Regional Commuter Rail Feasibility Study

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Regional Commuter Rail Feasibility Study"

Transcription

1

2 Final Report Regional Commuter Rail Feasibility Study An Assessment of Right-of-Way, Track Alignment and CBD Access February 2015 Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc Wickchester Ln, Suite 500 Houston, TX with TranSystems Knudson, LP Quadrant Consultants, Inc.

3

4 Contents 1.0 Introduction Design Criteria, Assumptions and Preceding Studies Basic Principles Freight Main Capacity Accomodations Planning Criteria and Assumptions Cost Estimation and Development Preceding Studies Hempstead Corridor Studies Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail Ridership Right-of-Way Assessment and Alignment Studies Land Use and Environmental Conditions Local Study Areas Summary of Costs and Impacts Regional Transit Connections Station Considerations Westpark Corridor Studies Westpark Corridor Commuter Rail Ridership Right-of-Way Assessment and Alignment Studies Land Use and Environmental Conditions Local Study Areas Summary of Costs and Impacts Regional Transit Connections US 90A Corridor Studies US 90A Corridor Commuter Rail Ridership Right-of-Way Assessment and Alignment Studies Land Use and Environmental Conditions iii

5 5.4 Local Study Areas Summary of Costs and Impacts Regional Transit Connections Station Considerations CBD Access Corridor Studies Screening of Possible Routes First Tier Analysis Selected Evaluation Routes Second Tier Analysis Most Promising Routes Route #1 and Route #7 Third Tier Analysis Third Most Promising Route #7A Summary of Costs Intermodal Connectivity and Station Planning The Way Forward Study Findings Next Steps Conclusions iv

6 Figures Figure 1.1 Study Areas for the Assessment of Regional Commuter Rail Feasibility... 3 Figure 2.1 UP Terminal Subdivision Freight Main and Passenger Main... 6 Figure 3.1 Conceptual Route Map for Hempstead Corridor... 8 Figure 3.2 Sample Commuter Rail ROW and Land Use Figure 3.3 Sample Environmental Review Sheet Figure 3.4 LSA 1 Example Figure 3.5 LSA 2 Example Figure 3.6 LSA 3 Example Figure 3.7 LSA 4 Example Figure 3.8 METRO Transit Facilities Figure 4.1 Conceptual Route Map for the Westpark Corridor Figure 4.2 Sample Commuter Rail Baseline Alignment Plan and Profile Figure 4.3 Sample Commuter Rail LSA Alignment Plan and Profile Figure 5.1 Conceptual Route Map for US 90A Corridor Figure Sample Commuter Rail ROW and Land Use Figure 5.3 Sample Environmental Review Sheet Figure 5.4 LSA 1 Example Figure 5.5 LSA 3 Example Figure 5.6 LSA 8 Example Figure 6.1 Roadway and Active Railroad Network within the Study Area Figure 6.2 Illustration Representing the Simple Objective of the North Corridor to CBD Access Study Figure Typical Section View of a 50 Commuter Rail ROW Figure Routes Studied in Preceding HITAS Study of CBD Access Routes from the West Figure Eight Routes Studied in the Tier One Evaluation Figure Year Floodplains Figure 6.7 Land Use v

7 Figure 6.8 Four Routes Studied in the Tier Two Evaluation Figure 6.9 Adjacent Land Use Analysis Figure 6.10 Rail and Road Crossings with Areas Identified Having Significant Construction Issues Figure 6.11 Two Most Promising Routes #1 and #7 Studied in the Tier 3 Evaluation and Subsequent Third Most Promising Route #7A Figure 6.12 Example of a Significant Impact Area on Route #1 Requiring the Relocation of Stokes Street Figure 6.13a Route #1 Baseline Alignment along HCTRA Hardy Toll Road Extension Corridor.. 80 Figure 6.13b Route #1 Baseline Alignment along HCTRA Hardy Toll Road Extension Corridor.. 81 Figure 6.14a Route #7 Special Access Provisions for New Development Site Figure 6.14b Route #7 Special Access Provisions for New Development Site Figure 6.15a Sample of Route #7 LSA Plan and Profile Alignment Drawings along Mangum Road Figure 6.15b Sample of Route #7 LSA Plan and Profile Alignment Drawings along Mangum Road Figure 6.16a IH-10 Katy Freeway Alternative Alignment for a Segment of Route #7A Figure 6.16b IH-10 Katy Freeway Alternative Alignment for a Segment of Route #7A Figure 6.17 Elevated Structure Concepts Within IH-10 Freeway Median Figure 6.18 Elevated Structure Concepts Beside IH-10 Freeway and Houston Avenue Figure 8.1 Hempstead Corridor Attributes and Comparative Pluses and Minuses Figure 8.2 Westpark Corridor Attributes and Comparative Pluses and Minuses Figure 8.3 US 90A Corridor Attributes andcomparative Pluses and Minuses Figure 8.4 CBD Access - Route #1 Attributes and Comparative Pluses and Minuses Figure 8.5 CBD Access - Route #7 Attributes and Comparative Pluses and Minuses Figure 8.6 CBD Access - Route #7A Attributes and Comparative Pluses and Minuses Figure 8.7 Freight Main Expansion Project Attributes vi

8 Tables Table 3.1 Ridership Projections (Total Daily Boardings) Table 3.2 ROW and Property Acquisition Costs Table 3.3 Planning Level Cost Estimate Table 4.1 Westpark Commuter Rail 2040 Ridership Estimate (Total Daily Boardings) Table 4.2 Baseline Option Planning Level Cost Estimate (2014 $) Table 4.3 LSA #1 - Planning Level Cost Estimate (2014 $) Table 4.4 LSA #2 Planning Level Cost Estimate (2014 $) Table 4.5 LSA #3 Planning Level Cost Estimate (2014 $) Table 5.1 US 90A Commuter Rail 2040 Ridership Estimate (Total Daily Boardings) Table 5.2 ROW and Property Acquisition Costs Table 5.3 Planning Level Cost Estimate Table 6.1 Alternative Routes Considered in the Tier One Screening Process...58 Table 6.2 Initial Tier One Route Screening Evaluation Matrix Table 6.3 Adjacent Sensitive Noise Receiver Analysis Table 6.4 Tier Two Evaluation Route Comparative Assessment Matrix Table 6.5 Summary Cost Estimate for Most Promising Routes #1, Route #7 and Route #7A vii

9 Appendices Provided in Separate Volumes A. Gulf Coast Rail District Commuter Rail Planning/Design Criteria B. Commuter Rail Ridership Estimation Using 5-D Methodology C. Hempstead Corridor Feasibility Study Exhibits D. Westpark Corridor Commuter Rail Ridership Estimates E. Westpark Corridor Feasibility Study Exhibits F. US 90A Corridor Commuter Rail Ridership Estimates G. US 90A Corridor Feasibility Study Exhibits H. Houston Intermodal Terminal Access Study (HITAS) I. North Corridor CBD Access Study Exhibits viii

10 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Houston Region is approaching capacity constrained operating conditions on much of the area s freeway and toll road system during peak travel periods. As a result, there is a growing recognition that a new rail transportation mode described herein as long distance commuter rail could provide an alternative means of travel through the radial network of existing travel corridors. Several corridors have been studied that reach up to 50 miles outside of the urban core, some allowing a direct connection to Downtown Houston. A fresh look at commuter rail feasibility was initiated following the recent statements by the Class I railroads that the challenge of moving sufficient freight trains through the existing rail network precluded any further consideration of adding passenger trains on the same network of tracks. The Gulf Coast Rail District subsequently convened a workshop during late 2013 which evaluated the options for commuter rail. This effort involved a cross-section of planning and engineering staff from a number of local agencies and municipalities. The conclusion of the workshop was that further studies were needed to determine the feasibility of creating new rail infrastructure on new right-of-way (ROW) apart from the freight rail network a new addition to the heavy rail network created specifically to facilitate passenger rail service. Three corridors which had been previously studied (some for light-rail service) were chosen as the best options for establishing commuter rail in the region. US 290/Hempstead Westpark US 90A The objective of this Regional Commuter Rail Feasibility Study is to determine the feasibility of building new track on dedicated ROW, generally located alongside the existing heavy rail network within the three selected travel corridors. This objective is based on the premise that new track and ROW would be dedicated to carrying Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) compliant passenger trains. Although referred to throughout this report as the commuter rail system, planning for a FRA-compliant design would allow this new passenger rail network to also serve conventional Amtrak trains and certain classes of higherspeed intercity trains. Initially begun as two separate assignments under the auspices of the Gulf Coast Rail District, this body of work has been combined into a report called the Regional Commuter Rail Feasibility Study An Assessment of Right-of-Way, Track Alignment and CBD Access. One set of corridor analyses focused on examining the feasibility of three (3) dedicated commuter rail lines traveling from the vicinity of the IH-610 Loop through Harris County and out to the far western sides of Waller and Fort Bend Counties (see Figure 1.1). The other set of corridor analyses included similar feasibility assessments for possible commuter rail routes that could provide for Houston Central Business District (CBD) access from the north and west (penetrating inside IH 610 to reach the CBD). Combinations of these corridors inside and outside IH-610 Loop would create the basic building blocks for a regional commuter rail system providing significant benefits to mobility within the region in the decades to come. 1

11 Chapter 1 Introduction Chapters that follow are supported with an extensive set of appendices. These technical data and reference documents are provided as separate documents and comprise the following topics: A. Gulf Coast Rail District Commuter Rail Planning/Design Criteria B. Commuter Rail Ridership Estimation Using 5-D Methodology C. Hempstead Corridor Feasibility Study Exhibits D. Westpark Corridor Commuter Rail Ridership Estimates E. Westpark Corridor Feasibility Study Exhibits F. US 90A Corridor Commuter Rail Ridership Estimates G. US 90A Corridor Feasibility Study Exhibits H. Houston Intermodal Terminal Access Study (HITAS) I. North Corridor CBD Access Study Exhibits In addition, a set of reference materials has been provided at the very end of this document. The materials contained therein are not specifically referenced in the content of this report, but may be useful for additional information and for clarification of terms. These reference materials as follows: List of Acronyms List of Reference Studies Railroad Maps Advisory Committee Members 2

12 Chapter 1 Introduction North Corridor to CBD Passenger Rail Access Study Area Hempstead, Westpark, and US90A Corridor Study Area Figure 1.1 Study Areas for the Assessment of Regional Commuter Rail Feasibility 3

13 Chapter 2 Design Criteria, Assumptions and Preceding Studies 2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA, ASSUMPTIONS AND PRECEDING STUDIES The planning and conceptual design studies performed have utilized the same basic planning/design criteria, general assumptions on the placement of the ROW, and other fundamental principles for establishing planning level cost estimates. 2.1 BASIC PRINCIPLES A set of basic principles was established for all components of this study. These principles are fundamental to the definition of the passenger rail corridors, and are essential in the comparative evaluations that have been performed. Passenger Rail considerations are primarily for longer distance (25 to 100 mile) regional commuter rail lines using FRA-compliant trains. ROW and track alignment are separate from the freight main track and right-of-way (ROW). Additional ROW adjacent to existing freight ROW is evaluated with an intent to not impede freight railroad main line and freight yard operations, and to the extent possible to not impede industry lead and associated spur track operations. 2.2 FREIGHT MAIN CAPACITY ACCOMODATIONS Within the broader study, there is only one area where the basic principles have not been strictly followed: that is for the assumed ultimate plan objective of providing commuter rail and intercity rail service to the location of the Amtrak Station in the Houston Central Business District (CBD). This designated passenger rail station site is located on a segment of the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) Terminal Subdivision that is called the Passenger Main. Providing passenger rail service to the Passenger Main requires specific mitigation to maintain capacity of the freight railroad system. Use of the Amtrak site for commuter rail operations will require shifting freight trains from the Passenger Main to the Freight Main. The Freight Main is currently a single track rail corridor along Winter Street. UP has indicated that construction of a second track and structures for a third track between Cheney Junction (Studemont) and Tower 26 (Elysian) will be required. This shifted capacity would compensate for the restricted access of freight train movements through the Passenger Main track once commuter rail service begins. These important considerations concerning capacity shifts within the freight rail network were first alluded to in the 2008 Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study. Additional land and infrastructure costs will be required for any plan to provide access by commuter rail trains to the UP Passenger Main. This Passenger Main segment of the Terminal Subdivision passes through the current Amtrak Station site and the adjacent site where Houston s original passenger rail station existed in the early 1900s (at the site of the current Post Office facilities on Franklin Street). The Passenger Main is shown in Figure 2.1 along with the parallel Freight Main. These parallel single track mains comprise the current capacity of the UP Terminal Subdivision through the CBD. In 2012, H-GAC estimated costs for this construction and ROW acquisition along the Freight Main to be $70.9 million in current year dollars. These specific improvements to the Freight Main between Chaney Junction and Tower 26 have therefore been included in the corridor study and associated cost estimates of potential routes by which commuter rail trains could access the CBD. 4

14 Chapter 2 Design Criteria, Assumptions and Preceding Studies These additional costs, ROW requirements and the associated community impacts along the Winter Street corridor must therefore be considered within the context of this broader feasibility assessment of creating a regional commuter rail system. 2.3 PLANNING CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS Planning level design criteria were prepared and utilized across all the corridor studies performed under the broader Regional Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. These criteria and the related planning parameters, metrics and assumptions are described in Appendix A Gulf Cost Rail District Planning/Design Criteria. The criteria described therein provide the minimum clearances and general alignment/geometric requirements by which the feasibility of installing commuter rail was assessed. 2.4 COST ESTIMATION AND DEVELOPMENT Where actual costs are presented within each corridor s subsection that follows, the track and ROW related construction cost developments (infrastructure costs) have been accomplished according to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) standard cost categories, as summarized below. Cost Category 10 Track Structures and Track This category is subdivided into applicable types of railroad structure ranging from at-grade, to retaining walls, to viaduct structures. Independent bridge structures are also included over natural features such as creeks or drainage systems. The basic cost estimate includes a double track typical section for the new passenger rail alignment. Cost Category 20 Stations, Terminals and Intermodal This category is not included with the current cost estimate. Cost Category 30 Support Facilities This category is not included with the current cost estimate. Cost Category 40 Sitework, ROW and Land Improvement This category includes site preparation, utility relocation, new roadway grade separations over the proposed railroad alignment and potential environmental mitigation expressed at this conceptual stage on a track mile basis. For purposes of this feasibility analysis, a base cost is presented. The estimation of land values and associated costs to acquire and assemble the property necessary to create new commuter rail ROW has many aspects that cannot be accurately predicted, especially when the acquisition is at an undefined point in the future. Land acquisition costs along freeway corridors in Houston have proven to be very difficult to accurately forecast in advance. Therefore, a Corridor Infrastructure and ROW Contingency is shown as a line item in the cost development summary tables. For purposes of this planning level study, this factor covers all aspects of infrastructure cost variance and land acquisition costs. This factor is applied to the sum of probable cost for the infrastructure and the appraisal district valuation of the properties that would be impacted. Cost Category 50 Communications and Signaling This cost includes Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) communications on a track mile basis as well as grade crossing protection devices. If Positive Train Control (PTC) signaling is recommended in future studies, additional cost would result. Cost Category 60 Electric Traction This category is not applicable to this project and is therefore not included with the current cost estimate. 5

15 Chapter 2 Design Criteria, Assumptions and Preceding Studies UP Freight Main Figure 2.1 UP Terminal Subdivision Freight Main and Passenger Main Cost Category 70 Vehicles This category is not included with the current cost estimate. Cost Category 80 Professional Services This category is assumed at 13.5% of the total of cost categories 10 through 60. Cost Category 90 Unallocated Contingency This category is assumed at 5.0% of the total of cost categories 10 through 60. A mobilization cost is also included at 5% of the cost categories 10, 40 and 50. Cost Category 100 Additional Cost Elements Previous Study This category includes an adjusted cost estimate to 2014 dollars for the previous projects (Terminal Subdivision and Freight Main) identified through the Houston Intermodal Terminal Access Study and documented in Appendix H. Note the following comments on the use of this FRA costing approach when applied to the infrastructure costs developed in this early planning level of study. All costs are shown in 2014 dollars. Corresponding summary tables of costs only reflect the applicable cost categories used. As further refinements occur, costs should be inflated to reflect expenditures in future years. 6

16 Chapter 2 Design Criteria, Assumptions and Preceding Studies 2.5 PRECEDING STUDIES The array of prior passenger rail studies for the Houston Region over the past 10 years provides continued affirmation this missing mode of transportation is essential to our future mobility needs. The preceding studies which have been specifically referenced during the course of this work include: 2004 Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) U.S. 90A Corridor Rail Feasibility Study 2007 Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Houston Region Freight Study 2008 H-GAC Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study (RCRCS) 2010 H-GAC/Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) Downtown Houston Transit Intermodal Station Update to Site Location Assessment 2010 METRO Westpark Corridor Screen Line Study 2011 METRO Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Studies US 90A Corridor 2012 Gulf Coast Rail District (GCRD) Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail 2012 H-GAC Houston Intermodal Terminal Access Study (HITAS) 7

17 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies 3.0 HEMPSTEAD CORRIDOR STUDIES The feasibility of creating dedicated commuter rail ROW and track through the Hempstead Corridor has been examined between the Northwest Mall site and the City of Hempstead. Harris and Waller County Distinctions - The Hempstead Corridor begins near the site of the current Northwest Mall located adjacent to the IH 610 and US 290 interchange and generally parallels US 290 for approximately 45 miles to the City of Hempstead. An alignment was analyzed through an evaluation of a 50 buffer on each side of the existing UP ROW. Figure 3.1 presents a Route Map for the Hempstead Corridor (the lighter shaded areas in this figure represent the eight-county H-GAC transportation study area), with station locations assumed to be in the same locations as considered in previous GCRD studies. Consideration of a connection between the IH 610 area terminus and the Houston CBD is covered in Chapter 6 and also the H-GAC Houston Intermodal Terminal Access Study (Appendix H). Source: GCRD Figure 3.1 Conceptual Route Map for Hempstead Corridor 8

18 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies TxDOT ROW Allocation for High Capacity Transit - As part of the TxDOT Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the US 290 Managed Lanes project, ROW was allocated to accommodate high capacity transit between the US 290 managed lanes improvements and the existing UP ROW. This allocation was along the north side of the UP ROW between IH 610 and Beltway 8 (BW 8) and shifted to the south side between BW 8 and the Grand Parkway. TxDOT High Capacity Transit ROW (290 EIS) in Harris County North Side of UP IH 610 to BW8 From the Northwest Mall area to BW 8, it was assumed the GCRD Commuter Rail alignment will be on the north side of the existing UP ROW previously allocated by TxDOT for future high capacity transit and described in the previous GCRD Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail, February South Side of UP BW8 to Grand Parkway From BW 8 to the Grand Parkway the alignment was assumed to again follow previously allocated by TxDOT as future high capacity transit ROW on the south side of the UP ROW. West Harris County and Waller County - West of the Grand Parkway to the terminus in Hempstead, both the north and south sides of UP ROW were examined for track placement within a 50 buffer adjacent to and on either side of the existing UP ROW. A stakeholder meeting was held with representatives from Waller County, Waller County Engineering and the Cities of Hempstead, Jersey Village, Prairie View and Waller to discuss track alignment and community impacts. As a result of stakeholder comments, it was determined that keeping the alignment on the south side west of the Grand Parkway (and to the west side within the City of Hempstead) would result in lower overall costs (relocating Old Houston Highway, Business 290 and Old Washington County Road versus relocating US 290) and fewer community impacts. Eastern Terminus The area currently occupied by the existing Northwest Mall adjacent to IH 610 and the US 290 interchange was assumed to be the location for the eastern terminus of this alignment. This location is similar to the one used in the previous GCRD 2012 commuter rail study for the Hempstead Corridor. It was also assumed that METRO bus service would be in place to provide commuter rail ridership access and distribution service, including express bus connections to major employment centers (Downtown Houston, Greenway Plaza, Texas Medical Center, etc.). The eastern terminus is assumed to have express METRO bus service to downtown and other major employment centers; it is also assumed that shuttle bus service and bicycle/pedestrian improvements will provide connections to the existing METRO Northwest Transit Center located on Old Katy Road approximately one mile to the south. This connection between the IH 610 terminus and the Northwest Transit Center will be required to facilitate transfers independent of construction of any rail extension providing a CBD link. The GCRD will work with METRO to ensure that adequate bus service to the Eastern Terminus is provided. Western Terminus The western terminus of the Hempstead Corridor was assumed within the City of Hempstead city limits. A station on the west side of the UP ROW in the vicinity of Rice and Brazos Streets was preferred, with an alternate station location on Waller County facilities at Zach Road. 9

19 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies 3.1 HEMPSTEAD CORRIDOR COMMUTER RAIL RIDERSHIP No separate rail ridership projections were conducted for the Hempstead Corridor as part of this study. Ridership projections from the GCRD Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail, February 2012 are the most current figures available and should adequately approximate expected ridership for purposes of this feasibility effort. The 2012 study examined a shared freight and commuter rail alignment; this study moves the commuter rail adjacent to the freight ROW and assumes the same end points and in-line stations. Table 3.1 presents ridership projection both with and without a link from the Northwest Mall terminus to the Houston CBD. Table 3.1 Ridership Projections (Total Daily Boardings) Scenario Without CBD Link With CBD Link Year ,640 n/a Year ,960 22,580 Source: GCRD Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail, February RIGHT-OF-WAY ASSESSMENT AND ALIGNMENT STUDIES The ROW assessment included a 50 buffer offset from each side of the existing UP ROW. All analyses examined placing the track alignment within this 50 buffer on either the north or south side. As stated previously, the ROW was assumed to match that previously allocated by TxDOT in the US 290 Managed Lanes project for commuter rail/transit ROW along the north side from IH 610 to BW 8 and along the south side from BW 8 to the Grand Parkway. West of Grand Parkway both sides of the UP ROW were examined for track placement. Figure 3.2 shows a sample sheet illustrating both commuter rail ROW and land use; Appendix C contains a complete set of ROW and Land Use exhibits and tables. Several roadways that require shifting are part of this route, most notably a section of Hempstead Highway inside BW 8 and portions of Washington Road and Old Houston Highway in Waller County. Costs for shifting these existing roadways have been included in the ROW assessment. 3.3 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS The proposed corridor for a new Hempstead commuter rail line which was assessed for land use and environmental impacts would extend from the corner of IH 610 at Hempstead Road in Houston, Harris County, to US 290 just north of the City of Hempstead, in Waller County. The alignment is 45.1 miles long and would parallel the existing UP Eureka Subdivision. A 50 width adjacent to existing UP ROW for track placement on both sides of the existing freight rail was examined as the alignment may be constructed on either side. For purposes of this analysis, a high level review was completed to determine potential impacts on: Noise Sensitive Receptors 10

20 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies Streams, Lakes and Wetlands 100-Year Floodplain Parks, School, Cemeteries, Historic Districts, Historic Sites Potential impacts are described below for an alignment on each side of the existing UP ROW. Figure 3.3 presents a typical sheet examining potential ROW and land use impacts; see Appendix C for all sheets within the Hempstead Corridor. It should be noted that no environmental impacts were found along the Hempstead Corridor that would preclude its construction on either side of the existing freight rail ROW. Decisions on which side of the existing freight ROW to operate commuter rail were based upon stakeholder inputs, cost and impacts to existing and proposed infrastructure. The following presents a summary of potential environmental impacts that would be necessary to mitigate. Noise Impacts - The commuter rail line would parallel both an existing railroad and a highway. Commuter rail service would have a different noise profile than the highway and run more frequently than the freight railroad, increasing the frequency of noise events while likely having less noise impacts per event than a freight train passage. If the commuter rail line were built north of the existing UP ROW, 89 homes and two (2) parks would be close enough to the line to potentially experience increased noise levels. If the line were built south of the existing railroad, 240 homes and one park could potentially experience higher noise levels. Noise barrier walls would mitigate these noise impacts; however, noise barrier walls are most feasible where no openings exist between receivers and noise sources; any potential noise barrier along the commuter or freight rail lines would have openings for at-grade crossings. It is recommended that when the project moves toward further study and environmental permitting, that a formal noise analysis be conducted. Short sections of noise barrier could be constructed between the commuter rail line and particularly sensitive receptors should further analysis prove this necessary. Streams, Lakes and Wetlands - The proposed commuter rail line, if on the north side of the UP ROW, would cross 16 streams and one pond. If on the south side, 15 streams and four ponds would be crossed. Stream crossings could be accomplished with either bridges or culverts. Culverts would generally require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for discharging fill material into a water of the United States, possibly under Nationwide Permit 14, Linear Transportation Projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues these permits. Bridges would only require Section 404 permits if they have piers or other structures below the ordinary high water mark; a nationwide permit may apply. The proposed commuter rail line on either side of the UP does not appear to cross a wetland. Further studies would need to be done to determine if wetlands would be affected by the proposed rail line. Floodplains and Riparian Habitat - The proposed commuter rail line would also cross 100-year floodplains, the area subject to a one percent chance of flood each year. A line on the north side of the UP would cross 17,560 of 100-year floodplains, while a line on the south side would cross 29,350; of 100-year floodplains. Mitigation for floodplain fills involves excavating the same volumes of soil at nearby locations in the same floodplains. In addition, a rail line can block drainage, and therefore sufficient culverts and drainage facilities would be needed to maintain current drainage patterns and flood levels. 11

21 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies Figure 3.2 Sample Commuter Rail ROW and Land Use 12

22 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies Figure 3.3 Sample Environmental Review Sheet 13

23 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies The proposed commuter rail line on the north side would also affect about 630 of riparian woods along stream channels. A commuter rail line on the south side would affect 140 of riparian woods. Riparian woods are not protected by law but are valuable habitat for wildlife and aid in flood control. Parks, Schools and Cemeteries - The proposed commuter rail line on the north side of the UP would affect two parks: Cypress Top Park in Cypress and Langwood Park in Houston. The proposed commuter rail line on the south side of the railroad would affect one park, Hockley Park in Hockley. Approximately one acre would be displaced from each park. A Section 4(f) statement under the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 may be required to demonstrate that there would be no feasible and prudent alternative to park acquisition. No school or cemetery would be affected by either the north or south side rail lines. 3.4 LOCAL STUDY AREAS To further analyze the baseline alignment, areas of specific concern were studied to reduce costs or improve the operations of the rail facility. The goal in evaluating these Local Study Areas (LSAs) in greater detail was to realize scenarios where various implementation impacts of the commuter rail, whether to ROW, cost, or the surrounding transportation network, could be minimized. For the Hempstead Corridor, four (4) LSAs were developed for this more detailed analysis as described below. It should be noted that the order of the LSA s for the Hempstead Corridor is from east to west, with LSA #1 located where the route crosses BW8 on the eastern portion of the corridor. This directional sequence is different for each corridor, and is based in part on past precedents set from prior studies of this corridor. LSA #1 BW 8 Interchange LSA 1 is centered on the aerial shift in alignment from the north to south side of the existing UP ROW as the corridor crosses BW 8 immediately south of its interchange with US 290. As shown in Figure 3.4, it was possible to transition from the north to south side and touch down east of the proposed Jersey Village Transit Oriented Development (TOD) where a station is proposed to be located. Figure 3.4 is one of four (4) sheets for this specific LSA (see Appendix C). LSA 1 begins on the north side of the UP ROW east of BW 8 and continues underneath BW 8 prior to beginning an aerial shift from the north to the south side of the existing freight rail. The alignment then returns to grade level east of the planned TOD in the City of Jersey Village. LSA #2 Highway 6 Interchange LSA 2 is centered on the alignment crossing SH 6 between Jersey Village and Cypress. As with LSA 1, LSA 2 s alignment provides adequate clearance of columns supporting the elevated roadway above. The alignment remains at grade in this section and includes an at-grade crossing of Huffmeister Road. Figure 3.5 is one of two (2) sheets for this particular LSA; see Appendix C for all LSA exhibits. LSA #3 SH 99/Grand Parkway Interchange - LSA 3 is centered on the alignment crossing the Grand Parkway. Kimley-Horn obtained the plans for the recently constructed SH 99 / Grand Parkway interchanges with US 290 to provide adequate clearance of columns supporting the elevated roadways above. The alignment continues at grade in this section and remains on the south side of the UP ROW. Figure 3.6 is one of two (2) sheets for this particular LSA; see Appendix C for all LSA exhibits. 14

24 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies LSA #4 City of Hempstead - LSA 3 details the western end of the Hempstead Corridor as it traverses through the City of Hempstead. After the stakeholder meeting, which included representatives from the City of Hempstead, it was decided to keep the alignment on the south / west side of the existing UP ROW for cost and community impact concerns. The alignment remains at grade in this section and includes several at-grade street crossings. Figure 3.7 is one of four (4) sheets for this particular LSA; see Appendix C for all LSA exhibits. 15

25 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies Figure 3.4 LSA 1 Example 16

26 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies Figure 3.5 LSA 2 Example 17

27 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies Figure 3.6 LSA 3 Example 18

28 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies Figure 3.7 LSA 4 Example 19

29 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies 3.5 SUMMARY OF COSTS AND IMPACTS Based on the cost categories described earlier in this report, infrastructure and ROW planning level costs were developed for the Hempstead Corridor. Land Use Impacts Table 3.2 presents the ROW and property acquisition costs; all costs are from current Harris and Waller County Appraisal District records as of September The number of properties impacted consists of: Residential Properties 183 Commercial Properties 57 Other Properties 218 Other properties consist of agricultural, industrial, utility and state / local agency land use types. No costs have been included for acquisition of parcels publically owned by state and local agencies, which will be subject to negotiated interlocal agreements allowing installation of commuter rail. Table 3.2 ROW and Property Acquisition Costs Section Mile Marker Number of Parcels Cost (2014 $) To-From Residential Commercial Other Total North Waller LSA $ 17,182,000 Waller $ 48,125,000 West HC $ 18,039,000 LSA $ 771,000 Cypress $ 136,591,000 LSA $ 1,186,000 Jersey Village $ 63,267,000 LSA $ 13,315,000 Inside BW $ 27,855,000 Total $ 326,331,000 20

30 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies Rail Infrastructure Costs Table 3.3 presents the planning level cost estimate for the Hempstead Corridor, including ROW and property costs. A detailed breakdown of all costs is included in Appendix C; all costs are in 2014 dollars. The 2012 GCRD Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail study estimated costs at $290.7 million (2010 dollars). The previous cost estimate was for a single rather than a double track commuter rail line, and the prior study did not include ROW costs. Table 3.3 Planning Level Cost Estimate Item Cost (2014 $) Totals for Category 10 - Track Structures and Track $ 251,456,000 Totals for Category 40 - Sitework, Right-of-Way and Land Improvements $ 492,801,000 Totals for Category 50 - Communications and Signaling $ 139,578,000 Corridor Infrastructure and Right-of-Way Contingency $ 530,301,000 Totals for Category 80 - Professional Services $ 119,318,000 Totals for Category 90 - Mobilization and Unallocated Cost Allowance $ 146,768,000 Totals for Category Additional Cost Elements - Previous Study - Total (10-100) $ 1,680,222, REGIONAL TRANSIT CONNECTIONS The eastern terminus is assumed to have shuttle bus service and bicycle/pedestrian improvements to connect to the existing METRO Northwest Transit Center located on Old Katy Road approximately one mile to the south. This connection between the IH 610 terminus and the Northwest Transit Center will be required to facilitate transfers independent of construction of any commuter rail CBD link. Other METRO Service METRO Park-and-Ride facilities are currently located along the corridor at three locations: West Little York, Northwest Station (West Road) and Cypress (Skinner Road). If the proposed commuter rail and park-and-ride services provide duplicate service, the park-and-ride services would be discontinued. Discussions with METRO will be required to determine any new service feeding commuter rail stations. Service to commuter rail stations would contribute to increasing the transit modal share of trips along the Hempstead Corridor. Figure 3.8 shows current park-and-ride facilities and transit centers along the Hempstead Corridor. Colorado Valley Transit (CVT) CVT provides transit service within Waller County consisting of service to Brookshire, Hempstead, Prairie View, Prairie View A&M University, City of Waller, Pattison, 21

31 Chapter 3 Hempstead Corridor Studies Monaville, and Pine Island. It is assumed that CVT would provide connections between population, employment and educational centers to commuter rail stations. 3.7 STATION CONSIDERATIONS As previously noted, this study assumes stations located as in previous GCRD work and does not further analyze station location or sizing. However, when work is completed beyond this effort, consideration of routing and space for bus service, passenger parking, drop off / pick up areas and bicycle parking within each station property should be included to maximize ridership. Figure 3.8 METRO Transit Facilities 22

32 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies 4.0 WESTPARK CORRIDOR STUDIES Feasibility of creating dedicated commuter rail ROW and track through the Westpark Corridor along the existing transit dedicated ROW has been examined between the proposed Uptown Transit Center site and the City of Fulshear. This 27-mile corridor runs parallel to the Westpark Tollway up to Grand Parkway and then continues on to Fulshear along FM 1093 and the future Westpark Tollway extension. Figure 4.1 presents a map of the Westpark Corridor as proposed in this study. Figure 4.1 Conceptual Route Map for the Westpark Corridor The Westpark Corridor was originally a 100 wide corridor owned by Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR). In 1992, METRO bought the 100 wide corridor from the SPRR (SPRR later merged with UP in 1996). METRO then sold portions of the ROW to the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) in 1999 for the construction of the Westpark Tollway. This left approximately 50 allocated for a rail corridor from IH

33 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies to the Grand Parkway (SH 99). The Westpark Corridor beyond the Grand Parkway may be sold to the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority (FBCTRA) and a 26 -wide ROW has been discussed for a future rail line. It is noted that a final determination of the ROW that could be provided through Fort Bend County has not been made since the design of the Tollway in Fort Bend County is still ongoing. For purposes of this study, a 26 -wide ROW was examined to determine if and how a commuter rail line could be constructed. See Appendices D and E for related study ridership and corridor technical route planning exhibits, respectively. 4.1 WESTPARK CORRIDOR COMMUTER RAIL RIDERSHIP Ridership on the Westpark commuter rail line has been studied using the 5-D Methodology that is described in Appendix B. This corridor has been identified in past studies such as the Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study as having significant potential for ridership; this new ridership estimate is a fresh look at this potential, and the details of the Westpark Corridor commuter rail ridership estimates are given in Appendix D. Table 4.1 summarizes the daily boardings and percent commuter rail mode choice for trips contained within the Westpark catchment area. These ridership estimates were developed based on a series of factors that tie future station access with development and redevelopment potential. As discussed in the ridership estimation methodology that is explained in Appendix B, ridership is derived at the TAZ level from a 5-D transit sensitivity analysis. Table 4.1 Westpark Commuter Rail 2040 Ridership Estimate (Total Daily Boardings) Daily Total Boardings 30,600 Daily Ridership (% of Eligible Trips) 3.0% 4.2 RIGHT-OF-WAY ASSESSMENT AND ALIGNMENT STUDIES The objective for this feasibility study of the Westpark Corridor is to stay within the existing ROW that is currently publicly owned. Within Harris County, this goal is largely achievable with only small ROW purchases needed on three properties where 50 of clear area is not available due to the Westpark Tollway. Moving west into Fort Bend County, the ROW available adjacent to the Westpark Tollway becomes tighter, narrowing to 26 -wide in some locations before reaching the Grand Parkway where plans for the Fort Bend County Westpark Tollway extension designate a 26 corridor for high capacity transit use. Narrow ROW from the Grand Parkway to the west terminus of the corridor creates the need for a significant length of elevated track in the proposed Baseline Option. An elevated structure is needed to maintain double track through to the western terminus, so that adequate clear zones are maintained and the future Westpark Tollway extension design is not affected. Elevated sections of track are proposed in specific locations throughout the corridor to avoid additional ROW purchases, impacts to the existing Westpark Tollway, and changes to the design of the future Westpark Tollway extension. Such locations may include where ROW is too narrow to fit double track at- 24

34 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies grade, areas where major utility crossings exist, or sections where a significant number of at-grade road crossings would complicate operation of commuter trains. Elevated track structures can accommodate two tracks while maintaining existing ROW by overhanging the Tollway where necessary instead of directly impacting the facility. Additionally, existing ramps on and off of the Tollway that would be difficult to raise high enough on roadway structures to allow clearance for commuter rail underneath were left at-grade in the Baseline Option, and instead were spanned with elevated track structures. In some cases, it may be feasible and, in fact, cost effective to grade separate these ramps and build the commuter rail line atgrade. Locations where this strategy could be employed were examined more closely as Local Study Areas (LSAs, see Section 4.4). As shown in Appendix E, some aerial structures are proposed at the 2 nd level meaning they would be approximately the same height as certain elevated sections of the Westpark Tollway. Some sections are shown at the 3 rd level meaning that the track structures will carry the track above both the Tollway and associated entrance/exit ramps where necessary. This condition exists at interchanges or where proposed Westpark Tollway plans show the new road elevated and the ROW is too narrow to accommodate double track at-grade. As mentioned, the LSAs detailed in Section 4.4 examine ways of avoiding some of these situations in an effort to lower the cost of construction. Figure 4.2 shows a sample plan and profile of the proposed Westpark Corridor Baseline Alignment. Refer to Appendix E, Exhibit E-1 for related study exhibits. 4.3 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS The Westpark Corridor is comprised of ROW previously purchased by METRO for transit use that generally runs adjacent to the Westpark Tollway and the planned Fort Bend County extension. Since this study examines the creation of a commuter rail line within this existing ROW, no land use or environmental conditions were studied and no additional land acquisition was considered. 4.4 LOCAL STUDY AREAS To further analyze the baseline alignment, local areas of specific concern were studied to reduce costs or improve the operations of the rail facility. The goal in evaluating Local Study Areas was to evaluate scenarios where various implementation impacts of the commuter rail line would be minimized as much as possible, whether to ROW, cost, or the surrounding transportation network It should be noted that the order of the LSA s for the Westpark Corridor is from east to west, with LSA #1 located at the proposed new transit center adjacent to Uptown on the eastern end of the corridor. This directional sequence is different for each corridor, and is based in part on past precedents set from prior studies of this corridor. The three areas identified along the Westpark Corridor were the future Uptown Transit Center (LSA #1), the area between the Harris County and Fort Bend County line and the Grand Parkway (LSA #2), and the area west of the Grand Parkway to Fulshear (LSA #3). See Appendix E for the Westpark Corridor local study area exhibits. Due to the length of LSA #2 and LSA #3, the full LSAs were not depicted in the exhibits; however, the full areas were used in the analysis and planning level costs. Figure 4.3 shows a sample LSA plan and profile of the proposed Westpark Corridor. 25

35 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies Figure 4.2 Sample Commuter Rail Baseline Alignment Plan and Profile 26

36 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies Figure 4.3 Sample Commuter Rail LSA Alignment Plan and Profile 27

37 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies Local Study Area #1 Uptown Transit Center (LSA #1) LSA #1 examines 5,300 of the Westpark Corridor from IH 610 to just west of Chimney Rock Road (Stations to ). This area has been designated as a potential location of the Uptown Transit Center. Many factors were considered in the development and evaluation of these options beyond the cost and operational capabilities. At LSA #1, future development of the corridor was considered, including the possibility of light rail running concurrently along the corridor to the Hillcroft Transit Center and beyond. Although not specifically identified, potential locations for train turnarounds, storage tracks and future extensions of the rail line were also considered. Three separate track alignments were developed to better understand the impacts associated with each option within LSA #1. Baseline Option This option places the track alignment at-grade throughout the LSA. Without the more complex construction of elevated structures or cut-and-cover tunneling, the Baseline Option would be the easiest alternative to construct, making it the least expensive option for the rail portion of construction. This option will allow track to be extended eastward under the IH 610 main lanes for either train turnarounds and storage or a future extension of the rail line toward downtown Houston. One drawback to the Baseline Option is that it requires at-grade road crossings near the Uptown Transit Center, which could potentially cause operational problems for both the local roadways and the transit center. Relocation of roads directly adjacent to the future Transit Center location may alleviate some potential operational issues, but at added cost. Access management surrounding the future Uptown Transit Center site was not assessed as part of this study. Layouts of the site were not included and the site location is shown only to illustrate connectivity with the proposed Uptown Transit Center. Aerial Option The second option studied places the track alignment above the existing ground elevation on an aerial structure. The aerial option has a higher associated cost than the Baseline Option due to the length of bridge structure required for the rail line to clear the future HOV to Uptown Transit Center bus connector ramp. This option, like the Baseline Option, will also allow the rail line to be extended eastward through and beyond the IH-610 interchange. However, the aerial option would go above the IH 610 main lanes and ramps; and future configuration changes to the IH 610/IH 69/US 59 interchange may make such an extension very complicated. The rail line would be at the third level to allow future extensions eastward over IH 610, the future bus connector ramp would be at the second level, and potential light rail would be at the first level. The aerial option reduces the number of at-grade road crossings, which, in turn, would improve service and reduce impacts to the surrounding transportation network. Notably, if light rail is to operate within the same corridor as the proposed commuter rail line, additional length of elevated track beyond that assumed for the purposes of this study may be needed within or adjacent to this LSA depending on the route and connectivity of the light rail. Should light rail be built within the proposed commuter rail corridor, any new elevated rail structure may add costs above the opinion given in this study. Interaction between the two transit modes is to be considered during future detailed design efforts. Tunnel Option 28

38 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies The third option in LSA #1 places the proposed commuter rail below the existing ground elevation. Given the challenges and complexities associated with constructing a tunnel through a narrow corridor adjacent to a major highway facility, this option is assumed to have the highest associated cost. Like the previous two options, this option would allow the extension of the rail line for turnarounds, storage or future service to the east. Beneficially, these extensions would also be below ground eliminating the conflict with at-grade road crossings, but the additional tunnel would add a significant cost compared to the other LSA #1 options. Tunneling would enable the light rail line to be placed at-grade, which would allow for a dual rail line corridor. This option improves operations for other modes by allowing atgrade access to the transit center (as currently planned), while also facilitating future development along the corridor. Local Study Area #2 Westpark Tollway Ramps (LSA #2) LSA #2 is 27,000 long and located between the Harris County/Fort Bend County line and the Grand Parkway (Stations to ). This area is problematic as there are multiple ramps that connect the Westpark Tollway mainline to the adjacent eastbound frontage road. These ramps are currently at-grade, and would be in conflict with the proposed rail line if it too was built at-grade. Two options were considered within this study area to manage these conflicts. Baseline Option Due to the limited distance between ramps and cross streets, the Baseline Option is required to be on aerial structure along significant portions of LSA #2. The Baseline Option does not impact the existing road or ramps and follows the designated METRO ROW adjacent to the Westpark Tollway. The METRO ROW through this section of the corridor is immediately south of the Westpark Tollway potentially restricting the ability to widen the Tollway in the future. Although there is adequate ROW throughout most of this study area to accommodate at-grade double track, this would require the reconstruction of a substantial number of access ramps between the frontage road and the Tollway (refer to the Road-over-Rail Option discussed below). Benefits of constructing aerial track through this section are the limited need for road closures during construction and the lack of impacts to the adjacent frontage roads themselves. All piers are expected to be able to fit within existing ROW. Road-Over-Rail Option This option places the track alignment at the existing ground elevation. The road-over-rail option shifts the horizontal alignment to the south away from the Tollway, centering the double track between the southern edge of the Tollway and the northern edge of the adjacent eastbound frontage road. This vertical and horizontal configuration of the proposed track requires the on and off ramps to/from the frontage road to be elevated over the Tollway. This vertical and horizontal configuration of proposed track would require the Tollway ramps to be built on structures spanning the new rail line. The shift in alignment would move the rail line out of the existing METRO ROW, but a land-swap could potentially be arranged (between Harris and Fort Bend Counties) that allows for better track alignment, and for each agency to neither gain nor lose any land area. There appears to be an underground telecommunications line that could potentially need to be relocated. Benefits of this option include reducing the visual impact of the new commuter rail line to surrounding properties by eliminating over three miles of elevated track. Structures would be reduced to specific areas where ramps cross the track, and would not be continuous alongside the Tollway. Despite the added scope of construction to 29

39 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies relocate these Tollway ramps, this option may still reduce overall cost of this section by eliminating the significant length of rail structure as described. Local Study Area #3 Westpark Tollway Extension (LSA #3) LSA #3 covers a length of 44,000 and is located between the Grand Parkway and just west of Fulshear (Stations to ). The proposed Westpark Tollway extension is currently under design, proposing to continue the same basic cross section of the Tollway flanked by frontage roads on each side, as is already built to the east. The preliminary design includes the mainline Tollway and frontage roads, and a 26 wide rail corridor south of the main tolled facility. This proposed corridor concept was closely followed when developing both options for LSA #3, and was the basis for determining where to place the horizontal alignment. Two options were developed to fit the rail line inside of the designated 26 -wide METRO ROW (one aerial and one at-grade). Design of the at-grade single track to allow for the addition of a future second track could occur if ROW expansion and modifications to the future Tollway extension are feasible. NOTE: A final determination of the ROW that could be provided for commuter rail through Fort Bend County has not been made, since the design of this segment of the Tollway is still underway. Baseline Option The Baseline Option proposes to elevate the track alignment on aerial structures above the existing ground elevation. The baseline option maintains the double track proposed throughout the rest of the Westpark Corridor. Without the purchase of additional ROW, this option is required to be aerial for the entire length of LSA #3 to fit inside the assumed 26 wide rail corridor right-of way. By fitting a double track section on an aerial structure within this limited ROW, the structure itself would overhang either the proposed Tollway or the adjacent frontage road depending on the particular location. This would eliminate relocating any existing or proposed road facilities because only the footprint of the piers needs to fit within the ROW at-grade. The major benefit to this option is the minimal impact to proposed roadways along this stretch of the corridor. Elevating the track above road crossings reduces the need for road closures during construction, and eliminates disruptive and costly roadway relocations. Additionally, no ROW needs be purchased or exchanged to implement this elevated track section. Single Track Option The second option for LSA #3 places the track alignment at the existing ground elevation, and proposes the use of a single track for the length of the study area. A single track must be used to fit the proposed rail line inside the 26 wide METRO ROW and build the track at-grade. With the single track at-grade, the Future Westpark Tollway ramps included in the proposed roadway design would have to be reconstructed on elevated structures to span the new rail line. Not specifically included in this planning study are any passing sidings or storage tracks that would need to be considered for final assessment of ROW should this at-grade option be chosen for implementation. As with LSA #2, this option for LSA #3 would reduce cost by removing an extensive section of elevated track described in the Baseline Option, and also by eliminating construction of and service on a second track. However, as would be expected, removing one full mainline track could have adverse effects on service frequency and travel times. Passing sidings would be required at certain locations and intervals to alleviate some of the service frequency issues, but they may not be a solution for the resulting slower travel times. 30

40 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies 4.5 SUMMARY OF COSTS AND IMPACTS Use of the ROW for commuter rail will be subject to negotiated interlocal agreements among local stakeholders. Unlike other corridors where ROW acquisition is a major component of the cost, the majority of the capital cost associated with the Westpark Corridor is for infrastructure construction. In order to create planning level costs for the Westpark Corridor and associated Local Study Areas, the preliminary alignments and layouts were first created then quantities of materials and major construction elements were calculated. Using these quantities together with unit costs consistent with previous studies conducted in the area, planning level costs were developed to establish the order of magnitude of cost to construct the corridor. These order of magnitude costs were used to compare and contrast the LSA options within the Westpark Corridor. Table 4.2 shows the total costs by major construction category for the Baseline Option of the entire Westpark Corridor. Table 4.2 Baseline Option Planning Level Cost Estimate (2014 $) Category 10 Track Structures and Track $801,749,000 Category 40 Sitework, ROW, and Land Improvements $72,922,000 Category 50 Communications and Signaling $80,177,000 Corridor Infrastructure and ROW Contingency (Category 10-50) $286,454,000 Category 80 Professional Services $129,380,000 Category 90 Unallocated Cost Allowance $144,938,000 Category 100 Additional Cost Elements Previous Study - Total (Category ) $1,515,620,000 To best understand the opinion of costs associated with construction of the Westpark Rail Corridor, the three LSA s were supplemented with four other segments analyzed to a similar level of detail, but for the Baseline Option only. Division of the corridor into these areas reduces the costs into more manageable groups allowing for direct comparison of costs within the Local Study Areas. The seven corridor sections are given below, and the full cost development for each segment are provided in Appendix E. 31

41 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies 1. LSA #1 Stations to LSA #1 is a 5,300 section extending from IH 610 and the future Uptown Transit Center to Chimney Rock Road. Included in LSA#1 are three separate options. The Baseline Option has the lowest cost at $19.0 million. The Aerial Option totals approximately $66.3 million and the Tunnel Option is the most expensive at $126.2 million. Table 4.3 shows the planning-level cost summary for the three alignment configurations in LSA #1. Table 4.3 LSA #1 - Planning Level Cost Estimate (2014 $) Item Baseline Option Aerial Option Tunnel Option Category 10 Track Structures and Track $ 4,664,000 $ 35,977,000 $ 73,638,000 Category 40 Sitework, ROW, and Land Improvements $ 2,785,000 $ 2,251,000 $ 2,251,000 Category 50 Communications and Signaling $ 4,299,000 $ 3,539,000 $ 3,539,000 Corridor Infrastructure and ROW Contingency (Category 10-50) $ 3,525,000 $ 12,530,000 $ 23,829,000 Category 80 Professional Services $ 2,062,000 $ 5,639,000 $ 10,723,000 Category 90 Unallocated Cost Allowance $ 1,649,000 $ 6,332,000 $ 12,170,000 Category 100 Additional Cost Elements Total (Category ) $ 18,984,000 $ 66,268,000 $ 126,150, Hillcroft Transit Center Stations to The Hillcroft Transit Center section is 6,500 long and extends from Chimney Rock Road to the Hillcroft Transit Center. This section connects LSA #1 and the future Uptown Transit Center to the Hillcroft Transit Center for a total cost of approximately $23.4 million. 3. Westchase Park-and-Ride Stations to The Westchase Park-and-Ride section is 21,500 long and extends from the Hillcroft Transit Center to BW 8. This section further adds to the corridor from the Hillcroft Transit Center to the Westchase Parkand-Ride for a cost of approximately $241.9 million. 32

42 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies 4. Mission Bend Park-and-Ride Stations to The Mission Bend Park-and-Ride section is 21,000 long and extends from BW 8 to State Highway 6. This section adds another 4 miles to the corridor from the Westchase Park-and-Ride to the Mission Bend Park-and-Ride for a cost of approximately $119.3 million. 5. West Harris County Stations to The West Harris County section is 17,000 long and extends from State Highway 6 to the Fort Bend County and Harris County line. This section further adds to the corridor from the Mission Bend Parkand-Ride to the county line for a cost of approximately $162.1 million. 6. LSA #2 Stations to LSA #2 is 27,000 long and extends from the Fort Bend County and Harris County line to the Grand Parkway. Included in LSA #2 are two separate options. The Baseline Option utilizes aerial structures over the Westpark Tollway ramps and will cost approximately $337.9 million. The Road-Over-Rail Option realigns the Westpark Tollway ramps over the proposed at-grade rail line for a segment cost of approximately $185.7 million. Table 4.4 shows a planning level cost summary for the two alignment configurations in LSA #2: Table 4.4 LSA #2 Planning Level Cost Estimate (2014 $) Item Baseline Option Road-Over-Rail Option Category 10 Track Structures and Track $ 186,169,000 $ 68,724,000 Category 40 Sitework, ROW, and Land Improvements $ 12,865,000 $ 33,043,000 Category 50 Communications and Signaling $ 13,814,000 $ 14,954,000 Corridor Infrastructure and Right-of-Way Contingency (Category 10-50) $ 63,854,500 $ 35,016,000 Category 80 Professional Services $ 28,735,000 $ 15,757,000 Category 90 Unallocated Cost Allowance $ 32,439,000 $ 18,181,000 Category 100 Additional Cost Elements Study - - Total (Category ) $ 337,877,000 $ 185,675,000 33

43 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies 7. LSA #3 Stations to LSA# 3 is 44,000 long and extends from the Grand Parkway to the Town of Fulshear, TX. Included in LSA #3 are two separate options. The Baseline Option extends the double track alignment from the Grand Parkway through to the proposed terminus of the corridor using aerial track at a cost of approximately $612.3 million. The Single Track Option allows for the majority of the rail through this segment to be atgrade, eliminating most of the aerial track for a cost of approximately $183.0 million. Table 4.5 shows a planning-level cost summary for the two alignment configurations in LSA #3: Table 4.5 LSA #3 Planning Level Cost Estimate (2014 $) Item Baseline Option (2014 $) Single Track Option (2014 $) Category 10 Track Structures and Track $ 341,814,000 $ 74,400,000 Category 40 Sitework, ROW, and Land Improvements $ 20,965,000 $ 16,530,000 Category 50 Communications and Signaling $ 22,893,000 $ 24,793,000 Corridor Infrastructure and Right-of-Way Contingency (Category 10-50) $ 115,702,000 $ 34,717,000 Category 80 Professional Services $ 52,066,000 $ 15,623,000 Category 90 Unallocated Cost Allowance $ 58,863,000 $ 16,945,000 Category 100 Additional Cost Elements - - Total (Category ) $ 612,303,000 $ 183,009, REGIONAL TRANSIT CONNECTIONS The Westpark Corridor has an eastern terminus at the planned Bellaire/Uptown Transit Center which will provide a direct connection to local bus service and the proposed Uptown BRT line. Details for this connection will be determined at a future point; however, this study has included costs for aerial, at-grade and tunnel commuter rail alignments, each with different implications for these intermodal connections. Other Existing METRO Service METRO park-and-ride facilities are currently located along the corridor at three locations: Mission Bend (Alief Clodine Road), Westchase (Harwin Drive) and Gessner. If the proposed commuter rail and park-and-ride routes provide duplicate service, the park-and-ride services would be discontinued. Discussions with METRO will be required to determine any new local bus route 34

44 Chapter 4 Westpark Corridor Studies service to commuter rail stations, which would contribute to increasing the transit modal share of trips along the corridor. Potential METRO LRT Service Should METRO s University LRT line be constructed in the future, a connection between this LRT service and the Westpark Corridor would allow patrons to travel inside IH 610 and connect to other LRT lines in order to reach destinations adjacent to and within the CBD. Fort Bend County Transit (FBCT) FBCT provides transit service within the county on a demand responsive service and also provides commuter service at three park-and-ride facilities (Fort Bend Express). This commuter service currently operates from three park-and-ride locations and service to the Texas Medical Center, Greenway Plaza and the Galleria areas is provided. Discussions with FBCT will be required to examine how this existing commuter bus service be would adapted to compliment commuter rail in the Westpark Corridor, including the provision of transit service to commuter rail stations. 35

45 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies 5.0 US 90A CORRIDOR STUDIES The US 90A highway commuter rail corridor parallels the UP Glidden Subdivision and passes through Fort Bend County, including the Cities of Missouri City, Stafford, Sugar Land, Richmond and Rosenberg. This approximately 42-mile route is roughly adjacent to US 90A, and only diverts away from US 90A roadway and UP Glidden freight rail facilities at its far eastern end. Harris and Fort Bend County Distinctions The extent of the US 90A corridor through which the commuter rail route was studied spans from the western edge of Fort Bend County to the Texas Medical Center (TMC), and generally parallels US 90A while crossing over into Harris County. The route continues east past the point where the US 90A roadway corridor turns north along South Main Street. From that point of divergence the commuter rail route follows Holmes Road and the continuation of the UP Glidden Subdivision until turning north to penetrate inside IH 610 running parallel to Almeda Road. The eastern terminus is near the intersection of El Paseo Street and Almeda Road in Harris County, on the west side of the UP ROW and just to the south of a CenterPoint substation. This location is adjacent to the growing south campus of the Texas Medical Center and less than a mile due east of NRG Park. Figure 5.1 shows the conceptual route studied for its feasibility; stations are shown as referenced in other mass transit studies through the corridor. The alignment is similar to one of the alternate routes studied recently by Houston METRO in a draft environmental impact statement that investigated light rail transit operating through the corridor. There were several routes considered in the METRO EIS study. The LRT route that formed the Preferred Alternative actually diverged from the freight rail corridor to pass through residential communities, whereas the different alternative used for this commuter rail study continues alongside the freight rail ROW until reaching the eastern end of the line. Another difference was that the METRO study examined a suburban LRT line to end at the Stafford/Missouri City area on the edge of Harris County. The commuter rail line envisioned in this feasibility study was over four times the length of the previously examined METRO LRT line. With the first station stop on the commuter rail line located at what was to be the end-of-line for the METRO suburban LRT project, this commuter rail line would provide true long distance service extending to multiple cities throughout Fort Bend County. 36

46 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies Figure 5.1 Conceptual Route Map for US 90A Corridor 5.1 US 90A CORRIDOR COMMUTER RAIL RIDERSHIP Ridership on the US 90A commuter rail line has been studied using the 5-D Methodology (described in detail in Appendix B). This corridor has been identified in past studies such as the Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study as having strong potential for ridership among the possible commuter rail corridors. This new ridership estimate is a re-examination of this potential and was conducted using updated demographic data; details of the US 90A Corridor commuter rail ridership forecast are given in Appendix F. 37

47 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies Table 5.1 summarizes the daily boardings and percent commuter rail mode choice for trips contained within the US 90A catchment area; these forecasts were based on a series of factors that tie future station access with development and redevelopment potential. As discussed in the ridership estimation methodology that is provided in Appendix B, ridership is derived at the TAZ level from a 5-D transit sensitivity analysis. These ridership estimates are consistent with total daily boardings experienced by other U.S. commuter rail lines. Table 5.1 US 90A Commuter Rail 2040 Ridership Estimate (Total Daily Boardings) Daily Total Boardings 21,600 Daily Ridership (% of Eligible Trips) 3.5% 5.2 RIGHT-OF-WAY ASSESSMENT AND ALIGNMENT STUDIES The ROW that has been considered for placement of a new double track commuter rail facility is adjacent to the UP Glidden Subdivision for most its length. Route limits within the designated study area are from the western boundary of Fort Bend County to the conceptual terminus adjacent to the TMC / NRG Park areas. Beginning at the western end-of-line, ROW has been evaluated on both the north and south side of the UP Glidden subdivision. It is noteworthy that the south side ROW has impacts on the US 90 A roadway continuing to Rosenberg. The north side ROW has impacts to farm land and more rural properties. One notable exception is immediately west of Rosenberg where UP has a number of important industrial spurs that should not have commuter rail trains impeding the movement of freight trains. Within Rosenberg and Richmond, the ROW was also considered on the north and south side of the UP Glidden Subdivision. Prior studies of commuter rail have assumed that the area within Rosenberg would have a passenger station on the north side of the UP line. Fort Bend County stakeholders concurred that the north side of the UP freight ROW would be a better location through this portion of the route. As the corridor continues eastward, the importance of the US 90A roadway becomes more of a factor in light of its high traffic demand and associated capacity requirements, particularly in the Sugar Land area. Both the north side and the south side of the UP Glidden Subdivision were considered through Sugar Land, as well. The placement of the commuter rail ROW on the south side has direct and significant impact on US 90A; in particular, it complicates the expected expansion plans for the highway itself. A significant issue to locating the commuter rail ROW on the north side of the UP in Sugar Land exists west of State Highway 6. The end of the Sugar Land Airport runway is immediately north of the current UP ROW - there may be a conflict regarding penetration of the runway protection zone. Based on a review of recent FAA decisions this issue needs to be studied further. Within the City of Sugar Land between Dairy Ashford and SH 6 there is a large industrial facility with multiple industry spurs that must continue to be served without impact on the freight rail operations. Major development is also expected to occur on the north side of the UP line, especially at the former Imperial Sugar complex. Crossing under US 59/IH-69, and further to the east as the corridor runs through the City of Stafford and the City of Missouri City, placement of the commuter rail ROW on the north side of the UP freight line 38

48 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies appears to have a more manageable impact than along the south side. A south side placement would have direct and significant impacts to the US 90A highway particularly through the City of Stafford. Beginning at the point where the corridor enters Harris County and passes underneath BW 8, the premise of the study was that the ROW would only be considered along the north side of the UP line and follow ROW previously studied as Alternative 2 in the Houston METRO High Capacity Transit PE/EIS work. This north side placement along the UP Glidden Subdivision has significant impacts on several residential areas that have been documented in the Houston METRO studies. However, the north ROW placement also takes advantage of several miles of property currently owned by HCTRA and Houston METRO. There are several locations where the north side ROW will need to be placed on aerial structures particularly where the commuter rail line would cross over the UP tracks at West Junction and the Spence Cut-off. These are freight rail connections that allow trains to move between the UP Glidden and Terminal Subdivisions. The other noteworthy location where the commuter rail line must pass over other rail is along the south end of the METRO LRT maintenance and storage facility east of Fannin Street. As the commuter rail ROW approaches the TMC/NRG Park area, the route was studied as turning north along the UP Columbia Tap Subdivision. This freight line serves several commercial customers between its connection point with the UP Glidden (i.e., the Pierce Junction) and the freight rail track s current terminus at Holcombe Boulevard. Placement of the commuter rail line was studied on both the west and the east side of the UP Columbia Tap freight line. Presence of a major CenterPoint high voltage transmission line occupying the land immediately east of the UP line was considered a major problem due to the high costs involved in relocating this power transmission corridor. Equally problematic is the presence of a CenterPoint substation immediately west of the UP freight line about half-way between Pierce Junction and Holcombe Boulevard. For the reasons discussed above, a practical decision was reached to place the commuter rail ROW on the west side of the UP Columbia Tap freight line, and to locate the terminus station immediately south of the CenterPoint substation. Significant challenges remain to be addressed in the next phases of corridor design which may require adjustments to the route s ROW location. 5.3 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS A 50 width adjacent to existing UP ROW for track placement on both sides of the existing freight rail was examined as the alignment may be constructed on either side. For purposes of this analysis, a high level review was completed to determine potential impacts on: Noise Sensitive Receptors Streams, Lakes and Wetlands 100-Year Floodplain Parks, School, Cemeteries, Historic Districts, Historic Sites It should be noted that no within the limited scope of this feasibility study, environmental impacts were found along the US 90A Corridor that would appear to preclude its construction on either side of the existing freight rail ROW except as addressed in the discussion of local study areas in the next section. Therefore, decisions on which side of the existing freight ROW to operate commuter rail were based upon stakeholder inputs, cost and impacts to existing and proposed infrastructure. The following presents a summary of 39

49 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies potential environmental impacts that would be necessary to mitigate. Potential impacts are described below for an alignment on each side of the existing UP ROW. Figure 5.2 shows a sample sheet illustrating both commuter rail ROW and land use, Appendix G contains a complete set of ROW and Land Use exhibits for the US 90A corridor. Noise Impacts - The commuter rail line would parallel both an existing railroad and a highway for motor vehicles. However, it would have a different noise profile than the highway and would run more frequently than the railroad, so it would both increase noise and the frequency of noise events. If the commuter rail line were built north of the existing UP, 239 homes would be close enough to the line to experience noticeably increased noise levels. In addition, a park and a school would also have increased noise levels due to the commuter rail line. If the line were built south of the existing railroad, 241 homes would have noticeably higher noise, and no school or park would be so affected. Noise barrier walls would mitigate these noise impacts. Noise barrier walls are feasible where receivers do not need an opening in the wall for vehicle access. Streams, Lakes and Wetlands - The proposed commuter rail line, regardless of side of the UP, would cross 15 streams, including the Brazos River. This river is navigable and would require a bridge crossing high enough to allow for navigation. A Coast Guard permit would be required for this crossing. The other stream crossings could be accomplished with either bridges or culverts. Culverts would generally require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for discharging fill material into a water of the United States, possibly under Nationwide Permit 14, Linear Transportation Projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issues these permits. Bridges would only require Section 404 permits if they have piers or other structures below the ordinary high water mark; again, a nationwide permit may apply. Cleveland Lake, in Sugar Land, appears to be an oxbow lake of Oyster Creek and therefore a water of the United States. Part of the proposed north side commuter rail would cross Cleveland Lake. The proposed ROW crossing for Cleveland Lake is about 360 long and covers about 0.17 acre of water. Therefore, it would not qualify for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14, which covers waters less than 200 long and ¼-acre in area, and it would require an individual Section 404 permit. Figure 5.3 shows the environmental constraints map in this area, Appendix G contains the complete set of environmental exhibits. Furthermore, the ditch on the east side of Eldridge and the north side of US 90A appears to have standing water, and therefore it may also be a water of the United States, despite being cut from uplands. The jurisdictional part of the ditch has its bottom below the ordinary high water mark of Cleveland Lake. It appears in the aerial photo that jurisdictional waters may extend several thousand feet to the east along this ditch. As long as the bottom of the ditch connected to Cleveland Lake is below the lake s ordinary high water mark, it is jurisdictional under Section 404, and placing box culverts is considered a fill and would need an individual Corps permit. The Corps will only grant a Section 404 permit after the applicant demonstrates that all practical measures to avoid and minimize fill have been taken, and any residual impacts were mitigated by either buying credits at a stream mitigation bank, or re-creating a suitable amount of stream habitat at another site in the same watershed. 40

50 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies Figure Sample Commuter Rail ROW and Land Use 41

51 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies Figure 5.3 Sample Environmental Review Sheet 42

52 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies The proposed commuter rail line on the north side of the UP would fill parts of five to seven wetlands. Most of these wetlands are the result of ponding upstream of the existing railroad and are not likely to be jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed commuter rail line on the south side of the UP does not appear to cross a wetland. Floodplains and Riparian Habitat - The proposed commuter rail line would also cross 100-year floodplains, the area subject to a one percent chance of flood each year. A line on the north side of the UP would cross 7,920 of 100-year floodplains, while a line on the south side would cross 11,390 of 100-year floodplains. Mitigation for floodplain fills involves excavating the same volumes of soil at nearby locations in the same floodplains. In addition, a rail line can block drainage, and therefore sufficient culverts and drainage facilities would be needed to maintain current drainage patterns and flood levels. Parks, Schools and Cemeteries - The proposed commuter rail line on the north side of the UP affect one park, the Willow Waterhole Greenway Park, between Chimney Rock Road and Post Oak Boulevard. The project corridor has been long designated a transportation corridor in park plans, and therefore a Section 4(f) statement under the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 may not be required. The northern commuter rail line also runs near a school, the Robert M. Beren Academy, a parochial school for children from pre-kindergarten to 12th grade. The rail alignment is far from the school s buildings and athletic fields, but it could have noise impacts to the school. The north and the south proposed commuter rail lines would each affect one cemetery. If known grave sites are within the proposed right-of-way, they would need to be relocated with the families permission during land acquisition. 5.4 LOCAL STUDY AREAS After consultation with GCRD, it was decided to focus on several Local Study Areas (LSAs) per corridor for purposes of developing a more detailed horizontal and vertical alignment as well as more detailed preliminary cost estimates. For the US 90A Corridor, eight (8) LSAs were developed for this more detailed analysis, five (5) of which were to be located in Fort Bend County and three (3) of which in Harris County. These are described in more detail below. It should be noted that the order of the LSA s for the US 90A Corridor is from west to east, with LSA #1 located within the City of Rosenberg on the western portion of the corridor. This directional sequence is different for each corridor, and is based in part on past precedents set from prior studies of this corridor. LSA #1 Rosenberg (Fort Bend County) The alignment is shown on north side of the UP Glidden Subdivision. This requires aerial structure for elevated track the majority of the length to provide clearance over: UP industrial spur tracks (West of Highway 36) BNSF and UP diamond crossing between 1st street and Highway 36 Houston Street/1st Street, 3rd Street, and 6th Street in downtown Rosenberg Figure 5.4 is one (1) of six (6) sheets for this particular LSA; see Appendix G for all LSA exhibits. 43

53 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies LSA #2 Sugar Land Airport (Fort Bend County) Alignment shown on the north side of UP until just west of Ellis Creek Boulevard then transitions aerial over and to the south side of the UP ROW. East of Ellis Creek Boulevard, after the track clears the UP, it transitions to at-grade and remains the on south side between UP and US 90A westbound. Locating the tracks on the south side of UP is required at this location as there is not adequate space to fit between the north side of UP and the end of the Sugar Land Regional Airport runway. Additionally, the tracks must remain at-grade due to FAA clearance requirements. This location of the tracks on the south side of UP also requires shifting US 90A westbound lanes to the south into the existing median location. Tracks will also need to be located on a bridge structure over the existing creek just to the west of the Sugar Land Regional Airport and the existing bridge for US 90A westbound will need to be shifted to the south. LSA #3 Sugar Land, Highway 6 to Main Street (Fort Bend County) Due to the length of track required to transition from elevated to at-grade track and the short distances between main access streets that will need to remain open as well as industrial spur tracks that need to remain in operation, this segment of track is elevated over most of the entire length. The alignment is shown on the south side of UP from Highway 6 to Main Street in Sugar Land. An at-grade crossing is provided with the frontage roads under the elevated Highway 6. Tracks then begin transitioning to an elevated structure just east of Highway 6. The tracks are required to be elevated to provide clearance over Sugar Park Lane/ Future University Drive as well as various entrances to the Nalco plant and other local streets providing access to US 90A. The track also remains on the south side of UP due to the conflicts on the north side with the UP spur tracks and space restrictions between the north side of the UP ROW and the Nalco plant. This segment will require shifting approximately one mile of the US 90A ROW by 50 to the south and may require removal of travel lanes and/or reduction of lane widths due to width restrictions within the relocated US 90A ROW. The tracks require a bridge to span over Oyster Creek between the existing UP Bridge and US 90A. Between Main Street and Savoy Street the alignment shifts back to the north side of UP ROW. Figure 5.5 is one of three (3) sheets for this particular LSA; see Appendix G for all LSA exhibits. LSA #4 Sugar Land, Eldridge Road to Dairy Ashford Rd (Fort Bend County) The Alignment remains on the north side of UP and is elevated the entire length. Tracks will require a bridge structure to span over Cleveland Lake as well as over the existing ditch draining to Cleveland Lake east of Eldridge Road. There is not adequate space to locate the tracks between the UP ROW and the existing ditch. Additionally, locating the tracks north of the ditch would interfere with the alignment of Pierre Schlumberger Drive therefore spanning the ditch is shown as the baseline design. The tracks also cross over a UP industrial spur track and Dairy Ashford Road before transitioning back to at-grade track east of Dairy Ashford Road. LSA #5 BW 8/S Sam Houston Parkway (Fort Bend County) The Alignment is located north of UP ROW under BW 8 and over the frontage roads similar to the existing UP tracks. This alignment will conflict with the BW 8 Access Road and will require the road (which is partially elevated on a bridge over the BW 8 frontage roads) to be relocated to the north. 44

54 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies LSA #6 West Junction (Harris County) The alignment is located on the north side of UP ROW for the entire study area, it begins at-grade and then transitions to an elevated rail structure over the UP West Junction. The alignment returns to at-grade tracks on the east side of the West Junction and continues at-grade to the east. After passing under US 90A atgrade, the tracks then begin to transition to an elevated structure on the east side of US 90A. LSA #7 Spence Cut Off (Harris County) This alignment is located adjacent to the West Junction LSA on the east side. Tracks begin as elevated structure on north side of UP ROW, providing clearance over the UP Spence Cut Off. The tracks then return to at-grade design on the east side of Spence Cut Off. LSA #8 Fannin St to IH 610 (Harris County) The proposed commuter rail tracks must be elevated between Fannin Street and Knight Road to allow the existing Houston METRO storage yard and maintenance facility tracks to remain operational. The tracks begin on elevated structure providing clearance over Fannin Street and Knight Road due to the length of track required to transition from elevated track to at-grade track. East of Knight Road, the tracks transition to retained fill tracks at the absolute maximum grade of 2.5% to achieve required clearance under the W. Bellfort Street Bridge. Due to the constrained vertical geometry of the track in this location and based on AREMA standards, the design speed for this segment of track would need to be decreased to approximately 40 miles per hour which is allowable per the Design Criteria where cost effective and environmentally feasible. After passing under W. Bellfort Street, the alignment travels north alongside Almeda Road and begins transitioning to elevated track to go up and over Almeda Road and shift east to be between the UP ROW and northbound Almeda Road. This would require the realignment of northbound Almeda Road into the existing median area so that it would be immediately adjacent to southbound Almeda Road. Figure 5.6 is one of three (3) sheets for this particular LSA; see Appendix G for all LSA exhibits. 45

55 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies Figure 5.4 LSA 1 Example 46

56 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies Figure 5.5 LSA 3 Example 47

57 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies Figure 5.6 LSA 8 Example 48

58 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies 5.5 SUMMARY OF COSTS AND IMPACTS Property Impacts - Table 5.2 presents the ROW and property acquisition costs for the US 90A Corridor. All costs are from current Harris and Fort Bend County Appraisal District records as of September The number of properties impacted consists of: Residential Properties 119 Commercial Properties 76 Other Properties 219 Other properties consist of agricultural, industrial, and state/local agency land use types. No costs have been included for acquisition of parcels publically owned by state and local agencies, which will be subject to negotiated interlocal agreements allowing installation of commuter rail. Table 5.2 ROW and Property Acquisition Costs Section Mile Marker Number of Parcels Residential Commercial Other Total Cost 1 West FBC $16,700,000 2 LSA $1,124,000 3 Richmond $49,568,000 4 LSA $570,000 5 LSA ,340,000 6 LSA $335,000 7 Stafford / Missouri City $118,013,000 8 LSA $302,000 9 West Harris County $47,116, LSA $1,010, LSA $492, Kirby Drive $30,964, LSA $3,007, Power Station $77,993,000 Total All $ 351,534,000 49

59 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies Rail Infrastructure Costs Table 5.3 presents the planning level cost estimate for the US 90A Corridor, including ROW and property costs from Table 5.2. The highest costs for this corridor other than contingency are associated with track construction. This corridor requires numerous longer elevated structures to avoid significant impacts to previously mentioned facilities and properties. A detailed breakdown of all costs is included in Appendix G; all costs are in 2014 dollars. Table 5.3 Planning Level Cost Estimate Item2 Cost Category 10 - Track Structures and Track $ 681,004,000 Category 40 - Sitework, Right-of-Way and Land Improvements $ 470,673,000 Category 50 - Communications and Signaling $ 123,524,000 Infrastructure and Right-of-Way Contingency $ 573,841,000 Category 80 - Professional Services $ 172,152,000 Category 90 - Mobilization and Unallocated Contingency $ 203,112,000 Category Additional Cost Elements - Previous Study - Total (10-100) Rounded $ 2,224,306,000 50

60 Chapter 5 US 90A Corridor Studies 5.6 REGIONAL TRANSIT CONNECTIONS Eastern Terminus the US 90A commuter rail line will have a new station located in the TMC / NRG stadium area. To date, no official plans for transit connections have been developed. Discussions with METRO will be required to secure public transit service. Private shuttle service for TMC hospital/institutional employees and medical school students may also be possible. Other Existing METRO Service METRO park-and-ride facilities are currently located along the corridor at three locations: West Loop, Westwood (US 59) and West Bellfort. If the proposed commuter rail and park-and-ride services provide duplicate service, the park-and-ride services could potentially be reduced or discontinued. Discussions with METRO will be required to determine future park-and-ride services, as well as any new service feeding commuter rail stations. Service to commuter rail stations would contribute to increasing the transit modal share of trips along the corridor. Fort Bend County Transit (FBCT) FBCT provides transit service within the county with a demand responsive service and also provides commuter service at three park-and-ride facilities (Fort Bend Express). This commuter service currently operates from three park-and-ride locations and service to the Texas Medical Center, Greenway Plaza and the Galleria areas is provided. Discussions with FBCT will be required regarding both the discontinutation/adaptation of park and ride bus service and the provision of transit service to commuter rail stations when the US 90A Corridor is operational. 5.7 STATION CONSIDERATIONS As previously noted the scope of this study assumes stations located as in previous GCRD, METRO, and H-GAC studies and does not further analyze station location or sizing. However, when work is completed beyond this effort, consideration of routing and space for bus service, passenger parking and drop off / pick up areas within each station property should be included to maximize ridership. 51

61 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies 6.0 CBD ACCESS CORRIDOR STUDIES The 2012 H-GAC Houston Intermodal Terminal Access Study (HITAS) evaluated potential passenger train approaches to the Amtrak station on the UP Terminal Subdivision Passenger Main and focused on routes from the northwest. This prior H-GAC study acknowledged that there was also potential for passenger trains to access the Amtrak site from the north without running the length of the Eureka Subdivision from the northwest. The H-GAC HITAS study has been included as part of this report for reference purposes see Appendix H. This current GCRD study has utilized a methodology modeled primarily after the approach used in the prior 2012 H-GAC HITAS Study for the assessment and comparative evaluation of routes for passenger rail access to the CBD from the north. Specifically, this new study has addressed optional routes that passenger trains could utilize over the roughly nine-mile corridor between the West 43 rd Street intersection of the BNSF Houston Subdivision and the Downtown Houston Amtrak station (the assumed CBD-destination station location for commuter rail trains). Figure 6.1 shows the roadways and railroad network that currently carries active freight train service through the study area. The study area is bounded by West 43rd Street on the north, Mangum Road and North Post Oak Road on the west, the planned Hardy Toll Road Extension corridor on the east, and Old Katy Road and the UP Terminal Subdivision on the south. The points to be connected are the location where the BNSF Railway (previously known as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad) Houston Subdivision penetrates the study area, leading to the existing Amtrak station on the UP Terminal Subdivision Passenger Main (north of Washington Avenue between Milam and Elder Streets). The work to study the north passenger rail corridor for feasible CBD access has been overseen by an Advisory Committee, comprised of representatives from state, regional and municipal governments that have responsibilities for transportation infrastructure and funding. The committee members are listed in the reference materials at the end of the report. The following objectives were established by the Advisory Committee: Evaluate possible routes to reach CBD Amtrak station from BNSF Houston Subdivision Perform a progressively more detailed study of selected routes, initially comparing the eight passenger routes and with a final comparison between the several most promising routes Establish cost and feasibility of the CBD connection from the north Figure 6.2 illustrates the basic objective of the North Passenger Rail Corridor Study. 52

62 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.1 Roadway and Active Railroad Network within the Study Area (Shown Within Green Boundary) 53

63 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.2 Illustration Representing the Simple Objective of the North Corridor to CBD Access Study 54

64 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Study Approach In light of these objectives, the work consisted of a high level evaluation of commuter rail routes accessing the existing Amtrak station. The study first addressed the identification of potential environmental concerns for promising routes, and provided an assessment of the implications of taking a 50 strip ROW adjacent to existing freight rail ROW, or along city streets and existing travel corridors. Figure 6.3 presents a representation of this 50 ROW for commuter rail. Work then progressed to a limited conceptual engineering design of a baseline alignment in select Local areas along these routes to include approximate ROW acquisition requirements and costs as well as conceptual construction costs. The study addressed, in progressive levels of detail (described herein as tiers of analysis), the optional routes that passenger trains could utilize over the eight to nine mile corridor between the West 43rd Street intersection of the BNSF Houston Subdivision and the downtown Amtrak station. Detailed environmental studies were not conducted; during route assessment the study team identified and described environmental assessment issues which may impact route selection or significantly increase costs. Neighborhood impact assessment on a limited level was also conducted, with high level considerations of impacts on roadway, travel and properties. A general item of note with respect to the prior H-GAC HITAS Study is that the two most promising western approaches evaluated in the HITAS the White Oak Bayou and Terminal Subdivision options assumed the use of the Eureka Subdivision for commuter rail trains as shown in Figure 6.4. This recommendation of the prior study for the Terminal Subdivision route, which places commuter rail trains on existing track alignment and relocates a section of UP freight track immediately north of the existing ROW, have been incorporated into the analysis described herein. Additionally, improvements required on the UP Terminal Subdivision Freight Main are included. In addressing the analysis of the possible paths for passenger trains to access the Amtrak station adjacent to Houston CBD, the following definitions help explain the level of detail that was applied in successive tasks, and to progressively narrow the number of alternatives: Corridor a swath of land through which tracks pass, serving a ridership catchment area (i.e., the North Passenger Rail Corridor study area). Route a more specific path along which the rail line would run (i.e., with a width of approximately 50 ), as will be addressed in the Tier Two studies. Alignment a defined track center-line that has a more specific horizontal and vertical geometric definition for the envelope through which the trains would pass (i.e., approximately 15 wide by 25 high), has been addressed in the Tier Three studies. These alignments, both horizontal and vertical, are conceptual only in their level of detail and accuracy. The subsections that follow address the progressively more detailed analysis which was performed in the successive tiers of the project work, and are organized as follows: Tier One Initial Corridor Screening (eight routes) Tier Two Higher Level Assessment of Evaluation Routes (four routes) Tier Three Evaluation of Most Promising Routes 55

65 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies The complete set of exhibits produced as part of this study can be found in Appendix I, with specific exhibits organized into the following subsections within that appendix: Exhibit I-1 Environmental Constraints and Land Use Maps Exhibit I-2 Tier 1 Evaluation Matrix With Comments Exhibit I-3 Tier 2 Route #1 Exhibit I-4 Tier 2 Route #2 Exhibit I-5 Tier 2 Route #7 Exhibit I-6 Tier 2 Route #8 Exhibit I-7 Tier 2 Evaluation Matrix With Comments Exhibit I-8 Tier 3 Route #1 Alignment Exhibit I-9 Route #1 Local Study Area #1 Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) ROW Connecting to North End of UP Passenger Main Exhibit I-10 Tier 3 Route #7 Alignment Exhibit I-11 Route #7 Local Study Areas #2, #3 and #4 BNSF Houston Sub along Mangum to Hempstead Highway, Post Oak Road to Old Katy Road Exhibit I-12 Order-of-Magnitude Cost Estimation Exhibits 56

66 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Existing Rail Section for Typical Single Track Freight Rail ROW Proposed Passenger Rail Section Adjacent to a Typical Single Track Freight Rail ROW Figure Typical Section View of a 50 Commuter Rail ROW 57

67 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure Routes Studied in Preceding HITAS Study of CBD Access Routes from the West 58

68 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies 6.1 SCREENING OF POSSIBLE ROUTES FIRST TIER ANALYSIS Eight possible routes were identified as shown in Table 6.1 and depicted in Figure 6.5. A screening evaluation of these routes was first accomplished by the study team in consultation with GCRD staff; the routes were subsequently presented to an Advisory Committee for their comments prior to proceeding with the Tier Two assessment. Corridor # Table Alternative Routes Considered in the Tier One Screening Process Corridor/Route 1 BNSF - HCTRA ROW - Terminal Hardy Toll Road Route Designation 2 BNSF - IH 45 - Terminal I-45 North Freeway 3 BNSF - Mangum Road - UP Eureka Sub - Terminal Mangum Road Eureka Sub 4 BNSF - Shepherd Drive - Terminal Shepherd Drive - Terminal BNSF - Mangum Road - UP Eureka Sub - MKT ROW - Shepherd Drive - Terminal BNSF - Mangum Road - Post Oak Road - Katy Road/MKT ROW - MKT ROW - Shepherd Drive Terminal BNSF - Mangum Road - Post Oak Road - Katy Road/MKT ROW - Terminal BNSF - Mangum Road - Post Oak Road - IH 10 - Houston Avenue - Terminal Mangum Road - Eureka MKT Post Oak Road - MKT Shepherd Drive Post Oak Road - MKT - Terminal Post Oak Road - I-10 Katy Freeway In several cases, routes diverged from closely following existing freight rail lines, with city streets and freeways evaluated as potential new commuter rail corridors. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit I-1 and I-2 for related environmental constraints and land use maps, and the evaluation matrix Comparative Evaluation of Long List of Alternative Routes The longer list of alternative routes was comparatively evaluated at a high level, and the results were reviewed by the Advisory Committee. This evaluation comprised the high level assessment with a focus on the following categories: Alignment Characteristics Traffic Impacts Extent of Public ROW Environmental Impacts Environmental Justice Impacts Degree of Technical Complexity Total Cost 59

69 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure Eight Routes Studied in the Tier One Evaluation 60

70 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Environmental impacts were evaluated using constraint maps and focused on floodplains, historical sites, and environmentally sensitive receptors identified by land use, and demographic characteristics (for environmental justice concerns). Selected constraint maps depicting the 100-year floodplains and existing land use are shown in Figures 6.6 and 6.7. A complete set of constraints maps is included in Appendix I, Exhibit I-1. Other aspects of each of the eight routes in the initial Tier One vetting process were further evaluated by the study team in consultation with GCRD staff and the Advisory Committee. Each route was evaluated for suitability under each of the evaluation criteria categories, and a summary of these high-level evaluations can be found in Appendix I, Exhibit I-2. From the high-level evaluations described above, each alternative route was compared with the other alternative routes. Table 6.2 shows the evaluation results presented for consideration by the Advisory Committee. These comparative results and the deliberations of the committee resulted in the selection of the following four routes for further study in the second tier of analyses identified as the evaluation routes : Route #1 - BNSF Houston Subdivision / HCTRA Hardy Toll Road ROW / UP Passenger Main (connection on the east/north end) Route #2 - BNSF Houston Subdivision / IH 45 / UP Passenger Main (connection on the west end) Route #7 - BNSF Houston Subdivision / Mangum Road / Post Oak Road / Katy Road-MKT ROW / UP Terminal Subdivision / UP Passenger Main (connection on the west end) Route #8 - BNSF Houston Subdivision / Mangum Road / Post Oak Road / IH 10 Freeway / Houston Avenue. / UP Passenger Main (connection on the west end) 61

71 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure Year Floodplains 62

72 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.7 Land Use 63

73 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Corridor Number Table Initial Tier One Route Screening Evaluation Matrix Corridor/Route Route Designation Alignment Option Traffic Impacts Extent of Public ROW Environmental Impacts Envronmental Justice Impacts Degree of Tech. Complexity Total Costs Corridor Number 1 BNSF - HCTRA ROW - Terminal Hardy Toll Road 1 2 BNSF - IH-45 - Temrinal I-45 North Frwy 2 3 BNSF - Mangum Rd - UPRR Eureka Sub - Terminal Mangum - Eureka 3 4 BNSF - Shepherd Dr - Terminal Shepherd - Terminal BNSF - Mangum Rd - UPRR Eureka Sub - MKT ROW - Shepherd Rd - Terminal BNSF - Mangum Rd - Post Oak Rd - Katy Rd/MKT ROW - MKT ROW - Shepherd Rd - Terminal BNSF - Mangum Rd - Post Oak Rd - Katy Rd/MKT ROW - Terminal BNSF - Mangum Rd - Post Oak Rd - IH-10 - Houston Ave - Terminal Mangum - Eureka - MKT 5 Post Oak - MKT - Shepherd 6 Post Oak - MKT - Terminal 7 Post Oak - I-10 Katy Frwy 8 Very Good Good Adequate Poor Very Poor (Refer also to the supporting documentation in Appendix I, Exhibit I-2)

74 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies 6.2 SELECTED EVALUATION ROUTES SECOND TIER ANALYSIS Starting with the four selected routes from the Tier One screening process (called the evaluation routes for the phase of work), the second tier of study first examined on which side of the existing freight rail corridor would be studied for establishing passenger rail track and ROW independent of any freight rail track and ROW. Figure 6.8 shows the four Evaluation Routes, each of which are described below. Route #1 The south side of the existing BNSF Houston Subdivision was selected for the alignment in an effort to avoid rail industry service along the north side. When transitioning from the east-west direction to the north-south Hardy Toll Road extension, the alignment runs next to an industry service line for approximately 16,000 feet. The alignment then travels along the west side of the industry line (this line could potentially be purchased). A major issue is the crossing at Tower 26 and then the existing rail crossing over IH 10, which also accommodates the existing Amtrak route from New Orleans through Houston to San Antonio on the Sunset Limited. Refer also to Appendix I, Exhibit I-2 for the Route #1 exhibits which illustrate in greater detail the features analyzed in the Tier Two evaluation process. NOTE: The Tier Two study examines using a significant portion of ROW along the Hardy Toll Road portion of Route #1. However, it was assumed that the route along the Hardy Toll Road Extension would be primarily within ROW controlled by HCTRA, with the commuter rail being placed either along an at-grade or an aerial alignment (two distinct alignment alternatives considered). Route #2 Along its common portion with Route 1, the south side of the existing BNSF Houston Subdivision was examined for the alignment in an effort to avoid rail industry service on the north side. When transitioning from the east-west direction to the north-south IH 45 corridor, the alignment would be along the west side. It is envisioned that the alignment would be elevated and located between either the mainline and parallel frontage road or outside the frontage road. Consequently, a wider width is shown to illustrate design flexibility. When crossing IH 10 to follow along the east side of Houston Avenue, the alignment again has flexibility (south of Pecore Street) in an effort to find the best alignment before tying into the existing Passenger Main to the Amtrak station. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit I-3 for more detailed Route #2 exhibits. Route #7 Along its common portion with all the other routes that begin north of West 43 rd Street, the south side of the existing BNSF Houston Subdivision has been selected for the alignment. When transitioning to the north-south Mangum Road arterial corridor, the alignment would be along the east side. Similarly, the alignment continues along the east side of Post Oak Road. A sub-option depicted in Figure 6.8 was initially considered that would utilize the 50 high-capacity transit (HCT) corridor created by TxDOT on the west side of the IH 610/US 290/IH 10 Interchange (currently under construction). However, the alignment proved inadequate for use in Route #7 due to curve radius constraints from the HCT alignment as the track would turn 90 degrees to realign with Old Katy Road along a former railroad ROW known as the Katy Subdivision. Route #7 then crosses elevated over Eureka Junction and from that point eastward the route incorporates the recommendations made in the 2013 HITAS report. The route documented in the HITAS report places the commuter rail ROW and track adjacent to and south of the freight track and ROW. In the HITAS concept, new freight tracks would be constructed along the north side on expanded ROW, and new commuter rail 65

75 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies track would be installed within the existing rail ROW to ultimately connect to the Passenger Main at Chaney Junction. Appendix I, Exhibit I-4 contains the Route #7 exhibits, which illustrate in greater detail the features analyzed. Route #8 Along its common portion with all the other routes that begin north of West 43 rd Street, the south side of the existing BNSF Houston Subdivision was selected for this alignment. When transitioning to the north-south Mangum arterial corridor, the alignment would be along the east side. Similarly the alignment continues along the east side of Post Oak Road. A sub-option is conceived to utilize the 50 high-capacity transit (HCT) corridor on the west side of the at the US 290/IH 610/IH 10 Interchange (currently under construction); however, turning limitations when transitioning from the north-south TxDOT HCT corridor to the east-west IH 10 corridor make this option impractical. Crossing the IH 10/IH 610 interchange while also achieving access to the Northwest Transit Center, is technically challenging in terms of vertical grade separations. Traveling east from the interchange, the alignment continues along the north side of IH 10 to avoid impacts to Memorial Park. It is envisioned to continue along the north side of the freeway until a point either between the mainline and frontage road or outside the frontage road where it would then cross to the south side of IH 10 east of the Terminal Subdivision. Consequently a greater width is shown in the alignment exhibits. To transition from east-west to north-south and access the east side of Houston Avenue, greater flexibility in the alignment curve would be required east of the Terminal Subdivision. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit I-5 for the Route #8 exhibits illustrating this concept in greater detail. 66

76 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.8 Four Routes Studied in the Tier Two Evaluation 67

77 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Assessment of Short Listed Routes A comparative evaluation of the four selected routes similar in nature to the initial screening process was accomplished in the second tier of analysis. Several new areas of evaluation were added and a more detailed assessment based on railroad engineering principles was undertaken. Again, all evaluation remained at a high level. The overall findings with respect to ROW, environmental impacts, and freight rail operations assessments are discussed in the subsections that follow. Construction complexity as it relates to the commuter rail track grade separations, at railroad crossings, and roadway crossings is also addressed ROW Analysis Route descriptions in the second tier of analysis were refined based on the ROW assessment, basic design criteria and the results of the discussion of Tier 1 evaluations with the Advisory Committee. A minimum ROW of 50 was assumed in locations that have yet to be refined to a specific design. A greater width was assumed at locations where more flexibility may be required. It was possible to assess the general amount and land use type impacted in a quantitative manner. The resulting assessments of ROW placement for dedicated commuter rail track were made for the primary segments shown below, with the resulting selected side for commuter rail also indicated. BNSF Houston Subdivision south side IH 45 west side Mangum and North Post Oak Roads east side Old Katy Road north side IH 10 north side west of UP crossing, then crossing IH 10 to the south side east of UP crossing Houston Avenue east side Environmental Analysis Tier Two assessments of environmental impacts and the related community impacts went beyond the general environmental constraints mapping of the Tier One studies. The following paragraphs show how each of the Evaluation Routes had a more focused look at the impact within close proximity to each route. Adjacent Sensitive Land Uses Land use was examined within a 150 wide strip of land adjacent to each proposed rail alignment by extracting parcel-level data from a GIS layer developed in 2013 by H-GAC. In addition, each proposed rail corridor was given a windshield survey and homes, apartments, parks, schools, senior centers, day care centers and historic sites were counted within the corridor. Not all potential sensitive land uses have been fully studied at this level of review. More detailed analyses will be required as this project moves forward into preliminary design and environmental phases. Routes were examined to determine if they would be within or adjacent to an established community. For these locations, this assessment determined whether the potential alignment would change the character of that community or add another rail corridor adjacent to an existing or historic community. For those portions of the route where the impacts were assessed as insignificant, it was noted that the route would not significantly affect the community. In some cases, it was determined that the established community was also a designated Historic District. 68

78 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Natural Environmental Features Alternatives were evaluated for several environmental features. Using the official 100-year floodplain map prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, alternative routes that crossed 100-year floodplains were assessed for potential flooding impacts. None of the route alternatives remove substantial numbers of trees that would affect plant communities and wildlife habitat. Route alternatives could affect water quality if they require extensive re-channeling of streams. No alternative would affect a stream channel other than at rail crossings, and therefore water quality effects would be minor. Environmental Justice Environmental Justice requires that a project should not cause disproportionate environmental impacts to minorities and low-income families as compared to non-minorities and families with greater income. This assessment obtained data from the U.S. Census (2010 census and American Community Survey) for: Census block groups with white non-hispanics in the minority Census block groups with family poverty level above the Houston average Census block groups with median household income below the Houston average Data on these topics for census block groups crossed by the four routes were compared to City of Houston averages to determine if any alternative would disproportionately affect minorities or low-income families. Figure 6.9 shows the comparative land use near the new commuter rail ROW for each of the routes. In addition, Table 6.3 presents the sensitive receptors for each corridor. Alt 7: Terminal Alignment Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Figure 6.9 Adjacent Land Use Analysis 69

79 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Table Adjacent Sensitive Noise Receiver Analysis Receiver Type Route #1 Route #2 Route #7 Route #8 Residential School Park Rail Capacity and Freight Rail Operations Though it is the intention of the study to minimize or eliminate the effects of the proposed new commuter rail routes on the existing Class One railroad operations and their respective freight corridors, it was important to identify locations where potential impacts could potentially occur. The proximity of Routes #1 and #2 to the BNSF at the northwest extents of the project could affect existing and future rail capacity planning and implementation. Routes #1 and #2 could also affect the UP Terminal Subdivision operations between the UP Terminal Passenger Main connection point and the Amtrak station. Routes #7 and #8 could affect the BNSF in the northwest extents similarly to Route #1, but for only a short distance within the study area. The UP Terminal Subdivision would also be affected between the UP Eureka Junction and the Amtrak station. Rail infrastructure including rail yards, industry leads and other rail connections may require realignment or reevaluated for these options to be successful. The preferred design approach would be to create no impacts to existing or planned future rail operations. In addition, it would be the intent not to diminish or constrict any existing railroad capacity. Paralleling existing rail corridors outside of existing ROW allows for similar local conditions without the impacts to the existing railroad. Exceptions may exist and will be resolved and considered as planning and design work proceeds. Areas of concern are the rail-to-rail crossings and the rail-and-highway crossings. The rail-to-rail crossings would include any interaction between the proposed evaluation routes and existing freight or passenger track. Rail-and-highway crossings are defined as any intersecting geometry between the proposed evaluation routes and any existing roadway of concern. These roadways could range from arterials to Interstate Highways. The result would be a determination of any new grade separations required and whether or not existing grade crossings would suffice Construction Complexity and Grade Separations Key construction issues were identified as the areas where the large infrastructure components are located. In most cases, these locations are where the existing rail and highway infrastructure intersect with the proposed North Corridor evaluation routes in close proximity. The following Rail-to-Rail crossings were studied to assess the feasibility that the commuter rail tracks could be taken over the freight rail tracks. These crossings are shown in Figure

80 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Route #1 BNSF and North Line Tower 26 Route #2 UP Freight Main (Houston Avenue) common with Route #8 Route #7 UP (Hempstead Highway) common with Route #8 Eureka Junction Route #8 UP (Hempstead Highway) common with Route #7 Rail over IH 10 (2 locations) UP Freight Main (Houston Avenue) common with Route #2 Similarly, the Rail-to-Roadway crossings that were studied to assess feasibility and scale/size of structure necessary to construct (or reconstruct) are listed below. These crossings are shown in Figure Route #1 Hardy Toll Road and IH 610 Junction IH 10 Route #2 IH 610 crossing IH 10 crossing Route #7 US-290 (Mangum Road) common with Route #8 Hempstead Toll Road (future) IH 610 (Old Katy Road) Route #8 US 290 (Mangum Road) common with Route #7 Hempstead Toll Road (future) IH 610/ IH 10 Interchange IH 10 (Taylor to Houston) The five areas with the greatest concentration of construction complexity are listed below and shown in Figure These key areas can be grouped together where the rail-to-rail crossings and rail-to-highway crossings occur in close proximity. When this combination of construction issues are clustered in this way, the following five areas investigated are the most complex: IH 45 / IH 610 Interchange IH 610 and Hardy Toll Road Tower 26, IH 10 and Elysian Viaduct IH 45 and IH 10 junction with UP Freight Main Hempstead Highway to IH 610 / IH 10 Interchange and Northwest Transit Center 71

81 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Comparative Evaluation of Short Listed Routes The four evaluation routes were comparatively assessed in a similar manner to that performed in the Tier One study of the original eight routes. However, the categories of evaluation criterion were slightly changed to the following: Alignments Rail Capacity/Operations Environmental Analysis ROW Analysis Construction Issues Total Costs A summary of the evaluation results which form the basis of the comparative assessment and the associated presentation of these results to the Advisory Committee can be found in Appendix I, Exhibit I-7. A summary evaluation matrix from the overall comparative assessment is presented as Table 6.4. Note in the figure that the cells for Alignment Options, Construction Issues and Total Costs for Route #1 which approaches the CBD from the north along the HCTRA Hardy Toll Road extension corridor are highlighted to flag a dual scoring of their evaluation results. During the Tier Two part of the studies, it was unknown whether the commuter rail alignment would need to be elevated throughout this segment s length, or if the alignment could be kept at grade. The dual scoring was considered by the Advisory Committee as the recommendations were prepared for selecting the two routes to carry forward into the Tier Three phase of the studies. 72

82 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.10 Rail and Road Crossings with Areas Identified Having Significant Construction Issues 73

83 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Table 6.4 Tier Two Evaluation Route Comparative Assessment Matrix Second Tier Route Evaluation Matrix Corridor Number Corridor/Route Route Designation Alignment Option Traffic Impacts & Grade Separations Rail Capacity & Operations Environmental & EJ Impacts ROW Analysis Construction Issues Total Costs Corridor Number 1 BNSF - HCTRA ROW - Terminal Hardy Toll Road 1 2 BNSF - IH-45 - Temrinal I-45 North Frwy 2 7 BNSF - Mangum Rd - Post Oak Rd - Katy Rd/MKT ROW - Terminal Post Oak - MKT - Terminal 7 8 BNSF - Mangum Rd - Post Oak Rd - IH-10 - Houston Ave - Terminal Post Oak - I-10 Katy Frwy 8 Very Good Good Adequate Poor Very Poor Refer to Comments Regarding Dual Evaluation When two symbols appear in one cell, the left symbol represents the at-grade option and the right symbol represents the aerial option. Refer also to the supporting documentation in Appendix I, Exhibit I-7 74

84 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies 6.3 MOST PROMISING ROUTES ROUTE #1 AND ROUTE #7 THIRD TIER ANALYSIS The two most promising routes identified in the Tier Two phase of work, Routes #1 and #7, are shown in Figure This third tier of analysis involved the performance of specific alignment studies within selected portions of the routes. These two route choices made by the Advisory Committee provide an interesting comparison between an alignment approach into the CBD from the north side and connecting to the north end of the UP Passenger Main, and another alignment approach into the CBD from the west with a connection to the west end of the UP Passenger Main. During the course of the Tier Three work, a third alternative was also identified as a Most Promising Route. This third route is a combination of the basic Route #7 and Route #8 as described above in the Tier Two Phase of work. This new alternative, Route #7A, is discussed further in Section 6.4 and also shown in Figure As a feature of the more detailed level of analysis for the Two Most Promising Routes of Tier Three, Local Study Areas (LSA s) were developed that include a plan and conceptual profile to better estimate probable costs and assess technical feasibility. This LSA level of the study has been referred to as a conceptual engineering design and was applied to a total LSA length of approximately four miles over the combined 22-mile length of the two routes. In addition to the LSA studies, the two most promising routes undergoing Tier Three analysis were examined over their entire length in sufficient detail to assess where the alignments would be at-grade and where they would be elevated. This engineering assessment was accomplished for the purpose of developing an order-of-magnitude cost estimate that included cost components for the ROW land acquisition, drainage and site work, track and signaling construction, and construction of related structures. Overall, a single baseline alignment served as the basis for the cost estimates described in other subsections that follow. In a few locations alternative alignments were conceptually developed for the purpose of determining a comparative cost to the baseline alignment cost. However, all costs are still considered order-of-magnitude only suitable for planning purposes. Finally, it is emphasized that important considerations concerning maintaining the capacity of the freight rail network were addressed in the 2012 H-GAC HITAS (refer to Appendix H). These freight system infrastructure improvements and the associated additional costs have also been included in the Tier Three cost development. This is integral to any plan to provide access by commuter rail trains to the UP Passenger Main and is also discussed in Section 2.2. Route #1 A more refined alignment of this northern approach into the CBD has been studied and the commuter rail ROW and track alignment remain on the south side of the BNSF freight rail ROW for the east-west segment. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit I-8 for a complete set of plan-view aerial maps. 75

85 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.11 Two Most Promising Routes #1 and #7 Studied in the Tier 3 Evaluation and Subsequent Third Most Promising Route #7A 76

86 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies A key aspect of the Tier Three analyses of Route #1 addressed the question of whether the HCTRA Hardy Toll Road Extension provides sufficient ROW such that the commuter rail alignment could be accommodated at grade. As discussed below in Section 6.3.1, there does appear to be sufficient land to fit commuter rail track within the overall ROW adjacent to the toll road lanes. It should be emphasized that this assessment is preliminary and the combined location of rail and Tollway must be fully vetted by other future engineering studies. A review of this preliminary alignment was performed by HCTRA engineering staff, based on the 70% design drawings for the Hardy Toll Road Downtown Connector (date of review, November 4, 2014). The review comments noted that the first phase of the relocation of the Houston Belt and Terminal (HB&T) main line track to integrate into the West Belt Subdivision on the east side of the future toll road alignment has been completed. Other review comments identified various locations along the segment of shared use by the proposed Route #1 passenger rail line and the toll road where: 1. Clearance heights would need to be coordinated. 2. Redesign of storm drainage systems and detention ponds would need to be accomplished. 3. Some locations where arterial roadway grade separations are under design for the toll road project would require a vertical alignment change to accommodate the passenger rail tracks. 4. The possible impact on the relocation of a CenterPoint transmission line tower must be coordinated in the final design. Upon assessment of the HCTRA review comments, it has been determined that these adjustments have been addressed within the capital cost developed in the Route #1 conceptual engineering assessments. It is noted that the conceptual design phase does not typically take into consideration such detailed existing or planned infrastructure as was the basis for the HCTRA review comments. Future planning efforts, including Preliminary and Final Engineering phases, will most definitely include a holistic approach to design, collaboration and implementation in regard to existing and planned conditions. Within the level of conceptual design depicted in the Two Most Promising Routes, the conceptual design performed in the Tier Three analysis produced a sufficient level of detail to determine probable costs and technical feasibility suitable for comparison purposes. The single LSA defined for this route focused on the most complicated challenge of crossing the UP Terminal Subdivision, crossing I-10 freeway, and penetrating the CBD from the north to connect to the Passenger Main. LSA #1 provided the baseline alignment definition for this portion of Route #1. The profile alignments for Route #1, LSA #1 were fairly straightforward and no other major vertical alignment alternatives were studied. Section provides a discussion of the initial refinements to the alignment. Section then continues with a further discussion of the LSA details. Refer to Appendix I, Exhibit I-9 for LSA study exhibits. Route #7 Tier Three analysis of Route #7 investigated a broader set of alternative alignments along the route that has been discussed in the preceding sections. Multiple vertical and horizontal alignments for the segment along Mangum Road north of US290 were studied, as were several horizontal alignments for the segment along Post Oak west of IH 610. The plan view exhibits for the horizontal alignment throughout the entire corridor can be found in Appendix I, Exhibit I-10. This larger scale set of exhibits shows the Baseline Alignment that resulted from the more detailed studies within the LSAs. Refinements to the alignment plans that were performed during the Tier Three analysis are described in Section Details of the LSAs can be found in Appendix I, Exhibit I-11 and the related discussion in Section

87 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Summary of Alignment Refinements Tier Two baseline alignments were conceptually drawn adjacent to existing rail corridors, arterial streets and interstate corridors. Refinements to the horizontal alignment made in the conceptual engineering process included horizontal assessments of where to place the commuter rail ROW when paralleling utility corridors, and vertical alignment assessments within LSAs to enhance cost estimating procedures in complex areas. Additional information developed from such alignment refinement studies then led to a refined construction cost estimate for the rail facilities, and a refined ROW cost estimate by reviewing potentially impacted parcels and their current appraised value. Route #1 The south side of the existing BNSF Houston Subdivision was studied for the horizontal alignment within the east-west portion of the route to avoid rail industry service on the north side of the BNSF freight rail line. Between a point east of Brinkman and Hardy Road there is a high-power electrical transmission line that parallels the rail corridor. The baseline assumption was that the commuter rail line would leave the utility corridor in place and shift the passenger rail alignment to the outside (i.e., south side of the utility easement). Additional property may be required when sections of roadway are also adjacent to the rail corridor as seen in the appendix exhibits along portions of 36 th Street and the relocation of Stokes Street (Figure 6.12). When transitioning from the east-west direction to the north-south Hardy Toll Road extension, the alignment would be along the west side of the existing freight rail industry service line. It is understood that the future Hardy Toll Road Downtown Connector would relocate this industrial service line (known as the HB&T Passenger Main corridor) to the east, and the toll road facility alignment would be along the existing freight line ROW. Consequently, the passenger rail alignment could be along the west side of the future Hardy Toll Road extension. ROW acquired for the toll road in many locations provides sufficient room for the passenger rail corridor. Figure 6.13 (two pages) provides an example of this baseline alignment along this portion of the route. It is important to note that HCTRA has purchased some of the property that will be necessary to create the Hardy Toll Road Extension, but has not yet purchased all of their proposed additional required property. In Figure 6.13, the parcels that are marked with a green cross-hatch show the total property boundaries for land currently owned by HCTRA. Much of the land that is shaded in the same manner as other land uses around and in between the HCTRA owned parcels is part of the intended future purchase for the toll road. The placement of the commuter rail ROW is adjacent to the planned toll road lanes (as depicted in the figure) and is also within this toll road corridor ROW planned for purchase by HCTRA. The issue of the passenger rail line crossing the freight rail line at Tower 26 has been studied in more detail as part of the Tier Three LSA work. The Route #1 alignment also incorporates changes to other roadway facilities as currently underway or planned under other transportation improvement projects. 78

88 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.12 Example of a Significant Impact Area on Route #1 Requiring the Relocation of Stokes Street 79

89 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.13a Route #1 Baseline Alignment along HCTRA Hardy Toll Road Extension Corridor 80

90 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.13b Route #1 Baseline Alignment along HCTRA Hardy Toll Road Extension Corridor 81

91 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies The conceptual commuter rail baseline alignment provides a connection to the existing Terminal Subdivision track such that the current Amtrak route from New Orleans through Houston to San Antonio on the Sunset Limited is accomplished by a second passenger track on the south side, eventually connecting to the existing double track into the Amtrak station. A plan view of aerial imagery for the Route #1 alignment is included in Appendix I, Exhibit I-10. Route #7 Along its common portion with Route #1, beginning north of West 43 rd Street, the south side of the existing BNSF Houston Subdivision has been examined for the commuter rail ROW. When transitioning to the north-south Mangum arterial corridor, the baseline alignment would be along the east side of Mangum Road. Similarly the alignment continues along the east side of Post Oak Road and includes a station platform to provide access/connection as close as possible to the Houston METRO Northwest Transit Center location. Through the Tier Three analysis work, a sub-option was initially reviewed to utilize the 50 high-capacity transit corridor on the west side of the US 290 / IH 610 / IH 10 Interchange (currently under construction). Refer to Figure 6.8 above, which calls out this particular ROW. Use of this TxDOT ROW was determined to be severely limited in size and orientation at the point where the alignment would begin to turn to the east to pass under the US 290 / IH 610 / IH 10 interchange and thereby to reach the necessary alignment along Old Katy Road. This TxDOT high capacity transit ROW option beside the interchange was therefore removed from further consideration as being geometrical impractical. When transitioning from the north-south Mangum/Post Oak arterial corridor to the east-west Old Katy Road corridor, the baseline alignment would be along the north side along a portion (emphasis added) of the former UP Katy Subdivision railroad ROW. This segment is along what is also known as Old Katy Road on the north side of the Houston TranStar facility, and it is distinct from the Katy Road existing city street facility that now passes on the south side of Houston TranStar. It is noteworthy that a large scale mixed-use development referred to as Somerset Green and Logan Park has platted parcels along the former railroad ROW within the segment identified above as Old Katy Road. Change in access to these properties has been conceived for purposes of this conceptual engineering study, which would be provided via a frontage road and a grade separation (rail over road) when approaching the crossing over the UP at Eureka Junction (passenger rail over freight rail). Figure 6.14 (two pages) illustrates this frontage road provision. The baseline alignment then crosses over Eureka Junction and from that point eastward to the CBD incorporates the recommendations made from the Houston Intermodal Terminal Access Study (HITAS). Specifically, in this recommendation the passenger line utilizes the existing railroad tracks and new freight tracks are constructed along the north side. A plan view of aerial imagery for the Route 7 alignment is included in Appendix I, Exhibit I-10. Refer also to Appendix H for the HITAS study report. 82

92 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.14a Route #7 Special Access Provisions for New Development Site 83

93 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.14b Route #7 Special Access Provisions for New Development Site 84

94 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Local Study Area (LSA) Alignment Studies The defined Local Study Areas are typically one mile in length and are used to illustrate complex vertical relationships including the crossings at, above or below major highways, utilities or other railroads. LSA for Route #1 Baseline Alignment This LSA centers at the railroad crossing near Tower 26 and the connection to the north end of the UP Passenger Main through the northern part of the CBD. The crossing is further complicated by the elevated highway section with the proposed Hardy Toll Road Extension and its crossing of and relocation of freight rail tracks. Key issues investigated in the Tier Three conceptual engineering analyses include creating new UP Terminal Subdivision connections and improvements to continue serving the Amtrak Sunset Limited passenger rail service that passes through the Passenger Main several times a week to reach the Amtrak station. The plan and profile baseline alignment drawings are shown in Appendix I, Exhibit I-9. LSA s for Route #7 Baseline Alignment The LSAs for Route #7 were originally defined as three distinct study areas at the end of the Tier Two phase of work; however, since the segments form a continuous extended length of the route nearly three miles in length, in the Tier Three phase of study they were combined for the conceptual engineering process. The expanded single LSA has been developed with a continuous profile (vertical alignment) beginning near the Watonga Boulevard crossing on the north and continuing south along Mangum and Post Oak Roads before turning easterly to pass beneath the elevated structure of IH 610 at the Old Katy Road crossing. In consideration of the multiple alternative horizontal and vertical alignments that were initially studied throughout this extended LSA, the Advisory Committee was consulted to obtain their guidance. The recommendation of the Advisory Committee was to establish a baseline which was a worst case scenario from the technical perspective (i.e., with more cost but less public impact) in light of the purpose of this study to chart a course for engaging the public, technical and policy views necessary to advance to the next level of the study. Therefore, this choice is reflected in the discussion of the baseline alignment and the alternative Route #7A alignment that is described in the next section. Figure 6.15 shows a portion of the vertical and horizontal alignment through this area. This extended stretch of the baseline commuter rail alignment includes major arterial roadway crossings of 34 th Street and Hempstead Highway, as well as highway crossings with US-290 and IH 610, and the crossing of the UP adjacent to the Hempstead Highway. The vertical alignment is further complicated by the inclusion of a station along the east side of Post Oak Road. The associated vertical alignment follows the design criteria to maintain a reasonable grade to decelerate into, and the ability to accelerate out of, a station stop. The horizontal alignment utilizes a 35-mph curve from Post Oak Road to turn along Old Katy Road. This limiting design is deemed acceptable because of the proximity to the station. Discussions with the Advisory Committee to determine the baseline alignment with respect to the location of the horizontal alignment along Mangum Road involved the potential cost implications, community impacts, as well as probable traffic impacts for at-grade crossings and associated property access requirements. While an at-grade alignment was reviewed along the east side of Mangum, the issues of atgrade crossings at major signalized arterial roadways such as 34 th, Dacoma and 18 th Streets, and especially the frontage roads along US-290, suggested that grade separations would be best in this area. Further, the proximity of the commuter rail corridor parallel to Mangum Road does not lend itself to create side street roadways that either cross over or beneath the proposed rail alignment. 85

95 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.15a Sample of Route #7 LSA Plan and Profile Alignment Drawings along Mangum Road 86

96 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.15b Sample of Route #7 LSA Plan and Profile Alignment Drawings along Mangum Road 87

97 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies All of these considerations led to the conclusion that to achieve the grade separation objective, this entire section of the commuter rail alignment should be elevated. Therefore, the baseline vertical alignment was established to essentially eliminate any impacts on vehicular traffic operations along Mangum Road by placing the track on an aerial structure along Mangum Road. When the rail alignment is elevated, it maintains a minimum vertical clearance over the side roadways of When the rail alignment crosses over US-290, the height of the rail increases as US-290 is already above Mangum Road. Similarly, when the elevated rail crosses Hempstead Highway, the critical vertical clearance is 23.5 over the adjacent UP tracks as required by the railroad. The vertical grade north of the proposed station along Post Oak Road is 1.90% which is considered acceptable. An alternative alignment within the median width of Mangum Road was also considered. While also essentially elevated along the entire length of Mangum Road, the type and complexity of the support structure changes in response to the location of median opening, the length of left turn pockets and the span of major side street arterials. While different types of structural support could no doubt be developed to accommodate such varying conditions, the alignment along the east side of Mangum Road presents an opportunity for a more uniform type of structural support. A unique structural design would likely be needed when crossing at higher elevations and longer distances such as across US-290 and the Hempstead/UP/Post Oak location. The elevated alignment adequately addresses conflicts with the roadway network, but quality of life issues, including potential noise and visual impacts that may result from the aerial structure along Mangum Road, must be addressed in future phases of work. The plan and profile sheets for the three LSAs are actually created as a continuous alignment design, and are shown together in Appendix I, Exhibit I

98 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies 6.4 THIRD MOST PROMISING ROUTE #7A Note: This alternative route has been developed using a continuation of the Tier 2 methodology and through an adaptation of a portion the route identified in Section 6.2 as Route #8. As a subsequent analysis following the Tier Three alignment studies discussed above, a third alternative route along a portion of Route #7 was investigated at the request of the GCRD. This alternative route diverted the commuter rail route away from the UP Terminal Subdivision corridor to follow an alternative route along the median of the IH 10 Katy Freeway. A consistent methodology as was previously applied under the Tier Two analysis was utilized in this additional route study. However, this work was performed without the benefit of an additional LSA alignment studies to explore engineering issues on the higher level of detail applied to the Baseline Alignment for Route #7. Figure 6.16 (two pages) shows the Katy Freeway third alternative route that is identified herein as Route #7A. The figure includes simple cross-sections that illustrate the type and extent of structures necessary to support an elevated rail alignment along IH 10 and Houston Avenue. These sections were particularly important for developing costs within the planning process Alternative Route Features and Alignment Challenges Figure 6.17 and Figure 6.18 show the key locations at which critical alignment decisions and assumptions were defined for use in developing the route concept. There is precedent for this type of design in the construction of an aerial segment of a New York City rail line in Queens near JFK Airport. The alignment begins along the north side of the freight railroad before entering the median of IH 10. Once in the median of IH 10, the structural supports for the rail alignment are in essence at a double height since IH 10 is in a depressed section and the rail alignment must be above the side road bridges crossing IH 10. Through the Yale Street and Heights Boulevard exit, IH 10 transitions from a depressed section to an elevated/embankment section. Nonetheless, the majority of the rail s vertical alignment and its structural support system remain at a double height because the foundations rest on ground. The rail alignment then leaves the IH 10 median east of the former Heights rail line (currently a multi-use bicycle/pedestrian trail) before crossing over Taylor Street. This transition point is defined by the constraint of an elevated HOV lane in the IH 10 median area (inside shoulder) as well as recent extensive adjacent development, specifically the Taylor Heights residential complex. This one parcel, at nearly five acres, is currently appraised at over $60 million; however, the alignment as shown avoids any direct impact. 89

99 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.16a IH-10 Katy Freeway Alternative Alignment for a Segment of Route #7A 90

100 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.16b IH-10 Katy Freeway Alternative Alignment for a Segment of Route #7A 91

101 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.17 Elevated Structure Concepts Within IH-10 Freeway Median 92

102 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies Figure 6.18 Elevated Structure Concepts Beside IH-10 Freeway and Houston Avenue 93

103 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies 6.5 SUMMARY OF COSTS The subsections that follow provide an overview summary of costs to implement the baseline alignment for either Route #1, Route #7 or Route #7A. The summary of cost includes a description of the various cost categories utilized with their methodologies as well as a more detailed description of major cost elements that are different for each route s baseline alignment Capital Costs The estimation of order-of-magnitude costs for the three most promising routes was performed in accordance with FRA standard cost categories, as described previously in Chapter 2.. Cost development and summary tables for the baseline alignments of Route #1, Route #7 and Route #7A reflect only the applicable FRA cost categories; all costs are in 2014 dollars. Further, specifically allocated contingencies are applied by cost category. As further refinements occur, costs would need to be adjusted to reflect expenditures in future years, since the basis of these estimates is the simplifying assumption that the construction occurs in the present day. Quantities, unit prices and cost estimate worksheets for the alignments are provided in Appendix I, Exhibit I-14. A cost summary table comparing the baseline alignments for Route #1, Route #7 and Route #7A is presented in Table 6.5. All of the most promising route alignments tie into other improvements which were identified through the previous HITAS study (refer to Appendix H), specifically the recommended improvements referred to as the Terminal Subdivision and the Freight Main. Route #7 and Route #7A include costs for both of these previously developed improvements, while Route #1 only necessitates the inclusion of the Freight Main improvements. The costs for these improvements have been included as a separate line item within the additional cost elements refer to Category 100 portion of the table. Route #7 with its predominately elevated track structure even with a shorter length is more costly than Route #1 for cost category 10. The additional highway grade separations make Route #1 more costly than Route #7 for cost category 40. Cost categories 50, 80 and 90 are essentially dependent upon the length of the individual alignments. The inclusion of prior recommendations along the Terminal Subdivision and Freight Main make Route #7 as an overall project more costly than Route #1. The comparison of the capital cost (rail infrastructure, ROW land purchase, systems, allowances and contingencies was made between the Route #7 baseline alignment and Route #7A alternative alignment that travels along IH 10. These two alignments have been compared in cost between the Eureka Junction and the Amtrak station terminus in downtown. Within this specific segment, the baseline alignment segment of Route #7 (as developed in the HITAS study) had a total cost of $370M when the Freight Main Improvements are included to compensate for the Passenger Main dedication to commuter rail trains. The comparable cost for the Route #7A IH 10 aerial alignment between Eureka Junction and the Amtrak Station that turns south to the Passenger Main along Houston Street (Figure 6.16) has a total cost of $486M, also including the Freight Main Improvements (totaling $71M in each case). It is noteworthy that the Route #7 baseline alignment s route along the Terminal Subdivision corridor had improvements that involved more tracks (including the upgrade of the existing two tracks to passenger and construction of two new freight tracks) along its entire 3.62 miles. The alternative Route #7A alignment 94

104 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies along IH 10 had two new passenger tracks, but with aerial structure through nearly the entire length of 4.15 miles. Table 6.5 Summary Cost Estimate for Most Promising Routes #1, Route #7 and Route #7A Category 10 - Track Structures and Track Category 40 - Sitework, Right-of-way and Land Improvements Category 50 - Communications and Signaling Category 80 - Professional Services Category 90 - Miscellaneous and Unallocated Cost Allowance Category Additional Cost Elements - Previous Study Total (10-100) Total (10-100) Rounded Engineer's Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate - FRA Cost Categories - Summary NORTH CORRIDOR PASSENGER STUDY (NCPS) Cost Category Categories 10 thru 50 Corridor Infrastructure and Right-of-Way Contingency TOTAL ROUTE LENGTH STUDY ROUTE LENGTH Route 1 7 7A Cost (2014 $) Cost (2014 $) Cost (2014 $) $ 95,319,300 $ 124,169,200 $ 338,458,200 $ 130,464,980 $ 48,073,368 $ 67,629,868 $ 34,565,000 $ 14,535,000 $ 25,560,000 $ 116,948,897 $ 111,020,586 $ 174,980,352 $ 50,935,254 $ 40,202,751 $ 81,894,837 $ 51,963,297 $ 40,269,314 $ 103,542,237 $ 70,920,325 $ 406,923,044 $ 137,314,462 $ 551,117,052 $ 785,193,263 $ 929,379,956 $ 551,200,000 $ 785,200,000 $ 929,400, ROW Costs It is noteworthy that there is more certainty in the construction costs and professional fees associated with the cost development process than there is for the land purchase related costs. Land purchase prices have proven difficult to estimate for the Houston Region and the area is currently experiencing unprecedented growth. The discussion below therefore provides additional information on the baseline alignment s ROW costs for the most promising routes. Harris County Appraisal District real property account information was utilized to obtain appraised value of the parcels. Typically the market value listed separate land and improvement values with the total market value being equal to the appraised value. The alignments potential ROW acquisition for individual properties was visually reviewed with an assessment to the degree of impact (expressed as a percentage) of the overall parcel area. With small (1/4 acre) lots, the impact of even 40% of the parcel represents a total take and was therefore expressed as 100%. With large lots where viable remnants would remain after the land for ROW taking occurs, an estimate of the impacted area was made and an impact calculation was made based upon the percentage of appraised value. Adjustments to the impacted properties were also made to account for relocation assistance with a total acquisition, as well as a factor to account for the loss of property. It should be noted that the appraised value method, in general, has its limitations because of its subjective judgment as well as when impacting properties that are tax exempt, such as schools, churches and other places of worship, parkland and properties that are currently undergoing changes in land use that result in a pending classification. It may be impractical to place a monetary value upon parkland, though a budgetary value may need to be accounted for as part of environmental mitigation. An allowance for unknown future land values has been made within the overall contingency percentage for infrastructure and ROW costs. Route #1 This alignment involved reviewing approximately 300 individual properties. The adjusted costs were summed and total $69.16 million for ROW costs. Parcels within the future Hardy Toll Road Extension 95

105 Chapter 6 CBD Access Corridor Studies which HCTRA has identified for future purchase have been included in the ROW acquisition costs. No costs have been included for acquisition of parcels already publically owned by HCTRA, which will be subject to negotiated interlocal agreements allowing installation of commuter rail. Additional costs associated with improvements to the Freight Main have also included as a total project cost through cost category 100, based on the HITAS study work that was performed in These costs include previously assessed ROW costs. Route #7 The adjusted costs were summed and total $73.86 million for ROW costs. A critical issue with the baseline alignment was the potential for damages to several large parcels with numerous multi-family dwellings along Mangum Road. The assumption of this alignment was that the remaining development would remain viable. A similar assumption was made that the industrial properties along the east side of Post Oak Road remain viable, however access to these parcels would be severely limited. As described for Route #1, a land purchase contingency has been included in the overall infrastructure and ROW contingency. As noted above, additional project costs were also included associated with the previously identified improvements along the Terminal Subdivision (from Eureka Junction to Chaney Junction) and along the Freight Main (from Chaney Junction to the Hardy Yard) as part of cost category 100. These total project costs drawn from the 2012 HITAS study include ROW costs estimated at that time. Route #7A The third most promising alignment was identical to the alignment of Route #7 along Mangum Road, Post Oak Boulevard, Old Katy Road and the UP Terminal Subdivision north of IH 10, and therefore has the same ROW costs (as described above) up to the point it enters the IH 10 ROW. There is additional cost for the ROW along Houston Avenue with the 50 offset from the roadway, as shown in Figure 6.19 above. 96

106 Chapter 7 Intermodal Connectivity and Station Planning 7.0 INTERMODAL CONNECTIVITY AND STATION PLANNING Work performed in this study has not addressed the matters of specific station design or intermodal connectivity. The following provides insight into the necessary features and capacity implications for stations that would serve new commuter rail service. This insight will be needed in the next phase of studies and analyses, and therefore serves as an important element of the way forward. Each of the routes that have been studied brings commuter rail trains into the urban core of Houston, with most of the ridership anticipated to be commuting to and from their employment. These routes will serve several stations where large numbers of riders will alight each train as they travel to and from nearby large employment districts and major activity centers. Connectivity to local transit will be critically important at these stations where the riders alight the large trains and continue the final stage of their journey via another mode. Some passengers will leave the station by foot or bicycle, while others will leave the station by automobile or vehicles-for-hire. But at the destination end of the morning commute trip in particular, a large group of passengers will connect to some form of mass transit to travel their last mile. Similarly, the reverse trips during the PM peak period will also be spread across a number of modes to access commuter rail. Intermodal connections at the stations in the core of Houston will need an efficient interface with Houston METRO and other local transport services (such as the hospital shuttle services in Texas Medical Center). The large quantity of connecting transit patrons that alight a train all at once is challenging to serve by bus or light rail. When surge flows as large as 750 or more people occur upon a commuter rail train arrival, these volumes would be several times the capacity of an LRT train or more than the capacity of ten buses. As a result, the accommodation of large numbers of people waiting to board their connecting mode can be a necessary element of intermodal station design. Transit and pedestrian facilities designed for these high demand conditions are therefore important elements to plan and design properly. In the western reaches of Harris County and most of Fort Bend and Waller counties which are served by the commuter rail service, many patrons will arrive at the station each morning in their private automobile. Planning for adequate facilities at these more distant stations includes reserving the appropriate quantity of land to build initial parking areas as well as reserving land for future expansion, space for roadways, kissand-ride operations and bus operations. In addition, stations within Fort Bend and Waller Counties will require efficient connections to bus transit services provided by Fort Bend Transit and Colorado Valley Transit (serving Waller, Austin, Colorado and Wharton Counties). These bus accommodations must also be provided in the commuter rail station designs. When the stations are properly planned, public transit services will extend the reach of the commuter rail line. This will be especially true within the five-mile radius around each station that has been assumed in the ridership estimates described in Appendices B, D, and F. 97

107 Chapter 8 The Way Forward 8.0 THE WAY FORWARD 8.1 STUDY FINDINGS This study has demonstrated that the conceptual commuter rail connections providing access to the urban core from remote western edges of the region are technically feasible. A summary of key findings for each the three long distance corridors have been simplified to a list of pluses and minuses. These findings, as well as the total cost estimate to create the commuter rail line, are useful for comparisons between the corridors. The findings are shown in Figure 8.1, Figure 8.2 and Figure 8.3 for the Hempstead, Westpark and US 90 A corridors, respectively. This same type of information for the three Most Promising routes to connect commuter and passenger rail with the CBD is shown in Figure 8.4, Figure 8.5 and Figure 8.6 Route #1 HCTRA, Route #7 Terminal, and Route #7A IH-10, respectively. These routes are very different from the long distance routes mentioned above, in that they are primarily a focused study of the Downtown connection inside Loop 610. Finally, the CBD access routes all require that the Freight Main portion of the UP Terminal Subdivision be expanded in its capacity since the Passenger Main would need to serve passenger trains throughout the day. Figure 8.7 shows this segment of the Terminal Subdivision. As noted previously, the Freight Main improvements must be advanced simultaneously with the CBD access passenger rail lines. Figure 8.1 Hempstead Corridor Attributes and Comparative Pluses and Minuses 98

108 Chapter 8 The Way Forward Figure 8.2 Westpark Corridor Attributes and Comparative Pluses and Minuses Figure 8.3 US 90A Corridor Attributes andcomparative Pluses and Minuses 99

109 Chapter 8 The Way Forward Figure 8.4 CBD Access - Route #1 Attributes and Comparative Pluses and Minuses Figure 8.5 CBD Access - Route #7 Attributes and Comparative Pluses and Minuses 100

110 Chapter 8 The Way Forward Figure 8.6 CBD Access - Route #7A Attributes and Comparative Pluses and Minuses Figure 8.7 Freight Main Expansion Project Attributes 101

111 Chapter 8 The Way Forward 8.2 NEXT STEPS The next steps necessary to advance regional commuter rail planning will require a series of additional tasks which refine the accuracy of the commuter rail corridor alignments, determine location of stations and maintenance facilities, and refine the estimates of costs. These Next Steps are described below. First, work will entail further comparative alternatives assessment to resolve optional alignments for several of the corridors that have been studied to date. Once the preferred alternative has been determined, the ROW limits for the single preferred alternative for each corridor can be established, and a preenvironmental assessment can be performed for the particular details of the route. This work will be performed under the guidance of an Advisory Committee. The review of alternatives, and in some cases the identification of new variations of previously defined route/alignment options, will benefit from additional stakeholder input. The establishment of the ROW limits for a complete commuter rail line within each corridor and the preenvironmental assessment of environmental impacts (i.e., not engaging the full NEPA process) requires a preliminary determination of station locations and prototype station site plans. In addition, the location and assessment of the land required to construct a maintenance and storage facility for each line will be required. Based on the progression of work defining the ROW, pre-environmental assessment and conceptual engineering to the 10% design level, the development of an engineer s opinion of probable cost can be prepared. The more detailed route and station location definition for each corridor will enable an update to the daily ridership forecast, and the preparation of the associated operating plan to serve that ridership. An estimate of operating costs and the assessment of the preferred vehicle type and quantity for the operating fleet within each corridor should be prepared as part of this analysis. With the development of these construction and operating cost estimates, adequate data will be available to initiate a review of financing options to implement commuter rail in the region. 8.3 CONCLUSIONS Creation of long distance commuter rail service that penetrates into the urban core of Houston and Harris County from the surrounding counties of Waller and Fort Bend is technically feasible on new ROW adjacent to existing freight rail ROW. This type of passenger train would be new to the Houston- Galveston region, and the lines would serve the long distance commuter trips that occur during the peak morning and evening drive times when traffic congestion is at its worst. The new commuter rail lines can be feasibly built and operated without impeding the operations of the Class I railroads and the ridership of the new lines is estimated to be adequate to justify the investments made. The Next Steps necessary to complete the planning phases and to launch the implementation phases can build on the work accomplished in this Regional Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. Long distance commuter rail is ready to begin filling a modal gap in the Houston-Galveston Region s plan for an integrated, multimodal system. 102

112 February 2015 Reference Materials List of Acronyms List of Reference Studies Railroad Maps Advisory Committee Members Regional Commuter Rail Feasibility Study An Assessment of Right-of-Way, Track Alignment and CBD Access 103

113 Reference Materials List of Acronyms Acronym Definition ADT ARRA BNSF BRT Average Daily Traffic The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act BNSF Railway Company Bus Rapid Transit BW 8 Beltway 8 CBD CTC CVT FBCT FBCTRA FEIS FM FRA GCRD HB&T HCT HCTRA H-GAC HITAS HOV IH LSA METRO PTC RCRCS ROW TMC TOD TXDOT UP Central Business District Centralized Traffic Control Colorado Valley Transit Fort Bend County Transit; Fort Bend County Department of Public Transportation Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority Final Environmental Impact Statement Farm to Market Federal Railroad Administration Gulf Coast Rail District Houston Belt and Terminal High Capacity Transit Harris County Toll Road Authority Houston-Galveston Area Council Houston Intermodal Terminal Access Study High Occupancy Vehicle Interstate Highway Local Study Areas Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County Positive Train Control Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study Right-of-Way Texas Medical Center Transit Oriented Development Texas Department of Transportation Union Pacific Corporation 104

114 Reference Materials Reference Studies Year Study 2004 H-GAC US 90A Corridor Rail Feasibility Study. Source: Houston-Galveston Area Council; see H-GAC website TXDOT Houston Region Freight Study. Source Texas Department of Transportation; see TXDOT website H-GAC Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study. Source Houston-Galveston Area Council; see H-GAC website H-GAC/Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County. METRO Downtown Houston Transit Intermodal Station Update to Site Location Assessment. Source: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County; see METRO website METRO Westpark Corridor Screen Line Study. Source: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County; see METRO website METRO Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Studies US90A Corridor. Source: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County; see METRO website Gulf Coast Rail District (GCRD) Conceptual Engineering Study for the Hempstead Corridor Commuter Rail. Source: Gulf Coast Rail District; see GCRD website H-GAC Houston Intermodal Terminal Access Study. Source: Houston-Galveston Area Council; see H-GAC website. 105

115 Reference Materials Rail Road Maps Source: 2007 TxDOT Houston Region Freight Study 106