November 8, 2018 600 AM
Q1: What is a Corridor Master Plan?
A Corridor Master Plan is a study that documents a community’s future vision for transportation and develops a set of recommended improvements to enhance safety and mobility. It involves data collection, public outreach, analysis of current and future transportation needs, and the identification and evaluation of potential projects to address the needs.
Q2: Why is Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) doing this study?
The US 67 corridor has experienced increasing traffic as a result of population growth, additional tourism and special events, international commerce, and Permian Basin oil field development. TxDOT, in partnership with the local communities, wants to be proactive in planning for a safe and efficient corridor.
Q3: What are the study limits?
The US 67 corridor stretches 142 miles from I-10 west of Fort Stockton to the Presidio/Ojinaga Port of Entry on the U.S./Mexico border.
Q4: Has TxDOT already decided on a ‘route’ or any specific improvements?
No. There are no preconceived solutions. TxDOT is seeking input from local communities regarding the issues on the corridor as well as potential solutions. There are currently no identified solutions such as expansion or alternate routes proposed at this time. Not only does TxDOT have no preconceived solutions, no assumptions have been made regarding current or future transportation needs.
Q5: What kinds of projects will TxDOT be considering in the study?
The study will consider the needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, freight transporters, transit services, and law enforcement/first responders.
Q6: Will the study consider safety issues on US 67?
Yes, safety is the focus for this study. TxDOT wants to provide for a safe and efficient corridor for all users.
Q7: How can the public participate in the study?
TxDOT is planning three series of public meetings. The first series was held the week of May 14, 2018. Meetings were held in Alpine, Fort Stockton, Marfa, and Presidio, with the same information presented at each meeting. Participants were able to ask questions and provide input on maps and displays as well as via online tools. A virtual public meeting was also created for those who were unable to attend the meetings in person. The online tools will continue to be available throughout the study. Future public meetings will be announced on the TxDOT web site (www.txdot.gov and search for US 67 Corridor Master Plan), as well as media outlets and social media channels.
Q8: When will the study be complete?
TxDOT will develop conceptual alternatives in the Fall of 2018 based on the public input from the first series of public meetings. TxDOT will hold additional public meetings in the Fall of 2018 and will evaluate alternatives using input from the second series of public meetings. The draft Corridor Master Plan will be presented during the third series of public meetings and the final Corridor Master Plan will be completed by Fall of 2019.
Q9: Who can I contact for more information? See below.
Q10: How can I further comment about the study?
In addition to public meetings, TxDOT has provided online community engagement tools designed to foster public engagement and provide an ongoing forum for community dialogue, idea generation, and information exchange.
TxDOT Project website: go to TxDOT web site (www.txdot.gov and search US 67 Corridor Master Plan) to learn more about the study and progress.
MindMixer website at us67.mindmixer.com is an interactive forum for discussion throughout the course of the project. The public is encouraged to gather and share ideas with the project team and develop consensus around ideas for the corridor.
Corridor Planning Tool at maps.viewprogis.com/vp/us67 is where you can view and analyze project data. The tool allows the public to review the same data the project team is using to evaluate the corridor.
Q11: Can you please explain the term “La Entrada al Pacifico” and explain the difference between a “feasibility study” (previous study) and a “master plan” (current US 67 study)?
La Entrada al Pacifico was a term used to describe a trade corridor going from Mexico, coming into the US on route US 67, and going to Lamesa, Texas. In the 2000’s, there was a “feasibility study” done which was specifically for studying the feasibility of creating a four-lane divided highway (a proposed idea back then) on sections of the La Entrada al Pacifico route in West Texas. There were no actions nor improvements made to US 67 related to that feasibility study. In contrast, the current US 67 Corridor Master Plan is a study for a section of the US 67 corridor that runs from I-10 west of Fort Stockton to the Presidio/Ojinaga Port of Entry on the U.S./ Mexico border. The main difference between these two studies is that the current study is a planning study to identify corridor improvements, versus the previous feasibility study for a four-lane highway. In the current US 67 Corridor Master Plan, there are no preconceived ‘ideas,’ and thus no study of feasibility. The current study focuses on first identifying needs and seeking input from the public on what issues, ‘ideas,’ needs, and potential solutions are most relevant and appropriate for this section of the US 67 corridor. Through active community leadership, potential solutions will be evaluated based on community needs. The goal for the previous La Entrada al Pacifico study was different, as the primary focus was capacity improvements.
Q12: Why are the “entrada al pacifico” signs still on this highway?
In 1997, Governor George Bush designated US 67 from Fort Stockton to Presidio as La Entrada Al Pacifico, an official State corridor. In addition, Texas Transportation Code 225.040 states:
(b) The department shall design and construct commemorative markers to be placed along the corridor indicating the highway number, its designation as the future route of La Entrada al Pacifico Corridor, and any other appropriate information.
(c) The department shall erect a commemorative marker at each end of the memorial highway and at intermediate sites along the highway that the department determines are appropriate.”
The La Entrada signs along the corridor were erected based on this designation. Therefore, the signs cannot be removed unless the Texas legislature reverses or amends this section of the Texas Transportation Code.
Q13: The public meeting format was similar to the Trans-Pecos Pipeline’s format. Why can’t we have the meetings in a public hearing format?
For US 67, a series of three public meetings are proposed. As outlined in TxDOT’s on-line Environmental Handbook, Public Involvement (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/env/toolkit/760-01-gui.pdf), a public meeting is held to exchange ideas and collect input on the need for possible alternatives to, and potential impacts of, a study or proposed project. Public meetings are intended to gather input from the public and to keep the public informed during any project phase (including a study phase). Public meetings provide early and continuing opportunities during project development for the public to be involved in the identification of social, economic, and environmental impacts and impacts associated with the relocation of individuals, groups, or institutions. Public meetings are less formal and will be utilized for the US 67 Corridor Study to ensure all members of the public have an equal opportunity to ask one-on-one questions and provide comments.
On the other hand, public hearings are conducted to provide an opportunity during project development for the public to be more formally involved in the identification of social, economic, and environmental impacts and impacts associated with the relocation of individuals, groups, or institutions. Information regarding a proposed project – including project design information, project alternatives, and environmental findings – is presented at a public hearing, and the public is encouraged to provide comment on the proposed project (23 USC 139), (43 TAC 2.107). Public hearings serve to encourage and solicit public comment on the location, design, and environmental analyses of a project. A public hearing cannot be conducted until the environmental document is approved for circulation by the department delegate.
Therefore, because there is currently no formal project proposed for the US 67 corridor, a public hearing would not be the appropriate type of meeting to hold for public outreach. However, in lieu of a public hearing, the team will look for ways for the public to provide verbal comments to the group.
Q14: What is funded? When will construction start, and will projects be funded? Or how does the funding for implementation work related to this study?
There is no funding associated with any proposed solutions at this time. Through the study process, potential solutions will be evaluated and will be developed through a project development process including securing funding.
Q15: How are you considering ‘bypasses’ or ‘alternate routes’ as part of this study?
A ‘bypass’ or ‘alternate route’ is commonly described as a road or highway that is constructed mostly or entirely on new location around a city or town. TxDOT more commonly uses the term alternate route, therefore, you will hear us use that term to describe this option. Throughout our study’s outreach efforts to date, there have been many comments by the public on whether an alternate route is needed or not needed around communities along the corridor. Due to the nature of an alternate route, potential impacts to the natural and human environment can be significant and proposed new right-of-way needs and project cost can be high. The US 67 Corridor Master Plan’s current objective is to study the existing US 67 corridor, and the intent is to address concerns by providing recommendations/solutions within the vicinity of this corridor. The alternate routes that were suggested by members of the public during the first Public Meeting are far outside of the existing corridor and study area, and therefore do not fall within the boundaries of this study. Given the interest on this topic, however, and to help public officials and the public be more informed about the concept of alternate routes, the study team will be creating an Alternate Route White Paper that will provide a ‘roadmap’ with more detailed description of this type of project including what the process entails, case studies, timeframes, and considerations that elected officials, interest groups, and the public can keep in mind as discussions continue on alternate routes. Also, if, as a result of the US 67 Corridor Master Plan public outreach, the public and/or communities continue to request an alternate route, TxDOT will make note of this request and attempt to find funding for a separate feasibility study for this option.
Q16: What is a Study Area?
A Study Area is a geographic boundary created to define the extent of a study. It is created when beginning the study to ensure the data and analysis are confined to a specified area. The Study Area of the corridor master plan includes a 1,500 ft buffer on either side of the existing US 67 right-of-way for the entire 142 miles.
At the onset of the US 67 study, the team selected and delineated the geographic boundaries of the study area for environmental constraints. Provided below are two of the considerations driving this process.
1. Limiting the size – The limits of the study are 142 miles in length from I-10 west of Fort Stockton south to the Presidio/Ojinaga Port of Entry on the U.S./Mexico border. These limits stretch across three counties. Given the large physical extent of the US 67 corridor, there were several compelling reasons to create a smaller area. One of these factors was cost. To study all three counties to the same extent would be costly. Another factor was to reassure the public that this was not a “land grab” and that the area would include a reasonable area adjacent to the existing corridor. The final factor was the reasonable “buffer” that could be used on either side of the existing corridor that would provide sufficient environmental constraints for the study.
2. Selecting a buffer – Once the decision was made to limit the Study Area’s size, the study team then determined the width of the buffer. For each of the environmental resources being studied there are various areas of potential effect, which are used to ensure the data includes those resources and that the buffer width extends far enough to contain all of the various areas of potential effects. For resources such as waters of the US and floodplains, it was important to look past the current right-of-way to see potential trends and impacts. In addition, enough data should be provided to study the environmental impacts of proposed solutions. On the other hand, extremely large buffers would not be created unless the public asked for a certain alternative that would not fit in the allotted area. Therefore, a 1,500 ft buffer on either side of the existing US 67 right-of-way was utilized.
Q17: Is the Study Area an indication of proposed right-of-way or project limits?
The Study Area of the corridor master plan includes a 1,500 ft buffer on either side of the existing US 67 right-of-way for the entire 142 miles, as explained in Q16. The Study Area is NOT an indication of new proposed right-of-way or project limits. There are no preconceived alternatives and no proposed project. TxDOT is using the Study Area purely as a boundary for studying databases for known environmental constraints, as a boundary for studying databases for potential environmental constraints, such as the location of homes, businesses, arroyos, archeological sites, and habitat for threatened and endangered species. Based on Public Meeting Series No. 1, conceptual alternatives are currently being identified based on public comments received. The study team will hold public meetings in the fall of 2018 to gather input on these alternatives.
For any additional questions, please contact TxDOT’s Project Manager, Rebecca (Becky) Reyes at rebecca.reyes@txdot.gov or 915.790.4200.
