Border Master Plans Lower Rio Grande Valley

1
Border Master PlansLower Rio Grande Valley
Tamaulipas
2012 Border to Border Transportation
Conference Session Transportation Planning
Internationally Locally

• International Relations Office TxDOT

2
Background

• Initially JWC promoted a first pilot Border
  Master Plan in the California/Baja California
  region
• Border master plans have also been included in
  the binational agenda at the presidential level

• The presidents' border vision recognizes the
  importance of facilitating lawful trade and
  travel thus a Declaration on 21st Century Border
  Management was issued on May 2010 and a
  Binational Action Plan was drafted subsequently

President Barack Obama (U.S.A.) and President
Felipe Calderón (Mexico), May 19, 2010. (Official
White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)
3
Background

• California-Baja California Border Master Plan
  completed in 2008
• Currently being updated
• Texas-Mexico Border relatively large
• Laredo - Coahuila/Nuevo León/Tamaulipas Border
  Master Plan (Laredo District)
• Lower Rio Grande Valley Tamaulipas Border
  Master Plan (Pharr District)
• El Paso/New Mexico Chihuahua Border Master Plan
  (El Paso District New Mexico DOT)
• Arizona/Sonora effort also underway

4
Objectives

• Design stakeholder process that is inclusive and
  ensure participation
• Increase understanding of POE and transportation
  planning processes on both sides of border
• Develop and implement plan to prioritize POE and
  transportation projects over short, medium, and
  long term
• Establish communication process among federal,
  state, regional, and local stakeholders on both
  sides of border

5
Requirements for Success

• Stakeholder participation and commitment
• Obtaining data and information
• Current and future demand on existing
  infrastructure
• Planned future projects to allow prioritization

6
Summary of Tasks
Task 1 - Establish Stakeholder Participation and
Commitment Task 2 - First Stakeholder Meetings
Task 3 - Analyze Data, Consultancy Reports, and
Documentation Task 4 - Second Stakeholder
Meetings Task 5 - Stakeholder Workshops Task 6
- Rank Priority Projects Task 7 - Finalize
Documentation Task 8 - Disseminate Study
Findings
7
Stakeholder Participation

• Identified for Pharr BMP
• More than 150 stakeholders (e.g., 50 agencies) at
  the federal, state, county/municipal, and city
  level in both countries
• 5 railroad companies (8 officials)
• 14 border partners (e.g., 22 participants)
• Implemented
• Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
• Technical Working Group (TWG)

8
Types of Stakeholders

• Provide overall direction
• Establish clear parameters
• Review and approve criteria for future evaluation
  of projects  
• Attempt to incorporate findings and priorities
  into own planning and programming processes
• Commit resources and staff to ensure timely
  exchange of available information

Policy Advisory Committee

• Provide requested information in timely manner
• Review assessments and documentation
• Select criteria to be endorsed and adopted by the
  Policy Advisory Committee
• Make recommendations to Policy Advisory Committee

Technical Working Group
9
Meetings
PAC 4 Meeting Endorsement
TWG 1 Inventory of infrastructure data request
TWG 2 Obtained data review
TWG 3
PAC 3 Meeting
PAC 2 Meeting Summary of obtained data
introduction to criteria weights voting
procedure
PAC 1 Meeting Voting on Study Area Time
Horizons
Criteria Weights Voting
10
Voting Process

• Prioritization of projects can be sensitive and
  contentious
• Needed a process to ensure equal voice in
  selecting criteria and criteria weights used for
  project prioritization
• Critical to endorsement of plan and implementing
  project priorities

11
Ensure Participation

• Used igtClicker technology that allowed anonymous
  voting
• Stakeholders voted on criteria, were shown
  results, discussed results, and re-voted
• Process continued until voting results were
  unaltered from round to round

12
A Border Master Plan Seeks to

• Develop inventories of FUTURE Projects
• Prioritize future required investments to serve
  anticipated cross- border demand over the short,
  medium, and long term

13
Why Border Master Plans?

• Funding
• Inadequate funding for all planned projects
  need to prioritize
• No funding to invest in projects that are not
  well supported
• Border Master Plans aim
• to identify binational POE and multi-modal
  project priorities
• secure commitment from stakeholder agencies to
  implement priority projects
• to ensure continued dialogue among agencies in
  moving forward

14
Pharr District Jurisdiction
Los Tomates/Veterans Bridge
Gateway International Bridge
Brownsville Matamoros (BM) Bridge
BM Rail Bridge
Brownsville West Rail Bypass
Free Trade Bridge
Weslaco/Progreso Bridge
Donna Bridge
Pharr Reynosa Bridge
McAllen/Hidalgo Reynosa Bridge
Anzaldúas Bridge
Los Ebanos Ferry
Starr-Camargo Bridge
Roma Bridge (Suspension- Closed)
Roma Bridge
Falcon Dam Crossing
15
Area of Influence

• The area of influence was defined as

Option A Border Counties of the Pharr
District and the corresponding Mexican
Municipalities
16
Focused Study Area

• The Focused Study Area was defined as

Option B 15 miles (24 Kms) to the North and
South of the border line including some
geographical bumps
17
Finalizing Lower Rio Grande Valley
a Task 1 - Establish Stakeholder Participation
and Commitment a Task 2 - First Stakeholder
Meetings a Task 3 - Analyze Data, Consultancy
Reports, and Documentation a Task 4 - Second
Stakeholder Meetings a Task 5 - Stakeholder
Workshops a Task 6 Rank Priority Projects a
Task 7 - Finalize Documentation r Task 8 -
Disseminate Study Findings
Contract Finalizes Spring 2013 First Draft will
be ready early 2013
18
Questions?
Eduardo Hagert Texas Department of
Transportation International Relations
Office Phone [phone] IRO Main Line (512)
936-0942 Eduardo.Hagert_at_txdot.gov http//texasbm
ps.com/