DOCSLIB.ORG

I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations The Interstate-69 (I-69) Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations contains the ideas and recommendations of the segment committee members and does not contain proposals by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The Segment One Committee would like to thank the citizens of Northeast Texas for participating in this stage of planning for I-69 Texas. Thinking about transportation for the next generation of Texans, not the next general election, was a challenging experience. The Committee worked to balance planning for the future while protecting property rights and the environment. During the Segment Committee process, one of our goals was to encourage public participation from the start. We were determined to get Texans involved in the discussion of the transportation needs of the state. We heard from Texans in our Segment Committee meetings, in other regional transportation planning meetings, in response cards, and internet postings. Members of the Segment Committee served as volunteers and to encourage public participation and feedback on I-69, made presentations in their local communities on the Committee’s ideas. It has been a pleasure working with the staff of TxDOT and their able group of consultants and facilitators. The availability of expertise made our job much easier. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the Texans who joined me in serving on the I-69 Segment One Committee. These committee members contributed time and talent to this process, making progress towards the future of I-69 Texas possible. Jerry Sparks Chair, I-69 Segment One Committee This page left intentionally blank I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 A Citizens’ Plan for I-69 ...................................................................................................................................... 5 I-69 Advisory Committee ....................................................................................................................... 5 I-69 Segment Committees ..................................................................................................................... 6 I-69 Segment One Committee ............................................................................................................ 8 Transportation Needs and Challenges .......................................................................................................11 I-69 Planning Considerations .........................................................................................................................12 Identification of Local Planning and Environmental Features ............................................................. 12 Recommended I-69 Routes and Connecting Facilities ......................................................................... 14 Current and Projected Traffic Data ...................................................................................................... 18 Crash Data and Information ................................................................................................................. 21 Development of Conceptual Interstate Layouts and Costs................................................................22 Interstate Highway Requirements ....................................................................................................... 22 Conceptual Interstate Layout Maps ..................................................................................................... 22 Conceptual Cost Estimates................................................................................................................... 23 Funding I-69 Development ................................................................................................................... 24 Public Outreach ....................................................................................................................................................26 Public Outreach Goals as Defined by I-69 Segment Committees ........................................................ 26 Public Outreach Implementation by the Segment Committee ........................................................... 27 Public Feedback Gathered by the Segment Committee ...................................................................... 28 Committee Recommendations for I-69 ......................................................................................................28 Redesignation of Highways that Meet Interstate Standards ............................................................... 29 Segment One Priority Sections ............................................................................................................ 29 Initial Implementation Goals ............................................................................................................... 32 Construct Currently Funded Projects ................................................................................................ 32 Future Spot Safety and Capacity Improvements .............................................................................. 34 Future Environmental/ Route Location and Planning Studies ......................................................... 34 Conclusion and Next Steps ................................................................................................................... 35 i I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations List of Figures Figure 1. Status of I-69 System .................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2. I-69 Segment Committee Boundaries ........................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. I-69 Segment One Committee Boundaries ................................................................................. 9 Figure 4. I-69 Citizen Committee Process ................................................................................................ 10 Figure 5. Example of Local Planning and Environmental Map ................................................................ 13 Figure 6. Transportation Facilities to Consider in Developing I-69 Segment One .................................. 15 Figure 7. I-69 Segment One 2009 Average Daily Traffic .......................................................................... 18 Figure 8. I-69 Segment One 2035 Forecasted Average Daily Traffic ....................................................... 19 Figure 9. I-69 Segment One Crash Rates 2005-2009 Average ................................................................. 21 Figure 10. Project Development Process for Highways .......................................................................... 25 Figure 11. Public Outreach Activities Statewide ..................................................................................... 27 Figure 12. I-69 Segment One Committee Priorities and Recommendations .......................................... 31 Figure 13. I-69 Major Construction Funding ........................................................................................... 33 List of Tables Table 1. I-69 Segment Committees ........................................................................................................... 6 Table 2. I-69 Segment One Committee Members and Appointing Entities (as of January 2012) ............. 8 Table 3. Public Outreach Activity Reports and Comments Received ...................................................... 27 List of Appendices Appendix A. Summary of Public Outreach Efforts, Citizen Comments, Responses to Citizen Questions and Resolutions for All Segment Committees ii I-69 Segment One Committee Report and Recommendations Executive Summary The I-69 Advisory Committee and five I-69 Segment Committees were created by the Texas Transportation Commission in 2008 as a way to increase citizen and community input in planning for I-69 Texas. The committees are comprised of citizen volunteers who have dedicated their time and talents to researching, planning and listening to their neighbors about the best way to develop I-69 in Texas. The I-69 Segment Committees are divided geographically along the I-69 route in Texas and members of these committees serve as the direct link to the citizens’ and communities’ voices in planning for this interstate. The Advisory Committee oversees the entire I-69 route in Texas and, using the recommendations of the five segment committees, will compile a comprehensive plan for developing I-69 Texas. The segment committees met regularly to discuss transportation, safety and economic development needs and concerns of their communities and also discussed how I-69 would address these needs and concerns. The committees agreed that I-69 is needed to: serve a growing Texas population, accommodate the increase in traffic that accompanies population growth, provide safer travel, improve emergency evacuation routes - such as hurricane evacuation routes - and to maintain and improve economic competitiveness. In addition to researching the needs and concerns of their communities, the segment committees also conducted an
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The City of Edinburgh Council Edinburgh LRT Masterplan Feasibility Study Final Report
    The City of Edinburgh Council Edinburgh LRT Masterplan Feasibility Study Final Report The City of Edinburgh Council Edinburgh LRT Masterplan Feasibility Study Final Report January 2003 Ove Arup & Partners International Ltd Admiral House, Rose Wharf, 78 East Street, Leeds LS9 8EE Tel +44 (0)113 242 8498 Fax +44 (0)113 242 8573 REP/FI Job number 68772 The City of Edinburgh Council Edinburgh LRT Masterplan Feasibility Study Final Report CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 9 1.1 Scope of the Report 9 1.2 Study Background and Objectives 9 1.3 Transport Trends 10 1.4 Planning Context 10 1.5 The Integrated Transport Initiative 11 1.6 Study Approach 13 1.7 Light Rapid Transit Systems 13 2. PHASE 1 APPRAISAL 18 2.1 Introduction 18 2.2 Corridor Review 18 2.3 Development Proposals 21 2.4 The City of Edinburgh Conceptual Network 22 2.5 Priorities for Testing 23 2.6 North Edinburgh Loop 24 2.7 South Suburban Line 26 2.8 Appraisal of Long List of Corridor Schemes 29 2.9 Phase 1 Findings 47 3. APPROACH TO PHASE 2 50 3.1 Introduction 50 3.2 Technical Issues and Costs 50 3.3 Rolling Stock 54 3.4 Tram Services, Run Times and Operating Costs 55 3.5 Environmental Impact 55 3.6 Demand Forecasting 56 3.7 Appraisal 61 4. NORTH EDINBURGH LOOP 63 4.1 Alignment and Engineering Issues 63 4.2 Demand and Revenue 65 4.3 Environmental Issues 66 4.4 Integration 67 4.5 Tram Operations and Car Requirements 67 4.6 Costs 68 4.7 Appraisal 69 5.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Guide Signs for Freeways and Expressways Are Primarily Identified by the Name of the Sign Rather Than by an Assigned Sign Designation
    2011 Edition Page 235 CHAPTER 2E. GUIDE SIGNS—FREEWAYS AND EXPRESSWAYS Section 2E.01 Scope of Freeway and Expressway Guide Sign Standards Support: 01 The provisions of this Chapter provide a uniform and effective system of signing for high-volume, high- speed motor vehicle traffic on freeways and expressways. The requirements and specifications for expressway signing exceed those for conventional roads (see Chapter 2D), but are less than those for freeway signing. Since there are many geometric design variables to be found in existing roads, a signing concept commensurate with prevailing conditions is the primary consideration. Section 1A.13 includes definitions of freeway and expressway. 02 Guide signs for freeways and expressways are primarily identified by the name of the sign rather than by an assigned sign designation. Guidelines for the design of guide signs for freeways and expressways are provided in the “Standard Highway Signs and Markings” book (see Section 1A.11). Standard: 03 The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to any highway that meets the definition of freeway or expressway facilities. Section 2E.02 Freeway and Expressway Signing Principles Support: 01 The development of a signing system for freeways and expressways is approached on the premise that the signing is primarily for the benefit and direction of road users who are not familiar with the route or area. The signing furnishes road users with clear instructions for orderly progress to their destinations. Sign installations are an integral part of the facility and, as such, are best planned concurrently with the development of highway location and geometric design.
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL REPORT SWLRT Engineering Evaluation of Freight Rail
    Submitted to Metropolitan Council Submitted by TranSystems March 21, 2014 FINAL REPORT SWLRT Engineering Evaluation of Freight Rail Relocation Alternatives SWLRT Engineering Evaluation of Freight Rail Relocation Alternatives FINAL REPORT Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... ........... 1 II. Background ............................................................................................................................... ............ 2 A. TC&W Network and Operations ....................................................................................................... 2 B. Freight Rail Industry Changes ........................................................................................................... 4 III. Scope of Engineering Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 6 IV. Review of Past Studies ...................................................................................................................... 7 A. St. Louis Park Railroad Study (March 1999) ...................................................................................... 7 B. TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study (November 2009) ................................................................. 7 C. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan (January 2010).................. 7 D. Freight Rail Study – Evaluation of TCWR Routing Alternatives
    [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]
  • Project Listing Final
    KANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN REGION TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2012-2016 Revision Date: Friday, August 30, 2013 Bistate TIP #: 956004 Juris: JOHNSON COUNTY Location/Improvement: FIXED ROUTE LINE HAUL SERVICE TRANSIT State #: Federal #: County: REGIONAL Type: Vehicle Operations Length (mi): N/A Phase Year of Type Source Cost (IN THOUSANDS) Description: Includes Capital Cost of Contracting, Preventive Maintenance Activities, Obligation Vehicle Purchases, and Miscellaneous Capital Items. Other2010 Federal 5307 $2,125.0 Status: Other2011 Non-Federal LOCAL $2,062.5 Other2013 Federal 5307 $1,950.0 Other2014 Federal 5307 $1,800.0 Other2011 Federal 5307 $1,650.0 Other2012 Federal 5307 $1,650.0 Other2013 Non-Federal LOCAL $760.0 Other2010 Non-Federal LOCAL $531.3 Other2014 Non-Federal LOCAL $450.0 Other2012 Non-Federal LOCAL $412.5 Federal Total: $9,175.0 Non-Federal Total: $4,216.3 Total: $13,391.3 TIP #: 996077 Juris: JOHNSON COUNTY Location/Improvement: I-35 BUS ON SHOULDER TRANSIT State #: Federal #: County: REGIONAL Type: Other (capital) Length (mi): 19.0 Phase Year of Type Source Cost (IN THOUSANDS) Description: I-35 Bus on Shoulder and related activities Obligation Other2004 Federal 5309 $1,500.0 Status: Other2006 Federal 330-KS $397.4 Other2004 Non-Federal STATE-KS $375.0 Other2005 Federal 5309 $300.0 Other2005 Non-Federal STATE-KS $75.0 Federal Total: $2,197.4 Non-Federal Total: $450.0 Total: $2,647.4 TIP #: 996087 Juris: JOHNSON COUNTY Location/Improvement: TRANSPORTATION SERVICE FOR THE JO ROUTES 669/I AND 677/R TRANSIT State #: Federal #: County: REGIONAL Type: Other (Transit) Length (mi): N/A Phase Year of Type Source Cost (IN THOUSANDS) Description: Maintain service on two current routes that provide transportation services to Obligation welfare recipients, eligible low-income individuals, and employees who work in Other2012 Non-Federal LOCAL $124.4 portions of the metropolitan area that are underserved by transit.
    [Show full text]
  • Long Range Transportation Plan 2016
    LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.” -- Benjamin Franklin 2016 PENNSYLVANIA LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Message................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose of ‘PA On Track’ .................................................................................................................................................3 History of Transportation Planning in Pennsylvania .........................................................................................................4 Document Navigator ........................................................................................................................................................5 Outreach Summary ................................................................................................................................ 7 Stakeholder Involvement .................................................................................................................................................7 Public Outreach ...............................................................................................................................................................7 Planning Context .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • RECEIVED Hon
    PILLAR AND MULROY, P.C. ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW SUITE 700 312 BOULEVARD OF THE ALLIES PITTSBURGH, PA 15222 TELEPHONE (412) 471-3300 FAX: (412) 471-6068 JOHN A. PILLAR THOMAS M. MULROY December 6, IS'^O " ANTHONY A. SEETHALER, JR. Re: Transamerican Trucking Service, Inc.—Purchase (Portion)— 'Off. Nicklaus Freight Lines, Inc. File No. 1342 RECEIVED Hon. Jerry Rich, Secretary Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission DEC 81990 P. O. Box 3265 SECRETARY'S Gr-HuE Harrisburg, PA 1712 0 Public UtiJity Commission Dear Mr. Rich: We enclose herewith for filing the original and two copies of the application of Transamerican Trucking Service/ Inc. to purchase a portion of the operating rights of Nicklaus Freight Lines, Inc. The filing fee of $350.00 is also enclosed. Please acknowledge receipt on the duplicate copy of this letter of transmittal and return it to the undersigned. If any further information is required, please advise. Very, truly yours JOHN A. PILLAR sw Enclosures cc: Transamerican Trucking Service, Inc William J. Lavelle, Esq. F mm^S5 UP.-190 : Transfer ^Rev 8/88) APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF TRANSFER^ / ' ^ 9c AND EXERCISE OF COMMON OR CONTRACT CARRIER-RIGHTS BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIQNr*-^^-*^ Application of TRANS AMERICAN TRUCKING SERVICE, INC. (Appl icant/Transferee-Buyer) for approval of the transfer and to exercise the right PUC USE ONLY as a common carrier, described at Docket Docket No. /D 1 7 1 3 (common-contract) Folder No. No. A -iO{flOl Folder No. , issued to NICKLAUS FREIGHT LINES, INC (Transferor-Seller) for transportation of property (persons-property) DEC 81990 iSECRETARY'S'OFBIGE Public utility Commission SEE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING^APPLICATION ym TRANS AMERICAN TRUCKING SERVICE, INC.
    [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]