JClark54

Won't solve the overall issue of high speed traffic on McKinney, but traffic at this particular location will likely travel more slowly in four years. This building is approximately 1,000 feet from where McKinney will dead end when York is trenched. Drivers may find themselves airborne shortly after passing this location if traveling away from downtown at highway-like speeds like in the story. When headed toward downtown, Sampson and Roberts will be the only entry points to McKinney before this building.

The city's database shows a demo permit on file as of Jan. 10 for 1212 Milby Street. This parcel has been for sale since last year -- there was a large for sale/lease sign out front for many months. Per the listing agent's web site, it sold at some point. https://www.colliers.com/en/properties/sold-70585-sf-building-on-311-acres/usa-1212-milby-street-houston-tx-77023/usa1093132

Doesn't look like there's been noticeable movement in some time. The rear walls and windows removed in the project's early days haven't been replaced.

*Sorry, looking back at what I wrote above, I wrote daily rather than per day. The sheet I photos stated an average of 8 released per day, when there are people eligible for parole. They don't release 8 folks daily, as in every day.

The TDCJ public relations rep was surprisingly very open about its parolee transit procedures and figures. Some not necessarily Harrisburg Station-specific tidbits are: -On average, 3000-plus parolees are released in Texas annually. Those released to family, friends or other lodgings like halfway houses out of state are not included in this count. -40 percent of those parolees released in Texas take the Greyhound to designated release site cities. There are 17 of them, and Houston is one. 18 percent of that 40 percent transit to another destination via Greyhound. The remaining 82 percent disembark in Houston. -The reps (called reintegration specialists) responsible for the Houston area are from TDCJ Huntsville, so the drive is long and staffing levels are low. Release addresses (family, friends, halfway houses) are investigated prior to release, but again personnel aren't always there to ensure they reach the end destination. -Tickets are bought beforehand and parolees are shown how to navigate the station in the event a rep isn't there. This is the gap TDCJ can't close without more funding for reps, and provides the window for them to be jumped.

I went to the Greyhound station meeting Saturday. It was a really who's who of local politicos as well as city and regional employees. Just a few, Adrain Garcia, Joaquin Martinez, Christina Morales, Ana Hernandez, sergeants from two constables offices, one HPD assistant chief, METRO police chief, a TDCJ public relations rep, and Carol Alvarado, among many others. Greyhound did not have a rep present for questions. A few takeaways: -Crime in the two-block radius of the new location has increased 2500 percent since it became the new station for intercity service as opposed to the months immediately before, during its role as a transit hub for buses from valley cities. Incident types most on the rise are theft from and burglary of businesses and homes as well as assualt/agg assault. Martinez has requested more HPD resources. -Alvarado stated at least twice that Greyhound alerted Turner's office of the move in advance, and the mayor's office hid the move from then-District I council member Robert Gallegos. A letter was mentioned but not produced. Take this accusation for what it's worth. -An encampment has emerged. Smaller than Midtown's at this time, but growing. HOT outreach teams will be sent to the station regularly, like the Midtown Station. -TDCJ stated an average of eight TDCJ parolees arrive by bus daily. All must have an end-destination (halfway house, family member, friend, etc.), but TDCJ lacks the means or mechanisms to ensure those plans are carried through every time. As a property owner in Midtown, none of the above is surprising. The station outcomes and politico responses to them are identical to what occurred in Midtown. The following from TDCJ rep was new, however. -Parolees are given money, food, and bus passes upon disembarking from their respective locations. TDCJ rep stated as the encampment grew at Midtown, those folks targeted TDCJ parolees. Their TDCJ-emblazon gear made them easy to identify. They'd get jumped, and their money and food would be taken. Thus, with no means to reach their end destination, some integrated into the Midtown encampment population. -To alleviate the above situation, TDCJ tries to have reps at stations to guide parolees out safely. Staffing and funding limitations mean it doesn't happen every time. It's expected that Harrisburg Station will encounter the same phenomenon of folks jumping parolees unless more funding for reps to meet those upon arrival is made available.

Unsure if this is the most appropriate locale for the following, but it appears to be the most oft-used thread for METRORail information and discussion. At this week's meeting, Harris County Commissioners voted to amend the Gulf Coast Rail District concurrent ordinance. Per the amendment, METRO would get a full voting seat on the GCRD board. The meeting minutes haven't yet been posted, but you can watch the meeting here: https://harriscountytx.new.swagit.com/videos/291799 This is worth noting because the Texas Transportation Code signed by Gov. Greg Abbott on Nov. 14 states previously freight rail-centric entities like the GCRD can exercise powers as intermunicipal commuter rail districts and make decisions about commuter rail facilities, passenger rail services, and intercity rail services Harris County's decision doesn't mean METRO will become a voting board member, but it's the first domino to fall. Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Montgomery, and Waller counties as well as the city of Houston are all GRCD members and must vote. To my knowledge, Montgomery County is the only other entity to have voted, and it decided against adding METRO to the board. If you want to dive deeper, here's the 2023 transportation code's amended language on freight rail district powers: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/pdf/TN.171.pdf

New permit on file with the city.

Feature piece on HiWay Cantina, Agricole Hospitality in today's Chronicle: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/food-culture/restaurants-bars/article/hiway-cantina-tex-mex-houston-eado-opening-18568656.php

@004n063 and @abe Thank you very much for the insight.

Last week, the U.S. DOT announced recipients for the FY 2023 Safe Streets For All program, a Bipartisan Infrasture Law grant source. The Greater Southeast Management District was awarded $320,000 for action plan development as well as other supplemental planning. The project area includes Third Ward as well as other HAIF-identified areas.

Last week, the U.S. DOT announced recipients for the FY 2023 Safe Streets For All program, a Bipartisan Infrasture Law grant source. Greater Northside Management District was awarded $10,413,200 for improvements along Airline Drive, Bissonnet Street, Jensen Drive, and Tidwell Road. Work includes the installation of rectangular rapid-flashing beacons and the construction of new sidewalks to complete the sidewalk network along the project area. Other key elements include pedestrian refuge islands, hybrid beacons, wider sidewalks, multi-use paths, improved bus stop accessibility, and improved street lighting.

Can you back up that it won’t? Of course that's the point of any debate or discussion; to weigh the evidence presented.

@Big E you have made your views on this topic and what you used to reach that assessment very clear. I appreciate your opinion on the matter as well as facts, which is why I re-entered this forum to clear the air on which streets will close or stay open. Had it not been brought up, I would never have responded. If you don’t mind, I’d love to learn what evidence others have used to conclude Polk’s closure will not impact train-vehicular interactions rather than continue this cyclical discourse of you demanding I provide evidence before attempting to poke holes in it, calling me names in the process. Yes, data has helped shape my view on this topic. People whose position is Polk‘s closure won’t do harm may have different information than me, however. If presented with it, I will read it and possibly reform my opinion. I have asked before and not yet received a response. If they can’t actually back it up, I most certainty won’t dismiss it, as I feel that offers no value and builds barriers, not bridges. It just won’t change my view that Polk’s closure will negatively impact traffic in the neighborhood when there’s a stopped train.

With all due respect, @Big E, I am not the first person write that removing Polk would negatively affect traffic vis-a-vis the rail line. I joined this site a few years ago, many years after this discussion topic was started. Polk’s importance was discussed long before I came around. Yes, I am prepared to analyze the data presented and discuss its outcomes with people here. Debating the merits of urban design decisions is essentially the foundation of HAIF. Posters have written that Polk’s closure won’t impact train-vehicular traffic interactions. I feel it’s more than fair to ask what evidence they used to come to that conclusion. I have asked before, and nobody has responded. Yet, those who support keeping Polk are told to explain their reasoning in great detail. If this disappoints you in some way, why not let the answer — whatever it is — be presented? I am happy to never bring it up again if the evidence exists. Politely, @Big E, I have done my best to answer every question you’ve posed. You’ve also called me genius in a possibly mocking manner, claimed I wrote things that I did not, and questioned my comprehension. If you have a legit question, I will happily answer. If you want to argue, that’s not something I am interested in.

@Houston19514You're someone who relies on facts to make sound commentary. Would you mind sharing your evidence that the Polk closure won't negatively impact train-vehicular transit interactions? The last two times I made the request, you did not comment. If the evidence exists, I am more than happy to drop the topic altogether anytime someone brings up Polk.

@abeAre the East River-side trails open for public use yet? When passing, I often see construction nearby.

The property's grass was mowed about a week ago, so productivity may ramp up soon. For many months, the grass was untouched, and a couple of violation notices were posted.

So not themselves. We agree.

I know what they can and can't do, and I answered in the graf following. Local governments have no authority over the railroads. So no, I was not deflecting. Please re-read what you wrote that spurred my local governments have no authority response: The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it. If you'd asked what remedies are available, I'd have written requesting help from the FRA. You stated the city will have to take the railroads to task themselves over it. What can the city do to the railroads themselves? Nothing.

Everyone who has spent decent time here knows why Polk mentions ultimately turn into railroad debates. It happens every time. The Polk discussion is brought back from the dead in some fashion -- in this case a remark about all streets connecting. Those familiar with east end traffic write in support of keeping it. Questions are raised as to why? Its status as one of three downtown-connecting streets with a separation is mentioned as an invaluable asset. Then it turns into why can't you just go around it? Later, the ask to move/citation/fine/regulation position. If people here don't want to end up reading about trains, simply don't stur the Polk nest. It's clearly a connection many people are opinionated about. Houston has three train trap triangles, as the FRA identifies them. Two are in the east end. One is impacted by the Polk closure.

Mods, I would politely request for the portions where the Polk crossing was discussed to remain in this thread. The comments were spurred by claims about its status (closure or not), which is pertinent to the project.

Please re-read what I wrote: "Representatives from Chicago, an oft-discussed city on this forum, recently testified before the FRA that stopped miles-long freight trains have caused what they deemed as untenable transit harm. The remedy proposed was regulating freight train traffic in the city or compelling railroads to fund separations to alleviate those issues, if they planned to continue parking on public streets." Chicago reps requested that a federal agency tighten oversight of the industry it regulates during the public comment portion of its regular meeting. So "Chicago is proposing at potentially either regulating freight traffic or having the railroads fund grad separations" is not a new or novel move but rather one that happens regularly on the hill between interested parties like local governments and their federal partners. Houston reps were at the same meeting and requested identical relief. Fire Cheif Sam Pena spoke by zoom, and Council member Robert Gallegos spoke in person. Chicago and Houston offered the same proposals, since Chicago proposing something is your focus. Why are you telling me to be specific and explain why things can't be done when you don't bother to do basic research? You also call me a genius in a cut-down-style manner and question my comprehension when clearly you had trouble with the above. You wrote the following: Local entities have no authority over the railroads.