Locally Preferred Alternative Report · Nine (9) build alternatives were evaluated in Evaluation Results Report (August 2015) as well as the No Build Alternative. A full description

Locally Preferred Alternative

Report

D2 Phase II AA Study

November 2015

Final

Prepared for Dallas Area Rapid Transit

General Planning Consultant Managed by AECOM


Draft – D2 Locally Preferred Alternative Report i

This page intentionally left blank.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose of Report ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Project Purpose ................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.3 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................... 1-2

2.0 LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 LPA Description and Rationale for Selection ................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Alignment, Stations, and Potential Alignment Modifications ......................................... 2-3

2.3 Operating Concept ........................................................................................................... 2-4

2.4 Capital Costs ..................................................................................................................... 2-5

3.0 NEXT STEPS .......................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 FTA Project Development ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Key Issues ......................................................................................................................... 3-2

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Summary Characteristics of Build Alternatives .......................................................................... 1-3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: D2 Build Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 1-3

Figure 2-1: DART Board of Directors Locally Preferred Alternative Map........................................... 2-2

Figure 2-2: D2 Rail Operating Concept ............................................................................................... 2-5

Figure 2-3: FTA Project Development Process ................................................................................... 3-1

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A DART Board of Directors Resolution

Appendix B Dallas City Council Resolution

Appendix C Matrix of Stakeholder Input





Draft – D2 Locally Preferred Alternative Report 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) conducted an Alternatives Analysis (AA) to determine the preferred corridor for D2, the second light rail alignment through downtown Dallas. Phase II of the AA builds upon the previous Phase I AA effort completed in 2010. The Phase I AA effort is documented in the D2 AA/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS) published in March 2010. Due to the economic recession in 2009, which affected the timing and funding of the D2 Project, along with ongoing streetcar planning and land use planning, the DART Board of Directors deferred selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and initiated the D2 Phase II effort (the Study) with the assistance of a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) discretionary AA grant. The purpose of the this Phase II AA effort was to address the AA/DEIS comments through new or refined alternatives, update the project purpose and need, redefine project timing under new financial conditions, and work toward identification of an LPA.

Four LRT alternatives were initially defined and evaluated in the Phase I AA/DEIS. Five additional alternatives were defined in Phase II at a conceptual level, including two new alignments serving Union Station that were identified by the City of Dallas in the 2011 Dallas Downtown 360 Plan.

The Detailed Definition of Alternatives Report (October 2014) describes the key characteristics of each alternative, including the service concept, transit improvements and capital improvements associated with each alternative. The report further details the specific route, configuration and location of new transit stations. The detailed definition of each alternative served as the basis of the evaluation of alternatives, which is documented in the Evaluation Results Report (Final Draft August 21, 2015).

1.1 Purpose of Report

This report documents the selection of the LPA for the D2 Project. The basis for the recommendation and selection of the LPA is grounded in the evaluation results as well as extensive public and stakeholder input. The DART Board of Directors approved an LPA on September 22, 2015, taking into consideration technical merits as well as key issues that will require resolution based on more detailed design and environmental impact analysis. The LPA includes an alignment modification on the eastern end of the project to address stakeholder comments. Thus, this report also documents the input received during the decision making process and the rationale for selection of the LPA.

As of November 5, the LPA has been advanced into the FTA Project Development process as a core capacity project under its Capital Investment Grant program, for which DART made its first submittal to FTA on September 30, 2015 to obtain a project rating.

Following this introduction and summary of alternatives considered, Chapter 2.0 presents the LPA, including an overview of the alignment, stations, operating concept and capital cost. Chapter 3.0 documents Next Steps, including key issues to be evaluated during Preliminary Engineering (PE) and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

1.2 Project Purpose

The purpose of the D2 Project is to ensure the sustainability of the DART system by providing needed system capacity, reduce crowding and increase system reliability, enhance operational flexibility to address incidents, special events, and system expansion, and improve access to currently un-served downtown markets such as Government Center and Farmers Market. Reliance upon one single LRT transit route through Downtown, the existing Bryan-Pacific Transit Mall, constrains the ability of both DART and the region to implement additional projects or increase service levels. Dependence on one single downtown mall also increases the risk for system wide service disruption due to incidents on the



mall, such as traffic accidents and closure of the mall due to fire in adjacent buildings. The D2 Project Purpose and Need found that:

Capacity on the mall and some of the radial LRT lines is an issue now and becomes critical by 2030 based on the demographic and transit assumptions used in the Phase II Study.

Phasing of regional development and adjustments to demographic forecasts could have a significant impact on the timing of the D2 need.

An increasing number of all LRT riders (one quarter) are coming from areas outside the DART service area by 2035, affecting train capacity and crowding on radial lines outside downtown Dallas, indicating that D2 capacity solutions will be of regional significance.

These conditions will exist despite DART’s ongoing efforts to mitigate the situation through modified headways, the introduction of super light rail vehicles (Super LRV’s) which are longer and provide additional passenger capacity and faster boarding/alighting, station platform extensions, cab signals, transit signal priority along the existing transit mall, and service plan changes. In addition, the Study has considered the needs of improved circulation within downtown Dallas by the introduction of new streetcar lines, consistent with recent studies and planning conducted by DART, the City of Dallas and others.

1.3 Alternatives Considered

Nine (9) build alternatives were evaluated in Evaluation Results Report (August 2015) as well as the No Build Alternative. A full description of the alternatives can be found in the Detailed Definition of Alternatives Report (October 2014). Figure 1-1 shows the nine D2 Alternatives including:

1. Four AA/DEIS Alternatives (B7, B4, B4a and B4b) 2. Three Refined DEIS Alternatives (B4 w/o, B4e and B7a) 3. Two New Alternatives (C3 and C3a)

The four DEIS alternatives and three refined alternatives all use DART-owned right-of-way through the Victory development, provide a station at the new Perot Museum of Nature and Science and a new Metro Center Station facilitating transfer opportunities with the existing DART LRT and bus system at the West End Station, West Bus Transfer Center and Rosa Parks Plaza. Refined Alternatives B4w/o and B4e reduce costs and the impacts on the First Presbyterian Church by eliminating the Harwood District station and/or elevating the LRT Line. The third refined alternative B7a seeks to improve operating performance by providing a direct tunnel connection from Commerce Street to the existing North Central Corridor tunnel. New Alternatives C3 and C3a follow the existing right-of-way within which Trinity Railway Express (TRE), Amtrak and freight railroads currently operate on from Victory to Union Station. The Alternatives enter a below-grade tunnel near Woodall Rodgers Freeway. A new underground LRT Station near Union Station would interface with the Red and Blue LRT Lines, TRE, a new/relocated bus transfer facility and the current terminus of the Dallas Streetcar line to Oak Cliff.



Figure 1-1: D2 Build Alternatives

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff

Table 1-1 provides summary characteristics of the alternatives.

Table 1-1 Summary Characteristics of Build Alternatives

Source Alt.ID Alignment Route Configuration New

Stations Length* (miles)

DEIS B7 Lamar-Commerce Surface, Underground, Surface 4 2.15

Refined B7a Lamar-Commerce (with connection to North Central)

Surface, Underground, Surface 4 3.18

DEIS B4 Lamar-Young Surface, Underground, Surface 5 2.29

DEIS B4a Lamar-Marilla Surface, Underground, Surface 5 2.37

DEIS B4b Lamar-Dallas Omni Hotel Surface, Underground, Surface 5 2.53

Refined B4

w/o Lamar-Young (without Harwood District Station)

Surface, Underground, Surface 4 2.29

Refined B4e Lamar-Young (Elevated)

Surface, Elevated, Surface 5 2.36

New C3 Union Station-Young Surface, Underground, Surface 3 2.12

New C3a Union Station-Dallas Omni Hotel Surface, Underground, Surface 4 2.35

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Note: *Alternative length (miles) represents the distance of new LRT corridor that would be constructed, not the operating

length from the Victory Station to the Deep Ellum Station.



2.0 LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This chapter describes the locally preferred alternative (LPA) including the rationale that led to selection of the preferred alignment.

2.1 LPA Description and Rationale for Selection

During the process leading up to an LPA decision by the DART Board of Directors, numerous stakeholders voiced their opinions and provided comments on key issues that needed to be taken into consideration for the decision. The Evaluation Results Report (August 2015) indicated that Alternative B4 Lamar/Young performed best relative to the technical criteria and should be advanced by staff for consideration by the DART Board of Directors as the LPA. The primary comments on Alternative B4 Lamar/Young related to potential impacts to the First Presbyterian Church and residences in the Farmers Market area.

Given the potential impacts, DART staff explored possible alignment refinements that would transition the corridor off Young to either Jackson and/or Wood Streets to avoid the church property and proximity impacts to the residential area. Another option to avoid direct impacts to the church facilities was to further reduce travel lanes on Young Street. Based on preliminary alignment concepts, an alignment modification in this area appears to be feasible, although potential new impacts to properties along Jackson and/or Wood would need to be further evaluated to maintain access and minimize potential impacts such as noise or vibration. Numerous stakeholders along Jackson and Wood voiced their concerns about this alignment shift as well.

On September 22, 2015, the DART Board of Directors passed Resolution No. 150101 Approval of the Locally Preferred Alternative the Second CBD Light Rail Alignment (D2), as shown in Appendix A. Figure 2-1 reflects the LPA as adopted. The resolution indicates that the LPA is approved as Alternative B4 Lamar/Young/Jackson Street, thus incorporating the alignment shift to address impacts along Young Street. The resolution further states that:

DART will continue to examine LPA routing options and station locations as required by the federal funding process.

DART will continue to review feasibility for an extension of D2, as well as other options, to provide access to the Dallas Convention Center and High Speed Rail. (Note: This potential extension is shown as a tunnel spur to the south in Figure 2-1.)

DART staff will advance these elements into Project Development including Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documentation, pending approval from the Federal Transit Administration.

The rationale for selecting this alignment as the LPA was to address continuing concerns from the First Presbyterian Church community and concerns from residents in the Farmers Market area. However, as noted above, since the LPA refinement route along Jackson has not been developed to same level as the B4 Lamar-Young Alternative, the DART Board of Directors includes direction to examine other options. This was based on the more recent input from stakeholders along the Jackson and Wood corridors.



Figure 2-1: DART Board of Directors Locally Preferred Alternative Map

Source: DART Board of Directors Resolution No. 150101

Dallas City Council Resolution

In addition to the DART resolution, the Dallas City Council approved Resolution No. 151657 on September 9, 2015 (see Appendix B). This resolution indicates “the Dallas City Council only endorses the B4 Jackson alternative in concept with additional consideration of potential alignment modifications”. The resolution further states that DART will address several City priorities as design advances, focused on integration of the project within street rights-of-way, minimizing impacts, maximizing transit oriented development potential, and preserving options to further extend light rail to the south.

The City resolution states that the D2 alignment will be brought back for Council approval, once the FTA Project Development phase (ten percent design stage) is complete and prior to incorporation of the alignment in the DART Service Plan, with regard to integration of the line within street rights-of-way and the analysis of impacts on adjacent properties.

These issues will be addressed during the PE/EIS effort and will provide the basis for the DART Service Plan amendment, which requires a public hearing process.



Stakeholder/Public Input

During the weeks leading up to decisions by the Dallas City Council and the DART Board of Directors, several stakeholders provided comments for consideration during the process. Appendix C provides a summary matrix of the input received. Many of these issues will be key considerations as the project is refined during the PE/EIS phase since they relate to the trade-offs associated with various options in the eastern end of the project where alignments along Young, Jackson and/or Wood will be further studied.

2.2 Alignment, Stations, and Potential Alignment Modifications

The alignment extends from Victory Station on the Northwest Corridor to the Deep Ellum area on the Southeast Corridor. The alignment for the B4 Lamar/Young/Jackson corridor is generally the same as the B4 Lamar/Young Alternative except for areas east of Ervay Street between Dallas City Hall and IH 345. After branching off the existing Green Line south of Victory Station, the route would follow existing DART right-of-way at-grade through the Victory Park development to Woodall Rodgers, passing under the highway at-grade, and then turning southwest and descending into a tunnel portal between North Griffin and Lamar Streets. The route would continue south under Lamar Street passing below the existing Bryan-Pacific Transit Mall, where the Metro Center station would be located to interface with the existing West End Station, West Transfer Center and the Rosa Parks Plaza.

After leaving Metro Center, the route would continue below grade, turning southeast between Lamar and Field Streets to a tunnel portal between Wood and Young Streets. It would then proceed east in the median of Young Street. At Ervay Street, the B4 alignment modification included in the LPA shifts the route northeast through parking lots and an existing parking garage until it enters Jackson Street at the intersection with St. Paul Street. The route would continue east on Jackson until it transitions to the south side of Commerce Street. The alignment then passes under IH 45 and turns north just past the freeway to travel along Good Latimer to a “Y” connection with the Green Line in the Southeast Corridor.

Stations

The original B4 Lamar/Young Alternative had five stations; the LPA consolidates two of these so that a total of four stations would be developed. Three of the stations are at-grade and one (Metro Center) is below-grade. The Museum Way Station would be located north of Woodall Rodgers Freeway adjacent to the Perot Museum of Nature and Science. This station would be an at-grade side platform station. Moving south, the next station would be the Metro Center Station. This station would be in the below-grade section of the alignment and is anticipated to incorporate a mezzanine level to maximize pedestrian access to different areas, including the West End Station, West Transfer Center, Rosa Parks Plaza and nearby office buildings. The platform configuration (side or center) will be determined during the next phase of project development. After the alignment turns east and returns to street level there would be a third station, Government Center, in Young Street near Akard. After turning north and entering Jackson Street, the final station, Harwood District/Farmers Market Station, would be between Harwood and Pearl Street. These latter two stations would likely be side platform stations as well.

Potential Alignment Modifications

While the LPA identifies use of the Jackson Street corridor, the DART Board of Directors resolution indicates that routing options will be examined. In addition, the Dallas City Council resolution states that potential alignment modifications may be considered. As such, future stages of Project Development where more detailed PE/EIS analyses will be conducted, DART will examine a range of routing options in this area of downtown. This could include different track configurations, split alignment operations along Jackson/Wood, or different travel lane configurations along Young to minimize impacts to properties. This will allow DART to work with affected stakeholders along all routing



options to be able to equally compare costs, impacts and benefits of Jackson, Wood and Young Streets with a higher level of design and analysis.

2.3 Operating Concept

The D2 project provides a second alignment through downtown allowing greater operational flexibility and increased capacity to and through downtown. While other operating plans are possible, the D2 operating concept would reroute the Green and Orange lines on to the new D2 alignment. The Red and the Blue Lines would remain on the existing downtown Bryan-Pacific Transit Mall. Minor modifications will be made to a few bus routes to better interface with new LRT stations along the alignment.

Figure 2-2 illustrates the anticipated rail operating plan concept for the project. The Orange Line truncates at the Deep Ellum Station. Extra Red Line service is added on the North Central corridor to the Cedars Station in the peak period only. This concept is documented in the Draft D2 Operating Plan Alternatives Technical Memorandum (May 2013).

With the elimination of at-grade crossing conflicts, there is relief at the Bryan-Hawkins junction as well as the West End junction that improves the ability to maintain on-time performance for the entire LRT system and also allows for increased capacity along the Bryan-Pacific Transit Mall. Downtown incidents would no longer automatically affect all LRT lines. In the event of an incident in the downtown area that affects operations, trains can be rerouted to an unaffected downtown alignment, though some movements require use of pocket tracks and backtracking if trains are rerouted onto D2. Potential enhancements to maximize operational flexibility will be further developed during project development and operations planning.

This operating concept is subject to change as project development continues. In particular, insert trains would be strategically scheduled to address areas where passenger loads are high to take advantage of the additional throughput capacity provided with D2 in place. The operating plan results in an incremental increase of $2.8 million (2015$) over the existing operations.



Figure 2-2: D2 Rail Operating Concept

Source: Connetics Transportation Group

2.4 Capital Costs

At the time of the LPA decision, capital costs had not yet been fully developed for the Lamar/Young/Jackson alignment modification. However, capital costs for B4 Lamar/Young have been refined as part of a core capacity submittal to FTA for D2 under their Capital Investment Grant program. The B4 capital cost estimate is $565 million (2015$). The year of expenditure (YOE) estimate is $650 million. The capital costs for the LPA would be comparable and will be refined during the next phase of project development. DART is seeking a 50% FTA federal grant to implement the project.



3.0 NEXT STEPS

This chapter outlines next steps for the D2 Project including activities to be completed during Project Development and key issues to be addressed during that phase.

3.1 FTA Project Development

Project Development is the first phase of the FTA project development process shown in Figure 2-3.

Figure 2-3: FTA Project Development Process

DART submitted an initial request to enter Project Development (PD) to FTA in early 2015. Authorization to enter PD was granted on November 5, 2015. DART provided a Core Capacity submittal to FTA on September 30, 2015 as outlined in FTA’s Capital Investment Grant guidance and anticipates a project rating in late 2015 and inclusion in the President’s Budget in Spring 2016.

Based on the FTA guidelines, DART has up to two years to complete the required elements of PD. During Project Development the key activities are environmental clearance and a level of preliminary engineering (10% typically) to advance the project into the Engineering phase:

Preliminary Engineering and Cost Estimate – Planning and engineering for D2 has been conducted at a conceptual level based on 2-3 % design. A higher level of design for the LPA and routing options in the Young-Jackson-Wood corridor will be done to support resolution of community issues and assess environmental impacts sufficient for the environmental clearance document. This high level of engineering (at least 10% PE) will support development of a more refined project cost estimate as well.

Environmental Clearance – A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed on four D2 Alternatives in 2010, including the B4 Lamar-Young corridor. A Supplemental Draft EIS (SDEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Statement will be needed for the project. This SDEIS and FEIS will include extensive public and stakeholder involvement and will evaluate potential impacts and identify mitigation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It is anticipated that the SDEIS will evaluate the range of options in the eastern end of the corridor and refinement the remaining project based on more engineering detail. The FEIS and associated Record of Decision (ROD) will identify the full project corridor and include the Mitigation Monitoring Program requirements.



Project Readiness Documents – A range of project readiness documents will need to be developed to advance the project into engineering. This includes a Project Management Plan (PMP), Cost Estimate, Project Schedule, Third Party Agreements and Right-of-Way needs, Geotechnical Report, and Project Delivery Method identification. Value Engineering, Risk Assessment, Safety, Accessibility, and Constructability Reviews should also be completed or initiated.

Following the public review and comment on the SDEIS and associated public hearings, the DART Board of Directors will be asked to approve a Service Plan Amendment. The Service Plan Amendment formally establishes the project location, vertical and horizontal profile, right-of-way requirements, and station locations and will reflect the information contained in the FEIS and ROD.

3.2 Key Issues

A summary of key remaining issues that need to be addressed during the Project Development phase include:

Alignment Refinement – Explore alignment and station modifications that can minimize or eliminate environmental impacts to community resources or residential areas. While the majority of the corridor is established and will focus on refinements, the eastern end will assess the impacts, benefits and costs associated with options along Young, Jackson and/or Wood in coordination with the City of Dallas and key stakeholders in this area.

Project Risk Assessment - Risk assessment is part of the process and will need to focus on subsurface and tunnel sections of the alignment.

Safety and Security – During project development, engineering and construction, the design and operating plan should take in to consideration issues such as proximity to Federal buildings and associated Federal policies or guidelines. A preliminary safety hazard analysis and preliminary threat and vulnerability analysis should be completed prior to entry into engineering to initiate development of safety and security design criteria.

Right-of-Way – Property acquisition is critical to project implementation. Advanced right-of-way funding and acquisition may be needed to secure right-of-way before development occurs. A detailed assessment of the property requirements, especially along at-grade sections south of Woodall Rodgers Freeway, along Young Street, Jackson and/or Wood Streets, and in the Farmers Market and Deep Ellum areas, will be necessary.

Construction Methods – The most cost effective methods for guideway and station construction should be determined, for example, the extent of bored or cut-and-cover tunneling.

Business Assistance – Further develop a Business Assistance program to determine how best to mitigate potential access and business impacts to downtown properties during construction. This could include advance notifications, a process for “during construction” notifications, and establishing assistance programs (marketing, financial, etc).

Joint Development – Many opportunities for joint public-private cooperation exist along the alignment. These need to be identified and explored with their ramifications for project cost determined. These opportunities include vacant sites acquired by the project, adjacent property partially impacted by the project, and could include pedestrian connections to key activity centers such as the Convention Center/Omni Dallas Hotel and the potential HSR station, depending on where it is ultimately sited.

Operating Plan Optimization – D2 will provide additional capacity and operational flexibility. While operating plan concepts were developed for this study, they will need to be refined to strategically achieve provision of at least 10 percent additional peak hour capacity, and other system-wide operating plans should be explored to address changing and future travel patterns in connection with the DART 2040 Transit System Plan update.



Automobile/Light Rail Operations – Traffic operation analyses should include a detailed examination of potential conflicts and how best to integrate light rail into the street network, as well as an assessment of preferential signal priority treatments for transit.

Streetcar Coordination – Continue coordination with the City of Dallas on the Central Dallas Streetcar Link to coordinate project issues and schedule.

High Speed Rail – Monitor the development of the HSR station location and project schedule in downtown Dallas and explore potential options that would allow for connections from D2 to HSR via LRT extensions or spurs, bus, people mover system, or pedestrian linkages.

All of the above listed issues will require close coordination with a variety of stakeholders, ranging from property owners, partner agencies, private developers, to internal DART departmental staff that will manage future design and construction.


Draft – D2 Locally Preferred Alternative Report



Final Draft – D2 Locally Preferred Alternative Report

APPENDIX A

DART BOARD OF DIRECTORS RESOLUTION








Final Draft – D2 Locally Preferred Alternative Report

APPENDIX B

DALLAS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION









APPENDIX C

MATRIX OF STAKEHOLDER INPUT





Draft – D2 Locally Preferred Alternative Report Page C-1 of 2

Appendix C Summary of Comments prior to LPA Approval by DART Board of Directors

Date Submitted Name/Organization Comments

4-Aug-15 John Crawford, DDI - Transmittal of Transportation Task Force findings

Preference for B4 Lamar/Young but several focus area need attention during next phase of development.

10-Aug-15 Jackson Walker LLP representing Maharger Development

All B4 options potentially affect Marharger Development buildings 17 of which are National Register eligible. Meletio Building is of special concern relative to potential vibration.

18-Aug-15 Greater Dallas Planning Council - Peer Review Group Conclusions

B4: Lamar/Young or B4 Jackson option are best options. Would like to maximize visibility and connectivity.

20-Aug-15 Robert Pilgrim Supports Jackson option or B7 Commerce; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church and Farmers Market residences.

21-Aug-15 Larry Hamilton Support for all B4 options; understands no option will be perfect but need select an option that is best for the city.

22-Aug-15 Paul Aakre Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church.

23-Aug-15 Wendy Fenn Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church.

23-Aug-15 Danielle Lambertz Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on Farmers Market residences.

24-Aug-15 Stan Harvey Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church and Farmers Market residences.

24-Aug-15 Sheryl Sullivan Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church.

25-Aug-15 Jim Truitt (Forest City) to DART Too early in process to restrict to only Jackson option. Keep multiple sub-alternate alignments options on the table. Several potential issues with Jackson option including impacts to parking, access, development; suggest examination of Wood as an option.

25-Aug-15 Carolyn Walton Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church.

27-Aug-15 Lone Star Gas Lofts, Statler Hilton, Continental Building, Jackson Street Garage

Too early in process to restrict to only Jackson option. Keep multiple sub-alternate alignments options on the table. Several potential issues with Jackson option including impacts to parking, access, development; suggest examination of Wood as an option.

2-Sep-15 Jay Evans Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church.

2-Sep-15 Jim Truitt (Forest City) to City of Dallas

Too early in process to restrict to only Jackson option. Keep multiple sub-alternate alignments options on the table. Several potential issues with Jackson option including impacts to parking, access, development; suggest examination of Wood as an option.

3-Sep-15 Bill Cobb Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church.

3-Sep-15 Christy Coltrin Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church and newly installed art at Encore Park.


Draft – D2 Locally Preferred Alternative Report Page C-2 of 2

Date Submitted Name/Organization Comments

3-Sep-15 Shelly Hubble Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church.

3-Sep-15 Natalie Quinn Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church and Farmers Market residences.

3-Sep-15 Jennifer Suitonu Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church.

3-Sep-15 Jeanne Werner Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church.

4-Sep-15 Rader Properties (RP) Texas Oppose B4 Lamar/Jackson; affects Jackson businesses and properties and has not been fully studied by DART and stakeholders. Support B4 and would provide parking spaces for free on Sundays if church garage impacted.

8-Sep-15 John Crawford, DDI Too early in process to restrict to only Jackson option. Keep multiple sub-alternate alignments options on the table.

8-Sep-15 Cheryl Maclennan Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church.

15-Sep-15 Alex Rawlings Tunnel spur would create redundant Convention Center station. Build D2 without the Convention Center spur.

18-Sep-15 James E. O'Bannon Oppose B4 Lamar-Young; support alignment adopted by Dallas City Council.

21-Sep-15 Noah Jeppson Supports a comprehensive evaluation of alternatives on east end since B4 Jackson route is newly proposed; concern for historic properties such as Statler redevelopment.

21-Sep-15 David Kerr Supports Jackson option; Oppose B4 Lamar/Young due to effects on First Presbyterian Church.

21-Sep-15 Larry Sykes Support the Lamar/Jackson route.

22-Sep-15 SoCo Lofts Recommend realignment of B4 near Lamar/Young intersection to minimize impacts to properties. Specific issues and recommendations are contained in the letter.

22-Sep-15 John Tatum Recommend reconsideration of Elm Street subway option as was envisioned 30 years ago.

Source: DART; October 2015