West Belt Project - Underpasses In District H & I Railroads

[hindesky]

The grant application for over $36 million would go toward railroad and street connections that have been known problems in east downtown in Houston's districts H and I, District H Council Member Karla Cisneros said at the meeting. Funds, if awarded, will come from USDOT's Federal Railroad Administration Railroad Crossing Elimination Program.

The plan entails a 14,600-foot sealed rail corridor along the Houston Belt & Terminal Railroad’s West Belt Subdivision. The first phase also includes the construction of four underpasses—at Sampson, York and Commerce streets and at Navigation Boulevard—and the closure of four at-grade crossings.

Phase 1 also has the potential to create a 9,000-foot sealed corridor and quiet zone in districts H and I.

https://communityimpact.com/houston/heights-river-oaks-montrose/city-county/2023/02/15/houston-moves-forward-with-phase-1-of-west-belt-improvement-project-creation-of-railroad-underpasses/

[sapo2367]

Man this would be amazing -- less trains stopping traffic and also less need for train horns

[JClark54]

It took a monumental community effort to reach this point, and it was fantastic to see council finally act. Still need to get the FRA, the administrator of railroad crossing elimination grant funding, to green-light it. 

[samagon]

this has been a slow moving project for more than 10 years at this point, I think the last update was that the EEMD had submitted a request as well, which I guess is what kicked the Houston city council into action. 

maybe it'll actually be approved and done in the next 10 years.

[004n063]

3 hours ago, hindesky said:

The grant application for over $36 million would go toward railroad and street connections that have been known problems in east downtown in Houston's districts H and I, District H Council Member Karla Cisneros said at the meeting. Funds, if awarded, will come from USDOT's Federal Railroad Administration Railroad Crossing Elimination Program.

The plan entails a 14,600-foot sealed rail corridor along the Houston Belt & Terminal Railroad’s West Belt Subdivision. The first phase also includes the construction of four underpasses—at Sampson, York and Commerce streets and at Navigation Boulevard—and the closure of four at-grade crossings.

Phase 1 also has the potential to create a 9,000-foot sealed corridor and quiet zone in districts H and I.

https://communityimpact.com/houston/heights-river-oaks-montrose/city-county/2023/02/15/houston-moves-forward-with-phase-1-of-west-belt-improvement-project-creation-of-railroad-underpasses/

Isn't Navigation already an underpass? Samson and York would be great (if bike-accessible), as would Commerce, but I would be very interested to see what the Commerce/Navigation underground intersection would look like...

[JBTX]

35 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

Isn't Navigation already an underpass? Samson and York would be great (if bike-accessible), as would Commerce, but I would be very interested to see what the Commerce/Navigation underground intersection would look like...

Navigation is, yes. And you can take a quick right off Commerce to go under the Navigation underpass. I too was confused by this being listed here.

[hindesky]

When I saw Navigation, this R.R. crossing is the one I thought of at around the 7300 block of Navigation. I've been stuck at this crossing several times. The same train was blocking multiple streets as I tried to get around it.

[JClark54]

Navigation would be rebuilt, per the grant proposal. Yes, it's currently an underpass. It's long in the tooth, like Polk (which is not included, just referencing similar age). Will be an opportunity to add pedestrian elements to something that will need replacement in the future anyway. 

Edited February 17, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

I have not seen the city grant application, but I presume it mirrored the grant application the EED threatened to submit for BIL funds if the city continued to stand idle. The EED made its request using recommendations from a 2012 TxDOT-Gulf Coast Rail study, which sadly was last time anyone really looked at rail-car/pedestrian mobility in this area.

Here's the EED's grant scope. From what I've been told, this is also the city's (I just haven't seen it so I can't confirm): 

A feasibility study report developed in 2012 recommended five underpasses to replace railroad crossings on the east side of downtown Houston. Two of the recommended underpasses have been identified as the most viable to move forward at this time:

Commerce Street/Navigation Boulevard

• Reconstruct existing Navigation underpass
• Construct new Commerce underpass to intersect with Navigation underpass
• Construct new bicycle lanes and sidewalks
• Close railroad crossing at Hutchins

York Street

• Construct new underpass on York below three sets of railroad tracks
• Convert York and Sampson to two-way streets within project area
• Construct new bicycle lanes and sidewalks
• Close railroad crossing at Sampson between Rusk and McKinney
• Close railroad crossing at McKinney between York and Milby
• Close railroad crossing at Milby between Woodleigh and Polk

The purpose of these projects is to enhance safety, mobility, air quality, and emergency response time by eliminating at-grade railroad crossings. Completion of the projects will allow for a railroad quiet zone from Runnels Street to Leeland Street. 

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

Earlier this month, US DOT announced the EED was awarded $600K in BIL grant monies to create a safe streets and roads action plan. It's not specific only to rail, rather a component of the larger road safety environment. 

The vast majority of recipients were cities, countries, regional transportation bodies like METRO, or regional governmental associations like H-GAC. The EED was the only capital improvement/investment/development district to get a grant.

Edited February 17, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

The project is the West Belt grade separation, which TxDOT first proposed in 2012. City council voted in February to submit a grant proposal to cover the local portion, and TxDOT has supported the measure as a way to boost throughput the 45. 

• Construct new underpass on York below three sets of railroad tracks
• Convert York and Sampson to two-way streets within project area
• Construct new bicycle lanes and sidewalks
• Close railroad crossing at Sampson between Rusk and McKinney
• Close railroad crossing at McKinney between York and Milby
• Close railroad crossing at Milby between Woodleigh and Polk

Edited March 13, 2023 by JClark54

[004n063]

I'm still trying to figure out the full impact of the West Belt improvement project. From searching online, I can't find anything conclusive, but it does seem that it would create two new underpasses (Commerce and York) and close a few existing crossings once the underpasses were open. Of those closings, McKinney, Sampson, and (though I could not find anything confirming that it would be closed) Leeland would be the most significant.

 

Does anybody have better info?

Edited March 17, 2023 by 004n063

[JClark54]

The West Belt project would place York below grade, with the drop beginning at Dallas or Lamar (TxDOT has Dallas and the city has Lamar) to Harrisburg. It will create much-needed passage under the West Belt and Galveston Subdivision at York as well as rebuilding the existing Navigation underpass to include Commerce. 

Included in the project is the long soughtafter quiet zone, which TxDOT and its partners could accomplish using additional grade separations or street closures. It tagged closures at $50K apiece versus separations at many millions apiece. So the byproduct is the closure of many streets where they cross York or the West Belt, including streets TxDOT has identified to carry traffic to and from the highway. 

 

The project is contingent on federal funding as the city won't have the local match. If the feds come through, Sampson and York will become two-way streets, with Sampson dead-ending at both sides of the West Belt. York will continue through as an underpass, although I doubt that is in stone. The Harrisburg overpass, as an example, was originally designated an underpass. Soil contamination made it unfeasible. 

I believe the US DOT will approve the city's grant application, as communities around the West Belt and Galveston Sub have begun documenting train blockages -- not moving trains, but ones stopped on city streets -- and reporting directly to the FRA rather than the usual course of the railroads. The FRA studied the area and found it was the most congested complex in the United States of America. It sees twice the number of blocked crossings in excess of 15 minutes -- the federally designated maximum time a train can sit at a crossing -- than the second most congested city. 

TxDOT's most recent Houston region freight rail study found up to 75 trains per day cross the double-track mainline West Belt, so three-plus trains per hour. Being generous and using 10-minute passage times, that means crossings are blocked half the day, every day. In reality, the trains move slower in the east end due to myriad factors (rail yard density, turns, and general line congestion) and the average crossing time exceeds 20 minutes, plus there's the usual parked train. So the actual impact is far greater. 

As a single-track mainline, the Galveston Subdivision sees less total train volume but suffers from long stops. There is no crossing of this line besides Emancipation and Wayside, a three-plus mile gap. 

The improvement project is much needed. Rail volume is increasing, and the railroads predict it will not stop anytime soon. They've underinvested in rail infrastructure expansions while committing to an operating model -- PSR -- that embraces extending train lengths while reducing staff. 

Just two days ago, the STB approved the Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern merger, which will bring an additional 8-14 trains per day through the Houston complex. One of its two operating routes is the West Belt. 

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by JClark54

[Houston19514]

24 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

The West Belt project would place York below grade, with the drop beginning at Dallas or Lamar (TxDOT has Dallas and the city has Lamar) to Harrisburg. It will create much-needed passage under the West Belt and Galveston Subdivision at York as well as rebuilding the existing Navigation underpass to include Commerce. 

Included in the project is the long soughtafter quiet zone, which TxDOT and its partners could accomplish using additional grade separations or street closures. It tagged closures at $50K apiece versus separations at many millions apiece. So the byproduct is the closure of many streets where they cross York or the West Belt, including streets TxDOT has identified to carry traffic to and from the highway. 

 

The project is contingent on federal funding as the city won't have the local match. If the feds come through, Sampson and York will become two-way streets, with Sampson dead-ending at both sides of the West Belt and Galveston Subdivision. York will continue through as an underpass, although I doubt that is in stone. The Harrisburg overpass, as an example, was originally designated an underpass. Soil contamination made it unfeasible. 

TxDOT's most recent Houston region freight rail study found up to 75 trains per day cross the double-track mainline West Belt, so three-plus trains per hour. Being generous and using 10-minute passage times, that means crossings are blocked half the day, every day. In reality, the trains move slower in the east end due to myriad factors (rail yard density, turns, and general line congestion) and the average crossing time exceeds 20 minutes, plus there's the usual parked train. So the actual impact is far greater. 

As a single-track mainline, the Galveston Subdivision sees less total train volume but suffers from long stops. There is no crossing of this line besides Emancipation and Wayside, a three-plus mile gap. 

The improvement project is much needed. Rail volume is increasing, and the railroads predict it will not stop anytime soon. They've underinvested in rail infrastructure expansions while committing to an operating model -- PSR -- that embraces extending train lengths while reducing staff. 

Just two days ago, the STB approved the Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern merger, which will bring an additional 8-14 trains per day through the Houston complex. One of its two operating routes is the West Belt. 

 

 

 

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, they are proposing to close a number of crossings that under current circumstances are already blocked by trains for a good portion of the day (with more to come).  And add at least one additional grade-separated access point and improve another.

[JClark54]

For the Second Ward side of the east end, all streets going toward downtown will be closed at various points (whether due to ending at a below-grade street or being dead-ended for the QZ) except Leeland, Polk, Harrisburg, Commerce, and Navigation. Hutchins, a quasi-popular perpendicular route from EaDo to Second Ward, will be closed at the West Belt. That will leave Emancipation, York and Wayside.

Put lightly, it will be impactful. It surely improves connectivity on York, Navigation and Commerce, but ends connectivity on all minor streets.

Edited March 17, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

57 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, they are proposing to close a number of crossings that under current circumstances are already blocked by trains for a good portion of the day (with more to come).  And add at least one additional grade-separated access point and improve another.

Yes, but that only furthers my and Samagon's position against your earlier claim. The West Belt project effectively creates a three-mile-long wall that runs diagonally, minus  select streets that get seperated passage. 

Moving traffic to or from downtown onto streets without separations coupled with closing minor at-grade streets will only greatly exasperate the dangerous driving already prevalent in the east end. Drivers coming down Leeland or similar will hit a train or closed intersection and make hazardous decisions as they continue to hit obstructions. 

Maintaining Polk as continuous or building a separation at Leeland if the current design is kept would be solutions for that aspect since these two projects may very well happen. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

Congress has given the railroads the ability to decide whether to report real-time train traffic activity to federal and local authorities. At least UP and BNSF, the track owners here, have decided against it for what they say are national security reasons.

So the claim drivers can make multi-point turns and get around a blockage is spurious at best because navigation apps don't know when blockages occur. It would take driver familiarity. Yes, locals will surely make the jag. Those who don't know, won't until the obstruction is met. 

TomTom, Google and other navigational service providers have discussed this headache in interviews. They will route people down Leeland as the most direct or least turns, only to hit a train. Same can be said for the other direction. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by JClark54

[004n063]

Interesting stuff. To be honest, I've always thought of those tracks as essentially a wall anyway, due to the trains themselves.

I wonder if they can add at-grade ped/bike crossings (à la Sherman) to some or all of those closed crossings. Wouldn't help the drivers much, but it'd be great for me!

[JClark54]

1 hour ago, 004n063 said:

Interesting stuff. To be honest, I've always thought of those tracks as essentially a wall anyway, due to the trains themselves.

I wonder if they can add at-grade ped/bike crossings (à la Sherman) to some or all of those closed crossings. Wouldn't help the drivers much, but it'd be great for me!

I can only speculate, but I imagine at-grade closures will be nothing more than raised curbing and orange signage like you see for roads in EaDo closed for the light rail. Those ending at separated crossings obviously will be different.

I wrote in another Hou Arch forum that I think Velasco would make a great pedestrian crossing and create a major difference in the physical and mental barriers between the two sides. It's fairly between Emancipation and York, allowing another passage, and would connect the Columbia Tap Trail to the Concept Neighborhood development and the rail line it plans to turn into a trail. That trail is set to connect with the bayou trail. 

The issue is Velasco hits UP Congress for a short stretch, so it'd have to be a bridge. Chicago and many other cities have bridges that span whole yards, so it's not impossible. I am just unsure whether officials here have the drive to pursue an infrastructure project of that scope for non-auto applications. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by JClark54

[004n063]

3 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

I can only speculate, but I imagine at-grade closures will be nothing more than raised curbing and orange signage like you see for roads in EaDo closed for the light rail. Those ending at separated crossings obviously will be different.

I wrote in another Hou Arch forum that I think Velasco would make a great pedestrian crossing and create a major difference in the physical and mental barriers between the two sides. It's fairly between Emancipation and York, allowing another passage, and would connect the Columbia Tap Trail to the Concept Neighborhood development and the rail line it plans to turn into a trail. That trail is set to connect with the bayou trail. 

The issue is Velasco hits UP Congress for a short stretch, so it'd have to be a bridge. Chicago and many other cities have bridges that span whole yards, so it's not impossible. I am just unsure whether officials here have the drive to pursue an infrastructure project of that scope for non-auto applications. 

 

 

 

Yes, there's been some discussion of a ped/bike bridge like that on here. Like the hypothetical purple line stop at Rusk@Ennis, though, I think it only really exists here, in fantasy. Both could be great projects, though.

[JClark54]

2 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

Yes, there's been some discussion of a ped/bike bridge like that on here. Like the hypothetical purple line stop at Rusk@Ennis, though, I think it only really exists here, in fantasy. Both could be great projects, though.

At the last EaDo TIRZ meeting, they surveyed attendees on what they'd do with $10 million of capital improvement cash. The new stop was one option. I asked TIRZ members why they would have that as an option rather than METRO, and they said METRO is on board with the new station but would not fund it. 

I put my money elsewhere as improving walkability is closer to my heart. If it's valuable to you, however, I suggest shooting them a comment or attending their next meeting. 

[JClark54]

In this forum, people say wait or go around. In the east end, it's not actually that easy. Saying make a multi-block turn or go around may mean adding many miles -- in one scenario as much as six miles is needed to cross one street with a crossing. That really tells me the person lacks understanding or doesn't  care. 

Blockage impacts extend far beyond resident and passer-by upset. Railroads don't even alert first responders, as you can see here: https://www.shelbycountyreporter.com/2022/09/25/tracking-an-ongoing-issue-a-look-on-train-blockages-and-their-lasting-impact-on-emergency-response/

Houston Fire Chief Sam Pena has spoken before the FRA and STB about the challenges his department faces by not knowing where blockages occur and for how long they will be there. Here's the City of Houston's public comment in regards to the CP-KCS merger. 

CoH Public Comment.pdf

Edited March 17, 2023 by JClark54

[JClark54]

And since one metric of alleged proper advocacy appears to be the number of times one speaks with Houston Chronicle transpiration reporter Dug Begley, something tells me east end residents are going to come out on top there, too.

 

[77002er]

Is this the I-45 rebuild north Houston highway tread? It sure doesn't read that way

[JClark54]

1 hour ago, 77002er said:

Is this the I-45 rebuild north Houston highway tread? It sure doesn't read that way

Eh, three different posters in this thread asked for more information about the West Belt project. Maybe you can direct them to the existing thread? 

Edited March 18, 2023 by JClark54

[JLWM8609]

On 3/13/2023 at 7:59 AM, JClark54 said:

The other TxDOT-supported project that will dead end all those connector streets is further east, so it's more than just the NHHIP. The neighborhood concerns stem not from closing Polk in a singular instance, but closing Polk coupled with the upcoming project designed by TxDOT to improve access to 45 at Scott.  

I'm trying to find info about that project at Scott St. on TxDOT's website, but can't find anything. Where'd you find out about it?

[JClark54]

You may have trouble finding the West Belt Improvement Project because it's under TxDOT's freight rail division rather than transportation planning, where most projects are located. It's also not listed as a standalone project, but one of many in the Houston Region Freight Rail Study.

The actual project is on York, from approximately Dallas to Harrisburg, as opposed to Scott. I wrote Scott because the project's stated scope is to improve access to 45 at Scott. 

TxDOT's freight division and its studies lack the specificity and depth of the transportation planning division's, unfortunately. Each project is described with a few grafs and a price tag as opposed to the detailed analysis associated with projects like the NHHIP. Leaves a lot to be desired. 

The chart and financial details above are for the whole project, which didn't gain traction after first proposal 2012. Due to recent rail operating practice changes and resident activism, TxDOT and the city re-started the project in phases to make federal grant funding more palatable. If fed infrastructure dollars don't come, none of it will happen in the foreseeable future, we're told. 

Funding for Phase I -- where York will be dropped (I wouldn't be so certain since no study has taken place since 2012 and underpasses in the area have proven hard to obtain due to soil issues), the Navigation underpass will be revamped to include a Commerce connection, and many roads in between will be closed -- was applied for in February. 

TxDOT and the city have not specified at this time what crossings will be included in future phases, or when they will be pursued if at all.

the project will create much-needed connectivity at a handful of key streets on the West Belt, one of the Houston's most heavily trafficked lines at up to 75 trains per day average. A downsides is connectivity will be eliminated on all minor streets and many major ones. One example is Cullen. 

 

One win in my mind is Lyons.

 

 

 

 

 

[JClark54]

The 2021 TxDOT Freight Rail Study, the most recent one, can be found here: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/rail/draft-report.pdf

You will notice in the report Scott/York is listed as an overpass. The grant application states underpass.

Edited March 26, 2023 by JClark54

[004n063]

4 hours ago, JClark54 said:

You may have trouble finding the West Belt Improvement Project because it's under TxDOT's freight rail division rather than transportation planning, where most projects are located. It's also not listed as a standalone project, but one of many in the Houston Region Freight Rail Study.

The actual project is on York, from approximately Dallas to Harrisburg, as opposed to Scott. I wrote Scott because the project's stated scope is to improve access to 45 at Scott. 

TxDOT's freight division and its studies lack the specificity and depth of the transportation planning division's, unfortunately. Each project is described with a few grafs and a price tag as opposed to the detailed analysis associated with projects like the NHHIP. Leaves a lot to be desired. 

The chart and financial details above are for the whole project, which didn't gain traction after first proposal 2012. Due to recent rail operating practice changes and resident activism, TxDOT and the city re-started the project in phases to make federal grant funding more palatable. If fed infrastructure dollars don't come, none of it will happen in the foreseeable future, we're told. 

Funding for Phase I -- where York will be dropped (I wouldn't be so certain since no study has taken place since 2012 and underpasses in the area have proven hard to obtain due to soil issues), the Navigation underpass will be revamped to include a Commerce connection, and many roads in between will be closed -- was applied for in February. 

TxDOT and the city have not specified at this time what crossings will be included in future phases, or when they will be pursued if at all.

the project will create much-needed connectivity at a handful of key streets on the West Belt, one of the Houston's most heavily trafficked lines at up to 75 trains per day average. A downsides is connectivity will be eliminated on all minor streets and many major ones. One example is Cullen. 

 

One win in my mind is Lyons.

 

 

 

 

 

Closing Cullen may have made sense in 2012, but it's a big mistake in 2023. That would be a great spot for an underpass, in my opinion.

 

Edit: or at least keep a bike crossing open like the one on Sherman. Cullen is an essential bike route.

Edited March 27, 2023 by 004n063

[JClark54]

I don't actually think Cullen will be closed. It and Leeland were omitted from the grant application, with York being separated and the existing Navigation underpass being revamped to include Commerce. 

This study was used to apply for funds simply because it's the only one ever performed. The city planning department admitted it had never studied the area in a recent meeting.