Slick Vik Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 So he managed to block funding on post oak too. Go to hell culberson. The irony is his district will suffer in the long run as other areas get rail. And Richmond ended to be fixed more than any other road in the city. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Yes, that's true. http://www.gometrorail.org/clients/2491/372235.pdf But the Richmond rail opponents want it off of Richmond entirely. They wanted it entirely off Richmond and Metro wanted it entirely on Richmond, but at the end of the day this is how it's worked out. Better for Metro to take it and run than spend the next 20 years trying to reverse it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 They wanted it entirely off Richmond and Metro wanted it entirely on Richmond, but at the end of the day this is how it's worked out. Better for Metro to take it and run than spend the next 20 years trying to reverse it. No, Culberson has now gotten it banned from Richmond anywhere west of Shepherd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 No, Culberson has now gotten it banned from Richmond anywhere west of Shepherd. So it runs on Richmond until it turns south at Shephard and goes down to Westpark before turning to the west and running to Hilcroft, right? I still don't see what the big deal is considering the options for development on the south side of 59. Not the ideal route, perhaps, but then the ideal route would probably be down Westheimer, if that were possible. What i'm saying is rather than spend more years trying to overturn Culberson's efforts, they should get going with the route they can do. In the end I think it will turn out just fine, or perhaps even better than if it had run down Richmond. You may end up seeing the strip malls along 59 and Westpark get torn up and replaced with towers and mid-rise mixed use. That couldn't happen as easily on Richmond because of all the single family homes along much of the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonBoy Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 What an ass. How has main street been destroyed? Looking down main street with the trains running and people walking creates such an urban environment that would be at the level it is now had it not been for rail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 What an ass. How has main street been destroyed? Looking down main street with the trains running and people walking creates such an urban environment that would be at the level it is now had it not been for rail! It's just political hyperbole. Some businesses couldn't make it through the construction and folded. New businesses have and will take their places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) So it runs on Richmond until it turns south at Shephard and goes down to Westpark before turning to the west and running to Hilcroft, right? I still don't see what the big deal is considering the options for development on the south side of 59. Not the ideal route, perhaps, but then the ideal route would probably be down Westheimer, if that were possible. What i'm saying is rather than spend more years trying to overturn Culberson's efforts, they should get going with the route they can do. In the end I think it will turn out just fine, or perhaps even better than if it had run down Richmond. You may end up seeing the strip malls along 59 and Westpark get torn up and replaced with towers and mid-rise mixed use. That couldn't happen as easily on Richmond because of all the single family homes along much of the way. No federal funding has been approved for any version of the University Line. Culberson has been anti-rail even back to when they were building the original Red Line. When the plan changes, he'll oppose the new plan too. Edited January 28, 2014 by kylejack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 So it runs on Richmond until it turns south at Shephard and goes down to Westpark before turning to the west and running to Hilcroft, right? I still don't see what the big deal is considering the options for development on the south side of 59. Not the ideal route, perhaps, but then the ideal route would probably be down Westheimer, if that were possible. What i'm saying is rather than spend more years trying to overturn Culberson's efforts, they should get going with the route they can do. In the end I think it will turn out just fine, or perhaps even better than if it had run down Richmond. You may end up seeing the strip malls along 59 and Westpark get torn up and replaced with towers and mid-rise mixed use. That couldn't happen as easily on Richmond because of all the single family homes along much of the way. They should go Richmond to Shepherd, then turn north to Westheimer and west to Uptown on Westheimer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Highland village fought university rail so forget about westheimerNo federal funding has been approved for any version of the University Line.Metro was seeking $700 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 So it runs on Richmond until it turns south at Shephard and goes down to Westpark before turning to the west and running to Hilcroft, right? I still don't see what the big deal is considering the options for development on the south side of 59. Not the ideal route, perhaps, but then the ideal route would probably be down Westheimer, if that were possible. What i'm saying is rather than spend more years trying to overturn Culberson's efforts, they should get going with the route they can do. In the end I think it will turn out just fine, or perhaps even better than if it had run down Richmond. You may end up seeing the strip malls along 59 and Westpark get torn up and replaced with towers and mid-rise mixed use. That couldn't happen as easily on Richmond because of all the single family homes along much of the way.I think the route that was studied goes to greenway plaza before going to westpark. Ideally it was supposed to go down Richmond then westheimer then turn south to westpark at the galleria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longcat Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Does his amendment also preclude federal funding for BRT on Richmond? Maybe that's still an option in which case it could tie in to the planned BRT on Post Oak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) No federal funding has been approved for any version of the University Line. Culberson has been anti-rail even back to when they were building the original Red Line. When the plan changes, he'll oppose the new plan too. Well then, they could at least throw this back in his face if he opposes it east of Shephard and then going down to Westpark. Not completely opposed to rail, Culberson noted that he has already begun working with Congressman Al Green on possible rail connections from Fort Bend County and that he would support the US 90A southwest rail corridor. On another potential east-west light rail route, Culberson said, "West Park would be perfect. They have the right of way."http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/01-28-14-light-rail-on-richmond-dead-forever-congressmen-crows-over-saving-post-oak-from-metro-destruction/ Edited January 28, 2014 by august948 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Does his amendment also preclude federal funding for BRT on Richmond? Maybe that's still an option in which case it could tie in to the planned BRT on Post Oak.im not sure, were they seeking federal funds for Richmond BRT? i know the Uptown BRT is fine because the local TIRZ funds will pay for it, not the feds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) im not sure, were they seeking federal funds for Richmond BRT? i know the Uptown BRT is fine because the local TIRZ funds will pay for it, not the feds. No. They are neither seeking funds for, nor planning, Richmond BRT. (But maybe they could/should??) Edited January 29, 2014 by Houston19514 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) oh.. i thought i remembered hearing something about a possible Richmond BRT. i guess it was just speculation or something.. so why the hell dont they figure out a way to (without federal funding, or w/e Culberson is against) build a BRT down the Richmond/Westpark corridor METRO wants to eventually use for light rail, for the time being to connect the Uptown line to the Main St line? Edited January 29, 2014 by cloud713 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky-guy Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 If it were up to me, I'd use subway down Richmond and rail down Allen Pkwy until it becomes Kirby and all the way down to reliant park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Huge Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 gotta love Culberson... http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/01-28-14-light-rail-on-richmond-dead-forever-congressmen-crows-over-saving-post-oak-from-metro-destruction/ When will this (please use more appropriate language) be out of office permanantly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Change the names of Richmond and Post Oak, then lay the rail down. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
names Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) He can block rail, but can he get Richmond re-surfaced & paved? Such a waste. Edited January 29, 2014 by names 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Just disgusting. Classic dirty politics at its finest. Wonder how much Culberson got paid to pull this off. Anyway, I'd prefer any rail line down this street to be a subway instead. Better yet, tunnel it down Westheimer, all the way out to Beltway 8. Of course that'll never happen, but that'd be the best rail line in Houston. Me too. I'm not a fan of the rail being all at grade throughout the Galleria area. That seems to be asking for trouble. Yes, it costs more, but it's better to spend more money to fix a problem - congestion - than a little less money to make the problem worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Does his amendment also preclude federal funding for BRT on Richmond? Maybe that's still an option in which case it could tie in to the planned BRT on Post Oak. Good question. It would be wonderful if we could see the text in the bill, but I suppose that would require investigative journalism of some kind. Depending on what the text says, I see that there are still some options:BRT for University Line on Richmond. BRT for Uptown Line on Post Oak. ROW and initial engineering paid for by federal money. Potential upgrade to LRT - we're on our own.Split the projects up. Uptown Line along I-610 feeder and south of Richmond paid for by federal money; Houston or Uptown TIRZ pay the rest. University Line east of Shepherd and west of GWP (on Westpark?) paid for by federal money; between Shepherd and Greenway Plaza, we're on our own.Below grade options still allowed. More expensive, but with federal funding still on the table, it's possible to construct parts of this underground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban909 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I say at this point this U-line should just utilize the Westpark ROW. At least there will be an East - West connection between the Uptown BRT and the Red Line. It might possibly be a faster connection, for the most part, because it is not interacting with street traffic along that section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Good question. It would be wonderful if we could see the text in the bill, but I suppose that would require investigative journalism of some kind. Depending on what the text says, I see that there are still some options:BRT for University Line on Richmond. BRT for Uptown Line on Post Oak. ROW and initial engineering paid for by federal money. Potential upgrade to LRT - we're on our own.Split the projects up. Uptown Line along I-610 feeder and south of Richmond paid for by federal money; Houston or Uptown TIRZ pay the rest. University Line east of Shepherd and west of GWP (on Westpark?) paid for by federal money; between Shepherd and Greenway Plaza, we're on our own.Below grade options still allowed. More expensive, but with federal funding still on the table, it's possible to construct parts of this underground. BRT would still cause right of way issues and headaches for businesses because Richmond would have to get rebuilt so I don't see that happening either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 BRT would still cause right of way issues and headaches for businesses because Richmond would have to get rebuilt so I don't see that happening either. You'd think, but legislative intent doesn't always show up in the final bill. I'm curious what wording was used that would disallow spending on BRT but allow it for regular buses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
native_Houstonian Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Does anyone have any new info on the Uptown Bus Rapid Transit that is supposed to widen Post Oak with dedicated bus lanes down the center? http://www.ridemetro.org/News/Documents/UptownBRT.aspx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Not sure I think they got some funding from HGAC. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkylineView Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 Believe it starts construction in 2015. Doing survey work now. You see the guys out along Post Oak all the time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totheskies Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 As the BRT is moving forward, if wonder if METRO would consider opening the commuter rail line (Old Katy) between Bunett TC and the Northwest TC. That would at least provide a connection between Downtown and The Galleria. If METRO were to purchase the ROW to build a parallel track, that line could potentially be quite inexpensive. If the BRT goes down to Hillcroft TC, it would at least hit one major population area. And of course BRT can always be converted to rail later. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 As the BRT is moving forward, if wonder if METRO would consider opening the commuter rail line (Old Katy) between Bunett TC and the Northwest TC. That would at least provide a connection between Downtown and The Galleria. If METRO were to purchase the ROW to build a parallel track, that line could potentially be quite inexpensive. If the BRT goes down to Hillcroft TC, it would at least hit one major population area.And of course BRT can always be converted to rail later. Tom Delay ripped those tracks out a long time ago. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesL Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 If METRO were to purchase the ROW to build a parallel track, that line could potentially be quite inexpensive. Yeah, except for those hundreds of million of dollars they don't have it would hardly cost a thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totheskies Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Whether the physical tracks are, the ROW still exists, correct? Or has part of it been used for the bike trail? It's not expensive to build track... The massive expense comes from acquiring hundreds of land parcels before you can build the track. In this case those land parcels only have 1 owner. I will try to ride through the area in a few weeks and find out how much track was ripped out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Whether the physical tracks are, the ROW still exists, correct? Or has part of it been used for the bike trail?It's not expensive to build track... The massive expense comes from acquiring hundreds of land parcels before you can build the track. In this case those land parcels only have 1 owner.I will try to ride through the area in a few weeks and find out how much track was ripped out. It was used for I-10 expansion 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) Tom Delay ripped those tracks out a long time ago. Ha...I can't access the Chron archives right now, but you're flat out wrong. First off, what happened was that TxDOT bought the rail corridor in the early 1990s, gave the railroad free rent on the corridor, and dismantled it after 1997 after it was decided that rail wasn't the best alternative for the Katy Freeway corridor. Tom DeLay was off in the U.S. House at the time, and as much as you like to think that's he part of the anti-rail conspiracy, the Katy Freeway didn't get rail because of something you can read here. Short version is, only METRO wanted the rail corridor, and the other stakeholders (the agencies involved, and not just TxDOT) didn't. METRO wasn't even financially involved in the expansion, so its "voice" was not very loud or given a lot of thought. The only reason why METRO even had a hand in planning was that it operated the HOV lane, and that was with FTA funds. The stakeholders all felt like more lanes (not rail) would be more efficient, and while the stakeholders did try to block METRO from buying the ROW (by this time, the track was dismantled, and they might as well been--there were dozens of crossings, all of them rather dated even for the 1990s), the public was doubtful that METRO would've been able to even run a rather extensive commuter rail line (remember: this was before METRORail). METRO only had $40 million to do anything with, and that was from FTA. In the end, it was the HCTRA that gave $250 million to the project, and ended up running the managed lanes with METRO benefitting by getting free rides on it. METRO still coughed up money to make the managed lanes support light rail and the end result was that METRO could, in theory, add rail, but that was left up to the state (opposed to the original wording "METRO reserves the right to provide future light rail transit" as that would undermine the other previous discussions and their vision for it. Edit: Unfortunately for you abandoned rail buffs, the ROW and paveovers were obliterated by the freeway expansion. Best you could shoot for is abandoned spurs, which still exist. Edited March 22, 2014 by IronTiger 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkylineView Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 This same issue has come up recently with the Westpark extension. From Mar 1:http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Westpark-expansion-to-proceed-with-Metro-land-sale-5281369.php 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 the Katy Freeway didn't get rail because of something you can read here."224"Oh okay cool just a quick read to prove your point 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 "224" Oh okay cool just a quick read to prove your point nah the relevant stuff is 199-202 (215-218 on the PDF) and 196-197 (212-213). It should be noted that not everyone wanted the super-wide highway there is today, just without railroads. If you read in the discussions of the subject at the Chron, some parties just wanted a no-rail corridor but not quite as wide. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 http://powersbrown.com/public-institutional/transportation/uptown-multi-modal-transit-center/#/ 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryDierker Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I remember reading about this in the past. http://www.chron.com/memorial/news/article/Uptown-district-proposes-transit-project-3893349.php http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bellaire/news/article/Bellaire-wants-planned-transit-center-to-5162792.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithiumaneurysm Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Doesn't this cut into that plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) holy **** balls, this will be awesome if it happens.edit: the property lines do look a little too far to the west, but i think the development would fit on the property available. its basically the exact layout which makes me wonder if they didnt just get the proportions wrong or something. Edited June 30, 2014 by cloud713 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 not bad. Wondering how the BRT and University line ties into this. It also looks pretty conceptual. I wonder how recent it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) They show a road on the old railroad ROW, I hope that ends up becoming a light rail like it's supposed to be. Otherwise, it does look pretty cool. Other than cool but impractical-looking elevated bus loop, it looks like just a big mixed-use development that has apartments, some retail, and other stuff. EDIT: Woo-hoo! Got to "High Rise", leaving the old Days Inn "Hotel" behind. Reminds me of SimTower. Edited June 30, 2014 by IronTiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allynwest Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Last I knew, Uptown Houston was pursuing something kind of like this, in part because the hope with BRT is that, depending on how things go with TxDOT, the BRT can help to bring workers in from the 'burbs. The BRT is supposed to provide service between the Northwest Transit Center and a new TC that will be built near Westpark. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I like the sound of this. Bus connection between NW Transit Center and Uptown isn't a bad idea, it would eliminate transfers. Out of curiosity, is a dual light rail/BRT track feasible/possible? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intencity77 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Is this rendering purely conceptual at this point? If so, I wouldn't put much hope that the final product ends up looking anything like this. Don't get me wrong I think a transit oriented center will do well at this location, I just don't expect anything grandiose as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) Is this rendering purely conceptual at this point? If so, I wouldn't put much hope that the final product ends up looking anything like this. Don't get me wrong I think a transit oriented center will do well at this location, I just don't expect anything grandiose as this.IMO the conceptual renderings aren't very "over the top/ grandiose" for an intermodal station. Wasn't the intermodal for Hardy Yards supposed to be like 200 million and have all sorts of crazy designs, ect?This looks more like an airport terminal drive up with mixed use. Edited June 30, 2014 by cloud713 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 IMO the conceptual renderings aren't very "over the top/ grandiose" for an intermodal station. Wasn't the intermodal for Hardy Yards supposed to be like 200 million and have all sorts of crazy designs, ect? This looks more like an airport terminal drive up with mixed use. Yeah, I agree. It looks basically looks like a transit center with some modern stylings (can METRO afford such things? No, not really). Remember that Cypress has basically something similar (dense luxury apartments playing up the "urban" angle, ground level retail, etc.). Either way, it does look plausible and not some fever dream after a few hits of alcohol and PCP. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TowerSpotter Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 http://www.uptown-houston.com/images/uploads/Post%20Oak%20Boulevard%20Dedicated%20Bus%20Lanes%20-%20Categorical%20Exclusion%20Apendices1.pdf Page 10 shows a proposed transit center on this site, could be a real project. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 they definitely plan to build another transit center around this location. Uptown is just focusing on building the BRT first (according to some of the linked news articles further up the page) before they move ahead with an intermodal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 If I read the pdf right, it's suggesting that bus operations will be in general traffic (not in its own lane) along the stretch on 610??? Where traffic is the worst? Seems like they are setting this thing up to fail, no wonder why it's so cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now