Transportation Whatnot

Three weeks ago, stakeholders for METRO’s Universities line gathered at St. Luke’s UMC. Houston Mayor Bill White told the enormous crowd that “we make our best decisions when we listen to each other,” and “this won’t be the end of the conversation.” Houston City Council Members Anne Clutterbuck, Ada Edwards, and Pam Holm have held just 4 out of 8 of the preliminary neighborhood forums that the City committed to lead.

The planning process is only just beginning, and it’s important. From UH, to TSU, to Wheeler Station, to Neartown, to Greenway Plaza, to Uptown and the Galleria, the fate of the entire Universities line hangs on building community consensus around a set of route alignments. An open and informed public planning process based on rigorous technical analysis is essential. And METRO is poised to do just that during the next 6-8 months, with consultants scheduled to start work next Friday.

But… Congressman Culberson doesn’t seem to want to wait around for a pesky study to inform his transportation policy-making, as evidenced by this email he sent some of his constituents:

Dear Richmond-Area Home or Business Owner,

This Wednesday, April 12, I am hosting a Town Hall meeting in the Shell Auditorium in Rice University’s McNair Hall (6:30 to 8:00 PM) to gauge for myself the level of support or opposition to METRO’s proposal to build light rail down Richmond Avenue. I take my job as Representative very seriously, and my job requires me to work on behalf my constituents when they reach a strong consensus on quality of life issues. In the last few months, I have received hundreds of letters, emails, and phone calls opposed to building light rail on Richmond. I also recognize that the ballot used in the referendum in November 2003 clearly spelled out the “Westpark Corridor” as the proposed route, and that there is much more land and room for development along Westpark.

I know that there have been a number of meetings on this issue, and that you are fatigued from all the time this process is consuming. I am grateful for the time and energy you have spent so far, and I am confident we will reach a point this week where all members of the community have been thoroughly educated on the proposals, and have given their final input. At this town hall meeting I will listen to your comments and ideas, and make a decision based on your input. Afterwards, I will inform METRO of my position. It is very important for me to hear from as many Richmond-area residents and business owners as possible so that I can reach a conclusion based on your opinions. I am respectfully asking that you set aside one more night to share your thoughts with me, so that I can best represent you in Washington. Thank you for your patience and your time, and I look forward to seeing you on Wednesday.

John Culberson
Member of Congress

Houston doesn’t need this kind of politics. What we need is good planning. CTC believes that:

And these same principles apply to every high-capacity transit line METRO is planning to build.

If you agree, I encourage you to come to Culberson’s town hall at Rice at 5:30 pm Wednesday night at Rice and speak up for good transit planning. Plan to arrive early since this venue is much too small for the expected crowd.

And in the meantime, contact the Congressman’s office (713) 682-8828, ask to talk to District Director Nick Swyka or Chief of Staff Bill Crow and tell them that we need to keep all the alignments on the table and study them. If you send email, I encourage you to copy Mayor White and the Chronicle at the same time.

Before each Tuesday meeting of the Commissioners’ Court, all the Harris County department heads gather for an agenda briefing on Monday. I sat in on it this morning and this item caught my attention:

1.a.3. Recommendation that the County Judge be authorized to execute transportation improvement agreements as part of the Metro Multi-Cities Program between the county, Metro, and the cities of:

a. Hilshire Village to provide funding for improvements on Ridgeley Drive from Westview Drive to Wirt Road.
b. Spring Valley to provide funding for improvements on Voss Road/Bracher Drive from IH-10 to Spring Branch Creek.
c. Bunker Hill Village to provide funding for improvements on Memorial Drive from Strey Lane to Clarendon and Knipp to Briarforest.
d. Piney Point Village to provide funding for improvements on North Piney Point Road from Innesfree to Surrey Oaks.

The “Metro Multi-Cities” program — also known as the “General Mobility” program — is the brain child of former Houston Mayor and transportation czar Bob Lanier. Since 1978, transit investment in Houston has been funded by a 1-penny sales tax paid by everyone in METRO’s service area. Mayor Lanier’s argument was that “most Houstonians will never ride the transit their sales taxes are paying for” so to be fair, they should get something, too (i.e. road and bridge construction). So METRO gives up a bunch of sales tax revenue and gives it back to cities in the service area to fund non-transit projects. (Of course, I would argue that good transit benefits drivers, too: I reckon that Houston freeway drivers would notice if the more than 40,000 commuters who board park-and-ride buses each weekday were in cars on the freeway, contributing to congestion, instead.)

So how much money are we talking about? $100 million/year. METRO’s 1-penny sales tax currently generates ~$400 million/year. Fully 1/4 of that is carved off for General Mobility, and allocated according to a formula. This week, Hillshire Village gets $1.73 million, Spring Valley gets $2.35 million, Bunker Hill Village gets $1.37 million, and Piney Point Village gets $281,370. But these are just four examples of a much larger redistribution. The City of Houston, Bellaire, Bunker Hill Village, El Lago, Hedwig Village, Hilshire Village, Humble, Hunters Creek, Katy, Missouri City, Piney Point, Southside Place, Spring Valley, Taylor Lake Village, West University Place, and major portions of unincorporated Harris County all benefit from METRO’s largesse.

Even if you like the idea of spending transit money on road construction in wealthy jurisdictions and places with no bus service, some Houstonians may wonder why it is that more than 90% of METRO’s sales tax revenue is collected in the City of Houston, but Houston only gets 73.7% of the General Mobility money.

But it’s the $6.5 billion lost opportunity cost that really gets me. Let me explain: METRO’s CFO, Francis Britton, estimates that since the program’s inception, more than $1.3 billion has been reallocated. Houston could have built a LOT of high-quality urban transit with $1.3 billion. What’s worse: that local money could have been used as the match to secure another $1.3 to $5.2 billion in federal dollars, for perhaps $6.5 billion for new transit investment. But it wasn’t. And the program is scheduled to continue until 2014.

Now instead, we all have to work hard to help Congressman Culberson understand the importance of connecting the centers and encourage him to bring us the scant ~$1 billion in federal money METRO needs to build Houston’s next set of urban transit lines.

Comments? Discuss the program in CTC’s online forum.

Pictured above (L-R) are METRO President & CEO Frank Wilson, METRO Board Chairman David Wolff, Mayor Bill White, Congressman John Culberson, and Council Member Pam Holm. Council Member Anne Clutterbuck is not pictured.

Mayor Bill White, Congressman John Culberson, and three district City Council Members — Holm, Clutterbuck, and Edwards — hosted a public meeting regarding METRO’s Universities line at St. Luke’s UMC tonight. Their stated purpose was to listen to concerns and comments from people in the corridor. Like the METRO board meeting in February, several hundred (KTRK-13 says nearly a thousand) interested residents came out to participate.

The talking point that really caught my attention was that both Mayor White and Congressman Culberson explicitly vouched for METRO.

Mayor White introduced the topic asking, “Have you noticed that METRO has controversies from time to time?” and eliciting laughter. He reassured the audience saying, “We recruited new leadership for METRO” early in the first term. “We recruited the finest leaders in the city and the finest transit president in the country.” He said clearly that “rapid transit is an important issue” and Houston has to be serious about it:

“We’ve grown as a city and become more dense. We know there have to be alternatives other than expanding every major thoroughfare and freeway because that’s so expensive and so disruptive to our neighborhoods.”

Mayor White also reminded us that “we’re fortunate to have a Congressman on the key committees to make sure our city get its fair share of transportation funding, including transit funding.” So if we want federal money to put some real alternatives in some of our neighborhoods, Culberson is the person to go get it.

Congressman Culberson echoed the Mayor’s praise of METRO, saying “we all should know that there’s new METRO leadership.” He acknowledged his past disagreements with the previous administration, and said of the new leaders, “I’ve been extremely impressed with them” and “the new METRO board has been a real pleasure to work with.” (I hope that the Congressman works hard enough to secure needed funding to earn similar praise from METRO’s leaders.) I think the point of all the compliments is that Houstonians can and should expect more and better projects from METRO now than ever before.

Culberson was the only leader who presumed to anoint a specific route alignment, saying “I think instinctively we’ll do better to put [the rail] on Westpark where we do have the corridor,” and went on to talk about serving suburban Fort Bend County and 290. I don’t think he understands yet that his district now includes urban activity centers that are starving for high-quality urban transit. The other leaders talked about the importance of getting good information and making careful route decisions based on facts.

In general, all of the leaders present again expressed their commitment to a collaborative planning process. Several leaders assured the audience that there will be many opportunities to participate and “nothing will get crammed down the community’s throat.”

The public comments brought many speakers for Westpark, some for Richmond, and a few who are eager for commuter rail to their suburbs. Of the scores of people signed up, only the first 30 had the opportunity to speak, and each for only a minute or so. Fortunately, the district City Council members are convening nine neighborhood meetings in April in neighborhoods all along the corridor. And METRO will start the federally-required public meeting process soon after.

If you’re wondering whether you should participate in this process, you should, and Mayor White explained it best: “You are participating in an important process of building Houston for the next generation.”

METRO’s board met Thursday and attendance was astonishing. The board room was standing-room-only at 120, with another ~100 attendees in the lunch room to watch the proceedings on closed-circuit TV.

The meeting opened with public comments. Thirty-one of 47 speakers came to address which options METRO should consider in the Universities light rail corridor. Five elected officials led the comments: state Representative Martha Wong, followed by Houston City Council Members Pam Holm (district G), Anne Clutterbuck (district C), Peter Brown (at-large #1), and Ada Edwards (district D). Martha Wong said there is great concern along Richmond that while the big corporations will survive the disruption of construction, that the small businesses cannot. She urged METRO to consider Westpark saying “that’s where we voted for.” Pam Holm said she is committed to working for a positive, constructive approach, that supports the community and our quality of life, and capitalizes on the resources of citizens who could be METRO’s strongest advocates. She said that building a transportation system for our city is a team effort, and that City Council can help facilitate inclusive communication. Anne Clutterbuck said she has spent many hours listening to residents and business owners, and she has found stakeholders who want mobility, want light rail, and want to work cooperatively with METRO. She asked METRO for many commitments: to continue to consider all options, to keep the process open, to encourage residents and business owners to have input, to take their concerns seriously, to provide independently verifiable ridership numbers, to provide the public with accurate revenue estimates, to keep the public advised of the timeline, to have public meetings, to consider the impact to business and city revenue during construction, and to enhance other aspects of transit service to maximize ridership along the proposed lines. Peter Brown spoke of building a great 21st century city with a great, balanced transportation system. He said the very “purpose of cities is to maximize exchange and to minimize travel times,” and that we must do this through the connections of our transportation system. He asked METRO to invite the City of Houston Planning Department to participate in meaningful corridor planning along the proposed lines, but commited to “fight any reckless eminent domain program.” Ada Edwards said she supports continued study and a good faith effort to hear citizens. While she said “Richmond should be studied until it’s absolutely shown undoable,” she also acknowledged the need for a thorough hearing of the concerns put forward by businesses.

What’s most notable to me about the elected officials’ comments is less about what they said than what they did not say: no one called for another expensive transit referendum and no one demanded that Richmond be taken off the table before it is studied. Chalk up one victory for democratic process and informed decision making!

The other 26 speakers included residents, business owners, professors, museum trustees, college presidents, architects, urban planners, chamber of commerce members, civic association presidents, transit providers, and real estate developers. Some spoke in support of a Richmond alignment, some in opposition, and many asked METRO to study the options and share the results. It is clear to me though, that much of the controversy stems from disagreement about “the facts” and what they mean.

Two speakers raised the issue of Richmond traffic but from entirely different perspectives. Daphne Scarbrough, the owner of The Brass Maiden, described Richmond as one of the busiest streets in the city and an important alternative to the Southwest Freeway. She seemed to suggest that a rail line would get in the way of cars. Further, she observed that east of Shepherd, Richmond is only two lanes each direction, and she fears there is no room for a rail line without using eminent domain to take parking and property from the adjacent land and business owners. Daphne concluded saying she does not want to see this area take an economic loss. Meanwhile, Adra Hooks observed that the Castle Court Neighborhood Association which also adjoins Richmond, views the traffic from a different perspective. She observed that today, Richmond already carries more than 25,000 vehicles per day and is near capacity, so “the question is not whether Richmond will be redeveloped, but how.” She described the current environment as “toxic for pedestrians and high risk for vehicles,” and said that Castle Court, like the Neartown Association, believes that rail transit is a viable alternative to pouring more concrete for cars. Adra echoed the sentiments of leaders in the Galleria and The Medical Center which are already “choking” on too much traffic and working hard to build pedestrian and transit alternatives to car travel. While she is also a board member of CTC, Adra spoke today as a resident who lives one block from Richmond and as a board member of the Castle Court Neighborhood Association.
For reference, CoH traffic counts are available here (207 kb PDF).

For their part, the METRO board members listened intently to all the speakers, and Chairman David Wolff thanked several speakers for their suggestions. In particular, he accepted an offer from the AIA to help with consensus building, and thanked Tory Gattis for specific suggestions on how to help keep businesses afloat during the construction period. But all of the respectful exchanges of ideas in METRO’s board room failed to capture some of the strong community sentiment the Universities rail line faces.

My cousin Sharon observed the meeting from the overflow room nearby. She described the energy level there as feverish and the atmosphere as caustic. Opponents of Richmond rail hissed, booed, and catcalled as speakers in the board room talked about studying options. They applauded Richmond opponents, especially when Chris Seger described the Richmond opposition as “serious and well-funded”and mentioned discussions with the City Controller regarding how to call another referendum. My cousin said many were angry and it seemed like they’d already made up their minds — “we voted for Westpark!” — and were irritated with anyone who suggested looking at alternatives.

Planning METRO’s next transit lines will be a long process. Thursday’s board meeting included many important statements, but in the end, nothing has been concluded. I am sincerely grateful to everyone who came to the meeting today, because “the world is run by the people who show up.” But the opportunities for each of us to talk with our neighbors and fellow Houstonians about the best way to build the Universities line are just beginning.

For more, see related blog posts at Tory Gattis’ Houston Strategies and Houston Architecture Info Forum.

METRO is poised to begin the public planning process for the “Universities” east-west rail line. State representative Martha Wong and US representative John Culberson are trying to take a possible Richmond route off the table now, before the public planning process has even started. Houstonians who value effective transit must not let them.

METRO needs federal funds to expand Houston’s rail system, which means METRO must play by the federal rules. As a result, they must analyze all of the best routes for rail viability and pick the strongest one in order to have any chance of winning federal matching dollars. METRO plans to study Westpark, Richmond, and other route alignments through the Universities corridor. They will look at ridership, neighborhood and business impacts, right-of-way requirements, traffic and environmental impacts, and many other factors. They will also gather a LOT of community input. This process is expected to begin with public meetings in April and run through December 2006. It will culminate with preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS) which will present METRO’s recommended alignment alternative. This DEIS will be subject to public review and comment.

Public participation makes better projects. More to the point, gathering broad public input is the right and democratic thing to do. But apparently, this doesn’t satisfy everyone, especially two local elected representatives.

There is a group of small business owners along Richmond east of Shepherd who fear that rail on their street may destroy them. They have joined with residents from the Afton Oaks neighborhood west of Weslayan. They have been organizing since late summer and they are working hard to take Richmond off the table right now. Ironically, they are calling themselves “Richmond Area Residents and Businesses for Rail” or RARBFR.

These individuals have serious and important concerns about METRO’s project. So do other Richmond-area organizations like Neartown Association, the Museum District Business Alliance (MDBA), the Menil Foundation, the University of St. Thomas, and Crescent Real Estate-Greenway Plaza. But where Neartown, MDBA, Menil, UST, and Crescent have all committed to working with METRO to address their concerns inside the prescribed process, RARBFR is demanding to sidestep the process. They have secured this letter from US representative John Culberson:

January 25, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:

“I am writing to add my support for the Richmond Area Residents and Businesses for Rail, and urge that the Houston METRO Board of Directors oppose extending light rail down Richmond Avenue or Westheimer. My office has received a large number of complaints from concerned neighbors who oppose the construction of a light rail line down Richmond and I share their concern. The rail line would damage the neighbors’ quality of life, diminish their property values, create a safety hazard in residential areas, destroy beautiful trees and landscaping, and eliminate desperately needed traffic lanes.

I am confident METRO’s new leadership will listen to the communities affected by these rail plans. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of business owners and residents along the Richmond corridor do not want rail to be built there, and they should not have it forced upon them. I urge the METRO Board to respect the wishes of the people who have invested so much in their homes and businesses along Richmond, and build the rail line where it already has ample right of way along the Westpark Corridor.

I pledged to honor the results of the 2003 referendum, and I will continue helping METRO work with the FTA to secure Houston’s fair share of transit funding. Protecting the quality of life we have worked so hard to build is one of my top priorities, and I want to add my strong objection to those of so many others who do not want this rail line built down Richmond or Westheimer. Our Mayor Bill White and the METRO Board have said repeatedly that they will protect neighborhoods and listen and be responsive to neighborhood concerns. Moving this unwelcome rail line is a great place to start. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.”

John A. Culberson
Member of Congress

Houstonians deserve the best transit system METRO can build, which means looking at all possible choices of where to put rail. Politicians must not prematurely determine a route based on their political needs.

Many Houstonians support a Richmond alignment. Many support a Westpark alignment. Some support a combination thereof, and many have not yet made up their minds. Now is not the time to decide. Instead, we must agree that a thorough technical analysis is a prerequisite to making the right decision. We must evaluate our transit future with facts and rigorous analysis, and not close off options in reaction to fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Rep. Wong is scheduled to appear at the Thu Feb 16 METRO board meeting at 1:00 pm with many of her supporters. I expect her to present the above letter of opposition from Rep. Culberson, demand that METRO take Richmond off the table now, and call for a new referendum.

I hope that theirs will not be the only voices heard. It is time for everyone who supports more and better transit for Houston to speak up. We must keep all options on the table and we cannot allow a political process to take one off prematurely. METRO must be allowed to complete the federally-required planning process and fairly evaluate all of the alternatives.

For the second year in a row, the Texas Transportation Commission held its January meeting in the Houston area. This 5-member body, appointed by the Governor, typically meets in Austin, but met Thu Jan 26, 2006 at the Conroe convention center. I managed to sit through the first six hours as they considered and decided many aspects of state transportation policy. I learned:

• Congress, with a recent Defense act, is rescinding ~$2 billion previously programmed in the SAFETEA-LU transportation reauthorization bill. Texas will lose ~$159 million in federal transportation funds.
• SB1713 created a transporation financing study commission. So far, the Governor has appointed Warren Chisholm, Robert Eckels, Mike Krusee, Ted Houghton, and William Addon(?) to evaluate the ability of the gas tax to meet our transportation needs, review expenditures from the state highway fund, recommend ways to fund the new rail fund, and review financing options for all transportation-related expenditures. The commission is expected to prepare recommendations by Dec 2006.
• TxDOT will ask the Commission to approve state legislative priorities at its Feb 23 meeting in Austin. The list includes funding for rail projects, increased use of toll financing, “e-tags,” and allowing Texas counties to plan for large corridors (“it would be nice to have the ability to buy corridor property from a willing seller in advance”). TxDOT’s Government and Business Enterprises Division Director Coby Chase said he and the State Legislative Affairs Manager, Jefferson Grimes will be happy to answer questions about the legislative agenda.
• There is widespread fraudulent use of temporary license tags (dealers, new buyers, and converters) ranging from personal use of untitled vehicles, to toll theft, to outright criminal action. Generic temporary tags impair law enforcement. TxDOT has designed new temp tags with individual control numbers for use until the state adopts e-tags. The commissioners approved the new design.
• In 2005, the Lege mandated a priority boarding program for the Port Aransas and Galveston/Bolivar ferries. TxDOT’s proposed program would allow individuals to buy priority passes starting at $400/year. Port Aransas leaders are eager for the program to start, with some businesses volunteering to buy passes for their employees. Bolivar leaders are concerned that most Bolivar residents cannot afford the proposed fee. The commissioners deferred approval until February to allow more discussion of options.
• Also in 2005, the Lege mandated that TxDOT outsource manufacturing and sale of specialty (“vanity”) license plates to a private company, Effective Telemarketing Inc. (ETI). Under the new plan, specialty tag buyers will pay $25 more each year (but receive no additional service). ETI will get all of the $25 the first year; in subsequent years, ETI will get 70% ($17.50) and the the other 30% ($7.50) will go to general revenue. None of the incremental increase goes to transportation funding. The commissioners deferred voting on the new fees for a month to ensure agency partners were aware of the proposed changes.
• Gas tax is remitted to the state directly by the ~33 refineries in the state, rather than trickling up from the retail pump level. These companies not only get to sit on this revenue for ~30 days, collecting interest on the sweep, but also refineries are entitled to ~$100 million/year in fees (for administration and prompt payment). That’s a better deal than Target or Best Buy gets for the same service.

I have ~16 pages of notes from this meeting. Please let me know if you would like a copy. Eventually, an official transcript will be available on the Commission’s website at www.dot.state.tx.us/transcom.

At METRO’s August 18, 2005 board meeting, BikeHouston members Woody Spear and Jacqueline Friedman asked for an update on METRO’s agreement to install bike racks on buses. While bikes are allowed on METRORail (Guidelines and rules for cyclists) they don’t have a comparable program for buses. METRO has talked about it since 2001, agreed in principle again a year ago, conducted a limited pilot study, and has federal money in hand (which runs out this year) to do it. Since the local match is only ~$200,000, adding bike racks to buses seems like a cheap-and-easy way to increase METRO’s reach and ridership.

CEO Frank Wilson agreed that the board should formally consider the issue and make a policy decision once and for all. He volunteered that management would review the issue and prepare a presentation for a Sept 22 committee meeting, so the board can vote whether to move forward. One way or the other, we’ll know next month whether Houston can join the ranks of Austin, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and other cities that recognize the multiplying effect of bike racks on buses.

In addition, Wilson walked through METRO’s June 2005 “Quarterly Management Report,” which includes budget, ridership, and sales tax revenue data, as well as performance metrics and management discussion.

Ridership is up or down depending on how you look at it. In October 2004, METRO cut a number of its poorest-performing bus routes, which cut off some number of riders. On the remaining routes (apples-to-apples), system ridership is up this year by 7.3%:

• METROLift boardings are up 2.5%

• METROVan boardings are up 8.4%

• Special event bus boardings are down 20.7% (Rodeo/Reliant traffic shifted to METRORail)

• METRORail boardings are up 72.5% (comparing Jan – June ’04 to Jan – June ’05)

• Fixed-route bus boardings are up 0.1% (after declining for 4-5 years)

So… focus on cost-cutting has culminated in extensive route cuts. Now, it’s time to grow the top line. METRO must focus on growing ridership on its best-performing routes.

METRO’s operating performance is now holding steady. Wilson says METRO’s “operating ratio,” calculated as fare income divided by transit cost, trended downward for five years but has remained flat this fiscal year (an improvement) at 15.2%, just shy of their 2005 target ratio of 15.3%. As fares cover a growing share of the costs of service, this ratio will rise.

This data is useful for assessing METRO’s progress by proponents and skeptics alike. I continue to hope they will make this report available for download from their website.

METRO’s next board meeting will be Thursday September 22 at 1:00 pm, on the 2nd floor of their downtown administration building at 1900 Main Street.

This afternoon I attended METRO’s March 24, 2005 board meeting. Several individuals commented at the beginning of the meeting and three raised operational issues. A frequent rider of route #8-South Main presented 1200 petition signatures to request additional bus capacity on that route between West Bellfort and the Texas Medical Center. Another rider has faced repeated equipment problems getting his scooter on/off park-and-ride buses. A third rider reported that as someone who suffers from asthma, he would like to see METRO ban smoking at all bus stops throughout the METRO service area. (A new City of Houston ordinance bans smoking at bus shelters and transit centers within Houston city limits effective September 1, 2005.)

Meanwhile, METRO CEO Frank Wilson reported that one key indicator of METRO’s operating performance is improving. Wilson says METRO’s “operating ratio,” calculated as fare income divided by transit cost, has trended downward for five years but is now flattening out (an improvement). Their 2005 target is a ratio of 15.3% and February’s ratio was 15.7%. That means fares are covering a growing share of the costs of service.

This information came from METRO’s February 2005 “Monthly Board Report.” Staff are apparently working to improve the usability of this report, which includes budget, ridership, and sales tax revenue data, as well as performance metrics and management discussion. I, for one, would like to see this report available for download from their website.

METRO’s board of directors meets the 4th Thursday of each month at 1:00 pm on the 2nd floor of their downtown administration building at 1900 Main Street. The agenda is generally available the week of the meeting here.

Judge Robert Eckels and the Harris County Commissioners voted this morning for:

“authorization to reimburse CenterPoint Energy $38,080 for installation of 19 poles to accommodate construction of the Fort Bend Toll Road extension in Precinct 1.”

Relocation of utilities facilitates the ultimate connection of the Fort Bend Parkway Toll Road to South Post Oak and the 610 west loop in southwest Houston.
Agenda entries like this are just what the Harris County Commissioners consider fair notice to area residents regarding toll road projects. No public meetings are planned. If you want to comment on toll road proposals, for now you’ll have to show up at Commissioners’ Court. They meet downtown every other Tuesday at 10:00am, and the agenda is available a few days before each meeting here.