Texas Medical Center Tollway Through Hermann Park

[TheNiche]

Honestly, I'm confused about this too. On multiple levels. This was not a very clear article, and it goes against my understanding of toll road finance. (Not that I couldn't be wrong or anything. Its happened before.)

And please don't construe my statement about infrastructure as only applying to highways. It could just as easily apply to light rail lines, water line replacements, or flood control projects. Financial analysts have to make quantitative estimates to justify a project. Sometimes they get it very wrong.

I'd like to see HCTRA changed up a little so that each toll facility is operated and financed independently as separate bankruptable entities, whereby the risk is isolated and obtaining external financing requires the harsh scrutiny of an investor exposed to project-specific risks. On the one hand, I think that that would increase HCTRA's cost of capital; on the other, it would make their analyses more trustworthy relative to an entity that is financially backed-up by the entire county's tax base.

As for referendums, I question their appropriateness in many many circumstances. Unless we're fundamentally changing a system of governance, I'd much rather leave these kinds of decisions to elected officials.

[mfastx]

And please don't construe my statement about infrastructure as only applying to highways. It could just as easily apply to light rail lines, water line replacements, or flood control projects. Financial analysts have to make quantitative estimates to justify a project. Sometimes they get it very wrong.

Don't worry Niche I was just kidding around, hah. You know me, I am generally in favor of all proposed infrastructure projects.

I'd like to see HCTRA changed up a little so that each toll facility is operated and financed independently as separate bankruptable entities, whereby the risk is isolated and obtaining external financing requires the harsh scrutiny of an investor exposed to project-specific risks. On the one hand, I think that that would increase HCTRA's cost of capital; on the other, it would make their analyses more trustworthy relative to an entity that is financially backed-up by the entire county's tax base.

Hmm well I for one believe that toll roads should only be used in situations where there is a lot of traffic. In most instances, toll booths are a measure to control traffic (or so I've been taught). Freeways should be free for the most part, but for high traffic areas, tolling can be effective.

Interesting idea though. If I remember correctly, you are in favor of converting all freeways to tollways? So, in essence, every highway would be their own entity? Interesting idea.

As for referendums, I question their appropriateness in many many circumstances. Unless we're fundamentally changing a system of governance, I'd much rather leave these kinds of decisions to elected officials.

Completely agree.

[TheNiche]

Hmm well I for one believe that toll roads should only be used in situations where there is a lot of traffic. In most instances, toll booths are a measure to control traffic (or so I've been taught). Freeways should be free for the most part, but for high traffic areas, tolling can be effective.

I really don't care how much traffic there is. If the cost of the infrastructure will be paid for directly by users and can be externally financed, then by all means, build it.

Interesting idea though. If I remember correctly, you are in favor of converting all freeways to tollways? So, in essence, every highway would be their own entity? Interesting idea.

THAT should require a referendum. But...yes, and I'd even be willing to implement that idea as it pertains to surface thoroughfares. This would replace the gas tax (and then some). I believe that it would encourage commuters and companies to adopt more flexible schedules, spread out the peak traffic load, encourage carpooling, bicycling, walking, and transit use, and the geographic matching-up of workplaces with households in terms of distance.

If you stop socializing the high cost of transportation, people will live more efficiently. But the other part of it is that by defining each segments within the regional Major Thoroughfare & Freeway Plan as individual candidates for toll financing, a HUGE amount of money could be raised very quickly from the private sector. I'd like to see that money put into as an endowment managed by the state and allocated to the localities impacted by the toll conversion on the pro rata basis of revenue. Let the localities figure out what they want to do with the money. Perhaps they want transit, perhaps they want parks, perhaps they want flood control improvements, perhaps they want aid for the poor, perhaps they want lower taxes. Whatever. Different parts of Texas have different priorities; it should be up to them.

[mfastx]

THAT should require a referendum. But...yes, and I'd even be willing to implement that idea as it pertains to surface thoroughfares. This would replace the gas tax (and then some). I believe that it would encourage commuters and companies to adopt more flexible schedules, spread out the peak traffic load, encourage carpooling, bicycling, walking, and transit use, and the geographic matching-up of workplaces with households in terms of distance.

I'd bet that there will be a TON of opposition to that idea. People won't like the idea of paying tolls pretty much every major street they drive on.

On the plus side, you're right that would really change our car oriented culture in the city, encouraging more pedestrian friendly development, transit use, and other positive externalities.

If you stop socializing the high cost of transportation, people will live more efficiently. But the other part of it is that by defining each segments within the regional Major Thoroughfare & Freeway Plan as individual candidates for toll financing, a HUGE amount of money could be raised very quickly from the private sector. I'd like to see that money put into as an endowment managed by the state and allocated to the localities impacted by the toll conversion on the pro rata basis of revenue. Let the localities figure out what they want to do with the money. Perhaps they want transit, perhaps they want parks, perhaps they want flood control improvements, perhaps they want aid for the poor, perhaps they want lower taxes. Whatever. Different parts of Texas have different priorities; it should be up to them.

Sounds interesting, but I'm having trouble understanding where all of this money would come from. Why would the private sector be so interested in funding this? Most sections in your proposal will still most likely lose money, especially considering how sparse most of Texas is.

This could also lead to a divided city (literally). For example, one neighborhood might have good transit, and another one might have good roads, etc. but I wouldn't imagine that there would be good connectivity. Unless you envision entire cities being "segments," there would have to be some type of master plan for major cities.

[Trae]

Wait a second... Is the proposal that a tollway should be built within the floodway of Brays Bayou? That would actually be a fairly interesting proposal. That'd be a fairly interesting concept, adding to stormwater throughput, detention capacity, and increasing speeds while reducing road noise through the area.

This sounds a lot like the Trinity River Tollway proposal in Dallas. Planned to be built in the middle of the Trinity River Floodplain, right next to the proposed Trinity River Park. It is not expected to get that much traffic and many in Dallas believes it is just one big money grab by politicians and corporations. In other words, its a stupid idea, just like this TMC Parkway.

[KinkaidAlum]

It's 5:41 pm on a stormy and dark day. I am looking down at Holcombe, Cambridge, Almeda, and MacGregor/Braeswood. There is virtually NO traffic. Holcombe is flowing smoothly all the way to 288. Cambridge Street is virtually empty (I see 9 cars and 1 METRO bus between Holcombe and OST). The only place where there is "traffic" is at the intersection of OST and Almeda. I've been watching and it is taking folks driving South on Almeda 1 full light cycle to get through the intersection.

And, as for the preposterous notion that as long as a road will be paid for by users it shouldn't matter how little traffic there is or what the side effects may be, we should build it.... well, I hardly even know how to respond. The obvious first response is there is ZERO guarantee users will be able to pay for this flyover. In fact, if there's virtually no traffic at 5:40 pm on a rainy evening during a shift change at the TMC, then I think it would be reasonable to assume this proposal will be a financial dud.

Again, this has boondoggle written all over it. As critical as you have been against the light rail, I should be shocked that you'd be willing to support this proposal. However, your patterns of posting are far more predictable than mine.

[Subdude]

Since there is no coherent explanation of how flyovers at MacGregor and 288 would actually fix the purported Medical Center congestion, I stick with the theory that the whole traffic explanation is a red herring, tossed out there to convince the gullible. Let’s face it, if TXDOT were to come out and say that investing in magic beanstalks would eliminate traffic congestion, you can bet that they would find a sizable portion of the public ready to buy into it.

At the end of the day, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and traffic engineers gotta propose big construction projects (until they die?). It doesn’t necessarily mean that the ideas are 100% serious, but I think sometimes there is an element of throwing stuff out there just to see what sticks.

Remember the proposal a few years back to build a toll road through Memorial Park? I would file this idea right along with that one.

[TheNiche]

I'd bet that there will be a TON of opposition to that idea. People won't like the idea of paying tolls pretty much every major street they drive on.

On the plus side, you're right that would really change our car oriented culture in the city, encouraging more pedestrian friendly development, transit use, and other positive externalities.

Yeah, I'm sure of it. This is my pipe dream. The funny thing is that if you replace the gas tax with a congestion-priced toll, then gas prices appear to go down and people spend less time sitting in congestion, thereby lowering their out-of-pocket costs and saving them their time (even before they realize the effect of market-priced infrastructure and begin factoring in the full cost of a commute into their lifestyle). It works out in so many ways... Oh well...

Sounds interesting, but I'm having trouble understanding where all of this money would come from. Why would the private sector be so interested in funding this? Most sections in your proposal will still most likely lose money, especially considering how sparse most of Texas is.

This could also lead to a divided city (literally). For example, one neighborhood might have good transit, and another one might have good roads, etc. but I wouldn't imagine that there would be good connectivity. Unless you envision entire cities being "segments," there would have to be some type of master plan for major cities.

Each segment of roadway would generate a stream of revenue. A regional transportation authority could own it and administer congestion pricing, then, once the process has been established and stabilized and a revenue-appropriate MTFP agreed upon, the rights to those streams of revenue could be sold off to private investors. I'd suggest that those rights be limited to something like ten-year increments, but bids could be solicited for many different terms; we'd sell to the bidder with the highest spread between our forecasted rate of return and returns on treasury securities.

As for rural Texas, if there will no doubt be many roads for which revenue cannot possibly match the costs--at any pricing scheme. When there aren't bidders, the state should yield responsibility for upkeep to the counties. (I do think that there are many rural highways that should never have been paved. Gravel should've been well enough.)

-----------------

Kinkaid, why didn't you look over where I specifically identified there being a problem in the afternoons, at Fannin & 610? Why didn't you look at Almeda & OST this morning?

Subdude, since there is no coherent proposal, I stick with the theory that traffic congestion exists in certain places at certain times (as is my direct observation), that that is generally undesirable, and that a study of the circumstances and the alternatives would be worthwhile. Also--I actually quite like the idea of a toll road through Memorial Park, properly implemented...meaning that it'd probably be very expensive, and probably wouldn't fly. It's still an alternative worth thinking about.

[samagon]

If the area could benefit from better access, then the answer is to create better access to the existing light rail, and put in higher capacity cars. Charge a daily fee to park at reliant, and you ride the rail for free (or it is built into the parking cost) if there is a big enough demand, I'd bet companies would buy blocks of parking/rail for reduced rate and give or sell cheap to their employees.

Hell, lets knock down the dome to build a parking structure for them and create a flyover from 610 directly into the structure. This would reduce the need for direct access to tmc and lower congestion both to and in tmc. It would also keep the current greenspace green.

Otherwise what about a second story on ost? Bottom is what is currently there, top would be the bypass, it could be called ost elevated, or maybe ost viaduct, Houston doesn't have enough viaducts.

[IHB2]

one of the nicest things about Hermann Park is there isn't a freeway near it. an elevated, high speed highway from 288 into a corner of the park is an environmental game changer for the area. major fail. maybe we could throw up some 50s/60s era Soviet high rise architecture in the area while we're at it to increase density, walkability, and match the brutality of the roadway architecture...

[SkylineView]

After much consideration, I believe this item to be a complete red herring. I think it was tossed into the mix under the belief that SOMETHING about the 288 toll lanes would rile SOMEONE up, and with that in mind, this could be the scape-goat. This will be the one item on which they defer, and give in to the masses, thus ensuring the future of the rest of the project... and giving up something that no one ever really wanted in the first place. Well played America, well played.

Seriously though, given all of the traffic hell holes in this city, this project makes no sense.

[MaxConcrete]

If you look at a document posted for the June 22 Transportation Policy Council meeting, the text "At Texas Medical Center via MacGregor Way" has been striked out and replaced with text "SH 288 To Texas Medical Center"

http://www.h-gac.com/taq/commitees/TPC/2012/06-jun/docs/ITEM%2006%20--%20Attachment%20A1.Candidate%20Projects%20for%20$2Billion%20-%206-20-12.pdf

So it appears the MacGregor alignment is moribund or dead, but it is unclear what the "plan B" may be.

The project appears to be alive and well since the Texas Transportation Commission officially authorized $18 million in funding on June 28 for SH 288 "Connector to Texas Medical Center". Curiously, the from-to limits are blank.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf

The Commission also funded an overpass for Cambridge Street over Loop 610: "Extend Cambridge Street over IH 610 with bell connectors", $21.9 million

[TheNiche]

What are bell connectors?

[MaxConcrete]

What are bell connectors?

Bell connectors would normally refer to connections on a trumpet-style interchange, which is rarely used in Texas and not normally used in urban areas.

See the link below and find the word "bell".

http://dot.state.il.us/desenv/BDE%20Manual/BDE/pdf/Chapter%2037%20Interchanges.pdf

But I don't see how a trumpet interchange will fit in the space available without right-of-way acquisition and displacements. I'm guessing eastbound traffic on IH 610 would have the smooth curving transition to northbound Cambridge. Southbound Cambridge to eastbound IH 610 would probably not have a connection.

[woolie]

TXDOT scheduled a public meeting on Jan 24th at 6pm at DeBakey HS. We received a letter in the mail. Somewhat hoping they make it a big project with ROW acquisition on MacGregor.

[JLWM8609]

TXDOT scheduled a public meeting on Jan 24th at 6pm at DeBakey HS. We received a letter in the mail. Somewhat hoping they make it a big project with ROW acquisition on MacGregor.

Thanks for the info. I was wondering about any public meetings and didn't see anything about this on TxDOT's website yet. I'll probably be there.

[KinkaidAlum]

Friends of Hermann Park members and Southampton Civic Club members received notice of the upcoming meeting.

I'll be there. I'd imagine Old Braeswood, Southgate, Boulevard Oaks, Broadacres, and more have been alerted.

[JLWM8609]

Friends of Hermann Park members and Southampton Civic Club members received notice of the upcoming meeting.

I'll be there. I'd imagine Old Braeswood, Southgate, Boulevard Oaks, Broadacres, and more have been alerted.

It's funny that the Southampton Civic Club members received notice of the meeting, but people closer to 288 in civic clubs such as the South MacGregor Civic Club haven't received a notice. I checked TxDOT's website and there's no mention of the meeting. I had to call the Houston District office to get the info. It's like TxDOT doesn't want to publicize this very much when compared to things like the 290 Project.

[kdog08]

It's funny that the Southampton Civic Club members received notice of the meeting, but people closer to 288 in civic clubs such as the South MacGregor Civic Club haven't received a notice. I checked TxDOT's website and there's no mention of the meeting. I had to call the Houston District office to get the info. It's like TxDOT doesn't want to publicize this very much when compared to things like the 290 Project.

I'm not sure what you mean, they contacted everyone that matters!

[KinkaidAlum]

It's funny that the Southampton Civic Club members received notice of the meeting, but people closer to 288 in civic clubs such as the South MacGregor Civic Club haven't received a notice. I checked TxDOT's website and there's no mention of the meeting. I had to call the Houston District office to get the info. It's like TxDOT doesn't want to publicize this very much when compared to things like the 290 Project.

I live in Southampton. The email was sent by our President of the SCC. It wasn't sent by TxDOT.

Whoever runs your Civic Club isn't on the ball.

I also received an email today from the Friends of Hermann Park.

[JLWM8609]

I'm not sure what you mean, they contacted everyone that matters!

Yep, those of us here in Riverside don't matter despite the meeting being held at a school in our neighborhood, and never mind the project being located less than a mile from many residents of our neighborhood.

I live in Southampton. The email was sent by our President of the SCC. It wasn't sent by TxDOT.

Whoever runs your Civic Club isn't on the ball.

How did the President of your civic club receive notice of the meeting? TxDOT or the Friends of Hermann Park or some other agency must have sent him or her the info. Why inform the Southampton Civic Club which lies some 2 to 3 miles away from this proposed project and not inform a Civic Club which has homes only 1/3 mile away from the site of the proposed project? Sounds like whomever is disseminating the info about the public meeting is the one who is not on the ball.

Like I said before, there's not even a notice about the public meeting on TxDOT's website.

But, the South MacGregor Civic Club is now aware of the January 24th meeting at DeBakey, and its members will be there.

[IHB2]

Yep, those of us here in Riverside don't matter despite the meeting being held at a school in our neighborhood, and never mind the project being located less than a mile from many residents of our neighborhood.

How did the President of your civic club receive notice of the meeting? TxDOT or the Friends of Hermann Park or some other agency must have sent him or her the info. Why inform the Southampton Civic Club which lies some 2 to 3 miles away from this proposed project and not inform a Civic Club which has homes only 1/3 mile away from the site of the proposed project? Sounds like whomever is disseminating the info about the public meeting is the one who is not on the ball.

Like I said before, there's not even a notice about the public meeting on TxDOT's website.

But, the South MacGregor Civic Club is now aware of the January 24th meeting at DeBakey, and its members will be there.

Having been deeply involved in the LRT Univ Line circus from 2005 - present, I will confirm kinkaid alum's point - if you want to know what's going on about anything that may affect your neighborhood you have to have a proactive civic club and the president has to establish consistent 2 way communication and demand that the local, state, and fed elected political representatives for your neighborhood provide updates.

Just having a civic club is not enough.

Their staffs are the info source, but they won't call you...

[house567]

I hope to hear ALL of the armchair respondents January 24, 2013, 6-8 pm, DeBakey HS.

Why doesn't TMC Inc. decentralize and move to their patients and employees? Why don't they re-develop the Astroworld ground?

Perhaps the parking garage revenue is just too tempting.

2007 IRS Form 990, for TMC Inc. listed parking garage revenues at 28.9 million dollars. I'm not a forensics accountant, but I cannot for the life of me find parking garage revenue information in subsequent years filings of form 990's by TMC Inc.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING

SH 288 DIRECT CONNECTOR TO THE TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) will hold a public meeting regarding design alternatives for the proposed SH 288 Direct Connector to the Texas Medical Center in the City of Houston, Harris County, Texas. The public meeting will be an open house format, no formal presentation, and will be held as follows:

Thursday, January 24, 2013

6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

The Cafeteria of Michael E. DeBakey High School For Health Professions

3100 Shenandoah

Houston, TX 77021

The purpose of the meeting is to present the design alternatives and to gather public input. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve access to the Texas Medical Center from SH 288.

The meeting will be structured in an Open House format, and exhibits illustrating the proposed alternatives will be displayed for viewing from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. All interested persons are invited to attend this public meeting. Representatives from TxDOT and their study team will be available to answer individual questions. Public comments are encouraged. Information regarding this project is on file and available for viewing at the TxDOT Houston District Office, 7600 Washington Avenue, Houston, Texas 77007.

[ig2ba]

...Why doesn't TMC Inc. decentralize and move to their patients and employees? Why don't they re-develop the Astroworld ground?

Perhaps the parking garage revenue is just too tempting. ...

I'm not sure I understand your proposal. You seem to be suggesting that member hospitals of the TMC abandon their infrastructure which they have invested billions in, abandon the infrastructure which has been built around them (Red Line, underpasses at Holcombe), forget that apartment towers have built up around them for med students and doctors, and get closer to workers at ... the Astrodome? The South Loop? Somewhere else?

Maybe a look at the TMC's long term plan will answer some of your questions. If not, could you please clarify?