I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

MEMORANDUM OF MEETING

SUBJECT: Corridor Segment Committee 4 and 5 Meeting DATE: July 20, 2010 LOCATION: Ainsworth Trucking, Robstown, Texas ATTENDING: Attendees are listed on attached sign-in sheets (Attachment 1) The purpose of this meeting was to: 1) review the Corridor Segment Committee (CSC) 4 and CSC 5 May 2010 meeting notes; 2) finalize the Transportation Facilities to be Considered when Developing the I-69 Corridor Program Map; 3) begin to finalize the updated Conceptual Interstate Layout within the CSC limits; 4) review upcoming CSC meeting activities. The meeting agenda is included as Attachment 2. Welcome/Introductions: David Ainsworth welcomed the attendees to their facility in Robstown. Pat Liston, CSC 4 Chair, also welcomed the CSC 4 attendees and reminded them of the issues raised at the May meeting regarding the Riviera relief route. He then explained that TxDOT addressed the questions that were raised during the May meeting and validated the reasons for advancing an eastern Riviera relief route as part of the US 77 upgrade project that is currently being studied. Terry Simpson, CSC 5 Chair, then welcomed the CSC 5 members and introduced the new District Engineer for the Corpus Christi District, John Casey, P.E. Terry Simpson also reported that he recently met with Commissioner Meadows about the designation of interstate routes and the need to engage Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) about the designation of US 77 as I-69. Art Garcia, CSC 4 and CSC 5 facilitator, then had the attendees introduce themselves. Art explained that the maps and information being presented are work in progress and very preliminary. He further explained that each of the five CSCs are in the process of working towards the common goal of providing input into the development of an I-69 Corridor Program Plan. The information that will be presented over the course of the next few CSC meetings is intended to assist the CSCs in this effort. Administrative:

1. May CSC 4 and CSC 5 meeting notes review and summary – No changes were made or comments received on the notes.

2. Art advised the CSC members that the Planning Features Map Booklet has been

updated to include those planning/environmental features that the CSC members identified to date. If they know of new planning features that may be important to the current and future I-69 Corridor planning efforts, he requested that they update the map booklets with that information during the meeting break as well as after the meeting.

Page 1 of 4

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

CSC Activity to Finalize Transportation Facilities to Consider when Developing the I-69 Corridor Program Maps Art explained that the intent today is to review the updates from the May meeting, and confirm that the map accurately reflects the facilities that the CSC members believe should be considered when developing the I-69 Corridor Program. He referred them to the 11 x 17 handouts showing the updated maps. While they were reviewing the updated maps, Art requested that they focus on the following to make sure the maps accurately reflect the input of the CSC 4 and CSC 5 members:

The blue dashed lines representing the highway facilities that the CSC members believe should be designated as an I-69 Corridor Program Facility, meaning that it could potentially be upgraded to a controlled access interstate highway.

The brown dashed lines representing those existing and planned highway routes, travel destinations, and rail facilities that the CSC members believe the I-69 Corridor Program should consider connecting to and/or serve.

Art inquired if the members had any further input on the maps. The CSC members made several final edits to the maps and identified a few additional connecting facilities. This input was added to the CSC 4 and CSC 5 maps presented in Attachment 3. To conclude this activity, Art requested that the CSC members periodically review the updated maps resulting from this activity to assess if any updates should be made over the course of developing the I-69 Corridor Program Plan. Finally, based on a CSC 3 inquiry made during their May 2010 meeting, Art explained that the CSC 3 members would appreciate understanding the CSC 4 and CSC 5 perspectives regarding the rationale for designating US 77 as an interstate between Victoria and I-37. A CSC 3 member was present at this meeting to hear their input. After discussing the matter with the CSC 3 representative, the CSC 4 and CSC 5 members provided the following rationale for designating US 77 as an interstate facility in this area:

The upgrade of US 77 to an Interstate Highway between the Rio Grande Valley and Victoria has merit because it is an important transportation link providing connectivity between the Port of Houston, the Port of Victoria, the Port of Corpus Christi, and the Rio Grande Valley and its ports, 3 airports and 7 international bridges.

Designating US 77 as an Interstate Highway between the Rio Grande Valley and

Victoria will increase the economic competitiveness of the ports along the Gulf Coast and serve the substantial multi-modal commerce generated in the Rio Grande Valley which is dependent upon US 77.

US 77 provides the most direct route between the Rio Grande Valley, the Corpus Christi

region, Victoria, and north to Houston. If US 77 is not upgraded to an Interstate Highway in the Refugio area, heavy truck traffic would nevertheless continue to use US 77 to avoid a back-track trip of nearly 50 miles assuming I-69 followed I-37 to George West and then US 59 north to Victoria. As such, haz-mat vehicles and heavy truck traffic would continue to adversely affect the safety of Refugio residents and visitors.

Page 2 of 4

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Because US 77 provides the most direct route between the Rio Grande Valley and

points north along the Gulf Coast, interstate and international commerce would best be served by upgrading US 77 to an Interstate Highway and designating it as I-69.

There are numerous examples of towns (i.e. Sinton, Kingsville, and others throughout

the state) that have economically benefitted from the development of relief routes that divert heavy truck traffic yet maintains efficient access and connectivity to the town through the use of informative signage and strategically placed interchanges and other access points.

The CSC 3 member expressed appreciation for this input and indicated that he would present it to the CSC 3 members during the July 26, 2010 meeting. CSC Activity to Review the Updated Conceptual Interstate Layout Within the CSC 4 and CSC 5 Limits Marc Williams explained that the CSC members are to review the updated Conceptual Interstate Layout sheets resulting from the May 2010 CSC meetings and work towards incorporating their final comments and recommendations regarding the following:

1. Locations where relief routes should be considered near towns 2. Locations where the Conceptual Interstate Layout should be shifted to avoid

development or other sensitive features 3. Locations where interchanges should be considered, moved, or deleted 4. Locations where access roads adjacent to the mainline interstate facility would be

needed or not needed 5. The limits where an urban or rural typical section should be considered

The Conceptual Interstate Layout that was presented showed interstate mainlanes, potential interchange locations, and approximate existing and potential right of way limits. New access roads were also shown for planning purposes, except where the CSC members indicated they may not be needed or could be scaled back. Marc re-emphasized that the Conceptual Interstate Layout is preliminary and is for planning purposes only. It does not constitute a “design” because it does not take into account topography, drainage, and many other detailed design elements. Marc then explained that if there were any comments suggesting a relief route, a shift in alignment, a narrower right of way, or other type of design issue that would require drawing a new layout, it would be handled by incorporating an explanatory note onto the Conceptual Interstate Layout sheets. Suggestions regarding interchange locations, urban/rural typical section limits, and the incorporation of design features of other existing TxDOT District projects along the specified routes would be incorporated into the Conceptual Interstate Layout. Before starting the activity, Marc informed the CSC members that their input on the Conceptual Interstate Layout will be used to develop an order of magnitude cost estimate for the I-69 Corridor Program. As such, the CSC members were encouraged to take a close look at where different components of the interstate could be scaled back (i.e. no access roads) in an effort to control the cost of the I-69 Corridor Program.

Page 3 of 4

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

For the next 1½ hours the CSC members reviewed and provided input on the Conceptual Interstate Layout sheets. CSC meeting staff were available to provide guidance and assistance in recording the CSC suggestions and recommendations on the sheets. A summary of the CSC input is included as Attachment 4. Discussion of Next Meeting (October 2010) Activities Art indicated that October 2010 was the target date for the next meeting. At the next meeting, the CSC members will:

• Begin the process of reviewing order of magnitude cost estimates based on the CSC input on the Conceptual Interstate Layout in May and July 2010.

• Begin the process of assessing CSC I-69 Corridor Program project priorities. Wrap Up Doise Miers thanked the CSC members for their participation and input and encouraged them to visit the TxDOT I-69 website: www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm. Doise indicated that the next CSC meeting will be held in October and that it will be again a joint CSC 4 and CSC 5 meeting. Adjourn The meeting was then adjourned. Supplemental Meeting with CSC 4 and 5 Members A supplemental meeting was arranged for the CSC members from Jim Wells County and the City of George West who were unable to participate in the July 20, 2010 CSC 4 and CSC 5 joint meeting. The meeting was held on August 3, 2010 at the Jim Wells County Courthouse in Alice, Texas. The notes from this meeting are included as Attachment 5. Attachments:

1. Sign-In Sheet 2. Agenda 3. Transportation Facilities Proposed by Members of CSC 4 and CSC 5 4. Summary of CSC Input on the Conceptual Interstate Layout Sheets 5. Meeting notes from August 3, 2010 Supplemental Meeting

Meeting Staff included: Ed Pensock-TxDOT/TTA, Doug Booher-TxDOT/TTA, Doise Miers-TxDOT/GPA, Roger Beall-TXDOT/TTA, Art Garcia–Consultant, Marc Williams-Consultant, Michael Sexton-Consultant, Joe Shalkowski-Consultant, Tina Brown-Consultant, Ariel Zarate-Carmona-Consultant

Page 4 of 4

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Attachment 1 Sign-In Sheet

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Attachment 2 Agenda

I-69 Corridor Segment Committee 4 and 5 Meeting

July 20, 2010 1:00PM – 4:00PM

Welcome/Introductions Administrative Art Garcia

Facilitator Review May 2010 Meeting Notes Planning Features Map Book available for additional input

Finalize the Transportation Facilities to be Considered when Art Garcia Developing the I-69 Corridor Program Map Facilitator

The CSC members will be asked if they have any final edits or additional input on which specific routes should be upgraded to interstate standards as a part of I-69 or which facilities the interstate should connect to and why.

CSC Review of the Updated Conceptual Interstate Layout within Marc Williams the CSC Limits Based on Input Received During the May 2010 Meeting Facilitator

CSC Group Activity to review and begin to finalize the updated Conceptual Interstate Layout, which identifies the routes to be upgraded to interstate standards and where consideration should be given to

relief routes, shifts in location, urban and rural typical section limits, access road limits, and interchange locations. Once the CSC completes work on reviewing and updating the Conceptual

Interstate Layout, order of magnitude costs and potential individual project limits can begin to be developed for CSC review and input at the next CSC meeting.

The Conceptual Interstate Layout is preliminary and is for planning purposes only as part of the process of developing a CSC based I-69 Corridor Program of individual projects.

Discussion of Next Meeting Activities TxDOT

Review CSC edits to the Conceptual Interstate Layout. Begin the process of reviewing potential project limits and order of magnitude cost

estimates associated with developing an I-69 Corridor Program. Wrap Up TxDOT

Website update – http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm Meeting Scheduling

Adjourn Facilitator

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Attachment 3 Transportation Facilities

Proposed by Members of CSC 4 and CSC 5

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Attachment 4 Summary of CSC Input on the Conceptual Interstate Layout

Sheets

CSC 4 and CSC 5 - Comments from July 2010 CSC Meetings

Roadway Sheet Summary of CSC member comments and recommendations, as recorded at the July 2010 CSC meeting

SH 44 Sheet 1 of 12 NoneSH 44 Sheet 2 of 12 NoneSH 44 Sheet 3 of 12 NoneSH 44 Sheet 4 of 12 NoneSH 44 Sheet 5 of 12 NoneSH 44 Sheet 6 of 12 (a) Flood plain issues (location sketched)

(b) Levee (location sketched)SH 44 Sheet 7 of 12 (a) Overpass (US 281 at FM 1554) has been funded by TxDOT to be let 7/2011

(b) Levee currently being rebuilt per FEMA

When considering relief route corridors around Alice, alignments to the south of Alice would be preferred by the community for several reasons.• There are floodplain issues to the north of SH 44 between Alice and San Diego along San Diego creek• A southern corridor would better serve the flow of truck traffic coming from US 281 to SH 44• There are a number of oil-field industry truck generators (Halliburton, Schlumberger) that are located on the south east side of Alice that could be serviced by a relief route corridor on the south side of town.• Previous study of a southern relief route by the county and city had commitments from property owners for donating right of way.

Consideration of relief route alignments for San Diego and Alice might need to be a single project for evaluation purposes because of the influence that relief route alignments around one community may have on influencing options around the other community.

The CSC and TxDOT needed to continue to emphasize the SH 44 corridor as an important railroadand freight corridor between Corpus Christi and Laredo. This issue may also influence corridor decisions. It was noted that railroad relocation out of Alice might be a considerationin planning for future relief route corridors.

SH 44 Sheet 8 of 12 NoneSH 44 Sheet 9 of 12 NoneSH 44 Sheet 10 of 12 NoneSH 44 Sheet 11 of 12 NoneSH 44 Sheet 12 of 12 None

US 59 Sheet 1 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 1a of 23 (a) Add interchangeUS 59 Sheet 1b of 23 (a) Tie in to controlled access facility at this point (location sketched)

(b) Remove excess ROW(c) Add interchange(d) Add interchange for already constructed road(e) Label UPRR

US 59 Sheet 2 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 3 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 4 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 5 of 23 (a) Consider continuous access roads (location sketched)US 59 Sheet 6 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 7 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 8 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 9 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 10 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 11 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 12 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 13 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 14 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 15 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 16 of 23 None

10/5/2010 Page 1 of 2 CSC 4-5 July 2010 Comments

CSC 4 and CSC 5 - Comments from July 2010 CSC Meetings

Roadway Sheet Summary of CSC member comments and recommendations, as recorded at the July 2010 CSC meeting

US 59 Sheet 17 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 18 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 19 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 20 of 23 (a) Laredo to George West US 59 all sheets - Update local access note to clarify that access is

provided via access roads or rampsUS 59 Sheet 21 of 23 (a) Consider relief route at George WestUS 59 Sheet 22 of 23 NoneUS 59 Sheet 23 of 23 None

US 77 Sheet 1 of 4 NoneUS 77 Sheet 2 of 4 NoneUS 77 Sheet 3 of 4 NoneUS 77 Sheet 4 of 4 None

US 281 Sheet 1 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 2 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 3 of 28 (a) PHR looking at new connection to SH 1925 and conversion to divided section (location

sketched)US 281 Sheet 4 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 5 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 6 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 7 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 8 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 9 of 28 (a) East property of the Santa Fe Ranch. Heavy Truck accessUS 281 Sheet 10 of 28 (a) TxDOT District has preliminary schematic with shift. (note was at FM 755 interchange with US

281)(b) Flooding and drainage problems (location sketched)

US 281 Sheet 11 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 12 of 28 (a) Border inspection station needs interchange for turn-around

(b) $50M plan for new border station?(c) Center rest area may need reviewed for historic designation and potential design exception(d) King Ranch

US 281 Sheet 13 of 28 (a) Location of new weigh station located in center median. County/DPS/TxDOT coord on new design. (location sketched)(b) Old weigh station

US 281 Sheet 14 of 28 (a) Old weigh station(b) Truck route to Riviera (on 285)(c) Upgraded interchange with new construction will likely solve current problems in town

US 281 Sheet 15 of 28 (a) Consider early opportunity to extend 4-lane divided section(b) La Gloria ISD school needs interchange

US 281 Sheet 16 of 28 (a) Consider realignment of County Road (location sketched)(b) Also consider split diamond overpass(c) Enviro hazard from soil contamination (location sketched)

US 281 Sheet 17 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 18 of 28 (a) Truck route (on SH 141)US 281 Sheet 19 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 20 of 28 (a) Add overpass

From SH 44 Sheet 7 of 12 but pertaining to US 281: Overpass (US 281 at FM 1554) has been funded by TxDOT to be let 7/2011

US 281 Sheet 21 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 22 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 23 of 28 (a) Fueling station area used by busses during evacuationsUS 281 Sheet 24 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 25 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 26 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 27 of 28 NoneUS 281 Sheet 28 of 28 (a) Consider relief route at George West

10/5/2010 Page 2 of 2 CSC 4-5 July 2010 Comments

I-69 Corridor Program Corridor Segment Committee Meeting

Attachment 5 Meeting notes from

August 3, 2010 Supplemental Meeting

Memorandum of Meeting

SUBJECT: Supplemental Meeting with Members of Corridor Segment Committee 4 and 5

DATE: August 3rd, 2010

LOCATION: Jim Wells County Courthouse, Alice, Texas

ATTENDING: Arnold Saenz - Jim Wells County; Susan Durham - Jim Wells County; Sylvia Steel - City of George West; Ventura Garcia Jim Wells County Commissioner, Precinct 2

Doise Miers - TxDOT/GPA; Roger Beall - TxDOT/TTA; Marc Williams - I-69 Mobility Partners

A supplemental meeting was arranged for I-69 Corridor Segment Committee Members from Jim Wells County and the City of George West who were unable to participate in the regularly scheduled I-69 Corridor Segment Committee (CSC) 4 and 5 meeting on Tuesday, July 20th, 2010 in Robstown. The purpose of this meeting was to allow the participants to have an opportunity to review and comment on the revised Conceptual Interstate Layouts that were presented at the July 20th CSC meeting.

At the beginning of the meeting, the attendees were provided copies of the handouts from the July 20th CSC meeting. These included copies of the notes from the May 3rd meeting of CSC 4 in Brownsville and the May 14th meeting of CSC 5 in Sinton. There were no comments or amendments to these notes.

The attendees were then provided an opportunity to review maps identifying the transportation facilities to be considered when developing the I-69 Corridor Program and solicit further input. It was noted to the attendees that the intent of the activity was as follows:

• The CSC members were asked to identify the specific routes they feel should be upgraded to interstate standards as part of I-69.

• They were also asked to identify routes and facilities they feel should connect to I-69.

• The purpose of collecting this information was to gather ideas from the CSC members and that the maps do not represent formal recommendations of the CSC or TxDOT

Comments on the maps received at the July 20th CSC meeting were discussed with the meeting attendees. The following comments were noted by the meeting attendees:

1. Attendees agreed that SH 285 between Falfurrias and Riviera was a dangerous route and a route that was frequently used by trucks and other vehicles attempting to travel between US 281 and US 77. Judge Saenz noted that he thought SH 44 between Alice and Robstown was a better alternative because it was a divided, four-lane highway.

2. Attendees asked about the designation of relief routes to the east of Driscoll and Riviera. It was noted that this topic was discussed at the CSC 4 and 5 meeting in Robstown and key issues that supported the alignment of the relief routes to the east of these communities included the location of the railroad to the west, the historical designation of the King Ranch to the west, and community input that tended to support an eastern alignment.

3. Attendees stated that they would like a note similar to the one that exists on US 77 to be place in US 281 that designates "US 281 Freight Truck Traffic from Lower Valley". Attendees asked if TxDOT could provide traffic counts for truck and auto traffic on US 281 and US 77 for consideration at a future CSC meeting.

Attendees were advised that where appropriate, the next update to the maps would be modified to reflect these changes or these issues would be brought up for committee discussion at the next meeting in October.

Attendees asked about the status of the proposal from Zachry American Infrastructure for the development of US 77. It was noted that this proposal was still under review with the Office of Attorney General. Additionally, it was noted that the proposal did not include any tolling of existing lanes on US 77 or other facilities and that this was specifically precluded by state law and TxDOT policy. Attendees were advised that tolling of relief routes of Driscoll and Riviera were still an option. Attendees asked if TxDOT could confirm the plan for tolling relief routes in Falfurrias and Premont.

The attendees were then allowed an opportunity to review the Conceptual Interstate Layouts for US 59, US 281 and SH 44. The CSC members were asked to review the revised Conceptual Interstate Layout sheets to assess the suitability of upgrading the specified existing highways to interstate standards. They were also instructed to mark directly on the Conceptual Interstate Layout sheets where consideration should be given to the following:

• Locations where relief routes should be considered and why.

• Locations where the Conceptual Interstate Layout should be shifted off its current location and why.

• Locations where a different typical section (i.e. rural or urban) should be considered and why.

• Locations where adjacent access roads should or should not be considered and why.

2

• The addition, deletion, or relocation of any interchanges shown on the Conceptual Interstate Layout and why.

Comments from the attendees were noted on the layouts, however the following items of note were identified:

1. Attendees indicated that when considering relief route corridors around Alice, alignments to the south of Alice would be preferred by the community for several reasons.

• There are floodplain issues to the north of SH 44 between Alice and San Diego along San Diego creek

• A southern corridor would better serve the flow of truck traffic coming from US 281 to SH 44

• There are a number of oil-field industry truck generators (Halliburton, Schlumberger) that are located on the south east side of Alice that could be serviced by a relief route corridor on the south side of town.

• Previous study of a southern relief route by the county and city had commitments from property owners for donating right of way.

2. Attendees noted that consideration of relief route alignments for San Diego and Alice might need to be a single project for evaluation purposes because of the influence that relief route alignments around one community may have on influencing options around the other community.

3. Attendees indicated that it would probably be appropriate to not depict a conceptual interstate layout along US 59 and US 281 through the town of George West because upgrading these routes within the city to full interstate standard did not appear to be a suitable option because of limited right of way and disruption to homes and businesses along US 59 and US 281 in George West. George West would be represented in a manner that is similar to how the conceptual interstate layouts are depicted in Alice. It was noted that in studying relief routes for US 59 and US 281 around George West, an option to relocate US 59 to the south side of town and connect it to US 281 might be a preferred option.

4. Attendees noted that the CSC and TxDOT needed to continue to emphasize the SH 44 corridor as an important railroad and freight corridor between Corpus Christi and Laredo. This issue may also influence corridor decisions. It was noted that railroad relocation out of Alice might be a consideration in planning for future relief route corridors.

3