Houston Intermodal Transit Center

[mfastx]

Such a waste... I don't see the point in putting so much into a structure that will serve so little.

Not sure it's going to serve Amtrak.. Don't see why they'd go through the expense of adding track over a bayou and moving a station a couple hundred yards, all for a train that rolls through town 3 times a week.

It will serve 1 LRT line only, and buses..... and some CRT 15 yrs down the line, maybe.

Well it is going to serve alot more if all goes to plan (which I admit, it probably won't). It is supposed to serve Amtrak, and Amtrak is going to increase the train through Houston to a daily service, so it's two trains a day (one in each direction) every day. Alot more than three times a week. Plus, if Houston ever gets to sniff high speed rail, it is probably going to go to the Intermodal Terminal.

The location is crappy.

No argument there.

I think these renderings are a bit far-fetched. I mean is this even feasable? One can only hope I guess.

Edited January 4, 2011 by mfastx

[kylejack]

I suggested this awhile back on the Post Office thread ....felt the idea bares reiterating on this thread.

Prerequisite for getting that lot is building another post office somewhere else, so that could be really expensive. Meanwhile, they already have an empty lot where they demolished a warehouse.

[samagon]

Well it is going to serve alot more if all goes to plan (which I admit, it probably won't). It is supposed to serve Amtrak, and Amtrak is going to increase the train through Houston to a daily service, so it's two trains a day (one in each direction) every day. Alot more than three times a week. Plus, if Houston ever gets to sniff high speed rail, it is probably going to go to the Intermodal Terminal.

what about greyhound?

would they get out of midtown and up there?

and the mexico express buses?

and maybe even some of the casino buses?

[mfastx]

what about greyhound?

would they get out of midtown and up there?

and the mexico express buses?

and maybe even some of the casino buses?

I don't know about any of those, but I would imagine if they built such a grand structure such as this depicted in the renderings that eventually Greyhound would move up there.

[citykid09]

Such a waste... I don't see the point in putting so much into a structure that will serve so little.

Not sure it's going to serve Amtrak.. Don't see why they'd go through the expense of adding track over a bayou and moving a station a couple hundred yards, all for a train that rolls through town 3 times a week.

It will serve 1 LRT line only, and buses..... and some CRT 15 yrs down the line, maybe.

The location is crappy.

If what you are saying is true then I think this should be built in the spot where all the light rail lines meet. I thought the purpose of this place was to serve as a main hub or a central station. If this is not the case, then I think something should be reworked. Other then that, this design is TOO COOL! It will be one of those buildings that people will think of when they think of Houston. Its a game changer in redefining how people view the city.

Edited January 5, 2011 by citykid09

[LTAWACS]

It'll be our own little hobo trail of tears. We can call it the "Trail of Beers" but only because that sounds better than "Trail of Mad Dog 20/20."

Awesome.

Oh and the renderings are cool too.

[samagon]

If what you are saying is true then I think this should be built in the spot where all the light rail lines meet. I thought the purpose of this place was to serve as a main hub or a central station. If this is not the case, then I think something should be reworked. Other then that, this design is TOO COOL! It will be one of those buildings that people will think of when they think of Houston. Its a game changer in redefining how people view the city.

since all LR lines don't all meet at one specific location, this would be difficult, but IIRC it will intersect one of the lines (north).

it would be cool though to have a kind of wayne tower (like in the new batman movies) where all of the lines terminate.

Awesome.

Oh and the renderings are cool too.

I'm gonna have to go back and look at those renderings more closely, I didn't see the 'trail of beer' rendering at all.

Edited January 6, 2011 by samagon

[The Pragmatist]

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/west_university/news/article_0cb6c2c4-3c74-11e0-90d8-001cc4c002e0.html

Just saw an article referencing the project.

--

Perhaps coming as something of a surprise, though, was the cost related to design work for the abandoned intermodal terminal project, Burnett Plaza, once planned for north of the UH-Downtown business school — a whopping $41 million to be written off.

Describing the plans for the terminal as "grandiose" and "unachievable," Greanias said land purchased for the project remained as an asset, valued separately at $21 million.

"I'm not quite sure how it got to this point," he said of the Burnett plans. "They are lovely drawings."

--

[LTAWACS]

Abandoned? How typical.

[wxman]

***INTERMODEL TERMINAL CANCELLED*** (Mods, please combine topics. Can't find original)

http://www.yourhoust...1cc4c002e0.html

When Metro board members take a look at the transit agency's annual audit, headed to the finance committee next month, the total assets portion of the ledger will be about $168 million less than it is today.

That is the staggering amount President George Greanias told the Finance Committee on Wednesday that Metro needs to write off its books as recorded capital assets "you couldn't connect to anything we have of value."

As would be expected, near the top of the list was the ill-fated CAF contract for light-rail vehicles — found to be in violation of the federal Buy America Act. Following a recent $14 million refund, that venture still cost the agency $28 million.

Perhaps coming as something of a surprise, though, was the cost related to design work for the abandoned intermodal terminal project, Burnett Plaza, once planned for north of the UH-Downtown business school — a whopping $41 million to be written off.

Describing the plans for the terminal as "grandiose" and "unachievable," Greanias said land purchased for the project remained as an asset, valued separately at $21 million.

"I'm not quite sure how it got to this point," he said of the Burnett plans. "They are lovely drawings."

The decision to write off the capital assets — $130 million of which fall under the heading of "unrealized projects," including $61 million for Metro rail — was offered by the transit agency staff in an effort to, as Greanias described it, "more accurately and honestly reflecting what we've got, what we own, what is of value to us and what is not."

It is also an essential move, if Metro is to present a viable case for future bond sales when dealing with rating agencies, investment bankers and potential bond purchasers.

Among the other proposed write-offs from 2004 through 2009:

• The $17 million in costs related to changing light-rail contractors from Washington Group to Parsons Transportation Group;
• Work performed by contractor PTG during the Washington-Parsons transition that was listed as a $7 million asset, even though a review found the work that it did was redundant;
• A category called "program initiation," consisting of the $9 million cost of a proposed change that would have made part of the system bus-rapid-transit, rather than light rail. The plans were changed back for a variety of reason, including a lawsuit that claimed the move violated the 2003 referendum;
• Engineering studies on "unrealized projects" totaled $16 million that, among other things, involved about 40 revisions being sent to the Federal Transit Administration. In Greanias' words, "You couldn't connect this to anything we have of value."

Additionally, "early planning support" that involved retaining an unnamed contractor from the Main Street light-rail line project cost the transit agency $12 million.

This occurred, even though as Greanias said, "They really weren't allowed to perform any work on the new designs. I can't explain why."

The Metro chief also listed $5 million in plans that extended into 2025 that were done prior to the 2003 referendum "when we did not have a capital program," and $2 million in feasibility studies "for projects that went nowhere."

"This (last) one really perturbs me," said Greanias, referring to a proposed $5 million write-off for commercial paper and advisor's fees. "Not only did Metro borrow commercial paper, but they capitalized the cost of managing the commercial paper program."

At least as odd, $26 million in labor costs had been listed as a capital asset, rather than an operating expense. Not discussed at the meeting: whether Metro would have restate any of its audited financial statements from 2004-‘09 as a result.

The recommended write-offs will be addressed by the full board of trustees on Thursday.

[asubrt]

[kdog08]

Abandoned? How typical.

Considering that the commuter rail lines (290 and Galveston) aren't set in stone, would this scale really be necessary for a LRT and bus intermodal terminal? If you would look into what your are discussing, instead of blurting out generalizations then you would see that this is the best action due to the circumstances.

I'm all for building an intermodal terminal but lets build one that serves today's needs while leaving room for future commuter rail service.

[TheNiche]

This is fantastic! I'm glad to see this organization held to an intellectually honest accounting for its financial transgressions. I'll feel a lot better about METRO engaging in new capital expenditure once Grenias has finished cleaning house.

[roadrunner]

Wow. Can't say I'm surprised.

This is a good thing, though. Get Metro straightened out and then focus on a smart, long-term future plan. One that doesn't include a train down the middle of freaking Post Oak.

[Subdude]

Note Intermodal Terminal topics merged.

[LTAWACS]

Considering that the commuter rail lines (290 and Galveston) aren't set in stone, would this scale really be necessary for a LRT and bus intermodal terminal? If you would look into what your are discussing, instead of blurting out generalizations then you would see that this is the best action due to the circumstances.

I'm all for building an intermodal terminal but lets build one that serves today's needs while leaving room for future commuter rail service.

Welcome to Haif George Grenias!

[rsb320]

There is a Gomer Pyle-style barracks on the site today.

[DrLan34]

Intermodal Facility - Llewelyn-Davies Sahni

Bayou Drive Wall & White Oak Bayou Park

Renderings, video, and information

http://www.theldnet.com/details.php?project=Metro Intermodal

[mfastx]

Pretty strange. The renderings don't really reveal much; interesting to see if this is actually going to happen or not.

[rsb320]

Some of the steel girders are up on the elevated portion of the rail on Main (next to where the intermodel was to go).

[rsb320]

The overpass has come to ground on the southeast end. Do we know why this portion on North Main is elevated anyway?

Rather than start a new topic, what was going on with the Red Line this morning and why is it not being reported? One announcement said that there was a car (automobile) in the fountain at Main St Square and service would terminate there. We changed tracks at Greyhound and were instructed to board another train on the other platform at DT Transit Center. Then, the announcement on that platform was the polar opposite of what we'd been told whilst on the train.

At any rate, I'll stop because I'm a tad bit worked up. Question: Is Jerome Gray behind such stories not getting out?

[Nick_G]

Wow. Can't say I'm surprised.

This is a good thing, though. Get Metro straightened out and then focus on a smart, long-term future plan. One that doesn't include a train down the middle of freaking Post Oak.

I live on Sage a block from Post Oak and would love a train going up and down Post Oak. That would mean we have pedestrian/rail access to Waterwall Park, the Galleria Mall, BLVD Place, Uptown Park Shopping, and Memorial Park. Not to mention the number of office buildings on Post Oak.

A plan without a train on Post Oak is missing the whole point.

[Greens!]

I live on Sage a block from Post Oak and would love a train going up and down Post Oak. That would mean we have pedestrian/rail access to Waterwall Park, the Galleria Mall, BLVD Place, Uptown Park Shopping, and Memorial Park. Not to mention the number of office buildings on Post Oak.

A plan without a train on Post Oak is missing the whole point.

I live around there too, but I don't see why;

1) They have this love affair with putting the Light Rail in the middle of a busy street.

Main Street worked because there are numerous parallel streets that handle the traffic, but Post Oak and Richmond don't have that. It's just going to be a clusterf**k where you can't turn left (or do it easily) and everyone who isn't on the train is going to be waiting through multiple lights.

2) They need to create a garden around the tracks.

It's a waste of space and a waste of money on upkeep. How hard is it to just build a functional train that runs on tracks and stops at stations where riders pay money to ride on it?

3) They don't care to enforce the fares.

They spent all this money on creating fancy glass stations but didn't seem to bother with anything to keep vagrants from hassling people while they wait, or to systematically make sure that you can't wait on the platform without buying a ticket.

[kdog08]

I live around there too, but I don't see why;

1) They have this love affair with putting the Light Rail in the middle of a busy street.

Main Street worked because there are numerous parallel streets that handle the traffic, but Post Oak and Richmond don't have that. It's just going to be a clusterf**k where you can't turn left (or do it easily) and everyone who isn't on the train is going to be waiting through multiple lights.

2) They need to create a garden around the tracks.

It's a waste of space and a waste of money on upkeep. How hard is it to just build a functional train that runs on tracks and stops at stations where riders pay money to ride on it?

3) They don't care to enforce the fares.

They spent all this money on creating fancy glass stations but didn't seem to bother with anything to keep vagrants from hassling people while they wait, or to systematically make sure that you can't wait on the platform without buying a ticket.

1) Because it costs a lot.

2) Have you been down most of the tracks?

3) Fancy glass stations? Again have you been on the rail?

[wernicke]

Post Oak subway would make the most sense but Metro can't afford it.

[TheNiche]

Post Oak subway would make the most sense but Metro can't afford it.

Then they should wait and save up money so that they can do it right (whether elevated or subterranean). Houston will still be here when they're ready.

[kurian]

Yeah, the section through the medical center and the planned sections around the Galleria should really be elevated. It's really dumb to create one problem while trying to solve another.

[LTAWACS]

Then they should wait and save up money so that they can do it right (whether elevated or subterranean). Houston will still be here when they're ready.

Is not METRO running a deficit?

[lockmat]

Found this:

The Houston-Galveston region has been thoughtfully evaluating near-term and long-term decisions that could strategically enhance the region’s multimodal transit services. An intermodal terminal facilitating rail-to-rail, rail-to-bus and rail-to-pedestrian travel in or near Downtown Houston could provide improved regional access to this major activity center and expand important regional transit connectivity. The development and operation of this intermodal center must preserve (and if possible, enhance) existing freight rail system capacity while maximizing the integration of and access to transit services (including commuter rail, light rail, local and commuter bus, high-speed rail and other street running transit technologies).

Connectivity between transit modes within the urban core has been examined in previous studies and plans. Continued interest and recent changes in land/property availability, however, have created potentially new opportunities for locating an intermodal passenger rail facility convenient to the Downtown core area and its transit and pedestrian networks. Specifically, the United States Postal Service (USPS) has indicated that it is

interested in selling its Downtown site, which is located just east of the Amtrak Station on the Terminal Subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad (UP).

In partnership with the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO), the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the eight-county region, led this study to assess opportunities to access the former Post Office from Eureka Rail Junction in the west (see page 3) and Congress Yard in the east, while preserving (if not enhancing) freight rail capacity. This study builds upon previous public transportation planning studies and policies, including the 2008 Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study.

http://www.h-gac.com/taq/commitees/TPC/2012/10-oct/docs/ITEM%2008%20--Houston%20Intermodal%20Terminal%20%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

[lockmat]

Found this:

The Houston-Galveston region has been thoughtfully evaluating near-term and long-term decisions that could strategically enhance the region’s multimodal transit services. An intermodal terminal facilitating rail-to-rail, rail-to-bus and rail-to-pedestrian travel in or near Downtown Houston could provide improved regional access to this major activity center and expand important regional transit connectivity. The development and operation of this intermodal center must preserve (and if possible, enhance) existing freight rail system capacity while maximizing the integration of and access to transit services (including commuter rail, light rail, local and commuter bus, high-speed rail and other street running transit technologies).

Connectivity between transit modes within the urban core has been examined in previous studies and plans. Continued interest and recent changes in land/property availability, however, have created potentially new opportunities for locating an intermodal passenger rail facility convenient to the Downtown core area and its transit and pedestrian networks. Specifically, the United States Postal Service (USPS) has indicated that it is

interested in selling its Downtown site, which is located just east of the Amtrak Station on the Terminal Subdivision of the Union Pacific Railroad (UP).

In partnership with the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO), the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the eight-county region, led this study to assess opportunities to access the former Post Office from Eureka Rail Junction in the west (see page 3) and Congress Yard in the east, while preserving (if not enhancing) freight rail capacity. This study builds upon previous public transportation planning studies and policies, including the 2008 Regional Commuter Rail Connectivity Study.

http://www.h-gac.com/taq/commitees/TPC/2012/10-oct/docs/ITEM%2008%20--Houston%20Intermodal%20Terminal%20%20Executive%20Summary.pdf