JClark54

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. 

13 minutes ago, Big E said:

The cities are taking the railroads to task through the FRA. That's the process they need to go through. As far as I'm concerned, that is taking them to task. 

So not themselves. We agree. 

8 minutes ago, Big E said:

So, what your telling me is that you don't actually know which one Houston can't do, so your trying to deflect? You brought it up, you should be able to elaborate. If you can't elaborate on something you brought up, that's not on me. 

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. 

9 minutes ago, Big E said:

But the FRA does. So Houston is trying to take the railroads to task over the issues by going to the federal agency that has the authority to mandate they do something about it. They are still holding the railroads accountable, they just have to go through the proper channels to do it.

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. 

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 Mods, can we (again) move the discussion about East End railroad crossings to the appropriate thread?

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.

21 hours ago, Big E said:

This is really neither here nor there to the Polk crossover issue. The issues regarding the rail lines and their idling trains already exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the NHHIP is built or not, unless separate remedies are found for them. Its really beyond the scope of the NHHIP to worry about them. The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.

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. 

1 hour ago, Big E said:

  Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension dude. I said what Chicago is LOOKING at doing, not what they ARE doing. And, yes, that is what you wrote. To quote YOU:

So yes, Chicago is proposing at potentially either regulating freight traffic or having the railroads fund grad separations.

 

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. 

1 hour ago, Big E said:

Which one? Be specific, then explain why it can't be done.

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:

21 hours ago, Big E said:

This is really neither here nor there to the Polk crossover issue. The issues regarding the rail lines and their idling trains already exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the NHHIP is built or not, unless separate remedies are found for them. Its really beyond the scope of the NHHIP to worry about them. The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.

Local entities have no authority over the railroads.

7 hours ago, Big E said:

I mean, at the end of the day, that is what it's going to come down to. Either the city takes the railroads to task for excessive idling, or the city gets around to burying the crossing roads, maybe go after the railroads to make them foot the bill for it, and both of those options are, by your admission, what Chicago is looking at doing. Either way, its an issue that is beyond the scope of the NHHIP to actually address.

 

@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? 

19 minutes ago, Big E said:

This is really neither here nor there to the Polk crossover issue. The issues regarding the rail lines and their idling trains already exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the NHHIP is built or not, unless separate remedies are found for them. Its really beyond the scope of the NHHIP to worry about them. The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.

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. 

53 minutes ago, Big E said:

Ok, so, instead of scouring the internet for the schematics, I decided to go back and take a look at the 3D presentation of the NHHIP that TxDOT posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUFK6KcBbGA

Its six years old at this point, but I don't think any drastic changes have been made to the project since to render it obsolete in regards to the portion of the project we are talking about.

Going by that video, yes the crossover at Polk is being removed. Also being removed are the crossovers at Ruiz and Runnels. But, according to that schematic, new crossovers are being added at the streets that run between Polk and Rusk (Dallas, Lamar, McKinney, and Walker). This will be achieved by extending Hamilton around the back of the convention center and cantilevering it over the freeway, thus reconnecting the two disconnected portions of that road and creating one long continuous frontage road, and the new crossovers will tie into that road, with the freeway cap being built between the crossovers. So, for the connectivity that is lost, new connectivity is gained.

@JClark54 One thing that bothers me about your claims regarding Polk, however. You claim that the loss of this road will negatively effect traffic. But Polk is a one-way street going westbound when it runs downtown beyond Avenida. So anyone trying to go Eastbound, back into EaDo will have to take Leland regardless, unless they specifically come down Avenida. Most of the traffic probably already defaults to Leland for that reason alone. The only people who will be possibly inconvenienced will be those who crossing from EaDo to downtown, but by the time they have to make the decision, the train tracks are a non-factor.

Firstly, you appear to be correct that the Leland-Bell connection is removed, but this may be mitigated if the new Leland crossing carries traffic in both directions; the only thing that would be lost would be a direct connection to Bell. And regardless if it doesn't, it's further mitigated by the fact that the Pease Street crossing remains, allowing one to still crossover into downtown, while a new connection is added at Dallas, allowing traffic to crossover and come back down to Bell or Polk.

Second, whether you personally consider the Preston connection "useless" is irrelevant. It is a connection between Downtown and EaDo and it will remain after construction is finished.

Third, I doubt you are more "in tune" with the effects of this project anymore than anyone else here, regardless of whether or not you even live close to the area. Anyone can look at what's added, what's lost, and come to their own conclusions about this project.

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.

31 minutes ago, Big E said:

St. Joseph Parkway

Jefferson Street

Pease Street

Leland Street

Bell Street

Polk Street

Rusk Street

Capital Street

Texas Avenue

Preston Street

Congress Street

Franklin Street

Commerce Street

Ruiz Street

Runnels Street

 

That's 15 cross streets. Not 10.

 

I said "Assuming your correct", genius. I didn't concede anything. Work on your reading comprehension skills.

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? 

2 hours ago, Big E said:

The only thing I said is that I didn't bother to double check your claim. Since you bothered to dispute the point, I considered that you were responding in good faith, so if I was going to clap back on it, I would have brought up the schematics and either conceded the point, or pointed out you were wrong, Simple as. Since I didn't have time to confirm one or another, I didn't concede or dispute the point. Don't get your panties in a twist.

 Been a long time since I looked at the plans. Assuming you're correct, its possible I simply forgot or overlooked the fact that Polk was closed. Oh gosh, I missed that a single street will be closed out to the 15 cross streets that cross under I-69 between the bayou and the interchange with I-45. Sue me.

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

20 hours ago, Big E said:

I did not dispute the fact that Polk would be closed in my follow up statement, and in fact, I didn't even address your claim that Polk would be closed because I did not actually check the design plans to see if your claim about Polk being closed was even true. What I did address was your actually erroneous claim that traffic would be forced to use the rail crossing at Leland instead of crossing under at Polk, which just isn't true.

And why wouldn't non-local traffic make the jaunt from Polk to Leland or vice versa? Nothing is stopping them from doing so, just like nothing is stopping them now. Its literally a difference of a few blocks.

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? 

51 minutes ago, Big E said:

Polk and Leland are literally only a few blocks from each other. The rail crossings are like half a mile's worth of blocks away from downtown. Traffic can still take Polk under the tracks, then cross to Leland at any of the other cross streets.

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. 

11 hours ago, Big E said:

Its going to be a nightmare either way because there will be years of construction. Using the expanded footprint in the East End just lowers the amount of disruption to local traffic and streets.

 

Connectivity in the East End will not be negatively effected; all currently existing cross streets will remain after the realignment and sinking of the freeway. The lack of connectivity doesn't come from the existence of the current highway, but from the existence of the convention center and Toyota Center. They aren't going anywhere, hence, the lack of connectivity isn't going anywhere, no matter what TxDOT does.

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. 

14 minutes ago, JLWM8609 said:

Are COH and TxDOT not on the same page? COH seems to still be anticipating a N. San Jacinto extension underneath the railroad and the future Providence feeder road as of April 2022.

 

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. 

6 hours ago, wilcal said:

Agreed. I can't imagine anywhere near the problems because Greyhound is a (small) part of the equation. 

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. 

18 hours ago, MaxConcrete said:

* There was discussion of the 2019 H-GAC MOU (memorandum or understanding) between H-GAC and Texas Central. The MOU mentions no public funding, and a TPC member mentioned it is obsolete and needs to be reviewed.

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."