MaxConcrete

Here are the poster boards with station locations. The URS representative answering questions said there will be one station in Dallas and one station in Houston, so the station location will determine the rail line terminus. I can't see the south Dallas stations as being feasible. South Dallas is of course a low-income area and the customers are in the north, and I don't see people wanting to go into south Dallas. For Houston, the situation is different. The Northwest Mall location is actually more convenient to most of the affluent potential customer base. The Beltway 8 locations are still potentially viable to much of the customer base.

The public meeting had the usual display boards. I was not able to stay for the presentation. The display boards didn't reveal anything new but the analysis matrix below shows that the utility corridor easily ranks the best in the environmental and engineering categories, and ties for first with BNSF in the financial category. So the chances of selecting the utility corridor seem very good. Here is some info that the representatives told me, which should be correct but should not be viewed as fact. * There will be one station in Houston and one station in Dallas. For Houston on the utility corridor (US 290), station options are downtown, near Northwest Mall and at BW 8. On the BNSF corridor station options are downtown and BW8. This would seem to me to make downtown less likely for both options due to the added cost. For the utility corridor (US 290), I'm thinking downtown is especially unlikely due to the probable high cost of the inner loop section and desirable location near Northwest Mall. * For either the BNSF or utility corridor, a new easement around around 80 to 100 feet wide will typically be acquired along the existing corridor (even if the tracks could be squeezed into the existing easement). The dedicated corridor with extra space will facilitate constructability and provide space for utility roads, maintenance access and emergency access. This seems like it will be easier along the high voltage corridor. But land acquisition could generate rural opposition. * The train uses 9 Megawatts of power when running at full speed. It uses more during acceleration but this is offset by regenerative braking (ie pumping electricity back into the grid). For a 90 minute trip, energy consumption is about 14 Megawatt-hours. The wholesale price of electricity is around $40 to $50 per megawatt-hour, so the electricity cost for a one-way train trip is around $700 (assuming $50/MWH). For comparison, a gallon of jet fuel has about 39.5 kwH of energy, so 14 MWH is equivalent to around 354 gallons of jet fuel based on pure energy content. I can't seem to find a typical power delivery efficiency for a jet engine, but it is surely less than the combustion efficiency (which is apparently very high - around 98%) At 25kV electrical supply, the train should draw around 360 amps (P=VI). But that is very rough - I'm assuming one phase and not adjusting for power phase and efficiency, and the train should be a highly inductive load (=higher phase angle). Maybe some electrical engineers can comment.

Yes, the web site finally has some actual information and the map of the two feasible alternatives is interesting. https://dallashoustonhsr.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/tcr-board-two-alternatives.jpg I really like the utility alignment option. I was not aware of that high voltage corridor, but it is nearly perfectly straight from Hockley all the way to near Jewett, about 80 miles. The utility alignment is consistent with my earlier posts that the high speed rail route was going to be impossible or difficult along existing roads or rails. The BNSF is noticeably curvier but still remains a finalist. It is possible that the final route will use parts of both corridors. Both corridors are too far away from Bryan/College Station, about 24 (utility) or 29 (BNSF) miles, to be useful to that area. I just can't see the logic of putting a station out in the middle of nowhere halfway between B/CS and Huntsville. And I'm still thinking that the US 290 route out of Houston can be done in conjunction with construction of the mothballed Hempstead toll road, and there could be an arrangement to use the corridor for commuter service.

That's the problem with existing rail alignments. They run through the center of many small and medium-sized towns, which will necessitate more grade separations (=more expensive) and potentially incite more opposition. I agree that the BNSF route has fewer small towns than the Union Pacific route, but just follow the BNSF route on Google maps and you can see how curvy the alignment becomes about 120 miles north of Houston, especially north and south of Jewett. Its seems to me that much of the alignment is unsuitable for HSR due to curviness. The Union Pacific alignment has big problems with towns and cities along the route. Just heading out of Houston: Hockley, Waller, Prairie View, Hemptead (sharp curve), Navasota, Bryan-College Station, Hearne, Calvert, Bremond. That gets you about halfway. Interstate 45 consists of a sequence of straight sections with curves between the straight sections. This is especially true closer to Dallas. I think most of the curves are too sharp for HSR. So this is the fundamental problem, which applies not just here but on most existing rail corridors in the United States. To get an alignment suitable for HSR, you need a new alignment. But that drives up cost, creates opposition and causes environmental issues. That being said, there is already a report which says the alignment goes east of College Station. That means a new "greenfield" alignment. If they are going to make this possible/feasible, I think they will follow multiple existing corridors when possible but much of the corridor will need to be on new alignment to avoid towns and curves. It remains to be seen if that can be done and maintain feasibility. If this is going to move forward, I have a suspicion that TxDOT will need to be involved in purchasing right-of-way for the new alignment and possibly leasing it back to the HSR corporation.

The construction plans are available online at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/business/plansonline/plansonline.htm CCSJ - 0500-03-572 However, I cannot get the browser to display the images in the window. Non-IE browsers are most troublesome. Older versions of IE have the best chance of working. For the most recent version of IE, I have to download each page and then view it - very annoying. Generally you want to view pages with names like "project layout" or "plan profile".

If the alignment near College Station and Houston station near Loop 610 and the Katy Freeway turn out to be the ultimate decision (although I think everything is still preliminary), then that means the corridor will follow the Union Pacific railroad along Hempstead Road or the BNSF corridor generally along SH 249 to Tomball. I think we can eliminate the Hardy Toll Road/railroad corridor as a candidate since it is not suitable for a College Station alignment. If it is the Union Pacific corridor along Hempstead, that opens up the possibility of expediting the currently-on-hold Hempstead Tollway which is part of the corridor's master plan. For the high speed rail, all grade separations will need to be eliminated. It would make sense to do this in conjunction with the toll road construction, making it similar to the Hardy Toll Road between Loop 610 and Beltway 8. It would probably be least expensive to bring the cross streets over the rail corridor and tollway easement, but of course the cross streets could also go under as may be needed outside BW 8. Preliminary schematics showed the high capacity transit corridor south of the tollway and existing railroad, not in the middle of the toll road like it is on the Hardy Toll Road. As others have noted, the high speed rail could do double service with commuter rail. I can envision a potential public-private partership, with TxDOT building the intersection-free corridor for both the railroad and toll road (the high speed rail corporation would pay for the actual tracks), and the high speed corporation granting commuter rail rights. Another item of interest is the mention that the station in College Station would be east of Highway 6. That means a new alignment. That's a favorable indication, because to get the straightness for the desired speed and to avoid small towns I think they will need to place much of the corridor outside Houston and Dallas on new alignment.

I drive through all areas of Houston (including backstreets) at least once a year to check it out the areas and see what is happening. But now that I think about it, it has been more than a year for a complete review of that area (although I have checked out the area with the light rail construction zones.) On my latest complete survey I don't recall seeing much of anything in terms of new construction, renovation, expanding businesses, attractive properties or much of interest along the Harrisburg corridor. And I can claim to be qualified to assess an area as distressed or dumpy because I live in one of the biggest dumps in all of Houston - Sharpstown! (Born and raised, SHS 85).

If you look at the Google aerial view of the interchange, you'll see that you really can't "demolish most of the stack" because it will become impossible for local traffic to make connections due to the minimal frontage roads at the interchange. For example, on southbound 610 there is no frontage road, so there would be no way to connect into the area. Also, going eastbound on 225 from Lawndale, there would be no way to connect to northbound 610. Same is true for eastbound 610 to westbound 225 - there is no way to connect with frontage roads, so that ramp is needed. Only one connection, EB 225 to WB 610 can be made on frontage roads. The ramps are surely be a big convenience to nearby businesses and residents, making it much easier to get on and off the freeway. Take them away and you could be subjecting those folks to a big daily hassle. Demolition also costs money and disrupts traffic. You might as well leave it alone as long as there is no negative impact. That being said, I expect the ramps connecting to the stub to eventually be removed when they reach the end of their usable life. That may be in the not-too-distant future (maybe 15-30 years). When the entire interchange is rebuilt, I would expect the frontage roads of both freeways to be brought through the interchange, providing connections to the stub frontage roads. The idea of creating a design on 610 similar to the design between Interstate 10 West and US 290 (Northwest Freeway) is an interesting idea. I don't know if traffic counts can justify it, and it would require a big right-of-way clearance. SH 225 was studied for future improvements a few years ago, and the recommended improvements were minimal. So I don't see a project of that scope in the future. As for Dexter Jones, I interviewed him for the Houston Freeways book and he also supplied some photos for the book (on topics other than SH 225). I think the cancellation of SH 225 was the biggest disappointment of his career since he was heavily involved in that project. As others have noted, lack of funding probably was the biggest reason for the cancellation. But as I note in the book I think it would have remained alive and dormant in the 1970s (and possibly moved forward eventually) if there was no community opposition and there was instead strong support from the City of Houston and business interests. But the support was not there. And the final irony is that the opposition thought the freeway cancellation would revitalize the area. Well, that certainly did not happen - the area is still blighted and distressed, maybe worse than ever. No renaissance at all. But who knows, with the light rail and expanding urban revitalization, the area may actually start improving some day.

This photo provides a good view of the circular ring of columns while it was under construction. It also shows that the columns extend to ground level, below the berm that exists around the structure. But this image shows that below the berm many columns are integrated with other concrete structures, so the attached concrete structures are going to need to be carefully stripped away to preserve the columns. Actually, the more I look at the original structure and the depiction of the proposed monument ring, I'm thinking the monument ring will be a new replica. It seems like trying to use the original structure just won't provide a consistent, attractive structure. Also, trying to preserve the original will make demolition much more difficult and preclude the option of implosion. http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/610s_astrodome_construction_bailey_LIGHTENED_ROTATED_REPAIRED_ADJUSTED.jpg

I was also very surprised that HCTRA will turn the Katy managed lanes over to TxDOT. My recollection is that HCTRA contributed funding to the Katy Freeway project. I don't know the exact amount but I'm thinking it was a minimum of $250 million. But don't quote me on that statistic - I really need to research to verify the facts. For the US 290 project, maybe HCTRA decided it would be a money-loser. But I don't think the objective is strictly to make money - the objective was to provide locally-generated funding to expedite the project. TxDOT expects big local funding contributions, ideally from tolls, such as the $3.2 billion the North Texas Turnpike Authority paid TxDOT for "rights" to build the SH 121 toll road in Collin County north of Dallas. HCTRA was slated to contribute $400 million to the US 290 project. For the Katy Managed lanes, I would tend to think the financial contribution during the construction period (2005-2008) is a sunk cost and the revenue from ongoing operation should be positive. Also recently, HCTRA declined to participate in the SH 288 (South Freeway) managed lanes. So the question is: Why did HCTRA want to get out of the managed lanes business? My best guess is that Harris County Commissioners don't want to be involved in the politics of setting toll rates on the managed lanes. They want TxDOT to take any heat from high tolls and rising tolls. In North Texas, managed lane toll rates are set by their equivalent of HGAC (NCTCOG), providing plenty of political "cover" for any specific politician. Other factors could also be lack of profitability in managed lanes and wanting to spend the $400 million on another project - maybe the Hardy Toll Road extension into downtown.

There needs to be a program of intersection improvement. That would include two left turn lanes and a right turn lane at major intersections with traffic issues. This is basically standard in cities with decent street planning (eg Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix, South Orange County to name 3), but Houston for some reason just can't get it together on moving into the modern age for intersections. Of course this is done in a few places in Houston - mostly TxDOT-owned streets like Westheimer. The benefits are obvious: cut the left turn cycle time in half to move the same number of vehicles, and allow some performance improvement (and a huge convenience improvement) with the right turn lane. There would typically be some minimal right-of-way needed to get this all to fit, and it will be feasible at most intersections. As for grade separations, I don't see it happening on any city streets. I remember hearing talk of some, such as at Westheimer and Voss, since the 1970s and it just is not going to happen. The only grade separations that have moved forward are on TxDOT streets and paid for by TxDOT, like Kukendahl/FM 1960 and FM 1092/South Main. As for Bellaire, it will have four westbound lanes (which means 1 new lane) and three eastbound lanes (maintaining the existing count). http://www.bellaireconstructionproject.com/

I took photos of the right-of-way clearance in 2012 and 2013, and this post inspired me to process the images and post the photos online. These are the first new highway photos posted on http://www.HoustonFreeways.com in over five years! http://houstonfreeways.com/modern/2014-01-18_us_290_right-of-way_clearance.aspx Of course it covers many of the same properties as IronTiger's web page, but I have photos of demolition in progress as well as buildings staged for clearance.

Can anyone identify the location of this Lewis & Coker? LInk to higher resolution image http://oscarmail.net/photos/lewis_coker.jpg The sign in the distance might say Tanglewood Pharmacy. That could place this on Woodway maybe?

No, there will not be another printing of Houston Freeways. But the digital book is always available for free and there are always used books available via Amazon. During the last year used book prices were as low as I've ever seen them (actually below list price), but I see that prices have gone back up. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0974160539/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all Actually, a revised edition would really be nice to include the Katy Freeway, Grand Parkway and all the other improvements since 2003. But I don't envision any scenario where that would be possible. Eventually I'll start updating http://www.HoustonFreeways.com with new photos and updates. But first I need to bring the DFW Freeways book http://www.DFWFreeways.com to a conclusion - I spent all of this long weekend working on the files and I'm hoping to be done by the end of this year.

This idea has been around for a couple years and just recently received more exposure with a full page, front page op-ed in the Dallas Morning News. This is a critical connector in the North Texas freeway system and its removal would have dire consequences on traffic flow.. As far as I know, no politician or person of any influence has endorsed this idea. Not even even anti-freeway Angela Hunt. Only crazy architects propose ideas like this. I would say that it is possible there will be some person or organization with some influence who suggests trenching the freeway and putting a deck park over it just like Klyde Warren park over Woodall Rodgers Freeway. That would probably be a billion dollar project, so lack of funding will probably kill of that idea quickly, especially after the struggle to get the $100 million Klyde Warren Park built. The idea of freeway removal is just plain stupid, and hopefully it will fade away quickly.

Unfortunately the 10-year retrospective is most likely not going to happen. The reason is because all my spare time is being consumed with the final push to bring closure to the Dallas-Fort Worth Freeways ebook ( http://www.dfwfreeways.com/ ), which is taking much, much longer than expected. It is possible I'll have time for a retrospective in 2014, but then it would be an 11-year retrospective, which doesn't really sound like a milestone.

HCTRA's annual report for FY 2013 was recently posted on their site https://www.hctra.org/about_reports/ Observations * Overall traffic count up 4.9% to 428,307,389 (1.173 million/day) * The Katy managed lanes showed the biggest percent increase in traffic count at 20.2% followed by the Sam Houston Tollway Northeast (18.6%) and the Ship Channel Bridge (10.8%) * The traffic leaders remained the same as last year: Sam Houston Tollway north (IH 45N to US 290) at 203k vpd, Sam Houston Tollway South (IH 10W to US 59S) at 197k vpd, and Sam Houston Central (US 290 to IH 10) at 161k vpd * The Westpark Tollway was 119k vpd, up 5.7% but still below its 2008 peak of 125k vpd. Traffic dropped 14.5% from 2008 to 2010 due to the completion of the Katy Freeway expansion in 2008. * The Fort Bend Parkway connection continued to slowly increase, rising 8.6% to 9471 vpd. But it remains below its 2008 peak of 9987 vpd. * Hardy Toll Road north increased 4.3% to 50.5k vpd and Hardy Toll Road South increased 4.5% to 58.2k vpd. * Overall Revenue increased 7.85% to $560.1 million * Revenue leader was the Sam Houston Tollway North at $93.2 million, up 8.6%, followed by Sam Houston Tollway South at $87.6 million, up 6.3% * The Katy Managed lanes reported $10.3 million in revenue on a traffic count of 19.3 million. This seems unexpected to me since I thought most traffic was at peak periods when tolls are high. * Biggest percent gainers were the Katy Managed Lanes at 28.9%, Sam Houston Tollway Northeast at 22.3%, Fort Bend Parkway connection at 12.2% and the Ship Channel Bridge at 10.5% * $120 million in revenue was transferred out of HCTRA to the Harris county road fund. "The Commissioners Court approved a $120 million annual allocation for funding of a County thoroughfare program to increase general mobility." This was down from $133.5 million in 2012. With Houston's economy booming and traffic congestion worsening, I think a good performance was expected. In fact, I would have expected a somewhat higher traffic increase on the toll roads. But with the cash-cow sections of the Sam Houston Tollway at or near capacity at rush hour, growth will have to come from the facilities with less traffic.

38 MB http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/i10_reeval_schematics.pdf

I have a PDF schematic of the entire corridor dated June 19, 2003. The file name suggests it was released as part of the EIS reevaluation. I'm assuming you want this to determine displacements (reference separate thread). I also have screenshots of the actual construction plans but they do not show properties affected. I could put the PDF file on a web server for download if you really need it.

Here are three photos from today. It looks like the west wing is about 50% demolished. The rest of the building is intact - is it part of this project? This view shows the main building in the background, still fully intact.

Schematics were on display at the March 2013 public meeting and can be found here http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh288-exhibits.html According to a recent posting on the HGAC web site, TxDOT is attempting to proceed with building the 4-lane 2-way facility (2 lanes each way) "ultimate" design rather than building an interim reversible 2-lane facility. It looks like the Loop 610 interchange won't be a five-level design even in the "ultimate" design. The current main lanes will become toll lanes and the main lanes will go on new structures. I seem to recall from the meeting exhibit that the main lanes overpass everything below, but the online schematic looks like the new SH 288 main lanes structures are one level above Loop 610.

Go to newspaper microfilm and review the Sunday home sections in the mid-1970s. I have done it a few times for the 1960s, and I always find it fascinating to see the new homes in neighborhoods in the area where I grew up (Sharpstown, Westbury). I remember touring model homes in Northfield as a kid in the mid-1970s and being intrigued by the "comtemporary" features like showers with glass walls exposed to atriums, multiple atriums per home and central vacuums. There was definitely lots of glass compared to the 1960s homes in Sharpstown. You may want to look into the origins and owners of the apartments along Creekbend, and pinpoint when they became low income. Those apartments did horrible damage to the neighborhood and, more than any other single factor, caused the downward spiral. Of course, the apartments along Fondren and Bellfort made their contributions to the damage. Northfield is zoned to Sharpstown High School, where I attended 1981-1985. Northfield was a very high-class area in 1981-1982, with a heavy Jewish presence. Rudy Tomjanovich and Calvin Murphy lived in the neighborhood. By 1984-1985 it was in super-steep decline. I seem to remember Jamaicans (drug gangs) in the Creekbend apartments - not 100% sure it was Creekbend.

I can answer that question. I plan to do a 10-year retrospective this year, but it won't be within the next few months. With the recent completion of the HoustonFreeways web site restyling (and moving it onto ASP.Net MVC 4 with a mobile device site), my current top priority is to bring the Dallas-Fort Worth freeways book to a conclusion. (www.DFWFreeways.com) Interest in the DFW book has been extremely low - much, much lower than the interest in Houston Freeways (which exceeded expectations). Consequently, the DFW book will not be printed and the integrated eBook will be offered for sale only to satisfy IRS requirements that the book was not a "hobby." Score a win for Houston in terms of interest in freeways! So it will probably be sometime this summer for the 10-year retrospective. I'll post a notice on this thread.

The West Loop between IH 10 and US 59 is a chronic problem that will never get better and most likely become worse. In my view, the only way we'll see improvements to the West Loop is if the Uptown Houston Association demands improvements and is willing to pay for a large share of the cost. I think the only financially feasible alternative will be elevated lanes. There is definitely a visual impact, so traffic will need to become worse before Uptown Houston will accept elevated lanes. But it may come to that eventually. In the short term, Uptown Houston is pushing a busway on Post Oak and a section of the West Loop. The link below says $76.5 million of the $121.5 million cost will be local - it isn't clear to me how much is provided by Uptown Houston, but I think most of the $76.5 million is Uptown money. http://www.ridemetro.org/AboutUs/Board/working_meetings/2012/082312/Uptown-POB-Transit-to-METRO-Committee082312.pdf The Post Oak busway ranks very high with HGAC, so I'm expecting it to happen. New connectors at the Loop and US 59 also rank high and will likely be built fairly soon. http://www.h-gac.com/taq/commitees/TPC/2013/02-feb/docs/ITEM%2008%20--%202013-2016%20TIP%20Call%20for%20Projects.pdf That busway will have a negligible impact on West Loop traffic. Once it is done, the Uptown Houston Association may turn its attention back to roadway improvements. So, I think it will be at least several years before there is serious consideration of any improvements to the West Loop. I hope consideration will come sooner, but for now the political effort is going into the busway.