JClark54

First year of funding was set for 2027-28. Unsure there things stand now with mayor's announcement earlier this year that all projects will be paused for review.

Having posted the recipients list screenshot, I realize people may ask about Austin. It got the following:

The U.S. DOT announced today the recipients of its $3.3 billion Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods grant program. CoH received $43 million for Kashmere Gardens and Gulfton sidewalk work. Press release: https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/biden-harris-administration-announces-history-making-33-billion-locally-led-projects

The Fort Worth-Dallas high-speed rail line is being proposed by the North Central Texas Council of Governments, a regional transport planning body not directly affiliated with Texas Central. You can read about it here: https://www.nctcog.org/trans/plan/transit-management-and-planning/general-public-information/transit-planning-activities/transit-planning-projects/high-speed-rail The NCTCOG is proposing a line from Dallas to Fort Worth that would connect with Texas Central's Dallas station, were one to be built. The route study that drew this discussion was initiated in 2020. The last presented Texas Central design calls for an elevated Dallas station. NCTCOG's proposal calls for trenching the route along the highway until Dallas, where it will be elevated for the purposes of connecting with the Texas Central station. The stated reason is speeding up the process of transferring from the Fort Worth-Dallas train to the Texas Central portion.

Much uproar about nothing. Unless the meeting agenda lists a METRONext item, the board will not (or should not, at least) discuss it. Even if there is an agenda item about METRONext, board discussion won't take place during public comment. I did find the comments that Veronica Davis and David Fields tried to "kill" METRONext interesting. I don't know them personally, but I followed them on social. They didn't strike me as anti-public transit.

The board's silence is a sign they are properly following the governing standard to which they tell the populace they're following. I won't put too much thought into judging their intentions from that. METRO meetings adhere to Robert's Rules of Order, the boilerplate meeting format in the USA. Under RRO, a public comment section allows the public to talk about anything. Board or commission members may question them to gain better insight or understanding about the topic being spoken about, but they are disallowed from discussing the topic among one another or taking action such as a vote. If they find a public comment worth discussing, a member can request for the item to be placed on a future meeting's agenda. This ensures the public knows what's being discussed, and at what time and where. If they'd have discussed the merits of a transit project during public comment period, I'd have been alarmed and reported them. They had a quorum present.

Ah, OK. The comment I responded to included a link (https://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/13844-train-from-houston-to-galveston/page/4/#comment-685698) to a thread about a route utilizing the UP/BSNF West Belt and BNSF Galveston Sub to reach the island.

For the Amtrak aficionados in this forum, the future of a portion of Amtrak's current route from Houston to New Orleans and Mobile will be discussed tomorrow. Line owners along the route (CSX, Norfolk Southern, UP, and the Port of Mobile) and Amtrak have asked regulators to determine what exactly the line owners who've granted trackage rights to Amtrak are responsible for. Amtrak's position is it entered into trackage rights agreements in good faith, but freight rail operators' decision to block main lines for prolonged periods means on-time arrival is impossible. Thus, these agreements are untenable. Freight rail, on the other hand, has argued they shouldn't have to change their operating practices nor should Amtrak be let off the hook for payment.

Unless the operator builds its own lines, commuter rail in any capacity is likely going to be a tough sell. Just minutes ago, UP reps stated the company has ruled out granting the trackage rights needed for the so-called 90-A commuter rail from Houston to Fort Bend County. The study for that commuter rail project utilized UP Glidden Subdivision for a portion of the route. With the recent the changes to the Texas Transportation Code outlined in the other thread, the GCRD can now utilize BRT or light rail on a roadway. So the line isn't dead, per se, but commuter rail using an existing freight rail line is off the table unless the freight rail operator who owns the line has a change of heart.

The landmark designation report has some great details: https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/HistoricPres/landmarks/15L304_Weingarten_Mansion_400_S-MacGregor.pdf

@bobruss is right. It's a gorgeous property, if you're ever in the area and interested in documenting its progress. It's fairly set back from the roadway. It's 4000 S. MacGregor Way: https://www.har.com/homedetail/4000-s-macgregor-way-houston-tx-77021/9407433

I'd be surprised if Amtrak or any other party has plans to address this location anytime soon. Its rights to use the freight rail lines serving this station, the inner loop in general, and areas eastward are being questioned.

If you're interested, folks concerned about the impact of pedestrian safety projects spoke at council: https://houstontx.new.swagit.com/videos/296119 Peck, Castillo requested for funds to be returned to council members' budgets if projects are canceled.