meeting objectives: validate goals and...

of 26

MEETING SUMMARY SH 249 Working Group

Thursday, April 11, 2013, 2:00 PM City of Navasota

200 E. McAlpine, Room 161, Navasota, TX MEETING OBJECTIVES: Validate Goals and Objectives, Identify Constraints, Discuss Public Outreach Approach Welcome/Introductions ............................................................. Judge Betty Shiflett, Co-Chair Commissioner Craig Doyal, Co-Chair

• Judge Shiflett & Commissioner Doyal – Welcomed members of the working group and Commissioner Moseley.

• Catherine Hejl requested introductions for Members and others present at the meeting. [Copies of the member sign-in sheet and general sign-in sheet are attached to this meeting summary]

Comments from the Texas Transportation Commission .......... Commissioner Jeff Moseley

• Commissioner Moseley – A pharmaceutical company is planning to relocate to the Bryan/College Station region. SH 249 will provide opportunity for continued research due to its proximity to Houston and IAH (Houston Intercontinental Airport). Connecting the research facilities of A&M and Houston Medical Center would enhance economic activity. SH 249 is not only important to Grimes County but also to the Region and State since it connects research facilities between Bryan/College Station and Houston. The goal of the working group is to identify possible alignments in Grimes County. Mobility is very important when a region is in growth mode. The environmental and design phases will be important in developing an effective alignment.

• A working group member mentioned that they were in support of SH 249 but would need help in overcoming the challenge of coming up with design, assessing environmental constraints, and generating public support.

Administrative ............................................................................................. Roger Beall, TxDOT

• Review of March 14, 2013 meeting notes • Set next meeting date and location

• Roger Beall – Requested the working group to confirm that the member information is

correct in the sheet passed around. Members should review the meeting notes from March 14, 2013 for any major errors/omissions and if there are any questions or corrections, call or email Roger Beall. The notes will be posted on the project website next week.

• Next meeting scheduled for May 9th at 2:00 pm in Magnolia. Montgomery County Commissioner Craig Doyal will work with Paul Mendes and notify members with details on the meeting location once it is confirmed.

of 26

Update on SH 249 Extension Environmental Process ...................... Carlos Swonke, TxDOT

• Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Summary • Meetings with Montgomery County, Cities and Local Property Owners

• Carlos Swonke – Under Federal law (National Environmental Policy Act) there are two

levels of primary documents – Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). SH 249 in Montgomery County is an EIS. The environmental process is a three pronged approach consisting of public and stakeholder involvement, engineering analysis, and review of environmental aspects (avoid where we can and minimize where we can). The EIS on SH 249 Extension in Montgomery County has stopped and started over the past decade, and most recently has been stopped for the last couple of years. The SH 249 Extension in Montgomery County was left at a stage where FHWA had provided comments on the Draft EIS. These comments are currently being addressed along with a complete update to current FHWA and TxDOT standards. The current Draft EIS (SH 249 Extension) is being prepared for specific alignments within a defined study area. Comments are still being accepted on the Draft EIS and the recommended alignment. The update to the current Draft EIS (SH 249 Extension) could take between six weeks to two months to be prepared and brought back into the TxDOT/FHWA review process, with a public hearing a preferred alignment towards the end of 2013 or early part of 2014. After comments from the public hearing are considered, a Final EIS will be prepared. The final decision is called a Record of Decision (ROD) by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Grimes County portion of SH 249 could be an EA level of analysis and could have a shorter schedule. The shorter EA schedule could catch up with the SH 249 Extension EIS schedule. The reason for a shorter schedule on this portion of SH 249 is that the type of potential impacts are relatively clear, and the document will be completed under the State environmental review process (no FHWA funding and which removes the Federal review component). The working group will have to set a direction for this segment of SH 249. Public hearing could be early next year for the Grimes County portion of the studies. A summary of the Draft EIS for SH 249 Extension is included in the meeting packet for the working group members.

Validate Goals and Objectives .......................................................... Jefferson Grimes, TxDOT

• Jefferson Grimes – TxDOT would like the working group members to provide information, review technical information, and pass on the message to the community along with any comments or additions to the goals and objectives. Jefferson Grimes then walked the members through the goals and objectives developed based on the discussions from March 14th meeting.

of 26

Committee members also offered the following comments:

• There is desire to use existing ROW as well as look at a new location facility. • The facility needs to be different from SH 105 since developing a super-two and then in

a few years expanding to 4-lane divided would not be a good idea. • All options need to be considered at this time. Talked about an article in “Navasota

Examiner” regarding SH 249. • Hurricane evacuation could be an objective under mobility as well. • The Brazos Valley Regional Planning Organization (RPO) does not have a major

thoroughfare plan. However, SH 249 has been discussed for several years as “Aggie Expressway” within the group.

• There should be reference to Texas A&M and its connection to IAH and Houston. • The connection to Houston medical center, Port of Houston, and beyond is important • The project needs to be tied more to the benefits to Grimes County. A Grimes County

Commissioners Court resolution in support of the project discussing the benefits for Grimes County, including connection to the medical center and IAH will be beneficial, showing broad regional support for the project.

• An addition to the list would be other modes like commuter rail, high speed rail, etc. as the region grows.

Constraints and Alignment Work Sessions ................................................................... TxDOT

• SH 249 Study (Grimes County) Constraints Mapping • SH 249 Extension (Montgomery County) DEIS Alignment Review

• A working group member asked about how much ROW should the group be

considering? • Robb Fishman – For the SH 249 Extension in Montgomery County, the ROW is 400 ft

for a four lane limited access divided toll road with intermittent frontage roads. There is one location near FM 149 where approximately 500 ft. of ROW is required. The corridor in Grimes County could be a phased approach beginning with a Super-two and expanded to a four-lane divided, depending on the Working Group’s desires.

Members of the working group gathered around the two roll plots and marked areas of concern, potential routes for SH 249, and any other relevant information. [Photos of the marked up maps are attached to this summary report] Some of the areas marked up included Vista Hills community, a cemetery near FM 362 (Fairview Cemetery), and a couple of large tracts of land privately owned (by Shannahan and Coleman) as well as the Bovay Scout Ranch. The working group also expressed desire for an interchange with FM 1774 that accommodates high volumes of traffic during special events (Renaissance Festival and Texas A&M events) in addition to interchanges with other key routes including FM 362 and CR 304.

of 26

Public Outreach Approach ................................................................ Jefferson Grimes, TxDOT Jefferson Grimes – Any photos and pictures of the corridor that the members can provide would be useful in the study. The environmental process will have formal community involvement and public meetings, but at this time, members of the working group should start gathering input from citizens by presenting/talking about the project at city council, county commissioner court, civic organizations, etc. The meeting packet has two pages of draft talking points prepared for this purpose. Members should provide comments to this draft by April 18th. Members should identify opportunities to get citizens informed of the project. TxDOT Bryan District will assist in the process, but the working group members will be the owners of this process. Members should notify Bob Appleton of any outreach efforts that are being conducted. Once the activity has been completed, members should provide formal feedback on activity forms. Bob will email blank activity forms to members. If the working group needs any other tool (e.g. pocket cards, brochures, etc.), please notify TxDOT. Additionally, a script will be provided for the working group members to use when meeting with the public. A PowerPoint presentation will also be provided to the working group members with information including the map, goals and objectives, etc. Open Discussion ................................................................................................... Judge Shiflett

• It would be good to narrow down the study area for the environmental process – avoiding cemeteries by keeping it north of them. A press release depicting how this corridor would benefit the Brazos Valley would be helpful.

• Bobby Colwell and Jefferson Grimes will work on a press release and a public service

announcement. TxDOT has the policy of a single TxDOT site for social media.

• May need multiple press releases for different geographic areas. Homework and Adjourn ............................................................................................... Members

• Provide comments on the March 14, 2013 Meeting Summary Report by early next week • Provide comments on talking points by April 18th

Action Items

• Commissioner Doyal to confirm Meeting location for May 9th • TxDOT to prepare PowerPoint and script for the use by Members for Outreach activities • TxDOT will draft a press release and/or a public service announcement • Members to submit corridor pictures if they have any

Attachment 1 Meeting Agenda

of 26

AGENDA SH 249 Working Group

Thursday, April 11, 2013, 2:00 PM City of Navasota

200 E. McAlpine, Room 161, Navasota, TX MEETING OBJECTIVES: Validate Goals and Objectives, Identify Constraints, Discuss Public Outreach Approach Welcome/Introductions .................................................................... Judge Betty Shiflett, Co-Chair Commissioner Craig Doyal, Co-Chair Comments from the Texas Transportation Commission ..................... Commissioner Jeff Moseley Administrative ..................................................................................................................... TxDOT

• Review of March 14, 2013 meeting notes • Set next meeting date and location

Update on SH 249 Extension Environmental Process ........................................................ TxDOT

• Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Summary • Meetings with Montgomery County, Cities and Local Property Owners

Validate Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................ TxDOT Constraints and Alignment Work Sessions ......................................................................... TxDOT

• SH 249 Study (Grimes County) Constraints Mapping • SH 249 Extension (Montgomery County) DEIS Alignment Review

Public Outreach Approach .................................................................................................. TxDOT Open Discussion ....................................................................................................... Judge Shiflett Homework and Adjourn

SH 249 Working Group Charge and Purpose

The SH 249 Working Group has been formed to assist the Texas Department of Transportation in identifying possible routes for SH 249 from Todd Mission to Navasota. The members have been selected to represent several communities’ interests.

The primary purpose of the working group is to provide input on options to develop SH 249. This purpose will be accomplished through the working group’s identification of current issues and concerns, identification and review of technical information concerning community impacts, conduct community outreach activities that gather input from citizens and stakeholders, and reporting to TxDOT on their conclusions.

The SH 249 Working Group is an essential conduit for communicating project information and gathering early community input.

of 26

Attachment 2 SH 249 Extension

DEIS Summary

of 26

SUMMARY-SH 249 Extension INTRODUCTION The proposed project would extend SH 249 on new location from existing SH 249/FM 1774 near Pinehurst in Montgomery County to FM 1774 near Todd Mission in Grimes County. The proposed SH 249 extension would be constructed as a four-lane controlled-access toll road with auxiliary lanes between on-ramps and off-ramps where appropriate, within a typical 400-foot wide right-of-way (ROW). Project length varies by alternative but is approximately 14-miles. PURPOSE AND NEED AND [Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the SH 249 Extension] Transportation improvements are needed in the proposed SH 249 study area because many remote communities are not well connected to major highways leading to the Metropolitan areas, there is an increasing demand on the transportation infrastructure from projected population and economic growth, and there are increasing safety concerns with increased congestion and the need for hurricane evacuation. The proposed extension of SH 249 is needed because of the following reasons:

• System Linkage: The current transportation system does not provide efficient connections, or linkage, between major suburban communities and major roadways within the region such as Beltway 8 (Toll Road), proposed SH 99 (Toll Road), FM 2920, FM 1774, FM 149, FM 1488, FM 1486, SH 105, and SH 6 (Grimes County). o Existing SH 249 terminates at FM 1774 in Pinehurst. The only roadway that

continues to move traffic in a northerly direction is FM 1774, a two-lane undivided rural road, which is severely congested, primarily during peak travel times and special events.

• Expanded Capacity: Transportation demand exceeds the current and future capacity of existing transportation infrastructure: o The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is expected to increase an average of 10.5%

percent on roadway from 2005 to 2035. Some collector facilities are expected to more than double in ADT from 2005 to 2035.

o The traffic conditions are expected to worsen between 2005 and 2035. o The roadway congestion on FM 1774 causes reduced mobility and increased delay

to motorists, which creates unsafe driving conditions. o The existing roadway facilities servicing communities within the project area do not

provide adequate capacity for future traffic demands. • Safety: Many roadways are characterized by conditions that result in higher crash rates.

Traffic movement on many roadways in the proposed SH 249 study area such as FM 1774, FM 149, FM 1488, and FM 1486 are controlled by intersections, traffic signals and/or stop signs, and multiple access points; all of which contribute to stop-and-go conditions and congestion during peak travel times and emergency events.

of 26

o The proposed SH 249 extension is needed to relieve local congestion that has resulted from high population growth, increased residential development, and increased commercial development with and adjacent to the study area as well as the Houston metroplex.

o Since major highways leading away from Houston are congested during an evacuation, there is a need for additional highway capacity in the region to more efficiently move traffic during evacuation events.

• Economic Development: The expected growth would continue to strain existing transportation infrastructure, creating a barrier to businesses, commuters, and economic development. For those areas outside the Interstate Highway (IH) 610 Loop (and within the eight-county H-GAC region), the H-GAC predicts a 67.5 percent growth in population and a 62.7 percent growth in employment from the year 2005 to 2035.

The purpose of the proposed transportation improvement is to efficiently link the suburban communities and major roadways, enhance mobility and safety, and respond to economic growth. The goal is to improve system linkage, address current and future transportation demand, improve safety, and accommodate population and economic growth. The overall goals of the extension of SH 249 are further detailed in the following:

• System Linkage: The proposed project would improve system linkage, or connectivity, within the existing transportation network. The proposed project would provide more direct linkage between northern Harris County and Montgomery and Grimes Counties. This includes linkage between FM 1774, FM 149, FM 1488, FM 1486, and SH 105.

• Expanded Capacity: The proposed project would address transportation demand, increase motorist travel speeds, reduce traffic congestion, and provide reliable travel options.

• Safety: The proposed project would improve regional and local safety for the traveling public by minimizing conditions that contribute to stop-and-go conditions, crash rates, and congestion during peak travel times and emergency events.

• Economic Development: The proposed project would accommodate demographic and economic growth by improving the movement of persons and goods, thereby minimizing barriers between businesses, consumers, and transportation infrastructure.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS SH 249 DEIS The DEIS analyzed five preliminary Alternative Alignments using five major engineering criteria, including length of the proposed roadway, estimated ROW acquisition, pipeline crossings, floodplain crossings, and stream crossings. Three of the Alternative Alignments (Alternative Alignments B, C and E) and the No-Build Alternative were identified as the Reasonable Alternatives and were carried forward for further

of 26

study in the DEIS. This DEIS documents Alternative Alignment C as the Recommended Alternative (the study team is leaning this direction). The Final EIS will document the preferred alternative, which will be identified after the Public Hearing. The Table below summarizes impacts within the Right-of-Way for all three Reasonable Alternative Alignments as of 2011. It should be noted that the Draft EIS is currently being updated and numbers below will be revised based on the update.

Table 1 Reasonable Alternative Alignments Impact Summary Criteria Unit Alignment B Alignment C Alignment E

Length of Proposed Roadway Miles 13.9 14.3 13.5 Estimated Right-of-Way Acquisition Acres 674 693 658 Major Roadway Crossings (FM 149, FM 1488, FM 1486, FM 1774) Number of Crossings 4 4 4

Railroad Crossings Number of Crossings 1 1 1 Pipeline Crossings Number of Crossings 9 8 8 Potential Displacements/Relocations residences and businesses

Number of Displacements 42 12 23

Community Cohesion (Bisected, separated, or isolated neighborhoods) High/Medium/Low Medium Low High

Potential Threatened/Endangered Species Habitat High/Medium/Low Low Low Low

National Wetland Inventory (Potential Wetlands) Acres 8.8 7.8 7.5

Floodplain Crossings Linear Feet 13,705 11,363 10,786 Stream Crossing (USGS Topographic Map) Number of Crossings 27 22 19

Noise Number of Potential Impacts 8 10 13

Air Number of CO NAAQS Violations 0 0 0

Vegetation (forest, upland, habitat fragmentation) Acres 595 637 596

Recorded Cemeteries Number 0 0 0 Known Section 4(f) Properties Number 0 0 0 Recorded Cultural Resources Number of Sites 0 0 0 Recorded Hazardous Materials Number of Sites 4 4 4 Previous Public Involvement (Public’s Preference of Alignments) High/Medium/Low Low High Medium

Source: Jacobs 2011.

of 26

��

��

UNION PACIFIC

BUR

LING

TON

NO

RTH

ERN

SAN

TA FE

Alignm

ent B

Alignment E

Alignment C

1774

249

149

149

1488

1488

1486

Wal

ler C

ount

y G

rimes

Cou

nty

Mon

tgom

ery

Cou

nty

Most ReasonableAlternative Alignments

0 1 2 30.5

Miles

Base Map: StreetMap USA 2006

�Study Area

Alignment B

Alignment C

Alignment E

� ��

� ��

302

NIC

HO

LS S

AW

MIL

L R

OA

D

1774

of 26

Attachment 3 SH 249 Route Study

Talking Points

of 26

OVERVIEW The purpose of this

study is to develop a project concept to

extend SH 249 further into Grimes County,

possibly as far as Navasota. Currently

TxDOT is developing a project to extend SH 249 from existing SH

249, near Pinehurst, to FM 1774, near Todd

Mission. This study would connect to and

extend the project that is currently being

developed.

SH 249 WORKING GROUP The SH 249 Working Group has been formed to assist the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in identifying possible routes for SH 249 from Todd Mission to Navasota. The members have been selected to represent several communities’ interests.

The primary purpose of the working group is to provide input on options to develop SH 249. This purpose will be accomplished through the working group’s identification of current issues and concerns, identification and review of technical information concerning community impacts, conduct community outreach activities that gather input from citizens and stakeholders, and reporting to TxDOT on their conclusions.

The SH 249 Working Group is an essential conduit for communicating project information and gathering early community input.

Members include representatives from Grimes and Montgomery Counties, City of Navasota, City of Todd Mission, City of Magnolia, Economic Development Councils, Farm Bureau, the Rural Planning Organization, a local business representative, the Houston-Galveston Area Council, and the Brazos Valley Council of Governments.

WHY NEEDED One of the tasks of the SH 249 Working Group is to answer this question by defining the transportation needs in this corridor. Possible benefits of extending SH 249 to Navasota include:

• Congestion relief • Improve Safety • Stimulate Economic Development • Meet Future Traffic Demands • Serve Traffic During Hurricane Evacuations

WHAT THIS IS NOT This study and any ensuing project have no relation to the Trans-Texas Corridor. The Trans-Texas Corridor concept has been eliminated and repealed.

In addition, this study and the SH 249 Working Group activities are sponsored by TxDOT and are not affiliated with the 249 Partnership, a separate entity advocating the development of SH 249.

of 26

QUESTIONS? If you have any questions concerning the study or the SH 249 Working Group, please visit:

www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/bryan/sh249.html

or contact:

Bob Appleton

[email protected]

979-778-9707

WILL IT BE TOLLED? Funding sources for improvements to SH 249 have not yet been determined. As such, alternative funding strategies will be considered as part of the project development process. This will include, among other options, studying this as a toll road. The alternatives may consider using existing roadway alignments. In this situation, only the additional lanes can be tolled.

SH 249 STUDY SH 249 Study (FM 1774 north of Todd Mission to SH 6 in Navasota) – Improvements on either existing roadways or new location with limited frontage roads.

Status: • Feasibility Study was completed in late 1980’s. • No official environmental documentation has been started. • Study to identify proposed route options. Tasks will include:

o Develop and assess the transportation needs and objectives; o Identify existing conditions; o Develop, and seek consensus for, a preferred alignment for

the project; o Identify possible funding options, including tolling.

Goal: Identify preferred option and draft purpose and need to start environmental phase.

SH 249 EXTENSION SH 249 Extension (FM 1774 in Pinehurst to FM 1774 north of Todd Mission) – Two toll lanes in each direction on new location with limited frontage roads.

Status: • A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is currently

under development. • Anticipated public hearing to be held in Fall 2013. • Project not in MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). • The design for a preferred alignment has been developed and is

under environmental review.

of 26

mailto:[email protected]

Attachment 4 Activity Form

of 26

SH 249

ACTIVITY FORM

Committee Member Name: _________________________________________________ Organization or Group Presented To: Location: Date: # of Attendees (approx.):

Questions/Comments

Follow Up Requests:

Please return this sheet to Bob Appleton at [email protected], fax to (979) 778‐9709 or mail to: Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Bob Appleton 2591 North Earl Rudder Freeway Bryan, Texas 77803

Attach copies of meeting agenda, sign‐in list, or any other items that may help to document or provide a record of this activity.

of 26

mailto:[email protected]�

Attachment 5 Sign-in sheets

of 26

Attachment 6 Maps and Graphics

of 26

meeting objectives: validate goals and...

Documents