i-69 corridor program corridor segment committee...
TRANSCRIPT
I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting
Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM OF MEETING SUBJECT: Corridor Segment Committee #1 – Meeting #2 DATE: August 20, 2009 LOCATION: Maude Cobb Convention Center, Longview, Texas ATTENDING: Attendants are listed on attached sign-in sheets Meeting purpose: The meeting was held to solicit input from the Corridor Segment Committee #1 (CSC 1) on the planning and development of an I-69 Corridor Program that will address local, regional and statewide transportation issues and needs. Meeting format followed the Agenda attached to these notes. The meeting was called to order and continued as follows: Welcome/Introductions and Presentations: Thanks were given to the host of the meeting, the Longview MPO. CSC 1 Members then introduced themselves. TxDOT representatives explained that these meetings will be structured to obtain input for the I-69 planning process which will then be linked to the NEPA process. Input from each of the five CSCs will be used to ultimately develop an I-69 Corridor Program. The CSCs will also have an opportunity to provide input into the Program’s Public Involvement Plan. There is a focus to get I-69 on the ground and the solution might include multi-modal projects. The following topics were covered in the presentation:
• Welcome/Introductions • Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program • Transportation Needs – Identification of Transportation Problems and Challenges • Existing and Planned Highways in the I-69 Corridor – What is Out There Today and
What is Planned Brainstorming Session #1 – Identification of Transportation Problems and Challenges: Leah Olivarri explained the process for the brainstorming session. Each committee member will be asked to describe transportation problems and challenges to consider when developing the I-69 Corridor Program. The problems and challenges may be associated with safety, access, mobility and congestion inherent to their region. The committee members provided the following input during the brainstorming session:
I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting
Page 2 of 7
1. Committee Member (Robert Murray) – Identified transportation issues related to Bowie County such as:
i. Mix of high speed through traffic with local traffic and lack of a continuous controlled access on US 59 impedes safe mobility between Texarkana and Houston.
ii. Sections of US 59 in Texarkana have been upgraded. iii. The I-69 Corridor Program should consider a connection to I-49.
2. Committee Member (Brad McCaleb) – Identified transportation issues related to Texarkana
MPO such as: i. The existing US 59 facility in the Atlanta District has been upgraded but the mix of
passenger vehicles and increased heavy truck traffic has deteriorated highway safety along the facility.
ii. The at-grade FM 3129 Intersection with US 59 experiences safety problems. Consider grade separating the intersection.
3. Committee Member (Jerry Sparks) – Identified transportation issues related to Texarkana
such as: i. US 59 is a major north/south commerce corridor attracting heavy truck traffic,
especially logging trucks that have deteriorated safety along the facility. The logging trucks carry large loads and are often in need of repair.
ii. One known route for logging trucks is from Atlanta to Queen City to the paper mill. 4. Committee Member (James Greer) – Identified transportation issues related to Marshall
Texas Chamber of Commerce such as: i. Mix of passenger vehicles and heavy truck traffic in combination with numerous traffic
signals along US 59 through Marshall deteriorates safety and results in increased congestion.
ii. Caddo Lake and Lignite mining may obstruct highway development. 5. Committee Member (Karen Owen) – Identified transportation issues related to Longview
MPO such as: i. Lack of grade separation along US 59 for both rail and major cross routes deteriorates
highway safety along this heavily travelled corridor. ii. Mix of logging trucks and heavy truck traffic with passenger vehicles deteriorates
highway safety causing the need to consider exclusive truck lanes. iii. The narrow lanes along certain sections of US 59 and the mix of heavy truck traffic
with passenger vehicles pose a safety hazard. 6. Committee Member (David Anderson) – Identified transportation issues related to Panola
County such as: i. Mix of logging trucks and heavy truck traffic with passenger vehicles deteriorates
highway safety. ii. Panama Canal improvements will generate increased cargo activity at the Port of
Houston which will generate increased heavy truck traffic on US 59 that will deteriorate highway safety.
iii. Roads to Tenaha and Timpson have deficient shoulders which creates a safety hazard.
iv. Consider rail to alleviate congestion on US 59.
I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting
Page 3 of 7
v. Trucks passing other trucks at slow speeds impedes mobility on US 59 and poses a safety hazard for drivers.
vi. At grade railroad crossings on US 79 in northwest Carthage and on Loop 149 in south Carthage pose a safety hazard and cause congestion.
7. Committee Member (Brad McCaleb) – Identified transportation issues such as:
i. Fast moving traffic along the US 59 corridor pose safety concerns in school zones along the route and does not meet driver expectations for such a heavy travelled corridor. School zone safety concerns were specifically identified in:
• Marshal • South of Linden • South of Texarkana
ii. At-grade crossings along US 59 increase the risk for accidents because of the mix of oncoming high speed vehicles and slow moving cross traffic. Areas with an undivided median tend to be less safe.
8. Committee Member (Charles Thomas) – Identified transportation issues related to City of
Carthage such as: i. Mix of heavy truck traffic and passenger vehicles on US 59 deteriorates highway
safety. ii. At grade rail road crossings cause serious safety hazards for travelers along US 59. iii. At grade railroad crossings on US 79 in northwest Carthage and on Loop 149 in south
Carthage pose a safety hazard and cause congestion when trains pass. Consider grade separating the rail crossings.
9. Committee Member (Karen Owen) – Identified transportation issues related to Longview
MPO such as: i. The I-69 Corridor Program should consider accessibility to event and convention
centers along US 59. Safety in these areas needs to be improved. Marshall Civic Center was specifically mentioned as an example.
10. Committee Member (Bob Barton) – Identified transportation issues related to Rusk County
such as: i. Because of the lack of turning lanes in the town of Garrison, mobility on US 59 is
impeded when traffic, intending to turn onto these local cross streets, backs up on the mainlanes as trains pass through town on the adjacent railroad facility.
ii. A 2-3 mile section of US 59 in Rusk County has experienced 10-12 fatalities, and most of the accidents included multiple vehicles. US 59 in this area has four lanes with a continuous left turn lane and shoulders.
iii. A large number of salt water trucks for gas wells access US 59 in the area. iv. The lack of shoulders on US 59 between Timpson and Tenaha creates a safety risk.
11. Committee Member (William Holley) – Identified transportation issues related to Tenaha
such as: i. Two railroads, US 84, US 96 and US 59 all intersect in Tenaha causing congestion
problems that result in a hazardous mix of trucks and cars. A Tenaha relief route should be considered.
I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting
Page 4 of 7
ii. Portions of US 84 and US 59 lack shoulders that pose a safety risk. iii. A larger number of accidents on US 59 are weather related. iv. Major industries, including oil and timber, are present in Shelby County and contribute
to the heavy truck traffic on US 59. These industries are critical to Shelby County’s economic vitality and are dependent upon efficient access and mobility along US 59.
v. Heavy truck traffic through Tenaha poses a safety risk in the community. 12. Committee Member (Joe English) – Identified transportation issues related to Nacogdoches
County such as: i. The Loop around Nacogdoches lacks adequate capacity and frontage roads to access
existing businesses and new development along the route. He specifically mentioned access to four hotels.
ii. South Street ramp onto US 59 is congested during peak periods and storm events. iii. The current configuration of the loop (control of access and median barriers) limits
emergency vehicles crossing of the median. iv. Continued increases in heavy truck traffic, including hazmat and logging trucks, on US
59 through Nacogdoches has deteriorated safety in the community. v. US 59 experienced severe delays and bottlenecks during Hurricane Rita evacuation.
13. Committee Member (Bob Barton) – Identified transportation issues related to Rusk County
such as: i. Garrison High School is located immediately adjacent to US 59 which poses a safety
risk to students. ii. School buses, EMS, and Fire Department have difficulty accessing US 59.
14. Committee Member (Joe English) – Identified transportation issues related to Nacogdoches
County such as: i. US 59 Clover Leaf interchanges with Business 59 (South Street and North Street)
have tight radii and other safety deficiencies that have resulted in jack knifed trailers and a high accident rates.
ii. Rail facilities extending through Nacogdoches pose numerous safety concerns in the community.
15. Committee Member (Bob Barton) – Identified transportation issues related to Rusk County
such as: i. There are at grade rail crossings on three cross streets which intersect with US 59 in
Garrison that pose a safety hazard. Because of the lack of turning lanes, mobility on US 59 is impeded when traffic, intending to turn onto these local cross streets, backs up on the mainlanes as trains pass through town on the adjacent railroad facility.
16. Committee Member (William Holley) – Identified transportation issues related to Tenaha
such as: i. School zones that abut US 84 pose a safety hazard for students, such as in Joaquin
and Tenaha. ii. Connectivity to Tenaha via US 84, US 96 and US 59 needs to be integrated into the
development of an I-69 Corridor Program.
I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting
Page 5 of 7
17. Committee Member (Bob Barton) – Identified transportation issues related to Rusk County such as:
i. EMS and fire station access onto US 59 is poor in Garrison. 18. Committee Member (Charles Thomas) – Identified transportation issues related to City of
Carthage such as: i. EMS access is poor near US 79 and US 59 in Carthage. ii. Consider improving US 79 and the connection to Henderson. iii. Consider grade separation at the intersection of FM 699 and US 59. iv. At grade railroad crossings on US 79 in northwest Carthage and on Loop 149 in south
Carthage pose a safety hazard and cause congestion when trains pass. Consider grade separating the rail crossings.
v. Accessibility to ball field on Loop 149 becomes congested during major tournaments. 19. Committee Member (David Anderson) – Identified transportation issues related to Panola
County such as: i. The Ball Park on Loop 149 south of Carthage serves as a refueling station during
hurricane evacuations. A future convention center is planned at this location and will serve a dual purpose as both a convention center and a FEMA shelter during hurricane evacuations.
ii. There is a safety concern at the intersection of US 59/FM 2517. iii. The UPRR parallels US 59/US 84 between Tenaha and Timpson. The same railroad
crosses US 59/US 84 on a bridge in northwest Timpson with only 15 foot clearance which impedes mobility for trucks on this route.
20. Committee Member (Karen Owen) – Identified transportation issues related to Longview
MPO such as: i. I-69 Corridor Program is a long term project and should accommodate future growth.
For example, as Longview and Tyler grow there may be a need for an airport in between.
21. Committee Member (Bob Barton) – Identified transportation issues related to Rusk County
such as: i. The I-69 Corridor Program needs to advance as quickly as possible to avoid areas that
will develop and attract future economic development. ii. The Program should focus on utilizing existing transportation facilities.
22. Committee Member (James Greer) – Identified transportation issues related to Marshall
Texas Chamber of Commerce such as: i. US 59 through Marshall experiences congestion problems at the US 80 intersection. ii. Flooding is a problem on US 59 at the rail road crossing 100 yards north of the US
80/US 59 intersection. iii. Numerous traffic signals on US 59 impedes through-town mobility in Marshall. iv. Consider development of a relief route around Marshall.
23. Committee Member (Jerry Sparks) – Identified transportation issues related to City of
Texarkana such as:
I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting
Page 6 of 7
i. The I-69 Corridor Program should consider developing access to the future inland port in Texarkana.
ii. Improve access in East Texas to effectively serve Port of Houston as well as local industrial parks.
iii. Maintain access to International Paper, the largest employer in the area. iv. Integrate Land-Use Planning into the I-69 Corridor Program in an effort to effectively
locate and serve future economic and industrial development when planning the development of multimodal solutions, including Freight Shuttle and Rail.
24. Committee Members (Charles Thomas, Robert Murray and David Anderson) – indicated the following:
i. The I-69 Corridor Program should consider multimodal solutions including high speed rail, passenger rail and “Freight Shuttle”.
25. Committee Member (Karen Owen) – Identified transportation issues related to Longview
MPO such as: i. The I-69 Corridor Program needs to develop multimodal solutions to address
congestion, access, and hurricane evacuation needs (e.g. Additional AMTRAK service to coastal population centers during major storm events)
ii. The I-69 Corridor Program should consider providing passenger rail service from Marshall to Texarkana.
iii. The I-69 Corridor Program should consider preserving a corridor for commuter rail services so that smaller rural communities can access medical facilities and other services in larger cities.
26. Committee Member (William Holley) asked if TxDOT has a plan to locate and develop relief
routes. a. TxDOT responded that TxDOT has no set plans. The local communities will
participate and have input into making such decisions. 27. Committee Member (William Holley) asked if the I-69 facility is tolled, will there be free
access to local communities. a. TxDOT explained that that by law, existing free roads cannot be converted to toll
roads. Existing free access will be maintained. TxDOT also talked about lack of available federal funding and need to look at new funding tools. TxDOT explained that alternate funding tools could also include Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) and Taxing Districts (TIFs) created by Counties, Cities or Regions
Conclusion and Adjourn: 1. Doise Miers concluded the meeting.
a. Next meeting will be in October and at that time a committee chair will be elected. b. She suggested the possibility of a Yahoo Group for email communication and there
were no objections. c. Those who wish to be a chair candidate will need to submit bios. d. Punched packets of materials will be given at future meetings so there is no need to
bring notebooks to every meeting unless committee members wish to do so.
I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting
Page 7 of 7
e. Committee members should review their contact information and provide updates. f. She requested volunteers for hosting future meetings.
The meeting was then adjourned. Attachments:
1. Agenda 2. Sign-In Sheet 3. Handouts
Meeting Staff included: Ed Pensock-TxDOT/TTA, Doug Booher-TxDOT/TTA, Doise Miers-TxDOT/GPA, Amy Loos-TxDOT/GPA, Leah Olivarri-Consultant, Joe Shalkowski-Consultant, Tina Brown-Consultant, Ariel Carmona-Consultant, Michael Sexton-Consultant
I-69 Corridor Segment Committee #1 August 20, 2009
1:30 pm to 4:00 pm
Welcome/Introductions Leah Olivarri Facilitator Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Ed Pensock, P.E. Developing the I-69 Corridor Program Director, Corridor Systems TxDOT - TTA TxDOT Presentation
Transportation Needs – Identification of Doug Booher Transportation Problems and Challenges Environmental Manager
Existing and Planned Highways TxDOT - TTA in the I-69 Corridor – What is Out There Today and What is Planned
Brainstorming Session Leah Olivarri
Identification of Transportation Problems and Facilitator Challenges to Consider in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program
What Highways and Other Transportation Facilities Should be Considered in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program
Committee Organization and Wrap Up Doise Miers Legislative Analyst TxDOT - Government and Public Affairs Division (GPA) Adjourn Leah Olivarri Facilitator
Corridor Segment Committee 1 Meeting #2
August 20, 2009
Longview, Texas
I-69 Corridor Segment Committee #1 August 20, 2009
1:30 pm to 4:00 pm
Welcome/Introductions Leah Olivarri Facilitator Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Ed Pensock, P.E. Developing the I-69 Corridor Program Director, Corridor Systems TxDOT - TTA TxDOT Presentation
Transportation Needs – Identification of Doug Booher Transportation Problems and Challenges Environmental Manager
Existing and Planned Highways TxDOT - TTA in the I-69 Corridor – What is Out There Today and What is Planned
Brainstorming Session Leah Olivarri
Identification of Transportation Problems and Facilitator Challenges to Consider in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program
What Highways and Other Transportation Facilities Should be Considered in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program
Committee Organization and Wrap Up Doise Miers Legislative Analyst TxDOT - Government and Public Affairs Division (GPA) Adjourn Leah Olivarri Facilitator
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
I-69 Corridor Segment Committee
August 20, 2009Longview, Texas
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Welcome / Introductions
Leah Olivarri - Facilitator
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the
I-69 Corridor Program
Ed Pensock, P.E.Director, Corridor Systems
Texas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program
• How do we make this an Interstate facility?• When do we upgrade existing roadways?• When do we develop new relief routes?• What roadways connect to the facility?• How do we pay for these facilities?
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program
• Identify Transportation Problems and Challenges
• Identify What Highways and Other Transportation Facilities Should be Considered in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program
• Update Inventory of Planning Features
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
• Establish Program Goals and Objectives• Refine the Public Involvement Plan• Determine the Types of Transportation
Improvements Needed
Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the
I-69 Corridor Program (Contd.)
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the
I-69 Corridor Program (Contd.)
• Set Criteria for Determining the Need to Consider Relief Routes
• Determine the Criteria to use in Defining and Prioritizing Individual Projects for the I-69 Corridor Program
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
• Develop Program Funding Criteria• Review I-69 Corridor Program of Projects
Role of Corridor Segment Committee in Developing the
I-69 Corridor Program (Contd.)
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Transportation Needs – Identification of Transportation
Problems and Challenges
Doug BooherEnvironmental Manager
Texas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Project Need – WHY?
• The project need defines the current and future transportation problems and challenges to be addressed.
• It answers the questions… WHY a project should be developed, WHY it’s necessary to impact environmental resources, and WHYthe expenditure of funds is necessary and worthwhile.
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Project Need –Problem Definition Principles
• It describes the transportation problems and challenges that an area, transportation corridor, or specific network faces
• It does NOT identify solutions to resolve a problem
• It is supported by data that helps to define the problem(s)
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Existing and Planned Highways in the I-69 Corridor – What is Out There Today and What is Planned
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Interstate Design Standards
• Controlled Access• Grade Separated Interchanges• On- and Off-Ramps to the Mainlanes• No driveways onto the Mainlanes
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Interstate Design Standards (Contd.)
• Center Median• Minimum Lane and Shoulder Widths• Designed for Higher Speeds
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Existing Controlled Access Highways – I-69 Corridor
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Existing and Planned Controlled Access Highways – I-69 Corridor
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Existing and Planned Controlled Access Highways – Segment 1
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Brainstorming Session
Leah Olivarri - Facilitator
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Brainstorming Session – Part 1
• Identification of Transportation Problems and Challenges to Consider in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Brainstorming Session – Part 2
• What Highways and Other Transportation Facilities Should be Considered in Developing the I-69 Corridor Program
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Texas Department of TransportationTexas Turnpike Authority Division
Doise MiersLegislative Analyst
Government and Public Affairs Division, TxDOT
Committee Organization and Wrap Up
Webb
Hill
Duval
Frio
Harris
Bell
Kerr
Starr
Polk
Clay
Ellis
Uvalde
Bee
Leon
Bexar
Erath
Jack
Kenedy
Zavala
Dimmit
Cass
Tyler
Hunt
La Salle
Wise
Rusk
Kimble
Medina
Llano
LibertyLee
Milam
Travis
Knox
Mills
Brazoria
Smith
Falls
Collin
Burnet
Zapata
Real
Coryell
Bowie
Brown
Houston
Taylor
Lamar
Dallas
Jasper
Young
Coleman
Baylor
Archer
Mason
Cooke
Parker
Navarro
Brooks
Hardin
DeWitt
Lavaca
Hays
Goliad
Denton
Atascosa
Bosque
Fannin
Wharton
Concho
Fayette
Tarrant
Haskell
Newton
Gillespie
Live Oak
Shelby
McMullen
Jim Hogg
Foard
Wilson
Victoria
Wood
Menard
Panola
Trinity
Bastrop
Grayson
San Saba
Walker
Gonzales
Anderson
Kleberg
Grimes
Cherokee
Harrison
Colorado
Eastland
Cameron
Red River
Nueces
Karnes
Austin
Williamson
Blanco
Jackson
McCulloch
Callahan
McLennan
Refugio
Matagorda
Angelina
Hopkins
Stephens
Palo Pinto
Hamilton
Bandera
Montague
JimWells
Limestone
Kaufman
Fort Bend
Comal
Kendall
Comanche
Freestone
Titus
Johnson
Henderson
Montgomery
Willacy
Jefferson
Brazos
Robertson
Van Zandt
Sabine
Hood
Upshur
Waller
Shackelford
Burleson
Nacogdoches
Lampasas
Throckmorton
Guadalupe
Caldwell
Marion
Chambers
San Patricio
Madison
San Jacinto
Delta
Washington Orange
Calhoun
Rains
Gregg
Morris
San Augustine
Franklin
Camp
Somervell
Galveston
Aransas
Rockwall
Gu adalupe Rive r
Lavaca R iver
Colorado Rive r
Cypress Creek
Sabine R iver
Trinity RiverNeches River
San Jacin to River
Brazos River
Frio R iver
San Anto nio River
A n g e l i n a R i v e r
Dallas
San Antonio
Austin
ArlingtonFort Worth
Waco
Plano
Irving
Garland
Abilene
Mesquite
Pasadena
Beaumont
Tyler
Bryan
Denton
Killeen
Baytown
Longview
Galveston
RichardsonCarrollton
PortArthur
Wichita Falls
Grand Prairie
CollegeStation
Paris
NuevoLaredo
Orange
Jasper
Conroe
Lufkin
Athens
Freeport
Crockett
Carthage
Palestine
Nacogdoches
Jacksonville
Wills PointGrand Saline Mineola
Commerce
Victoria
Houston Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
o
o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
HOUSTONINTER-
CONTINENTALAIRPORT
LakeTexana
CaddoLake
LakeKemp
Tamaulipas
Rio Gra nde
£¤84
Æÿ511
Æÿ99
Æÿ99
Sabine
Caddo
Bossier
De Soto
Cameron
Webster
Vernon
Calcasieu
Beauregard
Red River
Bienville
§̈¦35
§̈¦37
§̈¦35
§̈¦37
§̈¦35
§̈¦10
§̈¦45
§̈¦10
§̈¦10
§̈¦35
§̈¦10
§̈¦49
§̈¦20§̈¦20
§̈¦45
§̈¦45
§̈¦35
§̈¦20
§̈¦20 §̈¦20
§̈¦35§̈¦30
§̈¦30
§̈¦410
§̈¦610
§̈¦820§̈¦635
Æÿ5
£¤83
£¤83
£¤77
£¤83
£¤59
£¤77
£¤77
£¤87
£¤59
£¤77
£¤59
£¤59
£¤83
£¤83
£¤83
£¤90
£¤57
£¤90
£¤87£¤77
£¤87
£¤87
£¤90£¤90
£¤90
£¤59
£¤77£¤90
£¤90
£¤87£¤83
£¤87
£¤83
£¤87
£¤84
£¤79
£¤84
£¤79
£¤77
£¤77£¤79
£¤59
£¤59
£¤69
£¤69 £¤96
£¤96
£¤79
£¤96
£¤59
£¤59
£¤84£¤79
£¤84
£¤84
£¤77 £¤69
£¤67
£¤81£¤67
£¤67 £¤84
£¤67
£¤84
£¤84£¤83
£¤83
£¤82
£¤80
£¤67
£¤59
£¤59£¤71
£¤82
£¤80
£¤75
£¤69
£¤69
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
£¤181
£¤181
£¤281
£¤281
£¤181
£¤183
£¤290
£¤290
£¤183
£¤290
£¤290
£¤281
£¤290
£¤377
£¤283 £¤377
£¤190
£¤281
£¤183
£¤183
£¤183
£¤190
£¤190
£¤190
£¤287
£¤287£¤190
£¤171
£¤259
£¤287
£¤175
£¤287
£¤377
£¤281
£¤377
£¤377
£¤281
£¤183£¤283
£¤277
£¤277
£¤180
£¤281£¤180
£¤287
£¤380 £¤380
£¤281£¤283 £¤287
£¤283£¤183
£¤183
£¤377
£¤259
£¤271
£¤380
£¤271
Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ7
Æÿ6
Æÿ7
Æÿ7
Æÿ6
Æÿ7Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ3
Æÿ2Æÿ1
Æÿ85
Æÿ73
Æÿ48
Æÿ16
Æÿ16
Æÿ44
Æÿ44
Æÿ35
Æÿ35
Æÿ35
Æÿ72
Æÿ16
Æÿ72Æÿ97
Æÿ85
Æÿ55
Æÿ16
Æÿ97
Æÿ97
Æÿ72
Æÿ80
Æÿ80
Æÿ97
Æÿ71
Æÿ71
Æÿ60
Æÿ35
Æÿ60
Æÿ36
Æÿ87
Æÿ87
Æÿ12
Æÿ87
Æÿ36
Æÿ80Æÿ95
Æÿ71
Æÿ21Æÿ71
Æÿ21
Æÿ16 Æÿ46
Æÿ16
Æÿ46
Æÿ27
Æÿ41Æÿ27
Æÿ29
Æÿ71
Æÿ71
Æÿ16
Æÿ16
Æÿ29
Æÿ95
Æÿ95
Æÿ36
Æÿ36
Æÿ53
Æÿ14
Æÿ14
Æÿ90
Æÿ30Æÿ30
Æÿ75
Æÿ21
Æÿ19
Æÿ19
Æÿ94
Æÿ94
Æÿ62
Æÿ63
Æÿ63
Æÿ87
Æÿ21
Æÿ21
Æÿ21
Æÿ87
Æÿ43
Æÿ31
Æÿ64
Æÿ19
Æÿ31
Æÿ31
Æÿ64
Æÿ34
Æÿ34
Æÿ22
Æÿ22Æÿ16
Æÿ36
Æÿ36
Æÿ25
Æÿ79
Æÿ79
Æÿ16
Æÿ16
Æÿ16
Æÿ67
Æÿ16
Æÿ59
Æÿ59
Æÿ66
Æÿ77
Æÿ49
Æÿ43
Æÿ29Æÿ77
Æÿ49
Æÿ78
Æÿ37
Æÿ19
Æÿ34
Æÿ11Æÿ24
Æÿ78
Æÿ19Æÿ24
Æÿ37
Æÿ100
Æÿ336
Æÿ186
Æÿ339
Æÿ285Æÿ285
Æÿ359
Æÿ359
Æÿ316
Æÿ239
Æÿ185
Æÿ185
Æÿ359
Æÿ202
Æÿ239
Æÿ127
Æÿ173 Æÿ123
Æÿ111
Æÿ111
Æÿ172
Æÿ288
Æÿ146
Æÿ124
Æÿ146
Æÿ321Æÿ242
Æÿ249
Æÿ159Æÿ237
Æÿ105
Æÿ304
Æÿ304
Æÿ142
Æÿ123Æÿ173
Æÿ138
Æÿ195
Æÿ195
Æÿ317
Æÿ317
Æÿ320
Æÿ164Æÿ164
Æÿ105
Æÿ105
Æÿ150
Æÿ156
Æÿ150
Æÿ327
Æÿ103
Æÿ103
Æÿ147
Æÿ149
Æÿ294
Æÿ315
Æÿ204
Æÿ135
Æÿ135
Æÿ110Æÿ155
Æÿ294
Æÿ155Æÿ171
Æÿ205
Æÿ144
Æÿ171
Æÿ171
Æÿ174
Æÿ174
Æÿ144
Æÿ220
Æÿ108
Æÿ112
Æÿ279Æÿ206
Æÿ206
Æÿ351
Æÿ222
Æÿ251
Æÿ114
Æÿ254Æÿ377
Æÿ199 Æÿ114
Æÿ101Æÿ114
Æÿ148
Æÿ289
Æÿ243
Æÿ160
Æÿ154Æÿ182
Æÿ154
Æÿ224
Æÿ121
§̈¦35E
§̈¦35W
§̈¦35E§̈¦35W
M E X I C OM E X I C O
50 40 8020
Miles
A R K A N S A SA R K A N S A S
L O U I S I A N AL O U I S I A N A
I-69 Corridor Study
Existing Controlled A
ccess Highw
ays
Legend
T:\GIS_Data_Sets\TX_Corridor_Wide_Data\Corridors\Upgradeable\Potential_I-69_Facilities_ControlofAccess_11x17.mxd
Corpus Christi
George West
GULFOF
MEXICO
Hidalgo
Highway - State Marked
Highway - US Marked
Highway - Interstate
Urban Area
County/Parish
Æÿ
£¤
§̈¦
Brownsville
Mc Allen
Laredo
Texarkana
Shreveport
7/27/2009
I-69 National Corridor RecommendedPreferred Alternative (Louisiana)
1 Inch = 40 Miles
Freer
Robstown
Ellington Field
Hobby Airport
George Bush International Airport
Port of Houston
oÎ
Commercial Airport
Primary Deep Draft Seaport
Landport
Port of Corpus Christi
Port Lavaca/Point Comfort
Port of Victoria
Corpus Christi International
Port of Freeport
Port of Galveston
Port of Texas City
Port of Brownsville
Brownsville/South Padre International
Rio Grande Valley International
McAllen Miller International
Laredo International
Port of Laredo
Shreveport Regional Airport
Texarkana Regional Airport
Existing Controlled Access*
*The information shown here was derived andinterpreted from the most recently available data.
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
Î
o
o
o
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
Webb
Hill
Duval
Frio
Harris
Bell
Kerr
Starr
Polk
Clay
Edwards
Ellis
Uvalde
Bee
Leon
Bexar
King
Erath
Jack
Kinney
Kenedy
Zavala
Dimmit
Cass
Tyler
Hunt
La Salle
Wise
Rusk
Kimble
Medina
Llano
LibertyLee
Milam
Travis
Knox
Mills
Brazoria
Smith
Falls
Collin
Jones
Nolan
Burnet
Cottle
Zapata
Real
Coryell
Bowie
Brown
Houston
Taylor
Lamar
Dallas
Fisher
Maverick
Jasper
Young
Coleman
Baylor
Archer
Mason
Cooke
Parker
Navarro
Brooks
Hardin
Tom Green
DeWitt
Lavaca
Hays
Goliad
Denton
Atascosa
Bosque
Fannin
Wharton
Concho
Runnels
Fayette
Tarrant
Haskell
Newton
Gillespie
Live Oak
Shelby
McMullen
Jim Hogg
Foard
Wilson
Victoria
Wood
Menard
Panola
Trinity
Bastrop
Grayson
San Saba
Walker
Gonzales
Anderson
Kleberg
Grimes
Cherokee
Harrison
Colorado
Eastland
Cameron
Red River
Nueces
Karnes
Austin
Williamson
Blanco
Jackson
McCulloch
Wilbarger
Callahan
McLennan
Refugio
Matagorda
Angelina
Hopkins
Stephens
Palo Pinto
Stonewall
Hamilton
Bandera
Montague
JimWells
Limestone
Kaufman
Fort Bend
Comal
Kendall
Comanche
Freestone
Titus
Johnson
Henderson
Montgomery
Willacy
Jefferson
Brazos
Wichita
Robertson
Van Zandt
Sabine
Hood
Upshur
Waller
Shackelford
Burleson
Nacogdoches
Lampasas
Hardeman
Throckmorton
Guadalupe
Caldwell
Marion
Chambers
San Patricio
Madison
San Jacinto
Delta
Washington Orange
Calhoun
Rains
Gregg
Morris
San Augustine
Franklin
Camp
Somervell
Galveston
Aransas
Rockwall
Gu adalupe Rive r
Lavaca R iver
Colorado Rive r
Cypress Creek
Sabine R iver
Trinity RiverNeches River
San Jacin to River
Brazos River
Frio R iver
San Anto nio River
A n g e l i n a R i v e r
Dallas
San Antonio
Austin
ArlingtonFort Worth
Waco
Plano
Irving
Garland
Abilene
Mesquite
Pasadena
Beaumont
Tyler
Bryan
Denton
Killeen
Baytown
Longview
Galveston
San Angelo
RichardsonCarrollton
PortArthur
Wichita Falls
Grand Prairie
CollegeStation
Roby
Paris
NuevoLaredo
Orange
Jasper
Conroe
Lufkin
Athens
Freeport
Crockett
Carthage
Ardmore
Palestine
Nacogdoches
Jacksonville
Wills PointGrand Saline Mineola
Commerce
Victoria
Houston
LakeTexana
CaddoLake
LakeKemp
Tamaulipas
Rio Gra nde
£¤84
Æÿ511
Æÿ99
Æÿ99
Sabine
Caddo
Bossier
De Soto
Cameron
Webster
Vernon
Calcasieu
Beauregard
Red River
Bienville
§̈¦35
§̈¦37
§̈¦35
§̈¦37
§̈¦35
§̈¦10
§̈¦45
§̈¦10
§̈¦10
§̈¦35
§̈¦10
§̈¦49
§̈¦20§̈¦20
§̈¦45
§̈¦45
§̈¦35
§̈¦20
§̈¦20 §̈¦20
§̈¦35§̈¦30
§̈¦30
§̈¦410
§̈¦610
§̈¦820§̈¦635
Æÿ5
£¤83
£¤83
£¤77
£¤83
£¤59
£¤77
£¤77
£¤87
£¤59
£¤77
£¤59
£¤59
£¤83
£¤83
£¤83
£¤90
£¤57
£¤90
£¤87£¤77
£¤87
£¤87
£¤90£¤90
£¤90
£¤59
£¤77£¤90
£¤90
£¤87£¤83
£¤87
£¤83
£¤87
£¤84
£¤79
£¤84
£¤79
£¤77
£¤77£¤79
£¤59
£¤59
£¤69
£¤69 £¤96
£¤96
£¤79
£¤96
£¤59
£¤59
£¤84£¤79
£¤84
£¤84
£¤77 £¤69
£¤67
£¤81£¤67
£¤67 £¤84
£¤67
£¤84
£¤84£¤83
£¤83
£¤82
£¤80
£¤67
£¤59
£¤59£¤71
£¤82
£¤80
£¤75
£¤69
£¤69
£¤281
£¤281
£¤281
£¤181
£¤181
£¤281
£¤281
£¤181
£¤183
£¤290
£¤290
£¤183
£¤290
£¤290
£¤281
£¤290
£¤377
£¤283 £¤377
£¤190
£¤281
£¤183
£¤183
£¤183
£¤190
£¤190
£¤190
£¤287
£¤287£¤190
£¤171
£¤259
£¤287
£¤175
£¤287
£¤377
£¤281
£¤377
£¤377
£¤281
£¤183£¤283
£¤277
£¤277
£¤180
£¤281£¤180
£¤287
£¤380 £¤380
£¤281£¤283 £¤287
£¤283£¤183
£¤183
£¤377
£¤259
£¤271
£¤380
£¤271
Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ7
Æÿ6
Æÿ7
Æÿ7
Æÿ6
Æÿ7Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ6
Æÿ3
Æÿ2Æÿ1
Æÿ85
Æÿ73
Æÿ48
Æÿ16
Æÿ16
Æÿ44
Æÿ44
Æÿ35
Æÿ35
Æÿ35
Æÿ72
Æÿ16
Æÿ72Æÿ97
Æÿ85
Æÿ55
Æÿ16
Æÿ97
Æÿ97
Æÿ72
Æÿ80
Æÿ80
Æÿ97
Æÿ71
Æÿ71
Æÿ60
Æÿ35
Æÿ60
Æÿ36
Æÿ87
Æÿ87
Æÿ12
Æÿ87
Æÿ36
Æÿ80Æÿ95
Æÿ71
Æÿ21Æÿ71
Æÿ21
Æÿ16 Æÿ46
Æÿ16
Æÿ46
Æÿ27
Æÿ41Æÿ27
Æÿ29
Æÿ71
Æÿ71
Æÿ16
Æÿ16
Æÿ29
Æÿ95
Æÿ95
Æÿ36
Æÿ36
Æÿ53
Æÿ14
Æÿ14
Æÿ90
Æÿ30Æÿ30
Æÿ75
Æÿ21
Æÿ19
Æÿ19
Æÿ94
Æÿ94
Æÿ62
Æÿ63
Æÿ63
Æÿ87
Æÿ21
Æÿ21
Æÿ21
Æÿ87
Æÿ43
Æÿ31
Æÿ64
Æÿ19
Æÿ31
Æÿ31
Æÿ64
Æÿ34
Æÿ34
Æÿ22
Æÿ22Æÿ16
Æÿ36
Æÿ36
Æÿ25
Æÿ79
Æÿ79
Æÿ16
Æÿ16
Æÿ16
Æÿ67
Æÿ16
Æÿ59
Æÿ59
Æÿ66
Æÿ77
Æÿ49
Æÿ43
Æÿ29Æÿ77
Æÿ49
Æÿ78
Æÿ37
Æÿ19
Æÿ34
Æÿ11Æÿ24
Æÿ78
Æÿ19Æÿ24
Æÿ37
Æÿ100
Æÿ336
Æÿ186
Æÿ339
Æÿ285Æÿ285
Æÿ359
Æÿ359
Æÿ316
Æÿ239
Æÿ185
Æÿ185
Æÿ359
Æÿ202
Æÿ239
Æÿ127
Æÿ173 Æÿ123
Æÿ111
Æÿ111
Æÿ172
Æÿ288
Æÿ146
Æÿ124
Æÿ146
Æÿ321Æÿ242
Æÿ249
Æÿ159Æÿ237
Æÿ105
Æÿ304
Æÿ304
Æÿ142
Æÿ123Æÿ173
Æÿ138
Æÿ195
Æÿ195
Æÿ317
Æÿ317
Æÿ320
Æÿ164Æÿ164
Æÿ105
Æÿ105
Æÿ150
Æÿ156
Æÿ150
Æÿ327
Æÿ103
Æÿ103
Æÿ147
Æÿ149
Æÿ294
Æÿ315
Æÿ204
Æÿ135
Æÿ135
Æÿ110Æÿ155
Æÿ294
Æÿ155Æÿ171
Æÿ205
Æÿ144
Æÿ171
Æÿ171
Æÿ174
Æÿ174
Æÿ144
Æÿ220
Æÿ108
Æÿ112
Æÿ279Æÿ206
Æÿ206
Æÿ351
Æÿ222
Æÿ251
Æÿ114
Æÿ254Æÿ377
Æÿ199 Æÿ114
Æÿ101Æÿ114
Æÿ148
Æÿ289
Æÿ243
Æÿ160
Æÿ154Æÿ182
Æÿ154
Æÿ224
Æÿ121
§̈¦35E
§̈¦35W
§̈¦35E§̈¦35W
M E X I C OM E X I C O
50 40 8020
Miles
A R K A N S A SA R K A N S A S
L O U I S I A N AL O U I S I A N A
I-69 Corridor Study
Existing and Planned Controlled A
ccess Highw
ays
Legend
T:\GIS_Data_Sets\TX_Corridor_Wide_Data\Corridors\Upgradeable\Potential_I-69_Facilities_Existing_CA_and_STIP_11x17.mxd
Corpus Christi
George West
GULFOF
MEXICO
Hidalgo
Highway - State Marked
Highway - US Marked
Highway - Interstate
Urban Area
County/Parish
Æÿ
£¤
§̈¦
Brownsville
Mc Allen
Laredo
Texarkana
Shreveport
8/10/2009
I-69 National Corridor RecommendedPreferred Alternative (Louisiana)
1 Inch = 40 Miles
Freer
Robstown
Ellington Field
Hobby Airport
George Bush International Airport
Port of Houston
Port of Corpus Christi
Port Lavaca/Point Comfort
Port of Victoria
Corpus Christi International
Port of Freeport
Port of GalvestonPort of Texas City
Port of Brownsville
Brownsville/South Padre International
Rio Grande Valley International
McAllen Miller International
Laredo International
Port of Laredo
Shreveport Regional Airport
Texarkana Regional Airport
Planned Contolled Access
Existing Controlled Access*SH 99 CorridorSH 99 Study Area
Upgrade to freeway facility with4-lane divided overpass at UP RR.From: SH 150To: South of UP RR
Construct grade separationinterchange and close crossoversFrom: 1 mi. north of FM 2914To: 1 mi. south of FM 2914
Construct 4-lane SH 99 Seg. G-2From: Harris C/LTo: US 59
Construct 4-lane SH 99From: I-45To: Montgomery C/L
Widen SH 99 (I-2) to 4-lane with two 2-lanefrontage roads and interchangesFrom: BUS 146-ETo: Chambers C/L
Construct 4-lane SH 99 Seg. BFrom: I-45 STo: SH 288
Construct 4-lane SH 99 Seg. CFrom: SH 288To: US 59
Widen SH 99 (I-2) to 4-lane with two 2 lanefrontage roads and interchangesFrom: Harris C/LTo: SH 99 @ FM 1405
Construct 4-lane SH 99 Seg. F-2From: SH 249To: I-45
Construct 4-lane SH 99 Seg.EFrom: Franz RoadTo: US 290
Construct six SH 99direct connectors at I-10
Construct 4-lane SH 99 Seg. F-2From: SH 249To: I-45
Construct two US 59 gradeseparation interchanges
Constuct US 59 grade separationat intersection of FM 3129
Construct new location loop
Construct 4-lane US 281From: BUS 281 NTo BUS 281 S
Construct 4-lane US 281From: 0.9 mi. S of FM 3066To: BUS 281 S
Construct 4-lane US 281From: BUS 281 NTo: Brooks C/L
Construct US 281 diamond interchange.From: 0.95 mi. N of FM 2508To: 0.21 mi. S of CR 449
Construct 4-lanes US 281 new location.From: 3.0 mi. N of FM 716To: 1.0 mi. S of FM 1538
Construct new interchangeUS 59 and I-37Construct RR grade separation structure and approaches.
From: BUS 59To: San Antonio St.
*The information shown here was derived andinterpreted from the most recently available data.
oÎ
Commercial Airport
Primary Deep Draft Seaport
Landport
o
o
Cass
Rusk
Smith
Bowie
Lamar
Newton
Shelby
Wood
Panola
Trinity
AndersonCherokee
Harrison
Red River
Angelina
Hopkins
Titus
Henderson
Van Zandt
Sabine
Upshur
Nacogdoches
Marion
Madison
Delta
Rains
Gregg
Morris
San Augustine
Franklin
Camp
Tyler
Longview Shreveport
Hope
Rusk
Emory
Paris
Benton
Newton
Jasper
Gilmer
Cooper
Center
Linden
Canton
New Boston
Athens
Idabel
Ashdown
Quitman
Kilgore
Groveton
Crockett
Marshall
Carthage
Mansfield
Texarkana
Pittsburg
Ben Lomond
Jefferson
Henderson
Lewisville
Clarksville
Centerville
Mount Vernon
Jacksonville
Daingerfield
Madisonville
San Augustine
Mount Pleasant
Sulphur Springs
Mineola
VanHallsville
Lindale
Winona
BullardTroup
Gladewater
Overton
Diboll
Grapeland
Trinity
Bogata
Detroit
Atlanta
Corrigan
Hughes Springs
Lone Star Avinger
De KalbHooks
Leary
Redwater
Maud
NaplesMarietta
DouglassvilleOmaha BloomburgQueen City
Uncertain
Ore City
Nesbitt
LakeportEaston
ScottsvilleWaskom
Tatum
Beckville
Gary
Stonewall
Bradley
Vivian
New London
JoaquinLogansportTenaha
Huxley
Chireno
Alto
Wells
Hudson
Burke
HuntingtonBroaddus
Pineland
BrowndellZavalla
Seven Oaks
Chester Colmesneil
Onalaska
Lovelady
Riverside
Midway
Appleby
Garrison
Timpson
Moscow
Palestine
Nacogdoches
Lufkin
Grand Saline
Richland-ChambersReservoir
LakePalestine
CaddoLake
Toledo Bend Reservoir
Davy Crocket tNat ion al Fore st
CrossLake
Toledo BendReservoir
LakeBistineau
ClearLake
WallaceLake
R e d R i v e r
L O U I S I A N A
Sandy Cree k
Piney Creek
Neches River
T E X A S
A R K A N S A S
Polk
Houston
Tyler
Trinity
Walker
Angelina
Leon
San Jacinto
Nacogdoches
Madison
Anderson
Cherokee
SanAugustine
Freestone
JasperÅ1280
Å831
Å1119
Å1511
Å3154
Å977
Å579
Å3151 Å3317
Caddo
De Soto
Bossier
Sabine
Miller
Little River
Lafayette
Hempstead
HowardSevier
§̈¦20
§̈¦30
§̈¦30
£¤84
£¤59
£¤69
£¤96
£¤79
£¤96
£¤59
£¤59
£¤84
£¤79
£¤84
£¤69
£¤80
£¤67
£¤59
£¤82
£¤59
£¤71
£¤71
£¤82
£¤171
£¤171
£¤259
£¤175
£¤259
£¤271
£¤259
£¤271
£¤271
Æÿ5
Æÿ1 Æÿ3
Æÿ7
Æÿ7
Æÿ5
Æÿ8
Æÿ3
Æÿ2Æÿ1
Æÿ8
Æÿ19
Æÿ94
Æÿ94
Æÿ63
Æÿ63
Æÿ21
Æÿ21
Æÿ21
Æÿ87
Æÿ43
Æÿ31
Æÿ64
Æÿ19
Æÿ31
Æÿ64
Æÿ77
Æÿ49
Æÿ43
Æÿ77
Æÿ49
Æÿ37Æÿ87
Æÿ41 Æÿ32
Æÿ29
Æÿ37
Æÿ19
Æÿ37
Æÿ191
Æÿ764
Æÿ169Æÿ525
Æÿ103
Æÿ103
Æÿ147
Æÿ149
Æÿ154
Æÿ294
Æÿ315
Æÿ204
Æÿ135
Æÿ135
Æÿ110Æÿ155
Æÿ294
Æÿ155
Æÿ155
Æÿ154Æÿ182
Æÿ154
T:\SegmentCommitteeMeetings\Segment1\I-69_Segment1_11x17.mxd 8/17/2009
B r a
z o s
R i v e
r
Public Lands
Brenham
Railroads
Other Existing
Kansas City Southern (KCS)
Abandoned Rail
Highway - State MarkedHighway - US MarkedHighway - Interstate
Urban Area
§̈¦
£¤
Æÿ
County
Union Pacific (UP)
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
Commercial Airporto
Existing Controlled Access
Planned Controlled Access
Segment 1
Existing and Planned ControlledAccess Highways
50 12 246
Miles
1 Inch = 12 Miles
Kansas City Southern (KCS) Inactive
I-69 National Corridor RecommendedPreferred Alternative (Louisiana)