Appendix L 

Transportation Technical Study 

In coordination with Oklahoma DOT

Transportation 

Technical Study

Prepared by 

July 2016

TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page iii

Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................................. vii

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

1.1 Service Type Descriptions ..............................................................................................1-3

Conventional Rail.......................................................................................................... 1-3

Higher-Speed Rail ......................................................................................................... 1-3

High-Speed Rail............................................................................................................. 1-4

1.2 Alternative Descriptions .................................................................................................1-4

No Build Alternative ...................................................................................................... 1-5

Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth.......................................1-5

Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio .............................................1-6

Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas .......................................................... 1-8

Station Cities................................................................................................................. 1-9

2.0 Regulatory Context and Purpose ............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Federal.............................................................................................................................2-1

Federal Railroad Administration .................................................................................. 2-1

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) (49 USC 22705).............2-1

State .............................................................................................................................. 2-2

3.0 Evaluation Methods ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Data Sources...................................................................................................................3-2

3.2 Travel Demand................................................................................................................3-2

3.3 Transportation Conditions ..............................................................................................3-3

4.0 Baseline/Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 EIS Study Area.................................................................................................................4-1

Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth.......................................4-1

Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio .............................................4-5

Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas .......................................................... 4-9

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences ................................... 5-1

5.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth.........................................5-2

No Build Alternative ...................................................................................................... 5-2

Alternative N4A Conventional ...................................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio ...............................................5-7

No Build Alternative ...................................................................................................... 5-7

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail.................................................................................. 5-7

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail ............................................................................5-11

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail................................................................................5-15

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail ............................................................................5-18

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail................................................................................5-21

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail ............................................................................5-24
TBG111814093418SCO

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page iv

5.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas ......................................................... 5-26

No Build Alternative ....................................................................................................5-26

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail...............................................................................5-26

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail..................................................................................5-30

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail...............................................................................5-33

5.4 Construction Effects..................................................................................................... 5-36

No Build Alternative ....................................................................................................5-36

Build Alternatives........................................................................................................5-37

6.0 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies .............................................................. 6-1

7.0 Summary of Potential Effects .................................................................................................. 7-1

Subsequent Analysis .................................................................................................... 7-2

8.0 References ............................................................................................................................... 8-1

List of Figures 

1-1: Build Alternatives ............................................................................................................................1-2

5-1: Alternative N4A Ridership Composition.........................................................................................5-4

5-2: Alternative C4A HSR Ridership Composition.................................................................................5-9

5-3: Alternative C4A HrSR Ridership Composition ............................................................................ 5-13

5-4: Alternative C4B HSR Ridership Composition ............................................................................. 5-16

5-5: Alternative C4C HSR Ridership Composition.............................................................................. 5-22

5-6: Alternative S4 HrSR Ridership Composition............................................................................... 5-28

5-7: Alternative S6 HSR Ridership Composition................................................................................ 5-31

5-8: Alternative S6 HrSR Ridership Composition............................................................................... 5-34

List of Tables 

1-1: Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Evaluation ....................................................................1-3

1-2: Cities with Potential Stations..........................................................................................................1-9

3-1: Travel Demand Model Outputs.......................................................................................................3-1

4-1: Existing Travel Demand and Mode Share .....................................................................................4-3

4-2: Existing Travel Times by Mode .......................................................................................................4-4

4-3: Existing Levels of Service................................................................................................................4-4

4-4: Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled ......................................................................................................4-5

4-5: Existing Travel Demand and Mode Share .....................................................................................4-8

4-6: Existing Travel Times by Mode .......................................................................................................4-8

4-7: Existing Levels of Service................................................................................................................4-9

4-8: Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled ......................................................................................................4-9

4-9: Existing Travel Demand and Mode Share .................................................................................. 4-11

4-10: Travel Time by Mode.................................................................................................................. 4-11

4-11: Existing Levels of Service .......................................................................................................... 4-12

4-12: Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled................................................................................................. 4-12

5-1: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative N4A ..........................................................5-2
TBG111814093418SCO

Contents

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page v

5-2: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative N4A.........................................................5-3

5-3: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative N4A ...........................................................................5-5

5-4: 2035 Rail Station Boardings – Alternative N4A............................................................................5-5

5-5: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative N4A ...........................................................................5-6

5-6: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4 HSR.....................................................5-7

5-7: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail..............................5-8

5-8: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail................................................5-9

5-9: 2035 Station Boardings – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail..................................................... 5-10

5-10: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail........................................... 5-10

5-11: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail ...................... 5-11

5-12: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail..................... 5-12

5-13: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail....................................... 5-13

5-14: Station Boardings – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail ......................................................... 5-14

5-15: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail ....................................... 5-14

5-16: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail ......................... 5-15

5-17: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail........................ 5-16

5-18: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail.......................................... 5-17

5-19: Station Boardings – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail ............................................................ 5-17

5-20: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail .......................................... 5-18

5-21: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail..................... 5-19

5-22: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail.......................... 5-21

5-23: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail ........................ 5-22

5-24: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail .......................................... 5-23

5-25: Station Boardings – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail ............................................................ 5-23

5-26: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail .......................................... 5-24

5-27: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail ........................ 5-27

5-28: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail....................... 5-27

Table 5-29: 2035 Intercity Ridership – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail ...................................... 5-28

5-30: Rail Station Boardings – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail.................................................... 5-29

5-31: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail ......................................... 5-29

5-32: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail............................ 5-30

5-33: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail .......................... 5-31

5-34: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail ............................................ 5-32

5-35: Station Boardings – Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail............................................................... 5-32

5-36: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail............................................. 5-33

5-37: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail ........................ 5-33

5-38: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail....................... 5-34

5-39: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail ......................................... 5-35

5-40: Rail Station Boardings – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail.................................................... 5-35

5-41: 2035 Changes in Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail...................... 5-36

7-1: Summary of Travel Demand and Transportation Effects by Alternative .....................................7-1

TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page vii

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

AUS Austin-Bergstrom International Airport

BRO Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CONV conventional rail

COTPA Central Oklahoma Transportation & Parking Authority

CRP Corpus Christi International Airport

DAL Dallas Love Field Airport

DART Dallas Area Rapid Transit

DCTA Denton County Transportation Authority

DFW Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport

EIS environmental impact statement

FR Federal Register

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

GRK Killeen/Fort Hood Regional Airport

HRL Valley International Airport

HOU Houston Hobby Airport

HrSR higher-speed rail

HSR high-speed rail

IAH Houston George Bush Intercontinental Airport

IH-30 Interstate Highway 30

IH-35 Interstate Highway 35

ITC Intermodal Transportation Center 

KCI Kansas City International Airport

KCS Kansas City Southern 

LRD Laredo International Airport

METRO Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority

MFE McAllen Miller International Airport

mph miles per hour 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

ODOT Oklahoma Department of Transportation 
TBG111814093418SCO

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page viii

OKC Will Rogers Worlds Airport

Program Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program

PWG Waco Regional Airport/McGregor Executive Airport

SAN San Antonio International Airport

Study Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study

T&P Texas and Pacific station

The T Fort Worth Transportation Authority

TMP Transportation Management Plan

TTI Texas A&M Transportation Institute

TRE Trinity Railway Express 

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation 

U.S.C. United States Code

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

VIA VIA Metropolitan Transit

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 1-1

1.0 Introduction 

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), along with the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), is preparing a service-level environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate intercity 

passenger rail service alternatives for the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Program (Program). The 

purpose of the Program is to enhance intercity mobility by providing enhanced passenger rail 

service as a transportation alternative that is competitive with automobile, bus, and air travel. 

Preparation of the service-level EIS, in support of which this technical study has been prepared, is 

one of two primary objectives of the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (Study). In addition to 

the service-level EIS, TxDOT and FRA are preparing a service development plan for the corridor to 

guide further development and capital investment in passenger rail improvements identified in the 

EIS Record of Decision. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) is a partnering state 

agency for the Study and the EIS.

The 850-mile corridor analyzed for the Study runs north-south and roughly parallels 

Interstate Highway (IH)-35, with the northern point in Edmond, Oklahoma (i.e., northern end of the 

Oklahoma City portion of the corridor), and the southern end in south Texas, potentially in Corpus 

Christi, Brownsville, Laredo, or the Rio Grande Valley, as shown on Figure 1-1. For this service-level 

analysis, a preliminary alignment was developed to represent each EIS alternative based on 

conceptual engineering that considered and avoided obvious physical or environmental constraints. 

These alignments were not refined to optimize performance, reduce cost, avoid specific properties 

or individual environmental resources, or for any other such considerations. If an alternative is 

selected at the service level for further development, the above considerations would be assessed 

at the project level. A broad corridor of study with a width of 500 feet has been identified along 

each route. This EIS Study Area provides an envelope that could accommodate areas for associated 

effects, including necessary roadway shifts, grade separations, construction activities, and affiliated 

features such as stations and parking, traction-power substations, power lines, and maintenanceof-way facilities.

The build alternatives are divided into the following three geographic sections based on the key 

regional markets that could be served by passenger rail improvements:

 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 1-2

Figure 1-1: Build Alternatives 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 1-3

In addition, the alternatives consist of both a “route,” which refers to the specific corridor that a 

potential alignment follows, and a “service type,” which refers to the speed or category of rail 

transportation (conventional rail, higher-speed rail, or high-speed rail). The alternatives that have 

been carried forward for analysis in the EIS, including their geographic sections, routes, and service 

types, are listed in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Alternatives Carried Forward for Further Evaluation

Route Service Typea 

Northern Section 

N4A CONV

Central Section 

C4A

HrSR

HSR

C4B

HrSR

HSR

C4C

HrSR

HSR

Southern Section 

S4 HrSR

S6

HrSR

HSR

a CONV = conventional rail; HrSR = higher-speed rail; HSR = high-speed rail

1.1 Service Type Descriptions 

The three service types (conventional rail, higher-speed rail, and high-speed rail) considered in this

EIS are described below.

Conventional Rail 

Conventional rail typically includes diesel-powered, steel-wheeled trains operating on steel tracks. 

Roadway crossings may be grade-separated depending on the type of roadway and amount of 

traffic, and rail rights-of-way may be fenced. Conventional rail would be operated at speeds up to 

79 to 90 miles per hour (mph) and would mostly use existing railroad rights-of-way. For the 

conventional rail alternative, existing railroad track may be used, or in some cases, modifications 

such as double-tracking could be constructed within the existing right-of-way to accommodate 

additional trains. Conventional rail is only being considered for the Northern Section.

Higher-Speed Rail 

Higher-speed rail is similar to conventional rail in several respects. In many cases, higher-speed rail 

trains can run on the same steel tracks that support conventional rail, but higher speeds can 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 1-4

require improvements such as upgrading wooden ties with concrete ties, improving signaling, and 

upgrading roadway crossings. In this case, higher-speed rail trains are assumed to be dieselpowered. Higher-speed rail would be operated at speeds up to 110 to 125 mph. Where proposed 

within an existing railroad right-of-way, a shared right-of-way with separate tracks for freight and 

passenger services would be constructed. Because of its maximum speed and because train 

frequency would be similar to conventional rail, higher-speed rail could operate on a single track 

with passing locations and would not require double-tracking. Where higher-speed rail is proposed 

outside an existing transportation corridor, the new alignment would be designed with curves and 

other features that could accommodate high-speed rail service if warranted by ridership and if 

economically feasible in the future. However, unlike high-speed rail, the design would not include 

electrification or a full double track, and some grade crossings would remain.

High-Speed Rail 

High-speed rail includes electric trains powered by an overhead power supply system. Train sets are 

steel wheel on steel rail, but are designed to operate at high speeds with an aerodynamic shape, 

and suspension and braking systems are designed for high-speed travel. High-speed rail would be 

operated at speeds up to 220 to 250 mph. The entire right-of-way would be fenced and fully gradeseparated. The alignment would be electrified and double-tracked. This service type could only 

reach its maximum speeds outside existing transportation corridors because existing railroad 

alignments are not compatible with the speeds required and they do not have the required space 

for separation of freight and high-speed rail. In areas where this service type is within existing 

transportation corridors, it would operate at lower speeds.

1.2 Alternative Descriptions 

For this service-level analysis, a preliminary alignment was developed to represent each route 

alternative based on conceptual engineering that considered obvious physical or environmental 

constraints. They are not detailed alignments that have been refined to optimize performance, 

reduce cost, avoid specific properties or individual environmental resources, or similar 

considerations, which would be assessed at the project-level phase for alternatives carried forward 

for further analysis. 

The alternatives evaluated in the service-level EIS, shown on Figure 1-1, have been developed to a 

level of detail appropriate for a service-level analysis: the route alternatives represent a potential 

corridor where rail improvements could be implemented but do not specify the precise location of 

the track alignment. When a route alternative is refined to include a service type (conventional, 

higher-speed, or high-speed rail), it is then referred to as an alternative. Alternatives in the 

Northern, Central, and Southern sections could be built as individual, stand-alone projects or in 

combination with alternatives in another section. In addition, more than one alternative in the 

Central Section and Southern Section could be built in the future because the alternatives provide 

different service types for independent destinations. Details on connecting the alternatives would 

be determined during project-level studies. 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 1-5

Potential alignments are described below in terms of nearby transportation corridors and cities. For 

example, potential alignments are described as “following” railway corridors, which could mean that 

they are sharing existing tracks, within an existing right-of-way or generally adjacent to existing 

tracks depending on the service type.

The Southern Section alternatives include a potential extension to Monterrey, Mexico. The EIS 

evaluates alignment corridors only within the United States; however, the potential extension to 

Monterrey has been included for ridership analysis purposes, and FRA and TxDOT have initiated 

coordination with the Mexican government about the potential extension.

No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative is carried forward as a baseline alternative and provides an alternative for 

comparative evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the build alternatives. The No 

Build Alternative would not fulfill the Program’s purpose and need and is a result of choosing not to 

build the project. The context of the No Build Alternative is the 2035 horizon year in which the 

project is projected to occur. The No Build Alternative consists of the existing transportation 

network, including roadway, passenger rail, and air, in the EIS Study Area and committed 

improvements to these systems. It includes:

 Major highways and arterials that make up the roadway network (for auto and bus travel)

 Existing and currently planned conventional passenger rail service

 Intercity bus service

 Local public transit services

 Freight railroad services and planned and committed 

improvements

 Air travel

 Projects of all modes that are included in the regional 

Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO’s) constrained 

Long-Range Transportation Plans

Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and 

Fort Worth 

Due to feasibility based on initial ridership and cost information, 

only one route alternative with one service type was considered 

feasible in the Northern Section: Alternative N4A with 

conventional rail.

1.2.2.1 Alternative N4A Conventional 

Alternative N4A would begin in Edmond, Oklahoma, and follow 

the BNSF rail alignment south to Oklahoma City. The alternative 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 1-6

would continue south along the BNSF rail alignment to Norman, Oklahoma; through Metro Junction, 

near Denton, Texas; and on to Fort Worth. From Fort Worth, the alternative would continue east to 

Dallas following the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) tracks. From Edmond to Dallas, the route would 

be approximately 260 miles long. Because existing freight traffic would not preclude passenger 

service along this section of track, the route would provide passenger rail service on the existing 

BNSF track, with potential improvements within the existing BNSF right-of-way.

Alternative N4A would provide several improvements over the existing Heartland Flyer service. 

Alternative N4A would increase the number of daily round trips along this route (the Heartland Flyer 

currently offers one round trip per day), and the N4A route would extend from Fort Worth to Dallas 

without requiring a transfer (the Heartland Flyer service currently terminates in Fort Worth). In 

addition, Alternative N4A would provide improvements to existing station facilities, and new train 

equipment with more onboard amenities, including business class available for a premium price.

Alternative N4A assumes diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running three to six daily round trips. 

Two or three of the round trips would operate on an accelerated schedule, making roughly seven 

stops, with remaining “local” trains making as many as 12 stops.

Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

Three route alternatives, each with higher-speed and high-speed rail options, were evaluated in the 

Central Section: Alternatives C4A (Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail), C4B (Higher-Speed Rail 

and High-Speed Rail), and C4C (Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail).

The Central Section alternatives would provide several 

improvements over the existing Texas Eagle service in this 

corridor. All of the alternatives would increase the number of 

daily round trips along this route (the Texas Eagle currently 

offers one round trip per day). The high-speed rail alternatives 

would provide much faster service between Dallas and Fort 

Worth and Antonio — 2 hours versus 8 hours for the Texas Eagle 

Service. In addition, the Central Section alternatives would 

provide improvements to existing station facilities and new train 

equipment.

1.2.3.1 Alternative C4A Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4A would begin in Fort Worth and follow the TRE 

tracks east to Dallas. From Dallas, it would follow the BNSF 

alignment south toward Waxahachie where it would enter a new 

alignment outside existing highway and rail corridors to 

accommodate maximum operating speeds. Though outside 

existing transportation corridors, the southern portion of 

Alternative C4A would generally follow the BNSF alignment for 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 1-7

about 250 miles, traveling south from Waxahachie through Hillsboro, Waco, Temple, Taylor, and 

Austin to San Antonio.

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail assumes new “highperformance” diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running six to 

12 daily round trips. Express trains would likely make seven 

stops with local trains making 12 stops.

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail assumes true electric-powered, 

high-speed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express 

trains would likely make six stops, while local trains would make 

up to nine stops.

1.2.3.2 Alternative C4B Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4B would serve both Fort Worth and Dallas, with 

trains following a new elevated high-speed rail alignment over 

IH-30. In Arlington (between Dallas and Fort Worth), the 

alternative would turn south to Hillsboro on an alignment outside 

existing transportation corridors. The alternative would then 

follow the same high-speed rail alignment as Alternative C4A 

from Hillsboro to San Antonio.

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail assumes new “highperformance” diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running six to 

12 daily round trips. Express trains would likely make seven 

stops, and local trains would make up to 12 stops.

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail assumes true electric-powered, 

high-speed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express 

trains would likely make six stops, and local trains would make 

up to eight stops.

1.2.3.3 Alternative C4C Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative C4C would follow the same potential alignment as 

Alternative C4A from Fort Worth east to Dallas and south to San 

Antonio, but would include a link from Hillsboro directly to Fort 

Worth parallel to the UPRR alignment. Service on the Alternative 

C4C route would operate in a clockwise direction, running from

Hillsboro to Fort Worth, to Dallas, back to Hillsboro, and south to 

San Antonio in order to serve Fort Worth directly (while also 

being compatible with the general service for C4A alternatives).
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 1-8

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail assumes new “high-performance” diesel-locomotive hauled 

equipment running six to 12 daily round trips. Express trains would likely make seven stops, and 

local trains would make up to 12 stops.

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail assumes true electric-powered 

high-speed service running 12 to 20 daily round trips. Express 

trains would likely make six stops, while local trains would make 

up to nine stops.

Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

Two route alternatives were evaluated in the Southern Section: 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, and Alternative S6, with 

Higher-Speed Rail and High-Speed Rail options.

1.2.4.1 Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 would begin in San Antonio and travel southeast 

along the UPRR alignment to George West, where it would 

continue outside existing transportation corridors to Alice. At 

Alice, the alternative would divide into three legs at a stop. The 

first leg would travel west along the Kansas City Southern (KCS) 

Railway to San Diego, Texas; it would then travel outside existing 

transportation corridors to east of Laredo in an alignment that 

would allow higher speeds and rejoin the KCS Railway to enter 

the highly developed Laredo area. The second leg would travel 

south along abandoned railroad tracks to McAllen and east to 

Harlingen and Brownsville. The third leg would travel east along 

the KCS Railway to Corpus Christi.

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail assumes new “highperformance” diesel-locomotive hauled equipment running four 

to six daily round trips. Depending on corridor demand model 

forecasts, the primary service may be designated as LaredoAlice-San Antonio and Corpus Christie-Alice-San Antonio, with a 

connecting feeder from Brownsville, Harlingen, and McAllen.

1.2.4.2 Alternative S6 Higher-Speed and High-Speed Rail 

Alternative S6 would begin in San Antonio and travel south on a 

new alignment outside existing transportation corridors to a 

station near the Laredo-Columbia Solidarity Bridge, which 

crosses the Rio Grande north of Laredo. The alternative would 

then cross on a new railway bridge to join a new rail line being 

constructed in Mexico, which would continue to Monterrey. This 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 1-9

study only examines the physical effects of the U.S. component of this new line, but it does consider 

the ridership impact of such a connection. 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail assumes new “high-performance” diesel-locomotive hauled 

equipment running four to six daily round trips between San Antonio and Laredo, which would be 

the only U.S. stops for the alternative. If an extension from Laredo to Monterrey were added, the 

frequency of trips to Monterrey is assumed to be the same as those from San Antonio to Laredo.

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail assumes true electric-powered, high-speed service running eight to 

12 daily round trips between San Antonio and Laredo. If an extension from Laredo to Monterrey 

were added, the frequency of trips to Monterrey is assumed to be the same as those from San 

Antonio to Laredo.

Station Cities 

The Study does not evaluate specific station locations, and no conclusion about the exact location 

of stations will be made as part of the service-level EIS process. However, based on ridership data 

and transit connectivity information developed as part of the alternatives analysis (see Appendix C; 

TxDOT 2014), and based on stakeholder input, the cities in which stations would most likely be 

located have been assumed. The size and design of stations would be appropriate for the service 

type and the route of the alternative. Cities that could have stations are listed in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2: Cities with Potential Stations

Oklahoma 

Edmond Pauls Valley

Oklahoma City Ardmore

Norman

Texas 

Gainesville Austin

Fort Worth San Antonio 

Arlington Alice

Dallas Corpus Christi

Waxahachie Harlingen

Waco McAllen

Temple (also serving Killeen) Brownsville

Taylor Laredo

TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 2-1

2.0 Regulatory Context and Purpose 

Applicable legislation, regulations and orders pertaining to transportation are described below. 

Additional local and regional laws, regulations, and orders may be applicable and will be addressed 

in project-level analysis.

2.1 Federal 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Section 14(n)(13) of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts states: “The EIS should assess the impacts on both passenger and freight 

transportation, by all modes, from local, regional, national and international perspectives. The EIS 

should include a discussion of both construction period and long-term impacts on vehicular traffic 

congestion.”

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) (49 USC 22705). 

In 2008, state rail plans took on an increased importance when Congress passed the Passenger 

Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) (49 United States Code [U.S.C.] 22705). It laid the 

foundation for an expanded focus on rail planning. PRIIA requires each state to have an approved 

state rail plan as a condition of receiving rail funding in the future for either passenger or freight 

improvements. PRIIA requires each state rail plan to include the following:

 Inventory of the existing rail transportation network

 Review of proposed high-speed rail corridors in the state

 Statement of the state’s objectives related to rail transportation

 General analysis of rail’s economic, transportation, and environmental impacts

 Long-range investment program for current and future rail freight and passenger services

 Discussion of public financing issues for rail projects and listing of current and potential railrelated funding sources

 Discussion of stakeholder-identified rail infrastructure issues

 Review of freight and passenger multimodal rail connections and facilities

 Review of publicly funded rail projects that enhance rail-related safety

 Performance evaluation of passenger rail services

 Compilation of previous high-speed rail reports and studies

 Statement that the state’s rail plan complies with PRIIA
TBG111814093418SCO

2.0 Regulatory Context and Purpose

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 2-2

State 

To improve the coordination of the planning, construction, operation and maintenance of a 

statewide passenger rail system in the State of Texas, S.B. 1382 (Section 201.6012-6013, 

Transportation Code), an act passed by the 81st Texas Legislature and approved by the governor 

on June 19, 2009, requires TxDOT to prepare and update annually a long-term plan for a statewide 

passenger rail system. The plan must include the following information useful for the development 

of the vision, goals, and objectives for the passenger rail system for Texas:

 A description of existing and proposed passenger rail systems 

 Information regarding the status of passenger rail systems under construction 

 An analysis of potential interconnectivity difficulties 

 Ridership projections for proposed passenger rail projects 

 Ridership statistics for existing passenger systems 
TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 3-1

3.0 Evaluation Methods 

This study used a broad approach to determine the potential effects on travel demand and 

transportation at the corridor level. To evaluate the potential effects of the demand for the new rail 

system, a travel demand model was developed to forecast existing and future conditions (Year 

2035) by mode (auto, passenger rail, intercity bus, and air travel) within the EIS Study Area for each 

alternative. For the purpose of this transportation analysis, the EIS Study Area includes the primary 

routes of travel (e.g., major highway corridors) and sets of modeled city pairs within each 

geographic section. The model outputs were then used to compare the No Build Alternative against 

the rail alternatives. A general description of the travel demand model outputs is provided in Table 

3-1. 

Table 3-1: Travel Demand Model Outputs

Context Description Potential Effect 

Compared to the No 

Build Alternative 

Evaluation of Intensity 

of Effects 

Travel 

Demand/Mode 

Share

Number and percentage of 

intercity trips taken by 

mode.

A shift in mode share could be 

a beneficial or negative effect 

depending on the mode (e.g.,

a decrease in bus ridership 

could have a negative effect 

on transit service providers).

Negligible: <3%

Moderate: 3%-20%

Substantial: > 20%

Travel Time

Savings

Travel times by mode 

between city pairs. For rail, 

bus, and air, travel time 

includes on-train/on-plane, 

or on-bus time and transfer 

time between city pairs.

Savings in travel time is a 

beneficial effect of the project.

Negligible: <30 mins.

Moderate: 30 mins-60 mins.

Substantial: > 60 mins.

Travel Time 

Reliability

Average variance in travel 

times between city pairs.

Travel time reliability is a 

beneficial effect of the project. 

Trains operate on a scheduled 

service within a dedicated 

right-of-way. 

Negligible: <30 mins.

Moderate: 30 mins-60 mins.

Substantial: >60 mins.

Vehicle Miles 

Traveled (VMT)

Average annual VMT on the 

highways between city pairs 

(for auto travel only).

A reduction in VMT is a 

beneficial effect of the project.

Negligible: <2%

Moderate: 2%-5%

Substantial: > 5%

Level of 

Service (trains, 

buses, and air 

travel)

Daily number of trains, 

buses, or flights between 

city pairs.

Increased (or new) rail service 

is a beneficial effect of the 

project.

The intensity of the effect 

was not evaluated, because

the analysis assumes no 

change in level of service for 

the other modes.

Ridership Ridership (passengers per 

year) by mode between city 

pairs.

Passenger rail travel demand 

is a beneficial effect of the 

project.

The intensity of the effect 

was not evaluated, because 

it is captured in other 

measures (Travel Demand 

Mode Share).
TBG111814093418SCO

3.0 Evaluation Methods

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 3-2

Potential effects, including beneficial effects, were characterized using ratings of negligible, 

moderate, or substantial. The Study also identifies design and mitigation strategies to reduce 

potentially substantial effects. 

These levels of effect determinations are further defined as follows:

 Negligible intensity effects from construction and operation of an alternative are those effects 

that result in minor changes to travel demand, mode share, travel time, and VMT.

 Moderate intensity effects from construction and operation of an alternative are those effects 

that result in noticeable changes to travel demand, mode share, travel time, and VMT.

 Substantial intensity effects from construction and operation of an alternative are those effects 

that result in significant changes to travel demand, mode share, travel time, and VMT, with a 

probability of a residual effect.

For this service-level analysis, each alternative was evaluated as an independent alternative—even 

when overlapping with other alternatives. Each alternative has termini within large cities and each 

alternative could be constructed alone or in combination with other alternatives. In addition, 

multiple alternatives could be constructed within each region because each alternative provides 

separate service-type options.

3.1 Data Sources 

Transportation-related information and data were obtained from the travel demand model 

developed for the project and a literature review of available information. In general, the sources 

include:

 Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Travel demand model outputs (per the Service Development 

Plan: Initial Service Schedule and Operating Assumptions, Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail 

Study – Service-Level EIS Phase)

 TxDOT and ODOT traffic count data

 TxDOT Research Project 0‐5930, Potential for Development of an Intercity Passenger Transit 

System in Texas

 Adopted state, regional, and local transportation plans

Specific sources used in the preparation of this technical study are listed in Section 8.0, 

References.

3.2 Travel Demand 

Ridership travel demand measures the potential attractiveness of new passenger rail service 

investments to the traveling public. Travel demand includes the existing intercity travel demand for 

the EIS Study Area, by mode, and how this travel demand is expected to change due to the 

infrastructure and service improvements of each alternative. 
TBG111814093418SCO

1.0 Introduction

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 3-3

The service-level analysis included the following tasks:

 Conducted existing and future-year intercity travel demand forecasts for the EIS Study Area, by 

mode and level of service. 

 Compared the alternatives on their ability to meet the projected intercity travel demand.

 Assessed the impacts on intercity travel times, by mode, between key destinations, for each 

alternative.

The travel demand model rail forecasting methodology is based on an inter-urban travel mode 

choice model to predict what percentage of current travelers will divert to the proposed new or 

improved rail service for their trips. The mode choice models place sensitivities on key elements of 

travel, such as time and cost, based on survey respondents’ answers to hypothetical scenarios 

about available travel choices. For this study, a new data collection effort to gather such data was 

undertaken and mode choice model(s) specific to the TOPRS corridors were estimated. 

To assess the attractiveness of proposed improvements in the rail mode relative to other existing 

modes, data about traveler responses to these improvements are needed. These data are often 

obtained from surveys called Stated Preference (SP) surveys. SP surveys are used to elicit traveler 

preferences and tradeoffs involving different modal attributes. Survey data can then be used to 

develop choice models involving the improved mode. 

The survey response data were used to develop mode choice models that calculate traveler 

diversions from existing modes to the rail service with the proposed services. Model development 

also incorporated relevant information from other sources (e.g., U.S. Department of Transportation 

[USDOT] guidance on values of time for intercity travel), and professional judgment based on 

forecasting best practices.

3.3 Transportation Conditions 

The evaluation also describes the current and projected traffic conditions in the study area, 

including average annual VMT, travel times, level of service, and mode share. Changes to traffic 

conditions due to the infrastructure and service changes proposed by each alternative were

assessed, based on the projected travel demand (developed from the model). However, this 

service-level analysis does not include a detailed evaluation of potential impacts to specific 

roadways, intersections, or specific transportation service providers (bus or air). 

The service-level analysis included:

 Documented existing traffic conditions within the EIS Study Area, including a general analysis of 

existing primary travel routes and travel times by mode. 

 Documented the anticipated changes to traffic conditions within the EIS Study Area as a result 

of each alternative. Potential effects include changes to travel modes, average speeds, travel 

time, and travel time reliability for both passenger rail and autos. 
TBG111814093418SCO

3.0 Evaluation Methods

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 3-4

 Broadly assessed existing and future freight use of the existing routes and impacts on freight 

travel times, reliability, and areas of conflict.

 Broadly assessed effects on air carriers.

 Broadly assessed effects on intercity transit service providers.

 Identified the likely short-term effects of construction activities on vehicular traffic congestion. 

With the exception of Table 3.21-35: Summary of Travel Demand and Transportation Effects by 

Alternative, which summarizes the potential intensity of effects, the information reported in all of 

the tables and figures is based on the travel demand model outputs developed as part of the 

Service Development Plan: Initial Service Schedule and Operating Assumptions Texas-Oklahoma 

Passenger Rail Study – Service-Level EIS Phase (TxDOT 2016). The model outputs are presented at 

either the corridor level or the city pair level depending on the context (e.g., travel time versus mode 

share). The results at the city level are specific to the pair of cities that are modelled, and may not 

reflect the travel demand and transportation conditions occurring at the corridor level. Therefore, a 

comparison between the modeled results at the corridor level versus the city level should not be 

made. Furthermore, because each alternative was evaluated as an independent alternative, the 

travel demand model accounts for the individual market segment identified for each alternative. 

For example, the No Build Alternative would have a different number of total trips (for all modes) 

compared to the total number of trips for Alternative N4A because each alternative is drawing from 

a different market segment. Another example is the model results shown for VMT. For instance, 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail serves both Austin Downtown and Austin Airport while Alternative 

C4A High-Speed Rail only serves Austin Airport. As a result, when computing existing VMTs, the 

Austin Downtown market is included for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, but not included for 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, thus resulting in different VMTs overall. Therefore, due to the 

nuances in the model outputs, a direct comparison between every alternative is not always 

possible. Instead, the model provides a reasonable measure of future changes in travel demand, 

mode share, etc., based on the specific alternative being evaluated.
TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 4-1

4.0 Baseline/Affected Environment 

4.1 EIS Study Area 

The following section provides a general description of the existing transportation facilities (highway

corridors, passenger rail, intercity bus, and airports) and existing transportation conditions (travel 

demand, mode share, travel times, level of service, and VMT) for each geographic section analyzed.

This information is provided as background data only and as a context for the alternatives analyses. 

The No Build Alternative and build alternatives have been analyzed for the 2035 conditions only. 

The information within each geographic section is generally described from north to south.

Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

The Northern Section extends approximately 220 miles, beginning in the north in Edmond, 

Oklahoma, and ending in the south in Dallas. From north to south, the route passes through the 

cities of Edmond, Oklahoma City, Moore, Norman, Purcell, Pauls Valley, Ardmore, and Marietta, 

Oklahoma; and Gainesville, Sanger, Denton, Fort Worth and Dallas, Texas. The section is served 

primarily by passenger rail and freight rail, highway, intercity bus, and air travel. The existing 

transportation modes and facilities are discussed below.

4.1.1.1 General Description of Transportation Facilities 

4.1.1.1.1 Passenger and Freight Rail 

Passenger rail service in Oklahoma and north Texas plays a limited role in its transportation system. 

There is one active passenger rail in the Northern Section. The Heartland Flyer, operated by Amtrak, 

provides intercity passenger rail service between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth and is a 418-mile 

round trip route. Amtrak operates one train per day in each direction, with station stops in Norman, 

Purcell, Pauls Valley, Ardmore, and Gainesville, in addition to Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. The 

train departs Oklahoma City in the morning, arrives in Fort Worth mid-day, and returns to Oklahoma 

City in the evening. The Heartland Flyer operates on tracks owned by BNSF railway (Amtrak 2016). 

At the Fort Worth end of the Heartland Flyer route, connections can be made in Fort Worth to 

Amtrak’s Texas Eagle, which operates between Chicago and Los Angeles via San Antonio. 

Connections can also be made to the TRE, a commuter rail line (described in the following 

paragraphs), which provides a connection to Dallas and its public transportation network. 

The TRE is a 35-mile regional commuter train service that operates between downtown Fort Worth 

and downtown Dallas. There are 10 stations between the cities, including the Texas and Pacific 

(T&P) station in downtown Fort Worth, the Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC), 

Richland Hills, Bell, CentrePort/Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), Downtown Irving 

Crossing, Medical Market Center, Victory Station, and Dallas Union Station. There are 17 weekday 

departures from Fort Worth. Reduced service is offered on Saturday and there is no service on 

Sunday. Connections between the Heartland Flyer and TRE are not coordinated at Fort Worth, 

resulting in significant time delays between these services.
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 4-2

Within the Northern Section, BNSF and UPRR operate north-south routes with significant freight 

traffic through central Oklahoma and Texas. The MidCon route, operated by BNSF, operates 

between Canada and the Gulf Coast and generally parallels the IH-35 corridor. This north-south 

route is vital in connecting ports on the Gulf Coast and markets in Mexico with the central United 

States (ODOT 2012). The number of freight trains per day varies significantly depending on the 

route and segment and ranges from approximately 15 to 100 trains per day (Texas A&M 

Transportation Institute [TTI] 2010).

4.1.1.1.2 Regional Highway System 

The highway system constitutes the foundation of the region’s overall transportation infrastructure. 

Within the Northern Section, the primary highways, along the corridor, are IH-35, IH-235, and U.S. 

Highway (US)-77.

IH-35 begins at the border with Mexico at Laredo, Texas and terminates at Duluth, Minnesota, 

approximately 200 miles southwest of the Canadian border. Within the EIS Study Area, IH-35 runs 

north-south through central Texas and central Oklahoma. Within Oklahoma, IH-35 connects the 

cities of Blackwell, Perry, Guthrie, Oklahoma City, Moore, Norman, Purcell, Pauls Valley, Ardmore, 

and Thackerville. Within central Texas, IH-35 connects the cities of Denton, Argyle, Corral City, and 

the Fort Worth metropolitan area.

IH-235 is a north-south spur of IH-35 that connects IH-35 and IH-40 in downtown Oklahoma City to 

IH-44 north of downtown. It is also called the Centennial Expressway.

US-77 is a north-south highway that connects Brownsville, Texas in the south with Sioux City, Iowa 

in the north. Within the Northern Section, US-77 connects Edmond to Oklahoma City and generally 

parallels IH-35 to the east, connecting all of the major cities in the Northern Section.

4.1.1.1.3 Intercity Bus 

The Northern Section is served by two traditional intercity motorcoach operators—Jefferson Lines 

and Greyhound. Jefferson Lines provides a route that crosses Oklahoma diagonally from the 

northeast, originating in Kansas City, with stops in Bartlesville, Stillwater, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, 

Chickasha, Lawton, and terminating in Wichita Falls, Texas (Jefferson Lines 2016). Greyhound 

provides direct service from Oklahoma City to Dallas and from Norman to Dallas. Indirect service 

(i.e., transfers are required) is provided by Greyhound to all major cities in the area (Greyhound 

2016). 

The Central Oklahoma Transportation & Parking Authority (COTPA) operates Metro Transit, a public

transit service concentrated into a service area of Oklahoma City and Midwest City with express bus 

service to Norman. The Oklahoma City system has fixed routes that originate from the Downtown 

Transit Center with generally 15-minute headways throughout the day. There are approximately 30

routes that serve all areas of the city. Included in these routes are four express routes to suburban 

areas (COTPA 2016).
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 4-3

4.1.1.1.4 Air Service 

The Northern Section is served by three commercial service airports: Will Rogers Worlds Airport 

(OKC), DFW, and Dallas Love Field Airport (DAL).

OKC is located approximately 6 miles from downtown Oklahoma City, near the junctions of IH-35, 

IH-40, and IH-44. OKC handles an average of 150 commercial flights each day, carrying over 3.5 

million passengers annually. Five commercial carriers operate at OKC with service to 21 nonstop 

destinations. Regionally, direct service is provided to Dallas (DAL and DFW) and Houston George 

Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) and Houston Hobby Airport (HOU) (Will Rogers World Airport, 

2016) (Oklahoma City Department of Airports 2016).

DFW is located within the cities of Irving, Euless, Grapevine, and Coppell, between the major cities 

of Dallas and Fort Worth. DFW is the primary international airport serving the Dallas and Fort Worth 

metropolitan area. DFW is ranked fourth in the world for operations (aircraft movements) and tenth 

in the world for number of passengers served. DFW has 24 passenger airlines and serves over 60.4 

million passengers annually. Within the EIS Study Area, DFW provides direct service to Wichita, 

Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Waco, Killeen, Austin, San Antonio, Houston (IAH and HOU), Corpus Christi, 

and Laredo (DFW 2016).

DAL is located 7 miles northwest of the downtown central business district. DAL serves an average 

of over 7 million passengers annually. Within the EIS Study Area, DAL provides direct service to 

Kansas City, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Austin, Houston (IAH and HOU), and San Antonio (Dallas Love 

Field 2016).

4.1.1.2 Baseline Conditions 

This section presents the existing baseline travel demand and transportation conditions for the 

Northern Section. In most cases, the data are presented at the corridor level. Where appropriate, 

the data are presented at the city pair level to assess differences in the urban markets.

4.1.1.2.1 Travel Demand, Mode Share, and Travel Times 

Table 4-1 presents the existing travel demand (passengers per year) by mode for the Northern 

Section. The mode share, which is the percentage of travelers using a particular type of 

transportation, is also presented. 

Table 4-1: Existing Travel Demand and Mode Share

Mode Travel Demand ( Trips per Year) Mode Share (Percentage by Mode) 

Oklahoma City – Dallas – Fort Worth 

Auto 22,920,866 98.8%

Passenger Rail 73,731 0.3%

Intercity Bus 108,912 0.5%

Air 95,569 0.4%
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 4-4

Table 4-2 presents the travel time (in minutes) between city pairs by mode. The travel time is 

presented at the city level to show the differences between travel times from Oklahoma City to 

Dallas and from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth.

Table 4-2: Existing Travel Times by Mode

Mode Travel Time (minutes) 

 Oklahoma City – Dallas Oklahoma City – Fort Worth Dallas – Fort Worth 

Auto 209 200 36

Passenger Raila 418b 238 60

Intercity Busa 391 473 72

Aira 52 59 -

a Total travel time includes on-train, on-plane, or on-bus time and transfer time between city pairs. 

b There is no direct service between Oklahoma City and Dallas. The Heartland Flyer operates between Oklahoma City 

and Forth Worth. Travel to Dallas could be made through connections on the Texas Eagle or TRE.

As shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2, highway travel represents the majority of the mode share and is 

the second fastest form of travel for the Northern Section, when compared with other modes. Key 

characteristics associated with highway travel as the preferred mode are travel time and cost, with 

travel time a product of congestion and distance between origin and destination and an assumed 

average speed. Other than air, auto travel has an advantage in travel time over bus and rail service. 

Users are able to leave their origin and arrive at their destination without the transfer of modes 

required of public transit users who must select a secondary transport mode before arrival to and 

departure from origin and destination transit facilities. While air travel is significantly faster than 

driving, the cost of flying makes this option prohibitive to some users.

The Heartland Flyer provides a convenient alternative to highway travel for travel between 

Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. However, because of the lack of coordinated connections on either 

end, the service is limited outside of this corridor.

4.1.1.2.2 Existing Level of Service 

Table 4-3 presents the level of service by mode (e.g., daily number of flights, buses, and trains 

between city pairs). In the Northern Section, service is generally limited at the corridor level.

Table 4-3: Existing Levels of Service

Mode Existing Levels of Service (Daily number of trains, buses or direct flights) 

 

 Oklahoma City – Dallas Oklahoma City – Fort Worth Dallas – Fort Worth 

Passenger Rail 1 train 1 train 1 train

Intercity Bus 4 buses 4 buses 13 buses

Air 4 flightsa 10 flightsb 0 flights

a Flights to/from Dallas Love Field Airport (DAL). 

b Flights to/from Dallas Fort Worth Airport (DFW).
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 4-5

4.1.1.2.3 Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled 

VMT is an indicator of highway travel throughout the EIS Study Area. It is the cumulative number of 

average annual VMT by automobiles along the corridor and is useful as a large scale measure of 

change in travel demand over time. As shown in Table 4-4, existing VMT within the Northern Section 

is over 1.3 billion VMT per year.

Table 4-4: Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled

Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

Oklahoma City – Fort Worth – Dallas 1,303,329,271

Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

The Central Section extends approximately 260 miles, beginning in the north in Dallas and Fort 

Worth and ending in the south in San Antonio. From north to south, the route passes through the 

cities of Fort Worth, Dallas, Arlington, Waxahachie, Hillsboro, Waco, Temple, Taylor, Austin, San 

Marcos, New Braunfels, Schertz, and San Antonio, Texas.

The Central Section EIS Study Area differs by alternative north of Hillsboro but is the same for all 

alternatives south of Hillsboro. The following section provides a general description of the primary 

transportation facilities/services in the Central Section. The section is served primarily by 

passenger and freight rail, highway, intercity bus, and air travel. Because the alternatives could be 

built as individual, stand-alone projects, there is some overlap in facilities/services between the 

Northern and Central sections.

4.1.2.1 General Description of Transportation Facilities 

4.1.2.1.1 Passenger and Freight Rail 

As previously described, Amtrak currently operates the Heartland Flyer and the Texas Eagle. The 

Texas Eagle operates between Chicago and San Antonio daily and between Chicago and Los 

Angeles three days per week. Within the Central Section, the Texas Eagle stops in Fort Worth, 

Dallas, Cleburne, McGregor, Temple, Taylor, Austin, San Marcos, and San Antonio. Thruway Amtrak 

Motorcoach connections are provided to Shreveport and Houston via Longview; Fort Hood and 

Killeen via Temple; Brownsville and Laredo via San Antonio; and Albuquerque via El Paso.

Regional/commuter rail service is provided on the TRE (Dallas to Fort Worth), previously described, 

and Capital MetroRail in Austin. Capital MetroRail offers service Monday through Friday between 

Leander and downtown Austin, and from Lakeline to downtown on Saturday (Capital MetroRail 

2016).

TEX Rail is a 27-mile commuter rail project being constructed by the Fort Worth Transportation 

Authority (The T). The line begins in downtown Fort Worth at the existing T&P Station (currently 

served by TRE commuter service) and travels through the ITC station, continuing across northeast 
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 4-6

Tarrant County to the cities of North Richland Hills and Grapevine and into DFW. At full build-out, 

the service is projected to have more than 13,600 daily riders using nine rail stations.

As previously described, BNSF and UPRR operate north-south routes with significant freight traffic 

through central Oklahoma and Texas. The MidCon route, operated by BNSF, operates between 

Canada and the Gulf Coast and generally parallels the IH-35 corridor. This north-south route is vital 

in connecting ports on the Gulf Coast and markets in Mexico with the central United States (ODOT 

2012). The number of freight trains per day varies significantly depending on the route and 

segment and ranges from approximately 15 to 100 trains per day (TTI 2010).

4.1.2.1.2 Regional Highway System 

IH-35 is the primary north-south highway running through the Central Section. IH-30 is the primary 

east-west highway between Dallas and Fort Worth.

4.1.2.1.3 Intercity Bus 

Within the Central Section, Greyhound serves the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex, with four stops in 

Dallas, including Dallas Union Station, and two stops in Fort Worth. Additional Greyhound stations 

are located in Arlington, Dublin, Garland, Lewisville, Richardson, Stephenville, Terrell, Waxahachie, 

Hillsboro, Waco, Killeen, Temple, Weatherford, Round Rock, Austin, Bastrop, Kerrville, San Marcos, 

and San Antonio. Greyhound also provides coordinated schedules and through ticketing services 

for passengers along routes served by All Aboard America, Kerrville Bus Company, Inc., Valley 

Transit Company, Inc., and T.N.M. & O Coaches, Inc. Arrow Trailways (terminal in Round Rock) and 

Concho Coaches provide additional routes, although they do not coordinate with Greyhound and 

passengers wishing to travel on these carriers must obtain schedules and purchase tickets directly 

from the individual bus company (TTI 2010).

In addition to the U.S.-based intercity carriers, several Mexican intercity bus companies provide 

service in the state, particularly along the Laredo-Dallas corridor. El Conejo, El Expreso, Tornado, 

Autobus Adame, and Americanos USA are some of the carriers operating in the Central and 

Southern Sections. However, finding route and schedule information for these carriers is more 

difficult than for the larger U.S.-based carriers; they advertise primarily in Spanish language 

newspapers and only some provide information online (TTI 2010).

Public transportation services are provided by small and large transit-focused organizations, as well 

as private bus companies. The three largest public agencies include Dallas Area Rapid Transit

(DART), The T, and the Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA). Other local organizations 

provide complementary services that coordinate transit operations in less densely populated areas 

in north-central Texas. There are an additional 80 known public, private, and specialized 

transportation service providers in north-central Texas. 

DART serves the cities of Addison, Carrollton, Cockrell Hill, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Garland, Glenn 

Heights, Highland Park, Irving, Richardson, Rowlett, Plano, and University Park. DART’s services 

include 45 miles of light rail and 130 bus routes. DART Light Rail connects with the TRE for service 
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 4-7

to the DFW and to Fort Worth. DART’s 2030 system plan includes an additional 43 miles of light rail

service, 77 miles of enhanced bus service corridors, and 20 miles of rapid bus service corridors (TTI

2010).

The T offers fixed route and express bus service within Fort Worth, plus a “Rider Request” demandresponse circulator service in Richland Hills. Many of The T’s bus routes connect with the TRE at 

either the ITC or the T&P Station. 

The DCTA provides fixed-route service in the cities of Denton, Lewisville, and Highland Village. 

DCTA’s Commuter Express bus service travels from park-and-rides in Denton and Lewisville to 

downtown Dallas, the DART North Carrollton Transit Center, Texas Women’s University, and the 

University of North Texas.

The Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Capital Metro) provides urban transit service in 

the cities of Austin, Manor, San Leanna, Leander, Jonestown, Lago Vista, Point Venture, Volente, 

and some of the incorporated areas of Travis and Williamson counties. A variety of bus services 

serve different travel markets; options include local, limited-stop and “flyer,” crosstown, and 

express bus routes, feeder routes that connect selected neighborhoods to Capital Metro Transit 

Centers, airport shuttles, downtown circulators, and a dial-a-ride route serving Lago Vista, 

Jonestown, and Leander.

The Hill Country Transit District provides demand-response transit service to Bell, Coryell, Hamilton, 

Lampasas, Llano, Mason, Milam, Mills, and San Saba counties and fixed-route service in the cities 

of Copperas Cove, Killeen, Harker Heights, Nolanville, and Temple. Waco Transit provides fixedroute service within Waco and connects to Greyhound at the Waco Intermodal Center. The Waco 

Streak bus line provides three roundtrips per day from Waco to DFW. The Waco Intermodal Transit 

Center serves Waco Transit as well as Greyhound.

VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA) provides public transportation services to San Antonio, 13 suburban 

cities, and the unincorporated areas of Bexar County. Services currently include 85 fixed routes and 

four downtown circulator routes. VIA also sponsors commuter vanpools in partnership with 

Enterprise Rent-a-Car; some of these vanpools travel between San Antonio and Austin. 

VIA has opened two new major transit centers connecting the region’s largest employment centers 

– the Westside Multimodal Transit Center and the South Texas Medical Center Transit Center, and 

implemented the region’s first high capacity transit line, VIA Primo/BRT on the Fredericksburg Road 

corridor.

4.1.2.1.4 Air Service 

DFW and Dallas Love Field, previously described, provide commercial air service in the Central 

Section. 

The Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS) serves the greater Austin metropolitan area, and is 

located approximately 5 miles southeast of downtown Austin. AUS has two runways and three 
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 4-8

helipads. It served nearly 12 million passengers in 2015 and is the 35th busiest airport for total 

passengers in the United States.

San Antonio International Airport (SAT) is located in northern San Antonio, approximately eight miles 

from downtown. The airport provides commercial airline service for the south Texas region and 

approximately 8.5 million passengers fly into and out of San Antonio each year. 

Regional airports in the Central Section include Waco Regional Airport/McGregor Executive Airport 

(PWG) and Killeen/Fort Hood Regional Airport (GRK).

4.1.2.2 Baseline Conditions 

This section presents the existing baseline travel demand and transportation conditions for the 

Central Section. In most cases, the data are presented at the corridor level; however, where 

appropriate, the data are presented at the city pair level to assess differences in the urban 

markets.

4.1.2.2.1 Existing Travel Demand, Mode Share, and Travel Times 

Table 4-5 presents the existing travel demand (passengers per year) by mode and mode share for 

the Central Section. Highway travel accounts for the largest percentage of the mode share, followed 

by air and intercity bus travel. Passenger rail represents less than one percent of the mode share.

Table 4-5: Existing Travel Demand and Mode Share

Mode Travel Demand (Trips per Year) Mode Share (Percentage by Mode) 

Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 

Auto 18,155,904 89.62%

Passenger Rail 52,461 0.26%

Intercity Bus 943,219 4.66%

Air 1,107,387 5.47%

Table 4-6 presents the travel time (in minutes) between city pairs by mode. With the exception of 

air, highway travel generally is significantly faster than the existing passenger rail and intercity bus 

service. This is mainly due to the lack of direct service by these modes. Between Dallas and Austin 

and Austin and San Antonio, bus travel is relatively time-competitive with highway travel.

Table 4-6: Existing Travel Times by Mode

Mode Travel Time (minutes)a 

 Dallas – San 

Antonio Fort Worth – San Antonio Dallas – Austin Fort Worth – Austin Austin – San Antonio 

Auto 291 285 207 201 86

Passenger Rail 605 465 392 252 143

Intercity Bus 327 409 220 292 95

Air 62 68 55 62 -

a Total travel time includes on-train/on-plane, or on-bus time and transfer time between city pairs.
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 4-9

4.1.2.2.2 Existing Level of Service 

Table 4-7 presents the level of service by mode between city pairs. With the exception of air travel, 

there is largely a lack of service provided between the city pairs.

Table 4-7: Existing Levels of Service

Mode Existing Levels of Service 

(Daily number of trains, buses or direct flights) 

 Dallas – San 

Antoniob 

Fort Worth – 

San Antonio 

Dallas – 

Austin 

Fort Worth – 

Austin 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Passenger Rail 1 train 1 train 1 train 1 train 1 train

Intercity Bus 17 buses 17 buses 17 buses 17 buses 17 buses

Air 13 flightsa 15 flightsb 12 flightsa 14 flightsb 0 flights

a Flights from Dallas Love Field Airport (DAL). 

b Flights from Dallas Fort Worth Airport (DFW).

Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 4-8 presents the existing average annual VMT for the Central Section. For the Central Section, 

the VMT were modeled based on the regional market segment identified for each alternative. 

Although the alternatives have similar (or in some cases) the same origin and destination, the 

stations vary slightly and there are minor differences in the modeled market segment. The existing 

VMT for the Central Section ranges from approximately 1.3 to 1.4 billion VMT per year depending 

on the market segment.

Table 4-8: Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled

Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonioa 1,303,329,271 to 1,415,866,197

a The VMT for the Central Section were modeled for each alternative based on the market segment identified for 

each alternative. A range in VMT is shown because the VMT vary depending on the market segment. For 

example, C4A HrSR serves both Austin Downtown and Austin Airport while C4A HSR only serves Austin Airport. As 

a result, when computing existing VMTs, the Austin Downtown market is included for C4A HrSR, but not included 

for C4A HSR, thus resulting in different VMTs overall.

Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

The Southern Section includes two distinct alignments, and extends approximately 120 to 145 

miles, depending on the alignment. The section begins in the north in San Antonio and ends in 

either Brownsville (Alternative S4) or Laredo (Alternative S6), in southern Texas. With the exception 
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 4-10

of the urban areas of San Antonio, Alice, Corpus Christi, Laredo, Kingsville, Raymondville, McAllen, 

Harlingen, and Brownsville, Texas, the Southern Section is predominately rural.

The following section provides a general description of the primary transportation facilities/services 

in the Southern Section. The section is served primarily by highway and intercity bus travel, with 

some local air service. There is some overlap in facilities/services between the Central and 

Southern sections.

4.1.3.1 General Description of Transportation Facilities 

4.1.3.1.1 Passenger and Freight Rail 

There is currently no passenger rail service in the Southern Section. 

4.1.3.1.2 Regional Highway System 

IH-35 is the major north south highway between San Antonio and Laredo. To the west, IH-37 is the 

major north-south highway connecting San Antonio and Corpus Christi.

4.1.3.1.3 Intercity Bus 

Valley Transit Company, a Greyhound affiliate company, connects the Lower Rio Grande Valley to 

Houston, San Antonio, and Laredo, with stops in the three primary cities (Brownsville, Harlingen, 

and McAllen). The Valley Transit “Main Line” through the Lower Rio Grande Valley also operates as 

express bus service along US-83 from Brownsville to McAllen.

The Harlingen Express, a flex-route bus service, provides local service in Harlingen. The Brownsville 

Urban System provides urban transit service within Brownsville and the McAllen Express Transit 

provides urban transit service within McAllen.

4.1.3.1.4 Air Service 

As previously described, SAN provides commercial airline service for the South Texas region. 

Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport (BRO) is located approximately four miles east 

of downtown Brownsville. The airport is served by three commercial airlines and is a convenient 

airport for flying into the Rio Grande Valley and northern Mexico. The airport has scheduled nonstop

passenger flights to DFW and Houston (IAH). 

Corpus Christi International Airport (CRP) is approximately 5.5 miles west of downtown Corpus 

Christi. The airport is served by three commercial airlines, with scheduled non-stop passenger 

flights to DFW and Houston (IAH), and Houston Hobby (HOU).

Valley International Airport (HRL) is located 3 miles northeast of Harlingen. The airport is served by 

four commercial airlines, with scheduled non-stop passenger flights to Houston Hobby (HOU), 

Houston (IAH), and Austin. Non-stop service is also provided, seasonally, to Minneapolis/St. 

Paul and DFW.
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 4-11

Laredo International Airport (LRD) is located approximately 4 miles northeast of downtown Laredo. 

The airport is served by three commercial airlines, with scheduled non-stop passenger flights to 

Houston (IAH) and DFW.

McAllen Miller International Airport (MFE) is located approximately 2.5 miles south of downtown

McAllen. The airport is served by four commercial airlines, with scheduled non-stop passenger 

flights to Houston (IAH) and DFW.

4.1.3.2 Baseline Conditions 

This section presents the existing baseline travel demand and transportation conditions for the 

Southern Section. In most cases, the data are presented at the corridor level; however, where 

appropriate, the data are presented at the city pair level.

4.1.3.2.1 Existing Travel Demand, Mode Share, and Travel Times 

Table 4-9 presents the existing travel demand (passengers per year) by mode and mode share at 

the corridor level. Highway travel represents the majority of the mode share.

Table 4-9: Existing Travel Demand and Mode Share

Mode Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

 San Antonio - 

Laredo 

San Antonio - 

Brownsville 

San Antonio - 

Laredo 

San Antonio - 

Brownsville 

Auto 7,155,070 43,320,812 97.17% 97.85%

Passenger Rail - - - -

Intercity Bus 208,442 863,321 2.83% 1.95%

Air - 86,698 - 0.20%

Table 4-10 presents the travel time (in minutes) between city pairs by mode. Intercity bus is 

generally comparable to highway travel in terms of travel time.

Table 4-10: Travel Time by Mode

Mode Travel Time (minutes) 

 San Antonio – 

Laredo 

San Antonio – 

Corpus Christi 

Laredo – 

Brownsville 

Corpus Christi – 

Brownsville 

Austin - San 

Antonio 

Auto 149 125 235 210 86

Passenger Rail -. - - - 143

Intercity Bus 160 157 285 231 95

Air - - - - -
TBG111814093418SCO

4.0 Baseline / Affected Environment

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 4-12

4.1.3.2.2 Existing Level of Service 

Table 4-11 presents the level of service by mode between city pairs.

Table 4-11: Existing Levels of Service

Mode Existing Levels of Service 

(Daily number of trains, buses or direct flights) 

 San Antonio – 

Laredo 

San Antonio – 

Corpus Christi 

Laredo – 

Brownsville 

Corpus Christi 

– Brownsville 

Austin - San 

Antonio 

Passenger Rail -. - - - 1 train

Intercity Bus 12 buses 5 buses 1 bus- 6 buses- 17 buses

Air - - - - -

4.1.3.2.3 Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 4-12 presents the existing average annual VMT for the Southern Section.

Table 4-12: Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled

Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year)a 

San Antonio – Laredo 454,243,056

San Antonio – Brownsvillea 2,895,896,201

a The VMT for the Southern Section were modelled for each alternative based on the market segment identified for 

each alternative. VMT between San Antonio and Brownsville includes additional travel through Alice, Corpus Christi, 

McAllen, and Harlingen.
TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-1

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental 

Consequences 

This section compares the alternatives on their ability to meet the projected intercity travel demand

and documents the anticipated changes to traffic patterns by alternative, including changes in

mode share, travel time, travel time reliability (for passenger rail and autos), and VMT. The section 

also presents the projected station boardings for each alternative. A qualitative discussion of 

potential effects on air carriers, intercity transit service providers, and freight operations is also 

provided. The analysis presented is for the 2035 conditions only.

With all of the build alternatives, highway, bus, and air travel decreases as users are diverted from 

these modes to the new rail service. Based on the broad assessment conducted, increases in mode 

share to rail could provide both negative and beneficial effects across all mode choices. For 

highway travel, the decrease in mode share would be a beneficial effect, based on users being

encouraged to use transit and reduce congestion on highways, which could also provide a 

secondary benefit to bus service providers. Likewise, the increase in mode share for passenger rail 

is considered a beneficial effect of the project. 

The diversion of intercity bus and air travelers to the rail system may yield additional benefits by 

providing a mode choice for travelers, travel time savings, and increased schedule reliability. For air 

carriers, the potential benefits may include the opportunity to shift from short-haul to longer-haul 

flight operations, which may include more reliable scheduling and increased revenue. 

There are also negative effects for bus and air travel carriers, since a reduction in their mode share 

would affect intercity bus service providers and air carrier operations (e.g., existing demand, 

schedule adjustments/reductions, and revenue). The shift in mode share and the corresponding 

effects are discussed further throughout the alternative sections, and the results vary from 

negligible to substantial, depending on the alternative. 

For example, automobile drivers do not typically switch to transit without significant gains in travel 

time or reductions in cost. Compared with the No Build Alternative, the build alternatives save 

travelers time compared with highway travel in most cases (high-speed service providing the most 

time savings), with time savings generally increasing as the trip length increases or for urban areas 

where congestion levels are forecast to increase and highway travel time increases. 

Travel time reliability is another beneficial effect of the project. Trains operate on a scheduled 

service within a dedicated right-of-way and are not subject to fluctuations in traffic congestion. 

Highway travel time reliability will vary from location to location, depending on future traffic 

conditions in the area. In general, the Build Alternatives provide travel time reliability for train 

travelers, compared with expected increases in highway drive times. A reduction in VMT is also a 

beneficial effect of the project. VMT changes vary by alternative, from negligible changes (less than 

1 percent) to substantial changes (5 percent). 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-2

The potential effects, beneficial or negative, from air carrier operations, which may include shifting 

their existing short-haul flights to longer-haul flights, have not been assessed as part of this servicelevel analysis (see Draft EIS, Section 3.20.6, Subsequent Analysis).

5.1 Northern Section: Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth 

In the Northern Section, only one alternative and the No Build Alternative were carried forward for 

further evaluation. Alternative N4A would follow the same general alignment within Dallas and Fort 

Worth as several of the alternatives in the Central Section. 

No Build Alternative 

A description of the No Build Alternative is provided in Section 1.2.1. A quantitative comparison of 

the No Build Alternative and Alternative N4A is provided in the following sections. The No Build 

Alternative would not implement the Program of rail improvements associated with this servicelevel evaluation and would not meet the purpose and need of the Program. The No Build Alternative 

is carried forward as a baseline alternative and provides an alternative for comparative evaluation 

of the advantages and disadvantages of the build alternatives. Under the No Build Alternative, it is 

assumed that the level of service for rail, bus, and air would remain the same. There would be no 

increase in rail ridership because there would be no expanded rail service and there would be no 

diversion of bus ridership and air travel to rail. There would be no effect on these modes and no 

effect on intercity transit service providers and air carriers because operations would remain the 

same. The benefits of fewer VMT (lower congestion, increased transit use, etc.) would not be 

realized with the No Build Alternative. There would be no effects on local transportation (e.g.,

roadway and intersection operations, parking demand) with the No Build Alternative because there 

would be no change in mode shift or demand.

Alternative N4A Conventional 

Alternative N4A would increase the existing passenger rail service between Oklahoma City and 

Dallas and Fort Worth from one daily train to six daily trains, as well as providing an expanded route

north to Edmond, Oklahoma.

5.1.2.1.1 Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 5-1 presents the projected yearly ridership and mode share for the No Build Alternative and 

Alternative N4A. 

Table 5-1: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative N4A

Mode Travel Demand (Trips per Year) Mode Share (Percentage by Mode) 

No Build N4A No Build N4A 

Oklahoma City – Dallas – Fort Worth 

Auto 38,115,278 37,875,193 99.0% 97.8%

Passenger Rail 109,028 702,034 0.3% 1.8%

Intercity Bus 130,272 65,711 0.3% 0.2%

Air 147,588 83,313 0.4% 0.2%
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-3

Under Alternative N4A, highway, bus, and air travel would decrease as users would be diverted from 

these modes to the new rail service. For highway travel, the decrease in mode share would be a 

beneficial effect. Users would be encouraged to use transit and reduce congestion on highways as 

a result of having a new mode choice. Likewise, the increase in mode share for passenger rail 

would be a beneficial effect for the Northern Section. For bus and air travel, a reduction in mode 

share would be a negative effect as this change would affect intercity bus service providers and air 

carriers’ operations (e.g., demand, schedule, and revenue). 

Under Alternative N4A, the reduction in mode share for highway travel would be less than 2 

percent, which would be a negligible change. The increase in mode share for passenger rail would 

be substantial. Passenger rail ridership is forecast to increase to over 700,000 passengers per 

year, a 500 percent increase in mode share over the 2035 No Build Alternative. For bus and air, 

the shift in mode share would be substantial. The mode share for bus would decrease by 33 

percent and the mode share for air would decrease by 50 percent. The ridership data (including 

diverted trips and induced demand) are described in further detail in the Passenger Rail Ridership 

section.

5.1.2.1.2 Travel Time Savings 

Table 5-2 provides a comparison of the projected travel time for the different modes. 

Table 5-2: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative N4A

Mode Travel Time (minutes)a 

 Oklahoma City – Dallas Oklahoma City – Fort Worth Dallas – Fort Worth 

Highways 225 219 40

Passenger Rail 418 238 60

With N4Ab 266 217 41

Intercity Bus 391 473 72

Air 52 59 -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build Alternative and Alternative N4A.

b Estimated passenger rail time with Alternative N4A.

It is assumed that there would be no significant difference in travel time between the No Build 

Alternative and Alternative N4A for autos, bus, and air because these modes would not see a 

significant change in their travel times after the rail service is introduced. While there would be 

travel times saved for those who elect to use the new passenger rail system, there would be no 

significant travel time savings for those users who continue to use their existing modes. For 

example, the removal of a few thousands cars per day on roads with 100,000 cars or more per day, 

such as IH-35, would not affect the congestion significantly enough to improve travel times on the 

road. Similarly, the few hundreds of air and bus travelers removed from the existing planes and 

buses would not affect plane frequency and bus frequency or their travel times, so the remaining 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-4

air and bus travelers (who continue to use air or bus travel) will not see any reduction in their travel 

times.

Therefore, this analysis focuses on the travel time savings for rail users compared to the other 

modes. Under Alternative N4A, rail and highway travel times would be similar; therefore, Alternative 

N4A would have a negligible effect on travel time compared with highway travel. There would be

improvements in passenger rail travel time under Alternative N4A. The travel time improvements 

are due to increases in rail frequency, as well as better rail connections between the cities in the 

Northern Section. Passenger rail service between Oklahoma City and Dallas would take 

approximately 2.5 hours less than the No Build Alternative, approximately 20 minutes less between 

Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, and approximately 20 minutes less between Fort Worth and Dallas. 

Alternative N4A would have a beneficial effect on passenger rail travel time savings.

Alternative N4A would also provide significant travel time savings compared to intercity bus travel. 

Under Alternative N4A conventional, passenger rail service would take approximately 3.5 to 4 hours 

(217 to 266 minutes) between Oklahoma City and the Dallas and Fort Worth area. However, it is 

predicted that future bus travel would take up to 8 hours (473 minutes). 

5.1.2.1.3 Travel Time Reliability 

Highway travel time is projected to increase over the next 20 years as a result of general increases 

in VMT and future highway congestion. By 2035, highway travel time between Oklahoma City and 

Dallas is projected to increase by 16 minutes, travel time between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth is 

projected to increase by 19 minutes, and travel time between Fort Worth and Dallas is projected to 

increase by 4 minutes. These increases in future highway travel time would be minor, so reliability 

for highway travel is expected to remain relatively good. Under Alternative N4A, there would be a 

negligible difference in travel time reliability for train travelers, compared with highway travel.

5.1.2.1.4 Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 5-3 provides a summary of the projected rail 

ridership with Alternative N4A at the corridor level, as well 

as for the Oklahoma City and Dallas urban markets. Figure 

5-1 illustrates the projected rail ridership composition for 

Alternative N4A.

It is assumed that the rail ridership will be a combination 

of trips that are diverted from other modes to rail and 

induced demand for the new service. 

The table presents the number of trips and the 

percentage of trips that would be diverted from other 

modes to rail. It also shows the composition of the total 

rail trips by mode. For example, there are 38,115,278 potential auto trips that could be diverted to 

rail. It is projected that 240,085 of these auto trips (approximately 1 percent) would be diverted to 

Figure 5-1: Alternative N4A 

Ridership Composition
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-5

rail. In total, 702,033 new rail trips are projected. Of these new rail trips, 240,085 trips, or 34 

percent, are trips that are diverted from auto trips or other modes.

For the new rail trips (over 700,000 riders), the highest percentage would be shifts from auto trips 

(34 percent), followed by connect air (10 percent), and local air and bus trips (9 percent). Intercity 

bus would have the highest percentage of its trips diverted to rail (50 percent), followed by local air 

(44 percent), connect air (3 percent), and auto trips (1 percent).

Table 5-3: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative N4A

Ridership Composition 

by Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

N4A Rail 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

N4A Rail Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 40,770,643 441,407 1%

Auto 38,115,278 240,085 1% 34%

Local Aira 147,588 64,276 44% 9%

Connect Airb 2,377,505 72,485 3% 10%

Bus 130,272 64,561 50% 9%

Total Urban Ridership 251,550 

Greater Oklahoma Cityc 24,047 4%

Dallas Metroplexd 227,503 33%

Induced Demande 9,076 1%

Total Intercity and Urban Ridershipf 702,033 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b Air travelers for whom only one end of their trip falls within the corridor area.

c Trips that begin and end within the larger Oklahoma City area.

d Trips that begin and end within the Dallas Metroplex.

e HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

f The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

5.1.2.1.5 Station Boardings 

The total boardings at each station are presented in Table 5-4. The top three station boardings are 

anticipated to occur in the Dallas and Fort Worth area. 

Table 5-4: 2035 Rail Station Boardings – Alternative N4A

Station Boardings (Passengers per Year) Station Rank 

Edmond 29,270 8

Oklahoma City 106,740 4

Norman 36,902 7

Purcell 6,370 10
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-6

Station Boardings (Passengers per Year) Station Rank 

Pauls Valley 11,462 9

Ardmore 38,925 6

Gainesville 58,361 5

Fort Worth/ITC 134,746 2

Centreport 133,792 3

Dallas/DUS 136,391 1

Total 692,958 

 5.1.2.1.6 Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Regional and corridor effects on highway congestion can be measured through changes in VMT. 

The ability of the rail alternatives to alter travel patterns on a regional basis can also be evaluated 

through the number of auto trips taken and corresponding changes in VMT. Table 5-5 presents the 

estimated changes in annual VMT with the No Build Alternative and Alternative N4A. 

Table 5-5: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative N4A

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build N4A Change 

Oklahoma City – Dallas – Fort Worth 2,047,593,985 2,035,630,281 -11,963,704 / -0.6%

The existing VMT in the Northern Section is projected to increase from 1.3 billion annual VMT to 2 

billion annual VMT by 2035 under the No Build Alternative scenario. The increase in VMT by 2035 

is primarily attributed to population growth in the region. The diversion of auto trips to rail under 

Alternative N4A would result in a 0.6 percent reduction in VMT compared with the No Build 

Alternative. This equates to nearly 12 million fewer VMT each year. The decrease in VMT is a 

beneficial, although negligible, effect of Alternative N4A. 

5.1.2.1.7 Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative N4A would primarily use the existing rail infrastructure and stations. It would not likely 

result in permanent grade crossing closures that could impact local circulation. Local traffic 

volumes and parking demand would increase around and at the stations due to increases in 

ridership and longer wait times would occur at grade crossings. Based on this assessment, the 

qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and parking are moderate.

5.1.2.1.8 Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Under Alternative N4A, approximately 50 percent of existing bus riders and 44 percent of air 

passengers would be diverted to rail. While the new rail service would yield benefits for travelers by 

providing an alternative transportation option, transit operators and airlines themselves could be 

negatively affected by a reduction in passengers. This diversion could result in substantial effects 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-7

on service provider operations (e.g., demand and schedule) and lost revenue as a result of fewer

customers. 

Alternative N4A would provide passenger rail service on the existing BNSF track, with potential 

improvements within the existing BNSF right-of-way. Once operational, there would be no change to 

the existing freight routes. Freight operations could be affected by the increase in passing trains, 

from one train per day to six trains per day. However, the long-term improvements to the rail system 

would offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this assessment, the qualitative 

evaluation is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible.

5.2 Central Section: Dallas and Fort Worth to San Antonio 

In the Central Section, six alternatives and the No Build Alternative were carried forward for further 

evaluation. All of the alternatives in the Central Section (Alternative C4A [both service types] and 

Alternative C4B [both service types]) and Alternative C4C [both service types]) follow the same 

alignment from Hillsboro to San Antonio (see Figure 1-1).

No Build Alternative 

A description of the No Build Alternative is provided in Section 1.2.1. The potential effects of not 

building the project in the Central Section would be similar to those described for the Northern 

Section. A quantitative comparison of the No Build Alternative and the build alternatives for the 

Central Section is provided in the following sections.

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail 

5.2.2.1.1 Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 5-6 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative and 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail.

Table 5-6: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4 HSR

Mode 

Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

No Build C4A HSR No Build C4A HSR 

Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 

Auto 34,453,728 31,668,952 91.74% 76.52%

Passenger Rail 77,575 8,193,483 0.21% 19.80%

Intercity Bus 1,218,438 949,310 3.24% 2.29%

Air 1,806,931 575,327 4.81% 1.39%

Under Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, highway, bus, and air travel would decrease as users are 

diverted from these modes to the new rail service. Under Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, the 

reduction in mode share for highway travel would 16 percent, which represents a moderate effect. 

The increase in mode share for passenger rail represents a substantial effect, with passenger rail 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-8

ridership is forecast to increase to over 8 million passengers per year, a 9,000 percent increase. 

For bus and air, the shift in mode share would also represent a substantial effect. The mode share 

for bus would decrease by 29 percent and the mode share for air would decrease by 71 percent. 

The ridership data (including diverted trips and induced demand) are described in further detail in 

the Passenger Rail Ridership section.

5.2.2.1.2 Travel Time Savings 

Table 5-7 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. It is assumed that 

there would be no difference in travel time between the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4A 

High-Speed Rail for autos, bus, and air.

With the exception of air, Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would provide significant travel time 

savings across all modes. For example, the new passenger rail service would take approximately 2

hours (115 minutes) between Dallas and San Antonio, compared to over 5.5 hours (338 minutes) 

by car. The time savings associated with Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would be a substantial 

beneficial effect compared with the No Build Alternative.

Table 5-7: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail

Mode Travel Time (minutes)a 

 Dallas – San 

Antonio 

Fort Worth – 

San Antonio 

Dallas – 

Austin 

Fort Worth – 

Austin 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Auto 338 332 238 232 103

Passenger Rail 605 465 392 252 143

With C4A HSRb 115 163 74 122 39

Intercity Bus 327 409 220 292 95

Air 62 68 55 62 -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build and C4A HSR alternatives.

b Estimated passenger rail time with Alternative C4A HSR.

5.2.2.1.3 Travel Time Reliability 

The Central Section will generally experience moderate increases in highway travel time by 2035, 

particularly between the larger metropolitan areas. For instance, by 2035, highway travel time 

between Dallas and San Antonio and Fort Worth and San Antonio is projected to increase by 

approximately 50 minutes as a result of general increases in congestion. Alternative C4A HighSpeed Rail would provide travel time reliability between these areas for train travelers, compared to 

the expected increases in highway drive times and potential unexpected delays. Under Alternative 

C4A High-Speed Rail there would be a substantial difference and beneficial effect in travel time 

reliability compared to highway travel.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-9

5.2.2.1.4 Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 5-8 provides a summary of the projected rail 

ridership under Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail at 

both the corridor level, as well as for the Dallas and 

Austin/San Antonio urban markets. Figure 5-2

illustrates the projected ridership composition for

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail.

For the new rail trips (over 8 million riders), the 

highest percentage would be shifts from auto trips 

(34 percent), followed by local air (15 percent), 

connect air (13 percent) and bus trips (3 percent). 

Local air would have the highest percentage of its 

trips diverted to rail (68 percent), followed by bus (22 

percent), auto trips (8 percent), and connect air (7 

percent).

Table 5-8: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail

Ridership 

Composition by 

Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

C4A HSR 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

C4A HSR 

Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 53,076,654 5,391,666 10% 

Auto 34,453,728 2,784,776 8% 34%

Local Aira 1,806,931 1,231,604 68% 15%

Connect Airb 15,597,557 1,106,158 7% 13%

Bus 1,218,438 269,128 22% 3%

Total Urban Ridership 2,449,206 

Dallas Metroplexc 1,991,898 24%

Austin - San Antonio Aread 457,308 6%

Induced Demande 352,611 5%

Total Intercity and Urban Ridershipf 8,193,484 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b Air travelers for whom only one end of their trip falls within the corridor area.

c Trips that begin and end within the Dallas Metroplex.

d Trips that begin and end within the Austin – San Antonio area.

d HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

f The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

Figure 5-2: Alternative C4A HSR 

Ridership Composition
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-10

5.2.2.1.5 Station Boardings 

Table 5-9 presents the station boardings for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. Dallas would have the 

highest number of station boardings, followed by Austin and DFW.

Table 5-9: 2035 Station Boardings – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail

Station Boardings 

(Passengers per Year) Station Rank 

Fort Worth/ITC 437,890 6

DFW 1,333,814 3

Dallas/DUS 1,891,246 1

Waxahachie 534,323 5

Waco 386,128 8

Temple 437,355 7

Austin Airport 1,484,705 2

SAT Airport 1,003,250 4

San Antonio/VIA 332,161 9

Total 7,840,872 

 5.2.2.1.6 Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 5-10 summarizes the projected 2035 VMT under the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4A 

High-Speed Rail. Implementation of Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would result in an 8.6 percent 

decrease in VMT in the Central Section, compared to the No Build Alternative. This would be a 

substantial beneficial effect on VMT. 

Table 5-10: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build C4A HSR Change 

Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 2,742,367,985 2,507,423,895 -234,944,090/ -8.57%

5.2.2.1.7 Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail would begin in Fort Worth and follow the TRE tracks east to Dallas. 

From Dallas, it would follow the BNSF alignment south toward Waxahachie where it would enter a 

new alignment outside existing highway and rail corridors. The entire right-of-way would be fenced 

and fully grade-separated. Once constructed, there would be no effect on local traffic circulation 

because of the grade separated tracks. Local traffic volumes and parking demand would increase 

around and at the stations due to both increases and new demand in rail ridership and longer wait 

times would occur at grade crossings. Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that 

the local effects on transportation and parking are moderate. 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-11

5.2.2.1.8 Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Under Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, approximately 20 percent of existing bus riders and 70

percent of air passengers would be diverted to rail. While the diversion of intercity bus and air 

travelers to the rail system will yield benefits for travelers by providing an alternative transportation 

option, transit operators and airlines themselves could be negatively affected by a reduction in 

passengers. The new rail service could result in moderate (for transit) to substantial (for air) effects 

on service provider operations (e.g., demand, schedule) and lost revenue as a result of fewer 

customers. 

Within existing transportation corridors, the high-speed rail alternative would not have the required 

space for separation of freight and passenger rail and freight operations could be affected by an 

increase in the number of passing trains. The long-term improvements to the rail system would 

offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation 

is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible. Within proposed new transportation 

corridors, passenger rail tracks would be constructed within a separate right-of-way and there 

would be no effect on freight operations.

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

5.2.3.1 Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 5-11 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative and 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail.

Table 5-11: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

No Build C4A HrSR No Build C4A HrSR 

Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 

Auto 36,912,196 35,679,819 92.18% 82.71%

Passenger Rail 77,575 5,271,829 0.19% 12.22%

Intercity Bus 1,238,394 1,061,409 3.09% 2.46%

Air 1,815,699 1,125,615 4.53% 2.61%

Under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, the reduction in mode share for highway travel would be

10 percent, which represents a moderate effect. The increase in mode share for passenger rail 

represents a substantial effect. Passenger rail ridership is forecast to increase to over 5 million 

passengers per year, an increase of more than over 6,000 percent. The shift in mode share 

represents a moderate effect for bus and a substantial effect for air. The mode share for bus would

decrease by 20 percent and the mode share for air would decrease by 42 percent. The ridership 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-12

data (including diverted trips and induced demand) are described in further detail in the Passenger 

Rail Ridership section.

5.2.3.1.1 Travel Time Savings 

Table 5-12 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. It is assumed that 

there would be no difference in travel time between the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail for autos, bus, and air.

With the exception of air, Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would provide significant travel time 

savings across all modes, although to a lesser extent than Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. For 

example, the new passenger rail service would take approximately 3 hours (190 minutes) between 

Dallas and San Antonio, compared to over 5.5 hours (338 minutes) by car. The time savings under

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would be a substantial beneficial effect compared with the No 

Build Alternative.

Table 5-12: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail

Mode Travel Time (minutes)a 

 Dallas – San 

Antonio 

Fort Worth – 

San Antonio 

Dallas – 

Austin 

Fort Worth – 

Austin 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Auto 338 332 238 232 103

Passenger Rail 605 465 392 252 143

With C4A HrSRb 190 238 131 179 57

Intercity Bus 327 409 220 292 95

Air 62 68 55. 62 -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build and C4A HrSR alternatives.

b Estimated passenger rail time with Alternative C4A HrSR.

5.2.3.1.2 Travel Time Reliability 

As previously discussed, the Central Section will generally experience moderate increases in 

highway travel time by 2035, particularly between the larger metropolitan areas. By 2035, highway 

travel time between Dallas and San Antonio and Fort Worth and San Antonio is projected to 

increase by approximately 50 minutes. Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would provide travel time 

reliability between these areas for train travelers, compared to the expected increases in highway 

drive times and potential unexpected delays. Under Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail there would 

be a substantial difference and corresponding effect in travel time reliability compared to highway 

travel.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-13

5.2.3.1.3 Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 5-13 provides a summary of the 

projected rail ridership under Alternative 

C4A Higher-Speed Rail at both the corridor 

level, as well as for the Dallas and 

Austin/San Antonio urban markets. Figure 

5-3 illustrates the projected ridership 

composition for this alternative.

For the new rail trips (approximately 5.3 

million riders), the highest percentage 

would be shifts from auto trips (23 

percent), followed by connect air (15 

percent), local air (13 percent) and bus 

trips (3 percent). Local air would have the 

highest percentage of its trips diverted to rail 

(38 percent), followed by bus (14 percent), 

connect air (5 percent), and auto trips (3 percent).

Table 5-13: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail

Ridership 

Composition by 

Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

C4A HrSR 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

C4A HrSR 

Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 55,568,425 2,877,995 5%

Auto 36,912,196 1,232,377 3% 23%

Local Aira 1,815,945 690,084 38% 13%

Connect Airb 15,601,890 778,549 5% 15%

Bus 1,238,394 176,985 14% 3%

Total Urban Ridership 2,256,911 

Dallas Metroplexc 1,865,274 35%

Austin - San Antonio Aread 391,637 8%

Induced Demande 136,923 3%

Total Intercity and Urban Ridershipf 5,271,829 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b Air travelers for whom only one end of their trip falls within the corridor area.

c Trips that begin and end within the Dallas Metroplex.

d Trips that begin and end within the Austin – San Antonio area.

e HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

f The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

Figure 5-3: Alternative C4A HrSR Ridership 

Composition
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-14

5.2.3.1.4 Station Boardings 

Table 5-14 presents the station boardings for Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Dallas would have 

the highest number of station boardings, followed by DFW and the Austin airport.

Table 5-14: Station Boardings – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail

Station Boardings (Passengers per Year) Station Rank 

Fort Worth/ITC 285,041 7

DFW 1,056,400 2

Dallas/DUS 1,275,484 1

Waxahachie 389,194 5

Waco 259,800 8

Temple 335,832 6

Austin CBD 53,622 10

Austin Airport 756,168 3

SAT Airport 553,748 4

San Antonio/VIA 169,616 9

Total 5,134,905 

 

5.2.3.1.5 Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 5-15 summarizes the projected 2035 VMT under the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4A 

Higher-Speed Rail. Implementation of Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would result in a 3.1 

percent decrease in annual VMT in the Central Section, compared with the No Build Alternative. 

This would be a moderate beneficial effect on VMT. 

Table 5-15: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build C4A HrSR Change 

Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 2,811,060,425 2,722,809,840 -88,250,585/ -3.14%

5.2.3.1.6 Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on transportation and parking as 

those described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. However, unlike high-speed rail, the 

higher-speed rail design would include some grade crossings, which would affect local traffic 

circulation. Local traffic volumes and parking demand would increase around and at the stations 

due to both increases and new demand in rail ridership and longer wait times would occur at grade 

crossings. Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on 

transportation and parking are moderate.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-15

5.2.3.1.7 Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on intercity transit providers and air 

carriers as those described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail, but at a lesser intensity. Under

Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail, approximately 14 percent of existing bus riders and 38 percent 

of air passengers would be diverted to rail. The new rail service could result in moderate (for transit)

to substantial (for air) effects on service provider operations (e.g., demand, schedule) and lost 

revenue as a result of fewer customers. 

The design of the higher-speed rail alternative, within existing railroad rights-of-way, would allow for 

a shared right-of-way with separate tracks for freight and passenger services. The long-term 

improvements to the rail system would offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this 

assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible.

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail 

5.2.4.1 Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 5-16 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative and 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail.

Table 5-16: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

No Build C4B HSR No Build C4B HSR 

 Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 

Auto 34,486,594 31,528,524 91.75% 78.74%

Passenger Rail 77,575 7,039,557 0.21% 17.58%

Intercity Bus 1,218,248 932,764 3.24% 2.33%

Air 1,805,925 538,644 4.80% 1.35%

Under Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail, the reduction in mode share for highway travel would be 14 

percent, which represents a moderate effect. The increase in mode share for passenger rail would 

be substantial. Passenger rail ridership is forecast to increase to over 7 million passengers per 

year, an over 8,000 percent increase. For bus and air, the shift in mode share would be substantial. 

The mode share for bus would decrease by 28 percent and the mode share for air would decrease 

by 72 percent. The ridership data (including diverted trips and induced demand) are described in 

further detail in the Passenger Rail Ridership section.

5.2.4.1.1 Travel Time Savings 

Table 5-17 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. It is assumed that 

there would be no difference in travel time between the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4B

High-Speed Rail for auto, bus, and air.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-16

With the exception of air, Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would provide significant travel time 

savings across all modes. For example, the new passenger rail service would take approximately 2

hours (127 minutes) between Dallas and San Antonio, compared with over 5.5 hours (338 minutes) 

by car. The time savings associated with Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would be a substantial 

beneficial effect compared with the No Build Alternative.

Table 5-17: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4B High-Speed 

Rail

Mode Travel Time (minutes)a 

 Dallas – San 

Antonio 

Fort Worth – 

San Antonio 

Dallas – 

Austin 

Fort Worth – 

Austin 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Auto 338 332 238 232 103

Passenger Rail 605 465 392 252 143

With C4B HSRb 127 134 86 93 39

Intercity Bus 327 409 220 292 95

Air 62 68 55 62 -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build and C4B HSR alternatives.

b Estimated Passenger rail time with Alternative C4B HSR.

5.2.4.1.2 Travel Time Reliability 

As previously discussed, the Central Section will generally experience moderate increases in 

highway travel time by 2035, particularly between the larger metropolitan areas. By 2035, highway 

travel time between Dallas and San Antonio and Fort Worth and San Antonio is projected to 

increase by approximately 50 minutes. Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would provide travel time 

reliability between these areas for train travelers, compared with the expected increases in highway 

drive times and potential unexpected delays. Under Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail there would be 

a substantial difference and corresponding effect in travel time reliability compared to highway 

travel.

5.2.4.1.3 Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 5-18 provides a summary of the 

projected rail ridership with Alternative 

C4B High-Speed Rail at the corridor level, 

as well as for the Dallas and San Antonio 

urban markets. Figure 5-4 illustrates the 

projected rail ridership composition for 

this alternative.

For the new rail trips (over 7 million 

riders), the highest percentage would be

shifts from auto trips (42 percent), 

Figure 5-4: Alternative C4B HSR Ridership 

Composition
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-17

followed by local air (18 percent), connect air (5 percent) and bus trips (4 percent). Local air would 

have the highest percentage of its trips diverted to rail (70 percent), followed by bus (23 percent), 

auto trips (9 percent), and connect air (2 percent).

Table 5-18: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail

Ridership Composition 

by Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

C4B HSR 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

C4B HSR 

Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 53,116,035 4,867,251 9%

Auto 34,486,594 2,958,069 9% 42%

Local Aira 1,805,925 1,267,281 70% 18%

Connect Airb 15,605,268 356,415 2% 5%

Bus 1,218,248 285,484 23% 4%

Total Urban Ridership 1,709,043 

Dallas Metroplexc 1,251,735 18%

Austin - San Antonio Aread 457,308 6%

Induced Demande 463,263 7%

Total Intercity and Urban Ridershipf 7,039,557 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b Air travelers for whom only one end of their trip falls within the corridor area.

c Trips that begin and end within the Dallas Metroplex.

d Trips that begin and end within the Austin – San Antonio area.

e HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

f The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

5.2.4.1.4 Station Boardings 

The total boardings at each station are presented in Table 5-19. Dallas is anticipated to have the 

highest number of station boardings, with over 1.5 million boardings. 

Table 5-19: Station Boardings – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail

Station Boardings (Passengers per Year) Station Rank 

Fort Worth/ITC 367,014 6

Dallas/DUS 1,561,524 1

Arlington 1,242,363 3

Waco 363,667 7

Temple 445,286 5

Austin Airport 1,378,145 2

SAT Airport 871,740 4

San Antonio/VIA 346,554 8

Total 6,576,294 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-18

5.2.4.1.5 Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 5-20 summarizes the projected 2035 VMT under the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4B 

High-Speed Rail. Implementation of Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would result in a 9 percent 

decrease in VMT in the Central Section, compared with the No Build Alternative. This would be a 

substantial beneficial effect on VMT. 

Table 5-20: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build C4B HSR Change 

Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 2,748,517,876 2,496,018,505 -252,499,371/ -9.19%

5.2.4.1.6 Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail would have similar effects on transportation and parking as those 

described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. As a high-speed rail alternative, the entire right-ofway would be fenced and fully grade-separated. Once constructed, there would be no effect on local 

traffic circulation because of the grade separated tracks. Local traffic volumes and parking demand 

would increase around and at the stations due to both increases and new demand in rail ridership

and longer wait times would occur at grade crossings. Based on this assessment, the qualitative 

evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and parking are moderate.

5.2.4.1.7 Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Under Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail, approximately 23 percent of existing bus riders and 70 

percent of air passengers would be diverted to rail. The new rail service could result in moderate

(for transit) to substantial (for air) effects on service provider operations (e.g., demand, schedule) 

and lost revenue as a result of fewer customers. 

Within existing transportation corridors, the high-speed rail alternative would not have the required 

space for separation of freight and passenger rail and freight operations could be affected by an 

increase in the number of passing trains. The long-term improvements to the rail system would 

offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation 

is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible. Within proposed new transportation 

corridors, passenger rail tracks would be constructed within a separate right-of-way and there 

would be no effect on freight operations.

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

For this service-level analysis the travel demand modeling for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail 

was not conducted to the same level of detail, but instead relied upon a proportional relationship 

based on full travel demand modeling conducted for the C4A High-Speed and C4A Higher-Speed 

Rail alternatives. This appropriate level of detail applied for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail is 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-19

supported by a linear proportional adjustment in ridership and demand, which is based on the 

relationship between C4A High-Speed Rail and C4A Higher-Speed Rail alternatives, thereby 

producing reasonably accurate estimates for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail. Further, the 

observed relationship between C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail was used to 

produce a forecast of Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail based on Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail. 

An identical methodology was utilized for the observed relationship between Alternative C4C HigherSpeed Rail based on Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail.

5.2.5.1 Travel Demand and Mode Share 

The C4B Higher-Speed Rail alternative would see decreases in ridership demand proportionally 

similar to the decrease in ridership demand between the C4A High-Speed Rail and the C4A HigherSpeed Rail alternatives. The shift in mode share would also be proportionally similar. For example, 

the ridership demand would be approximately 36 percent less for the C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

alternative than the C4A High-Speed Rail alternative. Alternative C4B would see a similar difference 

between ridership demand between the high-speed rail alternative and higher-speed rail 

alternative.

5.2.5.1.1 Travel Time Savings 

Travel time information was prepared for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail and is summarized in 

Table 5-21. Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would result in similar changes to travel time savings 

as Alternative C4A Higher-Speed Rail. Both alternatives would provide significant travel time 

savings across all modes, although to a lesser extent than the high-speed rail alternatives. The new 

passenger rail service would take approximately 3 hours (195 minutes) between Dallas and San 

Antonio, compared to over 5.5 hours (338 minutes) by car. The time savings associated with 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would be a substantial beneficial effect compared with the No 

Build Alternative.

Table 5-21: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4B Higher-Speed 

Rail

Mode Travel Time (minutes)a 

 Dallas – San 

Antonio 

Fort Worth – 

San Antonio 

Dallas – 

Austin 

Fort Worth – 

Austin 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Auto 338 332 238 232 103

Passenger Rail 605 465 392 252 143

With C4B HrSRb 195 202 136 143 57

Intercity Bus 327 409 220 292 95

Air 62 68 55 62 -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build and C4B HrSR alternatives.

b Estimated passenger rail time with Alternative C4B HrSR.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-20

5.2.5.1.2 Travel Time Reliability 

As previously discussed, the Central Section will generally experience moderate increases in 

highway travel time by 2035, particularly between the larger metropolitan areas. By 2035, highway 

travel time between Dallas and San Antonio and Fort Worth and San Antonio is projected to 

increase by approximately 50 minutes. Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would provide travel time 

reliability between these areas for train travelers, compared to the expected increases in highway 

drive times and potential unexpected delays. Under Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail there would 

be a substantial difference and corresponding effect in travel time reliability compared with

highway travel.

5.2.5.1.3 Vehicle Miles Traveled 

The C4B Higher-Speed Rail alternative would see a reduction in VMT proportionally similar to the 

reduction in VMT between the C4A High-Speed Rail and the C4A Higher-Speed Rail alternatives. The 

reduction in VMT would be approximately 64 percent less for the C4A Higher-Speed Rail alternative 

than the C4A High-Speed Rail alternative. Alternative C4B would see a similar difference between 

VMT changes between the high-speed rail alternative and higher-speed rail alternative.

5.2.5.1.4 Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on transportation and parking as 

those described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. However, unlike high-speed rail, the higherspeed rail design would include some grade crossings, which would affect local traffic circulation. 

Local traffic volumes and parking demand would increase around and at the stations due to both 

increases and new demand in rail ridership and longer wait times would occur at grade-crossings.

Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and 

parking are moderate.

5.2.5.1.5 Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on intercity transit providers and air 

carriers as those described for Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail, but at a lesser intensity. Under 

Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail, existing bus riders and air passengers would be diverted to rail. 

However, the percentage of diverted trips would be less with C4B Higher-Speed Rail than 

Alternative C4B High-Speed Rail.

The design of the higher-speed rail alternative, within existing railroad rights-of-way, would allow for 

a shared right-of-way with separate tracks for freight and passenger services. The long-term 

improvements to the rail system would offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this 

assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-21

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail 

5.2.6.1 Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 5-22 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative and 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail.

Table 5-22: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

No Build C4C HSR No Build C4C HSR 

Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 

Auto 34,355,278 31,986,136 91.72% 81.17%

Passenger Rail 77,575 5,754,286 0.21% 14.60%

Intercity Bus 1,218,378 980,645 3.25% 2.49%

Air 1,804,336 684,830 4.82% 1.74%

Under Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail, the reduction in mode share for highway travel would be 11 

percent, which represents a moderate effect. The increase in mode share for passenger rail would 

be substantial. Passenger rail ridership is forecast to increase to over 5 million passengers per 

year, a nearly 7,000 percent increase. For bus the shift in mode share would be moderate and for 

air the shift in mode share would be substantial. The mode share for bus would decrease by 23 

percent and the mode share for air would decrease by 64 percent. The ridership data (including

diverted trips and induced demand) are described in further detail in the Passenger Rail Ridership 

section.

5.2.6.1.1 Travel Time Savings 

Table 5-23 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. It is assumed that 

there will no difference in travel time between the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4C HighSpeed Rail for auto, bus, and air.

With the exception of air, Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would provide significant travel time 

savings across all modes. Under this alternative, the new passenger rail service would take less 

than 2.5 hours (140 minutes) between Dallas and San Antonio, compared with over 5.5 hours 

(338 minutes) by car. The time savings associated with Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would be a 

substantial beneficial effect compared with the No Build Alternative.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-22

Table 5-23: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative C4C High-Speed 

Rail

Mode Travel Time (minutes)a 

 Dallas – San 

Antonio 

Fort Worth – 

San Antonio 

Dallas – 

Austin 

Fort Worth – 

Austin 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Auto 338 332 238 232 103

Passenger Rail 605 465 392 252 143

With C4C HSRb 140 140 99 99 39

Intercity Bus 327 409 220 292 95

Air 62 68 55 62 -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build and C4C HSR alternatives.

b Estimated Passenger rail time with Alternative C4C HSR.

5.2.6.1.2 Travel Time Reliability 

As previously discussed, the Central Section will generally experience moderate increases in 

highway travel time by 2035, particularly between the larger metropolitan areas, as a result of 

general increases in congestion. By 2035, highway travel time between Dallas and San Antonio and 

Fort Worth and San Antonio is projected to increase by approximately 50 minutes. Alternative C4C 

High-Speed Rail would provide travel time reliability between these areas for train travelers, 

compared to the expected increases in highway drive times and potential unexpected delays. Under 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail there would be a substantial difference and corresponding effect

in travel time reliability compared to highway travel.

5.2.6.1.3 Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 5-24 provides a summary of the 

projected rail ridership under Alternative 

C4C High-Speed Rail at the corridor level, 

as well as for the Dallas and San Antonio 

urban markets. Figure 5-5 illustrates the 

projected rail ridership composition for this 

alternative.

For the new rail trips (approximately 5.8 

million riders), the highest percentage 

would be shifts from auto trips (41 percent), 

followed by local and connect air (20 and 19

percent, respectively), and bus trips (4 percent). 

Local air would have the highest percentage of its trips diverted to rail (62 percent), followed by bus 

(21 percent), connect air (7 percent), and auto trips (6 percent).

Figure 5-5: Alternative C4C HSR 

Ridership Composition
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-23

Table 5-24: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail

Ridership Composition 

by Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

C4B HSR 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

C4B HSR Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 52,980,507 4,830,777 9%

Auto 34,355,278 2,369,141 6% 41%

Local Aira 1,804,336 1,119,506 62% 20%

Connect Airb 15,602,515 1,104,397 7% 19%

Bus 1,218,378 237,733 21% 4%

Total Urban Ridership 457,308 

Dallas Metroplexc 0%

Austin - San Antonio Aread 457,308 8%

Induced Demande 466,202 8%

Total Intercity and Urban Ridershipf 5,754,286 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b Air travelers for whom only one end of their trip falls within the corridor area.

c Trips that begin and end within the Dallas Metroplex.

d Trips that begin and end within the Austin – San Antonio area.

e HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

f The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

 

5.2.6.1.4 Station Boardings 

The total boardings at each station are presented in Table 5-25. The Austin airport is anticipated to 

have the highest number of station boardings, with nearly 1.4 million boardings. 

Table 5-25: Station Boardings – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail

Station Boardings 

(Passengers per Year) Station Rank 

Fort Worth/ITC 173,481 8

DFW 724,837 4

Dallas/DUS 1,007,955 2

Waco 354,073 6

Temple 402,985 5

Austin Airport 1,389,212 1

SAT Airport 933,081 3

San Antonio/VIA 302,461 7

Total 5,288,085 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-24

5.2.6.1.5 Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 5-26 summarizes the projected 2035 VMT under the No Build Alternative and Alternative C4C

High-Speed Rail. Implementation of Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would result in a 7.2 percent 

decrease in annual VMT in the Central Section, compared with the No Build Alternative. This would 

be a substantial beneficial effect on VMT. 

Table 5-26: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build C4C HSR Change 

Dallas – Fort Worth – San Antonio 2,731,030,269 2,533,463,242 197,567,027/ -7.23%

 

5.2.6.1.6 Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail would have similar effects on transportation and parking as those 

described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. As a high-speed rail alternative, the entire right-ofway would be fenced and fully grade-separated. Once constructed, there would be no effect on local 

traffic circulation because of the grade-separated tracks. Local traffic volumes and parking demand 

would increase around and at the stations due to both increases and new demand in rail ridership

and longer wait times would occur at grade crossings. Based on this assessment, the qualitative 

evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and parking are moderate.

5.2.6.1.7 Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Under Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail, approximately 21 percent of existing bus riders and 62 

percent of air passengers would be diverted to rail. The new rail service could result in moderate

(for transit) to substantial (for air) effects on service provider operations (e.g., demand, schedule) 

and lost revenue as a result of fewer customers. 

Within existing transportation corridors, the high-speed rail alternative would not have the required 

space for separation of freight and passenger rail and freight operations could be affected by an 

increase in the number of passing trains. The long-term improvements to the rail system would 

offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation 

is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible. Within proposed new transportation 

corridors, passenger rail tracks would be constructed within a separate right-of-way and there 

would be no effect on freight operations.

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

For this service-level analysis the travel demand modeling for Alternatives C4C Higher-Speed Rail 

was not conducted to the same level of detail, but instead relied upon a proportional relationship 

based on full travel demand modeling conducted for the C4A High-Speed Rail and C4A HigherSpeed Rail alternatives. This appropriate level of detail applied for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-25

Rail is supported by a linear proportional adjustment in ridership and demand, which is based on 

the relationship between C4A High-Speed Rail and C4A Higher-Speed Rail, thereby producing 

reasonably accurate estimates for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail. Further, the observed 

relationship between C4A Higher-Speed Rail and C4A High-Speed Rail was used to produce a 

forecast of Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rai based on C4C High-Speed Rail. As described above 

this same methodology was used for Alternative C4B Higher-Speed Rail.

5.2.7.1 Travel Demand and Mode Share 

The C4C Higher-Speed Rail alternative would see decreases in ridership demand proportionally 

similar to the decrease in ridership demand between the C4A High-Speed Rail and the C4A HigherSpeed Rail alternatives. The shift in mode share would also be proportionally similar. For example, 

the ridership demand would be approximately 36 percent less for the C4A Higher-Speed Rail 

alternative than the C4A High-Speed Rail alternative. Alternative C4B would see a similar difference 

between ridership demand between the high-speed rail alternative and higher-speed rail 

alternative.

5.2.7.1.1 Travel Time Savings 

Travel time information was not prepared for Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail; however, this 

alternative would result in similar changes to travel time savings as Alternative C4C High-Speed 

Rail. The travel time savings would be to a lesser extent, however, because the higher-speed rail 

alternative would be operated at speeds of up to 110 to 125 mph, compared to the faster 

high-speed rail alternatives, which would be operated at speeds of up to 220 to 250 mph. Both 

alternatives are expected to provide substantial travel time savings across all modes.

5.2.7.1.2 Travel Time Reliability 

As previously discussed, the Central Section will generally experience moderate increases in 

highway travel time by 2035, particularly between the larger metropolitan areas. By 2035, highway 

travel time between Dallas and San Antonio and Fort Worth and San Antonio is projected to 

increase by approximately 50 minutes. Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would provide travel time 

reliability between these areas for train travelers, compared to the expected increases in highway 

drive times and potential unexpected delays. Under Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail there would 

be a substantial difference in travel time reliability compared to highway travel.

5.2.7.1.3 Vehicle Miles Traveled 

The C4C Higher-Speed Rail alternative would see a reduction in VMT proportionally similar to the 

reduction in VMT between the C4A High-Speed Rail and the C4A Higher-Speed Rail alternatives. The 

reduction in VMT would be approximately 64 percent less for the C4A Higher-Speed Rail alternative 

than the C4A High-Speed Rail alternative. Alternative C4C would see a similar difference between 

VMT changes between the high-speed rail alternative and higher-speed rail alternative.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-26

5.2.7.1.4 Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on transportation and parking as 

those described for Alternative C4A High-Speed Rail. However, unlike high-speed rail, the higherspeed rail design would include some grade crossings, which would affect local traffic circulation. 

Local traffic volumes and parking demand would increase around and at the stations due to both 

increases and new demand in rail ridership and longer wait times would occur at grade crossings.

Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and 

parking are moderate.

5.2.7.1.5 Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on intercity transit providers and air 

carriers as those described for Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail, but at a lesser intensity. Under 

Alternative C4C Higher-Speed Rail, existing bus riders and air passengers would be diverted to rail. 

However, the percentage of diverted trips would be less with C4C Higher-Speed Rail than 

Alternative C4C High-Speed Rail.

The design of the higher-speed rail alternative, within existing railroad rights-of-way, would allow for 

a shared right-of-way with separate tracks for freight and passenger services. The long-term 

improvements to the rail system would offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this 

assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible.

5.3 Southern Section: San Antonio to South Texas 

In the Southern Section, three alternatives and the No Build Alternative were carried forward for 

further evaluation. Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail serves different destinations than Alternative 

S6 (both service types). Alternative S6 (both service types) would follow an alignment that does not 

follow existing transportation corridors and is considerably shorter than Alternative S4 HigherSpeed Rail.

No Build Alternative 

A description of the No Build Alternative is provided in Section 1.2.1. The potential effects of not 

building the project in the Southern Section would be similar to those described for the Northern 

Section. A quantitative comparison of the No Build Alternative and build alternatives for the 

Southern Section follows.

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would introduce a new passenger rail service between San 

Antonio and south Texas. It is assumed that there would be no changes in the level of service for all 

other modes.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-27

5.3.2.1 Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 5-27 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative and 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail. 

Table 5-27: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed 

Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

No Build S4 HrSR No Build S4 HrSR 

San Antonio – Brownsville 

Auto 139,815,235 139,560,919 99.25% 99.03%

Passenger Rail 0 611,106 0.00% 0.43%

Intercity Bus 920,291 713,133 0.65% 0.51%

Air 129,309 46,568 0.09% 0.03%

Under Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, the reduction in mode share for highway travel would be

less than 1 percent, which represents a negligible effect. Passenger rail service does not currently 

exist in the Southern Section and there would be a substantial demand for this new service. 

Passenger rail ridership is forecast at 611,100 passengers per year. For bus the shift in mode 

share would be moderate and for air the shift in mode would be substantial. The mode share for 

bus would decrease by 22 percent and the mode share for air would decrease by 67 percent. The 

ridership data (including diverted trips and induced demand) are described in further detail in the 

Passenger Rail Ridership section.

5.3.2.1.1 Travel Time Savings 

Table 5-28 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. It is assumed that 

there would be no difference in travel time between the No Build and Alternative S4 Higher-Speed 

Rail for auto and bus (direct air service between the modeled city pairs does not exist).

Table 5-28: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed 

Rail

Mode Travel Time (minutes)a 

 San Antonio – 

Laredo 

San Antonio – 

Corpus Christi 

Laredo – 

Brownsville 

Corpus Christi – 

Brownsville 

Austin - San 

Antonio 

Auto 157 151 320 211 103

Passenger Railb 151 113 213 175 -

Intercity Bus 160 157 285 231 95

Airc - - - - -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build and S4 HrSR Alternatives.

b Passenger rail times shown for the build alternative only. Except for Austin to San Antonio, rail service does not 

currently exist. No new service is proposed between Austin and San Antonio.

c There is no direct air (non-stop) service between these city pairs.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-28

For most of the city pairs, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would provide substantial travel time 

savings compared to highway and intercity bus travel. For example, between Laredo and 

Brownsville, Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would be nearly 2 hours faster than driving, 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

5.3.2.1.2 Travel Time Reliability 

The Southern Section will generally experience moderate increases in highway travel time by 2035, 

particularly between the larger cities. For instance, by 2035, highway travel time between 

Brownsville and Laredo is projected to increase by approximately 1 hour and 25 minutes. 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would provide travel time reliability between these areas for train 

travelers, compared to the expected increases in 

highway drive times and potential unexpected 

delays. Under Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail there 

would be a substantial difference and corresponding 

effect in travel time reliability compared to highway 

travel.

5.3.2.1.3 Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 5-29 provides a summary of the projected rail 

ridership with Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail at 

the corridor level and for the urban market (McAllen 

– Brownsville area). Figure 5-6 illustrates the 

projected ridership composition for the S4 Higher-Speed Rail Alternative.

For the new rail trips (approximately 611,000 riders), the highest percentage would be shifted from 

auto trips (42 percent), followed by bus (34 percent), and local air (13 percent). Local air would 

have the highest percentage of its trips diverted to rail (64 percent), followed by bus (23 percent). 

Less than 1 percent of auto trips would be diverted to rail.

Table 5-29: 2035 Intercity Ridership – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail

Ridership Composition 

by Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

S4 HrSR Rail 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

S4HrSR Rail 

Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 140,864,835 544,215 <1%

Auto 139,815,235 254,316 <1% 42%

Local Aira 129,309 82,741 64% 13%

Connect Air - - - -

Bus 920,291 207,159 23% 34%

Total Urban Ridership 50,514 

McAllen – Brownsvilleb 50,514 8%

Figure 5-6: Alternative S4 HrSR 

Ridership Composition
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-29

Ridership Composition 

by Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

S4 HrSR Rail 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

S4HrSR Rail 

Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Induced Demandc 16,377 3%

Total Intercity and Urban Ridershipd 611,106 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b Trips that begin and end within the McAllen Weslaco Harlingen Brownsville triangle.

c HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

d The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

5.3.2.1.4 Station Boardings 

The total boardings at each station are presented in Table 5-30. San Antonio is anticipated to have 

the highest number of station boardings, with 185,535 boardings. 

Table 5-30: Rail Station Boardings – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail

Station Boardings (Passengers per Year) Station Rank 

San Antonio/VIA 185,535 1

Alice 51,269 5

Corpus Christi 72,345 3

Laredo 67,544 4

McAllen 96,734 2

Weslaco 35,440 7

Harlingen 35,375 8

Brownsville 50,487 6

Total 594,729 

5.3.2.1.5 Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 5-31 presents the estimated changes in VMT under the No Build Alternative and Alternative 

S4 Higher-Speed Rail. The existing VMT in the Southern Section is projected to increase from 2.9 

billion annual VMT to 9.3 billion annual VMT by 2035, under the No Build Alternative. The increase 

in VMT by 2035 is primarily attributed to population growth in the region. Implementation of 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would result in a 0.2 percent decrease in VMT compared with the 

No Build Alternative. This equates to nearly 18.5 million fewer miles traveled each year. The 

decrease in VMT would be a beneficial, although negligible, effect of the project, compared with the 

No Build Alternative. 

Table 5-31: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build S4 HrSR Change 

San Antonio – Brownsville 9,364,781,443 9,346,313,854 -18,467,589/ -0.2%
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-30

5.3.2.1.6 Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on local transportation and parking as 

previously described for the build alternatives in the Central Section. This alternative generally 

traverses through less developed areas and as a higher-speed rail option would be designed with

some at grade crossings, which would affect local traffic circulation. New stations would be 

constructed in some locations and would alter traffic patterns in these locations. Based on this 

assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and parking are 

moderate.

5.3.2.1.7 Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

Under Alternative S4 Higher-Speed Rail, approximately 23 percent of existing bus riders and 64 

percent of air passengers would be diverted to rail. This diversion could result in moderate (for 

transit) to substantial (for air) effects on service provider operations (e.g., demand, schedule) and 

lost revenue as a result of fewer customers. 

The design of the higher-speed rail alternative, within existing railroad rights-of-way, would allow for 

a shared right-of-way with separate tracks for freight and passenger services. The long-term 

improvements to the rail system would offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this 

assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible.

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail 

5.3.3.1 Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 5-32 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative and 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail. 

Table 5-32: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

No Build S6 HSR No Build S6 HSR 

San Antonio - Laredo 

Auto 11,745,072 11,638,144 98.88% 97.88%

Passenger Rail 0 138,500 0.00% 1.17%

Intercity Bus 132,860 113,302 1.12% 0.95%

Air 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

Under Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail, the reduction in mode share for highway travel would be 1

percent, which represents a negligible effect. Passenger rail service does not currently exist in the 

Southern Section and there would be a substantial demand for this new service. Passenger rail 

ridership is forecast at 138,500 passengers per year. For bus, the shift in mode share would be
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-31

moderate. The mode share for bus would decrease by 15 percent. Direct air service does not exist 

and there would be no effect on this mode. The ridership data (including diverted trips and induced 

demand) are described in further detail in the Passenger Rail Ridership section.

5.3.3.1.1 Travel Time Savings 

Table 5-33 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. It is assumed that 

there would be no difference in travel time between the No Build Alternative and Alternative S6

High-Speed Rail for autos and bus (direct air service does not exist).

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would provide service between San Antonio and Laredo. This 

alternative would provide significant travel time savings compared to highway and intercity bus 

travel between these city pairs. Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would save travelers one hour and 

40 minutes compared to driving or intercity bus travel, between San Antonio and Laredo. This is a 

substantial beneficial effect of the project.

Table 5-33: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail

Mode Travel Time (minutes)a 

 San Antonio – 

Laredo 

San Antonio –

Corpus Christi 

Laredo – 

Brownsville 

Corpus Christi 

– Brownsville 

Austin - San 

Antonio 

Auto 157 151 320 211 103

Passenger Railb 56 - - - -

Intercity Bus 160 157 285 231 95

Air - - - - -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build and S6 HSR alternatives.

b Passenger rail is for the build alternative only. Rail service does not currently exist. Service is only proposed between San 

Antonio and Laredo.

5.3.3.1.2 Travel Time Reliability 

By 2035, highway travel time between San Antonio and 

Laredo is projected to increase by approximately 8

minutes. These increases in future highway travel time 

would be minor, so reliability for highway travel is 

expected to remain relatively good. With Alternative S6

High-Speed Rail, there would be a negligible difference

and corresponding effect in travel time reliability for train 

travelers, compared with highway travel.

5.3.3.1.3 Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 5-34 provides a summary of the projected rail 

ridership under Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail and Figure 5-7 illustrates the anticipated ridership 

composition.

Figure 5-7: Alternative S6 HSR 

Ridership Composition
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-32

For the new rail trips (approximately 138,500 riders), the highest percentage would be shifts from 

auto trips (77 percent), followed by bus (14 percent). Bus travel would have the highest percentage 

of its trips diverted to rail (15 percent).

Table 5-34: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail

Ridership 

Composition by 

Mode Divertible Market S6 HSR Rail 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

S6 HSR Rail 

Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity 

Ridership 11,877,933 126,487 1%

Auto 11,745,073 106,928 1% 77%

Local Aira < 40,000 < 10,000

Connect Air - -

Bus 132,860 19,559 15% 14%

Induced Demandb 12,013 9%

Total Ridershipc 138,500 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

c The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

5.3.3.1.4 Station Boardings 

The total boardings at each station are presented in Table 5-35. Monterrey is anticipated to have 

the highest number of station boardings, with 370,086 boardings. 

Table 5-35: Station Boardings – Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail

Station Boardings 

(Passengers per Year) Station Rank 

San Antonio/VIA 188,741 3

Laredo Columbia Crossing 307,832 2

Monterreya 370,086 1

Total 866,660 

a Alternative S6 is proposed to cross a new railway bridge to join a new rail line being constructed in 

Mexico, which would continue to Monterrey. While this study only examines the physical impacts of 

the U.S. component of this new line, it does consider the ridership impact of such a connection.

5.3.3.1.5 Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 5-36 presents the estimated changes in VMT under the No Build Alternative and Alternative 

S6 High-Speed Rail. Implementation of Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would result in a 0.9 percent 

decrease in VMT compared with the No Build Alternative. This equates to nearly 7 million fewer 

miles traveled each year. The decrease in VMT would be a beneficial, although negligible, effect of 

the project, compared with the No Build Alternative.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-33

Table 5-36: 2035 Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build S6 HSR Change 

San Antonio – Laredo 745,641,562 738,853,164 -6,788,398/ -0.9%

5.3.3.1.6 Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail would have similar effects on local transportation and parking as 

described for the build alternatives in the Central Section. This alternative generally traverses 

through less developed areas and as a high-speed rail option, the entire right-of-way would be 

fenced and fully grade-separated. Once constructed, there would be no effect on local traffic 

circulation because of the grade separation. Two existing stations would be used and one new 

station would be constructed. Local traffic volumes and parking demand would increase around 

and at the stations due to new demand in rail ridership, particularly at the new station, where no 

demand currently exists. Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local 

effects on transportation and parking are moderate.

5.3.3.1.7 Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

With Alternative S6 High-Speed Rail, approximately 15 percent of existing bus riders would be 

diverted to rail. The new rail service could result in moderate effects on transit service provider 

operations (e.g., demand, schedule) and lost revenue as a result of fewer customers. There would 

be no effect on air carriers because there would be no diverted passenger air trips.

Within proposed new transportation corridors, passenger rail tracks would be constructed within a 

separate right-of-way and there would be no effect on freight operations.

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail 

5.3.4.1 Travel Demand and Mode Share 

Table 5-37 presents the projected travel demand and mode share for the No Build Alternative and 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail. 

Table 5-37: 2035 Travel Demand and Mode Share – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail

Mode 

Travel Demand 

(Trips per Year) 

Mode Share 

(Percentage by Mode) 

No Build S6 HrSR No Build S6 HrSR 

San Antonio - Laredo 

Auto 11,745,072 11,700,826 98.88% 98.48%

Passenger Rail 0 59,440 0.00% 0.50%

Intercity Bus 132,860 120,956 1.12% 1.02%

Air 0 0 0.00% 0.0%
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-34

With Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, the reduction in mode share for highway travel would be less 

than 1 percent, which represents a negligible effect. Passenger rail service does not currently exist 

in the Southern Section and there would be a substantial demand for this new service. Passenger 

rail ridership is forecast at 59,440 passengers per year. For bus, the shift in mode share would be

moderate. The mode share for bus would decrease by nine percent. Direct air service does not exist 

and there would be no effect on this mode. The ridership data (including diverted trips and induced 

demand) are described in further detail in the Passenger Rail Ridership section.

5.3.4.1.1 Travel Time Savings 

Table 5-38 provides a comparison of the projected travel time between modes. Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail would provide service between San Antonio and Laredo. This alternative would 

save travelers approximately 1 hour compared to driving or intercity bus travel. This would be a 

moderate beneficial effect of the project.

Table 5-38: 2035 Travel Time Comparison by Mode – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed 

Rail

Mode Travel Time (minutes)a 

San Antonio – 

Laredo 

San Antonio –

Corpus Christi 

Laredo – 

Brownsville 

Corpus Christi – 

Brownsville 

Austin – San 

Antonio 

Auto 157 151 320 211 103

Passenger Railb 101 - - - -

Intercity Bus 160 157 285 231 95

Air - - - - -

a Except for passenger rail, travel time is assumed to be the same for the No Build and S6 HrSR alternatives.

b Passenger rail is for the build alternative only. This service does not currently exist. Service is only proposed 

between San Antonio and Laredo.

5.3.4.1.2 Travel Time Reliability 

By 2035, highway travel time between San Antonio and 

Laredo is projected to increase by approximately 8

minutes. These increases in future highway travel time 

are minor, so reliability for highway travel is expected to 

remain relatively good. With Alternative S6 High-Speed 

Rail, there would be a negligible difference and 

corresponding effect in travel time reliability for train 

travelers, compared with highway travel.

5.3.4.1.3 Passenger Rail Ridership 

Table 5-39 provides a summary of the projected rail 

ridership with Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail and Figure 

5-8 illustrates the projected rail ridership composition.

Figure 5-8: Alternative S6 HrSR 

Ridership Composition
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-35

For the new rail trips (approximately 59,440 riders), the highest percentage would be from auto 

trips (74 percent), followed by bus trips (20 percent). Bus would have the highest percentage of its 

trips diverted to rail (9 percent).

Table 5-39: 2035 Intercity Rail Ridership – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail

Ridership 

Composition by Mode 

Divertible 

Market 

S6 HrSR Rail 

Riders 

Diversion 

Percentage 

S6 HrSR Rail 

Ridership 

Composition 

(Passengers per Year) 

Total Intercity Ridership 11,877,933 56,150 0%

Auto 11,745,073 44,246 0% 74%

Local Aira < 40,000 < 10,000

Connect Air - - -

Bus 132,860 11,909 9% 20%

Induced Demandb 3,289 6%

Total Ridershipc 59,439 

a Air travelers whose entire trip is within the corridor area.

b HSR riders who would not have made the trip by another mode.

c The sum of diverted and induced demand for HSR.

5.3.4.1.4 Station Boardings 

The total station boardings are presented in Table 5-40. Monterrey is anticipated to have the 

highest number of station boardings, with 269,232 boardings. 

Table 5-40: Rail Station Boardings – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail

Station Boardings 

(Passengers per Year) Station Rank 

San Antonio/VIA 125,097 3

Laredo Columbia Crossing 200,285 2

Monterreya 269,232 1

Total 594,615 

 a Alternative S6 is proposed to cross a new railway bridge to join a new rail line being 

constructed in Mexico, which would continue to Monterrey. While this study only examines 

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

impact of such a connection. 

5.3.4.1.5 Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Table 5-41 presents the estimated changes in VMT with the No Build Alternative and Alternative S6 

Higher-Speed Rail. Implementation of Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would result in a 0.4 
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-36

percent reduction in VMT compared with the No Build Alternative. This equates to nearly 3 million 

fewer miles traveled each year. The decrease in VMT would be a beneficial, although negligible, 

effect of the project, compared with the No Build Alternative.

Table 5-41: 2035 Changes in Vehicle Miles Traveled – Alternative S6 Higher-Speed 

Rail

 Vehicle Miles Traveled (per Year) 

No Build S6 HrSR Change 

San Antonio – Laredo 745,641,562 742,832,570 -2,808,992/ -0.4%

5.3.4.1.6 Local Effects on Transportation and Parking 

Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail would have similar effects on local transportation and parking as 

previously described for the build alternatives in the Central Section. This alternative generally 

traverses through less developed areas and as a higher-speed rail option would be designed with 

some at grade crossings, which would affect local traffic circulation. New stations would be 

constructed in some locations and would alter traffic patterns in these locations. Based on this 

assessment, the qualitative evaluation is that the local effects on transportation and parking are 

moderate.

5.3.4.1.7 Effects on Intercity Transit Providers, Air Carriers, and Freight Operations 

With Alternative S6 Higher-Speed Rail, approximately 9 percent of existing bus riders would be 

diverted to rail. This diversion could result in moderate effects on transit service provider operations 

(e.g., demand, schedule) and lost revenue as a result of fewer customers. 

The design of the higher-speed rail alternative would allow for a shared right-of-way with separate 

tracks for freight and passenger services. The long-term improvements to the rail system would 

offset any adverse effects on freight service. Based on this assessment, the qualitative evaluation 

is that the local effects on freight operations are negligible.

5.4 Construction Effects 

This section provides a qualitative discussion of the likely temporary effects of construction 

activities, for all build alternatives, on rail operations and vehicular traffic. 

No Build Alternative 

Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no construction activity associated with a passenger 

rail system. Construction would be limited to regular maintenance activities on the existing rail 

corridor. Because there would be no construction, there would be no effect on vehicular traffic, 

existing passenger rail service, or freight operations. There would also be no effect on local transit 

service providers and air carriers.
TBG111814093418SCO

5.0 Travel Demand and Transportation – Environmental Consequences

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 5-37

Build Alternatives 

5.4.2.1 Potential effects from construction added traffic 

Construction of any of the build alternatives would generate additional vehicle trips on the regional 

and local road network, resulting in potential increases in traffic congestion. This is a result of 

equipment and materials hauling and construction work force travel to and from work sites. 

Potential increases in vehicle trip generation would vary based on the project type, location, 

schedule, size of workforce, equipment needs, and other factors and the distribution of 

construction trips on the road network will also depend on the location of individual projects and 

the project staging areas. While construction activities would be temporary, they would be 

cumulatively long-term given that construction would be ongoing for many years.

Construction-generated traffic could result in substantial traffic effects if traffic management during 

construction is not appropriately planned. However, these potential effects would be addressed at 

the project-level and would likely include implementation of project-specific transportation 

management plans (TMPs). A TMP identifies measures, such as scheduling deliveries of heavy 

equipment and construction materials outside of peak hours, identifying detour routes, maintaining 

local access, etc.

5.4.2.2 Potential effects on existing rail operations 

In general, construction activities that would take place near or within existing railroad right‐of‐way

would affect existing rail traffic by reducing operating train speeds through the construction zones, 

adding to rail travel time and, in turn, cost. This would occur when adding new siding tracks, 

double‐tracks, and connection tracks, upgrading signals, and modifying grade crossings. Another 

potential effect would be schedule modifications to accommodate the temporary shutdown of rail 

operations on selected track sections or when there is a potential safety risk. During construction,

there may be track outages that would interrupt intercity passenger rail service. As necessary, bus 

service could be provided along the corridor to replace intercity passenger rail service lost during 

construction.

5.4.2.3 Potential effects on existing vehicular traffic circulation 

Vehicular traffic would be temporarily affected at locations where grade crossings will be separated, 

modified, or improved and at or near existing and proposed stations. While the exact construction 

areas are not known at this time, temporary lane closures or roadway closures will be required to 

construct some of the proposed improvements. The grade crossing improvements would, at a 

minimum, require slower traffic speeds through the construction areas while improvements are 

installed. In some cases, temporary diversion of traffic to adjacent crossings could be required. 

Construction of grade separations should be staged to minimize street closures. Emergency 

services, schools, businesses, and other activities requiring vehicular access would be affected by 

potential delays or detours. Implementation of a TMP would minimize these potential effects. The 

TMP would include procedures for notifying and coordinating with all affected agencies, in advance 

of construction activities.

TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 6-1

6.0 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies for adverse environmental impacts will be 

further developed in consultation with affected agencies. At the project level, measures to minimize 

transportation effects may include, but would not be limited to, preparation and implementation of 

a TMP during construction. Implementation of any of the build alternatives should include a Traffic 

Management Plan that would minimize effects on existing local traffic as a result of construction 

activities. The TMP would be prepared in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices (Federal Highway Administration 2009) and all applicable requirements of the local 

reviewing agency, as appropriate. The TMP could include but not be limited to the following 

measures:

 Prepare temporary traffic control plans for each construction area. The temporary traffic control 

plans will identify the need for full or partial lane closures, detours, flaggers for directing traffic, 

temporary signage, lighting, traffic control devices, and other measures, if required.

 Identify oversize and overweight load haul routes. Transporters will comply with state and 

county regulations for transportation of oversized and overweight loads on all state, county, and 

city roads. Such regulations typically include provisions for time of day, pilot cars, law 

enforcement escorts, speed limits, flaggers, and warning lights. All material hauling activities 

shall comply with applicable state and local regulations.

 Schedule deliveries of heavy equipment and construction materials during periods of minimum 

traffic flow and determine the need for construction work hours and arrival and departure times 

outside peak traffic periods.

 Post the approved hours of construction activity at the construction site in a place and manner 

that can be easily viewed by any interested member of the public.

 Identify vehicle safety procedures for entering and exiting site access roads.

 Notify and coordinate with emergency responders regarding potential road closures prior to 

construction.

 Provide access for emergency vehicles to and around the project sites.

 Maintain access to adjacent properties, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities along project 

routes.

 Notify residential and commercial occupants of property adjacent to the construction sites of 

the hours of construction activity which may impact the area.

 Notify and coordinate with transit operators regarding potential road closures prior to 

construction. Notify and coordinate with mail service and waste haulers regarding potential road 

closures prior to construction.

 Provide a construction-parking plan that minimizes the effect of construction worker parking in 

the area. Include an estimate of the number of workers that will be present on the site during 
TBG111814093418SCO

6.0 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 6-2

the various phases of construction, indicate where sufficient off-street parking will be used, and 

identify all locations for offsite material deliveries.

 Distribute public information using local news television and radio broadcasts, informational 

flyers and mailers, Web sites, and other outreach options. Signs should be installed and public 

notices should be distributed regarding construction work before disruptions occur; the 

notifications would identify detours to maintain access.

 
TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 7-1

7.0 Summary of Potential Effects 

Table 7-1 provides a summary of the conclusions for each of the alternatives.

Table 7-1: Summary of Travel Demand and Transportation Effects by Alternative

Context 

Potential Intensity of Effects 

Northern Central Southern 

N4A CONV C4A/B/C SR C4A HrSR S4 HrSR S6 HSR S6 HrSR 

Travel Demand and Mode Sharea 

Auto Negligible 

(positive) 

Moderate 

(positive)

Moderate 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Transit Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Air Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

No effect No effect

Travel Time Savingsb 

Auto Negligible 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Moderate 

(positive)

Transit Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Moderate 

(positive)

Air Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

No effect No effect No effect

Travel Time Reliabilityc 

Auto Negligible 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Substantial

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Change in VMTd

Auto Negligible 

(positive)

Substantial 

(positive)

Moderate 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Negligible 

(positive)

Local Transportatione 

Transportation/Parking Moderate

(negative)

Moderate

(negative)

Moderate

(negative)

Moderate

(negative)

Moderate

(negative)

Moderate

(negative)

Service Providersf and Freight Operationsg 

Transit Substantial 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Moderate 

(negative)

Air Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

Substantial 

(negative)

No effect No effect

Freight Negligible

(negative)

Negligible

(negative)

Negligible

(negative)

Negligible

(negative)

Negligible

(negative)

No effect

a Shift in mode share as a result of the project. This could be a beneficial or negative effect depending on mode. 

b Travel time savings compared to all modes. Savings in travel time is a beneficial effect of the project.

c Travel time reliability compared to highway travel. This is a beneficial effect of the project (e.g., as highway travel 

speeds slow, highway travel time reliability decreases).

d A reduction in VMT is a beneficial effect of the project. 

e Potential effects on local traffic circulation and parking were assessed qualitatively.

f Potential effects on transit providers and air carriers.

g Effects on freight operations were assessed qualitatively.
TBG111814093418SCO

7.0 Summary of Potential Effects

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 7-2

Subsequent Analysis 

Future studies conducted at the project level would likely define a specific Area of Potential Effect 

(APE) through the development of a Programmatic Agreement among FRA, TxDOT, and ODOT. 

Project-specific data, including specific roadways and intersections affected in areas of the APE, 

would be conducted for individual projects when they are proposed. At the local level, the projectlevel analysis will include identifying local effects on circulation (roadway and intersection level of 

service), access (vehicular, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access), and parking demand in the 

vicinity of station locations and grade crossings. During construction, transportation effects will also 

be analyzed in the vicinity of new station locations, and where new rail infrastructure is proposed.

Updated travel market data, demographic data, and forecasts should be included in the travel 

demand model. The update should include the latest metropolitan planning organization (MPO)

base year and future year highway networks; the latest MPO, and statewide socioeconomic data 

and forecasts; and the latest rail, intercity bus, and air travel market data. Subsequent analysis 

related to the travel demand model could also include refined intercity travel demand forecasts by 

section or subsequent project and detailed assessment of potential frequency, costs, travel market 

data, using project-level demographic data and forecasts, and more detailed information on 

future/planned regional and local transportation systems.

Detailed information about how the alternatives could connect would be analyzed at the projectlevel EIS phase. Due to the degree of variability in possibilities and the lack of detail, the Study does 

not provide a summary of effects for the entire route traveling between Oklahoma to South Texas. 

Rather, this analysis provides information about each individual alternative compared against the 

No Build Alternative and in some instances compared with another alternative for that same 

section. 

Review of potential site-specific indirect and cumulative effects would be included during the 

project-level analysis. These actions are not covered in this analysis and therefore are not 

discussed further. 
TBG111814093418SCO

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study July 2016

Transportation Technical Study Page 8-1

8.0 References 

Amtrak. 2016. Heartland Flyer. Available at http://heartlandflyer.com/. Accessed February 15, 

2016.

Capital MetroRail. 2016. Available at http://www.capmetro.org/metrorail/. Accessed February 15, 

2016.

Central Oklahoma Transportation & Parking Authority (COTPA). 2016. Metro Transit. Available at 

http://gometro.publishpath.com/about-us. Accessed February 15, 2016.

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). 2016. DFW Fast Facts. Available at 

https://www.dfwairport.com/fastfacts/. Accessed February 15, 2016.

Dallas Love Field. 2016. Available at http://www.dallas-lovefield.com/index.html. Accessed 

February 29, 2016.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 

Available at http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/.

Greyhound. 2016. Available at https://www.greyhound.com/. Accessed February 15, 2016.

Jefferson Lines. 2016. Available at https://www.jeffersonlines.com/maps.asp. Accessed February 

15, 2016.

Oklahoma City Department of Airports. 2016. Available at http://www.okc.gov/airports/. Accessed 

February 15, 2016.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT). 2012. Oklahoma Statewide Freight and 

Passenger Rail Plan. May 2012.

Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI). 2010. Potential Development of an Intercity Passenger 

Transit System in Texas – Final Project Report. FHWA/TX-10/0-5930-2. May 2010.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2014. Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Route 

Alternatives Analysis. June.

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2016. Service Development Plan: Initial Service 

Schedule and Operating Assumptions Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study – ServiceLevel EIS Phase.

Will Rogers World Airport. 2016. Available at http://www.flyokc.com/. Accessed February 15, 2016.

.


This report was written on behalf of the Texas Department of Transportation by

www.ch2m.com