Texas Central Project

[IronTiger]

One of my theories is why it won't go it downtown is the heavy resistance it would face from the Rice Military/Washington Avenue corridor. I imagine there's probably as much money concentrated there than a few disgruntled rural owners with deep pockets. Probably these concerns aren't even mentioned in the paper as it's easier to blame the rural resistance than the Inner Loop.

[ADCS]

That's not exactly a theory - if you've been to any of TCR's events, you would have seen a handful of Rice Military folks who are extremely vocal about their opposition to the line. However, that's mostly likely why a downtown route would follow I-10. It's still too early to tell if that opposition would permanently sink its chances if it's not directly impacting the neighborhood.

Edited May 4, 2016 by ADCS

[Triton]

It would be cool for it to go downtown but not if the city currently can't afford it. It would be fairly expensive for even a small segment compared to the overall project. Perhaps in a future expansion. There's going to be a lot of backlash if they made the line run down the existing rail corridor near Washington Ave so I would imagine their best bet would be somewhere along or above I-10.

[BigFootsSocks]

Unless the city is really confident in its potential for a large and constant civilian presence in the downtown area in the near future, I don't really get their point in doing this, though I can easily see why since Dallas will get a downtown spot.

[IronTiger]

8 hours ago, Triton said:

It would be cool for it to go downtown but not if the city currently can't afford it. It would be fairly expensive for even a small segment compared to the overall project. Perhaps in a future expansion. There's going to be a lot of backlash if they made the line run down the existing rail corridor near Washington Ave so I would imagine their best bet would be somewhere along or above I-10.

How would that go about, really? Not talking about why it would even go to downtown to begin with (I don't want to start that argument again) or if TxDOT would even give up even the inner shoulders, but let's say they did. Basically, you would have to build a two-level elevated superstructure above the overpasses during the sunken parts (and not only would it be a bit unsightly, but it would have to be built much stronger than traditional highway structures, due to the weight limits--if you remember, METRO contributed money to over-engineer the Katy Tollway so it could support trains. On the above-ground portions, it would be also have to be higher, and in the end, it would probably be just as costly if not more so between giant superstructures and wrangling with TxDOT.

[BigFootsSocks]

I assume he meant along the median in the middle which could be diverted once it reaches the HOV line into downtown.

[ADCS]

11 hours ago, IronTiger said:

How would that go about, really? Not talking about why it would even go to downtown to begin with (I don't want to start that argument again) or if TxDOT would even give up even the inner shoulders, but let's say they did. Basically, you would have to build a two-level elevated superstructure above the overpasses during the sunken parts (and not only would it be a bit unsightly, but it would have to be built much stronger than traditional highway structures, due to the weight limits--if you remember, METRO contributed money to over-engineer the Katy Tollway so it could support trains. On the above-ground portions, it would be also have to be higher, and in the end, it would probably be just as costly if not more so between giant superstructures and wrangling with TxDOT.

 

You're right about the increased cost, which is why TCR prefers the NW Mall area. Apparently, an inner loop segment could cost as much as half of the line between Dallas and Houston, owing to design constraints. Any access to Downtown would likely require municipal, METRO, state or federal assistance in funding.

 

It's not impossible, though - it's an engineering problem through-and-through, and Houston tends to be good at solving those. Hell, if we agreed to call it the Aggie Express between Downtown and Shiro, you'd probably find plenty of engineers willing to work for free 

[BigFootsSocks]

Where'd you get that cost proposal from? I've read that it's only (lol) $1 billion for the cost from 610/290 into downtown, which is still a lot of money.

[IronTiger]

1 hour ago, ADCS said:

 

You're right about the increased cost, which is why TCR prefers the NW Mall area. Apparently, an inner loop segment could cost as much as half of the line between Dallas and Houston, owing to design constraints. Any access to Downtown would likely require municipal, METRO, state or federal assistance in funding.

 

It's not impossible, though - it's an engineering problem through-and-through, and Houston tends to be good at solving those. Hell, if we agreed to call it the Aggie Express between Downtown and Shiro, you'd probably find plenty of engineers willing to work for free 

If it cost as much as half of the line, then we're talking billions of dollars, and if we're talking "local, state, or federal funding" then you just gave the "No HSR in Texas" crowd a whole lot of ammo to work with.

[ADCS]

1 minute ago, IronTiger said:

If it cost as much as half of the line, then we're talking billions of dollars, and if we're talking "local, state, or federal funding" then you just gave the "No HSR in Texas" crowd a whole lot of ammo to work with.

 

Yes to both. This is why I believe TCR is staying away from a Downtown station, unless funding for Downtown is a fait accompli.

 

There are mostly Bush-era Republicans in charge of TCR. They know exactly how the political situation in this state works.

[Triton]

Elevated superstructure? Ummm.... a bridge?

 

 

Anyway, there's several ways they can run along I-10 and I thought someone even outlined how this could work. Although the weight differences are significant, it's pretty comparable to the elevated bus line along 610 in the Galleria area. A possible mixture between running along the median and then running along White Oak Bayou. It's not that far fetched really....

[BigFootsSocks]

Lol there's no way it could be built along White Oak; the HCFCD easement for that is massive and there's no way they'd allow something to be built on a major drainage channel

[Triton]

Sigh... sounds like I need to make a visualization of what I'm talking about. It would run along the north side of I-10 starting between Studemont and Taylor, and the structure would remain elevated. I'm not going to design this whole thing in my head but it's certainly possible and someone (I believe in this very thread) created a map outlining how it could work. 

[ADCS]

5 hours ago, BigFootsSocks said:

Where'd you get that cost proposal from? I've read that it's only (lol) $1 billion for the cost from 610/290 into downtown, which is still a lot of money.

 

Something I remember from one of the open houses, but I could be remembering incorrectly.

[BigFootsSocks]

1 minute ago, ADCS said:

 

Something I remember from one of the open houses, but I could be remembering incorrectly.

Maybe they're associating the per-mile cost as exponentially more than the rest of the line.

[IronTiger]

5 hours ago, Triton said:

Elevated superstructure? Ummm.... a bridge?

 

 

Anyway, there's several ways they can run along I-10 and I thought someone even outlined how this could work. Although the weight differences are significant, it's pretty comparable to the elevated bus line along 610 in the Galleria area. A possible mixture between running along the median and then running along White Oak Bayou. It's not that far fetched really....

Of course it's far fetched, and it's not at all comparable to an elevated bus line. This isn't some two way HOV lane like you see in the medians of 45N and 290. The width between the tracks even is significant (not to mention things like wiring). Probably 50' absolute minimum, where as a BRT is just a two lane road with no shoulders (290's HOV lane is about 15', so...double that). You're free to show us what you mean, though.

[BigFootsSocks]

I think he means putting the tracks on elevated columns, so that the only space taken up are the size of the piers.

[Triton]

1 hour ago, BigFootsSocks said:

I think he means putting the tracks on elevated columns, so that the only space taken up are the size of the piers.

Exactly.

 

You really don't need that much room... perfect example is the light rail line with all the wirings and everything else that fits perfectly between the N Main lanes. It's not that large and the bullet train may have more width but nothing that would be that much different.

 

Not saying they need to do this. Just saying, if they wanted to go downtown, I believe this is the most likely route they would go if they didn't end up using the railroad tracks along Washington. Was it an open house? I do believe it was something more official.. yes.

[IronTiger]

8 minutes ago, Triton said:

Exactly.

 

You really don't need that much room... perfect example is the light rail line with all the wirings and everything else that fits perfectly between the N Main lanes. It's not that large and the bullet train may have more width but nothing that would be that much different.

 

Not saying they need to do this. Just saying, if they wanted to go downtown, I believe this is the most likely route they would go if they didn't end up using the railroad tracks along Washington. Was it an open house? I do believe it was something more official.. yes.

The light rail uses up about 35' in Main Street, including the shrubbery in the middle. In no world would you have cars running next to an HSR with only even a lane difference. But yes, I suppose cantilevered piers is indeed possible.

 

The problem will still be that it would end up being extremely expensive if it was a 2-level stack (about 32' columns)--I mean, just look at all that concrete in Taiwan. Running it between the highway and the frontage roads or parallel to it would end up gaining a lot of opposition and might require right of way clearance. Put it simply, an I-10 route is going to be by no means "cheaper" or "less resistance".

[Triton]

1 minute ago, IronTiger said:

The light rail uses up about 35' in Main Street, including the shrubbery in the middle. In no world would you have cars running next to an HSR with only even a lane difference. But yes, I suppose cantilevered piers is indeed possible.

 

The problem will still be that it would end up being extremely expensive if it was a 2-level stack (about 32' columns)--I mean, just look at all that concrete in Taiwan. Running it between the highway and the frontage roads or parallel to it would end up gaining a lot of opposition and might require right of way clearance. Put it simply, an I-10 route is going to be by no means "cheaper" or "less resistance".

That's exactly what I've been talking about this entire time. An elevated structure and I'm talking about the elevated section near the Burnett station on N Main. Of course there would be less resistance if it was built in the middle of the highway or even in the middle of the highway and the feeder roads.... it's not going directly in the backyards of people. But we're in agreement though... this would be quite expensive if they did decide to go this route or they are going to face a substantial amount of opposition in the Washington corridor area. That's why it's going to be real interesting what this study shows... it's pretty clear the rail company conducted their own study and realized it just didn't make any financial sense to go downtown.

[BigFootsSocks]

10 hours ago, IronTiger said:

The problem will still be that it would end up being extremely expensive if it was a 2-level stack (about 32' columns)--I mean, just look at all that concrete in Taiwan. 

I'm glad we've all come full circle to the conclusion TCR also came to.  

[MaxConcrete]

On 5/4/2016 at 0:22 PM, Triton said:

 so I would imagine their best bet would be somewhere along or above I-10.

 

I went to a public meeting about a year ago and spoke to a person who was well-informed about the project, and he said there was an intensive and expensive study in progress to determine if it was feasible to run the train along IH-10. The IH-10 alignment study was launched at the request of Mayor Parker due to inner loop opposition.

 

Well, I never heard anything about how that study turned out. I'm thinking that if it was found to be feasible, it would have warranted additional study or the downtown extension may not have been dropped so quickly. So I'm inclined to think that an IH-10 alignment had engineering or cost issues.

 

One Texas Central engineer told me they needed to keep any grades at a maximum of 1%. (I don't know if that strictly applies in a low-speed zone). Since the structure would be above overpasses at Heights, Yale and Studemont, it would have to stay at the superelevation continuously.  I also think there is difficulty between downtown and Studemont with limited right-of-way, and TxDOT's long-term plans for a total rebuild of that area uses all available right-of-way and makes column placement for a train structure on TxDOT right-of-way impossible.

 

[Rowdy]

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2016/05/18/japanese-company-to-create-dallas-subsidiary-for.html

[cspwal]

I'm not sure what to think of this

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/fight-over-texas-bullet-train-and-eminent-domain-heads-to-washington-8424385

 

On one hand, the Houston press seems to have a bone to pick with the high speed train.  On the other hand, the legal wrangling does seem a little strange.  Anyone able to parse this article better?

[BigFootsSocks]

Not sure what their motive is, but I agree, they seem to have a slant against TCR, which isn't illegal, they're entitled to their own opinion, but it's strange they haven't mentioned anything about the obvious benefits the project will bring.

[Houston19514]

59 minutes ago, BigFootsSocks said:

Not sure what their motive is, but I agree, they seem to have a slant against TCR, which isn't illegal, they're entitled to their own opinion, but it's strange they haven't mentioned anything about the obvious benefits the project will bring.

 

Isn't that pretty much just the Press's MO?  Aren't they more or less negative on everything?

[cspwal]

Maybe they don't understand why anyone would ever want to go to Dallas and would prefer it to go to Austin instead 

[The Pragmatist]

13 minutes ago, cspwal said:

Maybe they don't understand why anyone would ever want to go to Dallas and would prefer it to go to Austin instead 

If TCR can gain some traction with this, it would be interesting to see them branch a line off in the future from the Dallas-Houston line's jaunt down 290 and have it go on out to Austin. The biggest hurdles going in that direction would be getting through Brenham, Giddings, and east Austin. It would certainly be nice to have a connection out that way. Put a Fairfield-area station for switching between the lines and to get the western and northern suburbs connected (due to the proximity of 99), and you're golden.

[BigFootsSocks]

I believe that is their intention

[sdotwill84]

But howsoever will we move around the city once we get to Austin now that Uber has packed it's bags?