prepared by Ed Browne, ebrowne@ctchouston.org, July 31 2005. Last updated August 17, 2005.
US 290 is the major artery into Houston from the northwest quadrant. Currently, it is one of the most congested pathways into the city, not only during rush hours but also during off hours. Like most other commuter routes, morning traffic tends to be primarily into the city. Afternoon traffic is primarily outbound, but there is also reasonably heavy traffic from Beltway 8 towards downtown.
The graphic to the left shows traffic congestion in the metroplex during the morning commute (7:30-7:45AM), while the right side graphic shows the afternoon commute from 5:15 to 5:30PM. Of the arterial spokes from the suburbs to downtown Houston, US 290 ranks just behind I-10 in its level of congestion.
TxDOT has plans to widen US 290, but there are other plans for the corridor as well. In 2003, the Harris County Commuter Rail Analysis (33 mb pdf) considered US 290 and US 249 as possible commuter rail corridors. The study was quite complete, including such things as what sections of track need new ties, which intersections need rebuilding and speed limitations of each track section. The thoroughness of this rail analysis indicates that Harris County may be interested and likely capable of providing commuter rail. Metro also released its revised plan in June 2005 which included a commuter rail line in the US 290 corridor. To date, there is relatively little detailed information about Metro's plan for the corridor. Then, in the summer of 2005, Harris County Commissioner's Court authorized an Engineering Feasibility Study for Hempstead Road Managed Lanes; the first step in the process of actually building a road.
"Initial negotiations indicate that TxDOT is willing to delay improvements to US 290 if the Hempstead Road Managed Lanes are built. Expansion of US 290 would then occur when the level of service provided by the Hempstead Road Project reaches a certain designated agreed to level of service."
So says the Capital Improvement Plan (1.9 mb PDF) of the Harris County Public Infrastructure Department for Fiscal Year 2005/06 - 2009/10. Alan Clark, Director of Transportation Planning for the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), agrees that it is unlikely TxDOT will do anything on US 290 for 10-15 years if Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) intends to build a toll road in the corridor.
TxDOT's initial US 290 Major Investment Study (MIS), prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates, included various transit options, managed lanes, and preferred alternatives. From the summary table on page IX of the US 290 MIS Executive Summary (853 kb pdf) with all factors weighted equally, the results can be boiled down to the following:
If only mobility is considered, then the preferences skew differently:
The report defines Advanced high capacity transit (AHCT) as "a general term used to address the type of advanced transit system that might be implemented in the corridor. The transit chosen will be high capacity and likely take the form of light rail transit, bus rapid transit, or some yet-undeveloped future transit technology". Although commuter rail is discussed it was not a recommended transit alternative and the study concluded: "While quick implementation is a distinct advantage, this mode is not well-suited to serve long-term intracorridor mobility needs."
Although the preferred alternative is to expand US 290 to include the Managed Lanes inside the median, TxDOT and HCTRA must have realized that this alternative is vastly more expensive than the Hempstead Road option. I-10 widening has clearly demonstrated that buying valuable freeway frontage property results in severe cost overruns.
Also according to Harris County Public Infrastructure Department, Capital Improvement Plan, Fiscal Year 2005-2006,
"The Hempstead Road Managed Lanes from Jones Road to IH 10 is the next project that appears to be feasible for a toll road. Wilbur Smith will be involved in the investment grade study for this corridor. TxDOT is evaluating the preliminary report from the general engineering consultant concerning the typical section and the limits of the project. An agreement with TxDOT will need to be formulated in terms of partnering and equity participation. Part of the agreement will set the standards and timing for TxDOTÂ’s improvement of US 290; which will be considered as a competing corridor."
Hempstead Road (more often called Hempstead Highway by locals) is a reasonable option to improve automobile traffic flow in the area, which could benefit economically from an infusion of capital. As stated before, the lower land acquisition costs alone justify Hempstead Road as an alternate route for US 290 traffic, although this was not the preferred alternative of the MIS.
Many questions linger about the Hempstead Road Managed Lanes, despite the comprehensive US 290 MIS. Will the managed lanes be above Hempstead Road, like Westpark, or at grade? If high-speed commuter lines are planned for the corridor, one solution would be to raise intersecting roads to cross both rail and managed lanes to remove at-grade crossings. Area mobility would be enhanced at roads like Gessner, West Little York, Blalock, Antoine, Clay, etc., because traffic would not wait at railroad crossings or traffic lights. Many of these roads already need repair work at their Hempstead Road intersections; most have been designated future "Smart" streets in the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan with a specific challenge to enhance mobility. Gessner and Brittmore, both affected by Hempstead Road Managed Lanes and Metro's commuter rail line, are either in design or in construction.
Multimodal corridors like US 290 would benefit from more comprehensive planning and public input because there are so many factors at play, like these mentioned and many others.
There is some possibility of overlap in land use; that is, two or more projects planned for the US 290 Corridor may need the same land. Can all three projects concurrently occupy the same corridor? Does Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA) or METRO have jurisdiction if there is any conflict? Who decides? HCTRA will design, build, and manage the Hempstead Road Managed Lanes. Because of a loophole in state law, HCTRA isn't required to have public meetings like TxDOT is, nor are they required to perform Environmental Impact Statements unless they accept federal funds to build the road. Art Storey, current head of Harris County Public Infrastructure Department, has promised CTC that he will have more public input opportunities.
One of the biggest concerns for area residents near the 610 loop has been the eventual path of the Hempstead Road Managed Lanes once inside the loop. As the Houston Press reports in "For whom the Hell Tolls", Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation was approved in August, 2004, to do a "toll facility study" along the right-of-way. According to the article, the route under study followed the rail corridor east as far as Shepherd Drive and then turned southeast to connect with the Katy Freeway. The article quotes a toll road authority letter about the eastern portion of the old MKT rail corridor where it continues through the center of the Heights, saying, "this property would be ideal for the extension of the Old Hempstead Managed Lanes (US 290) project," which will run toll lanes from Grand Parkway as far as the West Loop. Such a route conveniently would allow these commuters to bypass the Loop and I-10 for a straight shot into downtown. Although in The Mixmaster, Harris County Judge Robert Eckels had previously said that the toll road would not go through the Heights, Eckels subsequently clarified his statement in a letter, saying, "There is no need for toll lanes beyond the immediate Hwy 290/Loop610/I-10 interchange and I will not support a tollway through this neighborhood". Nevertheless, when one of his lieutenants was pressed at a Heights West Super Neighborhood meeting, he would not commit that areas west of historic Heights would be protected by Judge Eckels' statement. It's no wonder that there is still confusion about the road's path. To our knowledge, no results of the Dannenbaum Engineering study have been published, but given the comprehensive nature of other HCTRA studies, it probably thoroughly explored the options.
Without firm plans or copies of the Engineering Studies, connection options for the Hempstead Road Managed Lanes are pure speculation. This speculative exercise will be updated as real information becomes available. Loop 610 between US 290 and I-10 doesn't seem to allow much room for the Hempstead Road Managed Lanes to merge with the I-10 Managed Lanes and it would seem that any combination would need to be wider or a bottleneck would result -- so where will they go? Will they arch over 290, over Loop 610, to magically merge with I-10? If they stop outside Loop 610 as Judge Eckels has said, is there a path outside of Loop 610 for the traffic? It's useful to note that according to the City of Houston's 2005-2009 Capital Improvement Plan Hempstead Road and Washington Avenue (N-1302) will be widened inside the loop. Consider, then, that if the managed lanes would stop prior to reaching Loop 610, then traffic to I-10 could travel down the widened Hempstead Road and Washington Avenue; traffic to Loop 610 and I-10 East could travel down N. Post Oak; and traffic heading North on Loop 610 could take 18th. Considerable work is being done on N. Post Oak at 610, but there are no publicly available plans. Currently, there is no entrance ramp to Loop 610 for 18th Street.
In the original TxDOT US 290 MIS public meetings, many area residents supported bike lanes along Hempstead Road and extending at least two miles into adjacent neighborhoods, particularly as a means to get to the transit stations as they were outlined in the MIS. Here they were looking forward to transit linked to bikeways. The old MKT right-of-way through the Heights has also been planned as a pedestrian/bikeway trail, which had even received federal funding and TxDOT approval. In this area, both the commuter rail line and the Managed Lanes interfere with existing bikeway plans. With all the competing transportation plans, will these bikeways still be possible?
Although not favored by the TxDOT study, commuter rail may find a home in the US 290 corridor either from Metro or possibly from Harris County. As part of the bill forming the Harris County Freight Rail District, Harris County can also form an Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District (ICRD) (HB2958, Sec. 171.053.) for the Houston region. Until this law was passed in 2005, there was no legal way for Harris County to build a commuter rail facility, and it will still require formal creation of the ICRD. Judge Eckels had expressed interest several years ago, but had commented that the infrastructure had to be established first. Can Harris County and METRO both build the commuter rail? Yes. You need a lead agency for construction and a lead agency for operation, but METRO and Harris County could cooperate in funding, or the two could form a new joint agency to carry out the project. Because Union Pacific (UP) already owns the right-of-way necessary to build the commuter line, land acquisition costs should be minimal. Cost underestimations, like those plaguing I-10 ($1.504 billion over budget by March 2005), should also be minimized.
Although the rail route is relatively little-used, Union Pacific Railroad, who owns the line, would need to share it with commuter rail service or give up freight in the corridor altogether. If the line is improved to handle commuter rail -- railroad engineers complain of 10 mph maximum speeds in some areas -- then freight may benefit too, but to allow concurrent operation freight must be limited not to conflict with the commuter lines. UP officials have indicated in the past that they may be able to run only at night, clearing the line during the day for commuter rail. Presently, UP has no incentive to improve the little-used local freight line; but with an improved line, UP may have an incentive to reroute higher-priority freight trains to use it -- a possible win/win situation for both commuters and the railroad.
Longer sidings (short railroad tracks connected with the main track) would likely be needed to allow long, slow-moving freight trains to get out of the way. According to Harris County's Commuter Rail Analysis (33 mb pdf):
"Each existing siding should be expanded to have a length of 8,000 feet, and new 1,000 feet sidings should be constructed at locations where stations or maintenance facilities are proposed."
Since commuter rail authorities often contribute significant funding to rehabilitate or rebuild shared lines, commuter rail rarely suffers from the systematic delay issues Amtrak faces. Amtrak is slow in some regions of the United States simply because freight trains are too long for existing sidings; therefore, faster but shorter passenger trains are forced to wait in the sidings, causing missed schedules and irate customers.
Metro's latest plans (2.5 mb pdf) show the northwest commuter rail route traversing the Eureka Corridor on its way downtown to the planned intermodal transit center. Area residents may accept commuter rail or light rail through the Eureka Corridor, but it is doubtful that freight rail will be welcome in the area.
Along some parts of 290, there may not be room to add a second rail and the managed lanes. Closest to town is the bottleneck at FM529. Use Google Maps to look at this area. Notice that Hempstead Road disappears and that there doesn't appear to be enough room for another track, much less a 4-lane toll road and expansion of US 290. Similar bottlenecks exist all along the 38-mile study corridor as Hempstead Road diverges from and then rejoins US 290. Implementing commuter rail service on this line would be relatively easy. However, if the Hempstead Road Managed Lanes are implemented first and steal potential rail right-of-way, then the cost could become prohibitive.
Commuter rail has always been a less glamorous transportation mode than, say, light rail, monorail, or almost any other alternative transit option. The US 290 MIS report made this clear by failing to consider it in the list of alternative transit modes. Bombardier and the University of Texas are working to change that perception with the Advanced Locomotive Propulsion System (ALPS). This locomotive uses a flywheel to store energy from deceleration, which it gives up as the train pulls out of a station. This hi-tech "hybrid" locomotive accelerates as fast as a light rail train, but achieves the significantly higher speed necessary to attract commuters (150 mph). It is much lighter than high-speed diesel equivalents and can achieve much better fuel economy with lower emissions because the flywheel handles the short-term load variations, keeping the turbine burn-efficiency optimized. Other innovations include an electric drive motor 3 times more powerful than comparable motors and a high-speed turbine/generator. The US 290 corridor could be an excellent test venue for the ALPS locomotive with a relatively straight run through a mostly industrial corridor.
For more information:
US 290 represents a wonderful opportunity for TxDOT, HCTRA, METRO and whoever else is involved in the Corridor to jointly develop an engineering plan that will give Houstonians the best possible transportation system.
The order of development, land use issues, acquisition requirements, reduction of at-grade crossings, and long- and short-term public needs should be addressed by all of these agencies. US 290 can be a model of how Federal, State, County and City officials -- elected or not -- put public needs first in a cooperative effort. In order to efficiently do that, public input should be solicited by all parties and information shared. Recent higher fuel costs should serve as a justification to raise alternative transportation options, including bikeways and pedestrian trails, to higher priorities. One possibility would be to build the fast commuter rail system as outlined above, before building the managed lanes option, to give Houston commuters a sample of what other commuters throughout the world experience: rapid, efficient, and comfortable transit. If successful, the line could be extended as a fast passenger service to Prairie View or to College Station. How fitting it would be for Space City to finally have a transit system worthy of our position as a world class city. Then consider building the other transportation alternatives only if necessary.