pineda Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 (edited) U.S. Toll Activity Survey 1992-2006Regarding the Grand Parkway;"Financing is unknown at this time."Harris County Commissioner's Court Agenda June 20, 20063. Harris County Public Infrastructurea. Toll Road Authority1. StatusA status report on the toll road system from Public Infrastructure is behind thePID tab. The estimated cost of the TRA five-year plan is $618.4 million. Alist is included with a map showing the major projects.The total five-year estimate does not include construction costs for threepotential joint projects with the Texas Department of Transportation. Thoseare segments of the Grand Parkway or SH 99, the Hempstead Highway fromIH 610 to Huffmeister, and Beltway 8 NE from US 59 to US 90. The countyis a partner with the state on the Katy Freeway-IH 10 reconstruction project.The county's share is $250 million. A final payment is due in June 2007.The PID report addresses a funding agreement proposal from TxDot on thethree potential toll corridors listed above. Those projects would add 81.4miles to the TRA system between 2010 and 2013 at an estimated cost of $2.1billion. TxDot's proposal seeks a single payment from the county of $1.235billion plus an undetermined percent of annual gross revenue over a period of40 years. The PID director, after consultation with court members, willprepare a response to the proposal.The funds paid to TxDot, according to the proposal, would be used "toadvance" other state projects within the five-county Houston district, whichincludes the counties of Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston, Montgomery, andWaller.(from pineda:Has anyone heard the outcome of this proposal? What did the PID director decide? I remember at the time this came out, Art Storey was outraged at this proposal, but not long afterward, Steve Radack was on the phone with Gov. Perry trying to "get things moving". Since then, I haven't heard a thing.) Edited October 30, 2006 by pineda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENGcons Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 U.S. Toll Activity Survey 1992-2006Regarding the Grand Parkway;"Financing is unknown at this time."Harris County Commissioner's Court Agenda June 20, 20063. Harris County Public Infrastructurea. Toll Road Authority1. StatusA status report on the toll road system from Public Infrastructure is behind thePID tab. The estimated cost of the TRA five-year plan is $618.4 million. Alist is included with a map showing the major projects.The total five-year estimate does not include construction costs for threepotential joint projects with the Texas Department of Transportation. Thoseare segments of the Grand Parkway or SH 99, the Hempstead Highway fromIH 610 to Huffmeister, and Beltway 8 NE from US 59 to US 90. The countyis a partner with the state on the Katy Freeway-IH 10 reconstruction project.The county's share is $250 million. A final payment is due in June 2007.The PID report addresses a funding agreement proposal from TxDot on thethree potential toll corridors listed above. Those projects would add 81.4miles to the TRA system between 2010 and 2013 at an estimated cost of $2.1billion. TxDot's proposal seeks a single payment from the county of $1.235billion plus an undetermined percent of annual gross revenue over a period of40 years. The PID director, after consultation with court members, willprepare a response to the proposal.The funds paid to TxDot, according to the proposal, would be used "toadvance" other state projects within the five-county Houston district, whichincludes the counties of Harris, Fort Bend, Galveston, Montgomery, andWaller.(from pineda:Has anyone heard the outcome of this proposal? What did the PID director decide? I remember at the time this came out, Art Storey was outraged at this proposal, but not long afterward, Steve Radack was on the phone with Gov. Perry trying to "get things moving". Since then, I haven't heard a thing.)pine, I guess I am not registering this information properly, but what exactly am I reading here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plumber2 Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 pine, I guess I am not registering this information properly, but what exactly am I reading here?yeah Pine, what gives?Several years ago (5 or maybe 7) the citizens of Santa Fe in Galveston County stopped the Grand Parkway Association cold in it's effort to route the southern portion of the tollway through Santa Fe. Even though the association visited the city council and gave the citizens an open forum, it was clear that nobody from Santa Fe or the surrounding areas were contacted before the route was drawn. It was our guess that a group from Texas City was behind this southern route.The City of Santa Fe therefore passed a resolution opposing the Grand Parkway at any location in or near it's city limits. It was thus routed north, back to it's original 1970's location through League City, crossing the Gulf Freeway near the FM 646 intersection. The Grand Parkway Association is a suspicious group that needs close watching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 TxDOT's TTC transcript from November 16th, 2006from the transcript:MR. HOUGHTON: So the constraints on you starting construction, I'm assuming this, are money, environmental?MR. GORNET: Environmental approval process right now is the constraint. Harris County has worked with some of the landowners there and we have worked with them.MR. HOUGHTON: I'm talking about the whole thing.MR. GORNET: For the whole thing it will, of course, be money, it's a significant project, but the environmental approval process is currently the constraint.MR. HOUGHTON: This may be a question for Amadeo. Is there a possibility that the northern reaches of the Grand Parkway could be TTC-69, could be, maybe, possibly?MR. SAENZ: Good morning. Amadeo Saenz, for the record, assistant executive director for Engineering Operations.The environmental studies that we're conducting for TTC-69 show some connections around Houston towards the port. They possibly could become elements of TTC-69, for example, they could become the car lanes, the regular multipurpose lanes. So all that will be determined by environmental study.MR. HOUGHTON: The other question is what is the anticipated cost of the entire Grand Parkway? Anybody put a pencil to that? Today's dollars.MR. GORNET: The current cost that's shown in HGAC's regional transportation plan is about $1.2 billion. Those cost estimates are being revised to reflect increased construction costs and being forecasted out to reflect inflation costs for time of construction, but in today's dollars, about $1.2 billion.MR. HOUGHTON: $1.2 billion for 182 miles.MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.MR. HOUGHTON: That's a bargain.MS. ANDRADE: Thank you for your report. One of my questions was what is the cost of the total project, and I'm glad to hear that you resolved some of the issues that I think at your last report some of the citizens had.MR. GORNET: Yes, ma'am.MS. ANDRADE: So thank you for working with them.MR. GORNET: Thank you.MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you also for the report, and particularly for taking the time to focus on the goals of the state and how this project supports the state reaching those goals.I have a couple of questions that are not so much focused on your project as they are on how to develop projects generally, because I think your answers will apply to some of the other large corridors that we're going to try to move forward with in the state over the next 20 years. When did the Grand Parkway Association form?MR. GORNET: 1984.MR. WILLIAMSON: And what was its mission generally in 1984?MR. GORNET: To work with TxDOT, local counties and landowners to facilitate doing the environmental work, acquiring right of way, design and ultimately towards construction of the project.MR. WILLIAMSON: And the project was known in people's heads at that time as the next outer loop of the Houston area?MR. GORNET: That's correct.MR. WILLIAMSON: Right now the footprint is having to be worked through what has become in some areas a heavily residential area.MR. GORNET: Yes, sir.MR. WILLIAMSON: Were those areas heavily residential in 1984?MR. GORNET: In 1984, no, sir, they were not.MR. WILLIAMSON: Had you chosen a route -- I want to think carefully how to put this because I don't want to lead you to the answer I want, I want you to give me the answer that makes sense -- had you been the executive director in 1984 and had you a population probability analysis available to you that offered guidance as to in which direction and at what density population would occur based upon reasonable assumptions, would you have selected the footprint -- if it were yours to select and not the environmental process, would you have selected the footprint we're currently on or would you have gone slightly further out, knowing that it was going to take you 30 years to build the entire project? If you'd have sat in 1984 and said, I know because of cash flow constraints, because of the environmental process, and because of residential growth, I won't be able to finish the project until 2020, therefore, the logical footprint to pursue would it have been further out than it is now?MR. GORNET: No. I believe that based on how development is occurring and had previously occurred, the densities that had been there, that an appropriate spacing between the major facilities, the loops around Houston, the Grand Parkway, the approximate path is appropriate, that it is the right spacing from other roads where you would have your local thoroughfares accommodating traffic immediately adjacent to where that development is but you don't want to go more than six or seven miles out beyond the prior loop.1960 in some ways functions as a loop around Houston, the 1960/Highway 6 loop, and addresses a significant amount of the travel demand there. The Grand Parkway, being out another six to eight miles past that is appropriate. If you tried to go further, you would have to expand some of the local thoroughfares to accommodate a denser trip pattern in there. So I think where we are is good. It's unfortunate that there weren't methods or techniques available to reserve the corridor earlier in the planning process, and that way, citizens as they bought homes knew that's definitely where the road is going, than us have to come in after the fact when some of this growth is already occurring. That's had a significant impact.MR. WILLIAMSON: What percentage of the growth that's occurred in the footprint has probably occurred as the result of people knowing where the footprint was?MR. GORNET: A very small percentage of the growth is within the proposed path of the highway.MR. WILLIAMSON: Maybe I asked the question wrong. I'm aware that the footprint passes close to densely populated areas that weren't even subdivided 20 years ago. How much of the siting of those densely populated areas might have been influenced by the knowledge that someday a more direct route east and west or north and south would be available?MR. GORNET: Probably a larger percentage. Fifty percent or more of some of this growth has been anticipatory of increased transportation opportunities. You might see some developments that occurred that are today on smaller roads, two-lane country roads or FM roads that need for the Grand Parkway to come in place, and those were put out there anticipating that the Grand Parkway would be developed at some time and serve their transportation needs. I think the rest of it, the balance of that has all just been opportunistic: the land was at the right price and a developer was able to go in there and do a subdivision and sell homes.MR. WILLIAMSON: Two more questions. In 1984 is there any historical record to inform us as to how long the then founding fathers and mothers of this project thought the project would take?MR. GORNET: I'd have to go back and look through the records.MR. WILLIAMSON: Did Judge Lindsay think it would take ten years? Did someone think it would take 30 years? Did your strategic plan and your tactical decisions anticipate a 30-year project?MR. GORNET: I would believe that at the time in '84 when this was being created that they would have anticipated at least a 20-year horizon for the entire project to be complete.MR. WILLIAMSON: To be complete.MR. GORNET: Yes.MR. WILLIAMSON: And then the last question, when the footprint was imagined, was it mostly rural undeveloped farm and timber land?MR. GORNET: Mostly rural undeveloped farm land, yes, sir.MR. WILLIAMSON: Now, there's an argument out there that suggests that it's more fair to expand existing footprints and take people's service stations and retail outlets than it is to lay new footprints in fertile rural Texas. Tell me one more time why the association did not elect to expand the footprint of 1960.MR. GORNET: Rather than say 1960, let's discuss maybe FM 2920 or something like that. We held discussions with the citizen groups. That was one of the alternatives that we considered. There was a fair amount of concern from the local citizens and the school districts in that they would lose their tax base. From a construction standpoint in expanding an existing route, such as 2920, besides the fact that you had to buy out commercial properties at a higher value, you also had to build continuous frontage roads in addition to the main lanes that would be there in the middle, so your cost of construction of the facility was essentially doubled than trying to buy undeveloped land on a new location and build just the main lanes there and leave the existing road in place where it is. You weren't buying that commercial property, you weren't then having a significant impact on the current tax base of the local entities.MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you for answering my questions.MR. HOUGHTON: I have another question. Is the entire loop toll viable, every segment?MR. GORNET: As stand-alone segments, I do not believe they'd all be toll viable. The entire loop, given a long enough horizon, is toll viable.MR. HOUGHTON: I mean to construct today, is it 100 percent financeable?MR. GORNET: I don't have those numbers, sir.MR. HOUGHTON: Who does?MR. WILLIAMSON: I believe that TTA and Harris County Toll Road Authority are both individually working on that, and hence, there's negotiations between TxDOT and Harris County Toll Road Authority over what is the definition of how viable it is.MR. HOUGHTON: On, what is it, I-2 that you just opened?MR. GORNET: That will open in the spring, yes, sir.MR. HOUGHTON: What's the cost of that piece?MR. GORNET: That was ten miles and a $45 million contract. Amadeo? It was let in the August meeting of 2003 and I don't remember the exact number, but it was around $4 million a mile for the construction, $4-1/2 million a mile on the construction there.MR. HOUGHTON: So Amadeo, if you can answer the question on the cross-collateralization -- maybe I shouldn't use that word -- but these facilities individually are not stand-alone facilities, 100 percent toll viable?MR. SAENZ: Staff has been looking at the entire corridor. We've been looking at segments that are ready to be developed. If you recall, I think, my presentation two meetings ago showed that one of the Grand Parkway segments was a 100 percent toll viable project -- in essence, it was a cash revenue positive project. As a whole, we've not looked at every single one of them because some of them are too far into the future because they're just in the beginnings of the environmental.The Segment I-2, we're moving forward, we're doing some re-evaluation to be able, when it opens, to look into possibly putting toll booths on that project.MR. HOUGHTON: On I-2?MR. SAENZ: On I-2.MR. HOUGHTON: The question I have is are you going to develop this under one concession model or possibly one concessionaire, or are you going to break it up?MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, we haven't made a decision about whether this is a concession or not, have we?MR. HOUGHTON: No, but I'm just thinking of the possibilities out loud.MR. SAENZ: Looking at the project as a whole, because the environmental is at such different levels of getting cleared, we will probably look into the possibility of building good usable segments that could then help cross-collateralize some of the other ones.MR. HOUGHTON: Finance the others.MR. SAENZ: But instead of delaying the project to build it until everything is environmentally cleared, it would be better to do some and then use the revenue or the concessions from that to be able to fund the other parts, as the environmental clears and we're able to build those. The environmental clearance is what normally controls the development of a project, and a project of this length that's been done in segments like that will require us to build it as different.What we're looking at now on some of our bigger projects, like Trans-Texas Corridor, we are looking at long segments that we will clear so that you can almost build a 50 or 60 or 100 mile corridor at a time. This one here was broken up into pieces because, again, this project started under our old model that we were design-bid-build and pay-as-you-go --MR. WILLIAMSON: No. Pay as you collect.MR. SAENZ: Pay as we collect, that's right. So we would develop those projects based on small pieces so that we could build those as quickly as we could.MR. HOUGHTON: Just thinking out loud, this looks ripe for a developer to develop this project and finance the whole thing instead of piece-mealing it -- like you said, the old model -- if you had one developer develop the entire project.MR. SAENZ: We will look into that. And of course, we have been talking to HCTRA. This is one of the projects that we've been in communication with HCTRA but it's only for one piece and not the entire corridor.MR. HOUGHTON: That's the piecemeal effect we've been used to over the years.MR. SAENZ: Yes, sir. And the reason being is that one piece is a lot closer to being able to get it to construction.MR. WILLIAMSON: Wait, don't leave. More?MR. HOUGHTON: That's enough.MR. WILLIAMSON: My colleague asked if the corridor was toll viable, and my question is is it tax viable.MR. SAENZ: No, sir.MR. WILLIAMSON: Which is more viable?MR. SAENZ: Which is more viable?MR. WILLIAMSON: The reason I ask the question, Amadeo, and the reason I asked you those questions unexpectedly, David -- I didn't mean to catch you off guard -- the session will begin soon, and I think it's important for those who watch what we do for us to share with them the most basic choices that have to be made, and if we don't always ask the question is this road tax viable, is it transit viable, and is it toll viable, if we just leave that void, that void will be filled with the assumption that it's tax viable. And I just think it's real important for us to really begin to focus on the choices that the commission and that local governments have.If the taxes collected or generated on Segment E will only pay for 16 percent of the road, we need to say that it is not a 100 percent tax viable road. If the tolls collected on Segment E will only generate 40 percent of the cost, we need to say that, that it's not a 100 percent toll viable road, it is, however, twice as cash flow positive as a toll road than it is as a tax road. And in recognition of the most significant event of the day today, public transportation, we also need to begin to ask the question: What is the cash flow viability if we didn't build a road and instead built a light rail, or whatever other alternative was available to us to move the people and goods that need to be moved in that part of the state.MR. HOUGHTON: I have one more question. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Could an RMA finance this project?MR. SAENZ: I'll defer to Bob -- I'll probably get it wrong -- but the project goes through several counties in and around the region where we have HCTRA and there was some legislation that would allow the county toll road authority to transfer their assets to an RMA. What I don't remember -- and I'll ask Bob to correct me -- is if an RMA can be formed within this region because of the HCTRA designation.MR. HOUGHTON: It can?MR. JACKSON: It can.MR. SAENZ: Yes, it can. At one time it couldn't.MR. WILLIAMSON: Big Bob Jackson, Johnny on the spot.MR. SAENZ: Thank you, Bob. So yes, sir, an RMA can form and build this project.MR. WILLIAMSON: Other questions, members?(No response.)MR. WILLIAMSON: We do very much appreciate your hard work. I've been on the commission six years now and I think the first time I got a chance to make the report, I was obviously at that time uninformed about the project and I asked, in retrospect, what were some pretty stupid questions or some uninformed questions. And you've done well managing this project under difficult circumstances, and we appreciate it.MR. GORNET: Thank you, sir.MR. HOUGHTON: Congratulations.MR. GORNET: Thank you all.MS. ANDRADE: Thanks very much.-and from today's Houston Chronicle story by Bill Murphy-Use of toll money debatedThe county also wishes to prohibit the state from using Harris County toll road revenue outside the region. That ban might be necessary if the Texas Department of Transportation moves to change existing policy and use local toll road revenue for road improvements statewide, said Joanye Henderson, chief of staff for Precinct 4 Commissioner Jerry Eversole.TxDOT and the Harris County Toll Road Authority are negotiating what TxDOT's take will be of future toll road revenue in return for TxDOT's permission to use state-owned land for future toll road projects.The local toll road system had $373 million in revenues in fiscal 2006.Money generated by the toll roads historically has been used solely for toll road maintenance and expansion and construction of roads that feed into toll roads."If the funding is coming from constituents of our area, then the money should be put back into the area where the toll fees are coming from," Henderson said.(It doesn't appear that the boys at TxDOT are any closer to closing this deal with HCTRA than they were a year ago. I can't wait to hear Art Storey give his opinion on this whole mess.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 Commissioners Court is scheduled to vote today on a proposal to speed the start of construction on a segment of the planned Grand Parkway connecting the Katy Freeway and U.S. 290.The long-standing plan to build a 180-mile parkway, a four-lane toll road also called Texas 99, is conceived as an "outer outer" loop around Houston and has drawn fire from environmentalists as a magnet for sprawl.full article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.