- Why is the SH29 expansion even being considered, and CAMPO recommendations not followed?
Given that the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) has done a study on traffic demands for SH29 out to the year 2035 and has determined that an expansion is not needed (and Williamson County has a long history of using CAMPO studies and data when supportive of the County’s plans), why is this expansion even being considered at present given the immense number of county roads in desperate need of immediate remediation?
- Can we discuss the traffic at various intersections along SH29?
In the Preliminary Draft Page 1: AM Peak and PM Peak Tables—on these tables the top 3 intersections are in Liberty Hill (LH) area.
Based on data provided:
- Level of service (LOS) at intersection of 29 and 183 hits E in 2009 AM, but does not hit E until 2016 for the PM. Since there is a difference in 7 years between when the AM and PM values hit a LOS of E, wouldn’t it make since to address the problem at that intersection first? Alleviating any congestion at this one intersection could resolve any future problems along 29 area in LH.
- All other LH intersections have A-C LOS until 2027 for AM, but by addressing the 29 and 183 intersection now, couldn’t that possibly delay the decline of LOS even further down the line?
- All other LH intersections have A-D LOS until 2018 except for intersection of 29 and FM 1869, which has an E. Wouldn’t addressing the intersection of 29 and FM 1869 and resolving that issue be more effective in alleviating congestion for the other roads as well?
- Can we discuss the traffic at various intersections along SH29 from data in Preliminary Draft Page 2?
In the Preliminary Draft Page 2: Table One: Intersection LOS Table---on this table the top three intersections are in LH area.
Based on data provided:
All intersections are performing A-D Am and Pm, with the D at the intersection of 29 and 183. Why not spend the money to resolve this issue now, rather than spend 14.7 million acquiring ROW that may never be needed?
- In the Preliminary Draft Page 2: Table Two: Arterial LOS
Based on data provided:
All segments are performing at A for 2008. In 2035, it is projected that from Burnet County Line to 183 the LOS drops to F on East Bound Lanes in the am and pm whereas West Bound maintains an A in the am and drops to an E in the pm. Wouldn’t it make more sense to address the intersection LOS problems first and see how that would impact these projections?
- Can we discuss growth in communities along SH29 from data in Preliminary Draft Page 3?
In the Preliminary Draft Page 3: First paragraph, second to last sentence, “To date, most of the recent residential growth in the SH 29 corridor has occurred between DB woods and Ronald Regan Boulevard and within or near Liberty Hill.” Then on the first sentence of the second paragraph is states: “This demographic update reviewed socioeconomic data for the TSZs located adjacent to SH 29 from DB woods to the Burnet County line, exclusively.” Table 1: Proposed Size of Active or Planned Subdivisions in the SH 29 Study Area lists 17 subdivisions totaling 19,005 home sites.
Based on Research by calling City of Liberty Hill, City of Georgetown, City of Leander and checking with the County records:
- To begin with, of those homes sites only 7084 are in LH, leaving 11,141 in Georgetown and 780 in Leander. 37% in LH area 59% GT area and 4% in Leander…so the actual majority of the proposed or actual residential growth is in Georgetown and not LH.
- Of the LH subdivisions 2 proposed subdivisions are located on Ronald Regan north of 29. The proposed loop around LH starts west of this intersection. Why were subdivisions east and north of the loop being used to justify the need for a loop when the job market for Wm County is in Austin or Georgetown…(see proof in question number 10)?
- Those two subdivisions on Ronald Regan total 3797 home sites leaving 3287 homes sites in the LH area. Are you proposing that those 3287 home sites are the justification for spending 14.7 million on acquiring ROW for a road that may or may not ever be needed?
- How much would it cost to add a lane to the 29 and 183 intersection and the 29 and 1869 intersection? I would like to see those numbers separately as the first issue should be addressed and the other in a few years.
- Why compare to Hays County and not Burnet County in the Preliminary Draft Pages 5-7?
Preliminary Draft Page 5-7—Why is Hays County being used for comparison and not Burnet if the County is the most concerned with traffic along 29 to the Burnet County Line?
- I just wanted to point out that of the CAMPO forecasts and the Adjusted forecasts, the differences between the two are at least 2-3 times larger than population of LH area.
- Why is Williamson County data being used to justify spending 14.7 million on ROW purchase for a road that loops around the LH area , which is less than 2% of the Williamson County population?
- What are the precise % capacity numbers for the highways currently and in the future projections? Can Alliance calculate these numbers?
- Why were people that were impacted by this project not directly notified?
That State of Texas follows NEPA guidelines for transportation projects needing federal funding. The Federal Govt follows NEPA guidelines for transportation projects. Where Federal funding is involved, NEPA guidelines must be followed.
NEPA stipulates notifications must be appropriate and effective. Placing an ad in a local paper with circulation numbers that do not reflect the number of people directly and indirectly impacted by this project is not effective and it is not adequate.
- Why were the people impacted by this project not directly notified?
- Was the northern most route walked, but none of the other routes?
- Why does the documentation for the Park purchase (which was a housing development that was about to go under) mention “Seller agrees to reserve an easement of approximately 16 acres out of the Seller’s remaining property for the HWY 29A right of way should alignment for HW 29A go through the seller’s property…” Why is a toll road being discussed when the need has not been established?
- Was a Notice of Intent Filed with the Federal Register? If so, where is it? I couldn’t find it. If not, why not? Based on NEPA guidelines, that is the first step for federal agencies…and “federal agencies” are defined in NEPA as:
Sec. 1508.12 Federal agency. "Federal agency" means all agencies of the Federal Government. It does not mean the Congress, the Judiciary, or the President, including the performance of staff functions for the President in his Executive Office. It also includes for purposes of these regulations States and units of general local government and Indian tribes assuming NEPA responsibilities under section 104(h) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm#1508.11
- Federal Highway Administration pushes the importance of visualization in public involvement. Why were the maps provided void of a scale and street names? It was very difficult for people to see where their homes were in relation to the proposed routes.
There are sections on the first set of maps referred to as NRHP candidate sites. I called the National Register…they don’t have a candidate list. The state has a list that they submit to the NRHP and then gets approved or denied as the situation warrants, but nothing was pending when I spoke to them. Where did that data come from?
- Some questions on specific intersections.
Back to the Prelminary Draft Technical memo page 15…again the intersections of 29 and 1869 as well as 29 and 183 are currently operating at LOS B-D. Why not use 14.7 million to address those issues now and then in a few years take another count to see how the improvements have affected traffic flow?
- Can we not just fix the DB Woods / SH29 intersection?
In the conclusions, it mentions that DB Woods/ 29 are failing at the peak operations in the PM, rather than spending millions on ROW acquisition, why not spend the money to resolve that issue now by adding a lane of traffic at the intersection?
- Can we look at the traffic counts at the US183 / SH29 intersection?
Looking at the traffic counts at the 183 and 29 intersections, I broke down the numbers from the raw data lanes of traffic and where they would actually be heading.
Based on this information the volume of traffic heading south on 183 (this is taking the thru count from the north 183, the left turn on the 29 east count and the right turn from 29 west count) is 1399. Working the same way, I derived all traffic at this intersection during peak hours and came up with the following data:
Heading South on 183: 1399 35%
Heading North on 183: 441 11%
Heading West on 29: 877 22%
Heading East on 29: 1320 32%
So based on the peak counts from the Alliance Raw data, the sum total of the vehicles is 4037 in this 2 hour peak time frame. Of the amount of traffic at this intersection 35% heads south on 183, 32% heads east on HWY 29, 22% heads west on HWY 29 and 11% heads North.
Based on Alliance data most traffic at this intersection heads East on 29 or South on 183 for a total of 67%.
Knowing these numbers, why is a loop around LH being examined? Based on this information, knowing that this is an area to expect LOS E in 2009, why is a loop around LH being evaluated? Current traffic heads south to Austin or East to Georgetown, a loop would not alleviate this congestion. An additional Lane heading south at this intersection and one heading east would.
I will be applying the same common sense and logic to the other detailed counts and posting that information on the www.keep29local.org website.
Have the areas expecting a LOS E and F in the near/distant future been evaluated closely to determine where exactly traffic is heading and devising a system to resolve the issue?
A loop would benefit traffic heading west, but only 22% of the traffic at this intersection heads west.
- Given Commissioner Covey's admission that she personally has talked to only1 person who supported the proposed expansion of W29, and given the sheer numbers of constituents opposed to it, we would like to know:
- When and by whom this initial plan was conceived?
- Who does support it? Please provide names. Are they constituents of Commissioner Covey? Commissioner Long? Are they residents of Williamson County?
- Given the parlous state of the country's economy and existing infrastructure, we would like to know:
- How is this proposed expansion to be funded?
- Is a toll road being contemplated?
- What is the impact to Williamson County residents' pocket books and over how many years?
- What sources of revenue are contemplated from this road?
- Given the slowdown in development in this area and the 1 person added to the census roll in 2006-2007 in Liberty Hill; that Georgetown expects most growth to happen to the East; we would like to know:
- What is the exact basis of calculation of population in the affected area that would need such an expansion over the next 5-10-15 years?
- Where exactly is the traffic out to Burnett County Line is supposed to be coming from and going to?
- Given that so many new roads are being planned, new water pipes and new electricity grids added etc, we would like to know:
- How does this fit into a comprehensive infrastructure plan for Williamson County residents, the cities within the County and the greater Austin area?
- There is a definite perception that there is no coherent and cohesive plan which is underpinned by accurate population growth expectation, costs and benefits to residents and groups within the county. Would you please share this plan with us?
