MaxConcrete

CoH has the right to purchase the property before it can be offered to anyone else or put on the market. I'm not sure about this, but Harris County could also have the same privilege, after CoH. In terms of price, my understanding is that CoH would have to pay market price. Determining the market price is not an exact science and the price could potentially be agreed to be on the low end of a market range and still be in compliance with rules.

I'm wondering if this will have any impact or influence on the plans for the redevelopment of the Imperial Sugar site. There was no activity at the Imperial Sugar site when I drove by a couple months ago. (I don't know if activity has started since then.) I'm thinking the competition from the Grid may make it more difficult for the Imperial Sugar project to proceed.

My assumption that the old Texas Instruments building would be demolished was wrong. (But I think I expected demolition based on the original project depiction, which IIRC appeared to show a parking garage on the main building site.) So it appears the T.I. building will be renovated to become office space. https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2018/09/24/houstons-first-in-n-out-burger-coming-to-mixed-use.html

Tonight's meeting for the north side was well-attended. I arrived just as the main presentation was ending. COH staff said the meeting materials are online, but I can't find anything. The big news to me was not related to the highway but was the proposed railroad consolidation. See the attached image link. (I was not aware of the railroad proposal until tonight.) In short, the proposal is to combine the two east-west railroads into one corridor by building a new section of railroad from around Main street to Houston Street. The railroad serving the Amtrack station and going through UHD would be abandoned. The railroad on the "Be Someone" bridge extending west would also be abandoned. The corridor of the "Be Someone" bridge would be replaced by a road for better neighborhood connectivity, which was listed as one of the three main objectives of COH planning. That new road appears to be part of the plan, regardless of whether or not the railroad relocation actually happens. The benefits of the relocation are huge (see items 1 through 8), and the cost should be affordable. I'm thinking that just eliminating the railroad and the need to build a shoofly where the existing railroad crosses IH-10 east of Elysian could save $15-25 million, and maybe another $10 million for the elimination of a shoofly on the "Be Someone" bridge. As listed in bullet 5, the railroad removal would make the North Canal possible. Another project in this area is the bypass canal for White Oak bayou. I think I may have heard about it previously, but it probably has a greater probability of being built post-Harvey. http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/Houston/20180904-0013-2000.jpg http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/Houston/20180904-0012-2560.jpg

Actually, the 2017 HCTRA financial statement says $134 million in toll revenue was skimmed off for "funding a county thoroughfare program to increase general mobility." Each of the three original sections of the Sam Houston Tollway generate around $100 million year (actually $105, $89 and $103 million going clockwise from IH 69 Southwest Freeway). Toll payers on these 3 segments are basically bankrolling HCTRA's surplus and slush fund. I can assure you that there really is no realistic alternative to the Sam Houston Tollway from IH 69 to IH 10. Try taking Gessner or Willcrest. It takes a *long* time even in light traffic conditions. So when someone says "Don't use them", that person is disconnected from reality. I think it is good to ask questions about 1) If the tollpayers on the Sam Houston Tollway original 3 segments should be bankrolling these surpluses into perpetuity 2) If tolls should be removed from any or all of those sections at some point in time

(post deleted)

The parking on the former Astroworld site is indispensable during the barbecue cookoff, since the cookoff takes over nearly all of the parking lot south of NRG stadium and the dome. When I went to this year's event, there were message signs reporting that the south (Astroworld) lot was totally full. During the rest of the rodeo season the lot is heavily used, but I don't know that it is critical. I also don't know if the site is used for parking for Texans games. So any parking that is lost due to development is going to have to be replaced, presumably with parking structures. Of course that costs money, and of course those parking garages will be empty most of the time, just like the surface lot. Since the Astroworld site has never been fully paved (although it has aggregate), that suggests to me that some kind of development may be envisioned for the future.

There are three streets now open on the corner of the property near the Southwest Freeway and West Airport. The street names are Lumen, Current and Pulse, scientific-sounding names which surely pay tribute to the former semiconductor factory. As dml423 mentioned, there are frames for small buildings, I counted three separate buildings (one very small in the first photo). There's still no new progress on the demolition of the main Texas Instruments building, which seems to be on hold for a long time. That leads me to wonder if there is an issue with environmental contamination, since old semiconductor plants were notorious for using nasty chemicals called ethylene glycol ethers (EGEs) as part of the photoresist process, and Silicon Valley is full of superfund sites where factories existed. (Those chemicals were also bad news for workers, see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-06-15/american-chipmakers-had-a-toxic-problem-so-they-outsourced-it ) Anyways, I'm just speculating about the EGEs, and I have no idea why the demolition seems to be on hold. It could be a financing issue. If anyone knows the reason, it would be interesting to find out.

At the public hearing last year, the homeowners in the Chenevert area were opposed to ramp due to the potential for more traffic on their streets. That probably was a factor.

The most significant change is for the connection to the SH 288 toll lanes. The connection into Chenevert Street is eliminated. The northbound SH 288 toll lane now connects into the ramp which connects to IH 45. The southbound entrance to the toll lane is now from the frontage road. The only other significant change is on the downtown connector at Dallas Street, as already pointed out and discussed. Looking at the schematic, the schematic creates the suggestion that the Sabine Street bridge is slated to be replaced. Trivial changes include some modifications to streets connecting to the frontage road at the 610/45 interchange, frontage road right turn geometries at the 610/45 interchange, and a two-lane exit to Bell on southbound IH-69 (previously one lane). So overall, changes in the design are minimal. I was disappointed to see that there were no adjustments in the locations of my list of concerns, so I think I can safely conclude that the design in basically final in those locations. http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis

https://thebuzzmagazines.com/articles/2018/03/road-much-taken

You are correct, the first planned construction of the overall downtown and IH 45 project is the section of IH 69 in Midtown. My perception (based on speaking to representatives at public meetings) is that they are proceeding full speed with design and will be ready for immediate work on right-of-way acquisition when the Record of Decision is received, which is expected this year. But I also heard that there is a last-ditch effort by northside interests to derail the entire project, which could delay the ROD, perhaps substantially.

http://www.traylor.com/nhcd-project-win-houston-ship-channel-bridge/ In the HCTRA contract document (https://www.hctra.org/-/media/3FE15A08139B437A991C1042337C68FD.ashx), the cost is listed at $567,911,750.40, well below the cost estimate of $612 million.

Photos were taken December 24

Site work is underway along West Airport. The perimeter street is mostly removed along West Airport, but is still intact on the rest of the property. There is no site work in progress anywhere else on the property. The contractor is Burton Construction. Demolition of the main building structure has not started. (Interior demolition may be ongoing.)

The official HGAC document updated in January 2017 says "Please note, this revised interim lane configuration [on US 290] does not alter the ultimate improvements proposed for the corridor, which include construction of a 4-lane managed lane roadway along Hempstead Rd to accommodate high-occupancy and toll users. Implementation of the ultimate project scope, as documented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision(ROD), continues to be proposed within the 2040 RTP and is anticipated to be open to traffic by the 2035 milestone year." The HGAC long term project listing and corridor overview both show the project, with very different costs, $1.1 billion on the corridor page and $2.7 billion on the project listing, which appears to be year-of-expenditure inflated cost. Whether it actually gets built will depend on numerous factors: if Texas Central is built (which makes the toll road more costly and less likely), the amount of congestion on US 290, the availability of a funding sponsor (HCTRA is probably not interested, private funding would be the best chance or maybe TxDOT depending on the political climate), and whether any high-capacity transit is planned or built in the corridor. So what are the chances it gets built? It's really difficult to predict. Definitely not a sure thing. I would say 50-50 chance it gets built by 2035.

The DEIS is massive and I've been sifting through it to try to find items of interest. The recommended alignment (alternative A) between Houston and Dallas is the westernmost alignment (not the Interstate 45 alignment). I'm glad to see that recommendation. Alternative A is 234.4 miles long with 21 miles at grade level, 77.4 miles on embankment and 135.9 miles on viaduct. This high percentage of viaduct (58%) is surprising to me and will surely be expensive. (Reference document 1 ES 9.2) Document 2 has depictions of the structure along the route, including the Houston area Document 31 has travel times. Initial service would be at 186 MPH, with a travel time of 86 minutes including the Brazos Valley stop. Future upgrades to 205 MPH would provide a travel time of 80 minutes. The track curves are designed to support 205 MPH on the full length. Details of the viaduct design in Houston are in document 34. The elevated structure normally has a vertical clearance between the ground and its lower edge of around 30 feet. The structure thickness is around 12 feet, and the catenary poles are 13m (43 feet) for a total typical height of around 85 feet. Starting at the Houston station If the Houston station is at the Katy Transit center, it may be difficult or impractical to ever extend the train into downtown Houston due to a needed sharp turn and proximity to Memorial Park. From Loop 610 to Gessner, the viaduct uses the south side of the Hempstead Road right of way (along the north edge of the Union Pacific right-of-way), using about 35 feet for the column positioning. The elevated structure does not infringe into the Union Pacific right-of-way. To maintain the current lanes on Hempstead Road, extra pavement will need to be added on the north side of the road. The viaduct crosses over to the south side of the Union Pacific railroad west of Gessner, and then goes underneath Beltway 8, touching ground level. It goes back to viaduct immediately after going under BW 8. West of BW 8, The alignment is on the south edge of the Union Pacific right-of-way West of FM 529, the viaduct is at a higher elevation with a ground clearance around 42 feet. Ground clearance increases to about 60 feet at SH 6. Total height is around 60 + 12 + 43= 115 feet Ground clearance returns to typical after SH 6, but is somewhat higher at Telge (40 feet) and Barker Cypress (55 feet) The track veers away from the Union Pacific/US 290 corridor at Fry Road, and the viaduct ends just west of Fry Road where the track returns to ground level for a while until it goes over SH 99 (Grand Parkway). After the Grand Parkway crossing it goes back to ground level until going back onto a long viaduct to cross Hempstead Road and US 290. The rail viaduct generally uses right-of-way that was slated for the proposed Hempstead Toll Road. So if the Hempstead Tollway is built, its right-of-way is pushed further north inside BW 8, and further south outside BW 8. This will surely increase property displacements and cost, but it is hard to say if the impact is minor or major. The Northwest Mall station location may be incompatible with the preliminary design for the Hempstead Tollway. Another difficult spot will be around Beltway 8, where the toll road would need to cross over the rail line. Overall, I think the high speed rail project will make the Hempstead Toll Road more difficult and expensive to build, and therefore less likely to be built.

Photos taken 29-October-2017 Looking north from Holly Hall Looking north from Holly Hall Looking north from Yellowstone, with the piers for the connection to Holcombe visible Looking north from Yellowstone Looking north from Holcombe, with rebar forms for the piers for the connection to Holcombe visible on the ground.

As of about 2 weeks ago, main structural demolition of the TI building had not started. (Interior demolition/cleanup could be in progress.) Anything to open on the property by July 2018 would have to be on land that is currently clear and available, which includes a lot of property along the freeway and along Kirkwood.

As JLWM8609 noted, the 59/69 SB to 610 NB ramp is staying as-is at one lane. All other ramps are being rebuilt, some with major realignments. I don't know the reason for leaving the 59/69 SB to 610 NB ramp as-is, but I think lane balance is a factor. The west Loop northbound cannot absorb another lane of traffic, so the ramp is maintained as 1 lane and traffic will continue to back up onto the Southwest Freeway.

I noticed that the parking lot across from Arabella is not being used, so I walked to the lot to investigate. It turns out this lot is for the Harris County offices at 2221-2223 West Loop South. The District Attorney is moving in due to Harvey damage at their normal location. (Other Harris County functions have already moved in, mostly filling the parking garage.) The land across from Skyhouse now has an aggregate base and is being readied for paving. I don't know how long the District Attorney will be here, I'm thinking 6-12 months. So there will be no development of the parking lot property as long as Harris County DA is here. There is no activity at the newly cleared lot on Westcreek across from the Wilshire (and directly east of Harris County), so new development on that property could begin at any time.

The vacant lot across from Arabella has been paved with a parking lot. I'm thinking this is a temporary lot for construction workers, since they were parking on the street north of Harris County Annex 85 (street is in the foreground in the photo), but recently the street was posted as a no parking zone and one side is now a tow-away zone. The field across from Skyhouse has been graded, but there is no evidence of paving right now. There is no construction activity today due to the muddy conditions.

I've worked at 2223 West Loop South for the last two years, and for the last two years during the day there was always a security vehicle and guard on the east side of the property. So yes, they spent a fortune on security guards. Since the teardown and cleanup will take around a week, the cost should be low. It does make me wonder why they waited to demolish the building.