Rail Underpasses

[mr_right]

Can anyone verify about new rail underpasses being constructed for the Southern Pacific line south of I-10? I was told that TC Jester, Durham, Shepherd, Heights, and Studemont will be dug underneath the rail line beginning this year. If true, it will completely suck during the construction. But, once complete, it will be quite nice to have more than one surface street not blocked by the train. Plus, it will cut down on the horn blasts at 4am!

[citykid09]

Westhimer needs a rail Over or Underpass where it crosses into Highland Village. That area looks to good for train tracks to be right there.

[kzseattle]

Westhimer needs a rail Over or Underpass where it crosses into Highland Village. That area looks to good for train tracks to be right there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup, I wish they did something there for both Westheimer and San Felipe but at least for Westheimer. That place is just too inappropriate for a rail road crossing. It is right in Uptown and right on its main drag, that is, Westheimer.

[Guest danax]

That neighborhood between I-10 and Washington near Shepherd etc. is one of our most re-invented neighborhoods and this is obviously would be due to all of the new townhomes/patio homes there.

As we've talked about in other threads, at-grade train crossings are quickly becoming huge problems as the cities densify.

[jm1fd]

That neighborhood between I-10 and Washington near Shepherd etc. is one of our most re-invented neighborhoods and this is obviously would be due to all of the new townhomes/patio homes there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not to mention that Shepherd & Durham are a total of 6-8 lanes that run from I-45 all the way down to Memorial/Kirby/Allen Parkway....it would be justified even if Rice Military hadn't gone fru fru. Also, the train comes through there pretty frequently, and if traffic volume is heavvy, traffic will back up to within about a hundred yards of Memorial....

I'm just wondering where all the Mexicans that stand around by the tracks are gonna do.....

[kjb434]

Funny comment about the mexican workers. Also, Studemont is already going under the tracks. So is Yale street. But TC Jester, Shepherd and Durham would be great to lower under the tracts.

I wonder what the businesses will do by Shepherd and Durham for access.

We'll have to wait and see.

[Guest danax]

I wonder what the businesses will do by Shepherd and Durham for access.

We'll have to wait and see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If they do it now it will be less disruptive since the current businesses near the tracks are still your basic hardware stores and the like where it won't be a big deal to them (easy for me to say) when the street takes a dive. The street drop might open up the track frontage lots for more upscale retail or residential since the traffic would then be diverted down creating a mini quiet zone above.

Anything that helps development in this town seems to happen, except of course zoning.

[Trophy Property]

Yup, I wish they did something there for both Westheimer and San Felipe but at least for Westheimer. That place is just too inappropriate for a rail road crossing. It is right in Uptown and right on its main drag, that is, Westheimer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Totally. Last Friday afternoon I decided to leave my Galleria office early and head home (montrose/midtown). I crossed under the freeway at about 4:15 and then sat there for 20 minutes while the train sputtered along. I was in no hurry but would have been livid if I would have been trying to actually get somewhere. There should be a time restriction on that train. There is enough traffic along that stretch to facilitate a need for an underpass.

[jm1fd]

I was on Durham this evening about 7pm, and got stopped by the train....then, just as that one had gone by, another came puttering down the OTHER TRACK going the oppisite direction. UGH. I dunno how long I sat there....but I ate my burger and fries while waiting....

[zaphod]

That track is pretty much the busiest line outside the eastern side of town. at least the old westpark line is long gone though. i remember when the trains would go, back up, then reverse onto the other track, then have to wait for another train to go before going. but i like trains so it doesnt bother me to sometimes watch a train go by.

[plumber2]

Yup, I wish they did something there for both Westheimer and San Felipe but at least for Westheimer. That place is just too inappropriate for a rail road crossing. It is right in Uptown and right on its main drag, that is, Westheimer.

When Richmond Ave was extended into Afton Oaks back in the late 50's it was widened at the rail crossing in anticipation of an underpass. It never happened.

[Subdude]

It seems it would be hard to constuct rail over/underpasses on San Felipe or Westheimer without quite a bit of disruption to the local businesses and residences.

In many places over time most at-grade rail crossings have been eliminated for safety reasons.

[ig2ba]

I assume we're all talking about this?

http://www.houstonrailplan.com/projects/terminal.htm

I haven't heard any updates lately, but they do have contact information on the website if anyone feels motivated to contact them.

It does seem strange though, that they are still (since August 2006) proposing this Westheimer overpass even though it has among the lowest Benefit/Cost ratios (0.29 compared to about .71 for Richmond and San Felipe). The Shepherd-Durham overpasses (or underpasses) seem to be more of a sure thing.

Also, was this topic discussed elsewhere on HAIF?

[musicman]

The wait at rail crossings may be worth it

Taxpayer burden to build overpasses at many outweighs benefits, study says

It is a daily ritual in Houston: A line of cars backs up at a railroad crossing, waiting for a long, slow train to pass.

If you have been caught in such a line

Edited October 3, 2007 by musicman

[MetroMogul]

Westhimer needs a rail Over or Underpass where it crosses into Highland Village. That area looks to good for train tracks to be right there.

But get this, get this. This is going to knock your socks off. The rail line was there first, long before Highland Village was a gleam in some developer's eye. If aesthetics are the problem, then the development should have been built further to the east. You build all these nice retail centers and townhomes near railroad tracks, then complain about the railroad tracks. Solution; don't build or buy near the railroad tracks.

[CDeb]

But get this, get this. This is going to knock your socks off. The rail line was there first, long before Highland Village was a gleam in some developer's eye. If aesthetics are the problem, then the development should have been built further to the east. You build all these nice retail centers and townhomes near railroad tracks, then complain about the railroad tracks. Solution; don't build or buy near the railroad tracks.

No kidding. A lot of these rail lines were here when Texas only had five flags.

[TheNiche]

No kidding. A lot of these rail lines were here when Texas only had five flags.

Close, but not quite. The first railroad in the State was from Harrisburg to Stafford, completed in 1853.

[CDeb]

Close, but not quite. The first railroad in the State was from Harrisburg to Stafford, completed in 1853.

Niche, you don't appreciate good ole' hyperbole, do ya?

[JJxvi]

Close, but not quite. The first railroad in the State was from Harrisburg to Stafford, completed in 1853.

I think parts of that line still exist as parts of Southern Pacific. If it was originally completed in 1853, then it was indeed when Texas only had 5 flags since this is prior to Texas becoming part of the Confederacy.

Edited October 4, 2007 by JJxvi

[TheNiche]

I think parts of that line still exist as parts of Southern Pacific. If it was originally completed in 1853, then it was indeed when Texas only had 5 flags since this is prior to Texas becoming part of the Confederacy.

Ah, good point. I always forgot about that one back in elementary school, too!

[Highway6]

I think parts of that line still exist as parts of Southern Pacific. If it was originally completed in 1853, then it was indeed when Texas only had 5 flags since this is prior to Texas becoming part of the Confederacy.

Yeah.. it was 5 flags.. It had already been annexed into the US in 1845... but Texas in 1853 had not yet flown its 6th flag, that of the Confederacy since the Civil war didnt start till 1861 .

..yeah.. what he said..

Edited October 4, 2007 by Highway6

[Jdorfma1]

I agree completely that the rails were there first. But the real question is what's best for the city now. The shotgun houses were on my street on Eigel first as well, but the new development is better for the city.

The real issue with the rail in opinion is threefold:

1. Visual blight. Especially inside the loop, what should be burgeoning developments and intermixed with at-grade crosings that look awful and lower property values.

2. Noise blight. Especially near and dear to me heart. yes yes, the rail stations were there first, but cities need to grow and evolve. This place is always barking about how we want the inner city to develop, urbanize, clean and up become a modern 21st century city but then some here state "if you don't like the noise, don't live there." The answer should be "this is potentially prime real estate and developing it would ease the ever expanding spread of the city by creating highly desired densely populated locations inside the loop so let's find a way to stop the damn train noises, at least at night." I really don't care if the trains were there first, the city is changing and eliminating the noise is in the best interest of the city now.

3. Traffic blight. This is the most easily quantifiable metric. If the grade seperation doesn't bring an equal benefit in traffic flow, they aren't going to do it. But i don't feel they are taking into account the extra benefits gained from solving isues 1 and 2.

Let's face it, eventually the heavy rail inside the loop and growing development are going to butt heads. Philosophically we may all agree that the trains were there first so leave them be and let them blow the whistle all night now. Realistically let's admit that development, reclaimation, growth and safety should be tantamount and let's start working on these seperations now before they become more expensive 20 years from now...

Jeff

[musicman]

Houston has lots of industry that requires rail. Losing rail will be losing revenue.

[Jdorfma1]

Houston has lots of industry that requires rail. Losing rail will be losing revenue.

I'm not proposing losing rail, i'm proposing altering the rail, even at great cost, to encourage greater utilization of the land surrounding the rail lines inside the loop. Pay extra for grade seperations, impose nightly noise controls, drop the line down 10 feet behing concrete retaining walls to reduce the visual impact. These may be expensive but the benefit to the region through reclaiming that land for more densely populated construction is in the best interest of the city...

Jeff

[RedScare]

I agree completely that the rails were there first. But the real question is what's best for the city now. The shotgun houses were on my street on Eigel first as well, but the new development is better for the city.

The real issue with the rail in opinion is threefold:

1. Visual blight. Especially inside the loop, what should be burgeoning developments and intermixed with at-grade crosings that look awful and lower property values.

2. Noise blight. Especially near and dear to me heart. yes yes, the rail stations were there first, but cities need to grow and evolve. This place is always barking about how we want the inner city to develop, urbanize, clean and up become a modern 21st century city but then some here state "if you don't like the noise, don't live there." The answer should be "this is potentially prime real estate and developing it would ease the ever expanding spread of the city by creating highly desired densely populated locations inside the loop so let's find a way to stop the damn train noises, at least at night." I really don't care if the trains were there first, the city is changing and eliminating the noise is in the best interest of the city now.

3. Traffic blight. This is the most easily quantifiable metric. If the grade seperation doesn't bring an equal benefit in traffic flow, they aren't going to do it. But i don't feel they are taking into account the extra benefits gained from solving isues 1 and 2.

Let's face it, eventually the heavy rail inside the loop and growing development are going to butt heads. Philosophically we may all agree that the trains were there first so leave them be and let them blow the whistle all night now. Realistically let's admit that development, reclaimation, growth and safety should be tantamount and let's start working on these seperations now before they become more expensive 20 years from now...

Jeff

Realistically, I cannot agree. Going through your list, I'll respond.

Visual blight - I do not find rail tracks to be nearly as offensive in and of themselves as you. Certainly, at grade crossings can be renovated where the street, sidewalk and track meet to make them smoother, but simply put, I like trains....especially when compared to a 10 lane freeway. And, speaking of visual blight, some of the suggested overpasses are far more visually unattractive than the existing problem. Consider Shepherd/Durham north of I-10. The proposal for the overpass at Washington is similar and would wipe out several blocks of Shepherd/Durham on either side of the track.

Noise blight - I agree that if I lived on Eigel, instead of the Heights, this may be a bigger issue to me. However, I cannot help but think that those who are bothered by train noise should consider such when looking for a home. I am not opposed to noise mitigation.

Traffic blight - This is something to be considered. However, the impact can be overstated. Causing gridlock is one thing. Emergency services stranded on the wrong side of the track is also important. Saving 5-10 minutes of impatient commuters is not, in my estimation, enough of a reason to build a hideous overpass over a track.

I have lived on either side of the Center Street track for over 8 years. While the train may occasionally annoy me, never has it caused such a disturbance that I would reccomend ripping out all of the Shepherd/Durham redevelopment to accomodate an overpass. On those few occasions that I was in such a hurry that I could not wait, I drove to the Yale or Studemont underpass, or west down Washington. Most times, I simply wait a few minutes.

As for development and growth, it doesn't appear to have slowed either around the Washington/Shepherd/Durham intersection. In fact, a massive 6 lane overpass at this intersection would STUNT growth and development, not encourage it.

[ricco67]

I'm not proposing losing rail, i'm proposing altering the rail, even at great cost, to encourage greater utilization of the land surrounding the rail lines inside the loop. Pay extra for grade seperations, impose nightly noise controls, drop the line down 10 feet behing concrete retaining walls to reduce the visual impact. These may be expensive but the benefit to the region through reclaiming that land for more densely populated construction is in the best interest of the city...

Jeff

Respectfully, I will have to ask you a question:

WHO will pay for the realignment? Doing such a thing doesn't mean just moving a single mile or two rail out of the way, but rather dealing with potentially dozens, if not over a hundred miles of rail in one section alone. Are the residents involved going to pay for the railroad companies to buy new ROW? or do you think they will buy it out of the goodness of their hearts?

I don't think so.

As it's been brought up in another thread, the Rail lines in this region (as well as other parts of the country) are almost to the point of gridlock. Houston being a major hub for such activity isn't going to see a decline in the near future. If anything, they might need to exapand a bit. Now also consider that if they DO expand, they will probably do so by either laying down an additional line along ROW that is already owned or by land that will eventually be occupied by residences in the future.

Who has the priority of complaining about trains being in their backyard? Those who currently have it or those that will whine and complain about it 10 years down the road?

[musicman]

I'm not proposing losing rail, i'm proposing altering the rail, even at great cost, to encourage greater utilization of the land surrounding the rail lines inside the loop. Pay extra for grade seperations, impose nightly noise controls, drop the line down 10 feet behing concrete retaining walls to reduce the visual impact. These may be expensive but the benefit to the region through reclaiming that land for more densely populated construction is in the best interest of the city...

Jeff

If ROW was available, I could see how this MIGHT work. Unfortunately it isn't. Another area of town would be sacrificing something and we'd be where we are now. Would be wasted money IMO.

[Jdorfma1]

I understand everyone's feelings about this. I still maintain that the reality is that freight traffic in houston, especially along the Washington corrider, is starting to butt heads with the increased vitality of the region. When push comes to shove I think that the continued residental and commercial development of the area is in everyones best interest.

Looks like Houston is starting to sort of look at the issue:

http://www.publicworks.houstontx.gov/traffic/programs.htmPublic Works - Quiet Zone

I feel comfortable modifying my statement to "extra cost should be spent to create additional safety measures that will reduce or eliminate the need for the constant horn noise 24/7, even if that cost seems disproportionate to the immediate benefit. The vast improvement in quality of life and encouragement of more growth will offset the immediate costs."

There, that's better I think.

[ricco67]

I understand everyone's feelings about this. I still maintain that the reality is that freight traffic in houston, especially along the Washington corrider, is starting to butt heads with the increased vitality of the region. When push comes to shove I think that the continued residental and commercial development of the area is in everyones best interest.

Looks like Houston is starting to sort of look at the issue:

http://www.publicworks.houstontx.gov/traffic/programs.htmPublic Works - Quiet Zone

I feel comfortable modifying my statement to "extra cost should be spent to create additional safety measures that will reduce or eliminate the need for the constant horn noise 24/7, even if that cost seems disproportionate to the immediate benefit. The vast improvement in quality of life and encouragement of more growth will offset the immediate costs."

There, that's better I think.

That sounds a bit more reasonable. Absolute demands are usually not very productive or reasonable. You will find here that usually some form of consensus is (usually) made after a few hundred posts.

Welcome to the Forum, by the way.

[Jdorfma1]

Thanks, I'm a loooon time lurker. This issues has no become near and dear to my heard (for obviously selfish reasons).

Jeff