DOCSLIB.ORG

Regional Toll Authority Cooperation and Coordination

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regional Toll Authority Cooperation and Coordination Project Summary Report 0-4055-S Project 0-4055: Guidelines for TxDOT—Regional Tollway Authority Cooperation Author: Katherine F. Turnbull Enhancing TxDOT—Regional Toll Authority Cooperation and Coordination The Texas Department of by the Harris County Toll Road in 2001 allows for the creation Transportation (TxDOT) and Authority (HCTRA). The North of regional mobility authorities other agencies continue to Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) (RMAs) to construct and operate explore new and innovative operates the North Dallas toll facilities. House Bill 3588, methods to address concerns Tollway, the President George passed in 2003, provides RMAs related to traffi c congestion, Bush Turnpike, the Mountain with additional authority, mobility, and accessibility. Creek Lake Toll Bridge, and the creates new opportunities for Expanding the use of toll Addison Tunnel. The Fort Bend toll facilities, and promotes facilities in the state is one County Toll Road Authority collaboration among agencies. approach receiving increased emphasis. Interest in toll roads goes back to the early 1840s, when the Republic of Texas authorized the Houston and Austin Turnpike Company to build a toll road between the two communities. It was not until the 1950s, however, Photo courtesy of DeWitt Garth, HCTRA Photo courtesy of DeWitt with the passage of the Texas Sam Houston Toll Road plaza in Houston Turnpike Act, that the fi rst toll road was built in the state. The (FBCTRA) is developing two Enhanced coordination Dallas-Fort Worth Turnpike was toll roads. The TxDOT Texas among TxDOT, toll authorities, opened in 1957 and operated as a Turnpike Authority (TTA) and RMAs is critical to help toll road until 1977 when it was Division is constructing the ensure that new facilities are turned over to the Texas Highway Central Texas Turnpike Project. planned, designed, funded, Department upon repayment of The Camino Columbia Turnpike constructed, and operated as the bonds. in Laredo is the only privately part of a safe, effi cient, and owned toll road in the state. effective transportation system. Toll roads are part of the This research project developed transportation system in the While toll roads are not new guidelines for TxDOT, toll Houston area, the Dallas-Fort in Texas, there is growing interest authority, and RMA cooperation Worth Metroplex, and Laredo. in expanding their use to address and coordination. The Sam Houston Toll Road and traffi c congestion and mobility the Hardy Toll Road are operated concerns. Legislation approved Project Summary Report 0-4055-S – 1 – Representatives from TxDOT form public highway authorities, and districts and divisions, toll authorities, to implement a $10 county vehicle CTRMA, metropolitan planning registration fee upon voter approval, organizations, transit authorities, and was instrumental in the development other groups were invited to review of the E-470 Tollway in Denver. the draft guidelines and to participate Legislation in California provides for in workshops in Austin and Houston. the establishment of transportation Researchers fi nalized the guidelines corridor agencies (TCAs) with based on comments and suggestions bonding, but not taxing, authority to received at the workshops. construct toll roads. Two TCAs have been formed in Orange County to What We Found... build toll roads, which are owned and operated by the California Department We found that TxDOT districts and of Transportation (Caltrans) as part of divisions are working collaboratively the state system. with toll authorities in Harris and Fort Bend Counties and in the Dallas-Fort A number of common themes Worth Metroplex. TxDOT is heading emerged from the Texas and national the development of the Central Texas case studies. These themes focus Jim Lyle, TTI-COM Jim Lyle, Turnpike Project and is establishing on the need for state legislation to Construction of toll road ramp strong working relationships with the provide for toll opportunities, the CTRMA and groups in other parts of creation of new authorities to oversee What We Did... the state. development and operation of toll Researchers examined the projects, and the use of innovative Memoranda of agreement (MOAs) interaction and coordination to date fi nancing techniques in addition to among TxDOT, the Federal Highway between TxDOT and regional toll bonding and traditional state and Administration (FHWA), and toll authorities in Texas. The establishment federal programs. authorities have been used on toll of the Central Texas Regional Mobility projects to identify the roles and The case studies also point out Authority (CTRMA) was monitored, the responsibilities of all parties. the differences and the similarities along with RMA-related activities These MOAs typically address the between TxDOT or other state in other parts of the state. The interchanges and connections between agencies and toll authorities. experiences with toll facilities in other freeways and toll roads. Examples For example, TxDOT and toll parts of the country were examined. of more recent innovative approaches authorities have different business These national case studies focused include the use of an Intermodal philosophies. TxDOT is responsible primarily on new and innovative Surface Transportation Effi ciency for transportation throughout the approaches with toll facilities in Act (ISTEA) loan on the George state and is accountable to the tax Colorado, California, and Florida. Bush Turnpike in the Dallas-Fort payers. Toll authorities have a county Working with the Project Worth area, HCTRA involvement or multi-county base and serve their Monitoring Committee, researchers in the managed lanes as part of the customers, or those individuals willing used the results from the state and Katy Freeway expansion project in to pay more for the benefi ts provided national case studies to develop draft Houston, and the use of an exclusive by a toll road. The success of a toll guidelines for enhancing cooperation development agreement on the SH 130 authority is based on the ability to and coordination among TxDOT, project in the Austin area. generate revenue to repay bonds. In regional toll authorities, and RMAs. general, TxDOT and toll authorities The national case studies identifi ed The guidelines address planning, use similar plans, specifi cations, and examples of innovative funding environmental review, funding, estimates (PS&E) processes, as well as techniques, institutional arrangements, design, construction, monitoring and the same pre-tested materials. and operational strategies. Legislation evaluation, and management and in Colorado allowing counties to operation. Project Summary Report 0-4055-S – 2 – The Researchers Recommend... • The researchers recommend wide- spread distribution and promotion of the guidelines throughout TxDOT—to TTA and to each of the 25 districts, as well as to Texas toll authorities and RMAs. • It is also recommended that the guidelines be used by these entities when new toll facilities are being planned. These recommendations are based TTI-COM Jim Lyle, Harris County Toll Road Authority toll attendant on the following: • The guidelines developed in this constructing new toll facilities for and the exchange of information, research support TxDOT’s mission trucks and commercial vehicles. ideas, and experiences. to provide for the safe, effective, A variety of TxDOT districts and The guidelines are divided into the and effi cient movement of people divisions and toll entities may be following eight sections: and goods. The guidelines involved in these types of projects. provide direction to TxDOT staff • guiding principles, The following toll entities and existing for enhancing coordination and toll authorities are currently involved • planning, cooperation with regional toll in toll projects in the state: authorities and RMAs. They • environmental review, provide guidance for TxDOT staff • regional tollway authorities (North • funding and fi nancing, and other groups involved with toll Texas Tollway Authority), projects, rather than mandating a • design, • county toll authorities (Harris specifi c approach. The guidelines County Toll Road Authority and • construction, are fl exible to meet the unique Fort Bend County Toll Road characteristics and needs of • monitoring and evaluation, and Authority), different areas, while providing a • management and operation. common direction for all groups • the state toll authority (TxDOT’s associated with toll facilities. Texas Turnpike Authority Use of these guidelines by TxDOT Division), staff and personnel at regional toll • The guidelines are appropriate for authorities, RMAs, and other groups use with the wide range of toll- • private toll road companies will help ensure that toll facilities, related projects that may be under (Camino Columbia, Inc.), the Interstate system, and the state consideration in an area or in • regional mobility authorities highway system provide for the safe, various stages of planning, design, (Central Texas Regional Mobility effi cient, and effective movement construction, and operation. Authority and other regional of people and goods. Enhanced Examples of toll options mobility authorities that may form cooperation and coordination among include building new toll roads, in the future), and all groups will help address traffi c toll bridges, and toll tunnels; congestion, mobility, and accessibility converting existing freeways • the Transportation and Expressway concerns throughout Texas. and roadways into toll facilities; Authority
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HOUSTON, TEXAS North Houston Industrial East of I-45
    HOUSTON, TEXAS North Houston Industrial East of I-45 Prepared for: Prepared by: BOBBIE BOZARTH, Senior Vice President 1900 West Loop South, Suite 1300 Houston, TX 77027 713.272.1221 [email protected] MAP OF PROPERTIES BUILDING PROFILES AND FLOOR PLANS 1. DCT Airtex Business Center – 14820 North Freeway 2. Cypressbrook Air Center – 1704 Rankin Rd 3. Airport Industrial Park – 16431 Aldine Westfield Rd 4. 15411 Vantage Parkway West 5. Intercontinental Business Park - 15344 Vantage Pkwy East 6. Interwood Business Center – 14430 John F. Kennedy Blvd 7. World Houston Intl Bus. Center, Building 30 – 5656 N. Sam Houston Parkway East 8. World Houston Business Park – 5500 Shirley Lane 9. World Houston Intl. Bus. Center, Building 41 – 15882 Diplomatic Plaza Dr. 10. Greens Road Business Center – Greens Rd & Highway 59 N. FORFOR LEASE: LEASE 126,568 : 178,000 SF with with BTS BTS office Office DCT AirtexDCT FAIRBANKS Business 8Center 14820 North Freeway, Houston, TX 7220 & 7330 N. Sam Houston Parkway W., Houston, TX BUILDING HIGHLIGHTS • 126,568 SF Light Industrial Building • Divisible to +17,000 Square Feet • Rear Load Configuration • 30’ Clear Height • Column Spacing: 52’ X 50’ • ESFR Sprinkler System • Crane Capable • Loading Access: (42) Dock High & (5) Grade Level • Truck Court Depth: 120’ • Ample Passenger Vehicle Parking Mark Nicholas (SIOR), JLL Richard Quarles (CCIM), JLL 713.888.4024 713.888.4019 CONTACT [email protected] [email protected] FORFOR LEASE: LEASE 126,568 : 178,000 SF with with BTS BTS office Office DCT AirtexDCT FAIRBANKS Business 8Center 14820 North Freeway, Houston, TX 7220 & 7330 N.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Traffic and Revenue Forecast
    VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE FILING Filed by the Texas Transportation Commission Date of Filing: January 29, 2020 Evaluation and Confirmation of Central Texas Turnpike System 2018 Traffic and Revenue Study Forecast In connection with the offering by the Texas Transportation Commission (the "Commission") of the proposed Central Texas Turnpike System Revenue Refunding Bonds (the "Bonds"), Stantec Consulting Services Inc, ("Stantec"), the acting Traffic Consultant for the Commission in connection with the Central Texas Turnpike System (the "System"), reviewed the report they prepared titled Central Texas Turnpike System 2018 Traffic & Revenue Study dated August 29, 2018 (the "2018 Report") to determine if changes to the underlying economics and other conditions warrant any change to the original forecast. Stantec has issued a letter dated as of January 21, 2020 (the "2020 Update Letter") updating the 2018 Report. For more information regarding the System, the 2020 Update Letter and the 2018 Report, please refer to the Preliminary Official Statement dated January 28, 2020, for the Commission's Bonds which is accessible here and contains updated information regarding the System including the 2020 Update Letter and the 2018 Report. After pricing the Bonds, the final Official Statement will also be filed under the base CUSIPs for the Bonds. This filing is not required to be provided by the Commission or the Texas Department of Transportation ("TxDOT") pursuant to their respective contractual continuing disclosure undertaking relating to their outstanding obligations and, accordingly, should not be construed as obligating the Commission or TxDOT to provide such additional information in future continuing disclosure filings or to provide any updates to the information contained in this filing.
    [Show full text]
  • Toll Per Mile Comparisons 2017
    Copyright (C) 2018 E470 Oversight Project NON INTERSTATE ROADS TOLLS PER MILE (EXCLUDING TOLL ROADS SHORTER THAN 3 MILES) MINIMUM TOLL FOR PASSENGER CARS AS OF JANUARY 1 2017 SOURCE: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION MIN PASSENGER VEH TOLL PER STATE NAME FROM TO MILES MILE New York Whiteface Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway Wilmington Whiteface Mountain 5.00 $2.20 New York Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway US 9 (gate) Top of Prospect Mountain 5.90 $1.69 Illinois Elgin O'Hare Expressway Lake Street Interstate 290 6.43 $0.52 Colorado Pikes Peak Toll Road Town of Cascade, US 24 west of Colorado Springs Top of Pikes Peak Mountain -14, 110' elevation 19.00 $0.39 Alabama Foley Beach Express AL 59 (in Foley) AL 180 (in Orange Beach) 8.53 $0.39 Colorado Northwest Parkway I-25, MP 228 in North Denver 96th Street (in City of Broomfield) 10.00 $0.36 Colorado E-470 I-25 & C-470; Douglas County I-25 & Northwest Parkway; Adams County 47.00 $0.30 Texas Loop 1 Parmer Lane SH 45 4.00 $0.27 Texas Manor Expressway Springdale Road Parmer Lane 5.00 $0.26 Florida Miami Airport Expressway I-95 Lejeune Rd (SR 953) 4.07 $0.26 Florida Wekiva Parkway CR 435/Mount Plymouth Road West of Old McDonald Road 3.14 $0.24 Florida Poinciana Parkway US 17/92 and Kinny Harmon Road Cypress Parkway 9.70 $0.23 Texas Fort Bend Parkway - Fort Bend County BW 8 SH 6 6.20 $0.23 Florida Orchard Pond Old Bainbridge Road Meridian Road 5.20 $0.23 Florida John Land - Apopka Expressway (SR 414) SR 429 (Western Beltway) US 441 South 5.00 $0.23 Texas SH 249 Tomball Tollway Spring-Cypress
    [Show full text]
  • TOLL ROADS STAY in THIS for the Entire Tags Work on Toll Roads Throughout Texas and Vice Versa—The REGION,” EVANS SAID
    52 Community Impact Newspaper • communityimpact.com INSIDE INFORMATION KEY GROWING OUTWARD Tomball Tollway Beltway 8 The Grand Parkway Highway As the population in Northwest Houston grows, major roadways have been built and expanded to redistribute traffic and meet the needs of drivers in the area. TOMBALL TOLLWAY The tollway spans from north of Spring 99 Cypress Road to north of FM 2920. Tolls range from 90 cents for one entrance THE GRAND PARKWAY or exit to $1.50 to travel the entire 6-mile Segments F-1 and F-2 of the span. Tolls are collected by HCTRA. Grand Parkway opened in February, THE PROJECT COST TOTALED $155 MILLION connecting Hwy. 290 in Cypress to I-45 near The Woodlands. Tolls range from 43 cents for direct connectors to $1.35 for main plaza tolls and are collected by TxDOT. TOLL g Cypress Rd. Sprin BELTWAY 8 Drive time on each segment averages 10 249 Originally planned in the 1950s, HCTRA took minutes. on the Beltway 8 project after TxDOT could not authorize funding to create Houston’s ROADSCompiled by Wendy Cawthon 45 second loop. Tolls range from 90 cents to $1.75. In Harris County, much of the toll road system is run by the Harris County Toll Road Authority. The HCTRA was Tolled portions of the road are referred to Map not to scale founded in 1983 after voters approved a $900 million as the Sam Houston Tollway. bond referendum to create the Hardy Toll Road and the Harris County Tollway. Since then, HCTRA has spent over $3 billion on the toll system, creating the Tomball LOCAL USAGE Tollway and the Sam Houston Tollway in Northwest Houston, as well as the Katy managed lanes on I-10 Since opening in April 2015, the Tomball Tollway has exceeded expectations for monthly usage as drivers look for a quicker way to travel on Hwy.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimated Vs. Forecasted Toll Usage : a Case Study Review
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA/TX-10/0-6044-1 Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Actual vs. Forecasted Toll Usage: A Case Study Review July 2008; Revised August 2009 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jolanda Prozzi, Kate Flanagan, Lisa Loftus-Otway, Beth 0-6044-1 Porterfield, Khali Persad, Jorge A. Prozzi, and C. Michael Walton 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Transportation Research 11. Contract or Grant No. The University of Texas at Austin 0-6044 3208 Red River, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78705-2650 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Texas Department of Transportation Technical Report Research and Technology Implementation Office April 11, 2007 – June 30, 2008 P.O. Box 5080 Austin, TX 78763-5080 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Project performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. 16. Abstract Reliable T&R forecasts are critical to the success of toll proposals. However, a number of studies by the bond rating agencies—specifically Standard & Poor’s (S&P)—have shown that a majority of toll roads failed to meet revenue expectations in their first full year of operation. These studies alluded to the existence of an optimism bias in T&R forecasts, with an over-estimation of traffic by 20-30 percent in the first five years of operation. This uncertainty contributes to increased risks about the feasibility of toll roads, requirements for escrow accounts of up to 30 percent of the amount borrowed, and thus high interest payments (and ultimately higher costs to the users) to compensate investors for higher risks.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Morning Mr
    TESTIM ONY Interim Charge 2: TxDOT, MPOs and Tolling Authorities Testimony Before the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee John Barton, P.E. Assistant Executive Director of Engineering Operations Texas Department of Transportation October 13, 2010 Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee October 13, 2010 Interim Charge 2: Review and make recommendations relating to the Texas Department of Transportation's organizational structure and working relationship with local governments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Regional Tolling Authorities and Regional Mobility Authorities. Introduction Over the years, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has worked diligently to forge a strong working relationship with its transportation partners across the State. This relationship is most necessary as TxDOT and its partners work together to craft a transportation plan that considers the State's needs related to urban mobility, statewide connectivity, and both urban and rural transportation needs. TxDOT relies heavily upon both Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and tolling authorities across the State for their expertise to achieve this goal. Metropolitan Planning Organizations In 1962, the United States Congress passed legislation that required the creation of MPOs for any urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process. Congress created MPOs in order to ensure that existing and future expenditures of governmental funds for transportation projects and programs are based on a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive planning process. Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes are governed by federal law (23 U.S.C. § 134–135). Additionally, public access to participation in the planning process is required by federal law to achieve transparency.
    [Show full text]
  • BW8 72Ppi.Pdf
    Sam Houston Parkway/Tollway, Beltway 8 Even before the alignment of Loop 610 had been finalized, the city of Houston was formulating plans for a second loop. It was a remarkable act of vision and foresight to rec- ognize the future importance of loop highways in today’s predominant suburb-to-suburb transportation patterns. However, the first wave of freeway construction in Houston from the 1950s to the 1970s came and went with very little progress on the Beltway. The age of the Houston Beltway arrived with the second wave of Houston freeway con- struction, which started in the 1980s. By 1996 the entire loop had been constructed in some form—freeway, tollway, or frontage road. Completion of the South Belt main lanes in 1997 left only one segment without main lanes. The phenomenal success of the Sam Houston Tollway, the toll main lanes of Beltway 8, even brought traffic congestion to the western and northern sections of the tollway. Although the main lanes of Beltway 8 are, for the most part, not very interesting, the Beltway has one of the nation’s most impressive collections of modern four- and five-level freeway-to-freeway stack interchanges. The Beltway is also unusual in that its tollway sec- tions have continuous toll-free frontage roads. Origins Beltway 8 had its origins in a 1952 report by the City Beltway 8 (Sam Houston Parkway/Tollway) of Houston Planning Department, Proposed Location for Designated as freeway 1960 An Outer Belt Drive for Metropolitan Houston. The report First freeway section open 1970 (overpasses only) was prepared as a basis for fixing a location for a mini- 1982 (toll bridge) mum 120-foot-wide (37 m) thoroughfare located four to five miles (6 to 8 km) beyond the city limits, which were Freeway/tollway complete Scheduled 2007 generally located near Loop 610 at the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Elimination of Toll Roads
    Report on the Elimination of Toll Roads HB 2612, 84th Texas Legislature Provided to: Legislative Budget Board House Committee on Transportation Senate Committee on Transportation September 1, 2016 f Contents Section Page Executive Summary 1 Section 1 – Debt Service on Bonds Issued for Toll Projects 6 Section 2 – Bonds Appropriate for Accelerated or Lump-Sum Payment 12 of Debt Service Section 3 – Plan to Eliminate Toll Roads 16 Appendices Appendix A – Index of Toll Road Bonds A Appendix B – Assumptions Regarding Toll Road Debt Service Analysis B Appendix C – Toll Road Project Actual vs. Projected Traffic C Appendix D – House Bill 2612 D f Executive Summary House Bill 2612, 84th Legislature, Regular Session, 2015, requires the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to prepare a report on the feasibility of eliminating toll roads in the State of Texas. This report is divided into three sections, which correspond to the requirements of the legislation: . Section 1. “lists the amount of debt service on bonds issued for each toll project in this state;” . Section 2. “identifies, based on criteria provided by the Texas Transportation Commission, bonds that would be appropriate for accelerated or complete lump-sum payment of debt service;” . Section 3. “proposes a plan to eliminate all toll roads in this state, except for tolls on roads constructed, operated, or maintained only with proceeds from the issuance of bonds by a toll project entity other than the department, by methods including: – “the accelerated or complete lump-sum payment of debt service on bonds identified under Subdivision (1); or – “requiring, as a condition on receipt of state financial assistance, a commitment by a toll project entity to eliminate toll collection on a project for which the financial assistance is provided.” The report includes a review of the 53 toll roads and 28 financial tolling systems in the state, excluding international bridges.
    [Show full text]
  • Harris County Budget Process Training for FY 2021-2022
    Budget Hearings FY 2021-22 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS JANUARY 6 – 13, 2021 Version 3 Document Control January 6 - 13, 2021 Justice 1 Day 1 Safety 2 Day 2 Governance & Customer Service Flooding Environment Day 3 3 Transportation Public Health Governance & Customer Service, cont. Day 4 4 Economic Opportunity, Public Health, cont., and Housing 3 READER’S GUIDE: GENERAL FUND BUDGET FORMS This guide was developed to give readers an understanding of the FY 2021-22 budget documents included in this supplement. Harris County departments and agencies completed a set of budget forms that provide a comprehensive view into the department’s structure, resource allocation, services, goals and objectives, and performance metrics. Form Title Required Background Template Yes Form 1 Divisions Yes Form 2 Org Chart Yes Form 3 Goals & Objectives Yes Form 4a Services Detail Yes Form 4b Performance Metrics Yes If requesting additional Form 5a Budget Request - Summary funding If requesting new Form 5b Budget Request - New Positions positions If requesting additional Form 5c Budget Request - Detail funding Form 6 Long-Term Needs If applicable Update on Expansion Funding Form 7 If applicable included in FY2020-21 Budget Form 8 Supplemental Revenue If applicable Below you will find a brief description of the information included in each of the budget forms. Background Template – The background template provides a broad departmental overview and captures narrative related to the mission, vision, goals, operations, and equity and diversity strategies of the department. Form 1 – This form provides an overview of the department’s divisions and services and includes a breakdown of budget amounts and headcount at the division level.
    [Show full text]
  • National Inventory of Specialty Lanes and Highways: Technical Report February 2021 6
    Publication No. FHWA-HOP-20-043 February 2021 Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high- quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. The FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Non-Binding Contents The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. Cover Image Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HOP-20-043 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date National Inventory of Specialty Lanes and Highways: Technical Report February 2021 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Nick Wood, Vivek Gupta, James P. Cardenas, Jinuk Hwang, Deepak Report No. Raghunathan 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.
    [Show full text]
  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Overview
    HOUSTON PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF HOUSTON HOUSTON WATER DIVISION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Overview The designated property (the Site) is located at 14330 East Hardy Road in Houston, Harris County, Texas near the intersection of East Hardy and Pinafore Lane (Attachment C-1). The Site is part of an active industrial facility that manufactures and refurbishes metal seated ball valves. The Site is owned by MOGAS Industries, Inc. (MOGAS). The size of the designated property is 1.141 acres. MOGAS was founded in 1973 and the facility has operated at this location for almost 50 years. The potentially responsible party (PRP) for reported groundwater impacts at the designated property is MOGAS, the current Site owner and occupant. Based on site assessment activities performed to date and information provided by MOGAS, the point of origin of contamination on the Site is believed to be from various historic maintenance and/or operational activities that were conducted within a building that was renovated and extended in March 2015. This area is located in the northwest corner of the facility where the building extension was constructed. Equipment that had been used within that historic building area that likely contained the source material (believed to be a chlorinated solvent product) is no longer used and is no longer present at the facility. Only above ground storage vessels were used to contain the chlorinated solvent, no underground storage tanks were used to hold these chemicals. Based on the removal of the historic equipment and changed practices at the facility, it is concluded that the source of the plume has been removed.
    [Show full text]
  • North Freeway, Interstate 45 North Most Houston Freeways Have Developed a Distinguish- ���������� ������ Ing Characteristic Over the Years
    The Spokes 217 North Freeway, Interstate 45 North Most Houston freeways have developed a distinguish- ���������� ������ ing characteristic over the years. The West Loop has its impressive and ritzy Uptown Houston skyline. The Katy ����� ����������������������������������������� Freeway is the Energy Corridor. The La Porte Freeway ���������������������������������������� has its industrial complex. When most Houstonians think ��������������������������������������� of a freeway, something comes to mind, whether it is the �������������� ����������� ���� ������������������������������� Astrodome on the South Loop or the perennial construc- ���� ��������� tion on the Gulf Freeway. So what do Houstonians think of when the North Freeway is mentioned? In 2003, that ���� ��������� �� honor goes to “Gallery Furniture, 6006 I-45 North be- tween Tidwell and Parker,” a retailer with a fast-talking ���� owner who saturates Houston’s media with advertise- ���� ments, always including the North Freeway location in his sales pitches. Aside from Gallery Furniture, Houstonians are apt to think of billboards, commercial clutter, and low- �� er-tier commercial establishments. No one has ever called ���� ������ the North Freeway glamorous or scenic. The most notable structure along the North Freeway, a Goodyear blimp ��������������� ���������� ������������������� hangar, was dismantled in 1994 and replaced with “big box” retail structures. Perhaps a 1999 Houston Chronicle article on the North Freeway found the right word for the ���� freeway, calling it a “workhorse.” 90 But in terms of transportation, the North Freeway has ������� always been one of Houston’s most important freeways. It is one of the main routes to Bush Intercontinental Airport ������������� and serves as the link to Houston’s fast-growing northern ����� suburbs. It connects Houston to its cross-state rival, Dal- ���������������� las. It served as the location for Houston’s contraflow lane ���� transit experiment which launched Houston’s transitway ������������ system.
    [Show full text]