A: In terms of environmental documentation for Loop 1604 mainline and frontage road improvements, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) prepared a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for improvements to Loop 1604 from SH 151 to IH 10 East in May 2007. After FHWA and TxDOT held a public hearing for the project, they decided that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be needed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). As outlined under NEPA, an EA is used to help determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed. Since then, the limits for the EIS study have been established and include the Loop 1604 corridor between US 90 West and IH 35 north, a distance of approximately 35.5 miles.

A: The FHWA has determined that each of these projects has independent utility. For a project to have independent utility, it must meet the requirements of 23 CFR 771.111(f), as follows, "In order to ensure meaningful evaluation of alternatives and to avoid commitments to transportation improvements before they are fully evaluated, the action evaluated in each EIS...shall: (1) Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope; (2) Have independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made; and (3) Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements."

A: Information received from agencies and the public during scoping will be considered along with further technical analysis as the Draft Environmental Impact Statement document is developed. The document will then be revised to incorporate comments from the lead and cooperating agencies prior to its release to the public for comment. During the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a Public Hearing will also be held.

A:The approach to determine alternatives for the EIS is a collaborative process and includes an initial screening for reasonableness, followed by a quantitative screening for viability. The range of alternatives initially considered include: No-Build, Transportation System and Demand Management (TSM/TDM), Mass Transit (Bus, Heavy Rail, Light Rail), and Build Alternatives (Multi Modal Upgrade, Parallel Road, Upgrade Other Facilities). As presented in Public Scoping Meeting No. 2 , only the Multi Modal Upgrade meets screenings for both reasonableness and viability. In general, the Multi Modal Upgrade consists of new lanes added to the existing Loop 1604. It could also complement the transit system by using expanded lanes for express bus service or using the existing median or open space within the right of way for guideways.

Alternative design concepts for the Multi Modal Upgrade presented in Public Scoping Meeting No. 2 will be refined and the designs, costs, and quantitative effects on the natural and human environment of these Build Alternatives will be compared with that of the No-Build in the Draft EIS. The three alternative design concepts being considered for the Multi Modal Upgrade include: 1) Add general purpose lanes to the inside of the existing Loop 1604 lanes; 2) Add managed lanes to the inside of the existing Loop 1604 lanes, leaving the existing lanes as general purpose lanes and shifting them slightly to the outside; and, 3) Add primarily elevated managed lanes to the outside of existing Loop 1604, between the mainlanes and frontage roads. With either of the managed lane concepts, there would be use restrictions based on traffic demands and vehicle characteristics for the users of these lanes. Use restrictions could include user fees (fixed tolls or variable tolls), vehicle occupancy (High Occupancy Vehicles), or vehicle type (truck, car, bus, motorcycle, etc.).

A:Public input helps those conducting the study learn how residents and travelers in the area feel about existing and future transportation needs, alternatives that should be examined, and issues that need to be addressed by the EIS.

The comprehensive public involvement program was developed to ensure that the public has a variety of opportunities to comment throughout the process. This includes the use of a Community Advisory Group (CAG), the project website, a project hotline, comments completed online or at public meetings, and presentations in smaller meetings with civic and community groups.