Regional Coordination Committee April 18, · PDF fileRegional Coordination Committee April 18, ... TSM, TDM, Bicycle & Pedestrian ... JRB Regional Coordination Committee April 18,

Elizabeth Whitaker, AICPTransportation Planner III

North Central Texas Council of Governments

Regional Coordination Committee April 18, 2011

Regional Perspective Fourth Largest Metropolitan Area in the United States

Ranked 3rd in Population Growth between 1990-2000 Adding Over 1 Million Persons

Current Growth Trend: Added 1,200,000 Persons between 2000 and 2010

#1 for Population Growth among US Metropolitan Areas during 2008

Larger than 38 States (including Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) in Population and 9 in Land Area

Represents Over 34 Percent of the State’s Economy, 19th Largest Economy in the World

6.5 Million Persons in Year 2010, Growing to Nearly 10 Million Persons by the Year 2035

Regional Transportation Issues

Dramatic Growth in Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV)

Increased Travel Time and Costs

Nonattainment Area for the Pollutant Ozone

No “Regional” Transit

Suburban Sprawl

Lack of Coordination in Land Use and Transportation Investments

What is the Metropolitan Transportation Plan?

Represents a Blueprint for a Multimodal Transportation System

Responds to Goals

Identifies Policies, Programs, and Projects for Continued Development

Guides Expenditures for Federal and State Funds

Mobility Quality of Life

System Sustainability

Implementation

Metropolitan Transportation Plan

Major Policy Objectives

Needs Exceed Available Revenue

Can’t Build Our Way Out of Congestion

Maximize Existing System

Use Sustainable Development Strategies to:

Reduce demand on transportation system

Provide multimodal options

Emphasis on Environmental Aspects and Quality of Life Issues of Programs and Projects

Invest Strategically in Infrastructure

Prioritization of Improvements

Infrastructure Maintenance• Maintain & Operate Existing Facilities• Bridge Replacements

Management and Operations• (ITS, TSM, TDM, Bicycle & Pedestrian)• Improve Efficiency & Remove Trips from System

Growth, Development, and Land Use Strategies

More Efficient Land Use & Transportation Balance

Rail and BusInduce Switch to Transit

HOV/Managed LanesIncrease Auto Occupancy

Policy Discussions• Intermodal Planning

Efforts•System Safety•System Security•Environmental Justice•Environmental

Stewardship

Air Quality Impacts

Considered Throughout the Process

Financial Constraints

Maxim

ize E

xis

ting S

yste

m

Str

ate

gic

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Investm

ent

Freeways/Toll Roads and ArterialsAdditional Vehicle Capacity

Revenue Sources

Costs are adjusted for “total project cost” and “year of expenditure” consistent with SAFETEA-LU planning requirements. “Actual Dollars” reflects the effect of inflation over time.

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

Bill

ion

s

Increase in Mobility Improvement Fee (Vehicle Registration Fee)

Increase inState and Federal Gas Tax Indexing of State Gas Tax

AdditionalToll Roads and

Managed Lanes

$101.1 B

CurrentState and Federal Gas Taxes

Current Sales Tax from Transit

Authorities

Current Locally Collected Revenue

Mobility 2035 Financial Scenarios (Actual $)

Funding Strategies Existing Enhanced + Local Option

State Fuel Tax

(per gallon)

$0.20

(existing)

+$0.05 in 2020 &

+$0.05 in 2030

State Fuel Tax Indexing - To Fuel Efficiency by 2015

Federal Fuel Tax

(per gallon)

$0.184

(existing)

+$0.05 in 2020 &

+$0.05 in 2030

Mobility Improvement Fee (Vehicle Registration )

$60

(existing)

+$10 in 2015 &

+$10 in 2025

Toll Roads, Managed

Lanes, CDA, and PPP

Currently Funded

FacilitiesAdditional Facilities

Other Assumptions

-Regional Partners

Continue to Implement

Projects

-Reliance on Local

Entities to Fund Projects

Locally

Same as Existing plus:

-End 80% of Diversions Incrementally by

2025

-Maintenance: TxDOT Addresses Pavement

Conditions; MPO Funds Bridge

Replacements

Total Revenue ($B) $74.9 $101.1

Additional Revenue from Status Quo ($B) +$26.2Updated: 12/6/2010

Mobility 2035 Revenue Enhancements

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Mobility 2035 Scenario: Federal, State, and Local Option Revenues

Status Quo Scenario: Federal and State Revenues

2020: 5 cent Federal and State Fuel Tax Increases

2015: $10 Vehicle Registration Fee Increase

2030: 5 cent Federal and State Fuel Tax Increases

2015: Begin Indexing Fuel Tax to Fuel Efficiency

2013: Begin Eliminating 80% of Diversions by 2025

2025: $10 VehicleRegistration Fee Increase

Source: TRENDS Financial Model


Shared Maintenance of:

On-System Facilities with TXDOT

Off-System Facilities with Local Governments

Focused Effort to Replace Bridges in Need of Repair

Infrastructure Maintenance• Maintain & Operate Existing Facilities

• Bridge Replacements


System Management Intersection Improvements Traffic Signal Improvements Freeway and Arterial Bottleneck Removal Work Zone and Special Events Management

Demand Management Employer Trip Reduction Program Vanpool, Park-and-Ride Facilities, and Transportation Management

Associations

Safety Freeway Incident Management Program Regional Mobility Assistance Patrol Program

Management and Operations• (ITS, TSM, TDM, Bicycle & Pedestrian)

• Improve Efficiency & Remove Trips from System


Management and Operations• (ITS, TSM, TDM, Bicycle & Pedestrian)

• Improve Efficiency & Remove Trips from System


Sustainability Sustainable Development Funding Program

Sustainable Growth Management and Development Tools

Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Program

NCTCOG Brownfield Revolving Loan Fund Program

Land Use Alternative Future Program

Land Use-Transportation (LUTR) Connection

Livability and Transportation

Center for Development Excellence Program

Growth, Development, and Land

Use StrategiesMore Efficient Land Use & Transportation Balance

Strategic Infrastructure Investment

Rail and BusInduce Switch to Transit

Strategic Infrastructure Investment

HOV/Managed LanesIncrease Auto Occupancy Freeways/Toll Roads and Arterials

Additional Vehicle Capacity

Impacts of Financial Constraint

2012 Congestion Levels

2035 Future Congestion Levels

Cost of Congestion $4.5 Billion Annually

Cost of Congestion $10.1 Billion Annually

RCC in Mobility 2035

RCC Focus Area

Focus Area Performance Measures

2012 2035 % Change

Population 190,189 274,155 44%

Employment 100,492 135,910 35%

Vehicle Miles of Travel (Daily)

3,298,279 5,049,367 53%

Vehicle Hours of Travel (Daily)

88,805 159,558 80%

Increase in Travel Time Due to Congestion*

25% 47% n/a

Focus Area Performance Measures

20122035 No

Build% Change

Population 190,189 274,155 44%

Employment 100,492 135,910 35%

Vehicle Miles of Travel (Daily)

3,298,279 5,017,559 52%

Vehicle Hours of Travel (Daily)

88,805 172,563 94%

Increase in Travel Time Due to Congestion*

25% 60% n/a

With Planned Improvements:

Without Planned Improvements:

* Congestion LevelsNo Congestion – 0% - 19%Light Congestion – 20% - 34%

Moderate Congestion – 35% - 49%Severe Congestion – 50% or greater

Contact Information

To find out more about Mobility 2035, please visit us at:

www.nctcog.org/mobility2035 or

e-mail: [email protected]

Dan Lamers, P.E., Senior Program Manager

817.695.9263 or [email protected]

Chad Edwards, Program Manager


Elizabeth Whitaker, AICP, Transportation Planner III


http://www.nctcog.org/mobility2035

mailto:[email protected]




Captain T.D. Smyers

Commanding Officer, NAS Fort Worth JRB

Regional Coordination Committee

NAS Fort Worth JRB Update

April 18, 2011

Family Housing and Community Inventory

Housing Market Area is projected to remain the same

Personnel at NAS Fort Worth JRB will continue to increase

Base Housing has a deficit and cannot support the increase of incoming personnel

Partnership with the community is vital to provide the housing needs of our relocating service members and their families

Family Housing and Community Inventory

83 Government Quarters Available

40 units with 2 bedrooms



Known Demand

1,708 in 2009

2,061 by 2014

Growth of 353 units in five years!

Source: Housing Market Analysis Final Report, Dated March 2010.

Personnel at NAS Fort Worth JRB

Who are Entitled to On-Base Housing Services

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

2009 2010 2011 2014

Current Wait List:

44 Families

Peak Wait List:

58 Families

Housing Partnerships

Existing:

Rental Partnership Program (RPP)

• Connect military renters with available housing stock

• Provide property referrals and landlord/tenant mediation

• Automatically pay rent check each month

• Rental agreement is 5% off market value

Available:

Pre-Construction Agreements

• Allows base to enter into agreements with developers for future housing stock that may meet military needs

• Intended to provide risk mitigation

Preferred within close proximity to the installation

Retail in the Current Master Plan

MASTER PLAN NAVAL AIR

STATION FORT WORTH JOINT RESERVE BASE

9.1

9.29.3

9.49.5

H

ADP Project Number Project Description Term

9.1 Aviation Museum Near

9.2 Commissary Near

9.3 Retail Services Mid

9.4 Renovate Pass and ID Office Mid

9.5 Upgrade and Renovation of Utility Fence Mid

AREA DEVELOPMENT PLANS

AREA 9 LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT

Military Retail: Example Case Study #1

NAS Oceana, Virginia

NEX located on Navy property, separately

fenced, and entry prior to main gate

Commissary located on fenced land, separate from main installation

fenceline

Installation fencelinesshown in red and

maroon

Military Retail: Example Case Study #2

NAS Whiting Field, Florida

NEX Mini-Mart

8.5 miles south of NAS Whiting Field

Co-located with Whiting Pines (off-base

military housing complex)

Local Military Retail Preferences

On federal land

Co-located with one another

Mini-mart can be co-located with off-base

housing

12 Community Locations

Sky Ranger Distribution

2 elected officials’ offices

1 county facility

2 neighborhood associations

1 YMCA

2 public libraries

3 community centers

1 local business

NAS Fort Worth, JRB Regional Coordination Committee

April 18, 2011

Item 6

Administrative Updates

Development Review Update on Projects

Project #018


Project #018 - Comments

Name Entity Date Comment

Dave Gattis City of Benbrook

3/2/2011 As I understand it, this application would expand an existing restaurant (indoor and outdoor) within APZ II and the 65 db contour. The use is considered incompatible with the APZ II and marginally compatible with the 65 dB contour. I would recommend against expanding an incompatible use. If it is approved, then noise attenuation should be required.

Jack Adkison City of River Oaks

3/2/2011 The ebb and flow of customers are well aware of the noise contours in this area. The customer will be the final judge on this project if approved.

Rachel Wiggins NAS Fort Worth JRB

3/4/2011 This existing structure is located in the 65 db DNL contour where indoor restaurant use is considered compatible with the current noise footprint generated by operations at NAS Fort Worth JRB. However, it is also located in the Accident Potential Zone 2 (APZ-2) where restaurant development is considered incompatible with NAS operations for reasons related to safety. While site planning and layout can reduce the noise experienced by outdoor patrons, and sound insulation can reduce the noise impacts inside the building, the accident potential cannot be mitigated at this location. The expansion of this facility would not be consistent with AICUZ recommendations.


Project #019




3/2/2011 This appears to be outside of the 65 dB contour, and therefore I have no objection.


3/2/2011 I see no problem with this project.

Randy Skinner Tarrant County

3/4/2011 No objections.


3/4/2011 This project is located outside of the current noise and safety footprint of NAS Fort Worth JRB. For that reason, this project is compatible with operations at the installation and represents development that is consistent with AICUZ recommendations and JLUS principles adopted by the cities surrounding the installation.



Project #020




3/2/2011 As I understand it, this is a follow-up approval for the same project (No. 15) that was considered in December. Since this is simply a replat to combine lots, and the uses have been approved previously, I have no objection.


3/2/2011 I have no problem with this project.


3/4/2011 I have no objections.



Project #021




3/2/2011 A dental office is incompatible with both the APZ I and 75 dB contour, but since the zoning is already in place and the use allowed by right, I would recommend that noise attenuation be required as part of the site plan approval (if allowable under your zoning ordinance.)


3/2/2011 I see no problem for this.


3/4/2011 This site is located inside of APZ-1 and straddles the 80 db DNL contour. The proposed dental office use is incompatible in both the APZ and in the subject noise zone. Even if noise at the site were mitigated through sound attenuation, the use of this land as a dental office is not consistent with AICUZ recommendations or JLUS principles adopted by the cities surrounding the installation.



Project #022



Jocelyn Murphy City of Fort Worth

3/22/2011 This case includes the entire NAS FW JRB within the city limits of Fort Worth - the system only accepted one parcel when entered - but does not include Lockheed at this time. As a federal property, the base and Lockheed are of course not regulated by zoning, but the rezoning will reflect the past, current, and future activity on the property. It is currently zoned single family and will be rezoned to Planned Development based on "I" Light Industrial to include aviation uses and exclude some uses.


3/22/2011 I agree that rezoning the base to light industrial is more appropriate than leaving it as A-5 single family. Industrial (or aircraft transportation) is the more appropriate use given the noise contours present on the base.


3/23/2011 This change will administratively update zoning to accurately reflect activities that take place on the installation. As a part of the City of Fort Worth's package of initiatives to promote compatible development and appropriate zoning near the base, we are in support of this zoning case.

Joe Crews City of River Oaks

3/23/2011 I see no problems with the rezoning.


3/24/2011 This does appear to be an appropriate zoning change for this property.


HUD Community Challenge Grant Update

Staff decision not to pursue In-Kind Match from cities.

Held city meetings to review HUD Tasks.

Submitting “Final HUD Work Plan” to HUD on April 22.

Coordinate additional meetings with cities as needed.

First Task: • Housing Study • Continuation of Current Transportation Study

Draft Transportation Assessment Document –Summer 2011

Next MeetingJuly 11, 2011

1:30 p.m.Westworth Village City Hall

Documents

Regional Coordination Committee April 18, · PDF fileRegional Coordination Committee April 18, ... TSM, TDM, Bicycle & Pedestrian ... JRB Regional Coordination Committee April 18,