THIS PARAGRAPH WILL FOLLOW ALL POSTS TO GIVE YOU AN OUTLINE, SO YOU WON'T HAVE TO READ THE ARCHIVES EACH TIME. FIRST, THIS INFORMATION IS NOT JUST HERE EACH LETTER GOES TO THE ADDRESSEE. THE IDEA IS FOR THE 47 THOUSAND PEOPLE WHO DRIVE HIGHWAY 199 TO BE INFORMED ABOUT THIS ONGOING STORY. THE STORY IS: TX. .D.O.T. IS PLANNING ON CLOSING THE MAIN LANES OF THE HIGHWAY AND TURNING ALL THIS TRAFFIC ONTO THE NEW (HIGH SPEED) SIDE ROADS, 11 FEET ON FRONT OF BUSINESSES, ONE OF WHICH IS A SCHOOL WITH 100 CHILDREN PLAYING AT IT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO READ HOW TX.D.O.T., ALL OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND THE MEDIA RESPOND TO MY LETTERS AND THOSE OF OTHERS. YOU WILL SEE HOW TX. D.O.T. THINKS. IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS, PLEASE ADD THEM. HOWEVER, IF YOU SIMPLY WISH TO INFORM ME THAT YOU DON'T CARE WHETHER CHILDREN LIVE OR DIE, YOU WILL BE DELETED. PLEASE STICK TO THE SUBJECT. THANK YOU.
LATEST RESPONSE FROM TX. D.O.T., DATED 2.21.08
MY RESPONSE FOLLOWS.
In response to your e-mail, we offer the following:
In the statement made about “simply transferring the traffic from the main lanes to the frontage roads" in the previous e-mail is a statement that is a true fact. As the e-mail below explains, the existing frontage roads do not carry hardly any traffic being that most of the traffic is traveling on the main lanes. After the construction of the new frontage roads is completed and the main lane traffic is switched to the new frontage roads, it will be this same traffic (main lane traffic) that will be using the new frontage roads.
As for traffic being "11 feet from a school" as you have stated, this is not an accurate statement. Traffic in reality will be traveling at a distance from the outside travel lane to the right-of-way line at a distance of approximately 32-feet. Note that the proposed permanent striping for this project will have the outside lane striped as a shoulder for the most part of the frontage roads. The frontage roads will be striped with two lane in each direction, except at the intersection where there will be turning lanes striped to help the flow of thru traffic that can be affected by turning movements. Also, note that there is still an additional distance from the 32-feet before we get to the actual location of the day care building. The horizontal clearance zone for a high speed facility (45 MPH and higher) where protection is required on a non-curb roadway section is 30-feet. The horizontal clearance for a low speed facility (less than 45 MPH) where protection is required on a non-curb roadway section is 16-feet. Note that when we talk about protecting, we are talking about protecting the traveling public from an obstacle such as a foundation projecting out of the ground, a bridge rail, a culvert drop-off, etc... For a curbed section, which is an urban section, which is what we are constructing on the proposed frontage roads, we are looking at a horizontal clear zone of 3-feet desirable. For this type of section, in most instances, we are talking about not requiring any protection being that it is a low speed facility. This to us is proof of measures available to us in determining the need to implement a practical solution that will provide a safe condition on all of our roadways.
In response to your second comment, we have received complaints in the past of how bad the pavement riding surface was on the existing SH 199 main lanes. Our maintenance section has gone out there and performed pavement repairs. I also stand by the comment which stated that conditions will be safer because of the new pavement sections that we are currently constructing. With a new pavement section, motorists can travel under these conditions without having to worry about trying to avoid potholes or rough spots on the pavement which can cause slow downs or veering maneuvers that can potentially result in an accident.
You also stated that "we have been advised by many people who travel this highway that they are not concerned about the very few pot holes that actually exist" and " that we have also been advised by these people that given a choice between a pot hole and an unsafe access roadway with that much traffic, with people trying to dart in and out of driveways onto a high speed highway, they would naturally prefer the former". I am not clear on where you are getting this information or who these people have made this statements to but I assure you that it was not to this office. If this had been sent to our office we would have addressed the concern by responding accordingly.
Furthermore, your statement related to your failure to see that the new frontage roadways would be too close to the main lanes is because the project is still under construction. The location where this will occur is on the westbound frontage road. The new frontage road is being proposed to be widened from the existing (two) 10-foot lanes to a typical three 12-foot lanes that will widen to four 12-foot lanes at the intersections where cross-overs are being proposed. The proposed outside curb line will be located at approximately the same location at which the existing outside edge of the existing frontage road pavement edge is locate at. This means that the widening of the new frontage road will occur to the inside or toward the existing main lanes. This is the location where the new frontage road will encroach or get so close to the main lanes that in order to maintain the main lanes open there would be a need for retaining walls, safety barriers, etc...
When we respond to e-mails the information we provide may be "nonsense"
to some but we do try and provide factual and up-to-date information on what is going on so that we hopefully are able to explain what we are doing. We try and provide as much information as possible thus the reason why we mentioned things such as future lights, bridges current construction problems or accident information. We rather provide more information than not enough in hopes that we can clarify any or all issues that pertain to the concern brought to our attention. For the information we have provided on this project, we have received e-mails "Thanking" us for being so thorough.
To answer your complaint about not being approached by anyone from our agency with any information whatsoever, I will make the point that I sent you an e-mail back on October 22, 2007 in which I provided information pertaining to issues related to the day care and this project. I would have gladly provided you with any other information you needed if you had contacted me by phone or e-mail. At the time I sent you my e-mail, I attached my information so that you could have it available whenever you had a question or needed any information. I still have this e-mail and can share another copy of it with you if you would like.
As for the invitation to meetings comment, thru the initial stages of the design of any project, we are require thru the environmental process to have a public involvement phase. During this phase, we conduct at least one public meeting or hearing to which the affected property owners are invited to attend. These meeting are advertised in the local newspapers at least two times. During this meeting we address any questions or concerns. The addresses of the affected property owners are obtained from appraisal records so the name listed as the property owner on record is the person that is invited to this meeting. Furthermore, I have attended at least four meetings coordinated by the Azle Chamber of Commerce where I was invited as a speaker to inform or provide an update on any proposed improvements along SH 199. The last meeting in which I provided an update on SH 199 was a meeting in which I discussed the on-going construction project. At that time I informed the attendees the proposed plan was to build the frontage roads only on this project.
As for any school zone signing for the school or day care that you make mention of, there is a process that needs to be followed on this. This process needs to involve the respective city and this process is a very lengthy process. The city's involvement would require that they go into an agreement with TxDOT on this signing for installation and specifically maintenance. It would be the city that would need to submit the request for any school zone type signing which would be sent to our Traffic Operations Office. A study would have to be made to see if the signing is warranted. Response are provided based on the findings.
For clarification purposes, it is our intent to post the speed limit on the new frontage roads at 40 MPH. This is the current speed limit posted on the existing frontage roads and we are required to post the same speed limit. A 40 MPH speed limit does not constitute a high-speed facility. Most likely, a speed study will be performed after the traffic is switched onto the new frontage roads to verify that the 40 MPH speed limit posted is the correct posting. This will occur after a specified time frame during which traffic has been traveling on the new frontage roads.
As stated above, from the time that the funding was made available for this project, the plan was to abandon the main lanes and make the new frontage roads or "access roadways" technically the new main lanes. This was a result of the limited funds that were made available for this project. As stated in the previous e-mail, I want to reiterate that this project was a result of the City of Azle's request for Wells-Burnett to have an direct access point to SH 199 in both directions. This was a critical piece to these improvements.
I response to your comment related to "an attempt to go into or out of your driveway directly onto a main highway", we offer that this situation will be no different than what we currently have on the SH 199 frontage road section between the Lake Worth Bridge and Northwest Centre. We have found that traffic thru this section travels in a safe and efficient manner and we do not expect anything different from what we are proposing thru the section of SH 199 that is currently under construction. We have several driveway access points thru this same section and have not been aware of any problems with ingress or egress.
The speed limit thru both of this sections will be the same which proves to us that the facility will be safe as proposed. Of course, we have to rely on law enforcement to make sure that the speed limit law is observed. This is an aspect that we as TxDOT have no control over. By this I mean driver actions.
I have been in this office since 1996 and since then, that I know of, we have been informing the public that SH 199 was going to be a "controlled access facility" or a freeway type of facility. It was a big surprise to me when I found out that a day care that been open for business along SH 199.
I want to point out that TxDOT and our Contractor (Texas Sterling) project personnel have done nothing but try to help the day care. We have coordinated all aspects of the construction with time schedules when work was to be performed in front of the day care. We provided a wider temporary driveway for better access during the construction of the pavement section for the frontage road. We have been in constant communication with day care personnel to provide updated information. We have even paved the whole parking area of the day care with milled materials to provide a weather resistant driving and/or parking surface.
We feel we have gone beyond the call of duty to help minimize the inconvenience that the construction of this project might have created on the day care.
Hope I have addressed your concern and questions. Please call or e-mail us if you need any additional information or if we need us to clarify any of the information mentioned above.
Thank you for your time.
Oscar Chavez
Asst. Area Engineer
North Tarrant County Area Office
2501 Euless Blvd.
Euless, Texas 76040
817-399-4302
817-399-4343 (fax)
ochavez@dot.state.tx.us
MY RESPONSE:
Mr. Chavez:
(My last correspondence was from/to Jodi Hodges)
First, allow me to start with all of the positives. Through your correspondence with me and several others (We share and keep all E-mails, as well as the blog and comments), we have made much progress. Our attorney advised us to settle as much as possible to not only avoid another suit, but also get more “in writing”. This is indeed is what has been accomplished up to this point. We have gone from a 60 MPH highway to 40 MPH. We have gone from wondering if clients could safely slow down and accelerate to being told that we can use the shoulder as a turn lane, in and out.(per contractor.) I am also excited about having a driveway as wide as what we have been TOLD. I hope this will be a reality.
Some of the realities of accomplishing what you are about to do are not so positive. Reality says that 47,000 cars a day on a frontage road, no matter how you engineer it, is a disaster. I am grateful that we have gone from a total disaster to a controlled disaster, nonetheless. Some respondents, like one on the blog, have brought up the question of traffic control (“You post 40MPH, they’ll do 55MPH.”) We are talking to the sheriff’s office about this, and are planning our own radar site.
If I were only concerned about the outside lane traffic, I could fudge a little on that 11 feet we disagree on. However, from our property line to the roadway is 11 feet. You just can’t get around that. You also can’t get around the fact that measuring all the way up to the first building doesn’t even begin to offer the same protection a public school would be given. Public schools demand that they have traffic protection to the very edge of the property, because they use the property for outside student use, as we do. Let me cut to the chase and just state that there is a difference between the way TX. D.O.T. looks at public schools and private schools. We are all licensed by the state, but the state would just as soon we go away. That’s politics.
Then the pothole issue. I have made a video while traveling between Azle and Lake Worth, and offer it to anyone interested. You may request a copy as well. In the video, we hit ONE pothole. The old access roads have been nearly destroyed by construction equipment. Enough said.
You keep referring to Lake Worth as a model for SH 199 in our area. One problem: The traffic signals you refer to as slowing traffic down are every THREE BLOCKS in Lake Worth. It’s a MILE from the nearest traffic light, traveling East, towards the daycare. Even my old vehicle could get up to 60 in that distance.
On to missing correspondence: As I said, all of us who have communicated with you have shared and saved all of our E-mails and other correspondence. If all of that has been deleted from your files, I would be glad to send it all to you. It’s quite a large file.
And now, on the abundance of information flowing forth from T.D.O.T.: You refer to MY FIRST E-MAIL IN OCTOBER,2007. Four months ago. This was in response to ME CONTACTING YOU. Had I not started this series of E-mails, and E-mails from others, we would still be completely in the dark, and living with a 60 MPH access road. If you will read through your responses to myself and others, you will see that NOT UNTIL THE LAST TWO did you begin to answer any of our questions.
On meetings: The first and last one I was made aware of was the one in December. That’s actually what started all of this rolling. I understand that you had informed “the public” about SH 199 being a “controlled access facility, or a freeway type of facility”. I somehow thought that meant a highway would be built that could handle 47,000 vehicle per day on main lanes AND access roadways.
Signage: we’re working on it.
With regard to communication from the contractor, Texas Sterling: We have had TWO exchanges. That’s all. They are: A panicked exchange when someone came to the door and said they were three weeks behind schedule, and we needed to meet with someone to determine how many driveways we could have, and where they would go. The second meeting occurred today, presumably due to our own communication, and I appreciate that. Today’s exchange involved three things: Temporarily moving the driveway for concrete work, the FINISHED width of the driveway(which is the correct width, not the one we have had up to now), and to reiterate, for the record, that we will have a 40 MPH speed in front of the school.
I feel that all of this has accomplished a lot. While I do not understand why it took so long, I am very much relieved. We will continue to forge ahead with whatever needs to be done to make SH 199 what it should be: A highway that has been designated an emergency route from metropolitan Fort Worth, and thus enjoying federal funding, and becoming what everyone thought we were getting: At least four main lanes, and at least three access lanes per side. It’s a shame it couldn’t already be what it looks like: Four main lanes per side, and three access lanes per side.
