Our process of acquiring right-of-way

We've had an influx of calls recently as folks grow curious about potential right-of-way purchases made to accommodate proposed highway expansions. Some of these questions come from folks living along corridors we know we'll be expanding while others have heard rumors upon rumors of expansion.
Today we'll go over our right-of-way acquisition process and address each of the questions we are asked. That said, there's no place to answer every single question perfectly - there are simply too many specific individual questions to answer properly here. This is intended to serve as a foundation so we are all on the same page with the basics. For all the details on the process in all their Legalese glory, check out Chapter 21 of the Texas Property Code.

When do we know we'll need to acquire right-of-way?

This is actually a tricky question, but the short answer is we know really early in a project's conception whether or not we'll need to purchase right-of-way. It's a matter of simple math. Geometry, to be specific. If we're doubling the capacity of an FM road, for instance, we can easily to see whether we need to take some right-of-way to make it happen.
That doesn't mean our right-of-way agents will come calling during those initial planning stages, though. According to a guide from our Right Of Way Division our initial contact with a property owner "must be delayed until all preliminary requirements for highway project development have been met". That process, in some instances, might take years. It involves environmental clearances and federal approvals in addition to other requirements.
Once those barriers have been removed one of our authorized representatives will reach out personally to each individual impacted by right-of-way acquisition well before the project moves to construction. Our priority is to address this and have the right-of-way purchased and cleared before we even select a contractor, which answers the actual question at hand here.

Will TxDOT just take my property?

The short answer here is no. When we acquire right-of-way it becomes a fairly normal real estate transaction. As a property owner you have a constitutionally protected right to fair compensation for property purchased from you. You also have a right to gift that property to the state if you wish.
Beware anyone who may approach with stories of how state agents will come in and take your land. That simply doesn't happen. What does happen is personal contact prior to an appraisal of your property. Our agents will invite you to be present during the appraisal - you can even bring your own appraiser. We'll even look at any improvements to your land, including gates and irrigation and anything else.

As soon as the appraisal and review is finished you'll get a written offer for the purchase of the property. You'll get to counter our offer, if you feel we missed something, and we'll get together to find an agreeable amount. This purchase price is private and not subject to open records requests.
Included in the eventual purchase of the right-of-way will be compensation to remove any major improvements, appropriate relocation costs if needed and any established damages. Details on all this will be specific to the land acquired and appropriate information will be given to the agents of the property involved.

Does the purchase include a confidentiality agreement?
While the transaction is not disclosed publicly by TxDOT and isn't subject to open records until well after the project is complete we do not typically require sellers to enter into a non-disclosure agreement.

Why all the rumors and worry?

We really think most folks become worried about right-of-way acquisition on a highway expansion because of the unknowns involved. We hope this brief primer helps relieve so many worries with the assurance our agents aren't out to steamroll anyone (we've abandoned use of steamrollers long ago...). We hear frequently from folks whose first contact regarding acquisition of their property comes from private law firms when that contact should come directly from us. Simply put, those notices of action coming from private sources are marketing ploys and do not reflect accurately the actual plan for a highway expansion.
When we do reach out, we send a letter and a host of information so you're familiar with the process up-front. It's a lot more detailed than this post is, and it's written in an easy style so you don't need a lawyer to go through it for you. You're still welcome to get representation, but we want everyone to know the process up front so all our cards are on the table.

What do I do if I think my property might be involved with a right-of-way purchase?

The first thing you can do is verify whether a project is even scheduled along the highway corridor your property bumps up against. Our master list of currently programmed projects can be found on our Project Tracker online application. By clicking on the segment of roadway impacted by a project (that line will be either red, orange, green or blue) a box with some critical information on the project pops up. That information includes an estimated date of letting, which means we'll receive bids from contractors at that time, and a basic description of the work.
Pro tip: if it's a resurface project or seal coat, we won't need to buy right-of-way. If you see a refresh of pavement markings, we won't need new right-of-way. If the scope of work shows we're expanding or reconstructing, there's a pretty decent shot we'll need to buy right-of-way to get the job done.
If it looks like there's an expansion project in your neck of the woods keep an eye out for public meetings to happen about a year or so before the project goes to bid. You can see any materials presented at those public meetings online here if you miss out.

I see road work happening now and I'm worried my property will be needed.

If we're already under construction - even if it's just moving utilities around - we've already gotten the right-of-way we need. At the least we'll have contacted and opened negotiations with everyone already. If you see actual construction activity on your corridor and you've not yet heard from us, we're not going to be buying right-of-way from you. There's no reason at that point to continue to worry or fight against the prospect of development, no reason to fight against some terrible swoop that's just not coming.
Before utilities can be properly adjusted ahead of a project, before we can begin a project, we need to have that right-of-way secured. That's got to happen before we can even select a contractor. We've tried starting projects sooner as a means to accelerate project delivery; it doesn't work. We now know right-of-way needs to be had first, then construction can happen.
So if you're already seeing construction and you've not been contacted ... well ... we're not taking right-of-way at your location. Breathe easy.

Mail Bag: Traffic signals, Spring Branch Post Office, a whoopsie and more.

This is somewhat random, but I am curious how TxDOT decides whether a new traffic signal will have metal arms or a cable to hold up traffic lights.
For example, the new light at SH 46 and FM 758 in New Braunfels utilizes cables, while the recent install less than a mile up the road at Avery has metal arms. I notice similar discrepancies at FM 1101 and FM 306. I find the metal arms more attractive, but is there a huge difference in installation and maintenance costs? Any consideration for consistency along the same road or within a city?
- John

You didn't ask the question outright but others may ask; we posted before on how we determine when or where to install a signal. If you've not read it yet, John, you may find in it an interesting (hopefully) read to set the foundation of a conversation on signal installation.
Down to your actual questions. Determination between use of span wires or mast arms most often boils down to engineer discretion. They have a number of options they can use for a number of reasons. More often than not it boils down to money, though. Using span wires saves us about 20 percent over the mast arms and this is an easy way we're able to trim costs to keep a project under budget.

Existing electrical wiring plays a factor in the design; if the wires are in the air at a particular location it's highly unlikely we'll use mast arms. The last major factor is the plan for future development. If we know one of the intersecting streets is to be expanded in the relatively near future we may choose the span wires. This helps during construction and makes arranging the intersection a lot simpler for our contractors.
Hopefully that helps!


With all of the major construction taking place on I-10 and Foster Road area, many drivers (including me) are starting to avoid the congestion on I-10 by taking FM 1346 to I-410. I live in St Hedwig and travel FM 1346 to 410 daily and then continue my drive to the NW side of town for work. Since more traffic has decided to go FM 1346, this has created a serious bottleneck, sometimes a mile long of cars waiting to go through an old 4 way stop design (flashing yellow light). What puzzles me is that if I turn on Foster Road to head back towards I-10, there is presently a traffic light at a non busy intersection of an industrial complex. Do you have any immediate plans to put a traffic light at this busy intersection to help ease some of the congestion that exists daily, and not to mention the safety factor of all this as well? There is also a new beginning stage of a multi-home subdivision at that intersection. Please let me know, thank you.
- Wesley
It sounds like a temporary situation has been developed at that intersection resulting from folks seeking ways around a construction project, and we would need to be sure that situation won't disappear when the project on I-10 finishes and traffic returns to its old pattern.
As we mentioned above we have strict requirements dictating when and where we install signals.
The signal on Foster Road at Cal Turner is not on a state-maintained road. While local municipalities typically turn to our Texas Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices for guidance, that isn't always the case. You'll have to reach out to Bexar County or the city of San Antonio to determine what factors played into approval of that signal.
We've added the intersection of FM 1346 and Foster Road to our list of intersections needing a warrant study - we'll see what the actual data looks like. If a signal is indeed warranted we'll install it.

Any update when 281 north bound lanes at the Spring Branch Post Office will start up to eliminate the bypass around the Spring Branch Post Office?
- Ray
As of the moment we're writing this answer we expect to receive bids on this project in March (yes, this year) and should be underway with construction by mid-summer. The nearly $800,000 project should last no more than a year.


A few days ago a question was posted regarding the I-35 project and the concern about the left lane on northbound 35 before Walzem. The answer given was that with the work over the weekend the project should be completed. The northbound lanes still have the issue where the left lane disappears at Walzem. There appears to be room for the lane to continue but it essentially ends. Is this going to be the final project? Thank you for your time.
- Brian
You're absolutely right. We were operating on old information here in our public information office and the work we had on our schedules didn't end up happening. We are told it will happen within the next month and a half, opening up that lane that's sorely needed and giving drivers the final configuration they've been waiting about four years to enjoy.


Why was the exit ramp from Loop 1604 west to Gold Canyon closed and removed during the direct connect project?
- Marshall
That was about safety and redundancy more than anything. Bear with us here.
We'll start with a look at the layout of Loop 1604 between Gold Canyon and Redland Road. At that stretch there are three lanes - two normal through lanes and an auxiliary lane at the far right of the road.
That auxiliary lane ties the entrance ramp from Redland to the exit ramp to US 281. Adding an extra ramp would add another conflicting traffic pattern to an area already laden with three directions of traffic.
Hopefully that makes sense. If not ... let us know and we'll give it another go.


Has there been any mention of possibly opening sections of the new I-10 lane expansion between the RIM and Ralph Fair as they're completed? Or will the lanes open once the entire project is completed?
- Mike

Glad you asked. The plan here is to open the lanes as they're finished - so an incremental opening. This means about halfway through the project we'll have three lanes in each direction - all general purpose, open to everyone.
At the end of the project we'll open up that HOV lane in each direction, making I-10 four lanes each direction between Ralph Fair Road and Loop 1604.
It seemed like a good idea to us at the time, and we are going to work hard to ensure it goes well in practice.
By the way, that first incremental gift is still about a year away from happening ... but you'll see our crews working to prepare the overpasses for expansion over the next several weeks.


When is FM 1376 in Kendall county repaired and ditches along shoulders repaired. With the increase in traffic of large vechiles moving over is not an option; the washouts would cause blow outs.
- Olin
Thanks for letting us know about the issue, Olin. We don't have any plans on the books for reconstruction of the road at the moment, but we'll pass your note along to our planners and maintenance crews to see if we can get it on the list!

Wurzbach and Northwest Military - your chance to be heard

It could be your last chance to provide input on the future of the intersection of Wurzbach Parkway and Northwest Military.

The current plan, based on input from previous open houses hosted by our planning team, is to expand the intersection without building bridges. Challenges with access between the Inverness neighborhood and the Alon Business Center led to scrapping plans with an overpass in favor for an expanded signalized intersection. Traffic engineers estimate morning delays at the intersection improve from 47 seconds to 34 seconds with this solution; evening delay will improve from 77 seconds to 36 seconds, elevating the current level-of-service rating an entire grade.
The current proposal extends all right-turn lanes for added storage space and includes dual left-turn lanes in all directions. The estimated cost as of today is about $7.5 million.
This is all based on current public input. Those yet wishing to be heard may provide their input at our final planned open house tomorrow night. Here's the info:

• Thursday, Dec. 15 between 5 and 7 p.m.
• Barshop Jewish Community Center Auditorium, 12500 NW Military Hwy

The meeting will be an open house format so residents may come and go at their convenience and staff will be available to answer questions.
Construction on the project could start as early as 2020.

Mail Bag: The Binz-Engleman exit ramp, Transguide cameras, Displaced Left Turns and more

Any word on when the Transguide cameras at Loop 1604 and Stone Oak/Huebner/NW Military will be brought back online? I was really glad when these cameras were installed, since the congestion gets pretty bad in that area, but they've been down for several months now.
P.S. Thanks for all the great updates recently! Y'all are on a roll.
- Chris
Glad you like what we're doing - we're excited about the fiber optic wire and the wireless cameras going into our equipment and what that upgrade means to the system.
These cameras are actually a priority item for our guys at Transguide. The ITS pole controlling those cameras was hit by lightning back in April, destroying the radio transmitter and several other equipment items. We also lost a link in our wireless communications chain in the process.
We've ordered the surge suppressor which (hopefully) will arrive in the next several days. We're working to get the cables all inspected for lightning damage as well - it's a process! We hope to have things up and running again shortly.

Regarding the Loop1604 N-Bandera Rd area, I saw in the TIP a displaced left turn at that intersection - expect funding soon? Braun Rd/Bandera to 1604 eligible for state funding or identified future project. I asked COSA TCI and they are not aware of any project.
- Edward
Great questions. A couple of answers.

We'll talk first of the DLT (Displaced Left Turn) we're doing at the intersection of Bandera Road and Loop 1604. That's a project we should put out for bids next month. The $6.5 million project is something you'll see us post more about here in the next few weeks as we look to push the message of what a DLT does and  how it will help congestion at this location. By the way, this isn't the only location we're eyeing for a DLT; other candidate intersections include Culebra Road at Lp 1604, where we have growing significant issues with congestion and limited options due to the tight spaces out there.
As for improvements along Bandera between Braun Road and Loop 1604 ... we're still working toward that. We want to do something that makes sense and addresses the major needs of the Bandera Road corridor (now a top-10 spot in the area in terms of congestion woes), and we cannot do that without working on the entire corridor between I-410 and Lp 1604. We're hoping, right now, to get something going by 2022 - a date that can easily be changed in the TIP as our stakeholders can find a proper solution and we identify proper funding.
Whatever we do along Bandera, it'll focus on multimodal solutions.

Recently Exit 30 on the southbound lanes of Loop 410 was closed after the opening of the new right-hand exit from southbound I-35. I work in the Macro Prologis business park and now all the businesses on the east side of Loop 410 have to make protracted detours to get to our work destinations.
There seems to be no urgency by the contractor to open the exit or to even provide a temporary exit ramp for this area. Any idea when that exit ramp will be reopened?
- Ed
We are working on it, Ed ... some of the work is weather-dependent and we've had some logistical challenges thrown our way.
The ramp was closed because the elevation of the new direct connector (southbound I-35 to southbound I-410) didn't match the elevation of the existing Binz-Engleman exit ramp. We knew that'd be the case when we went in there, and it's something our communications team missed when we put forward info on the weekend closures that put the new connector into service.
Bottom line: we should have that ramp (exit 30) back in action next month. In the interim, the best route to take would be southbound I-35 exit to George Beach, turn left at George Beach and again onto the northbound frontage road. Follow the frontage road around the hairpin turn and that should get you where you need to go. Take a look at the route here.

Just wanted to say thanks for getting those signs up at the Shin Oak Park and Ride! The commercial vehicles are gone. I appreciate not having to look at a "truck stop" anymore when I drive by!
- Steven
Happy to help, Steven! Thanks for reaching out on the topic and letting us know of the issue.

I wrote in previously about the barrier at the 1604 Bandera Rd northbound exit and how it has been repeatedly destroyed since it was first installed. The answer I got was that people are distracted and need to pay better attention. I completely agree. Another person later wrote in that these distracted people should have to pay to fix barriers/guardrails. Again, I completely agree and I’m glad TxDOT has a process in place to seek reimbursement for such repairs.
What I’m asking is if there is someone at TxDOT who looks at high recurrence accident locations to see what might be done to help save life and property. I’m certainly no expert, but the way the exit lane is striped at the northbound Bandera exit off 1604 seems to point cars directly at the barrier. People hit it because they are not paying close enough attention and they should pay to get it fixed - got it - but if the discussion stops there, an opportunity is missed. All I’m asking for is some TxDOT engineer to take a really good look at the off-ramp trajectory and consider if re-striping it might help drivers (distracted or otherwise) better avoid the barrier. For the possibility of fewer accidents, fewer TxDOT repairs, and less work chasing reimbursements, it’s worth a look.
- Bob
Well, you'll get no argument out of us, Bob.
When areas are riddled with crashes we do evaluate the road and see what, if anything, can be done to improve the situation. This is generally prompted by abnormal volumes of work orders to clean up or repair things like crash attenuators, which means we've got an idea as to the frequency of crashes at any given location.
We won't wait for the work orders to pile up here, though, Bob. Our communications team has a note to our traffic operations folks to look at this location again. They'll address the issue as appropriate and keep an eye out there on it.

Planning a cohesive system

We had a big question come from Ralph a few weeks ago, and it took a little doing to get a good answer. He asked:
When you expand I-10 or US281 on the North side, why not add at least one more outbound lane than inbound lanes. Outbound lanes function like a "drain" and the faster you get cars out of the city, the less strain you place on the highways that are in the city. Too many inbound lanes can cause overload on the roads in the city so inbound lanes and outbound lanes function differently from a system level. So, add more outbound lanes. You do not need an equal number of inbound and outbound lanes.

To begin, Ralph, we have a major challenge to accommodate the more-than 150 new cars on San Antonio-area roads popping up daily while meeting current needs. Yes, you read that right. We have been adding more than 150 new cars (per the San Antonio Mobility Coalition) to the roadways in the San Antonio metro area alone every single day for the last few years.
There's a bit of a process that goes into determining where to bring major capital improvements and how to address current and future demands. We begin by measuring traffic volumes - as well as projections - for both inbound and outbound directions on our major corridors. Thanks to new technologies we're able to make pretty good determinations regarding the origin and destination of these trips as well.

What we are finding is these volumes (and future projections) are pretty darned equal for both inbound and outbound traffic. That is, just as many people are using those inbound routes as are using outbound routes. The data shows us the strain on surface streets is pretty similar between evening and morning hours.
We take these findings to a determining body responsible for planning a cohesive system - in the case of the San Antonio metro area, we go to the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. This group allows us to place our projected development projects in context with future development by city and county governments. In short, the MPO looks at the transportation system as a one-piece body and ensures development by one agency coincides with development with other agencies.

With the needs identified by the MPO, an extensive public involvement process ensues. Armed with the public input and significant data from state and local engineers (and consultants), priorities are determined.
Then we have to identify funding - which is much easier said than done.
The details of the projects are designed during the funding process, and our designs are vetted by you through open house meetings. (Seriously, we do change designs based on public input - it happens all the time.)
With public input we finalize the details of plans and let the project for bids. By rule we offer the contract to the lowest bonded bidder, then approve the contract through the Texas Transportation Commission. It takes about three months to get the contract signed and the contractor ready to go (typically), then we get going on the project.
Whew.

That's the process, Ralph. But to answer your question much more directly, we don't add an additional lane to the outbound traffic because we typically see the same demand on both directions of traffic. One option that might come in to play later on to accomplish what you're suggesting, and as local needs increase, is to use reversible highway lanes ... but that's something folks here simply haven't been ready to implement yet. You may see it used in the future, though - particularly as HOV lanes take shape with more efficiency in the region and mass transit becomes more important to the Alamo City.

Historic transportation plan gets another boost

The Texas Transportation Commission recently approved an update of TxDOT’s $70 billion Unified Transportation Program (UTP). The UTP represents a 10-year project funding outlook that includes new plans to add or improve more than 1,200 miles of roadways to improve safety and mobility, and reduce congestion.
Seventy billion dollars is an historic amount of funding. It includes over $38 billion in additional funding, which Gov. Abbott and the Legislature presented to the public for approval as Proposition 7 and the ending of diversions of highway funds for other purposes. The 12,000 men and women of TxDOT stand ready to immediately execute on these projects that will keep people and freight moving safely and efficiently throughout our state.
Texas is a dynamic state with a robust economy. With more than 27 million people living in Texas – a number that is expected to double by the year 2050 – this transportation funding is not only more than welcome, it’s absolutely crucial to our overall quality of life, economic health and global competitiveness. TxDOT is committed to anticipating and addressing the transportation demands of our entire state. The 10-year plan, the largest in TxDOT history, dedicates funding to address safety, maintenance and rural connectivity needs across all 25 TxDOT districts and 25 metropolitan planning areas throughout the state.
Gov. Abbott has charged the Texas Transportation Commission with addressing the growing congestion problem facing our largest and most congested metro areas. Ninety-seven of Texas’ Top 100 congested roadways are in the five major metro areas, resulting in the average driver in those areas losing over 52 hours last year while suffering through traffic chokepoints. Over the next four years, $2.5 billion of the influx of new dollars will fund 19 much-needed new projects in Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio through a program called Texas Clear Lanes. This program is intended to add capacity and improvements to some of our most notorious areas of gridlock in those major cities. In addition, the Commission has targeted funds to improve our major transportation and trade corridors, energy sector roads and hurricane evacuation routes.
There is still much to be done. Next August, the Commission will be programming additional projects within the monies available to it. TxDOT is reaching out for public input as it works with transportation professionals and other stakeholder groups throughout the state to ensure a quality planning process.
The members of the Texas Transportation Commission – Jeff Austin of Tyler, Victor Vandergriff of Arlington, J. Bruce Bugg, Jr., of San Antonio, Laura Ryan of Houston and me, from Odessa – have worked diligently to maximize the resources that Gov. Abbott, the Legislature and taxpayers of this state have provided to us. As the Commission and the department which it oversees, TxDOT, celebrate their 100-year anniversary, we are ever more dedicated to serving the public and continuing the tradition of excellence that has been established by those who served before us.

Tryon Lewis
Chairman, Texas Transportation Commission

Transportation Tuesday: The most congested roads in Texas aren't in San Antonio

We often are asked about congestion levels in San Antonio, and we have some actual data to back up what we say on the topic. In fact, the annual list of most congested roadways compiled by Texas A&M University's Texas Transportation Institute has recently been released and can be seen online. It's a great place to start.

What does it mean for San Antonio? Well, a couple of things.

We've got it REALLY good here

Yes, there are some sticky spots around San Antonio. We're still doing pretty darned good, though. Our average commute times are hovering right around the 25-minute mark, putting us right up there with the traffic woes of Hartford, Connecticut, and of Columbus, Ohio.

The fact is we're nowhere near the worst traffic in the United States, despite being the seventh-largest city in the country - and the largest city without some form of managed lanes on our highway system. The plain truth is that, for a city as big as we are, we've got things pretty darned good.

This doesn't mean things aren't devoid of fun when we have some rain or when a crash occurs - that always gums things up. This means under normal conditions our commute flows pretty darned well.

Statewide, by the way, Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth own more than three-fourths of the congested corridors on the list.

Our worst corridor is ... US 281

Photo credit: San Antonio Express-News

The most congested corridor in San Antonio is, officially, US 281 between Lp 1604 and Stone Oak Parkway. It's actually crept into the state-wide top-30, something no segment of roadway in San Antonio has done in more than five years. Sitting at No. 26 overall, those commuting this corridor are seeing peak travel times at 165 percent off-peak hours, leading to about 320,156 total hours of delay each year, per mile.

The good news: we've got a plan for that. We're finalizing plans to expand US 281 with overpasses and continuous frontage roads, and expect to start construction early 2017. We're doing our best to make sure construction delays are minimal, but by 2020 you should see this corridor fall rapidly off our congested corridors list.

Other areas of note across the region are I-35 between Loop 1604 and downtown (three separate segments are on the Top 100 list, ranking at 47, 53 and 66) and I-410 between US 281 and Culebra Road (again, multiple segments are on the list, ranking 72 and 75 overall). Again, we've got current or future projects moving for each of these areas to help.

All told, the San Antonio area owns eight roadway segments on the list - and already have a plan for each area.

We still have room to improve

While things are still pretty darned good, congestion is a growing headache for most of us. Our population is growing at a rate that is far greater than the capacity of our existing infrastructure - we're adding something like 50 cars to our local roads every single day. Seriously.

We're trying to get ahead of this. The Texas Transportation Commission just approved Texas’ largest transportation plan in history, with $70 billion dedicated to addressing congestion, connectivity, preservation and improving safety for drivers over the next 10 years. 

We've also got the Texas Clear Lanes initiative, led by Texas Transportation Commissioner J. Bruce Bugg, Jr. - a local from right here in San Antonio. Not only is that finding some extra funding to deal with the congestion we're seeing, it's also working with local partners to identify where and how to spend the money wisely.

Disclaimer:

The TTI study only looks at TxDOT maintained facilities, which means city and county roads are not measured in the study. This is for a number of reasons, but mostly because the traffic volume on state-owned roads is typically much higher than what you'll see on city or county roads. It really shouldn't impact the outcome of the study much, but it's worth mentioning.

Mail Bag: Questions on city and county projects, work on northwest side

What are the plans and ETA of the Potranco Road expansion and connecting of Hwy 211?
- Noel (via Twitter)
Great question, Noel. The Potranco Road expansion between Lp 1604 and Hwy 211 is being done as a pass-through project and is overseen (actually, pretty much completely managed) by Bexar County Public Works. According to their project page the project just got going and will wrap up the end of 2018.
As for details on the project as it continues ... those questions should go to Bexar County. When the project is finished, TxDOT will maintain responsibility for upkeep.

Can you give us an update on the Tezel/Grissom construction?
- Jeremy (via Twitter)
If you're asking about the work Tezel Road, that's a city project and they have updates posted on their Web site. If you're asking about the work on Culebra Road ... well, that's ours.
On the Culebra project our crews are laying the final surface of asphalt. We're all done with the curbs and medians (and have been since around Christmas), and as long as we get some dry weather we could be done in as little as three weeks of solid work.

Yesterday on Blanco & Midnight Drive there was a long progression of traffic cones (3' high ones) that seems to stretch for miles north (didn't confirm but it was definitely more than a mile. I don't see any scheduled construction on your blog. Can you shed any light on this?
- Shawn (via Blog)
We got a few calls on this one, and we're still scrambling to find a clear answer. We checked with Bexar County, who maintains this segment of Blanco Road, and they don't have work at that location. That leaves possible suspects as utilities companies like CPS Energy and SAWS.
One thing we do know is the project isn't a TxDOT project - last year the state handed over control of Blanco Road north of Wilderness Oak to Bexar County Public Works.

Are there any plans for (FM 471 or FM 1560) or a signal on FM 471 at Stillwater Ranch?
- Pete (via Twitter)
The short answer: YES.
Longer answer ... well, we're working with the county on several options. For FM 471, we have plans that are more impending. That work will be done as a pass-through project (just as Potranco Road is being done) and Bexar County will manage that work. That expansion is a $16.8 million project set to start later this year and wrap up (most likely) early 2018. It'll expand FM 471 to match what's there by Taft High School and extend from FM 1560 almost to Talley Road. More info is here.
As for FM 1560, we're working on an expansion project to run from Galm to FM 471. A firm timeline isn't ready yet, but it'll expand FM 1560 to two lanes with a center left-turn lane. We also know there's a need for expansion between Galm/Shaenfield and Bandera Road, so we're looking at that. The biggest challenge for that will be right-of-way acquisition (which hasn't yet begun).

Once the new overhead connector between 1604 and 151 eastbound is complete, will cars using it be able to exit at Wiseman or will the first available exit be beyond that point?
- Bob (via blog)
In short, you'll use the next exit (Westover Hills) and turn around to get to Wiseman from Alamo Ranch Parkway. Because pictures are worth a thousand words, here's a look (it helps to click on the image and make it bigger):

So excited about the highway opening! Wondering if you know anything at all about what the process looks like for getting the addresses changed to 1604 now that it's complete. Thanks!
- Jamye (via blog)
We actually don't know the process - it's odd. We made several calls to the folks in our department and the overwhelming consensus was to work through your local Postmaster General. There is an interesting blog post on the topic, though.

Have surveys been done to figure out why the (morning) rush hour traffic eastbound I-10 from Fair Oaks Ranch Parkway to around Camp Bullis, and the (evening) rush hour traffic on the westbound side anywhere from UTSA Blvd to La Cantera through Camp Bullis is as terrible as it is? ...What is being done to alleviate that traffic?
- Gerard (via blog)
If you're asking if we've been conducting traffic studies along that corridor, the answer is yes. To put a not-too-fine point on the issue, the real cause here is a rapid increase in development and population along the I-10 corridor.
We've got an active project converting frontage roads between Dominion Drive and Boerne Stage Road, which includes some ramp rearrangements that will help traffic flow once the project is done later this summer.
But that's probably not going to fix everything you're talking about - which involves pinch points at Loop 1604 and at Camp Bullis. One fix that's coming for that is an expansion of I-10 between La Cantera Parkway and Ralph Fair Road. That's coming next year, if all goes well. As for improving the interchange at Loop 1604 ... well, we're working on that one.

Unified Tranpsortation Program public inputs

The Texas Department of Transportation will host an online public meeting via WebEx this afternoon at 4:00 p.m. and solicit comments on the development of the 2016 Unified Transportation Program (UTP).

The UTP is a comprehensive 10-year plan for the development and construction of transportation projects throughout Texas. The plan includes roadways, aviation, public transportation, waterways, coastal waters and rail projects. The plan includes specific funding levels for each fiscal year.

You can participate in this meeting via WebEx, or you can stop by the San Antonio District Office at 4615 Northwest I-410 in San Antonio to participate.

To join the meeting online, or to view a recorded copy of the public meeting after it's been held, visit the UTP Public Involvement web page. If the meeting time is not convenient, or you would like to arrange for an alternate time to receive information on the 2016 UTP, give us a call at 210.615.5802. You may also leave comments regarding the 2016 UTP at this number.

Written comments may be submitted on the TxDOT website by searching the keyword "UTP". You can also email your comments to TPP_UTP@txdot.gov or use "snail mail" to reach us. Our mailing address is:
TxDOT TPP Division UTP
118 East Riverside Drive
Austin, Texas, 78704

Public comments will be received until 4:00 p.m. August 17.

Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need auxiliary aides or services are requested to contact us prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

The draft (not final copy) 2016 UTP will be available for viewing online the remainder of this week.

A chance for input on the future of I-35

If you're one of those who'd like to let us know how we should go about developing I-35 on the northeast side of town - specifically between George Beach near SAMMC and FM 1103 in Schertz - you'll want to attend an upcoming public hearing on the plan TxDOT is developing.

The proposed project would add four elevated managed lanes (two lanes in each direction) to the existing highway between the south I-410 interchange and FM 1103. Direct connectors are included at the intersections of  I-35 and I-410 (south), I-35 and I-410 (north, near Windcrest), and at the intersection of I-35 and Loop 1604.

Managed lanes are being proposed as one way to potentially fund a development of this sort.

Public hearings allow anyone impacted by the project to hear a formal presentation about what is proposed, then leave comments. Comments may be submitted in writing or may be given online. While this hearing will take place at a physical location - Morgan's Wonderland Event Center - it will also be conducted virtually. Those wishing to join online my do so at www.i35northeast.com. The online hearing will be available February 26 through March 9.

The in-person hearing will take place at the Morgan's Wonderland Event Center on Thursday, Feb. 26, beginning at 5 p.m. The formal presentation will be delivered at 6 p.m., and TxDOT staff will hear comments from the public until the comments have been exhausted.

If there are any questions, contact Laura Lopez at 210.615.5839.

Particulars:
Date - Thursday, Feb. 26
Time - 5 until 6 p.m., open house. Formal presentation at 6 p.m.
Location - Morgan's Wonderland Event Center Conference Room, 5223 David Edwards Drive, San Antonio
Online - www.i35northeast.com between Feb. 26 and March 9
Materials - Hard copies of the maps, drawings, environmental reports and other documents may be viewed in person at the TxDOT San Antonio District Office located at 4615 NW Loop 410, San Antonio. This may be done Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. until 5 p.m.