US 281 EIS CAC #2 Meeting Summary

Page 1 of 9

US 281 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

November 4, 2009, 6:00–8:00 p.m. Methodist Stone Oak Hospital

1139 E. Sonterra, Classrooms 1 and 2

MEETING SUMMARY

Name Organization Members/Alternates Present Peter Bella Alamo Area Council of Governments Toni Bell (Alternate) Emerald Forest Homeowners Association Jim Binkley Comal County Mel Borel San Antonio Toll Party Arthur Downey District 9 Neighborhood Alliance Monette Fisher Big Springs Homeowners Association Charles “Frosty” Forster Professional Engineers in Private Practice Greg Gibson Real Estate Council of San Antonio Cindy Griffin Timberwood Park Gina Groomer-Barbera Stone Oak Business Owners Association Terri Hall Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom Tom Haynes Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance Cindy Kovacic San Antonio Water System Bob Liesman (Alternate) Professional Engineers in Private Practice Keith Lindsey Lookout Canyon Property Owners Association Dick McNary North San Antonio Chamber of Commerce Viki Melton Stone Oak Property Owners Association Brigitte Perkins Northeast Independent School District Y. DeLaCruz (sitting-in for Roger Placencia) Bexar Metropolitan Water District Tim Rice Cavalo Creek Homeowners Association Barbara Ronnie Stone Oak Business Owners Association Tom Troll Encino Park Homeowners Association Enrique Valdivia Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas Susan Wright Cibolo Canyons Resort Community, Inc. Staff and Consultants Present Lisa Adelman Alamo Regional Mobility Authority Leroy Alloway Alamo Regional Mobility Authority Terry Brechtel Alamo Regional Mobility Authority Leigh-Ann Fabianke SMITH/Associates MariAna Jimenez Ximenes & Associates, Inc. Sonia Jimenez Ximenes & Associates, Inc. Michelle Martinez Alamo Regional Mobility Authority Lorraine Richards Baker Jim Robertson Jacobs Engineering Michael Sexton Jacobs Engineering Tricia Bruck Jacobs Engineering Tim Sueltenfuss SMITH/Associates Bob Thompson Alamo Regional Mobility Authority Linda Ximenes Ximenes & Associates, Inc.

Page 2 of 9

Members/Alternates Not Present Palmira Arellano Methodist Stone Oak Hospital David Heidenrich Mountain Lodge Homeowners Association Todd Helmer Greater San Antonio Builders Association Daryl Lange (Alternate) Real Estate Council of San Antonio Charles McBride Summerglen Homeowners Association Jerry Morrisey Alamo Sierra Club Al Moursund (Alternate) District 9 Neighborhood Alliance Keith Parker VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority Annalisa Peace Greater Edwards Aquifer Authority John Pierret Cibolo Canyons Resort Community, Inc Roger Placencia Bexar Metropolitan Water District Elena Serna (Alternate) Greater Edwards Aquifer Authority

Desired Results of the Meeting: • Review the meeting design for Public Scoping Meeting #2 and provide feedback to the US 281

team. • Continue to build a relationship among the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority staff, the US 281

team and the Community Advisory Committee members. Welcome Terry Brechtel, Alamo Regional Mobility Authority Terry Brechtel, Executive Director of the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority, welcomed everyone to the second meeting of the US 281 Environmental Impact Statement Community Advisory Committee. Ms. Brechtel began by acknowledging the decision made by the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Policy Board at their October 26, 2009 meeting to move forward with the Environmental Impact Statement processes for US 281 and Loop 1604. She emphasized that the Community Advisory Committee is an important part of this process and encouraged everyone to continue to stay involved. To allow for additional senior-level technical input from the various cooperating and participating agencies involved in the Environmental Impact Statement, the Federal Highway Administration has established a US 281 Environmental Impact Statement Peer Technical Review Committee. The Committee will meet periodically throughout the Environmental Impact Statement process as the alternatives are being considered and evaluated for US 281. It is important to note that the US 281 Environmental Impact Statement will be considering both tolled and non-tolled alternatives. As the Environmental Impact Statement process moves forward, the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority will continue to seek funding alternatives. Review of the Agenda and Outcomes for the Meeting/Approval of the Community Advisory Committee meeting summary from August 20, 2009 Linda Ximenes, Ximenes & Associates Linda Ximenes reviewed the agenda and desired results for the second Community Advisory Committee meeting (included in Appendix A). She also asked if the Community Advisory Committee members had any changes to the meeting summary from the first Community Advisory Committee meeting on August 20, 2009. There were no suggested changes, therefore the August 20th meeting summary is considered final and approved by the Community Advisory Committee members present.

Page 3 of 9

Review of the Meeting Process for Public Scoping Meeting #2, November 17, 2009 Jimmy Robertson & Michael Sexton, Jacobs Engineering Mr. Robertson reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement process and timeline for completion. He explained that the Community Advisory Committee members were being presented the same slideshow that will be presented at the second Public Scoping Meeting on November 17th. Mr. Robertson encouraged the members to provide feedback to improve the presentation. The format for the public meeting was also explained: an open house followed by a presentation and small group work sessions. The Community Advisory Committee members would have the opportunity to simulate the small group exercises later in the Community Advisory Committee meeting in order to provide feedback on those as well. Mr. Sexton then reviewed the slideshow to be presented at the upcoming Public Scoping Meeting #2. The presentation introduced the preliminary alternatives, the alternatives screening process and the results of the Level 1 Screening. (This slideshow is available at www.411on281.com/US281EIS under the “Community Advisory Committee Section.”) Small Group Exercises and Report Out Ms. Ximenes divided the Community Advisory Committee members into three groups of approximately 10 members per group. Each group had a facilitator to keep the group on task, make sure everyone had an opportunity to voice their opinion and ensure the group finished on time. In each group, the facilitators explained the process for the small groups, asked for a volunteer to record the group’s conversation and a volunteer to make a short report to the entire Community Advisory Committee meeting on the highlights of the group’s conversation. Then the facilitators conducted a focused conversation on Part 1 of the exercise that focused on the project Purpose and Objectives, and Part 2, which focused on the Purpose and Alternatives. Due to time constraints, only one group was able to make their report-out to the entire group. (The complied small group worksheets and notes from each group’s conversation are attached as Appendix B to this summary.) Feedback on the Process for Public Scoping Meeting #2, November 17, 2009 Ms. Ximenes facilitated a discussion regarding the meeting process and small group exercises for Public Scoping Meeting #2: What worked?

• Pictures • Helps to know what others are thinking • Thinking it through and evaluating alternatives and objectives yourself • Emphasized what objectives matter most • “Enhance quality of life” as an objective • Access to technical consultants • Group dynamic

Page 4 of 9

What didn’t work? • Hard to appreciate the long-range view and what each alternative means • Description of alternatives is too conceptual • Objectives too broad - what does “quality of life” mean? • Explain alternatives more • Presentation (slideshow) is key to gaining information on the alternatives (If you miss the

slideshow, the small group activity may be difficult.) • Created questions about connectivity to rest of US 281 and city of San Antonio • A lot of subsets – for example, initial presentation (slideshow) had light rail and street car as

separate alternatives, but they were combined on the worksheet. • More detailed description of alternatives on the worksheet

What changes do you suggest to improve the process?

• Concept of VIA Metropolitan Transit’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan and Metropolitan Planning Organization’s long-range plan is valuable and is used for screening out some alternatives. So there is a need to show what VIA Metropolitan Transit and the Metropolitan Planning Organization are considering and what that means. Where would light rail go? Transit oriented development is needed. What else is necessary to transform US 281?

• A VIA presentation would be helpful - how long before their plan is implemented? • Show animated graphic of alternatives • Important to build expectations about what will actually happen to US 281 (which

alternative will be chosen) • Send email with specifics regarding the meeting process to educate folks in advance. • What is the volume of traffic on I-10 vs. US 281? • There is no trust after Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting; people are tired of no

results. • Be upfront about the infrastructure solution and funding.

Action Item #1: Suggested changes to the slideshow and small group exercises will be incorporated into the final documents for Public Scoping Meeting #2, November 17th. The Community Advisory Committee members also discussed how they can inform others about the Public Scoping Meeting on November 17th. Action Item #2: The Community Advisory Committee members will receive the second US 281 Environmental Impact Statement newsletter and an email explaining the purpose and process for the Public Scoping Meeting #2, November 17th. Members were asked to disseminate this email to encourage participation at the public scoping meeting. Action Item #3: Questions resulting from the agenda item, “Feedback on the Process for Public Scoping Meeting #2,” will be answered by the US 281 team and disseminated to the Community Advisory Committee members once completed. Next Community Advisory Committee Meeting, February 2010

Page 5 of 9

Closing Comments Ms. Ximenes thanked everyone for their participation in the second US 281 Environmental Impact Statement Community Advisory Committee meeting. A draft meeting summary will be emailed to all Community Advisory Committee members for review and comment. Once approved, this summary will be available for public viewing on the Environmental Impact Statement web site at www.411on281.com/US281EIS along with all the other meeting documents and materials. Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Action Items AI #1: Suggested changes to the slideshow and small group exercises will be incorporated into the final documents for Public Scoping Meeting #2, November 17th. (COMPLETED) AI #2: The Community Advisory Committee members will receive the second US 281 Environmental Impact Statement newsletter and an email explaining the purpose and process for the Public Scoping Meeting #2, November 17th. Members were asked to disseminate this email to encourage participation at the public meeting. (COMPLETED) AI #3: Questions resulting from the agenda item, “Feedback on the Process for Public Scoping Meeting #2,” will be answered by the US 281 team and disseminated to the Community Advisory Committee members once completed. (COMPLETED) Appendixes: A: US 281 Environmental Impact Statement Community Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda and Meeting Handouts B: Compiled Notes and Worksheets from the Community Advisory Committee Small Working Groups

APPENDIX A US 281 Environmental Impact Statement Community Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda and Handouts

US 281 EIS

Community Advisory Committee Meeting #2

Preliminary Alternatives

And

Alternatives Screening Process

November 4th 2009


November 4th

2009

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS

We are

Here in the

Process

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION PROCESS

Level 1:

Fatal Flaw

Analysis

Level 2:

Detailed

Modal Analysis

Level 3:

Detailed Multi-

Modal Analysis

We Are

Here in the

Process Number of Alternatives

Large Number

of Preliminary

Alternatives

Small

Number of

Alternatives

for Draft EIS

Level of Analysis

Qualitative

Analysis

Quantitative

Analysis

Co

nti

nu

ing

Pu

bli

c a

nd

Ag

en

cy I

nv

olv

em

en

t

Screening Level

DETAILED ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS

We are Here in

the Process

Advance as Complementary Transportation

Mode

Advance as Primary

Transportation Mode

Meets Less than 50% of

Future Travel Demand

Meets Greater than 50% of

Future Travel Demand Travel

Continuing Public and Agency Involvement

Develop Multi-Modal Alternatives

No

Yes

Eliminate with Explanation

No


Others


Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Reasonable Alternatives to

be carried forward for

detailed analysis in the

Draft EIS

Preliminary Alternatives

Alternatives Carried

Forward into Level 2

Screening

Are there any Fatal Flaws

Compare Multi-Modal Alternatives

Meet part or all of project objectives?


November 4th

2009

ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS

Level 1: Fatal Flaw Analysis (Qualitative)

• Evaluate Alternatives for Fatal Flaws:

o Not compatible with regional plans

o Unproven technology

o Major adverse impacts

Level 2: Detailed Modal Analysis (Quantitative)

• Evaluation based on quantitative measures may include:

o Capacity and Demand

o Safety improvement

o Travel time improvement

o Engineering Feasibility

• Alternatives grouped as Primary and Complementary Transportation Modes

Level 3: Detailed Multi-Modal Analysis (Quantitative)

• Combine primary and complementary transportation modes to form comprehensive solutions

• Detailed evaluation/comparison of multi-modal alternatives using additional criteria like:

o Right-of-way requirements

o Relocation and Displacements

o Cost effectiveness

o Environmental considerations

• Recommendation of a set of reasonable alternatives for evaluation in the Draft EIS

All Draft EIS Highway Improvement Alternatives will be analyzed for both toll and non-

toll effects

Public review and comment on reasonable alternatives


November 4th

2009

PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES

No Build Alternative

Description

• The No Build Alternative includes

o US 281 Super Street improvements

o Upgrade to the Loop 1604/US 281 Interchange

o All planned short and long range regional

transportation improvements (except the corridor

North of Loop 1604)

o Short-term minor maintenance and safety

improvements that maintain the continued operation

of existing US 281 north of Loop 1604

• Provides a baseline to compare all preliminary alternatives

against

Recommendation: To be carried forward to the Draft EIS


November 4th

2009

Transit Alternatives on US 281 (North of Loop 1604)

Heavy Rail

Washington, DC

Description:

• Commonly called metros or subways

• Operates in densely populated urban areas on steel tracks in

exclusive right-of-way

• Powered by an electrified third rail alongside the track

Typical Characteristics:

• Service Distance: 15-40 miles

• Station Spacing: ½-5 miles

• Speeds (Avg/Max): 30 mph/70 mph

• Service Frequency: 5-10 minutes (peak period)

10-20 minutes (off peak period)

• Car Capacity: 60-80 seated (plus standees)

Recommendation: To Be Eliminated (Not compatible with regional

plans)

Commuter Rail

Fort Worth, TX

Description:

• Typically operates in freight rail right-of-way

• May use locomotives with passenger cars or self-propelled

passenger cars, known as diesel multiple units (DMUs)

• Serves longer distance commute



• Station Spacing: 2-10 miles


• Service Frequency: 30 minutes (peak period)

60 minutes (off peak period)

• Car Capacity: 100-150 seated

Recommendation: To Be Eliminated (No Existing freight line, Not

compatible with corridor plans)


November 4th

2009

Monorail

Las Vagas, NV

Description:

• Elevated on a concrete or steel guideway

• Can be operated by a driver or automated

• Historically used in recreational areas or downtowns



• Station Spacing: ¼-1 mile





Recommendation: To Be Eliminated (Not compatible with regional

plans)

Automated Guideway Transit

Detroit, MI

Description:

• Found in major airports, activity centers, and downtown areas

• Similar to monorail (driverless, electrically powered and

exclusive right-of-way)

• May be tunneled, elevated, and/or at grade



• Station Spacing: ¼-½ mile

• Speeds (Avg/Max): 8-15 mph/30 mph



• Car Capacity: 30-100 seated

Recommendation: To Be Eliminated (Speed and service distance not

satisfactory, Not compatible with regional plans)


November 4th

2009

Personal Rapid Transit

Morgantown, WV

Description:

• Designed to provide personalized service between specific

origin and destination stations

• Operates on demand with no intermediate stops



• Station Spacing: ¼-½ mile


• Service Frequency: 10 seconds - 1 minute

• Car Capacity: ≤ 5 seated

Recommendation: To Be Eliminated (Not a proved technology, Not

compatible with regional plans)

Light Rail

Houston, TX

Description:

• Medium capacity, higher speed service in urban areas

• Operate on steel overhead electric power

• Can operate in exclusive rights-of-way (either at-grade or

elevated) and share city streets



• Station Spacing: ½-2 miles





Recommendation: To be carried forward for Level 2 Screening


November 4th

2009

Streetcar

New Orleans, LA

Description:

• Share city streets to provide circulation or connector services

• Operate on steel tracks with overhead electrical power


• Service Distance: 5 miles or less

• Station Spacing: ¼-½ miles



30-60 minutes (off-peak period)



Fixed Route Bus Service

San Antonio, TX

Description:

• Operates in mixed traffic on existing streets

• On-board fare collection

• Frequent stops and wide coverage area


• Service Distance: varies

• Station Spacing: ¼- 1 mile


• Service Frequency: 15-30 minutes (peak)

60 minutes (off-peak)




November 4th

2009

Express Bus Service

San Antonio, TX

Description:

• Limited stops and direct routes between clusters of origins and

destinations (e.g. suburb to downtown)

• Operates in mixed traffic on existing streets or in HOV Lanes

(Dallas and Houston)

• Faster and more expensive than Fixed Route service


• Service Distance: varies

• Station Spacing: ½ - 10 miles



60 minutes (off-peak)



Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

San Antonio, TX

Description:

• Operates in preferential or exclusive bus lanes

• Signal prioritization

• Improved fare collection process

• Easier boarding system

• Enhanced Passenger Information Technology


• Service Distance: 8 - 15 miles or less

• Station Spacing: ½ - 1 mile



30-60 minutes (off-peak)

• Car Capacity: 60 seated (plus standees)



November 4th

2009

Highway Improvements to US 281 (North of Loop 1604)

Add Lanes to Existing US 281 Corridor

US 281 Today – between Stone Oak Parkway

and Evans Road

Description

• Additional lanes on existing US 281

• No grade separations or control of access


Grade Separated Intersections

Wurzbach Parkway at Perrin Beitel Road

Description

• Grade separation at major intersections

• Access to adjacent land use via ramps and driveways


Expand Parallel Corridors

Blanco Road

Bulverde Road

Description

• Upgrade of Bulverde Road and/or Blanco Road

• Diversion of traffic from US 281 to parallel corridors



November 4th

2009

New Parallel Corridor

Recommendation: To Be Eliminated (High adverse impacts)

Upgrade Existing US 281 to Expressway

US 281 at Donella Drive

Description

• Convert US 281 to completely grade separated expressway

with frontage roads

• Access to adjacent land uses through frontage roads


High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes

Houston, TX

Description

• Add Additional High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes to Existing US

281 Corridor

• Increases vehicle occupancy rates

• Could be reversible by direction



November 4th

2009

Other Alternatives on Us 281 (North of Loop 1604)

Growth Management

Description

• Focus growth within urban core

• Encourage more efficient land use and reduce trip lengths

• Part of the MPO Long Range Plan


Bike & Pedestrian Facilities

Reno, NV

Description

• More efficient means of making short trips

• Low Cost

• Reduces congestion

• Promotes healthy lifestyle



November 4th

2009

Transportation System Management (TSM)

Description:

• Easily implemented, low capital cost transportation improvements that increase the efficiency of

transportation facilities and services.

Examples:

• Improved Signage or Signal Management

• Access Management

• Ridesharing

• Incident Management Program


Transportation Demand Management (TDM)

Description:

• Typically refers to policies, programs, and actions that are directed towards decreasing single occupant

vehicle travel

Examples:

• Area Pricing

• Alternative Work Schedules

• Parking Management


APPENDIX B Compiled Notes and Worksheets from the Community Advisory Committee Small Working Groups

US 281 Environmental Impact StatementUS 281 Environmental Impact StatementUS 281 Environmental Impact StatementUS 281 Environmental Impact Statement

Community Advisory CommitteeCommunity Advisory CommitteeCommunity Advisory CommitteeCommunity Advisory Committee

November 4, 2009

Focused Conversation Summary

The following summary is transcribed verbatim from the group worksheet completed by the

recorder for each of the small workgroups. The numbers listed refer to the number of the objective

or alternative listed on the corresponding worksheets completed by each member of the small

group. Numbers in parenthesis (i.e. (2 times)) refers to the number of participants in the group who

stated that objective or alternative in their response.

Part 1Part 1Part 1Part 1---- Purpose and Objectives of the Transportation Improvements Purpose and Objectives of the Transportation Improvements Purpose and Objectives of the Transportation Improvements Purpose and Objectives of the Transportation Improvements

1. What key words or phrases do you remember from the objectives? (Everyone in the group What key words or phrases do you remember from the objectives? (Everyone in the group What key words or phrases do you remember from the objectives? (Everyone in the group What key words or phrases do you remember from the objectives? (Everyone in the group

responds with a quresponds with a quresponds with a quresponds with a quick answer.)ick answer.)ick answer.)ick answer.)

Capacity, endangered species, demand, aesthetic appeal, mitigation, travel time; Multi-modal,

High capacity; Improve, safety, reduce travel time, provide, create, allow, address growth.

Words in objectives resonated but did not necessarily get to objective in manner thought

acceptable.

2. Which objectives troubled you? (Numbers refer to Part 1 worksheet list of objectives.)Which objectives troubled you? (Numbers refer to Part 1 worksheet list of objectives.)Which objectives troubled you? (Numbers refer to Part 1 worksheet list of objectives.)Which objectives troubled you? (Numbers refer to Part 1 worksheet list of objectives.)

Multi-modal, high capacity, transportation facility; 12 (2 times), 14, 15, 16, 9, 7, aesthetics,

environ, biking; No – all but one. #3 was problem - VIA being allowed to control 2 options

without consideration by any other sitting committee. Why can’t other entities decide impact of

those options?

3. What surprised you about the objectives? (Numbers refer to Part 1 worksheet What surprised you about the objectives? (Numbers refer to Part 1 worksheet What surprised you about the objectives? (Numbers refer to Part 1 worksheet What surprised you about the objectives? (Numbers refer to Part 1 worksheet list of objectives.)list of objectives.)list of objectives.)list of objectives.)

Subsets, ambiguous, reframe the question, why some issues were included; # 7 about

walking/hiking does not apply to high-speed freeway; 14, 12, 7, 3 aesthetics, biking.

4. What about these objectives characterize the type of improvement What about these objectives characterize the type of improvement What about these objectives characterize the type of improvement What about these objectives characterize the type of improvement you would like to see in the you would like to see in the you would like to see in the you would like to see in the

US 281 corridor? (Numbers refer to Part 1 worksheet list of objectives.)US 281 corridor? (Numbers refer to Part 1 worksheet list of objectives.)US 281 corridor? (Numbers refer to Part 1 worksheet list of objectives.)US 281 corridor? (Numbers refer to Part 1 worksheet list of objectives.)

Noise abatement; Move people expeditiously/quickly from 1604 N past Stone Oak and farther,

additional capacity to satisfy current/forecast demand, increased capacity reduce travel time,

thought all were appropriate, agree with objectives, overpasses suggested; 1 (four times), 2 (five

times), 12, 13, 14, 10, reduce travel times, additional capacity.

5. What objectives should be added to or removed from the lisWhat objectives should be added to or removed from the lisWhat objectives should be added to or removed from the lisWhat objectives should be added to or removed from the list? (Numbers refer to Part 1 t? (Numbers refer to Part 1 t? (Numbers refer to Part 1 t? (Numbers refer to Part 1

worksheet list of objectives.)worksheet list of objectives.)worksheet list of objectives.)worksheet list of objectives.)

High-capacity, multi-modal, concern for the overall impact; Remove #7 x 5 at table agreed,

expand #6 into more detail that covers the business owners along US 281/some felt it adequately

addressed the issue as written; 7, 12, Impacts between toll vs. and non-toll.

Part 2Part 2Part 2Part 2---- Alternatives and the Purpose of the Transportation Improvements Alternatives and the Purpose of the Transportation Improvements Alternatives and the Purpose of the Transportation Improvements Alternatives and the Purpose of the Transportation Improvements

1. What about the alternatives stood out for you? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of What about the alternatives stood out for you? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of What about the alternatives stood out for you? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of What about the alternatives stood out for you? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of

alternatives.)alternatives.)alternatives.)alternatives.)

Why some were indentified individually but grouped in this exercise, bus stops on 281, pictures

help discussions; Duplication of previous exercise. Actual suggestions hard to imagine in reality.

Not clear understanding on all alternatives, need more visual. Almost all provided some value,

#10 and #11 are not favorable. #4 and #6 –good. #2 doesn’t fit San Antonio. 2, 7, 4, 1, 8, 4, 6.

2. What did you like about the alternatives? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of What did you like about the alternatives? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of What did you like about the alternatives? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of What did you like about the alternatives? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of


4 & 6; Grade separated alternative, #3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 worked good N. Virginia. Where do HOV

lanes tie to south of 1604; 6 (4 times), 4, 5.

3. What concerns do you have about them? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of What concerns do you have about them? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of What concerns do you have about them? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of What concerns do you have about them? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of


Didn’t address reversible lanes without stops, elevated express lane; More information on some

alternatives; 9, 2 (street cars), 5, 10, 11 (2 times)

4. What did you consider to be the most important factor to consider when assigning a number to What did you consider to be the most important factor to consider when assigning a number to What did you consider to be the most important factor to consider when assigning a number to What did you consider to be the most important factor to consider when assigning a number to

the alternatives? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet lithe alternatives? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet lithe alternatives? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet lithe alternatives? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of alternatives.)st of alternatives.)st of alternatives.)st of alternatives.)

#1 Functionality - COST

5. Which of these alternatives would you use and why? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of Which of these alternatives would you use and why? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of Which of these alternatives would you use and why? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of Which of these alternatives would you use and why? (Numbers refer to Part 2 worksheet list of


6 (6 times), 7 (3 times), 4 (3 times), 2 (2 times), 9 (2 times), 3 (2 times), 12 (2 times), 5, 8.

US 281 EIS Community Advisory Committee Meeting #2 November 4, 2009 21 – Worksheets were turned in

Page 1 of 2

Part 1 Purpose and Objectives Worksheet

For Part 1 of this evening’s group work, we would like to accomplish the following:

• Familiarize you with the suggested purposes and objectives for US 281 transportation improvements.

• Have you consider how the objectives relate to the purposes.

• Have a conversation about how they relate.

In response to the need for transportation improvements in the US 281 corridor, the purpose is to address growth, improve functionality, improve safety, and enhance community quality of life. The following table identifies some objectives that have been developed to further define the project purpose. They are not listed in order of importance, but are numbered only for easy referral. Each of the columns represents one of the purposes as identified for this EIS. For each of the objectives, please put a checkmark in the column below each purpose you believe is addressed by that objective (you may check more than one). Feel free to ask questions of your group’s facilitator if the objective is not clear to you.

Purpose

Objectives Address

Growth

Improve

Functionality

Improve

Safety

Enhance

Quality of

Life

Example √ √

1. Provide additional capacity to satisfy current and forecasted corridor travel demand.

18 18 14 13

2. Reduce travel times and increase travel speeds for through traffic during peak travel periods.

9 20 9 15

3. Create a multi-modal transportation facility that is compatible with, and connects to, the regional transportation network.

16 12 4 11

4. Allow for development of high-capacity transit.

16 9 5 10

5. Reduce conflicts between local access and through traffic.

8 17 15 15

6. Maintain and/or improve access to adjacent land uses and cross streets.

10 17 13 9

7. Promote community wellness and contribute to a healthy community through safe facilities for walking and biking.

1 3 9 17

8. Reduce vehicle crash rates by providing for the safe and easy movement of motor vehicles within the corridor.

0 10 19 10

US 281 EIS Community Advisory Committee Meeting #2 November 4, 2009 21 – Worksheets were turned in

Page 2 of 2

Purpose

Objectives Address

Growth

Improve

Functionality

Improve

Safety

Enhance

Quality of

Life

9. Be consistent with local and regional plans and policies.

10 6 3 6

10. Maximize use of federal, state, and local government and other non-tolled sources of funding.

10 6 5 12

11. Protect the environment and avoid and/or minimize and mitigate adverse direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to social, economic and environmental resources.

1 2 3 19

12. Reflect the character and values of the corridor through aesthetic treatments and landscaping acceptable to corridor neighborhoods.

1 1 0 18

13. Improve air quality. 3 0 5 19

14. Mitigate traffic noise. 2 3 3 19

15. Enhance water quality through management of storm water runoff.

1 3 8 15

16. Avoid negative impacts to threatened and endangered species and their habitat.

1 0 2 15

17.

18.

19.

Additional notes [made by one of the CAC members]: Remove #7; Challenge growth>travel demand estimates/projections market value study of 281 showed water development board (aggressive growth) and added 20%. This is an overblown figure and spurious at best. Need more accurate growth/projections.#7 doesn’t seem prudent for US 281 speed, etc.

US 281 EIS Community Advisory Committee Meeting #2 November 4, 2009 19 - Worksheets turned in

Page 1 of 2

Part 2

Purposes and Alternatives

Part 2 of this evening’s work group activities is intended to accomplish the following results:

• Give participants a better understanding of the alternatives recommended to be carried forward into Level 2 for further screening.

• Allow participants the opportunity to explore how the alternatives may address the purposes of the improvements to US 281.

• Have a conversation about the alternatives and how they relate to the purposes. Below is a list of the alternatives recommended for carrying forward to Level 2 screening. They are numbered for easy referral only. The numbers do not indicate a level of importance. Please indicate with a number from 1 to 5, with 1 being “not at all” and 5 being “very well”, how each alternative addresses the purposes in the columns on the right. Please refer to the descriptions of the alternatives for more information about each one.

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Not at All Very Well

Purpose Alternatives Recommended

to be Carried Forward into

the Level 2 Alternatives

Screening Process

Description Address

Growth

Improve

Functionality

Improve

Safety

Enhance

Quality

of Life

Example 1 4 2 5

1. No Build Inc. “superstreet”1

The No Build Alternative would include the US 281 Super Street improvements, the upgrade to the Loop 1604/US 281 Interchange, and all planned short and long-range regional transportation improvements. The No Build Alternative would not provide any additional capacity for US 281 north of Loop 1604.

13 - 1’s

3 - 2’s

2 - 3’s

9 - 1’s

3 - 2’s

6 - 3’s

1 - 4’s -Short term

9 - 1’s

2 - 2’s

4 - 3’s

3 - 4’s

12 - 1’s

2 - 2’s

3 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

2. Fixed Guideway Transit (light rail & street car)

Light Rail (DART – Dallas) Street Car (New Orleans)

Within S.O./E.R [referring to street car].

[streetcar x’ed out on 3 sheets] Not feasible

8 - 1’s

2 - 2’s

7 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

7 - 1’s

4 - 2’s

4 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

1 - 5’s

5 - 1’s

3 - 2’s

6 - 3’s

2 - 4’s

1 - 5’s

7 - 1’s

4 - 2’s

4 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

1 - 5’s

3. Non-fixed Guideway Transit (bus rapid transit, express bus and fixed route bus) --Citizens do not like buses

VIA (San Antonio)

4 - 1’s

3 - 2’s

7 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

2 - 5’s

3 - 1’s

5 - 2’s

7 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

2 - 5’s

3 - 1’s

5 - 2’s

6 - 3’s

2 - 4’s

1 - 5’s

3 - 1’s

4 - 2’s

6 - 3’s

3 - 4’s

1 - 5’s

4. Grade Separated Intersections

US 281 at Donella Drive (San Antonio)

1 - 1’s

3 - 2’s

2 - 3’s

4 - 4’s

7 - 5’s

1 - 2’s

2 - 3’s

3 - 4’s

10 - 5’s

1 - 1’s

1 - 2’s

2 - 3’s

3 - 4’s

11 - 5’s

1 - 1’s

1 - 2’s

6 - 3’s

3 - 4’s

7 - 5’s

5. Add Lanes to existing US 281 north of Loop 1604

------Useless without overpasses

4 lanes total

Existing US 281 between Stone Oak and Evans (San Antonio)

5 - 1’s

1 - 2’s

6 - 3’s

2 - 4’s

4 - 5’s

5 - 1’s

2 - 2’s

6 - 3’s

2 - 4’s

4 - 5’s

4 - 1’s

6 - 2’s

4 - 3’2

1 - 4’s

4 - 5’s

7 - 1’s

3 - 2’s

4 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

4 - 5’s

6. Upgrade Existing US 281 north of Loop 1604 to an Expressway

Wurzbach Parkway at Perrin Beitel Road (San Antonio)

1 - 1’s

1 - 2’s

3 - 3’s

4 - 4’s

9 - 5’s

2 - 2’s

2 - 3’s

4 - 4’s

10 - 5’s

2 - 2’s

3 - 3’s

3 - 4’s

10 - 5’s

4 - 2’s

3 - 3’s

2 - 4’s

9 - 5’s

1 Participant comments are indicated in italics and located where the participants wrote them on the sheet.

US 281 EIS Community Advisory Committee Meeting #2 November 4, 2009 19 - Worksheets turned in

Page 2 of 2

Purpose Alternatives Recommended

to be Carried Forward into

the Level 2 Alternatives

Screening Process

Description Address

Growth

Improve

Functionality

Improve

Safety

Enhance

Quality

of Life

7. Expand Parallel Corridors

Bulverde Road (San Antonio) Blanco Road (San Antonio)

3 - 1’s

4 - 2’s

8 - 3’s

2 - 4’s

2 - 5’s

4 - 1’s

4 - 2’s

7 - 3’s

2 - 4’s

2 - 5’s

4 - 1’s

7 - 2’s

5 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

2 - 5’s

3 - 1’s

7 - 2’s

7 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

1 - 5’s

8. Add Additional High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes north of Loop 1604

US 290 East of Beltway 8(Houston) –

HOV is ok but can be expanded in toll lanes

Good Idea if overpasses are built

6 - 1’s

6 - 2’s

5 - 3’s

5 - 1’s

5 - 2’s

6 - 3’s

2 - 4’s

7 - 1’s

7 - 2’s

4 - 3’s

5 - 1’s

9 - 2’s

2 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

visual

simulation

9. Add Facilities for Cyclists and Pedestrians

--Not necessary anywhere near 281

17 - 1’s

2 - 2’s

16 - 1’s

2 - 2’s

3 - 1’s

17 - 1’s

3 - 2’s

13 - 1’s

3 - 2’s

3 - 4’s

10. Implement Policy Changes and Growth Management

Focus growth within the urban core and encourage more efficient land use to reduce the travel time required for everyday trips.

5 - 1’s

4 - 2’s

3 - 3’s

3 - 4’s

3 - 5’s

11 1’s

1 - 2’s

3 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

1 - 5’s

9 - 1’s

4 - 2’s

2 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

10 - 1’s

3 - 2’s

3 - 3’s

1 - 5’s

11. Incorporate Transportation Demand Management

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) generally refers to policies, programs, and actions that are directed towards decreasing single occupant vehicle travel. Examples of TDM include alternative work schedules and parking management.

--Hate this option, anti- freedom

8 - 1’s

5 - 2’s

1 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

2 - 5’s

10 - 1’s

3 - 2’s

3 - 3’s

1 - 5’s

10 - 1’s

5 - 2’s

1 - 4’s

1 - 5’s

10 - 1’s

5 - 2’s

2 - 5’s

12. Integrate Transportation System Management and Incident Management Could be done now

Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies generally refer to the use of easily implemented, low capital cost transportation improvements to increase the efficiency of transportation facilities. Examples of TSM include the US 281 Super Street improvements, access management, improved signs and signal management, and ridesharing.

Incident Management includes clearing vehicle breakdowns, crashes, and other incidents to allow traffic flow to resume as quickly as possible.

--should implement now – don’t need EIS

6 - 1’s

7 - 2’s

1 - 3’s

1 - 4’s

2 - 5’s

2 - 1’s

7 - 2’s

4 - 3’s

2 - 4’s

2 - 5’s

2 - 1’s

5 - 2’s

6 - 3’s

2 - 4’s

2 - 5’s

5 - 1’s

6 - 2’s

2 - 3’s

2 - 4’s

2 - 5’s

13.

Extra left turn lane on @281/Evans 20 lanes should not be a consideration

14.

[#] 6- But not tolled- No to 20 lanes Be considerate of home owners along 281 Need more visual explanation

More

information

Needed

added capacity for all vehicles

Not if in any way related

to managed lanes

Documents

US 281 EIS CAC #2 Meeting Summary