Grand Parkway segment E to be Fast Tracked

[Ian]

TxDOT must select other local projects to receive the stimulus funding.

Good GP news, but now here come the IH10 feeder lanes from TC Jester to Sawyer.

Are you serious? Is that really what this means? ARGH!!! We just can't win

[jboyd]

Why not ask that the $118 million be reprogrammed to the North and Southeast light rail lines? Extra funds from those lines could later be reallocated to the Universities line.

[Ed Browne]

Why not ask that the $118 million be reprogrammed to the North and Southeast light rail lines? Extra funds from those lines could later be reallocated to the Universities line.

Because US290 has a pressing need for relief and NW residents have been waiting for a very long time. While it would be nice to move the light rail along, the more beneficial project would be a commuter rail line in the Hempstead corridor.

[TomD]

Are you serious? Is that really what this means? ARGH!!! We just can't win

Well, I suppose the IH10 feeder lane project could still fail the process of providing the necessary detention, but it was at the top of TxDOT's contingency list for stimulus funding. It's been on their agenda for several years now, and I believe it already has TPC approval, and only stalled out only because of no $$.
Looks a lot like a shovel-ready contingency opportunity.

[jboyd]

Why not ask that the $118 million be reprogrammed to the North and Southeast light rail lines? Extra funds from those lines could later be reallocated to the Universities line.

Because US290 has a pressing need for relief and NW residents have been waiting for a very long time. While it would be nice to move the light rail along, the more beneficial project would be a commuter rail line in the Hempstead corridor.

Now that TxDOT is taking away funds from one bad road project, it is likely to allocate it to another bad road project.

The $118 million should go to capital improvements for transit in Houston. That could happen if we applied this money to projects in progress, like the North line. METRO would have money to apply to some other capital improvement already approved by FTA. The Universities line should have a ROD soon, making it eligible. What I don't know is: how long can METRO sit on the money before it loses it?

Depending on the answer to that last question, perhaps a Hempstead line would be an option. Regardless, if METRO has more federal money for capital improvements, the more likely it is that a Hempstead commuter line gets established - either as METRO cars running down existing freight tracks, or running along new track in the same corridor.

First, we need to condition TxDOT to think of itself as a transportation department. Second, if METRO receives more money, we need to make sure they are selecting good projects.

[JamesL]

METRO's US90A light/commuter rail line may be very close to shovel-ready. Engineering has supposedly been going on for a while now.

[carolcaul]

TomD wrote:

Well, I suppose the IH10 feeder lane project could still fail the process of providing the necessary detention, but it was at the top of TxDOT's contingency list for stimulus funding. It's been on their agenda for several years now, and I believe it already has TPC approval, and only stalled out only because of no $$.
Looks a lot like a shovel-ready contingency opportunity.

There are many more worthwhile projects than another to benefit developers, which is the only benefit of the feeder road project.

We have interchanges that need to be rebuilt, and the elephant in the room is 290. At the very least it will cost nearly all of the $181 to rebuild the 290/610W Loop interchange which should have been done in the 80s when the 290 to IH-10 segment of 610 was rebuilt. The project would consist of widening 610 between 290 and IH-10 and rebuilding the interchange stacks.

A possible design holdup is how to integrate the county's projects, and that may holdup the assessment of shovel-readiness. They should rebuild the interchange as if that county project (adjacent toll road and commuter rail) were going to be done, even if the county is not ready.

TxDOT is supposed to "save space" for alternate projects when it builds a federally funded project.

My favorite project would be to spend the $70m to rebuild the 610W Loop/59 Interchange. That should have been done in the early 90s before TxDOT wasted all that money ($500m+) rebuilding 610W Loop--cause now they are going to have to rebuild or double deck it to match up with the 610 expansion on 290 to IH-10.

Those two interchanges easily would take care of the $181m and in fact would probably not be sufficient to do both in their entirety and would benefit Houston much more than building the odious feeders roads Tom has mentioned.

There would probably be another law suit if TxDOT chooses to use our precious stimulus funds to benefit other developers.

I have not checked it yet, but I do not think TxDOT can "reallocate" its funds to Metro even though both are under the DOT (FHWA and FTA). That needs to be investigated. Generally, though, I would not be in favor of that, but we do need to check the ARRA to see what it says as well as Title 49.

[Ed Browne]

Grand Parkway stretch in W. Harris Co. not so shovel-ready after all

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department oppose a permit to build in wetlands along Segment E, saying the highway project would affect much more than the 45 acres addressed in a mitigation plan.

“We are encouraged that Judge Emmett and the Harris County commissioners now recognize they need to take the time necessary to ensure that irreparable damage not be done to this great regional ecological resource, the Katy prairie, by the development of Segment E of the Grand Parkway,” said Mary Anne Piacentini, executive director of the Katy Prairie Conservancy.
‘Welcome news'

“This is stupendous news” said David Crossley, president of the non-profit Houston Tomorrow. “The Grand Parkway is such a huge determinant of how Houston will grow. To step back and think about that is welcome news. TxDOT's justification for it is they want to ‘open land for development,' but that kind of growth just isn't going to be happening in America anymore.”

Robin Holtzer, chair of the Citizens Transportation Coalition, an advocacy group that opposes the Grand Parkway, said the county's decision will free up stimulus money for more worthwhile projects, but probably means little for the future development of the parkway.

“We knew last March that Segment E wasn't shovel-ready, so it's good that everyone else has figured that out,” she said.

And then this today that suggests the wetlands could be an economic resource for new federal carbon reduction efforts.
Companies eye wetlands to offset carbon emissions

These marshy areas absorb carbon dioxide, the principal heat-trapping gas blamed for warming the planet. Their storage capacity may be greater per acre than forests, scientists said.

That little-known function of wetlands could lead to a major role in federal efforts to combat climate change and an environmental boon for the Texas coast.

[carolcaul]

I'm going to copy the following to the Science and Environmental section: Global Warming the Inconvenient Truth where there is some excellent technical discussion going on so as not to allow this issue to get lost.

EdB wrote in Local Transportation - GPE to be fast tracked:

And then this today that suggests the wetlands could be an economic resource for new federal carbon reduction efforts.
Companies eye wetlands to offset carbon emissions

Quote:
These marshy areas absorb carbon dioxide, the principal heat-trapping gas blamed for warming the planet. Their storage capacity may be greater per acre than forests, scientists said.

That little-known function of wetlands could lead to a major role in federal efforts to combat climate change and an environmental boon for the Texas coast.

Wetlands KNOWN benefit to humans is their filtration capabilities for our water. That is why a TCEQ Clean Water permit is an additional requirement to the USCAE permit.

Coastal wetlands are salty and provide storm buffers, but salty CO2 sinks can easily be flooded or permanently destroyed due to rising sea levels.

Fresh water wetlands can be salinated destroying the clean water benefits. Of course the main way fresh water wetlands are lost is through human destruction.

Apart from Clean Water Act standards administered by the TCEQ, we have to quantify the cost of filtration replacement technology (water purification systems) that society including Harris County will have to bear when we allow destruction of the wetlands.

On the other hand, fresh water marshes give off methane (natural gas) which is much more environmentally damaging to the atmosphere than CO2 (EPA says 26x, but some scientists say 20x more damaging than CO2) in terms of its CO2 equivalence. These amounts of methane are still far less than tailpipe emissions of methane.

Methane is pretty much everywhere where something was once or is still alive. For transportation, CH4 tailpipe emissions are the principal source in HGAC of methane discharges to our atmosphere.

As EdB noted in the Science and Environmental section: Global Warming-An Inconvenient Truth, methane also escapes from lakes and water systems when temperature rises.

Another more radical source is swamp gas, huge, huge amounts of it, trapped below the melting Siberian perma-frost. When the permafrost goes, if we don't have a pipeline to capture the swamp gas, or if we don't sequester it with other technologies (reinject into ground, convert to solid, etc), that CH4 is going straight up to the atmosphere. The permafrost methane alone is enough to cause vast worldwide damage.

[jboyd]

Now that TxDOT is taking away funds from one bad road project, it is likely to allocate it to another bad road project.

The $118 million should go to capital improvements for transit in Houston. That could happen if we applied this money to projects in progress, like the North line. METRO would have money to apply to some other capital improvement already approved by FTA. The Universities line should have a ROD soon, making it eligible. What I don't know is: how long can METRO sit on the money before it loses it?

ARRA money cannot apply to fully funded projects, or replace previously encumbered funds, so what I suggest above is incorrect. ARRA funds can be applied to shovel-ready, unfunded projects. Will the Universities line will be shovel ready once FTA issues a ROD?

[carolcaul]

Here is a link with a wealth of info about TxDOT and the stimulus funds:

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/stimulus

Bear in mind this is only TxDOT's share and what SH99 was, was part of TxDOT's share.

HGAC's 2035 plan has a list of projects that could be put on TxDOT's list. The key test is whether the project would not have been built except for the stimulus funds. It still should be a highest and best use project.

Here are some 2035 projects that might be palatable to TxDOT and that we might be able to support to spend wisely the $181m:

http://www.h-gac.com/taq/stimulus/docs/ ... ummary.pdf

http://www.h-gac.com/taq/stimulus/docs/ ... ation1.pdf (may 2009)

�� Oldest unfunded, ready projects first, preferably in the TIP (some of the TIP are big scale, and some very small)
�� Ready projects not in TIP, but consistent
with Conformity

http://www.h-gac.com/taq/airquality/con ... nder12.pdf

Harris County projects (not all of HGAC) starts at page 72

These projects are arranged alphabetically by county, then by highway/street.

Look for items that have a near term let date. The first date you see is the conformity date (for Clean Air Act purposes). HGAC is supposed to choose TIPs first, then near let dates, but all should be shovel or near shovel ready projects with environmental work done or near completion. I do not think TxDOT has to choose TIPs, but they would have good reason to do so because they get more federal money.

Of the Binder 12 projects in the link above, Harris Co (TxDOT’s regional district covers more, but that is all I focused on), Harris Co starts on page 78.

My personal suggestions for TxDOT projects:

Just about all the Eldridge projects—there is a need and these would provide the alleged traffic congestion that is needed for 290 reconstruction and Hempstead toll road (see p 91 of the 2035 Plan and thereabout)

FM 1093/ BW8 interchange

I liked nearly all the BNSF & UPRR grade seps including but not limited to
FM1960 @BNSFRR
Hempstead Rd UPRR underpass (to be done consistent with HCTRA and commuter rail plans)

Then of course my hobby horse: 610 NB @ 59 and 610 SB @ 59 interchange connectors (listed as two separate projects).

I’m not in favor of trying to reallocate highway stimulus funds to light rail. It’s questionable legally whether this can be done. More importantly, there are plenty of high-grade TxDOT projects to use the money for, and present-TxDOT and present-Metro cannot agree on the color of an orange, much less how to accomplish transfer of highway money to transit money on a timely basis.

[christof]

I’m not in favor of trying to reallocate highway stimulus funds to light rail. It’s questionable legally whether this can be done.

THESE ARE NOT HIGHWAY FUNDS. They are Surface Transportation funds, which can be spent on a whole variety of projects, including transit. TxDOT calls them "highway funds," but that's not accurate.


From the federal DOT:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/guidance.htm

Funds may be used for restoration, repair, construction and other activities eligible under the Surface Transportation Program (STP) as defined within 23 U.S.C. 133(b), and for passenger and freight rail transportation and port infrastructure projects eligible for assistance under subsection 23 U.S.C. 601(a)(8).

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/stp.htm

The Surface Transportation Program provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the NHS, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities.

More importantly, there are plenty of high-grade TxDOT projects to use the money for, and present-TxDOT and present-Metro cannot agree on the color of an orange, much less how to accomplish transfer of highway money to transit money on a timely basis.

That is a relevant point. But I think it;s worth reiterating in what we put out that these are multimodal funds.

[christof]

From emails I wrote back in February:

The TPC meeting materials indicate that the funds in question are STP (surface transportation program) funds. This is a very flexible federal funding program:

Most of the ARRA funds commonly referred to as money for 'roads and bridges' are being distributed through the Surface Transportation Program, which provides great flexibility to state Departments of Transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations for use on a variety of projects.

http://www.completestreets.org/stimulus.html


(b) Eligible Projects. - A State may obligate funds apportioned to it under section 104(b)(3) for the surface transportation program only for the following: (1) Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, and operational improvements for highways (including Interstate highways) and bridges (including bridges on public roads of all functional classifications), including any such construction or reconstruction necessary to accommodate other transportation modes, and including the seismic retrofit and painting of and application of calcium magnesium acetate, sodium acetate/formate, or other environmentally acceptable, minimally corrosive anti-icing and de-icing compositions on bridges and approaches thereto and other elevated structures, mitigation of damage to wildlife, habitat, and ecosystems caused by a transportation project funded under this title. (2) Capital costs for transit projects eligible for assistance under chapter 53 of title 49, including vehicles and facilities, whether publicly or privately owned, that are used to provide intercity passenger service by bus. (3) Carpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities and programs, bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways in accordance with section 217, and the modification of public sidewalks to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.). (4) Highway and transit safety infrastructure improvements and programs, hazard eliminations, projects to mitigate hazards caused by wildlife, and railway-highway grade crossings. (5) Highway and transit research and development and technology transfer programs. (6) Capital and operating costs for traffic monitoring, management, and control facilities and programs. (7) Surface transportation planning programs. (8) Transportation enhancement activities. (9) Transportation control measures listed in section 108(f)(1)(A) (other than clause (xvi)) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7408(f)(1)(A)). (10) Development and establishment of management systems under section 303. (11) In accordance with all applicable Federal law and regulations, participation in natural habitat and wetlands mitigation efforts related to projects funded under this title, which may include participation in natural habitat and wetlands mitigation banks; contributions to statewide and regional efforts to conserve, restore, enhance, and create natural habitats and wetlands; and development of statewide and regional natural habitat and wetlands conservation and mitigation plans, including any such banks, efforts, and plans authorized pursuant to the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (including crediting provisions). Contributions to such mitigation efforts may take place concurrent with or in advance of project construction.

http://vlex.com/vid/sec-surface-transpo ... m-19205106

T4A has a great summary of the stimulus bill: http://t4america.org/news/archives/672

Here's the "highway and bridge" funds, which are actually flexible surface transportation funds:

Surface Transportation Program
The conference agreement provides $27,500,000,000, instead of $30,000,000,000 as proposed by the House and $27,060,000,000 as proposed by the Senate.

50% of funds distributed to State DOTs by STP formula
50% of funds distributed to States under the FY08 obligation
State DOTs have 120 days to use the funds or lose them to other States, but they can petition DOT for a one-year extension.
30% of all State funds are suballocated to local areas, which are not subject to the use-it or lose-it redistribution requirements.
3% set aside for Transportation Enhancements.
There is no requirement to prioritize repair and maintenance; project selection priority is given to projects that can be completed within 3 years and are located in economically distressed areas.
Flexibility provided to State DOTs to fund passenger and freight rail transportation and port infrastructure projects.
$60 million included as discretionary capital grants by USDOT for projects that can be completed in 2 years.
$40,000,000 included for DOT oversight and administration.
They add (http://t4america.org/blog/archives/670)

Unprecedented flexibility for spending STP funds — traditionally spent mostly on highways — on ports, transit, passenger and freight rail or other projects as national, state or regional needs may require.
The relevant regulation for the STP is 23 U.S.C. 133(b), which includes "Capital costs for transit projects eligible for assistance under chapter 53 of title 49" and "Carpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities and programs, bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways in accordance with section 217, and the modification of public sidewalks to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.)." (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fast ... +4008+1++()%20%20AND%2; chapter 53 of title 49 covers all public transportation (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fast ... +146+54++()%20%20AND%20((49)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20%20AND%20(CHAPTER%20ADJ%20(53))%3AEXPCITE), "section 17":http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t21t25+4058+1++()%20%20AND%2)

[carolcaul]

Christof said, in addition to significant other backup:

Unprecedented flexibility for spending STP funds — traditionally spent mostly on highways — on ports, transit, passenger and freight rail or other projects as national, state or regional needs may require.
The relevant regulation for the STP is 23 U.S.C. 133(b), which includes "Capital costs for transit projects eligible for assistance under chapter 53 of title 49"

Thanks, Christof. That TxDOT funds may be reallocated to transit or other modes appears legally correct, and I was wrong.

[christof]

My all caps was frustration at how TxDOT has been misleading people with this all along.

[Ian]

Any chance we could get some of that money for sidewalks, especially sidewalks to serve the light rail lines? You can design and build a sidewalk in no time -- about as shovel-ready as you get. With a fraction of that $180 million we could get a ton of nice 6-8 ft sidewalks all over the city. All the light rail lines could get the kind of sidewalk that they need to function well. In my opinion, sidewalks are as important to transit as stations and platforms. Unfortunately, Metro doesn't seem to agree and is pretty much ignoring the pedestrian realm.

If the actual transit corridors are scary (ie, if we build a nice sidewalk, is Metro going to change its plans and have to tear them up in a year or two?), we could at least serve the streets leading up to the corridors -- the so-called "A" streets.

Do we need a new thread to discuss our wish list of Grand Parkway-stimulus funds-replacing projects?

[Bob]

Do we need a new thread to discuss our wish list of Grand Parkway-stimulus funds-replacing projects?

Yes: please continue discussion of alternate uses for stimulus funds in this thread.

Let's return this thread to focus on proposed Grand Parkway segment E. Thanks!

[Bob]

On Tuesday, before the Commissioners' Court meeting, Lisa Falkenberg had more in the Chronicle:

Grand Parkway's ‘E' never was ‘shovel-ready'
By LISA FALKENBERG Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

There are plenty of reasons why the infamous “Segment E” of the far-flung Grand Parkway never should have made it on the list of “shovel-ready” projects bound for federal transportation stimulus dollars in the first place.

[snip]

When Arthur Storey, executive director of Harris County's Public Infrastructure Department, recommended in a letter last week that commissioners give back the stimulus funding slated for Segment E, he cited delays in obtaining a federal permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Storey wrote, “In fact, because of conflicts over environmental impacts and mitigation, that permit may never be issued.”

This is a bold statement. The permit isn't some extra string attached to federal money. It's a requirement for the project to move forward. No permit, no Segment E.

I asked Storey Monday if he was saying that such “conflicts” — specifically, critical reviews of and opposition to the permit application by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department — could endanger the project.

“Sure,” he said simply.

This is the reason, Storey said, he asked commissioners in his letter to re-evaluate other segments of the Grand Parkway project and review “overall funding priorities and constraints.”

In the agencies' formal comments, submitted to the Corps, the state and federal wildlife agencies outlined serious concerns with the permit applications that went far beyond concern for, say, the blue-gray gnatcatcher.

The agencies maintained that the Harris County Toll Road Authority's proposals to mitigate the environmental impact of the Grand Parkway segment on the endangered ecosystem fell far short.

The agencies found that the county undervalued the Katy Prairie's crucial role in reducing flood damage. The proposed toll road could further degrade water quality in Lake Houston and Galveston Bay, in some cases, the federal agency stated, and lead to the demise of certain wildlife species.

Storey said he wasn't so much surprised as “disappointed,” by the agencies' findings. Then he expressed a somewhat optimistic view, saying the findings could cause project delays ranging from “many months to years to never. It's my anticipation that reasonable minds will find a way to appropriately assess the impacts and provide mitigation in a much shorter time period than never.”

Considering the controversy, the questions, the lawsuits surrounding the Grand Parkway project for the past two decades, one would think the county would have anticipated the feedback, and prepared for it.

But maybe this is the wake-up call environmentalists and other opponents of this project have been waiting for. Maybe it will cause county officials to step back, reassess priorities and realize the costs of this project are greater than any projected benefits.

Maybe not.

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett said he didn't agree with Storey's assessment that the agencies' critical comments of the project could kill it. But then, he said, he hasn't read the agencies' comments.

“Ultimately,” he said of the parkway segment, “something has to be built, and I think it will be.”

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/6664521.html

[Bob]

For reference, here's the text of Art Storey's memo to Harris County Commissioners regarding segment E. Please note that Court delayed voting for two weeks (until Oct 27) so that the County Attorney can "wordsmith" its language:

October 7, 2009

SUBJECT: Recommendation that TxDOT be informed of federal permit delays for Segment E of SH 99 and that TxDOT be urged to redirect the allocation of ARRA (stimulus) funds to another eligible project in Harris County

Dear Court Members:

It is recommended that TxDOT be informed of federal permit delays for Segment E of SH 99 and that TxDOT be urged to redirect the allocation of ARRA (stimulus) funds to another eligible project in Harris County. Staff and consultants have worked diligently and successfully to be on schedule to meet the deadlines to enable Segment E construction to qualify for and receive the stimulus funding, but the federal permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cannot be completely processed by the required mid-February date. In fact, because of conflicts over environmental impacts and mitigation, that permit might never be issued.

Because of ongoing permit difficulties and consequent loss of the ARRA funding, it is further recommended that Harris County neither schedule nor fund the construction phase of this project until a program is developed that considers other segments of SH 99 in Harris County, Segments F1 and F2, and reviews overall funding priorities and constraints for HCTRA's list of proposed projects. With your approval, TxDOT will be informed of that action, its justification, and its impact on the existing Advance Funding Agreement between TxDOT and Harris County.

With your approval, right-of-way acquisition will stop after transactions already begun have been completed with no further spending or project adjustments, and engineering efforts will cease upon completion of plans and specifications, including agency approvals. The acquired right-of-way and approved plans would be ready for use by HCTRA, by TxDOT, or by others if/when the project moves forward, and HCTRA would negotiate compensation for their transfer at that time.

The Chronicle had more on the delay:

Effort to shift Grand Parkway funds delayed
By JAMES PINKERTON Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
Oct. 13, 2009, 8:19PM

Commissioners Court on Tuesday delayed a planned request to reallocate $181 million in federal stimulus funds for part of the 180-mile Grand Parkway project, after the Harris County Attorney's Office said that any court order should be worded to ensure the county does not lose money paid out for acquiring right of way.

[snip]

First Assistant County Attorney Marc Hill asked the court to wait two weeks until he could review the wording of the order the court will pass to notify TxDOT of the funding shuffle. He said appraisal costs and attorneys fees for acquiring land for highway right of way could be recovered by property owners if the court cancels the project.

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6666217.html

All that being said, it's important to remember that lack of stimulus funding is NOT likely to delay/deter construction of segment E. Consider this quote from April 2009:

Friday, April 3, 2009
Stimulus update
Agencies bicker over funds at breakfast
Houston Business Journal - by Ford Gunter

Speakers from various state and local agencies turned a March 31 breakfast seminar into an opinionated forum on how to spend stimulus funds.

[snip]

Less enthusiastic was Art Storey, executive director of the Harris County Public Infrastructure Department, which oversees the Harris County Toll Road Authority.

“The impact of the federal stimulus package has been and will be nothing,” said Storey, who had already mentioned that he was only there because his boss made him go.

Storey said the Grand Parkway toll road did not need stimulus funding: “It’s a toll road; it was funded nine or 10 months ago.”

Source: http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2009/04/06/story7.html

Notwithstanding that they haven't done an investment-grade traffic and revenue study yet, Harris County hosted a PPP industry forum in July 2009. The purpose was to brief private toll road developers about the possibilities for a public-private partnership with the county to develop some/all of the Grand Parkway. While the County is courting firms to identify one that wants rights to develop segments E, F1, F2, and G as a package, they also said plainly that HCTRA can afford to front the costs to develop segment E in house, regardless of whether a private deal gets done. And while many of us would rather see HCTRA allocate those funds to a genuinely useful project like the Hempstead Managed Lanes, that doesn't mean they will.

[jboyd]

“The impact of the federal stimulus package has been and will be nothing,” said Storey, who had already mentioned that he was only there because his boss made him go.

Storey said the Grand Parkway toll road did not need stimulus funding: “It’s a toll road; it was funded nine or 10 months ago.”

If Segment E had already been funded, it should have been ineligible for stimulus money. Therefore, if Art Storey is correct, HCTRA, TxDOT and the Commission all approved to program funds that Segment E wasn't legally eligible to receive. Ooooops!

[carolcaul]

mycarhateme said:

If Segment E had already been funded, it should have been ineligible for stimulus money. Therefore, if Art Storey is correct, HCTRA, TxDOT and the Commission all approved to program funds that Segment E wasn't legally eligible to receive. Ooooops!

Good one; really good one! However, until that investment grade traffic analysis is completed, no one is going to invest in GP-E unless some sort of full faith and credit clause is guaranteeing the road and county voters would get to vote on recourse bonds.

About this right of way that has been purchased, I sincerely hope that Linda Storey is being careful to recuse herself on all cases. Why is Art S carving out this ROW stuff? I seem to remember there is some law about eminent domain and acquiring lands early.

If Art S is correct that:

The impact of the federal stimulus package has been and will be nothing

why did the county accept these valuable taxpayer funds?

I am still stuck back at TxDOT materially misrepresenting to FHWA that all the permits had been acquired. This is apart from any representations or misrepresentations it may have made to HCTRA about this issue. Making ridiculous statements like that is one way for our district to mess around and have FHWA cut our funding.

TxDOT started the permit application process in 1997 for crying out loud.

[Bob]

For reference, here's the text of Art Storey's memo to Harris County Commissioners regarding segment E. Please note that Court delayed voting for two weeks (until Oct 27) so that the County Attorney can "wordsmith" its language

This item is on Harris County's agenda for Tues Oct 27, 2009. The revised memo from Art Storey doesn't include anything new, but it removes any language (blue above) which suggested the project might not happen. Heh.

[Bob]

Harris County Commissioners voted this morning to release their claim on the stimulus funds for GP-E. I spoke at Commissioners Court to:

• express CTC's support for that action
• remind them that more than 200,000 northwest Harris County residents sit in traffic on US 290 every day and they need real transportation alternatives
• urge them to continue pursuing commuter rail in the UP corridor parallel to 290
• alert them that TxDOT is pursuing $195 mm of Prop 12 bond funds to reconstruct the 290/610 interchange, meaning it's time to bring County funds and effort to help move the Hempstead managed lanes project forward

[jboyd]

Thanks, Robin. I think the Commissioners listen to you - even when they disagree.

[kf5nd]

Harris County, Tex., Kicks Off First Of Three Issues Totaling $550M

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

By Richard Williamson


DALLAS — Harris County, Tex., today will issue the first of three bond deals worth a combined $550 million.

Today’s $100 million pricing of tax-exempt permanent improvement refunding bonds will be followed by $350 million of toll revenue bonds that will be issued as taxable Build America Bonds on Dec. 7, said Edwin Harrison, the county’s chief financial officer. A third issue expected in December will be a $100 million refunding of hotel occupancy tax and road bonds.

Harrison said the county separated the first and third deals to keep the yields from blending and creating possible arbitrage issues.

“You could do it,” he said. “It’s just cleaner when you do it like this.”

Today’s deal is led by Jefferies & Co., with Cabrera Capital Markets as co-senior managers. Barclays Capital, Morgan Keegan & Co. and Piper Jaffray & Co. are co-managers, with First Southwest Co. as financial adviser and Fulbright & Jaworski as bond counsel.

With today’s deal, Harris County, which includes Houston, expects to see interest cost savings of about 3%, according to Harrison.

“The market’s been getting better and hopefully will continue,” he said last week.

Harris County’s triple-A rating from Standard & Poor’s and AA-plus from Fitch Ratings with stable outlooks serves as a gilt-edged invitation to investors seeking refuge in quality debt.

“The outlook reflects our assessment of stability in the tax base, coupled with management’s conservative budgeting practices, which have enabled the county to generate strong surpluses to support its significant capital plan,” Standard & Poor’s analysts James Breeding and Horacio Aldrete-Sanchez wrote. “This is especially important given Harris County’s above-average debt position.”

The refunding bonds will be issued as 2009 Series A, B and C.

The county’s Series 2009A bonds are secured by an unlimited property-tax pledge without legal limit.

The 2009B and C bonds are secured by a limited tax pledge, while the Series C bonds are also backed by the county’s hotel occupancy tax.

“Currently, the tax subject to the 80-cent limit is levied at a rate of just under 38 cents, providing the county with significant revenue-raising flexibility,” analysts noted.

According to Fitch, the county’s outstanding tax supported debt includes $1.1 billion of limited-tax bonds, $746.9 million of unlimited-tax bonds, and $665.6 million of toll road unlimited-tax and subordinate-lien revenue bonds.

“The direct debt profile remains favorable along with the county’s policy of maintaining an entire year’s worth of debt service in reserves,” Fitch analysts Jose Acosta and Rebecca Moses wrote.

Next month’s toll bonds give the county its first chance to take advantage of the federally subsidized Build America Bonds.

“BABs are only issued for new money,” Harrison noted. “Everything else we’ve done is refunding.”

Proceeds of the toll road bonds will be used to expand and maintain the 107-mile system.

As Texas’ most populous county, Harris County is unusual in that it operates and finances its own toll road system known as the Harris County Toll Road Authority. In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, the North Texas Tollway Authority is a regional agency covering several counties.

The HCTRA was created by Harris County Commissioners Court in 1983 after voters approved a referendum to release $900 million in bonds to construct toll roads in the rapidly growing and heavily congested Houston metro area.

The first two projects, the Hardy Toll Road and the Sam Houston Tollway-West, were completed in 1987 and 1990, respectively.

In 1994, the county bought the Jesse H. Jones Memorial Bridge toll facility from the Texas Turnpike Authority, which was renamed the Sam Houston Ship Channel Bridge.

As part of the county’s purchase of the bridge, the county reached agreements with the Texas Department of Transportation for contributions of federal funds for construction of Sam Houston Tollway-East and Sam Houston Tollway-South.

So far this year, toll revenues are up 16%, an impressive figure in a national recession.

But Harrison cautioned that revenue is being compared to 2008 that included Hurricane Ike. In September 2008, the HCTRA waived its tolls for a period of time to allow easier transit in the wake of the hurricane.

A $250 million county toll revenue bond issue sold in April carried ratings of AA-minus from Standard & Poor’s and Fitch and an equivalent Aa3 from Moody’s Investors Service.

The HCTRA is continuing a five-year capital plan worth an estimated $5.4 billion.

Among the projects under consideration is an outer loop around the Houston metro area called the Grand Parkway.

The loop would pass through seven counties, with only 10% of the road in Harris County. However, that 10% would account for 90% of revenues, Harrison said.

Because of that, Harris County is the lead negotiator with the Texas Department of Transportation that would decide funding for the project.

Harris County’s Segment E of the Grand Parkway qualifies for $181 million of federal stimulus funding, but Harrison said the county has never used federal funding for any of its toll projects.

Average annual growth in traffic and revenue on the toll system has been 5% and 9%, respectively, from fiscal 1999 to 2009. However, the rate of growth has slowed as congestion has increased, according to analysts.

Economically, Harris County has come through the recession in much better shape than most large metropolitan areas of the country. Harrison said he expects tax revenue to be flat for the current 2010 fiscal year.

With a growing population of more than 3.6 million, Harris County is fueled by Houston’s economy. The county’s $282 billion property tax base — up more than 80% from fiscal 2001 to 2009 — continued to expand for fiscal 2010, although at a slower pace, according to Standard & Poor’s.

The growth rate in recent years has averaged more than 7%, giving the county some cushion to manage growth-related issues like debt retirement and the internal funding of construction and infrastructure maintenance.

“The county’s financial position remains solid but is facing growing pressure to provide adequate staffing for its large adult and juvenile detention systems,” Fitch analysts observed. “Plus, continued rapid population growth in unincorporated areas of the county poses additional challenges to provide infrastructure and service needs.”

[Bob]

Guidry News Service reports that Harris County voted last week to dismiss all the current right-of-way condemnation suits for segment E:

Harris County Commissioners Court
News Release
Tuesday, December 22, 2009

[snip]

The commissioners court met in executive session, then voted to dismiss all pending condemnation lawsuits for acquisition of land for the Grand Parkway Project, Segment E. The action essentially puts the project on hold until all of the environmental lawsuits have been resolved.

[snip]

Source: http://guidrynews.com/story.aspx?id=1000023134

I added this commentary for Houston Tomorrow's story:

While this ends the stimulus chapter of Grand Parkway Segment E, it’s not the end of the project. It remains to be seen whether Harris County will now redirect its attention and resources to a more important project like Hempstead Managed Lanes or commuter rail, or simply continue to seek other funding opportunities for Grand Parkway.

[Bob]

As you know, a handful of local elected officials (e.g. Ed Emmett) remain staunchly committed to constructing the proposed Grand Parkway, despite the absence of either travel demand or funding to do so. Harris County is poised to take another step towards figuring out how to get the project off the ground:

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS COMMISSIONERS COURT
Agenda
May 11, 2010 10:00 a.m

I.1.a.1. Recommendation that the Toll Road Authority be authorized to seek and evaluate statements of interest and qualifications from consulting firms concerning further development of segments of the Grand Parkway, SH-99 in Harris County.

The backup memo for the agenda item says:

May 5, 2010

SUBJECT: Recommendation that HCTRA be authorized to seek and evaluate statements of interest and qualifications from consulting firms concerning further development of segments of the Grand Parkway (SH 99) in Harris County

Dear Court Members:

It is recommended that HCTRA, supported by its Genearl Engineering Consultant (GEC) AECOM, be authorized to seek and evaluate statements of interest and qualifications from firms capable of providing services in support of the further development of segments of the Grand Parkway (SH 99) in Harris County. On September 15, 2009, Commissioners Court passed a court order exercising the right of "primacy," or the "option to develop, design, construct, operate, and maintain the portion of the Grand Parkway located within the territory of the county." The iniatitive now recommended is a step in furtherance of that order.

After submittals from interested firms have been received and evaluated, additional recommendations will be presented for consideration by Commissioners Court.

Sincerely,
Arthur L. Storey, Jr., PE
Executive Director

The backup indicates that AECOM will be involved but does not say how much this additional effort will cost county taxpayers. I've emailed Art requesting more detail.

If you're interested, you may want to contact your Harris County Commissioner or the Judge to request more information. They plan to vote on this item Tuesday morning.

[Bob]

In July 2008, the Commissioners approved $10+ million in engineering contracts to finish roadway design for segment E through the Katy Prairie. Art Storey tells me by email that that work is nearly complete. Tomorrow he will ask the Court for permission to begin selecting engineers to finish designing segments F1 and F2 from US-290/Cypress to SH-249/Tomball to IH-45/Spring. He says he expects selection to take about 90 days, at which point, he'll likely come back to Court for approval to award millions of dollars in engineering contracts.

The meeting is at 10:00 am Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at the Harris County administration building downtown. If you want to tell the County Judge and Commissioners what you think, you can sign up to speak online.

[matt03303]

I am so excited about having Grand Parkway soon. I can't wait for it. It's going to be beautiful!

[kf5nd]

I live a few miles east of GP E, and if it gets built I will lose a country road where I ride my bike. On a warm spring day, you can stop by the side of the road and pick wildflowers. That, my friend, is beauty. Try doing that on the Beltway 8.

Also Matt, you really shouldn't use your online dating alias as your forum handle! If we Google on matt03303, we can read all about you.

I am so excited about having Grand Parkway soon. I can't wait for it. It's going to be beautiful!

[Bob]

I am so excited about having Grand Parkway soon. I can't wait for it. It's going to be beautiful!

Hey Matt, welcome to CTC's forum.

Where you are in Fort Bend County, you're closest to "segment C" of the Grand Parkway, which was proposed to connect US-59 south to SH-288 with a limited access toll road. But your neighbors said what they really need is improved local access to get around your community, and they have worked effectively with the County Commissioners to ditch the Grand Parkway in favor of at-grade improvements on Crabb River Rd instead. Forth Bend County Commissioner Richard Morrison could tell you more about what's coming near you.

This discussion thread is about proposed segment E through the undeveloped Katy Prairie, which won't actually address real traffic problems because very, very few people live or work in the Katy Prairie. Hope this helps!

[Bob]

This item is on the Harris County Commissioners Court agenda for Tuesday, May 25, 2010:

I.1.c.1. Recommendation for authorization to negotiate with Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc., for engineering services to perform a comprehensive traffic and revenue study in support of further development of segments of the Grand Parkway, SH-99 in Precincts 3 and 4.

Here's the backup memo:

May 25, 2010

Subject: Recommendation that the Toll Road Authority be authorized to negotiate with Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc. (WSA) for engineering services to perform a comprehensive traffic and revenue study in support of the further development of segments of the Grand Parkway (SH 99) in Harris County Precincts 3, 4

Dear Court Members:

It is recommended that the Toll Road Authority be authorized to negotiate with Wilbur Smith Associates, Inc. (WSA) for engineering services to perform a comprehensive traffic and revenue study in support of the further development of segments of the Grand Parkway (SH 99) in Harris County.

When a proposed agreement has been negotiated and approved by the County Attorney, the matter will be returned to the agenda for Commissioners Court approval.

Peter Key
Director

As we told Commissioners in spring 2009, the County needs a robust traffic and revenue study to assess whether the proposed Grand Parkway is even remotely toll viable before committing any additional capital funds to the project. Further, it's critical that they do a comprehensive, investment-grade study that considers the impact of changing fuel prices, demographics, and real estate patterns on travel demand. It's been 25+ years since Ed Emmett first promoted the Grand Parkway concept, and a lot has changed in our region since then.

[Ed Browne]

As we told Commissioners in spring 2009, the County needs a robust traffic and revenue study to assess whether the proposed Grand Parkway is even remotely toll viable before committing any additional capital funds to the project. Further, it's critical that they do a comprehensive, investment-grade study that considers the impact of changing fuel prices, demographics, and real estate patterns on travel demand. It's been 25+ years since Ed Emmett first promoted the Grand Parkway concept, and a lot has changed in our region since then.

I wonder if that investment-grade study should compare a similar study on the Hempstead corridor, so the Commissioners would know where to put their money.