MaxConcrete

Good observation, Sangamon. If and when the potential deck park is built, I think one or more of Lamar, McKinney and Walker will be closed to traffic, making the Polk crossing even more important. I think I will add that to my list. JJxvi's observation about the I-45 ramps being above trench level at that point is probably the reason for the lack of the Polk crossing, but I think the Polk bridge could be raised somewhat at the middle to potentially accommodate the ramps.

IronTiger, I like your basic idea: Do not allow any connections onto the Pierce Elevated (allow through-traffic only), and all traffic connecting to/From Interstate 45 makes the connections on the north side of downtown or on the south side (for example I-10 eastbound to I-45 southbound would go along US 59). I don't think that idea was one of the preliminary alternatives, although it could have been considered separately and not offered as a preliminary alternative. As I mentioned in my analysis http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis, removing the Pierce Elevated is a bad move from the transportation perspective. But it is likely to be a good move for other objectives. I think the Pierce Corridor is highly valuable as a transportation corridor, either for the scenario that you suggest or perhaps for managed lanes or certain connections. But I also think it is almost surely impossible to save the Pierce transportation corridor at this point since the influential downtown folks want it gone. That's why I focused my analysis on improving what is proposed, rather than saving the Pierce transportation corridor.

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 just posted online a comprehensive listing of my concerns about TxDOT's plan. http://houstonfreeways.com/analysis I would certainly be interested in getting any feedback for errors in my analysis, or issues I missed. Of course, some of these issues are matters of opinion, but many are serious and need to be looked at by TxDOT. I'm going to submit the final list (pending any changes based on feedback) as public comment.

This is good news. I think the goal should be to complete the widening to the north side of Huntsville as soon as possible. On the Dallas side, work is soon the begin to widen I-45 to six lanes for a long section around Corsicana and south of Corsicana. I have been driving I-45 between Houston and Dallas multiple times per year since 2004. The usual pattern is to have heavy traffic on Friday, Saturday and Sunday (but moving at posted speeds except for occasional truck bottlenecks). But recently I have been surprised by the heavy traffic on Monday through Thursday. Now I'm tempted to try to get the traffic counts to see if my informal observations are verified by actual data.

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.

I agree that the opposition will have no political effect and any legal challenge will fail as long as the public hearing process is being conducted in compliance with the law (and it almost surely is, since the coordinating agencies are experienced). The City of Houston and Harris County both support the project, and from the political perspective that is all that matters. However, an opposition lawsuit would impose legal costs on Texas Central High-Speed Railway and could potentially cause delays. And that could make the inner loop section less attractive to TCHSR, causing TCHSR to select the Northwest Mall terminus option. Of course, that is exactly what the opposition wants. As I posted in November, http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/29470-high-speed-rail-texas-triangle/?p=485125, the inner loop section is likely to cost between $750 million and $1 billion. So if it can barely be justified from the investment perspective, a lawsuit and delay could be enough to cause TCHSR to drop it.

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.

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