FRA Completes High-Speed Rail Corridor Alternatives Analysis
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
undertook an independent evaluation of potential corridor alternatives as
the first stage in a two-part process to determine the feasible alternatives to be evaluated
in the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). In the first phase, FRA narrowed the potential corridor alternatives, as documented in the Corridor Alternatives Analysis
Technical Report.
FRA’s evaluation resulted
in the Utility Corridor being identified
as the only feasible end-to-end corridor based on operational, technological and environmental constraints.
The Utility Corridor is the only corridor that demonstrates
the potential to meet
Texas Central High-Speed Railway’s
(TCR) purpose and technical
requirements.
FRA evaluated a total of four potential corridor
alternatives, three from
existing federal and state
planning documents, and TCR’s
proposed Utility Corridor:
• BNSF
Corridor
• UPRR
Corridor
• I-45
Greenfield Corridor
In addition to evaluating dedicated
high-speed rail corridors,
FRA also studied other transportation alternatives to meet
TCR’s
purpose, including high-speed rail alternatives –
Higher-Speed Rail Service, Conventional Speed Rail Service, Direct Bus Service, and I-45 Expansion.
FRA determined
that the Utility Corridor is the only feasible corridor
with the potential to accommodate TCR’s proposed
high-speed
rail system.
Furthermore, FRA determined
that the high-speed rail alternatives (Higher-Speed
Rail Service, Conventional
Speed Rail Service, Direct Bus Service, and I-45 Expansion) do not meet the purpose of the project as identified by TCR. FRA has determined that portions of these corridors, combined
with the Utility Corridor, may
be feasible and should be retained for
further investigation even though the agency has determined that the BNSF, UPRR, and
I-45 Greenfield Corridors are not feasible
as end-to-end corridors.
Next Steps
Next, FRA will identify and evaluate
potential alignment
alternatives within the Utility Corridor in the second
stage
of the two-part process to
determine
the feasible alternatives to
be evaluated in the EIS.
FRA will independently evaluate potential alignment alternatives proposed by TCR based on National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) screening criteria. In
addition to the No Build Alternative, against which all Build Alternatives will
be compared and evaluated
as required by NEPA,
FRA will identify and
determine
the feasible Build Alternatives in
the second part of the alternatives analysis.
|