I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Transcription

1 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting MEMORANDUM OF MEETING SUBJECT: Corridor Segment Committee 3 Meeting #3 DATE: October 26, 2009 LOCATION: Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), Houston, Texas ATTENDING: Attendees are listed on attached sign-in sheets (Attachment 2) The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) Review the Corridor Segment Committee 3 (CSC 3) Meeting #2 Notes; 2) Review and receive further input on the transportation problems and challenges that CSC 3 identified during Meeting #2; 3) Categorize the problems as to whether they should be considered by the I-69 Corridor Program and/or by another transportation program or entity; and 4) Identify the transportation facilities that should be considered when developing the I-69 Corridor Program. The meeting agenda is included as Attachment 1. Welcome/Introductions: Marc Williams welcomed the CSC 3 Members and other attendees. After introductions, Marc thanked H-GAC for hosting the meeting. Administrative: 1. Committee Chair CSC 3 Members designated Domingo Montalvo, Jr. to serve as Committee Chair. 2. Meeting #2 Notes Review and Summary - No changes were made or comments received regarding the CSC 3 Meeting #2 Notes. I-69 Corridor Program Update: 1. TxDOT staff provided an update regarding recent news from Austin. a. It was announced in Austin that the TTC 35 Tier One Final EIS would recommend the No Action Alternative as the preferred alternative. If FHWA approves this recommendation, it would mean that no Tier One study area would be advanced for use in developing Tier Two projects. Consequently, the I-35 Corridor Program would not be studied as a border to border project but as individual projects based on addressing localized transportation needs. This does not affect any decisions or development of the I-69 Corridor Program. No decisions have been made on the I-69 Tier One Environmental Document. b. Additionally, it was emphasized that TxDOT is focused on preserving the opportunity for utilizing a Public-Private Partnership to develop an I-69 Corridor Page 1 of 4

2 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting Program. Currently, Texas legislation restricts the use of Comprehensive Development Agreements (CDAs) north of Refugio. c. TxDOT staff reminded the attendees that the CSC meetings are meant to be working meetings. The intent of the CSC meetings is to receive input from local and regional representatives as part of the effort to develop an I-69 Corridor Program. The following questions were asked: i. Is TxDOT considering tolling I-69 north of Refugio? TxDOT staff replied that TxDOT is exploring all available funding mechanisms, including tolling. ii. Could I-69 include three legs down to the Rio Grande Valley and Laredo, and has this decision been made? TxDOT staff indicated that a determination has not been made as to which routes would be designated I-69. The availability of funding for upgrading existing routes to controlled access highways that meet interstate standards will likely influence such a decision. iii. Will added capacity be tolled as part of the I-69 Corridor Program? TxDOT staff replied that all funding mechanisms are on the table and that communities along the I-69 corridor will have input on these types of decisions. iv. How will corridor projects be prioritized, and will TxDOT be utilizing Travel Demand Modeling to arrive at such decisions? TxDOT staff explained that the CSCs will have input into prioritizing the projects that comprise the I-69 Corridor Program. TxDOT and its consultants will support the CSCs by doing the background analytical work to develop the performance measures that the CSCs would use to prioritize the projects in the program. In response, a CSC attendee emphasized that the economic impact of developing relief routes also needs to be considered when prioritizing the projects. v. Is there any data available on the potential economic effects of developing relief routes around communities? TxDOT staff indicated that several studies addressing this issue have been completed nationally. Basically, the studies generally show that the economic effects of relief routes are dependant on a variety of local issues and the condition of the economy. Corridor Segment Committee Generalized Tasks and Schedule 1. TxDOT Staff reviewed the handout (Attachment 3) listing the CSC Tasks and Schedule for developing an I-69 Corridor Program. The schedule is a preliminary estimate and is subject to change. Page 2 of 4

3 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting Exercise #1 Wrapping up the Transportation Problems and Challenges 1. Marc Williams explained that the purpose of this exercise is to review, refine and categorize the Transportation Problems and Challenges defined in Meeting #2. The CSC 3 attendees were asked to determine if the listed Transportation Problems and Challenges should be considered by the I-69 Corridor Program and/or by another transportation program or entity. If the CSC 3 attendees decide that a particular Transportation Problem or Challenge should be handled by another transportation program or entity, TxDOT will track how that problem is ultimately addressed. A Segment 3 Map (Attachment 4) was provided for reference, and the Meeting #3 exercise handouts were reviewed line by line. The results of this exercise are included in Attachment After the exercise, the CSC chairman submitted a resolution from the City of Wharton to TxDOT (Attachment 6). Exercise #2 Transportation Facilities to be Considered when Developing the I-69 Corridor Program 1. TxDOT staff introduced the second exercise as a group activity. It was explained that the purpose of this exercise is to identify the transportation facilities to be considered when developing the I-69 Corridor Program. The CSC 3 attendees were requested to: a. Identify the specific routes they feel should be upgraded to interstate standards as part of I-69 and why. b. Identify routes and facilities they feel I-69 should connect to and why. c. Identify other transportation facilities, such as rail, transit and airports, that if developed, upgraded, or connected would complement the movement of freight trucks and passenger vehicles in the I-69 corridor and why. Worksheets and an accompanying map were provided to record the CSC 3 attendees input. To accomplish this task, the CSC 3 attendees decided to break-out into two workgroups representing the northern and southern portions of the CSC 3 limits. Each workgroup completed their own worksheets and utilized the map to locate transportation facilities to be considered when developing the I-69 Corridor Program. At the conclusion of the exercise, the two workgroups reported their results and submitted their worksheets and maps to TxDOT. The worksheets and maps for both workgroups are included in these notes as Attachment 7. Discussion of Next Meeting (January 2010) Activities: TxDOT staff indicated that January or February 2010 was the target date for the next meeting. At the next meeting, the CSC will review the results of Meeting #3 and provide updates to planning features mapping developed for the I-69 Corridor. For this exercise, the CSCs will be asked to identify and locate those planning and environmental features/constraints they believe could influence the development of the I-69 Corridor Program. Also, if time permits, CSC attendees will be asked to help identify the goals to be achieved by the I-69 Corridor Program. Page 3 of 4

4 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting Wrap Up: Doise Miers provided a handout containing the listserve information and instructions which is included as Attachment 8. She also asked for volunteers to consider hosting future CSC meetings, the next to be held at the end of January or in February. Adjourn: The meeting was then adjourned. Attachments: 1. Agenda 2. Sign-In Sheet 3. Corridor Segment Committee Tasks and Schedule 4. Segment 1 Map 5. CSC 3 - Mtg 3 Exercise #1 Results 6. City of Wharton Resolution 7. CSC 3 Mtg 3 Exercise #2 Results 8. Listserve Information and Instructions Meeting Staff included: Ed Pensock-TxDOT/TTA, Doug Booher-TxDOT/TTA, Dieter Billek-TxDOT/TTA, Doise Miers- TxDOT/GPA, Marc Williams-Consultant, Joe Shalkowski-Consultant, Lori Cole-Consultant, Tina Brown-Consultant, Ariel Carmona-Consultant, Michael Sexton-Consultant Page 4 of 4

5 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 1 Agenda

6 I-69 Corridor Segment Committee #3 Meeting #3 October 26, :00 PM to 3:30 PM Welcome/Introductions Marc Williams Facilitator Administrative Marc Williams Committee Chair Facilitator Meeting #2 Notes Review and Summary I-69 Corridor Program Update TxDOT Corridor Segment Committee Generalized Tasks and Schedule TxDOT Exercise #1 Wrapping up the Transportation Problems and Challenges Marc Williams Review, Refine, and Categorize the Transportation Facilitator Problems and Challenges Defined in Meeting #2 Discussion of Next Meeting (January 2010) Activities Marc Williams Facilitator Wrap Up Listserve Meeting Scheduling TxDOT Adjourn Marc Williams Facilitator

7 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 2 Sign-In Sheet

8

9

10 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 3 Corridor Segment Committee Tasks and Schedule

11 Corridor Segment Committee Tasks and Schedule for Developing the I-69 Corridor Program August 2009 Task 1 Identification of Transportation Problems October 2009 Task 2 Refine Transportation Problems and Identify Transportation Problem Ownership October 2009 Task 3 Identify Routes and Facilities that Should Connect to I-69 January 2010 Task 4 Discuss and Locate Planning Features January 2010 Task 5 Develop I-69 Corridor Program Goals and Objectives March 2010 Task 6 Create Framework for the I-69 Corridor Program Public Involvement Plan May 2010 Task 7 Identify Transportation Solutions July 2010 Task 8 Prioritize Transportation Projects September 2010 Task 9 Review and Finalize the CSC I-69 Corridor Plan Report

12 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 4 Segment 2 Map

13 Buda Lake Bastrop Prairie View Waller Kyle 21 San Marcos Canyon Lake Hunter Lake Mcqueeney Seguin A 304 ra 60 East Bernard Orchard Br Fort Bend 990 0A 59 Beasley Ri ve r Wharton Wharton 239 Goliad or ni a os sc er Riv River er Pernitas Point Orange Grove R 77 Mathis Lake City San Patricio Edroy Calallen Taft Odem 181 Portland Gregory Ingleside Galveston County Water Reservoir Galveston ) " 197 Î Texas City ) " 108 ÎGalveston Angleton Lake Jackson 36 Freeport Î Gulf of Mexico South Texas Project Reservoir 87 Port Lavaca Î Existing and Planned Controlled Access Highways Segment 3 Seadrift 185 Highway - Interstate Planned Controlled Access Highway - State Marked SH 99 Study Area Highway - US Marked County iv 87 Urban Area Existing Controlled Access o Commercial Airport Brenham Î Primary Deep Draft Seaport Railroads Rockport Sinton 37 West Columbia er 359 on i M i ss Woodsboro Galveston Bay William Harris Reservoir Eagle Nest Lake/ Manor Lake 35 Austwell Refugio 146 Mustang Lake East/ Mustang Lake West George West Lakeside Point Comfort Cox Lake/ Raw Water Lake/ Recycle Lake 239 Alvin Beeville Lake Corpus Christi 35 Bloomington Aransas Pass 124 Palacios 185 iv Webster Friendswood League City Î San An to o 35 Chambers )8 " 6 Bay City 71 o 59 Three Rivers 281 Victoria 59 Pearland Ganado Lake Texana o San Bernard Reservoirs #1, #2, #3 Brazoria Reservoir Brazoria Sweeny 322 Coleto Creek Reservoir Aloe 72 r Pasadena Anahuac Beach City 99 ) " 10 Lake Anahuac Morgans Point La Porte South Houston HOBBY AIRPORT ELLINGTON FIELD Wallisville Lake Mont Belvieu Deer Park Brazoria er 183 Kenedy ) " rd Karnes City 777 7A Nordheim er Runge ive r Riv Yorktown Ri ve a 80 d Edna lupe 72 N a v id Gu a da ar Cuero Poth Falls City 123 c va La Fairchilds B Î Smithers Lake Pleak R iv El Campo )8 " China Jefferson 146 Baytown Needville Rosenberg 90 Cedar Bayou Generating Pond Bellaire Nome Devers Lynchburg Reservoir Sugar Land Missouri City Richmond Kendleton do The Meadows Stafford az o s River Sa n Floresville 59 Wallis " ) Fulshear Liberty 1960 Houston 6 Grayburg Daisetta Å Sheldon Reservoir a ern Nixon Stockdale es N uec i v er 10 ) Houston " Barker Reservoir Yoakum 181 Choke Canyon Reservoir A 95 dr Humble 59 )8 " Brazo s R i v er At a Hallettsville Shiner 990 0A lo 10 Simonton Eagle Lake Gonzales Lake Gonzales ar Eagle Lake 77 ern Co ONIO TIONAL ORT Flatonia B Luling Lake Dunlap Weimar Schulenburg o Dayton Houston Lake Houston Addicks Reservoir Katy Brookshire an HOUSTON INTERCONTINENTAL AIRPORT Harris Pattison San Felipe Sealy S 10 Columbus Å Waller New Braunfels La Grange Lockhart Bellville Cedar Creek Reservoir (fayette) 71 Kenefick Spring Pine Island 237 Smithville 35 Tomball Dayton Lakes er Blanco Bastrop Liberty r s R iv AUSTINBERGSTROM INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 21 R zo Woodbranch Village ive Oak Ridge North Stage Coach Bra 290 Giddings nto Shenandoah Oak Hill Union Pacific (UP) Kansas City Southern (KCS) Burlington Santa Fe (BNSF) PublicNorthern Lands Other Existing Abandoned Rail Miles 1 Inch = 15 Miles T:\SegmentCommitteeMeetings\Segment3\I-69_Segment3_11x17.mxd 8/5/2009

14 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 5 CSC 3 - Mtg 3 Exercise #1 Results

15 I 69 Corridor Program (I 69CP) Corridor Segment Committee #3 Categorizing the Transportation Problems and Challenges Defined in Meeting #2 Transportation Problems and Challenges Location Should the Problem be Considered by the I 69CP or Another Program/Entity? (Check One) I 69CP Other Comments No revision was made to the problem statement. 1 SH 288 between Freeport and Loop I 610 in Houston experiences heavy congestion. REGIONAL X One of the CSC attendees indicated that it would more appropriate for thisproblem to be handled by the Houston District and/or H GAC rather than the I 69 Corridor Program. After some discussion, the CSC attendees agreed with this conclusion. 2 Heavy truck traffic serving the Ports of Houston and Freeport contribute to the congestion on SH 36, US 59, SH 288, and SH 332. REGIONAL X The CSC modified this problem statement. The revision has been incorporated and is italicized. The CSC attendees also emphasized that the I 69 Corridor Program should consider the development of spurs to the Ports. 3 Because of the heavy volume and high speed of traffic on US 59, agricultural equipment has difficulty crossing the facility. REGIONAL X No revision was made to the problem statement. 4 The increasing mix of slow moving rural agricultural traffic and high speed vehicles, in areas where there are no frontage roads, has deteriorated highway safety. REGIONAL X No revision was made to the problem statement. October 26, 2009 Page 1 of 8 CSC 3 Mtg 3 Exercise

16 I 69 Corridor Program (I 69CP) Corridor Segment Committee #3 Categorizing the Transportation Problems and Challenges Defined in Meeting #2 Transportation Problems and Challenges Location Should the Problem be Considered by the I 69CP or Another Program/Entity? (Check One) I 69CP Other Comments 5 The at grade railroad crossings along US 59 pose a potential safety risk and cause congestion. REGIONAL X The CSC modified this problem statement. The revision has been incorporated and is italicized. 6 The increased mix in heavy truck traffic with passenger vehicles has deteriorated highway safety. REGIONAL X No revision was made to the problem statement. The CSC modified this problem statement. The revision has been incorporated and is italicized. 7 Freight trucks are often in need of repair and therefore compromise roadway safety. REGIONAL X CSC attendees indicated that it would be appropriate for the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to address this type of problem. Furthermore, the CSC attendees indicated that truck safety enforcement should be an important component of the I 69 Corridor Program. 8 The undivided two lane section of US 59, south of Goliad, poses a safety risk. REGIONAL X No revision was made to the problem statement. October 26, 2009 Page 2 of 8 CSC 3 Mtg 3 Exercise

17 I 69 Corridor Program (I 69CP) Corridor Segment Committee #3 Categorizing the Transportation Problems and Challenges Defined in Meeting #2 Transportation Problems and Challenges Location Should the Problem be Considered by the I 69CP or Another Program/Entity? (Check One) I 69CP Other Comments 9 In Port Connection areas, such as the Bayport and Barbours Cut Terminals, the increased mix of heavy truck traffic with passenger vehicles has deteriorated highway safety. HOUSTON X No revision was made to the problem statement. 10 The large volumes of heavy trucks traveling through Houston in combination with heavy commuter traffic has deteriorated highway safety in Houston. HOUSTON X No revision was made to the problem statement. 11 Heavy truck traffic contributes to the congestion on US 59 in Harris County. HARRIS COUNTY X No revision was made to the problem statement. 12 Traffic bottlenecks and delays have occurred at the US 59/SH 36/US 90 Interchange during hurricane evacuation events. ROSENBERG X No revision was made to the problem statement. 13 Because of the heavy volume of train traffic through Fort Bend County, the existing at grade railroad crossings pose a safety risk and contribute to congestion. FORT BEND COUNTY X No revision was made to the problem statement. October 26, 2009 Page 3 of 8 CSC 3 Mtg 3 Exercise

18 I 69 Corridor Program (I 69CP) Corridor Segment Committee #3 Categorizing the Transportation Problems and Challenges Defined in Meeting #2 Transportation Problems and Challenges Location Should the Problem be Considered by the I 69CP or Another Program/Entity? (Check One) I 69CP Other Comments 14 The increasing mix of slow moving agricultural equipment and high speed vehicles on US 59 in Fort Bend County has deteriorated highway safety. FORT BEND COUNTY X No revision was made to the problem statement. 15 The build out of the SH 99/US 59 interchange will increase congestion on US 59. FORT BEND COUNTY X No revision was made to the problem statement. 16 US 59 south of SH 99 has insufficient capacity that results in a southbound traffic bottleneck. FORT BEND COUNTY X No revision was made to the problem statement. 17 US 59 experiences drainage problems in the vicinity of Wharton. WHARTON X No revision was made to the problem statement. 18 The increased mix of heavy truck traffic with passenger vehicles has deteriorated roadway safety in Wharton. WHARTON X No revision was made to the problem statement. October 26, 2009 Page 4 of 8 CSC 3 Mtg 3 Exercise

19 I 69 Corridor Program (I 69CP) Corridor Segment Committee #3 Categorizing the Transportation Problems and Challenges Defined in Meeting #2 Transportation Problems and Challenges Location Should the Problem be Considered by the I 69CP or Another Program/Entity? (Check One) I 69CP Other Comments 19 The existing railroad through Wharton splits the community and limits cross town access. WHARTON X No revision was made to the problem statement. 20 The lack of connectivity between US 59 and SH 60 contributes to congestion in Wharton. WHARTON X No revision was made to the problem statement. 21 Congestion has worsened in Wharton County because of the increase in heavy truck traffic. WHARTON COUNTY X No revision was made to the problem statement. 22 Several interchanges on US 59 in Edna have short acceleration and deceleration ramps and sharp curves that pose a safety risk for the increasing volume of heavy truck traffic in the area. EDNA X No revision was made to the problem statement. 23 The SH 185 and US 87 interchanges on US 59 serving the Port of Victoria have heavy truck traffic and short acceleration and deceleration ramps that pose a safety risk. VICTORIA X No revision was made to the problem statement. CSC attendees indicated that the I 69 Corridor Program should serve the Port of Victoria as well as the Port of Lavaca. October 26, 2009 Page 5 of 8 CSC 3 Mtg 3 Exercise

20 I 69 Corridor Program (I 69CP) Corridor Segment Committee #3 Categorizing the Transportation Problems and Challenges Defined in Meeting #2 Transportation Problems and Challenges Location Should the Problem be Considered by the I 69CP or Another Program/Entity? (Check One) I 69CP Other Comments 24 Because of the increased volume of freight transport in Victoria, the increased mix of heavy truck traffic with passenger vehicles has deteriorated highway safety. VICTORIA X No revision was made to the problem statement. 25 The large farmer s COOP located at the Port of Victoria contributes to the mix of heavy truck traffic with passenger vehicles which has deteriorated highway safety. VICTORIA X No revision was made to the problem statement. 26 Connectivity between US 59 and US 77 south of Victoria is confusing because of the configuration and/or lack of direct connections and therefore does not meet driver expectations. VICTORIA X No revision was made to the problem statement. CSC attendees indicated that signage could be a short term solution to address this problem. 27 During weekends and holidays, there is considerable congestion on US 77 in Refugio making it unsafe for vehicles and pedestrians to cross the highway. REFUGIO X No revision was made to the problem statement. 28 The mix of heavy truck traffic with passenger vehicles has deteriorated roadway safety in Refugio. REFUGIO X No revision was made to the problem statement. October 26, 2009 Page 6 of 8 CSC 3 Mtg 3 Exercise

21 I 69 Corridor Program (I 69CP) Corridor Segment Committee #3 Categorizing the Transportation Problems and Challenges Defined in Meeting #2 Transportation Problems and Challenges Location Should the Problem be Considered by the I 69CP or Another Program/Entity? (Check One) I 69CP Other Comments 29 The combination of heavy truck traffic and a series of five traffic signals in Refugio contribute to congestion on US 77. REFUGIO X No revision was made to the problem statement. 30 The increasing mix of slow moving agricultural equipment and high speed vehicles on US 77 in Refugio County has deteriorated highway safety. REFUGIO COUNTY X No revision was made to the problem statement. New Transportation Problems and Challenges Added October 26, Several overpasses over US 59 have poor sight distance. REGIONAL X New Transportation Problem and Challenge Added October 26, US 59 has insufficient capacity to effectively evacuate the Houston region during major storm events. REGIONAL X New Transportation Problem and Challenge Added October 26, Several interchanges on US 59 have short acceleration and deceleration ramps and sharp curves that pose a safety risk for the increasing volume of heavy truck traffic in the area. REGIONAL X New Transportation Problem and Challenge Added October 26, 2009 October 26, 2009 Page 7 of 8 CSC 3 Mtg 3 Exercise

22 I 69 Corridor Program (I 69CP) Corridor Segment Committee #3 Categorizing the Transportation Problems and Challenges Defined in Meeting #2 Transportation Problems and Challenges Location Should the Problem be Considered by the I 69CP or Another Program/Entity? (Check One) I 69CP Other Comments 34 The combination of heavy truck traffic and numerous traffic signals in Goliad contribute to congestion on US 59. GOLIAD X New Transportation Problem and Challenge Added October 26, The combination of heavy truck traffic and numerous traffic signals in Beeville contribute to congestion on US 59. BEEVILLE X New Transportation Problem and Challenge Added October 26, Support local and regional economic plans and sustain the economic vitality of the communities in the I 69 Corridor. REGIONAL X New Transportation Problem and Challenge Added October 26, 2009 October 26, 2009 Page 8 of 8 CSC 3 Mtg 3 Exercise

23 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 6 City of Wharton Resolution

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 7 CSC 3 Mtg 3 Exercise #2 Results

33

34

35

36

37

38 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 8 Listserve Information and Instructions

39 Listserve information and instructions To send a message Send an to i-69-segment-3@dot.state.tx.us. When replying to a message, if you would like to reply to the entire list, chose reply all. If you would like to reply to just the sender, chose reply. This is the case for most settings but be sure to check that this is how your s setting are formatted. Sometimes if the message you send contains a large file or it is your first time posting to the list you will receive an that your message awaits moderator approval. Please feel free to forward that message to me and I will release your message as soon as possible. I check the website fairly regularly to make sure messages are not awaiting approval but can send your message through faster if I know one is waiting. Information Further information about the listserve can be found at This website will allow you to get a password reminder or change to the digest mode on the listserve. Digest mode gives subscribers a digest of the s sent for the day rather than the subscriber receiving each individual . For scheduling and information purposes, if you would like to have an assistant, a City Manager, City Planner, etc. added to the listserve, please let Doise Miers know and that will be arranged. If you have any questions or difficulties with the listserve please contact Doise Miers at dmiers@dot.state.tx.us or