I-35 Corridor Segment Committee 4 3500 NW Loop 410 San Antonio, Texas February 11, 2010 9:00 AM to Noon Welcome Nancy Parker Facilitator Committee Work Session Nancy Parker Facilitator Discussion of Proposed Roadway Solutions Alternative Routes and Connectivity to I-35 Solutions Proposed by CSC #4 for Discussion Truck Traffic Solutions Proposed by CSC #4 for Discussion Modal Solutions Proposed by CSC #4 for Discussion Other Suggestions by CSC #4 for Discussion MY 35 Plan Public Involvement Activities Gaby Garcia TxDOT Discussion of MY 35 Public Involvement Menu items Presentation Presentation on the Freight Shuttle concept Steve Roop Texas Transportation Institute Wrap Up/Adjourn Nancy Parker Facilitator 1
I-35 Corridor Segment Committee 4 Meeting Notes 3500 NW Loop 410, San Antonio, Texas February 11, 2010-9:00 AM to Noon Welcome The Facilitator welcomed the I-35 Corridor Segment Committee 4 (CSC 4) members to the February meeting and explained that the main objective for today s meeting was to discuss the Roadway Solutions proposed by the Committee at their January meeting and to decide which solutions to include as roadway elements in their preliminary Segment 4 Multi-modal Plan for the I-35 corridor. The Facilitator explained that proposed freight and passenger rail solutions the CSC 4 members had proposed at their January meeting would be further discussed at their upcoming meeting in March, since there was too much material to cover all modes in one meeting. The Facilitator explained that the I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee (CAC) had developed a draft vision statement for the MY 35 plan since the I-35 CSC 4 meeting in January. The Facilitator read the draft vision statement for the committee. The I-35 CAC has also started focus groups along the corridor. Committee Work Session The I-35 CSC 4 reviewed the list of proposed Roadway Solutions that they developed at their January meeting and discussed whether or not to carry these solutions forward as potential roadway elements of the Segment 4 Preliminary Multi-modal Plan. For a summary of the Committee action on each of the proposed Roadway Solutions see Attachment A. The Committee then discussed several solutions presented at the January meeting that required more information or explanation on the specifics of the recommendations. A summary of these topics and the Committee action on each of these can be found in Attachment B. MY 35 Plan Public Involvement Activities The Committee discussed the public involvement items available for the MY 35 Plan. TxDOT presented two options to the Committee for public involvement: (1) telephone town hall meetings, and (2) planning workshops. The Committee questioned whether telephone town halls would be the appropriate public involvement activity for rolling out their preliminary multimodal plan for the I-35 corridor because of the need to show graphics and visuals for the public to understand the concepts and ideas in the plan. The Committee suggested that an internet outreach may be better if materials can be posted. Overall, the Committee was amiable to the concept of planning workshops but thought the timing of the workshops needed to consider MPO outreach efforts on their 2035 plans so as not to confuse the public and that there may need to be more than just two within Segment 4. Presentation Steve Roop of the Texas Transportation Institute gave a presentation on the Freight Shuttle concept. Wrap Up/Adjourn Make-Up Conference Call for February CSC 4 Meeting February 25, 2010 A make-up conference call was held on February 25, 2010 to give CSC 4 members who could not attend the February 11 th meeting the opportunity to discuss any of the items in the meeting notes and make any additional comments. There were no additional roadway elements identified for the preliminary Segment 4 plan during the make-up conference call. It was noted that the next CSC 4 meeting (March 11, 2010) would focus on discussion of preliminary rail solutions. February 11, 2010 Page 1 I-35 Corridor Segment Committee 4 2
Attachment A Corridor Segment 4 Committee Action on the Roadway Elements Proposed by the Committee at the January 2010 Committee Meeting Proposed Solution Improve connectivity between I-35 and US 83 in the Laredo area (make US 83 controlled access facility) Corridor Segment 4 Committee Action The Corridor Segment 4 Committee decided to include improving US 83 south of Loop 20 as a controlled access facility. Improve connectivity between I-35 and US 83 in the Laredo area (Outer Loop) The Corridor Segment 4 Committee decided to include construction of the Outer Loop project from US 83 to I- 35 as a roadway element in their preliminary multi-modal plan using the Laredo MPO 2035 plan concept. Upgrade Loop 1604 to controlled access facility Expand I-10, from I-410 to SH 130 Expand I-35, from US 90 to Atascosa County Line to 8 lanes Expand I-35, from Shiloh Drive to Loop 20 to 6 lanes Add a truck lane in each direction to I-35, from I-410 in San Antonio to Loop 20 in Laredo Expand I-410, from I-35 to I-410 to 6-lanes Upgrade US 90, from San Antonio to Del Rio to 4 lanes Upgrade US 57, from San Antonio to Eagle Pass to 4 lanes The Corridor Segment 4 Committee decided to move forward with including this project as a roadway element in the CSC 4 preliminary multi-modal plan. However, the Committee decided to extend the improvements from SH 16 (NW) to I-35 (NE). The Corridor Segment 4 Committee decided to move forward with including this project as a roadway element in the CSC 4 preliminary multi-modal plan. However, the Committee decided to extend the improvements to SH 130 in Seguin. The Corridor Segment 4 Committee decided to move forward with including this project using the San Antonio- Bexar County MPO 2035 plan as a roadway element in the CSC 4 preliminary multi-modal plan. The Corridor Segment 4 Committee decided to move forward with including this project using the Laredo MPO 2035 plan as a roadway element in the CSC 4 preliminary multi-modal plan. The Corridor Segment 4 Committee decided to move forward with including this project as a roadway element in the CSC 4 preliminary multi-modal plan. The Corridor Segment 4 Committee decided to move forward with including this project as a roadway element in the CSC 4 preliminary multi-modal plan. The Corridor Segment 4 Committee decided to move forward with including this project as a roadway element in the CSC 4 preliminary multi-modal plan. The Corridor Segment 4 Committee decided to move forward with including this project as a roadway element in the CSC 4 preliminary multi-modal plan. Working Draft 3 02/11/10 Page 1
I 35 Corridor Segment Committee # 4 Attachment B Committee Action on Items for Further Discussion Alternative Routes and Connectivity to I 35 Construct and/or improve and/or designate alternative routes, including FM roads; More reliable alternate routes to I 35 (i.e. SH 130) Committee Action The Committee decided not to include this in the plan as projects discussed earlier in the meeting relate to this recommendation. Construct/improve access points and connectivity Maintain/enhance number of connections with Loop 1604 and provide for traffic diffusions Any new construction should not interfere with local traffic, such as daily commutes Upgrade key FM roads and local streets Truck Traffic Lane separation and speed control for trucks to allow easier and safer passenger traffic flow The Committee acknowledged that this recommendation related specifically to the limitation in access if Loop 1604 is upgraded to a controlled access facility. The Committee decided that this is a local issue that would not be considered at this level of planning and analysis. This recommendation is related to the comment above and the Committee decided that this would not be considered at this level of planning and analysis. The Committee further explained this recommendation as meaning that new location facilities should be for through trips and not local trips. The Committee agreed to include this as a guiding principle. The Committee decided that this is a local issue that would not be considered at this level of planning and analysis. Committee Action The Committee recommended improving I 410 from I 35 to I 10 to relieve truck traffic. Working Draft The Committee recommended adding a truck only lane from San Antonio to Laredo. Alternative truck routes during peak hours The Committee did not address this recommendation. The Committee decided to defer any rail discussion until the March meeting. 02/11/10 Page 1 4
I-35 Corridor Segment 4 Planning Area Roadway Solutions proposed by Corridor Segment Committee 4 Currently in a Transportation Plan Additional Lane to I-10 Each Direction from San Antonio to the SH-130 Toll Road SAN ANTONIO INTL Redesign/Enhance the South 1604 Corridor to add Additional Lanes from I-35 South to I-10 East V U 16 Improve Connectivity between I-35 and US 83 in the Laredo Area [Proposed Outer Loop] 35 Improve Connectivity between I-35 and US 83 in the Laredo Area Improve connectivity between I-35 and US 83 in the Laredo area LAREDO INTL Proposed Solutions MEXICO Partially Planned or Funded Planned and Funded Segment 4 Boundary Note: Proposed conceptual solutions mapped by I-35 Corridor Segment Committee 4 "Planned" refers to projects contained in current transportation plans (e.g., TIP, UTP, MTP) "Funded" implies that projects are contained in the fiscally-constrained portion of a transportation plan. "Partially Planned or Funded" refers to projects that are either partially planned and/or partially funded. See attached sheet for more information on the status of improvements. Preliminary Draft Subject to Change 0 For more information regarding this map contact: Texas Department of Transportation I -35 Corridor Program Office GIS Department @ 512-334-3800 10 20 5 Miles 40 Working Draft Febuary 11, 2010 :
WORKING DRAFT Roadway Solutions proposed by Corridor Segment Committee 4 Currently in a Transportation Plan WORKING DRAFT Proposed solution Current status Estimated cost Improve connectivity between I 35 and US 83 in the Laredo area US 83, 2 projects in Webb Co. listed in the Laredo MPO 2010 2025 MTP; from I 35 to SH 359; add one travel lane to US 83 (Chihuahua St.) and add one travel lane to US 83 (Guadalupe St.); both projects listed as short term (2012 2020) projects. Loop 20 (Cuatro Vientos) in Webb Co. listed in the Laredo MPO 2010 2035 MTP; from US 83 to Mangana Hein Rd.; listed as a long term (2021 2035) project $57,235,764 combined cost estimates for both projects $30,916,444 "Planned" refers to projects contained in current transportation plans. "Funded" implies that projects are contained in the fiscally constrained portion of a transportation plan. 6
WORKING DRAFT Roadway Solutions proposed by Corridor Segment Committee 4 that are Partially Planned or Funded WORKING DRAFT Proposed solution Current status Estimated cost Improve connectivity between I 35 and US 83 in the Laredo area Proposed Outer Loop, 6 projects in Webb Co. listed in the Laredo MPO 2010 2035 plan; construction of an outer loop connecting US 83 south of Laredo to I 35 north of Laredo; these projects are currently unfunded $372,689,508 combined cost estimates for all 6 projects Redesign/Enhance the south 1604 corridor to add additional lanes from I 35 south to I 10 east SL 1604, 6 projects in Bexar Co. listed in the SA Bexar Co. 2035 plan; from US 90 west to I $202,990,000 combined cost 10 east; expand from 2 lanes to 4 lanes; these projects are currently unfunded estimate for all 6 projects Additional lane to I 10 in each direction from San Antonio to the SH 130 toll road I 10, 1 project in Bexar Co. listed in the SA Bexar Co. 2035 plan; from I 410 to SH 1604; expand from 4 lane to 6 lane; this project is currently unfunded $31,000,000 "Planned" refers to projects contained in current transportation plans. "Funded" implies that projects are contained in the fiscally constrained portion of a transportation plan. 7
I-35 Corridor Segment 4 Planning Area Areas Along I-35 where Corridor Segment Committee 4 has not Identified Solutions SAN ANTONIO INTL Upgrade I-35 South to 8-lane freeway and TMS from US 90 to the Atascosa County line V U 16 Area along I-35 where the Corridor Segment Committee 4 has not identified roadway solutions Widen northbound and southbound lanes to 3 lanes in each direction from Shiloh Drive to Loop 20 LAREDO INTL MEXICO Proposed Solutions Areas along I-35 not Identified by Corridor Segment Committee 4 Solutions Segment 4 Boundary Note: MPO planned projects are shown for sections of I-35 for which I-35 Corridor Segment Committee 4 identified no potential solutions Source: San Antonio-Bexar County MPO, 2010 Laredo, 2010 Preliminary Draft Subject to Change 0 For more information regarding this map contact: Texas Department of Transportation I -35 Corridor Program Office GIS Department @ 512-334-3800 10 20 8 Miles 40 Working Draft Febuary 11, 2010 :
WORKING DRAFT Areas along I 35 where Corridor Segment Committee 4 has not Identified Solutions WORKING DRAFT Area of I 35 Current status I 35 from San Antonio to Laredo San Antonio Area Projects: 3 projects listed in the SA Bexar County 2035 plan would upgrade I 35 to 8 lane freeway from US 90 to the Atascosa County line. The combined cost estimates for these projects is $128,558,053. These projects are unfunded. Laredo Area Projects: 1 project listed in the Laredo 2035 MTP would widen northbound and southbound lanes to 3 lanes in each direction from Shiloh Drive to Loop 20. The estimated cost of this project is $52,167,731. "Planned" refers to projects contained in current transportation plans. "Funded" implies that projects are contained in the fiscally constrained portion of a transportation plan. 9
MY 35 I-35 Corridor Public Involvement Effort Segment Committees: Tactics The I-35 Segment Committees will identify and prioritize regional improvements to the I-35 corridor. These committees will have the option to use any or all of the public involvement tools outlined below. Telephone Town Halls Description: Hold four telephone town halls (one in each segment) for the purpose of informing the public of the citizen-directed effort, encouraging their participation, asking for their corridor priorities and answering questions. Timeframe: February March 2010 Planning Workshops Description: Conduct nine workshops to present each segment committee draft plan and to gather comments. This will be a come-and-go format from 5 pm 9 pm. The workshop will be divided into three stations. Station One will be a 3-5 minute video describing the current transportation challenges, Station Two will be segment committee members discussing their plan and Station Three will be the comment area. Station Three will also have a laptop so that participants can fill out an electronic survey on the draft plan. Paper surveys will also be available. It will also have a laptop mapping area so that participants can submit other alternatives to the draft plan. Paper maps will also be available. Three workshops will be held in segment 1 and two workshops will be held in each of the remaining segments. Timeframe: March May 2010 10
I-35 Segment Committees: Roles and Responsibilities The role of each of the four segment committees is to identify and prioritize regional improvements to the I-35 transportation corridor, based on the corridor priorities/decision matrix outlined by the Advisory Committee and to report those findings to the Advisory Committee. To that end, segment committees shall undertake the following activities: Participate in a corridor-wide orientation session to address the details of the implementation of this process, discussion of the strategic view of the I-35 corridor, historical background, and a summary of possible or planned short and long-term improvements; Gather regional planning data, such as census information, economic trends, and traffic demand, to identify mobility needs of the I-35 transportation corridor; Inform the regional audiences of the needs and gather input into each regional plan through means deemed appropriate by each segment committee, within budgetary constraints, and within designated deadlines; Host planning workshops and design sessions; and Report regional findings to the I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee in a predetermined format provided by the corridor-wide advisory committee. 11
I 35 Corridor Segment Committee 4 Committee Requests Data Request: What is the travel time to work break out for Laredo and San Antonio? Data regarding travel time and mode to work has been provided below for each county in Segment 4. Average travel time to work in the I 35 Corridor Segment 4 planning area counties. County 1990 2000 2006 2008 estimate* Atascosa 27 minutes 33 minutes 33 minutes Bexar 22 minutes 24 minutes 24 minutes Frio 18 minutes 26 minutes estimate not available Guadalupe 22 minutes 25 minutes 24 minutes La Salle 18 minutes 29 minutes estimate not available Medina 25 minutes 30 minutes 29 minutes Webb 17 minutes 22 minutes 21 minutes Wilson 31 minutes 36 minutes 32 minutes Zapata 19 minutes 23 minutes estimate not available Sum of all counties 22 minutes 24 minutes 24 minutes * The 2006 2008 estimate does not include Frio, La Salle, and Zapata counties for which US Census Bureau estimates are not available. Data sources: US Census Bureau. Atascosa County Travel time and means to work for workers at least 16 yrs. old 1990 2000 2006 2008 estimate Total number of workers at least 16 yrs. old 11,046 15,166 18,281 Worked from home 347 3% 346 2% 274 2% Travel time to work: Means of travel to work: Data source: US Census Bureau < 15 min. 3,718 34% 4,004 26% 4,452 24% 15 29 min. 2,180 20% 2,739 18% 4,326 24% 30 59 min. 3,559 32% 5,978 39% 6,219 34% 60 min. 1,242 11% 2,099 14% 3,010 16% Drove alone 7,795 71% 11,180 74% 13,961 76% Carpooled 2,394 22% 3,067 20% 3,220 18% Public transportation 81 1% 3 < 1% 183 1% Bicycle / walk 353 3% 328 2% 494 3% Taxi / motorcycle / other 76 1% 242 2% 165 1% Page 1 12
I 35 Corridor Segment Committee 4 Committee Requests Bexar County Travel time and means to work for workers at least 16 yrs. old 1990 2000 2006 2008 estimate Total number of workers at least 16 yrs. old 516,606 607,860 705,939 Worked from home 11,113 2% 15,211 3% 20,949 3% Travel time to work: Means of travel to work: Data source: US Census Bureau < 15 min. 126,950 25% 137,586 23% 154,012 22% 15 29 min. 235,565 46% 267,532 44% 292,966 42% 30 59 min. 125,070 24% 160,805 26% 204,665 29% 60 min. 17,908 3% 26,726 4% 32,856 5% Drove alone 383,805 74% 460,413 76% 553,777 78% Carpooled 76,051 15% 89,412 15% 80,421 11% Public transportation 20,538 4% 19,674 3% 21,163 3% Bicycle / walk 19,845 4% 16,149 3% 16,931 2% Taxi / motorcycle / other 5,254 1% 7,001 1% 12,698 2% Frio County Travel time and means to work for workers at least 16 yrs. old 1990 2000 2006 2008 estimate Total number of workers at least 16 yrs. old 4,919 5,205 data not available Worked from home 140 3% 100 2% data not available Travel time to work: < 15 min. 2,694 55% 2,703 52% data not available 15 29 min. 1,015 21% 929 18% data not available 30 59 min. 813 17% 808 16% data not available 60 min. 257 5% 665 13% data not available Drove alone 3,300 67% 3,603 69% data not available Carpooled 1,193 24% 1,164 22% data not available Means of travel to work: Public transportation 13 < 1% 4 < 1% data not available Bicycle / walk 172 3% 176 3% data not available Taxi / motorcycle / other 101 2% 158 3% data not available Data source: US Census Bureau Page 2 13
I 35 Corridor Segment Committee 4 Committee Requests Guadalupe County Travel time and means to work for workers at least 16 yrs. old 1990 2000 2006 2008 estimate Total number of workers at least 16 yrs. old 29,676 41,163 53,123 Worked from home 994 3% 1,060 3% 1,649 3% Travel time to work: Means of travel to work: Data source: US Census Bureau < 15 min. 9,770 33% 12,432 30% 15,355 29% 15 29 min. 10,438 35% 14,276 35% 19,013 36% 30 59 min. 7,198 24% 10,663 26% 14,273 27% 60 min. 1,276 4% 2,732 7% 2,834 5% Drove alone 22,824 77% 32,793 80% 43,557 82% Carpooled 4,756 16% 6,053 15% 6,222 12% Public transportation 16 < 1% 59 < 1% 53 0% Bicycle / walk 781 3% 753 2% 1,170 2% Taxi / motorcycle / other 305 1% 445 1% 532 1% La Salle County Travel time and means to work for workers at least 16 yrs. old 1990 2000 2006 2008 estimate Total number of workers at least 16 yrs. old 1,904 1,803 data not available Worked from home 121 6% 58 3% data not available Travel time to work: < 15 min. 1,075 56% 1,025 57% data not available 15 29 min. 265 14% 276 15% data not available 30 59 min. 323 17% 206 11% data not available 60 min. 120 6% 238 13% data not available Drove alone 1,122 59% 1,170 65% data not available Carpooled 533 28% 462 26% data not available Means of travel to work: Public transportation 7 < 1% 42 2% data not available Bicycle / walk 84 4% 49 3% data not available Taxi / motorcycle / other 37 2% 22 1% data not available Data source: US Census Bureau Page 3 14
I 35 Corridor Segment Committee 4 Committee Requests Medina County Travel time and means to work for workers at least 16 yrs. old 1990 2000 2006 2008 estimate Total number of workers at least 16 yrs. old 10,468 15,855 17,596 Worked from home 484 5% 476 3% 246 1% Travel time to work: Means of travel to work: Data source: US Census Bureau < 15 min. 3,708 35% 4,960 31% 5,257 30% 15 29 min. 2,128 20% 2,782 18% 3,591 20% 30 59 min. 3,226 31% 5,850 37% 6,437 37% 60 min. 922 9% 1,787 11% 2,065 12% Drove alone 7,544 72% 11,901 75% 14,018 80% Carpooled 2,049 20% 2,794 18% 2,533 14% Public transportation 0 0% 40 < 1% 0 0% Bicycle / walk 276 3% 435 3% 528 3% Taxi / motorcycle / other 115 1% 209 1% 281 2% Webb County Travel time and means to work for workers at least 16 yrs. old 1990 2000 2006 2008 estimate Total number of workers at least 16 yrs. old 44,910 61,256 88,254 Worked from home 1,063 2% 1,796 3% 2,912 3% < 15 min. 16,706 37% 18,125 30% 27,224 31% Travel time to work: 15 29 min. 19,901 44% 26,157 43% 37,465 42% 30 59 min. 5,994 13% 12,751 21% 17,410 20% 60 min. 1,246 3% 2,427 4% 3,243 4% Drove alone 30,584 68% 43,785 71% 66,616 76% Carpooled 9,191 20% 11,822 19% 13,411 15% Means of travel to work: Public transportation 1,479 3% 1,532 3% 1,765 2% Bicycle / walk 1,956 4% 1,355 2% 2,206 3% Taxi / motorcycle / other 637 1% 966 2% 1,323 2% Data source: US Census Bureau Page 4 15
I 35 Corridor Segment Committee 4 Committee Requests Wilson County Travel time and means to work for workers at least 16 yrs. old 1990 2000 2006 2008 estimate Total number of workers at least 16 yrs. old 9,380 13,719 18,367 Worked from home 493 5% 349 3% 697 4% Travel time to work: Means of travel to work: Data source: US Census Bureau < 15 min. 2,275 24% 2,697 20% 3,760 20% 15 29 min. 1,589 17% 2,291 17% 3,760 20% 30 59 min. 3,889 41% 6,589 48% 8,155 44% 60 min. 1,134 12% 1,793 13% 1,995 11% Drove alone 6,622 71% 10,488 76% 14,459 79% Carpooled 1,915 20% 2,538 18% 2,881 16% Public transportation 17 < 1% 11 < 1% 0 0% Bicycle / walk 239 3% 178 1% 183 1% Taxi / motorcycle / other 94 1% 155 1% 128 1% Zapata County Travel time and means to work for workers at least 16 yrs. old 1990 2000 2006 2008 estimate Total number of workers at least 16 yrs. old 2,513 3,299 data not available Worked from home 98 4% 84 3% data not available Travel time to work: < 15 min. 1,387 55% 1,753 53% data not available 15 29 min. 426 17% 658 20% data not available 30 59 min. 365 15% 467 14% data not available 60 min. 237 9% 337 10% data not available Drove alone 1,702 68% 2,482 75% data not available Carpooled 584 23% 611 19% data not available Means of travel to work: Public transportation 11 < 1% 0 0% data not available Bicycle / walk 73 3% 81 2% data not available Taxi / motorcycle / other 45 2% 41 1% data not available Data source: US Census Bureau Page 5 16
I 35 Corridor Segment Committee 4 Committee Requests Modeling Request: What is the truck routing distribution on I 35 in San Antonio; how much truck traffic stays on I 35 and how much takes I 10? See attached diagram. Page 6 17
2035 Truck Routing Distribution for IH-10 and IH-35 through San Antonio I-35 Corridor Planning Area Trips Between Locations 1 and 3: IH-35 Route - 36% IH-410 Route - 64% 6,700 1 30% 7,900 SAN ANTONIO INTL 39% San Antonio 2 53% 56% Trips Between Locations 2 and 3: IH-35/IH-10 Route - 24% IH-410 Route - 76% 3 8,100 Base Map Interstate Railroad Toll Road River/Stream US Highway Lake State Highway Airport FM/Ranch Road Preliminary Draft Subject to Change For more information regarding this m ap contact: Texas Departm ent of Transportation I -35 Corridor Program Office GIS Department @ 512-334-3800 0 2.5 5 Miles 18 10 February 11, 2010
Alternative Routes and Connectivity to I 35 Solutions Proposed by Corridor Segment Committee 4 for Discussion Construct and/or improve and/or designate alternative ti routes, including FM roads. Construct/improve access points and connectivity. Maintain/enhance number of connections with Loop 1604 and provide for traffic diffusions. More reliable alternate routes to I 35 (i.e. SH 130). Any new construction should not interfere with local traffic, such as daily commutes. Any new construction should not interfere with local traffic, such as daily commutes. 19
Truck Traffic Solutions Proposed by Corridor Segment Committee 4 for Discussion Lane separation and speed control for trucks to allow easier and safer passenger traffic flow. Alternative truck routes during peak hours. 20
21
22
23