I-69 Corridor Program. Corridor Segment Committee 1 Meeting

Transcription

1 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting MEMORANDUM OF MEETING SUBJECT: Corridor Segment Committee 1 Meeting DATE: February 19, 2010 LOCATION: Lufkin City Hall, Lufkin, Texas ATTENDING: Attendees are listed on attached sign-in sheets (Attachment 1) The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) review the Corridor Segment Committee 1 (CSC 1) October 21, 2009 meeting notes; 2) review the results of the activity to identify transportation facilities that should be considered when developing the I-69 Corridor Program and solicit further input; 3) review corridor mapping and locate planning/environmental features and constraints that could influence the development of the I-69 Corridor Program and the destinations it may serve; 4) review an example Conceptual Interstate Layout that is being prepared to help guide the development of an I-69 Corridor Program. The example Conceptual Interstate Layout is for planning purposes only and is preliminary, subject to change. The meeting agenda is included as Attachment 2. Welcome/Introductions: Jerry Sparks, CSC 1 Chair, welcomed the attendees. He then introduced Jim Wehmeier of the Lufkin/Angelina Economic Development Corporation who welcomed everyone to the City of Lufkin. Following this, Leah Olivarri, the CSC 1 facilitator, had the meeting attendees introduce themselves. She then explained that the maps and information being presented today is work in progress and very preliminary. She further explained that each of the five CSCs are in the process of working towards the common goal of providing input to the development of an I-69 Corridor Program. The information that will be presented over the course of the next few CSC meetings is intended to assist the CSCs in this effort. Also, it is intended to accurately reflect the input that each CSC provides. Administrative: 1. October CSC meeting notes review and summary No changes were made or comments received on the notes. 2. Leah Olivarri asked if there were any comments on the table included in the October meeting notes which categorized the transportation problems and challenges defined by the CSC members. The CSC members had no further comments. 3. Leah then requested that the CSC members review an 11x17 map included in their meeting packet which presented the results of the October activity to identify transportation facilities that should be considered when developing the I-69 Corridor Program. Leah asked if the CSC members had any edits or additional input on which Page 1 of 5

2 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting specific routes should be upgraded to interstate standards as a part of I-69 or which facilities the interstate should connect to and why. The CSC members offered the following input: a. The Red River Army Depot should point to a different location on the map. b. SH 204 should be considered a connecting facility. It would connect to US 59 via US 259 to Nacogdoches. This was drawn on the map. c. SH 294 should also be considered a connecting facility. It would connect to US 59 via SH 21 to Nacogdoches. This route provides connectivity to Austin. d. It was reiterated that SH 204 and US 259 in combination with US 175 could collectively function as a connecting facility providing access between Dallas and I-69 in the Nacogdoches area. e. The CSC 1 Chair presented displays showing an industrial redevelopment plan for the Red River Army Depot and Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant area (Two handouts were provided at the meeting and links to the displays were forwarded electronically via on March 4, 2010 and are shown in Attachment 3). The CSC members discussed that the I-69 Corridor Program has the potential to support the redevelopment of the area by providing improved access. The plan depicts a desired location for the I-69 corridor. i. TxDOT staff requested that the group provide an electronic copy of this redevelopment plan. f. It was noted that the airplane symbol located near Texarkana was in the wrong location. g. It was suggested that the location of the I-49/US 59 intersection be confirmed. Also, the planned location of I-49 in Arkansas needs to be confirmed. h. It was noted that the Texarkana Loop on the MPO plan goes around the Texarkana Airport. i. It was indicated that Loop 224 in Nacogdoches should not be depicted as a facility to become I-69. j. It was also emphasized that connectivity to Lake Naconiche was important. k. It was also emphasized that connectivity to the wet port in Louisiana was important. l. During this activity, the CSC members asked several questions which are summarized below: i. Would the interstate route be required to follow US 59, or could it extend through Mount Enterprise and closer to Henderson on the way to Texarkana? TxDOT staff replied that I-69 will connect to the national I-69 corridor near Logansport, Louisiana. Also, the CSC can recommend consideration of another route other than US 59 that an interstate type facility could follow as it heads north to Texarkana. ii. How would TxDOT determine which side of Nacogdoches I-69 would be routed, for example US 59 or Loop 224? TxDOT staff responded that the CSC, the community, and the public will have input to determine where to locate I-69. Also, it would be important to assess the available capacity of the existing Page 2 of 5

3 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting routes, as part of the process for determining the location of an interstate. To conclude this activity, Leah indicated that the map will be updated to reflect the input received on the transportation facilities to be considered when developing the I-69 Corridor Program. During future CSC meetings, the CSC members will continue to have the opportunity to review and make further edits to this map. CSC Activity to Identify Important Planning/Environmental Features Leah requested that the CSC members break into five groups in preparation to conduct this activity. The CSC members were directed to review the instructions for this group activity. Leah also requested that as they mark-up the planning features map booklets they put a large asterisk in the lower right legend to indicate that they have identified an important planning feature on that page. Once the groups completed the activity, the map booklets were collected, and Leah explained that the features the CSC members marked on the maps will be added to the I-69 Corridor Program mapping. Finally, Leah wrapped-up the activity by explaining that an updated I-69 planning features map booklet will be available at all future CSC meetings. The CSC members will have the opportunity to continue to update the mapping as they learn of new planning features that may be important to current and future I-69 corridor planning efforts. It was noted that the map booklets should be updated to show the industrial redevelopment plan for the Red River Army Depot and Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant area (Attachment 3). Presentation of an example Conceptual Interstate Layout Marc Williams introduced this activity. He explained that the CSC members will be shown what upgrading specified routes within the I-69 Corridor to a controlled access interstate highway would potentially look like. An example Conceptual Interstate Layout for a portion of US 59 (from Nacogdoches to Tenaha) within the CSC 1 limits was presented for review. The example Conceptual Interstate Layout that was presented showed interstate mainlanes, potential interchange locations, and approximate existing and potential ROW limits. Continuous new access roads were also shown for planning purposes. Both rural and urban typical sections were also included on the upper corner of the example Conceptual Interstate Layout. He emphasized that the example Conceptual Interstate Layout is not a design because it does not take into account topography, drainage, and many other detailed design elements. It was explained that the example Conceptual Interstate Layout was meant to be a preview of what will be presented at the next CSC meeting. A Conceptual Interstate Layout along the entire stretch of US 59 from Lufkin to I-30 and the portion of US 84 from Tenaha to the Louisiana border will be presented at the next meeting. Marc explained that the Conceptual Interstate Layout is being developed using TxDOT and federal standards. Again, he emphasized that the Conceptual Interstate Layout is not a design because it does not take into account topography, drainage, and many other detailed design Page 3 of 5

4 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting elements. Also, the Conceptual Interstate Layout generally follows the centerline of the specified routes being considered for the upgrade. The Conceptual Interstate Layout is being developed for planning purposes only and is subject to change. It is intended to assist the CSCs in developing an I-69 Corridor Plan Report. The CSC members then reviewed the example Conceptual Interstate Layout exhibits. After the review, Marc explained that at the next meeting the CSC members will be asked to: Give their impression of the suitability of upgrading the existing specified routes to interstate standards. Suggest where consideration should be given to relief routes, shifts in location, the need for adjacent access roads, and the types and locations of interchanges. Marc then asked the CSC members if they would like the Conceptual Interstate Layout to show what it would look like to upgrade the specified routes through the individual towns in CSC 1, if there was not already a relief route in place. He explained that the narrower urban interstate cross section would be used to show the limits of the interstate facility as it extended at-grade through the towns. He indicated that by seeing this the CSC members may be better able to determine if a relief route should be considered when developing the I-69 Corridor Program. In response to this question, the CSC members provided the following direction: The Conceptual Interstate Layout should follow US 59 around Nacogdoches. The Conceptual Interstate Layout should not show an upgrade through Garrison. Instead, a box should be drawn around the city limits of Garrison with the note: to be determined later. It should not show an upgrade through Timpson, Tenaha, and Joaquin. Instead, boxes should be drawn around the city limits with the note: a relief route should be considered added to each box. The Carthage city limits should be boxed out and include the note: to be determined later. The Marshall city limits should be boxed out and include the note: to be determined later. The Jefferson city limits should be boxed out and include the note: to be determined later. The Linden city limits should be boxed out and include the note: to be determined later. The Conceptual Interstate Layout should follow US 59 through Atlanta and Queen City. The Texarkana city limits should be boxed out and include the note: a relief route has been suggested. The Texarkana representatives indicated that they will provide a computer file showing where an I-69 Corridor facility should be located. Marc then asked the members whether or not they would like the Conceptual Interstate Layout to follow the existing US 59 route or the previously planned US 59 relief route between Diboll and Nacogdoches. It was explained that the planning and environmental process for the US 59 relief route began ten years ago. A preliminary draft environmental document was prepared before the project was put on hold because of the proposed I-69/Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) Project. The draft environmental document identified a preferred US 59 relief route. The CSC Page 4 of 5

5 I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting responded that the Conceptual Interstate Layout should follow existing US 59 and not the previously planned US 59 relief route within the CSC 1 limits. Discussion of Next Meeting (May 2010) Activities Leah indicated that May 2010 was the target date for the next meeting. At the next meeting the CSC members will: Review the updated CSC 1 map identifying the suggested transportation facilities to be considered when developing the I-69 Corridor Program. Review the updated CSC 1 planning features map booklet reflecting the input received at the February 2010 meeting. Review the full Interstate Conceptual Layout within the CSC Limits. Give their impression of the suitability of upgrading the specified existing highways to interstate standards. Suggest where consideration should be given to relief routes, shifts in location, need for adjacent access roads, and the types and location of interchanges. Wrap Up Doise Miers indicated that a Carthage or Marshall location will be reserved for the next meeting. I-69 Corridor Advisory Update Judge James Carlow provided an I-69 Corridor Advisory Committee update. Adjourn The meeting was then adjourned. Attachments: 1. Sign-In Sheet 2. Agenda 3. Red River Army Depot/Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant Redevelopment Plan Displays Meeting Staff included: Ed Pensock-TxDOT/TTA, Doug Booher-TxDOT/TTA, Dieter Billek-TxDOT/TTA, Doise Miers- TxDOT/GPA, Leah Olivarri-Consultant, Marc Williams-Consultant, Joe Shalkowski-Consultant, Tina Brown-Consultant, Ariel Carmona-Consultant, Michael Sexton-Consultant Page 5 of 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19