Stakeholder Meeting No. 4 I-45N: Beltway 8 North to Loop 336 South - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Stakeholder Meeting No. 4 I-45N: Beltway 8 North to Loop 336 South (Conroe) Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study Future NEPA studies, environmental review, consultation and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for projects associated with the I-45N: Beltway 8 North to February 3, 2020 I-45N Stakeholder Meeting Loop 336 South (Conroe) Planning and Environmental Linkages Study are being, or have been carried out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 USC 327 and a MOU dated December 9, 2019 by FHWA and TxDOT.

Safety Moment I-45N Stakeholder Meeting

Agenda 1 Study Overview & Process 2 Past Meetings 3 Public Engagement Outcomes 4 Alternative Evaluation 5 Next Steps 6 Discussion I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 3

Study Overview I-45N Stakeholder Meeting

Study Overview I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 5

Study Process We are working on this step I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 6

Purpose and Need I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 7

Public Engagement I-45N Stakeholder Meeting

Public Meeting Series #2 69 total attendees Oct ctober 12, 12, 20 2019 Harvest Time Church 11 attendees October 15 15, 2019 19 Spring High School 17 attendees Oct ctober 1 16, 6, 20 2019 Oak Ridge High School 9 th Grade Campus 41 attendees I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 9

Public Engagement Sou ources of I of Input:  Public meetings – Interactive boards – Comment forms  Stakeholder survey  Online survey I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 10

Public Engagement – Public Meetings  Based on dot exercise from interactive board  328 responses  Top choices: – At-Grade (New Pavement) – Elevated (New Pavement) – Extend Hardy Toll Rd North I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 11

Public Engagement – Stakeholder Survey  21 responses  Top choices: – Frontage Road / Access Mgmt. / Ramp Improvements – Improve East-West Connections – Interchanges / Ramps / Direct Connectors – Improve Hardy Toll Road (including connections) I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 12

Public Engagement – Online Survey  640 participants on MetroQuest platform  8,907 data points  Top choices: – Extend Hardy Toll Road North – Interchanges / Ramps / Direct Connectors – Frontage Road / Access Mgmt. / Ramp Improvements – Add New Elevated Lanes I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 13

Public Engagement – Combined Ratings Combined public acceptance ratings* include:  Stakeholder survey  Public meetings  Online survey Top choices: – Extend Hardy Toll Road North – Frontage Road / Access Management / Ramp Improvements – Interchanges / Ramps / Direct Connectors *6,655 data points used in the combined rating summary from Public Meeting Series No. 2 held October 2019 I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 14

Public Engagement Summary Top choices for each outreach method, by order of preference: I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 15

Public Engagement Summary Final al r ratings gs f for fatal al flaw a anal alys ysis: : Positive Neutral Negative Extend Hardy Toll Rd North No Build Use Technology (TSM / ITS / TDM) Interchange / Ramps / Direct Connectors Add Lanes within Existing Pavement (re-striping) Frontage Rd. / Access Mgmt. / Ramp Improvements Kuykendahl Improvements Add New Elevated Lanes Expand Bus Routes / Transit Services Improve East-West Connections Add New East-West Connections Rehabilitation Improve Hardy Toll Road Collector-Distributor Systems Add New At-Grade Lanes Microtransit Commuter Rail High Speed Rail Pedestrian / Bicycle Improvements Light Rail I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 16

Online Survey Summary I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 17

Public Engagement – Online Survey Home Location Density Work Location Density Home city Work city The Woodlands 24% Houston 31% Conroe 9% The Woodlands 21% Houston 4% Conroe 5% Spring 4% Spring 2% Shenandoah 1% Shenandoah 1% Tomball 1% Aldine 1% Oak Ridge North 1% Unincorporated 35% 20% work inside 610 Unincorporated 65% I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 18

Public Engagement – Online Survey Daily Weekly  Largest share of participants Use of I-45 were daily users of I-45N, followed by weekly 111 Monthly Occ 370  Most common I-45N HOV use Occasionally Daily Never Use of I-45 HOV was “occasional,” followed by “never,” “weekly,” “daily” 59 130 Monthly Weekly 188 77 46 I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 19

Public Engagement – Online Survey Corridor Priority Preferences Expressed top 3 priorities (# of supporters) were consistent with Purpose and Need Improve Mobility 404 Improve Connectivity 299 Improve Safety 257 Improve Transit 176 Minimize Impacts 109 Repurpose Roadway 76 Use Future Technology 60 Improve Bike/Ped Access 30 I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 20

Public Engagement – Online Survey Extend Hardy Toll Road 4.0 Add Access to I-45 3.8 Respondents rated alternatives from Improve Frontage Roads 3.8 to Add East-West Connections 3.7 (low) (high) Construct Elevated Lanes 3.7 Improve Hardy Toll Road 3.5 Construct Passenger Rail 3.5 Construct New Main Lanes 3.4 Chart shows the average star rating, Extend Light Rail 3.3 ranking alternatives highest to lowest Improve Park Ride 3.3 Use Technology 3.2 Improve Kuykendahl 3.1 Restripe New Lanes 2.9 Expand Bus Routes 2.7 Resurface Roadway 2.6 Provide Microtransit 2.5 Improve Bike/Ped 2.3 I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 21

Public Engagement – Online Survey 100% 90% Respondents rated alternatives from 80% 70% to 60% (low) (high) 50% 40% 30% Chart shows the distribution of stars 20% across alternatives 10% 0% 1 Star 2 Stars 3 Stars 4 Stars 5 Stars I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 22

Public Engagement – Online Survey  Participants were asked to how much they supported one option vs. another  Results were generally balanced, but preference was shown for ele levated la lanes, i s, improvi ving para rall llel r l routes, s, and bui uilding ne new l lane nes 42% 58% 48% 52% 50% 50% 51% 49% I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 23

Alternative Evaluation I-45N Stakeholder Meeting

Alternative Evaluation Process I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 25

Alternative Evaluation Process I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 26

Alternative Evaluation Process I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 27

Alternative Evaluation Process I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 28

Universe of Alternatives I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 29

Fatal Flaw Analysis: Gate 1 & Gate 2 Gate 1 Gate 2 Nin ine eval aluat ation crit iteria Tw Two-st step p process ss  To pass Gate 1, alternative must score positive in Pu Purpose a and N d Need d criteria  To pass Gate 2, alternative is screened against remaining six criteria. Those with positive total scores advance as Reasonab able A Alternat nativ ives. I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 30

Fatal Flaw Analysis: Gate 1 Gate 1 of Fatal Flaw Analysis requires that alternatives meet the Purpose and N Need ed:  Connectivity  Safety  Mobility I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 31

Fatal Flaw Analysis: Gate 1 Purpose and N Need ed requirements eliminate four alternatives:  Rehabilitation (will remain part of regular maintenance program)  High speed rail  Commuter rail  Light rail No Build Alternative will be carried forward through the evaluation as a baseline for comparison purposes. I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 32

Fatal Flaw Analysis: Gate 2 For an alternative to pass Gate 2, the number of positive ratings to equal or outnumber the number of negative ratings for these six criteria. I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 33

Fatal Flaw Analysis: Gate 1 & Gate 2 Extend Hardy Toll Road North (on new alignment) was removed from further consideration 15 alternatives passed Gate 2 I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 34

Reasonable Alternatives: Jurisdiction I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 35

Reasonable Alternatives: Categories TxDOT or Other Multi- jurisdiction jurisdictional Primary Alternatives: Alternatives that can serve Alternatives by Others: the corridor-wide purpose All alternatives that are and need and are focused on outside TxDOT jurisdiction. the I-45N corridor. Supplemental Alternatives: Alternatives that only meet localized transportation needs and can supplement the proposed improvements in Primary Alternatives for the I-45N corridor. I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 36

Reasonable Alternatives I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 37

Next Steps I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 38

Next Steps: Develop and Evaluate Reasonable Alternatives  Alternative d e devel elopmen ment – Proposed typical sections – Anticipated right-of-way – Spot location improvements • Interchange reconfiguration, multi-modal hubs, new connections, etc.  Alternat ative e evaluat atio ion – Travel Demand Model updates – Traffic operational analysis – Built and natural environmental impacts evaluation – High-level cost estimate I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 39

Next Steps: Develop and Evaluate Reasonable Alternatives  Develop screening methodology based on the study goals to evaluate alternatives I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 40

Next Steps See you prior to the next public meeting! I-45N Stakeholder Meeting 41