Train From Houston To Galveston?

[Ross]

1 hour ago, Slick Vik said:

The reason the train stopped is because Lanier and his cronies turned union station into a baseball stadium instead of the train gateway is was planned to become 

Eyeroll. Union Station was never going to be a rail hub. And the stadium has done more for Downtown than any of the transit projects.

[IronTiger]

I seem to recall an article where someone had wanted to put in rail at the new baseball stadium ("baseball fans arriving by rail") but realistically, there was no way that could work. The block where Union Station was, directly south of it had been the platforms for the trains but even by the 1980s where the rails were had become a parking lot (the rails may have been intact, but they weren't functioning). To have rail at Minute Maid, it would have to run along Texas Avenue (with all necessary signage required for an active rail) AND the tracks connecting it would have to be kept open. There was a crossing directly through Bastrop and Rusk, that would've had to have been maintained as an active crossing (with signals on all four sides), and seven more crossings before hooking into the mainline at Sampson Street. With the railroad still at Bastrop and Rusk that means that the BBVA Compass Stadium wouldn't happen at that location, and that has benefitted EaDo greatly. So then either the rail gets abandoned (again) or BBVA Compass Stadium moves, or Houston Dynamo leaves.

 

But the train from Houston to Galveston just doesn't seem anymore than a novelty. It's not a major commuter center, and even if you were going to classes at UTMB, the only reason you would take a train is for purposes related to housing, and it sure isn't going to be cheaper to live in Houston to commute, and commuting from Galveston to Houston for work makes just as little sense. The thing is that the Interurban was that roads really did render it obsolete back in the mid-1930s (just like many other interurbans across Texas) and nostalgia isn't a compelling reason for keeping something high-maintenance like that on taxpayer dollars (that's why the revival line died...and notice that I'm trying to compare rail to rail, like the Houston METRO or eastern seaboard cities).

Edited December 11, 2017 by IronTiger

[j_cuevas713]

10 hours ago, IronTiger said:

I seem to recall an article where someone had wanted to put in rail at the new baseball stadium ("baseball fans arriving by rail") but realistically, there was no way that could work. The block where Union Station was, directly south of it had been the platforms for the trains but even by the 1980s where the rails were had become a parking lot (the rails may have been intact, but they weren't functioning). To have rail at Minute Maid, it would have to run along Texas Avenue (with all necessary signage required for an active rail) AND the tracks connecting it would have to be kept open. There was a crossing directly through Bastrop and Rusk, that would've had to have been maintained as an active crossing (with signals on all four sides), and seven more crossings before hooking into the mainline at Sampson Street. With the railroad still at Bastrop and Rusk that means that the BBVA Compass Stadium wouldn't happen at that location, and that has benefitted EaDo greatly. So then either the rail gets abandoned (again) or BBVA Compass Stadium moves, or Houston Dynamo leaves.

 

But the train from Houston to Galveston just doesn't seem anymore than a novelty. It's not a major commuter center, and even if you were going to classes at UTMB, the only reason you would take a train is for purposes related to housing, and it sure isn't going to be cheaper to live in Houston to commute, and commuting from Galveston to Houston for work makes just as little sense. The thing is that the Interurban was that roads really did render it obsolete back in the mid-1930s (just like many other interurbans across Texas) and nostalgia isn't a compelling reason for keeping something high-maintenance like that on taxpayer dollars (that's why the revival line died...and notice that I'm trying to compare rail to rail, like the Houston METRO or eastern seaboard cities).

It's a novelty idea because Houston and Galveston haven't been serious about connecting the two areas. I mean think about being able to live in Galveston and still be able to work in Houston with better jobs, etc or vise vera. Trust me the development that would have occurred would've still probably included BBVA and a ton of other development along the route. 

[IronTiger]

29 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

It's a novelty idea because Houston and Galveston haven't been serious about connecting the two areas. I mean think about being able to live in Galveston and still be able to work in Houston with better jobs, etc or vise vera. Trust me the development that would have occurred would've still probably included BBVA and a ton of other development along the route. 

The other problem, and I think this has been mentioned, is that even if rail was able to go on the same track of freight (which would dramatically lower infrastructure costs), freight traffic is capped to about 35 mph, which would really screw up any time savings over road. The amount of people that live in Galveston (or would like to live in Galveston, and I don't think Galveston has especially cheap housing) and work in downtown Houston (or parts around it) is going to be a small minority, and putting the station in downtown Houston would render it fairly useless for tourism purposes as well.

 

If you wanted a viable commuter corridor in Houston, do The Woodlands as both have major industries located there, the Hardy Toll Road rail corridor is faster, and it can even hook up to the airport. While the Hardy Toll Road is not rail nor an equivalent, it does prove that people are willing to pay to avoid I-45 North to downtown, and it comes with another advantage that Galveston/Houston would have to deal with...the train would not get stopped at the drawbridge as a ship passes under it (and based on observations of aerial imagery, it looks like having the drawbridge "up" is the default position).

Edited December 11, 2017 by IronTiger

[j_cuevas713]

3 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

The other problem, and I think this has been mentioned, is that even if rail was able to go on the same track of freight (which would dramatically lower infrastructure costs), freight traffic is capped to about 35 mph, which would really screw up any time savings over road. The amount of people that live in Galveston (or would like to live in Galveston, and I don't think Galveston has especially cheap housing) and work in downtown Houston (or parts around it) is going to be a small minority, and putting the station in downtown Houston would render it fairly useless for tourism purposes as well.

 

If you wanted a viable commuter corridor in Houston, do The Woodlands as both have major industries located there, the Hardy Toll Road rail corridor is faster, and it can even hook up to the airport. While the Hardy Toll Road is not rail nor an equivalent, it does prove that people are willing to pay to avoid I-45 North to downtown, and it comes with another advantage that Galveston/Houston would have to deal with...the train would not get stopped at the drawbridge as a ship passes under it.

Yeah but you're basing all of that on the now. If you had a commuter line in Galveston, think about the economic impact it would have in that city. Yeah right now there are very few people traveling from Galveston to Houston to work. In the long term that number would grow. And that's not to mention the amount of people using it on the weekends. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by j_cuevas713

[IronTiger]

8 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Yeah but you're basing all of that on the now. If you had a commuter line in Galveston, think about the economic impact it would have in that city. Yeah right now there are very few people traveling from Galveston to Houston to work. In the long term that number would grow. And that's not to mention the amount of people using it on the weekends. 

If rail to Galveston was as much of an economic boon as you think it is, then it would've grown Galveston dramatically in the early 1990s and taking out the service would be unthinkable. The success of Midtown and it happening right around the time rail was built helped create/perpetuate the myth of "instant economy just add rail" but the reality is that same sort of growth has been happening all over the Inner Loop rail or not.

[cspwal]

I was curious if you could do a north south rail line, so I tried to map one out

 

Here's the overview: 

 

 

There's 3 stops in the Woodlands-Spring area, stop at IAH, stop downtown, stop at Hobby, and then 3 stops south of Houston.  Along the line that made the most sense to pick up Hobby, there's not much south of Pearland until you hit Galveston.

 

Getting to either airport via a commuter rail is more challenging than I first thought; going to IAH I had to cross undeveloped fields and hug the airport property line until I could get to JFK blvd - and even that I'm not sure you could stick heavy rail down.  (Dashed lines mean greenfield train tracks)

 

At Hobby, I got a little luckier that there's a train yard just west of the airport, and a disused ROW that I reused for my train line.

 

 

Downtown, instead of trying to squeze a station in at Burnett transit center or UH-D, I chose a spot that should be relatively easy - the pocket on the purple line in east downtown.  There's a train yard right there, so you could make a nice hub station there for commuter rail and the purple line.

 

For completeness, here is the path down to Galveston.  I put a p&r station at Alvin, and maybe one would make sense near 45, but there really isn't much between Pearland and Galveston on this line

 

 

Overall, a lot of work would have to be done to make this a viable commuter route (not including the fresh tracks to get to IAH and Hobby)

 - North of BWY 8 and south of 610, there's still plenty of single track lines that would have to be upgraded to double track to support commuter rail.

- To get fast service for the passenger trains, you'd have to convince Union Pacific to prioritize these trains.  Otherwise, you're stuck at 35 mph

- Countless grade crossings.

- Causeway is still single tracked?

[IronTiger]

There's no need to shuffle around freight spurs especially if they're being used to some extent. For Hobby, just having a dedicated shuttle line (possibly elevated) would be more efficient, and likewise for IAH (maybe hook in with their own shuttle rail?). There would also be the issue of the drawbridge between Galveston and the mainline, and building a dedicated new bridge for the line would add tremendously to the cost especially if you going to argue the "existing infrastructure" part.

[j_cuevas713]

2 hours ago, IronTiger said:

If rail to Galveston was as much of an economic boon as you think it is, then it would've grown Galveston dramatically in the early 1990s and taking out the service would be unthinkable. The success of Midtown and it happening right around the time rail was built helped create/perpetuate the myth of "instant economy just add rail" but the reality is that same sort of growth has been happening all over the Inner Loop rail or not.

Yeah like the multitude of other things that would help this city that have never been done. I'm not the only one, I mean Metro and The Island Transit have a 2 year deal to run limited service to show the need for the connection. To think there wouldn't be tremendous economic growth because of this is ridiculous. You connect Houston with it's vacation neighbor outside of just 45 which is already congested. You're also forgetting how unappealing downtown was during the early 90's along with Galveston. Both have become great spots the past 20+ years. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by j_cuevas713

[cspwal]

26 minutes ago, IronTiger said:

There's no need to shuffle around freight spurs especially if they're being used to some extent. For Hobby, just having a dedicated shuttle line (possibly elevated) would be more efficient, and likewise for IAH (maybe hook in with their own shuttle rail?). There would also be the issue of the drawbridge between Galveston and the mainline, and building a dedicated new bridge for the line would add tremendously to the cost especially if you going to argue the "existing infrastructure" part.

 

My original goal was to try to have the train stop at both airports - I agree that a dedicated shuttle to a station on the line would make more sense - especially if you could used IAH's current train somehow.

 

The biggest hurdle for sure is the fact the Galveston causeway is still single tracked and a drawbridge.  To actually have a useful train line, you'd have to build a new 8,000 foot long bridge that would have to reach a peak high enough for ships to pass underneath.  As a comparison, the Huey P Long bridge over the Mississippi has two tracks of rail (and car traffic) and is a total of 8,000 feet long with 153 ft of clearance underneath (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_P._Long_Bridge_(Jefferson_Parish))

It cost $13 million in 1932, so it would probably be $130 million now.  That buys a nice bus service to Galveston

[IronTiger]

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Yeah like the multitude of other things that would help this city that have never been done. I'm not the only one, I mean Metro and The Island Transit have a 2 year deal to run limited service to show the need for the connection. To think there wouldn't be tremendous economic growth because of this is ridiculous. You connect Houston with it's vacation neighbor outside of just 45 which is already congested. You're also forgetting how unappealing downtown was during the early 90's along with Galveston. Both have become great spots the past 20+ years. 

Well, which is it? That rail to Houston would provide "tremendous economic growth" (presumably that only rail could really satiate), or that the old train was just before its time? It can't be played both ways.

[j_cuevas713]

Just now, IronTiger said:

Well, which is it? That rail to Houston would provide "tremendous economic growth" (presumably that only rail could really satiate), or that the old train was just before its time? It can't be played both ways.

Both. We need a train/bus shuttle/SOMETHING now to create new economic growth. More so a train would create that growth but if the city created a nice bus station downtown dedicated to traveling to Galveston, people would go. Much the same way the MegaBus is situated. Obviously much nicer than that but you get the idea. The problem was a lack of foresight in the early 90's to see that potential. Instead it was a cost issue and it was cut. So yeah the train was "before it's time" but there was also no desire to make downtown more attractive and spur growth in the area period.  The argument has always been, nobody will ride it and it's a waste of money. The same stuff was said about the light rail. So my point is that NOW, would be a great opportunity to offer something that's accessible to entice ridership. The same goes for our Amtrak station. Half the people in this city don't even know we have a train that can get you to LA or Nola. The reason is it's damn near non existent where it's located. I noticed that 20 year plan for downtown calls for moving the station for more visibility. My point is if nobody knows then how can you expect ridership to grow? This city need's a connection to the island. 

[IronTiger]

34 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

This city need's a connection to the island. 

I still really doubt that rail to Galveston has a positive cost/benefit ratio, and "I-45 being congested" is mostly in the parts under construction closer to Beltway 8. The bridge to the island isn't that congested, otherwise the bridge rebuild from about 2004 to 2009 would've been wider, and the reason why TxDOT is footing the bill for this by now is because there's no authority that will connect Galveston to Harris due to the county line differences.

[cspwal]

35 mph average speed will kill any intercity transport.  If the train had been able to even match the freeway, I wonder if there would have been a different outcome

[Houston19514]

Again, the private rail service that ended in the 90s never attempted to provide commuter rail service as is being discussed here. It was a weekend excursion train.

[IronTiger]

23 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Again, the private rail service that ended in the 90s never attempted to provide commuter rail service as is being discussed here. It was a weekend excursion train.

I'm saying that the actual Houston/Galveston traffic between the two isn't at all worth investing in rail. It's not like The Woodlands, where there's solid traffic on I-45 AND an auxiliary toll road out to the area. In all my trips to Galveston or parts nearby, I-45 is bad (which may or may not relate to construction) but by Texas City it's not bad at all. If road traffic was an issue then when they rebuilt the two Galveston I-45 spans (one of which partially dated back to the 1930s) they would've been much wider. The spans remained at three lanes in each direction with a very long merging lane from the entrance of Harborside Drive (TX 275)/Teichman Road and Tiki Island (and vice versa), presumably with the intent to add a fourth lane if necessary. The other reason why the bridge was rebuilt was in favor of ships. The old bridge and railroad bridge were declared a "hazard" as of 2001. The old bridge had a width of 125 feet and the rail 120 feet. The rebuilt bridge had a clearance of 300 feet, with the rebuilt rail bridge also having 300 feet.

 

From the fact that the default bridge position is "raised", there's a clear ship bias in Galveston. The railroad in Galveston basically functions as a long rail spur, with storage, a few ports, and a few minor others (like the railroad museum). The rails east of 28th Street are also hardly used (if ever), especially since it goes through a highly tourist area. The only reason people still talk about rail to Galveston is that the infrastructure exists, but when inconvenient facts start revealing themselves (unless an entirely new bridge was built, the commuter rail will have to stop at the Causeway, which is probably why the 35 mph cap exists). And when you're talking about a new bridge, any cost-savings on the existing infrastructure vanish (even if UP was totally cool with the passenger trains being on it, which is doubtful). Since I-45 traffic on the bridge is already comparatively light, the question of how much of that traffic is originating from anywhere close to downtown Houston and not the entire region (including as far as Dallas and Louisiana).

 

[cspwal]

Any rail to Galveston would have to be a by product of:

 - them replacing the bridge for unrelated reasons (ship hit it or something)

 - commuter rail serving communities along the I-45 corridor going to Houston

 - probably a phase 2 or 3 expansion of said commuter rail after the initial build out serving the actual suburbs

[IronTiger]

5 minutes ago, cspwal said:

Any rail to Galveston would have to be a by product of:

 - them replacing the bridge for unrelated reasons (ship hit it or something)

 

which would be hard since the suspension part was only changed out five years ago, and even if there WAS damage, they're not going to replace the entire 2-mile span of causeway. If a terrorist wired up the entire causeway to be destroyed by a detonated explosion (a lot of work for something that would cause minimal to no loss of human life), then it would probably be replaced with a similar structure (trains don't like going up and down hills) or abandoned entirely.

[cspwal]

Probably the latter.  Unless someone like Texas Central or some other private company really wanted a train going to Galveston, there's not going to be a train going to Galveston.  

[Houston19514]

Not suggesting we need or are likely to see commuter rail to/from Galveston any time soon, but I'm curious why some are assuming the implementation would require a new rail bridge. Commuter rail would likely be at most 30 minute headways... More likely an hour or more.  Could not the current bridge could handle that amount of traffic?

Edited December 14, 2017 by Houston19514

[IronTiger]

3 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Not suggesting we need or are likely to see commuter rail to/from Galveston any time soon, but I'm curious why some are assuming the implementation would require a new rail bridge. Commuter rail would likely be at most 30 minute headways... More likely an hour or more.  Could not the current bridge could handle that amount of traffic?

It's the railroad bridge that parallels the causeway. The drawbridge on the rail side is up by default because of heavy ship traffic, and trains come less frequently (it is probably one of the few areas where trains don't get right of way). The reason for that is probably whatever authority is in charge of the Houston Ship Channel demands it, and they definitely have more money/political influence than whatever authority tries to do a Galveston/Houston line. The result would be that commuter trains would need to come to a full and complete stop as the bridge is lowered for them (or longer, if there's a ship coming through). The road bridges are high enough that ships pass under them, but the rail isn't.

[Ross]

2 hours ago, IronTiger said:

It's the railroad bridge that parallels the causeway. The drawbridge on the rail side is up by default because of heavy ship traffic, and trains come less frequently (it is probably one of the few areas where trains don't get right of way). The reason for that is probably whatever authority is in charge of the Houston Ship Channel demands it, and they definitely have more money/political influence than whatever authority tries to do a Galveston/Houston line. The result would be that commuter trains would need to come to a full and complete stop as the bridge is lowered for them (or longer, if there's a ship coming through). The road bridges are high enough that ships pass under them, but the rail isn't.

That bridge isn't part of the Ship Channel, it's on the Intracoastal Canal. No really big ships go through there, but it is big enough for reasonably large barges and tugs to use. The bridge span looks to be about 290 feet if my Google Earth skills are not fooling me. Originally, that was the entire causeway, with 2 rail lines, the Interurban line, and 2 lanes of traffic. Some good pictures here https://bridgehunter.com/tx/galveston/bh48174/

[IronTiger]

4 hours ago, Ross said:

That bridge isn't part of the Ship Channel, it's on the Intracoastal Canal. No really big ships go through there, but it is big enough for reasonably large barges and tugs to use. The bridge span looks to be about 290 feet if my Google Earth skills are not fooling me. Originally, that was the entire causeway, with 2 rail lines, the Interurban line, and 2 lanes of traffic. Some good pictures here https://bridgehunter.com/tx/galveston/bh48174/

I said 300 feet, and I think I did come up under 300 feet, and that was an estimate. (Yes, I do know 10 feet could make a significant difference in ship width, but the HAIF is not the best place to consult on that). Either way, the fact that the bridge favors ships by default as opposed to rail is telling.

[Houston19514]

The default position of the bridge is the open position merely because there is a lot more marine traffic than rail traffic (more than double). It does not indicate one party having any particular right of way or that the bridge favors the marine traffic.

[Ross]

10 hours ago, IronTiger said:

I said 300 feet, and I think I did come up under 300 feet, and that was an estimate. (Yes, I do know 10 feet could make a significant difference in ship width, but the HAIF is not the best place to consult on that). Either way, the fact that the bridge favors ships by default as opposed to rail is telling.

Sorry about the space thing. I didn't read your post correctly, and missed that part.. I was actually surprised at how wide the boat opening is - 300 feet is a pretty good span.

[IronTiger]

6 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

The default position of the bridge is the open position merely because there is a lot more marine traffic than rail traffic (more than double). It does not indicate one party having any particular right of way or that the bridge favors the marine traffic.

 

Well, I don't know about right of way. It's like railroad crossings, roads cross for free 99% of the time, but when a train comes, it gets to go. However, I don't know if that's the case here. Do trains wait, or does it go down for trains? These days, I go to Galveston every three years on average, which is not enough to determine if trains wait or not. However, the 35 mph speed limit also suggests the former.

[cspwal]

35 mph might be because 

- single track

- freight traffic

- old tracks

[IronTiger]

56 minutes ago, cspwal said:

35 mph might be because 

- single track

- freight traffic

- old tracks

Single track or freight traffic has nothing to do with it, a properly maintained freight track owned by a major company (UP, BNSF) can go up to 60 mph. Problem is, I don't know who owns the tracks around Galveston, which is probably Class 3 (since it's no longer a main line at that point), which is capped at 40 mph. The good news for passenger trains is that they're allowed to go faster so in theory (if it is Class 3), the legal maximum is 60 mph for passenger. However, the rail being capped at 35 (not 40) sounds like it would apply to ALL trains, which would throttle passenger rail.

[PeopleAreStrange]

Union Pacific doesn't like commuter trains running on their freight lines. For commuter rail service to Galveston, you would probably have to build a new set of tracks parallel to the existing tracks, and build a new causeway bridge. You're looking at billions of dollars.

 

It's worth noting that Galveston doesn't have a dedicated source of funding for transit, and is struggling to run three buses a day to Bay Area park and ride. There isn't even good bus service between the cities. Until recently, there was no bus service between the cities.

 

It's unfortunate, because I think commuter rail between Houston and Galveston would be great. Not only would you be able to travel between the cities, those who live between the cities can travel to either city.

 

 

[j_cuevas713]

On 12/16/2017 at 10:47 PM, PeopleAreStrange said:

Union Pacific doesn't like commuter trains running on their freight lines. For commuter rail service to Galveston, you would probably have to build a new set of tracks parallel to the existing tracks, and build a new causeway bridge. You're looking at billions of dollars.

 

It's worth noting that Galveston doesn't have a dedicated source of funding for transit, and is struggling to run three buses a day to Bay Area park and ride. There isn't even good bus service between the cities. Until recently, there was no bus service between the cities.

 

It's unfortunate, because I think commuter rail between Houston and Galveston would be great. Not only would you be able to travel between the cities, those who live between the cities can travel to either city.

 

 

Exactly! Think about how that would help both cities as tourist destinations with that option to travel between the two?