

Note: only one color is shown where potential route alternatives overlap one

another to indicate that they share an alignment in this area.

Figure 4‐3: Corsicana Geographic Group

Source:  Texas Central High‐Speed Railway Step 2 Screening of Alignment Alternatives Report

4.2.1 Corsicana Base (CR Base)

CR Base parallels the utility easement. It starts just north of the Navarro County line and extends along

the utility easement east of Barry to a point west of Currie. CR Base extends south following the utility

easement on the western side, east of Wortham.
14

4.2.2 Corsicana 1 (CR‐1)

CR‐1 separates from the Base Alignment (CR Base) east of Rankin and extends in a southeasterly

direction, staying west of Corsicana. CR‐1 curves southeast and crosses a floodplain just north of

Richland. CR‐1 crosses the utility easement and curves southeast to rejoin CR Base near Currie.  

4.2.3 Corsicana 2 (CR‐2)

CR‐2 follows the Base Alignment (CR‐Base) until south of Barry, where it takes a straighter route. CR‐2

crosses the utility easement north of Pursley and rejoins CR Base near Currie.

4.3 IH‐45 Geographic Group

A potential route alternative on IH‐45 was proposed to eliminate construction risks

through dense gas well fields and former mining areas, and minimize private property

impacts.

Figure 4‐4: IH‐45 Geographic Group

Source:  Texas Central High‐Speed Railway Step 2 Screening of Alignment Alternatives Report

4.3.1 IH‐45 Base  

IH‐45 Base aligns with the utility easement as it extends south from a point just north of Navarro

County. IH‐45 Base separates from the utility easement to pass through the oil and gas fields east of

Lake Limestone and west of Teague and Donie. Just south of Concord, IH‐45 Base rejoins the utility

easement and ends at the southern edge of Madison County.
15

4.3.2 IH‐45 Alternative (IH‐45 Alt)

IH‐45 Alt separates from the Base Alignment (IH‐45 Base) and follows the IH‐45 highway corridor for

approximately 57 miles starting six miles north of Fairfield to north of Madisonville. IH‐45 Alt runs

southwest and realigns with the Base Alignment south of the Grimes County line until is separates just

north of Bedias.

4.4 Middle Geographic Group

The Middle geographic group (Figure 4‐5) begins at the Freestone/Navarro county

line and continues south to the Grimes/Madison county line. Near Jewett where

several electrical transmission lines converge, there are major electrical facilities at‐

grade, and several towns and developments. All of the potential route alternatives

closely follow the utility easement along either the west or east side until the

Grimes County line. The Base Alignment (MD Base) and four Middle potential route

alternatives were proposed to provide options to avoid or minimize impacts to the

above mentioned electrical facilities, towns and developments.

Note: only one color is shown where potential route alternatives overlap one another to indicate that

they share an alignment in this area.

Figure 4‐5: Middle Geographic Group

Source:  Texas Central High‐Speed Railway Step 2 Screening of Alignment Alternatives Report

4.4.1 Middle Base (MD Base)

MD Base begins at the Freestone/Navarro county line and continues south adjacent to the utility

easement and curves along the east side of Browns Lake. MD‐Base separates from the utility easement

to pass through the dense oil and gas well fields west of Donie and east of Lake Limestone and realigns

with the utility easement ten miles south of Jewett. MD Base extends south on the east side of the

utility easement and ends at the Grimes/Madison county line.
16

4.4.2 Middle 1 (MD‐1)

MD‐1 follows the Base Alignment (MD Base), except at a point about ten miles south of Jewett, where it

separates from MD Base and continues to parallel the utility easement on the west side.  

4.4.3 Middle 2 (MD‐2)

MD‐2 separates from the Base Alignment (MD Base) east of Wortham. MD‐2 extends west around

Browns Lake and rejoins MD Base south of the oil and gas fields.  

4.4.4 Middle 3 (MD‐3)

MD‐3 separates from the Base Alignment (MD Base) near Wortham and extends west of Lake Limestone

and crosses the Navasota River. Approximately a half mile south of Simms Lake, MD‐3 crosses the utility

easement and rejoins MD Base.

4.4.5 Middle 4 (MD‐4)

MD‐4 separates from the Base Alignment (MD Base) north of Teague and curves around the north and

east side of Teague to pass the oil and gas fields. MD‐4 extends south through the oil and gas fields near

Donie and passes west of Jewett. Just south of Concord, MD‐4 crosses over to the east side of the utility

easement and rejoins MD Base west of Cottonwood.

4.5 Hockley Geographic Group

The Hockley geographic group begins west of Todd Mission in Grimes County and

ends west of Cypress in Harris County (Figure 3‐6). The potential route alternatives all

begin near Todd Mission. The three potential route alternatives were proposed to

provide options to cross State Highway (SH 99) and extend through Harris and Waller

counties before aligning along the east side of the utility easement. The potential

route alternatives curve east to cross over SH 99 and generally follow the utility

easement south towards Houston.
17

Note: only one color is shown where potential route alternatives overlap one another to indicate that

they share an alignment in this area.

Figure 4‐6: Hockley Geographic Group

Source:  Texas Central High‐Speed Railway Step 2 Screening of Alignment Alternatives Report

4.5.1 Hockley Base (HC Base)

HC Base begins west of Todd Mission and continues south following the east side of the utility

easement. HC Base crosses to the west side of the utility easement and extends south along Hegar Road.

To accommodate maximum operating speed, HC Base curves south, east of the City of Hockley, and

crosses US 290 before extending east to cross both SH 99 and the utility easement and ends near the

town of Cypress.  

4.5.2 Hockley 1 (HC‐1)

HC‐1 begins west of Todd Mission and parallels the utility easement, crossing over US 290. West of SH

99, HC‐1 sharply turns to the east. HC‐1 maximizes the length adjacent to the utility easement through

the Hockley area and requires two sharp horizontal curves to turn east towards Houston.

4.5.3 Hockley 2 (HC‐2)

HC‐2 follows the Base Alignment (HC Base) to a point south of Farm‐to‐Market 1488 (FM1488). From

here, it curves to the west paralleling Hegar Road before curving east over US 290, east of Hockley, and

rejoining HC Base.  

4.5.4 Hockley 3 (HC‐3)

HC‐3 begins west of Todd Mission and extends south following the east side of the utility easement

before crossing the utility easement. HC‐3 then curves southwest towards Kickapoo Road and continues

south parallel to Kickapoo Road. HC‐3 crosses over US 290 and then curves south to the west of Hockley.  

HC‐3 crosses both SH 99 and the existing utility easement as it curves east and ends near Cypress.
18

4.5.5 Hockley 4 (HC‐4)

HC‐4 begins west of Todd Mission and extends south following the east side of the utility easement. HC‐

4 crosses the easement and extends southwest and parallels an existing underground pipeline as it

continues to the south. HC‐4 crosses over US 290 and then approximately 3.3 miles west of Hockley and

just after Binford Road, curves to the south and extends east. HC‐4 crosses the utility easement and SH

99 and ends near the town of Cypress.

4.6 Downtown Houston Geographic Group

For the purpose of this Project, the downtown Houston area begins southwest of

US 290 and IH‐610 interchange near the Northwest Mall or the Northwest

Transit Center. The Base Alignment is proposed to terminate near IH‐610 at the

Northwest Mall site. Two potential route alternatives were proposed to extend

east to downtown Houston.

Note: only one color is shown where potential route alternatives overlap one another to indicate that

they share an alignment in this area.

Figure 4‐7: Downtown Houston Geographic Group

Source:  Texas Central High‐Speed Railway Step 2 Screening of Alignment Alternatives Report

4.6.1 Downtown Houston 1 (DH‐1)

Extending from the Base Alignment, DH‐1 continues southeast between the UPRR ROW and Hempstead

Road and continues south of the Northwest Mall site. DH‐1 crosses over IH‐610 and the existing UPRR

freight line. It then follows the freight line before crossing over Interstate Highway (IH‐10) and curving

east towards downtown Houston. DH‐1 continues east along the south side of the UPRR ROW and

terminates near Amtrak’s Houston Station.  
19

4.6.2 Downtown Houston 2 (DH‐2)

Extending from the Base Alignment, DH‐2 continues southeast between the UPRR ROW and Hempstead

Road, crosses over IH‐610, and extends along the north side of the existing freight line. DH‐2 then curves

east to align with the median of IH‐10. At Studemont Street, DH‐2 turns north from the median to follow

the north side of IH‐10 highway ROW. DH‐2 crosses over IH‐45 entrance and exit ramps before curving

east to pass over the White Oak Bayou and terminate at UPRR’s Hardy Yard.  

5.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION

The following section describes FRA’s independent evaluation of the potential route alternatives by

geographic group. This evaluation consists of a two‐level process. The Level I Screening evaluates the

potential route alternatives based on Project purpose and need, TCR’s alignment objectives and TCR’s

design guidelines. The potential route alternatives that met the Level I Screening requirements moved

on to the Level II Screening, in which potential route alternatives were evaluated based on

environmental constraints defined by NEPA, and TCR’s cost and construction factors.

5.1 Level I Screening

FRA’s Level I Screening used the Project’s purpose and need, alignment objectives and design guidelines

as screening criteria.  

5.1.1 Purpose and Need  

Table 5‐1 shows the evaluation of the potential route alternatives to the Project Purpose and Need as

defined in Section 2.0 of this report.

5.1.2 Alignment Objectives  

TCR developed alignment objectives that all potential route alternatives must meet to be considered

feasible. These alignment objectives, used by FRA in its Level I Screening, include:

 Alignments must be configured as a dedicated, fully grade separated, two‐track alignment to

meet safety, service planning and travel time goals with no shared use of track or connections to

existing railroad network

 Maximize co‐location opportunities with transportation and utility corridors

 Minimize relocation of any existing roadways or freight railroad tracks

 Optimize the alignment to allow for the desired maximum operating speed and operational

efficiency

 Minimize the number of times the high‐speed rail tracks must cross existing freight tracks or

major roadways

 Minimize expected impacts of construction to traffic and freight operations

 Minimize expected environmental impacts and constructability concerns

 Minimize expected ROW and construction costs associated with heavy infrastructure

requirements

 Achieve both the travel time and economic objectives

The results of the FRA evaluation of the potential route alternatives to the alignment objectives are

shown in Table 5‐1.  
20

5.1.2 Design Guidelines

TCR developed alignment design guidelines based on their engineering judgment and professional

experience. The guidelines focused on alignment curvature, profile gradient, and constructability

considerations. These are requirements all potential route alternatives must meet to be considered

feasible. The general design guidelines, used by FRA in its Level I Screening, are:

 Maximum Operating Speed: a desired maximum operating speed of 205 mph (330 kilometers

per hour (km/h)) was chosen to be consisted with N700‐I Tokaido Shinkansen technology. The

alignment was designed to provide for maximum operating speeds throughout to the extent

practical, but in some locations alignment curvature to minimize property and environmental

impacts would restrict speeds.

 Separation from Existing Freight Rail Lines: the proposed HSR system would not operate on any

existing freight rail lines. It is expected that reconfiguration of existing freight lines in select

locations may be required to support construction and operations of the HSR system.

 Alignment Curvature: a desired minimum radius of 17,000 feet (5,200 meters) was used for

development of the preliminary alignments. This minimum radius curve would allow for

operations at 205 mph (330 km/h) using the maximum permissible cant (actual superelevation)

of 7 inches (175 millimeters).

 Maximum Grade:  the desired maximum grade was set at 1.5 percent

 Special Trackwork: for the design of the trackwork at the approaches to stations, where all

trains would stop, an assumption of 31 mph (50 km/h) special trackwork components was used

to establish the footprint of the station approach limits

 Recommended Minimum Offset between HSR and Utility ROW: a 165‐foot (50 meter) offset

was established as the minimum separation distance from the centerline of the electrical

transmission line corridor to the centerline of the HSR corridor. This was determined by taking

approximately half of the minimum assumed transmission line ROW width of 215 feet (65

meters) for an electrical transmission line corridor and adding it to half of the assumed 100 feet

(30 meters) minimum high‐speed rail ROW width.

Table 5‐1 shows the results of the FRA design guidelines evaluation.
Table 5‐1: Level I Screening Results

Criteria

Potential Route Alternativ

Corsicana Geographic

Group Bardwell Geographic Group IH‐45 Geographic Group Middle Geo

CR‐B CR‐1 CR‐2 BA‐B BA‐1 BA‐2 BA‐3 IH‐45 B IH‐45 Alt MD‐B MD‐1 

Purpose

Economic Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Technological Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Operational Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Environmental Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Need

Improve intercity mobility Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y improve passenger accessibility and connectivity Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y improve overall transportation system safety Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Alignment Objectives

Dedicated, fully grade separated, two‐track alignment to meetsafety, service planning, and travel time goals Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Maximize co‐location opportunities Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Minimize relocation of exiting roadways or freight railroadtracks Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Optimize alignment to allow for desired maximum operating

speed Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Minimize HSR tracks crossing existing freight tracks Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Minimize expected impacts of construction to traffic and

freight operations Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Minimize expected environmental impacts and constructabilityconcerns

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Minimize expected ROW and construction costs associated

with heavy infrastructure requirements Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Achieve both the travel time and economic objectives Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 

Design Guidelines

Maximum Operating Speed ‐ 330 km/h (205 mph) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Separation from Existing Freight Rail Lines Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Alignment Curvature ‐ min of 17,000 feet (5,200 m) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Maximum Grade ‐ max grade of 1.5% Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Special Trackwork Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Recommended Minimum Offset between HSR and Utility ROW‐ min 50 m (165 feet) offset Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Carried to Detailed Environmental Analysis Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 
22

5.2 Level I Screening Conclusion

FRA used the Level I Screening to eliminate those potential route alternatives that did not meet the

Project’s purpose and need, alignment objectives or design guidelines.  

Two alternatives for the Downtown Houston geographic group, DH‐1 and DH‐2, have potential to create

significant environmental impacts, thereby resulting in higher per mile costs (TCR’s Last Mile Analysis

Report 2015a). Given the cost to build the Downtown Houston potential route alternatives, they do not

meet the economic viability of the Project purpose and need. Accordingly, FRA eliminated DH‐1 and DH‐

2 from further consideration for this Project.  

DH‐1 has the potential to create significant environmental impacts to six areas of concerns – National

Historic District Heights Boulevard Esplanade, the US Healthworks Hospital, Houston and Texas Central

Railroad archeology site, and Cottage Grove Park. Additionally, DH‐1 also has a potential to

disproportionately impact minority populations. Due to these potential environmental impacts, as well

as TCR’s estimated high capital costs (TCR’s Last Mile Analysis Report 2015a), FRA determined that DH‐1

does not meet the stated purpose and need of the Project and FRA eliminated it from further

consideration for this Project.

DH‐2 has the potential to create significant environmental impacts to nine areas of concern – National

Historic District Heights Boulevard Esplanade, U.S. Healthworks Hospital, Houston and Texas Central

Railroad archeology site, Cottage Grove Park, Stude Park, White Oak Park, and Hogg Park. Due to these

potential environmental impacts, as well as TCR’s estimated high capital cost (TCR’s Last Mile Analysis

Report 2015a), FRA determined that DH‐2 does not meet the stated purpose and need of the Project

and FRA eliminated it from further consideration for this Project.

Additionally, FRA determined that HC‐1 does not meet the design guidelines for the Project. Based on

conceptual engineering as of June 25, 2015, HC‐1 contains two curves that would require a speed

restriction of 160 mph, which fails to meet the minimum alignment curvature necessary to achieve the

intended travel time of 90 minutes (TCR’s Step 2 Screening of Alignment Alternatives Report 2015b) .

Therefore, FRA determined that HC‐1 does not meet the stated purpose and need of the Project and

FRA eliminated it from further consideration for this Project.  

FRA carried the following potential route alternatives forward into the Level II Screening (Figure 5‐1):

 Bardwell Geographic Group

o BA‐Base

o BA‐1

o BA‐2

o BA‐3

 Corsicana Geographic Group

o CR‐Base

o CR‐1

o CR‐2

 IH‐45 Geographic Group

o IH‐45 Base

o IH‐45 Alt

 Middle Geographic Group

o MD‐Base

o MD‐1

o MD‐2

o MD‐3

o MD‐4

 Hockley Geographic Group

o HC‐Base

o HC‐2

o HC‐3

o HC‐4
23

Figure 5‐1:  Potential Route Alternatives FRA Carried Forward to Level II Screening
24

5.3 Level II Screening

FRA’s Level II Screening consisted of two stages. The first stage looked at 16 environmental evaluation

criteria (Table 5‐3) to determine areas of potential environmental impact, as required by NEPA. These

included prime farmland, wetlands and floodplains, community facilities, historical properties, threatened

and endangered species, and road crossings. The second stage incorporated cost and construction factors

into the screening analysis.  

This analysis is based on desktop level research and data collection. No field surveys or site verification was

conducted to complete this analysis. Fieldwork, modeling and detailed technical evaluation in accordance

with NEPA and FRA’s procedures will be completed as part of the Draft EIS on the feasible and practicable

alternatives.

5.4 Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening

In the Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening, FRA quantitatively evaluated the potential

route alternatives that were carried forward from Level I Screening using a Geographic Information

Systems (GIS)‐based analysis of environmental constraints pursuant to NEPA. FRA conducted the GIS

analysis on 16 environmental evaluation criteria using readily available state and federal databases, as

described in Appendix A. The methodology and criteria used to complete the Level II, Stage I Environmental

Constraints Screening are explained below.

5.4.1 Methodology

Scoring for each of the environmental evaluation criteria was based on the lowest score having the least

potential to create an environmental impact (best). A ratio method was used to distribute the scores

among potential route alternatives within each geographic group. An example of how this is displayed is

provided in Table 5‐2, which contains four potential route alternatives within the Bardwell geographic

group and their scoring for the wetlands criteria. Because there are four alternatives, the scores range from

1.0 to 4.0. For each criterion the lowest impact is scored a 1.0 (BA‐2) and the greatest impact is scored a 4.0

(BA‐3). (Note: If a geographic group contains two alternatives, the scores range from 1.0 to 2.0. And, if the

geographic group contains three alternatives, the scores range from 1.0 to 3.0). The remaining potential

route alternatives are scored relative to the minimum and maximum scores.  

Table 5‐2: Ratio Methodology

Wetlands

Scoring

(Bardwell)

Acreage Points

Bardwell

Geographic

Group

BA‐Base 5.243 1.300

BA‐1 6.357 1.496

BA‐2 3.542 1.000

BA‐3 20.560 4.000

A different measurement is used for each environmental evaluation criterion. These measurements

encompass the potential for “direct” or “indirect” impacts. For the purposes of this analysis, potential

impacts due to the implementation and operation of a potential route alternative are considered direct

impacts. For example, if a hospital sits within the alignment ROW (125 feet), it is considered a direct impact

under Community Facilities. Potential indirect impacts represent those that may occur outside of the

proposed ROW (up to 1,000 feet). For example, if a hospital is set back 250 feet from the alignment ROW, it
25

is considered an indirect impact. A description of each environmental evaluation criterion and the

measurement used is provided below in Table 5‐3.  
Table 5‐3: Environmental Evaluation Criteria

Criterion Data Source

From

Centerline

(feet)

Total

Width

(feet)

Direct/

Indirect Descriptio

Urban Land Cover NLCD 500 1000 Indirect Low‐intensity, medium‐intensity, high‐int

developed area

Structures Aerial Photography 62.5 125 Direct A count of rooftops as seen on aerial pho

buffer

Parcel Takes Appraisal Districts, in‐house

digitization

62.5 125 Direct Parcels with affected structures + Parcels 

where at least 40% of area is impacted

Parks TPWD, MPOs 500 1000 Indirect State and local parklandPrime Farmland NRCS 62.5 125 Direct NRCS soil survey prime farmland impacteWetlands NWI 62.5 125 Direct NWI wetlands impactedWaterways NHD 0 0 Direct Direct alignment crossings of waterwaysFloodplains FEMA 62.5 125 Direct 100‐ and 500‐year floodplain impactedRoad Crossings TxDOT 0 0 Direct Direct alignment crossings of roadsInfrastructureAdjacency

TxDOT (roads), Platts

(transmission lines), US NationalTransportation Atlas (railroads)

500 1000 Indirect Percentage of the alignment that is paral

lines, or existing railroads

MinorityPopulation

Census Bureau (Census 2010) 500 1000 Indirect Estimated minority population affected (t

tract intersection area)

Cemeteries THC 62.5 125 Direct Cemetery acreage impactedEcology TXNDD 62.5 125 Direct Acreage of TXNDD Element occurrences iHistoric Properties NRHP 500 1000 Indirect NRHP properties and districtsCommunityFacilities

GNIS 500 1000 Indirect Includes the following GNIS feature classe

Church, Hospital, Post Office, School

HazardousMaterials

TCEQ 62.5 125 Direct Includes: municipal setting designations, 

radioactive sites, Superfund sites, munici

underground petroleum storage tanks.

Population belowPoverty Line

Census Bureau (2013 5‐year ACS) 500 1000 Indirect Estimated population below poverty line 

alignment‐tract intersection area)
27

5.4.2 Urban Land Cover

The urban land cover criterion is an approximate quantification in acres of potential land use impacts. This

criterion looks at the difference between low‐intensity, medium‐intensity, high‐intensity and open space

land uses. Generally, the more urbanized or complex the property use is, the greater the number of

potential impacts.  

Initially, the land use criteria considered residential, commercial and industrial land uses. When land use

datasets were only partially available for the 1,000‐foot buffer, and where available they had inconsistent

classification/schema, Urban Land Cover from the National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) was used due to its

consistency over the entire screening buffer.  

5.4.3 Parcel Takes

This criterion represents the number of potential parcels that could be acquired by implementing a

potential route alternative.

This criterion combines structures (rooftops) identified by aerial photography with parcel data from county

appraisal districts to calculate the number of properties potentially impacted. This criterion counts the

impacted parcels as “takes” if:

 Any parcel with one or more structures on it that falls within 62.5 feet of the alignment centerline

(125 feet total width)

 Parcels without structures within 62.5 feet of the alignment centerline where at least 40 percent of

the parcel area falls within the alignment buffer (125 feet total width)

5.4.4 Parks

This criterion measures the potential acreage of impact to areas designated by state and local agencies for

recreation and wildlife habitat are substantially forested, largely undisturbed, and used for recreational

activities. Impacts to these lands may require avoidance under Section 4(f) of the Department of

Transportation Act or may not be able to be considered if prudent or practical alternatives exist.  

Parks data was available in GIS polygon form from the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and the

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) datasets.

5.4.5 Prime Farmland

This criterion measures the acreage of land designated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) as prime farmland, which is defined as land that has the

best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and

oilseed crops and is available for these uses.  

5.4.6 Wetlands

This criterion measures the acreage of impacts to wetlands within 62.5 feet of the alignment center line

(125 feet total width). Increased impacts to wetlands would increase the complexity of Project permitting

and also require a higher amount of wetland mitigation to offset Project impacts. Wetland data was

obtained from the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) dataset.
28

5.4.7 Waterways

The total number of waterways (e.g., rivers and streams) a potential route alternative crosses was

calculated using data obtained from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Increased impacts to river

and stream crossings would increase the complexity of permitting the Project and also require greater

mitigation to offset Project impacts.  

5.4.8 Floodplain

Acres of floodplain were tabulated based on the number of acres within 62.5 feet from the alignment

centerline (125‐foot buffer) of each potential route alternative. Floodplain data was obtained from FEMA

and included both the 100‐ and 500‐year floodplain classifications. Increased impacts to floodplains would

increase the complexity of permitting the Project and also require higher mitigation to offset Project

impacts. Construction through these areas would also result in higher potential implementation costs to

design and maintain structures that would be resilient to potential flooding impacts.

5.4.9 Road Crossings

This criterion is a count of the number of roadway crossings, regardless of ownership or roadway

classification (e.g., state, county and private). TxDOT was the data source for roadways.  

5.4.10 Infrastructure Adjacency

One of TCR’s alignment objectives is for potential route alternatives to “maximize co‐location opportunities

with transportation and utility corridors.” Therefore, the infrastructure adjacency criterion estimates the

percentage of the potential route alternative that parallels existing infrastructure. This analysis uses the

roads dataset from TxDOT, railroads dataset from the U.S. National Transportation Atlas, and electrical

transmission line dataset from Platts.  

5.4.11 Minority Population

Environmental Justice (EJ) populations include low‐income and minority populations. Minority population

was analyzed to determine if a potential route alternative might disproportionately affect EJ populations.

Minority population data was obtained at the U.S. Census Block level from the 2010 Decennial U.S. Census.

For the purposes of this analysis, minority population is defined as the total population minus persons that

reported themselves as White, Not Hispanic or Latino. This information was converted into a metric by

counting the number of U.S. Census Bocks with a minority population over 50 percent intersecting a 1,000‐

foot buffer around each potential route alternative (500 feet from the alignment centerline).

5.4.12 Cemeteries

Cemetery data was obtained from the Texas Historical Commission (THC) to evaluate both the number of

impacted cemeteries within the 125‐foot buffer of the potential route alternative and total acreage within

the cemetery that might be impacted. An impact to cemeteries could require mitigation including potential

localized alignment modifications to avoid and/or minimize impacts. If alignment modifications could not

be accommodated, additional coordination with THC and/or consultation under Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act would require investigation that could delay Project implementation.
29

5.4.13 Ecology

This criterion measures the potential impact to environmentally sensitive areas that could provide habitat

for threatened and endangered species based on acreage of potential impacts to observed occurrences of

the species. Impacts to individual species of plants and wildlife or the habitat of threatened and

endangered wildlife species would require mitigation including potential localized alignment modifications

to avoid and/or minimize impacts. If alignment modifications could not be accommodated, additional

coordination with the USFWS and TPWD would be required, increasing the complexity of permitting the

Project and also require higher mitigation to offset Project impacts.

The Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD) element occurrence data from TPWD depicts areas where

threatened and endangered species have been observed. This does not necessarily mean that these species

are present, but it is an indicator that a species is or was present and has practical conservation value.  

5.4.14 Additional Environmental Evaluation Criteria

There are four environmental evaluation criteria – community facilities, historic properties, hazardous

materials and U.S. Census block groups with over 50 percent poverty population – for which data was

collected. However, when evaluated, they did not create any differentiation between the scoring of the

potential route alternatives at this level of analysis. For example, this desktop level analysis did not identify

any historic properties within the 125‐foot buffer (62.5 feet from the alignment centerline), although they

are expected to be present. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, these four environmental

evaluation criteria were not used in the Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening. Additional

research and analysis will be conducted for these four environmental evaluation criteria, among resource

topics as required by NEPA, as part of the Draft EIS.

5.5 Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening Results

Table 5‐3 shows the results of the Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening for the 18 potential

route alternatives that were carried forward from the Level I Screening.
Table 5‐4: Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening Results

Potential Route

Alternatives

Urban Land Cover Parcel Takes (40%) Parks Prime Farmland Wetlands Waterways Floodplains Road Cross

Percent Score Number Score Acres Score Acres Score Acres Score Number Score Acres Score Number 

Corsicana

Geographic

Group

CR‐Base 4.91% 3.000 7 1.333 0.00 1.000 198.79 1.659 2.39 1.000 47 1.833 93.92 2.504 37 

CR‐1 4.58% 2.566 17 3.000 0.00 1.000 187.26 1.000 4.83 1.571 42 1.000 41.09 1.000 47 CR‐2 3.38% 1.000 5 1.000 0.00 1.000 222.22 3.000 10.94 3.000 54 3.000 111.34 3.000 40 

Bardwell

Geographic

Group

BA‐Base 4.12% 1.726 14 1.000 0.00 1.000 455.41 3.734 5.24 1.300 83 1.000 141.10 1.000 68 

BA‐1 4.07% 1.481 20 1.720 0.00 1.000 470.53 4.000 6.36 1.496 91 4.000 144.23 1.720 68 BA‐2 3.97% 1.000 18 1.480 0.00 1.000 436.10 3.393 3.54 1.000 85 1.750 150.29 3.114 66 BA‐3 4.61% 4.000 39 4.000 0.00 1.000 300.25 1.000 20.56 4.000 85 1.750 154.14 4.000 102 

IH‐45

Geographic

Group

IH‐45 Base 5.04% 1.000 47 1.000 0.00 1.000 423.30 2.000 25.83 1.000 185 2.000 189.49 2.000 115 

IH‐45 Alt. 27.19% 2.000 79 2.000 246.73 2.000 355.12 1.000 31.11 2.000 166 1.000 169.72 1.000 147 

Middle

Geographic

Group

MD‐Base 5.15% 3.161 41 1.000 0.00 1.000 222.51 4.024 21.22 1.245 134 1.800 79.81 4.014 77 

MD‐1 4.99% 2.834 42 1.049 0.00 1.000 229.74 5.000 20.61 1.000 146 5.000 79.81 4.014 65 MD‐2 4.97% 2.778 46 1.244 0.00 1.000 212.38 2.655 24.47 2.551 143 4.200 105.93 5.000 78 MD‐3 4.15% 1.000 49 1.390 0.00 1.000 213.08 2.750 30.56 5.000 131 1.000 104.23 4.936 93 MD‐4 5.99% 5.000 123 5.000 0.00 1.000 200.12 1.000 21.20 1.237 136 2.333 0.00 1.000 93 

Hockley

Geographic

Group

HC‐Base 12.07% 4.000 28 3.250 0.00 1.000 191.97 1.000 50.64 1.370 34 3.786 69.10 4.000 41 

HC‐2 8.79% 1.669 25 1.000 0.00 1.000 209.35 1.549 56.33 4.000 35 4.000 57.34 2.339 33 HC‐3 10.29% 2.737 29 4.000 0.00 1.000 252.77 2.920 51.80 1.906 21 1.000 54.71 1.966 35 HC‐4 7.85% 1.000 26 1.750 0.00 1.000 286.99 4.000 49.83 1.000 29 2.714 47.87 1.000 33 
31

The scores for each criterion were totaled for each potential route alternative within its geographic

group. FRA determined that the lowest scoring potential route alternative would move forward to Level

II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening for further evaluation. Additionally, FRA used a standard

deviation2 to quantify the variation of the data.  

After the scores were totaled, the standard deviation was then calculated for each geographic group.

The potential route alternatives that fell within one standard deviation of the lowest score were carried

into the Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening. Therefore, one standard deviation from the

score was used to statistically capture those potential route alternatives closest to the lowest score, as

well as the lowest score.

For example, as shown in Figure 5‐2, the Hockley geographic group scores ranged from 21.964 to

32.406. One standard deviation from the lowest score is 3.77 or 25.73, so any scores less than 25.73 fall

within one standard deviation of the lowest score. Using this methodology, HC‐4 (21.964) and HC‐2

(25.307) were carried forward to the Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening.  

Figure 5‐2: Standard Deviation Example

                                                            

2

   Standard deviation is a statistic used to measure the dispersion or variation in a set of numbers. It is equal to

the square root of the variance.
32

At the conclusion of the Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening, FRA carried ten potential

routes alternatives forward for further consideration. Table 5‐4 identifies all of the potential route

alternatives that advanced to the Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening.  

Table 5‐5: Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening Results and Standard

Deviation

Potential Route Alternative Total Score Standard Deviation Carried Forward

Corsicana

Geographic Group

CR‐Base 19.69

1.48

Yes

CR‐1 22.14 No

CR‐2 23.23 No

Bardwell

Geographic Group

BA‐Base 18.93

5.75

Yes

BA‐1 24.43 Yes

BA‐2 20.56 Yes

BA‐3 33.75 No

IH‐45 Geographic

Group

IH‐45 Base 17.00 N/A Yes

IH‐45 Alt. 18.00 Yes

Middle Geographic

Group

MD‐Base 26.96

3.88

Yes

MD‐1 29.84 Yes

MD‐2 34.99 No

MD‐3 38.08 No

MD‐4 32.56 No

Hockley Geographic

Group

HC‐Base 32.41

3.77

No

HC‐2 25.31 Yes

HC‐3 26.56 No

HC‐4 21.96 Yes

5.6 Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening

FRA’s Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening identified ten potential route alternatives for

further consideration. As the Project Proponent, TCR identified several preferred alignments from the

potential route alternatives in its Step 2 Screening of Alignment Alternatives Report (TCR 2015b) that

best met its cost and construction goals. To include TCR’s primary criteria of cost and constructability,

FRA undertook a Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening. Even though they were eliminated in

the Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening, FRA carried three additional potential route

alternatives (MD‐4, BA‐3 and CR‐1) into the Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening to further

evaluate TCR’s preferred alignments. These 13 remaining potential route alternatives were evaluated

using a combination of environmental, cost, and construction factors.  

FRA was not provided TCR’s proprietary cost and construction data; instead, TCR provided cost and

construction factors “normalized” against to the Base Alignment.3 In order to use TCR’s cost and

construction factors as part of FRA’s Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening, FRA developed

normalized environmental factors from the Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening Base

Alignment scores. This allowed FRA to complete an independent evaluation using comparable factors.

                                                            

3

   “Normalization” is used to bring different types of data into a common unit for the purposes of comparison  
33

FRA calculated the environmental factor using the environmental evaluation criteria from the Level II,

Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening. Each geographic group contained a Base Alignment (CR

Base, BA Base, etc.). The Base Alignment from each geographic group was assigned a factor of 1.0. The

difference between the base factor and the other geographically grouped potential route alternatives

was calculated to assign a factor at, above or below 1.0. For example, BA Base has an environmental

score of 18.926 (see Table 4‐3 above). To create normalized factor, its environmental factor is 1.0. BA‐2

has an environmental score of 20.556, which is 9 percent higher than the base factor, and creates a

factor of 1.09.  

TCR provided cost and construction factors for all 13 potential route alternatives in the Level II, Stage II

Cost and Construction Screening (TCR 2015b). Similar to the environmental factors, within each

geographic group, the Base Alignment was assigned a factor of 1.0 for cost and construction, and the

other potential route alternatives factors were calculated from the base. TCR’s cost factor was based on

typical heavy infrastructure types (i.e., embankment vs. viaduct), trackwork, grade crossings,

transmission line relocations, estimated environmental mitigation costs, and complexity factors

associated with development and environmentally sensitive areas that are normalized to an average

cost in order to compare potential route alternatives against each other within a geographic group.

TCR’s construction schedule factors were calculated based on type of infrastructure to be built and an

estimated time to build each type of infrastructure (Step 2 Screening of Alternative Alignments Report

2015b).  

In order to complete the Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening, the cost and construction

factors were averaged together to create a single factor that could be compared to the environmental

factor, giving each an equal weight to environmental factors as the combined cost and construction

factor. Table 5‐5 shows the results of the Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening.
34

Table 5‐6: Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening Results

Potential

Route

Alternative

Level 1

Score

Difference

from Base

Level 2 ENV

Factor

TCR Cost

Factor

TCR Construction

Factor

Average

C/C Factor Total

CR‐Base 19.694 0.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00

CR‐1 22.137  ‐2.443 1.12 0.95 0.85 0.90 2.02

BA‐Base 18.926 0.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00

BA‐1 24.429  ‐5.503 1.29 1.15 1.33 1.24 2.53

BA‐2 20.556  ‐1.630 1.09 0.98 1.00 0.99 2.08

BA‐3 33.750  ‐14.824 1.78 1.08 1.16 1.12 2.90

IH‐45 Base 17.000 0.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00

IH‐45 Alt. 18.000  ‐1.000 1.06 1.04 0.92 0.98 2.04

MD‐Base 26.959 0.000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00

MD‐1 29.835  ‐2.877 1.11 1.13 1.22 1.17 2.28

MD‐4 32.558  ‐5.599 1.21 0.96 0.95 0.96 2.16

HC‐Base** 32.406 0.000 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A

HC‐2 25.307 7.099 0.78 0.83 0.60 0.71 1.50

HC‐4 21.964 10.442 0.68 0.81 0.48 0.65 1.32

** HC‐Base was not carried forward to the Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening, but the Level II, Stage

I Environmental Constraints Screening score was used to generate environmental factors for the remaining HC

potential route alternatives.

FRA carried forward the potential route alternatives with the lowest score in each geographic group.

Additionally, FRA carried forward potential route alternatives within each geographic group that were

very close to the lowest score in the geographic group such that there was no distinguishable difference

between the scores using a natural break approach.4

  

FRA determined eight potential route alternatives moved forward through the Level II, Stage II Cost and

Construction Screening for detailed consideration in the Draft EIS. The potential route alternatives that

FRA will evaluate in the EIS are:

 Corsicana Base (CR‐Base)

 Corsicana 1 (CR‐1)

 Bardwell Base (BA‐Base)

 Bardwell 2 (BA‐2)

 IH‐45 Base (IH‐45 Base)

 IH‐45 Alternative (IH‐45 Alt.)

 Middle Base (MD‐Base)

 Hockley 4 (HC‐4)

As discussed in Section 4.0, no potential route alternatives were proposed for the common segments

and FRA did not conduct an evaluation of the common segments for the purposes of narrowing the

range of alternatives. Therefore, FRA will also evaluate CS‐1, CS‐2, and CS‐3 in the EIS.

                                                            

4

   The “natural break” point clusters data to determine the best arrangement of values into different classes. For

this analysis, FRA identified classes of high and low scores, with low scores representing a lower potential for

impact.
35

6.0 CONCLUSION

The eight potential route alternatives that FRA carried forward from the Level II, Stage II Cost and

Construction Screening and the three common segments were then pieced together to create potential

end‐to‐end alignment alternatives, or alignment alternatives from downtown Dallas to the Houston

terminus at the intersection of US 290/IH‐610. To create the end‐to‐end alignment alternatives, each

draft alignment alternative was broken into five segments made up of the potential route alternatives

and common segments. Table 6‐1 and Figure 6‐1 shows the potential route alternatives that make up

each segment.

Table 6‐1: Draft Alignment Alternative Development Segmentation

Segment Potential Route Alternatives

Segment 1 Base Alignment (CS‐1)

Segment 2a BA‐Base

Segment 2b BA‐2

Segment 3a BA‐Base, BA‐2, CR‐Base, IH‐45 Base

Segment 3b CR‐1

Segment 3c IH‐45 Alt.

Segment 4 IH‐45 Base, MD‐Base

Segment 5 Base Alignment (CS‐2 and CS‐3) and

HC‐4
36

Figure 6‐1 Draft Alignment Alternatives Carried Forward to the Draft EIS
37

The segments were then pieced together to create six end‐to‐end alignment alternatives. Table 6‐2

shows the combination of segments that create draft Alignment Alternatives A‐F. Because parts of the

segments overlap, it is not possible to show all of the alternatives on one map; therefore, a series of six

maps, one for each end‐to‐end alignment alternative, is included. Figures 6‐2 through 6‐7 show the

maps of the six draft alignment alternatives that FRA will study in the Draft EIS.  

Table 6‐2: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternatives

Draft Alignment

Alternative Segments

Alternative A 1, 2a, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative B 1, 2a, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative C (IH‐45A) 1, 2a, 3c, 5

Alternative D 1, 2b, 3a, 4, 5

Alternative E 1, 2b, 3b, 4, 5

Alternative F (IH‐45B) 1, 2b, 3c, 5

This alternatives analysis provides a desktop‐level review to compare potential route alternatives within

specific geographic groups. The alignment alternatives presented in this document are preliminary and

subject to change. The draft alignment alternatives will continue to be further refined and evaluated as

per NEPA. For example, the Draft EIS will evaluate and document potential environmental impacts

identified through modeling, field investigations and public input. These environmental impacts may

dictate a modification to the alignment alternative to avoid and/or minimize an impact. Additionally,

TCR’s engineering team will refine the alignment alternatives during preliminary engineering, which will

occur simultaneously with the preparation of the Draft and Final EIS. FRA will evaluate the modifications

to the alignment alternatives through the EIS process.
38

Figure 6‐2: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternative A
39

Figure 6‐3: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternative B
40

Figure 6‐4: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternative C  
41

Figure 6‐5: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternative D  
42

Figure 6‐6: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternative E  
43

Figure 6‐7: Draft EIS End‐to‐End Alignment Alternative F  
44

Appendix A – GIS Methodology
45

GIS Methodology

The following is a detailed description of the methodology used for the GIS desktop analysis to evaluate

the potential route alternatives for each of environmental criteria described in Section 4.0.  

A.1 Urban Land Cover

Initially the land use criteria included residential, commercial and industrial land uses, but when it

became apparent that the land use datasets are only partially available for the corridor, and where

available, they have inconsistent classification/schema, Urban Land Cover from the NLCD was used. The

NLCD is consistent throughout the entire corridor.

The following describes the GIS analysis used to identify the potential for impacts:

 Used Extract by Mask tool to clip the large NLCD dataset down to the area covered within 500

feet from the alignment centerline

 Per NLCD categories, grouped all developed/urban land cover classifications (low‐, medium‐,

and high‐intensity, and developed‐open space) into one urban classification and grouped all

other classifications into a rural classification

 Used ArcScan to create polygon (vector) features representing urban/developed land

 Used the intersect tool to determine which of these areas overlay 500 feet from the alignment

centerline

 Calculated the area of these polygons in acres

 Dissolved the features to sum the total of potentially affected acreage for each buffer (1,000

feet total width)

 Exported total acreages of urban land cover from ArcGIS into Excel

A.2 Parcel Takes

This criterion combines structures (rooftops) identified by aerial photography with parcel data to arrive

at an estimation of the potential impacts that the potential route alternatives could have on property

owners. This criterion counts the identified parcel impacts as “takes:”

 Any parcel with one or more structure on it that falls within 62.5 feet of the alignment

centerline (125‐foot total width)

 Parcels without structures within 62.5 feet of the alignment centerline where at least 40 percent

of the parcels area falls within the alignment buffer (125‐foot total width)

The following steps were taken to conduct the GIS analysis:

 Collected preprocessed parcel data from the 13 intersecting counties and ensured that they are

in the correct coordinate system. For Freestone and Leon counties, the parcel data was available

in computer‐aided design (CAD) line format, so the lines were converted into a shape to

generate the parcel areas.

 Merged the clipped parcel data together

 Calculated the area of these parcels in acres

 Intersected the parcels within 62.5 feet of the alignment centerline, which clips the parcels to

the alignment buffer and joins in alternative attributes

 Calculated the intersected area of these parcels in acres

 Divided the intersected area by the original whole area to arrive at a percent take

 Selected those features from this layer that contained structures and copied them into their

own layer, then calculated summary statistics for this new layer, grouping by potential route

alternative name and summing the number of affected parcels
46

 Reversed the selection in the original intersected parcels layer, thus selecting only those parcels

without any structures within 62.5 feet of the alignment centerline. Selected from this selection

only those with a take percentage greater than or equal to 40 percent, yielding only those

parcels without structures where more than 40 percent of the parcel is within 62.5 feet of the

alignment centerline. Copied these selected features into a new layer, and calculated summary

statistics, grouping by potential route alternative name and summing the total number of

affected parcels

 Exported both summary tables from ArcGIS and imported them into Excel. Added the number of

parcels with affected structures and parcels without affected structures where more than 40

percent of its area is affected to arrive at the final “takes” number.

A.3 Parks

Parks data was available in polygon form from the MPOs and the TPWD. The data was merged together

to form a single shapefile for the following analysis.

 Intersected the parks shapefile within 500 feet of the alignment centerline, which clips the parks

to the corridor and joins them in the alternatives attributes

 Calculated acreage of intersected park features

 Calculated summary statistics for the resulting layer, grouping by potential route alternative

name and summing the total affected park acreage

 Exported the summary table from ArcGIS and inserted it into the Excel table

A.4 Prime Farmland

Prime farmland was acquired from the NRCS SSURGO. The following analysis was conducted to

determine the potential impacts.

 Merged together SSURGO data for the various drainage basins in the corridor

 Selected and exported only those polygon features from the SSURGO data that represent prime

farmland

 Intersected the prime farmland polygons within 62.5 feet of the alignment centerline, which

clips the data to the buffer and joins them to the alternatives attributes

 Calculated acreage of interested prime farmland features

 Calculated summary statistics for the resulting layer, grouping by potential route alternative

name and summing the acreage to total affected prime farmland

 Exported this summary table from ArcGIS and placed into the Excel table

A.5 Wetlands

Wetland data was obtained from the USFWS NWI dataset. The analysis was conducted as follows:

 Intersected wetland polygon data within 62.5 feet of the alignment centerline, which clips the

wetlands to the study area and joins in the alternatives attributes

 Calculated the acreage of intersected wetland features

 Calculated the summary statistics for the resulting layer, grouping by potential route alternative

name and summing the total affected wetland acreage

 Exported the summary table from ArcGIS into Excel
47

A.6 Waterways

The number of waterways a potential route alternative crosses was calculated using the following

analysis. The GIS data was obtained from the NHD.

 Intersected stream lines with the potential alignment alternatives, which generates a point at

every crossing joined with attributes from both the streams and the potential route alternative

 Calculated summary statistics for this point layer, grouping by potential route alternative name

and summing the number of crossings for each potential route alternative

 Exported the summary table from ArcGIS into Excel

A.7 Floodplain

Floodplain data was obtained from FEMA and included both the 100‐ and 500‐year floodplain

classifications. The following analysis was conducted to determine the acres of impacts for each

potential route alternative.

 Intersected polygon floodplain data within 62.5 feet of the alignment centerline, which clips the

floodplains to the study area and joins in the alternatives attributes

 Calculated acreage of the intersected floodplain features

 Calculated summary statistics for the resulting layer, grouping by potential route alternative

name and summing the total affected floodplain acreage

 Exported the summary table from ArcGIS into the Excel table

A.8 Road Crossings

The TxDOT was the data source for the roadways within the corridor. The GIS data set included all public

roads regardless of ownership or functional class. The number of roadway crossings was calculated for

each potential route alternative by using the follow steps:

 Intersected roadway lines with the potential route alternatives, which generated a point at

every crossing joined with attributes from both the roads and the potential route alternative

 Calculated summary statistics for the point layer, grouping by potential route alternative name

and summing the number of road crossings for each potential route alternative

 Exported the summary table from ArcGIS into Excel

A.9 Infrastructure Adjacency

One of TCR’s alignment objectives is for a potential route alternative to “maximize co‐location

opportunities with transportation and utility corridors.” This criterion estimates the percentage of the

potential route alternative that parallels existing infrastructure. This analysis uses the roads dataset

from TxDOT, railroads dataset from the U.S. National Transportation Atlas, and electrical transmission

line dataset from Platts.  

To determine the percentage of the potential route alternative that parallels existing infrastructure, the

following analysis occurred:

 Split the alternative lines at their vertices so that the bearing of individual segments could be

computed

 Computed the bearing of these individual segments using Linear Direction Mean and created a

non‐dissolved flat‐ended 1,000‐foot buffer (500 feet from alignment centerline for each of these

individual segments, which carries over alternative attributes and the bearing of the parent line

segment
48

 Merged the infrastructure features into one feature class and clipped them to this new buffer

area, primarily to cut down on processing time

 Intersected the infrastructure features with the new segment buffer, which breaks

infrastructure features where the alternative changes direction and joins alternative attributes

(including bearing)

 Split these intersected infrastructure features at their vertices and calculated the bearing of

individual sections using Linear Direction Mean

 Selected only those infrastructure features that were within 5 degrees of the same bearing

(substantially parallel) to move on in the analysis

 Split the original alternative lines into 500‐foot segments for aggregation and created a non‐

dissolved 1,000‐foot buffer (500 feet from alignment centerline) flat‐ended buffer of the

resulting features

 Selected only those 500 feet by 1,000 feet buffer features that contained parallel infrastructure

 Copied these selected features to a new layer and created summary statistics, grouping by

potential route alternative name and summing their total length. This represents the total

length of segments of the alignment that are paralleled by existing infrastructure

 Divided this parallel length by the potential route alternatives total length to arrive at a

percentage paralleled by existing infrastructure

 Exported the summary table from ArcGIS into Excel

A.10 Minority Population

Minority population was looked at to determine which proposed route alternatives might

disproportionately affect EJ populations, which are defined as minority and low‐income populations.

Minority population data was obtained at the U.S. Census Block level from the 2010 Decennial U.S.

Census. For the purposes of this analysis, the minority population is defined as the total population

minus persons that reported themselves as White, Not Hispanic or Latino. This information was

converted into a metric by counting the number of U.S. Census Bocks with a minority population over 50

percent intersecting the potential route alternative 1,000‐foot buffer (500 feet from alignment

centerline).

A.11 Cemeteries

Polygon cemetery data was obtained from the THC. Both the number of impacted cemeteries and total

impacted acreage was calculated. Only the impacted acreage was used for the evaluation scoring.

The following analysis was conducted to determine potential impacts:

 Cemetery polygon data was intersected within 62.5 feet of the alignment centerline

 The resulting impacted cemeteries were dissolved by both potential route alternative name and

cemetery name to insure that there existed only one cemetery‐alternative feature combination

in the dataset to avoid double counting in areas where many potential route alternatives are

close to each other

 Calculated the impacted area in acres

 Generated summary statistics, grouping by potential route alternative name and summing

together both the number of impacted cemeteries and total impacted acreage

 Exported this summary table from ArcGIS and inserted it into the Excel table
49

A.12 Ecology

The TXNDD element occurrence data from TPWD depicts areas where threatened and endangered

species have been observed. This does not necessarily mean that these species are present, but it is an

indicator that an element is or was present and has practical conservation value. Impacts were

determined from the following analysis:

 Intersected the TXNDD layer within 62.5 feet of the alignment centerline of the potential route

alternative, which clipped the layer and joined in the alternatives attributes

 Calculated the area of the polygon features in this intersected element occurrence layer

 Generated summary statistics, grouping by potential route alternative name and summing the

total potential impacted acreage

 Exported the summary table from ArcGIS and inserted it into the Excel table

A.13 Community Facilities

Community facility data is available from a number of different sources and covers a wide variety of

facilities, but only the Geographic Names Information Service (GNIS) dataset covers the entire corridor

consistently. GNIS data is delivered in a delimited text file for the entire state of Texas.  

The analysis was conducted as follows:

 Imported the text file into Excel, cleaned it up, and saved it as a spreadsheet

 Imported the spreadsheet into ArcGIS using Excel to Table tool

 Used the Make XY Event Layer tool to project this tabular data into spatial points using NAD 83

coordinates provided in the dataset’s attributes

 Used Select By Location to select features from this layer within the alignment counties

 Used Select By Attributes to select features from these selected features that are within the

following GNIS feature classes:  “Building” (public facilities included), “Church”, “Hospital”, “Post

Office”, “School”

 Exported this selection as its own layer, and then intersected this layer with the 1,000‐foot

buffer (500 feet from alignment centerline), which clips the GNIS points to the alternative buffer

and joins in the alternative attributes

 Performed summary statistics on this intersected layer, grouping by potential route alternative

name and summing the number of points intersected by each alignment buffer

 Extracted these total numbers from ArcGIS and inserted them into the Excel table

A.14 Historic Properties

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was used to determine potential impacts to historic

properties. Both individual properties (points) and districts (polygons) were looked at by using the

methodology described below.

 Intersected both the point and polygon NRHP data with the 1,000‐foot buffer (500 feet from

alignment centerline), which clips these features to the buffer area and joins them in the

alternatives attributes

 Calculated the summary statistics for both of these layers, grouping them by alternative name

and summing the total number of NHRP districts and properties

 Exported both of these summary tables from ArcGIS and entered them into the Excel table
50

A.15 Hazardous Materials Sites

Hazardous material sites were obtained from the Texas Council on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), data

included municipal setting designations; municipal solid waste landfills, radioactive sites, Superfund

sites, municipal water wells, and underground petroleum storage tanks.  

The following analysis was conducted to determine potential impacts:

 Intersected each set of features within 62.5 feet of the alignment centerline of the potential

route alternatives, which clipped the sites and joined them in the alternative attributes

 Generated summary statistics for each set of features, grouping by potential route alternative

name and summing the number of intersecting hazardous material sites

 Joined the resulting tables together, which yields a single table with a row for each potential

route alternative and column for each type of hazardous material site

 Summed the total number of hazardous material sites for each potential route alternative,

exported the table from ArcGIS and inserted it into the Excel table

A.16 Population below Poverty Line

Poverty data from the 2013 5‐year American Community Survey (ACS) was obtained at the U.S. Census

Block Group level to determine which proposed route alternatives might disproportionately affect EJ

populations. The information was converted into a metric by counting the number of U.S. Census Block

Groups that intersect the potential route alternatives’ 1,000 ‐foot buffer (500 feet from alignment

centerline) where 50 percent or more of the population is below the 2013 poverty line of $23,550 for a

family of four (4).