DOCSLIB.ORG

Solicitation Questions & Answers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Solicitation Questions & Answers Rev. 4-16-15 Page 1 of 13 SOLICITATION QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Project Name: Fare Collection System Solicitation #: 4018000226 Contract Administrator: Alan Scanio 8 Fare Media Distribution, page 118: "8.1.1-3 Fare sales and value loads may also be completed through METRO’s third-party mobile application, which may provide a barcode for scanning at the retailer to collect Q660: payment. Additional details of integration with METRO’s mobile application will be determined during design review." Is the expectation that the barcode scanning at the retailers would be used to buy a fare product? If not, what is the intended purpose of these features? The intended purpose is to allow mobile application users to load tickets and value to their accounts using A660: cash at a retailer. [We are] requesting a 90 day extension to the current proposal submission date of October 29, 2018, to Q661: January 29, 2019. A661: Please reference Addendum 1 for deadlines. On pages 3, 11, and 14 of the RFP and in the SIOP spreadsheet for items 0.1.2.3, 1.1.1.2, 2.1.1.2 Q662: regarding Retail Network Transaction Fees there is an asterisk (*) but no note referring to such. What is the intended note? A662: The asterisk was added in error and has been removed in Addendum 2. Section 15.1.1-6. Please provide details regarding typical time and transaction volume associated with one Q663: full day of active use. For example: how many validations/inspections are performed per day with the current handheld devices? How long are the fare enforcement shifts? Transaction volume should account for 1,000 transactions a day. Shifts are currently 8 hours but handheld A663: devices may be swapped without returning to a depot to meet operational needs. Q664: Section 15.1.4-4. Define what a day of fare payment transactions means. How many transactions? A664: The HIT device must support a minimum of 1,000 transactions a day. Q665: Section 15.1.4-5. Same as previous question. How many transactions are we talking about? A665: The HIT device must support a minimum of 1,000 transactions a day. 6.3.2-3 Stipulates support of distance based fare. Previous requirement indicates no tap-off - is Metro Q666: considering introducing tap off in the future? METRO reserves the right to change fare policy at any time, including during the useful life of the future A666: system. The FCS should be flexible enough to hande all types of fare products described in section 6 of the Technical Specifications, Fare Policies. 21.2-2 stipulates Active - Active load balancing, in the context of high availability. Given cloud computing Q667: architectures and distributed nature of account-based fare collection systems, would Metro consider defining SLAs in lieu of defining computing environment architecture? Bidders should propose based on the functional requirements in the specification. If a proposer would like A667: to include additional products, services, or functionality, this should be submitted along with the base Proposal but under separate cover. Q668: How does METRO want the data stored? A668: See Section 19.7 for data retention requirements pg. 74. Regarding requirement 2.4.8, who pays today for the dedicated analog lines that connect 297 Q669: RPOS devices in retail to the Conduent backend? The retailers?Metro? Conduent? And at what cost/month? Legacy RPOS devices will not be part of the future FCS, and the costs of the current system will not be A669: provided. Bidders should propose anticipated fees for their proposed approach. pg. 117. Regarding requirement 8-7: Please confirm that RPOS units will not be a part of the legacy Q670: system that must be maintained by the new retail network provider for any amount of time during the transition or afterwards. A670: The SI will not support the existing RPOS units. Rev. 4-16-15 Page 2 of 13 pg. 125Requirement: Deployment of a retail network and associated distribution services relating to media will be managed initially by the SI initially, with transfer of contract ownership to METRO after Revenue Service Acceptance. Question: We recommend that you accept direct bids from retail network providers. Our recommendation Q671: offers Metro the highest degree of transparency and flexibility to select the best retail network solution without compromising the best SI solution. The selected retail network provider can agree to be managed initially by the SI with transfer of contract ownership to METRO after Revenue Service Acceptance. Please confirm if this is acceptable. A671: METRO appreciates the recommendation but maintains the retail requirements as specified in the RFP. pg. 126Regarding requirement 10.1.1-1, please provide a copy of the detailed modeling that resulted in the Q672: determination that you will need a minimum of 1,300 retailers. A672: The data will be made available to the successful bidder during design review. pg. 126Regarding requirement 10.1.1-2, please provide a list of every light rail and bus stop (with geo Q673: coordinates for each stop). All publicly available METRO GIS data may be found at A673: https://www.ridemetro.org/Pages/NewsDownloads.aspx pg. 115Regarding requirement 7.5, is there an expectation that retail will be able to load fare products to Q674: Third Party Media? Requirement 7.5 is for the SI to ensure devices can process third party media as an account credential in A674: the FCS. Fare products would exist in the account. pg. 125. Regarding requirement 10.1-4: Although there is no requirement to load fare products to EU Q675: Media in retail, is there a minimum number of fare products that you would ideally want to be available for sale/load at any given retail location? A675: Fare products required are referenced in specification section 6.3.1. pg. 117Regarding requirement 8-6: What consumer fee do you have in mind for issuance of the EU Media Q676: in retail? (next gen Q Card)? A676: Fees associated with this requirement will be decided during design review. Q677: What is your intended minimum/maximum load value for EU Media (next gen Q Card)? This should be configurable based on METRO's fare policy. Current minimum load is $3 and maximum is A677: $500, but the system must be flexible enough to accommodate any limits. pg. 4. Regarding the Pricing Schedule and Section 17.1: It appears that you are expecting to issue a total of 300,000 EU Media cards in retail in the first seven (7) years of the agreement. Perhaps this is for pricing Q678: comparison only. If for comparison only, please provide an estimate (by year) of what you expect 1,300 retailers to sell each year during the initial seven (7) year term of the agreement? Please provide the same level of detail for each of the optional years. METRO does not have the data to provide expected sales or reload by vendor. METRO is relying on the SI A678: and Retail Network provider to determine best retail solution through the design process. pg. 168. FCS Tech Spec, Section 17.1.1-1: Provided that you will accept bids from the retail network Q679: providers directly, would you accept a bid from the retail network provider for EU media only? No, respondents are to reply to the RFP in its current form and in its entirety. The SI response must include A679: a Retail Network Provider. pg. 200. How will the proposer's website developers be provided access to the Houston Web Hosting Q680: environment for deployment, testing, and support? A680: Access to systems and any relevant details will be provided during design review. RFP/Req. Section No. 0.1.2, page 3. There is an "*" associated with Retail Network Transaction Fees with Q681: no associated reference. Please provide a description of what is expected for this line item. A681: The asterisk was added in error and has been removed in Addendum 2. RFP/Req. Section No. 0.4.1A.5, page 7. Please provide a detailed description of what METRO is expecting Q682: these fees to cover. A682: Transaction fees are inclusive of all fees related to processing of any payment cards. RFP/Req. Section No. 0.4.1B.2, page 8. Please provide a detailed description of what METRO is expecting Q683: these fees to cover. A683: Transaction fees are inclusive of all fees related to processing of any payment cards. RFP/Req. Section No. 4.4-1, page 83. Who is the merchant acquirer that the new system will be interfacing Q684: with? The current Merchant Acquirers are Chase PaymentTech and First Data but METRO reserves the right to A684: change the Merchant Acquirer during the term of the contract. RFP/Req. Section No. 4.7-10, page 86. Please state if the back office/FCS management interface requires Q685: 15 languages. Rev. 4-16-15 Page 3 of 13 A685: The back office system shall be in English. Q686: RFP/Req. Section No. 4.9-1, page 88. Please define the thresholds or parameters of the word “optimal”. A686: "Optimal" is considered the best. RFP/Req. Section No. 7.2.2-3, page 144. The magnetic stripe data and barcode are proprietary to the Q687: Retail Network Provider (e.g. Incomm, Blackhawk, ePay, Clover). Is it the intention of METRO to have the SI contract with only one of these providers? This specification section does not restrict the SI from utilization of multiple retail providers but describes A687: intent of EU processing via barcode or mag stripe at retailers. RFP/Req. Section No. 8.1.1-1, page 117.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mobility Payment Integration: State-Of-The-Practice Scan
    Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the-Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center COVER PHOTO Courtesy of Edwin Adilson Rodriguez, Federal Transit Administration DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the- Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway, Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02142 SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/research-innovation FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i Metric Conversion Table SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liter L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or “t”) (or “metric ton”) TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o 5 (F-32)/9 o F Fahrenheit Celsius C or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.
    [Show full text]
  • CSCIP Module 5 - Payments and Financial Transactions Final - Version 3 - October 8, 2010 1 for CSCIP Applicant Use Only
    Module 5: Smart Card Usage Models – Payments and Financial Transactions Smart Card Alliance Certified Smart Card Industry Professional Accreditation Program Smart Card Alliance © 2010 CSCIP Module 5 - Payments and Financial Transactions Final - Version 3 - October 8, 2010 1 For CSCIP Applicant Use Only About the Smart Card Alliance The Smart Card Alliance is a not-for-profit, multi-industry association working to stimulate the understanding, adoption, use and widespread application of smart card technology. Through specific projects such as education programs, market research, advocacy, industry relations and open forums, the Alliance keeps its members connected to industry leaders and innovative thought. The Alliance is the single industry voice for smart cards, leading industry discussion on the impact and value of smart cards in the U.S. and Latin America. For more information please visit http://www.smartcardalliance.org . Important note: The CSCIP training modules are only available to LEAP members who have applied and paid for CSCIP certification. The modules are for CSCIP applicants ONLY for use in preparing for the CSCIP exam. These documents may be downloaded and printed by the CSCIP applicant. Further reproduction or distribution of these modules in any form is forbidden. Copyright © 2010 Smart Card Alliance, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction or distribution of this publication in any form is forbidden without prior permission from the Smart Card Alliance. The Smart Card Alliance has used best efforts to ensure, but cannot guarantee, that the information described in this report is accurate as of the publication date. The Smart Card Alliance disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of information in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Table of Contents.Pub
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 2010 congestion management program Board of Directors Don Knabe Board Chairman Los Angeles County Supervisor Fourth Supervisorial District Antonio R. Villaraigosa 1st Vice Chair Mayor, City of Los Angeles Michael D. Antonovich 2nd Vice Chair Los Angeles County Supervisor Fifth Supervisorial District Diane DuBois City Council Member, Lakewood John Fasana City Council Member, Duarte José Huizar City Council Member, Los Angeles Richard Katz City of Los Angeles Gloria Molina Los Angeles County Supervisor First Supervisorial District Ara Najarian Mayor, City of Glendale Pam O’Connor City Council Member, Santa Monica Mark Ridley-Thomas Los Angeles County Supervisor Second Supervisorial District Rita Robinson City of Los Angeles Zev Yaroslavsky Los Angeles County Supervisor Third Supervisorial District Los Angeles County Prepared by: Long Range Planning Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Coordination One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 213.922.6000 metro.net 2010 Congestion Management Program Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer Martha Welborne, Executive Director, Countywide Planning Bradford W. McAllester, Executive Officer, Long Range Planning and Coordination Congestion Management Program Staff: Heather Hills, Director, Long Range Planning Stacy Alameida, Transportation Planning Manager/CMP Program Manager Scott Hartwell, Transportation Planner Doreen Morrissey, Transportation Planner TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • Fare Box and Public Revenue
    FARE BOX AND PUBLIC REVENUE: HOW TO FINANCE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Cooperative Research Technical Report 1057-lF Study No. 2-10-79-1057 Sponsored by the STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION In Cooperation With U.S. Department of Transportation Urban Mass Transportation Administration TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY COLLEGE STAT ION, TEXAS TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE ?ACE 1. Report No. 2. Co..,ernment Acce111on No. 3. Recipient' I Cotolog No. UMTATX 79-10571 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Dote Fare Box and Public Revenue: How to Finance February 1980 Public Transportation 6. Performing Orgoni zotion Code 7. Author's) 8. Performing Organi zotion Report No. Randall S. Billingsley, Patricia K. ~useman, and William F. McFarland Technical Report 1057-lF 9. Performing Organization Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University 1 J. Contract or Grant' No. College Station, Texas 77843 Study No. 2-10-78-1057 13. Type of Report and P&<"iod Covered ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- 12. Sponsoring Agency Nome and Address State Department of Highways and Public Transportation Final Report Transportation Planning Division February 1978-April 1979 P.O. Box 5051 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Austin, Texas 78763 15. Supplementary Notes This study was conducted in cooperat~on with the Urban Mass Transportation Administration 16. Abstract To be effective, governmental funds for public transit services must be based on sound approaches for providing and distributing subsidies. This report provides a review of the impacts of current capital and operating grants programs. Recommendations are made for a combination of provider­ side subsidies and user-side subsidies.
    [Show full text]
  • NRTA Year Round Bus Service Study-Phase 2
    ,.. _, i ’f“l* I _:: : P,,_, /___ ____":% iiiiiiit ' <-‘Q ;\~__\\"‘,v'-"* -1‘ é 7 _ -' 2:-.*:! _____ _ iii, L ' _2' _ -—- *“§l E ?:7 55,- _ ,_ L L k ¢_ '___._,.i,;,, 1 _;,_; 1 II ‘ Photo by Susan Richards, SR Concepts 94% 1; K / W1 ' u<'§ -7." Q 1!“ '2 '~ ~ W, " \, 1/1 / ‘-\é‘ i 1 ‘ V J if -=) ‘ __ .-. 1; _" _. ‘ ' , ,_ rs. V\_ ‘ \ . \' " £2~.@in _ , H: I ... I 7“ - K ‘ - 5' ‘ <’ _ {ii} __.4;..* ~22” ‘TiIt K ' I \.1\>\ i? gii -Photo by Susan Richards, SR Concepts I . - Photo by SusanK‘ Richards," SR Concepts Photo by Susan Richards, SR Concepts 4 Q , § =\__§__ \ V ‘ I-1‘ 1 llflllilifilfil HODIOMI U888“fllllflfifill NRTA Year-Round Bus Service Study Phase II Report: Fare Policy Review and Development of Innovative Funding Options Nantucket Regional Transit Authority December 2016 NRTA Year-Round Bus Service Study Phase II Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ ES-1 Local Outreach ................................................................................................................... ES-1 Innovative Funding Options ................................................................................................ ES-1 Fare Policy Analysis ............................................................................................................. ES-2 Fare Collection Technology Analysis.................................................................................... ES-2 Next Steps .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices – Customer Messaging for Transit Open Payments
    Best Practices – Customer Messaging for Transit Open Payments October 2020 1 Overview • Objective of this presentation: Document consumer communication best practices on availability of contactless bank card (physical & virtual) acceptance in transit at points of entry for accessing modes of transportation • Topics discussed: – Transit agency communication planning and engagements at different project phases – Communications examples from transit agencies, payment networks, mobile wallets • Note: Contactless bank card acceptance at points of entry is commonly referred to as open payments in transit. 2 Communications by Implementation Phases Phase 1: Initiation Phase 2: Development Quiet Position stated but not promoted Quiet Phase 3: Implementation (Pilot/Soft Launch) Engaging with regional Position stated but not issuers, digital wallets promoted Phase 4: Rollout providers & major brands Occasional marketing on planned launch Defining multiyear marketing agreement Active future positioning Phase 5: In framework with primary Occasional marketing Market/Ongoing issuers, digital wallet providers, and card brands Active future positioning Sustained promotion Active future positioning Sustained promotion 3 Communications by Media Channel Phase 3: Implementation (Pilot/Soft Phase 4: Rollout Phase 5: In Market/Ongoing Launch) • In Station • In Station • In Station • Permanent signage • Permanent signage • Permanent signage • Advertising • Advertising • Advertising • Signage on vending machines • Signage on vending machines • Signage on vending
    [Show full text]
  • “Impact of Common Mobility Card on Travel Pattern
    “IMPACT OF COMMON MOBILITY CARD ON TRAVEL PATTERN” CASE STUDY –DELHI #mobility as a service #ease the mobility Anshula Gumber School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi UP METRO Need of the Study Different Modes Different Fare Structures Hassle free and seamless travel Modern Technologies provide modern solutions • Facilitates multi-modal travel behavior. Commuters • Commuters just have to carry one card • Encourages faster boarding • Hassle free transaction. Enables commuters to enjoy the benefits of integrated fare policies. • Collection of real time data Transport Authorities • Complex fare schemes. • Help operators to balance peak • Expandable to the other and off peak patronage. services like toll payment, • Faster reconciliation of revenue congestion pricing in CBD with recorded data. areas, and parking and further for retail shopping. • It saves manhandling hours • Elimination of fake currency • Increases the accountability and from the economy. transparency of the transactions. • Increase the accessibility. • Enables the authorities to maintain the extra sum of money Literature Review London -Oyster Number Populati Cards/1000 Technology Additional SchemeAtlanta - MARTA Breeze Card TFL OysterTransport DublinCardmodes LUAS + NationalFunctions ITS of cards on served head used %of depositinformation to Boston - MBTACity Charlie Card Deposit MaximumToulouse- Pastel Fare TFLChicago Oyster - CTA43 Parameter Ventra8.17 5,263 Contactless Bus, Tube,Before Tram, LondonParis Docklands- Navigo Transit, RetailsAftermaximum and Concession fare
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX G 2018 Regional Transportation Plan Coordinated Transportation Plan for Seniors and People with Disabilities
    APPENDIX G 2018 Regional Transportation Plan Coordinated transportation plan for seniors and people with disabilities December 6, 2018 oregonmetro.gov/rtp Metro respects civil rights Metro fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that requires that no person be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin under any program or activity for which Metro receives federal financial assistance. Metro fully complies with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act that requires that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination solely by reason of their disability under any program or activity for which Metro receives federal financial assistance. If any person believes they have been discriminated against regarding the receipt of benefits or services because of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability, they have the right to file a complaint with Metro. For information on Metro’s civil rights program, or to obtain a discrimination complaint form, visit oregonmetro.gov/civilrights or call 503-797-1536. Metro provides services or accommodations upon request to persons with disabilities and people who need an interpreter at public meetings. If you need a sign language interpreter, communication aid or language assistance, call 503-797-1700 or TDD/TTY 503-797-1804 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays) 5 business days before the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Information and FAQ's
    Transportation Information and FAQ’s How do I get the Metro Q Card with student discount? To get your student discount card, you have to go to the Metro Ridestore(1900 Main St.), close to the Downtown Transit Center. You will need to bring three documents with you: 1. A print out of your Class Schedule showing full time class status. (12hrs for UG, 9hrs for G and can be found at my.uh.edu) 2. A receipt or document showing fees paid for semester classes. 3. Your passport You have to add $5 to the Q Card when you go and pick it up. After you get the card(which can ONLY be issued at the Metro Ridestore(though, to renew the card, you can do so at the UH Welcome Center). You can charge your card in many other places, such as in the UH Welcome Center on campus, on the metro buses themselves, or at the Metro transit stations. How much does it cost to use the buses and Metrorail? It is currently $1.25 to use the buses and metrorail one-way in Houston, though the service is reduced by 50% if you apply online at ridemetro.org and register with a student discount(see above). What about the shuttle bus on campus, is it free? Yes, the shuttle service is free to use! You don’t even have to use your ID to get around in it, though this might not be the case in the future, keep that in mind when you use the shuttle buses.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Department of Transportation Electronic Fare System Peer Analysis
    Oregon Department of Transportation Electronic Fare System Peer Analysis December 19, 2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 0 I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 II. Implementation Cost ........................................................................................................................ 4 III. Funding Strategies ........................................................................................................................ 6 IV. Fare Policy Goals ........................................................................................................................... 8 V. Operations Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 9 VI. Public Outreach & Customer Adoption ...................................................................................... 10 VII. Staffing ........................................................................................................................................ 12 VIII. eFare Implementation Challenges .............................................................................................. 13 IX. Regional Inter-Agency Coordination ........................................................................................... 15 X.
    [Show full text]
  • Houston-Galveston Regional Transit Services
    Houston-Galveston Regional Transit Services SUMMARY Transit providers in the Houston-Galveston area demonstrate several examples of regional transit services that cross jurisdictional boundaries: • Harris County and METRO sponsor the Baytown Park & Ride to downtown Houston. • Connect Transit in Brazoria County is working with METRO to build and operate a park & ride from Pearland to the TMC (to open 2014). • Fort Bend County operates the Fort Bend Express to Uptown/Galleria, Greenway Plaza, and TMC. • Brazos Transit District operates The Woodland Express from Montgomery County to downtown Houston, Greenway Plaza, and the Texas Medical Center (TMC). FINDINGS Regional Overview The Area The Houston-Galveston metropolitan planning area includes eight counties and contains four urbanized areas as of Census 2010. The Houston urbanized area (UZA) is the largest, located mainly in Harris County. Table 1 provides the population and area of each County and UZA. Figure 1 provides a map of the urbanized areas as compared to the county boundaries. Table 1. Area Population and Size 2010 Area County 2000 Population 2010 Population (Sq.Miles) Brazoria County 241,767 313,166 1,386 Chambers County 26,031 35,096 599 Fort Bend County 354,452 585,375 875 Galveston County 250,158 291,309 398 Harris County 3,400,578 4,092,459 1,729 Liberty County 70,154 75,643 1,160 Waller County 32,663 43,205 514 Montgomery County 293,768 455,746 1,044 Total 4,566,754 5,891,999 7,705 Houston UZA 3,822,509 4,944,332 1,295 Conroe - The Woodlands UZA 89,445 239,938 42 Texas City UZA 96,417 106,383 59 Lake Jackson-Angleton UZA 73,416 74,830 34 Galveston UZA 54,770 N/A 12 Source: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Freeway: This View Looks West Along the Southwest Freeway (US 59) Toward the Loop 610 Interchange
    Southwest Freeway: This view looks west along the Southwest Freeway (US 59) toward the Loop 610 interchange. In 2003 work is in progress to improve and modernize the interchange, originally constructed in 1962. (Photo: May 2003) 381 ������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������� ��������������������� ������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������� ������� �� �� �������������������������������� �� �� ������������������������������������ �� �� �������������������������������� �� �� ���������� ���� �� �������������������������������������� �������� � � ������������������������������ ���� �� ���������������������������������� �� � �� ������������ ������ �� ����������������������������� � � � ������������������������ ������������ �� ������������������������������� � � � � � ����������������������������� � � ������������������������������������� ������� ������ � ���� ������� � ����� ��� ����� � � ������������ ���� � ������ � � � � ������� ������� � ���� �� ����� ���� ��������� � ���� ���� � ��� �������������������� �� � ������� ����� � ���� ������� � �� �� �� � ��� � ���� � ����� ����� ����� � �� ���� ���� ���� �� � � ���������� ���������� ����������� ����� � �� ��� � � � � � � � �� ����� ����� ����� �� �������� � � ���������� ���� � � ����������� ��� � � � � � �� ������� ���� � � �� �� �� ����� ���� ��� � � � ���� � � � � ���������������� �������������� � ������������� 382 Houston Freeways Downtown’s newest addition: The new Eastex Freeway downtown
    [Show full text]