I-69 Program. Segment One Committee Meeting

Transcription

1 I-69 Program Segment Committee Meeting MEMORANDUM OF MEETING SUBJECT: Segment One Committee Meeting DATE: January 12, 2011 LOCATION: Jefferson Visitors Center, Jefferson, Texas ATTENDING: Attendees are listed on attached sign-in sheets (Attachment 1) Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) review the Segment One Committee October 2010 meeting notes; 2) receive a briefing on the November 2010 Texas Transportation Commission meeting and the December 2010 advisory committee meeting; 3) review cost estimates and traffic counts related to the Segment One Committee priority sections; 4) begin planning for the I-69 Program public involvement; and 5) review upcoming segment committee meeting activities. The meeting agenda is included as Attachment 2. Welcome/Introductions: Jerry Sparks, Segment One Committee Chair, welcomed the attendees and committee members introduced themselves. Marc Williams served as facilitator for this meeting. Administrative: Marc Williams requested that the Segment One Committee members review the October 2010 meeting notes over the next week and forward any comments to Leah Olivarri or Doise Miers. The notes would then be finalized and distributed to the segment committee members prior to posting on the website. Marc emphasized John Barton s funding discussion from the meeting notes (page three-second bullet) saying that the $16 billion program was a good plan, but the cost of the plan was well beyond what TxDOT would be able to fund from current federal and state sources. Marc, continuing his summary, said that four to five billion dollars is a more reasonable estimate of what could possibly become available over the next 15 to 20 years for I-69. Marc reminded those in attendance that Mr. Barton emphasized that there is currently no funding for I-69 and that the four to five billion dollar estimate in no way represented a commitment from TxDOT. Segment Committee Activity Report 1. Jerry Sparks briefed the Segment One Committee members on the discussions from the Texas Transportation Commission meeting in November and at the advisory committee meeting in December. 2. Marc Williams expressed appreciation for the efforts of Mr. Sparks at these two meetings. Marc also explained that Jerry, as segment committee chair, has been Page 1 of 5

2 I-69 Program Segment Committee Meeting automatically appointed to the advisory committee. He stated the advisory committee should be meeting soon to set guiding principles for the I-69 Program. Marc then referred the committee members to Map 2 (Attachment 3) in their handout and stated that the district engineers attended the advisory committee meeting and provided an overview of the areas of controlled access including existing, under construction and funded sections within their districts. Marc stated that the advisory committee wants TxDOT to work with FHWA to redesignate the existing controlled access section of U.S. 59 and U.S. 77 as I-69 where possible. 3. Bob Ratcliff (TxDOT Atlanta district engineer) and Michael Lee (TxDOT Lufkin District area engineer) then summarized existing U.S. 59 and U.S. 84 configurations and TxDOT improvements proposed and underway in Segment One boundaries including: a. In the Atlanta District, the only significant controlled access portion is in Texarkana. A section between Linden and Jefferson is under construction but not as controlled access. There are sections where controlled access could be constructed but it would require additional right-of-way. b. The Lufkin District has a few projects which are under construction as controlled access and other sections of improvements that are not controlled access. It will be difficult to stay on the footprint in towns such as Timpson and Tenaha. U.S. 59 in Segment One s portion of the Lufkin District has several miles of depressed median. I-69 Program Priority Section Review Marc Williams mentioned that the Interim Update Report, which was presented to the Texas Transportation Commission and the advisory committee, was included for review (Attachment 4). This document lists the Segment One Committee s priority sections. He explained that since publication of the Interim Update Report, additional information has been prepared and gathered including: 1) order of magnitude costs program wide and for the priority sections (Attachment 5) and; 2) average annualized daily traffic counts (Attachment 6). Discussion on the costs and traffic maps are summarized as follows: 1. Priority Section Order of Magnitude Costs a. Priority sections are shaded in the cost table. b. For relief route boxed areas, estimates were developed based on approximated lengths for potential relief routes around the various towns. Options for a relief route will be fully studied during the NEPA process. Segment committee input on the conceptual interstate layout regarding the relief routes would be considered during the NEPA process. 2. Average Annualized Daily Traffic Counts a. Marc noted that traffic volumes shown represent an average of traffic counts within the sections. b. Texarkana members noted a truck detour on U.S. 59 north of Linden, during the most recent traffic count, so the truck counts appear to be low in the northern part of Segment One. Staff will work with the TxDOT Atlanta District and the Texarkana MPO to obtain new traffic counts that would be more reflective of traffic patterns when diversions have ceased. Page 2 of 5

3 I-69 Program Segment Committee Meeting c. U.S. 84 between Tenaha and Joaquin has had considerable construction (shoulder widening) which has slowed traffic. This construction did not include detours but could have contributed to a diversion of traffic; committee members were less concerned with this effect. Marc also noted that accident data (including fatalities) and future traffic forecasts are being compiled and should be available at the next meeting. All of the new information will be available for segment committee members as they review their priority sections. Segment committee members indicated that they were comfortable with their priority sections as they stand now, but may want to reassess priority sections after additional data has been gathered and the public involvement process completed. Planning for Public Involvement While developing the Interim Update Report, segment committee members said they want to gather public input. Marc requested that the segment committee members provide guidance on what they want the public to tell them. Segment committee member comments and preliminary ideas were as follows: Gather information from big trucking companies on the location of bottlenecks on U.S. 59. Include breakout sessions for the public. Avoid the potential for grandstanding where there can be no response to unsubstantiated claims. Inform the public of the suggested route but let them know it is not final. Educate the public on I-69. Show the public what portions of the existing routes can be upgraded. It may be appropriate to show alternative locations for relief routes. Present some of the information the segment committees have used such as the conceptual interstate layout, traffic data, etc. Involve community chambers of commerce, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, etc. Include projected traffic counts as part of the education process. Showing any conceptual route could be a problem because if a property is shown to be affected, then it could impact the value of that property. Dispel the concept of the Trans-Texas Corridor and bring the public up-to-date on the new vision for I-69. Conduct one meeting in each county. Utilize cooperative local media. Involve business communities. Work towards community buy-in to the general plan for advancing the development of I-69 in Texas by upgrading the existing routes, to the greatest extent possible and identifying where relief routes should be considered without identifying where specific alignment alternatives may be located. Conduct the initial meetings as workshops. Vary the logistics for the workshops (including the time of the day to accommodate different shift-based work schedules of the public). Marc emphasized that segment committee members will lead the public involvement effort; TxDOT will provide support. It is important to demonstrate that community leaders along the Page 3 of 5

4 I-69 Program Segment Committee Meeting route lead the I-69 Program. It is also important to inform the public that no decisions have been made on the location of the relief route alternatives and on the exact limits of right-of-way along the conceptual interstate layout. Marc discussed other segment committees desire to educate the public on the need for improving the existing route to interstate standards and the process that will be involved. The other segment committees ideas include explaining: o What the current program is and is not o The need and purpose of I-69 o How I-69 fits into the national picture o The costs of I-69 o The benefits of the program (real world examples of what improved access to an interstate means) Marc also mentioned other ideas that the segment committees have suggested for public involvement include: a traveling display; piggy-backing on other community meetings such as chamber of commerce lunches; and leaving a display at local agency offices with public comment forms. The segment committee chairman requested that TxDOT develop a PowerPoint presentation for the public meetings and to the members for review. TxDOT described the MY 35 public involvement process and responded to a segment committee member that each segment committee can have a unique public involvement process tailored to their communities. TxDOT emphasized that they will support the segment committees in the public involvement activities and would be available to attend local workshops and meetings with local organizations but would need to consider budget constraints. Discussion of Next Meeting Activities Marc Williams explained that at the next meeting, the committee would receive a summary of their ideas on engaging the public including a draft presentation education tool. A member of the public suggested that the word corridor not be used due to the association with the Trans- Texas Corridor and that the focus should be on upgrading specified routes to create I-69. TxDOT provided the Gas Tax Facts brochure, a product of the Texas House Transportation Committee. Marc Williams noted that I-69 has been getting attention including presentations at the Texas Transportation Forum by Judy Hawley, chair of the I-69 Advisory Committee and Matt Dellinger, author of Interstate 69: The Unfinished History of the Last Great American Highway. The meeting was then adjourned. Page 4 of 5

5 I-69 Program Segment Committee Meeting Attachments: 1. Sign-In Sheet 2. Agenda 3. Controlled Access Map 2 4. Segment One Committee Interim Update Report 5. Order of Magnitude Costs Program Wide and for Priority Sections 6. Average Annualized Daily Traffic Meeting Staff included: Roger Beall-TxDOT/TTA, Matthew Gullett-TxDOT/GPA, Doise Miers-TxDOT/GPA, Marc Williams-Consultant, Joe Shalkowski-Consultant, Tina Brown-Consultant, Sara Seyer- Consultant, Michael Sexton-Consultant Page 5 of 5

6 I-69 Program Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 1 Sign-In Sheet

7

8

9

10 I-69 Program Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 2 Agenda

11 I-69 Corridor Segment Committee 1 Meeting January 12, :30 AM Noon Welcome/Introductions Administrative Review October 2010 Meeting Notes Marc Williams Facilitator CSC Activity Report Texas Transportation Commission Meeting Presentation, November 18, 2010 Corridor Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting, December 6, 2010, Interim Update Report Jerry Sparks CSC 1 Chair I-69 Corridor Program Priority Section Review Marc Williams Facilitator Cost estimates Average annualized daily traffic counts Review priority sections Planning for Public Meetings What do you want the public to tell you? Types of presentation materials to consider format and content Strategies to notify the public of the meetings Consideration of potential meeting locations Marc Williams Facilitator Discussion of Next Meeting Activities Review final CSC 1 I-69 Corridor Program priority sections Update on the preparations for the upcoming public meetings Begin to review preliminary public involvement displays, handouts and other strategies for soliciting public input Marc Williams Facilitator

12 I-69 Program Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 3 Controlled Access Map 2

13

14 I-69 Program Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 4 Segment One Committee Interim Update Report

15 Interim Update Report Interstate 69 Corridor Segment Committee 1 The Texas Transportation Commission created the Interstate 69 (I-69) Corridor Advisory Committee and Corridor Segment Committees to assist the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in the transportation planning process of the I-69 Corridor. Both sets of committees will provide a locally focused, citizen driven basis of planning along the corridor. Interim Committee Update In September 2010, TxDOT's Executive Director, Amadeo Saenz, spoke with the Chairs of the I-69 Segment Committees about how the process is going, asked that each committee compile an update on their progress and work, and asked that the CSCs identify projects that they currently see as priorities in their areas. This information would be used to update the Texas Transportation Commission on the progress of the CSCs thus far. I-69 Advisory Committee: The I-69 Corridor Advisory Committee (CAC) was created by Minute Order on March 27, 2008 for the purpose of facilitating and achieving consensus among affected communities and interested parties on desired transportation improvements along the I- 69 Corridor. The Advisory Committee studied the future needs of the I-69 Corridor and published their findings and recommendations in A Citizen s Report on the Current and Future Needs of the I-69 Corridor I-69 Segment Committee 1: I-69 Corridor Segment Committee 1 (CSC 1) is one of five Segment Committees created by Minute Order on September 25, 2008 for the purpose of providing input and recommendations on the designated routes of the I-69 Corridor in their areas. The Segment Committees are composed of members representing cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, ports, chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, and the Texas Farm Bureau along the I-69 Corridor. The Segment Committees continue to meet and study environmental planning features and plan the best route for their communities. The Segment Committees will report their findings, advice and recommendations to the Texas Transportation Commission and TxDOT s Executive Director. The area included in CSC 1 is shown in Figure 1 and includes the counties of Angelina, Bowie, Cass, Harrison, Marion, Nacogdoches, Panola, Rusk, and Shelby. CSC 1 encompasses portions of the U.S. 59 and U.S. 84 routes in northeast Texas. Members of the committee currently include those individuals listed in Table 1. November 2010 Page 1

16 Interim Update Report Interstate 69 Corridor Segment Committee 1 Table 1 CSC 1 Committee Members (November 2010) Member David Anderson Richard Anderson Bob Barton Rick Campbell William Cork Joe English Stephen J. Frost James Greer William Holley Jerry Huffman Jim Jeffers Joe David Lee Brad McCaleb Michael Meador Philip M. Medford Robert Murray Karen Owen Phil Parker Jerry Sparks* Charles Thomas Charles Wilcox * Committee Chair CSC 1 Update Information Page 2 Appointing Entity Panola County Harrison County Rusk County Shelby County Red River Redevelopment Authority Nacogdoches County Cass County Marshall Chamber of Commerce City of Tenaha Angelina County City of Nacogdoches City of Jefferson Texarkana MPO Texas Farm Bureau City of Lufkin Bowie County Longview MPO Marion County City of Texarkana City of Carthage City of Atlanta Using the topics outlined below, members of CSC 1 reported the following information on the current progress of committee efforts. How the Segment Committee process has worked The members of CSC 1 are dedicated volunteers representing communities along U.S. 59 and U.S. 84. These volunteers have provided valuable input into the process of developing a corridor. The committee has met to discuss possible routing of I-69, identify opportunities for use of existing rights of way, and to provide information on local conditions, such as cemeteries and other sites that need to be avoided. Members have also talked about other roads that need to be improved to allow the transportation system to work better. Overall, the process has worked fairly well, given the complexity of a corridor of this magnitude. - CSC 1 Member Committee meetings have been held at different locations within the CSC 1 area and scheduled at times that allow for committee input. The discussions have been open and candid, addressing a number of issues related to I-69 and helping the overall committee process. What has been working well CSC 1 members appreciate the efforts of TxDOT staff in seeking committee member input and distributing meeting materials efficiently. Summaries of what has been accomplished at previous meetings are provided before the meetings and committee members are updated prior to beginning new tasks. Members of CSC 1 have benefited from the use of mapping and aerial photography which provides members with better reference to familiar places and features on the corridor. A committee member notes that having an experienced, concise facilitator at the helm is important to keep the process moving forward and makes for efficient use of the committee members time. The meetings allow for frank, open dialogue between the CSC participants, TxDOT staff, and facilitators. Candid comments from the TxDOT staff are greatly appreciated and the cooperation and involvement of local officials has also been useful. What can be improved CSC 1 members report that it would be beneficial to have more public involvement and community participation. It may be useful for TxDOT and the committee to provide more information to news media about the I-69 planning effort so that the public can have an opportunity to participate. Committee members would also like more time to provide feedback or complete surveys prior to meetings. Finally, while the mapping has been a helpful tool, committee members would like the roadway maps to include larger sections of the counties so members can get a better, overall view of their area. Tasks completed by the Segment Committee The Segment Committee has spent a lot of time discussing transportation problems and issues in their area. The committee has also designated planning corridors that use as much of existing U.S. 59 as possible and, when necessary, follow relief routes or shifts in alignment to accommodate environmental features. Throughout this process, the committee has reviewed conceptual interstate layouts and identified route segments that could potentially be upgraded to interstate standards. Committee members have also addressed a number of local issues by identifying communities where relief routes should be considered as well as access points and interchange locations. The committee has also suggested locations where shifts in alignment might be studied and noted right of way limitations along the corridor. While the committee is close to having a recommended route in rural areas where existing highways could be November 2010

17 Interim Update Report Interstate 69 Corridor Segment Committee 1 upgraded to I-69, there is still work to do to address relief routes around a number of communities and to provide adequate connections between the relief routes and the upgraded highway segments. Helpful Segment Committee activities and exercises Viewing maps with footprints over-laid on top of existing roads being considered for upgrade has been helpful during the conceptual interstate layout exercise because this allowed members to see and understand the impact of converting existing roads to interstates. Members also report that opportunities to meet with other communities along the planned corridor to gather and coordinate information has been helpful. Group discussions among local committee members and feedback from the facilitator and staff has been beneficial. Potential future activities and exercises A future activity that would be of use for the committee is receiving brief updates on how the other CSCs are progressing because such an update would allow the committee to obtain a comprehensive view of the overall project. Receiving specific information about funding and technical information such as which corridor segments have the highest traffic and truck volumes, highest congestion levels, and best connectivity to existing interstates would also benefit the committee s work. Committee members would also like an opportunity to host public involvement activities to gain input from members of their communities. Major challenges and key issues related to developing Interstate 69 with Segment 1 CSC 1 members maintain that the lack of funding has historically been and will continue to be a challenge for the I-69 project. Members recommend that public education should be a sustained effort going forward to maintain public support for the project. Funding is the primary challenge at this point. Exact routes can be developed through planning and study of corridors. - CSC 1 Member Committee members also cite a number of local project development challenges for the project. Along some portions of the U.S. 59 and U.S. 84 corridors, right of way is very constrained with parallel railroads, churches, cemeteries and well sites. Other local issues that present challenges for the corridor include effectively dealing with rail and highway freight, improving at-grade rail crossings, identifying locations for alternate routes, the right of way acquisition process, and preserving right of way for future corridor improvements. Addressing relief routes for large November 2010 communities like Marshall will be particularly challenging for I-69. Committee members, engaging the public and their communities in the Segment Committee process Members of CSC 1 report that they regularly speak with members of their communities about I-69 and the committee s activities. Members of CSC 1 include community leaders, such as city council members and business owners who regularly speak with their mayors, city councils, county commissions and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) about the committee s activities. Some members have had specific discussions with land and business owners along the corridor relative to potential right of way needs for future highway expansion. In Texarkana, the MPO Policy and Technical Committees are discussing a potential segment of I-69 that could connect to I-30 and I-49 in the area. Finally, members of the committee have provided information to local newspapers about the work of CSC 1. Additional helpful public engagement and involvement activities CSC 1 members recommend public or town hall meetings so the committee and TxDOT can work together to educate the public on the I-69 project, including the most feasible route identified by the committee. Members would also like to have additional media coverage with local newspapers, radio and television stations to further educate the public and engage communities in their area. Public engagement is good for any project. We've had members who have offered to meet with neighborhoods in an effort to hear concerns about the corridor study area. - CSC 1 Member Preliminary CSC 1 Prioritization CSC 1 members have prepared a preliminary list of project priorities as a snap shot of current conditions which reflect interim priorities at this stage of the CSC process. The priorities are subject to change through further work of and review by the CSC. These results are not a commitment by TxDOT to advance projects as currently ordered. The priorities may change in the future based on additional input, environmental approvals, and funding availability. To develop the initial priorities, committee members independently ranked the top five sections in their respective segment. The initial priorities were collectively discussed by the committee and members were afforded opportunities to submit a revised ranking of their Page 3

18 Interim Update Report Interstate 69 Corridor Segment Committee 1 preliminary priorities based upon the results of the discussion. The current CSC 1 priority sections are shown in Figure 2. Priority sections focused on relief routes for communities such as the U.S. 59 and U.S. 84 corridors in the vicinity of Garrison, Timpson, Teneha and Joaquin. Additional priorities included U.S. 59 relief routes for Marshall, Texarkana, and Nacogdoches. Specifically, the following sections are currently noted as preliminary priorities for CSC 1: U.S. 59 Relief Route at Garrison, Timpson, and Teneha U.S. 59 Relief Route at Marshall U.S. 59 Relief Route at Texarkana U.S. 59 Relief Route at Nacogdoches U.S. 84 Relief Route at Tenaha and Joaquin In addition to these sections noted above and other roadway sections along U.S. 59 and U.S. 84, several committee members also noted priorities that include development of the freight shuttle and multi-modal connections along the corridor. Members also requested consideration be given to local safety improvements that could be developed more quickly as smaller projects. Next Steps As previously noted the current priorities are preliminary and will be refined as the committee continues its efforts. Upcoming work of CSC 1 is anticipated to include the following activities: Reviewing order of magnitude cost estimates and funding opportunities Identifying limits of potential projects, and refining the CSC project priorities Discussing and planning public involvement activities Prioritization Rationale In establishing preliminary priorities, CSC 1 members note a number of factors that they consider as rationale for selecting their priority segments. Rationale mentioned most often by committee members includes: Serves High Traffic and Truck Volumes Serves Expected Traffic Growth Addresses Safety Concerns Improves Travel Times Provides for Multi-modal Connections (Air, Sea, Rail) Page 4 November 2010

19 I-69 Program Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 5 Order of Magnitude Costs Program Wide and for Priority Sections

20 I 69 CORRIDOR PROGRAM CSC PRIORITY SECTION COST ESTIMATE WORKING DRAFT PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE CSC Priority Sections All Sections Cost Estimate Estimated Mileage Cost Estimate Estimated Mileage 1 $2,354,200, $4,580,300, $992,800, $1,716,100, $1,233,500, $3,553,400, $1,656,800, $3,343,500, $1,668,300, $3,210,600, Total $7,905,600, $16,403,900, Notes: 1. Does not include cost estimate for US 59 Relief Route at Houston. 2. Does not include costs to convert and redesignate existing controlled access sections to an interstate facility. 3. Includes cost estimate for US 281 Relief Route at Premont project prepared by others. 4. Includes cost estimate for US 77 upgrade project prepared by others. 5. Estimated mileage does not include sections of roadway where controlled access is existing, under construction, or funded. 1/7/2011 Page 1 of 1 SUMMARY

21 I 69 Corridor Program Sections CSC 1 Order of Magnitude Cost for Sections WORKING DRAFT PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE Section ID Section Description Cost Estimate Estimated Mileage Notes 1.01 US 59 Relief Route at Diboll/Lufkin $313,500, Includes half of US 59 between Diboll/Lufkin RR and Nacogdoches RR. Interchange at US 69 included in US 59 Relief Route at Nacogdoches $459,400, Includes half of US 59 between Diboll/Lufkin RR and Nacogdoches RR 1.03 US 59 North of Nacogdoches to South of Garrison $125,200, US 59 Relief Route at Garrison N/A See US 59 Relief Route at Timpson, Garrison and Tenaha $662,100, Includes all 3 relief routes plus portions of 59 in Lufkin and Tyler between Garrison and Timpson 1.06 US 59 Relief Route at Tenaha N/A See US 59 North of Tenaha to South of Carthage $191,900, US 59 Relief Route at Carthage $160,700, US 59 North of Carthage to South of Marshall $280,200, US 59 Relief Route at Marshall $547,600, US 59 North of Marshall to South of Jefferson $166,400, US 59 Relief Route at Jefferson $131,100, US 59 North of Jefferson to South of Linden $176,600, US 59 Relief Route at Linden $131,500, US 59 North of Linden to South of Atlanta $119,400, US 59 Relief Route at Atlanta/Queen City $258,100, US 59 North of Atlanta to South of Texarkana $171,500, a US 59 Redesignate US 59 as Interstate from I 30 to SH 151 N/A Not developed at this time 1.18b US 59 Relief Route at Texarkana $358,000, US 84 Relief Route at Tenaha N/A See US 84 Relief Route at Joaquin and Tenaha $327,100, TOTAL PRIORITY SECTIONS $2,354,200, TOTAL ALL SECTIONS $4,580,300, Note: Shaded sections indicate that it is a CSC priority. 1/7/2011 Page 1 of 1 CSC 1

22 I-69 Program Segment Committee Meeting Attachment 6 Average Annualized Daily Traffic

23