Texas Central Project

[ADCS]

2 hours ago, cspwal said:

I agree we need layers of transit; local buses are useful for the last mile or 2, light rail is good for up to 8 miles, and then the commuter buses are ok for the long 20 mile drives to the suburbs, but we need something in between that is fast - going from downtown to the Galleria shouldn't take 45 minutes on public transit in a well-functioning system.

 

I was looking at the map and trying to imagine where a hybrid commuter rail/heavy transit connection could be, and I keep coming back to Westheimer from Midtown to the Galleria.  The street needs to be redone anyway, so it could be possible to do a cut and cover subway along it.  The only problem is what to do on either end after following Westheimer - that would take some thinking of where do you want to try to encourage denser development, as well as how you decrease public transit travel times 

 

 

Agreed - Westheimer and Washington are the two immediate corridors that come to mind if we were to commit to heavy rapid transit. You could link them using Travis Street, making a big U connecting the HSR station/NW Transit Center, Washington Corridor, Burnett TC, Downtown, Midtown, Montrose, Greenway, and Uptown, ending at the Hillcroft Transit Center.

 

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say ridership would be feasible.

[LBC2HTX]

On 9/14/2018 at 11:54 AM, Triton said:

 

 

Financial close?

 

" The interest-bearing loan, along with the equity provided to date (the majority coming from Texas entrepreneurs) will provide enough funding for all activities required for the project to reach financial close, according to a statement. With this injection of funds, Texas Central can move ahead on permitting, design, and engineering and to begin construction by 2019"

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/innovation/09-18-18-texas-high-speed-train-project-texas-central-loan-dallas-houston-jbic-join/#slide=0

[cspwal]

it's happening.gif

[Triton]

2 hours ago, LBC2HTX said:

 

" The interest-bearing loan, along with the equity provided to date (the majority coming from Texas entrepreneurs) will provide enough funding for all activities required for the project to reach financial close, according to a statement. With this injection of funds, Texas Central can move ahead on permitting, design, and engineering and to begin construction by 2019"

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/innovation/09-18-18-texas-high-speed-train-project-texas-central-loan-dallas-houston-jbic-join/#slide=0

Ok, thanks!

[Houston19514]

 

From a recent city presentation regarding a potential feasibility study for projects to create connectivity from the proposed High Speed Rail Station:  "Current rail/bus stations are not close enough to fully integrate with High Speed Rail.  Better integration with other transportation modes is needed for [the city] to take full advantage of the opportunities from High Speed Rail."

 

[Triton]

Update: 

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2019/02/04/texas-central-picks-up-another-partner-for-bullet.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search

 

Though I can't read it. 

 

[rechlin]

53 minutes ago, Triton said:

Update: 

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2019/02/04/texas-central-picks-up-another-partner-for-bullet.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search

 

Though I can't read it. 

 

 

Not sure if I'm allowed to copy-and-paste the article, but here is the executive summary of new news from this:

• Houston firm Resource Environmental Solutions named for doing ecological mitigation, from a press release dated today
• Project budget has apparently increased again, now at $18 billion
• Still hoping to begin construction this year and open by 2024

[cspwal]

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/02-05-19-houston-dallas-high-speed-train-eco-friendly-environmental-green/

 

Culture map wrote it up too

[Triton]

4 hours ago, cspwal said:

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/city-life/02-05-19-houston-dallas-high-speed-train-eco-friendly-environmental-green/

 

Culture map wrote it up too

That article made me more excited for this project.

[wilcal]

On 2/4/2019 at 3:32 PM, Triton said:

Update: 

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2019/02/04/texas-central-picks-up-another-partner-for-bullet.html?ana=RSS&s=article_search

 

Though I can't read it. 

 

 

Just hit escape on your keyboard before the page finishes loading. It freezes the loading of the page. The last thing loaded is the paywall stuff. 

[Luminare]

45 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

Just hit escape on your keyboard before the page finishes loading. It freezes the loading of the page. The last thing loaded is the paywall stuff. 

 

The peoples champ.

[wilcal]

1 hour ago, Luminare said:

 

The peoples champ.

 

 

It works on most sites. NYT is really hard to get just right. 

[august948]

I've had a hard time getting the esc method to work.  But, if you hit the paywall, I've had some success by viewing the page source.  It's not pretty and you have to sort through the html, but usually the text you want to read is embedded in there. 

[79ta]

seems like it may be delayed a little longer....

 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Opponents-of-Houston-Dallas-bullet-train-trumpet-13607501.php?src=hp_totn

 

Quote

Opponents of Houston-Dallas bullet train trumpet ruling that company is not a railroad

 

The planned high-speed rail project from Houston to Dallas hit a big obstacle last week in rural Leon County when a judge there declared the project’s backers did not have authority to force landowners to sell or provide access to properties.

 

 

 

 

 

[gmac]

Hallelujah!

[august948]

1 hour ago, 79ta said:

seems like it may be delayed a little longer....

 

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Opponents-of-Houston-Dallas-bullet-train-trumpet-13607501.php?src=hp_totn

 

 

 

Interesting...so the ruling is that TCR isn't a railroad and therefore isn't entitled to the legal preferences for acquiring land.  So...what if they build a mile of track and put a locomotive on it?

[Triton]

Morons. Absolute morons. 

[BeerNut]

4 hours ago, august948 said:

 

Interesting...so the ruling is that TCR isn't a railroad and therefore isn't entitled to the legal preferences for acquiring land.  So...what if they build a mile of track and put a locomotive on it?

 

Couldn't they partner with Virgin Trains...

[cougarpad]

This decision should get appealed and overturned base on lack of common sense. So if an oil company wants to lay a pipeline, they can't use eminent domain until its built? Or how about utility lines? Or better yet a toll road? They should just go ahead and start building the rest of the rail while they deal with the mess in one county. The governmental environmental study alone shows it is a railroad. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by cougarpad

[UtterlyUrban]

10 hours ago, august948 said:

 

Interesting...so the ruling is that TCR isn't a railroad and therefore isn't entitled to the legal preferences for acquiring land.  So...what if they build a mile of track and put a locomotive on it?

They should buy the one next to the baseball stadium.

 

choooo-chooo.  Instant railroad.

[Luminare]

This all seems very politically motivated. With the current laws in the books, and judicial precedent that has been laid over a couple centuries regarding the definition of a railroad this will get overturned at the first appeal. I also don't get the reps statements/claims about the railroad not able to be finished without eminent domain. That has no objective evidence to that claim and is pure subjective speculation which would never hold up in court. Furthermore, this doesn't mean that it can't begin construction, It just means that they wouldn't be able to use eminent domain, even though the legislature already passed a bill restricting the possible use of eminent domain by a company like TCR. TCR is still going to start construction on the properties it already holds. Clickbait article headline + unreasonable judicial mandate = overblown "moral" victory.

 

EDIT: Its also interesting that they say that this company isn't looking to better the land or be good stewards. They just announced the recruitment of a consultant that specializes in environmental reclamation, and by the oppositions own language they are essentially saying that the federal government, that preapproved the railroad in a draft of the environmental impact study, are liars. The whole point of going through that process (which is actually a bit ridiculous in just how much of a bureaucratic nightmare it is) is to make sure a company mitigates potential harm to the environment.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Luminare

[august948]

12 hours ago, cougarpad said:

This decision should get appealed and overturned base on lack of common sense. So if an oil company wants to lay a pipeline, they can't use eminent domain until its built? Or how about utility lines? Or better yet a toll road? They should just go ahead and start building the rest of the rail while they deal with the mess in one county. The governmental environmental study alone shows it is a railroad. 

 

Actually, it looks like what they are saying is that TCR doesn't operate any track already, therefore it isn't a railroad.  That would be more like forming a new oil company and the court denying they are an oil company until they have built a pipeline.  At any rate, it should be an easy hurdle to overcome if they have to.  But, there is plenty of history for railroads being formed and getting rights before they start building.

[BigFootsSocks]

I know it generates clicks and that’s what the Chron really needs right now, but it’s odd how much of a voice they’re giving to the opposition. Not saying they don’t deserve to get heard, but the same overly dramatic fear mongering points get multiple chances in a majority of the HSR coverage compared to any pro-HSR comment, which, a majority of the time, is usually a canned “We disagree” comment from TCR.

[cspwal]

It's possible the editor of that section lives in Grimes county and agrees with the opponents.  All papers are still put together by people

[cougarpad]

I am a conservative but I support this rail project. Our major railroads were built by investors in the 1800s. This same concept is being used for this project which is better than a government built bureaucracy. California is showing the country how not to build a line by using taxpayer money in a massive boondoggle. The Texas high-speed rail line is closer to being built than the government funded one in California. I am fine with companies who are willing to invest and build high-speed rail lines in this country. There are places where high-speed rail can beneficial while not going with the crackpot ideas of that wackjob AOC in New York. No, we do not need to replace all of our rail lines with high-speed rail and especially at the taxpayer expense as the only source of transportation. The airline industry is still much needed. Rail should be used to compliment airline travel where it is financially feasible. Oh, and we still need that interstate highway system as well for both commerce and yes the military. Once this rail line in Texas gets built maybe other private companies will want to step up with privately built lines of their own. We will have a rail building boom as we had in our past history, and just like in the past we will let capitalism and investors fit the bill for the building boom.

[cspwal]

Another point: private inter-city rail is being built in the US - the Brightline in Florida

https://www.gobrightline.com/

It goes from Miami to West Palm beach, and is being expanded towards Orlando. Virgin Trains (a private rail company in England) bought a minority share, and they bought out a company that is going to from LA to Vegas.

 

I think we need to make it so that these companies that want to try to make new trains have the opportunity to; if a company thinks they can get investors and make a business plan for a high speed train from New York to LA, let them - just don't spend $2.2 trillion of public money on it.

[cougarpad]

To bring this to our local area, I also think Metro should look to investors and private companies to help finance transportation projects. I'm fine with a company getting a few cents of every fair if they help finance a light rail project.

Edited February 14, 2019 by cougarpad

[Luminare]

Found this on one website which illustrates the follies of the CHSRA and why there has been so many delays out in Cali. Comparing this project to what has happened in Cali, it seems that this project has avoided all of these worst practices, primarily because it is a private venture without federal or state funding. I also believe in our case TCR has avoided another worst practice, being that the project be predicated on eminent domain. From the beginning TCR has stated that they wouldn't have to use it. Though it might take a bit longer to get the land that they want they would get the land and at market value (or higher). The nimby's for our project should be thanking their lucky stars that we aren't in a headache like Cali is. While there was this recent roadblock with the judge, that has nothing on the situation going on in Cali. At least TCR is still controlling their own budget, their own timeline, their own expectations, and their own land. This immediately sets it apart and makes this a project that can survive and thrive. Amazing that its also still been flying under the radar as far as the news is concerned. Everyone talks about the Cali project and its failures, but this one just keeps methodically chugging along.

 

Here is the link to the article:

 

https://www.railjournal.com/opinion/california-high-speed-deadly-mistakes

 

EDIT: Learned this while revisiting the article. If you aren't able to load it then turn off adblock.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Luminare

[cspwal]

For their original budget, California could have probably made a line that connected just LA and SF, with maybe one intervening stop - but instead they tried to stop and every county that was on the way to get political buy in, without realizing that would make the project way more expensive than it had to be.

[Luminare]

2 hours ago, cspwal said:

For their original budget, California could have probably made a line that connected just LA and SF, with maybe one intervening stop - but instead they tried to stop and every county that was on the way to get political buy in, without realizing that would make the project way more expensive than it had to be.

 

This runs exactly with:

 

"Worst Practice 1:
Legally defining project parameters in ways that can never be changed."

 

They essentially over-promised while placing that promise in a referendum that they couldn't get out of. Whoever agreed/set the terms for this was a complete fool. I'm all about ambition and vision, but you have to keep those vague in a contract so they can be expanded up or clarified later as conditions change. They instead went into detail way to fast.

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by Luminare