DOCSLIB.ORG

I-69 Implementation Strategy and Update Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I-69 Implementation Strategy and Update Report I-69 Implementation Strategy Update Report February 2018 Transportation Planning and Programming Division Report Revision History The following table tracks revisions and changes made to this report over time. Date Revision Explanation March 2016 First edition of the report February 2018 • Updates Statewide and District Summaries based on fiscal year (FY) 2018 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) and its December 2017 revision as well as TxDOT’s other internal planning and programming systems as of January 3, 2018 • Includes Advisory Committee $2B project prioritization exercise results I-69 Implementation Strategy Update Report – February 2018 ii Table of Contents Page Preface ....................................................................................................................................... iv List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... v Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 I-69 System ............................................................................................................................... 1 Importance of the I-69 System to Texas ........................................................................ 3 I-69 System Project Prioritization ............................................................................................. 6 I-69 System Implementation Strategy Update ...................................................................... 10 Components ................................................................................................................... 10 Next Steps - How the Implementation Strategy Update Will Be Used ........................ 11 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 13 I-69 Implementation Strategy Update Summary Information and Data ............................. 13 Tables Table 1. I-69 Advisory Committee Priority Projects to Meet Interstate Standards – Funding Status ............................................................................................................................. 7 Table 2. I-69 Program Development Project Status Categories .......................................... 10 Table 3. Remaining I-69 Texas System to be Constructed .................................................. 12 Figures Figure 1. I-69 System ................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. I-69 System Routes in Texas .................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. I-69 Interstate and Multi-Modal Connectivity .......................................................... 5 Figure 4: I-69 Advisory Committee Project Prioritization Process ......................................... 6 Appendix – Statewide and District Summaries Section 1 – Statewide Summary Section 2 – Atlanta District Section 3 – Lufkin District Section 4 – Beaumont District Section 5 – Houston District Section 6 – Yoakum District Section 7 – Corpus Christi District Section 8 – Laredo District Section 9 – Pharr District I-69 Implementation Strategy Update Report – February 2018 iii Preface The Interstate 69 (I-69) Implementation Strategy was prepared in March 2016 to manage the continued development and designation of the I-69 system in Texas. It is intended to be a living document with periodic updates. This first update report incorporates the latest I-69 system project development status information available in the fiscal year (FY) 2018 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) and its December 2017 revision as well as TxDOT’s other internal planning and programming systems as of January 3, 2018. To date, approximately 161 miles of the I-69 system in Texas have been designated as interstate. The following table highlights additional key information depicting the progress made on the I-69 system since March 2016. March 2016 February 2018 Key Highlights Strategy Update Committed funding amount (not including projects under $331,455,825 $1,723,890,426 construction) Projects with committed funding (not including projects 12 36 under construction) Length of the I-69 system route under construction or 91.1 Miles 98.9 Miles constructed to meet interstate standards In addition, this update report summarizes the February 2017 I-69 Advisory Committee prioritization exercise results that included the identification of 36 priority projects to be advanced to meet interstate standards. The following table highlights key information regarding these priority projects. I-69 Advisory Committee Priority Projects Summary February 2018 Update Projects identified as priority 36 Estimated construction cost of priority projects $2,185,918,099 Priority projects with committed construction funding 27 Committed construction funding $1,420,006,659 Priority projects under construction or scheduled for construction by 10 August 31, 2018 I-69 Implementation Strategy Update Report – February 2018 iv List of Acronyms FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act FM Farm to Market Road FY Fiscal Year GIS Geographic Information System I-69 Interstate 69 ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 MAP 21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act ROW Right-of-way SH State Highway TPP Transportation Planning and Programming Division TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation US U.S. Highway UTP Unified Transportation Program I-69 Implementation Strategy Update Report – February 2018 v Introduction In March 2016, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) prepared an Interstate 69 (I-69) Implementation Strategy to manage the continued development and designation of the I-69 system in Texas. The Strategy was developed to serve as a tool setting forth an organized framework to identify, plan, prioritize, program and track the remaining upgrade and relief route projects to extend and complete the I-69 system. It established a comprehensive system-wide approach for TxDOT districts to use in coordinating and managing the advancement of these projects, including securing and allocating needed funding to execute the Strategy. It also served as an information tool that citizen committees could use to inform stakeholders about the status and progress of I-69 system development in Texas. Finally, the Strategy represented a snapshot in time and was intended to be updated as the I-69 program unfolds and evolves. This report updates the March 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy report. The update is based on the most current project information available in the fiscal year (FY) 2018 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) and its December 2017 revision as well TxDOT’s other internal planning and programming systems as of January 3, 2018. The UTP is TxDOT’s 10-year plan to guide transportation project development. It is a listing of projects and programs that are planned to be constructed and/or developed within ten years. It is important to note that the UTP is neither a budget nor a guarantee that projects will or can be built. This report also provides updated information on TxDOT’s progress to complete the I-69 system in Texas, including the estimated construction costs for the remaining I-69 projects in 2018 dollars. The sections in the Appendix at the back of this report include an updated Implementation Strategy summary for the I-69 system in Texas and for each TxDOT district involved with I-69 system development. This summary includes 1) the identification and status of TxDOT planned and programmed projects, 2) future potential projects with no current planning and programming status, and 3) descriptive information for each project. I-69 System Sections 1105(c) and 1105(e)(5) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), as amended, established High Priority Corridors 18 and 20 to become part of the I-69 system. The I-69 system will extend through Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Michigan, thereby providing a continuous new interstate corridor connecting Mexico, the United States and Canada (Figure 1). I-69 Implementation Strategy Update Report – February 2018 1 Figure 1. I-69 System I-69 Implementation Strategy Update Report – February 2018 2 The I-69 system within Texas will eventually extend along the following highways: ▪ U.S. Highway (US) 59 from I-30 in Texarkana to Laredo ▪ US 84 from the Louisiana border to US 59 in Timpson ▪ US 77 from US 59 in Victoria to Brownsville ▪ US 281 from US 59 in George West to I-2 in Pharr ▪ State Highway (SH) 44 from SH 358 in Corpus Christi to US 59 in Freer ▪ SH 550 (formerly Farm to Market Road [FM] 511) from I-69E to SH 48 at the Port of Brownsville Figure 2 provides a map of the I-69 system routes in Texas. The network of highways identified to serve as the I-69 system in Texas is nearly 1,088 miles long. With the enactment of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP 21) and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), sections of these highways within the limits specified in Section 1105(c), as amended, may be added to the I-69 system when they meet the interstate design standards approved under Section 109(b) of Title 23, United States Code. The highway sections must also connect to or be planned to connect to an existing interstate system section by
Load more

Recommended publications
  • I-69 Implementation Strategy Report – March 2016 Ii
    I-69 Implementation Strategy Report March 2016 Transportation Planning and Programming Division Table of Contents Page Preface ....................................................................................................................................... iii List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ iv I-69 System Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 Importance of the I-69 System to Texas ........................................................................ 1 I-69 System Progress ....................................................................................................... 5 I-69 Implementation Strategy .................................................................................................. 6 Development .................................................................................................................... 7 Components ..................................................................................................................... 9 Next Steps - How the Implementation Strategy Will Be Used ..................................... 11 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 12 I-69 Implementation Strategy Summary Information and Data .......................................... 13 Tables Table 1. I-69 System Activities Since September
    [Show full text]
  • Section 112 of the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
    Attachment Page 1 of 15 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 Section 112 Surface Transportation Projects (March 22, 2006) Obligation Authority Designated Amounts Amount available after Program Code LY60 Allocation Project Description in Statement of Managers This Memorandum (DELPHI Code State Demo ID in Conf.Rep. 1 percent rescission This Memorandum Conference Report 109-307 15X043P000-050) H.R. 109-307 Project State Total Project State Total Project State Total Alabama AL167 Airport Road Expansion, Phase II, Jasper, AL 1,830,000 1,811,700 1,811,700 1,811,700 Alabama AL168 Baldwin County Highway 83 Evacuation Route Project, AL 850,000 841,500 841,500 841,500 Alabama AL169 City of Selma Water Avenue Streetscape Improvement, AL 400,000 396,000 396,000 396,000 Alabama AL170 County Road 19 Improvements, Cherokee County, AL 500,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 Alabama AL171 Downtown Multimodal Parking System, Huntsville, AL 1,000,000 990,000 990,000 990,000 Expansion of access and parking adjacent to Post Office, City of Alabama AL172 Jacksonville, AL 110,000 108,900 108,900 108,900 Alabama AL173 Expansion of Highway 431, Town of Roanoke, AL 150,000 148,500 148,500 148,500 Alabama AL174 Extend I-759 East to US Highway 278, Gadsden, AL 2,800,000 2,772,000 2,772,000 2,772,000 Alabama AL175 Highway 21 extension, Talladega, AL 500,000 495,000 495,000 495,000 Alabama AL176 Third Avenue resurfacing Project, Ranburne, AL 40,000 39,600 39,600 39,600 University of South
    [Show full text]
  • I-69 Final Eis Document 6-28-06
    FHWA-TN-EIS-04-01F INTERSTATE 69, SECTION OF INDEPENDENT UTILITY #9 From the Interstate 55/MS State Route 304 Interchange in Hernando, Mississippi to the Intersection of U.S. 51 and State Route 385 in Millington, Tennessee DeSoto and Marshall Counties, Mississippi Shelby and Fayette Counties, Tennessee Final Environmental Impact Statement Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Tennessee Department of Transportation and Mississippi Department of Transportation Cooperating Agency Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service This document identifies and assesses the environmental impacts associated with the construction of an interstate facility from Hernando, Mississippi to Millington, Tennessee. The project is a segment of Corridor 18, a Congressionally-designated High Priority transportation Corridor that will be designated as Interstate 69. Segments of the roadway are proposed for new locations, while other segments will follow existing interstates and state highways built to interstate standards. The length of the proposed improvement is approximately 44 miles. __________________ ______________________________________________________________ Date of Approval For Federal Highway Administration __________________ ______________________________________________________________ Date of Approval For
    [Show full text]
  • 279300000 the ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Bofa Merrill Lynch Siebert Brandford Shank & Co
    NEW ISSUE – BOOK-ENTRY ONLY RATINGS: See “RATINGS” herein. Subject to compliance by the Authority with certain covenants, in the opinion of Pugh, Jones, Johnson & Quandt, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, Bond Counsel, under present law interest on the 2010A Bonds will not be includible in the gross income of the owners thereof for Federal income tax purposes. Interest on the 2010A Bonds will not be treated as an item of tax preference in computing the alternative minimum tax for individuals and corporations. See the heading “TAX MATTERS” herein for a more detailed discussion of some of the federal tax consequences of owning the 2010A Bonds. The interest on the 2010A Bonds is not exempt from present Illinois income taxes. $279,300,000 THE ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY Toll Highway Senior Refunding Revenue Bonds, 2010 Series A-1 Maturities, Principal Amounts, Interest Rates, Yields and CUSIP Numbers are shown on the Inside of the Front Cover This Official Statement contains information relating to The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (the “Authority”) and the Authority’s Toll Highway Senior Refunding Revenue Bonds, 2010 Series A-1 (the “2010A Bonds”). The 2010A Bonds are being issued under a Trust Indenture dated as of December 1, 1985 (as amended, restated and supplemented, the “Indenture”) from the Authority to The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as successor trustee (the “Trustee”). The 2010A Bonds will be issuable as fully registered bonds in the name of Cede & Co., as registered owner and nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”).
    [Show full text]
  • Tier 2 Biological Opinion Section 2
    TIER 2 BIOLOGICAL OPINION for SECTION 2 of the PROPOSED INTERSTATE 69 (I-69) EXTENSION FROM EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS for the FEDERALLY ENDANGERED INDIANA BAT traversing portions of GIBSON, PIKE, and DAVIESS COUNTIES, INDIANA Submitted to the Federal Highway Administration February 2010 Prepared by: Robin McWilliams Munson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bloomington Field Office 620 S. Walker Street Bloomington, IN 47403 (812) 334-4261 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document contains a Tier 2 Biological Opinion for Section 2 of I-69 and tiers back to the Tier 1 Revised Programmatic Biological Opinion dated August 24, 2006 for the proposed extension of I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana. The Federal Highway Administration reinitiated formal consultation on Tier 1 of the proposed I-69 extension on March 7, 2006 and submitted an addendum to the original Biological Assessment that detailed significant new information regarding potential impacts to the Federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) that were not known or available for analysis during the original formal consultation period in 2003. The effects associated with the proposed construction, operation, and maintenance of Section 2 of I-69 are within the scope of effects contemplated in the Tier 1 Revised Programmatic Biological Opinion. Upon evaluation of the proposed project, we believe incidental take of Indiana bats in the Section 2 Action Area is likely, but the impact of such taking is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat and is not likely to adversely modify the bat’s designated Critical Habitat. A Tier 2 Incidental Take Statement for Section 2 has been included at the end of this Biological Opinion with its non-discretionary Reasonable and Prudent Measures and associated Terms and Conditions to further minimize the incidental take of Indiana bats in Section 2.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of Transportation FY 2017-2018 INFRA Project Applications
    U.S. Department of Transportation FY 2017-2018 INFRA Project Applications Estimated Total Estimated Future # Project Name Applicant Organization State INFRA Request Federal Eligible Project Assistance Costs 1 Port MacKenzie Rail Extension Matanuska-Susitna Borough AK: Alaska $75,000,000 $50,000,000 $125,000,000 Municipality of Anchorage / Port of 2 Port of Anchorage Petroleum/ Cement Terminal AK: Alaska $64,900,000 $65,900,000 $108,100,000 Anchorage CONNECT Mobile - Creating Opportunity Networks for New 3 Alabama Department of Transportation AL: Alabama $250,000,000 $990,000,000 $1,776,339,086 Economic Connections Today Birmingham-Jefferson County Port 4 Port Revitalization and Freight Flow Management Project AL: Alabama $6,800,000 $6,800,000 $18,000,000 Authority Gulf Shores Regional Connectivity and Infrastructure 5 City of Gulf Shores, Alabama AL: Alabama $22,200,000 $22,200,000 $37,000,000 Improvements Project 6 2nd Avenue Connectivity Corridor Project The University of Alabama AL: Alabama $6,025,657 $6,025,657 $16,737,936 7 Interstate 69 (Monticello Bypass - Highway 65) Arkansas Department of Transportation AR: Arkansas $20,000,000 $65,360,000 $81,700,000 8 Interstate 30 - National Freight Corridor Improvements Arkansas Department of Transportation AR: Arkansas $100,000,000 $192,200,000 $609,500,000 9 Interstate 30 (U.S. Highway 70 - Sevier Street) Arkansas Department of Transportation AR: Arkansas $57,900,000 $57,900,000 $181,300,000 10 Securing Multimodal Freight Corridors in the Ozarks City of Fort Smith, Arkansas AR: Arkansas $8,527,892 $8,527,892 $14,213,154 11 Little River County Intermodal Facility Little River County Intermodal Authority AR: Arkansas $10,500,000 $10,500,000 $17,500,000 Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning 12 I-49 Missouri-Arkansas Connector AR: Arkansas $32,364,000 $90,807,000 $169,907,000 Commission Southeast Arkansas and Northeast Louisiana Multimodal Southeast Arkansas Economic 13 AR: Arkansas $29,541,000 $29,541,000 $49,236,051 Freight Corridor Improvement Project Development District, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • LCSH Section I
    I(f) inhibitors I-215 (Salt Lake City, Utah) Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie USE If inhibitors USE Interstate 215 (Salt Lake City, Utah) Aktiengesellschaft Trial, Nuremberg, I & M Canal National Heritage Corridor (Ill.) I-225 (Colo.) Germany, 1947-1948 USE Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage USE Interstate 225 (Colo.) Subsequent proceedings, Nuremberg War Corridor (Ill.) I-244 (Tulsa, Okla.) Crime Trials, case no. 6 I & M Canal State Trail (Ill.) USE Interstate 244 (Tulsa, Okla.) BT Nuremberg War Crime Trials, Nuremberg, USE Illinois and Michigan Canal State Trail (Ill.) I-255 (Ill. and Mo.) Germany, 1946-1949 I-5 USE Interstate 255 (Ill. and Mo.) I-H-3 (Hawaii) USE Interstate 5 I-270 (Ill. and Mo. : Proposed) USE Interstate H-3 (Hawaii) I-8 (Ariz. and Calif.) USE Interstate 255 (Ill. and Mo.) I-hadja (African people) USE Interstate 8 (Ariz. and Calif.) I-270 (Md.) USE Kasanga (African people) I-10 USE Interstate 270 (Md.) I Ho Yüan (Beijing, China) USE Interstate 10 I-278 (N.J. and N.Y.) USE Yihe Yuan (Beijing, China) I-15 USE Interstate 278 (N.J. and N.Y.) I Ho Yüan (Peking, China) USE Interstate 15 I-291 (Conn.) USE Yihe Yuan (Beijing, China) I-15 (Fighter plane) USE Interstate 291 (Conn.) I-hsing ware USE Polikarpov I-15 (Fighter plane) I-394 (Minn.) USE Yixing ware I-16 (Fighter plane) USE Interstate 394 (Minn.) I-K'a-wan Hsi (Taiwan) USE Polikarpov I-16 (Fighter plane) I-395 (Baltimore, Md.) USE Qijiawan River (Taiwan) I-17 USE Interstate 395 (Baltimore, Md.) I-Kiribati (May Subd Geog) USE Interstate 17 I-405 (Wash.) UF Gilbertese I-19 (Ariz.) USE Interstate 405 (Wash.) BT Ethnology—Kiribati USE Interstate 19 (Ariz.) I-470 (Ohio and W.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 69
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery Discretionary Grant Program Highway 71 - Bella Vista Bypass Project Type: Highway Project Location: Benton County, Arkansas (3rd Congressional District) McDonald County, Missouri (7th Congressional District) Area Type: Rural Grant Amount Requested: See Below Percentage of Total Project Cost Arkansas Segment Preliminary Engineering $6.8 million Right of Way and Utilities $23.0 million Roadway and Bridge Construction $199.0 million Toll Plaza and Customer Center $12.7 million Construction Construction Engineering $20.0 million Project Financing Costs $6.9 million TOTAL $268.4 million Innovative Strategies Incentive Bidding $10.0 million Safety Surface $3.5 million Green Vehicle Credit $4.6 million ITS Technologies $1.8 million Elderly Driver Credit $3.2 million Low-Income Credit $0.3 million INNOVATIVE STRATEGIES TOTAL $23.4 million ARKANSAS TOTAL COST $291.8 million 81% Missouri Segment Preliminary Engineering N/A Right of Way and Utilities $6.6 million Construction $55.4 million Construction Engineering $4.3 million MISSOURI TOTAL COST $66.3 million 19% TOTAL PROJECT COST $358.1 million 100% Project Financing Plan Arkansas Federal-aid and State Match $48.6 million Anticipated Toll Revenue Bonds $20.0 million Anticipated TIGER TIFIA Loan Proceeds $77.8 million Missouri Federal-aid and State Match $66.3 million PRELIMINARY FINANCING PLAN TOTAL $212.7 million 59% TOTAL TIGER GRANT FUNDS REQUESTED $145.4 million 41% ARRA TIGER GRANT REQUEST – Construction $122.0 million ARRA TIGER GRANT REQUEST – Innovation $23.4 million TOTAL PROJECT COST $358.1 million 100% PROJECT CONTACT: Scott Bennett, P.E.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate 69 SIU 15 Final Environmental Impact
    Section 1: PURPOSE AND NEED This section defines the action by the Louisiana consistent with national, state, regional, and local Department of Transportation and Development needs. (DOTD), in cooperation with the Federal Highway The proposed project, hereafter referred to as the Administration (FHWA) that is the subject of this I-69 project, would provide a divided four-lane, Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and limited access highway on new location between establishes the purpose and need for that action. US Highway 171 (US 171) near the Town of In this section, the National, Regional and Local Stonewall in DeSoto Parish, and Interstate purposes and needs for the action are presented, Highway 20 (I–20) near the Town of Haughton in including the established logical termini and Bossier Parish, a distance of approximately 35 independent utility in the event that construction of miles. The routing and logical termini are identified adjacent Sections of Independent Utility are and described in the Corridor 18 Special Issues delayed or not completed. Study (1997) and in the I-69 (Corridor 18) Special 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Environmental Study, Task C Report - Sections of The DOTD, in cooperation with the FHWA, Independent Utility (SIU) report (1999) for SIU 15. proposes to construct a segment of the proposed The Study Area encompasses portions of Bossier, Interstate Highway 69 (I–69) in Bossier, Caddo, Caddo, and DeSoto Parishes (see Exhibit 1-2). An and DeSoto Parishes, Louisiana. The proposed evaluation of social, economic, environmental, and highway is a portion of the planned improvements engineering considerations will further refine the to Congressionally-designated High Priority proposed highway location.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 – Project Description and History
    I-69 Ohio River Crossing Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement CHAPTER 1 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY This chapter provides a brief description of the proposed action (i.e., the project) and the limits of the project area. It also provides a summary of the legislative history of the Interstate 69 (I-69) Corridor and previous studies completed. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) issued a revised Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on February 13, 2017 for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the I-69 Ohio River Crossing (ORX) project in the Evansville, IN and Henderson, KY area. The NOI revised the original NOI that was issued for the project on May 10, 2001. Under the original NOI, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was completed in 2004, but the project was subsequently suspended in 2005. This new DEIS for the I-69 ORX project was prepared by FHWA, INDOT, and KYTC in accordance with the following: • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 • FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents (FHWA 1987) • Procedural Manual for Preparing Environmental Documents (INDOT 2008) • Environmental Analysis Guidance Manual (KYTC 2014b) Following publication of this DEIS, conclusion of the public comment period, and completion of any additional surveys or analyses, FHWA, INDOT, and KYTC intend to publish a combined Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance with 23 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Highways Get Cargo to and from Freight Rail
    Highways Get Cargo To and From Freight Rail TEXAS RAIL SYSTEM MAP US 190/I-14/Gulf Coast System Polk County Judge John P. Thompson’s Presentation @ Texas Good Roads July 8, 2014 I-69 System in Texas Building Interstate 69 As A Series of Upgrade Projects www.i69TexasAlliance.com July 2014 2 20-Years of I-69 Advocacy . The Alliance for I-69 Texas was formed in 1993 by elected officials and economic development organizations . All segments of route represented in Alliance . Have an executive director plus Washington and State Capitol representation . Persistence has helped build support from lawmakers, governor, Transportation Commission and local communities Alliance for I-69 Texas 3 The I-69 System in Texas . 1,076 system miles including I-69E, I-69C, I-69W, I-369 and I-2 . One-third of Texas population lives in the 35 counties on the I-69 Routes . Already a very important freight corridor and connecting route . Includes some long rural sections through low population areas . Connects population centers, seaports, distribution points, and border ports of entry . Houston Metro – 6.4 million . RG Valley & Laredo – 2.1 million . Mexico Rio Grande – 1.7 million . Corpus Christi Metro – 427,000 . Texarkana Metro – 144,000 . Victoria Metro – 122,000 Alliance for I-69 Texas 4 Signed Sections . Signed Miles . Rio Grande Valley – 114 (including I-2 connector) . Corpus Christi – 6 . Houston Area – 63 . Texarkana – 3.5 . Laredo – 1.4 . TOTAL – 188 MILES . About 50 more miles are at freeway standard . 11 miles in Houston under review for addition to the Interstate Highway System .
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting Rural and Urban America PART3OF a SERIES
    August 2010 Transportation Reboot: Restarting America’s Most Essential Operating System The Case for Capacity: To Unlock Gridlock, Generate Jobs, Deliver Freight, and Connect Communities Connecting Rural and Urban America http://ExpandingCapacity.transportation.org PART3OF A SERIES AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS Acknowledgements Much of the material cited in this report, including the estimates of capacity increases required, is drawn from research published in May 2007 by the Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). The report, Future Options for the Interstate and Defense Highway System, can be accessed at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trbnet/ acl/NCHRP_20-24_52Task10_NCHRPFinal.pdf. The objective of the research project was to develop a potential vision for the future of the U.S. Interstate Highway System. The report was prepared by a study team led by David Gehr and Steve Lockwood of PB Consult, Gary Maring of Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Kevin E. Heanue, and Alan E. Pisarski. The research was sponsored by AASHTO and the Federal Highway Administration, and was guided by a panel chaired by Harold E. Linnenkohl, Georgia DOT (retired); and included Allen D. Biehler, P.E., Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT; John F. Conrad, P.E., Washington State DOT; Dr. David J. Forkenbrock, University of Iowa; Dr. Clay McShane, Northeastern University; Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT; Thomas E. Norton, Colorado DOT (formerly); Kenneth Orski, Urban Mobility Corporation; Dr. Bruce E. Seely, Michigan Technological University; MG David A. Sprynczynatyk, North Dakota Army National Guard; and LTG Kenneth R. Wykle, National Defense Transportation Association. The analysis period considered in the Future Options report was the 30 years from 2005 to 2035.
    [Show full text]