I.H. 635 (LBJ) Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS)ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tta/ih635/FINAL REQUEST FOR... · 03/11/96 15:11 ©6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT ©005/007 RTP/MIS

I.H. 635 (LBJ) CorridorMajor Investment Study

(MIS)

LBJ Major Investment Study

LBJ Executive BoardMeeting AgendaMarch 26,1996

* Introductory Remarks* Summary of TAC/SCDC Meeting* Recommendation Presentation* Questions, Answers &/or Remarks* Concurrence Discussion* Adjourn

.*LBJ Major Investment Study

LBJ CORRIDOR STUDY

Regional CongestionManagement System

Focus Group ACorridor TSM

s

Focus Group CCorridor TDM

Focus Group BLBJ Facility

Components

Focus Group DLBJ TSM

BJ Organizational Chart

TechnicalAdvisory

Committee ,.(TAG) V

Focus Groups

A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I

Study- ConceptConcept

Development(SCDC)


I.H. 635 (LBJ) CorridorMajor Investment Study Process

| PublicOutreach

Gcicils andObjseayss

V

ij

Deyelppmerit^:i Analysis J |

Path 1Forward

LocallyPreferred

Alternative

ier Public Involvementj

* Feasibilty • Now

* Planning / NEPA K Before

* Design

* Construction


^j^Major Investment StudyAgency Partners

* TxDOT - Lead Agencyi

* NCTCOG - MIS Guidance

* TTA - Area Tollway Authority

* DART - Local Transit ProviderLBJ Major Investment Study *

03/11/96 15:12 ©6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT ©007/007

I.H. 635 CORRIDOR STUDYPROCESS SUMMARY

—^

0)

Ioc

3CL(03O3C

"cooI

MIS Coordination

Regional/State/FederalConsensus

±NEPA/Design

Implementation

North Central Texas Council of GovernmentsTransportation Department

03/11/96 15:10 ©6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT 0002/007

MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDYWHY PERFORMED

Provide for Early Consideration ofEnvironmental and CommunityIssues

Consensus Building ThroughExtensive Public Involvement

Improve Transportation InvestmentDecisions


03/11/96 15:10 ©6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT 0003/007

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATIONPLAN DEVELOPMENT

Mobility 2010 Update (1993)2010 Planning Horizon

HOV/ExpressEast-side Widening

I.H. 635 (LBJ) Major InvestmentStudy (1993-1996)2015 Planning Horizon

Various Multimodal Configurations

Mobility 2020 (1996)2020 Planning Horizon

Incorporation of MIS Recommendations


6

03/11/96 15:11 Q6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT ®004/007

RTP/MIS CONSISTENCY

Design Concept(Conformity Placeholder)

General Alignment# Lanes/Tracks# Interchanges/StationsInterchange/StationSpacing

Cost Implications(Financial Constraint Placeholder)

Net CostRevenue Generation PotentialFunding SourceStaging/Phasing


03/11/96 15:11 ©6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT ©005/007

RTP/MIS CONSISTENCYOPTIONS

Amend Regional Transportation Plan

Include LPA directlyUpdate Financial PlanPossible Elimination of Other Projects

Staged Construction of LPA

Logical Phasing SequenceFit Within Financial PlaceholderAmend Plan if Necessary


10

RTC CONCERNS & CONDITIONSFOR INCLUSION OF LPA IN RTP

Must Have Strong Local Consensus

Must Be Cost-Effective

Must Fit Into Financially-ConstrainedRegional Transportation Plan

Must Allow RTP To Meet All AirQuality Conformity Requirements


It

TAC/SCDCRecommendation

Presented for Discussion and Considerationby the LBJ Executive Board for Concurrence

to Prepare the Recommendation forPresentation to the Public

LBJ Executive BoardMarch 26,1996

LBJ Major Investment Study 12

Tech Team"Staff" Participants

* MIS Sponsor & Other Agency Partners- TxDOT, NCTCOG, DART, TTA

* Local Government Representation- Cities of Dallas, Garland, Farmers

Branch, and Mesquite

* Technical Production- HNTB, TC&B, AB&A-TTI-TSI

* Community Involvement-CRC

1 LBJ Major Investment Study LJ

Screening Process

* Criteria Set #1 - Create Concepts- Performance & mobility- General & qualitative

* Criteria Set #2 - Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)- Community concerns, trade-offs , solutions- Specific issues & quantitative evaluation

* Criteria Set #3 - Schematic Design for LPA- NEPA Process (Environmental Impact Statement)- Detailed & quantitative for Public Hearing


Criteria Set 1 Findings

* Traffic in the corridor will increase 40%between 1990 and 2015

* Majority of this growth will use arterialroadways

.* Additional traffic that does use LBJ willincrease the hours of congestion on thefacility

* Increased corridor congestion couldultimately have a negative impact on thelocal economy


Improving LBJ Freeway: 1-35 to US-75How Much Traffic on City Street?

1990 Existing 2010 Baseline 2010 Build

Percent on Streets • Percent on LBJ Freeway

Criteria Set 2Goal Statement

Building on concepts identified from CriteriaSet 1, develop through partnerships a LocallyPreferred Alternative which will improve mobilityin the corridor in a cost-effective manner, whileenhancing the quality of life and the economicviability of the "neighbors" of LBJ Freeway.

17LBJ Major Investment Study L'

ision-Making Framework

Goal #1: Mobility- Demand, Performance, Congestion,Accessibility, Safety

Goal #2: Flexibility- Operational, Design, Multimodal

Goal #3: Community Enhancement- Right-of-Way, Displacement, Visual, Air

Quality, Noise, Constructibility, GeneralPhysical and Social Issues

Goal #4: Cost Effectiveness- Costs, Revenue Generation, Cost Effectiveness

-1 Q

LBJ Major Investment Study , 10

Important Criteria

* All criteria are important and were evaluated* Evaluation of these criteria did not identify a

"fatal flaw" that would cause us to disqualifya particular alternative

* Differences between alternatives could not bemeasured or were relatively small for thesecriteria

* All of these criteria will be specificallyaddressed in the NEPA process


Important Criteria

* Accessibility* Safety Impacts* Operational

Flexibility* Design Flexibility* Multimodal

Flexibility* Specific Visual

Impacts

* Corridor Air QualityImpacts

* Specific NoiseImpacts

* General Physical &Biological Resources

* General Social/NeighborhoodResources


Key Criteria

* Differences between alternatives weresignificant for these criteria


Key Criteria

* Travel Demand &Supply

* Travel Performance* Corridor Congestion

* Specific Right-of-Way Impacts

* Buildings Displaced* Constructibility* Costs

* Revenue GenerationPotential

* Cost Effectiveness


I.H.635 STUDY AREAPERFORMANCE DISTRICTS

March 11, 1996 CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION MATRIX - EAST SECTION DRAFT

Criteria

Travel- Supply (Vehicle capacity)

-Demand

Travel Performance

Corridor Congestion Costs

Accessibility

Safety Impacts

Operational Flexibility

Design Flexibility

Multimodal Flexibility

Specific Right-of-WayImpacts

Buildings with Displacement

Specific Visual Impacts- From Adjacent Properties

- Commercial Visibility

Corridor Air Quality Impacts

Specific Noise Impacts

Constructibility

General- Physical- Biological Resources

General Social /Neighborhood Resources

Costs (SM)

- Construction and ROW

Revenue Generation "Potential

Cost Effectiveness

Base CMS

0+

0

oo+0

oo0

0

o

oo+•+0

+0

0

o+

0

++

8-2

+

+o++

++++++

-ofo\*-S

++-0

JO

o+

429

o++

10-2

++

+++++++++++

-""

""

++--

JO

o0+

469

o++

8-2R

+

+++

++++++-O

o\ô\~f

++-o.0

o+

414

o++

10-2R

++

+++++++++++

-™

++--.0

oo+449

-o++

8-3R

++

+++

++++++

-

++---O

o+

471

o++

10-3R

++

+++++++++

+++

"

+++--.0

0

o+539

o++

8-4

++

+++

++++++

-

++---O

o0+

469

o++

10-4

++

+++++++++

+++

"

+++--.0

oo+537

O

++

f- Worse - - o - - Better25-

East RecommendationExercise Results

10 Mainlanes - 4 HOV10-410-410-410-3RorlO-4

o/;


March 11, 1996 CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVAT.f TATTON MATRTY - EAST SECTION DRAFT

Criteria


-Demand

Travel Performance


Accessibility

Safety Impacts


Design Flexibility




Specific Visual Impacts




Constructibility

General

- Physical

- Biological Resources


Costs ($M)- Construction and ROW

Revenue GenerationPotential

Cost Effectiveness

Base CMS

o+

0

oo+0

oo0

o0

0

o+•+o+0

o0+

o++

8-2

+

+o++

++++++-0

o

++-0

-O

o+

429

o++

10-2

++

+++++++++++--

++---O

o0+

469

o++

8-2R

+

+++

++++++.0

0

o++-0

-O

o+

414

o++

10-2R

++

+++++++++++--

++--.0

oo+449

o++

8-3R

++

+++

++++++--

++--.0o+

471

o++

10-3R

++

+

++

++

++

+

+

++

+

«

--

++

+

-

--O

0

o+539

O

++

8-4

++

+

+

+

++

+

+

+

+ '

-

-

+

+

-

-

.0

oo+469

O

++

JXM

' A ,; ' •- .'

'$£;(

§•*?

•-•i> ''--"" ''

$**'?*!' £•

5H

-^ * " ,:;

_ $ ' « _ ' 1 1

;^- 1-- - \

' t ' i.\~-

^~K" £ -*v V~-

f^'.^t " V",-^-'-,'-iC;.1-'"*' :V;.

"ftjKÎiJ

'*> 1. 'C^- iv"•-' •*•'. --~^<>

!fc-, . :\C*~~'-

fs* '"".-'> -.'_--'.

-*<T-^ ^Du-^ BB^ ^J\^r$^-, ~ ^

."'*•,! f^j ," ""

;-M5-C » "' ' '

^.-ri- -^

S3*£^^H-^.;

«w:-^^'l

& y! X! • --J,,-~ s;_^ ~5j.-

--. - -"

*- Worse - - O - - Better

Mav 24, 1996 CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION MATRIX - EAST SECTION DRAFT

Criteria


-Demand

Travel Performance'


Accessibility

Safety Impacts


Design Flexibility




Specific Visual Impacts

- From Adjacent Properties




Constructibility

General

- Physical

- Biological Resources



Revenue GenerationPotential

Cost Effectiveness

Base CMS

0+

ooo+o0

oooo

oo+•+0

+ooo+

0

++

8-2

+

+o++

++++++

0

o++-0

.0

o+

429

o++

10-2

++

+++++++++++

--++--.0

oo+469

o++

8-2R

+

+++

++++++o

oo++-o-O

o+

414

o++

10-2R

++

+++++++++++

--++--

JO

o0+

449

o++

8-3R

++

+++

++++++

--++---O

o+

471

O

++

10-3R

++

+

++

++

++

+

+

++

+

•

--

--

++

+

-

-

JO

0

0+

539

O

++

8-4

++

+

+

+

++

+

+

+

+

-

-

+

+

-

-

-O

o0+

469

O

++

l&f">**•* -" ff._-fA-

"*•%> r= «£--"•.£>^îr--'4?, ''.-'- 'X?

Hiil ' Jr:4:.v;c:'*st

>•>• i * :— "*:mhfSf-^fr,*wa

,«V&i"-* t«*ife>'I*?:X55V ^ "-;-- *

fii*l. r-*'

.•-"'s-t^C'"i~i-ir

~V- I* , "

#•€-^9W-;*;

-%V~ ft-.^=£1. jV> ~î-f^ (••••Jj. ^V"^* ^•^

'- "• M

ySS^z;•yti::&&;IJ^5&

1ft- l -v-"l-S:$>^

-WmfSg^5fe!a?%••?^X,£r-^5f.'^s^?m

"if-^f'Vff.

Sl'-f-'S. ?

j>s?ssA'««^ :'C"J:S

»-- ft'f S-;^j<gijf-.f^ *t.-^~ ^> ^^

- 53P*- -., '1,-ft';- f'?'!' J J- ^^

-""•"•*.> i?*1

;---A -r-'^~~t ^- -*.:-'' i

"-.*]?-,;-'••.

:H 1./

Worse - - O - - Better

March 11, 1996 CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION MATRIX -WEST SECTION DRAFT

Criteria


Travel Performance


Accessibility (Mainlane)

Safety Impacts •


Design Flexibility


Specific Right-of-Way Impacts


Specific Visual Impacts- From Adjacent Properties- Commercial Visibility



Constructibility


^

General Social / NeighborhoodResources


Revenue Generation Potential

Cost Effectiveness

Base CMS

0

o0

oooo

o

o0

ooo+oo

ooo

0

++

8-4

+

+++0+

+o+

+

+

~-.++-

-O

oo+423

+

++

10-4

+++++++o+

V+

"«

—+++-

-O

0

-O

447

+

++

8-6(M)

++

+++++++oVV++

"«

—+++-

.0o_o449

VV

8-6(T)

++

++++++++oVo

++

-O

-oo+---o_o878

V+

10-6

V++++++++o

V+

++

--o++-

--o.0

897

++

+

6-4-4

++

+++++o++

+

V--o++-

--o-O

793

V+

8-4-4

+++++++o

++

++

V--«-++---o-O

809

V+

Worse - -- O- +,++ ,+ + +- Better

West RecommendationExercise Results

8 Mainlanes - 6 HOV (Median)10-4/8-68 - 6 (T)8 - 6 (M)

8-4-48-6(M)/8-6(T)8 - 6 (M)8 - 6 (M)


March 11, 1996 CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION MATRIX -WEST SECTION DRAFT

Criteria


Travel Performance


Accessibility (Mainlane)

Safety Impacts


Design Flexibility


Specific Right-of-Way Impacts


Specific Visual Impacts- From Adjacent Properties- Commercial Visibility ,



Constructibility


General Social / NeighborhoodResources


Revenue Generation Potential

Cost Effectiveness

Base

•

CMS

O

O

ooooo

o

oo

ooo+0

o

ooo

o++

8-4

++++o*+o+

++~^

-++-

-O

o0+

423

+++

10-4

+++++++o+V+

-_-— — ,

«+++-

-O

.0

.0447

+++

<"KM>,

•**».'i*r

;*H£>*+;

i*:i:;tQ;;:

; % t

^Hflr '

^H^P -*

•£*•<;V^^•••"^-r

;+H|;;J&:;:}--j|

~ ^ " "

•--iT!: '"

^W-m^

* ,-- ; -i*f

' H^F;"

,-Ô^P ,

iN '- -*

;**;r**?-

>!**:

i*i-,HHK;;Q-;

W

•ffi

'*$'•?&•4 ;••, v-, .A • -W

>;ar

5*^-:is-o;N?-',: ?-"^ .;-

-^r

^J>

~:i*\W^

10-6

V++++++++oV+

++-—

0

++-

--o-O

897

+++

6-4-4

+++++++O

++*•v-—

O

+

+

-

-

-O

_o793

V+

8-4-4

+++++++O

++

++•v

—_

-+

+

-

-

-O

-O

809

V+

Worse - _- O- +,++ ,+ + +- Better

May 24, 1996 CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION IVfATRTX -WEST SECTION DRAFT

Criteria Base CMS 8-4 10-4 10-6 6-4-4 8-4-4

Travel- Supply (Vehicle capacity)- Demand

O Vo

Travel Performance 02 i.f:

Corridor Congestion Costs o 0

Accessibility (Mainlane) o,.

'

Safety Impacts o o o o O O

Operational Flexibility 0 VDesign Flexibility o VMultimodal Flexibility o V VSpecific Right-of-Way Impacts oBuildings with Displacement oSpecific Visual Impacts- From Adjacent Properties- Commercial Visibility

0 o 0

oCorridor Air Quality Impacts

Specific Noise Impacts oConstructibility o -fl


0 .0 .0 - t '

o o o o O oGeneral Social / NeighborhoodResources o o .0

~.0 -O .0


423 447 897 793 809

Revenue Generation Potential o VCost Effectiveness

f- Worse - _- O- + - Better

8-6(M) - Advantages, Problem

Advantages:

• Comparable capacity and performance to other alternatives• No increase in number of mainlanes increases High Occupancy/Toll (HOT)

lane usage• Among lowest in construction cost• Standard construction project• Good revenue potential• Cost effective• Combined HOT lanes provide good operational flexibility and simplified

access• Accommodates all modes including room for future transit• Opportunity for private funding partnership• Increased local traffic mobility on bypass frontage roads

Problem:

• Requires the most right-of-way and displacements

37

o55

qK

D-,

K fc, e. o A

K O

Q

COH

SSI-H

COCO

w K

CD Jz;

CO

1=u

oo O-co

O-

O-

COH

55I—H

<

COu

.8 °-il °"w O-

CO

w O

COH55

%t-*

a

36

0

o1 1 .MH~-O o

« t. o

O

•-T-I

»

CO

3g'N1* S ai _; O 4

I-M

CD

CO

2»-«

„

<;j «

Q a

CO

CO

a,XH

0a

B«xH

>o

COH2•<.J

•<5W

2.WO

a

OT

«

COCO

>o

OT

9os

o

«£:«

a

38

8-6(T) - Advantages, Problem

Advantages:

• Comparable capacity and performance to other alternatives• No increase in number of mainlanes increases High Occupancy/Toll lane

usage• Lowest in right-of-way impacts and displacements• Good revenue potential• Combined HOT lanes provide good operational flexibility and simplified

access• Accommodates all modes including room for future transit• Opportunity for private funding partnership• Increased local traffic mobility on bypass frontage roads

Problem:

• Construction cost and constructability

39

Steps to get there...

* Adopt TAC/SCDC Recommendation* Present Recommendation to LBJEB

> Briefing meetings to Cities, etc ...> Continued committee refinement> Prepare drawings for public meeting> Hold public meeting> Evaluate public & committee input> Prepare Final MIS Recommendation

* Arrive at an LBJEB recommendationLBJ Major Investment Study

uture - What we will do

* Arrive at an LBJEB Recommendation* Local consensus - Cities and County* Regional consensus - DART, TTA, RTC* State consensus - Transp. Comm.* Federal consensus - FHWA and FTA* Follow MIS recommendations in NEPA* Implement short term improvements* Continued public involvement program


Documents

I.H. 635 (LBJ) Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS)ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tta/ih635/FINAL REQUEST FOR... · 03/11/96 15:11 ©6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT ©005/007 RTP/MIS