Loop 1604 Super Street Community Open House and Public Meeting - Meeting Report

San Antonio, Texas August 13, 2010

Meeting ReportLoop 1604 Super Street Community Open House

Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration

Meeting Report on the Loop 1604 Super Street Open House / Public Meeting of May 25, 2010

August 13, 2010 Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview 3 1.2 Meeting Purpose 5 1.3 Outreach and Participants 6 1.4 Attendance 6 1.5 Meeting Format 7

OPEN HOUSE STATIONS 2.1 Open House Format 8 2.2 Specific Stations 9

PUBLIC COMMENTS 3.1 Deadline 14 3.2 Comments received by the Alamo RMA 14 3.3 Evaluations reports received by the Alamo RMA 20 OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 4.1 Responses to comments received by the Alamo RMA 21 4.2 Responses to general project questions and comments 22 4.3 Responses to intersection specific questions and comments 25 4.4 Responses to financing questions and comments 26 NEXT STEPS 5.0 Meeting report posting and notification of comments receiving a response 28

Appendix A – Invitations, Electronic Notification, Legal Notices, Media Packet Appendix B – Attendees Sign in List Appendix C – Hand Out Packets Appendix D - Power Point Presentations (General and Formal) Appendix E – Pictures from Community Open House Appendix F – Comment Cards received at the Community Open House Appendix G– Court Reporter Certified Transcript Appendix H– Email Comments received by the Alamo RMA Appendix I– Comments and questions received during formal presentations



INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Project Overview

The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority (Alamo RMA) conducted an Open House / Public Meeting for the project located on Loop 1604 from New Guilbeau Road to SH 151. The construction limits extend beyond the project limits 1,600 feet north of New Guilbeau Road and 1,400 feet south of SH 151. The project limits and construction limits in their entirety constitute the Loop 1604 “Super Street” study area, having a length of 4.2 miles along Loop 1604. in support of the Categorical Exclusion being prepared for the aforementioned project (“the project”).

The Open House / Public Meeting was held on May 25, 2010 from 6 p.m. until 9 p.m. at the Northwest Park Baptist Church, 8550 Bowens Crossing, San Antonio, Texas. The proposed project extends 4.2 miles, as shown in Figure 1, and is located entirely within Bexar County.

Figure 1 – Map of Project Area



The Alamo RMA, in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and Bexar County, is proposing to implement a “Super Street” configuration and associated operational improvements within the proposed study area on Loop 1604. The Alamo RMA is a local transportation authority created by the Texas Transportation Commission and the Bexar County Commissioners Court in December 2003 that can build, operate, and maintain toll roads along with other transportation projects under all of the existing federal and state regulations and interagency agreements in place through TxDOT. The proposed project limits are on Loop 1604 from New Guilbeau Road to SH 151. The construction limits extend beyond the project limits 1,600 feet north of New Guilbeau Road and 1,400 feet south of SH 151. The project limits and construction limits in their entirety constitute the Loop 1604 “Super Street” study area, having a length of 4.2 miles along Loop 1604. The “Super Street” intersection is a type of intersection in which cross-street traffic is prohibited from going straight through or left at a divided highway intersection. Cross-street traffic must turn right, but can then access a U-turn to proceed in the desired direction. Generally, the proposed project would reconfigure the intersection of Loop 1604 and Shaenfield Road into a “Super Street” configuration, implement similar operational improvements at the intersection of Loop 1604 and New Guilbeau Road, and implement a ramp reversal on the southbound lanes of Loop 1604 at SH 151. The through-lanes proposed on Loop 1604 would generally match the existing configuration. For the “Super Street” intersection at Shaenfield Road, the existing pavement for both directions of travel would be widened for a distance of 1,400 feet to the north and 1,400 feet to the south. Pavement widening would increase the Loop 1604 approaches to the intersection from the existing 38-ft roadway to a maximum of 76-ft of pavement to accommodate three 12-ft through-lanes, two 12-ft left-turn lanes, and a 12-ft dedicated right turn lane. The Loop 1604 pavement south of this intersection would be increased from the existing 38-ft roadway to a maximum of 86-ft of pavement to accommodate three 12-ft through-lanes, two 12-ft U-turn lanes, 2-ft inside shoulders, and 4-ft outside shoulders. The remaining 20.5 feet of median would be grassy with slopes graded to a center ditch. Additional localized areas of widening toward the outside of Loop 1604 would accommodate large vehicles at the U-turns. These localized areas of pavement widening are termed “loons” and are proposed at each end of the “Super Street” intersection at Shaenfield Road. The loons would vary in size up to a maximum of 25-ft of pavement widening over a maximum length of 85 feet. Also, to enhance operation of the Loop 1604 “Super Street” intersection with Shaenfield Road, an additional 6-ft widening to the outsides is proposed in both directions of Loop 1604 for up to 2,000-ft beyond the loons. This additional pavement widening would increase the existing 38-ft roadway to 44-ft of pavement to accommodate three 12-ft lanes with 4-ft shoulders in both directions. Concrete median islands and new traffic signal locations are also proposed at the Shaenfield Road intersection. The overall length of the proposed improvements along Loop 1604 at Shaenfield Road would be up to 6,000 feet, or 1.1 miles within the study area. Since Shaenfield Road exists only on the west side of Loop 1604, the project would include a stub-out for a future extension of Shaenfield Road to the east, ending approximately 20-ft beyond the outside northbound lane within the existing ROW.



The operational improvements proposed at New Guilbeau Road would implement a variation of the “Super Street” to accommodate the existing street to the east side of Loop 1604, without provision for future extension of New Guilbeau Road to the west. The proposed configuration, called a Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) would widen existing Loop 1604 pavement toward the median for a distance of 1,600 feet north of New Guilbeau Road, and toward the outside for a distance of 700 feet south of New Guilbeau Road. Pavement widening would increase the existing 38-ft roadway to a maximum of 66-ft of pavement to accommodate three 12-ft through-lanes and two 12-ft U-turn lanes, 2-ft inside shoulders, and 4-ft outside shoulders. The remaining variable width median would be grassy with slopes graded to a ditch along the inside northbound lane. The existing ditch along the inside southbound lane would be unaffected. An additional localized area of widening would be proposed for 310-ft along the north side of New Guilbeau Road to accommodate three right-turn-only lanes. Also, 28-ft of proposed pavement would provide a turnaround for traffic coming from New Guilbeau Road to head south on Loop 1604. The turnaround would be configured with two 12-ft lanes and 2-ft shoulders and would be about 300-ft in length within the existing median of Loop 1604. A narrow strip of pavement approximately 4-ft wide for a distance of approximately 200-ft would be constructed along the outside of the northbound lanes near the New Guilbeau turnaround to maintain a 4-ft outside shoulder. Concrete median islands and new traffic signal locations are also proposed at the New Guilbeau Road intersection. The overall length of the proposed improvements along Loop 1604 at New Guilbeau Road would be up to 2,300 feet, or 0.4 miles within the study area. The proposed ramp reversal for the southbound lanes of Loop 1604 at SH 151 would involve the removal of the existing southbound entrance ramp to Loop 1604 from Culebra Road, and construction of a proposed southbound exit ramp from Loop 1604 to Alamo Ranch Parkway and SH 151. Implementation of the proposed ramping would also include widening the existing southbound frontage road between the proposed exit ramp and SH 151 to a provided maximum of 57-ft of pavement to accommodate four 11-ft lanes with 1-ft shoulders, and a 11-ft right turn lane to Alamo Ranch Parkway. The overall length of the proposed improvements along Loop 1604 at SH 151 would be up to 5,500 feet, or approximately 1.0 mile within the study area.

1.2 Meeting Purpose

The purpose of the Open House / Public Meeting was to provide attendees with an overview of the project, and the proposed improvements, explain the projected benefits of the proposed improvements, solicit input on the proposed improvements, identify additional areas of concern along the project corridor, inform attendees of the next steps for the proposed project, and to develop a record of public views and participation in this project process, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).

To accomplish these objectives, the Alamo RMA conducted the Open House / Public Meeting to bring together the public, design team, and environmental documentation team to discuss the proposed improvements, document identified concerns and questions from the attendees and provide feedback. Documenting feedback from the attendees was accomplished by providing



comment cards at each station, displays, maps, animations, power point presentations, and the presence of a court reporter. A formal presentation was made twice as part of this Open House / Public Meeting. A question and answer period ensued, and can be found in Appendix I.

1.3 Public Notice and Outreach

The Alamo RMA invited residents of Bexar County to participate in the community open house. To ensure a wider audience was informed of the meeting, and in compliance with NEPA of 1969, legal notices in English and Spanish were placed within daily newspapers within Bexar County on April 25, 2010 and May 16, 2010. These newspapers, specifically, were the San Antonio Express-News and La Prensa, respectively. Copies of the original English and Spanish Legal Notice, as well as affidavits of the date of publication can be found in Appendix A. The Alamo RMA also employed social media tools to generate additional notification of this Open House / Public Meeting, including use of, email distribution, Facebook and Twitter. Additionally, the Alamo RMA posted multiple blogs on the City Bright’s Section of the San Antonio Express-News website, MySA.com, discussing the proposed improvements and providing notice of the meeting. Copies of information posted under this format can be found in Appendix A as well.

The Alamo RMA also utilized a robo-call system to provide notice to 19,622 potentially impacted households of the Open House / Public Meeting. The script and zip codes involved in this effort can be found in Appendix A.

Finally, dynamic message signs were placed along Loop 1604 prior to the Open House / Public Meeting. Specific locations are shown on the application for placement, which was coordinated by Bexar County Infrastructure Services in support of this proposed project. The application and supporting documentation can be found in Appendix A.

The Alamo RMA managed the pre-, during and post-event media relations for this Open House / Public Meeting. A copy of the Request for Coverage, media packet, is included in Appendix A. The media list of those in attendance, is included within Appendix B, along with all other attendees.

1.4 Attendance When participants arrived, they were asked to sign in at a central registration table. A total of 83attendees signed in at the registration table. The attendees included residents of Bexar County, elected officials and their representatives, media and team members for this project. Appendix B has copies of all sign in sheets from the Open House / Public Meeting.



Specifically, 76 members of the public signed in, 3 elected officials or representatives, and 4 members of the media were in attendance during the time frame of this event.

1.5 Meeting Format The Open House / Public Meeting was conducted as a station-by-station open house with a formal presentation given twice during the evening. Attendees were given an overview packet upon arrival outlining each station present at the Open House/ Public Meeting, as well as additional information related to the proposed Super Street, and the efforts being undertaken by the Alamo RMA in relation to further studies on the Loop 1604 corridor. Copies of all handouts can be viewed in Appendix C.

The Open House / Public Meeting began officially at 6 p.m. but attendees started arriving at 5:30 p.m. at which point the meeting team began answering questions posed at each station present.



OPEN HOUSE / PUBLIC MEETING

2.1 Open House Format The Loop 1604 Super Street Open House / Public Meeting utilized a station-based approach to engaging the attendees in specific discussions related to each intersection proposed to receive improvements as a result of the project. Each schematic station had a designated design team member from Pape-Dawson Engineers, the designing engineer firm for this project, present to answer specific questions relating to the proposed project, as well as an engineer from the Alamo RMA.

The environmental station had a representative from Pozencki-Camarillo, the environmental engineering group preparing the proposed categorical exclusion, and a representative from the Alamo RMA present, to assist in answering questions relating to potential impacts of the proposed improvements.

Figure 2 – Layout Map of the Open House / Public Meeting

At each station, attendees were able to give comments to staff members, leave hand written comment cards on provided forms, or leave hand written comments on provided paper.



2.2 Specific Stations

Within the Loop 1604 Super Street Open House / Public Meeting, stations were provided for the following areas of interest:

General Overview of the Project –

This station, showing two identical schematic maps of the proposed project corridor, were on each side of the meeting room, and were staffed by engineers from the Alamo RMA as well as the design-engineering firm of Pape-Dawson Engineers.

Attendees were able to ask questions about specific proposed improvements directly of project staff, and were able to submit comments at each part of the station, in written form.



Environmental Station - Attendees were able to view copies of the draft categorical exclusion being prepared in relation to the proposed project, and speak directly with those individuals responsible for the document.

A representative from the Alamo RMA and a representative from Poznecki-Camarillo staffed this station.

Attendees were able to also leave written comments at this station.



Court Reporter –

Attendees were able to utilize a court reporter to leave verbal comments as part of the meeting record. A certified copy of the transcript from this station can be found in Appendix I.

The court reporter was present from the start of the meeting until 9 p.m. at the conclusion of the Open House / Public Meeting .

All comments received by the Court Reporter have also been included and incorporated into Section 3 of this meeting report.



Formal Presentation –

At 6:30 p.m. the first formal presentation was made on the proposed improvements. The presentation, a copy of which is included in Appendix D, highlighted the proposed project based on schematic and VISSIM model runs; the potential environmental impact of the proposed project; and then updated the community on proposed cost and funding that has been identified, should the project receive environmental clearance.

At the conclusion of the 6:30 p.m. presentation, elected officials opened the floor to questions, and a copy of the meeting transcription, as captured by staff in attendance, is included in Appendix I.



Questions ranged from general clarification of the proposed project to in-depth discussions regarding transportation funding and priorities of the state and county government.

The presentation was made again at 8:00 p.m., covering the same materials made at the 6:30 p.m. presentation, with a limited question and answer session immediately after that focused primarily on the proposed improvements and the operational characteristics of these improvements.

The questions and answers are included in Appendix I.

Animation and Looping Presentation – During the Open House portion of the evening a looping presentation was projected on the front screen of the room showing VISSIM animations of how the proposed improvements would operate under AM and PM peak conditions.

A hard copy of the slides from this presentation are included in Appendix D and a CD copy of the presentation file, including animations, is included with this report, labeled Appendix D.



PUBLIC COMMENTS

3.1 Deadline Comments received by June 4, 2010, as established in the legal notice for this Open House / Public Meeting, are included in the Open House / Public Meeting summary report. Comments were submitted via email, US Postal Service mail, written comments at the Open House / Public Meeting, or verbal comments left with the Court Reporter.

3.2 Comments Received Multiple avenues to leave comments were made available to the public at the Open House / Public Meeting including via comment forms available at the Sign-In Table and all stations, general evaluation forms of the function available at the Sign-In Table, and leaving comments on loose paper available at all stations.

The Alamo RMA published, in all legal notices, on the respective project and general website, and in all communications, a standalone email address for the Loop 1604 Super Street project. Interested parties were able to submit comments via email to [email protected]. Copies of all comments are included, in original form, as shown below: Appendix F – Comment Cards received at the Open House / Public Meeting Appendix G– Court Reporter Certified Transcript Appendix H – Email Comments received by the Alamo RMA

All comments are categorized by method the comment was received. The master listing below shows all comments received, in alphabetical order by commenter, as well as the corresponding number of comments or questions attributable to each commenter. Comments have not been edited or corrected for grammar. They have been numbered and are shown after the alphabetical listing of commenters.



Last Name First Name Comment Number(s)

Type of Communication

Adams Dan 23 Verbal Blough Wayne 14 Emailed Branyon David 6 Written Comment Braun George 20 Emailed Collins Amy 4 Written Comment Dale Russell 28 Verbal Dallman Erich 27 Verbal Dosey Pat 15 Emailed Heagerty George 18 Emailed Henderson Herman 13 Written Comment Jimenez Keith 5 Written Comment Jimenez Nancy 3 Written Comment Kelley Suzanne 16 Emailed Oneil Colleen 10 Written Comment Owings Ernestine 7 Written Comment Przybyla Andrew T. 22 Emailed Purdy David J. 19 Emailed Rangel Fred 8 Written Comment Smith Mercedes 2 Written Comment Valdez Karen 17 Emailed Wells Jan 26 Verbal

Ybarra Ricky 1, 25 Written Comment / Verbal

Ybarra Valerie 24 Verbal Ziccardi Vincent 21 Emailed Anonymous 9 Written Comment Anonymous 11 Written Comment Anonymous 12 Written Comment



Public Comments Received

1) I’ve lived here 11 years and 7 years ago across from Bowens Crossing to Loop 1604 south was stopped and diverted to New Guilbeau Rd. The only way the access is diverted is through a 2 block small street April Bend and it is not meant to be a feeder street for New Guilbeau Rd. The Northwest Territories (5000 homes ?) Anybody that has to used 1604 South – Wachovia/Citicorp/Reserved Park/etc. etc. has to use New Guilbeau or use Harrison to Culebrea Rd. That is crazy. Build a Freeway! Not a bandaid.

2) My concern is the access rd past the Shaenfield light that connect onto Leslie Rd. I’m concerned about the traffic going Northbound on the road to get onto 1604 and the traffic exiting onto Leslie. May it be possible to make it safer by only allowing traffic on Leslie Rd and not back onto 1604? Many wrecks have occurred at this small intersection.

3) Great community partnership. Shows what can be accomplished when you work together. Glad the county is involved.

4) Until the Shaenfield extension is completed PLEASE make sure that the new light on Southbound 1604 for the u-turn is not activated, as this u-turn is solely for cars turning southbound onto 1604 from the currently non-existent Shaenfield extension. Thanks!

5) Great idea. Glad you are doing this. I don’t see how you are getting everything done. Hope it works. I avoid driving on this part of 1604.

6) I believe that the 151/1604 proposed changes will have minor to no benefit in that the Culebra entrance ramp (which is very congested today) and the left turners onto 151 from 1604 south will all be on the service road which will only have 3 left turn lanes. I believe this will backup and is only worthwhile if combines with the proposed underpass @ 151/1604. A more cost effective idea would be to simply add a third left turn lane from 1604 South to 151 East.

7) There were not enough people to answer questions at each map. The maps were hard to decipher. We don’t need more traffic lights. We definitely do not want a toll road. We need to eliminate the present traffic lights. I don’t like to waste fuel by having to turn right and travel excess miles to get on 1604.

8) I deeply appreciate the strong leadership to get us to this point. Great job. 9) Presentation way too small with road names not clearly labeled. North arrow needed on

every map in presentation as well as at tables. 10) First of all I think the signs on the side of the road advertising this meeting were very

effective. I agree that something needs to be done now and am grateful that all the agencies got together to fix the problem. I am 100% on board.

11) Strong clarity problems with the presentation. 12) Thanks for taking the time to put this together. Special thanks to whoever did the phone

calls to “affected” homes, informing us of this meeting and referring to www.bexar.org (great site). Press on!



13) With the removal of the current left turn at HR151 what are the plans for moving traffic on HR 151 at Hunt Lane, Potranco and IH 410 Exit from 151 Eastbound. What happens in FY12 regarding 1604 Improvements for traffic flow. Traffic from Alamo Pkwy to Hwy 151 turning right. Will there be a traffic light.

14) I was unable to attend the open house last night. Thank you for making the materials available for viewing online so quickly. I have one question. The first entry on page 3 if the presentation is an entry for "Phase 1 – Operational improvements at Braun Road" but I don't see any summary or schematics describing the Braun Road improvements. Can you describe these improvements please?

15) Overpasses not 'super streets', untried and unproven, are the solution to 1604 congestion. I oppose the waste of taxpayer money on these super streets. We want overpasses and we want then NOW!

16) Many of us don't understand why it is so difficult to figure out a solution. If you have driven this stretch of road at any time of day, it is obvious that overpasses are needed at all the intersections, just like the rest of 1604 to the north and east. A superstreet is just going to continue to waste time and money that could be better spent creating overpasses. There is a huge median between the lanes that would be perfect for overpasses. Please use common sense and stop wasting so much time and money on solutions that aren't sufficient to alleviate the traffic.

17) I think we need overpasses not a super street on 281. 18) Unfortunately I am unable to make the meeting tomorrow night (25 May) but would like

to express my comments if I may. This is a band aid fix. What's needed are overpasses and to complete the controlled access highway through this section of 1604. Tolling this existing stretch of highway is not the solution and is opposed by the majority of the people.

19) NO TOLLS ON 1604! Is that understood? Can you hear us? NO STEALING OF PUBLIC ROADS FOR PRIVATE PROFITS! PUBLIC USE MEANS FOR PUBLIC USE AND WHEN ROADS ARE PAID FOR WITH PUBLIC MONIES, IT BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOREVER!

20) The best solution is to install overpasses that can be use as 1604 is widen and improved 21) If the engineering and initial layout and grading hadn't yet been done at the intersection

of Braun Road and Loop 1604, we might understand this tortured "fix" to the Loop 1604 gridlock from Bandera Road westward during morning and afternoon commute time. If you people hadn't done the job properly already at Culebra Road, we might still be able to "understand" your current plan. But when you really look at what's already been accomplished and the very little that remains to be done to completely and permanently FIX this gridlock problem which affects THOUSANDS of tax paying residents in an area that CONTINUES to be building new homes and subdivisions (authorized by the county, by the way), we have to wonder just what you folks are drinking at the cooler fountain. All this SUPERSTREET



22) I always hear about the traffic problem at 281 and 1604, but I never hear about the horrible traffic problems on 1604 between Braun Road and 151. I wish the media would report about the horrible traffic on our side of town.

23) I just want to state that as far as I can see, from what I've seen in there on the maps and what not, I haven't -- listened to the presentation, that I cannot see where this project is going to speed up traffic or anything. I feel its adding traffic lights and that is going to hinder traffic more than speed it up. The other comment I have is I'm not really sure why we're even having this meeting cause I feel that the mind's made up. They're going to do this thing anyway. So why are we all sitting here having a meeting when our input is not going to do any good? I felt all along, as many other people have, and one of your people admitted in there, that this may not work and, yes, overpasses may have to be put in. I think the answer is, put the overpasses in now and quit wasting money on this project. Three overpasses solves the problem.. I don’t know what these comment will do, but it's -- that's my comment on the situation. Thank you

24) I live at the corner – on the corner of Gillcross Way and April Bend and I bought the home eleven years ago and, you know, traffic was not a problem or not an issue and Bowens Crossing here went through to 1604. So traffic, freely, was able to get out on 1604 from either Bowens Crossing or from New Guilbeau in order to go west. I believe it’s west. Or is it south? Southwest, whatever, on 1604. And then the State of Texas, I guess, decided to block the traffic from the close off Bowens Crossing from getting out and being able to go west on 1604. So, therefore, all the traffic from all these subdivisions that surround this area here, which I believe is, like, all the northwest and northwest area and stuff all those people in that subdivision plus the one that I am in, which is Guilbeau Gardens, plus the one across New Guilbeau, if they want to go, you know, left and go west on 1604, they have to come down through my street. And there’s been you know, a lot of—a lot traffic. I have a 16-year-old grandchild that I’m raising and, you know, it’s difficult to have – you know, have pets outside and have children, you know, outside when there’s, like, you know, so much traffic there. And I was hoping that tonight, in coming here, that I would see more of a relief take place, you now , with that, you know, traffic, you know, coming and so many people having to come out in order to go that way. And because there’s a lot of companies and businesses that are west on 1604 with the big Wachovia and the City Bank way out there and, you know, and such as that, you know, So there’s plenty of people that go to work out that way. And now, tonight, all I see as a relief is a turnaround that is just going to be maybe, you know, a half a mile down the way, you know, toward Braun to loop around. So traffic is still going to be quite a bit here in this – in this subdivision here and I was just hoping to see more of a change in that.

25) My name is Ricky Ybarra. I live at 9451 Gillcross Way, 78250. My concern is why they’re building a super street instead of all freeway. They’re going to have to build a freeway five, ten years from now. What a waste of money. My only other concern is why



did the northside, pretty much from IH-10 all the way to I-35, get a freeway and the southwest side get a super street? I don’t get it. That doesn’t make any sense.

26) The one proposed exit ramp to take the traffic off of 1604 at Culebra Road and 1604, the one exit ramp that’ll take them to 151, one lane, is not enough. That’s where I live and every morning the vast majority of the traffic goes on 151. It does not go straight on 1604. They – if they – their studies don’t show the majority of traffic goes on 151, then they can do two lanes for future expansion and if it turns out they need it immediately, it’s there.

27) The problem is, going south on 1604, there is no turn onto Bowens Crossing Drive. What happens is, instead, the drivers turn onto New Guilbeau, then they turn on a shortcut down April Bend to get to Bowens Crossing; basically, turning April Bend into a super street of its own with excessive traffic and a lot of it at high speed. And that’s a residential area. You know, and all this traffic makes it unsafe. And we put – we have put up speed humps, two of them, but the traffic was so bad and so fast that the street humps are coming apart.

28) My one question is since it’s a matter of funding for everything, why don’t they work it through the legislature or whoever to do bonds for these projects so that they can freeze the cost and start getting things done now at today’s dollars instead of waiting ten or 20 years where, obviously, the money will be a lot more expensive and costs for labor and construction will be a lot more. And the other thing is, I think they need to do more planning to eliminate traffic lights, particularly on, like, 1604 and such roads that are supposed to be to expedite traffic and you don’t expedite traffic by putting traffic lights on. My idea was also to put circles in instead at those intersections and/or – and also to go ahead and put what I call pillars in for overpasses in advance. Now, I know pillars cost money, but that would give them time to settle. It’d also be a visual to advertise that an overpass is going in. And with having a visual, it get talked up more and it gets talked up more, it’s going to hit the legislators and so forth to, hopefully, maybe get the money here.



3.3 Evaluation reports received Comments were able to be submitted in multiple ways at the Loop 1604 Super Street Open House / Public Meeting including via comment forms available at the Sign-In Table and all stations, general evaluation forms of the function available at the Sign-In Table, and leaving comments on loose paper available at all stations. The Alamo RMA received 7 evaluation forms. Copies of these comment forms, as handed out and received by the Alamo RMA, can be found in Appendix F. The figure below is the results as reflected by those who provided responses to the form as presented, shown in percentages of total respondents per question.

How would you rate today’s workshop? Excellent Poor

How would you rate the presentations at each station? 50 33 17

How would you rate the information provided at each station?

29 43 29

Were your questions answered adequately? 43 29 14 14

Please rate the materials presented. Were they organized and appropriate to the subject matter?

50 17 17 17

How effectively was your time utilized? 50 33 17

Figure 3 – Results of Evaluation Document



OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

4.1 Responses to comments received by the Alamo RMA The Alamo RMA offers the following responses to comments received from the Community Open House and subsequent communication as documented in this meeting report. Where applicable, similar questions have been collapsed and combined to offer an ease of read for these responses.

In general, the comments received centered around the following categories:

General project questions and comments

Operational questions and comments, including alternatives to the Super Street considered

Financing questions and comments

The responses offered will follow these same categories and will indicate which questions or comments are being answered in each response, based on the comments received.



4.2 Responses to general project questions and comments

4.2.1

In response to comments: 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12 which generally provided supportive comments and or compliments for the event and the proposed project, the Alamo RMA offers the following response:

The Alamo RMA appreciates the time taken to attend the Open House / Public Meeting and your supportive comment. The Loop 1604 Super Street reflects a community collaboration among numerous partner agencies and levels of government, to try and bring interim relief to the Loop 1604 corridor in the near term.

The outreach undertaken for this event is also reflective of the collaboration that has been undertaken to date in helping move this project toward environmental clearance. 4.2.2

In response to comments: 7, 9, and 11 which generally dealt with criticisms of the meeting format and staffing levels, the Alamo RMA offers the following response:

The Alamo RMA apologizes for any inconvenience experienced by attendees waiting to speak with staff members, and with any difficulty understanding the presentation materials. It is always our goal to be accessible for all citizens attending any Alamo RMA event or function, and while staffing levels were lower than other meetings, the Alamo RMA did not anticipate the greater than expected size of the crowd that would attend at the 6 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. window of time, which resulted in some delays in speaking to engineering and design staff at stations.

4.2.3

In response to comments: 1, 6, 19, 22, 24, and 25, which generally dealt with the need for improvements to be longer term in nature and to add capacity, the Alamo RMA offers the following response: The Alamo RMA, in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration, is currently conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Loop 1604, from US 90 to IH 35 N.



This approximately 35.5 mile corridor is considering alternatives to add additional capacity to the Loop 1604 corridor, including some of the alternative concepts requested in the comments received. From the More For 1604 project website, (www.MoreFor1604.com)

“The Loop 1604 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be the most comprehensive environmental study ever conducted on potential improvements to Loop 1604. The study began in 2009 for the portion of Loop 1604 from FM 1957 (Potranco Road) to IH 35 North. Inclusion of the portion of Loop 1604 between US 90 West and Potranco Road (FM 1957) has been added since the first public scoping meeting was held on October 21 and 22, 2009.

The Loop 1604 EIS is an Alamo RMA led study in partnership with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which will examine and recommend strategies for efficiently and effectively addressing mobility and safety issues within the study corridor. The expanded corridor is approximately 35.5 miles in length and provides circumferential mobility in Central/Northwest Bexar County.

The Loop 1604 EIS is estimated to take approximately three years to complete, and will look at and consider a wide array of environmental, socio-economic, and other impacts as alternatives are considered to help address the mobility and safety issues currently and projected to be seen in this corridor.”

In April 2010, the Alamo RMA hosted the second round of public meetings on potential build alternatives under the environmental impact statement, and notice for those three identical meetings were placed in similar methods and locations as for the Loop 1604 Super Street

meeting.

The Loop 1604 EIS is generally defined, as shown in the map to the side.

Until the Loop 1604 Environmental Impact Statement is complete no additional thru capacity can be added to the Loop 1604 corridor. The Loop 1604 Environmental Impact Statement is anticipated to be completed in 2012.



4.2.4 In response to comment 13, 17, and 21 which dealt with transportation improvements not directly related or associated to this proposed project, the Alamo RMA offers the following response: Thank you for your comments. While not directly associated with the proposed improvements on Loop 1604 as part of the project Super Street project, the comments have been noted and will be forwarded to the appropriate agency or study team for consideration in their future work. Actions undertaken in the past in developing this area that currently exist are outside of the purview of this project to correct, but the comments are noted and will be taken under advisement with future activities in this area.

4.2.5 In response to comment 14 which requested more information on the Phase 1 – operational improvements for the Loop 1604 Super Street corridor, the Alamo RMA offers the following response: The phase in question is being handled by Texas Department of Transportation Forces and work is being done in June 2010. Information as to specifics of this phase will be provided by email to the requestor and placed on the Alamo RMA website when provided by the Texas Department of Transportation. 4.2.6 In response to comments 15, 16, 18, 20 and 23 which deal with the possible location of overpasses along the Loop 1604 Super Street study corridor, the Alamo RMA offers the following response: The placement of overpasses along Loop 1604 is not under consideration as a part of the operational improvements in examination as part of the proposed Loop 1604 Super Street. Any additional capacity items such as overpasses, which in this section of Loop 1604 would require the placement not only of the overpass but also of entrance and exit ramps and potentially frontage roads to allow for access to business, residential and potentially developable land, will be considered under the Loop1 604 Environmental Impact Statement, which is currently an ongoing study of the Alamo RMA, TxDOT and the FHWA. More information about the potential build alternatives which are advancing to study under the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, including proposed schematic layouts, which show the placement of potential overpasses at key intersections, with the accompanying additional capacity to allow these improvements to operate both safely and efficiently, can be found online at www.MoreFor1604.com.



4.3 Responses to Intersection specific questions and comments

4.3.1

In response to comment 2 which dealt with operational phasing and traffic signal operations, the Alamo RMA offers the following responses:

The intersection in question is not being impacted by the proposed project, and therefore, is not being reconstructed. Any future activity in this area, related to this specific project, will be coordinated by the appropriate agencies and adjusted accordingly.

4.3.2

In response to comment 26, and 27 which generally dealt with proposed alternatives, and improvements to some non state highway system roads, the Alamo RMA offers the following response:

The exit ramp in question will have the flexibility to be expanded to two lanes when circumstances require, but that is not anticipated to occur within the near term. In regards to the traffic signal and access at Bowen’s Crossing,1) to provide safe access as requested, would more likely than not require an additional traffic signal at Bowen’s Crossing, and 2) to provide this signal would require a further delay of travel speeds on mainlane Loop 1604, which is contrary to the concept of this proposed project.

4.3.3 In response to comment 4 which dealt with the use of traffic signals at the “u-turn” to be created for south of Shaenfield Road, the Alamo RMA offers the following response: Based on the modeling conducted, and the need for traffic safety when operating motor vehicles, the light at the southern “u-turn” will need to be turned on when the Loop 1604 Super Street is operational to provide for safe turns for any vehicles using the “u-turn” in question. While it would appear that this “u-turn” would primarily benefit the extension of Shaenfield which has yet to be constructed, if anyone were to use this, without having the benefit of the light to help stop mainlane traffic, a potentially unsafe driving condition could exist, which the Alamo RMA seeks to avoid creating.



4.4 Response to financing questions and comments

In response to comments 18, 19, and 28 which dealt with financing questions, the Alamo RMA offers the following response:

The Loop 1604 Super Street project is proposed as a non-toll improvement, using funding provided the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, local funding under the control of the San Antonio Bexar County Metropolitan Planning Organization, and funding from the Advanced Transportation District as well as local funds from Bexar County. The use of these funds for this project was supported by local elected officials as a way to provide interim relief to the community while the long-term solutions being examined by the Loop 1604 Environmental Impact Statement are completed.

Funding Source Amount

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (MPO)

$1,330,000

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Rural)

$1,040,000

Surface Transportation Program – Metro Mobility

$4,000,000

Local Contribution – Bexar County, Advanced Transportation District and

TxDOT indirect

$1,367,639

Total Funding $7,737,639

As far as toll funding for long-term improvements, no decision or determination has been made at this time if that source and type of funding will be utilized. In the absence of other available funding options, toll financing is still under consideration, but the final determination if toll financing will be applied to any segment or portion of the Loop 1604 corridor has not been made.

Finally, with ever decreasing funding amounts being available from the federal and state governments, the ability to use current funding available to bring interim relief has been deemed a beneficial endeavor by locally elected officials and was strongly pursued as such.



Such a determination will be made prior to final environmental clearance of the Loop 1604 Environmental Impact Statement, as discussed previously, and will consider all available funding sources at the time of environmental clearance.



NEXT STEPS

5.0 Meeting report posting and notification of comments receiving a response

The Alamo RMA will, once the meeting report is approved, post the meeting report on www.AlamoRMA.org .

The Alamo RMA will, once the meeting report is approved, provide notice to all individuals who submitted a comment, and supplied a method to remain in contact. The notice will document that their comment has been addressed within the meeting report and direct individuals to either the website referenced earlier, or offer them an opportunity to review the meeting report in hard copy form at the Alamo RMA offices or public library locations along the Loop 1604 Super Street corridor.

Date post:	08-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kerim-jacaman
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Loop 1604 Super Street Community Open House and Public Meeting - Meeting Report

Documents