2. Improving safety at the intersection of MANOR & LAFAYETTE  Currently a very dangerous blind curve in an increasingly busy thoroughfare (Manor) and a heavily used cut through to get to the Fiesta shopping center, this is a very dangerous intersection where people have to nose out into rapidly approaching traffic and then commit to darting across Manor. Just last year there was a very severe accident at this location. Girard originally suggested that the entire intersection needs to be reworked and this is perhaps an idea worthy of study, but in the interim there should certainly be a stop light along with striped crosswalks.

3. Traffic calming and traffic control on CLARKSON.  This small street that shoots off from E 38 1/2 St. and intersects Cherrywood has long had problems with cut thru traffic and needs Traffic Calming. Another idea that was discussed was along the lines of closing off the West end of the street and/or limiting access by narrowing the intersection at E 38 1/2 (a chicane).

4. Improving safety at the intersection of LAFAYETTE & E. 32ND. This intersection is dangerous due to the problem with people running the four way stop sign as if it didn't exist. Girard and I both like the idea of integrating speed cushions at the intersection (something the City doesn't normally do) with striped crosswalks. Another idea may be a traffic circle.

Date & Time:    Tuesday, 25 September, 6:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. 

NOTE:  We plan to provide light munchies, coffee and soft drinks.  Attendees are invited to bring something more substantial if our timing is causing you to miss supper.  Please help leave the place neat and clean at the end. 

AGENDA 

6:00    Organizers arrive to open up, set up. 

6:30    Meeting Starts, scribe assigned, meeting rules reviewed, attendees introduce themselves. 

6:40    GK to give a brief overview of past events (including the two previous charettes), and statement of understanding about consensus among the neighborhoods on key issues. 

6:50    Group discussion, Q&A, fine tuning of agenda for balance of meeting 

7:00    TxDot Team introduced by Creola Burns, who will also lay out any additional meeting rules and give us a rough schedule of the steps beyond this meeting. 

7:10    TxDot Team will present the state of the IH35 MIS Plan from 15th Street to 51st Street, with emphasis on the specific areas of concern (physical areas and interest areas) identified at previous charettes. 

7:40    Q&A from group 

8:00    TxDot to summarize their understanding of our position and with regard to the plans they have presented, and the opportunities for input that remain for our group to shape the decisions that are made in the future about the configuration of IH35 through our area and its connections to and through our neighborhoods.

8:15    TxDot thanked and invited to stay for balance of meeting if they would like to.  Group takes fifteen minute break for informal discussion among ourselves, use the facilities, grab a beverage, call home, etc. 

8:30    Joint meeting among the representatives of the four neighborhoods resumes.  Tentative Statement of Consensus forged, Strategy planned, schedule of future actions established. 

9:20    Final announcements & new business, if any. 

9:30    Adjourn 
 

Interest-based neighborhood traffic and transportation goals and objectives (exclusive of solutions and recommendations)
1. Promote safe, walkable streets
2. Reduce excessive speed and control volume of traffic 
3. Support IH-35 designs which prevent cut-through traffic that will negatively impact the neighborhood 
4. Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists 
5. Provide safe and adequate sidewalks, including repairs and maintenance where needed 
6. Consider and include needs of other nearby neighborhood associations in our deliberations and final resolutions 
7. The CNA will work with the City of Austin and other transportation authorities to handle our fair share of traffic and function as part of the city’s transportation system
8. Consider innovative, neighborhood-approved traffic calming alternatives
9. Promote safety of students attending Maplewood elementary
Recommendations in support of our goals and objectives:

These recommendations are presented to achieve the outlined goals and objectives of the CNA.  It is the intent of the neighborhood to work cooperatively with the City of Austin Transportation Department and other authorities to implement the goals and objectives of the neighborhood.
· A direct offramp onto Airport Blvd is CRITICAL to preventing
cut-through traffic, and it makes sense from a traffic engineering standpoint as well.  It will also take less ROW with a recessed highway at that location
· Give people leaving the UT campus and heading North on IH35 faster access. To accomplish this, we recommend keeping the current interim design with an onramp at E34th.  In addition, we recommend replacing the lost off ramp at E34th St with the direct connection to Airport Blvd. 
· Rework the intersection of East Dean Keeton (EDK) and IH35 to get westbound traffic onto EDK more easily and expeditiously into the north side of the campus area.
· Rework the intersection of Manor Road and IH35 to get eastbound traffic onto Manor more efficiently.
· Increase the distance between the easternmost access road and adjacent houses between E34th and E38 1/2 by moving the access road about fifteen to twenty feet further West. This will give TXDOT the opportunity to buffer noise with landscaping
· Depress IH35 below the railroad tracks at 40/41st Street and Airport Boulevard.
· Try to move the highway ROW a little more to the West adjacent to the cemetery between EDK and Manor to get another lane on the access road, in order to get people to UT faster and prevent cars from backing up on the access road.
· Include a pedestrian crossing of frontage and IH35 at 40/41st Street to allow neighborhood access to commercial development.
· Implement the Upper Boggy Creek Bikeway plan and its recommendations.
· Work with COA to provide safety and maintenance of neighborhood sidewalks. 
· Work with COA Transportation  Department to implement specific traffic calming strategies on Cherrywood.  Efforts should be made with the COA to find funding for such strategies, including options independent of the traffic calming program.
Assumptions and Agreements
· TxDOT plans dated 7-Jul-01 call for IH-35 to be depressed below grade from 17th to just south of Airport Blvd. 
· An agreement was reached at the 14-Jul-01 charrette with TxDOT to: verify position of burial sites at church and explore ways to avoid, investigate tucking northbound frontage road under the adjacent exit bridge, and explore HOV grades.  (For more information, see meeting notes for 7/14/01 charrette) 
· Current drawings of the RMMA redevelopment proposal call for a turn lane at the intersection of Wilshire and Airport which will force traffic to turn left or right but will not allow traffic leaving RMMA to travel south on Wilshire
· Reference and implement City of Austin/Upper Boggy Creek Neighborhood Planning Traffic Subcommittee recommendations to the extent that they are consistent with CNA goals and objectives.
· Continued dialogue on the options of IH35 designs, including a charette on the design of Airport Boulevard and IH35.
 

1. Girard began by stating his belief that Traffic planning issues are planning issues and that planning should be part of a neighborhood master plan. Stefan and Mark suggested that this kind of planning has been part of the Traffic Cmte for many years. Mark suggested that all committees are engaged in some kind of planning, but that we can't all be subcommittees of one big Planning and Zoning Cmte.  We agreed to disagree and move on to the topics of tonight's meeting:

2. We discussed the Traffic Calming map that Windsor Park has prepared with the city. We agreed to discuss it further on in the meeting when we discussed CNA Traffic Calming issues.  Dorothy suggested prioritizing traffic calming issues/locations.

3. Stefan presented his draft document of CNA Traffic Goals and Issues. (These are largely what we have been discussing on several ocassions in the past.)  We then spent 40 minutes clarifying the exact language on the Goals
part of the document.  At 7:30 Stefan had to leave to attend a previous engagement, so we agreed to resume discussing the document in two weeks at another Traffic Cmte meeting scheduled for :  Thursday, Sept 13. at 7 pm,
3004 Breeze Terrace.

4. Traffic Calming --

A. Barret Sundberg of Beverly Griffith's office has suggested that we may be able to get funding for Traffic Calming ideas without having the Porgram itself funded. Barret said that what Gordon Derr from the City Transportation Dept said about emergency departments being opposed to speed bumps isn't true, as the City no longer refers to them as speed humps, but prefers either the name speed cushions or speed "pillows".   ( "A rose by any other name...")

B. The data from the temporarily installed electronic speed monitoring device on Cherrywood was discussed, especially whether the data would be helpful in our pursuit of traffic calming. It was acknowledged that it did result in slower speeds and we lamented the fact that we could not afford to purchase a permanent one!

C. We decided to pursue BOTH :
1. a Comprehensive (long term) traffic calming plan for the entire neighborhood, and 2. a Limited, street specific plan for the worst areas that need immediate attention. Girard suggested a matrix organization, and we discussed the neeed for eventual prioiritization.

D. Traffic Calming strategies would include signalization, signage (esp. alternating stop signs), and tying speed cushion locations to stop signs as raised pedestrian crossings. It was felt that by locating speed cushions at intersections, people would be having to slow down and stop anyway at these locations, so the concerns about emergency vehicles and the elderly/disabled would be mitigated, and that by locating cushions at these locations, this would help prevent the problem of cars running stop signs.

E. SHORT TERM PLAN IDEAS:
1. Since it has been a long time since our previous effort, Girard siad that he would get with Gordon to review all of the previous survey results and our letters to Council, etc.
2. Stop Signs-- Karen suggested we not overlook these, and Girard suggested tha having too many too close together will only make people seed more.
3. Speed cushions-- we discussed the concerns of the elderly and disbaled. 
4. Previous petition drive-- we reminded ourslevs that what we told people when we collected signatures two years ago was that we were not recommending any specific programs but just a general desire for Traffic Calming.
5. Mark suggested a "Trial Offer" appraoach, whee we tempoirarily install a speed cushion to see if people have any problems with it -- to help dispel a lack of knowledge and fear about these objects.
6. Mark suggested taking a sample speed cushion to our next CNA General Meeting to show people what they are and aren't ...
7. We discussed a story in the next FLEA issue which would direct residents to locations where they can drive over examples of speed cushions, again to show them exactly what they are and how they may affect your driving experience, medical situation, etc. Then we would discuss their reactions and any possible concerns at the General Meeting about a week after the FLEA distribution.
8. Kathy offerred to try to get representatives of Emergency Departments to write a letter stating that they do not oppose speed cushions (as has been suggested), and to then invite these representatives to the next General Meeting.
9. Mark offerred to draft an article on a renewed Traffic Calming strategy for the next issue of the FLEA.
10. Girard suggested and we all agreed that at the next General Membership
Mtg we would make a resolution to work with the City to install a speed cushion along with a stop sign on both sides of Cherrywood at its intersection with Edgewood. This would be part of a limited approach -- and would be designed as a test case in an area which has great need of traffic calming.
11. Overall, we suggested that the next CNA Mtg make traffic calming a major issue -- one that would tie back to a front page FLEA article, and that we could discuss traffic calming options and concerns at the CNA Mtg.

· Promote safe, walkable streets
· Reduce volume and control excessive speed of traffic 
· Support IH-35 designs which tend to funnel traffic toward existing cross-neighborhood arteries 
· Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists 
· Provide sidewalks where needed 
· Consider and include needs of other nearby neighborhood associations in our deliberations and final resolutions 
· The CNA will work with the City of Austin and other transportation authorities to handle our fair share of traffic
· Consider innovative, neighborhood-approved traffic calming alternatives 

Recommendations in support of our goals and objectives:

· A direct offramp onto Airport Blvd is CRITICAL to preventing
cut-through traffic, and it makes sense from a traffic engineering standpoint as well.  It will also take less ROW with a recessed highway at that location
· Give people leaving the UT campus and heading North on IH35 faster access. To accomplish this, we recommend keeping the current interim design with an onramp at E34th.  In addition, we recommend replacing the lost off ramp at E34th St with the direct connection to Airport Blvd. 
· Rework the intersection of East Dean Keeton (EDK) and IH35 to get westbound traffic onto EDK more easily and expeditiously into the north side of the campus area.
· Rework the intersection of Manor Road and IH35 to get eastbound traffic onto Manor more efficiently.
· Increase the distance between the easternmost access road and adjacent houses between E34th and E38 1/2 by moving the access road about fifteen to twenty feet further West. This will give TXDOT the opportunity to buffer noise with landscaping
· Depress IH35 below the railroad tracks at 40/41st Street and Airport Boulevard.
· Try to move the highway ROW a little more to the West adjacent to the cemetery between EDK and Manor to get another lane on the access road, in order to get people to UT faster and prevent cars from backing up on the access road.
· Include a pedestrian crossing of frontage and IH35 at 40/41st Street to allow neighborhood access to commercial development.
· Implement the Upper Boggy Creek Bikeway plan and its recommendations.

Assumptions and Agreements

· TxDOT plans dated 7-Jul-01 call for IH-35 to be depressed below grade from 17th to just south of Airport Blvd. 
· An agreement was reached at the 14-Jul-01 charrette with TxDOT to: verify position of burial sites at church and explore ways to avoid, investigate tucking northbound frontage road under the adjacent exit bridge, and explore HOV grades.  (For more information, see meeting notes for 7/14/01 charrette) 
· Current drawings of the RMMA redevelopment proposal call for a turn lane at the intersection of Wilshire and Airport which will force traffic to turn left or right but will not allow traffic leaving RMMA to travel south on Wilshire
· Reference and implement City of Austin/Upper Boggy Creek Neighborhood Planning Traffic Subcommittee recommendations.

MEETING NOTES  (FINAL)

DESIGN CHARRETTE  (re: I35 @ Manor/26th Street)

Date/time of meeting:  Saturday, 14 July 2001, 8 a.m. – 12:00 noon

Location:   Blackland Community Center
    2005 Salina St.

Attendees (alphabetical order) / affiliation

Gordon Bennett   CNA  (Member IH35 Subcommittee & Webmaster)
Creola Burns   Group Solutions (Subconsultant to Earthtech)
Kelly Daniel   Austin American Statesman
Charles Davidson  TxDot
Bennett Donovan  CNA  (former resident, property owner)
Scot Friedman   Wilshire Wood/Delwood I Neighborhood Association
Kevin Fullerton   Austin Chronicle
Roland Gamble   Earthtech (Prime consultant to TxDot)
Girard Kinney    CNA (Chair, IH35 Subcommittee; Member, Traffic Committee) 
Leslie Lawson   Wilshire Wood/Delwood I Neighborhood Association
Mark Lind   CNA  (Chair, Traffic Committee) 
Bo McCarver   Blackland Neighborhood Association
Michael McClendon  CNA  (Member, Traffic Committee & IH35 Subcommittee)
John Rishling   University of Texas (Assoc. V. P. for Planning & Campus Facilities)
Marcellus Sapenter  [affiliation unknown]
Stefan Schuster   CNA  (Member, Steering & Traffic Committees & IH35 Subcommittee)
Dorothy Wade   CNA  (Member, Traffic Committee & I35 Subcommittee)

MEETING NOTES:

(Note; these meeting notes are organized around the meeting agenda in general, although some minor deviations occurred)

Pre-meeting (7:30-8:20)
Bo McCarver prepared excellent eggs & potatoes, and served tacos, tomatoes, bread, orange juice and coffee, while the TxDot crew and volunteers set up charrette materials Folks trickled in generally by 8:15 to 8:30, with social interaction during the set-up period.

Introduction (8:20-8:30)
Creola Burns introduced the team and laid down general meeting rules, inviting mutual respect and a spirit of cooperation.

Brief Overview (8:30-9:00)
  § Girard Kinney gave a brief overview of the history of the partnership among the four neighborhoods along IH35 (Blackland, Cherrywood, Wilshire Wood and Dellwood II).
  § He outlined the basic concerns then about traffic impact in the neighborhoods, first from redeveloped Mueller, then from UT as the 1st Phase of the IH35 MIS (Major Investment Study) unfolded a couple of years ago.
  § He emphasized that while we are dedicated to protecting the neighborhood’s interest, we are aware that all neighborhoods will have to bear a share of increased traffic.
  § Members introduced themselves.  During introductions, Roland Gamble responded to Bo McCarver query that had been previously posted by email concerning heat islands and environmental impact.  Hicks and Company has recently been engaged to continue the environmental impact work that Carter and Burgess had begun.
  § Girard reviewed the charrette process and introduced Roland Gamble.

Review of Current TxDot Plans (9:00- 9:30)
Roland Gamble presented Cross Sections looking south, depicting the four schemes now being studied, in view of the fact that it has been determined that there will be no intrusion into the Cemetery.  The preferred solution involves frontage roads cantilevered out over depressed main lanes, southbound between MLK and 26th, and northbound between 26th and 32nd, depressed main lanes from about 17th to about 41st, and a raised HOV structure located down the middle between north and southbound lanes.  In the solution presented, there were no northbound exits between south of 15th to about 34th, and no southbound exits between Airport Blvd and just north of MLK. 

He also pointed out that there were no street connections from the east to west frontage roads between 38th½ and Airport Blvd.

The neighborhood representatives expressed concern about impact into the neighborhoods both from UT bound traffic and RMMA bound traffic, due to the lack of north and southbound exits at Airport Blvd and about the lack of pedestrian connections across IH35 in the vicinity of 4oth/41st.  They repeated their concern about IH35 being elevated over the RR and Airport Blvd and the lack of an eastbound exit at Airport Blvd.
 

Design Session Part 1 (9:30- 10:15)
The first portion of the Design Session focused on exploration of southbound exit ramps from IH35 to get access to UT.  With Mr. Rishling’s active encouragement and ideas, several conceptual diagrams were produced illustrating several possible ways of achieving UT access from southbound IH35 without causing unacceptable impact to 26th and Manor Road east of IH35.

[Note; among the comments offered after the charrette, but pertinent to include here, was the point that Southbound EMS vehicles whose destination is St. Davids’ Hospital would also benefit from an exi from I35 at 26th/Dean Keeton.]

Break (10:15-10:30)
During the break, Mark Lind presented a brief overview of the Upper Boggy Creek Planning Team Vision for the Manor Road area east of IH35 which involves a calmed street serving businesses along Manor and providing pedestrian and bicycle path from the neighborhoods to UT.

Design Session Part 2 (10:30- 11:15)
After the break, attention turned to northbound IH35, with ideas explored for achieving access to UT in the Manor/26th area.  After some discussion it was agreed that the preferred solution would be a connection to 26th/Dean Keeton, and several diagrams were sketched of possible ways to accomplish this.

The subjects of the CNA objection to a northbound exit between 32nd and 38th½, and their suggestion that there be an entrance there instead were discussed.  Mr. Gamble pointed out that an entrance ramp had been added there since we had last seen the plan, to co-exist with the proposed exit ramp.  He explained that this is defined as a  “braided” ramp configuration.  This satisfied the concern for an entrance, and members present expressed acceptance of the idea of an exit south of 38th½, provided that this entrance ramp is also included, and that the proposed northbound exits at both 26th/Dean Keeton and Airport Blvd prove feasible. 

TxDot Reiteration of Ideas for Further Study (11:15-11:30)
Roland Gamble stated the points and neighborhood concerns he had noted from the Design Sessions to be explored further by TxDot:
  1. In general, explore ways to minimize traffic through the neighborhoods east of IH35, with special attention paid to RMMA and UT generated traffic.
  2. Address concern about traffic congestion in the southbound feeder road in the Airport Blvd- 26th street section due to no exit ramps from just north of Airport Blvd to just north of 26th/Dean Keeton.
  3. Explore southbound connection to Eastbound Dean Keeton or to Red River, between Keeton and Manor.
  4. John Rishling felt that UT would have an entrance from the east.  Pelli master Plan shows Manor Road, but consensus of the group was that Keeton is a better Gateway and should be explored by TxDot.
  5. Connectivity needed between east and west frontage roads in the area of 40th street, with particular emphasis in pedestrian and bicycle connections.  Vehicle connections should be limited to “U” turns, connecting the east side, northbound feeder road with the southbound feeder road south of the RR, and connecting the west side, southbound feeder road with the east side, northbound feeder road north of the RR.  A special need to accommodate the Boggy Creek Bikeway system along the RR where it crosses IH35 was emphasized.
  6. A thorough look needs to be made about overall access to and distribution of traffic to UT, including exploring a northbound loop from IH35 to 26th.

Additional Ideas explored (11:30-11:50)
Since there was some time available, Mr. Gamble presented a TxDot study that had been done responding to our urging for an exit at Airport Blvd. The solution shown connects only to eastbound Airport, but Mr. Gamble stated that they are looking also at ways to connect with westbound Airport Blvd.  The neighborhood representatives were very gratified to see that TxDot is looking further at the possibilities here.

Concern was expressed that IH35 is still being shown going up and over the RR and Airport Blvd., rather than depressed as it is to the south.  Concern was also expressed about how close the frontage road is to the Church, and a suggestion was made to tuck a portion of the northbound feeder road under the exiting ramp, in order to allow it to infringe less into the neighborhood.

TxDot Reiteration of Additional Ideas for Further Study (11:50- 12:00)
After the additional ideas to the north were discussed, Mr. Gamble reiterated the following additional areas where further study is warranted:
  1. Verify position of burial sites at church, and explore ways to avoid them.
  2. Look at tucking the northbound frontage road under the adjacent exit bridge.
  3. Explore HOV grades.

Final Sum Up and Adjourn 11:55-12:00 Noon
 After some discussion about having two additional charrettes, one focusing on Airport Blvd and one focusing again on the Dean Keeton area, it was decided instead to combing the whole area and have one charrette the Saturday following Labor Day.  TxDot will have responses to the points iterated at that meeting.
 

Meeting Notes were recorded by Girard Kinney, circulated to all attendees, and comments from all submitted by the morning of 18 July have been included in this FINAL version.
 

Summarizing what we learned about progress on the MIS:

   - DEPRESSED LANES.  The main lanes are now showing as depressed from the CBD north past 51st St EXCEPT for bridging the RR and Airport Blvd.  They are no longer considering tunneling under the RR.

   - EXIT to Airport Blvd.  They are no longer considering one.  To various ways we have floated to get a freeway connection to Airport, they continue to cite old objections:
        > constructability
        > drainage
        > cramped space because of the RR
     And now they cite new objections:
        > wider ROW needed for an adequate radius (requiring additional land from Wilshire Wood)
        > "aesthetics" (elevated off-ramps, like the ones off 183 at Mopac, branching N & S) would be "messy."  Gamble maintained they were "trying to clean this up."
        > "people" (unnamed) want us to do different things.  We have more demands on our design here than ones from you guys.

   - EXIT to UT.  No imaginative thinking here either, in part because "UT seems happy.  We haven't heard from them."   They expect northbound trips to UT to do one of the following:
        > Exit before 15th, pass 15th signal, pass MLK signal and turn left on MLK
        > ... pass MLK signal and and go straight to 26th
        > Exit before 38½, pass signal there, U-turn back to 32nd, pass signal there, go straight to 26th

   - MODELS.  Every design choice was justified with a computer model.  Old models might have been inadequate (witness the congested off-ramp flying over to W-bound 183), but they have great confidence in their present model.

   - ACCESS ROAD (East Avenue) and BRIDGES.  We didn't have time for questions about access lanes being widened and made to serve capacity needs possibly conflicting with convenient, safe E-W crossing (including for bike/ped).  Maybe at the July 14 charette....

    After lengthy debate over how to handle 100 specific road plan issues collectively (there was great reluctance to spend hours going through them 1 by 1), Council muddled its way forward by voting simply to write "remarks" next to controversial streets in the Plan.

1.
They want to revisit streets individually "when something is about to happen."  Any chance of action on E38.1/2St  died when Transportation, Planning, and Design Department chief Austan Librach assured Council (erroneously, but no one challenged) that TxDOT was" not about to do anything" that would affect 38½ St.  Our telling his staff repeatedly for 10 months about TxDOT's preference for a freeway exit there has fallen on deaf ears.

2.
Librach's chief transportation planner, Teri McManus, regurgitated her persistent argument that removing a street from the Plan would threaten its eligibility for federally financed "urban design enhancements."  No matter that the City has no design for such enhancements to 38½ St.

3.
Several times it was suggested by Librach or McManus that the appropriate process for designing Manor Rd and 38½ St is "corridor planning."  Our two streets, said Librach, are corridors they haven't gotten to yet.  There was NO MENTION by these staff of neighborhood planning.   They have deaf ears for it too.    Goodman, Griffith, and Thomas stood up for us.  Thomas even made a motion to delay action on Manor Rd (defeated).  The minds of Alvarez, Slusher, Watson, and Wynn were elsewhere.

    I suppose our best hope now is to keep up the drum beat, on the slim chance of a more favorable combination of circumstances in the near future.  Meanwhile we should pray that TxDOT moves forward at a snail's pace with its IH35 upgrade plans.

2. The contact at CapMetro is Sue (strange last name that sound maybe like "Mugno?") in the Railroad department and her number is 389-7437. [Katie Johnsonius]

THOUSANDS OF TRUCKS REMOVED FROM AUSTIN ROADS

   Capital Metro approves new contract moving freight by rail vs. roads 

   Capital Metro finalized a five-year contract Monday to run rail freight on the Giddings to Llano line.   The agreement will eventually remove nearly 9,000  trucks a month from Austin roads and earn the agency a projected $4.2 million in profits. 

   Capital Metro awarded the $26.7 million contract to Austin Area Terminal Railroad, a subsidiary of Trans Global Solutions Inc., after a competitive  procurement process.  AUAR will run the rail freight operation and maintain the 163-line, which is owned by Capital Metro.  Freight includes rock used for concrete and asphalt, chemical lime for agriculture and construction, lumber and recycled materials. 

   Moving freight by rail instead of roads means easier, safer commutes for Austin drivers.  One rail car carries the equivalent of four trucks.  This year Capital  Metro’s rail freight operations will remove 45,000 trucks from Austin roads, or nearly 4,000 a month.   By the fifth year of the contract, rail freight operations will remove the equivalent of nearly 9,000 trucks a month from Austin roadways.  Over the next five  years, nearly 450,000 fewer trucks will rumble down our roads and highways due to Capital Metro’s rail freight operation. 

   Capital Metro is the only transit agency in the state that maintains a rail freight operation. 

   Today Mark, Girard, and I were able to have a meeting at TXDoT / Austin District with:
      -Glen McVey, IH-35 Principal Project Manager
      -Charles Davidson, E.I.T., Advanced Project Development Office
      -Eduardo Gutierrez, P.E., Transportation Engineer
These gentlemen work on short- and long-term IH-35 projects in central Austin, and had room-size schematics, engineering data, simulation results, financials -- the works -- it was very informative, since even the labyrinthian “Building a Better IH 35" Web site <www.i35austin.com/sitemap.shtml> gives only broad outlines...

~~~~~~~
SHORT-TERM congestion management (“bottleneck”) improvements -- construction to commence in Feb or Mar 2001 and take 3-4 months -- this will be the configuration for several years until the long-term upgrade (likely to be different)
~~~~~~~

   They have scaled back since last February -- gone now (you’ll be happy to hear) are bridge closures between 15th and Airport, and grander ideas of discouraging freeway use for local trips -- the focus now is safer on- and off-ramps...

NORTHBOUND (our side)
   -Entrances: close Manor, build Edgewood with longer acceleration lane, close Concordia
   -Exits:  keep MLK, keep Manor/32nd, close 38-1/2, keep Airport
   -Lanes: no change
   -Impacts: safer freeway entrance with longer on-ramp (+); cars destined for 38-1/2 must go through signal at 32nd (-)
   -Issues: none

SOUTHBOUND
  -Entrances: close Hancock Center, close Edgewood, build 30th with longer acceleration lane, close Manor
   -Exits: keep 38-1/2, keep 32nd, close 26th (Dean Keaton), build Manor (UT says it will make possible a R turn into UT there), keep MLK
   -Lanes: at 32nd, with some construction, 3 lanes will go straight (instead of 1 now)
   -Impacts: safer freeway entrance with longer on-ramp (+); end kamikaze R turn from freeway into UT at 26th (+); possibly more traffic through 32nd (-) but 3 straight lanes and Manor exit to UT will help (+)
   -Issues: we have asked for more study of pedestrian / bicycle / wheelchair use of the 32nd St bridge, and the problem of unsignaled entering traffic from the Day’s Inn

~~~~~~~
LONG-TERM upgrade -- study of alternatives at advanced stage -- construction 8-10 years away -- this will be IH-35's last modification for a long time -- may look much different than short-term changes above
 ~~~~~~~

   The summary posted on the CNA We site, Traffic page <http://asnic.utexas.edu/~bennett/__cwd/CAMPOmemo.htm> remains accurate but now there is more...

   Of the two options described there, we learned today that Option-1 is shrinking in TXDoT’s eyes.  We seem destined to get some version of Option-2, though there’s still room for change...

   Briefly, “ Option-2 (HOV lanes elevated) uses the existing southbound overhead structure for HOV, removes the northbound overhead structure, and puts other through lanes partly below grade; new R.O.W. would take eastside businesses but no residences.“

   This fall TXDoT will be ready to offer their favored design for neighborhood review and public comment -- certainly CNA will participate -- the vehicle for accumulating neighborhood feelings is the Traffic Committee <http://asnic.utexas.edu/~bennett/__cwd/is_trffc.htm>...

~~~~~~~
CAMPO 25-year plan to be available on-line soon
~~~~~~~

   On Monday, June 12, 2000, the CAMPO Policy Advisory Committee adopted the CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan. Staff is currently in the process of making all revisions approved by the PAC. The Plan will be available for the public and will be put on the CAMPO web site at the end of June. 

   CAMPO deserves to be take at least half-seriously -- it’s role is to certify local approval of transportation priorities before federal funds can be released locally -- it is mandated to revisit its 25-year plan every 5 years -- so we have some time to convince them 38-1/2 should not be a wide boulevard -- I figure their staff has been concentrating on other issues...

   1. Discussion of and support for articulating a vision, following the example of the Parks Committee.  Clarifying interests and goals to begin has the salutary effect of establishing the widest possible breadth of consensus and limiting controversy to detailed disputes that are real and need work on solutions.  The realm of consensus in Cherrywood apparently includes:
 -Pedestrian-friendly streets (accomplished by sidewalks, traffic calming, etc.)
 -Bicycle routes to encourage recreational use and bicycle commuting
 -No neighborhood bisection E-W and N-S, and no dangerous access to Maplewood school.  Actively discourage designation of either 38-1/2 or Cherrywood St. to be arterial routes
 -Long-term I-35 upgrade design with no northbound off-ramp between Manor Rd and 38-1/2 St.

   2. Agreement that we ought to respond (deadline 5/26) to CAMPO’s 2025 regional traffic plan, to be voted on June 12.  Draft treatment of Cherrywood streets is erratic, and does not conform to some of the interests above.

   3. The “we” who respond immediately must be the Traffic Committee with at best no-protest Steering Committee endorsement.  But ideal to include ASAP are the CNA membership and our neighboring associations in Blacklands, Wilshire Woods, and Delwood-2.  This is very much a political process; to succeed we need to demonstrate we speak for a constituency.

Next Traffic Committee meeting June 26 (Mon) 7p, 3004 Breeze Terr.

   I attended a public hearing on Apr10 of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planniing Organization (CAMPO) Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) on the draft “Transportation Plan to the Year 2025.”

   CAMPO is regional, embracing Williamson, Travis, and Hays Counties.  Its PAC is 90% political, including (among others) State Sen. Barrientos (Chair); State Reps. Maxey (VC), Dukes, Greenberg, Keel,& Naishtat; Travis Co. Commissioners Baxter, Davis, & Sonleitner; and Austin City Council members Garcia, Lewis, Spelman, and Watson.

   The “Transportation Plan to the Year 2025” will be considered for adoption on June 12. /gb
~~~~~

JARGON & RHETORIC
   1. “Major Divided Arterial” (MAD) = High volume surface roadways – high priority at intersections – signals at significant crossings – center median – left turn storage.

   2. “Major Undivided Arterial” (MAU) = Similar to MAD – no center median

   3. “Minor Arterial” (MNR) = Meet local access and circulation requirements in addition to providing through movement – full movement access (left and right turns) permitted along the route – low priority at significant intersections.

   4. Federal Highway Adm. (FHWA) bicycle design groups:
 “A” = Experienced riders -- prefer sufficient operating space to share roadways with motor vehicles – best served by making every street bicycle-friendly
 “B” = Casual, New, & Teen riders – prefer comfortable access to destinations via direct routes, and well-defined separation from motor vehicles – best served by identifying key travel corridors (arterials,k collectors) and providing designated bicycle facilities on selected routes through these corridors
 “C” = Children – prefer access to key neighborhood destinations, streets with low speed limits and traffic volumes, and well-defined separation from motor vehicles – best served by [same as “B”]

   5. Impacts to Neighborhoods = “The CAMPO Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) in 1994 stated its intent to not damage inner city neighborhoods by widening roadways...  Therefore the proposed roadway system attempts to minimize the expansion of arterials within existing urbanized areas, especially residential areas.  A CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan goal is to increase person carrying capacity rather than motor vehicle capacity.”

CHERRYWOOD ROADWAY SYSTEM
   1. Airport Blvd (MAD 4) = “need” MAD 8  with Bike B, but “fiscally constrained 2025 plan” (what the projected budget realistically may allow) is the Existing (MAD 4).

   2. 38-1/2 St (MNR 2/4) = “need” MAD 6 with Bike B, budget may allow Existing

   3. Manor Rd (MNR 2) = “need” [blank, I suppose because of Mueller uncertainties], budget may allow MAU 4 with Bike B

   4. 26th St from I35-Manor (MAD 4) = “need” MAD 6 with Bike B, budget may allow Existing

NEIGHBORHOODS’ VOICE IN THE PROCESS
   This Plan, as with similar TXDoT documents, is filled with the rhetoric of public input, public hearings, open meetings, public response forms, and consultation with affected neighborhoods and landowners.  At the same time, each locality is one piece of a bigger puzzle, and what traffic engineers want to do to move cars and trucks may knock heads with what neighbors want to do to obstruct vehicular traffic. 
   But CAMPO is very political, and I think Will Bozeman has it right when he says, “They understand ‘No’ and ‘Hell No’” (Will, who lives north of UT, chairs the Austin Neighborhoods Coalition).
   We’ll never get everything we want, but if we focus on a couple of priorities – say, tamping down 38-1/2 St, and opposing a northbound freeway downramp at 34th St in alliance with adjacent associations speaking in unison, I think there’s a chance of limited success.