ADCS

Ask and you shall receive: http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/04/debunking-5-myths-about-texas-high-speed-rail/390903/ TCR apparently sees its moment with the Graydon thing, and is starting its PR blitz.

Here's another interesting editorial from the DMN: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/steve-blow/20150418-blow-high-speed-train-foes-on-wrong-track.ece Hope to be there on Thursday too.

Now that's a fun game of connect-the-dots - go back the past couple of weeks and see where all the anti-rail articles and noise were coming from, and there you will have a list of Graydon's media contacts. The anti-rail side did get a lot of press relative to numbers.

I'm sympathetic to your arguments, but have to quibble here. Owing to the operational requirements of a high speed line (especially one that goes 200 mph), the utility corridor was always going to be the favored route, simply because it provides the greatest length of straightaway track.

Well, from what I've been reading in recent weeks, you've got TCR and TCP talking about partnering with the CoH and Harris County on potential commuter options, where that really wasn't on the table six months ago. I get the impression that there's been a lot of pressure from City Hall and the Harris County Courthouse on making that part of the deal. This might be UP's way of letting TCR and TCP know that this wasn't part of the deal that they had discussed with them previously, and would throw a wrench in UP's support of the project. That's admittedly speculation, but it makes sense in line with Pickett's concerns about the feasibility of TCR operating without taxpayer money. You could read that as them saying "rumor has it you're going to get some cash from the folks in Houston for commuter rail that could lead to interference with our business there. Might want to rethink that." Then again, that might be a little too much Kremlinology there.

The line parallel to 290 is a UP line. I'm wondering if they're not too thrilled about all the recent chatter about suburban and commuter rail lines.

^^ Good research there. This makes a lot more sense in context. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, was also included in the article as being skeptical. He was one of the main actors behind Prop. 1. Reading his official biography, he's a car enthusiast and collector (which doesn't necessarily mean anything). His campaign contributions are more interesting, though - while most comes from real estate, Union Pacific is a significant contributor. I wonder if that means anything.

This is a profoundly disingenuous argument. The project is five years in the making at this point, and there have been numerous opportunities for local politicians and affected citizens to become aware of the project and make their voices heard. At the end of the day, I can't help but think the primary motivation is for rural residents to get one over on urban interests, simply because they think they can.

I will say that when I'm going from the EC to somewhere inside the loop, I say i'm going "into town", but not Downtown.

Personally, when done right, I think they can add character to a developed area. Chicago's a good example of that.

Elevated structure would be an eyesore in their minds.

Think they should figure out how to somehow get Disney to take over the dome, turn it into a regional draw. They're really the only ones capable of pulling off something like the county wants. I'm only half unserious about that.

http://purple.city/2015/03/17/bank-grand-central/ This article makes a case for a public entity purchasing and banking the Grand Central site for rail-oriented development later on. Unsurprisingly, I feel it makes a strong case for the suitability of the Grand Central site as a rail hub, and the importance of the current opportunity.

Not exactly - the guy's a state legislator, so he still can do something. If the Senate is OK with TCR, then this is a bunch of hot air and bluster, and the bill will die in committee. If people are on the fence in the Senate, then this will be used as an excuse to extort campaign funds from TCR, and then it'll die in committee. Still, either way, it's bloviating and pontificating.

Removing the Columbia Tap trail would cause a riot.

I really do not understand the opposition to the land bridge. Could someone explain?

That's downtown now?

That's really cool, Luminare! Looking forward to the information that comes out in the upcoming weeks, and can't wait to hear about upcoming events and meetings.

Sure. "Representative so-and-so claims to be in favor of free market solutions to problems all Texans face together, but when the opportunity comes for a private company to solve a growing problem for this region and our state, he has shown that these are nothing but platitudes", etc.

Best bet is to get a letter to the editor printed in the Chronicle and/or DMN. People will take notice in those circumstances, far more than a phone call will permit.

Couldn't TCR just buy up the property before they vote on this bill?

If you look closely at the illustration, it appears that the structure pops over slightly to the west, as suggested, right at that spot. It's the circled area 'G'. That block is also not in the exclusion area marked by the crosshatches.

There are a couple of things that make an I-10 route into the Post Office site doable: 1. The train will likely be elevated on pylons. That means land takings will be minimized - it'll mostly be easements and air rights that are at play here. Companies will gladly allow those easements, since that means long-term payments for the right of use. 2. The train will likely be going no more than 30 mph at this point. This means tight radii are very possible on the trackage.

That's simply a suggestion. You could have the tracks suspended 16-17 ft above grade and be just fine with both the freeway and the cross streets that are at grade.

Just take them over the bridges. If the rail line is 40 ft over the road bed, that gives 20 ft over the cross bridges.