Rail Plan

SNCF – SEPT 14TH, 2009
TEXAS
CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETRY – DO NOT DISCLOSE OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
French National Railways (hereinafter SNCF) proposes to develop, implement and operate new
high speed rail services in the Texas High Speed Rail Corridor designated by Federal Railroad
Administration. Our expression of interest and qualifications is in response the FRA Request for
Expressions of Interest dated December 11, 2008.
SNCF is particularly aware of the issues attached to this project, to the extend it was involved in
1987 in the project. Therefore, SNCF fells itself entitled to propose to build in this State a world
class High Speed Rail service, called HST 220.
This concept represents a new mode of transportation with a wide range of benefits that meet
environmental and sustainable development objectives. In preparing this Expression of Interest,
SNCF has addressed whether its High Speed Rail proposal, which is based on successful and
self-supporting services in France and around the world, can provide a valuable choice for Texan
travelers, be operated without government subsidy and even cover a portion of construction costs
through operations revenues, and fulfill these important environmental goals.
The proposed HS route Fort Worth - Dallas - San Antonio is quasi parallel to the existing
corridor, sharing the existing railway infrastructure facilities in urban approaches, even at lower
speed. As explained in the text, the investments devoted to HSR would in turn take advantage
from the rail’s new attractiveness and connectivity synergy with the classic rail network.
The HST 220 concept
Attractive, convenient and modally competitive HSR service is proposed. This service shall link
Fort Worth – Dallas – San Antonio, in connection with the existing conventional lines (110 mph
top speed) to Houston.
Speeds of up to 220 mph for HSR services are expected to generate a significant number of new
trips as well as draw from the air and auto modes. Access to HSR services for both residents and
visitors will be convenient due to 7 proposed stations conveniently located close to medium and
large city populations, city central business districts and airports to attract residents, providing
convenient and cost competitive alternative to driving and air travel.
This HST 220 concept keeps pace for a further complete Texan HS network ("Triangle" or "T-
bone" type) involving Houston, once the pertinence of HS services proven. Meanwhile, the
existing corridors will serve as key feeders.
To reduce both land use and environmental impacts and to ease the process of right-of-way
acquisition, the HSR route is to be located at the utmost possible along or next to existing
transportation infrastructures. To this end, allowances have been made to acquire the needed
right-of-way for its own dedicated operations. Rolling stock capable of speeds up to 220 mph
will be used. Seating, with 500 to 550 seats per 200m-long train unit, comfort and on-board
amenities will be consistent with the highest quality standards in place today, using for instance
Europe Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI), modified as needed to conform to
Federal Railroad Administration requirements. Using TSI as a basis offers a service with proven
performance in terms of safety, travel times, operations reliability, and efficiencies in service
commissioning and start-up as well as long term inspection and maintenance.
The maximum speed of trains using the TSI standards allow for operations speeds up to 220 mph
at commissioning. Examples of approximate trip times between major city pairs are as Dallas –
San Antonio in 1:50.
TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 -1-

Confidential and Proprietary – Do not disclose outside government
Ridership estimates based on a full complement of services after an initial ramp-up period are
12.1 millions (in the year 2025).
Many national and State-level goals will be achieved. HSR is among the most energy efficient
modes of transportation. Equivalent greenhouse gas and other vehicle emissions will be reduced.
Preliminary estimates show that HSR will generate 24% of the emissions compared to those
same trips made by car or by air. At the same time, currently forecasted roadway and airport
congestion will be mitigated, making the implementation of HSR accrue benefits to those modes.
Also, these trips will be safer. Up to 17 fatalities and 1332 injuries will be avoided for 2030, as
an example.
Stations will catalyze the redevelopment of host communities. Opportunities for economic
development, in terms of over 68,000 jobs in construction and over 145,000 jobs in operations
and maintenance will draw workers from all socio-economic segments.
The length of the alignment, combined with the populations of the cities served as well as the
limited airport and roadway capacity along the corridor, are strong indicators of a successful high
speed rail service. Operations planning will be optimized in several ways to cater to the
residential, business and visitor market segments, in ways to increase ridership and revenue. The
provision of a wide array of amenities and class/price options, along with reliable, on time
service will create market attractiveness and confidence.
Project management approach
The success of implementing High Speed Rail in Texas area rests upon the integrated design,
operations, financing, and environmental assessment disciplines experienced in high speed rail
projects. This is proven through SNCF participation in many successful projects in many parts of
the World. In the United States, governmental agency involvement is important for structuring
the required up front capital investment, and to partner in the environmental clearance and
approval processes. While the particular form of the most suitable organization is subject to
detailed technical, financial and legal studies, it is conceived that a Special Purpose Company
would operate the HSR service and finance a part of the initial capital costs.
The business case
Capital costs have been estimated at $13.8 billion in $2009. Included within this amount are $1.4
billion for rolling stock and $0.8 billion for right-of-way and acquisition. The remainder is in
guideway and civil construction ($8.3 billion), systems and maintenance facilities ($2.7 billion)
and stations ($0.6 billion). Estimates of revenue, annual operating and maintenance costs are
such that as ridership matures and service is fully established, revenue will exceed O&M costs
and will also cover a portion of the capital costs to the extent that public funding will be required
for only 62 % of the initial capital investment.
In present value discounted at 4%, the benefits of the HST 220 concept would represent in $2009
170 % of the public funds required, and would cover public funding in less than 15 years.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 POINT OF CONTACT ......................................................................................................7

2 NAME(S) AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PERSON(S) SUBMITTING THE
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST ........................................................................................7
3 PROJECT OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................8
3.a Background, objectives and philosophy behind the SNCF response.......................8
3.a.1 Background...............................................................................................................8
3.a.2 The FRA-Designated Corridors and SNCF .........................................................8
3.a.3 The philosophy behind the SNCF response........................................................9
3.a.4 Economic requirements ..........................................................................................9
3.a.5 Technical requirements.........................................................................................10
3.a.6 Operation.................................................................................................................10
3.b The Challenges ...............................................................................................................11
3.b.1 Strategy development ...........................................................................................11
3.b.2 Operations...............................................................................................................11
3.b.3 Financial ..................................................................................................................11
3.b.4 Benefits....................................................................................................................12
3.c The Route.........................................................................................................................12
3.d Building an operating plan .............................................................................................13
3.d.1 Train operation scheduling, stopping patterns ..................................................13
3.d.2 Marketing.................................................................................................................14
3.e Environmental approach for high-speed lines ............................................................14
3.f Capital needs assessments...........................................................................................15
3.g Operating and financial results .....................................................................................16
3.h The benefits .....................................................................................................................16
3.i Program implementation ................................................................................................18
3.i.1 Service development plan schedule ...................................................................18
3.i.2 Delivering the project.............................................................................................18
3.i.3 Risks management ................................................................................................19
4 DETAILED TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ...............................20
4.a Populations of markets served by each of the proposed stations...........................20
4.A.1 Demographic analysis...........................................................................................20
4.a.2 Economic analysis .................................................................................................21
4.b Existing intercity traffic by mode ...................................................................................21
4.c Proposed HSR station locations ...................................................................................22
4.c.1 Station locations .....................................................................................................22
4.c.2 Station buildings .....................................................................................................23
4.d Intermodal travel connections with other transportation services ...........................24
4.d.1 The station as an intermodal hub ........................................................................25

4.d.2 Connecting HSR to the existing rail network and local transport modes ......25
4.d.3 Auto access and parking lots ...............................................................................25
4.d.4 Catering to "soft", non-motorized transport modes and new mobility
concepts ..................................................................................................................26
4.d.5 HSR and air travelers ............................................................................................26
4.d.6 Impact of multimodality on distribution and operations....................................27
4.e Trip time and fare comparisons ....................................................................................27
4.e.1 Trip times.................................................................................................................27
4.e.2 Station services ......................................................................................................28
4.e.3 On board services..................................................................................................29
4.e.4 Fares ........................................................................................................................29
4.e.5 Comparisons with other services ........................................................................29
4.e.6 Door-to-door travel times - examples .................................................................29
4.e.7 Travel costs.............................................................................................................31
4.e.8 Door-to Door costs examples ..............................................................................31
4.f Operating plan .................................................................................................................33
4.f.1 Train operation scheduling ...................................................................................33
4.f.2 Train capacity and service frequency .................................................................33
4.f.3 Stopping patterns...................................................................................................34
4.f.4 Station capacity and maintenance depots location ..........................................34
4.f.5 Train service ...........................................................................................................34
4.f.6 Operations management ......................................................................................34
4.f.7 Intermodal Connections ........................................................................................35
4.g Annual ridership and revenue projections...................................................................35
4.g.1 The Texas-Speed Rail Authority ridership modeling process.........................35
4.g.2 Analysis of year-by-year ridership patterns .......................................................35
4.g.3 Revenue analysis...................................................................................................36
4.h Operating Costs...............................................................................................................37
4.h.1 Operating cost estimates ......................................................................................37
4.h.2 Infrastructure and Rolling Stock maintenance costs ........................................37
4.h.3 Productivity factor and final results .....................................................................38
4.i Impact of the project - public benefits ..........................................................................38
4.i.1 Major benefits of the high speed rail system to the public and the
transportation system ............................................................................................38
4.i.2 Methodology ...........................................................................................................39
4.i.3 Benefits to cost analysis .......................................................................................40
4.i.4 Other benefits .........................................................................................................42
4.j Impact of the project on growth of existing services..................................................42
4.j.1 Accommodations for and Future Growth of Existing Amtrak Services..........42
4.j.2 Accommodations for and Future Growth of Connecting Commuter Rail
Services ...................................................................................................................43
4.j.3 Accommodations for and Future Growth of Freight Railroads .......................43
4.k Impact of the project on other rail services .................................................................44
4.k.1 Services ...................................................................................................................44

4.k.2 Other passenger operators ..................................................................................45
4.k.3 Railway Infrastructure............................................................................................45
4.l Proposed routes and alignments ..................................................................................46
4.l.1 Existing Right Of Way (ROW)..............................................................................47
4.l.2 New Right of Way ..................................................................................................47
4.m Required infrastructure investments and improvements ..........................................47
4.n Mitigation of adverse impacts........................................................................................48
4.o Type and quantity of train equipment...........................................................................49
4.o.1 Maximum speed .....................................................................................................50
4.o.2 Passenger amenities - Service on board ...........................................................50
4.o.3 Energy consumption profile..................................................................................50
4.o.4 Acceleration and deceleration rates....................................................................50
4.o.5 Service development plan, fleet and phasing....................................................50
4.p Project Capital Costs ......................................................................................................51
4.p.1 Major categories of expenditure ..........................................................................51
4.p.2 Methodology and assumptions ............................................................................51
4.p.3 Rolling Stock costs ................................................................................................52
4.p.4 Capital costs summary..........................................................................................53
4.q Detailed analysis of the methods and technologies according to trip times and
reliability standards .........................................................................................................54
4.r Synopsis and references for any past HSR relevant studies...................................55
5 FINANCIAL PLAN ..........................................................................................................56
5.a Projected annual operating farebox revenues............................................................56
5.b Estimated annual operating costs by type of expenditure........................................56
5.c Annual schedule of capital costs ..................................................................................56
5.d Sources and descriptions of Capital funds..................................................................57
5.e Credit assumptions .........................................................................................................58
5.f Insurance program for construction and operation ....................................................58
5.g Construction cost risk sharing and rationale for the proposed approach...............59
5.h Revenue and operating cost risk sharing and rationale for the proposed approach
59
5.i Projected funding for the full fair market compensation for any asset....................59
5.j Projected financial statement ........................................................................................59
5.j.1 Financial analysis methodology and project modeling ....................................59
5.j.2 Overall financials of the project............................................................................60
5.j.3 SNCF financial approach......................................................................................61
6 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.........65
6.a Project structure organization chart - relationships amongst the entities...............65
6.a.1 Project structure organization chart ....................................................................65
6.a.2 Relationships between the parties involved ......................................................65

6.b New entities required and how they will be structured legally and financially .......66
6.c Integration of the proposed service with other services and systems ....................66
6.d Feasibility of gaining access to required ROW...........................................................66
6.e Required governmental actions and approvals and role of the state
government(s)..................................................................................................................67
6.e.1 Required governmental actions & approvals.....................................................67
6.e.2 Role of state governments in implementing proposal ......................................68
6.f Relationship to state rail plans and programs ............................................................68
7 LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS ..............................................................................................70
7.a Federal, state and/or local legislation ..........................................................................70
7.a.1 Authorize and create a sponsoring entity for the project .................................70
7.a.2 Remove legal impediments to project implementation ....................................70
7.a.3 Otherwise facilitate project ...................................................................................72
7.b Public funding commitments, Federal, state and/or local .........................................72
7.c Legislative actions / governement - Sponsored programs .......................................73
8 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS ............................74
8.a Rights and status of employees....................................................................................74
8.b Rail safety and security laws, orders and regulations ...............................................74
8.c Environmental laws and regulations ............................................................................75
8.c.1 Compliance with environmental laws and regulations .....................................75
8.c.2 Compliance with Federal, state and local requirements..................................76
8.d The Americans with Disabilities Act .............................................................................76
9 OPTIONAL CONTENTS................................................................................................78
9.a Contracting structure to provide the most effective allocation of the risk between
private and public sectors ..............................................................................................78
9.b Private sector involvement - procurement strategy ...................................................78
9.c Project Financing structure ............................................................................................78
9.d Role of public sector commitments in financing the project .....................................79
9.e Measures or commitments to provide and facilitate multi-year Federal
commitments....................................................................................................................79
9.f Role of private equity in financing the project.............................................................80
9.g Key considerations to encourage or dissuade private sector involvement............80
9.h Structures and models to guide the commissions .....................................................80
9.i Contribution to the development of a national HSR system.....................................80

1 POINT OF CONTACT
Lindsay SIMMONS
Tel.: +1 202 320 77 03
Email : lsimmons@jacksonkelly.com
Mailing address: c/o Jackson Kelly PLLC
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1110
Washington, DC 20009
U.S.A.
2 NAME(S) AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PERSON(S) SUBMITTING

THE EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
For the purpose of this RFEI, SNCF has implemented a team of experimented professionals in
order to address each field of the request. You will find in Appendix 1 the profile of each team
members covering different areas: project director (Jean-Pierre Orsi), project management
(Karine Meyer), business development & commercial (Scheherazade Zekri-Chevallet, Guillaume
Genin and Pierre Tilhou), operating plan (Jean-Marc Galimont), infrastructure (Dominique
Rulens), rolling stock and maintenance (Gérard Pitault), stations (Andreas Heym and Mikaël
Lannoy), marketing (Pierre Tilhou), traffic and economic analysis (Olivier Picq and Jean-Pierre
Arduin), financial analysis (Ludovic Guitton, Laurent Thorrance and Pauline Pezerat),
environment (Benoît Aliadière, Aurélia Gravet and Sophie Galichon) and legal advisors.
In addition, the team was supported by an industry-wise internationally-recognized advisor
(Jean-Marie Metzler). A steering committee was supervising the production of the team work
(Frank Bernard, Pascal Lupo and Dominique Thillaud).
The lead entity is SNCF (French National Railway), a company registered in France under
number 552 049 447, and most of the SNCF Divisions and some of its affiliates were involved in
the project (operations, maintenance, engineering, infrastructure, rolling stock, stations &
connectivity and finance). At this stage, SNCF has elected to answer the RFEI on its own and
has not formed yet any consortium or structure even though this is currently being considered.

3 PROJECT OVERVIEW
3.a BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE SNCF RESPONSE

3.a.1 Background
SNCF1, a world leader in the field of high-speed rail (HSR), hereby expresses its interest in
participating in the development of new high-speed rail services in the FRA-designated (E)
South Central Corridor. Our skills and capabilities are based on our experience running the
French National Railway, including: i) operating 800 daily services with a fleet of 460 high-
speed trains at speeds of up to 200 mph; ii) maintaining 5,000 miles of railroad track, including
1,500 miles of dedicated HSR lines; and iii) safely covering an average of 280,000 passenger
miles and carrying 120 million passengers per year without a single fatal accident since the
commissioning of the first high-speed line in 1981. This unique experience covers all the
specialized areas concerned, from project engineering (including the environmental impact and
funding aspects) to project management, design, construction, commissioning, operations, and
marketing of services.
The gradual build-up of HSR services in France over the past 25 years has enabled: i) traffic
forecast and modal split models (road/air/rail) to be finely adjusted to the different target
markets, ii) the techniques for producing socio-economic and financial balance sheets to be fine-
tuned for better accuracy, iii) unique and invaluable experience to be acquired in perfecting a
system of consultations with all the players directly or indirectly involved, especially over
environmental, energy consumption and greenhouse gas-related issues, and iv) finally, in the
interests of the community at-large, the emergence of well-coordinated development policies
combining high-speed, regional and urban rail services to create a network of stations, each one a
dynamic focal hub in its region, and where appropriate, fully interfaced with air transportation
services.
Outside France, SNCF has taken an active role in operating high-speed railroads internationally
and sharing its institutional knowledge with foreign HSR entities. For instance, SNCF has a
majority stake in Eurostar, the company that operates high-speed services between London and
mainland Europe, and is also the main industrial partner of the new private Italian HST operator,
NTV. SNCF has also been actively engaged in HSR development projects in United Kingdom,
South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia – just to name a few.
The financial success of SNCF’s first high-speed line - between Paris and Lyon - prompted the
Company to invest significant funds in later HSR infrastructure projects. The Paris-Lyon line
was financed by SNCF itself, an investment recouped in just seven years, and the scale of the
benefits to the community at large – modal shift, safety, land use planning, environment –
marked the massive success of that project.
Similar Public Private Partnerships (P3) are now a common way of creating the robust financial
packages necessary to secure the funds needed for new HSR projects. SNCF has developed
considerable experience in using P3-approaches and it is prepared to consider any financing
mechanism that can help ensure the viability of a HSR project.
3.a.2 The FRA-Designated Corridors and SNCF
SNCF is ready to apply its experience with regard to HSR-Express services, to the ambitious
plans recently announced by the Federal Railroad Administration.
1
In this document, the term "SNCF" refers to SNCF and the SNCF Group as a whole.

SNCF has had a significant presence in the United States and has enjoyed strong working
relationships with U.S. companies for over 75 years. Rail Europe Inc., a division of SNCF that
has maintained a U.S. office since the 1930’s, sells tickets to over 1 million American tourists
visiting Europe each year. As recently as the 1990’s, SNCF partnered with American Airlines’
Sabre Division in developing a global rail distribution system. Through the years, various
branches of SNCF have worked with federal, state and local authorities to contribute to different
transportation projects, including HSR planning studies.
We believe the United States is ideally suited for HSR: it features large metropolitan areas that
are relatively far apart, a highly mobile population (2.5 times the European average), and a fast-
growing awareness of the importance of the environmental challenges HSR can address. The
Texas Corridor will be one of the first developed for HSR-Express service, and should lay the
groundwork for similar projects throughout the United States.
3.a.3 The philosophy behind the SNCF response
SNCF's RFEI submission takes account of the expectations of the FRA and Congress as
expressed in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA), the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the Obama Administration’s "Vision for High-Speed
Rail in America," and the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program Interim
Program Guidance released in June 2009.
SNCF is prepared for FRA and its associated stakeholders to utilize SNCF’s engineering,
operation and infrastructure/rolling stock maintenance expertise. SNCF is ready to mobilize its
experts in these and various other related fields. Should SNCF be asked to pursue the
examination of our involvement further, the Company would quickly establish contacts with
other stakeholders (right-of-way owners, other transport operators, etc.), and with potential
technical and financial partners, in order form suitable consortiums to address the project’s
challenges.
All economic, demographic and ridership data presently available has been used to update the
ridership forecasts carried out in connection with completed project design phases. In addition,
whenever deemed appropriate or when previous studies were judged too old, specific research
has been conducted to refresh and benchmark new ridership forecasts, using for instance, gravity
models calibrated to U.S. data. The proven reliability of such completely auditable methods is
one of the guarantees of the success of projects thus designed. Particular attention has also been
paid to examining interfaces with air transportation.
3.a.4 Economic requirements
SNCF’s project finance philosophy is that, to be viable, any high-speed rail service project must
meet each of the following criteria:
• Operating and maintenance costs must be covered by the revenues from ridership: there
are to be no operating subsidies
• The socio-economic benefits must offset the public investments.
Against this backdrop, there are numerous ways to develop a HSR project, depending on, for
instance, i) the level of the operating result (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization, or EBITDA), ii) the distribution of capital costs between stakeholders, iii) the
allocation of risk, etc.

In this response, SNCF has set out to ascertain if these two criteria can be met, and express its
interest in undertaking further studies and making contact with stakeholders for purposes of
producing a comprehensive proposal, if selected to do so.
3.a.5 Technical requirements
The engineering specifications will have to meet both U.S. requirements and the performance
standards set by SNCF. SNCF is prepared to cooperate closely with the FRA in sharing its know-
how and experience in order to guarantee safety standards at least equivalent to those applicable
in Europe and elsewhere in the world. On this particular point, recent efforts in Europe to
produce standardized specifications for high-speed services (e.g. Technical Specifications for
Interoperability; European standards for design of high-speed railways), a process SNCF been
actively involved in, could be broadly taken as a basis for producing high-speed standards for the
U.S. SNCF has already shared this concept with state entities, for instance, the California High
Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA), or reconciliating the French high-speed standards with British
ones (Eurostar) providing SNCF an unique experience.
SNCF notes that the success of high-speed rail in France, and in other countries where SNCF has
played a role, may be largely ascribed to close cooperation with the rolling stock and equipment
manufacturer(s) and the operator. To ensure the greatest chances for success, all of these entities
need to be involved in the technical specification process from the earliest possible stage.
3.a.6 Operation
In view of the long distances separating U.S. metropolitan areas, SNCF has concluded that an
efficient national rail network must be primarily composed of very high speed segments (185 –
220 mph).
In creating such a system, major cities (typically those with more than one million inhabitants) at
distances of 600 miles apart could be linked by HSR in less than 4 hours. Experience at SNCF,
and among other very high-speed international operators, shows that break-even in terms of
intermodal market share lies in this time band. A further stage is reached when travel time is
under two hours: with suitably-designed services, HSR can capture 90% of the market and
become the main feeder of ridership into the major airports. Active steps will be taken to forge
marketing partnerships with any airline operators that might be interested, in order to take
advantage of potential complementarities between the modes.
However, we consider that, in the U.S., the main source of HSR ridership will come from the
roads and will offer rail customers enormous benefits in terms of time otherwise spent behind the
wheel. A shift from automobile to HSR-based travel will also protect the environment, drive
down national energy consumption, and dramatically boost transportation safety.
Lastly, SNCF wishes to emphasize its strong conviction that the success of its high-speed rail
operations will depend on establishing dedicated track for high-speed service. It is easy to
demonstrate that running high-speed trains and conventional passenger trains on different lines is
better for all parties. When the co-existence of high-speed trains and other trains is unavoidable,
downtown access for instance, the technical aspects of combining old with new, albeit
temporarily, will have to be very carefully examined in terms of safety objectives and resulting
technical specifications.
We are aware that the specific concerns of the freight operators (and, more generally, the
jurisdictions in charge of safety) in relation to the risks of mixed traffic operations, and to
comply with the provisions of the Railway Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA).
TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 10 -

3.b THE CHALLENGES
3.b.1 Strategy development
While airlines usually serve a few market segments across a vast network, high-speed trains
operate on only a few routes. Profitability is therefore dependent on rail’s market share,
suggesting that trains must be perceived as a viable alternative by a vast majority of travelers –
keeping in mind most of those will be first-timers users of HSR. In light of this situation, the
main marketing challenges will be:
• Defining a simple, understandable transport option that immediately conveys the benefits
of high-speed train travel
• Designing and delivering a compelling travel experience for most segments of travelers,
keeping in mind the relative complexity of operations
• Removing all hurdles to access: ensuring that the ticket purchase (and exchange) process
is simplified and fits in travelers’ habits and that station accessibility is maximized
• Ensuring profitable operations by maximizing revenue per available seat.
3.b.2 Operations
High-speed services operate significantly faster than conventional rail traffic, substantially
cutting city-to-city trip times. In France, trip times typically were halved upon the introduction of
HSR (even when using existing “conventional” infrastructure to reach the city centers).
However, high-speed lines must be designed exclusively for high-speed trains for the following
reasons: additional safety constraints, operating challenges in optimizing timetables, extra costs
of cab signaling equipment for conventional infrastructure and rolling stock, reduced allowances
on super-elevation and gradients, and shallower track curves. These trains have a maximum axle
load of 17 metric tons.
Meeting these requirements is best done by placing HSR on separate dedicated tracks which
prohibit mixed traffic. Segregation of high-speed service enables operators to achieve higher
average speeds and limits the need for additional track to allow for passing. With double track
and a bi-directional signaling, capacity can be increased and provide up to 15 parallel high-speed
paths per hour and per direction. This also lessens the causes of delays and leads to dramatic
improvements in train punctuality and the reliability of scheduled services.
Planning a fully “clockface” schedule, named as well regular interval operation is the best way to
optimize the use of infrastructure by means of iterative sequences, which leads to greater
predictability and makes train times easy to memorize for both passengers and staff. In turn, such
predictability leads to improvements in performance.
Real-time monitoring and managing traffic from a single Operation Control Center (OCC) is
vital to achieving the requisite efficiency and responsiveness for high performance. The OCC
will be equipped with a Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) System that will control the entire
line and its equipment using computerized electronic interlocking system (EIS). With
programmed, automated commands, traffic supervision is made easier and operation in
downgraded conditions is improved.
3.b.3 Financial
HSR projects are capital intensive because of the need for new dedicated infrastructure and
rolling stock. In addition, the financial risks associated to HSR projects are significant,
particularly until revenue is established. Consequently, the financing of the HSR project becomes

one of the main issues to be dealt with by stakeholders and project sponsors. Major financial
challenges include:
• Raising sufficient public resources to fund the mandatory public contribution to the
financing of the project, in a budget-constrained environment
• Structuring the project in a way that it could be attractive for private partners, and
particularly the financial sector, by offering attractive return on investments and risks
allocation.
3.b.4 Benefits
Diverting auto riders from highways to high-speed rail will also create large benefits for Texas.
The key issue in Texas lies in the ability of HST 220 to attract a large number of travelers that
are currently using their car to move through the corridor. Our estimates show that about 68% of
the benefits of HSR are derived from auto riders that would shift to HSR.
Most of the business trips taken by automobile – that have just one or two vehicle occupants –
command a significant share of the market. High-speed rail in Texas has a very real opportunity
to attract business auto drivers currently traveling by themselves knowing that: (i) the full cost of
driving exceeds the fares provided (in average) for HST 220, and (ii) travel times are
significantly reduced with HST 220. These benefits accrue to persons choosing to use high-speed
rail but also to non-users and are well considered by the public at large.
3.c THE ROUTE

SNCF proposes an alignment inspired from the one originally developed for the Texas TGV
project linking San Antonio downtown to Dallas – Fort Worth metropolis, passing through
Austin, Temple and Waco and serving Dallas Union Station, Dallas-Fort Worth DFW airport and
terminating in Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center. Nevertheless, the alignment is
designed with regards of the new development concerning High Speed train corridor in Texas
which appears since this time and particularly the T-Bone Project but without to jeopardize any
other connection towards Houston such as DELTA. The alignment is designed in all segments to
ensure a commercial speed of 220 mph at the start of operations and with a possibility to increase
the speed to 250 mph if commercially advantageous and technically proven as reliable. The
suggested system uses steel wheel on steel track and the infrastructure will be based on an
electrified and fully grade separated double track.
The design challenges in delivering a Texas route design may include:
• Ability to adhere to a high-speed design criteria and geometry in spite of unforeseen
geographic and demographic difficulties
• Optimization of the longitudinal alignment in order to obtain the best balance between at
grade, aerial, while limiting depressed or tunnel sections. It is noticeable that Texas relief
being relatively flat tunneling should be mainly use in urban area to avoid impacting
surrounding neighborhoods
• Ability to design structures under high speed dynamic loading and to optimize tunnel size
while preserving passenger’s eardrum safety and comfort
• Ability to place the alignment through area with difficult ground conditions as it could be
in Texas, optimizing the cut material re-use through treatment and proved high speed line
construction earthworks techniques

• Ability to locate a high speed alignment in urban areas while avoiding, to the best
possible extend, impacts to adjacent neighborhood and limiting noise and vibration
impacts
• Knowledge of the railway environment in order to be able to construct the high speed line
alongside existing infrastructure with a complete analysis of the risks and the appropriate
mitigation measures to avoid impacting operation of both high speed and the other
services
• Ability to plan, phase and install new signaling and operation management systems
alongside existing systems without impacts to safety, operation and existing services.
3.d BUILDING AN OPERATING PLAN

Operations can be divided into three different sections:
• Train operations: scheduling (journey times, number of stops train capacity, connections,
ROW sharing, etc.)
• Operational marketing: fare structure, adjustments to basic operating plan, revenue
management (yield management, capacity management)
• Marketing: definition of the customer experience, promotion of service, placement of the
HST 220 brand in the overall marketplace.
The first bullet will have a deep impact on costs, the second bullet will have an effect on
revenues, and the last bullet will essentially build the perception of value by consumer. While
these could seem independent at a first glance, they should, on the contrary, be considered as one
single strategy aimed at gaining the confidence of American travelers, serving more of the
market over time, and offering the best value for money.
3.d.1 Train operation scheduling, stopping patterns
Service options are tentative and subject to actual demand, but, based upon SNCF’s operations
expertise, we can provide the following.
Once stopping patterns are determined, SNCF computes trip times with state-of-the-art tools,
including sufficient recovery time to ensure reliability, give typical high-speed paths for each of
the service types planned in the corridor. Demand for travel between each origin/destination pair
provides the basis of the timetable, which must adhere to the “clockface” principle. A balance
between non-stop trains and local trains must simultaneously provide high-speed trainsets at the
required frequency at all stations without reducing dramatically the capacity of the line and/or
speed average of the other trains. Based on a system like European Railway Train Management
System (ERTMS) signaling technology, which provides a 3:30 to 4:00 minute operating
theoretical headway, the practical maximum number of trains is set at 15 trains per hour. The
scheduled line capacity is closely linked with the stopping patterns chosen, which could reduce
this maximum frequency. We assume that as positive train control (PTC) signaling is
implemented in the United States, opportunities will become available for the implementation of
an ERTMS-like system in the United States that is coordinated with other signaling
improvements.
The fleet size is also linked to ridership forecasts. Texas can experience strong seasonal peaks in
visitation, and SNCF is poised to accommodate additional passengers by operating two-unit
consists (at 200m per unit) and increasing the fleet availability through operational measures.

HST 220 will cut the travel time by train for most city pairs by more than half. Door-to-door
travel time will compete very well with air travel, and will be significantly shorter than
automobile travel.
3.d.2 Marketing
The operator will be able to define an overall brand proposition, relevant for those segments with
the strongest combined commercial potential, and to translate this brand proposition into a range
of services. This may include “hard” services, such as interior design by top designers or web
connectivity, as well as “soft” services such as fare conditions or catering. Proper articulation of
this double segmentation (market & services) through a strong brand proposition is pivotal to the
overall success of operations. SNCF brings to the project the unique skills it has acquired from
marketing high-speed trains in nine different countries.
The result of this work will be a full range of services which can be reviewed to ensure
simplicity. SNCF customers should be able to quickly find the most attractive travel package at a
reasonable price. SNCF has started to experiment with dedicating a limited number of on-board
class options (between 1 and 3, depending on the route).
SNCF believes that taking the train should be as easy as taking a personal automobile. Virtual
ticketing can bring unprecedented flexibility to travelers: all ticket information is kept in a
central repository, and travelers only need to carry a form of identification (e.g. cell phone,
driver’s license) to collect a ticket. They can modify their “ticket” at any time, to change
departure time, add or remove services, or even change seats after the train has departed. SNCF
also uses platforms compatible with those used by the travel industry, making its products easy
to sell by corporate or online travel agencies. It will also be easy to combine air segments, for
instance, a round-trip ticket from Los Angeles or Tokyo to Austin via DFW Airport.
Once fares and services have been defined, there remains the daily management of demand to
maximize revenue per available seat. Capacity in each class of service is fixed: on some trains,
demand might exceed capacity, while others might leave the station with unoccupied seats.
SNCF was the first rail operator in the world, and continues to be the leader in implementing
revenue management systems (initially developed by airlines) to solve this issue, and adapted
them to train operations: not only they adjust prices to guide price-sensitive travelers towards
less busy trains, maximizing overall load factor and protecting revenue generated by time-
sensitive travelers; but they also manage seat allowance based on origin/destination.
3.e ENVIRONMENTAL APPROACH FOR HIGH-SPEED LINES

SNCF is aware that the management of environmental concerns is a key element in route
selection and can frequently be an issue of debate during the public consultation and outreach
phases. Environmental concerns must be taken into account if the project is to be accepted by the
stakeholders, including elected officials responsible to residents, businesses and property owners
who may more directly impacted by a proposed route than the community at-large.
To this end, SNCF will fully observe NEPA requirements and we are happy to share our
experience in meeting the French environmental assessment and public consultation
requirements, which are similar to the requirements of NEPA and the FRA. In SNCF’s
experience, where the benefits of a new HSR lines accrue to the national transportation system
and federal environmental policy goals, but localized impacts are inevitable, the development
and adoption of a strong purpose and need statement at the beginning of public outreach process
is critical.

SNCF’s experience in developing environmental assessments that are oriented to maintaining the
core design requirements for HSR, and the particular mitigations that have typically been applied
towards this end, will be invaluable to the successful implementation of the project. Associated
with this internally driven mandate, it will be necessary to adopt a constructive attitude towards
the environmental clearance process and to ensure that all the project disciplines are involved in
the applicable environmental issues within prescribed timeframes to ensure that the core HSR
program and design criteria is maintained.
This management approach ensures that the definition of the new line will be located within the
best possible environmental conditions and that the project will be assessed against such major
issues as functionality, environmental impacts and technical requirements. It also integrates a
strategic analysis of the overall project.
SNCF's methodology to manage environmental issues is based on very numerous experiences,
and it reflects approaches and knowledge of environmental design. It is quite applicable our
preliminary identification of the main technical issues at stake for the Texas Corridor, which are
typical of other corridors that SNCF has developed and is now operating:
• Preservation of wetlands, their flora, fauna and the activity they shelter
• Need to avoid increasing the risk of flooding and maintaining hydrological transparency
• Compliance with the State regulations on water resources
• No exposure to natural risks (tornadoes, hurricanes)
• Noise and vibration mitigation
• Aesthetic and visual impacts mitigation
Examples of how SNCF has approached environmental benefit measurement and mitigation
strategies within its HSR projects can be found in Appendix 2.
3.f CAPITAL NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

The construction cost (excluding land and including formation, track, sidings and yards,
signaling and telecommunications, stations, workshops and other buildings) is estimated to be
about US$ 11.8 billion in $ 2009 and the value of the land required to be about US$ 0.8 billion
in $ 2009.
The cost of the rolling stock is estimated to be about US$ 1.3 billion in $ 2009 of which US$ 1.1
billion will be needed for the initial operation of the railway (2018-2025), with further rolling
stock costing US$ 0.2 billion required to meet the forecast traffic growth (2026-2050).
Figure 1 – Capital Initial Cost (in Billion USD)
MUSD 2009 %
Land Acquisition 795 6%
Infrastructure 8,257 60%
System 2,744 20%
Stations and Buildings 604 4%
Rolling Stock and workshop depot 1,427 10%
Total Capex 13,827 100%

3.g OPERATING AND FINANCIAL RESULTS
Only a detailed legal, technical and financial feasibility study in close cooperation with the US
DoT suffices to exhaust all arguments and assumptions against or in favor of one financial
structuring option versus another.
All the following results shall be appreciated in the light of the mentioned assumptions and shall
be interpreted as a suggestive approach and methodology to analyze the way Private Sector
Participation may be involved in the Texas HSR.
The table below shows the results of the operation of HSR 220, should it be performed by a
dedicated Special Purpose Company (SPC), which would receive the farebox revenues, bear the
operation and maintenance costs, and supply the Rolling Stock. This operation could generate a
contributory capacity representing in present value ($2009 discounted at 4%) some 58% of funds
required for the initial capital investments including rolling stock would be generated from
operating revenues. Note that cost-sharing arrangements with infrastructure owners and other rail
operators are not included in this statement.
Figure 2 – Special Purpose Company SPC Financials – Texas HSR
Current
In million current USD Billion
USD
2018 2022 2030 2040 2050 Total
Revenues 335 1,308 1,797 2,672 3,421 70.2
Operating Costs 107 156 184 207 227 6.1
Maintenance Costs 117 163 191 214 235 6.4
Contributory Capacity 83 742 1,265 2,085 2,739 51.9
EBITDA 28 247 156 167 219 5.8
Rolling Stock depreciation 44 46 46 52 55 1.7
EBIT -16 201 111 114 164 4.1
Capital costs Rolling Stock 0 0 0 0 0 1.7
SPC Internal Rate of Return (After Tax) 8,5%
3.h THE BENEFITS

The Texas high-speed rail project will in 2030:
• Benefit travelers by reducing each year:
o Highway travel by 1,1 billion vehicle miles
o Air travel by over 550 million passenger miles
o Time spent in roadway congestion by over 6.5 million hours per year
o Deaths and injuries by auto travel by 17 and 1,332 respectively
• Benefit the environment by reducing annual:
o Fuel consumption by the equivalent of 25,2 million gallons of gasoline in 2030
o Pollutant emissions by 313,54 tons in 2030
• Improve Texas economy by creating:
o 68,000 full time jobs over the first years of the project (planning and construction
phase)

o An additional 145,000 full time jobs over the 30 year operation phase
• Provide a stimulus for development of new industries in Texas by:
o Motivating economic development and growth management activities
o Attracting new business and additional tourists to Texas
Discounted cash flows are calculated over the project life, from the start of the planning and
construction phase, i.e. 2011, to the 2050 time period. The Net Present Value (NPV) including
the different benefits and the costs of the project (capital investment cost in infrastructure and
rolling stock, and operating and maintenance expenses through the ongoing operations) is
calculated. The cash flows are expressed in 2009 dollars. The discount rate is the financial return
foregone by investing in a project rather than in securities. A 4% discount rate has been
considered.
The following table summarizes the present value of the benefits and costs and the net present
value of the benefit/cost comparison.
Figure 3 – Result of Benefit – Cost analysis for Texas HSR system. Present value in 2009 USD discounted 4 percent
through 2050. Total Amount 2011 – 2050
BENEFITS MUSD
Passenger revenue 14,493
Benefits to HST 220 passengers 6,493
Benefits to Highway travelers
Auto congestion reduction 3,283
Auto accident and pollution reduction 821
Benefits to Air Travelers
Air delay reduction 465
AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION 257
Total benefits 25,811
COSTS
Capital 10,755
Operation & Maintenance 2,720
Total costs 13,475
Benefit – Cost (Net Present Value) 12,336
Benefit Cost Ratio 1.92
Socio-economic Rate of Return 9.2%
This analyze undoubtedly underestimates the true pollution reduction benefit since it only
includes reduction in primary pollutants (hydrocarbons particular matter, carbon monoxide) from
air and automobile travels. Quantifying the benefits of greenhouse gas reduction from reduced
auto and air travels and other energy usage will greatly increase the overall environmental
benefit; however, greenhouse gas analysis methods are still being developed. Moreover, not all
potential benefits were included. For example, the analysis does not include the potential
reduction in airport ground access congestion, reduced highway maintenance and capital costs
and monetary benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions. So, SNCF is confident in the
estimated benefits because conservative, reasonable assumptions were used throughout.

3.i PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
3.i.1 Service development plan schedule
Following the current implementation plan developed by The Texas High Speed Rail Authority,
we are proposing to build the project in a single phase from Fort Worth to San Antonio.
3.i.2 Delivering the project
Delivering a large scale project such as a new HSR service that is able to run at speeds over 200
mph has multidisciplinary challenges from initial planning through to the start of operations
including track alignment, signaling, catenary and power supply, telecommunications, rolling
stock and operations while ridership benefits are monitored subsequently. HSR development
requires global high-speed expertise, including many key sub disciplines. The project approach
must be addressed through a global system approach as every discipline interfaces with the other
and any modification in a single discipline can have consequences on the others. The only way to
be able to operate at very high-speed a safe, reliable and comfortable service is to manage the
project as a whole and absolutely not as an addition of several single skills.
The main challenges to cope with in this kind of project within the systemic approach are as
follows:
• Putting together the necessary team with mastery of all the technical skills needed to
deliver the project with good management of the flow of disciplinary skill sets during the
project
• Controlling the planning and financial aspects of a very large project to deliver on time
and on budget
• Organizing all aspects of the delivery of the construction on several fronts:
o ability to organize the supply of huge quantity of material on a very long work
site without to impact to much the existing railroad and highway infrastructure
and maintain the construction and material markets
o contract management
o construction quality control
o Service testing and commissioning
• Managing the environmental clearance process which currently could be sensitive in
regards to this kind of large project, as it could face opposition from the grass-root level
or through elected officials. Consequently a dedicated team must be in charge of the
environmental aspects of the project which itself must have a high level public profile
• Monitor the work site activities once construction has commenced and ensure that
contractors are reaching required quality objectives
• Controlling the construction risks and having an experienced task force able to
continually manage the risk assessment program, and to react correctly with a global
view of the problem and with appropriate solutions when risks are becoming realized.
SNCF has great expertise and experience of this global approach and of all the previously
described challenges. This expertise was used for the European technical specifications for
interoperability which are the technical requirement basis for HSR in Europe. This expertise was
built on numerous project managed by SNCF in France and also all around the world (i.e. Korea,
Taiwan, Spain, and UK).

3.i.3 Risks management
SNCF has developed a comprehensive methodology enabling anticipation and mitigation the
risks of any kind attached to complex projects like HSR, in project management, construction
and commissioning.
There are around the word numerous examples indeed of projects delays and over costs. This
methodology combines on one hand engineering expertise and on the other one on field
experiences and stakeholder objectives.
Control of risk and implementing a risk management plan is especially relevant in projects where
responsibilities are shared among a number of parties. Hence, this process once followed enables
a smooth and on-time project roll out. The main stages to master are:
• Commissioning the line as designed, in due time, and within budget
• Meeting the technical specifications regarding operational performance, maintainability
and reliability
• Implementing stations that meet the expectations of all market segments and local
authorities.

4 DETAILED TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
4.a POPULATIONS OF MARKETS SERVED BY EACH OF THE PROPOSED STATIONS

Traffic from urban areas depends on several factors such as population, economic level,
distribution of revenue, value of time. Thus, the following data are used:
• Metropolitan Areas - present and future populations 4.a.1
• Per capita personal income 4.a.2
• Distribution of revenue and wealth 4.a.2
Traffic generation is explained by a "gravity-type model", using the following formulas:
Forecasted traffic between two urban areas (i, j) Tij obeys a gravity-type law:
Tij = k [Pia * Pjb ] / Cgα
where Pi and Pj are the populations of the urban areas (taking into account the income of the
populations concerned), A, B, α are calibrated parameters where 0.8< A, B <0.9 and
1.8< α <2.2, and k is a constant evaluated by linear regression (link between demand and offer).
Cg is the generalized cost of the mode of transport under consideration.
Cg is the general form: p + h * t, p price of the mode considered, h the customer's value of time
(VoT). The comprehensive methodology is described in Appendix 3.
SNCF has developed this method for its own projects, and can vouch for its accuracy. The
method has previously been used for certain US corridors, with the calibration of the above-
mentioned parameters being checked against real US cases (values of a, b, α).
It should also be recalled that, in addition to implementation of the project, detailed market
studies will need to be performed in order to adjust these estimates (by client segment in
particular, in order to establish market-orientated fare policy.
The stations (and, by extension, areas of population) taken into account are indicated in section
4.c.
4.a.1 Demographic analysis
This analysis states that the population served by a given station corresponds in broad terms (for
the purpose of this study) to the metropolitan area populations.
The United States Census Bureau estimates that the Texas State population is 24.3 millions
inhabitants in 2008.

Figure 4 – Metropolitan area population (in millions)
Metropolitan area Forecast Metropolitan

Metropolitan Area population in 2008 population in 2030
Millions inhabitants
Dallas 6.3 7.1
San Antonio 2.1 2.9
Austin 1.7 2.4
Temple / Killeen/
0.4 0.6
Fort Hood
Waco 0.2 0.4
Total population of
market served in 10.7 13.4
HRS corridor
Source: US Census Bureau
4.a.2 Economic analysis

Economic data and forecasts are used to produce traffic and revenue forecasts for High Speed
Rail. Traffic development and newly generated traffic are linked with economic development.
Economic data are based on figures from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (Department of
Commerce), whilst an average annual US GDP growth rate of 2.7% is assumed through to 2025
(according OECD2 forecasts).
For the state of Texas, GDP per capita in 2007 was $38,278 (in 2007 US$),
The following chart presents the annual GDP per capita evolution during the past years in the
metropolitan areas potentially served in the Texas corridor.
Figure 5 – Per Capita Personal Income in thousand US$
Metropolitan Area 2005 2006 2007 2030
Dallas 38.1 39.9 41.8 58.6
San Antonio 31.2 32.8 34.3 48.0
Austin 34.7 36.3 37.5 52.5
Temple / Killeen/ Fort Hood 29.7 32.6 34.8 48.6
Waco 27.1 28.3 30 42.0
US Bureau & US Governmental Office of Accountability
4.b EXISTING INTERCITY TRAFFIC BY MODE

The origin-destination traffic figures have been taken from existing data (to be fine-tuned as
mentioned at a further stage of the project by means of suitable surveys).
For the Texas corridor linking Fort Worth, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio, there is no multi-
modal travel survey undertaken by a state agency reported to us. So, at this stage of the
preliminary feasible studies, we do not account for any detailed traffic flows during the last ten
years.
2
OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

The Stage One of the future market feasibility study would be to conduct an extensive travel
survey along this corridor aiming at investigating the following main markets:
• Automobile intercity trips between Fort Worth / Dallas and Austin, Fort Worth / Dallas
and San Antonio, Austin and San Antonio
• Local air travels and air connect travel between Fort Worth / Dallas and Austin, Fort
Worth / Dallas and San Antonio.
Within each market, differentiation should be made between trips for business,
vacation/recreation, commuting to/from work, visits to friends/relatives or other personal
reasons.
As experienced on other corridors among the U.S., we may suspect that auto travel should be the
dominant mode of travel on the Texas Corridor, transporting over 90% of travelers. Air mode
should have a significant share market (between 20 to 40%) within the Corridor for origin-
destination pairs addressing the major airports of Dallas / Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio
and for a distance over 200 miles.
This lack of existing travel data has been offset by calibrating a U.S generic total demand or
“gravity” model. This modeling approach is commonly used to forecast the all-mode traffic
volumes. The calibration of this type of model is performed by developing equations that relates
current traffic to population, employment and income as well as level of service offered by the
present modes of transportation (travel time, cost, frequency, access/egress time…).
4.c PROPOSED HSR STATION LOCATIONS

4.c.1 Station locations
The project map presents the tentative station locations, based on the design and development
work conducted to our knowledge by TxDOT supplemented by SNCF’s own assessments. This
design fully supports HSR services and forms the basis for further discussions, in conjunction
with the route alignment described in Section 4.l.
Station location proposals for the Texas Corridor are based on a fourfold strategic approach:
• Accessibility
• Intermodality and connectivity issues
• Urban development opportunities
• The existence of historical station buildings.
Eight HSR stations are proposed for the Texas Corridor, including one option.

Figure 6 – Texas HSR stations
Station area type Building type
Historic or existing
Downtown / CBD
renovated and/or
Fractured urban
fabric / limit of
suburban area
Dense urban /
train station
New station
urban area
extended
building
Fort Worth Intermodal TC
Dallas Ft Worth airport DFW
Dallas Union Station
Waco Opt
Temple
Austin
San Antonio SAT Airport (option)
San Antonio Sunset Station
Total 5 0 3 4 4
Five stations are situated in downtown or in dense urban or suburban areas, and 3, including 1
option, at the edges of major cities or conurbations.
A more detailed description of each station location is given in Appendix 4.
4.c.2 Station buildings
As stations have become magnets and even driving forces for urban development, their visual
impact, the monumental or symbolic nature of their buildings, and their at times daring
architectural design have grown in importance. Nowadays, mayors and politicians expect
stations to be visual “business cards” and join the ranks of the outstanding buildings in their
cities.
Angers-St Laud Station: Complete restructuring of the Wuhan Station: As one of the biggest new HSR
city’s main station for the arrival of the TGV, France stations in China, the building is already the city’s
1998 new emblem – China 2011

Particular challenges exist where classified historical station buildings have to be adapted to new
needs. SNCF is fully aware of the importance of maintaining and developing historical station
buildings, wherever reasonably possible.
Marseilles-St Charles station: Extending the historical Paris-East station renovation: A total overhaul of the
building to integrate the intercity bus station and new 1850/1930 station, integrating 5.000sqm of new retail
shops and services into the HSR terminal - France outlets for the arrival of the TGV East line - France
2006 2007
Special attention should therefore be given to the use or re-use of historical or existing stations.
HSR should be the occasion to bring 21st century train technology to major well-positioned
monuments to American railroad history: Tampa Union Station or the West Palm Beach station
will become privileged gateways to their respective cities.
Dallas Union Station San Antonio Sunset Station
4.d INTERMODAL TRAVEL CONNECTIONS WITH OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

One of the main success factors of any new rail service, especially HSR, is easy station access
for autos, taxis and the different public transportation modes, and of course intercity and regional
trains (Amtrak i.a.), local public transportation networks and long distance buses.
From our own domestic and worldwide experience we are fully convinced that careful design of
each intermodal hub, respecting the local needs and constraints of each station, is absolutely
vital. Beyond this primary objective, the entire travel experience must be as carefully designed
and operated as each single station. Thus, good cooperation between the HST operator and its

partners will translate into convenient, easy to purchase and competitively priced end-to-end
services, and each mode's operations will allow for the others' needs.
The illustrations above and below show examples of urban, architectural, and station projects
completed by SNCF that have met this goal.
Avignon HSR: A station on the outskirts of a major Shanghai South station: A new HSR railway hub for
city, and a new urban development center and major China’s economic capital - China 2006
interchange point between car and HSR - France 2001
4.d.1 The station as an intermodal hub

An urgent need exists to reorganize the city inherited from the 20th century with its juxtaposed
and layered transport networks that, over the years, have become increasingly segmented,
fragmented and confused. The emergence of new transport projects like HSR should be seen as
an opportunity to rethink and rework this legacy. Redesigning the wider HSR station areas based
on general city transport planning and city development goals will be the first step toward
transforming the whole urban transport network into an integrated multi-modal transport service
offer.
Therefore, all station projects need to focus first and foremost on optimization of stations as
intermodal transport hubs between trains, on the one hand, and urban transportation modes such
as subways, trams, buses, taxis, autos (rented and private), plus bicycles and pedestrian
walkways, on the other.
All these modes have to be linked in the fastest, safest and most convenient way.
4.d.2 Connecting HSR to the existing rail network and local transport modes
Providing convenient connections with the existing rail network is an obvious target to pursue.
Therefore we propose that HSR stations should, wherever possible or realistic, be developed in
the vicinity of existing passenger stations served by current carriers. This will reinforce the
development of existing commuter and regional intercity passenger rail services and encourage
the creation of new services.
Buses, trams, subways: station design has to ensure that all these modes are brought as far as
possible into the station complex in order to rapidly absorb the flow of arriving passengers and
minimize walking distances from one mode to the next.
4.d.3 Auto access and parking lots
It was emphasized above that the challenge of a new rail service is to maximize the shift of
automobile traffic to HSR services. This will be achieved by correctly planning traffic flows in

the station neighborhood, adapting street layout, facilitating taxi access, and properly designing
taxi waiting areas. Adequate and well-dimensioned parking lot facilities (with extension
capabilities) will have to be provided, operated by a well-chosen operator / partner. Some first
indications to help choose the correct parking lot dimensions are set out in Appendix 5.
4.d.4 Catering to "soft", non-motorized transport modes and new mobility concepts
Managing the flow of pedestrian traffic is an important issue that should be discussed with the
city authorities in each case. The aim must be to create a continuum with the urban fabric and
ensure the safety of pedestrian precincts in and around the station.
It is also important to think ahead and anticipate on the growing popularity of softer, less
environmentally harmful modes, bicycles for example. Space should be earmarked close to
stations for cyclists and their vehicles (cycle paths and parking areas) and specific services
perhaps proposed (bike rental and sharing, secure parking and repairs).
New mobility concepts such as car-sharing, including electric cars – on the "Zip Car" principle –
which currently represent only a small share of the overall mobility market will be vital for
tomorrow’s mobility and must therefore be encouraged and included in the design equation.
4.d.5 HSR and air travelers
Synergy between HSR and airline operations is a major challenge. HSR can help to reduce
airport congestion, by taking over some regional air traffic. This requires well-designed physical
connections similar to those already existing in numerous airports over the world. Connecting the
proposed Dallas-Ft Worth DFW Airport HSR Station to the existing airport Skylink would be an
excellent way of ensuring good connectivity.
From a business perspective, fare deals should be agreed with the airlines involved.
Paris CDG Airport HSR station: every day, more than Jeddah Airport station project: HSR at the heart of a
5,000 travelers connect from TGV train to plane or vice- major international airport – Saudi Arabia 2012)
versa in France’s main air-rail hub - France 1994

4.d.6 Impact of multimodality on distribution and operations
HST is at the intersection between intercontinental/continental and local/regional networks and
can therefore be either a feeder (generally of a longer air segment) or the main portion of the trip.
Customers will naturally tend to purchase the end-to-end journey from the dominant carrier.
Airlines should therefore be able to sell the train segment easily (a concept proven by SNCF’s
TGVAIR: carriers such as American Airlines or Cathay Pacific sell TGV segments in extension
to an intercontinental journey) and the high speed train operator should sell additional services as
part of a single transaction (car rental, local transit, taxi, etc.). SNCF experience, from having
worked in partnership with Avis for over 25 years, or operating local transit systems and a taxi
fleet in Paris, could be beneficial to the project.
Lastly, the impact of such strong intermodal ambitions on the design of operations is important:
coordinated schedules, traveler information (displaying real-time departure gates or local transit
information on-board HST for instance), and the ability to handle specific cases (such as delayed
connecting passengers) must be developed to offer multimodal travelers a compelling
experience.
4.e TRIP TIME AND FARE COMPARISONS

4.e.1 Trip times
This parameter is of paramount importance in that it represents a breakthrough into the HSR era.
The maximum speed adopted (220 mph) will slash travel times dramatically as indicated above
and mentioned below. High-speed lines are commonly operated at a maximum speed of 185/200
mph. The HS line itself is designed for 220 mph + in order to allow for future technological
development over the long span of the project. The average speeds adopted in order to produce a
timetable are of course not the maximum of 220 mph. For instance, an average of 138 miles per
hour is performed between Fort Worth and Austin due to three intermediate stops. These
assumptions will be reviewed once the alignments have been more clearly established, proper
market surveys have been conducted, and rolling stock performances are known.
The timetable is based on a 2 clockface service with a minimum of one train per hour in off-peak
periods and one train per half-hour in peak periods.
Dwell times have been set to 2 minutes for calls at minor stations (Waco, Killeen Temple as
examples) and at 5 minutes when stopping at major stations (Fort Worth-Dallas International
Airport, Dallas as examples).
This gives the following theoretical trip times:

Figure 7 – Theoretical trip times
To
DFW Int’l Dallas Austin San Antonio
From
10’ 26’1 stop 104’ (2 stops) 141’
Fort Worth
Non stop 121’ (4 stops) 3 stops
11’ 89’ (1 stop) 126’
DFW Int’l
Non stop 106’ (3 stops) 2 stops
73’ 110’
Dallas
Non stop 1 stop
32’
Austin
Non stop
4.e.2 Station services

Services provided in stations must meet the expectations of a variety of clients. The issue is how
to make the client feel as much at ease when moving as when not. It should be remembered that
stations can also become meeting and even lifestyle areas, where the operator can offer a wide
range of services for each customer segment, providing them with a secure environment,
everyday commodities and services. In bigger stations, full-scale shopping malls could even be
developed. For the travelers, convenient waiting areas, reliable information, business facilities
and recreational opportunities should be provided depending on the specific client profile.
Special attention will have to be paid to the issue of luggage, since these days passengers tend to
be increasingly heavily laden. Left luggage and obstacle-free passages are essential for easy and
comfortable movement.
The advent of virtual ticketing (combined with self-service machines for ticket exchanges or
multi-operator vending machines) will facilitate the purchase process for the client, reduce the
number of sales staff and size of sales areas in stations (ticket counters and back office). Sales
staff redirected to client service will smooth transfers through the station, offering personalized
information, special care for passengers with particular needs. On this latter point, SNCF is well
acquainted with ADA regulations (see section 8.d below), which are quite similar to current
European standards. Stations must offer easy access to all clients, including the disabled (sight,
hearing, intellectual or mobility impaired) by installing the necessary equipment (elevators,
ramps, escalators, dedicated restrooms, suitably adapted ticket counters, etc.) and having
properly trained staff. All these services, combined with reliable, clean installations (lighting, left
luggage, elevators, escalators, restrooms, etc.), must contribute to creating a place where
travelers feel safe and at ease, reinforcing the station's appeal, not only as a departure point but as
one of the city's most lively venues (see Appendix 6).
Finally, station design has to be conducive to passenger flow and intermodal mobility. The
various areas within the passenger building have to receive and orientate customers between
their points of access, whatever their mode of travel, and the train. These areas consist of the
main concourse, the various passageways, galleries, underpasses and overpasses that serve to
ensure the flow of arriving, departing and transit foot traffic and offer waiting areas for those
with time to spare. All these areas are designed to enable seamless movement, offer convenient
signposting and passenger information, while echoing the building's architectural theme.

4.e.3 On board services
Time spent on-board is a critical part of the overall travel experience, and is usually a key asset
to win customers preference. First step is to undertake a comprehensive review of the current
travel market and its trends, including all elements that could influence the decision-making (like
the predicted evolution of morphology). Once customers needs identified,(eventually by the
customer experience team with service specialists from different industries (high-speed rail,
airlines, hotels…), it shall be possible to design an overall service architecture, focusing on the
key selling points (comfort, convenience, humanity…) and reflecting the brand proposition. High
level American designers will be selected to design the physical train interiors.
The on board design will obviously met also the ADA requirements as mentioned for the
stations.
4.e.4 Fares
In the same fashion, an in-depth market research is pivotal in building a fare range (the modeling
performed as described in paragraph 4 does not preclude any fare policy). The fare range will
have to meet several objectives:
• Ensure overall attractiveness of HST 220 versus competing modes for each segment of
travelers (based on their preferences and price-sensitivity), i.e. overall volume
• Maximize revenue per available seat
• Create new standards of simplicity (easy to choose, purchase, exchange…).
In a given business case frame there is room for optimizing volume / level of fares according to
goals set by the Authority, insisting either on volume, profitability, minimization of financial
costs… An example of this trade off will be given in section 4.q.
4.e.5 Comparisons with other services
For trips between Texas’s major metropolitan areas, high speed trains would provide very
competitive service as compared to other existing modes of transportation, including very
competitive travel times and fares. Travel times, costs, frequency of service, and on-time arrivals
are the most important issues affecting a traveler’s decision to travel by air, auto or rail.
Travel times and cost have been developed for each available mode between each origin-
destination pair in 114 zones within the State for normal current driving conditions. No extra
time has been added for future congestion. For the auto mode, driving time and cost were
calculated, as well as parking costs for business areas. For air and rail, times and costs were
calculated for the part of the trip on the plane or train as well as for other components such as
access time (getting to and from the station or airport), terminal entry time (parking if driving,
check-in, and passing through security), waiting time (waiting for departure, boarding and
waiting for plane to leave the gate), terminal exit time (time to disembark, collect any luggage,
reach a parked auto, taxi, transit or rental car) and egress time (getting to the final destination).
4.e.6 Door-to-door travel times - examples
The competitiveness of the different modes can be seen in the figure below showing door-to-
door travel times for three representative travel markets:
Dallas to Austin
As can be seen on the figure hereafter, high-speed rail would be very competitive with air and
auto on travel times for Dallas to Austin, a medium-distance trip of approximately 200 miles.

Traveling by high-speed rail would make door-to-door travel time quicker than traveling by air
or car (one hour less). This market is a core market for which high-speed rail will compete.
Figure 8 – Door to door travel time between Dallas (Highland Park) & Austin (Downtown) in minutes by HST 220,
Air and Auto.
Access
HST 220 T erminal Entry T ime
Waiting T ime
Air
Line-haul T ime
Auto T erminal Exit T ime
Egress T ime
0 50 100 150 200 250
San Antonio to Duncanville

High-speed rail would be still very competitive with air and auto on travel times for Dallas to
San Antonio, a long distance trip of approximately 271 miles. Traveling by high-speed rail
would make door-to-door travel time quicker than traveling by air (twenty minutes less) and by
car (one hour and a half less). This market is also a core market for which high-speed rail will
compete with air.
Figure 9 – Door to door travel time between San Antonio Park (University of Texas) & Duncanville (Dallas
Suburbs) by HST 220, Air, and Auto.
Access
HST 220
T erminal Entry T ime
Waiting T ime
Air
Line-haul T ime
T erminal Exit T ime

Auto
Egress T ime
0 100 200 300
T ravel time in minutes
San Antonio to Killeen

For this shorter trip of approximately 150 miles from San Antonio to Killeen, automobile would
be 40 minutes longer than high-speed rail but would have an advantage on availability, and
would compete well, depending on the relative costs, and the size of the traveling party.

Figure 10 – Door to door travel time between San Antonio (University of Texas) & Killeen (near Temple) in
minutes
Access
T erminal Entry T ime

HST 220
Waiting T ime
Line-haul T ime
T erminal Exit T ime

Auto
Egress T ime
0 50 100 150 200
T ravel time in minutes
4.e.7 Travel costs

Total trip costs are primarily due to line-haul costs, but also include access and egress costs,
including parking charges and tolls. This is in fact the "generalized cost" mentioned in section
4.a.
Future auto driving costs were based on a gasoline price of $2.93 per gallon (compared to the
current price of about $2.79 in August 2009), average auto occupancy of 1.4 persons and miles
per gallon of 21.9. They also include minor maintenance and are assumed to remain constant
through 2030, resulting in a cost of $0.22 per auto traveler-mile.
Air fares were taken from the Federal Aviation Administration 10% ticket sample data of actual
fares paid during the first quarter of 2009 and are considered to be relatively low because of the
current economic recession, which is a very conservative assumption in regard to the ridership
forecasts for high-speed rail. Airport parking charges per trip were based on the daily cost of
parking at airport-related facilities in 2009, and range from $7 to $22.
High-speed rail fares reflect the very good quality of service offered by high-speed rail. In view
of fierce car competition in this area, fares ($ per passenger mile) were kept at reasonable low
unit levels. Average intercity fares, based on full and different types of discount fares were set at
$0.43 per mile ($2009).
Parking costs near stations have been added.
All these assumptions will be fine-tuned by means of market surveys based on comprehensive
client segmentation and implementation of a detailed yield management system. It should not be
forgotten that yield management can boost revenue by 4 – 6 % over the "conventional" (rigid)
fares system.
4.e.8 Door-to Door costs examples
The relative competitiveness of the different modes can be analyzed via the following figures
showing door-to-door costs (as the sum of access driving costs to the station or airport, parking
fees at the airport, the cost of driving or fare paid, and the egress cost to final destination or
parking fees) for three representative travel markets:

Dallas to Austin
Figure 11 – Door to door travel cost between Dallas (Highland Park) & (Austin Downtown)
Access Driving
HST 220
Access Parking
Air
Driving cost or paid

Auto (Business)
fare
Auto (Non-Business) Egress Driving or

Parking Cost
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200
T ravel cost (2008$)
For comparison purposes, ownership auto costs (including gasoline cost, tolls, maintenance as
well as taxes, depreciation, finance charges, registration, insurance,..) are also indicated. They
are representative of the costs incurred by firms for business trips and were evaluated at $0.53
per auto traveler mile.
High-speed rail would be about twice the cost of driving for this medium-distance trip of
approximately 200 miles between Dallas and Austin in case of a non-business trip. It would
remain substantially less expensive than air travel (about 25%), and slightly cheaper than auto
for a business trip.
San Antonio to Duncanville
Figure 12 – Door to door travel cost between San Antonio (University of Texas) & Duncanville (Dallas suburb)
Access Driving
HST 220
Access Parking
Air
Driving cost or
Auto (Business) paid fare
Egress Driving or
Auto (Non-Business) Parking Cost
$0 $50 $100 $150
As longer distance (approximately 271 miles) is concerned between San Antonio and Dallas
suburbs, the automobile would remains the cheapest way to travel for non-business trips but
more expensive in case of a business trip. High-speed rail would be still slightly cheaper than air
mode by USD5.

San Antonio to Killeen
Figure 13 – Door to door travel cost between San Antonio (University of Texas) & Killeen (near Temple)
Access Driving
HST 220
Access Parking
Auto (Business) Driving cost or paid

fare
Auto (Non- Egress Driving or
Business) Parking Cost
$0 $20 $40 $60 $80
For San Antonio to Killeen, a relatively shorter trip of approximately 150 miles, automobile
would be clearly the most economical in case of a non business trip, half the cost of traveling by
high-speed rail, but more expensive for a business trip. High-speed rail would remain 40 minutes
longer.
Conclusion
As a result of this analysis, high speed rail would compete very well with air mode on the Texas
corridor; offering reduced door-to-door travel time at a lower cost but also with auto mode by
significantly cutting auto travel times at a reasonable costs.
4.f OPERATING PLAN

4.f.1 Train operation scheduling
Trip times have been calculated using the principles generally adopted at SNCF. A 5% recovery
margin is added to the basic trip time on punctuality grounds, so that resume normal operations
can, as far as possible, be resumed in the event of disruption. Dwell times of 2 minutes at minor
stations and 5 minutes at major station have been taken. The resulting trip times were given in
paragraph 4.e.1
An average of 132 miles per hour is reached between Fort Worth and San Antonio with three
intermediate stops. This “slow” average speed could be understood with the 5’ dwell times
planned at DFW, Dallas, and Austin stations. These dwell times could probably be reduced at a
later stage accordingly with the passenger behavior. An average speed of 115 mph is reached by
the other service running between Fort Worth and San Antonio.
4.f.2 Train capacity and service frequency
The basic trainset capacity (see 4.o) taken as a working assumption is 500 to 550 seats. Train
consist can be adapted (split or coupled) to match demand and operation.
This preliminary study presents a conceptual clockface plan providing 2 hourly (half hourly
during peak hours) between Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio. Depending on services, 3
intermediate stations will be served.
Efficient signaling technology such as that contained in European standards (for instance
ERTMS) allows theoretically operating headways of 3’30’’ to 4’ (time interval between two
successive trains). Therefore, some 15 trains per hour can practically be scheduled.

4.f.3 Stopping patterns
The choice of stopping patterns is an important feature of operating strategy, as it will impact on
high-speed system design (track layout in stations, signaling system, rolling stock performance),
operations, costs (of a technical nature such as brake wear or power consumption or operational,
for traveling personnel), and revenues and, ultimately, the attractiveness of the service. A
balance must be struck between rapid service and multiple stops from the findings of market
research.
4.f.4 Station capacity and maintenance depots location
The Peak Hours service will determine the number of platforms needed at termini. Platform
length is provided for serving 2 train sets (coupled). The location of the maintenance depot
should be fixed in relation to the operations. For intermediate stations, the number of daily
round-trips will determine the station lay out (number of tracks / platforms).
4.f.5 Train service
Two types of service are proposed per direction to meet demand:
• 24 daily services between Fort Worth and Austin (232 miles - 121 minutes travel time
stopping at all intermediate stations
• 23 daily services between Fort Worth and San Antonio (311 miles - 141 minutes travel
time) stopping at Fort Worth-Dallas International Airport, Dallas and Austin.
4.f.6 Operations management
A key element in the efficient and reliable operation of a railway line is real-time traffic
management and monitoring from an Operation Control Center designed to control all the
equipment on the line. The OCC will be equipped with a Centralized Traffic Control (CTC)
system, thus enabling it to:
• Operate signaling equipment and switches, and set routes by remote control
• Cope with expected traffic movements, monitor them in real time at stations and on the
line, and quickly take adequate measures to re-establish normal operation in the event of
disruption
• Cater to works on the track, either scheduled or in of the event of an emergency
• Monitor and manage the use of rolling stock via direct links to depots and stations in
order to provide the best possible service
• Monitor and manage on-board staff in order to provide the best possible service
• Provide information to clients through the PIS & PA systems.
The Operation Control Center will have to handle:
• Real time operations management, which includes:
o Train supervision (HST plus maintenance trains) and delay mitigation measures
o Infrastructure operation management
o Track and railway equipment maintenance programs
o Real-time rolling stock fleet management (failure mitigation measures)
• Train engineer management:
o Real-time management (in the event of delays)
o Technical support (hot line, in of the event of failures)

• On board staff roster
• Passenger information in stations.
4.f.7 Intermodal Connections
The intermodality issue was addressed in section 4.d above. Intermodality relates to:
• Conventional rail (Intercity and regional services), where ridership will be dramatically
eased by the development of HSR
• Ground public transportation, in conjunction with urban development plans
• Auto accesses, parking facilities
• Soft mode management
• Strategic planning.
See also Appendix 7.
4.g ANNUAL RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS

4.g.1 The Texas-Speed Rail Authority ridership modeling process
For the Texas corridor linking Fort Worth, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio, there is no source of
recent multi-modal travel survey or ridership study undertaken by a state agency reported to us.
As mentioned in section 4.e of this chapter, this lack of existing travel data has been offset by
calibrating a U.S generic total demand or “gravity” model. This modeling approach is commonly
used to forecast the all-mode traffic volumes. The calibration of this type of model is performed
by developing equations that relates current traffic to population, employment and income as
well as level of service offered by the present modes of transportation (travel time, cost,
frequency, access/egress time…). It enables to derive potential high-speed rail traffic by origin-
destination pairs at first preliminary stages of high-speed rail project.
Thus the calibration results are considered to be accurate and the developed model was used to
develop ridership and revenue projection for high-speed rail service in the Texas corridor linking
Fort Worth, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio.
The success of high-speed rail service in Texas would lie not only in the use of advanced rail
technology for its own sake. Rather, it also depends on its ability to attract riders with a large
variety of trip purposes who will choose High-speed Rail from the many travel options as the
transportation service that most clearly meet their needs and preferences. Choice variables
include competitive travel time, cost, frequency, accessibility, comfort and departure time
preferences. Attracting these fare-paying passengers in sufficient numbers to sustain a profitable
operation is a key element.
4.g.2 Analysis of year-by-year ridership patterns
First years of service: 2018 – 2022
The expected high-speed rail ridership for 2018, the first full year of passenger service between
San Antonio – Austin – Dallas – Fort Worth is 3,3 million passengers. A 2 to 3 year transition
period, called ramp-up period, is anticipated during which ridership will increase from zero to
approach the level predicted by the models. Ridership projections in 2025 are 12,1 million
passengers for the Texas corridor.
The two major markets would gather 9.5 millions trips, i.e. 78 percent of the total market:
• 5.1 million passengers between Fort Worth/Dallas and Austin

• 4.4 million passengers between Fort Worth/Dallas and San Antonio
After 2040, it is assumed no growth in the market since socio-economic forecasts is no more
available, which is quite conservative for the economics of the project.
Sources of ridership
The model calculates the total ridership by demand type: diverted trips and newly created
demand. Diverted trips made by users who previously used a different mode accounted for about
86 percent of the total system demand (65 percent from auto, 15 percent from Air local trips and
6 percent from Air connect trips). Induced demand represent new passengers that would not have
traveled before the high-speed rail service exists, and former users of air service, automobile or
conventional rail that travel more with the new high-speed rail system. It is clear that high-speed
rail would introduce a new transport service that can meet previously unmet individual travel
needs with competitive fares, attractive and fast travel times, high frequency and improved
comfort. Induced trips represent 14% of high-speed train travels.
The following figure and the Appendix 11 show the annual ridership projections for the San
Antonio – Austin – Dallas – Fort Worth corridor from the start of revenue service in 2018 to the
horizon year of 2050.
Figure 14 – Ridership for Texas HSR Project
16
14
12
Millions of Riders
10
8
6
4
2
0
2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048
4.g.3 Revenue analysis

Revenue forecasts are presented in the figure below and in Appendix 11. These revenues are
based upon the fare structure developed for the Texas high-speed rail service and previously
described in section 4.e of this chapter.

Figure 15 –Revenues for Texas HSR Project
$ 1 600
$ 1 400
$ 1 200
Millions ($2008)
$ 1 000
$ 800
$ 600
$ 400
$ 200
$0
2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048
The total revenue for the year 2025 amounts to $1,079 millions (2008 dollars). The two major
markets, between Fort Worth/Dallas and Austin and between Fort Worth/Dallas and San
Antonio, would provide $957 million in revenues, i.e. 88% of the revenues for the whole
corridor.
4.h OPERATING COSTS

Operating expenditures have been assessed for passenger traffic and infrastructure/other
operations. Unit costs are developed for each of the main cost components that are generally
either traffic related (per train miles or train hour) or operation related (number of staff, capital
cost of buildings). Costs are based on international practice and include both with operating and
maintenance costs.
4.h.1 Operating cost estimates
Drivers, Conductors, Traction power, Platform, OCC and station staff, Catering, Fare collection
(ticket delivery, sales and after sales), Marketing, Information, Security, Insurance and Clerk
costs are included under operating costs.
Some of operating costs are directly related to the number of train miles and train hours operated
(on board staff, traction power, etc.), while others are assumed to be only indirectly related to the
transport task (number of staff per station).
An outline service pattern has been assumed for the periods 2018-2020, 2021-2024, 2025-2030
and 2031-2050 and this gives an estimated 60 daily services in 2020, 88 in 2024, 92 in 2030 and
94 in 2030.
4.h.2 Infrastructure and Rolling Stock maintenance costs
Following costs are included under maintenance costs:
• Fixed costs (civil works maintenance, Operation Control Center (OCC) maintenance,
general inspections using track and other recording vehicles)
• Costs related to unit*miles, for example power supply maintenance, track maintenance,
catenary maintenance, signaling maintenance, telecom maintenance
• Rolling Stock maintenance costs.

4.h.3 Productivity factor and final results
The annual forecasts of operation and maintenance expenditures over the project period have
been calculated with an expected productivity factor estimated on average at -1.5% per year from
2018 to 2050.
Figure 16 – Operation and maintenance expenditures (in current value and with productivity factors)
4.i IMPACT OF THE PROJECT - PUBLIC BENEFITS

The Texas high-speed rail project would have a significant impact in terms of:
• Job creation (HSR construction and operation)
• Economy stimulation (new transport capacities, in particular encouraging tourism
• Time, cost, and energy savings
• Green house gas emission reduction.
These benefits accrue also to those who may not use a particular transportation facility.
The benefits are determined on the basis of the best current estimates of the ridership and the
performance characteristics of air, auto and high speed rail travel.
4.i.1 Major benefits of the high speed rail system to the public and the transportation
system
The Texas high-speed rail project will in 2030:
• Benefit travelers by reducing annual
o Highway travel by 1.1 billion vehicle miles
o Air travel by over 550 million passenger miles
o Time spent in roadway congestion by over 6.5 million hours per year
o Deaths and injuries by auto travel by 17 and 1,332 respectively
• Benefit the environment by reducing annual
o Fuel consumption by the equivalent of 25.2 million gallons of gasoline in 2030
o Pollutant emission by 313,540 tons in 2030
• Improve Texas economy by creating

o 68,000 full time jobs over the first years of the project (planning and construction
phase)
o An additional 145,000 full time jobs over the 30 year operation phase
• Provide a stimulus for development of new industries in Texas by
o Motivating economic development and growth management activities
o Attracting new business and additional tourists to Texas.
4.i.2 Methodology
When evaluating the benefits to users, account was taken of consumer surplus, system revenues,
and resource savings that provide benefits to the general public, such as congestion and emission
savings.
The economic forecasting and assessment techniques used are those approved and used by the
U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). In addition, this
methodology has been accepted by other federal, state and local government authorities as a
process for justifying public investment in transportation projects. The computation of the high-
speed train’s benefits is also consistent with guidance provided by the Environmental Protection
Agency (Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses) and the Federal Highway Administration
(Economic Analysis Primer).
As explained in Chapter 3, this RFEI follows on logically from President Obama’s stimulus plan.
The figures given for the number of jobs created have therefore been obtained by taking the
general US economic model and calculating both direct and indirect impacts, the latter to allow
for the Keynesian multiplier factor (knock-on effects on trade, tourism, auto hire, etc.).
It is also generally accepted that the American economy tends to create more jobs per dollar
invested that European economies.
Conservative, reasonable assumptions were used throughout, and not all potential benefits were
included. For example, the analysis does not include the potential reduction in airport ground
access congestion, reduced highway maintenance and capital costs, or the monetary benefits of
reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
Highway congestion
The use of the Texas high-speed rail system, will free up capacity on existing highways by
reducing yearly highway travel by over one billion vehicle miles in 2030 reducing time spent in
roadway congestion by 6.5 million hours per year.
Aviation congestion
Aviation sector savings are due to reduction in travel delays to air users. Over 550 million
passenger-miles will shift from air to HSR.
Energy consumption
Based on the forecasted 2030 conditions, the HSR service shall reduce transportation energy
consumption by 25.2 million gallons of gasoline or 598.592 barrels of oil or 2.6 trillion British
thermal units.
Pollutant emissions
High-speed rail will provide reduced pollutants due to travelers shifting from either auto or air
travel. The following presents changes in tons of pollutants for 2030:

Figure 17 – Net reductions in Air Quality Pollutants (tons) in 2030
Auto Air Total HST 220 Net
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 238,477 104,780 343,258 97,785 245,473
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 15,112 27,648 42,760 21 42,738
Hydrocarbons (HC) 2,037 21,674 23,711 2 23,708
Nitrogen Oxides (Nox) 1,051 1,050 2,101 453 1,648
Particular Matter (PM) 127 156 282 78 204
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 86 233 318 680 -362
Tire Wear Matter 130 130 130
Total 257,019 155,541 412,560 99,020 313,540
Safety
Internationally, high-speed rail has attained an exceptional safety record which is assumed to
continue in Texas operations. Historical trends in air and auto safety are used as a basis for
determining the number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities that might be avoided by the shift of
travelers to high-speed rail.
Figure 18 – Safety
Annual Impact for 2030 Cumulative Impact for 2020 - 2050
Type of Impacts
Auto Air Auto Air
Reduced fatalities 17 0 548 6
Reduced injuries 1,301 0 41,630 1
Reduced accidents 1,332 0 42,616 3
4.i.3 Benefits to cost analysis

High-Speed Rail Users’ Benefits
The benefits to users of the high-speed rail system are the sum of the consumer surplus and
system revenues:
• Consumer surplus is used to measure the broad economic impact of a transportation
improvement. Consumer surplus is defined as the additional benefit consumers receive
from the purchase of a service above the price actually paid for that service and is
estimated from the difference in generalized costs between high-speed rail and the
traveler's previous mode
• System revenues reflect additional consumer surplus benefits to users of the system,
benefits for which they pay directly. The decision to include revenues in a benefit-to-cost
analysis (as approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation) is based on the notion
that revenues are a proxy for the increase in consumer surplus generated by a travel
option.
Benefits to users of other modes
In addition to high-speed rail users’ benefits, travelers using other modes will also benefit from
the high-speed rail service, as the system will contribute to relieving highway congestion and
reducing travel times for them:
• Airport congestion savings: Air travelers diverting to the high-speed rail service will
reduce congestion and delays on both local and national air systems. This benefit is used

to place a value on the savings made by both passengers and the airlines in terms of
reduced delays
• Highway congestion savings: Auto travelers diverting to the high-speed rail service will
reduce congestion and delays on highways.
Benefits for the public at large
• Emission savings: the diversion of travelers to rail from the auto mode helps drive down
emissions (air pollutants) in the interests of the public at large.
Benefits to Costs analysis
Discounted cash flows are calculated over the project life, from the start of the planning and
construction phase, i.e. 2011, to the 2050 time period. The Net Present Value in 2009 dollars
(NPV) includes the different benefits and the costs of the project (capital investment cost in
infrastructure and rolling stock, and operating and maintenance expenses through the ongoing
operations). The discount rate considered (4%) is the financial return foregone by investing in a
project rather than in securities.
Figure 19 – Result of Benefit – Cost analysis for Texas HSR system. Present value in 2009 USD discounted 4
percent through 2050. Total Amount 2011 – 2050
BENEFITS MUSD
Passenger revenue 14,493
Benefits to HST 220 passengers 6,493
Benefits to Highway travelers
Auto congestion reduction 3,283
Auto accident and pollution reduction 821
Benefits to Air Travelers
Air delay reduction 465
AIR POLLUTION REDUCTION 257
Total benefits 25,811
COSTS
Capital 10,755
Operation & Maintenance 2,720
Total costs 13,475
Benefit – Cost (Net Present Value) 12,336
Benefit Cost Ratio 1.92
Socio-economic Rate of Return 9.2%
The Texas HSR project presents a cost-benefit ratio of 1.92. Net Present Value is estimated to be
$12.3 billion, and the socio-economic rate of return is evaluated at 9.3 percent. This means that
by 2050, Texas will realize $28.5 billion in present value of benefits – nearly double the total
present value of the project.
Not only will high-speed train passengers benefit from the system, 18% of the benefits will be
enjoyed by the public at large in the form of reduced delays, reduced air pollution, and reduced
auto accidents and fatalities

4.i.4 Other benefits
Economic development
This item addresses the direct and indirect changes in employment, income, and business activity
that would be attributable to constructing and operating the high-speed rail project in Texas.
These impacts result from new money stimulants to the Texas economy that would otherwise not
exist in the state’s future.
68,000 jobs and $4.4 billion in wages and salaries will be created by the high-speed rail project
during the planning and construction phase. An additional 145,000 jobs and $9.5 billion in wages
and salaries will be created over the period of operation. These jobs would be distributed broadly
across most sectors of the economy.
Urban (re)development and land value
High-speed train systems typically act as a catalyst to strengthen urban centers, promote more
compact development around stations, and even increase local property values.
A high speed rail station is a powerful lever for city (re)development and sustained economic
growth, as examples in France and many other countries show. Train connections provide new
job and business opportunities by making previously remote areas more easily accessible. They
spur investment in offices, hotels and housing, as well as in public facilities and services.
4.j IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON GROWTH OF EXISTING SERVICES

The development of the high-speed rail network will help boost passenger train traffic on both
intercity and commuter services. Indeed the growth of global traffic generated by transfers from
other modes (autos and planes) towards high-speed trains will also be profitable to existing rail
passenger services as feeders for high speeds. SNCF will therefore engage in discussions with
the authorities (TxDOT) and existing rail operators (i.e. Amtrak, TRE, Capital Metro Link) in a
bid to coordinate services and jointly organize stopping patterns and timetables.
The existing railroad companies will benefit from the modernization of the network carried out
for the high-speed projects by raising speeds, improving the safety, removing grade crossings,
installing modern PTC signaling systems and modern operations control. All these improvements
will enable better capacity and regularity on the network and improve the global quality of
existing railroad services with the consequent knock-on effects on ridership levels, creating a
virtuous cycle that will bring more and more people to rail.
4.j.1 Accommodations for and Future Growth of Existing Amtrak Services
The SNCF proposal will greatly improve and complement existing Amtrak intercity services,
and provide for a comprehensive and integrated rail system serving medium and large sized
cities in Texas.
SNCF proposes a Texas HSR route that connects most of the largest cities in Texas with up to
220 mph service, and provides connections in several locations to existing Amtrak intercity and
regional routes in addition to connections to local commuter rail routes. SNCF high-speed
service will be on separate tracks and in many cases different right-of-way than Amtrak intercity
and regional rail services. It is anticipated that all existing Amtrak services continue to operate
all existing intercity and regional services at conventional speeds, serving both major stations
and more closely spaced intermediate and small stations.
Connections from SNCF high-speed rail service to Amtrak’s intercity and regional services
would be available in Fort Worth for Amtrak’s Heartland Flyer regional service to Oklahoma

and in San Antonio to Amtrak’s Sunset Limited for points west to Los Angeles and points east to
Louisiana, and potentially Orlando if service is restored to pre-Hurricane Katrina conditions.
SNCF service will be coordinated with Amtrak’s Texas Eagle service, which operates from
Chicago to San Antonio, on the segment between Fort Worth and San Antonio.
SNCF high-speed service is proposed to generally serve the same cities as Amtrak’s intercity and
regional routes, and in some segments, would use the same right-of-way. For all three Amtrak
services now operating in Texas, connections with SNCF service will strengthen ridership and
provide additional, higher speed rail options for Texas residents and visitors to make trips within
Texas and to travel to locations outside of Texas.
4.j.2 Accommodations for and Future Growth of Connecting Commuter Rail Services
Dallas and Fort Worth: Trinity Railway Express (TRE) commuter rail service operates
between Fort Worth and Dallas, also serving Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. TRE
service has grown substantially since implementation. In 1984, the Trinity Railway Express
(TRE) right-of-way between Dallas and Fort Worth was purchased with FTA assistance. Since
then the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroads have been operating freight
service on the tracks. The Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA) and Dallas Area Rapid
Transit (DART) jointly construct, operate, and finance the TRE service.
It is planned that SNCF high-speed service will also operate on the same right-of-way on
separate tracks. Passenger connections between TRE and SNCF are proposed at both Fort Worth
and Dallas. Since SNCF will be on its own tracks, there will be no impacts to TRE service.
Austin: Capital MetroRail is a forthcoming 32-mile Red Line commuter rail service that will
operate with non-FRA compliant vehicles on freight tracks between Leander and Austin,
separated from freight trains by time-of-day (temporal) separation. Although an opening date is
not yet finalized, service is expected to begin in late 2009. Future commuter services potentially
using FRA-compliant rail vehicles are being considered. Proposed SNCF routes may share right-
of-way with Capital MetroRail. Similar to the TRE, since SNCF service will operate on
dedicated tracks, no impacts to Capital MetroRail services will occur. Connections to Capital
MetroRail will be available in Austin.
Austin and San Antonio: Commuter rail service is currently being planned by the Austin San
Antonio Commuter Rail District, for future operation between Round Rock and San Antonio.
This future service may use rights of way that will also be used by SNCF. Similar to the TRE
situation, since SNCF service will operate on dedicated tracks, no impacts to Austin/San Antonio
commuter rail services will occur. Connections to Austin San Antonio service would be available
in Austin and downtown San Antonio.
4.j.3 Accommodations for and Future Growth of Freight Railroads
The SNCF route will parallel freight railroad rights-of-way over many segments of the proposed
route. To the extent that freight operations are not impacted, it is expected that the right-of-way
will be utilized. Additional right-of-way will be purchased (for elevated sections, air rights will
be purchased) so that the high speed passenger operations will be in its own right of way, without
impact to freight operations. This includes train operations as well as inspection and maintenance
activities.
Since high speed passenger operations will require a completely enclosed right-of-way, grade
separations and closures are proposed. In route segments that parallel freight operations, the
freight right-of-way typically would be separated as well. This will reduce maintenance of way

costs for inspecting and maintaining grade crossing equipment as well as eliminate the risk of
grade crossing accidents.
From the point of view of haulage opportunities, the advent of high-speed passenger services
will impact positively on their business; even if current safety rules preclude operating a mixture
of freight and high-speed passenger trains. In one way or another it will therefore be necessary to
separate these two types of traffic. Two main factors will be the base of this growth.
The first will be the transportation needs induced by massive investment in rail transportation.
First of all, there will be the construction and maintenance materials for the high-speed line; but
also the material required by rolling stock manufacturers, rail manufacturers and the railroad
industry as a whole. The huge quantity of first raw materials and then manufactured products that
will have to be moved for the different projects will offer new development and growth
opportunities for freight railroad operators.
The second factor will come from the global improvement in railroad infrastructure quality. The
new infrastructure combined with modern operations management will free new capacities for
the railroad network and open up possibilities for traffic growth. Infrastructure modernization
and the transfer of passenger trains to dedicated high-speed ROW should create great
opportunities for freight traffic development.
4.k IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON OTHER RAIL SERVICES

SNCF acknowledges that taking into account the impact of HS services on other rail services
(freight, intercity and commuters) in the USA is one of the key elements for the success of the
project. Moreover SNCF has unique expertise in dealing with this kind of problem as high speed
services worldwide operate mostly on dedicated infrastructure. The problem can be analyzed
from three angles: services, operations and infrastructure.
4.k.1 Services
It is clear and essential that other services should not be jeopardized by the development of high-
speed train services. They must not have a negative effect on existing services either in operating
terms or as regards reasonable foreseeable development possibilities. Moreover they should as
far as possible contribute to the development of these other services.
It is expected that high-speed services will attract passengers from other transportation modes
and mainly from autos and planes. But the real benefit of a high-speed service comes when there
is enough space between halts to reap the full effects of speed and thereby achieve substantial
time savings. The high-speed network must therefore to be fed by other transportation modes. In
order to capitalize on rail as an environmentally friendly transportation mode, it is in the general
interest for car utilization to be curbed by the existence of good public transportation networks
around the different stations. Whence the need to ensure intermodality with other modes in these
stations as described in section 4.d. and paragraph 4.f.7. but also to provide intercity and
commuter services to take the passengers to their nearest high speed station.
From a railroad perspective, it is in the interests of both high speed operators and conventional
passenger train operators to develop a concerted approach to the task of deciding on the services
to be provided to bring people on to trains.
Such cooperation will give existing railway operators the chance to benefit from the expertise of
an experienced global railway operator such as SNCF and consequently to be able to develop
their services overall in order to tap into market growth induced by high speed services in full.
This shared expertise can be on subjects such as:

• Safety of freight and passenger trains on shared tracks or corridors
• Cohabitation of different type of service in terms of capacity at both railway junctions
and on the line.
• Requirements for optimum operational management of mixed traffic
• Good coordination of passenger services in stations to achieve maximum synergy
between high-speed services and Intercity/commuter services.
It is also necessary, as explained in section 4.o, to remember that and the enhancement and
modernization of infrastructure will raise the global quality of the network enabling the
conventional railway operators to provide better services in term of regularity, comfort and
safety.
4.k.2 Other passenger operators
As explained in the previous paragraph, communications and understanding between high speed
and conventional operators over services will be mutually beneficial. Nevertheless to achieve
true and complete efficiency, common commercial and ticketing approaches are also necessary
in order to facilitate access to trains and ensure that travel is considered as a whole and not as the
juxtaposition of several separate segments. This type of partnership will lead to client satisfaction
and consequently to traffic growth.
SNCF has an extensive experience of these complementarities:
• In France, of course, where SNCF acts as a multimodal operator managing the TGV
high-speed network as well as Intercity and commuter trains, in addition to buses, light
railroads and subways possibly in partnership or through its own subsidiary Keolis.
SNCF is therefore highly experienced in all modern forms of ticketing and multimodal
commercial approaches.
• In the UK through Eurostar services where, for example, a number of cross-selling
agreements have been negotiated with local railroad companies in order to facilitate
travel from inland England towards France and Belgium thereby increasing ridership and
market shares for all parties.
4.k.3 Railway Infrastructure
Even if high-speed trains are not operated in association with other forms of traffic when running
at full speed (i.e. over 100 mph), their main advantage is to be able to run at lower speed on
conventional railroad infrastructure in the approach to terminals thus for example limiting the
impact of right-of-way in urban areas.
It should also be remembered, and this could be an important factor in the success of the project,
that existing track may have to be shared in the early phases of the project, at least at the
beginning of the high-speed service. Local constraints, financial choices or even the phasing of
the construction process because of local difficulties may make should mixed operations
unavoidable. But they could also be the result of political decisions about validity of heavy
investment in areas where this could be avoided or postponed for as long as the full capacity of
the line or station (platforms) has not been reached.
Not all stations served by high-speed trains should be new, in particular in the case of
“historical” stations. To facilitate connections between railroad operators for passengers and
organize intermodality in downtown station, it is often better to concentrate all the different
transportation modes around an existing station.

Given these considerations it is understandable that, at some point, high-speed infrastructure will
interface with existing railroad infrastructure. As an operator and as an railway infrastructure
manager, SNCF has many years of experience of managing such situations. It can provide a high
level service from engineering to planning, track layout and operation phasing and construction
management to traffic management during these phases. Its efforts will be fully coordinated with
the operators concerned. The main objective will be to not interrupt railroad traffic except for
short periods agreed by the railroad operator. The process could be handled as follows:
• Construction of high-speed infrastructure:
o Construction on active ROW not requiring relocation of existing track: all
appropriate measures will be taken to avoid the impact on current rail operations.
Exceptional work will be planned long in advance and coordinated with the
operator concerned.
o Construction on existing railroad right-of-way that affects the existing railroad
alignment: SNCF will seek full cooperation with the current operator through
joint design development and common working groups. The design and work will
comply with all existing US technical railroad requirements (i.e. AREMA rules)
and the infrastructure requirements of the current operator.
• Construction work and modifications to existing stations: particular care will be taken not
to disrupt existing passenger services to the greatest possible extent. In these public areas
the maintenance and protection of public spaces will be managed as a matter of priority.
• Maintenance of Way:
o Common policy will be developed at an early stage between SNCF and the
existing operators in order to develop trackage rights allowing all operators to
successfully work their services
o Trackage right negotiations will be completed among operators before the
commissioning of the high-speed line
o In this respect, the low axle load of HST reduces significantly the impact on any
infrastructure (section 4.o).
• Interfaces with the appropriate stakeholders and the relevant highway and roadway
agencies as regards grade separation: SNCF will establish a specific organization to take
charge of handling discussions, negotiations, design, work schedules and construction
management.
• Interface with utilities companies over utility protection and relocation: A similar form of
organization will be adopted.
4.l PROPOSED ROUTES AND ALIGNMENTS

SNCF is proposing to construct, operate and maintain an electric-powered steel-wheel-on-steel
rail HST system, capable of operating at speeds of 220 miles per hour (mph) on mostly
dedicated, fully grade-separated track, with state-of-the-art safety, signaling and automatic train
control systems. The proposed route alignment will be designed to allow operating speeds to be
raised to 250 mph at some time in the future. The signaling system proposed is able to manage a
theoretical headway of 3’30” between trains,
The proposed route, about 300 miles, contains eight stations and connects San Antonio to Dallas
– Fort Worth metropolis, passing through San Antonio SAT Airport, Austin, Temple, Waco,

Dallas Union Station, DFW Airport, and terminating in Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation
Center. This alignment does not jeopardize any future project to connect Houston either with the
T-Bone solution and a direct branch connecting in the area of Temple-Killeen or with a Delta
solution.
A more detailed description with maps is given in Appendices 8 and 9.
4.l.1 Existing Right Of Way (ROW)
The route will, wherever possible, follow existing rail transportation facilities rather than new
corridors, reducing potential unplanned growth and unnecessary sprawl in rural and urban areas.
Therefore SNCF plans to propose that corridors be shared with existing operators and will
develop an intrusion protection plan to mitigate any risk.
Stations will be spaced approximately 50 miles apart in rural areas and closer together in
metropolitan areas to obtain the greatest possible benefits from high-speed travel.
In virtually every major city, the high-speed train station will be developed in conjunction with
existing rail transportation hubs to produce the most efficient linkages to local and regional
transit systems. Efficient integration of the high-speed train network with local transportation
systems is paramount to the success of both.
4.l.2 New Right of Way
Wherever is not possible to share existing railroad ROW due to the refusal of existing operator(s)
or the isolated nature of the alignment, SNCF will develop a policy of right-of-way acquisition
which will limit properly owner impact and will strive to use existing transportation corridors to
contain the environmental effects.
4.m REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS

SNCF is proposing the construction of ROW suitable for high-speed train operations at speeds
up to 220 mph with the possibility of increasing this to 250 mph at a later stage depending on
operating and/or commercial needs. Traffic capacity will be sufficient to cater to expected
ridership.
SNCF is therefore thinking in terms of a dedicated electrified double track line with top level
signaling and traffic control systems for a theoretical headway of 3’30” minimum. This line will
be electrified with a 2 x 25 kV AC current. Track can be laid either on concrete sleepers and
ballast or on concrete slabs. The final decision will be made at the more detailed design stage in
the light of site conditions, economic factors and contractor best practices.
Main investments planned:
• Train management system, like ERTMS level 2 (or similar) which includes ECTS level 2
(or similar) signaling system plus GSM-R (or similar) radio network. This system will
fully meet the PTC control requirements stipulated by RSEA (see section 4.o).
• Electric power supply facilities: Electric power will have to be provided through
contracts negotiated with the utility companies, and SNCF is intending, as a matter of
principle, to negotiate first and foremost with companies providing “green” electricity
from renewable energy sources. This electricity will feed the overhead line via power
stations spaced out regularly along the line. In these facilities, all the critical functional
elements for operation will have built-in redundancy.
• New track alignment fully-fenced and grade-separated in relation to intersecting streets,
highways and railroads. When shared corridors have to be used along highways or

railroads, intrusion protection structures will be designed to mitigate any risks. Box
culvert grade separations will be provided at regular intervals and according to necessity
to provide crossings for wildlife and access for agriculture purposes.
• New right-of-ways: In rural areas, the new line will be constructed on new right of way to
be acquired from private owners. To limit the impact of the new line, the alignment will
as far as possible, be routed along existing highway or railroad corridors. Within these
areas the nominal right-of-way width should on average be 100 feet. Additional widths
will be required in areas where profile gradients require heavier cuts or fills.
• Within urban areas, SNCF will negotiate the possibility of sharing right-of-way with
existing operating railroad companies. On this point, SNCF is fully aware of the concern
expressed by the Federal Rail Administration about mixing different types of traffic and
will provide full operating solutions to comply with the FRA requirements (Rule of
particular applicability for Rolling stock, state of the art train control system, time
separation of the various traffics or fully dedicated tracks with intrusion protection). In
the case of corridor sharing with an existing railroad, SNCF may propose, if necessary, to
upgrade the full corridor in order to increase operating speeds and improve the line
capacity. Such investment operations will be fully coordinated and negotiated with the
railroad companies on a win-win basis. In such cases, SNCF will be able to provide
excellent engineering services thanks to its French and worldwide experience in
maintaining and upgrading railroad networks in revenue service with mixed traffic.
• These upgrades of existing railroad corridors could involve track alignment,
electrification and even Positive Train Control installation and communications.
• Development of passenger terminals and station facilities in downtown or in adjacent
areas located within convenient access of existing freeways, expressways and major
streets. Full passenger amenities will be provided at all stations (see paragraph 4.e.2).
These locations will be chosen in association with the city departments concerned so the
process fits into any plans to revitalize, renew or modernize the area adjacent to the
station (see section 4.d).
• Construction of a rolling stock main maintenance workshop as well as yards for
overnight storage, inspection, washing and light repairs to rolling stock close to the
stations. Some major areas of land will be necessary to house these facilities.
• Construction of maintenance of way facilities along the line, located at an average of 100
miles apart. The necessary right-of-way for these facilities will need to suffice to provide
storage space for materials, track elements, system components, work train stabling as
well as offices and staff facilities. The location should be close to an existing freight
railroad in order to ship materials in and out by rail.
4.n MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS

SNCF is fully aware that the project will have major impact on both environmental and
community resources along the route.
It therefore intends to develop a “Mitigation Plan” at the earliest possible stage to offset such
impact. Potential mitigation measures will be related, but not limited to:
• Air quality
• Hydrology / water quality / water quantity

• Soils and unique geological features
• Endangered and threatened species and species of special concern
• Wildlife, habitat and vegetation (other than endangered species)
• Hazardous materials / petroleum product management and spill prevention
• Waste disposal
• Noise, vibration, light, turbulence
• Electric and magnetic fields
• Energy consumption
• Beach and shore protection
• Archeological and historical sites
• Utilities, public services and facilities
• Traffic and transportation
• Land use and zoning
• Permits
• Socio-economics (short term and long term impact)
• Growth management.
SNCF will work in close coordination with all federal, state and local entities in order to identify
areas of concern and to choose planning and design approaches to minimize negative impact.
SNCF can offer the necessary strengths in the various areas where impact mitigation is required
in addition to its vast experience of major rail projects around the world, both new and old.
4.o TYPE AND QUANTITY OF TRAIN EQUIPMENT

As mentioned in section 4.e, the basic train configuration is a 200 m long trainset with about 500
to 550 seats (1,000 seats per double unit train) and existing rolling stock has been used for
simulation purposes.
In the absence of current American standards for HSR, the underlying concept is based on the
Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) for High Speed Rolling Stock, which will be
adapted where necessary to allow for the standards applicable in the USA.
When drawing up the technical specifications for HRS, SNCF will recommend technical
concepts that have shown their robustness in high-speed operations in France and other
countries.
It will, for example, recommend:
• Articulated fixed consist trainsets
• With long wheel-base (close to 10 ft) trucks to guarantee a high level of safety, maximum
comfort and help reduce energy consumption
• On-board electrical and technical equipment based on the most recent generations of
high-speed train
• Signaling system based on ERTMS combining avant-garde technology with reliability.
By contrast, the interior fittings will be innovative and designed to meet the specific needs of
regional or local customers.

SNCF can boast substantial experience in the design of the interior fittings of its different
generations of high-speed train, both for new stock and for the refurbishment of existing
vehicles. (cf details in Appendix 10)
4.o.1 Maximum speed
The concept of the project is HST 220mph. Timetable is based on 200mph operating speed.
4.o.2 Passenger amenities - Service on board
Trains will be designed to high sound-proofing and ambient temperature standards for passenger
comfort, for instance in accordance with the TSI HS RS. (Technical Specifications for the
Interoperability of High Speed Rolling Stock).
Market research will help determine the appropriate number of different classes on-board, as
well as the bar/dining car, galleys and specific elements such as meeting rooms for business
travelers, entertainment/travelers information system.
All seats are individual and pitched according to foreseeable development in passenger size. The
on-board experience (combining both the “hard” and “soft” service factors) plays a major part in
consumer satisfaction: train design must form a solid foundation for excellent service. In this
respect, each passenger will have for instance a separate reclining seat with its own reading
lamp. Power sockets will be available at all seats, as well as USB sockets (or a future standard),
each coach will have a passenger information facility Internet or cell phone connections
Lastly, trains should be modular in nature in order to easily incorporate new services and
accommodate new needs that will emerge in the 30 years in which they will be in operation. This
will also make it possible to offer regularly renewed, cutting-edge interior design, working in
partnership with the best designers to create an exceptional moment on board.
4.o.3 Energy consumption profile
The train's power consumption will depend on the operating conditions (type of service, weather
conditions). Appendix 10 gives some examples of the amount of power required for a variety of
operating conditions.
4.o.4 Acceleration and deceleration rates
Trains on HS lines accelerate at a rate of 0.546 Yd(1.638 feet)/s2, in accordance with the TSI HS
RS standard.
The train decelerates at a rate from 0.92 Yd (2.76 feet)/s2 at 200 mph to 1.3 Yd (3.9 feet)/s2 at
100 mph, depending on the increments, in accordance with the TSI HS RS standard.
4.o.5 Service development plan, fleet and phasing
Four stages have been assessed to provide an efficient business case from Day 1 up to the
targeted full service.
• The first stage is expected to be implemented at the end of 2017 in order to start
operations in early 2018. The 311 mile section from Fort Worth to Austin will be worked
with 60 daily services (30 Fort Worth – Austin stopping all stations and 30 Fort Worth –
San Antonio stopping only at major stations).
• Single unit consists will be operated on an hourly basis throughout the day with a fleet
assessed at 29 units (25 scheduled or hot spare and four out of service for maintenance
purposes). Reliability of the units will lead to clarify the number of units that need to be
purchased before starting the operations in order to have time for all of them to be tested
and commissioned and the number of units to be purchased once services have begun.
• The second phase is scheduled to start in early 2021 once the section of line between
Austin and San Antonio has been completed. The backbone of operations will be 42 daily
trains running from Fort Worth to Austin plus 46 daily trains operated from Fort Worth to
San Antonio. A fleet of 30units is needed to provide these services with 26 scheduled or
hot spare units and 4 units out of operation for maintenance.
The third phase is planned to start early 2025 with 92 daily services (46 Fort Worth – Austin
stopping all stations and 46 Fort Worth –San Antonio stopping major stations) with the purchase
of four additional units (28 diagrammed and hot spare and 5 unavailable for operations).
The final stage is planned to start early 2031 with 94 daily services (48 Fort Worth – Austin
stopping all stations and 46 Fort Worth –San Antonio stopping major stations). No change on the
fleet is expected.
4.p PROJECT CAPITAL COSTS

Capital costs have been calculated on the basis of comparable projects in the USA or abroad.
SNCF has used its knowledge of high-speed systems worldwide to minimize the level of cost
uncertainty. The accuracy of the cost estimations reflects the preliminary nature of the current
study.
4.p.1 Major categories of expenditure
Capital costs include all aspects of the initial investment in the project, including:
• Professional fees
• Construction costs (including stations and depots)
• Rolling stock purchase
• Land acquisition.
NB: SNCF has included neither client fees nor possession fees within the capital costs.
4.p.2 Methodology and assumptions
Capital costs were broken down into the following items:
Professional fees
This item includes project management and design fees.
Land acquisition and compensation
This item includes acquisition of land to secure property titles for the route right-of-way itself,
and also for stations, electrical sub-stations, maintenance of way facilities, train storage yards
and rolling stock maintenance facilities.
It also allows for the cost of acquiring and demolishing buildings, and the cost of any land use
displacements.
Infrastructure
This item includes the required construction work which encompasses right of way preparation
and construction of viaducts, tunnels and bridges; the cost of work-sites is included.
Costs have been differentiated according to infrastructure type as follows:
• At grade alignment:
o Categorized according to topography:
Easy terrain: flat to slightly hilly terrain, little necessary earthworks.

Difficult terrain: extensive earthwork necessary to compensate for uneven
terrain.
o Urban areas: a specific cost for urban areas was considered when tunneling could
be avoided
o Shared areas: specific costs for shared areas with existing transportation
infrastructure (particularly railroads and highways) were also considered to
compensate for complicated construction and intrusion protection facilities
• Viaducts and exceptional structures
• Tunnels.
In general, high speed alignments are designed to allow for speeds of 250 mph. However, some
sections are designed for lower speeds in order to avoid excessive cost. In urban areas, speed of
125 mph is often considered to limit the different impacts.
System
This item includes the required rail system equipment, which broadly consists of the permanent
way, signaling, telecommunications, power supply, overhead line equipment, etc.
The cost has been differentiated according to sub-system type as follows:
• Track
• High Voltage Power Supply
• Overhead Catenary
• Signaling (ECTS Level 2 or equivalent or superior)
• Cables
• Telecommunications (GSMR – voice and data communication).
Workshops and small depots
The design and construction costs of HS workshops and small depots will depend on the size of
the rolling stock fleet, and the number of locations required.
Maintenance Bases
The design and construction costs of HS maintenance bases will depend on the line length, size
of the rolling stock fleet, and the number of locations required.
Stations
This item includes construction of new stations and renovation or extension of existing ones.
Capital costs were next broken down into high-speed route segments to simplify compilation
while developing phasing proposals. These capital costs per segment were calculated by
applying unit costs (per foot or mile, for example) to the alignment of the segment. Some capital
cost items were calculated as percentages of other costs. All costs were calculated on the basis of
2009 economic conditions.
4.p.3 Rolling Stock costs
The purchase cost of rolling stock per trainset was determined on the basis of current market
rates. For the number of train sets indicated above, the corresponding capital costs are given in
the following table:

Figure 20 – Fleet (Rolling Stock)
Purchase periods Number of Units MUSD 2009
2010 – 2017 28 1,085
2018-2020 0 0
2021-2025 1 39
2026-2050 4 155
Total Fleet 33 1,279
4.p.4 Capital costs summary

The construction cost (excluding land and including formation, track, sidings and yards,
signaling and telecommunications, stations, workshops and other buildings) is estimated to be
about US$ 11.8 billion in $ 2009 and the value of the land required to be about US$ 0.8 billion
in $ 2009.
The cost of the rolling stock is estimated to be about US$ 1.3 billion in $ 2009 of which US$ 1.1
billion will be needed for the initial operation of the railway (2018-2025), with further rolling
stock costing US$ 0.2 billion required to meet the forecast traffic growth (2026-2050).

Figure 21 – Capital Cost Summary
MUSD 2009 %
Land Acquisition 795 6%
Infrastructure 8,257 60%
Formation at grade 6,418 46%
Viaduct 968 7%
Tunnel 871 6%
System 2,744 20%
Track 682 5%
Power Supply 255 2%
Catenary 408 3%
Signaling 459 3%
Cables 102 1%
Telecom 357 3%
Infra Maintenance Depot 481 3%
Access to Infrastructure 174 1%
Rolling Stock 1,427 10%
Rolling Stock - HST 220 mph 1,279 9%
Rolling stock workshop Depot 149 1%
Total Capex 13,827 100%
4.q DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES ACCORDING TO TRIP TIMES
AND RELIABILITY STANDARDS
The methodology and the findings of economic, technical, operating and financial studies are
described. The next stage is to explain how the service will be provided, in other words how the
contract with the authorities sponsoring the project will be fulfilled.
• The technical options recommended are both proven and robust (e.g. track equipment,
electric power supplier facilities, rolling stock design, etc.). Moreover SNCF uses to
demand systematic robustness studies (AREMA).
• The "systemic" analysis of potential risks enables events to be managed immediately they
occur.
• The methods guaranteeing that the product will be properly produced also extend to the
organization of the test phase. SNCF will have to adapt these procedures to US rules, as it
has already done in many other countries.
• Preparations to commence operations are highly dependent on the personnel training plan
and on "dry" runs before the start of revenue service. Tests will also need to be carried
out with customers in different operating situations in order to ensure total safety.
• One of the key factors in achieving reliability (and operating safety) is the organization of
the OCC referred to in Section 4.o.

By way of illustration and as a benchmark based on SNCF experience, HSR services should, in
operation, achieve results similar to those obtained by the most efficient networks, namely zero
fatal accidents due to technical or human error and mean annual RS availability rates of 80% in
off-peak and 98% in peak periods, as shown in RS Appendix 10 for trainsets each covering
250,000 miles per year.
Where financial results are concerned, the reliability of the methods used for forecasts and
business case analyses are borne out by the accuracy of the forecasts in relation to actual results
for a few recent or older SNCF projects.
4.r SYNOPSIS AND REFERENCES FOR ANY PAST HSR RELEVANT STUDIES
Relevant records cover the entire existence of the Texas High Speed Rail Authority (THSRA),
beginning with the high speed rail feasibility study completed by the Texas Turnpike Authority
in 1989 that led to the creation of the THSRA, and ending with the abolishment of the agency in
1995.
The pursuit of a high speed rail project in Texas began in earnest in 1987. In June of that year the
70th Legislature directed the Texas Turnpike Authority (TTA) to study the feasibility of high
speed rail service in the "Texas Triangle" - Dallas-Houston, Dallas-San Antonio, and San
Antonio-Houston. The study began in February 1988. The study reviewed other high speed rail
systems, current and projected transportation needs in Texas, and other related subjects. The
TTA reported to the Texas Legislature in January 1989 that, under certain assumptions, high
speed rail (over 150 miles per hour) would be feasible in Texas. The 71st Legislature passed
legislation to implement the findings of the report.
The Texas High-Speed Rail Authority (THSRA or the Authority) was charged with determining
whether high-speed rail (HSR) was in the public interest, and if so, to award a franchise to
operate a high-speed rail service to the most qualified applicant. A Request for Proposal (RFP)
was published in September 1990. Two groups responded to the RFP - Texas TGV and Texas
FasTrac.
SYSTRA (SOFRERAIL at that time), the international consulting group of SNCF, was at that
time one of the partners of the Texas TGV Consortium to which was awarded the franchise.
SYSTRA developed several market studies and engineering services, the relevant ones are listed
in the “Reference List” (Appendix 14).
The high-speed rail franchise agreement required that an independent ridership study be
conducted so that the public would have a more complete examination of the revenue potential
of the proposed high-speed rail project. The study had to be initiated within 60 days of the
execution date of the franchise agreement. It was funded by the franchisee, Texas TGV, now also
known as the Texas High-Speed Rail Corporation. The consultant chosen to conduct the study
was Charles River Associates, which presented its findings to the Board at its September 2, 1993
meeting. The final printed report was released in October 1993. The study examined ridership
with different alignments and different air connect relationships. It was intended to be used by
Texas TGV to refine ridership estimates using different assumptions, different line haul times,
and different market response strategies. The Authority considered this report to be "one of the
most complete and exhaustive examinations of the high speed ground transportation demand and
revenues ever completed for any corridor in the United States."

5 FINANCIAL PLAN
The main macro-economic assumptions used in the financial projection are the following:
• Revenues have been calculated in $ 2009 and with regards to two following assumptions:
o Their withdrawal of the Value Added Tax (VAT) constant rate estimated on
average at 8%3;
o Their indexation to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate. Passenger
revenues are expected to keep on rising from an average of 2.5% per year from
2018 (start of operation) to 2050.
• Capital costs and operating and maintenance expenditures have been calculated in 2009 $
and indexed to inflation estimated at 2.5% per year (2010-2050)
• Corporate tax has been estimated to 30%
5.a PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATING FAREBOX REVENUES

Annual passenger traffic forecast and operating revenues (rely on commercial ticket fare and
other revenues generated by the project) over the project period (2018-2050) are given in
paragraphs 4.g.2 and 4.g.3.
Passenger farebox revenues that are generated by the Project over the operating period (2018-
2050) are estimated at US$ 35.5 billion in 2009 dollars (without VAT) equivalent to US$ 70.2
billion in current value (without VAT).
Expected annual operating revenues by year are provided in Appendix 12.
5.b ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS BY TYPE OF EXPENDITURE

The operation and maintenance expenditures that are generated by the Project over the operating
period (2018-2050) are estimated at US$ 6.7 billion in $ 2009, i.e. US$ 12.5 billion in current
value (see 4.h.3).
Expected annual operation and maintenance costs by year are provided in Appendix 12.
5.c ANNUAL SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL COSTS

The total initial capital costs required is US$ 13.8 billion in 2009 dollars, equivalent to US$ 16.3
billion in current value including inflation. Further capital injections of US$ 7.7 billion in
current dollars would be required for renewals over the project life. Over the whole life cycle of
the project, the total capital required is US$ 24.0 billion in current dollars. Note that, at this
stage, only the initial capital costs for Infrastructure, System, Stations and Buildings have been
taken into account in the base case cash flow financial analysis.
3
According to available information of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants website

Figure 22 – Initial capital expenditures
INITIAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
(in MUSD ‐ current value)
6 000
5 000
4 000
In MUSD
3 000
2 000
1 000
0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050
Capital Costs
Expected capital costs by year are provided in Appendix 12.
5.d SOURCES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF CAPITAL FUNDS

Financing the project will of course imply the contribution of significant capital funds. Sources
of such equity are various, including among others public stakeholders (from the federal level to
the local level) and private sector involved in the project (industrial parties as well as financial
ones specialized in project finance).
The final split among the parties of the required capital funds will depend on various factors,
such as:
• The internal financial profitability of the project, from which the capacity to remunerate
the equity invested at market conditions will be derived
• The legal and financial structuring chosen for the project
• The risk allocation among the parties
As regards this RFEI, at this early stage, SNCF has just made broad assumptions on the
structuring and the financing (see 5.j below), for purely illustrative purposes
SNCF would be pleased to go further into financial analysis and engineering with the concerned
Authorities, to establish the most convenient process to succeed with further stakeholders, based
on its extensive and successful experiences. Indeed, through past and current projects driven by
SNCF, the Group has proven its ability to determine the best financial sources suited to specific
projects, and to take a significant part as the case may be: full financing by SNCF, split between
SNCF and national authorities, but also local authorities and industrial partners.
SNCF is willing to share its knowledge in financial structuring of projects, which make sense on
a socioeconomic basis such as the one presently considered, and in particular in gathering
required funds by involving all the stakeholders at the federal and local levels.
More details on SNCF’s views are given in chapter 9.

5.e CREDIT ASSUMPTIONS
Depending on the financial profitability of the project, the partners could leverage the project’s
financing by raising debt.
The possibility to raise debt will depend on various factors, such as:
• Availability of liquidity at fair market conditions
• Borrowing power of the project and/or of the special purpose vehicle that would
subscribe to the debt
• Risk profile of the project and/or of the special purpose vehicle that would subscribe to
the debt
• Guarantees/securities, in particular from public authorities.
As previously stated, SNCF has just made broad assumptions on the structuring and the
financing (see 5.j below), for purely illustrative purposes. SNCF would be pleased to go further
into financial engineering with the concerned parties to work on those issues.
5.f INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION

The control of the risks inherent to the delivery and operation of a HSR system is critical to the
various parties involved, private sector parties and the public body to which they are
accountable. Focus should be put on the assessment and neutralization of risks and exposures
through a combination of risks transfer and risk financing techniques. The appointment of a
national and international leader in brokerage field is the first step to achieve this.
During these challenging financial times for the insurance market, the SNCF can benefit from his
excellent credit rating allowing itself to access favorable terms and conditions on the market.
Depending on the procurement method identified to deliver the project (P3) or Design & Build,
there exists a large number of products are available on the market to optimize protection.
If the project is delivered as a P3, SNCF has in the past identified the value of the Controlled
Insurance Program (“CIP”). The CIP is a centralized insurance program under which one party
procures insurance on behalf of all parties (the HSR Authority, the members of the Consortium,
such as the designer, the contractor, the O&M contractor) performing work on a project or a site.
Typically, the coverage provided under a CIP includes builders risk, commercial general
liability, workers compensation, and umbrella liability. CIPs offer a number of benefits including
greater control of the coverage, potentially lower costs and reduced litigation.
The Program consists of the following coverage:
• Workers’ compensation
• Employers’ liability
• Commercial General Liability
• Business Automobile Liability (if necessary)
• Professional Liability
• Property Insurance
o Builder Risk Insurance
o Property in Operation
o Contractors’ equipment
o Business Interruption

The extent the O&M contract is awarded separately to the Design & Construction; each entity
responsible shall implement its own coverage specific to their fields.
5.g CONSTRUCTION COST RISK SHARING AND RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED APPROACH
One of the key structuring criteria of the project will be risk sharing among the various
stakeholders. The general principle is that the allocation of risks depends on the ability of each
party to manage them: transferring a risk to the best suited to assume it is the way to optimize the
successful completion of the project and the control of its costs.
As regards specifically construction cost risks, SNCF has proven its ability to manage them,
including in relation with subcontractors and partners, during past and current high speed rail
projects. In the context of this RFEI, the risk sharing will depend on the final structuring of the
project chosen by the Authorities and project sponsors, and the public and private partners that
SNCF may have in developing further the project.
In all cases, SNCF believe that having the Group as a key partner to develop the project will be a
major asset to significantly reduce the risks, thanks to SNCF high level technical and managerial
expertise.
5.h REVENUE AND OPERATING COST RISK SHARING AND RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED
APPROACH
As regards specifically revenue and operating cost risk, SNCF is being managing them daily for
nearly 30 years by operating HSR in France and in Europe. In consequence, the Group has
developed, and is improving daily, knowledge, methods and tools to optimize the management of
all operating and financial risks as far as high speed train operations are concerned. In the
context of this RFEI, the risk sharing will depend on the final structuring of the project chosen,
and the public and private partners that SNCF may have in developing further the project. In all
cases, SNCF strongly believes that having its Group as a key partner to develop the project will
be a major asset to significantly reduce the operating risks, in terms of revenues as well as
operating costs, thanks to SNCF high level technical and managerial expertise.
5.i PROJECTED FUNDING FOR THE FULL FAIR MARKET COMPENSATION FOR ANY ASSET
The estimations of capital costs as shown in section 5.c. include provisions for such
compensations. At this very early stage, SNCF has made broad estimations, based on its
extensive experience. Still, further analyses may reveal sensitive situations that could require
higher provisions.
5.j PROJECTED FINANCIAL STATEMENT

5.j.1 Financial analysis methodology and project modeling
In a financial analysis, all the elements that influence the costs, revenues and returns from the
project are of interest when determining the finance structure and assessing the financial
requirements to be reached by the corporate company. The results of such analysis can be used to
determine whether a project is sound enough to pursue, by:
• Giving an initial figure for project internal rate of return (IRR);
• Establishing a finance structure that is sustainable by the project;
• Assuring lenders and investors the attractiveness of the project.

A comprehensive computer financial model for the project was constructed in order to derive:
• Operating revenues and expenditures for each year of the project life (2018-2050)
• Operating surplus for each year (i.e. Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and
Amortization or EBITDA), and net income after provision for renew of assets (EBIT).
• When relevant, the financial internal rate of return (IRR) over the project life, i.e. that
interest rate at which the cumulated discounted cash-flow equal to zero.
5.j.2 Overall financials of the project
The table below shows the cash-flow for the Texas HSR 220. Note that results are available for
each year of the project but only selected years are shown below for illustrative purposes. All
figures are in current values million USD.
Figure 23 – Overall Financials – Texas HSR
Total
2018 2022 2030 2040 2050
(current)
Revenues 335 1,308 1,797 2,672 3,421 70,189
Operating Costs 107 156 184 207 227 6,126
Maintenance Costs 117 163 191 214 235 6,368
EBITDA 111 989 1,422 2,252 2,958 57,695
Infrastructure depreciation 231 231 231 231 231 7,619
Rolling Stock depreciation 44 46 46 52 55 1,668
EBIT -164 712 1,145 1,969 2,672 48,408
Capital costs for Infrastructures 0 0 0 0 0 14,594
Capital costs Rolling Stock 0 0 0 0 0 1,659
The operation is expected to generate a positive EBITDA the first year of the operation. The
project EBIT is also positive from 2019 to 2050. Expected EBITDA and EBIT by year are
provided in Appendix 12.

Figure 24 – Overall free cash flow
OVERALL FREE CASH FLOW
OVERALL FREE CASH FLOW
(In MUSD ‐ current value)
4 000 (In MUSD ‐ current value)
4 000
3 000
3 000
2 000
2 000
1 000
1 000
0
0
In MUSD
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050
In MUSD
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050
‐1 000
‐1 000
‐2 000
‐2 000
‐3 000
‐3 000
‐4 000
‐4 000
‐5 000
‐5 000
‐6 000
‐6 000
Overall Free Cash Flow
Overall Free Cash Flow
The positive EBITDA described above provides great opportunity to pursue the project which
could attract investors and lenders. In this context, SNCF has looked at ways of establishing a
finance structure that is sustainable by the project.
5.j.3 SNCF financial approach
Only a detailed legal, technical and financial feasibility study in close cooperation with the US
DoT suffices to exhaust all arguments and assumptions against or in favor of one financial
structuring option versus another.
All the following results shall be appreciated in the light of the mentioned assumptions and shall
be interpreted as a suggestive approach and methodology to analyze the way Private Sector
Participation may be involved in the Texas HSR.
Our view, to be confirmed by further detailed studies should this initiative be considered to be
pursued, would be that part of the project could be developed by a special purpose vehicle
designated further as Special Purpose Company, in charge of (i) operating commercially the
Texas HSR and (ii) financing some of the initial capital costs.
Recommended option: If US Public Authorities (either Federal, State or Local) finance the
initial capital costs for Land, Infrastructures, System, Stations and Buildings, i.e. US$ 12.5
billion in $ 2009 (US$ 14.6 billion in current value), the Special Purpose Company, which could
include SNCF, could then finance its own Rolling Stock, i.e. US$ 1.3 billion in $ 2009 (US$ 1.7
billion in current value) and the level of earnings should be sufficient that the Special Purpose
Company could (i) still be commercially viable and (ii) return to the US Public Authorities a
Contributory Capacity under modalities to be determined (access charges, renting, renewal of
assets…).
Figure 25 –SPC Financials – Texas HSR
2018 2022 2030 2040 2050 Total

(current)
Revenues 335 1,308 1,797 2,672 3,421 70,189
Operating Costs 107 156 184 207 227 6,126
Maintenance Costs 117 163 191 214 235 6,368
Contributory Capacity 83 742 1,265 2,085 2,739 51,926
EBITDA 28 247 156 167 219 5,769
Rolling Stock depreciation 44 46 46 52 55 1,668
EBIT -16 201 111 114 164 4,101
Capital costs Rolling Stock 0 0 0 0 0 1,659
SPC Internal Rate of Return (After Tax) 8,5%
The total Contributory Capacity available from the Special Purpose Company would reach about
US$ 51.9 billion in current value over the project life-cycle. This Contributory Capacity could
also enable US Public Authorities to recover some part of their initial disbursement.
Figure 26 – Special Purpose Company Free Cash-Flow
SPECIAL PURPOSE COMPANY FREE CASH FLOW
SPECIAL PURPOSE COMPANY FREE CASH FLOW
400
400
200
200
0
0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050
‐200
‐200
In MUSD
In MUSD
‐400
‐400
‐600
‐600
‐800
‐800
‐1 000
‐1 000
‐1 200
‐1 200
‐1 400
‐1 400
Special Purpose Company Free Cash Flow (after tax)
Special Purpose Company Free Cash Flow (after tax)
As shown below, in this case, 62% of funds required for the initial capital investments including
rolling stock (in present value discounted at 4%) would be generated from operating revenues.

Figure 27 – Texas HSR funding option
Texas HSR funding option
(Present value@ 4%)
4%
Special Purpose
Company Financing
38%
Contributory
Capacity
58% Public funding
requirements
The approach outlined above is based on the following assumptions:
Proposed Private Financial Structuring

SPC (Group SNCF) perimeter O&M activities
Rolling Stock Financing
Debt Structuring Assumptions 80%
Start of Debt Repayment + 2 years after RS acquisition
Interest Rate 6%
Maturity 15 years
Equity Structuring assumptions 20%
Cost of Equity 13%
Risk-Free Rate 4%
Country Risk Premium 1%
Market Risk Premium 4%
Beta 0,9
Equity Risk Premium 4%
Dividends Distribution Policy 100%
Contribution capacity (% EBITDA)
2017 – 2025 75%
2025 – 2035 89%
2035 – 2050 93%
Income tax rate 30%

Figure 28 – Texas SPC Financing Plan (2010-2050)
SPC Financing Plan (in MUSD - current value)
Uses Sources
Initial Capex 1,659 Investment Public Subsidy 0
Initial Financing Needs 70 Equity 385
Debt 1,259
Self-Financing 85
Total 1,729 Total 1,729
With regards to its financial equilibrium constraints, such option would allow the Special
Purpose Company to achieve a minimum Annual Debt Service Cover Ratio (“ADSCR”) of 1.2
in 2029, in line with the internationally acceptable practices.
SPC capacity to contribute to the financing of some part of the total Texas HSR costs has also
been assessed with regards to its financial return requirements.
The overall financial viability of the project for the SPC investors has been measured through
financial return indicators:
• Special Purpose Company Internal Rate of Return (IRR) after tax would be equal to 8.5%
• SPC shareholders Return on Equity (ROE) would be equal to 13.0%
P&L Statement and Cash-Flow Statement Sheet of the Special Purpose Company (given by year
from 2010 to 2050) are provided in Appendix 2 and 3.
In present value discounted at 4%, the benefits of the project for the public at large, quantified in
paragraph 4i3, would represent in USD 2009 170 % of the necessary public investment. They
would exceed public expenditures in year 2036.

6 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND OTHER INSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES
6.a PROJECT STRUCTURE ORGANIZATION CHART - RELATIONSHIPS AMONGST THE ENTITIES

6.a.1 Project structure organization chart
It is vitally important to establish the right organizational structures so that all those involved can
take their responsibilities as appropriate, and any risks can be managed by the party best placed
to do so. The diagram given below shows a typical HSR construction and operation project
organization structure. This diagram shows two distinct areas of activity: the construction
process, and the operation process. In this diagram, the "operating company" is responsible for
rolling stock acquisition. The success of the project will depend to a large extent on proper
management of the interfaces between the construction engineer and the future operator, and this
will require the closest possible integration.
Figure 29 – HST 220: Public/Private Partnership structure
Social
benefits
Owns 100%
Backs loans, TEXAS DOT Traffic
Gives grants revenues
Sp
Contrib
ec
utes, giv
s
Deals at the e es back the R

nd of th a
with HS Railroad e contra ilroad Technical
c t
third Subsidiary Performan HSR Partners,
contr c e other operators
parties act Operation
HSR ROW owners
Performance
Engineering Company
contracts
ions or General (incl. SNCF)

c if icat ion
spe truct contractor
ot ifies s cons
N trol
Con
es int HS Trains
ag erf System
Man ac Suppliers
Civil Works es Equipment
Contractors Suppliers
and Engineers
6.a.2 Relationships between the parties involved

The Authority (dedicated agency or Texas Department of Transportation) is responsible for the
project and will control its development. It will bear the public effort for the project (grants,
backed loans, franchises, …), and “receive” the social benefits.
The Authority may usually set up a subsidiary company (HSR Subsidiary Company) who would
be the owner of the assets. This entity will manage the program, deal with third parties, and, in

our example, pay the contractors. It may be helped by a program manager. Contractors would
preferably have large packages for design and build performance contracts, to accept more
responsibility.
The “Delivery Partner” (HSR Engineering or General Contractor) is engaged by the Authority in
charge of the project (or an ad hoc property entity) via a performance contract, covering for
instance: design, procurement, work supervision, reception, testing and commissioning. It will
manage the interfaces between contractors, including system suppliers, and with the future
operator who must be involved in the early phase of design.
The HSR Operating Company which collects farebox (traffic) revenues, operates the High Speed
Rail services, and, in return, contributes to project funding in a manner to be agreed (access
charges, rent, participation in renewals, etc.).
6.b NEW ENTITIES REQUIRED AND HOW THEY WILL BE STRUCTURED LEGALLY AND
FINANCIALLY
The main entities are quoted in section 6.a above. Their structure will depend on their scope of
responsibility, and risk profile.
SNCF recommends that close links be established between the Delivery Partner, the Operating
Company, and some other stakeholders such as other transport operators and ROW owners. In
Texas, partners we would expect to coordinate with in varying degrees of frequency include
Amtrak and TrinityRail commuter rail operators, Texas DOT as the highway right-of-way
owner, and the freight railroads.
6.c INTEGRATION OF THE PROPOSED SERVICE WITH OTHER SERVICES AND SYSTEMS
Connectivity between high-speed passenger rail and the existing passenger railway network has
the potential to spur the development of HSR in the United States. In France, rail single trips
frequently include segments of travel on designated high-speed rights-of-way and on
conventional track that are often shared with other rail operators (e.g. Freight). For instance, a
typical trip might leave Paris following a designated high-speed line and then “jump” over to the
traditional network to reach a smaller city. This is one trip – not a series of connections – that
utilizes the same rolling stock over the entire course of the trip.
Compatibility between these forms of rail travel has allowed the benefits of HSR to be realized
by travelers going between major cities connected by high-speed lines and also by those travelers
leaving the high-speed grid. Compatibility between high-speed and traditional lines has enabled
gradual infrastructure upgrades to take place without limiting service options. In some cases, this
feature has also enabled SNCF to avoid the excessive costs of constructing new rights-of-way in
urban areas to reach city centers. In short, SNCF has had great success with its connectivity
model.
6.d FEASIBILITY OF GAINING ACCESS TO REQUIRED ROW

We propose three basic options for obtaining the required right-of-way SNCF’s use: the first is to
acquire access rights to the freight or highway right-of-way from the owner for the purposes of
using the property for passenger rail operations. Negotiations would be facilitated by the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT) or another governmental agency set up with appropriate
right-of-way acquisition powers. We expect that these negotiations will continue to a successful
conclusion.

The use of active freight railroad rights-of-way for high-speed passenger operations requires that
the freight operations, existing and planned in the future, are not impacted. Freight operators,
who own a significant potion of the ROW needed for high-speed rail, are reluctant to dispose of
property or permit lease and/or operating agreements on their property, should it in any way
impact or inhibit current or future freight operations. The specific nature of access to the property
- access fees, duration of the contract, nature of construction, number of trains, scheduling of
trains, provisions for right-of-way maintenance, and liability - will be considered for each
segment of freight right-of-way. This option could be expeditious, as long as the freight rail
owner’s conditions are met, which SNCF is prepared to do. Since SNCF tracks are proposed to
be isolated from freight tracks, concerns about mixed operations and joint dispatching are
avoided. In addition, in many segments SNCF’s proposed scope of construction will result in
betterments to freight operations.
In some instances a second option for gaining use of property is needed, principally where new
right-of-way is to be established, either as a new route or widening an existing right-of-way. In
this option the purchase the property outright from the individual property owners is needed. If
the property owners are willing to sell, this would be a preferred option. The right-of-way needed
to the extent feasible will allow the use of the property to continue without impact. Typically
property owners will at first not be willing to sell the property. In addition, a purchase agreement
would need to be negotiated with each individual property owner, typically a lengthy process
that needs to be started in the early phases of design. We will partner with TxDOT or another
appropriate agency with property acquisition powers for the acquisition of right-of-way using
private property,
A third option that would be used if the second option proves unsuccessful is for a government
entity – TXDOT or another agency, to "take" the property for the purposes of public use with the
State of Texas power of eminent domain. This would essentially be a forced sale of the property.
State government agencies with eminent domain powers have the right to force the owner of
private property to sell their property if it is needed for a public use, and must do so with
appropriate compensation for the property itself, and buildings, the loss of use of the property
and relocation costs. In this option, SNCF will rely on the government entity for the acquisition
of right-of-way.
6.e REQUIRED GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS AND APPROVALS AND ROLE OF THE STATE
GOVERNMENT(S)
6.e.1 Required governmental actions & approvals

High-speed rail networks are expensive, long-term, and complex undertakings; active
government oversight and intervention will be necessary at all stages of development. Some of
the most pressing institutional issues facing the development of HSR in the United States are
financing HSR, setting equipment standards, the role of Amtrak, and streamlining the
environmental review process.
• Financing
o The federal government took a major step towards the creation of a U.S. high-
speed rail system by allocating $8 billion to HSR under the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2008 (ARRA) and the appropriation of $1 billion in
annual funds for five years. Regardless, the development of HSR in the United

States will require a more significant “down payment” and annual appropriations
by the federal government. See chapters 7 & 9 for further discussion of this issue.
• Equipment
o The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will need to work closely with the
states to develop regulations to standardize technology requirements across
multiple HSR systems. FRA should review the rolling stock currently available on
the international marketplace, assessing its compliance under existing U.S. law
(taking into account relevant technical and safety regulations). Equipment
requirements should be standardized to allow interoperability between systems
and to increase competition between rolling stock manufacturers. See section 8.b
for further discussion of this issue.
• Amtrak
o Amtrak has been the nation’s sole intercity passenger rail service since 1981 and
it will continue to play a role in the United States’ transportation network. While
Amtrak has seen ridership gains in recent years – and benefited from continued
support from the federal government – Amtrak may need help regarding the
resources and institutional expertise necessary to operate “express” HSR.
Amtrak’s intercity passenger rail will be an important means of establishing
interconnectivity between traditional and high-speed services; however, it does
not appear that Amtrak should provide both high-speed and traditional services.
• NEPA
o The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process is critical to
eligibility for HSIPR Program Tracks 1 and 2 grant funding. Because the NEPA
process requires federal agencies to review and certify proposed HSR plans
before they can be “shovel ready” (a costly and time-consuming process), worthy
projects may be overlooked for HSIPR Program funding because of this
consuming regulatory process. See section 8.c for an in-depth response to this
issue.
6.e.2 Role of state governments in implementing proposal
State governments (including regional interstate partnerships) will be the strategic partners
primarily responsible for designing, building, and operating HSR. Among their many other
duties, state applicants will designate HSR service routes, provide operating costs for new or
expanded corridor services, procure required goods and services, and garner local political and
community support for HSR. Yet, as President Obama’s Vision for High-Speed Rail in America
recognizes, states have had little time to prepare for an intercity passenger rail program of this
magnitude and most lack the resources and expertise to absorb high-levels of HSIPR funding.
States will require continued support and guidance from the federal government and industry
experts during the HSIPR Program implementation process.
6.f RELATIONSHIP TO STATE RAIL PLANS AND PROGRAMS

The Texas Rail System Plan Prepared in 2005 by the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT), includes the provision for future high speed rail service as part of the Trans-Texas
Corridor (TTC) development. The intent of the TTC is to provide enhanced passenger and
freight mobility by increasing efficiencies for rail operators, including the possible provision of
high speed rail. Two corridors are being studied, on one which is the TTC-35, connecting San

Antonio with the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex. Several grass roots organizations support the
HSR initiative and prefer added interconnectivity between the City of Houston, using the
previously proposed “Texas T-Bone” corridor, as well as to the Gulf Coast Corridor via a
connection at Shreveport, LA.
The SNCF proposal fulfils the vision for high speed rail on the TTC-35 corridor, and would be
an integral part of service extensions to Houston and the Gulf Coast.

7 LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
7.a FEDERAL, STATE AND/OR LOCAL LEGISLATION

7.a.1 Authorize and create a sponsoring entity for the project
Federal
The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) HSIPR Program
will coordinate state efforts, administer the federal capital fund for corridor development, and
lead the establishment of HSR at the federal level. Recognizing the progress made by FRA
(especially in light of the urgency of ARRA’s funding timelines) a need exists for additional
personnel with backgrounds in HSR to assist FRA in administering the program and evaluating
the expected high-volume of proposals.
Although FRA and Amtrak recently introduced intercity passenger rail metrics as required by
PRIIA §207, FRA lacks proven metrics to quantify many of the HSIPR Program evaluation
criteria, such as “economic recovery benefits,” “sustainability of benefits,” and “transportation
benefits,” all of which will be necessary to objectively weigh applications.
In addition to creating new measurement tools, additional steps are necessary to ensure that HSR
grant funds are allocated to sustainable projects. The creation of a dedicated “national
infrastructure bank” would facilitate the non-political, objective allocation of HSIPR Program
funds. See section 9.e for a discussion of this proposal.
State
Some states have passed legislation to create HSR “authorities.” Designated bodies, as compared
to state departments of transportation, often have (a) unity of mission; (b) liberty to develop
innovative project development strategies; and (c) independent boards of directors. As a result, if
properly designed and executed, these authorities are independent bodies with distinct political
and funding purposes. While this approach can be successful, HSR authorities have not always
been insulated from the political process. As a result, state political support for HSR must be
maintained regardless of the type of sponsoring entity used.
7.a.2 Remove legal impediments to project implementation
Procurement
• Standardization: States are responsible for the procurement of the goods and services
necessary to develop HSR. However, the HSIPR Program does not provide specific
guidelines for state procurement. Federal law provides general guidelines for the use of
ARRA funds and, more generally, federal grant funds. However, state procurement law
will govern the process by which HSR contracts are awarded (e.g. competition
requirements, decisions concerning contract-type, and protest rules). The proliferation of
“local content” procurement rules threatens to limit competition by enacting barriers to
entry and to bog down the development process as entities pursue protests and other
state-level litigation. In an effort to standardize state procurement rules, FRA should
work with states to establish guidelines for the transparent, competitive, ethical, and
accountable award of HSR-related contracts. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
and the Model Procurement Coder are natural starting points.
• Competition: FRA should mandate the use of full and open competition in the award of
HSR contracts at the state level. While competitive procurement appears to be preferred,

FRA guidance permits states to “sole source” contracts so long as they provide the
appropriate “legal justification” (terms like “sole source” and “legal justification” are not
defined). There may be a middle ground between full and open competition and sole
source procurement: the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides for a variety of
“two-step” procurement processes whereby a small group of preselected firms are
contracted to provide short-term conceptual proposals (reducing the project’s technical
uncertainties), and the procuring entity then “down-selects” to form a full-term contract
with a selected firm. There are various methods of doing this, all of which will achieve
states’ goals of selecting the strongest industry partner possible while recognizing the
need for expediency. SNCF is happy to share with the FRA its extensive experience with
similar pre-selection processes whereby the procuring entity narrows the field of
interested competitors, using both technical and financial criteria, to a handful of highly
qualified consortiums.
• Early Operator Involvement: Early operator involvement remains a critical evaluation
factor because it demonstrates states’ commitment to the sustainable long-term operation
of the HSR system. The two-step procurement method encourages early operator
involvement - the process by which an operator provides advice regarding the planning,
design, or construction of the system before the system is fully operational. Early
operator involvement is essential to project success because project designers often
overlook issues of importance to operations, for example, life-cycle costs,
standardization, and ease of maintenance. By consulting the operator (or multiple
potential operators) at in the planning phases, early operator involvement creates “benefit
sustainability” by eliminating avoidable costs that could potentially arise during
operations. Experienced operators have a wealth of knowledge in areas that are critical to
the success and long-term sustainability of the system:
o Preparing solicitations: operators, as the “end users” of the future system, should
be highly involved in the design process
o Safety and operational capacity: operator personnel are often the best qualified to
gauge the future operational capacity and safety of the system
o Standardization and Interoperability: the operator’s experience is an invaluable
asset to ensure the workability of the design and proposed equipment
o Maintenance: factoring life-cycle costs and maintenance requirements into the
initial planning is essential to long-term sustainability.
Since early operator involvement is critical to protecting HSIPR Program investments,
FRA should consider instructing program applicants to utilize this procurement process.
Organizational Conflicts of Interest: Due to the relatively small pool of firms with
advanced technical expertise in HSR, certain firms may be called upon to wear multiple
“hats” in the development process – for instance: project management, design consulting,
and procurement services. Organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) will inevitably arise
in this environment. FRA should work with states to develop guidelines for the avoidance
and/or mitigation of OCI at the state level.
“Buy American”
It is universally acknowledged that the United States must draw heavily on foreign expertise and
experience to move forward successfully with true high speed rail in America.

The Interim Guidance, PRIIA §221, ARRA, and other legislation contain sometimes
contradictory domestic sourcing requirements – imposing a maze of regulatory obligations.
Though certain exceptions exist, these requirements create an elusive and ill-defined compliance
obligation for firms that supply HSR-related goods and services.
Additionally, state procurement laws may impose further regulatory obstacles. The ability of
states to impose extra “Buy American” restrictions or to selectively ascribe to federal trade
agreements may render ARRA’s primary exceptions for “Buy American” compliance (e.g.
public interest, excessive cost, and single source) moot and could effectively create a pure “Buy
American” requirement.
Federal guidance on this issue is necessary, especially to address (a) states’ ability to selectively
ascribe to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement; (b) the extent and availability of
the Secretary of Transportation’s “public interest” waiver power to state and local procurements;
and (c) the interplay between the various “Buy American” requirements of recent legislation,
U.S. obligations under its trade agreements, existing regulations, and state law.
7.a.3 Otherwise facilitate project
FRA should strongly consider assembling a designated team consisting of individuals with
backgrounds in HSR project design to assist the implementation of the HSIPR Program.
Additional resources – in terms of manpower and expertise – will be necessary to evaluate
proposals and to draft the standards and regulations necessary for the successful roll-out of the
program. Specialized teams may also be necessary to advise recipients of HSIPR Program
funding on best practices. Selected respondents to this RFEI could fulfill one or all of these
functions.
7.b PUBLIC FUNDING COMMITMENTS, FEDERAL, STATE AND/OR LOCAL

HSR programs will require extensive public funding until systems become self-sustaining. FRA
has acknowledged that $8 billion is an “initial down payment” on a national HSR system. The
massive infrastructure and rolling stock investments necessary to begin HSR operations on a
single corridor will require significantly more federal investment. Once systems are in place,
additional subsidies may be necessary until ridership reaches a level where sustainability is
achieved. In consideration of states’ precarious budgetary situations, as well as the scale of the
required investment, the majority of funds will necessarily originate from the federal
government. Even in states where a political will exists, multi-billion dollar state investments
may be impossible.
In light of the above, industry partners should bring significant financial resources to all projects.
Due to SNCF’s strong financial position, it has been able to contribute its own resources to HSR
projects in several contexts. In addition to providing contractual services, SNCF has become an
investor in foreign HSR projects. SNCF is the key HSR player in Europe and has stakes in seven
separate joint ventures. Most recently, SNCF became an equity-holder in Italy’s NTV, the first
world’s first fully-private HSR initiative.
Another form of private investment, public-private partnerships (P3) will also reduce the need
for state and federal funding. Sharing the revenue risks of HSR projects through a P3 reduces the
need for long-term operating subsidies. SNCF has formed multiple P3 contracts – mostly in
Europe, where there is a long-history of using P3 contracts – that have embraced various forms
of public/private financing and risk allocation. SNCF is happy to share its experiences with P3
financing with the FRA.

7.c LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS / GOVERNEMENT - SPONSORED PROGRAMS
The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program (RRIF) and the Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) are among the financing plans that could
bolster HSR infrastructure investment. These programs, along with other innovative initiatives
like state infrastructure banks and the Rail Line Relocation Project, will support private sector
investments and provide critical additional capital and credit to recipients of HSIPR Program
funding.
While each program has been successful, both will need to be adapted for high-speed rail
projects. To allow HSR projects to benefit from RRIF and TIFIA and similar credit-assistance
programs, the following legislative actions are suggested:
• Allow for longer repayment periods. These programs require repayment to begin
within 5-6 years of loan disbursement. For HSR projects, which may not be fully
operational or revenue-producing for at least a decade, this repayment timeline may limit
the availability of federal loans and credit.
• Reduce fees. Both programs impose significant fees on recipients. TIFIA borrowers may
be required to pay a credit processing fee that typically ranges from $200,000 - $300,000.
Recipients of RRFI funds must pay the credit risk premium over the life of the loan (the
“subsidy cost”). RRFI applicants may be required to pay an investigation charge of up to
one half of one percent of the principle amount of the direct loan or the portion of the
loan to be guaranteed.
• Expand the programs. Both programs have been successful and should be expanded to
accommodate the funding and credit requirements of the President’s ambitious high-
speed rail program. TIFIA’s budget authority limits its potential financing capacity and
the program cannot meet the growing demand. Additionally, TIFIA can only finance 33%
of the total project cost. Currently, RRFI reserves a portion of its funding for non-Class I
freight railroads; a similar set-aside should be made for passenger rail projects.
• Eliminate Buy American requirements. Holding recipients of RRIF direct loans and
loan guarantees to Buy American requirements is unnecessary and will limit competition.
For a more in-depth discussion of Buy America, see the response to 7.a.

8 COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS
8.a RIGHTS AND STATUS OF EMPLOYEES

SNCF operates under stringent French retirement, labor, and unemployment laws applicable to
its approximately 180,000 employees. Providing the passenger and rail service for all of France,
SNCF has vast experience in complying with some of the strongest worker protection laws in the
world and the Company has an excellent understanding of how to operate effective compliance
programs for the benefit of its workers.
The development of high speed rail service in the United States will follow the high standards
that SNCF has historically met and will be implemented to fully comply with all applicable
Federal, state, and local laws. In connecting France to neighboring European states, SNCF has
acquired a great deal of hands-on experience dealing not only with French laws but those of
other countries as well. Existing SNCF labor compliance programs will be modified and
expanded to meet the requirements of all United States laws at every level of government
regarding retirement, labor, unemployment, and other applicable worker protection laws.
The SNCF U.S. labor compliance program will give specific emphasis to ensuring compliance
with the employee requirements of section 24405 of title 49 of the United States Code. That
section mandates that any entity that meets the definition of a “rail carrier” must comply with
certain Federal laws including the Railroad Retirement Act (43 U.S.C. 231 et seq.), the Railroad
Labor Act (43 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C.
351 et seq.). SNCF has a long history of successfully collaborating with labor unions and
operating under collective labor agreements that will enable the company to easily meet this
requirement.
As part of its compliance obligations, SNCF will appoint internal compliance officers, work with
U.S. labor compliance experts, and fully participate in both mandatory and voluntary
government-provided compliance assistance programs. Additionally, SNCF will enact
progressive compliance policies, create training materials for company officials and employees,
and set a high standard for strict compliance with all relevant United States employment laws.
8.b RAIL SAFETY AND SECURITY LAWS, ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

The hallmark of world-class, high-speed rail is safety; and SNCF has an unblemished safety
record. In roughly 27 years of operating HSR at the highest speeds in the world, there has not
been a single fatal accident involving a SNCF high-speed train. There is no question that SNCF
can and will comply with all US safety regulations.
Existing U.S. rail safety regulations are extensive. However, to develop European or Asian-style
HSR in the United States, these regulations will need to be reviewed or address pressing issues
such as (a) HSR “express” service operating at over 150 mph; (b) real-time system monitoring;
(c) interaction between freight-commuter-HSR; and (d) standards for high-speed passenger
equipment. FRA is currently reviewing European and worldwide equipment standards and
developing guidance for HSR trains operating at up to 220 mph. Input from operators of
advanced HSR systems will aid this process.
Rail “connectivity” – particularly the ability of high-speed trains to operate on track shared with
other rail operators – is an important attribute of rail transportation systems. Connectivity permits
HSR benefits to be shared with the entire rail system until a dedicated high-speed system is built.

However, unlike in Europe, U.S. safety rules prohibit for the time being the use of HSR train sets
on conventional tracks. If this is not changed, new HSR train sets will need to be modified to
create buffers and other protections in the event of a crash. The issue is not to jeopardize by
doing so, the main characteristic of the train (axle load in particular, a key factor of safety). Some
"anti-crash" features technically proven and fitted on European HSR could obtain the same
result. This issue ought to be carefully addressed.
Other hypotheses on this issue are currently studied by FRA.
The use of PTC signaling system is imposed as first step by 2008 RSIA.
Modern operation management procedures (cf. OCC described in chapter 4) contribute also to
reach this goal by establishing close relationship between the various operators.
SNCF is more than ready to work closely with US FRA authority to set appropriate rules in order
not only to keep the existing level of safety, but to enhance it.
8.c ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

8.c.1 Compliance with environmental laws and regulations
As necessary, SNCF intends to participate with the applicable high-speed rail sponsoring entity
as a co-proponent of the project through the NEPA processes. The High-Speed Intercity
Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant program requires some form of NEPA documentation to be
eligible for Tracks 2 and 4 and certain Track 1 funding.
For many advanced applications, a programmatic EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) has
been prepared which identifies for most sections of the HSR the environmentally preferred
corridor or in some cases, alternate corridors. From the programmatic EIS, tiered EIS’ can be
completed to address site-specific environmental, social, historic, archeological and species
impacts. The programmatic EIS reduces the range of transportation alternative corridors to be
analyzed in subsequent tiered EIS for each section of the HSR. However, TGV systems should
be considered as the preferred alternative for means of HSR; SNCF would provide critical data
and information on TGV technology and functioning.
Since it is unlikely that the tiered EIS for various HSR segments can be completed
simultaneously, a plan will be developed based upon preferred construction schedules, likely
extent of impacts, and anticipated length of time to complete each tiered EIS, to schedule the
order for tiered EIS’s.
Because SNCF may – depending upon the particular project – participate and oversee the
construction of specific HSR facilities, operate the HSR system and provide long-term
maintenance, its input on key elements of the tiered EIS’ will better assure a successful HSR
project. The tiered EIS will evaluate alternate corridors, use of different existing rail lines and
new and revised rail stations. SNCF’s expertise in operating similar systems will contribute
significant knowledge and operational experience critical for fully evaluating such alternatives in
the EIS.
The EIS must evaluate the proposed project and its likely impacts. Impacts from the project can
sometimes be avoided, i.e., realignment; or mitigated. Realignments are considered as an
alternate through the tiered EIS.
Mitigations can be developed in accordance with CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality)
guidelines to assure the projects’ impacts are minimized. However, certain statutory schemes,
such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (wetlands) require
specific mitigations. Often, several options for mitigation exist and SNCF can provide its
insights as to whether particular mitigations would render the HSR project infeasible or more
difficult to complete and operate. Developing uniform mitigations for certain “common” types of
impacts can reduce costs and, moreover, improve the level of mitigation completion. As a co-
proponent of the HSR project and participation in the NEPA process, SNCF assures that there is
a seamless connection and understanding of the mitigation requirements.
The completed programmatic EIS finds that the extent of wetlands impacts will require a
‘LEDPA” determination. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA require that NEPA
decisions be based upon the “Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative”
(“LEDPA”) when impacts to wetlands are considered significant. This standard is more
restrictive than NEPA’s requirement for the agency to make its decisions following a review of
reasonable practicable alternatives. The LEDPA requirements should be considered in
scheduling tiered EIS preparation, and as an initial screening factor for alternatives and
mitigations. SNCF can assist with identification and evaluation of alternatives and mitigation
strategies for the HSR project. And, SNCF’s expertise will help assure that the final project
design, including such mitigations, remains a commercially viable project that serves the
intended purposes and needs.
Compliance with specific federal statutory mandates, including the Historic Preservation Act,
will be initially addressed though the NEPA process. Historical and cultural site surveys will
identify and classify such sites and evaluate those potential sites in concert with State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) and NEPA experts will be completed. Thereafter, appropriate
preservation alternatives for each site will be recommended to the SHPO. Those preservations
will be timely implemented as the HSR project is developed. However, despite such surveys and
reviews, it is possible that historic or cultural artifacts not identified in the survey could be
encountered during construction. If that occurs, SNCF will instruct its crews to stop work in the
area until appropriate consultation with the SHPO occurs, and any necessary preservation actions
are completed.
8.c.2 Compliance with Federal, state and local requirements
SNCF’s experience with projects of this magnitude demonstrates the importance of organization,
including the development and implementation of project permitting checklists. The myriad of
such federal, state and local permits, and the diversity of issues considered, is extensive. A
coordinated effort is essential. An initial determination by the rail authority of the permits “pre-
empted” by its jurisdiction may reduce permitting requirements. However, even if permits are
pre-empted, in the spirit of governmental respect and cooperation, the HSR proponents would
consult with these agencies regarding the HSR project and the agency’s support for, and any
concerns related to, the proposed HSR project. For all permits, a permit schedule matrix would
be developed, tracking the status of permit applications and decisions, and any conditions or
mitigations.
Permit applications for federal and state permits will be prepared and filed, although final
decisions may be deferred until the appropriate tiered EIS for the affected area is completed.
Local permitting actions can occur concurrently with the EIS process.
8.d THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

In May 2000, the European Commission adopted "A Communication Towards a Barrier-Free
Europe for People with Disabilities" which has built a framework for improving access for the
disabled throughout Europe. On February 11, 2005, France implemented its own “Disability

Act,” which requires all public transportation to be fully accessible to the disabled within 10
years of the Act’s passage. Under Article 45 of the Act, French transportation authorities are
required to develop particularized “Accessibility Transport Master Schemes,” including
accessibility outreach programs, investment plans, and the creation of special modes of
transportation to substitute for non-accessible regular services. At the national level, “Intercity
commissions” meet annually to assess the accessibility of infrastructure, public space, and public
transportation. Accessibility has become an important topic for political reform in France, and
SNCF has been actively engaged on this issue.
SNCF is well on-the-way to compliance with the Disability Act and the company has invested
significant resources to improve access to SNCF facilities and trains. Accessibility has been at
the heart of SNCF’s on-going renovation plans: starting in 2005, SNCF invested 500 million
Euros to make the entire travel process accessible for persons with all forms of disability (visual,
auditory, motive, mental, or cognitive).
As our accessibility efforts in France have demonstrated, SNCF intends to be the standard bearer
for transportation accessibility in the United States. As a part of this mission, the Company
intends to be in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). SNCF is
prepared to meet USDOT regulations applicable to Intercity Rail Cars and Systems; Fixed
Facilities and Stations; and all other applicable rules, as specified by chapter 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) and other relevant regulations.
SNCF also intends to work closely with the Federal Railroad Administration to ensure that all
SNCF operations in the United States are fully ADA -compliant. Indeed, this dialogue has
already begun. Last summer, French representatives attended the first-ever US/European
Transportation Accessibility Workshop hosted by the U.S. Federal Transit Administration
(FTA). SNCF hopes to continue this conversation and is confident that it can not only comply
with the ADA, but also introduce new accessibility best practices to the United States.

9 OPTIONAL CONTENTS
9.a CONTRACTING STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE THE MOST EFFECTIVE ALLOCATION OF THE RISK
BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS
Various contractual agreements can result in a transfer of risk and responsibility between public
and private partners.
The optimal contracting structure will depend on the scope of risk and responsibility that the
public sector is willing to transfer. Broadly speaking, the wider the risk transfer is, the more
sophisticated and complex the contracting structure is.
Only a detailed legal, technical and financial feasibility study in close cooperation with the
concerned authorities suffices to exhaust all arguments in favor of or against one structuring
option versus another.
For illustrative purposes in our financial analysis, presented in section 5.j, the constitution of a
SPC dedicated to operations and maintenance has been assumed.
But, for instance, if the public authorities were willing to transfer a very wide scope of financing
and risk, public-private partnership (“P3”) arrangements are an increasingly accepted method to
support the development of infrastructure projects.
9.b PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT - PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

Private sector firms tend to be most willing to accept risk in those areas where they hold the most
experience. For instance, in case of complex arrangements such as P3, considering that each
Railway Project components calls upon a dedicated high-tech core business competency, one
should have in mind that leading such arrangements may thus require a multi-party private sector
consortium.
In other words:
• One private sector firm may express concern about one of the project’s components
dealing with its individual area(s) of expertise: public authorities could then procure the
project’s components separately such as, but not limited to, an option with separate
procurement for EPC and O&M contracts
• Several private sector firms may express concern about integration among the various
project components outside of their respective individual area(s) of expertise: public
authorities could hence prefer to procure one single procurement for several project
components such as, but not limited to, a DBOM or a P3 contracts.
9.c PROJECT FINANCING STRUCTURE

On a purely financial point of view, project’s financing could rely on revenue generated by the
Project (mainly commercial ticket fares) to pay for part of its cost.
But the cost of financing would be much higher in such a case, compared to a public-backed
financing, because of the level of risks associated. To limit this cost, the Project sponsors would
have two major levers:
• The private partners responsible for operations and revenue generation, and their
credibility : SNCF believes that the sponsors of the Project would be able to minimize
financing costs by having SNCF as a main partner considering its extensive and
successful experience in HSR, and its proven ability to maximize revenues;

• Public support mechanisms to offer a minimal level of guarantee.
9.d ROLE OF PUBLIC SECTOR COMMITMENTS IN FINANCING THE PROJECT

The parts of the Project’s cost that can not be financed by the cash flows generated by the Project
have to be fully backed by the public sector commitments. Such commitments could be,
depending on public sector constraints and objectives, direct public financing, or fully
guaranteed private financing.
On the parts of the Project’s cost financed directly through the Project’s cash flows, the public
sector commitments will directly influence the cost of this financing.
9.e MEASURESOR COMMITMENTS TO PROVIDE AND FACILITATE MULTI-YEAR FEDERAL

COMMITMENTS
As mentioned elsewhere in this proposal, the development of HSR in the United States will
require a large up-front investment. The demand for funding is great – as demonstrated by the
overwhelming response to the HSIPR Program’s Pre-Application phase. Introducing service on a
single corridor, for instance the California corridor, may require the appropriation of over $30
billion. Subsequent annual appropriations may also be necessary. Although the annual
appropriation of $1 billion/year for the next five years contained in President Obama’s most
recent federal budget is a start, HSR will require more funding over a longer period of time.
To facilitate funding of this scale, Congress will need to reevaluate the process by which national
infrastructure projects are funded. For example, the creation of a national infrastructure bank that
would provide grants and loans for HSR projects would be an important first-step towards
reevaluating U.S. transportation priorities and funding merit-based projects.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) included $8 billion in federal funds to
act as a down payment on a national high speed rail corridor system. The House Appropriations
Committee recently approved an additional $ 4 billion per year to continue for five years in
addition to the initial ARRA investment. However, even with that investment, high speed rail
remains at a firm disadvantage for funding a major new system without a substantial federal
government commitment. Presently, federal funding for high speed rail is derived from general
revenues appropriated by Congress. This funding mechanism forces high speed rail to compete
with other non-transportation projects for federal funds.
When President Obama announced his commitment for a national HSR system, he compared his
vision for the proposal to that of President Eisenhower when he helped create the modern
interstate highway system. Using the interstate funding example would be the best alternative to
fund a large scale high speed rail system such as the President is proposing. The Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1956, commonly called the National Interstate and Defense Highway Act of
1956, set aside $25 billion dollars to construct 41,000 miles of interstate roads over a 20 year
period. The federal government pays for the system through the Highway Trust Fund that was
created through the legislation. The money for the Trust Fund comes from the users of the
highway system indirectly through a federal fuel tax. Funds for the Highway Trust Fund go
directly to the general treasury and are then credited to the fund. Through the creation of this
fund, highway projects do not have to compete with no transportation projects for funds.
Legislation based on this model is the most likely way to fund such a large high speed rail
system at one time.

9.f ROLE OF PRIVATE EQUITY IN FINANCING THE PROJECT
For “Greenfield” projects in the railway sector such as the Texas HSR, equity could be injected
by the Private Promoters or Sponsors of the project, such as railway operators (like SNCF),
contractors and manufacturers, if the contracting structure chosen requires it. Private equity
investment funds could also be involved, in particular funds dedicated to such Greenfield
projects. After few years of operations, i.e. once the main risks have been overcome by the initial
Sponsors of the project (such as construction risk and traffic risk), other private equity funds
(Brownfield infrastructure funds for instance) could then play a significant role in the Project’s
refinancing.
9.g KEY CONSIDERATIONS TO ENCOURAGE OR DISSUADE PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT

Statement of our opinion on the factors that will encourage or discourage private sector
involvement in high-speed rail in America are (i) what will attract or repel private sector
investment (financing); and (ii) what will attract private sector involvement in design,
construction and operation.
Globally speaking, the attractiveness of the project will depend on the balance between the risks
the authorities are willing to transfer, the ability of the private sector to manage them in the
timeframe of the project (and, in particular, their "degree of freedom"), and the expected returns.
For example, the private sector will only take on financing risk (traffic for example) if the federal
and state governments commit sufficient resources now and in the future (e.g., through a Rail
Infrastructure Trust) to build the system, and if the operator is sufficiently experienced, such as
SNCF, and has enough leverage to fix tariffs, marketing and distribution policies, for instance, to
optimize traffic and revenue generation.
Traffic and revenue forecast are a key success factor. The SNCF has developed a set of models
providing accuracy. This accuracy has been proved making the comparison between the forecast
and the observed traffic along the years. This experienced knowledge provides the appropriate
number of train sets in order to optimize the operating plan.
9.h STRUCTURES AND MODELS TO GUIDE THE COMMISSIONS

In light of the development of the Obama Administration’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail
(HSIPR) Program, state rail planners and HSR authorities have largely overlooked this Request
for Expressions of Interest (RFEI). As a result, it will be necessary to amend the §502
commission process to account for these changed circumstances.
In most cases, the proposed commission members described in §502 are currently involved in the
application process for HSIPR Program grants at the state level. Rather than develop separate
federally-appointed commissions, FRA should work to facilitate information exchange between
these stakeholders and RFEI respondents in conjunction with the HSIPR Program. For instance,
FRA might convene stakeholder meetings to discuss particular RFEI responses, or portions of
responses, that are “sufficiently credible to warrant further consideration.” These exchanges
could take place as FRA counsels applicants for Track 2 funding, or following the award of
federal grants.
9.i CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NATIONAL HSR SYSTEM

HST 220 that SNCF proposes to Texas will be a major step for the development of High Speed
Rail services in the United States.

• SNCF’s response provides a glimpse into what SNCF seeks to bring to the United States
and contributes an experienced perspective to this burgeoning, but new, marketplace for
HSR operations and services
• SNCF has been a global leader in high-speed rail operations and infrastructure
management for over twenty-five years. We offer a wide-range of expertise covering all
aspects of high-speed rail network development – extending from the planning phases
through the operation and maintenance of a mature high-speed system. In addition to
operating the highly-successful French national railway system, we are extensively
involved in the international high-speed rail marketplace.
• SNCF’s entry into the U.S. HSR operations market fosters competition, driving down
costs and improving service in U.S. market. American consumers demand transportation
options – both in terms of mode and provider. SNCF hopes to fill the void for high-speed
rail in the United States.
• SNCF’s response also provides needed understanding of building and operating a
national high-speed system. As the French National Railway, SNCF has seen the
development of France’s high-speed system from its humble beginnings as a single
service line to a leading international system. As an established provider, SNCF is
capable of assisting the Federal Railroad Administration in any and all aspects of project
development.

APPENDIX 1. Resumes

TEXAS 82/208
Jean-Pierre ORSI, Project Director
PROFILE
Project Director, Jean-Pierre ORSI first transportation engineering company. Jean-

qualified as an engineer at the Ecole Pierre is a highly reputed civil engineer,
Centrale in Paris (1976) before going on to infrastructure manager, management
obtain a Doctorate in Civil Engineering controller and business developer with a
(specialization Infrastructure) at the Ecole wealth of experience in Project
Nationale des Ponts & Chaussées, Paris Management, especially in connection with
(1978). high-speed rail. His involvement in new line
He has worked for the French railroads in projects in France and other countries is
various capacities over the past 30 years, at bound to be an invaluable asset.
both SNCF, the National Railroad company, Fluent in his native French and in English,
and at SYSTRA (formerly SOFRERAIL), Jean-Pierre also has a passive knowledge of
the leading railroad and public Italian, Portuguese and Spanish.
.
AREAS OF EXPERTISE & EXPERIENCE
Jean-Pierre Orsi has a proven track record in commuter trains on the busiest Paris
fields such as program management and suburban rapid transit line, organization and
financial agreements for high-speed rail development, transportation planning,
network development and implementation of network design, asset management and
new high-speed services, railroad management consultancy in public
infrastructure construction and maintenance transportation, including tramways (Light
(conventional and high-speed technology), Rail) and automatic metro systems.
railroad operation including high-speed and

TEXAS 83/208
As Deputy to the Regional Director at SNCF and RATP and those of SYSTRA Group
in charge of Infrastructure (building, subsidiaries, quality assurance, and CEO of
maintenance, development) in a changing Toulouse-based engineering firm, SOTEC.
environment, Jean-Pierre's responsibilities As Infrastructure Director (Paris South-East
included supervising the work of several Region) at SNCF from 1997 to 2000, Jean-
thousand depot engineers, designing and Pierre was responsible for operations,
carrying out major reorganization operations maintenance and renewal work and
targeting greater efficiency, and infrastructure improvement projects and in
management of a € 600 million unit. In charge of managing train traffic, capacity
addition, during his 12 years at SYSTRA, he allocation, train safety management,
spearheaded Group development in Europe, infrastructure maintenance and capital
boosting business in Central and Eastern investment works. He managed major
Europe and chairing the Boards of Group infrastructure projects: renewal work on the
companies in Spain, Italy, and in the UK. Paris-Lyons high-speed line, adaptation of
His business development and project the line for a 20% increase in capacity and
management skills were vital factors in all speeds of 300 km/h (+/- 185 mph) and
these roles. improving traffic management to allow for a
Between 2007 and 2009, Jean-Pierre Orsi 30% increase in revenue traffic at Paris-
was Project Director for TGV West and Lyon station.
South West at SNCF. In this capacity he In 1996-1997, he was Head of Development
was responsible for planning new services and Management in the Marseilles Region,
linked to the extension of the high-speed where his role was to produce regional
network (182 km [115 miles] towards strategic policy, maintain consistency
Brittany and 302 km [188 miles] towards between targets and action plans, create and
Aquitaine) and for negotiating agreements coordinate a regional capital investment plan
with the State, local government, RFF, and and manage multi-faceted projects, and
the private sector (Public-Private where he had the further tasks of managing
Partnership). land development projects, procurement and
supervising regional management.
This followed a period as Director Europe
This was preceded by a period in the same
at SYSTRA (2004 to 2007), where he was
region as Chief Civil Engineer (1993-1996)
accountable for the Group's non-French
in charge of infrastructure maintenance,
results in Europe and a Member of the
design and improvement work as part of the
Executive Committee. At the same time he
TGV Mediterranean 2001 project. His
was Chairman of RLE Governing Board,
assignments included construction of
designer and project manager for the high-
underground railroad track to bypass
speed rail link between London and the
Monaco, including an landmark
Channel Tunnel and Chairman of MVA
underground station.
Consultancy Ltd, SYSTRA’s subsidiary in
the UK (transportation planning), and other Jean-Pierre's first secondment to SYSTRA
was from 1988 to where, as a member of the
subsidiaries in Spain and Italy.
Management Committee, he participated in
From 2000 to 2004 Jean-Pierre was the creation of SYSTRA (merger of
Engineering Director at SYSTRA and, as SOFRERAIL and SOFRETU). He also
such, responsible for Company production headed the Africa business unit, where he
activities and performance, coordinating the was involved in the construction of a 500
engineering resources of SYSTRA, SNCF

TEXAS 84/208
km (310 mile) railroad line in Nacala civil works areas (organization of
Cuamba and the creation of a Railroad maintenance, implementation of new
training centre in Inhambane (Mozambique). methods and techniques), which enabled
Jean-Pierre first joined SNCF in 1979 and, him to obtain hands-on experience of the
in his first ten years in the company, held railroad business at grassroots level.
various positions in the field in the track and

TEXAS 85/208
Karine MEYER
PROFILE
Karine MEYER (38) has an extremely conflicting interests of users/sponsors and
strong background in mathematics, infrastructure providers.
economics and econometric analysis. She
holds a doctorate (PhD) in Economics Karine's particular specialty is socio-
(Paris, Sorbonne University, 1998) in economic analysis, more particularly for
addition to a Master's degree in Applied new HS line projects. In the course of her
Economics and Economic Sciences (1993), career, she has provided vital socio-
and a Postgraduate diploma in Mathematical economic and traffic forecast input to
Economics and Econometrics (1994). preliminary studies for new HS lines and
Karine has worked for the railroad industry line extensions in different parts of France
since 1995, initially with French National and abroad. She was Project Manager and
Railroads (SNCF) and subsequently with Coordinator for line sections such as Paris-
SYSTRA, its consultancy joint venture. Limoges and Paris-London via Amiens,
addressing issues in the fields of operations,
In the past four years, Karine has worked on ROW and environment. Her fortes also
evaluating the economic factors connected include modeling potential traffic flows and
with both freight and high-speed rail global analysis of system components. In the
passenger transport. She has led a number of first half of 2009, Karine worked on the
new line and line enhancement projects, Haramain High Speed Rail Project (HHR)
encompassing a wide variety of different on behalf of the Saudi Railways
disciplines (optimization, fleet number and Organization, spearheading preparation of
deployment analysis, maintenance policy, the specifications for operations, rolling
fare structures and systems, etc.). At stock, maintenance, fare policy, financial
SYSTRA, she has developed considerable and performance requirements.
experience in working with the Regional
Councils (local transportation authorities) in She has extensive technical software skills
negotiating the introduction of clockface and a good knowledge of English, some
services, accommodating the often Spanish and Italian in addition to her mother

TEXAS 86/208
tongue of French. She is also the author of a railroad project management, strategic
number of well-received publications and optimization processes and business
has lectured on topics connected with planning, make her an excellent participant
Economics and Econometrics. All these in any ambitious long-term railroad
skills, combined with her solid experience of development project.
Karine Meyer embarked on her career in where she reviewed the existing passenger
1994, when she spent a year working at the traffic forecasting models, masterminded
French Ministry of Public Works and software upgrading operations, and
Transportation (1994-95), producing freight developed a new passenger traffic
traffic models, and studying the short and forecasting tool in connection with the
long-term relations between traffic and creation of new stations. On joining
economic growth. SYSTRA in 2004, Karine Meyer first
worked as a Research Engineer and Project
Manager before taking over the
From there she moved to SNCF and the responsibility for various Transportation
position of Research Assistant in the Economics Units. In this capacity she has
Strategy Division, where her role consisted conducted traffic forecasts, market research,
of developing a freight traffic forecasting socio-economic analyses and traffic flow
model, conducting strategic analyses and modeling exercises for RFF, produced
freight traffic modeling (1995-1998). Master Plans for both SNCF and RFF,
Subsequently, from 1998-2000, Karine was carried out socio-economic analyses for the
Head of the Budget Division in the Freight Moroccan Railroads (2005), provided expert
Department at SNCF in charge of a team of input for work on devising a suitable
40 management auditors and overseeing all infrastructure charging system for the
budget activities. Macedonian Railways (2007), contributed to
background work on projects in Saudi
Arabia, and used her in-depth knowledge of
This was followed by a period (2000-2003) transport economics in freight traffic studies
as a Project Manager in the Freight Division for Lyon Turin Ferroviaire (SAS), the
in the Car Transportation Business Unit. Franco-Italian joint venture for freight flows
There her tasks included supervising between the two countries (2008). In the
negotiations between sales personnel and course of her activities at Systra, she has
clients, and ensuring the implementation of frequently turned her skills and
Service Agreements and of decision making competencies to traffic and transport
tools. demand studies, economic appraisals
including operating and maintenance costs,
and liaising with other engineering and
In 2003-2004, Karine was employed as design departments. She is experienced in
Head of Passenger Traffic Forecasts at the project management, channeling the various
SNCF Strategy and Development Division,

TEXAS 87/208
expert contributions into a consistent and comprehensive package.

TEXAS 88/208
Scheherazade ZEKRI- CHEVALLET
PROFILE
Scheherazade Zekri-Chevallet (39) Her key skills lie in the fields of sales
graduated from Baruch College, City development and marketing, distribution and
University of New York with an MBA in promotion, market benchmarking, revenue
Marketing Management in 1996. This optimization, project management and
followed her earlier studies in Paris, France, international strategy. Her in-depth
where she had obtained the equivalent of a experience of these areas, including on the
Master's Degree in Industrial Economics in US market, should prove an enormous asset
1993 and a Post Graduate Degree (cum in any ambitious project.
laude) in Industrial Organization and
Marketing Strategy in the same year. Scheherazade is fluent in her native French
and in English and has a working knowledge
After a number of short-term consultancy of Spanish. She is also a former member of a
appointments in France and the USA, team with several victories in the French
Scheherazade entered the rail sector, where National Women's Volley Ball
she has since worked in Marketing, Sales & championships to its credit.
Distribution and subsequently Management
in the USA, the UK, Belgium and France for
a total of 13 years.
Since January 2009, Scheherazade has been developing SNCF high-speed projects
Director Business Development Non- outside Europe, including for example
European Markets, Long Distance Passenger partnerships, tender procedures and other
Services at SNCF Voyages (French opportunities.
Railroads). In this capacity one of her
responsibilities is that of identifying and

TEXAS 89/208
Before taking up her current position, she customer experience, coordinating
was Managing Director, Rail Europe distribution in core markets, maximizing
Continentale, based in the Belgian capital of revenues in international markets such as the
Brussels from 2002 to 2008. This USA, Asia and selected European countries,
distribution subsidiary of SNCF Voyages and handling distribution projects such as
handles the marketing and distribution of CRM studies in order to foster stronger
SNCF products in Continental Europe (all relationships with distributors. Scheherazade
markets excluding France & UK), consists was also Head of International Sales for the
of a team of over 100 employees based in Eurostar Group, her achievements in this
six different European countries, and has capacity consisting of developing and
total revenues of € 225 million. maximizing international sales, setting up
Scheherazade's achievements during her distribution agreements and managing
period at the head of this organization relationships with General Sales Agents
included restructuring operations by (GSA), international product definition and
consolidating 5 European companies (Spain, pricing to optimize revenue growth, and
Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Benelux) producing marketing plans and promotional
under one common European management offers for such markets.
(finance, controlling, HR, marketing, sales
& distribution), economic review and From 1996 to 1999, Schererazade was
implementation of a new business model, Marketing & Distribution Manager for the
definition of marketing & distribution Rail Europe Group, Inc. in White Plains,
strategy to maximize sales and contain New York, a position that involved her in
distribution costs, launching new channels the marketing and distribution of European
such as GDS and Internet (www.tgv- rail products, high-speed products in
europe.com and www.raileurope.eu) for the particular, on the North American market,
sale of SNCF products on European producing marketing plans for specific
markets, a new distribution network in products, channels and/or markets, sales
Eastern Europe and a representative office in monitoring, training of key US tour
Warsaw (Poland). She was also in charge of operators in rail products and marketing
handling relationships with stakeholders, studies in Mexico to evaluate potential,
European railroads, the travel industry build business relationships and/or
(travel agencies and tour operators) and partnerships and develop sales.
tourist offices. In 2003-2004 she had the
additional function of Managing Director of Before embarking on her career in the
Rail Europe UK and was a board member up railroad industry, Scheherazade was a
to the end of 2005. Management Support Consultant for the
Invest In France Agency, DATAR (French
From 1999 to 2002, Scheherazade was government organization) in New York,
Director of Distribution for the Eurostar worked on cross-cultural training programs
Group in London, UK. Her responsibilities for Prudential Relocation Management, an
included heading the www.eurostar.com intercultural training and consulting firm in
project, in other words creation of a site to New York, held the position of Project
develop Internet-based sales (20% of Manager at Paris-based marketing research
distribution mix within 2 years) as a single firm, Stratega, undertaking prospective and
booking process and a unique brand & strategic studies, acted as a Consultant for

TEXAS 90/208
the Sinorg Corporation (leading software sales promotion assignment with Perrier, the
consulting company on the local sparkling mineral water company.
municipality market), and completed a brief

TEXAS 91/208
Guillaume GENIN
PROFILE
Originally a law graduate, who obtained his of teams that have successfully bid for a
first degree and post-graduate qualifications number of important transport contracts.
at the University of Paris II, France between Although his mother tongue is French, he
1992 and 1997, Guillaume (34), also studied has a fluent command of English, which he
English Law (Contract, Commercial and combines with a comprehensive
Intellectual Property) at University College understanding of the different legal systems
of London (UCL) in 2000-2001. in France, the UK and North America and
in-depth experience of the US passenger
Since then, he has built on these foundations transportation market. All this knowledge
to pursue a career in business development and experience will be invaluable in the
and management, largely in English- context of the current project.
speaking countries. He has been a member
Guillaume Genin is currently employed at rail expertise by identifying opportunities,

French National Railways (SNCF) as participating in RFP submissions, creating
Business Development Manager for North PR and marketing products to raise brand
America, also responsible for Long and skills awareness on the market and
Distance Passenger Services (Montreal). His establishing partnering strategies.
functions include devising and applying Until recently, he was Business
strategies for exploiting SNCF's high-speed Development Manager for KEOLIS

TEXAS 92/208
(North America), where he spent 3 years contracts: Transpennine Express (2003),
producing and applying strategic plans for Integrated Kent Franchise (2004-2006),
external and organic growth on the North Liverpool Tram (2004 - 2005). It was also
American market: market analysis, one of the last two bidders for Merseyrail
identification of opportunities/approaches, Electrics (2003) - Docklands Light
brand and expertise visibility on the market Railway (2005).
(including vis-à-vis APTA), securing teams
of local experts and consultants, etc. Guillaume's other activities consisted of
Consequently, he has an excellent drafting and negotiating contracts with
understanding of the US market in general, consultants or suppliers/service providers,
and the passenger transportation market and producing confidentiality agreements,
its requirements, in particular. He was also drafting regular internal reports/memoranda
Project Director for pre-qualification offers and updates in relation with the
for the operation of commuter train and tram transportation industry, setting up
systems in Melbourne (Australia). mobilization/transition plans for RFP,
conducting an Internal Audit of Canadian
From January 2002 to May 2006, Guillaume subsidiary (Orleans Express/Acadian in
worked for KEOLIS (UK) in London as a Quebec),contributing to the Group
Legal Advisor for Business Development. workshop on Sustainable Development and
His tasks included preparation of RFP implementing EFQM quality indicators, as
submissions for the award of passenger rail well as various Communications and HR-
(heavy and light) and/or bus operation related activities.
contracts (UK, Italy, Sweden): negotiation
of joint venture/shareholder agreements with Before joining KEOLIS, Guillaume spent
partners; review, analysis and negotiation of two years as a Legal Officer with Connex
legal documentation and ensuring Transport UK in London working on the
compliance with regulatory requirements; sale of Connex South Central Ltd (operating
preparation of risk matrices identifying subsidiary) employment, supply and service
commercial, financial, operational and legal contracts, Intellectual Property issues,
risks and appropriate mitigation measures; producing internal legal opinions and
procurement of new rolling stock where memoranda, etc. He began his career
relevant; negotiation of financial covenants working at Les Editions du Moniteur in
with financial institutions; management of Paris (March 1999 – September 1999) and at
external consultants and advisors; follow-up Law firm, Mayer, Brown & Platt in New
of legal affairs of operating entities in the York as a Corporate Legal Assistant
Keolis UK portfolio. During this period, the (January 1998 – December 1998).
company bid successfully for the following

TEXAS 93/208
Pierre TILHOU
PROFILE
Pierre TILHOU is presently Vice-President marketing projects and has a solid track
Marketing at STRING THEORY a New record in terms of results obtained.
York-based marketing lab servicing the Pierre has been working in the USA since
travel & leisure industries and aiming to 005 and has in-depth knowledge of the
deliver innovative marketing strategies with American passenger traffic market. In
a focus on process consistency. addition to his native French, he speaks
fluent English and Spanish. His particular
Pierre holds an MBA from the ESSEC combination of local market knowledge,
Business School in Paris (1992-1996). In the market research experience, railroad
12 years of his career to date, he has been background and language skills makes him
involved in a number of big budget an ideal candidate to play a vital role in the
current project.
Pierre joined STRING THEORY in March ensuring constant process consistency and
2009 as Vice-President Marketing with conformity with business targets.
responsibility, among other things, for Before taking up this position, he spent
analyzing client issues and environments in nearly four years as Vice-President
order to propose strategic working Marketing at the Rail Europe Group in
frameworks, setting up and managing ad New York, a group selling rail travel
hoc teams to deliver on strategies and products to the North American market, at
the time in the process of reinventing itself

TEXAS 94/208
to move from being a trade-oriented vendor market and a record market share in relation
to a multi-channel consumer brand. There to the competition. From January 2001 to
his responsibilities and achievements October 2004, Pierre was Head of
included brand repositioning and rollout Marketing (France) for Eurostar, creating
through collaborative work and extensive and implementing the annual marketing
market research, orchestrating design and plan, managing relationships with agencies
implementation of the new website unveiled with an USD 18 million budget.
in November 2008, launching innovative
and redesigning existing travel products, His achievements included designing pricing
monitoring all marketing budget allocations architecture for new fare ranges introduced
and managing a relatively small but dynamic in March 2003, developing award-winning
marketing team. Since initiating its new campaigns including the Grand Prix
brand strategy, Rail Europe has returned to Stratégie Affichage & Radio 2002 and the
steady growth and increased its share of the Prix du Club des DA 2002 & 2003. Largely
intra-European travel market, generating as a result of his efforts, by 2004, sales
extra revenue despite difficult market returned to pre-9/11 levels, breaking the
conditions. record numbers reached in 2000. This
Previously employed by the Eurostar Group followed a six-month period, from July 1999
Ltd in London (UK), as Head of Products & to December 2000, in which as Leisure
Research, from November 2004 to July Market Manager for France & Belgium,
2005 Pierre was in charge the New Product he devised an annual marketing plan,
Introduction and the Product & Research including creation of the Night Trip, Kids
Departments. Since Eurostar growth on the Free, and Day Trip products, launched
corporate market had leveled off, he and his eurostarplanet.com, a website promoting
teams had the task of conducting in-depth London as Parisians' favorite destination and
analysis of operating costs in cooperation coordinated commercial activities, including
with Finance Department, re-designing class communications and sales.
of service architecture with the introduction
of the “Business Premier” class and working Pierre began his profession career in the
with the On-Board Services Department and Main-Line Department of SNCF, where
external providers to implement the new he spent two years (1997-1999) as Youth
services. Their efforts were successful, as Marketing Manager re-launching the 12-
evidenced by the fact that after 12 months 25 youth card by negotiating new
with the new system, Eurostar was able to partnership strategies with other rail and air
announce growth of 16% within the business carriers.

TEXAS 95/208
Jean-Marc GALIMONT
PROFILE
Jean-Marc Galimont (51) is a Railroad network. Since 1990, he has been in charge
Operating Expert, who has worked at French introducing the most efficient forms of
Railroads (SNCF) since 1979. He joined the organization and installations, running the
company as a University graduate with a gamut from pre-feasibility studies through to
degree in Marketing Technologies and the design and scheduling of detailed work
Techniques. plans.
Jean-Marc's key skills lie in the fields of Jean-Marc has worked on numerous
feasibility and capacity studies, timetable occasions with the SNCF's consultancy arm,
simulation with IT tools, modeling, unit and SYSTRA, where he has been employed as
staff optimization, operations analysis, and such since 2006, putting his business and
performance and safety management. operations expertise to the service of various
Throughout his career, he has constantly major projects in countries such as Oman,
been involved in the railroad operations and the UK, Morocco, Egypt, Romania and
safety departments, and has held France. He speaks English in addition to his
responsibility for managing railroad traffic native French.
and safety in real time on the Paris suburban
Jean-Marc Galimont began his career at Operative in 1979 in the Paris Region. Four
SNCF as a Traffic Safety and Operations years later, having acquired substantial

TEXAS 96/208
hands-on knowledge and experience of the Overhead line programs, signage, design of
practicalities of railroad operations, he Extra-Low-Voltage programs for the Public
moved to Station and Signal Box Address and Public Information Systems,
management, running suburban stations telecom, intercom, radio, intrusion systems,
and classification yards and coordinating CCTV, MATV, etc.), passenger flow
works operations, supervising staff safety organization, functional organization,
and dispensing training. services and facilities in passenger and
technical areas. Later he also worked on
Between 1985 and 1990 Jean-Marc worked works phasing and provided design
at the Traffic Control Center of the Paris assistance for the station (1998-2001).
North Region, first holding the position of
Traffic Controller between Paris-Lille and During this latter period he was also
Paris-Brussels, monitoring and managing employed at SNCF as a Research Officer
real-time traffic movements and then as a producing feasibility, capacity and signaling
Freight Controller in charge of supervising studies and developing capacity
regional freight carriers. assessments, infrastructure alterations and
From 1990 to 1997 Jean-Marc was a timetable specifications for future high-
Research and Design Officer in the Greater speed services in the South of France.
Paris Division of the SNCF Civil
Engineer's Department. Over this period, Between 2001 and 2006 Jean-Marc was
he fulfilled a large number of functions, Operations Manager at SNCF, working
for example designing preliminary regularly on behalf of KEOLIS UK, a
security plans a major construction site subsidiary of SNCF, on capacity studies,
and introducing more stringent security clockface service concepts, train diagram
freight yard and workshop conditions and roster optimization for a number of the
(access control, video surveillance, etc.). new railroad operating companies and for
He also played a part in designing the infrastructure manager, Railtrack in the
passenger information programs and UK. He also performed assignments in
telephone, intercom and radio telephone connection with safety, timetabling and
systems for a new commuter line, its capacity in Norway, the Netherlands and
stations and tunnels, including work on Sweden.
the corresponding man/machine
interfaces. He also contributed to the Since his return to SYSTRA in 2006, Jean-
Automatic Vehicle Identification Project Marc has worked on operating documents
and to railroad signaling programs for for France's first PPP project (CDG Airport
the Lyon TGV stabling track area. Express), on pre-feasibility studies for the
Romania network on behalf of CFR
It was at the end of this period that Jean- Calatori (operator) and CFR SA
Marc undertook his first assignment for (infrastructure manager), for clockfaced
SYSTRA, in his capacity as Railroad intercity services and regional services, in
Operations Expert. In 1997-98, he was auditing existing transportation and planning
seconded to Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) to tools, and proposing software improvements
work on the Construction of the new Central from design to implementation. He has
Station. His role included railroad operation carried out pre-feasibility studies on the
and security programs (OHL programs and Kuwait-Muscat corridor (Gulf Cooperation

TEXAS 97/208
Council) in the Persian Gulf, given expert Morocco, and spearheaded operating studies
assistance in optimizing signaling blocks as part of a feasibility study for railroads in
and control systems in Egypt, designed an Oman and Yemen, a very varied program
high-speed operating program for of activities completed within a three-year
Greengauge21 in the UK, conducted timeframe.
operating studies for high-speed lines in

TEXAS 98/208
Dominique RULENS
PROFILE
Dominique Rulens (50) is a Chartered Civil has spearheaded the Systra team based in
Engineer specializing in earthworks, San Francisco working on the CHSR
highways and drainage systems. In the project. In addition to his native French he
course of his career to date he has developed speaks fluent English and some German and
considerable expertise in infrastructure and is highly skilled in the use of design
transport project management, from (AUTOCAD, ROMULUS), planning
preliminary design through to system (Microsoft Project, PSN 7) and network
integration and turnkey delivery. He joined capacity (CAPRES) software. His
French Railroads (SNCF) in 1982 and has contribution to current projects should prove
since worked for the company in a variety of invaluable in view of his experience in the
capacities as well as for the rail and urban USA and his heightened awareness of the
transport consultancy firm, Systra, an SNCF issues surrounding the development of high-
- RATP (Paris Transport Authority) joint speed rail services in the country.
venture. Over the past two years Dominique
Presently Dominique is a member of the infrastructure regulations and contributing to

team working on proposals for the US high- plans for the State's first high-speed line. In
speed rail corridor projects. Until recently he 2008 he was also Project Manager in the
was in California with the CHRSA Systra team responsible for formulating
providing assistance in developing rail

TEXAS 99/208
proposals for a new high-speed rail link analyzing existing infrastructure of networks
between Lisbon and Madrid. under tender for concession in order to
propose investment measures to boost
Dominique's experience in the high-speed capacity and minimize performance
rail sector dates back to 1989, when he was reliability risks.
placed in charge of coordinating the From July 2003 to July 2007, Dominique
activities of the civil engineering design was on assignment to French Infrastructure
team and work sites of the high-speed line Manager, RFF (Réseau Ferré de France), as
in the North of France (TGV Nord). a Project Manager with the role of
This was followed, in 1994, by a period providing assistance in organizing the
contributing to studies connected with bids handover of the new high-speed line in
for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link between Eastern France (and on towards Germany
France and the UK. Then, between 1995 and and Switzerland) to the client, line
1997, he spent more than two years at the commissioning and obtaining official
head of a Design Group based in infrastructure approval, and assisting RFF
Marseilles, where he was responsible for and SNCF in the construction of three new
supervising earthworks and drainage stations on the line. Not least, he was a
systems for the Mediterranean high-speed member of the team involved in the world
line on behalf of SNCF. speed record on conventional rail of 574.8
km/h (357.2 mph) on 3 April 2007.
At the end of 1997 Dominique transferred to
London to take up a position as a Senior In the early years of his career, Dominique
Engineer working on secondment to Systra gained valuable experience working as a
– Rail Link Engineering. There he took Draughtsman (1980/81) and as a Site
part in preliminary reconnaissance work in Manager (1981/1982) both for private
the Thames Valley area and produced design companies, before joining SNCF and
studies for major part of the earthworks and working his way up the ranks from Station
drainage operations. He remained in the UK Manager and Operations Assistant to
through until the middle of 2003, in the last Civil Engineering Project Manager
two years of this period acting as an working on ambitious large-scale projects.
Infrastructure Consultant for Keolis UK,

TEXAS 100/208
Gerard PITAULT
PROFILE
Gérard Pitault (42) is a railway engineer In addition to being an accomplished

specializing in the Maintenance and manager at the head of teams of up to 200
Operation of High-Speed Trains. After people, Gérard also has a well-honed
graduating in Engineering from the College capacity for strategic vision, an excellent
of Engineers in Belfort (France), he joined knowledge of risk management, good
French National Railroads (SNCF) in 1992 project management skills and substantial
and has since pursued a strong technical and change management experience. His
managerially-oriented career. As a recent strategic vision, analytical capabilities,
example, Gérard was heavily involved in the creative approach and hand-on technical
establishment of the Lyons "Technicenter", high-speed rolling stock knowledge and
a center inaugurated in March 2009 and experience make him an invaluable
dedicated to the maintenance of high-speed participant in new high-speed rail projects.
trains, the most modern of all such centers in Gérard has a good working knowledge of
France. English.
From 2005 to 2009, Gérard was Project As such he was responsible for staff
Manager for the new Lyons Technicenter. recruitment and training (340 employees in

TEXAS 101/208
8 different technical areas), producing hallmark event for both SNCF and the
organization charts, establishing working region.
conditions, negotiating with staff Earlier (2002-2005), Gérard was Operations
representatives, taking delivery of the tools Director for the planning stages for the new
and facilities needed for future maintenance $350 million Center. In this
operations. He also masterminded the capacity he assisted in compiling the
official inauguration of the center, a functional specifications for the
project, collated material in support of the Lyons). The project consisted of organizing
decision-making process, handled and conducting the necessary operations on
administrative procedures and worked on the a fleet of 42 trainsets in time for the opening
schedules for the various works phases. of the next section of the line through to the
Over the 2001-2002 period, Gérard was a French Mediterranean Coast.
Maintenance Consultant seconded to the
Eurostar Group in London, where he From 1994 to 1997, Gérard headed the
conducted an analysis and produced a plan Boiler Works and Paint Shop at the Oullins
of action designed to boost performance and Maintenance Technicenter, leading a team
efficiency at the Group's depot in North Pole of 120 people responsible for all
(London). metalworking, welding and painting
This was preceded by a period (1997-2001) operations on electric locomotives. Previous
as Project Manager for the second-round of to this, he spent five years in charge of a
renovation and refurbishment work on the freight locomotive maintenance depot.
first generation of high-speed trains (Paris –

TEXAS 102/208
Andreas HEYM
PROFILE
Andreas Heym qualified as an architect at vital part in these aspects of any rail
the University of Karlsruhe in Germany in transportation development project.
1984. He specializes in the creative process
of designing public areas, public buildings As Director of International Development
and intermodal transport terminals and with AREP Ville, a subsidiary of the French
integrating them into their urban National Railroads (SNCF) that designs
environment. His design work focuses on multimodal interchange hubs and handles
accessibility, functional layout and the related urban planning, Andreas has been
corresponding volumes and structures He is involved in projects in the USA where, as a
particularly skilled in the design and member of a team studying the future San
development of complex spaces and urban Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan for
environments. the Metropolitan Transport Commission
(MTC), he was responsible for stations and
Since 1987 Andreas has participated in all where he led an AREP team participating in
major SNCF station design projects, from a feasibility study for transforming Union
the TGV Atlantic, North and Mediterranean City station into a multimodal interchange.
lines to the TGV East, as well as in other
major French and international projects. He From 1991 to 2008, Andreas Heym was
is experienced both in designing new Secretary of the Watford Group, the
railroad stations and interchange points for international association of railroad
high-speed lines and in upgrading existing architects, designers and other design
stations, especially those of historic professionals. He speaks fluent English and
importance. His skills and vision will play a French in addition to his native German.

TEXAS 103/208
Since 2006, Andreas Heym has been Senior International Development at AREP Ville.
Project Director and Director of From 1995 to 2005 he was Head of the

TEXAS 104/208
Station Services Design Department of
the SNCF Architecture Division, where he Between 2001 and 2007, Andreas was Head
was responsible for producing intermodality of the SNCF Station Services Department,
master plans, passenger service and interior and worked with AREP on the construction
design studies and information design and of 3 new and renovation of 16 existing
station furniture development. stations, including transformation of Paris
Major projects on which Andreas has Gare-de-l’Est and extension of Strasbourg
worked include architecture and urban main station, leading intermodality,
design studies for transforming the present passenger service layout and information
at-grade Lodz-Fabryczna terminus station system design studies. Between 1996 and
into an underground station for through 2001 he spearheaded intermodality, service
high-speed trains in Lodz, Poland (2009), in and information system design work on 3
partnership with SNCF subsidiary SYSTRA, new TGV stations at Valence, Avignon and
ongoing studies to update the master plan of Aix-en-Provence and for extension of the
the Krasnoyarsk urban area in Russia with existing Marseilles St-Charles station and,
Russian State Planning Institute, Giprogor from 1993 to 1995, he was responsible for
(2008-2009), a feasibility study for the TGV East high-speed line station design
development of the Lviv station precincts, studies in preparation for the environmental
for Lviv Railroads, Ukraine (2008), also impact report required by French law.
together with SYSTRA, design studies for a Earlier Andreas led a feasibility study for
Polish-Canadian commercial developer for a the extension of Heidelberg Station
shopping center at Poznan Station in Poland (Germany) to include a new parking lot,
(2008), and preliminary design studies for bus station, commercial facilities, offices
the integration of a government office and a hotel in collaboration with German
complex within the station precincts and Railroads (DB) (1998–1999), headed the
transformation of the historical station station design team of SNCF subsidiary,
building into a shopping center at Budapest SYSTRA, for the preliminary study into
Nyugati Station, Hungary (2007-2008). transforming the existing station at St.
Pancras, London (UK) into a high speed
Between 2006 and 2008 Andreas was terminal for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link:
responsible for stations in an Earth Tech-led passenger flow analysis, connectivity,
team studying the future San Francisco Bay capacity and service layout scenarios (1995),
Area Regional Rail Plan and in charge of was responsible for the conceptual design
feasibility studies for station development phase of restructuring the intermodal hub at
and environmental integration as well as Paris Gare-du-Nord Station, France at the
basic station layout designs. Previously he interface between TGV trains and regional
had led the AREP team designing a high- trains, subways and buses, as well as an
rise office complex at the MOSKOVSKY adjacent office development over the tracks
Center, Saint Petersburg, Russia and (1992-1994), worked on architectural
worked with the ROMA Design Group and analyses, project consistency studies and
Earth Tech on a feasibility study for station furniture design studies for the 4 new
transforming the BART Union City station TGV stations at Paris-North, Roissy-
in California into a multimodal interchange, Charles-de-Gaulle-Airport, Marne-la-Vallée
integrating other train and bus operators - Disneyland and Lille-Europe (1991-1994)
(2005-2007). and was responsible for architectural

TEXAS 105/208
coordination as well as service layout the Paris Montparnasse TGV station in
studies during the design and construction of readiness for the TGV Atlantic High Speed
Line (1987–1990).
Cergy-Pontoise, near Paris. Between 1984
Before joining SNCF and AREP, Andreas and 1986 he also assisted Dani Karavan in
worked from 1984 to 1987 in the Paris designing and developing the Wallraf-
studio of environmental sculptor Dani Richartz-Museum public square and its links
Karavan on large-scale landscape and urban to the cathedral and the main railroad station
design projects, including the "Axe Majeur" in the City of Cologne, Germany.
Urban Design Project for the New Town of

TEXAS 106/208
Mikaël LANNOY
PROFILE
Mikaël Lannoy (33) has both Bachelor's and Group set by the International Union of
Master's degrees in Urban Development Railroads (UIC) to benchmark factors such
obtained from the University of Lyons as best commercial opportunities,
(France) in 1997 and 1998. He has also accessibility for the mobility-impaired,
completed two post-graduate courses at the intermodal interchanges and facilities
Institute of Town Planning (together with management (safety, cleanliness, etc.),
the School of Architecture and National which he has led since September 2007.
College of Civil Engineering – ENTPE), Mikaël has robust computer skills, not least
also in Lyons, one in "Operational town with CAD software such as AUTO CAD,
planning and contracting" (1999) and the and has a good working knowledge of
other in "Town planning, urban development English, Spanish and German in addition to
and management" (2000). Before joining his native French. His recent experience
French National Railroads (SNCF) in 2001, with international projects and his strong
Mikaël completed internships working on a background in station planning have given
number of urban development, land use him extensive insight into the importance of
planning and conversion projects in different maximizing station development potential
parts of France. He has also taken part in an and transforming stations not only into vital
exchange program between French and interchange points but also into lifestyle
German Railroads (DB Station & Service venues offering essential facilities, basic and
AG, Berlin), which enabled him to broaden more sophisticated retail outlets, catering
his international horizons (2006). Since then, services and the like, to the benefit of both
Mikaël has been able to build on this the operator and his passengers/customers.
experience in the "Stations" Project

TEXAS 107/208
After completing his studies, in 2001 Mikaël up a program for the rehabilitation of the
entered one of the SNCF's Regional Real stations at Chartres, Dreux and Paris-Gare
Estate departments in Paris and was given de Lyon.
the task of rationalizing railroad property In April 2008 Mikaël took on the role of
and developing station sites (disposals, International Project Manager, a function
property rentals, urban development that he fulfils in parallel to his activities on
projects, creation of multi-modal hubs) and Stations at UIC. In this new capacity, he is
of handling relations with the local responsible for the "twin stations" project, a
authorities over town planning issues. project that involves forging partnerships
with similar stations in other countries in
He moved to new responsibilities in 2005, order to pool experience, exchange
when he joined the Main Stations and information on common issues, gain a better
Connections Department and took charge understanding of how things work in other
of the development of a number of major countries and developing the intercultural
provincial stations. There he addressed skills of station personnel. The project
planning and organizational issues relating includes extensive benchmarking over
to the interchange function of these various organizational matters but also extends to
stations and masterminded a number of contributing to the station part of major
design and works projects for their international high-speed line projects.
conversion and modernization. He also drew

TEXAS 108/208
Olivier PICQ
PROFILE
Olivier Picq (41) holds a Master of associated with the commissioning of new
Economics (1990) and a Master of high-speed rail lines, in France and abroad.
Engineering and Economics (1991) from the He has contributed to general socio-
University of Aix-Marseilles and a economic analyses and modal competition
postgraduate diploma in Economics, studies.
Mathematics and Econometrics from the Olivier is no stranger to the US market,
Centre National de Recherche Scientifique having been heavily involved in studies and
(CNRS), France (1991).Olivier has made his forecasting in connection with the proposed
career in the railroad industry. At French Florida High Speed Transportation System.
National Railroads (SNCF), he has acquired Based in Florida as a resident member of
a thorough theoretical and practical Florida Overland eXpress between 1996 and
grounding in all aspects of high-speed rail 1999, for example, he was responsible for
operations (routing, operating center high-speed rail operational planning studies
management and customer relations) and and investment-grade ridership and revenue
has extensive experience in railroad studies undertaken by the Florida
engineering consultancy and in marketing Department of Transportation for the
and distributing railroad products in Europe planned high-speed rail link between Miami,
and the USA. Through his work in Orlando and Tampa.
transportation economics at SNCF and at Olivier has also taught transportation
SYSTRA, its engineering consultancy arm, economics at the Ecole des Ponts et
he has gained in-depth knowledge of traffic Chaussées in Paris, led in-house seminars on
forecasting, preparing methods and tools, the economic assessment of high-speed rail
operational planning for high-speed rail projects, and given talks on high-speed rail
projects and management of engineering traffic forecasts and operations in France for
projects. He developed the traffic the South-Korean, Amtrak, Swedish and
forecasting models used by the French Spanish Railroads. He has an extensive
Railroads for predicting traffic and research background and speaks French,
calculating passenger and freight flows English, German, Spanish and Romanian.

TEXAS 109/208
Since 2006 Olivier Picq has been Project surveys, pricing proposals, promotional
Manager for the Provence-Alpes-Côte actions and marketing plan.
d'Azur Regional Division of SNCF in charge From 1996 to 1999 Olivier worked as an
of developing the master plan for regional Economist and Statistician for the SYSTRA,
rail services in South-Eastern France High-Speed Rail Projects Division, and took
(regional, high speed and freight trains), part in studies for new high-speed rail lines
modernizing regional93 lines, completing in Europe (Spain, England, Germany, Italy)
new stations, devising passenger and freight and in the rest of the world (Canada,
strategies, establishing an investment Australia, USA, Asia). This followed a
program and analyzing its corporate period (1994-1996) at the SNCF, Main
financial repercussions. Lines Department, Development and
Strategy Division, also as an
Before this, he spent two years as Project Economist/Statistician, working on the
Manager for the East European high-speed preparation of the high-speed rail master
line (2004-2006) with responsibility for plan at French and European level, and an
ensuring that the line linking Paris to earlier period (1992-1994) in a similar
Strasbourg, Munich, Frankfurt and Zurich capacity in the New Infrastructure and High-
was ready for commissioning in June 2007 Speed Rail Department. Olivier's first
and for finalizing the operating program, railroad post was in 1989 as a Researcher at
commercial and marketing activities, traffic the SNCF, Strategy and Planning Division.
forecasts, and the business model. Earlier SYSTRA assignments:
Olivier spent two years in the High-Speed Project Manager - economic and design
Rail Development Division, as Manager for engineering studies, Spain (1999), Project
TGV projects in France and Europe. Manager - rehabilitating and electrifying the
Bucharest-Brasov corridor, Romania (1999),
As Marketing Director for Europe at Resident Member of Florida Overland
SYSTRA, Europe Division from 2000-2001, eXpress, USA (1996-1999), Project
Olivier had the task of developing Manager Canada (1997), Inter-City
commercial and marketing activities and passenger market survey - tilting train,
managing urban and railroad engineering Russia, Belarus, Poland, Germany (1996),
studies, civil and signaling works and Member of the advisory committee
transportation planning contracts in Western reviewing ridership and studying operation
and Eastern Europe. of the Channel Tunnel high speed rail link,
This was preceded by a period (1999-2000) UK (1996), Review of ridership studies in
with Rail Europe Inc, in New York as Rail Taiwan (1996), Project Manager - Sydney-
Product Director, Marketing Department in Canberra high-speed train feasibility study,
charge of developing and managing rail Australia (1995), USA - Florida (1995),
products, negotiating with partners their Indonesia (1995), South Africa –
introduction on the North American market, Mozambique (1995), France (1995), UK
communicating with the call centers and (1994-1995), Italy (1994), USA - Florida
sales force, monitoring and reporting on (1994), Spain (1992-1994), Canada (1992-
sales, marketing analyses, customer/trade 1994),Malaysia

TEXAS 110/208
(1994), Sweden (1993-1994), Italy (1992- Korea (1992).
1993), USA – Texas (1992-1993), South

TEXAS 111/208
Jean-Pierre ARDUIN
PROFILE & ASSOCIATIONS
Jean-Pierre Arduin (59) has more than 35 grounding in all operations sector fields
years of transportation sector experience and (routing, operations center management and
is presently Advisor to the Chairman of customer relations while at SNCF and also
SNCF International and Senior gained in-depth experience in management
Transportation Economist at the Transport in general and in the evaluation of major
Research Institute (TRI) in London UK. He railway projects in particular: rail traffic
first graduated in 1973 as a civil engineer surveys and multimodal model calibration,
from Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines. working assumptions and scenarios, rail
He then studied at the Ecole Nationale de la traffic forecasts, simulation of operations,
Statistique et des Etudes Economiques capital investment estimates, calculation of
(ENSAE) where he obtained a further higher economic and socio-economic rates of
degree in 1975. Jean-Pierre also has return, and simulation of project financing.
qualifications in Mathematics, Physics and He is skilled in the field of strategic
Economics and holds a diploma in planning, tariff policy, marketing and
chemistry. He is a member of the French competition evaluation, marketing strategies
Association of Statisticians and of the and finance and has developed the traffic
French Association of Civil Engineers. forecasting models used by SNCF for traffic
planning and calculating passenger and
Jean-Pierre Arduin has worked for and with freight flows associated with the
French National Railroads in various commissioning of new high-speed lines in
capacities since 1976. Over the years he has both France and elsewhere. He has
been involved in a wide variety of participated in high-speed rail studies in
international projects, conducting studies France, Europe and North America (Texas,
and participating in R & D activities. He California, Florida, North Carolina), etc. He
acquired a thorough theoretical and practical was responsible for Franco/German

TEXAS 112/208
cooperation over high-speed guided Jean-Pierre's enormous, wide-ranging and
transportation systems. Over the years with internationally recognized experience and
SNCF, Jean-Pierre also developed an his in-depth knowledge of the American
international career with SYSTRA (formerly market will be vital factors in the current
SOFRERAIL), and has been involved in project. The following is a brief overview of
major institutional, transportation planning, the many and various areas in which he has
traffic forecast, simulation of operations, worked in the course of his career:
economic and financial projects.
Since 2004 Jean-Pierre Arduin has held the high-speed traffic modeling on behalf of the
position of Managing Director & Senior International Union of Railways (UIC).
Transportation Economist with the
Transport Research Institute (TRI). His Between 1996 and 2004, Jean-Pierre worked
responsibilities include feasibility studies in a variety of capacities for SYSTRA
for passenger and freight traffic projects (formerly SOFRERAIL). His
in the fields of methodology and responsibilities included feasibility studies
evaluation of major railway projects, into passenger and freight traffic projects,
traffic surveys, modeling of methodology and evaluation of major
transportation demand and traffic railroad projects, traffic surveys, modeling
forecasts, developing traffic forecast of transportation demand and traffic
models, simulation of operations, forecasts, simulation of operations,
evaluation of operating costs, economic, evaluation of operating costs, economic,
socio-economic and financial evaluations socio-economic and financial evaluations
and institutional relations. and institutional relations. He was involved
in projects such as the Channel Tunnel Rail
He has participated in projects on behalf of Link, the Hong-Kong Shenzhen Maglev,
Réseau Ferré de France (French rail high-speed rail in Spain and new
infrastructure manager) (2006-2008) infrastructure in East European countries.
(Assistance to the concession for the South
Europe Atlantic High Speed Line; Peer As Deputy to the Operations Manager at
review of economic and traffic studies for SYSTRA (American Division) in 1999-
Brittany-Loire Valley High Speed Line 2000, Jean-Pierre Arduin was responsible
project; Economic studies for the Lyons– for all tender documents and railroad
Turin rail link). He has also worked on the projects connected with North, Central and
Master Plan for a high speed rail network South America and provided expert input for
(India, 2007), on the Saudi Arabia high-speed rail projects. Previously he spent
Landbridge Project (transportation demand 3 years (1996-1998) working as a Study
and traffic forecasts; economic, socio- Manager in the Railroad Transportation
economic and financial evaluations, 2005- Planning Division on projects in
2006), feasibility studies for improving the Spain/France, France/Germany, Canada,
transport system in Surabaya (Indonesia, Spain, Eastern Europe, Australia, Florida,
2006-2008) and on infrastructure charges for Texas Barcelona,
high-speed services in Europe and regional

TEXAS 113/208
Russia/Belarus/Poland/Germany, UK, Italy and Lahore), Serbia (study of a new line to
and Taiwan. connect with Hungary and Bulgaria via
Belgrade), Korea (traffic forecasts and
Between 1990 and 1996 Jean-Pierre was various studies on the new Seoul-Pusan
Manager of the Main-Line Marketing high-speed line), Turkey (traffic surveys and
Division in the Methods and Modeling exploitation of results, forecasts for
Department at SNCF, where he was in multimodal passenger and freight traffic),
charge of traffic forecasts for the Atlantic Taiwan (traffic forecasts for the new Taipei-
and North high-speed lines, the Channel Kaohsiung line, France/UK (traffic forecasts
Tunnel, the East European high-speed line, for SNCF/EPS/Eurotunnel), France
The extension to Valence and Marseilles of (multimodal traffic study and evaluation of
the South-East high-speed line and for railroad potential, updating of the national
railroad traffic demand analyses, high-speed rail network master plan),
establishing forecasting models, modal development of a rail traffic forecast model
selection and statistical models involving for new stations - Methodology, data base,
rail traffic level analysis (use of steady calibration, study of the future Alliance
elasticity models, Cobb-Douglas functions), supersonic plane system, reports on the
gravity and cost-time models, as well as North and Mediterranean high-speed lines
application of Box and Jenkins statistical for the French Ministry of Transportation
models to chronological series, new line and other official authorities), France/Spain
traffic forecasts for the national high speed (in charge of evaluating the relevance of a
network master plan, etc. high speed rail link between Spain and
On behalf of SNCF, he participated in new France), France/Italy (passenger traffic
line studies in Europe (Germany, Spain, forecasts: traffic surveys, modeling and
Italy) and other parts of the world (Canada, simulation of operations), Portugal
USA, South Korea). During this period, he (passenger and freight traffic forecasts for
also undertook various assignments on the new high-speed line between Lisbon and
behalf of SOFRERAIL in Indonesia the Spanish border).
(passenger and freight traffic studies as part
of the feasibility study of the Jakarta- As a Section Manager at SNCF from 1983-
Surabaya rail link and preparation of a rail 1990, Jean-Pierre worked in the
transportation master plan), Florida (study Engineering, Planning and Research
into a new high-speed rail line between Division, essentially on passenger traffic
Tampa-Orlando-Miami, UK (Passenger modeling. He also took part in a large
traffic forecasts for the new London- number of SOFRERAIL projects during
Channel Tunnel high speed rail line, Spain this time (Canada, Australia, Brazil, Spain,
(Passenger traffic and economic profitability Morocco, etc.). From 1979-1982 he headed
studies for new high-speed rail lines the Data Processing Section in the
between Madrid-Valencia, Alicante and Passenger Marketing Department, whilst
Murcia), Italy (new line traffic forecasts and from 1976, when he first joined SNCF, to
economic assessments), Texas (traffic 1978 he was Station Master in a number of
studies in the Dallas-Houston-San Antonio stations of progressively growing
triangle, in charge of surveys, advisor to the importance.
Engineer), Pakistan (economic study of the
high-speed line between Islamabad, Karachi

TEXAS 114/208
Jean-Pierre Arduin has published numerous particular in the fields of Engineering and
articles in different languages in his Transport Economics. More comprehensive
specialist fields, has taken part in symposia details of these activities are available on
in various different parts of the world and is request.
highly demanded as a University lecturer, in

TEXAS 115/208
Ludovic GUITTON
PROFILE
Ludovic Guitton (28) obtained his first investment tools, business strategy and
degree (specialties: mechanical engineering accounting.
and economics) at one of France's most Today Ludovic is employed at French
prestigious graduate schools, the Ecole National Railroads (SNCF), where his role
Polytechnique (2001-2004). He then spent a is essentially that of contributing to the
year at Imperial and University Colleges in development of company stakeholdings, in
London, when he obtained a Master of particular in other passenger and freight
Science in Transport with special emphasis operators in France and abroad, against the
on demand modeling, quantitative and backdrop of the new deregulated railroad
statistical methods, transport economics and market in Europe. His thorough grasp of the
project management (2005). Last but not financial and funding aspects of rail
least, he also qualified as a Master of transport companies and projects, and
Business Administration at the Collège des particularly the need to lay robust financial
Ingénieurs in Paris in 2006, a course which foundations, should prove invaluable for all
enabled him to broaden his knowledge of new railroad sector investment ventures.
corporate finance, project management, Ludovic speaks excellent English and quite
fluent Spanish.
Ludovic joined SNCF in 2007 as a Manager a 75% stake in the German freight operator
in charge of Merger-Acquisition operations. ITL, in the acquisition of a 90% stake in the
As such, he played a part in the procedures Société des Trains Expositions, a company
leading up to the acquisition by SNCF of a whose mission is to organize events on
20% stake in the new high-speed rail special dedicated trains, where he represents
operator, NTV, in Italy, in the acquisition of SNCF on the Board of Directors, and in

TEXAS 116/208
organizing investment in a number of start- & Investment Bank in Paris. At the bank,
up companies focusing on new green Ludovic's role was that of Financial
transport-related technologies, such as Analyst in the infrastructure investment
photovoltaic cell applications or innovative funds division. Here he gained hands-on
electric vehicles. experience in the funding of brownfield
infrastructure projects.
Before entering SNCF, Ludovic worked for
a year as a Consultant at INDEFI, a firm As an undergraduate and postgraduate,
specializing in financial engineering for Ludovic completed a number of internships,
industrial clients and investment funds all in different areas of the transport sector,
(business planning, financial modeling, for example at the Railway Technology
market surveys,). He worked essentially on Strategy Centre in London and with Systra
transport-related projects in the rail, airport in Paris, all of which prepared him for a
and tollway concession sectors. This was career in the business.
preceded by a year with the IXIS Corporate

TEXAS 117/208
Laurent THORRANCE
PROFILE
Laurent Thorrance (40) is a Financial in relation to PPP projects. Recent projects

Expert, Economist and Engineer who first on which he has worked as a financial
graduated as an engineer from the National engineering consultant include plans for the
College of Public Works (ENTPE) in 1992, construction of a high speed railway line
before going on to obtain a Master of between Makkah and Medina (Saudi
Science in Civil Engineering from the Ecole Arabia), where he proposed alternative
Centrale in Lyons in 1993, a Master of procurement strategies, the economic and
Economics in International Trade & Markets financial aspects of a feasibility study
(1995-1998), a Master of Finance in intended to provide a sound basis to enable
Financial Management (1997-1998) and, the 6 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
finally, an MBA in Financial Engineering Member States (State of Kuwait, United
(2000) from the Conservatoire National des Arab Emirates, Kingdom of Bahrain, State
Arts et Métiers (CNAM). of Qatar, Sultanate of Oman and Kingdom
Over the past 15 years, Laurent has made the of Saudi Arabia) to decide on plans for a
regulation and financial engineering new railway or a potential Build, Operate,
aspects of projects with private sector and Transfer (BOT) concession, and the
participation (PPP) his specialty and can feasibility study aimed at setting up an
boast a number of references in Regulatory Operating & Management Joint Venture to
Financial Models connected with operate the East Algerian Railway.
infrastructure sector projects for the World
Bank. Laurent has worked in both the public Laurent is a regular speaker at international
and private sectors in France and abroad seminars organized, among others, by the
(over 50 credentials in 27 countries). Since World Bank on topics relating to financial
February 2001, he has focused on engineering, public-private partnerships,
developing Axelcium, the company he regulation and concessions in the transport
founded that specializes in financial sector. He also lectures on project financing
consulting on behalf of the public authorities and financial modeling for PPP projects at

TEXAS 118/208
one of his alma maters, the CNAM. He is a Laurent speaks excellent English in addition
member of the Comité des Conseillers & to his native French.
Experts Financiers (CCEF) (Committee of
Financial Advisers and Experts) in Paris.
Today Laurent Thorrance is Manager at 2005 – 2006), Dubai LRT Metro Project
AXELCIUM, a company he founded in (2005), Lyons-Turin high-speed rail line
2001. Over the years he has contributed to project (2005), Tunisia, (2 EU-funded
numerous projects, more recently as projects, 2005-2006), Ivory Coast (2
Financial Adviser for SRO (Saudi Railway projects, 2005), Marseilles, Le Havre,
Organization) in relation to the Haramain Dunkirk, Rouen, Nantes-Saint-Nazaire,
HSR project with an estimated budget of Bordeaux (2005), the Republic of Congo,
USD 5 billion (2009), as lead expert for the French Development Agency (2004-2005),
feasibility study of the Damascus Green Tunisia, (EU funds, 2004), the Democratic
Line (financed by the European Investment Republic of Congo, (World Bank, 2004-
Bank) as the first step towards a future 2006), Africa (private sector, 2004), Algiers,
Metro network (2008), as Financial Adviser (World Bank, 2004-2005), Tunisia, (EU,
(within an international consortium) to the 2003-2004), Brazil (2003), France (2002),
Gulf Cooperation Council for the feasibility Cameroon (World Bank, 2002-2003),
study into a new railroad (2008), and as Congo (2002-2003), South Africa (USAID,
Transaction Adviser for developing the land- 2002-2003), Dakar-Thiès tollway (World
based oceanic industry in Mauritius (2008). Bank, 2002-2003), new Dakar International
He has also worked on projects in Senegal Airport (World Bank, 2002-2003).
(2005/6, 2007 and 2008), Macedonia (World From 1998 to 2000, Laurent was Deputy
Bank, 2008), Albania (2008), Conakry Head of the Division of Economic and
(APC) 2007, in Maghreb countries (Algeria, International Affairs at the French Ministry
Morocco and Tunisia) in connection with of Transport, Public Works and Housing.
the EuroMed Transport Project (2007), on His responsibilities covered analysis of
the ETUSA business plan (World Bank, financial projects linked to PPP operations
2007), on Ouagadougou project worldwide (export credit and investment
development (Burkina Faso, French guarantees, financial protocols, feasibility
Development Agency, 2007), in Tunisia (EU studies, financing and trust funds).
funds, 2006), on feasibility studies for Prior to this, Laurent was a Project
construction of a new container and new Ro- Manager in the Department of Ports and
Ro terminal at the Port of Cotonou (Benin, Inland Waterways at BCEOM Consulting
2006), on extension, equipment and (1995-1998), where he worked on business
management of the container terminal at the development for new services for PPP
Port of Oran (Algeria, 2006), on the East projects in developing countries (financial
Algerian Railway (French Development analysis and project financing, planning
Agency, 2006), over the Gautrain Rapid Rail studies, institutional and restructuring
Link Operating Contract (South Africa, reforms, managing multidisciplinary teams,
2006), on the economic and financial model preparing technical and financial proposals
for the water sector in Niger (World Bank, and negotiating contracts with private and

TEXAS 119/208
multilateral financing). At BCEOM Laurent for extension of the Port of Djibouti, Kuwait
worked on projects such as institutional Funds (1997), a study into modernization of
reform of secondary ports in Madagascar, the fruit terminal at the port of Abidjan,
World Bank (1997-1998), the Master Plan African Development Bank (1996).
Earlier he worked as a Business Analyst at
the French Embassy in Cambodia (1994-
1995).

TEXAS 120/208
Pauline PEZERAT
PROFILE
Pauline PEZERAT (24) is a Junior She also has an Engineering degree in

Financial Expert with AXELCIUM, a Project and Structured Finance Engineering
consulting firm specializing in financial and from the Ecole Nationale des Ponts et
regulatory analysis, modeling, and Chaussées (ENPC) and the University of
engineering for infrastructure projects in the Paris X (UPX) and is doing a PhD in the
transport, environment, energy and public Financial regulation of PPP (Public Private
facility sectors. Axelcium has frequently Partnership) projects. She speaks English
partnered SNCF in relation to high-speed and some German in addition to her native
rail projects. French.
Pauline graduated from the Business & Pauline's strong business studies background
Management School of the University of and her consistent approach to detail make
Lyons with a Bachelor's degree in Corporate her a very useful link in the project
Finance and a Masters in Market Finance. conception chain.
Pauline is one of the team that has been working on project aims to cater to the growing number of
Financial Engineering Services for the Saudi pilgrims and has an estimated price tag of some USD
Railways Organization (SRO) and its Haramain 7 billion. Pauline's role has been to create a specific
High-Speed Rail Project, conducting the financial financial model for the project and develop a
analyses for an almost 450 km-long new railway line procurement strategy.
between the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah. The

TEXAS 121/208
During 2009 Pauline has also contributed to seminar on Public-Private Partnerships
Financial Engineering Services in (PPP) in Antananarivo (role, success factors,
connection with an integrated computing procurement processes, bankability, sources
system for urban transportation ticketing and of funding, financial structures, etc.).Pauline
information services on behalf of one of the has also provided financial advisory services
French administrative areas. Pauline worked for a French engineering consulting firm in
on project financing strategy and connection with Macedonian Railroad
forecasting return on investment. institutional reform (2008), conducted an
Since October 2008, Pauline has been audit of the financial model and master plan
contributing to a feasibility study into the produced by a Dutch consulting firm acting
Damascus Green Line (financed by the on behalf of an International Finance
European Investment Bank), the first stage Corporation in relation to a new container
of a future Metro network. Axelcium is terminal in the Port of Durres in Albania
working under contract to Systra for the (2008), assisted in updating the financial
financial analysis of the project. modeling for the Autonomous Port of
She was also Junior Financial Adviser Conakry (APC) (2007), contributed to the
(within an international consortium) to the assessment of private sector involvement in
six-member Gulf Cooperation Council transport projects via specific sources of
(State of Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, funding, especially in three North African
Kingdom of Bahrain, State of Qatar, countries (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia),
Sultanate of Oman and Kingdom of Saudi helped to produce a business plan for
Arabia) handling the economic and financial ETUSA (2007), assisted the Multi-sector
aspects of a feasibility study designed to Regulation Agency in Niger over its plans
provide a sound basis for GCC Members for Privatization & Regulation by writing
States to decide whether to pursue their regulatory accounting guidelines (RAG) and
plans for a new railway, either as a contributing to the development of an
concession or using a Build, Operate, and economic & financial model for the
Transfer (BOT) approach. country's water sector (2007), and worked
for the French Ministry of Defense (2007)
Since 2008 Pauline has also been advising on analysis of the financial statements of
on the financial aspects of Land-Based major European and American companies in
Oceanic Industry transactions in Mauritius the aerospace and defense sectors.
within an international consortium. In
September 2008, she organized a training

TEXAS 122/208
Benoit ALIADIERE
PROFILE
Benoît Aliadière (36) is an expert in studies connected with major infrastructure

Environmental Engineering and projects. His key skills lie in the fields of
Management. He obtained a Master's degree overall project management, noise and
in these disciplines from the University of acoustics-related research, identification of
Paris (1997-98) and is now employed at protected animal and bird species, and
Inexia, the engineering arm of French landscaping studies. He is well acquainted
Railroads (SNCF), a company incorporated with the requisite administrative procedures
in 2006. His current position is that of and is accustomed to producing carbon
Project Manager, Environment and inventories using the ADEME method
Sustainable Development. (Bilan Carbone®). Benoît and his team at
Inexia have provided the environmental
Benoît can boast extensive experience in input for the SNCF's response to the current
managing and conducting the environmental US RFEI. Benoît speaks fluent English.
Benoît Aliadière joined SNCF full-time in pipeline at SNCF until 2007, when he
1999, having earlier spent 3-months on an moved across to the newly-founded Inexia
internship with the company in 1997, company and its Studies and Projects
working on plans for the Mediterranean Division, to work as an Environment
high-speed line and ensuring the compliance Project Manager and Senior Research
of proposals with current environmental Officer.
legislation. In his position as Business
Manager, Environment Group, he Since joining Inexia, Benoît has provided
contributed to the various projects in the environmental input to a large number of

TEXAS 123/208
ongoing projects, his activities falling into table and water supplies, studies connected
four major areas: preliminary impact and with alternative tram-train solutions, for the
environmental studies, carbon inventories, Greater Paris bypass, for line upgrading in
master plans for "soft" transportation the Lyons region and the bypass to the West
solutions and masterminding landscaping of the city. In 2008-2009, Benoît
research. participated in work on the global carbon
Among Benoît's principal references in these inventory produced for the whole of SNCF.
different areas, mention should be made of He has also helped design landscaping
his role in the preparation of impact studies solutions to ensure the seamless and
and documents for major public hearings, harmonious introduction of tram-train
work to ensure the compliance of various services in the Paris suburbs and in the Thur
projects with French legislation on the water Valley, near Mulhouse in eastern France

TEXAS 124/208
Aurelia GRAVET
PROFILE
Aurélia GRAVET (28), who holds a first directly or indirectly concerned with
degree in Management and Economics sustainable development.
(2003), followed by a Master's degree in the
same subjects (2004) and a post-graduate Aurélia has been officially authorized by
diploma in Management and Sustainable ADEME to use its Bilan Carbone® method
Development (2006), is a specialist in all in producing carbon inventories and has
matters relating to Sustainable Development therefore been in a position to play a special
at Inexia, the engineering arm of French role in work on the environmental
Railroads (SNCF). As a Research Officer in dimension of the SNCF's response to the US
this field, she is involved in all studies RFEI.
On completing her education, Aurélia Division at Inexia, and its Environment and
Gravet first joined BCEOM, an engineering Sustainable Development Department.
consultancy for major international
development projects, essentially in the At Inexia, her role is to ensure that all new
sectors of transportation, water, environment projects are examined from the sustainable
and energy, economic and institutional development perspective. She is also
advice. responsible for developing Inexia strategy in
this field.
After two years working for this company,
she then moved to the Research and Projects Aurélia has conducted a number of carbon
inventories since joining Inexia. In 2008-

TEXAS 125/208
2009 she contributed to the SNCF inventory Another environmental aspect of her activity
process, in 2008 she managed an inventory has related to SNCF policy on bicycle
for Inexia itself at its headquarters and its transport and the possibilities for conveying
premises in Besançon and in 2008-2009 she passengers' bicycles with them on board
also worked on the carbon footprint of 50 trains ("train+bicycle"). In this connection,
years of operation of the eastern branch of she has developed projects and
the Rhine-Rhone high-speed line. methodologies, been involved in
institutional relations and consultations, and
Since 2007, she has provided input for participated in events and other
sustainable development studies and projects communications activities.
in France and ensured that sustainability
principles are constantly applied when
assessing scenarios for new railroad ROW.

TEXAS 126/208
Sophie GALICHON
PROFILE
Sophie Galichon (52) is a qualified at French Railroads (SNCF), where she is in

architect, who also studied urban charge of environmental studies.
development at the University of Paris. Her
specialist field is that of environmental Sophie's particular focus is on ensuring that
landscaping and, in this capacity, she has new ROW blends in harmoniously with its
participated in a large number of environment through clever design and the
environmental and landscaping studies for choice of suitable materials. She has
new railroad ROW or adaptations to the provided input in relation to such aspects as
highway network. She is currently employed part of SNCF's response to the US RFEI.
Sophie Galichon joined SNCF in 1982. in the design of retaining walls and gardens
Until 1992, she worked in the Buildings on the banks of the River Seine to ensure a
Department, where her role was that of dual esthetic and noise abatement function.
ensuring that civil engineering structures
were systematically designed to be in From 1992 to 2001, Sophie Galichon was
keeping with their local environment, a Business Manager, Landscaping Studies
relatively new concept at the time. She for a series of different high-speed line
contributed her architectural and design projects. For the East European high-speed
skills to projects such as the Northern France line, she designed specific proposals for
high-speed line (TGV Nord) and plans for vulnerable sites, including presenting them
the Interconnection between existing high- to the public, and worked on
speed lines. She played a part, for example,

TEXAS 127/208
the corresponding landscaping proposals. high-speed lines. Last but not least, she
She also contributed to master plans for developed methods and applications for
landscaping operations on the proposed planting and replanting operations.
Rhine-Rhone and Brittany- Loire Valley
Since 2002, Sophie has been in charge of guides, and coordination of skills and teams.
environmental impact studies in the Line She has conducted a number of such impact
Studies Division of the Civil Engineer's studies, in particular in relation to the high-
department. In this capacity her role speed line projects currently in the pipeline,
involves environmental assessments and and continues to pursue her efforts to
completion of administrative procedures, document the measures and processes vital
development of instruction manuals and to work on environmental impact.

TEXAS 128/208
Jean-Marie METZLER
PROFILE
Jean-Marie Metzler (66) first studied at the Jean-Marie Metzler was among the key
Ecole Polytechnique Paris (1962-1964) figures in the very first French high-speed
before going on to graduate as a Civil rail project (South-East TGV) and has since
Engineer from the Ecole Nationale des Ponts put his considerable knowledge and
et Chaussées (1965-1967), after taking one experience at the service of other railroads
year out to complete his compulsory wishing to adopt similar technology. His
national military service as an Officer in enormous analytical capacities, focus and
South Algeria. strength of purpose, combined with his elder
statesman status in the industry, make his
On qualifying, he immediately joined participation in any high-speed rail project a
French National Railroads (SNCF), where vital factor for success.
he has since worked for most of his long and
illustrious career, holding numerous high- Charismatic and an excellent communicator,
level domestic and international managerial Jean-Marie Metzler speaks German, English
positions. and Italian (spoken and written) in addition
to his native French.
Over the last two years Jean-Marie Metzler and passenger lines) and playing a key role
has been SNCF Project Director for the at all stages of these complex projects. At
SRO (Saudi Railroad) expansion project, the same time, he has been providing expert
advising the Chairman of SNCF-I and acting input for Keolis, a subsidiary of SNCF, in
as Project Coordinator for the Landbridge connection with international developments
and MMRL projects (respectively freight in Kent (UK), Sweden and Germany.

TEXAS 129/208
For a six-month period in 2004, he was train, the North TGV and in preparations for
Technical Advisor to Korail (Korean Eurostar and Thalys.
Railroads) in relation to high-speed He introduced a brand new sales and pricing
operations, marketing and rolling stock policy, based on the yield management
strategy. principle, together with the corresponding
software, adapted from the Sabre system
From April 1997 to mid-2004 Jean-Marie used by American Airlines. Internationally
held the position of Chief Executive he chaired the Price Committee of the
Officer at Télécom Développement, a International Union of Railways (UIC),
subsidiary of SNCF and Cegetel (51% where his role related primarily to
SNCF) and France's second long distance negotiations with the European Commission
carrier, securing its profitability from 2000. over the deregulation of the Travel Agency
This followed a period (1995-1997) working sector.
for the same company as Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, when it was Jean-Marie Metzler also worked for several
100 % owned by SNCF in the wake of its years for the Schneider Group. From 1983
creation as a spin-off of SNCF’s railroad to 1987, he was President of MTE (rolling
telecom activities. It was during this period stock engineering), Executive Vice
that Jean-Marie was involved in negotiations President of Jeumont-Schneider (railroad
with regulatory bodies and potential branch), Board member of the EIG
partners. Francorail-MTE (Jeumont-Schneider,
From 1993-1994, Jean-Marie Metzler was ANF), Chairman of Carel et Fouché, CEO
Director of International Passenger of Schneider-Creusot-Rail (500 persons, in
Distribution Systems at SNCF charge in particular of TGV bogies).
spearheading its Distribution, Sales and
Reservations partnerships. He was also This was preceded by two years in the
Chairman of the SNCF "Grandes Lignes SNCF Operations Department as Deputy
Internationales" holding company, which Director for Technical Studies and
was responsible for international operation Investments and five years (1976-1981) in
and distribution Joint Ventures. At the same its Rolling Stock Department as Project
time he acted as part-time Technical Manager for the first generation of TGV
Advisor to Ferrovie dello Stato (Italian (high-speed) rolling stock (construction,
Railroads) for their passenger sector acceptance tests, commissioning). Between
business. 1974 and 1976, Jean-Marie was Head of the
Maintenance Department for
Between 1987 and 1993, Jean-Marie was Locomotives and EMU's and, between
Executive Vice-President Long Distance 1972 and 1974, Manager of the
Passenger Business (strategy, marketing Maintenance Works (diesel locomotives)
sales, organization) at SNCF. In this at Sotteville les Rouen.
position, he was in charge of managing
12,000 train conductors and 6,000 sales His earliest posts at SNCF were as Deputy
agents (SNCF & travel agents): training, IT Area Manager "Operations" (passenger
tools. He was also involved in the and freight) for the Lorraine region (1970-
commissioning of the Atlantic high-speed

TEXAS 130/208
1972) and as Manager of the Locomotive Depot in Strasbourg (1968-1969).

TEXAS 131/208
Frank BERNARD
PROFILE
Frank Bernard (48) graduated from the Frank has earned himself a well-deserved
Ecole Supérieure de Commerce (Business reputation as a skilled manager capable of
School) in Paris, in 1985. Since then he has driving company results, spearheading
pursued a career, initially in finance and financial restructuring and boosting market
subsequently in management, in a number of share. He is also an experienced negotiator
private sector companies before entering the at the highest level. In addition to his native
railroad industry some 10 years ago. French, he speaks fluent English and has
some knowledge of German and Dutch.
Since 2007, Frank Bernard has been Deutsche Bahn) and Switzerland (with
Director, Europe and Business Swiss Railroads - CFF), restructuring the
Development at Voyageurs France Eurostar Group's financial structures
Europe (VFE), a branch of French (negotiations with the UK Department of
Railroads (SNCF). VFE has a number of Transport), and acquisition of a stake in
subsidiaries, the seven most important of NTV, the first private European railroad
which are Eurostar, Thalys, Alleo, Lyria, operator (high-speed rail services on the
Artesia, Elipsos and NTV. In 2008, these Italian market).
subsidiaries handled 21 million passengers
for sales revenues amounting to € 1.6 billion Since November 2006 Frank has also been a
($ 2.25 billion). His key achievements in this Board Member of 12 of the SNCF Group
post to date include the launch of the East subsidiaries, chairing three of the companies
European high-speed train with Germany (in concerned.
association with German Railroads -

TEXAS 132/208
Before taking up his present position, Frank
was General Manager of TGV France, a
branch of VFE, between January 2004 and
October 2006. During this period sales rose
by 25% to reach € 3.2 billion in 2006

TEXAS 133/208
(approx.$ 4.5 billion) and EBIT doubled, market share rose in relation to
rival airline services and iDTGV, the This followed a period between October
subsidiary of TGV France, was successfully 1994 and March 1999, in which Frank was
launched in 2005. TGV France operates a Business Controller for a division of the
fleet of nearly 500 trainsets. PINAULT PRINTEMPS REDOUTE
Group (€ 500 million turnover). In this
From March 2002 to December 2003, Frank capacity, his responsibilities consisted of
Bernard was CEO of THALYS reorganizing Group management control
International, a Brussels-based joint structures, merging different branches and
subsidiary of the French, Belgian, German ensuring financial recovery of subsidiaries in
and Dutch Railroads operating a fleet of 27 Morocco and elsewhere in Africa.
international trainsets, carrying 6 million
passengers for sales amounting to From June 1989 to September 1994, Frank
€ 320 million (approx. $ 450 billion) in was Chief Financial Officer of Wang
2004. Under Frank's leadership a number of France, a subsidiary of Wang Labs in the
major changes were introduced, for example USA, and Business Controller for
new fare structures, yield management and Southern Europe. His role included a
loyalty program. Thalys was the first rail number of restructuring exercises for
service in Europe to launch ticketless travel renewed or greater profitability.
and Internet on board its trains. Frank also
successfully masterminded the restructuring Frank has also worked in the airline
of the company amid general market industry. From September 1985 to May
downturn. 1989 he was first Budget Controller and
then Business Controller at AIR INTER
Between April 1999 and February 2002, (nowadays a division of Air France), where
Frank was Chief Financial Officer of he was in charge of optimizing airport
Grandes Lignes, SNCF's Long-Distance organization and controlling cargo activities.
Passenger Traffic Division. There he was He has also worked at HP, Les Editions
responsible for setting up the Finance Mondiales and KPMG.
Department and for first introducing ERP
(SAP) within SNCF Group.

TEXAS 134/208
Pascal LUPO
PROFILE
Pascal LUPO (54) is currently Director of and will give him broad insight into many of
International Development and the different aspects of the current project.
Chairman/CEO of SNCF International. He, In addition, he can boast extensive
is a graduate of both the Ecole international experience, having participated
Polytechnique (1973) and the Ecole in assignments in countries such as Taiwan
Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (1978). and Romania on behalf of Sofrérail. He is
also member of the Board of Eurostazioni in
In the course of his career to date, Pascal has Italy.
used his civil engineering background and In addition to French, his mother tongue,
qualifications to develop a wide range of Pascal speaks English and Italian.
managerial skills and competencies, which
are invaluable to him in his present position
From September 2000 to March 2009, developing investment (up to EUR 150
Pascal Lupo was Director, Stations and million per year). He was responsible for
Interchanges at French National developing a business model in line with
Railroads (SNCF). His role consisted of European Directives and based on
organizing the station business sector, contractual relations with carriers. He also
establishing general policy, scheduling masterminded a customer service campaign
refurbishment operations in key stations and involving the whole team of 7,500 SNCF

TEXAS 135/208
station employees, the main result of which Manager for the Amiens Region from 1994
has been the certification of services in 60 of to 1997, with his 4,000-strong team Pascal
France's biggest stations. was a prime-mover in efforts to build up
regional traffic and traffic with the capital in
Pascal Lupo was the driving force behind cooperation with the local authorities and
the new policy developed and implemented politicians. Under his leadership, the rolling
by SNCF to enhance retail sales activities in stock sheds at Tergnier obtained their ISO
stations and, more generally, exploit station certification and regional structures were
property facilities He was also behind the radically reorganized for greater efficiency
program of station adaptations geared and performance.
towards improving station accessibility for
passengers with disabilities. Pascal's experience includes a five-year
Outside the purely French context, he was period as Head of the Organization
one of the founders of the Special "Stations" Department (1989-1994), where he
Group at the International Union of masterminded the transition to a business-
Railways (UIC), which staged, Next Station, led approach at SNCF and set up the Main-
an international conference on the subject in line Passenger and Freight transportation
December 2007. units. This was preceded by a year working
Since October 2000, he has also been the in the Chairman's Office as part of the
Chairman and CEO of the company A2C, team in charge of auditing its operation and
which lets space in stations to retail and conducting strategic studies in preparation
other businesses. for governmental contractual plans.
Between 1997 and 2000 Pascal Lupo was Earlier he spent 3 years in the Human
Manager of the Paris Nord Region for Resources Department designing new pay
SNCF heading an 11,000-strong team structures and innovative managerial
responsible for developing and expanding systems.
products and services (Eurostar, Thalys,
clockface services between Paris and Lille, On first entering SNCF, Pascal was
Transilien [Paris suburban] services). employed between 1978 and 1985 in the
During this period, he was also in charge of Civil Engineering Department, where he
reorganizing and upgrading a classification gained experience in a wide number of
yard in the region and for line electrification fields, including maintenance of way, power
and modernization operations. supply and signaling systems, buildings and
structures, in each case working with groups
of 40 to 1,000 people
.

TEXAS 136/208
Dominique THILLAUD
PROFILE
Dominique Thillaud (40) is a graduate of occupied a number of successively more
the ISC (Institut Supérieur de Commerce) important senior management positions.
School of Management in Paris (1991) and
holds a Master's degree from the Lyons Since July 2008, Dominique has been
Business School (1992). Director of Corporate Investment and
Development Strategy, and it is in this
Dominique's career has always been in capacity that he is a member of the
Finance. He worked for Management Steering Committee responsible for
Consultants and in Global Financial overseeing SNCF proposals in conjunction
Services before joining French Railroads with US initiatives, alongside Pascal
(SNCF) in 2002, where he has since Lupo and Frank Bernard.
Dominique Thillaud embarked on his of Operations. Shortly after, in July 2003,

career in 1992, when he entered the he was named Director, SNCF
employment of BNP (Banexi) in 1992 in Subsidiaries and Shareholdings and
Brussels as a merger-acquisitions analyst. Deputy CEO of SNCF Participations, a
position he occupied until March 2004,
Two years later, he moved to the when he became Executive CEO. In this
Corporate Finance Division of Price capacity, he began by focusing on a
Whitehouse to take up a position as a thorough reorganization of all SNCF
privatization expert and governmental stakeholdings, a process resulting, in
advisor. He remained there until 1997, particular, in disinvestment in a number of
when he transferred to JP Morgan Chase & non-core activities and in capital
Co in Paris and the position of Vice- restructuring of the Keolis and Ermewa
President Mergers and Acquisitions. Groups. In 2007, he launched an ambitious
process of consolidation and external
It was in December 2002 that he first growth in line with the development
entered SNCF, joining SNCF strategy of SNCF, involving high-profile
Participations, the holding company for operations such as the take-over of
all SNCF Group subsidiaries, as Director logistics company Geodis, the acquisition
TEXAS 137/208
of German freight operator ITL, the Italian Since July 2008, Dominique has also
high speed rail operator NTV or IBM occupied the position of Director, SNCF
Logistics, and financial restructuring at Corporate Investment and Development
Eurostar. Strategy. His role in this capacity is to
mastermind and orchestrate Group
Dominique has also been a Board Member development strategy, coordinating all
of 7 of the SNCF Group subsidiaries. SNCF financial commitments and
industrial investments for the Group as a
whole.

TEXAS 138/208
APPENDIX 2. Environmental Issues and mitigation strategies
Impact Main measures during the design Main measures during

and construction phases the operation and
maintenance phases
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
Movements of • Re-use of materials or identification NA.
materials of dump sites.
(excavation,
embankments)
Interference • Inventory of springs and water • Water collection,
with the flow of catchment areas, piezometric • Water regulation
subsurface controls, systems (retention
water and flood • Maintaining flow continuity, basins),
plains
• Specific measures for flood plains. • Specific measures for
flood plains,
• Measures for preserving
the volume of subsurface
water bodies, etc.
Impact on the • Preventive measures (water collection and drainage by means of
quality of settling basins prior to discharge, storage of polluting products
surface and and materials, inspections, etc.),
subsurface
water • Remedial measures (depollution).

TEXAS 139/208
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Operations, • Worksite organization (site NA.
bases, footpaths boundaries, protection systems,
and worksite signposting, etc.),
access • Installation of works bases,
• Allowance for vulnerable sites
when choosing the sites for bases,
footpaths and worksite access,
• Work site supervision
• Ecological rehabilitation after
works completion, etc.
Infrastructure • Avoidance of unnecessary clearing • Replanting, boundary
boundaries and • Boundaries and signposting. reconstitution, slope
operation rehabilitation
• Measures to prevent
accidental pollution
• Passageways for large
wild animals, etc.
Property NA Compensatory measures:
adaptation planting hedges, provisions
for small wild animals, etc.
Storage of Allowance for vulnerable sites when Relocation of protected
embankment choosing storage areas. species.
and cutting
materials

TEXAS 140/208
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Operations, • Re-establishment of accesses, NA
bases, footpaths compliance with working
and worksite schedules,
access • Protection systems
• Restoration after works completion.
Effects on land NA Compensation.
ownership
Change of land Adaptation of land use
NA
use documents.
Economic Compensation MOU, temporary Compensation for
activities accesses and services, etc. permanent loss of land.
Interception of • Establishment of an access and • Water protection
networks and routing plan, measures, network
easements • User information, etc. restoration,
• Respect of easements.
Vibrations • Utilization of suitable equipment, • Prior assessment of
• Temporary evacuation of the buildings,
neighboring population, etc. • Installation of protective
• Avoidance of vibration-sensitive devices (mats, resilient
areas, pads etc.),
• Utilization of alternative • Creation of sloped
equipment, embankments by
building up layers of
• Specific precautions increasingly large
• Measurements and controls during materials
the works.

TEXAS 141/208
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Noise • Adapting to local patterns • Installation of protective
• Avoiding work at night or on devices (walls, barriers
weekends and facade covers
• Use of suitably adapted, sound- • These protective devices
proofed machines and equipment should be designed to
blend with their
• Temporary protection around environment
noisy work sites - hydraulic and
other crushers (protection barriers • Their effectiveness must
or walls) be checked during the
operating phase
• Organizing site movements using
surrounding roadways (avoidance • Avoiding noisy
of quiet areas) maintenance operations
at night and on weekends
(or informing those
living in the vicinity to
avoid complaints)
Living • Work site noise • Property reorganization
environment • Road traffic flows • Visual and noise barriers,
etc.
Operations, • Compensation MOU, NA.
bases, footpaths • Temporary access to agricultural
and worksite parcels,
access
• Temporary drainage systems,
• Barriers.
Sections of line • Setting of boundaries • Property adaptation,
near • Return to normal after works • Compensation MOU,
agricultural completion.
zones • Reconversion of surplus
land for agriculture,
• Drainage, etc.

TEXAS 142/208
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
Sections of line • Compensation MOU, • New plantings,
near forestry • Temporary access, • Plans for path restoration
zones
• Watering, setting of boundaries, etc. • Procedures connected
with clearing, etc.
Impact Main measures during the design Main measures during
and construction phases the operation and
maintenance phases

TEXAS 143/208
HERITAGE, TOURISM AND LEISURE ACTIVITIES
Archaeology Preventive archaeological measures. Preliminary investigations
on the sites.
Sections of line Expert inspection of buildings within • Preliminary
near national 150 m, landscaping. investigations on the
heritage sites sites,
• Compensation,
• Landscaping, etc.
Footpath Temporary access and measures for • Plans for path
interception user safety restoration,
• Landscaping.
Sections near • Temporary access points, • Landscaping,
tourist sites and • User information, safety measures, • Path restoration.
leisure facilities
• Compensation schemes,
• Compliance with the rules
governing worksite organization

TEXAS 144/208
LANDSCAPE
Direct impact
Excess • Landscaping models • Agricultural
materials, • Work on the longitudinal profiles reconstitution &
cuttings / and cross sections replanting
excavation • Plantings, green swathe
• Architectural and earthworks
Noise barriers
interface • Planting operations to
Road ensure integration into
• Civil engineering interface
restoration site
(longitudinal profile, landscaping,
Bridges & bridges & tunnels) • Green swathe (plantings)
tunnels
• Architectural interface and • Green swathe (plantings)
Installations attention-catching features (models)
(sub-stations…) • Green swathe
• Localization • Re-vegetation and
Retention and
hydraulic basins • Models and plans for restoration to ecological engineering
normal condition
Temporary • Work on the permanent road • Green swathe

impact network (associated plantings)
Footpaths and • Re-qualification after completion of • Plantings, preparations
work site access the works for replanting or return
Works bases to agricultural use
Temporary • Re-use of topsoil
stock yards
Generated • Plantings and

• Protective measures and
impact involvement of local
management of the topsoil
Waste land players
• Land and management mode
Property • Management plan
management • Maintenance definition and
planning

TEXAS 145/208
APPENDIX 3. Traffic forecasts for a railroad project
This appendix gives details of the methods used by SNCF for the past 30 years in forecasting
traffic and market share. It describes how the choices of potential clients can be identified
(stated preferences) and provides a definition of the notions of generalized cost, value of time
and utility. Some typical examples are also included by way of illustration.

TEXAS 146/208
I. Customers and their "stated preferences"
Anyone planning to develop new transportation infrastructure is naturally bound to wonder
what motivates consumers to opt for auto, train or plane for any given journey. Each of us has
our own ideas on the subject and each consumer makes his or her own decisions.
Conjoint analysis (or stated preferences) methods may be used to:
♦ identify and then categorize the different factors that explain modal choice in
strict order of importance,
♦ determine the median of users' Value of Time (VOT) (for the mode
concerned), used in traffic forecasts model.
The method consists of first identifying the quality factors that govern modal choice by
means of qualitative surveys often conducted in the form of focus groups. These are a type of
semi-directive collective interview. By way of example, this type of survey can be used in
specific cases to establish journey time and price considerations, but will also provide insight
into the importance of factors such as the convenience of obtaining a ticket, safety, travel
comfort, frequency of service, etc. These criteria are then classified according to their
importance and their relative weight.
The relative weight of each of these parameters is then introduced into a variety of scenarios
to be put to one or several panels to determine the modal choice. Statistical processing is used
to work out the most likely, or more precisely, the best scenarios especially as regards the
price/journey time factors.
The parameters identified to explain travel motivation can then be used as input for quantified
simulations of these scenarios as described in paragraph IV, economic assessment.
It is during this phase that it is also possible to make a first estimation of the median (m) of
the value of passenger time (VoT) for the market (mode) under consideration. It should be
noted that there exists a simple relationship between the mean M and median m, via the
standard deviation σ, provided the fact that the statistical law of concerned population
revenue is "log normal", which is the case worldwide as stated hereafter:
M = m*Exp(σ2/2)
These values come into play in traffic forecast calculations, as will be seen later in Part III.
Limits of the results obtained in this phase: as indicated by the title of the paragraph, it is
“stated preferences” that are at stake at this stage and not the results of marketing operations.
In fact, there is always a difference, which may be quite large; between consumers’ stated
preferences and the way they behave in reality, despite statistical processing to “correct” any
bias in the panel samples.
As made clear in the above introduction, where prices are concerned, there is no way that
fares or scales of rates can be established solely on the basis of stated preferences.
Price ranges must of necessity be flexible and adapted to the commercial policy selected
(volumes or ROI, for example), the economic situation, and will therefore vary over time.
Studies of this type are not part of the job of drawing up forecasts and therefore not covered
by the methods described here. These latter are geared towards ascertaining market

TEXAS 147/208
receptiveness to the proposed new mode of transportation in order to be able to produce
simulation scenarios.

TEXAS 148/208
II. General notions: observed traffic, generalized cost and utility
II.1. Observed traffic:
Traffic for a given mode of transportation, Tij between two urban areas or, more generally,
between two economic clusters i and j universally obeys a gravity-type law:
Tij = k [Pia * Pjb ] / Cgα
Where: Pi and Pj the populations of the urban areas (corrected values for the income of the
populations concerned), a, b # 0.8
1.8< α < 2.2
Cg is the generalized cost of the mode of transportation under consideration.
Cg is the general form p + h * t, p price of the mode considered, h the value of time for the
users of this mode, t the journey time.
The values p and t are “generalized” values, in other words they allow for all price and
journey time components (including, for example, access, waiting time etc.). This model is
therefore of the so-called “gravity” type and is used, as we shall see later, for estimating
newly generated traffic potential.
II.2. Generalized cost
The generalized cost is expressed by means of a general formula Cg = P + h*T, or to be more

precise, for example:
Cg = (Pj + Pa) + h * (Tj + Ta)
where:
Pj is the price of the journey,
Pa the cost of access to the transportation mode (price of public or private transportation or
even the cost of auto parking),
Ta journey time
Tj access time (including waiting time, which in turn makes it necessary to take account of
the frequency of service of the particular mode, for example in the case of clockface services
with departures at intervals F, by means of a formula such as: waiting time = number of
operating hours / F-1).
The formula more generally used is:
Cg = Pg + h * Tg,
Where g stands for “generalized” in the sense that not only the price or mean journey time of
the mode under study are involved but also all the other orders of magnitude relative to the
trip.

TEXAS 149/208
II.3. Value of time:
Reverting to the formula Tij = k [Pia * Pjb ] / Cgα, Tij can be identified from observation, as can
Pi and Pj, whereas pg and tg can be established and the values a, b and α calibrated using a
Gaussian regression model. The mean value h of time for the use of the mode concerned is
determined by statistical regression for each observation.
The mean value h of time is in fact the result of a random variable, the distribution of which
is linked to the income and wealth of the population considered. In general, the tendency is
more towards using income as a basis rather than wealth, although some clients apply a
mixture of the two depending on the reasons for their journey.
For a passenger, the value of time represents the sum of money that he is prepared to pay to
save an hour of his time. Ordinarily we consider that this value of time is proportional to a
passenger’s disposable income or the amount he earns per hour and for this we have recourse
to the official income distribution statistics as a means of working out the distribution of the
value of time.
By way of example, we shall start by quoting the case of Morocco, where traffic studies of
the type described in this document have been carried out. As shown in the graph, the
distribution of salaries among State employees follows a log-normal pattern.
Distribution des salaires bruts du personnel de l'Etat

Distribution of the gross salaries of State
(au 31-12-2001)
employees (at 31.12.2001)
100%
75%
% aggregate
50%
Actual observation
Theoretical curve
25%
0%
0 50 000 100 000 150 000 200 000 250 000 300 000
Salaire
Gross annuel brut
annual salary
The gross annual average salary is 61,872 MAD and the median salary (50% of employees
earn less and 50% earn more) is 53,187 MAD. The standard deviation of the calibrated
distribution is 0.55 (which should not be confused with the standard deviation for the
distribution of income or of the value of time, which ranges between 1.1 and 1.6 as will be
seen below when we come to the example of Saudi Arabia).
In the absence of data on the value of time, the mean hourly rate of pay has been taken
directly for the value of time, i.e. approx. 30 MAD/h.
The following two graphs show the income distribution pattern for Saudi Arabia, our second
example. This pattern is consistent with the theoretical “model” encountered all over the
world.

TEXAS 150/208
The distribution pattern obeys a law that is so general that it is possible to affirm that, if
another pattern were to be found in a given country by comparison with this theoretical
model, the logical assumption would be that there had been an error in the data collection.
Distribution of household income (Saudi population)
100%
75%
Distribution in %
Actual observation
Theoretical curve
50%
25%
0%
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
Household income
DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR SAUDI POPULATION

Distribution of household income (Non-Saudi population)
100%
75% Actual observation

Theoretical curve
Distribution in %
50%
25%
0%
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Household income
DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR NON SAUDI POPULATION
Therefore, the value (h) of time (VoT) for the consumers of a given mode is a probabilistic
magnitude, a random variable in mathematics. It obeys a log-normal distribution pattern for
the median m and standard dimension σ. From the median it is possible to deduce the mean,
M = m*Exp(σ2/2)
is in the region of 1.1 to 1.3 or even 1.6 for some segments of the population; M varies
depending on the mode of transportation used, since for an airline passenger the value of time
is obviously not the same as for a bus passenger.
The law may be expressed as follows:
1 1 2
f (h ) = exp( − (ln( h) − ln(m)) )
σh 2π 2σ 2

TEXAS 151/208
where m and σ are parameters that are representative respectively of the median and the
income distribution spread.
It should be noted that at this stage, we are dealing with “revealed preferences” and not
“stated preferences”, since contrary to the previous paragraph, these are real observations of
consumer behavior and not merely declarations of intent on the part of potential customers
when faced with the theoretically possibility of a new product.
II.4. Utility:
Economic theory expresses the choice in favor of a given mode (m), the traffic Tm as the
"utility" U of that mode on the basis of the relation:
Tm = k * e Um
Utility itself is in inverse proportion to the generalized cost of the mode, according to the
formula:
Um = Cg-α
Here the value of a user’s time as seen above is the ratio of the Lagrange multipliers that
maximize the utility U as a function of the generalized cost Cg, subject to the constraint:
Cg = Pg + h * Tg
It should be noted that in this case the cost envisaged is the modal cost for all its users, hence
h is the mean of time value of all users.
The equation is dU = 0, i.e. ∂U/∂P * dP + ∂U/∂T dT = 0
The variables, P and T, obey the condition in optimum fashion: λ*P+µ*T is an integrable
form.
Mathematically the oscillating plane Cg (linking P and T) is therefore tangential to the surface
of utility U.

TEXAS 152/208
III. Modal split, Probit and Logit and traffic shift models, gravity and newly generated
(“induced”) traffic model
The modal split is established by applying the models to the rival modes in pairs, in other
words in the case of a railway investment, to the competition between air and rail and then to
that between road and rail. This latter may also in theory be split into competition between
bus and rail and between auto and rail.
III.1.Probit model (lognormal distribution)
This model is well suited to the case of rail/air competition. Depending on the value they
attach to time, passengers will choose from the modes at their disposal the one that offers
them the lowest generalized cost according to the following general formula:
Cgi = Pxi + h Tgi
Cgi is the generalized cost of the mode i with cost Pxi and journey time Tgi for a passenger for
whom the value of time is equal to h.
In the final analysis, this means that consumers make their choices on the basis of the value
that they personally attach to their time.
If we take, for example, a case where the choice is between rail and air, with the train journey
taking longer but costing less, these cost and time assumptions result in the following
inequalities:
Tgt > Tga and Pxt < Pxa
If the generalized costs are represented as a function of the value of time h, there exists a
value of time, h0, below which the passenger will choose to go by train and above which the
same passenger will opt to travel by plane. h0 is called the indifference value of time: h0 =
(Pxa – Pxt)/(Tgt – Tga)
In the graph that follows it is clearly apparent that those for whom the value of time is less
than h0 opt for rail, in other words the mode which offers them the lowest generalized cost.
CG
PLANE
TRAIN TGV
H0 H1
VALUES OF TIME

TEXAS 153/208
Choice modeling:
To identify the percentage of the population for whom the value of time is greater or smaller
than h0, the following lognormal distribution law is applied:
1 1 2
f (h ) = exp( − 2 (ln( h ) − ln( m ))
)
σh 2π 2σ
where: m is the median, σ the standard deviation, as established respectively by the stated
preferences survey and the income distribution curve, h the VoT.
Traffic of mode (1) between origin i and destination j is therefore the integral:
S1 = Prob (h<ho) = ∫0 h0 f(h) dh
where h0 is the indifference value of time for the two competing modes.
The share (“part”) of mode (2) is S2 = 1 – S1
The modal share obtained by rail will therefore be:
h0 1 1 2
F (h) = ∫ exp(− (ln(h) − ln(m)) )
Part train = Prob(h< h0) = 0 σh 2π 2σ 2 dh
and that of the air option: Part plane = 1 – Part train.
Probit Model: air + rail modal split

100%
80%
Rail share
60%
40%
20%
0%
0 250 500 750 1000
Cg
Indifference value of time
Plane
Train HSR
h0 h1 value of time

TEXAS 154/208
When a new rail service is commissioned, the pattern of supply changes and this, in turn,
drives up the indifference value of time (h1) in relation to the reference situation. Rail’s share
of traffic will increase. A proportion of those who went by air will change mode and will opt
for rail instead under the new conditions created by the project. This enables us to obtain a
forecast for the shift of traffic from one mode to the other.
III.1. Logit model (utility):
This model is well suited to the case of rail/(bus & private auto) competition.
In order to be able to predict the traffic that will transfer from private autos, the so-called
logit model is therefore used. This works on the basis of the assumption that the choice
between two transportation modes m and n depends on the utility ratio, in other words:
Sm = Um / (Um + Un)
To say that modal split is governed by the utility ratio is always akin to saying that it is the
value of time of the consumers of each mode that determines their choice, only this time it is
via the generalized cost ratio of each mode.
The general form of the logit model is as follows:
u (Cg ijfer )
Part ijfer =
∑m
u (Cg ijm )
where:
Part ijfer : share of rail+mode traffic between i and zone j
u: utility function of a mode

Cg ijfer :generalized cost of the rail mode between zone i and zone j
Cg ijm : generalized cost of a mode ‘m’ between zone i and zone j
As has been seen above, the form of the utility function is as follows:
γ Cgijm
uijm = e
where:
uijm = utility of the mode ‘m’ on the route between zone i and zone j
Cg ijm
= generalized cost of the mode ‘m’ between zone i and zone j
γ = constant of the model
In general form this gives:

TEXAS 155/208
fer
a (Cg ijfer ) γ a
Part ij = fer γ m γ
or Part ijfer =
a (Cg ij ) + (Cg ) ij Cg ijfer
a+( )γ
Cg ijm
where:
a: constant of the model
This equation is transformed to give:
Traf ijfer Cg ijfer

ln( ) = γ ln( ) + ln(a )
Traf ijm Cg ijm
The above linear form makes it easier to calibrate the model given from a statistical point of
view.
The implementation of a railway project modifies the conditions of the services on offer and
results in a drop in the generalized cost of the rail mode in relation to the reference situation.
The share of rail traffic will increase. Part of the traffic using other modes will therefore
change mode and go over to rail in the project situation.
If the following notions are taken into account:
Traf ijfer
0
: rail traffic between zone i and zone j in the reference situation
Trafijm0
:traffic ‘m’ between zone i and zone j in the reference situation
Part ijm0
: share of traffic ‘m’ between zone i and zone j in the reference situation
Part ijm1
: share of traffic ‘m’ between zone i and zone j with the implementation of the
rail project (not including newly generated traffic)
Traf ijm1
: traffic ‘m’ between zone i and zone j with the implementation of the rail
project
Detijm
: shift of traffic ‘m’ between zone i and zone j
TxDetijm
: rate of shift of traffic ‘m’ between zone i and zone j
This gives:
m
Traf ijm0
Part ij 0 =
Traf ijfer m
0 + Traf ij 0
Part ijm1
Using the model the new share of traffic in mode ‘m’ may be obtained. Traffic in
mode ‘m’ with the railway project will therefore be as follows:
Traf ijm0 = Part ijm1 * (Traf ijfer m
0 + Traf ij 0 )

TEXAS 156/208
This gives the following shift in traffic to mode ‘m’ and rate of shift:
Detijm = Traf ijm0 − Traf ijm1
and
Det ijm
TxDet ijm =
Traf ijm0
Another reason to use this type of model is the examination of the competition: a slower,
more expensive mode can still hold on to a not unsubstantial market share (reflected by the
“statistical remainders” from surveys and mathematical processing). On certain routes, SNCF
has therefore been able to identify a number of consumers who remain faithful to their mode
of transportation, be it auto, plane or train, whatever the service offered by rival modes.
This is particularly the case between autos and trains in some inter-city travel segments.
In such cases, the probit model can no longer be applied.
III.1. The gravity model (newly generated or “induced” traffic):
results in a drop in the generalized cost of the rail mode in relation to the reference situation.
In addition to users of mode m who change mode, traffic also emerges that would not have
existed in the absence of this improvement. This is what is referred to as “newly generated
(induced) traffic”. Such traffic is calculated by means of a gravity model with the following
general form:
f ( attraction factors)
Traf ij = k
g ( repulsion factors)
where:
- Traf ij : traffic exchanged between i and zone j
- f(attraction factors ij):function of the attraction factors between zone i and zone j
- g(repulsion fusion ij): f
unction of the repulsion factors between zone i and zone j
-k :constant of the model
The attraction factors are: population, GDP, mean salary and income, etc. The repulsion
factors are the generalized costs calculated.
If population figures, employment and income are chosen as attraction factors, this gives the
following gravity model formula:
(( Pop i + Empi ) * ( Pop j + Emp j )) * ( Revi * Rev j )) α
Traf ij = k
Cg ijβ
where:
Trafij = traffic exchanged between i and zone j
Popi, Popj = populations of zone i and zone j
TEXAS 157/208
Empi, Empj = employment in zone i and zone j
Revi, Revj = income in zone i and zone j
Cgij = generalized cost between i and zone
α: elasticity of traffic in relation to population and wealth
β: elasticity of traffic in relation to generalized cost
k: constant of the model
results in a variation of the generalised cost δCg ij in relation to the reference situation. The
variation in traffic is linked to the variation of the generalised cost by means of the following
formula:
δTraf ij δCg ij
= −β
Traf ij Cg ij

TEXAS 158/208
IV. Interpreting the results and economic assessment
IV.1. Interpreting the results:
The following graphs show the results for the Logit model of the calculations of market share
from the generalised cost ratio in two cases: rail/bus (coefficient in the formula referred to as
α), and rail/auto (coefficient here called β) [Caution, these parameters are those of the
bimodal model and not powers of the formula given above, Um = Cg-α]:
α)
Logit model: share of rail = 1/(1+(CgRail/Cg Coach)^α
100%
75%
Rail share
50% Coach share
:2
25%
0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
#x5 # + 5%
β)
Logit model: share of rail = 1/(1+(Cg Rail/CgCar)^β
100%
75%
50%
Rail share
Car share
25%
0%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Analyzing these graphs shows that market share is indeed a function of the generalised cost
ratio, and that the “TGV effect” is not constant for all of the coordinates of the ratios of these
costs. In the first graph, for example, we can see that if the generalised cost of time is halved
(i.e. that of a journey time of the same order of magnitude, since Cg = P + h*T), this does not
have the same effect at all depending on the cost ratio at the outset: a ratio that goes from 4 to

TEXAS 159/208
2 only changes rail’s market share from 5 to 10% approximately (# 5%), whilst a drop in the
ratio from 2 to 1 prompts a leap from 10 to 50% (x 5)!
In the place of these “final” market shares, it is also possible to express the same results as a
“traffic shift rate”, in other words the proportion of the clients of one mode who go over to
another mode. From this it is possible to have an idea of the effect of a given investment on
consumer behavior.
N.B.: Another example of non-linearity in the results for phenomena following a lognormal
pattern is that of peak traffic (monthly or weekly). This also obeys the same type of law
(assuming constant fares) as a function of journey duration, which gives the following graph:
Peak Ratio
1,9
1,8
1,7
1,6
1,5
1,4
1,3
1,2
1,1
1
1 2 3 4
Journey Duration (hours)
For a journey that goes from 4 to 2 hours, the peak ratio remains constant, in other words
there is no need to take any specific operating or fares measures. This is something that
SNCF discovered following the launch of TGV services between Paris and Lyons. One
wrong interpretation would be to say that the “peak has disappeared”. In fact it has stayed the
same. By contrast, when journey times went from 4 to 3 hours on Paris-Bordeaux, the peak
could have shifted from 1.35 to 1.8. Action therefore had to be taken at fares level to obviate
the risk of insurmountable operating difficulties or costly extra investment in further rolling
stock that would have been idle in normal operating periods.
IV.2. Economic assessment:
A project may be therefore assessed by comparing a so-called “reference” situation, which

allows for the natural development of traffic without the investment proposed, with the traffic
calculated by means of the methods described above. The rationale is shown in the following
diagram:

TEXAS 160/208
Traffic
Project situation
Reference situation
Current situation
Years
Different prices and quality of service scenarios, each with their own corresponding
generalised costs, may be considered in order to fine-tune the project and select possible
alternatives, not only from a financial point of view but also from a social and economic
perspective. For example, it is perfectly possible to opt for financial returns over traffic
volumes or to target a predetermined journey time. It is also possible to try to identify the
optimum speed or the maximum amount of investment to obtain a rate of return above a
given level.
It is on this basis that SNCF pitched journey time at 2 hours for the Paris-Lyons project, at 3
hours for Paris-Bordeaux in the Atlantic TGV project and at 3 hours for Paris-Marseilles in
the case of the Mediterranean TGV.

TEXAS 161/208
APPENDIX 4. Stations Locations
This appendix contains confidential information only available on request.

TEXAS 162/208
APPENDIX 5. Parking

TEXAS 163/208
APPENDIX 6. Station facilities
I. Stations services
Further detailed market studies (customer profile segmentation), ad hoc marketing and sales
program, and traffic forecasts will serve as a basis for working out requirements in terms of
space (for station operation and for carriers) and in terms of the volume and nature of the
retail services to be provided.
TICKET OFFICES
In the case of US operations, the
general use of virtual ticketing
(combined with self-service machines
for ticket exchanges or multi-operator
vending machines) will also have a
huge impact on the size of the areas to
be reserved for ticket sales, but also
for staff back-offices. In addition, the
growing number of automatic vending
machines of all kinds will require a
new approach to spatial planning to
achieve a consistent and
understandable service offer.
Anyway, ticket offices are designed to
combine an attractive reception area for clients with an ergonomic workspace for staff.
PASSENGER INFORMATION
Decentralized, personalized and real-time train schedule
information, and intermodalal information in and around
the station are good ways of giving passengers scope for
maximum mobility during their time in the station. Such
information heightens their sense of security and
improves their perception of the transportation process.
Combining and supplying information from a variety of
different public transportation providers is crucial in
building customer confidence and, thus, encouraging
people to use public transportation for their door-to-door
journeys.
Moreover, for operators passenger information is a
vital tool in their efficiency and productivity and
enables them to cope with all unforeseen events.
INTERCHANGE SERVICES
Members of staff will bring a human touch to ease transfers through the station, offering
personalized information, special care (with a focus on travelers with specific needs), and
assistance with luggage, etc. Moreover, production team to ensure that trains are punctual,
comfortable and function efficiently.

TEXAS 164/208
ASSISTANCE FOR DISABLED
`
Reception point specifically for Specially trained teams to assist people with all kinds of
those with disabilities at the disabilities.
entrance of the station
WAITING AREAS WITH WI-FI ACCESS

Waiting areas have to be tailored to the amount of time spent by travelers before their train
departure.
Moreover, today’s stations accommodate passenger, information, and also data flows. Wi-Fi
technology provides passengers and staff with the high bandwidth wireless access that they
have come to expect in stations.
LEFT LUGGAGE
LUGGAGE ASSISTANCE
LOST PROPERTY
RESTROOMS

TEXAS 165/208
RETAIL OUTLETS
All stations propose fast-food / takeout catering, souvenirs and bookstores. But other kinds of
stores (groceries, clothing and accessories, flowers, stationery, entertainment / leisure, etc.)
will be provided in individual stations depending on their size, traffic, location (big or
medium-sized city).
Bookstore Take-out catering
SERVICES DEDICATED TO HIGH CONTRIBUTION TRAVELERS
Moreover, services dedicated

to high contribution travelers
(frequent traveler lounges,
business centers, etc.) are
pivotal in adding value to the
customer, complementing the
travel experience with a vast
range of services (included in
the price of the ticket or not).
Many of these services (retail
outlets, business centers, etc.)
provide critical streams of
ancillary revenue.
Nevertheless, some of these
can only be proposed in major
stations.
Strasbourg Business Lounge

TEXAS 166/208
BUSINESS CENTER
In some stations, a business center close the station with offices, meeting rooms, practical
facilities (secretariat, meals, office equipment, etc.) can be placed at company disposal for a
specific duration.
Business Center in Paris Gare de Lyon station: outside and inside.

TEXAS 167/208
TEXAS 168/208
APPENDIX 6. Station facilities
II. Pax flow management


TEXAS 169/208
APPENDIX 7. Intermodal connections
For each individual HSR station, SNCF will work to optimize interconnection with all the
different transportation service operators. This will involve:
• Optimizing station layout to minimize walking distances

• Encouraging transit connectivity through coordinated scheduling and services
• Coordinating multimodal transit information
• Establishing agreements regarding management of downgraded situations
• Offering multimodal ticketing wherever possible
The matrix below lists some of the operators concerned for the different stations on the
proposed Texas HSL.

TEXAS 170/208
APPENDIX 8. Alignment Maps

TEXAS PAGE 172/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 173/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 174/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 175/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 176/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 177/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 178/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 179/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 180/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 181/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 182/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 183/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 184/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 185/ 208
TEXAS PAGE 186/ 208
APPENDIX 9. Alignment description
Texas Corridor – route – detailed description:
SNCF proposes to construct, operate and maintain an electric-powered steel-wheel-on-steel rail

HST system, about 350 miles long, capable of operating speeds of 220 miles per hour (mph) on
mostly dedicated, fully graded-separated tracks, with state-of-the-art safety, signaling and
automated train control systems.
The proposed route, about 300 miles, contains eight stations and connects San Antonio to Dallas
–Forth Worth metropolex, passing through San Antonio SAT Airport, Austin, Temple, Waco,
Dallas Union Station, Dallas Forth Worth DFW Airport, and terminating in Forth worth
Intermodal Transportation Center.
The proposed route begins in San Antonio Downtown at the Amtrak station near Alamodome
and follows the existing Rail Corridor (SFRC) track north paralleling the Highway 281 corridor
to San Antonio SAT Airport
The alignment then parallels an existing railroad corridor north-East through New Braunfels.
Near Kyle, the line comes close to the west boundary of the I-35 to come trough this City. It then
follows an existing railroad corridor to Austin where a new station will be built close to the
Amtrak existing station. The alignment through Austin Downtown will be constructed with lot of
structure as tunnel, cut and cover and aerial avoiding at the best extend possible to badly impact
the neighbouring area. From Austin Station the alignment will joint Mopac Express Way at
Windsor road and parallels the highway up to its connection to Highway 183.
The alignment will then follows an existing railroad ROW to joint I 35 corridor that it will
parallels up to Temple county boundary north of the Town of Jarrell. At this point the alignment
will turn towards East to come through Temple urban area by paralleling an existing railroad
inside the limits of the HK Dodgen Loop.
The line then parallels the common I35 and railroad corridor up to Lorena and then will deviate
west to follow the railroad corridor through Waco. The station could be located between Jackson
and Mary avenue in an area between South 8th Street and South 13th street.
The alignment then continues along the existing railroad corridor up to the Town of Hillsboro
that it will bypass on that east side to joint the I35E corridor up to Waxahachie that it will also
bypass on that east side.
North of Waxahachie the alignment will joint the existing railroad corridor to enter Dallas urban
area and will come through Dallas Union Station, then Dallas-Forth Worth DFW airport where a
loop will serve the airport station while direct train will go straight to Forth Worth Intermodal
Center.

TEXAS PAGE 186/208
Easter alignment characteristics:
(+) This route directly serves the main urban area market; therefore it is the
preferred route from a political point of view and has a high ridership potential.
(-) This route goes through dense urban areas following the existing railroad routes which are
complicated and congested with mixed freight and passenger service traffic.
To permit high speed and dedicated operation, the alignment shall be provided with a totally
grade-separated system and will require an upgrade of the freight railroad infrastructure,
particularly in urban areas.
Alternative alignment – San Antonio way out:
Coming out from San Antonio along I280 corridor could prove to be difficult on the urban area
insertion point of view. So an alternative route was designed following existing railroad
alignment and then the I35 corridor
(+) This alternative alignment may be a little easy to insert in the urban neighbouring but is not
serving San Antonion SAT Airport which is commercially an important disavantage.
(+) This alternative alignment has similar length and cost than the Eastern alignment.
Alternative alignment – Eastern Bypass of Austin Downtown:
From San Marcos it is possible to turn the alignment towards east in order to bypass Austin
Downtown on that east side with possibility to serve Austin Bergstrom Airport.
(+) Urban areas are avoided as this alternative alignment is an inland alignment.
(-) This alternative alignment is slightly longer than the Eastern alignment
(-) Austin Station will be located or approximately 5 miles East of Downtown in proximity of
Ed Bluestein Boulevard and E Martin Lutter King Jr Boulevard or in Austin Bergstrom airport.
Alternative alignment – Eastern Bypass of Waco Downtown:
From the connection of I35 and South Loop 340 it is possible to turn the alignment towards east
in order to bypass Waco Downtown on that east side in an area with lighter housing.
(+) Urban areas are avoided as this alternative alignment is an inland alignment.
(-) This alternative alignment is slightly longer than the Eastern alignment (about 2 km).
(-) Waco Station could be located approximately 1,5 miles East of Downtown in proximity of
La Salle Avenue and South University parks Drive.

TEXAS PAGE 187/208
APPENDIX 10. Suggestions for the design and inside
fittings of HSR
Principles
It is proposed that trainset design be based on the Technical Specifications for Interoperability
(TSI) for High-Speed Rolling Stock, which set out:
the essential requirements in relation to safety, reliability, health and environmental protection.
the rolling stock functional specifications, for example mechanical characteristics, vehicle gauge,
dynamic behavior, traction and braking performance, safety and detection systems, passenger
information and comfort, man-machine interfaces.
the methods for assessing vehicle compliance.
The following link is to the UK Ministry of Transport website and provides fuller details about
the TSI:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/interoperabilityandstandards/
SNCF recommendation
From experience, SNCF is able to make the following recommendations:
articulated trainsets with trucks positioned between the cars. With their long 9.84 foot wheelbase
and their 17 metric ton axle loads, the dynamics of these trucks are excellent, an assertion borne
out by the world record of 357 mph. By positioning the trucks between the cars, the center of
gravity of the train is lower but, more important, the train can form an articulated unit remarkable
for its dynamic behavior and stability, including in the unlikely event of a derailment. The design
of the system guarantees a high degree of safety.
(left) The train that broke

the world speed record on 3
April 2007 and (below) one
of its 9.84 foot wheelbase
trucks.

TEXAS PAGE 188/208
• Electronic and electrical equipment directly taken from that used on the most recent TGC
high-speed trainsets placed in service by SNCF to ensure high standards of availability and
contain maintenance costs right from the start.
In addition, the electrics proposed for the train allow for the possibility of regenerative
braking, which will further drive down energy consumption.
• The train design suggested is basically modular in design, with each vehicle consisting of a
number of different modules. The concept facilitates maintenance and enables standard
maintenance techniques to be used for each module, for greater reliability and more
affordable maintenance costs.
Over 30 years of operation, passenger

requirements are bound to change. The
mechanical structures of the cars will
therefore be designed to allow for
adaptations to the inside fittings, for
example, new seat layout patterns.
Every year, SNCF completely refurbishes

over a dozen trains in its worksheds.
Inside fittings and amenities on board

The inside fittings of the train will depend on the findings of market research. Different areas
with different standards of comfort, each offering services tailored to different categories of
passenger may be provided.
SNCF has built up substantial experience in both new vehicle design and vehicle refurbishment.
The following illustrations give some idea of potential HST inside arrangements:
"Leisure" cars
These cars are designed for price-conscious passengers traveling for private or leisure purposes.
Their offer Wifi acces facilities or electric plugs.
The seating arrangements include blocks of seats for couples, groups, etc.
TEXAS PAGE 189/208
"Comfort" cars
These cars are designed for passengers traveling for private or leisure purposes but who
appreciate value for money. The seat layout offers more space than in the "leisure" cars.
"Business" cars
These cars are designed for passengers traveling on business, who are looking for a quality
service. The focus is on creating a working environment, not only via surfaces for their portable
PC, USB sockets and WiFi coverage but via special meeting compartments.
Buffet car
Trains may include a bar car selling refreshments for on

the spot or at-seat consumption.

TEXAS PAGE 190/208
HST performance on SNCF – some figures
Fleet of TGV high-speed trains in operation

SNCF has 462 high-speed TGV trainsets in operation
415 on domestic routes over the five French HS lines
44 on European routes with 6 other countries (UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany,
Switzerland, Italy)
Distances covered
Since the opening of the first high-speed line

between Paris and Lyons in 1981, the 415 TGV
on French domestic routes have clocked up a
total of 1.6 billion miles, which is an annual
average of 250,000 miles per trainset.
The most recent models cover more than

305,000 miles per year
Some TGV high-speed trains can travel up to

nearly 2,000 miles per day.
Fleet availability
To cater to weekend traffic peaks, train maintenance operations are scheduled to take place
between midday on Mondays and Thursday evening and at night.
By timing maintenance in this way, approximately 80% of the fleet can be available in the week
(between Monday noon and Friday noon) and as much as 92% at weekends.
TGV maintenance centers are

designed to keep the time spent by
the trains in the sheds to a minimum.

TEXAS PAGE 191/208
APPENDIX 11. Ridership and Farebox revenues
Forcast
Ridership: in million of trips, both directions

Farebox: Millions of USD, 2008$, taxes included
Farebox
Years Ridership Revvenue
2018 3,265 $290
2019 6,628 $590
2020 8,971 $800
2021 10,244 $920
2022 11,555 $1,030
2023 11,729 $1,050
2024 11,906 $1,060
2025 12,086 $1,080
2026 12,268 $1,100
2027 12,454 $1,110
2028 12,642 $1,130
2029 12,833 $1,150
2030 13,026 $1,160
2031 13,223 $1,180
2032 13,423 $1,200
2033 13,625 $1,220
2034 13,831 $1,240
2035 14,040 $1,250
2036 14,252 $1,270
2037 14,467 $1,290
2038 14,686 $1,310
2039 14,908 $1,330
2040 15,133 $1,350
2041 15,133 $1,350
2042 15,133 $1,350
2043 15,133 $1,350
2044 15,133 $1,350
2045 15,133 $1,350
2046 15,133 $1,350
2047 15,133 $1,350
2048 15,133 $1,350
2049 15,133 $1,350

TEXAS PAGE 192/208
APPENDIX 12. Overall financials
Global Financial Approach
Year (e-o-p) 31/12/10 31/12/11 31/12/12 31/12/13 31/12/14 31/12/15 31/12/16 31/12/17 31/12/18 31/12/19 31/12/20
Revenues 70 189 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 335 697 967

Operating Costs 6 126 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 108 109
Maintenance Costs 6 368 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 118 119
EBITDA 57 695 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 471 739
Infrastructure depreciation 7 619 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 231 231
Rolling Stock depreciation 1 668 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44
EBIT 48 408 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -164 196 464
Capital costs for Infrastructures 14 594 MUSD 6 13 33 500 3 336 5 299 4 416 992 0 0 0
Capital costs Rolling Stock 1 659 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 322 0 0 0
Year (e-o-p) 31/12/10 31/12/11 31/12/12 31/12/13 31/12/14 31/12/15 31/12/16 31/12/17 31/12/18 31/12/19 31/12/20
Revenues 70 189 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 335 697 967

Operating Costs 6 126 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 108 109
Maintenance Costs 6 368 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 117 118 119
EBITDA 57 695 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 471 739
Infrastructure depreciation 7 619 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 231 231
Rolling Stock depreciation 1 668 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 44
EBIT 48 408 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -164 196 464
Capital costs for Infrastructures 14 594 MUSD 6 13 33 500 3 336 5 299 4 416 992 0 0 0
Capital costs Rolling Stock 1 659 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 322 0 0 0

TEXAS PAGE 193/208
Year (e-o-p) 31/12/31 31/12/32 31/12/33 31/12/34 31/12/35 31/12/36 31/12/37 31/12/38 31/12/39 31/12/40
Revenues 70 189 MUSD 1 870 1 945 2 024 2 106 2 191 2 280 2 372 2 468 2 568 2 672
Operating Costs 6 126 MUSD 187 189 191 193 195 197 200 202 204 207
Maintenance Costs 6 368 MUSD 193 195 198 200 202 204 207 209 211 214
EBITDA 57 695 MUSD 1 490 1 561 1 636 1 713 1 794 1 878 1 966 2 058 2 153 2 252
Infrastructure depreciation 7 619 MUSD 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231
Rolling Stock depreciation 1 668 MUSD 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52
EBIT 48 408 MUSD 1 207 1 278 1 352 1 430 1 511 1 595 1 683 1 774 1 870 1 969
Capital costs for Infrastructures 14 594 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital costs Rolling Stock 1 659 MUSD 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year (e-o-p) 31/12/41 31/12/42 31/12/43 31/12/44 31/12/45 31/12/46 31/12/47 31/12/48 31/12/49 31/12/50
Revenues 70 189 MUSD 2 739 2 808 2 878 2 950 3 023 3 099 3 177 3 256 3 337 3 421
Operating Costs 6 126 MUSD 209 211 213 215 217 219 221 223 225 227
Maintenance Costs 6 368 MUSD 216 218 220 222 224 226 228 231 233 235
EBITDA 57 695 MUSD 2 315 2 379 2 445 2 513 2 583 2 654 2 727 2 802 2 879 2 958
Infrastructure depreciation 7 619 MUSD 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 231
Rolling Stock depreciation 1 668 MUSD 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
EBIT 48 408 MUSD 2 029 2 093 2 159 2 227 2 296 2 368 2 441 2 516 2 593 2 672
Capital costs for Infrastructures 14 594 MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital costs Rolling Stock 1 659 MUSD 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TEXAS PAGE 194/208
APPENDIX 13. SPC P&L and Cash Flow statement
SPC P&L statement
SPC P&L Statement
Year (e-o-p) 31/12/17 31/12/18 31/12/19 31/12/20 31/12/21 31/12/22 31/12/23 31/12/24 31/12/25 31/12/26 31/12/27 31/12/28 31/12/29 31/12/30
+ Operating revenues 70 189 MUSD 0 335 697 967 1 132 1 308 1 361 1 416 1 474 1 533 1 595 1 660 1 727 1 797
- Opex 12 494 MUSD 0 224 226 228 282 319 327 335 333 341 350 358 367 375
- Contributory Capacity 51 926 MUSD 0 83 353 554 637 742 776 811 1 015 1 061 1 109 1 159 1 211 1 265
= EBITDA 5 769 MUSD 0 28 118 185 212 247 259 270 125 131 137 143 150 156
- Economic depreciation 1 668 MUSD 0 44 44 44 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
= EBIT 4 101 MUSD 0 -16 74 141 167 201 213 225 80 85 91 97 104 111
- Interests & Fees 845 MUSD 32 63 63 63 65 62 57 53 49 44 40 36 31 27
= Net Profit before Tax 3 256 MUSD -32 -80 10 77 102 140 155 171 31 41 51 62 73 84
- Corporate Tax 984 MUSD 0 0 0 0 31 42 47 51 9 12 15 19 22 25
= Net Profit 2 272 MUSD -32 -80 10 77 71 98 109 120 22 29 36 43 51 59
SPC P&L Statement
Year (e-o-p) 31/12/31 31/12/32 31/12/33 31/12/34 31/12/35 31/12/36 31/12/37 31/12/38 31/12/39 31/12/40 31/12/41 31/12/42 31/12/43 31/12/44
+ Operating revenues 70 189 MUSD 1 870 1 945 2 024 2 106 2 191 2 280 2 372 2 468 2 568 2 672 2 739 2 808 2 878 2 950
- Opex 12 494 MUSD 380 384 388 393 397 402 406 411 416 420 424 428 432 437
- Contributory Capacity 51 926 MUSD 1 326 1 390 1 456 1 525 1 597 1 739 1 821 1 905 1 994 2 085 2 144 2 203 2 264 2 327
= EBITDA 5 769 MUSD 164 172 180 188 197 139 145 152 159 167 171 176 181 186
- Economic depreciation 1 668 MUSD 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 55 55 55 55
= EBIT 4 101 MUSD 111 119 127 136 145 87 93 100 107 114 116 121 126 131
- Interests & Fees 845 MUSD 27 28 23 18 13 8 7 6 6 5 4 4 3 3
= Net Profit before Tax 3 256 MUSD 84 92 104 118 132 79 86 93 101 109 112 117 122 128
- Corporate Tax 984 MUSD 25 28 31 35 40 24 26 28 30 33 33 35 37 38
= Net Profit 2 272 MUSD 59 64 73 83 92 55 60 65 71 76 78 82 86 90

TEXAS PAGE 195/208
SPC P&L Statement
Year (e-o-p) 31/12/45 31/12/46 31/12/47 31/12/48 31/12/49 31/12/50
+ Operating revenues 70 189 MUSD 3 023 3 099 3 177 3 256 3 337 3 421
- Opex 12 494 MUSD 441 445 449 454 458 462
- Contributory Capacity 51 926 MUSD 2 392 2 458 2 525 2 595 2 666 2 739
= EBITDA 5 769 MUSD 191 196 202 207 213 219
- Economic depreciation 1 668 MUSD 55 55 55 55 55 55
= EBIT 4 101 MUSD 136 141 146 152 158 164
- Interests & Fees 845 MUSD 2 1 1 0 0 0
= Net Profit before Tax 3 256 MUSD 134 140 146 152 158 164
- Corporate Tax 984 MUSD 40 42 44 46 47 49
= Net Profit 2 272 MUSD 94 98 102 106 110 115

TEXAS PAGE 196/208
SPC Cash flow statement
SPC Cash-Flow Statement
Year (e-o-p) 31/12/17 31/12/18 31/12/19 31/12/20 31/12/21 31/12/22 31/12/23 31/12/24 31/12/25 31/12/26 31/12/27 31/12/28 31/12/29 31/12/30
Cash Flow - Start of Period MUSD 0 8 3 57 178 177 153 125 98 70 43 15 0 0
- Capital Expenditures (Initial Costs & Renewals) MUSD 1 322 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

+ EBITDA MUSD 0 28 118 185 212 247 259 270 125 131 137 143 150 156
-Variation in Working Capital Need MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- Corporate Tax MUSD 0 0 0 0 31 42 47 51 9 12 15 19 22 25
Sub total MUSD -1 322 28 118 185 130 205 212 219 116 119 122 125 128 131
Cash Flow available before Funding MUSD -1 322 36 120 242 308 383 365 344 214 189 165 140 128 131
+ Equity Injection MUSD 304 30 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

+ Inv. Public Subsidies MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+ Drawings MUSD 1 057 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub total MUSD 1 362 30 0 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cash Flow available before Debt Service MUSD 40 66 120 242 360 383 365 344 214 189 165 140 128 131
- Loan Interests & Fees 845 MUSD 32 63 63 63 65 62 57 53 49 44 40 36 31 27

- Debt Repayment 1259 MUSD 0 0 0 0 70 70 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73
Sub Total Debt Service MUSD 32 63 63 63 135 132 131 126 122 118 113 109 104 100
Cash flow available before Dividends MUSD 8 3 57 178 225 251 234 218 92 72 51 31 23 31
- Dividends 2 272 MUSD 0 0 0 0 47 98 109 120 22 29 36 31 23 31
Cash Flow - End of Period MUSD 8 3 57 178 177 153 125 98 70 43 15 0 0 0

TEXAS PAGE 197/208
Year (e-o-p) 31/12/31 31/12/32 31/12/33 31/12/34 31/12/35 31/12/36 31/12/37 31/12/38 31/12/39 31/12/40 31/12/41 31/12/42 31/12/43 31/12/44
Cash Flow - Start of Period MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 49
- Capital Expenditures (Initial Costs & Renewals) MUSD 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0

+ EBITDA MUSD 164 172 180 188 197 139 145 152 159 167 171 176 181 186
-Variation in Working Capital Need MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- Corporate Tax MUSD 25 28 31 35 40 24 26 28 30 33 33 35 37 38
Sub total MUSD -61 144 149 153 158 115 120 124 129 134 52 141 144 148
Cash Flow available before Funding MUSD -61 144 149 153 158 115 120 124 129 134 53 141 148 196
+ Equity Injection MUSD 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

+ Inv. Public Subsidies MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
+ Drawings MUSD 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub total MUSD 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cash Flow available before Debt Service MUSD 139 144 149 153 158 115 120 124 129 134 53 141 148 196
- Loan Interests & Fees 845 MUSD 27 28 23 18 13 8 7 6 6 5 4 4 3 3

- Debt Repayment 1259 MUSD 73 73 84 84 84 13 13 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
Sub Total Debt Service MUSD 100 101 107 102 97 21 21 17 16 16 15 15 14 13
Cash flow available before Dividends MUSD 38 43 42 51 61 94 99 107 113 118 38 126 135 183
- Dividends 2 272 MUSD 38 43 42 51 61 94 99 107 113 118 38 122 86 90
Cash Flow - End of Period MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 49 93

TEXAS PAGE 198/208
Year (e-o-p) 31/12/45 31/12/46 31/12/47 31/12/48 31/12/49 31/12/50
Cash Flow - Start of Period MUSD 93 138 183 227 283 338
- Capital Expenditures (Initial Costs & Renewals) MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0

+ EBITDA MUSD 191 196 202 207 213 219
-Variation in Working Capital Need MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0
- Corporate Tax MUSD 40 42 44 46 47 49
Sub total MUSD 151 154 158 162 166 170
Cash Flow available before Funding MUSD 244 293 341 389 448 508
+ Equity Injection MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0

+ Inv. Public Subsidies MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0
+ Drawings MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sub total MUSD 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cash Flow available before Debt Service MUSD 244 293 341 389 448 508
- Loan Interests & Fees 845 MUSD 2 1 1 0 0 0

- Debt Repayment 1259 MUSD 11 11 11 0 0 0
Sub Total Debt Service MUSD 13 12 11 0 0 0
Cash flow available before Dividends MUSD 232 281 330 389 448 508
- Dividends 2 272 MUSD 94 98 102 106 110 115
Cash Flow - End of Period MUSD 138 183 227 283 338 393

TEXAS PAGE 199/208
Appendix 14 - RFEI 2009 - Reference List
Date Topic Author Title
For Amtrak by Cambridge

High-Speed Rail: A National Perspective - High-Speed Rail Experience in the United
Dec-08 General Information Systematics and SYSTRA
States
Consulting
Jan-09 General Information 111th Congress of the United States American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
U.S. Government Accountability High-Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development will Depend on Addressing
Mar-09 General Information
Office Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role
Mar-09 General Information Amtrak Northeast Corridor State of Good Repair Spend Plan
Jan-09 General Information 110th Congress of the United States Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA)
Apr-09 General Information SYSTRA Consulting U.S. High-Speed Rail Briefing
Apr-09 Corridor-California California High-Speed Rail Authority California High-Speed Train Program Update
California High-Speed Rail Corridor Fact Sheet (Taken from High-Speed Rail: A
Dec-08 Corridor-California Systematics and SYSTRA
National Perspective - High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States)
Consulting
Feb-09 Corridor-California SYSTRA Consulting CA HSR: A Case Study
Feb-08 to Mar-09 Corridor-California California High-Speed Rail Authority CAHSRA Board Meeting Minutes
- Corridor-California Cambridge Systematics Benefit-Cost Analysis
2008 Corridor-California Cambridge Systematics Technical Documentation of Benefit-Cost Analysis for the 2008 Business Plan
San Francisco and Business Plan 2008 — Engineering Elements, System Description, Project Delivery,
2008 California High-Speed Rail Authority
Merced to Anaheim and Capital and O&M Costs
San Francisco to
Oct-08 Infrastructure Management Group Financial Plan
Anaheim
- Corridor-California California High-Speed Rail Authority High Speed Train Systems
SNCF, Sept 14th, 2009

TEXAS Confidential and proprietary - Do not disclose outside Government 200 / 208
PB, Cambridge Systematics and

- Corridor-California Ridership and Revenue Forecasts
SYSTRA
California High-Speed Rail Authority
- Corridor-California Route Selection Criteria
(CAHSRA)
- Corridor-California CAHSRA Total Transportation Approach
Nov-08 Corridor-California CAHSRA Business Plan
- Corridor-California CAHSRA Environmental Protection Summary
- Corridor-California CAHSRA Financing California's High Speed Train System
- Corridor-California CAHSRA Construction and Permanent Jobs Summary
- Corridor-California CAHSRA Route Maps
- Corridor-California Various News Articles
Jan-04 Corridor-California CAHSRA Capital, Operations, and Maintenance Costs
Center for Global Metropolitan
Jul-08 Corridor-California Transit Oriented Development
Studies
Bay Area to Central Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS)
May-08 CAHSRA
Valley Volume 1
May-08 CAHSRA
Valley Volume 2
May-08 CAHSRA
Valley Volume 3
Jun-08 CAHSRA
Valley Staff Report
Feb-09 Corridor-California CAHSRA Project -Level Environmental Analysis Methodologies
The Use Of Renewable Energy Sources To Provide Power to California's High Speed
Sep-08 Corridor-California Navigant Consulting
Rail
May-05 Corridor-California Cambridge Systematics, SYSTRA Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study

May-08 Corridor-California FlyCalifornia Station Development Policies
Dec-05 Corridor-California Cambridge Systematics HSR Survey Documentation
STV for Florida Department of

Jun-00 Corridor-Florida Cross-State Rail Feasibility Study Executive Summary
Transportation (FDOT)
Florida Department of Transportation
Dec-09 Corridor-Florida District One Rail Traffic Evaluation Study Workshop
(FDOT)
Florida High-Speed Rail Authority
Jan-09 Corridor-Florida FHSRA Annual Report
(FHSRA)
Feb-09 Corridor-Florida FHSRA Board Meeting at Greater Orlando Aviation Authority- Agenda
(FHSRA)
Feb-09 Corridor-Florida SYSTRA Consulting FHSRA Board Meeting at Greater Orlando Aviation Authority- Meeting Notes
Florida High-Speed Rail Corridor Fact Sheet (Taken from High-Speed Rail: A
Dec-09 Corridor-Florida Systematics and SYSTRA
Consulting
- Corridor-Florida History of High-Speed Rail in Florida - Chronology of Events
Feb-09 Corridor-Florida Governor support for the Florida High-Speed Rail Authority
(FHSRA)
May-09 Corridor-Florida FRA, USDOT, FHSRA FEIS - Tampa to Orlando
Center For Urban Transportation Report from Peer Panel to the Florida High Speed Rail Authority - Orlando to Tampa
Jan-09 Corridor-Florida
Research Travel Demand Forecasts
Jan-09 Corridor-Florida 2006 Report to the Governor and the Legislature
(FHSRA)
Jan-09 Corridor-Florida unknown Florida Rail Network Map
Apr-09 Corridor-Florida unknown Florida High Speed Rail Authority Workshop
Apr-09 Corridor-Florida Florida High-Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA) Meeting Minutes
(FHSRA)

Seaboard System Railroad

- Corridor-Florida Track Charts - Seaboard System Railroad
(predecessor to CSX)
Aug-03 Corridor-Florida Fluor-Bombardier Fluor Bombardier Letter

South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor Fact Sheet (Taken from High-Speed Rail: A
Dec-08 Corridor-South Central Systematics and SYSTRA
Consulting
- Corridor-South Central Union Pacific Track Charts - Union Pacific Railroad
1998 Corridor-South Central BNSF Railway Track Charts -BNSF Railway Fort Worth Subdivision
1992-1993 Corridor-South Central Nick Brand Texas TGV System Description
Texas High Speed Rail and
2008 Corridor-South Central Texas T-Bone High Speed Rail Corridor Map
Transportation Corporation
Transportation Economics &

Jun-04 Corridor-Chicago Hub Management Systems, Inc and Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook
HNTB
Jun-04 Corridor-Chicago Hub Management Systems, Inc and Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Appendices
HNTB
Midwest High-Speed Rail
Association, Illinois AFL & CIO, Five-Year Passenger Train Development Plan for Illinois- Supplemental Information
- Corridor-Chicago Hub
Environmental Law and Policy and Budgeted Projects
Center
Nov-06 Corridor-Chicago Hub Management Systems, Inc and Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Benefit Cost & Economic Analysis
HNTB
Amtrak by Cambridge Systematics Chicago Hub High-Speed Rail Corridor Fact Sheet (Taken from High-Speed Rail: A
Dec-08 Corridor-Chicago Hub
and SYSTRA Consulting National Perspective - High-Speed Rail Experience in the United States)
Apr-07 Corridor-Chicago Hub Chicago Area Transportation Study Chicago Area Rail System Transportation Facts (1976-2006)
Surface Transportation Board - Purpose and Need for Canadian National Railway Company and Grand Trunk
Apr-08 Corridor-Chicago Hub
Section of Environmental Analysis Corporation to acquire control of EJ&E West Company


Sep-04 Corridor-Chicago Hub Management Systems, Inc and Midwest Regional Rail System Executive Report
HNTB
- Corridor-Chicago Hub Federal Railroad Administration Chicago Hub Network Fact Sheet
Michigan Department of
- Corridor-Chicago Hub MDOT-MWRRI Regional Rail System Brochure
Transportation (MDOT)
Midwest High-Speed Rail
Mar-09 Corridor-Chicago Hub 2009 Annual Meeting Agenda
Association
Mar-09 Corridor-Chicago Hub SYSTRA Consulting Midwest High-Speed Rail Golden Spike Seminar - Notes
Midwest High-Speed Rail Golden Spike Seminar and Midwest High-Speed Rail
Mar-09 Corridor-Chicago Hub SYSTRA Consulting
Annual Meeting - Notes
Wisconsin Department of Report for Return of Passenger Rail Service between Milwaukee and Madison,
Jun-01 Corridor-Chicago Hub
Transportation Wisconsin
United States DOT, FRA, Wisconsin Milwaukee-Madison Passenger Rail Corridor Study- Finding of No Significant Impact
Aug-04 Corridor-Chicago Hub
DOT, Amtrak (FONSI)
Midwest Regional Rail Initiative
Apr-07 Corridor-Chicago Hub Midwestern Legislative Conference Annual Meeting (2007)
(MWRRI)
Dec-05 Corridor-Chicago Hub Status Report
(MWRRI)
- Corridor-Chicago Hub MWRRI Phase I EIS and Rail Corridor Transportation Plan
(MWRRI)
- Corridor-Chicago Hub MWRRI Fee Estimate of Phase I EIS and Rail Corridor Transportation Plan
(MWRRI)
2009 Chicago Bypass NPR Article Plan to Unsnarl Chicago Rail Hits Snags in Suburbs
2008 Chicago Bypass CREATE Website CREATE Project Overview and map
2005 Downtown Chicago Illinois DOT, Chicago DOT CREATE Feasibility Study
Jul-05 Downtown Chicago Illinois DOT, Chicago DOT CREATE Feasibility Study
2003 Downtown Chicago Illinois DOT, Chicago DOT CREATE projects
FY 2008 Illinois and Chicago Amtrak Illinois Fact Sheet
Varies Chicago Area Various Track charts
Mar-09 Downtown Chicago Illinois DOT, Chicago DOT CREATE Partners Work to Improve Rail in Chicagoland Area

Milwaukee Road (predecessor to

- Chicago-Milwaukee Track Charts - Milwaukee Road
Canadian National)
Jun-09 Chicago-St Louis TransSystems for MWRRI Chicago-St Louis High Speed Rail Study
Indiana Dot, Ohio Rail Development
Nov-09 Chicago-Toledo Commission, National Passenger Northern Indiana - Northwest Ohio Passenger Rail Routing Study
Rail Corporation
Florida High Speed Rail Project

Jan-03 Florida SYSTRA/ SNCF International
Documentation provided to Global Rail Consortium January 2003
Florida Overland Express /
Dec-98 Florida SYSTRA Operating Cost Analysis /
Final Report
Tri-Rail Corridor /
Jun-98 Florida SYSTRA
Optimization Of Typical Structures
Volume 1/2
Jun-98 Florida SYSTRA Railroad Bridge Training Program /
Volume 2/2
Jun-98 Florida SYSTRA Tri-Rail Corridor /
Optimization Of Longitudinal Profile
Tri-Rail Corridor /
Jun-98 Florida SYSTRA
Optimization Of Longitudinal Profile
Report Final
Jan-98 Florida SYSTRA Operations And Maintenance Support /
Traffic Analysis And Operations Plan Definition


Operations And Maintenance Support /
Jul-98 Florida SYSTRA
Traffic Analysis And Operations Plan Definition /
Optimization
Mar-98 Florida SYSTRA Ridership And Revenue Study /
Final Report
Apr-98 Florida SYSTRA/KPMG PEAT MARWICK Ridership Study. Florida High Speed Rail Project. Executive Summary Report.
May-98 Florida SYSTRA Assistance A GEC Alsthom /
Etude De Surete De Fonctionnement Du Systeme D'Alimentation
Florida High Speed Rail Project /
GEC (Geotechnical And
Aug-97 Florida Preliminary Phase /
Environmental Consultants)
Geotechnical Review Of Alternative Alignments /
First Draft /
Oct-97 Florida SYSTRA
Response To Fra Questions, Priority 3
Nov-97 Florida SYSTRA Contract N° 97-E-010 /
Engineering And Route Alignment Support, Task 2
Jul-97 Florida SYSTRA Contract N° 97-E-010 /
Technical Visit June 17 To 25, 1997
Jun-97 Florida SYSTRA Contract N° 97-E-010 /
Preliminary Phase - Engineering And Route Alignment Support Review 1
Florida High Speed Transportation System /
BOMBARDIER / GEC ALSTHOM / Proposal Presented To: Florida Department Of Transportation - High Speed
Oct-95 Florida FLUOR DANIEL / ODEBRECHT Transportation Program /
CONTRACTORS OF FLORIDA Florida Overland Express /
Volume 1


Volume 2
Executive summary and video
Aug-95 Florida SYSTRA Maintenance Of Rolling Stock /
Catenary And Train Control System
Independent Ridership And Passenger Revenue Projections For The Texas TGV
Sep-93 Texas SOFRERAIL
Corporation High Speed Rail System In Texas
Texas High-Speed Rail Authority /
Morrison Knudsen Corporation /
Texas TGV /
Austin Industries / GEC Alsthom /
Jan-91 Texas Volume 1 /
Bombardier Corporation / Rail
Franchise Application to Construct, Operate, Maintain and Finance a High-Speed Rail
Transportation Systems
Facility
Texas TGV /
Facility
Texas TGV /
Facility


Texas TGV /
Jan-91 Texas Volume 4 Appendix /
Facility
Texas High Speed Rail & Transportation Corp. /
Texas High Speed Rail &
May-07 Texas Planning And Design Charrette /
Transportation Corp.
Phase 1

Reconcilling mobility and urbanity
Challenges in modern station development
New mobility
Modeled and shaped by movement, urban space has, for a cen-

tury, been constantly transformed by the successive effects of
the advent of motor vehicles thanks to the industrial revolution,
the networks created by the different modes of transportation
ANDÏMOREÏRECENTLYÏTHEÏEMERGENCEÏOFÏMOBILEÏCITIZENSÏREmECTINGÏ
a modern form of nomadic lifestyle.
Today, individuals are keen to experience mobility in a time

continuum rather than through a succession of isolated moments
separated by sequences of movement that are little more than
tunnels or black holes. Movement now forms an integral part of
their lives and they want to be able to take full advantage of the
time spent traveling from one place to another. The evidence is
all around us: people work on their computers on the train and
AREÏPERMANENTLYÏCONNECTEDÏTOÏTHEIRÏOFlCESÏHOMESÏANDÏFAMILIESÏ
through the portable tools they carry with them.
Thus, modern urban and transportation design has to accom-

pany people, and simplify their movement through the city.
Given that virtual reality is of ever-greater importance in our
day-to-day lives, the aim has to be to facilitate movement by
providing sensations and encounters that belong to the real
rather than the virtual world. Providing reference points, indica-
ting the routes to be taken, introducing daylight right down into
the depths of the earth, creating environments able to coexist
with their natural settings, these and other elements have to
form the basis of the conceptual design work conducted in
regard to public spaces.
Ho-Chi-Minh City Malang Housing (Vietnam)
Wuhan station (China)
2
The dialectic of movement
There is an urgent need to reorganize the city inherited from the

20th century with its juxtaposed and layered transport networks
which, over the years, have become increasingly segmented,
fragmented and confused. This will be achieved by a dialectic
approach between movement and non-movement, between
speed and slowness, between the crowd and the individual.
The ordinary citizen will be able to explore on foot the city
celebrated by the great poets and thinkers of the 20th century.
These pedestrians who are returning in force with their back-
packs, cell phones and mobility accessories are today’s multi-
modal citizens.
Paris St Denis station (France)
Stations have, as a logical consequence, become hubs where
pedestrians can change straight from one mode of transporta-
tion to another. However, pedestrians - and not only daydrea-
ming children or senior citizens - are highly vulnerable in the
city environment. A new distribution of public space - in par-
ticular, one where private car movements are restricted - has
now become an essential element in the design and develop-
ment of modern cities.
4HEÏ NEWÏ SPATIALÏ DElNITIONÏ NOWÏ EMERGINGÏ ISÏ ACCOMPANIEDÏ BYÏ

the return of other forms of transportation, which had fallen
into disuse over the last half century. Trams are again being
developed or renovated in many places. In France alone, the
number of tramway lines in operation, construction or planning
rose from three in 1987 to 47 in 2009 ! The reason is easily
understandable: trams are the transportation mode closest to
Montpellier station restructuring (France)
the pedestrian, similar to a moving walkway. The city is rein-
venting slowness, providing a mode of transportation that is
AGREEABLEÏTOÏUSEÏEFlCIENTÏANDÏHEALTHY
Angers St Laud station restructuring (France)
3
The multi-modal citizen
This trend towards a new form of journey comfort, although All this has led to a new mix of types and functions, challenging
OCCASIONALLYÏDETRIMENTALÏTOÏSPEEDÏISÏNOTÏJUSTÏSPECIlCÏTOÏPUBLICÏ the principles of functional separation and spatial specializa-
and urban transportation but much more general. While the tion. People do their shopping in the streets and expressions
decommissioning of the ocean liner France took place in the LIKEÏ h)Ï WANTÏ TOÏ lNDÏ EVERYTHINGÏ )Ï NEEDÏ ALONGÏ MYÏ WAYvÏ ORÏ h-YÏ
same year as the launch of Concorde (1974), the demise of the OFlCEÏISÏEVERYWHEREvÏEXPLAINÏTHEÏMODERNÏMULTI MODALÏCITIZENÏ
supersonic plane also coincided with the inauguration of one The same applies to the home, with multi-purpose rooms,
of the world’s largest cruise ships (2004). In just 30 years and semi-open spaces and furniture on wheels. Society and lifes-
at the end of a century of unbridled functionalism, concepts tyles have changed from a mono-functional organization to one
of comfort and enjoyment have returned. That the approaches WHEREÏNOÏPARTICULARÏSPACEÏHASÏAÏSPECIlCÏUSE
to Strasbourg station should again have been decked out in
green in time for the inauguration of the TGV East high-speed
rail service, as they used to be at the end of the 19th century,
is symptomatic of how the wheel of history turns.
Contemporary projects consist of reintroducing a sedentary

quality of life into a world on the move. Car manufacturers and
oil companies have understood the lesson, presenting cars as
homes and providing a corner shop at the gas station. While
suburban shopping malls try to hold on to their customers by
offering them a new imagined reality, town centers are coming
back to life by placing emphasis on a more laid-back lifes-
tyle and soft modes of transportation. In the city, shops want
nothing more than to be able to move out on to the street to
display their products and establish direct contact with poten-
tial customers. Similarly, nature is moving back into the city and
housing is taking over neglected areas. Touches of greenery are
slowly springing up in inner-city settings.
Paris Jean Jaures Avenue requalification (France) Strasburg station restructuring (France)
4
Towards new urban organizations
That said, the city of movement and the city in motion still It begins with railroad sites that formerly had a single use
REMAINÏ TOÏ BEÏ PHYSICALLYÏ DElNEDÏ 3.#&Ï WORKSÏ TOWARDSÏ LETTINGÏ and are now developing a new range of different activities.
people experience mobility in a way that will awaken their Following half a century of considerable separation between
senses and allow them to fully enjoy the spaces they move transportation networks and spatial zoning, the time has now
through. Movement and the time taken to go from one place to come to develop multi-activities and mixed uses. Activities
another must become a pleasure. People need to be able to live such as working, shopping, relaxing and traveling merge and
mobility, to feel equally at ease whether they are moving or not;
travel should be no more than an extension of their homes.
Therefore, the spaces structuring the city have to be reviewed

and re-interpreted with the help of a new overall vision of
mobility.
mingle and it is vitally important to organize and manage all

these functions and their relations to one another with the aim
to of simplifying the lives of the citizens concerned.
All this needs to be done in a way that does not create irrever-
sible situations. Consequently, the city of movement is develo-
ped using spatial systems and organizations which are able to
change and which can be reversed. It offers a new way of life
for those using the city as a spatio-temporal continuum, structu-
red by the visual reference points constituted by the city’s most
important places. In this vision of the city, transportation vectors
point towards centers of activity and transportation interchange
points, in the form of stations, are at the heart of urban life.
Nancy station area urban renewal (France)
The resulting city will be different from the

one that went before; new types of urban
ORGANIZATIONÏ WILLÏ DEVELOPÏ 3.#&SÏ AIMÏ ISÏ
to continue to participate in the re-inven-
tion of the modern city and accompany
new lifestyles by reconciling mobility and
urbanity.
Le Mans station restructuring (France)
5
Modern station design
Station design today follows and combines approaches from

various disciplines and is structured around at least three main
topics, with the challenge of sustainable development as their
common thread.
- The station and the city
ÏÏ)NTERMODALÏLAYOUTÏCAPACITYÏDEVELOPMENTÏANDÏPASSENGERÏmOWÏ
organization
- Station management, services, retail outlets and other acti-

vities
In major cities and conurbations, these themes are overlaid

Aix-en-Provence TGV station (France)
and completed by a general approach analyzing the coherence
of a given station project with the whole urban multi-modal
transportation network, in regard to general city transportation
planning and city development goals. This includes detailed
analysis of the current and future use of inner city railroad pre-
mises, technical facilities (maintenance, train storage etc) and
other railroad-related infrastructure.
Shanghai South station (China)
Avignon TGV station (France)
6
The station and the city
Stations have a major impact on their immediate environs, even Thus, any major station transformation or development project
ONÏ THEÏ ORGANIZATIONÏ OFÏ THEÏ CITYÏ ASÏ AÏ WHOLEÏ .OTÏ ONLYÏ DOÏ THEYÏ has to look at land use and urban organization well beyond the
GENERATEÏMAJORÏPEDESTRIANÏANDÏVEHICLEÏmOWSÏTHEYÏALSOÏCREATEÏ actual station property, through active collaboration among the
all kinds of business opportunities and often attract substantial station and city planners and perhaps even with private inves-
INVESTMENTÏ INÏ OFlCESÏ HOTELSÏ HOUSINGÏ ANDÏ INÏ PUBLICÏ FACILITIESÏ tors. Ideally, it is the station planner who will take the lead in
and services. The success of these operations depends largely THISÏAPPROACHÏMOSTÏOFTENÏTHROUGHÏSPECIlCÏCONTRACTSÏWITHÏTHEÏ
on the quality of the functional links and urban integration of city.
these different factors. Depending on the situation and the
opportunities, station projects can be the chance to change 1UITEÏNATURALLYÏINÏSUCHÏCOMPLEXÏPROJECTSÏ3.#&ÏTENDSÏTOÏPRO-
land use regulations in station areas or to modify and adapt mote or support architectural and urban development solutions
city master plans. FORÏTHEÏWHOLEÏAREAÏINCLUDINGÏOFlCEÏBUILDINGSÏHOTELSÏANDÏOTHERÏ
private and public facilities.
Marseille St Charles station Euromediterranee urban project (France) Seoul ICBD station and new city district (South Korea)
Bordeaux St Jean station restructuring and office development (France) Paris Austerlitz station restructuring and office development
(France)project (France)
7
The station and the city (2)
As stations have become magnets and even driving forces for 0ARTICULARÏ CHALLENGESÏ EXISTÏ WHEREÏ CLASSIlEDÏ HISTORICALÏ STATIONÏ
urban development, their visual impact, the monumental or buildings have to be adapted to new needs.
symbolic nature of their buildings, and their at times daring
ARCHITECTURALÏ DESIGNÏ HAVEÏ GROWNÏ INÏ IMPORTANCEÏ .OWADAYSÏ
mayors and politicians expect stations to be visual “ business
CARDSÏvÏANDÏJOINÏTHEÏRANKSÏOFÏTHEÏOUTSTANDINGÏBUILDINGSÏINÏTHEIRÏ
cities.
Wuhan station (China) Paris-Est station restructuring and commercial center (France)
Wuhan station (China)
Angers St Laud station restructuring (France) Strasburg station restructuring (France)
Torino Porta Susa station (Italy)
8
Intermodality
!LLÏ STATIONÏ PROJECTSÏ NEEDÏ TOÏ FOCUSÏ lRSTÏ ANDÏ FOREMOSTÏ ONÏ THEÏ It is also here where future capacity must be considered, given
optimization of the station as an intermodal transportation the major changes currently occurring in our attitude to the role
hub between trains on the one hand and urban transportation of the private car in society and the place of private cars in
modes such as subways, trams, buses, taxis, cars (rental and INNERÏCITYÏAREASÏ4HEREÏISÏNOÏDOUBTÏTHATÏINÏFUTUREÏCARÏTRAFlCÏINÏ
private), and bicycles on the other. the city center will be much more restricted than today and its
place will be taken over in part by various forms of public trans-
In fact, the station complex has to be seen as a pedestrian area portation. These will include car sharing and car hire solutions
linking all these modes in the fastest, safest and most conve- inspired by systems already in operation, for example the Ve’lib
nient way. Here again, it is important to look beyond property bicycle sharing scheme in Paris.
limits and adopt a holistic design approach to the whole func-
tional station perimeter.
It is at this stage of the design work where all issues relating

TOÏ PASSENGERÏ mOWSÏ TODAYÏ ANDÏ Ï YEARSÏ HENCE Ï HAVEÏ TOÏ BEÏ
addressed, allowing for all modes and for future infrastructure
plans, such as new local, regional or national (high speed) lines,
subway extensions, future tram lines etc.
Nantes station (France)
Le Mans station restructuring (France) Orleans station and commercial center (France)
Le Mans station restructuring (France)
9
Intermodality (2)
Many cities are suffering from the continuous expansion of

AUTOMOBILEÏ TRAFlCÏ !LTHOUGHÏ PERHAPSÏ UNPOPULARÏ TODAYÏ ITÏ HASÏ
to be admitted that there are numerous cases where no road
infrastructure improvements would ever be able to cope with
this increasingly intolerable situation. At a given moment, radi-
CALÏCARÏTRAFlCÏRESTRICTIONÏMEASURESÏWILLÏHAVEÏTOÏBEÏIMPLEMENTEDÏ
in inner city areas. It is important that city and local transpor-
tation planners should foresee this situation and allow for its
consequences without delay in all major urban development
work.
4HEREFOREÏ 3.#&Ï HASÏ DEVELOPEDÏ DIFFERENTÏ DESIGNÏ APPROACHESÏ

for the ongoing restructuring of major French intermodal hubs Paris North station restructuring (France)
aimed at boosting station capacity.
Lieusaint station (France)
10
Station layout
The organization and implementation of station services, and 2) Depending on security, access and fare control policies,
other commercial and non-commercial activities depend on some or all parts of the station may need to have some kind of
various factors, which have to be established by the client and access restricted areas, either now or in the future. The existing
explained to the station designer. ORÏPOTENTIALÏLIMITSÏBETWEENÏTHESEÏZONESÏCANÏSTRONGLYÏINmUENCEÏ
station design and service implementation (see the Eurostar
1) Depending on the business model, present and foreseeable, 4ERMINALÏINÏ0ARIS .ORTHÏSTATION
of station ownership (transportation operator, city, private,
MIXED Ï STATIONÏ lNANCINGÏ STATEÏ CITYÏ TRANSPORTATIONÏ OPERA- 3) The time spent by passengers in the station before train
tor, private, mixed) and station management (transportation DEPARTUREÏHASÏAÏSUBSTANTIALÏINmUENCEÏONÏTHEÏSTATIONSÏSIZEÏANDÏ
operator, private, mixed), one or several stakeholders may be its facilities, especially waiting areas. Ongoing developments
INVOLVEDÏOWNINGÏANDORÏlNANCINGÏANDORÏMANAGINGÏSOMEÏORÏALLÏ towards personalized real-time train information systems will
parts of the station. As a result, the service boundaries and in years to come enable passengers to be informed about real
commercial zoning are not necessarily the same in all cases, arrival and departure times at a distance, in advance. This will
as the different stakeholders may have different investment, have a major impact on station area planning.
management and cooperation constraints.
Paris North station restructuring (France)
11
Station layout (2)
4) Similar trends can be observed in ticketing, with the growing 5) Decentralized and personalized train schedule information in
use of automatic ticket vending machines, multi-operator tic- the station area will also create new passenger habits, with
kets (the same ticket can be used on different transportation a tendency for passengers to move around more extensively
modes, train+subway for example) and widespread Internet- DURINGÏTHEIRÏTIMEÏINÏTHEÏSTATIONÏ4HISÏFACTORÏISÏAÏFURTHERÏINmUENCEÏ
based ticket sales, including all sorts of electronic tickets. on the choice and layout of commercial services.
Again this will have a huge impact in the years to come on the
space that has to be earmarked in stations for physical ticket 6) The levels of psychological and physical comfort of station
SALESÏANDÏALSOÏONÏSTAFFÏBACK OFlCEÏFACILITIESÏ/NÏTHEÏOTHERÏHANDÏ clients (lighting and noise levels, heating, cooling, air qua-
the arrival of larger numbers of automatic vending machines of lity, maximum accepted density (persons per square meter) in
all kinds will call for a new approach to spatial planning in order NORMALÏ ANDÏ DOWNGRADEDÏ SITUATIONSÏ ETC Ï HAVEÏ TOÏ BEÏ lXEDÏ SOÏ
to achieve a consistent and understandable service offer. they can guide the station designer, not only for the station
building itself but also for the platform and other semi-protec-
ted areas.
Angers St Laud station restructuring (France) Marseille St Charles station (France)
Paris-Est station restructuring and commercial Paris BFM station (France)

center (France)
12
Station layout (3)
7) On a more technical level, the phasing of the construction 4HEREFOREÏ mEXIBILITYÏ ANDÏ ADAPTABILITYÏ AREÏ NEEDEDÏ ONÏ TWOÏ
process can be a major design factor in station transformation levels:
projects, as in most cases building work will take place while
maintaining normal station operations. - In project management methodology, during the design and
building process, as often new elements have to be integrated
These different factors will not necessarily all exist right at the into the project during these phases.
beginning of the project. Sometimes projects have to be phased
over several years, with some new service policies or other - In building design and layout, as the space will have to be
developments only being implemented much later in time. adapted in the future to new or changed uses.
Paris North station Eurostar Terminal (France) Mulhouse station renovation (France)
Paris Gare de Lyon station (France)
13
Station layout (4)
In addition, new construction standards are emerging for sus- /VERÏTHEÏYEARSÏ3.#&ÏHASÏDEVELOPEDÏAÏPARTICULARÏSTATIONÏDESIGNÏ
TAINABLEÏ ENERGY SUFlCIENTÏ BUILDINGSÏ ,%%$Ï 3"Ï 4//,3Ï ETC Ï METHODOLOGYÏ ANDÏ PRACTICESÏ ANDÏ SPECIlCÏ ARCHITECTURALÏ DESIGNÏ
(EREÏAGAINÏITÏISÏNECESSARYÏTOÏlXÏTHEÏCORRECTÏREFERENCEÏVALUESÏATÏ principles for sustainable structures, spaces, volumes and ver-
the beginning of the design process. TICALÏ mOWSÏ THATÏ ENABLEÏ ITÏ TOÏ ADDRESSÏ THESEÏ ISSUESÏ ANDÏ TOÏ lNDÏ
WORKABLEÏANDÏmEXIBLEÏSOLUTIONS
Paris-Est station restructuring and commercial center (France) Katowice station restructuring and commercial center (Poland)
Cheng Du Ren-He commercial center (China) Paris St Lazare station restructuring and commercial center (France)
Orleans station and commercial center (France) Toulouse Green Center shopping mall (France)
14
The development of the railway
infrastructure as a tool for long
term urban master planning
Over and above these general points on station development )NÏ FACTÏ 3.#&Ï BELIEVESÏ STRONGLYÏ THATÏ THEÏ FUTUREÏ HIGH DENSITYÏ
it is worth mentioning that today’s metropolitan city planning centers of the 21st century metropolis will be developed and
principles are also changing. In the face of new environmental structured around stations and transportation hubs at the inter-
challenges such as pollution control and limited energy resour- sections between railroads, subways, light rail and other public
ces and with the growing desire of citizens for more urban qua- transportation modes. Proposed new transportation links would
lity and better urban lifestyles, existing city master plans are be designed to facilitate the creation of such hubs. In addition,
being adapted and updated. some existing stations would have to be slightly moved in order
better to feed these new centers.
As an example, the current master plan of the Paris Ile-de-
France region is currently under review in preparation for the
CREATIONÏOFÏAÏh'REATERÏ0ARISvÏ'RANDÏ0ARIS ÏCITYÏAREAÏ4ENÏTEAMSÏ
were selected as part of an international competition, to make
PROPOSALSÏFORÏTHISÏDEVELOPMENTÏ3.#&SÏSUBSIDIARYÏ!2%0ÏWASÏ
one of the teams chosen for its particular concept of a new
metropolitan development strategy based on public transpor-
tation networks.
Dijon TGV station (France) Paris North – Paris East

stations complex (France)
Paris Créteil-Echat station and urban development (France) Bordeaux St Jean station restructuring and office development (France)
15
The development of the railway
infrastructure as a tool for long
term urban master planning (2)
.OTÏSURPRISINGLYÏMANYÏOFÏTHESEÏFUTUREÏSUB CENTERSÏWILLÏBEÏCLOSEÏ
to unused or under-used railroad land. The new urban develo-
pment strategy will therefore incorporate the rail mode as a
major partner, not only as a leading public transportation player
but also by giving it the opportunity and role of reorganizing
and optimizing its infrastructure and technical facilities, crea-
ting new real estate development possibilities and new income
for the infrastructure owner.
The Greater Paris project is based on a combination of urban

and public transportation planning to create the city of the
FUTUREÏ)NÏOURÏOPINIONÏANYÏMAJORÏ(32ÏCONSTRUCTIONÏPROJECTÏMUSTÏ
be consistent with ambitious general future city concepts,
revolving particularly around the notion of developing new
public transportation systems and related transit-oriented
developments.
Beijing Dong Zhi Men station and office development (China)
Lille Europe station and city development (France)
16
All projects: !2%0Ï3.#&ÏGROUPE
Except:
Ho-Chi-Minh City Malang Housing (Vietnam)Ï!2%0ÏGROUP
Wuhan station (China): !2%0ÏGROUP and Institut n°4
0ARISÏ0ARISÏ*EANÏ*AURESÏ!VENUEÏREQUALIlCATIONÏ(France): !2%0ÏGROUP
Nancy station area urban renewal &RANCE Ï!2%0ÏGROUP
Shanghai South station #HINA Ï!2%0ÏGROUPÏANDÏ%#!$)Ï!SSOCISÏ%ASTÏ#HINAÏ!RCHITECTURALÏ$ESIGNÏANDÏ2ESEARCHÏ)NSTITUTE Ï
Seoul ICBD station and new city districtÏ3OUTHÏ+OREA Ï!2%0ÏGROUP
0ARISÏ!USTERLITZÏSTATIONÏRESTRUCTURINGÏANDÏOFlCEÏDEVELOPMENTÏ(France):Ï!2%0ÏGROUPÏ
!SSOCIATEDÏARCHITECTÏ!TELIERSÏ*EANÏ.OUVELÏ,ANDSCAPINGÏ-ICHELÏ$ESVIGNE
Strasbourg station gardenÏ!2%0ÏGROUPÏANDÏLANDSCAPINGÏ-ICHELÏ$ESVIGNEÏANDÏ)NGNIEURSÏETÏ0AYSAGE
Torino Porta Susa stationÏ)TALY Ï!2%0ÏGROUPÏANDÏ3ILVIOÏD!3#)!ÏARCHITECTÏINÏASSOCIATIONÏWITHÏ!Ï-AGNAGHIÏARCHITECTEÏ4URINOIS
Le Mans station Square and Parking restructuringÏ&RANCE Ï!2%0ÏGROUPÏANDÏÏ0HILIPPEÏ$UVERGEYÏARCHITECT
+ATOWICEÏSTATIONÏRESTRUCTURINGÏANDÏCOMMERCIALÏCENTERÏ0OLAND Ï!2%0ÏGROUP
#HENGÏ$UÏ2EN (EÏCOMMERCIALÏCENTERÏ#HINA Ï!2%0ÏGROUPÏANDÏTHEÏ3OUTH 7ESTÏ!RCHITECTUREÏ)NSTITUTE
/RLEANSÏSTATIONÏANDÏCOMMERCIALÏCENTERÏ&RANCE Ï!2%0ÏGROUP
4OULOUSEÏ'REENÏ#ENTERÏSHOPPINGÏMALLÏ&RANCE Ï!2%0ÏGROUP
"EIJINGÏ$ONGÏ:HIÏ-ENÏSTATIONÏANDÏOFlCEÏDEVELOPMENTÏ#HINA Ï!2%0ÏGROUP
A VISION FOR HST 220 TRAVEL IN TEXAS /// BETH
Beth lives in Austin, where she has set up a design studio. She has been working for a
few months on a new project in association with an experienced designer in Dallas, and
she has to increase her presence there now that they are in the last phase of the project:
she currently spends two days a week in Dallas.
She has included a small applet in her agenda that automatically proposes to book her
trip, selecting the most appropriate schedules, every time she inputs a new meeting in
Dallas (or anywhere on the network). As always, she selects the train that gets there just
before the meeting so she has more time to spend home with her kids – she knows she
can trust a carrier that scores a 98% punctuality rate. In just one click, the seat in business
class is confirmed, according to the preferences she set up in her traveler profile, and she
is offered a home pick up, which she accepts. Her agenda is updated with all trip details,
including pick up time, coach and seat number. These details are also uploaded on her
trip management application, on her smart phone.
The following morning, the taxi gets to her place punctually at 8:20a. Fifteen minutes
later, she is walking through the terminal. Traffic was fluid and she has arrived 30
minutes ahead of schedule… Just too late to catch the previous train that is now leaving
the station. She heads to the frequent travelers lounge and relaxes, having a coffee while
reviewing some emails.
She clears security and boarding controls in just one step. Her telephone has been
automatically identified by radio frequency and all that she has to do is to show a valid
ID to the gate attendant. She could have gone through an automated gate, using her
fingerprint, but she prefers the human touch.
A couple of minutes later, she is on board – she did not even need to look at the station
and train map that was on her phone. A train attendant indicates her seat, and welcomes
her on board with a fresh orange juice and some gourmet bites. Her seat is roomy and
offers all necessary connectivity, but is also elegant, and can slightly pivot towards the
window for more privacy. A touch screen offers thousands of entertainment options, and
a direct access to the service menu: Jane can order a power breakfast or drinks at a
glance.
She hardly notices the arrival of fellow travelers and the departure of the train. The cabin,
with only 12 seats, offers an unmatched level of privacy and quietness. She works
uninterrupted till arrival in Dallas, where she sails through the station to be picked-up by
her local associate and friend.
A VISION FOR HST 220 TRAVEL TRAVEL IN TEXAS /// DIEGO
Diego, a U of T student, returns to his parents’ home in Pittsburgh for the first in months.
He purchased a round-trip ticket from Air America. On his outbound trip, he flew from
Austin to Atlanta and took a connecting flight to Pittsburgh. His return flight took him all
the way South to DFW, where he has a connection on a high-speed train down to Austin.
It will be his first time on a high-speed train.
He checks-in online and gets two boarding passes, one for each segment. He drops off his
massive backpack at Air America luggage counter in Pittsburgh airport. He clears
security in Pittsburgh and boards his plane.
Unfortunately, his plane is delayed, due to winter storms in the North-East, and he makes
it to DFW two hours later than expected. A few minutes after this new arrival time was
confirmed, he receives a confirmation on his phone that he has been re-assigned a seat on
a later train service, with all the updated details. He will have only 45’ for this
connection, so he is reassured to learn that if he can’t make it there is another service 30’
later. Behind the scene, a seat has been protected on both services: that way, Diego is
sure to wait the minimum time in the airport for this connection. The interconnection
between Air America and the high-speed train systems ensures all necessary exchange of
information, to make sure both Diego and his bag go smoothly and as quickly as possible
through DFW.
Diego walks quickly to the departure platform, and clears security scanning with his
already-printed boarding pass. As a reminder, he gets a new printed document to know
where to sit, with a train and seat map, so he can navigate quickly through the station.
He’s now on-board, and the train smoothly leaves the station accelerating to 220mph. He
hardly realizes how fast it is going. This DFW to Austin service offers coach and
business class. He seats in coach, with 4 seats abreast and plenty of legroom. Around
him, most people are working on their computers, or having a quick nap. Some just wind
down, gazing at the Texan landscape. Diego plays with the large touch screen and
decides to watch his favorite show on live TV.
After 20 minutes, an attendant comes to ask him whether he needs help for specific
arrangements, like a reserved taxi ride. Behind the scene, on-board staff has been
informed of Diego’s situation and strives to make the rest of this trip smoother and more
enjoyable. It might just be a small cost for the company, but it makes a big difference to
Diego: when he gets to Austin, he gets access to the priority lane for reserved taxis. As
his luggage has also been delivered as a priority, it only takes a few minutes to leave
Austin terminal and head on home.
HSL Environmental Design
SNCF references
HSL Environmental Design
SNCF has been designing, building, operating and maintaining High Speed rail lines (over 2,000 km to date) since the 1970’s.
Initially involved as Sponsor and Engineer, SNCF has evolved to become engineer- in-charge of civil engineering, structures and
railroad infrastructure, provide the needed technical and environmental support to project sponsors or engineering services to
manufacturers, depending on the project.
From the late 1970’s onwards, following the introduction of required environmental impact studies, the assessment and
determination of the negative impacts for the environment and the development of measures to mitigate these impacts have
been given special attention by the SNCF teams. In Europe, environmental studies and required clearances are very similar to
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which would govern the environmental clearance
process for High Speed Rail.
Over the years, the protection of the environment has become one of the prime issues in the development of projects for new
infrastructure in France. It is now taken into account from the conceptual design stage. It is one of the sensitive issues in the
public debate and affects conceptual route selection at the preliminary study stage. The avoidance of environmental impacts is
also the subject of a specific basic design file which is constantly interlinked with the technical one. The commitment of
environmental best management practices (BMP’s) is one of the keystones of the Declaration of Public Utility. It is an important
step taken by the project sponsor in regard to gaining the support of interested stakeholders.
Throughout the project’s life, implementation of BMP’s and other mitigation measures are monitored with special attention to
resolving environmental impacts through to their implementation. Typically on completed projects the efficiency of these
measures is tested five years after service commissioning, allowing for adjustments that can be introduced for fine tuning.
SNCF's environmental experts are fully familiar with the typical main issues connected with mitigating environmental impacts of
newly implemented High Speed rail lines:
• locating noise barriers;

• landscape integration through context-sensitive design;
• protection of ground and surface water resources and wetlands;
• preservation of the ecological corridors;
• vegetation design;
• design of remedial habitats (ponds, wetlands, riparian vegetation, reforestation, etc.).
SNCF's technical teams are thoroughly familiar with BMP’s for all of these areas. As a result, the planning, civil engineering,
structural and railroad infrastructure specialists integrate the environmental requirements as one of the main parameters early
on in their design work. The resulting project is the outcome of a comprehensive process of integrated exchange between
environmental specialists (general technicians, landscape designers, noise experts, fauna, flora and ecosystem specialists) and
the technical disciplines.
HSL in operation
ANGLETERRE
PAYS-BAS
LONDRES
Channel Tunnel
Rail Link
BRUXELLES
ALLEMAGNE
LILLE
BELGIQUE
Belgique
Our references in France:
HSL
“Paris-Lyon” HSL, “Nord” HSL, “Atlantique” HSL
AMIENS
“Contournement Lyon” loop HSL, “Méditerranée” HSL
LUX.
ROUEN
Nord
HSL
“Ile-de-France Interconnection” HSL, “Est Européenne” HSL
CAEN
REIMS Est-Européenne
HSL
METZ Est-Européenne
2ème phase
Eastern and South sections of the “Rhin-Rhône” HSL,
HSL
PARIS
Meaux
CHALONS-EN- NANCY
“Sud-Europe Atlantique” HSL, “Bretagne Pays de la Loire” HSL,
Bretagne
Interconnexion
Sud
CHAMPAGNE STRASBOURG
“Contournement Nîmes-Montpellier” loop HSL
Pays de la Loire
RENNES HSL Atlantique Paris – Lyon
HSL HSL
Rhin Rhône
LE MANS MULHOUSE
Branche Est
ORLEANS HSL
TOURS Rhin Rhône

DIJON
Branche Ouest
NANTES
HSL BESANCON
Our references abroad:
Propriétés : INEXIA-SIG-Infographie 07/2009 reseauexistant_interface avec LGV POCL.eps
SUISSE
Sud
POITIERS
Rhin Rhône
Branche Sud
Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Belgium HSL
HSL
Europe Atlantique
HSL Poitiers
Limoges HSL
“Lyon-Turin Ferroviaire” HSL project, Morocco HSL
Medina-Mekkah HS rail link
LIMOGES LYON
CLERMONT-
FERRAND
ITALIE
Méditerranée
HSL
BORDEAUX
Contournement
Nîmes Montpellier NîMES
HSL
TOULOUSE MONTPELLIER
MARSEILLE
Légende
HSL in operation
HSL projects
AJACCIO
ESPAGNE
Sources : BD Eurostat - RGI
Environmental review prior to the public debate: designing the sustainable development project
Effectively the first studies in the life of a project, the functional preliminary studies are intended to define the purpose and need to be provided by the
project. In this stage the guidelines for the sustainable development strategies are identified: general principles for service and integration, modal
transfer, target savings in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the main environmentally sensitive issues.
The resulting decisions are then submitted to public debate in order to obtain the population's opinion.
Definition of a sustainable development strategy

With infrastructure projects, sustainable development strategies aim to
limit environmental impacts and ensure a positive contribution to
transportation efficiency, social activity and economic development. To be
Sensitivity of the physical environment via the
successful these strategies must be triggered from the very inception of the
identification of corridors
project and then monitored and implemented throughout its life cycle:
design, construction and operation. To this end, SNCF develops tools and
methods to ensure:
• a project management guaranteeing the integration of sustainable
development from the very first stages of design. For example, this can
entail the definition and implementation of Environmental
Management and Sustainable Development Systems based on
locally-adopted strategies (towns, States).
• an assessment of the project’s performance in regard to
sustainable development, monitoring and decision making tools.
Appraisals to select the project with the lowest GHG emissions are
High also conducted at this stage:
Average • definition of the best location for stations (near urban areas, easy
Low connections to public transportation) with a view to cutting down on
car use,
• definition of conceptual routes designed to limit earth moving and other
invasive construction at construction stage,
• comparison between the project and without the project for traffic
impacts in terms of auto and air vehicle-miles saved and corresponding
reductions in GHG emissions.
Alternatives Analysis: selection of a locally preferred conceptual route
The preliminary studies will involve an alternatives analysis (by both mode and route) with the aim of selecting the route with the fewest environmental
impacts along with the best transportation and GHG reduction benefits. The Alternatives Analysis will assess the environmental sensitivities of the routes
in order to identify the preferred alignment. This phase will also address how best to avoid solutions that would affect critical resources (natural or
cultural heritage) or would expose the project to excessively high risks (natural or technological).
After reviewing the costs, benefits and

impacts for all three alternatives, one alternative
will be selected as the locally preferred alternative
for further advancement.
Avoiding impacts by Pairing

Transportation Infrastructure
Whenever possible, SNCF routes are pair with another major

transportation infrastructure element such as a highway or railroad.
With this type of siting the project's environmental impact is reduced,
as environmental habitat impacts are avoided and the project is
integrated in an environment that is already affected by linear
transportation infrastructure and is therefore better kept away from
natural, agricultural, forestry or urban areas. Moreover, the remaining
property between the two transportation systems could serve as an
effective ecological corridor if needed.
Developing baseline environmental conditions and planning for their protection
Detailed environmental baseline conditions along the route under consideration will be documented. At this stage, the review will be precise and as
exhaustive as needed to meet federal and state-level requirements for producing an inventory of the fauna, flora water resources and natural habitats,
to characterise the hydraulic flows, landscape, urban, agricultural and forestry fabric, define the noise environment, air quality, the exchanges and transit
operated within the study area.
This data helps quantify as precisely as needed to meet the requirements
of reviewing agencies to measure the impact of the project on the
surrounding environment and define the mitigation measures needed
to make the project as transparent as possible to the environment...
Precise inventory of water related issues

(rivers, ground water tables, wells,
flooding areas, etc.)
Fauna and Flora and other

Environmental Resource Inventories
An indispensable parameter for the correct

integration of the impacts on the natural
habitats; the inventories are completed for
all groups (fauna and flora) with particular
emphasis placed on those most affected by
linear infrastructures. By drawing from the expertise of natural
scientists (ornithologists, entomologists, botanists,
ecologists, etc.) and a committed associative network,
the inventories are mapped and preventive or remedial measures
are defined.
Basic design: characterising environmental resources and planning their protection
Holding basin
Fauna passage of Dahais wood
Created wetlands
Deuxnouds stream
Landscaped embankments
The Landscape Master Plan
Proposals for landscape design in terms of shaping of civil infrastructure

(cuts and fills, retaining walls, etc.) and final landscaping are developed
from consultations between the environmental, engineering and landscape
architecture disciplines, and with focus on mitigation of environmental
issues, following an iterative pattern throughout design development and the
environmental clearance process.
The project’ design will identify more precisely:
Before After
• rights-of-way to be used for HSR and the transition of active HSR

right-of-way to adjacent properties or other rights-of--way;
• visual impacts from housing and other sensitive land uses, important
public places and vistas, etc.;
• interfaces between natural and engineered landscapes (planting of bank
slopes, creation of fauna passages, creation of remedial ponds and
wetlands, construction of noise berms, etc.).
.
Effective Public Outreach
Environmental impact studies and public outreach: making a commitment for the preservation
of the environment.
By explaining to the public the purpose and need for the project and the design requirements for High Speed Rail, the environmental impact statement will
describe the approach, the existing environment, the analyses of the impacts of the project on said environment as well as the positive impacts on a wider
scale and to make commitments in regard to the design and accompanying measures, the research work that will, during the project life, to help reduce
and mitigate, or even altogether remove,
these impacts. Noise
A public outreach process will be developed
with project sponsors and in compliance Analyzing the parameters retained for the acoustic design of a
with applicable state and federal requirements. new high speed line:
• definition of the indicators of embarrassment:

equivalents sound levels, maximum sound levels, periods of
Analysis of the impact on forestry land observation…
(in green) for the qualification of remedial • types of zones to be protected: residential zones, schools,
hospitals,
afforestation schemes.
• limit values of the indicators of embarrassment,
by period, by types of zones,
• parameters of calculation of the noise source intensity
according to the reserved indicators, types of trains and heir
acoustic characteristics, the speed and trainsquantity.
• parameters of calculation of the attenuation of the noise between the noise source and the sound
receiving points: taken into account by three dimensions, by relief, obstacles, reflections, absorption by the
ground, by the walls, effects of the meteorology, insertion loss of sound barriers...
Make the comparison of these parameters with those who are used for cases of similar studies in France.
Our analysis will also concern examination of the relevance of the noise barriers foreseen to the project:
• positioning of these noise barriers (location with regard to sites to be protected ;

• noise barriers design (length and height ;
• characteristics of noise barriers (not absorbent, absorbent, transparent....).
When it will be possible, our comments on the acoustic design will be accompanied with propositions
aiming at to optimize efficiency of the noise barriers and to reduce costs of construction.
Detailed design and project: designing right to the last detail
In the detailed design development stage, environmental commitments take an undeniably technical dimension, with the aim of meeting all
commitments in the most effective way:
• to design structures aimed to guarantee hydraulic transparency while ensuring the continuity of river banks and
beds as well as the full function fo wetlnds and other water resources;
•to keep adjacent properties such as farms with equivalent functionality of the “before project”
conditions;
• to facilitate wildlife transit and needed relationships between wildlife and plant
populations;
• to protect the neighbouring residents against the nuisances generated
by the infrastructure; Drawing of an
• to create a harmonious whole for the residents of neighboring Hydraulic overpass for large fauna
communities and who will see it and live in its vicinity. structure, fauna (shaping and plantings by
passage. the landscape designer)
This will be achieved with all disciplines of the design and environmental teams
involved together in developing designs to the last detail.
Drawing of an overpass for large fauna
(shaping and plantings by the landscape designer)
Fauna passage design
At the front, remedial wetland, behind, mixed passage The ecologist, the fauna specialists and the landscape designers are
(fauna and agriculture). involved in this work for the recreation of the link between two areas
separated by the infrastructure. Irrespective of their dimension,
these structures must provide the animals with a means of crossing the rail
track that is easily located and crossed with minimum stress, totally safe
and as natural as possible. Moreover, they must be tailored so as to cater
for the daily or seasonal transit of the widest range of species whether in
day time or at night.
The design of these structures can only achieve optimum efficiency if it
draws from an exhaustive study of the initial environment,
experiment and feedback.
Awarding Construction Contracts; Preparing for the Construction Phase
As an indispensable interface with the construction phase, construction contract specifications will be prepared with utmost care for the ensuring that
environmental protection objectives, preservation commitments, and environmental BMP’s are maintained by all contractors. Contractor selection where
needed will include prequalification for meeting experience criteria, as part of the sponsor's overall contracting strategy.
Watercourse restoration prior

to revegetalisation
Meeting Environmental Impact Statement Requirements
The conditions committed to in the EIS will be enforced in the construction

specifications. The EIS itself will act as a reminder of the mandatory
regulations applicable throughout the construction of the project.
The EIS will document all the studies completed: descriptions of environ-
mental resources in the vicinity of the work sites, the protection measures
in regard to construction activities (access restrictions or prohibitions,
restrictions on certain customary practices – burning, pumping, discharge,
etc.), This document provides a framework for the contractors' offers
where the protection of the environment is concerned (resources,
organisation, commitments). A contractor's commitment to meet the
objectives defined by the Sponsor must imperatively be translated in its
answer to the environmental impact statement.
Construction of a noise berm

Work site supervision: achieving a successful environmental integration
Construction is a crucial stage, as it is where the studies conducted beforehand are tested in the field.
This phase concentrates most of the impacts on the physical, natural and human environment.
Emissions generated
Emissions by theBesançon
Construction construction
TGV of TGV stations
tonnesCO2 tonne equivalent
équivalent CO2
The work site is a place where interests that are potentially hard to reconcile meet and clash: daily routine, 00
economic considerations, constrained time and budgets, technological showcases, intense activity, etc. 00
11 000
10 000
9 000
on sites which are normally very quiet. All the conditions are present to result in environmental deterioration. 00
8 000
7 000
Belfort TGV
6 000 Matériaux
The project organization together will constantly supervise, check, and tailor their behaviors on-site to meet 00
5 000
4 000
3 000
Besançon TGV
Transport
2 000 Engins
the commitments they have made and the legitimate requirements of the State departments, local authorities, 00 1 000
-
associations, and neighboring residents. 00

ria
ls ch rks
ry
ine )
sp
ort
Wa
ste
mm
uti
ng
te ma g wo an
ma t
n
io vin a l tr Co
0 u t c
u mo r i
np str te
lotI 0 loton1 arthlot 2 Ma3
lot lot 4 lot 5 lot 6 lot 7
C e
n,
c tio
s tru
n
co
ell
(sh
Carbon Imprint
Creation of a remedial SNCF produced the Carbon Imprint for the construction of two new TGV
wet land stations on the Eastern section of the French “Rhin-Rhône” HSL.
The aim was to appraise and monitor GHG emissions generated by the
station construction sites and 30 years' operation in order to:
• implement measures to limit emissions as construction progressed,

Fence protecting • provide feedback for future station construction sites.
a sensitive area during
construction. This approach is integrated in the overall Carbon Imprint for the Eastern
section of the French “Rhin-Rhône” HSL (infrastructure and operation).
Environmental Balance: Confronting Facts to Forecasts and Learning Lessons for the Future
Environmental balance is intended to provide governing authorities and the public with an appraisal of the infrastructure's environmental performance by
comparing the actualized impacts on the environment (after commissioning and start-up of service) with the Sponsor's forecasts and commitments
as formalized in the project’s design. This can be especially useful if the project is the first phase
of a longer-term program.
The production of the balance involves missions for controlling the implementation of the
environmental integration measures selected as a result of the initial studies, for monitoring over
several years the efficiency of said measures, for analyzing the differences identified between
forecasts and actualization and, finally, for making the know-how available for future projects.
These missions will require the involvement of experts in the various environmental fields:
naturalists, acoustical engineers, landscape designers, hydrologists, etc. led by a general
environmental project manager who organizes and manages
the mission, compares the results, submits solutions to the Sponsor
that identify the forecasted/actualized differences and assists it with Anticipating on the Environmental Balance,
the formalization and communication of the results of and lessons a Guarantee of its Relevance
learned from the environmental statement.
In order to produce an outstanding environmental balance, it must be
initiated from the very first study phases so as to characterise the condition
of the environment before and after the project based on standard
indicators that guarantee an effective comparison, and to ensure the
traceability of the decisions made for the protection of the environment
(objectives, anticipated results).
An innovative approach was implemented during the preparation of the

balance for the Eastern section of the French “Rhine – Rhône” HSL, which
consisted, from the very first stages, in defining the scope of the balance,
the monitoring method (selection of the indicators to be monitored
throughout the project) jointly with a steering group made up of the
Sponsor, representatives from the ministries of transport and the
Environment, local elected representatives and associations

Rail Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rail Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rail Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SNCF – SEPT 14TH, 2009

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 -1-

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 -2-

1 POINT OF CONTACT ......................................................................................................7

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 -3-

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 -4-

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 -5-

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 -6-

2 NAME(S) AND QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PERSON(S) SUBMITTING

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 -7-

3.a BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND PHILOSOPHY BEHIND THE SNCF RESPONSE

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 -8-

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 -9-

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 10 -

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 11 -

3.c THE ROUTE

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 12 -

3.d BUILDING AN OPERATING PLAN

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 13 -

3.e ENVIRONMENTAL APPROACH FOR HIGH-SPEED LINES

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 14 -

3.f CAPITAL NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 15 -

3.h THE BENEFITS

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 16 -

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 17 -

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 18 -

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 19 -

4.a POPULATIONS OF MARKETS SERVED BY EACH OF THE PROPOSED STATIONS

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 20 -

Metropolitan area Forecast Metropolitan

4.a.2 Economic analysis

4.b EXISTING INTERCITY TRAFFIC BY MODE

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 21 -

4.c PROPOSED HSR STATION LOCATIONS

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 22 -

Station area type Building type

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 23 -

Dallas Union Station San Antonio Sunset Station

4.d INTERMODAL TRAVEL CONNECTIONS WITH OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 24 -

4.d.1 The station as an intermodal hub

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 25 -

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 26 -

4.e TRIP TIME AND FARE COMPARISONS

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 27 -

4.e.2 Station services

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 28 -

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 29 -

HST 220 T erminal Entry T ime

Auto T erminal Exit T ime

San Antonio to Duncanville

T erminal Exit T ime

0 100 200 300

T ravel time in minutes

San Antonio to Killeen

TEXAS SNCF– SEPT 14TH, 2009 - 30 -

T erminal Entry T ime

T erminal Exit T ime

0 50 100 150 200