La Entrada al Pacifico

February 19th, 2008 –

AlpineFebruary 20th, 2008 -

PresidioFebruary 25th, 2008 –

Midland/OdessaFebruary 26th, 2008 –

Fort Stockton

Public Meeting #2

Purpose of This Public Meeting

•

Second of Three Rounds•

Meetings in:–

Alpine

–

Presidio

–

Midland/Odessa

–

Ft. Stockton

•

Purpose:–

Provide information on the study process

–

Gather feedback on the process and issues

Meeting Format

•

Open House•

Presentation–

Project overview

–

Freight diversion analysis

–

Conceptual alternative evaluation

–

Where do we go from here

•

10 Minute Recess•

Comment Period

Project Overview

Project Overview

•

Data Collection•

Environmental Constraints Mapping

•

Freight Diversion Analysis•

Corridor Analysis

•

Economic Analysis•

Corridor Development Plan

•

Finance Plan•

Public Involvement/Outreach

Three Step Study Process

Step OneData CollectionFreight Diversion Analysis

Step Two

Alternative Development and Analysis

Step Three

Corridor DevelopmentPlan

Public Involvement

Project Study Area

Presidio

Marfa Alpine

Ft Stockton

Monohans

Odessa

Midland

Van Horn Balmohrea

Ft Davis

Pecos

Why are We Doing this Study

•

To determine the volume of freight and overall vehicle volumes that can reasonably

be

expected in this study area.

•

To determine the level of improvements required to effectively invest transportation dollars.

•

To provide proactive planning for the roadway network and communities in the area.

Summary of Results

• Freight Diversion to Presidio (Year 2030)–

Scenario

A

–

338 Trucks/Day Inbound

–

Scenario

B

–

739 Trucks/Day Inbound

• Based on These Numbers–

2 Lanes sufficient in southern segments

–

Existing infrastructure sufficient in the study area–

Urban areas will be evaluated in next phase

• Freight Diversion Analysis Looked at 2 Scenarios–

Scenario

A

–

All Mexico infrastructure completed

after the year 2030–

Scenario B

–

All Mexico infrastructure completed

prior to the year 2020

Freight Diversion Analysis

Freight Diversion Process

•

Identify key factors likely to influence future freight demand at the Presidio port-of-entry.

•

Develop a freight model through a risk analysis process to determine probable freight distribution.

•

Refine model assumptions to estimate a likely range of future freight demand given different Mexican infrastructure completion scenarios.

•

Converted freight to trucks for discussion purposes. Numbers can easily be converted to rail.

Key Factors Considered

•

Diversion from Port of Los Angeles/Port of Long Beach–

Other US Ports (West Coast and Gulf Coast)

–

Other Mexico West Coast Ports•

Share of Freight at Topolobampo–

Lazaro Cardenas

–

Manzanillo–

Others

•

Diversion From Other Border Ports of Entry–

El Paso

–

Santa Teresa–

Others

•

Internal Mexico Freight Growth–

Maquiladora interviews from previous studies

–

Historical trends

Freight Model/Risk Analysis Process (RAP)

• Detailed data collection process

• Assigned estimates and ranges (probability distributions) to each variable

• Gathered feedback from local Technical Advisory Committee members and expert sources

• Modified model results to reflect feedback

• Finalized draft results

Freight Forecast Results

Looked at two scenarios for Mexico infrastructure completion

•

Scenario A

-

Mexico infrastructure completion after 2030

•

Scenario B

-

Mexico infrastructure completion prior to 2020

Mexico infrastructure completion includes:•

Improvements at the port of Topolobampo

•

Roadway and/or rail improvements through the Copper Canyon

Freight Forecast Results Inbound Truck Volume at Presidio

2010 2020 2030Low Forecast Value 25 63 233Median (“Most Likely”) 47 195 739High Forecast Value 75 527 2224

Scenario A -

Mexico Infrastructure After 20302010 2020 2030

Low Forecast Value 25 43 37Median (“Most Likely”) 47 174 338High Forecast Value 75 501 1851

Scenario B -

Mexico Infrastructure Prior to 2020

Freight Forecast Results

Scenario Comparison

–

“Most Likely”Includes 2010 2020 2030

Baseline• Internal Mexico Growth

44 82 152

Scenario

A

•

Internal Mexico Growth•

Diversion from other ports of entry

47 174 338

Scenario

B

•

Internal Mexico Growth•

Diversion from other ports of entry

•

Mexico Infrastructure Completion

47 195 739

Other Factors That Could Influence Results

•

Mexico infrastructure completion date

•

Mexico’s emphasis on rail versus roadway

•

Potential route through Torreon and Camargo to Presidio via Mexico highway 67

•

Future competing ports (Puerto Colonet)

•

Others

Overall Traffic Forecast Results

• Utilized the results of the freight diversion analysis

• Use of SAM model to forecast volumes in the study area

• Developed threshold table to:•

Identify areas of needed improvement

•

Provide a basis for improvements if forecast volumes are reached sooner than projected

Level of Service

LOS DescriptionA Free flow operationsB Reasonable traffic flow conditions

C Near free flow operations, some minor flow restrictions

D Some minor congestionE Operation at roadway capacity

F Severe congestion, stop and go operation

Roadway Threshold Table

LOSAverage Daily Traffic

2 Lane Roadway 4 Lane RoadwayA 1,800 13,400B 3,300 21,900C 5,900 31,400D 10,200 40,100E 17,500 44,500F > 17,500 > 44,500

Alpine

Monohans

Odessa

Midland

Van Horn

Pecos

Presidio

Marfa

Ft Stockton

Ft Davis

Balmohrea

Crane

McCamey

LOS A or B

LOS C or D

LOS E or F

Year 2030LOS Results

Scenario BMost Aggressive

Alternative

67

6790

38510

10

20385

Overall Traffic Forecast Results

Recommendation of Corridor NeedsFocus on Safety and Mobility Improvements

–

Mexico freight diversion does not warrant additional capacity improvements

–

4 lane widening not warranted in southern segments

–

Existing infrastructure sufficient in the study area

–

Urban areas will be evaluated in next phase

Safety and Mobility Improvements

•

Passing Lanes

•

Clearance Issues

•

Roadway Geometric Improvements

•

Reliever Route Evaluations

•

Others

Reliever Route Evaluation

•

Reliever Routes will be reviewed in the next phase of the study based on the need in urban areas

•

Environmental, engineering and mobility criteria will be evaluated

•

Several options will be proposed along with a no-build alternative

•

Further evaluation and NEPA compliance will occur in subsequent studies

Alternative Analysis

Conceptual Alternative Analysis

•

To identify routes to develop potential safety and mobility improvements

•

To prepare a proactive plan in the event that the threshold is ever

met.

•

This Study will not make the final determination of location, rather recommend improvement type and location

•

The No-Build Alternative will remain through the end of this study for any improvements proposed

•

Subsequent NEPA studies will determine final location and detailed impacts analysis

Conceptual Alternative Analysis

Alternative Identification–

No-build

–

Upgrade Designated Corridor–

Other Alternatives

Determination of Feasibility–

Engineering

–

Environmental–

Mobility

–

Public Involvement

Presidio

Marfa Alpine

Ft Stockton

MonohansOdessa

Van Horn

Ft Davis

Pecos

Midland

McCamey

Crane

Conceptual Alternatives

Recommended Viable Alternatives

•

Propose to eliminate the new corridor alternatives

•

Reliever routes to be reviewed in the next phase of the study based on the need in urban areas

•

Rail alternative to be included in viable alternatives

•

No-build alternative will be included for all proposed improvements

•

Viable alternatives will be screened to the proposed routes for improvements

Project Summary

Summary of Freight and Traffic Results

•

Freight Traffic Numbers (Year 2030)–

Baseline –

152

trucks per day

–

Scenario A –

338

trucks per day

–

Scenario B –

739

trucks per day

•

Roadway Improvements–

Existing infrastructure is sufficient to handle forecasted traffic

–

Study to focus on safety and mobility improvements

•

Conceptual Alternative Screening–

New corridor alternatives eliminated

Where Do We Go From Here?

Data CollectionPublic Meeting #1Freight Diversion AnalysisConceptual Alt. ScreeningPublic Meeting #2Viable Alt. ScreeningPublic Meeting #3Corridor Development PlanStudy Complete

Dec 2006Mar 2007Jan 2008Jan 2008Feb 2008May 2008Aug 2008Oct 2008Oct 2008

Public Feedback is Vital to the Study

•

Three Rounds of Public Meetings•

Project Newsletter

•

Project Web-page:www.dot.state.tx.usKeyword: La Entrada

•

Project Hotline: 1-800-517-4652

•

Project Email:TPP_TxDOT-LEAP@dot.state.tx.us

•

Written Comments To:Peggy Thurin, PE

Texas Department of Transportation17111 Preston Road, Suite 200

Dallas, Texas 75248-1232

10 Minute Recess

Comment Period

–

Names will be called from those who have filled out a comment card

–

The name of the following speaker will also be called

–

Please keep comments concise to provide an opportunity for everyone to speak

–

Once everyone has had a chance to speak an opportunity for additional comments will be provided

La Entrada al Pacifico

February 19th, 2008 –

AlpineFebruary 20th, 2008 -

PresidioFebruary 25th, 2008 –

Midland/OdessaFebruary 26th, 2008 –

Fort Stockton

Public Meeting #2