· in 1977, the governor of texas established the san antonio-bexar county urban transportation...

In 1977, the Governor of Texas established the San Antonio-Bexar County Urban Transportation Study (SABCUTS), Transportation Steering Committee as the official Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the urbanized area. Today, SABCUTS is referred to as the San Antonio-Bexar County MPO. The Transportation Steering Committee, now referred to as the Transportation Policy Board, is comprised of 19 (ten elected and nine appointed) officials representing the State of Texas through the Texas Department of Transportation and the State Delegate Members, Bexar County, the City of San Antonio, Suburban Cities, the Northeast Partnership, Alamo Area Council of Governments, and VIA Metropolitan Transit. The San Antonio-Bexar County MPO is committed to continuously improving the region’s multi-modal transportation system. The Transportation Policy Board also recognizes the importance of a fiscally constrained mobility plan for the area and adopted this Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) on December 6, 2004. Individuals with questions or comments on this document, or those who wish to provide input into the planning process may contact the MPO through the following phone number, mailing address or e-mail address: San Antonio-Bexar County MPO 1021 San Pedro, Suite 2200 San Antonio, Texas 78212 Phone: (210) 227-8651 Fax: (210) 227-9321 Website: www.sametroplan.org E-mail: [email protected]

TPB-Members – 12/06/04

San Antonio – Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Policy Board (TPB)

Voting Members Chairman Lyle Larson Commissioner Bexar County Vice Chair Amy Madison Director of Community Development Northeast Partnership Hon. Leticia Van de Putte State Senator - District 26 State of Texas Hon. Elizabeth Ames Jones Representative - District 121 State of Texas Robert Tejeda Commissioner Bexar County Tommy Adkisson Commissioner Bexar County Joel Williams Councilman - District 2 City of San Antonio Richard Perez Councilman – District 4 City of San Antonio Carroll Schubert Councilman – District 9 City of San Antonio Chip Haass Councilman – District 10 City of San Antonio Gabriel Perez Executive Director for Infrastructure Bexar County Emil R. Moncivais,AICP Director of Planning City of San Antonio Thomas G. Wendorf, P.E. Director of Public Works City of San Antonio Jack Leonhardt Mayor – City of Windcrest Greater Bexar County Council of Cities Hank Brummett VIA Board Member VIA Metropolitan Transit Oliver Hill VIA Board Member VIA Metropolitan Transit David Casteel, P.E. District Engineer Texas Department of Transportation Clay R. Smith, P.E. Planning Engineer Texas Department of Transportation Al Notzon Executive Director Alamo Area Council of Governments Ex-Officio Members John Milam President/CEO VIA Metropolitan Transit Jesse Balleza Env./Transportation Planning Coordinator Federal Highway Administration John Sweek Grants Management Federal Transit Administration Tim Juarez Transportation Planner Texas Department of Transportation Howard Anthony Wood Citizen Citizen Doye Eugene Uptain (Alt.) Citizen (alternate) Citizen Vic Boyer Executive Director San Antonio Mobility Coalition

San Antonio – Bexar County

Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Voting Members Les Locke, P.E. - Chair County Engineer Bexar County Garry Ford, P.E. (Alt) Traffic Section Manager Bexar County Jesús Garza - Vice Chair Planning Manager City of San Antonio Bill Burman Senior Planner City of San Antonio John Friebele, P.E. Traffic Engineer City of San Antonio Todd Hemingson Planning VIA Metropolitan Transit Ana Sandoval (Alt) Planning VIA Metropolitan Transit Dean Danos Deputy Director Alamo Area Council of Governments David Kruse (Alt) Data Resources Mgr. Alamo Area Council of Governments Ken Zigrang Transportation Planner Texas Department of Transportation Judy Friesenhahn, P.E. (Alt) Project Develop.Engineer Texas Department of Transportation John Paul Walker SA Transportation Association Star Shuttle John Williams (Alt) SA Transportation Association Bexar Trailer Blake Partridge Universal City Superintendent Northeast Partnership Matt Smith City Manager City of Shavano Park Ex-Officio Members Roland Hinojosa Utility Coordination Council Tim Juarez Transportation Planner Texas Department of Transportation Les Heinen Aviation Dept. City of San Antonio Richard Garcia Regional Director Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Mobility 2030 San Antonio – Bexar County

Metropolitan Transportation Plan Table of Contents

Executive Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ES-1 Introduction

Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I-1 TEA-21 Planning Factors------------------------------------------------------------------------- I-2 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Mission Statement ------------------------------------- I-4 Metropolitan Transportation Goals ------------------------------------------------------------- I-4 Consistency with Other Local Plans and Programs---------------------------------------- I-6

1. Demographic Development

Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years------------------------------------------------- 1-1 Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1-1 METROPILUS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-2 Population and Households: 2000 – 2030 --------------------------------------------------- 1-2 Income: 2000 – 2030 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-4 Employment: 2000 – 2030 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-4 Land Use Projections------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1-7

2. Transportation Needs Analysis

Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years------------------------------------------------- 2-1 Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-1 Adopted Goals of the Texas Metropolitan Transportation Plan ------------------------- 2-1 Relationship to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan ------------------------------------- 2-3 Texas Congestion Index -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-4 Modeling Results ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-4 Analysis Methods----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2-6

3. Public Involvement Process

Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-1 Public Involvement – Phase 1------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-1 Public Involvement – Phase 2------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-2 Public Involvement – Phase 3------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-3 Public Involvement – Phase 4------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-4 Public Meeting--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-4 Environmental Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-6 Summary --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-8

4. Bicycle Planning and Needs Assessment

Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years------------------------------------------------- 4-1 Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-1 Vision Statement------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-2 Goals and Objectives------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-2 Public Involvement and Community Support ------------------------------------------------ 4-4 Transportation Agency Initiatives--------------------------------------------------------------- 4-5 Bicycle Network Development------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-6 Funding the System-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-9 Summary --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-9

5. Pedestrian System

Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years------------------------------------------------- 5-1 Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5-3 Goals and Objectives------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5-3 Existing Pedestrian System---------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-5 Pedestrian Needs and Issues ------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-5 Programs --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-6

6. Public Transportation Element

Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years------------------------------------------------- 6-1 Goals -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-1 Existing Public Transportation System-------------------------------------------------------- 6-2 The Importance of Public Transportation----------------------------------------------------- 6-5 VIA’s Public Transportation Services ---------------------------------------------------------- 6-7 Public Transportation Needs and Issues ----------------------------------------------------- 6-10 Upcoming Programs for Public Transportation---------------------------------------------- 6-12 Advanced Transportation District: Ten Year Plan ------------------------------------------ 6-14 Consensus-Developed Public Transportation Network ----------------------------------- 6-15 Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6-16

7. Roadway Element

Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years------------------------------------------------- 7-1 Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7-1 Roadway System Policies------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7-1 Roadway Functional Classification------------------------------------------------------------- 7-2 Congestion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7-5 Year 2030 Roadway System -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7-5 Factors Affecting the Future Year Roadway System ------------------------------------- 7-5 Conclusions ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7-7

8. Freight Element

Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years------------------------------------------------- 8-1 Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8-1 Local Freight Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8-1 Hazardous Materials ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8-3 NAFTA Impacts on the Region ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8-4 Conclusions ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8-7

9. Environmental Element

Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years------------------------------------------------- 9-1 Air Quality Background---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9-1 Air Quality Issues ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9-1 Clean Air Plan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9-7 Water Background --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9-8 Local Trends----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9-10 Mitigation Efforts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9-11

10. Congestion Management System Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years------------------------------------------------- 10-1 Goals and Objectives------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10-1 Congestion Management System Overview------------------------------------------------- 10-2 Strategy Implementation Responsibilities ---------------------------------------------------- 10-11 Programs --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10-13

11.Financial Plan

Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11-1 Goals and Objectives------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11-1 Funding Partners ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11-1 Funding Programs---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11-2 Gap Funding----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11-8 Funding Summary---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11-10

12.Project List

Funded Projects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12-1

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 2030 Households by Traffic Serial Zone ------------------------------------------- 1-3 Figure 1.2 Demographic Growth for the San Antonio Area---------------------------------- 1-6 Figure 1.3 2030 Total Employment by Traffic Serial Zone----------------------------------- 1-7 Figure 2.1 Texas Congestion Index Analysis --------------------------------------------------- 2-6 Figure 2.2 2030 Transportation Needs Analysis Results in Lane Mile Equivalents --- 2-7 Figure 3.1 Public Meeting Comment Forms----------------------------------------------------- 3-5 Figure 3.2 MTP Public Involvement Map--------------------------------------------------------- 3-7 Figure 3.3 San Antonio-Bexar County MPO Public Involvement Process --------------- 3-8 Figure 3.4 Public Project Selections--------------------------------------------------------------- 3-9 Figure 4.1 Existing and Funded On & Off-Road Bicycle Facilities ------------------------- 4-6 Figure 4.2 MTP – Public Involvement Bicycle Network -------------------------------------- 4-7 Figure 4.3 Recommended Bicycle Network ---------------------------------------------------- 4-8 Figure 5.1 Implemented Projects in the San Antonio-Bexar County Region ------------ 5-1 Figure 5.2 Completed and Funded Pedestrian Projects-------------------------------------- 5-2 Figure 6.1 VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority Service Area --------------------------------- 6-4 Figure 6.2 Bexar County Population 16 and Over --------------------------------------------- 6-6 Figure 6.3 VIA Metropolitan Transit Fixed Route Service as of January 2004---------- 6-9 Figure 6.4 2030 Consensus Developed Public Transportation Network ----------------- 6-17 Figure 7.1 Functionally Classified System Map ------------------------------------------------ 7-4 Figure 7.2 City of San Antonio Major Thoroughfare Plan Map ----------------------------- 7-6 Figure 8.1 Freight Movement within the MPO Study Area----------------------------------- 8-2 Figure 8.2 Hazardous Material Route Map ------------------------------------------------------ 8-3 Figure 8.3 National Truck Traffic Network Flows----------------------------------------------- 8-4 Figure 8.4 Value of Exports to Mexico and Canada ------------------------------------------- 8-5 Figure 8.5 Value of Imports from Mexico and Canada---------------------------------------- 8-6 Figure 8.6 Breakdown of Truck Traffic at TxDOT Traffic Count Locations, 2003 ------ 8-8 Figure 8.7 Total Truck Traffic at TxDOT Traffic Count Locations, 2003------------------ 8-8 Figure 9.1 Ozone Formation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9-2 Figure 9.2 Locations of Ozone Monitoring Sites------------------------------------------------ 9-3 Figure 9.3 San Antonio Eight-Hour Design Value Trends by Site-------------------------- 9-4 Figure 9.4 Annual Number of Days 8 hour Ozone Averages 85 ppb---------------------- 9-5 Figure 9.5 Air Improvement Resources Committee Structure ----------------------------- 9-7 Figure 9.6 Location of the Edwards Aquifer ----------------------------------------------------- 9-8 Figure 9.7 Edwards Aquifer System -------------------------------------------------------------- 9-9 Figure 9.8 Population Growth ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 9-10 Figure 9.9 Water Pumped---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9-10 Figure 9.10 Aquifer Filter System ------------------------------------------------------------------ 9-11 Figure 10.1 Congested Roadway Facilities------------------------------------------------------- 10-1

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Income Level Categories --------------------------------------------------------------- 1-4 Table 1.2 Employment Categories ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1-5 Table 1.3 Population and Employment Control Totals for the Study Area -------------- 1-5 Table 1.4 MPO Study Area Land Use Distribution -------------------------------------------- 1-7 Table 2.1 Needs-Based Model Run Description ----------------------------------------------- 2-5 Table 2.2 Costs Associated with Additional Lane Mile Equivalents ----------------------- 2-8 Table 5.1 Transportation Improvement Program Project Selection Guidelines -------- 5-8 Table 6.1 VIA Metropolitan Transit Financial Projections to 2030 ------------------------- 6-13 Table 7.1 Functional Classification System Description ------------------------------------- 7-3 Table 9.1 Forecasted Change in Anthropogenic Emissions, 1999-2007 ---------------- 9-6 Table 10.1 Congestion Management System Components and Definitions ------------ 10-3 Table 10.2 Congestion Management Strategies and Implementation Phases --------- 10-5 Table 10.3 Strategy Implementation Responsibilities ---------------------------------------- 10-12 Table 11.1 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Funding Summary 2005-2030 ----------- 11-10

Executive Summary Metropolitan Transportation Plan Background

Planning for the future transportation needs of this region requires a comprehensive look at the current transportation system, future demographics, and the anticipated available funding for the area for transportation projects. Although this seems like a simple exercise, there is a lot of work involved in improving the region’s transportation infrastructure. The San Antonio metropolitan area's economy and environment depend heavily on the condition and efficient performance of our regional transportation system. Recognizing the mobility needs of our community and addressing those needs will eventually lead to improvements in our economy and quality of life. This update to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan aims to take a step in that direction. Public involvement in the planning process is necessary to insure that transportation decisions are not made independently and that Federal tax dollars are used in accordance with legitimate public needs and desires.

In August 1977, the Governor of Texas designated the SABCUTS Steering Committee as the official Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for San Antonio and Bexar County. This organization is the forum for cooperative transportation planning and decision-making by officials of the urban area's local governments and transportation agencies. The MPO Transportation Policy Board is comprised of nine elected and ten appointed officials representing the following entities: state delegation, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Alamo Area Council of Governments, Bexar County, City of San Antonio, 24 local municipalities and VIA Metropolitan Transit.

The passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) marked a significant change in the planning and development of metropolitan transportation systems. In its Declaration of Policy, ISTEA mandates "a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient and environmentally sound...and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner." Specifically, "the National Intermodal Transportation System shall consist of all forms of transportation in a unified, interconnected manner . . . to reduce energy consumption and air pollution while promoting economic development . . ."

On May 22, 1998, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA-21) authorizing highway, highway safety, transit and other surface transportation programs for the next six years. TEA-21 builds on the initiatives established in ISTEA. TEA-21 combines the continuation and improvement of current programs with new initiatives to meet the challenges of improving safety as traffic continues to increase at record levels, protecting and enhancing communities and the natural environment, and advancing America’s economic growth and competitiveness domestically and

MOBILITY 2030 ES - 1 Approved: December 6, 2004

internationally through efficient and flexible transportation. This document was written based on the planning requirements of TEA-21 since a new reauthorization bill has not yet been passed by Congress.

TEA-21 Planning Factors

When Congress passed TEA-21, one of the modifications from ISTEA consolidated the previous sixteen planning factors into seven broad areas. The seven planning factors, listed below, closely reflect the Metropolitan Transportation Plan Goals which are listed later in this section. 1) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling

global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency 2) Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and

non-motorized users 3) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight 4) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and

improve quality of life 5) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system 6) Promote efficient system management and operation 7) Emphasize the preservation of the transportation system Metropolitan Transportation Plan Mission Statement In February 1998, the Transportation Policy Board adopted the following mission statement as part of the MTP:

The San Antonio metropolitan area is served by an environmentally friendly transportation system where everyone is able to walk, ride, drive or wheel in a

safe, convenient, and affordable manner to their desired destinations. Based on the input received through the public involvement process, the following goal statements were derived. MOBILITY 2030 ES - 2 Approved: December 6, 2004

Metropolitan Transportation Plan Goals • Invest in the development of a regional transportation system that serves to increase

the mobility and efficiency of the movement of persons and goods. • Encourage the cost effective expansion of the regional transportation system to meet

the growing mobility needs while ensuring air quality; enhancing the safety of the traveling public; fostering appropriate land use patterns; advancing alternative modes of transportation; and, increasing accessibility for the traditionally under served segments of the community.

• Support systematic and coordinated maintenance programs, and make available the

adequate resources to preserve existing roadways and transit systems. • Increase the efficiency of the existing transportation system and decrease traffic

congestion by coordinating traffic operations and developing and implementing strategies to reduce travel demand at both the regional and corridor levels.

• Invest in a public transit system that meets the existing and projected needs of the

region by developing effective routes and schedules and constructing functional and attractive passenger amenities.

• Incorporate the spirit and intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act pertaining to

mobility and accessibility into all levels of the transportation system. • Enhance the effectiveness of the regional transportation system by addressing the

social, economic, energy and environmental issues of the region in all transportation planning efforts.

• Improve the opportunities for alter-native means of transportation that diminish the

growth in single occupancy vehicles and enhance air quality by upgrading the availability of bicycle and pedestrian facilities; promoting High Occupancy Vehicle analysis in future project planning; investigating opportunities for fixed guideway systems; and encouraging the conversion to alternative fuels.

• Promote the development of a regional transportation system that recognizes the

unique characteristics of the San Antonio-Bexar County area and ensures respect for neighborhoods, historic and archeological resources, the Edwards Aquifer, and other social and environmental issues.


• Promote the development of a regional transportation system that enhances economic activity; provides for employment growth; and encourages public-private partnerships through the equitable distribution of resources.

• Facilitate the involvement and participation of individual citizens, neigh-boyhood and

other interested groups, business and community leaders, local governments, and state agencies in the transportation planning process.

Demographics The basis of any effective planning effort rests primarily on a determination of the area’s base year demographics (population, household size, employment, household income, and land use) and future projections of these demographics. The MPO used 2000 as the base year for this update of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). For the future years, various federal and state government data sources were used for the population and employment forecast totals in five year increments to the year 2030. As a result of this forecasting exercise, it has been projected that residential development in the northwestern and western part of Bexar County, between Loop 410 and the Medina County Line, will grow significantly. The northeast part of the study area is expected to grow as well. Southern Bexar County is forecast to show higher than normal gains in the number of households, mainly due to the anticipated opening of the new Toyota Plant. Employment growth will continue in western Bexar County and across the north. The trend appears to be for most of the employment growth to occur generally outside Loop 410 to the Bexar County Line. One exception to this trend is downtown San Antonio, where growth will be substantial. Continued growth in the medical center area will be a factor in the northwest. The Toyota Plant will be a factor in employment growth in south Bexar County. Transportation Needs Analysis This is the first time that a Needs Analysis was completed as an initial step in the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) update. The eight largest MPOs in Texas (known as Transportation Management Areas or TMAs), in a collaborative manner, developed their regions’ components for the Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan (TMMP). The TMMP requires the eight TMA’s to adopt a comprehensive, locally developed, visionary, realistic, and financially unconstrained plan to reduce congestion and improve mobility and air quality. While the MTP serves as a financially constrained plan identifying only what can be afforded given anticipated funding streams, the TMMP goes one step further and becomes a needs-based plan, which quantifies transportation needs beyond the fiscal constrained barrier.

After performing the steps involved in the TMMP process, it is anticipated that the area will need approximately $4.9 billion dollars to eliminate all severe congestion. Another $2.7 billion is needed to build future proposed freeway-to-freeway interchanges for the area MOBILITY 2030 ES - 4 Approved: December 6, 2004

and $782 million is needed to purchase the right-of-way to construct these new improvements. This calls for a total need of $8.38 billion for new capacity as a result of this needs based plan. Furthermore, as transportation infrastructure continues to age and begins to fail, the area must find the dollars to continually maintain the current system. It is estimated that rehabilitation of this area’s transportation system will come at a cost of approximately $8.49 billion over the span of the MTP. This brings the total transportation needs in the MPO study area to approximately $16.86 billion over the next 25 years. It should be noted that this figure is above and beyond the traditional funding sources outlined in this MTP. Public Involvement Process

The MPO believes in the proactive involvement of citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation, and other interested parties in the development and updates of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), the Transportation Improvement Program and significant transportation studies.

A proactive approach to an effective public involvement process requires several elements:

• Early, continuous, and meaningful public involvement; • Reasonable public access to technical planning information; • Collaborative input on transportation alternatives, evaluation criteria and mitigation

needs; • Transportation planning meetings that are open to the public; and • Access to the planning and decision-making process prior to closure.

The MPO developed an extensive public involvement approach beginning with the creation of a Technical Working Group (TWG) and a Citizens Working Group (CWG), each consisting of approximately 70 participants, to assist in the development of the Plan. While working with these groups, the general public was kept apprised of the MTP Update process through various visioning sessions, internet postings, quarterly MTP Update newsletters, and general public meetings. Members of the news media have been invited to each of the MTP Update work sessions resulting in several articles in the daily and weekly newspapers. Additionally, articles describing the MTP Update process were published in the MPO’s weekly electronic newsletter and distributed to the MPO’s master mailing list of more than 900 individuals and organizations.

In summary, the public has been involved in the planning process early,

continuously, and in a meaningful way. Members of the public were provided reasonable technical information and collaboratively determined alternatives and solutions. This


process made them true partners in creating the metropolitan area’s new long-range transportation plan.

Bicycle Planning and Needs

Although the San Antonio-Bexar County area does not have a long-standing history of implementing bicycle projects and promoting bicycle facilities, the area has made some great strides over the last decade. Regional leaders have begun to understand the importance of creating and maintaining a multi-modal transportation system. Various goals and objectives have now been identified to ensure that this area continues to develop and implement a comprehensive bicycle network.

Vision Statement

San Antonio and Bexar County recognize bicycling as a clean, healthy and

affordable form of transportation and recreation. A comprehensive on-road and off-road bicycle network will make our

community a place where bicycling will be desirable for trips of all kinds by all segments of the population.

The following goals sustain the vision for a bicycle-friendly community: Goal 1 Institutionalize Bicycling: recognize and incorporate bicycling as a significant and

required element for all transportation, land use, and economic development planning for the San Antonio/Bexar County region.

Goal 2 Build the Network to Increase Ridership: create a comprehensive on-road and

off-road bicycle network throughout the San Antonio/Bexar County region. Goal 3 Find the Funding: identify and secure local, state, federal and private funding to

expand and improve bicycle transportation facilities and programs in the San Antonio/Bexar County region. Create a continuing local source for bicycle funding.

Goal 4 Make Bicycling Safer through Education and Enforcement: develop a program to

educate elected officials and the general public concerning the opportunities, benefits, and safety aspects of bicycling in the San Antonio and Bexar County region.

Bicycling is a cost effective, energy efficient, clean, and healthy way, to travel. With

the growing concerns of congestion, air quality and the public interest in promoting alternative transportation modes, the adoption of policies that encourage alternate transportation modes will aid in reducing congestion, improving air quality, and enhancing the community’s quality of life. The Regional Bicycle Master Plan and the City of San MOBILITY 2030 ES - 6 Approved: December 6, 2004

Antonio's adopted Master Plan support this objective. The Metropolitan Planning Organization will continue to work to accomplish these goals and implement the region’s Bicycle Master Plan. Pedestrian System

There is a growing awareness and momentum toward improving pedestrian facilities, and public officials are responding to this need. This awareness began to develop in the early 1990s upon passage into law of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Roadway construction projects (capacity projects and rehabilitation projects) within the Urbanized Area normally include accessible pedestrian facilities. As this momentum continues and is extended, we are closer to a workable pedestrian facilities system that will accommodate pedestrian mobility needs. The following goals have been established to meet this increasing pedestrian mobility needs. Goal 1 Provide pedestrian facilities that are safe for general pedestrian travel and for

extraordinary travel circumstances. Goal 2 Unite parts of the pedestrian facilities system into a whole, workable system by

completing system gaps, providing linkages to activity centers, and connecting with other modes of travel.

Goal 3 Increase pedestrian access to, and around, intermodal facilities by providing new

linkages and improving existing connections. Goal 4 Employ accessible, barrier-free, state-of-the-art design for all new and

replacement pedestrian facilities. Goal 5 Effectively utilize available resources to provide for basic pedestrian mobility and

accessibility needs before providing enrichments. Public Transportation Services

VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA) is a political subdivision of the State of Texas, authorized by State Enabling Legislation to receive locally-generated sales tax income at a rate not to exceed one percent and subject to approval by voters within the VIA service area. VIA currently collects sales tax income at a rate of one-half percent as approved in the November 1977 referendum that established VIA. VIA is also supported, to a much smaller degree, by fare box revenue, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding, advertising revenue, and interest income.

VIA is governed by an eleven member Board of Trustees. Five of the Trustees are appointed by the City of San Antonio, three by Bexar County and two by the Greater Bexar County Council of Cities. These appointed Trustees elect an eleventh person to serve as MOBILITY 2030 ES - 7 Approved: December 6, 2004

Board Chairman. The VIA service area is 1,215 square miles in size, which is equivalent to 97% of

Bexar County. It currently includes the City of San Antonio, thirteen suburban cities and the unincorporated areas of Bexar County. Suburban cities located within the service area are Alamo Heights, Balcones Heights, Castle Hills, China Grove, Converse, Elmendorf, Fair Oaks Ranch, Grey Forest, Helotes, Hollywood Park, Kirby, Leon Valley, Olmos Park, St. Hedwig, Shavano Park, Terrell Hills, and portions of Cibolo, Schertz, and Selma. Cities entirely or partially located within Bexar County but which are not part of the VIA service area are Hill Country Village, Live Oak, Lytle, Somerset, Universal City, Windcrest, Grey Forest, Helotes, and Hollywood Park.

As of 2004, VIA serves nearly 7,000 bus stops and nine transit centers and park and ride facilities. VIA’s operational fleet consists of 342 full-size buses, 67 small buses, 19 streetcars, for a total of 428 fixed route vehicles. For VIAtrans service, VIA operates 105 vans directly and 121 vans are operated by a private contractor. (Bus Operations Daily Report of Bus Availability for October 7, 2004). Since 1990 all transit vehicles purchased by VIA have been equipped with lifts or ramps to accommodate persons in wheelchairs VIA has also purchased low floor and kneeling vehicles to accommodate patrons who cannot negotiate steps. VIA expects to have its bus fleet entirely accessible by 2008.

The San Antonio region faces many challenges in the area of Public Transportation.

While VIA has long been one of the most financially efficient transit systems in the country, its fiscal constraints and service area characteristics have limited what it can offer the community in the future.

However, in 2003 the Texas Transportation Code legislating transit authorities was modified to allow the creation of an Advanced Transportation District. This new legislation allows transit authorities meeting specific criteria to call for an election to create an Advanced Transportation District and to impose a sales tax for the purposes of advanced transportation and mobility enhancements. On November 2, 2004, voters in Bexar County approved a ¼-cent sales tax increase to fund the Advanced Transportation District. The revenues from this sales tax are to be distributed as follows: 50% to the Advanced Transportation District (VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority), 25% to the participating municipality (City of San Antonio), and 25% to the Texas Department of Transportation. This funding will give the transportation community additional funds too provide the citizens of this region with more transportation choices. Roadway Needs

As population and employment continue to grow in the San Antonio metropolitan


area, a higher burden will be placed on the transportation system. To accommodate traffic increases on the roadway system, additional lanes will need to be added and operational improvements will need to be made. In addition to congestion levels, factors that were considered while developing the future year roadway network included impacts to neighborhoods, acceptability by the public, environmental concerns and fiscal constraints.

The proposed roadway system improvements in the MTP are limited by the amount of funding available, or those revenues that can be reasonably expected over the 25-year life of the MTP. While more improvements are necessary than what funding is available for, the roadway projects selected address the most congested areas of the MPO study area. The future year (2030) roadway system was developed using an extensive public involvement process (see Chapter 3 Public Involvement) and technical analysis. Using the functionally classified system as an overall framework, a network of the future year highway and street system was developed. Freeways, arterials, and selected collector streets in the MPO study area comprise the future year roadway network. Even with the investment made over the next twenty-five years in transportation infrastructure, the local traffic congestion is expected to increase. Transportation demand management strategies will become increasingly important and, when implemented, can have an effect on growth, land use, travel patterns and travel behavior. Freight Movement

The signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), as well as the creation of the maquiladora plants which predate NAFTA, have helped fuel the yearly increase in truck crossings from Mexico into the United States. These crossings, through Texas border cities alone, have increased on average by 16.5% for the 1992 through 1997 time period. With the dramatic increase in goods movement across the United States/Mexico border, an accompanying increase in truck traffic in the San Antonio region, especially along IH 35, becomes predictable and knowledge of local truck traffic becomes vital.

The value of exports between Texas and Mexico has increased 9.8% between 1999 and 2003. Although this percentage may not seem as high as it has been in previous years, it is important to note that the export business between Texas and Mexico has turned into an annual $41 billion dollar industry. This increase has had a notable impact on the San Antonio region because San Antonio is located on a major truck-travel route to Mexico. Although imports from Mexico and Canada to Texas are not as substantial in dollar value as the exports, the value of imports from Mexico has increased 44% from 1997 to 2003. The value of imports from Canada has also grown significantly, growing 34% over the same time period.

NAFTA related trade will continue to impact the San Antonio metropolitan area and


will continue to grow at a faster rate than what was earlier anticipated. The growth in freight movement and the growth in local population and employment will increase the level of service on local freeways. Planning agencies in this region understand that transportation planning efforts must now increase the focus on freight movement in order to improve the area’s transportation system.

Environmental Concerns

On April 15, 2004, the San Antonio-Bexar County metropolitan area was deemed to be in “non-attainment” with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. However, the official designation of being “non-attainment” has been deferred because the region has signed an Early Action Compact (EAC) with the Environmental Protection Agency. By signing an EAC, the area pledged to meet the 8-hour standard two years earlier than required by the NAAQS by agreeing to meet specified milestones. As long as the area meets the agreed upon milestones and achieves attainment status by 2007, the impacts of the non-attainment designations will be deferred.

The Alamo Area Council of Governments AIR Committee developed the Clean Air

Plan (also known as the EAC) for the San Antonio area. Essentially, the Clean Air Plan is a blueprint specifying voluntary measures regional organizations have committed to implement in order to improve air quality more quickly than required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Clean Air Plan’s primary purpose is early implementation of air quality measures to avoid the penalties associated with a non-attainment designation. The deferred status explained above remains for the duration of the Clean Air Plan or until a milestone in the Clean Air Plan is not met. Clean Air Plan Timeline: • December 31, 2002: Clean Air Plan and milestone timeline signed by all parties

• December 31, 2004: State adoption of plan in State Implementation Plan (SIP)

• Control measures incorporated into the SIP; any modifications are SIP revisions

• December 31, 2005: Adopted control strategies must be implemented

• December 31, 2007: Attainment Date

• December 31, 2012: Maintenance Demonstration Date - ensures attainment through this period

Congestion Management System


Although the San Antonio area is not considered one of the most congested cities in America, it has been identified as having one of the fastest growing congestion levels in the country. The average citizen in San Antonio spends more than 18 hours stuck in traffic

each year, an increase of 157% over the past decade (Urban Mobility Study, Texas Transportation Institute, 2002). Congestion is a major contributor to the air quality concerns and to the overall efficiency of the area wide transportation system. With non-attainment of air quality standards rapidly becoming a real possibility for this area, congestion management strategies and transportation control measures must be applied effectively toward relieving a substantial portion of these concerns. Goals of the Congestion Management System are to: Goal 1 Increase the efficiency of the existing transportation system and decrease traffic

congestion through coordination of traffic operations and development of strategies to reduce travel demand at both the regional and corridor levels.

Goal 2 Diminish the growth in single occupancy vehicles and enhance air quality by

improving the opportunities for alternative means of transportation. The Objectives of these goals can be found in the Congestion Management section (Chapter 10) of the MTP. Financial Information The transportation system in the San Antonio-Bexar County study area will need to be maintained and enhanced to meet the mobility needs of people and goods for the 25-year horizon of this plan. To meet the growing travel needs, it is necessary to identify reasonable and available federal, state, and local transportation funds, both public and private. Traditional transportation funds are available through a variety of sources, many of which contain restrictions on how they can be used and/or allocated. It is also necessary to estimate relevant expenses including capital for both maintenance and operation of the system. In order to meet the expected mobility needs of the region, the Financial Plan investigates the available existing and forecasted funding amounts from all governmental sources. Specifically, it looks at recent historical trends in transportation-related expenditures and projects them forward for the next 25 years.

Revenue Summary Funded Projects The complete project listing can be found in Chapter 12 of this document.


Estimated Revenue Sources Traditional Funding Total-------------------------------------------------------------- $4,138,670,000 VIA Metropolitan Transit Total ------------------------------------------------------- $3,189,000,000 Advanced Transportation District ------------------------------------------------------$850,000,000

Total Traditional Revenue---------------------------------------------------- $8,177,670,000 Potential Additional Revenue Sources Transportation Enhancement Program------------------------------------------------ $10,000,000 Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ)-------------------------------------------$375,000,000 Commission Strategic Priority Funding-----------------------------------------------$375,000,000 FHWA Demonstration Funds ------------------------------------------------------------ $50,000,000 FTA “New Starts” Program --------------------------------------------------------------- $24,000,000 Private Sector (Comprehensive Dev. Agreements) ---------------------------- $1,485,000,000

Total – Potential Funding Programs--------------------------------------- $2,319,000,000 Commuter Rail District-------------------------------------------- to be determined at a later date Bonding Capacity -------------------------------------------------- to be determined at a later date Regional Mobility Authority Contribution --------------------- to be determined at a later date Unfunded Projects See Supplemental List of Unfunded Roadway and Transit Projects in Section 12


Introduction Background

Transportation is an important factor in all our lives. How well we get to and from work, school, hospitals, shopping centers and recreational facilities is critically important to us all. The ability to travel directly affects our socio-economic well-being. On a larger scale, the San Antonio metropolitan area's economy and environment depend heavily on the condition and efficient performance of our regional transportation system. Appropriate transportation planning, recognizing the mobility needs and identifying the available resources, will allow for the maintenance and improvement of our transportation system, therefore affecting our economy and quality of life.

The fundamental purpose of transportation planning is to ensure that our ability to move people and goods throughout the metropolitan area keeps pace with the growing demand for mobility. Transportation improvement projects, both roadway and transit, by their very nature take a long time to accomplish. This long range planning must be accomplished in a continuing, comprehensive and coordinated manner. It must also be consistent with the economic, social and environmental goals and objectives of the local governments within the San Antonio-Bexar County Urban Transportation Study Area. Public involvement in the planning process is necessary to ensure that transportation decisions are not made independently and that federal tax dollars are used in accordance with legitimate public needs and desires. The region’s long-range transportation plan, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, is a federally required, financially constrained plan with a horizon year of 2030.

Long-range transportation planning requirements are not new. Transportation planning by metropolitan planning organizations dates back to the passage of the Federal Highway Act of 1962. This act required that all urban areas with populations of 50,000 or greater develop and maintain a comprehensive, cooperative and continuing regional transportation planning process. Accordingly, in 1963, San Antonio, Bexar County and the Texas Department of Highways established the San Antonio - Bexar County Urban Transportation Study (SABCUTS). In August 1977, the Governor of Texas designated the SABCUTS Steering Committee as the official Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for San Antonio and Bexar County. This organization is the forum for cooperative transportation planning and decision-making by officials of the urban area's local governments and transportation agencies. The MPO Transportation Policy Board is comprised of ten elected and nine appointed officials representing the following entities: the State of Texas through the State delegation and the Texas Department of Transportation, the Alamo Area Council of Governments, Bexar County, City of San Antonio, Greater Bexar County Council of Cities, Northeast Partnership and VIA Metropolitan Transit.

MOBILITY 2030 I - 1 Approved: December 6, 2004

The passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) marked a significant change in the planning and development of metropolitan

transportation systems. In its Declaration of Policy, ISTEA mandates "a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient and environmentally sound...and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner." Specifically, "the National Intermodal Transportation System shall consist of all forms of transportation in a unified, interconnected manner . . . to reduce energy consumption and air pollution while promoting economic development . . ."

On May 22, 1998, Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA-21) authorizing highway, highway safety, transit and other surface transportation programs for the next six years. TEA-21 builds on the initiatives established in ISTEA. TEA-21 combines the continuation and improvement of current programs with new initiatives to meet the challenges of improving safety as traffic continues to increase at record levels, protecting and enhancing communities and the natural environment, and advancing America’s economic growth and competitiveness domestically and internationally through efficient and flexible transportation. This document was written based on the planning requirements of TEA-21 since Congress has not yet passed a new reauthorization bill. TEA-21 Planning Factors

The TEA-21 seven planning factors closely reflect the Metropolitan Transportation Plan Goals, which are listed later in this section. The seven planning factors are listed below as well as their applicability to the MTP Update. These goals have also been supported through the public involvement associated with the MTP Update as documented in Chapter 3. 1) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global

competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency

One of the MTP goals is to invest in the development of a regional transportation system that serves to increase mobility and efficiency of the movement of people and goods. Land use patterns influence transportation alternatives and strategies that, in turn, influence productivity and efficiency. Continued population growth, as the San Antonio-Bexar County region is experiencing, influences economic growth, in particular employment types and income levels.

2) Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and non-

motorized users

Specific actions to increase the safety and security of non-motorized users that are recommended by the MTP include developing off-road bicycle facilities, and for pedestrians, to consider distance from curb, signage, drainage, slope, speed limits, pedestrian crossings and signals, and education of the traveling public. For both non-


motorized and motorized users, coordinating traffic operations and implementing strategies to reduce travel demand at the regional and corridor levels will increase the safety of the traveling public.

3) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight

The MTP includes other transportation modes such as the rideshare program and Bus Rapid Transit, which reduce the dependency on single occupant vehicles. Accessibility and mobility opportunities are enhanced by continuing to develop and upgrade bicycle and pedestrian facilities and other modes of transportation.

4) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve

quality of life

The MTP encourages the implementation of strategies to protect and enhance the environment and quality of life. Specific strategies include the development of multi-modal transportation modes such as improved transit service and encouraging non-motorized vehicle travel. Other efforts include conversion of fleets to alternative fuels, and specific activities that are implemented on Air Quality Health Alert Days.

5) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system

Integration and connectivity of the transportation system is enhanced by additional sidewalk construction; designating bicycle lanes or bicycle paths; providing accessible transit service; providing adequate levels of transit service; and providing passenger amenities to facilitate a transfer between transportation modes. Real time travel information for both roadway and transit travel can also greatly improve the usability of the transportation system.

6) Promote efficient system management and operation

Through the Congestion Management Plan (see Chapter 10), efficient system management and operation are identified. Operational Management strategies included are the TransGuide System, Freight Management, and Corridor Management. Community campaigns include Rideshare programs, telecommuting, and trip planning. Policy Management strategies include Growth Management and Parking Management.

7) Emphasize the preservation of the transportation system

Preservation of the transportation system is closely related to Planning Factor #6. Many of the strategies outlined previously are effective in promoting efficient system management and operation will therefore preserve the transportation system. Preservation of the existing transportation system can also be encouraged through


preservation of rights-of-way, such as abandoned rail corridors, which may be needed for future transportation corridors

Metropolitan Transportation Plan Mission Statement

The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is the basic framework for the San

Antonio - Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization's continuous, comprehensive, and coordinated regional transportation planning efforts for the next 25 years. The MTP will provide the framework for the efficient, safe and convenient transportation of people and goods in consonance with the metropolitan area's overall economic, social, energy and environmental goals. Special effort will be made to provide improved access for all citizens to a variety of transportation choices including alternatives to single occupant vehicles; provision of an effective and efficient public transit system; and the continuous involvement of the public in the transportation planning process. In February 1998, the MPO Transportation Policy Board adopted the following mission statement:

The San Antonio metropolitan area is served by an environmentally friendly transportation system

where everyone is able to walk, ride, drive or wheel in a safe, convenient, and affordable manner

to their desired destinations. The input received in the early stages of the MTP development validated this goal statement. Also based on the input received through the public involvement process, the following goal statements were validated: Metropolitan Transportation Plan Goals • Invest in the development of a regional transportation system that serves to increase

the mobility and efficiency of the movement of persons and goods. • Encourage the cost effective expansion of the regional transportation system to meet

the growing mobility needs while ensuring good air quality; enhancing the safety of the traveling public; fostering appropriate land use patterns; advancing alternative modes of transportation; and, increasing accessibility for the traditionally under served segments of the community.


• Support systematic and coordinated maintenance programs, and make available the

adequate resources to preserve existing roadways and transit systems. • Increase the efficiency of the existing transportation system and decrease traffic

congestion by coordinating traffic operations and developing and implementing strategies to reduce travel demand at both the regional and corridor levels.

• Invest in a public transit system that meets the existing and projected needs of the

region by developing effective routes and schedules and constructing functional and attractive passenger amenities.

• Incorporate the spirit and intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act pertaining to

mobility and accessibility into all levels of the transportation system. • Enhance the effectiveness of the regional transportation system by addressing the

social, economic, energy and environmental issues of the region in all transportation planning efforts.

• Improve the opportunities for alternative means of transportation that diminish the

growth in single occupancy vehicles and enhance air quality by upgrading the availability of bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and encouraging the conversion to alternative fuels.

• Promote the development of a regional transportation system that recognizes the

unique characteristics of the San Antonio-Bexar County area and ensures respect for neighborhoods, historic and archeological resources, the Edwards Aquifer, and other social and environmental issues.

• Promote the development of a regional transportation system that enhances economic

activity; provides for employment growth; and encourages public-private partnerships through the equitable distribution of resources.

• Facilitate the involvement and participation of individual citizens, neighborhood and

other interested groups, business and community leaders, local governments, and state agencies in the transportation planning process.


An important element of the MTP is to determine how approximately $10 billion in federal, state, and local transportation funds should be spent over the next 25 years. One of the findings during the MTP development is that population is expected to increase 68% between 2000 and 2030 and employment is expected to increase 75% between 2000 and 2030. Therefore, even with a $10 billion investment in transportation infrastructure, the congestion levels will increase at a faster rate than the available funding levels. Given that

overall transportation needs far outstrip available funding resources, public input is essential to developing an acceptable list of transportation improvement projects for the community. Transportation improvement projects fall into six general areas:

• Increasing roadway capacity - increasing the number of lanes on streets, highways and freeways to carry more vehicles.

• Maintenance of existing roadways - repairing and reconstructing (without adding

lanes), and adding operational improvements to existing streets, highways and freeways.

• Operational improvements to existing roadways – providing right and/or left turn

lanes at intersections, traffic signal preferential treatments, intelligent transportation systems and access management to improve the traffic flow and reduce the immediate need for additional capacity.

• Public transit services - increasing the frequency of service and extending or

adding bus routes; improving passenger facilities; and building other forms of transit like bus rapid transit, commuter rail and activity center people movers.

• Non-motorized transportation - building accessible and barrier-free sidewalks;

repairing existing sidewalks; designating bicycle lanes on streets or providing for off-road facilities.

• Other transportation service – including the Alamo Area Commute Solutions

Program which is the local rideshare program Consistency with Other Local Plans and Programs The City of San Antonio’s Master Plan and Major Thoroughfare Plan, the Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan, VIA Metropolitan Transit’s Comprehensive Service Plan, the Advanced Transportation District, the Early Action Compact, the Congestion Management Plan, bicycle and pedestrian plans, actions from the joint San Antonio and Austin MPO meeting which was held in April 2004 and upcoming actions of the San Antonio Mobility Coalition and the Bexar County Regional Mobility Authority were specifically considered in the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Table I-1 shows the Metropolitan Transportation Plan’s consistency with these locally adopted plans and programs.

This document updates the Metropolitan Transportation Plan locally adopted in

December 1999. The document represents the planning efforts of numerous transportation agency staff working with technical and public involvement consultant teams, elected and



appointed governmental officials, and community-based organizations and private citizens over a two-year period. The planning process has been continuing, comprehensive, coordinated and fully inclusive. The MTP is intended to be a flexible and dynamic document, and amendable as regional conditions change. It will be reviewed and updated every five years or as required by federal regulations.

1. Demographic Development Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years The San Antonio – Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) continually improves upon its’ demographic forecasting methodology. Over the past five years the MPO has reviewed other models such as UrbanSim for their usability in the region. Zone to zone travel times have been incorporated into the model to improve the reliability of forecasts; historical databases have been built that can be used for studies in development trends; weaknesses in existing models have been evaluated and compensated for in the local review process; and the demographic models have been used in several of the adjacent counties that impact transportation in Bexar County. The refinement of demographic forecasting procedures will continue to be a priority for the MPO. Background The basis of any effective planning effort rests primarily on a determination of the area’s base year demographics (population, household size, employment, household income, and land use) and future projections of these demographics. The MPO used 2000 as the base year for this update of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). For the future years, various federal and state government data sources were used for the population and employment forecast totals in five year increments to the year 2030 for the San Antonio area.

The process for forecasting future growth in population and employment is not an exact science. Multiple forecasting models exist with differing assumptions and results. What is needed for the transportation planning process is a “comfort level” with the demographic control totals used to predict future travel. The tendency is to be more comfortable with the recent trends. If the economy is doing well and jobs and housing are expanding, the tendency is to select an optimistic forecast. The tendency to select a conservative forecast usually occurs if the current or most recent trend is decreasing or if a flat economy exists. Upturns and downturns in the economy occur in cycles that, over a 20 or 30-year time span, tend to counteract each other. That is why annualized growth rates are important indicators for long term demographic projections.

If a conservative approach is taken and selected control totals are too low then

the risk is to be behind in planning for needed infrastructure. If the control totals are too optimistic, this could result in a false or premature justification for roadway and/or transit infrastructure improvements.

While area-wide demographic control totals were readily available, these figures

needed to be disaggregated to census tracts and eventually to the traffic serial zone

MOBILITY 2030 1 - 1 Approved: December 6, 2004

level for use in the travel demand model. It should be noted that while the allocation model used for the disaggregation process will produce an estimate of what may happen in the future, there is no way to predict the occurrence of unforeseeable changes that would effect the future distribution of employment and population. This, in part, necessitates that the forecast be reviewed and updated on a regular interval.

The demographic forecasting output for each future year increment is the result of a joint effort by the transportation planning agencies in the study area. Concurrence by these agencies on future demographics is necessary before work commences on a subsequent model run. Concurrence ensures minimizing duplication of effort in data development and maximizes local confidence in demographic forecasts. METROPILUS

The MPO currently uses the METROPILUS software package for all demographic forecasting model runs. The model provides the most reasonable and disaggregated data for future years. METROPILUS is an evolution of the DRAM (Disaggregated Residential Allocation Model) and EMPAL (Employment Allocation Model) package and combines employment, residence location, transportation networks, and land consumption in a single comprehensive package embedded in a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) environment.

The overall concept of the METROPILUS forecasting process can be stated

simply: the model allocates the total growth in employment, households, and land use for an area into its sub-regional component zones. This allocation is made possible by using regional trends, transportation facility descriptions, and data on current location of employment and households. The required data for the METROPILUS model runs include current census of population and employment by place of work, total future population and employment, travel times between zones and current land use information. The forecasts are done in five-year increments with one forecast becoming input to the next five-year forecast. Population and Households: 2000-2030

The base year input for METROPILUS came from the 2000 Census. Since the travel demand model requires population and employment by traffic serial zones (TSZ), the final forecasting output was at the TSZ level. The population control totals (forecasted number of persons in the study area), in five-year increments to year 2030, are an average from the Texas Water Development Board and the Texas State Data Center and were approved by the MPO Policy Board in June 2002.

METROPILUS requires the number of persons in future years as a control total

and it uses that number to predict the households. This is, in part, because households


are the group unit where data is available for modeling the relationship between employment and people. Not everyone is employed at a given time and they are usually part of a family or housing relationship. Households are the way the software groups persons; they may not always be part of a family (as defined by the Census Bureau), but they are always part of a household.

The year 2030 households map is shown in Figure 1.1. Residential development in the northwestern and western part of Bexar County, between Loop 410 and the Medina County Line, is expected to grow significantly. The northeast part of the study area is expected to grow as well. Southern Bexar County is forecast to show higher than normal gains in the number of households, mainly due to the anticipated opening of the new Toyota Plant.

Figure 1.1 2030 Households by Traffic Serial Zone

Income: 2000-2030


As one of the model inputs, median household income for the base year was gathered from the 2000 Census. The information was used to divide households into four income groups as needed for METROPILUS. The model specifies a roughly equal grouping of incomes; therefore, each of the categories roughly equate to 25% of the total number of households in the Study Area. The four income categories are shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Income Level Categories

Category Income Level Low $0 - $19,999

Low-moderate $20,000 - $34,999 High-moderate $35,000 - $59,999

High $60,000+

Income is also used in generating ratios of households by income and employment type. The model uses these ratios to generate forecasts of households by income group.

Besides forecasting future employment and households, another forecasting

requirement is median household incomes in the future year. For the base year, the census tract median household income figure was used. The 2030 forecast contains a median household income figure derived from an analysis of 30 year trends in Bexar County. Household income estimates from the 1970-2000 decennial census were adjusted for inflation to 1960 dollars using the Consumer Price Index data from the federal government. A trend line was established and a growth percentage calculated and applied to the incomes for 2030. Employment: 2000-2030

A primary source of base year employment information was the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) files (3rd Quarter 2000). The information was geo-coded based on the addresses provided. Where street addresses were not available (i.e. post office boxes) telephone books and telephone surveys were made to collect information from those employers. For the portion of the study area outside the Bexar County area, Guadalupe and Comal counties, telephone books, and TWC data were also used to the extent possible. In addition, employment data records were leased from InfoUSA and also geocoded by address. The results were then merged with the TWC records and cross checked for accuracy and completeness. The employment control totals, in five-year increments to year 2030, are from Dr. Ray Perryman, a respected authority on the Texas economy. The employment forecast totals were approved by the MPO Transportation Policy Board in June 2002.


The METROPILUS model requires that employment be delineated into at least four and not more than eight different employment categories. The employment categories are shown in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 Employment Categories

Category Type of Employment 1 Agriculture, 2 Construction, Mining, Manufacturing 3 Wholesale 4 Retail 5 Transportation, Communication, Utilities 6 Services 7 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Public Administration

Besides total employment the model also needed a breakdown of employment by type for year 2000 and for each of the forecasted years. The document, “U.S. and San Antonio Area Economic Projections” (City Public Service) was used for this breakdown of employment by type. These employment categories were grouped into the forecast categories listed in Table 1.2. With respect to military employment in the study area, the actual number of persons in uniform at each of the bases was collected from the San Antonio Greater Chamber of Commerce, who in turn received the information from the military bases. The population and employment control totals are shown in five-year increments in Table 1.3. These same figures are shown graphically in Figure 1.2.

Table 1.3 Population and Employment Control Totals for the Study Area 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population (in millions) 1.42 1.58 1.74 1.91 2.07 2.23 2.39

Households (in millions) 0.50 0.56 0.62 0.68 0.75 0.82 0.89

Employment (in millions) 0.72 0.80 0.89 0.98 1.08 1.18 1.26

Empl/Pop % 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.53


Figure 1. 2 Demographic Growth for the San Antonio Area

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

HouseholdsEmploymentPopulation

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

The year 2030 employment map is shown in Figure 1.3. Employment growth will continue in western Bexar County and across the north. The trend appears to be for most of the employment growth to occur generally outside Loop 410 to the Bexar County Line. One exception to this trend is downtown San Antonio, where growth will be substantial. Continued growth in the medical center area will be a factor in the northwest. The Toyota Plant will be a factor in employment growth in south Bexar County. In addition to local area knowledge of on-going developments in the area, staff collected zoning data from each of the incorporated communities in the MPO study area. Staff overlaid the zoning categories (e.g. residential, commercial) with vacant land parcels. Available vacant land for development could then be checked in each community and used as a check on the modeling process. Land Use Projections

One of the integral components of the METROPILUS forecasting process is land use. This model reflects current state of the art in modeling in that it connects land use and the transportation system. In order to develop this data as input into the model, staff acquired a computerized parcel file and database file from the Bexar Appraisal District. The files were merged and the information grouped to reflect land use types throughout Bexar County. The balance of the land use in the study area (portions of Comal and Guadalupe Counties) was generated from additional aerial photos and windshield surveys by staff. Table 1.4 shows the distribution of land uses by category in the MPO study area.


Figure 1.3 2030 Total Employment By Traffic Serial Zone

Table 1.4 MPO Study Area Land Use Distribution

Land Use Category Number of Acres Percent of Total Acreage

Residential 132,000 15%

Commercial 56,000 7%

Industrial 54,000 6%

Streets 64,000 7%

Vacant Developable 528,000 62%

Vacant Non-Developable 22,000 3%

Total 856,000 100%


2. Transportation Needs Analysis Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years This is the first time that a Needs Analysis was completed as an initial step in the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) update. The eight largest MPOs in Texas (known as Transportation Management Areas or TMAs), in a collaborative manner, developed their regions’ components for the Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan (TMMP). The TMMP development process and analysis tools will be refined over time to even better document the growing transportation needs in Texas. Background

The federal government has required the area to develop this document, a fiscally constrained MTP. Although the MTP is important to the area, the State of Texas recognized the need for the TMMP, which focused on the transportation needs of the eight large metropolitan areas around the state and identified the funding “gap” that exists between traditional funding resources and the amount needed to reduce congestion to a locally acceptable level. Identifying the amount of the funding gap and the transportation options and funding tools to close this gap is important because in order to maintain a vibrant economy and fulfilling quality of life, we must provide reliable mobility, improved safety, streamlined project delivery and economic vitality. This chapter provides only an overview of the needs based planning effort undertaken as a step in the development of both the TMMP and the MTP. For more detailed information please refer to the region’s TMMP document which was locally adopted in July 2004. Adopted Goals of the Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan

Seven goals that the TMMP will strive to achieve are listed below. These goals are important to all citizens and are important to the success of any community.

Relieve congestion – every large metropolitan community experiences some type of congestion. While some communities may experience heavier congestion than others, every region strives to improve the mobility needs of its citizens. A congestion index was developed to quantify the amount of congestion into a single unit. Focusing on surface modes of transportation, the index was based on the delay time experienced by people and in the delivery of goods.

Improve safety – based on results from the needs analysis which was a

theoretical exercise in adding lanes to all congested roadways, it is apparent that mobility will be improved and that a higher degree of reliability will be built into the system, which translates into a safer overall regional transportation system. Operational


improvements such as intersection improvements, traffic signal enhancements, and intelligent transportation system deployment will also work to improve this system.

Improve air quality – the degradation of air quality will always be one of the

outcomes of increased congestion. Therefore, one of the goals is to improve air quality.

Improve quality of life – a good quality of life can only be achieved through an effective and efficient transportation system. Beyond reducing congestion and improving air quality, quality of life impacts of proposed projects are important and identified in the issues below:

• provide greater transportation choices • create a more cost-effective transportation system • promote livable neighborhoods, towns and cities • encourage efficient use of developed areas and preserve open space

and natural resources • improve public awareness and communication on transportation issues • support a strong and sustainable economy • respect San Antonio’s natural environment

Improved opportunities for enhanced economic development – reduced

congestion and improved mobility is crucial to the economic vitality of a metropolitan area. Failing to solve metropolitan congestion problems will result in significant economic consequences for existing and emerging metropolitan regions. A region must ensure that further growth is well planned and comprehensively integrated with all transportation modes. Transportation and land use play an important role in the development of any community. The way transportation is planned and constructed in this area must be responsive to regional trends in economic expansion, population growth, development, quality of life, public health, and the environment

Enhance infrastructure maintenance – in adding additional capacity to a transportation system, the region must understand the importance of maintaining all current and future infrastructure. A key component of transportation planning is not only identifying future mobility needs of the area, but also the magnitude of infrastructure that must be maintained over time to ensure proper functionality and usability of the system without any degradation of service. This includes not only the existing transportation system, but also future facilities, because once they are constructed, a dedicated source to support their maintenance must also exist.

Streamline project delivery – the Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan is intended

to allow for expanded use of innovative tools for a more stream-lined process for project delivery. Public-private partnerships and efficient cash-flow management methods are two of the traditional techniques used to provide more timely delivery of improvements.


A region is committed to maximizing all resources and exploring all streamlining options in order to ensure that projects are built in a timely manner. Relationship to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan

In order to meet state and federal planning requirements, Metropolitan Planning

Organization’s have been preparing long-range metropolitan transportation plans for many years. Although there are many similarities between the TMMP and the MTP, and the development of the TMMP was a positive step in the development of the MTP, the differences are very evident.

The MTP is a comprehensive, multi-modal blueprint for transportation systems and services aimed at meeting the mobility needs of the San Antonio-Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) study area. This document serves as a statement of the ways the region plans to invest in the transportation system over the next 25 years. The MTP includes both long and short-range policies, strategies, and projects that lead to the development of an integrated inter-modal transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods. The MTP serves to guide the expenditure of federal, state, and local funds expected to be available for transportation improvements through year 2030. The MTP is required to be financially constrained, which means that it must be balanced to anticipated revenue streams over time. One of the most important aspects is the identification and analysis of the financial resources available to implement its project recommendations. Because of the financial-constraint requirement, the MTP does not address or quantify unmet funding needs and does not typically look beyond what can be achieved with the amount of available funding, resulting in a realistic, yet constrained picture.

The TMMP is a state-based requirement intended to serve as a framework for identifying unmet transportation needs in the state’s larger metropolitan areas. The TMMP requires the eight Transportation Management Areas (TMA’s) in Texas to develop a comprehensive, locally developed, visionary, realistic, and financially unconstrained plan to reduce congestion and improve mobility and air quality. While the MTP serves as a financially constrained plan identifying only what can be afforded given anticipated funding streams, the TMMP goes one step further and becomes a needs-based plan, which quantifies transportation needs beyond the fiscal constrained barrier. Instead of taking a conservative approach and focusing only on what funding can be predicated to be available, the TMMP focuses on the magnitude of unmet needs and provides decision-makers with a better idea of the total transportation needs for each region, shows that we are not currently meeting mobility needs adequately and that additional funding is needed. The over-arching goals of the MTP and TMMP are similar.


Texas Congestion Index The Texas Congestion Index (TCI) is a variation of the Travel Time Index

developed by the Texas Transportation Institute for the Annual Urban Mobility Report. It is intended to be a single, uniform measurement of congestion that addresses the transportation of persons and freight by all modes within the major metropolitan areas of the state. The TCI identifies the overall transportation needs of the region and shows the effect of spending to relieve congestion by all agencies and the private sector in a given metropolitan area.

This TCI compares the travel time in peak period to the travel time that would be

required for the same travel at free-flow speeds. Some of the key elements of the index include speed and/or travel time, person-miles moved, dollar value of improvements, travel delay, and the variation in speed or reliability of travel time. The normal travel time associated with a trip would be defined as 1.0. Therefore, a TCI of 1.15 means that a peak-period trip would take no more than 15 percent longer than off-peak, or free-flow, travel.

A TCI of 1.0 has been defined as the desirable level for any given area. When the TCI reaches a level of 2.0 the area has reached gridlock which hurts growth and economic development opportunities. Reaching this level of congestion is unlikely since federal and state funds will continue coming to the area, at least at current levels.

Because a single index can obscure some elements or characteristics, the TCI

process creates several measures aimed at assessing various elements of metropolitan transportation services. The TCI will help evaluate the programs and strategies that should be pursed to accomplish mobility objectives. It is designed to complement existing tools, procedures, measures and practices to improve congestion relief analysis. Modeling Results

Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 show the different modeling efforts that were under-taken to document the transportation needs for the MPO study area. Each point measures a different level of investment and each model run shows the corresponding level of congestion. The table below details the test and results that were conducted for each network year.

If all funding streams remain the same as today and all projects are constructed

as scheduled using traditional funding sources, the index is expected to reach 1.47. In order to build the projects that are needed to bring congestion down to a tolerable and locally acceptable level, the region must find an additional $8 billion in funding. This figure includes added more roadway lanes, transit projects, the addition of several key interchanges around the region, and the right of way needed to expand the system. MOBILITY 2030 2 - 4 Approved: December 6, 2004

However, this figure does not include the cost associated with rehabilitating the existing transportation system. It is important to note that although it may be impossible to achieve a funding level of this magnitude, everyone must realize the funding needs of the region and the state, and come up with ways to close the funding gap.

Table 2.1 Model Run Description

Network Year Test Conducted

Year 1995 network TCI = 1.14

This test established the overall congestion levels in 1995.

Year 2000 network and year 2000 demographics

TCI = 1.21

This test established the overall congestion levels in the base-year.

Year 2000 network and year 2030 demographics

TCI = 2.03

This test established the impact of congestion in 2030 on the system if no improvements were made other than those that were in place in year 2000.

Existing + Constructed since Year 2000 + Committed in the FY 2004-06 TIP and

2030 demographics TCI = 1.83

This test provided a refinement of the base-year plus quantified improvements that had been made since the base year model run and the impacts of added capacity projects for which funding had already been committed.

Needs Assessment TCI = 1.12

This test established the area’s future funding needs in “lane mile equivalents” which were then used along with average “per mile” costs to estimate the area’s future funding shortfall.

Traditional Funding Sources TCI = 1.47

This test provided a benchmark of committed funds for a realistic funding scenario. A reassessment of funding showed some projects, which were originally expected to be funded through 2025, were not realistic. The 2025 MTP was backed off to a more realistic funded plan.

Additional Funding Tools and Private Investment

TCI = 1.40

This test provided a benchmark of using the funding tools outlined in SB 3588, implementing Bus Rapid Transit in the Fredericksburg Road Corridor and private investment in the arterial roadway system.


Figure 2.1 Texas Congestion Index Analysis

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

Ideal Traffic Flow

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

2.03

1.12

1.47

1.83

1.14

1.21 $8,000,000,000Funding Gap

Severe Traffic Congestion

Analysis Methods

The results of the needs analysis are reflected in Figure 2.2 and Table 2.2. The traditional roadway funding sources allow for 430 lane miles to be added to transportation system in the MPO study area. After running the travel demand model and having it identify all congested facilities, and then allowing the model to add capacity in increments of whole number lanes until that level of congestion is eliminated, the resulting additional lane mile equivalents needed under this needs-based plan are 2,330.


The process used to identify this additional need is based on an all-or-nothing travel demand model run, which has a tendency to make the freeway facilities overly attractive due to faster speeds, which adds the majority of trips to these faster facilities. It is anticipated that congestion will ultimately be alleviated through a mixture of types of improvements. This analysis provides a good representation of overall needs, but does not clearly identify where and how those needs will eventually be accommodated. In other words, even though the graphic shows that some areas of Loop 410 need up to four additional lanes, the right-of-way or construction costs may make this expansion unattainable. Therefore, other congestion reduction strategies such as transit, vanpool, further deployment of intelligent transportation system strategies, operational improvements, incident management, access management or improvements to adjacent facilities would need to be implemented in order to improve mobility in that area. This graph should not be interpreted as a future road expansion tool, but rather an unconstrained need of transportation options and solutions needed by facility in the MPO study area. Figure 2.2 2030 Transportation Needs Analysis Results in Lane-Mile Equivalents


Table 2.2 Costs Associated with Additional Lane Mile Equivalents Needed in the MPO Study area

Base Year Lane

Mileage

Traditional Funding Levels

Eliminate all Severely Congested

Facilities Facilities by Area

Type Additional Lane Miles

Cost (in millions)

Additional Lane Mile

Equivalents

Cost (in millions)

Downtown Area Freeways

30 0 $0 20 $126

Downtown Arterials

70 0 $0 0 $0

Urban Freeways

690 180 $558 280 $868

Urban Arterials

1,800 70 $175 720 $1,800

Suburban Freeways

340 140 $420 300 $900

Suburban Arterials

650 20 $24 540 $648

Rural Freeways

140 20 $32 60 $96

Rural Arterials

471 0 $0 410 $451

Subtotal 4,190 430 $1,209 2,330 $4,889 Freeway to Freeway Interchanges 16 $2,705 Right-of-Way costs $782 Lane miles to be rehabilitated w/mobility improvements 2,790 $6,183 Other lane miles to be rehabilitated over time period 950 $2,305 Total unfunded needs (does not include traditional funding level costs) $16,864

From a financial standpoint, it is important to not only identify the long-term

needs for the MTP, but to also identify the levels of funding needed to reach such a goal. The table above reflects the lane mile equivalents needed as a result of the needs-based analysis along with the estimated total costs of these needs.

As shown in Table 2.2, approximately $4.9 billion dollars is needed to eliminate all severe congestion. Another $2.7 billion is needed to build future proposed freeway-



to-freeway interchanges for the area and $782 million is needed to purchase the right-of-way to construct these new improvements. This calls for a total need of $8.38 billion for new capacity as a result of this needs based plan. It should be noted that this figure is above and beyond traditional funding sources.

Furthermore, when completing a future needs assessment it is important to not only account for the addition of new capacity to the system, but to also consider that most of the current facilities will be in need of some degree of partial or total rehabilitation over the next 25 years. As transportation infrastructure continues to age and begins to fail, the area must find the dollars to continually maintain the current system. It is estimated that rehabilitation of this area’s transportation system will come at a cost of approximately $8.49 billion over the span of the MTP. This brings the total transportation needs in the MPO study area to approximately $16.86 billion over the next 25 years.

The Financial Plan outlines the traditional funding source categories and details some strategies for closing this funding gap.

3. Public Involvement Process Background

The mission of the San Antonio – Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization

(MPO) is to provide a continuous, comprehensive and coordinated (“3-C”) regional transportation planning process for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods consistent with the community’s overall economic, social and environmental goals.

The MPO believes in the proactive involvement of citizens, affected public agencies,

representatives of transportation agency employees, private providers of transportation, and other interested parties in the development and updates of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), the Transportation Improvement Program and significant transportation studies.

A proactive approach to an effective public involvement process requires several elements:

• Early, continuous, and meaningful public involvement; • Reasonable public access to technical planning information; • Collaborative input on transportation alternatives, evaluation criteria and mitigation

needs; • Transportation planning meetings that are open to the public; and • Access to the planning and decision-making process prior to closure. Public Involvement – Phase 1

Four public meetings were held to begin the MTP update process. The meeting times were from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on the following dates and locations: • Southwest: Tuesday, October 21, 2003, Dwight Middle School, 2454 W. Southcross • Northwest: Wednesday, October 22, 2003, Leon Valley Conference Center, 6427 Evers Road • Southeast: Thursday, October 23, 2003, Claude Black Community Center, 2805 E. Commerce • Northeast: Monday, November 3, 2003, Roosevelt High School, 5110 Walzem Road

At each of these meetings, after a brief presentation to give the participants background information on the MPO and the MTP, the participants were guided through a visioning process by the facilitator. Participants were asked to project themselves 25 years into the future and think about what would be in place at that time, especially as it related to transportation and the elements affecting it. They were asked to jot down their thoughts and images onto butcher paper that was on the table in front of them. They worked individually, then shared their thoughts with other group members, and then collectively drew a picture that represented elements they had imagined in their trip into the future.


They were asked a series of questions designed to stimulate further discussion about the vision: what they thought needed to change in order to achieve it and what the best way to proceed should be.

There were several common themes throughout the discussions in all of the groups. The most common theme was the need to increase mass transportation services in order to relieve congestion and protect air quality. Mass transportation included the use of commuter rail, light rail, high-speed rail, bus rapid transit and monorail. The discussion highlighted the need to change people’s attitudes about mass transportation, especially bus service.

The discussion of the need for increased mass transportation in many cases led to

further discussions about density and the desire to change how development occurs. They indicated that there should be less sprawl, more use of existing buildings and more in-fill development instead of continuing to expand outward.

• Individuals at these meetings were interested in being able to walk and/or bike to places

easily and safely, which means that more bicycle trails and sidewalks would be necessary.

• Environmental issues were consistently raised among the groups. Air quality was

frequently mentioned, as was the desire for additional parks and green space. • Sustainability of the environment was also brought up when participants referenced

alternative sources of energy for vehicles. Hybrid and electric cars were mentioned as well as the general need to seek additional alternative fuels, whatever they might be.

• The complete record of these four public meetings is documented in the Public Meeting

Report submitted by Ximenes & Associates. Additional Visioning Sessions Throughout the public involvement process, the MPO continued to gauge the needs of the community by conducting these type of facilitated visioning sessions throughout the region. Members of the Bexar County Commissioners Court, City of San Antonio Quality of Life Committee, the Greater Bexar County Council of Cities, and the University of the Incarnate Word Summer PREP program for junior high and high school students all provided input into this important process. Public Involvement – Phase 2

Citizen Working Group

For this portion of the public involvement, the MPO study area was divided into five geographical sectors: Southeast, Southwest, Northwest, Northeast and Central. Local


elected officials (federal, state, county, city, and suburban cities) were individually briefed on the MPO’s public involvement plan and its purpose. These elected officials were asked to designate constituent representatives to work with the MPO for an extended period. People were recruited from a broad cross-section of the community representing city council districts, county precincts, neighborhood association, business community, schools and colleges, environmentalists, developers, historical conservationists and many other interests. Approximately 75 citizens were recruited for the Citizen Working Group (CWG). The purpose of the CWG was to assist the MPO in identifying and refining transportation corridor recommendations and prioritizing them through the MTP process. Additionally, CWG members were asked to be ambassadors to their respective geographic area or organization to explain and gain general support for the adoption of the MTP.

The first CWG worksession was held on October 11, 2003. Committee members

were given presentations by locally and regionally recognized experts in a variety of transportation-related areas: conditions affecting future growth including demographic projections, regional water plan, air quality, and economic development. Transportation options for the San Antonio area were also presented, including traditional bus service, Bus Rapid Transit, freight/passenger rail, toll roads and trucking. Technical Working Group

For this portion of the public involvement a broad array of local professional engineers, planners, architects, environmentalists, land developers, and freight operators were invited to join MPO member agency staff personnel thus creating the Technical Working Group (TWG), numbering about 75 people. The TWG members had also been invited to the October 11th worksession so they could receive the same information that the CWG members were receiving. Public Involvement – Phase 3 Citizen Working Group

The second CWG worksession was held on November 15, 2003. Desired outcomes of the meeting were to provide committee members with an overview of transportation-related information to help them make informed decisions, review the input from the initial public meetings, develop comfortable working relationships with each other, understand the different perspectives of the work group members and begin the process of building a long-range transportation plan by identifying travel networks to be modeled for their geographic sector that would reflect the desired vision of the population.

At the half-day worksession the CWG members were divided up into the geographic sectors which they represented. Each group was provided with maps of their geographic area and resource information such as maps of demographic projections, current congested facilities, future congested facilities, and the visioning information from the first MOBILITY 2030 3 - 3 Approved: December 6, 2004

round of public meetings. Participants were asked to take a multi-modal approach and consider additional lanes, toll lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, bus rapid transit, pedestrian facilities and bicycle facilities in all corridors in the MPO study area. Each of the groups developed a transportation network for each of these modes.

After completing this exercise the modes by geographic sectors were taped together

and the participants considered continuity and consistency across the entire region. The additional lanes, toll lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes and bus rapid transit networks were tested using the MPO’s multi-modal travel demand model. The model results were used in the fourth phase of the public involvement process. Technical Working Group

The second TWG worksession was held on November 19, 2003. The TWG

worksession was similar to the CWG worksession in that the participants developed modal networks. However, the groups developed networks for the entire region rather than by geographic sector. Public Involvement – Phase 4

Both the TWG and CWG members were invited to the final worksession on July 31, 2004. The purpose of the worksession was to develop a preliminary financially constrained list of projects. Again, breaking into six groups, each group was allocated a $3 billion budget. Each group had to reach consensus on corridors and modes prior to that project being considered “funded”. There was a significant amount of consensus between the six groups in funding both bicycle and pedestrian facilities and the acceptance of bus rapid transit. The results of this worksession are depicted in Figure 3.4 and were used to develop a draft financially constrained list of projects. Public Meeting A public meeting was held on the draft Plan and financially constrained list of projects on September 30, 2004. Approximately 45 persons attended. There were nine informational stations generally relating to the Plan chapters: Vision and Introduction, Public Involvement, Demographics and Transportation Needs, Transit including Bus Rapid Transit and the San Antonio – Austin Commuter Rail, Pedestrian and Bicycle, Roadway, Freight, Environmental, Financial Plan. Meeting attendees were provided with an “Input Booklet” of comment forms when they signed-in. Each station had its own comment form. Attendees were asked to review the materials at each station and then respond to specific questions. Figure 3.1 shows examples of some of those questions along with the responses from the public. A full list of results from this meeting may be requested from the MPO.


Figure 3.1 Public Meeting Comment Forms

Public Involvement Strongly Agree

Agree

No Opinion

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

The flyers/newsletters were informative. 2 5 2 The postcard announcing the mtg. was informative. 2 4 2

I am satisfied with the Public Involvement portion of the MTP. 4 3 1 1

Transit/BRT/Commuter Rail Strongly

Agree

AgreeNo

Opinion

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

Transit is important to San Antonio’s future. 8 3 New modes of mass transportation are needed for San Antonio’s future. 7 3

BRT is important to San Antonio’s future. 7 1 3 Commuter Rail between Austin and San Antonio is important to San Antonio’s future. 4 2 2 2 1

I am satisfied with the Transit/BRT/Commuter Rail portion of the MTP. 3 3 4

Roadway/Toll Strongly

Agree

AgreeNo

Opinion

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

The information presented at this station was clear and understandable. 1 8 2 1

The solution to traffic congestion in San Antonio is adding more roadway/toll miles. 2 6 2 1 1

I am satisfied with the Roadway/Toll portion of the MTP. 1 7 1 1

Environmental Strongly Agree

Agree

No Opinion

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

TRANSIT will have a positive impact on San Antonio’s environment. 3 2 5 1

BICYCLE MOBILITY will have a positive impact on San Antonio’s environment. 4 3 3 1

ROADWAYS/HIGHWAYS will have a positive impact on San Antonio’s environment. 2 2 4 2 1

BUS RAPID TRANSIT will have a positive impact on San Antonio’s environment. 3 3 5

COMMUTER RAIL will have a positive impact on San Antonio’s environment. 1 4 4 2


I am satisfied with the Environmental portion of the MTP. 4 5

Space was also provided for attendees to write in additional comments. Some of the comments that were received include:

• The MPO needs to work for economic stimulus: getting small businesses involved and looking at the Eastside of San Antonio.

• We need to consider human capital so we don’t leave anyone behind. • Have subways been considered in this plan? • Among possible solutions, why isn’t the MPO fighting for the area’s fair share of gas

tax dollars • The region needs to step up its lobbying efforts. • Toll roads present a big inequity for this area • Sidewalks need better ADA accessibility • We need to consider an evacuation process for the inner city • The toll road definition needs to get out to the public. Need to ensure that people

understand that additional lanes will be tolled, not an entire existing roadway. • Need to improve sidewalks.

Environmental Justice

The San Antonio-Bexar County MPO understands the importance of including all members of the community in the transportation planning process, including minority and low-income populations. According to the Federal Highway Administration, effective transportation decision-making depends upon understanding and properly addressing the unique needs of different socioeconomic groups. This is more than a desktop exercise; it requires a comprehensive and inclusive involvement of the public. The MPO recognizes that a diverse segment of the population is needed in order to properly address the transportation needs of the entire region.

In order to accomplish this goal, the MPO conducted meetings and involved citizens

from all portions of the study area. Additionally, meetings were advertised in city-wide newspapers, as well as neighborhood newspapers such as The Observer and Spanish language newspapers such as La Prensa. Meeting locations were carefully chosen in order to include reach as many citizens as possible. Furthermore, sign-in sheets from all MTP related meetings over the last year were mapped to identify the location of all participants. The map in figure 3.2 depicts the participation of the community in the MPO’s public involvement process.


Figure 3.2 MTP Public Involvement


Summary

The San Antonio-Bexar County MPO has long understood the importance of an effective and proactive public involvement process with all of the area’s studies and projects. This update to the MTP is no exception. The public has not only been informed, but has been involved in the decision-making process throughout the composition of this Plan. Figure 3.3 summarizes the MPO’s public involvement process used to accomplish this important task.

Figure 3.3 San Antonio Bexar County MPO Public Involvement Process


Figure 3.4 Public Project Selections


4. Bicycle Planning and Needs Assessment

Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years

Bicycle planning has been an emphasis area for the San Antonio – Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) over the past five years. Accomplishments include completion of the Regional Bicycle Master Plan, publication of the area’s first bicycle route suitability map, installation of bicycle racks on all mainline buses, further progress on the local bicycle rack program, completion of phases of the Mission Trails project, secured funding for the Salado Creek trails program and increased participation in the annual Hike & Bike Month activities. Also, over the past five years, several miles of bicycle facilities have been added to the system. While the accomplishments are many, the San Antonio region continues to lag behind many other large cities in the area of bicycling. Background

Throughout the development of the MPO’s update to the Metropolitan Transpor-tation Plan (MTP), as well as in other activities undertaken over the past ten years, the citizens of this area continued to express their desire to have a comprehensive bicycle network. The City of San Antonio’s Master Plan policies, which were approved in 1997, clearly communicate the desire that a comprehensive bicycle network of on-road bicycle facilities and off-road hike and bike trails be added to existing infrastructure as well as to new developments.

In August 2004, the MPO Transportation Policy Board adopted the Regional

Bicycle Master Plan that is designed to serve as a guide as to where bicycle facilities should be implemented. Portions of this Bicycle Plan, including the vision, goals, and networks developed in the Bicycle Plan were used to create this chapter of the MTP. The Regional Bicycle Master Plan is considered to be an element of the MTP. A copy of the Regional Bicycle Master Plan is available through the MPO or is on the MPO’s website at www.sametroplan.org.

The Regional Bicycle Master Plan fulfills a portion of the City of San Antonio’s

Master Plan and will assist local agencies in identifying what projects should include bicycle facilities when those projects are funded. In addition, the Bicycle Plan should be overlaid with roadway maintenance programs to help create the bicycle network.

Therefore, the Regional Bicycle Master Plan is designed to be a guideline for the implementation of bicycle facilities throughout the City of San Antonio and Bexar County. As projects are designed and funding becomes available, bicycle facilities need to be considered and implemented. However, the intent of the Bicycle Plan is not to


http://www.sametroplan.org/

demolish existing infrastructure in order to provide bicycle facilities but to retrofit as opportunities present themselves and through new development, expand the bicycle network through creating connectivity to and between new destinations of interest. The construction of a countywide bicycle network will result from careful planning and project integration.

The Regional Bicycle Master Plan, as part of the City’s Master Plan, and in

combination with the City of San Antonio’s Unified Development Code (UDC) provides the structure, policy, programs and development guidance necessary to make the bicycle goals outlined in the City of San Antonio Master Plan a reality.

Although the San Antonio-Bexar County area does not have a long-standing history of implementing bicycle projects and promoting bicycle facilities, the area has made some great strides over the last decade. Regional leaders have begun to understand the importance of creating and maintaining a multi-modal transportation system. Various goals and objectives have now been identified to ensure that this area continues to develop and implement a comprehensive bicycle network.

Vision Statement

San Antonio and Bexar County recognize bicycling as a clean, healthy and affordable form of transportation and recreation. A comprehensive on-road and off-road

bicycle network will make our community a place where bicycling will be desirable for trips of all kinds by all

segments of the population. Goals and Objectives

The following goals and objectives provide for a vision for a bicycle-friendly community: Goal 1 Institutionalize Bicycling: recognize and incorporate bicycling as a

significant and required element for all transportation, land use, and economic development planning for the San Antonio/Bexar County region.

Objective 1.1 Create full-time Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator staff positions at the local governmental and transportation agencies.


Objective 1.2 Include bicycle transportation in the review process during the planning and design of projects as well as during the review of subdivision and development proposals to ensure proper inclusion of bicycle, pedestrian and transit needs in plans, projects and design.

Objective 1.3 Coordinate bicycle planning with other communities and

agencies through participation in the MPO’s Bicycle Mobility Task Force.

Objective 1.4 Conduct periodic surveys of bicyclists in the San

Antonio/Bexar County region to determine bicycle use patterns and collect other information useful in development of the local bicycle network.

Objective 1.5 Assist local agencies, neighborhood groups and user groups in developing future neighborhood and corridor plans for bicycling.

Goal 2 Build the Network to Increase Ridership: create a comprehensive on-road and off-road bicycle network throughout the San Antonio/Bexar County region. Objective 2.1 Promote uniform facility design and implementation

throughout the San Antonio/Bexar County area.

Objective 2.2 Plan and prioritize reasonably direct routes between major activity centers while emphasizing the use of collector streets to increase bicycle access throughout the urban area.

Objective 2.3 Maintain and improve the quality, quantity and operation

of bikeway network facilities.

Objective 2.4 Create a regional off-road system of creek-based linear parks connected by hike and bike trails.

Objective 2.5 Connect existing bicycle facilities and eliminate gaps in

the region’s current bicycle network.

Objective 2.6 Establish and maintain a GIS database of all regional facilities and develop a regional bicycle facility map.


Objective 2.7 Develop standards for bicycle parking in existing and new land use development including possible changes to local parking ordinances.

Objective 2.8 Continue to work with VIA Metropolitan Transit to further

integrate bicycling with the transit system.

Goal 3 Find the Funding: identify and secure local, state, federal and private funding to expand and improve bicycle transportation facilities and programs in the San Antonio/Bexar County region. Create a continuing local source for bicycle funding.

Objective 3.1 Identify and obtain adequate funding from local, state and

federal sources for bicycle improvements to the bicycle network.

Objective 3.2 Seek grant sources for additional bicycle funding as well as private funding.

Goal 4 Make Bicycling Safer through Education and Enforcement: develop a program to educate elected officials and the general public concerning the opportunities, benefits, and safety aspects of bicycling in the San Antonio and Bexar County region.

Objective 4.1 Work with the MPO’s Bicycle Mobility Task Force and other organizations to create and promote bicyclist and motorist safety and education outreach programs.

Objective 4.2 Improve bicycling safety through the enforcement of bicycle rules and regulations.

Objective 4.3 Promote greater respect for bicyclists by other roadway users with a continuous on-going “Share the Road” campaign.

Objective 4.4 Increase public information through the development of a regional interactive bicycle web site.

Objective 4.5 Continue to use Hike & Bike Month as a forum for education and promotion of bicycling activities.

Public Involvement and Community Support

Throughout the development of the San Antonio – Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) update to the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) in 1994, 1999 and 2004, as well as in other activities undertaken over the past ten years, the citizenry continues to express the desire to have a comprehensive bicycle network.


In accordance with the MPO’s public involvement procedures for planning studies, the MPO hosts at least one formal public meeting to solicit comments on all alternative strategies to be considered in the early stages of the significant transportation study process. The MPO holds three public meetings throughout many of its planning studies.

Several transportation planning studies funded by the MPO have included a bicycle component supported by public involvement:

• Mission Trails Planning Study October 1993 • Community-Based Bicycle Planning Study April 1997 • Olmos Park Transportation Management Plan September 2001 • Bicycle Route Suitability Study October 2001 • Multi-Modal Downtown Alternatives Analysis April 2003 • Brooks City-Base Infrastructure Development Plan May 2003 • East Corridor Multi-Modal Alternatives Plan May 2003

On April 26, 2004 the MPO held a public meeting to receive comments on the

draft Regional Bicycle Master Plan. Approximately 70 persons attended the meeting. Attendees were asked to comment on the goals and objectives and the recommended bicycle corridors. The meeting input has been incorporated into the Regional Bicycle Master Plan. Transportation Agency Initiatives The City of San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas Department of Transportation and VIA Metropolitan Transit have implemented a number of initiatives over the past several years that support the further creation of bicycle amenities. Some of these initiatives include the installation of bicycle racks city-wide, including bicycle facilities within creekways, installation of bicycle warning signs on roads, incorporation of bicycle facilities on new construction and rehabilitation projects and the installation of bicycle racks on buses. A complete list of initiatives can be found in the Regional Bicycle Master Plan.


Bicycle Network Development Existing and Committed Bicycle Facilities

Over the last decade, the San Antonio-Bexar County region has added several bicycle facilities to the area’s transportation system. The map in figure 4.1 depicts those types of facilities and their locations. As shown in the legend of the map, facilities have been placed in three different categories: bicycle lanes, routes, and paths. Where the right-of-way does not exist to add these types of bicycle amenities, two types of accommodations have been added to improve the safety of bicyclists, including shoulders with warning signs and warning signs along busy roadways. It is important to note that this map not only depicts existing projects, but also projects that have some type of funding commitment and are expected to be completed in the near future.

Figure 4.1 Existing and Funded On and Off-Road Bicycle Facilities


Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update - Public Involvement

The MPO and its partner agencies have undergone various public input sessions to gauge the public’s interest in the development of bicycle facilities in the region.

In October 2003, approximately 150 citizens and agency staff participated in the

Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update process for the development of this Plan. Participants were asked to look at the existing bicycle network and add facilities where they felt they were needed. The following bicycle network resulted from these citizen and technical work group sessions.

Figure 4.2 Metropolitan Transportation Plan – Public Involvement Network


Recommended Bicycle Master Plan Network

Over the last several years, the MPO and its partner agencies have been meeting to develop a comprehensive bicycle network that could be used as the blue print for development in the region.

The total recommended bicycle network is comprised of existing and

programmed bicycle facilities plus the bicycle portions of the previously mentioned plans and studies. It represents 10 years of agency and public input efforts to achieve the citizens’ desires as stated in the City of San Antonio’s Master Plan.

Figure 4.3 Recommended Bicycle Network



Funding the System

Financing bicycle facility construction is undoubtedly the greatest challenge in building the system but efforts that have started should be continued: 1) committing 6% of the Surface Transportation Program – Metropolitan Mobility funds for bicycle facilities, including bicycle facilities in new roadway construction projects and rehabilitation projects, and 2) local programs (restriping, bike routes, paved shoulders, and signage).

Existing funding programs could be used to build the bicycle system: 1)

Community Development Block Grants, 2) City of San Antonio General Fund, 3) General Obligation Bonds, 4) City of San Antonio Neighborhood Accessibility and Mobility Program and 5) the State of Texas’ Transportation Enhancement Program.

New financing opportunities should also be pursued. This includes, but is not

limited to: 1) developer-built facilities, 2) public/private partnerships, 3) Advanced Transportation District, 4) bicycle licensing fees/registration fees (exclusively for bike facilities), and 5) vehicle registration fees. These financing strategies could be used to develop a local “Safe Routes to Schools” program.

Summary

Bicycling is a cost effective, energy efficient, clean, and healthy way to travel. With the growing concerns of congestion, air quality and the public interest in promoting alternative transportation modes, the adoption of policies that encourage alternate transportation modes will aid in reducing congestion, improving air quality, and enhancing the community’s quality of life. The principle of an efficient travel network is to develop a system of complementary transportation modes that support the safe and viable movement of people, goods, and services.

The Regional Bicycle Master Plan and the City of San Antonio's adopted Master

Plan support this objective. It encourages transportation options, which emphasize convenience, safety, environmental quality and efficiency. The focus is to expand the overall capacity of the transportation system by including bicycling as a viable transportation mode in the design of the city’s new infrastructure and retrofitting the existing network.

5 . Pedestrian System


In the past several years, the response to addressing pedestrian issues and improving pedestrian facilities has been positive. Utility agencies are aware of the sidewalk/utility pole conflict and efforts have been made to rectify existing problems as well as to prevent these conflicts in new construction projects. New curb ramps have been installed throughout the area, and are now an integral part of sidewalk construction. Some construction projects (which include accessible sidewalks) that have recently been completed are shown in Figure 5.1.

Although the response has been positive, the issues remain. There is still much

work to be accomplished, and it will take several more years of concentrated effort before we can experience a pedestrian facilities system that is safe, accessible, and continuous. These issues have developed over a long period of time, and will take a reasonable amount of time to address. However, the effort continues. Construction projects (which include accessible sidewalks) that have recently been constructed or are underway or funded are shown in the map in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.1 Implemented projects in the San Antonio-Bexar County region

St. Mary’s Street New World Drive Hunt Lane Uhr Lane

SBC Center Pkwy Nogalitos Street Southcross Blvd Wurzbach Pkwy


Figure 5.2 Completed and Funded Pedestrian Projects


Background

There is a growing awareness and momentum toward improving pedestrian facilities, and public officials are responding to this need. This awareness began to develop in the early 1990s upon passage into law of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Roadway construction projects (capacity projects and rehabilitation projects) within the Urbanized Area normally include accessible pedestrian facilities. As this momentum continues and is extended, we are closer to a workable pedestrian facilities system that will accommodate pedestrian mobility needs. Goals and Objectives

The following goals and objectives provide for a vision of an accessible pedestrian facilities system that is safe, continuous, convenient, attractive, and affordable:

Goal 1 Provide pedestrian facilities that are safe for general pedestrian travel and for

extraordinary travel circumstances

Objective 1.1 Provide pedestrian facilities separate from roadways at safe distances from curbs and improve existing facilities to enhance safety

Objective 1.2 Promote a high level of pedestrian confidence by furnishing

security features such as lighting

Objective 1.3 Ensure safe and accessible pedestrian crosswalks in all parts of the area, particularly in areas with high volumes of pedestrian traffic, such as schools, the downtown area, and the medical center area

Objective 1.4 Ensure safe pedestrian crossings over railroad tracks by

providing accessible, well designed and constructed walkways with adequate warning systems to allow pedestrians ample time to cross without the fear of getting a foot or the wheel of a wheelchair caught between the walkway facilities and the tracks

Objective 1.5 Expand the local Safe Routes to School Program

Goal 2 Unite parts of the pedestrian facilities system into a whole, workable system by

completing system gaps, providing linkages to activity centers, and connecting with other modes of travel


Objective 2.1 Complete sidewalk gaps

Objective 2.2 Replace substandard or deteriorated sidewalks Objective 2.3 Promote sidewalk continuity within and between neigh-

borhoods and activity centers Objective 2.4 Encourage activity centers to provide dedicated, safe

pedestrianways across parking lots and open areas, connecting with the public walkway system.

Goal 3 Increase pedestrian access to, and around, intermodal facilities by providing new

linkages and improving existing connections

Objective 3.1 Extend pedestrian facilities to serve transit stops and transfer facilities

Objective 3.2 Make pedestrian facilities integral elements of existing and

future park and rides and other transit stations for large volumes of pedestrian traffic

Objective 3.3 Encourage public and commercial parking operators to provide

dedicated, safe pedestrianways that connect with the public walkway system

Goal 4 Employ accessible, barrier-free, state-of-the-art design for all new and

replacement pedestrian facilities

Objective 4.1 Function should be the fundamental guideline in designing pedestrian facilities

Objective 4.2 Acquire sufficient right-of-way clear of utility conflict and

design pedestrian facilities with adequate capacity to accommodate anticipated traffic

Objective 4.3 Blend pedestrian facility design with area type and

natural environment

Objective 4.4 Provide for landscaping and aesthetics as part of the overall facility design


Goal 5 Effectively utilize available resources to provide for basic pedestrian mobility and accessibility needs before providing enrichments.

Objective 5.1 Develop regional strategies and guidelines for

expenditure of resources on capital improvements to optimize the available funding

Objective 5.2 Encourage area governments to adopt effective

preventive maintenance programs in extending the life of existing pedestrian facilities

Objective 5.3 Explore public-private partnership possibilities in

financing new and replacement pedestrian facilities

Existing Pedestrian System

The existing pedestrian system is composed of areas with new sidewalks, areas with very old sidewalks and areas with no sidewalks. There is evidence of active pedestrian traffic in all parts of the urbanized area, as worn pathways can be seen where there are no sidewalks. Pedestrians using wheelchairs do not have adequate access to the system and often must use the street for mobility because of a lack of sidewalks, curb ramps, substandard walkways, or obstacles in walkways. The greatest needs are safety, connectivity, and access to transit stops.

The Pedestrian Amenities Plan (September 1997) revealed that existing pedestrian

facilities are incomplete, inadequate, and inaccessible. Further, the existing system did not adequately link neighborhoods with public transit or activity centers. The system had many gaps, too narrow or poor condition sidewalks, obstacles such as utility poles and mailboxes and a general lack of curb ramps connecting to sidewalks. Based on a comprehensive inventory of pedestrian facilities adjacent to functionally classified roadways within the MPO study area, these findings confirmed concerns that citizens have continually expressed over the past several years. Pedestrian Needs and Issues

An incomplete and inaccessible system presents a multitude of problems for pedestrians. There is an extensive need to connect existing pedestrian facilities into an integrated transportation system: linking neighborhoods with activity centers and linking neighborhoods and activity centers with transportation modes. The condition of existing facilities must also be considered, as navigability and safety are jeopardized on a facility with a rough or broken surface.


As previously indicated, the findings from the Pedestrian Amenities Plan were based on a comprehensive inventory of pedestrian facilities adjacent to functionally classified roadways. The majority of roads within the MPO study area are not functionally classified; leaving a large gap in the system that was not inventoried.

Safety, connectivity and access to transit stops are paramount needs and there are also needs in improved design of pedestrian facilities, particularly with regard to ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards. An attractive and convenient system will contribute to increased usage of pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian confidence will increase on facilities that appear safe, secure, and well maintained.

The key to pedestrian safety is prevention of accidents which means providing dedicated pedestrian facilities off of roadways and providing safe zones such as roadway medians. The challenge is in providing pedestrian facilities that are safe for normal pedestrian travel and for school age children. Safety considerations include: distance from curb, signage, drainage, cross slope, curb ramp location and condition, speed limits, crosswalk markings, signals, lighting, and education of the traveling public.

The issue of connectivity refers to the concept of connecting parts of the pedestrian facilities system into a whole, workable system. This can be accomplished by providing linkages to other modes of travel, making extensions to activity centers, and completing gaps along the system.

Improved pedestrian access to transit stops also serves mobility-impaired pedestrians. As more low-floor buses are put into service, access to transit stops must be improved to allow pedestrians using wheelchairs or other mobility assistance equipment to access the transit stops. This translates to providing sidewalks and curb ramps leading up to and along transit routes. Programs Pedestrian Mobility Task Force

The Pedestrian Mobility Task Force (PMTF) monitors and evaluates conditions and makes recommendations to the Transportation Policy Board and Technical Advisory Committee on matters applicable to pedestrian mobility and accessibility. The PMTF can initiate pedestrian facilities projects and submit requests to the appropriate entities to be considered as candidate projects for the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The PMTF is comprised of representatives from neighborhood and community organizations geographic distribution, special interest groups, public agency representatives and other representatives as deemed appropriate. The PMTF should have the flexibility to assume new functions to address other surface transportation accessibility issues. Integration of the PMTF and the MPO’s Bicycle Mobility Task Force (BMTF) would facilitate addressing alternative transportation issues and opportunities.


Hike and Bike for Health Month

As traffic congestion and air quality issues began to escalate so did the awareness for the need for alternatives to the automobile, for at least some trips. The PMTF and the BMTF work with other agencies and groups in the community to produce the very successful annual Hike and Bike for Health Month. Hike and Bike for Health Month activities help promote both alternative transportation modes and healthier lifestyles. Safe Routes to School

The PMTF is in the process of expanding the local safe routes to school program in the spirit and intent of the Texas Department of Transportation's Safe Routes to School Program. Several pilot schools have been selected for walkability studies, and are being coordinated with the applicable school districts. Next steps include more formalization of the program and exploring financing alternatives. Pedestrian Facilities Management System

The foundation of the Pedestrian Facilities Management System is a database which contains results from the comprehensive inventory conducted as part of the Pedestrian Amenities Plan study process. The current database contains 25 fields and 12,000 records of block-by-block information pertaining to pedestrian facilities. Each record represents a street segment (approximately one block) of information on both sides of the roadway. One large gap in this system is that it only contains pedestrian facilities information along functionally classified roadways. The database could also be expanded to include inventory data along local roads.

Transportation Improvement Program

Project selection guidelines for Transportation Improvement Program pedestrian

facilities projects, shown in Table 5.1, are used by the MPO’s Technical Advisory Committee in the technical review of candidate projects to be recommended to the MPO Transportation Policy Board. The TAC will decide upon the specific technical point ranges for the criteria and may delegate authority to the PMTF to perform the technical review. MOBILITY 2030 5 - 7 Approved: December 6, 2004


Table 5.1 Transportation Improvement Program

Project Selection Guidelines

Factor % Measurement

Safety 25 Measured in: (1) vehicle accidents per vehicle miles of travel, and (2) number of daily school bus trips along roadway segment (school bus must make passenger stops in the roadway segment; school service needs to include VIA contract school service with San Antonio Independent School District

Connectivity 20 Measured in number of activity centers (schools, community centers, residential areas, commercial / retail areas) "served."

Intermodal 20 Measured in number of VIA bus trips traveling on or perpendicular to the roadway segment; bus must make stops serving the segment.

Functionality 20 Measurement is subjective; can be done by committee consensus. Consideration is given to design (width, slope, etc.), pavement condition, and gap completion.

Cost 10 Measured in cost per current (most recent data available) Vehicle Miles of Travel

Volume - 2030 5 Measured in projected vehicles per lane per day.

Total 100

6. Public Transportation Services Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years

The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2025 established the goal of investing

in public transit via effective routes and schedules and functional passenger amenities. In addition, it established other goals in which public transportation plays a critical role such as: increased mobility for people and goods, enhancement of economic activity, and enhanced effectiveness of the transportation system. Since the last MTP was adopted in 1999, VIA Metropolitan Transit, the MPO, and rest of the San Antonio Bexar County community have made progress toward these goals.

In the past five years, VIA has updated its aged bus fleet with low-floor,

wheelchair-accessible buses. Currently VIA is in the process of purchasing low emission buses, which run on Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel. In terms of passenger amenities, VIA opened the new Kel-Lac Transit Center, which replaced the old Kel-Lac facility along US 90. VIA also entered into a partnership with the City of San Antonio and CEMUSA, allowing for the installation of 425 advertising shelters in the City of San Antonio. In terms of service planning, VIA underwent a comprehensive service planning process, which consisted of two years of public input and technical analysis. In August 2003, VIA implemented this service plan. The new network focuses on more effective routes and schedules and aims to move a greater number of people by enhancing service on high-ridership routes.

The last five years also saw a community debate on a high-capacity mass transit.

In 2000, voters decided not to pursue light rail technology for the San Antonio area. In response, VIA, with the support of the MPO, is now evaluating Bus Rapid Transit technology instead. In 2002, the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Rail District was created by Austin, San Antonio, Bexar County and Travis County. This district is currently analyzing alternatives for service and will soon begin conceptual engineering.

While VIA is not the only provider of public transportation in the MPO study area,

this rest of this chapter will focus on VIA’s public transportation efforts.

Goals

In July 2003, the VIA Board of Trustees adopted a Ten Year Plan for Service and Facilities which established the following goals:

Within ten years, increase ridership to 50 million Provide the community with transportation choices Mitigate increasing traffic congestion


Contribute to improved regional air quality via reduced automobile fuel consumption

Enhance service in high ridership areas Continue to serve people dependent on public transportation Build much needed new passenger facilities and upgrade existing facilities Create public and private partnerships for public transportation

In order to achieve these goals, VIA identified five key strategies and supporting

initiatives. These will be discussed in detail in the program section of this chapter. Existing Public Transportation System

Two public transportation providers serve the San Antonio Bexar County MPO

study area: VIA Metropolitan Transit and the Alamo Regional Transit System. The Austin San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District is another existing public transportation entity. However, it does not operate service at this point in time. Alamo Regional Transit

Alamo Regional Transit (ART), a rural transit district, is the Alamo Area Council

of Government’s Rural Public Transportation program, which provides public transportation services in Atascosa, Bandera, Comal, Frio, Gillespie, Karnes, Kendall, Kerr, Medina and Wilson Counties. The transportation service is for the general public on a demand-response basis. The ART system has one subcontractor – Community Council of South Central Texas who delivers transportation service in Guadalupe County.

Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Rail District

In 1997, in an effort to confront regional transportation challenges and encourage

economic development, the State of Texas authorized the creation of the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District to pursue development of passenger rail service in the Austin-San Antonio corridor. The District was created in 2002 and held its first meeting in February of 2003. It is governed by a 14-member Board consisting of city and county elected officials, business representatives appointed by cities, metropolitan and rural transit providers along the route, representatives appointed by the Texas Department of Transportation, and representatives of the area’s metropolitan transportation planning organizations. (Source: Austin San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District 2003 Annual Report).

Currently, the Rail District is in the process of evaluating the costs and economic

benefits of passenger rail in the Austin San Antonio corridor. Once the Rail District determines that regional passenger rail is technically and financially feasible, it will begin


right-of-way acquisition and construction. The proposed timeline projects service could begin in 2009.

VIA Metropolitan Transit

VIA Metropolitan Transit (VIA) is a political subdivision of the State of Texas, authorized by State Enabling Legislation to receive locally-generated sales tax income at a rate not to exceed one percent and subject to approval by voters within the VIA service area. VIA currently collects sales tax income at a rate of one-half percent as approved in the November 1977 referendum that established VIA. VIA is also supported, to a much smaller degree, by fare box revenue, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding, advertising revenue, and interest income.

VIA is governed by an eleven member Board of Trustees. Five of the Trustees

are appointed by the City of San Antonio, three by Bexar County and two by the Greater Bexar County Council of Cities. These appointed Trustees elect an eleventh person to serve as Board Chairman.

The VIA service area, depicted in Figure 6.1, is 1,215 square miles in size, which

is equivalent to 97% of Bexar County. It currently includes the City of San Antonio, thirteen suburban cities and the unincorporated areas of Bexar County. Suburban cities located within the service area are Alamo Heights, Balcones Heights, Castle Hills, China Grove, Converse, Elmendorf, Fair Oaks Ranch, Grey Forest, Helotes, Hollywood Park, Kirby, Leon Valley, Olmos Park, St. Hedwig, Shavano Park, Terrell Hills, and portions of Cibolo, Schertz, and Selma. While these cities may be called suburban, many of them are now entirely bounded by the City of San Antonio. Despite their integrated geography, suburban cities can always vote to exclude themselves from the VIA service area, as a number have in the past several years. Cities entirely or partially located within Bexar County but which are not part of the VIA service area are Hill Country Village, Live Oak, Lytle, Somerset, Universal City, Windcrest, Grey Forest, Helotes, and Hollywood Park.


Figure 6.1 VIA Metropolitan Transit Service Area

FIGURE PENDING


The Importance of Public Transportation Public Transportation offers benefits to all persons who work, live, or travel in the

service area, whether or not they utilize public transportation. Public transportation plays an important role in the regional transportation network, and hence, the regional economy. Every million dollars spent on bus operations generates $1.2 million in regional income and 62.2 jobs (Estimating Important Transportation Related Regional Economic Relationships in Bexar County, Texas, by Economic Modeling Specialists, 1999). In terms of alleviating congestion, the Texas Transportation Institute estimates that without public transportation, commuters in the City of San Antonio would experience an additional 3,753,000 hours of traffic delay each year (2004 Urban Mobility Report, TTI). The additional automobile volume and congestion that the area would experience without transit would cause an increase in on-road air emissions, resulting in deteriorated air quality.

Beyond these indirect benefits, public transportation provides a direct benefit to

those who use it. It provides an alternative to the costs and concerns associated with driving, congestion, and parking. Public transportation is also the only motorized transportation alternative for those who are unable to drive or unable to afford the cost of owning a vehicle.

According to the 2000 Census, 9.4% of households in Bexar County do not own an automobile and must rely on another form of transportation. VIA’s Summer 2004 satisfaction survey showed that 56% of riders are in households without a working automobile. This is an increase from 50% in 2001.

The Census Bureau also reports that 16% of Bexar County’s population is below

the poverty level and that 3.7% of all Bexar County households receive public assistance. Two VIA surveys found that 45% of bus riders have an annual household income of less than $10,000 (Who is the Rider Survey, 2000 and Origin and Destination Survey, 2000 ). Taking into account household size obtained through surveys it is estimated that roughly 55% are below the poverty level.

Beyond income, age and health conditions also affect the community’s need for

public transportation. According to the 2000 Census, 261,387 individuals, or 18% of the Bexar County population, reported having at least one disability. Figure 3.2 shows the Bexar County population over the age of 16 by age group and denotes the population with a disability. In Bexar County, at least 49,244 persons over the age of 16 have a disability, which limit his/her ability to travel independently. (US Census Bureau, SF3 Go-outside-home Disability. Tally does not include individuals with more than two disabilities who have a go-outside-home disability; approximately 36,000 individuals in Bexar County have more than two disabilities). The VIAtrans Paratransit system


provides over 3,500 trips a day to individuals who for medical reasons cannot use the fixed route bus system.

Figure 6.2 Bexar County Population 16 and Over

Hashed areas denote population in that age group with a disability.

Under 16

16 to 64

Over 65

The aging of the population is a recognized trend within Bexar County. According

to the 2000 Census, 10.4% of the Bexar County population is 65 years or older. This is two to three percentage points higher than that observed in other highly populated Texas counties like Dallas, Harris, and Travis Counties. By 2030, or the end of the time frame in this MTP, this age group will make up more than 16% of the Bexar County population. Because of driving limitations that are encountered with age, as well as declining health and income, the older segments of the population rely on public transportation more so than other age groups. VIA surveys show that 22% of VIA riders age 65 and older say they have a disability which affects their ability to travel. (Satisfaction Survey, 2004).

Approximately 25% of Bexar County’s population is younger than 16 and therefore too young to drive. Without public transportation, young people miss opportunities to personally develop or participate in a community’s activities. Often they must rely on their parents for transportation.


VIA’s Public Transportation Services Fixed-Route Service

VIA currently operates 78 fixed routes. These routes are depicted in Figure 6.2. As of May 2004, the projected total for 2004 vehicle hours and passenger trips is 1,381,982 hours and 35,568,007 passenger trips respectively (figures include Downtown Circulation and Flex-Route Service as described below).

As part of Fixed Route service VIA also operates a Bus and Bike program which allows riders to transport their bicycles on the buses at no extra cost.

VIA’s major transit activity centers include the Central Business District, San Antonio College, North Star Mall, and the South Texas Medical Center. Residential areas generating the most ridership include those areas near Lanier High School, Edgewood High School, Palo Alto College, Las Palmas Shopping Center, Edison High School and Jefferson High School (2000 Origin and Destination Survey). Downtown Circulation

VIA operates four downtown circulation routes, also known as Streetcar Service. The vehicles and stops for this service are different from those of the regular fixed route. The service is operated with historic streetcars and circulation is limited to the downtown area and the King William Historic Neighborhood, just south of downtown. These routes operate on a fifteen minute frequency. While the geographic area covered by the Streetcar Service is also covered by the fixed route service, the historic character and charm of this service make it a valued amenity in downtown. Flex-Route Service

VIA began providing “Flex Service” in August of 2003. It is a “demand-responsive” service designed to meet the needs of riders in areas that are difficult to serve efficiently with traditional bus service.

VIA operates three Flex-Routes: two in the northeast of San Antonio and another on the far west side of San Antonio. During peak hours flex routes operate as fixed routes. During off-peak hours and on Saturdays, service requires call-ahead requests. VIAtrans Service

Complementary to the fixed route Service, VIA operates an advance reservation, demand-responsive paratransit service for persons, who, because of a disability, are prevented from using VIA’s fixed route bus service for some or all trips. This service is


called “VIAtrans”. It was established in 1979 in response to federal accessibility requirements. VIAtrans currently operates with a fleet of nearly 200 directly-operated and contracted vehicles to provide approximately 3,500 person-trips on an average weekday. Currently 11,994 individuals are registered for VIAtrans service (VIA Staff Communication, August 2004). Facilities and Fleet As of 2004, VIA serves nearly 7,000 bus stops and nine transit centers and park and ride facilities (depicted in Figure 6.3). VIA’s operational fleet consists of 342 full-size buses, 67 small buses, and 19 streetcars, for a total of 428 fixed route vehicles. For VIAtrans service, VIA operates 105 vans directly and 121 vans are operated by a private contractor. (Bus Operations Daily Report of Bus Availability for October 7, 2004) Since 1990 all transit vehicles purchased by VIA have been equipped with lifts or ramps to accommodate persons in wheelchairs VIA has also purchased low floor and kneeling vehicles to accommodate patrons who cannot negotiate steps. VIA expects to have its bus fleet entirely accessible by 2008.


Figure 6.3 VIA Metropolitan Transit Fixed Route Service as of January 2004

Note: Major gaps in fixed route coverage indicate cities which are not part of the VIA service area, military facilities, airports, undeveloped land, and areas which, because of their ridership and land-use characteristics, are not conducive to efficient bus service.


Public Transportation Needs and Issues

The San Antonio region faces many challenges in the area of Public Transportation. While VIA has long been one of the most financially efficient transit systems in the country, its fiscal constraints and service area characteristics have limited what it can offer the community. Level of Public Investment

VIA’s primary source of revenue, over 70%, is the half-cent sales tax collected in its member cities. This level of public investment determines the quantity and quality of service VIA is able to provide. Transit authorities in other major metropolitan areas in the State of Texas, like Dallas, Houston, and Austin, collect a full cent sales tax, as permitted in the Texas Transportation Code.

While VIA’s revenue levels are different from those of other Texas transit authorities, its requirements are not. Like all other transportation providers, VIA stretches its budget to cover the federally mandated Paratransit service, which now accounts for 20% of the VIA budget. The operating subsidy per Paratransit trip is over $17/trip. While VIA provides less hours of bus service compared to the systems that operate in Houston and Dallas, it provides the same or greater number of Paratransit trips than do those other systems.

VIA’s limited resources were a constraining factor when VIA restructured its fixed route system. The VIA board was faced with the difficult task of determining a fiscally prudent balance between low-ridership service which covered low-density areas further from the center of San Antonio and high-ridership service in densely developed areas closer to the center of San Antonio. The restructured system directed frequent service to high-ridership areas and reduced duplicative service (two or more routes serving the same area). In the year that the CSP has been operational, the number of passengers per hour on the VIA fixed route network has increased slightly. Because of the change in the routes, a drop had been expected to occur initially.

VIA’s financial resources have also limited the level of passenger amenities it has been able provide. Passenger amenities refer to conveniences offered by the transit authority to the passenger, such as sheltered waiting area, benches at bus stops, or transit centers. Currently, less than 15% of all bus stops offer a covered waiting area for passengers. VIA turned to a public-private partnership with the City of San Antonio and the CEMUSA Group to address the needs for passenger amenities. Through this partnership, VIA arranged for the installation of 425 advertising shelters in the city of San Antonio.


Land Use Patterns

The development patterns prevalent in growing areas of San Antonio pose a challenge for efficient operation of bus service. Residential subdivisions with low-density and poor street connectivity are not “transit friendly,” meaning they are not conducive to efficient transit service. Poor street connectivity and low density development create longer, indirect distances to be covered by pedestrians and bus routes, making transit use less viable for potential riders and transit service more expensive to provide.

Commercial development characteristics of the area also pose challenges to public transit. Commercial development on one-way frontage roads, as seen along portions of IH-10 West, Loop 410, and Loop 1604, are difficult to serve by transit, mostly because of the circuitous routing that is required and the difficult choice that riders are forced to make between riding out of direction or walking long distances across freeways in pedestrian unfriendly environments to get to the opposing bus stop. Lacking Pedestrian Infrastructure

As alluded to in the Pedestrian Element of this document, the region’s current pedestrian network lags far behind the street network. A short trip that can be completed relatively safely by vehicle may be more difficult or less safe if traversed on foot. Transit, while delivered by a vehicle and operated on a road, always serves a pedestrian. Without a safe, comfortable, and continuous pedestrian network transit use will never reach its potential. An inexistent or unsafe pedestrian network is a barrier to walking and, hence, a barrier to transit use. Without a safe, usable pedestrian network that is comparable in convenience to the street network, driving will continue to be the travel mode of choice for those who can afford it. Pedestrian “Unfriendliness”

The regional land-use patterns and lacking pedestrian network create urban conditions, which are uninviting to pedestrians. Wide streets with narrow sidewalks, without any shading landscape, and with buildings far from the street’s edge are built to the scale of the automobile, not the pedestrian. Auto-oriented frontage-road development in which storefronts are separated from the street by vast, unshaded, and auto-designed parking lots are far from ideal pedestrian environments, and serve as additional incentives to choose driving over transit. Narrower streets, with buildings closer to the street (and parking behind, perhaps), with wide sidewalks, pedestrian islands or medians, would not only be safer, but more inviting to the pedestrian and would serve as incentives for walking and transit use. The close proximity of the buildings would provide pedestrians with much needed shade in the summer and reprieve from cold winds in the winter. Addressing the Challenges and Issues


Efforts to battle some of the above challenges are already underway. As will be

discussed later in the chapter, the Advanced Transportation District may allow for additional investment in public transportation, more sidewalks, and other projects. As will be described in the Pedestrian Element of this MTP, initiatives are underway to improve the pedestrian infrastructure of the region. Alternative approaches to current development trends, as outlined in the City of San Antonio’s Unified Development Code, may yet lead to urban conditions which are conducive to transit use. However, many improvements and policy changes are still needed in order to make transit a travel mode of choice for residents of the San Antonio Bexar County area. Upcoming Programs for Public Transportation

Given VIA’s current financial situation, the future of public transportation service in Bexar County is uncertain. This section will discuss three alternative programs for public transportation in Bexar County, each dependent on funding levels. Financial Forecast

Financial estimates through 2030 show that no revenues will be available to provide service levels beyond those operated today. Table 6.1 below shows that in each five year time frame, revenues and expenses are almost even. The expenses assume today’s levels of service and no new revenue sources.

However, the table does show that in the long run VIA may be able to maintain

current levels of service. The following investments are programmed for maintaining current levels of service.

As stated earlier, all future transit vehicles purchased by VIA will be equipped

with lifts or ramps to accommodate persons in wheelchairs and other customers who cannot negotiate steps. VIA expects to have its bus fleet entirely accessible by 2008. It is anticipated that many intersections and pedestrian pathways will be improved by state and local agencies in the years ahead.

VIAtrans service and its capital needs will be maintained, by federal mandate, in

order to meet the demand of the service area for Paratransit service.


Table 6.1 VIA Metropolitan Transit Financial Projections to 2030*

2005 2011- 2016- 2021- 2026-Fiscal Years: 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Totals

Sources:Operating Revenue 109,119,579 90,982,870 91,028,223 91,073,575 91,118,928 473,323,175Sales Tax 439,494,344 382,224,900 397,366,038 413,106,964 429,471,436 2,061,663,682Investment Income 7,586,846 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 6,250,000 32,586,846Grant Capital Reimbursements 52,710,006 43,925,005 43,925,005 43,925,005 43,925,005 228,410,026

Sub-Total Operating 608,910,775 523,382,775 538,569,266 554,355,544 570,765,369 2,795,983,729

Grants Section 5307 74,376,906 61,980,755 61,980,755 61,980,755 61,980,755 322,299,926 Section 5309 16,238,736 13,532,280 13,532,280 13,532,280 13,532,280 70,367,856

Sub-Total Grants 90,615,642 75,513,035 75,513,035 75,513,035 75,513,035 392,667,782

Total Sources 699,526,417 598,895,810 614,082,301 629,868,579 646,278,404 3,188,651,511

Uses:Vehicle Acquisition Revenue Vehicles 40,266,338 39,279,728 44,535,606 53,220,866 43,221,555 220,524,093 Non-Revenue Vehicles 3,920,081 1,886,189 3,779,909 2,511,116 1,763,183 13,860,478

Total Vehicles 44,186,419 41,165,917 48,315,515 55,731,982 44,984,738 234,384,571

Buildings and Equipment 28,904,136 27,000,000 27,000,000 27,000,000 27,000,000 136,904,136

Operating Expenses Line Service 437,840,286 364,866,905 364,866,905 364,866,905 364,866,905 1,897,307,906 VIAtrans 121,168,339 109,765,324 117,757,772 125,750,287 133,742,724 608,184,446 Other 26,023,878 21,686,565 21,686,565 21,686,565 21,686,565 112,770,138

Total Operating Expense 585,032,503 496,318,794 504,311,242 512,303,757 520,296,194 3,106,509,721

Depreciation (Local Share) 41,246,100 34,371,750 34,371,750 34,371,750 34,371,750 178,733,100Non-Operating Expense 0 0

Total Uses 699,369,158 598,856,461 613,998,507 629,407,489 626,652,682 3,168,284,297

Gain/ (Loss) 157,259 39,349 83,794 461,090 19,625,722 20,367,214

Revenues:Fiscal 2001 - 2003 actualFiscal 2004 budgetFiscal 2005-2030 based on trend

* Table is in current dollars

Modeling of Geographically-Constrained Bus Network

The Four Step Travel Demand Modeling process for this MTP simulated a

scenario in which future bus service was geographically constrained to the routes currently operational today. The model simulated both vehicle and transit modes. The bus network for this modeling scenario is based on the January 2004 bus network. The model applied future demographics and transportation demands to the fixed route system that exists today.


The model predicted that weekday bus boardings and bus service would increase dramatically. It projects weekday daily boardings would be 208,620 in year 2030 (compare to 125,000 in model year 1999, or to just over 100,000 today).

One conclusion that can be drawn from this simulation is that the area will need

additional transit service in the future, and that today’s revenue sources will not be sufficient to meet the demand for transit services in the future.

Advanced Transportation District: Ten Year Plan

In July 2004, VIA adopted a ten year plan for growth of service, which is

contingent upon additional funding. The five elements in that plan and their initiatives are as follows:

Primary Transit Network

Frequency Enhancements Creation of a 24-hr service zone Creation of an 18-hour service zone

Strategic Service Expansion

Geographic Fixed Route Expansion Vanpool Program Commuter Bus Connections Medical Center Access and Circulation

Passenger Facility Enhancements

Additional benches and shelters Fifty “Super-stops” at high-boarding locations Strategic addition of passenger centers

21st Century Technology

New electronic payment system Transit signal priority on corridors within the Primary Transit Network (15-minute headway all day) Real time bus arrival information

Long Term Financial Health

Sound financial planning for sustainable growth of service

A program for implementing the above initiatives over the course of ten years was developed. The above initiatives are described in detail in the VIA Ten Year Plan document.


Financial Assumptions One possibility for additional public transportation revenues is the Advanced

Transportation District sales tax. Unlike the general transit sales tax which is currently collected at the rate of ½-cent in all of the cities in the VIA service area, this sales tax does not have to be collected in each of the member cities.

In 2003 the Texas Transportation Code legislating transit authorities was

modified to allow the creation of an Advanced Transportation District. This new legislation allows transit authorities meeting specific criteria to call for an election to create an Advanced Transportation District and to impose a sales tax for the purposes of advanced transportation and mobility enhancements. The revenues from this sales tax are to be distributed as follows: 50% to the Advanced Transportation District, 25% to the participating municipality, and 25% to the Texas Department of Transportation.

At a special meeting held on June 24, 2004, the VIA Metropolitan Transit Board

of Trustees voted to call for a referendum for the creation of an Advanced Transpor-tation District in the City of San Antonio financed by a sales tax increase at the rate of ¼-cent. The election will be held on November 2, 2004. The ATD is expected to yield approximately $188 million dollars for public transportation in the next ten years. This money would allow VIA to implement the initiatives outlined above.

The ATD is designed to provide people in San Antonio with advanced

transportation options and mobility improvements. The funds from the ATD will help finance provisions for bus service expansion, new and improved passenger facilities, new transit technologies, and the restoration of the agency’s financial health. The results of the ATD referendum will be known prior to the adoption of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and may affect some of the assumptions made in this chapter. Consensus-Developed Public Transportation Network

The third public transportation scenario presented is the outcome of months of study and feedback from the MPO’s “Citizens Work Group” and the “Technical Work Group” formed as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update process. It is important to note that the cost for this network was not estimated, nor were any supporting funding sources identified.

This system includes 15 new bus routes, 10 of them using Bus Rapid Transit technology (BRT) on major. This network is depicted in Figure 6.4.

According to the model, weekday daily boardings are projected be 309,766

boarding for this network. To serve this anticipated growth, weekday daily bus service hours are projected to increase 8,023 hours (compared to just under 6,000 hours


today). This would mean that the number of weekday passenger boardings per hour would increase to 38.61 passenger boardings per hour (compared to 26 passengers per hour today). The bus fleet is expected to grow by an estimated 93 buses during this 30-year time period. In order to accommodate this type of demand, the use of articulated buses (buses of larger capacity which bend at the middle) should be considered.

VIAtrans paratransit service is also projected to experience an increase. VIA

forecasts a 41% increase in total VIAtrans hours and passengers by the year 2030. Conclusion

This chapter presented the region’s accomplishments in public transportation in the past five years, a description of the current state of public transportation, and a discussion of future scenarios for public transportation service.

In the past five years, VIA has opened the new Kel-Lac Transit Center in the southwest area of San Antonio, it has continued to update its aged bus fleet with low-emission, low-floor, wheel-chair accessible buses, and it has forged a public-private partnership to finance installation of 425 bus shelters. On top of this, VIA has revamped the fixed route bus system, instituting the Comprehensive Service Plan in August of 2003.

Despite these numerous accomplishments, public transportation is still not a mode of choice among commuters in this area. Land development patterns, the lack of a pedestrian network, the relatively low cost of owning and operating a vehicle, and the limited options offered by transit make travel by automobile the mode of choice.

Future scenarios for public transportation service indicate that by the year 2030,

increases in population and employment, will cause as much as a 200% increase in demand for public transportation services over that seen today. Financial projections through 2030 show that current revenue sources are incapable of meeting any public transportation demand beyond that experienced today. New, non-traditional revenue sources are needed to guarantee that public transportation will continue to play a vital role in the region’s economy.


Figure 6.4 2030 Consensus-Developed Public Transportation Network

No-growth system


7 . Roadway Needs Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years A number of interesting roadway related developments have occurred over the past five years that were unforeseen when the San Antonio – Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) approved the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) in 1999. Over the last five years, the San Antonio Mobility Coalition (SAMCo) has been formed and has helped with the education and funding processes at the federal, state and local levels. Intelligent Transportation Systems architecture was developed, approved, and has now been implemented and will continue to expand on the area’s transportation system. House Bill 3588 with new transportation funding tools was passed at the state level allowing for the formation of a Regional Mobility Authority. Finally, the area is now in process of developing a starter toll system to relieve congestion and improve mobility in the region. Background

As population and employment continue to grow in the San Antonio metropolitan area, a higher burden will be placed on the transportation system. To accommodate traffic increases on the roadway system, additional lanes will need to be added and operational improvements will need to be made. In addition to congestion levels, factors that were considered while developing the future year roadway network included impacts to neighborhoods, acceptability by the public, environmental concerns and fiscal constraints. Roadway System Policies

The proposed roadway system improvements in the MTP are limited by the amount of funding available, or those revenues that can be reasonably expected over the 25-year life of the MTP. While more improvements are necessary than what funding is available for, the roadway projects address the most congested areas of the MPO study area. The proposed policies below will assist in developing the best transportation system for the area.

• Develop a roadway system that is compatible with the needs of other modes such as bicycles, pedestrians, public transportation and truck and rail freight

• Consider safety to be a primary consideration in the project selection

process


• Require land developers to preserve the necessary right-of-way in future travel corridors

• Require private developer contributions in roadway construction in

undeveloped areas through the development process

• When approving new land development, ensure that internal, connecting and adjacent streets are able to handle the expected type and intensity of development that is proposed

• Implement access management strategies on major roadways to improve

safety and traffic flow

• Ensure sufficient funding exists for roadway maintenance

• Use all available funding tools available to the area

• Continue to coordinate with the San Antonio Mobility Coalition and the Regional Mobility Authority

Roadway Functional Classification

The MTP is primarily concerned with those roadways that will be built or expanded using federal funding sources. These roadways are part of the “functionally classified roadway system.” A functionally classified roadway system allows for urban streets to be grouped by their purpose or function. There are three main functions for urban streets: 1) movement of traffic, 2) distribution or collection of traffic, and 3) provide access to terminal points. Freeways provide maximum movement of vehicles, but allows for more limited access to the adjacent land use. Arterial streets have lower vehicular capacity and speed, but allow for direct access to surrounding land use. Collector and residential streets primarily provide access to larger facilities, as each class of urban street serves as a collection device for the next lower class of street. The functional classification system is further defined in Table 7.1.

Functionally classified roadways describe the various levels of vehicular mobility. Using functional class in the transportation planning process ensures that general land use and local development are considered in evaluation of both existing and future transportation needs. Another purpose for using the functional classification system is to help determine which roadways should be included in a regional transportation system. Figure 7.1 shows the current functionally classified roadway system.


Table 7.1 Functional Classification System Description

Functional Class

Level of Mobility System Access Level of Accessibility

Freeway Connects all urban subregions together; connects urban and rural service areas with metro major activity centers; connects to other cities.

To other freeways, principal arterials, and selected arterials; no direct land access.

Long trips at high speed within and through the metro area; express transit trips.

Principal Arterial

Connects two or more subregions; provides secondary connections outside cities; complements freeways in high volume corridors.

To freeways, other principal arterials, and high volume collectors; no direct land access except major traffic generators.

Medium distance to long trips at high to moderate speeds within the urban area; express transit trips.

Arterial Connects adjacent subregions and activity centers within subregions.

To freeways, principal arterials, other arterials, and collectors; restricted direct land access.

Medium to short trips at moderate to low speeds; local transit trips.

Collector Connects neighborhoods within and between subregions.

To arterial, other collectors, and local streets; direct land access.

Primarily serves collection and distribution function for the arterial system at low speeds; local transit trips.

Local Connects blocks within neighborhoods and specific activities within homogeneous land use areas.

To collectors and other local streets; direct land access.

Almost exclusively collection and distribution; short trips at low speeds.


Figure 7.1 Functionally Classified System Map


Congestion

Congestion occurs when roadways do not have sufficient carrying capacity to meet the demand for traffic loading onto the roadway. The term "capacity" refers to the ability of a street to hold traffic, which is a function of actual space on the roadway such as the number of lanes, lane width, percent slope, length of left or right turn bays, on-street parking, percent truck and bus traffic, number of pedestrians or cyclists, and signal timing and phasing. For travel demand modeling purposes, capacity was defined in terms of the number of lanes, functional classification and area type. Congestion for the San Antonio metropolitan area was defined as the volume over capacity ratio greater than 1.0 and based on the output from the travel demand model.

Year 2030 Roadway System

The future year (2030) roadway system was developed using an extensive public involvement process (see Chapter 3 Public Involvement) and technical analysis. Again, using the functionally classified system as an overall framework, a network of the future year highway and street system was developed. Freeways, arterials, and selected collector streets in the MPO study area comprise the future year roadway network. Factors Affecting the Future Year Roadway System Trans Texas Corridor

In 2001, Governor Rick Perry announced the creation of the Trans Texas Corridor. Billed as a “world class concept,” the Trans Texas Corridor is a network of corridors; 4,000 miles in length, up to 1200 feet in width and at an estimated cost of $180 billion. Corridors include six lanes for passenger vehicles (three in each direction), four lanes for trucks (two in each direction), six rail lines (three in direction to accommodate high speed passenger trains, high speed freight trains, and conventional commuter and freight trains) and a dedicated utility zone of 200 feet. The Trans Texas Corridor will connect major Texas cities, allowing for faster and safer transportation of people and goods. It is anticipated to relieve roadway congestion, keep hazardous cargo away from populated areas, improve air quality, and provide for an improved utility transmission system. State Highway 130

State Highway 130 is a project of the Texas Department of Transportation’s Texas Turnpike Authority and is the state's first highway to be developed under a Comprehensive Development Agreement, allowing the work of property acquisition, design and construction to be undertaken simultaneously. The first phase of SH 130 will be a 49-mile toll way extending from Interstate 35 north of Georgetown southward to U.S. 183 southeast of Austin, passing though Williamson and Travis Counties. As additional funding and right of way become available, SH 130 will extend through MOBILITY 2030 7 - 5 Approved: December 6, 2004

Caldwell and Guadalupe Counties to connect with I-10 near Seguin. If completed, this portion of roadway could assist with the movement of freight truck traffic currently traveling through IH 35. However, it is unclear at this time how the second phase of this project will be funded and how it will truly affect the San Antonio-Bexar County region.

Major Thoroughfare System The area’s Major Thoroughfare System is composed primarily of principal and

major arterial streets and provides the necessary transportation support and access to and from local land uses. By 2030, this system of arterials is forecast to carry approximately 28 percent of all vehicular traffic in the region. Since many major expressway corridors are constrained from acquiring additional right-of-way, much of the additional out-year demand will likely have to be accommodated through a better connected and more efficient arterial street system. Changes to the major thoroughfare plan are done through a collaborative effort among all regional planning partners including the City, County, and MPO. Many of these major and minor arterials are expected to be constructed by developers interested in expanding commercial and residential development outside of already built-up portions of the City.

Figure 7.2 City of San Antonio Major Thoroughfare Plan



Toll Roads

Inherent to the region’s freeway system are high-cost improvements and maintenance. While there may be little operational costs once constructed, building, maintaining, and expanding freeway facilities is very expensive. Over the last few years, the idea of user-fee based roadways has been growing in popularity and acceptance around the State. Although San Antonio has not implemented any toll facilities to date, the Texas Transportation Commission recently adopted a favorable toll road policy to promote the future study of additional toll roads throughout the state. The Bexar County region has taken advantage of these new policies and has formed a Regional Mobility Authority (RMA), which will soon begin looking at the toll viability of this area’s transportation system. A starter toll system has been proposed by the Texas Department of Transportation – San Antonio District and has been approved by the MPO Transportation Policy Board through TxDOT’s Statewide Mobility Plan.

Conclusions

Congestion on the region’s roadways is expected to increase in the future, despite the investment made through this Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The projects included in Chapter 12 are a good start at mitigating the expected growth in congestion. However, transportation demand strategies will become increasingly important in improving the region’s transportation system. When sound transportation demand strategies are implemented, they can have a positive effect on growth, land use, travel patterns and travel behavior.

8. Freight Movement Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years One of the primary economic development strategies for San Antonio has been the development and promotion of San Antonio as an inland port and center for trade processing activities. Over the last several years, regional leaders have worked to ensure that the area takes advantage of the considerable economic generators arising from its unique geographic location, world-class infrastructure, bilingual-bicultural workforce, and low cost business climate. The opening of the new Toyota truck manufacturing plant in southern Bexar County is an example of a new economic generator. As the overall level of logistics and distribution related activities increase through the inland port initiative, the economic benefits will permeate throughout the entire San Antonio economy.

Background

In 1994, the San Antonio-Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) conducted a Freight Movement Study for the metropolitan area. The study documented patterns of freight movement, local generators or recipients of freight, specific points or segments of traffic congestion within the metropolitan area, the likely degree of freight growth within and through the region and potential mitigating measures that can be undertaken to accommodate the impending changes in traffic volumes.

In 1998, MPO transportation planning partners met with representatives of the freight movement industry. The workshop provided participants the opportunity to review current and proposed road improvements within the San Antonio-Bexar County area as well as provide information and recommendations directly to transportation planners at the city, county, state, and federal levels. Participants at the workshop identified traffic and transportation problems that ranged from overhanging tree limbs, congestion and weaving problems to the close proximity of entrance and exit ramps at various intersections. Local Freight Conditions

The availability of trucking surveys and truck travel demand forecasting is limited in

extent. Rarely have truck data collection and forecasting been treated as distinct issues. The collection of this type of data is typically treated as ancillary to similar data collections that focus on passenger vehicle modeling efforts. However, the movement of goods by truck is a vital link in trade, and, therefore, is an essential component of the economic strength of an area. Trucks transport between local supply sources (warehouses) to points of consumption (retail stores or homes) and connect elements (seaports, airports, and rail and freight terminals) of the transportation system.


The map shown in Figure 8.1 shows the MPO study area’s freight movement. Local airports, rail lines and the area’s highway system serve as the primary conduit for

movement of goods throughout the region. The San Antonio International Airport offers state-of-the art cargo facilities and has space identified for airport related industrial use. Kelly USA is a former air force base now home to more than 60 tenants in the aviation, logistics, warehouse/distribution and manufacturing industries, and is envisioned to serve as the hub for all future inland port operations. It is anticipated that the opening of the new Toyota plant will increase operations at these facilities and increase truck movement on other facilities.

Figure 8.1 Freight Movement within the MPO Study Area

The City of San Antonio is focused on promoting the growth and expansion of its

aerospace industry by maximizing economic development opportunities and leveraging assets at its aviation facilities. In November 2000, the City completed an Aviation Industry Strategic Plan. This planning document contains specific goals and objectives that will help San Antonio's aviation facilities become a premier economic generator by capitalizing on development opportunities in the areas of passenger air service, air cargo, general aviation and aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul. MOBILITY 2030 8 - 2 Approved: December 6, 2004

Recognizing San Antonio’s importance in the movement of freight throughout the country, local leaders began developing a hazardous cargo plan. In June 2001, the Texas Transportation Commission adopted the City’s Hazardous Cargo Routing Plan depicted in Figure 8.2. Vehicles with hazardous cargo are permitted to travel on freeways highlighted in green only when traveling through the City, making local deliveries, or originating on a point along these corridors. Vehicles with hazardous cargo are completely banned from traveling on the routes outlined in red. This area was restricted to diminish accidents in the downtown area.

Figure 8.2 Hazardous Material Route Map

San Antonio is about two hundred miles west of Houston, the nation’s second largest

port by total tonnage. US Army Corps of Engineers figures show that the port received approximately 191.4 million tons of cargo in 2000. That number is expected to continue to increase steadily. Additionally, the Port of Corpus Christi was ranked as the nation’s fifth largest port in the same report. Because these areas are so close to San Antonio, these growth figures may be significant to justify new regional truck travel studies. Figure 8.3 depicts the national truck traffic network flows and establishes Texas’ importance in the freight industry. The map shows how San Antonio serves as a hub for cargo traveling to and from important ports of entry such as Houston, Laredo, Corpus Christi, El Paso, and


well as other states throughout the country. As an aid to general metropolitan traffic planning efforts, truck travel data could be used to quantify truck travel for better estimating truck pollution emissions, truck route restriction analysis, and development of dangerous goods movement regulations.

Figure 8.3 National Truck Traffic Network Flows (Source: USDOT, 2000)

The signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), as well as the

creation of the maquiladora plants which predate NAFTA, have helped fuel the yearly increase in truck crossings from Mexico into the United States. These crossings, through Texas border cities alone, have increased on average by 16.5% for the 1992 through 1997 time period. With the dramatic increase in goods movement across the United States/Mexico border, an accompanying increase in truck traffic in the San Antonio region, especially along IH 35, becomes predictable and knowledge of local truck traffic becomes vital.

As Figure 8.4 indicates, the value of exports between Texas and Mexico has increased 9.8% between 1999 and 2003. Although this percentage may not seem as high as it has been in the past, it is important to note that the export business between Texas


and Mexico has turned into an annual $41 billion dollar industry. This increase has had a notable impact on the San Antonio region because San Antonio is located on a major truck-travel route to Mexico. Although imports from Mexico and Canada to Texas are not as substantial as the exports, as shown in Figure 8.5, the value of imports from Mexico has increased 44% from 1997 to 2003. The value of imports from Canada has also grown significantly, growing 34% over the same time period.

Figure 8.4 Value of Exports from Mexico and Canada

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Year

Value of Exports to Mexico and Canada from Texas (1999-2000)Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics: Online 2004

CanadaMexico

Figure 8.5 Value of Imports from Mexico and Canada


$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

Valu

e in

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Year

Value of Imports from Mexico and Canada to Texas (1999-2000)Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics: Online 2004

CanadaMexico

At this time there exists very little data on truck movement in the San Antonio region. The City of San Antonio and the Texas Department of Transportation conduct truck traffic counts in San Antonio. The City collects truck traffic data when citizens complain of heavy traffic and want to verify the traffic count. In addition, the City collects truck traffic counts when fresh asphalt is going to be poured over a section of roadway and the truck travel rates are necessary to gauge the specifications of the new surface. The counts distinguish between axle counts for bicycles, cars, buses, single-unit trucks, single-trailer trucks and multi-trailer trucks. These truck traffic counts are usually tallied over one 24-hour period and often do not include weekend or weekday differences.

The Texas Department of Transportation collects 24-hour unadjusted truck traffic

data taken on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. This represents an hourly-summed count of the vehicles traveling one section of a major roadway during one day. The 2003 Vehicle counts taken at these sites are distributed into thirteen different size categories, ranging from passenger cars to multi-trailer trucks with seven or more axles.

While the data provides detailed information on different types of vehicles on a

selected roadway, the data does not provide a comparison between weekday and weekend, between other weekdays, or on a seasonal basis. These differences in truck traffic between days and seasons can be a valuable source of data for transportation and air quality modeling. Unfortunately, it is expensive to collect more in-depth truck traffic data.

The breakdown by truck type categories is shown in Figure 8.6. Single –trailer five

axle truck traffic was the most common truck type at 52%, followed by single unit two axle


trucks at 35%. Comparing truck traffic for each individual counter, Figure 8.7 illustrates that the

total truck traffic on IH 35 north of Loop 410 in San Antonio is over 18,000 per day. Truck counts also show that there are over 15,000 trucks traveling on IH 35 north of the Comal County line, making IH 35 the busiest freight carrier on the region’s transportation system. This high amount of truck traffic on IH 35 can be attributed to the increase of trucks moving through San Antonio due to trade with Mexico and to freight commerce with Austin and Dallas. The two sites with the third highest and fourth highest truck traffic are IH 10 just east of Loop 410, and IH 10 just northwest of San Antonio. The highways with the least amount of truck traffic are US 281 south of San Antonio, Loop 1604 northwest of San Antonio, and Loop 410 southwest of San Antonio. Conclusions

NAFTA related trade continues to impact the San Antonio metropolitan area and will continue to do so, growing at a faster rate than what was earlier anticipated. The growth in freight movement and the growth in local population and employment will increase the level of service on local freeways.


Figure 8.6 Breakdown of Truck Traffic at TxDOT Traffic Count Locations, 2003

Type of Truck Traffic

Single Unit (2 Axle)35%

Single Trailer (5 Axle)52%

Single Trailer (3 or 4 Axle)

3%

Single Unit (3 Axle or More)

7%

Multi-Trailer (5 Axle or More)

2%

Single-Trailer (6 Axle or More)

1%

Figure 8.7 Total Truck Traffic at TxDOT Traffic Count Locations, 2003

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

IH-10

NW

of SA

IH-10

Sou

th of

FM 3551

LP-16

04 N

W of

SA

US-281 S

outh

of SA

IH-35

N of

Com

al Co.

IH-35

Nort

h of IH

-410

IH-41

0 Eas

t of U

S-281

IH-41

0 SW

of S

A

IH-37

Nort

h of IH

-10

IH-10

Eas

t of 4

10

IH-10

Eas

t of S

A

IH-41

0 Wes

t of IH

-35

IH-35

Sou

th of

IH-41

0

IH-35

SW

of SA

Location

Truc

k C

ount

s fo

r a 2

4 ho

ur p

erio

d


9. Environmental Concerns Accomplishments Over the Past Five Years

Many activities related to the environment have taken place in the region over the past few years. One of the most important of these is the region’s signing of an Early Action Compact (EAC) for air quality, the first in the country to do so. Signing the EAC was the culmination of many years of technical work and collaboration by the environmental and transportation agencies, elected officials and citizens, and represents a real achievement for the region.

During the last five years there has been increased concern and involvement among various groups to look after and preserve the water resources in the San Antonio area. Much of this focus has been centered around protecting the Edwards Aquifer, the primary source of drinking water for the area. It is important for governmental entities, private corporations and citizens to work together to direct urban development away from the aquifer by control of infrastructure development. Plans such as the Edwards Aquifer Sustainability Initiative, specify preferred restrictions on impervious cover percentages that will sustain existing water quality, as well as other measures that will assist in protecting the aquifer. Groups that have been instrumental in this effort include Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, Center for Watershed Protection, Texas Environmental Center, No PGA Village, Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas, Save Our Springs Alliance and Smart Growth San Antonio. It is anticipated that as development in San Antonio continues in these environmentally sensitive areas, the efforts of these groups will expand even further. Air Quality Background

Environmental issues in transportation planning continue to be a priority. The passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 1970s brought the significance of environmental issues to the forefront. NEPA mandated an environmental assessment for every federally funded project with the potential to impact the environment. If the impact will be significant then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared. The EIS requires documentation of adverse and positive environmental impacts, and an evaluation of alternatives. This section discusses the major local environmental issues: air quality and water. Air Quality Issues

The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and authorized it to establish and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the nation’s cities. The CAA required areas to create plans to meet the standards and set deadlines for achieving them. The Act was amended in 1977 and again


in 1990. The 1990 amendments, known as the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) contained several significant new provisions. Additional changes were made to the Act in 1997, although held up in court for years, these revisions have recently been upheld and taken into effect. The NAAQS and its amendments’ primary goal is to protect the public health from adverse air borne pollutants. The nation’s metropolitan and rural areas are categorized as being either in attainment or non-attainment with the NAAQS.

Air pollutants monitored on a daily basis, as required by the NAAQS, include Ozone,

Carbon Monoxide, and Particulate Matter. The chemical reactions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) contribute to the formation of ozone in the presence of sunlight as shown in Figure 9.1. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, produced by incomplete burning or combustion of carbon-based fuels, including gasoline, oil, and wood. Particulate Matter includes dust, soot, and other tiny bits of solid materials that are released into and move around the air. Particulates are produced by many sources, including combustion of diesel fuels, garbage incineration, road construction, and various industrial processes. A community may be in attainment for one of these pollutants and non-attainment for another.

In April 2004, EPA published revisions to their NAAQS standards. A key modification to the ozone standard was a change in averaging time, thus strengthening the standard. Formerly, measurements of ozone were averaged over a one-hour block of time, but the new requirement increases the time to an eight-hour period. Tougher standards were also implemented for Particulate Matter. Due to these stricter standards more areas throughout the nation have been labeled non-attainment. If the applicable requirements are not met within the EPA-specified timeframe, areas stand to lose their federal funding for road construction projects.

Local Conditions

MOBILITY 2030 9 - 2

The State of Texas, through the Texa(TCEQ) is responsible for monitoring and compliance with the Clean Air Act. On April metropolitan area was deemed to be in “nonHowever, the official designation of being “non-region has signed an EAC with the Environmenthe area pledged to meet the 8-hour standaNAAQS by agreeing to meet specified mileston

Figure 9.1 Ozone Formation

(Source: Alamo Area Council of Governments)

Approved: December 6, 2004

s Commission on Environmental Quality insuring that metropolitan areas are in 15, 2004, the San Antonio-Bexar County -attainment” with the NAAQS for ozone. attainment” has been deferred because the tal Protection Agency. By signing an EAC,

rd two years earlier than required by the es. As long as the area meets the agreed

upon milestones and achieves attainment status by 2007, the impacts of the non-attainment designations will be deferred.

The San Antonio-Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) study

area currently has four continuous air monitoring sites. All of the sites, San Antonio Northwest (C23), Camp Bullis (C58), Calaveras Lake (C59) and CPS Pecan Valley (C678), measure ozone. Three of the sites (C23, C58, and C27) are maintained by the TCEQ, and City Public Service maintains the last site (678). In addition, the Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG) operates six ozone monitoring sites across the region during the ozone season. The locations of ozone monitoring sites in the area are shown in Figure 9.2.

Figure 9.2 Locations of Ozone Monitoring Sites

(Source: August 18,2004 AACOG presentation: "Air Quality in the San Antonio Region”)

Currently, the ozone regulation for the San Antonio region is based on an 8-hour average of 85 parts per billion (ppb). To meet the eight-hour standard, the community’s “three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour concentration measured at each monitoring site” must be less than 85 ppb. The area’s average for years 2001-2003 was 89ppb, therefore it fell into the non-attainment category for ozone. Figure 9.3 illustrates the ozone values monitored at various monitoring sites in the area over the last several years.

Ground transportation vehicles of all types emit various types of pollutants into the

air. According to an inventory of three key pollutant emissions conducted by the AACOG, there are 244.5 tons of VOCs, 266.9 tons of NOx and 1,179.8 tons of CO emitted into the MOBILITY 2030 9 - 3 Approved: December 6, 2004

air in Bexar County from all sources on a daily basis. “On-road” transportation sources account for 26%, 45% and 60%, respectively, of the total emissions of these pollutants. This amounts to a total of 856 pounds of just these three pollutants for each Bexar County resident per year. Additionally, an estimated 11 tons per day of VOCs are emitted inBexar County as a result of vehicle refueling according to the AACOG report.

Figure 9.3 San Antonio Eight-Hour Design Value Trends by Site

(Source: August 18,2004 AACOG presentation entitled "Air Quality in the San Antonio Region”)

Local Trends In this region, on-road vehicles are the largest single source of all ozone precursors, the gases that mix and react in the atmosphere to make ozone. Luckily, improvements in technology have had considerable effects in reducing air pollution levels (emissions from new vehicles have declined over time as emission controls and fuel efficiency have improved). Further improvements in fossil-fuel burning vehicle emissions will have less significant impacts. Data from the EPA shows that the reduction of hydrocarbons per vehicle mile decreased dramatically from approximately 17 grams in 1960 to 2.7 grams in 1995, but has declined by about only 2 grams per vehicle mile since then. The AACOG estimates that emissions from transportation sources are decreasing at about 5% per year at this time. Therefore the San Antonio- Bexar County area must rely on other alternatives to get the emission reductions it needs to improve its air quality.

At the same time, due to population growth and development in the area, motor vehicle travel in the San Antonio metropolitan area is expected to increase. In the next 25 years, population in the area is expected to increase 2.0% annually with an estimated population in 2030 being 2.39 million people. During the same period, employment is anticipated to increase 2.2% per year with 1.36 million persons employed in the area by 2030. In 2000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was estimated at 33 million and is expected to reach 52 million by 2025 (58% increase). Throughout the metro area and the nation, VMT is predicted to increase at a much higher rate than is population growth. This does not bode well for the status of air quality in the region. For that reason, measures must be taken now


to mitigate the effects the forecasted increase in VMT will likely have on the extent of our air pollution.

Figure 9.4 Annual Number of Days 8-hour Ozone Averages ≥ 85 ppb

02468

1012141618

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

(Source: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality)

Mitigation Efforts During the Ozone Season, from April to October, in the San Antonio area, TCEQ calls an Ozone Action Day (known locally as an Air Quality Health Alert Day) when meteorologists predict that, on the following day, weather conditions will be suited for the production of high ozone levels. Ozone Action Days are broadcast across the region by the National Weather Service weather wire. Notice is also given to local officials, news media, business, and industry in the participating areas. On Ozone Action Days groups particularly sensitive to the effects of ozone, specifically the elderly, children, and individuals with lung diseases, are advised to avoid exposure by minimizing time outdoors. In their Air Quality Health Alert for Ozone Action Days, TCEQ lists a number of actions people can take to improve air quality, including driving less, car pooling, using transit and refueling vehicles after 6:00 p.m. Figure 9.4 shows the number of days in previous years where ozone levels have been dangerously high. Some activities that have been implemented locally to reduce the production of ozone include the use of lower Reid Vapor Pressure gasoline, conversion of fleets to alternative fuels, delayed school start times, encouraging modal shifts (carpool and public transportation), restriction of construction and maintenance activities, and a gas cap replacement program. If the San Antonio metropolitan area fails to meet a milestone in the EAC, and “officially” is declared non-attainment, some activities that may be implemented include inspection and maintenance programs, vehicle buy-back programs and providing cleaner fuels. Table 9.1 shows that the emissions for both VOC and NOx are expected to continue to decline significantly over the next few years. Much of the emission reductions in


the region can be attributed to the mitigation efforts that have been implemented in recent years.

EPA’s air quality conformity regulations ensure that metropolitan transportation systems, transportation projects, and federal projects do not cause new air quality violations, exacerbate existing ones, or delay attainment of the standards. In non-attainment areas, these regulations force a determination and offsetting of emission impacts before implementation of transportation plans and projects.

Table 9.1 Forecasted Change in Anthropogenic Emissions, 1999-2007

Average Tons/Day

Pollutant 1999 2007 (estimated)

Percent Reduction (1999-2007)

NOx 247 193 21.9%

VOC 225 186 17.0%

(For entire Early Action Compact area, does not include Biogenic Emissions, includes all federal/state control

strategies that will be mandated by 2007) (Source: AACOG)

Air Improvement Resources Committees

Substantive air quality planning in the area can trace its roots back to the mid-1990s. From these early efforts, the Air Improvement Resources Committee (AIRCo) formed and conducted its first official meeting in April 1999. Today AIRCo, spearheaded by the AACOG, is largely responsible for developing policy and planning responses to help the area achieve its air quality goals. The AIR Executive Committee is composed of elected officials in Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, and Wilson Counties. At the time of the committee’s formation these four counties comprised the San Antonio Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and were the counties thought to most likely be deemed the non-attainment area by EPA. EPA’s April 2004 non-attainment designation for the region excluded Wilson County, however Bexar, Comal and Guadalupe counties were included.

The AIRCo is a collection of subcommittees, as illustrated in Figure 9.5, working together to achieve the air quality goals for the region. The AIR Executive Committee is comprised of elected officials, while the Advisory Committee is made up of regional stakeholders from business, industry, and the general public. They are charged with informing and advising the AIR Executive Committee on various air quality-related matters. The AIR Public Education Committee’s job is to disseminate information about air quality via the news media, public events and other appropriate outlets. The main objective of the AIR Off-Road Equipment Committee is to collaborate with local industries to encourage


voluntary implementation of ozone control strategies. This subcommittee also examines the impact of legislation on the region and other related legal issues. The AIR Technical Committee is comprised of technical persons from various public and private agencies with expertise in the air quality field. Members of all AIR Committees work directly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and numerous local governments, to ensure that informed, coordinated, and resource-efficient efforts enable the area to meet the new 8-hour ozone air quality standards.

Figure 9.5 Air Improvement Resources Committee Structure

(Source: Alamo Area Council of Governments)

Clean Air Plan (Early Action Compact)

The AIR Committee developed the Clean Air Plan (also known as an Early Action Compact or EAC) for the San Antonio area. Essentially, the Clean Air Plan is a blueprint specifying voluntary measures regional organizations have committed to implement in order to improve air quality more quickly than required by EPA. The Clean Air Plan’s primary purpose is early implementation of air quality measures to avoid the penalties associated with a non-attainment designation. In exchange for accelerated implementation of air quality control strategies at the state and local levels, Comal, Guadalupe and Bexar Counties received a deferred non-attainment designation by the EPA for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The deferred status remains for the duration of the Clean Air Plan or until a milestone in the Clean Air Plan is not met. Clean Air Plan Timeline:

• December 31, 2002: Clean Air Plan and milestone timeline signed by all parties

• December 31, 2004: State adoption of plan in State Implementation Plan (SIP) (EPA approval ~ 9 months later)


• Control measures incorporated into the SIP; any modifications are SIP revisions

• December 31, 2005: Adopted control strategies must be implemented

• December 31, 2007: Attainment Date

• December 31, 2012: Maintenance Demonstration Date - ensures attainment through this period

Water Background Figure 9.6 Location of the Edwards Aquifer Portions of the study area are environmentally sensitive with regards to water quality. Large portions of northern Bexar County serve as the recharge zone for the metropolitan area’s sole source of water – the Edwards Aquifer. Construction of impervious cover over the recharge zone will impact the natural flow and absorption of water, and could increase the possibilities of pollutants from the runoff entering a waterway (see Figure 9.6).

Figure 9.7 Edwards Aquifer System MOBILITY 2030 9 - 8 Approved: December 6, 2004


Figure 9.7 illustrates the three major areas that make up the Edwards Aquifer. The largest of these three is the Drainage Area, which makes up approximately 60% of the total Aquifer System. Rain falling in this zone flows south and east by way of rivers and creeks onto the Recharge Zone. In this area the water percolates down through the cracks and joints in the stream beds and sinkholes into the porous limestone below ( see Figure 9.10).

Moving underground, the water flows south and east, where it becomes contained at depth under pressure in the artesian area or within the well zone limits. Here the water forces its way to the surface through springs or is easily withdrawn by wells. Outside the well zone limit line, groundwater is usually of poorer quality or insufficient quantities to sustain urban development. The study area primarily uses water that enters the Recharge Zone in the west, from Uvalde and Medina Counties. Rapid urbanization poses the potential threat to overpump the aquifer. Therefore if future unsustainable development occurs in the region, sources other than the aquifer will have to be relied upon to supply the area with its water. Local Trends Figure 9.8

Population Growth During the 1970s and 1980s residential development in the San Antonio-Bexar County metropolitan area occurred predominantly in the northern part of the region. Because of the concern of continued development over the Recharge Zone, construction in the 1990s occurred in the western and northeastern areas of the County, slightly curbing the expansion to the north.

9 - 10 Approved: December 6, 2004

The strong, continued growth of the metropolitan area has

brought with it other concerns. The most significant concern is whether or not the area’s sole source of water will be sufficient to sustain the continued level of growth that the area is expected to have in the future. Figures 9.8 and 9.9 illustrate the rapid population growth in the area as well as the amount of water that has been pumped from the aquifer. In anticipation of continued growth, the San Antonio Water System has begun negotiations to purchase water from other sources.

Figure 9.9 Water Pumped As the metropolitan area continues to grow, the needed

transportation projects will impact surface water flow and infiltration, especially during storm or flood conditions. Because transportation facilities generally cause an increase in the impermeable surface area, roadways can result in increasing local surface runoff and reducing water infiltration into the soil. Roadway construction projects can also cause the altering of drainage patterns at stream crossings, by changing the speed, direction and amount of storm water flow.

Mitigation Efforts Figure 9.10 Aquifer Filter System There are several mitigation strategies that could be used to reduce storm water runoff and degradation of the Edwards Aquifer by minimizing the impact of MOBILITY 2030

transportation improvements. Most of these can be directly incorporated into the design of the transportation facility. Engineering on new projects, and redesign and retrofit of existing facilities could include: • erosion control measures and runoff management techniques should be used to

prevent pollution of adjacent waterways and the Edwards Aquifer • adjustments to the alignments of transportation facilities should be used to avoid flood

hazards • greater use of permeable surfaces should be employed to reduce impacts on ground

water recharge • cost/pricing strategies to reduce demand for paved parking or increasing fines for

intentional discharge Other mitigation strategies could include compliance with federal, state and local

policies, standards and land use strategies that address water resources.


1 0. Congestion Management System


The San Antonio – Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) continually implements and monitors activities and events that reduce congestion. During the past five years, the MPO held a congestion workshop for the public in January 2001 to solicit input from the community on perceptions of traffic congestion and completed the Incident Management Plan that provided a framework for responders to detect and clear on-freeway incidents to minimize the disruption of traffic flow. Our transportation partners have added 67 miles to the TransGuide system, implemented signal re-timings in travel corridors, implemented access management techniques, improved the frequency of buses in major travel corridors and conducted more outreach through the Alamo Area Commute Solutions Program. The MPO study area is part of a larger area that has been designated “non-attainment deferred” for ozone so congestion mitigation techniques may become even more important in our region in the near future. Goals and Objectives

The following goals and objectives support the vision of an accessible, safe, and efficient surface transportation system that integrates convenience, affordability, and enhancement of air quality. Goal 1 Increase the efficiency of the existing transportation system and decrease traffic congestion through coordination of traffic operations and development of strategies to reduce travel demand at both the regional and corridor levels.

Objective 1.1 Develop and implement operational programs for the effective management of traffic flow along major travel corridors, including incident management, access management, signalization improvements, and freight management. Objective 1.2 Establish and enforce new policies for the effective management of growth, vehicle usage, and parking. Objective 1.3 Continue and extend existing community oriented programs to reduce vehicle trips through ridesharing, work scheduling, telecommuting, and trip planning. Objective 1.4 Maintain a regional architecture for intelligent transportation systems (ITS), and develop a plan for ITS deployment.


Goal 2 Diminish the growth in single occupancy vehicles and enhance air quality by improving the opportunities for alternative means of transportation.

Objective 2.1 Establish and maintain congestion management based criteria for selection of corridor investment projects, including capacity expansion, preservation of existing right-of-way through operational and rehabilitation improvements, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities. Objective 2.2 Continue and extend existing public transportation service improvement programs, including transit service enhancements, new and improved transit facilities, and ridership incentives. Objective 2.3 Continue efforts with the Regional Mobility Authority (RMA), Advanced Transportation District (ATD), and the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District to augment financing opportunities for development of congestion relief routes, application of emerging technologies, and transportation alternatives for future major investments, including commuter rail service, high occupancy transit, busways, express lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, and tollways.

Congestion Management System Overview

As noted in the federal guidelines, "congestion means the level at which transportation system performance is no longer acceptable due to traffic interference. The level of system performance deemed acceptable by State and local officials may vary by type of transportation facility, geographic location, and/or time of day." Table 10-1 contains the definition of congestion that has been adopted for the San Antonio area and components of the local Congestion Management System.

These guidelines were developed based on technical and community input. The

identified congested facilities are monitored by the appropriate agencies for evaluating system performance and determining data collection requirements. The emphasis of this program is the existing congested facilities, with secondary monitoring of the projected congested facilities. As the data is updated and there is an indication that congestion is continuing to increase along a particular corridor, research is initiated to find out why. Strategies are examined to determine if one or more is ineffective or if the increase in congestion is due to a changing situation or unique circumstance. If it is failure of strategy, then the situation is investigated to determine the appropriateness of the strategies for that corridor or the effectiveness of strategy implementation.


Table 10-1. Congestion Management System Components and Definitions

Congested Roadway Corridor: 24 Hour Volume/Capacity (V/C) Ratio of 1.00 and higher, based on the 2030 Vehicle Trip Table Assigned to the 2000 Highway Network (no-build).

Congestion Watch Area: A corridor or extension of a congested corridor designated as a Technical Monitoring Area or Community Perception Area.

Technical Monitoring Area: A corridor or extension of a congested corridor that

meets any of the following criteria: • A previously designated linkage on the 1994 threshold based on Vehicles per

Lane per Day which received no capacity improvements between 1990 & 2000.

• A linkage having a V/C ratio of 0.75 or greater which directly connects with a congested corridor; extending the length of the congested corridor.

• A linkage which completes a gap (one half mile or less) between two congested corridors regardless of the V/C ratio.

• A linkage which completes a gap (more than one half mile) between two congested corridors that is selectively determined to be an essential linkage to managing a corridor in its entirety, regardless of the V/C ratio.

Community Perception Area: A perceived congested area based on community input.

Special Purpose Routes: Congestion Relief Routes and Hazardous Cargo Routes.

Congestion Relief Route: A corridor designated as a Congestion Relief Route must demonstrate how it will potentially relieve congestion and which congested corridors it will relieve.

Hazardous Cargo Route: Based on the HAZMAT Plan, all designated hazardous cargo routes are currently part of the Congestion Management System.

Transportation Control Measures (TCM) are elements of a transportation program or

project that assist in the reduction traffic congestion. The term "Transportation Control Measure" encompasses elements of both Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM). Transportation systems management includes strategies that are designed to reduce the level of congestion. This is accomplished by encouraging a more efficient use of the existing transportation network. TSM strategies generally refer to the use of shorter term low capital cost transportation improvements to increase the efficiency of transportation facilities and services. Transportation Demand Management generally refers to policies, programs, and actions that are directed towards decreasing single occupant vehicle travel. Table 10-2 shows the congestion management strategies selected for implementation, followed by a brief description of each strategy (by group). Congestion management strategies are grouped as: a) Intelligent Transportation Systems, b) Operational Management, c) Policy MOBILITY 2030 10 - 3 Approved: December 6, 2004

Management, d) Community Campaigns, e) Roadway Corridor Improvements, f) Public Transportation Improvements, and g) Advanced Transportation Systems.

Figure 10-1. Congested Roadway Facilities


Table 10-2. Congestion Management Strategies and Implementation Phases

Implementation Phasing Group Strategy

2004 (Existing)

2005 –

2007

2008 –

2015

2015 –

2030

Advanced Traffic Management Systems

Advanced Public Transit Systems

Emergency Management

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

Advanced Traveler Information Systems

Incident Management System

Access Management

Signalization & Traffic Flow Improvements

Railroad Crossing Improvements

Construction Coordination

Operational Management

Freight Management

Growth Management

Parking Management

Policy Management

Vehicle Use Limitations

Rideshare Program

Work Schedule Coordination

Telecommuting

Pedestrian & Bicycle

Community Campaigns

Trip Planning

Tollways

Value Pricing / High Occupancy Toll Lanes

Congestion Relief Routes

Capacity Improvements

Preservation Improvements

Bicycle Facilities

Roadway Corridor Improvements

Pedestrian Facilities

Transit Service Enhancements

Transit facilities

Public Transportation Improvements

Transit Ridership Incentives

High Occupancy Transit

Special Purpose Lanes

Advanced Transportation Systems

Commuter Rail Service

Phase 1: Initiation Phase 2: Intermediate Phase 3: Advanced


Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

TransGuide is an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) that began operations in July 1995 initially as a Freeway Management System along twenty-six miles of highways within the San Antonio area. Currently covering ninety-three miles, the system will eventually be extended to monitor two hundred ten miles of freeways in Bexar County and an additional twenty-three miles along IH 35 in Comal County.

The San Antonio Regional ITS Architecture was developed in 2002 and a

Memorandum of Understanding among all participating agencies was signed in late 2002 and early 2003. Subsystems of the San Antonio Regional ITS Architecture include: 1) Advanced Traffic Management Systems, 2) Advanced Public Transit Systems, 3) Emergency Management, and 4) Advanced Traveler Information System and Data Archives. The description of each subsystem is taken from the Regional ITS Architecture. 1) Advanced Traffic Management Systems: includes traffic management centers (TMCs),

such as TransGuide. TMCs are sophisticated facilities to help in the real-time management of traffic, including monitoring roadway conditions, responding to incidents, rerouting traffic, and communicating and coordinating with the public and the media.

2) Advanced Public Transit Systems: designed to improve transit services through

advanced vehicle operations, communications, customer service and market development.

3) Emergency Management: disaster threats activate Emergency Management Centers to

marshal resources and channel efforts to provide advanced warning or to mitigate the effects.

4) Advanced Traveler Information System & Data Archives: information systems collect

and archive traffic information. Wide area communication infrastructures provide transportation and incident information to travelers, in near real time.

Operational Management

These Transportation Systems Management strategies include: 1) incident management system, 2) access management, 3) signalization and traffic flow improvements, 4) railroad crossing improvements, 5) construction coordination, and 6) freight management. 1) Incident Management System: management of situations and events along major

transportation corridors and adjacent areas. It is the continuous management of incidents, emergencies, detours and temporary delays, and weather related circumstances. The San Antonio Incident Management Plan was completed in 2002.


2) Access management: the development, implementation, and enforcement of standards for controlling the number, location, spacing, and design of access points (driveways) to property from major roadways, placement of pavement marking or raised medians and median openings, traffic flow improvements, and related design and management considerations for eliminating, reducing, or stabilizing frictional factors and conflict points along major roadways. An effective access management program should contribute significantly to reducing congestion and improving safety.

3) Signalization & traffic flow improvements: methods and techniques which will improve

the efficiency of an existing roadway or roadway segment without adding additional through travel lanes.

4) Railroad crossing improvements: this area has an abundance of roadway at-grade

crossings with railroads. Although many have gates, there are still numerous crossings without gates and some without warning signals. In addition to the safety hazards of these at-grade crossings, vehicle traffic delays are caused when trains are traversing or are stopped on the tracks.

5) Construction coordination: traffic delays near construction zones significantly contribute

to the congestion issue. Coordination of road or lane closures, including adequate signage for detour routes, can help reduce the impact and delays due to construction.

6) Freight management: includes monitoring established freight movement travel patterns,

designating hazardous cargo routes, identifying preferred truck routes, and, if necessary, establishing restricted routes concurrently with dedicated freight routes.

Policy Management

Policy management includes: 1) growth management, 2) parking management, and 3) vehicle use limitations. 1) Growth management: the monitoring, evaluation, planning, and control of urban growth

and land development patterns. Controlling urban sprawl is of particular importance to managing congestion as travel patterns relate significantly to the use of land. Performance standards for growth and development can effectively assist in the deterrence of additional traffic congestion.

2) Parking management: includes parking policies for both public and private parking

facilities and should include both the public and private sectors in determination of effective, but equitable, measures. As nonattainment is approached, more stringent control measures will be necessary.

3) Vehicle Use Limitations: generally refers to auto restricted zones, no-drive days, and

control of truck movements MOBILITY 2030 10 - 7 Approved: December 6, 2004

Community Campaigns

The following strategies are intended to reduce the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) in very congested areas while encouraging alternative modes of transportation for employees to get to and from work. These programs and initiatives are typically more successful with cooperation from employers and employees. The Commute Solutions Program of the Alamo Area Council of Governments leads these efforts, with other agencies participating within their respective jurisdictions. These traditional strategies were selected because the potential effectiveness as systemwide applications that could be promoted to area employers and school districts, and include: 1) rideshare program, 2) work schedule coordination, 3) telecommuting and teleconferencing, 4) pedestrian and bicycle usage, and 5) trip planning. 1) Rideshare Program: includes carpool, vanpool, and schoolpool programs. Typically,

rideshare programs are initiated by governmental agencies and target major employers or employment centers.

2) Work Schedule Coordination: alternative work schedules can result in travel-related

impacts including: a) reductions in peak period congestion, b) reductions in commute trips, and c) modal shifts in commute trips made possible by flexible work hours; reducing areawide emissions.

3) Telecommuting/Teleconferencing: involves working full or part-time at home or in a

satellite neighborhood work center. Preliminary studies indicate that persons choosing to telecommute can reduce their vehicle miles traveled by 10 to 20 percent.

4) Pedestrian and Bicycle: pedestrian and bicycle transportation are becoming more

popular modes of travel with new awareness to air quality, higher fuel costs, and emphasis on fitness. In addition to being recreational modes, pedestrian and bicycle transportation is gradually becoming a choice for short trips to work and school.

5) Trip Planning: an educational program to encourage families and individuals to

schedule personal trips, as well as work trips, more efficiently. The intent of this program is to reduce the number and frequency of these trips.

Roadway Corridor Improvements

Roadway Corridor Improvements include: 1) tollways, 2) value pricing and High Occupancy Toll Lanes, 3) congestion relief routes, 4) capacity improvements, 5) preservation improvements, 6) bicycle facilities, and 7) pedestrian facilities. 1) Tollways: toll roads and other toll facilities strategically located near or adjacent to

existing congested facilities may provide alternative routes to common destinations; providing relief on the existing facilities. These facilities would allow motor vehicle users


a choice of continuing to utilize existing congested facilities at not additional cost or to pay designated user fees to use a facility with a higher level of service.

2) Value pricing & High Occupancy Toll lanes: value pricing is established by collecting

tolls on selected congested roadways during peak hours. Toll booths are installed and operated only during specified hours when traffic is heavy, but allowing free access during nonpeak hours. This strategy may effectively reduce vehicle trips, but may also cause hardships on people living in communities with low economic bases.

3) Congestion relief routes: proposed roadway facilities that, when constructed, can

potentially relieve congestion in a particular part of the study area. These routes are designated future corridors on the Congestion Management System.

4) Capacity improvements: roadway projects that involve adding through travel lanes to

facilities. Selection criteria are established before each Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) annual cycle begins. The emphasis of these criteria may change each cycle as necessary. Capacity improvement criteria include a weighted congestion factor.

5) Preservation improvements: include operational and rehabilitation improvements.

Operational improvement strategies include adding turn lanes, adding or improving intersection signalization and making geometric improvements. Rehabilitation improvements are intended to improve conditions along existing roadways to enhance traffic flow and safety.

6) Bicycle facilities: adding bicycle lanes or physical improvements to bicycle lanes,

addition of bicycle paths or multi-use paths, providing bicycle storage facilities, bike racks on buses, and promotional incentives which make bicycling safer and more convenient can encourage more people to use bicycling for short trips during mild weather. Since bicycles provide the same kind of demand-responsiveness as private motor vehicles they are especially suited as a substitute for short trips.

7) Pedestrian facilities: pedestrian travel is another alternative mode of transportation,

particularly for relatively short trips. Pedestrian facilities are an integral part of the transportation system, as they are necessary to safely and efficiently accommodate pedestrian mobility for necessary trips and provide access to other modes of travel.

Public Transportation Improvements

Public transportation improvements include: 1) transit service enhancements, 2) transit facilities, and 3) ridership incentives. 1) Transit service enhancements: transit service enhancements to the existing public

transportation system may include: a) regular service, b) paratransit service, c) express MOBILITY 2030 10 - 9 Approved: December 6, 2004

service, and d) expanded service area. 2) Transit Facilities: transit facilities may include: a) park-and-ride lots, b) transfer

centers, c) major bus terminals, and d) multi-modal terminals. 3) Ridership Incentives: techniques that may be applied to encourage increased transit

ridership. Transit incentives include: a) reduced fares, b) monthly passes, c) passenger amenities, d) increased parking costs, and e) employer contributions (e.g. monthly pass subsidies, parking buy-outs, and restricted free parking). Increased ridership will help reduce private motor vehicle trips.

Advanced Transportation Systems

Advanced Transportation Systems refer to emerging technologies and modal alternatives, including: 1) high capacity transit, 2) special purpose lanes, and 3) commuter rail service. 1) High capacity transit: refers to bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail transit (LRT). Bus

rapid transit (or quality bus service) is a less capital cost intense service that can be operated similar to light rail transit. Light rail transit can serve major activity centers, particularly central business districts and other areas of high trip generation or attraction. Light rail transit typically serves trips ranging in distance from one to five miles.

2) Special purpose lanes: High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) facilities are designed to maximize the carrying capacity of a network. This can be achieved by altering the design of the facility to provide priority treatment for HOVs. An HOV lane is typically dedicated to vehicles that have two or more passengers. Since the volume of traffic is lower, cars can travel without the delays associated with congestion. For the HOV lane to remain attractive, noticeable time savings are needed. Similar to high occupancy vehicle lanes, express lanes are dedicated, limited access lanes on freeways and arterials that exclusively serve through traffic. Express lanes can be converted to high occupancy vehicle lanes when circumstances warrant. While standard transit buses may provide service on busways, busways are often viewed as a different mode because they are roadway facilities dedicated for the exclusive use of buses. This dedicated right-of-way allows for the more efficient through movement of buses and other vehicles that would usually be constrained by bus operations in mixed traffic.

3) Commuter rail service: primarily provides service from outlying areas to a regional hub and between hubs. Commuter rail transit trips in the United States average twenty-two miles one-way. Provided by the Texas State Legislature in 1997, the Austin – San Antonio Inter-municipal Commuter Rail District was fully established in 2002. The Board of Directors met for the first time in February 2003 and continues to meet regularly.


Strategy Implementation Responsibilities

Table 7-3 depicts agency implementation responsibilities (prime, jurisdictional, and participating) for:

• Austin – San Antonio Inter-municipal Commuter Rail District [ASAICRD] • Alamo Area Council of Governments [AACOG] • Texas Department of Transportation [TXDOT] • San Antonio - Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization [MPO] • Bexar County [BC] • Regional Mobility Authority [RMA] • Advanced Transportation District [ATD] • VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority [VIA] • City of San Antonio [CoSA], and • Suburban Cities [SUB]


Table 10-3. Strategy Implementation Responsibilities

STRATEGY A S A I C R D

A A C O G

T X D O T

M P O

B C

R M A

A T D

V I A

CO S A

S U B

Advanced Traffic Management Sys Advanced Public Transit Sys Emergency Management Advanced Traveler Information Sys Incident Management Sys Access Management Signalization & Traffic Flow Impr Railroad Crossing Improvements Construction Coordination Freight Management Growth Management Parking Management Vehicle Use Limitations Rideshare Program Work Schedule Coordination Telecommuting Pedestrian & Bicycle Trip Planning Tollways Value Pricing / HOT Lanes Congestion Relief Routes Capacity Improvements Preservation Improvements Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian Facilities Transit Service Enhancements Transit Facilities Ridership Incentives High Capacity Transit Special Purpose Lanes Commuter Rail Service


Programs

Two Congestion Management Programs have been identified to maintain and extend the monitoring program and assessment process for implementation and continuation of the system for managing traffic congestion: 1) Congestion Monitoring Program, and 2) Congestion Mitigation Program. These Congestion Management Programs have been developed to provide methods to monitor and evaluate the performance of the multi-modal transportation system, identify and evaluate alternative actions, provide information supporting the implementation of actions, and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented actions. Congestion Monitoring Program

Congestion Management System (CMS) guidelines require "establishment of a program for data collection and system performance monitoring to define the extent and duration of congestion, to help determine the causes of congestion, and to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented actions. To the extent possible, existing data sources should be used, as well as appropriate application of the real-time system performance monitoring capabilities available through Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies."

Congestion Mitigation Program

The Congestion Mitigation Program is a continuing process of assessing the effectiveness of the selected congestion management strategies, including: 1) establishing strategy performance effectiveness measures, 2) identifying status of each selected strategy, 3) identifying issues and problems associated with each strategy, and 4) exploring new and more effective ways to monitor and mitigate congestion. Current focus is compatibility with the region’s Early Action Compact.

CMS guidelines require "Implementation of a process for periodic assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of implemented strategies, in terms of the area's established performance measures. The results of this evaluation shall be provided to decision makers to provide guidance on selection of effective strategies for future implementation."

The following CMS guidelines pertaining to air quality are abstracted from the federal rules and regulations as applicable to Transportation Management Areas (TMA). Emphasis must continue to be made that when an area is designated as nonattainment of air quality standards, capacity improvement projects must come from the locally adopted CMS.



"In a TMA designated as nonattainment for carbon monoxide and / or ozone, the CMS shall provide an appropriate analysis of all reasonable (including multimodal) travel demand reduction and operational management strategies for the corridor in which a project that will result in a significant increase in capacity for SOVs (adding general purpose lanes to an existing highway or constructing a new highway) is proposed. If the analysis demonstrates that travel demand reduction and operational management strategies cannot fully satisfy the need for additional capacity in the corridor and additional SOV capacity is warranted, then the CMS shall identify all reasonable strategies to manage the SOV facility effectively (or to facilitate its management in the future). Other travel demand reduction and operational management strategies appropriate for the corridor, but not appropriate for incorporation into the SOV facility itself shall also be identified through the CMS. All identified reasonable travel demand reduction and operational management strategies shall be incorporated into the SOV project or committed to by the State and MPO for implementation."

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) issued the Final Rule pertaining to Management and Monitoring Systems (Federal Register / Volume 61, Number 245 / Thursday, December 19, 1996 / Rules and Regulations).

At this time, three counties in the San Antonio Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)

(Bexar, Comal, and Guadalupe) have been designated as non-attainment deferred status of air quality standards.

San Antonio – Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization

Congestion Management System

San Antonio - Bexar County MPO Congestion Management System

Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

36th Street US 90 Growden 1.24 X X X X X X X XAbbott Rd Graytown FM 1346 0.95 X X X X X X X XAbbott Rd FM 1518 Graytown 0.57 X X X X X X X XAbbott/Stapper RoadsFM 1518 Miller Road 1.19 X X X X X X X XAbe Lincoln/Horn Eckhert Road Pembroke 1.27 X X X X X XAbe Lincoln/Horn Pembroke Abe Lincoln/Horn 1.27 X X X X X XAbe Lincoln/Horn Abe Lincoln/Horn Babcock Road 1.17 X X X X X XAckerman Rd Binz Engleman IH 10 1.75 X X X X X X XAirport Blvd US 281 IH 410 1.68 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XAirport Blvd US 281 IH 410 1.68 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XAlamo Street Laredo IH 35 1.57 X X X X X X X X X X XAlamo Street Flores Laredo 1.57 X X X X X X X X X X XAlamo Street Probandt Main Street 1.57 X X X X X X X X X XAlamo Street Main Street Flores 1.57 X X X X X X X X X XAlamo Street St Mary's Probandt 1.43 X X X X X X X X X XApplewhite Rd Zarzamora Neal Road 4.18 X X X X X X X X X X XApplewhite Rd Neal Road Loop 1604 1.42 X X X X X X X X X X XAshby Street Blanco Road San Pedro Avenue 1.30 X X X X X XAshby Street Main Street McCullough 1.27 X X X X X XAshby Street McCullough St Mary's 1.27 X X X X X XAshby Street San Pedro Avenue Main Street 1.24 X X X X X XAshby Street Fredericksburg RoadBlanco Road 1.16 X X X X X XAustin Highway Harry Wurzbach RoadEisenhauer Road 1.20 X X X X X X X X X XAustin Highway New Braunfels AvenueRittiman Road 1.19 X X X X X X X X X XAustin Highway Perrin Beitel Road Walzem 1.11 X X X X X X X X X XAustin Highway Lanark Perrin Beitel Road 1.11 X X X X X X X X X XAustin Highway Corrine/Holbrook/Ira LeeLanark 1.09 X X X X X X X X X XAustin Highway Vandiver Harry Wurzbach Road 0.82 X X X X X X X X X XAustin Highway Rittiman Road Vandiver 0.74 X X X X X X X X X X

Congestion Management SystemPage 1 of 49


Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Austin Highway Eisenhauer Road Corrine / Holbrook / Ira Lee 0.58 X X X X X X X X X XAustin Highway Broadway New Braunfels Avenue 0.43 X X X X X X X X X XBabcock Road UTSA Blvd Loop 1604 4.79 X X X X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Loop 1604 Camp Bullis Road 4.53 X X X X X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Kyle Seale Pkwy Scenic Loop Road 3.30 X X X X X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Camp Bullis Road Kyle Seale Pkwy 2.11 X X X X X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Hausman Road [FM 1560]UTSA Blvd 2.05 X X X X X X X X X X XBabcock Road DeZavala Road Hausman Road [FM 1560] 1.94 X X X X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Pembroke Prue Road 1.88 X X X X X X X X X X XBabcock Road IH 410 Callaghan Road 1.78 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Huebner Road Pembroke 1.70 X X X X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Hillcrest IH 410 1.69 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Prue Road Springtime 1.55 X X X X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Louis Pasteur Wurzbach Road 1.52 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Baywater Louis Pasteur 1.50 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Balcones Hillcrest 1.48 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Callaghan Road Baywater 1.43 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Medical Drive Oakdell Way 1.42 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road St Cloud Balcones 1.29 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Hamilton Wolfe Eckhert Road 1.29 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Eckhert Road Huebner Road 1.29 X X X X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Oakdell Way Hamilton Wolfe 1.29 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Wurzbach Road Medical Drive 1.24 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Fredericksburg RoadWilson 1.12 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Springtime DeZavala Road 1.07 X X X X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Wilson Sunshine 0.60 X X X X X X X XBabcock Road Sunshine St Cloud 0.60 X X X X X X X XBalcones Heights RoadBabcock Road Fredericksburg Road 1.00 X X X X X X XBandera Road FM 1560 [S] Scenic Loop Road 2.73 X X X X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Bandera Road Scenic Loop Road SH 211 2.71 X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Loop 1604 FM 1560 [N] 2.65 X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road FM 1560 [N] FM 1560 [S] 2.45 X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Eckhert Road Mainland 2.43 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Huebner Road Reindeer Trail 2.22 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Poss Huebner Road 2.00 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Reindeer Trail Eckhert Road 1.98 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Wurzbach Road Seneca 1.96 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Seneca Grissom Road 1.92 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Tezel / Prue Loop 1604 1.92 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road IH 410 Wurzbach Road 1.87 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Grissom Road Poss 1.83 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Mainland Guilbeau Road 1.82 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Broadview Evers Road / Benrus 1.73 X X X X X X XBandera Road Guilbeau Road Braun Road 1.67 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Hillcrest Broadview 1.65 X X X X X X XBandera Road Callaghan Road IH 410 1.25 X X X X X X XBandera Road Quill Hillcrest 1.24 X X X X X X XBandera Road Woodlawn Quill 1.18 X X X X X X XBandera Road Braun Road Tezel / Prue 1.10 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XBandera Road Culebra Road Cincinnati 1.06 X X X X X X XBandera Road General McMullen Woodlawn 1.02 X X X X X X XBandera Road Evers / Benrus Callaghan Road 0.99 X X X X X X XBandera Road Cincinnati General McMullen 0.75 X X X X X X XBasse Road US 281 McCullough 1.80 X X X X X X X XBasse Road Broadway Nacogdoches Road 1.40 X X X X X X XBasse Road McCullough San Pedro Avenue 1.22 X X X X X X XBasse Road San Pedro Avenue Blanco Road 1.21 X X X X X X XBasse Road Nacogdoches Road Jones Maltsberger [N] 1.13 X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Basse Road Jones Maltsberger [N]Jones Maltsberger [S] 1.13 X X X X X X XBasse Road Jones Maltsberger US 281 1.13 X X X X X X XBasse Road Blanco Road West Avenue 1.06 X X X X X X XBeck Road US 87 New Sulphur Springs Road 1.13 X X X X X X X XBenrus Bandera Road Ingram Road 1.52 X X X X X XBinz Engleman Brooke Army Medical CenterIH 35 / IH 410 2.25 X X X X X X X X XBinz Engleman Foster Road Woodlake Pkwy 1.78 X X X X X X X XBinz Engleman Woodlake Pkwy FM 1516 1.36 X X X X X X X XBinz Engleman FM 78 Buzz Aldrin 1.30 X X X X X X X XBinz Engleman Buzz Aldrin Charles Conrad 1.30 X X X X X X X XBinz Engleman Ackerman Road Foster Road 1.08 X X X X X X X XBinz Engleman Charles Conrad Ackerman Road 0.39 X X X X X X X XBitters [E] Broadway Nacogdoches Road 1.05 X X X X X XBitters [E] Wetmore Broadway 0.75 X X X X X X X XBitters/Starcrest West Avenue US 281 1.92 X X X X X X X X X X X X XBitters/Starcrest Wood Valley West Avenue 1.77 X X X X X X X XBitters/Starcrest Blanco Road Wood Valley 1.57 X X X X X X X X XBitters/Starcrest Huebner Road Blanco Road 1.52 X X X X X X X X XBitters/Starcrest US 281 Heimer 1.51 X X X X X X X X X X X XBitters/Starcrest Jones Maltsberger Wetmore Road 1.50 X X X X X X XBitters/Starcrest Loop 1604 Huebner Road 1.40 X X X X X X X X XBitters/Starcrest Heimer Jones Maltsberger 0.90 X X X X X X XBlanco Road Loop 1604 Borgfeld Road 11.63 X X X X X X X X XBlanco Road IH 410 Lockhill Selma 2.31 X X X X X X X X X X X XBlanco Road Lockhill Selma Ramsey 1.68 X X X X X X XBlanco Road Wurzbach Pkwy [P] Bitters Road 1.66 X X X X X X X X XBlanco Road Vista View Wurzbach Pkwy [P] 1.63 X X X X X X XBlanco Road Bitters Road Loop 1604 1.58 X X X X X X X X XBlanco Road Parliament Vista View 1.52 X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Blanco Road West Avenue Parliament 1.38 X X X X X X XBlanco Road Fresno Basse Road 1.15 X X X X X X XBlanco Road Basse Road Dresden 1.09 X X X X X X XBlanco Road Ramsey West Avenue 1.07 X X X X X X XBlanco Road Rector IH 410 1.04 X X X X X X X X X X X XBlanco Road Antler Rector 1.04 X X X X X X XBlanco Road Jackson Keller Oblate 1.01 X X X X X X XBlanco Road Dresden Jackson Keller 0.93 X X X X X X XBlanco Road Oblate Antler 0.88 X X X X X X XBlue Wing Road FM 1937 Southton Road 2.25 X X X X X X X X XBoerne Stage Road IH 10 Scenic Loop Road 3.72 X X X X X X X X X X XBoerne Stage Road Scenic Loop Road Autumn Wind 3.40 X X X X X X X X XBoerne Stage Road Autumn Wind Dos Cerros 1.87 X X X X X X X X XBorgfeld Road US 281 Bulverde Road 13.77 X X X X X X X X X X XBorgfeld Road Bulverde Road Timberline 10.26 X X X X X X X X XBorgfeld Road Timberline FM 2696 [Blanco][OB] 2.51 X X X X X X X XBowens Crossing/Dover Ridge/Mainland [D]Loop 1604 Weybridge 2.03 X X X X X X X X XBowens Crossing/Dover Ridge/Mainland [D]Cliffbriar Tezel 2.01 X X X X X X X X XBowens Crossing/Dover Ridge/Mainland [D]Coral Springs SH 16 [Bandera] 1.77 X X X X X X X X XBowens Crossing/Dover Ridge/Mainland [D]Weybridge Cliffbriar 1.42 X X X X X X X X XBowens Crossing/Dover Ridge/Mainland [D]Tezel Coral Springs 0.70 X X X X X X X X XBraesview NW Military Hwy Vista View 1.14 X X X X X X XBraun Road FM 1560 Loop 1604 5.56 X X X X X X X X X XBraun Road Loop 1604 Tezel 1.78 X X X X X X X X X XBraun Road Tezel Bandera Road 1.06 X X X X X X X X X XBroadway IH 410 Bitters Road 1.76 X X X X X XBroadway Sunset Road IH 410 1.70 X X X X X XBroadway Nacogdoches Road Sunset Road 1.25 X X X X X XBroadway Claywell Nacogdoches Road 1.13 X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Brookhollow US 281 Heimer 1.82 X X X X X X X XBrooklyn [1] Quincy IH 35 1.52 X X X X X X X XBrooklyn [2] Alamo Street Broadway 1.28 X X X X X X X XBrooklyn [2] IH 37 Alamo Street 1.28 X X X X X X X XBulverde Road Loop 1604 Evans Road 3.77 X X X X X X X X X XBulverde Road Smithson Valley RoadUS 281 3.72 X X X X X X X X X XBulverde Road Evans Road Smithson Valley 3.04 X X X X X X X X X XBulverde Road Wetmore Redland Road 1.48 X X X X X X X X X XBulverde Road Redland Road Loop 1604 1.37 X X X X X X X X X XBynum Quintana Military Drive 0.59 X X X X X X X XCagnon Road US 90 Macdona LaCoste 6.29 X X X X X X X X X X XCallaghan Road Stonehaven IH 10 2.45 X X X X X XCallaghan Road IH 10 Fredericksburg Road 2.13 X X X X X XCallaghan Road Babcock Road Cambray 2.04 X X X X X XCallaghan Road Cambray IH 410 2.04 X X X X X XCallaghan Road IH 410 Inspiration 1.88 X X X X X X X XCallaghan Road Evers Road Bandera Road 1.66 X X X X X X X XCallaghan Road Bandera Road Timco 1.66 X X X X X X X XCallaghan Road Culebra Road Commerce Street 1.44 X X X X X X X XCallaghan Road Timco Ingram Road 1.36 X X X X X X X XCallaghan Road Inspiration Evers Road 1.36 X X X X X X X XCallaghan Road Fredericksburg RoadBabcock Road 1.29 X X X X X XCallaghan Road Ingram Road Hemphill 0.92 X X X X X X X XCallaghan Road Vance Jackson Stonehaven 0.75 X X X X X XCallaghan Road Hemphill Culebra Road 0.45 X X X X X X X XCamp Bullis Road FM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]IH 10 5.32 X X X X X X X X X XCamp Bullis Road IH 10 Babcock Road 2.00 X X X X X X X X X X X XCarolina IH 37 Presa 1.69 X X X X X X X X XCincinnati Zarzamora 24th Street 1.67 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Cincinnati IH 10 Zarzamora 1.44 X X X X X XClassen Rd/Higgins RdStahl Road 1 Stahl Road 2 1.55 X X X X X X X X XClassen Rd/Higgins RdLoop 1604 Stahl Road 1 1.55 X X X X X X X X XClassen Rd/Higgins RdUhr Lane Nacogdoches Road 1.33 X X X X X X X X XClassen Rd/Higgins RdStahl Road 2 Uhr Lane 1.11 X X X X X X X X XCommerce Street Walters Gevers Street 1.24 X X X X X XCommerce Street Spriggsdale Walters 1.21 X X X X X X XCommerce Street San Felipe Old Hwy 90 1.17 X X X X X XCommerce Street General McMullen San Felipe 1.17 X X X X X XCommerce Street Cherry Street IH 37 1.17 X X X X X X XCommerce Street Coca Cola Spriggsdale 1.15 X X X X X X XCommerce Street Houston Street Coca-Cola 1.15 X X X X X XCommerce Street Hortencia Acme Road 1.13 X X X X X XCommerce Street Zarzamora 19th Street 1.13 X X X X X XCommerce Street IH 10 / IH 35 Frio Street 1.04 X X X X X XCommerce Street Santa Rosa IH 10 / IH 35 1.04 X X X X X X X XCommerce Street Main Street Flores 1.04 X X X X X X X XCommerce Street Camaron Santa Rosa 1.04 X X X X X X X XCommerce Street IH 37 Bowie Street 1.04 X X X X X X X XCommerce Street Bowie Street Alamo Street 1.04 X X X X X X X XCommerce Street Alamo Street Losoya 1.04 X X X X X X X XCommerce Street Losoya Navarro 1.04 X X X X X X X XCommerce Street Navarro St Mary's 1.04 X X X X X X X XCommerce Street St Mary's Soledad 1.04 X X X X X X X XCommerce Street Soledad Main Street 1.04 X X X X X X X XCommerce Street Flores Camaron 1.04 X X X X X X X XCommerce Street Frio Street Colorado 1.04 X X X X X XCommerce Street Pine Hackberry Street 1.01 X X X X X XCommerce Street New Braunfels AvenuePine Street 0.98 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Commerce Street Hackberry Cherry Street 0.95 X X X X X XCommerce Street 24th Street General McMullen 0.93 X X X X X XCommerce Street Buena Vista 24th Street 0.93 X X X X X XCommerce Street 19th Street Buena Vista 0.93 X X X X X XCommerce Street Gevers Street New Braunfels Avenue 0.89 X X X X X XCommerce Street Colorado Zarzamora 0.88 X X X X X XCommerce Street 36th Street Hortentia 0.74 X X X X X XCommerce Street Old Hwy 90 34th Street 0.42 X X X X X XCommerce Street 34th Street 36th Street 0.42 X X X X X XCorrine Harry Wurzbach RoadAustin Highway 1.16 X X X X X X XCovel Ray Ellison Blvd Pearsall Road 1.03 X X X X X X X X XCrestway New World Glen Mont 1.29 X X X X X X X X X XCrestway Glen Mont Miller Road / Kitty Hawk 1.24 X X X X X X X X X XCrestway Eaglecrest New World 1.07 X X X X X X X X X XCrossroads Blvd Fredericksburg RoadIH 10 6.00 X X X X X X X X X X X XCrossroads Blvd IH 10 Dewhurst 1.37 X X X X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road Loop 1604 FM 1560 8.55 X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road FM 1560 Galm Road 7.32 X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road Galm Road Medina County Line 5.40 X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road Westover Hills Tezel 2.26 X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road IH 10 Zarzamora 1.88 X X X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road Les Harrison Loop 1604 1.85 X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road Ingram Road Old Grissom [Timberpath] 1.82 X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road Colorado IH 10 1.71 X X X X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road Tezel Cliffbriar 1.64 X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road IH 410 FM 1957 [Potranco] 1.57 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road Old Grissom [Timberpath]Westover Hills 1.57 X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road Zarzamora 19TH 1.49 X X X X X XCulebra Road Cliffbriar Les Harrison 1.46 X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Culebra Road 19th Street 24th Street 1.39 X X X X X XCulebra Road 24th Street Bandera Road 1.39 X X X X X XCulebra Road FM 1957 [Potranco] Ingram Road 1.29 X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road Camino Santa Maria 34TH 1.28 X X X X X XCulebra Road 34th Street 36th Street 1.28 X X X X X XCulebra Road Callaghan Road Oakhill 1.13 X X X X X X X X XCulebra Road General McMullen San Felipe 1.11 X X X X X XCulebra Road San Felipe Camino Santa Maria 1.11 X X X X X XCulebra Road 36th Street Hortentia 1.09 X X X X X XCulebra Road Hortencia Benrus 1.06 X X X X X XCulebra Road Benrus Acme Road 1.06 X X X X X XCulebra Road Acme Road Callaghan Road 1.04 X X X X X XCulebra Road Bandera Road General McMullen 1.03 X X X X X XCulebra Road Oakhill IH 410 0.93 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XCupples Quintana General Hudnell 1.41 X X X X X X X XCupples Kirk US 90 1.27 X X X X X X X XCupples General Hudnell Kirk 1.11 X X X X X X X XCypress Fredericksburg RoadSan Pedro Avenue 1.39 X X X X X XCypress San Pedro Avenue Main Street 1.22 X X X X X XCypress Main Street McCullough 1.22 X X X X X XDevine US 281 Alamo Heights Blvd 1.52 X X X X X XDevine Hildebrand Avenue US 281 1.08 X X X X X XDeZavala Road Lockhill Selma Vance Jackson 2.26 X X X X X X X X X X XDeZavala Road IH 10 Babcock Road 2.15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XDeZavala Road Vance Jackson IH 10 1.74 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XDeZavala Road NW Military Hwy Lockhill Selma 1.55 X X X X X X X X X XDonaldson Wilson St Cloud 1.44 X X X X X XDonaldson Fredericksburg RoadWilson 1.41 X X X X X XDonop/Old Corpus Christi RoadsUS 181 Loop 1604 2.12 X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Dora/Fresno/Olmos Blanco Road IH 10 1.60 X X X X X X XDreamland Vance Jackson Lockhill Selma 1.87 X X X X X X X X XDresden Blanco Road West Avenue 1.23 X X X X X XDurango Blvd [1] Frio Street IH 10/IH 35 1.03 X X X X X X XDurango Blvd [1] IH 10 / 1H 35 Santa Rosa 0.75 X X X X X X X X X X X X XDurango Blvd [2] Santa Rosa Flores 0.75 X X X X X X X X X X X X XDurango Blvd [2] IH 37 Iowa 0.69 X X X X X X X X X X X XEaglecrest Weidner Int Crestway 1.80 X X X X X XEaglecrest Crestway Walzem 0.56 X X X X X XEckhert Road Bandera Road Abe Lincoln 1.78 X X X X X XEckhert Road Abe Lincoln Huebner Road 1.44 X X X X X XEisenhauer / ClaywellHarry Wurzbach RoadVandiver 1.46 X X X X X X XEisenhauer / ClaywellVandiver New Braunfels Avenue 1.35 X X X X X X XEisenhauer / ClaywellMidcrown Raybon 1.29 X X X X X X XEisenhauer / ClaywellHolbrook Corrine 1.19 X X X X X X XEisenhauer / ClaywellAustin Highway Harry Wurzbach Road 1.18 X X X X X X XEisenhauer / ClaywellIH 35 / IH 410 Holbrook 1.14 X X X X X X X XEisenhauer / ClaywellWalzem Road Midcrown 1.05 X X X X X X XEisenhauer / ClaywellCorrine Austin Highway 1.02 X X X X X X XEisenhauer/Claywell Fratt Road IH 35 / IH 410 1.66 X X X X X X XEisenhauer/Claywell Raybon Fratt 1.66 X X X X X X XEisenhauer/Claywell New Braunfels AvenueBroadway 1.52 X X X X X X XEland [Suspect] Vance Jackson Dewhurst 1.38 X X X X X X XEllison Drive Loop 1604 Wiseman Road 1.86 X X X X X XEllison Drive Wiseman Westover Hills 1.39 X X X X X XEllison Drive Military Drive Potranco [FM 1957] 1.10 X X X X X XEllison Drive Potranco [FM 1560] Marbach Road 1.04 X X X X X XEllison Drive Westover Hills Military Drive 0.77 X X X X X XEvans Road Nacogdoches Road [FM 2252]Green Mountain 4.43 X X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Evans Road Bulverde Road US 281 2.50 X X X X X X X XEvans Road Green Mountain Bulverde Road 2.41 X X X X X X X X X XEvans Road US 281 Stone Oak Parkway 2.21 X X X X X X X X XEvans Road IH 35 Lookout Road 2.15 X X X X X X X X X XEvans Road Lookout Road Nacogdoches Road [FM 2252] 1.46 X X X X X X X X X XEvers IH 410 Wurzbach Road 2.82 X X X X X XEvers Wurzbach Road Seneca 2.25 X X X X X XEvers Seneca Poss 1.97 X X X X X XEvers Poss Huebner Road 1.82 X X X X X XEvers Callaghan Road IH 410 1.77 X X X X X XEvers Bandera Road Callaghan Road 1.41 X X X X X XFair Avenue IH 37 New Braunfels Avenue 1.67 X X X X X XFair Avenue Hackberry IH 37 1.65 X X X X X XFair Oaks Parkway IH 10 Ralph Fair Road 1.69 X X X X X X XFair Oaks Parkway / Dietz ElkhornIH 10 FM 3351 [Ralph Fair] 1.69 X X X X X X XFischer Road IH 35 FM 2790 4.29 X X X X X X X X XFischer Road FM 2790 SH 16 1.27 X X X X X X X X XFive Palms Medina Base Road Ray Ellison Blvd 1.41 X X X X X X X X XFive Palms Military Drive Medina Base Road 0.95 X X X X X X X X XFlores [S] Durango Guadalupe Street 1.10 X X X X X X X XFlores [S] Dolorosa Nueva 1.08 X X X X X X X XFlores [S] Nueva Durango 1.04 X X X X X X X XFM 78 Pat Booker Road FM 1518 [S] 2.17 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 FM 1518 [S] FM 1518 [N] 2.11 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 FM 1516 Seguin Road 2.02 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 Seguin Road Loop 1604 1.98 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 Loop 1604 Pat booker 1.93 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 Woodlake Pkwy Walzem 1.69 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 FM 1518 [N] Schertz Pkwy 1.64 X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

FM 78 Binz Engleman Buzz Aldrin 1.62 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 Foster Road Woodlake Pkwy 1.55 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 Schertz Pkwy FM 3009 1.50 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 FM 1103 Main 1.41 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 IH 35 IH 410 1.38 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 Walzem Road Schaeffer Road 1.37 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 FM 3009 FM 1103 1.35 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 Buzz Aldrin Old Seguin 1 1.30 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 IH 410 Binz Engleman 1.26 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 Main Street Study Area Boundary 1.23 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 Schaeffer Road FM 1516 1.20 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 Old Seguin 1 Ackerman Road 1.06 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 Old Seguin 1 Foster Road 0.58 X X X X X X X X XFM 78 Ackerman Road Old Seguin 1 0.58 X X X X X X X X XFM 1103 FM 78 Main 2.78 X X X X X X X X XFM 1103 X IH 35 2.14 X X X X X X X X XFM 1103 Main Street X 1.66 X X X X X X X X XFM 1303 Loop 1604 Wilson County Line 1.86 X X X X X X X XFM 1346 Loop 1604 FM 1518 2.52 X X X X X X X X XFM 1346 FM 1516 Loop 1604 1.69 X X X X X X X X XFM 1346 Foster Road FM 1516 1.43 X X X X X X X X XFM 1346 IH 410 Foster Road 1.21 X X X X X X X X XFM 1346 FM 1518 Graytown 1.14 X X X X X X X X XFM 1516 Schaeffer Road Binz Engleman 2.96 X X X X X X X X XFM 1516 Binz Engleman IH 10 2.75 X X X X X X X X XFM 1516 FM 78 Schaeffer Road 2.42 X X X X X X X X XFM 1518 Lower Seguin Road IH 10 2.75 X X X X X X X X XFM 1518 IH 10 Lower Seguin Road 2.75 X X X X X X X X XFM 1518 FM 1346 Loop 1604 2.27 X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

FM 1518 FM 78 Lower Seguin Road 2.05 X X X X X X X X XFM 1518 Lower Seguin Road FM 78 2.05 X X X X X X X X XFM 1518 IH 35 Aero 1.99 X X X X X X X X XFM 1518 Aero FM 78 1.99 X X X X X X X X XFM 1518 FM 78 IH35 1.99 X X X X X X X X XFM 1518 IH 10 FM 1346 1.89 X X X X X X X X XFM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]Loop 1604 Camp Bullis Road 2.39 X X X X X X X X XFM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]West Avenue Lockhill Selma 2.37 X X X X X X X XFM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]Lockhill Selma Braesview 1.92 X X X X X X X XFM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]DeZavala Road Loop 1604 1.90 X X X X X X X X XFM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]Wurzbach Pkwy George Road 1.84 X X X X X X X X XFM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]Braesview Wurzbach Pkwy 1.80 X X X X X X X X XFM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]IH 410 Lemonwood 1.71 X X X X X X X XFM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]Huebner Road DeZavala Road 1.65 X X X X X X X X XFM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]George Road Huebner Road 1.64 X X X X X X X X XFM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]Lemonwood West Avenue 1.57 X X X X X X X XFM 1560 FM 471 Shaenfield Road 3.52 X X X X X X X X XFM 1560 SH 16 [Bandera] Loop 1604 3.14 X X X X X X X X XFM 1560 Loop 1604 Babcock Road 2.47 X X X X X X X X XFM 1560 Braun Road SH 16 [Bandera] 2.44 X X X X X X X X XFM 1560 Shaenfield Road Braun Road 1.99 X X X X X X X X XFM 1628 US 87 New Sulphur Springs Road 1.43 X X X X X X X X XFM 1937 Valley Road FM 2537 2.38 X X X X X X X X XFM 1937 Blue Wing Road Valley Roade 2.14 X X X X X X X X XFM 1937 US 281 [S] Blue Wing Road 2.03 X X X X X X X X XFM 1937 FM 2537 FM 3499 1.67 X X X X X X X X XFM 1957 [Potranco] Grossenbacher RoadTalley Road 2.73 X X X X X X X X XFM 1957 [Potranco] Loop 1604 Grossenbacher Road 2.63 X X X X X X X X XFM 1957 [Potranco] Talley Road SH 211 2.03 X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

FM 1957 [Potranco] Hunt Lane Dugas 1.52 X X X X X X X X XFM 1957 [Potranco] SH 151 Hunt Lane 1.30 X X X X X X X X XFM 1957 [Potranco] Ellison Drive Loop 1604 1.17 X X X X X X X X XFM 1957 [Potranco] Dugas Ellison Drive 1.09 X X X X X X X X XFM 1957 [Potranco] FM 3187 [Culebra] Military Drive 0.90 X X X X X X X X XFM 1957 [Potranco] Military Drive SH 151 0.86 X X X X X X X X XFM 2537 US 281 [S] Pleasanton Road 2.85 X X X X X X X X X XFM 2537 FM 1937 US 281 [S] 2.33 X X X X X X X X XFM 2790 Dixon Road FM 476 1.60 X X X X X X X X XFM 3009 IH 35 FM 2252 3.76 X X X X X X X X X XFM 3009 FM 2252 Study Area Boundary 2.64 X X X X X X X X XFM 3009 Dietz IH 35 2.00 X X X X X X X X XFM 3009 Elbel Dietz 1.22 X X X X X X X X XFM 3009 FM 78 Elbel 1.15 X X X X X X X X X XFM 3351 [Ralph Fair]IH 10 Kendall County Line 3.99 X X X X X X X X XFM 3499 FM 1937 Loop 1604 1.67 X X X X X X X X XFoster Road New Sulphur Springs RoadUS 181 2.03 X X X X X X X X XFoster Road Binz Engleman IH 10 1.68 X X X X X X X X XFoster Road Binz Engleman IH 10 1.63 X X X X X X X X XFoster Road IH 10 FM 1346 1.30 X X X X X X X X XFoster Road FM 1346 US 87 1.22 X X X X X X X X XFoster Road US 87 New Sulphur Springs Road 1.06 X X X X X X X X XFoster Road Lakeview Binz Engleman 0.83 X X X X X X X X XFoster Road FM 78 Lakeview 0.83 X X X X X X X X XFountainwood O'Connor Road Judson Road 1.29 X X X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Crossroads Hillcrest 1.86 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Hillcrest IH 410 1.84 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd IH 410 Callaghan Road 1.84 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Louis Pasteur Medical Drive 1.67 X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Fredericksburg Rd Callaghan Road Louis Pasteur 1.67 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Cinnamon Creek Huebner Road 1.61 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Wurzbach Road Hamilton Wolfe 1.61 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Hamilton Wolfe Cinnamon Creek 1.61 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Balcones Heights Crossroads 1.52 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Five Points Culebra Road 1.39 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Huebner Road Prue Road 1.26 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Prue Road IH 10 [W-2] 1.26 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Vance Jackson Balcones Heights 1.15 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Data Point Wurzbach Road 1.14 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Medical Drive Data Point 1.14 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Woodlawn IH 10 [W - 1] 1.13 X X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Cincinnati Ashby Street 1.13 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Ashby Street Woodlawn 1.13 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd IH 10 [W - 1] Fulton 1.06 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Fulton Zarzamora 1.06 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Zarzamora Donaldson 0.92 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Donaldson West Avenue 0.91 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd West Avenue Hildebrand Avenue 0.91 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Fresno / Babcock Vance Jackson 0.88 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Hildebrand Avenue Olmos Drive 0.58 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Olmos Fresno / Babcock 0.58 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Culebra Road Blanco Road 0.45 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Blanco Road Colorado 0.33 X X X X X X XFredericksburg Rd Colorado Cincinnati 0.33 X X X X X X XFrio City Road Billy Mitchell General Hudnell 1.32 X X X X X X X XFrio City Road Billy Mitchell US 90 1.32 X X X X X X X X XFrio City Road General Hudnell Malone 0.36 X X X X X X X X XFrio City Road Malone Zarzamora 0.33 X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Frio City Road Zarzamora Kirk 0.33 X X X X X X X X XFrio City Road Kirk US 90 0.33 X X X X X X X X XGalm Road FM 471 FM 1560 1.88 X X X X X X XGen McMullen/St CloudDonaldson Sunshine 1.42 X X X X X XGen McMullen/St CloudCincinnati Bandera Road 1.41 X X X X X XGen McMullen/St CloudCulebra Road Cincinnati 1.41 X X X X X XGen McMullen/St CloudBandera Road Woodlawn 1.41 X X X X X XGen McMullen/St CloudSunshine Babcock Road 1.34 X X X X X XGen McMullen/St CloudWoodlawn Donaldson 1.26 X X X X X XGen McMullen/St CloudRivas Street Culebra Road 1.13 X X X X X XGen McMullen/St CloudRuiz Rivas Street 1.11 X X X X X X XGen McMullen/St CloudMartin Street Ruiz Street 1.01 X X X X X X XGen McMullen/St CloudCommerce Street Martin Street 0.98 X X X X X X XGeneral Hudnell Kelly Parkway Frio City Road 0.28 X X X X X X X X X XGeneral Hudnell Kirk US 90 0.28 X X X X X X X X X XGeneral Hudnell Frio City Raod Kirk 0.28 X X X X X X X X X XGeorge Road Lockhill Selma Military Highway 1.68 X X X X X X XGevers @ Southcross Blvd 0.53 X X X X X XGibbs Sprawl Old Cimarron Trail Loop 1604 1.84 X X X X X X X X XGibbs Sprawl Rittiman Road Woodlake Pkwy 1.72 X X X X X X X X XGibbs Sprawl Crestway Toepperwein 1.45 X X X X X X X X XGibbs Sprawl Toepperwein Road Old Cimarron Trail 1.31 X X X X X X X X XGibbs Sprawl Walzem Road Montgomery Drive 1.13 X X X X X X X X XGibbs Sprawl Woodlake Pkwy Walzem 1.12 X X X X X X X X XGibbs Sprawl FM 78 Rittiman 0.62 X X X X X X X X X XGibbs Sprawl Montgomery Drive Crestway 0.52 X X X X X X X X XGillette Commercial Zarzamora 1.06 X X X X X X XGraytown Loop 1604 IH 10 7.08 X X X X X X X X XGraytown Loop 1604 Abbott Road 7.08 X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Graytown IH 10 Abbott Road 1.81 X X X X X X X X XGraytown/Abbott RoadsIH 10 FM 1518 1.81 X X X X X X X X XGrissom Road Timberpath Timberwilde 1.98 X X X X X X X X XGrissom Road Timberwilde FM 3487 1.98 X X X X X X X X XGrissom Road Timberhill Heath 1.54 X X X X X X X X XGrissom Road Heath Timberpath 1.49 X X X X X X X X XGrissom Road Bandera Road Timberhill 1.39 X X X X X X X X XGrosenbacher Road FM 1957 [Potranco] US 90 3.77 X X X X X X X X X XGrowden/Thompson 36th Street General McMullen 1.14 X X X X X X X X X XGrowden/Thompson General McMullen Cupples 1.02 X X X X X X X X X XGuilbeau Road SH 16 [Bandera] Tezel 1.39 X X X X X X X X XGuilbeau Road Tezel Loop 1604 1.37 X X X X X X X X XHaeckerville Road Lower Seguin Road IH 10 1.95 X X X X X X X X XHaeckerville Road FM 78 Lower Seguin Road 1.73 X X X X X X X X XHamilton Wolfe Babcock Road Fredericksburg Road 1.40 X X X X X X X X XHardy Oak Blvd Stone Oak Parkway Wilderness Oak 2.70 X X X X X X X X XHardy Oak Blvd Loop 1604 Huebner Road 2.44 X X X X X X X X XHardy Oak Blvd Huebner Road Evans Road 2.13 X X X X X X X X XHardy/Mathis Roads IH 37 Loop 1604 1.82 X X X X X X X X XHarry Wurzbach RoadUrban Crest IH 410 1.46 X X X X X X X X X X X XHarry Wurzbach RoadEisenhauer Road Urban Crest 1.25 X X X X X X XHarry Wurzbach RoadAustin Highway Eisenhauer Road 1.14 X X X X X X XHarry Wurzbach RoadRittiman Road Austin Highway 1.14 X X X X X X XHarry Wurzbach RoadBurr Road Garraty 1.06 X X X X X X XHarry Wurzbach RoadGarraty Rittiman Road 1.06 X X X X X X XHarry Wurzbach RoadOld Austin Road Burr Road 0.71 X X X X X X XHeimer Road Bitters Road Brookhollow 1.38 X X X X X X XHildebrand Blanco Road IH 10 2.29 X X X X X XHildebrand New Braunfels AvenueBroadway 1.60 X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Hildebrand US 281 McCullough 1.57 X X X X X X XHildebrand Broadway US 281 1.35 X X X X X X XHildebrand San Pedro Avenue Blanco Road 1.33 X X X X X XHildebrand McCullough San Pedro Avenue 1.12 X X X X X X XHillcrest/36th Fredericksburg RoadBabcock Road 2.65 X X X X X XHillcrest/36th Babcock Road Sunshine 2.06 X X X X X XHillcrest/36th Sunshine Bandera Road 1.49 X X X X X XHillcrest/36th Bandera Road Quill 1.21 X X X X X XHillcrest/36th Quill Freeman 1.19 X X X X X XHillcrest/36th Woodlawn Culebra Road 1.19 X X X X X XHillcrest/36th Freeman Woodlawn 0.94 X X X X X XHoral Drive US 90 Demya 1.07 X X X X X X XHoral Drive Demya Marbach Road 1.07 X X X X X X XHouston Street [E] SBC Center ParkwayCommerce Street 1.59 X X X X X X X X X XHouston Street [E] Commerce Street IH 10 1.59 X X X X X X X X X XHouston Street [E] Coca Cola SBC Center Parkway 1.36 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XHouston Street [E] Walters Coca-Cola 1.32 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XHouston Street [E] IH 10 WW White 0.67 X X X X X X X X X X XHouston Street [E] New Braunfels AvenueGevers Street 0.66 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XHouston Street [E] Gevers Street Walters 0.66 X X X X X X X X X X X X XHouston Street [W] IH 10 / IH 35 San Saba 1.04 X X X X X X X X XHuebner Road Fredericksburg RoadIH 10 2.30 X X X X X X X XHuebner Road IH 10 Vance Jackson 2.23 X X X X X X X X XHuebner Road Evers Road Eckhert Road 2.02 X X X X X X XHuebner Road FM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]Bitters Road 1.77 X X X X X X X X XHuebner Road Vance Jackson Lockhill Selma 1.77 X X X X X X X X X XHuebner Road Lockhill Selma FM 1535 [NW Military Hwy] 1.59 X X X X X X X X XHuebner Road SH 16 [Bandera] Evers Road 1.55 X X X X X X XHuebner Road Floyd Curl New Prue 1.44 X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Huebner Road New Prue Fredericksburg Road 1.44 X X X X X X X XHuebner Road Bitters Road Loop 1604 1.32 X X X X X X X X XHuebner Road Eckhert Road Babcock Road 1.17 X X X X X X X XHuebner Road Babcock Road Floyd Curl 1.12 X X X X X X X XHuebner Road FM 2696 [Blanco] Stone Oak Parkway 0.75 X X X X X X X X XHuebner Road Stone Oak Parkway US 281 New X X X X X X X X X XHuebner Road Loop 1604 FM 2696 [Blanco] New X X X X X X X X X XHunt Lane Demya Marbach Road 0.48 X X X X X X X X XHunt Lane US 90 Demya 0.33 X X X X X X X X XHunt Lane [N] Military Drive Westover Hills 1.02 X X X X X X X X XHutchins Zarzamora Pleasanton 0.40 X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Ackerman Road IH 410 [E] 1.80 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] FM 1518 Loop 1604 1.56 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Guadalupe County LineFM 1518 1.52 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Foster Road Ackerman Road 1.42 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] FM 1516 Foster Road 1.40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Loop 1604 FM 1516 1.29 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Presa Roosevelt 1.22 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Roosevelt Mission Road 1.22 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Mission Road Steves 1.18 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Steves Probandt 1.18 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Probandt Flores 1.18 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Flores IH 35 [S] 1.18 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] New Braunfels AvenueHackberry Street 0.90 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Hackberry IH 37 0.90 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Gevers Street New Braunfels Avenue 0.87 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Walters Gevers Street 0.87 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] IH 37 Presa 0.81 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Martin Luther King DriveAmanda 0.71 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

IH 10 [E] Amanda Roland 0.71 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Roland Walters 0.67 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] WW White Houston Street 0.61 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] Huebner Road Martin Luther King Drive 0.56 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [E] IH 410 [E] WW White 0.52 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] Powell Furnish 1.49 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] Nogalitos Powell 1.49 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] IH 35 [S] Nogalitos 1.49 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] Martin Street IH 35 [N] 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] Commerce Street Martin Street 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] Dolorosa Commerce Street 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] Durango Nueva 1.34 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] Nueva Dolorosa 1.34 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] Alamo Street Guadalupe Street 1.22 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] Laredo [S] Alamo Street 1.18 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] Cevallos Laredo [S] 1.18 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] Furnish Cevallos 1.09 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [IH 35] Guadalupe Street Durango 1.03 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Camp Bullis Road Boerne Stage Road 2.88 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Boerne Stage Road FM 3351 [Ralph Fair] 2.63 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] FM 3351 [Ralph Fair]Kendall County Line 2.45 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] UTSA Blvd Loop 1604 2.37 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Loop 1604 La Cantera 2.31 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] La Cantera Camp Bullis Road 2.10 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] DeZavala Road Hausman Road 1.70 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Wurzbach Road Huebner Road 1.53 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Fredericksburg RoadDeZavala Road 1.50 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Hausman Road UTSA Blvd 1.50 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Tioga Colony 1.44 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

IH 10 [W] Callaghan Road Medical Drive 1.44 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Colony Drive Wurzbach Road 1.42 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] IH 410 [N] Callaghan Road 1.40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Balcones Heights IH 410 [N] 1.17 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Huebner Road Fredericksburg Road [N] 1.10 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Cincinnati Fredericksburg Road [S] 1.08 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Culebra Road Cincinnati 1.06 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Colorado Culebra Road 1.02 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Vance Jackson Balcones Heights 1.01 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Medical Drive Tioga 1.44 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Fredericksburg RoadFulton 0.98 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] IH 35 [N] Laredo [N] 0.98 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Fulton Hildebrand Avenue 0.95 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Laredo [N] Colorado 0.94 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] West Avenue Vance Jackson 0.94 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Fresno West Avenue 0.85 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 10 [W] Hildebrand Avenue Fresno 0.85 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] FM 1518 Evans Road 1.96 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] FM 482 FM 3009 1.92 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] Evans Road Retama Pkwy 1.81 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] Schertz Pkwy FM 1518 1.81 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] Retama Pkwy Olympia Pkwy 1.80 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] Olympia Pkwy Loop 1604 1.80 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] FM 1103 FM 482 1.79 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] FM 3009 Schertz Pkwy 1.78 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] Study Area BoundaryFM 1103 1.68 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] Wurzbach Pkwy / O'ConnorCrosswinds / Weidner 1.52 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] Judson Road Wurzbach Pkwy 1.47 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] Toepperwein Road Judson Road 1.40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

IH 35 [N-1] Thousand Oaks IH 410 1.37 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] SH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Toepperwein 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] Crosswinds / WiednerThousand Oaks 1.25 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-1] Loop 1604 SH 218 [Pat Booker Road] 1.12 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-2] [IH 410] Eisenhauer Road Rittiman 1.38 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-2] [IH 410] Lanark Eisenhauer Road 1.27 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-2] [IH 410] FM 1976 [Walzem] Lanark 1.27 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-2] [IH 410] IH 410 FM 1976 [Walzem] 1.12 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-2] [IH 410] Rittiman Road IH 410 CUTOFF 0.44 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] IH 37 St Mary's 1.80 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] San Pedro Avenue Flores 1.58 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] Main Street San Pedro Avenue 1.58 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] Flores IH 10 [W] 1.58 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] Brooklyn McCullough 1.52 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] McCullough Main Street 1.52 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] St Mary's Brooklyn 1.51 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] Pine Hackberry Street 1.26 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] Hackberry IH 37 1.26 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] Walters New Braunfels Avenue 1.13 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] SBC Center ParkwayWalters 1.13 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] New Braunfels AvenuePine Street 1.04 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] Binz Engleman SBC Center Parkway 0.97 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-3] IH 410 CUTOFF Binz Engleman 0.44 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] Powell Nogalitos 1.49 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] Furnish Powell 1.49 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] Nogalitos IH 10 [E] 1.49 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] Martin Street Commerce Street 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] IH 10 [W] Martin Street 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] Commerce Street Dolorosa 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

IH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] Dolorosa Nueva 1.34 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] Nueva Durango 1.34 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] Guadalupe Street Alamo Street 1.22 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] Laredo Cevallos 1.18 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] Alamo Street Laredo 1.18 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] Cevallos Furnish 1.09 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [N-S] [IH 10] Durango Guadalupe Street 1.03 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] IH 410 Loop 1604 1.92 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] Loop 1604 Atascosa County Line 1.38 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] Theo / Malone Division 1.22 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] Division Flanders 1.14 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] Flanders Southcross Blvd 1.14 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] IH 10 [E] Theo / Malone 1.01 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] Somerset Road 1 Somerset Road 2 0.99 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] Southcross Blvd Pyron 0.89 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] Pyron Mayfiels 0.89 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] Mayfield Military Drive 0.89 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] Somerset Road 2 IH 410 0.63 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] Military Drive Zarzamora 0.56 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] Zarzamora SH 16 [Palo Alto] 0.52 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 35 [S] SH 16 [Palo Alto] Somerset Road 1 0.52 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 US 181 Loop 1604 1.93 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Loop 1604 Atascosa County Line 1.65 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Military Drive IH 410 1.59 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 IH 410 US 181 1.49 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Huebner Road Commerce Street 1.31 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Commerce Street Montana 1.21 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Montana Street Durango 1.21 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Boyer IH 10 1.19 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

IH 37 Carolina Boyer 1.19 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Florida Carolina 1.15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Durango Florida 1.15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Jones / Sherman Brooklyn 1.09 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 IH 35 Jones / Sherman 1.08 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 McCullough / Nolan Houston Street 1.07 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Brooklyn McCullough / Nolan 1.07 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Hackberry Fair Avenue 0.89 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 IH 10 Hackberry Street 0.89 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Fair Avenue New Braunfels Avenue 0.76 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 New Braunfels AvenueSouthcross Blvd 0.73 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Gevers Street Hot Wells 0.73 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Southcross Blvd Gevers Street 0.73 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Hot Wells Pecan Valley 0.69 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Pecan Valley Road Goliad Road 0.60 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 37 Goliad Road Military Drive 0.60 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Evers Road Baywatch 1.76 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Baywatch Callaghan Road 1.76 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 SH 16 [Bandera] Evers Road 1.68 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Nacogdoches Road Vandiver 1.55 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Vandiver Harry Wurzbach Road 1.52 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 FM 3487 [Culebra] Ingram Road 1.49 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Ingram Road SH 16 [Bandera] 1.47 X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Military Drive FM 3487 [Culebra] 1.44 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Fredericksburg RoadIH 10 [W] 1.43 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 IH 10 [W] Dewhurst 1.42 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Dewhurst Vance Jackson 1.40 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Harry Wurzbach RoadIra Lee 1.39 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Ira Lee Starcrest 1.39 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

IH 410 West Avenue Honeysuckle Lane 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Jackson Keller West Avenue 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Vance Jackson Jackson Keller 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Starcrest FM 2252 [Perrin Beitel] 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 FM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]FM 2696 [Blanco] 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Honeysuckle FM 1535 [NW Military Hwy] 1.33 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 FM 2696 [Blanco] San Pedro Avenue 1.32 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Jones Maltsberger US 281 [N] 1.29 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 US 281 [N] Airport Blvd 1.29 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 SH 151 Military Drive 1.29 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 SS 368 [Austin Hwy] IH 35 [N] 1.27 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 McCullough Jones Maltsberger 1.26 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Airport Blvd Wetmore Road 1.24 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 FM 2252 [Perrin Beitel]SS 368 [Austin Hwy] 1.21 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 San Pedro Avenue McCullough 1.20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Babcock Road Fredericksburg Road 1.16 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Timbercreek SH 151 1.15 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Marbach Road Timbercreek 1.15 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Wetmore Broadway 1.15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Westfield Marbach Road 1.12 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 US 90 Demya 1.12 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Demya Westfield 1.12 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Callaghan Road Babcock Road 1.01 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 Broadway Nacogdoches Road 0.99 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X IH 35 [S] FM 2536 [Pearsall Road] 1.51 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X US 87 [Rigsby] Sinclair 1.36 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X Sinclair New Sulphur Springs Road 1.34 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X US 281 [S] [Roosevelt]Pleasanton Road 1.24 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X New Sulphur Springs RoadWW White [S] 1.24 X X X X X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

IH 410 X Pleasanton Road Mulberry 1.24 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X Morsund Commercial 1.20 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X IH 37 SS 122 [Presa] 1.19 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X Commercial Zarzamora 1.17 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X SS 122 [Presa] Villamain 1.16 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X Villamain US 281 [S] [Roosevelt] 1.13 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X Valley Hi US 90 1.13 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X Zarzamora SH 16 [Palo Alto] 1.10 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X WW White [S] IH 37 1.08 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X FM 2790 [Somerset Road]IH 35 [S] 1.02 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X WW White [N] IH 10 0.99 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X FM 78 WW White [N] 0.92 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X Ray Ellison Blvd Medina Base Road 0.92 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X Medina Base Road Valley Hi Drive 0.91 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X IH 35 [N] CUTOFF FM 78 0.81 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X FM 2536 [Pearsall] Ray Ellison Blvd 0.77 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X IH 10 FM 1346 [Houston] 0.70 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X Lord Road US 87 [Rigsby] 0.58 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X FM 1346 [Houston] Lord Road 0.58 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410 X SH 16 [Palo Alto] FM 2790 [Somerset Road] 0.29 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410/IH 35 Rittiman Road IH 35 [N] CUTOFF 1.49 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410/IH 35 Eisenhauer Road Rittiman Road 1.38 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410/IH 35 FM 1976 [Walzem] Lanark 1.27 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410/IH 35 Lanark Eisenhauer Road 1.27 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIH 410/IH 35 IH 35 [N] FM 1976 [Walzem] 1.12 X X X X X X X X X X X X XIngram Road IH 410 Wurzbach Road 2.09 X X X X X X X XIngram Road Oak Park IH 410 2.09 X X X X X X X XIngram Road Benrus Callaghan Road 1.20 X X X X X X X XIngram Road Callaghan Road Oak Hill 0.94 X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Ingram Road Wurzbach Road Culebra Road 0.75 X X X X X X X XIngram Road [S] Lakeside Pkwy SH 151 1.85 X X X X X X X X XIngram Road [S] SH 151 FM 1957 0.96 X X X X X X X X XJackson Keller Blanco Road Antler 1.95 X X X X X X XJackson Keller IH 410 Vance Jackson 1.82 X X X X X X X XJackson Keller West Avenue IH 410 1.37 X X X X X X XJackson Keller Antler West Avenue 1.37 X X X X X X XJackson Keller McCullough San Pedro Avenue 1.35 X X X X X X XJackson Keller San Pedro Avenue Blanco Road 1.14 X X X X X X XJones Maltsberger [1]IH 410 Ramsey 1.90 X X X X X X XJones Maltsberger [1]Ramsey US 281 [2] 1.85 X X X X X X XJones Maltsberger [1]Sunset Road IH 410 1.75 X X X X X X XJones Maltsberger [1]US 281 [1] Oblate 1.70 X X X X X X XJones Maltsberger [1]Basse Road US 281 [1] 1.52 X X X X X X XJones Maltsberger [1]Oblate Sunset Road 1.50 X X X X X X XJones Maltsberger [2]Nakoma Starcrest 1.79 X X X X X X X X XJones Maltsberger [2]Thousand Oaks Redland Road 1.48 X X X X X X X X XJones Maltsberger [2]Carlon Oaks Thousand Oaks 0.93 X X X X X X X X XJones Maltsberger [2]Redland Road Bulverde Road 0.90 X X X X X X X X XJones Maltsberger [2]Starcrest Carlton Oaks 0.82 X X X X X X X X XJudson Road Nacogdoches Road Stahl Road 1.74 X X X X X X X X XJudson Road IH 35 Independence 1.28 X X X X X X X X XJudson Road Toepperwein Road IH 35 1.18 X X X X X X X X XJudson Road Fountainwood Nacogdoches Road 0.97 X X X X X X X X XJudson Road Lookout Road Fountainwood 0.92 X X X X X X X X XJudson Road Stahl Road Loop 1604 0.85 X X X X X X X X X XJudson Road Independence Lookout Road 0.67 X X X X X X X X XJungman Road US 90 Macdona LaCoste 2.86 X X X X X X X X X XKearney Road Macdona LaCoste Pearsall Road 2.05 X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Kelly Parkway IH 35 IH 410 New X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XKelly Parkway IH 410 SH 16 New X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XKelly Parkway SH16 Applewhite Road New X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XKelly Parkway Applewhite Road Pleasanton Road New X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XKelly Parkway Pleasanton Road US 281 New X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XKelly Parkway US 281 IH 37 New X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XKelly Parkway General Hudnell Military Drive New X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XKelly Parkway Military Drive IH 25 New X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XKirk General Hudnell Cupples 1.31 X X X X X XKirk General Hudnell Cupples 1.31 X X X X X X XKitty Hawk Road Miller Road Toepperwein 1.97 X X X X X X X X X XKitty Hawk Road Loop 1604 Universal City Blvd 1.93 X X X X X X X X XKitty Hawk Road Universal City Blvd SH 218 [Pat Booker Road] 1.93 X X X X X X X X XKitty Hawk Road SH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Loop 1604 1.93 X X X X X X X X XKitty Hawk Road Old Cimarron Trail Loop 1604 1.48 X X X X X X X X XKitty Hawk Road Wagon Crossing Old Cimarron Trail 0.97 X X X X X X X X XKitty Hawk Road Toepperwein Road Wagon Crossing 0.97 X X X X X X X X XKyle Seale Parkway Loop 1604 Babcock Road 1.97 X X X X X X X X XLockhill Selma West Avenue FM 1535 1.98 X X X X X X X X XLockhill Selma Wurzbach Pkwy George Road 1.87 X X X X X X X X XLockhill Selma Dreamland Wurzbach Pkwy 1.70 X X X X X X X X XLockhill Selma FM 1535 Dreaml;and 1.42 X X X X X X X X XLockhill Selma George Road Orsinger 1.38 X X X X X X X X XLockhill Selma Orsinger Huebner Road 1.38 X X X X X X X X XLockhill Selma Blanco Road West Avenue 0.85 X X X X X X X X XLookout Road Evans Road IH 35 6.04 X X X X X X X X XLookout Road Loop 1604 Evans Road 2.12 X X X X X X X X XLookout Road Toepperwein Road Loop 1604 1.26 X X X X X X X X XLookout Road/Crosswinds Way/Schertz RoadX IH 35 [N-GC] 6.04 X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Lookout Road/Crosswinds Way/Schertz RoadLoop 1604 Evans Road 2.12 X X X X X X X X XLookout Road/Crosswinds Way/Schertz RoadIH 35 [N-BC] Schertz Road 2.09 X X X X X X X XLookout Road/Crosswinds Way/Schertz RoadEvans Road X 1.51 X X X X X X X X XLookout Road/Crosswinds Way/Schertz RoadToepperwein Road Loop 1604 1.26 X X X X X X X X XLookout Road/Crosswinds Way/Schertz RoadSchertz Road [Int] Lookout Road 1.04 X X X X X X X X XLookout Road/Crosswinds Way/Schertz RoadLookout Road Leonhardt 1.04 X X X X X X X X XLookout Road/Crosswinds Way/Schertz RoadLeonhardt O'Connor Road 1.04 X X X X X X X X XLookout Road/Crosswinds Way/Schertz RoadO'Connor Road Judson Road 1.04 X X X X X X X X XLookout Road/Crosswinds Way/Schertz RoadJudson Road Toepperwein 1.04 X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Lower Seguin Road IH 10 [E] 3.00 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 SH 151 FM 471 2.94 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Rocket Lane Lower Seguin Road 2.58 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Babcock Road IH 10 [W] 2.28 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Bowens Crossing New Guilbeau 2.15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 471 Bowens Crossing 2.10 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 1560 [Hausman] Babcock Road 2.07 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 New Guilbeau Braun Road 2.02 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 2696 [Blanco] Stone Oak Parkway 2.01 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Ellison Drive SH 151 1.96 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Braun Road Bandera Road 1.88 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 IH 10 [W] Vance Jackson [Prop] 1.87 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 IH 10 [E] FM 1346 1.85 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Macdona LaCoste US 90 1.82 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Huebner Road FM 2696 [Blanco] 1.82 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 3499 US 281 [S] 1.81 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 IH 35 [S] FM 2536 1.80 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Vance Jackson [Prop]FM 1535 [NW Military Hwy] 1.73 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 US 281 [S] Pleasanton Road 1.63 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 IH 35 [N] SH 218 [Pat Booker Road] 1.60 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Loop 1604 FM 1518 SS 3465 [N] 1.60 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 2790 [Somerset Road]IH 35 [S] 1.59 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 1937 FM 3499 1.58 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 IH 37 FM 1937 1.58 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Military Drive Wiseman Road 1.56 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Marbach Road FM 1957 [Potranco] 1.56 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 1535 [NW Military Hwy]Bitters Road 1.56 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 US 90 Marbach Road 1.54 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 1957 [Potranco] Military Drive 1.53 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 SS 3465 [N] US 87 1.47 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Bandera Road FM 1560 [Hausman] 1.43 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 2536 Macdona LaCoste 1.38 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Bitters Road Huebner Road 1.35 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 US 181 SS 327 [E] 1.32 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 1303 IH 37 1.32 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 SH 16 FM 2790 [Somerset Road] 1.32 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 1346 FM 1518 1.29 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Stone Oak Parkway US 281 1.29 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Coronado Kitty Hawk Road 1.29 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Pleasanton Road SH 16 1.28 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Kitty Hawk Road Meadowland 1.22 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 US 281 Redland Road 1.20 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Wiseman Ellison Drive 1.19 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 1976 FM 78 1.13 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Meadowland FM 1976 1.13 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Bulverde Road O'Connor Road 1.09 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Lookout Road IH 35 [N] 1.08 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 2252 [Nacogdoches]Lookout Road 1.05 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Redland Road Bulverde Road 0.97 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Loop 1604 SS 327 [W] FM 1303 0.91 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 SS 327 [E] SS 327 [W] 0.85 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 SH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Coronado 0.84 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 Judson Road FM 2252 [Nacogdoches] 0.84 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 O'Connor Road Judson Road 0.83 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 SS 3465 [S] FM 3432 0.77 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 US 87 SS 3465 [S] 0.77 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 3432 US 181 0.76 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLoop 1604 FM 78 Rocket Lane 0.44 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XLower Seguin Road Loop 1604 FM 1518 1.60 X X X X X X X X XLower Seguin Road FM 1518 Weir Road 0.87 X X X X X X X X XLower Seguin Road Weir Road Haeckerville Road 0.78 X X X X X X X X XMacdona LaCoste Jungman Road Wisdom Road 4.92 X X X X X X X X X XMacdona LaCoste WT Montgomery Jungman Road 3.13 X X X X X X X X X XMacdona LaCoste Cagnon Road Shepherd Road 2.73 X X X X X X X X X XMacdona LaCoste Kearney Road Cagnon Road 2.16 X X X X X X X X X XMacdona LaCoste Loop 1604 Kearney Road 2.06 X X X X X X X X X XMacdona LaCoste Wisdom Road Medina County Line 2.05 X X X X X X X X X XMacdona LaCoste Shepherd Road WT Montgomery 1.85 X X X X X X X X X XMain/Borgfeld [Cibolo]MB INT FM 3009 2.47 X X X X X X X X XMain/Borgfeld [Cibolo]FM 78 FM 1103 1.96 X X X X X X X X XMain/Borgfeld [Cibolo]FM 1103 MB INT 1.52 X X X X X X X X XMarbach Road IH 410 Horal Drive 2.00 X X X X X X X X XMarbach Road Meadow Way IH 410 1.36 X X X X X X X X XMarbach Road Horal Hunt Lane 0.87 X X X X X X X X XMarbach Road Hunt Lane Ellison Drive 0.70 X X X X X X X X XMartin Luther King IH 10 Walters 1.19 X X X X X X X XMartin Luther King Meadow Way Walters 1.19 X X X X X X X XMartin Luther King Walters New Braunfels Avenue 1.06 X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

McCullough IH 35 Brooklyn 1.45 X X X X X X XMcCullough Oblate Rampart 1.37 X X X X X X XMcCullough IH 37 IH 35 1.28 X X X X X X X X XMcCullough Rampart Rector 1.10 X X X X X X XMcCullough Rector IH 410 1.10 X X X X X X XMcCullough Mulberry Hildebrand Avenue 0.94 X X X X X X XMcCullough St Mary's Augusta 0.87 X X X X X X X X XMcCullough Brooklyn Ashby Street 0.86 X X X X X X XMcCullough Hildebrand Avenue Dora 0.86 X X X X X X XMcCullough Augusta Quincy 0.78 X X X X X X X X XMcCullough Quincy IH 35 0.78 X X X X X X X X XMcCullough Jackson Keller Oblate 0.77 X X X X X X XMcCullough Ashby Street Woodlawn 0.76 X X X X X X XMcCullough Woodlawn Mulberry 0.61 X X X X X X XMcCullough Dora Basse Road 0.53 X X X X X X X XMcCullough Basse Road Jackson Keller 0.53 X X X X X X XMedical Drive IH 10 Fredericksburg Road 2.44 X X X X X X X X X X X XMedical Drive Fredericksburg RoadEwing Halsell 1.98 X X X X X X X X X X X XMedical Drive Ewing Halsell Floyd Curl 1.78 X X X X X X X X X X X XMedical Drive Wurzbach Road Babcock Road 1.69 X X X X X X X X X X X XMedical Drive Floyd Curl Wurzbach Road 1.41 X X X X X X X X X X X XMedina Base Road IH 410 Springvale 1.39 X X X X X X XMedina Base Road Springvale Five Palms 1.16 X X X X X X XMedina Base Road Five Palms Whitwood 1.03 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [1] WW White IH 37 1.42 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [2] Zarzamora Barlite 1.70 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [2] Five Palms US 90 1.42 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [2] Whitewood Five Palms 1.26 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [2] Quintana Pearsall Road 1.24 X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Military Drive [2] Pearsall Road Whitwood 1.13 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [2] Commercial IH 35 1.03 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [2] IH 35 Zarzamora 1.03 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [2] Pleasanton Road Commercial 1.03 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [2] Barlite Somerset Road 1.02 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [2] New Laredo Hwy Bynum 0.92 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [2] Bynum Quintana 0.90 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [2] Somerset Road New Laredo Hwy 0.90 X X X X X X XMilitary Drive [3] Commerce Street IH 410 1.28 X X X X X XMilitary Drive [3] SH 151 [1] Commerce Street 1.27 X X X X X XMilitary Drive [3] Marbach Road SH 151 [1] 1.09 X X X X X XMilitary Drive [3] US 90 Marbach Road 1.01 X X X X X XMilitary Drive [3] IH 410 FM 1957 0.72 X X X X X XMilitary Drive [4] SH 151 [2] Ellison Drive 1.51 X X X X X XMilitary Drive [4] Ellison Drive Loop 1604 1.51 X X X X X XMission Road Steves Theo 1.11 X X X X X XMission Road Theo Mission Pkwy 0.77 X X X X X XMulberry US 281 McCullough 1.69 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Evans Road Comal County Line 3.51 X X X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Comal County Line FM 3009 3.51 X X X X X X XNacogdoches Road FM 482 IH 35 2.76 X X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Loop 1604 Evans Road 2.71 X X X X X X XNacogdoches Road IH 410 Bitters Road 2.00 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road FM 3009 FM 482 1.72 X X X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Rockhill IH 410 1.69 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Higgins O'Connor Road 1.55 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Leonhardt El Sendero 1.47 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road O'Connor Road Judson Road 1.42 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Stahl Road Loop 1604 1.42 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Nacogdoches Road Thousand Oaks Perrin Beitel Road 1.35 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Perrin Beitel Road Leonhardt 1.32 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road El Sendero Higgins 1.31 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Toepperwein Road Stahl Road 1.27 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road New Braunfels AvenueRockhill 1.24 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Broadway New Braunfels Avenue 1.24 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Wurzbach Pkwy Naco Perrin 1.20 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Bitters Road Wurzbach Pkwy 1.11 X X X X X XNacogdoches Road Judson Road Toepperwein 0.93 X X X X X XNaco-Perrin Nacogdoches Road Perrin Beitel Road 1.81 X X X X X X XNakoma US 281 Jones Maltsberger 1.79 X X X X X XNeal Road Applewhite Road Pleasanton Road 1.47 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueGrayson Street Funston 2.29 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueIH 35 Grayson Street 1.72 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueFunston Hildebrand Avenue 1.62 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueIH 37 Fair Avenue 1.48 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueFair Avenue Steves 1.44 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueRigsby IH 10 1.08 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueIH 10 Porter 1.08 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueIowa Martin Luther King Drive 1.08 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenuePorter Iowa 1.08 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueSteves Rigsby 1.05 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueSherman IH 35 1.01 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueNolan Sherman 1.01 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueAustin Highway Eisenhauer Road 1.01 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueEisenhauer Road Nacogdoches Road 0.97 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueHouston Street Nolan 0.95 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueCommerce Street Houston Street 0.89 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueHildebrand Avenue Burr Road 0.87 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

New Braunfels AvenueBurr Road Garraty 0.87 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueGarraty Austin Highway 0.87 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueHot Wells Southcross Blvd 0.84 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueSouthcross Blvd IH 37 0.84 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueMontana Street Commerce Street 0.71 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueMartin Luther King DriveNevada 0.71 X X X X X XNew Braunfels AvenueNevada Montana 0.71 X X X X X XNew Laredo HighwayMilitary Drive Southcross Blvd 1.44 X X X X X XNew Sulphur Springs RoadIH 410 Foster Road 2.44 X X X X X X XNew Sulphur Springs RoadFM 1628 Loop 1604 1.96 X X X X X X XNew Sulphur Springs RoadFoster Road Beck Road 1.88 X X X X X X XNew Sulphur Springs RoadBeck Road FM 1628 1.60 X X X X X X XNew Sulphur Springs RoadLoop 1604 Wilson County Line 1.41 X X X X X X XNogalitos IH 35 Cumberland 1.55 X X X X X XNogalitos Cumberland US 90 1.55 X X X X X XNogalitos Powell IH 35 1.55 X X X X X XNogalitos Theo Malone 1.36 X X X X X XNogalitos US 90 Theo 1.36 X X X X X XNogalitos Malone Division 0.96 X X X X X XNoyes Road Senior Road Palo Alto Road 1.77 X X X X X X XOblate McCullough Jones Maltsberger 1.43 X X X X X X XOblate San Pedro Avenue McCullough 1.20 X X X X X X XO'Connor Road Lookout Road Fountainwood 1.52 X X X X X XO'Connor Road Randolph Blvd IH 35 1.48 X X X X X XO'Connor Road IH 35 Wurzbach Pkwy 1.45 X X X X X XO'Connor Road Wurzbach Pkwy Independence 1.45 X X X X X XO'Connor Road Independence Lookout Road 1.32 X X X X X XO'Connor Road Fountainwood Nacogdoches Road 1.27 X X X X X XO'Connor Road Nacogdoches Road Stahl Road 1.24 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

O'Connor Road Miller Road Randolph Blvd 1.06 X X X X X XPalo Alto Road Noyes Road Loop 1604 2.11 X X X X X X X X XPalo Alto Road Loop 1604 Atascosa County Line 2.01 X X X X X X X X XPalo Alto Road Zarzamora Noyes Road 1.91 X X X X X X X XPalo Alto Road IH 410 Zarzamora 1.77 X X X X X X X X XPalo Alto Road Gillette Villaret 1.72 X X X X X X X XPalo Alto Road Villa Ret IH 410 1.66 X X X X X X X XPalo Alto Road IH 35 Gillette 1.63 X X X X X X X XPatricia West Avenue Vista View 1.44 X X X X X XPearsall Road Loop 1604 Kearney Road 2.26 X X X X X X X XPearsall Road Shepherd Road Bradley Road 2.15 X X X X X X X XPearsall Road Covel Loop 1604 1.65 X X X X X X X XPearsall Road Kearney Road Shepherd Road 1.62 X X X X X X X XPearsall Road Military Drive Ray Ellison Blvd 1.58 X X X X X XPearsall Road Ray Ellison Blvd IH 410 1.41 X X X X X XPearsall Road IH 410 Covel 1.34 X X X X X X X XPerrin Beitel Road IH 410 Barrington 1.61 X X X X X XPerrin Beitel Road Barrington Wurzbach Pkwy 1.61 X X X X X XPerrin Beitel Road Austin Highway IH 410 1.46 X X X X X XPerrin Beitel Road Naco Perrin Thousand Oaks 1.04 X X X X X XPerrin Beitel Road El Sendero Naco Perrin 1.01 X X X X X XPerrin Beitel Road Wurzbach Pkwy El Sendero 1.01 X X X X X XPleasanton Road Pyron Military Drive 1.48 X X X X X X XPleasanton Road Flores Division 1.35 X X X X X X XPleasanton Road Division Southcross Blvd 1.21 X X X X X X XPleasanton Road Southcross Blvd Pyron 1.20 X X X X X X XPleasanton Road Gillette IH 410 1.19 X X X X X X XPleasanton Road Military Drive Formosa 1.18 X X X X X X XPleasanton Road Ashley Gillette 1.05 X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Pleasanton Road Formosa Ashley 1.01 X X X X X X XPleasanton Road/MorsundIH 410 FM 2537 2.69 X X X X X X X XPleasanton Road/MorsundFM 2537 Loop 1604 0.85 X X X X X X XPoss Road SH 16 [Bandera] Evers Road 1.89 X X X X X X XPresa Ashley IH 410 1.85 X X X X X X XPresa Military Drive Ashley 1.83 X X X X X X XPresa [US 181/SS 122]IH 410 IH 37 2.01 X X X X X X XProbandt Alamo Street Cevallos 1.42 X X X X X X XProbandt Cevallos Lone Star 1.27 X X X X X X XProbandt Lone Star Steves 1.22 X X X X X X XProbandt Steves IH 10 1.22 X X X X X XPrue Road Babcock Road Fredericksburg Road 2.96 X X X X X X XPrue Road SH 16 [Bandera] Old Prue Road 2.42 X X X X X X XPrue Road Springview Babcock Road 2.26 X X X X X X XPrue Road Old Prue Road Cedar Park 2.05 X X X X X X XPrue Road Cedar Park Springview 2.05 X X X X X X XQuintana Road Cupples Southcross Blvd 1.83 X X X X X XQuintana Road Southcross Blvd Bynum 1.24 X X X X X XRamsey Blanco Road San Pedro Avenue 2.13 X X X X X XRandolph Blvd IH 35 Crestway 2.25 X X X X X X XRandolph Blvd Weidner O'Connor Road 1.66 X X X X X X XRandolph Blvd Crestway Weidner 1.51 X X X X X X XRandolph Blvd O'Connor Road Judson Road 1.47 X X X X X X XRay Ellison IH 410 Five Palms 1.20 X X X X X X XRector San Pedro Avenue McCullough 3.29 X X X X X XRector Blanco Road San Pedro Avenue 1.94 X X X X X XRedland Road US 281 Loop 1604 2.21 X X X X X XRedland Road Loop 1604 Jones Maltsberger 1.61 X X X X X XRigsby Walters Clark 1.67 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Rigsby Clark Roland 1.12 X X X X X XRittiman Road Castle Cross FM 78 1.92 X X X X X X XRittiman Road IH 35 Fratt 1.89 X X X X X XRittiman Road Holbrook IH 35 1.86 X X X X X X XRittiman Road Harry Wurzbach Holbrook 1.67 X X X X X XRittiman Road Fratt Road Castle Cross 0.69 X X X X X XRoosevelt Flores IH 410 1.91 X X X X X XRoosevelt Military Drive Flores [S] 1.38 X X X X X XRoosevelt Mission Road Military Drive 1.30 X X X X X XRoosevelt Southcross Blvd Padre 1.24 X X X X X XRoosevelt Padre White 1.24 X X X X X XRoosevelt White Pyron 1.24 X X X X X XRoosevelt Pyron Mission Road 1.24 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue Rector IH 410 1.80 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue IH 410 Isom 1.80 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue Isom Ramsey 1.80 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue Ramsey US 281 1.62 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue IH 35 Ashby Street 1.50 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue Dora Basse Road 1.21 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue Hildebrand Avenue Dora 0.99 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue Mulberry Hildebrand Avenue 0.98 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue Jackson Keller Oblate 0.97 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue Rampart Rector 0.95 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue Basse Road Jackson Keller 0.93 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue Ashby Street Woodlawn 0.78 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue Woodlawn Mulberry 0.78 X X X X X XSan Pedro Avenue Oblate Rampart 0.73 X X X X X XSBC Center Parkway [Coliseum]IH 35 Belgium 1.83 X X X X X XScenic Loop Road Babcock Road Boerne Stage Road 2.84 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Scenic Loop Road SH 16 [Bandera] Menchaca 1.81 X X X X X XScenic Loop Road Menchaca Babcock Road 1.57 X X X X X XSchaefer Road FM 1516 Loop 1604 1.66 X X X X X XSchultz Road Loop 1604 Ballard Road 1.31 X X X X X XSeguin [Converse] FM 78 FM 1976 1.89 X X X X X XSenior / Smith RoadsLoop 1604 SH 16 2.38 X X X X X XSenior Road FM 2790 Loop 1604 4.02 X X X X X XSH 151 [Stotzer Fwy]Wiseman [2] Loop 1604 1.82 X X X X X X X X X XSH 151 [Stotzer Fwy]Old Hwy 90 Callaghan Road 1.42 X X X X X X X X X XSH 151 [Stotzer Fwy]US 90 Old Hwy 90 1.25 X X X X X X X X X XSH 151 [Stotzer Fwy]FM 1957 [Potranco] Wiseman Road [1] 1.18 X X X X X X X X X XSH 151 [Stotzer Fwy]Wiseman [1[ Military Drive [W] 0.97 X X X X X X X X X XSH 151 [Stotzer Fwy]Military Drive [W] Westover Hills 0.64 X X X X X X X X X XSH 151 [Stotzer Fwy]Westover Hills Wiseman Road [2] 0.57 X X X X X X X X X XSH 151 [Stotzer Fwy]Callaghan Road Pinn Road 0.54 X X X X X X X X X XSH 151 [Stotzer Fwy]Pinn Military Drive 0.54 X X X X X X X X X XSH 151 [Stotzer Fwy]IH 410 FM 1957 [Potranco] 0.53 X X X X X X X X X XSH 151 [Stotzer Fwy]Military Drive IH 410 0.51 X X X X X X X X X XSH 151 [Stotzer Fwy]Loop 1604 SH 211 New X X X X X X X X X XSH 211 US 90 FM 1957 [Potranco] 1.68 X X X X X XSH 211 FM 471 [Culebra] SH 16 [Bandera] 1.47 X X X X X XSH 211 FM 1957 [Potranco] SH 151 [Proposed] New X X X X X X X X XSH 211 SH 151 [Proposed] FM 471 [Culebra] New X X X X X X X X XSH 218 [Pat Booker Road]IH 35 Village Oaks 2.04 X X X X X X X XSH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Village Oaks Loop 1604 1.95 X X X X X X X XSH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Loop 1604 Athenian 1.67 X X X X X X X XSH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Athenia Coronado 1.58 X X X X X X X XSH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Coronado Universal City Blvd 1.58 X X X X X X X XSH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Universal City Blvd Kitty Hawk Road 1.31 X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

SH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Byrd Aviation 1.31 X X X X X X X XSH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Aviation FM 78 1.31 X X X X X X X X XSH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Kitty Hawk Road Villa Drive 0.77 X X X X X X X XSH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Villa Drive Northview 0.77 X X X X X X X XSH 218 [Pat Booker Road]Northview Byrd 0.77 X X X X X X X XShepherd Road Pearsall Road IH 35 2.08 X X X X X XShepherd Road Macdona LaCoste Pearsall Road 1.73 X X X X X XSilver Sands West Avenue San Pedro Avenue 1.64 X X X X X XSmithson Valley Bulverde Road Wind Valley 7.23 X X X X X XSomerset Road IH 410 Fischer Road 4.17 X X X X X XSomerset Road Fischer Road Senior Road 3.53 X X X X X XSomerset Road Loop 1604 Dixon Rd 2.71 X X X X X XSomerset Road IH 35 IH 410 1.35 X X X X X XSomerset Road Senior Road Loop 1604 1.32 X X X X X XSomerset Road Dixon Road Atascosa County Line 1.13 X X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Presa Roosevelt 1.58 X X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Goliad Road Gevers Street 1.58 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Gevers Street IH 37 1.58 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd IH 37 New Braunfels Avenue 1.58 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Commercial IH 35 1.27 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Clark Goliad Road 1.23 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Dollarhide Clark 1.23 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd IH 35 Huron 1.23 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Hackberry Presa 1.20 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Pleasanton Road Commercial 1.12 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd New Braunfels AvenueHackberry Street 1.11 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Pecan Valley Road Dollarhide 1.08 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Flores Pleasanton Road 1.02 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Somerset Road New Laredo Hwy 0.98 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Southcross Blvd New Laredo Hwy Quintana 0.98 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Mission Road Flores [S] 0.97 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Roosevelt Mission Road 0.92 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd WW White Pecan Valley 0.91 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd IH 410 WW White 0.89 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Huron Zarzamora 0.65 X X X X X XSouthcross Blvd Zarzamora Somerset Road 0.42 X X X X X XSouthton Road IH 410 Blue Wing Road 2.02 X X X X X XSpringvale Drive US 90 Valley Hi Drive 1.54 X X X X X XSt Mary's IH 35 Josephine Street 1.85 X X X X X XSt Mary's US 281 Mulberry 1.47 X X X X X XSt Mary's Ashby Street US 281 1.47 X X X X X XSt Mary's Josephine Street Ashby Street 1.18 X X X X X XStahl Road Higgins [2] O'Connor Road 1.74 X X X X X XStahl Road Bulverde Road Bell 1.28 X X X X X X XStahl Road Higgins [1] Higgins 2 1.26 X X X X X XStahl Road Bell Higgins 1 1.13 X X X X X X XStarcrest IH 410 Barrington 1.73 X X X X X XSteves Probandt IH 10 1.40 X X X X X XSteves IH 10 Mission Road 1.27 X X X X X XSteves Mission Road Roosevelt 0.95 X X X X X XStone Oak Pkwy Loop 1604 Huebner Road 2.44 X X X X X XStone Oak Pkwy Huebner Road Hardy Oak 2.13 X X X X X XStone Oak Pkwy Hardy Oak Evans Road 2.02 X X X X X XStone Oak Pkwy Evans Road US 281 1.46 X X X X X XTalley Road Potranco Tamaron Pass 4.86 X X X X X XTalley Road FM 1957 [Potranco] SH 151 [Proposed] 4.86 X X X X X XTezel Road FM 471 [Culebra / Grissom]Timberpath 2.41 X X X X X XTezel Road Mainland Guilbeau Road 1.96 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Tezel Road Timberpath Patty 1.84 X X X X X XTezel Road Guilbeau Road Braun Road 1.70 X X X X X XTezel Road Braun Road SH 16 [Bandera] 1.67 X X X X X XTezel Road Patty Mainland 1.66 X X X X X XTheo/Malone IH 35 Nogalitos 1.77 X X X X X XTheo/Malone Zarzamora Frio City Road 1.41 X X X X X XTheo/Malone Flores IH 35 1.12 X X X X X XTheo/Malone Nogalitos Zarzamora 0.65 X X X X X XThousand Oaks IH 35 Wurzbach Pkwy 1.94 X X X X X X XThousand Oaks Schertz Road El Sendero 1.88 X X X X X XThousand Oaks Wetmore Jones Maltsberger 1.53 X X X X X XThousand Oaks Bulverde Road Wetmore Road 1.50 X X X X X X XThousand Oaks Uhr Lane Bulverde Road [X] 1.35 X X X X X X XThousand Oaks Perrin Beitel Road Uhr Lane 1.35 X X X X X XThousand Oaks Wurzbach Pkwy Schertz Road 1.34 X X X X X XThousand Oaks El Sendero Perrin Beitel Road 1.33 X X X X X XThousand Oaks Jones Maltsberger Henderson Pass 1.04 X X X X X XThousand Oaks Henderson Pass US 281 0.83 X X X X X XTimberhill Wurzbach Road FM 471 [Grissom] 1.65 X X X X X XTimberpath Grissom Road Culebra Road 2.19 X X X X X XToepperwein Kitty Hawk Road Judson Road 2.11 X X X X X XToepperwein Lookout Road FM 2252 1.80 X X X X X X XToepperwein Village Oak IH 35 1.56 X X X X X XToepperwein Judson Road Village Oaks 1.56 X X X X X XToepperwein FM 1976 Kitty Hawk Road 1.51 X X X X X XToepperwein IH 35 Lookout Road 1.05 X X X X X X XToutant Beauregard Boerne Stage Road Karcsch Road 5.86 X X X X X XTrainer Hale Road FM 1518 Weir Road 2.55 X X X X X XTrainer Hale Road Weir Road IH 10 2.44 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

US 87 Loop 1604 Wilson County Line 2.05 X X X X X X X X XUS 87 IH 10 Rigsby 1.62 X X X X X XUS 87 FM 1516 FM 1628 1.56 X X X X X X X X XUS 87 IH 410 Foster Road 1.44 X X X X X X X X XUS 87 FM 1628 Loop 1604 1.43 X X X X X X X X XUS 87 Foster Road FM 1516 1.42 X X X X X X X X XUS 87 Pecan Valley Road WW White 1.08 X X X X X XUS 87 Rigsby Pecan Valley 0.77 X X X X X XUS 87 WW White IH 410 0.73 X X X X X XUS 90 [1] IH 35 Nogalitos 1.93 X X X X X X X XUS 90 [1] Zarzamora General Hudnell 1.31 X X X X X X X XUS 90 [1] Frio City Raod Zarzamora 1.31 X X X X X X X XUS 90 [1] Nogalitos Frio City Road 1.29 X X X X X X X XUS 90 [1] General Hudnell Cupples 1.12 X X X X X X X XUS 90 [2] Loop 1604 Cagnon Road 2.20 X X X X X X XUS 90 [2] Cagnon Road Grossenbacher Road 1.93 X X X X X X XUS 90 [2] Grossenbacher RoadWT Montgomery 1.61 X X X X X X XUS 90 [2] Hunt Lane Loop 1604 1.38 X X X X X X X X XUS 90 [2] WT Montgomery SH 211 1.14 X X X X X X XUS 90 [2] Jungman Road Medina County Line 1.07 X X X X X X XUS 90 [2] SH 211 Jungman Road 1.05 X X X X X X XUS 90 [2] IH 410 Hunt Lane 1.03 X X X X X X X X XUS 181 Richter Loop 1604 2.17 X X X X X X X X XUS 181 Loop 1604 Wilson County Line 1.66 X X X X X X X X XUS 181 SS 122 Foster Road 1.65 X X X X X X X X XUS 181 Foster Road Richter 1.59 X X X X X X X X XUS 181 IH 37 SS 122 0.72 X X X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Bulverde Road Borgfeld Road 4.64 X X X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Loop 1604 Redland Road 4.59 X X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

US 281 [N] Redland Road Evans Road 4.57 X X X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Evans Road Stone Oak Parkway 3.98 X X X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Stone Oak Parkway Bulverde Road 3.53 X X X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Borgfeld Road Comal County Line 3.14 X X X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Jones Maltsberger [S]Sunset Road 1.70 X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Airport Blvd IH 410 1.67 X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Mulberry Hildebrand Avenue 1.63 X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Olmos Dam Basse Road 1.54 X X X X X XUS 281 [N] San Pedro Avenue Silver Sands 1.50 X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Silver Sands Nakoma 1.50 X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Isom San Pedro Avenue 1.25 X X X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Jones Maltsberger [N]Isom 1.25 X X X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Brookhollow Thousand Oaks 1.21 X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Nakoma Interpark 1.19 X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Thousand Oaks Loop 1604 1.19 X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Interpark Bitters Road 1.19 X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Hildebrand Avenue Olmos Dam 1.08 X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Bitters Road Brookhollow 1.08 X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] IH 410 Terminal 1.04 X X X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Terminal Jones Maltsberger [N] 1.02 X X X X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Basse Road Jones Maltsberger [S] 0.97 X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Sunset Road Airport Blvd 0.97 X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Josephine Street St Mary's 0.92 X X X X X XUS 281 [N] St Mary's Mulberry 0.92 X X X X X XUS 281 [N] IH 35 Grayson Street 0.92 X X X X X XUS 281 [N] Grayson Street Josephine Street 0.92 X X X X X XUS 281 [S] IH 410 FM 1937 3.51 X X X X X X XUS 281 [S] FM 2537 Loop 1604 1.82 X X X X X X XUS 281 [S] FM 1937 FM 2537 1.78 X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

US 281 [S] Loop 1604 Atascosa County Line 0.89 X X X X X X XUTSA Blvd IH 10 Babcock Road 2.65 X X X X X XValley Hi Drive IH 410 Springvale 1.47 X X X X X XValley Road FM 1937 Rabel Road 2.31 X X X X X XVance Jackson Orsinger Huebner Road 1.88 X X X X X XVance Jackson Wurzbach Road Orsinger 1.83 X X X X X XVance Jackson IH 410 Jackson Keller 1.71 X X X X X XVance Jackson Jackson Keller Callaghan Road 1.71 X X X X X XVance Jackson Cherry Ridge IH 410 1.68 X X X X X XVance Jackson Fredericksburg RoadIH 10 1.36 X X X X X XVance Jackson IH 10 Cherry Ridge 1.18 X X X X X XVance Jackson Huebner Road DeZavala Road 1.17 X X X X X XVance Jackson Dreamland Colony 1.14 X X X X X XVance Jackson Callaghan Road Dreamland 1.14 X X X X X XVance Jackson Colony Drive Wurzbach Road 1.02 X X X X X XVandiver IH 410 Eisenhauer Road 1.68 X X X X X XVillaret Palo Alto Road Pleasanton 1.68 X X X X X XVista View Blanco Road Braesview 1.44 X X X X X XWalters IH 35 Houston Street 1.10 X X X X X XWalzem Gibbs Sprawl FM 78 1.88 X X X X X X XWalzem Glen Mont Gibbs Sprawl 1.73 X X X X X XWalzem IH 35 / IH 410 Four Winds 1.64 X X X X X XWalzem Four Winds Raybon 1.64 X X X X X XWalzem Midcrown Eaglecrest 1.41 X X X X X XWalzem Austin Highway IH 35 / IH 410 1.38 X X X X X X XWalzem Raybon Midcrown 1.34 X X X X X XWalzem Eaglecrest Eisenhauer Road 0.95 X X X X X XWalzem Eisenhauer Road New World 0.85 X X X X X XWalzem New World Glen Mont Con 0.85 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Weidner Road Randolph Blvd Eaglecrest 1.88 X X X X X XWeidner Road IH 35 Randolph Blvd 1.36 X X X X X XWeir Road Lower Seguin Road Trainer Hale 1.34 X X X X X XWest Avenue Jackson Keller IH 410 2.29 X X X X X XWest Avenue IH 410 Military Highway 2.29 X X X X X XWest Avenue IH 10 Basse Road 1.80 X X X X X XWest Avenue Blanco Road Silver Sands 1.60 X X X X X XWest Avenue Military Hwy Lockhill Selma 1.59 X X X X X XWest Avenue Lockhill Selma Patricia 1.53 X X X X X XWest Avenue Patricia Blanco Road 1.50 X X X X X XWest Avenue Silver Sands Wurzbach Pkwy [P] 1.39 X X X X X XWest Avenue Wurzbach Pkwy [P] Interpark 1.38 X X X X X XWest Avenue Dresden Cherry Ridge 1.17 X X X X X XWest Avenue Cherry Ridge Jackson Keller 1.10 X X X X X XWest Avenue Basse Road Dresden 1.09 X X X X X XWest Avenue Interpark Bitters Road 0.95 X X X X X XWestover Hills Culebra Road Wiseman Road 1.68 X X X X X XWestover Hills SH 151 Ellison Drive 1.43 X X X X X XWestover Hills Wiseman SH 151 0.52 X X X X X XWetmore Road Broadway Wurzbach Pkwy 1.59 X X X X X XWetmore Road Wurzbach Pkwy Thousand Oaks 1.52 X X X X X XWetmore Road IH 410 Bitters Road 1.25 X X X X X XWetmore Road Bitters Road Broadway 1.02 X X X X X XWetmore Road Thousand Oaks Bulverde Road 1.01 X X X X X XWeybridge/Les HarrisonTimberpath Culebra Road 2.13 X X X X X XWeybridge/Les HarrisonDover Ridge Timberpath 1.44 X X X X X XWhitewood/Holm Medina Base Road FM 2536 [Pearsall Road] 1.21 X X X X X XWhitewood/Holm Military Drive Medina Base Road 1.04 X X X X X XWilderness Oak Blanco Road Hardy Oak 2.08 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Wilson/24th Street Club Donaldson 1.64 X X X X X XWilson/24th Street Babcock Road Club 1.64 X X X X X XWilson/24th Street Donaldson Woodlawn 1.46 X X X X X XWilson/24th Street Cincinnati Culebra Road 1.44 X X X X X XWilson/24th Street Woodlawn Cincinnati 1.12 X X X X X XWisdom Road Macdona LaCoste Keller Road 1.61 X X X X X XWisdom Road Macdona LaCoste Atascosa County Line 1.61 X X X X X XWiseman Road Military Drive Westover Hills 1.02 X X X X X XWoodlake Parkway FM 78 Lakeview 1.48 X X X X X X XWoodlake Parkway Lakeview Binz Engleman 0.83 X X X X X X XWoodlawn IH 10 Zarzamora 2.12 X X X X X XWoodlawn Zarzamora Wilson 1.84 X X X X X XWoodlawn Wilson St Cloud 1.70 X X X X X XWoodlawn Fredericksburg RoadIH 10 1.59 X X X X X XWoodlawn Blanco Road Fredericksburg Road 1.59 X X X X X XWoodlawn St Cloud Bandera Road 1.50 X X X X X XWoodlawn San Pedro Avenue Blanco Road 1.34 X X X X X XWoodlawn Camino Santa Maria 36th Street 1.29 X X X X X XWoodlawn Bandera Road Camino Santa Maria 1.23 X X X X X XWT Montgomery US 90 Macdona LaCoste 3.76 X X X X X X XWurzbach Road Data Point IH 10 2.13 X X X X X XWurzbach Road IH 10 Tioga 2.10 X X X X X XWurzbach Road Bandera Road Evers Road 1.89 X X X X X XWurzbach Road Merkins / Newcome Babcock Road 1.82 X X X X X XWurzbach Road Cinnamon Creek Fredericksburg Road 1.60 X X X X X XWurzbach Road Evers Road Merkins 1.57 X X X X X XWurzbach Road Tioga Vance Jackson 1.44 X X X X X XWurzbach Road Timerhill Bandera Road 1.43 X X X X X XWurzbach Road Floyd Curl Cinnamon Creek 1.29 X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Wurzbach Road Medical Drive Floyd Curl 1.29 X X X X X XWurzbach Road Fredericksburg RoadData Point 1.15 X X X X X XWurzbach Road Vance Jackson Lockhill Selma 1.12 X X X X X X XWurzbach Road Babcock Road Medical Drive 0.95 X X X X X XWurzbach Road Ingram Road Timberhill 0.50 X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy O'Connor Road IH 35 1.45 X X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy Starcrest Wetmore Road 1.35 X X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy Lockhill Selma NW Military Hwy 1.35 X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy NW Military Hwy Blanco Road 1.35 X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy Nacogdoches Road Perrin Beitel Road 1.30 X X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy Wetmore Nacogdoches Road 1.04 X X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy Weidner O'Connor Road 0.90 X X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy Lookout Road Weidner 0.90 X X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy Thousand Oaks Lookout Road 0.90 X X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy Perrin Beitel Road Thousand Oaks 0.90 X X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy US 281 Jones Maltsberger New X X X X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy Jones Maltsberger Starcrest New X X X X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy Blanco Road West Avenue New X X X X X X X X XWurzbach Pkwy West Avenue US 281 New X X X X X X X X XWW White IH 35 / IH 410 Gembler 1.51 X X X X X X X XWW White IH 410 Military Drive 1.46 X X X X X X XWW White IH 410 US 181 1.41 X X X X X X XZarzamora [1] Commerce Street Buena Vista 1.13 X X X X X XZarzamora [1] Culebra Road Poplar 0.98 X X X X X XZarzamora [1] Popular Ruiz Street 0.98 X X X X X XZarzamora [1] Buena Vista Guadalupe Street 0.95 X X X X X XZarzamora [1] Ruiz Martin Street 0.95 X X X X X XZarzamora [1] Martin Street Commerce Street 0.95 X X X X X XZarzamora [2] IH 410 Applewhite 1.96 X X X X X X X X



Roadway From To

Vo

lum

e/C

apac

ity

of

Do

-N

oth

ing

(N

o-B

uild

) N

etw

ork

Acc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Ad

v P

ub

lic T

ran

sp S

ys

Ad

v T

ran

sp M

gm

t S

ys

Ad

v T

rave

ler

Info

Sys

tem

Cap

acit

y Im

pro

vem

ents

Co

mm

ute

r R

ail

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

Ro

ute

s

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

ord

inat

ion

Em

erg

ency

Mg

mt

Fre

igh

t M

anag

emen

tG

row

th M

anag

emen

t

Inci

den

t M

gm

t S

yste

m

Par

kin

g M

anag

emen

t

Ped

an

d/o

r B

icyc

le Im

pr

Pre

serv

atio

n Im

pr

RR

Cro

ssin

g Im

pr

Sig

nal

& T

raff

ic F

low

Imp

r

Sp

ecia

l Pu

rpo

se L

anes

Tel

eco

mm

uti

ng

/ Tri

p P

lan

/ R

ides

har

e/W

ork

Sch

edu

ling

To

ll R

oad

sT

ran

sit

Fac

iliti

es

Tra

nsi

t R

ider

ship

Init

iati

ves

Tra

nsi

t S

vc E

nh

ance

men

tsV

ehic

le U

se R

estr

icti

on

sV

alu

e P

rici

ng

/HO

T L

anes

Zarzamora [2] Villaret IH 410 1.68 X X X X X X XZarzamora [2] IH 35 Hutchins 1.61 X X X X X X XZarzamora [2] Hutchins Gillette 1.50 X X X X X X XZarzamora [2] Military Drive IH 35 1.21 X X X X X XZarzamora [2] Gillette Villaret 1.19 X X X X X X XZarzamora [2] Applewhite Road SH 16 1.13 X X X X X X X


1 1. Financial Information Background

Financing future transportation investment and operational projects begins with

examination of existing funding. New funding possibilities must be explored as alternatives. New revenue sources usually require some degree of official action, (enabling legislation, referendum, or jurisdictional decision). Structures to administer new revenue sources may also need to be established if not already in place. New initiatives will continue to be considered during the process of developing the Financial Plan of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Update. Financial planning is a dynamic process, and should always be adaptable to new innovations as they are identified. In a tight economy, the challenge is finding creative ways to optimize and/or augment existing financing strategies. Goals and Objectives The following goals and objectives support the vision of a workable, cost beneficial transportation system that efficiently serves area mobility and accessibility needs: Goal 1 Effectively utilize available resources for the development, improvement,

operations, and maintenance of the area transportation system.

Objective 1.1 Develop and maintain a versatile financing program for leveraging available funding Objective 1.2 Develop and maintain a process for continuous evaluation of transportation system financial needs and management of resources

Goal 2 Base cost effective transportation system expansion decisions on both capital

investment and operation and maintenance costs

Objective 2.1 Consider potential operation and maintenance cost reductions when making capital investment decisions

Objective 2.2 Adequately finance operational and maintenance activities which will extend facility life cycle and improve system efficiency

Funding Partners

An important partner in transportation is the San Antonio Mobility Coalition, Inc., more commonly referred to as SAMCo. Organized in December 2001 as a non-profit corporation, SAMCo's purpose is "to identify and advocate transportation and mobility


solutions for the San Antonio Metropolitan area." Funding for this endeavor is provided by public agencies (Bexar County, City of San Antonio, VIA Metropolitan Transit) and private interests (area chambers of commerce, major San Antonio corporations, transportation construction and supply companies, real estate developers, consulting engineers, and other interested organizations). Examples of SAMCo’s efforts include taking forward initiatives with the Bexar County delegation to the Texas Transportation Commission requesting state funds for improving specified priority transportation facilities in the area, and support of Bexar County Commissioners Court requesting authorization to form a Regional Mobility Authority for the area. Funding Programs Texas Department of Transportation Traditional Funding Programs

The Statewide Mobility Plan (SMP) is the ten-year transportation project development plan for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

Updated annually, the SMP lists the funded capital improvement projects for the current fiscal year, projects scheduled for construction in the upcoming three fiscal years, and projects that will be developed over the remaining seven years of the ten-year document. Projects in the initial stages of development, referred to as having "Plan" status, are not included in the SMP, as they are slated for implementation beyond the document's ten-year scope. "Develop" status includes projects that are authorized to proceed with right-of-way acquisition and construction plan development, but have not yet been funded. Projects with "Construct" status are those that have been funded and are authorized for final design, right-of-way acquisition, utility adjustments, and letting. "Construct" status represents three years worth of funded projects. The original source of these monies is primarily federal and state gas taxes and vehicle registration fees.

Similarly, the Statewide Preservation Program funds are primarily used for maintenance and operation of state roadways and transportation facilities. Surface Transportation Program – Metropolitan Mobility Funds Funds from the Surface Transportation Program – Metropolitan Mobility (STP-MM) program are administered in Bexar County by the MPO. The original source of these monies is primarily the federal gas tax and various truck taxes. Funds from this source are flexible and can be spent on various transportation projects. On August 27, 2001, the MPO Transportation Policy Board approved amendments to the MPO’s Policy 6 Guidelines for Programming Projects in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Perhaps the most significant amendment was to dedicate a percentage of the STP-MM funding to be used to augment the budget for on-system projects funded through non-suballocated and/or Transportation Commission Strategic


Priority funds. Beginning with FY 2005/2006, the dedication will begin at 15% and will increase to 25% in subsequent years.

The challenge of this approach is to find creative ways to leverage the local match in

order to optimize the remaining STP-MM funds. This may be accomplished through overmatching, public/private partnerships, or other innovative methods. The success of such effort could potentially result in increased funding available to the region and optimizing financing opportunities.

A listing of the projects funded through this source can be found in Chapter 12

Project List. Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program

The Transportation Enhancement Program is a statewide competitive program and is administered in accordance with applicable federal and state rules and regulations. The funds provided by this program are on a cost reimbursement basis and is not a grant. Projects undertaken with enhancement funds are eligible for reimbursement of up to 80% of allowable costs. The governmental entity nominating a project is responsible for the remaining cost share, including all cost overruns. Safe Routes to Schools Program

The Statewide Safe Routes to School Program was created by House Bill 2204 of the 77th Texas Legislature. This program is a competitive construction program designed to improve children’s safety in and around school areas. In 2002, the Texas Department of Transportation issued a call for projects for the Statewide Safe Routes to School Program; a call in which several local agencies responded.

Consideration of establishing a local Safe Routes to School Program, applying the same criteria as the state, would complement the state program. The main obstacle would be how to finance such a program. Several funding possibilities are being explored. For example, a $1 fee added to each annual vehicle registration would generate about $1,200,000 per year in Bexar County. A $2.50 fee would generate about $3,000,000 per year. An additional match of 20% by the participating agencies would amount to a grand total of about $1,440,000 and $3,600,000 per year respectively. Legislation would be required to authorize collection of additional vehicle registration fees. Texas Mobility Fund

A constitutional amendment establishing the Texas Mobility Fund was approved by the State of Texas in the November 2001 election. This fund can be used to support bonds for road construction (including toll roads) and other transportation investments through transportation-related fees. It will provide for the Texas Department of Transportation to issue bonds to allow roadway projects to commence earlier. MOBILITY 2030 11 - 3 Approved: December 6, 2004

State Infrastructure Bank

A State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) is an infrastructure investment fund created at the state level. Established by the 75th Texas Legislature, the Texas Department of Transportation's state infrastructure bank maintains a revolving loan fund that may be made available (through application) to appropriate public and private entities to borrow money to finance transportation projects, subject to approval by the Texas Transportation Commission. This mechanism allows accelerated funding for needed transportation projects, provided they comply with federal and state standards. Texas Turnpike Authority Texas State Senate Bill 370, adopted during the 75th Texas State Legislature held in 1997, simultaneously, abolished and recreated the Texas Turnpike Authority (TTA) as a new division of the Texas Department of Transportation. The Texas Turnpike Authority has responsibility to study, design, construct, operate, expand, and extend toll road projects as part of the state highway system. Additional information on the TTA can be found at www.dot.state.tx.us/tta. Regional Mobility Authority

As a result of its approval, Proposition 15 (which established the Texas Mobility Fund) allows for the creation of Regional Mobility Authorities (RMA). In January 2002, the Texas Transportation Commission proposed rules for RMAs and financial assistance for toll facilities. Creation of a Regional Mobility Authority requires: 1) a petition, by one or more counties, to the Texas Transportation Commission for authorization to create an RMA, 2) appropriate public hearings, if the petition meets requirements, and 3) approval by the Commission. An RMA will be administered by a board of directors. On August 12, 2003, Bexar County Commissioners Court adopted a resolution supporting the formation of a RMA and authorized the County Judge to execute a petition to the Texas Transportation Commission to form the RMA. Bexar County selected six of the seven members of its RMA Board of Directors, and the Governor of Texas appointed the seventh member who serves as chairman. Additional general information on Regional Mobility Authorities can be found at www.dot.state.us and information specific to the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority can be found at http://www.bexar.org/community/RMA/rma.asp.

Toll Facilities

Toll facilities, for the most part, would be constructed through the selling of bonds and be operated and maintained by toll collections. Surplus revenues from toll collections may also be used to help finance other non-toll facilities. Toll revenue estimates would depend on: 1) traffic volumes of the roadway, 2) trip length, and 3) established user fee. Toll corridors can be operated by a Regional Mobility Authority or by the Texas Turnpike Authority. Toll facilities enhance opportunities for public/private partnerships in financing MOBILITY 2030 11 - 4 Approved: December 6, 2004

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tta

http://www.dot.state.us/

http://www.bexar.org/community/RMA/rma.asp

transportation facilities, which can help provide leveraging of federal funds for construction projects. Austin – San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District

Formation of a Regional Rail District was allowed by Senate Bill 657, enacted by the Texas Legislature during the 1997 session. This legislation provides that the two major cities (Austin and San Antonio) and two major counties (Travis and Bexar) may, by a series of resolutions, create a Regional Rail District for this corridor. In addition, five other cities and 13 other counties may join the district. The Austin – San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District was fully established in 2002. The Board of Directors met for the first time in February 2003 and continues to meet regularly.

A study for the Austin – San Antonio Corridor in the amount of $5,625,000 to provide

a comprehensive and integrated analysis of the Corridor to prepare a long-term strategy and implementation for improving freight and passenger movement in the Corridor is currently underway.

Although the Austin – San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District does not

have taxation power, it does have the authorization to develop, own and operate a commuter rail system, and also to issue revenue bonds for the general operation of the system. In addition, the Board is authorized to enter into contracts with local governments that levy property taxes to finance infrastructure, and can also apply for federal planning funds, federal and state loans and grants, and is eligible for selling revenue bonds.

Additional information on the Austin – San Antonio Intermunicipal Rail District can be

found at www.asarail.org. At this time the Austin – San Antonio Commuter Rail is not funded in this Plan. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Funding

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program (CMAQ) was originally created in 1991. The intent of the program is to help fund areas with unhealthy air quality issues. Although not currently available to the MPO Study Area, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding is considered a component of this Financial Plan as a potential financing source. This funding is available to states for distribution to metropolitan areas in non-attainment of air quality standards. The San Antonio area is currently in “non-attainment deferred” status. Advanced Transportation District

Creation of an Advanced Transportation District and authorization of the imposition of a local sales and use tax for advanced transportation (Senate Bill 769) was enacted by the Texas Legislature during the 1999 session. The Texas Legislature amended this legislation in 2003. Advanced transportation as defined in the legislation includes light rail, MOBILITY 2030 11 - 5 Approved: December 6, 2004

http://www.asarail.org/

commuter rail, fixed guideways, traffic management systems, busways, bus lanes, technologically advanced bus transit vehicles and systems, bus rapid transit vehicles and systems, passenger amenities, transit centers, stations, electronic transit-related information, fare, and operating systems, high occupancy vehicle lanes, traffic signal prioritization and coordination systems, monitoring systems, and other advanced transportation facilities, equipment, operations, systems, and services, including planning, feasibility studies, operations, and professional and other services in connection with such facilities, equipment, operations, systems, and services.

This legislation authorizes that the board of an authority in which the sales and use tax is imposed at a rate of one-half of one percent and in which the principal municipality has a population of more that 700,000 (VIA Metropolitan Transit) may order an election to create an advanced transportation district within the authority's boundaries and to impose a sales and use tax for advanced transportation under this subchapter. Locally, VIA ordered an election for November 2, 2004. Voters in Bexar County approved the sales tax increase at the rate of one-fourth of one percent. Half of the revenue generated from this sales tax will go to VIA Metropolitan Transit, with the remainder split between the City of San Antonio and the Texas Department of Transportation. Transit Formula Funds (FTA Section 5307)

For transit-related projects, Congress provides these revenues to Bexar County through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), TxDOT, and area transit providers. The program is also known as Section 5307 funds. These monies come from federal gas taxes and the federal general fund. The funds are primarily for transit capital purchases such as buses and transit maintenance facilities and fund 80% of a total project’s cost and require a 20% local match. Fare Box Revenue

The Passenger fare revenues from VIA Transit Authority support operation and maintenance of the metropolitan transit system. VIA Metropolitan Transit Sales Tax

A transit sales tax of ½ % is collected within VIA Metropolitan Transit’s service area. The revenues from the sales tax are administered by VIA and support operation, maintenance and capital expenditures for transit. Transit Discretionary Capital Funds (FTA Section 5309) These funds are available for major new capital projects. These monies come from federal gas taxes and the federal general fund. Transit service providers apply directly to the FTA for these funds to build a particular project. Federal Transit Administration New Starts Program MOBILITY 2030 11 - 6 Approved: December 6, 2004

The FTA’s discretionary “New Starts” program is the Federal government’s primary

financial resource for supporting locally-planned, implemented, and operated transit "guideway" capital investments. Transit guideway capital investments include heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail and bus rapid transit systems. The New Starts program has helped to make possible hundreds of new or extended transit fixed guideway systems across the country. These rail and bus investments, in turn, have improved the mobility of millions of Americans, have helped to reduce congestion and improve air quality in the areas they serve. Additional information on the New Starts program can be found at http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/ns.htm. Bexar County

Transportation improvement projects and funding for these projects (including highway and transit projects involving County financing or property) within the jurisdiction of Bexar County must be approved by Commissioners Court. The Public Works Division of the Bexar County Infrastructure Services Department has primary responsibility for administering transportation improvements for the County. The County Engineer administers the road funds for County projects.

The average annual maintenance cost per lane mile for Bexar County is $6,024. This cost is based on actual Fiscal Year 2003 maintenance expenditures ($11,500,443) for 1,909 lane miles. This figure does not include rehabilitation costs, which are included as capital costs. County roadway maintenance and improvement projects are primarily budgeted through four dedicated funds: (1) Special Road and Bridge Fund, (2) Farm-to-Market and Lateral Road Fund, (3) Economic Capital Projects Fund, and (4) November 2003 Bond Referendum Fund.

City of San Antonio

In November 2003, voters in the City of San Antonio approved a bond program in the amount of $29.4 million for street and pedestrian improvements, including drainage and amenities, street lighting, technology improvements and signage, and to acquire the land and right-of-way necessary for such purposes.

The revenue sources that contribute to the city’s general fund are: (1) sales tax, (2) property tax, (3) City Public Service, and (4) other fees. The city of San Antonio will also receive a share of the revenues generated by the sales tax increase for the Advanced Transportation District. VIA Metropolitan Transit also contributes to the maintenance of the street system. Street reconstruction augments the street maintenance program, extending the life expectancy of city streets. This is inclusive of seal coat, rehabilitation, crack seal, asphalt overlay and base failure.


http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/ns.htm

Other Local Funding Programs

Suburban cities and surrounding counties may use local general funds, as well as dedicated road-building funds to complete regional transportation improvements. These funds rely on revenues from various sources including local sales and property taxes, fees, fines, bond levies, and private sector contributions including right-of-way dedication. Public/Private Partnerships

Public/private partnerships have occasionally been used in financing transportation facilities. These ventures include roadways, bridges, right-of-way, pedestrian facilities, auxiliary lanes and signalization. Public/private partnerships may also be used for parking facilities, bicycle facilities, transit improvements (including shelters), operational improve-ments, providing matching funds for transportation improvement projects (including enhancement projects), toll facilities, and other situations which may help leverage available financing for transportation improvements.

Approval of Proposition 15 allows for public/private partnerships (exclusive development agreements) to pay for such ventures, as well as toll equity, Regional Mobility Authorities and the Texas Mobility Fund. Gap Funding

Reducing future congestion in the Bexar County region will require innovative

financing techniques that increase the funding amount that the area currently receives from traditional funding sources. In order to implement this Plan, leaders in this region must explore various funding strategies, including: Reduced Project Costs – project implementing agencies must evaluate projects in order to eliminate, postpone, or reduce the scope of certain planned transportation projects.

Borrow Money – this option allows the region the opportunity to build a project sooner, with the understanding that the borrowed money will need to be repaid out of future revenue streams. This could be accomplished through the issuance of bonds, through programs such as State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) Loans, or through the new Texas Mobility Fund, which is envisioned to act as a revolving account that can be used to leverage bonds. Pay-As-You Go Systems – today, the traveling public understands that the need for roadway improvements comes at a heavy costs. Motorists know that alternatives must be implemented in order to relieve congestion and improve the reliability of the transportation system. Several options exist to charge users fees through non-traditional methods, including:

• Tolling added roadway capacity


• Applying congestion pricing to new toll facilities • Assessing traffic impact fees/systems development charges for new

development (based on expected trips that will be generated by the development)

Raise or Redistribute Existing Taxes and Fees

• Develop Local Improvement Districts, Business Improvement Districts, Tax

Increment Financing Districts and other special taxing districts • Raise the state gas tax or impose a region wide gas tax • Develop new local revenue sources, such as a local gas tax or local sales tax

such as the Advanced Transportation District • Increase vehicle registration fees • Implement parking fees/fines that pay for transportation improvements

Capture a Larger Portion of State and Federal Transportation Spending

• Pursue additional federal discretionary funding including FTA 5309 monies and Congressional earmarks

• Work with the Texas Transportation Commission to get a larger portion of state and district-wide transportation funding allocated within Bexar County and a larger share of the Commission’s Strategic Priority funding



Table 11.1 MTP Funding Summary 2005-2030

Funding Category Amount Traditional Funding Total $4,138,670,000 Mobility $1,783,000,000 MPO Project Selection (STP-MM) $500,000,000 Preventative Maintenance $1,448,000,000 Structure Replacement and Rehab. $281,700,000 Safety $67,500,000 Miscellaneous $10,000,000 District Discretionary $48,470,000VIA Metropolitan Transit Total $3,189,000,000 Operating Revenue $473,300,000 Sales Tax $2,062,000,000 Investment Income $32,600,000 Grant Capital Reimbursements $228,400,000 FTA Grant Section 5307 $322,300,000 FTA Grant Section 5309 $70,400,000Advanced Transportation District Total $850,000,000 TxDOT ($8.5 M X 25 yrs) $212,500,000 City of San Antonio ($8.5 M X 25 yrs) $212,500,000 VIA ($17 M X 25 yrs) $425,000,000Other Potential Funding Sources Total $2,319,000,000 Transportation Enhancement Program $10,000,000 Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) $375,000,000 Commission Strategic Priority Funding $375,000,000 FHWA Demonstration Funds $50,000,000 FTA "New Starts" Program $24,000,000 Bonding Capacity TBD Regional Mobility Authority Contribution TBD Private Sector (Comprehensive Dev. Agr) $1,485,000,000Total $10,496,670,000

San Antonio – Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization

Metropolitan Transportation Plan

Project Listing

MPO ID Number

Project Name Project Limits

Project Description

Funding Program

Metropolitan Transportation Plan - Mobility 2030Roadway, Transit, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Rideshare Project Listing

To:

Planned Fiscal YearCSJ Type of Work

Estimated CostFrom:

3576.0

FM 1346 Rosillo Creek FM 1516

2006FYSeal Coat & Pavement Markings

1437 1 900Maint

1 - Prvnt Mnt/Rehab$668,300

3639.0

FM 1346 Loop 13 Rosillo Creek

2007FYMill, seal coat, overlay & pavement markings

1437 1 900


3445.0

FM 143 Loop 1604 Cagnon

2005FYSeal coat and pavement markings

3615 1 2Maint


3298.0

FM 1516 FM 1976 FM 1346

2005FYBase repair, seal coat, ACP overlay, and pavement markings

1477 1 32Maint

1 - Prvnt Mnt/Rehab$1,072,000

3577.0

FM 1516 FM 1346 US 87


1477 1 34Maint


3434.0

FM 1518 FM 78 FM 1346


465 2 20Maint


3435.0

FM 1863 Comal/Bexar C/L (E) Bexar/Comal C/L (W)

2006FYRehab existing roadway and widen shoulders

470 2 11Maint


3625.0

FM 1957 Loop 1604 FM 3487

2007FYUltrathin bonded wearing coarse & pavement markings

2104 2 901Maint


3441.0

FM 1976 Walzem Road FM 3502


1890 1 42Maint


128-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3624.0

FM 2252 IH 410 Judson Road

2007FYPlane, seal coat, overlay, pavement marking

1433 1 901Maint


3578.0

FM 2537 Pleasanton Road US 281


2441 1 11Maint


3626.0

FM 2696 (Blanco Road) West Avenue IH 410

2007FYUltrathin bonded wearing coarse & pavement markings

2708 1 900Maint


3440.0

FM 2790 FM 476 Loop 1604


1741 2 28Maint


3306.0

FM 3009 IH 35, S FM 78

2006FYSeal Coat

3107 2 25Maint


3442.0

FM 327 Loop 1604 (Bypass Loop @ Elmendorf) -


2255 3 4Maint


3444.0

FM 3465 Loop 1604 (Bypass Loop @ Lone Oak) -


2452 5 3Maint


3516.0

FM 3487 (Culebra Road) @ FM 1957 (Potranco Road)

2005FYPlaning, one-course surface treatment, ACP overlay, pvmt markings

2344 1 6Maint


3113.0

FM 476 Atascosa County Line, N to FM 2790

2006FYRehabilitation & widen narrow pavement & shoulder

1740 1 6Operational


228-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3617.0

FM 78 Woodlake Parkway Firestone Parkway

2006FYTraffic Signal at Firestone and operational improvements

25 9 71Maint


3281.0

Houston St. (FM 1346) Loop 1604 Wilson County Line

2005FYWiden Roadway & Add Shoulders

1437 1 32Added Capacity: Non - Toll


3586.0

IH 10 Loop 353 0.4 Mi W. of IH 410

2006FYInstall Concrete Median Barrier

25 2 169Safety


3618.0

IH 10 7.3 Mi S of Kendall/Bexar CL 4.4 Mi N of Loop 1604

2006FYPFC overlay and pavement markings

72 8 909Maint


3565.0

IH 10 @ FM 3351

2006FYInstallation of Traffic Signal

72 7 902Operational


3634.0

IH 10 Kendall/Bexar County Line 7.41 Mi S of Kendall/Bexar County Line

2008FYSeal coat, overlay and pavement markings

72 7 901Maint


3631.0

IH 10 Loop 13 Presa


25 2 904Maint


3632.0

IH 10 On FR from Loop 13 IH 410


25 2 909Maint


3633.0

IH 10 On FR from Hackberry Street Loop 13


25 2 911Maint


328-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3460.0

IH 10 East S. Flores Presa

2005FYMill, base repair, sealcoat, overlay & pavement markings

25 2 167Maint


3579.0

IH 10 WB FR from Cibolo Creek IH 410


25 2Maint


3401.0

IH 10 West IH 10 West at Huebner Road

2006FYReconfigure Intersection (NB right turn lane & SB accel. lane)

72 12 176Operational


3381.0

IH 10 West Leon Springs @ WB FR Leon Springs @ Off-ramp West


72 7 49Maint


3364.0

IH 10 West @ DeZavala Road -

2008FYReconfigure intersection

72 8 112Operational


3548.0

IH 10 West @ DeZavala Road

2008FYReconfigure intersection

73 8 900Rehab/Preservation


3365.0

IH 10 West @ Callaghan Road -

2010FYReconfigure intersection (SB Rt turn lane)



3459.0

IH 35 0.27 mi south of Loop 410 0.27 mi north of Loop 410

2005FYSC,base, overlay & pavement markingson collector distrib's & connectors

17 2 65Maint


3615.0

IH 35 Von Ormy IH 410

2006FYSeal coat and pavement markings on frontage roads

17 2 67Maint


428-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3519.0

IH 35 IH 35 Southbound Frontage Road @ Randolph Blvd

2006FYInstall intersection flashing beacon for stop sign



3616.0

IH 35 IH 410 Palo Alto Road

2006FYSeal coat and pavement markings on frontage roads

17 9 89Maint


3603.0

IH 35 Bexar/Atascosa County Line Von Ormy

2006FYSeal Coat and Pavement Markings on Frontage Roads

17 3 901Rehab


3567.0

IH 35 @ Toepperwein


16 7 900Operational


3451.0

IH 35 at US 281

2006FYBarrier repair/replacement

17 10 902Safety


3623.0

IH 35 at Loop 1604 Interchange -


17 10 912Maint


3628.0

IH 35 IH 410 Loop 13

2008FYSeal, ACP overlay & pavement markings

17 9 905Maint


3629.0

IH 35 George Beach New Braunfels Avenue

2008FYPlane, seal cost, overlay, pavement marking

17 10 913Maint


3630.0

IH 35 On SB FR from George Beach New Braunfels Avenue


17 10 915Maint


528-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3574.0

IH 35 Frontage Road Spur 422 (Palo Alto Road) IH 410

2006FYSeal Coat & Pavement Markings on Frontage Roads

17 9 903Maint


3573.0

IH 35 Frontage Road Bexar/Atascosa County Line Von Ormy


17 3 60Maint


3572.0

IH 35 Frontage Road IH 410 Von Ormy


72 2 901Maint


3409.0

IH 35 North at Loop 1604 -

2005FYWidening for an auxiliary lane

16 7 121Operational


3430.0

IH 35 North SH 218 Guadalupe County Line

2005FYBase repair, PFC and pavement markings

16 7 122Maint


3458.0

IH 35 North Bexar County Line FM 3009

2005FYMill, base repair, sealcoat, PFC & pavement markings

16 6 42Maint


3432.0

IH 35 North Rittiman Road Walzem Road

2006FYBridge rail retrofit at Rittiman, Eisenhauer and Walzem

17 10 224Safety


3380.0

IH 35 South W. Commerce St. Pruitt Street Center Line

2006FYSign Refurbishment



3379.0

IH 35 South Pruitt Street Center Line 0.178 Mi N. of IH 410 intersection


17 9 84Operational


628-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3378.0

IH 35 South 0.589 Mi S. of Medina River Bexar/Atascosa County Line


17 3 55Operational


3377.0

IH 35 South 0.178 Mi N. of IH 410 Intersection 0.589 Mi S. of Medina River


17 2 64Operational


3416.0

IH 35 South Near Lytle City Limit @ SH 132

2006FYIntersection Illumination

17 3 54Safety


3362.0

IH 35 South 0.479 Mi N. of Kinney Road 0.43 Mi S. of Kinney Road


17 3 58Safety


3361.0

IH 35 South 0.324 Mi N. Of Shepherd Road 0.472 Mi S. of Shepherd Road


17 3 57Safety


3360.0

IH 35 South 0.65 Mi N. Of Luckey Road 0.34 Mi S. of Luckey Road


17 3 56Safety


3461.0

IH 37 Salado Creek Bridge 0.4 mi south of Loop 1604

2005FYsealcoat, base repair, overlay & pavement markings

73 8 147Maint


3590.0

IH 37 0.1 Mi S. of IH 410 IH 35

2006FYInstall Concrete Median Barrier

73 8 151Safety


3591.0

IH 37 0.1 Mi S. of IH 410 Pecan Valley Drive

2006FYUpgrade Continuous Freeway Illumination

73 8 152Safety


728-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3473.0

IH 410 at IH 35 (Fratt Interchange) -

2005FYOverlay and pavement markings

521 4 265Maint


3438.0

IH 410 S. of Rittiman Road Eddie Road


521 6 123Maint


3575.0

IH 410 FM 2790 (Somerset Road) FM 2536 (Pearsall Road)


521 5 133Maint


3439.0

IH 410 IH 35 Northbound Connector FM 1346

2006FYReconstruct existing mainlane

521 6 124Rehab


3635.0

IH 410 IH 35 US 90

2008FYSeal, ACP overlay & pavement markings

521 5 902Maint


3437.0

Loop 13 IH 35 Loop 353


521 2 36Maint


3436.0

Loop 13 Fairlawn IH 10

2006FYBase repair, seal coat, overlay and pavement markings

521 1 43Maint


3570.0

Loop 1604 Huebner US 281

2005FYInstall median barrier (wire rope/cable safety system)

2452 2Safety


3443.0

Loop 1604 Green Mountain SH 218/Forum Parkway


2452 3 96Maint


828-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3571.0

Loop 1604 US 281 Green Mountain Road

2005FYInstall median barrier (wire rope/cable safety system)

2452 3Safety


3566.0

Loop 1604 @ Redland Road




3568.0

Loop 1604 @ Kyle-Seale Pkwy, IH 10 FR, Bitters Rd Huebner & Lockhill-Selma Intersections




3520.0

Loop 1604 @ FM 1518

2006FYInstall intersection flashing beacon with illumination



3431.0

Loop 368 N. of Rittiman Road (East) N. of Walzem Road

2006FYPlane, seal coat, overlay and pavement markings

16 8 28Maint


3463.0

Loop 368 (Austin Highway) N. of Rittiman Road (East) Roy Smith

2006FYBase repair, plane, seal coat, overlay and pavement markings

16 8 29Maint


3433.0

SH 16 (Bandera Road) 0.4 Mi N of Prue Road 0.3 Mi N of Loop 1604

2006FYOperational improvements



3464.0

SH 16 South Loop 1604 Atascosa County Line

2005FYBase repair, overlay & pavement markings

613 1 53Maint


3423.0

SH 211 US 90 FM 1957


3544 4 5Maint


928-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3528.0

SH 218 IH 35 FM 78

2006FYOverlay and Pavement Markings



3619.0

SP 536 400 Ft S. of McDonald Avenue -

2006FYInstall midblock pedestrian crossing w/overhead warning flashers

253 6 33Operational


3462.0

US 181 Loop 1604 Bexar County Line

2005FYseal & ultrathin bonded wearing course & pavement markings

100 2 56Maint


3515.0

US 281 (North) 0.4 Mi N. of Hildebrand Josephine

2006FYMill, seal coat, PFC overlay and pavement markings

73 8 150Maint


3636.0

VA Districtwide Traffic Management -

2008FYFY 2007 Districtwide Traffic Management

915 0 111Traffic Management


3382.0

Various Locations Districtwide Pvmt Markings & Guidelines

2006FYDistrictwide Pvmt Markings & Guidelines

915 0 901Maint


3383.0

Various Locations Districtwide Traffic Control Devices

2006FYDistrictwide Traffic Control Devices (FY 2006)

915 0 905ITS


3366.0

Various Locations Various locations in San Antonio -

2006FYRemove and replace existing attenuators

915 0 103Maint


7005.0

Various Locations Lump Sum Amount Various

2030FYPreventative Maintenance Maint

1 - Prvnt Mnt/Rehab$1,448,000,000

1028-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3627.0

Wurzbach Parkway IH 35 Bitters Road


8000 15 900Maint


3031.0

36th Street US 90 Growdon

2011FYWiden roadway to 4 lanes w/ curbs & sidewalks


2 - Metro Corridor$4,329,718

3564.0

FM 2252 Comal County Line Loop 1604

2007FYExpand from 2 to 4 Lane Divided



3622.0

IH 10 1.0 Mi N. of Huebner Road Huebner Road




3621.0

IH 10 Loop 1604 1.0 Mi N of Huebner Road


72 8 907Operational


3610.0

IH 10 Camp Bullis Loop 1604

2007FYOperational improvements and grade separation at Camp Bullis Road

72 8 908Operational


3363.0

IH 10 East IH 410 South Foster Road

2006FYReconfigure ramps & Intersection (EB & WB)

25 2 164Operational


3482.0

IH 10 East at Loop 1604 -

2021FYReconstruct existing interchange (Ph 1)

25 2 159Interchange


3475.0

IH 10 East Foster Road 1.09 Mi N of Loop 1604

2022FYInstall Traffic Management System

25 2 165ITS


1128-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3474.0

IH 10 East IH 410 Loop 1604

2022FYExpand to 6 lane freeway w/4 lane frontage roads



3476.0

IH 10 East at IH 410 South -

2022FYReconfigure interchange (Phase I)

25 2 910Interchange


3465.0

IH 10 West at Loop 1604 -

2006FYReconstruct existing interchange (Phase I toll connectors)

72 8 111Added Capacity: Toll


3007.0

IH 10 West 1.40 Mi S of Leon Springs 1.50 Mi N of Loop 1604

2024FYUpgrade to 6 lane freeway with 4 lane frontage road and TMS



3517.0

IH 35 at IH 410 North -

2008FYConstruct to 12 lanes w/toll lanes, frontage roads and interchange



3518.0

IH 35 IH 410 North IH 410 South

2020FYUpgrade to 14 lane freeway & revise IH 35/410 I/C & TMS



3477.0

IH 35 North IH 410 North Bexar County Line

2008FYExpand from 8 lanes to 14 lanes (toll 6 new mainlanes)



61.2

IH 35 North IH 410 North IH 410 South

2016FYExpand 6 to 8 lane freeway (+2 Aux) & TMS (Phase I)



3376.0

IH 35 South US 90 Zarzamora

2006FYReconfigure entrance & exit ramps & expand FR

17 9 85Operational


1228-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3503.0

IH 35 South Southcross Blvd Spur 422

2019FYTraffic Management System

17 9 68ITS


3481.0

IH 35 South @ IH 410, SW of San Antonio -

2029FYConstruct interchange (Phase I)

17 2 60Interchange


3509.0

IH 37 at Loop 13 -

2007FYReconfigure Interchange

73 8 148Operational


3478.0

IH 37 Fair Avenue SE Loop 13 (Military Drive)

2029FYInstall traffic management system

73 8 137ITS


715.3

IH 410 Interchange at US 281 Fr: McCullough To: Nacogdoches

2005FYConstruct connectors and TMS

521 4 223Interchange


2006.0

IH 410 Ingram Callaghan

2005FYUpgrade to 8 lane freeway and TMS



3508.0

IH 410 IH 37 South US 281 South

2006FYInstall continuous freeway illumination

521 6 125Safety

2 - Metro Corridor$867,100

3480.0

IH 410 US 281 South Medina Base Road

2006FYInstall continuous freeway illumination

521 5 128Safety


2001.0

IH 410 Nacogdoches Road Loop 368 (Austin Hwy)




1328-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3258.0

IH 410 IH 10 E 2.0 Mi N of IH 37

2022FYInstall traffic management system

521 6 86ITS


3479.0

IH 410 at US 90 West -




1081.0

IH 410 0.15 Mi N of US 90 Culebra Rd


521 4 233ITS


3151.0

IH 410 Valley Hi Drive N 0.15 Mi N of US 90

2022FYTraffic Mangement System

521 5 115ITS


3009.0

IH 410 0.15 Mi N of US 90, North Culebra Road (FM 3487)

2023FYUpgrade to 8 lane freeway with 4 lane frontage road and TMS



3344.0

IH 410 IH 10 N. IH 35 (1.1 Mi N. of FM 78)


521 6 69ITS


3504.0

Loop 1604 IH 10 (East), N. FM 78

2006FYUpgrade to 4 lane divided roadway, 4 lane FR and initial TMS and initial TMS



3424.0

Loop 1604 Lockhill-Selma US 281


2452 2 900ITS


3468.0

Loop 1604 FM 1535 Bitters Road


2452 2 71ITS


1428-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3529.0

Loop 1604 N.W. Military Stone Oak Parkway

2006FYExpand from 4 to 8 Lane Freeway (Toll 4 ML's)



3484.0

Loop 1604 1.2 Mi S of SH 16, S SH 151

2006FYExpand to 6 lane expy w/4 lane FR (toll 6 new mainlanes), initial TMS Initial TMS



3531.0

Loop 1604 Redland Road Green Mountain Road

2006FYExpand from 4 to 8 Lane Expressway (Toll 4 ML's)



3486.0

Loop 1604 1.2 Mi S of SH 16 (Bandera Road) IH 10 West

2006FYExpand from 4 to 8 lane expy w/4 lane FR (toll 4 new mainlanes), initial TMS



3452.0

Loop 1604 Green Mountain Road IH 35 North

2006FYExpand from 4 to 8 lane Expy w/auxiliary lanes (toll 4 mainlanes)



3340.0

Loop 1604 Bitters Road US 281 (North)


2452 2 62ITS


3341.0

Loop 1604 2.0 Mi East of US 281 (North) 1.0 Mi North of FM 2252


2452 3 98ITS


3638.0

Loop 1604 at SH 151 -

2008FYConstruct interchange (Phase 1B-toll new connectors)

2452 1 47Interchange: Toll


3483.0

Loop 1604 IH 35 SH 218 (Pat Booker Road)

2021FYExpand from 4 to 6 lane expreway (toll 2 new mainlanes)



1528-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3505.0

Loop 1604 IH 10 (East), N FM 78

2021FYUpgrade to 4 lane divided roadway (tolled) and TMS and TMS



3490.0

Loop 1604 US 87 0.38 Mi N of FM 1303

2025FYExpand from 2 lanes to 4 lanes divided



3493.0

Loop 1604 IH 10 East US 87




3487.0

Loop 1604 FM 1937 SH 16 South




3489.0

Loop 1604 0.38 Mi N. of FM 1303 FM 1937




3491.0

Loop 1604 0.71 Mi N of FM 2536 US 90 West




3488.0

Loop 1604 SH 16 0.71 MI N. of FM 2536




3506.0

Loop 1604 1.0 Mi N. of FM 2252 1.0 Mi S. of FM 78


2452 3 79ITS


3492.0

Loop 1604 SH 16 (South) US 90 West


2452 1 998ITS


1628-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3067.0

San Antonio River Guenther St Eagleland

2011FYExtension of SA Riverwalk w/ Hike - Bike path to Mission Trails

915 12 349Bicycle


3154.0

SH 211 Medina Co. Line, 4.5 Mi N of FM 1957, N Medina Co. Line, 2.0 Mi S of FM 471

2014FYConstruct two lane rural highway on new location



3155.0

SH 211 Bexar C/L, 2.9 MI N of FM 1957, N Bexar C/L, 4.5 MI N of FM 1957




3153.0

SH 211 FM 1957 (Potranco Rd), N 2.9 Mi Medina County Line




3152.0

SH 211 2.0 MI S of FM 471, N FM 471 (Culebra Rd)

2014FYConsturct two lane rural highway on new location



3203.0

US 281 0.4 mi N of Loop 1604 0.7 mi N of Stone Oak

2006FYExpand to 6 lane Expy w/ 4 lane FR (toll 6 new mainlanes), Initial TMS



3450.0

US 281 at Loop 1604

2006FYExpand interchange with tolled direct connectors



3367.0

US 281 0.60 Mi N. of Loop 1604 2.50 Mi N. of Loop 1604


253 4 127ITS


3494.0

US 281 2.5 Mi N of Loop 1604 Comal County Line

2008FYExpand to 6 lane expy w/4 lane FR (toll 6 new mainlanes)



1728-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3495.0

US 281 at Wurzbach Parkway -

2008FYConstruct interchange at new location (toll connectors)



3507.0

US 281 0.4 Mi S. of Nakoma Dr to 0.6 Mi N. of Loop 1604


253 4 99ITS


3485.0

US 90 at Loop 1604 -


24 7 48Interchange


3238.0

Wurzbach Parkway Jones-Maltsberger Wetmore

2006FYConstruct 4 Lane Divided Roadway

8000 15 12Added Capacity


3150.0

Wurzbach Parkway Blanco Road (FM 2696) West Ave

2006FYConstruct 4 lane divided roadway

915 12 224Added Capacity


7001.0


2030FYCongestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Lump Sum

5 - CMAQ$375,000,000

3197.0

IH 10 On South Frontage Rd at Martinez Creek -

2006FYRehabilitate bridge & approaches

25 2 155Rehab

6 - Struct Rehab$320,000

3543.0

IH 10 @ Fredericksburg Road

2007FYRehab bridge and approaches

72 12 961Rehab


3542.0

IH 10 @ Spur 421 (Culebra Road)


72 12 960Rehab


1828-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3541.0

IH 10 IH 10 Westbound @ W. Poplar Street


72 12 910Rehab


3539.0

IH 10 @ IH 410 Southbound FR (East of SA)


25 2 908Rehab


3549.0

IH 10 Underpasses of NB and SB IH 410 East of San Antonio

2008FYRepair and widen underpasses and approaches

25 2 141Rehab


3419.0

IH 10 East at FM 1518 (over IH 10)

2006FYRehabilitate bridge and approaches

25 2 903Rehab


3392.0

IH 10 East at IH 410 on NB FR


25 2 901Rehab


3532.0

IH 35 IH 35 Southbound Mainlane @ Salado Creek

2006FYRehab Bridge and all approaches

17 10 904Rehab

6 - Struct Rehab$1,142,500

3538.0

IH 35 IH 35 Nothbound Connection East @ IH 35 Northbound FR & SP


17 10 910Rehab


3537.0

IH 35 IH 35 Southbound Mainlanes @ Abandoned SPRR and FR


17 10 905Rehab


3417.0

IH 35 North NB and SB Mainlanes at Salado Creek


17 10 200Rehab


1928-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3391.0

IH 35 North at IH 410 Conn-F (Benz-Engleman)


17 10 908Rehab


3105.0

IH 35 South @ Theo & Malone, Division Ave and Southcross Blvd.

2006FYRehabilitate bridges & approaches

17 9 72Rehab


3107.0

IH 35 South NB & SB Mainlanes At Southcross Blvd.


17 9 74Rehab


3108.0

IH 35 South NB Mainlanes At Division


17 9 80Rehab


3106.0

IH 35 South SB Mainlanes At Division


17 9 73Rehab


3193.0

IH 35 South SB collector Rd at IH 410 (SW of San Antonio)

2010FYReplace bridge & approaches

17 2 59Rehab


3195.0

IH 35 South NB collector Rd at IH 410 (SW of San Antonio)

2010FYReplace bridge & approaches

17 2 61Rehab


3545.0

IH 410 @ Spur 537 (San Pedro)


521 4 913Rehab


3395.0

IH 410 IH 410 SB at Loop 13 NB


521 6 900Rehab


2028-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3394.0

IH 410 at Loop 368 (Austin Highway)


521 4 901Rehab


3540.0

Loop 345 @ Martinez Creek


72 9 960Rehab


3390.0

Loop 368 on Loop 368 (Austin Highway) at Harry Wurzbach Road

2015FYRahabilitate bridge and approaches

16 8 901Rehab


3555.0

Presa Street @ San Antonio River

2008FYReplace bridge and approaches

915 12 221Rehab


3556.0

San Jacinto Street @ Alazan Creek


915 12 900Rehab


3557.0

Schertz Road @ Haul Rd/Portland CE


915 12 978Rehab


3554.0

SH 16 SH 16 Southbound Mainlanes @ Leon Creek


613 1 960Rehab


3553.0

SH 16 SH 16 Northbound Mainlanes @ Leon Creek


613 1 49Rehab


1084.0

Somerset Rd. At Leon Creek

2006FYReplace Bridge and Approaches

915 12 218Rehab


2128-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3368.0

St. Cloud Road at Drain -


8019 15 900Rehab


3552.0

US 281 @ Alpine Drive


73 8 904Rehab


3550.0

US 281 @ Medina River (SB)

2008FYRepair and widen bridge and approaches

73 2 52Rehab


3551.0

US 281 @ Medina River (NBL)


73 2 59Rehab


3393.0

US 281 0.45 mi S. of Bitters Road


253 4 900Rehab


3544.0

US 87 @ Salado Creek


143 1 49Rehab


3418.0

US 90 at Old US 90


24 8 901Rehab


7006.0


2030FYStructures Repl and Rehab Rehab

6 - Struct Rehab$281,700,000

3403.0

Alamo Area Commute Solutions Prog. - FY 2005

In San Antonio-Bexar Co. Area

2005FYOperational costs for air quality program, ridematching and carpool services and carpool services915 12 413

Other

7 - Metro Mobility$231,000

2228-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3404.0



2006FYOperational costs for air quality program, ridematching and carpool services

915 12 414Other


3559.0


in San Antonio-Bexar Co. Area

2007FYOperational costs for air quality program, ridematching, and carpool services

915 12 907Other


3560.0



2008FYOperational costs for air quality program, ridematching and carpool services

915 12 908Other


2037.0

Ave. B (North) Tuleta Mulberry

2007FYConstruct 10' bicycle path on west side of parkway along Ave B. parkway

915 12 282Bicycle


2039.0

Ave. B (South) / Josephine Lions Fields/Alamo Josephine/St. Mary's

2007FYConstruct 10' bicycle path on west side of Ave B

915 12 283Bicycle


2067.0

Babcock Rd. Alternate Spring Rain Spring Time

2007FYBicycle Path Signage and markings (Shared Lanes) and ped bridge on Spring Forest915 12 303

Bicycle


3210.0

Blanco Road (FM 2696) Lockhill Selma West Avenue

2006FYConstruct sidewalks on West side of roadway

2708 1 27Pedestrian


3121.0

Blanco Road (FM 2696) Glade Crossing Wilderness Oaks

2007FYReconstruct & expand from 2 to 4 lanes w/turn lane, sidewalks & bike lanes


7 - Metro Mobility$10,325,000

3496.0

Blanco Road (FM 2696) Wilderness Oaks W. Oak Estates

2007FYExpand roadway from 2 to 4 lanes with center left turn lane, bike lanes and sidewalks2708 1 24

Added Capacity: Non - Toll


2328-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

2041.0

Botanical Gardens Route Botanical Gardens Ave. B

2007FYMarkings & signage for 10 ft bicycle path on northside of parkway

915 12 284Bicycle


2036.0

Broadway Corridor Josephine 3rd Street

2006FYBicycle signage and markings (shared lane) (Shared Lane)

915 12 291Bicycle


2066.0

Buena Vista/W. Commerce Frio 19th Street

2006FYBicycle signage and markings (shared lane) (Shared lane)

915 12 287Bicycle


3034.0

Bulverde Road @ Evans -

2007FYWiden existing pavement to construct left turn lanes on all approaches



2042.0

Callaghan W. Horseshoe Bend Ingram

2006FYReconstruct & expand from 2 to 4 lanes w/CLTL, curbs, sidewalks and bike trails & drain. Improve horiz. align at curve.915 12 266



132.4

Callaghan Bandera (SP 421) W. Horseshoe Bend

2006FYReconstruct and expand from 2 to 4 lanes w/ cont. lt turn lanes, sidewalks and bike trails drainage and curbs915 12 154



132.2

Callaghan Commerce Ingram

2030FYWiden Existing 2 lane street to 4 lanes



2045.0

Cincinnati Camino Santa Maria Navidad


915 12 289Bicycle


2046.0

Cincinnati / Ashby Navidad Belknap


915 12 290Bicycle


2428-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3134.0

Clark Southcross Hot Wells

2006FYConstruct sidewalks

915 12 353Pedestrian


3135.0

Clark Fair Southcross

2006FYRehabilitate & widen narrow pavement (curbs, sidewalks, drainage)

915 12 354Rehab


3339.0

Crestway Eaglecrest Midcrown

2006FYStreet resurfacing/overlay

915 12 901Maint


3253.0

Culebra (FM 3487) FM 1957 (Potranco Rd.) Micron Dr./Pipers Ln.

2007FYReconstruct & expand from 4 to 6 lanes w/CLTL, bike lanes and sidewalks



3122.0

Culebra Rd (FM 3487) Micron Dr./Pipers Ln. Timber Path (Old Grissom)

2007FYReconstruct & expand 4 to 6 lanes w/CLTL (curbs, bike lanes, sidewalks, & drainage)2104 2 24



3123.0

Culebra Rd (FM 3487) IH 410 FM 1957 (Potranco Rd.)

2007FYReconstruct & expand 4 to 6 lanes w/CLTL (curbs, bike lanes, sidewalks, & drainage)2344 1 5



2098.0

Culebra Rd (FM 471) FM 1560 Loop 1604

2006FYWiden existing two lane road to 66' w/ 4 lanes with CLTL, bike lanes, sidewalks continuous left turn lane, bike lanes and sidewalks849 1 33



3037.0

Demya IH 410 Hunt

2010FYReconstruct existing 2 lanes with curbs and sidewalks

915 12 326Rehab


3038.0

Flores, S 0.6 Mi N of Malone Octavia

2005FYRehabilitate & widen narrow pavement w/sidewalks

915 12 327Rehab


2528-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3499.0

FM 3487 Timber Path (Old Grissom Road) FM 471

2007FYExpand roadway to 6 lanes w/continuous left turn lane



3125.0

Foster Road at Candlemeadow

2005FYConstruct traffic signal



3126.0

Foster Road at Summer Fest

2005FYConstruct traffic signal



3213.0

Frio City/Gen. Hudnell New Access Ramp

2010FYConstruct 26' wide access ramp

24 9 22Operational


3211.0

Hot Wells IH 37 New Braunfels

2006FYConstruct sidewalks

915 12 359Pedestrian


3399.0

IH 10 West Dominion Drive Camp Bullis Rd

2006FYReconfigure interchange at Dominion

72 8 115Interchange


3127.0

IH 10 West 0.464 Miles S. of Boerne Stage Rd @ Dominion Drive

2006FYReconfigure interchange

72 7 48Interchange


3138.0

Ingram Callaghan Benrus

2006FYStripe bike lanes, one each side

915 12 361Bicycle


3042.0

Jones Maltsberger US 281 East of UPRR tracks

2006FYReconstruct and expand from 3 to 4 lanes.



2628-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3421.0

Kitty Hawk Loop 1604 Converse City Limits

2010FYReconstruct roadway

915 12 0Rehab


3510.0

Kitty Hawk Converse CL, South Converse CL, North

2010FYExpand from 2 to 4 lanes w/a center left turn lane

915 12Rehab


3139.0

Lockhill Selma West Avenue N.W. Military

2006FYReconstruct & expand from 2 to 3 lanes (curbs, sidewalks, bicycle lanes & drainage)915 12 362



2071.0

Malone / Theo S. Zarzamora Probandt


915 12 302Bicycle


3212.0

Mayfield Commercial Zarzamora

2006FYRehabilitate & widen narrow pavement (curbs, sidewalks, drainage)

915 12 363Rehab


3140.0

McCullough Basse RR Tracks

2006FYRehabilitate & widen narrow pavement w/turn lane (curbs, sidewalks, drainage and bike path)915 12 364

Rehab


3209.0

Medical Dr. (R.O.W.) At Fredericksburg Rd.

2006FYPurchase right of way only

915 12 365Other


1032.0

Military Dr., S.E. (LP 13) Padre Mission Rd

2006FYFlashing beacon

521 2 31Safety


1033.0

Mission Rd. N. of San Antonio River Mission Parkway

2005FYWiden bridge for left turn lane to Mission Parkway to Mission Parkway



2728-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3142.0

Nacogdoches IH 410 Danbury

2007FYRehabilitate & widen narrow pavement w/CLTL (curbs, sidewalks, drainage)

915 12 367Rehab


3144.0

Nakoma @ US 281 -

2006FYRehabilitate & widen narrow pavement w/CLTL (curbs, sidewalks, drainage)

915 12 368Rehab


678.0

NW Military Hwy (FM 1535) Braesview Huebner

2006FYReconstruct & expand from 4 to 6 lanes w/CLTL (curbs, sidewalks, drainage)



3143.0

Parallel to Nacogdoches Rd. Bike Path

Judson Toepperwein

2007FYConstruct bike path

915 12 374Bicycle


3215.0

Prue Road Extension Prue Rd Huebner Road

2006FYExtend roadway on new alignment with curbs, sidewalks and drainage



3259.0

Salado Creek Bicycle Path Wetmore Blanco

2007FYConstruct Bike lane

915 12 394Bicycle


117.5

Spur 421 (Bandera Rd) Cincinnati Avenue IH 10

2007FYWiden to 6 lane divided urban w/ continuous left turn lane



117.3

Spur 421 (Bandera Rd) Evers Road Quill

2007FYWiden to 6 Lane Divided Urban with Continuous Left Turn Lane Turn Lane



117.4

Spur 421 (Bandera Road) Ligustrum Cincinnati

2007FYWiden roadway to 6 lane urban divided w/continuous left turn lane



2828-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3052.2

Stahl @ O'Connor

2006FYWiden existing for left turn lanes (all approaches)



3052.1

Stahl @ Judson

2006FYWiden existing for left turn lanes (all approaches)



3285.0

Sunset Teak Broadway

2007FYRehabilitate & widen narrow pavement (sidewalks)

915 12 393Rehab


2077.0

Tezel Ridge Path Old Tezel

2005FYRehabilitate and widen for CLTL, curbs, sidewalks, drainage, bike lane & signal improvements915 12 299

Rehab


2078.0

Tezel Timber Path Ridge Path

2005FYReconstruct 4 lanes to 4 lanes w/CLTL, curbs, sidewalks & drainage

915 12 300Rehab


2064.0

Thousand Oaks At Broken Oak, Ledge View, Turkey Point,

Pebble Forest & Oak View

2005FYConstruct turn lanes at five intersections btw. US 281 and Jones-Maltsberger btw. US 281 & Jones Maltsberger915 12 275

Operational


3054.0

Vandiver N. Loop 410 Rittiman

2006FYBike signs and wide curb lane (shared bike lane south of Austin Highway)

915 12 343Bicycle


7010.0

Various Locations Lump Sum Amount at Various Locations in the MPO Study Area

2030FYLump Sum: Alamo Area Commute Solutions Program Other


7011.0


2030FYLump Sum: Stand Alone Pedestian Projects Pedestrian


2928-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

7002.0


2030FYSurface Transporation Program - Metro Mobility Lump Sum


7012.0


2030FYLump Sum: Stand Alone Bicycle Projects Bicycle


42.2

Weidner Road 0.966 KM N of Crestway 1.93 KM N of Crestway

2010FYWiden to 4 lanes w/curbs and sidewalks w/ curbs and sidewalks



3216.0

Woodlawn Bandera Maiden

2006FYRehabilitate & widen narrow pavement (curbs, sidewalks, drainage, bike lane, wide curb lanes)915 12 372

Rehab


3497.0

Blanco Road (FM 2696) W. Oak Estates Old Blanco Road

2010FYExpand roadway from 2 to 4 lanes with center left turn lane, bike lanes and sidewalks2708 1 25


7 - PA$16,550,000

3501.0

FM 1103 IH 35 North FM 78

2030FYExpand from 2 lanes to 4 lanes divided Added Capacity: Toll

7 - PA$10,000,000

3500.0

FM 3009 IH 35 North FM 2252 (Nacogdoches Road)

2030FYExpand from 2 lanes to 4 lanes divided Added Capacity: Non - Toll

7 - PA$10,000,000

3498.0

FM 471 FM 3487 Loop 1604

2010FYExpand roadway to 6 lanes w/continuous left turn lane


7 - PA$12,900,000

3308.0

Austin Highway (Loop 368) Eisenhauer Road Rittiman Road

2006FYInstall raised median and bridge rail retrofit at Salado Creek

16 8 27Safety

8 - Safety$1,869,852

3028-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3522.0

FM 2536 @ Intersection of Loop 1604

2006FYConstruct left turn lanes

2440 1 19Safety

8 - Safety$55,100

3533.0

FM 2538 IH 10 Guadalupe County Line

2006FYWiden narrow roadway and add shoulders

2442 1 7Safety

8 - Safety$1,288,300

3525.0

FM 3009 @ Intersection of Tri-County Parkway

2006FYConstruct left turn lane

3107 2 30Safety

8 - Safety$28,900

3524.0

FM 3009 @ Intersection of Tri-County Parkway

2006FYConstruct left turn lane

3107 1 32Safety

8 - Safety$63,600

3585.0

IH 10 0.3 Mi W. of IH 410 0.2 Mi E. of FM 2538

2006FYInstall Median Barrier (Wire Rope/Cable Safety System)

25 2 168Safety

8 - Safety$1,987,507

3588.0

IH 10 1.3 Mi S. of Boerne Stage Road 3.1 Mi S. of Boerne Stage Road


72 8 116Safety

8 - Safety$281,408

3587.0

IH 10 Kendall County Line 1.3 Mi S.of Boerne Stage Road


72 7 53Safety

8 - Safety$1,161,188

3589.0

IH 10 County Road 127 1.0 Mi S. of County Road 127


72 8 117Safety

8 - Safety$127,169

3580.0

IH 35 0.5 Mi W. of Medina River 0.1Mi N. of IH 410


17 2 66Safety

8 - Safety$463,377

3128-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3581.0

IH 35 SH 132 Benton City Road


17 3 59Safety

8 - Safety$1,683,185

3582.0

IH 35 0.4 Mi W. of Loop 353 0.1 Mi E. of Loop 353


17 9 88Safety

8 - Safety$41,240

3592.0

IH 37 1.2 Mi S. of Priest-Mathis Southton Road


73 9 28Safety

8 - Safety$961,347

3596.0

IH 410 0.9 Mi E. of Chavaneaux Road SH 16


521 5 131Safety

8 - Safety$590,423

3595.0

IH 410 IH 35 Valley Hi Drive


521 5 130Safety

8 - Safety$649,007

3523.0

Loop 1604 @ Intersection of Schuwirth Road

2006FYConstruct left turn lanes

2452 4 11Safety

8 - Safety$63,200

3429.0

Loop 1604 on Frontage Roads at Stone Oak/Voight

2006FYConstruct turnarounds


8 - Safety$350,000

3598.0

Loop 1604 Babcock Road Regency Blvd.


2452 2 75Safety

8 - Safety$103,072

3297.0

Loop 1604 At Gold Canyon

2006FYSafety lighting at intersection

2452 3 94Safety

8 - Safety$60,000

3228-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3547.0

Nelson @ UPRR

2007FYSignal Upgrade

915 12 417Safety

8 - Safety$170,000

3594.0

SH 16 0.7 MI N. of Ranch Pkwy 0.3 Mi S. of Ranch Pkwy


291 9 126Safety

8 - Safety$175,130

3597.0

SH 16 0.1 Mi N. of Loop 1604 0.1 Mi N. of Smith Road


613 1 54Safety

8 - Safety$317,032

3295.0

SH 16 (Bandera Road) At FM 471 (Grissom)


291 10 86Safety

8 - Safety$48,000

3296.0

SH 16 (Bandera Road) At FM 1517 (Eckert)


291 10 87Safety

8 - Safety$15,539

3521.0

US 281 @ FM 2537

2006FYReplace flashing beacon with traffic signal

73 2 62Safety

8 - Safety$64,458

3593.0

US 281 Comal County Line Marshall Road


253 4 133Safety

8 - Safety$667,799

3294.0

US 281 Josephine Street Pearl Parkway

2006FYConvert Median barrier, mill, seal coat, PFC Overlay & Pavement Markings

73 8 142Operational

8 - Safety$626,223

3546.0

US 87 @ FM 3465

2006FYHighway grade separation

143 2 23Safety

8 - Safety$2,821,100

3328-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3584.0

US 90 Hunt Lane IH 410


24 8 120Safety

8 - Safety$108,581

3293.0

US 90 At Hunt Lane


24 8 117Safety

8 - Safety$78,527

3583.0

US 90 Montgomery Road 0.3 Mi E. of Medio Creek


24 7 51Safety

8 - Safety$804,244

7007.0


2030FYSTP - Safety Safety

8 - Safety$67,500,000

3235.0

Commanche Park (US 87) Willow Springs Golf Course (Houston St.)

2005FYConstruct Hike and Bike Trails along Salado Creek

915 12 375Enhancement

9 - Enhancements$2,500,000

8004.0

Hays Street Bridge vic. N. Mesquite @ N. Austin St.

2006FYRehab bridge, install signage for hike & bike



8003.0

IH 35 & Evans Road at Historic Selma Stage Coach Stop

2006FYRehab historic stage coach stop to serve as Visitor Center



600.5

Mission Trails Project (Phase 5)

Mission Espada The Alamo

2008FYEnhance roadways, trails, markers that lead to the missions



8001.0

Salado Creek Houston Street Binz-Engleman Road

2006FYConstructing Hike & Bike Trails (Ph II) along Salado Creek



3428-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

8002.0

Spur 371/Kelly USA Entrance vic. Billy Mitchell Blvd & Cupples Road

2006FYImproving landscaping & sidewalks


9 - Enhancements$966,840

3405.0

Various Locations Various locations in San Antonio

2006FYCrosswalks, school zone flashers, school zone signs

915 12 415Safety

9 - Enhancements$484,626

7008.0


2030FYSTP - Transportation Enhancements Enhancement


3600.0

CR on Pue Road near MacDonna @UPRR DOT 764323F (MP 0226.48)

2006FYInstall RR Warning Lights & Gates

915 12 428Safety

10 - Misc$170,000

3599.0

CR in Von Army @ Edwards Road @UPRR DOT 427921S (MP 273.3)


915 12 427Safety

10 - Misc$170,000

3602.0

CR in Elmendorf @ Richter Road @UPRR DOT 764278N (MP 0013.8)


915 12 430Safety

10 - Misc$170,000

3601.0

CS in San Antonio @ Center Road @UPRR DOT 764270J (MP 8.2)


915 12 429Safety

10 - Misc$170,000

3604.0

IH 10 IH 10 EB FR & WB FR @ Union Pacific Railroad

2007FYInstall Concrete Crossing Surface

25 2 70Operational

10 - Misc$80,208

3408.0

IH 10 West IH 10 W of La Canterra -

2008FYLandscape Development

72 8 114Misc.

10 - Misc$100,000

3528-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3311.0

IH 35 On SB Frontage Road At UPRR

2006FYReplank existing railroad planking surface

17 10 217Safety

10 - Misc$30,080

3454.0

IH 35 at IH 410 South

2006FYLandscape development

17 10 223Landscape

10 - Misc$550,000

3312.0

IH 35 On NB Frontage Road At UPRR

2006FYReplank existing railroad planking surface

17 10 218Safety

10 - Misc$30,080

3337.0

IH 35 South @ Dolorosa/La Trinidad & @ Buena Vista/La Trinidad

2006FYLandscape and update traffic signals

17 10 216Misc.

10 - Misc$471,000

3453.0

IH 35 South at SH 16 (SP 422)


17 9 87Misc.

10 - Misc$500,000

3449.0

IH 410 Interchange at US 281 From US 281 to Nacogdoches

2005FYDrainage improvements w/City of San Antonio at Nacogdoches


10 - Misc$2,182,628

3527.0

IH 410 @ FM 1535 (Northwest Military Highway)

2006FYLandscape Development

521 4 264Miscellaneous

10 - Misc$300,000

3456.0

IH 410 at IH 10


521 4 261Landscape

10 - Misc$600,000

3396.0

IH 410 IH 35 FM 2536

2010FYRelocating entrance & exit ramps between RR overpasses


10 - Misc$5,000,000

3628-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3606.0

Loop 1604 Loop 1604 Frontage Road @ Union Pacific Railroad



10 - Misc$24,064

3282.0

Spur 536 In San Antonio at UPRR (DOT# 764349H)

2006FYRailroad Grade Crossing Replanking

17 11 33Safety

10 - Misc$265,140

3605.0

Spur 536 Spur 536 @ Union Pacific Railroad


253 6 32Operational

10 - Misc$90,240

3425.0

Spur 66 0.27 mi west of SH 16 Applewhite Road

2005FYLandscaping

291 12 2Misc.

10 - Misc$100,000

3448.0

US 281 Bitters Loop 1604


253 4 129Misc.

10 - Misc$225,000

3447.0

US 90 Various locations Between FM 353 Nogalitos and Charlotte


24 8 119Misc.

10 - Misc$375,000

3428.0

VA Billy Mitchell Blvd. Loop 13 (SW Military)

2006FYNew route at Luke Road on former Kelly AFB


10 - Misc$20,000,000

3526.0

VA Loop 345 (IH 10 North to IH 10 South) & IH 10 (Loop 345 to Callaghan)

2006FYConstruct ADA curb ramps

915 12 431Miscellaneous

10 - Misc$1,000,000

7009.0


2030FYMiscellaneous Projects Other

10 - Misc$10,000,000

3728-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3620.0

Various Districtwide ITS Deployment Program -

2006FYITS Technologies - San Antonio

915 0 112ITS

10 - Misc.$3,200,000

3535.0

IH 35 Martin Street Flores Street

2008FYBridge deck repair


11 - Distr Discretionary$2,000,000

3637.0

IH 35 Loop 1604 Guadalupe County Line


16 7 124Traffic Management

11 - Distr Discretionary$320,000

3375.0

IH 35 North NB at McCullough

2005FYReconfigure interesection (turn radii)



3457.0

IH 35 South at Durango Blvd.

2008FYConstruct WB Access to Durango Blvd from NB IH 35



3536.0

IH 37 S. New Braunfels Hot Wells

2008FYAbutment Cap and wingwall repair



3569.0

Loop 1604 New Guilbeau Road 0.3 Miles N. of New Guilbeau Road

2006FYConstruct Left Turn Lanes



3307.0

SH 16 (Bandera Road) At Huebner Creek in Leon Valley -

2006FYDrainage structure improvements

291 10 88Rehab


3446.0

US 281 at Borgfeld Road

2005FYReconfigure interchange (grade separation)



3828-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3561.0

US 281 Borgfeld Road Marshall Road

2006FYOperational Improvements, Turn Around and Signals



3194.0

US 281 At Borgfeld Rd -

2006FYReconfigure interchange (grade separate)



3384.0

Various Locations Districtwide Traffic Mgmt -

2008FYDistrictwide Traffic Management (FY 2006)

915 0 108ITS


3563.0

FM 1957 Medina County Line Loop 1604

2015FYExpand from 2 to 4 Lane Divided


11 - PA$1,100,000

3562.0

FM 2252 FM 3009 Bexar County Line

2015FYExapnd from 2 to 4 Lane Divided


11 - PA$1,200,000

3398.0

Loop 1604 at SH 151 -

2006FYConstruct interchange (Phase IA - SH 151 MLs)


12 - Strategic Priority$21,000,000

7003.0


2030FYCommission Strategic Priority Lump Sum

12 - Strategic Priority$347,000,000

6000.0

Blanco Road Phase I Hildebrand Summit

2006FYIncludes streets, sidewalks, landscaping and pedestrian enhancements

2003 GO Bond$960,000

6001.0

Cincinnati Fredericksburg Road IH 10

2006FYReconstruct curbs, sidewalks, ramps, driveways as req. mill & overlay as req.

2003 GO Bond$211,651

3928-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

6002.0

Cornell Brazos Colorado

2006FYConstruction of new curbs, sidewalks and driveway improvements

2003 GO Bond$174,000

6003.0

Marbach Phase I Military Pinn Road

2006FYReconstruct street with corbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and necessary drainage

2003 GO Bond$4,430,751

6004.0

Ozark Erskine Williamsburg

2006FYReconstruct street with curbs, sidewalks and driveway approaches and limited drainage

2003 GO Bond$139,000

6005.0

Pedestrian Mobility & Traffic Calming Projs

CoSA District 1 -

2006FYPedestian mobility and traffic calming projects in neighborhoods

2003 GO Bond$17,000

6006.0

School Safety Improvements CoSA District 9 -

2006FYSchool flashing signs at Harmony Hills, Lamar, Hidden Forest, Coker and Eisenhower schools

2003 GO Bond$75,000

6007.0

School Sidewalk Priority Program

CoSA Dictrict 7 -

2006FYConstruct sidewalks in the vicinity of schools in District 7

2003 GO Bond$350,000

6008.0

Skyline Neighborhood Improvements Phase I

Streets: Erin, Bell, Cisco and Middle -

2006FYNeighborhood-wide surface drainage improvements

2003 GO Bond$150,000

6009.0

South Texas Medical Center Improvements

2007FYProvides City matching funds to continue funding intersection improvements

2003 GO Bond$1,625,000

6010.0

Stahl Road O'Connor Judson Road

2006FYStreet reconstruction to five lanes & associated drainage improvements

2003 GO Bond$4,945,000

4028-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3514.0

IH 35 North US 281 near Downtown IH 410 North

2035FYToll 4-6 new mainlanes Added Capacity: Toll

Comprehensive Dev. Agr.$500,000,000

3017.0

Kelly Parkway (Spur 371) US 90 SH 16, South

2035FYTolled roadway on partial new alignment Added Capacity: Toll


3513.0

SH 16 (Bandera Road) Guilbeau Loop 1604

2035FYExpand roadway from 4 to 8 lanes (toll new lanes) Added Capacity: Toll


3512.0

SH 16 (Bandera Road) IH 410 Guilbeau

2035FYExpand roadway from 6 to 10 lanes (toll new lanes) Added Capacity: Toll


9057.0

Fredericksburg Road Bus Rapid Transit

Downtown San Antonio near Fredericksburg Road/Huebner/IH 10

2009FYCapital improvements associated with bus rapid transit Bus Rapid Transit

FTA - New Starts Program$24,000,000

9050.2

Transit: Other Programs Job Access/Reverse Commute -

2006FYJob Access/Reverse Commute Transit-Other Prgms

FTA - Section 3037$2,500,000

9050.3



FTA - Section 3037$2,562,500

9050.4



FTA - Section 3037$2,626,566

9085.2

Operator Training Course - -

2006FYSite Acquisition

FTA - Section 5307$450,000

4128-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

9085.1

Operator Training Course - -

2006FYEnv, PE & Design, Final Design

FTA - Section 5307$66,000

9072.0

Planning Studies Bus Rapid Transit -

2006FYPlanning Study for Bus Rapid Transit Bus Rapid Transit

FTA - Section 5307$500,000

9002.1

Transit: Buildings & Equipment

Years 2006-2010

2010FYLump Sum Amount: Buildings & Equipment Transit -Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$28,904,136

9002.2


Years 2011-2015


FTA - Section 5307$27,000,000

9002.3


Years 2016-2020


FTA - Section 5307$27,000,000

9002.4


Years 2021-2025


FTA - Section 5307$27,000,000

9002.5


Years 2026-2030


FTA - Section 5307$27,000,000

9032.2

Transit: Equipment Miscellaneous Equipment -

2005FYMiscellaneous Equipment Transit -Build&Equip


9031.2

Transit: Equipment MIS Software -

2005FYMIS Software Transit -Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$1,085,000

4228-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

9056.1

Transit: Equipment - -

2005FYSecurity equipment Transit-Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$100,000

9030.2

Transit: Equipment MIS Hardware -

2005FYMIS Hardware Transit -Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$302,000

9055.0

Transit: Equipment - -

2005FYCommunication equipment Transit-Build&Equip


9060.1

Transit: Equipment Fare Collection -

2006FYFare Collection Transit -Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$8,500,000

9031.3



FTA - Section 5307$2,325,000

9030.3



FTA - Section 5307$682,750

9061.1




9059.0

Transit: Equipment Telephone System Upgrade -

2006FYTelephone System Upgrade Transit -Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$435,000

9030.4



FTA - Section 5307$691,080

4328-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

9061.2




9031.4



FTA - Section 5307$475,000

9061.3




9030.5



FTA - Section 5307$292,000

9031.5



FTA - Section 5307$363,000

9054.1

Transit: Facility Rehabilitation Security Construction -

2005FYSecurity-related construction Transit-Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$100,000

9025.3

Transit: Facility Rehabilitation Maintenance Building -

2005FYConstruction & Construction Management Transit -Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$2,530,000

9025.5

Transit: Facility Rehabilitation Maintenance Facility -

2006FYFinal Design Transit -Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$205,000

9025.6


2006FYConstruction/Construction Management Transit -Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$2,970,649

4428-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

9025.7



FTA - Section 5307$1,246,750

9025.9


2007FYPE/Design/Construction/Construction Management Transit -Build&Equip


9081.1

Transit: Facility Rehabilitation Operator Training Course -



9081.2

Transit: Facility Rehabilitation Operator Training Course -


FTA - Section 5307$634,400

9025.8



FTA - Section 5307$1,500,000

9035.2

Transit: Other Programs Paratransit Expenses -

2005FYParatransit Expenses Transit-Other Prgms

FTA - Section 5307$2,404,665

9050.1



FTA - Section 5307$1,200,000

9034.2

Transit: Other Programs Capital Cost of Contracting -

2005FYPurchased Transportation Expenses Transit-Other Prgms

FTA - Section 5307$3,125,286

9033.2

Transit: Other Programs Vehicle Overhaul -

2005FYMaintenance Expenses Transit-Other Prgms

FTA - Section 5307$5,907,598

4528-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

9033.3

Transit: Other Programs Preventive Maintenance -


FTA - Section 5307$5,486,125

9035.3



FTA - Section 5307$2,432,507

9034.3



FTA - Section 5307$3,301,620

9034.4



FTA - Section 5307$3,384,165

9035.4



FTA - Section 5307$2,493,324

9033.4



FTA - Section 5307$5,623,278

9033.5



FTA - Section 5307$5,763,863

9034.5



FTA - Section 5307$3,468,770

9035.5



FTA - Section 5307$2,555,656

4628-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

9029.2

Transit: Passenger Facilities Bus Stop Improvements -

2005FYTransit -Build&Equip


9027.2

Transit: Passenger Facilities South Central Transfer Center -

2005FYSite Acquisition Transit -Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$1,500,000

9027.3


2006FYPrel. Engineering, Final Design, Land Acquisition (Construction and Construction Management if needed)

Transit -Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$2,050,000

9066.1

Transit: Passenger Facilities Brooks Area Station -



FTA - Section 5307$125,000

9029.3

Transit: Passenger Facilities Bus Stop Amenities -

2006FYShelters, benches, kiosks, real time arrival information Transit -Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$4,580,000

9064.1

Transit: Passenger Facilities Fredericksburg Rd/Wurzbach -



FTA - Section 5307$370,000

9063.1

Transit: Passenger Facilities Super Stops -

2006FYSuper Stops Transit -Build&Equip

FTA - Section 5307$200,000

9029.4



FTA - Section 5307$4,374,071

9027.4




FTA - Section 5307$1,650,000

4728-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

9064.2

Transit: Passenger Facilities Fredericksburg Rd/Wurzbach -



FTA - Section 5307$2,080,000

9063.2



FTA - Section 5307$300,000

9082.1

Transit: Passenger Facilities Naco Pass -


FTA - Section 5307$175,000

9066.2




FTA - Section 5307$1,625,000

9067.1

Transit: Passenger Facilities IH 410/San Pedro Transfer Center -



FTA - Section 5307$1,405,000

9071.1

Transit: Passenger Facilities Traffic Signal Priorities -



FTA - Section 5307$250,000

9070.1

Transit: Passenger Facilities IH 10 West Park and Ride Upgrade -



FTA - Section 5307$225,000

9084.1

Transit: Passenger Facilities Naco Pass -


FTA - Section 5307$995,000

9063.3



FTA - Section 5307$300,000

4828-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

9029.5



FTA - Section 5307$2,459,500

9071.2

Transit: Passenger Facilities Traffic Signal Priorities -



FTA - Section 5307$300,000

9070.2

Transit: Passenger Facilities IH 10 West Park and Ride -


FTA - Section 5307$2,660,000

9083.1

Transit: Passenger Facilities IH 35 North/Loop 1604 Vicinity -


FTA - Section 5307$225,000

9069.1

Transit: Passenger Facilities Westside Multimodal Center -



FTA - Section 5307$450,000

9066.3




FTA - Section 5307$1,075,000

9062.0

Transit: Planning Studies Comprehensive Service Plan

2008FYComprehensive Service Plan Transit -Planning

FTA - Section 5307$300,000

9053.0

Transit: Preventative Maintenance

- -

2005FYPositive lock bus refueling system Transit-Rev Vehicle

FTA - Section 5307$282,100

9036.0

Transit: Revenue Vehicles - -

2005FYPurchase 48 replacement 40' buses Transit-Rev Vehicle

FTA - Section 5307$18,585,000

4928-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

9048.2

Transit: Service Vehicles Service Vehicles -

2008FYService Trucks Transit-Service Vehicle

FTA - Section 5307$209,382

9048.3


2008FYLift Equipped Supervisory Vans Transit-Service Vehicle

FTA - Section 5307$218,297

9048.1


2008FYSedans Tranist-Service Vehicle


9048.4


2008FYSpecial Event Trailers


9001.1

Transit: Vehicle Acquisition Years 2006-2010

2010FYLump Sum Amount: Non-Revenue Vehicles Transit-Non Rev Veh

FTA - Section 5307$3,920,081

9000.1


2010FYLump Sum Amount: Revenue Vehicles Transit-Rev Vehicle

FTA - Section 5307$40,266,338

9001.2



FTA - Section 5307$1,886,189

9000.2



FTA - Section 5307$39,279,728

9000.3



FTA - Section 5307$44,535,606

5028-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

9001.3



FTA - Section 5307$3,779,909

9000.4



FTA - Section 5307$53,220,866

9001.4



FTA - Section 5307$2,511,116

9000.5



FTA - Section 5307$43,221,555

9001.5



FTA - Section 5307$1,763,183

9080.1

Elderly & Disabled Program - -

2006FYElderly & Disabled Program Transit-Rev Vehicle

FTA - Section 5310$634,046

9080.2



FTA - Section 5310$663,627

9080.3



FTA - Section 5310$722,787

9047.2


2005FYVan Purchases through Warm Springs Rehabilitation Foundation Transit-Rev Vehicle

FTA - Section 5310$230,000

5128-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

9047.3


2006FYTransit-Rev Vehicle

FTA - Section 5310$230,000

9098.0

Austin-San Antonio Commuter Rail Project

Within the SA-BC MPO Study Area

2009FYCapital improvements associated with the Commuter Rail project Commuter Rail

FTA New Starts$118,000,000

9004.1

Transit: Operating Expenses Years 2006-2010

2010FYLump Sum Amount: VIAtrans Service Transit-Operating

Local$121,168,339

9003.1


2010FYLump Sum Amount: Line Service Transit-Operating

Local$437,840,286

9005.1


2010FYLump Sum Amount: Other Services Transit-Operating

Local$26,023,878

9005.2



Local$21,686,565

9004.2



Local$109,765,324

9003.2



Local$364,866,905

9004.3



Local$117,757,772

5228-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

9003.3



Local$364,866,905

9005.3



Local$21,686,565

9005.4



Local$21,686,565

9004.4



Local$125,750,287

9003.4



Local$364,866,905

9005.5



Local$21,686,565

9003.5



Local$364,866,905

9004.5



Local$133,742,724

9099.0

Austin-San Antonio Commuter Rail Project

Within the SA-BC MPO Study Area

2009FYOperating & maintenance costs associated with the Commuter Rail project ($8M/year over 20 years)

Commuter Rail

Local/Farebox$160,000,000

5328-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

6011.0

Borgfeld Road Phase I US 281 Timberline

2006FYReconstruct with two 12' lanes, 14' CLTL, shoulders and drainage

Prop 2$4,500,000

6012.0

Bulverde Road Smithson Valley US 281

2006FYReconstruct to two lanes with shoulders and drainage

Prop 2$2,630,000

6013.0

Foster Road Phase I IH 10 Binz Engleman

2006FYReconstruct to two lanes with 14' median, curbs, 6' sidewalks and drainage

Prop 2$3,539,096

6014.0

Kriewald Road US 90 300' West of Pue Road

2006FYReconstruct roadway to two lanes with curbs, sidewalks and drainage

Prop 2$3,704,587

6015.0

Pue Road Kriewald Road Sunset Place

2006FYReconstruct roadway to two lanes, curbs, 5' sidewalks and drainage

Prop 2$3,023,462

6016.0

Shaenfeld Road Loop 1604 FM 1560

2006FYReconstruct to two lanes, 14' curbed median, curbs, 6' sidewalks and drainage

Prop 2$5,291,000

6017.0

Woodlake Parkway Binz-Engleman FM 78

2006FYReconstruct to two lanes, multi-use jogging trail, 6; sidewalks, curbs and gutters

Prop 2$4,158,580

2020.0

Loop 1604 SH 151 0.87 Mi. S. of US 90

2020FYComplete 4 lane divided, add grade separations, interchange (toll 4 new mainlanes) at US 90 and TMS2452 1 29

Added Capacity: Toll

RMA Contribution$40,000,000

2021.0

Loop 1604 IH 10 (East), N SH 218

2021FYUpgrade to 4 lane freeway (toll) w/4 lane FR, initial TMS frontage road and initial TMS2452 3 81

Added Capacity: Toll

RMA Contribution$65,000,000

5428-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

3511.0

SH 130 Segments 5 & 6

2010FYCosts associated with segments 5 & 6 Added Capacity: Toll

Texas Mobility Fund$30,000,000

5000.0

IH 10 East Loop 1604 Guadalupe County Line

2035FYExpand from 4 to six lanes Added Capacity: Non - Toll

Unfunded$45,000,000

5002.0

IH 10 West Kendall County Line FM 3351

2035FYUpgrade to 6 lane freeway with 4 lane frontage road and initial TMS frontage road and initial TMS72 7 901


Unfunded$8,219,000

5001.0

IH 35 South Loop 13 IH 410



Unfunded$42,940,000

5003.0

IH 35 South IH 410 Atascosa County Line



Unfunded$88,765,000

1027.0

IH 35 South US 90 Loop 13



Unfunded$22,760,000

5004.0

IH 37 IH 410 0.5 Mi North of Southton Road

2035FYWiden existing freeway from 4 to 6 lanes


Unfunded$4,940,000

5005.0

IH 37 0.5 Mi N of Southton Road Atascosa County Line



Unfunded$21,060,000

3317.0

IH 410 IH 35 South FM 2536 (Old Pearsall Road)

2035FYUpgrade to 6 lane freeway w/ 4 lane frontage road and TMS frontage road and TMS521 5 902


Unfunded$7,542,500

5528-Oct-05

MPO ID Number


Project Description

Funding Program


To:


Estimated CostFrom:

5006.0

IH 410 FM 2536 (old Pearsall Road) Valley Hi Dr.

2035FYUpgrade to 6 lane freeway w/ 4 lane frontage road and TMS frontage road and TMS521 5 900


Unfunded$11,725,000

5009.0

IH 410 Valley Hi Drive US 90

2035FYUpgrade to 8 lane freeway with 4 lane frontage road and TMS frontage road and TMS521 5 93


Unfunded$7,310,000

719.0

NW Military Hwy (FM 1535) Huebner Loop 1604

2035FYWiden exist. 4 lane road to 4 lane w/ cont. left turn lane/raised median, bike lanes turn lane/raised median and bicycle lanes95 39 719

Operational

Unfunded$4,454,400

5008.0

US 90 0.8 Mi W of IH 410 SH 211



Unfunded$6,400,000

5007.0

US 90 IH 410 0.8 Mi W of IH 410



Unfunded$7,000,000

5628-Oct-05

· in 1977, the governor of texas established the san antonio-bexar county urban transportation...

Documents