Extension Of San Jacinto St.

[Triton]

Hi all, there was word that San Jacinto St. would be extended to Fulton/Burnett through the Hardy Yards sites. Whatever became of that? I see many pdfs and articles from 2010. I guess the project died out?

 

 

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/houston/n-san-jac-102710.html

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/ecodev/tirz/21.html

 

[BigFootsSocks]

Was it to be paid with Ike funds? Those dried out recently, I think.

[Houston19514]

I hope that's not dead.  That extension is needed.

[JLWM8609]

Maybe the delay has something to do with the North Houston Highway Improvement Project. Perhaps they have to redesign the extension to accommodate future access to the new feeder roads from N. San Jacinto while also making sure the highway will be built high enough to clear the N. San Jacinto overpass over Hardy Yards.

[DNAguy]

Maybe the delay has something to do with the North Houston Highway Improvement Project. Perhaps they have to redesign the extension to accommodate future access to the new feeder roads from N. San Jacinto while also making sure the highway will be built high enough to clear the N. San Jacinto overpass over Hardy Yards.

 

I'd like to think it's b/c of this.

 

I am, however, pessimistic. I really think, in true Houston fashion, that they just ran out of $ and didn't plan for a contingency.

Edited November 23, 2015 by DNAguy

[JLWM8609]

I never saw any renderings for the extension. Were any renderings released?

[Triton]

I never saw any renderings for the extension. Were any renderings released?

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/mobility/MTFP_2011/Action/02_Burnett_PCAction.pdf

 

Page 2.

 

 

Not renderings but an outline of where the road would go.

[Sparrow]

Maybe the delay has something to do with the North Houston Highway Improvement Project. Perhaps they have to redesign the extension to accommodate future access to the new feeder roads from N. San Jacinto while also making sure the highway will be built high enough to clear the N. San Jacinto overpass over Hardy Yards.

 

I'd like to think that they'd consider a tunnel rather than a bridge structure for a San Jacinto extension, just like the Hernandez Tunnel for Main. Not sure what the cost comparision would be. The Hardy Yards developer could likely even keep much of the park they have on the site plan in the ROW south of Leona.

[Triton]

I'd like to think that they'd consider a tunnel rather than a bridge structure for a San Jacinto extension, just like the Hernandez Tunnel for Main. Not sure what the cost comparision would be. The Hardy Yards developer could likely even keep much of the park they have on the site plan in the ROW south of Leona.

 

Based on their previous work, they said a tunnel wasn't feasible. They would have to build a bridge with a steep grade.

[Sparrow]

Based on their previous work, they said a tunnel wasn't feasible. They would have to build a bridge with a steep grade.

 

Perhaps the tunnel would be feasible now? The public meeting was back in 2010; not sure when studies were conducted. Conditions have changed, instead of multiple tracks to cross, there's just one now. The only reason I could think to build a bridge rather than a tunnel just as was done at Main so many decades ago, would be because of the prohibited cost of any ground pollution, much the same situation as with the Green line. Engineering cost constraints likely aren't the issue here with just one track above. A tunnel would also have more favorable height characteristics for TxDOT's 45 reconstruction plans.

 

One would think that the Hardy Yards folks would dedicate the ROW to the city--especially if they could keep much of their future planned park above such a tunnel. With a bridge structure no such park would have an opportunity to exist in that space.

 

Even south of the track you might expect the Wilson property folks (I believe the alignment would cross property within their plat) to dedicate their part of the needed ROW without cost by simply exchanging the needed land for a closure of Chapman (north of Conti). Realigning Lyons with Naylor may even be beneficial to both the property owners and the city at the same time--depending upon TxDOT's I-45 plans of course. A San Jac extension by itself should increase the Wilson property's value--seems like a good reason to dedicate the needed ROW, especially if the Chapman closure was thrown in.

[Houston19514]

After looking into this a little further, it seems clear the plan for extending San Jacinto has not been abandoned.  The plan has never been funded, and AFAIK no one has yet identified a funding source or gotten it into a 5-year Capital plan or anything.  But it is still in the city's transportation plan.

 

Also, the Hardy Yards plans posted in the Hardy Yards Development thread pretty clearly contemplate the extension.

 

[Triton]

Well, the real reason I brought up this discussion is that the Hardy Yards streets that have been built already...they appear to not support a San Jacinto St. extension. Based on that rendering, they should have at least kept a dead end at that corner for a future extension, right? Well, they simply curved that corner so it made me wonder if this is even happening anymore. True, they can easily tear up a curb and attach a road there but just made me wonder....

[Houston19514]

Well, the real reason I brought up this discussion is that the Hardy Yards streets that have been built already...they appear to not support a San Jacinto St. extension. Based on that rendering, they should have at least kept a dead end at that corner for a future extension, right? Well, they simply curved that corner so it made me wonder if this is even happening anymore. True, they can easily tear up a curb and attach a road there but just made me wonder....

 

Which corner did they curve?

 

[Sparrow]

SubdivisionPlatPDF_Wilson Headquarters GP - 52616 - 151207.pdf

 

San Jacinto extension still part of COH future plans. 

 

[Triton]

Which corner did they curve?

 

 

I guess you would call it the Fulton extension. You can even see the curve in Google satellite maps. It curves to the east. But, I guess based on Sparrow's post, looks like the city still has plans for it.

[lithiumaneurysm]

The Fulton/San Jac connection wasn't constructed alongside the other Hardy Yards improvements due to objections from Union Pacific. That's why the Main Street tunnel was shortened and a new intersection with Burnett was created instead. Not sure if it'll be attempted in the future but it seems very difficult politically, as most things are with the railroads.

 

Source: have had some exposure to the project at work

[Houston19514]

5 hours ago, lithiumaneurysm said:

The Fulton/San Jac connection wasn't constructed alongside the other Hardy Yards improvements due to objections from Union Pacific. That's why the Main Street tunnel was shortened and a new intersection with Burnett was created instead. Not sure if it'll be attempted in the future but it seems very difficult politically, as most things are with the railroads.

 

Source: have had some exposure to the project at work

 

I think that is kinda sorta correct.  The San Jacinto extension to Fulton has been delayed because of cost.  A combination of the cost of meeting the UPRR's requirements and obtaining the right of way between the UPRR and the current I-10.  That lack of connectivity helped to push along the reconfiguration of Main and Burnett so that Hardy Yards and the Burnett Transit Center were accessible.  It remains on the city's plans (and the relocation of I-10/I-45 through that area may actually make it easier as it might take care of the right-of-way acquisition costs...

[Triton]

Fascinating insight. Well, the city did get back to me about the future extension:

 

 

The Hardy Yards development did dedicate and record ROW for a future Fulton/San Jacinto extension. You can see the ROW alignment in the screenshot below. The HCAD records for the recroded ROW now show that the ROW is owned by the City of Houston.

 

From what I remember, the roadway has not been built with the site, as it would currently not connect to anything. But the ROW is now owned by the City of Houston so that when the remainder of the ROW to the south is acquired or dedicated the roadway and connection to downtown can be built.

 

[JLWM8609]

Looks like the San Jacinto St. extension will happen with the relocation of I-45/I-10. It'll be a tunnel underneath the freeway and the railroad with connections to the feeder road. You can see it in the presentation.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nhhip/north/Public Meeting_North Side_Final Rev.pdf

 

[Triton]

Latest detail from the City of Houston. So it looks like San Jacinto will be a tunnel with some sort of ramps that traverse to the west side of the road and go to I-10.

[JLWM8609]

On 2/12/2021 at 1:02 PM, Triton said:

Latest detail from the City of Houston. So it looks like San Jacinto will be a tunnel with some sort of ramps that traverse to the west side of the road and go to I-10.

Is that a typo or will they really rename Rothwell/Nance between N. Main and McKee to Lyons Ave.? Why not call it Nance all the way to N. Main for consistency? I don't think Lyons ever historically ran to N. Main in that location if at all in the pre-freeway days. 

[hindesky]

Attended the Houston Planning Commission meeting on Thursday afternoon. The future San Jacinto St. to Fulton St. connector was brought up. It would link downtown with the near north side. The current plan is to make it a Major Thoroughfare. This had a lot of opposition from people that live on or near Fulton St. I rode my bike on Fulton St. last week and it seems to be a small neighborhood street. Plan is to take from a little 2 lane street to a 4 lane road. The city is thinking about making it major collector instead reducing it from the previously planned 80' wide and reducing it to 60'. Plans aren't finalized yet.

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/transportation/MTFP_22/B-Fulton-Street-San-Jacinto-Street-Preliminary-Report-Final.pdf

[editor]

I drove through that area a couple of weeks ago, and I can understand people worrying.  They see what Elysian's expansion has done to the neighborhood, and want no more of it.

The neighborhood is kinda like a shabby version of the Heights, and appears happy to be both close to downtown and under the radar.

I understand the city wanting to extend San Jacinto, though I don't fully grasp where it expects all the traffic to go once it gets north of the freeway.  In pre-COVD times, this would be a catalyst for gentrifying that little neighborhood with downtown commuters.  Today?  What's the point?

 

[iah77]

2 hours ago, editor said:

I drove through that area a couple of weeks ago, and I can understand people worrying.  They see what Elysian's expansion has done to the neighborhood, and want no more of it.

The neighborhood is kinda like a shabby version of the Heights, and appears happy to be both close to downtown and under the radar.

I understand the city wanting to extend San Jacinto, though I don't fully grasp where it expects all the traffic to go once it gets north of the freeway.  In pre-COVD times, this would be a catalyst for gentrifying that little neighborhood with downtown commuters.  Today?  What's the point?

 

I don't think its just downtown commuters, it's an affordable area right next to the heights and a lot of great areas so of course demand is high regardless. 

 

This area is really cut off in a bad way due to the railroad, future hardy extension and I think it would benefit from having another access point. Main which is the other way to downtown floods badly and is only one lane. 

 

EDIT: I think this would allow portions of Main to be made more pedestrian friendly since it has great infrastructure to work in that direction also. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by iah77

[mkultra25]

3 hours ago, hindesky said:

Attended the Houston Planning Commission meeting on Thursday afternoon. The future San Jacinto St. to Fulton St. connector was brought up. It would link downtown with the near north side. The current plan is to make it a Major Thoroughfare. This had a lot of opposition from people that live on or near Fulton St. I rode my bike on Fulton St. last week and it seems to be a small neighborhood street. Plan is to take from a little 2 lane street to a 4 lane road. The city is thinking about making it major collector instead reducing it from the previously planned 80' wide and reducing it to 60'. Plans aren't finalized yet.

Pretty sure that particular section of Fulton has always been a small neighborhood street. Some of the sections of Fulton north of this one used to be four lanes until the light rail was built and they were scaled back to two lanes as a result.  

[Triton]

So this is saying that they don't even want the tunnel to connect San Jacinto and Fulton. As a Northside resident, I think this will be a mistake. We need more connections and more access to downtown, not less. I do agree though that widening Fulton from 2 to 4 lanes isn't even viable. 

[Houston19514]

Per the 2021 MTFP, Fulton is indeed listed as a "major thoroughfare". 

From I-10 to Burnett, it's shown as "proposed"

From Burnett to Hogan, it's shown as "sufficient width" 

From Hogan to Boundary, it's shown as "to be widened"

Those don't seem to match some of what is in that presentation to the Planning Commission.

In any event, I think extending the connection across Hardy Yards and into downtown is important for greater grid connectivity, not just for cars, but pedestrians and bicycles as well.

Edited July 25, 2022 by Houston19514

[Houston19514]

46 minutes ago, Triton said:

So this is saying that they don't even want the tunnel to connect San Jacinto and Fulton. As a Northside resident, I think this will be a mistake. We need more connections and more access to downtown, not less. I do agree though that widening Fulton from 2 to 4 lanes isn't even viable. 

It seems like the request is more about reducing it from major thoroughfare to major collector, not about eliminating the connection?  That seems like it would make a lot of sense.  (In truth, we probably need to cut back on "major thoroughfares" into downtown, at least to the extent they are designed to carry traffic at  50 (or 40) mph . . . (I'm lookin at you, San Jacinto, Fannin, Travis, Milam and Smith Streets through Midtown, and the like)

[Triton]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

It seems like the request is more about reducing it from major thoroughfare to major collector, not about eliminating the connection?  That seems like it would make a lot of sense.  (In truth, we probably need to cut back on "major thoroughfares" into downtown, at least to the extent they are designed to carry traffic at  50 (or 40) mph . . . (I'm lookin at you, San Jacinto, Fannin, Travis, Milam and Smith Streets through Midtown, and the like)

The request states several things:

• That the bridge idea was a no-go with Union Pacific
• That a modification of the Hernandez Tunnel allowed traffic from Burnett
• That the TIRZ does not have anymore money to take on another project such as the new tunnel
• Other projects in the area render this tunnel useless

[Houston19514]

2 hours ago, Triton said:

The request states several things:

• That the bridge idea was a no-go with Union Pacific
• That a modification of the Hernandez Tunnel allowed traffic from Burnett
• That the TIRZ does not have anymore money to take on another project such as the new tunnel
• Other projects in the area render this tunnel useless

Yes, but there seem to be two amendment requests:  (1) Delete the section of Major Thoroughfare designation of Fulton/San Jacinto from I-10 to Burnett  and (2) Reclassify that same segment to "Major Collector".