MaxConcrete

I posted photos taken today, showing progress of the construction http://houstonfreeways.com/photos/grand-parkway-october-2015 It looks like the westmost section, from US 290 to SH 249, could be ready for opening soon, by the end of the year. From SH 249 eastward to US 59 there is still a lot of work to be done in certain spots, so I'm thinking those sections will open in spring and summer of 2016. Regarding BigFootSocks earlier comment that the right-of-way width is required to be 400ft: The right-of-way width varies and is 400 feet in some places but definitely not everywhere. Some spots are very narrow, such as at Hufsmith-Kohrville where it is less than 300 feet.

Photos taken today at US 59 north at at FM 1314 Looking north along US 59 Looking west from US 59. Only two connection ramps are included in this phase. Lookiing northwest Looking east at FM 1314. The median is surprisingly narrow. There is space to add only two more lanes. I'm assuming there will be a concrete or wire rope barrier with such a narrow median. It is disappointing so see low design standards on a new project, but on these toll projects the only thing that matters is the money so these compromises get made. It also looks to me that the corridor width is less than 400 feet, probably more like 300 feet. All through the environmental process the schematics showed a 400-foot wide corridor, but it may have been downsized for cost-cutting.

Many folks seem to think that the HSR needs to be connected into the transit system. From the business perspective, I think that's misguided and just plain wrong. The main market will be business travelers. Business travelers don't use transit. They are on an expense account. At their originating end, they will be glad to drive and park since they will expense the parking fee. At the remote end, they take a taxi or rent a car. The next market is leisure and personal travel, mainly catering to middle income, upper income and affluent folks. Going to the train station will be like going to the airport. Most people get a family member or a friend to provide airport dropoff and pickup. Other folks will drive and park, just like they do today. Then there's the lower-income and economy crowd. Currently this is mostly served by MegaBus and Greyhound. Many of these folks who don't have family/friends available for dropoff will be interested in transit. But those travelers are not the main market for HSR. They will stick to the cheapest service, MegaBus and Greyhound. Also keep in mind that people with anything more than minimal luggage prefer to avoid transit. Keep in mind this is not Europe. This is Houston. So from the business perspective, the idea of transit connectivity is bad business. Eckels comments have been consistent with the idea that people will drive to the station. It will be most important for the station to be easily accessible via car, and also have thousands of parking spaces, preferably reasonably-priced. Is there sufficient space downtown for parking? The Dallas station site already has two currently-unused large parking garages left over from the demolished Reunion Arena. The station site will also need to support the rental car agencies. From the perspective of easy access, providing ample parking at a reasonable price, and providing space for the rental agencies, the Northwest Mall site looks quite good. I think there is also a desire to make the station site a major destination. For that objective, more available land is a big plus. The 16-acre downtown Post Office site is perhaps the only suitable downtown site with (maybe) enough space, but so far there is no indication if the recent buyer (Lovett Commercial) is working with HSR, or if Lovett has any interest in accommodating HSR. HSR will make a business decision, not a political decision to support an urbanist's vision of transit connectivity. It appears that decision will be made once they get all the cost numbers and ridership/revenue numbers completed. The inner loop section of rail will probably cost around $1 billion, so it will need to be worth the price. I think a Northwest Mall location makes a lot of sense, and would also make the entire conversation about the inner loop alignment moot. Of course, the track could always be extended into downtown in the future. I think ultimately that stations at downtown, Northwest Mall and the Grand Parkway could be desirable.

It will be interesting to see what design is proposed for an I-10 alignment. The existing interior shoulders are at a minimal width, and putting the columns for the elevated train structure in the central shoulder space would use up all of the median and leave no interior shoulder, particularly undesirable for a freeway with 5 lanes each way. In some places the freeway pavement could be widened to the sides, like BigFootSocks mentioned on the sloped embankment in the trenched section, but in many places it will be very difficult and costly, like around Studemont and Heights. Then from Taylor Street eastward there already is an elevated structure in the median, and no available space on the sides for more structures - right-of-way acquisition would be needed and there is a park on the north side, limiting options. Along White Oak Bayou just north of downtown, whatever is planned for the train would need to fit both the existing freeway and the planned future design, which is still being developed. Right-of-way is super-tight in the proposed future plan. They could probably work around columns of the elevated train structure, but fewer constraints would be better. TxDOT probably has a long-term goal of adding HOT lanes inside Loop 610 to connect the existing HOT lanes outside Loop 610 to the planned HOT lanes in the proposed downtown freeway rebuild. That would be one or two lanes in each direction. The elevated train could make HOT lanes difficult or impossible in the tight areas without significant right-of-way acquisition, which may not be feasible. Generally speaking, the depressed section from TC Jester to Shepherd is the easiest to work with, but the situation becomes much more difficult the closer the alignment gets to downtown. As for relocating the freight railroad off the Washington rail corridor, that would be nice but I see chances of that as virtually zero. Bryan-College Station tried to relocate the tracks through Texas A&M, but it couldn't be done even though there is plenty of vacant land around the cities. Austin studied relocating the freight trains from the track which goes along MoPac Expressway and through downtown Austin so the track could be converted to transit use, but that that also proved to be impossible. High cost, long distance of the new alignment and lack of willingness of the railroad operators are the usual problems. It seems to me that the inner-loop NIMBYs are missing an opportunity by their opposition. Placing the HSR on the Washington freight corridor at grade level, then putting in continuous noise abatement (ie noise walls) and underpasses at all cross streets will be most beneficial. The freight train noise is abated and all railroad crossings are eliminated.

The Dallas Observer has a lengthy report on the project http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/on-the-line-will-a-dallas-to-houston-bullet-train-revolutionize-texas-7501328 There's not much new "news" in the report. The report mentions the already-known price tag of $10-12 billion, and says no decision has been made about the inner loop alignment but suggests that the I-10 alignment is preferred. "Eckels says they're hoping to run the line into the northwest side of Houston and then to move along the Interstate 10 corridor into downtown Houston. It's still unclear where the line will actually go." The one item in the report which piqued my interest was the mention that Texas Central estimates 12,000 passengers per day. They quoted one source who expects an average cost of $50-60 per ticket "Baruch Feigenbaum, a Reason Foundation analyst who supports Texas Central despite his skepticism of most U.S. high-speed rail projects, expects the company to charge between $50 and $60 per ticket, but Feigenbaum's calculations are based on the company owning and developing the land around the stations. Otherwise the fares will have to be significantly higher." However, $50-60 seems low to me, especially since I just checked the Southwest.com site and the one-way price is $218 for flights within a week and the lowest fare I spotted for advanced booking was $79 one way. I think $100 is a more reasonable average revenue per passenger-trip, and a higher number (maybe $110 or $120) is potentially achievable. HCTRA has highly rated bonds, and their annual statement reports that 2012 refunding bonds were in the range of 2-5% interest. One issue was $3.26%. As a risky proposition, I would expect the interest rate for the rail project to be closer to 5%, maybe even more. The numbers below assume a $10 billion price tag (probably low, $12B more likely). So you can see that it is possible to cover the interest with fares, but it requires some favorable conditions and will be greatly helped if ridership exceeds 12,000 passengers/day. 3% interest rate, $50 average fare $300 million interest payment, $219 million in annual revenue for 12K passengers per day 3% interest rate, $75 average fare $300 million interest payment, $329 million in revenue 4% interest rate, $75 average fare $400 million interest payment, $329 million in revenue 4% interest rate, $100 average fare $400 million interest payment, $438 million in revenue 5% interest rate, $100 average fare $500 million interest payment, $438 million in revenue 5% interest rate, $120 average fare $500 million interest payment, $527 million in revenue Of course, there will be many more expenses than just interest, including 700 to 1,500 permanent workers which should be at least $50 million per year. Interest + principle payments would also likely start out low and then rise over time, unlike most home mortgages which are a fixed price over the entire loan life. So the interest payment in early years would probably be less than the nominal interest rate. These numbers suggest that the project is financially marginal, and it needs a low interest rate to proceed. It also needs a good revenue per passenger ($100 or more) also really needs more than 12,000 passengers per day. If it does get strong ridership, say 20,000 riders per day at around $100 per ticket, then it would be a big success.

The budget rider relating to high speed rail is removed,and it looks like the threat is over http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/05/budget-writers-remove-provision-that-threatened-bullet-train-proposal.html/ AUSTIN – A proposed bullet train between Dallas and Houston has survived a budgeting measure that could’ve derailed the push in Texas to have the nation’s first high-speed rail line. Budget writers on Thursday removed a Senate-inserted rider in the spending plan that said the Texas Department of Transportation couldn’t spend any state money on “subsidizing or assisting in the construction of high-speed passenger rail.” ... Barring any further maneuvering in the Legislature’s final days, it appears that the high-speed rail proposal could emerge from the session unscathed.

More trouble at the State Capitol http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/10/high-speed-rail-at-risk-now-in-state-budget-bill/27083037/ If you watch the video with Dallas Mayor Rawlings on this page http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/05/10/inside-texas-politics-51015/27083251/ it appears this is a very serious threat and North Texas political leaders are in the crisis mode. DALLAS – Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings blasted a last minute addition to the state budget bill that would kill a private plan to build high speed rail between North Texas and Houston. "This enterprise has a chance to bring $10-$15 billion to Texas of private money. We're supposed to be about growth in this state; we're supposed to be about private enterprise, and here we are putting something in in the dark of night, which troubles me," Rawlings said in an interview Sunday morning on WFAA's Inside Texas Politics. The rider was quietly added to the budget bill over the weekend, News 8 has learned. As written, the rider limits the involvement of the Texas Department of Transportation in the project after an environmental impact study, which — insiders told News 8 — would essentially kill the Texas Central Railway's plan to build its own private tracks between the state's two largest population centers. "I know it wasn't publicly debated," Rawlings said. "It was kind of put in in the dark of night." (more at the official report)

I agree, SD. For the transportation perspective, it would be better to keep the Pierce Elevated, even if only for managed lane through traffic. It is always better to have multiple routes than a single massive route. With multiple routes, a disruption on a route has less impact because an alternate route(s) is available. With the mega-spine on the east side of downtown, a major incident could bring the entire network to a halt. But highways and politics are closely intertwined, so I think the Pierce is doomed, even for beneficial park purposes (ie http://pierceelevatedpark.com and http://pierceskypark.com) The original downtown freeway plan devised in the 1950s was intended to please the politically powerful downtown business establishment, which wanted maximum accessibility from all directions to keep them the "center of the universe". Connections into downtown are very good from almost all directions, and downtown did very well as a business and office center. Today, the downtown business establishment is not as dominant as in the 1950s, but still has plenty of influence. My perception is that their top priority is to get rid of the Pierce Elevated. Politically powerful interests usually get what they want, so the result is the recommended plan. Politics (and other objectives) prevail over good transportation principles. It's a political environment that gives a grim prognosis for repurposing the Pierce Elevated to a park. :-(

The Purple City analysis brings up some good points. In my view, these are the most egregious design flaws of the recommended design 1. Reducing Interstate 45 to two lanes in each direction at US 59 2. Reducing Interstate 10 to two lanes in each direction (eastbound at I-45, westbound at US 59). This is not as serious as I-45 because of the I-10 express lanes. 3. Reducing the Interstate 10 express lanes to 1 lane in each direction at the west end. 4. Reducing I-45 northbound from six lanes to four lanes at the North Main exit For comparison, US 59 maintains at least four lanes northbound and three lanes southbound all the way through downtown. I do recognize that these lane reductions are likely caused by lane balance issues, and compromises needed to be made.

Here's one more report from the meeting yesterday at Tin Hall in Cypress. There were many handouts available titled "Reality: ..." which presented information to dispel myths which appear to be common or rampant in rural areas, perhaps due to misinformation spread by project opponents. These myths included: the train is extremely loud, an myth fostered by online videos which jack up the volumes; that the project is seeking government funds; that TCP (Texas Central Partners) supports a national high speed rail network (they are interested only in Dallas-Houston); that the project will require a massive rights-of-way (reality is that it is 100 feet wide or less); that private landowners will get screwed; that the train will reduce or eliminate local access; and that TCP is a foreign-controlled effort. There were some anti-project individuals who had some attitude and took a disproportionate share of the representatives time. I'm thinking that situation is typical and much worse in the rural areas. Robert Eckels was there and was willing/eager to talk to anyone and everyone, including project opponents. I did not speak to him. I spoke to two reps and eavesdropped on conversations with a third rep. Some reps may be more "in-the-know" than others, and you don't always get exactly the same response for an issue. Station location: One rep said they expect/hope to have a decision by the end of the year. Another rep who seemed more in-the-know said there is no timetable for a decision and a decision will be made when they have all the information needed. That rep said most likely the draft EIS will need to be complete because the EIS will outline the measures and mitigations needed to bring the route downtown, and then the cost will be assessed. Going downtown will be a business decision, not a political decision, he said. I mentioned to the rep that readily-available information suggests it will cost at least $750 million to go from Northwest Mall to downtown, and the rep then became very animated and said something like "Oh yeah, it will cost WAY more than that." But when I asked him about the estimated cost, he would not give a number. I overheard another rep who said there is currently a full-blown engineering study of running the route along Interstate 10 and they are spending "a lot of money" on engineering/consultants. Officially, there will be one Houston station. Unofficially, a station in the Grand Parkway area is being looked at. I overheard one woman complain that a downtown station is very inconvenient and unattractive to everyone in the north and northwest suburbs. She said something like "If I'm going to drive a long way to catch a plane or train, I would rather drive to Bush Airport". The rep responded that they have studied the issue and are aware that customer bases will be minimized or lost depending on the station location, and that's why a suburban station is being looked at. My take: A decision on the Houston station location is not imminent. The section from Northwest Mall to downtown will be very expensive and potentially controversial, and that makes the business case more difficult. A downtown station is not a "sure thing". The possibility of a suburban station is in the preliminary consideration stage.

Klyde Warren Park in downtown Dallas, opened in 2012, placed a deck park over three city blocks where the Woodall Freeway was trenched. It cost $110 million, with about $50 million for the deck and $60 million for the park amenities.It was about 50% privately funded. But the proposed trench with US 59 and I-45 is about twice as wide as Woodall Rodgers Freeway. So I think we are looking at some serious money, probably $200 million just for the space behind the convention center.. I'm thinking TxDOT will design the freeway on the east side of downtown so that it can be overdecked if/when funding becomes available. I can't see the City of Houston alone coming up with the money, it will need to be a joint effort of many agencies and funding sources.

The point of the web sites is that by preserving the structure and repurposing it, you create something interesting and distinctive which can set downtown Houston apart from other downtowns. Suppose you would replace it with buildings, most likely 5-6 floor apartment structures. Not very interesting. And we all know about the perennial popularity of the Memorial Park jogging trail; the idea is to duplicate that kind of popularity with the recreation park, and offer a viewing platform for the curious and tourist-types. I think "billions" big exaggeration. Keep in mind there is a ample supply of parking lots and lower-tier commercial properties south of the Pierce Elevated that are available for development. There is no shortage of developable property. Available properties will become more valuable of course, with or without demolition. The idea is that properties south of the elevated structure will become even more valuable if they connect into the park (for example apartments), and restaurants/bars could have street level and park-level areas. I agree, the recreation path would still be feasible if only half the Pierce Elevated is preserved. But that would eliminate many options, such as food truck areas, pavilions, plazas and event zones. A realistic plan would probably preserve the full width in certain areas and maybe half the width in other areas, to open up areas on the ground level for access and plazas. The freeway corridor will remain on the northwest side, according to the TxDOT plans online. In fact, even tying the Pierce Elevated recreation path into Buffalo Bayou trails could be difficult since the TxDOT plans show the freeway starting at Jefferson and going north. But it could be done with a little planning.

You could say the same thing about the High Line in New York City, which is hugely successful and now a top tourist attraction for the city. If the structure is repurposed as a park, it would attract new development and no longer be perceived as a barrier, and the "dark, spooky" space underneath would be less of a concern.

Now that it is official that TxDOT is recommending a plan for which the Pierce Elevated is no longer needed for highway purposes, there are two sites (that I'm aware of) promoting its preservation and reuse for park purposes. http://PierceElevatedPark.com promotes its use as a recreational facility similar to the Memorial Park jogging loop. I'm the operator of that site. http://www.pierceskypark.com/ is a more formal effort to create a facility similar to the High Line in New York City. I think both ideas are far more valuable than a strip of half-block-wide vacant lots, which would result from demolition. The PierceElevatedPark.com proposal should be less expensive and easier to achieve financially, while the PierceSkyPark.com proposal is more artsy and architecturally interesting.

BusinessWeek posted an article about the next generation of Japanese bullet trains using MagLev tecnology, currently under construction between Tokyo and Nagoya scheduled for operation in 2027 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-21/world-s-fastest-train-records-speed-of-603-kilometers-per-hour "Japan is looking for an overseas customer for maglev technology as the country works toward opening its first major line. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has said the government may provide financing to support Central Japan Railway Co.’s bid to provide trains for a Washington-Baltimore line." The article says the 286-kilometer (179 mile) Tokyo-Nagoya route has a cost of $47 billion to build. That cost is probably easily justified by the huge customer base for that route. Trains will run at 500 km/h (313 mph). The conventional train proposed for Houston-Dallas is reported to run at 200 mph. Scaling the Tokyo-Nagoya cost to the Houston-Dallas distance, it is around $63 billion. Surely that cost is vastly more than the Houston-Dallas corridor could support. But if Houston-Dallas moves forward, it would be a bummer to some other place in the U.S. get maglev.

This appears to be the first opposition to the project by influential political leaders. In a previous post I stated that the risk to the project depends on the amount of political power of the rural interests, and it looks like the rural interests are rallying their political forces. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20150407-2-lawmakers-criticize-dallas-houston-bullet-train.ece 2 lawmakers criticize Dallas-Houston bullet train The Texas Legislature’s top two transportation officials on Tuesday criticized a high-speed train planned between Dallas and Houston, whose officials have lauded the project for months. Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, said Texas Central Railway leaders spent too much time talking to officials in the metropolitan endpoints of the line and not enough discussing plans with the rural towns the bullet train will have to run through. “They’re just shoving it down their throats, so the heartland is upset,” Nichols said. Nichols chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, which is slated Wednesday to hear testimony on a bill that would strip Texas Central of its ability to use eminent domain for the project. Company officials have zeroed in on a route between Dallas and Houston that would minimize the need to use condemnation. ...

It depends how much political power the rural counties have. My perception is that they can create a lot of noise, but they don't have much influence, especially in consideration of the large Houston and DFW influence. If TxDOT does provide a 50-foot-wide strip in conjunction with the Hempstead Tollway, the cost could be attributed to toll payers rather than taxpayers, or it could be justified to the public as getting a valuable track right (commuter rail) in return for the money. Even if a partnership for commuter rail or any kind of public support is not happening, it makes sense to build the Hempstead Tollway and high speed rail at the same time. TxDOT and TCR would share the cost of grade separations, lowering the cost for both.

On the audio for the March 27 HGAC meeting (http://www.h-gac.com/taq/commitees/TPC/2015/03-mar/docs/Item-8.mp3, unfortunately very poor audio quality), at 13:20 Eckels says they are studying a station at the Hockley/Grand Parkway area. Near the end, the discussion gives the impression that a downtown terminus is near-certain and the only question is the location. At 18:20, Eckels' comments suggest that a station at the northwest transit center is still in play, since he talks about BRT connections to the Galleria. So it sounds like the original plan for one station only in Houston could be under review. I have always had the opinion that a partnership between between TxDOT, Harris County and TCR is possible for potential commuter rail. It makes sense to build the Hempstead Tollway in conjunction with the high speed rail. A high-capacity transit corridor is part of the approved corridor plan. TxDOT would cover some or all of the cost of the intersection-free corridor for the train, since they would already be building an intersection-free corridor for the tollway. In return, a local commuter rail agency would get rights to run commuter rail on the track, and that would require a suburban station and probably a Northwest Transit center station.

I agree, it looks like the realignment is going to be recommended. I hope they can start locking up right-of-way as soon as possible to avoid the potentially huge expense of buying and demolishing property which is developed between now and the start of construction, such as the planned City View Terrace, a 12-story, 336-unit luxury apartment project on the city block bounded by Bell, Clay, Chartres and St. Emanuel streets. http://m.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2015/02/exclusive-groundbreaking-planned-for-52-million.html?page=all&r=full I am intrigued by the statement in the announcement relating to US 59 US 59 does not appear to be realigned in the future plan depiction. The US 59 corridor will be widened and the US 59 lanes could be shifted on the widened corridor, but I don't view that as a "realignment". I think it is unlikely that the US 59/I-10 interchange will be moved since it is relatively new, Perhaps (or probably) the statement was poorly phrased to create the ambiguity and there really is no realignment of US 59.

That is interesting, but the reason for this is still open to speculation, in my opinion. The Post Office is obviously in a hurry to vacate - within the next four months. That is not consistent with simply putting up the property for sale, since the property has been known to be potentially available for years. So (in my opinion) something is in the works, or a sale is well into the negotiation phase. The chance that the planned use is residential or office seems quite low to me. With the collapse of oil prices, it is unlikely developers will get financing. There is already a lot of office and and some residential under construction downtown, which could glut the market when those projects are completed. This is also a non-prime location for office or residential. Retail is more plausible. So that suggests to me that THSR could be involved. On the other hand, news reports list the earliest possible opening of the railway project is 2021, so the start of construction is at least 2 years away and probably more like 3 years in the future (especially considering that environmental clearance usually takes longer than expected). So that makes me wonder why the Post Office is in a hurry to vacate. THSR could feel some urgency to acquire the property, but there would be no urgency for the Post Office to leave. If THSR acquired it, they would probably want to lease it to the Post Office to get some revenue and allow the Post Office to plan an orderly departure. Then they would want to start clearing it in about 2 years. On a related issue, I just noticed that the web site for the environmental study is now redirecting users to a federal web site http://dallashoustonhsr.com/ Seems strange since highway projects are never on a federal site, but I don't think it means anything. The http://texascentral.com/ web site remains up and active.

Actually, I was wrong when I stated there is no mechanism for protecting the property. There is a mechanism: TxDOT's early acquisition of right-of-way. http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/acq/advance_acquisition_of_right_of_way.htm "Protective buying is early parcel acquisition to prevent imminent parcel development that would materially increase right of way costs, or tend to limit the choice of highway alternatives. The parcel must be needed for a proposed transportation project." So if the City of Houston is endorsing the apartment project and TxDOT is doing nothing to protect the needed property, this suggests the property may not be needed. Maybe Interstate 45 stays on Pierce Elevated, or maybe Interstate 45 is realigned further east. Or it could be that the future freeway plan depiction is accurate and the study needs to be final before early acquisition is an option. Whatever is going on, if authorities allow the apartment project to proceed, it is consistent with Interstate 45 staying on the Pierce alignment.

Here's a clue to suggest that the recommendation will NOT be to move Interstate 45 to the east side of downtown. http://m.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2015/02/exclusive-groundbreaking-planned-for-52-million.html?page=all&r=full This planned apartment building is east of Toyota Center on the block immediately east of the freeway bounded by Bell, Clay, Chartres and St. Emanuel streets. According to the depiction in the downtown association presentation, this block is needed for the project. You would think that there would be some coordination between city departments to preserve the block if the east side expansion is planned. Than again, maybe city departments don't talk to each other. The article says the project will cost $60 million. After it is built, I could easily see the value demanded by the owner as much higher. It depends on the market, of course, but I could see a total cost of $100 million including acquisition, legal expenses, relocations and demolition. So this leaves some possibilities 1. The study recommendation will be to relocate to the east side, and this property is not needed. (Would likely require elevated structures to accommodate Interstate 45, or maybe Interstate 45 would be further east.) 2. The study recommendation will be to relocate to the east side, and this property will be needed and will increase the cost substantially. However, there is no mechanism to stop the apartment building since the highway project does not yet have a Record of Decision. Sorry, taxpayers, for the extra cost. The extra cost could also delay the project. 3. Interstate 45 is staying on the Pierce Elevated alignment, so the development of this block can proceed with no impact on the highway project. The City of Houston is endorsing this apartment project. I suppose we'll find out when the recommendation is revealed. But this apartment project does seem to be a clue suggesting that the Pierce Elevated will live.

An alignment cannot be recommended without first being presented at a public meeting. So the Interstate 10 route is still under study and is not the recommended option. If they determine the IH-10 route to be feasible, there will be another public meeting.

The downtown freeways advanced design shows a complete realignment of Interstate 10 on the north side of downtown, and that new alignment would also carry Interstate 45. The depiction is very preliminary and it seems more realistic to me that the new alignment would be from McKee street westward. Either way, it would be a huge project if it is in fact the recommended design. Last year around summer (I think) there was a presentation to HGAC on the status of the study. (Unfortunately I can't find it now). The audio was posted and the presenter stated that routing IH-45 on the east side of downtown would require about half the block on the east side of US 59, and acquiring the entire block along the east side would cost about the same due to damages and that acquisition of the entire block would be their recommendation for that particular alternative. The advanced design image is consistent with that statement since it seems to show a cross-hatched vacant area on the east side of the expanded US 59 corridor. I'm also wondering if the cross-hatching is intended to indicate that the freeway will be sunk into a trench. The Houston 2015 presentation does seem to be a compelling "clue" about the recommendation of the study, which is not yet public. I think if this idea had been determined to be infeasible, it would not be included in the presentation.

While digitizing the family collection of Super 8 films from the late 1960s and early 1970s, I found this excellent video of Busch Gardens Houston from a summer 1972 visit. http://youtu.be/FWYk7t0f0Q4 When I searched online for other videos, I found only one which mostly showed the Clydesdale horses and parrots, with little footage of the park itself. My brother and I are the kids in the video. I asked my parents why we're identically dressed, and they had no idea. (We're not twins.) I'm the taller, slimmer kid, on the left side in the train shot. The boat ride is the only part of the park I remembered before seeing the video. I was very surprised to see that I rode on an elephant.