i‐20 east texas corridor study

IAFTJ

I-20 EaAppeFrom I-6TxDOT, TranJanuary 201

ast Teendic635 to sportation P

15

exas Cces LouisiaPlanning an

orrido

ana Stad Programm

or Stud

ate Bordming Division

dy

der n

AMI

AppeMinut-20 East Te

endixte Ord

xas Corrido

x A er andr Study

d Resolutioons

Resolution supporting the

I-20 East Texas Corridor Study

WHEREAS, Interstate Highway 20 provides an important east-west connection for travel and trade in Texas; WHEREAS, a Corridor Assessment study will be undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation to identify safety and capacity needs and to plan for the future; WHEREAS, The Tyler Area Chamber of Commerce and Tyler Economic Development Council have distributed a fact summary to various Committees and Boards on this important study; WHEREAS, members of these Boards and Committees have attended public hearings and have provided input on specific problems that need to be addressed in the Study; now THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Tyler Area Chamber of Commerce and the Tyler Economic Development Council support this important Study and will work in partnership with local, regional, state and federal, public and private organizations to assure the recommendations presented in the final report are implemented. SIGNED this 17th day of June, 2014.

Rosemary Jones Tom Ellis Chairman Chairman Tyler Area Chamber of Commerce Tyler Economic Development Council

Appendix B Advisory Committee Meeting

Summaries I-20 East Texas Corridor Study

I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting December 2, 2014 1 of 3

I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting

Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. Conference Call and WebEx DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY

Name Organization

Members Present on 9:00 a.m. Conference Call/WebEx

Judge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg County

Judge Bruce Wood Kaufman County

Virgil Melton, Jr. (alternate for Judge Rhita Koches) Van Zandt County

Jerry Dittman (alternate for Mayor John Monaco) City of Mesquite

Mayor Hal Richards City of Terrell

Mike Sims (alternate for Mayor Hal Richards) City of Terrell

Jeff Neal (alternate for Michael Morris) NCTCOG

Kevin Feldt (alternate for Michael Morris) NCTCOG

Karen Owen Longview MPO

Michael Howell City of Tyler, Tyler MPO

Members Present on 10:30 a.m. Conference Call/WebEx

Lauren Trimble (alternate for Judge Clay Jenkins) Dallas County

Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs

John Clary (alternate for Mayor Robert Nelson) City of Lindale

Kevin Feldt (alternate for Michael Morris) NCTCOG

Members Not Present on Conference Calls/WebEx

Judge Hugh Taylor Harrison County

Judge Joel Baker Smith County

Mayor Richard Lawrence City of Canton

Mayor Darren Rozell City of Forney

Mayor Jay Dean City of Longview

Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall

Mayor Harold Magill City of Seagoville

Linda Ryan Thomas NETRMA

Celia Boswell NETRMA

Gary Thomas DART

Purpose: The purpose of the two conference calls was to wrap-up efforts on I-20 east Texas Corridor Study by 1) reviewing the executive summary and implementation plan; and 2) finalizing the presentation to Texas Transportation Commission (TTC) on Dec. 18. Prior to the conference call, copies of the Executive Summary and the Summary of Second Public Outreach were emailed out to Advisory Committee members. Additionally, a PowerPoint was available to view on WebEx during the call. All three documents are available for review in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Welcome/Introductions: Roger Beall (TxDOT) welcomed attendees to the conference call and thanked members for participating. Members then announced their participation on the call.


Executive Summary Review: Roger Beall (TxDOT) provided members with an overview of the contents of the executive summary that was distributed prior to the conference call. Included in the executive summary is a general overview of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, a summary of comments received from public outreach, explanation of the main focuses of the study including safety, capacity and maintenance of the I-20 corridor, and an overview of the implementation and prioritization plan for areas identified as needed from this study. An Advisory Committee member asked for clarification on the proposed projects stating listed projects were recommendations, but not funded projects. Roger confirmed this was correct. An Advisory Committee member also asked if all median barrier installation projects were confined to Dallas County. Roger confirmed this was correct. Another member asked for more details on what the process will look like to begin implementing and funding the near-term improvements. Roger clarified that after the corridor plan is approved, the project lists will move onto the local TxDOT districts to identify areas where these projects could fit into their budgets and funding sources to incorporate these plans. Committee members asked that the local entities continue to be involved in this process with each of the districts since improvements will affect their communities directly. Members discussed the possibility of raising bridge vertical clearances to accommodate the possibility of future rail above the 18 feet allocation currently listed in the plan. Michael Sexton (Jacobs) explained that the current 16 bridges identified in the implementation plan are all in need of vertical clearance or load-bearing improvements outside of just raising the bridge heights to the recommended 18 feet. He also mentioned that the $1.2 billion estimate from Amtrak to implement a passenger rail service through East Texas did not include raising any bridge heights, so this would be an additional cost. Committee members discussed further and asked that it be put on record and included in the final report that they support further research being done on what it would cost to raise the bridge heights to accommodate future freight or high-speed rail requirements above the 18 feet requirement existing today. Texas Transportation Commission Presentation: Roger Beall (TxDOT) made an announcement regarding the upcoming TTC meeting to be held in Austin on December 18, 2014 beginning at 9 a.m. During this TTC meeting, the final report for the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study will be presented to the commissioners for approval. All Advisory Committee members were invited to attend in person. Additionally, Roger mentioned the presentation would be available on live stream. The link will be provided to Committee members before then. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:

Send link for streaming video of TTC meeting


Send full project report to Advisory Committee members Attachments:

1. Executive Summary 2. Summary of Second Public Outreach 3. PowerPoint Presentation

Meeting Staff: Roger Beall, Susan Howard, Cary Karnstadt, Rose Walker, Lindsey Kimmitt,Marcus Sandifer, and Cameron Muick (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia and Nair Barrios (Jacobs) Aimee Vance (K Strategies) District Staff Present: Steven Endres, Hal Stanford and Michelle Raglon (TxDOT Dallas District) Bob Ratcliff, Dennis Beckham, Deanne Simmons and Marcus Sandifer (TxDOT Atlanta District) Vernon Webb and Randy Hopmann (TxDOT Tyler District)

I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Executive Summary From I-635 to Louisiana State Border TxDOT, Transportation Planning and Programming Division

III

Executive Summary

Interstate 20 (I-20) East Texas Corridor runs 155-miles from its interchange with I-635 in

Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana State Border. The broader corridor serves as an integral east-

west connection for both passenger travel and trade. Additionally, within East Texas, I-20

serves as the backbone of the transportation network for many smaller communities.

The East Texas portion of I-20 was opened to traffic

in 1967. This segment has had routine

maintenance and modest repairs/expansion over

its first 50 years. But as the interstate system ages

and trade increases, its mission becomes more

critical. In particular, major portions will require

expansion to serve anticipated growth in traffic.

Ramps and interchanges require reconstruction to

improve safety, and some bridges require

reconstruction to address deficiencies and

improve vertical clearances so they can better

serve freight movements. Finally, the existing

pavement will need to be reconstructed at some

point in order to serve the heavy freight traffic

demands it experiences.

In recognition of those needs, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) conducted

this study to make a comprehensive assessment of need, and to identify a master plan that

can be used to implement improvements in the most timely and efficient manner.

TxDOT worked closely with the public to identify opportunities for improvement. In keeping

with that goal, the I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee was created by the Texas

Transportation Commission. The committee included 22 members representing local

communities, the six counties in the study area, and regional transportation agencies.

Members of the committee were tasked with providing insight into their communities’ needs

as well as becoming spokespeople for the study’s objective and results. Table ES.1 below

includes the list of Advisory Committee members and their affiliation.

The I-20 corridor

faces challenges in

terms of safety,

capacity and major

maintenance needs.

IV

Table ES.1: Advisory Committee Members

Organization Member

Co

un

tie

s

Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins

Gregg County Judge Bill Stoudt

Harrison County Judge Hugh Taylor

Kaufman County Judge Bruce Wood

Smith County Judge Joel Baker

Van Zandt County Judge Rhita Koches / Commissioner Virgil

Melton Jr.

Cit

ies

City of Balch Springs Honorable Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon

City of Canton Honorable Mayor Richard W. Lawrence

City of Forney Honorable Mayor Darren Rozell

City of Lindale Honorable Mayor Robert Nelson

City of Longview Honorable Mayor Jay Dean

City of Marshall Honorable Mayor Ed Smith

City of Mesquite Honorable Mayor John Monaco

City of Seagoville Honorable Mayor Harold Magill

City of Terrell Honorable Mayor Hal Richards

City of Tyler Honorable Mayor Martin Heines / Mark

McDaniel

Oth

ers

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Gary C. Thomas

North Central Texas Council of

Governments (NCTCOG)

Michael Morris

North East Texas Regional Mobility

Authority (NETRMA)

Linda Ryan Thomas / Celia Boswell

Longview MPO Karen Owen

Tyler Metropolitan Organization (MPO) Heather Nick

V

The public input

covered a range of

issues, but there

were a number of

recurring concerns

expressed by the

corridor users.

People living within

the study’s counties

expressed the need

for a third lane in

each direction of

travel; raised issues

with inconsistent

speed limits as well

as need for better

enforcement of it; and identified existence of inadequate access ramps as well as

hazardous conditions on wet roads. Figure ES.1 summarizes the breakdown of key

concerns by county.

ES.1 Safety Needs

Safety is among the main concerns of I-20 users. To ensure safety is addressed at

appropriate locations and in adequate manner, crash analyses were conducted. The

objective of crash analyses was to identify factors resulting in concentrations of crashes,

and use this information to define the most effective ways to reduce future crash potentials

by eliminating hazards or improving facility design.

During the years of 2008 to 2012, the state of Texas experienced an average crash rate of

43.9 crashes per hundred million vehicle miles travelled (VMT) for rural interstates. In

contrast, this portion of I-20 experienced an average crash rate of 55.61 crashes per

hundred million vehicle miles; which is 18 percent higher than the statewide average. This

suggests that the corridor has the potential to operate in a safer manner if improvements

can be implemented. If all of the necessary improvements were to be implemented

immediately, safety could be enhanced by forestalling almost 200 crashes per year - with a

reduction in economic costs of more than $ 60 million. Over the next 25 years, the safety

benefit could approach 4,500 crashes forestalled. Each crash has an impact on the quality

of human life, and on the economy. Using standard valuations, the savings to the economy

would be more than $ 1.5 Billion.

Figure ES.1: Major Concerns by County

VI

ES.2 Capacity Needs

By the Year 2040, the corridor is projected to have congestion throughout its entire 155

miles. Segments including I-20 from the Dallas County Line to FM 1641, I-20 from SH 34 to

FM 3202 and the 2 mile segment from SH 134 to the Texas/Louisiana Border are projected

to experience severe congestion, since more than 45,000 vehicles a day will use those

sections. Thus, 35 miles of the 155-mile corridor can be expected to operate under heavy

congestion by that time. This equates to more than 20 percent of the corridor’s length.

Because the most congested segments will be spread throughout the entire corridor, there

could be some “spill back” into less congested segments, creating more miles of congested

travel. This does not imply that I-20 will be unable to accommodate the increased level of

traffic, but travel will be less and the drop in Level of Service could have safety implications

for the corridor especially with high freight traffic demands such that I-20 experiences.

ES.2.1 Rail

The I-20 East Texas Corridor serves as a major connection between Texas and its neighbors

to the East. Both freight and passenger rail services are currently provided along portions of

the existing Union Pacific Railroad line located north of the I-20 corridor. This rail facility is a

major freight line connecting Dallas through Marshall with Memphis and St. Louis. The Texas

Eagle (Amtrak) also uses this line, turning north at Marshall to reach Chicago. As such rail

provides a big part of the corridor’s mobility for freight and to a lesser degree passenger

service. Members of the Advisory Committee and the general public expressed their interest

in furthering the development of rail along the corridor.

As with all passenger services operating on private freight railroad lines, lower priorities are

assigned to passenger operations, and there can be schedule conflicts with freight trains.

This limits the speed and frequency of passenger services offered. The Rail Division at

TxDOT supervised a study to determine the viability of an improved passenger rail option

along the corridor. Findings from this study were presented to members of the Advisory

Committee. Rail options along the corridor were deemed impractical in the near future

without a significant funding source which remains to be identified.

To enhance passenger service in the corridor, this study explored ways to make intercity bus

service more competitive with the private auto, and recommendations were developed to

create express bus service that could be connected to individual communities in a cost

effective manner.

ES.3 Maintenance Needs

Most of the pavement of I-20 is approaching 50 years of service which is almost twice its

originally intended life. At the same time, it is carrying many more trucks than it was

originally designed for, and those trucks are much heavier. During the last decade, because

VII

of tight fiscal resources, TxDOT has only been able to spend limited monies on this

highway’s upkeep. Such spending can keep the surface smooth, but fails to address

underlying problems that will eventually erupt into major repair efforts.

Beside cost, major repair efforts on I-20 could pose substantial inconveniences to the

motoring public, as the lanes must be closed and traffic diverted for extended periods while

the pavement is repaired or replaced. For this reason, it is critical that maintenance actions

be coordinated closely with the construction of safety and capacity improvements.

ES.4 Implementation Program Development

The purpose for this study is to develop an improvement program that TxDOT and local

governments can use in the long term maintenance and development of the corridor within

their fiscal constraints and project development schedules, without creating unnecessary

short term investments that would have to be torn out at some future date to accommodate

longer term improvements.

ES.4.1 Project Identification

A list of proposed projects along the corridor aimed at improving specific areas (capacity

expansion, safety, pavement rehabilitation, vertical clearances, and improved access to

adjacent lands) was prepared based on the technical analyses. These projects and

concepts were verified and amplified through feedback gathered during Advisory Committee

Meetings and public comments submitted during the public outreach efforts.

ES.4.2 Proposed Projects

The preliminary project list for the I-20 East Texas Corridor includes 143 projects. Once a

comprehensive but preliminary list was developed, projects were classified into categories

depending on their scope and impact.

ES.5 Project Prioritization

Limited resources and programming needs made prioritization of projects a necessity.

Advisory Committee Members identified their preferred projects based on results of the

technical evaluation and their personal knowledge of the study corridor.

Tables ES.2, ES.3 and ES.4 summarize priority projects by county and summarizes priority

projects based on evaluation results (technical score) along with Advisory Committee

preferences. Projects with low initial score were highlighted with purple in the following list

after being mentioned by the public as presenting safety issues during the Public Outreach

section of this study.

VIII

Table ES.2: West Section Prioritization

IX

Table ES.3: Central Section Prioritization

X

Table ES.4: East Section Prioritization

ES.5.1 Improvement Recommendations

Actions necessary to ensure the I-20 facility has the ability to meet future transportation

needs and maintain or improve the quality of life for residents are included as

recommendations throughout the corridor. These recommendations are as follows:

Construction of median barriers in locations where they are warranted but not yet

installed. This amounts to about 6 miles in Dallas County.

Upgrade/replacement of bridges that have low sufficiency ratings or whose vertical

clearances are less than current TxDOT standards; aiming to provide 18’ vertical

clearances for underpasses. This includes 16 bridges throughout the corridor.

Modernize ramp designs to serve increasing traffic demands and improve safety.

Reconstruct interchanges with operational or safety concerns.

Major rehabilitation of existing highway, including possible full-depth reconstruction

of pavement which has been in use for almost 50 years.

XI

Construction of additional lanes along I-20 for

three main reasons: to permit the maintenance of

traffic during other major improvements, reduce

crash frequencies caused by vehicle conflicts, and

alleviate future congestion.

Construction of new, one-way frontage roads or

reconstruction to convert existing two-way frontage

roads into safer one-way operations in areas

identified by local officials.

Local initiatives to foster more frequent/efficient

intercity bus service.

ES.6 Implementation Plan

Based on previously described feedback from the Advisory Committee, public input provided

through comments, and results from the needs assessment performed by staff; an

implementation plan was compiled for the I-20 Corridor.

The plan provides programmatic recommendations for the corridor as a whole, as well as

project level recommendations broken down by logical timeframe. Projects classified as

Near-Term are recommended to be completed between 2015 and 2020. Projects in the

Middle-Term category are recommended to be completed between 2021 and 2030. Finally,

Long-Term projects are considered in the 2031 to 2040 interval.

ES.6.1. Programmatic Structure

The short, medium, and long range nature of this program is intended to recognize funding

availability, project development considerations, and the timing of needs. All projects that

are immediately implementable because they are already part of an approved transportation

plan (including environmental approval and funding availability) have been included in the

short term plan since they are essentially “shovel ready”.

In some instances, one type of improvement is advisable during the near term, with related

improvements in the same general location being required at a later date. Rather than work

on a particular portion of I-20 multiple times (at much higher cost and greater inconvenience

to the motoring public), efforts have been made to coordinate improvements to minimize

cost and disruption. In some instances this means accelerating longer term improvements

so they occur at the same time as more immediate needs are addressed.

The programmatic recommendations include pursuing vertical clearance of 18’ for

underpasses along I-20 (primarily improving clearance when making other required

Major improvements

are needed on I-20

to improve safety, to

protect the

investment made in

the existing facility,

and to maintain or

enhance the ability

to move traffic.

XII

improvements), pursuing full depth pavement reconstruction as necessary (based on TTI-

style analyses to be performed in the near future), and encouraging local initiatives to foster

more frequent/efficient intercity bus service.

ES.6.2 Project Level Recommendations

Project level recommendations were created from the previously mentioned proposed

project lists within each region of the corridor. The prioritization process was used to define

specific sections of the project area needing action. Technical staff used these local

preferences and combined it with overall goals to identify projects and assign them to a

logical construction timeframe based on “shovel readiness”, cost, and ability to be

constructed independently or as part of a larger project.

Table ES-5 includes a total count of projects by type and desired timeframe in addition to

preliminary cost estimates for each phase. The overall cost in 2014 dollars is summarized

by type of improvement in Figure ES-2.

Table ES-5: Implementation Plan Summary

Near-Term Mid-Term Long-Term Total

Miles of Added Median Barrier 6 - - 6

# of Bridge Modifications 16 - - 16

# of Ramp/Interchange

Improvements 5 21 9 35

Miles of Frontage Road

Improvements 12 49 38 99

Miles of Additional Capacity - 65 25 90

Preliminary Cost Estimate

(2014$ Millions)* $220 $800 $390 $1,410

* Does not include full depth pavement reconstruction

Map ES.1: Implementation Plan Dallas & Kaufman, Map ES.2: Implementation Plan Van

Zandt, Map ES.3 Implementation Plan Smith, Map ES.4 Implementation Plan Gregg, Map

ES.5 Implementation Plan Harrison depict all projects considered in this implementation

plan along with their locations within said counties.

XIII

Figure ES.2: Implementation Plan Summary

ES.6.3 Funding

The cost of identified improvements along I-20 could be as much as $2.9 billion in today’s

dollars (2014$). In essence, this amounts to $ 100 million a year in need (2014$). The

total program cost will be higher, based on when each project is implemented over the next

25 years, coupled with the amount of inflation experienced in the intervening time.

The estimated funding available from existing sources, allocated to this portion of I-20 on a

VMT basis, is about $1.6 billion (in real dollars) without the recently passed Proposition 1;

and about $1.8 billion with Proposition 1. On an average basis, this suggests that

approximately $ 60 to 70 million of money will be available annually to support this

program. Thus, in today’s dollars the program will require $ 30 to 40 million more in funding

each year than is currently available. Sources for funds have not been identified at this

time. Obviously, there will be a funding shortfall and additional funding needs to be

developed to implement the program. This could mean enhancing current sources or

identifying other strategies.

The I-20 plan includes approximately $ 480 million of frontage road additions and

improvements, but because of limited resources and in consideration that such

improvements generally benefit local governments TxDOT policy is that any new frontage

roads desired by local entities be implemented using local funds. Approximately half of the

costs will be associated exclusively with new frontage roads that serve local development.

The other half will combine improved access to land parcels with improvements to safety

and mobility.

Map ES1 Draft Implementation Plan: Dallas and Kaufman Counties

XIV

Map ES.2 Draft Implementation Plan: Van Zandt County

XV

Map ES.3 Draft Implementation Plan: Smith County

XVI

Map ES.4 Draft Implementation Plan: Gregg County

XVII

Map ES.5 Draft Implementation Plan: Harrison County

XVIII

Summary of Second Public Outreach


DRAFT

I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Update 2

Public Involvement Update

1. Activities

Following the development of a preliminary program of improvement projects for the I-20

East Texas Corridor, the Advisory Committee reviewed the plan and offered comments at a

meeting held in Balch Springs on September 10, 2014. After that meeting, the Advisory

Committee comments were incorporated into the preliminary program to create a Draft

implementation plan for members to share with their constituents. The second phase of

public outreach included public presentations performed by Advisory Members throughout

the corridor as well as a virtual meeting created to provide access to the draft

implementation plan for the I-20 Corridor. Presentations focused on improvement projects

selected as priorities in the corridor including near-, mid- and long-term projects.

Advisory Committee Public Outreach

I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Advisory Committee members were asked to create public

outreach opportunities in their own communities with possible suggestions of social media

posts, website links and community presentations. Members submitted an activity form to

the study team that documented individual events.

Members submitted activity forms for six (6) events held during the second phase of public

involvement between Sept. 11 and Nov. 7, 2014, reaching out to over 3,056 local residents.

Information was shared with local organizations, city council meetings and metropolitan

planning organization (MPO) meetings. A brief summary is provided below:

Member Activity Forms Returned Total Audience Reach

Longview MPO 4 3,047*

Tyler MPO 1 9

Lindale City Council 1 12

*Longview MPO included information about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study in two email

blasts.


Virtual Open House

In addition to public

outreach efforts

conducted by advisory

committee members,

TxDOT hosted a virtual

open house online to

increase participation of

both citizens and corridor

users. The virtual open

house was hosted through

Survey Monkey and

included slides from the

community presentations

used by Advisory

Committee members.

This presentation included

project information, status

updates and proposed

projects included in the draft plan. Maps and illustrations were used throughout the virtual

open house, and opportunities to comment were available after each set of county-specific

slides.

A video was also produced of the community presentation including a voiced narrative of the

presentation. This video was uploaded to YouTube.

These internet based opportunities were publicized on various social media sites, and

created a number of additional interactions as detailed below:

Outreach Activity Availability Number of Participants

Virtual Open House Oct. 17 – Nov. 7, 2014 53

Video Presentation Oct. 20 – Nov. 7, 2014 138

Figure 1. Virtual Open House Video Presentation


Local Materials Distribution

I-20 East Texas Corridor Study materials including project overview fact sheets, county-

specific fact sheets with proposed project lists and maps, comment cards as well as pre-

addressed and stamped envelopes were made available at seven (7) locations throughout

the corridor during this same time period. Their availability was advertised in a press

release issued by TxDOT on Friday, Oct. 17.

Location County Availability

Texas Travel Information Center Harrison As of Oct. 17

Longview Convention and Visitors Bureau Gregg As of Oct. 17

Gateway Travel Plaza Gregg As of Oct. 17

Tyler State Park Smith As of Oct. 17

Tyler Chamber of Commerce Smith As of Oct. 17

Canton Visitors Bureau Van Zandt As of Oct. 17

Terrell Chamber of Commerce Kaufman As of Oct. 17

2. Public Comments

To ensure stakeholders were able to submit their opinions on the study, comments could be

provided via the project website, Facebook, Twitter, email, mail, or at public meetings.

All of the public comments received during the second phase of public outreach for the

study were compiled and managed in a tracking database. Comments received between

September 1, 2014 and November 7, 2014 are summarized below:

Method Comment was Received Number of Comments

Web-based 12

Mailed-in 0

Turned in at public outreach events 3


Virtual meeting comments 121

Total Comments Received 27

3. Summary

Comments were received from stakeholders in 12 counties and the study team prioritized

the following up to three themes per county:

Angelina County (One comment received)

– Additional non-truck lanes

– Increased speed limit

Dallas County (Two comments received)

– Room for future high-speed rail

– Prioritize frontage road needs based on population

Denton County (Two comments received)

– Additional lanes in each direction

– Increased speed limit between Longview and the State line

Ellis County (One comment received)


– Additional night time reflective lane markers

Fannin County (One comment received)

– High-speed rail

– Toll express lanes with exits every 30 miles

1 Open commentary was optional when responding to the survey associated with the virtual meeting.


Gregg County (One comment received)

– Focus on safety/interchange improvements before clearance

Harrison County (One comment received)

– Road repair needed (potholes)

Kaufman County (One comment received)

– Avoid frontage roads in FEMA floodplains

Parker County (One comment received)


Smith County (Two comments received)



Tarrant County (Two comments received)


– Restrict truck traffic from left lane

– Median safety

Wise County (One comment received)

– Addition of one non-tolled lane in each direction from State line to Terrell

To view all comments received, please see Attachment 1.

Update created by:

K Strategies Group

214.599.9766

www.kstrategies.com

[email protected]

http://www.kstrategies.com/

mailto:[email protected]

I-20 East Texas Corridor Study December 2, 2014

I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW

Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg, and Harrison Counties

December 2, 2014


AGENDA

2

Welcome and Purpose of Meeting

Roll Call

Review of Executive Summary

Draft Implementation Plan

Next Steps

Comments Due By COB December 9, 2014

Commission Meeting in Austin December 18, 2014

1

2

3

4

5

a.

b.


I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee

3

Organization Member

Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins

Gregg County Judge Bill Stoudt (Chair)

Harrison County Judge Hugh Taylor

Kaufman County Judge Bruce Wood

Smith County Judge Joel Baker

Van Zandt County Judge Rhita Koches / Commissioner

Virgil Melton Jr.

City of Balch Springs Honorable Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon

City of Canton Honorable Mayor Richard W. Lawrence

City of Forney Honorable Mayor Darren Rozzell

City of Lindale Honorable Mayor Robert Nelson

City of Longview Honorable Mayor Jay Dean

Organization Member

City of Marshall Honorable Mayor Ed Smith

City of Mesquite Honorable Mayor John Monaco

City of Seagoville Honorable Mayor Harold Magill

City of Terrell Honorable Mayor Hal Richards

City of Tyler Honorable Mayor Martin Heines

DART Gary C. Thomas

NCTCOG Michael Morris

NETRMA Linda Ryan Thomas / Celia Boswell

Longview MPO Karen Owen

Tyler MPO Heather Nick

DART = Dallas Area Rapid Transit

NCTCOG = North Central Texas Council of Governments

NETRMA = North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority

MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization


I-20 SUMMARY

Major improvements are needed on I-20

to improve safety, to protect the

investment made in the existing facility,

and to maintain or enhance the ability

to move people and goods.

4


I-20 East Texas Corridor Study – Draft Implementation Plan

5

Programmatic Recommendations:

Modernize ramp designs

Pursue vertical clearance of 18’ (minimum, but 23 ‘ is

desired to accommodate potential high speed passenger

rail and oversized/overweight trucks)

Consider pavement rehabilitation (depending on

pavement study recommendations)

Construct additional lanes for maintenance of traffic

during other major improvements, as well as safety and

capacity

Construct one-way frontage roads identified by local

officials

Consider partnering with bus service provider(s) to initiate

intercity express bus service

Further consider potential future passenger rail service

throughout the project development process to include

consideration of right-of-way, design, and innovative

financing opportunities

YEAR 2015 to 2040 IMPROVEMENTS


Proposed Improvements By Time Period and Cost

Near-Term

(2015-2020)

Mid-Term

(2021-2030)

Long-Term

(2031-2040) Total

Miles of Added Median Barrier

6 - - 6

# of Bridge Modifications 16 - - 16

# of Ramp/Interchange Improvements

5 21 9 35

Miles of Frontage Road Improvements

12 49 38 99

Miles of Additional Capacity - 65 25 90

Preliminary Cost Estimate (2014$

Millions)* $220 $800 $390 $1,410

* Does not include full depth pavement reconstruction

Implementation Plan Summary


I-20 East Texas Corridor – Implementation Plan Improvement Potential

7

Interchange Improvements By Term


DALLAS AND KAUFMAN COUNTIES

8


VAN ZANDT COUNTY

9


SMITH COUNTY

10


GREGG COUNTY

11


HARRISON COUNTY

12


NEXT STEPS

Need Committee comments on Executive Summary by COB Tuesday

December 9, 2014 (send to Roger Beall).

A Draft Report (116 pages and climbing that provides additional information

on the material summarized in the Executive Summary) can be made

available if desired.

All members are invited to attend Commission meeting in Austin on

December 18, 2014.

Hope to initiate Near Term Projects beginning next year.

Anticipate some discussion with Legislature to close funding gap on this and

other projects during the 2015 Session.

13


Questions and Comments

Contact:

Roger Beall, P.E.

Corridor Planning Branch Manager,

Transportation Planning and Programming Division,

E-mail: [email protected]

Phone: 512-486-5154

14


I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting September 10, 2014 1 of 5

I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting

Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 10 a.m. Balch Springs Civic Center, Balch Springs, Texas

DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY

Name Organization

Members Present

Lauren Trimble (alternate for Judge Clay Jenkins) Dallas County


Commissioner Virgil Milton Jr. (alternate for Judge Rhita Koches)

Van Zandt County

Judge Joel Baker* Smith County



Mayor John Monaco City of Mesquite


Mike Sims (alternate for Mayor Hal Richards) City of Terrell

Mayor Martin Heines City of Tyler

Michael Morris NCTCOG

Michael Miles (alternate for Gary C. Thomas) DART


Heather Nick* Tyler MPO

Karen Owen Longview MPO

Craig Lindholm (alternate for Mayor Robert Nelson) City of Lindale

Members Not Present




Mayor Richard Lawrence City of Canton



*Joined the meeting via conference call To view the complete meeting sign‐in sheets, see Attachment 1.

Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) discuss the outcomes of the June Advisory Committee meeting, review information on the Amtrak study, potential for alternate transportation options along the corridor, and committee input received in June; 2) review the draft implementation plan for the corridor including near (2015‐2020), mid (2021‐2030) and long term (2031‐2040)recommended projects; 3) review the initial public outreach update report; 4) plan for public outreach activities for the draft study; 5) and discuss next steps in the study process. PowerPoint presentations and exhibits were utilized to provide an overview of aforementioned items during the meeting. The agenda, presentations and exhibits are included as Attachment 2. Open House: The Advisory Committee meeting began with an open house featuring exhibits focusing on the following topics:

General corridor maps including planned/programmed improvement projects.


Proposed projects implementation programing maps.

Traffic, freight traffic volumes and level of service both existing and future.

Safety factors including existing frontage roads, vertical clearances and median barriers.

Crash hotspot analysis.

Weather‐related crash analysis.

Design‐centric interchange analysis results.

Timeline of proposed activities for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study.

Mission Statement for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee.

Examples of public outreach materials used on other TxDOT projects such as I‐69 and My35. Welcome/Introductions: Advisory Committee Chairman Judge Bill Stoudt (Gregg County) welcomed attendees to the meeting and thanked Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon, for hosting the meeting at the Balch Springs Civic Center. James Koch (TxDOT), acting as the Advisory Committee Facilitator, then asked committee members to introduce themselves. Commissioner Jeff Austin III (Texas Transportation Commission) addressed the Advisory Committee through conference call to remind committee members of the importance of this study and thank them for participating and for their valued input in the corridor study process. Safety Briefing: James Koch provided a safety briefing for all meeting attendees highlighting evacuation routes from the building and locations of restrooms, fire extinguishers, and tornado shelter areas within the facility. June Draft Meeting Summary Review: James Koch asked members to briefly review the June draft meeting summary report provided along with their meeting documentation. Included within the meeting summary was a status update on public outreach efforts, results for TxDOT’s recent Amtrak feasibility study, a presentation on emerging technologies in transportation, a briefing of the meeting between North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), Kaufman County and Dallas County on current and future projects, and the project prioritization exercise used during the Committee’s last meeting. Mr. Koch then asked if any of the members had any additional comments on the meeting summary. Michael Morris (NCTCOG) further explained that NCTCOG completed a draft report to provide an example to Dallas and Kaufman counties as to how one can start identifying needs and resources including safety programs. He also provided two handouts showing information reviewed with NCTCOG by Kaufman County and Dallas County, including City of Balch Springs. Michael emphasized that the next step in the process would be to set up a meeting with the TxDOT Dallas District to discuss some alternative funding options including the possibility of using local funds. He also mentioned that although planning is critical, early successes are equally critical to get the public on‐board and show forward momentum. He suggested that the Advisory Committee plan to focus on outcomes to lead to opportunities along the whole corridor. Funding options such as Proposition 1 could provide an opportunity to continue to create partnerships between TxDOT, local MPOs, cities and counties to come up with creative funding solutions.


Advisory Committee Interest in Non‐Highway Modes: Michael Sexton (Jacobs) reviewed with the committee members the outcomes of the East Texas Amtrak Passenger Rail Study, including background on the study and feasibility options. He then recapped information on the revenue and operations costs, including projected yearly ridership, revenue, operation costs and needed subsidy to provide the service. The cost of the capitalization and infrastructure needed to make this route feasible was also discussed. Based on this study, Michael explained that the needed subsidy to make this Amtrak line feasible would be between $8 and $10 million per year. Michael then emphasized since the Amtrak option may not be a feasible option due to the cost that it was important for committee members to consider other transportation options such as improved bus service like they had discussed in June. He also encouraged members to think of “last‐mile connections” like rental cars, local bus services, ride shares, cars‐to‐go, and similar options. Through the use of multiple modes of transportation, the corridor can provide passenger service options. Draft Implementation Plan: Michael Sexton (Jacobs) continued on with a presentation covering the corridor study’s draft implementation plan including near, mid and long term recommendations. He highlighted that this plan would cost approximately $100 million per year. Near‐term recommendations (2015 to 2020) included a focus on safety including filling in gaps in Dallas District where median barrier treatments do not exist, helping to avoid head‐on crashes. He explained that median safety measures have already been implemented in Tyler District (Van Zandt, Smith and Gregg Counties) and Atlanta District (Harrison County). In addition to safety measures, the near term recommendations include ramp improvements, missing frontage roads sections prioritized by Committee members and improving the vertical clearance of several overpasses. This first phase of recommendations would cost about $100 million to implement. Mid‐term recommendations (2021 to 2030) included addition of one lane of traffic in each direction in Kaufman and Gregg counties, construction of additional frontage roads in Smith, Gregg and Harrison counties and continued improvements of ramps and interchanges. Long term recommendations, spanning from 2031 to 2040, include addition of one lane of traffic in each direction in Smith County, construction of additional frontage roads in Gregg and Harrison counties and continued ramp improvements. Not included in these recommendations was the cost for rehabilitation of existing pavement along the corridor. According to the TxDOT districts, the majority of the pavement has been in use since 1967 with moderate improvements and is reaching the end of its useful life. Particular wear and tear has come from heavy truck traffic along the corridor. Michael explained that in order to replace the pavement, additional lanes would have to be added to accommodate vehicle traffic during the replacement period. He added that it would cost approximately $1.3 billion to replace all of the pavement on I‐20, making this the largest portion of the


implementation plan. Additionally, $1.3 billion has been identified for ramp improvements, vertical clearance improvements, frontage roads, and added capacity. Needed improvements have been estimated at an overall $2.6 billion. Mr. Sexton pointed out that a goal of $100 million a year in available expenditure was an aggressive goal, as I‐20 makes up only 5% of the interstate mileage in the State of Texas. Michael then opened the floor to any comments from Advisory Committee members. James Koch reminded members of a point that Michael Morris had made earlier in the meeting regarding the importance of coming up with a plan including short term objectives than can be completed quickly to show progress, while still having an overarching plan for the whole area. He also mentioned that Committee members needed to understand that some of these projects may have to wait their turn to receive funding. Michael Morris (NCTCOG) mentioned the need to think collectively as a Committee on financing options. He pointed out that not all of the cities and counties along the corridor are equally able to leverage funds, but that all of the cities and counties are Texas first, city second. He mentioned an action plan focused on outcomes instead of the planning process could be beneficial for the Committee. He also mentioned the importance of working collectively as a team to come up with funding options so as to see action more quickly on some of the near term recommendations. Committee members agreed on the importance of showing progress as soon as possible to help generate public support and media attention. It was mentioned that Committee members should reach out to the casinos in Shreveport to see if they would chip in to the improvement of the highway providing them access. Public Outreach: Susan Howard (TxDOT) presented the Initial Public Involvement Update to the Committee. The report, included in their packets, contained the results of the public outreach efforts conducted from April to June 2014 as part of the initial public communication effort. The report also included a summary of the most frequent comments received per county as well as the geographical origin and total number of all activity reports received to date. In preparation for the next phase of public involvement, Susan went through a list of other ways to conduct public outreach outside of a traditional public meeting. She provided each of the members with a calendar of upcoming events in their communities that could offer a potential to host a table or information booth at an already established event. In addition to hosting non‐traditional meetings, Susan mentioned the possibility of hosting a virtual open house to allow for extended periods of public comment. Members were also asked to let the study staff know of any needs they may have for project information materials. As a result, the necessity for more locally tailored materials was expressed by Committee members. They also mentioned liking the idea of a virtual public meeting that could be shared via social media outlets.


Next Steps: James Koch asked members to review the information in the draft implementation plan and return comments by September 17th to the study staff. He then opened the floor for any additional comments. A Committee member mentioned the need to accommodate for future rail in considerations like bridge heights and available right of way even if passenger rail is not feasible at this time. Another committee member mentioned the need to approach Greyhound or other “last‐mile connections” providers as a unified voice to ask for improved service in the corridor. Caroline Love (TxDOT) mentioned that the final I‐20 East Texas Study report will be presented to the Texas Transportation Commission at 9 a.m. on December 18th, if any of the members would like to join. James Koch asked for members to wrap up all public outreach efforts by November 7th to allow time for public input to be added into the final report. Susan Howard mentioned that members should keep the study staff informed of any public outreach efforts or needed materials. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:

Send follow‐up email to Committee members regarding public outreach needs and materials

Create county‐specific fact sheets and exhibits.

Research option of virtual meeting Attachments:

1. Advisory Committee Sign‐In Sheets 2. Meeting Agenda and Presentations 3. Draft Implementation Plan 4. Initial Public Involvement Update 5. Updated Public Involvement Materials 6. Public Involvement Opportunities Calendar 7. NCTCOG I‐20 Transportation Focus Handout

Meeting Staff: James Koch, Caroline Love, Susan Howard, Roger Beall, Cary Karnstadt, Lindsey Kimmitt (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia, Nair Barrios (Jacobs) Aimee Vance and Jenny Paredes (K Strategies)

Attachment 1 Advisory Committee Meeting Sign‐In

Sheets

Attachment 2 Meeting Agenda and

Presentation

I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee September 10, 2014 10:00 am

Balch Springs Civic Center

12400 Elam Rd, Balch Springs, TX 75180

Call‐in: 866‐637‐1408 Conference Code: 312 746 6422#

WebEx: https://jacobs.webex.com/jacobs/j.php?J=637528872&PW=NMzMxNDhjYzk1

WebEx Password: I20EastTexas

Meeting #6 – Agenda

9:45 ‐ 10:00 am Registration and Open House

10:00 ‐ 10:10 am Welcome, Introductions Judge Stoudt

Safety Briefing James Koch

10:10 ‐ 10:20 am June Draft Meeting Summary Review James Koch

10:20 ‐ 10:45 am Advisory Committee Interest in Non‐Highway Mode Michael Sexton

TxDOT Findings on Passenger Rail

Review of Alternate Service Potentials

Committee Discussion/Input

10:45 ‐ 11:45 am Draft Corridor Plan Review Michael Sexton

11:45 ‐ 12:30 pm Lunch

12:30 ‐ 1:00 pm Initial Public Outreach Draft Report Review Susan Howard

1:00 ‐ 1:30 pm Preparation for Draft Plan Public Outreach Susan Howard

1:30 ‐ 1:45 pm Wrap‐up and Next Steps James Koch

1:45 pm Adjourn

9/11/2014

1

I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014

I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEEMeeting #6

September 10, 2014


Table of Contents

2

20

25

29

Draft Implementation Plan Review

Initial Public Outreach Draft Report Review

Draft Plan Public Outreach Preparation

22

33

44

34Questions55

3Non-Highway Mode Opportunities11

9/11/2014

2

I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting – September 10, 2014 3

Non-Highway Mode Opportunities



4

East Texas Passenger Rail Feasibility Study

9/11/2014

3



5


Study OptionsOne Round Trip

/DayTwo Round Trips/

Day

Estimated Ridership 94,000 124,000

Revenue $ 1,327,000 $ 1,750,000

Revenue (Per Passenger) $ 14 $ 14

Operating Costs (Total) $ 9,595,000 $ 15,298,000

Operating Costs (Per Passenger) $ 102 $ 123

Capitalization and Infrastructure Costs

$ 67, 300, 000 $ 89, 400,000

Subsidy (Total) $ 8,268,000 $ 13,548,000

Subsidy (Per Passenger) $ 88 $ 109



6


$- $50 $100 $150

1

2

$14.1

$14.1

$88.0

$109.3

Cost Per Rider

Nu

mb

er o

f R

ou

nd

Tri

ps

Revenue and Subsidy per Passenger

Revenue Per Rider

Subsidy Per Rider

9/11/2014

4


Potential Passenger Service Operational Changes



0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

1-Jan-14 1-Feb-14 1-Mar-14 1-Apr-14 1-May-14 1-Jun-14 1-Jul-14

Trav

el T

ime

(Ho

urs

)

Greyhound

Existing Greyhound Travel Times

Dal

las

Mes

qu

ite

Terr

ell

Tyle

r

Kilg

ore

Lo

ng

view

Ma

rsh

all

Sh

reve

po

rt


9/11/2014

5


0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00


Trav

el T

ime

(Ho

urs

)Greyhound

Amtrak

Existing Greyhound and Amtrak Travel Times

Dal

las

Mes

qu

ite

Terr

ell

Tyle

r

Kilg

ore

Lo

ng

view

Ma

rsh

all

Sh

reve

po

rt



0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00


Trav

el T

ime

(Ho

urs

)

Greyhound

Amtrak

Potential Express

Travel Time Comparison with Passenger Service Operation Improvements

Dal

las

Mes

qu

ite

Terr

ell

Tyle

r

Kilg

ore

Lo

ng

view

Ma

rsh

all

Sh

reve

po

rt

> 1 hour


9/11/2014

6


“Last Mile” Connections

11



I-20 Freeway Corridor

Art

eria

l Str

eet

Collector/Local Street


9/11/2014

7



Art

eria

l Str

eet


City Center

InterchangeArea



According to a TTI report, half of Megabus riders are college students and young professionals between 18 and 30 years old. Minimal terminal infrastructure – usually just a parking lot.

Greyhound currently operates both traditional

and express services along I-20, and receives limited federal subsidies

to maintain lower-density routes

Intercity Bus Service

9/11/2014

8


More than 300 vehicles available in Austin

Vehicles available in:• Austin• Dallas• Fort Worth• Houston• San Antonio• San Marcos• Waco

Car Sharing


Peer-to-Peer Car & Ride Sharing

9/11/2014

9


B-Cycle – Available in 22 cities including Austin, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio

Social Bicycles – Available in 9 North American cities

Scoot – Available in San Francisco

Bike Sharing


Transit Planning Technology

9/11/2014

10


Committee Discussion about Community Desires



Draft Implementation Plan Review

9/11/2014

11


Draft Plan : Recommended Near-Term Program


Draft Plan : Recommended Mid-Term Program

9/11/2014

12


Draft Plan : Recommended Long-Term Program


Draft Plan : Recommended Implementation Program

24

9/11/2014

13


Initial Public Outreach Draft Report Review


Initial Public Outreach Update

26


Web-based 64

Mailed-In 7

Online Survey 144


9/11/2014

14


Most Common Responses by County

27

c

c

c c

c c


Activity Reports

28

Member Activity Forms Returned

Total Audience Reach

Balch Springs 5 153

Gregg County 1 N/A(newspaper article)

Harrison County 5 104

Longview MPO 5 61

Smith County 1 30

Tyler MPO 4 79

9/11/2014

15


Draft Plan Public Outreach Preparation


Outreach Materials

9/11/2014

16


VIRTUAL OPEN HOUSE

Sample Outreach Methods

OPEN HOUSE AT THE MALL


STORE FRONT “MEET & GREET”

• Tailgate Party• Booth at Local Events/Festivals• City Council/Commissioner’s Court/MPO Meetings

Sample Outreach Methods

9/11/2014

17


Public Outreach Opportunities

33

Dallas County Kaufman County Van Zandt County

Smith County Gregg County Harrison County

Third Annual Downtown Street Dance

Sept. 20

Pumpkin Fest Oct. 18

Flights of our Fathers Fly-In

Sept. 20

Halloween Festival and Thrillvania

Weekends in October

First Monday Trade Days

Oct. 2 - 5

Oct. 30 - Nov. 2

Nov. 27-30

East Texas State Fair

Sept. 19-28

Rose Festival Oct. 16-19

Harvest Festival and Livestock Show

Oct. 23-25Marshall Music Festival

Sept. 12-20


Questions?

34

Attachment 3 Draft Implementation

Plan

I-20 East Texas Corridor

DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (September 2, 2014)

The Draft Implementation Plan for I-20 East Texas Corridor is based on several factors, including:

• Advisory Committee Feedback: The Advisory Committee provided feedback on overall priorities (add capacity, add/improve frontage roads, improve ramps/interchanges, etc.) as well as specific project priorities during the June 2014 meeting in Tyler.

• Public Input: The public provided input by e-mail, mailed letters, as well as comments during the public input survey period.

• Needs Assessment: Technical analyses were performed on elements along the corridor, including traffic demands, crash histories, vertical clearance standards, interchange designs, bridge conditions, and pavement deficiencies.

The Draft Plan provides programmatic recommendations along I-20 corridor, as well as project level recommendations categorized into Near-Term (2015-2020), Mid-Term (2021-2030), and Long Term (2031-2040) phases.

Programmatic Recommendations: • Modernize ramp designs to serve increasing traffic demands and improve safety. • Pursue vertical clearance of 18’ for underpasses along I-20, primarily improving

clearance when making other required improvements along I-20 and crossing facilities (preliminary cost estimate – varies by location)

• Full-depth reconstruction of pavement along I-20 that has been in use for almost 50 years (preliminary cost estimate for entire corridor up to $1.3 billion).

• Construction of additional lanes to permit the maintenance of traffic during other major improvements, to reduce crash frequencies, and to alleviate future congestion.

• Construction of one-way frontage roads in areas identified by local officials.

Project Level Recommendations: The project level recommendations are shown graphically in the attached maps. The table lists projects categorized into near-term, mid-term, and long-term, and includes project details of improvement type, location, and preliminary cost estimate.

Near-Term Mid-Term Long-Term Total # of Bridge Modifications 16 - - 16 # of Ramp/Interchange Improvements 5 21 9 35 Miles of Frontage Road Improvements 12 49 38 99 Miles of Additional Capacity - 65 25 90 Preliminary Cost Estimate (2014$ Millions)* $102.3 $768.2 $390.3 $1,260.8 * Does not include full depth pavement reconstruction

$726,770,000

$482,670,000

$51,311,660

$1,281,600,000

Additional Capacity

Frontage Roads

Bridge, Ramp, and InterchangeImprovements

Pavement Rehabillitation

I‐20 PROGRAM ELEMENTS ( 2014 Dollars)

!(!(

!(!(!(

#*

#*

§̈¦20

§̈¦635

D A L L A S K A U F M A NTC-4 TC-5

TC-6

TC-7

AE-1 AF-1 AF-2AF-4

AB-1

TJ-10TJ-8

£¤175

£¤80

UV352

UV87

UV352

UV205 UV34

UV557

UV34

598

3039

740

9861392

688

1389

2728

429

2965

2932

2757

2728

2727

548

1641

987

740

2728

2578

741

429

148

TB-2

TD-1

AF-13AD-3

AD-2

PostOak Bend

Talty

TerrellBalch

Springs

Seagoville

Sunnyvale

Dallas

Mesquite

HutchinsWilmer

Forney

Combine

Crandall OakRidge

UP

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !(!( !( !(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

SH 42

TYLER

49

29,000(37%)

TC-8

TB-8 AF-7

TC-20

TD-2

TB-7

TB-6

TD-6 AF-6

TI-9

TC-16TC-17

TI-11

TD-12

TB-1

TA-2

TJ-9

TJ-11

TJ-12

TD-4TJ-13

TD-5TJ-13

TI-10TJ-6

TA-1

TB-3

TB-4

TB-5

TD-12 TB-9

TC-7

TD-3

TD-7

TD-8

TD-9 TD-10 TD-11

1861316

3270

1801

16B

2908773

3271

3311

2422

3056

16

778

2911

2015

857

724

1801

1504

757

90

279

857

10021795

858

1805

849

1653

1255

1404

1652

2869

2659

859

16

3227

1804

2015

1252

314

2909

2710

16

858

1995

1253

773

17

1255

1651

47

14

16

UV564

UV155

UV155

UV243

UV198

UV19 UV64 UV110

£¤271

£¤69

£¤80

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

BigSandy

Mineola

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Gladewater

V A NV A NZ A N D TZ A N D T

S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

!(!( !( !( !( !( !(

!(!(

#*

#*#*

T EX

AS

T EX

AS

L OU

SI A

NA

L OU

SI A

NA

LO

UI S

I AN

AT E

XA

ST E

XA

S

TC-21 TC-22 TC-23 TC-24

TC-25

TG-10TG-11

TG-12

AF-8

AF-10AF-11 AF-12

349

2087

2011

3053

2276

2983

UV149

UV31 UV322

£¤259

§̈¦20

T EX

AS

T EX

AS

349

2087

2011

3053

2276

2983

UV149

UV31 UV322

£¤259

§̈¦20

T EX

AS

T EX

AS

1998

450

2275

9

134

2199

2208

9

1845

449

3272

16

2605

28792685

3379

1997

UV281UV300 UV502

UV63

UV43

UV390

UV485

UV390

UV154

£¤80

£¤271

£¤259

£¤80

§̈¦20

TG-7

TG-14AF-9

TJ-1 TJ-3

TJ-7 TJ-2

TJ-15

TJ-4

TJ-16TJ-17

TG-7TG-8 TG-9

TD-15TI-16

§̈¦369*

£¤80

£¤259

£¤80

UV322

UV156

UV322UV31

UV149

UV31

UV42UV135

2963

1844

2205

451

2276

16

3053

2011

2207

9

134

9

349

968

1252

£¤259G

TD-10 TD-10 TD-14

TC-20

TI-3 AD-2

1997

451

2983

3379

2276

26852879

2605

16 968

3053

3272

2011

2206

3251

449

1845

2087

2207

92208

2199

134

9

2275

450

349

1998

31968

1252

2625

UV154

UV322

UV390

UV485

UV390

UV31

UV43

UV63

UV149

UV502UV300

UV31UV42UV135

UV43

UV281

£¤80

£¤259

£¤259

£¤59

£¤271

£¤80

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

H A R R I S O NH A R R I S O NG R E G GG R E G GS M I T HS M I T H

Marshall

UnionGrove

Kilgore

HallsvilleWaskom

LongviewWhiteOak

Scottsville

LakeportEaston

GladewaterClarksville

City

WarrenCity

UP

SEPC

UPBNSF

UP

UP

WEST

CENTRAL

EAST

0 5 102.5Miles

Date: 9/2/2014

¯DRAFT

§̈¦20

RecommendedProgram

(2015 - 2040)

TC-34TC-33

* I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Working Group Interstate Route Option Preliminary Recommendation ( August 2014 )Potential Interstate route option location is based on a high level planning study and is for il lustrative purposes only. Exact location and configuration will be determined during the environmental process.

I -20 Corridor

Railroads

I-20 Study Area Counties

!( Long Term Ramp Improvement

!( Near Term Ramp Improvement

!( Mid Term Ramp Rehabilitation

Near Term Vertical Clearance Adjustment

Near Term Proposed Frontage Roads

Mid Term Proposed Frontage Roads

Long Term Proposed Frontage Roads

Mid Term Addition of Capacity

Long Term Addition of Capacity

#* Near Term Bridge Replacement

Near Term Median Barrier Installation

!(#*§̈¦20

§̈¦635

D A L L A S K A U F M A N

TJ-8TJ-10AF-2

£¤175

£¤80

UV352

UV87

UV352

UV205 UV34

UV557

UV34

598

3039

740

9861392

688

1389

2728

429

2965

2932

2757

2728

2727

548

1641

987

740

2728

2578

741

429

148

AE-1 AF-1AF-4 AB-1

AD-1

PostOak Bend

Talty

TerrellBalch

Springs

Seagoville

Sunnyvale

Dallas

Mesquite

HutchinsWilmer

Forney

Combine

Crandall OakRidge

UP

!(

!(

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

TYLER

49

29,000(37%)

TJ-9

TJ-13

TJ-13

TJ-6

TB-1

TJ-11

TA-2

TJ-12

1861316

3270

1801

16B

2908773

3271

3311

2422

3056

16

778

2911

2015

857

724

1801

1504

757

90

279

857

10021795

858

1805

849

1653

1255

1404

1652

2869

2659

859

16

3227

1804

2015

1252

314

2909

2710

16

858

1995

1253

773

17

1255

1651

47

14

16

UV564

UV155

UV155

UV243

UV198

UV19

UV64

UV110

£¤271

£¤69

£¤80§̈¦20

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

BigSandy

Mineola

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Gladewater


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

!(#*

#*#*

T EX

AS

T EX

AS

L OU

SI A

NA

L OU

SI A

NA

LO

UI S

I AN

AT E

XA

ST E

XA

S

TJ-2

TJ-15

TJ-4

TJ-16 TJ-17

TI-16

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

£¤80

£¤259

£¤259

£¤59

£¤271

£¤80

UV322

UV156

UV154

UV322

UV390

UV485

UV390

UV31

UV43

UV63

UV149

UV502UV300

UV31

UV42UV135

UV43

UV281

2963

1844

2205

1997

451

2983

3379

2276

26852879

2605

16

968

3053

3272

2011

2206

3251

449

1845

2087

2207

9

2208

2199

134

9

2275

450

349

1998

31

968

1252

2625

£¤259G

TJ-1

TJ-7

TJ-3


Marshall

UnionGrove

Kilgore

Hallsville

Waskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

LakeportEaston


City

WarrenCity

UP

SEPC

BNSF

UP

UP

WEST

CENTRAL

EAST

0 5 102.5Miles

Date: 9/2/2014

¯

#* Bridge Replacement

!( Ramp Improvement

Vertical Clearance Adjustment

Proposed Frontage Roads

Addition of Capacity

Median Barrier Installation

I -20 Corridor

Railroads


Recommended Near-Term Program

(2015 - 2020)

§̈¦20 DRAFT

!(!(

!(!(

!(§̈¦20

§̈¦635

D A L L A S K A U F M A NTC-4 TC-5

TC-6

TC-7

£¤175

£¤80

UV352

UV87

UV352

UV205 UV34

UV557

UV34

598

3039

740

9861392

688

1389

2728

429

2965

2932

2757

2728

2727

548

1641

987

740

2728

2578

741

429

148

TB-2

TD-1

AF-13AD-3

AD-2

PostOak Bend

Talty

TerrellBalch

Springs

Seagoville

Sunnyvale

Dallas

Mesquite

HutchinsWilmer

Forney

Combine

Crandall OakRidge

UP

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!( !(!( !( !(

!(

!(!(!(

49

29,000(37%)

TC-8

TB-8 AF-7

TC-20

TA-1

TB-3

TB-4

TB-5

TD-12 TB-9

TC-7

TD-3

TD-7

TD-8

TD-9 TD-10 TD-11

1861316

3270

1801

16B

2908773

3271

3311

2422

3056

16

778

2911

2015

857

724

1801

1504

757

90

279

857

10021795

858

1805

849

1653

1255

1404

1652

2869

2659

859

16

3227

1804

2015

1252

314

2909

2710

16

858

1995

1253

773

17

1255

1651

47

14

16

UV564

UV155

UV155

UV243

UV198

UV19 UV64 UV110

£¤271

£¤69

£¤80

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

BigSandy

Mineola

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Gladewater


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

!( !( !( !( !( !(!(

T EX

AS

T EX

AS

L OU

SI A

NA

L OU

SI A

NA

LO

UI S

I AN

AT E

XA

ST E

XA

S

TJ-2TC-21 TC-22 TC-23

TC-24

TC-25

TG-10TG-11

TG-12

AF-8

AF-10 AF-11 AF-12§̈¦369*

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

£¤80

£¤259

£¤259

£¤59

£¤271

£¤80

UV322

UV156

UV154

UV322

UV390

UV485

UV390

UV31

UV43

UV63

UV149

UV502UV300

UV31

UV42UV135

UV43

UV281

2963

1844

2205

1997

451

2983

3379

2276

26852879

2605

16

968

3053

3272

2011

2206

3251

449

1845

2087

2207

9

2208

2199

134

9

2275

450

349

1998

31

968

1252

2625

£¤259G

TD-10 TD-10 TD-14

TC-20

TI-3 AD-2


Marshall

UnionGrove

Kilgore

Hallsville

Waskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

LakeportEaston


City

WarrenCity

UP

SEPC

BNSF

UP

UP

WEST

CENTRAL

EAST

0 5 102.5Miles

Date: 9/2/2014

¯DRAFT§̈¦20

Recommended Mid-Term Program

(2021 - 2030)

* I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Working Group Interstate Route Option Preliminary Recommendation ( August 2014 )Potential Interstate route option location is based on a high level planning study and is for il lustrative purposes only. Exact location and configuration will be determined during the environmental process.


!( Ramp Rehabilitation

Vertical Clearance


I -20 Corridor

Railroads



§̈¦20

§̈¦635

D A L L A S K A U F M A N£¤175

£¤80

UV352

UV87

UV352

UV205 UV34

UV557

UV34

598

3039

740

9861392

688

1389

2728

429

2965

2932

2757

2728

2727

548

1641

987

740

2728

2578

741

429

148

PostOak Bend

Talty

TerrellBalch

Springs

Seagoville

Sunnyvale

Dallas

Mesquite

HutchinsWilmer

Forney

Combine

Crandall OakRidge

UP

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(49

29,000(37%)

TI-9

TI-10TC-17

TC-18 TC-19

AF-6

TB-6

TB-7

TD-2

TD-4

TD-5

TD-6

TC-16

TI-11TD-12

1861316

3270

1801

16B

2908773

3271

3311

2422

3056

16

778

2911

2015

857

724

1801

1504

757

90

279

857

10021795

858

1805

849

1653

1255

1404

1652

2869

2659

859

16

3227

1804

2015

1252

314

2909

2710

16

858

1995

1253

773

17

1255

1651

47

14

16

UV564

UV155

UV155

UV243

UV198

UV19 UV64 UV110

£¤271

£¤69

£¤80

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

BigSandy

Mineola

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Gladewater


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

!(!(

T EX

AS

T EX

AS

L OU

SI A

NA

L OU

SI A

NA

LO

UI S

I AN

AT E

XA

ST E

XA

S

TG-8

TG-14AF-9

TC-33

TC-34

§̈¦369*

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

£¤80

£¤259

£¤259

£¤59

£¤271

£¤80

UV322

UV156

UV154

UV322

UV390

UV485

UV390

UV31

UV43

UV63

UV149

UV502UV300

UV31

UV42UV135

UV43

UV281

2963

1844

2205

1997

451

2983

3379

2276

26852879

2605

16

968

3053

3272

2011

2206

3251

449

1845

2087

2207

9

2208

2199

134

9

2275

450

349

1998

31

968

1252

2625

£¤259G

TG-7 TD-15TG-9


Marshall

UnionGrove

Kilgore

Hallsville

Waskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

LakeportEaston


City

WarrenCity

UP

SEPC

BNSF

UP

UP

WEST

CENTRAL

EAST

0 5 102.5Miles

Date: 9/2/2014

¯Recommended

Long-Term Program(2031 - 2040)

§̈¦20 DRAFT* I-69 System (I-369) Harrison County/Marshall Working Group Interstate Route Option Preliminary Recommendation ( August 2014 )Potential Interstate route option location is based on a high level planning study and is for il lustrative purposes only. Exact location and configuration will be determined during the environmental process.


!( Ramp Improvement


I -20 Corridor

Railroads



Vertical Clearance Adjustment

Project ID

Project Description Location / Limits Improvement Type CountyLength (Mi)

Cost Estimate (2014$)

RECOMMENDED NEAR TERM PROGRAM (2015‐2020)AE‐1 Median Barrier I‐635 to Dallas County Line Safety Improvement Dallas 6.0 $4,720,000

AF‐1 Frontage Roads Lawson Road to FM 740 New One‐way Frontage Roads Dallas 4.0 $35,070,000

AF‐2 Frontage Roads FM 740 to FM 741 New One‐way Frontage Roads Dallas 3.9 $18,850,000

AF‐3 Frontage Roads SH 557 to FM 138 New One‐way Frontage Roads, including upgrade existing to one‐way Kaufman 3.7 $24,130,000

AB‐1 Ramp Improvement SH 34 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Kaufman N/A $2,590,000

TJ‐10 Bridge Modifications SH 34 Replace SH 34 SB Underpass Bridge Kaufman N/A $884,520

TJ‐8 Bridge Modifications SH 34 I‐20 West Bound Vertical Clearance Improvement Kaufman N/A $504,000

AD‐1 Ramp Improvement FM 429 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Kaufman N/A $440,000

TJ‐11 Bridge Modifications FM 47 Replace FM 47 Underpass Van Zandt N/A $672,840

TJ‐9 Bridge Modifications FM 859 Vertical Clearance Improvement Van Zandt N/A $1,070,000




TB‐1 Ramp Improvement FM 314 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $460,000

TJ‐6 Bridge Modifications FM 849 Replace FM 849 Underpass Smith N/A $1,510,000

TA‐2 Ramp Improvement US 69 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $320,000

TJ‐1 Bridge Modifications Fritz Swanson Road Vertical Clearance Improvement Gregg N/A $1,180,000

TJ‐3 Bridge Modifications FM 2087 Vertical Clearance Improvement Gregg N/A $1,550,000

TJ‐15 Bridge Modifications MLK Blvd Replace MLK Blvd Underpass Gregg N/A $748,440

TJ‐2 Bridge Modifications MLK Blvd Vertical Clearance Improvement Gregg N/A $1,070,000

TI‐16 Ramp Improvement Loop 281 E Ramp/Interchange Improvements Harrison N/A $308,460

TJ‐7 Bridge Modifications Lansing Switch Road Replace Bridge Harrison N/A $1,320,000

TJ‐16 Bridge Modifications FM 450 Replace FM 450 Underpass Harrison N/A $619,920

TJ‐4 Bridge Modifications FM 450 Vertical Clearance Improvement Harrison N/A $1,170,000

TJ‐17 Bridge Modifications US 59 Vertical Clearance Improvement Harrison N/A $1,070,000

Recommended Near Term Program Sub‐total $102,271,660RECOMMENDED MID TERM PROGRAM (2021‐2030)TC‐3 Added Capacity Dallas County Line to FM 741 Add one‐lane in each direction Kaufman 4.0 $19,610,000

TC‐4 Added Capacity FM 741 to SH 557 Add one‐lane in each direction Kaufman 8.6 $26,580,000

AC‐1 Added Capacity SH 557 to Wilson Road Add one‐lane in each direction Kaufman 4.3 $23,280,000

TC‐5 Added Capacity Wilson Road to FM 310 Add one‐lane in each direction Kaufman 3.7 $31,500,000

TC‐6 Added Capacity FM 310 to Van Zandt County Line Add one‐lane in each direction Kaufman/Van Zandt 6.4 $23,170,000

TC‐7 Added Capacity Van Zandt County Line to FM 47 Add one‐lane in each direction Van Zandt 3.4 $30,540,000

TC‐8 Added Capacity FM 47 to US 64 Add one‐lane in each direction Van Zandt 6.4 $55,240,000

TC‐20 Added Capacity US 271 to Gregg County Line Add one‐lane in each direction Smith 8.7 $74,650,000

TC‐21 Added Capacity Smtih County Line to SH 135 Add one‐lane in each direction Gregg 3.5 $31,300,000

TC‐22 Added Capacity SH 135 to SH 42 Add one‐lane in each direction Gregg 3.7 $31,480,000

TC‐23 Added Capacity SH 42 to FM 2087 Add one‐lane in each direction Gregg 4.3 $29,790,000

TC‐24 Added Capacity FM 2087 to Harrison County Line Add one‐lane in each direction Gregg 5.2 $57,520,000

TC‐25 Added Capacity Gregg County Line to Loop 281 Add one‐lane in each direction Harrison 2.3 $34,120,000

AF‐13 Frontage Roads FM 741 to SH 557 New One‐way Frontage Roads Kaufman 8.6 $49,990,000

I‐20 East Texas Corridor Implementation Plan (DRAFT)September 2, 2014 (version 2)

Page 1 of 3

Project ID




AF‐7 Frontage Roads Toll 49 to US 271 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Smith 18.0 $107,640,000

TG‐10 Frontage Roads FM 2087 to Loop 281W New One‐way Frontage Roads Gregg 4.2 $24,420,000

TG‐11 Frontage Roads Loop 281W to Harrison County Line New One‐way Frontage Roads Gregg 1.0 $5,820,000

TG‐12/A Frontage Roads Gregg County Line to Loop 281 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Harrison 2.3 $29,220,000

AF‐10 Frontage Roads SH 43 to FM 31 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Harrison 6.6 $42,420,000

AF‐11 Frontage Roads FM 31 to FM 2199 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Harrison 3.2 $8,300,000

AF‐12 Frontage Roads FM 2199 to US 80 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Harrison 4.7 $13,770,000

AD‐3 Ramp Improvement Wilson Road Ramp/Interchange Improvements Kaufman N/A $820,000

AD‐2 Ramp Improvement FM 429 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Kaufman N/A $280,000

TD‐1 Ramp Improvement CR 310 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Kaufman N/A $1,050,000

TB‐2 Ramp Improvement FM 2965 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Kaufman N/A $2,830,000

TB‐3 Ramp Improvement FM 47 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $1,790,000

TB‐4 Ramp Improvement CR 3412 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $770,000

TB‐5 Ramp Improvement US 64 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $1,010,000

TA‐1 Ramp Improvement SH 19 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $540,000

TD‐3 Ramp Improvement FM 17 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $1,900,000

TD‐7 Ramp Improvement CR 431 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $630,000

TB‐8 Ramp Improvement FM 35 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $600,000

TD‐12 Ramp Improvement FM 14 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $610,000

TB‐9 Ramp Improvement FM 2015 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $780,000

TD‐8 Ramp Improvement SH 155 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $420,000

TD‐9 Ramp Improvement FM 757 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $580,000



TD‐14 Ramp Improvement SH 135 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Gregg N/A $320,000

TI‐13 Ramp Improvement SH 42 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Gregg N/A $180,000

AD‐2 Ramp Improvement SH 31 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Gregg N/A $280,000

TJ‐2 Ramp Improvement MLK Blvd Ramp/Interchange Improvements Gregg N/A $1,420,000

Recommended Mid Term Program Sub‐total $768,200,000RECOMMENDED LONG TERM PROGRAM (2031‐2040)TC‐16 Added Capacity Toll 49 to US 69 Add one‐lane in each direction Smith 2.9 $69,560,000

TC‐17 Added Capacity US 69 to FM 14 Add one‐lane in each direction Smith 6.2 $57,700,000

TC‐18 Added Capacity FM 14 to SH 155 Add one‐lane in each direction Smith 5.6 $38,850,000

TC‐19 Added Capacity SH 155 to US 271 Add one‐lane in each direction Smith 3.3 $31,180,000TC‐33 Added Capacity US 80 to FM 134 Add one‐lane in each direction Harrison 4.5 $38,080,000

TC‐34 Added Capacity FM 134 to Louisiana State Line Add one‐lane in each direction Harrison 2.9 $22,620,000

AF‐6 Frontage Roads FM 314 to SH 110 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Smith 7.3 $35,250,000

TG‐7 Frontage Roads US 271 to Gregg County Line New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Smith 8.6 $25,000,000

TG‐8 Frontage Roads Smith County Line to SH 42 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Gregg 7.3 $21,220,000

TG‐9 Frontage Roads SH 42 to FM 2087 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Gregg 4.3 $12,500,000

TG‐14 Frontage Roads FM 450 to FM 968 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Harrison 4.2 $12,210,000

TG‐14 Frontage Roads FM 968 to SH 43 New One‐way Frontage Roads and Conversion of Two‐way to one‐way Harrison 5.8 $16,860,000

TD‐2 Ramp Improvement Hayden Rd/CR 3442 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $840,000

Page 2 of 3

Project ID




TB‐6 Ramp Improvement FM 1255 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $2,000,000

TD‐4 Ramp Improvement CR 1308 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $730,000

TB‐7 Ramp Improvement CR 1311 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $860,000

TD‐5 Ramp Improvement FM 773/FM 16 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Van Zandt N/A $1,450,000

TD‐6 Ramp Improvement CR 426 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $2,000,000

TI‐9 Ramp Improvement CR 110 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $490,000

TI‐10 Ramp Improvement FM 849 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $460,000

TI‐11 Ramp Improvement US 271 Ramp/Interchange Improvements Smith N/A $420,000

Recommended Long Term Program Sub‐total $390,280,000Recommended Project Level Implementation Program Sub‐total $1,260,751,660

Full Depth Pavement Reconstruction Preliminary Estimate $1,281,600,000

Recommended Implementation Program Total $2,542,351,660

Page 3 of 3

Attachment 4 Initial Public

Involvement Update

Public Involvement Update I-20 East Texas Corridor Study DRAFT

I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan 2

Public Involvement Plan The I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee members identified the importance of involving local communities in the study as an overarching goal for the study. To guide this, a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) was created outlining outreach activities focused on increasing awareness of the project and proactively communicating project information to stakeholders and the public.

Public Involvement Goals The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study PIP focused on the following goals:

Provide a proactive communications program

Communicate timely and easily understood information

Create engaging opportunities for the public to be involved with the study

Generate feedback to assist the Advisory Committee in prioritizing opportunities and concerns

Public Involvement Objectives The main objectives for the PIP included:

Develop a cohesive message and brand for the study

Utilize multiple modes of communication to reach stakeholders

Collaborate with Advisory Committee members to gain assistance communicating information to the public

Develop tools to gather focused feedback

Informational Materials As part of the PIP, the following informational materials were developed to share information about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study with project stakeholders.

Project Website Serving as a general information hub for the project, the project website was created in August 2013 and updated throughout the project to include recent project information. While on the website, users could view:

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

Project fact sheet

Meeting minutes

Project maps


Additionally, links were provided for an online comment form available the entire duration of the project and to the study’s public survey made available during May and June 2014.

FAQs A list of FAQs was compiled based on suggestions from the I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee members. These questions were then answered and provided to the public through the project website and available through the committee members’ local offices beginning in February 2014.

Project Fact Sheet A project fact sheet was developed including a general overview of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, an explanation of what would be evaluated as part of the study scope, details on how to stay involved with the study, and information on the Advisory Committee members. The project fact sheet was provided to the public through the project website and available through the committee members’ local offices beginning in February 2014.

Public Outreach To encourage public participation in the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, a variety of public outreach methods were used to allow for stakeholder participation.

Public Comments To ensure stakeholders were able to submit comments on the study, comment could be received by website, Facebook, Twitter, email, mail, or at public meetings. Additionally, the online survey made available in May 2014 allowed for comments on the study. All of the public comments received during the study were compiled and managed in a tracking database. Comments received between February 2014 and July 2014 are summarized below:


Web-based 64 Mailed-In 7 Online Survey 1441 Total Comments Received 215

1 Open commentary was optional when responding the Online Survey.


Comments were received from stakeholders in 18 counties and the study team prioritized the following three themes per county:

Map of Comments Received by County

Cherokee County (One comment received) – Make I-20 a double decker freeway to put cars on the top level and trucks on the

bottom

Collin County (One comment received) – Create a dedicated truck lane in each direction of I-20

Dallas County (Eight comments received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Raise the speed limit on some portions of I-20 to make it consistent throughout – Add an HOV lane in each direction of I-20

Denton County (One comment received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Keep the 75 mile per hour (MPH) speed limit – Better enforcement of “slower traffic keep to the right” rule

Ellis County (One comment received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Keep a low speed limit – Better traffic enforcement

Gregg County (55 comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Hazardous wet road conditions

Harrison County (15 comments received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20


– Add frontage roads – Add entrance and exit ramp at Buck Sherrod Road

Henderson County (Two comments received) – Lower the speed limit

Kaufman County (One comment received) – Lower the speed limit – Better enforcement of traffic law – Modify entrance and exit ramps

Rusk County (One comment received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Add a fourth lane between Kilgore and Longview – Modify entrance and exit ramps

Shelby County (One comment received) – Add entrance and exit ramps to ease traffic back-ups2 – Add frontage roads – Real-time notifications of accidents and traffic

Smith County (101 comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps – Add frontage roads – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20

Van Zandt County (Five comments received) – Create a dedicated truck lane in each direction of I-20 – Road surface improvements – Improve rest area facilities in Gregg County

Tarrant County (Four comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Road surface improvements

Upshur County (Three comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps

Caddo Parrish (Two comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps

2 Area not specified. Comment referenced the ability to get off the highway when accidents back up traffic.


– Raise the speed limit to make it consistent – Road surface improvements west of Terrell

County unknown (Five comments received) – Create a dedicated truck lane in each direction of I-20 – Lower speed limits – Provide passenger and freight rail service (Dallas – Tyler – Louisiana)

To view all comments received, please see Attachment 1. Additionally, through the submittal of comments and feedback from the online public survey, the following projects were identified as needing improvement along the I-20 corridor that had not already been included in the technical staff project list as of June 11, 2014: New Ramps

Harrison County – Buck Sherrod Rd (determined

to be too close to adjacent interchanges)

Hydroplaning areas

Van Zandt – From FM 19 to CR 110

Smith – From US 69 to FM 14

Gregg – From US 42 to FM 2087 – From FM 2087 to Loop 281 W

Harrison – From US 259 to Loop 281 E

Bridges

Gregg – Sabine River bridge widening

Resurfacing

Dallas – From I-635 to Kaufman County

Line

Kaufman – From Dallas/ Kaufman County

Line to FM 2965

Harrison – From Loop 281 E to FM 134

(Waskom) Interchange Improvement

Dallas County – Loop 635 – US 175

Ramp Modifications

Smith County – Toll 49 – CR 411

Gregg – US 259 (Eastman Rd.) – SH 135

Harrison County – Spur 156


Online Public Survey To gather specific feedback on priorities for the project and to assist the Advisory Committee in highlighting projects needing improvements in the study corridor, an online public survey was created and made available through May and June 2014. The survey consisted of nine questions, summarized below:

1. In what county do you live within the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study area?

Answer Options Response Count

Dallas County 17 Kaufman County 4 Van Zandt County 2 Smith County 128 Gregg County 57 Harrison County 18 Other (please specify) 27 answered question 253 skipped question 1

2. How often do you travel along the I-20 corridor area between I-635 in Dallas County

and the Texas/Louisiana state line?


Daily 57 Weekly 62 Monthly 102 Rarely 24 answered question 245 skipped question 9

3. Which of the following options best describes why you most frequently use I-20?


Commuting to your work place 52 Traveling for work away from your regular work place 45 Traveling for personal use (entertainment/vacation) 127 Hauling Freight 4 Other (please specify) 17 answered question 245 skipped question 9


4. Please select up to three strategies you think should be the highest priorities for the I-20 study.

Answer Options Response Percent 3

Response Count

Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for travelers 72.6% 164 Improve safety 62.4% 141 Consider current and future multimodal transportation needs (highway, freight rail, intercity bus service, passenger rail, etc.)

46.5% 105

Involve local communities 43.4% 98 Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for freight 23.9% 54 Enhance air quality 4.9% 11 Other (please specify) 8

answered question 226 skipped question 28

5. Please select up to three of the following improvement areas you think are most

important along the corridor.


Response Count

Adding lanes 58.3% 133 Improving or adding frontage roads 50.0% 114 Reconfiguring entrance and exit ramps 50.0% 114

Creating passenger service opportunities (e.g. passenger rail, intercity bus)

32.5% 74

Improving median safety 26.8% 61 Adjusting speed limits up 21.5% 49 Adjusting speed limits down 7.5% 17 Raising bridge heights 0.4% 1 Other (please specify) 15


6. What specific areas along I-20 within your county do you feel need attention and

what do you think should be done? (Example: lengthen the ramp at the [Street Name or Exit], lower the speed limit near City Name, etc.)

139 respondents provided comments regarding specific areas within their county that have been included in the comment section above.

7. What areas along I-20 outside of your county do you feel need immediate attention?

(Example: intersection of highways) Please provide name of specific city or between specific cities, etc.

106 respondents provided comments regarding specific areas outside of their county that have been included in the comment section above.

3 Survey respondents were given the opportunity to choose multiple options.


8. Please leave any additional comments about the I-20 study below:

41 respondents provided additional comments that have been included in the comment section above.

9. To join our mailing list for the project, please fill out the information below. Your

information will be kept confidential and used only for this study.

64 respondents provided information for the mailing list.

Advisory Committee Public Outreach In addition to the tools provided by the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, advisory committee members were asked to create public outreach opportunities in their own communities with possible suggestions of social media posts, website links and community presentations. Members were then asked to submit an activity form to the study team for tracking of individual events. Members submitted activity forms for 21 events held between February and June 2014 reaching out to over 400 local residents. Information was shared with chambers of commerce, local organizations, homeowners associations and at city council meetings and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) meetings. More information is provided below:


Balch Springs 5 153

Gregg County 1 N/A

(newspaper article)


Longview MPO 5 61

Smith County 1 30

Tyler MPO 4 79


Additionally, advisory committee members were responsible for sharing information through social media, website links and through the following news sources:

Tyler Morning Telegraph

Marshall News Messenger

KETK NBC – Tyler

Longview News Journal

Update created by: K Strategies Group 214.599.9766 www.kstrategies.com [email protected]



Attachment 5 Updated Public

Involvement Materials


Page | 1 September 3, 2014

Talking Points

I‐20 corridor is an integral east‐west connection for both travel and

trade in Texas

18‐month study to conclude in December 2014

Evaluate 155‐mile stretch of I‐20 from I‐635 in Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana State Line

Focus on current and future safety and enhanced mobility needs

Identify and prioritize opportunities for improvements along the corridor

Study Overview

21 members

o All counties along the corridor represented Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg and

Harrison counties o Cities with population over 15,000 people o Transportation stakeholders represented

DART, NCTCOG, netRMA, Longview MPO, Tyler MPO

Work with other collaborative partners from the community

Assist TxDOT with assessing the rural transportation needs

Advisory Committee

You can get involved throughout the duration of the study

o Presentations to local governments, civic and community groups, elected officials, chambers of commerce, and economic development groups

o Open Houses

Information to be updated and distributed regularly via o Website updates at http://www.txdot.gov/inside‐

txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20‐east‐corridor.html o Fact Sheets and FAQs o Facebook (www.facebook.com/TxDOT) o Twitter (@TxDOT, @TxDOTDallasPIO, @TYLPIO,

@TxDOTAtlanta) o Press Releases

Public Outreach


LET US HEAR FROM YOU!

Please provide your comments on the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study.

To submit comments online, please visit our website at ww.txdot.gov/inside‐txdot/projects/studies/statewide/ i20‐east‐corridor.html

Comment Card

Please provide your comments below on the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study.

NAME:

EMAIL:

ZIP:

I am employed by TxDOT.

I do business with TxDOT.

I could benefit monetarily from the project or other item about which I am commenting on.

Texas Transportation Code, §201.811(a)(5)

Comments/Questions:

Check any that apply to you:

Join our email list:


Activity Form

Committee Member Name:

Organization or Group Presented To:

Location: Date:

# of Attendees (approximate):

Questions/Comments:

Follow Up Requests:

Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at [email protected] or mail to:

Texas Department of Transportation

Attn: Caroline Love 125 East 11th St. Austin, TX 78701

Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign-in list, or any other items that may

help to document or provide a record of this activity.

September 3, 2014

Frequently Asked Questions



Want more information?

Visit our website at www.txdot.gov/inside‐txdot/projects/studies/ statewide/i20‐east‐corridor.html

What is the I-2O East Texas Corridor Study?

The I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study being conducted by TxDOT is focused on evaluating the current safety and capacity needs along the 155‐mile stretch of I‐20 from I‐635 in Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana state line.

1.

Why is this study important?

The I‐20 corridor currently serves as an integral east‐west connection for both travel and trade in Texas. As the interstate system ages and trade increases, identifying opportunities for improvement becomes more critical. Assessing the current corridor conditions and identifying future growth potential are important to ensuring this route meets the needs of the region for decades to come.

2.

Who is involved with the study?

A major component of this study is to work directly with public and private stakeholders through an Advisory Committee. The I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee was established in August 2013 by the Texas Transportation Commission to assist TxDOT in assessing the rural transportation needs along I‐20 by providing locally focused input and recommendations. This group is currently comprised of 21 elected officials and other stakeholders along the I‐20 corridor and includes representatives from:

Counties (Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg, Harrison)

Cities (Balch Springs, Mesquite, Seagoville, Forney, Terrell, Canton, Lindale, Tyler, Longview, Marshall)

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NCTCOG, Tyler, Longview)

North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority (NETRMA)

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)

In addition to the members of the committee, the Advisory Committee will be working closely with several collaborating partners, including:

Farm Bureau

Native American Tribes

Economic Development Organizations

Private Businesses Interests

Rural Planning Organizations

Freight Rail and Passenger Rail Interest Groups

Transit Interest Groups

3.






What will be reviewed as part of the study?

This study will focus on evaluating safety concerns and capacity needs along the corridor. This could include additional frontage roads, ramp/interchange redesign, improving vertical clearance, and passenger rail alternatives. The purpose of including representatives of all major areas within the corridor is to ensure that a complete view of the needs for the future of the I‐20 corridor is considered.

4.

How long will the study last?

The study is expected to be complete in December 2014, with Committee members conducting public outreach on the draft plan during Fall 2014.

5.

What areas will be included in the study?

The area included within this study spans 155 miles along I‐20 from I‐635 in Dallas County to the Texas/Louisiana state line. In some areas, other regional highways or roadways may be included in the study when considering solutions to problems, but the primary focus of this study is along I‐20.

6.

What will be the end result of the study?

Ultimately, the result of the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study will serve as a guide for TxDOT to begin improvements throughout the corridor by providing a prioritized list of projects as well as possible funding solutions.

7.

How can I participate in the study?

Throughout the 18‐month study, we will be updating our website regularly, issuing press releases about important topics, and reaching out to you through social media. In addition, we will be hosting outreach events to gather input on the draft plan. You can also submit comments on our website at www.txdot.gov/inside‐txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20‐east‐corridor.html. To date, we have received 215 comments and reached out to more than 400 members of the public through various activities.

8.

9/8/2014

1

Community Presentation

I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR STUDY

About the Study

• 18-month study to be complete in December 2014

• Focused on evaluating safety and capacity needs along I-20 through East Texas

• Work with stakeholders to identify and prioritize opportunities for improvement

9/8/2014

2

Study Area

155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 near Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana state line through Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg and Harrison counties

3

Why is this study needed?

• I-20 is an important east-west connection for travel and trade in Texas

• Interstate system is aging and population and trade are increasing

• Assess current safety andcapacity needs and plan forthe future

• Identify rural transportation needs

4

9/8/2014

3

What will be reviewed?

5

SAFETY CONCERN

EXAMPLES

Median barriers

Vertical clearance of underpasses and bridges

Interchange design

Crash hotspots

CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT

EXAMPLES

Additional frontage roads

Additional lanes

Alternate routes

Freight needs

Passenger rail options

Advisory Committee

Assist TxDOT by providing locally focused input and recommendations

Helps provide feedback to TxDOT on issues and concerns to be considered, prioritization of projects needed and possible funding alternatives

Members are made up of 21 elected officials and other key transportation stakeholders (full list on next slide)

Works closely with other key organizations to help provide accurate and well-rounded feedback

6

9/8/2014

4

Advisory Committee Members

7

Entity Member Name TitleDallas County Clay Jenkins County JudgeKaufman County Bruce Wood County JudgeVan Zandt County Rhita Koches County JudgeSmith County Joel Baker County JudgeGregg County Bill Stoudt (Chair) County JudgeHarrison County Hugh Taylor County JudgeCity of Balch Springs Dr. Carrie Gordan MayorCity of Mesquite John Monaco MayorCity of Seagoville Harold Magill MayorCity of Forney Darren Rozell MayorCity of Terrell Hal Richards MayorCity of Canton Richard W. Lawrence MayorCity of Lindale Robert Nelson MayorCity of Tyler Martin Heines MayorCity of Longview Jay Dean MayorCity of Marshall Ed Smith MayorDallas Area Rapid Transit Gary C. Thomas PresidentNCTCOG MPO Michael Morris Director of TransportationNETRMA Linda Ryan Thomas Chair/Chair, RailTyler MPO Heather Nick MPO DirectorLongview MPO Karen Owen MPO Director


8


Web-based 64

Mailed-In 7

Online Survey 144


9/8/2014

5


9

c

c

c c

c c

10


9/8/2014

6

11


12


9/8/2014

7


13

14

Timeline of Proposed Activities

July 2013

• Advisory Committee Kick-off & Study Introduction

February 2014

• Prioritize Goals and Objectives

• Identify Potential Projects

• Members begin Initial Public Outreach

January 2014

• Discuss Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) Considerations

• Review & Finalize Public Outreach Tools

October 2013

• Develop Objectives• Identify/Review

Constraints, Features, Concerns & Future Considerations

• Discuss Public Outreach Tools

April 2014

• Members Continue Initial Public Outreach

• Conference Call to update on Outreach Activities

June 2014

• Members Complete Initial Public Outreach

• Evaluate & Prioritize Projects

• Review Summary of Public Input

September 2014

• Review Draft Corridor Plan

• Prepare for Draft Corridor Plan Public Outreach

Sept.-Oct. 2014

• Hold Open House(s)

November 2014

• Review Public Input Received at Open House(s)

• Finalize Corridor Plan

December 2014

• Presentation to Commission

• Members help spread the word that a Final Corridor Plan is available on the website

Indicates Committee MeetingWe are here:

9/8/2014

8

Stay Informed

15

Website updateswww.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html

Fact SheetsEmailed to the mailing list, posted on website, available at outreach events, available at Advisory Committee member offices

Open houses or other outreach activities

Email notificationsSign up to join the mailing list on our website

Facebookwww.facebook.com/TxDOT

Twitter@TxDOT, @TxDOTDallasPIO, @TYLPIO, @TxDOTAtlanta


QUESTIONS?

Comments can also be submitted online at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html

16

1

September 3, 2014

Fact Sheet


I‐20 provides an important east‐west connection for travel and trade in Texas. As the interstate system ages and population and trade increases, it is necessary to assess the current safety and capacity needs and plan for the future. A Corridor Assessment study has been undertaken to identify rural transportation needs along I‐20 from the Dallas Metropolitan Area to the Texas/Louisiana State Line.

September 2014

HOW TO GET AND STAY INVOLVED…


The study will:

Assess current corridor conditions and identify near, mid and long‐term needs. The needs assessment will focus on addressing safety, congestion, and system preservation concerns.

Identify opportunities for addressing needs related to vehicular, freight and alternative transportation modes.

Consider funding requirements for implementation of potential improvements, including alternative/non‐traditional funding strategies.

Outline next steps for TxDOT and other transportation stakeholders to consider advancing project development activities for the corridor.

Overview

Scope of Study

2

September 3, 2014


Fact Sheet

An integral component of this study has been working with public and private stakeholders through an Advisory Committee. The charge of the Committee is to assist TxDOT in assessing the rural transportation needs along I‐20 by providing locally focused input and recommendations. The Committee provides a valuable avenue for public outreach and input on issues that include:

Rural transportation needs along the I‐20 corridor

Local planning issues (development activities, planning/environmental features)

Opportunities for near, mid and long‐term transportation improvements

Recommendations for addressing freight and alternative transportation modes

Input on the feasibility of potential alternative/non‐traditional funding strategies

Recommendations on priorities and next steps for TxDOT and other local stakeholders to consider in advancing project development activities for the corridor

The Advisory Committee is currently comprised of individuals representing a cross‐section of elected officials and other stakeholders along the corridor. Committee members include representation from the following:


Cities (Balch Springs, Mesquite, Forney, Terrell, Canton, Lindale, Tyler, Longview, Marshall)


North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority (NETRMA)


Other entities could include economic development organizations, business interests and Native American Tribes.

The Advisory Committee has met approximately every two months.

Expected study duration is about 18 months to be complete in December 2014.

Advisory Committee

Schedule

Attachment 6 Public Involvement

Opportunities Calendar

Event Dates Location

Dallas County

4th Annual Habitat Automotive Show Sept. 13‐14 1818 Rodeo Drive, Mesquite TX

Shrine Circus Sept. 19‐21 1818 Rodeo Drive, Mesquite TX

Third Annual Downtown Street Dance Sept. 20 Kaufman Street, Seagoville, TX

Buchanan Antique and Collectibles Market Sept. 20‐21 2323 Big Town Blvd, Mesquite TX

19th Annual Taste & Trade Sept. 30 1800 Rodeo Drive, Mesquite TX

Pumpkin Fest Oct. 18 403 S. Galloway, Mesquite TX

Devil's Bowl Speedway Winter Nationals Oct. 17‐18 1711 Lawson Road, Mesquite TX

The Amazing Technicolor 5k Run Oct. 25 1800 Rodeo Drive, Mesquite TX

Cowboys of Color Finals Rodeo Oct. 25 1818 Rodeo Drive, Mesquite TX

5th Annual Texas Longhorn Shootut Nov. 28‐29 1818 Rodeo Drive, Mesquite TX

Kaufman County

2nd Saturdays Sept. 13 Downtown Forney

Flights of our Fathers Fly‐In Sept. 20 Terrell Municipal Airport

Halloween Festival and Thrillvania Weekends in October 2330 County Road 138, Terrell, Texas

2nd Saturdays Oct. 11 Downtown Forney

Trail of Treats Oct. 25 Downtown Forney

2nd Saturdays Nov. 8 Downtown Forney

Van Zandt County

Yesterland Farm: Heroes Weekend Sept. 20‐21 15410 Interstate 20, Canton, TX 75103

First Monday Trade Days Oct. 2 ‐ 5 800 Flea Market Rd, Canton, TX 75103

14th Annual Autumn Stroll Oct. 11 Canton Downtown N. Buffalo St off Hwy 64

First Monday Trade Days Oct. 30 ‐ Nov. 2 800 Flea Market Rd, Canton, TX 75103

First Monday Trade Days Nov. 27‐30 800 Flea Market Rd, Canton, TX 75103

Smith County

Rose City Farmers Market every Saturday and Tuesday 7212 Old Jacksonville Hwy.

East Texas State Fair Sept. 19‐28 2112 West Front Street Tyler, TX 75702

Take Steps for Crohn's and Colitis Oct. 4 Bergfeld Park

Susan G. Komen Ride for the Cure Oct. 11 Tarrant Ranch, Bullard, TX

Rose Festival Oct. 16‐19

Fall Family Fun Festival Oct. 23 Glass Recreation Center, 501 W. 32nd, Tyler, TX

Winnsboro Wild West Days Nov. 15‐16 900 Wheeler Drive. Winnsboro, TX

Gregg County

Historic Longview Farmers Market every Saturday Corner of Cotton and High Streets, Longview, TX

T‐Bone Walker Blues Festival Sept. 13 100 Grand Blvd. Longview, TX

Mud Volleyball Tournament Sept. 20 1123 Jaycee Dr. Longview, TX

Graystone Haunted Manor Fridays and Saturdays in Octob13481 FM 968 W, Longview Texas

Howl‐o‐ween Oct. 18 2395 H.G. Mosley Parkway, Longview Texas

Harvest Festival and Livestock Show Oct. 23‐25 100 Grand Blvd. Longview, TX

Monster Dash 5k & 10k Oct. 25

Rising Out of the Thicket 5k Zombie Fun/Run Oct. 25 McWhorter Park, Longview, TX

Color Up 5k Nov. 1 100 Grand Blvd. Longview, TX

American Heart Association Hear Walk & 5k Heart Run Nov. 15 3133 Good Shepherd Way, Longview TX

Harrison County

Marshall Music Festival Sept. 12‐20 downtown Marshall

Marshall Second Saturdays Sept. 13 downtown Marshall

Fire Ant Festival mid‐October downtown Marshall

I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory CommitteePublic Involvement Opportunities

Attachment 7 NCTCOG I‐20

Transportation Focus Handout

I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting February 18, 2014 1 of 6


Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 11:30 a.m. Tyler Rose Garden Center, Tyler, Texas


Name Organization Members Present

Lauren Trimble (alternate for Judge Clay Jenkins) Dallas CountyJudge Bruce Wood Kaufman County Commissioner Virgil Milton Jr. (alternate for Judge Rhita Koches)

Van Zandt County

Judge Joel Baker Smith CountyJudge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg CountyJudge Hugh Taylor Harrison County Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs John Clary (alternate for Mayor Robert Nelson) City of Lindale Mayor Martin Heines City of TylerKevin Feldt (alternate for Michael Morris) NCTCOG




Heather Nick Tyler MPO

Karen Owen Longview MPO Members Not Present

Mayor John Monaco City of Mesquite Mayor Harold Magill City of Seagoville Mayor Darren Rozell City of Forney Mayor Hal Richards City of TerrellMayor Richard Lawrence City of Canton Mayor Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall

To view the complete meeting sign‐in sheets, see Attachment 1.

Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) discuss the progress of public outreach activities to date; 2) provide an update on the Amtrak study conducted in East Texas; 3) discuss emerging trends and technologies in transportation; 4) prioritize proposed projects along the corridor; 5) explain funding sources and financing strategies for proposed projects; and 6) plan for future meetings. PowerPoint presentations were utilized to provide an overview of aforementioned items during the meeting. The agenda and presentations are included as Attachment 2. Open House: The Advisory Committee meeting began with an open house featuring exhibits focusing on the following topics:

General corridor maps including planned/programmed improvement projects. Existing and future traffic, freight traffic volumes and level of service. Safety factors including frontage roads, vertical clearances and median barriers.


Crash hotspot analysis. Design‐centric interchange analysis results. Timeline of proposed activities for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study Mission Statement for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee. Examples of public outreach materials used on other TxDOT projects such as I‐69 and My35.

Welcome/Introductions: Advisory Committee Chairman Judge Bill Stoudt (Gregg County) welcomed attendees to the meeting and thanked Mayor Martin Heines, for hosting the meeting at the Tyler Rose Garden Center. Marc Williams (TxDOT), acting as the Advisory Committee Facilitator, then asked committee members to introduce themselves. Safety Briefing: Marc Williams provided a safety briefing for all meeting attendees highlighting evacuation routes from the building and locations of restrooms, fire extinguishers, and tornado shelter areas within the facility. Public Outreach Efforts: Susan Howard (TxDOT) updated Advisory Committee members on the public outreach efforts that had been conducted so far, including 19 presentations reaching out to over 400 citizens, several news articles published, links on member’s homepages to TxDOT’s official project website and comment form, 47 comments received from the TxDOT online comment form, and 237 responses to the online survey. Susan then encouraged members to continue publicizing the message of this corridor study in preparation for public outreach this fall. She followed up with members to determine if they needed any additional materials or guidance, and informed them that there were extra activity forms available if they needed to report any activities that were conducted but not included in the summary. Amtrak Study Update: Mark Werner (TxDOT) presented the findings of the East Texas Amtrak Passenger Rail Study to committee members, including background on the study and feasibility options. The line evaluated would travel from Fort Worth to Shreveport, following the TRE line through the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex, and stopping in Fort Worth, Centreport, Dallas, Forney, Wills Point, Mineola, Longview, Marshall and terminating in Shreveport. Options were evaluated for both one round trip and two round trips per day. Mark then provided information on the revenue and operations costs, including projected yearly riders, revenue, operations cost and needed subsidy to provide the service. He also included the cost of the capitalization and infrastructure. He concluded his presentation mentioning that TxDOT does not have any available funds at this time to dedicate to this project. He also included a list of next steps that would need to take place for the project to move forward including needed approval and support by the state, not just Amtrak funded service, identification of funding sources and approval of infrastructure changes by Union Pacific


Railroad. Members asked the estimated travel time along the line, which Mark responded would be about four and a half hours from end to end. This would make the rail service competitive with travel time for bus service along I‐20, but make it slower than current travel time by private vehicle. Members also asked if this study was looking at using existing tracks. Mark clarified that it was looking at existing tracks, but there had been a separate study about improving infrastructure and possible high‐speed service, at an estimated cost of $1 billion. Emerging Trends and Technologies in Transportation: Michael Sexton (Jacobs) went through a presentation explaining several different options for emerging trends and new technologies in the transportation industry that could be considered as part of this corridor study and planning for the future. Included in the presentation were traditional passenger service options including passenger rail and bus services; up‐and‐coming options including vehicle and ride sharing; smart travel technologies including smart phone applications (apps) to compare travel options and better plan trips; electric vehicles and charging stations; smart vehicles and their needs; bicycle and pedestrian options including bicycle sharing; and improvements to freight technologies. In addition, new technologies are being created for roadway improvements, including solar‐powered highway striping and the use of piezoelectric energy to produce electricity for overhead lights and interactive signage. He explained to the committee members that although some of these options may be new or foreign concepts to them now, considerations for future needs and demands should be part of planning for the future of the corridor. For this particular study, he emphasized that certain options may be more feasible than others along the corridor and different from those appropriate for arterial or local streets. Identifying options that were suitable for each of those areas could attract private sector transit systems, such as ride‐share services, to the area as well. Marc Williams added that some of the options may seem unusual, but many have been driven by limited finances and an inability to build and finance highway transportation infrastructure the same way we have in the past. He emphasized that technology is changing the transportation landscape and driverless cars could be a much more significant reality within the timeline of this study. Members inquired about the capacity implications of adding a driverless car exclusive lane, and study staff explained it could significantly increase the capacity of the highway from one additional lane. As driverless cars do not need the same amount of headway per vehicle as passenger‐driven cars, the capacity limit of a driverless car exclusive lane is nearly double that of a standard lane. He asked members if there were elements they felt needed to be included in this report to please offer up your ideas and thoughts. Committee members emphasized the importance of communicating with each other as to what they are all doing locally to provide a more regional picture of transportation options along the corridor. They also provided success stories of technology changes they have seen, such as Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s (DART) GoPass app.


Update on NCTCOG Meeting: Judge Bruce Wood (Kaufman County) provided members with an update on the outcome of the meeting Michael Miles (NCTCOG) had suggested between Kaufman County and Dallas County to look at possible projects that could happen in conjunction with NCTCOG’s current funding. Judge Wood provided a handout to all committee members (included in Attachment 3) identifying several projects and suggestions NCTCOG has already identified, as well as asking for an inventory of project needs and assistance in developing an action plan to get projects moving. Included in the packet was a list of past, current and future projects identified in the regions as well. Project Prioritization Activity: Michael Sexton explained the prioritization activity, describing the types of projects that were identified by the members at the February Committee meeting in Mesquite, including ramp and interchange improvements, new frontage road construction, existing frontage road reconstruction, and expanding main lane capacity. The projects were identified based on the Advisory Committee input, technical analysis by staff, and public comments received to date. The activity used in this meeting consisted of two rounds (initial round and final round). Each round of prioritization was further divided into two levels focusing on general strategies and individual projects. The first level of the initial round of prioritization invited members to independently prioritize generalized strategies on individual forms. After each of the members turned in their forms, the results were tabulated and revealed an overall ranking of improvement concepts as shown below:

1. Ramps improvements. 2. Frontage roads 3. Added capacity 4. Emerging trends and technologies 5. Other improvement types

The particular results of each geographic section are included in Attachment 4. For Level 2 of the initial round of prioritization, Committee members were then split into groups based on eastern, central and western sections of the corridor to prioritize specific projects. Each of the three groups had three different maps with the identified projects categorized as ramp and interchange improvements, frontage road construction and improvements, as well as added capacity on main lanes. Each committee member was handed six dot stickers to place on the maps marking projects they thought needed to be high priority. Committee members representing the western section of the corridor were consistent in their responses from both sections of the activity, giving higher preference to ramp improvement projects followed by frontage road construction or improvements. Preferences for capacity improvements were included but were not as uniformly localized as the previous two categories. The central section of the corridor manifested similar preferences to the western section in terms of


strategic priorities, focusing on ramp improvement projects followed by frontage road construction or improvements. However while prioritizing specific projects members chose construction of frontage roads above addition of capacity to the main lanes or ramp improvements. Representatives of the eastern section ranked strategies differently than the other sections of the corridor, prioritizing added capacity over ramps improvements and frontage road projects, respectively. Level 2 of the activity resulted in higher preference for frontage road projects followed by additional main lanes and ramp and interchange improvements. The members of the east section did mention that their priority was still additional capacity along with some frontage roads in Gregg County and near Marshall. Detailed results for both sections of the exercise can be found in attachment 4.

The final round of the activity had members come back together as a group to discuss findings Members were shown the results of the initial round of prioritization for further review and then asked if they would like to change their original preferences based on the findings of the group as a whole. All members declined and chose to keep their responses the same as the initial round, thus voiding the need for any additional rounds of discussion. Funding Sources and Financing Projects: Marc Williams presented information to the committee members on funding sources and financing for the projects outlined. He provided the estimated costs of desired projects identified by the committee, coming to a grand total of over $3 billion in improvement costs. Marc then explained the TxDOT Unified Transportation Program (UTP) used to plan funding for identified projects over the next 10 years. Most of the district funding sources have already been allocated focusing on preventative maintenance and rehabilitation, with a majority going to the Dallas District. In addition to the UTP, Marc outlined other funding sources including the area MPOs and local funding sources. He also provided information on possible future funding sources from the federal, state and local levels. From a federal perspective, this could include tolling of existing interstates and use of business taxes to increase the transportation budget. From the State level, Proposition One would reallocate taxes from oil and gas to add to transportation funding and tolling options. From a local level, Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs) could be used to fund projects as well as adjusting the vehicle registration fee, which has already been done in four counties throughout the state, including . Marc encouraged members to continue identifying priorities and work on gaining local support for projects to be ready if and when funding becomes available. Committee members could also aid the process in identifying opportunities for right‐of‐way donations and acquisitions if needed. A committee member raised a question regarding the amount of the current gas tax that is being allocated to the Department of Public Safety, to which Marc clarified is currently $600 million. Another member asked for clarification on where the $5 billion budget for transportation services


comes from. Marc explained that the conclusion of the TTP 2040 committee identified it would take $3 billion to maintain existing road conditions; $1 billion to maintain the current level of service; and $1 billion to meet needs of the growing energy sector in Texas. A third committee member asked Marc to explain how projects such as I‐35 received their funding. Marc mentioned that the state legislature earmarked $600 million to go towards the widening of I‐35 between Taylor and Hillsboro as the main source of funding. Additional funding for projects in the area came from the toll revenue created by State Highway 130. In addition, TxDOT has been working with the local entities along the route for right of way contributions and other needs. Future Meetings: Marc Williams thanked members for their participation in the Advisory Committee meetings and activities. He then discussed that the next Advisory Committee meeting in August 2014 would be held in the City of Balch Springs. Prior to the next meeting, the consultant team will be distributing the draft report for committee member’s review and discussion at the next meeting. Additionally, the committee will plan the public outreach efforts to take place this fall at the next meeting. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:

Schedule August meeting in Balch Springs Send draft report to committee members before August meeting

Attachments:

1. Advisory Committee Sign‐In Sheets 2. Meeting Agenda and Presentations 3. NCTCOG Update Handout 4. Project Prioritization Activity Responses and Boards

Meeting Staff: Marc Williams, Caroline Love, Susan Howard, Roger Beall, Cary Karnstadt, Lindsey Kimmitt, Mark Werner (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia, Chris Lazaro, Nair Barrios, June San Miguel, Sam Rojas (Jacobs) Aimee Vance and Jenny Paredes (K Strategies)

Attachment 1 Advisory Committee Meeting Sign-‐In

Sheets


Presentations

I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 12:00 PM – 4:00 PM

Tyler Rose Museum and Gift Shop 420 Rose Park Dr., Tyler Texas 75702

Call-in: 866-637-1408 Conference Code: 312 746 6422#

Meeting #5 – Agenda

11:45 to 12:00 PM Registration & Open House 12:00 – 12:10 PM Welcome & Introductions Judge Bill Stoudt, Gregg County

Safety Briefing Marc Williams, TxDOT 12:10 – 12:40 PM Public Outreach Efforts Susan Howard, TxDOT 12:40 Working Lunch 12:50 – 1:10 PM Amtrak Study Update Mark Werner, TxDOT 1:10 – 1:40 PM Emerging Trends and Technologies in Transportation Michael Sexton, Jacobs 1:40 – 2:40 PM Project Prioritization – Initial Round Michael Sexton, Jacobs

Identified Projects Summary of Evaluation Prioritization - Initial

2:40 – 2:50 PM Break 2:50 – 3:05 PM Funding Sources and Financing Projects Marc Williams, TxDOT 3:05 – 3:50 PM Project Prioritization – Final Round Michael Sexton, Jacobs

Results of Initial Prioritization Committee Discussion Prioritization - Final

3:50 PM Next Steps and Closing Comments Marc Williams, TxDOT 4:00 PM Adjourn

&

Public Outreach Public Outreach

PUBLIC OUTREACH I-20 East Texas Corridor Study

Public Outreach

Advisory Committee Goals

2

•! Involve Local Communities •! Consider Current and Future Multimodal

Transportation Needs •! Improve Safety •! Reduce Congestion and Enhance Mobility for

Travelers and Freight •! Enhance Air Quality

&

&

Public Outreach

Public Outreach Activities by Committee Members

3

Member Activity Forms Returned

Total Audience Reach

Balch Springs 5 153

Gregg County 1 N/A

(newspaper article)


Longview MPO 5 61

Smith County 1 30

Tyler MPO 4 79

•! Advisory Committee members have conducted 19 presentations including:

•! Chambers of Commerce •! City Council meetings •! Rotary clubs •! Lions clubs •! Homeowners Associations •! MPO public meetings

•! Reached out to over 400 people

Public Outreach

Other Activities

4

•! Tyler Morning Telegraph •!Marshall News Messenger •!KETK NBC – Tyler •! Longview News Journal

•!Gregg County •!Harrison County •! Lindale •!Mesquite •!NETRMA •! Smith County

In the News Website Links on Homepages

&

Public Outreach

Comments from Website

5

County Comments Received

Cherokee 1

Dallas 1

Denton 1

Gregg 13

Harrison 2

Henderson 1

Rusk 1

Shelby 1

Smith 19

Van Zandt 3

None listed 4

47 public comments have been received through the project page

Public Outreach

Comment Themes

6

•! Passenger and freight rail service

Dallas County

•! No comments received.

Kaufman County

•! Truck only lane •! Road surface repair •! Add rest areas

Van Zandt County

•! Add additional lanes •! Update entrance/exit

ramps

•! Truck only lane

Smith County

•! Add additional lanes •! Truck only lane •! Safety in wet road

conditions

Gregg County

•! Continuous frontage roads

•! Keep median barriers

Harrison County

&

&

Public Outreach

254 Responses to the public survey have been received

Online Public Survey

7

Public Outreach

Public Priorities (survey responses)

8

Multimodal Transportation

&

&

Public Outreach

Greatest Need for Improvement (survey responses)

9

Public Outreach

Questions?

10

&

June 2014 June 2014

EAST TEXAS PASSENGER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY I-20 Advisory Committee Meeting

June 2014 June 2014

EAST TEXAS PASSENGER FEASIBILITY STUDY

!!Study Findings

&

&

June 2014

Study Area

3

June 2014

East Texas Passenger Rail

!! The Texas Department of Transportation contracted with the National Railroad Passenger Rail Corporation (Amtrak) in November 2012 to conduct a feasibility and financial evaluation of adding two round trip passenger trains between Fort Worth and Shreveport/Bossier City, LA

!! Study was funded through a federal congressional appropriation at a cost of $140,000.

!! The study looked at two scenarios –! Scenario 1 – One roundtrip train per day departing Fort Worth ITC at 8:55 AM and

returning from Shreveport at 5:45 PM –! Scenario 2 – Two roundtrip trains per day with two trains departing Fort Worth at

8:55 AM and 5:45 PM and two trains departing Shreveport at 6:30 AM and 5:45 PM.

–! Station stops at Fort Worth, Centre Point, Dallas, Forney, Wills Point, Mineola, Longview, Mineola and Shreveport/Bossier City, LA. –! Determined operation and infrastructure cost and ridership and revenue

estimates.

4

&

June 2014

Proposed Schedule

!"#$%&"#$'()'#*+*,"#$%-#",".*/%)0'*/12*%34"%5"16/%3#7,.%

5*8/%9"46% && && && && && && && && 5*8/%:,%

9872;% 9872;% %% <72*8=*% %% %%%)$8>"6%)$",.% %% %% 9872;% 9872;%

?@??%-<% )*++&,-&&& .&/0& !"#$%&"#$'%A3BC%3D% ,1& && EF@E?%-<% ##*..&,-&

G@EG%-<% 2*#2&,-&&& #$&,1&

B*6$*#,"#$C%3D%

/0& && H@IG%-<% #.*(#&,-&

%G@EH%-<% 2*''&,-&&& && /0& ,1& && H@IJ%-<% #.*')&,-&

G@IG%-<% 2*()&,-&&& ((&,1&

98228.C%3D%

/0& && H@KL%-<% #.*#'&,-&

G@?E%-<% 2*%(&,-&&& && /0& ,1& && H@KK%-<% #.*.$&,-&

L@KJ%-<% #.*#+&,-&&& +$&,1&

!"#6*;C%3D%

/0& && M@JL%-<% 2*''&,-&

L@KG%-<% #.*#)&,-&&& && /0& ,1& && M@JI%-<% 2*#2&,-&

L@?E%-<% #.*%(&,-&&& )%&,1&

&722.%-"76$C%3D%

/0& && M@FH%-<% )*+%&,-&

L@?I%-<% #.*%!&,-&&& && /0& ,1& && M@FG%-<% )*+#&,-&

M@JE%-<% ##*#(&,-&&& ##+&,1&

<76*"28C%3D%

/0& && L@JH%-<% )*'%&,-&

M@JI%-<% ##*#!&,-&&& && /0& ,1& && L@JG%-<% )*'#&,-&

H@EM%-<% EK@FF%-<%&& #!#&,1&

N"6=+7*4C%3D%

/0& && G@?K%-<% $*($&,-&

H@KE%-<% EK@FJ%-<%&& && /0& ,1& && G@IM%-<% $*(%&,-&

H@IG%-<% EK@KM%-<%&& #)+&,1&

<8#.'822C%3D%%

/0& && G@KI%-<% $*.2&,-&

H@IH%-<% EK@JE%-<%&& && /0& ,1& && G@KE%-<% $*.!&,-&

EF@JJ%-<% E@KJ%-<%&& ''.&,1& %%%)'#*+*,"#$C%NO% /0& && ?@I?%-<% !*(.&,-&

5

June 2014

Study Results

P8.$%3*Q8.%-8..*6=*#%5872%)$1/;%

%5*+*61*%86/%R,*#8>"6%B".$.%

3#7,.% E%5"16/%3#7,% K%5"16/%3#7,.%

S*8#2;%57/*#.% HICFFF% EKICFFF%

5*+*61*% TECJKLCFFF%% TECL?FCFFF%%

R,*#8>"6%0".$.% THC?H?CFFF%% TE?CKHMCFFF%%

)1U.7/;% TMCKGMCFFF%% TEJC?IMCFFF%%

6

B8,7$827V8>"6%W%A6X#8.$#10$1#*%B".$.%

E%5"16/%3#7,% TGLCJFFCFFF%%

K%5"16/%3#7,.% TMHCIFFCFFF%%

&

&

June 2014

Where do we go from here?

!!Short distance interstate Amtrak routes are required to be supported by the states in which they operate. Only long distance Amtrak routes like the Texas Eagle are supported solely by Amtrak.

!! TxDOT currently supports the Heartland Flyer route equally with Oklahoma. TxDOT’s yearly subsidy for the Flyer Has gone from just under $2M to $3.6M since the enactment of PRIIA 209 legislation. TxDOT must request funding each legislative session to continue to support this service.

!! TxDOT does not currently have a dedicated funding source for rail projects so a funding source would need to be found to make the infrastructure improvements identified in the report.

!! In addition the infrastructure improvements would need to be reviewed and approved by Union Pacific Railroad.

7

June 2014

Questions

Questions?

8

&

Emerging Trends and Technologies Emerging Trends and Technologies Emerging Trends and Technologies

I-20 EAST TEXAS Emerging and Future Transportation Technologies

DRAFT

Emerging Trends and Technologies

Table of Contents

2

8-10

11-12

13-16

17-19

20-23

3-7

24-25

Passenger Services

Vehicle and Ride Sharing

Smart Travel Technologies

Electric & Smart Vehicles

Bicycle and Pedestrian Technologies

Freight Technologies

Technologies in the Future

Passenger Services 1

Vehicle and Ride Sharing 2

Smart Travel Technologies 3

Electric & Smart Vehicles 4

Bicycle and Pedestrian Technologies 5

Freight Technologies 6

Technologies in the Future 7

26-29 Technologies in Context Technologies in Context 8

&

&


Passenger Services

3

Emerging Trends and Technologies 4

Passenger Rail Systems

&

&


Passenger Rail Studies


Passenger Services In Texas

&

&


According to a TTI report, half of Megabus riders are college students and young professionals between 18 and 30 years old. Minimal terminal infrastructure – usually just a parking lot

Greyhound receives limited federal subsidies

to maintain lower-density routes

Intercity Bus Service


Vehicle & Ride Sharing

8

&

&


More than 300 vehicles available in Austin

Vehicles available in: •! Austin •! Dallas •! Fort Worth •! Houston •! San Antonio •! San Marcos •! Waco

Car Sharing


Peer-to-Peer Car & Ride Sharing

&


Smart Travel Technologies

11


Transit Planning Technology

&

&


Electric Vehicles

13


Electric Vehicles

&

&


Smart Vehicles

15


Autonomous Vehicles

Sensor Telemetry

&

&


Bicycle & Pedestrian Technologies

17


Pedestrian & Bicycle Treatments

&

&


B-Cycle – Available in 22 cities including Austin, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio

Social Bicycles – Available in 9 North American cities Scoot – Available in San Francisco

Bike Sharing


Freight Technologies

20

&

&


Hybrid Diesel-Electric Truck – Manufactured by Freightliner Freight Shuttle System – Proposed in several locations in Texas and the Nation

eHighway Concept – Line-powered electric trucks being piloted by Siemens

Freight Vehicle Technology


Compact Cargo Vans

&


Short-Distance Delivery Vehicles


Transportation in the Future

24

&


EV Priority Lane

Photo-luminescent Lane Markings Piezoelectric Energy

Solar Highway


Technologies in Context

26

&



Art

eria

l Str

eet




Art

eria

l Str

eet


&

&



Art

eria

l Str

eet




Art

eria

l Str

eet


&


Questions

31

&

Project Prioritization Project Prioritization

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee June 11, 2014

Project Prioritization

Table of Contents

2

4

5

6

7-9

10

3

11

Identified Projects

Prioritization

Initial Round – Level 1

Initial Round – Level 2

Final Round

Questions


Identified Projects 1


Prioritization 3

Initial Round – Level 1 4

Initial Round – Level 2 5

Final Round 6

Questions 7

&


Identified Projects

3

!! Projects were identified by the Advisory Committee Members during the February 2014 Committee Meeting in Mesquite.

!! Additional projects based on technical analysis by staff (Districts & Consultants).

!! Identified projects include: •! Ramp/Interchange Improvements •! Frontage Road Improvements (including New frontage roads) •! Additional Mainlanes to I-20

Project Prioritization 4


Art

eria

l Str

eet



&

&


Prioritization

5

Initial Round

Level 1 Generalized Improvement

Concepts

Level 2 Specific Identified

Projects

Final Round

Level 1 Generalized Improvement

Concepts

Level 2 Specific Identified

Projects

Committee Discussion on Initial

Round Results


Initial Round – Level 1 – Generalized Improvement Concepts

6

1 = Highest Priority 4 = Lowest Priority

2

1

3

Example Rating

4 Wild Flowers

&

&


Initial Round – Level 2 – Specific Identified Projects

I-20 Corridor Organized into: •! West (Dallas and Kaufman Counties) •! Central (Van Zandt and Smith Counties) •! East (Gregg and Harrison Counties)

Projects Grouped into: •! Ramp and Interchange Improvements •! Added Capacity (one main lane in each direction) •! Frontage Road Improvements (including new

frontage roads)



Project List

Technical Score is a composite rating for each project. Detailed ratings are provided in the 11X17 sheets within each packet. Higher technical score suggests more need for the project. Scores 55+ have been highlighted in

red, and between 50 and 54 are highlighted in orange.

&

&




Final Round

10

•! Following Initial Round, staff will summarize the results of the prioritization during the break and Funding Discussion

•! Results will then be presented to the Committee prior to the Final Round prioritization.

•! Committee Discussion of the Initial Round results before conducting Final Round Prioritization

•! Final Round Prioritization results will be summarized after the meeting and emailed to the Committee Members

&


Questions?

11


Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 1

12

Project Type RANK Average Priority


4 3.60

Ramps and Interchanges

1 1.73

Frontage Roads 2 2.20

Additional I-20 Capacity

3 2.60

Other Improvement Types

5 4.67

&


Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2

13

38

35

20

Project Specific Priorities


Frontage Roads

Additional I-20 Capacity


Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2 - West

4

4 3

5

3

&

&


Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2 - Central

7

8

7


Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2 - East

4

3 3

&


Discussion

17

&

Funding Sources and Financing Projects Funding Sources and Financing Projects

FUNDING SOURCES & FINANCING PROJECTS I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee June 11, 2014

Funding Sources and Financing Projects

Table of Contents

2

4-7

8

9-11

12

45-41

3

52-55

Current Estimate of all Improvements Identified along I-20

Unified Transportation Plan

Local Funding

Funding Possibilities

Strategies and Next Steps for I-20

Maps

Color Scheme and Useful Objects

Current Estimate of all Improvements Identified along I-20 1

Unified Transportation Plan 2

Local Funding 3

Funding Possibilities 4

Strategies and Next Steps for I-20 5

6

7

&

&


Current Estimate of All Improvements Identified along I-20

3

Type of Improvement Construction Cost Additional Main Lanes $ 1,200,200,000 Ramps and Interchanges $ 51,500,000 Bridges $ 19,100,000 Pavement Rehabilitation $ 1,281,600,000 Frontage Roads $ 531,400,000 Other $ 4,800,000 Grand Total $ 3,088,600,000


Unified Transportation Plan (2014-2023)

4

•! TxDOT’s 10-year plan to guide transportation development •! Required by the Texas Administrative Code (TAC, Section 16.105) •! Approved each year by the Texas Transportation Commission

before August 31

•! Includes projects involving highways, aviation, public transportation, and state and coastal waterways

!"#$"#%&

(&


Summary of UTP Funding

5

Historic Future

$0

$1,000,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$3,000,000,000

$4,000,000,000

$5,000,000,000

$6,000,000,000

$7,000,000,000

$8,000,000,000

$9,000,000,000

$10,000,000,000

Fu

nd

ing

Lev

el

Fiscal Year

Unified Transportation Program Statewide Funding FY 2004 - 2023

Issues: •! Historic funding has been

unpredictable. •! Clearly and systematically account

and plan for unpredictability •! Respond to performance based

planning requirements of MAP-21


District Funding Sources

6

Category Description Dallas Tyler Atlanta Total

1 Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation 362.20 117.38 117.97 597.55

2 Metro and Urban Area Corridor Projects ! 37.67 ! 37.67

3 Non-traditionally Funded Projects 144.75 ! ! 144.75

4 Statewide Connectivity Projects ! ! !

5 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement ! ! !

6 Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation* ! ! !

7 Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation ! ! !

8 Safety* ! ! !

9 Transportation Enhancements ! ! !

10 Supplemental Transportation Projects 9.94 5.85 ! 15.79

11 District Discretionary 25.00 25.00 25.00 75.00

12 Strategic Priority 472.13 5.00 ! 477.13

Local 306.68 36.46 2.65 345.79

Total 1,320.70 227.36 145.62 1,693.68

Unified Transportation Plan 2014-2023 (in Millions of Dollars)

* Included in the Statewide Program Funding

&


MPO Funding Sources

7

Category Description NCTCOG Tyler Longview Total

1 Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation

2 Metro and Urban Area Corridor Projects 299.20 21.17 16.5 336.87

3 Non-traditionally Funded Projects 646.50

4 Statewide Connectivity Projects

5 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 736.55

6 Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation*

7 Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation 929.71

8 Safety*

9 Transportation Enhancements 95.21

10 Supplemental Transportation Projects

11 District Discretionary

12 Strategic Priority 44.19

12 STP-MM 3.76

Local 939.06

Total 3,694.18 21.17 16.50 3,731.85

Unified Transportation Plan 2014-2023 (in Millions of Dollars)

* Included in the Statewide Program Funding


Local Funding

8

•! Cities along the I-20 East Texas Corridor have an annual budget of approximately $460 Million. However, transportation is identified as a substantial amount in that budget.

•! The five counties outside the Dallas Metro area have an annual budget of about $200 Million.

&

&


Funding Possibilities - Federal

9

Upcoming Legislation to Fund Transportation May Include: •! Tolling of existing interstates •! Use of business taxes to increase transportation

funding, or •! Steady/Lower Transportation Funding Levels


Funding Possibilities - State

10

Proposition One •! Proposition One in November 2014 •! Could add up to $1.2 billion in Transportation Funding Success of Proposition One could result in further proposals to increase transportation fund •! Registration Fees •! Motor Fuels Tax Increase Tolling / Public Private Partnership

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-06/texas-lawmakers-seek-road-fund-boost-to-accomodate-growth.html

&


Funding Possibilities - Local

11

•! Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZ) •! Vehicle Registration Fee

•! Bexar County (~$12M annually) •! El Paso County (~$6M annually) •! Hidalgo County (~$4M annually) •! Webb County (~$2M annually)

•! Other Local/Private Contributions

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/09/04/legislature-gave-three-counties-power-raise-car-fe/


Strategies & Next Steps for I-20

12

•! Identify Priorities •! Obtain Local Support

•! Create Partnerships •! Obtain Public Input •! Local Funding for Non-mobility Projects like Frontage

Roads •! Advance Priorities through Project Development

Process •! Identify Opportunities for Right-of-way Donations/

Acquisitions •! Be Ready for Future Funding Opportunities

&

&


Questions?

13

&

&

Meeting #5

June 11, 2014

I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Status of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study

July 2013 •! Advisory

Committee Kick-off & Study Introduction

February 2014 •! Prioritize Goals

and Objectives •! Identify Potential

Projects •! Members begin

Initial Public Outreach

January 2014 •! Discuss

Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) Considerations

•! Review & Finalize Public Outreach Tools

October 2013 •! Develop Objectives •! Identify/Review


•! Discuss Public Outreach Tools

April 2014 •! Members

Continue Initial Public Outreach

•! Conference Call to update on Outreach Activities

June 2014 •! Members

Complete Initial Public Outreach

•! Evaluate & Prioritize Projects

•! Review Summary of Public Input

August 2014 •! Review Draft

Corridor Plan •! Prepare for Draft

Corridor Plan Public Outreach

Sept.-Oct. 2014 •! Hold Open

House(s)

November 2014 •! Review Public

Input Received at Open House(s)

•! Finalize Corridor Plan

December 2014

•! Presentation to Commission

•! Members help spread the word that a Final Corridor Plan is available on the website

Indicates Committee Meeting We are here:

Attachment 3 NCTCOG Update

Handout

Attachment 4

Breakout Activity Responses and

Boards

Member Entity CountyEmerging Trends and Technologies


Frontage RoadsAdditional I‐20

CapacityOther Details of Other Priority

1 Dallas County Dallas 4 1 2 3 2 Barriers in medians

2 NCTCOG Dallas 5 1 2 4 3 Cross over prevention barriers3 DART Dallas 1 4 3 2 5

4 Dallas County Dallas 4 1 2 3 5 Lighting and concrete barrier5 Kaufman County Kaufman 4 2 1 3 5

6 Van Zandt County Van Zandt 4 2 1 3 5 Truck lane. 7 NETRMA Van Zandt 4 1 2 3 5 Passenger rail.8 Smith County Smith 4 2 3 1 5

9 Tyler MPO Smith 4 1 2 3 5

10 Lindale Smith 4 1 2 3 5 Comment regarding ramps and interchanges: I‐20 at US 6911 Tyler City Smith 4 1 2 3 5

12 Gregg County Gregg 3 2 4 1 5

13 Longview MPO Gregg 4 2 3 1 5

14 Harrison County Harrison 4 3 1 2 5

15 NETRMA Harrison 1 2 3 4 5 Alternate routes posted for traffic tie‐ups; through electric signs, or smart phones?1617181920212223

3.60 1.73 2.20 2.60 4.67 4 1 2 3 5

West Average Priority 3.60 1.80 2.00 3.00 4.00 Rank 4 1 2 3 5

Central Average Priority 4.00 1.33 2.00 2.67 5.00 Rank 4 1 2 3 5

East Average Priority 3.00 2.25 2.75 2.00 5.00 Rank 4 2 3 1 5

Average PriorityRank

Round 1 ‐ Level 1 Prioritization Summary

I‐20 Advisory Committee Meeting ‐ June 11, 2014


Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2 - West

1

2 1

2

5

4

43

3

12

These are preliminary priority recommendations based on the June 11, 2014 Advisory Committee meeting, and are subject to change. Public outreach will be conducted before development of final recommendations.

New frontage road from FM 741 to SH 557

Interchange Improvement at I-20 and Loop 635

2

Ramp Reversal Beltline Rd to

Loop 635

InterchangeFM 2578


Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2 - Central

1

1

1 1 11

12

7

7

2

81

1These are preliminary priority recommendations based on the June 11, 2014 Advisory Committee meeting, and are subject to change. Public outreach will be conducted before development of final recommendations.

1


Prioritization Summary – Initial Round – Level 2 - East

These are preliminary priority recommendations based on the June 11, 2014 Advisory Committee meeting, and are subject to change.Public outreach will be conducted before development of final recommendations.

3

2

3

4

1 11

1

1

1

1

12

2

1

1

I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting April 17 and 24, 2014 1 of 6

I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Meeting

Thursday, April 17, 2014, 10:00 a.m. and Thursday, April 24, 2014, 10:00 a.m.

Conference Call FINAL MEETING SUMMARY

Name Organization

Members Present on April 17 Conference Call Heather Nick, Director Tyler MPO Judge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg County Judge Bruce Wood Kaufman County Michael Miles (alternate for Gary C. Thomas) DART Michael Morris NCTCOG Mike Sims (alternate for Mayor Hal Richards) City of Terrell

Members Present on April 24 Conference Call Carmen Gardner (alternate for Judge Joel Baker) Smith County Judge Hugh Taylor Harrison County Karen Owen Longview MPO Kevin Feldt (alternate for Michael Morris) NCTCOG Lauren Trimble (alternate for Judge Clay Jenkins) Dallas County Mayor John Monaco City of Mesquite

Members Not Present on Conference Calls Celia Boswell NETRMA Judge Rhita Koches Van Zandt County Linda Ryan Thomas NETRMA Mark McDaniel Tyler MPO Martin Heines City of Tyler Mayor Darren Rozell City of Forney Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall Mayor Harold Magill City of Seagoville Mayor Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor Richard Lawrence City of Canton Mayor Robert Nelson City of Lindale

To view the complete meeting sign-in sheets, see Attachment 1. Purpose: The purpose of the two conference call meetings was to: 1) provide members with an update on public outreach for the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study progress; 2) recap public outreach activities members have been leading; 3) discuss the draft public outreach survey; and 4) plan for future meetings. An agenda was emailed out to all meeting participants prior to the conference calls, and is included in Attachment 2. Welcome/Introductions: Caroline Love and Roger Beall (TxDOT) welcomed attendees to the conference call and thanked members for participating. Members then announced their participation on the call.


Update on Public Outreach: Caroline Love and Roger Beall (TxDOT) provided members with an update on public outreach activities that have been conducted so far, including a summary of comments received from the online comment form on the project website with data on what counties the comments had been coming from. A synopsis was provided of the six activity reports received back from Balch Springs and Harrison County, tracking public outreach to approximately 200 people. In addition, information was provided on events the project team is aware have taken place but have not had activity reports returned, including presentations conducted by Smith and Gregg counties, Tyler and Longview MPOs and NETRMA. Members were also notified that several members have added a link to their websites and shared information on the project on their social media pages. Questions were raised about the creation of a project-specific Twitter and Facebook account. TxDOT will be sharing information on their existing district pages rather than creating project-specific pages for the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study. A request was made for each of the TxDOT district Facebook and Twitter accounts to post a link to the online comment form and project website so members can retweet and share the information easily. A member suggested arranging a meeting between Dallas and Kaufman counties as well as NCTCOG to discuss projects that are currently in the works along the I-20 corridor. Member Update on Public Outreach: Advisory committee members were asked to give a brief update on any activities that had not already been mentioned in the public outreach recap. Heather Nick (Tyler MPO) mentioned that they have held several open houses related to their master transportation plan and have included information about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study in those meetings. In addition, they held an open house on Tuesday, April 22 solely to discuss the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study in Smith County. The Tyler MPO has also held presentations for the Technical Advisory Committee and the local chamber of commerce. Judge Stoudt (Gregg County) said that two front-page articles had run in Longview about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study with information on reaching the project website. He foresees more comments to be received from Gregg County due to this publicity. Gregg County has also held a presentation for the local chamber of commerce. Carmen Gardner (Smith County) mentioned that Judge Baker had conducted a presentation to the local chamber of commerce. Karen Owen (Longview MPO) brought up that they have five upcoming presentations in their area. Mayor Monaco (Mesquite) asked if discussions of passenger rail would be incorporated into this study, or whether it would focus mainly on highway improvements. Roger Beall mentioned that TxDOT’s rail division would be providing an update on the AMTRAK study currently taking place looking onto


options along this corridor. The questions in the public survey could be tweaked to reflect inclusion of passenger rail. Roger then mentioned that if the members need any additional materials or support for continued public outreach efforts to please ask the study team. Draft Public Input Survey: Susan Howard (TxDOT) opened the discussion of the newest public outreach tool by asking members to discuss the public input survey the study team had sent out. Members mentioned the following comments:

• Inclusion of passenger rail wording • Rewording of question 5, item G regarding evaluation of passenger service options • Separation of “adjust speed limits to be higher and lower” into two questions

Susan asked for members to submit any additional comments to the survey by the close of business on April 25. The survey instrument would then be updated based on their suggestions and linked to the project website for use. She informed members that the survey would remain active until May 23 (extended to June 4) and would be sent out on the TxDOT district social media pages for the members to share as well. May/June Advisory Committee Meeting: Members were informed that the next Advisory Committee meeting would be held in Tyler, Texas at the Tyler Rose Garden. They were given the possible dates of May 27, June 2, 9, 10, 11 or 12. Caroline will be sending out an email and Doodle Poll to help gauge preferences on dates. Judge Wood suggested not using May 27, as it is immediately following Memorial Day. Judge Jenkins is unavailable on June 10 or 12. Judge Baker is unavailable on the 10. The MPOs will be meeting in Corpus Christi the week of June 2. Judge Taylor mentioned that a meeting scheduled for June 9 would have to be scheduled later in the afternoon. Late Summer Advisory Committee Meeting: An announcement was made regarding the next meeting to be scheduled for late summer in either July or August. Members were asked to brainstorm a possible location that we have not used. A Doodle Poll will be sent out with possible dates for this meeting as well. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:

• Post link to comment form on TxDOT district social media pages • Update public outreach survey • Send poll for meeting dates


Attachments: 1. Meeting Agenda

Meeting Staff: Marc Williams, Caroline Love, Roger Beall, Susan Howard, Lindsey Kimmitt, and Cary Karnstadt (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia, Nair Barrios, and Chris Lazaro (Jacobs) Aimee Vance (K Strategies) District Staff Present: Steven Endres and Tony Hartzel (TxDOT Dallas District) Deanne Simmons (TxDOT Atlanta District) Glenn Green and Randy Hoffman (TxDOT Tyler District)


Attachment 1

Meeting Agenda


I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee Conference Call

April 17 and 24, 2014

Agenda:

Welcome and Introductions

1. Update on Public Outreach

2. Members to provide an update on activities that they have conducted

3. Draft public input survey

4. May/June meeting date and location

5. Potential date for July/August meeting



Tuesday, February 18, 2014, 1:30 p.m. Mesquite Arts Center, Mesquite, Texas

FINAL MEETING SUMMARY


Judge Clay Jenkins Dallas CountyRay Clark (alternate for Judge Bruce Wood) Kaufman County Judge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg CountyJudge Hugh Taylor Harrison County Mayor John Monaco City of Mesquite Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs John Clary (alternate for Mayor Robert Nelson) City of Lindale Martin Heines (alternate for Mayor Barbara Bass) City of TylerMichael Morris NCTCOG


Linda Ryan Thomas, Director* NETRMA


Heather Nick, Director Tyler MPO

Karen Owen* Longview MPO Members Not Present

Judge Rhita Koches Van Zandt County Judge Joel Baker Smith CountyMayor Harold Magill City of Seagoville Mayor Darren Rozell City of Forney Mayor Hal Richards City of TerrellMayor Richard Lawrence City of Canton Mayor Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall

*Participated in the meeting via conference call. To view the complete meeting sign‐in sheets, see Attachment 1.

Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) provide members with an update on the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study progress; 2) discuss public outreach materials provided to members and how to use them; 3) review I‐20 corridor analysis completed to date; 4) identify needed improvement projects along the I‐20 corridor; and 5) plan for future meetings. A PowerPoint presentation was utilized to provide an overview of aforementioned items during the meeting. The agenda and presentation are included as Attachment 2. Open House: The Advisory Committee meeting began with an open house featuring exhibits focusing on the following topics:

General corridor maps including planned/programmed improvement projects and recorded right of way maps

Existing and future traffic data, freight traffic data and level of service Safety concerns including crash data, pavement conditions, vertical clearances


Crash hotspot analysis Community connections such as overpasses, interchanges and frontage roads Interchange analysis maps Timeline of proposed activities for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study Forms of public outreach used on other TxDOT projects such as I‐69 and My35

The open house also featured three 15‐foot corridor maps, breaking the corridor into three sections: west (Dallas and Kaufman counties), central (Van Zandt and Smith counties) and east (Gregg and Harrison counties). Previous comments received from members regarding problem issues were documented on the maps. The maps were also used during the small group activity for members to identify improvement projects needed in their regions on the map. To view exhibits displayed during the open house, see Attachment 3. Welcome/Introductions: Advisory Committee Chairman Judge Bill Stoudt (Gregg County) welcomed attendees to the meeting and thanked Mayor John Monaco for hosting the meeting at the Mesquite Arts Center. Commissioner Jeff Austin III joined the Advisory Committee meeting via conference call to thank the members for joining and for the work that has been done as part of the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study to date. Commissioner Austin also reminded members that the information gathered from this study would be presented later this year to the Texas Transportation Commission to further the progress of improvements for I‐20. Marc Williams (TxDOT), acting as the Advisory Committee Facilitator, then asked committee members to introduce themselves. Safety Briefing: Marc Williams provided a safety briefing for all meeting attendees highlighting evacuation routes from the building and locations of restrooms, fire extinguishers, and tornado shelter areas within the building, as well as considerations when driving in winter weather. Status of the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study: Marc Williams reminded members of the objectives‐ranking survey that was sent via email to each of the members prior to the meeting and would be discussed later in the meeting. He also offered the survey to anyone who had not had a chance to complete the survey yet. Marc then gave members a brief update on the progress of the study, highlighted activities that would be taking place during the next few months including the beginnings of public involvement, mentioned the draft document availability in fall 2014, and then be reviewed by the Advisory Committee in November before the legislative session starts in 2015. Public Outreach Materials: Susan Howard (TxDOT) gave a brief introduction to the public outreach materials available for the Advisory Committee members to use including talking points, frequently asked questions (FAQs), comment cards, activity forms, fact sheets, community PowerPoint presentation and an Outreach


Guidance sheet offering tips and tricks to use each of the provided tools. Hard copies of all of the materials were given to each of the members to reproduce and share with their constituents and members were informed they would also be receiving digital copies after the meeting via email. Susan then highlighted some opportunities where public outreach could be conducted for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study include City council meetings, presentations to service organizations or local groups, and the possibility of including the Corridor Study information on their webpages or social media sites. She also suggested placing printed materials in local libraries or public spaces to provide as many avenues to spread the word as possible. Susan mentioned that any materials members might need that have not already been provided could be produced on an as‐needed basis. Members were informed that the included activity forms should be completed and submitted to Caroline Love (TxDOT) following presentations conducted regarding the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study. Susan mentioned that Aimee Vance (K Strategies) would be following up with the members on a regular basis to answer any questions, provide assistance with public outreach or address any concerns members might have throughout the public outreach process. Prioritize Committee Objectives: Members were emailed an online survey to complete prior to the meeting to prioritize the list of objectives developed during the October 2013 meeting. Printed surveys were handed out to members who had not completed the survey prior to attending today’s meeting. Susan Howard then reviewed the results of the 16 completed surveys received both prior to and during the meeting, highlighting the top three priorities for each of the goals set for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study, as shown below: Involve local communities

1. Create transportation plans that complement local development plans 2. Outline potential safety impacts to properties along or near the I‐20 corridor (e.g. residential,

mix use, commercial, etc.) 3. Establish framework for transportation reinvestment zones (TRZs) along I‐20 to assist in funding

all modes and adopt TRZs locally

Consider current and future multi‐modal transportation needs 1. Accommodate all needed forms of transportation using existing I‐20 geometry and right of way

(ROW) 2. Consider the impact of I‐20 planning on Toll 49 3. Consider US 80 and 175 in addition to the I‐20 corridor

Improve safety

1. Reconstruct access ramps to current standards 2. Additional lanes in congested areas on I‐20 3. Construct one‐way service roads to divert traffic in event of I‐20 closings

Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for travelers and freight

1. Coordination of improvements where municipalities are updating their infrastructure and


thoroughfare plans to complement this study effort 2. Consider rail hubs as connectors to urban areas 3. Build relationships with passenger service providers including plans for service expansion and

diversification

Enhance air quality 1. Construct continuous one‐way frontage roads with priority to high volume/high accident areas 2. Create high occupancy lanes (HOL) to alleviate congestion 3. Reduce idling in case of accident or lane closures

Members were asked if there were any results they did not agree with. It was mentioned that planning for the I‐69 interchange near Marshall should still be included as part of the goal for considering current and future multimodal transportation needs. Clarification was made in regards to the missing survey responses from members. All members present at this meeting’s surveys were included. Several of the members whose surveys were missing have not participated in any of the Advisory Committee meetings to date. Results of all 16 responses are included in Attachment 4. Early Successes for I‐20 East Texas Corridor: Michael Morris (NCTCOG) provided handouts to all meeting attendees addressing several early successes of the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study’s Advisory Committee. Michael highlighted a variety of methods and strategies that could be used to make progress towards the goals outlined by the Advisory Committee as well as to implement and fund improvements identified by this study along the corridor. The handout is included in Attachment 5. Developing the I‐20 Highway Master Plan: Michael Sexton (Jacobs) gave members an overview of the information about the I‐20 East Texas corridor that has been gathered so far in relation to crash hotspots, right of way, median widths and interchange analysis. He also provided data in reference to the number of obstacles and opportunities for improvement throughout the corridor including interchanges, bridges, on‐ramps, off‐ramps, overpasses and the location of frontage roads. Detailed information in regards to crash data was then broken down into further detail regarding fatal and incapacitating crashes, snow and ice‐related crashes and overturned vehicle crashes both within the hotspots and throughout the corridor. Michael also showed the members maps of existing right of ways and median widths that would allow for improvement areas. He then explained the analysis that has been conducted on the on‐ and off‐ramps throughout the corridor. A grading system was applied to each of the ramps showing where each of the ramps fall in accordance with standards. Each ramp was studied both by an aerial camera and also by physically driving each of the ramps to collect vertical clearance information. Members were asked to review the information about the ramps as part of the small group exercise following this presentation and provide information if they disagreed with any of the ratings applied to ramps in their areas. After Michael’s presentation was concluded, a member asked if the study would also be evaluating US


80. Marc Williams emphasized that data on US 80 has not been collected as of yet, but could be included in the future. Another member also mentioned that areas where there is currently no frontage road would be ideal areas to begin studying alternate highway potential. Small Group Exercise: Committee members broke into three groups according to their location along the I‐20 corridor; specifically, West (Dallas and Kaufman counties), Central (Van Zandt and Smith counties) and East (Gregg and Harrison counties). Susan Howard, Aimee Vance and Roger Beall (TxDOT) served as group facilitators as each of the members left notes on their area maps and wrote notes in relation to comments members had on identifying projects along the corridor based on factors such as capacity needs, safety improvements, economic development needs and multi‐modal improvements. After each of the groups were finished meeting, members were then asked to peruse the other two groups’ maps to review or leave comments on the other two sections of the corridor. All of the members then reconvened and each group chose a representative to present their synopsis of issues discussed during the group meetings. Group One, representing the western section of the corridor, presented first and mentioned themes centered on the following:

Separate northbound 175 traffic from westbound I‐20 Add an additional lane traveling east at US 80 and I‐20 interchange Improved signage traveling west at US 80 and I‐20 Add median barriers on Kaufman County side of I‐20 Reconfigure FM 429 and I‐20 interchange in Terrell Frontage roads at major interchanges like FM 34 and work east/west from there US 80 and I‐20 are close partners in the western region Frontage roads and new access roads should be coordinated with local entities

Group Two, representing the central section of the corridor, present themes centered on the following:

Focusing specifically on I‐20, not US 80 Potential high speed rail must be along the I‐20 corridor to be useful Create a multimodal connection near Lindale for rail Extend the I‐20 intersection for Toll 49 back to Jim Hogg Road Plan for future vehicle needs Reconstruct access ramps starting at the Smith County line and into Van Zandt County Create frontage roads between Toll 49 and 271 Evaluate interchange at 859 and I‐20 in Canton

Group Three, representing the eastern section of the corridor, presented themes centered on the following:

Ramps in Gregg County at Highway 31, 42 and 135 Additional lanes in Longview area Integrated traffic management in highest traffic areas are all in flood plains, should use US 80

as part of that plan instead of frontage roads or additional lanes Additional lanes at I‐20 and Highway 59 in Harrison County to allow for better access to


Highway 43 Additional lanes along I‐20 at major intersections through both Harrison and Gregg counties Increased connectivity in relation to Toll 49, I‐69/369 and into Loop 390

Future Meetings: Marc Williams thanked members for their participation in the Advisory Committee meetings and activities, aiding the study team create the finalized report over the next few months. He then discussed that the next Advisory Committee meeting in April 2014 would be a conference call to update members on progress of the study and to allow them to provide feedback on their public outreach efforts. The next in‐person meeting will be held in May to reconvene and discuss the outcomes of public outreach efforts as well as present members with initial project recommendations. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:

Send digital copies of public outreach materials to members Schedule April conference call meeting Check on members’ progress on public outreach efforts regularly

Attachments:

1. Advisory Committee Sign‐In Sheets 2. Meeting Agenda and Presentation 3. Open House Exhibits 4. Objectives Prioritization Survey Responses 5. Early Successes for IH 20 East Texas Corridor

Meeting Staff: Marc Williams, Caroline Love, Susan Howard, Roger Beall, Cary Karnstadt, Lindsey Kimmitt and Peggy Thurin (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia, Chris Lazaro and Nair Barrios (Jacobs) Aimee Vance and Jenny Paredes (K Strategies)


Sheets

avance

Typewritten Text

* denotes present on conference call


Presentation

"#$%!&'()!*+,'(!-.//01./!2130(./4!-.550))++!*6+(1'47!8+9/6'/4!:;7!$%:<7!:=%%!>?!@!<=A%!>?!

?+(B60)+!2/)(!-+C)+/!D+E+'/('F!G'FF!1527 N. Galloway Avenue, Mesquite, Texas 75149-'FF#0C!""#$$%$&'%()*#""""-.CH+/+CI+!-.1+!"&(+"')$"$)++,"

-./.0!""12234!556789/4:;./.0:89<56789/456:313=>?$&@&+'A*(BC-?DE6F&D6G)HIJ;"

?++)0CJ!K<!#!2J+C1'!

(!**"K"(!&*"CH" L.MN42O72N9P"B"Q3.P"R9S4."

(!&*"K"(!A*"CH" -.T89<."B"UP2O9VS82N9P4" Judge Bill StoudtW"XO.MM"Y9SP2Z"[7\.2Z"]ON.\NPM"" """""""""""H7O8"-NTTN7<4W"^0_Q^"[272S4"9\"21."U%+*"J742"^.074"Y9OONV9O"[2SVZ" "

(!A*"K"+!(A"CH" !"#$%&'(")*+,&-'.%/&"//%01" "[S47P"R9;7OVW"^0_Q^"L.`N.;"9\"QS2O.781"H72.ON7T4"7PV"Y9<<.P24""Q3.P"Y9<<N22.."_N48S44N9P"7/9S2"D..V4W"QS2O.781"J\\9O24W"7PV"YSOO.P2"CS/TN8"Y9<<.P24"

+!(A"K"&!**"CH" CON9ON2NI."Y9<<N22.."Q/6.82N`.4" "[S47P"R9;7OVW"^0_Q^""

&!** K &!(* CH ]O.7a

&!(*"K")!+*"CH" .+2+$03%14')-+'5678'9%4-:,;'<,/)+*'!$,1' HN817.T"[.029PW">789/4"U%+*"Y9OONV9O"Y17O782.ON42N84"Y9<<N22.."NP3S2"NP29"CO.TN<NP7OZ"U<3O9`.<.P2"C944N/NTN2N.4"7PV"CON9ON2NI72N9P"b7829O4"

XO9S3"("K"-.42"c_7TT74"7PV"d7S\<7P"Y9SP2N.4e" K"L9M.O"7PV"DN417P2"XO9S3"+"K"Y.P2O7T"cf7P"E7PV2"7PV"[<N21"Y9SP2N.4e"K"FN<.."7PV"D7NO"XO9S3"&"K"J742"cXO.MM"7PV"R7OON49P"Y9SP2N.4e"K"[S47P"7PV"Y1ON4"

L6+()0.C!).!'11/+((!16/0CJ!)E+!(5'FF!J/.6M!(+((0.C=!UV.P2N\Z"3O96.824"c;N21"T9872N9P"7PV".02.P2e"7T9PM"21."89OONV9O"/74.V"9P"\7829O4"TNa."87378N2Z"

P..V4W"47\.2Z"N<3O9`.<.P24W".89P9<N8"V.`.T93<.P2"P..V4W"7PV"<ST2N%<9V7T"N<3O9`.<.P24:"J07<3T.4"NP8TSV."O7<3"O.89P\NMSO72N9PW"7VVNPM"47\.2Z"/7OON.O4W"P.;5O.89P42OS82"NP2.O817PM.W"7VV5N<3O9`."\O9P27M."O97V4W"7VV"<7NP"T7P.4W"7VV"3744.PM.O"4.O`N8.W"3O9`NV.5N<3O9`."89PP.82N9P"29"<ST2N%<9V7T5VN42ON/S2N9P"8.P2.O4:"""

&!AA"CH!!! H.</.O4"29"3O9`NV."NP3S2"9P"21."2;9"921.O"MO9S34:")!*A"CH!!! L.39O2"9S2"\O9<"7"<.</.O"9\".781"MO9S3"

)!+* K )!&*"CH YT94NPM"Y9<<.P245D.02"H..2NPM >SVM."[29SV2)!&*"CH" FV69SOP"

Meeting #4

February 18, 2014

I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Safety Briefing

Winter Driving Safety Tips !! Reduce speed. Speed limits are based on normal road and weather conditions,

not winter road conditions

!! Maintain at least three times the normal following distance on snow or ice

!! Watch carefully for snow removal equipment and stay at least 200 feet back if you are behind a snow plow

!! Use extra caution on bridges, ramps, overpasses and shaded areas as they tend to freeze first

!! If you start to slide, ease off the gas pedal or brakes. Steer into the direction of the skid until you feel you have regained traction then straighten your vehicle

2

Source: http://www.txdot.gov/driver/weather/winter-driving.html

Status of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study

3

July 2013 •! Advisory

Committee Kick-off & Study Introduction

February 2014 •! Prioritize Goals

and Objectives •! Identify Potential

Projects •! Members begin

Initial Public Outreach

January 2014 •! Discuss

Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) Considerations

•! Review & Finalize Public Outreach Tools

October 2013 •! Develop Objectives •! Identify/Review


•! Discuss Public Outreach Tools

April 2014 •! Members

Continue Initial Public Outreach

•! Conference Call to update on Outreach Activities

May 2014 •! Members

Complete Initial Public Outreach

•! Evaluate & Prioritize Projects

•! Review Summary of Public Input

August 2014 •! Review Draft

Corridor Plan •! Prepare for Draft

Corridor Plan Public Outreach

Sept.-Oct. 2014 •! Hold Open

House(s)

November 2014 •! Review Public

Input Received at Open House(s)

•! Finalize Corridor Plan

December 2014

•! Presentation to Commission

•! Members help spread the word that a Final Corridor Plan is available on the website

We are here:

Indicates Committee Meeting

Public Outreach Discussion

!!Public Outreach Materials –!Fact Sheet

–!Talking Points

–!Frequently Asked Questions

–!Community Presentation

–!Activity Form

–!Comment Card

–!Social Media Outreach

!!Public Outreach Opportunities

4

Committee Goals and Objectives

Goals:

1.! Involve Local Communities

2.! Consider Current and Future Multimodal Transportation Needs

3.! Improve Safety

4.! Reduce Congestion and Enhance Mobility for Travelers and Freight

5.! Enhance Air Quality

Discussion of the Survey Results

5

Developing the I-20

Highway Master Plan

6

I-20 Corridor – Crash Hotspot Analysis

7

8

I-20 Corridor – Crash Hotspot Analysis

I-20 – Fatal and Incapacitating Crashes

9

I-20 Corridor – Snow and Ice Related Crashes

10

I-20 Corridor – Overturned Vehicle Crashes

11

I-20 Corridor – Right of Way and Median Widths

12

I-20 Corridor – Ramp Analysis

13

Developing the I-20 Highway Master Plan

14

Traffic Congestion

High Crash Rates

Need for Economic

Development

Add Capacity

Improve Safety

Improve Accessibility

•!Add Main Lanes •!Add/Improve

Passenger Service

•!Add Median

Barriers •!Improve Ramps

•!Add Lighting •!Raise Overpass

Clearances

•!Add Frontage Roads

•!Add New Interchanges

Concern Need Possible Improvement

Examples to describe approach to identifying improvements/projects

Small Group Work Sessions

15

West !"##"$%&'()*+%,"(-.")%&'()*+%&/*+%'-%01$2(/*1%&/*+%'-%3"#45%678/)9$%:&;&<=&/*+%'-%;1881##%!>?;%&/*+%'-%@'8)1+%&/*+%'-%61"9'A/##1%

Central 6./*5%&'()*+%;+#18%0B<%;+#18%0B<%C")%D")E*%&'()*+%&/*+%'-%;+#18&/*+%'-%&")*')%&/*+%'-%F/)E"#1%:G;?0>%

East :G;?0>%=8199%&'()*+%H"88/$')%&'()*+%F')9A/1I%0B<%&/*+%'-%F')9A/1I&/*+%'-%0"8$5"##%

Next Meeting Date and Location

16

April 2014 Conference Call for status update on Initial Public Outreach

May 2014 Review public input summary and

Prioritize Projects

Attachment 3 Open House Exhibits

ADVISORY COMMITTEE: MISSION STATEMENT

“ THE I-20 EAST TEXAS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WILL PROMOTE AND FACILITATE THE INVOLVEMENT AND INPUT OF AFFECTED LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND INTERESTED

STAKEHOLDERS TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE THE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF THE

CORRIDOR WITH A FOCUS ON SAFETY, MOBILITY, CONGESTION, AND AIR QUALITY FOR TRAVELERS AND

FREIGHT THROUGH EAST TEXAS ”

DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE

LOCATION WITH PLANNED & PROGRAMMED IMPROVEMENTS

Two-lane Frontage Roads

2014

Construction ofFreeway Ramps to

Seagoville Rd.2013

New Interchange at Kleberg Rd.

2020

ConstructionFrontage Roads

2035

ExpansionFrom 4 to 6 lanes

2035 ExpansionFrom 4 to 6 lanes

2030Expansion

From 4 to 6 lanes2035

TEXAS

TEXAS

LO

UI

SI

AN

A

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITHGREGG

HARRISON

TEXAS

TEXAS

Bridge Wideningat LP 281

Underpass ¹

Bridge Wideningat FM 450

Underpass ¹Bridge Wideningat Mason Creek ¹

1571

3413

125

1305

84

782

2205

3270

3530

1126

1234

1520

1892

19

1089

1522

3299

1798

878

726

2451

2

2274635

805

2215

2792

3198

3341

2983

1903

1483

269

2260

2016

664

55A

3379

764

3389

345

984

3245

2653

2946

2892

3311

514

55

514

288

1795

598

2963

36

3225

2612

688

3271

2813

1140

1141

2551

3421

1324

2453

2515

1975

2642

850

3226

726

2422

25602297

2970

2649130

16

1972

1139

2276

2750

968

2682

983

25141521

2752

2930

161

20812057

2728

2636

2911

2015

513

2607

1513

3310

250

2751

551

3052

918

1565

1969

3549

709

2932

2010

1520

728

317

2206

3042

348

1639

999

549

1803

997

29462795

3039

3358

21

959

2868

3506

3054

1903

805

1182

3056

2588

1390

2948

857

2475

2906

1799

1571

857

1803

1667

3384

1392

838

1794

1971

1564

17

2555

451

633348

3094

2089

544

839856

1968

3204

2198

3019

1975

177

780

1647

6

2493

317

2964

3251

3274

2908

2451

1805

1777

2683

858

3079

744

2137

3396

1138

3357

1716

2495

849

2064

552

1641

1999

2755

2613

1390

450

1519

1653

316

2947

1643

2324

1839

124

804

740

1722

2087

2683

2207

2737

1652

269

1567

1801

3041

1795

248

2263

2659

1841

852

727

514

2254

637

2199

3135

2658

3383

2728

3359

1795

1603

1797

1404

513

1389

3080

225

1255

2795

2965

1391

1395

250

593

726

1564

1519

2859

2494

16162329

2455

1388

35

1504

16

985

1393

3227

757

848

556

987

1895

2867

813

2454

2860

1804

3096

251

1567

1256

2275

1254

1183

726

2727

115

1567

2208

144

2204

1567

36

986

2728

2015

2225

514

879

1650

2909

2012

1448

161

3441

317

1798

124

724

2879

756

2709

316

3001

1845

3231

741

16

1841

10

1249

2796

349

1793

858

550

2011

15

852

9

1615

855

726

959

2685

555

1997

1649

1998

123

1970

49

548

515

1995

1844

2578

2339

556

2869

773

3053

450

314

2101

1253

993

1255

248

753

17

699

773

1565

636

59

548

134

275

840

450

1651

2661

90

1716

740

1251

1794

607

1861

1186

429

9

148

1129

429

1181

2276

2208

968

778

751

852

1836

1002

2493

134

2869

2966

859

660

55769

31

312

314

17

1252

344

2767

782

515

279

1126 2517

13

729

449

49

148

779

85

125

16

315

31

346

850

2625

2088

47

14

87

43

161

235

173

322

449

243

77

164

561

155

437

60

152

572

264

57

124

147

7

244

238179

469

8

485

149

248

63

364

557

571

34

31

190

49

309

502

352

12

334

135

182

390

19

135

155

323

155

22315

322

135

300

281

276

323

154276

11

274

205

155

78

110

34

66

243

149

37

64

42

110

198

43

34

43

155

31

49

11

64

19

31

154

287

259

287259

79

79

259

271

59

69

175

80

635

30

45

20

20

dwell

Terrell

Corsicana

McLendon-Chisholm

RoyseCity

Fate

Murphy

BalchSprings

Seagoville

Rockwall

Heath

Rowlett

Lavon

RichardsonWylie

Garland

a e

Sachse

Dallas

Plano

Mesquite

tchins

Ferris

Wilmer

UnionValley

Rice

Kerens

GoodlowBarry

Eureka

Forney

Nevada

Kaufman

Cottonwood

Josephine

Quinlan

HawkCove

CombineCrandall

CaddoMills

Lone Oak

WestTawakoni

Ennis

Marshall

UnionGrove

Murchison

Linden

Kilgore

Ore City

Jefferson

NewLondonOverton

Eustace

EastMountain

Noonday

Arp

Athens

Carthage

StarHarbor

TroupTrinidad

GilmerMineolaGrand

SalineFruitvale

Tyler

Hawkins

Beckville

Tool

Whitehouse

Edom

NewChapel

Hill

HallsvilleWaskom

Van

Hideaway

LongviewWhiteOak

LoneStar

Winnsboro

Point

TatumChandler

EastTawakoni Emory

Quitman

Scottsville

Brownsboro

Hughes SpringsPittsburg

Lakeport

Easton

MooreStation

Malakoff

Canton Gladewater

Daingerfield

WillsPoint

Henderson

LogCabin

WarrenCity

SevenPoints

ELLIS

PANOLARUSK

NAVARRO

CHEROKEE

ANDERSON

HENDERSON

TITUSFRANKLIN

HUNT

MORRISHOPKINSCOLLIN

CASSCAMP

WOOD

RAINSROCKWALL

MARION

UPSHUR

KCS

KCS

SEPC

DART D

GNO

TEXU

UP

UP

BLR

UP

BNSF

TEXU

UP

DGNO

UP

UP BNSF

KCS

UP

UP

LegendI-20 Study Corridor

Interstate

US Highway

State Highway

Railroads

Amtrak Stations

General Aviation Airport

Reliever Airport

MULTI


Counties

City Boundaries

Project Boundaries

Date: 10/17/2013Source: TxDOT, MPOIP, TRTP,UTP.

Project Development Stages

Planned and Programmed Improvements

Project Description

0 10 205Miles

¹ Year unavailable.

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271

Location MapDRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE

RIGHT OF WAYLegend

§̈¦20

§̈¦635


598

3039

740

9861392688

1389

2728

429

2965

2932

2757

2728

2727

548

1641

987

740

2728

2578

741

429

148

UV

UV87

UV352

UV205 UV34

UV557

UV34

£�175

£�80

PostO k B d

Talty

TerrellBalchSprings

Seagoville

Sunnyvale

Dallas

Mesquite

chinsWilmer

Forney

CombineCrandall

OakRidge

UP

540

480420470420

320400

450 480 500

380

WEST

§̈¦20

LO

UI

SI

AN

ATEXAS

TEXAS

1844

2205

1997

2983

3379

2276

26852879

2605

16 968

3053

3272

2011

2206

3251

449

1845

2087

2207

9

2208

2199

134

9

2275

450

349

1998

31

968

1252

2625UV322

UV156

UV154

UV322

UV390

UV485

UV390

UV43

UV63

UV149

UV502UV300

UV31

UV42UV135

UV43

UV281

£�80

£�259

£�259

£�59

£�271

£�80

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

§̈¦20


Marshall

Grove

Kilgore

Hallsville

Waskom

LongviewWhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport


City

WarrenCity

UP

SEPC

UPBNSF

UP

UP

60

500300

360 540

300

500

300

EAST

49

1861316

3270

16B

2908773

3271

3311

2422

3056

16

778

2911

2015

857

724

1801

1504

757

90

279

857

10021795

858

1805

849

1653

1255

1404

1652

2869

2659

859

16

3227

1804

2015

1252

314

2909

2710

16

858

1995

1253

773

17

1255

1651

47

14

16

UV564

UV155

UV155

UV243

UV198

UV19

UV64

UV110

£�271

£�69

£�80§̈¦20

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

BigSandy

Mineola

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Gladew


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

510

350

455

350

350

480360

540

400300

300

380

325

300

400

330

500

CENTRALCentral

West

East

0 5 102.5Miles ¯

349 or less

350 - 399

400 or more

I -20 Corridor

Railroads


Source: TxDOT RHiNo Data (2012)

Right of Way Average in Feet

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


2012 TRAFFIC CONDITIONSLegend

45,000(27%)

Urban 6-lanes

34,000(30%)

Urban 6-lanes 34,000(30%)

26,000(20%)

24,000(20%)

44,000(15%)

20

635


45,000(15%)

598

3039

740

9861392688

1389

2728

429

2965

2932

2757

2728

2727

548

1641

987

740

2728

2578

741

429

148

352

87

352

205 34

557

34

175

80

Post

Talty

TerrellBalch

Springs

Seagoville

Sunnyvale

Dallas

Mesquite

chinsWilmer

Forney

CombineCrandall

OakRidge

UP

WEST

20

49

28,000(34%)

24,000(37%)

29,000(33%)

26,000(35%) 30,000

(35%) 22,000(40%) 26,000

(38%) 23,000(40%) 28,000

(37%)

36,000(30%)

31,000(32%)

26

1861

3270

316

2908

1801

3311

773

3056

3271

7782422

2911

857

2015

1504

90

1002

724

1795

857

757

279

858

1805

1255

849

2869

1652

1653

1404

2659

859

16

3227

1804

2015

1252

314

2909

2710

17

16

858

1253

1995

773

1255

1651

47

14

16

564

155

155

243

198

19

64

110

271

69

8020

20

20

BigSandy

Mineola

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Glade


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

CENTRAL

LO

UI

SI

AN

ATEXAS

TEXAS

28,000(37%)

28,000(37%)

33,000(34%)

34,000(33%)

33,000(33%)

31,000(35%)

31,000(35%)

30,000(35%)

31,000(35%)

259G

2205

220411862204

2685

2963

2983

2879

3379

757

2605

2276

968

3272

3053

2206

451

16

449

2906

2011

1845

3251

9

2208

2767

2087

2207

2199

134

2275

450

9

349

1998

31

968

1252

2625

322

156

43

390390

322

48563

502300

31

31

149

42

13543

281

80

259

259

59

271

80

20

20

20

Marshall

Kilgore

Hallsville

Waskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton

Gladewater ClarksvilleCity

WarrenCity


UP

SEPC

UP

UP

BNSF

UP

EAST

0 5 102.5Miles

Average Daily TrafficUp to 24,999

25,000 - 28,999

29,000 - 34,999

35,000 - 44,999

45,000 - 54,999

55,000 or more

Railroads


45,000

Level of Service (Main Lanes)

A-B C-D E-F

XX,XXX(YY%)

Average Daily Traffic 2012(Percent Truck Traffic)

29,00080,00049,000Urban

Rural (4 lanes)

(6 lanes)


Central

West

East

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


2032 TRAFFIC CONDITIONSLegend

62,000(27%)

Urban 6-lanes

47,000(30%)

Urban 6-lanes 47,000(30%)

41,000(18%)

34,000(20%)

57,000(16%)

62,000(15%)


598

3039

740

9861392688

1389

2728

429

2965

2932

2757

2728

2727

548

1641

987

740

2728

2578

741

429

148

352

87

352

205 34

557

34

175

80

Post

Talty

TerrellBalch

Springs

Seagoville

Sunnyvale

Dallas

Mesquite

chinsWilmer

Forney

CombineCrandall

OakRidge

UP

WEST

2020

635

49

39,000(34%)

34,000(37%)

41,000(33%)

41,000(33%) 30,000

(40%) 36,000(38%) 32,000

(40%) 39,000(37%)

49,000(30%)

26

1861

3270

316

2908

1801

3311

773

3056

3271

7782422

2911

857

2015

1504

90

1002

724

1795

857

757

279

858

1805

1255

849

2869

1652

1653

1404

2659

859

16

3227

1804

2015

1252

314

2909

2710

17

16

858

1253

1995

773

1255

1651

47

14

16

564

155

155

243

198

19

64

110

271

69

8020

20

20

BigSandy

Mineola

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Glade


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

CENTRAL

LO

UI

SI

AN

ATEXAS

TEXAS

39,000(37%)

46,000(34%)

45,000(34%)

47,000(33%)

47,000(33%)

44,000(34%)

44,000(35%)

42,000(35%)

47,000(34%)

2205

220411862204

2685

2963

2983

2879

3379

757

2605

2276

968

3272

3053

2206

451

16

449

2906

2011

1845

3251

9

2208

2767

2087

2207

2199

134

2275

450

9

349

1998

31

968

1252

2625

322

156

43

390390

322

48563

502300

31

31

149

42

13543

281

80

259

259

59

271

80

20

20

Marshall

Kilgore

Hallsville

Waskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton


WarrenCity


UP

SEPC

UP

BNSF

UP

EAST

0 5 102.5Miles

Up to 24,999

25,000 - 28,999

29,000 - 34,999

35,000 - 44,999

45,000 - 54,999

55,000 or more

Railroads


45,000

Level of Service (Main Lanes)

A-B C-D E-F

XX,XXX(YY%)

Average Daily Traffic 2012(Percent Truck Traffic)

29,00080,00049,000Urban

Rural (4 lanes)

(6 lanes)


Average Daily Traffic

Central

West

East

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


CRASH RATES (2008-2012)1392 986688

429

3039

2728

2728

2932

1389

2757

2965

548

1641740

2728987

2727

741

2578

429

148

87

205 34

557

34

175

80635

20

Post OakBend

Talty

TerrellBalchSprings

Seagoville

Dallas

Mesquite

chins

Wilmer

Forney

KaufmanCombine

CrandallOak

Ridge

K A U F M A NK A U F M A ND A L L A SD A L L A S

UP

076

1920

7232

28

20

51

2668

62

22

44

32

6

26

1938

30

55

11 36

WEST

US 69

346

49

Tyler

965

3270

3271

2908773

16B

3311

2422

16

858

2911

2015

724

757

279

778857

90

3056

857

1504

858

1805

1002

849

1653

1795

1652

1801

26591404

28691255

162015

3227

859

1804

314

1252

2909

2710

16

1995

773

1253

1255

17

1651

47

14

16

564

155

198

155

243

19

64 110

271

69

80

20

BigSandy

Mineola

Saline

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Gladew


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

UP

3

21

13

36

58

16

68

28

112

65

67

4767

45

68

88

62

123

68100

40

38

111

75

57

75

69

100

9837

19

45

109

21

38

19

21

39

24

47

32

129

52

44

48

44

73

CENTRAL

110

Loop 281 SE

FM 2087SH 31SH 42

LO

UI

SI

AN

A

2685

2205

20121639

2879

2983

3379

29631186

3272 2605

96816

2275

2276

2206

1845

3053

2208

2906

9

451

3251

2011

2087

2207

134

2199

450

2767

2204

9

349

1998

968 31

1252

2625

322

390390

485

322

50263

300

31

149

31

42135

43

281

80

79

80

259

259

80

59

27180

20

Marshall

Kilgore

HallsvilleWaskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton


WarrenCity


SEPC

UP

BNSF

UP

UP

117

30

87

1933

44

65

33

251

79

80

65 90

45

57232

55

153

295 111

40

38

116

28

52

26

5935

4748 80

3130

57

48

EAST

0 5 102.5Miles Source: TxDOT Crash Records Information System (CRIS)

Central

West

East

Crash Hotspots

Railroads

Interchanges (Half Mile Radius)

I-20 Study Area Counties0 44 88 346

Crash Rate* (Main Lanes)Five-year Average Crash Rate for

Texas Rural Interstates: 43.9

* Crash rate measured per 100 million vehicle miles traveled

Legend

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


PAVEMENT CONDITIONSLegend

20

635

598740

3039

9861392

688

1389

429

2728

2965

2932

2757

2728

548

1641

2727

987

740

2728

2578

741

429

148

87

205 34

557

34

175

80

Post OakBend

Talty

TerrellBalch

Springs

Seagoville

Sunnyvale

Dallas

Mesquite

chins

Wilmer

Forney

CombineCrandall

OakRidge


UP

WEST

49Tyler

20

2965

3270

3271

2908773

3311

2422

16

858

2911

2015

724

757

279

778857

90

3056

857

1504

858

1805

1002

849

1653

1795

1652

1801

26591404

28691255

162015

3227

859

1804

314

1252

2909

2710

16

1995

773

1253

1255

17

1651

47

14

16

564

155

198

155

243

19

64 110

271

69

80

BigSandy

Mineola

Saline

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Hideaway

Canton

Gladew


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

UP

CENTRAL

Resurface RoadwayFrom: 1.5 mi East of FM 1255To: Smith County LineStatus: FUNDED

Resurface RoadwayFrom: 0.8 mi East of US 69To: FM 2015Status: FUNDED

LO

UI

SI

AN

A

20

259G57

2205

220411862204

26852879

2983

2963

33792605

2276

968

3272

449

16

3053

2206

451

2906

2011

1845

3251

2208

9

2767

2087

2207

2199

134

2275

450

9

349

1998

31

968

1252

2625

322

43

390390

322

48563

502300

31

31

149

42135

43

281

79

259

259

59

271

80

Marshall

Kilgore

HallsvilleLongview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton


WarrenCity


UP

SEPC

UP

BNSF

UP

EAST

Resurface Roadway (Eastbound Lanes)From: 2.1 mi West of FM 450To: 0.5 mi West of SH 43Status: FUNDED

Resurface RoadwayFrom: 0.5 mi West of SH 43To: East End of Eight Mile Creek BridgeStatus: COMPLETED (2012)

Resurface RoadwayFrom: East End of Eight Mile Creek BridgeTo: 0.5 mi West of US 80Status: COMPLETED (2012)

Resurface Roadway (Westbound Lanes)From: 0.5 mi West of US 80To: Louisiana State LineStatus: COMPLETED (2012)

Central

West

East

0 5 102.5Miles Source: TxDOT Pavement Management Information System (PMIS), FY 2013

Updated Pavement Score Required

Railroads


Scheduled Pavement Improvement Projects

Pavement Condition ScoreVery Good (90 - 100)

Good (70 - 89)

Fair (50 - 69)

Poor (35 - 49)

Very Poor (1 - 34)

g

Updated Pavement Score Required

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


VERTICAL CLEARANCESLegend

20

635

598740

3039

9861392

688

1389

429

2728

2965

2932

2757

2728

5481641

2727

987

740

2728

2578

741

429148

87

205

34

557

34175

80

PostOakBend

Talty

TerrellBalch

Springs

Seagoville

Sunnyvale

Dallas

Mesquite

tchinsWilmer

Forney

Combine

CrandallOak

Ridge

K A U F M A NK A U F M A N

D A L L A SD A L L A S

UP

WEST

LO

UI

SI

AN

A

20

259G7

2205

220411862204

26852879

2983

2963

33792605

2276

968

3272

449

16

3053

2206

451

2906

2011

1845

3251

2208

9

2767

2087

2207

2199

134

2275

450

9

349

1998

31

968

1252

2625322

43

390390

322

48563

502300

31

31

149

42135

43

281

79

80

259

259

59

271

80

Marshall

Kilgore

Hallsville

Waskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton


WarrenCity


UP

SEPC

UP

UP

BNSF

UP

EAST

0 5 102.5Miles

49Tyler

20

2965

3270

3271

2908773

16B

3311

2422

16

858

2911

2015

724

757

279

778857

90

3056

857

1504

858

1805

1002

849

1653

1795

1652

1801

26591404

28691255

162015

3227

859

1804

314

1252

2909

2710

16

1995

773

1253

1255

17

1651

47

14

16

564

155

198

155

243

19

64 110

271

69

80

BigSandy

Mineola

GrandSaline

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Gladew


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

UP

CENTRALCentral

West

East


Railroads

I-20 Study Area Counties16' 16'6"Meets neither FHWA nor TxDOT

standards

Meets FHWA but not TxDOT

standards

Meets bothFHWA and TxDOT

standards

Vertical Clearance at Overpasses

Direction of Travel at CrossingWestbound

Eastbound

Source: Jacobs; Google MapsImage: FHWA

Effect of Oversized Vehicles Traveling Below Bridges With Low Clearance

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


CRASH HOTSPOT ANALYSIS

0 5 102.5Miles

0 5 102.5Miles

US 69

346

49

Tyler

2965

3270

3271

2908773

16B

3311

2422

16

858

2911

2015

724

757

279

778857

90

3056

857

1504

858

1805

1002

849

1653

1795

1652

1801

26591404

28691255

162015

3227

859

1804

314

1252

2909

2710

16

1995

773

1253

1255

17

1651

47

14

16

UV564

UV155

UV198

UV155

UV243

UV19

UV64 UV110

£�271

£�69

£�80

§̈¦20

BigSandy

Mineola

GrandSaline

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Glade


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

UP

21

13

36

58

16

68

28

112

65

67

4767

45

68

88

62

123

68100

40

38

111

75

57

75

69

100

9837

19

45

109

21

38

19

21

39

24

47

32

129

52

44

48

44

73

CENTRALCentral

0 5 102.5Miles

¯Crash Hotspots

Railroads


0 44 88 346

Crash Rate* (Main Lanes)Five-year Average Crash Rate for



Legend

Source: TxDOT Crash Records Information System (CRIS)

Summary of Crash Hotspots

1392 986

1390

429

2728

2728

548

3039

2932

2757

2965

1389

740 1641

2728987

2727

741

2578

429

148

UV87UV205

UV243

UV34

UV557

UV34

£�175

£�80§̈¦635

§̈¦20

Post OakBend

Talty

TerrellBalchSprings

Seagoville

Dallas

Mesquite

hins

Wilmer

Forney

KaufmanCombine

CrandallOak

Ridge


UP

076

1920

7232

28

20

51

2668

62

22

44

32

6

26

1938

30

55

11 36

WESTWest

110

Loop 281 SE

FM 2087SH 31SH 42

LO

UI

SI

AN

AT

EX

AS

2685

2205

20121639

2879

2983

3379

29631186

3272 2605

96816

2275

2276

2206

1845

3053

2208

2906

9

451

3251

2011

2087

2207

134

2199

450

2767

2204

9

349

1998

96831

1252

2625

UV322

UV390

UV390

UV485

UV322

UV502UV63

UV300

UV31

UV149

UV31

UV42UV135

UV43

UV281

£�80

£�79

£�80

£�259

£�259

£�80

£�59

£�271£�80

§̈¦20

Marshall

Kilgore

HallsvilleWaskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton


WarrenCity


SEPC

UP

BNSF

UP

UP

117

30

87

1933

44

65

33

251

79

80

65 90

45

57232

55

153

295 111

40

38

116

28

52

26

5935

4748 80

3130

57

48

EASTEast

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


CRASHES RESULTING IN FATAL & INCAPACITATING INJURIES

US 69

346

49

Tyler3270

3271

2908773

16B

3311

2422

16

858

2911

2015

724

757

279

778857

90

3056

857

1504

858

1805

1002

849

1653

1795

1652

1801

26591404

28691255

162015

3227

859

1804

314

1252

2909

2710

16

1995

773

1253

1255

17

1651

47

14

16

564

155

198

155

243

19

64 110

271

69

80

20

BigSandy

Mineola

Saline

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Gladew


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

UP

CENTRALCentral

0 5 102.5Miles

Crash SeverityFatal

Incapacitating Injury

Crash Hotspots

Railroads



1392 986688429

3039

2728

2728

2932

1389

2757

2965

548

1641740

2728987

2727

741

2578

429

148

87

205 34

557

34

175

80635

20

Post OakBend

Talty

TerrellBalchSprings

Seagoville

Dallas

Mesquite

chins

Wilmer

Forney

KaufmanCombine

CrandallOak

Ridge


UP

WESTWest

110

Loop 281 SE

FM 2087SH 31SH 42

LO

UI

SI

AN

A

2685

2205

20121639

2879

2983

3379

29631186

3272 2605

96816

2275

2276

2206

1845

3053

2208

2906

9

451

3251

2011

2087

2207

134

2199

450

2767

2204

9

349

1998

968 31

1252

2625

322

156

390390

485

322

50263

300

31

149

31

42135

43

281

80

79

80

259

259

80

59

27180

20

Marshall

Kilgore

Hallsville

Waskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton


WarrenCity


SEPC

UP

BNSF

UP

UP

EASTEast

Legend


KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


CRASHES INVOLVING OVERTURNED VEHICLES (2008-2012)

Legend1392 986688429

3039

2728

2728

2932

1389

2757

2965

548

1641740

2728987

2727

741

2578

429

148

87

205 34

557

34

175

80635

20

Post OakBend

Talty

TerrellBalchSprings

Seagoville

Dallas

Mesquite

chins

Wilmer

Forney

C bi

CrandallOak

Ridge


P

UP

WEST

110

Loop 281 SE

FM 2087SH 31SH 42

LO

UI

SI

AN

A

2685

2205

20121639

2879

2983

3379

29631186

3272 2605

96816

2275

2276

2206

1845

3053

2208

2906

9

451

3251

2011

2087

2207

134

2199

450

2767

2204

9

349

1998

968 31

1252

2625

322

156

390390

485

322

50263

300

31

149

31

42135

43

281

79

80

259

259

80

59

27180

20

Marshall

Kilgore

Hallsville

Waskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton


WarrenCity


SEPC

UP

BNSF

UP

UP

EAST

US 69

346

49

Tyler

65

3270

3271

2908773

16B

3311

2422

16

858

2911

2015

724

757

279

778857

90

3056

857

1504

858

1805

1002

849

1653

1795

1652

1801

26591404

28691255

162015

3227

859

1804

314

1252

2909

2710

16

1995

773

1253

1255

17

1651

47

14

16

564

155

198

155

243

19

64 110

271

69

80

20

BigSandy

Mineola

Saline

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Gladew


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

UP

CENTRALCentral

West

East

Crashes Involving Overturned Vehicles

Crash Hotspots

Railroads



0 5 102.5Miles


KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


SNOW AND ICE-RELATED CRASHES (2008-2012)

US 69

346

49

Tyler

965

3270

3271

2908773

16B

3311

2422

16

858

2911

2015

724

757

279

778857

90

3056

857

1504

858

1805

1002

849

1653

1795

1652

1801

26591404

28691255

162015

3227

859

1804

314

1252

2909

2710

16

1995

773

1253

1255

17

1651

47

14

16

564

155

198

155

243

19

64 110

271

69

80

20

BigSandy

Mineola

GrandSaline

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Gla


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

UP

21

13

36

58

16

68

28

112

67

4767

45

68

88

62

123

68100

40

38

111

75

57

75

69

100

9837

19

45

109

21

38

19

21

39

24

47

32

129

52

44

48

44

73

CENTRALCentral

0 5 102.5Miles

Snow & Ice-Related Crashes

Crash Hotspots

Railroads


I-20 Study Area Counties0 44 88 346

Corridor Crash Rate* (Main Lanes)Five-year Average Crash Rate for



Legend


1392 986688429

3039

2728

2728

2932

1389

2757

2965

548

1641740

2728987

2727

741

2578

429

148

87

205 34

557

34

175

80635

20

Post OakBend

Talty

TerrellBalchSprings

Seagoville

Dallas

Mesquite

ns

Wilmer

Forney

K fCombine

CrandallOak

Ridge


P

UP

076

1920

7232

28

20

51

2668

62

22

44

32

6

26

1938

30

55

11 36

WESTWest

110

Loop 281 SE

FM 2087SH 31SH 42

LO

UI

SI

AN

A

2685

2205

20121639

2879

2983

3379

29631186

3272 2605

96816

2275

2276

2206

1845

3053

2208

2906

9

451

3251

2011

2087

2207

134

2199

450

2767

2204

9

349

1998

968 31

1252

2625

322

390390

485

322

50263

300

31

149

31

42135

43

281

79

80

259

259

80

59

27180

20

Marshall

Kilgore

HallsvilleWaskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton


WarrenCity


SEPC

UP

BNSF

UP

UP

117

30

87

1933

44

65

33

251

79

80

65 90

45

57232

55

153

295 111

40

38

116

28

52

26

5935

4748 80

3130

57

48

EASTEast

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


OVERPASSES, UNDERPASSES & FRONTAGE ROADSLegend

DALLAS KAUFMAN20

635

460

1389

598740

688

2727

2728

9861392

2965

2932

2757

429

2728

987

1641

2728

740

548

2578

741

429148

87

205 34

557

352

34

175

80

Post OakBend

Talty

TerrellBalch

Springs

Seagoville

Sunnyvale

Dallas

Mesquite

chinsWilmer

Forney

CombineCrandall Oak

Ridge

UP

WEST

49

VAN ZANDT SMITH

Tyler

20

2965

3270

32712908773

16B

3311

2422

16

858

2911

2015

724

757

279

778857

90

3056

857

1504

858

1805

1002

849

1653

1795

1652

1801

26591404

28691255

162015

3227

859

1804

314

1252

2909

2710

16

1995

773

1253

1255

17

1651

47

14

16

564

155

198

155

24319

64

110

271

69

80

BigSandy

Mineola

Saline

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Gladew

UP

UP

UP

CENTRAL

LO

UI

SI

AN

A

HARRISONGREGGSMITH20

259G57

2205

220411862204

26852879

2983

2963

33792605

2276

968

3272

449

16

3053

2206

451

2906

2011

1845

3251

2208

9

2767

2087

2207

2199

134

2275

450

9

349

1998

31

968

1252

2625

322

156

390390

322

48563

502300

31

31

149

42135

43

281

79

80

259

259

59

271

80

Marshall

Kilgore

Hallsville

Waskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton


WarrenCity

U

SEPC

UP

BNSF

UP

EAST10/1 /2013

0 5 102.5Miles Source: TxDOT RHiNo Data (2012); Jacobs; Google Maps

Central

West

East

Railroads


Interchange-Related Crossings

Frontage Roads*

Non-Interchange Crossings

* All frontage roads allow two-way traffic except segments in Dallas County and in Terrell

Frontage RoadsEastbound 58.0

Westbound 58.4 Main Lanes 156.0

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


SPEED LIMITSLegend

1392 986

1390

429

2728

2728

548

3039

2932

2757

2965

1389

740 1641

2728987

2727

741

2578

429

148

UV87UV205

UV243

UV34

UV557

UV34

£�175

£�80§̈¦635

§̈¦20

Post OakBend

Talty

TerrellBalchSprings

Seagoville

Dallas

Mesquite

hins

Wilmer

Forney

KaufmanCombine

CrandallOak

Ridge


UP

WEST

110

Loop 281 SE

FM 2087SH 31SH 42

LO

UI

SI

AN

AT

EX

AS

2685

2205

20121639

2879

2983

3379

29631186

3272 2605

96816

2275

2276

2206

1845

3053

2208

2906

9

451

3251

2011

2087

2207

134

2199

450

2767

2204

9

349

1998

96831

1252

2625

UV322

UV156

UV390

UV390

UV485

UV322

UV502UV63

UV300

UV31

UV149

UV31

UV42UV135

UV43

UV281

£�80

£�79

£�80

£�259

£�259

£�80

£�59

£�271£�80

§̈¦20

Marshall

Kilgore

Hallsville

Waskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton


WarrenCity


SEPC

UP

BNSF

UP

UP

EAST

US 69

346

49

Tyler

2965

3270

3271

2908773

16B

3311

2422

16

858

2911

2015

724

757

279

778857

90

3056

857

1504

858

1805

1002

849

1653

1795

1652

1801

26591404

28691255

162015

3227

859

1804

314

1252

2909

2710

16

1995

773

1253

1255

17

1651

47

14

16

UV564

UV155

UV198

UV155

UV243

UV19

UV64 UV110

£�271

£�69

£�80

§̈¦20

BigSandy

Mineola

Saline

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Glade


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

UP

CENTRALCentral

West

East

*maximum mph according to RHiNo Data 2011

Speed Limit*

75655545 or less

Miles per hour.

70

Crash Hotspots

Railroads


0 5 102.5Miles

¯

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


INTERCHANGE ANALYSISLegend

""

""

""

""

"" "

" ""

"" " "

"

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

"" "

" ""

"""

""

""

""

""

""

""

1392 986688429

3039

2728

2728

2932

1389

2757

2965

548

1641740

2728987

2727

741

2578

429

148

UV87

UV205 UV34

UV557

UV34

£�175

£�80§̈¦635

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

Post OakBend

Talty

TerrellBalchSprings

Seagoville

Dallas

Mesquite

hins

Wilmer

Forney

KaufmanCombine

CrandallOak

Ridge


UP

WEST

""

"

""

""

""

""

""

"" "

""

"

""

"" "

" ""

"" "

""

"

""

""

" ""

""

""

"" "

""

"""

"""

""

"" "

" ""

"" "

"""

""

""

LO

UI

SI

AN

A

£�259G

1639

1997

2205

26852879

2275

2983

11862204

3379

2963

757

449

26053272

2276

968

2206

757

3053

2275

16

2906

451

1845

2011

2208

9

2204

3251

20872207

2199

2767

134

450

9

349

1998

968 31

12522625

UV156

UV390UV390

UV322

UV485 UV63UV502

UV300

UV31

UV31

UV149

UV42

UV135

UV43

UV281

£�79

£�80

£�259

£�259

£�59

£�271

£�80

§̈¦20

§̈¦20 §̈¦20

Marshall

Kilgore

Waskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton


WarrenCity


UP

BNSF

UP

UP

EAST

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

"" "

"

""

""

""

"

"""

""

""

""

""

""

""

"

"

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

""

"" "

"

""

1861316

3270

16B

2908773

3311

3271

3056

2422

16

778

2911

2015

857

1504

1801

724

90

757

1002

857

1795

279

858

1805

849

1255

1653

1652

2869

1404

2659

859

16

3227

1804

2015

1252

314

2909

2710

16

858

1253

17

1995

773

1255

1651

47

14

16

UV564

UV155

UV155

UV243

UV198

UV19

UV64

UV110

£�271

£�69

£�80§̈¦20

§̈¦20

§̈¦20

BigSandy

Mineola

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

CantonGlade


S M I T HS M I T H

UP

UP

CENTRAL

Split Diamond InterchangeHayden Rd/CR 3442

Split Diamond InterchangeFM 773/ FM 16

Central

West

East

0 2.5 51.25Miles ¯

Interchange Rating" A: Excellent

" B: Meets Requirements

" C: Marginally Acceptable

" D: Below Minimum Standards

IH 20 Study Corridor

Crash Hotspots

Railroads

City

IH-20 Project Counties

WestboundEntrance

Eastbound Exit

WestboundExit

EastboundEntrance

Ramp Rating

Source: Jacobs.

Rating Entrance Ramps Exit Ramps Total RampsA 72 73 145B 11 13 24C 17 17 34D 14 15 29N/A 8 10 18

62122Total 128 250

Total Interchanges

KAUFMAN

DALLAS

VAN ZANDT

SMITH GREGG

HARRISONWEST

CENTRAL EAST

20 20

2059

8069

80179

80

271


FRONTAGE ROADSLegend

!! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !

!! ! !!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

DALLAS KAUFMAN§̈¦20

§̈¦635

460

1389

598

740

688

2727

2728

9861392

2965

2932

2757

429

2728

987

1641

2728

740

548

2578

741

429148

UV87

UV205 UV34

UV557

UV352

UV34

£�175

£�80

Post OakBend

Talty

TerrellBalch

Springs

Seagoville

Sunnyvale

Dallas

Mesquite

hinsWilmer

Forney

CombineCrandall Oak

Ridge

UP

WEST

!! !

! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !

!!!!

! !

!

!

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!!

LO

UI

SI

AN

A

HARRISONGREGGSMITH§̈¦20

£�259G57

2205

220411862204

26852879

2983

2963

33792605

2276

968

3272

449

16

3053

2206

451

2906

2011

1845

3251

2208

9

2767

2087

2207

2199

134

2275

450

9

349

1998

31

968

1252

2625

UV322

UV156

UV43

UV390UV390

UV322

UV485 UV63

UV502UV300

UV31

UV31

UV149

UV42UV135

UV43

UV281

£�79

£�80

£�259

£�259

£�59

£�271

£�80

Marshall

Kilgore

Hallsville

Waskom

Longview

WhiteOak

Scottsville

Lakeport

Easton


WarrenCity

UP

SEPC

UP

BNSF

UP

EAST

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!!

! !

!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !!! !!

! !! !

! !49

VAN ZANDT SMITH

Tyler

§̈¦20

2965

3270

32712908773

16B

3311

2422

16

858

2911

2015

724

757

279

778857

90

3056

857

1504

858

1805

1002

849

1653

1795

1652

1801

26591404

28691255

162015

3227

859

1804

314

1252

2909

2710

16

1995

773

1253

1255

17

1651

47

14

16

UV564

UV155

UV198

UV155

UV243UV19

UV64

UV110

£�271

£�69

£�80

BigSandy

Mineola

GrandSaline

Winona

Tyler

Hawkins

Lindale

Van

Hideaway

Canton

Glade

UP

UP

UP

CENTRALCentral

West

East

0 5 102.5Miles ¯

No Frontage Roads

Railroads


Interchange-Related Crossings

Frontage Roads*

Non-Interchange Crossings

* All frontage roads allow two-way traffic except segments in Dallas County and in Terrell

Length (Miles)Frontage Roads

Eastbound 58.0 Westbound 58.4

Main Lanes 156.0

Source: TxDOT RHiNo Data (2012); Jacobs; Google Maps

DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE

TIMELINE OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

July 2013

� Advisory Committee Kick-off & Study Introduction

February 2014

� Prioritize Goals and Objectives

� Identify Potential Projects

� Members begin Initial Public Outreach

January 2014

� Discuss Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ)Considerations

� Review & Finalize Public Outreach Tools

October 2013

� Develop Objectives� Identify/Review

Constraints,Features, Concerns & Future Considerations

� Discuss Public Outreach Tools

April 2014

� MembersContinue Initial Public Outreach

� Conference Call to update on OutreachActivities

May 2014

� MembersComplete Initial Public Outreach

� Evaluate & PrioritizeProjects

� Review Summary of Public Input

August 2014

� Review Draft Corridor Plan

� Prepare for Draft Corridor Plan Public Outreach

Sept.-Oct. 2014

� Hold Open House(s)

November 2014

� Review Public Input Received at Open House(s)

� Finalize Corridor Plan

December 2014

� Presentation to Commission

� Members help spread the word that a Final Corridor Plan is available on the website

We are here:


Attachment 4 Objectives Prioritization

Survey Responses

I-20 East Texas Advisory CommitteeGoals and Objectives Prioritization

The following survey will serve to help the I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee to prioritize the goals and objectives for the corridor study. Please rank the following objectives under each goal in order of most important to least important. The results ofthis survey will be discussed at the next Advisory Committee in Mesquite on Feb. 18.

To begin ranking the objectives you have two options under each goal: Select a number next to the objective OR Click and drag the objective to place them in order of importance. Either of these options will adjust the ranking numbers alongside each objective as you make selections.

Thank you for your participation!

1. Please rank the following objectives in order from most important (1) to least important (6) in regards to the following Advisory Committee goal:

INVOLVE LOCAL COMMUNITIES

___ Outline potential safety impacts to properties along or near the I-20 corridor (e.g.

residential, mix use, commercial, etc.).

___ Request right-of-way (ROW) donations to include room for passenger rail.

___ Establish framework for transportation reinvestment zones (TRZ) along I-20 to

assist in funding all modes and adopt TRZ’s locally.

___ Create transportation plans that compliment local development plans

___ Build public-private partnerships with landowners; developers, etc.

___ Ensure constant communication with community members and stakeholders.


CONSIDER CURRENT AND FUTURE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ___ Accommodate all needed forms of transportation using existing I-20 geometry

and ROW.

___ Consider the impact of I-20 planning on East Texas Hour Glass at Toll 49

___ Plan for I-69 interchange near Marshall

___ Consider US 80 and 175 in addition to the I-20 corridor.

3. Please rank the following objectives in order from most important (1) to

least important (10) in regards to the following Advisory Committee goal:

IMPROVE SAFETY ___ Reconstruct access ramps to current standards

___ Construct truck-only lanes.

___ Improve road surface on sections rated fair or poor

___ Implement access management techniques to reduce the number of driveways

and wide/open area driveways in close proximity to exit and entrance ramps.

___ Add barriers to medians less than 80 feet wide including barriers from IH635 to

Kaufman County line.

___ Improve access across median barriers for law enforcement and safety

equipment.

___ Raise overpasses to safe height

___ Additional lanes in congested areas on I-20

___ Construct one-way service roads, to divert traffic in event of I-20 closings.

___ Review of speed limits and length of exitways


REDUCE CONGESTION AND ENHANCE MOBILITY FOR TRAVELERS AND FREIGHT ___ Consider rail hubs as connectors to urban areas

___ Coordination of improvements where municipalities are updating their

infrastructure/thoroughfare plans to complement this study effort

___ Consider modified freight carrier behavior (new speed limits, schedules, etc.)

___ Build relationships with passenger service providers including plans for service

expansion and diversification.

___ Ask State government for support and funding alternatives and consider Public-

private partnerships.

___ Widen bridges


ENHANCE AIR QUALITY

___ Reduce idling in case of accident or lane closures.

___ Create high occupancy lanes (HOL) to alleviate congestion

___ Develop incentives to direct truck traffic onto Toll 49

___ Construct continuous one-way frontage roads with priority to high volume/high

accident areas

6. Please list any additional comments to add to the goals and objectives

of the I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee below:

7. Name: ________________________________________________

Responses were received from 16 members of the Advisory Committee. They were received prior to or during the meeting, computed and scored to help prioritize previously established objectives. Results from these, for each of the committee’s goals, are as follow:

!" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" '&!" #!!"

()*+,-."/0*.-12+"324.*5",6/27*3""

8.9).3*":,;<*=04=>25"?8(@A"B0-210-3""

C3*2D+,3<"4:26.>0:E"40:"F8G"2+0-;"H=#!""2B0/*"F8GI3"+072++5"

J:.2*."*:2-3/0:*210-"/+2-3"*<2*"706/+.6.-*"+072+"B.K.+0/6.-*"/+2-3"

L),+B"/)D+,7=/:,K2*."/2:*-.:3<,/3""

C-3):."70-3*2-*"7066)-,7210-">,*<"7066)-,*5"6.6D.:3"2-B"3*2E.<0+B.:3M"

!"#$

!%&$

!'($

!"($

!)"$

!%#$

*+,-$.!$$/012314$32563$527780/9/4:$

!" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" '&!"

())*++*,-./"-00"1//,/,"2*3+4"*2".3-145*3.-6*1"74819"/:84619";<#!"9/*+/.3="-1,">?@A"

B*148,/3".C/"8+5-)."*2";<#!"50-11819"*1"D*00"$E"

F0-1"2*3";<%E"81./3)C-19/"1/-3"G-34C-00"

B*148,/3"HI"&!"-1,"'JK"81"-,,86*1".*".C/";<#!")*338,*3A"

!"#$

!%#$

!&#$

!''$

()*+$,-$./012345$.655407$803$967654$:6;72:/38;$75801</57872/0$04431$

!" K!" '!!" 'K!" #!!" #K!"

>/)*14.37)."-))/44"3-+54".*")733/1."4.-1,-3,4"

B*14.37).".37)L<*10="0-1/4A"

;+53*M/"3*-,"4732-)/"*1"4/)6*14"3-./,"2-83"*3"5**3"

;+50/+/1."-))/44"+-1-9/+/1."./)C18N7/4".*"3/,7)/".C/"17+O/3"*2",38M/P-=4"-1,"

(,,"O-338/34".*"+/,8-14"0/44".C-1"&!"2//."P8,/"81)07,819"O-338/34"23*+";Q%RK".*"

;+53*M/"-))/44"-)3*44"+/,8-1"O-338/34"2*3"0-P"/12*3)/+/1."-1,"4-2/.="/N785+/1.A"

>-84/"*M/35-44/4".*"4-2/"C/89C."

(,,86*1-0"0-1/4"81")*19/4./,"-3/-4"*1";<#!""

B*14.37)."*1/<P-="4/3M8)/"3*-,4S".*",8M/3.".3-T)"81"/M/1."*2";<#!")0*48194A"

>/M8/P"*2"45//,"08+8.4"-1,"0/19.C"*2"/:8.P-=4"

-#!$

!=&$

!=%$

!%!$

!%!$

!>&$

!=-$

!?&$

!=!$

!&!$

()*+$,>$2:<5/@4$18947A$

!" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" '&!" #!!"

B*148,/3"3-80"C7O4"-4")*11/).*34".*"73O-1"-3/-4"

B**3,81-6*1"*2"8+53*M/+/1.4"PC/3/"+718)85-086/4"-3/"75,-619".C/83"8123-4.37).73/U.C*3*79C2-3/"50-14".*")*+50/+/1.".C84"4.7,="/V*3."

B*148,/3"+*,8W/,"23/89C.")-338/3"O/C-M8*3"X1/P"45//,"08+8.4S"4)C/,70/4S"/.)AY"

Z780,"3/0-6*14C854"P8.C"5-44/19/3"4/3M8)/"53*M8,/34"81)07,819"50-14"2*3"4/3M8)/"/:5-148*1"-1,",8M/348W)-6*1A"

(4L"I.-./"9*M/31+/1."2*3"4755*3."-1,"271,819"-0./31-6M/4"-1,")*148,/3"F7O08)<538M-./"5-3.1/34C854A"

@8,/1"Z38,9/4"

!"'$

!""$

!&=$

!="$

!%=$

!--$

()*+$,&$5436.4$./0(4172/0$803$40B80.4$:/C2;27A$9/5$758@4;451$803$9542(B7$

!" #!" $!" %!" &!" '!!" '#!" '$!" '%!" '&!"

>/,7)/"8,0819"81")-4/"*2"-))8,/1."*3"0-1/")0*473/4A""

B3/-./"C89C"*))75-1)="0-1/4"XQ?[Y".*"-00/M8-./")*19/46*1"

\/M/0*5"81)/16M/4".*",83/).".37)L".3-T)"*1.*"D*00"$E"

B*14.37).")*1617*74"*1/<P-="23*1.-9/"3*-,4"P8.C"538*38.=".*"C89C"M*07+/UC89C"-))8,/1."-3/-4"

!%'$

!%'$

!>"$

!%"$

()*+$,'$40B80.4$825$D68;27A$

Attachment 5

Early Successes for IH20 East Texas

Corridor

1

Early Successes for IH 20 East Texas Corridor

Potential Capital Maintenance Solutions by Goal Theme

Need Identified Implementation and Funding Ideas

Involve Local Communities

• Visioning along the corridor of potential impact to land uses immediately adjacent and/or 2 mile radius as it relates to safety

• Transportation plans must compliment local development plans

• Relationships with city, county and regional governments to build private partnerships with landowners, developers, etc.

• Ensure MPO and RPO representation

• If requested by Advisory Committee, DFW MPO will conduct public outreach to refine project needs and match the needs to available funding options for IH 20 in DFW region.

• Invite stakeholders and encourage their participation in the process

Consider Current and Future Multi-Modal Transportation Needs

• Conceptual plan: include rail

• IH 20 geometry and ROW must accommodate future passenger rail

• Focus on building a network throughout the corridor utilizing all forms of transportation and provide planning

• IH 20 corridor does not mean IH 20 only. Need to consider US 80 and US 175 as part of the corridor

• Investigate light rail between Dallas and the Louisiana State Line utilizing IH 20 ROW

• Higher speed passenger rail in IH 20 ROW?

• Study role of Gaming in Shreveport if Texas law is changed

• Study role of Union Pacific Rail Corridor; the RTC’s mobility plan identifies the Union Pacific as the best rail corridor option (at grade high speed rail)

• Suggest that first rail project should be outside the DFW region to show early success

2

Reduce Congestion and Enhance Mobility

• Extend service roads in areas to alleviate traffic on IH 20

• Coordination of thoroughfare plans where municipalities are updating their infrastructure/thoroughfare plans to complement the IH 20 study effort

• Construct truck-only lanes

• Widen bridges

• Add frontage road lanes

• Widen from four to six lanes

• Consider utilizing HB1/Rainy Day Funds if election is successful

Enhance Air Quality • Continuous one-way frontage roads with priority to high

volume/high accident areas

• Prioritize locations of need and submit in next Highway

Safety Improvement Program

• In DFW region, request STP-MM funds of the RTC

3

Improve Safety • Reconstruct access ramps to current standards

• Construct truck-only lanes

• Improve road surface to sections rated fair or poor

• Access management techniques implementation: reduce the number of driveways and wide/open area driveways in close proximity to exit and entrance ramps

• Add barriers to medians less than 80 feet in width

• Raise overpasses to safe height across entire corridor

• One-way service roads

• Safety barriers – need better law enforcement access across barriers: allow law enforcement and safety equipment to cross barrier

• Review speed limits and exit ramp length

• Barrier from Kaufman County line to IH 635

• Focus on access roads update; concrete blocks on narrower parts of road

• Consider utilizing HB1/Rainy Day Funds if election is

successful

• Prioritize locations of need and consider utilizing HB1/Rainy Day Funds if election is successful

• Utilize existing maintenance/rehab funds to implement

• Fully utilize TxDOT’s Access Management Policy

• Submit in TxDOT’s next Highway Safety Improvement Program

• Identify affected bridges, increase height when bridges are reconstructed (Bridge Program)

• Identify specific locations of need and Consider utilizing HB1/Rainy Day Funds if election is successful

• Identify obstacles to implementation; Utilize existing maintenance/rehab funds to implement or submit in next Highway Safety Improvement Program

• Submit in next Highway Safety Improvement Program

• In DFW region, request STP-MM or CMAQ funds of the RTC

I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting January 6, 2014 1 of 4


Monday, January 6, 2014, 1:00 p.m. Grand Hyatt Hotel, San Antonio, Texas


Name Organization

Members Present


Judge Joel Baker Smith County

Mayor John Monaco City of Mesquite

Michael Morris NCTCOG

Gerardo Cuaron (on behalf of Mark McDaniel) Tyler MPO

Heather Nick Tyler MPO

Karen Owen, Director Longview MPO



Mayor Robert Nelson (on phone) City of Lindale

Members Not Present



Mayor Barbara Bass City of Tyler



Judge Clay Jenkins Dallas County

Judge Rhita Koches Van Zandt County



Linda Ryan Thomas, Director NETRMA


Gary C. Thomas DART


Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) Make Committee members aware of strategies and efforts employed by the Alliance for I‐69 Texas to enhance awareness of the I‐69 project; 2) provide members with in‐depth information on Transportation Reinvestment Zones and examples already in place in Texas; 3) review drafts of Public Involvement Materials to be used in the next stage of the process and 4) plan and set priorities for future meetings. Printed documents were made available to all Committee Members and attendees to follow during the meeting. The agenda, presentation and Public Involvement Materials are included in Attachments 2 through 3. Welcome/Introductions: Marc Williams (TxDOT) welcomed the Committee Members and began the meeting by requesting all attendees to introduce themselves. Safety Briefing: Given the time constraint and easily readable configuration of the venue, Marc Williams (TxDOT)


deferred the safety briefing in favor of the first agenda item. Alliance for I‐69 Texas Overview: Judge John Thompson (Polk County: Guest Speaker) gave an overview of the lessons learned throughout the process of developing I‐69 in East Texas. Among his recommendations and main observations were the following:

A non‐governmental group to support the project allows the goals and objectives for the corridor to remain consistent through the process and helps further the needs of the corridor among different government levels.

By not being eligible for the Interstate Highway Construction Program, funding became the main concern in terms of transportation development.

TxDOT’s shift in strategy from a centrally managed planning process to a more inclusive use of a Statewide Committee and six local segment committees was critical to the development of local support for I‐69.

He considers a group outside of TxDOT essential in advancing committee priorities at the State and Federal level.

I‐69 currently has projects completed or under construction totaling $742 million.

The ultimate success of a large corridor is dependent on the development of individual pieces, and the members need to encourage/celebrate the progress of even the smallest piece of the whole project.

Having large, private donors interested in economic development fostered by the project, facilitates the non‐governmental group efforts.

Existing Legislation can present particular challenges. Lobbying to streamline the process for designating sections of new Interstate accelerated the development of I‐69

TRZ Overview by TxDOT staff: Julie Rabeux (TxDOT) explained the basic definition and components of a Transportation Reinvestment Zone and its differences with similar financing schemes like Tax Incentive Zones and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones. She also stated it is TxDOT’s goal to provide assistance to interested parties.

As part of the presentation, Julie explained the steps local authorities must follow in order to set up a TRZ in their communities. She also emphasized the recent changes made by the 2011 legislature to the TRZ rules which increase flexibility through provisions to allow the combination of resources from multiple communities and jurisdictions as well as time extensions based on performance. For other particular questions Julie encouraged the members to get in contact with TxDOT’s Debt Management Office. To review the complete presentation on TRZ Financing, see Attachment 2. One Advisory Committee member inquired about selecting and managing the TRZ boundaries. Julie Rabeux expressed the need to maintain a balance in terms of the amount of land included in the zone. Also she mentioned it is important to carefully select the parcels included within a TRZ boundary based on revenue potential and avoiding tax exempt properties. Another Advisory Committee member inquired as to what would happen if the TRZ is unable to pay back its commitments in the time stipulated when originally established. Julie Rabeux expressed that fortunately that hasn’t been a concern yet, but reliable feasibility studies and long time periods are vital to prevent such scenarios. Also as previously mentioned, the possibility of extension has been


recently addressed by the legislature. Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin III mentioned examples of successful TRZ structures in the state and encouraged members to develop innovative proposals for Texas Transportation. Julie Rabeux supported his statement by elaborating on existing TRZs. One of the Advisory Committee members proposed the creation of a strategic project review plan for prioritization of projects. He expressed his belief that the pursuit of innovation can facilitate the lobbying of funding for transportation projects above the local level. He also argued for the necessity of mapping transportation needs along the corridor. Smith County TRZ: Judge Joel Baker (Smith County) reported on the progress of approving a new TRZ around Toll Road 49 that covers roughly 2 miles of I‐20 within Smith County. He mentioned that although the crafting of legal documents has been completed, the approval has been postponed for 4 to 6 months in order to better inform the public on the meaning and implications of the TRZ. Judge Baker assured the committee that even though Smith County is moving forward with the establishment of a TRZ, they are willing to expand or modify it to accommodate I‐20 East Corridor priorities and needs. Public Outreach: Susan Howard asked the Committee Members to review the provided materials and express any concerns about them. Comments and observations should be forwarded to her or Caroline Love before January 20th. She also encouraged members to let TxDOT know if there is need for bilingual materials in their communities. Once changes are made and materials are approved, Committee members can begin distributing them among their constituents. Susan reiterated the importance of public involvement and urged members to come forward if they believe an important form of outreach had been overlooked. Open Comments: In reference to additional means of identifying project funding, Judge Bruce Wood (Kaufman County) announced a successful $56 million bond election meant for transportation improvements in November with an approval of 66% of voters. Commissioner Austin encouraged members to continue to express their support for I‐20 since the corridor plays a vital role in the advancement of economic development in Texas. He also argued for the need to look at transportation improvements from a broad perspective and consider how they will connect with corridors and initiatives in other states. Wrap Up: Roger Beall (TxDOT) discussed topics to be included in upcoming meetings. Committee members agreed upcoming meeting should include discussion on rail possibilities, the Cotton Belt Corridor Innovative Finance Initiative and locations for specific improvement projects. The possibility of scheduling the next Advisory Committee Meeting in February was also brought up, to which members


agreed. TxDOT will identify possible dates and take care of the scheduling. Mayor John Monaco (Mesquite) offered to host the next meeting and the committee approved. Roger Beall (TxDOT) invited members to provide any other comments in regards to the corridor study or the topics already discussed during the meeting. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:

Provide existing right‐of‐way maps and data at next meeting

Present results of current efforts to define feasibility and requirements for rail throughout the corridor

Review comments and create final public outreach materials for distribution

Prepare presentation about lessons learned from the Cotton Belt Innovative Finance Initiative and rail possibilities

Schedule next meeting for February Attachments:

1. Advisory Committee Sign‐In Sheets 2. Meeting Agenda and TRZ Presentation 3. Public Involvement Materials

Meeting Staff: Marc Williams, Caroline Love, Susan Howard, Roger Beall, Julie Rabeux, Tim Juarez and Lindsey Kimmitt (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, June San Miguel, Chris Lazaro, Nair Barrios and Kevin Conner (Jacobs)


Sheets


Presentation

I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee

Monday, January 6, 2014, 1:00 PM – 2:30 PM Grand Hyatt Hotel, Room: Travis C/D (3rd Floor) 600 E. Market Street, San Antonio, Texas 78205

Call-in: 866-637-1408 Conference Code: 312 746 6422#

Meeting #3 - Agenda

Welcome/Registration 1:00 – 1:10 PM Welcome & Introductions Judge Bill Stoudt, Gregg County

Safety Briefing Marc Williams, TxDOT

1:10 – 1:30 PM Alliance for I-69 Texas Judge John Thompson

1:30 – 2:15 PM Overview of TRZ Julie Rabeux, TxDOT

Smith County TRZ efforts Judge Joel Baker, Smith County

Round table discussion on TRZ along I-20 Members

2:15 – 2:25 PM I-20 Public Outreach Tools Susan Howard, TxDOT

2:25 – 2:30 PM Wrap-up and Next Steps Roger Beall, TxDOT

2:30 PM Adjourn

12/30/2013

1

TRANSPORTATION REINVESTMENT ZONES

How communities can leverage local funds for transportation projects

BACKGROUND:WHAT IS A TRZ ?

12/30/2013

2

What is a Transportation Reinvestment Zone

Transportation Reinvestment Zones are a tool that were created in the 2007 legislative session (Senate Bill 1266) as a value capture method for transportation projects where VC revenues are set aside to finance a project

House Bill 563 (2011) – introduced significant changes that increased implementation flexibility. Previously tied to Pass Through projects, but have steadily gained interest since the tool became more flexible.

Statute Governing Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZs): – Transportation Code Chapter 222 Sections 106-110

What exactly is a TRZ: – A TRZ is a specific contiguous zone around a planned transportation project

that is established as a method to facilitate capture of the property tax increment arising from the planned project

Currently there are four types of TRZ’s: County, Municipal, Port Authority and Navigation Districts, and County Energy

3

Value Capture Mechanism


4

Captured Appraised Value

Appraised Property Value

TRZ Life (YRS)

Tax Increment Base = Appraised Value in Base Year Tax

Increment Base

Tax Increment Account

General Fund

12/30/2013

3

Hidalgo County TRZ No 2

5Template with layouts


Why use a TRZ and how to find the appropriate project: – A TRZ can be used in conjunction with other financing mechanism to fund a

transportation project.

– Allows a community to capture both existing economic growth as well as expected growth generated from the transportation project.

Why haven’t they been used more?– Has only been detached from Pass Through Toll project since 2011

– Communities are familiar with TIRZ/TIF

What’s the difference with a TIRZ– TIRZ/TIF typically used to support non-transportation tools, primarily seen in urban

areas

– TIF/TIRZ cannot be used at the County level

– A TRZ does not require a board

6

12/30/2013

4

What should be included/considered in a TRZ feasibility analysis

The following are recommended items to include and consider in the preparation a TRZ capacity analysis:

– Clear overview of the zone, map, zone delineation, parcel listing (if available)

– List of Participating local governments considering a TRZ for the project (city, county, etc.)

– Assumptions of the study: • The percentage of the property tax value increment in the Zone that is under consideration

by the local government • Number of years included in the analysis• Assumed base year of establishment of the TRZ

– Parcel analysis, including zoning types considered and current breakdown of zoning included in the potential TRZ (e.g: residential, commercial etc.)

– The netting out of existing properties that would not contribute to the revenues (ie: other TIRZ, TIF, abatement agreements, or tax-exempt property)

– 30 years of revenue estimates, including a cash flow table in both nominal and NPV figures

– Historical property value growth trend analysis, based on Central Appraisal District data

– Multiple Economic growth models, i.e. pessimistic, base and optimistic revenue estimate scenarios

7

IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

12/30/2013

5

TRZ Implementation Process

9

InitiationZone

Formulation Adoption Implementation

InitiationZone

FormulationAdoption Implementation

Monitoring and

Evaluation


10

InitiationZone


Initiation:

- Project identification

- Preliminary feasibility analysis/ Research of property values under consideration

- Developing stakeholder relations

Initiation

12/30/2013

6


11

InitiationZone


Zone Formulation:

- Define boundaries, zones, parcels

- Establish benchmark year for tax increment collection

- Provide 60 day notice

- Refine feasibility study

Zone Formulation


12

InitiationZone


Adoption:

- Public hearings

- Ordinance (Municipal TRZ)

or

- Order of the Commissioner’s Court (County TRZ)

Adoption

12/30/2013

7


13

InitiationZone


Implementation:

- Determination of TRZ financing aspects

- Establish mechanisms for funding/partnerships (Inter-local agreements, partnerships with RMA’s etc.)

Implementation


14

InitiationZone


Monitoring and Evaluation:

- Establish monitoring of TRZ to optimize revenue and payment streams- Dissolution of TRZ :

- December 31 of the year of compliance with contractual requirement or

- December 31 of the 10th year after establishment if not used for the purpose

Monitoring and Evaluation

12/30/2013

8

FINANCING

Financing

Can a TRZ finance a transportation project in its entirety?

A local government with a created TRZ can use the captured funds directly toward a transportation project, as a pledge for a method of financing (for cities and ports that could include bond issuance)

TxDOT State Infrastructure Bank Loans– The SIB program allows borrowers to access capital funds at or lower-than-market

interest rates.

– Work eligible for the program’s funding includes: planning and preliminary studies; feasibility, economical and environmental studies; right of way acquisition; surveying; appraisal and testing; utility relocation; engineering and design; construction; inspection and construction engineering.

16

12/30/2013

9

CONTACT INFORMATION

Contact Information

To learn more about options for Local Governments, visit:

www.TxDOT.gov

Julie Rabeux

[email protected]

512-964-8690

18

12/30/2013

10

THANK YOU

Attachment 3

Public Involvement Materials

Comments

1

December 12, 2013

Fact Sheet (DRAFT)

I-20 East

Texas

Corridor

Study

IH 20 provides an important east-west connection for travel and trade in Texas. As the interstate system ages and population and trade increases, it is necessary to assess the current safety and capacity needs and plan for the future. A Corridor Assessment study will be undertaken to identify rural transportation needs along IH 20 from the Dallas/Fort Worth Metropolitan Area to the Texas/Louisiana State Line.

December 2013 HOW TO GET AND STAY INVOLVED…

Visit our website at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/ statewide/i20-east-corridor.html

The study will:

Assess current corridor conditions and identify short, intermediate and long-term needs. The needs assessment will focus on addressing safety, congestion, and system preservation concerns.

Identify opportunities for addressing needs related to vehicular, freight and alternative transportation modes.

Consider funding requirements for implementation of potential improvements, including alternative/non-traditional funding strategies.

Outline next steps for TxDOT and other transportation stakeholders to consider advancing project development activities for the corridor.

Phase 2 - Lubbock Outer Route Study (currently underway in 2013) will:

Determine a route location within the corridors studied during the feasibility study.

Include detailed investigations of traffic, socio-economic, environmental,

Overview

Scope of Study

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html




2

December 12, 2013

I-20 East

Texas

Corridor

Study

Fact Sheet (DRAFT)

An integral component of this study will be working with public and private stakeholders through an Advisory Committee. The charge of the Committee will be to assist TxDOT in assessing the rural transportation needs along I-20 by providing locally focused input and recommendations. The Committee will provide a valuable avenue for public outreach and input on issues that include:

Rural transportation needs along the I-20 corridor

Local planning issues (development activities, planning/environmental features)

Opportunities for short, intermediate and long-term transportation improvements

Recommendations for addressing freight and alternative transportation modes

Input on the feasibility of potential alternative/non-traditional funding strategies

Recommendations on priorities and next steps for TxDOT and other local stakeholders to consider in advancing project development activities for the corridor

The Advisory Committee will be comprised of individuals representing a cross-section of elected officials and other stakeholders along the corridor. Committee members will include representation from the following:


Cities (Balch Springs, Mesquite, Forney, Terrell, Canton, Lindale, Tyler, Longview, Marshall)


North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority

Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Other entities could include economic development organizations, business interests and Native American Tribes.

It is anticipated that the Advisory Committee will meet every two months.

Expected study duration is about 18 months.

Advisory Committee

Schedule


(DRAFT)

I-20 East

Texas

Corridor

Study

Page | 1 DRAFT December 12, 2013

Want more

information?



The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study being conducted by TxDOT is focused on evaluating the current safety and capacity needs along the 155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 in Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana state line.

1.


The I-20 corridor currently serves as an integral east-west connection for both travel and trade in Texas. As the interstate system ages and trade increases, identifying opportunities for improvement becomes more critical. Assessing the current corridor conditions and identifying future growth potential are important to ensuring this route meets the needs of the region for decades to come.

2.


A major component of this study is to work directly with public and private stakeholders through an Advisory Committee. The I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee was established in August 2013 by the Texas Transportation Commission to assist TxDOT in assessing the rural transportation needs along I-20 by providing locally focused input and recommendations. This group is currently comprised of 21 elected officials and other stakeholders along the I-20 corridor and includes representatives from:


Cities (Balch Springs, Mesquite, Seagoville, Forney, Terrell, Canton, Lindale, Tyler, Longview, Marshall)


North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority

Dallas Area Rapid Transit


Farm Bureau



Private Businesses Interests


Freight Rail and Passenger Rail Interest Groups


3.






(DRAFT)

I-20 East

Texas

Corridor

Study

Page | 2 DRAFT December 12, 2013

Want more

information?



This study will focus on evaluating safety concerns and capacity needs along the corridor. This could include additional frontage roads, ramp/interchange redesign, improving vertical clearance, and passenger rail alternatives. The purpose of including representatives of all major areas within the corridor is to ensure that a complete view of the needs for the future of the I-20 corridor is considered.

4.


The study is expected to be complete in December 2014. .

5.


The area included within this study spans 155 miles along I-20 from I-635 in Dallas County to the Texas/Louisiana state line. In some areas, other regional highways or roadways may be included in the study when considering solutions to problems, but the primary focus of this study is along I-20.

6.


Ultimately, the result of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study will serve as a guide for TxDOT to begin improvements throughout the corridor by providing a prioritized list of projects as well as possible funding solutions.

7.


Throughout the 18-month study, we will be updating our website regularly, issuing press releases about important topics, sending out newsletters and creating a Facebook page for you to connect with us through social media. In addition, we will be hosting open houses to gather input on the draft plan. In addition to open houses, you can also submit comments on our website at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html

8.





I-20TexCorStu

P

0 Eastxas rridor udy

Page | 1

t

DRAFT D

Talki

Study

Adviso

Publi

December 12,

ing Poi

I‐20 corrtrade in T

18‐mont

Evaluate Texas/Lo

Focus on Identify a

corridor

y Overview

21 membo A

o Co T

Work wit Assist Tx

ory Commit

You can go P

ge

o O

Informato Wo Fo Fo To P

ic Outreach

, 2013

ints (DR

idor is an inteTexas h study to co155‐mile stre

ouisiana Staten current and and prioritize

bers All counties a Dallas

HarrisCities with poTransportatio DART

th other collaDOT with ass

ttee

get involved tPresentationsgroups, electeeconomic devOpen Housestion to be updWebsite updaFact Sheets anFacebook (insTwitter (inserPress Release

h

RAFT)

egral east‐we

onclude in Decetch of I‐20 fre Line future safety

e opportunitie

long the corrs, Kaufman, Vson countiesopulation oveon stakeholdeT, NCTCOG, neaborative partsessing the ru

throughout ts to local goveed officials, cvelopment gr dated and disates (insert linnd FAQs sert Facebookrt Twitter hanes

est connection

cember 2014rom I‐635 in D

y and enhances for improv

ridor represenVan Zandt, Sm

r 15,000 peoers representeetRMA, Longvtners from thural transport

he duration oernments, civhambers of croups

stributed regunk here)

k link here) ndle here)

DRAFT Nov

n for both tra

4 Dallas to the

ed mobility nements along

nted mith, Gregg an

ple ed view MPO, Tyhe community

ation needs

of the studyvic and commommerce, an

ularly via

vember 20, 20

avel and

needs g the

nd

yler MPO y

munity nd

13

I-20 East

Texas

Corridor

Study

Activity Form



Location: Date:


Questions/Comments:

Follow Up Requests:



Attn: Caroline Love 125 East 11

th St.

Austin, TX 78701

Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign-in list, or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity.

Draft: December 12, 2013

I-20 East

Texas

Corridor

Study

LET US HEAR

FROM YOU!

Please provide your comments on the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study.

To submit comments online, please visit our website at ww.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/ i20-east-corridor.html

Comment Card

Please provide your comments below on the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study.

NAME:

EMAIL:

ZIP:

I am employed by TxDOT.

I do business with TxDOT.

I could benefit monetarily from the project or other item about which I am commenting on.

Texas Transportation Code, §201.811(a)(5)

Comments/Questions:

Check any that apply to you:

Join our email list:

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/%20i20-east-corridor.html




12/31/2013

1

I-20 EAST TEXAS CORRIDOR STUDYCommunity Presentation

I R

IDE

I-2

0

About the Study




12/31/2013

2

Study Area


3






4

12/31/2013

3


5

SAFETY CONCERN

EXAMPLES

Median barriers


Interchange design

Crash hotspots


EXAMPLES


Additional lanes

Alternate routes

Freight needs


Advisory Committee





6

12/31/2013

4


7

Entity Member Name TitleDallas County Clay Jenkins County JudgeKaufman County Bruce Wood County JudgeVan Zandt County Rhita Koches County JudgeSmith County Joel Baker County JudgeGregg County Bill Stoudt (Chair) County JudgeHarrison County Hugh Taylor County JudgeCity of Balch Springs Dr. Carrie Gordan MayorCity of Mesquite John Monaco MayorCity of Seagoville Harold Magill MayorCity of Forney Darren Rozell MayorCity of Terrell Hal Richards MayorCity of Canton Richard W. Lawrence MayorCity of Lindale Robert Nelson MayorCity of Tyler Barbara Bass MayorCity of Longview Jay Dean MayorCity of Marshall Ed Smith MayorDallas Area Rapid Transit Gary C. Thomas PresidentNCTCOG MPO Michael Morris Director of TransportationNETRMA Linda Ryan Thomas Chair/Chair, RailTyler MPO Barbara Holly MPO DirectorLongview MPO Karen Owen MPO Director

8

July 2013


October 2013

• Advisory Committee to Identify/Review Constraints, Community Features, Concerns & Future Considerations

January 2014

• Advisory Committee to Review Traffic, Crash & Geometry Analysis and Review Conceptual I-20 Improvement Strategies

• Public outreach begins

March 2014

• Advisory Committee to Identify Potential Projects

• Public outreach continues

April 2014

• Initial public outreach ends

May 2014

• Advisory Committee to Review Summary of Public Input, Evaluate & Prioritize Projects

August 2014

• Advisory Committee to Review Draft Corridor Plan

Sept.-Oct. 2014

• Open Houses to Discuss Draft Corridor Plan with Public

November 2014

• Advisory Committee to Review Public Input Received at Open House(s) & Finalize Corridor Plan

December 2014

• Presentation to Texas Transportation Commission

• Final Corridor Study Plan Available on Project Website



START

FINISH

12/31/2013

5

Stay Informed

9



Open housesCurrently planned for Fall 2014


Facebookwww.facebook.com/I20EastTexas

Twitter@I20EastTexas


QUESTIONS?


10

I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013 1 of 9


Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 10:30 a.m. Terrell Municipal Airport, Terrell, Texas

FINAL MEETING SUMMARY


Judge Clay Jenkins Dallas CountyJudge Bruce Wood Kaufman County Judge Rhita Koches Van Zandt County Judge Joel Baker Smith CountyJudge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg CountyJudge Hugh Taylor Harrison County Jerry Dittman (alternate for Mayor John Monaco) City of Mesquite Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs Mayor Hal Richards City of TerrellCindy Malouf (alternate for Mayor Richard Lawrence) City of Canton Mayor Robert Nelson City of Lindale Kevin Feldt (alternate for Michael Morris) NCTCOG


Linda Ryan Thomas, Director NETRMA


Barbara Holly, Director Tyler MPO

Karen Owen, Director Longview MPO Members Not Present

Mayor Harold Magill City of Seagoville Mayor Darren Rozell City of Forney Mayor Barbara Bass City of TylerMayor Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall


Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) provide members with data including crash rates and traffic volumes throughout the corridor; 2) develop objectives for the Advisory Committee; 3) highlight regional constraints, features, concerns and future considerations along the corridor; 4) brainstorm effective means of public outreach to be used during the public outreach effort; and 5) plan for future meetings. A PowerPoint presentation was utilized to provide an overview of aforementioned items during the meeting. The agenda and presentation are included as Attachment 2. Open House: The Advisory Committee meeting began with an open house featuring exhibits focusing on the following topics:

General corridor maps including planned/programmed improvement projects Safety concerns including crash rates, median barrier treatments and vertical clearances Congestion data with both existing and future traffic data, truck data and level of service Community connections such as overpasses, interchanges and frontage roads Forms of public outreach used on other TxDOT projects such as I‐69 and My35


The open house also featured three 15‐foot corridor maps, breaking the corridor into three sections: west (Dallas and Kaufman counties), central (Van Zandt and Smith counties) and east (Gregg and Harrison counties). The maps would later be used for members to mark features, concerns, constraints and future considerations in their regions on the map as part of the small group exercise. To view exhibits displayed during the open house, see Attachment 3. Welcome/Introductions: Advisory Committee Chairman Judge Bill Stoudt (Gregg County) welcomed attendees to the meeting and thanked Mayor Hal Richards (Terrell) for hosting the meeting at the Terrell Municipal Airport. Marc Williams (TxDOT), acting as the Advisory Committee Facilitator, then asked committee members to introduce themselves. Advisory Committee Members: At the project kick‐off meeting, members decided to expand its previous 16 elected officials and other stakeholders to include the cities of Seagoville, Forney, Lindale and Canton as well as Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). The Advisory Committee is now currently comprised of the following 21 members, representing all counties included within the study corridor, cities of significant populations and area MPOs: Dallas County, Kaufman County, Van Zandt County, Smith County, Gregg County, Harrison County, City of Balch Springs, City of Mesquite, City of Seagoville, City of Forney, City of Terrell, City of Lindale, City of Canton, City of Tyler, City of Longview, City of Marshall, NCTCOG MPO, DART, Tyler MPO, Longview MPO and NETRMA. Van Zandt County I‐20 Update: Judge Rhita Koches (Van Zandt County) informed committee members that in response to a grassroots effort in her county, Van Zandt County passed a resolution in support of improvements at the westbound I‐20 exit ramp number 540. Brought about by the unsafe condition of the exit ramp, Judge Koches mentioned that speed limits need to be lowered in the area and urged TxDOT to look into the issue. Safety Briefing: Marc Williams provided a safety briefing for all meeting attendees highlighting evacuation routes from the building and locations of restrooms, fire extinguishers, and tornado shelter areas within the building. Status of Action Items from July Meeting: Caroline Love (TxDOT) addressed the status of several action items that were marked after the first kick‐off meeting in July concerning the following:

Finalization of the mission statement Invitations extended to new committee members from DART and the cities of Canton, Forney,

Lindale and Seagoville Traffic and crash hotspot data along the corridor provided as part of the Open House Finalized logo selection and changes to the color of the lane striping Access to remote dial‐in connections to future meetings Approval of the minute order for the I‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee


She also mentioned that the next Texas Transportation Commission meeting will be held in Tyler at the Smith County Annex building on Nov. 21 and invited all members to attend. Objectives Setting Activity: Susan Howard (TxDOT) displayed the finalized mission statement for the Advisory Committee to review one final time before beginning the objectives setting activity. The committee approved the mission statement as follows:

The I‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee will promote and facilitate the involvement and input of affected local communities and interested stakeholders to identify and prioritize the multi‐modal transportation needs of the corridor with a focus on safety, mobility, congestion, and air quality for travellers and freight through East Texas.

As part of this mission statement, Susan emphasized that the goals of the committee were inherent to be focused on the following:

Involve local communities Consider current and future multi‐modal transportation needs Improve safety Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for travelers and freight Enhance air quality

Susan then asked committee members to participate in an objectives setting activity by brainstorming methods of how the above goals could be reached. Marc Williams stressed the importance of this activity as it allowed everyone to brainstorm simultaneously about how the goals of this committee could become a reality. Susan also emphasized that each of the members were chosen to best represent their area; they knew what worked and what didn’t in their own territories. Each member was then given several sheets of paper to write down objectives that could correlate to any of the above goals and hand them back to meeting staff. All of the objectives were then placed on a sticky wall and organized under the goal they referenced. The objectives focused on the following themes correlating to their goals:

Involve local communities o Continue to represent major community representatives including MPOs and RPOs o Share corridor study information with communities to disseminate to citizens o Create transportation plans that complement development plans

Consider current and future multi‐modal transportation needs

o Determine the possibility of rail in the corridor right‐of‐way o Create transportation reinvestment zones to fund rail and right‐of‐way development o Plan for improved highway interchanges along the corridor


Improve safety o Reconstruct access and exit ramps to meet current standards o Raise overpasses to safe height o Expand and create one‐way frontage roads

Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for travelers and freight

o Install a passenger rail system o Extend frontage roads o Widen roadways and bridges

Enhance air quality

o Decrease idling o Add frontage roads to clear traffic more quickly o Create incentives for truck traffic to use Toll 49

To review all of the responses received during the objectives setting activity, see Attachment 4. Mayor Hal Richards (Terrell) inquired as to how these objectives would be prioritized, and Susan mentioned that prioritizations would be part of the activity at the January meeting for committee members to decide on. Judge Hugh Taylor (Smith County) requested that right‐of‐way maps be available to review, especially in correlation with the rail discussion and frontage road expansion. Nishant Kukadia (Jacobs) informed members that right‐of‐way maps and information will be available at the next meeting and mentioned that most of the corridor has adequate right‐of‐way to accommodate two additional lanes or space for a rail alignment. Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon (Balch Springs) asked when environmental impacts would be evaluated, as the portion of I‐20 in her city lies within the floodplain. Marc Williams explained that information such as environmental concerns like in Balch Springs should be relayed in the afternoon’s small group activity. Mayor Hal Richards then questioned the practicality of rail through the corridor. Judge Rhita Koches (Van Zandt County) emphasized that to her, rail seemed to be an all‐or‐nothing discussion, as portions of rail wouldn’t suffice to serve the area, but must connect all the way through the corridor. Michael Miles (DART) mentioned that he could work with the DART staff to evaluate possible passenger rail options to present back to the committee. Per Celia Boswell’s (NETRMA) request, Marc Williams clarified that this study will be mainly focused on the I‐20 roadway, but also take into consideration other parallel roadways within the corridor, as they might be part of potential solutions for I‐20 problems. The committee then broke for lunch before reconvening to discuss corridor constraints and participate in a small group activity.


Constraints, Features, Concerns and Opportunities: Michael Sexton (Jacobs) emphasized the importance of combining the Study team’s general knowledge with the committee members’ specific area knowledge to create an overall master plan for the corridor. He began his presentation highlighting examples of area constraints, corridor features, concerns, and future considerations to deliberate during planning. To view the full presentation, see Attachment 2. Michael then explained the next exercise for members. As part of this activity, members would be split into three groups and given a map of their project area. Members were instructed to write on the map and leave notes concerning issues they were aware of that needed to be taken into consideration as part of the study. He asked that each group discuss the following questions and provide comments for their areas:

What constraints are missing that should be added to the map? What community features should be added to the map? What are your concerns about I‐20? What future considerations should be added to the map?

Small Group Exercise: Committee members broke into three groups according to their location along the I‐20 corridor; specifically, West (Dallas and Kaufman counties), Central (Van Zandt and Smith counties) and East (Gregg and Harrison counties). Tricia Bruck (Jacobs), Caroline Love and Susan Howard served as group facilitators as each of the members left notes on their area maps and wrote notes in relation to comments members had on the above questions. After each of the groups were finished meeting, members were then asked to peruse the other two groups’ maps to review or leave comments on the other two sections of the corridor. All of the members then reconvened and each group chose a representative to present their synopsis of issues discussed during the group meetings. Group One, representing the western section of the corridor, presented first. City Manager Mike Sims (Terrell) mentioned themes centered on the following:

Existing intersections with major highways such as I‐635, SH 80 and Texas 34 as well as planned intersections

Growth in the region, especially in relation to large economic development areas being built in areas with already unsafe entrance and exit ramps and frontage roads

Crossings at waterways including Big Brushy Creek and the East Fork Trinity River Group Two, representing the central section of the corridor, had Vernon Webb (TxDOT Tyler District) present themes centered on the following:

High crash rates throughout the area, especially with wet weather concerns Lack of continuous frontage roads Lack of alternate routes leading to complete highway shutdowns in emergency situations Inadequate ramp lengths

Mayor Robert Nelson (Lindale) added that things such as high crash rates could not wait 20 years to be


fixed. Marc Williams mentioned the possibility of Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZ) along the area as a way of funding solutions to issues such as frontage roads sooner rather than later. He also suggested the possibility of a more detailed presentation on TRZs at the next Advisory Committee meeting in January. Group Three, representing the eastern section of the corridor, then asked Karen Owen (Longview MPO) to present themes centered on the following:

High crash rates near SH 42, SH 31, and FM 2081 Long stretches of interstate, such as crossing the Sabine River, with no exits Incident management Economic development and increased traffic in the region Connection with Toll 49 – future corridor Intersection with future I‐69/I‐369

Public Outreach: Susan Howard stressed to members the importance of public outreach associated with this corridor study, especially as it pertains to community input on the following topics:

Rural transportation needs along I‐20 Constraints, community features and concerns not already included in the study Short, immediate and long‐term transportation improvements needs Recommendations for addressing freight and alternative transportation modes Alternative and non‐traditional funding strategies Prioritization and next steps for TxDOT to advance the project

Susan reminded members that several examples of public outreach materials from other TxDOT projects were on display as part of the open house. Possible tools to use for the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study include comment cards, presentations to community groups, newsletters, press releases and media relations, social media, fact sheets, websites or open houses. She then asked members the following questions as to past successes with public outreach in their regions: 1. What forms of public outreach work best in your community?

Mayor Hal Richards (Terrell) suggested condensing information into a simple one‐page fact sheet using layman’s terms to educate the general public of the goals and objectives of the study.

Judge Bruce Wood (Kaufman County) mentioned the success of social media to communicate messages to a broad audience, but also emphasized the importance of keeping face‐to‐face meetings.

Jerry Dittman (Mesquite) stated that public outreach needed to be widespread to reach the best audience. He mentioned success using social media, newsletters, websites, open houses and presentations to service organizations in Mesquite. He also emphasized the importance of creating a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page for the project.

Kevin Feldt (NCTCOG) recommended using both print and electronic means of communication. He also mentioned the possibility of including high school students in the process, as they would be the ones to benefit from the improvements. He also mentioned that any social media efforts need to be monitored closely for quick response times to


questions posed, as well as post more interesting and conversation‐worthy information to start discussions, even if it is controversial.

Karen Owen (Longview MPO) suggested keeping messages simple and timely. She also noted the importance of working together with MPOs and RMAs to deliver coordinated and timely efforts across the corridor and to maintain a consistent message.

Barbara Holly (Tyler MPO) commented that an ad in the classified section does not count as meeting notice anymore, but suggested the need for repetitive messaging prior to meetings.

Judge Joel Baker (Smith County) also added that he does not feel Town Hall meetings are effective forms of public outreach anymore for tailored messages such as with transportation studies.

2. How do you effectively involve the limited English proficiency (LEP) community?

Barbara Holly mentioned going to Spanish‐language churches and organizations with materials and messages.

Several members suggested creating bilingual outreach materials in Spanish. No one indicated a need for languages other than Spanish and English.

Jerry Dittman mentioned the importance of finding someone the LEP community trusts to carry the message for you. Locating a community spokesperson to bring on as a liaison that the LEP community feels comfortable talking to and providing information to is essential for adequate feedback.

Celia Boswell (NETRMA) suggested shorter project messages and focusing on answering questions to clear up any negative or inadequate information they may have.

3. What are the best methods to gather feedback in your community?

Jerry Dittman informed members of the success of comment cards in Mesquite by keeping questions simple and easy to complete. He referenced an experience on collecting transit information by handing out comment cards (3” by 5”) at bus stops, where travelers could quickly fill out the card and hand it back before boarding the bus.

Mayor Robert Nelson (Lindale) agreed that he thinks surveys are effective to gather tailored feedback from the community.

Several members also suggested the use of Survey Monkey, as it is a free service and online. They also discussed the use of social media to pose questions, as long as responses are monitored.

Overall the members said that open houses were preferred over town hall type meetings with presentations. Susan Howard mentioned to members that draft outreach materials would be prepared for members to review at the next meeting in January. Open Comments: Marc Williams invited members to provide any other comments in regards to the corridor study other than the topics already discussed. Judge Bill Stoudt (Gregg County) reminded members to think of funding as a major portion of this study. The members needed to have a vision on how improvements can be paid for, not only what the


improvements need to be. Linda Ryan Thomas (NETRMA) said that the NETRMA has talked about lobbying support for transportation issues before the elections next year so that potential newly elected officials will start supporting the efforts made towards transportation improvements. Marc Williams mentioned several groups dedicated to working together on transportation issues, such as the Transportation Advocates of Texas (TAOT) and the Alliance for I‐69 Texas. He also mentioned the possibility of arranging to have a representative from one of those groups present at the next meeting in January. Jerry Dittman (Mesquite) raised the idea for the committee to look into transportation reinvestment zones further and come to a consensus on the baseline for the entire corridor. Future Meetings: Marc Williams discussed that the next Advisory Committee meeting would focus on review of conceptual interstate layouts. Judge Stoudt (Gregg County) asked to have a presentation from transportation advisory groups as part of the next meeting, and Jerry Dittman (Mesquite) asked for a presentation explaining transportation reinvestment zones and lessons learned from the Cotton Belt Corridor Innovative Finance Initiative. Judge Taylor (Harrison County) asked for existing right‐of‐way maps to be available for review. Michael Miles (DART) mentioned that he would provide information on the possibility of passenger rail opportunities that could be explored along the corridor. He offered to provide a primer on such strategies. Marc Williams then asked members if they would like to hold the next Advisory Committee meeting in San Antonio on January 6 as part of the Texas Transportation Forum. Members agreed to the location and asked that scheduling be reviewed, as other committees would be meeting as part of the forum that day as well. A dial‐in or web conferencing option will be made available to members unable to attend the meeting. Wrap Up: Marc Williams reminded all committee members that the I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study is an agenda item at the next meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission, which will be held on November 21 at 9 a.m. in the Smith County Annex Building, and all are invited to attend. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:

Provide existing right‐of‐way maps and data at next meeting Research feasibility and requirements for rail throughout the corridor Create draft public outreach materials for review Arrange presentation from a transportation advocacy group Prepare presentation about transportation reinvestment zones and lessons learned from the

Cotton Belt Innovative Finance Initiative Consult schedule for January 6 meeting as part of the Texas Transportation Forum Provide dial‐in/web ex conference capabilities for January meeting


Attachments: 1. Advisory Committee Sign‐In Sheets 2. Meeting Agenda and Presentation 3. Open House Exhibits 4. Objectives Setting Activity Responses

Meeting Staff: Marc Williams, Caroline Love, Jefferson Grimes, Susan Howard, Roger Beall, Cary Karnstadt, Tim Juarez and Lindsey Kimmitt (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia, Tricia Bruck, Chris Lazaro and Nair Barrios (Jacobs) Aimee Vance and Stephanie Ross (K Strategies Group)


Sheets

I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting

October 23, 2013

Attachment 1

1 of 4


October 23, 2013

Attachment 1

2 of 4


October 23, 2013

Attachment 1

3 of 4


October 23, 2013

Attachment 1

4 of 4


Presentation

I-‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee

Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 10:30 AM – 2:30 PM Terrell Municipal Airport

400 British Flying School Road, Terrell, Texas www.terrellairport.com

Meeting #2 -‐ Draft Agenda

Draft: October 15, 2013

10:30 AM Open House 11:00 AM Welcome & Introductions Judge Bill Stoudt Safety Briefing Marc Williams, TxDOT 11:10 AM Review the status of Action Items from July 18, 2013 Meeting Caroline Love, TxDOT 11:20 PM Review Mission Statement & Development of Objectives Susan Howard, TxDOT 11:40 PM Break for Lunch (on your own) 12:20 PM Presentation Michael Sexton, Jacobs

Description of possible constraints, community features, concerns and future considerations

Instructions for the Small Group Exercise 12:30 PM Small Group Work Sessions (see other side for more information) Group 1 -‐ West (Dallas and Kaufman Counties)

Group 2 -‐ Central (Van Zandt and Smith Counties) Group 3 -‐ East (Gregg and Harrison Counties)

Questions for discussion in the small groups:

(1) What constraints are missing that should be added to the map? (2) What community features should be added to the map? (3) What are your concerns about I-‐20? (4) What future considerations should be added to the map?

Reports from Small Groups

Members Provide Input on Other Areas along I-‐20

1:25 PM Reconvene Whole Committee for Q & A Session Marc Williams, TxDOT 1:40 PM Discuss Public Outreach Strategies Susan Howard, TxDOT 2:00 PM Wrap-‐up and Next Steps Marc Williams, TxDOT 2:30 PM Adjourn


October 23. 2013

Attachment 2

I-‐20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee, Draft Agenda (October 23, 2013), Continued Draft: October 14, 2013

Page 2 of 2

Steps for Small Group Work Sessions

1) The committee has been split into three groups based on the areas which each member represents. The colour of the dot on your name tag indicates which group you belong to (Green = West, Blue = Central, and Red = East).

2) Each group will be asked by a facilitator to discuss the four questions listed below. Responses

to these questions will be captured by drawing on the map and a scribe writing on a flip-‐chart. 1. Based on the presentation, what constraints are missing that should be added to the

map? 2. What community features should be added to the map? 3. Do you have any specific concerns about a particular area that should be added to the

map? 4. What opportunities should be added to the map?

3) Each group will spend about 20 minutes reviewing their section of I-‐20.

4) A volunteer from each group will make a brief report to the whole group on the top three

highlights of their group’s discussion.

5) After the small group reports, you will take about 10 minutes to review and provide input on the other areas along I-‐20. For example, if you participated in Group 1 (West) focusing on Dallas and Kaufman counties, you can take this time to review and provide input on the Central and East sections of I-‐20.

6) After about 10 minutes you will reconvene as one large group for a Q&A session.


October 23. 2013

Attachment 2

Attachment 3 Open House Exhibits

Attachment 4 Objective Setting Activity Responses

I-‐20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting

Attachment 4: OBJECTIVES SETTING ACTIVITY RESPONSES

Below are the transcribed versions of the responses received during the Objectives Setting activity and scanned copies of the original responses: INVOLVE LOCAL COMMUNITIES:

• Ensure MPO and RPO representation • Traffic studies and sharing information from those studies with local leadership to disseminitate

to citizens and businesses along I-‐20 • Talk to the local business leaders during group (i.e. chamber meetings) • Host town hall meetings for the local citizens • Visioning along the I-‐20 corridor of potential impact on land uses (e.g. residential, mix use,

commercial, etc.) immediately adjacent and/or 2 mile radius as it relates to safety • Donations for right-‐of-‐way (ROW) to include room for passenger rail • Just as you are doing today. Keep all of us informed on how and what we can do to help • Establish framework/typical transportation reinvestment zone (TRZ) along I-‐20 to assist in

funding all modes. TRZ’s adopted locally. • Survey Monkey • Involve high school and college students in public input process • Transportation plans must compliment local development plans • Relationships with city – county governments; regional organization COGs; community

chambers, EDC’s and service clubs; build private partnerships with landowners; developers, etc. CONSIDER CURRENT AND FUTURE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NEEDS:

• Conceputual plan: include rail • Plan for ROW: bridges -‐ built for rail; setbacks – additional room for rail now • Investigate light rail between Dallas and the Louisiana state line utilizing I-‐20 ROW • Rail (both passenger and fright) development requires substantial planning and funding,

including: work to preserve ROW in corridors for appropriate rail development; work to develop short/long-‐term funding opportunities

• I-‐20 geometry and ROW must accommodate future passenger rail • Higher speed passenger rail in I-‐20 ROW • Create TRZ now for future needs and to move much faster to insure future infrastructure is not

hindered due to financing • Consider the future: what impact will our planning have on the East Texas Hour Glass at Toll 49 • Focus on building a network throughout the corridor utilizing all forms of transportation and

provide planning together • Study high speed rail • Whatever is done should provide the most options for the future: technology; volume of

passenger traffic; volume of freight traffic; rail; more ROW. We should try not to get boxed in • Pursue the concepts that were the basis for the Trans Texas Corridor

I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee Meeting October 23, 2013

Attachment 4 1 of 40

• Plan for I-‐69 interchange near Marshall • I-‐20 corridor does not mean I-‐20 only. We need to consider US 80 and 175 as part of the

corridor IMPROVE SAFETY

• Access management for business adjoining frontage roads • Reconstruct access ramps to current standards • Construct truck-‐only lanes • Improve road surface to sections rated fair or poor • Access management techniques implementation: reduce the number of driveways and

wide/open area driveways in close proximity to exit and entrance ramps • Add barriers to medians of less than 80 feet in width • Raise overpasses to safe height • Additional lanes in areas during travel on I-‐20 i.e. city of Longview • Partnering with TxDOT for city/county to finance (TRZ zones, etc.) • One-‐way service roads • Safety barriers – need better law enforcement access across barriers: allow law enforcement to

cross; allow safety equipment to cross • Review of speed limits and length of exitways • Service roads east and westbound for emergencies whenever I-‐20 is shut down • Barrier from Kaufman County line to 635 • Focus on access roads update; concrete blocks on narrower parts of road

REDUCE CONGESTION AND ENHANCE MOBILITY FOR TRAVELERS AND FREIGHT

• Commuter rail • Consider rail hubs as midpoints connectors to urban areas • Extend service roads in areas to alleviate traffic on actual roadway • Coordination of thoroughfare plans where municipalities are updating their

infrastructure/thoroughfare plans to complement this study effort • Increase freight carrier speed limit in off-‐peak hours with an eye to modifiying shipper behavior • Build relations with providers and plan to expand providers • Lobby Austin for funding solution and use Public-‐Private Partnerships • Higher speed rail – explore options • Construct truck-‐only lanes • Widen roadway to six lanes from Longview through Harrison County to State line • Widen bridges • Add frontage road lanes • Widen from four to six lanes • Service roads will definitely enhance mobility for potential retail development that will affect

heavy traffic • Higher speed rail in I-‐20 ROW

ENHANCE AIR QUALITY



• Higher speed passenger rail in I-‐20 ROW • Keep traffic moving during accidents and blocked I-‐20 lanes to eliminate the idling • Add capacity: widen from four to six lanes; higher speed rail • Enact idle reduction ordinances • Create HOL to alleviate vehicles • Incentives to direct truck traffic onto Toll 49 • Continuous one-‐way frontage roads with priority to high volume/high accident areas



Enhance air quality



Reduce congestion and enhance mobility

for travelers and freight



Consider current and future multi-‐modal transportation needs



Involve local communities



Improve safety



DRAFT

I-20 East Texas Working Group Meeting

Thursday, July 18, 2013, 2:00pm Gregg County Courthouse, Longview, Texas



Judge Clay Jenkins Dallas County Judge Bruce Wood Kaufman County Judge Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg County Judge Hugh Taylor Harrison County Judge Joel Baker Smith County Barbara Holly, Executive Director Tyler MPO Jerry Dittman (alternate for Mayor Monaco) City of Mesquite Mayor Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs Jeff Neal (alternative for Michael Morris) NCTCOG Mark McDaniel, City Manager Tyler MPO Karen Owen, Director Longview MPO Linda Ryan Thomas, NETRMA Chair NETRMA

Members Not Present Judge Rhita Koches Van Zandt County Mayor John Monaco City of Mesquite Mayor Hal Richards City of Terrell Mayor Barbara Bass City of Tyler Mayor Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor Ed Smith City of Marshall Michael Morris, Transportation Director NCTCOG MPO Celia Boswell, NETRMA Rail Chair NETRMA

Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) introduce the Working Group to the I-20 Corridor Study; 2) provide a general overview of the corridor and the study; 3) discuss issues and needs along the corridor; 4) review the mission statement for the Working group; 5) review Working Group membership; 6) vote on a logo for the study and; 7) plan future Working Group meetings. A PowerPoint presentation was utilized to provide an overview of aforementioned items during the meeting. The agenda and presentation are included as Attachment 2. Welcome/Introductions: Working Group Chairman Judge Bill Stoudt (Gregg County) welcomed attendees to the first kick-off meeting. Marc Williams (TxDOT), acting as the Working Group Facilitator, then asked Working Group members to introduce themselves. Working Group Members: The Working Group is currently comprised of 16 elected officials and other stakeholders along the I-20 corridor, representing all counties included within the study corridor, cities of populations over 15,000 and area MPOs: Dallas County, Kaufman County, Van Zandt County, Smith County, Gregg County,

DRAFT

Harrison County, City of Tyler, City of Longview, City of Marshall, City of Mesquite, City of Balch Springs, City of Terrell, NCTCOG MPO, Tyler MPO, Longview MPO and NETRMA.

Safety Briefing: Marc Williams provided a safety briefing for all meeting attendees highlighting evacuation routes from the building and restroom, fire extinguisher, defibrillator and tornado shelter locations within the building. Purpose of the Working Group: Commissioner Jeff Austin III (Texas Transportation Commission) highlighted the importance of the I-20 corridor and thanked members for coming together to discuss problems and possible solutions for the area, emphasizing the importance of increasing safety throughout the corridor. He also noted that he would like to have information gathered from this study to present at the next legislative session in 2015. Marc Williams displayed the draft mission statement for the Working Group and asked for the members to review the statement to discuss later in the meeting. He then showed a list of the current members in the Working Group, potential collaborating partners and roles and responsibilities for all involved parties. Marc asked members if any other groups should be included in the Working Group moving forward. Russell Zapalac (TxDOT) suggested creating a master plan for the Working Group as to how the group should operate. Commissioner Austin asked members to consider if they would be interested in submitting the group as the official Advisory Committee to the Texas Transportation Commission. Overview of I-20: Marc Williams began the discussion of the overview of I-20 by highlighting the counties and cities along the I-20 corridor. He then discussed the background of the 155-mile corridor including employment and population numbers for all counties along the corridor, transportation characteristics, traffic volumes, levels of service, freight and rail service lines, major intermodal and distribution centers and crash statistics. He asked members for suggestions of other distribution centers that may have been missed but needed to be included in the study. Marc continued by discussing the project development process and estimated that generally projects take between 8 to 10 years from planning/environmental to construction with funding being the main impact on timing. He showed a table of currently planned/programmed improvements already in place for I-20 through 2035 and the members discussed the next steps in the proposed timeline for the study leading up to a completed corridor plan in late 2014. Issues/Needs of I-20: Throughout the meeting, members brought up issues associated with complete shutdowns of I-20, inconsistent frontage roads, increasing congestion associated with population growth, increasing number of crashes and the inadequacy of the entrance and exit ramps in accordance with the increased speed limit along the corridor. The needs for an additional third lane from Kaufman County to the Louisiana state line, one-way frontage roads along the corridor, managed express lanes and multimodal transportation were mentioned as well. Members suggested evaluating freight and

DRAFT

passenger rail as part of the study and reviewing the status of USPS distribution center and adding FedEx and Goodyear distribution centers into the study. Judge Clay Jenkins (Dallas County) and Jeff Neal (NCTCOG) were asked to provide guidance from their experience working on the previous I-35 corridor study. Judge Jenkins suggested breaking the project down into stages of development to create more manageable projects. Jeff Neal noted the importance of helping TxDOT to prioritize needs along the corridor from the members’ knowledge of the corridor. Commissioner Austin also highlighted that due to the diverse area included in this study corridor, members needed to think outside the box in relation to funding; the corridor passes through multiple counties, cities and COG areas, widening the pool of finances available to take on such a project. TxDOT District representatives mentioned the need for coordination with Louisiana and that the development of I-69 could bring more traffic to I-20. Additionally, since I-20 was initially constructed more than 50 years ago, an assessment of its design in comparison to current vehicle speeds would be important. In relation to the next meeting, members requested information on traffic and crash hotspots, traffic generators and fatalities associated with oil fields or other specific areas along the corridor. Review of Mission Statement: Discussion between the members suggested adding a focus on relieving congestion and improving air quality to the mission statement, as well as emphasizing the importance of these improvements for both travelers and freight. The mission statement was revised to “The I-20 East Texas Working Group will promote and facilitate the involvement and input of affected local communities and interested stakeholders to identify and prioritize the multimodal transportation needs of this corridor with a focus on the safety, mobility, congestion, and air quality for travelers and freight through East Texas.” Working Group Composition: Members decided to submit the group to be designated as an official Advisory Committee for TxDOT in association with the I-20 Corridor and asked to include the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and the cities of Lindale, Canton, Forney and Seagoville as members, bringing the total to 21 Working Group members. Study Logo: Caroline Love (TxDOT) showed the members three proposed logos, to choose from for the I-20 Corridor Study, seen in Attachment 3. Members voted on Option C, shown below, but pointed out that I-20 does not have yellow dashed lane dividers and requested the lane dividers be changed to white in the logo.

DRAFT

Future Meetings: Marc Williams asked for possible meeting locations for the October Working Group meeting and Judge Bruce Wood (Kaufman County) volunteered to host the meeting in Terrell, Texas on Wednesday, October 23 at 10 a.m. Marc pointed out that the next meeting would be a longer, hands-on meeting and would dive into more technical details associated with the study. Specifically, members would be reviewing corridor maps, identifying area constraints and multimodal centers and brainstorming for possible public outreach efforts. Members were reminded that if they would not be able to attend a future meeting to please identify a permanent alternate to attend in their place. It was also suggested to have a possible dial-in connection to the meetings to make it easier for members to participate in future meetings. Wrap Up: Members were notified that a press release had been prepared for each of them that could be used to announce their participation in the Working Group, as seen in Attachment 4. The meeting was then adjourned. Action Items:

• Send updated mission statement to members • Revise slide 13 which describes communities along I-20 to include Lindale • Invite DART and cities of Canton, Forney, Lindale and Seagoville to become members • Provide members with five traffic and crash hotspots before October meeting • Research traffic generators and distribution centers in the corridor • Change lane striping from yellow to white in logo • Create dial-in connection to meetings • Draft Minute Order for I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee

Attachments:

1. Working Group Sign-In Sheets 2. Agenda and Presentation 3. Logo Options 4. Working Group Draft Press Release

Meeting Staff: Caroline Love, Russell Zapalac, Marc Williams, Jefferson Grimes, Mark Werner, Travis Pokorny and Cary Karnstadt (TxDOT) Michael Sexton, Nishant Kukadia, Tricia Bruck, Chris Lazaro and June San Miguel (Jacobs) Katrina Keyes and Aimee Miller (K Strategies Group)

Attachment 1 Working Group Meeting

Sign-In Sheets

I-20 East Texas Working Group

July 18, 2013

Attachment 1 Page 1 of 4


July 18, 2013


Attachment 2 Agenda and Presentation


July 18, 2013



First Meeting Agenda

Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:30 PM – 3:30 PM

Gregg County Courthouse 101 East Methvin

3rd Floor County Courtroom Longview, Texas

Agenda

1:30 – 1:45 PM Welcome and Introductions Welcome from Chairman Bill Stoudt Introductions from all attendees

1:45 – 2:00 PM Safety Briefing Purpose of Working Group TxDOT

2:00 – 2:30 PM Overview of I-20 TxDOT Staff

2:30 – 3:15 PM Open Discussion a. Issues/Needs of I-20b. Review of Mission Statementc. Committee Compositiond. Study Schedulee. Future Meetings, including

i. Format (by phone, in person, etc.)ii. Public Involvement Opportunities

3:15 – 3:30 PM Wrap-Up and Q & A TxDOT

3:30 PM Adjourn


July 18, 2013 Attachment 2 Page 2 of 19

7/30/2013

1

I-20 EAST TEXAS WORKING GROUP Kick-off Meeting

July 18, 2013

Welcome and Introductions


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

2

Agenda 1:30 – 1:45 PM Welcome and Introductions

Welcome from Chairman Bill Stoudt

Introductions from all attendees

1:45 – 2:00 PM Purpose of Working Group

2:00 – 2:30 PM Overview of I-20

2:30 – 3:15 PM Open Discussion

a. Issues/Needs of I-20

b. Review of Mission Statement

c. Committee Composition

d. Study Schedule

e. Future Meetings, including

i. Format (by phone, in person, etc.)

ii. Public Involvement Opportunities

3:15 – 3:30 PM Wrap-Up and Q & A

3:30 PM Adjourn

Texas Department of Transportation Goals & Values

Goals• Maintain a safe system

• Address congestion

• Connect Texas communities

• Become best-in-class state agency

Values• Trust

• Integrity

• Responsibility

• Excellence

• Service

4


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

3

PURPOSE OF WORKING GROUP

5

Working Group – Draft Mission Statement

Mission Statement

The I-20 East Texas Working Group will promote and facilitate the involvement and input of affected local communities and interested stakeholders to identify and prioritize the multimodal transportation needs of this corridor with a focus on the safety and mobility of travelers through East Texas.

6


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

4

Working Group – Current Membership

Member Name Entity Title Clay Jenkins Dallas County County Judge

Bruce Wood Kaufman County County Judge

Rhita Koches Van Zandt County County Judge

Joel Baker Smith County County Judge

Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg County County Judge

Hugh Taylor Harrison County County Judge

Barbara Bass City of Tyler Mayor

Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor

Ed Smith City of Marshall Mayor

John Monaco City of Mesquite Mayor

Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs Mayor

Hal Richards City of Terrell Mayor

Michael Morris NCTCOG MPO Director of Transportation

Barbara Holly/Mark

McDaniel Tyler MPO MPO Director/Tyler City Manager

Karen Owen Longview MPO MPO Director

Linda Ryan

Thomas/Celia Boswell NETRMA Chair/Chair, Rail

7

Potential Collaborating Partners

8

Partners

Farm Bureau



Private Business Interests


Rail – Freight/Passenger Interest Groups




July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

5

Roles and Responsibilities

Working Group – represent constituencies throughout the Corridor, and

report to them on study directions and recommendations. Provide study

inputs and recommendations

Collaborating Partners – represent specific interest groups and provide

inputs at appropriate times during the process and invited to meetings.

TxDOT – facilitate the process and incorporate study findings into

ongoing Transportation Improvement Programs.

Consultant (Jacobs) – support TxDOT and Working Group in the

process with meeting logistics, technical analyses, and reporting.

9

OVERVIEW OF I-20

10


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

6

Outline

Counties & Cities along I-20

Transportation Characteristics of I-20

Traffic Volumes and Level of Service

Freight/Passenger Rail Facilities

Major Intermodal/Distribution Centers

Crash Statistics

Project Development Process

Planned/Programmed Projects

Background – Employment/Population per County

County Population1 Employment2

Dallas 2,368,139 1,478,521

Kaufman 103,350 26,248

Van Zandt 52,579 9,533

Smith 209,714 92,174

Gregg 121,730 78,321

Harrison 65,631 22,974

1 2010 Population Data – US Census Bureau 2 September 2012 – Bureau of Labor Statistics

12


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

7

Background – Communities along I-20

City County Population*

Mesquite Dallas 139,824

Tyler Smith 96,900

Longview Gregg 80,455

Balch Springs Dallas 23,728

Marshall Harrison 23,523

Terrell Kaufman 15,816

Seagoville Dallas 14,835

Forney Kaufman 14,661

Kilgore Gregg 12,975

Whitehouse Smith 7,660

Kaufman Kaufman 6,703

Canton Van Zandt 3,581

Hallsville Harrison 3,577

City County Population*

Wills Point Van Zandt 3,524

Grand Saline Van Zandt 3,136

Hideaway Smith 3,083

Crandall Kaufman 2,858

Van Van Zandt 2,632

Overton Smith 2,554

Bullard Smith 2,463

Waskom Harrison 2,160

Combine Dallas/Kaufman 1,942

Troup Smith 1,869

Talty Kaufman 1,535

Edgewood Van Zandt 1,441

Kemp Kaufman 1,154

* 2010 Demographic Profile Data – US Census Bureau (Communities with population >1,000)

13

Background – Transportation Characteristics

• Approx. 155 miles

• 65 Interchanges

• 33 Over/Underpass

• 3 RR Over/Underpass

• 2 Rest Areas

• 1 Weigh Station

• 1 Flyover Connection

• 2 lanes in each direction1

14

1. Except for three lanes in each direction for about 10 miles east of I-635

From I-635 To State Line


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

8

Background – Traffic Volumes and Level of Service

15

2012 2050 2012 2050 2012 2050

Background – Freight/Rail Facilities

16


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

9

Background – Major Intermodal Centers/Distribution Centers

17

Background – Crash Statistics (2008-2012)

Total crashes 1,032 1,074 1,076 929 1,036

18


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

10

Project Development Process

19

Currently Planned / Programmed Improvements for I-20

From / At To Description County Year

Kleberg Road New Interchange Dallas 2020

I-635 Seagoville Rd Construct freeway ramps Dallas 2013

Falcon’s Lair Construct Interchange Dallas / Kaufman 2030

FM 148 SP 557 2-lane frontage road Kaufman 2014 Kaufman County Line

Harrison County Line

Feasibility Study for adding managed lanes in Tyler District

Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg 2035

Loop 49 CR 431 Add frontage roads Smith 2035

SH 110 US 271 Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Smith 2035

SH 31 E. Metro area boundary Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Gregg 2030

Louisiana State Line

Gregg County Line Widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes Harrison 2035

20

Planning & Environmental Engineering & Design Construction


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

11

Next Steps – Proposed Study Timeline

Public

Outr

each

Kick-off Meeting July 2013

Corridor Plan Nov.- Dec. 2014

Working Group Meeting Purpose

Jul 2013 • Working Group Kick-off and Study Introduction

Oct 2013

• Define Issues/Opportunities

• Identify/Review of Corridor Features

• Define Public Outreach Strategies

• Develop Purpose & Need

Jan 2014 • Review Technical Information

• Review Conceptual Interstate Layout

Mar 2014 • Identify Potential Projects

May 2014 • Evaluate Projects

• Prioritize Projects

Aug 2014 • Review Draft Corridor Plan

• Prepare for Public Outreach

Sep – Oct 2014 • Conduct Public Outreach and Open House(s)

Nov 2014 • Review Public Outreach Summary


Dec 2014 • Presentation to Texas Transportation Commission

21

OPEN DISCUSSION

22


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

12

Open Discussion – Issues/Needs of I-20

23

Bridge

Clearance Congestion

Safety

Open Discussion – Review of Draft Mission Statement

Mission Statement

The I-20 East Texas Working Group will promote and facilitate the involvement and input of affected local communities and interested stakeholders to identify and prioritize the multimodal transportation needs of this corridor with a focus on the safety and mobility of travelers through East Texas.

24


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

13

Open Discussion – Working Group Composition

Member Name Entity Title Clay Jenkins Dallas County County Judge

Bruce Wood Kaufman County County Judge

Rhita Koches Van Zandt County County Judge

Joel Baker Smith County County Judge

Bill Stoudt (Chair) Gregg County County Judge

Hugh Taylor Harrison County County Judge

Barbara Bass City of Tyler Mayor

Jay Dean City of Longview Mayor

Ed Smith City of Marshall Mayor

John Monaco City of Mesquite Mayor

Dr. Carrie Gordon City of Balch Springs Mayor

Hal Richards City of Terrell Mayor

Michael Morris NCTCOG MPO Director of Transportation

Barbara Holly/Mark

McDaniel Tyler MPO MPO Director/Tyler City Manager

Karen Owen Longview MPO MPO Director

Linda Ryan

Thomas/Celia Boswell NETRMA Chair/Chair, Rail

25

Open Discussion – Potential Collaborating Partners

26

Partners

Farm Bureau



Private Business Interests


Rail – Freight/Passenger Interest Groups




July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

14

Open Discussion – Logo Options

27

A B

C

Open Discussion – Proposed Study Timeline

Public

Outr

each

Kick-off Meeting July 2013

Corridor Plan Nov.- Dec. 2014

Working Group Meeting Purpose

Jul 2013 • Working Group Kick-off and Study Introduction

Oct 2013

• Define Issues/Opportunities

• Identify/Review of Corridor Features

• Define Public Outreach Strategies

• Develop Purpose & Need

Jan 2014 • Review Technical Information

• Review Conceptual Interstate Layout

Mar 2014 • Identify Potential Projects

May 2014 • Evaluate Projects

• Prioritize Projects

Aug 2014 • Review Draft Corridor Plan

• Prepare for Public Outreach

Sep – Oct 2014 • Conduct Public Outreach and Open House(s)

Nov 2014 • Review Public Outreach Summary


Dec 2014 • Presentation to Texas Transportation Commission

28


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

15

Next Meeting – Identification/Review of Corridor Features

An environmental constraints study will consider the following items:

– Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat

– Parks

– Hazardous Material Sites

– Environmental Justice Populations (low income and minority)

– Cultural Resources (cemeteries, landmarks, historical markers, National Historic

Register Sites)

– Water Resources (floodplains, streams, lakes and wetlands)

– Sensitive Resources (schools, nursing homes, day care facilities, places of worship,

hospitals, etc.)

29

30

Next Meeting – Identification/Review of Corridor Features

Other corridor features could include:

– Economic Development Areas

– Business / Industrial Parks

– Intermodal Centers

– Distribution Centers

– Military Facilities

– Airports / Rail Facilities

– Lignite Mine Near SH 43


July 18, 2013


7/30/2013

16

Next Meeting – Public Outreach Tools

We need your help gathering input on:

– Rural transportation needs along I-20

– Local planning issues (planned future development,environmental features, etc.)

– Opportunities for short, intermediate and long-termtransportation improvements

– Recommendations for addressing freight andalternative transportation modes

– Feasibility of potential alternative/non-traditional fundingstrategies

– Recommendations on priorities on and next steps forTxDOT and local stakeholders to consider in advancingproject development activities in the corridor

31

Point of Contact

Caroline Love


Office of Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin III

125 E. 11th Street

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 463-1965 – Office

(512) 475-3072 – Fax

[email protected]

32


July 18, 2013



7/30/2013

17

Wrap Up and Q&A

Homework

• Identify corridor features and constraints

• Consider public outreach strategies

Next Meeting – October 2013

• Date and Time

• Location


July 18, 2013


Attachment 3 Logo Options


July 18, 2013

A



July 18, 2013


Attachment 4 Working Group

Draft Press Release


July 18, 2013


IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DRAFT

TxDOT Launches I-20 Corridor Study with first East Texas Working Group meeting

July 18, 2013 – The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) will kick off an I-20

Corridor Study this Thursday, July 18, with the first meeting of the I-20 East Texas Working

Group in Longview, Texas. The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the current safety

and capacity needs and plan for the future along a 155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 in

Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana State Line.

An integral component of this study is to work directly with public and private stakeholders

through a Working Group. Implemented to assist TxDOT in assessing the rural transportation

needs along I-20 by providing locally focused input and recommendations, the Working

Group is currently comprised of 16 elected officials and other stakeholders along the I-20

corridor and includes representatives from: Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg and

Harrison counties; the cities of Mesquite, Balch Springs, Terrell, Tyler, Longview, and

Marshall; the North Central Texas Council of Governments, Tyler Metropolitan Planning

Organization (MPO) and Longview MPO; and the North East Texas Regional Mobility

Authority. (insert elected official name here) will be serving on the Working Group

representing (jurisdiction name here) and its residents’ interests in the I-20 Corridor Study.

“Quote about participating in the Working Group goes here,” said (insert elected official name

here). “Continued quote goes here.”

###

FOR


July 18, 2013


ABOUT THE STUDY: The I-20 corridor currently serves as an integral east-west connection for both travel and

trade in Texas. As the interstate system ages and population and trade increase, the

importance of assessing the current corridor conditions and identifying opportunities for

improvement and growth along the corridor come into play.

During the next 18 months, the I-20 Corridor Study will focus on assessing the current I-20

corridor conditions; identifying both immediate and long-term needs; highlighting and

prioritizing potential improvement projects; outlining funding requirements for the

implementation of potential projects; and planning the next steps for TxDOT to advance this

project.

Press Contact: Name, Title Company E: C:

Map highlighting the areas to be reviewed as part of the I-20 Corridor Study.


July 18, 2013


API

AppePublic-20 East Te

endixc Outre

xas Corrido

x C each r Study

Effortss

Contents

1.1. Public Involvement Plan

2. Initial Public Outreach

2.1. Public Involvement Update

2.2. I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Email Correspondence Tracking

2.3. Fact Sheet (September 3 2014 Version)

2.4. Talking Points (September 3 2014 Version)

2.5. Frequently Asked Questions (September 3 2014 Version)

2.6. Comment Card (September 3 2014 Version)

2.7. Activity Form (September 3 2014 Version)

2.8. Received Activity Forms April 2014 – July 2014

2.9. Community Presentation (September 3 2014 Version)

2.10. I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey Sample

3. Draft Plan Outreach

3.1. Second Public Involvement Update

3.2. I-20 Draft Implementation Plan (September 19 2014 Version)

3.3. Community Presentation (September 19 2014 Version)

3.4. Fact Sheet (September 19 2014 Version)

3.5. Fact Sheets by County

3.6. Virtual Open House

3.7. Received Activity Forms August 2014 – November 2014

Public Involvement Plan


DRAFT


Project Overview

The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study being conducted by TxDOT is focused on evaluating the

current safety and capacity needs along the 155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 in Dallas to

the Texas/Louisiana state line.

A key component of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study will be working with an Advisory

Committee made up of 21 elected officials and key transportation stakeholders from the

corridor area. The purpose of the Advisory Committee will be to assist TxDOT by providing

feedback on issues and concerns to be considered, prioritization of projects and possible

funding alternatives.

The I-‐ 20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee will promote and facilitate the

involvement and input of affected local communities and interested stakeholders to identify

and prioritize the multi-modal transportation needs of the corridor with a focus on safety,

mobility, congestion, and air quality for travellers and freight through East Texas.

Public Involvement Plan

The purpose of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Involvement Plan (PIP) is to

increase awareness of the project and to proactively communicate project information to

stakeholders and the public. The PIP outlines goals and objectives for public involvement

and activities that will be developed to communicate project information, updates and key

milestones as well as gather public input on issues and concerns to be considered as part of

the corridor study. The PIP will be led by K Strategies in coordination with Jacobs

Engineering Group, under the direction of TxDOT.

Public Involvement Goals

The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study PIP will focus on the following goals:




Generate feedback to assist the Advisory Committee in prioritizing opportunities and

concerns

Public Involvement Objectives

The main objectives for the PIP include:




Collaborate with Advisory Committee members to gain assistance communicating

information to the public


Key Stakeholders

Key stakeholders for the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study span along the entire 155-mile

study corridor. In addition, stakeholders would also include commuters from outside of the

project area. Below is a list of categories of key stakeholders for the project:


– Dallas County

– Kaufman County

– Van Zandt County

– Smith County

– Gregg County

– Harrison County

– Balch Springs

– Mesquite

– Seagoville

– Forney

– Terrell

– Canton

– Lindale

– Tyler

– Longview

– Marshall

– Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)

– North Central Texas Council of Governments

– North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority (NETRMA)

– Longview MPO

– Tyler MPO

Collaborating Partners

– Farm Bureau

– Native American Tribes

– Economic Development Organizations

– Private Businesses Interests

– Rural Planning Organizations


– Freight Rail and Passenger Rail Interest Groups

– Transit Interest Groups

Residents within the study corridor

Businesses along and near I-20

Commuters

Public Involvement Components

As part of the PIP, the following elements will be developed to create a cohesive and

effective public involvement campaign throughout the duration of the I-20 East Texas

Corridor Study.

Stakeholder Database

A stakeholder database will be developed to be used as a point of contact for project

information and to communicate with the public. This database will include contact

information for Advisory Committee members, collaborating partners, residents, businesses,

commuters and others who have an interest in the study.

Public Mailing List

In addition to the stakeholder database, a public mailing list will be created and updated

regularly to include open house and community presentation attendees as well as others

who express an interest in the study who provide contact information.

Communication Channels

In order to effectively communicate with the public, project messages will be provided

through a variety of sources including:

Open houses

Community presentations and talking points

Website updates

Email notifications

Social media (Facebook and Twitter)

Online surveys (Survey Monkey)

Printed study collateral

– Fact Sheets

– Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Message boards (highway boards/variable message boards)


More detailed information on how social media and online surveys will be used can be found

in the Social Media Plan and Survey Monkey Plan respectively.

Printed study collateral will be available at all open houses and community presentations, as

well as provided to Advisory Committee members for distribution.

Public Comment Database

Any public comments received during the study will be compiled and managed in a tracking

database. Comments could be received by website, Facebook, Twitter, email, mail, or at

public meetings. All comments received will be compiled into a report and given to the

project team on a regular basis.

Public Involvement Timeline

During the course of the study, activities and outreach will coincide with Advisory Committee

discussion topics, which will serve as guidelines for the type of public involvement activities

that will be planned.

Timeframe Advisory Committee Meeting Topic Public Involvement Activities

July 2013 Study introduction

October 2013 Identify constraints, community

features, concerns and future

considerations

January 2014 Review traffic, crash and geometry

analysis; review conceptual I-20

improvement strategies; approve

public involvement materials

Committee members begin

initial public involvement: - Community presentations

- Update website

- Email notifications

- Social media posts

- Online surveys

March 2014 Identify potential projects Continued initial public

involvement efforts

April 2014 End initial public involvement

May 2014 Evaluate and prioritize projects;

review public involvement feedback

August 2014 Review draft corridor plan

September 2014 Corridor Study open houses

October 2014 Corridor Study open houses


November 2014 Review public input received from

open houses; finalize corridor plan

December 2014 Presentation to Texas Transportation

Commission

Members share the final

corridor plan; update study

website; social media posts;

email notifications

This PIP is a working document. As the study progresses, the PIP will be updated to reflect

more detailed information on the timing and nature of public involvement activities.

Plan created by:

K Strategies Group

214.599.9766

www.kstrategies.com

[email protected]



2. Initial Public Outreach I-20 East Texas Corridor Study

Public Involvement Update I-20 East Texas Corridor Study DRAFT


Public Involvement Plan The I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee members identified the importance of involving local communities in the study as an overarching goal for the study. To guide this, a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) was created outlining outreach activities focused on increasing awareness of the project and proactively communicating project information to stakeholders and the public.

Public Involvement Goals The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study PIP focused on the following goals:




Generate feedback to assist the Advisory Committee in prioritizing opportunities and concerns

Public Involvement Objectives The main objectives for the PIP included:



Collaborate with Advisory Committee members to gain assistance communicating information to the public


Informational Materials As part of the PIP, the following informational materials were developed to share information about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study with project stakeholders.

Project Website Serving as a general information hub for the project, the project website was created in August 2013 and updated throughout the project to include recent project information. While on the website, users could view:

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

Project fact sheet

Meeting minutes

Project maps


Additionally, links were provided for an online comment form available the entire duration of the project and to the study’s public survey made available during May and June 2014.

FAQs A list of FAQs was compiled based on suggestions from the I-20 East Texas Advisory Committee members. These questions were then answered and provided to the public through the project website and available through the committee members’ local offices beginning in February 2014.

Project Fact Sheet A project fact sheet was developed including a general overview of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, an explanation of what would be evaluated as part of the study scope, details on how to stay involved with the study, and information on the Advisory Committee members. The project fact sheet was provided to the public through the project website and available through the committee members’ local offices beginning in February 2014.

Public Outreach To encourage public participation in the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, a variety of public outreach methods were used to allow for stakeholder participation.

Public Comments To ensure stakeholders were able to submit comments on the study, comment could be received by website, Facebook, Twitter, email, mail, or at public meetings. Additionally, the online survey made available in May 2014 allowed for comments on the study. All of the public comments received during the study were compiled and managed in a tracking database. Comments received between February 2014 and July 2014 are summarized below:


Web-based 64 Mailed-In 7 Online Survey 1441 Total Comments Received 215

1 Open commentary was optional when responding the Online Survey.


Comments were received from stakeholders in 18 counties and the study team prioritized the following three themes per county:

Map of Comments Received by County

Cherokee County (One comment received) – Make I-20 a double decker freeway to put cars on the top level and trucks on the

bottom

Collin County (One comment received) – Create a dedicated truck lane in each direction of I-20

Dallas County (Eight comments received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Raise the speed limit on some portions of I-20 to make it consistent throughout – Add an HOV lane in each direction of I-20

Denton County (One comment received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Keep the 75 mile per hour (MPH) speed limit – Better enforcement of “slower traffic keep to the right” rule

Ellis County (One comment received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Keep a low speed limit – Better traffic enforcement

Gregg County (55 comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Hazardous wet road conditions

Harrison County (15 comments received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20


– Add frontage roads – Add entrance and exit ramp at Buck Sherrod Road

Henderson County (Two comments received) – Lower the speed limit

Kaufman County (One comment received) – Lower the speed limit – Better enforcement of traffic law – Modify entrance and exit ramps

Rusk County (One comment received) – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Add a fourth lane between Kilgore and Longview – Modify entrance and exit ramps

Shelby County (One comment received) – Add entrance and exit ramps to ease traffic back-ups2 – Add frontage roads – Real-time notifications of accidents and traffic

Smith County (101 comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps – Add frontage roads – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20

Van Zandt County (Five comments received) – Create a dedicated truck lane in each direction of I-20 – Road surface improvements – Improve rest area facilities in Gregg County

Tarrant County (Four comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps – Add a third lane in each direction of I-20 – Road surface improvements

Upshur County (Three comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps

Caddo Parrish (Two comments received) – Modify entrance and exit ramps

2 Area not specified. Comment referenced the ability to get off the highway when accidents back up traffic.


– Raise the speed limit to make it consistent – Road surface improvements west of Terrell

County unknown (Five comments received) – Create a dedicated truck lane in each direction of I-20 – Lower speed limits – Provide passenger and freight rail service (Dallas – Tyler – Louisiana)

To view all comments received, please see Attachment 1. Additionally, through the submittal of comments and feedback from the online public survey, the following projects were identified as needing improvement along the I-20 corridor that had not already been included in the technical staff project list as of June 11, 2014: New Ramps

Harrison County – Buck Sherrod Rd (determined

to be too close to adjacent interchanges)

Hydroplaning areas

Van Zandt – From FM 19 to CR 110

Smith – From US 69 to FM 14

Gregg – From US 42 to FM 2087 – From FM 2087 to Loop 281 W

Harrison – From US 259 to Loop 281 E

Bridges

Gregg – Sabine River bridge widening

Resurfacing

Dallas – From I-635 to Kaufman County

Line

Kaufman – From Dallas/ Kaufman County

Line to FM 2965

Harrison – From Loop 281 E to FM 134

(Waskom) Interchange Improvement

Dallas County – Loop 635 – US 175

Ramp Modifications

Smith County – Toll 49 – CR 411

Gregg – US 259 (Eastman Rd.) – SH 135

Harrison County – Spur 156


Online Public Survey To gather specific feedback on priorities for the project and to assist the Advisory Committee in highlighting projects needing improvements in the study corridor, an online public survey was created and made available through May and June 2014. The survey consisted of nine questions, summarized below:



Dallas County 17 Kaufman County 4 Van Zandt County 2 Smith County 128 Gregg County 57 Harrison County 18 Other (please specify) 27 answered question 253 skipped question 1

2. How often do you travel along the I-20 corridor area between I-635 in Dallas County

and the Texas/Louisiana state line?


Daily 57 Weekly 62 Monthly 102 Rarely 24 answered question 245 skipped question 9

3. Which of the following options best describes why you most frequently use I-20?


Commuting to your work place 52 Traveling for work away from your regular work place 45 Traveling for personal use (entertainment/vacation) 127 Hauling Freight 4 Other (please specify) 17 answered question 245 skipped question 9


4. Please select up to three strategies you think should be the highest priorities for the I-20 study.


Response Count

Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for travelers 72.6% 164 Improve safety 62.4% 141 Consider current and future multimodal transportation needs (highway, freight rail, intercity bus service, passenger rail, etc.)

46.5% 105

Involve local communities 43.4% 98 Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for freight 23.9% 54 Enhance air quality 4.9% 11 Other (please specify) 8





Response Count

Adding lanes 58.3% 133 Improving or adding frontage roads 50.0% 114 Reconfiguring entrance and exit ramps 50.0% 114


32.5% 74

Improving median safety 26.8% 61 Adjusting speed limits up 21.5% 49 Adjusting speed limits down 7.5% 17 Raising bridge heights 0.4% 1 Other (please specify) 15



what do you think should be done? (Example: lengthen the ramp at the [Street Name or Exit], lower the speed limit near City Name, etc.)

139 respondents provided comments regarding specific areas within their county that have been included in the comment section above.

7. What areas along I-20 outside of your county do you feel need immediate attention?

(Example: intersection of highways) Please provide name of specific city or between specific cities, etc.

106 respondents provided comments regarding specific areas outside of their county that have been included in the comment section above.

3 Survey respondents were given the opportunity to choose multiple options.



41 respondents provided additional comments that have been included in the comment section above.



64 respondents provided information for the mailing list.

Advisory Committee Public Outreach In addition to the tools provided by the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study, advisory committee members were asked to create public outreach opportunities in their own communities with possible suggestions of social media posts, website links and community presentations. Members were then asked to submit an activity form to the study team for tracking of individual events. Members submitted activity forms for 21 events held between February and June 2014 reaching out to over 400 local residents. Information was shared with chambers of commerce, local organizations, homeowners associations and at city council meetings and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) meetings. More information is provided below:


Balch Springs 5 153

Gregg County 1 N/A

(newspaper article)


Longview MPO 5 61

Smith County 1 30

Tyler MPO 4 79


Additionally, advisory committee members were responsible for sharing information through social media, website links and through the following news sources:

Tyler Morning Telegraph

Marshall News Messenger

KETK NBC – Tyler

Longview News Journal

Update created by: K Strategies Group 214.599.9766 www.kstrategies.com [email protected]



I-‐20 East Texas Corridor StudyEmail Correspondence Tracking

Updated 5/14/14

Date Received City State ZIP County Comment

2/20/14 As the Executive Director of the COG/MPO just across the Texas/Louisiana Line I am very interested in this project and would very much like to attend the meetings. Please let me know if this is possible.

3/11/14 Longview TX 75606 Gregg I am covering the study group for the Longview News-‐Journal. Nice job on the icy day last Monday, I was there.

3/11/14 Longview TX 75601 Gregg

LOWER THE DAMNED SPEED LIMIT! Raising it to 75 was the dumbest move. All that does is increase the fatalities and we are already #1 in that!! It just made me sick when it was raised. I won't travel it anymore. Back roads are easier and safer.

3/11/14 Tyler TX 75703 Smith

I travel I-‐20 to Shreveport and Dallas quite often. The entrance and exit ramps of I-‐20 need to be updated to allow for safe merging of traffic, the entrances and exits in Longview are without a doubt the first on the list to be addressed. In addition minimum speed limits need to be posted and ENFORCED. A third lane would be a great addition, but may be prohibitivly expensive. However, if a third lane is added, even in certain areas (Gregg, Smith, Harrsion counties), a no truck in the left lane rule needs to be adopted and enforced.

3/11/14 Tyler TX 75703 SmithThe solution to I-‐20 etc traffic is simple. More public transportation, be that high speed rail or buses. There should rarely be a reason to need a car. There is no excuse for Texas to go on pretending that it is still living in the 19th Century

3/12/14 Kilgore TX 75663 Gregg

1) Need longer ramp at HWY 2011 east bound access. Current is unsafe due to increased traffic on I-‐20.2) Need 3rd lane between Longview and Dallas. Big Truck/Cargo and Oilfield Trucks need to stay out of Inside Lane if 3rd lane is installed. Increased Truck traffic is great for Texas Economy but creates unsafe driving for non-‐truck motorist.3)What are the options on paying for Safety improvements?


I hate driving on I-‐20. Most of the time I spend on I-‐20 is between Shreveport and Longview. There needs to be at least 1 more lane in each direction to ease the heavy traffic. The other traveling I do is between Longview and Livingston, Tx. I avoid I-‐20 west bound for any travelingwest because I live on the east side of Longview. I feel like the portion of I-‐20 between Longview exit 599 and the one at Estes Parkway is a death trap. I would rather travel through Longview on HWY 80 (also highly dangerous with way too much traffic) than risk being in a wreck on I-‐20 or being stuck behind a wreck on I-‐20. I feel either of those situations is guaranteed to happen if I travel on that portion of I-‐20. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my concerns.


on and off ramps (estes,eastman exits an extra lanes will be a big help. I drive for Estes Express Lines on 281 loop. hope this be some help. Thanks. Have A Nice Day. I could benefit monetarily from the project or other item about which I am commenting


I make at least one business trip between Longview and Dallas each week. Traffic flow issues that I see are:1. Tractor-‐trailer rigs are close to 1/2 of the traffic. When one rig passes another, all traffic behind slows to 65 mph or less. The worst area is in the hills either side of Tyler. A third, no truck, lane in that area would improve traffic flow.2. I do not understand the reason for the 65 mph speed limit between the eastern Kaufman county line and Terrell. There are no businesses along that stretch, just open country with a few on/off ramps.


On the east bound lane before u get to Sabine river bridge water collects on road and u hydroplane because weep holes are not cleaned out and water collects on roadway when it rains ...I do not go l-‐20 going home when it rains because of this problem!!


I drive I-‐20 from Lindale to Longview every weekday for work. Several of the on ramps need to be extended to give traffic opportunity to speed up to highway traffic speed (75 mph) before merging. Also, the Sabine River Bridge can bottleneck without anywhere for traffic to go in the event of an accident. It should be widened. Would be happy to discuss via email. Janet


Updated 5/14/14


3/12/14 New London TX 75682 Rusk

My husband and I work in Longview so I-‐20 is our main road of daily travel. We believe that I-‐20 should be 3 lanes from Shreveport to Dallas even 4 lanes around Kilgore and Longview. Any merging traffice poses the risk of fatality when the interstate traffic is already running 75 MPH. When driving north from Kilgore to Longview, we do not use the access ramp from Hwy 31 to I-‐20 due to the higher speed traffice and inability to see what we are merging with. If you happen to try to enter I-‐20 with 18 wheelers in both lanes you better hope nothing is ahead of you so you can hit the accelerator. To avoid this we make our way to FM2087 and enter I-‐20 from there. Another issue is west bound traffic exiting I-‐20 onto Hwy 31. Hwy 31 needs a 3rd lane to allow more time to merge with traffic. Leaving Longview from Estes Parkway to I-‐20 West is another issues. I-‐20 needs 3 or 4 lanes at this interchange also. I could go on and on. Thank you for askig for communtiy feedback.

3/12/14 Troup TX 75789 Smith plant wildflowers like bluebonnet, Indian paint brushed etc. Texas doesn't have many of our state flower no where.

3/17/14 Ben Wheeler TX 75754 Van Zandt Inquiring bout job oppertunity. Need work so bad thanks


Letourneau University, located in Gregg County, just a small distance from I-‐20, is very interested in the future of I-‐20. We operate extension programs in the DFW area. We regularly utilize airports in DFW and so students, staff, and guests are daily traveling on I-‐20.

Safety and congestion issues already exist. The future promises these issues to grow to unacceptable concerns.

I encourage the study group to look at the development of access roads in the Longview area. Longview is a major city directly on I-‐20. The safety of I-‐20 would be enhanced if local business traffic could utilize access roads. This is also an economic development concern as future business development is hindered by the lack of proper access roads in Longview.

I also encourage the group to look at rail solutions that would move passenger and freight traffic off the congested highway and onto rail. With more reliable and timely schedules and accessible connections intothe growing DART rail system of DFW, Letourneau University staff and students would use rail daily to travel to/from Dallas on university business. A safety issue for sure, this is also an economic developmentissue. the economic growth of East Texas requires safe and convenient access to the DFW metroplex.

3/31/14 Rusk TX 75785 CherokeeIt would take a ton of money & time but what if I-‐20 was a double-‐decker? You could put cars on the top road & trucks on the bottom. All of them would be happy, not to mention much safer.


My theory is that it is an interstate in a state of 30 million people, therefore it should have 3 lanes one for entering or exiting, one for trucks and slower drivers, and the inside lane for faster traffic and passing. Two lanes between longview and Shreveport are bumper to bumper almost any day of the week. The way east texas drivers tailgate, and make unsafe decisions, a third lane would allow conscientious and aware drivers one more option to avoiding the selfish morons that seem to think their business is so important that they must ride peoples butts, and pass on the right, and jump in between two vehicles that are a couple lengthsapart. 3 lanes would also significantly relieve the congestion, which results in people getting impatient, and making unsafe decisions.


Two issues: Have a study to see why the area for several miles east and west of Longview is very bad during rain with cars and trucks hydroplaning. Wrecks every time it rains. Should the speed limit really be 75 with the many cars and truck exiting between Marshall and Kilgore? We take other routes with our grandkids when its raining.


Require all 18 wheelers and vehicles to remain in the right lane at all times. These vehicles are constantly changing lanes to pass another truck. Often, the passing truck is traveling at 65 mph and the truck being passes is going 64 3/4 mph. They take 2 miles to pass and essentially reduce the flow of traffic to around 60 mph.


Updated 5/14/14



I am an Owner\Operator truck driver. I regularly run I20 from Tyler to Fort Worth and back. The section in Kaufman County from Terrell to I635 is in bad need of resurfacing. This section of I20 is so rough that I actually blew out an air bag in my suspension when crossing a bridge and hitting the pavement again. The rest of I20 seems to be in good shape and well maintained. It would also be nice to have the speed limit increased in Kaufman county.

4/4/14 Athens TX 75751 Hendersonyou going 75 -‐ 18 wheelers past or blocking the hwy trying to past other trucks. most disturbing is cars with handicap tags pass you. In other words speed kills on such a poor kept hwy.

4/5/14 Whitehouse TX 75791 Smith

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the I-‐20 East Corridor. My husband and I travel between Lindale and Dallas most frequently and between Tyler and Shreveport on occasion.

No matter what time of day or night there is consistenlty high volume traffic in both directions. Even though most of the way is posted as 75mph, there is a wide variation of actual travel speeds that cause congestion and is dangerous. There is also a lot of 18-‐wheeler trucktraffic which adds to less steady traffic flow.

I really don't have any answers, but it might be worthwhile to consider adding an additional lane in each direction and have the far right lane be solely for truck use. Expensive, yes, but the current situation at high rates of speed is dangerous to all as evidenced by frequent accidents.

I am also aware that this corridor is used for trafficking illegal drugs and humans between Dallas and Shreveport. Either radar or increased physical highway patrol presence would be a deterrent to illegal activities.

4/10/14 Winona TX 75792 Smith

Add acceleration/deceleration lanes at exits so exiting vehicles can slow down to exit clear of the main lanes and likewise accelerate to highway speed before entering the main lanes. Acceleration/deceleration lanes would help ensure constant flow on the main lanes and make I-‐20 safer.

4/12/14 Tenaha TX 75974 Shelby

Today is a great example of the problems on I20. A wreck occurred between Tyler and Kilgoe. Luckily we were at an exit when traffic backed up to us. My son just ahead of us is still there 2hours and counting. More exits and service roads needed. Some way for emergency vehicles to get to wreck -‐more ways for traffic to get off. Notification of problems ahead needed. Digital signs. A really dangerous on ramp is at Lindale goin ast -‐too short and can't see. The increased traffic on this interstate has made many problems that need to be addressed.

4/15/14 Lindale TX 75771 SmithI would like to see bicycling (multimodal) opportunities enhanced along the I20 corridor. This could create improved non motor transportation opportunities as well as safer recreational cycling opportunities.

4/25/14 Flower Mound TX 75028 Denton

Getting people to follow the slow traffic move right laws. Trucks are theworst 3 lanes would be the best. I use the corridor quite frequently and love the new 75 mph speed limit. Just need to expand to 3 lanes as it get closer to DFW. starting to get very hairy the last 50 miles into Dallas.


Adding a 3rd Lane could really benefit easing traffic or a raise in the speed limit. 75 MPH had proved to be a great speed to increase traffic flow, but 80 could help ease it a little better. Most drivers tend to go over 75 anyway. It could help prevent wrecks between speeders and people who obey the speed limits.

4/25/14 Wills Point TX 75169 Van Zandt

I think y'all need to add a trucker only lane like on the new hwy 20 through Mesquite and Balch Springs. I also think the roads need to be leveled down a bit starting at Lindale headed east because when it rains they are so slick and the hills are just too much. The speed limit isperfect so please do not change that. Also, the rest area just as you enter Gregg County coming out of Smith County could use some rest rooms on both sides.


It is clear from the TxDOT analysis that the Central corridor in Smith County North of Tyler has the longest region with a high accident incident rate in the study. Why is the proposed expansion to 6 lanes delayed until2035 given the already high accident rate?


I believe this study is a vital part of taking care of the citizens of Texas to keep people and goods moving in a safe and efficient manner. This particular corridor was constructed more than 50 years ago where the transportation needs have shifted with economic development, land use, etc.. With limited monies, it is a must to stretch the dollars to support growth where the demand is and proposed.


Updated 5/14/14



I think the study should include widening I-‐20 to three lanes east & west and require trucks not to use the inside lane. Also thought should be given to Toll lanes to help offset the cost. The use of the corridor for rail service is necessary and should be put on the "fast track".

4/28/14 Ben Wheeler TX 75754 Van Zandt I am very excited to see this proposal. It is an absolute necessity given the continued growth of population in East Texas.

4/29/14 Tyler TX 75711 SmithI support further development of the I-‐20 corridor. Addition of semi-‐truck lanes in both directions would be a significant safetyimprovement and enhance commercial movement East and West


On/Off ramps must be addressed first. Too many cross over frontage roads creating unexpected intersections with high speeds and decreased visibility. This creates "t-‐bone" or yield related accidents between those using the highway and those who live in the area. Many ramps involve tight turns so the maximum speed you can enter a 75 mph highway is 35 mph or to exit, one must drop their speed by 40 mph in a very short distance. The left lane needs a more significant shoulder. It is non-‐existent in many places, which means slight accidents now cause massive pile ups. I am also in support of a HOV lane or time of use lane, but not of any sort of commuter rail system. The demand for a commuter rail is not substantiated.

5/7/14 Marshall TX 75672 Harrison

I hope you will keep the cable barriers in Harrison I-‐20 medians. I feel safer driving with them than the concrete barriers. I think the cables are more forgiving than the concrete and are just as safe. I also love the signage in Texas. You never have to guess where you are...there is one every time you turn onto a new road!

5/13/14 Marshall TX 75672 HarrisonI would like to see the frontage roads from Longview to Waskom become continuous. I would also like to see an entrance/exit ramp at Buck Sherrod road. (Between Hwy 31 and FM 2199)

1

I-20TexCoStu

Sept

HOWANDINVO

Visit owww.txdot/statewcorrid


tember

W TO GD STAY OLVED

our website .txdot.gov/in/projects/stuwide/i20‐easdor.html

t

2014

GET

…

at nside‐udies/ st‐

Fact

I‐20As necfututranTexa

The s

Overv

Scope

Sheet

0 provides an the interstatessary to assure. A Corridnsportation nas/Louisiana

study will:

Assess currencorridor condand identify nmid and longneeds. The nassessment wfocus on addressing sacongestion, asystem preservation concerns.

Identify oppoand alternati

Consider funimprovemen

Outline next consider adv

view

e of Study

important eate system agsess the curror Assessmeneeds along State Line.

nt ditions near, g‐term eeds will

afety, and

ortunities forive transporta

nding requiremnts, including

steps for TxDvancing projec

ast‐west connges and popent safety annt study hasI‐20 from th

r addressing nation modes.

ments for impalternative/n

DOT and othect developme

nection for trapulation and nd capacity ns been underhe Dallas Me

needs related.

plementationnon‐traditiona

er transportatent activities

S

avel and tradtrade incre

needs and plrtaken to idetropolitan Ar

d to vehicular,

n of potentialal funding str

tion stakeholdfor the corrid

eptember 3, 201

e in Texas. eases, it is an for the entify rural rea to the

, freight

rategies.

ders to dor.

4

2

I-20TexCorStu


t

Fact S

An stakassilocaave

ThecrosCom

The

Adviso

Sch

Sheet

integral comkeholders thrst TxDOT in aally focused innue for publi

Rural tra

Local plafeatures

Opportu

Recommmodes

Input onstrategie

Recommstakeholthe corri

Advisory Comss‐section of emmittee mem

Counties

Cities (BaLongview

Metropo

North Ea

Dallas Ar

Other enbusiness

Advisory Com

ory Commit

edule

ponent of though an Adviassessing thenput and recoc outreach an

ansportation n

anning issues )

nities for nea

mendations fo

the feasibilites

mendations onders to considor

mmittee is cuelected offici

mbers include

s (Dallas, Kauf

alch Springs, w, Marshall)

olitan Plannin

ast Texas Regi

rea Rapid Tra

ntities could is interests and

mmittee has

Expectein Decem

ttee

his study has isory Commite rural transpommendationd input on is

needs along t

(developmen

ar, mid and lo

or addressing

ty of potentia

n priorities ander in advanc

urrently compals and otherrepresentati

fman, Van Za

Mesquite, Fo

ng Organizatio

ional Mobility

nsit (DART)

nclude econod Native Ame

met approxim

ed study duramber 2014.

been workinttee. The chaportation neens. The Comssues that inc

the I‐20 corrid

nt activities, p

ong‐term tran

freight and a

al alternative/

nd next steps cing project d

prised of indivr stakeholderon from the f

andt, Smith, G

orney, Terrell,

ons (NCTCOG

y Authority (N

omic developerican Tribes.

mately every

ation is about

S

ng with publirge of the Coeds along I‐20mittee providclude:

dor

planning/envi

nsportation im

alternative tra

/non‐tradition

for TxDOT andevelopment

viduals repress along the cofollowing:

Gregg, Harriso

, Canton, Lind

, Tyler, Longv

NETRMA)

ment organiz

two months.

18 months t

eptember 3, 201

ic and privatommittee is t0 by providindes a valuabl

ironmental

mprovements

ansportation

nal funding

nd other locaactivities for

senting a orridor.

on)

dale, Tyler,

view)

zations,

o be complet

4

e o g e

s

l

te

I-20TexCorStu

P


Page | 1

t

Talki

Study

Adviso

Publi

ing Poi

I‐20 corrtrade in T

18‐mont

Evaluate Texas/Lo

Focus on

Identify acorridor

y Overview

21 membo A

o Co T

Work wit

Assist Tx

ory Commit

You can go P

ge

o O

Informato W

to Fo Fo T

@o P

ic Outreach

ints

idor is an inteTexas

h study to co

155‐mile streouisiana State

n current and

and prioritize

bers All counties a Dallas

HarrisCities with poTransportatio DART

th other colla

DOT with ass

ttee

get involved tPresentationsgroups, electeeconomic devOpen Houses

tion to be updWebsite updatxdot/projectFact Sheets anFacebook (wwTwitter (@TxD@TxDOTAtlanPress Release

h

egral east‐we

onclude in Dec

etch of I‐20 fre Line

future safety

e opportunitie

long the corrs, Kaufman, Vson countiesopulation oveon stakeholdeT, NCTCOG, ne

aborative part

sessing the ru

throughout ts to local goveed officials, cvelopment gr

dated and disates at http://ts/studies/stand FAQs ww.facebookDOT, @TxDOnta) es

est connection

cember 2014

rom I‐635 in D

y and enhanc

es for improv

ridor represenVan Zandt, Sm

r 15,000 peoers representeetRMA, Longv

tners from th

ural transport

he duration oernments, civhambers of croups

stributed regu/www.txdot.gatewide/i20‐e

.com/TxDOT)OTDallasPIO, @

Septembe

n for both tra

4

Dallas to the

ed mobility n

ements along

nted mith, Gregg an

ple ed view MPO, Ty

he community

ation needs

of the studyvic and commommerce, an

ularly via gov/inside‐east‐corridor.

) @TYLPIO,

r 3, 2014

avel and

needs

g the

nd

yler MPO

y

munity nd

html







The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study being conducted by TxDOT is focused on evaluating the current safety and capacity needs along the 155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 in Dallas to the Texas/Louisiana state line.

1.


The I-20 corridor currently serves as an integral east-west connection for both travel and trade in Texas. As the interstate system ages and trade increases, identifying opportunities for improvement becomes more critical. Assessing the current corridor conditions and identifying future growth potential are important to ensuring this route meets the needs of the region for decades to come.

2.


A major component of this study is to work directly with public and private stakeholders through an Advisory Committee. The I-20 East Texas Corridor Advisory Committee was established in August 2013 by the Texas Transportation Commission to assist TxDOT in assessing the rural transportation needs along I-20 by providing locally focused input and recommendations. This group is currently comprised of 21 elected officials and other stakeholders along the I-20 corridor and includes representatives from:

• Counties (Dallas, Kaufman, Van Zandt, Smith, Gregg, Harrison) • Cities (Balch Springs, Mesquite, Seagoville, Forney, Terrell, Canton,

Lindale, Tyler, Longview, Marshall) • Metropolitan Planning Organizations (NCTCOG, Tyler, Longview) • North East Texas Regional Mobility Authority (NETRMA) • Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)


• Farm Bureau • Native American Tribes • Economic Development Organizations • Private Businesses Interests • Rural Planning Organizations • Freight Rail and Passenger Rail Interest Groups • Transit Interest Groups

3.







This study will focus on evaluating safety concerns and capacity needs along the corridor. This could include additional frontage roads, ramp/interchange redesign, improving vertical clearance, and passenger rail alternatives. The purpose of including representatives of all major areas within the corridor is to ensure that a complete view of the needs for the future of the I-20 corridor is considered.

4.


The study is expected to be complete in December 2014, with Committee members conducting public outreach on the draft plan during Fall 2014.

5.


The area included within this study spans 155 miles along I-20 from I-635 in Dallas County to the Texas/Louisiana state line. In some areas, other regional highways or roadways may be included in the study when considering solutions to problems, but the primary focus of this study is along I-20.

6.


Ultimately, the result of the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study will serve as a guide for TxDOT to begin improvements throughout the corridor by providing a prioritized list of projects as well as possible funding solutions.

7.


Throughout the 18-month study, we will be updating our website regularly, issuing press releases about important topics, and reaching out to you through social media. In addition, we will be hosting outreach events to gather input on the draft plan. You can also submit comments on our website at www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html. To date, we have received 215 comments and reached out to more than 400 members of the public through various activities.

8.

I-20TexCorStu

LET UFROM

Please commeEast Te

To submonline, websitww.txdtxdot/ptatewidcorrido

0 Easxas rridor dy

US HEAR M YOU!

provide your ents on the I‐xas Corridor S

mit commentplease visit te at dot.gov/insidprojects/stude/ i20‐eastor.html

st

‐20 Study.

ts our

de‐dies/st‐

Comm

Please prCorridor

NAM

EMA

ZIP:

Texas

Comme

Check a

Join ou

ment Crovide your Study.

ME:

IL:

I am employ

I do business

I could benefcommenting

s Transportation

ents/Questi

ny that apply

ur email list:

Card comments b

yed by TxDOT.

s with TxDOT.

fit monetarily frg on.

n Code, §201.8

ions:

y to you:

below on the

from the projec

811(a)(5)

e I‐20 East T

ct or other item

Texas

m about which I am


Activity Form



Location: Date:


Questions/Comments:

Follow Up Requests:






September 3, 2014

February 18, 2014

Activity Form


Texas Department

of Transportation

ir licke 1 [lowed


Location: 14W. Ferjuson lei- TA- 75710 Date: 3/13/1,4

# of Attendees (approximate): 7

Questions/Comments: None

Follow Up Requests:

I

cr

1-20 East Texas Corridor Study

Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at CarolinclovegtxdoLgov or mail to:

Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Caroline Love

125 East 11th St. Austin, TX 78701

Attach copies of meeting agenda sign-in list or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity.

Activity Form Texas arDepartment of Transportation

February 18, 2014

Committee Member Name: Pit citcte I ilcvvell


Location: I-10G Roso Rtrik Dr ly ler T. 757o). Date: 3/0/ 7fit4


Questions/Comments: i\1002.,

Follow Up Requests: hicuta,

NI


LU

ci

Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at Carohne.Lovegtxdotgov or mail to:


125 East 11m St. Austin, TX 78701


Committee Member Name: Cc/tot-el

Organization or Group Presented To: rjler Ar J?cl Chcirtber oP Commerce.

Location: 315 ki Broadwqj Arc) T:yier 7,5704 Date: 3701SM


Questions/Comments: 5ee ke d siK,e +S

Follow Up Requests:

Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at Caroline.Lovegtxdot.gov or mail to:

Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Caroline Lov(_.

125 East ll tn St. Austin, TX 78701


a .•==


February 18, 2014

Activity Form

* g

Air Texas Department

of Transportation

C CNi

LU

CC

Activity Form

February 18, 2014

Texas ArDepartment of Transportation

Committee Member Name: chciPt !lowed

Organization or Group Presented To: PL,

Location: 400 Rose Pc Ark Or 1-31er Ty 7Y7oc). Date:


Questions/Comments: See ckil-oichea 56e-1

Follow Up Requests: 'doh


Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at Caroline.Lovegtxclot.gov or mail to:

Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Caroline Low

125 East 1 1 th St, Austin, TX 78701



Activity Form



Location: Date:


Questions/Comments:

Follow Up Requests:






February 18, 2014

cgardner

Typewritten Text

Joel Baker

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

Tyler, Texas

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

Smith County Commissioners Court

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

4/15/14

cgardner

Typewritten Text

30

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

None, although comment forms were available in court that day.

cgardner

Typewritten Text

None

cgardner

Typewritten Text

FYI: Smith County has a link from our home page to all the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study

cgardner

Typewritten Text

materials, including direct access to the comment form. As comment forms are received, we are

cgardner

Typewritten Text

sending them to Caroline Love.

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

cgardner

Typewritten Text

FEBRUARY 17, 2014

4 - 6 p.m.

CIVIC CENTER 12400 ELAM ROAD

Discussion and active participation on the following items:

1. commUNITY Visioning Charette

Mobility Balch Springs - Star Transit

Housing

Economic Development

2. commUNITY Interests - Open Mic

City of Balch Springs13503 Alexander Road

Balch Springs, TX 75181 (972) 286-4477

Announcements March 6, 2014 Planning & Zoning (PZ) Commission meeting

1. April 12, 2014: Walter E. Luedeke Park Grand Opening Ribbon Cutting Event: 11am-1pm, 3201 Hickory Tree Road

2. I-20 East Texas Corridor Study: Public Comments being requested at www.cityofbalchsprings.com

February 18, 2014

Activity Form

*® , Texas

Department of Transportation

Committee Member Name: Hugh Taylor, County Judge

Organization or Group Presented To: Rotary Club

Location: Panola-Harrison Coop. Marshall, Texas Date: 4/3/14


Questions/Comments:

Follow Up Requests:

Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at ∎rdi uf titail

Texas Department of Transportation ,n: Caroline Love

125 East 11 th St.

Austin, TX 78701


February 18, 2014

Department Texas


Activity Form

f4 5/b2\ tra ms frtiajz644/Ajaate: Location:

22- # of Attendees (approximate):

Committee Member Name: 61--( -1711,11-att

Organization or Group Presented To: 7\11-‘5. ° 4) CtuAtill affin . co)

Questions/Comments: Po NJ

Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at A.A


125 East 11 th St. Austin, TX 78701


Follow Up Requests: NOS b/.--

February 18, 2014

Activity Form


Department Texas


kv 14 —M11

Organization or Group Presented To: /142-544-a. nlerao R 0-n1 ley

Location : fict k4 T1( C J- 2c 4_ 11-(1--s Me te-- Date: 74 # of Attendees (approximate): / Questions/Comments:

Follow Up Requests:

Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at

Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Caroline Lov

125 East 11 th St. Austin, TX 78701


vio 1-20 East Texas Corridor Study

Texas Department

of Transportation

February 18, 2014

Activity Form

Committee Member Name: 7? 4,V


Location: 0-)Ltiii) 1,41 IN2,5; Date: 0. 0 ?,5- /


Questions/Comments: i_it.)e-bPq faceizek ,:ttv CILtat

Follow Up Requests: 71,/irl'UL)

Please return this sheet to Caroline Love at


Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign-in list or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity

9/8/2014

1



About the Study




9/8/2014

2

Study Area


3






4

9/8/2014

3


5

SAFETY CONCERN

EXAMPLES

Median barriers


Interchange design

Crash hotspots


EXAMPLES


Additional lanes

Alternate routes

Freight needs


Advisory Committee





6

9/8/2014

4


7



8


Web-based 64

Mailed-In 7

Online Survey 144


9/8/2014

5


9

c

c

c c

c c

10


9/8/2014

6

11


12


9/8/2014

7


13

14


July 2013


February 2014




January 2014



October 2013




April 2014



June 2014




September 2014



Sept.-Oct. 2014


November 2014



December 2014




9/8/2014

8

Stay Informed

15








QUESTIONS?


16

I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey

The I-20 corridor currently serves as an important east-west connection for both people

and freight in Texas. The I-20 East Texas Corridor Study will evaluate the current safety

and capacity needs along the 155-mile stretch of I-20 from I-635 in Dallas to the

Texas/Louisiana state line. As part of this study, you can help! By taking just a few

minutes to answer the questions listed below, you can help the project team understand

what’s important to you. For more information about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study,

go to www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/i20-east-corridor.html


Powered by SurveyMonkey Check out our sample surveys and create your own now!

Page 1 of 5I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Public Survey

5/27/2014https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FTHR2XQ

I-20 Usage


2. How often do you travel along the I-20 corridor area between I-635 in Dallas

County and the Texas/Louisiana state line?

3. Which of the following options best describes why you most frequently use I-

20?


Daily

Weekly

Monthly

Rarely

Commuting to your work place

Traveling for work away from your regular work place

Traveling for personal use (entertainment/vacation)

Hauling Freight

Other (please specify)


5/27/2014https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=j3IRi4AcGMUNPp7foCsdAw%3d%3d

Issue Importance


4. Please select up to three strategies you think should be the highest priorities for

the I-20 study.




Involve local communities

Consider current and future multimodal transportation needs (highway, freight rail, intercity bus

service, passenger rail, etc.)

Improve safety

Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for travelers

Reduce congestion and enhance mobility for freight

Enhance air quality


Improving or adding frontage roads

Adding lanes

Adjusting speed limits up

Adjusting speed limits down

Reconfiguring entrance and exit ramps

Improving median safety

Raising bridge heights





Area focus



what do you think should be done? (Example: lengthen the ramp at the [Street

Name or Exit], lower the speed limit near City Name, etc.)

7. What areas along I-20 outside of your county do you feel need immediate

attention? (Example: intersection of highways) Please provide name of specific

city or between specific cities, etc.




Comments





Name:

Company:

Street Address:

City/Town:

State: -- select state --

ZIP:

Email Address:

Phone Number:




3. Draft Plan Outreach I-20 East Texas Corridor Study

Second Public Involvement Update


DRAFT


Public Involvement Update

1. Activities

Following the development of a preliminary program of improvement projects for the I-20

East Texas Corridor, the Advisory Committee reviewed the plan and offered comments at a

meeting held in Balch Springs on September 10, 2014. After that meeting, the Advisory

Committee comments were incorporated into the preliminary program to create a Draft

implementation plan for members to share with their constituents. The second phase of

public outreach included public presentations performed by Advisory Members throughout

the corridor as well as a virtual meeting created to provide access to the draft

implementation plan for the I-20 Corridor. Presentations focused on improvement projects

selected as priorities in the corridor including near-, mid- and long-term projects.

Advisory Committee Public Outreach

I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Advisory Committee members were asked to create public

outreach opportunities in their own communities with possible suggestions of social media

posts, website links and community presentations. Members submitted an activity form to

the study team that documented individual events.

Members submitted activity forms for six (6) events held during the second phase of public

involvement between Sept. 11 and Nov. 7, 2014, reaching out to over 3,056 local residents.

Information was shared with local organizations, city council meetings and metropolitan

planning organization (MPO) meetings. A brief summary is provided below:


Longview MPO 4 3,047*

Tyler MPO 1 9

Lindale City Council 1 12

*Longview MPO included information about the I-20 East Texas Corridor Study in two email

blasts.


Virtual Open House

In addition to public

outreach efforts

conducted by advisory

committee members,

TxDOT hosted a virtual

open house online to

increase participation of

both citizens and corridor

users. The virtual open

house was hosted through

Survey Monkey and

included slides from the

community presentations

used by Advisory

Committee members.

This presentation included

project information, status

updates and proposed

projects included in the draft plan. Maps and illustrations were used throughout the virtual

open house, and opportunities to comment were available after each set of county-specific

slides.

A video was also produced of the community presentation including a voiced narrative of the

presentation. This video was uploaded to YouTube.

These internet based opportunities were publicized on various social media sites, and

created a number of additional interactions as detailed below:

Outreach Activity Availability Number of Participants

Virtual Open House Oct. 17 – Nov. 7, 2014 53

Video Presentation Oct. 20 – Nov. 7, 2014 138

Figure 1. Virtual Open House Video Presentation


Local Materials Distribution

I-20 East Texas Corridor Study materials including project overview fact sheets, county-

specific fact sheets with proposed project lists and maps, comment cards as well as pre-

addressed and stamped envelopes were made available at seven (7) locations throughout

the corridor during this same time period. Their availability was advertised in a press

release issued by TxDOT on Friday, Oct. 17.

Location County Availability

Texas Travel Information Center Harrison As of Oct. 17

Longview Convention and Visitors Bureau Gregg As of Oct. 17

Gateway Travel Plaza Gregg As of Oct. 17

Tyler State Park Smith As of Oct. 17

Tyler Chamber of Commerce Smith As of Oct. 17

Canton Visitors Bureau Van Zandt As of Oct. 17

Terrell Chamber of Commerce Kaufman As of Oct. 17

2. Public Comments

To ensure stakeholders were able to submit their opinions on the study, comments could be

provided via the project website, Facebook, Twitter, email, mail, or at public meetings.

All of the public comments received during the second phase of public outreach for the

study were compiled and managed in a tracking database. Comments received between

September 1, 2014 and November 7, 2014 are summarized below:


Web-based 12

Mailed-in 0

Turned in at public outreach events 3


Virtual meeting comments 121


3. Summary

Comments were received from stakeholders in 12 counties and the study team prioritized

the following up to three themes per county:

Angelina County (One comment received)

– Additional non-truck lanes

– Increased speed limit

Dallas County (Two comments received)


– Prioritize frontage road needs based on population

Denton County (Two comments received)


– Increased speed limit between Longview and the State line

Ellis County (One comment received)


– Additional night time reflective lane markers

Fannin County (One comment received)

– High-speed rail

– Toll express lanes with exits every 30 miles

1 Open commentary was optional when responding to the survey associated with the virtual meeting.


Gregg County (One comment received)

– Focus on safety/interchange improvements before clearance

Harrison County (One comment received)

– Road repair needed (potholes)

Kaufman County (One comment received)

– Avoid frontage roads in FEMA floodplains

Parker County (One comment received)


Smith County (Two comments received)



Tarrant County (Two comments received)


– Restrict truck traffic from left lane

– Median safety

Wise County (One comment received)

– Addition of one non-tolled lane in each direction from State line to Terrell

To view all comments received, please see Attachment 1.

Update created by:

K Strategies Group

214.599.9766

www.kstrategies.com

[email protected]



I-20 East Texas Corridor

DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (September 19, 2014)

The Draft Implementation Plan for I-20 East Texas Corridor is based on several factors, including: • Advisory Committee Feedback: The Advisory Committee provided feedback on overall priorities

(add capacity, add/improve frontage roads, improve ramps/interchanges, etc.) as well as specific project priorities during the June 2014 meeting in Tyler.

• Public Input: The public provided input by e-mail, mailed letters, as well as comments during the public input survey period.

• Needs Assessment: Technical analyses were performed on elements along the corridor, including traffic demands, crash histories, vertical clearance standards, interchange designs, bridge conditions, and pavement deficiencies.

The Draft Plan provides programmatic recommendations along I-20 corridor, as well as project level recommendations categorized into Near-Term (2015-2020), Mid-Term (2021-2030), and Long Term (2031-2040) phases.

Programmatic Recommendations: • Modernize ramp designs to serve increasing traffic demands and improve safety. • Pursue vertical clearance of 18’ for underpasses along I-20, primarily improving clearance when

making other required improvements along I-20 and crossing facilities (preliminary cost estimate – varies by location)

• Full-depth reconstruction of pavement along I-20 that has been in use for almost 50 years (preliminary cost estimate for entire corridor up to $1.3 billion).

• Construction of additional lanes to permit the maintenance of traffic during other major improvements, to reduce crash frequencies, and to alleviate future congestion.

• Construction of one-way frontage roads in areas identified by local officials. • Further consider partnering with bus service provider(s) to initiate express bus service, with the last

mile connection provided by the local transit agency or other means (car-sharing, ride-sharing). • Evaluate potential future passenger rail service to include consideration of right-of-way, design,

and innovative financing opportunities.

Project Level Recommendations: The project level recommendations are shown graphically in the attached maps. The table lists projects categorized into near-term, mid-term, and long-term, and includes project details of improvement type, location, and preliminary cost estimate.

Near-Term Mid-Term Long-Term Total # of Bridge Modifications 16 - - 16 # of Ramp/Interchange Improvements 5 21 9 35 Miles of Frontage Road Improvements 12 49 38 99 Miles of Additional Capacity - 65 25 90 Preliminary Cost Estimate (2014$ Millions)* $102.3 $768.2 $390.3 $1,260.8 * Does not include full depth pavement reconstruction

$726,770,000

$482,670,000

$51,311,660

$1,281,600,000

Additional Capacity

Frontage Roads

Bridge, Ramp, and InterchangeImprovements

Pavement Rehabillitation

I‐20 PROGRAM ELEMENTS ( 2014 Dollars)

kukadiann

Typewritten Text

kukadiann

Typewritten Text

I-20 East Texas Corridor Draft Implementation Plan (September 19, 2014)

kukadiann

Typewritten Text

About the Study




Study Area


3






4


5

SAFETY CONCERN

EXAMPLES

Median barriers


Interchange design

Crash hotspots


EXAMPLES


Additional lanes

Alternate routes

Freight needs


Advisory Committee





6


7



8


Web-based 64

Mailed-In 7

Online Survey 144



9

c

c

c c

c c

10

Draft Plan : Programmatic Recommendations

• Modernize Ramp Designs

• Pursue 18’ vertical clearance for freight

• Identify areas for full-depth pavement reconstruction

• Construct additional lanes to permit maintenance of traffic during major improvements

• Construct one-way frontage roads in area identified by local officials

• Consider partnering with bus service providers to initiate express bus service

• Evaluate potential future passenger rail service to include consideration of right-of-way, design, and innovative financing opportunities

11

Draft Implementation Plan: Dallas and Kaufman Counties

12

Draft Implementation Plan: Van Zandt County

13

Draft Implementation Plan: Smith County

Draft Implementation Plan: Gregg County

14

Draft Plan: Harrison County

15

16


July 2013


February 2014




January 2014



October 2013




April 2014



June 2014




September 2014



Sept.-Oct. 2014


November 2014



December 2014




Stay Informed

17








QUESTIONS?


18

1

I-20TexCoStu

Sept

HOWANDINVO

Visit owww.txdot/statewcorrid


tember

W TO GD STAY OLVED

our website .txdot.gov/in/projects/stuwide/i20‐easdor.html

t

2014

GET

…

at nside‐udies/ st‐

Fact

I‐20As necfututranTexa

The s

Overv

Scope

Sheet

0 provides an the interstatessary to assure. A Corridnsportation nas/Louisiana

study will:

Assess currencorridor condand identify nmid and longneeds. The nassessment wfocus on addressing sacongestion, asystem preservation concerns.

Identify oppoand alternati

Consider funimprovemen

Outline next consider adv

view

e of Study

important eate system agsess the curror Assessmeneeds along State Line.

nt ditions near, g‐term eeds will

afety, and

ortunities forive transporta

nding requiremnts, including

steps for TxDvancing projec

ast‐west connges and popent safety annt study hasI‐20 from th

r addressing nation modes.

ments for impalternative/n

DOT and othect developme

nection for trapulation and nd capacity ns been underhe Dallas Me

needs related.

plementationnon‐traditiona

er transportatent activities

S

avel and tradtrade incre

needs and plrtaken to idetropolitan Ar

d to vehicular,

n of potentialal funding str

tion stakeholdfor the corrid

eptember 3, 201

e in Texas. eases, it is an for the entify rural rea to the

, freight

rategies.

ders to dor.

4

2

I-20TexCorStu

Sc

for

we

Sc

to

com


an the code

r the project

ebsite:

can the code

leave a

mment:

t

t

An stakassilocaave

ThecrosCom

The

Exp

Adviso

Sch

Fa

integral comkeholders thrst TxDOT in aally focused innue for publi

Rural tra

Local plafeatures

Opportu

Recommmodes

Input onstrategie

Recommstakeholthe corri

Advisory Comss‐section of emmittee mem

Counties

Cities (BaLongview

Metropo

North Ea

Dallas Ar

Other enbusiness

Advisory Com

ected study d

ory Commit

hedule

act She

ponent of though an Adviassessing thenput and recoc outreach an

ansportation n

anning issues )

nities for nea

mendations fo

the feasibilites

mendations onders to considor

mmittee is cuelected offici

mbers include

s (Dallas, Kauf

alch Springs, w, Marshall)

olitan Plannin

ast Texas Regi

rea Rapid Tra

ntities could is interests and

mmittee has

duration is ab

ttee

eet

his study has isory Commite rural transpommendationd input on is

needs along t

(developmen

ar, mid and lo

or addressing

ty of potentia

n priorities ander in advanc

urrently compals and otherrepresentati

fman, Van Za

Mesquite, Fo

ng Organizatio

ional Mobility

nsit (DART)

nclude econod Native Ame

met approxim

bout 18 mont

been workinttee. The chaportation neens. The Comssues that inc

the I‐20 corrid

nt activities, p

ong‐term tran

freight and a

al alternative/

nd next steps cing project d

prised of indivr stakeholderon from the f

andt, Smith, G

orney, Terrell,

ons (NCTCOG

y Authority (N

omic developerican Tribes.

mately every

hs to be com

S

ng with publirge of the Coeds along I‐20mittee providclude:

dor

planning/envi

nsportation im

alternative tra

/non‐tradition

for TxDOT andevelopment

viduals repress along the cofollowing:

Gregg, Harriso

, Canton, Lind

, Tyler, Longv

NETRMA)

ment organiz

two months.

plete in Dece

eptember 3, 201

ic and privatommittee is t0 by providindes a valuabl

ironmental

mprovements

ansportation

nal funding

nd other locaactivities for

senting a orridor.

on)

dale, Tyler,

view)

zations,

ember 2014.

4

e o g e

s

l

Scan the code for the project website:

Scan the code to leave a comment:

Scan the code to leave a comment:


Scan code to leave a comment:


I-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open HouseI-20 East Texas Corridor Study Virtual Open House

Welcome to the I20 East Texas Corridor Study virtual community open house! Please feel free to browse our information and provide feedback to be included as part of the study.

Project Overview


1. Comments so far?

55

66


The next section will go over the results of the I20 East Texas Corridor Study so far including the proposed Draft Implementation Plan, outlining projects along the area to be included in the study. To view the entire draft implementation plan, click here.

2. Please select a county if you would like to skip to the recommendations for a particular county. If you would like to view all of the recommendations, please select "All counties."

Draft Implementation Plan

Dallas and Kaufman counties

nmlkj

Van Zandt County

nmlkj

Smith County

nmlkj

Gregg County

nmlkj

Harrison County

nmlkj

All counties

nmlkj


Below are the recommendations for Dallas and Kaufman counties as part of the I20 East Texas Corridor Study's draft implementation plan. To view the maps larger, please click here.

Dallas and Kaufman counties


3. Do you agree with the recommendations outlined above?

4. Would you like to continue on to the other counties?

Yes

nmlkj

No (please explain)

55

66

Yes

nmlkj

No, I am finished with the virtual meeting

nmlkj


Below are the recommendations for Van Zandt County as part of the I20 East Texas Corridor Study's draft implementation plan. To view the maps larger, please click here.

Van Zandt County




Yes

nmlkj

No (please explain)

55

66

Yes

nmlkj


nmlkj


Below are the recommendations for Smith County as part of the I20 East Texas Corridor Study's draft implementation plan. To view the maps larger, please click here.

Smith County




Yes

nmlkj

No (please explain)

55

66

Yes

nmlkj


nmlkj


Below are the recommendations for Gregg County as part of the I20 East Texas Corridor Study's draft implementation plan. To view the maps larger, please click here.

Gregg County




Yes

nmlkj

No (please explain)

55

66

Yes

nmlkj


nmlkj


Below are the recommendations for Harrison County as part of the I20 East Texas Corridor Study's draft implementation plan. To view the maps larger, please click here.

Harrison County




Yes

nmlkj

No (please explain)

55

66

Yes

nmlkj


nmlkj


13. Thank you for your participation! For more information on this project, check our project website here. To join our mailing list for the project, please fill out the information below. Your information will be kept confidential and used only for this study.

Name:

Company:

ZIP:

Email Address:

October 2014 Sign -In Sheet -2'0 1-20 East Texas Corridor Study

Open House

2.101 Ilie54 6k 5+. TilicTx 15101

i

Lir gea Aid ear/ a 1- (e,

/7/ 11/PW, $-14

22 r Az

,idhr ..7 71 0 .2_ 6-evJ

rif/ L/A 3One/UK-a4i+--- d'eV04196Xelifiooscom i306, hov4c(dlii 7 601

Address

2 crt) -170-1-0- he -

p;4( 7:szCz_.

E-mail

\.(\eyo.s. Geo

friilcav tYl edekqS. c

Veow,.webio&

4-5 e SOV

Name

Etr*.

Wichdel Led

Verno OM?

A/ten

K1 4sA

plA/se.077 VAA/eVe by(/'

7-oni

Ntepf / 314/\

Texas Department

of Transportation

Activity Form

Ke Committee Member Name: 1\lvir Acre4

Location: \ ‘-‘ R-\\ uifk-ke,o, Date:

Organization or Group Presented To: eLivi c


Questions/Comments: 1\1 67Ne.,

Follow Up Requests: N bit\

September 3, 2014



125 East 11th St. Austin, TX 78701


AEI

AppeEvalua-20 East Te

endixation xas Corrido

x G Resulr Study

ts

I‐20 East Texas Corridor Study

Project Evaluation ‐ DRAFT

12/31/2014

Pavement Contidion Bridge Freight

System Performance and

CMAQ

Project ID County Road Limit from Limit to Advisory

Committee Preferences

Technical Score

Fatalities aRatio (Crash

rate/Statewide Average)

Interchange Ratings

Vertical

Clearanceb

Mainlane Pavement

Condition Score

Bridge Condition

Average Annual Daily Truck

Traffic (2012) c

Volume to Capacity Ratio

(2012)

New Frontage Road AF-1 Dallas I-20 Lawson Rd FM 740 4 55 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 5Median Barrier Addition AE-1 Dallas I-20 Loop 635 Dallas County Line 4 58 5 1 1 1 4 1 5 5

TC-1 Dallas I-20 I-635 Lawson Rd 2 58 5 1 1 1 4 1 5 5TC-2 Dallas I-20 Lawson Rd Dallas County Line 0 50 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 3

Frontage Road Reconstruction TG-1 Dallas I-20 Seagonville Road Lawson Road 2 50 3 1 1 1 3 1 5 5Ramp Improvement TI-1 Dallas Lawson Rd - - 0 40 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 3

AB-1 Kaufman SH 34 - - 2 68 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 5AD-1 Kaufman FM 429 - - 0 45 1 5 2 1 1 2 1 5AD-3 Kaufman Wilson Road - - 0 20 1AD-4 Kaufman FM 429 - - 0 45 1 5 2 1 1 2 1 5

Added Capacity AC-1 Kaufman I-20 SH 557 Wilson Rd 1 58 5 5 1 1 2 1 3 5AF-2 Kaufman I-20 FM 740 FM 741 0 35 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3AF-3 Kaufman I-20 SH 557 FM 138 3 53 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 5AF-13 Kaufman FM 741 SH 557 Kaufman 3 45 5 3 1 1 3 1 3 1TB-2 Kaufman FM 2965 - - 0 63 3 5 4 1 1 3 3 5TD-1 Kaufman CR 310 (Hiram Rd) - - 0 43 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 5TC-3 Kaufman I-20 Dallas County Line FM 741 0 35 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-4 Kaufman I-20 FM 741 SH 557 0 53 5 3 1 1 2 1 3 5TC-5 Kaufman I-20 Wilson Rd FM 310 0 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-6 Kaufman I-20 FM 310 Kaufman County Line 0 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5TI-2 Kaufman FM 740 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-3 Kaufman FM 741 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3

TI-4 Kaufman FM 2932 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-5 Kaufman FM 1641 - - 0 50 1 5 1 5 1 1 3 3TI-6 Kaufman FM 148 - - 0 55 3 5 1 5 1 1 3 3TI-7 Kaufman SH 557 - - 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-8 Kaufman CR 304 - - 0 38 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 3TJ-8 Kaufman SH 34 - - 2 68 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 5TJ-10 Kaufman SH 34 - - 2 68 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 5

Interchange Improvements AA-3 Van Zandt FM 859 - - 0 53 1 5 2 5 1 3 1 3

AF-4 Van Zandt I-20 FM 47 SH 64 1 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5AF-5 Van Zandt I-20 SH 19 FM 17 0 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TA-1 Van Zandt SH 19 - - 1 53 5 5 2 1 1 1 3 3TB-3 Van Zandt FM 47 - - 1 60 1 3 5 3 1 3 3 5TB-4 Van Zandt CR 3412 - - 1 53 1 5 5 1 1 2 1 5TB-5 Van Zandt SH 64 - - 1 60 3 5 5 1 1 1 3 5TB-6 Van Zandt FM 1255 - - 0 55 3 5 5 1 1 3 1 3TB-7 Van Zandt CR 1311 - - 0 48 1 5 4 1 1 3 1 3TD-2 Van Zandt FM 3439 / CR 3442 - - 0 48 3 1 5 1 1 2 1 5TD-3 Van Zandt FM 17 - - 1 55 1 5 3 1 1 3 3 5TD-4 Van Zandt CR 1308 - - 0 40 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 3TD-5 Van Zandt FM 773 / FM 16 - - 0 63 5 5 4 3 1 3 1 3TB-1 Van Zandt FM 314 - - 0 58 5 3 4 1 1 1 3 5TC-7 Van Zandt I-20 Kaufman County Line FM 47 0 55 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-8 Van Zandt I-20 FM 47 SH 64 1 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-9 Van Zandt I-20 SH 64 SH 19 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3

TC-10 Van Zandt I-20 SH 19 FM 1255 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-11 Van Zandt I-20 FM 1255 CR 1308 0 40 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-12 Van Zandt I-20 CR 1308 FM 773 0 38 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-13 Van Zandt I-20 FM 773 FM 314 0 48 5 3 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-14 Van Zandt I-20 FM 314 Van Zandt County Line 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3

Safety

New Frontage Road

VAN ZANDT

Added Capacity

Interchange Improvements

Project Type

KAUFM

AN

Bridge Modifications

I-20 East Texas Corridor Project Evaluation

Project Characteristics

DALLAS

Added Capacity

Ramp Improvement


Added Capacity


New Frontage Road

a Incidents within 1/2 a mile radius of an intersection have been assigned to its count. (2008‐2012)

b Bridge Database

c RHiNo 2012 Database AADT. DRAFT1

High Score (55<)

Mid Score (50‐54)

Low Score (50>)



12/31/2014



Technical Score



Interchange Ratings

Vertical

Clearanceb

Mainlane Pavement

Condition Score

Bridge Condition


Traffic (2012) c


(2012)Project Type

TG-2 Van Zandt I-20 County Line FM 47 1 55 5 3 1 1 3 1 3 5TG-3 Van Zandt I-20 US 64 SH 19 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TG-4 Van Zandt I-20 FM 17 CR 1311 0 48 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 3TG-5 Van Zandt I-20 CR 1311 FM 314 0 48 5 3 1 1 2 1 3 3TJ‐9 Van Zandt FM 859 - - 0 55 1 5 2 5 2 3 1 3

TJ-11 Van Zandt FM 47 - - 1 65 1 3 5 3 3 3 3 5TJ-12 Van Zandt FM 17 - - 1 58 1 5 3 1 2 3 3 5TJ-13 Van Zandt FM 1255 - - 0 55 3 5 5 1 1 3 1 3TJ-14 Van Zandt FM 773 - - 0 68 5 5 5 3 2 3 1 3

New Frontage Road AF-6 Van Zandt, Smith I-20 FM 314 SH 110 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3New Frontage Road AF-7 Smith I-20 Toll 49 US 271 8 53 5 5 1 1 2 1 3 3

TA-2 Smith US 69 - - 7 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TB-1 Van Zandt FM 314 - - 0 53 3 5 4 1 1 1 3 3TB-8 Smith CR 35 (Lavender Rd) - - 2 48 3 5 4 1 1 1 1 3TB-9 Smith FM 2015 - - 0 45 1 5 4 1 1 2 1 3TD-6 Smith CR 426 - - 0 45 1 5 3 1 1 3 1 3TD-7 Smith CR 431 - - 0 40 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 3TD-8 Smith SH 155 (Lawton Ave) - - 0 53 3 5 3 1 1 2 3 3TD-9 Smith FM 757 - - 0 35 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 3

TD-10 Smith CR 3101 - - 2 50 5 5 2 1 1 2 1 3TD-11 Smith CR 3111 - - 0 40 1 5 2 1 1 2 1 3TD-12 Smith FM 14 - - 0 45 1 5 2 1 1 2 3 3TC-15 Smith I-20 Van Zandt County Line CR 110 0 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-16 Smith I-20 CR 110 US 69 7 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-17 Smith I-20 US 69 FM 14 0 48 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-18 Smith I-20 FM 14 SH 155 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-19 Smith I-20 SH 155 US 271 0 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-20 Smith I-20 US 271 Smith County Line 1 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TJ-5 Smith SH 110 - - 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 3TJ-6 Smith FM 849 - - 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 3TG-6 Smith I-20 SH 110 FM 849 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TG-7 Smith I-20 US 271 Gregg County Line 1 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TG-8 Smith I-20 Gregg County Line SH 42 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-9 Smith CR 110 - - 0 55 3 5 1 1 1 5 3 3

TI-10 Smith FM 849 - - 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 3TI-11 Smith US 271 - - 0 45 1 5 1 1 1 3 3 3

Interchange Improvements AD-2 Gregg SH 31 - - 2 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TJ-1 Gregg Fritz Swanson RD - - 0 40 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 3TJ-2 Gregg MLK Blvd - - 0 53 1 5 3 3 1 2 1 5TJ-3 Gregg FM 2087 - - 0 58 3 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ‐15 Gregg MLK Blvd - - 0 48 1 5 3 3 2 1 1 3TG-9 Gregg I-20 SH 42 FM 2087 3 55 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 3TG-10 Gregg I-20 FM 2087 Loop 281 W 1 60 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TG-11 Gregg I-20 Loop 281 W County Line 0 60 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TI-12 Gregg FM 3053 - - 0 45 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 5TI-13 Gregg SH 42 - - 1 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-14 Gregg FM 2087 - - 0 58 3 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TI-15 Gregg Loop 281 W / US 259 - - 1 45 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-21 Gregg I-20 Smith County Line SH 135 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-22 Gregg I-20 SH 135 SH 42 2 58 5 5 1 1 2 1 5 3TC-23 Gregg I-20 SH 42 FM 2087 1 55 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 3TC-24 Gregg I-20 FM 2087 Gregg County Line 1 60 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5

SMITH

Frontage Road Reconstruction

Ramp Improvement

VAN ZANDT



Ramp Improvement


Added Capacity



Added Capacity

GREG

G



b Bridge Database


High Score (55<)

Mid Score (50‐54)

Low Score (50>)



12/31/2014



Technical Score



Interchange Ratings

Vertical

Clearanceb

Mainlane Pavement

Condition Score

Bridge Condition


Traffic (2012) c


(2012)Project Type

AF-8 Gregg, Harrison I-20 US 259 Loop 281 3 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3AF-9 Harrison I-20 FM 968 SH 43 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3AF-10 Harrison I-20 SH 43 FM 31 4 50 3 5 1 1 3 1 3 3AF-11 Harrison I-20 FM 31 Buck Sherrod Rd 2 45 1 3 1 1 5 1 3 3AF-12 Harrison I-20 US 80 FM 2199 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-25 Harrison I-20 Gregg County Line Loop 281 1 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-26 Harrison I-20 Loop 281 FM 450 1 55 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TC-27 Harrison I-20 FM 450 FM 3251 0 55 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TC-28 Harrison I-20 FM 3251 SH 43 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 3TC-29 Harrison I-20 SH 43 US 59 0 43 1 5 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-30 Harrison I-20 US 59 FM 31 1 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-31 Harrison I-20 FM 31 FM 2199 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-32 Harrison I-20 FM 2199 US 80 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-33 Harrison I-20 US 80 FM 134 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-34 Harrison I-20 FM 134 Texas State Line 0 45 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 5TJ-4 Harrison FM 450 - - 0 53 1 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ-7 Harrison Lansing Switch Road - - 0 50 1 5 1 1 1 3 5 3

TJ-16 Harrison FM 450 - - 0 58 3 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ-17 Harrison US 59 - - 0 53 1 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ-7 Harrison Lansing Switch Road - - 0 54 1 5 5 1 3 1 3

TG-12 Harrison I-20 County Line Loop 281 E 0 45 1 5 1 1 3 1 3 3TG-13 Harrison I-20 Loop 281 E FM 450 0 58 3 5 1 1 2 1 5 5TG-14 Harrison I-20 FM 450 FM 3251 0 60 3 5 1 1 3 1 5 5TG-15 Harrison I-20 US 80 Texas State Line 0 53 5 3 1 1 2 1 5 3TI-16 Harrison Loop 281 E - - 0 43 1 5 1 1 1 2 3 3TI-17 Harrison FM 3251 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-18 Harrison FM 31 - - 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-19 Harrison FM 2199 - - 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3

HARRISON


New Frontage Road

Added Capacity

Ramp Improvements



b Bridge Database


High Score (55<)

Mid Score (50‐54)

Low Score (50>)

ACI

AppeCosts -20 East Te

endix Estimxas Corrido

x F mates

r Study

Contents

1. Criteria for Cost Estimate Development

1.1. Cost Estimate Criteria and Assumptions

2. Cost Estimates

2.1. Frontage Road Reconstruction Costs

2.2. New Frontage Road Construction Costs

2.3. Interchange and Ramp Improvements Costs

2.4. Main lanes Reconstruction Costs

2.5. Costs for construction of Additional Main lanes and Reconstruction

of existing ones

2.6. Uncompliant Bridge Reconstruction Costs

2.7. Martin Luther King Rd. Bridge Removal Cost

1. Estimate Criteria and Assumptions I-20 East Texas Corridor Study

IH-20 COST ESTIMATES CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS

Described below are the design criteria used and the assumptions made during the I-20 East Texas Corridor cost estimating process.

PAVEMENTS Determining pavement costs involved a multi-step process.

1. Selection of pavement structure.

An asphalt pavement structure was used for ramps, frontage roads and cross-streets and consisted of: 2” HMA Surface Course (PG70-22), 4” HMA base course (PG64-22), 1-Course Surf. Treatment, Prime Coat, 14” Flex base and a 6” Cement Treated Subgrade.

A concrete pavement structure was used for the I-20 mainlanes and consisted of: 15” Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement, 4” HMA base (PG64-22) and 6” Cement Treated Subgrade.

2. Determine Material Cost/LF for each type of pavement structure in relation to the width of proposed pavement.

3. Determined Total Cost/LF for each pavement structure by taking a percentage of the material Cost/LF to account for un-measurable variables such as removal of the existing pavement (7%) and earthwork (20%). Pavement cost estimates are for:

Reconstructing the existing I-20 main lanes with no additional widening.

Widening the existing main lanes within the existing center median to accommodate a 10’ wide (8’ at bridge locations) inside shoulder and an additional 12’ wide travel lane in each direction separated by concrete traffic barrier.

Removing the existing main lanes and totally reconstructing with three 12’ wide travel lanes in each direction along with 10’ wide inside and outside shoulders.

Widening and overlaying existing frontage roads to accommodate two 12’ travel lanes, 4’ inside shoulders and 8’ outside shoulders. Proposed widening occurs in median area between existing frontage road and I-20 main lanes.

Constructing frontage roads in new locations.

Reconstructing existing entrance / exit ramps as a result of frontage road or main lane safety improvements.

RAMPS Construction cost estimates for ramp improvements were determined as previously described in the PAVEMENT section above. In addition to accommodating improvements to frontage roads and main lanes, cost estimates were also determined to bring existing ramps up to current design criteria. The TxDOT Roadway Design Manual was the primary source for obtaining the most current criteria. Figures 3-29, 3-31 and 3-36 were used to determine

lengths for tapers and acceleration / deceleration lengths. The AASHTO GREENBOOK was also used as a reference with regard to ramp geometry. In areas where the existing 2-way frontage road has been converted to 1-way, the existing hook configuration at the ramp/ frontage road tie-in was removed so as to allow for a smoother connection.

BRIDGES Cost estimates were made for removing, reconstructing and raising the cross-street bridge structures to achieve vertical clearances of 18’ and 23’ over the I-20 main lanes. Cost estimates are based on a COST/SF of the proposed bridge structure. The COST/ SF to raise a bridge to accommodate a 23’ vertical clearance is slightly higher to account for the additional column heights. Listed below are criteria and assumptions used in estimating the bridge construction costs:

Existing 2-lane structures are widened to a proposed width of 46’ to accommodate 2-12’ travel lanes and 2-10’ shoulders. This configuration allows for structures to be re-striped to 4-11’ lanes in the future.

Existing structures with a distance of less than 70’ between center and outside columns have been lengthened by 20’ at each end to allow for future widening of the I-20 main lanes.

Costs for Bridge Approach Slabs (CONC) were included in the estimates for each bridge.

Approach roadway reconstruction at each end of the bridge was estimated to the frontage road or ramp intersection. For several of the bridges being raised to a 23’ VC, the approach roadway reconstruction extends beyond the frontage road intersections.

At a couple of bridge locations, it was determined that median detours would be required in order to complete construction. It was decided at these locations to permanently widen the existing I-20 main lanes in the center median in lieu of constructing temporary detours.

Due to a lack of data required to perform earthwork computations, a contingency cost has been included in the estimates to cover this cost.

When possible, unit costs used in the estimates are TxDOT Average Low Bid Unit Prices for either the Tyler District or Statewide.

2. Cost Estimates I-20 East Texas Corridor Study

I-20 / MLK Blvd

Gregg Co.

Bridge Reconstruction

Construction Estimate

EST Unit Price Cost

104 2009 REMOVING CONC (RIPRAP) SY 620 50.00$ $31,000

496 2010 REMOV STR (BRIDGE 100 - 499 FT LENGTH) EA 1 500,000.00$ $500,000

502 2001 BARRICADES, SIGNS AND TRAFFIC HANDLING MO 6 8,000.00$ $48,000

508 2002 CONSTRUCTING DETOURS SY 0 100.00$ $0

540 2001 MTL W - BEAM GD FEN (TIM POST) LF 0 20.00$ $0

540 2044 DOWNSTREAM ANCHOR TERMINAL (DAT) SECTION EA 0 1,000.00$ $0

540 XXXX MTL W - BEAM GD FEN TRANS EA 0 1,500.00$ $0

542 2001 REMOVING METAL BEAM GUARD FENCE LF 0 3.00$ $0

542 2002 REMOVING TERMINAL ANCHOR SECTION EA 0 165.00$ $0

544 2003 GUARDRAIL END TREATMENT (REMOVE) EA 0 200.00$ $0

544 2001 GUARDRAIL END TREATMENT (INSTALL) EA 0 2,000.00$ $0

SUBTOTAL: $579,000

MOBILIZATION (10% OF ADJ SUBTOTAL less Barricades): $53,100.00

CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (30%) $173,700

Contigency to also cover any repairs to existing FR

pavement caused by bridge removal.

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST: $805,800

LUMP SUM COSTS AS % OF CONSTRUCTION % of Construction

Engineering & Design 8.00% $64,464

Surveys 3.00% $24,174

General Construction Management 2.00% $16,116

QC/ Inspection/ Supervision 3.00% $24,174

Utility Adjustments 1.00% $8,058

SW3P 1.00% $8,058

Contingency (on Construction Cost and Lump Sum) 10.00% $94,279

TOTAL COST: $1,045,123

ITEM-

CODEDESCRIPTION

U

N

I

T

S

ITEM

NO.

DESC.

CODE

ATI

AppeTechn-20 East Te

endixnical W

xas Corrido

x E White

r Study

Paperrs

Contents

1. Criteria for evaluation of entrance and exit ramps along I-20 from I-635

east of Dallas to the Louisiana state line

2. I-20 SAM V.3 Traffic Forecast Refinement Memorandum

3. I-20 Bridge Structure Assessment Inventory

4. I-20 Sufficiency Rating Underscoring Bridges

November 12, 2013

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ENTRANCE AND EXIT RAMPS ALONG IH‐20 FROM

I‐635 EAST OF DALLAS TO THE LOUISIANA STATE LINE:

Many design conditions must be considered to determine the safety and reliability of entrance

and exit ramps along IH‐20. In order to make a determination of the acceptability of ramps

many design features such as available deceleration and acceleration lanes, added lanes at

ramps along the frontage roads, horizontal and vertical alignments, stopping sight distances

superelevation, traffic signs, crash data and traffic volumes. It is difficult to determine the

safety of ramps by looking at the ramp length only as many other design factors must be

examined to make a decision concerning safety.

The review of aerial photography along IH‐20 gave us some idea of the ramps that will require a

closer scrutiny. We have used available photographs and Google Maps to make a reasonable

determination if the ramp designs and length along IH 20 between I‐635 east of Dallas and the

Louisiana State line meet the desirable criteria for ramp design. In order to establish design

criteria for review of the ramps along IH‐20, we will look at the design criteria of entrance and

exit ramps separately.

EXIT RAMPS:

Exit ramps should allow adequate space along the outside mainlanes or on an added

deceleration lane adjacent to the mainlanes to allow the traffic to reduce speed prior to

reaching the exit ramp gore. The exit ramp should provide for a departure from the mainlanes

along the horizontal alignment of the ramp using a design radius of about 2,865 feet or a radius

required for a design speed of 70 MPH. Shorter radius is permitted by the TxDOT Roadway

Design Manual (TxDOT RDM) where the exit ramp connects to the Frontage Road (FR).

Reference to the TxDOT RDM should be used as each individual ramp is examined to meet the

present required design criteria.

The exit ramp should be long enough to comply with the required stopping and sight distance

requirements to reduce ramp traffic speeds from the mainlanes speeds to the frontage road

speeds. Reviewing the stopping sight distances from the TxDOT RDM the approximate stopping

or slowing distance from a mainlane speed of 70 MPH to a frontage speed of 35 MPH, the

stopping distance should be in the range of about 800 feet, plus or minus. This distance

assumes a near level profile. Much greater distances will be required for stopping on steeper

grades.

The exit ramp should next be evaluated as it connects to the intersecting street or frontage

road. If connecting to a frontage road (FR), the FR should have a dedicated lane for exit ramp

traffic by reducing the number of FR lanes or adding an additional lane from the exit ramp gore

with the frontage road to the intersecting cross road. This feature will increase the deceleration

distance considerably and not require a direct merger with the exit ramp traffic and a lane on

the FR. State law now requires that the FR traffic must yield to the exit ramp traffic with the

use of yield signs on the FR.

ENTRANCE RAMPS:

The horizontal and vertical alignments of entrance ramps should comply with the criteria

shown in the TxDOT RDM. When FR’s are present, a dedicated lane to enter the ramp is

desirable as it allows traffic to accelerate sooner and not interfere with the FR traffic. Adequate

acceleration distance is required at the merge between the mainlane traffic and the entrance

ramp traffic. Under high traffic conditions the merger distance should be considerably longer

that in low traffic rural areas. Adequate distance must be provided along the ramp so that

ramp traffic can reach the mainlane design speed prior to merging with the mainlane traffic.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

For the purpose of this study the entrance or exit ramps will be defined as HOOK or SLIP Ramps.

A Hook ramp will have a short radius curve at the point the ramp ties to the frontage road. A

Slip Ramp will have a longer radius curve at the ramp and frontage road intersection and can be

negotiated at higher speeds than the Hook Ramp. To conserve space in the blocks of the

following study chart, abbreviations are used as follows: Frontage Road (FR), Mainlane (ML),

Deceleration (Dec.), Acceleration (Acc.), as well as others.

The acceleration and deceleration rating are purely subjective and are usually determined by

the length of the ramp and the horizontal alignment of the ramp. The TxDOT RDM gives design

parameters for acceleration and deceleration distances on entrance and exit in the Design

Speed section on Figure 3‐36. The ratings used in the study are mostly subjective and based on

the vehicle decelerating or accelerating at a more normal speed and not on the minimum

distances shown in the TxDOT RDM. These ratings are subjective and take into consideration

the horizontal alignment of the entrance and exit ramps. The ratings used are as follows: A =

Excellent, B = Meets minimum standard, C = Acceptable and D = below minimum Standard.

The total acceleration and deceleration lengths were measured using Google Maps and

measured from the point of paint where the frontage road or mainlane paint stripe and the

ramp paint stripes meet. In some cases a wider paint stripe separating the mainlane from the

ramp was carried along the entrance ramps well beyond the usual location to stop the paint.

This was done to improve the acceleration distance but may have reduced the mainlane merge

distance; however in most cases the merge distance meets the design standard.

I-20 SAM v.3 Traffic Forecast Refinement Memo (DRAFT)

As part of the long range planning process for I-20 in East Texas, the Statewide Analysis Model (SAM) was used to

develop traffic forecasts along 155 miles of I-20. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the current input files

(including a very coarse traffic analysis zone structure), the resulting forecasts did not appear reasonable. In some

instances, forecast year (2040) traffic volumes did not exceed current traffic counts performed by TxDOT. Further

investigation determined that 2010 traffic output from SAM was less than these current traffic counts. The

following memo describes the current model deficiencies and recommends a methodology for adjusting output to

produce more reasonable forecasts.

Actual Traffic Counts versus Base Year Model Traffic (2010)

SAM v.3 has a 2010 base year. The base year model traffic counts were compared against the actual 2010 traffic

counts. The comparison revealed differences in traffic generated by the model and actual traffic as shown in Table

1 below. Since the base year model underestimates volumes for I-20, the same relationships should be expected

to be true for future year forecast (2040).

Table 1: Comparison of Existing Traffic Counts with Base Year Model Volumes

I-20 Location (West to East)

Object ID Existing Counts 2010

SAM Assigned Volume 2010

% Difference (2010 counts vs

SAM)

Unadjusted SAM Assigned Volume

2040* West of FM 148 78075 25,000 24,397 -2% 35,591

East of FM 148 78228 24,000 16,555 -31% 24,911

West of SH 34 78207 46,000 32,626 -29% 58,681

West of FM 2728 78052 43,000 38,745 -10% 59,538

West of FM 147 78388 35,000 28,347 -19% 39,566

West of SH 64 78001 35,000 27,342 -22% 39,990

East of SH 64 79028 34,000 19,948 -41% 28,382

East of FM 1255 79112 32,000 24,536 -23% 34,680

East of FM 314 76380 31,000 23,679 -24% 33,280

West of CR 426 77907 31,000 23,679 -24% 33,280

East of SH 110 77953 33,000 21,598 -35% 32,911

West of FM 849 77960 34,000 21,286 -37% 32,788

East of US 69 80812 27,000 19,170 -29% 26,531

West of FM 2015 80980 27,000 15,948 -41% 21,441

East of FM 3311 81001 25,000 15,163 -39% 23,242

West of US 271 80411 25,000 15,163 -39% 23,242

West of Toll 49 (Future) 81117 30,000 22,512 -25% 38,193

West of FM 3053 81251 30,000 22,043 -27% 27,756

West of SH 42 79955 31,5001 19,738 -37% 26,407

East of US 259 82056 31,000 24,884 -20% 32,462

East of FM 2011 82059 31,000 25,965 -16% 32,014

East of SL 281 82208 33,000 29,619 -10% 39,020

East of US 259 82216 34,000 31,317 -8% 41,056

East of FM 3251 82384 31,000 29,145 -6% 36,870

1 2007 count = 32,000; 2008 count = 30,000; 2009 count = 28,000; 2010 count = 18,400; 2011 count = 35,000; 2012 count = 32,000

Based on the above actual counts, 2010 appears to be an error. An average of 2009 and 2011 was used in place of the 2010 count. This averaged value is calculated to be 31,500.

East of FM 31 87514 32,000 29,131 -9% 38,704

East of FM 2199 87485 30,000 28,624 -5% 38,400

West of FM 134 87385 35,000 34,185 -2% 47,020

East of FM 134 87583 33,000 29,685 -10% 42,548 * Bold numbers represent 2040 volumes lower than 2010 actual counts

The base year model volumes are lower (ranging from -2% to -41%). For an interstate facility like I-20, this

difference is substantial -- equivalent to several thousand vehicles per day in most instances. In some instances,

the 2040 SAM Assigned volumes are lower than the 2010 traffic counts (shown in Bold in Table 1). In order to

address this inconsistency in traffic forecasts, two methods have been proposed below:

1. Linear Regression of 2010 Counts and 2010 SAM Assigned Volumes: The travel demand modeling

performed by Alliance provided lower volumes compared to existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for

portions of I-20 for the base year (2010) and also the forecast year (2040) in some instances. The

methodology proposed by Alliance to adjust the 2010 and 2040 model output is presented in the memo

titled “Adjustment Factor Methodology” and is attached to this draft memo. The results of this

methodology are shown in Table 2 in the column labeled “Adjusted Volume 2010” and “Adjusted Volume

2040”.

2. Forecast using SAM calculated CAGR and 2010 ADTs: The second method is built on the assumption that

though SAM Assigned 2010 volumes do not match the 2010 Counts, the relationship between the SAM

Assigned 2010 volumes and SAM Assigned 2040 volumes provides an accurate representation of the rate

of growth expected along the I-20 corridor. With this in mind, the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)

was calculated between the 2040 SAM Assigned Volumes and the 2010 SAM Assigned volumes for each

link. This CAGR was then applied to the 2010 Counts for 30 years to develop the 2040 Modified Forecasts.

The resulting 2040 forecast is shown in Table 2 in the column labeled “Modified Volume 2040”.

Table 2: Comparison of Traffic Projections based on Linear Regression and CAGR

Location (West to East) Object

ID Counts 2010

Linear Regression Methodology CAGR

Methodology

Adjusted Volume 2010

Adjusted Volume 2040*

Modified Volume 2040

West of FM 148 78075 25,000 30,973 38,653 36,500

East of FM 148 78228 24,000 25,593 31,325 36,100

West of SH 34 78207 46,000 36,619 54,495 82,700

West of FM 2728 78052 43,000 40,817 55,083 66,100

West of FM 147 78388 35,000 33,683 41,381 48,900

West of SH 64 78001 35,000 32,993 41,671 51,200

East of SH 64 79028 34,000 27,920 33,707 48,400

East of FM 1255 79112 32,000 31,068 38,028 45,200

East of FM 314 76380 31,000 30,480 37,068 43,600

West of CR 426 77907 31,000 30,480 37,068 43,600

East of SH 110 77953 33,000 29,052 36,814 50,300

West of FM 849 77960 34,000 28,838 36,730 52,400

East of US 69 80812 27,000 27,386 32,437 37,400

West of FM 2015 80980 27,000 25,176 28,945 36,300

East of FM 3311 81001 25,000 24,637 30,181 38,300

West of US 271 80411 25,000 24,637 30,181 38,300

West of Toll 49 (Future) 81117 30,000 29,679 40,439 50,900

West of FM 3053 81251 30,000 29,357 33,277 37,800

West of SH 42 79955 31,500 27,776 32,352 42,100

East of US 259 82056 31,000 31,307 36,506 40,400

East of FM 2011 82059 31,000 32,048 36,198 38,200

East of SL 281 82208 33,000 34,555 41,006 43,500

East of US 259 82216 34,000 35,720 42,402 44,600

East of FM 3251 82384 31,000 34,231 39,530 39,200

East of FM 31 87514 32,000 34,221 40,789 42,500

East of FM 2199 87485 30,000 33,873 40,580 40,200

West of FM 134 87385 35,000 37,689 46,494 48,100

East of FM 134 87583 33,000 34,601 43,426 47,300 * Bold numbers represent 2040 volumes lower than 2010 actual counts

Recommendation: Based on the above two methodologies, the recommendation is to use the CAGR

based refinement to 2040 traffic volumes. The benefit of this method is that it uses the actual traffic as

the base volume, and utilizes the benefit of SAM’s ability to allocate future growth.

ITEM 43 ITEM 54 ITEM 64 ITEM 120 ITEM 121

BRIDGE NAME BRIDGE TYPEVERTICAL CLEARANCE

(FT)OPERATING RATING DEFICIENT SUFFICIENCY RATING

STRUCTURE AREA

(FT2)

RECOMMENDED

ACTIONSTRUCTURE TYPE

1 LENGTH2

(FT)

WIDTH3

(FT)

STRUCTURE COST

(2014 $)TOTAL COST

Fritz Swanson Rd Underpass 4-span P/S bm 16'-1" HS27 95.0 25.7 Replace TX-Girder 247.0 42.0 $622,440.00 $1,313,164.56

FM 2087 Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-0" HS24 84.1 35.3 Replace TX-Girder 325.0 42.0 $819,000.00 $1,727,848.10

MLK Blvd Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-0" HS20 Functionally Obsolete 84.8 64.0 Replace TX-Girder 297.0 42.0 $748,440.00 $1,578,987.34

Willow Branch Rd Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-1" HS20 68.3 25.5 Replace TX-Girder 241.0 42.0 $607,320.00 $1,281,265.82

SH 110 Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-1" HS20 68.6 31.2 Replace TX-Girder 299.0 42.0 $753,480.00 $1,589,620.25

FM 849 Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-0" HS23 Functionally Obsolete 66.8 25.5 Replace TX-Girder 317.0 42.0 $798,840.00 $1,685,316.46

Wiggins Crk Branch Culvert Multi Box Culvert N/A HS29 Structurally Deficient 68.2 N/A Extend w/I-20 expansion N/A N/A N/A $0.00$0.00




FM 773 Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-1" HS20 67.2 25.7 Replace TX-Girder 241.0 42.0 $607,320.00 $1,281,265.82

Little Sandy Crk Culvert Multi Box Culvert N/A HS27 66.7 N/A Extend w/I-20 expansion N/A N/A N/A $0.00$0.00

SH 34 SB Underpass Continuous St I-bm 16'-7" HS27 Functionally Obsolete 63.3 31.1 Replace TX-Girder 351.0 42.0 $884,520.00 $1,866,075.95


FM 450 Underpass 4-span P/S bm 15'-11" HS27 Functionally Obsolete 71.2 32.7 Replace TX-Girder 246.0 42.0 $619,920.00 $1,307,848.10

Lansing Switch Rd Uperpass 4-span P/S bm 16'-3" HS27 66.6 27.2 Replace TX-Girder 277.0 42.0 $698,040.00 $1,472,658.23

Cox Crk Culvert Multi Box Culvert N/A HS27 69 N/A Extend w/I-20 expansion N/A N/A N/A $0.00$0.00

Butler Crk Culvert Multi Box Culvert N/A HS27 69 N/A Extend w/I-20 expansion N/A N/A N/A $0.00$0.00

Total: $10,125,360.00 $21,361,518.99

I-20 (LP 635 to LA STATELINE) BRIDGE STRUCTURE ASSESMENT INVENTORY

Notes:

1. Tx-Girders (prestressed concrete) were developed to span further with a shallower depth making them competive with steel when vertical clearance beneath the structure is an issue

2. Based on existing bridge length plus 15' to avoid existing substructure

3. Based on 2-12' lanes with 8' shoulders and 1' nominal rail width. If 10' shoulders are desirable, add $240/LnFt of bridge length to cost.

REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE

I-20 Bridge Inventory Summary

Texas Department of TransportationBridge Inventory and Inspection File

27-Mar-149Page: Date:

2 District: 10

3 County: 093

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 07

11 Milepnt: 04885

8 6 Str No: 254

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0584

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +

11 4B RfMk Displ: 00862

4 Place Code: 00000

(006-1) Feature Crossed

IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:

11 1MiPt Date Pr: 197405

11 1A MiPt Date Int:

(007-0) Facility Carried

FRITZ SWANSON RD

(009-0) Location

2.35 MI W OF SH 42

10 RtMinVrtClear: 1701

DI

10

CO

093

CONT

0495

SC

07

STR

254

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32255646

17 Longitude: 094540844

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 05

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049507002

26 Func Class: 11

27 Yr Built: 1966

28 1 Lanes On: 02

28 2 Lanes Under: 04

29 AADT: 034680

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 2

32 Appr Width: 020

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 00

35 Str Flared: 0

36 Trf Safe Feat: 1000

37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N

39 Nav VrtClear: 000

40 Nav HrzClear: 0000

41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N

41 2 Load 1000lb: NNN

42 Serv On Under: 11

43 1 Mn Span Ty: 1131

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty: 1131

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:

44 1 Substr MSpan: 341

44 2 Sub MjAprSp: 341

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 002

45 2 No MjAprSp: 002

45 3 No MnAprSp:

46 Total No Spans: 0004

47 Tot Hrz Clear: 0542

48 Max Sp Lgth: 0065

49 Str Lgth: 000232

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0235

52 Deck Width: 0257

53 VrtClrOver: 9999

54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: H

54 2 VrtClr Under: 1601

55 1 LatClr RefFeat: H

55 2 Rt Lat Clear: 107

56 Lt Lat Clear: 194

58 Deck Cond: 7

59 Super Cond: 7

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 249

65 RdAppr Cond: 7

66 Inv Rate: 236

67 Str Eval: 7

68 Deck Geom: 5

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:

76 Lgth Improv: 000000

88 Spec Flags: NNNN

96 1 Cost Improv:

90 Last Inspec: 01232013

91 Des Insp Freq: 24

92 1 Frac Crit Det: N

92 2 Undwtr Inspec: N

92 3 Special Inspec: N

93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:

96 Tot Proj Cost: 000000

97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1

101 Parl Str Desn: N

102 Dir of Traffic: 2

103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N

107 1 Deck Ty MSp: 1

108 1 MSp WrSurf: 688

107 2 Deck MjAprSp: 1

108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: 688

108 3 MnAprSpWrSrf: NNN

109 AADTTruck Pct: 29

110 Des Natl Ntwk: 1

111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N

114 Future AADT: 048550

115 FutAADT Year: 2031

116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0950

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:

128 OvHt Load Dmg: Y

124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495072542126 Dist Use: A

8 4A IR Control: AA00

8 5A IR Section: 67

11A IR Milept: 00500

8 6A IR Str No: 254

8 3A IR Dupl Over: 0

5 1A IR Str Funct: 1

5 3A IR Designation: 1

5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 21

5 4A IR Hwy No: 0000

5 5A IR Dir: 0

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:

47A IR Hrz Clear: 0235

10A IR MnVrtClear: 9999

19A IR Byps Lgth: 02

20A IR Toll: 3

26A IR Func Class: 06

29A IR AADT: 000050

30A IR AADT Yr: 2010

100A IR DefHwy Des: 0

101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0

109A IR AADTTrkPct: 05

110A IR Natl Ntwk: 0

114A IR Fut AADT: 000100

115A IR FAADT Yr: 2030

8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3243235131

17 1 GPSLongitude: 09490234394

17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:

106 Yr Reconstr: 0000



2 District: 10

3 County: 093

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 07

11 Milepnt: 11509

8 6 Str No: 285

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0591

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:


11 1A MiPt Date Int: 197405


FM 2087

(009-0) Location

2.32 MILES EAST OF SH 31


DI

10

CO

093

CONT

0495

SC

07

STR

285

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32260161

17 Longitude: 094472156

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 05

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049507003

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1967

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 033240

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 034

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 45

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000310

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0330

52 Deck Width: 0353

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 6

59 Super Cond: 6

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 243

65 RdAppr Cond: 6

66 Inv Rate: 226

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: 4

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 6

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNN2

96 1 Cost Improv:






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:

96 Tot Proj Cost:

97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N



107 2 Deck MjAprSp: N

108 2 MjAprSp WrSrf: NNN




111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0841

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495072852126 Dist Use: A

8 4A IR Control: 1931

8 5A IR Section: 01


8 6A IR Str No: 285




5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15


5 5A IR Dir: 0

11 1C IR Ref Mrk: 0284

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign: +

11 4C IR RfMkDispl: 01267




20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 003600



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3243378092


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 1

65 1 MethInvRate: 1

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 093

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 07

11 Milepnt: 15922

8 6 Str No: 299

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0595

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




MLK BLVD

(009-0) Location

0.30 MI E OF SH 322


DI

10

CO

093

CONT

0495

SC

07

STR

299

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32264952

17 Longitude: 094425963

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 05

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049507006

26 Func Class: 21

27 Yr Built: 1967

28 1 Lanes On: 04


29 AADT: 034510

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 052

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 26

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000282

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 049

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 049

51 Rdwy Width: 0520

52 Deck Width: 0640

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 7

59 Super Cond: 6

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 237

65 RdAppr Cond: 7

66 Inv Rate: 227

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: 4

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 3

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNN2

96 1 Cost Improv:






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:

96 Tot Proj Cost:

97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs: O

121 Suff Rate: 0848

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495072992126 Dist Use: A

8 4A IR Control: E000

8 5A IR Section: 21


8 6A IR Str No: 299




5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 31


5 5A IR Dir: 0

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:




20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 000200



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3244708835


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 1

65 1 MethInvRate: 1

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 212

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 04

11 Milepnt: 00547

8 6 Str No: 044

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0544

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




WILLOW BRANCH RD

(009-0) Location

0.5 MI E OF VAN ZANDT CL


DI

10

CO

212

CONT

0495

SC

04

STR

044

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32295439

17 Longitude: 095350507

19 Detour Lgth: 02

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 10

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049504001

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1961

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 032120

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 2

32 Appr Width: 024

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 15

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000226

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0234

52 Deck Width: 0255

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 7

59 Super Cond: 6

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 237

65 RdAppr Cond: 7

66 Inv Rate: 222

67 Str Eval: 5

68 Deck Geom: 4

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381


88 Spec Flags: NNN21961

96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost: 000010

95 Rd Impr Cost: 000003


97 YrImpr Cost Est: 2009

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0683

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:

128 OvHt Load Dmg: N

124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495040442126 Dist Use: A


8 5A IR Section: 26


8 6A IR Str No: 044




5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 21


5 5A IR Dir: 0

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:




20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 000470



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3249844186


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 1

65 1 MethInvRate: 1

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 212

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 04

11 Milepnt: 04310

8 6 Str No: 051

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0548

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




SH 110

(009-0) Location

4.3 MI E OF VAN ZANDT CL


DI

10

CO

212

CONT

0495

SC

04

STR

051

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32285967

17 Longitude: 095312094

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 10

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049504001

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1961

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 032120

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 028

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 30

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000284

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0278

52 Deck Width: 0312

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 6

59 Super Cond: 6

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 236

65 RdAppr Cond: 6

66 Inv Rate: 221

67 Str Eval: 5

68 Deck Geom: 4

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:



96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:

96 Tot Proj Cost:

97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0686

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495040512126 Dist Use: A


8 5A IR Section: 02


8 6A IR Str No: 051




5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 13


5 5A IR Dir: 0


11 2C IR RefMkSfx:






20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 002700



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3248324069


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 2

65 1 MethInvRate: 2

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 212

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 04

11 Milepnt: 08533

8 6 Str No: 056

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0552

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




FM 849

(009-0) Location

4.2 MI E OF SH 110


DI

10

CO

212

CONT

0495

SC

04

STR

056

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32281050

17 Longitude: 095271106

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 10

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049504002

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1962

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 031790

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 2

32 Appr Width: 022

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 45

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000302

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0231

52 Deck Width: 0255

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 7

59 Super Cond: 6

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 242

65 RdAppr Cond: 7

66 Inv Rate: 225

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: 2

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381



96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:





98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs: O

121 Suff Rate: 0668

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495040562126 Dist Use: A


8 5A IR Section: 05


8 6A IR Str No: 056




5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15


5 5A IR Dir: 0


11 2C IR RefMkSfx:






20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 002700



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3246958358


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 1

65 1 MethInvRate: 1

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 212

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 05

11 Milepnt: 19628

8 6 Str No: 149

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0563

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


WIGGINS CREEK BRANCH

6 2 Crit Bdg:




IH 20 WB

(009-0) Location

7.3 MI E OF US 69


DI

10

CO

212

CONT

0495

SC

05

STR

149

DUP

0

STR-F

1

16 Latitude: 32270813

17 Longitude: 095155496

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 10

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049505001

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1964

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 011990

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 040

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 00

35 Str Flared: 0

36 Trf Safe Feat: 0N01

37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: 0



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty:

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type: 23

43 5 Tunnel Ty:

44 1 Substr MSpan:

44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 003

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000033

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0000

52 Deck Width: 0000

53 VrtClrOver: 9999

54 1 VrtClr RefFeat: N


55 1 LatClr RefFeat: N



58 Deck Cond: N

59 Super Cond: N

60 SubstrCond: N

61 Chan Prot: 5

62 Culvert: 4

64 Oper Rate: 248

65 RdAppr Cond: 5

66 Inv Rate: 235

67 Str Eval: 4

68 Deck Geom: N

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: 6

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNNN

96 1 Cost Improv:






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:


97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1

101 Parl Str Desn: L


103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N

107 1 Deck Ty MSp: N

108 1 MSp WrSurf: NNN






111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: 8



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs: D

121 Suff Rate: 0682

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:

128 OvHt Load Dmg:

124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495051491126 Dist Use: C

8 4A IR Control:

8 5A IR Section:

11A IR Milept:

8 6A IR Str No:

8 3A IR Dupl Over:

5 1A IR Str Funct:

5 3A IR Designation:

5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys:

5 4A IR Hwy No:

5 5A IR Dir:

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:

47A IR Hrz Clear:

10A IR MnVrtClear:

19A IR Byps Lgth:

20A IR Toll:

26A IR Func Class:

29A IR AADT:

30A IR AADT Yr:

100A IR DefHwy Des:

101A IR Parl Str:

102A IR Traf Dir:

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS:

109A IR AADTTrkPct:

110A IR Natl Ntwk:

114A IR Fut AADT:

115A IR FAADT Yr:

8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 1

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3245225925


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 212

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 05

11 Milepnt: 27340

8 6 Str No: 177

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0571

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


US 271

6 2 Crit Bdg:




IH 20 WB

(009-0) Location

3.3 MI E OF SH 155


DI

10

CO

212

CONT

0495

SC

05

STR

177

DUP

0

STR-F

1

16 Latitude: 32262831

17 Longitude: 095080272

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 10

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049505002

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1964

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 012190

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 5

32 Appr Width: 038

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 45

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000321

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0300

52 Deck Width: 0330

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 7

59 Super Cond: 5

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 249

65 RdAppr Cond: 7

66 Inv Rate: 236

67 Str Eval: 5

68 Deck Geom: 4

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:



96 1 Cost Improv:






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:


97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1

101 Parl Str Desn: L


103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0662

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495051771126 Dist Use: A


8 5A IR Section: 02


8 6A IR Str No: 177




5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 12


5 5A IR Dir: 0


11 2C IR RefMkSfx:






20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 005420



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 1

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3244119647


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 212

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 06

11 Milepnt: 33831

8 6 Str No: 236

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0577

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


CANEY CREEK

6 2 Crit Bdg:




IH 20 ML

(009-0) Location

6.2 MI E OF US 271


DI

10

CO

212

CONT

0495

SC

06

STR

236

DUP

0

STR-F

1

16 Latitude: 32261549

17 Longitude: 095014524

19 Detour Lgth: 05

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 10

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049506001

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1966

28 1 Lanes On: 04


29 AADT: 029790

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 078

33 Median: 3

34 Skew: 00

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: 0



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty:

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type: 23

43 5 Tunnel Ty:

44 1 Substr MSpan:

44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 003

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000033

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0000

52 Deck Width: 0000

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: N

59 Super Cond: N

60 SubstrCond: N

61 Chan Prot: 5

62 Culvert: 6

64 Oper Rate: 248

65 RdAppr Cond: 7

66 Inv Rate: 235

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: N

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: 6

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNNN

96 1 Cost Improv:






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:


97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: 8



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0678

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:

128 OvHt Load Dmg:

124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495062361126 Dist Use: C

8 4A IR Control:

8 5A IR Section:

11A IR Milept:

8 6A IR Str No:

8 3A IR Dupl Over:

5 1A IR Str Funct:


5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys:

5 4A IR Hwy No:

5 5A IR Dir:

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:

47A IR Hrz Clear:

10A IR MnVrtClear:

19A IR Byps Lgth:

20A IR Toll:

26A IR Func Class:

29A IR AADT:

30A IR AADT Yr:

100A IR DefHwy Des:

101A IR Parl Str:

102A IR Traf Dir:

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS:

109A IR AADTTrkPct:

110A IR Natl Ntwk:

114A IR Fut AADT:

115A IR FAADT Yr:

8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 1

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3243763521


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 234

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 02

11 Milepnt: 04634

8 6 Str No: 019

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0518

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


FLAT CRK TR

6 2 Crit Bdg:




IH 20

(009-0) Location

4.63 MI E OF KAUFMAN C/L


DI

10

CO

234

CONT

0495

SC

02

STR

019

DUP

0

STR-F

1

16 Latitude: 32373180

17 Longitude: 096000866

19 Detour Lgth: 05

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 02

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049502001

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1963

28 1 Lanes On: 04


29 AADT: 035270

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 077

33 Median: 3

34 Skew: 00

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: 0



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty:

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type: 23

43 5 Tunnel Ty:

44 1 Substr MSpan:

44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 002

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000021

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0000

52 Deck Width: 0000

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: N

59 Super Cond: N

60 SubstrCond: N

61 Chan Prot: 7

62 Culvert: 6

64 Oper Rate: 249

65 RdAppr Cond: 6

66 Inv Rate: 236

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: N

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: 9

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNNN

96 1 Cost Improv:






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:


97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: 8



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0690

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:

128 OvHt Load Dmg:

124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495020191126 Dist Use: C

8 4A IR Control:

8 5A IR Section:

11A IR Milept:

8 6A IR Str No:

8 3A IR Dupl Over:

5 1A IR Str Funct:


5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys:

5 4A IR Hwy No:

5 5A IR Dir:

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:

47A IR Hrz Clear:

10A IR MnVrtClear:

19A IR Byps Lgth:

20A IR Toll:

26A IR Func Class:

29A IR AADT:

30A IR AADT Yr:

100A IR DefHwy Des:

101A IR Parl Str:

102A IR Traf Dir:

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS:

109A IR AADTTrkPct:

110A IR Natl Ntwk:

114A IR Fut AADT:

115A IR FAADT Yr:

8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 1

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3262550009


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 234

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 02

11 Milepnt: 05167

8 6 Str No: 023

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0518

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


ANDY BR FLAT CRK

6 2 Crit Bdg:




IH 20 ML

(009-0) Location

1.78 MI E OF FM 47


DI

10

CO

234

CONT

0495

SC

02

STR

023

DUP

0

STR-F

1

16 Latitude: 32372156

17 Longitude: 095593812

19 Detour Lgth: 05

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 02

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049502001

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1963

28 1 Lanes On: 04


29 AADT: 035270

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 077

33 Median: 3

34 Skew: 00

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: 0



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty:

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type: 23

43 5 Tunnel Ty:

44 1 Substr MSpan:

44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 003

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000031

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0000

52 Deck Width: 0000

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: N

59 Super Cond: N

60 SubstrCond: N

61 Chan Prot: 7

62 Culvert: 6

64 Oper Rate: 249

65 RdAppr Cond: 6

66 Inv Rate: 236

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: N

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: 9

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNNN

96 1 Cost Improv:






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:


97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: 8



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0690

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:

128 OvHt Load Dmg:

124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495020231126 Dist Use: C

8 4A IR Control:

8 5A IR Section:

11A IR Milept:

8 6A IR Str No:

8 3A IR Dupl Over:

5 1A IR Str Funct:


5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys:

5 4A IR Hwy No:

5 5A IR Dir:

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:

47A IR Hrz Clear:

10A IR MnVrtClear:

19A IR Byps Lgth:

20A IR Toll:

26A IR Func Class:

29A IR AADT:

30A IR AADT Yr:

100A IR DefHwy Des:

101A IR Parl Str:

102A IR Traf Dir:

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS:

109A IR AADTTrkPct:

110A IR Natl Ntwk:

114A IR Fut AADT:

115A IR FAADT Yr:

8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 1

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3262265430


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 234

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 02

11 Milepnt: 08424

8 6 Str No: 029

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0522

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 07150


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




CR 2142/CR 3442

(009-0) Location

1.22 MI W OF SH 64


DI

10

CO

234

CONT

0495

SC

02

STR

029

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32361283

17 Longitude: 095562867

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 02

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049502004

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1963

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 035270

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 024

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 11

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000222

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0233

52 Deck Width: 0257

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 7

59 Super Cond: 7

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 238

65 RdAppr Cond: 7

66 Inv Rate: 223

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: 5

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 5

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNN2

96 1 Cost Improv:






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:

96 Tot Proj Cost:

97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0833

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495020292126 Dist Use: A


8 5A IR Section: 28


8 6A IR Str No: 029




5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 21


5 5A IR Dir: 0

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:




20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 000100



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3260356381


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 234

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 02

11 Milepnt: 09158

8 6 Str No: 031

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0522

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 07150


RATS BR CANEY CRK

6 2 Crit Bdg:




IH 20 ML and FR

(009-0) Location

0.51 MI W OF SH 64


DI

10

CO

234

CONT

0495

SC

02

STR

031

DUP

0

STR-F

1

16 Latitude: 32355849

17 Longitude: 095554856

19 Detour Lgth: 05

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 02

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049502004

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1963

28 1 Lanes On: 08


29 AADT: 035270

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 125

33 Median: 3

34 Skew: 30

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: 0



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty:

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type: 23

43 5 Tunnel Ty:

44 1 Substr MSpan:

44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000049

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0000

52 Deck Width: 0000

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: N

59 Super Cond: N

60 SubstrCond: N

61 Chan Prot: 6

62 Culvert: 6

64 Oper Rate: 249

65 RdAppr Cond: 8

66 Inv Rate: 236

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: N

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: 9

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNNN

96 1 Cost Improv:






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:


97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 5

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: 8



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0670

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:

128 OvHt Load Dmg:

124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495020311126 Dist Use: C

8 4A IR Control:

8 5A IR Section:

11A IR Milept:

8 6A IR Str No:

8 3A IR Dupl Over:

5 1A IR Str Funct:


5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys:

5 4A IR Hwy No:

5 5A IR Dir:

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:

47A IR Hrz Clear:

10A IR MnVrtClear:

19A IR Byps Lgth:

20A IR Toll:

26A IR Func Class:

29A IR AADT:

30A IR AADT Yr:

100A IR DefHwy Des:

101A IR Parl Str:

102A IR Traf Dir:

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS:

109A IR AADTTrkPct:

110A IR Natl Ntwk:

114A IR Fut AADT:

115A IR FAADT Yr:

8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 1

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3259957963


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 234

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 02

11 Milepnt: 03384

8 6 Str No: 306

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0516

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




FM 47

(009-0) Location

3.38 MI E OF KAUFMAN C/L


DI

10

CO

234

CONT

0495

SC

02

STR

306

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32375712

17 Longitude: 096011883

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 02

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049502001

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1963

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 036350

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 2

32 Appr Width: 023

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 30

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000252

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0233

52 Deck Width: 0257

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 6

59 Super Cond: 7

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 241

65 RdAppr Cond: 7

66 Inv Rate: 225

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: 3

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 7

75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381


88 Spec Flags: NNN2

96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:





98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs: O

121 Suff Rate: 0655

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495023062126 Dist Use: A


8 5A IR Section: 02


8 6A IR Str No: 306




5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15


5 5A IR Dir: 0


11 2C IR RefMkSfx:






20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 001450



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3263253378


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 234

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 03

11 Milepnt: 15242

8 6 Str No: 072

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0528

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 07150


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




FM 17

(009-0) Location

1.33 MI E OF SH 19


DI

10

CO

234

CONT

0495

SC

03

STR

072

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32341117

17 Longitude: 095500415

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 02

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049503001

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1962

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 032650

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 2

32 Appr Width: 022

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 15

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000226

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0229

52 Deck Width: 0255

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 6

59 Super Cond: 6

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 237

65 RdAppr Cond: 6

66 Inv Rate: 222

67 Str Eval: 5

68 Deck Geom: 2

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 7

75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381


88 Spec Flags: NNN2

96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:





98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs: O

121 Suff Rate: 0565

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495030722126 Dist Use: A


8 5A IR Section: 03


8 6A IR Str No: 072




5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15


5 5A IR Dir: 0


11 2C IR RefMkSfx:






20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 003100



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3256976889


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 234

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 03

11 Milepnt: 16968

8 6 Str No: 076

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0530

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 07150


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




FM 1255

(009-0) Location

3.06 MI E OF SH 19


DI

10

CO

234

CONT

0495

SC

03

STR

076

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32333371

17 Longitude: 095482821

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 02

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049503001

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1962

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 032650

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 2

32 Appr Width: 023

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 45

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000302

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0228

52 Deck Width: 0255

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 5

59 Super Cond: 6

60 SubstrCond: 6

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 243

65 RdAppr Cond: 4

66 Inv Rate: 226

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: 3

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 6

75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381


88 Spec Flags: NNN2

96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:





98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs: O

121 Suff Rate: 0655

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495030762126 Dist Use: A


8 5A IR Section: 02


8 6A IR Str No: 076




5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15


5 5A IR Dir: 0


11 2C IR RefMkSfx:






20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 001300



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3255936387


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 234

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 03

11 Milepnt: 23737

8 6 Str No: 088

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0537

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




FM 773

(009-0) Location

0.35 MI W OF FM 16


DI

10

CO

234

CONT

0495

SC

03

STR

088

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32311355

17 Longitude: 095420410

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 02

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049503002

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1962

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 032650

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 2

32 Appr Width: 022

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 15

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000226

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0233

52 Deck Width: 0257

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 5

59 Super Cond: 6

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 237

65 RdAppr Cond: 6

66 Inv Rate: 222

67 Str Eval: 5

68 Deck Geom: 4

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 4

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 7

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNN2

96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:


97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0672

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495030882126 Dist Use: A


8 5A IR Section: 04


8 6A IR Str No: 088




5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15


5 5A IR Dir: 0


11 2C IR RefMkSfx:






20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 000430



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3252043036


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 10

3 County: 234

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 03

11 Milepnt: 30031

8 6 Str No: 110

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0543

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


LITTLE SANDY CREEK

6 2 Crit Bdg:




IH 20

(009-0) Location

2.75 MI E OF FM 314


DI

10

CO

234

CONT

0495

SC

03

STR

110

DUP

0

STR-F

1

16 Latitude: 32295796

17 Longitude: 095354978

19 Detour Lgth: 01

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 02

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049503002

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1962

28 1 Lanes On: 04


29 AADT: 031700

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 080

33 Median: 3

34 Skew: 00

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: 0



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty:

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type: 23

43 5 Tunnel Ty:

44 1 Substr MSpan:

44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 005

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000054

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0000

52 Deck Width: 0000

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: N

59 Super Cond: N

60 SubstrCond: N

61 Chan Prot: 6

62 Culvert: 5

64 Oper Rate: 249

65 RdAppr Cond: 6

66 Inv Rate: 236

67 Str Eval: 5

68 Deck Geom: N

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: 9

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNNN

96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:

96 Tot Proj Cost:

97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: 8



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0667

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:

128 OvHt Load Dmg:

124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495031101126 Dist Use: C

8 4A IR Control:

8 5A IR Section:

11A IR Milept:

8 6A IR Str No:

8 3A IR Dupl Over:

5 1A IR Str Funct:


5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys:

5 4A IR Hwy No:

5 5A IR Dir:

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:

47A IR Hrz Clear:

10A IR MnVrtClear:

19A IR Byps Lgth:

20A IR Toll:

26A IR Func Class:

29A IR AADT:

30A IR AADT Yr:

100A IR DefHwy Des:

101A IR Parl Str:

102A IR Traf Dir:

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS:

109A IR AADTTrkPct:

110A IR Natl Ntwk:

114A IR Fut AADT:

115A IR FAADT Yr:

8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 1

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3249943212


17 2 GPSColMeth: 3

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 18

3 County: 130

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 01

11 Milepnt: 06272

8 6 Str No: 164

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0501

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 42150


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




SH 34 SB

(009-0) Location

0.87 MI E OF FM 2578


DI

18

CO

130

CONT

0495

SC

01

STR

164

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32420509

17 Longitude: 096163113

19 Detour Lgth: 00

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 06

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049501001

26 Func Class: 11

27 Yr Built: 1964

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 047930

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 028

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 30

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000336

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0280

52 Deck Width: 0311

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 6

59 Super Cond: 5

60 SubstrCond: 5

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 249

65 RdAppr Cond: 6

66 Inv Rate: 236

67 Str Eval: 5

68 Deck Geom: 3

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 3

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381


88 Spec Flags: NNN2

96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:





98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs: O

121 Suff Rate: 0633

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495011642126 Dist Use: 14 AN


8 5A IR Section: 04


8 6A IR Str No: 164




5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 13


5 5A IR Dir: 0


11 2C IR RefMkSfx:






20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 004300



101A IR Parl Str: L

102A IR Traf Dir: 1

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet: 0

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3270141261


17 2 GPSColMeth: 4

63 MethOperRate: 1

65 1 MethInvRate: 1

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 18

3 County: 130

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 01

11 Milepnt: 17288

8 6 Str No: 208

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0512

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




FM 2965

(009-0) Location

6.20 MI E OF FM 429/2728


DI

18

CO

130

CONT

0495

SC

01

STR

208

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32391907

17 Longitude: 096053859

19 Detour Lgth: 00

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 06

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049501002

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1965

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 036680

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 2

32 Appr Width: 024

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 30

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 2111

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000337

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0240

52 Deck Width: 0257

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 6

59 Super Cond: 6

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 247

65 RdAppr Cond: 7

66 Inv Rate: 228

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: 4

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 3

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381



96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:





98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs: O

121 Suff Rate: 0696

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495012082126 Dist Use: 14


8 5A IR Section: 02


8 6A IR Str No: 208




5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15


5 5A IR Dir: 0


11 2C IR RefMkSfx:






20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 001900



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet: 0

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3265529660


17 2 GPSColMeth: 4

63 MethOperRate: 1

65 1 MethInvRate: 1

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 19

3 County: 103

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 08

11 Milepnt: 07328

8 6 Str No: 240

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0604

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




FM 450

(009-0) Location

2.20 MI S OF US 80


DI

19

CO

103

CONT

0495

SC

08

STR

240

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32282459

17 Longitude: 094344701

19 Detour Lgth: 00

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 06

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049508001

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1965

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 027000

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 5

32 Appr Width: 026

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 13

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 1131

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000231

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0277

52 Deck Width: 0327

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 7

59 Super Cond: 7

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 249

65 RdAppr Cond: 7

66 Inv Rate: 236

67 Str Eval: 7

68 Deck Geom: 3

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 5

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl: 381


88 Spec Flags: NNNN

96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:





98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 2



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs: O

121 Suff Rate: 0712

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495082402126 Dist Use:


8 5A IR Section: 06


8 6A IR Str No: 240




5 6A IR Bus Sfx: 0

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 15


5 5A IR Dir: 0


11 2C IR RefMkSfx:






20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 004600



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3247349845


17 2 GPSColMeth: 4

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 19

3 County: 103

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 08

11 Milepnt: 04763

8 6 Str No: 271

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0601

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


IH 20

6 2 Crit Bdg:




LANSING SWITCH RD

(009-0) Location

2.70 MI E OF LP 281


DI

19

CO

103

CONT

0495

SC

08

STR

271

DUP

0

STR-F

2

16 Latitude: 32280010

17 Longitude: 094371727

19 Detour Lgth: 00

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 06

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049508004

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1966

28 1 Lanes On: 02


29 AADT: 027060

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 5

32 Appr Width: 020

33 Median: 0

34 Skew: 15

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: N



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty: 1131

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type:

43 5 Tunnel Ty:


44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 004

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000262

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0240

52 Deck Width: 0272

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: 7

59 Super Cond: 5

60 SubstrCond: 7

61 Chan Prot: N

62 Culvert: N

64 Oper Rate: 249

65 RdAppr Cond: 7

66 Inv Rate: 236

67 Str Eval: 5

68 Deck Geom: 4

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: 5

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: N

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNNN

96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:

96 Tot Proj Cost:

97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: N



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0666

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:


124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495082712126 Dist Use:


8 5A IR Section: 15


8 6A IR Str No: 271




5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys: 21


5 5A IR Dir: 0

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:




20A IR Toll: 3


29A IR AADT: 002000



101A IR Parl Str: N

102A IR Traf Dir: 2

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS: 0





8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 2

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3246669532


17 2 GPSColMeth: 4

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 19

3 County: 103

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 09

11 Milepnt: 21186

8 6 Str No: 216

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0618

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


COX CREEK

6 2 Crit Bdg:




IH 20

(009-0) Location

0.80 MI E OF US 59


DI

19

CO

103

CONT

0495

SC

09

STR

216

DUP

0

STR-F

1

16 Latitude: 32293024

17 Longitude: 094204276

19 Detour Lgth: 05

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 06

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049509001

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1965

28 1 Lanes On: 04


29 AADT: 028840

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 076

33 Median: 2

34 Skew: 45

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: 0



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty:

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type: 23

43 5 Tunnel Ty:

44 1 Substr MSpan:

44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 003

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000046

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0000

52 Deck Width: 0000

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: N

59 Super Cond: N

60 SubstrCond: N

61 Chan Prot: 5

62 Culvert: 6

64 Oper Rate: 249

65 RdAppr Cond: 5

66 Inv Rate: 236

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: N

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: 6

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNNN

96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:

96 Tot Proj Cost:

97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 0

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: 8



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0690

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:

128 OvHt Load Dmg:

124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495092161126 Dist Use:

8 4A IR Control:

8 5A IR Section:

11A IR Milept:

8 6A IR Str No:

8 3A IR Dupl Over:

5 1A IR Str Funct:


5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys:

5 4A IR Hwy No:

5 5A IR Dir:

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:

47A IR Hrz Clear:

10A IR MnVrtClear:

19A IR Byps Lgth:

20A IR Toll:

26A IR Func Class:

29A IR AADT:

30A IR AADT Yr:

100A IR DefHwy Des:

101A IR Parl Str:

102A IR Traf Dir:

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS:

109A IR AADTTrkPct:

110A IR Natl Ntwk:

114A IR Fut AADT:

115A IR FAADT Yr:

8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 1

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3249173256


17 2 GPSColMeth: 4

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:




2 District: 19

3 County: 103

8 4 Control: 0495

8 5 Section: 10

11 Milepnt: 30533

8 6 Str No: 129

5 3 Rt Design: 1

5 6 RtBus Sfx: 0

5 2 Rt System: 11

5 4 Rt No: 0020

5 5 Rt Dir: 0

11 1B RefMrk: 0627

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

11 3B RfMk Sign: +


4 Place Code: 00000


BUTLER CREEK

6 2 Crit Bdg:




IH 20

(009-0) Location

3.50 MI E OF FM 2199


DI

19

CO

103

CONT

0495

SC

10

STR

129

DUP

0

STR-F

1

16 Latitude: 32293306

17 Longitude: 094105936

19 Detour Lgth: 06

20 Toll: 3

21 Custodian: 01

22 Owner: 01

22 1 Maint Sect: 06

23 1 Proj Type: 1

23 2 CSJ Whn Blt: 049510031

26 Func Class: 01

27 Yr Built: 1965

28 1 Lanes On: 04


29 AADT: 026440

30 AADT Year: 2011

31 Design Load: 4

32 Appr Width: 072

33 Median: 2

34 Skew: 30

35 Str Flared: 0


37 Hist Signif: 3

38 Nav Controls: 0



41 Oper Status: A

41 1 Load Type: N



43 1 Mn Span Ty:

43 2 Mj Apr Sp Ty:

43 3 Mn Apr Sp Ty:

43 4 Culv Type: 23

43 5 Tunnel Ty:

44 1 Substr MSpan:

44 2 Sub MjAprSp:

44 3 Sub MnAprSp:

45 1 No MSpan: 003

45 2 No MjAprSp:

45 3 No MnAprSp:




49 Str Lgth: 000029

50 1 Lt Sdwalk: 000

50 2 Rt Sdwalk: 000

51 Rdwy Width: 0000

52 Deck Width: 0000

53 VrtClrOver: 9999






58 Deck Cond: N

59 Super Cond: N

60 SubstrCond: N

61 Chan Prot: 6

62 Culvert: 6

64 Oper Rate: 249

65 RdAppr Cond: 7

66 Inv Rate: 236

67 Str Eval: 6

68 Deck Geom: N

69 UClr Vrt Hrz: N

70 Safe Load Cap: 5

71 Waterway Adeq: 6

72 ApprRdAlign: 8

75 Ty Wrk Repl:


88 Spec Flags: NNNN

96 1 Cost Improv: C






93 1 FracCrit Date:

93 2 Uwtr Ins Date:

93 3 SpecInsp Date:

94 BdgImpr Cost:

95 Rd Impr Cost:

96 Tot Proj Cost:

97 YrImpr Cost Est:

98 Border Bdg:

99 Border Bdg No:

100 Def Hwy Desn: 1



103 Temp Str Desn:

104 NHS: 1

106 1 Widen Code: 1

107 3 Dk MnAprSp: N








111 Pier Protect:

112 NBI Bdg Lgth: Y

113 Scour Crit: 8



116 MnNavVrtClear:

119 Orig Cost:

120 Def/Obs:

121 Suff Rate: 0690

122 Xref PrinRtID:

123 Xrf StrFncPRt:

113 1 Scour Vuln:

128 OvHt Load Dmg:

124 XRf IR ID:

125 XRf IRStr Func:

00495101291126 Dist Use:

8 4A IR Control:

8 5A IR Section:

11A IR Milept:

8 6A IR Str No:

8 3A IR Dupl Over:

5 1A IR Str Funct:


5 6A IR Bus Sfx:

5 2A IR Hwy Sys:

5 4A IR Hwy No:

5 5A IR Dir:

11 1C IR Ref Mrk:

11 2C IR RefMkSfx:

11 3C IR RfMkSign:

11 4C IR RfMkDispl:

47A IR Hrz Clear:

10A IR MnVrtClear:

19A IR Byps Lgth:

20A IR Toll:

26A IR Func Class:

29A IR AADT:

30A IR AADT Yr:

100A IR DefHwy Des:

101A IR Parl Str:

102A IR Traf Dir:

103A IR Temp Str:

104A IR NHS:

109A IR AADTTrkPct:

110A IR Natl Ntwk:

114A IR Fut AADT:

115A IR FAADT Yr:

8 3 DupRtOver: 0

5 1 RtStrFunc 1

12 BaseHwyNet:

13 1 LRSInvRte:

13 2 LRSSubRte:

16 1 GPSLatitude: 3249251746


17 2 GPSColMeth: 4

63 MethOperRate: 5

65 1 MethInvRate: 5

105 FHWA Resvd:

11 2B RefMk Sfx:

12A IRBaseHwyNet:

13 1A IRLRSInvRte:

13 2A IRLRSSubRte:


AEI

AppeEvalua-20 East Te

endixation xas Corrido

x G Resulr Study

ts



12/31/2014

Pavement Contidion Bridge Freight

System Performance and

CMAQ



Technical Score



Interchange Ratings

Vertical

Clearanceb

Mainlane Pavement

Condition Score

Bridge Condition


Traffic (2012) c


(2012)

New Frontage Road AF-1 Dallas I-20 Lawson Rd FM 740 4 55 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 5Median Barrier Addition AE-1 Dallas I-20 Loop 635 Dallas County Line 4 58 5 1 1 1 4 1 5 5

TC-1 Dallas I-20 I-635 Lawson Rd 2 58 5 1 1 1 4 1 5 5TC-2 Dallas I-20 Lawson Rd Dallas County Line 0 50 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 3

Frontage Road Reconstruction TG-1 Dallas I-20 Seagonville Road Lawson Road 2 50 3 1 1 1 3 1 5 5Ramp Improvement TI-1 Dallas Lawson Rd - - 0 40 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 3

AB-1 Kaufman SH 34 - - 2 68 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 5AD-1 Kaufman FM 429 - - 0 45 1 5 2 1 1 2 1 5AD-3 Kaufman Wilson Road - - 0 20 1AD-4 Kaufman FM 429 - - 0 45 1 5 2 1 1 2 1 5

Added Capacity AC-1 Kaufman I-20 SH 557 Wilson Rd 1 58 5 5 1 1 2 1 3 5AF-2 Kaufman I-20 FM 740 FM 741 0 35 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3AF-3 Kaufman I-20 SH 557 FM 138 3 53 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 5AF-13 Kaufman FM 741 SH 557 Kaufman 3 45 5 3 1 1 3 1 3 1TB-2 Kaufman FM 2965 - - 0 63 3 5 4 1 1 3 3 5TD-1 Kaufman CR 310 (Hiram Rd) - - 0 43 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 5TC-3 Kaufman I-20 Dallas County Line FM 741 0 35 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-4 Kaufman I-20 FM 741 SH 557 0 53 5 3 1 1 2 1 3 5TC-5 Kaufman I-20 Wilson Rd FM 310 0 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-6 Kaufman I-20 FM 310 Kaufman County Line 0 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5TI-2 Kaufman FM 740 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-3 Kaufman FM 741 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3

TI-4 Kaufman FM 2932 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-5 Kaufman FM 1641 - - 0 50 1 5 1 5 1 1 3 3TI-6 Kaufman FM 148 - - 0 55 3 5 1 5 1 1 3 3TI-7 Kaufman SH 557 - - 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-8 Kaufman CR 304 - - 0 38 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 3TJ-8 Kaufman SH 34 - - 2 68 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 5TJ-10 Kaufman SH 34 - - 2 68 5 5 3 3 1 2 3 5

Interchange Improvements AA-3 Van Zandt FM 859 - - 0 53 1 5 2 5 1 3 1 3

AF-4 Van Zandt I-20 FM 47 SH 64 1 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5AF-5 Van Zandt I-20 SH 19 FM 17 0 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TA-1 Van Zandt SH 19 - - 1 53 5 5 2 1 1 1 3 3TB-3 Van Zandt FM 47 - - 1 60 1 3 5 3 1 3 3 5TB-4 Van Zandt CR 3412 - - 1 53 1 5 5 1 1 2 1 5TB-5 Van Zandt SH 64 - - 1 60 3 5 5 1 1 1 3 5TB-6 Van Zandt FM 1255 - - 0 55 3 5 5 1 1 3 1 3TB-7 Van Zandt CR 1311 - - 0 48 1 5 4 1 1 3 1 3TD-2 Van Zandt FM 3439 / CR 3442 - - 0 48 3 1 5 1 1 2 1 5TD-3 Van Zandt FM 17 - - 1 55 1 5 3 1 1 3 3 5TD-4 Van Zandt CR 1308 - - 0 40 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 3TD-5 Van Zandt FM 773 / FM 16 - - 0 63 5 5 4 3 1 3 1 3TB-1 Van Zandt FM 314 - - 0 58 5 3 4 1 1 1 3 5TC-7 Van Zandt I-20 Kaufman County Line FM 47 0 55 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-8 Van Zandt I-20 FM 47 SH 64 1 50 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-9 Van Zandt I-20 SH 64 SH 19 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3

TC-10 Van Zandt I-20 SH 19 FM 1255 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-11 Van Zandt I-20 FM 1255 CR 1308 0 40 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-12 Van Zandt I-20 CR 1308 FM 773 0 38 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-13 Van Zandt I-20 FM 773 FM 314 0 48 5 3 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-14 Van Zandt I-20 FM 314 Van Zandt County Line 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3

Safety

New Frontage Road

VAN ZANDT

Added Capacity


Project Type

KAUFM

AN


I-20 East Texas Corridor Project Evaluation

Project Characteristics

DALLAS

Added Capacity

Ramp Improvement


Added Capacity


New Frontage Road


b Bridge Database


High Score (55<)

Mid Score (50‐54)

Low Score (50>)



12/31/2014



Technical Score



Interchange Ratings

Vertical

Clearanceb

Mainlane Pavement

Condition Score

Bridge Condition


Traffic (2012) c


(2012)Project Type

TG-2 Van Zandt I-20 County Line FM 47 1 55 5 3 1 1 3 1 3 5TG-3 Van Zandt I-20 US 64 SH 19 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TG-4 Van Zandt I-20 FM 17 CR 1311 0 48 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 3TG-5 Van Zandt I-20 CR 1311 FM 314 0 48 5 3 1 1 2 1 3 3TJ‐9 Van Zandt FM 859 - - 0 55 1 5 2 5 2 3 1 3

TJ-11 Van Zandt FM 47 - - 1 65 1 3 5 3 3 3 3 5TJ-12 Van Zandt FM 17 - - 1 58 1 5 3 1 2 3 3 5TJ-13 Van Zandt FM 1255 - - 0 55 3 5 5 1 1 3 1 3TJ-14 Van Zandt FM 773 - - 0 68 5 5 5 3 2 3 1 3

New Frontage Road AF-6 Van Zandt, Smith I-20 FM 314 SH 110 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3New Frontage Road AF-7 Smith I-20 Toll 49 US 271 8 53 5 5 1 1 2 1 3 3

TA-2 Smith US 69 - - 7 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TB-1 Van Zandt FM 314 - - 0 53 3 5 4 1 1 1 3 3TB-8 Smith CR 35 (Lavender Rd) - - 2 48 3 5 4 1 1 1 1 3TB-9 Smith FM 2015 - - 0 45 1 5 4 1 1 2 1 3TD-6 Smith CR 426 - - 0 45 1 5 3 1 1 3 1 3TD-7 Smith CR 431 - - 0 40 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 3TD-8 Smith SH 155 (Lawton Ave) - - 0 53 3 5 3 1 1 2 3 3TD-9 Smith FM 757 - - 0 35 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 3

TD-10 Smith CR 3101 - - 2 50 5 5 2 1 1 2 1 3TD-11 Smith CR 3111 - - 0 40 1 5 2 1 1 2 1 3TD-12 Smith FM 14 - - 0 45 1 5 2 1 1 2 3 3TC-15 Smith I-20 Van Zandt County Line CR 110 0 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-16 Smith I-20 CR 110 US 69 7 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-17 Smith I-20 US 69 FM 14 0 48 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-18 Smith I-20 FM 14 SH 155 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-19 Smith I-20 SH 155 US 271 0 40 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-20 Smith I-20 US 271 Smith County Line 1 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TJ-5 Smith SH 110 - - 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 3TJ-6 Smith FM 849 - - 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 3TG-6 Smith I-20 SH 110 FM 849 0 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TG-7 Smith I-20 US 271 Gregg County Line 1 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TG-8 Smith I-20 Gregg County Line SH 42 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-9 Smith CR 110 - - 0 55 3 5 1 1 1 5 3 3

TI-10 Smith FM 849 - - 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 3 3 3TI-11 Smith US 271 - - 0 45 1 5 1 1 1 3 3 3

Interchange Improvements AD-2 Gregg SH 31 - - 2 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TJ-1 Gregg Fritz Swanson RD - - 0 40 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 3TJ-2 Gregg MLK Blvd - - 0 53 1 5 3 3 1 2 1 5TJ-3 Gregg FM 2087 - - 0 58 3 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ‐15 Gregg MLK Blvd - - 0 48 1 5 3 3 2 1 1 3TG-9 Gregg I-20 SH 42 FM 2087 3 55 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 3TG-10 Gregg I-20 FM 2087 Loop 281 W 1 60 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TG-11 Gregg I-20 Loop 281 W County Line 0 60 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TI-12 Gregg FM 3053 - - 0 45 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 5TI-13 Gregg SH 42 - - 1 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-14 Gregg FM 2087 - - 0 58 3 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TI-15 Gregg Loop 281 W / US 259 - - 1 45 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 5TC-21 Gregg I-20 Smith County Line SH 135 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-22 Gregg I-20 SH 135 SH 42 2 58 5 5 1 1 2 1 5 3TC-23 Gregg I-20 SH 42 FM 2087 1 55 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 3TC-24 Gregg I-20 FM 2087 Gregg County Line 1 60 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5

SMITH


Ramp Improvement

VAN ZANDT



Ramp Improvement


Added Capacity



Added Capacity

GREG

G



b Bridge Database


High Score (55<)

Mid Score (50‐54)

Low Score (50>)



12/31/2014



Technical Score



Interchange Ratings

Vertical

Clearanceb

Mainlane Pavement

Condition Score

Bridge Condition


Traffic (2012) c


(2012)Project Type

AF-8 Gregg, Harrison I-20 US 259 Loop 281 3 50 5 5 1 1 1 1 3 3AF-9 Harrison I-20 FM 968 SH 43 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3AF-10 Harrison I-20 SH 43 FM 31 4 50 3 5 1 1 3 1 3 3AF-11 Harrison I-20 FM 31 Buck Sherrod Rd 2 45 1 3 1 1 5 1 3 3AF-12 Harrison I-20 US 80 FM 2199 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-25 Harrison I-20 Gregg County Line Loop 281 1 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-26 Harrison I-20 Loop 281 FM 450 1 55 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TC-27 Harrison I-20 FM 450 FM 3251 0 55 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 5TC-28 Harrison I-20 FM 3251 SH 43 0 50 3 5 1 1 1 1 5 3TC-29 Harrison I-20 SH 43 US 59 0 43 1 5 1 1 2 1 3 3TC-30 Harrison I-20 US 59 FM 31 1 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-31 Harrison I-20 FM 31 FM 2199 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-32 Harrison I-20 FM 2199 US 80 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-33 Harrison I-20 US 80 FM 134 0 45 5 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TC-34 Harrison I-20 FM 134 Texas State Line 0 45 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 5TJ-4 Harrison FM 450 - - 0 53 1 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ-7 Harrison Lansing Switch Road - - 0 50 1 5 1 1 1 3 5 3

TJ-16 Harrison FM 450 - - 0 58 3 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ-17 Harrison US 59 - - 0 53 1 5 1 3 1 2 3 5TJ-7 Harrison Lansing Switch Road - - 0 54 1 5 5 1 3 1 3

TG-12 Harrison I-20 County Line Loop 281 E 0 45 1 5 1 1 3 1 3 3TG-13 Harrison I-20 Loop 281 E FM 450 0 58 3 5 1 1 2 1 5 5TG-14 Harrison I-20 FM 450 FM 3251 0 60 3 5 1 1 3 1 5 5TG-15 Harrison I-20 US 80 Texas State Line 0 53 5 3 1 1 2 1 5 3TI-16 Harrison Loop 281 E - - 0 43 1 5 1 1 1 2 3 3TI-17 Harrison FM 3251 - - 0 35 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-18 Harrison FM 31 - - 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3TI-19 Harrison FM 2199 - - 0 45 3 5 1 1 1 1 3 3

HARRISON


New Frontage Road

Added Capacity

Ramp Improvements



b Bridge Database


High Score (55<)

Mid Score (50‐54)

Low Score (50>)

i‐20 east texas corridor study

Documents