Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study...Task Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Data Collection Need and Purpose Public and Agency Outreach Stakeholder

Regional Outer LoopCorridor Feasibility Study

Executive SummaryExecutive Summary

Volume I – Regional Outer Loop Executive Summary Corridor Feasibility Study Report

November 2011 ES-1 Final

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 INTRODUCTION The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) conducted a formal study of the Regional Outer Loop concept from June 2007 to September 2011. The Regional Outer Loop concept was initially envisioned as a series of separate limited-access facilities with independent utility that could form a system to facilitate circumferential travel around the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan region. The facility was first identified in Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas-Fort Worth Area (Mobility 2030) as part of a long-term multi-modal vision for the region to serve automobile and truck traffic bypassing the region and to accommodate future growth. The purpose of the Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study was to evaluate the need and feasibility for an outer loop around the Dallas-Fort Worth region as well as identify a potential corridor(s). The concept was derived from numerous studies conducted over the last 50 years, which proposed various facilities around Dallas and Fort Worth. However, those independently considered facilities were not necessarily linked together to comprise a system. The idea of connecting these facilities was primarily generated as the regional response to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Crossroads of the Americas: Trans-Texas Corridor Plan, released in June 2002; more specifically to the Trans-Texas Corridor-35 (TTC-35) Tier One Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which was released in April 2006. While the original concept of the TTC-35 was to bypass regions of high development densities, it was clear to the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) that the TTC-35 could be developed to coincide with other planned improvements in the region. This approach could maximize revenue, solve near-term congestion needs, and benefit the long-term economic development and mobility needs of the state while having a positive impact on congested urban areas. Work on the Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study began following the decision by TxDOT to incorporate the adopted RTC vision as an alternative into the TTC-35 Tier One DEIS. In addition, both Collin County and Rockwall County had initiated local efforts at that time to identify and preserve future outer loop corridors based on the needs and sensitivities of their residents. The Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study was initiated to facilitate coordination between local, regional, and state initiatives and ensure that future decisions regarding engineering, financial, environmental, and other considerations could be made both timely and all-inclusive. Early coordination is reinforced by Sections 6001 and 6002 of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). These provisions enhance the consideration of environmental issues and impacts within the transportation planning process and encourage the use of the products from planning in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Based on SAFETEA-LU, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administrative (FTA) issued transportation planning regulations that strongly support the integration of transportation planning with NEPA environmental review. The regulations allow a state, MPO, or public transportation operator to use the results and decisions of planning (corridor and subarea) studies as part of their overall project development process under NEPA. ES.1.1 Study Area The Regional Outer Loop study area included portions of Collin, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties. These counties surround and are immediately adjacent to the more urbanized, core counties of Dallas and Tarrant. The study area is shown in Figure ES-1. Generally, the study area was 10 to 15 miles in width. This

K§

AÄ

!"a$AÄ

AÙK§

?¬

AÆKª

Ii Cm

!"a$

?¤

%&k( AÞ

?¤

Kx

!"c$

Im

!"a$

!"c$

!"a$!"a$

K©

K©

Ie

%&c(%&d(

!"d$

%&d(

A¼

Ie

Kx

Kª

Kª

Ii

Ad

%&l(

K§

%&c(

!"h$

AÃ

UyAÏ

EllisCounty

DentonCounty

WiseCounty

DallasCounty

NavarroCounty

TarrantCounty

CollinCounty

ParkerCounty

CookeCounty

GraysonCounty

HillCounty

HuntCounty

FanninCounty

KaufmanCounty

JohnsonCounty

MontagueCounty

BosqueCounty

HoodCounty

HendersonCounty

ErathCounty

SomervellCounty

RockwallCounty

9

6

5

4

13

15

3

7

2

17

12

14

10 11

8

1

16

.0 5 10 15 20

Miles

LegendMajor Roadway

Study Area Limits

County Limits

MPA Boundary

Lakes

TxDOT Loop 9 Study – Conducted Separately(for more information see www.loop9.org)

Loop 9 DEIS Alignments

Loop 9 Study Area

Ma

p D

ate

: Ap

ril 2

00

9

So

urc

e:

NC

TC

OG

Regional Outer LoopCorridor Feasibility Report Study Area and Subareas

Figure ES-1



study area was based on the previously mentioned RTC recommended corridor, existing and future demographics, development patterns, and major environmental constraints such as regional lakes and recreational areas. Additionally, the study area was divided into subareas based on the major existing and proposed radial roadways. This was done for three reasons: 1) to account for variability in section feasibility and implementation, 2) to tabulate the identified effects on a subarea basis, and 3) to enable subsequent environmental studies to combine subareas as a function of future implementation and to establish logical termini. ES.1.2 Study Timeline The Regional Loop Corridor Feasibility Study was conducted over a four-year period, beginning in 2007. Figure ES-2 shows the timeline for the study.

Figure ES-2. Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study Timeline 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Task Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Data Collection

Need and Purpose

Public and Agency Outreach Stakeholder Meetings

Resource Agency Meetings

Public Meetings

Methodology

Phase 1 Path Development

Evaluation

Phase 2 Corridor Development

Evaluation*

Recommendations

Finalize Report

Key decision point

* The evaluation of the Phase 2 corridors was delayed while awaiting an update to the future regional demographics, upgrade to the Dallas-Fort Worth regional travel model, and preparation of Mobility 2035. ES.2 NEED AND INTENT Historically, Texas has been one of the 10 fastest growing states in the nation. As a result of high growth rates, the demand for efficient transportation in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area continues to increase. A favorable business climate, attractive tax policies, and an abundance of available land contribute to the population and employment growth of the region. Based on 2010 United States (US) Census population estimates, the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area is the fourth most populous in the nation. The study cited five factors influencing regional transportation needs in the Dallas-Fort Worth region: Population growth – By 2035, the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan planning area (MPA) is

forecasted to have a population of 9.8 million people. It is estimated that between 2010 and 2035, the population of Dallas and Tarrant Counties will grow at rates of 32 percent and 56



percent, respectively. The projected population growth rate between 2010 and 2035 for the counties surrounding Dallas and Tarrant Counties is estimated to range from 59 percent (Denton County) to 120 percent (Rockwall County).

Employment – Similar to the population projections, employment is projected to increase 37 percent and 56 percent, respectively, in Dallas and Tarrant Counties between 2010 and 2035. The projected employment growth during this same time period for the counties surrounding Dallas and Tarrant Counties is estimated to range from 70 percent (Hunt County) to 125 percent (Rockwall County).

Regional travel demand - Mobility 2035: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for North Central Texas (Mobility 2035) estimates that even with the implementation of planned transportation improvements, congestion delay would increase by 44 percent compared to 2012 mobility levels in the Dallas-Fort Worth MPA.

System linkages and intermodal connections – The Dallas-Fort Worth region is the major economic engine in the State of Texas. From the region, nearly the entire US population can be reached by truck within 48 hours. The Dallas-Fort Worth region is considered by most economic and logistics experts to be the primary truck, rail, and air cargo center in the southwestern US, as well as the primary urban gateway between the US and Mexico.

Based on the inclusion of the RTC vision into the TTC-35 Tier One EIS and Mobility 2030, the intent of the Regional Outer Loop project is to: Allow multiple bypass options for international, interstate, and intra-state traffic not destined

for the region. Help manage congestion for predominant commuter routes that traverse the heavily

urbanized areas in the heart of the region. Improve capacity, mobility, and accessibility for outlying communities and developing areas

throughout the region by providing direct links to existing major radial highways. Serve population areas that currently lack major limited-access facilities for inter-suburban

travel Help manage long-term regional congestion from rapid population and employment growth

and development. Provide the basic transportation infrastructure necessary to allow for expansion that

accommodates varied travel demands or modes as warranted. ES.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The existing and future conditions of social, economic, and natural environmental resources within the study area for the Regional Outer Loop were researched and documented. The best available data was gathered for the following resources: land use, farmland, demographics, community resources, cultural resources, parklands and recreational areas, visual quality, utilities, employment, development, air quality, geology, soils, water resources, biological resources, and regulated/hazardous materials. ES.4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The existing transportation system in the Dallas-Fort Worth region is extensive. It is composed of roadways, truck facilities, railroads, airports, transit services, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and safety and security elements. Over $100 billion in improvements and new transportation facilities are planned over the next 24 years. ES.5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT The Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study was developed through a proactive public and agency process. Almost 150 meetings and presentations were conducted to allow local governments, resource agencies, and the public to gain knowledge and provide input



throughout the study effort. Table ES.1 lists the agencies and local governments that participated in the process. Meetings were held at key decision points throughout the study to allow constructive input and help provide direction to the process and recommendations. Over 660 comments were documented through the process. Public and agency involvement efforts included the following activities: Corridor Refinement Team – This team guided and managed the Regional Outer Loop

through the project development process and technical evaluation. This team met 23 times over the course of the study.

Stakeholder Meetings – Throughout the study, 25 meetings were held with stakeholders to gain input and coordinate efforts with elected officials and staff from local governments. These meetings helped ensure that consideration of local community context, environmental constraints, and other factors are included in the identification of a solution.

Resource Agencies – Three meetings with resource agencies were held. The meetings helped inform resource agencies of study effort, gather input, and discuss collaborative strategies for continued interaction throughout the project development process.

Public Meetings – The public has been kept informed of the study through the NCTCOG regional public meetings. The Regional Outer Loop was presented at 16 public meetings.

Briefing and Presentations – As requested, almost 80 briefings and presentations were made to interested parties during the course of the study.

Table ES.1. Participating Agencies and Governments

Corridor Refinement Team FHWA NCTCOG TxDOT Dallas District TxDOT Design Division TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division TxDOT Fort Worth District

TxDOT Multimodal DivisionTxDOT Texas Turnpike Authority (TTA) Division TxDOT TTA – Corridor Engineering Team (CET) (HDR Inc.) TxDOT TTA – CET (HNTB) TxDOT TTC – Segment Engineer (Michael Baker) TxDOT TTC – Segment Engineer (Atkins formerly PBSJ)

Resource Agencies Natural Resources Conservation Service Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Historical Commission Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

US Fish and Wildlife ServiceUS Army Corps of Engineers US Environmental Protection Agency

Stakeholders City of Aledo City of Anna City of Annetta South City of Arlington City of Boyd City of Burleson City of Celina City of Cleburne City of Commerce City of Denton City of Forney City of Fort Worth City of Frisco City of Glenn Heights City of Granbury City of Grand Prairie City of Greenville

City of Heath City of Hudson Oaks City of Joshua City of Lancaster City of Mansfield City of Melissa City of Mesquite City of Midlothian City of North Richland Hills City of Oak Ridge City of Ovilla City of Post Oak Bend City of Red Oak City of Royse City City of Rockwall City of Seagoville City of Springtown

City of TerrellCity of Weatherford Collin County Collin County Municipal

District 1 Cooke County Dallas Area Rapid Transit Dallas County Denton County Denton County

Transportation Authority Ellis County Fort Worth Transportation

Authority Grayson County Hood County Hunt County

Johnson CountyKaufman County Mid-Way Airport North Texas Commission North Texas Tollway

Authority Parker County Rockwall County Tarrant County Members of the Texas

Legislature Town of Flower Mound Town of Scurry Town of Union Valley TxDOT Wise County

ES.6 CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION Three guiding principles and objectives were developed for the study based on regional transportation goals included in Mobility 2030; RTC policies; defined needs; sound planning principles to avoid and minimize negative effects; and input from stakeholders. Each guiding



principle entailed a set of objectives that the planned facility should address. These principles and objectives were then used to guide the development of the evaluation characteristics. Guiding Principle 1: Improve regional travel efficiency and circumferential mobility Objectives: Manage area roadway congestion Provide a sustainable and efficient transportation solution that supports the intrastate,

interstate, and international travel needs of people, goods, and services Provide connectivity to existing and planned roadway systems, passenger rail, freight rail,

and airports Provide for the opportunity to preserve sufficient right-of-way to ensure future flexibility in the

implementation of future regional transportation facilities Improve travel time within the region Guiding Principle 2: Minimize the potential for negative social and economic effects Objectives: Ensure the solution is compatible with regional and local transportation and comprehensive

plans Minimize the potential for residential and business displacements Minimize the potential for negative effects to communities and traditionally underserved

populations Improve access to existing and emerging major trip activity centers Minimize the potential for negative effects to community facilities and recreational resources Minimize the potential for negative effect to major utilities, regulated material sites, and wells Guiding Principle 3: Minimize the potential for negative effects to natural and cultural resources Objectives: Minimize the potential for negative effects to regional air quality Minimize the potential for negative effects to natural resources Minimize the potential for negative effects to archaeological and historical resources Minimize the potential for negative effects on preserves and conservation areas ES.6.1 Corridor Development In the context of the Regional Outer Loop Feasibility Study, a corridor was defined with a width of approximately one-mile. This width was established based on planning judgment and experience. This width would not be the ultimate width of the facility; it merely would help to define a future corridor to be studied and allows for flexibility in the future development of alignment alternatives to help avoid and minimize negative social, economic, and environmental effects. This would also allow for the opportunity to include multiple modes such as rail, utilities, truck lanes, bicycle, and pedestrian. The Regional Outer Loop was first included in the Mobility 2030 as a tolled facility. Both the RTC and TxDOT have policies requiring new location facilities to be evaluated as a toll road because of funding shortfalls. Therefore, the corridors were modeled with tolls with rates equivalent to existing toll facilities in the region and adjusted for inflation to the year 2035. The development and evaluation of corridors was accomplished through a two-phase screening process as shown in Figure ES-3. Evaluation/performance characteristics were established prior to the development of the corridors.



Figure ES-3. Corridor Development Process Within each of the 17 subareas, three to eight corridor paths were developed during Phase 1 for a total of 105 paths. Preliminary corridor paths were developed and considered in each subarea based on previous studies; aerial photogrammetry; social, economic, and natural environment factors; input from stakeholders; and the guiding principles and objectives. The developed corridor paths attempted to provide connectivity (e.g., linkages to roadway, passenger rail, freight rail, and airports), avoid and minimize negative impacts to the built and natural environments, and utilize existing roadway facilities to the greatest extent possible. ES.6.2 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Evaluation Results During the Phase 1 evaluation, the paths were screened based on potential negative impacts to the built and natural environments, local support/opposition, and proximity to other transportation facilities. The paths that did not best meet these characteristics were eliminated from consideration. The preliminary corridor paths were reduced to the most viable and reasonable paths for Phase 2 evaluation (see Figure ES-4). Of the 55 paths remaining following the Phase 1 screening evaluation, 22 paths were along a combination of new location and existing facilities, 19 were on new location, 13 used existing facilities exclusively, and one path used a planned facility. By selecting a path in each of the 17 subareas, the paths were combined to form eight full-length (i.e., 240 miles) corridor options from US 67 to US 175 (clockwise around the region). Each of the 55 paths was included in at least one corridor. Eight representative combinations were designed to assess the range of travel demand for the corridor without modeling every possible combination of paths. These corridors were evaluated against 37 performance characteristics based on 2035 travel demand and potential social, economic, and environmental effects; these characteristics mirror issues that would be addressed during a NEPA review process (see Tables ES.2 and ES.3). A no build corridor was also evaluated.

!"c$

Im

!"a$

!"c$

!"a$

!"a$

K©

K©

Ie

Cm

%&c(%&d(

!"d$

%&d( A¼ Ie Kx

Kª

Kª

Ii

Ad

AÙ

?b

%&k(

%&l(

K§

%&c(

!"h$K§

AÃ

A½

AÓ

Dallas

Fort Worth

Denton

Plano

Irving

Arlington

Frisco

Anna

Garland

Wylie

Grand Prairie

McKinney

Allen

Ennis

Midlothian

Mesquite

Weatherford

Wilmer

Lewisville

Waxahachie

Mansfield

Carrollton

Cedar Hill

Cleburne

Grapevine

Prosper

Terrell

Rockwall

Keller

Flower Mound

Lancaster

Burleson

Celina

DeSoto

Rowlett

Richardson

Euless

Reno

Little Elm

Southlake

Forney

Lucas

Azle

Briar CDP

Coppell

Heath

Hurst

Argyle

Sunnyvale

Seagoville

The Colony

Sachse

Colleyville

Fate

Bedford

Benbrook

Corinth Fairview

Sanger

Ovilla

Alma

Crowley

Saginaw

Boyd Northlake

Rendon CDP

Granbury

Melissa

Red Oak

Haslet

Royse City

Parker

Pecan Acres CDP

Cresson

Haltom City

Joshua

Hutchins

Decatur

Duncanville

Weston

New Fairview

Combine

North Richland Hills

Kaufman

Ferris

Rhome

Princeton

Westlake

Bridgeport

Murphy

Farmers Branch

Alvarado

Balch Springs

Keene

Talty

Kennedale

Bartonville

Roanoke

Oak Point

McLendon-Chisholm

Aurora

Addison

Willow Park

Glenn Heights

Cross Roads

Watauga

Aledo

Ponder

Krum

Forest Hill

Eagle Mountain CDP

Highland Village

Crandall

Lavon

Justin

Kemp

Palmer

Pilot Point

Caddo Mills

Venus

Trophy Club

Annetta

Rosser

Hickory Creek

Farmersville

Pecan Plantation CDP

Oak Ridge

Copper Canyon

White Settlement

Scurry

Aubrey

Godley

Oak Leaf

Chico

Springtown

University Park

Annetta North

Richland Hills

Paradise

Hudson Oaks

Alvord

Lake Worth

Pecan Hill

Shady Shores

DISH

Nevada

Double Oak

Everman

River Oaks

Oak Grove

St. Paul

Lakeside

Josephine

Lowry Crossing

Cottonwood

Lake DallasGreenville

Highland Park

Celeste

Union Valley

New Hope

Annetta South

Blue Ridge

Pantego

Westworth Village

Oak Trail Shores CDP

Krugerville

BriaroaksCross Timber

Hebron

Grays Prairie

Garrett

Post Oak Bend City

Newark

Sanctuary

Sansom Park

Maypearl

Runaway Bay

Edgecliff Village

Dalworthington Gardens

De Cordova Bend

Pelican Bay

Westover Hills Cockrell Hill

Blue Mound

Lakewood VillageHackberry

Mabank

Grandview

Corral City

Lincoln Park

Bardwell

Seven Points

Mobile City

DentonCounty

DallasCounty

CollinCounty

TarrantCounty

WiseCounty

EllisCounty

ParkerCounty

KaufmanCounty

JohnsonCounty

HuntCounty

HoodCounty

RockwallCounty

FanninCounty

HendersonCounty

NavarroCounty

SomervellCounty

LavonLake

LewisvilleLake

LakeRay

Hubbard

RayRoberts

Lake

JoePoolLake

LakeGranbury

GrapevineLake

EagleMountainReservoir

LakeWorth

BenbrookLake

BardwellReservoir

LakeArlington

MountainCreekLake

NorthLake

LakePat

Cleburne

WhiteRockLake

LakeWeatherford

LakeWaxahachie

0 5 10 151 2 3 4

Miles

Phase 2 PathsFigure ES-4

Regional Outer LoopCorridor Feasibility Report

LegendResults of Phase 1 Analysis

Studied Further as Path A

Studied Further as Path B

Studied Further as Path C

Studied Further as Path D

Studied Further as Path E

Eliminated from Further Consideration

Other ItemsRoadway

Loop 9 Southeast DEIS Alternatives

City/Town Limits

County Limits

Subarea Limits

Ellis

Wise CollinHunt

Dallas

Denton

Parker Tarrant

Kaufman

JohnsonHood

Rockwall

NavarroSomervell

9

6

5

4

13

15

3

7

2

17

12

14

1011

1

8

16

Key Map

Ma

p D

ate

: Ju

ly 2

011

S

ou

rce

: N

CT

CO

G 2

011

.Note: The displayed corridors represent one-mile wide corridors and do not represent final alignments. Corridor-specific alignments and operational characteristics will be determined through ongoing project development. No third party is authorized to rely on this map for development, construction, bidding, or permit purposes.



Table ES.2 Phase 2 Evaluation Summary (Corridors 1 through 4) Unit of Corridor

Performance Characteristic Measure 1 2 3 4Daily congestion delay hours 276,338 281,889 278,079 277,219Lane miles at level-of-service ABC

percentage 78.3% 77.4% 78.6% 78.4%

Lane miles at level-of-service DE

percentage 9.4% 10.1% 10.4% 9.9%

Lane miles at level-of-service F percentage 12.3% 12.4% 11.0% 11.7%Average travel speeds mph 41.36 41.45 41.94 41.57Average traffic volumes on the proposed facility

count 22,000 22,700 48,000 37,400

Length miles 238 224-225 209-211 227-228Passenger rail facilities count 1 1 4 3Freight rail yards/facilities count 0 0 1 1Airports count 0 1 1 1Use of existing/planned transportation facilities

percentage 34% - 35% 25% - 26% 62% 48%

Compatibility with regional and local planning documents

count 10 10 7 11

Land use percentage 10% 10% 13% 11%Prime farmland acreage 52,356 -

52,46357,703 -

57,98955,787 -

55,966 62,861 -

63,040Minority population percentage 24% 23% 28% 26%Low-income population percentage 10% 8% 8% 7%LEP population percentage 3% 2% 3% 3%Public facilities count 13 9 73 38Parks count 4 3 28 15Preserves, state parks, and wildlife management areas

count 1 1 1 1

Existing major developments count 10 - 11 1 - 2 76 36Proposed major developments count 1 4 - 5 31 - 32 21 - 22Major employers and special generators

count 1 0 14 5

Air quality sensitive receptors count 4 2 46 28Recorded state and federal historic resources

count 10 11 18 16

Historic-aged structures count 752 - 759 924 - 939 3,943 -3,951 2,092 - 2,100Cemeteries count 26 19 24 27100-year floodplains acreage 19,229 -

19,29017,226 -

17,66818,794 -

19,175 19,106 -

19,487Lakes acreage 1,196 - 1,218 1,148 -1,185 1,810 - 1,825 1,016 - 1,031Streams linear feet 1,364,953-

1,380,0901,158,267-1,180,634

1,002,495- 1,009,729

1,080,543-1,087,773

Wetlands acreage 1,231-1,236 1,171- 1,176 1,849 1,853Cropland acreage 9% 13% 13% 14%Natural diversity database element of occurrence

count 13 10 4 3

Surface wells count 745 895 742 670Power plants count 0 0 0 0Pipelines linear feet 2,088,981-

2,104,9032,311,592-2,327,514

2,138,106- 2,138,584

2,111,228-2,111,706

Regulated/hazardous material sites

count 9 9 26 23



Table ES.3 Phase 2 Evaluation Summary (Corridors 5 through 8 and No Build)

Performance Characteristic Unit of Corridor

Measure 5 6 7 8 No BuildDaily congestion delay hours 274,718 283,265 278,577 275,455 273,376Lane miles at level-of-service ABC

percentage 78.3% 77.6% 77.9% 78.0% 76.9%

Lane miles at level-of-service DE

percentage 9.9% 9.7% 9.3% 10.1% 10.3%

Lane miles at level-of-service F

percentage 11.8% 12.7% 12.8% 11.8% 12.8%

Average travel speeds mph 41.66 41.49 41.54 41.61 40.51Average traffic volumes on the proposed facility

count 33,800 28,500 29,600 28,900 0

Length miles 225-227 226-228 240 236-238 0Passenger rail facilities count 3 3 3 3 0Freight rail yards/facilities count 1 1 1 1 0Airports count 1 1 0 1 0Use of existing/planned transportation facilities

percentage 47%-48% 35%-36% 43%-45% 45%-47% 100%

Compatibility with regional and local planning documents

count 12 12 12 10 0

Land use percentage 12% 11% 10% 10% 0%Prime farmland acreage 60,240-60,443 61,404-61,690 54,249-54,356 63,767-64,149 0Minority population percentage 24% 25% 24% 24% 0%Low-income population percentage 8% 8% 10% 9% 0%LEP population percentage 3% 3% 3% 3% 0%Public facilities count 28-30 24 26 33-35 0Parks count 7 5 7 8 0Preserves, state parks, and wildlife management areas

count 1 1 1 1 0

Existing major developments count 26 21 - 22 29 - 30 30 0Proposed major developments count 6 - 7 6 - 7 5 5 - 6 0Major employers and special generators

count 4 4 5 4 0

Air quality sensitive receptors count 18 - 20 16 18 20 - 22 0Recorded state and federal historic resources

count 14 11 12 14 0

Historic-aged structures count 2,001-2,151 1,493-1,501 1,520-1,527 2,001-2,151 0Cemeteries count 25 - 26 26 28 22-23 0100-year floodplains acreage 19,408-19,856 18,332-18,774 21,184-21,245 18,671-19,119 0Lakes acreage 1,022-1,037 1,041-1,078 1,172-1,194 993-1,008 0Streams linear feet 1,082,457-

1,099,3711,170,612-1,192,979

1,324,548- 1,339,685

1,178,869-1,195,783

0

Wetlands acreage 1,386-1,391 1,384-1,389 1,376-1,381 1,777-1,782 0Cropland acreage 13% 14% 9% 13% 0%Natural diversity database element of occurrence

count 2 6 9 10 0

Surface wells count 694-695 550 668 865-866 0Power plants count 0 0 0 0 0Pipelines linear feet 2,164,840-

2,193,3412,127,947-1,143,347

2,129,189- 2,145,111

2,366,201-2,338,656

0

Regulated/hazardous material sites

count 19 19 17 21 0



The Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Travel Model was used to generate 2035 travel volumes. The corridors ranged from 209 miles (Corridor 3) to 238 miles (Corridor 8) in length. From a travel demand perspective, Corridor 3 performed slightly better than the other seven regional build corridors modeled. The average traffic volume for Corridor 3 was 48,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2035, but this can be directly related to the fact that Corridor 3 also has the highest utilization of existing facilities (62 percent). As the best performing corridor, the travel demand effects of Corridor 3 at the regional level were also evaluated. At the study area level, Corridor 3 did not perform substantially better than the No Build for the study area. Overall, none of the regional build corridors modeled substantially improved local or regional congestion levels. The findings of the Phase 2 evaluation were compared to the original intent and premise cited in Section ES.2. None of the regional corridors met the intent of the Regional Outer Loop concept as originally conceived (see Table ES.4). Therefore, a continuous, circumferential Regional Outer Loop is not warranted based on 2035 traffic projections. The majority of the corridor path modeled and all full-length corridors have insufficient volumes to justify construction of a controlled access facility. Additionally, based on limited transportation funding, there are more pressing regional and local transportation needs to be met in other parts of the region.

Table ES.4 Phase 2 Evaluation Results Compared to the Original Project Intent Intent Met by the Regional Outer Loop?

Allow multiple bypass options for international, interstate, and intra-state traffic not destined for the region.

No. A Regional Outer Loop would provide an alternate route around the region; however, the length of the route does not appear to make it an attractive option as a bypass. As a bypass, the route would add substantially time and cost (operating and toll).

Help manage congestion for predominant commuter routes that traverse the heavily urbanized areas in the heart of the region.

No. Based on the travel demand model the Regional Outer Loop does not help reduce congestion in the region or on heavily used commuter routes.

Improve capacity, mobility, and accessibility for outlying communities and developing areas throughout the region by providing direct links to existing major radial highways.

No. While the Regional Outer Loop would improve capacity and in some cases accessibility, congestion delay, the level-of-service, and average travel speeds would be similar to the no build.

Serve population areas that currently lack major limited-access facilities for inter-suburban travel

Maybe. While the Regional Outer Loop connected numerous suburban communities, the travel demand model did not show travel volumes in 2035 would require a major limited-access facility in most subareas.

Help manage long-term regional congestion from rapid population and employment growth and development.

No. Based on the travel demand model the Regional Outer Loop does not help reduce long-term regional congestion. Furthermore, future 2035 demographics show greater densification of the core counties rather than the outer counties.

Provide the basic transportation infrastructure necessary to allow for expansion that accommodates varied travel demands or modes as warranted.

Maybe. The Regional Outer Loop could be designed to allow for expansion and future transportation modes.

ES.6.3 Study Recommendations Though a continuous regional transportation facility is not warranted, some of the paths evaluated had high traffic volumes. The predicted 2035 traffic volumes were compared to warrants based on the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual and tested for independent utility. Improvements in five of the 17 subareas are recommended for further study as future controlled access facilities (see Figure ES-5). Based on the analysis conducted as part of the Phase 2 evaluation and logical termini guidelines, the following individual projects and logical termini are recommended:

!"c$

Im

!"a$

!"c$

!"a$

!"a$

K©

K©

Ie

Cm

%&c(%&d(

!"d$

%&d( A¼ Ie Kx

Kª

Kª

Ii

Ad

AÙ

?b

%&k(

%&l(

K§

%&c(

!"h$K§

AÃ

A½

AÓ

10C (10–iv)

12C (12–v)

10B (10

–iii)

1B (1–iv)

11B (11–ii)

2C (2–viii)

11B (11–iii)

Dallas

Fort Worth

Denton

Plano

Irving

Arlington

Frisco

Anna

Garland

Wylie

Grand Prairie

McKinney

Allen

Ennis

Midlothian

Mesquite

Weatherford

Wilmer

Lewisville

Waxahachie

Mansfield

Carrollton

Cedar Hill

Cleburne

Grapevine

Prosper

Terrell

Rockwall

Keller

Flower Mound

Lancaster

Burleson

Celina

DeSoto

Rowlett

Richardson

Euless

Reno

Little Elm

Southlake

Forney

Lucas

Azle

Briar CDP

Coppell

Heath

Hurst

Argyle

Sunnyvale

Seagoville

The Colony

Sachse

Colleyville

Fate

Bedford

Benbrook

Corinth Fairview

Sanger

Ovilla

Alma

Crowley

Saginaw

Boyd Northlake

Rendon CDP

Granbury

Melissa

Red Oak

Haslet

Royse City

Parker

Pecan Acres CDP

Cresson

Haltom City

Joshua

Hutchins

Decatur

Duncanville

Weston

New Fairview

Combine

North Richland Hills

Kaufman

Ferris

Rhome

Princeton

Westlake

Bridgeport

Murphy

Farmers Branch

Alvarado

Balch Springs

Keene

Talty

Kennedale

Bartonville

Roanoke

Oak Point

McLendon-Chisholm

Aurora

Addison

Willow Park

Glenn Heights

Cross Roads

Watauga

Aledo

Ponder

Krum

Forest Hill

Eagle Mountain CDP

Highland Village

Crandall

Lavon

Justin

Kemp

Palmer

Pilot Point

Caddo Mills

Venus

Trophy Club

Annetta

Rosser

Hickory Creek

Farmersville

Pecan Plantation CDP

Oak Ridge

Copper Canyon

White Settlement

Scurry

Aubrey

Godley

Oak Leaf

Chico

Springtown

University Park

Annetta North

Richland Hills

Paradise

Hudson Oaks

Alvord

Lake Worth

Pecan Hill

Shady Shores

DISH

Nevada

Double Oak

Everman

River Oaks

Oak Grove

St. Paul

Lakeside

Josephine

Lowry Crossing

Cottonwood

Lake DallasGreenville

Highland Park

Celeste

Union Valley

New Hope

Annetta South

Blue Ridge

Pantego

Westworth Village

Oak Trail Shores CDP

Krugerville

BriaroaksCross Timber

Hebron

Grays Prairie

Garrett

Post Oak Bend City

Newark

Sanctuary

Sansom Park

Maypearl

Runaway Bay

Edgecliff Village

Dalworthington Gardens

De Cordova Bend

Pelican Bay

Westover Hills Cockrell Hill

Blue Mound

Lakewood VillageHackberry

Mabank

Grandview

Corral City

Lincoln Park

Bardwell

Seven Points

Mobile City

DentonCounty

DallasCounty

CollinCounty

TarrantCounty

WiseCounty

EllisCounty

ParkerCounty

KaufmanCounty

JohnsonCounty

HuntCounty

HoodCounty

RockwallCounty

FanninCounty

HendersonCounty

NavarroCounty

SomervellCounty

LavonLake

LewisvilleLake

LakeRay

Hubbard

RayRoberts

Lake

JoePoolLake

LakeGranbury

GrapevineLake

EagleMountainReservoir

LakeWorth

BenbrookLake

BardwellReservoir

LakeArlington

MountainCreekLake

NorthLake

LakePat

Cleburne

WhiteRockLake

LakeWeatherford

LakeWaxahachie

0 5 10 151 2 3 4

Miles

Regional Outer LoopCorridor Feasibility Study

RecommendationsFigure ES-5

Regional Outer LoopCorridor Feasibility Report

LegendControlled Access Facility

Meets Warrant (at least 38,000 VPD)

Warranted, but not Recommended

Does Not Meet Warrant

Other ItemsRoadway

New Roadway (Under Construction)

New Roadway (Planned Highway/Tollway)

Subarea Limits

Subareas with no Controlled AccessFacility Recommendations

County Limits

Ellis

Wise CollinHunt

Dallas

Denton

Parker Tarrant

Kaufman

JohnsonHood

Rockwall

NavarroSomervell

9

6

5

4

13

15

3

7

2

17

12

14

1011

1

8

16

Key Map

Ma

p D

ate

: Ju

ly 2

011

S

ou

rce

: N

CT

CO

G 2

011

Note: The displayed corridors indicate general transportation need and do not represent final alignments. Corridor-specific alignments and operational characteristics will be determined through ongoing project development. No third party is authorized to rely on this map for development, construction, bidding, or permit purposes.

Labels: Phase 2 Path (Preliminary Path)

.



US 67 from proposed Loop 9 to proposed SH 360 (add capacity) US 67 from proposed SH 360 to IH 35W (add capacity), including a new location bypass

around Alvarado Loop 288/FM 428 or new rural arterial from IH 35 to FM 428 at FM 2153 (add capacity or

new location) FM 428 and new location Aubrey bypass from FM 428 at FM 2153 to the Dallas North

Tollway (add capacity and new location) Planned Collin County Outer Loop from Dallas North Tollway to US 75 (new location) Each of these projects will have its own set of needs and challenges that will require more detailed, corridor specific planning studies. Based on the best available information and input gathered for the Regional Outer Loop Feasibility Study, Table ES.5 summarizes the existing number of lanes, existing right-of-way width, and potential issues and concerns for each of the recommended projects. Note that the issues listed should not be construed as exhaustive. Other social, economic, environmental, and political challenges may be revealed through further study or may develop prior to the initiation of further studies.

Table ES.5 Potential Issues and Concerns

Facility/ Project Type

Number of

Existing Lanes

Existing Right-of-Way

Width Potential Issues/Concerns US 67 From proposed Loop 9 to proposed SH 360 (Add capacity)

4-lane divided

300 to 600 feet through

Midlothian

250 feet from Wyatt Road to

SH 360

Current RTC toll policies would prevent conversion of the existing free lanes of US 67 to a toll road

Utilizing US 67 could require modifications at the recently completed US 67/US 287 interchange

The Cities of Cedar Hill and Midlothian conditionally support this path as long as Loop 9 Southeast would extend to US 287

Possible fully directional interchange at US 67/SH 360 could impact a nearby electrical substation and several major radial power lines

Displacements could occur on the north side of the US 67 between US 287 and the SH 360 extension to avoid impacting the BNSF rail line on the south side of the US 67

This path could allow direct access to/from the Railport Industrial Area in Midlothian

US 67 From proposed SH 360 to IH 35W (Add capacity)

4-lane divided

250 feet from SH 360 to Ellis

County Line

220 feet in rural areas

200 feet near Venus and

Patriot Estates subdivision

180 feet in Alvarado

Conversion of US 67 to a limited access facility could cause displacements to residential and commercial properties in the City of Venus, particularly at the new Patriot Estates development

Incorporating this path with US 67 could require continuous access roads for local access along existing US 67; access roads increase construction costs and right-of-way width and could likely reduce toll feasibility

Access roads could be needed near the IH 35W interchange to replace access to/from Johnson County Roads 604 and 707



Table ES.5 Potential Issues and Concerns (continued)

Facility/ Project Type

Number of

Existing Lanes

Existing Right-of-Way

Width Potential Issues/Concerns Alvarado Bypass From US 67 to IH 35W (New location)

0 None North of Alvarado, the path could adversely affect local access and displace widely scattered pockets of residences, as well as some commercial development along IH 35W

Loop 288/FM 428 or new rural arterial From IH 35 to FM 428 at FM 2153 (Add capacity or new location)

0 to 4 lanes

divided

0 feet for new location rural

arterial

220 to 260 feet for Loop 288 main lanes

500 feet at Loop 288

interchanges

60 to 100 feet for FM 428

A Denton ISD magnet school, administration building, stadium, natatorium, and water park is located at the northwest corner of Loop 288 and FM 428

A new interchange at Loop 288 could alter the existing FM 428 interchange, Stuart Road, and Kings Row intersections

Potential displacements along Loop 288 could be limited because the facility already has a substantial right-of-way width

City of Denton has indicated support for this path option for a new location alignment

Developer for The Hills of Denton (between IH 35 and FM 2164) has expressed support for a new location alignment and included it in the initial land use plans for the development

Potential floodplain affects at Elm Fork Trinity River Scattered residential developments adjacent to the path

could be displaced or have local access adversely impacted

This path lies within three miles of Loop 288 which is expected to be upgraded to a full freeway facility prior to year 2030

FM 428 and new location Aubrey bypass From FM 428 at FM 2153 to the Dallas North Tollway (Add capacity and new location)

0 to 2 lanes

0 feet for Aubrey bypass

80 to 100 feet

for FM 428

Scattered residential development could be displaced and local access adversely affected along and adjacent to FM 428, particularly near FM 2153 and the City of Aubrey

Scattered residential developments along the new location portion could be displaced or have local access adversely impacted

Several horse farms and other agricultural areas could be displaced near the City of Aubrey

Potential floodplain affects at Elm Fork Trinity River Potential impacts to Ray Roberts Greenbelt

Planned Collin County Outer Loop From Dallas North Tollway to US 75 (New location)

0 None A fully directional interchange with the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Collin County Outer Loop was approved in November 2008 as part of the final schematic for the Dallas North Tollway Phase 4A Extension

Potential displacements and adverse local access impacts to the scattered residential development that exists along and adjacent to this path

Crosses scattered areas devoted to agricultural uses Crosses several drainage basins



One of the major issues that will face all of these projects is funding. The estimated 2035 travel demand volumes were based on a tolled facility. None appear to have traffic volumes high enough to be able to fund themselves 100 percent based on tolling; therefore, other federal, state, and/or local funding would be needed. If proposed as a non-tolled facility, the 2035 traffic volumes could likely be higher than a tolled facility. In either case funding a tolled or non-tolled could be very difficult because of a lack of transportation monies within the region. ES.6.4 Changes in Context Occurring during the Study In the course of any multi-year transportation study, the context in which a study is conducted can change. Due to the regional scale of the Regional Outer Loop study, changes over time and geography were compounded during its four-year study. The following characterizes these fundamental changes that helped shape the recommendations: New regional demographic data and development – Previous demographics placed

significant growth in the outside of the core counties (Dallas and Tarrant); projecting development to occur away from the center of the region. Under the new 2035 demographics, population and employment is expected to increase more in the core of the region with growth occurring through infill and revitalization, which affected travel demand throughout the region. Roadways in the center of the region received more growth in traffic while most roadways in outer areas saw a decrease in traffic.

Funding – Based on the evaluation of historic trends, current state of transportation funding, and plausibility of future funding, the fiscally constrained Mobility 2035 has approximately $45 billion less programmed transportation improvements than Mobility 2030.

State priorities – The no build alternative was selected and approved for the TTC-35 project. However, TxDOT formed community-based committees to develop a vision for IH 35 that supported stated mobility goals while providing continuity with local and regional projects.

When the study began in 2007, the adopted metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) was Mobility 2030. Mobility 2030 showed the Regional Outer Loop as a tollway that would be implemented by 2030. In July 2011, this plan was superseded by Mobility 2035. The development of Mobility 2035 required a re-evaluation of expected funding sources that were included in the previous MTP (Mobility 2030). Mobility 2035 identifies only two sections of the original Regional Outer Loop as being implemented before 2035: Loop 9 SE from US 175 to US 287 and the Collin County Outer Loop from Dallas North Tollway (Phase 4A) to SH 121. However, it should be noted that this feasibility study was based on needs and not on the availability of funding. Furthermore, a project not being listed in the financially constrained MTP does not preclude it from further study. A study could still be undertaken but could not receive federal or state approval until included in the financially constrained MTP. ES.7 NEXT STEPS The purpose of the Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study was to evaluate the need and feasibility for an outer loop and indentify a potential corridor(s) for future study. Based on the Phase 1 and Phase 2 evaluations conducted, a continuous, circumferential Regional Outer Loop is not warranted based on 2035 traffic projections. However, several projects are recommended for further study. None of the recommended projects appear to have traffic volumes high enough to fund themselves 100 percent based on tolling; therefore, other federal, state, and/or local funding would be needed. To be eligible for federal and state funding, projects would need to follow FHWA and TxDOT project development guidelines and all applicable environmental regulations such as the NEPA. Prior to beginning environmental and engineering studies, it is recommended that the information and data included in Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study Report be



reviewed and updated based on the latest available information and input from the public and resource agencies. While this information could help provide a basis for future studies and establish baseline social, economic, and environmental conditions, each study should establish a specific need and purpose and include further development and evaluation of the typical section and alignment alternatives. These alternatives need to be coordinated with local and regional transportation plans for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The alternatives, as well as a no build alternative, must be developed to an adequate level of detail to allow for evaluation of the affected social, economic, and natural environments; travel demand; and costs. To the extent possible, impacts should be avoided or minimized during the development of the specific alignments for the corridors. However, in all cases, avoidance and minimization of negative impacts will not be possible so mitigation would be necessary. As the corridors recommended for further study move into the next phase of development, a comprehensive, open, and proactive public and agency participation plan should be developed for each project. As stated previously, over 660 comments were documented through the Regional Outer Loop Feasibility Study process. These comments should be reviewed and future public and agency involvement plans need to build upon these efforts and those of previous studies. Coordination efforts should begin at the start of each study. On an annual basis, NCTCOG will prepare a report on any changes, updates, or progress that has been made since the last report. The purpose of the status report will be to help maintain the viability of the findings of this report and to document various changes as they occur.

Documents

Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study...Task Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Data Collection Need and Purpose Public and Agency Outreach Stakeholder