I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Charge and Purpose

Transcription

1 AGENDA I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Tuesday, January 22, pm TxDOT Lufkin District 1805 N. Timberland Drive Lufkin, TX MEETING OBJECTIVE: Review, discuss and understand study options comparison factors and decide on strategies, information and schedule for the committee s public outreach effort. Welcome/Introductions Tracy Hill, Facilitator Administrative Review of December 11, 2012 meeting notes Tracy Hill, Facilitator I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Scoping Study Doug Booher, TxDOT Upgrade existing US 59 and new location options comparison o Quantifiable Factors o Non Quantifiable Factors Break December 11, 2012 Meeting Homework Results Tracy Hill, Facilitator Public Outreach Brainstorming Tracy Hill, Facilitator Committee Homework and Adjourn Tracy Hill, Facilitator I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Charge and Purpose The I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee is comprised of ten (10) representatives from Angelina County and ten (10) representatives from Nacogdoches County. The committee will select co-chairs, one from each county, and will include citizen and community outreach as part of their work in finalizing their recommendations. The representatives from each county will function as one committee reviewing current transportation needs and concerns as they relate to regional mobility and local access. This review will lead to one set of recommendations on I-69 route locations and/or improvements to US 59 to meet Interstate standards. These recommendations will guide TxDOT on future I-69 project development.

2 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Meeting MEMORANDUM OF MEETING SUBJECT: DATE: I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Meeting December 11, :00 PM-5:00 PM LOCATION: TxDOT Lufkin District Office 1805 N. Timberland Drive, Lufkin, TX ATTENDING: Attendees are listed on attached sign-in sheets (Attachment 1) Purpose: The purpose of this meeting was to 1) provide an overview of I-69; 2) identify the committee s issues to consider, goals and objectives, as well as outline the committee s schedule and activities; 3) discuss the on-going I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Scoping Study including review of the options layout; and 4) discuss committee administration protocols and elect co-chairs for each county. The meeting agenda is included as Attachment 2. Welcome/Introductions: Tracy Hill, I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee meeting facilitator, welcomed and thanked the committee members and then asked staff and public in attendance to introduce themselves. He conducted a safety briefing and gave a short description of his background in which he noted that he has been involved with I-69 since the early 2000s. Tracy thanked the committee members for agreeing to volunteer their time and then referred the committee members to the committee charge and purpose exhibit (Attachment 3). He then explained that TxDOT is conducting a scoping study for I-69 in Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties. He said this study is being conducted because the existing US 59 does not meet Interstate standards and US 59 has been identified members of the I-69 Citizen Committees and in federal legislation to become I-69. The purpose of the study is to determine the most efficient way to advance the development I-69 in Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties via the following steps: 1. Determine the sections of existing US 59 that are proposed to meet or that currently meet Interstate standards. 2. Develop the potential options recommended by the I-69 Segment One and Two Committees that could be advanced through the environmental process. These include the upgrade of existing US 59 and the New Location US 59 Master Plan. 3. Compare the upgrade and new location options by looking at potential environmental impacts, approximate costs, schedule, operational features, etc. 4. Present the findings to the committee and public (via the committee) to solicit input and recommendations on the options to guide TxDOT on future I-69 project development. 5. Determine what tasks will be required during the environmental process and develop the necessary documents to begin the environmental process. Page 1 of 10

3 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Meeting Tracy emphasized that the committee members role will be to review the options, discuss the options with their communities, identify community concerns, and inform and help TxDOT understand the community s concerns while ultimately providing a recommendation on I-69 route location and/or improvements to US 59 to meet Interstate standards. The committee members were asked to state a bit about themselves including past history with transportation projects, issues they thought could affect the communities and their recommendations, as well as their goals and objectives as a committee member. The following issues, goals, and objectives were brought forth by the committee members: Issues Property ownership and right-of-way requirements (three occurrences) o This should be a fair and equal process for everyone o There will be adverse impacts to properties. Some owners will welcome the opportunity. Economic development (five occurrences) Airport utilization Consider Garrison in the decision making process Diboll interchange (access to Lufkin) (three occurrences) Move traffic o Save retail with inclusion of Diboll Interchange Safety and economic development Balance of traffic relief and serving the communities (two occurrences) o Fine line between relief from traffic and relief from economics o Keep the needs of the community in mind o Don t let Lufkin become a blip on the map Access to healthcare industries o Lufkin has experienced remarkable growth in the healthcare industry which has driven economy o o Attract additional healthcare businesses People do business where access is easily available (i.e. when access problems associated with construction has occurred, business has decreased) Efficient effective movement of traffic Improve traffic movements o Enhance traffic flow o Don t move development from one part of the city to another Impact of Panama Canal o Port of Houston traffic will increase and flow of additional traffic will create economic opportunities Nacogdoches south interchange traffic congestion o Sometimes traffic backs up as far as the Angelina River bridge Effective communication between the committee and the community Goals/Objectives Better understand the scoping study and project development process Secure economic development (four occurrences) Gather information and pass on to constituents Benefit for airport facilities Page 2 of 10

4 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Meeting Develop a project that is doable and affordable (three occurrences) Keep community informed Be transparent (three occurrences) o Effectively inform the public of the scoping study and project development process and the progress o Lack of information by the public results in bad decisions (i.e. sale and purchase of property) Balance of traffic relief and serving the communities o Efficiently move traffic without harming retail facilities in the area o Need the Diboll interchange First do no harm Maintain transparency of the decision making process while improving traffic congestion Maintain regional mobility for regional healthcare facilities Prioritize projects to get fair share of funding Shovel-ready projects (two occurrences) o Take advantage of funding opportunities for the area, not elsewhere in Texas o Work with TxDOT to start the environmental studies Create jobs Tracy explained that his goal is to guide the committee members through this process and that the I-69 Segment Committees have set the bar for this community driven process. Tracy then reviewed the agenda items for the meeting. Tracy explained that the slide note pages in the handout (Attachment 4) correspond to today s presentation. I-69 Overview: Tracy began the I-69 overview discussion with a status update of development of the national I-69 system. He referred committee members to the Status of I-69 System Map (Attachment 5) and explained that it depicts the national I-69 route that was created by Congress in He noted that each state is responsible for pursuing the I-69 project development and construction within its borders and the states are at varying levels in the process which is dependent on funding. Tracy then referred the committee members to the Interstate Designation Status Map (Attachment 6) included in their packets. He noted the potential I-69 route in Texas is shown in gold and that it includes US 59 in its entirety in Texas from Texarkana to Laredo, including Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties. US 84 will provide a tie to the national I-69 route coming through Louisiana and US 77 and US 281 in south Texas are also identified as potential I-69. He explained that two sections of the I-69 potential route which were already at Interstate standards, have been designated and signed as I-69. This includes 6.2 miles along US 77 in Robstown in December of 2011, and ~35 miles along US 59 from I-610 in Houston to the Liberty/Montgomery county line in July of Additionally, TxDOT is actively pursuing Interstate designation for other sections that meet or are near Interstate standards including US 59 in Texarkana and Houston areas, and US 77, US 281 and US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley. Tracy directed the committee members attention to a video that was prepared during the public outreach period of the I-69 Segment Committee process. He said that the video gives more information on the background of I-69, expected traffic growth, and addresses the I-69 Segment Page 3 of 10

5 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Meeting and Advisory Committees general principles. He prefaced that the video was made over a year ago, and since the release of this video, citizen comments related to the I-69 Segment Committee recommendations have been compiled, and the I-69 Advisory and Segment Committees have published their recommendations for I-69 Texas. He stated that a link to these reports is listed at the bottom of the agenda. Tracy introduced Dennis Cooley, TxDOT Lufkin District Engineer, who expressed his appreciation for the committee members time and efforts and then provided information on the legislation, funding, and previous studies as they relate to the history of I-69. He explained that Congress passed legislation in 1991 creating the national route for I-69. Also, recent legislation states that new pieces of I-69 can be designated as Interstate if they meet Interstate standards and there is a plan in place to connect to the existing Interstate system by This legislative change allows TxDOT to consider I-69 development in this area. Dennis further explained that in the late 1990 s and early 2000 s the Lufkin District studied relief routes that are sometimes referred to as bypasses for US 59 in Diboll, Lufkin, and Nacogdoches. These were studied as follows: US 59 Relief Route at Diboll - This was environmentally cleared in 1999 and some rightof-way was acquired. The project was put on hold with the introduction of the Trans- Texas Corridor concept. US 59 Master Plan - This included relief routes at Lufkin and Nacogdoches and ties in to the US 59 Relief Route at Diboll. It was started before 1999 and had stakeholder groups similar to this study. An environmental document was prepared and ready to send to FHWA, however the study was put on hold with the inception of the Trans-Texas Corridor concept. The study preferred alternative is reflected by the blue line on the US 59 Upgrade and New Locations Options Exhibit and Handout (Attachment 7). A committee member asked for the definition of a relief route. Dennis explained the definition of relief route and referred committee members to the Glossary of Technical Terms (Attachment 8) included in their packet. Dennis further explained that when the Trans-Texas Corridor concept was dropped in 2009, TxDOT began a statewide process lead by a citizen advisory committee and five local segment committees. The I-69 Segment One and Two Committees recommended relief routes at Diboll, Lufkin and Nacogdoches as priorities and suggested the consideration of both the US 59 Master Plan and the upgrade of existing US 59. TxDOT has recently allocated $12 million in funding to advance I-69 in Nacogdoches and Angelina Counties. Dennis assured the committee members that nothing has been decided with respect to the location of I-69 in the area and that this group is to gather public comments and convey to TxDOT. Also, the Lufkin District has identified near-term projects on US 59 that will occur with or without the US 59 Master Plan. These include interchanges south and north of Lufkin, south of Nacogdoches, US 259, and other needed projects. Tracy then referred the committee members to the handout titled Interstate Designation Process (Attachment 9) which identifies the steps that are needed to obtain an Interstate shield. He said that the role of the committee is to get to the purple box. He then outlined the tasks required for each step. A committee member asked about the timeframe of the designation process. Tracy answered that it was approximately a 9- to 15-year process. He also noted that the 9- to 15-year time Page 4 of 10

6 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Meeting frame assumes funding becomes available, because funding is needed for each step in this process Tracy further explained that the scoping study would determine the necessary level of environmental studies by April 2013 and that the scoping study would be complete in early summer A committee member asked if the state will pay fair market value for any property it would acquire. Jefferson Grimes answered that the state will use independent appraisers to determine fair market value. Committee Responsibilities and Tasks: Tracy directed the committee member s attention to the Charge and Purpose Exhibit. He explained that this committee has been created as part of the I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Scoping Study and that the committee s charge and purpose is to: Analyze and understand your area s needs so you are well-equipped to make recommendations for I-69 development in your community Provide TxDOT with the community s and committee s preference on route location and/or improvements on US 59 to bring I-69 to the area Ensure citizen and community input is a part of this process He noted that TxDOT is here to support the committee and educate the members so that members have a clear understanding of the two options under study as well as their costs, potential impacts, development schedules, effect on traffic movements and travel in the region and effect on access. Another important aspect of the committee member s duties is to design, support and conduct the public outreach efforts. This includes letting TxDOT know the best way to reach the public as well as your own one-on-one engagement of the public. He emphasized that it is important that each county reach consensus on the decisions that you make during this process. Finally, Tracy reviewed the committee s schedule and activities, and noted the following pertaining to the committee: 1. Initial Meeting December 11, 2012 (this meeting) Discuss the committee s purpose and give background on how we got here and where we re headed with I-69 development in this region. In between this meeting and the next meeting, we will ask the committee members to perform one-on-one outreach providing the 11x17 handout depicting the two options. Also, we would like you to think about how you would like to conduct additional public outreach activities. Your recommendations and that of your neighbors is what s going to inform TxDOT on community preferences and priorities, so you ll be the ones to gather that feedback and comments. Some possibilities for public outreach include: o Informal, open houses similar to those done by the I-69 Segment Two Committee o Brochures with comment cards o Presentations at local government meetings such as city council and commissioner s court. o Presentations to local organizations such as Rotary and Lion s Clubs, and chamber meetings. Page 5 of 10

7 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Meeting 2. The Second Meeting will be January 2013 Review details on the two options Bring your thoughts on issues associated with the two options Provide specifics on how you want to conduct public outreach 3. This winter, following the January meeting Conduct your public outreach using the methods and tools the committee decided on. We ll have a process in place to help you record and document community feedback so we can present that to you in the spring so you can make an informed recommendation. 4. The third meeting this spring We will provide the results and feedback of the public outreach activities. After you make preliminary recommendations, additional public outreach can be conducted to gather additional community feedback on your recommendation. 5. Later this spring After the second round of community feedback, the committee will provide a recommendation on which option to advance through the environmental process. This meeting will conclude your I-69 Scoping Study efforts and TxDOT will begin the process for procuring a consultant to perform the environmental studies. Roger Beall assured the committee that they will be given the tools to effectively implement these activities. A committee member stated that people respond well to examples and asked for examples of cities that were faced with a similar situation. Roger Beall responded that is our homework and we will provide examples. Tracy also noted that any change will have plusses and minuses, which is the nature of change. I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Scoping Study: Tina Brown explained that the challenge is that US 59 does not meet Interstate standards and as Dennis explained, has been identified as I-69 in past legislation. The purpose of the study is to determine the most efficient way to develop I-69 in the area. She said that this will include: 1. Determine the sections of existing US 59 that are proposed to meet or that currently meet Interstate standards. 2. Develop the potential options recommended by the I-69 Segment One and Two Committees that could be advanced through the environmental process. These include the upgrade of existing US 59 and the New Location US 59 Master Plan. 3. Compare the upgrade and new location options by looking at potential environmental impacts, approximate costs, schedule, operational features, etc. 4. Present the findings to committee and public (via the committee) to solicit input and recommendations on the options to guide TxDOT on future I-69 project development. 5. Determine what tasks will be required during the environmental process and develop the necessary documents to begin the environmental process. Tina asked the committee to think about what factors would be important for them to consider when making recommendations for the development of I-69. Sample factors might be cost, commercial and residential displacements, traffic congestion, project development schedule and Page 6 of 10

8 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Meeting travel times. Tina noted that the two options being developed for comparison are conceptual only and have not been engineered but will give an order of magnitude result to compare advantages and disadvantages. These options will most likely change during the environmental process. She then referred the committee members to the exhibit and map handout that showed the upgrade of existing US 59 and new location options (Attachment 7). Tina stated that the red line represents the upgrade of existing US 59 option to an Interstate type facility with continuous access roads. Throughout the entire length, four lanes will be provided for the mainlanes (two in each direction) with the exception of Lufkin. In Lufkin, traffic volumes require three mainlanes in each direction to have an acceptable level of traffic congestion. Tina then explained that the blue line represents the new location option and is based on the design that was developed as a part of the US 59 Master Plan. It too is a four lane Interstate type facility but with access roads in some locations. She then noted that original US 59 Master Plan terminated at US 259 and did not include a connection to US 59. This connection to US 59 is shown as a dashed line for illustrative purposes only, and will need to be developed in order for this option to function as I-69. The location of this connection back to US 59 will be determined during the environmental process. Tina further explained that there are advantages and disadvantages to both options. More information regarding the advantages and disadvantages will be provided at the January meeting. Discussion of the advantages and disadvantages will be an iterative process in which input will be provided from the committee and public, and updated advantages and disadvantages will be provided back to the committee and public. Tina then directed the committee to the large aerial maps that showed the layout of both the upgrade of existing US 59 option and the new location option (Attachment 10). She said that the purpose of this next exercise is to give committee members a closer view of the two options under study and to identify any new developments, environmental features or planning features not shown on the maps. Committee members marked several features on the map which are included as Attachment 11. Additionally, committee members asked the following questions: 1. What would happen to existing direct connectors in Lufkin? a. The existing direct connectors do not meet Interstate design standards. 2. What is NEPA? a. NEPA established a supplemental mandate for Federal agencies to consider the potential environmental consequences of their proposals, document the analysis, and make this information available to the public for comment prior to implementation. 3. Why are three mainlanes in each direction required for the upgrade of existing US 59 Lufkin and not Nacogdoches. a. Three lanes are required in Lufkin to provide acceptable levels of traffic congestion for the design year traffic volumes. The design in Nacogdoches has a grassy median that allows a third lane to be added in each direction by widening to the middle as traffic volumes increase. In the future, when the widening in Nacogdoches is done, the section will look like the section in Lufkin (i.e. separated by a concrete median barrier). Page 7 of 10

9 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Meeting 4. What is the number of lanes for the upgrade of US 59 option at Loop 224 direct connector? a. The upgrade of US 59 south of Nacogdoches would be four lanes (two mainlanes in each direction). Additional statements were made by the committee members regarding the map and included: The red line (upgrade of existing US 59 option) appears to be better for economic development. Lufkin High School would need additional lanes. The Committee was then asked to break into two groups by county and elect a co-chair. Committee Administration: Following the break Tracy noted that the last two items will be to discuss committee administration and homework. The two counties announced their results of the co-chair elections. They are as follows: Angelina County Wes Suiter Nacogdoches County Jim Jeffers Tracy stated that committee members should ask questions, ask for clarification, and remember that all input is important. He noted that it is also important for committee members to do their homework and come prepared, and to send proxy if members are unable to attend. He asked that committee members let him know if they have an assistant or other people they would like added to the contact list for scheduling and materials purposes. Additionally, he said that if is not the preferred way to communicate, please let him know the best phone number or contact preference. Tracy then explained that there may be media and citizen questions during this process. The current protocol is for staff to take the call and have committee members respond since you are the community ambassadors and spokespeople for this study. If you re not able to provide a response, if your business prefers you not be making media statements or something like that, no problem, just let him know. And, we ll be working with the co-chairs on most media inquiries but may reach out to others on the committee if the co-chairs are unavailable or if the inquiry is something specifically related to your background. Tracy said that today s meeting was scheduled based on the responses for convenient times and days that committee members provided in their applications. He asked if Tuesday afternoons are a good time for everyone going forward? He also noted that TXDOT was considering January 22 for the next meeting and asked if it would work for everyone. There were no objections, so the next meeting was set for January 22, 2013 from 2:00PM to 5:00PM. The committee agreed that the January 22, 2013 meeting would be at the TxDOT Lufkin District Office. Tracy also informed the committee that TxDOT was in the process of developing an group so that committee members can communicate with each other via one address and information on this group would be sent to committee members in the near future. Page 8 of 10

10 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Meeting Tracy addressed the committee members and said that as you make contact with the public and conduct one-on-one discussions informing them of the study and the current efforts underway, it is important you document with whom you meet. We have included an outreach activity form in your packet. The first one is a completed sample form for the I-69 Segment Committee public outreach process for you to use as an example (Attachment 11). We have also included several blank forms in the back pocket of your notebook. The bottom of the form includes information on how to return them once they are completed. If you need more forms you can duplicate them yourself and we will also be forwarding this form electronically to your . Committee Homework and Adjourn Tracy reiterated that the next meeting will be January 22, 2013 from 2:00PM to 5:00PM at the TxDOT Lufkin District. He said that for the next meeting there s a few things committee members should do: Begin your one-on-one outreach by engaging individuals regarding this process and showing them the US 59 Upgrade and New Location Options map. The maps are at the back of the room so please grab a handful when you leave. If you need more maps, you can get more from either the TxDOT Lufkin office or contact me and I ll get some in the mail to you. Additionally, TxDOT will be sending these electronically if you would like to print your own. Start brainstorming potential outreach activities and how you think it will be most effective to gather citizen feedback. Begin considering any potential concerns or issues that may affect the two options. These may be things you have or that you hear about in your community conversations. You may want to meet as a group or exchange s regarding these matters before the next meeting. It is important that we capture your knowledge of the area and your ideas to make this effort successful. A committee member asked if this was similar to a I-69 Segment Committee dialogue continued. Tracy said that yes it is similar however, it is for a more drilled down area (Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties). He stressed that documentation is extremely important and at the next meeting, the committee will brainstorm on formal outreach. Jefferson Grimes added that committee members should begin discussing a public outreach plan of action. Also committee members should attend local community meetings and let people know what is happening. Roger then added that the brainstorming should include ideas to reach those in the public who don t usually attend the public workshops and meetings that TxDOT traditionally holds. Tracy commented that for the rural transportation plan, a list of stakeholders was developed and they were kept informed via and that staff would start developing a stakeholder list. A committee member inquired as to the process if a question is asked at a local community meeting and the committee member does not know the answer. Several options were discussed and it was decided that a point of contact will be sent next week. Tracy again thanked the committee members for being at the meeting today and for volunteering to serve on this committee. The meeting was adjourned and additional maps and outreach forms were provided to the members as they exited. Page 9 of 10

11 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Meeting Attachments: 1. Sign-In Sheets 2. Agenda 3. Committee Charge and Purpose Exhibit 4. Power Point Presentation Note Pages 5. Status of I-69 System Map 6. Interstate Designation Status Map 7. US 59 Upgrade and New Locations Options Exhibit and Handout 8. Glossary of Technical Terms 9. Interstate Designation Process 10. US 59 Upgrade and New Location Layouts 11. Committee Member Input on the US 59 Upgrade and New Location Layouts 12. Sample and Blank Committee Outreach Activity Forms Meeting Staff in attendance included: Jefferson Grimes-TxDOT, Roger Beall-TxDOT, Lindsey Kimmitt-TxDOT, Tracy Hill-Consultant, Tina Brown-Consultant, Jerel Rackley-Consultant, James Lowe-Consultant Page 10 of 10

12 1/18/2013 I 69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Meeting January 22, 2013 TxDOT Mission: Work with others to provide safe and reliable transportation solutions for Texas. Meeting Objective Review, discuss and understand the study options comparison factors Decide on strategies, information and schedule for the committee s public outreach effort 1

13 1/18/2013 Agenda Administrative I 69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Scoping Study Option Comparison December 11, 2012 Homework Results Public Outreach Brainstorming Schedule for Public Outreach and Next Meeting Homework Assignment Adjourn Administrative December 11, 2012 Meeting Notes Review 2

14 1/18/2013 I 69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Scoping Study US 59 Upgrade and New Location Options Comparison Quantifiable Factors Environmental Traffic Engineering I 69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Scoping Study US 59 Upgrade and New Location Options Comparison Non Quantifiable Factors Ability to phase construction Funding considerations and estimated local participation Funding and funding sources Economic Development and impacts to existing businesses Other items 3

15 1/18/2013 Homework Review What public communication strategies would be effective to gather feedback on the improvement options? What types of public information materials would be useful? What are the most important messages for the citizens to hear? When and where should community meetings, such as open houses, be held? Which elected officials should be engaged so they can serve as conduits for public communication? What is the public s general awareness of I 69 planning in Angelina and Nacogdoches counties? I 69 Website Informational site for ongoing I 69 planning activities Within I 69 website, dedicated page for I 69 Angelina and Nacogdoches planning I 69 Angelina and Nacogdoches planning webpage can include: Public comment function Contact information 4

16 1/18/2013 Print Materials Fact Sheet Includes general information on the study, lists web address Smaller, postcard size materials For more general public distribution Multi page brochure For distribution at community meetings, open houses, and kiosks 5

17 1/18/2013 Community Meetings Local leadership and community meetings Commissioners Courts City Councils Rotary and Lions Clubs PTAs Chamber of Commerce Open Houses Led/Sponsored by Committee Members Stations with maps and displays Media Traditional Media Advisories from TxDOT to media outlets Op eds and Editorial Board interviews by Committee Members Interviews Social Media Posting can be done through Committee Members accounts 6

18 1/18/2013 Public Outreach Brainstorming What public communication strategies would be effective to gather feedback on the improvement options? What types of public information materials would be useful? What are the most important messages for the citizens to hear? When and where should community meetings, such as open houses, be held? Which elected officials should be engaged so they can serve as conduits for public communication? What is the public s general awareness of I 69 planning in Angelina and Nacogdoches counties? Committee Homework Continue community conversation about study Continue to document concerns and needs on options Provide comment and feedback on public involvement plan and materials Follow up on individual public involvement assignments 7

19 1/18/2013 Tracy Hill, Facilitator (512) Cell: (512)

20 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Options Comparison Quantifiable Factors The environmental factors identified below were compared to one another and given a relative factor of higher or lower for each option being studied. A higher rating for an option means there is a greater potential to affect that environmental factor and a lower rating indicates there is less of a potential to affect the environmental factor. ANGELINA COUNTY NACOGDOCHES COUNTY FACTORS (1) US 59 UPGRADE OPTION (2) NEW LOCATION OPTION (US 59 MASTER PLAN) (3) US 59 UPGRADE OPTION (2) NEW LOCATION OPTION (US 59 MASTER PLAN) (3) ENVIRONMENTAL CULTURAL RESOURCES POTENTIAL AND IDENTIFIED HISTORIC HIGHER LOWER HIGHER LOWER POTENTIAL ARCHEOLOGICAL LOWER HIGHER LOWER HIGHER DISPLACEMENTS POTENTIAL DISPLACEMENTS - COMMERCIAL HIGHER LOWER HIGHER LOWER POTENTIAL DISPLACEMENTS - RESIDENTIAL LOWER HIGHER LOWER HIGHER WATERS OF THE US (FLOODPLAIN, STREAMS, WETLANDS, OTHER) LAND USE (AS CATEGORIZED BY NATIONAL LAND COVER DATABASE 2006) FOREST, GRASS, AGRICULTURAL, WATER AND WETLANDS, AND BARREN LANDS PRIME FARMLAND SOILS LOWER HIGHER LOWER HIGHER LOWER HIGHER LOWER HIGHER LOWER HIGHER LOWER HIGHER COMMUNITY FEATURES COMMUNITY FACILITIES (CHURCH, SCHOOLS, CEMETERY, PUBLIC WATER WELLS) HIGHER LOWER HIGHER LOWER AFFECT TO COMMUNITY DURING CONSTRUCTION HIGHER LOWER HIGHER LOWER ALTERED CROSS STREET HIGHER LOWER HIGHER LOWER UTILITIES AND OTHER (RAILROADS, OIL & GAS, TRANSMISSION LINES, PIPELINES) LOWER HIGHER LOWER HIGHER TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE AND TRAVEL TIMES SEE EXHIBIT AND HANDOUTS SEE EXHIBIT AND HANDOUTS ENGINEERING ROADWAY LENGTH 25.7 MILES 26.1 MILES 22.7 MILES 23.0 MILES DESIGN SPEED LUFKIN LOOP 50 MPH ALL OTHER 70 MPH 70 MPH NACOGDOCHES LOOP 50 MPH ALL OTHER 70 MPH 70 MPH ACCESS ROADS CONTINUOUS ACCESS ROADS NON CONTINUOUS ACCESS ROADS CONTINUOUS ACCESS ROADS NON CONTINUOUS ACCESS ROADS ROW NEEDS LOWER HIGHER LOWER HIGHER ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $370,000,000 to $460,000,000 $345,000,000 to $430,000,000 $275,000,000 to $340,000,000 $235,000,000 to $290,000,000 ESTIMATED ROW, UTILITIES & ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION COST $110,000,000 to $145,000,000 $35,000,000 to $50,000,000 $85,000,000 to $110,000,000 $35,000,000 to $55,000,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT COST $55,000,000 to $75,000,000 $50,000,000 to $70,000,000 $40,000,000 to $55,000,000 $35,000,000 to $45,000,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $535,000,000 to $680,000,000 $430,000,000 to $550,000,000 $400,000,000 to $505,000,000 $305,000,000 to $390,000,000 TRAVEL LANES TO BE MAINTAINED IN THE FUTURE 212 LANE-MILES 256 LANE-MILES 180 LANE-MILES 209 LANE-MILES (1) (2) (3) NOTE: Measures shown are at a planning level of detail for comparison purposes only. Potential impacts will be studied in greater detail and updated during the environmental process. The US 59 Upgrade Option is based on maintaining the existing centerline of US 59 and widening to both sides of the roadway. Efforts will be taken to develop a more refined design to minimize impacts during the environmental process. The New Location Option is based on the US 59 Master Plan developed by TxDOT and an assumed right-of-way width between US 259 and US 59 north of Nacogdoches. Efforts will be taken to develop a more refined design to minimize impacts during the environmental process. Non Quantifiable Factors Ability to phase construction Funding considerations and estimated local participation Economic Development and impacts to existing businesses Other items Working Draft January 14, 2013 Preliminary and Subject to Change

21 « Å2664 Å Å2609 «204 This section of the New Location Option beyond US 259 was not studied as part of the US 59 Master Plan and is to be determined during the environmental process 259 Å2664 Å Å2609 Å 941 Å 698 Appleby Å 343 Å 1878 Å 941 Å 698 Appleby Å 343 Å 1878 Å1638 Å1638 «21 Lake Nacogdoches Å3314 Å2609 «495 Å1411 Å1275 Nacogdoches «224 «21 Lake Nacogdoches Å3314 Å2609 «495 Å1411 Å1275 Nacogdoches «224 Å 225 NACOGDOCHES Å 225 NACOGDOCHES Å2863 Å2259 Å2863 Å2259 v e r «7 Ange lina Na tion al For est Å Å3228 Å1275 i v e r «7 Ange lina Na tion al For est Å Å3228 Å1275 Ange lina National Forest Ange lina National Forest 69 Å 843 Lake Kurth 69 Å 843 Lake Kurth Å2021 Å 842 Å2021 Å 842 «103 Å 706 Å2251 Å3439 «103 Å 706 Å2251 Å3439 Å 706 Å3150 «287 «103 Å 706 Hudson Å3150 «287 Å 325 «103 «94 Hudson Å1194 Å 1271 Å 324 Lufkin Å1877 Å 325 Å 841 Å 1475 Å 326 «94 Å1194 Å 1271 Å 324 Lufkin Å1877 Å 841 Å 1475 Å 326 Å3482 Å3482 Å Burke Å 819 Å2108 Å 58 Å 326 ANGELINA Å Burke Å 819 Å2108 Å 58 Å 326 ANGELINA For the US 59 Upgrade Option, existing US 59 through Diboll would become US 59 Business For the New Location Option, this section would serve as a connection to I-69 Diboll Å1818 Diboll Å1818 Å US 59 Upgrade Option Speed Limits 1 New Location Option Speed Limits 2 US Highway State Highway FM Highway Existing Railroad County Line City Limit POLK Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Speed Limit 3 40 mph 45 mph 50 mph 55 mph 60 mph 70 mph 75 mph Notes: 1. Assumes current speed limits on US 59 through Diboll. 2. Assumes current speed limits on US 59 through Diboll, Lufkin and Nacogdoches. 3. Speed limit locations are approximate. POLK 1987 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Scoping Study US 59 Upgrade Option and New Location Option Anticipated Year 2047 Speed Limits Working Conceptual Draft Subject to Change - January 14, 2013 Option Locations are Approximate Miles T:\GIS_Data_Sets\US59\Lufkin_Diboll_Nacogdoches_ReliefRoute\geo\figs\NLD_UpgradeandNewLocation_Speedlimits.mxd

22 Å 343 « Å2664 Å Å2609 Å 138 Travel Times at Peak Hour South of Diboll to Angelina River Angelina River to North of Appleby 20.7 minutes 16.9 minutes Å 225 Å 698 Å 941 Appleby W a n d e r s C r e e k Å 95 Å 343 Å 1878 A t t o y a c B a y o u Å1638 «21 Lake Nacogdoches Å3314 Å2609 «495 Nacogdoches Å1411 «224 Å2112 «7 Å2713 Å1275 Å 225 «21 Å 1 Å2863 Å2259 A n g e l i n a R i v e r 59 Å3228 «7 Å1275 Å2782 Angelina National Forest NACOGDOCHES 69 Å 843 Angelina National F orest Lake Kurth Å 226 Angelina National F ores t Å2021 Å 842 «103 Å 706 Å3439 Å2251 N e c h e s R i v e r ANGELINA Å 706 Å3150 Hudson «287 Lufkin Å 325 Å 841 Å 1475 Å 326 «103 Å1669 Sam Rayburn Reservoir «94 Å1194 Å1271 Å 324 Å3482 Å1877 Å 328 Huntington Å2109 Å2497 For the US 59 Upgrade Option, existing US 59 through Diboll would become US 59 Business 59 Burke Å 819 Å2108 Å 58 Å 326 Angelina National Forest Å2501 Dav y C roc kett National F orest TRINITY Å 357 Å2262 Diboll Working Conceptual Draft Subject to Change - January 16, 2013 Option Locations are Approximate Å1987 Å1818 POLK Å 844 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Scoping Study US 59 Upgrade Option Zavalla Year 2047 Level of Service (LOS) Estimate Legend US Highway Level of Service (LOS) State Highway A Å FM Highway B Existing Railroad Å1270 C River/Stream Reservoir/Lake County Line City Limit Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Angelina N at Ang Miles T:\GIS_Data_Sets\US59\Lufkin_Diboll_Nacogdoches_ReliefRoute\geo\figs\NLD_LOS_UpgradeOption.mxd

23 Å 343 «204 This section of the New Location Option beyond US 259 was not studied as part of the US 59 Master Plan and is to be determined during the environmental process 259 Å2664 Å Å2609 Travel Times at Peak Hour (Along New Location Option) South of Diboll to Angelina River Å 138 Angelina River to North of Appleby 18.8 minutes 15.2 minutes Å 225 Å 698 Å 941 Appleby W a n d e r s C r e e k Å 95 Å 343 Å 1878 A t t o y a c B a y o u Å1638 «21 Lake Nacogdoches Å3314 Å2609 «495 Nacogdoches Å1411 «224 Å2112 «7 Å2713 Å1275 Å 225 «21 Å 1 Å2863 Å2259 A n g e l i n a R i v e r 59 Å3228 «7 Å1275 Å2782 Angelina National Forest NACOGDOCHES 69 Å 843 Angelina National F orest Lake Kurth Å 226 Angelina National F ores t Å2021 Å 842 «103 Å 706 Å3439 Å2251 N e c h e s R i v e r ANGELINA Å 706 Å3150 Hudson «287 Lufkin Å 325 Å 841 Å 1475 Å 326 «103 Å1669 Sam Rayburn Reservoir «94 Å1194 Å1271 Å 324 Å3482 Å1877 Å 328 Huntington Å2109 Å2497 For the New Location Option, this section would serve as a connection to I Burke Å 819 Å2108 Å 58 Å 326 Angelina National Forest Å2501 Dav y C roc kett National F orest TRINITY Å 357 Å2262 Diboll Working Conceptual Draft Subject to Change - January 16, 2013 Option Locations are Approximate Å1987 Å1818 POLK Å 844 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Scoping Study New Location Option Zavalla Year 2047 Level of Service (LOS) Estimate Legend US Highway Level of Service (LOS) State Highway A Å FM Highway B Existing Railroad C Å1270 River/Stream D Reservoir/Lake County Line City Limit Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Angelina N at Ang Miles T:\GIS_Data_Sets\US59\Lufkin_Diboll_Nacogdoches_ReliefRoute\geo\figs\NLD_LOS_NewLocationOption.mxd

24 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Typical Sections US 59 Upgrade Option - Four Lane Typical Section with Continuous Access Roads US 59 Upgrade Option Six Lane Typical Section with Continuous Access Roads New Location Option Four Lane Typical Section Working Draft with Non Continuous Access Roads January 14, 2013 Preliminary and Subject to Change

25 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Scoping Study Fact Sheet Why Texas Needs I-69 The I-69 Advisory and Segment committees, led by citizen volunteers, recommend the development of I-69 in Texas to relieve traffic congestion caused by a growing population, provide safer travel through the state, improve emergency evacuation routes, and promote economic development in the region. As a continuation of the citizen-led I-69 development effort, the I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee was created to further guide TxDOT on future I-69 project development. Development of I-69 The I-69 Advisory Committee recommends a two-pronged approach to developing I-69. First, identify those sections of existing highways along the I-69 route that meet Interstate standards and designate them as I-69. TxDOT is currently reviewing the entire I-69 route and working with the Federal Highway Administration and other partners to designate those Interstate-ready sections as I-69. Second, identify those sections that do not meet Interstate standards and begin the project development process which includes identifying community and environmental concerns and needed improvements. TxDOT has initiated several studies to identify projects along the I-69 route. Ultimately, these identified projects will be constructed in small sections as funding becomes available. Study Purpose US 59, the I-69 route through Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties, does not currently meet Interstate standards. The purpose of this study is to collaborate with the citizens and communities of these two counties to determine their recommendation on an option for improving US 59 to Interstate standards, with the eventual goal of designating and signing US 59 as I-69. Two broad options are under consideration: The first option is to upgrade the existing US 59 roadway and expand it to meet present and future needs. The second option is to build relief routes around Nacogdoches and Lufkin. The recommended option may be one or the other or a combination of the two. Information and feedback from the scoping study will be used to develop recommendations. The study will include: A comprehensive look at travel and traffic patterns An inventory of existing roadway and environmental features along each option Public outreach and input through a stakeholder committee, community presentations, and other meetings The recommendations from the scoping study will be carried forward into one or more environmental studies. The scoping study is anticipated to be complete in summer Public Input The I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee is comprised of local citizen stakeholders. The committee is reviewing the US 59 Upgrade and New Location options and talking with the community and neighbors about their recommendations and any concerns and issues that may need to be addressed. The work and recommendations of the committee, along with citizen input, will guide TxDOT on future I-69 project development. Comments about the options can be submitted online at or by mail to: Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Kelly Morris 1805 North Timberland Drive Lufkin, Texas For further information, please refer to the website: or contact Kelly Morris, TxDOT Lufkin District at kelly.morris@txdot.gov and (936)

26 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Glossary of Technical Terms Access Road Alignment At-Grade Intersections A roadway that accommodates local traffic along a major transportation facility. The direction and location of a road including horizontal (such as roadway curves) and vertical (such as hills) configurations. The meeting point of two roadways at ground level. Build Option The Build Option is the construction of roadway improvements such as new highway facilities to solve transportation problems in an area. Community Features Controlled Access Cross Traffic Resources that support a community such as schools, libraries, parks, etc. Roadway facility that limits entering and exiting to select locations and prohibits driveway access. Motorists that intend to pass over or cross a roadway facility to continue their trip. Cross Street A roadway that intersects the project roadway. Page 1

27 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Crossovers Paved areas in the median that allow motorists to change their direction in travel. Cultural Resources Design Speed Diboll Relief Route Direct Connections Structures or archeological finds that are historically important. Design speed is a selected speed used to determine the various design features of a roadway. Selection of design speed is influenced primarily by the roadway type, roadside development (rural or urban), and terrain. The US 59 Relief Route at Diboll was studied by the TxDOT Lufkin District as an environmental assessment in the late 1990 s. It received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), from FHWA in July 1999 which means that the project was cleared environmentally. The preferred alternative was east of Diboll. Type of interchange that connects two roadways and allows motorists to maintain higher speeds and not stop at intersections. Displacement The physical impact to a residential, commercial, or community facility structure that would require the occupants to abandon use of that structure and obtain another structure for the same use. Environmental Assessment (EA) The environmental document that is prepared to disclose the potential for impacts resulting from a proposed project. EAs are prepared to determine if there is a potential for significant environmental impacts as a result of the proposed project. Page 2

28 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Environmental Documents Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Interchange To meet National Environmental Policy Act requirements, federal agencies must prepare environmental documents such as Categorical Exclusions (CE) for projects that have minimal impacts, Environmental Assessments (EA), when the extent of the impacts are unknown, and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for projects with the potential for significant impacts. The Federal agency responsible for the administration of federal highway funds. Any project which plans to use federal highway funds must be managed and approved by the FHWA. Designated location where traffic exits or enters a controlled access facility at lower speeds. Interstate Design Standards The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 called for uniform geometric and construction standards for the Interstate System. The standards were developed by the State highway agencies and adopted by the Federal Highway Administration. Examples of design standards for the Interstate System include full control of access, design speeds of 50 to 70 miles per hour, a minimum of two travel lanes in each direction, 12-foot lane widths, 10-foot right paved shoulder, and 4-foot left paved shoulder. The design must be adequate to meet the traffic volumes expected for a 20-year design period. Level of Service Median A measure used to describe the congestion and traffic flow of a roadway. The space between travel lanes. Median National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions in their decision making processes. Page 3

29 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee New Location Roadway No Build Option Off-Ramp A roadway that deviates from the existing roadway location on a new alignment. The No Build Option would maintain the existing facility without any additional improvements except for routine maintenance and those projects currently underway. The part of an interchange that allows a motorist to exit a controlled access roadway. On-Ramp The part of an interchange that allows a motorist to enter a controlled access roadway. Overpass Bridge that extends over a local roadway. Prime Farmland Soils Soils that are known to best support agricultural activity. Page 4

30 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Relief Route Relief Route A roadway that extends around a community to minimize unnecessary traffic congestion within the town. City Right-of-Way Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) The land required for a roadway and all associated facilities. The State agency responsible for planning, constructing, maintaining, inspecting, regulating, and distributing funding for state transportation facilities including roads, bridges, waterways, and airports. Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) Secondary Source Data A potential alternate funding source for roadway projects. The program provides Federal credit assistance in the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit to finance surface transportation projects of national and regional significance. TIFIA can help advance qualified, large-scale projects that otherwise might be delayed or deferred because of size, complexity, or uncertainty over the timing of revenues. Each dollar of Federal funds can provide up to $10 in TIFIA credit assistance - and leverage $30 in transportation infrastructure investment. A potential alternate funding source for roadway projects which can be implemented by cities and counties. Tax increases from the increased property value would be captured and a portion could be spent for improvements in the TRZ. The other portion would be deposited to a state treasure fund for use within the specific municipality or county and spent on future pass-through financing projects within the municipality or county. Data that has been collected by and is readily available from other sources. Page 5

31 I-69 Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties Committee Split Diamond Interchange An interchange which provides on and off ramps from and to the mainlanes at two different local road locations. Through Traffic Turn bays Motorists that enter a town with no intention of stopping in the town. Dedicated right or left turn lane at roadway intersections. Turn Bay US 59 Master Plan US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Upgrade Existing Roadway Waters of the US A study by the TxDOT Lufkin District conducted in the late 1990 s/early 2000 s. It included an EA which identified a US 59 relief route preferred alternative on new location east of Lufkin and west of Nacogdoches. The limits were from US 259 north of Nacogdoches to the Diboll Relief Route. The Federal agency responsible for working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Redesign or rebuild local roadway to improve roadway quality. Waterbodies including wetland area that are regulated by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers if impacts would occur. Page 6