The Major Investment Study (MIS) allows viewers to
navigate among various sections which detail the process used to evaluate
design alternatives for the Katy Freeway Reconstruction Program.
The purpose of this MIS was to:
Identify the mobility needs of the communities being served by the IH-10
Katy Corridor,
Determine the future transportation needs for the corridor,
Evaluate a wide range of strategic investments and travel modes to meet the
identified mobility needs,
Assess the environmental and community affects of the alternate investments,
and
Recommend a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) with input from the public
and local involved agencies.
Beginning in 1995, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) initiated a corridor study to analyze the IH-10 Katy Freeway Corridor. This corridor extends from
the Houston Central Business District (CBD) westward to the Brazos River - a distance of approximately 40 miles. The area incorporated within the corridor is generally referred to as West Houston and is one of the fastest growing
areas in the Houston Region.
The corridor study, officially entitled the IH-10 Katy Freeway Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS), was designed to comply with requirements for major transportation
investments established by the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Regardless of federal regulations, the MIS process followed sound planning practices and
involved a wide array of viewpoints in determining mobility solutions. The purpose of this MIS was to:
Identify the mobility needs of the communities being served by the IH-10 Katy Corridor,
Determine the future transportation needs for the corridor,
Evaluate a wide range of strategic investments and travel modes to meet the identified mobility needs,
Assess the environmental and community affects of the alternate investments, and
Recommend a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) with input from the public and local involved agencies.
The MIS public involvement program provided opportunities for the public and various interest groups to be involved throughout the planning process and participate in an
on-going exchange of information. As part of the program, a total of 14 public meetings were held in multiple locations throughout the corridor, where nearly 1,400 individuals participated.
MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY STAKE HOLDERS
In addition to the public outreach program, a Steering Committee was formed to provide oversight and guidance to the study. Steering Committee members included
representatives from TxDOT, the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), City of Houston, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO), and the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). The Steering Committee met periodically during the study to provide direction to the study. In addition to the Steering Committee, other jurisdictions (e.g., the Villages of
Spring Branch, Bunker Hill, and the Cities of Katy and Brookshire), business associations, and community groups representing the corridor were organized into a Conceptual Alternatives Advisory Committee. This committee also met
periodically during the study and provided on-going and direct feedback from their constituents to the study team and TxDOT.
It is important to note that the study process was an analysis based on conditions at the time it was conducted. Engineers continue to make refinements as they design the
Katy within the dynamics of our future needs.
A set of corridor problems and needs were identified early in the study. This involved an analysis of existing traffic congestion, projected population and employment
growth, and extensive input from concerned citizens. These problems and needs were grouped into categories:
Katy Freeway Concerns
The Katy Freeway is not constructed to current TxDOT design standards.
Sections of the freeway have reached the end of their useful life.
Maintenance costs are increasing significantly and in many areas pavement sections need to be replaced.
The freeway has insufficient capacity to accommodate the volume of vehicles desiring to use the facility.
Incidents and accidents are a common occurrence in the urban portions of the corridor.
This worsens problems of safety and mobility.
The existing freeway right-of-way (ROW), including the recently purchased railroad ROW, is insufficient to construct additional at-grade transportation facilities in
some areas.
Some sections of the freeway, including mainlines and frontage roads, are subject to flooding during periods of intense rainfall.
The freeway’s ROW also serves as a major utility corridor.
Parallel Arterials
Few continuous parallel arterials are available to handle excess travel from the freeway. The ability to provide new or improved parallel arterials is limited.
Lack of parallel arterials results in a large number of relatively short trips using the freeway.
The lack of parallel arterials results in longer periods of intense congestion when accidents occur or vehicles breakdown.
HOV Lane Issues
Few access points to the existing reversible HOV lane exist and this reduces the HOV lane’s ability to serve many users.
The lack of interconnection between HOV facilities reduces the attractiveness of the HOV system as an alternative to driving alone.
The existing one-way reversible HOV facility is unable to serve the increasing two-way travel. In many locations, the inbound and outbound traffic is equally
congested and METRO buses serving corridor park-and-ride lots have long travel times on their return trips to the park-and-ride lots.
Community/Environmental Concerns
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the Houston-Galveston area a “Severe Non-Attainment” area for ozone. Since ozone levels are a
significant health issue and are related to traffic within the region, transportation funding may be subject to sanctions.
The corridor is adjacent to a number of environmentally sensitive areas including single family homes, churches, parks, and cemeteries.
Population and employment forecasts through 2020 indicate continued strong growth in the corridor.
An on-going open public forum is needed to allow the communities and agencies to provide input in developing a consensus on the preferred alternative selected for the
corridor.
As part of the community outreach program, comprehensive goals were developed and adopted by TxDOT and the Steering Committee. These goals served as the guiding
principles for developing and evaluating alternatives. These adopted goals include:
Goal 1: Improve corridor mobility and safety in a cost effective manner.
Goal 2: Provide a transportation system that has minimal negative impact on aesthetics, environment, and community.
Goal 3: Provide a balanced and coordinated transportation system.
Goal 4: Provide a transportation system that serves the regional land use/ development patterns now and in the future.
Based on the adopted study goals and objectives, a range of conceptual level alternatives were developed to meet the needs of the corridor through 2020. These
conceptual alternatives ranged in scope and focus from a No-Build Alternative to various build alternatives.
From a wide range of planning concepts (i.e., various combinations of HOV, bus, highway, arterial improvements, etc.), eleven corridor-wide conceptual alternatives were
developed. These were then screened and revised, resulting in seven refined alternatives as follows:
Alternative I: No-Build
The No-Build Alternative represents the future base system against which all other alternatives were compared. The No-Build Alternative assumes the current roadway plus
improvements already committed and funded. These committed improvements are expected to be in place by the year 2020. The improvements included in the No-Build Alternative were included within each of the remaining alternatives.
Alternative II: Transportation Systems Management/ Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM)
This alternative included the existing and committed projects (No-Build Alternative) along with the addition of traffic and demand management programs such as:
Alternative III-1: Moderate Transit (HOV)/Moderate SOV
This alternative includes a modest increase in HOV capacity combined with a modest increase in general purpose or single occupancy vehicle (SOV) capacity.
Improvements include:
One additional SOV lane in each direction from IH-610 to Katy and from Brookshire to the Brazos River
A 2-lane, 2-way HOV facility from downtown Houston to Katy.
Alternative IV-2: Moderate Transit (HOV)/High SOV
This alternative places a high emphasis on increasing the capacity of the general purpose lanes (SOV) and moderate emphasis on transit and HOV facilities. It
consists of the following improvements:
Two additional SOV lanes in each direction from IH-610 to Katy and one additional SOV lane in each direction from Brookshire to the Brazos River
A 2-lane, 2-way HOV facility from downtown Houston to Katy.
Alternative V-2: High Transit (HOV-Special Use Lane) /Moderate SOV
This alternative provided for a significant increase in the HOV/Special Use lane (SUL) capacity while also providing a modest increase in the SOV capacity between IH-610
and the Brazos River. The major improvements are comprised of:
A 2-lane, 2-way HOV facility from downtown Houston to IH-610 and from SH-6 to Katy
A 4-lane, 2-way HOV/Special Use Lane (SUL) facility from IH-610 to SH-6
One additional SOV lane in each direction from IH-610 to Katy and from Brookshire to the Brazos River.
The Special Use Lanes (SUL) would provide a high level of performance for all vehicle types such as HOVs, SOVs, trucks, or express-long distance travelers. It
is likely that HOVs would use the facility without restrictions but that the other vehicles would be regulated by imposing a user fee.
Alternative V-3: High Transit (Fixed Guideway)/Low SOV
The purpose of this alternative was to examine whether the combination of the high-level fixed guideway and modest improvements in HOV capacity could cost-effectively meet
future travel demands. Primary attributes of this alternative included:
Addition of a high-level fixed guideway from the Houston CBD to Katy
Existing reversible HOV lane between IH-610 and SH-6
Improved transit access and feeder routes to stations served by fixed guideway system (i.e., high frequency shuttle system to Galleria and downtown Houston).
To further test the effectiveness of the fixed guideway component of this alternative, a sub-option was considered without the HOV facility. This alternative most
closely represented the transit system evaluated by METRO in their development of a comprehensive transit plan for the Houston region in 1996.
Alternative VI-1: High Transit (HOV-Special Use Lane)/High SOV
This Alternative provides a significant increase in both the HOV (transit) capacity as well as the SOV capacity. This Alternative consists of:
Improvements defined under Alternative V-2
Addition of second SOV lane in each direction between IH 610 and Katy.
As part of the MIS process, the refined alternatives were analyzed for their ability to meet the adopted study goals and objectives. Each was evaluated for potential
engineering fatal flaws, the transportation benefits it provided, and the potential environmental impact resulting from its implementation. Additionally, comprehensive financial and revenue analyses were conducted, including the
development of life-cycle (25 year) capital and operating costs.
Engineering Fatal Flaw Analysis
The purpose of the engineering fatal flaw analysis was to determine if any of the refined alternatives would be eliminated because of known existing constraints. No
engineering fatal flaws were found and all were carried forward for more detailed analysis.
Transportation Benefits
Each alternative was analyzed for its ability to provide transportation benefits relative to the No-Build Alternative. Through the public involvement process, consensus was
reached among the representatives of the Steering Committee and the public that the No-Build Alternative was not a viable alternative.
The remaining alternatives were then evaluated for their ability to:
Encourage higher occupancy modes of travel and a reduced reliance on SOV
Reduce the vehicle hours of travel
Reduce the vehicle miles of travel
Reduce congestion (volume to capacity ratios) and improve mobility on IH-10
Improve average speeds.
Analysis of the alternatives was completed using the H-GAC regional travel model, which allowed for a combined analysis of both transit and highway networks.
The analysis indicated that Alternative III-1, Alternative V-2, and Alternative VI-1 provide the best opportunity to meet the corridor mobility needs and most closely
fulfill the goals and objectives of the study.
Alternative V-3 (Fixed Guideway) did not meet the mobility goals and objectives of the study. The fixed guideway element did not penetrate the Houston CBD, nor was it
part of a larger region-wide fixed guideway system. Both characteristics could have made the fixed guideway alternative somewhat more viable.
The definition of Alternative V-3 was consistent with the adopted regional transit plans developed by the Harris County Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) in
1966. The METRO Long Range Transit Plan does not call for a regional fixed guideway system. In the absence of a regional system, an evaluation of a more extensive Fixed Guideway Alternative beyond the boundaries of the IH-10
Katy MIS Study Area could not be performed.
Environmental Impacts
Because the refined alternatives generally fall within a similar ROW envelope, many potential environmental impacts from the various alternatives were found to be
similar. Differences in impacts among alternatives were typically proportional to the width of the alternative and their traffic characteristics.
The refined build alternatives were each compared against conditions forecast for the No-Build Alternative. They were analyzed for potential impacts to the following
categories:
Land Use: Much of the IH-10 Katy Corridor has long been developed in a mosaic of residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses. Because many of
the Build Alternatives will reinforce the existing transportation system, their potential impact on adjacent land uses will be to reinforce the existing development types along the freeway. Furthermore, no historic properties,
park-lands, or similar land uses are expected to be directly affected by any build alternatives. Impacts from the build alternatives are anticipated to be minimal.
Displacements and Relocations: Throughout most of the corridor, TxDOT and the participating agencies have sufficient right-of-way (ROW) within the existing
freeway and rail road envelope to construct the build alternatives at-grade.
However, in the section of the corridor between Campbell and Bingle/Voss Roads, there is insufficient ROW to construct any of the build alternatives at grade.
Hence, each of the build alternatives will require additional right-of-way. This section of the corridor (less than 0.8 miles in length) represents approximately two percent of the entire 40-mile corridor.
Potential impacts of taking additional right-of-way from either the north side or from the south side of IH-10 were examined. The build alternatives would require
additional right-of-way in proportion to their expected width, with Alternative VI-1 affecting the greatest number of properties (up to 47 residential properties and up to 24 commercial properties, depending on north or south side
expansion). Other build alternatives would potentially affect 40 residential properties, two to five commercial properties, and one public facility if a north side option were chosen and between 17 to 24 commercial properties if a
south side option were chosen.
Neighborhood Cohesion and Quality: Analysis of the potential effects that the refined alternatives may have on neighborhood quality and cohesion suggested that
all build alternatives may have some short-term impacts on neighborhood cohesion and quality. In the long-run, residual impacts would be minimal.
Access to Community Facilities and Services: The build alternatives would provide additional travel capacity and access opportunities throughout the
corridor. It is likely that they would all have a positive effect on improving access to community facilities and services.
Public Health and Safety: All build alternatives would provide improved public health and safety conditions, including some reduction in air pollution and
emission rates. They would reduce obstacles for emergency vehicle access and accident potentials.
Economic Development: All build alternatives would provide positive benefits to economic development throughout the corridor resulting from the improved
accessibility they would have. However, short term negative impacts may be generated by construction.
Environmental Justice: No minority or economically disadvantaged neighborhoods would be affected by additional ROW needs within the corridor.
Cultural Resources: Several pioneer grave sites within the rail road ROW exist and would be affected by the build alternatives. The No-Build and TSM/TDM
Alternatives were found to have no impact to these historic resources. The Fixed Guideway Alternative may have potential impacts to historical properties in the Heights neighborhood. Subsequent environmental processes would
be used to define appropriate mitigation for any negative impacts.
Visual Quality and Aesthetics: All build alternatives may have negative, albeit minimal, impacts on the visual quality and aesthetics of the existing freeway
corridor compared to the No Build due to necessary construction of a limited number of elevated structures. The No-Build and TSM/TDM alternatives would not have visual impacts if implemented.
Air Quality and Conformity: The air quality analysis indicated that there would be no significant air quality impacts from implementation of either the No-Build
or TSM/TDM Alternatives. All build alternatives would have some potential negative impacts as well as positive benefits on air quality. These impacts and benefits differ little across the build alternatives and were not
viewed as a major factor in distinguishing the alternatives.
Noise Impacts: Analysis of 1995 noise levels along the freeway corridor indicated that noise impacts to residential and commercial areas currently exist.
These impacts would not be mitigated if either the No-Build or TSM/TDM Alternatives were implemented. All build alternatives provide opportunity for noise abatement mitigation.
Water Resources: Analysis of water resource issues indicated that none of the build alternatives would negatively affect water quality, the flow characteristics
of the 100-year floodplains, or water crossings within the corridor.
Biological Resources: Biological resources identified within the corridor included remnants of native woodland and prairie vegetation, wildlife, endangered
species habitat, and wetland resources. However, few sensitive species are expected to occur within the proposed ROW for the build alternatives due to historical urbanization within the corridor.
Wetlands: The No-Build and TSM/TDM Alternatives would not have an impact on potential wetland resources. The build alternatives could result in impacts to
between 0.16 hectares (.40 acres) and 0.61 hectares (1.55 acres) of wetlands. These impacts would typically be a result of roadway expansion over existing water crossings. These impacts can be mitigated during the
design and implementation phase of the selected alternative.
Geology and Soils: No direct impacts to sensitive geologic soils were identified for any of the alternatives.
Hazardous Material: All the alternatives would have a potential to affect hazardous waste/materials. Impacts resulting from any of the alternatives could
be mitigated.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts: Existing and committed developments immediately adjacent to the Katy Freeway limit the potential for secondary growth.
Minimal secondary impacts would be expected from implementation of any of the build alternatives.
The No Build and TSM/TDM Alternatives would result in minimal cumulative impacts. However, the build alternatives, especially the Major SOV/Major HOV (Alternative
VI-1), could contribute to cumulative impacts.
The Grand Parkway, along with improvements to the urban infrastructure west of Beltway 8 and the proposed Westside Airport, could encourage urban growth in the western end
of the Katy Corridor. Potential increases in area urbanization could result in population and employment changes as new housing and business developments are constructed to meet new demands. These developments, caused by the
cumulative affects of development surrounding the Grand Parkway, Westside Airport, and IH-10 improvements, could have additional environmental impacts.
As part of the MIS, potential funding options for implementation of the various alternatives were explored. Potential funding sources include:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) programs
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) programs
State programs
Local sources
Innovative financing techniques including revenue generation.
To determine the financial feasibility of the various alternatives, costs for capital investments, operations, and maintenance of the various alternatives were
developed. Capital costs were broken into the costs of rebuilding the existing highway lanes to current TxDOT standards and the additional cost required under each alternative to provide for improvements. Capital costs for the
alternative are presented in Figure 1 . Operations and maintenance costs for each alternative are detailed in Figure 2 and net life-cycle costs (25 year costs) are detailed in
Figure 3 . As part of the net life-cycle costs, potential revenue generation from operation of the special use lanes (SULs) in Alternatives V-2 and VI-1 were included in the net estimates (i.e., revenue from user fees). Estimated revenues from SULs were projected at approximately $225 Million over a period of 25 years.
Click to view
As will be noted from Figure 1, the cost of rebuilding the existing facility to current TxDOT
standards represents a substantial portion of the total cost of each alternative.
If the existing IH-10 facility is not rebuilt, maintenance and rehabilitation costs will continue to increase and will be a burden on regional transportation resources.
Based on the financial feasibility analysis, all alternatives would be financially
achievable. However, those alternatives with the lowest net life-cycle cost could be achieved most quickly.
Figure 1 Estimated Capital Costs by Alternative Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff
Figure 2 25-Year Operations & Maintenance Costs By Alternative Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff
Figure 3 25-Year Net Costs By Alternative (Capital, ROW, O&M, Revenue) Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff
Based on the findings from the analysis of the alternatives, several build alternatives could meet
the study goals and objectives. A trade-off analysis was then conducted to determine the best alternative for implementation. This analysis is illustrated in Figure 4 and described in the following text:
Click to view
Alternative I: No-Build Alternative
Early in the study, it was determined that the No-Build Alternative did not meet the study goals and objectives and was eliminated from further considerations.
Alternative II: TSM/TDM
Results from the transportation analysis indicated that the TSM/TDM Alternative provided little
relief to congestion and resulted in conditions similar to those in the No-Build Alternative. Therefore, the TSM/TDM Alternative did not meet the study goals and objectives and was eliminated.
Alternative V-3: Fixed Guideway
(Fixed Guideway versus Bus/HOV)
Once the TSM/TDM and No-Build Alternatives were determined not to meet corridor mobility
needs, the merits of an all-bus/HOV or fixed guideway concept in providing transit mobility within the corridor were evaluated. For this comparison, the Fixed Guideway Alternative was
compared to the other build alternatives, all of which included an all-bus based transit system.
In comparing the transit ridership levels of the Fixed Guideway (Alt. V-3) with the ridership levels
of a bus-based HOV transit system, it was found that the fixed guideway mode was not a viable alternative for meeting mobility goals and thus it was eliminated from further consideration.
Alternatives III-1 and IV-2
(HOV Versus Special Use Lane (SUL) Options)
Once the Fixed Guideway Alternative was eliminated, the focus of the trade-off analysis shifted
to a determination of the number of HOV lanes or SULs required to meet corridor travel needs.
The SULs incorporated in Alternatives V-2 and VI-1 provided a higher level of accessibility to the
western portions of the corridor than the HOV lanes provided in Alternatives III-1 & IV-2.
It was also determined that a single HOV lane in each direction could not meet the forecasted
travel needs. Thus, the HOV alternatives (Alternatives III-1 and IV-2) were eliminated from further consideration in favor of the SUL Alternatives (Alternatives V-2 and VI-1).
Figure 4 A Step-by-Step Decision Process
Alternative V-2 and VI-1
(Moderate SOV versus Major SOV)
Both Alternatives, V-2 and VI-1, provide for SULs between IH-610 and SH6. The primary
difference between the two alternatives is that Alternative VI-1 (High Transit HOV-SUL/High SOV) would add two additional general purpose lanes between IH-610 and Katy compared to
the No Build Alternative. Alternative V-2 (High Transit HOV-SUL/Moderate SOV) would provide one additional general purpose lane compared to the No Build.
The traffic analysis indicated that mobility improvements provided by one or two additional
general purpose lanes were similar. This suggested that the additional second general purpose lane provided by Alternative VI-1 would not provide enough additional capacity to reduce congestion beyond that provided by Alternative V-2.
Environmental impacts from the two alternatives would be similar except in the portion of the
corridor between Campbell and Bingle/Voss Roads. In this portion of the corridor, the potential displacement and relocation impacts were greater under the wider alternative, Alternative
VI-1. Alternative V-2, having a slightly narrower cross-section, would better facilitate mitigation of adverse community impacts.
Based on these comparisons, TxDOT and the Steering Committee recommended that Alternative V-2 be selected as the preferred alternative.
MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Alternative V-2 (High Transit HOV-Special Use Lanes/Moderate SOV) is recommended as the
Locally Preferred Alternative. It provides two special use lanes in both directions between IH-610 and SH 6 and the addition of one SOV general purpose lane in each direction between
IH-610 and Katy with auxiliary lanes to provide lane balance at major interchanges (i.e., IH-610, Beltway 8, SH 6, Grand Parkway). This alternative will bring the existing freeway up to current
TxDOT and FHWA standards and provide continuous frontage roads throughout most of the corridor. It will also provide for pedestrian and bicycle improvements associated with the proposed roadway improvements.
Estimated capital cost for implementation of Alternative V-2 is projected at $1.094 billion (1995 dollars).
Estimated 25 year cumulative operations and maintenance costs are projected at $106 million.
Estimated revenue from operation of the special use lanes is projected at $225 million over 25 years.
Net cost for implementation is estimated at $975 million over twenty-five years of operation.
To put these costs into perspective, the twenty-five year savings resulting from travel time
reductions generated by Alternative V-2 were analyzed. Assuming a value of time equal to $10 per vehicle hour of travel reduced, a savings of more than $3 billion can be accrued by the public
over the twenty-five year life of the project. This reflects nearly a 3 to 1 benefit cost compared to the approximate $1 billion investment required for initial capital construction.
Alternative V-2 preserves maximum flexibility for future modification of the special use lanes in
the center of the freeway to meet future needs within the corridor, including conversion to a fixed guideway facility, automated highway, or other future transit alternative. Furthermore, this
alternative best meets the study goals and objectives compared to other build alternatives.
The recommendation of Alternative V-2 was presented to the community at a series of meetings
held in July, 1997. Over 380 people attended the public meetings and many provided their comments on the study and recommended alternative.
The comments received can generally be summarized as follows:
Residents living inside Beltway 8 and who would potentially be affected by construction
within the existing corridor, indicated concern that impacts from Alternative V-2 were severe and that a smaller Alternative (i.e., Alternative III-1) would better meet the needs of their community.
Residents living west of Beltway 8, generally indicated that Alternative V-2 did not provide enough SOV (general purpose) capacity, and that Alternative VI-1 should be
implemented instead of the recommended Alternative.
A number of citizens also spoke in support of Alternative V-3, the Fixed Guideway Alternative.
Alternative V-2, providing SULs and a moderate increase in SOV capacity, can be seen as a
compromise among all three of these positions. With Alternative V-2 a high degree of access can be provided to the western suburbs via the special use lanes. This access can be
managed so that express service can be maintained in the future. Similarly, because Alternative V-2 is not as wide as Alternative VI-1, it better meets the needs of the communities east of
Beltway 8 to minimize environmental and community impacts while still preserving the ability to convert the SULs to a Fixed Guideway or other future transit system.
The recommended preferred alternative, Alternative V-2 (High Transit HOV-SUL/Moderate SOV),
was adopted by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) on October 10, 1997. Following its adoption into the TIP, the amended
TIP was evaluated for conformity with regional air quality requirements.
Preliminary design, environmental documentation, and final design are underway. Preliminary
design and environmental documentation are completed and pending federal review and approval. Final design of the preferred alternative has commenced and the first stages of construction are scheduled to begin in 2003.
It is important to note that the study process was an analysis based on conditions at the time it
was conducted. Engineers continue to make refinements as they design the Katy within the dynamics of our future needs.
