Rio Grande Valley Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Regional Mobility Plan Prepared for:
July 2013
Prepared By: Traffic & Planning Team 2925 Briarpark Drive Houston, TX 77042 713‐266‐6900
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report contains the methodology, recommendations and major components of the Regional Mobility Plan for the Rio Grande Valley Partnership (RGVP). The study provides a single transportation plan for the Pharr district which is made up of Brooks, Cameron, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Kenedy, Starr, Willacy, and Zapata County. This is a significant step towards providing regional transportation to a fast-growing area with unique demographic and economic characteristics.
The Mobility Plan is overseen by the Rio Grande Valley Partnership (RGVP). The RGVP developed a common list of goals that proposed regional projects should meet. Projects meeting the goals listed below will be presented in a single, unified regional plan, with each of the project recommendations checked against which of the goal(s) they meet.
Preserve and improve efficiency of the existing system,
Improve safety,
Improve mobility,
Improve connectivity,
Improve community livability,
Improve modal choices and accessibility, and
Advance the region’s economic competiveness.
July 2013 traffic and trade in the region. This document is an updated Plan that identifies regional mobility needs covering all modes of transportation within TxDOT’s Pharr District. The Pharr District, home to approximately 1.3 million people, includes the following counties – Brooks, Cameron, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Kenedy, Starr, Willacy and Zapata. See Figure 1 for a depiction of the study area and Figure 2 for existing modes of transportation which include major roadways, rail service, transit service, airports, water ports, and international ports of entry.
This Mobility Plan Update addresses the regionally significant needs, and proposes specific goals for the following components of the transportation infrastructure:
Roadways,
Rail (both public transport and freight),
Transit,
Bicycle and Pedestrian,
Water Ports,
Ports-of-Entry, and
Airports
The Rio Grande Valley Regional Mobility Plan was initially completed in 1992 and updated in 2003. Although a number of previously identified regional mobility projects have been constructed, significant transportation infrastructure needs remain to address the ever-increasing population,
ES-1
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure ES-1 - Study Area
ES-2
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure ES-2 – Existing Regional Transportation Infrastructure
ES-3
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS Roadway Rural Roadway Projects Improvements to US 281 and US 77 that support IH 69 corridor development should continue. The economic competiveness of the Valley is improved by completing these projects. Relief routes, particularly in Starr County, should be constructed in phases as necessary. There has not been any additional development of a US 83 Roma/Rio Grande City Relief route since the last plan. The area will also need a more robust thoroughfare network, which the County will be required to designate and construct. Starr County is the third largest county in the Valley by population, and growth in Hidalgo County may spread into the eastern parts of Starr County.
July 2013
increased on some corridors by a new major project, and corridor improvements such as turn bays may be necessary. Conversely, local demand may be decreased on other corridors, and a roadway expansion project can be placed on hold. Transit and Rail Major rail relocations are a high priority. After relocation, the railroad ROW can be repurposed as passenger rail, a road, or pedestrian/bike path. Many public transportation projects were identified by regional stakeholders. These opportunities should be pursued as existing roads within downtown areas are constrained by available space and cost of ROW acquisition. Expansion of existing transit services can create the opportunity for high-capacity transit service in the future. Bike and Pedestrian
Urban Roadway Projects Many roadway projects were identified within urban areas. The Hidalgo County MPO has 195 projects identified within its boundaries. All major projects, such as the IBTC, SH 365, and SH 32, are consistent with regional goals and should be advanced. After these projects are opened, nearby corridors should be monitored for local congestion caused by traffic redistribution. All of the travel demand models within the Pharr District should be updated with proposed projects. Traffic on nearby corridors is often redistributed after projects are completed. Traffic redistribution may affect future projects on nearby corridors. Local demands may be
Few bicycle and pedestrian projects are proposed by jurisdictions within the eight-county area. Bicycle and pedestrian system improvements should be accomplished with larger roadway and transit projects. Many roadway projects are planned in Hidalgo and Cameron counties. Pedestrian or bicycle accommodations should be constructed concurrently in urban areas. Several large transportation projects, however, are located in rural areas and are not intended to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclist at opening year. This is acceptable; however, major bicycle and pedestrian connections should be identified in the planning process at the City and MPO level and constructed to provide a basis when development expands into the rural areas.
ES-4
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Water Ports Port of Brownsville The BIH Widening and Deepening project of the Ship Channel is a major improvement for the Port of Brownsville, and work on it should continue. The Port is currently analyzing how much to expand the Ship Channel. The most critical variable is the ability of the Port to receive post-Panamax ships. Other Port projects, such as the Cargo Dock No. 16 should continue to increase Port connectivity. Other projects within the Brownsville area that benefit the Port are described in other sections. Coordination with the project sponsors is critical. As an example, a Port access road is planned for the SH 32 (East Loop). The Port will need to coordinate with the CCRMA to ensure the design Port access road is compatible with security requirements. The Port of Brownsville Port of Entry could have significant benefits for the Port and Valley. The success of the POE is dependent on the following factors:
Number trips only between the Port of Brownsville and Mexico,
Connections in Mexico between the POE and roadway network,
Veterans POE congestion and limits against its expansion.
Port of Harlingen The Port of Harlingen, compared to the Port of Brownsville, does not meet the cargo storage needed to meet the volume of goods being
July 2013
handled. Additional cargo storage will improve the Port’s ability to process crops, fertilizer, gasoline, and construction materials. Port Mansfield The Draft Improvements Study would identify long-term improvements and annual maintenance measures to stabilize draft restrictions at the Port. In the short-term, a power backup should be installed at the navigation beacon to improve safety at this Port. Port Isabel Dredging by the Port itself and by “Fingers” area north of SH 100 is recommended. The dredging is recommended to make the Port Isabel area more attractive for yacht traffic.
Port-of-Entry The planned POE projects (Flor de Mayo and Port of Brownsville) should be advanced, and additional POE locations are not anticipated at this time. Coordination with the Mexican government is critical as a new POE requires connections to the nation’s transportation system. For the Flor de Mayo POE, a two-mile roadway from Mexico 2 is required. The Port of Brownsville POE would require a six-mile roadway, along with possible upgrades to the highway to Matamoros. FM 509, the connection from Los Indios to US 77/83, should be widened to a four-lane divided facility. Traffic projections from HSBMPO show that FM 509 will be overcapacity as a two-lane facility. This road should be widened to accommodate future traffic.
ES-5
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Additionally, the Los Indios POE would be better suited to relieve other POEs.
July 2013
The NPIAS is updated by the FAA every two years, and regional officials should coordinate with the FAA to get these airports listed.
A bridge at Los Ebanos was proposed by the previous plan. There is not a need for this bridge for the foreseeable future based on land use and nearby transportation network. The ferry should remain. Airport McAllen-Miller International Airport’s Terminal Improvement Project is projected to cost $22 million. Plans include a terminal expansion with a new passenger screening area and post security concession area. A Baggage Screening area, with three explosion detection systems, is planned to be state of the art. Other amenities include TAS Offices, Baggage Claim, and a Passenger screening area. Control towers at Port Isabel – Cameron County Airport and South Texas International Airport at Edinburg should be built. The Port Isabel – Cameron County Airport could be more attractive to traffic that may want to avoid the commercial airports in the Valley. In Edinburg, an industrial park near the airport could increase air cargo traffic. Air traffic mobility would be improved at both locations, and the region’s economic competitiveness would be improved. Operational cost should be considered prior to construction, as control tower funding was recently subject to budget cuts. Three general aviation airports (Zapata County, Rio Grande City, and Charles R Johnson) were not listed in the NPIAS. The airports would have access to Airport Improvement Program grants if listed.
ES-6
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure ES-3 - Proposed Roadway Projects
ES-7
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure ES-4 - Proposed Rail
ES-8
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure ES-5 – Proposed Transit
ES-9
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure ES-6 - Proposed Water Port Improvements
ES-10
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure ES-7 - Port-of-Entries Improvements
ES-11
Rio Grande Valley
Figure
Regional Mobility Plan
ES-8
July 2013
-
Proposed
Airport
Improvements
ES-12
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table ES-1 - Roadway Projects Roadway
Roadway Short Description
Cost
Report / Source
US 77
US 77 - Kenedy (Construct mainlanes and overpasses from Kleburg CL to La Parra)
$15,000,000
TXDOT
US 77
US 77 - Kenedy (Construct mainlanes and overpasses from Armstrong to Willacy CL)
$250,000,000
TXDOT
US 77
Construct US 77 - Willacy (Business 77 to Willacy/Kenedy County line)
$30,000,000
TXDOT
US 77
Safety and connectivity improvements
$15,000,000
HSBMPO
US 77
US 77 Interstate Tolled Truck Lane Study (Alternative alignments for tolled lanes east of Harlingen)
$500,000
LRFS
$10,000,000
LAN
US 77/SH 499 Redesign and reconstruct interchange. Proposed by Interchange HRL Airport officials US 83
US 83 - Zapata Relief Route Construction (Around Lake Falcon)
$87,000,000
LAN
US 83
Roma/Rio Grande Relief (east of RGC to FM 755 )
$41,588,238
TXDOT / BMP
US 83
Roma/Rio Grande Relief ( FM 755 to 1.26 miles northwest of US 83/Loma Blanca)
$90,000,000
TXDOT
US 83
US 83 relief route at La Joya and Penitas (Phase I)
$87,498,500
HCMPO
US 83
US 83 relief route at Sullivan City (Phase II).
$52,529,666
HCRMA
US 83
Widen to six-lanes from FM 2221 TO FM 1427
$27,373,938
HCMPO
US 83
Widen to six-lanes from FM 1427 to 0.5 E of Bus. 83
$7,033,250
HCMPO
US 83
US 83 Overpasses at Liberty Blvd, Tom Gill Road and FM 2221
$40,000,000
HCMPO
US 83
US 83 and Bicentennial (Reconstruct, mainlanes, and reconfigure ramps)
$36,861,564
HCMPO
$9,090,097
HCMPO HCMPO
elevate
US 83/US 281 Expand interchange Bus. 83
Widen from FM 491 to Cameron CL
$12,400,000
US 281
Closner to SB US 281 On-ramp Construction
$25,000,000
LAN
US 281 (Military)
US 281 Military Widening and Grade Separation (0.45 mile east of Pharr Int'l Crossing to FM 2557)
$22,465,056
HCMPO
US 281 (Military)
Widen to four-lane rural from S. Cage Blvd to Mile 3 E Cameron Co Line
$67,471,521
US 281 (Military)
Widen to four-lanes from FM 3248 to FM 1577
$31,270,000
BMPO
US 281 (Military)
FM 3248 / Military Hwy Grade Separation (FM 3248/Military Hwy if Flor de Mayo POE is built)
$25,000,000
LAN
Reconstruct and add shoulders from SH 32 to Boca Chica
$19,200,000
LAN
Construct SH 32 (East Loop) (Port of Brownsville to the Veterans International Bridge)
$90,000,000
CRMA
SH 100 Extension
281 Connector Construction (US 281 to US 77/83)
$28,000,000
CRMA
SH 100A
Construct South Padre Island 2nd Access (island to the $465,000,000 mainland)
CRMA
SH 4 SH 32
Rail and Transit
Bike/Ped
Ports
Port of Entry
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
X
X
X X
Note new designations for portions of existing expressways: US 77 as IH 69E, US 281 as IH 69C, and US 83 as IH 2
ES-13
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table ES-1 (continued) - Roadway Projects Roadway
Roadway Short Description
Cost
Report / Source
SH 107
Widen to six-lane divided from FM 676 to SH 495
$21,138,298
HCMPO
SH 107
Widen to six-lane divided from US 281 east to east of FM 493
$16,762,500
HCMPO
SH 365
SH 365 Construction (Trade Corridor Connector Project $195,450,385 from FM 1016 to FM 3072)
HCMPO
SH 336
Widen to six-lane divided from US 281 Military Hwy to S. 2nd St
$34,150,000
HCMPO
SH 336
SH 336 (10th St) Widening (Trenton Rd to SH 107)
$13,106,441
HCMPO
FM 88
Widen to four-lanes from FM 1925 (Monte Cristo) to SH 107
$14,780,721
HCMPO
FM 88
Widen to four-lanes from SH 107 to 16 Mile N Rd
$3,043,680
HCMPO
FM 491 FM 491
Widen to four-lanes from FM 1925 (Monte Cristo) to SH 107 Widen to four-lanes from SH 107 to Mile 10 N Road
Rail and Transit
Bike/Ped
Ports
Port of Entry
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
X
$4,512,465 $19,481,378
HCMPO
FM 491
Widen to four-lanes from Mile 10 N Road to US 83
$9,024,930
FM 493
FM 493 (La Blanca Rd) Widening (Mile 14 N Rd to Mile 10 N Rd)
$18,908,556
HCMPO
FM 493
Widen to four-lanes (US 281 to BUS 83) construct high water bridge over IBWC floodway
$16,092,000
HCMPO
SH 495
FM 495 Widening (2nd St in McAllen to U.S. 281)
$17,078,298
HCMPO
SH 495
FM 495 Widening (Conway Ave to FM 1926 (23rd St)
$16,721,600
HCMPO
X
SH 495
FM 495 Extension (FM 1423 to FM 1015)
$23,480,240
HCMPO
FM 509
FM 509 Widening ( Los Indios POE to US 77)
$58,000,000
LAN
FM 509
Extend from FM 509 to Outer Parkway
$18,009,435
HSBMPO
X
$4.15 million (initial realignment) + Airport Loop (TBD)
COB
X
X
FM 511
FM 511 Realignment (Airport Loop- 4 lanes)
FM 681
FM 681 Widening ( Moorefield to Conway)
$12,853,566
HMPO
FM 755
Realign from 0.5 N of Church Ln (Starr) to Starr-Camargo
$9,250,000
TxDOT
X
FM 755
Widen to four-lanes from US 83 to US 281 in Brooks Co
$171,000,000
CMP
X
FM 803
Realign and widen FM 803
$15,000,000
CCW
FM 907
Widen from Ridge Road to Military Hwy
$17,982,810
HCMPO
FM 907
FM 907 (Alamo Rd) Widening (Nolana St to SH 107)
$22,616,764
HCMPO
FM 1015
Widen to four lanes from FM 1925 to SH 107
$4,512,465
HCMPO
FM 1015
Widen to four lanes from SH 107 to Mile 12 N Rd
$14,850,073
HCMPO
Note new designations for portions of existing expressways: US 77 as IH 69E, US 281 as IH 69C, and US 83 as IH 2
ES-14
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table ES-1 (continued) - Roadway Projects Roadway
Roadway Short Description
Cost
Report / Source
FM 1016
Widen to six-lane divided from US 83 to Military Highway
$7,075,586
HCMPO
FM 1425
FM 1425 Widening (SH 107 to Mile 9 N Rd)
$17,982,810
HCMPO
FM 1925
FM 1924 (Mile 3 N) Widening (Jara Chinas to FM 492)
$18,881,951
HCMPO
FM 1925
Widen to four-lanes from Kenyon Rd to FM 907
$6,323,100
HCMPO
FM 1925
FM 907 to FM 88
$32,722,126
HCMPO
FM 1925
FM 1925 Phase II Widening (FM 88 to FM 491)
$24,286,582
HCMPO
FM 1925
Extension from FM 491 to US 77
$40,000,000
BMP
FM 3248
Widen from Military Hwy to US 77 (if Flor de Mayo POE is built)
$12,000,000
LAN
X
FM 3248
Extend FM 3248 to Future Flor de Mayo Bridge
$15,000,000
LAN
X
$15,362,500
HSBMPO
$6,000,000
BMP
General Brand Reconstruct and add shoulders from FM 1847 to FM Rd 510 Guadalupe Flores Rd Outer Parkway HC Loop West Parkway
Extension and improvements from US 83 to Sullivan POE
U.S. 77 near the North Cameron County Line to FM $200,000,000 1847 Hidalgo County Loop Construction Construct West Parkway (Segment #1 from FM 3248 to Morrison Road)
US 77/83 Construct new two-lane rural road from FM 1479 to FM South Parallel 1577 IBTC
VA
High-water bridges: FM 1015 and FM 2061 at IBWC Floodway
HCRMA
$4,400,000
COB
$10,963,726
HSBMPO
$17,820,000
Bike/Ped
Ports
Port of Entry
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
X X
CRMA
$891,648,000
International Bridge Trade Corridor (construct a new controlled access toll facility from U.S. 83 to U.S 281 at $165,400,000 San Juan Rd)
Rail and Transit
HCMPO
X
TxDOT
Note new designations for portions of existing expressways: US 77 as IH 69E, US 281 as IH 69C, and US 83 as IH 2
ES-15
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table ES-2 - Rail Projects Rail Short Description
Cost
Report / Source
Roadway
TBD
LRFS
X
Hidalgo County Commuter Rail Construction (along U.S. 83)
$300,000,000
LOTPA
X
UPRR Brownsville Subdivision (Siding and signal improvements)
$109,000,000
TWFCS
$6,740,000
TWFCS
UPRR Harlingen Yard (Relocating RGVC)
$25,000,000
TWFCS
X
X
North Cameron County Rail Relocation (FM 508 to U.S. 77)
$110,000,000
CCRMA
X
X
North Railroad Relocation
$60,000,000
CCRMA
TBD
COB
Cost
Report / Source
Valley Metro Commuter Route (Harlingen to South Padre and a Mid-Valley Network)
$300,000
LOTPA
Paratransit Service - Hidalgo/Cameron
$800,000
Brownsville Metro Facility Renovations (facility, yard, and parking area)
TBD
Hidalgo County Rail Study ( safety improvements, siding adjustments, grade separations, track and yard relocations)
UPRR Main Line (Port Line capacity upgrades)
Port to Airport Connector (Brownsville)
Bike/Ped
Ports
Port of Entry
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
X
X
X
Table ES-3 – Transit Projects Transit Short Description
Roadway
Bike/Ped
LOTP
X
X
LOTPA
X
X
LOTPA
X
X
LOTPA
X
X
LOTPA
X
X
$300,000
LOTPA
X
X
TBD
LOTPA
X
X
Park & Ride Lot (Downtown Brownsville) Park & Ride Facility (Harlingen - San Benito)
$50,000
Community Transit Transfer Station (Harlingen - San Benito) Route from UT Pan Am to downtown Edinburg RTAP Technology for 95% on-time Regional Service (Mission - Brownsville South Padre Island)
$600,000
LOTP
X
X
Transit Terminal (From Hidalgo Co. Commuter Rail Feasibility Study)
TBD
LOTP
X
X
Park & Ride / Transfer Locations (US 83/Bus 83)
$5,500,000
LOTP
X
X
Harlingen - San Benito Unified Transit System
$2,500,000
LOTP
X
X
$300,000
LOTP
X
X
$600,000
LOTP
X
X
3-4 Bus System (Edinburg - Mission) Rural Feeder Network Cameron)
(Hidalgo,
Willacy,
Ports
Port of Entry
Airport
ES-16
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table ES-4 - Bike and Pedestrian Projects Bike & Pedestrian Short Description
Cost
Report / Source
Bike/Pedestrian Plan (City of Edinburg)
$100,000
LAN
Update Bike/Pedestrian Plan (City of South Padre Island)
$70,000
LAN
Add Pedestrian Component (HCMPO Plan)
$50,000
LAN
City Sidewalk Crews (VA Cities)
TBD
LAN
Rails to Trails - Harlingen UP
TBD
LAN
Pedestrian and Cycling Access (RegionWide)
TBD
LOTP
Roadway
Rail and Transit
X
X
Ports
Port of Entry
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
Port of Entry
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
Table ES-5– Water Port Projects
Water Port Short Description
Cost
Report / Source
$250,000,000
TWFCS
TBD
SH32-AA
Port of Brownsville Cargo Dock No. 16 Construction
$26,000,000
POB
Port Isabel - Overall Harbor Dredging
$2,496,650
LRGV-EAP
Port Mansfield - Draft Improvements Study
$500,000
PM
Port Mansfield -Navigation Beacon Back-up Power
$2,400,000
LRGV-EAP
Brownsville Ship Channel Expansion Port of Brownsville Entrance Road Construction
Roadway
X
Rail and Bike/Ped Transit
X
ES-17
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table ES-6 - Port of Entry Projects Port of Entry Short Description - Location
Cost
Report / Source
Roadway
Construct Roma-Mier International Bridge
$50,000,000
SC
X
Commercial and Bus Inspection Facility Roma-Mier
$1,159,000
CMP
X
Expand int'l bridge - Add two-lane SB span $12,500,000 Starr Camargo
CMP
X
Construct Sullivan City - Diaz Ordaz Int'l Bridge
$220,000,000
CMP
Border Safety and Inspection Facility Anzalduas
$14,316,000
BMP
Add 6 NB non-commercial lanes (2 shortterm, 4 mid-term) - Anzalduas
$4,166,274
BMP
Twin NB Bridge Segment - Anzalduas
$7,032,500
BMP
NB Commercial Inspection Facilities (Lot and Permanent NII) - Anzalduas
$24,291,389
BMP
South Bound Inspection Facility (Initial + Expansion for Commercial) - Anzalduas
$9,738,968
BMP
NB Expansion of Secondary Inspection Anzalduas
$3,263,520
BMP
$270,000
BMP
Renovate Bldg "A" for Bus Transit Terminal Hidalgo
Headhouse relocation and lane realignment $7,000,000 Hidalgo
Ports
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
X
BMP
X
$20,000,000
CIP
X
Commercial and Bus Inspection Facility Pharr-Reynosa
$1,855,000
CMP
X
Widen Bridge - Pharr-Reynosa
$20,525,534
BMP
Border Safety and Inspection Facility Donna
$25,000,000
BMP
NB and SB Fed. Inspection Facilities (Commercial Empties) - Donna
$5,000,000
BMP
NB and SB Fed. Inspection Facilities (Full Commercial) - Donna
$15,000,000
BMP
Finish Constructing the BSIF - PharrReynosa
Rail and Bike/Ped Transit
ES-18
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table ES-6 (continued) - Port of Entry Projects Port of Entry Short Description - Location
Cost
Report / Source
Roadway
Commercial and Bus Inspection Facility Progreso
$1,618,000
CMP
X
Modernization and Rebuild - Progreso
$55,000,000
CMP
Border Safety and Inspection Facility - Los Indios
$25,000,000
HSB
Construct Flor de Mayo International Bridge
$20,000,000
BMPO
Modernization and Rebuild - Gateway
$60,000,000
BMP
Border Safety and Inspection Facility Veterans
$25,000,000
BMP
$125,000,000
BMPO
X
Cost
Report / Source
Roadway
$8,000,000
BMPO
X
TBD
BMPO
Terminal Expansion - McAllen-Miller
$22,000,000
MMMP
New Control Tower - Port Isabel - Cameron Co
$2,000,000
LAN
13 -31 Runway Expansion - Mid Valley Airport
$7,500,000
MVMP
Westside and Eastside Cargo Aprons/Facilities - Mid Valley Airport
$8,300,000
MVMP
Charles R. Johnson - Back-up generator
$1,200,000
LRGV-EAP
TBD
LAN
Construct Port of Brownsville International Bridge
Rail and Bike/Ped Transit
Ports
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
Port of Entry
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
X
X
Table ES-7 - Airport Projects Airport Short Description Airport runway expansion / Roadway realignments - B/SPI Airport Cargo - B/SPI
Non-Commercial NPIAS Listing
Rail and Transit
X
Bike/Ped
Ports
X
ES-19
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Abbreviation
July 2013
Report/Source
BMP
2013 Border Master Plan
BMPO
2010-2035 Brownsville MPO MTPlan
CCW
Cameron Co. Website
CIP
CCRMA IBTC Plans
COB
City of Brownsville
CRMA
Cameron Co. RMA Strategic Plan 2012-2016
HCMPO
2010-2035 Hidalgo County MPO MTPlan
HCRMA
Hidalgo Co. RMA documents
HMPO
Hidalgo MPO 2011-2014 TIP
HRMAP
Hidalgo Co. RMA Plan 2012-2021
HSB
Harlingen- San Benito MPO
HSBMPO
2010-2035 Harlingen-San Benito MPO MTPlan
LAN
Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc.
LOTP
LRGVDC Overall Transit Plan - 2011
LOTPA
LRGVDC Overall Transit Plan-Appendices -2011
LRFS
LRGV & Laredo Regional Freight Study - 2011
MMMP
McAllen Miller Master Plan
PM
Port Mansfield
POB
Port of Brownsville
RGVMP
1992 RGV Mobility Plan
SC
Starr County
SH32-AA
SH 32 East Loop AA
TWFCS
Texas Waterborne Freight Corridor Study Phase II - 2011
TXDOTE
TxDOT Rural Plan Appendix E -2012
* Sources that are not previously-published plans or reports are shown in bold.
ES-20
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
POLICIES, PARTNERSHIPS, AND FUNDING Transportation projects are completed through various processes, partnerships, and funding mechanisms. The demand for transportation improvements has out-paced available traditional funding, forcing project sponsors find other revenue streams or innovative financing measures. The processes and partnerships listed below identify the project owner, operator, and financier of a transportation project. Traditional Funding Traditional project delivery refers to the funding projects through upfront expenditure out of general tax revenues. Transportation user fees may also be levied to fund transportation improvements. One prominent example, roadway and bridge tolls, will be discussed as these revenue streams form the basis for many innovative financing methods. Traditional Roadway Traditional sources of roadway funding are from the Federal Highway Administration and through the states. The state of Texas appropriates federal and state assistance to MPO areas in each of twelve funding categories, listed below:
Category 1 – Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Category 2 – Metropolitan Area Corridor Projects
Category 3 – Non-Traditional funding such as pass-through financing or Comprehensive Development Agreements (CDAs)
Category 4 – Statewide Connectivity Corridor Project
Category 5 – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
July 2013
Category 6 – Structures
Category 7 – Metropolitan Mobility/Rehabilitation
Category 8 – Safety
Category 9 – Transportation Enhancements
Category 10 – Supplemental Project
Category 11 – District Discretionary
Category 12 – Strategic Priority
Traditional Transit Traditional funding sources for transit funding are through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The FTA appropriates federal assistance to areas at the MPO level the following manner:
Section 5303 – Metropolitan Planning: This category is usually allocated to the additional planning requirements imposed on TMAs and non-attainment areas. McAllen is the only TMA in the Pharr District and it has not reached non-attainment status.
Section 5307 – Urbanized Area Formula
Section 5309 – Discretionary
Section 5310 – Elderly and Disabled
Section 5316 – Job Access/Reverse Commute (JARC)
Section 5317 – New Freedom
Tolling Tolling is a funding mechanism that can be used construct projects of any mode with a variety of funding sources – including bonds, TIFIA loans, and Comprehensive Development Agreements. Traditionally, tollfinanced projects were highways or bridges that required issuance of debt that be paid back by tolls collected from users. In the Valley, SH 550 in Cameron County is an example of a toll-financed project.
ES-21
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Public-Private Partnerships A public-private partnership (PPP) can refer to any agreement between a private company and government. The agreement would involve the financially-responsible party for the project and consideration from the other party. A recent public-private partnership project in the Valley is the Olmito Switchyard. The City of Harlingen, Cameron County, and CCRMA agreed to fund a $17 million project to improve the rail facilities at Olmito. As consideration for the improvements at Olmito Switchyard, Union Pacific agreed to transfer property to the City of Harlingen, including three lines in downtown used two separate and switch rail cars. Another type of PPP is a Comprehensive Development Agreement (CDA). A CDA would be used to accelerate a project by contracting with a private venture to deliver the project through design-build. The design-builder would be compensated through the terms of the CDA. This could include a fee paid by owner to the team, a portion of the revenue stream from tolls collected, other consideration (property), or the right to operate and collect user-fees under a concessionaire agreement. The SH 130 extension in central Texas from Austin to San Antonio is an example of a concessionaire agreement. A private venture (the concessionaire) acquires the right to operate a facility and collect revenues while the government retains ownership of the facility and may receive compensation for granting the concession. Part of the SH 130 toll road is under a concession agreement. Any type of infrastructure may be under a concession agreement, however, roads is the only mode in the US with such agreement in place.
July 2013 TIFIA Credit Assistance The TIFIA program was created by the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998. The TIFIA authorization in 2013 is $750 million, and increasing to $1.0 billion in 2014. Federal credit assistance is administered by this program with the following instruments:
Direct loans: Federal loans to project sponsors with flexible repayment terms
Loan guarantees: The Federal Government guarantees the loans made by institutional investors (i.e. pension funds) for the project
Lines of credit: Federal loans may be issued to supplement project revenues in the first 10 years of project operations. Based on projects specifically identified by the FHWA all modes except airports may receive TIFIA Credit Assistance. In November 2012, the CCRMA applied for a $694 million direct loan under the TIFIA program to finance the 2nd Access Project to South Padre Island. State Infrastructure Bank The Texas State Infrastructure Bank is administered by TxDOT and is accessible to any public or private sponsor of an eligible project. Only roadway projects eligible for funding under the existing federal highway rules (Title 23) can qualify for this SIB Loans. Tax Increment Financing Tax Increment Financing is the use of increasing property taxes to pay for certain projects. In Texas, a Tax Increment Reinvesting Zone (TIRZ) is set up to administer and pay for improvements within a specific area with the intent property values will rise. Financing from a TIRZ could be used to construct smaller components of larger projects, like a pedestrian
ES-22
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
connection near a new freeway or a station for a new commuter rail line. Additionally, a TIRZ may pay for bike and pedestrian upgrades within the specific area. While there are no restrictions on a particular type of project, funding from a TIRZ generally is used for roadway, transit, or bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Section 129 Loans Section 129 Loans is Federal participation in state loans to support roadway improvements. Airport Improvement Program Airport projects can be funded through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), administered by the FAA. The AIP provides grants to public agencies (occasionally private owners) for the planning and capital projects of public-use airports that are included in the NPIAS. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The projects listed in Tables ES-1 through ES-7 and shown on the maps were developed as a non-financially constrained plan. This means they are the assessment of what is necessary for maintain a high level of mobility, accessibility, and economic success for the Rio Grande Valley as a whole. This document will serve as a statement of regional priorities and needs, and is intended to allow regional officials to present to decision-makers in Austin, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere a statement of what projects will best serve the Valley, its residents, workers, businesses, and future.
ES-23
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table of Contents
5.2
Rail ................................................................................... 60
5.3
Transit .............................................................................. 61
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................... ES-1
5.4
Bike and Pedestrian .......................................................... 66
1.0
Introduction and Previous Plans ............................................ 1
5.5
Water Ports ....................................................................... 67
Review / Synthesis of Other Plans ..................................... 4
5.6
Port-of-Entry .................................................................... 68
Purpose and Need ................................................................ 12
5.7
Airport .............................................................................. 71
1.1 2.0 2.1 3.0
Plan, Mission, and Goals.................................................. 12 Existing Conditions / Networks ........................................... 13
6.0 6.1
Public / Stakeholder Involvement ........................................ 76 Public Meetings................................................................ 78
3.1
Roadway .......................................................................... 13
3.2
Rail ................................................................................... 28
7.1
Roadway........................................................................... 79
3.3
Transit .............................................................................. 31
7.2
Transit and Rail ................................................................ 79
3.4
Bike and Pedestrian .......................................................... 35
7.3
Bike and Pedestrian .......................................................... 80
3.5
Water Ports....................................................................... 37
7.4
Water Ports ....................................................................... 80
3.6
Port-of-Entry .................................................................... 38
7.5
Port-of-Entry .................................................................... 81
3.7
Airport .............................................................................. 41
7.6
Airport .............................................................................. 81
4.0
7.0
Recommended Infrastructure Improvements ....................... 79
Current and Projected Demographics .................................. 48
8.0
Policies, Partnerships, and Funding ..................................... 91
4.1
Population ........................................................................ 48
9.0
Conclusion and Recommendations ...................................... 96
4.2
Employment ..................................................................... 48
4.3
Traffic .............................................................................. 52
5.0 5.1
Needs Assessment ................................................................ 55 Roadway .......................................................................... 56
Appendices List of Stakeholders Contacted Stakeholder Comments Sorted by Subject Survey Forms Received
TOC-1
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
List of Figures Figure ES-1 - Study Area ................................................................... 2 Figure ES-2 – Existing Regional Transportation Infrastructure ........ 3 Figure ES-3 - Proposed Roadway Projects ........................................ 7 Figure ES-4 - Proposed Rail .............................................................. 8 Figure ES-5 – Proposed Transit ......................................................... 9 Figure ES-6 - Proposed Water Port Improvements.......................... 10 Figure ES-7 - Port-of-Entries Improvements ................................... 11 Figure ES-8 - Proposed Airport Improvements ............................... 12 Figure 1 - Study Area ......................................................................... 2 Figure 2 – Existing Regional Transportation Infrastructure .............. 3 Figure 3 - Functional Classification ................................................. 14 Figure 4 - Hidalgo County MTP ...................................................... 18 Figure 5 - Queen Isabella Memorial Bridge .................................... 19 Figure 6 - Harlingen - San Benito MTP ........................................... 20 Figure 7 - Brownsville Transportation and Thoroughfare Plan ....... 21 Figure 8 - UP Brownsville Subdivision (Harlingen)........................ 29 Figure 9 - Existing Rail .................................................................... 33 Figure 10 - Existing Transit ............................................................. 34 Figure 11 - Existing Bike and Pedestrian Plans ............................... 36 Figure 12 - Port of Brownsville Entrance ........................................ 37 Figure 13 - Harlingen Airport Terminal Interior ............................. 42 Figure 14 - Existing Water Ports...................................................... 45 Figure 15 - Existing Port-of-Entries................................................. 46 Figure 16 - Existing Airports ........................................................... 47 Figure 17 - Population Growth (2010 - 2030) ................................. 50 Figure 18 – Employment Growth (2010-2020) ............................... 51 Figure 19 – Projected Roadway Congestion .................................... 54 Figure 20 - IH-69 Upgrades to US 77 in Raymondville .................. 57
July 2013
Figure 21 - End of US 83 / IH 2 Expressway in Penitas .................. 57 Figure 22 - Proposed Roadway Projects .......................................... 63 Figure 23 - Proposed Rail ................................................................ 64 Figure 24 – Proposed Transit ........................................................... 65 Figure 25 - Proposed Water Port Improvements.............................. 73 Figure 26 – POE Improvements....................................................... 74 Figure 27 - Proposed Airport Improvements ................................... 75
List of Tables Table 1 - Reviewed Plans................................................................... 4 Table 2 - 2003 Mobility Project Status .............................................. 5 Table 3 - Approved Interstate Designations..................................... 14 Table 4 - Hurricane Evacuation Routes ........................................... 26 Table 5 - Load-Zoned Corridors ...................................................... 27 Table 6 - Hazardous Material Routes............................................... 28 Table 7 - Jurisdictions with Bike and/or Pedestrian Plans ............... 35 Table 8 - Census Data-Population 1990-2000-2010 ........................ 48 Table 9 - TXSDC Population Projections, 0.5 Scenario .................. 48 Table 10 - TWC Employment Projections ....................................... 49 Table 11 - Congested Segments in Harlingen-San Benito MPO ..... 52 Table 12 - Congested Segments in Brownsville MPO..................... 53 Table 13 - Congested Segments in HCMPO.................................... 53 Table 14 - Average Capacities of Typical Rail-Freight Corridors ... 61 Table 15 - List of Stakeholders (Organizations Only) .................... 76 Table 16 - Roadway Projects ........................................................... 83 Table 17 - Rail Projects .................................................................... 86 Table 18 – Transit Projects .............................................................. 86 Table 19 - Bike and Pedestrian Projects .......................................... 87 Table 20 – Water Port Projects ........................................................ 87
TOC-2
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table 21 - Port of Entry Projects ..................................................... 88 Table 22 - Port of Entry Projects ..................................................... 89 Table 23 - Airport Projects .............................................................. 89 Table 24 - TIFIA Funding Thresholds and Assistance Limits ......... 95
TOC-3
Rio Grande Valley
1.0
Regional Mobility Plan
INTRODUCTION AND PREVIOUS PLANS
The Lower Rio Grande Valley has experienced explosive population growth in the 20th century, from fewer than 100,000 residents in 1910 to over one million today. The Valley’s economic significance has increased recently as trade between the United States and Mexico has skyrocketed. The major highways and freight lines in the Valley and proximity to the maquiladoras in Matamoros and Reynosa, plus road and rail connections to Monterrey, have created a hub for international trade between the United States and Mexico.
July 2013
perhaps the most significant driver of transportation needs. Being one of the fastest-growing areas of the US and Texas has both positives and challenges from a transportation planning perspective. Growth means awareness of the issues and (hopefully) an increasing tax revenue for addressing them; however, it also means many urgent issues competing for attention and resources and the danger of “falling behind the curve.”
The Rio Grande Valley Regional Mobility Plan was initially completed in 1992 and updated in 2003. Although a number of previously identified regional mobility projects have been constructed, significant transportation infrastructure needs remain to address traffic caused by ever-increasing population, employment, and trade in the region shown in Figure ES-1. This document is an updated Plan that identifies regional mobility needs covering all transportation modes in TxDOT’s Pharr District which include major roadways, freight and passenger rail service, transit service, bicycle and pedestrian, water ports, international ports of entry, and airports as shown in Figure ES-2. The Pharr District, home to approximately 1.3 million people, includes the following counties – Brooks, Cameron, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Kenedy, Starr, Willacy and Zapata. Burgeoning population due to an enviable economic climate, coupled with state funding cutbacks and growing traffic congestion, have prompted County and municipal officials to look for creative means to address intraregional mobility. The dramatic population growth is
1
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 1 - Study Area
2
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 2 – Existing Regional Transportation Infrastructure
3
Rio Grande Valley
1.1
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Review / Synthesis of Other Plans
As part of the needs assessment phase, existing transportation plans and studies in the region were reviewed for projects that have not been completed. The list of plans examined is in Table 1; the discussion of recommendations carried forward from those existing plans can be found in Section 5.0. Several plans overlap each other and list the same projects, albeit under a different name. These projects will be noted and a single name will be identified and used within the report for clarity. Table 1 - Reviewed Plans
Plan Review (Owner)
Date
1992 RGV Mobility Plan (RGVP)
March 1992
2003 RGV Mobility Plan (RGVP)
September 2003
2010-2035 Brownsville MPO MTP (BMPO)
December 2009
2013-2016 Brownsville Metropolitan TIP
April 2012
2010-2035 Harlingen-San Benito MPO MTP (HSBMPO)
January 2013
2010-2035 Hidalgo County MPO MTP (HCMPO) Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority Strategic Plan Hidalgo County Regional Mobility Authority Plan (HCRMA) Texas-Mexico Border Crossing Study
April 2013
LRGV & Laredo Regional Freight Study
January 2012 October 2012 June 2008 July 2011
Trade Transportation Activities Report, (TxDOT)
December 2007
US 77 Interstate Tolled Truck Lane Study, (TxDOT)
December 2006
Harlingen North Rail Relocation Study, (CCRMA)
Hidalgo County Rail Study (HCMPO) February 2005 Brazos Island Harbor Reconnaissance Report September 2004 (USACE) Current and Future Rail Access Needs of Western Gulf November 2003 – Texas Ports (TTI) Feasibility Study for Proposed Int’l Rail Bridge (KCS) December 2007 Presidential Permit Application for the Proposed Intersection Rail Bridge at Columbia (Webb County August 2007 Rural Rail Transportation District) Trans-Texas corridor Rural Development April 2007 Opportunities: Ports-to-Plains Case Study (TxDOT) Port-to-Port- Feasibility Study (TxDOT) January 2007 Track Rehabilitation of GHS&A MP 0.00 to 90.33 February 2006 (Victoria to Rosenberg Line), (KCS) Camino Columbia Corridor Freight Rail Feasibility January 2006 Study (TxDOT) Union Pacific Railroad Presidential Permit May 1995 Texas Waterborne Freight Corridor Study Phase II Texas Rural Transportation Plan (TxDOT) Border Truck Origin-Destination Study (TxDOT)
November 2011 June 2012 August 2011
2003 Regional Mobility Plan The RGV Mobility Plan was last updated in 2003. The major projects and goals, identified in Table 2, focused on the regional highway network, border crossings, and rail relocations. While most of these projects are not complete, many projects have been advanced towards construction. Additionally, new organizations, such as the RMAs in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties, have formed to pursue innovative financing measures to speed up projects.
October 2006
4
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table 2 - 2003 Mobility Project Status
Project/Goal Complete I-69 improvements. Construct mainlanes, grade separations, and frontage roads to Interstate standards Upgrade US 281 from US 83 to US 59 in George West in Live Oak County. Upgrade US 77 from Harlingen to Corpus Christi Widen east-west arterial to four-lanes FM 1925 (FM 681 to FM 1015) US 281 Military (S. Cage to Brownsville) Complete US 83 improvements La Joya Relief Route Roma/Rio Grande City Relief Route Construct new Port-of Entries Los Ebanos Anzalduas Donna-Rio Bravo West Rail Bypass Bridge Flor de Mayo Port of Brownsville Relocate freight rail corridors out of urban areas North Cameron County Rail (Harlingen) West Rail Relocation (Brownsville) Olmito Switchyard Construct Intercity/Intracity Loops Brownsville Harlingen Hidalgo County
Status
Not Complete Not Complete Not Complete Not Complete Not Complete Not Complete Not Complete Not Complete Complete Complete Complete Not Complete Not Complete Not Complete Not Complete Complete Not Complete Not Complete Not Complete
Brownsville, Harlingen – San Benito, and Hidalgo MPOs Projects from transportation plans from three MPOs were reviewed and listed below. The current status of each project was identified, including state of completion (if in design), funding, sponsorship, and timeline, if available. Projects under construction were not included in this report as they are assumed to be completed. San Benito- Harlingen MPO:
US 77/83 South Parallel Corridor: Three-phased construction resulting in four-lane urban road from FM 1479 to FM 1577 (east of FM 732)
FM 509 Extension: Two-lane rural road from US 77/83 to FM 508
Border Security and Inspection Facility (Los Indios)
Brownsville MPO
Port of Brownsville International Bridge: Port-of-Entry to Mexico from Port of Brownsville.
Brownsville-South Padre Island Airport o Expand 13R-13L runway to 10,000 feet o Road relocations associated with runway expansion
Flor de Mayo International Bridge: Port-of-Entry to Mexico from FM 3248.
281 Connector: Four-lane highway from US 281 (near La Paloma) to US 77/83 at SH 100. Project length/cost: 6.5 miles at $110 million.
SH 32 - East Loop: Four-lane roadway from the Port of Brownsville to the Veterans International Bridge at Los Tomates. Also supports air cargo.
5
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
US 281 (Military Highway): Widen to four-lanes from FM 1577 to FM 3428.
Hidalgo County MPO
FM 88: 1.9-mile project from FM 1925 (Monte Cristo) to Mile 16 Road. Widening to four-lane divided at a total cost of $17,824,401. Business 83: Project length – 2.8 miles. Construct four-lane divided highway from FM 491 to Cameron County line. Project cost: $12,014,000.
US 281 (Military Highway) Overpass: Description listed in the project sponsor’s Hidalgo County RMA, section.
US 281 (Military Highway): 22.1-mile project from S. Cage Blvd to Mile 3 E Rd.—Cameron County Line. The project involves widening to a divided four-lane rural roadway. The estimated cost is $67,471,521.00.
SH 336 (10th Street): This is a 4.8-mile project from S. 2nd St. to US 281 Military Hwy. The project involves widening of bridge. The estimated cost is $31,882,252.00.
International Bridge Trade Corridor (IBTC): Description listed in the project sponsor’s Hidalgo County RMA, section.
US 83 Relief Route: Description listed in the project sponsor’s Hidalgo County RMA, section.
US 83 Overpasses: Overpasses at Liberty Boulevard, Tom Gill Road, and FM 2221; estimated cost is $40,000,000.
US 83/US 281 Interchange: Interchange improvements. Estimated cost is $5,849,600.
July 2013
FM 1015: 4.5-mile project from SH 107 to Mile 12 N road. Widening to a divided four-lane roadway. Project cost: $14,850,073.
FM 1015: 1.5-mile project from FM 1925 to SH 107. Widening to four-lane divided roadway. Project cost: $4,512,465.
US 83/Bicentennial: Reconstruct, elevate mainlanes, and reconfigure ramps. It will cost $36,861,564.
SH 365 (Trade Corridor Connector): Description listed in the project sponsor’s, Hidalgo County RMA, section.
FM 493 (Salinas): This is a 5.68-mile project extending from Champion St. to Military Hwy (US 281). This project involves widening to a four-lane roadway and includes a high-water bridge over the International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC) floodway. The estimated cost is $16,092,000.
FM 493 (La Blanca): This is a 8.2-mile project extending from Mile 10 N Rd to FM 1925 (Monte Cristo). The project involves widening to a divided four-lane roadway. The estimated cost is $36,616,109.
Military Highway: Construct four-lane roadway from FM 1427 (Abram) to FM 494 (Shary Rd). Project cost/length is $17,982,810 and 8 miles.
SH 107 (Conway): 4-mile project from SH 495 to FM 676 (Mile 5 North Road). Widening to six-lane divided roadway at an estimated cost of $21,138,298.
SH 107: 7-mile project from US 281 to FM 493 (La Blanca) to construct six-lane divided roadway. The estimated cost is $16,721,600.
6
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Hidalgo and Cameron County RMAs Strategic plans from two RMAs were reviewed. The current status of each project was identified, including state of completion (if in design), funding, sponsorship, and timeline, if available. Projects under construction were not included in this report as they are assumed to be completed. Projects listed in the RMAs’ strategic plans were compared against the transportation plans from MPOs.
July 2013
Cameron County RMA:
I-69/US 77: Transportation.
SH 32 - East Loop: Four-lane roadway from the Port of Brownsville to the Veterans International Bridge at Los Tomates.
281 Connector: Four-lane highway from US 281 (near La Paloma) to US 77/83 at SH 100. Project length/cost: 6.5 miles at $110 million.
South Padre Island Second Access Project: New causeway to South Padre Island. Planned route in vicinity from Port Isabel-Cameron County Airport to north South Padre Island. Project length and cost: 7.5 miles at $465 million.
West Rail Relocation: Relocation of UPRR in downtown Brownsville to west of the City from US 77/83 and the Olmito Switchyard into Mexico. Project scope: 6 mile single track railroad with an international rail bridge.
US 281 Military Overpass: Widening and grade separation (0.45 mile east of Pharr Int'l Crossing to FM 2557 (Stewart). Project length/cost: 1.87 miles at $22,465,056.
West Parkway: Four-lane tolled highway in existing UP ROW from US 77/83 near SH 100 to the B&M Bridge.
US 83 La Joya Relief route: US 83 Relief Route at La Joya and Penitas (Phase I), and at Sullivan City (Phase II). Project length and cost is 14.0 miles at $140,028,166.
General Brant Road (FM 106): Upgrade to two-lane section with shoulders from FM 1847 to FM 510. Project length: 12.1 miles.
Hidalgo County Loop: 130-mile corridor in Hidalgo County. The initial segments are SH 365 and IBTC. This includes SH 68, which connects US 281 at Edinburg to US 83 near Donna. Total cost of $892 million.
North Cameron County Rail Relocation: 32-mile single track railroad from FM 508 to US 77 with switch yards at Olmito and North Cameron County.
Outer Parkway: Four-lane tolled divided highway from US 77 to FM 1847.
Hidalgo County RMA:
International Bridge Trade Corridor (IBTC): 12.6 mile, fourlane, divided, high-speed, toll road connecting the International Bridges of Pharr, Anzalduas, and Donna to US 83. Initial phase: $144.6 million, total development $242.9 million, resulting in six-lane freeway. SH 365 (Trade Corridor Connector): 11.9 mile, four-lane, divided, high-speed, toll road from the Anzalduas Bridge to the Pharr Bridge. Initial phase: $137.5 million, total development $281.9 million, resulting in six-lane freeway.
See
improvements
in
Texas
Rural
7
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Flor de Mayo International Bridge: Port-of-Entry to Mexico from FM 3248.
o o
Port of Brownsville International Bridge: Port-of-Entry to Mexico from Port of Brownsville.
o
Texas-Mexico Border Crossing Travel Time Study The Border Crossing Travel Time Study analyzed existing conditions and recent improvements at crossings within the study area. No major improvements were identified by this study. The following analysis and conclusions were reached by this study:
Los Ebanos Crossing: Eastbound and westbound traffic at US 83 and FM 886 should be operating under free-flow or stable conditions.
B&M Gateway Veterans
LRGV & Laredo Regional Freight Study This study analyzed projected truck and freight rail transportation operations and provided recommended solutions to improve congestion levels. The study recommended improvements that were categorized as:
Grade Separations (bridges to separate the railroad from streets)
Grade Crossing Closures (closing and re-routing the street at the intersection with the railroad) Rail Improvements (to improve operating efficiency and add capacity)
The SENTRI lane reduced inspection time from 30-40 seconds to 10 seconds at the McAllen Crossing.
Progreso Crossing: The FM 1015 southbound movement from Malone Drive to US 281 was uncongested in 2005.
Traffic metering and congestion at POEs are by-products of the essential function that they perform. Long-term roadway infrastructure improvements independent of comprehensive POE expansions or upgrades will yield limited reductions in overall congestion. This is applicable at: o Falcon Dam o Rio Grande City o Roma o McAllen o Pharr-Reynosa o Progreso o Los Indios
Grade separations at the UP Brownsville Subdivision include Williams Road and Wilson Road. Grade crossing recommendations include the relocation of the Harlingen Yard and the Commerce Street connection. UP Brownsville Subdivision projects include the grade separation of Boca Chica Blvd, and the grade separation of US Bus. 77 at 15th Street. Rail improvements include the relocation of the north rail line that currently runs through the City of Harlingen. Trade Transportation Activities Report, TxDOT, December 2007
Brownsville West Rail Relocation
McAllen intermodal project
North Cameron County Rail relocation
8
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
US 77 Interstate Tolled Truck Lane Study, TxDOT, December 2006
This study reviewed alternative alignments for tolled truck lanes east of Harlingen toward the Free Trade Bridge at Los Indios, the Port of Brownsville, and the Port of Brownsville Bridge to Mexico.
Harlingen North Rail Relocation Study, Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority (CCRMA), October 2006
July 2013
Current and Future Rail Access Needs of Western Gulf – Texas Ports, Texas Transportation Institute, November 2003 Additional freight between central Mexico and US will require additional yard capacity in Brownsville and Harlingen. The following projects were proposed by the study:
West Rail Relocation
Port of Brownsville o Freight-only bridge with rail and truck o Planned container facility o Modifications to track geometry o Size of rail
New connecting track and yard north of FM 106 at Port of Harlingen
Hidalgo County Rail Study, Hidalgo County Metropolitan Planning Organization, February 2005 The Hidalgo County Rail Study examined 23 roadway-rail grade crossings with the Rio Valley Switching Company (RVSC) rail lines that restrict truck freight and vehicular movements due to the rapid growth of the area.
RVSC sidings
Grade separations at SH 107 , Spur 115, Bicentennial Boulevard, and US 281
Upgrade RVSC track to increase speed
Track and yard relocations in McAllen and Pharr (long-term)
Brazos Island Harbor Reconnaissance Report, US Army Corps of Engineers, September 2004 The US Army Corps of Engineers determined that there is a federal interest in widening and deepening the channel and that a feasibility study would be recommended to Congress.
Several studies reviewed as part of the LRGV & Laredo Regional Freight Study recommended improvements not located within the Pharr District, including: Feasibility Study for Proposed International Rail Bridge, Kansas City Southern Railway (KCS), December 2007
Proposed International Rail Bridge outside of Pharr District
Presidential Permit Application for the Proposed International Rail Bridge at Colombia, Webb County Rural Rail Transportation District, August 2007 Webb County is not within the Pharr District. Trans-Texas Corridor Rural Development Opportunities: Ports-toPlains Case Study, TxDOT, April 2007 The Ports to-Plains Corridor is from Laredo at the southern terminus to Colorado at the north, encompassing the border crossings of
9
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
UP Brownsville Subdivision – Sidings and CTC signals to accommodate growth. $102.3 million.
I-69 improvements (see previous for US 281 and US 77)
Port to Port Feasibility Study Report, TxDOT, January 2007 The proposed corridor from Laredo to Corpus Christi would not be within the Pharr District.
UPRR Port Line upgrades
Harlingen Yard – Relocation of RVSC switching operations from west of Commerce Street to north of Harlingen at a cost of $17 million.
Track Rehabilitation of GHS&A MP 0.00 to 90.33 (Victoria to Rosenberg Line), KCS, February 2006 The corridor from Victoria to Rosenberg is not within the Pharr District.
Commerce Street – move connection from UP Brownsville line to Harlingen line from its current location to south of Adams Avenue.
SH 550
Brownsville Ship Channel
Laredo, Eagle Pass, and Del Rio. District
This is not within the Pharr
Camino Colombia Corridor Freight Rail Feasibility Study, TxDOT, January 2006 The Camino Colombia Rail Study identifies actions and evaluations for a freight rail corridor with an international border crossing north of Laredo. This is not within the Pharr District. Union Pacific Railroad Presidential Permit, May 1995 This Presidential Permit was granted in the Laredo Region, outside the Pharr District. Texas Waterborne Freight Corridor Study Phase II This study was commissioned to develop an understanding of the trends driving freight demand at Texas ports and waterways and to identify infrastructure, operational, and institutional recommendations to help TxDOT and its local partners better address these issues.
Border Truck Origin-Destination Study This study was performed in order to examine trucking activity between major freight origins and destinations along the TexasMexico border and within the LRGV. The study derived conclusions on the destination of truck movements at the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge and the Veteran's International Bridge. However, the study did not identify any infrastructure mobility corridors needed to address freight movements along the TexasMexico Border. Texas Rural Transportation Plan This plan is the rural component of the Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan. The plan focuses on connectivity and mobility of all modes of travel in areas not located within a Metropolitan Planning Area. The following projects were identified within the Pharr District:
10
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
US 77 (Willacy): Construct mainlanes and overpasses from BUS 77 to Kenedy County Line. Project length is about 5 miles.
US 77 (Kenedy): Construct mainlanes and overpasses from Kenedy/Kleberg County line to 8 miles south of La Parra Avenue. Project length is about 12 miles.
Construct new causeway from SH 100 to PR 100 on South Padre Island (2nd Island Access)
Border Security and Inspection Facility (Los Indios)
July 2013
11
Rio Grande Valley
2.0
Regional Mobility Plan
PURPOSE AND NEED
The Valley’s two most urbanized Counties, Cameron and Hidalgo, have been growing at rates in excess of the Texas average, which is already more than double the national growth rate. In addition, international trade is a significant part of the Valley economy, and trips generated by trade activities can span long distances. The priorities of one jurisdiction can impact (positively and negatively) the economic health of the Valley region. Many previous plans have been conducted for particular subareas, including the two RMA Strategic Plans, the three MPO’s Transportation Improvement Plans and Metropolitan Transportation Plans, the TxDOT Rural Transportation Plan, and the Regional Border Master Plan. Many projects within the Valley have been identified by respective authorities. The focus of the Regional Mobility Plan will be to provide direction addressing the needs of the Valley, as well as specific goals that can be translated into actions.
July 2013
2.1
Plan, Mission, and Goals
The Mobility Plan is overseen by the Rio Grande Valley Partnership (RGV). The RGVP developed a common list of goals that proposed regional projects should meet. Projects meeting the goals listed below will be presented in a single, unified regional plan, with each of the project recommendations checked against which of the goal(s) they meet. This matrix is in Section 7.0, Recommendations.
Preserve and improve efficiency of the existing system,
Improve safety,
Improve mobility,
Improve connectivity,
Improve community livability,
Improve modal choices and accessibility, and
Advance the region’s economic competiveness.
This Mobility Plan Update addresses the regionally significant needs, and proposes specific goals for the following components of the transportation infrastructure:
Roadways,
Rail (both public transport and freight),
Transit,
Bicycle and Pedestrian,
Water Ports,
Port-of-Entries, and
Airports.
12
Rio Grande Valley
3.0
Regional Mobility Plan
EXISTING CONDITIONS / NETWORKS
The following transportation modes were reviewed during the Mobility Study:
Roadway
Rail
Transit
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Water Ports
Port-of-Entries
Airport
3.1
Roadway
The roadway network analyzed in this study is composed of:
Principal arterials that carry the highest traffic volumes in urban areas, such as limited access expressways.
Arterials that are the primary or only connection between cities. These could be expressways or surface streets.
Primary connections between the two types previously mentioned and the following multimodal points of interest: o Freight rail facilities, such as switchyards and major maintenance facilities, o Major passenger rail facilities, o Major transit hubs, o Water ports, o Port-of-entries, o Commercial and general aviation airports.
July 2013
There is significant overlap between the three categories as US 77/83 in Cameron County is the highest volume north/south corridor, the primary connection between Harlingen, San Benito and Brownsville, and is the primary connection to the Veterans POE. The Valley has a large amount of government entities for its size. Organizations like TxDOT, the Counties, and Regional Mobility Authorities (RMAs), have a much bigger role in the construction and maintenance of the roadway network. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) uses seven functional classes to define the role of a roadway in the transportation network. As depicted in Figure 3, higher functional classes are intended to carry high traffic volumes between cities and states with occasional access. Access to residences and businesses are provided by the lower functional classes. For the overall roadway network, the top three classes (in bold) are relevant to this study. While hard distinctions between classifications (except for Interstate) do not exist, roadways classified as minor arterial are assumed not to be regionally significant. The construction and maintenance of minor arterials and collectors is a local affair and best left to the planning efforts of individual cities. All major cities within the Valley have an adopted transportation plan that addresses thoroughfares in their jurisdiction, and these are discussed in Section 5.0 as they relate to the regionally-significant facilities.
13
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Roadway Functional Classes as Defined by FHWA:
Interstate
Principal arterial - other freeways and expressways
Principal arterial other (non-limited access)
Minor arterial
Major collector
Minor collector
Local
As shown in Figure 3, regional movement is generally served by higher functional classes, and it is these classes which this Mobility Plan focuses on. Figure 3 - Functional Classification
July 2013
Interstates The Texas Transportation Commission approved the naming and adding US 281, US 77, and US 83 to the Interstate system in May 2013 (exact segments in Table 3). This action addresses a major regional goal. Eventually, the IH 69 corridor will stretch from the Mexican border to the Canadian border in Michigan. As this study was underway, the previous US highway designations will be used in this Mobility Plan. Table 3 - Approved Interstate Designations
Existing US 281 US 77
Proposed Length (miles) IH 69C 13.5 IH 69E 53.3
US 83
IH 2
46.8
Limit Edinburg to Pharr Raymondville to USMexico Border Palmview to Harlingen
Principal Arterials – Freeways and Expressways This category is for limited access facilities without the Interstate designation. As previously discussed, several segments of these roads are proposed to become part of the Interstate system. This mobility plan will focus on principal arterials. Primary northsouth highways in the region are US 281 (IH 69C) and US 77 (IH 69E). US 77 connects the US-Mexico border (Veterans crossing) to Corpus Christi, through the cities of Brownsville, Harlingen and Raymondville. US 281 connects the US-Mexico border at the Pharr International Bridge to San Antonio through the cities of McAllen, Edinburg, Faysville and Falfurrias.
14
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
US 83 (IH 2) is the most prominent east-west corridor in the RGV, connecting Laredo to Harlingen and many cities near the border, including Zapata, Roma, Rio Grande City, Mission, McAllen, Edinburg, Weslaco, and Mercedes. The Hidalgo County Regional Mobility Authority is an independent governmental agency created by the Texas Transportation Commission and the Hidalgo County Commissioners Court on November 17th, 2005, to accelerate needed transportation projects in Hidalgo County. Three major expressway projects are proposed by the HCRMA: the SH 365 (Trade Corridor Connector), International Bridge Trade Corridor (IBTC), and US 83 (La Joya Relief route) improvements.
July 2013
Arterials in Rural Areas: Principal arterials in rural areas have varying roles depending on land use. Generally on the state system, thus constructed and maintained by TxDOT, these streets are either the primary or only connection rural residents and businesses use to other counties and cities. Outside of cities, these roads function as a high-speed corridor with occasional access, such as the typical rural highway shown in the photo below. As an example, when US 83 approaches cities, such as Zapata, it transitions into a lower-speed corridor with many access points. These roads are often the “Main Street” of small cities. The two principal arterials in Zapata County are the previously mentioned US 83 and SH 16. SH 16 connects to US 83 in Zapata and travels north to Hebbronville in Jim Hogg County.
The Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority (CCRMA) was formed in 2004 to accelerate transportation projects in Cameron County. The range of projects of CCRMA is more diverse than limited access expressways and includes surface arterials and railroads. Two major limited access facilities under development are SH 550 from US 77/83 to SH 48 at the Port of Brownsville and SH 32 (East Loop) from US 77/83 to SH 4 at the Port of Brownsville. Principal Arterials – General This category is for regionally significant surface streets. Some of these roads are being improved to freeways and expressways, or an improved parallel facility is planned. The role of principal arterials varies in the Pharr District between rural and urban areas and will be discussed in two parts.
US 83 is the main arterial in Starr County. In rural areas, US 83 is a high speed highway with occasional access from adjacent properties. Within small cities, it is often the most prominent street and provides
15
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
access to residences and businesses. Within Roma, US 83 is split into a one-way couplet with on-street parking. Major roads connecting US 83 to northern Starr County are Loma Blanca Rd, FM 649, FM 3167, and FM 755. Several rural arterials intersect in Hebbronville, which connect to other areas in South Texas and the Valley. SH 359 extends west of Hebbronville to Laredo and northeast to San Diego in Duval County. SH 16 continues north to Freer in Duval County. SH 285 extends east to Falfurrias along the northern Brooks County Line. FM 1017 extends southeast to US 281 in Hidalgo County. There are three principal arterials in Brooks County, US 281, SH 285, and FM 755. SH 285 intersects with US 281 and extends east, terminating at US 77 in Kleberg County. FM 755 connects from US 281 to US 83 in Starr County east of Rio Grande City. The only prominent arterial in Kenedy County is US 77. The main populated area is the unincorporated town of Sarita. Principal arterials in Willacy County are limited to Business 77 or SH 186. SH 186 is an east-west corridor that connects Port Mansfield to Raymondville and areas west into Hidalgo County. Business 77 is a parallel corridor to US 77 and located immediately to the east of a major freight rail corridor. Business 77 is the major north-south thoroughfare between the cities of Raymondville, Lyford and Sebastian.
July 2013
Urban The principal arterial network within urban areas is far more developed that rural areas of the Pharr District. Land use in Hidalgo County is a central urban area of Mission, Edinburg, Pharr, and McAllen with several cities spaced along US 83. Shown in Figure 4, the principal arterial system is a grid network. Prominent east-west surface arterials include FM 2221/SH 107, Business 83, and US 281 (Military Highway). These corridors provide mobility between areas not located on US 83 Expressway. Most of the network is defined, however, many roads are planned for expansion. There are several north/south arterials within Hidalgo County, and several principal arterials south of US 83 connect to POEs. The following principal arterials either connect directly or provide convenient access to a POE (in parentheses):
SH 107/Conway Ave (Anzalduas)
FM 396/Anzalduas Highway (Anzalduas)
Spur 115/S. 23rd Street (Mission-McAllen)
SH 336/S. 10th Street (Mission-McAllen)
S. Cage Boulevard/US 281 (Pharr)
FM 493 (Donna)
FM 88
FM 1015 (Progreso)
16
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Principal arterials north of US 83 include many listed above and function similar to the east-west arterials. Similar to the east-west arterials, many are planned for expansion. There are more principal arterials west of US 281 as land use is more rural in eastern Hidalgo County.
17
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 4 - Hidalgo County MTP
18
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
The area of the HSBMPO, shown in Figure 6, is all of western Cameron County and includes cities such as Los Indios near the border and Rio Hondo. Within the Harlingen – San Benito area, the principal arterials are the Harlingen Loop (FM 499) and Business 77, plus east-west routes, such as the one-way couplet W. Harrison and Tyler Ave in Harlingen. The principal arterials outside of the two main cities are similar to those in rural counties. One POE, the Free Trade Bridge at Los Indios, is within the HSBMPO and is connected to US 77/83 by FM 509.
July 2013
550, a limited access toll road connecting the Port to US 77/83 is under construction. Permit loads access the airport by SH 4 (Boca Chica Boulevard) as FM 2519 (Billy Mitchell Boulevard) is loadzoned. Figure 5 - Queen Isabella Memorial Bridge
Two MPOs are within Cameron County – the Harlingen – San Benito (HSBMPO) and Brownsville MPO. As shown in Figure 7, most of the Brownsville arterial network is between FM 511 and the Mexico border. East of FM 511, most of the land is not developable, being low and marshy until one reaches the coast itself. Major roads extending through this area are SH 100 and SH 48 (Brownsville-Port Isabel Highway). These roads connect to South Padre Island via the Queen Isabella Memorial Bridge (Figure 5). Known locally as the Causeway, this bridge is the only connection to or from the island. Other surface principal arterials that provide connectivity to other cities are US 281 (Military Highway) and FM 1847. Within Brownsville, most primary arterials are east-west corridors that provide connectivity between US 281 Military Highway, US 77/83, and major destinations such as the Port of Brownsville and Brownsville-South Padre Island International Airport. Primary airport access is FM 2519 (Billy Mitchell Boulevard), and is about four miles east of US 77/83 by way of Boca Chica Boulevard. The Port of Brownsville is currently accessed by SH 48 and FM 511. SH
19
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 6 - Harlingen - San Benito MTP
20
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 7 - Brownsville Transportation and Thoroughfare Plan
21
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Points of Interest Connections Primary connections between the two types previously mentioned and the following multimodal points of interest:
Freight rail facilities, such as switchyards and major maintenance facilities,
Major passenger rail facilities,
Major transit hubs,
Water ports,
Port-of-entries,
Airports
Freight rail facilities Olmito The Olmito switchyard, owned by Union Pacific Railroad, is located about one mile east of US 77/83 and to the southeast of the Brownsville Sports Park. Access to the switchyard is from the US 77/83 frontage roads to the west and Aurora Street to the east. Aurora Street is accessible from FM 1847. Harlingen The Harlingen switchyard is located immediately west of Commerce Street in Harlingen. The switchyard is accessible from side streets off Commerce Street. Trains from the Rio Valley Switching Company interchange with Union Pacific trains at this location.
July 2013
Major Transit Hubs Brownsville Multimodal Terminal The Brownsville Multimodal Terminal is located in downtown Brownsville. Primary roadway access is SH 4 (International Boulevard) and Business 77. McAllen Central Station The McAllen Central Station is located in downtown McAllen. Primary roadway access is Business 83. Nearby north-south major roadways are S. Bicentennial Boulevard to the west and SH 336 (S. 10th Street) to the east. Las Palmas Shopping Center Las Palmas Shopping Center in Port Isabel is a transfer point between the South Padre Island WAVE and Valley Metro. The shopping center is located at the intersection of SH 48 and SH 100. Water Ports Port of Brownsville Primary roadway access is SH 48 and FM 511 from US 77/83. The SH 550 toll road, currently under construction, will provide a direct freeway connection from the Port to US 77/83. Port of Harlingen Primary roadway access is off FM 106, and about six miles from US 77/83 by way of FM 509.
Passenger Rail Facilities: There are no existing passenger rail facilities in the LRGV.
22
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Port Isabel Primary roadway access is SH 100, located approximately a mile north of Port property. By way of SH 100, US 77/83 is approximately 23 miles west of SH 100. Port Mansfield Primary roadway access is SH 186 and is located approximately 23 miles east of US 77 in Raymondville. Port of Entries Lake Falcon The Lake Falcon Dam Border Crossing is located on Spur 2098 in Falcon Heights, Texas. The nearest regional roadway is US 83, approximately six miles east. Roma-Ciudad Miguel Aleman Roma-Ciudad Miguel Aleman Bridge is located on Loop 200, known locally as Bravo Boulevard, in Roma-Los Saenz, Texas. The nearest regional roadway is US 83, less than a quarter mile east. Rio Grande City-Camargo Bridge Primary access to this POE is FM 755. roadway is US 83, about a half mile north.
The nearest regional
Los Ebanos Ferry Los Ebanos Ferry is located on CR 41 in the city of the same name. The nearest regional highway is US 83 by way of FM 886, approximately 2 miles away to the north.
Anzalduas International Bridge Anzalduas International Bridge is located on FM 396 (Anzalduas Highway) south of Mission and southwest of McAllen. A direct connection between FM 396 and US 83 (located five miles north) is under construction. McAllen-Hidalgo-Reynosa Bridge Primary access to this POE is US 281S / Spur 115 in Hidalgo. Extending north, Spur 115 is designated S. 23rd Street, which connects to US 83 approximately 6.5 miles north of the Mexican border. Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge on the Rise is located on Spur 600 in Pharr, Texas. The nearest regional highway is US 281 (Military Highway) by way of Cage Boulevard, approximately 0.3 miles away to the north of the border checkpoint. Cage Boulevard extends north to the US 83/US 281 interchange about eight miles north. Donna – Rio Bravo International Bridge The Donna – Rio Bravo International Bridge is located in Donna on FM 493. The nearest major regional route is US 281 (Military Highway), approximately 1.0 mile north of the border checkpoint. FM 493 extends to US 83, approximately eight miles north.
23
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Progreso International Bridge Progreso International Bridge is located on FM 1015 in Progreso. The Progreso crossing is roughly equidistant (about 20 miles) from northward connections via US 281 and US 77, both of which can be accessed by taking FM 1015 northward to US 83. Free Trade Bridge The Free Trade Bridge (Los Indios) is located on FM 509 in Los Indios, Texas. FM 509 connects the Free Trade Bridge to US 77/83 approximately 10 miles away. B&M Bridge The B&M Bridge is located on Mexico Boulevard in Brownsville. Mexico Boulevard is located about 1.5 miles west of US 77/83. East-west connectivity between Mexico Boulevard and US 77/83 is provided by Palm Boulevard and Sam Perl Boulevard. Within downtown Brownsville, Sam Perl Boulevard is divided into the 12th/13th Street one-way couplet. Gateway The Gateway International Bridge is located at the intersection of SH 4 and BUS 77 in Brownsville. Veterans International Bridge The Veterans International Bridge at Los Tomates is located on US 77/83 in Brownsville.
July 2013
Airports McAllen-Miller International Airport McAllen-Miller International Airport (MFE) is located on Bicentennial Boulevard less than a mile south of US 83 in McAllen. Secondary access is from SH 336. Both Bicentennial Boulevard and SH 336 have interchanges with US 83. Brownsville-South Padre Island International Airport Brownsville-South Padre Island International Airport (BRO) is located east of Brownsville. Primary roadway access is FM 2519 (Billy Mitchell Boulevard), and is about four miles east of US 77/83 by way of Boca Chica Boulevard. Overweight access is by Boca Chica Boulevard as Billy Mitchell Boulevard is load-zoned. Valley International Airport Valley International Airport (HRL) is located northeast of Harlingen off SH 499 and approximately four miles east of US 77. The cargo area has been provided dedicated road access and new accessibilty from FM 509. Port Isabel – Cameron County Airport Primary access to this airport is provided by FM 510 from Port Isabel, FM 2480 from Los Fresnos, and FM 106/General Brandt Road from the west. FM 510 connects to SH 100 via FM 1847, and FM 106/General Brandt Road is connected to SH 345. South Texas International Airport at Edinburg This airport is located 9 miles north of Edinburg at FM 490 and US 281.
24
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Jim Hogg County Airport Jim Hogg County Airport is located 3 miles northwest of Hebbronville. Primary roadway access is SH 359. Brooks County Airport Primary roadway access for Brooks County Airport is approximately 1.4 miles east of US 281 and FM 2191 near Falfurrias. Mid Valley Airport Mid Valley Airport is located 2 miles northeast of Weslaco. Primary roadway access is Joe Stephens Avenue, a minor roadway with connections to US 83 less than a mile away. Zapata County Airport Zapata County Airport is located 4 miles northeast of Zapata. Primary roadway access is SH 16. Rio Grande City Airport Rio Grande City Airport is located 3 miles northwest of Rio Grande City. Primary roadway access for this airport is off FM 3167, approximately four miles north of US 83. Charles R. Johnson Airport Charles R. Johnson Airport is located one mile northwest of Port Mansfield. Primary roadway access is SH 186.
25
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Overweight Corridors The Port of Brownsville, in coordination with the City of Brownsville, TxDOT, and the Texas Legislature, established an overweight corridor within Brownsville. An overweight corridor allows trucks from Mexico to carry 1.5 times the US weight limit. This permit allows overweight trucks on the following roads: SH 48/SH 4 between the Gateway International Bridge and Port of Brownsville entrance. US 77/83 between the Veterans International Bridge and SH 48/SH 4 (corridor above leading to the Port of Brownsville entrance). An overweight corridor in Hidalgo County was proposed in House Bill 474 and signed into law, effective September 1, 2013. The corridor would use the following roads to connect the Pharr-Reynosa and Anzalduas International Bridges:
July 2013
Hurricane Evacuation Routes Evacuation route maps from the Texas coast were prepared by TxDOT. The maps also identify potential EvacuLane and Contraflow traffic controls measures. EvacuLane is the use of the shoulder as an additional lane. Contraflow is the reversal of inbound lanes of a major freeway from the evacuation area. The following roads and potential EvacuLane and Contraflow are identified in Table 4. The primary route is west on US 83 and north on US 281 to San Antonio. Alternate routes, such as US 83 west to Laredo, are also identified as US 281 does not have sufficient capacity to handle all evacuating traffic. US 77 north is an alternate route, however, it is not to be used if Corpus Christi is also evacuating. Table 4 - Hurricane Evacuation Routes Road
From
To
Contraflow Contraflow
US 281 between Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge and SH 336
US 281
US 83
SH 336 between US 281 and FM 1016
US 83
US 281
Jim Wells CL (to San Antonio) US 77
FM 1016 between SH 336 and FM 396
US 77
US 83
US-Mexico Border
FM 396 between FM 1016 and the Anzalduas International Bridge
SH 100
Port Isabel/SPI
US 77
US 83
US 281
Webb CL (to Laredo)
FM 2061 between FM 3072 and US 281
SH 359
SH 16
Duval CL (to Laredo)
US 281 between Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge and Spur 29
SH 285
SH 16
US 281
SH 285
US 281
US 77
SH 16
SH 285
FM 1017
US 281
Duval CL (to San Antonio) SH 285
SH 186
Port Mansfield
US 281
SH 48
Port Isabel
US 77/83
Spur 29 between US 281 and Doffin Canal road, and
Doffin Canal Road between the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge and its intersection with Spur 29.
Contraflow / EvacuLane Contraflow
EvacuLane
26
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
US 281 (Military Hwy) US 281
South Pharr
July 2013
US 77
SH 107
US 281 US 83 (Military Hwy) US 281 US 77
FM 510
Laguna Vista
Hidalgo
US 77
Corridor Restrictions Certain corridors within the Pharr District have load-zoned and hazardous cargo restrictions. Both load-zoned corridors and hazardous cargo corridors were identified by TxDOT. Table 5 lists the load-zoned corridors and Table 6 lists the hazardous cargo corridors. The load-zoned corridor table is not complete, as some corridors were not significant enough to be listed. Table 5 - Load-Zoned Corridors
FM 106
SH 345
FM 2925
Morgan Blvd (FM 507) FM 509
Business 77
Loop 499
FM 106
FM 1595
FM 2221
US 83
Mile 7 Rd
FM 886
US 83
FM 1427
Francisco Garza Street (Los Ebanos) Chihuahua Rd
FM 491
FM 2629
Willacy CL
FM 490
US 281
Willacy CL
FM 493
FM 1925
FM 490
FM 907
SH 495
SH 107
FM 493
US 281 (Military Hwy)
Stites Rd
FM 1015
US 281 (Military Hwy)
Business 83
FM 649
SH 16
Webb CL
Business 83
Jim Hogg Kenedy
None
Starr
Spur 2098
Falcon Lake POE
FM 2098
County
Road
From
To
FM 2098
Spur 2098
US 83 (W)
Brooks
FM 754
FM 285
Jim Wells CL
FM 2098
Spur 2098
US 83 ( E)
FM 1418
FM 754
FM 285
FM 649
US 83
FM 3167
FM 510
Old Port Road
SH 100
FM 649
FM 3167
Jim Hogg CL
FM 650
Ebano St
US 83
FM 490
Hidalgo CL
FM 88
Cameron
FM 1847
SH 550
FM 2925
FM 1847
SH 48
E. Price Road
FM 2480
FM 1847
FM 510
FM 1834
FM 490
SH 186
FM 3069
FM 2480
FM 510
FM 491
Hidalgo CL
Business 77
FM 2519 (Billy Mitchell Blvd) FM 511
SH 4
B-SPI Airport
FM 3169
US 83
Ovejas Road
FM 2687
US 83
Jim Hogg CL
FM 1419 (Southmost Rd)
SH 4
FM 510
Business 77
FM 3462 (San Jose Ranch Rd)
Willacy
Zapata
(Source: http://www.txdot.gov/apps/gis/loadzone/, May 2013)
27
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table 6 - Hazardous Material Routes
3.2
City
Road
From
To
Harlingen
US 77
Commerce St FM 106
Loop 499 / Business 77 US 77 / Loop 499 Business 77 (North) Business 77
FM 1479
Morris Rd
0.5 mi north of FM 509 0.5 mi north of FM 510 Business 77 (South) 0.5 mi west of FM 509 US 77
US 83
FM 3195
US 77
None
Business 83
S Palm
US 77
None
Spur 54
US 83
US 77
None
Loop 499
All
FM 507
Business 77
FM 508
None
Grimes Road FM 2061
FM 507
None
Owassa Rd
0.5 mi east of Loop 499 FM 1925
FM 1925
FM 2061
Business 281
None
Business 281 Business 281 FM 2128
FM 1925
US 281
None
US 281
FM 1925
No Through
US 281
SH 107
None
SH 107
US 281
FM 2128
None
US 281
all
SH 107
SH 336
FM 2061
None
SH 107
FM 2061
US 281
No Through
FM 2128
Business 281
US 281
No Through
Business 77
Edinburg
(Source: TxDOT)
Route Restriction None None None None None
None
Rail
Freight Two Class I railroads and three short lines operate in the Pharr District, as shown in Figure 9. Major rail line owners in the Pharr District are Union Pacific (UP), Kansas City Southern (KCS), Rio Valley Switching Company (RVSC), Border Pacific Railroad (BOP), and Brownsville Navigation District. Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) operates in the Pharr District; however, its freight is carried by UP from Houston to Brownsville. Major facilities for the Class I and short line are listed and described in detail below. The two busiest rail corridors (by rail tons in 2007) in Pharr District are the Union Pacific (UP) Brownsville Subdivision and KCS Laredo Subdivision. All rail facilities are single track.
Class I o Union Pacific Brownsville Subdivision Harlingen Subdivision Palo Alto Industrial Lead Santa Rosa Industrial Lead Brownsville Industrial Lead Olmito Industrial Lead o Kansas City Southern Laredo Subdivision
Short lines o Border Pacific Railroad (BOP) o Brownsville and Rio Grande International Railroad (BRG) o Rio Valley Switching Company (RVSC)
None
None
28
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
The most prominent railroad in the Pharr District is the Union Pacific Brownsville Subdivision. The Brownsville Subdivision parallels US 77 through Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron counties, and is the only rail line to connect to others outside the study area. The railroad is single track with a few sidings and major interchanges in Harlingen and Olmito. This rail line also connects to the B&M rail port-ofentry in Brownsville. Daily rail traffic (as reported from the Federal Railroad Administration’s website on the segment is approximately 10 trains per day. Figure 8 - UP Brownsville Subdivision (Harlingen)
July 2013
and FM 1847 north of Brownsville. The Harlingen Subdivision connects to the Brownsville Subdivision in central Harlingen near Commerce Street and Business 77. This rail corridor has 22 at-grade crossings in Harlingen, and excessive delays are caused by trains moving in the city. Relocation of this rail corridor out of central Harlingen is under study. Rail traffic on this segment is approximately 5-10 trains per day. Four industrial leads extend off UP subdivision tracks. The UP Palo Alto Industrial Lead connects from the junction at SH 511 and FM 1847 to a junction at FM 511 and SH 48 west of the Port of Brownsville. This junction connects the UP Brownsville Port Line with the BRG short line. The Port Line has been leased to BRG since 1997. The Port Line extends west into downtown Brownsville paralleling SH 48 about 0.2 miles to the north and terminates at Arthur Street. BRG also operates the rail lines within the Port of Brownsville itself. The UP Olmito Industrial Lead is an east-west freight rail corridor about 2.8 miles long located about 1.4 miles north of FM 3248 and connects the main UP track west of US 77 to the junction at FM 511. The recently constructed Olmito Switchyard is located on the south side of the corridor and is equidistant from the termini.
The UP Harlingen Subdivision connects the UP Brownsville Subdivision to the Palo Alto Junction, located southwest of SH 511
UP Santa Rosa Industrial Lead extends west from the Harlingen Yard at US 77 and extends northwest toward Santa Rosa and into Hidalgo County. Rail traffic for the industrial leads is summarized below:
Palo Alto – Approximately 4 trains per day
29
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Santa Rosa – Approximately 2 trains per day
Olmito – Approximately 5 trains per day
Port Line – Approximately 2 trains per day
The Rio Valley Switching Company (RVSC) operates on tracks paralleling US 83 Expressway within Hidalgo and Cameron County. This east-west freight corridor extends from the interchange with Border Pacific Railroad near SH 107 and Business 83 in Mission to the Harlingen Yard located west of Commerce Street. RVSC operates the Harlingen Yard and switches with UP at this location. In addition, RVSC operates two spur tracks. The western spur extends south from Mission near SH 107, extends south of Military Highway and turns east and terminates near S. Ware Road; the eastern spur beings at N. Bicentennial in McAllen, turns northeast towards Edinburg near Dove Avenue and terminates north of Schunior Street in Edinburg. This railroad connects the UP Brownsville subdivision to the McAllen Foreign Trade Zone. Rail traffic on this segment is approximately 2-5 trains per day. The Border Pacific Railroad (BOP) is a short line extending from Rio Grande City in Starr County to its interchange with the RVSC shortline in Mission, located 0.25 miles west of SH 107. Rail traffic on this segment is approximately 2 trains per day. The Brownsville and Rio Grande International Railroad (BRG) provides rail service within the Port of Brownsville, and is owned by the Port of Brownsville governing authority, the Brownsville Navigation District. Interchanges with Class I railroads occur at the
July 2013
UP Olmito Yard, which is the southern limits of BNSF trackage rights. Rail traffic on this segment is approximately 2 trains per day. The KCS Laredo Subdivision connects Laredo to Corpus Christi. It passes through Falfurrias in Jim Hogg County and does not have any connections to other railroads in the Pharr District. Rail traffic on this segment is approximately 16 trains per day. The primary rail road connecting Reynosa and Matamoros is owned by Kansas City Southern de Mexico (KCSM). This line begins on the Mexican side of the B&M Bridge in Matamoros and extends west to Monterrey. The B&M Bridge in Brownsville connects the UP-owned track in the US to the KCS-owned track in Mexico. This freight rail connection is being replaced by the recently completed West Rail Bypass Bridge located about 7 miles to the northwest. Freight traffic will utilize the West Rail Bypass Bridge when the surface rail connections on both the US and Mexico sides are complete. Passenger Passenger rail service is not present in the Pharr District. Two efforts are underway to bring passenger service to the Valley. The first effort is through the Hidalgo County Commuter Rail District, which was created by the Hidalgo County Commissioners’ Court to provide an alternative transportation mode for Hidalgo County residents. A study conducted by in 2011 concluded that commuter rail was feasible and preferred over light rail in Hidalgo County. The commuter rail system would utilize the tracks used by RVSC.
30
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Another ongoing effort is the Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study. The purpose of this study is to examine routes, stations, and levels of passenger service that are feasible between Oklahoma City and Brownsville. This study is expected to be completed in 2014. 3.3
Transit
Transit service is limited to Hidalgo, Cameron, and Willacy counties, and within those to the cities shown in Figure 10. All transit systems are either fixed route or on-demand services. High-capacity transit systems, such as bus rapid transit (BRT) and commuter rail, have been studied by various agencies, including the Hidalgo County Commuter Rail Study completed by LAN, but as of 2013 none have yet been implemented. The City of McAllen is served by Metro McAllen, which is operated by the City’s Transit Department. Metro McAllen provides local bus service with seven fixed routes, 14 buses, and ADA paratransit service. All routes connect to the Central Station at Business 83 between 15th and 16th Streets, and travel to areas of McAllen along the US 83 freeway as well as north to FM 495 and SH 107. Central Station offers several amenities including a 425-space garage, indoor seating, restrooms, and food. In addition to Metro McAllen, private bus operators connect to Central Station. Major destinations served by Metro McAllen include McAllen-Miller International Airport, South Texas College, La Plaza Mall, Convention Center and major hospitals.
July 2013
The City of South Padre Island is served by the WAVE which is operated by the City. The WAVE is a fare-free system and is funded by TxDOT through its Section 5311 Rural Transit Program and local match funding from the City of South Padre Island's Convention and Visitor's Bureau Hotel / Motel sales tax revenue. Four fixed bus routes are operated by the WAVE, two of which provide service to Port Isabel (stop shown to the right). These use SH 100 and the Queen Isabella Causeway. As of 2011, 10 buses have been used by the WAVE. The WAVE also provides a restricted curb-to-curb paratransit service. The City of Brownsville is served by Brownsville Metro (B Metro), which is operated by the City’s Transit Department. B Metro provides local bus service throughout the city with a total of 25 buses in operation on 15 fixed routes, with 11 buses assigned to the ADA paratransit service. Most routes originate from downtown’s La Plaza multimodal terminal. In addition to the B Metro, La Plaza is the main hub for intercity and private bus operators. Brownsville’s La Plaza is located near Business 77 and SH 4, near the Gateway POE and provides clean restrooms, restaurants and concessions, and indoor and outdoor seating. Major destinations served by B Metro include
31
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
the commercial areas along US 77/83 and FM 802, local universities, B&M International Bridge, Brownsville/S.P.I. International Airport, and major hospitals. Service to the Veterans International Bridge, Gateway International Bridge and B&M Bridge is provided by B Metro. Valley Metro provides public transportation in rural and urban areas of Hidalgo, Cameron, and Willacy Counties. Valley Metro’s fleet consists of 33 buses total serving 16 fixed routes in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties and demand response service in Willacy County. Main transfer hubs are located in McAllen Central Station for Hidalgo County and Brownsville Market Square for Cameron County. In 2012 Valley Metro’s ridership grew by 120%; in response, 17 new buses were acquired and 30 bus shelters were installed. 13,000 additional hours, including on Saturdays, were incorporated into Valley Metro’s schedule. Service to the Gateway International Bridge, Valley International Airport, and Los Ebanos Ferry is provided by Valley Metro. Intercity routes supplement the local routes of other providers, and extend from Harlingen to Brownsville on US 77/83, Brownsville to Port Isabel on SH 48, as far west along US 83 as Sullivan City, from Elsa and Edcouch to Edinburg along SH 107, from Harlingen to Santa Rosa along US 77 and SH 107, and numerous intercity routes in Hidalgo County.
32
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 9 - Existing Rail
33
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 10 - Existing Transit
34
Rio Grande Valley
3.4
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Bike and Pedestrian
Bicycle or pedestrian projects that would be regionally significant are not planned in the Pharr District. The size of and level of impact of most bicycle and pedestrian stand-alone projects are not such that these projects are considered regionally significant in their transportation impact, although they can have important mobility and recreation benefits in the immediate area. The most significant individual project was the conversion of an eight mile abandoned rail corridor into a paved trail in Brownsville. Development of these networks with roadway projects that include bicycle and pedestrian component, as well as retro-fit projects that address gaps can cumulatively result in a positive regional impact. Quality of life improvements, such as lower obesity, better fitness, and lower emissions, can be achieved by robust bicycle and pedestrian networks. Complete bicycle and pedestrian networks allow people to walk or bike instead of driving vehicles, lowering demand on roadways.
Table 7 - Jurisdictions with Bike and/or Pedestrian Plans Jurisdiction Hidalgo County MPO Brownsville MPO Harlingen - San Benito MPO Harlingen South Padre Island McAllen
Name
Bicycle
Bike Plan (Aug. 10, 2012)
X
MPO Bicycle & Pedestrian Needs Assessment Study (Sept. 24, 2010) 2010-2035 MTP: Bicycle and Pedestrian System Vision 2020 Comprehensive Master Plan - Transportation Comprehensive Plan Mobility 2008 (Oct. 2008) McAllen Proposed Bike Plan (8-1-2012)
Pedestrian
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
Comprehensive bicycle and network development can have a regional impact on quality of life. The planned opportunities for improving the bicycle and pedestrian networks are generally best coordinated with roadway projects. The jurisdictions listed in Table 7 have adopted bicycle and/or pedestrian plans. The area encompassed by these plans is shown in Figure 11.
35
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 11 - Existing Bike and Pedestrian Plans
36
Rio Grande Valley
3.5
Regional Mobility Plan
Water Ports
Four ports: Port of Brownsville, Port of Harlingen, Port Isabel, and Port Mansfield are located within the Pharr district, as shown in Figure 14. All four have access to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, a series of canals, lagoons, and protected waterways extending from the US-Mexico border to Fort Myers, Florida.
July 2013
intended to be leased for port facilities. Currently 300 private companies are leasing portions of the port. Figure 12 - Port of Brownsville Entrance
The Port of Brownsville is a deep-draft seaport administered by the Brownsville Navigation District. It is connected to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Gulf of Mexico by a ship channel 17 miles long and 42-feet deep. The Port of Brownsville has 15 docks plus 8 reserved docks for oil, bulk, liquid and express cargo. Draft restrictions were revised June 2012 with the deepest being 39.5 feet. The Port is located 3 miles north of the Mexican border, 5 miles east of downtown Brownsville and 7 miles from the Veterans International Bridge. Primary roadway access is SH 48 and FM 511. The SH 550 toll road, currently under construction, will provide a direct freeway connection from the Port to US 77. Valley Metro Route 50 passes nearby along SH 48, but does not serve the port directly. The Port operates a short line on its property and has a connection to a Union Pacific industrial lead to the northwest. The Port of Brownsville is an economic hub for over-land shipments from Mexico and the US, with major imports including unfinished steel and iron ore. Exported goods include finished steel products, lubricants, petroleum products, and grain. In total, the port handles 7,600,394 metric tons per year, 48% in bulk and 51% in liquid form. The Brownsville Navigation District owns 48,000 acres of land,
The Port of Harlingen is a shallow-draft port which offers barge, rail, and truck services and is administered by the Port of Harlingen Authority. Current facilities include a 650-foot concrete cargo wharf, 100 foot bulk wharf, 5 smaller docks, and open storage. The Port is located in a rural area on 150 acres approximately 6 miles east of Harlingen and is 25 miles inland from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). The draft restriction for this port and the GIWW is 12 feet.
37
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Primary roadway access is off FM 106, and is located about six miles from US 77/83 by way of FM 509. No transit routes serve the port. The Port is connected to the UPRR Harlingen Subdivision by a short spur on Port property. Cotton, grain, and 100% of the sugar grown in the entire RGV are exported at the Harlingen port. Imported goods include fertilizer, automotive gasoline, and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel. Cement, sand, and aggregates used throughout the RGV for roads, highways, buildings, and by wind farms are also imported and distributed by the port. The Port handles 1 million tons per year. The port utilizes the Free Trade Bridge for international trade and Union Pacific for its rail needs. Port Isabel is a deep-draft seaport with seven docks and marinas and a draft restriction of 36 feet. The port is home to the last shrimp processing plant in RGV and employs 300 residents. The plant processes over 10 million pounds of Gulf shrimp, 7 million pounds of Mexico imported okra, and 12 million pounds of Texas-produced spinach annually. Port Isabel is in transition to supporting the Gulf offshore production industry and oil and gas exploration. One prominent facility there, SubSea 7, constructed a $40 million spool base facility for pipe manufacturing and plans to employ over 350 people. Local employment in the near term is expected to double to over 800 employees working for Port companies. Primary roadway access is SH 100, located approximately a mile north of Port property. Two WAVE transit routes and one Valley Metro route serve Port Isabel town, but not the port property itself. Rail access is not present, and the nearest rail connection is the Port of Brownsville short line approximately 11 miles west. Port Isabel is home to the US Army Corps of Engineers South Texas office, US
July 2013
Border Patrol Brownsville Marine Division office, and two concrete mix companies with on-site plants. Port Mansfield is a shallow-draft port administered by the Willacy County Navigation District. It is located on the Intracoastal Waterway and connected to the Gulf of Mexico by a channel approximately five miles long. It is convenient for anglers fishing in the Laguna Madre and in the Gulf with 1,000 feet of waterfront available. The Port handles 360 tons of goods per year. Primary roadway access is SH 186 and is located approximately 23 miles east of US 77 in Raymondville. Port Mansfield does not have convenient rail access as the port is located approximately 25 miles from the UPRR Brownsville Subdivision. The US Army Corps of Engineers have an office at Port of Mansfield and are called whenever draft restrictions are violated. Draft restrictions vary from 3-16 feet. 3.6
Port-of-Entries
A Port-of-Entry (POE) is a place where people can legally cross the US-Mexico border. 14 of the 28 US-Mexico Port-of-Entries in Texas are located in the Pharr District, as shown in Figure 15. This includes the following POEs - Lake Falcon Dam, Roma-Ciudad Miguel Aleman Bridge, Rio Grande City-Camargo Bridge, Los Ebanos Ferry, Anzalduas International Bridge, McAllen-HidalgoReynosa Bridge, Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge, Donna – Rio Bravo International Bridge, Progreso International Bridge, Free Trade Bridge, Brownsville West Rail Bypass International Bridge, B&M Bridge, Gateway International Bridge, and Veterans
38
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
International Bridge. Other areas in the state with multiple POE are Laredo and El Paso. Security and inspection at all crossings is provided by the US Customs and Border Protection, a division of the Department of Homeland Security. The Lake Falcon Dam Border Crossing is located on Spur 2098 in Falcon Heights, Texas. The nearest regional roadway is US 83, approximately six miles east via a two-lane roadway. The bridge is owned and operated by the US Government and the Mexican Government International Boundary and Water Commission. The crossing is a non-tolled two-lane road atop Lake Falcon Dam, which accommodates passenger-only vehicles. Located in western Starr County, most surrounding land use is rural on both the US and Mexico sides.
July 2013
owned by the Starr Camargo Bridge Company and the Government of Mexico. It is operated by the US owner and CAPUFE. Surrounding land use is urban on the US side and rural on the Mexican side, with Ciudad Camargo located approximately four miles southwest of the bridge. The nearest regional roadway is US 83, about a half mile north. The Los Ebanos Ferry is located on CR 41 in Los Ebanos, Texas. The bridge is owned and operated by the Reyna family and Armando De La Garza. This crossing is the last hand-pulled ferry on the US – Mexico border. It accommodates up to 3 cars and 12 pedestrians for every trip. The nearest regional highway is US 83 by way of FM 886, approximately 2 miles to the north. Valley Metro also provides Los Ebanos Ferry transit service through the last stop on route 21Sullivan City-Mission.
The Roma-Ciudad Miguel Aleman Bridge is located on Loop 200, known locally as Bravo Boulevard, in Roma-Los Saenz, Texas. The nearest regional roadway is US 83, less than a quarter mile east. The bridge is jointly owned by Starr County and the Government of Mexico. It is operated by the U.S owner and Caminos y Puentes Federales de Ingresos y Servicious Conexos (CAPUFE) .The crossing is a tolled two-lane bridge and carries passenger vehicle, pedestrian, and freight truck traffic. The POE is located in the downtown areas of both cities, creating an urban environment around the crossing.
The Anzalduas International Bridge, opened 2009, is located on FM 396 (Anzalduas Highway) south of Mission and southwest of McAllen. The bridge owners and operators are the Cities of Hidalgo, McAllen, and Mission. This tolled four-lane bridge spans 3.2 miles. One lane on the US side is dedicated for Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) passengers. A pedestrian walkway and two safety bump-out spaces are available. A direct connection between FM 396 and US 83 (located five miles north) is under construction, as a four-lane expressway.
The Rio Grande City-Camargo Bridge is located on FM 755 in Rio Grande City, Texas. This narrow crossing is a tolled two-lane bridge and carries passenger vehicle and freight truck traffic. This bridge is
The McAllen-Hidalgo-Reynosa Bridge is located on US 281S / Spur 115 in Hidalgo. The bridge owners are the City of McAllen and the Government of Mexico. It is operated by the US owner and
39
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
CAPUFE. The tolled crossing is two four-lane bridges. The northbound bridge is 852 feet long, while the southbound bridge is 524 feet long. Passenger vehicles, southbound freight trucks, and pedestrians are served by this POE. Northbound truck traffic was diverted to the Pharr-Reynosa Crossing in 1996. A northbound SENTRI lane was installed in 2006, resulting in an inspection time reduction from 30-40 seconds to 10 seconds. The Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge is located on Spur 600 off US 281 in Pharr. The bridge is owned by the City of Pharr and the Government of Mexico. It is operated by the U.S owner and CAPUFE. This crossing is a tolled four-lane bridge and carries pedestrian, truck freight, and pedestrian traffic. As of 1996, all northbound freight traffic was diverted to the Pharr-Reynosa POE. Two recent improvements were completed at the Pharr-Reynosa POE – the FAST program and cold-inspection unit. The FAST (Free and Secure Trade) program was implemented in 2004 to expedite clearance for pre-authorized carriers. The cold inspection facility is a giant refrigerator where up to six trucks can off-load produce for inspection. A new Border Safety and Inspection Facility (BSIF), east of the POE, is currently under construction. The BSIF will be connected to Military Road by SP 29 (“I” Road) and at-grade IBTC extension. The Donna – Rio Bravo International Bridge is located in Donna, Texas on FM 493. The owner and operator is the City of Donna. This crossing is a tolled eight-lane bridge and was opened to full
July 2013
traffic in 2012. Nearby land use is rural on both the US and Mexican side. The nearest freeway is US 83 in Donna, reached via FM 493. The Progreso International Bridge is located on FM 1015 in Progreso and is privately owned by the B&P Company of Weslaco and the Government of Mexico. The bridge is operated by the US owner and CAPUFE. This tolled crossing has two bridges. Passenger vehicles and pedestrians are accommodated by a fourlane bridge with wide sidewalks, and northbound truck freight is accommodated by a two-lane bridge to the east. The Mexican side is a commercial and tourist area and large parking lots are located on the US side. The Progreso crossing is equidistant (about 20 miles) from northbound highways US 281 and US 77, both of which are accessed by FM 1015 northward to US 83 east or west. The Free Trade Bridge (Los Indios) is located on FM 509 in Los Indios. The bridge is owned by Cameron County, City of San Benito, City of Harlingen, and the Government of Mexico. It is operated by Cameron County International Bridge System and CAPUFE. This tolled crossing is a four-lane bridge and 503 feet long. Passenger vehicles, freight trucks, and pedestrians are served by this POE. Surrounding land use is rural in both countries. The nearest inland highway is US 77/83 by way of FM 509, approximately 10 miles away.
40
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
The Brownsville West Rail Bypass International Bridge was recently completed. Located west of Veterans Memorial High School in Brownsville, the bridge is part of a larger rail bypass project described in section 3.2. This bridge, owned and operated by Union Pacific, is the first new railway bridge across the Texas-Mexico border in 100 years. The rail crossing is not active yet, as rail connections in both countries have not been completed. The B&M Bridge, discussed below, will be permanently closed to rail traffic when the West Rail Bypass is open to service, as per the Presidential Permit. The B&M Bridge is located on Mexico Boulevard in Brownsville. The bridge is jointly owned and operated by Brownsville & Matamoros Bridge Company, a subsidiary of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and the Federal Government of Mexico. This tolled crossing consists of two bridges. The older bridge is a single railroad track and southbound sidewalk. The B&M rail crossing is the only active rail crossing in the Pharr District. The track in Brownsville is owned by UP, and the track in Mexico is owned by Kansas City Southern de Mexico. The newer bridge, completed in 1997, serves noncommercial vehicles with two lanes in each direction and pedestrians with a northbound sidewalk. Freight trucks were diverted to the Veterans International Bridge at Los Tomates. Surrounding land use is urban in both countries. B Metro provides B&M POE with transit service. Gateway International Bridge is located at the intersection of SH 4 and BUS 77 in Brownsville. The bridge is owned by Cameron County and the Government of Mexico. It is operated by Cameron
July 2013
County International Bridge System and CAPUFE. The twin tolled two-lane bridges only allow passenger vehicles and pedestrians to cross. Permitted commercial vehicles may use Veterans International Bridge to the east. Significant pedestrian activity on this bridge travels to/from the nearby UTB/STC campus. B Metro and Valley Metro provide Gateway POE transit service. The Multimodal Terminal for B Metro is 0.2 miles from the POE and this connects many B Metro routes to Valley Metro’s 50-Brownsville-Port Isabel route. The Veterans International Bridge at Los Tomates is located on US 77/83 in Brownsville. The bridge is owned by Cameron County, the City of Brownsville, and the Government of Mexico. It is operated by Cameron County International Bridge System and CAPUFE. This crossing was recently expanded to a tolled four-lane bridge with sidewalks on both sides. This facility handles passenger vehicles, freight, and pedestrian traffic. Veterans POE is the only bridge that handles freight traffic in Brownsville. Freight traffic was diverted to this bridge to relieve congestion at other POEs in Brownsville. The Veterans Bridge has been utilizing the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) program since 2004 and Dedicated Commuter Lane (DCL) since 2006. Transit service near the Veterans POE is provided by B Metro. 3.7
Airport
The study area currently has three commercial service airports and eight general aviation airports, shown in Figure 16. Commercial service airports are publically owned, have at least 2,500 passenger boardings per year, and receive scheduled service. General aviation
41
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
airports are not specifically defined by the FAA, but do not meet the requirements of a commercial service airport, cargo service airport, or reliever airport. Commercial service airports are described in detail below. Valley International Airport (HRL) is located northeast of Harlingen, Texas, and off SH 499, approximately four miles east of US 77. Rail lines are not located on or adjacent to airport property, and the nearest rail connection is the UP Harlingen subdivision located two miles south. The airport, owned by the City of Harlingen, is the largest airport in the Rio Grande Valley, with eight gates (seven domestic and one international), three runways, and over 800,000 annual passengers. Three airlines serve Valley International: United, Sun Country, and Southwest. A $22 million expansion and renovation to the terminal was completed in 1990. The cargo area has been provided dedicated road access and new access from FM 509.
July 2013
than two miles away. Four airlines operate out of six gates and two runways at this airport: United, American Airlines, Allegiant, and Aeromar. UPS relocated their main distribution operations to McAllen-Miller in September 2012. Ground transportation at this airport includes the McAllen Express Transit #4 bus in addition to car rental. McAllen-Miller is the second busiest commercial passenger airport in the Rio Grande Valley metropolitan area and is owned by the City of McAllen. Figure 13 - Harlingen Airport Terminal Interior
Valley Transit Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of Greyhound Lines) provides airport shuttle service between Valley International and several cities within the Valley, including McAllen, Brownsville, Rancho Viejo, and South Padre Island. Service is also offered to Brownsville – South Padre Island International Airport and McAllen-Miller International Airport. McAllen-Miller International Airport (MFE) is located on Bicentennial Boulevard less than a mile south of US 83 in McAllen. Rail lines are not located on or adjacent to airport property, and the nearest rail line is the RVSC short line in downtown McAllen less
Brownsville-South Padre Island International Airport (BRO) is located east of Brownsville, Texas. Primary roadway access is FM 2519 (Billy Mitchell Boulevard), and it is about four miles east of US 77/83 by way of Boca Chica Boulevard. Rail lines are not
42
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
located on or adjacent to airport property, and the nearest rail line is the short line at the Port of Brownsville, approximately three miles away. This airport has four gates and three runways. This city owned airport is served by three airlines: American Airlines, United, and Aeromexico. The latest improvement at the airport was a parking lot extension in 2009. Ground transportation at this airport includes a $1 Island Airport Shuttle in addition to car rental and taxi service. Passengers can use the airport shuttle to connect to the WAVE, South Padre Island’s transit system. All three airports have US Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, there are scheduled flights from McAllen-Miller to Mexico City and from Brownsville-SPI to Monterrey. No international flights currently operate from Valley International. In addition to the commercial airports, eight general aviation airports are located in the Pharr District. The eight general aviation airports in the study area are described in detail below. Port Isabel-Cameron County Airport (PIL) is located 10 miles northwest of Port Isabel. The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) classifies this airport as regional; it is the fourthbusiest airport in the Valley after the three major ones. Port IsabelCameron County is owned by the County; it has one primary runway but does not have a control tower. Primary access to this airport is provided by FM 510 via SH 100 from Port Isabel, FM 2480 from Los Fresnos, and FM 106/General Brandt Road from the west. FM 510 and FM 2480 (via FM 1847) connect to SH 100, and FM 106/General Brandt Road is connected to SH 345.
July 2013
South Texas International Airport at Edinburg (EBG) is located 9 miles north of Edinburg at FM 490 and US 281. The NPIAS listing for this airport is local. This airport is owned by the City of Edinburg and does not have a tower. Mid Valley Airport (T65) is located 2 miles northeast of Weslaco. The NPIAS listing for this airport is local. Mid Valley Airport is owned by the City of Weslaco and does not have a tower. This is the only airport in the study area to provide on-demand US Customs. US Customs officers do not have set hours and are on call. Primary roadway access is Joe Stephens Avenue, a minor roadway with connections to US 83 less than a mile away. Jim Hogg County Airport (HBV) is located 3 miles northwest of Hebbronville. The NPIAS listing for this airport is basic. Jim Hogg County Airport is owned by the County and does not have a tower. Primary roadway access is SH 359. Brooks County Airport (BKS) is located 2 miles southeast of Falfurrias. The NPIAS listing for this airport is other. Brooks County Airport is owned by the County and does not have a tower. Primary roadway access is approximately 1.4 miles east of US 281 off FM 2191. Zapata County Airport (APY) is located 4 miles northeast of Zapata. This airport is not listed in the NPIAS. Zapata County Airport is owned by the County and does not have a tower. Primary roadway access is SH 16.
43
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Rio Grande City Airport (67R) is located 3 miles northwest of Rio Grande City, TX. The NPIAS listing for this airport is N/A. Rio Grande City Airport is owned by the City of Rio Grande City and does not have a tower. Primary roadway access for this airport is off FM 3167, approximately four miles north of US 83. . Charles R. Johnson Airport (T05) is located one mile northwest of Port Mansfield. This airport is not listed in the NPIAS. Charles R. Johnson Airport is owned by the Willacy County Navigation District and does not have a tower. Primary roadway access is SH 186.
44
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 14 - Existing Water Ports
45
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 15 - Existing Port-of-Entries
46
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 16 - Existing Airports
47
Rio Grande Valley
4.0
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
CURRENT AND PROJECTED DEMOGRAPHICS
4.1
Population
The Valley has shared in the high growth of Texas over the past few decades. Texas in general has added population faster than the national average, and the Valley in turn has grown faster than the rest of the state, as shown in Table 8. Most growth is within Hidalgo and Cameron counties, with a combined increase of over half-million people from 1990 to 2010.
Table 9 - TXSDC Population Projections, 0.5 Scenario
Table 8 - Census Data-Population 1990-2000-2010 County
increase alone will cause the Valley to increase from 1.3 million people now, to over 2 million by 2050. Including migration (from all locations—elsewhere in Texas, other parts of the US, and international immigrants), the Valley is projected to grow to 2.5 million people by 2050. The SDC does note that migration rates from 2000 to 2010 were high relative to historic levels, a trend they consider unlikely to continue. Their long-term forecast, shown in the table below, assumes in-migration occurring at 50% of the 20002010 rate, called the “0.5 Scenario.” A map of this growth is shown in Figure 17.
Brooks
1990 8,204
2000 7,976
2010 7,223
Cameron
260,120
335,227
406,220
Hidalgo
383,545
569,463
774,769
Jim Hogg
5,109
5,281
5,300
Kenedy
460
414
416
Starr
40,518
53,597
60,968
Willacy
17,705
20,082
22,134
Zapata
9,279
12,182
14,018
STUDY AREA
724,940
1,004,222
1,291,048
STATE OF TEXAS
16,986,510
20,851,820
25,145,561
UNITED STATES
248,709,873
281,421,906
308,745,538
Projections by the Texas State Data Center (SDC) indicate that the strong growth trend of the Valley and the state will continue. Population growth comes from two sources: natural increase (births over deaths) and in-migration. The SDC estimates that natural
County
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Brooks
7,223
7,783
8,252
8,722
9,181
Cameron
406,220
478,974
559,593
641,376
729,461
Hidalgo
774,769
953,069
1,156,580
1,366,923
1,589,783
Jim Hogg
5,300
5,853
6,356
6,790
7,274
Kenedy
416
463
498
504
507
Starr
60,968
70,803
80,085
88,633
97,107
Willacy
22,134
25,264
28,479
31,559
34,840
Zapata
14,018
16,819
19,709
22,876
26,365
1,291,048
1,559,028
1,859,552
2,167,383
2,494,518
25,145,561
28,921,650
32,927,245
37,022,513
41,311,221
STUDY AREA STATE
4.2
Employment
Employment projections in Table 10 for the Valley show strong growth forecasts, much like population. US Bureau of Labor
48
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Statistics job counts for 2010 were projected forward using Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) growth rates. Together, this shows total employment in the Valley growing from under 400,000 today to approximately 460,000. It should be noted, however, that the Valley lags the state in terms of the number of employed persons per capita. In 2010, the Valley had 3.5 residents for every job, whereas the state as a whole had 2.5. This proportion is forecast to remain roughly the same through 2020. A map of this growth is shown in Figure 18. Table 10 - TWC Employment Projections
2,412
Workforce Area** Coastal Bend
2010-2020 Growth 18.2%
Cameron
124,670
Cameron Co.
21.8%
151,848
Hidalgo
219,373
Lower RGV
24.2%
272,461
Jim Hogg
2,005
South Texas
23.6%
2,478
Kenedy
422
Coastal Bend
18.2%
499
Starr
14,088
Lower RGV
24.2%
17,497
Willacy
4,375
Lower RGV
24.2%
5,434
Zapata STUDY AREA
3,662
South Texas
23.6%
4,526
371,007
n/a
23.3%
457,595
10,182,150
n/a
20.1%
12,228,762
County
2010 Jobs*
Brooks
STATE
2020 Jobs 2,851
49
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 17 - Population Growth (2010 - 2030)
50
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 18 – Employment Growth (2010-2020)
51
Rio Grande Valley
4.3
Regional Mobility Plan
Traffic
Travel demand models were analyzed to verify planned improvements. The following travel demand models were reviewed as part of this study:
July 2013
in the model. Congested segments are listed in Table 11, and needed capacity improvements will be discussed in Section 5.0. Table 11 - Congested Segments in Harlingen-San Benito MPO
Road
From
To
2030 Harlingen – San Benito MPO (received from MPO on March 2013)
Congested (V/C > 1.0) US 83
FM 800
US 77
2030 Hidalgo County MPO (received as part of previous study)
US 77
North of SH 107
Business 77
US 77/83
LP 499
SP 486
2030 Brownsville MPO (accessed on website, published October 12, 2004)
Business 83
FM 800
US 77
Business 77
US 77/LP 499 North
US 77 in San Benito
Commerce St
All in Harlingen
SH 107
Stuart Place Rd
Business 77
SH 345
US 77 (N)
FM 106
FM 106
Business 77
FM 508
FM 508
FM 507
FM 106
FM 509
US 281(Military Hwy)
FM 106
Congestion in travel demand models is measured using Volume-toCapacity (V/C) ratios. The following V/C thresholds were used to define congestion:
Uncongested (V/C < 1.0)
Congested (1.0 < V/C < 1.3)
Severely Congested (V/C > 1.3)
Several proposed projects were not in the travel demand models approved for this study. It cannot be determined if traffic conditions on nearby corridors will be improved or worsened by proposed projects. Harlingen – San Benito MPO The 2030 HSBMPO Travel Demand Model was obtained during the project. Upon inspection, the Harlingen Loop completion (FM 509 extension) and proposed US 77/83 South Parallel corridor were not
FM 732 Jones Rd Severely Congested (V/C > 1.3)
US 77
FM 1479
US 77
FM 800
Brownsville MPO The 2030 Brownsville Travel Demand Model was published in 2004. Major future projects are included in the model, including the East Loop, FM 511, the West Parkway, and the Flor de Mayo POE. The congested segments were identified from a PDF that displayed travel demand output. Therefore, it was not possible to verify if recently completed expansion projects were incorporated into the
52
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
model. For example, SH 48 west of Port Isabel was widened to four lanes around the MTP was being updated. Congested segments are listed in Table 12, and needed capacity improvements will be discussed in Section 5.0. Table 12 - Congested Segments in Brownsville MPO
Road
From
To
Business 77
US 77/83
Gateway Bridge
US 281 (Military Hwy)
FM 3248
Business 77
FM 1847
SH 550
SH 100
Congested (V/C > 1.0)
SH 48 approach to Port Isabel SH 48 (Boca Chica US 77/83 Blvd) West Parkway US 281 (Military Hwy) Severely Congested (V/C > 1.3) SH 100
US 77/83
SH 4
US 77/83
SH 48 (Padre Island Hwy)
SH 4 (Boca Chica Blvd)
Padre Island Hwy Palm Blvd FM 1847 FM 2519 (Billy Mitchell Blvd) N Central Ave
Hidalgo County MPO The Hidalgo MPO travel demand model was received during the Hidalgo commuter Rail study. This model was completed in 2004. Some coding inaccuracies appeared on inspection of the model, notably the absence of SH 365 (TCC), IBTC, Donna POE, and inclusion of the Pharr connection from San Juan. The POEs were also included in the travel demand model; however, it is not known if the V/C was calculated differently to account for inspection by
Customs and Border Protection. Congested segments are listed Table 13, and needed capacity improvements will be discussed in Section 5.0. Table 13 - Congested Segments in HCMPO
Road
From
To
Congested (V/C > 1.0) Closner Blvd (Business 281) Business 83
Russell Rd
US 281
Bryan Rd
US 83
SH 336
US 83
Dicker Road
FM 1015 Business 83 Mission - McAllen POE US 83 (Frontage Roads Bryan Rd & Ramps) US 83 (Frontage Roads FM 1423 & Ramps) Severely Congested (V/C > 1.3)
Hidalgo Loop South
US 281
SH 107
Tower Rd
Mile 6 W Rd
US 83
FM 886
Abram Rd
US 83/281
Interchange ramps
US 281 Ramps
Closner (South)
FM 493
Progreso POE Anzalduas POE
53
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 19 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Projected Roadway Congestion
54
Rio Grande Valley
5.0
Regional Mobility Plan
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Valley is well-positioned to benefit as trade with Mexico continues to grow. Infrastructure improvements must be made to facilitate freight movement, both by land and sea, between the United States and Mexico. Facilities at seaports, airports, and portof-entries can be transportation bottlenecks similar to roads and rail lines. Infrastructure at these facilities is also considered when evaluating the region’s economic competitiveness. Needs identified in this section should focus on the following goals approved by the RGVP.
Preserve and improve efficiency of the existing system,
Improve safety,
Improve mobility,
Improve connectivity,
Improve community livability,
Improve modal choices and accessibility, and
Advance the region’s economic competiveness.
Preserve and Improve Efficiency of Existing System These projects should be focused on upgrading existing infrastructure. ROW acquisition and new construction, if any, should be minimal, as should increases to the annual operating infrastructure budget. Sample projects include:
Maintenance/repair
Corridor modifications, e.g. turn bays, access management, traffic signals
July 2013
Optimization of existing equipment/operations
Obsolete infrastructure replacement
Improve Safety This qualification should be used only if there is a demonstrated safety problem that is decreased or eliminated at project completion. Sample transportation projects are roadway modifications intended to decrease accidents, bicycle and pedestrian facilities that decrease exposure to vehicular traffic, or removal of at-grade railroad crossings. Roadway projects that improve mobility along highway evacuation routes are also considered safety improvements. This category also includes projects completed to support Department of Homeland Security initiatives at airports, border crossings, and water ports. Improve Mobility This goal is achieved if a project adds local or system-wide capacity, e.g. a road widening or additional port terminal. Projects that only optimize existing infrastructure, e.g. retiming a traffic signal, do not meet this goal. Improve Connectivity Most connectivity projects are road/rail/pedestrian corridors on new alignment. Connectivity projects also include upgrading the roadway functional class (minor arterial to freeway) or major interchange improvements (adding direct connector ramps). Major mobility and connectivity projects, while improving regional circulation and travel patterns, may affect local connectivity such that some local street patterns will need to be reconfigured.
55
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Improve Modal Choices and Accessibility These projects would generally focus on the addition or upgrade of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This goal can be accomplished as part of larger project, e.g. a mixed-use sidewalk is constructed with a roadway widening project or a specific retro-fit project. Improve Community Livability The quality-of-life for the area should be improved by these projects. This can be a wide range of projects, such as community parks, mobility projects that mitigate congestion, water/wastewater and storm sewer upgrades, and any other improvements that make the RGV a more attractive place to live. Advance the Region’s Economic Competitiveness The ability of the RGV to compete at a state-wide economic level is strengthened by these projects. The RGV has a competitive advantage with multiple port-of-entries with Mexico and a major deep-draft water port. Projects that strengthen this competitive advantage are identified here. Major regional projects are also identified here.
5.1
Roadway
There are several projects of varying magnitude already planned within the Valley. Only projects that improved or expanded the Valley’s principal arterial network were reviewed during the Mobility Plan. Arbitrary thresholds such as project length and cost were not used because the regional impact may not be considered in
July 2013
the cost. In general the longest and most expensive projects involved principal arterials. Note that in May 2013, approval was granted to install signage on existing RGV expressways that meet Interstate standards: US 77 as IH 69E, US 281 as IH 69C, and US 83 as IH 2. These Interstate designations may be expanded to other segments as they achieve the necessary design standards. Rural The rural areas of the Valley did not have any traffic forecasts on which to base future roadway needs. Based on planning projects from varying agencies, rural roadway projects can be classified into the following categories:
US 77 and US 281 improvements to upgrade the corridors to Interstate standards, extending the designations of IH 69E along US 77 and IH 69C along US 281,
Relief routes around towns and small cities,
Reconstruction and local expansions of the state systems.
Corridor upgrades to US 281 and US 77 (Figure 20) have been and continue to be a local, statewide, and national priority. The improvement of these corridors will improve mobility and connectivity, increase the region’s economic competitiveness, while using much of the existing system. These upgrades also have the potential to be designed as relief routes around small cities such as Sarita and Falfurrias. The most significant need for relief routes is on US 83. All sections of US 83 from Webb County Line to west Mission are at-grade facilities, with the exception of one underpass at FM 2360. The current alignment of US 83 travels through the center of many cities in Zapata, Starr and western Hidalgo County, with
56
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Zapata, Roma, Rio Grande City, Sullivan City, and La Joya being the most significant. Two bypasses are currently proposed; the La Joya Relief Route and Roma/Rio Grande City Relief Route. Mass hurricane evacuations are also aided by improvements to US 83.
July 2013
Figure 21 - End of US 83 / IH 2 Expressway in Penitas
Figure 20 - IH-69 Upgrades to US 77 in Raymondville
The La Joya Relief Route, currently sponsored by the HCRMA, to extend the expressway section of US 83 (recently approved as IH 2) into Starr County. This project has been further developed since the 2003 Mobility Plan. The Roma/Rio Grande Relief Route has not been further defined based on documents reviewed.
One recommendation from the 2003 Mobility Plan was new construction of rural arterials between Starr and Hidalgo Counties. These roads would allow more development within Starr County; however, population projections do not show a need to accelerate development of these arterials. The proposed relief routes will likely yield the highest benefit to the county, as mobility between cities in Starr County and employment opportunities in Hidalgo is improved. Urban The most heavily populated areas of the Valley are Hidalgo and Cameron Counties. Several overlapping jurisdictions have proposed improvements of varying impact. In general, the cities and counties planned projects to expand their surface arterial network, and RMAs planned projects to add major corridors. Hidalgo County The HCRMA is planning the following major projects in the short term: SH 365 (Trade Connector Corridor), International Bridge Trade Connector (IBTC), and US 281 Military Highway overpass.
57
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Once completed, a limited-access connection from four POEs to US 83 Expressway (IH 2) will be provided by these projects. Travel time from the border to other areas of the Valley will be reduced. Additionally, through trips will be diverted away from the surfacearterial network of several cities, notably McAllen, Pharr, San Juan, Alamo, and Donna, a general concern of residents. The Hidalgo Loop is a long-term project of the HCRMA. The Hidalgo Loop will include parts of the IBTC and SH 365 to be built in the near term. Completion of the IBTC and SH 365 (TCC) is expected to provide better truck mobility than existing surface streets, and consequently, decrease truck volumes on local roads. Truck traffic is a major concern expressed by local residents and stakeholders. Major connections from POEs such as South Cage Boulevard are the main roads through cities and have nearby residential and commercial land uses. Removal of through truck traffic would increase safety and preserve the pavement condition of local roads. The MPO has many surface arterial projects in the Mission – Pharr – Edinburg – McAllen area. Many of these projects are the expansion or extension of existing corridors. A connection from US 83 in San Juan to the Pharr International Bridge was proposed by the 2003 RGV Mobility Plan. The purpose of this corridor was to provide a high speed route between US 83 and the border to keep freight traffic off of surface streets. The concept of this corridor was refined as part of the IBTC project, although the
July 2013
connection to US 83 is about five miles to the east. The San Juan – Pharr roadway was not carried forward in the Hidalgo County MPO major thoroughfare plan. The US 83 / IH 2 mainlanes are not projected to be overcapacity; however, several ramps in McAllen are projected to experience severe congestion. High volumes at ramps may cause undesirable mainlane operations. Certain ITS improvements such as ramp metering may be necessary to maintain traffic on the mainlanes. Congestion at Closner Blvd near US 281 is indicated by traffic forecasts. This congestion may be mitigated by adding a southbound direct connector to US 281 from Closner Blvd. SH 107 east of Tower Road is projected as severely congested in 2030. On further inspection, the SH 107 is modeled as having only two lanes in the congested segment. The current typical section is four-lanes divided. The City has expressed interest in building a grade separation at this location. While a grade separation is not warranted based on the volumes, the intersection with Tower Road is currently at a skew and may need to be reconfigured. Planned capacity improvements should mitigate other congestion concerns. For example, the congested segment of US 83 is in the same location as the La Joya Relief Route. Additionally, the planned SH 365 (TCC) and IBTC are not in the model and should improve east-west mobility.
58
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Cameron County Many congested corridors in Cameron County are in downtown areas that cannot be easily expanded. ROW acquisition costs and community impacts could make major expansion projects costly and unpopular. New capacity should be added outside the urban cores. Congestion along the US 77/83 corridor was forecasted by the HSBMPO travel demand model. The proposed US 77/83 South Parallel connector should be built to relieve US 77/83 by serving local trips. Local trips can use the parallel connector if it is close enough to US 77/83. The US 281 Connector (sponsored by CCRMA) may also relieve congestion on US 77/83 and in downtown Brownsville. The limits of this project are from US 281 Military Hightway) near FM 1577 to US 77/83 at SH 100. SH 32 (East Loop) is a major project south of Brownsville from US 77/83 north of Veterans POE to the Port of Brownsville. Connectivity would also be provided to the airport. The East Loop is planned to be a reliever for existing routes to the Port. Based on the traffic analysis, major streets (SH 48 and SH 4) that connect the Port to US 77/83 are congested in 2030 conditions. These corridors are in a constrained urban environment, and expansion is not possible without ROW acquisition and a major impact to the community. SH 32 is complemented by SH 550 on the north. SH 550 is a tolled highway under construction located north of Brownsville that will connect US 77/83 to the Port. These two new corridors should attract freight trucks off of existing surface streets, thereby relieving surface streets in Brownsville. Mobility and connectivity in the Brownsville area is improved, and the improved connections from
July 2013
the Veterans POE and US 77/83 corridor improve the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic competitiveness. The West Parkway is a proposed route in central Brownsville. The West Parkway alignment is proposed to follow the existing UP Brownsville subdivision route from US 77/83 near FM 3248 to Palm Boulevard. Currently on hold, this project is the only planned project that adds capacity within an urban center. If this project is not pursued, then additional improvements to US 281 (Military Highway) or US 77/83 could be necessary. The 2nd Access Project is a proposed tolled facility to South Padre Island. The four-lane bridge would connect to the mainland north of SH 100 near Laguna Vista to PR 100 north of the main developed area on the island. Five alternatives were analyzed in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement released in May 2012. This project is a critical connectivity and mobility project. The existing and only access, the Queen Isabella Memorial Bridge, is congested during the tourist season. Additionally, South Padre Island has high hurricane risk; the Causeway is a critical evacuation route for thousands of residents and visitors. On September 14, 2001, the bridge was severely damaged in a barge collision, restricting access to the island until repairs could be completed. The closure had economic impact, and efficient evacuation would be impossible if a hurricane approached. Completion of the 2nd Access Project improves mobility and connectivity to South Padre Island, establishes another highcapacity evacuation route, and preserves the economic competitiveness of the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s major tourist attraction.
59
Rio Grande Valley
5.2
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Rail
A major goal from the 2003 plan is the relocation of major rail corridors to less populated areas as shown in Figure 23. This is a very high priority because of the following benefits that coincide with RGVP’s goals:
Improve Mobility - Freight mobility is increased as trains can travel faster on relocated corridors,
Improve Safety - Safety is improved for passenger vehicles, pedestrian, cyclists, and freight vehicles by removal of several at-grade crossings in populated areas,
Preserve and Improve Efficiency of the Existing System After relocation, the old corridor can be reused (if abandoned by the railroad) as another mode of transportation.
The recent completion of the Olmitos Industrial Lead and Switchyard and West Rail Bypass Bridge are two projects that will ultimately lead to relocation of international freight traffic out of downtown Brownsville. Major works remaining are completing the rail connections from the West Rail Bypass Bridge to each country’s rail network. This project also improves connectivity and advances the region’s economic competiveness. Four other rail relocations are planned:
North Cameron County Rail Relocation (UP Harlingen Subdivision)
RVSC Mission Subdivision Bypass Extension
Brownsville-Rio Grande (BRG) Railroad Extension to BRO Airport
Switching options between UP and RVSC.
All three of these projects would contribute towards closure of the Harlingen Yard. UP has relocated operations to the yard at Olmito; however, switching operations between UP and RVSC still occur at the Harlingen Yard. The North Cameron County Rail Relocation has been studied and conceptual routes are planned. The current relocation is planned to start east of FM 509, curve northeast of the airport and connect to the Brownsville subdivision north of SH 107. Relocating the UPRR line will also improve connectivity and community livability, improve modal choices and accessibility, and advance the region’s economic competiveness. The RVSC Mission Subdivision Bypass extension would be a route following the UP Santa Rosa Industrial Lead from the Brownsville Subdivision and an abandoned corridor to connect to the RVSC Edinburg branch. Freight traffic would be removed from the existing RVSC track between McAllen and Harlingen and allow passenger rail. This project would also improve connectivity and advance the region’s economic competiveness. The BRG extension would connect the Port of Brownsville to the Brownsville-SPI Airport. The alignment would start south of the port, curve southwest of SH 4 and connect to the airport. Extending the BRG line would also improve connectivity and advance the region’s economic competiveness.
60
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
The capacity of a rail-freight corridor is dependent on number of tracks, control technology (none or Track Warrant Control (TWC), Automatic Block Signal [ABS], or Centralized Traffic control/Traffic Control System [CTC or TCS]), and if multiple types of trains use the corridor. A study for the Association of American Railroads (AAR) lists the following capacities: Table 14 - Average Capacities of Typical Rail-Freight Corridors No. of Tracks
1 1 2 1 2 2
Type of Control
None/TWC ABS None/TWC CTC/TCS ABS CTC/ABS
(Source: National Investment Study)
Rail
Freight
Trains per Day Practical Max if Multiple Types 16 18 28 30 53 75
Infrastructure
Practical Max if Single Types 20 25 35 48 80 100
Capacity
and
Existing capacity is not an issue for any railroads in the study area. Data was collected from the Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis and the maximum number of trains recorded in one day was ten for Union Pacific. However, as Port traffic and trade from Mexico increases, train traffic on the UP Brownsville subdivision may exceed its capacity. Completing siding and signaling improvements would improve freight rail mobility and the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic competitiveness.
5.3
Transit
Transit needs, shown in Figure 24, are programs such as commuter service, local bus service, or paratransit programs. The area has experienced rapid growth and is expected to continue. Several transit departments are operated by cities or regional planning organization. Public transportation will be necessary in future years as roadway expansion within cities may not be feasible. Adding commuter rail service to the Hidalgo County was identified in a previous plan. The commuter rail would highly benefit the Hidalgo County due to it having one of the highest population and employment growth rates in the Valley. Nine park and rides were identified, by a reviewed plan, to be needed in the following cities; Mission, Edinburg, McAllen, Alamo-Donna, Mercedes, Harlingen-San Benito, Brownsville, and SPI. Currently, the Valley does not have any park and rides, which restricts its residents from using different modes of transportation. Three transfer stations were identified, by a reviewed plan, to be needed in the following cities; Edinburg, Mercedes, and HarlingenSan Benito. Additional stations would require transit services to increase their fleet size. Willacy County needs more transit services to expand north in order to better serve its residents. Willacy Countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s employment growth is one of the strongest in the region, which means more workers will be looking for different modes of transportation.
61
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
McAllen’s population and employment is projected to quickly increase over the next years; therefore, Metro McAllen will need to increase their fleet to satisfy the projected demand.
Improve Modal Choices and Accessibility – Multimodal options, such as carpool or bus, are provided by park and rides which give residents the choice to carpool or to take a different transportation mode.
Paratransit service should be offered to all residents in Hidalgo or Cameron County. Currently B Metro, The WAVE and Metro McAllen provide paratransit services. Valley Metro, which covers Hidalgo and Cameron County, does not provide paratransit services. A comprehensive plan for the Town of South Padre Island was developed in October 2008. The land use on the island allows high transit use. The comprehensive plan recommended expanding the transit system (the WAVE) to encourage employee commuting and increase resident and visitor ridership (pg. 1-10). Service expansion is justified by a 223% increase in ridership from 1999 to 2005 (4-3). Proposed transit projects would satisfy the following RGVP goals:
Advance the Region’s Economic Competiveness – Regionwide and effective transit systems would draw business into the region.
Preserve and Improve Efficiency of the Existing System – The current transit services will remain as is and would add additional needed service.
Improve Safety – Paratransit services would keep improving safety for disabled passengers by picking them up at their residence.
Improve Mobility – Transit services would have direct routes to several destinations.
Improve Connectivity – More locations with transit services allows passengers to travel further with ease.
Improve Community Livability – More locations with transit services allows residents to have access to everything the region has to offer.
62
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 22 - Proposed Roadway Projects
63
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 23 - Proposed Rail
64
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 24 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Proposed Transit
65
Rio Grande Valley
5.4
Regional Mobility Plan
Bike and Pedestrian
Most individual bike and pedestrian projects are either incorporated into larger roadway projects or are not large enough to be regionally significant. The sum of all bike and pedestrian projects can, however, be regionally significant. Area-wide improvements allow trips to be completed by walking, biking, public transit. While bike and pedestrian improvements should be constructed in rural areas, existing land use may prevent modal shift away from driving. All of the primary cities within the region (Brownsville, Harlingen, Edinburg, Mission, and McAllen) should have bicycle and pedestrian plans that meet the following objectives:
Over-arching goals are stated,
Primary users and their needs of the networks are identified,
Existing and planned facilities are depicted, and
Measurable metrics are listed.
Other cities and towns should consider developing a plan if any of the following conditions are met:
Pedestrian and bicycle trips are feasible due to dense land use, but the existing bicycle and pedestrian networks are inadequate.
The municipality expects new developer-based growth in the near-term, and existing City standards do not mandate pedestrian-friendly facilities.
Recent traffic accidents suggest the pedestrian and bicycle network is inadequate.
July 2013
The following cities/jurisdictions should develop or update their plans:
Edinburg – Bicycle or Pedestrian Plan does not exist
South Padre Island – Plan last done in 2008,
Hidalgo County MPO – Plan does not include pedestrian component
Opportunities New construction is not always required or feasible to complete the pedestrian and bicycle networks. Many streets may be in otherwise good condition and not require major reconstruction for many years. At those locations, sidewalks would be added as a stand-alone retrofit project. These projects should be identified by local municipalities. The City of Brownsville Sidewalk Crews was identified by the Brownsville MPO plan. This disbanded program completed addressed gaps in the pedestrian and fixed broken sidewalks. Improvements in low-income areas were reimbursed by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Every city should have a similar program to address gaps and broken sidewalks. As rail relocation projects in section 5.2 are pursued, the opportunity to convert old rail lines into multi-use trails (rails-to-trails) should be considered. The Brownsville Historic Battle Hike and Bike Trail is an example of a recently completed rails-to-trails project. In addition to quality-of-life benefits such as community health and city beautification, these corridors provide off-street mobility and connectivity through several developed areas in the city.
66
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
The City of Brownsville identified a 20-mile long multi-use path on FM 1847 from Brownsville to the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Cameron County. A multi-use path on regionally significant road like FM 1847 is advantageous because multiple cities are connected and sections of FM 1847 are loadzoned. Load-zoned roads are ideal bike routes as heavy trucks are prohibited from using the corridor. Currently, there are no other load-zoned regionally significant corridors similar to FM 1847 in the study area. 5.5
Water Ports
Proposed water port projects, shown in Figure 25, would help RGV with five of their set goals; improve efficiency of the existing system, improve safety, improve mobility, improve connectivity, and advance the region’s economic competiveness. Port of Brownsville The Brazos Island Harbor Deepening and Widening Project (BIH Project) at the Port of Brownsville is the most regionally significant Port project. One critical factor driving the BIH Project is the expansion of the Panama Canal. The largest ship size after completion of the canal expansion, post-Panamax, can be 1,200-feet long, 160-feet wide, and 50-ft draft; and a capacity of 12,000 TEUs. The Port of Brownsville Ship Channel and turning basin, after their expansion, should be able to accommodate post-Panamax ships. A cost-benefit analysis of the BIH is being performed by the Port’s consultant. As of February 2013, the benefits and costs were analyzed for depths of 45 ft., 48 ft., 50 ft., and 52 ft. for the widths of
July 2013
250 ft. (no widening), 300 ft. (50 ft. widening), and 350 ft. (100 ft. widening). Increased connectivity and mobility for additional cargo after the BIH Project is provided by two proposed projects, SH 32 (East Loop) and the Port of Brownsville Port of Entry. Transportation demands added to the roadway network could include more employees, increased truck traffic and more rail traffic on the short line. A Port entrance is already planned off of SH 32, and the Port of Brownsville POE would connect to SH 32. While there are not any additional rail connections proposed, the West Rail Project and North Cameron County Rail Relocation will increase the speed and efficiency of Port-bound trains. The BIH Project would be expected to significantly impact the type and/or amount of cargo at the Port of Brownsville. Therefore, cargo dock No. 16 is proposed. Adding a bulk cargo dock to the port will improve the efficiency of the existing system and advance the region’s economy. Port of Harlingen The Port of Harlingen, compared to the Port of Brownsville, does not meet the cargo storage needed to meet the volume of goods being handled. Increasing the liquid and bulk cargo storage capacity of the port will improve the efficiency of the existing system and advance the region’s economic competitiveness. Port Mansfield
67
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
As mentioned earlier, Port Mansfield has faced issues with its draft restrictions; therefore, it is recommended a Draft Improvements Study be conducted. The study would identify long-term improvements and annual maintenance measures to stabilize draft restrictions at the Port. Completion of the improvements would also improve safety. Another safety improvement is the addition of backup power for the navigation beacon, which will allow ships to travel between the Port and Gulf of Mexico during a power outage.
US national interest. The Department of State will work closely with other federal, state, and local agencies, to make a determination. Other agencies involved in the Presidential permitting process include the Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and their state and local affiliates. The Government of Mexico will also review the permit for concurrence with the proposed POE.
Port Isabel Dredging around Port Isabel was identified by another study. Dredging by the Port itself and by “Fingers” area north of SH 100 would improve safety of the existing Port, improve mobility, and advance the region’s economic competitiveness.
Proposed Port-of-Entries within the Valley, shown in Figure 26, should meet the following goals and criteria:
5.6
Improve Connectivity - Connectivity to high-class functional roadways (Interstates or high-speed limited access facilities)
Improve Modal Choices and Accessibility - Special accommodations for bicycle and pedestrian access if required.
Improve Mobility - Adequate vehicular capacity beyond POE
Improve Safety - Sufficient US Custom and Border Protection for inbound traffic
Port-of-Entry
Cross-border traffic with Mexico is also sizable and growing; the expanding maquiladora industrial base near these bridge crossings continues to increase bridge traffic during commuting periods. Nearterm and long-term strategies to better integrate transportation facilities with cross-border movements will be critical to support continued economic growth on both sides of the river. The authorization for a POE is a complex and time-intensive process. The Secretary of State, under Executive Order 11423, has the authority to receive applications for and to issue Presidential permits for the construction, connection, operation, or maintenance of certain facilities at the Mexican border. The primary consideration for approval of a Presidential permit is if a border-crossing project is in
Vehicular capacity at the POE is dependent on the equipment used and procedures set by CBP. The function of inspecting vehicles and persons entering the United States causes delay and constrains the capacity of each POE. This study will endorse POE capacity improvements if recommended by previous studies. The POEs at Lake Falcon, Roma, and Los Ebanos do not have good connectivity to Interstates or high-speed limited access facilities that continue inland. Previous studies, however, did not recommend this
68
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
problem be addressed. Based on high-level observations of Mexico’s roadway network and geography, existing conditions at these crossings should be adequate. The border cities in Mexico near these POEs are far smaller than Matamoros and Reynosa. Further, the two best highways from the border to Monterrey, Mexico, travel southward from Nuevo Laredo and Reynosa. A very large investment would be required to create connections to these highways, which is not justified by current travel patterns. Starr-Camargo Bridge’s capacity has risen in the past years and is in need of additional lanes to improve the mobility, efficiency of the existing system, and advance the region’s economic competitiveness. The FM 755 realignment and US 83 Relief Route are two near-term roadway projects that will improve connectivity and mobility to this POE, which will accommodate additional traffic at this location. The POEs at Anzalduas, Pharr, and Donna are significant beneficiaries of improvements by the HCRMA. Planned improvements improve connectivity of these POE to high-speed inland roadways. Several improvements are proposed at the Anzalduas POE. These improvements include additional northbound and southbound lanes and facilities for processing passenger vehicles, buses, and commercial freight traffic, full completion of the BSIF, and an additional bridge. All of these improvements improve the safety, mobility, efficiency of the existing system, and advance the region’s economic competitiveness.
July 2013
Bridge widening and ITS systems are proposed at the Pharr-Reynosa POE. These should be completed after the BSIF is operational as the improved inspection facilities will be required to process additional traffic. These improvements to an existing POE improve safety, mobility, and efficiency of the existing system. Commercial vehicle and bus inspection facilities are proposed at the Pharr-Reynosa, Donna, and Progreso port-of-entries. These improvements would improve safety, mobility, community livability, and improves the region’s economic competitiveness. Additional BSIF facilities are proposed at the Donna, Los Indios, and Veterans POEs. These improvements, while more expensive than the commercial vehicle and bus inspection facilities previously listed, improve the existing system, mobility, safety, and advance the region’s economic competitiveness. Modernization and reconstruction is proposed at the Progreso and Gateway POEs. The Gateway POE currently accommodates pedestrians and passenger vehicles which its ideal function given proximity to the Multimodal Terminal and surrounding urban land use. Commercial freight traffic is not ideal at the Gateway POE given the Port of Brownsville and Brownsville-SPI International Airport are closer to Veterans POE. Additionally, roadway connections are planned to connect the airport and water port to the Veterans POE. The modernization and reconstruction, with an emphasis on the mobility of people instead of goods, would improve the efficiency of an existing POE, safety, mobility, and community livability.
69
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
The modernization and reconstruction is planned at Progreso; however, the surrounding land use is undeveloped. Surrounding development and the construction of the Hidalgo Loop should influence the function of this POE after reconstruction. Currently, this POE serves passenger and commercial freight traffic. The modernization and reconstruction would improve the efficiency of an existing POE, safety, mobility, and advance the region’s economic competitiveness. The primary connection from the Port-of-Entry at Los Indios POE, FM 509, is underdeveloped. As traffic at other connections grows, this POE may serve as a reliever for busier POEs, especially from Matamoros. Widening FM 509 to a four-lane section similar to FM 1015 from US 83 to Progreso would allow the Los Indios POE to better serve as a reliever. This proposed project would also preserve and improve efficiency of the existing system.
New Port of Entries Roma-Mier International Bridge is proposed by Starr County in order to relieve congestion from Roma-Ciudad Miguel Aleman Bridge. The construction of the Roma-Mier POE would be complemented by the Roma/RGC Relief route to connect the bridge and US 83. Both projects would improve regional mobility and connectivity, community livability and advance the region’s economic competiveness.
July 2013
Sullivan City is coordinating with Diaz Ordaz, Mexico, on the planning, design, and construction of a new POE in western Hidalgo County. This POE would be accessed by Guadalupe-Flores Road. The US 83 Relief Route at Sullivan City allows for a future diamond interchange with Guadalupe-Flores Road, linking the POE to the regional roadway network. A POE at this location would be a viable alternative to improving the Los Ebanos POE, located about 1 mile to the east. The Sullivan City POE would preserve the existing ferry at Los Ebanos, improve regional mobility and connectivity, and improve the region’s economic competitiveness. A Presidential Permit for a Mission POE has been unused for the past 30 years. The POE was originally proposed near Madero; however, the recently completed Anzalduas POE and proposed SH 365 Trade Corridor Connector and Hidalgo Loop require locating the POE at a different location. The conceptual location is further west near the Abram-Perezville area, which is the southwest corner of the proposed Hidalgo Loop. The Mission POE project would improve mobility and connectivity between the LRGV and Mexico and advance the region’s economic competiveness. Prior to construction of the Mission POE, the Hidalgo Loop should be completed from US 83 to SH 365 to provide a high-speed link from the regional roadway network to the POE. The Flor de Mayo POE would relieve congested border crossings in the Brownsville area. The construction of Flor de Mayo would require FM 3248 to be extended. Both proposed projects would also improve community livability and advance the region’s economic competiveness.
70
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
The Port of Brownsville has long identified a POE directly connecting the Port and Mexico. This POE is proposed to have two bridge spans. One span will have four travel lanes for trucks and have a direct connection to the Port’s internal road system. The other span will support a single-track railroad and connect to the existing BRG system. This project would improve mobility and connectivity of the regional road and rail networks. The improvements to the road and rail networks and connection into the Port would advance the region’s economic competitiveness.
5.7
Airport
A master-feasibility plan for the McAllen-Miller International Airport determined the airport can expand up to 22 gates once all the construction phases are completed. The most recent Airport Capacity study for Brownsville-South Padre Island International Airport was completed in August 2001. Twelve projects identified in the study include; rehab Taxiway E, rehab runway and apron lighting, perimeter fencing, drainage improvements, terminal plan study, wildlife hazard assessment, beacons, and more. Officials at Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport plan to extend the 31L/13R runway to 10,000 feet. California Road and FM 511 will be impacted by this expansion. City officials have proposed roadway realignments to accommodate the roadway expansion, and ultimately realigning FM 511. The proposed projects
July 2013
would satisfy the following goals; improve safety, improve mobility, improve modal choices and accessibility, and advance the region’s economic competiveness. The Port Isabel-Cameron County Airport is classified as a regional general aviation airport in the NPIAS. A regional airport is intended to support interstate and long distance (cross country) flights. Businesses and non-commercial aircraft use regional airports. The Sugar Land Regional Airport (FBO) added a control tower in 2001, and the tower addition resulted in further opportunities. The proposed tower would satisfy the following goals: improve safety, improve mobility and connectivity, and advance the region’s economic competiveness. The Mid Valley Airport in Weslaco has on-demand US Customs facilities and is well situated to handle business traffic. Originally proposed with the Airport Master Plan in 2001, expansion of the 1331 runway and completion of eastside and westside hangars and aprons would improve the existing airport by increasing capacity, both in accommodating more cargo and larger planes. These improvements would increase mobility of goods in and out of the airport and advance the region’s economic competitiveness. Three general aviation airports (Zapata County, Rio Grande City, and Charles R Johnson) were not listed in the NPIAS, and is recommended that listing be pursued. Airports listed in the NPIAS are eligible for federal grants under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). These grants can be used to upgrade safety, capacity, security, and environmental concerns. Operational
71
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
expenses and revenue-generating improvements are not eligible. The NPIAS is updated every two years, with the last update in 2012. The proposed course of action would satisfy the following goals: preserve and improve efficiency of the existing system and improve safety. One such improvement is a back-up generator at Charles R. Johnson Airport near Port Mansfield. This improvement was identified after Hurricanes Dolly and Ike. SpaceX is considering locating its launch facility in Brownsville. The proposed site is at SH 4/Boca Chica Boulevard at the Gulf of Mexico. This project has not been environmentally approved, and SpaceX is considering locations in other states. If the Boca Chica site is selected, improvements to SH 4 may be required. These improvements would be east of the proposed SH 32 (East Loop) and Port of Brownsville Port-of-Entry.
July 2013
281 (now IH 69C) and FM 490 make this airport well-situated to receive southbound freight traffic. Similar to the Port Isabel â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Cameron County airport, a tower may need to be considered to improve operations at this airport if air traffic increased. Increasing cargo traffic and infrastructure improvements would satisfy the following goals: improve mobility and connectivity, improve modal choices and accessibility, and increase the regionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s economic competitiveness. Proposed airport projects are shown in Figure 27.
Officials at Valley International Airport (HRL) have expressed concerns with airport access from US 77 (now IH 69E) by way of the interchange with Loop 499. Movements between US 77 and LP 499 occur at the US 77/LP 499/BUS 77 interchange. Additionally, the UP Brownsville subdivision crosses LP 499 within this interchange, between BUS 77 and the expressway. The proposed projects, including reconfiguration of this interchange, would satisfy the goals of improving mobility and connectivity, and improving modal choices and accessibility. The City of Edinburg has reported efforts to increase cargo traffic through South Texas International and to develop an associated industrial park on adjacent property. The location of the airport at US
72
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 25 - Proposed Water Port Improvements
73
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 26 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; POE Improvements
74
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Figure 27 - Proposed Airport Improvements
75
Rio Grande Valley
6.0
Regional Mobility Plan
PUBLIC / STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
The project team compiled a list of community leaders and other key stakeholders to be contacted, with the aim of introducing them to the project, and enlisting their participation and assistance with “getting the word out” to their friends, neighbors, and clients. The Stakeholders list was based on previous contacts of important officials such as Congressmen, Senators, House Districts, Commissioners, Mayors, City Managers, Engineers, Educators, Port Directors, Schedulers, Executive Assistants, etc. The Stakeholders list was provided to the Rio Grande Valley Partnership. The list of organizations represented is shown in Table 15; the full list of stakeholders and their contact information in shown in the Appendix. Organizations in italics and asterisk have a member on the Steering Committee / Project Review Team. The Rio Grande Valley Regional Mobility Plan Questionnaire was issued via e-mail on the following dates: February 6th and 26th. The following contact efforts were made:
Downloadable questionnaire for easier access and response on March 8th,
Follow up e-mail on March 26th,
Follow up phone call on March 27th,
July 2013
Table 15 - List of Stakeholders (Organizations Only)
Elected Officials U. S. Senator John Cornyn's U. S. Senator Ted Cruz's Office Office Cameron County Brooks County Judge's Office Commissioners' Court Hidalgo County Commissioners' Cameron County Judge's Office Court House District 31 ‐ Mr. Ryan Hidalgo County Judge's Office Guillen House District 35 ‐ Mr. Oscar House District 36 ‐ Mr. Sergio Longoria Muñoz House District 37 (Brownsville) ‐ House District 38 ‐ Mr. Eddie Mr. Rene O. Oliveira Lucio III House District 39 ‐ Mr. House District 40 ‐ Mr. Terry Armando Martinez Canales House District 41 ‐ Mr. Bobby House District 80 ‐ Mr. Tracy O. Guerra King Jim Hogg County Judge's Office Kenedy County Judge's Office Senate District 20 ‐ Mr. Juan Senate District 21 ‐ Ms. Judith "Chuy" Hinojosa Zaffirini Senate District 27 ‐ Mr. Eddie Starr County Commissioners' Lucio Court State Board of Education, Starr County Judge's Office District 2 State Board of Education, Texas Railroad Commission District 3 U. S. Congressional District 15 ‐ U. S. Congressional District 28 ‐ Mr. Ruben Hinojosa Mr. Henry Cuellar U. S. Congressional District 34 ‐ Willacy County Judge's Office Mr. Filemon Vela Zapata County Judge's Office
76
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Government Organizations *Brownsville Metropolitan Brownsville‐South Padre Island Planning Org. International Airport *Cameron County Regional City of Alamo Mobility Authority City of Brownsville City of Donna City of Edinburg City of Falfurrias City of Harlingen City of Hidalgo City of La Feria City of La Joya City of Los Fresnos City of McAllen City of Mercedes City of Mission City of Palmview City of Penitas City of Pharr City of Port Isabel City of Raymondville City of Rio Grande City City of Roma City of San Benito City of San Juan City of San Perlita City of South Padre Island City of Weslaco *Harlingen – San Benito Harlingen Valley International Metropolitan Planning Org. Airport *Hidalgo County Metropolitan *Hidalgo County Regional Planning Org. Mobility Authority Jim Hogg County Housing *Lower Rio Grande Valley Authority Development Council LRGVDC‐Valley Metro McAllen Express Transit McAllen Hidalgo/ Anzalduas McAllen Miller International Bridge Authority Airport Pharr International Bridge Port Isabel‐San Benito Authority Navigation District Port of Brownsville Port of Harlingen Authority Port of Mansfield Progreso/Donna Port of Entry *Starr County *TxDOT – Pharr District
July 2013
U. S. Customs and Border Protection ‐ RGV Region Schools, Colleges and Universities Brooks County ISD Brownsville ISD Harlingen CISD Jim Hogg ISD La Feria ISD Los Fresnos CISD Lyford CISD Point Isabel ISD Raymondville ISD Rio Grande City CISD Roma ISD San Perlita ISD Kenedy County‐Wide Common South Texas College School District University of Texas ‐ Texas State Technical College Brownsville University of Texas Pan‐ Zapata County ISD American (Edinburg) Business Groups, Companies, and other NGOs Brownsville Chamber of Dannenbaum Engineering Commerce Edinburg Chamber of Doctors Hospital at Renaissance Commerce Harlingen Area Chamber of Hidalgo Chamber of Commerce Commerce McAllen Chamber of Commerce McAllen EB5 Regional Center McAllen Economic Development Greater Mission Chamber of Corporation Commerce *Mission Economic Development Pharr Chamber of Commerce Corporation Port Isabel Chamber of Raymondville Chamber of Commerce Commerce RGV Hispanic Chamber of *Rio Grande Valley Partnership Commerce
77
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Roma Chamber of Commerce San Benito Economic Development Corporation South Padre Island Chamber of Commerce Starr County Industrial Foundation Valley Transit Company Zapata Economic Development Corporation
6.1
San Benito Chamber of Commerce San Juan Economic Development Corporation South Texas FreightLiner Starr‐Camargo Bridge Company Weslaco Area Chamber of Commerce
Public Meetings
At the first public meeting, held on January 31, 2013, at the RGVP offices in Weslaco, the project team presented study area maps with already-planned projects, for participants to write comments and draw recommendations. We also presented a series of questions intended to solicit input on transportation issues, challenges, and recommendations, as follows:
July 2013
5.
Any additional comments?
A limited number of comments were received at the meeting itself, but approximately eighty-seven responses to the five questions were received throughout February and March. In order to better organize the project team’s addressing of these responses, they were sorted into three major themes. These were general comments on goals, objectives, or policies; references to specific projects that are already planned or underway; and suggestions for new projects which were then incorporated into the final recommendations. A full detail of the comments is included in the Appendix. A second public meeting was held on July 8, 2013 at the Weslaco Economic Development Council. At this meeting, the project team presented the final draft plan and solicited comments on the recommendations. Approximately twelve officials and interested parties attended the meeting.
1. What transportation improvements are needed for safety and efficiency? 2. What connections/roads/facilities are needed for mobility and connectivity? 3. What transit, pedestrian, or bicycle improvements would provide the most benefit? 4. What transportation improvements would help the region’s livability and economic competitiveness?
78
Rio Grande Valley
7.0
7.1
Regional Mobility Plan
RECOMMENDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS Roadway
Regional roadway projects evaluated against major goals are listed in Table 16. The Regional Major Transportation Plan shows existing and proposed corridors. Below is a description of major concepts. Rural Roadway Projects Improvements to US 281 and US 77 that support IH 69 corridor development should continue, particularly upgrading any remaining segments that do not meet current Interstate standards. The economic competiveness of the Valley is improved by completing these projects. Note that in May 2013, approval was granted to install signage on existing RGV expressways that meet Interstate standards: US 77 as IH 69E, US 281 as IH 69C, and US 83 as IH 2. These Interstate designations may be expanded to other segments as they achieve the necessary design standards. Relief routes, particularly in Starr County, should be constructed in phases as necessary. There has not been any additional development of a US 83 Roma/Rio Grande City Relief route since the last plan. The area will also need a more robust thoroughfare network, which the County will be required to designate and construct. Starr County is the third largest county in the Valley by population, and growth in Hidalgo County may spread into the eastern parts of Starr County.
July 2013
Urban Roadway Projects Many roadway projects were identified within urban areas. The Hidalgo County MPO has 195 projects identified within its boundaries. All major projects, such as the IBTC, SH 365, and SH 32, are consistent with regional goals and should be advanced. After these projects are opened, nearby corridors should be monitored for local congestion caused by traffic redistribution. All of the travel demand models within the Pharr District should be updated with proposed projects. Traffic on nearby corridors is often redistributed after projects are completed. Traffic redistribution may affect future projects on nearby corridors. Local demands may be increased on some corridors by a new major project, and corridor improvements such as turn bays may be necessary. Conversely, local demand may be decreased on other corridors, and a roadway expansion project can be placed on hold. 7.2
Transit and Rail
The transit and rail projects previous discussed are evaluated in Table 17 against regional goals. Major rail relocations are a high priority. After relocation, the railroad ROW can be repurposed as passenger rail, a road, or pedestrian/bike path. Many public transportation projects were identified by regional stakeholders. These opportunities should be pursued as existing roads within downtown areas are constrained by available space and cost of ROW acquisition. Expansion of existing transit services can create the opportunity for high-capacity transit service in the future.
79
Rio Grande Valley
7.3
Regional Mobility Plan
Bike and Pedestrian
Few bicycle and pedestrian projects are proposed by jurisdictions within the eight-county area. Bicycle and pedestrian system improvements should be accomplished with larger roadway and transit projects. Many roadway projects are planned in Hidalgo and Cameron counties; pedestrian or bicycle accommodations should be constructed concurrently in urban areas. Several large transportation projects, however, are located in rural areas and are not intended to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists at opening year. This is acceptable; however, major bicycle and pedestrian connections should be identified in the planning process at the City and MPO level and constructed to provide a basis when development expands into the rural areas. 7.4
Water Ports
Port of Brownsville The BIH Widening and Deepening project of the Ship Channel is a major improvement for the Port of Brownsville, and work on it should continue. The Port is currently analyzing how much to expand the Ship Channel. The most critical variable is the ability of the Port to receive post-Panamax ships. Other Port projects, such as the Cargo Dock No. 16 should continue to increase Port connectivity. Other projects within the Brownsville area that benefit the Port are described in other sections. Coordination with the project sponsors is critical. As an example, a Port access road is planned for the SH 32 (East Loop). The Port will need to coordinate with the CCRMA
July 2013
to ensure the design Port access road is compatible with security requirements. The Port of Brownsville Port of Entry could have significant benefits for the Port and the Valley. The success of the POE is dependent on the following factors:
Number trips only between the Port of Brownsville and Mexico,
Connections in Mexico between the POE and roadway network,
Veterans POE congestion and limits against its expansion. Port of Harlingen The Port of Harlingen, compared to the Port of Brownsville, does not meet the cargo storage needed to meet the volume of goods being handled. Additional cargo storage will improve the Port’s ability to process crops, fertilizer, gasoline, and construction materials. Port Mansfield The Draft Improvements Study would identify long-term improvements and annual maintenance measures to stabilize draft restrictions at the Port. In the short-term, a power backup should be installed at the navigation beacon to improve safety at this Port. Port Isabel Dredging by the Port itself and by “Fingers” area north of SH 100 is recommended. The dredging is recommended to make the Port Isabel area more attractive for yacht traffic.
80
Rio Grande Valley
7.5
Regional Mobility Plan
Port-of-Entry
Planned projects to improve the Port-of-Entries are shown in Table 19. The planned POE projects (Flor de Mayo and Port of Brownsville) should be advanced and additional POE locations are not anticipated at this time. The Mission POE has a long-standing Presidential Permit, but its exact location has not been determined. Eventual placement of the crossing will have to consider proximity to the new Anzalduas POE. Coordination with the Mexican government is critical as a new POE requires connections to the nation’s transportation system. For the Flor de Mayo POE, a two-mile roadway from Mexico 2 is required. The Port of Brownsville POE would require six-mile roadway, along with possible upgrades to the highway to Matamoros. FM 509, the connection from Los Indios to US 77/83, should be widened to a four-lane divided facility. Traffic projections in from HSBMPO show that FM 509 will be overcapacity as a two-lane facility. This road should be widened to accommodate future traffic. Additionally, the Los Indios POE would be better suited to relieve other POEs. A bridge at Los Ebanos was proposed by the previous plan. There is not a need for this bridge at this location for the foreseeable future based on land use and the nearby transportation network. The ferry should remain. Four new POEs are dependent on major roadway improvements prior to opening. The mobility and connectivity to the regional
July 2013
roadway network is provided by these improvements. Affected POEs are listed below, with the roadway improvements in italics.
7.6
Roma-Mier: US 83 Relief Route / extension of IH 2 at Roma and Rio Grande City
Sullivan City: US 83 Relief Route / extension of IH 2 at La Joya and Penitas (Phase I) and Sullivan City (Phase II)
Mission: Hidalgo Loop (US 83 to SH 365)
Port of Brownsville: SH 32 (East Loop) Airport
McAllen-Miller International Airport’s Terminal Improvement Project is projected to cost $22 million. Plans include a terminal expansion with a new passenger screening area and post security concession area. A Baggage Screening area, with three explosion detection systems, is planned to be state of the art. Other amenities include TAS Offices, Baggage Claim, and a Passenger screening area. Control towers at Port Isabel – Cameron County Airport and South Texas International Airport at Edinburg should be built. The Port Isabel – Cameron County Airport could be more attractive to traffic that may want to avoid the commercial airports in the Valley. In Edinburg, a nearby industrial park near the airport could increase air cargo traffic. Air traffic mobility would be improved at both locations, and the region’s economic competitiveness would be improved. Operational cost should be considered prior to construction, as control tower funding was recently subject to budget cuts.
81
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Three general aviation airports (Zapata County, Rio Grande City, and Charles R Johnson) were not listed in the NPIAS. The airports would have access to Airport Improvement Program grants if listed. The NPIAS is updated by the FAA every two years, and regional officials should coordinate with the FAA to get these airports listed. Once these airports are listed, certain improvements such as the back-up generator at Charles R. Johnson Airport, may be funded by the Airport Improvement Program. All airport projects are listed in Table 23.
82
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table 16 - Roadway Projects Roadway
Roadway Short Description
Cost
Report / Source
US 77
US 77 - Kenedy (Construct mainlanes and overpasses from Kleburg CL to La Parra)
$15,000,000
TXDOT
US 77
US 77 - Kenedy (Construct mainlanes and overpasses from Armstrong to Willacy CL)
$250,000,000
TXDOT
US 77
Construct US 77 - Willacy (Business 77 to Willacy/Kenedy County line)
$30,000,000
TXDOT
US 77
Safety and connectivity improvements
$15,000,000
HSBMPO
US 77
US 77 Interstate Tolled Truck Lane Study (Alternative alignments for tolled lanes east of Harlingen)
$500,000
LRFS
$10,000,000
LAN
US 77/SH 499 Redesign and reconstruct interchange. Proposed by Interchange HRL Airport officials US 83
US 83 - Zapata Relief Route Construction (Around Lake Falcon)
$87,000,000
LAN
US 83
Roma/Rio Grande Relief (east of RGC to FM 755 )
$41,588,238
TXDOT / BMP
US 83
Roma/Rio Grande Relief ( FM 755 to 1.26 miles northwest of US 83/Loma Blanca)
$90,000,000
TXDOT
US 83
US 83 relief route at La Joya and Penitas (Phase I)
$87,498,500
HCMPO
US 83
US 83 relief route at Sullivan City (Phase II).
$52,529,666
HCRMA
US 83
Widen to six-lanes from FM 2221 TO FM 1427
$27,373,938
HCMPO
US 83
Widen to six-lanes from FM 1427 to 0.5 E of Bus. 83
$7,033,250
HCMPO
US 83
US 83 Overpasses at Liberty Blvd, Tom Gill Road and FM 2221
$40,000,000
HCMPO
US 83
US 83 and Bicentennial (Reconstruct, mainlanes, and reconfigure ramps)
$36,861,564
HCMPO
$9,090,097
HCMPO HCMPO
elevate
US 83/US 281 Expand interchange Bus. 83
Widen from FM 491 to Cameron CL
$12,400,000
US 281
Closner to SB US 281 On-ramp Construction
$25,000,000
LAN
US 281 (Military)
US 281 Military Widening and Grade Separation (0.45 mile east of Pharr Int'l Crossing to FM 2557)
$22,465,056
HCMPO
US 281 (Military)
Widen to four-lane rural from S. Cage Blvd to Mile 3 E Cameron Co Line
$67,471,521
US 281 (Military)
Widen to four-lanes from FM 3248 to FM 1577
$31,270,000
US 281 (Military)
FM 3248 / Military Hwy Grade Separation (FM 3248/Military Hwy if Flor de Mayo POE is built)
$25,000,000
LAN
Reconstruct and add shoulders from SH 32 to Boca Chica
$19,200,000
LAN
Construct SH 32 (East Loop) (Port of Brownsville to the Veterans International Bridge)
$90,000,000
CRMA
SH 100 Extension
281 Connector Construction (US 281 to US 77/83)
$28,000,000
CRMA
SH 100A
Construct South Padre Island 2nd Access (island to the $465,000,000 mainland)
CRMA
SH 4 SH 32
Rail and Transit
Bike/Ped
Ports
Port of Entry
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
X
X
BMPO
X X
Note new designations for portions of existing expressways: US 77 as IH 69E, US 281 as IH 69C, and US 83 as IH 2
83
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table 16 (continued) - Roadway Projects Roadway
Roadway Short Description
Cost
Report / Source
SH 107
Widen to six-lane divided from FM 676 to SH 495
$21,138,298
HCMPO
SH 107
Widen to six-lane divided from US 281 east to east of FM 493
$16,762,500
HCMPO
SH 365
SH 365 Construction (Trade Corridor Connector Project $195,450,385 from FM 1016 to FM 3072)
HCMPO
SH 336
Widen to six-lane divided from US 281 Military Hwy to S. 2nd St
$34,150,000
HCMPO
SH 336
SH 336 (10th St) Widening (Trenton Rd to SH 107)
$13,106,441
HCMPO
FM 88
Widen to four-lanes from FM 1925 (Monte Cristo) to SH 107
$14,780,721
HCMPO
FM 88
Widen to four-lanes from SH 107 to 16 Mile N Rd
$3,043,680
HCMPO
FM 491 FM 491
Widen to four-lanes from FM 1925 (Monte Cristo) to SH 107 Widen to four-lanes from SH 107 to Mile 10 N Road
Rail and Transit
Bike/Ped
Ports
Port of Entry
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
X
$4,512,465 $19,481,378
HCMPO
FM 491
Widen to four-lanes from Mile 10 N Road to US 83
$9,024,930
FM 493
FM 493 (La Blanca Rd) Widening (Mile 14 N Rd to Mile 10 N Rd)
$18,908,556
HCMPO
FM 493
Widen to four-lanes (US 281 to BUS 83) construct high water bridge over IBWC floodway
$16,092,000
HCMPO
SH 495
FM 495 Widening (2nd St in McAllen to U.S. 281)
$17,078,298
HCMPO
SH 495
FM 495 Widening (Conway Ave to FM 1926 (23rd St)
$16,721,600
HCMPO
X
SH 495
FM 495 Extension (FM 1423 to FM 1015)
$23,480,240
HCMPO
FM 509
FM 509 Widening ( Los Indios POE to US 77)
$58,000,000
LAN
FM 509
Extend from FM 509 to Outer Parkway
$18,009,435
HSBMPO
X
$4.15 million (initial realignment) + Airport Loop (TBD)
COB
X
X
FM 511
FM 511 Realignment (Airport Loop- 4 lanes)
FM 681
FM 681 Widening ( Moorefield to Conway)
$12,853,566
HMPO
FM 755
Realign from 0.5 N of Church Ln (Starr) to Starr-Camargo
$9,250,000
TxDOT
X
FM 755
Widen to four-lanes from US 83 to US 281 in Brooks Co
$171,000,000
CMP
X
FM 803
Realign and widen FM 803
$15,000,000
CCW
FM 907
Widen from Ridge Road to Military Hwy
$17,982,810
HCMPO
FM 907
FM 907 (Alamo Rd) Widening (Nolana St to SH 107)
$22,616,764
HCMPO
FM 1015
Widen to four lanes from FM 1925 to SH 107
$4,512,465
HCMPO
FM 1015
Widen to four lanes from SH 107 to Mile 12 N Rd
$14,850,073
HCMPO
Note new designations for portions of existing expressways: US 77 as IH 69E, US 281 as IH 69C, and US 83 as IH 2
84
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table 16 (continued) - Roadway Projects Roadway
Roadway Short Description
Cost
Report / Source
FM 1016
Widen to six-lane divided from US 83 to Military Highway
$7,075,586
HCMPO
FM 1425
FM 1425 Widening (SH 107 to Mile 9 N Rd)
$17,982,810
HCMPO
FM 1925
FM 1924 (Mile 3 N) Widening (Jara Chinas to FM 492)
$18,881,951
HCMPO
FM 1925
Widen to four-lanes from Kenyon Rd to FM 907
$6,323,100
HCMPO
FM 1925
FM 907 to FM 88
$32,722,126
HCMPO
FM 1925
FM 1925 Phase II Widening (FM 88 to FM 491)
$24,286,582
HCMPO
FM 1925
Extension from FM 491 to US 77
$40,000,000
BMP
FM 3248
Widen from Military Hwy to US 77 (if Flor de Mayo POE is built)
$12,000,000
LAN
X
FM 3248
Extend FM 3248 to Future Flor de Mayo Bridge
$15,000,000
LAN
X
$15,362,500
HSBMPO
$6,000,000
BMP
General Brand Reconstruct and add shoulders from FM 1847 to FM Rd 510 Guadalupe Flores Rd Outer Parkway HC Loop West Parkway
Extension and improvements from US 83 to Sullivan POE
U.S. 77 near the North Cameron County Line to FM $200,000,000 1847 Hidalgo County Loop Construction Construct West Parkway (Segment #1 from FM 3248 to Morrison Road)
US 77/83 Construct new two-lane rural road from FM 1479 to FM South Parallel 1577 IBTC
VA
High-water bridges: FM 1015 and FM 2061 at IBWC Floodway
HCRMA
$4,400,000
COB
$10,963,726
HSBMPO
$17,820,000
Bike/Ped
Ports
Port of Entry
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
X X
CRMA
$891,648,000
International Bridge Trade Corridor (construct a new controlled access toll facility from U.S. 83 to U.S 281 at $165,400,000 San Juan Rd)
Rail and Transit
HCMPO
X
TxDOT
Note new designations for portions of existing expressways: US 77 as IH 69E, US 281 as IH 69C, and US 83 as IH 2
85
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table 17 - Rail Projects Rail Short Description
Cost
Report / Source
Roadway
TBD
LRFS
X
Hidalgo County Commuter Rail Construction (along U.S. 83)
$300,000,000
LOTPA
X
UPRR Brownsville Subdivision (Siding and signal improvements)
$109,000,000
TWFCS
$6,740,000
TWFCS
UPRR Harlingen Yard (Relocating RGVC)
$25,000,000
TWFCS
X
X
North Cameron County Rail Relocation (FM 508 to U.S. 77)
$110,000,000
CCRMA
X
X
North Railroad Relocation
$60,000,000
CCRMA
TBD
COB
Cost
Report / Source
Valley Metro Commuter Route (Harlingen to South Padre and a Mid-Valley Network)
$300,000
LOTPA
Paratransit Service - Hidalgo/Cameron
$800,000
Brownsville Metro Facility Renovations (facility, yard, and parking area)
TBD
Hidalgo County Rail Study ( safety improvements, siding adjustments, grade separations, track and yard relocations)
UPRR Main Line (Port Line capacity upgrades)
Port to Airport Connector (Brownsville)
Bike/Ped
Ports
Port of Entry
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
X
X
X
Table 18 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Transit Projects Transit Short Description
Roadway
Bike/Ped
LOTP
X
X
LOTPA
X
X
LOTPA
X
X
LOTPA
X
X
LOTPA
X
X
$300,000
LOTPA
X
X
TBD
LOTPA
X
X
Park & Ride Lot (Downtown Brownsville) Park & Ride Facility (Harlingen - San Benito)
$50,000
Community Transit Transfer Station (Harlingen - San Benito) Route from UT Pan Am to downtown Edinburg RTAP Technology for 95% on-time Regional Service (Mission - Brownsville South Padre Island)
$600,000
LOTP
X
X
Transit Terminal (From Hidalgo Co. Commuter Rail Feasibility Study)
TBD
LOTP
X
X
Park & Ride / Transfer Locations (US 83/Bus 83)
$5,500,000
LOTP
X
X
Harlingen - San Benito Unified Transit System
$2,500,000
LOTP
X
X
$300,000
LOTP
X
X
$600,000
LOTP
X
X
3-4 Bus System (Edinburg - Mission) Rural Feeder Network Cameron)
(Hidalgo,
Willacy,
Ports
Port of Entry
Airport
86
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table 19 - Bike and Pedestrian Projects Bike & Pedestrian Short Description
Cost
Report / Source
Bike/Pedestrian Plan (City of Edinburg)
$100,000
LAN
Update Bike/Pedestrian Plan (City of South Padre Island)
$70,000
LAN
Add Pedestrian Component (HCMPO Plan)
$50,000
LAN
City Sidewalk Crews (VA Cities)
TBD
LAN
Rails to Trails - Harlingen UP
TBD
LAN
Pedestrian and Cycling Access (RegionWide)
TBD
LOTP
Cost
Report / Source
$250,000,000
TWFCS
Roadway
Rail and Transit
X
X
Ports
Port of Entry
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
Port of Entry
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
Table 20 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Water Port Projects Water Port Short Description
Brownsville Ship Channel Expansion Port of Brownsville Entrance Road Construction
TBD
SH32-AA
Port of Brownsville Cargo Dock No. 16 Construction
$26,000,000
POB
Port Isabel - Overall Harbor Dredging
$2,496,650
LRGV-EAP
Port Mansfield - Draft Improvements Study
$500,000
PM
Port Mansfield -Navigation Beacon Back-up Power
$2,400,000
LRGV-EAP
Roadway
X
Rail and Bike/Ped Transit
X
87
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table 21 - Port of Entry Projects Port of Entry Short Description - Location
Cost
Report / Source
Roadway
Construct Roma-Mier International Bridge
$50,000,000
SC
X
Commercial and Bus Inspection Facility Roma-Mier
$1,159,000
CMP
X
Expand int'l bridge - Add two-lane SB span $12,500,000 Starr Camargo
CMP
X
Construct Sullivan City - Diaz Ordaz Int'l Bridge
$220,000,000
CMP
Border Safety and Inspection Facility Anzalduas
$14,316,000
BMP
Add 6 NB non-commercial lanes (2 shortterm, 4 mid-term) - Anzalduas
$4,166,274
BMP
Twin NB Bridge Segment - Anzalduas
$7,032,500
BMP
NB Commercial Inspection Facilities (Lot and Permanent NII) - Anzalduas
$24,291,389
BMP
South Bound Inspection Facility (Initial + Expansion for Commercial) - Anzalduas
$9,738,968
BMP
NB Expansion of Secondary Inspection Anzalduas
$3,263,520
BMP
$270,000
BMP
Renovate Bldg "A" for Bus Transit Terminal Hidalgo
Headhouse relocation and lane realignment $7,000,000 Hidalgo
Ports
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
X
BMP
X
$20,000,000
CIP
X
Commercial and Bus Inspection Facility Pharr-Reynosa
$1,855,000
CMP
X
Widen Bridge - Pharr-Reynosa
$20,525,534
BMP
Border Safety and Inspection Facility Donna
$25,000,000
BMP
NB and SB Fed. Inspection Facilities (Commercial Empties) - Donna
$5,000,000
BMP
NB and SB Fed. Inspection Facilities (Full Commercial) - Donna
$15,000,000
BMP
Finish Constructing the BSIF - PharrReynosa
Rail and Bike/Ped Transit
88
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table 22 - Port of Entry Projects Port of Entry Short Description - Location
Cost
Report / Source
Roadway
Commercial and Bus Inspection Facility Progreso
$1,618,000
CMP
X
Modernization and Rebuild - Progreso
$55,000,000
CMP
Border Safety and Inspection Facility - Los Indios
$25,000,000
HSB
Construct Flor de Mayo International Bridge
$20,000,000
BMPO
Modernization and Rebuild - Gateway
$60,000,000
BMP
Border Safety and Inspection Facility Veterans
$25,000,000
BMP
$125,000,000
BMPO
X
Cost
Report / Source
Roadway
$8,000,000
BMPO
X
TBD
BMPO
Terminal Expansion - McAllen-Miller
$22,000,000
MMMP
New Control Tower - Port Isabel - Cameron Co
$2,000,000
LAN
13 -31 Runway Expansion - Mid Valley Airport
$7,500,000
MVMP
Westside and Eastside Cargo Aprons/Facilities - Mid Valley Airport
$8,300,000
MVMP
Charles R. Johnson - Back-up generator
$1,200,000
LRGV-EAP
TBD
LAN
Construct Port of Brownsville International Bridge
Rail and Bike/Ped Transit
Ports
Airport
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
Port of Entry
Preserve and Improve Existing System
Safety
Mobility
Connectivity
Community Livability
Modal Choice and Accessibility
Economic Competitiveness
X
X
Table 23 - Airport Projects Airport Short Description Airport runway expansion / Roadway realignments - B/SPI Airport Cargo - B/SPI
Non-Commercial NPIAS Listing
Rail and Transit
X
Bike/Ped
Ports
X
89
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Abbreviation
July 2013
Report/Source
BMP
LRGV / Tamaulipas Border Master Plan
BMPO
2010-2035 Brownsville MPO MTPlan
CCW
Cameron Co. Website
CIP
CCRMA IBTC Plans
COB
City of Brownsville
CRMA
Cameron Co. RMA Strategic Plan 2012-2016
HCMPO
2010-2035 Hidalgo County MPO MTPlan
HCRMA
Hidalgo Co. RMA documents
HMPO
Hidalgo MPO 2011-2014 TIP
HRMAP
Hidalgo Co. RMA Plan 2012-2021
HSB
Harlingen- San Benito MPO
HSBMPO
2010-2035 Harlingen-San Benito MPO MTPlan
LAN
Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc.
LOTP
LRGVDC Overall Transit Plan - 2011
LOTPA
LRGVDC Overall Transit Plan-Appendices -2011
LRFS
LRGV & Laredo Regional Freight Study - 2011
MMMP
McAllen Miller Master Plan
PM
Port Mansfield
POB
Port of Brownsville
RGVMP
1992 RGV Mobility Plan
SC
Starr County
SH32-AA
SH 32 East Loop AA
TWFCS
Texas Waterborne Freight Corridor Study Phase II - 2011
TXDOTE
TxDOT Rural Plan Appendix E -2012
* Sources that are not previously-published plans or reports are shown in bold.
90
Rio Grande Valley
8.0
Regional Mobility Plan
POLICIES, PARTNERSHIPS, AND FUNDING
Transportation projects are completed through various processes, partnerships, and funding mechanisms. The demand for transportation improvements has out-paced available traditional funding, forcing project sponsors find other revenue streams or innovative financing measures. The processes and partnerships listed below identify the project owner, operator, and financier of a transportation project. Traditional Funding Traditional project delivery refers to the funding projects through upfront expenditure out of general tax revenues. In Texas, the following taxes are allocated towards regional transportation improvements.
Federal Gas Tax – Roadway and Transit
State Gas Tax – Roadway
Vehicle Registration fees -
Sales Tax – Transit
Hotel / Rental Car Taxes – Local preference (any mode)
Property taxes – Local Preference (any mode)
July 2013
Roadway and bridge tolls will be discussed in a separate section as these revenue streams form the basis for many innovative financing methods. Traditional Roadway Traditional sources of roadway funding are from the Federal Highway Administration and through the states. The state of Texas appropriates federal and state assistance to MPO areas in the following manner, with an annual funding estimate in each of twelve funding categories, listed below:
Category 1 – Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation funding is distributed to the TxDOT Districts based on formulas. This funding would be spent on projects selected by the District.
Category 2 – Metropolitan Area Corridor Projects funding is distributed to the Districts based on formulas, however, the individual MPOs would have responsibility for project selection.
Category 3 – Non-Traditional funding could originate from other sources, such as pass-through financing or Comprehensive Development Agreements (CDAs). Improvements at US 281 (Military Highway) were financed with pass-through tolls. Both RMAs use non-traditional funding by issuing bonds which are repaid by tolls. Nontraditional and other innovative financing measures will be discussed in a later section.
Category 4 – Statewide Connectivity Corridor Project funding is distributed statewide, with a general emphasis
Transportation user fees may also be levied to fund transportation improvements. These include:
Roadway and bridge tolls
Transit fare box
Rents at water ports
Airport gate fees from airlines
91
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
towards rural areas. Areas outside of the MPOs are eligible for this type of funding.
(TTC). Projects within the Pharr District are eligible for this type of funding.
Category 5 – Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding is only available to nonattainment areas. The nearest non-attainment area is Corpus Christi, and it is assumed that the Pharr District will not receive this type of funding.
Traditional Transit Traditional funding sources for transit funding are through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The FTA appropriates federal assistance to areas at the MPO level in the following manner:
Category 6 – Structures funding is distributed statewide. The Pharr District is eligible for this type of funding.
Category 7 – Metropolitan Mobility/Rehabilitation funding is for MPOs that are Transportation Management Areas (TMA). The McAllen Urbanized and Brownsville MPO areas are eligible for this type of funding.
Category 8 – Safety funding is distributed statewide. Projects within the Pharr District are eligible for this type of funding.
Category 9 – Transportation Enhancements funding is distributed statewide. Projects within the Pharr District are eligible for this type of funding.
Category 10 – Supplemental Project funding is directed to specific projects, such as through Congressional Earmarks. Projects within the Pharr District are eligible for this type of funding.
Category 11 – District Discretionary funding is directed to projects specified by the District Engineer. Projects within the Pharr District are eligible for this type of funding.
Category 12 – Strategic Priority funding is directed to projects specified by the Texas Transportation Commission
Section 5303 – Metropolitan Planning funding is for planning activities and studies, not construction. As such, they are programmed through the MPO’s Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), not the TIP. This category is usually allocated to the additional planning requirements imposed on TMAs and non-attainment areas. McAllen is the only TMA in the Pharr District and it has not reached nonattainment status.
Section 5307 – Urbanized Area Formula funding is distributed to urbanized areas through a grant process. For urban areas under 200,000 in population, funds are distributed to the Governor for distribution. Projects within the Pharr District are eligible for this type of funding.
Section 5309 – Discretionary funding is distributed to urbanized areas for a specific major capital project. Projects within the Pharr District are eligible for this type of funding.
Section 5310 – Elderly and Disabled funding is distributed at the statewide level. Funds are apportioned to the states by the State’s share of elderly and disabled. Within the state, funds are distributed based on the areas and programs that apply. Therefore, this source is discretionary and not a dependable annual source of funds.
92
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Section 5316 – Job Access/Reverse Commute (JARC) funding is distributed to improve access to employment for low-income persons. Within the state, funds are distributed based on the areas and programs that apply. Therefore, this source is discretionary and not a dependable annual source of funds. Section 5317 – New Freedom funding is distributed to reduce transportation barriers and provide disabled people with more mobility options. Within the state, funds are distributed based on the areas and programs that apply. Therefore, this source is discretionary and not a dependable annual source of funds.
Tolling Tolling is a funding mechanism that can be used construct projects of any mode with a variety of funding sources – including bonds, TIFIA loans, and Comprehensive Development Agreements. Traditionally, toll-financed projects were highways or bridges that required issuance of debt that be paid back by tolls collected from users. In the Valley, SH 550 in Cameron County is an example of a toll-financed project. The actor responsible for a toll-financed project can be a toll road authority acting under part of a local government, Regional Mobility Authority, or a private venture. The likely actors in the Valley would be either the already established HCRMA or CCRMA, or a private venture contracted by either RMA. The mechanism for a private venture will be discussed in Public-Private Partnerships.
July 2013
Bonds or loans could be issued for any type of project in the Lower Rio Grande Valley; however, the repayment will likely be backed by tolls on regional roadways or Port-of-Entries. Public-Private Partnerships A public-private partnership (PPP) can refer to any agreement between a private company and government. The agreement would involve the financially-responsible party for the project and consideration from the other party. A recent public-private partnership project in the Valley is the Olmito Switchyard. The City of Harlingen, Cameron County, and CCRMA agreed to fund a $17 million project to improve the rail facilities at Olmito. As consideration for the improvements at Olmito Switchyard, Union Pacific agreed to transfer property to the City of Harlingen, including three lines in downtown used two separate and switch rail cars. Other public-private partnership projects include the West Parkway project in Brownsville, which would utilize the same corridor as the existing UP freight-rail corridor and rails-to-trails programs. Publicprivate partnerships could be used to finance a myriad of other projects for water ports, POEs, and airports. Two recent examples of PPPs in Houston is the international terminal proposed at Hobby Airport (constructed by Southwest Airlines) and the Houston Ship Channel Security District, which joined the Port of Houston Authority and Harris County with private companies operating in the Houston Ship Channel. Another type of PPP is a Comprehensive Development Agreement (CDA). A CDA would be used to accelerate a project by contracting with a private venture to deliver the project through design-build.
93
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
The design-builder would be compensated through the terms of the CDA. This could include a fee paid by owner to the team, a portion of the revenue stream from tolls collected, other consideration (property), or the right to operate and collect user-fees under a concessionaire agreement. The SH 130 extension in central Texas from Austin to San Antonio is an example of a concessionaire agreement. A private venture (the concessionaire) acquires the right to operate a facility and collect revenues while the government retains ownership of the facility and may receive compensation for granting the concession. Part of the SH 130 toll road is under a concession agreement. Any type of infrastructure may be under a concession agreement: however, roadway is the only mode in the US with such agreement in place. Partnerships with the Class I railroad companies should be pursued for rail relocation projects. Projects that improve operational speed, track capacity, and safety in the railroad ROW are in the company’s interest. Any municipal project that removes an at-grade rail crossing by grade separation, closure, or rail relocation should be discussed with the railroad owner for a potential joint funding agreement. Conversely, cities and counties should coordinate with railroads to identify improvements railroad companies are making themselves, such as signaling or siding improvements. Cities and counties may be able to leverage these opportunities to complete additional projects in the area.
July 2013
2013 is $750 million, and increasing to $1.0 billion in 2014. Federal credit assistance is administered by this program with the following instruments:
Direct loans: Federal loans to project sponsors with flexible repayment terms
Loan guarantees: The Federal Government guarantees the loans made by institutional investors (i.e. pension funds) for the project
Lines of credit: Federal loans may be issued to supplement project revenues in the first 10 years of project operations.
Many types of projects are eligible for TIFIA Credit Assistance. Based on projects specifically identified by the FHWA all modes except airports may receive TIFIA Credit Assistance. The project must meet certain thresholds, and assistance is capped for certain funding types, which are shown in Table 24.
TIFIA Credit Assistance The TIFIA program was created by the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998. The TIFIA authorization in
94
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Table 24 - TIFIA Funding Thresholds and Assistance Limits
Threshold Project Cost – Urban Area Project Cost – Rural ITS improvement State’s apportionments Type of Assistance Line of Credit Loan Loan + Line of Credit Max. Federal aid (grants + loans)
Criteria $50 million $25 million $15 million 1/3 Maximum ≤ 33% ≤ 49% ≤ 49% ≤ 80%
In November 2012, The CCRMA applied for a $694 million direct loan under the TIFIA program to finance the 2nd Access Project to South Padre Island. State Infrastructure Bank The Texas State Infrastructure Bank is administered by TxDOT and is accessible to any public or private sponsor of eligible project. Only roadway projects eligible for funding under the existing federal highway rules (Title 23) can qualify for this SIB Loans. In general, the roadway project must be on the state highway system and listed on the statewide Transportation Improvement Plan. SIB loans may be used for any part of the project, including engineering, ROW acquisition, and construction. The Pharr District has received approximately $7.7 million of SIB Loans since 1998, which accounted for 1.58% of the total project costs. The loan process takes approximately four months to complete.
Tax Increment Financing Tax Increment Financing is the use of increasing property taxes to pay for certain projects. In Texas, a Tax Increment Reinvesting Zone (TIRZ) is set up to administer and pay for improvements within a specific area with the intent property values will rise. Financing from a TIRZ could be used to construct smaller components of larger projects, like a pedestrian connection near a new freeway or a station for a new commuter rail line. Additionally, a TIRZ may pay for bike and pedestrian upgrades within the specific area. While there are no restrictions on a particular type of project, funding from a TIRZ generally are used for roadway, transit, or bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Two TIRZs have been established in Cameron County, identified as Transportation Reinvestment Zones (TRZ). TRZ No. 1 is 49,000 acres, with an assessed value of $1.6 billion. TRZ No. 2 is 69,474 acres, with an assessed value of $1.2 billion. Combined, these TRZs include 19.0 percent of the Cameron County property tax base. Portions of tax revenues from these TRZs will fund transportation improvements constructed by the CCRMA. It is estimated that 1020 percent of the construction costs of CCRMA projects will be paid by TRZ financing. Formation of a TRZ would be subject to approval by a city’s governing body and must satisfy the following requirements:
The zone may not contain property that cumulatively exceeds 15 percent of the total appraised property value within the city and its industrial districts.
95
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
ď&#x201A;ˇ
If by petition, the cumulative property value between petition signers exceeds 50% of appraisal property value in a TIRZ boundary.
ď&#x201A;ˇ
If by city councilman, meet criteria identified by the State Comptroller office.
Section 129 Loans Section 129 Loans is Federal participation in state loans to support roadway improvements. Unlike State Infrastructure Bank programs, the selection process is governed at the state level. Loans are repaid to the state and backed by a dedicated revenue stream. This revenue stream could be tolls on the project itself, or another type of funding such as property taxes, excise taxes, or other revenues collected by the state.
July 2013
districts (e.g. Cameron County Drainage District #1), and municipal water and wastewater departments. All these entities have improvement plans, which are consolidated under the LRGV Regional Economic Adjustment Plan (EAP). The LRGV Regional EAP, completed in November 2012, includes $1.13 billion of drainage improvements (some of which are listed in Section 7.0). While these are not explicitly transportation projects, the scope of these projects may include roadway, freight and passenger rail, transit, bike/pedestrian, water ports, port-of-entries, and airport components. Projects from the LRGV Regional EAP should be coordinated with projects in the Regional Mobility Plan to identify overlapping elements, such as culvert improvements under US 77, to accomplish the objective of both plans without rework.
9.0 Other Government Sources Airport projects can be funded through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), administered by the FAA. The AIP provides grants to public agencies (occasionally private owners) for the planning and capital projects of public-use airports that are included in the NPIAS. In general, most airfield improvements and associated professional services may receive this type of funding. Operational costs, such as salaries and equipment, are not eligible for AIP grants. Several types of improvements are eligible for AIP grants, and should be pursed for most airport projects, including the runway expansion at B-SPI International Airport.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The projects listed in Tables 14 through 21 were developed as a nonfinancially constrained plan. This means they are the assessment of what is necessary to maintain a high level of mobility, accessibility, and economic success for the Rio Grande Valley as a whole. This document will serve as a statement of regional priorities and needs, and is intended to allow regional officials to present to decisionmakers in Austin, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere a statement of what projects will best serve the Valley, its residents, workers, businesses, and future.
Partnerships with other government infrastructure entities should be pursued, such has municipal utility districts (MUDs), drainage
96
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
REFERENCES Brownsville Metropolitan Planning Organization, December 9, 2009. 2010 – 2035 Brownsville Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority, April 2012. Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority Strategic Plan 2012-2016. Harlingen-San Benito Metropolitan Planning Organization, December 9, 2009. 2010 – 2035 Harlingen-San Benito Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Hidalgo County Metropolitan Planning Organization, December 9, 2009. 2010 – 2035 Hidalgo County Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Hidalgo County Regional Mobility Authority, April 2012. Hidalgo County Regional Mobility Authority Strategic Plan 2012-2021. Prepared by Dannenbaum Engineering Corporation for HCRMA. Rio Grande Valley Task Force, June 2003. Rio Grande Valley Mobility Plan: 2003-2030. Prepared by Topp Direct Marketing and Olivarri & Associates for the Rio Grande Valley Partnership. Rio Grande Valley Task Force, March 1992. Rio Grande Valley Mobility Plan. Prepared by Shiner, Moseley and Associates et.al. for the Rio Grande Valley Partnership. Texas Department of Transportation – Transportation Planning and Programming Division, June 2008. Border Crossing Travel Time Study - Volume III: TxDOT Pharr District. Prepared by RJ Rivera Associates, Inc. for TxDOT. Texas Department of Transportation, April 2013. Lower Rio Grande Valley – Tamaulipas Border Master Plan. Prepared by Center for Transportation Research for TxDOT. Texas Department of Transportation, November 2011. TxDOT Waterborne Freight Corridor Study. Prepared by Cambridge Systematics, et. al. for TxDOT. Texas Department of Transportation, July 2011. Lower Rio Grande Valley and Laredo Region Freight Study. Prepared by HNTB for TxDOT. Texas Department of Transportation, August 2011. Lower Rio Grande Valley Regional Freight Origin-Destination Study. Prepared by Texas Transportation Insititue (TTI) for TxDOT.
97
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
American Association of Railroads, September 2007. National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study. Prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Retrieved from www.nwk.usace.army.mil/Portals/29/docs/regulatory/bnsf/AAR2007.pdf Brownsville Herald, 6/5/2013. S.H. 550 ribbon-cutting crowd gets big I-69 news. (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2bafc-0019bb30f31a.html Brownsville Herald, 12/10/2012. County creates taxing zone: TRZ to benefit roads, second SPI causeway. (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_a5734904-4b24-11e2-9bc4-0019bb30f31a.html) City of Brownsville Aviation Department, December 1997. Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport Master Plan Update. Greiner, Inc et. al.
Prepared by URS
City of South Padre Island. Comprehensive Plan. 2008. (http://www.myspi.org/category/subcategory.php?categoryid=10) City of Welasco Aviation Department, 2001. Mid Valley Airport: Airport Master Plan. Prepared by Coffman Associates, Inc. Federal Aviation Administration, May 2012. General Aviation Airports: A National Asset. Federal Railroad Administration. National Grade Crossing Inventory, May 2013. (http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0111). Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council, November 2012. Regional Economic Adjustment Plan for building Disaster Resident Communities for the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Prepared by S&B Infrastructure et. al. for the Lower Rio Grande Valley Development Council . EDA Grant No: 08-79-04390 The Monitor, 10/2012. Cold inspection space for trucks to open at Pharr Bridge, (http://m.themonitor.com/news/local/article_c0457092-1f12-11e2-9f65001a4bcf6878.html?mode=jqm) Texas Rail Plan. Texas Department of Transportation. November 2010. Retrieved from http://www.dot.state.tx.us/public_involvement/rail_plan/trp.htm Texas Transportation Commission, May 2013. “Minute Order 113584 – Various Counties – Designate various Interstate Highways concurrent with existing US Highways.” Retrived from http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/may30/8.pdf on 6/12/2013. Port of Mansfield, TX. n.d. Retrieved from http://portofmansfield.com/ on 3/12/2013.
98
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
Starr County Industrial Foundation â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Rose Benavidez, 2013. Email to Andrina Garza of The Warren Group on April 3, 2013 Zapata County Project Office. Zapata County Projects Image Galleries, 2/22/2013. (http://www.co.zapata.tx.us/default.aspx?Zapata_County/Comm.Court.Project.Gallery)
99
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
July 2013
APPENDICES LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS CONTACTED STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS SORTED BY SUBJECT SURVEY FORMS RECEIVED
100
List of Stakeholders Contacted ORGANIZATION
TITLE FIRST NAME
LAST NAME
ROLE
BROOKS COUNTY, TEXAS ADDRESS
Legislative DistrictͲCongressman Legislative District Brooks CountyͲ County Judge City of Falfurrias City of Falfurrias City of Falfurrias Brooks County ISD Senator District 20 Senator District 20 United States Congressman Ͳ 28th District State Board of Education
Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms.
Ruben Roberto Hon. Raul M. Anna M. Leticia "Letty" George David K. Juan "Chuy" Jorge Henry Marisa B.
Hinojosa Sada Ramirez Garcia Garza Martinez Perry Hinojosa Castillo Cuellar Perez
Congressional District 15 Congressional District 15ͲDistrict Scheduler Judge Mayor Mayor ProͲTem Utility Board General Manager Superintendent Senator Legislative Assistant Congressman SBOE Member District 3
House District 35 House District 35 Senate District 27 Senate District 27 Congressional District 34 Congressional District 34 House District 37 House District 37 Cameron County Commissioner Pct. 1 Cameron County Commissioner Pct. 2 County Judge State Board of Education Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority Brownsville Chamber of Commerce City of Brownsville City of Brownsville City of Brownsville City of Brownsville Brownsville ISD Brownsville ISD UT Brownsville UT Brownsville Brownsville South Padre Island International Airport Brownsville South Padre Island International Airport Customs and Border Protection Customs and Border Protection Port of Brownsville Port of Brownsville Port of Brownsville Port of Brownsville House District 38 House District 38 Cameron County Commissioner Pct. 4 Harlingen Chamber of Commerce City of Harlingen City of Harlingen City of Harlingen City of Harlingen City of Harlingen Harlingen CISD Harlingen CISD Texas State Technical College Texas State Technical College Texas State Technical College Valley International Airport, Harlingen TX Valley Transit Company Valley Transit Company Port of Harlingen Port of Harlingen City of La Feria City of La Feria La Feria ISD
Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dr. Ms. Ms. Dr. Mr Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Dr. Ms. Dr. Ms. Ms. Mr. Mr.
Oscar Michelle Eddie Louie Filemon Liza René O. JJ Sofia C. Ernie Carlos Ruben Pete Angela R. Tony Charlie Ramiro Alfonso Carl A. Drue Juliet V. Marilyn J. Larry A Larry A. Michael Eddie John Ralph Eduardo A. Ariel Eddie Ruben Dan Pam Chris Carlos Ken Rebeca Kara Steve Eunice Cesar Sharon Cathy T. Michael Bobby
Longoria Villarreal Lucio Sanchez Vela Lynch Oliveira Garza Benavides Hernandez Cascos, CPA Cortez Jr. Sepulveda, Jr. Burton Martinez Cabler Gonzalez Vallejo Montoya Brown Garcia Woods Brown Freeman Perez Reed Cowen Campirano Chavez Lucio III Obell Sanchez Priour Boswell Yerena Clark Castillo Alcocer Flores Martinez Maldonado, P.E. Farias Maples Browning Farris
Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr.
Michael Mirna Steve Olga Robert
Perez Del Castillo Brewer Oberwetter Rivera
House District 35 Representative Legislative Director Senator Chief of Staff Congressman Congressman Velas Scheduler House District 37 Representative Chief of Staff County Commissioner Pct. 1 County Commissioner Pct. 2 Judge SBOE Member District 2 County Administrator President/CEO Mayor City Manager Comprehensive Planning Manager Brownsville MPO/Transportation Planner & GIS Superintendent Public Information Officer President Chief of Staff Director of Aviation Director of Aviation Port Director Supervisor CBP Officer Public Affairs Liaison Commissioner Commissioner Port Director & CEO Director of Engineering Services House District 38 Representative Chief of Staff Commissioner Pct. 4 President/CEO Mayor City Manager Director of Planning & Development Metropolitan Planning Organization Dir. JIS Transportation Planner Superintendent Superintendents Secretary Harlingen TSTC President/Vice Chancellor Mr. Maldonados Executive Asst. Harlingen TSTC Vice President Director of Vally International Airport President Information Website Port Director Administrative Assistant Mayor City Secretary Superintendent
2864 W. Trenton Road 2864 W. Trenton Road 217 E. Miller St. 205 E. Allen St. 205 E. Allen St. 215 E. Allen St. 200 E. Allen St. 612 Nolana, Ste. 410 B 612 Nolana, Ste. 410 B 615 E. Houston Street, Ste. 563 PO Box 276406
STATE
ZIP
Edinburg Edinburg Falfurrias Falfurrias Falfurrias Falfurrias Falfurrias McAllen McAllen San Antonio San Antonio
CITY
TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX
78539 78539 78355 78355 78355 78355 78355 78504 78504 78205 78227
PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER 956.682.5545 956.682.5545 361.325.5604 361.325.2420 361.325.2420 361.325.2597 361.325.8002 956.972.1841 956.972.1841 210.271.2851 210.317.4651
956.682.0141 956.682.0141 361.325.5369 361.325.9784 361.325.9784 361.325.9784 361.325.1913 956.664.0602 956.664.0602 210.277.6671
jay.garza@mail.house.gov roberto.sada@mail.house.gov raul.ramirez@brooksͲcounty.com mayor.anna.garcia@gmail.com no email falutilityboard@yahoo.com dperry@bcisd.esc2.net no email jorge.castillo@senate.state.tx.us pete.arguello@mail.house.gov sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us
Austin Austin Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Brownsville Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen Harlingen La Feria La Feria La Feria
TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX
78768 78768 78521 78521 78520 78520 78520 78520 78520 78520 78520 78526 78520 78520 78520 78520 78520 78520 78521 78521 78520 78520 78521 78521 78521 78521 78523 78521 78521 78520 78520 78550 78550 78550 78550 78550 78550 78550 78550 78550 78550 78550 78550 78550 78553 78553 78551 78551 78559 78559 78559
512.463.0645 512.463.0645 956.548.0227 956.548.0227 202.225.9901 202.225.9901 956.542.1828 956.542.1828 956.574.8167 956.983.5091 956.544.0830 956.639.9171 956.982.5414 956.542.4341 956.546.7159 956.548.6007 956.548.6150 956.584.6158 956.548.8011 956.548.8000 956.882.7140 956.882.8201 956 542 4373 956.542.4373 956.983.5800 956.548.2745 ext. 1155 956.343.6415 Cell 956.592.3439 Cell 956.831.4592 956.831.4592 956.365.4458 956.365.4458 956.427.8069 956.423.5440 956.216.5001 956.216.5002 956.216.5262 956.216.5240 956.216.5240 956.430.9502 956.430.9502 956.364.4022 956.364.4022 956.364.4301 956.430.8605 956.423.4710 956.423.4710 956.423.0283 956.423.0283 956.797.2261 956.797.2261 956.797.8300
512.463.0559 512.463.0559 956.548.0440 956.548.0440 202.225.9770 202.225.9770 956.542.1618 956.542.1618 956.544.0820 956.983.5090 956.544.0801
oscar.longoria@house.state.tx.us michelle.villarreal@house.state.tx.us eddie.lucio@senate.state.tx.us louie.sanchez@senate.state.tx.us @ no email liza.lynch@mail.house.gov rene.oliveira@house.state.tx.us jj.garza@house.state.tx.us sofia.benavides@co.cameron.tx.us ernie.hernandez@co.cameron.tx.us carlos.cascos@co.cameron.tx.us rubencortezfortexas@gmail.com psepulveda@co.cameron.tx.us angela@brownsvillechamber.com tony@mbymlaw.com charlie@cob.us ramiro.gonzalez@cob.us avallejo@cob.us drcmontoya@bisd.us dbrown@bisd.us julietv.garcia@utb.edu marilyn.woods@utb.edu labrown@cob us labrown@cob.us michael.t.freeman@dhs.gov eduardo.g.perez@cbp.dhs.gov jreed37762@aol.com ralphcowen@yahoo.com eacampirano@portofbrownsville.com achavez@portofbrownsville.com eddie.lucio_iii@house.state.tx.us ruben.obell@house.state.tx.us dan.sanchez@co.cameron.tx.us ppriour@harlingen.com cboswell@southtexlaw.com cyerena@myharlingen.us kc@myharlingen.us rcastillo@myharlingen.us kalcocer@myharlingen.us steve.flores@hcisd.org eunice.martinez@hcisd.org cesar.maldonado@tstc.edu sharon.farias@tstc.edu cathy.maples@harlingen.tstc.edu michael@flythevalley.com no email info@valleytransitcompany.com michael@portofharlingen.com mirna@portofharlingen.com mister63@aol.com olga.oberwetter@cityoflaferia.com robert.rivera@laferiaisd.org
CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS P.O. Box 2910 P.O. Box 2910 7 North Park Plaza 7 North Park Plaza 333 Ebony Avenue 333 Ebony Avenue 855 W. Price Road, Ste. 22 855 W. Price Road, Ste. 22 1100 E. Monroe St. 1100 E. Monroe St. 1100 E. Monroe St. 735 Habana St. 1100 E. Monroe St. 1600 University Blvd. 1206 E. Van Buren 1001 E. Elizabeth St. 2nd Floor 1150 E. Adams St. 1150 E. Adams St. 3rd Floor 1900 Price Road # 307 1900 Price Road # 307 80 Fort Brown St. 80 Fort Brown St. 700 Amelia Earhart 700 Amelia Earhart 3300 S. Expressway 77/83 Rm A151 1500 University Drive 1000 Foust Road P.O. Box 4496 1000 Foust Road 1000 Foust Road 1906 E. Tyler Ave., Ste. FͲ2 1906 E. Tyler Ave., Ste. FͲ2 201 N. T. St. 311 E. Tyler Ave. 118 E. Tyler St. 118 E. Tyler St. 502 E. Tyler St. 502 E. Tyler Ave. 502 E. Tyler Ave. 407 N. 77 Sunshine Strip 407 N. 77 Sunshine Strip 1902 N. Loop 499 1902 N. Loop 499 1902 N. Loop 499 3002 Heritage Way P.O. Box 530010 P.O. Box 530010 PO Box 2646 PO Box 2646 115 East Commercial Ave. 115 East Commercial Ave. 203 E. Oleander
956.983.5099 956.504.3348 956.546.5896 956.544.0602 956.548.6144 956.548.6144 956.548.8019 956.548.8010 956.882.8214 956.882.8214 956 542 4374 956.542.4374 956.983Ͳ5722
956.831.5006 956.831.5006 956.365.4487 956.365.4487 956.427.8071 956.425.3870 956.216.5012 956.216.5012 956.216.5012 956.430.6640 956.430.6640 956.430.9514 956.430.9514 956.364.5100 956.364.5100 956.364.5215 956.430.8619 956.423.4888 956.423.4888 956.423.0284 956.423.0284 956.797.1898 956.797.1898 956.797.3737
List of Stakeholders Contacted City of Los Fresnos City of Los Fresnos City of Los Fresnos City of Los Fresnos Los Fresnos CISD City of Port Isabel City of Port Isabel Port Isabel Chamber of Commerce Point Isabel ISD Point Isabel ISD Port IsabelͲSan Benito Navigation District Cameron County Commissioner Pct. 3 San Benito Chamber of Commerce San Benito Economic Development City of San Benito City of San Benito South Padre Island Chamber of Commerce City of South Padre Island City of South Padre Island City of South Padre Island
ORGANIZATION City of Alamo Senator House District 40 House District 40 House District 40 City of Donna City of Donna Hidalgo County Commissioners Court Executive Office Hidalgo County Commissioner Precinct 4 County Judge Edinburg Chamber of Commerce City of Edinburg City of Edinburg City of Edinburg University of Texas Ͳ PanͲAmerican Doctors Hospital Ͳ Renaissance Doctors Hospital Ͳ Renaissance Hidalgo Chamber of Commerce City of Hidalgo City of Hidalgo McAllen Hidalgo/ Anzalduas Bridge City of La Joya City of La Joya House District 41 House District 41 Congressional District 15 McAllen Chamber of Commerce RGV Hispanic Chamber of Commerce McAllen Economic Development Corporation City of McAllen City of McAllen South Texas Community College McAllen Miller International Airport McAllen EB5 Regional Center Metro McAllen Central Station Ci City of Mercedes fM d City of Mercedes House District 36 Congressional District 28 Hidalgo County Commissioner Precinct 3 City of Mission Mission Chamber of Commerce City of Palmview City of Palmview City of Penitas City of Penitas Municipal Court
Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Ms. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms Ms.
Polo Pam Yolanda Abran Gonzalo Joe Edward Betty Lisa Robin Steven B. David A. Martha Salomon Joe Manuel Roxanne Robert Jonie
TITLE FIRST NAME Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Mr. Mr. Ms. M Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr.
Jaime Ted Terry Curtis Jonathon David Fernando Valde Joseph Ramon Letty Richard Ramiro Juan Marta Alonzo Ruth Martin Joe Rigo Jose Adolfo Mike "Bobby" Bernardo Ruben Steve Cynthia Keith Mike Norma Shirley Phil Rodolfo (Roy) Elizabeth Ri Ricardo d Michelle R. Sergio Henry Joe M. Julio Matt George Aida Marcos Noe
Narvaez Denny Cruz Ortega Salazar Vega Meza Wells Garcia Ochoa Bearden Garza McClain Torres Hernandez Lara Guenzel Pinkerton Clarke
LAST NAME Sandoval Cruz Canales Smith Gonzalez Simmons Flores Guerra Palacios Garcia Gonzalez Garcia Garza Lopez Salinas Hovar Cantu Hinojosa Cepeda Vera III Villarreal Salinas Alaniz Guerra Aldape Hinojosa Ahlenius Sakulenzki Patridge Perez Olvera Reed Brown Cantu Suarez Garcia G i Leftwich Muñoz Cuellar Flores Cerda Ruszczak Garcia Rivas Ochoa Cavazos
Mayor City Secretary Mayor ProͲTem President of Planning & Zoning Commission Superintendent Mayor City Manager Director Superintendent Administrative Assistant Port Director Commissioner Pct. 3 Public Relations Officer Economic Development Director Mayor City Manager President/CEO Mayor City Manager City Manager
ROLE Community Development Director Senator House Representative Chief of Staff Legislative Director Mayor Planning Director Executive Director Commissioner Precinct 4 Judge Director Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Zoning Project Manager Ͳ Facilities Board Member Board Member Director Mayor City Manager Superintendent of Bridges Mayor City Manager House Representative R.D. Chief of Staff Congressman CEO Director President City Manager City Secretary President of the Board Director of Aviation Director Director City Manager Ci M Asst.City Manager/Planning Director House Representative Congressman Commissioner Precinct 3 City Manager Director Mayor City Secretary Mayor Judge/City Manager
200 N. Brazil 200 N. Brazil 200 N. Brazil 200 N. Brazil PO Box 309 305 E. Maxan St. 305 E. Maxan St. 421 E. Queen Isabella Blvd. 101 Port Road 101 Port Road 250 Industrial Drive 1390 W. Expressway 83 401 N. Sam Houston Blvd. 401 N. Sam Houston Blvd. 401 N. Sam Houston Blvd. 401 N. Sam Houston Blvd. 610 Padre Blvd. 4601 Padre Blvd. 4601 Padre Blvd 4601 Padre Blvd.
HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS ADDRESS 420 N. Tower Rd. 807 Brazos, Ste. 602 P.O.Box 2910 P.O.Box 2910 P.O.Box 2910 307 S. 12th St. 307 S. 12th St. 2818 S. Bus. Hwy. 281 1102 N. Doolittle Rd. 302 W. University Dr. 602 W. University Dr. 415 W. University Dr. 415 W. University Dr. 415 W. University Dr. UTPA, Mail Stop ASFC 109 5501 S. McColl Rd. 5501 S. McColl Rd. 800 E. Coma Ave. 704 E. Texano Dr. 704 E. Texano Dr. P.O. Box 399 P.O Box H P.O. Box H 10213 N. 10th St. 10213 N. 10th St. 4403 W. Military Hwy. Ste 710 1200 Ash Ave. 3313 N. McColl Rd. 6401 S. 33rd St. 1300 Houston Ave. 1300 Houston Ave. 3201 W. Pecan Blvd. 2500 S Bicentennial Blvd. 6401 S. 33rd St. 1501 W. Highway 83, Suite 100 400 400 S. Ohio Ave. S Ohi A 400 S. Ohio Ave. 121 E. Tom Landry 117 E. Tom Landry 724 N. Breyfogle 1201 E. 8th St. 202 W. Tom Landry St. 400 W. Veterans Blvd. 400 W. Veterans Blvd. 1111 S. Main. St. P.O. Box 204
Los Fresnos Los Fresnos Los Fresnos Los Fresnos Los Fresnos Port Isabel Port Isabel Port Isabel Port Isabel Port Isabel Port Isabel San Benito San Benito San Benito San Benito San Benito South Padre Island South Padre Island South Padre Island South Padre Island
CITY Alamo Austin Austin Austin Austin Donna Donna Edinburg Edinburg Edinburg Edinburg Edinburg Edinburg Edinburg Edinburg Edinburg Hidalgo Hidalgo Hidalgo Hidalgo La Joya La Joya McAllen McAllen McAllen McAllen McAllen McAllen McAllen McAllen McAllen McAllen McAllen McAllen M Mercedes d Mercedes Mission Mission Mission Mission Mission Palmview Palmview Penitas Penitas
TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX
78566 78566 78566 78566 78566 78578 78578 78578 78578 78578 78578 78586 78586 78586 78586 78586 78597 78597 78597
956.233.5768 956.233.5768 956.233.5768 956.233.5768 956.254.5010 956.943.2682 956.943.2682 956.943.2262 956.943.0000 956.943.0000 956.943.7826 956.361.8209 956.399.5321 956.361.3804 ext. 302 956.361.3804 956.361.3804 956.761.4412 956.761.2649 956 761 6456 956.761.6456
956.233.9879 956.233.9879 956.233.9879 956.233.9879 956.233.4031 956.943.2029 956.943.2029 956.943.4001 956.943.0014 956.943.0014 956.943.8922 956.361.8211 956.361.3805 956.361.3817 956.361.3805 956.361.3805 956.761.2739 956.761.2451 956 761 3888 956.761.3888
STATE
ZIP
PHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER
TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX
78516 78701 78768 78768 78768 78537 78537 78539 78539 78539 78539 78541 78541 78541 78539 78539 78557 78557 78557 78557 78560 78560 78504 78504 78503 78501 78501 78503 78501 78501 78502 78503 78503 78501 78570 78570 78572 78572 78574 78572 78572 78572 78572 78576 78576
956.787.0006 x128 512.637.8777 512.463.0426 512.463.0426 512.463.0426 956.464.3314 956.464.3314 956.292.7025 ext.5402 956.383.3112 956.318.2600 956.383.4974 956.388.8207 956.388.8207 956.388.8202 956.665.2770 956.632.8677 956.843.2734 956.843.2286 956.843.2286 956.843.2471 956.581.7002 956.581.7002 956.383.4300 956.383.4300 956.994.8683 956.682.2871 956.928.0060 956.682.2875 956.681.1001 956.681.1000 956.618.8366 956.681.1500 956.682.7827 956.681.3500 956 956.565.3114 x127 565 3114 127 956.565.3114 x127 956.584.8999 956.424.3942 956.585.4509 956.580.8650 956.585.2727 956.432.0300 956.432.0300 956.581.3345 956.581.5233
956.787.1160 512.463.0043 512.463.0043 512.463.0043 956.464.9923 956.464.9923 956.292.7034 956.381.5905 956.318.2699 956.383.6942 956.388.8989 956.388.8989 956.292.2080 956.665.2771 956.631.7866 956.843.2722 956.843.6461 956.843.6461 956.843.9501 956.580.7000 956.580.7000 956.383.4304 956.383.4304 956.686.2718 956.687.2917 956.928.0073 956.682.3077 956.681.1010 956.681.1010 956.872.8368 956.681.1509 956.682.3077 956.681.3505 956 565 5184 956.565.5184 956.565.5184 956.584.7555 956.424.3936 956.585.2375 956.580.8768 956.585.3044 956.581.7494 956.581.7494 956.581.3346 956.581.3346
no email pdenny@citylf.us no email no email gsalazar@lfcisd.net joeevega@yahoo.com citymanager@copitx.com director@portisabel.org lgarcia@piͲisd.net rochoa@piͲisd.net sbearden@rgv.rr.com dagarza@co.cameron.tx.us mmcclain@cityofsanbenito.com storres@cityofsanbenito.com jhernandez@cityofsanbenito.com mlara@cityofsanbenito.com roxanne@spichamber.com rnpjr@aol.com jclarke@myspi org jclarke@myspi.org
EMAIL jsandoval@alamotexas.org press@tedcruz.org no email curtis.smith@house.state.tx.us jonathan.gonzalezͲsmith@house.state.tx.us davidsimmons@donnaisd.net fflores@cityofdonna.org xo@co.hidalgo.tx.us joseph.palacios@co.hidalgo.tx.us countyjudge@co.hidalgo.tx.us chamber@edinburg.com aozuna@cityofedinburg.com rgarza@cityofedinburg.com jlopez@cityofedinburg.com salinashovarm@utpa.edu alonzo@cantuconstruction.com hccruth@sbcglobal.net zepedmar@yahoo.com hidjoevera@aol.com rvillarreal@mcallen.net cityoflajoya@aol.com cityoflajoya@aol.com bobby.guerra@house.state.tx.us bernardo.aldape@house.state.tx.us hinojosaforcongress@gmail.com steve@mcallenchamber.com cynthia@rgvhcc.com keith@medc.org mrperez@mcallen.net naolvera@mcallen.net sareed@southtexascollege.edu pbrown@mcallen.net roy@mcalleneb5.com esuarez@mcallen.net rgarcia@cityofmercedes.net i @ i f d mleftwich@cityofmercedes.net cynthia.pacheco@house.state.tx.us alexis.gallegos@mail.house.gov commissioner3@co.hidalgo.tx.us jcerda@missiontexas.us matt@missionchamber.com no email arivas@cityofpalmview.us ochoamarcosl@gmail.com noe_cavazos2002@yahoo.com
List of Stakeholders Contacted Hidalgo County Commissioner Precinct 2 Pharr Chamber of Commerce City of Pharr City of Pharr City of Pharr City of Pharr Hidalgo County Regional Mobility Authority Hidalgo County Regional Mobility Authority South Texas FreightLiner Pharr Bridge Progresso/Donna Port of Entry San Juan Economic Development Corporation City of San Juan House District 39 Hidalgo County Commissioner Precinct 1 Weslaco Chamber of Commerce City of Weslaco City of Weslaco LRGVDCͲValley Metro LRGVDCͲValley Metro LRGVDCͲValley Metro Hidalgo County Metropolitan Planning Org.
Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Hector "Tito" Luis William "Bill" Fred David Ed Pilar Flor Tom Fred Carlos
Palacios Bazan Ueckert Sandoval Garza Wylie Rodriguez P.E. Koll Jones Brouwen Rodriguez
Mr.
Ismael
Delgado
Mr. Mr. Mr. Mrs.
J. J. Armando A.C. Martha
Rodriguez Martinez Cuellar, Jr. Noell
Mr
Hernan
Gonzalez
Mr. Mr. Mr Ms. Mr.
Leonardo Tom Maribel Andrew
Olivares Logan Contreras Canon
Commissioner Pct. 2 President/CEO City Engineer City Manager Assistant City Manager/Utilities Director Planning and Zoning Director Executive Director Program Administrator Owner Asst. Director Director Director of Community Development City Manager House Representative Commissioner Precinct 1 Director Director of Economic Development City Manager Director Planner Transportation Director
County Judge Jim Hogg ISD Housing Authority of Jim Hogg County Senate District 21 House District 31 Senator of Texas
Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Mr. Mr.
Guadalupe S. Pedro P. Deborah Judith Ryan Ted
Canales Lopez, Jr. Melo Zaffirini Guillen Cruz
County Judge Superintendent Director Senator House District 31 Representative Senator
County Judge Sarita ISD
Mr. Mr.
Louis E. "Bud" Randy
Turcotte Hoyer
Judge Superintendent
Congressional District 28 Congressional District 28 County Judge Starr County Commissioner Pct. 1 Starr County Commissioner Pct 2 Starr County Commissioner Pct. 2 Starr County Commissioner Pct. 3 Starr County Commissioner Pct. 4 City of Rio Grande City City of Rio Grande City City of Rio Grande City City of Rio Grande City City of Rio Grande City Rio Grande City CISD StarrͲCamargo International Bridge Starr County Industrial Foundation Roma Chamber of Commerce City of Roma City of Roma City of Roma Roma ISD
Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mrs. Mr. Ms. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Henry Cynthia Eloy Abel Raul Eloy Ruben D. Ruben O. Ruben Juan F. Holly Eliza Y. Roel Miriam Rose Nicolas Jose Alfredo Crisanto Joe Jesus O.
Cuellar Gaona Vera Cantu Pena Jr Pena Jr. Garza Saenz Villarreal Saenz Zuniga Guerrero Beas Gonzalez Vale Benavidez Garza Guerra Jr. Salinas Garza Guerra Jr.
Congressman Deputy Chief of Staff Judge Commissioner Pct. 1 Commissioner Pct 2 Commissioner Pct. 2 Commissioner Pct. 3 Commissioner Pct. 4 Mayor Mayor ProͲTem City Manager City Secretary Planning Director Superintendent Chairman of Board President President Mayor City Manager Planning Director Superintendent
Lyford CISD Port of Mansfield County Judge Raymondville Chamber of Commerce Raymondville Chamber of Commerce City of Raymondville City of Raymondville City of Raymondville Raymondville ISD City of San Perlita San Perlita ISD
Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
Eduardo Shane John F. Mary Elva Orlando A. Eleazar Andy Johnny I. Oscar Albert A.
Infante Cameron Gonzales, Jr. Casillas Chavez Correa Garcia Jr. Chavez Pineda De Luna Peña IV
Superintendent Director Judge President Executive Director Mayor City Manager Planning & Zoning Commission Superintendent Mayor Superintendent
300 W. Hall Acres, Ste. G 308 W. Newcombe "Park Ave" 118 S. Cage Blvd. 118 S. Cage Blvd. 118 S. Cage Blvd. 118 S. Cage Blvd. PO Box 1766 PO Box 1766 3103 N. Cage 9900 S. Cage 100 S. International Blvd. 430 N. Standard Ave. 709 S. Nebraska Ave. 800 W. Railroad St., Rm HͲ111 1902 Joe Stephens Ave. 275 S. Kanfas, Ste. B
Pharr Pharr Pharr Pharr Pharr Pharr Pharr Pharr Pharr Pharr Progresso San Juan San Juan Weslaco Weslaco Weslaco
TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX
305 W. Railroad St.
Weslaco
TX
255 S. Kansas Ave. 510 S. Pleasantview Dr. 510 S Pleasantview Dr 510 S. Pleasantview Dr. 510 S. Pleasantview Dr.
Weslaco Weslaco Weslaco Weslaco
TX TX TX TX
78577 78577 78577 78577 78577 78577 78577 78577 78577 78577 78579 78589 78589 78596 78596 78599 78596 78596 78596 78596 78596
Hebbronville Hebbronville Hebbronville Laredo Rio Grande City San Antonio
TX TX TX TX TX TX
Sarita Sarita
956.787.1891 956.787.1481 956.702.5335 956.702.5335 956.787.7951 956.702.5335 956.402.4762 956.402.4762 956.782.8202 956.781.1361 956.565.3140 956.783.3448 956.223.2200 956.447.9473 956.968.8733 956.968.2102
commissioner2@co.hidalgo.tx.us lbazan@pharrchamber.com william.ueckert@pharrͲtx.gov Fred.sandoval@pharrͲtx.gov david.garza@pharrͲtx.gov ed.wylie@pharrͲtx.gov prodriguez@hcrma.net fkoll@hcrma.net
956.968.3181 956.969.5761 956 969 5761 956.969.5778 956.969.5778
956.787.4683 956.787.7972 956.702.5369 956.702.5313 956.783.4688 956.702.5313 no fax no fax 956.782.8235 956.781.1473 956.565.5178 956.783.5413 956.787.5978 956.447.8683 956.969.1417 956.968.6451 956.969.8611 956.968.6672 956 969 8176 956.969.8176 956.969.5821 956.969.5821
78361 78361 78361 78040 78582 78226
361.527.3015 361.527.3203 361.527.4353 956.722.2293 956.716.4838 210.340.2885
361.527.5800 361.527.4928 361.527.4901 956.722.8586 956.716.8219 210.349.6753
rosa.gonzalez@co.jimͲhogg.tx.us pedro.lopezjr@jhcisd.net hajhc1@yahoo.com judith.zaffirini@senate.state.tx.us ryan.guillen@house.state.tx.us javier_salinas@cruz.senate.gov
TX TX
78385 78385
361.294.5224 361.294.5381
361.294.5244 361.294.5718
budturcotte@yahoo.com rhoyer@sarita.esc2.net
Rio Grande City San Antonio Rio Grande City Rio Grande City Roma Rio Grande City Rio Grande City Rio Grande City Rio Grande City Rio Grande City Rio Grande City Rio Grande City Rio Grande City Rio Grande City Rio Grande City Roma Roma Roma Roma Roma
TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX
78582 78205 78582 78582 78584 78582 78582 78582 78582 78582 78582 78582 78582 78582 78582 78584 78584 78584 78584 78584
956.487.5603 877Ͳ780Ͳ0028 956.716.4800 956.849.2606 956 849 7371 956.849.7371 956.487.2120 956.487.2922 956.487.0672 956.487.0672 956.487.0672 956.487.0672 956.487.0672 956.716.6700 956.487.5606 956.487.2709 956.849.4434 956.849.1411 956.849.1411 956.849.1411 956.849.1377
956.488.0952 210.277.6671 956.487.8709 956.849.4328 956 849 3532 956.849.3532 956.488.9242 956.487.3694 956.716.8899 956.716.8899 956.716.8899 956.716.8899 956.716.8899 956.487.8506 956.487.4678 956.716.8560 956.849.4369 956.849.3963 956.849.3963 956.849.3963 956.849.3118
Lyford Raymondville Raymondville Raymondville Raymondville Raymondville Raymondville Raymondville Raymondville San Perlita San Perlita
TX TX Tx TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX
78569 78580 78580 78580 78580 78580 78580 78580 78580 78590 78546
956.347.3900 956Ͳ689Ͳ3332 956 689 3332 956.689.3393 956.689.1864 956.689.1864 956.689.2443 956.689.2443 956.689.2443 956.689.8176 956.248.5725 956.248.5563
956.347.5588 956.689.6165 956.689.4817 956.689.1863 956.689.1863 956.689.0981 956.689.0981 956.689.0981 956.689.0201 956.248.5348 956.248.5561
956.969.0838
fred.brouwen@pharrͲtx.gov carlos.rodriguez@dhs.gov delgado.ismael@sanjuanedc.com jjrod@cityofsanjuantexas.com mando.martinez@house.state.tx.us commissioner1@co.hidalgo.tx.us martha@weslaco.com hgonzalez@weslacoedc.com lolivares@weslacotx.gov tlogan@lrgvdctransit org tlogan@lrgvdctransit.org mcontreras@lrgvdctransit.org acanon@hcmpo.org
JIM HOGG COUNTY, TEXAS P.O. Box 729 210 W. Lucille 508 N. Dagmar Ave. 1407 Washington St. 100 North F.M. 3167, Ste. 212 3133 General Hudnell Drive, Ste. 120
KENEDY COUNTY, TEXAS P.O. Box 37 150 East La Parra St.
STARR COUNTY, TEXAS 100 N. F.M. 3167 615 E. Houston Street, Ste. 563 100 N. F.M. 3167, Ste. 202 4192 W. Hwy 83 500 E Hwy 83 500 E. Hwy. 83 6163 F.M. 1430 F.M. Road 500 N. Britton Ave. Moss Bldg. 101 S. Washington St. 101 S. Washington St. 101 S. Washington St. 101 S. Washington St. 101 S. Washington St. Fort Ringgold 804 W. Main St. 601 E. Main St. 301 W. Lincoln Ave. 77 E. Convent Ave. 77 E. Convent Ave. 77 E. Convent Ave. 608 N. Garcia St.
cynthia.gaona@mail.house.gov eloy.vera@co.starr.tx.us acantu@co.starr.tx.us royromamotormart@yahoo com royromamotormart@yahoo.com Liglesias531@gmail.com anitap45@hotmail.com noͲemail noͲemail noͲemail hguerrero@cityofrgc.com eybeas@cityofrgc.com icanhelpco@yahoo.com rbenavidez@starrcounty.org noͲemail csalinas@cityofroma.net jgarza@cityofroma.net joguerra@romaisd.com
WILLACY COUNTY, TEXAS 8204 Simon Gomez Rd. 400 W. Hidalgo Ste. 200 576 W. Main PO BOX 746 PO BOX 746 142 S. 7th 142 S. 7th 142 S. 7th 419 F.M. 3168 14168 7th St. P.O.Box 37
linda.saenz@lyfordcisd.net jshanecameron@portofmansfield.com john.gonzales@co.willacy.tx.us noͲemail chamber@granderiver.net orlandocorrea@yahoo.com raycity@prontonet.net raycity@prontonet.net jipineda@raymondvilleisd.org cityhall12@yahoo.com apena@spisd.org
List of Stakeholders Contacted ZAPATA COUNTY, TEXAS House District 80 House District 80 Senator for SouthTexas Senator for SouthTexas Zapata County Judge Zapata County Judge Assistant Zapata Economic Development Zapata ISD
Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Mr. Ms. Ms. Dr.
Tracy O. Celina John Ana Joe Roxie Peggy Norma G.
King Overbo Cornyn Garcia Rathmell Elizondo Umphres Moffett Garcia
House District 80 Representative Chief of Staff Senator South Texas Regional Director Judge Staff Assistant Director of Economic Development Superintendent
Chairman Executive Assistant/Scheduler Chief of Staff Commissioner Chief of Staff and Legal Director of Public Affairs Executive Assistant/Scheduler Commissioner Chief of Staff and Legal Director of Public Affairs
Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Ms. Ms. Mr. Ms.
Barry T. Garnet Christian David Amy Katie Katie Christi Bill Lauren
Smitherman Cantwell Alvarado Porter Maxwell Carmichael Carmichael Craddick Black Hamner
Chairman Executive Assistant/Scheduler Chief of Staff Commissioner Chief of Staff and Legal Director of Public Affairs Executive Assistant/Scheduler Commissioner Chief of Staff/Legal Counsel Director of Public Affairs
P.O.Box 2910 P.O.Box 2910 222 E. Van Buren 222 E. Van Buren 200 E. 7th Ave., Ste. 115 200 E. 7th Ave., Ste. 115 1301 N. Hwy 83 PO BOX 158
Austin Austin Harlingen Harlingen Zapata Zapata Zapata Zapata
TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX
78768 78768 78550 78550 78076 78076 78076 78076
512.463.0194 512.463.0194 956.423.0162 956.423.0162 956.765.9920 956.765.9920 956.765.1113 956.765.6546
Austin Austin Austin Austin Austin Austin Austin Austin Austin Austin
TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX
78711 78711 78711 78711 78711 78711 78711 78711 78711 78711
512.463.7144 512.463.7144 512.463.7144 512.463.7131 512.463.7131 512.463.7131 512.463.7131 512.463.7140 512.463.7140 512.463.7140
512.463.1220 512.463.1220 956.423.0193 956.423.0193 956.765.9926 956.765.9926 956.765.1120 956.765.8350
district80.king@house.state.tx.us celina.overbo@house.state.tx.us noͲemail ana_garcia@cornyn.senate.gov zcjo@zapatacountytx.org roxeliz@gmail.com peggy.moffett@zapatacountyedc.org ngarcia@zcisd.org
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS P.O. Box 12967 P.O. Box 12967 P.O. Box 12967 P.O. Box 12967 P.O. Box 12967 P.O. Box 12967 P.O. Box 12967 P.O. Box 12967 P.O. Box 12967 P.O. Box 12967
Barry.Smitherman@rrc.state.tx.us garnet.cantwell@rcc.stat.tx.us christian.alvarado@rrc.state.tx.us David.Porter@rrc.state.tx.us amy.maxwell@rrc.state.tx.us katie.carmichael@rrc.state.tx.us katie.houck@rrc.state.tx.us Christi.Craddick@rrc.state.tx.us Bill.Black@rrc.state.tx.us Lauren.Hamner@rrc.state.tx.us
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Public Meeting #1 Comments on Maps—LAN additions in italics Three maps of the study were shown. All three depicted the same existing transportation network. Map 1 1. 755 Loop is under construction (east of Rio Grande City) 2. Rio Grande City / Roma bypass needed—shown on TxDOT plans—unfunded/unsponsored—added to map 3. Extend Class 4 railroad from Granjeno area past Sullivan City and then north to Hebbronville. This will give south Texas two highway rail lines. 4. Commuter rail shown from UTPA court house to McAllenMiller Airport should be initial phase (11 miles) 5. More transit services needed, especially in Mid-Valley area 6. IBTC, between US 83 and US 281, should be completed soon. Property issues (35 owners) are holding the project back. 7. Rail relocation from Olmito across the river—West Rail project is underway 8. Rail project connecting Brownsville’s Port and Airport identified but no money 9. Old rail along Brownsville Ship Channel should reactivate 10. Space X will be located south of Port Isabel 11. Missing county airport by Bayview—general aviation airports have been added 12. City of Port Isabel should be labeled
July 2013
Map 2 1. City of Edinburg Airport will have property runway improvements, user fees added, a new property CBP building, a cargo destination, and seeking rail connection 2. Edinburg’s multi-modal transit station bus and light rail project is looking for grant money 3. Hidalgo County Loop missing—northern section is unfunded, but added to map 4. City of Edinburg Airport missing— general aviation airports have been added Map 3 1. Extend FM 490 to US 83 2. Add road from FM 1425 to US 77 between FM 490 and FM 1921 3. Intersection of US 281 and US 83, by Pharr, should have additional lanes each direction. 4. How many stations (Distances) –not sure if this refers to passenger rail 5. US 281, from 241 to FM 3248, should be four lanes 6. FM 803 realignment from US 77 to 100 7. Expand Brownsville SPI Airport 8. Space X will be located south of Port Isabel 9. Brazos Island Harbor: widening and deepening ship channel from Port Isabel to the Port of Brownsville 10. San Jose Ranch Road should extend to FM 509 11. San Jose Ranch Road and FM 510 should be widened to four lanes from US 77 to 100 12. FM 1847, from 100 to FM 2925, should be widened to four lanes—listed in 2003 plan 13. 2nd Padre Island Causeway should include roadway connection to US 77, north of Bayview, Arroyo Gardens, and Rio Hondo
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
14. FM 186, from Port Mansfield to US 77, should be widened to four lanes 15. Bike & Pedestrian Master Plan needed for Cameron / Hidalgo area 16. Rancho Viejo missing—town between Harlingen and Brownsville—may not be incorporated 17. Missing county airport by Bayview—general aviation airports have been added 18. TRZ corridors should be shown as they are a potential project funding source
July 2013
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
Survey Comments, from Public Meeting #1 and subsequent Submittals Comments received from stakeholders and the general public have been sorted into groups based on whether they refer to general study goals, new or potential projects (including those which are captured in the recommendations), or projects already planned or in progress. Question 1: Safety/Efficiency Goals 1. Enforce speed limits (Mission - OWLS) 2. Resurfacing of roads, more safe crossovers and pedestrian designated areas with signage, more lighted areas (City of Port Isabel) 3. Projects that are needed are those that increase mobility options in corridors that are becoming increasingly congested or unsafe. (McAllen - HCRMA) 4. Better driver education – short term (Weslaco – Valley Metro) 5. Enforcement of traffic laws on the expressway – short term (Weslaco – Valley Metro) 6. More frequent and widespread use of public transit – long term (Weslaco – Valley Metro) 7. Install cameras on all traffic lights – long term solution (Zapata County ISD) 8. Special needs transportation equipped with ramps or capable of handling special needs citizens (City of San Benito) Potential Project 1. High speed exit going north on 77 to Loop 499 in order to avoid train tracks and congestion during peak hours
July 2013
2. Place one blinking yellow caution light on 22nd and HWY 83. Another traffic light at the intersection of HWY 83 and Park Drive 3. Roma would need more inner city loops 4. Only one major thoroughfare, US 83, serves the city of Roma 5. An over pass over the rail road tracks on FM 106 at Cemetary Road. When trains are positioning rail cars, FM 106 is blocked for at least 20 minutes 6. There is congestion on the expressway split to McAllen and Harlingen during the morning and afternoon hours. The merging lane is not efficient. 7. Loop 499 and US 77 need some major improvements that will alleviate the congestion occurring while people are trying to go from Primera to Harlingen and vice versa. 8. Extending South of Paseo del Norte will improve efficiency to access the hospital 9. Harlingen CISD would like more bus routes throughout the Rio Grande Valley, with better schedule advertisement. 10. Mercedes, TX Livestock Show draws a lot of traffic, so better signage and more streets would make the event safer. In Progress 1. Increase US 83 - US 281 interchange to two-lanes each way— believe this calls for 2-lane ramps; respondent incorrectly called it a cloverleaf 2. Second access for South Padre Island – short term 3. East Loop from International Bridge to Port of Brownsville is the most urgent safety project. Right now, overweight trucks drive through the middle of Brownsville, including past schools, to and from the Port to the International Bridge. The situation needs to be rectified as quickly as possible.
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
4. The US 83 – US 281 interchange needs to be redone and expanded 5. Corridor 69 needs to be completed as soon as possible 6. Widening of expressway 83 especially in Hidalgo County 7. Traffic on Port Road will increase, due to the connection of HWY 48, and will cause a safety issue for residents and the Boys and Girls Club 8. A second access from the mainland to South Padre Island near the north of our current city limits to a mainland site north of Laguna Vista and south of Laguna Atascosa. Our region has waited long enough, we need this now. 9. Improvements to Primera Rd will help alleviate the situation at US 77/ Loop 499 intersection, however, it is essential that such intersection and railroad facility be addressed. 10. Traffic congestion occurs in Texas Boulevard (FM88) and this requires raised medians to improve efficiency 11. Dedicate commercial lane from Pharr Bridge to US 83 by improving Stewart or Jackson Road 12. Extend expressway and add overpasses by Penitas, TX Question 2: Mobility/Connectivity Goals 1. We primarily work with toll road options that are viable from a standpoint of public funding that is available (e.g. State or Federal monies) and that can be supported by tolls. (McAllen HCRMA) 2. More public transit amenities, such as park & rides to complement transit routes – short term (Weslaco – Valley Metro) 3. Establishment of more commuter, regional bus routes – short term (Weslaco – Valley Metro)
July 2013
4. Aesthetically pleasing bus shelters at bus stops would add a great deal of appeal to the environment. (McAllen –UTPA) 5. There needs to be more connectivity related to transit. A seamless transportation 6. service that is continuous and provided in a timely manner. (HSBMPO) Potential Projects 1. A bus terminal in Port Isabel for bus changeover and transportation 2. Overpasses on Highway 100 would greatly aid traffic choke points between 77/83 and South Padre Island. Ideally, a 2nd causeway would be a more permanent solution, but the cost of such a project requires a very large investment that might tax resources. 3. Another expressway connecting Brownsville to McAllen 4. Bike stations with amenities such as air pumps, tire gauges, water, etc. would be great. Pedestrians could benefit from them as well. (McAllen –UTPA) 5. Shafer Road should be improved and extended into Harlingen, connecting to Hale Drive, Ed Carey Drive and New Hamphshire Road. This would relieve traffic congestion from US 77 and the Frontage roads. Creating a new business zone. 6. FM 509 from International Bridge to Port of Harlingen VIA FM 106 and Cemetary Road. 7. Adding a lane on the McAllen exit on Expressway 83. 8. Create a more efficient merger of lanes on the Harlingen exit 9. A highwater bridge is needed in FM 1015 through USIBWC's Main Floodway to provide an adequate route for traffic coming out of International Bridge in Progresso.
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
10. Electronic road signs are needed on bridges to inform drivers what lanes they need to be in. 11. Mercedes, TX is lacking east/west arterials on the far north and south side. More crossings over floodways are also needed. In Progress 1. I-69 East and Central are critical to the Valley. Projections to upgrade US 281, US 83, and US 77 to interstate standards should receive priority. 2. Prioritize IBTC project 3. Connection from Second Access to Expressway 77 4. Port Isabel project with RGVRM on Port road access, from highway 48 to Port Isabel Port, needs a safer passage for trucks that is away from regular traffic, pedestrians, and kids. 5. Complete 509 to 77 6. The new highway 83 bypass will help the Roma be connected to the Valley 7. New road connecting HWY 48, west of HWY 100 intersection, to Port Road will re-route traffic to the port of Port Isabel. Business at the Port will increase, increasing traffic along Port Road. 8. Interstate 77 and 83 and I-69 throughout the RGV 9. Improve highway to connect the second access to a point north of Harlingen to 77/83 in order to provide a more direct travel route to/from McAllen to the west and San Antonio to the north including all points beyond both of those cities. 10. The South Parallel Corridor project is much needed for its connectivity of Harlingen to San Benito and vice versa and will alleviate traffic on US 77 and serve as an alternate route for emergency evacuation purposes. 11. Raised median along Texas Blvd. (FM 88) will improve mobility from US 83 to 18th St.
July 2013
12. Hidalgo County Loop System (SH 365, SH 68, IBTC, Segments A, C & D) 13. La Joya Loop 14. Extend Liberty Blvd, from 3 Mile to 107, to a five lane section. 15. Construction in Harlingen, TX needs to be finished faster in order for congestion to be minimized. 16. Upgrade Eisenhower from Flores Avenue to FM 3167 17. Alternate route US 83 La Puerta to Loma Blanca 18. Improve FM 490 from US 281 to FM 755 19. Extend FM 490 to FM 649 20. Extend FM 2221 to FM 755 then FM 649 21. Construct La Puerta Overpass at US Hwy 83 Rail Crossing 22. Construct proposed international crossing Roma/Mier POE 23. Starr Camargo Bridge Company is in the process of expanding its international bridge for southbound traffic.
Question 3: Transit/Pedestrian/Bicyclist Goals 1. Improve bus connections (Mission - OWLS) 2. Valley-wide transit system would benefit the entire region 3. More stop pick up areas, sidewalks, safe crossovers, rest stations, and designated safe bicycle trails (City of Port Isabel) 4. Any project that promotes alternate mobility options, such as transit or bicycle paths, that continue to build on the footprint of projects already established so that it maximizes the investment made on existing projects. (McAllen - HCRMA) 5. A mass transit system with express routes between city hubs, then supplemental routes to major points within cities would provide the greatest benefit. The buses could connect residents to shopping, medical, and education centers in other cities. (Brownsville)
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
6. More intercity transit routes with more frequency, larger span of service and service on weekends. (Weslaco – Valley Metro) 7. More hike and bike trails in the area would be nice (City of San Juan) 8. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes along all major roads and arterial roads are required for pedestrian mobility (McAllen –UTPA) 9. Extending availability of sidewalks and public transportation (San Juan EDC) 10. Bicycle lanes and signage will encourage the cyclists to feel safer when riding and that 11. may provide them connectivity within origins and destinations in urban areas. (HSBMPO) 12. Expand mass transit routes to destinations in various cities. (Edinburg-HCRMA) 13. More walkways near schools and public places are needed for pedestrian’s safety. (Harlingen CISD) 14. Safe routes for bicyclists and pedestrians are needed from neighborhoods to schools (City of Mercedes) Potential Projects 1. The mid-valley, Edinburg, PSJA, and Mission need more transit. 2. Pedestrian and bicycle would help Roma due to its National Historical District and having the International Bridge so close. 3. Intra-city bus transportation between Brownsville, Harlingen and San Benito. 4. Paseo Del Norte requires extension of pedestrian/bicycle sidewalks to increase connectivity and usage on the south portion of Weslaco 5. Westgate Dr. requires connectivity from Harlon Block Park to US 83. 6. Pedestrian improvements on FM 1427
July 2013
In Progress 7. Improved sidewalks on State Highway 100 for the entire length of the South Padre Island city limits. Question 4: Livability/Economic Competitiveness Goals 1. The RMAs should focus on loop type roads to ease congestion (City of SPI) 2. Having pedestrian friendly environments (City of Port Isabel) 3. Commuter rail projects or perhaps an industrial rail for heavy industrialization of this area. Also toll roads are a way toward regional competitiveness since they are funded and maintained by the region's population base so the investment they make in taxes and tolls stay within the area. (McAllen - HCRMA) 4. Public transportation additions. Transit oriented development that makes use of private/public partnerships. (Weslaco – Valley Metro) 5. More expressways east-west and north-south (City of San Juan) 6. One regional airport would provide for significantly better air service by increasing frequencies and attracting additional carriers. Dallas-Fort Worth is a prime example (Harlingen – Valley Int. Airport) 7. Any new inner city loop and new bypass would boost the economy (City of Roma) 8. Create short loops between cities, key neighborhoods and shopping areas. (City of San Benito) 9. Creation of a highway surveillance camera system that could be utilized by al cities (City of San Benito) 10. Extending availability of public transportation to cover more areas (San Juan EDC)
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
11. Keep the interstates, county roads and highways connecting the ports, airports, and international bridges up to standard. (Port of Harlingen Authority) 12. Capacity issues at inspection areas for freight exports. (Pharr International Bridge) 13. Widen and expand several roads in Penitas, TX. Potential Projects 1. Port Isabel should be connected to more transportation related companies like buses within a terminal in the City of Port Isabel. 2. Mass transit system that would span across the valley from Brownsville to Starr County 3. After completing Corridor 69 roads need to be repaired caused by rerouted heavy trucks. 4. Passenger rail service to the area from San Antonio and other points north. This service needs to add lines all the way to Port Isabel. 5. A nearby accessible water port and facilities that could accommodate destination cruise ships. (SPI Chamber of Commerce) 6. Overpass at Paseo Del Norte lacks connectivity to US Business 83. Extending road will provide better accessibility to Knapp Hospital. 7. Harlingen CISD would like more bus routes throughout the Rio Grande Valley, with better schedule advertisement. 8. Commuter Rail is needed in Mercedes, TX in order to move more people at a time. In Progress 1. The East Loop around Brownsville would greatly help livability and economic competitiveness. It would take overweight trucks out of Brownsville, and open up hundreds of acres of land for
July 2013
more development. Improvements to the Port of Brownsville would attract more cargo and create more jobs. Much of what comes through the Port benefits the entire Valley, and more regional assistance in paying for improvement costs would help the entire Valley. 2. Second access to/from South Island and the mainland. 3. I-69 project is of great importance 4. Hidalgo County Loop system and Freight/Passenger Rail expansion Question 5: Additional Comments Goals 1. The Rio Grande Valley is rich in history and natural beauty and in order for the majority of our population including residents and visitors to experience its uniqueness and flavor is to have a sophisticated transportation system that is convenient, safe, enjoyable and accessible. Hopefully every community in the Valley can be connected by a system that includes transit, pedestrian and bicycles. (City of Port Isabel) 2. Need to double vehicle inspection area (Pharr International Bridge) 3. Funding for local roads is needed (City of Penitas) Potential Projects 1. More lights on the Veleno Bridge on HWY 83 because the bridge is too dark. 2. Our transportation system should act as the key arteries that provide life and should be monitored with a solid dependable surveillance that provides security and also provides information to all media and law enforcement. This could be used as a marketing tool that would help the general public if it is available. (City of San Benito)
Rio Grande Valley
Regional Mobility Plan
3. Need to focus on maintaining and upgrading the interstate highways and major FM roads connecting regions in the valley, as they are used by both commercial and non-commercial traffic (Port of Harlingen Authority) 4. Pharr International Bridge needs safety lanes for disabled vehicles In Progress 1. Quiet Village II is motivated to sell the property but frustrated with the delay since property value is going down. 2. Will the rail projects connect the Valley to the north? Every agency is competing for funds with no visible coordination between them. 3. As the plan moves forward please contact the RMA and myself so that we can get you any electronic files that might be pertinent to your study. We have schematics, strategic plans and schedules that might be of interest. (McAllen - HCRMA)
July 2013
NAME: Edward Meza, City Manager ORGANIZATION: City of Port Isabel WHERE DO YOU LIVE? Port Isabel, Texas WHERE DO YOU WORK? City of Port Isabel
What transportation improvements are needed for safety and efficiency? resurfacing of roads more safe crossovers and pedestrian designated areas with signage more lighted areas
For questions 1Ǧ4, please note if your suggestions are short-or long-term efficiency? 1) a) b) c) 2) What connections/roads/facilities are needed for mobility and connectivity? a)Port Isabel project with RGVRM on Port Rd. road access from hwy 48 to Port Isabel Port – safe passage for trucks and away from regular traffic, pedestrians and kids a) A bus terminal in Port Isabel for bus changeover and transportation 3) What transit, pedestrian, or bicycle improvements would provide the most benefit? a) For transit- more stop pick up areas b) For pedestrian – more sidewalks, safe crossovers, rest stations c) For bicycle – more designated safe bicycle trails 4) What transportation improvements would help the region’s livability and economic competitiveness? a) For Port Isabel to be connected with more transportation related companies like buses within a terminal in the City of Port Isabel. b) Again having pedestrian friendly environments. 5) Any additional comments? a) The Rio Grande Valley is rich in history and natural beauty and in order for the majority of our population including residents and visitors to experience its uniqueness and flavor is to have a sophisticated transportation system that is convenient, safe, enjoyable and accessible. Hopefully every community in the Valley can be connected by a system that includes transit, pedestrian and bicycles.
NAME: Eric Davila, EIT, CFM ORGANIZATION: Dannenbaum Engineering, Program Management Consultant / General Engineering Consultant for the HCRMA WHERE DO YOU LIVE? Weslaco WHERE DO YOU WORK? McAllen
For questions 1Ǧ4, please note if your suggestions are shortǦ or longǦterm. 1) What transportation improvements are needed for safety and efficiency? Projects that are needed are those that increase mobility options in corridors that are becoming increasingly congested or unsafe. Also those are sustainably constructed and maintained. 2) What connections/roads/facilities are needed for mobility and connectivity? We primarily work with tollroad options that are viable from a standpoint of public funding that is available (e.g. State or Federal monies) and that can be supported by tolls. 3) What transit, pedestrian, or bicycle improvements would provide the most benefit? Any project that promotes alternate mobility options, such as transit or bicycle paths, that continue to build on the footprint of projects already established so that it maximizes the investment made on existing projects. 4) What transportation improvements would help the region’s livability and economic competitiveness? Commuter rail projects or perhaps an industrial rail for heavy industrialization of this area. Also tollroads are a way toward regional competitiveness since they are funded and maintained by the region's population base so the investment they make in taxes and tolls stay within the area. 5) Any additional comments? As the plan moves forward please contact the RMA and myself so that we can get you any electronic files that might be pertinent to your study. We have schematics, strategic plans and schedules that might be of interest.
Rep. RenĂŠ O. Oliveira Texas House of Representatives Brownsville Brownsville #1. East Loop from International Bridge to Port of Brownsville is out most urgent safety project. Right now, overweight trucks drive through the middle of Brownsville, including past schools, to and from the Port to the International Bridge. The situation needs to be rectified as quickly as possible.
#2. Overpasses on Highway 100 would greatly aid traffic choke points between 77/83 and South Padre Island. Ideally, a 2nd causeway would be a more permanent solution, but the cost of such a project requires a very large investment that might tax resources.
#3. A mass transit system with express routes between city hubs, then supplemental routes to major points within cities would provide the greatest benefit. The buses could connect residents to shopping, medical, and education centers in other cities.
#4. The East Loop around Brownsville would greatly help livability and economic competitiveness. It would take overweight trucks out of Brownsville, and open up hundreds of acres of land for more development. Improvements to the Port of Brownsville would attract more cargo and create more jobs. Much of what comes through the Port benefits the entire Valley, and more regional assistance in paying for improvement costs would help the entire Valley.
Rio Grande Valley Regional Mobility Plan Update January 31, 2013 – Public Meeting #1 Marta Salinas-Hovar NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________ ORGANIZATION: ______________________________________________________________________ McAllen WHERE DO YOU LIVE? _________________________________________________________________ UTPA WHERE DO YOU WORK? _______________________________________________________________ For questions 1Ͳ4, please note if your suggestions are shortͲ or longͲterm. 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
What transportation improvements are needed for safety and efficiency? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ What connections/roads/facilities are needed for mobility and connectivity? Aesthetically pleasing Shade structures at bus stops would add a great _________________________________________________________________________________ deal of appeal to the environment. Bike stations with amenities such as _________________________________________________________________________________ air pumps, tire gauges, water, etc. would be great. Pedestrians would _________________________________________________________________________________ benefit from this as well. What transit, pedestrian, or bicycle improvements would provide the most benefit? Sidewalks along all major roads and arterial roads are required for _________________________________________________________________________________ pedestrian mobility, and bicycle lanes are also required. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ What transportation improvements would help the region’s livability and economic competitiveness? A mass transit system that would span across the valley from Brownsville _________________________________________________________________________________ to Starr County. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Any additional comments? _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________
Rio Grande Valley Regional Mobility Plan Update January 31, 2013 – Public Meeting #1
Jose Luis Morales NAME: ______________________________________________________________________________ Zapata County Independent School District ORGANIZATION: ______________________________________________________________________ Zapata County, Texas WHERE DO YOU LIVE? _________________________________________________________________ Zapata County Independent School District WHERE DO YOU WORK? _______________________________________________________________ For questions 1Ͳ4, please note if your suggestions are shortͲ or longͲterm. 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
What transportation improvements are needed for safety and efficiency? At least one blinking yellow caution light on 22nd and Hwy 83. _________________________________________________________________________________ Another traffic light at the intersection of Hwy 83 and Park Dr. _________________________________________________________________________________ Install cameras on all traffic lights. These are long term solutions. _________________________________________________________________________________ What connections/roads/facilities are needed for mobility and connectivity? N/A _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ What transit, pedestrian, or bicycle improvements would provide the most benefit? N/A _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ What transportation improvements would help the region’s livability and economic competitiveness? N/A _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ Any additional comments? More lights on the Veleno Bridge on Hwy 83. Bridge is too dark _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________
Starr County Strategic Transportation Plan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Project Type
Project Description
Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Rail Roads Lands Port of Entry (POE)
Widening of FM 755 International Bridge to US Highway 83 Widening of FM 3167 within city limits Extension of Eisenhower Avenue parallel to US Highway 83 Upgrade Eisenhower from Flores Avenue to FM 3167 Pairing of Avasolo (one way North) and FM 755 (South) Construction of Alternate FM 755 (Aug. 2013) Improvements US 83 Starr to Zapata Counties Alternate route US 83 La Puerta to Loma Blanca Improve FM 490 US 281 to FM 755 Extend FM 490 to FM 649 Extend FM 2221 to FM 755 then FM 649 Garcia St Expansion- US Hwy 83 Pairing Construct La Puerta Overpass at US Hwy 83 Rail Crossing Construct Proposed International Crossing Roma/Mier POE Starr Camargo Bridge Company is in the process of expanding its international bridge by constructing an additional two lane span that will be used for outbound (southbound traffic) Estimated cost is five million dollars
15 Lands Port of Entry (POE)
Status Completed Completed Completed Future On Going On Going On Going Future Future Future Future Completed Future Future Future
Priority
Mid-Range
Long-Range Long-Range Long-Range Long-Range Lone-Range Long-Range Mid-Range