Expansion of SH 99 (the Grand Parkway) through New Territory may start as early as 2010 with a new proposal by TxDot to fund the project through toll revenues collected at various electronic gantries (not booths).
The project , which consists of constructing 4 lanes (two lanes in each direction) and 12 overpasses from Franz Road to U.S. 59 in Sugar Land, is roughly estimated to cost $200 million.
“Without tolling, construction would be delayed considerably while we wait for state funds,” said a TxDot spokesperson. “Traffic demands have outpaced traditional finance mechanisms.”
The Grand Parkway was planned as a means to provide an additional evacuation route, an alternative route around the city, and to accommodate traffic increases and growth, said the spokesperson. It was originally designed for six lanes in 1987 when they conducted a traffic study of the area, and although Tx Dot plans to build four lanes in this next phase, they may build two more lanes (one in each direction) if warranted in the future, they said. TxDot completed construction of the existing frontage roads in 1995.
According to a preliminary schedule, TxDot may complete their environmental assessment next year, finalize their design in 2009, begin construction in 2010, and complete the project in 2014.
Most of the existing lanes will serve as frontage roads or ramps onto the new main lanes. Only the new main lanes and overpasses will have tolls and motorists will be able to travel the frontage roads at no cost, said the spokesperson. There will be overpasses at West River Park Drive, New Territory Blvd. and a very long one for Sandhill, US 90-A, and FM 1464. The overpasses will be built one level higher than grade level, so the one at 90-A will go over the railroad track.
TxDot will do a noise analysis as part of their environmental assessment. Sound walls may not be warranted or feasible, they said.
TxDot is receiving public input on the proposal until June 8. Please send your comments to hou-piowebmail@dot.state.tx.us
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
New Territory Annexation Negotiations with City of Sugar Land in Question
It’s been one step forward and two steps back for the New Territory MUDs in their recent attempts to negotiate an annexation agreement with the City of Sugar Land.
The MUDs received three drafts from the City between April 9 and May 7, 2007 but only the first one presented terms previously negotiated by the MUDs. The last two drafts, mailed to the MUDs just a week apart, conflicted with the first draft and rescinded many of the terms. Those two drafts are similar except the second one attaches a preliminary groundwater reduction plan never before released by the City.
MUD attorneys were not able to explain why the City came up with new terms as they had met twice with City representatives in recent months and thought the parties were very close to reaching a final annexation agreement.
The MUD 112 attorney has asked for another meeting with City staff to discuss the surprise drafts.
The City and the MUDs face a January 1, 2008 deadline by the Fort Bend Subsidence District to submit a plan that shows how they will reduce groundwater usage to 70% of total water usage by 2013 and to 40% of total water usage by 2025. This is due to ground subsidence in Fort Bend County which could lead to flooding and other problems if groundwater usage is not reduced. A significant reason to enter into a strategic partnership agreement for annexation is to join the City of Sugar Land’s Groundwater Reduction Plan and avoid other, costly means of meeting the mandates.
The MUD 112 attorney advised the boards that they could possibly seek an extension to the January 1, 2008 deadline from the Subsidence District or that they could approach another water authority to join their groundwater reduction plan. Some directors also discussed approaching Sugar Land City Council about a proposed strategic partnership agreement instead of continuing communications with the staff.
MUD 67 Director David Gornet said that the New Territory MUDs could satisfy the 70% mandate by reducing community irrigation (with an updated system that uses rain gauges) and by using effluent from the wastewater treatment plant to fill the amenity lakes (see related story on page 3). “We can meet this first threshold ourselves, internally, and put together a GRP plan very quickly...They (the city) don’t have us over a barrel,” he said.
Another significant issue in the strategic partnership agreement is for fire protection service for New Territory. According to the current contract, the City can terminate fire protection service to New Territory with one year’s notice.
The MUDs, as part of their due diligence in studying the City’s proposed strategic partnership agreement, have already explored the possibility of leaving the City of Sugar Land’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and providing residents with the necessary services.
“This has been a long process and we are four years down the road,” commented the MUD 112 attorney. “You’ve spent a lot of money studying this—through attorney fees and other consultants,” he said. “But we are no further today than we were four years ago. We (the attorneys) have made the recommendations and hammered out an agreement ….now we are at the brink of walking away. I can’t believe that is what the city wants.”
“I think you should meet with them one more time and if things don’t work out, we should go it alone,” a MUD 68 director responded.
Pending the outcome of that meeting, the MUD directors will set a course of action.
The MUDs received three drafts from the City between April 9 and May 7, 2007 but only the first one presented terms previously negotiated by the MUDs. The last two drafts, mailed to the MUDs just a week apart, conflicted with the first draft and rescinded many of the terms. Those two drafts are similar except the second one attaches a preliminary groundwater reduction plan never before released by the City.
MUD attorneys were not able to explain why the City came up with new terms as they had met twice with City representatives in recent months and thought the parties were very close to reaching a final annexation agreement.
The MUD 112 attorney has asked for another meeting with City staff to discuss the surprise drafts.
The City and the MUDs face a January 1, 2008 deadline by the Fort Bend Subsidence District to submit a plan that shows how they will reduce groundwater usage to 70% of total water usage by 2013 and to 40% of total water usage by 2025. This is due to ground subsidence in Fort Bend County which could lead to flooding and other problems if groundwater usage is not reduced. A significant reason to enter into a strategic partnership agreement for annexation is to join the City of Sugar Land’s Groundwater Reduction Plan and avoid other, costly means of meeting the mandates.
The MUD 112 attorney advised the boards that they could possibly seek an extension to the January 1, 2008 deadline from the Subsidence District or that they could approach another water authority to join their groundwater reduction plan. Some directors also discussed approaching Sugar Land City Council about a proposed strategic partnership agreement instead of continuing communications with the staff.
MUD 67 Director David Gornet said that the New Territory MUDs could satisfy the 70% mandate by reducing community irrigation (with an updated system that uses rain gauges) and by using effluent from the wastewater treatment plant to fill the amenity lakes (see related story on page 3). “We can meet this first threshold ourselves, internally, and put together a GRP plan very quickly...They (the city) don’t have us over a barrel,” he said.
Another significant issue in the strategic partnership agreement is for fire protection service for New Territory. According to the current contract, the City can terminate fire protection service to New Territory with one year’s notice.
The MUDs, as part of their due diligence in studying the City’s proposed strategic partnership agreement, have already explored the possibility of leaving the City of Sugar Land’s extraterritorial jurisdiction and providing residents with the necessary services.
“This has been a long process and we are four years down the road,” commented the MUD 112 attorney. “You’ve spent a lot of money studying this—through attorney fees and other consultants,” he said. “But we are no further today than we were four years ago. We (the attorneys) have made the recommendations and hammered out an agreement ….now we are at the brink of walking away. I can’t believe that is what the city wants.”
“I think you should meet with them one more time and if things don’t work out, we should go it alone,” a MUD 68 director responded.
Pending the outcome of that meeting, the MUD directors will set a course of action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)