Dallas - Houston HSR Station

[BigFootsSocks]

These are the station location's that were studied;

 

- Greenspoint Area

- Downtown – Post Office site

- Downtown – Hardy Yards

- South of Exxon Mobil Campus 

- Intersection of US 290/IH-610

- Intersection of US 290/Beltway 8

- Intersection of SH 249/Beltway 8 

[mfastx]

So they literally say that the "last mile" would generate more ridership but at the same time they rate the downtown Houston location lower than the 290 station.  However, they rate the downtown Dallas station the highest possible rating for ridership, which is strange.  They say the ridership studies are "ongoing" which basically means they're not done yet, so I'd like to see how they arrived at that conclusion.  

 

But really this doesn't matter, going downtown is too expensive and I don't think they ever seriously considered it.  This is just a formality. 

[BigFootsSocks]

What they stated in the report was that there is an increased ridership for an extension into downtown Houston, but that the increased numbers were NOT enough to cover the additional cost of moving the line further into downtown. Which kinda sucks, but at the same time, the engineering and construction challenges for elevating the line into downtown as an extension of the Utility Corridor alignment would be pretty intense.

 

 

REMINDER; THIS PDF HAS A DATE OF MARCH 22. THAT'S PRETTY OLD IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT IN OUR FAST-PACED SOCIETY. THINGS COULD CHANGE. I MEAN, THEY ALWAYS DO, BECAUSE THEY ARE THINGS, BUT THESE SPECIFIC THINGS COULD CHANGE. WHO KNOWS.

[Sparrow]

What they stated in the report was that there is an increased ridership for an extension into downtown Houston, but that the increased numbers were NOT enough to cover the additional cost of moving the line further into downtown. Which kinda sucks, but at the same time, the engineering and construction challenges for elevating the line into downtown as an extension of the Utility Corridor alignment would be pretty intense.

 

 

REMINDER; THIS PDF HAS A DATE OF MARCH 22. THAT'S PRETTY OLD IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT IN OUR FAST-PACED SOCIETY. THINGS COULD CHANGE. I MEAN, THEY ALWAYS DO, BECAUSE THEY ARE THINGS, BUT THESE SPECIFIC THINGS COULD CHANGE. WHO KNOWS.

 

The US 290/610 station location scores a "3" for ridership/revenue potential on the stoplight chart on pg. 111 of the pdf, while a Downtown station only scores a "2". This rather clearly shows they view that the 290/610 location will lead to higher ridership than a Downtown station would. Where does it say otherwise?

 

While the study is dated March of this year, the letter from the CEO is from August alluding to a series of FAQ they've presented to preempt possible questions, so it's not as if they've conducted a whole new analysis of the possibilities since then coming to a completely different outcome.

[BigFootsSocks]

The US 290/610 station location scores a "3" for ridership/revenue potential on the stoplight chart on pg. 111 of the pdf, while a Downtown station only scores a "2". This rather clearly shows they view that the 290/610 location will lead to higher ridership than a Downtown station would. Where does it say otherwise?

 

While the study is dated March of this year, the letter from the CEO is from August alluding to a series of FAQ they've presented to preempt possible questions, so it's not as if they've conducted a whole new analysis of the possibilities since then coming to a completely different outcome.

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but in the report posted above, TCR stated that having a train station at 610, and a station at Downtown would create an increased ridership (because of the extension into Downtown) but would not be enough the per-mile cost.

[astros148]

so theres no way this is going into downtown, which really sucks

[cloud713]

Is i10 inside the 610 loop up for a rebuild soon? If so could they not engineer a rail line in the ROW?

[curbur]

These are the station location's that were studied;

 

Boo to not having one near 99; like I said before when you told me I was overreacting, this train will add no direct benefit to Cypress :/.

[LarryDierker]

Boo to not having one near 99; like I said before when you told me I was overreacting, this train will add no direct benefit to Cypress :/.

 

The train goes to Dallas. Citizens of Dallas will be the only ones to truly benefit.

[curbur]

The train goes to Dallas. Citizens of Dallas will be the only ones to truly benefit.

 

Yes, but considering the population epicenter shift of the metro continues to slide westward and fast, one could assume that in 15-20 years that there will be decent ridership at the 290@99 juncture for picking up passengers along the way. Secondly, the only feasible ROW for what would connect Cypress to Houston via some sort of commuter rail someday will now be used by this train; that's the main rub for me personally, they're utilizing the ROW that Cypress would need to be connected to Houston's mass transit and not providing a stop along the way for those residents. If someone has to drive all the way out from there to 290@bw8, there's much less of a chance that they will try and utilize the line for the last few miles of it. There's not a whole lot of residential at 290@bw8 outside of the NE corner in Jersey Village.

[BigFootsSocks]

Boo to not having one near 99; like I said before when you told me I was overreacting, this train will add no direct benefit to Cypress :/.

I might've missed it, but I'm pretty sure I saw a Cypress station. I don't remember saying that, but it makes sense, as that statement is a complete overreaction itself.

[curbur]

I might've missed it, but I'm pretty sure I saw a Cypress station. I don't remember saying that, but it makes sense, as that statement is a complete overreaction itself.

 

Where is that Cypress station mentioned again in the most recent announcement?

 

You can argue that I'm overreacting and you can argue that regardless of what happens to Cypress, there may be greater good for Houston as a whole to have this project.  What I haven't seen anyone shed light on when I ask is how the following situations be handled given the current alignment:

 

1. How will HSR build roadway overpasses high enough over the corridor ROW that can also depress back down to it's original elevation where it crosses under 290 just a block away? HSR has claimed that overpasses will likely need to be built for roadway crossings, given that reinforcing an underpass would be much more expensive and prone to more issues, yet several of the crossings involve roads that cross under 290 a very short distance afterwards, like here or here or here or here even here at huffmeister when you consider the length needed to build the overpass for hwy 6 visible just south of it. This isn't even mentioning all the future necessary crossings that will have to take place as the land around grand parkway gets built out. Just looking here, you can see that greenhouse will need to cross when it eventually connects with Skinner, same as Mason rd. when it gets extended up from Katy to where it terminates in Fairfield, same as Katy-Hockley rd., and many other arterial roads I can't think of off the top of my head. I know that they are very open to considerations but I somehow doubt the willingness of HSR and/or Harris or Waller county to fund all these necessary overpasses, if they are even feasible given the close proximity between the rail corridor and 290.

 

*Even if an underpass proves to be more feasible than assumed, a lot of those intersections are still not feasible given the tight amount of space.

 

2. Where will the ROW be for future commuter rail out from Cypress into town? That may seem like a far cry of a necessity now, but one day it will undoubtedly be needed to service all major suburbs in town. This was the only continuous existing rail corridor that goes parallel from 290 into Houston. This could have an even greater long-term negative impact on the Cypress area if other communities like Sugarland, Katy, The Woodlands, Champions/Tomball/Spring, Kingwood, etc. eventually do get their own commuter rail lines off existing nearby rail corridors that go towards the inner loop.

[cspwal]

Roads can change elevations a lot in a short distance - for example 45 downtown where it goes over the bayou and the under Dallas (the Dallas Dip).  Granted that's not great for a highway, but for a road that is about to have a traffic light it's not that bad.

 

I suspect that TCR doesn't really care a whole bunch about commuter rail - they are focused on what they want to do (inter-city high speed rail) and will work with the area's to build in commuter rail if asked/it's not too expensive, but I doubt they are wringing their hands over commuter rail ROW

[curbur]

Roads can change elevations a lot in a short distance - for example 45 downtown where it goes over the bayou and the under Dallas (the Dallas Dip).  Granted that's not great for a highway, but for a road that is about to have a traffic light it's not that bad.

 

I suspect that TCR doesn't really care a whole bunch about commuter rail - they are focused on what they want to do (inter-city high speed rail) and will work with the area's to build in commuter rail if asked/it's not too expensive, but I doubt they are wringing their hands over commuter rail ROW

 

I could see where it could work for Fry rd or Huffmeister in those examples, however, I still don't see how it would be possible for Telge, West, or Eldridge, but I'd gladly stand corrected if they can make it feasible. In regards to that aspect, my only concern is that they connect across still, so if they can manage that anyway possible then it will be acceptable for those communities.

 

As for the latter point, I'm well aware TCR could give a flying f*ck about commuter rail for Cypress or what the impacts of not having it might be long-term, that's why I'm trying to point it out. I currently live in town, but grew up in Cypress and have a lot of family and friends there, and I just don't want to see them get screwed in the name of progress for the city as a whole. Potentially cutting off even some of these arterial roadways and possibly preventing future ones or commuter rail from being built will have a very tangible long-term negative effect on traffic in an area of town that is quickly becoming too populated already. I fear city and county officials are also going to be willing to screw over a few bedroom communities along 290 (if necessary for the project's completion) in order to better provide for the city as a whole.

[ADCS]

I could see where it could work for Fry rd or Huffmeister in those examples, however, I still don't see how it would be possible for Telge, West, or Eldridge, but I'd gladly stand corrected if they can make it feasible. In regards to that aspect, my only concern is that they connect across still, so if they can manage that anyway possible then it will be acceptable for those communities.

 

As for the latter point, I'm well aware TCR could give a flying f*ck about commuter rail for Cypress or what the impacts of not having it might be long-term, that's why I'm trying to point it out. I currently live in town, but grew up in Cypress and have a lot of family and friends there, and I just don't want to see them get screwed in the name of progress for the city as a whole. Potentially cutting off even some of these arterial roadways and possibly preventing future ones or commuter rail from being built will have a very tangible long-term negative effect on traffic in an area of town that is quickly becoming too populated already. I fear city and county officials are also going to be willing to screw over a few bedroom communities along 290 (if necessary for the project's completion) in order to better provide for the city as a whole.

 

It may feel noble, but that's just displaced NIMBYism, you realize.

[curbur]

It may feel noble, but that's just displaced NIMBYism, you realize.

 

It certainly is NIMBYism and I never said it wasn't, but I personally think there's a stark difference when you're being NIMBY in regards to one or two suburban neighborhoods vs an entire set of bedroom communities/suburbs, and I also think there's a difference of being NIMBY between when one is discussing an impact involving minor aesthetic, noise, or pollution issues and entirely another when we're talking about the impact a project has on traffic mobility for a rapidly growing part of the 4th largest city in the U.S. Do you understand how backed up some of these roads get during rush hour? Now imagine if half of them were all of a sudden cut off and did not go across 290 and rail line to connect with their southern portions? The remaining roads that do connect, primarily strung with large residential neighborhoods and a few small strip malls will become a logistical nightmare, and that's a generous assessment because in a lot of ways they already are now. Is it really just NIMBY concerns when we're talking several thousands of people could be impacted negatively?

 

Look, I'm not saying the train shouldn't be built, it was an eventuality that was going to happen sooner or later anyways. With that being said, I have to believe there's another solution that could be made that helps accommodate leaving some ROW for commuter rail or integrating it into the existing HSR line by adding one or two infrequently visited stops along 290 on the way in, and there also needs to be some forward thinking when it comes to all the crossings existing or planned running south to north up from I-10 to 290. I figure the more I can point it out and try and get others to address it with HSR like I am attempting to do, then the better the chance I hope that they will try and accommodate those matters. Lastly, I completely understand why these types of complaints would be a relatively unpopular opinion on an architecture and city planning forum.

[IronTiger]

Who says the roads have to go up and down? Why can't the High Speed railroad be sunken along 290, and have the existing freight railroads and crossings remain intact?

[BigFootsSocks]

Who says the roads have to go up and down? Why can't the High Speed railroad be sunken along 290, and have the existing freight railroads and crossings remain intact?

Why has no one mentioned the obvious answer is an elevated track from Houston terminus down 290?

Lol I don't see the confusion there

[cspwal]

Actually I think that was in a rendering somewhere...and it showed the current rail ROW untouched

[curbur]

Actually I think that was in a rendering somewhere...and it showed the current rail ROW untouched

 

I'd love to take a look at that if anyone has it offhand.

[BigFootsSocks]

I don't think it's official, just a very preliminary mark up

[Sparrow]

I'd love to take a look at that if anyone has it offhand.

 

http://www.texascentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Step-1-Screening-of-Corridor-Alternatives-Report.pdf

 

6.3.1 is where you need to look. Page 64. It's a good read.

[BigFootsSocks]

By the way curbur, my reasoning for a Cypress station was because of the meeting a few of us member here had with TCR President Judge Eckles (mouthful), where it was rumored that METRO would have the chance to build a commuter line parallel to the established railway line, underneath the HSR tracks (which, as this should answer your first question, will be elevated from the Houston terminus up until it passes 290 at the Grand Parkway. Technically, it's all "elevated") or they could share the HSR tracks but would have to buy the Shinkansen trains. This meant that a station for Downtown, 290/Beltway, and Grand Parkway would be the ultimate buildout of this line.

It seems that initially, they will go ahead and build just three stations on the first phase of the line. So in that respect, with the information we have now, you are right. When I posted that response a couple of weeks ago, the only information we had suggested otherwise.

As for your second question, that is up to METRO.

[Sparrow]

Why has no one mentioned the obvious answer is an elevated track from Houston terminus down 290?

Lol I don't see the confusion there

 

Indeed, as the initial screening indicates 100% of the urban lengths in both Houston and Dallas are assumed to be on viaduct. Other rural sections will be on embankments with culverts at appropriate locations for crossings where permissible as cost savings versus viaduct, but will still be elevated.

[curbur]

Well I really appreciate all the helpful information, especially without any arrogance to my ignorance of being in the know on this stuff or knowing how to obtain information. I studied computer science, but I kinda really wish I had gone into urban planning or civil engineering or architecture instead because it all fascinates me to no end. The elevated viaducts definitely wipes away my chief concern of continued car traffic mobility, and residents could live with that being built out. I also like that there's at least a plan in place for commuter rail with METRO after beltway 8 since the hempstead ROW ends there and HSR will have to start using some of the UPRR ROW at that point until it curves northward at Hockley. I'm sure METRO would take forever to do so if it doesn't somehow get piggy backed onto this project, but as long as there is right of way to make it happen in the future then cool. I guess the biggest loss then is the fact that the hempstead ROW will probably not be able to be used in order to build an elevated tollway. I was really looking forward to laughing at all the people stuck on 290 on a newly elevated hempstead tollway, granted I'd probably be pushing 40-50 at that point.

[IronTiger]

Since the existing railroads are still owned by UP and the like, I don't see why they can't stay (mostly) intact. So, let's say that the HSR is elevated as it crosses over 290 then re-aligns to it.

 

Becker Road - Not a problem. Should go right over it (the railroad). Same for a potential for Bauer Road extension, or Mason Road.

Bauer Road - Potential eventual expansion, should go right over it. Same

Grand Parkway - Significant problem in that the main lanes appear that they would block it, so it would need to go ground level. That would kill hope for any chances for frontage roads, but it looks like they weren't supposed to cross the railroads anyway....unless the frontage roads were sunken (not unlike at what happened at Beltway 8 and I-10 originally). However, if HSR remained at ground level, it would pose a problem for expansion of Bauer Road unless it was also sunken. However, from what TxDOT plans have, it looks like they did allow for the possibility of a "High Capacity Transit Corridor".

House-Hahl Road - This road has been mostly redeveloped so that this segment just connects to Mound Road, frankly I'm surprised that the crossing still exists so close to Fry Road.

Fry Road - This and any potential Skinner Road extensions should be okay too, so the next big problem is...

Barker Cypress Road - Due to the way that there is space under the road, it should be able to go under Barker Cypress, but not over it.

Northwest Lake Business Park - The freight railroad will have to be on the south side, it should rise back up to elevated, or should be sunken. Anything else will force abandonment. 

State Highway 6 - This is where I think sinking is necessary due to the fact that there's a railroad overpass AND at-grade crossings. The reason why the at-grade crossings exist in the first place was to provide full access. 

 

All the rest of the roads and spurs would benefit with just a continuous viaduct. This wouldn't run into problems again until Beltway 8, where running it sunken would mess up Senate, elevated would mess up the new frontage road bridges, so surface would be the solution, which would cause Brittmoore and Perimeter Park to be closed, neither of which cause access to be screwed up all that.

 

Elevated should take care of the rest until around Northwest Mall, because there are still some active-looking spurs, then Post Oak Road, then 610 (which cannot be elevated due to conflict with the overpasses there). So then, that's the first sign of trouble:

 

- The track could curve 610 going south (free ROW) then east along Old Katy Road, but that seems like a lot of curves for little payoff.

- The track could begin sinking after Long Point Road, then just rebuild bridges for the spurs and Post Oak Road.

- The track could end at Northwest Mall.

 

As for inner loop, part of my idea hinged on closing off the near-useless Allen Street as it provides few connections, with the extra ROW being used for not only the HSR but also sound barriers.

[mollusk]

tl;dr - Routing along 290 (and everywhere else) can occur without much (if any) pain to existing uses.  It's part of the plan.

[cspwal]

 

 

And as part of that study, by year-end the Texas Central Partners expects it will name the geographic region for its Houston depot. It's already narrowed the options down to northwest Houston, near the intersection of Loop 610 and U.S. Route 290, or in Houston's central business district downtown

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2015/10/high-speed-rail-company-moves-forward-with.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bizj_houston+%28Houston+Business+Journal%29

 

 

I guess we'll know by the end of the year what they decide to do.  I hope if they do announce it at 610 & 290, Metro also announces an inner Katy line to it at the same time.  I can dream right?

 

[curbur]

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2015/10/high-speed-rail-company-moves-forward-with.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bizj_houston+%28Houston+Business+Journal%29

 

 

I guess we'll know by the end of the year what they decide to do.  I hope if they do announce it at 610 & 290, Metro also announces an inner Katy line to it at the same time.  I can dream right?

 

Looks like downtown is off the table:

 

The Federal Railroad Administration has eliminated from consideration both of the paths that would have carried the trains to Houston's central business district. The agency is overseeing environmental approvals for the multi-billion-dollar line proposed by Texas Central Partners.

 

The decision essentially gives Texas Central "our target landing zone," CEO Tim Keith said, although the company still must procure numerous federal approvals, hold public meetings, raise money and acquire land before construction could begin.

 

 

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Planned-high-speed-rail-line-won-t-come-downtown-6627877.php?t=f1bfb19d02&cmpid=twitter-premium

[JJxvi]

Connecting a 290/I-10/610 area station to downtown is as simple as actually building the inner katy metrorail line we voted on in 2003 and has been ignored ever since.

Of course they've probably allowed the Heights and Wshington corridor to become a hotbed of NIMBYism in the meantime.