JClark54

@Big EThis is amazing stuff. Keep it coming. I never wrote both options are what Chicago is doing. One of the two options you listed literally can't be done at current.

Where are you getting information about Leeland and Polk traffic volumes and patterns? Thanks for the laugh @Big E. Specifically, "the city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it."

Dovetailing off the will-or-won't-Polk-close-I-can't-be-bothered-to-look debate, I find it interesting certain regular posters here go to great lengths to write losing the Polk connection won't noticeably burden transit around freight rail without ever providing evidence to support their claims. 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. The tagline atop the PowerPoint presentation used during the public comment? "Could Chicago become the next Houston?" The speakers then stated Houston east end vehicular-pedestrian transit is a "catastrophe," especially when multiple lines are blocked simultaneously. Houston was used as a worst-case scenario that the FRA would be behooved to help Chicago avoid, not mirror. If planners at Chicago say Houston's freight rail-traffic infrastructure is catastrophically subpar and the FRA has ranked the Houston complex as the nation's most congested two years in a row, I'm going to value their opinion over someone who comments without familiarizing themself with the situation.

You're rationalizing the Polk crossing elimination on the grounds it transitions from two-way to one-way traffic beyond Avenida and the Dallas, Lamar, McKinney, and Walker connections? Those streets will not proceed beyond the GRB. I guess I'll say I doubt you are more "in tune" with the effects of this project any more than anyone else here, regardless of whether or not you even live close to the area. Anyone can look at what's added and what's lost and come to their own conclusions about this project.

So you don't concede to Polk's closure to auto traffic in the current design? You must have looked at the schematics when compiling the list of cross streets for the other poster, right?

Cool! So you now agree Polk will be closed. Took a long time to reach this moment.

If you aren't aware of what's closed or not, why bother telling the other commenter there were no closures? Do you just jump into threads and make claims despite, as you write, "I did not actually check the design plans to see if your claim about Polk being closed was even true." Surprised to read you're ignorant about the closure, as you've engaged in discussion about this exact segment and it on this thread for quite some time. What exactly about my claim is erroneous? Please tell me. Traffic will be directed onto Leeland, as you confirmed above. If drivers aren't aware of the need to jag, they will continue straight. That's natural. It already happens now, and will worsen when Polk closes. There are currently years-long impacts to significant thoroughfares in greater Montrose, Heights, yet drivers still take and complain about those impacts on this forum, ND, and social media. Those areas also have comprehensive street grids, with access to a parallel major street from the impacted one just a few blocks away. Those projects even have signage warning drivers of imminent delays or stoppages many blocks in advance, yet they still proceed forward. Why would you expect any different in the east end?

So your comment confirms there is a street closure, making of your prior claim erroneous. If you think drivers unfamiliar with the area are going to know to make the jag, you’re kidding yourself.

Some photos, from a now-removed for-sale listing. Obviously will stay bottling, but long-term potential is there being near the light rail, Columbia Tap, and so forth.

If the mods could move this to the east end forum, I'd appreciate it. I pulled the trigger too quickly.

The bottling facility on Leeland at Milby, which operated under the LLC Caledonia Water Co., has been seemingly vacant for some time. What used to be a full parking lot now has one, maybe two cars occasionally. The LLC lapsed in 2022. The property was once put up for sale and lease by HCAD-listed owner Jane Nguyen (also the now-lapsed water LLC's officer, president, and director) on myriad web sites. Recently, it was pulled. https://www.showcase.com/3719-leeland-st-houston-tx-77003/23772485/ https://www.crexi.com/properties/680523/texas-industrialcommercial-warehouses-house-land-for-sale On Dec. 7, permits for this location were on file at CoH for Aragoso, a Maryland-based wholesale distributor of Brazilian beer, wine, and spirits. Aragoso has US-based locations in Florida and Texas, per its web site: https://aragosotexas.com/home/ The Texas region does not currently list Houston.

That's not true at all. I don't typically find value in entering this commentary, as this project is happening so bickering is pointless. But you're disregarding facts you clearly know as you've engaged in discourse about them above. Polk, one of only three east end connector streets to downtown with a rail separation, will be closed to auto traffic. Traffic will be pushed to Leeland and ultimately hit an at-grade crossing for a rail line that is subject to up to 75 trains daily. That means it's blocked for half the day in the optimal scenario in which trains clear the intersection in 10 minutes or so, common on the west side. That's not the case on the east side, so more than half the day this crossing is blocked with by trains, whether moving or stopped completely.

I wonder if both are correct, in the sense the underpass is a city project rather than a TxDOT one? The new underpass at Commerce as well as the rebuilt one at Navigation -- pieces of the so-called West Belt improvement project -- are city projects and don't appear on the 45 realignment schematic posted above, despite those roads providing highway access.

I agree if they're committed to the same power, they'd have to use their own lines. Where I disagree is the Amtrak not building part. The newly announced partnership between the two seems rather pointless if Amtrak isn't going to pursue new lines. It's been vocal that the current track-sharing agreement is untenable, and TC likely sees Amtrak as a route to federal dollars.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/austin-san-antonio-passenger-rail-18538394.php Not to further belabor the points I made above regarding posts in this thread and a few others about Galveston that passenger rail can just share existing freight lines, but I saw the following graf in a story about San Antonio-Austin passenger rail. Currently, UP and BNSF categorically won't support sharing trackage rights with passenger rail since their new business models are designed to utilize longer trains to carry the same freight without building the infrastructure to support them. Thus, they extend onto main lines (and, resultingly, public streets) while waiting to enter yards or for others to pass. This saves personnel and capital improvement costs. The UP network development general director was invited to a passenger rail forum in the valley, where he responded the company is not in the business of passenger rail and won't support it on its lines when asked about cross-border passenger rail. For any passenger rail to work here, where Amtrak or similar doesn't have an ownership stake in the lines upon which it operates, it'd have to be a new build.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2023/11/29/austin-mayor-travels-to-washington-asks-for-federal-transit-funds/71740815007/ Austin Mayor Kirk Watson traveled to the nation's capital Wednesday and made a plea for federal money to improve Texas' transit system.

When you've lived the Midtown Greyhound experience and read people state an uptick in enforcement will help, that's telling us they don't grasp the full context of the situation without actually writing so. Adding more police won't do much, as you can't arrest people for existing in the public space. Greyhound will hire security for its property, which is private. Those with nowhere to go, whether by choice or lack of means, will move to the street. A look back to the social safety net or lack of it. Our legal system doesn't permit arrest for simply existing in the public space. Police can't and won't do anything for non-illicit activities. Camping, sleeping, squatting, or whatever you want to call it in the public realm will be touch and go, as it is nationwide. A heavy hand risks harsh penalties. Drug use, etc, may rise or fall. It comes in spades, as fast as law enforcement can catch the people preying upon those folks. Couple that with the steady stream of feeders and new busloads of people, and you very easily could get a repeat situation.

As someone who owns property near the Midtown Greyhound and in the East End, I suggest you venture over to the encampment. Not a one-time visit for a few hours, but a prolonged period so you can see the whole picture. There are people with an end destination, and they disembark just like any other person. There are unhoused people looking for room, and the service providers often house them quickly. There are those just released from a detention center with nowhere to go since their family didn't show as well as those with mental illness and other problems keeping them from accepting housing or otherwise functioning. Those groups end up loitering around for days or months. There are also folks who use the station to prey upon those with mental illness or nowhere to go, and they return every day. They sell sex, drugs, fake drugs laced with fentanyl, etc. You'll see a gambit of legal and illicit activities, street feeding frequency and trash resulting from it, outreach from well-meaning folk, rape, drug use, defecating in people's yards, etc. Let's not forget the panhandling that will develop to pay for those items or services being sold by the group. You are right, Greyhound is not the root cause of the issues plaguing the Midtown station -- it was just the transit operator. There are many factors involved, and it's a reflection of the social safety net or lack thereof in this nation. Cities in other states rave in media interviews about sending their homeless to Houston (I'll let you be the judge on the merits of those actions). The people in Midtown were not solely localized homeless populations. They were bused in, a recurring cycle. But the people it carries have reasons (sometimes by choice, they decline housing in favor of street hustling) for being where they are. Having lived the experience versus driving by en route to destinations elsewhere, I can tell you what happened in Midtown can very easily happen along Harrisburg. If anything, the two are more similar than different. Small parcels not designed to support large groupings of people for prolonged periods next to light rail lines. Also ample gas stations and fast food for use. The overpass claim from the other poster is unique, as many are nearby. Not traditional highway ones, but the road-rail separations and the Harrisburg overpass.

The Amtrak partnership provides a pathway to securing federal infrastructure funding. If the first two years of the BIL grant awards indicate what's needed in future years, matching funds from local entities may be required. Thus, the MOU would have to change. https://media.amtrak.com/2023/09/amtrak-awarded-nearly-200m-in-federal-grants/ "A combination of funds from Amtrak, the states of Mississippi, and Louisiana, the Alabama Port Authority, CSX Transportation, and Norfolk Southern Railway will provide a 20 percent non-Federal match."

The Milby addresses listed earlier are 110 Milby and 10 N. Milby. They are at Milby, near Commerce -- across the tracks in Second Ward. Based on the developer-provided description, they may not be included in this project. There's a big distance between them and the rest of the parcels.

Be mindful the Gano and Gentry addresses are in Near Northside, while the Milby ones are across the tracks in Second Ward. Unless this project is more transformative than I imagine, they may not be included in the East Blocks development.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/east-downtown-houston-eado-mixed-use-project-18488768.php#photo-24444325 "East Blocks would be built in multiple phases over the next three years, starting with Phase One in the second quarter 2024, according to Pagewood. Designed by architecture firm Gensler, phase one redevelops half a million square feet, including 196,0000 square feet for retail and restaurants; 112,000 square feet for offices; and 650 parking spaces. Phase two will include more restaurants and retail. The adaptive reuse would convert former railways into four connected city blocks of green space. The existing Bastrop promenade would be improved to include room for events, farmer’s markets and fitness classes. An alley would connect three buildings along Hutchins and McKinney." All looks good, but the former railways sentence is confusing. I am not aware of any former railway lines remaining on the EaDo side now the Walker line has been removed. On the Second Ward side, many remain. Only thing I can imagine is the few-block stretch of Velasco, which runs parallel to and ultimately dead-ends at the Columbia Tap trail. That is former RR ROW. Hutchins at Commerce, near the Dynamo stadium, is very much an active railroad line. It's where the UPRR Galv Sub and West Belt emerge from the UPRR Congress Yard.

This building now has a fifth notice stating appropriate permits must be obtained.

Chron piece on the same issue as the above Biz Journal one. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/astros-minute-maid-ballpark-village-houston-18459743.php

Yeah, I saw that, too. The people reverse-parking the vehicles in the bike lanes were wearing stadium polos.