Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project

Alignment Alternatives Analysis Report

November6,2015

TABLEOFCONTENTS
TableofContents..........................................................................................................................................ii
1.0
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1
1.1
Background......................................................................................................................................2
2.0
PurposeandNeedfortheProject...................................................................................................6
3.0
DescriptionofProposedProject......................................................................................................7
4.0
DescriptionofPotentialRouteAlternatives..................................................................................10
4.1
BardwellGeographicGroup...........................................................................................................12
4.2
CorsicanaGeographicGroup.........................................................................................................13
4.3
IH45GeographicGroup................................................................................................................14
4.4
MiddleGeographicGroup.............................................................................................................15
4.5
HockleyGeographicGroup............................................................................................................16
4.6
DowntownHoustonGeographicGroup........................................................................................18
5.0
AlternativesEvaluation..................................................................................................................19
5.1
LevelIScreening............................................................................................................................19
5.2
LevelIScreeningConclusion..........................................................................................................22
5.3
LevelIIScreening...........................................................................................................................24
5.4
LevelII,StageIEnvironmentalConstraintsScreening...................................................................24
5.5
LevelII,StageIEnvironmentalConstraintsScreeningResults......................................................29
5.6
LevelII,StageIICostandConstructionScreening.........................................................................32
6.0
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................35

LISTOFTABLES
Table51:LevelIScreeningResults............................................................................................................21
Table52:RatioMethodology....................................................................................................................24
Table53:EnvironmentalEvaluationCriteria.............................................................................................26
Table54:LevelII,StageIEnvironmentalConstraintsScreeningResults..................................................30
Table55:LevelII,StageIEnvironmentalConstraintsScreeningResultsandStandardDeviation...........32
Table56:LevelII,StageIICostandConstructionScreeningResults........................................................34
Table61:DraftAlignmentAlternativeDevelopmentSegmentation........................................................35
Table62:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternatives............................................................................37

ii

LISTOFFIGURES
Figure11:UtilityCorridor............................................................................................................................4
Figure31:ShinkansenTrainset....................................................................................................................7
Figure32:AtgradeTypicalSection.............................................................................................................8
Figure33:RetainedFillTypicalSection.......................................................................................................8
Figure34:ViaductTypicalSection...............................................................................................................9
Figure41:PotentialRouteAlternatives.....................................................................................................11
Figure42:BardwellGeographicGroup.....................................................................................................12
Figure43:CorsicanaGeographicGroup....................................................................................................13
Figure44:IH45GeographicGroup...........................................................................................................14
Figure45:MiddleGeographicGroup........................................................................................................15
Figure46:HockleyGeographicGroup.......................................................................................................17
Figure47:DowntownHoustonGeographicGroup...................................................................................18
Figure51:PotentialRouteAlternativesFRACarriedForwardtoLevelIIScreening................................23
Figure52:StandardDeviationExample....................................................................................................31
Figure61DraftAlignmentAlternativesCarriedForwardtotheDraftEIS................................................36
Figure62:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternativeA..........................................................................38
Figure63:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternativeB..........................................................................39
Figure64:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternativeC..........................................................................40
Figure65:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternativeD.........................................................................41
Figure66:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternativeE..........................................................................42
Figure67:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternativeF..........................................................................43

APPENDICES
AppendixAGISMethodology

LISTOFACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
ACS
BA
BNSF
CAD
CEQ
CR
CS
DH
EIS
EJ
FEMA
FHWA
FM1488
FRA
FTA
GIS
GNIS
IH10
IH45
IH610

AmericanCommunitySurvey
BardwellGeographicGroup
BNSFRailroad
computeraideddesign
CouncilonEnvironmentalQuality
CorsicanaGeographicGroup
CommonSegmentGeographicGroup
DowntownHoustonGeographicGroup
EnvironmentalImpactStatement
EnvironmentalJustice
FederalEmergencyManagementAgency
FederalHighwayAdministration
FarmtoMarket1488
FederalRailroadAdministration
FederalTransitAdministration
GeographicInformationSystems
GeographicNamesInformationService
InterstateHighway10
InterstateHighway45
InterstateHighway610
iii

HC
km/h
kV
MD
mph
MPO
NEPA
NHD
NLCD
NRCS
NRHP
NWI
ROW
SH99
SSURGO
STB
TCEQ
TCR
THC
TPWD
TxDOT
TXNDD
UPRR
US290
USACE
USFWS

HockleyGeographicGroup
kilometerperhour
kilovolt
MiddleGeographicGroup
mileperhour
MetropolitanPlanningOrganization
NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct
NationalHydrographyDataset
NationalLandCoverDataset
NationalResourcesConservationService
NationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces
NationalWetlandInventory
RightofWay
StateHighway99
SoilSurveyGeographicDatabase
SurfaceTransportationBoard
TexasCommissiononEnvironmentalQuality
TexasCentralHighSpeedRailway
TexasHistoricalCommission
TexasParksandWildlifeDepartment
TexasDepartmentofTransportation
TexasNaturalDiversityDatabase
UnionPacificRailroad
U.S.Highway290
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers
U.S.FishandWildlifeService

iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report forms the framework for conducting an environmental impact analysis in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. The purpose of this
reportistodocumenttheFederalRailroadAdministrations(FRA)independentevaluationofpotential
routealternativesfortheproposedDallastoHoustonHighSpeedRailProject(Project).

FRAinitiatedaNEPAevaluationofTexasCentralHighSpeedRailway,LLCsanditsaffiliates(TCRorthe
Proponent) proposal to construct and operate a private, forprofit, highspeed passenger rail system
connecting Dallas and Houston using the Japanese N700I Tokaido Shinkansen highspeed rail
technology.TheProjectencompassesanapproximately240milelongcorridorbetweenthetwocities.
TCRs proposed highspeed rail system requires a fully sealed corridor with gradeseparated crossings
anddedicatedrightofway(ROW)thatisapproximately125feetwideinordertoaccommodateatwo
track railroad and an access road. It requires a closed system, meaning that the train must run on
dedicatedhighspeedrailtracksforpassengerrailserviceonlyandcannottravelonexistingorplanned
freightraillinesorsharetrackswithotherpassengerservices,suchasAmtrak.

FRAhastheauthoritytoregulatethesafetyofrailroads,includingtheProject.FortheProject,FRAmay
issueaRuleofParticularApplicability(regulationsthatapplytoaspecificrailroadoraspecifictypeof
operation),aseriesofwaivers,oranotheractiontoensuretheProjectisoperatedsafely.Thisregulatory
action(s)constitutesafederalactionrequiringanenvironmentalreviewunderNEPA.

AsrequiredbyNEPA,FRAinitiatedanEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)todocumentthepossible
environmentalimpactsoftheProject.Thisevaluationisrequiredby42U.S.C.4321etseq.,Councilon
Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 CFR 15001508), and the FRAs implementing
regulations,FRAProceduresforConsideringEnvironmentalImpacts,assetforthin64FR28545(1999).
AnEISisbeingpreparedbytheFRAincooperationwithFederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA),U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Surface Transportation
Board (STB), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT)isprovidingtechnicalassistancetoFRAinthepreparationoftheEIS.

Supporting the early development of the EIS, this report defines the scope of the Project and the
reasonablealternativesFRAwillevaluateintheEIS.FRAsalignmentalternativesanalysisreflectsFRAs
independentevaluationandjudgmentinitscapacityasthefederalleadagencyfortheEIS.Giventhat
TCR, the Proponent of the Project, is a private railroad, it is incumbent on TCR to develop feasible
alternatives that would achieve its operational criteria for FRAs consideration and evaluation. This
report serves as the basis for evaluating those potential route alternatives in relation to the Projects
purpose and need. FRA concludes the report by identifying the potential route alternatives, or build
alternatives that fully meet the Projects purpose and need and that FRA will carry forward for
evaluationintheDraftEIS.TheDraftEISpotentialalignmentswillcontinuetoberefinedandevaluated
as potential environmental impacts are identified, as required by NEPA. The No Build or No Action
Alternative,asrequiredbyNEPA,willserveasthebasisforcomparisonoftheenvironmentalimpactsof
thebuildalternativesandwillbeevaluatedintheDraftEIS.


Thisdocumentprovidesthe:
Projectbackground
Evaluationofpotentialroutealternatives
Alternativesconsideredbuteliminatedfromfurtherconsideration
Alternativescarriedforwardforfurtherconsideration

1.1

Background

A formal alternatives analysis is critical to the decisionmaking process and to ultimately fulfill
obligations under NEPA. Section 102(C) of NEPA requires that agencies include in every
recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly
affectingthequalityofthehumanenvironment,adetailedstatementbytheresponsibleofficialon:
(i) Theenvironmentalimpactoftheproposedaction;
(ii) Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented;
(iii) Alternativestotheproposedaction;
(iv) Therelationshipbetweenlocalshorttermusesofman'senvironmentandthemaintenanceand
enhancementoflongtermproductivity;and
(v) Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the
proposedaction,shoulditbeimplemented.

CEQNEPAregulationsregardingtheanalysisofalternativesrequireagenciesto:
(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives
which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been
eliminated;
(b) Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed
actionsothatreviewersmayevaluatetheircomparativemerits;
(c)Includereasonablealternativesnotwithinthejurisdictionoftheleadagency;
(d)Includethealternativeofnoaction;
(e) Identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft
statementandidentifysuchalternativeinthefinalstatementunlessanotherlawprohibitsthe
expressionofsuchapreference;and
(f) Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or
alternatives.(40CFR1502.14)

As described in FRAs Corridor Alternatives Analysis Technical Report, dated August 10, 2015 and
available online at https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L16978), FRA undertook a two stage
alternativesanalysisscreeningprocess.Thefirststageidentifiedcorridoralternativesfortheproposed
highspeedrailsystemfromwhichpotentialroutealternativeswithincorridorscouldbedeveloped.The
secondstageinFRAsalternativesanalysisscreeningprocessisdocumentedinthisreport.Theresultsof
thisalternativesanalysisprovidethebasisforindepthenvironmentalstudiesofthemostfeasibleand
practicalpotentialroutealternativesintheDraftEIS.

1.1.1 FRAsCorridorAlternativesAnalysis
FRAcompletedacorridorlevelalternativesanalysistoidentifyandevaluatethepotentialcorridorsthat
couldbecomealternativesintheEIS.Thisfirststepnarrowedtheuniverseofpotentialalternativesby


identifying viable highspeed rail corridors within which specific highspeed rail potential route
alternativescouldbedeveloped.

FRAdevelopedtherangeofpotentialcorridorsusingthehighspeedrailcorridorsidentifiedinprevious
studiesandthoseusingexistinglinearinfrastructurecorridors.FRAdidnotcompleteanyengineeringor
designworkaspartofthisanalysis.ThefourpotentialhighspeedrailcorridorsFRAevaluatedincluded:
BNSFCorridor
UPRRCorridor
IH45GreenfieldCorridor
UtilityCorridor

FRAalsoconsideredalternativestohighspeedrailservicethatincludedhigherspeedandconventional
speedrailservices,directbusservice,andexpansionofInterstateHighway45(IH45).

Through the corridor alternatives analysis, FRA determined that the Utility Corridor be retained for
further investigation of potential route alternatives during the next stage of the alternatives analysis.
The Utility Corridor follows the CenterPoint Energy and Oncor Electric Delivery highvoltage electrical
transmission lines (345 to 500 kilovolts (kV)). The utility easement does not extend into downtown
DallasordowntownHouston.TheeasementoriginatesnearPalmerandterminatesnearHockleytothe
south. Therefore, between Dallas and Palmer, the Utility Corridor follows and uses the Union Pacific
Railroad (UPRR) Corridor to the downtown Dallas area. Between Hockley and Houston, the Utility
CorridorfollowsandusestheUPRREurekaSubdivisionintodowntownHouston.Figure11showsthe
Utility Corridor, which includes the use of the UPRR Corridor, in the terminus areas in Dallas and
Houston.

FRAalsodeterminedthatportionsoftheBNSFRailroad(BNSF),UPRR,andIH45GreenfieldCorridorsbe
retained for further investigation in the event that constraints arise along the Utility Corridor that
warrant potential route alternatives within portions of these eliminated corridors that avoid the
constraints.

Figure11:UtilityCorridor

1.1.2 TCRsLastMileAnalysis
AspartofthisProject,TCRproposedterminusstationsinDallasandHoustonthatwouldserveintercity
travel demand and commerce, provide for economic redevelopment, and provide connectivity with
eachregionsmajortransitandroadwaysystems.TCRsstationanalysisisdocumentedinitsLastMile
Analysis Report (TCR 2015a), dated March 27, 2015, and available online at
http://www.texascentralhighspeedrail.com/page4/index.html.Initsreport,TCRsstatedgoalinlocating
stationswastominimizeimpacts,maximizemultimodalconnectivity,optimizeridershipwithrespectto
revenue,andoptimizeadjacentlandusestoprovidelongtermlocaldevelopmentopportunities.

TCR also determined that its stations should be configured to support nearterm operating goals and
allowforfutureexpansionsandextensions(stationsaswellastracks)sothattheProjectcouldserveas
anextendablepassengerrailnetworkspine,connectingwithregionaltransportationservices.

BothDallasandHoustonhavemultiplecommercialandeconomiccentersspreadacrosstheirrespective
metropolitanareas,includingeachhavingadowntowncentralbusinessdistrict.Thesemanycommercial
centersareservedbyhighlydevelopedhighwayandroadwaynetworks.Consequently,TCRdetermined
that it was appropriate to consider opportunities for downtown and suburban locations in Dallas
andHouston.TCRalsoidentifiedanintermediatestationtoservetheBryan/CollegeStationareaalong
theUPRRCorridorandaShiroStationareaalongtheUtilityCorridor.

Based on its screening criteria, TCR determined that the most viable terminus locations in Dallas and
HoustonalongtheUtilityCorridorareDowntownDallas(notedintheirreportasLastMileAlternativeC)
andU.S.Highway290/InterstateHighway610(US290/IH610)inHouston(notedintheirreportasLast
Mile Alternative B). TCR determined that a station near Shiro is viable due to its proximity to
Bryan/CollegeStationandHuntsville.

1.1.3 TCRsStep2ScreeningofAlternativeAlignments
AftercompletingitsStep1ScreeningofAlternativesandLastMileAnalysis,TCRinitiateditsnextlevelof
analysis to develop potential alignment alternatives within the Utility Corridor. TCR issued its Step 2
Screening of Alternative Alignments Report (TCR 2015b) dated November 5, 2015 (available online at
http://www.texascentralhighspeedrail.com/page4/index.html). In its report, TCR proposed a Base
AlignmentparallelingtheexistingCenterPointEnergyandOncorElectricDeliveryutilityeasementsand
recommended 21 potential route alternatives. TCR identified constraints along the Base Alignment,
including areas of environmental concern, construction complexity, geometric challenges, economic
impactandothermajorconcerns,"insixgeographicareasfromwhichitidentifiedthepotentialroute
alternatives.Thesepotentialroutealternativeswerecreatedusingthealignmentobjectivesanddesign
guidelinesdevelopedbyTCR.Thesixgeographicareasinclude:
Corsicana(CR)
Bardwell(BA)
InterstateHighway45(IH45)
Middle(MD)
Hockley(HC)
DowntownHouston(DH)

TCR completed a twophase alternatives analysis. In its Phase 1 Analysis, TCR quantitatively evaluated
theBaseAlignmentandthepotentialroutealternativesusingthefollowingcriteria:
5

Engineering:alignmentlengthandadjacencytotheexistingutilityline
Alignmentgeometry:superelevation,1totalnumberofcurves,andcurvesandspeedrestrictions
Viaductlengthandmajorstructures:totalviaductlengthandnumberofcomplexstructures
Crossings: major road crossings, moderate road crossings, minor road crossings, freight
crossings,andutilitycrossings
Hydrology: tier 1 hydrologic features Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
crossingsandtier2hydrologicfeaturesothercrossings
Environmental:streams,waterbodies andwetlands;naturalresourcesandlandcover;cultural
resources;environmentaljustice;andhazardoussites

In its Phase 2 Analysis, TCR qualitatively evaluated the Base Alignment and the potential route
alternativesusingprojectdeliveryconcerns.TCRsPhase2Analysisevaluationcriteriaincludedcapital
cost,constructionduration,andconstructability.

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

2.0 PURPOSEANDNEEDFORTHEPROJECT
As defined by TCR, the purpose of the privately proposed Project is to provide reliable, safe and
economically viable passenger rail transportation using proven highspeed rail technology between
DallasandHouston.Itwouldprovideaconvenientandcompetitivealternativetoautomobiletravelon
IH45orairtravelbetweenthetwomajormetropolitanareasandintroducerailcapacityinthevicinity
ofthecorridor.ToachieveTCRseconomicviabilityandsafetyrequirements,theProjectmustmeetthe
followingtechnicalrequirements:
Technological: bullet train vehicle and operating procedures based on the N700I Tokaido
Shinkansen
Operational:approximate90minutetraveltimebetweenDallasandHouston,withachievable
speedsexceeding200milesperhour(mph)inafullysealedcorridor
Environmental:minimalimpactstothenaturalandbuiltenvironmentsbymaximizingadjacency
toexistinginfrastructureROW
FRA,inaccordancewithfederalrequirements,mustensurethatthesystemcanbeoperatedsafely.As
the federal lead agency for the NEPA analysis, FRA is obligated to avoid and minimize impacts to the
human and natural environment. FRA must also ensure that the Project complies with all applicable
federallawsandexecutiveorders.

CurrenttransportationoptionsbetweenDallasand Houstonrelyonautomobileandair travel.Dueto

increasing congestion on IH45, automobile travel times between the two regions are projected to
increaseastravelspeeds decrease.Flightsbetweenthetworegionsareapproximately 65minutes,in
addition to the recommended airport arrival time at the gate approximately 60 minutes before the
scheduled departure time. Flights are sensitive to inclement weather and other delaycausing events
frominsideandoutsideofTexas.Asaresultoftheseconstraints,combinedwiththedistancebetween

Superelevationistheverticaldistancebetweentheheightsofinnerandouteredgesortheslopeoftherailroad
rails.


thetwometropolitanareasandpotentialridershipdemand,TCRidentifiedanopportunitytodevelopa
profitable privatelyfinanced and operated highspeed passenger rail system. The mobility and
congestion issues on the IH45 corridor that TCRs proposed Project potentially addresses represents
identificationofthetypicalneedforaFRAproject,whichFRAusuallyaddressesthroughservicelevel
corridorplanning.

3.0 DESCRIPTIONOFPROPOSEDPROJECT
AsdescribedinSection2.0,PurposeandNeed,theDallastoHoustonHighSpeedRailProjectmustmeet
specific technological and operational criteria. This includes the deployment of an electricpowered,
highspeed rail system based on Central Japan Railway Companys N700I Tokaido Shinkansen. To
minimizeriskandenhancepassengersafety,theProjectwouldoperateinafullysealedcorridor.Afully
sealedcorridorisnotinterconnectedwithanyotherrailroadsystemsandthehighspeedrailtrainwill
either travel below or above existing roadways and other infrastructure. This will enable trains to
achieve speeds exceeding 200 mph and maintain the 90minute travel time between Dallas and
Houston.

Figure31:ShinkansenTrainset

Source:TCR


The following figures illustrate atgrade, retained fill and viaduct typical sections of the train
infrastructurerequirements.

Figure32:AtgradeTypicalSection

Source:TCR

Figure33:RetainedFillTypicalSection

Source:TCR

Figure34:ViaductTypicalSection

Source:TCR

4.0 DESCRIPTIONOFPOTENTIALROUTEALTERNATIVES
FRAs responsibility is to evaluate the alternatives that TCR developed and proposed. TCR proposed
potentialroutealternativesinsixgeographicgroupsCorsicana,Bardwell,IH45,Middle,Hockleyand
downtownHoustontohelpavoidknownenvironmentalorengineeringconstraintsitidentifiedalong
the Base Alignment. Figure 41 shows the 21 potential route alternatives. Note that some geographic
groups overlap one another. The potential route alternatives were developed based on conceptual
engineeringcompletedasofJune25,2015.

Commonsegments(CS)oftheBaseAlignmentarelocatedbetweenseveralofthegeographicgroups:
DallastothenorthendoftheBardwellgeographicgroup;thesouthendoftheIH45geographicgroup
tothenorthendoftheHockleygeographicgroup;andthesouthendoftheHockleygeographicgroup
tothenorthendofthedowntownHoustongeographicgroup.Thesecommonsegmentsdidnotcontain
known environmental and/or engineering constraints. Therefore, TCR did not propose potential route
alternativesintheseareas.Giventhattherewerenorecommendedpotentialroutealternativeswithin
thesecommonsegments,FRAcollecteddataforpurposesofidentifyingfatalflaws,butdidnotconduct
an evaluation for the purpose of narrowing the range of alternatives. Descriptions of the common
segmentsthatwillbecarriedforwardintheDraftEISareprovidedbelow.

NorthTerminusCommonSegment(CS1)
CS1beginsonthesouthsideofdowntownDallasandparallelstheexistingUPRRfreightlinetowards
IH45.CS1crossestheTrinityRiveronthewestsideofIH45andparallelsIH45untiltheEllisCounty
line.

GrimesCountyCommonSegment(CS2)
CS2parallelstheCenterPointEnergyutilityeasementandbeginsjustsouthofthenorthernborderof
GrimesCounty.CS2parallelstheutilityeasementthroughtheentirecounty,passingwestofSingleton,
RoansPrairieandPlantersvilleandendsatthesouthernborderofthecounty.

SouthTerminusCommonSegment(CS3)
CS3extendssoutheastfromjustsouthofCypressalongUS290.JustwestofBeltway8,CS3continues
toIH610alongtheexistingUPRRfreightlineandHempsteadRoad.

10

Figure41:PotentialRouteAlternatives

11


Descriptionsofthepotentialroutealternativesbygeographicareaareprovidedbelow.

4.1 BardwellGeographicGroup
TheBardwellpotentialroutealternatives(Figure42)fallwithinEllis,Navarroand
Freestone counties between the cities of Ferris and Wortham. In addition to the
Base Alignment, three potential route alternatives were proposed to improve
geometric design and to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. Two of the
potentialroutealternativesextendtothewestofBardwellLakeandoneextends
totheeast.

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

Figure42:BardwellGeographicGroup

Source:TexasCentralHighSpeedRailwayStep2ScreeningofAlignmentAlternativesReport

4.1.1 BardwellBase(BABase)
BA Base begins west of Ferris and joins the utility easement near Palmer. BA Base extends along the
utility easement, curving southwest at Reagor Springs, staying west of Bardwell Lake. Extending
southeast,itcloselyfollowsseveralutilityeasementseastofRankinandBarry,andwestofCurrie.BA
BaseendsnearWorthamonthewesternsideoftheutilityeasement.

4.1.2 Bardwell1(BA1)
BA1divergesfromtheBaseAlignment(BABase)northofPalmerwhereitemploysamoredirectroute
tocurvewestofBardwellLake,stayingnorthandwestoftheutilityeasement.BA1rejoinsBABaseat
Barry.

12

4.1.3 Bardwell2(BA2)
BA2 diverges from the Base Alignment (BA Base) west of Ferris and closely parallels BA Base near
Palmer.Itcurvestotheeasternsideoftheutilityeasement,closertoBardwellLakeandrejoinsBABase
justsouthoftheNavarroCountyline.

4.1.4 Bardwell3(BA3)
BA3divergesfromtheBaseAlignment(BABase)nearFerrisandcrossesoverIH45,extendingeastof
Palmer.BA3continueseastofIH45untilitrecrossesIH45nearAlmaandpasseseastofOakGrove.
BA3crossestheutilityeasementandrejoinsBABasenortheastofPursley.

4.2

CorsicanaGeographicGroup

TheCorsicanapotentialroutealternativesarewithinEllis,NavarroandFreestone
counties and extend between approximately Rankin and Wortham. One base
alignmentandtwopotentialroutealternativeswereproposed(Figure43).

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

Figure43:CorsicanaGeographicGroup

Source:TexasCentralHighSpeedRailwayStep2ScreeningofAlignmentAlternativesReport

4.2.1 CorsicanaBase(CRBase)
CRBaseparallelstheutilityeasement.ItstartsjustnorthoftheNavarroCountylineandextendsalong
theutilityeasementeastofBarrytoapointwestofCurrie.CRBaseextendssouthfollowingtheutility
easementonthewesternside,eastofWortham.

13

4.2.2 Corsicana1(CR1)
CR1 separates from the Base Alignment (CR Base) east of Rankin and extends in a southeasterly
direction, staying west of Corsicana. CR1 curves southeast and crosses a floodplain just north of
Richland.CR1crossestheutilityeasementandcurvessoutheasttorejoinCRBasenearCurrie.

4.2.3 Corsicana2(CR2)
CR2followstheBaseAlignment(CRBase)untilsouthofBarry,whereittakesastraighterroute.CR2
crossestheutilityeasementnorthofPursleyandrejoinsCRBasenearCurrie.

4.3 IH45GeographicGroup
A potential route alternative on IH45 was proposed to eliminate construction risks
through densegaswellfieldsandformerminingareas,andminimize private property
impacts.

Figure44:IH45GeographicGroup

Source:TexasCentralHighSpeedRailwayStep2ScreeningofAlignmentAlternativesReport

4.3.1 IH45Base
IH45 Base aligns with the utility easement as it extends south from a point just north of Navarro
County. IH45 Base separates from the utility easement to pass through the oil and gas fields east of
Lake Limestone and west of Teague and Donie. Just south of Concord, IH45 Base rejoins the utility
easementandendsatthesouthernedgeofMadisonCounty.

14

4.3.2 IH45Alternative(IH45Alt)
IH45 Alt separates from the Base Alignment (IH45 Base) and follows the IH45 highway corridor for
approximately 57 miles starting six miles north of Fairfield to north of Madisonville. IH45 Alt runs
southwestandrealignswiththeBaseAlignmentsouthoftheGrimesCountylineuntilisseparatesjust
northofBedias.

4.4 MiddleGeographicGroup
TheMiddlegeographicgroup(Figure45)beginsattheFreestone/Navarrocounty
line and continues south to the Grimes/Madison county line. Near Jewett where
severalelectricaltransmissionlinesconverge,therearemajorelectricalfacilitiesat
grade,andseveraltownsanddevelopments.Allofthepotentialroutealternatives
closely follow the utility easement along either the west or east side until the
GrimesCountyline.TheBaseAlignment(MDBase)andfourMiddlepotentialroute
alternativeswereproposedtoprovideoptionstoavoidorminimizeimpactstothe
abovementionedelectricalfacilities,townsanddevelopments.

Note:onlyonecolorisshownwherepotentialroutealternativesoverlaponeanothertoindicatethat
theyshareanalignmentinthisarea.

Figure45:MiddleGeographicGroup

Source:TexasCentralHighSpeedRailwayStep2ScreeningofAlignmentAlternativesReport

4.4.1 MiddleBase(MDBase)
MD Base begins at the Freestone/Navarro county line and continues south adjacent to the utility
easementandcurvesalongtheeastsideofBrownsLake.MDBaseseparatesfromtheutilityeasement
topassthroughthedenseoilandgaswellfieldswestofDonieandeastofLakeLimestoneandrealigns
with the utility easement ten miles south of Jewett. MD Base extends south on the east side of the
utilityeasementandendsattheGrimes/Madisoncountyline.
15

4.4.2 Middle1(MD1)
MD1followstheBaseAlignment(MDBase),exceptatapointabouttenmilessouthofJewett,whereit
separatesfromMDBaseandcontinuestoparalleltheutilityeasementonthewestside.

4.4.3 Middle2(MD2)
MD2 separates from the Base Alignment (MD Base) east of Wortham. MD2 extends west around
BrownsLakeandrejoinsMDBasesouthoftheoilandgasfields.

4.4.4 Middle3(MD3)
MD3separatesfromtheBaseAlignment(MDBase)nearWorthamandextendswestofLakeLimestone
andcrossestheNavasotaRiver.ApproximatelyahalfmilesouthofSimmsLake,MD3crossestheutility
easementandrejoinsMDBase.

4.4.5 Middle4(MD4)
MD4separatesfromtheBaseAlignment(MDBase)northofTeagueandcurvesaroundthenorthand
eastsideofTeaguetopasstheoilandgasfields.MD4extendssouththroughtheoilandgasfieldsnear
DonieandpasseswestofJewett.JustsouthofConcord,MD4crossesovertotheeastsideoftheutility
easementandrejoinsMDBasewestofCottonwood.

4.5

HockleyGeographicGroup

The Hockley geographic group begins west of Todd Mission in Grimes County and
endswestofCypressinHarrisCounty(Figure36).Thepotentialroutealternativesall
begin near Todd Mission. The three potential route alternatives were proposed to
provideoptionstocrossStateHighway(SH99)andextendthroughHarrisandWaller
counties before aligning along the east side of the utility easement. The potential
route alternatives curve east to cross over SH 99 and generally follow the utility
easementsouthtowardsHouston.

16


Note:onlyonecolorisshownwherepotentialroutealternativesoverlaponeanothertoindicatethat
theyshareanalignmentinthisarea.

Figure46:HockleyGeographicGroup

Source:TexasCentralHighSpeedRailwayStep2ScreeningofAlignmentAlternativesReport

4.5.1 HockleyBase(HCBase)
HC Base begins west of Todd Mission and continues south following the east side of the utility
easement.HCBasecrossestothewestsideoftheutilityeasementandextendssouthalongHegarRoad.
To accommodate maximum operating speed, HC Base curves south, east of the City of Hockley, and
crossesUS290beforeextendingeasttocrossbothSH99andtheutilityeasementandendsnearthe
townofCypress.

4.5.2 Hockley1(HC1)
HC1beginswestofToddMissionandparallelstheutilityeasement,crossingoverUS290.WestofSH
99,HC1sharplyturnstotheeast.HC1maximizesthelengthadjacenttotheutilityeasementthrough
theHockleyareaandrequirestwosharphorizontalcurvestoturneasttowardsHouston.

4.5.3 Hockley2(HC2)
HC2 follows the Base Alignment (HC Base) to a point south of FarmtoMarket 1488 (FM1488). From
here,itcurvestothewestparallelingHegarRoadbeforecurvingeastoverUS290,eastofHockley,and
rejoiningHCBase.

4.5.4 Hockley3(HC3)
HC3 begins west of Todd Mission and extends south following the east side of the utility easement
beforecrossingtheutilityeasement.HC3thencurvessouthwesttowardsKickapooRoadandcontinues
southparalleltoKickapooRoad.HC3crossesoverUS290andthencurvessouthtothewestofHockley.
HC3crossesbothSH99andtheexistingutilityeasementasitcurveseastandendsnearCypress.

17

4.5.5 Hockley4(HC4)
HC4beginswestofToddMissionandextendssouthfollowingtheeastsideoftheutilityeasement.HC
4 crosses the easement and extends southwest and parallels an existing underground pipeline as it
continuestothesouth.HC4crossesoverUS290andthenapproximately3.3mileswestofHockleyand
justafterBinfordRoad,curvestothesouthandextendseast.HC4crossestheutilityeasementandSH
99andendsnearthetownofCypress.

4.6

DowntownHoustonGeographicGroup

ForthepurposeofthisProject,thedowntownHoustonareabeginssouthwestof
US 290 and IH610 interchange near the Northwest Mall or the Northwest
TransitCenter.TheBaseAlignmentisproposedtoterminatenearIH610atthe
NorthwestMallsite.Twopotentialroutealternativeswereproposedtoextend
easttodowntownHouston.

Note:onlyonecolorisshownwherepotentialroutealternativesoverlaponeanothertoindicatethat
theyshareanalignmentinthisarea.

Figure47:DowntownHoustonGeographicGroup

Source:TexasCentralHighSpeedRailwayStep2ScreeningofAlignmentAlternativesReport

4.6.1 DowntownHouston1(DH1)
ExtendingfromtheBaseAlignment,DH1continuessoutheastbetweentheUPRRROWandHempstead
RoadandcontinuessouthoftheNorthwestMallsite.DH1crossesoverIH610andtheexistingUPRR
freightline.ItthenfollowsthefreightlinebeforecrossingoverInterstateHighway(IH10)andcurving
east towards downtown Houston. DH1 continues east along the south side of the UPRR ROW and
terminatesnearAmtraksHoustonStation.

18

4.6.2 DowntownHouston2(DH2)
ExtendingfromtheBaseAlignment,DH2continuessoutheastbetweentheUPRRROWandHempstead
Road,crossesoverIH610,andextendsalongthenorthsideoftheexistingfreightline.DH2thencurves
easttoalignwiththemedianofIH10.AtStudemontStreet,DH2turnsnorthfromthemediantofollow
thenorthsideofIH10highwayROW.DH2crossesoverIH45entranceandexitrampsbeforecurving
easttopassovertheWhiteOakBayouandterminateatUPRRsHardyYard.

5.0 ALTERNATIVESEVALUATION
The following section describes FRAs independent evaluation of the potential route alternatives by
geographic group. This evaluation consists of a twolevel process. The Level I Screening evaluates the
potentialroutealternativesbasedonProjectpurposeandneed,TCRsalignmentobjectivesandTCRs
designguidelines.ThepotentialroutealternativesthatmettheLevelIScreeningrequirementsmoved
on to the Level II Screening, in which potential route alternatives were evaluated based on
environmentalconstraintsdefinedbyNEPA,andTCRscostandconstructionfactors.

5.1

LevelIScreening

FRAsLevelIScreeningusedtheProjectspurposeandneed,alignmentobjectivesanddesignguidelines
asscreeningcriteria.

5.1.1 PurposeandNeed
Table51showstheevaluationofthepotentialroutealternativestotheProjectPurposeandNeedas
definedinSection2.0ofthisreport.

5.1.2 AlignmentObjectives
TCR developed alignment objectives that all potential route alternatives must meet to be considered
feasible.Thesealignmentobjectives,usedbyFRAinitsLevelIScreening,include:
Alignments must be configured as a dedicated, fully grade separated, twotrack alignment to
meetsafety,serviceplanningandtraveltimegoalswithnoshareduseoftrackorconnectionsto
existingrailroadnetwork
Maximizecolocationopportunitieswithtransportationandutilitycorridors
Minimizerelocationofanyexistingroadwaysorfreightrailroadtracks
Optimize the alignment to allow for the desired maximum operating speed and operational
efficiency
Minimize the number of times the highspeed rail tracks must cross existing freight tracks or
majorroadways
Minimizeexpectedimpactsofconstructiontotrafficandfreightoperations
Minimizeexpectedenvironmentalimpactsandconstructabilityconcerns
Minimize expected ROW and construction costs associated with heavy infrastructure
requirements
Achieveboththetraveltimeandeconomicobjectives

The results of the FRA evaluation of the potential route alternatives to the alignment objectives are
showninTable51.

19

5.1.2 DesignGuidelines
TCR developed alignment design guidelines based on their engineering judgment and professional
experience. The guidelines focused on alignment curvature, profile gradient, and constructability
considerations. These are requirements all potential route alternatives must meet to be considered
feasible.Thegeneraldesignguidelines,usedbyFRAinitsLevelIScreening,are:
MaximumOperatingSpeed:adesiredmaximumoperatingspeedof205mph(330kilometers
perhour(km/h))waschosentobeconsistedwithN700ITokaidoShinkansentechnology.The
alignment was designed to provide for maximum operating speeds throughout to the extent
practical, but in some locations alignment curvature to minimize property and environmental
impactswouldrestrictspeeds.
SeparationfromExistingFreightRailLines:theproposedHSRsystemwouldnotoperateonany
existing freight rail lines. It is expected that reconfiguration of existing freight lines in select
locationsmayberequiredtosupportconstructionandoperationsoftheHSRsystem.
Alignment Curvature: a desired minimum radius of 17,000 feet (5,200 meters) was used for
development of the preliminary alignments. This minimum radius curve would allow for
operationsat205mph(330km/h)usingthemaximumpermissiblecant(actualsuperelevation)
of7inches(175millimeters).
MaximumGrade:thedesiredmaximumgradewassetat1.5percent
Special Trackwork: for the design of the trackwork at the approaches to stations, where all
trainswouldstop,anassumptionof31mph(50km/h)specialtrackworkcomponentswasused
toestablishthefootprintofthestationapproachlimits
Recommended Minimum Offset between HSR and Utility ROW: a 165foot (50 meter) offset
was established as the minimum separation distance from the centerline of the electrical
transmissionlinecorridortothecenterlineoftheHSRcorridor.Thiswasdeterminedbytaking
approximately half of the minimum assumed transmission line ROW width of 215 feet (65
meters)foranelectricaltransmissionlinecorridorandaddingittohalfoftheassumed100feet
(30meters)minimumhighspeedrailROWwidth.

Table51showstheresultsoftheFRAdesignguidelinesevaluation.

20

Table51:LevelIScreeningResults
PotentialRouteAlternatives
Criteria

CorsicanaGeographic
Group
CRB
CR1
CR2

BardwellGeographicGroup
BAB

BA1

BA2

IH45GeographicGroup

BA3

IH45B

MiddleGeographicGroup

HockleyGeographicGroup

IH45Alt

MDB

MD1

MD2

MD3

MD4

HCB

HC1 HC2 HC3 HC4

DowntownHouston
GeographicGroup
DH1
DH2

Purpose
Economic

Technological

Operational

Environmental

Need
Improveintercitymobility

improvepassengeraccessibilityandconnectivity

improveoveralltransportationsystemsafety

AlignmentObjectives
Dedicated,fullygradeseparated,twotrackalignmenttomeet
safety,serviceplanning,andtraveltimegoals

Maximizecolocationopportunities

Minimizerelocationofexitingroadwaysorfreightrailroad
tracks

Optimizealignmenttoallowfordesiredmaximumoperating
speed

MinimizeHSRtrackscrossingexistingfreighttracks

Minimizeexpectedimpactsofconstructiontotrafficand
freightoperations

Minimizeexpectedenvironmentalimpactsandconstructability
concerns

MinimizeexpectedROWandconstructioncostsassociated
withheavyinfrastructurerequirements

Achieveboththetraveltimeandeconomicobjectives

DesignGuidelines
MaximumOperatingSpeed330km/h(205mph)

SeparationfromExistingFreightRailLines

AlignmentCurvatureminof17,000feet(5,200m)

MaximumGrademaxgradeof1.5%

SpecialTrackwork

RecommendedMinimumOffsetbetweenHSRandUtilityROW
min50m(165feet)offset

CarriedtoDetailedEnvironmentalAnalysis

21

5.2

LevelIScreeningConclusion

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

TwoalternativesfortheDowntownHoustongeographicgroup,DH1andDH2,havepotentialtocreate
significant environmental impacts, thereby resulting in higher per mile costs (TCRs Last Mile Analysis
Report2015a).GiventhecosttobuildtheDowntownHoustonpotentialroutealternatives,theydonot
meettheeconomicviabilityoftheProjectpurposeandneed.Accordingly,FRAeliminatedDH1andDH
2fromfurtherconsiderationforthisProject.

DH1hasthepotentialtocreatesignificantenvironmentalimpactstosixareasofconcernsNational
HistoricDistrictHeightsBoulevardEsplanade,theUSHealthworksHospital,HoustonandTexasCentral
Railroad archeology site, and Cottage Grove Park. Additionally, DH1 also has a potential to
disproportionatelyimpactminoritypopulations.Duetothesepotentialenvironmentalimpacts,aswell
asTCRsestimatedhighcapitalcosts(TCRsLastMileAnalysisReport2015a),FRAdeterminedthatDH1
does not meet the stated purpose and need of the Project and FRA eliminated it from further
considerationforthisProject.

DH2hasthepotentialtocreatesignificantenvironmentalimpactstonineareasofconcernNational
Historic District Heights Boulevard Esplanade, U.S. Healthworks Hospital, Houston and Texas Central
Railroadarcheologysite,CottageGrovePark,StudePark,WhiteOakPark,andHoggPark.Duetothese
potentialenvironmentalimpacts,aswellasTCRsestimatedhighcapitalcost(TCRsLastMileAnalysis
Report 2015a), FRA determined that DH2 does not meet the stated purpose and need of the Project
andFRAeliminateditfromfurtherconsiderationforthisProject.

Additionally,FRAdeterminedthatHC1doesnotmeetthedesignguidelinesfortheProject.Basedon
conceptual engineering as of June 25, 2015, HC1 contains two curves that would require a speed
restrictionof160mph,whichfailstomeettheminimumalignmentcurvaturenecessarytoachievethe
intended travel time of 90 minutes (TCRs Step 2 Screening of Alignment Alternatives Report 2015b) .
Therefore, FRA determined that HC1 does not meet the stated purpose and need of the Project and
FRAeliminateditfromfurtherconsiderationforthisProject.

FRAcarriedthefollowingpotentialroutealternativesforwardintotheLevelIIScreening(Figure51):
o MDBase
BardwellGeographicGroup
o MD1
o BABase
o MD2
o BA1
o MD3
o BA2
o MD4
o BA3
HockleyGeographicGroup
CorsicanaGeographicGroup
o HCBase
o CRBase
o HC2
o CR1
o HC3
o CR2
o HC4
IH45GeographicGroup

o IH45Base
o IH45Alt
MiddleGeographicGroup
22

Figure51:PotentialRouteAlternativesFRACarriedForwardtoLevelIIScreening

23

5.3

LevelIIScreening

FRAs Level II Screening consisted of two stages. The first stage looked at 16 environmental evaluation
criteria (Table 53) to determine areas of potential environmental impact, as required by NEPA. These
includedprimefarmland,wetlandsandfloodplains,communityfacilities,historicalproperties,threatened
andendangeredspecies,androadcrossings.Thesecondstageincorporatedcostandconstructionfactors
intothescreeninganalysis.

Thisanalysisisbasedondesktoplevelresearchanddatacollection.Nofieldsurveysorsiteverificationwas
conductedtocompletethisanalysis.Fieldwork,modelinganddetailedtechnicalevaluationinaccordance
withNEPAandFRAsprocedureswillbecompletedaspartoftheDraftEISonthefeasibleandpracticable
alternatives.

5.4

LevelII,StageIEnvironmentalConstraintsScreening

In the Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening, FRA quantitatively evaluated the potential
route alternatives that were carried forward from Level I Screening using a Geographic Information
Systems (GIS)based analysis of environmental constraints pursuant to NEPA. FRA conducted the GIS
analysis on 16 environmental evaluation criteria using readily available state and federal databases, as
describedinAppendixA.ThemethodologyandcriteriausedtocompletetheLevelII,StageIEnvironmental
ConstraintsScreeningareexplainedbelow.

5.4.1 Methodology
Scoringforeachoftheenvironmentalevaluationcriteriawasbasedonthelowestscorehavingtheleast
potential to create an environmental impact (best). A ratio method was used to distribute the scores
among potential route alternatives within each geographic group. An example of how this is displayed is
provided in Table 52, which contains four potential route alternatives within the Bardwell geographic
groupandtheirscoringforthewetlandscriteria.Becausetherearefouralternatives,thescoresrangefrom
1.0to4.0.Foreachcriterionthelowestimpactisscoreda1.0(BA2)andthegreatestimpactisscoreda4.0
(BA3).(Note:Ifageographicgroupcontainstwoalternatives,thescoresrangefrom1.0to2.0.And,ifthe
geographic group contains three alternatives, the scores range from 1.0 to 3.0). The remaining potential
routealternativesarescoredrelativetotheminimumandmaximumscores.

Table52:RatioMethodology

Scoring
(Bardwell)
Bardwell
Geographic
Group

Wetlands
Acreage
Points

BABase
BA1
BA2
BA3

5.243
6.357
3.542
20.560

1.300
1.496
1.000
4.000

A different measurement is used for each environmental evaluation criterion. These measurements
encompass the potential for direct or indirect impacts. For the purposes of this analysis, potential
impacts due to the implementation and operation of a potential route alternative are considered direct
impacts.Forexample,ifahospitalsitswithinthealignmentROW(125feet),itisconsideredadirectimpact
under Community Facilities. Potential indirect impacts represent those that may occur outside of the
proposedROW(upto1,000feet).Forexample,ifahospitalissetback250feetfromthealignmentROW,it
24


is considered an indirect impact. A description of each environmental evaluation criterion and the
measurementusedisprovidedbelowinTable53.

25

Table53:EnvironmentalEvaluationCriteria
Criterion
UrbanLandCover

NLCD

From
Total
Centerline Width
(feet)
(feet)
500
1000

Structures

AerialPhotography

62.5

125

Direct

Acountofrooftopsasseenonaerialphotography thatarewithinthe
buffer

ParcelTakes

AppraisalDistricts,inhouse
digitization

62.5

125

Direct

Parcelswithaffectedstructures+Parcelswithoutaffectedstructures
whereatleast40%ofareaisimpacted

Parks

TPWD,MPOs

500

1000

Indirect

Stateandlocalparkland

PrimeFarmland

NRCS

62.5

125

Direct

NRCSsoilsurveyprimefarmlandimpacted

Wetlands

NWI

62.5

125

Direct

NWIwetlandsimpacted

Waterways

NHD

Direct

Directalignmentcrossingsofwaterways

Floodplains

FEMA

62.5

125

Direct

100and500yearfloodplainimpacted

RoadCrossings

TxDOT

Direct

Directalignmentcrossingsofroads

Infrastructure
Adjacency

TxDOT(roads),Platts
(transmissionlines),USNational
TransportationAtlas(railroads)
CensusBureau(Census2010)

500

1000

Indirect

Percentageofthealignmentthatisparalleledbyroads,transmission
lines,orexistingrailroads

500

1000

Indirect

Estimatedminoritypopulationaffected(tractdensitytimesalignment
tractintersectionarea)

Cemeteries

THC

62.5

125

Direct

Cemeteryacreageimpacted

Ecology

TXNDD

62.5

125

Direct

AcreageofTXNDDElementoccurrencesimpacted

HistoricProperties

NRHP

500

1000

Indirect

NRHPpropertiesanddistricts

Community
Facilities
Hazardous
Materials

GNIS

500

1000

Indirect

TCEQ

62.5

125

Direct

Populationbelow
PovertyLine

CensusBureau(20135yearACS)

500

1000

Indirect

IncludesthefollowingGNISfeatureclasses:Building(publicfacilities),
Church,Hospital,PostOffice,School
Includes:municipalsettingdesignations,municipalsolidwastelandfills,
radioactivesites,Superfundsites,municipalwaterwells,and
undergroundpetroleumstoragetanks.
Estimatedpopulationbelowpovertylineaffected(tractdensitytimes
alignmenttractintersectionarea)

Minority
Population

DataSource

Direct/
Indirect
Indirect

Description
Lowintensity,mediumintensity,highintensity,andopenspace
developedarea

26

5.4.2 UrbanLandCover
Theurbanlandcovercriterionisanapproximatequantificationinacresofpotentiallanduseimpacts.This
criterion looks at the difference between lowintensity, mediumintensity, highintensity and open space
land uses. Generally, the more urbanized or complex the property use is, the greater the number of
potentialimpacts.

Initially, the land use criteria considered residential, commercial and industrial land uses. When land use
datasetswereonlypartiallyavailableforthe1,000footbuffer,andwhereavailabletheyhadinconsistent
classification/schema,UrbanLandCoverfromtheNationalLandCoverDataset(NLCD)wasusedduetoits
consistencyovertheentirescreeningbuffer.

5.4.3 ParcelTakes
This criterion represents the number of potential parcels that could be acquired by implementing a
potentialroutealternative.

Thiscriterioncombinesstructures(rooftops)identifiedbyaerialphotographywithparceldatafromcounty
appraisal districts to calculate the number of properties potentially impacted. This criterion counts the
impactedparcelsastakesif:
Anyparcelwithoneormorestructuresonitthatfallswithin62.5feetofthealignmentcenterline
(125feettotalwidth)
Parcelswithoutstructureswithin62.5feetofthealignmentcenterlinewhereatleast40percentof
theparcelareafallswithinthealignmentbuffer(125feettotalwidth)

5.4.4 Parks
Thiscriterionmeasuresthepotentialacreageofimpacttoareasdesignatedbystateandlocalagenciesfor
recreation and wildlife habitat are substantially forested, largely undisturbed, and used for recreational
activities. Impacts to these lands may require avoidance under Section 4(f) of the Department of
TransportationActormaynotbeabletobeconsideredifprudentorpracticalalternativesexist.

ParksdatawasavailableinGISpolygonformfromtheMetropolitanPlanningOrganizations(MPO)andthe
TexasParksandWildlifeDepartment(TPWD)datasets.

5.4.5 PrimeFarmland
This criterion measures the acreage of land designated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)SoilSurveyGeographicDatabase(SSURGO)asprimefarmland,whichisdefinedaslandthathasthe
best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and
oilseedcropsandisavailablefortheseuses.

5.4.6 Wetlands
This criterion measures the acreage of impacts to wetlands within 62.5 feet of the alignment center line
(125feettotalwidth).IncreasedimpactstowetlandswouldincreasethecomplexityofProjectpermitting
and also require a higher amount of wetland mitigation to offset Project impacts. Wetland data was
obtainedfromtheUSFWSNationalWetlandInventory(NWI)dataset.

27

5.4.7 Waterways
The total number of waterways (e.g., rivers and streams) a potential route alternative crosses was
calculated using data obtained from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Increased impacts to river
and stream crossings would increase the complexity of permitting the Project and also require greater
mitigationtooffsetProjectimpacts.

5.4.8 Floodplain
Acres of floodplain were tabulated based on the number of acres within 62.5 feet from the alignment
centerline(125footbuffer)ofeachpotentialroutealternative.FloodplaindatawasobtainedfromFEMA
andincludedboththe100and500yearfloodplainclassifications.Increasedimpactstofloodplainswould
increase the complexity of permitting the Project and also require higher mitigation to offset Project
impacts. Construction through these areas would also result in higher potential implementation costs to
designandmaintainstructuresthatwouldberesilienttopotentialfloodingimpacts.

5.4.9 RoadCrossings
This criterion is a count of the number of roadway crossings, regardless of ownership or roadway
classification(e.g.,state,countyandprivate).TxDOTwasthedatasourceforroadways.

5.4.10 InfrastructureAdjacency
OneofTCRsalignmentobjectivesisforpotentialroutealternativestomaximizecolocationopportunities
with transportation and utility corridors. Therefore, the infrastructure adjacency criterion estimates the
percentage of the potential route alternative that parallels existing infrastructure. This analysis uses the
roads dataset from TxDOT, railroads dataset from the U.S. National Transportation Atlas, and electrical
transmissionlinedatasetfromPlatts.

5.4.11 MinorityPopulation
EnvironmentalJustice(EJ)populationsincludelowincomeandminoritypopulations.Minoritypopulation
wasanalyzedtodetermineifapotentialroutealternativemightdisproportionatelyaffectEJpopulations.
MinoritypopulationdatawasobtainedattheU.S.CensusBlocklevelfromthe2010DecennialU.S.Census.
Forthepurposesofthisanalysis,minoritypopulationisdefinedasthetotalpopulationminuspersonsthat
reported themselves as White, Not Hispanic or Latino. This information was converted into a metric by
countingthenumberofU.S.CensusBockswithaminoritypopulationover50percentintersectinga1,000
footbufferaroundeachpotentialroutealternative(500feetfromthealignmentcenterline).

5.4.12 Cemeteries
CemeterydatawasobtainedfromtheTexasHistoricalCommission(THC)toevaluateboththenumberof
impactedcemeterieswithinthe125footbufferofthepotentialroutealternativeandtotalacreagewithin
thecemeterythatmightbeimpacted.Animpacttocemeteriescouldrequiremitigationincludingpotential
localizedalignmentmodificationstoavoidand/orminimizeimpacts.Ifalignmentmodificationscouldnot
beaccommodated,additionalcoordinationwithTHCand/orconsultationunderSection106oftheNational
HistoricPreservationActwouldrequireinvestigationthatcoulddelayProjectimplementation.

28

5.4.13 Ecology
Thiscriterionmeasuresthepotentialimpacttoenvironmentallysensitiveareasthatcouldprovidehabitat
forthreatenedandendangeredspeciesbasedonacreageofpotentialimpactstoobservedoccurrencesof
the species. Impacts to individual species of plants and wildlife or the habitat of threatened and
endangeredwildlifespecieswouldrequiremitigationincludingpotentiallocalizedalignmentmodifications
to avoid and/or minimize impacts. If alignment modifications could not be accommodated, additional
coordination with the USFWS and TPWD would be required, increasing the complexity of permitting the
ProjectandalsorequirehighermitigationtooffsetProjectimpacts.

TheTexasNaturalDiversityDatabase(TXNDD)elementoccurrencedatafromTPWDdepictsareaswhere
threatenedandendangeredspecieshavebeenobserved.Thisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthesespecies
arepresent,butitisanindicatorthataspeciesisorwaspresentandhaspracticalconservationvalue.

5.4.14AdditionalEnvironmentalEvaluationCriteria
There are four environmental evaluation criteria community facilities, historic properties, hazardous
materials and U.S. Census block groups with over 50 percent poverty population for which data was
collected. However, when evaluated, they did not create any differentiation between the scoring of the
potentialroutealternativesatthislevelofanalysis.Forexample,thisdesktoplevelanalysisdidnotidentify
anyhistoricpropertieswithinthe125footbuffer(62.5feetfromthealignmentcenterline),althoughthey
are expected to be present. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, these four environmental
evaluation criteria were not used in the Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening. Additional
researchandanalysiswillbeconductedforthesefourenvironmentalevaluationcriteria,amongresource
topicsasrequiredbyNEPA,aspartoftheDraftEIS.

5.5

LevelII,StageIEnvironmentalConstraintsScreeningResults

Table53showstheresultsoftheLevelII,StageIEnvironmentalConstraintsScreeningforthe18potential
routealternativesthatwerecarriedforwardfromtheLevelIScreening.

29

Table54:LevelII,StageIEnvironmentalConstraintsScreeningResults
PotentialRoute
Alternatives
Corsicana
Geographic
Group
Bardwell
Geographic
Group
IH45
Geographic
Group

Middle
Geographic
Group

Hockley
Geographic
Group

UrbanLandCover

ParcelTakes
(40%)

Percent

Score

Number Score

CRBase

4.91%

3.000

CR1

4.58%

2.566

CR2

3.38%

BABase

Parks

PrimeFarmland

Wetlands

Waterways

Floodplains

RoadCrossings

Infrastructure
Adjacency

Minority
Population

Cemeteries

Ecology
(TXNDD)

Total
Score

Acres

Score

Acres

Score

Acres

Score

Number

Score

Acres

Score

Number

Score

Percent

Score

Number

Score

Acres

Score

Acres

Score

1.333

0.00

1.000

198.79

1.659

2.39

1.000

47

1.833

93.92

2.504

37

1.000

56.79%

1.000

14

3.000

0.00

1.000

12.56

1.364

19.69

17

3.000

0.00

1.000

187.26

1.000

4.83

1.571

42

1.000

41.09

1.000

47

3.000

20.54%

3.000

1.000

0.00

1.000

69.03

3.000

22.14

1.000

1.000

0.00

1.000

222.22

3.000

10.94

3.000

54

3.000

111.34

3.000

40

1.600

40.90%

1.877

13

2.750

0.00

1.000

0.00

1.000

23.23

4.12%

1.726

14

1.000

0.00

1.000

455.41

3.734

5.24

1.300

83

1.000

141.10

1.000

68

1.167

51.24%

1.000

50

4.000

0.00

1.000

12.56

1.000

18.93

BA1

4.07%

1.481

20

1.720

0.00

1.000

470.53

4.000

6.36

1.496

91

4.000

144.23

1.720

68

1.167

33.74%

2.999

40

2.846

0.00

1.000

12.56

1.000

24.43

BA2

3.97%

1.000

18

1.480

0.00

1.000

436.10

3.393

3.54

1.000

85

1.750

150.29

3.114

66

1.000

50.81%

1.050

48

3.769

0.00

1.000

12.56

1.000

20.56

BA3

4.61%

4.000

39

4.000

0.00

1.000

300.25

1.000

20.56

4.000

85

1.750

154.14

4.000

102

4.000

24.98%

4.000

24

1.000

0.00

1.000

25.82

4.000

33.75

IH45Base

5.04%

1.000

47

1.000

0.00

1.000

423.30

2.000

25.83

1.000

185

2.000

189.49

2.000

115

1.000

52.23%

2.000

14

1.000

0.00

1.000

276.89

2.000

17.00

IH45Alt.

27.19%

2.000

79

2.000

246.73

2.000

355.12

1.000

31.11

2.000

166

1.000

169.72

1.000

147

2.000

63.51%

1.000

20

2.000

0.00

1.000

172.62

1.000

18.00

MDBase

5.15%

3.161

41

1.000

0.00

1.000

222.51

4.024

21.22

1.245

134

1.800

79.81

4.014

77

2.714

49.12%

1.000

1.000

0.00

1.000

264.33

5.000

26.96

MD1

4.99%

2.834

42

1.049

0.00

1.000

229.74

5.000

20.61

1.000

146

5.000

79.81

4.014

65

1.000

44.16%

1.939

1.000

0.00

1.000

264.33

5.000

29.84

MD2

4.97%

2.778

46

1.244

0.00

1.000

212.38

2.655

24.47

2.551

143

4.200

105.93

5.000

78

2.857

34.81%

3.707

3.000

0.00

1.000

264.33

5.000

34.99

MD3

4.15%

1.000

49

1.390

0.00

1.000

213.08

2.750

30.56

5.000

131

1.000

104.23

4.936

93

5.000

27.97%

5.000

5.000

0.27

5.000

169.54

1.000

38.08

MD4

5.99%

5.000

123

5.000

0.00

1.000

200.12

1.000

21.20

1.237

136

2.333

0.00

1.000

93

5.000

35.88%

3.504

3.000

0.00

1.000

228.41

3.484

32.56

HCBase

12.07%

4.000

28

3.250

0.00

1.000

191.97

1.000

50.64

1.370

34

3.786

69.10

4.000

41

4.000

62.19%

1.000

18

4.000

0.00

1.000

107.43

4.000

32.41

HC2

8.79%

1.669

25

1.000

0.00

1.000

209.35

1.549

56.33

4.000

35

4.000

57.34

2.339

33

1.000

36.83%

2.811

16

1.000

0.00

1.000

105.88

3.940

25.31

HC3

10.29%

2.737

29

4.000

0.00

1.000

252.77

2.920

51.80

1.906

21

1.000

54.71

1.966

35

1.750

32.66%

3.109

17

2.500

0.00

1.000

73.29

2.671

26.56

HC4

7.85%

1.000

26

1.750

0.00

1.000

286.99

4.000

49.83

1.000

29

2.714

47.87

1.000

33

1.000

20.18%

4.000

17

2.500

0.00

1.000

30.35

1.000

21.96

30


The scores for each criterion were totaled for each potential route alternative within its geographic
group.FRAdeterminedthatthelowestscoringpotentialroutealternativewouldmoveforwardtoLevel
II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening for further evaluation. Additionally, FRA used a standard
deviation2toquantifythevariationofthedata.

After the scores were totaled, the standard deviation was then calculated for each geographic group.
Thepotentialroutealternativesthatfellwithinonestandarddeviationofthelowestscorewerecarried
intotheLevelII,StageIICostandConstructionScreening.Therefore,onestandarddeviationfromthe
scorewasusedtostatisticallycapturethosepotentialroutealternativesclosesttothelowestscore,as
wellasthelowestscore.

For example, as shown in Figure 52, the Hockley geographic group scores ranged from 21.964 to
32.406.Onestandarddeviationfromthelowestscoreis3.77or25.73,soanyscoreslessthan25.73fall
within one standard deviation of the lowest score. Using this methodology, HC4 (21.964) and HC2
(25.307)werecarriedforwardtotheLevelII,StageIICostandConstructionScreening.

Figure52:StandardDeviationExample

Standarddeviationisastatisticusedtomeasurethedispersionorvariationinasetofnumbers.Itisequalto
thesquarerootofthevariance.

31

AttheconclusionoftheLevelII,StageIEnvironmentalConstraintsScreening,FRAcarriedtenpotential
routes alternatives forward for further consideration. Table 54 identifies all of the potential route
alternativesthatadvancedtotheLevelII,StageIICostandConstructionScreening.

Table55:LevelII,StageIEnvironmentalConstraintsScreeningResultsandStandard
Deviation
PotentialRouteAlternative
Corsicana
GeographicGroup

Bardwell
GeographicGroup
IH45Geographic
Group

MiddleGeographic
Group

HockleyGeographic
Group

CRBase
CR1
CR2
BABase
BA1
BA2
BA3
IH45Base
IH45Alt.
MDBase
MD1
MD2
MD3
MD4
HCBase
HC2
HC3
HC4

TotalScore
19.69
22.14
23.23
18.93
24.43
20.56
33.75
17.00
18.00
26.96
29.84
34.99
38.08
32.56
32.41
25.31
26.56
21.96

StandardDeviation
1.48

5.75

N/A

3.88

3.77

CarriedForward
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes

5.6

LevelII,StageIICostandConstructionScreening

FRAsLevelII,StageIEnvironmentalConstraintsScreeningidentifiedtenpotentialroutealternativesfor
further consideration. As the Project Proponent, TCR identified several preferred alignments from the
potential route alternatives in its Step 2 Screening of Alignment Alternatives Report (TCR 2015b) that
bestmetitscostandconstructiongoals.ToincludeTCRsprimarycriteriaofcostandconstructability,
FRAundertookaLevelII,StageIICostandConstructionScreening.Eventhoughtheywereeliminatedin
the Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening, FRA carried three additional potential route
alternatives(MD4,BA3andCR1)intotheLevelII,StageIICostandConstructionScreeningtofurther
evaluate TCRs preferred alignments. These 13 remaining potential route alternatives were evaluated
usingacombinationofenvironmental,cost,andconstructionfactors.

FRA was not provided TCRs proprietary cost and construction data; instead, TCR provided cost and
construction factors normalized against to the Base Alignment.3 In order to use TCRs cost and
constructionfactorsaspartofFRAsLevelII,StageIICostandConstructionScreening,FRAdeveloped
normalized environmental factors from the Level II, Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening Base
Alignmentscores.ThisallowedFRAtocompleteanindependentevaluationusingcomparablefactors.

Normalizationisusedtobringdifferenttypesofdataintoacommonunitforthepurposesofcomparison

32

FRA calculated the environmental factor using the environmental evaluation criteria from the Level II,
Stage I Environmental Constraints Screening. Each geographic group contained a Base Alignment (CR
Base,BABase,etc.).TheBaseAlignmentfromeachgeographicgroupwasassignedafactorof1.0.The
difference between the base factor and the other geographically grouped potential route alternatives
was calculated to assign a factor at, above or below 1.0. For example, BA Base has an environmental
scoreof18.926(seeTable43above).Tocreatenormalizedfactor,itsenvironmentalfactoris1.0.BA2
has an environmental score of 20.556, which is 9 percent higher than the base factor, and creates a
factorof1.09.

TCRprovidedcostandconstructionfactorsforall13potentialroutealternativesintheLevelII,StageII
Cost and Construction Screening (TCR 2015b). Similar to the environmental factors, within each
geographic group, the Base Alignment was assigned a factor of1.0 for cost and construction, and the
otherpotentialroutealternativesfactorswerecalculatedfromthebase.TCRscostfactorwasbasedon
typical heavy infrastructure types (i.e., embankment vs. viaduct), trackwork, grade crossings,
transmission line relocations, estimated environmental mitigation costs, and complexity factors
associated with development and environmentally sensitive areas that are normalized to an average
cost in order to compare potential route alternatives against each other within a geographic group.
TCRsconstructionschedulefactorswerecalculatedbasedontypeofinfrastructuretobebuiltandan
estimatedtimetobuildeachtypeofinfrastructure(Step2ScreeningofAlternativeAlignmentsReport
2015b).

In order to complete the Level II, Stage II Cost and Construction Screening, the cost and construction
factorswereaveragedtogethertocreateasinglefactorthatcouldbecomparedtotheenvironmental
factor, giving each an equal weight to environmental factors as the combined cost and construction
factor.Table55showstheresultsoftheLevelII,StageIICostandConstructionScreening.

33

Table56:LevelII,StageIICostandConstructionScreeningResults
Potential
Level1 Difference Level2ENV
TCRCost
TCRConstruction
Average
Route
Total
Score
fromBase
Factor
Factor
Factor
C/CFactor
Alternative
CRBase
19.694
0.000
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
CR1
22.137
2.443
1.12
0.95
0.85
0.90
2.02
BABase
18.926
0.000
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
BA1
24.429
5.503
1.29
1.15
1.33
1.24
2.53
BA2
20.556
1.630
1.09
0.98
1.00
0.99
2.08
BA3
33.750
14.824
1.78
1.08
1.16
1.12
2.90
IH45Base 17.000
0.000
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
IH45Alt.
18.000
1.000
1.06
1.04
0.92
0.98
2.04
MDBase
26.959
0.000
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
MD1
29.835
2.877
1.11
1.13
1.22
1.17
2.28
MD4
32.558
5.599
1.21
0.96
0.95
0.96
2.16
HCBase** 32.406
0.000
1.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
HC2
25.307
7.099
0.78
0.83
0.60
0.71
1.50
HC4
21.964
10.442
0.68
0.81
0.48
0.65
1.32
**HCBasewasnotcarriedforwardtotheLevelII,StageIICostandConstructionScreening,buttheLevelII,Stage
IEnvironmentalConstraintsScreeningscorewasusedtogenerateenvironmentalfactorsfortheremainingHC
potentialroutealternatives.

FRA carried forward the potential route alternatives with the lowest score in each geographic group.
Additionally, FRA carried forward potential route alternatives within each geographic group that were
veryclosetothelowestscoreinthegeographicgroupsuchthattherewasnodistinguishabledifference
betweenthescoresusinganaturalbreakapproach.4

FRAdeterminedeightpotentialroutealternativesmovedforwardthroughtheLevelII,StageIICostand
ConstructionScreeningfordetailedconsiderationintheDraftEIS.Thepotentialroutealternativesthat
FRAwillevaluateintheEISare:
CorsicanaBase(CRBase)
Corsicana1(CR1)
BardwellBase(BABase)
Bardwell2(BA2)
IH45Base(IH45Base)
IH45Alternative(IH45Alt.)
MiddleBase(MDBase)
Hockley4(HC4)

As discussed in Section 4.0, no potential route alternatives were proposed for the common segments
and FRA did not conduct an evaluation of the common segments for the purposes of narrowing the
rangeofalternatives.Therefore,FRAwillalsoevaluateCS1,CS2,andCS3intheEIS.

Thenaturalbreakpointclustersdatatodeterminethebestarrangementofvaluesintodifferentclasses.For
thisanalysis,FRAidentifiedclassesofhighandlowscores,withlowscoresrepresentingalowerpotentialfor
impact.

34

6.0 CONCLUSION
The eight potential route alternatives that FRA carried forward from the Level II, Stage II Cost and
ConstructionScreeningandthethreecommonsegmentswerethenpiecedtogethertocreatepotential
endtoend alignment alternatives, or alignment alternatives from downtown Dallas to the Houston
terminus at the intersection of US 290/IH610. To create the endtoend alignment alternatives, each
draftalignmentalternativewasbrokenintofivesegmentsmadeupofthepotentialroutealternatives
andcommonsegments.Table61andFigure61showsthepotentialroutealternativesthatmakeup
eachsegment.

Table61:DraftAlignmentAlternativeDevelopmentSegmentation
Segment
Segment1

Potential Route Alternatives

BaseAlignment(CS1)

Segment2a

BABase

Segment2b

BA2

Segment3a

BABase,BA2,CRBase,IH45Base

Segment3b

CR1

Segment3c

IH45Alt.

Segment4

IH45Base,MDBase

Segment5

BaseAlignment (CS2 andCS3) and

HC4

35

Figure61DraftAlignmentAlternativesCarriedForwardtotheDraftEIS

36


The segments were then pieced together to create six endtoend alignment alternatives. Table 62
showsthecombinationofsegmentsthatcreatedraftAlignmentAlternativesAF.Becausepartsofthe
segmentsoverlap,itisnotpossibletoshowallofthealternativesononemap;therefore,aseriesofsix
maps, one for each endtoend alignment alternative, is included. Figures 62 through 67 show the
mapsofthesixdraftalignmentalternativesthatFRAwillstudyintheDraftEIS.

Table62:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternatives
DraftAlignment
Alternative

Segments

AlternativeA

1,2a,3a,4,5

AlternativeB

1,2a,3b,4,5

AlternativeC(IH45A)

1,2a,3c,5

AlternativeD

1,2b,3a,4,5

AlternativeE

1,2b,3b,4,5

AlternativeF(IH45B)

1,2b,3c,5

Thisalternativesanalysisprovidesadesktoplevelreviewtocomparepotentialroutealternativeswithin
specificgeographicgroups.Thealignmentalternativespresentedinthisdocumentarepreliminaryand
subjecttochange.Thedraftalignmentalternativeswillcontinuetobefurtherrefinedandevaluatedas
per NEPA. For example, the Draft EIS will evaluate and document potential environmental impacts
identified through modeling, field investigations and public input. These environmental impacts may
dictate a modification to the alignment alternative to avoid and/or minimize an impact. Additionally,
TCRsengineeringteamwillrefinethealignmentalternativesduringpreliminaryengineering,whichwill
occursimultaneouslywiththepreparationoftheDraftandFinalEIS.FRAwillevaluatethemodifications
tothealignmentalternativesthroughtheEISprocess.

37

Figure62:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternativeA

38

Figure63:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternativeB

39

Figure64:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternativeC

40

Figure65:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternativeD

41

Figure66:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternativeE

42

Figure67:DraftEISEndtoEndAlignmentAlternativeF

43

AppendixAGISMethodology

44


GISMethodology
ThefollowingisadetaileddescriptionofthemethodologyusedfortheGISdesktopanalysistoevaluate
thepotentialroutealternativesforeachofenvironmentalcriteriadescribedinSection4.0.

A.1
UrbanLandCover
Initiallythelandusecriteriaincludedresidential,commercialandindustriallanduses,butwhenit
becameapparentthatthelandusedatasetsareonlypartiallyavailableforthecorridor,andwhere
available,theyhaveinconsistentclassification/schema,UrbanLandCoverfromtheNLCDwasused.The
NLCDisconsistentthroughouttheentirecorridor.
ThefollowingdescribestheGISanalysisusedtoidentifythepotentialforimpacts:
UsedExtractbyMasktooltoclipthelargeNLCDdatasetdowntotheareacoveredwithin500
feetfromthealignmentcenterline
PerNLCDcategories,groupedalldeveloped/urbanlandcoverclassifications(low,medium,
andhighintensity,anddevelopedopenspace)intooneurbanclassificationandgroupedall
otherclassificationsintoaruralclassification
UsedArcScantocreatepolygon(vector)featuresrepresentingurban/developedland
Usedtheintersecttooltodeterminewhichoftheseareasoverlay500feetfromthealignment
centerline
Calculatedtheareaofthesepolygonsinacres
Dissolvedthefeaturestosumthetotalofpotentiallyaffectedacreageforeachbuffer(1,000
feettotalwidth)
ExportedtotalacreagesofurbanlandcoverfromArcGISintoExcel

A.2
ParcelTakes
Thiscriterioncombinesstructures(rooftops)identifiedbyaerialphotographywithparceldatatoarrive
atanestimationofthepotentialimpactsthatthepotentialroutealternativescouldhaveonproperty
owners.Thiscriterioncountstheidentifiedparcelimpactsastakes:
Anyparcelwithoneormorestructureonitthatfallswithin62.5feetofthealignment
centerline(125foottotalwidth)
Parcelswithoutstructureswithin62.5feetofthealignmentcenterlinewhereatleast40percent
oftheparcelsareafallswithinthealignmentbuffer(125foottotalwidth)

ThefollowingstepsweretakentoconducttheGISanalysis:
Collectedpreprocessedparceldatafromthe13intersectingcountiesandensuredthattheyare
inthecorrectcoordinatesystem.ForFreestoneandLeoncounties,theparceldatawasavailable
incomputeraideddesign(CAD)lineformat,sothelineswereconvertedintoashapeto
generatetheparcelareas.
Mergedtheclippedparceldatatogether
Calculatedtheareaoftheseparcelsinacres
Intersectedtheparcelswithin62.5feetofthealignmentcenterline,whichclipstheparcelsto
thealignmentbufferandjoinsinalternativeattributes
Calculatedtheintersectedareaoftheseparcelsinacres
Dividedtheintersectedareabytheoriginalwholeareatoarriveatapercenttake
Selectedthosefeaturesfromthislayerthatcontainedstructuresandcopiedthemintotheir
ownlayer,thencalculatedsummarystatisticsforthisnewlayer,groupingbypotentialroute
alternativenameandsummingthenumberofaffectedparcels

45

Reversedtheselectionintheoriginalintersectedparcelslayer,thusselectingonlythoseparcels
withoutanystructureswithin62.5feetofthealignmentcenterline.Selectedfromthisselection
onlythosewithatakepercentagegreaterthanorequalto40percent,yieldingonlythose
parcelswithoutstructureswheremorethan40percentoftheparceliswithin62.5feetofthe
alignmentcenterline.Copiedtheseselectedfeaturesintoanewlayer,andcalculatedsummary
statistics,groupingbypotentialroutealternativenameandsummingthetotalnumberof
affectedparcels
ExportedbothsummarytablesfromArcGISandimportedthemintoExcel.Addedthenumberof
parcelswithaffectedstructuresandparcelswithoutaffectedstructureswheremorethan40
percentofitsareaisaffectedtoarriveatthefinaltakesnumber.

A.3
Parks
ParksdatawasavailableinpolygonformfromtheMPOsandtheTPWD.Thedatawasmergedtogether
toformasingleshapefileforthefollowinganalysis.
Intersectedtheparksshapefilewithin500feetofthealignmentcenterline,whichclipstheparks
tothecorridorandjoinstheminthealternativesattributes
Calculatedacreageofintersectedparkfeatures
Calculatedsummarystatisticsfortheresultinglayer,groupingbypotentialroutealternative
nameandsummingthetotalaffectedparkacreage
ExportedthesummarytablefromArcGISandinserteditintotheExceltable

A.4
PrimeFarmland
PrimefarmlandwasacquiredfromtheNRCSSSURGO.Thefollowinganalysiswasconductedto
determinethepotentialimpacts.
MergedtogetherSSURGOdataforthevariousdrainagebasinsinthecorridor
SelectedandexportedonlythosepolygonfeaturesfromtheSSURGOdatathatrepresentprime
farmland
Intersectedtheprimefarmlandpolygonswithin62.5feetofthealignmentcenterline,which
clipsthedatatothebufferandjoinsthemtothealternativesattributes
Calculatedacreageofinterestedprimefarmlandfeatures
Calculatedsummarystatisticsfortheresultinglayer,groupingbypotentialroutealternative
nameandsummingtheacreagetototalaffectedprimefarmland
ExportedthissummarytablefromArcGISandplacedintotheExceltable

A.5
Wetlands
WetlanddatawasobtainedfromtheUSFWSNWIdataset.Theanalysiswasconductedasfollows:
Intersectedwetlandpolygondatawithin62.5feetofthealignmentcenterline,whichclipsthe
wetlandstothestudyareaandjoinsinthealternativesattributes
Calculatedtheacreageofintersectedwetlandfeatures
Calculatedthesummarystatisticsfortheresultinglayer,groupingbypotentialroutealternative
nameandsummingthetotalaffectedwetlandacreage
ExportedthesummarytablefromArcGISintoExcel

46

A.6
Waterways
Thenumberofwaterwaysapotentialroutealternativecrosseswascalculatedusingthefollowing
analysis.TheGISdatawasobtainedfromtheNHD.
Intersectedstreamlineswiththepotentialalignmentalternatives,whichgeneratesapointat
everycrossingjoinedwithattributesfromboththestreamsandthepotentialroutealternative
Calculatedsummarystatisticsforthispointlayer,groupingbypotentialroutealternativename
andsummingthenumberofcrossingsforeachpotentialroutealternative
ExportedthesummarytablefromArcGISintoExcel

A.7
Floodplain
FloodplaindatawasobtainedfromFEMAandincludedboththe100and500yearfloodplain
classifications.Thefollowinganalysiswasconductedtodeterminetheacresofimpactsforeach
potentialroutealternative.
Intersectedpolygonfloodplaindatawithin62.5feetofthealignmentcenterline,whichclipsthe
floodplainstothestudyareaandjoinsinthealternativesattributes
Calculatedacreageoftheintersectedfloodplainfeatures
Calculatedsummarystatisticsfortheresultinglayer,groupingbypotentialroutealternative
nameandsummingthetotalaffectedfloodplainacreage
ExportedthesummarytablefromArcGISintotheExceltable

A.8
RoadCrossings
TheTxDOTwasthedatasourcefortheroadwayswithinthecorridor.TheGISdatasetincludedallpublic
roadsregardlessofownershiporfunctionalclass.Thenumberofroadwaycrossingswascalculatedfor
eachpotentialroutealternativebyusingthefollowsteps:
Intersectedroadwaylineswiththepotentialroutealternatives,whichgeneratedapointat
everycrossingjoinedwithattributesfromboththeroadsandthepotentialroutealternative
Calculatedsummarystatisticsforthepointlayer,groupingbypotentialroutealternativename
andsummingthenumberofroadcrossingsforeachpotentialroutealternative
ExportedthesummarytablefromArcGISintoExcel

A.9
InfrastructureAdjacency
OneofTCRsalignmentobjectivesisforapotentialroutealternativetomaximizecolocation
opportunitieswithtransportationandutilitycorridors.Thiscriterionestimatesthepercentageofthe
potentialroutealternativethatparallelsexistinginfrastructure.Thisanalysisusestheroadsdataset
fromTxDOT,railroadsdatasetfromtheU.S.NationalTransportationAtlas,andelectricaltransmission
linedatasetfromPlatts.

Todeterminethepercentageofthepotentialroutealternativethatparallelsexistinginfrastructure,the
followinganalysisoccurred:
Splitthealternativelinesattheirverticessothatthebearingofindividualsegmentscouldbe
computed
ComputedthebearingoftheseindividualsegmentsusingLinearDirectionMeanandcreateda
nondissolvedflatended1,000footbuffer(500feetfromalignmentcenterlineforeachofthese
individualsegments,whichcarriesoveralternativeattributesandthebearingoftheparentline
segment

47

Mergedtheinfrastructurefeaturesintoonefeatureclassandclippedthemtothisnewbuffer
area,primarilytocutdownonprocessingtime
Intersectedtheinfrastructurefeatureswiththenewsegmentbuffer,whichbreaks
infrastructurefeatureswherethealternativechangesdirectionandjoinsalternativeattributes
(includingbearing)
Splittheseintersectedinfrastructurefeaturesattheirverticesandcalculatedthebearingof
individualsectionsusingLinearDirectionMean
Selectedonlythoseinfrastructurefeaturesthatwerewithin5degreesofthesamebearing
(substantiallyparallel)tomoveonintheanalysis
Splittheoriginalalternativelinesinto500footsegmentsforaggregationandcreatedanon
dissolved1,000footbuffer(500feetfromalignmentcenterline)flatendedbufferofthe
resultingfeatures
Selectedonlythose500feetby1,000feetbufferfeaturesthatcontainedparallelinfrastructure
Copiedtheseselectedfeaturestoanewlayerandcreatedsummarystatistics,groupingby
potentialroutealternativenameandsummingtheirtotallength.Thisrepresentsthetotal
lengthofsegmentsofthealignmentthatareparalleledbyexistinginfrastructure
Dividedthisparallellengthbythepotentialroutealternativestotallengthtoarriveata
percentageparalleledbyexistinginfrastructure
ExportedthesummarytablefromArcGISintoExcel

A.10 MinorityPopulation
Minoritypopulationwaslookedattodeterminewhichproposedroutealternativesmight
disproportionatelyaffectEJpopulations,whicharedefinedasminorityandlowincomepopulations.
MinoritypopulationdatawasobtainedattheU.S.CensusBlocklevelfromthe2010DecennialU.S.
Census.Forthepurposesofthisanalysis,theminoritypopulationisdefinedasthetotalpopulation
minuspersonsthatreportedthemselvesasWhite,NotHispanicorLatino.Thisinformationwas
convertedintoametricbycountingthenumberofU.S.CensusBockswithaminoritypopulationover50
percentintersectingthepotentialroutealternative1,000footbuffer(500feetfromalignment
centerline).

A.11 Cemeteries
PolygoncemeterydatawasobtainedfromtheTHC.Boththenumberofimpactedcemeteriesandtotal
impactedacreagewascalculated.Onlytheimpactedacreagewasusedfortheevaluationscoring.

Thefollowinganalysiswasconductedtodeterminepotentialimpacts:
Cemeterypolygondatawasintersectedwithin62.5feetofthealignmentcenterline
Theresultingimpactedcemeteriesweredissolvedbybothpotentialroutealternativenameand
cemeterynametoinsurethatthereexistedonlyonecemeteryalternativefeaturecombination
inthedatasettoavoiddoublecountinginareaswheremanypotentialroutealternativesare
closetoeachother
Calculatedtheimpactedareainacres
Generatedsummarystatistics,groupingbypotentialroutealternativenameandsumming
togetherboththenumberofimpactedcemeteriesandtotalimpactedacreage
ExportedthissummarytablefromArcGISandinserteditintotheExceltable

48


A.12 Ecology
TheTXNDDelementoccurrencedatafromTPWDdepictsareaswherethreatenedandendangered
specieshavebeenobserved.Thisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthesespeciesarepresent,butitisan
indicatorthatanelementisorwaspresentandhaspracticalconservationvalue.Impactswere
determinedfromthefollowinganalysis:
IntersectedtheTXNDDlayerwithin62.5feetofthealignmentcenterlineofthepotentialroute
alternative,whichclippedthelayerandjoinedinthealternativesattributes
Calculatedtheareaofthepolygonfeaturesinthisintersectedelementoccurrencelayer
Generatedsummarystatistics,groupingbypotentialroutealternativenameandsummingthe
totalpotentialimpactedacreage
ExportedthesummarytablefromArcGISandinserteditintotheExceltable

A.13 CommunityFacilities
Communityfacilitydataisavailablefromanumberofdifferentsourcesandcoversawidevarietyof
facilities,butonlytheGeographicNamesInformationService(GNIS)datasetcoverstheentirecorridor
consistently.GNISdataisdeliveredinadelimitedtextfilefortheentirestateofTexas.
Theanalysiswasconductedasfollows:
ImportedthetextfileintoExcel,cleaneditup,andsaveditasaspreadsheet
ImportedthespreadsheetintoArcGISusingExceltoTabletool
UsedtheMakeXYEventLayertooltoprojectthistabulardataintospatialpointsusingNAD83
coordinatesprovidedinthedatasetsattributes
UsedSelectByLocationtoselectfeaturesfromthislayerwithinthealignmentcounties
UsedSelectByAttributestoselectfeaturesfromtheseselectedfeaturesthatarewithinthe
followingGNISfeatureclasses:Building(publicfacilitiesincluded),Church,Hospital,Post
Office,School
Exportedthisselectionasitsownlayer,andthenintersectedthislayerwiththe1,000foot
buffer(500feetfromalignmentcenterline),whichclipstheGNISpointstothealternativebuffer
andjoinsinthealternativeattributes
Performedsummarystatisticsonthisintersectedlayer,groupingbypotentialroutealternative
nameandsummingthenumberofpointsintersectedbyeachalignmentbuffer
ExtractedthesetotalnumbersfromArcGISandinsertedthemintotheExceltable

A.14 HistoricProperties
TheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(NRHP)wasusedtodeterminepotentialimpactstohistoric
properties.Bothindividualproperties(points)anddistricts(polygons)werelookedatbyusingthe
methodologydescribedbelow.
IntersectedboththepointandpolygonNRHPdatawiththe1,000footbuffer(500feetfrom
alignmentcenterline),whichclipsthesefeaturestothebufferareaandjoinstheminthe
alternativesattributes
Calculatedthesummarystatisticsforbothoftheselayers,groupingthembyalternativename
andsummingthetotalnumberofNHRPdistrictsandproperties
ExportedbothofthesesummarytablesfromArcGISandenteredthemintotheExceltable

49

A.15 HazardousMaterialsSites
HazardousmaterialsiteswereobtainedfromtheTexasCouncilonEnvironmentalQuality(TCEQ),data
includedmunicipalsettingdesignations;municipalsolidwastelandfills,radioactivesites,Superfund
sites,municipalwaterwells,andundergroundpetroleumstoragetanks.

Thefollowinganalysiswasconductedtodeterminepotentialimpacts:
Intersectedeachsetoffeatureswithin62.5feetofthealignmentcenterlineofthepotential
routealternatives,whichclippedthesitesandjoinedtheminthealternativeattributes
Generatedsummarystatisticsforeachsetoffeatures,groupingbypotentialroutealternative
nameandsummingthenumberofintersectinghazardousmaterialsites
Joinedtheresultingtablestogether,whichyieldsasingletablewitharowforeachpotential
routealternativeandcolumnforeachtypeofhazardousmaterialsite
Summedthetotalnumberofhazardousmaterialsitesforeachpotentialroutealternative,
exportedthetablefromArcGISandinserteditintotheExceltable

A.16 PopulationbelowPovertyLine
Povertydatafromthe20135yearAmericanCommunitySurvey(ACS)wasobtainedattheU.S.Census
BlockGroupleveltodeterminewhichproposedroutealternativesmightdisproportionatelyaffectEJ
populations.TheinformationwasconvertedintoametricbycountingthenumberofU.S.CensusBlock
Groupsthatintersectthepotentialroutealternatives1,000footbuffer(500feetfromalignment
centerline)where50percentormoreofthepopulationisbelowthe2013povertylineof$23,550fora
familyoffour(4).

50