MaxConcrete

Check out this cost estimate of commuter rail lines for Houston, newly posted on the HGAC web site http://www.h-gac.com/taq/commitees/TPC/2014/10-oct/docs/TAC_Pres_by_GCRD-12Nov2014-rev1.pdf This is from the November meeting of the Transportation Policy Council. The report includes analysis for getting a commuter line from the Northwest Mall area into downtown, just like a lot of folks on this thread want the proposed high speed line to terminate downtown. It is not explicitly stated if the cost estimate is for track which is fully grade-separated or with street intersections. Since this is for commuter rail, I'm assuming there will be at-grade intersections with streets. I'm also assuming that commuter rail is not electrified, whereas HSR is electrified. This means HSR would be more expensive. Without knowing the number of intersections, I'm thinking the cost difference could range from around $50 million to possibly hundreds of millions more. A downtown station would also likely be more costly that a Northwest Mall station. This also is not a direct comparison because the report's numbers start from Mangum Road near 34th, and apparently include an elevated structure along Mangum. Therefore the route from Northwest Mall is around two miles shorter. Cost: $785 million. Since the HSR route would be shorter and presumably not go past the Northwest Transit Center (but go direct along Hempstead Road), cost would be reduced. But since HSR-quality track will be more expensive due to grade separations and electrification, cost is increased. So I'm thinking $750 million to $1 billion is a reasonable estimate to get from Northwest Mall to downtown, and include the higher cost for a downtown station. The least expensive route into downtown, which does not pass by Northwest Mall, is the route #1 in the presentation follows the rail which parallels the North Loop and then follows the Hardy Road corridor into downtown. $551 million. Bottom line: In my view, this expense makes a Northwest Mall terminus more likely.

Here are the poster boards with station locations. The URS representative answering questions said there will be one station in Dallas and one station in Houston, so the station location will determine the rail line terminus. I can't see the south Dallas stations as being feasible. South Dallas is of course a low-income area and the customers are in the north, and I don't see people wanting to go into south Dallas. For Houston, the situation is different. The Northwest Mall location is actually more convenient to most of the affluent potential customer base. The Beltway 8 locations are still potentially viable to much of the customer base.

The public meeting had the usual display boards. I was not able to stay for the presentation. The display boards didn't reveal anything new but the analysis matrix below shows that the utility corridor easily ranks the best in the environmental and engineering categories, and ties for first with BNSF in the financial category. So the chances of selecting the utility corridor seem very good. Here is some info that the representatives told me, which should be correct but should not be viewed as fact. * There will be one station in Houston and one station in Dallas. For Houston on the utility corridor (US 290), station options are downtown, near Northwest Mall and at BW 8. On the BNSF corridor station options are downtown and BW8. This would seem to me to make downtown less likely for both options due to the added cost. For the utility corridor (US 290), I'm thinking downtown is especially unlikely due to the probable high cost of the inner loop section and desirable location near Northwest Mall. * For either the BNSF or utility corridor, a new easement around around 80 to 100 feet wide will typically be acquired along the existing corridor (even if the tracks could be squeezed into the existing easement). The dedicated corridor with extra space will facilitate constructability and provide space for utility roads, maintenance access and emergency access. This seems like it will be easier along the high voltage corridor. But land acquisition could generate rural opposition. * The train uses 9 Megawatts of power when running at full speed. It uses more during acceleration but this is offset by regenerative braking (ie pumping electricity back into the grid). For a 90 minute trip, energy consumption is about 14 Megawatt-hours. The wholesale price of electricity is around $40 to $50 per megawatt-hour, so the electricity cost for a one-way train trip is around $700 (assuming $50/MWH). For comparison, a gallon of jet fuel has about 39.5 kwH of energy, so 14 MWH is equivalent to around 354 gallons of jet fuel based on pure energy content. I can't seem to find a typical power delivery efficiency for a jet engine, but it is surely less than the combustion efficiency (which is apparently very high - around 98%) At 25kV electrical supply, the train should draw around 360 amps (P=VI). But that is very rough - I'm assuming one phase and not adjusting for power phase and efficiency, and the train should be a highly inductive load (=higher phase angle). Maybe some electrical engineers can comment.

Yes, the web site finally has some actual information and the map of the two feasible alternatives is interesting. https://dallashoustonhsr.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/tcr-board-two-alternatives.jpg I really like the utility alignment option. I was not aware of that high voltage corridor, but it is nearly perfectly straight from Hockley all the way to near Jewett, about 80 miles. The utility alignment is consistent with my earlier posts that the high speed rail route was going to be impossible or difficult along existing roads or rails. The BNSF is noticeably curvier but still remains a finalist. It is possible that the final route will use parts of both corridors. Both corridors are too far away from Bryan/College Station, about 24 (utility) or 29 (BNSF) miles, to be useful to that area. I just can't see the logic of putting a station out in the middle of nowhere halfway between B/CS and Huntsville. And I'm still thinking that the US 290 route out of Houston can be done in conjunction with construction of the mothballed Hempstead toll road, and there could be an arrangement to use the corridor for commuter service.

That's the problem with existing rail alignments. They run through the center of many small and medium-sized towns, which will necessitate more grade separations (=more expensive) and potentially incite more opposition. I agree that the BNSF route has fewer small towns than the Union Pacific route, but just follow the BNSF route on Google maps and you can see how curvy the alignment becomes about 120 miles north of Houston, especially north and south of Jewett. Its seems to me that much of the alignment is unsuitable for HSR due to curviness. The Union Pacific alignment has big problems with towns and cities along the route. Just heading out of Houston: Hockley, Waller, Prairie View, Hemptead (sharp curve), Navasota, Bryan-College Station, Hearne, Calvert, Bremond. That gets you about halfway. Interstate 45 consists of a sequence of straight sections with curves between the straight sections. This is especially true closer to Dallas. I think most of the curves are too sharp for HSR. So this is the fundamental problem, which applies not just here but on most existing rail corridors in the United States. To get an alignment suitable for HSR, you need a new alignment. But that drives up cost, creates opposition and causes environmental issues. That being said, there is already a report which says the alignment goes east of College Station. That means a new "greenfield" alignment. If they are going to make this possible/feasible, I think they will follow multiple existing corridors when possible but much of the corridor will need to be on new alignment to avoid towns and curves. It remains to be seen if that can be done and maintain feasibility. If this is going to move forward, I have a suspicion that TxDOT will need to be involved in purchasing right-of-way for the new alignment and possibly leasing it back to the HSR corporation.

If the alignment near College Station and Houston station near Loop 610 and the Katy Freeway turn out to be the ultimate decision (although I think everything is still preliminary), then that means the corridor will follow the Union Pacific railroad along Hempstead Road or the BNSF corridor generally along SH 249 to Tomball. I think we can eliminate the Hardy Toll Road/railroad corridor as a candidate since it is not suitable for a College Station alignment. If it is the Union Pacific corridor along Hempstead, that opens up the possibility of expediting the currently-on-hold Hempstead Tollway which is part of the corridor's master plan. For the high speed rail, all grade separations will need to be eliminated. It would make sense to do this in conjunction with the toll road construction, making it similar to the Hardy Toll Road between Loop 610 and Beltway 8. It would probably be least expensive to bring the cross streets over the rail corridor and tollway easement, but of course the cross streets could also go under as may be needed outside BW 8. Preliminary schematics showed the high capacity transit corridor south of the tollway and existing railroad, not in the middle of the toll road like it is on the Hardy Toll Road. As others have noted, the high speed rail could do double service with commuter rail. I can envision a potential public-private partership, with TxDOT building the intersection-free corridor for both the railroad and toll road (the high speed rail corporation would pay for the actual tracks), and the high speed corporation granting commuter rail rights. Another item of interest is the mention that the station in College Station would be east of Highway 6. That means a new alignment. That's a favorable indication, because to get the straightness for the desired speed and to avoid small towns I think they will need to place much of the corridor outside Houston and Dallas on new alignment.

This photo provides a good view of the circular ring of columns while it was under construction. It also shows that the columns extend to ground level, below the berm that exists around the structure. But this image shows that below the berm many columns are integrated with other concrete structures, so the attached concrete structures are going to need to be carefully stripped away to preserve the columns. Actually, the more I look at the original structure and the depiction of the proposed monument ring, I'm thinking the monument ring will be a new replica. It seems like trying to use the original structure just won't provide a consistent, attractive structure. Also, trying to preserve the original will make demolition much more difficult and preclude the option of implosion. http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/610s_astrodome_construction_bailey_LIGHTENED_ROTATED_REPAIRED_ADJUSTED.jpg

Can anyone identify the location of this Lewis & Coker? LInk to higher resolution image http://oscarmail.net/photos/lewis_coker.jpg The sign in the distance might say Tanglewood Pharmacy. That could place this on Woodway maybe?

Schematics were on display at the March 2013 public meeting and can be found here http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh288-exhibits.html According to a recent posting on the HGAC web site, TxDOT is attempting to proceed with building the 4-lane 2-way facility (2 lanes each way) "ultimate" design rather than building an interim reversible 2-lane facility. It looks like the Loop 610 interchange won't be a five-level design even in the "ultimate" design. The current main lanes will become toll lanes and the main lanes will go on new structures. I seem to recall from the meeting exhibit that the main lanes overpass everything below, but the online schematic looks like the new SH 288 main lanes structures are one level above Loop 610.

This is a $4.4 million job to add an auxiliary lane for smoother traffic merging from the on-ramp at Fountainview. It is not related to the plans to improve the US 59/IH 610 interchange. http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2012/harris.htm#002713205

Can you provide some evidence that the Pierce Elevated corridor was "vibrant" in the early 1960s before the Pierce Elevated was built in the mid-1960s? Unfortunately I don't have photos readily available, but my recollection from photos is that it was mostly parking lots and lower tier commerical establishments. If any part of downtown was vibrant it was the core of downtown along Main Street where retail still existed. Freedmans Town was cleared out by Allen Parkway Village long before the freeway came through. If freeways are so destructive, can you explain how Midtown has boomed and flourished as little as one block from the freeway? Can you explain why apartments are being built directly adjacent to the freeway near Dallas Street? Your response is typical of anti-freeway interests - always make freeways the scapegoat for urban problems, always claim freeways destroy (or in your case "ripped apart"), even if the facts are otherwise.

More lanes are needed, and express lanes are certainly one way to get those lanes. One problem is the placement of the columns to support the elevated express lanes. The lack of an interior shoulder on the Pierce Elevated rules out that option, so the elevated structure would basically need to span the entire Pierce Elevated. A likely bigger problem would be objections from anti-freeway interests to a taller elevated structure. If opposition could be overcome, an upper deck with elevated express lanes is likely the least expensive and surely the least disruptive option to add capacity.

Once the idea of a downtown "roundabout" is studied it will be dismissed very quickly. First, it makes no sense to send one direction of Interstate 10 traffic around downtown. Interstate 10 will need to remain 2-way. Second, you are introducing a substantially longer distance to travel for many vehicles, which in itself translates to more traffic. The shortest path is normally more efficient. If the Pierce Elevated and US 59 Chartres Elevated are one way, the north side of the loop (Interstate 10) will need to be made much wider, at least double its current number of lanes, to handle the US 59 and IH 45 traffic. This would be costly - I'm not sure if it is feasible. The cost of reconfiguring the interchanges, particularly at US 59/IH45 will be high. Since that interchange is old and will near the end of its life in 10-20 years, that may not be an issue. But the US 59/IH 10 interchange will also need major work and that interchange is about 9 years old. Also, keep in mind that the main benefit of one-way streets (such as downtown streets) is to make turning movements much more efficient (no cycle time for left turns) and eliminate crossing traffic. These benefits don't exist for a freeway since freeways are already limited-access. If political leaders want to solve the problem they're going to have to widen the two biggest bottlenecks downtown: the Pierce Elevated and US 59 between Spur 527 and SH 288, and ensure proper lane balance for the new lanes. I think it is feasible to widen the Pierce Elevated - the 1960s-era 2016 Main and St. Josephs building could be acquired for a feasible cost. It will take some political leadership to move any improvments forward, and I see lack of leadership as more of a problem than the cost of property acquisition.

First of all, if you want to take away Houston's general mobility funds derived from the 1-cent Metro sales tax, you need to say which taxes should be increased to make up for the shortfall or which government services should be cut. These would be substantial tax increases or service cuts. Second, the idea that the general mobility funds actually go toward new road construction or repair is mostly false. What happens is that the general mobility funds do go into a road construction/maintenance account, but the general revenue which previously funded road construction is diverted elsewhere. So in effect, the mobility money is diverted to law enforcment or other fixed costs (like pensions), so the net increase to roads is typically low. I remember reading an article about this practice many years ago and unfortunately I can't recover it. Other cities receiving general mobilty funds do the same thing. If general mobility funds go away, taxes must be raised or law enforcment must be cut. Third, the condition of Houston's streets is generally horrible. Sure, you can find some decent or newly-rebuilt streets, but in southwest Houston the condition is an embarrasment. We need more street maintenance and reconstruction, not less. Fourth, .75 cent going to transit is a substantial tax and a substantial river of money. Looking out for the interests of taxpayers, I think Metro has nothing to complain about with that revenue stream.

An airport station makes no sense for high speed service between Houston and Dallas because both Houston and DFW are major airline hubs. After all, who wants to take a train to DFW when you can get a non-stop to virtually all the same locations from Bush or Hobby? Same logic holds true for DFW dwellers. Now, the situation is totally different for a high-speed track along the Interstate 35 corridor serving San Antonio, Austin, Waco and the other cities (San Marcos, Temple, New Braunfels). Neither Austin nor San Antonio are hubs, and a large percentage of travelers from those cities are already connecting through Bush or DFW. A fast train straight into DFW would be very attractive to those folks. Any true high-speed rail is unlikely to actually happen anywhere and Houston-Austin or Houston-San Antonio is most unlikely, so I don't think there's any point in contemplating high-speed service from Austin or San Antonio into Bush.

I say there should be zero stops between Houston and Dallas. The stops will increase the trip time, and it will be critical to make the trip as short as possible (ie top speed all the way) to attract riders. Also, there is no city between Houston and Dallas that would have decent patronage. Huntsville seems like the only possibility. Forget about suburban south Dallas - it's not a market either. The recommended alignment may follow US 290 to the northwest and in that case Bryan/College Station could be on the path. So the stops would be: central Houston, one suburban north Houston stop (maybe Woodlands) and central Dallas. Of course, due to cost and ridership issues they will probably recommend using existing tracks with much lower speeds. In that case the train will be serving a different market (not the premium and business markets) and more stops could be accommodated.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/profserv/notice/83-2SDP5002.htm This is burning up money allocated by the federal government for high speed rail. It looks like a comprehensive study and we can expect to see public meetings in the next couple years. I don't think high speed rail can come anywhere close to being economically viable, but I will be interested to see the recommended alignment and cost estimates. The minimum top speed of 150mph will surely necessitate new track, most likely on new alignments (rather than exclusively following existing corridors.) That will drive up the cost - I'm guessing a minimum of $10 billion.

Westbury, Sharpstown, Lee, and Bellaire were generally peers in terms of student body makeup and overall socio-economic status as of the early 1980s, with virtually no gangster element at any school. Sure, Bellaire was academically better and had more money, and Lee did have some money, but the gaps between these schools were not large. It was around 1983-1984 when Sharpstown started a steep decline as the apartments zoned to the school became low income. Sharpstown's district took in some of the Fondren Southwest area, and those apartments introduced many bad elements to the school. Of course, we all know what happened to Sharpstown, Westbury, and Lee. Only Bellaire remains desirable. -Sharpstown High School class of '85

As you are probably aware, a 50-foot-wide corridor was set aside along the Westpark corridor for future transit use. It appears that the corridor will be used for light rail from near Cummins to the Hillcroft transit center at the Southwest Freeway. West of the Hillcroft transit center, there are no plans to use the corridor, as far as I know. The Westpark corridor is not a candidate for commuter rail, as far as I know, so any extension would be light rail. So, to answer the question, there never were any actual plans for rail on the corridor west of the Hillcroft transit center. The right-of-way set-aside ensures that rail is an option for the future. But due to the outrageous cost of light rail, it is only feasible for short distances (less than 10 miles) and I think farthest it will ever extend west is to Beltway 8. But you never know. In 30 or 50 years, extending transit to Katy or even Fulshear may be feasible. That's why the right-of-way is preserved. Also, TxDOT has nothing to do with the Westpark Tollway. It is a project of the Harris County Toll Road Authority and the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority.

I remember going in the evening with my parents (as a 9-year-old). My main memory is a huge line waiting to get in. As for the exhibit in the train, I can't remember any specifics. But I do remember waiting in that line!

Yes they do have a collection of yearbooks. I haven't used the yearbook collection myself but I have seen others making requests and the collection appears to be substantial.

Yes, I definitely remember it. I never went to it when it was a functioning business, and it seems like it wasn't in business very long and was abandoned for a much longer time. I visited the abondoned facility at least once, probably in the 1983-1985 time period but possibly earlier. The "bowls" were of course filled with dirty water, debris, and shopping carts.

The Westbury Square thread reminded me about this article which I had not exposed to the web. It provides history of the airport from its origins in 1941 to the article date in 1947. As noted in the Westbury Square thread, the airport property is bounded by present-day South Main, Chimney Rock, Hillcroft and West Bellfort. http://houstonfreeways.com/images/sam_hous...ew_complete.jpg

Here is an aerial photo taken around late summer 1964 clearly showing the alignment of Old South Main. Soon after this photo was taken, the alignment was overrun by development high resolution http://www.oscarmail.net/dfwfreeways/image...f_1896x1513.jpg low resolution http://www.oscarmail.net/dfwfreeways/image...off_948x756.jpg