NOTICE of Public Meeting I-2 & I-69C INTERCHANGE PROJECT CCSJ #0039-17-175, CSJ #0255-08-107 Hidalgo County, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

NOTICE of Public Meeting I-2 & I-69C INTERCHANGE PROJECT CCSJ #0039-17-175, CSJ #0255-08-107 Hidalgo County, Texas Interstate 2: From 2nd Street in McAllen to FM 2557 (Stewart Rd) in San Juan Interstate 69C: From Nolana Loop to Interstate 2 in Pharr The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), will host a Public Meeting to present the proposed operational improvements on the Interstate 2 (I-2) and Interstate 69C (I-69C) Interchange located in Hidalgo County, Texas. The proposed project limits on I-2 are from 2nd Street in McAllen to FM 2557 (Stewart Rd) in San Juan and on I-69C from Nolana Loop to I-2 in Pharr. The meeting will inform the public on the project’s purpose and need, status, next steps, and other relevant information. It will also allow the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed improvements. The Public Meeting details are: Thursday, June 14, 2018 Boggus Ford Event Center 3000 N. Cage, Pharr, Texas 78577 Open House: 5:00pm to 6:00pm Presentation and Public Comment: 6:00 pm The proposed project is to improve traffic operations and mobility. The existing direct connectors of the I-2 & I-69C interchange are currently one lane bridge structures consisting of one 14 foot wide travel lane with 4 foot wide inside and 8 foot wide outside shoulders. The proposed direct connectors will consist of two 12 foot wide travel lanes with 4 foot wide inside shoulders and 10 foot wide outside shoulders. In addition, the locations of the on & off ramps and the auxiliary lanes between ramps will be optimized. The proposed project would require additional right- of-way (ROW). Additional studies will determine other potential impacts. The public is invited to attend this Public Meeting to learn more, ask questions and provide comments on the proposed project with TxDOT representatives. Verbal and/or written comments may be presented at the Public Meeting. Comments must be received or postmarked by June 29, 2018 to be included in the Public Meeting Summary. Written comments may be submitted or mailed to TxDOT Pharr District Attn: Robin Gelston , 600 W. Interstate 2, Pharr, TX 78577. Comments may also be submitted by fax to (956) 702-6110 or by e-mail to [email protected]. Environmental documentation and studies, maps showing the project location and design, tentative construction schedules, and other information regarding the project are on file and available for inspection Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the TxDOT Pharr District office located at 600 W. Interstate 2, Pharr, Texas. Please call TxDOT Project Manager, Eduardo Saenz, P.E. at (956) 702- 6170, to make an appointment. The Public Meeting will be conducted in English. Spanish translation services will be available. Persons interested in attending the public meeting who have special communication or accommodation needs are encouraged to contact Norma Robledo at 956-702-6161 at least five working days prior to the meeting. Every reasonable effort will be made to accommodate these needs. For more information about the project please visit www.txdot.gov, keyword: “I- 2 and I-69C”. The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT. .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Appendix H Locational Impacts of Trans Theme Packages
Appendix H Facility Specific Impacts of the Transportation Theme Packages Appendix H Facility specific impacts of the Transportation Theme Packages Appendix H discusses the facility specific impacts of the transportation theme packages. The appendix is divided into three parts. Part 1 (page H-2) lists the analyzed transportation options for each grouping within each theme. Part 2 (Page H-4) lists the facility specific impacts of each of the options. Part 3 (page H-15) describes the key findings of these analyses. Part 1 – Analyzed Transportation Options for Each Theme and Grouping Interstate Theme Interstate 1 (Grouping 1) -- This package includes primarily system management types of strategies: · #2 - Increase speed limit on the Maine Turnpike from 55 mph to 60 mph between 6A and 9 and on Falmouth Spur · #3 - Reconfigure Falmouth Spur/I-95/I-295 Interchange in Falmouth · #4 - Add SB lane on I-295 between Exit 3 (Westbrook St) and 4 (Route 1) in South Portland · #5 - Add NB lane on I-295 between Exit 6 (Forest Ave) and 7 (Franklin St) in Portland · #7 - Regional Ring road (keeps Route 703 as freeway facility) · #11 - Reconfigure I-295 Exit 4 in South Portland (not modeled) · #12 - Ramp reconfiguration of Exit 3/Westbrook Street in South Portland · #13 - Full interchange at Route 26/100 and Falmouth Spur in Falmouth · #6 - Regional Toll system with new toll plaza per latest Maine Turnpike Authority concept at Exit 7 (keeping Exit 6A plaza) and removing other plazas on Turnpike and Falmouth Spur. Interstate 2 (Grouping 2) -- Adds Turnpike widening to increment 1: · #1 - Widen Turnpike from 6A to 9 and increase speeds from 55 mph to 65 mph in South Portland, Portland and Falmouth.
[Show full text]
Northern Kentucky Outer Loop (I-74) Final Report
CONCEPTUAL FEASIBILITY OF NORTHERN KENTUCKY OUTER LOOP (I-74) FINAL REPORT Prepared For Kentucky Transportation Cabinet by: AMERICAN AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLC March 2003 Northern Kentucky Outer Loop (I-74) Table of Contents Section Title Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i INTRODUCTION 1 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 4 1.1 Purpose and Need Statements 5 1.2 Secondary Goals for the Priority Segments 5 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 2.1 Major Highways 6 2.2 Socioeconomic Characteristics 6 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW 9 3.1 Types of Environmental Resources in the Project 9 Corridor 4.0 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES 10 4.1 Cost Study Objectives 10 4.2 Corridor Location 11 4.3 Study Alternates 11 4.4 Cost Estimating Procedure 13 5.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTING 14 5.1 Traffic Model Coverage Area 14 5.2 Forecasting Methodology 14 5.3 Alternates Evaluated 14 5.4 Percentage of Truck Traffic 14 5.5 Traffic Forecasting Results 15 5.6 Alternate Assumptions 16 6.0 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS 17 6.1 Design Alternates Being Evaluated 17 6.2 Present Value of Benefits and Costs 17 Section Title Page 6.3 Road-User Benefits 17 6.4 Project Costs 20 6.5 Benefit and Cost Comparison 20 6.6 Benefit Cost Comparison for the Western Segment 21 7.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 22 7.1 Study Methodology 22 7.2 Economic Impacts vs. Economic Benefits 23 7.3 Types of Impacts 23 7.4 Western Segment Analysis 24 7.5 Economic Development Impact vs. Project Cost Ratio 25 8.0 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY 25 8.1 Construction Costs 26 8.2 Annual Bond Payments 26 8.3 Unspent Construction Funds 27 8.4 Land Donation 27 8.5 User Fees 27 8.6 Tax Increment Financing 28 8.7 State Government Financing 28 8.8 Innovative Finance 29 8.9 Priority Segments 30 9.0 INTERCHANGE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 31 9.1 Types of Interchange Development Opportunities 31 9.2 Direct Demand Vs.
[Show full text]
Hazardous Materials Route Registry
LEGEND Restrictions (Columns A to K) Designations (Columns L to P) 0 = All Hazmats A = All NRHM Hazmats 1 = Class 1 Explosives B = Class 1 Explosives 2 = Class 2 - Gas P = Class 7 HRCQ Radioactive 3 = Class 3 - Flammable I = Toxic Inhalation Hazard (TIH) 4 = Class 4 - Flammable Solid/Combustible M = Medical Waste 5 = Class 5 - Organic 6 = Class 6 - Poison 7 = Class 7 - Radioactive ID 8 = Class 8 - Corrosives REST = Restricted Route 9 = Class 9 - Dangerous (Other) PREF = Preferred Route i = Toxic Inhalation Hazard (TIH) PRES = Prescribed Route RECOM - Recommended Route YEAR DATE ID A B C D E F G HIJ K BLANK L NO P M STATE_ TEXT STATE CITY COUNTY ABBR ALABAMA YEAR DATE ID A B C D E F G HIJ K BLANK L NO P M STATE_ TEXT STATE CITY COUNTY ABBR 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALBattleship Parkway [Mobile] froma By Bridge Rd. Alabama Mobile [Mobile] to Interstate 10 [exit 27] 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALBay Bridge Rd. [Mobile] from Interstate 165 to Alabama Mobile Battleship Parkway [over Africa Town Cochran Bridge] [Westbound Traffic: Head south on I165; To by-pass the downtown area, head north on I165.] 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 10 from Mobile City Limits to Exit 26B Alabama Mobile [Water St] [Eastbound Traffic: To avoid the downtown area, exit on I-65 North] 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 10 from Mobile City Limits to Exit 27 Alabama Mobile 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 65 from Interstate 10 ton Iterstate 165 Alabama Mobile [A route for trucks wishing to by-pass the downtown area.] 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 65 from Mobile City Limits to Interstate Alabama Mobile 165 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 165 from Water St.
[Show full text]
This Issue: Sincerely, for I-69 Texas Has Been “Encouraging Cooperation and Seeking Solutions Since 1994,” and Along with Governor Perry Legislation Signing 1 the U
Background image: “All Ablaze” by Jan Hartzog 4th Place, 2009 Photography Contest - Nature Category Residents of Hidalgo County: Legislation for new university signed by gov. perry As leaders, we aim to keep our community idalgo County President Robert Nelsen, UTB residents engaged and informed about projects, Judge Ramon President Julieta Garcia, for initiatives, and improvements that we are pres- HGarcia and Com- the role they played to turn ently undertaking. We also have big plans for missioners A. C. Cuellar, the eyes of Texas to the Rio the future direction of our County, which will Jr., Hector “Tito” Pala- Grande Valley, which, Perry help to keep our area thriving and our com- cios, and Joseph Palacios commented, had been over- munities flourishing. were among the officials looked for far too long. on hand to witness Texas In this issue of Your County Connection, we Governor Rick Perry’s It was Chancellor Cigarroa’s showcase many major initiatives that will ceremonial signing of vision of hope and opportuni- transform the landscape of our County, such the legislation creating a ty for the South Texas region as the new new University of Texas that began Project South university university and medical Texas. The vision was devel- and medical school in South Texas. oped by the UT System Board school and of Regents, carried through the interstate At the ceremony, the state legislature, and designation Governor Perry praised lauded by Rio Grande Valley of several University of Texas local leaders, including County major high- System Board of Regents Judge Ramon Garcia and the ways.
[Show full text]
2016 Interstate Highway Progress Report
2016 Interstate Highway Progress Report 30 I-69 Now A Reality in Nine Counties TEXARKANA 369 • The Texas Interstate 69 System is being developed as a series of incremental upgrades to existing highways - US 59, FORT DALLAS 30 ATLANTA WORTH LINDEN US 77, US 281, SH 44 and US 84. US 83 is now Interstate 2, JEFFERSON 49 providing a 46.8-mile connector between I-69E and I-69W 20 MARSHALL 20 Tyler Longview Shreveport in Cameron and Hidalgo Counties. CARTHAGE 207 miles of the Interstate 69 system in Texas have now TENAHA U.S. • GARRISON 84 been designated and signed with interstate shields. NACOGDOCHES CENTER U.S. Approximately 400 additional miles are in active route 59 studies, environmental clearance steps, design or right-of- 35 45 LUFKIN DIBOLL CORRIGAN way acquisition. The following segments have been added MOSCOW LIVINGSTON to the nation’s Interstate Highway System: SHEPHERD 75.3 Miles (US 59/I-69) - Harris, Montgomery, Fort Bend AUSTIN CLEVELAND • HUMBLE Counties 69 • 7.8 Miles (US 77/I-69E) - Nueces County 10 RICHMOND 3.5 Miles (US 59/I-369) - Texarkana south from I-30 SAN ROSENBERG • ANTONIO SUGAR WHARTON LAND HOUSTON • 53.3 Miles (US 77/I-69E) - Raymondville to Rio Grande GALVESTON U.S. EL CAMPO • 1.5 Miles (SH 550/ I-169 Connector) - Cameron County 35 59 GANADA FREEPORT 37 EDNA GOLIAD • 18 Miles (US 281/I-69C) - Edinburg to Pharr, Hidalgo County VICTORIA BEEVILLE • 1.4 Miles (US 59/I-69W) - Laredo, Webb County U.S. GEORGE REFUGIO WEST 46.8 Miles (US 83/Interstate 2 System Connector) - Harlingen 69W 77 WOODSBORO I-69 System • FREER SINTON to Palmview U.S.
[Show full text]
E Valuation E Valuation Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis
PACTS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2006 Chapter 4: Alternatives Analysis Introduction Chapter 3 explored the analysis of existing conditions and described the current traffic safety and congestion problems the PACTS region is experiencing. The future trends analysis forecasts worsening traffic conditions should current trends continue. Chapter 3 also documented current gaps and deficiencies in the passenger transportation network. Chapter 4 explores the alternatives analysis done for Destination Tomorrow. The alternatives analysis is an examination of the impacts of potential transportation and land use strategies1 on the region’s future transportation system. The foundation of the alternatives analysis was formed by: the analyses of Chapter 3; examination of present transportation and land use policies; input from PACTS members, private citizens and interested stakeholders; and previous PACTS studies. Many of the strategies tested in the alternatives analysis were changes to the physical infrastructure of the transportation system, while others were aimed toward modification of policies that influence the shape of the transportation system. Both systemwide transportation impacts and facility-specific impacts were forecasted. Three different alternatives or “themes” were analyzed: interstate, arterial and transit. The most favorable results of these analyses, from a transportation system perspective, were combined Tested Themes into a fourth Best-of theme for further analysis. Transportation (The 2003 Destination Tomorrow Plan also Themes contained a fifth theme, Compact Land Use.) Interstate Highway Discussion of the 2003 and 2006 alternatives Strategies Best analyses is included in this chapter. E Strategies Arterial v Roadway a Transport. l Interstate Highway Theme – Emphasis on Strategies u Strategies a expanding and optimizing the region’s t i interstate highways.
[Show full text]
Current List of Designated Preferred and Restricted Routes
LEGEND Restrictions (Columns A to K) Designations (Columns L to P) 0 = All Hazmats A = All NRHM Hazmats 1 = Class 1 Explosives B = Class 1 Explosives 2 = Class 2 - Gas P = Class 7 HRCQ Radioactive 3 = Class 3 - Flammable I = Toxic Inhalation Hazard (TIH) 4 = Class 4 - Flammable Solid/Combustible M = Medical Waste 5 = Class 5 - Organic 6 = Class 6 - Poison 7 = Class 7 - Radioactive ID 8 = Class 8 - Corrosives REST = Restricted Route 9 = Class 9 - Dangerous (Other) PREF = Preferred Route i = Toxic Inhalation Hazard (TIH) PRES = Prescribed Route RECOM - Recommended Route YEAR DATE ID A B C D E F G HIJ K BLANK L NO P M STATE_ TEXT STATE CITY COUNTY ABBR ALABAMA YEAR DATE ID A B C D E F G HIJ K BLANK L NO P M STATE_ TEXT STATE CITY COUNTY ABBR 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALBattleship Parkway [Mobile] froma By Bridge Rd. Alabama Mobile [Mobile] to Interstate 10 [exit 27] 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALBay Bridge Rd. [Mobile] from Interstate 165 to Alabama Mobile Battleship Parkway [over Africa Town Cochran Bridge] [Westbound Traffic: Head south on I165; To by-pass the downtown area, head north on I165.] 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 10 from Mobile City Limits to Exit 26B Alabama Mobile [Water St] [Eastbound Traffic: To avoid the downtown area, exit on I-65 North] 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 10 from Mobile City Limits to Exit 27 Alabama Mobile 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 65 from Interstate 10 ton Iterstate 165 Alabama Mobile [A route for trucks wishing to by-pass the downtown area.] 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 65 from Mobile City Limits to Interstate Alabama Mobile 165 1996 08/26/96 PREF - ---------- ---P- ALInterstate 165 from Water St.
[Show full text]
84(R) Hr 1256
By:AAMu·oz, Jr. H.R.ANo.A1256 RESOLUTION 1 WHEREAS, Many proud residents of Pharr are gathering in 2 Austin on March 18, 2015, to celebrate City of Pharr Day at the 3 State Capitol; and 4 WHEREAS, Rich with bicultural diversity, history, and 5 beauty, Pharr is located in the Rio Grande Valley of South Texas, 6 bordering Mexico, one of our nation 's most vital strategic 7 partners; the city sits at the major highway crossroads of 8 Interstate 69 and Interstate 2 and serves as both a transportation 9 hub and an important gateway for international business; and 10 WHEREAS, Named for Henry N.APharr, a sugarcane grower, Pharr 11 was incorporated in 1919; the economy was once based in agriculture 12 but has since diversified greatly in areas such as retail, light 13 manufacturing, entertainment, and shipping; the busy Pharr 14 International Bridge has helped Pharr become the Rio Grande 15 Valley 's leader in trade with world partners, and the total trade 16 value reached more than $30 billion for 2014; and 17 WHEREAS, Pharr features first-class restaurants and 18 nationally recognized retail shopping outlets, and its weather and 19 location make it an attractive destination for sun-loving tourists, 20 birders, and wildlife enthusiasts; the city has a low cost of 21 living, low unemployment, and a young, dynamic workforce, and the 22 Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District is emphasizing 23 student retention and college readiness; and 24 WHEREAS, Known as the state 's first Triple Crown City, Pharr 84R14306 BPG-D 1 H.R.ANo.A1256 1 was
[Show full text]
John Paul Hammerschmidt and the Early Struggle for the Construction of Interstate 49 Anna Crayton University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 12-2015 John Paul Hammerschmidt and the Early Struggle for the Construction of Interstate 49 Anna Crayton University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Other History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Crayton, Anna, "John Paul Hammerschmidt and the Early Struggle for the Construction of Interstate 49" (2015). Theses and Dissertations. 1377. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1377 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. John Paul Hammerschmidt and the Early Struggle for the Construction of Interstate 49 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History by Anna R. Crayton Queens University of Charlotte Bachelor of Arts in History, 2007 December 2015 University of Arkansas This thesis is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. Dr. Jeannie Whayne Thesis Director Dr. Calvin White Jr. Committee Member Dr. J. Laurence Hare Committee Member Abstract In order to understand the development of the Interstate 49 corridor, which began almost a half century ago, it is necessary to analyze the complex nature of federal aid highway legislation. For nearly one-hundred years politicians struggled to create a comprehensive highway program, and many felt this had been achieved with the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.
[Show full text]
The Interstate Highway System of Virginia Gilray Moyes Anderson
University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Master's Theses Student Research Spring 1972 Selected aspects of Interstate 295 : the interstate highway system of Virginia Gilray Moyes Anderson Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/masters-theses Recommended Citation Anderson, Gilray Moyes, "Selected aspects of Interstate 295 : the interstate highway system of Virginia" (1972). Master's Theses. Paper 335. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SELECTED ASPECTS OF INTERSTATE 295 THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM OF VIRGINIA BY GILRAY MOYES ANDERSON, JR. A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN.POLITICAL SCIENCE JUNE, 1972 LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND VIRGINIA APPROVAL SHEET The undersigned, appointed by the Chairman of the Political Science Department, have examined this thesis by Gilray Moyes Anderson, Jr. Candidate for the degree of Master of Arts in Political Science, and hereby certify their approval of its acceptance. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ! • • • • 1 II. HISTORY . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 III. PLANNING OF INTERSTATE 295 .. .. .. .. 26 IV. POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS .. .. .. .. 51 v. CONCLUSION .. .. .. .. 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 71 APPENDICES .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 76 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Man has come a remarkably long way since the invention of the wheel. Today this simple devise is the basis for countless tasks that have been delegated by man to do his work and provide for his pleasure.
[Show full text]
Retail Development 16 Acres Interchange of Interstates 2 and 69 E Harlingen, Texas 78550
For Sale Land 16.12 Acres | $5,270,000 Property Highlights Retail Development • Great Interstate exposure and access 16 acres • Interstate frontage 629.8' • Depth: 1109' on the west, 1135.8 on east Interstate 2 (aka Exp 83) Harlingen, Texas 78550 • All utilities available • Fast growing population Property Description • Near several Automotive dealerships The property is rectangular with the east edge bordering the Harlingen • City of Harlingen rated AA by S & P with 16 Corners Development with 382K sf of leased retail space. Access to the straight months of retail sales growth property via a curb cut from I-2 frontage and via an Access Easement from Lincoln Ave. to the south, through Harlingen Corners and from Interstate 2 OFFERING SUMMARY (Expressway 83). The property is in the SWC of Interstate 2 (Exp. 83) and Interstate 69 (Exp. 77) Interchange. To the east across Interstate 2, is Bass Sale Price $5,270,000 Pro, Sams Club and the future Convention Center and numerous Lot Size 16.12 Acres restaurants. To the east of the subject is the State of Texas Travel Information Center, regional mall, Starbucks, Walgreens, Chili's Applebee's, Holiday Inn, Walmart, HEB, Target, Chuck E Cheese's, Bed Bath and Beyond and many other restaurant and retail establishments. The property is well located with access from I-2 and The Harlingen Corners retail development. Brownsville/Matamoros is 26 miles south, Mc Allen/Reynosa is 35 miles west and Houston is about 300 miles north. Harlingen caters to a For more information consumer market of over 2.3 million within a 50 mile radius and 10 million Eric Ziehe, CCIM within a 200 mile radius.
[Show full text]
Approved Final Environmental Assessment
Approved Final Environmental Assessment Nolana Loop Pharr District From FM 1426 (Raul Longoria Road) To FM 88 (Texas Avenue) CSJ: 0921-02-169, 0921-02-361 Hidalgo County, Texas April 2020 The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 9, 2019, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT. Nolana Loop Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 A. PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT ................................................................................... 1 B. PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ....................................................... 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 1 A. EXISTING FACILITY ......................................................................................................... 1 B. PROPOSED FACILITY ..................................................................................................... 2 III. PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................................................... 3 A. NEED .................................................................................................................................. 3 B. SUPPORTING FACTS
[Show full text]