Jump to content

The Boulevard Project


zaphod

Recommended Posts

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

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

 

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

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

  • 1 month later...

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by IronTiger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

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 by cloud713
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by IronTiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by cloud713
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...