195 replies to this topic

[CNJRoss]

Railway Age, 1/11/22

 

Part 1 of 4: A Temporary Victory for High-Speed Rail in the Lone Star State

 

 

 

When is a railroad not a railroad? Maybe “when it’s getting started in Texas.” The official answer to that question will come from the state’s Supreme Court within a few months. In a case with more twists and turns than a mountain railroad, the Court will decide whether Texas Central is a genuine railroad that can use a landowner’s private property by exercising eminent domain to build its right-of-way.

 

This case could be a seminal one in the decades-long struggle to establish high-speed rail (HSR) in the United States, or even new conventional rail lines that would be established by entities that have not yet reached the point where they are running trains on track that they own. The issue, in a nutshell, is whether an entity that is engaged in planning a new railroad can acquire the land that would be needed to build the first line. If the Court in Texas says no, it could spell not only the demise of the Texas Central plan to build a line between Dallas and a point at the intersection of two highways northwest of Houston, but such a rejection could apply the brakes to similar potential projects elsewhere.

 

 

Because of the complexity and potential implications of this case, it will require more than one article to present the case, the issues, and the potential ramifications if the Court finds against Texas Central. So

we will present a four-part series for now and will report the Court’s opinion when it comes down.

 

In this, the first article in the series, we will describe the dispute, the early victory for the property owner who is fighting against the establishment of a high-speed rail line in Texas, and a subsequent reversal in favor of the line on appeal. In the second article, we will analyze the issues presented by both sides before the Texas Supreme Court on a petition for review. At this writing, the case before the Court continues. We will look at the present controversy, as it now stands, in the third article in this series. In the fourth and final article for now, I will comment on what the case could mean for future efforts to build new rail lines, depending on how the Court rules.

 

Continue here.

[CNJRoss]

Railway Age, 1/25/22

 

Part 2 of 4: More Opponents Line Up

 

 

 

A landowner in rural Texas is locked in a legal battle with the companies that are planning to build the Texas Central high-speed rail (HSR) project, which would establish a line between downtown Dallas and the intersection of two highways northwest of Houston. Texas Central plans to offer a 90-minute trip time point-to-point, using Japanese Shikansen equipment.

 

James Frederick Miles, the landowner, objected to having a rail line running on his land, especially a high-speed line with all of its infrastructure. When the company want to survey his land, he refused to allow them to do so, claiming that they did not have the authority to make use of his land for the railroad by authority of eminent domain. He sued Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. (TCRI) and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc. (ITL) (collectively “Texas Central”) to keep them from continuing.

 

As we reported in the previous article in this series, Miles won at the trial-court level in rural Leon County. The local judge found that, as a matter of law, Texas Central did not have the sort of authority to exercise eminent domain that was granted to railroad companies in Texas by statute. Texas Central appealed, and the three-judge appellate panel reversed, holding that TCRI and ITL were “operating a railroad” and were “electric interurban railroad companies” within the meaning of the statute. 

 

  A Petition to the High Court

 

Not willing to accept that reversal, Miles raised the stakes. He asked the Texas Supreme Court to review the case. A number of other entities submitted briefs supporting him, and those briefs raised a multitude of issues about the specific and about HSR generally. It appears that at least one party has briefed essentially every issue concerning HSR or building a new rail line generally, in this matter. 

Continue here.

[CNJRoss]

Railway Age, 1/31/22

 

Part 3 of 5: The Court Pivots and Accepts the Case

 

 

For a short time, it looked like the end of the line for James Frederick Miles and his supporters. Miles is the landowner from a rural county between Dallas and Houston who had fought fiercely against the proposed Texas Central high-speed rail (HSR) line between Dallas and a point near Houston. He had defeated the Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. (TCRI) and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc. (ITL, known collectively as “Texas Central”) in a local court. When Texas Central appealed, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s verdict and ruled in favor of Texas Central. Then Miles petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review, and the Court denied his petition on June 18, 2021.

 

Texas Central wanted to conduct a survey on Miles’s land to use some of it for the right-of-way of its proposed line. He objected and refused permission. The original issue in the case was whether Texas Central was actually “operating a railroad” or was an “electric interurban railway company”; either status conferring authority to condemn land (or at least an easement across it) by eminent domain. There were other issues, too; particularly whether or not Texas Central had a “reasonable probability” of completing the project and placing the new line into service. As we reported in the first two articles in this series, there were other issues, and many non-parties who filed amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs supporting Miles’s side of the controversy, at least as far as that point in the proceedings.

 

High courts, whether the U.S. Supreme Court or the highest court of a state (usually, but not always, called the State Supreme Court) have absolute discretion when deciding whether or not to accept a case for review when a petitioner requests it. Such petitions, including Miles’s, allege that the lower court decided the case incorrectly and ask the Court to accept the case and correct the errors by reversing the decision. Miles garnered support from diverse places, including ranchers’ associations, the governments of the counties along the proposed line, and SNCF America, the U.S.-based subsidiary of the French national railroad SNCF. It appeared that the effort had been unsuccessful, because the Court said no, and courts rarely change their minds after they decide not to review a case.

 

  The Battle Resumes

 

Miles’s case was different, though. Seven days later, on June 25, the Court accepted Miles’s request for rehearing and set July 30 as the deadline for Miles to file his motion in support of that request. His attorneys filed it on July 29. Thus began a new chapter in a saga that could result in the end of new passenger rail starts in Texas, and perhaps in much of the rest of the country.

 

Continue here.

[CNJRoss]

Railway Age, 2/5/22

 

Part 4 of 5: Is This the End of the Line?

 

 

Since 2016, Texas landowner James Frederick Miles and the companies that are planning the Texas Central high-speed-rail line between Dallas and the edge of Houston have been engaged in a battle that has worked its way to the top of the court system in the Lone Star State: the Texas Supreme Court. The briefs have been submitted and oral argument was held on Jan. 11. Now it’s time to wait for the Court’s opinion, which will essentially determine whether or not the proposed line will actually be built. Beyond that, the case could create an atmosphere that will be either friendly or hostile to new railroad starts within and beyond Texas, whether those starts are high-speed or conventional rail lines.

 

SNIP

 

Infrastructure: Wanted or Unwanted?

 

The case is about “infrastructure”; a hot topic these days, in the wake of the Biden Administration’s signature achievement, the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act. The idea of building infrastructure for the public benefit (even if that “public benefit” was collateral) is not new; most of it was done by private-sector entities in the past, like railroads and early “turnpikes” which were toll roads. The theory was that private benefit for the builder would bring about a public benefit, too. Then came the Depression of the 1930s, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and vigorous involvement by the public sector in building infrastructure of all sorts. Today’s highway system, with the consequent elimination of most of the country’s passenger trains and nearly all of its rail transit, came later.

 

At one time, towns fought for the privilege of having a railroad build its infrastructure nearby, but part of the deal was often that the railroad would build a station, carry local passengers to other places, and ship locally-grown or locally-made products. The present case is about another sort of railroad: a high-speed line that would whisk passengers between two large metropolitan areas, but would not stop in the rural territory between them. The plan, though, called for infrastructure to be built in that rural territory, which local residents considered invasive. Plaintiff James Frederick Miles objected to having his land used for the railroad’s purpose, and other counties and legislators between Dallas and Houston joined him in that objection. In contrast to the past, this case is about infrastructure that “locals” do not want. 

More here.

[CNJRoss]

Railway Age, 2/23/22

 

Part 5 of 5: Congressman Attacks Texas Central on a Second Front

 

 

For the past few weeks, Railway Age has conducted an in-depth examination of the case of Miles v. Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. (TCRI) and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc. (ITL), now before the Texas Supreme Court. TCRI and ITL are collectively known as “Texas Central” and they want to build a high-speed rail (HSR) line between Dallas and a location northwest of Houston where two major highways intersect. Congressman (R-Tex.) Jake Ellzey filed his own objections to the project. So did a number of others, including several local elected officials, all of whom happen to be Republicans. The day before oral argument was scheduled before the Court, Ellzey opened a second front by introducing a bill in the House that would stop the Texas Central project and others like it dead in their tracks, even in the apparently unlikely event that the Court should side with Texas Central.

 

Ellzey is new to politics, but rose fast. After a brief stint in the Texas House of Representatives, he was elected to the U.S. House last year in a special election, defeating his predecessor Ron Wright’s widow Susan, who was endorsed by Donald Trump. He was a Navy pilot, served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is active in veteran’s affairs. His district, the Sixth, is at the north end of the proposed Texas Central line and “spans from the Rangers ballpark in southern Tarrant County to the booming suburbs of Ellis and Navarro Counties,” according to his website, www.ellzey.house.gov. Fort Worth is also in Tarrant County, but north of his district.

 

SNIP

 

Still, Ellzey is taking no chances. He used his elected office to introduce Bill H.R. 6365, the High-Speed Rail Land Acquisition Assurance Act, with the description: “To direct the Surface Transportation Board [STB] to require any high-speed rail project to acquire all land for the project before starting construction, and for other purposes.”

 

SNIP

 

H.R. 6365 Explained—Sort Of

 

A press release posted on Ellzey’s website the day he introduced the bill said: “The High-Speed Rail Land Acquisition Assurance Act as filed will require companies to acquire all the land needed to finish a high-speed rail project before construction can begin … Ellzey is helping lead the charge in Congress against High-Speed Rail Projects and their use of eminent domain. Filing the High-Speed Rail Land Acquisition Assurance Act is the first step in assuring the protection of Americans [sic] property rights.”

More here.  

[CNJRoss]

Progressive Railroading, 6/27/22

Texas Central wins court ruling, but railroad's future is uncertain

 

The Texas Supreme Court has affirmed by a 5-3 vote that Texas Central Railroad is an interurban electric railway company, which allows it to exercise the right of eminent domain, the High Speed Rail Alliance reported late last week.

 

The decision means the railroad, which has proposed construction and operation of a 240-mile high-speed rail line between Dallas and Houston, will be able to pay fair-market rates to acquire the land needed to build the route, the rail alliance reported in a blog.

 

Landowners who oppose the project filed suit in 2020. The project has been under a cloud of uncertainty, even more so since Texas Central CEO Carlos Aguilar announced his resignation two weeks ago.

 

 

Continue here. 

 

Related:  With no one left in charge, is high-speed rail dead in Texas?

[CNJRoss]

Railway Age, 6/28/22

 

Part 6: The Texas Supreme Court Rules

 

Written by David Peter Alan, Contributing Editor

 

 

 

I thought it was all over but the waiting: The beleaguered Texas Central high-speed rail (HSR) project, which would have sent fast trains between Dallas and the outskirts of Houston, was dead. The project had lost its leadership, and it appeared that the political forces in Texas had aligned to position the state’s Supreme Court to deal the death blow.

 

In a surprising decision delivered on June 24, the Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision that the Texas Central entities have the authority to take land for the line, under the applicable statute governing transportation providers. While the Court did not reach the question of whether or not Texas Central was a “railroad” for eminent-domain purposes, it ruled that the project had such authority as an “interurban electric railway company.”

 

  An Unexpected Holding 

 

In the legal profession, I am always aware that judges can render surprising decisions. In my five-part series from last winter here in Railway Age (“Is Texas Central Really a Railroad?”), I reported on the legal and political considerations that the Court encountered concerning the case, Miles v. Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc., ___ S.W.3d ___ (Texas, June 24, 2022), Case No 20-0393. I will refer to those entities collectively as “Texas Central.”

 

James Frederick Miles, a landowner whose property Texas Central wanted to survey for use as part of the right-of-way for the new line, objected and sued in the local court. He won, but the appellate court reversed and appeared to give Texas Central a green signal. The Supreme Court at first denied review, so it appeared that the project was finally allowed to go forward. Shortly thereafter, the Court changed its position and granted Miles’s petition, and later allowed the State to intervene. The State supported Miles’ claim. Republicans are strong in rural parts of Texas, while Democrats are concentrated in cities. All nine members of the Court are Republicans, either elected or appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott to fill unexpired terms. It seemed almost inconceivable that the Court would affirm the decision below.

 

 

Continue here. 

[CNJRoss]

Railway Age, 7/3/22

Part 7: What the Texas Court Did, and Didn’t, Say

 

Written by David Peter Alan, Contributing Editor

 

 

In the previous article in this series, I looked at the surprising decision by the Supreme Court of Texas in the case of Miles v. Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. and Integrated Texas Logistics, Inc., Case No. 20-0393 (“Texas Central”), decided on Friday, June 24. 

 

SNIP

 

  Texas Central: The New Interurban?

 

Writing for the majority, Justice Debra Lehrmann examined and interpreted the provision of the Texas Transportation Code that concerns interurban railways. It was enacted in 1907, as interurban lines were beginning to crisscross the nation, bringing transit to folks who lived outside the cities where streetcars had begun to make their appearance. They were electrically operated, and they ran between cities or other towns that could be considered urban areas at the time. So, to Justice Lehrmann and four of her colleagues, the proposed high-speed rail (HSR) line that Texas Central wants to build is essentially a new and faster interurban line that would stretch over a longer distance, with different technology, but with the same spirit as the historic interurbans of the past century.

 

This characterization may make romantic sense, a return to a transit mode that worked well and took people where they wanted to go cleanly and efficiently. The old interurbans should not have died, and much of the blame for killing them goes to the automobile and the highway, and the government policies that favored them, and still do today.  . . .

 

 

More here.

[CNJRoss]

Railway Age, 7/7/22

 

Part 8: Supporters Cautiously Optimistic Following Court Decision

 

Written by David Peter Alan, Contributing Editor

 

It also seemed hardly possible that an all-Republican Supreme Court in the Lone Star State would allow the entity to keep going, especially since many Republicans sided with the property owner who claimed that Texas Central had no right to step onto his land. But the Court pulled off a surprise move and sided with Texas Central, and the advocates and others who had hoped for that result are making themselves heard.

 

 

As we reported in our analysis of the decision in Part 6 of this series, the Court did not hold that Texas Central is a “railroad.” Only three members went on record as saying that in a concurring opinion. The majority ruled, instead, that it is an “electric interurban railway company,” some sort of descendant of the old interurban lines like the Texas Electric Railway that connected cities and towns in the Lone Star State and much of the rest of the country during the first half of the 20th century. Nonetheless, the decision was not a full stop indication, but more like a signal to proceed at restricted speed.

 

A yellow signal is not as good as a green one, but it’s better than a red one, so individuals and organizations who advocated for the Texas Central project breathed a sigh of relief and seemed ready to celebrate, even if the celebrations might be somewhat subdued. Perhaps Peter LeCody, President of Texas Rail Advocates, summed up the reactions the most succinctly, calling the decision a “miracle.” For advocates, it was time to take notice of a legal victory that had appeared impossible, or nearly so. 

 

Shortly before the ruling was handed down, the Texas Rail Advocates continued to put up a good front, even when a favorable decision seemed unlikely, at best. The organization’s website started its report this way on June 23, one day before the Court spoke: “After a major newspaper printed his obituary, author Samuel Clemens, who was known as Mark Twain, was quoted that ‘the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.’ The same rush to judgment may also hold true for Dallas-based Texas Central Railway.” 

 

But there was still an expression of concern in the report: “What is perplexing is that the Texas Supreme Court, which held oral arguments in January, has not rendered its opinion if Texas Central has additional eminent domain authority to obtain a narrow strip of property from a landowner for the high-speed railroad. Other decisions from January are starting to percolate from the Texas Supreme Court, but not the Miles v. Texas Central case. There is no clear cut explanation for the delay from the Texas Supreme Court, which took up the case in January after it was first rejected last year.” 

 

 

Continue here.  

[KevinKorell]

NBC DFW, 8/9/23:

 

 

   Texas Central partners with Amtrak, apply for federal grants to study high-speed rail viability    

 

 

The long-planned development of a controversial 236-mile high-speed rail line that would zip passengers from Dallas to Houston in 90 minutes appears to be taking another step forward Wednesday but is also drawing more scrutiny from opponents questioning the project's solvency.

 

Full story