Highway 288

[kjb434]

METRO can't service areas south of the BW 8 on SH 288. It is out of the service area. The city of Pearland and a portion of Brazoria County would have to have an election and accept a higher property taxes to become part of the service area. Northeast areas of Fort Bend County have turned down METRO expansion measures before.

Commuter rail is also a waste of money for the amount of people that are available to use it. On top of that, most will not want to use it.

Commuter rail is not a simple installation either. It has to work around the freight rail carriers schedule which is increasingly getting busier. The rail companies will force METRO to build all needed improvements to allow the freight operations complete freedom while still allow commuter rail. In the end, the rail companies don't have to do a damn thing. It's their tracks.

All of these issues factor into why commuter rail is such a crappy option. Not just ridership. A toll facility is cheaper, more flexible, and giver users more freedom.

[CoolBuddy06]

METRO can't service areas south of the BW 8 on SH 288. It is out of the service area. The city of Pearland and a portion of Brazoria County would have to have an election and accept a higher property taxes to become part of the service area. Northeast areas of Fort Bend County have turned down METRO expansion measures before.

Commuter rail is also a waste of money for the amount of people that are available to use it. On top of that, most will not want to use it.

Commuter rail is not a simple installation either. It has to work around the freight rail carriers schedule which is increasingly getting busier. The rail companies will force METRO to build all needed improvements to allow the freight operations complete freedom while still allow commuter rail. In the end, the rail companies don't have to do a damn thing. It's their tracks.

All of these issues factor into why commuter rail is such a crappy option. Not just ridership. A toll facility is cheaper, more flexible, and giver users more freedom.

Well said kjb. I think we just looked past those elections and logistics.

[Trae]

All of these issues factor into why commuter rail is such a crappy option. Not just ridership. A toll facility is cheaper, more flexible, and giver users more freedom.

More freedom? Really? Let's just pave over everything else while we're at it. You guys want tollways out of the wazoo. More freedom would mean having the option of taking transit, not burning the same amount of gas, while spending more money to use a roadway.

[CandW]

I work in real estate and need my vehicle most days to tour properties with clients or visit with clients and show them what is available to them. I live in the Katy area. If I worked in an office complex and did not go out or have a daily need for my vehicle I would certainly utilize some form of mass transit. Specifically commuter rail. The commuters in Pearland have the beginnings a the same problems Katy, Sugar Land, Kingwood and the Woodlands have all experienced...Growth. Has it been as rampant as those mentioned areas? Not until recently. With SH 288 being able to handle more lanes of tolled traffic or some type of commuter rail, I applaud the efforts of whomever is trying to address it. By getting this going today, it should lesson the problems the other areas have had to endure. I wish they had set aside enough room along I-10 for some type of rail, instead I am going to have to pay to play so to speak. BTW, construction has already begun on extending the service lanes along SH 288 from FM 518 north to CR 403.

[Trae]

They had enough room for rail on I-10W, but Culberson and friends blocked any chance at that, and instead a stupid ass tollway was built.

[timedrifter]

Everything but the guardrails.

For starters, how 288 SB gets squeezed to one side and down to two through lanes, and how the 610 EB to 288 NB connector is merged from two lanes to one. That must be expanded if the Fort Bend TW reaches S Post Oak. How about a straighter road with improved line-of-sight and geometries to speed up traffic, as well as reconfigured exits to reduce weaving. In other words, something like the 610/10 interchange, minus the rails.

The ramps on the northern side of the 288/610 interchange were designed originally with the eventual addition of express (now toll) lanes in mind. the inner of the two lanes would split off and lead to these express lanes. Since they were never built (yet), they had to merge the two lanes together until the lanes were built. Once the toll lanes are built, the inner lanes will be finally connected to them, allowing access to the toll lanes from 610 and improving traffic flow in general. Just watch and see.

[CoolBuddy06]

The ramps on the northern side of the 288/610 interchange were designed originally with the eventual addition of express (now toll) lanes in mind. the inner of the two lanes would split off and lead to these express lanes. Since they were never built (yet), they had to merge the two lanes together until the lanes were built. Once the toll lanes are built, the inner lanes will be finally connected to them, allowing access to the toll lanes from 610 and improving traffic flow in general. Just watch and see.

There's a thread I started on 288 expansion. In it ToryGattis gave a detailed explanation of how 610 would look in his blog. Lemme look for it. Here.

[urban909]

I agree. And the reason this is such a shame is that there's wide open land ready to be turned into rail at the least possible cost. Instead, TXDOT is going to pave it over now and it'll just be more expensive 50 or 60 years from now when all that has to be torn up and replaced with rail anyway.

so they are not going to put rail along the westpark right-of-way? dang! i didn't know TXDOT was already going to expand lanes on the Westpark. i can see where it would be useful to extend it past 1463, but i thought commuter rail was in the works to go to Fulshear along that right of way? (i think, though, that Ft Bend County has not wanted to be a part of METRO do to taxes) the reason i am asking is that i recently moved out to katy and was reeeallly hoping for rail to be out here within the next 5 years-ish...

nathan

[MaxConcrete]

so they are not going to put rail along the westpark right-of-way? dang! i didn't know TXDOT was already going to expand lanes on the Westpark.

As you are probably aware, a 50-foot-wide corridor was set aside along the Westpark corridor for future transit use. It appears that the corridor will be used for light rail from near Cummins to the Hillcroft transit center at the Southwest Freeway. West of the Hillcroft transit center, there are no plans to use the corridor, as far as I know. The Westpark corridor is not a candidate for commuter rail, as far as I know, so any extension would be light rail.

So, to answer the question, there never were any actual plans for rail on the corridor west of the Hillcroft transit center. The right-of-way set-aside ensures that rail is an option for the future. But due to the outrageous cost of light rail, it is only feasible for short distances (less than 10 miles) and I think farthest it will ever extend west is to Beltway 8. But you never know. In 30 or 50 years, extending transit to Katy or even Fulshear may be feasible. That's why the right-of-way is preserved.

Also, TxDOT has nothing to do with the Westpark Tollway. It is a project of the Harris County Toll Road Authority and the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority.

[editor]

So, to answer the question, there never were any actual plans for rail on the corridor west of the Hillcroft transit center. The right-of-way set-aside ensures that rail is an option for the future. But due to the outrageous cost of light rail, it is only feasible for short distances (less than 10 miles) and I think farthest it will ever extend west is to Beltway 8. But you never know. In 30 or 50 years, extending transit to Katy or even Fulshear may be feasible. That's why the right-of-way is preserved.

And I think that's all anyone here is asking for from the 288 redevelopment -- the preservation of some space for, or some other forethought put into, the addition of rail in the future.

No one's saying that 288 is packed as badly as other corridors which deserve rail. But what you have with 288 right now is a wide expanse of nearly virgin ground. It's important not to waste that opportunity by blacktopping the entire thing and thinking that's a long term solution. Most of the expense in building a rail system comes from land acquisition. This is a chance to do a little planning now so that in the future taxpayers won't have to cough up nearly as much money to build rail when the time comes.

FWIW, the train lines (two tracks) that run down the middle of I-90/I-94 in Chicago take up 43 feet of the right-of-way. Does anyone know how wide the 288 expansion would be? Could 43 feet be set aside for rail use in the future?

[CoolBuddy06]

And I think that's all anyone here is asking for from the 288 redevelopment -- the preservation of some space for, or some other forethought put into, the addition of rail in the future.

No one's saying that 288 is packed as badly as other corridors which deserve rail. But what you have with 288 right now is a wide expanse of nearly virgin ground. It's important not to waste that opportunity by blacktopping the entire thing and thinking that's a long term solution. Most of the expense in building a rail system comes from land acquisition. This is a chance to do a little planning now so that in the future taxpayers won't have to cough up nearly as much money to build rail when the time comes.

FWIW, the train lines (two tracks) that run down the middle of I-90/I-94 in Chicago take up 43 feet of the right-of-way. Does anyone know how wide the 288 expansion would be? Could 43 feet be set aside for rail use in the future?

A July 1999 article on texasfreeway.com says it's 100 ft wide.

[urban909]

As you are probably aware, a 50-foot-wide corridor was set aside along the Westpark corridor for future transit use. It appears that the corridor will be used for light rail from near Cummins to the Hillcroft transit center at the Southwest Freeway. West of the Hillcroft transit center, there are no plans to use the corridor, as far as I know. The Westpark corridor is not a candidate for commuter rail, as far as I know, so any extension would be light rail.

huh...the only reason i asked was because on metro's website on phase II i believe, there is a commuter line on the map. i truly hope they continue to keep that 50 foot right-of-way. i drive out on westpark to 1463 every day and it is obvious and i know that is set aside; i just hope they continue to keep it, as it would be nice to have some sort of mass transit along that route.

nathan

[ig2ba]

And I think that's all anyone here is asking for from the 288 redevelopment -- the preservation of some space for, or some other forethought put into, the addition of rail in the future.

No one's saying that 288 is packed as badly as other corridors which deserve rail. But what you have with 288 right now is a wide expanse of nearly virgin ground. It's important not to waste that opportunity by blacktopping the entire thing and thinking that's a long term solution. Most of the expense in building a rail system comes from land acquisition. This is a chance to do a little planning now so that in the future taxpayers won't have to cough up nearly as much money to build rail when the time comes.

FWIW, the train lines (two tracks) that run down the middle of I-90/I-94 in Chicago take up 43 feet of the right-of-way. Does anyone know how wide the 288 expansion would be? Could 43 feet be set aside for rail use in the future?

A July 1999 article on texasfreeway.com says it's 100 ft wide.

It looks like it could be more like 115 ft. inside the loop. (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29....mp;t=h&z=19) Outside the loop, it looks like it's right at 100 ft. (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29....mp;t=h&z=19).

However, there is existing ROW outside the mainlanes, both inside and outside the loop. Outside the loop, it's level ground and just grass. Inside the loop, it's primarily earthen slopes. If Westpark Tollway was done in a 50 ft. right of way, I would think that we could have a 2x2 lane toll road and still have room for rail here. If we are serious (and by that I mean willing to spend the money at some point in the future) about having rail, AND a toll road, AND maybe adding a fifth mainlane in each direction, it could probably be done in the style of the North Central Expressway (U.S. 75) in Dallas.

But where would this train go once it gets to the 288/59 interchange? Elevated? Or underground all the way to the proposed Intermodal Center? That's almost 3 miles! Could that cost be justified? Even by 2040? I wouldn't think so. If it wouldn't go to the Intermodal Center, where would it end up? It would need some place to drop all of these commuters that would connect them to light rail or buses.

Another issue is at the interchange with I-610. Is there room here for toll lanes AND rail?

[JLWM8609]

I hadn't been there in a while, but the southbound feeder road is now open. The north appears to still be under construction. Now 288 has a continuous feeder from BW8 to Broadway. I know some of the commuters will enjoy the whole thing once it's complete.

[LTAWACS]

Awesome. Now more developers will tout "Easy access to Houston" or "Minutes from the med center" in their commercials, spurring another round of people fleeing to Pearland only to discover that 400,000 other suckers have already beaten them to the punch and that they will all to share this new road.

[Gridlock Joe]

Will they be opening driveways from the JC Penney shopping center onto the northbound feeder? I think that would go a long way toward alleviating some of the traffic congestion on 518 and on Smith Ranch.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Gridlock Joe

[Timnwendy]

Looks like the plans to add toll lanes to Hwy 288 have been put on hold.

http://www.ultimatepearland.com/2010/06/texas-288-toll-road-plan-hold

[Trae]

Good, because tollways in both directions are pointless on 288. It works on the Katy Freeway because that's a huge employment center. Pearland? Not even close. Why can't they just add another lane in each direction, as well as a HOV in each direction? If they really want the tollway, maybe build one that changes direction during peak times.

[JLWM8609]

What some people don't realize is that a full rebuild of 288 with added lanes would mean some side projects would have to occur to handle the extra traffic. A similar thing is happening with the 290 project, as portions of 610 and the I-10/610 interchange will be widened to handle the extra traffic coming off of the new 290.

For example, if 288 was widened to 14 lanes (meaning add 4 toll lanes and 2 more free mainlanes) from its present 8 mainlanes inside the loop, I think TxDOT would want to widen 59 between Spur 527 and Polk and completely rebuild or extensively modify the interchange with 288 to accommodate the 6 extra lanes on 288.

There would need to be other things like additional connector ramps to avoid weaving to and from the proposed toll lanes to exit ramps, and widening of the dual freeway downtown which is only 4 lanes in each direction in its current configuration. That would also mean the interchange at I-45 would need to be rebuilt since those current 4 lanes end there, with 2 of those lanes merging into 1 going NB on 45 and the 2 other lanes merging into 1 going SB on 45. Unless the Pierce Elevated was expanded as well (it would probably need to have the northbound lanes cantilevered over Pierce given its current constraints), I imagine there might be worse bottlenecks than those which exist today.

To do this project and make it as beneficial as possible would mean expanding most of the downtown freeway loop, namely I-45 and 59 since 288 dumps a lot of its traffic there. I don't think TxDOT has the funding for such an immense undertaking since some non-tollway infrastructure would be to be modified as a result of a HCTRA project.

[Trae]

Which is why I believe adding one lane in each direction, and maybe an HOV in each direction, with rail in the middle is the best thing to do. They could also follow the Katy Freeway model through the Katy area by having an auxiliary lane (for entrances and exits off and in the freeway).

[TheNiche]

Which is why I believe adding one lane in each direction, and maybe an HOV in each direction, with rail in the middle is the best thing to do. They could also follow the Katy Freeway model through the Katy area by having an auxiliary lane (for entrances and exits off and in the freeway).

His point was that bi-directionality is unnecessary. The traditional reversible-lane HOV or HOT model works nicely along this corridor...for the time being.

As for rail, the freight line along FM 521 gets only moderate use and should be a priority not only for commuter rail service to Brazoria County but to the Richmond/Rosenberg area. ...that is, if commuter rail makes the slightest bit of sense. And I don't think it does (two cents).

[ricco67]

His point was that bi-directionality is unnecessary. The traditional reversible-lane HOV or HOT model works nicely along this corridor...for the time being.

As for rail, the freight line along FM 521 gets only moderate use and should be a priority not only for commuter rail service to Brazoria County but to the Richmond/Rosenberg area. ...that is, if commuter rail makes the slightest bit of sense. And I don't think it does (two cents).

While I agree that line isn't as busy as others, there has been an uptick in rail traffic along there (and others) over the past few months.

[KinkaidAlum]

I use 288 daily and the traffic is hardly unbearable. At peak rush hour, the interchanges for 59 and 45 can get backed up, but again, the additionally lanes really aren't needed. Plus, I'd hate to see them tear out the vegetation that was recently planted in the median. The areas with the trees looks so much nicer than the barren parts.

[rsb320]

I use 288 daily and the traffic is hardly unbearable. At peak rush hour, the interchanges for 59 and 45 can get backed up, but again, the additionally lanes really aren't needed. Plus, I'd hate to see them tear out the vegetation that was recently planted in the median. The areas with the trees looks so much nicer than the barren parts.

Lady Bird Johnson had a hand in the plantings inside the loop. I think additional lanes and/or rail would be benefitial south of the Loop. There could be a southward continuation of the Red Line. How fast can those existing trains go on open stretches?

[mfastx]

Lady Bird Johnson had a hand in the plantings inside the loop. I think additional lanes and/or rail would be benefitial south of the Loop. There could be a southward continuation of the Red Line. How fast can those existing trains go on open stretches?

I believe their top speed is around 60-70 mph.

[editor]

METRO Investigating Fatal Morning Bus Accident

METRO is placing all necessary resources at the disposal of safety and police personnel who are investigating a fatal accident that occurred on State Highway 288 at MacGregor. Based on preliminary information bus operator David Sayers appears to have lost control of the vehicle after it struck a dump-truck that was also headed south on the same stretch of road. He was returning the bus to the Hiram Clarke Bus Operations Facility at the end of his shift around 8:30 a.m. when the accident occurred. There were no customers on board and no reports of other injuries.

METRO president and CEO George Greanias reached out to employees saying, “This is a tragic day. Our first thoughts are with David’s family and co-workers. We will do all we can to support them through this difficult time. We are deeply committed to a safe transit system for customers, operators and our community.”

[marmer]

Yep, crawled past there about 9:00 this morning. Poor guy. Condolences to his family and to METRO.

[sevfiv]

That's terrible -- I must have just missed it (I was northbound exiting MacGregor right around that time)..

[Slick Vik]

Any update on this?

[cloud713]

yes there has been some news on this over the past few months..

"The scope of this study is 26 miles of State Highway (SH) 288 from US 59 in Harris County to County Road 60 in Brazoria County.

Current Conditions

The current roadway features 2 to 4 general purpose lanes in each direction separated by a grassy median.

Proposed Improvements

• Construction of toll lanes within the existing grassy median
• Direct-connector improvements at Interstate Highway 610 and at Beltway 8
• New overpasses at select existing at-grade intersections
• Improved access to the Texas Medical Center

Partners

This study is a partnership between TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration."

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh288.html



looks like the 288/beltway interchange is going to be made into a 5 stack interchange. its about time.. i wonder what they will do at the 610 interchange? possibly another 5 stack? its a little more "confusing" of a situation though.