MaxConcrete

I just attended Texas Central's public meeting in Cypress. The map on display showed the alignment ending at the Northwest Transit Center at I-10 and North Post Oak. I spoke to a guy who appeared to be the lead guy for the alignment from the engineering perspective. So I asked him, "Is the station going to be at the transfer station?" He said nothing is final, but the Federal Railroad Administration's preference is to bring it to the Northwest Transit Station, and FRA is the ultimate authority on the alignment. So then I asked him, "Is Texas Central's objective to bring it to the Northwest Transit Center, and would that be consistent with Texas Central's goal for real estate development around the station?" He was less decisive on this question, and he says some interests are promoting a site with more space like the Northwest Mall site. But at the end, he said yes, Texas Central does want to bring it to the Northwest Transit Center. Many folks on this forum (including me) assumed that the Northwest Mall site or property close to the mall would be selected, but that assumption may be wrong. It looks to me like there is a strong chance the station will be further south at the transit center. While that would promote transit connectivity, it would seem to greatly reduce the attractiveness of redeveloping the Northwest Mall site. In my view, I would rather see a big real estate development around a station at the Northwest Mall site, with plenty of space for parking and good highway connections. A Northwest Mall station could be connected into the transit center, maybe with a dedicated bus lane.

The public open house meeting is this week, and public comment is being received. http://www.h-gac.com/calendar/event.aspx?id=AQIARgAAAxpEc5CqZhHNm8gAqgAvxFoJAI94rxH%2fHM5Dg0zaQWXBOtoAAAEjQZwAAABhyakmMu26T5XXTFBa%2fgEhA58V3kutAAAALgAAAxpEc5CqZhHNm8gAqgAvxFoDAI94rxH%2fHM5Dg0zaQWXBOtoAAAEjQZwAAAA%3d There's plenty to dislike in the plan, so I prepared a listing of my complaints on a web page http://houstonfreeways.com/us59_analysis Here's my summary of the analysis Removal of the San Jacinto entrance ramp will eliminate freeway access for a large area, including Midtown, the Museum District, the Richmond corridor and traffic coming from the Medical Center on San Jacinto. Proposed changes in the outbound direction from Kirby to Weslayan have the potential to cause huge congestion problems on the frontage road between Buffalo Speedway and Weslayan Proposed changes in the inbound direction will add congestion at the Buffalo Speedway intersection. The plan proposes conversion to a two-way HOV costing $240 million, but there is no need for a two-way HOV outside the loop. At Loop 610 and inbound toward Edloe, a two-way HOV will be complex and expensive, so any two-way HOV should be limited to the section between Buffalo Speedway and approximately Mandell. In general, changes inside the loop increase congestion on the frontage roads to achieve improvement on the main lanes. Changes to entrance and exit ramps are intended to aid rush-hour traffic, but the inconvenience imposed on local traffic occurs at all times - non-peak periods, weekends and nights. The active traffic management will add a very large number of signs along the corridor and cost $72 million. The benefit/cost ratio of 7.6 seems overly optimistic. If relocation of the HOV to the Metro right-of-way along Westpark has not been considered, this should be looked at since it would offer many benefits and potentially cost less than the $240 million price tag for the HOV changes in the proposal.

The connections between Loop 610 and SH 288 are being added to the project and the change is included in a public meeting at HGAC this week. http://www.h-gac.com/news/articles/2015-10-30.aspx The announcement is also in today's Chronicle.

I believe those schematics for the initial phase are out of date. However, information on the exact design planned by Blueridge Transportation Group (the winning bidder) are not readily available, and may still be subject to change since they are having trouble securing the funding. The presentation document which announced Blueridge Transportation Group as the winning bidder says there will be 8 direct connection ramps at BW8 and four toll lanes. See page 15 http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0226/11b-presentation.pdf Here is more evidence that 8 connectors are still planned from the September HGAC meeting, see document page 14 ("page 4 of 7" at bottom of page) http://www.h-gac.com/taq/commitees/TPC/2015/09-sep/docs/ITEM-06A-1.Resolution-for-Approval-of-Amendments.pdf "Modify description as follows: Description: CONSTRUCT 8 DCs AT BW 8 INTERCHANGE" The October TIP update from yesterday's meeting mentions 4 toll lanes http://www.h-gac.com/taq/commitees/TPC/2015/10-oct/docs/ITEM-06A-TIP-Amendments.pdf Facility: SH 288 From: IH 610 To: BRAZORIA C/L Description: CONSTRUCT 4 TOLL LANES I also remember seeing a report that the interchange at Loop 610 will be fully or mostly rebuilt. However I cannot find that report and I don't know what is currently planned at Loop 610.

I agree with the Sparrow....the Grimes County station could have a big impact and a whole new city could eventually develop at that location, starting out as a commuter "exurb" and growing from there. if the site is near highway 105, it could benefit from the planned toll extension of SH 249. But initially that station will be in the middle of nowhere, not even convenient to Bryan-College Station. Which is why I'm somewhat perplexed about TCR's commitment to it. Maybe Texas Central is using potential development around the station to defuse political opposition in Grimes County. Does Grimes County have outsize political influence in Austin? Project opponent Senator Kolkhorst is potentially influential, but Grimes County is not in her district (but adjacent Washington and Waller counties are in her district). As for WestUDweller's suggestion of a transfer station to a connection to Austin, that seems possible but the location is far from ideal for service between DFW and central Texas. If TCR envisioned that approach, they should have gone due south from DFW to the west of B-CS with a split point somewhere to the west of B-CS. That kind of alignment was contemplated once upon a time in the 1990s.One of the reasons I like the utility alignment is that it lends itself to a westward extension toward Austin and San Antonio if HSR proves to be financially successful. On a separate topic, I spent some time looking around California's high speed rail web site (http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Newsroom/Multimedia/maps.html) and was very surprised to discover that the alignment is still under study for much of the route. Between Burbank and Palmdale there are 4 alignments under study, three of which include very long tunnels, and they're just about to start doing preliminary boring investigations. So that section has a long way to go and will be very expensive. In other places the general corridor is defined but exact alignments are still to be decided. It looks like the only section which is definitely final is the section which is under construction, 29 miles from Madera to Fresno. That section is surely among the least expensive since it is totally flat and mostly over greenfield. It appears to cost $1.37 billion (with a modest overrun expected http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article19654086.html), or $47 million per mile, which seems very reasonable considering the cost of light rail here in Houston, around $158 million per mile for the recent openings. But many sections of the California rail will be much more expensive, which is why the official cost estimate is $68 billion and many expect it to reach $100 billion before it is all done.

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.

My reading of the schematic is the same as yours: the long elevated connection into Pease and St.Joseph will no longer provide access into Pease and St. Joseph, but instead will serve as a long exit ramp to US 59.and SH 288. Access to Pease and St. Joseph will be from the main lanes. The schematic is not clear about the connection from Jefferson to the southbound elevated structure. The only way I can interpret the schematic is that the I-45 main lanes will go over the Jefferson connection, but the geometry does not seem to allow that if the I-45 main lanes remain at ground level at Delano street. Maybe the Jefferson connection is brought down to ground level (it is very old), and that could make it feasible to bring the I-45 lanes over it. It also is not clear to me how the HOV lane is terminated. I'll ask TxDOT about that area, and if the design is cause for concern I will add it to my problem list. Samagon: that mention in the Texas Monthly article is almost surely the Pierce Elevated, and they mistakenly said it is east of downtown.

For those not aware, TxDOT recently posted revised schematics on the official project web site, http://www.ih45northandmore.com/ I updated my analysis of the schematics, http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis The good news is that TxDOT has fixed many of the problems in the original plan, including the two most serious issues: insufficient capacity on I-45 through downtown and the bottleneck choke point at North Main. Other major fixes include access of the I-45 MaX lanes to/from Loop 610, the I-45 northbound approach to Beltway 8, downtown access from I-10 westbound, and an on-ramp from Allen Parkway to the downtown spur. However, I still have seven major items of concern (two new items and five from the original list), and I've asked TxDOT to review these items. Realistically I can't expect to get action on all my original items of concern (http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis#status), and in some cases my concerns did not warrant changes or changes were not feasible. Overall, I'm really glad to see the revisions, and I'm hoping for some more adjustments to address my remaining concerns.

#1: I think the City of Houston would be expected to pay the net that TxDOT would expect to receive, or $28 million if the land is in fact worth $100 per square foot. Why would the COH be expected to pay for appraisals. legal fees and commissions that would not even occur? Keep mind that a city purchase would be a single transaction, whereas the 14 half-blocks for market sale would be around 14 transactions. Also, if the city wants the land, the cost will be a politically-influenced number, which will probably make it lower than market value, not higher. #2: The contract award for the deck for Klyde Warren park was $44.5 million in 2009 (see bid numbers below). That was the bottom of the Great Recession, and bid prices were generally very low (although the winning bid was above the estimate). I'm thinking the deck would cost $55 to $60 million in today's market. I'll use $50 million to be conservative. The proposed trench for the US59/I-69/I45 freeways will be more than twice as wide as Woodall Rodgers freeway, around 18 lanes vs. 8 lanes for Woodall Rodgers. Assuming some cost benefit for making provisions for the deck in the original design, we'll call it twice as wide for cost estimating purposes. So for a park the same length as Klyde Warren Park, the deck cost will be around $100 million. The TxDOT drawings show "potential greenspace" from Lamar to Commerce, about 3300 feet. Klyde Warren Park is around 1100 feet long. So for a buildout of the total potential greenspace, the deck will cost around $300 million. The total cost of Klyde Warren park was $110 million, or $65 million in addition to the deck. The cost of building a park on the Houston deck is dependent on the length, complexity and number of amenities, so it could vary over a wide range. I think it is reasonable to assume a minimum of $50 million, and up to $100 million for a fancy park 3300 feet long. So my numbers are not high, as you suggest. The range is from $150 million for an 1100-foot-park, up to $400 million for a 3300 foot fancy park. For reference, Discovery Green cost $57 million for land and $125 million for construction, $182 million total about 10 years ago. http://www.discoverygreen.com/history-of-discovery-green The cost of building Pierce Skypark could vary widely depending on the design. My proposal is a recreation park with walking and running paths, nothing fancy. The cost for that would be relatively low, probably less than $20 million. There would be more cost to connect it to Buffalo Bayou, add $10 million. So, my rough estimation is that for as low as $60 million you could have a highly distinctive recreation park on the Pierce Elevated. That is vastly lower than $150 million for a short (1100-foot) deck park near the GRB. And a deck park near the GRB would be very similar to Discovery Green. Why do we need to spend so much on more of the same? A recreation park on the Pierce Elevated would be something different and much more useful to downtown/Midtown residents. (Think Memorial Park running trail) http://pierceelevatedpark.com/ TYPE CONSTRUCT DECK AND PLAZA OVER FREEWAY DATE 07/07/09 CONTRACT NUMBER 07093002 TIME 831 WORKING DAYS CHECK $100,000 LIMITS FROM:WEST OF SAINT PAUL TO:EAST OF PEARL ST MISCELLANEOUS COST $1200000.00 $42,941,714.23 *****ESTIMATE***** BIDDER 1 $44,492,730.83 ARCHER-WESTERN CONTRACTORS, LTD. BIDDER 2 $45,243,248.05 AUI CONTRACTORS, INC. BIDDER 3 $50,251,165.67 AUSTIN BRIDGE & ROAD, LP BIDDER 4 $50,858,651.94 BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. BIDDER 5 $51,999,372.22 WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. BIDDER 6 $52,390,333.85 TEXAS STERLING CONSTRUCTION CO. BIDDER 7 $52,672,868.01 ED BELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BIDDER 8 $53,079,126.93 MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES, INC. BIDDER 9 $53,650,908.07 J.D. ABRAMS, L.P. Klyde Warren Park, which cost $110 million in public and private funds, will feature a performance stage, dog park and fountains. By DAVID FLICK Staff Writer dflick@dallasnews.com Published: 28 June 2012 11:40 PM Supporters of Klyde Warren Park have announced the dates — Oct. 27-28 — for its opening celebration. A statement released by the Woodall Rodgers Park Foundation Board promises a multiday round of activities reminiscent of the weekend-long celebration that inaugurated the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge in March. “It’s the big reveal,” said Mark Banta, park president. “It’s a celebration for something that people have waited a long time for with great anticipation.” ... When completed, the 5.2-acre park will include a performance stage, fountains, a botanical garden, a dog park and a children’s garden. A restaurant will open there next spring. The $110 million amenity was funded through a combination of city bond money, state highway funds, federal funds and private donations. “Whether you call the park the city’s heart, the front lawn or the town square, it’s clear that Dallas is ready to turn an old freeway into a truly special destination,” said Jody Grant, chairman of the Woodall Rodgers Park Foundation Board.

I attended a meeting at TxDOT on September 4 where TxDOT provided an update on the status of the plan. Overall the news is good. The items which are my most serious concerns are being fixed. Numerous other issues are still under review, and some items won't be changed to the extent I would like to see. But overall, I'm pleased. The plan analysis has been updated: http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis Highlights Good news on expected modifications 1. Interstate 45 will have at least three continuous lanes through downtown. This fixes my most serious design concern of the entire project, although details on the merging and transition zones need to be verified to be sufficient in the next official release. 2. Interstate 45 will have five regular lanes in each direction under North Main, and five regular lanes in each direction between Loop 610 and downtown. A long northbound collector lane from downtown functioning like a long on-ramp will help minimize the risk of a bottleneck in this area. There will also be numerous other improvements in the area addressing neighborhood concerns. No additional right-of-way is needed except for maybe a minor impact to the fuel station on the northwest corner at North Main. This design looks like it will be the best is can be given the constraints, and fixes my second most serious design concern. 3. A ramp from westbound I-10 to the southbound downtown spur is expected to be added, solving the problem of downtown access from westbound I-10. Promising modifications under study In order to maintain a staging area for the GRB center, they are looking at placing the staging area on a deck over the freeway trench and then swerving Hamilton toward the east, away from the GRB, so that the staging area is immediately adjacent to the GRB. Hamilton would be above the freeway trench in this area, rather than on the ground on the west side of the trench as shown in the original plan. Observation on the Pierce Elevated HNTB mentioned that the price of downtown land around the Pierce Elevated is around $100 per square foot, with a net to TxDOT after legal and professional fees around $65. Since the Pierce Elevated uses around 14 half blocks, with each half block around 250x125 feet (31,250 square feet), that translates to $3.1 million per half block or $43 million overall, with a net around $28 million. Of course, those numbers are rough ballpark numbers and real estate prices fluctuate. It seems feasible and reasonable that the City of Houston could afford $28 million for Pierce Skypark land. In comparison, the proposed park on a deck over the freeway near the GRB will be far more expensive, at least $100 million just for the deck and a total cost between $150 and $300 million, depending on the size and amount of features. Items still under review For eastbound Allen Parkway into downtown, it originally appeared that a loop on-ramp would be added (similar to the existing loop ramp), but now more options are being considered, including adding a northbound on-ramp at West Dallas which Allen Parkway traffic would also use. For the downtown spur section south of Allen Parkway, the configuration with Heiner Street (currently side-by-side) is under review and could be changed to a configuration with frontage roads. Previously reported Access to the I-45 managed lanes in the downtown area will be improved, and some access points are still being studied. Better connections between the I-45 managed lanes and Loop 610, although details were not available. No connections between Memorial and the downtown spur. Items of Concern which TxDOT says do not need changes, or cannot be changed No additional regular lane capacity on I-45 is expected between Loop 610 and Beltway 8. As of July this was under consideration, but appears to be rejected. I'm still hoping for a longer section of five regular lanes each way north of Loop 610. Changes to the access between downtown and SH 288 will be minimal, with only a potential minor improvement to the southbound ramp at downtown entrance. In the south Midtown area, changes to the on/off ramps to/from US 59 are also expected to be minor, but this area is still under review with a meeting planned in Midtown later this month.

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.

Today's news report that the beach along the west Seawall will be restored made me think about this photo in my archive collection High resolution image This image was dated 1962 but that is not necessarily correct. The seawall dead-ended onto the beach. It looks like there was a heavy coating of seaweed at the time of the photo, similar to the huge coverage last year, some of which is shown in these photos further east near Sabine that I posted online.

Right now, the future of driverless cars is just predictions, and of course most predictions turn out to be wrong. I've seen predictions that driverless cars will radically transform society as soon as the 2020s, and others like this one from McKinsey which predict a slow and incremental transition with a big impact around 2050. And of course, maybe the idea won't even work for consumers but may only be useful for fleets. As far as I know, there is no "approved" prediction that government agencies can use in planning, and government agencies will continue business as usual until there is an accepted way to project the future influence of driverless cars. My understanding is that the I-45/downtown project is being designed using HGAC 2035 traffic projections. If funding is available - and there is a good chance it will be available - it is possible that some of the I-45/downtown project could be done by the early 2020s, and all of it by 2025. I think the transformational impact of driverless cars will be well after 2050. There are around 17 million new cars on the road each year (2014 figure, past years were less), and those cars will be in service for around 20 years. I think even in the 2020s and possibly 2030s most cars will be conventional or conventional with some intelligent safety features, which will extend conventional car domination well past 2050. Keep in mind that driverless cars could unleash many more vehicles on the roads if cars become a cheap, on-demand utility. Low income people will use it for more traveling, and even kids could summon cars to go where they need/want to go. The reduced vehicle separation benefit would only come into play when cars on the road are mostly or fully driverless/automated. That scenario could only occur in the distant future (after 2050) when all conventional cars are retired from service. I also think most people will want to keep private cars, as opposed to using a car utility. After all, why do people buy designer clothing, luxury goods, expensive sneakers or luxury cars? They want to set themselves apart from people who can't afford or don't want to pay for those items, i.e. the status symbol. If cars are a low-cost utility, it will be for the low-income and unable-to-drive crowd. People will retain their status with private cars. It remains to be seen how automated those private cars will be, or how long it will take for widespread adoption of automation.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm now nearly certain this was Regal Ranch. I just drove past and took a few photos. The bleachers and chutes at Regal Ranch are an excellent match to the video. The fence has been replaced with a metal fence - to be expected after 46 years. I checked with my father and Chevron did use Regal Ranch on a few occasions for smaller events.

I had ruled out Regal Ranch off South Main near Missouri City because my father said the video was not at Regal Ranch. But now that I look at the aerial layout of the horse arena, Regal Ranch is consistent with the video and is the likely location. I'll need to drive by Regal Ranch to try to get a definite match on the site. I suppose my father could get film locations confused 46 years after the event.

https://youtu.be/lAAZD79KMos My father seems fairly sure this pony ride was near South Main and Braeswood, which was the location of Kiddie Wonderland. But when I look at online photos and video of Kiddie Wonderland, the setting of this movie does not match. This movie shows a large, rectangular event space with small grandstand and high fences, whereas Kiddie Wonderland had a smaller track with lower fences. The movie background is mostly undeveloped, also not consistent with Kiddie Wonderland. Does anyone know where this pony ride was? This was the 1969 Chevron picnic. Yes, that's me on the pony.

Regarding the GRB situation, my comment reflects my understanding of the issue but my understanding could be incomplete or missing key details. The TxDOT rep said that TxDOT is within its guidelines (or whatever agreement is in place) to take away the access under the circumstances of the rebuilding, but politically it was necessary to meet the GRB's needs. It does seem like they could build a partial deck over the trench to support GRB operations. But the new design has a southbound frontage road, and GRB probably does not want the frontage road between the GRB building and the staging area. So then the frontage road would have to swerve away from the GRB on the deck over the freeway. That seems feasible too, but there could be issues and surely financial costs associated with that. The team seems to be considering all options, and I'm thinking the deck-for-GRB option was considered or is being considered, and maybe there are other options in play (like the blocks to the south mentioned by cspwal) As for the exact location of where GRB uses the space under the freeway and how it connects to that access ramp behind the GRB, I don't know.

On Monday I met with a TxDOT representatives and representatives from HNTB, the consulting firm developing the design for the project. We reviewed my points of concern, and I updated my web page with the status of these issues. http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis Although most of my concerns cannot or will not be addressed to the extent I would like to see, I appreciate that TxDOT took a close look at the issues and I think the ultimate design will be the best it can be within the financial limits, political constraints and traffic model results. In most cases, issues are still under study and the any adjustments to the design won't be known until the next round of public meetings when the updated schematic is released. But it appears likely that the following items will be in the next iteration Note that nothing below is final or officially decided for the next version of the plan until TxDOT officially releases it. * Eastbound Allen Parkway will get loop ramp to the northbound downtown connecter, similar to the existing loop ramp * There will not be connections from Memorial to the downtown connector. Both the City of Houston and TxDOT are against connections. The COH and Downtown Management District are going to provide a recommendation for adjustments to the surface street design around Houston Avenue. * The George Brown Convention center will necessitate an eastward shift of the trench and also preclude widening the trench. The GRB now uses land underneath the US 59 elevated structure as a staging area for trucks and delivery vehicles. The staging area is critical to the operation of the GRB, but the staging area will be lost when the US 59 elevated structure is removed. So it appears the next plan iteration will shift the trench east as far as possible to St Emanuel street, and widening of the trench will also not be possible since land opened by the shift is needed by the GRB. * The current proposed plan reduces Interstate 45 to two lanes in each direction through downtown. It appears TxDOT will try to add lanes, but due to GRB issue, it is uncertain to me how much relief can actually be provided. * The proposed design has a built-in bottleneck at I-45 and North Main (Hollywood Cemetery area) due to the right-of-way issue. They are studying ways to get more lanes through, but I'm not optimistic that the choke point can be fixed. * TxDOT's preference is to sell the Pierce Elevated land and use the revenue to purchase property needed for the project. Before selling on the open market, TxDOT is first obligated to offer the land to the COH, and then to adjacent land owners. It is unclear what price the COH would have to pay if it wanted the land. But I sensed no indication that the COH is interested in the land. If the COH has any money, it would likely go to a deck park over the trench near the GRB (my opinion, not a TxDOT remark). I expect a full deck park to cost in the $200-300 million range (my number, not TxDOT's). * Poor connections to the I-45 managed lanes in the downtown area are likely to be fixed in the next plan iteration. * TxDOT agrees that I-45 would perform better with five regular lanes in each direction between Loop 610 and BW8, and this is under study. I'm hopeful we'll get longer sections with five lanes, hopefully the full length from Loop 610 to BW 8. * TxDOT's goal is to have signature bridges wherever feasible and is looking to work with neighborhoods and districts to realize local preferences. But signature bridges will cost more and funding could be an issue. See the web link for the status of all issues.

Two Mexican firms which are new to the Texas highway construction scene won large contracts on the US 290 project, OHL and Tradeco Infrastructura. It appears that Tradeco is the firm which defaulted, based on the empty progress report ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/cmd/cserve/distinfo/cisrpts/005009070.pdf I was somewhat concerned when the firms won the bids because both were an unknown quantity in terms of quality and schedule delivery. (Well, they are unknown in Texas, obviously established in Mexico.) I'm definitely more comfortable with known and proven firms like Williams Brothers or Webber. So on the one hand, it is unfortunate that the default is going to cause a delay and probably a financial cost. But on the plus side, Tradeco Infrastructura will no longer be doing work in Texas, which I view as a good thing since there are plenty of local firms which do a good job, at or below the official estimates most of the time.

Leeham news http://leehamnews.com/ is a leading aviation gossip site and they are usually very accurate. I read it regularly and have not seen any recent mention of United being a candidate to be an A380 customer. If Leeham News picks up on this rumor and reports on it, then it is probably really "live". But I agree with the Alpha article and nativeHoustonian that United could be well-positioned to get some aircraft very cheap, either the Skymark Aircraft or the Malaysia Airlines, or probably all four. United, with its strong trans-pacific route system, does seem to be the only US carrier which could potentially use A380s, and Airbus would like to see a US carrier using A380s.

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.

I prepared this drawing for the removal of the Polk Street overpass http://houstonfreeways.com/images/plan-analysis/us59-polk-annotated.jpg However, I am still considering how serious this issue is, and if it warrants inclusion in the list I plan to submit as a public comment. The question is: how much potential exists for future development east along Polk that will generate traffic? If traffic generation is low, then most people can go south to Leland, and for some people in the north it will be easier to go to Capitol (but made more difficult by the stadium). I just don't see a substantial traffic demand on Polk, so the removal should be tolerable.