i.h. 635 (lbj) corridor major investment study...
TRANSCRIPT
I.H. 635 (LBJ) CorridorMajor Investment Study
(MIS)
LBJ Major Investment Study
LBJ Executive BoardMeeting AgendaMarch 26,1996
* Introductory Remarks* Summary of TAC/SCDC Meeting* Recommendation Presentation* Questions, Answers &/or Remarks* Concurrence Discussion* Adjourn
.*LBJ Major Investment Study
LBJ CORRIDOR STUDY
Regional CongestionManagement System
Focus Group ACorridor TSM
s
Focus Group CCorridor TDM
Focus Group BLBJ Facility
Components
Focus Group DLBJ TSM
BJ Organizational Chart
TechnicalAdvisory
Committee ,.(TAG) V
Focus Groups
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I
Study- ConceptConcept
Development(SCDC)
LBJ Major Investment Study
I.H. 635 (LBJ) CorridorMajor Investment Study Process
| PublicOutreach
Gcicils andObjseayss
V
ij
Deyelppmerit^:i Analysis J |
Path 1Forward
LocallyPreferred
Alternative
ier Public Involvementj
* Feasibilty • Now
* Planning / NEPA K Before
* Design
* Construction
LBJ Major Investment Study
^j^Major Investment StudyAgency Partners
* TxDOT - Lead Agencyi
* NCTCOG - MIS Guidance
* TTA - Area Tollway Authority
* DART - Local Transit ProviderLBJ Major Investment Study *
03/11/96 15:12 ©6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT ©007/007
I.H. 635 CORRIDOR STUDYPROCESS SUMMARY
—^
0)
Ioc
3CL(03O3C
"cooI
MIS Coordination
Regional/State/FederalConsensus
±NEPA/Design
Implementation
North Central Texas Council of GovernmentsTransportation Department
03/11/96 15:10 ©6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT 0002/007
MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDYWHY PERFORMED
Provide for Early Consideration ofEnvironmental and CommunityIssues
Consensus Building ThroughExtensive Public Involvement
Improve Transportation InvestmentDecisions
North Central Texas Council of GovernmentsTransportation Department
03/11/96 15:10 ©6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT 0003/007
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATIONPLAN DEVELOPMENT
Mobility 2010 Update (1993)2010 Planning Horizon
HOV/ExpressEast-side Widening
I.H. 635 (LBJ) Major InvestmentStudy (1993-1996)2015 Planning Horizon
Various Multimodal Configurations
Mobility 2020 (1996)2020 Planning Horizon
Incorporation of MIS Recommendations
North Central Texas Council of GovernmentsTransportation Department
6
03/11/96 15:11 Q6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT ®004/007
RTP/MIS CONSISTENCY
Design Concept(Conformity Placeholder)
General Alignment# Lanes/Tracks# Interchanges/StationsInterchange/StationSpacing
Cost Implications(Financial Constraint Placeholder)
Net CostRevenue Generation PotentialFunding SourceStaging/Phasing
North Central Texas Council of GovernmentsTransportation Department
03/11/96 15:11 ©6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT ©005/007
RTP/MIS CONSISTENCYOPTIONS
Amend Regional Transportation Plan
Include LPA directlyUpdate Financial PlanPossible Elimination of Other Projects
Staged Construction of LPA
Logical Phasing SequenceFit Within Financial PlaceholderAmend Plan if Necessary
North Central Texas Council of GovernmentsTransportation Department
10
RTC CONCERNS & CONDITIONSFOR INCLUSION OF LPA IN RTP
Must Have Strong Local Consensus
Must Be Cost-Effective
Must Fit Into Financially-ConstrainedRegional Transportation Plan
Must Allow RTP To Meet All AirQuality Conformity Requirements
North Central Texas Council of GovernmentsTransportation Department
It
TAC/SCDCRecommendation
Presented for Discussion and Considerationby the LBJ Executive Board for Concurrence
to Prepare the Recommendation forPresentation to the Public
LBJ Executive BoardMarch 26,1996
LBJ Major Investment Study 12
Tech Team"Staff" Participants
* MIS Sponsor & Other Agency Partners- TxDOT, NCTCOG, DART, TTA
* Local Government Representation- Cities of Dallas, Garland, Farmers
Branch, and Mesquite
* Technical Production- HNTB, TC&B, AB&A-TTI-TSI
* Community Involvement-CRC
1 LBJ Major Investment Study LJ
Screening Process
* Criteria Set #1 - Create Concepts- Performance & mobility- General & qualitative
* Criteria Set #2 - Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)- Community concerns, trade-offs , solutions- Specific issues & quantitative evaluation
* Criteria Set #3 - Schematic Design for LPA- NEPA Process (Environmental Impact Statement)- Detailed & quantitative for Public Hearing
LBJ Major Investment Study
Criteria Set 1 Findings
* Traffic in the corridor will increase 40%between 1990 and 2015
* Majority of this growth will use arterialroadways
.* Additional traffic that does use LBJ willincrease the hours of congestion on thefacility
* Increased corridor congestion couldultimately have a negative impact on thelocal economy
LBJ Major Investment Study
Improving LBJ Freeway: 1-35 to US-75How Much Traffic on City Street?
1990 Existing 2010 Baseline 2010 Build
Percent on Streets • Percent on LBJ Freeway
Criteria Set 2Goal Statement
Building on concepts identified from CriteriaSet 1, develop through partnerships a LocallyPreferred Alternative which will improve mobilityin the corridor in a cost-effective manner, whileenhancing the quality of life and the economicviability of the "neighbors" of LBJ Freeway.
17LBJ Major Investment Study L'
ision-Making Framework
Goal #1: Mobility- Demand, Performance, Congestion,Accessibility, Safety
Goal #2: Flexibility- Operational, Design, Multimodal
Goal #3: Community Enhancement- Right-of-Way, Displacement, Visual, Air
Quality, Noise, Constructibility, GeneralPhysical and Social Issues
Goal #4: Cost Effectiveness- Costs, Revenue Generation, Cost Effectiveness
-1 Q
LBJ Major Investment Study , 10
Important Criteria
* All criteria are important and were evaluated* Evaluation of these criteria did not identify a
"fatal flaw" that would cause us to disqualifya particular alternative
* Differences between alternatives could not bemeasured or were relatively small for thesecriteria
* All of these criteria will be specificallyaddressed in the NEPA process
LBJ Major Investment Study
Important Criteria
* Accessibility* Safety Impacts* Operational
Flexibility* Design Flexibility* Multimodal
Flexibility* Specific Visual
Impacts
* Corridor Air QualityImpacts
* Specific NoiseImpacts
* General Physical &Biological Resources
* General Social/NeighborhoodResources
LBJ Major Investment Study 20
Key Criteria
* Differences between alternatives weresignificant for these criteria
LBJ Major Investment Study 21
Key Criteria
* Travel Demand &Supply
* Travel Performance* Corridor Congestion
* Specific Right-of-Way Impacts
* Buildings Displaced* Constructibility* Costs
* Revenue GenerationPotential
* Cost Effectiveness
LBJ Major Investment Study 22
I.H.635 STUDY AREAPERFORMANCE DISTRICTS
March 11, 1996 CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION MATRIX - EAST SECTION DRAFT
Criteria
Travel- Supply (Vehicle capacity)
-Demand
Travel Performance
Corridor Congestion Costs
Accessibility
Safety Impacts
Operational Flexibility
Design Flexibility
Multimodal Flexibility
Specific Right-of-WayImpacts
Buildings with Displacement
Specific Visual Impacts- From Adjacent Properties
- Commercial Visibility
Corridor Air Quality Impacts
Specific Noise Impacts
Constructibility
General- Physical- Biological Resources
General Social /Neighborhood Resources
Costs (SM)
- Construction and ROW
Revenue Generation "Potential
Cost Effectiveness
Base CMS
0+
0
oo+0
oo0
0
o
oo+•+0
+0
0
o+
0
++
8-2
+
+o++
++++++
-ofo\*-S
++-0
JO
o+
429
o++
10-2
++
+++++++++++
-""
""
++--
JO
o0+
469
o++
8-2R
+
+++
++++++-O
o\^o\~f
++-o.0
o+
414
o++
10-2R
++
+++++++++++
-™
++--.0
oo+449
-o++
8-3R
++
+++
++++++
-
++---O
o+
471
o++
10-3R
++
+++++++++
+++
"
+++--.0
0
o+539
o++
8-4
++
+++
++++++
-
++---O
o0+
469
o++
10-4
++
+++++++++
+++
"
+++--.0
oo+537
O
++
f- Worse - - o - - Better25-
East RecommendationExercise Results
10 Mainlanes - 4 HOV10-410-410-410-3RorlO-4
o/;
LBJ Major Investment Study
March 11, 1996 CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVAT.f TATTON MATRTY - EAST SECTION DRAFT
Criteria
Travel- Supply (Vehicle capacity)
-Demand
Travel Performance
Corridor Congestion Costs
Accessibility
Safety Impacts
Operational Flexibility
Design Flexibility
Multimodal Flexibility
Specific Right-of-WayImpacts
Buildings with Displacement
Specific Visual Impacts
- Commercial Visibility
Corridor Air Quality Impacts
Specific Noise Impacts
Constructibility
General
- Physical
- Biological Resources
General Social /Neighborhood Resources
Costs ($M)- Construction and ROW
Revenue GenerationPotential
Cost Effectiveness
Base CMS
o+
0
oo+0
oo0
o0
0
o+•+o+0
o0+
o++
8-2
+
+o++
++++++-0
o
++-0
-O
o+
429
o++
10-2
++
+++++++++++--
++---O
o0+
469
o++
8-2R
+
+++
++++++.0
0
o++-0
-O
o+
414
o++
10-2R
++
+++++++++++--
++--.0
oo+449
o++
8-3R
++
+++
++++++--
++--.0o+
471
o++
10-3R
++
+
++
++
++
+
+
++
+
«
--
++
+
-
--O
0
o+539
O
++
8-4
++
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
+ '
-
-
+
+
-
-
.0
oo+469
O
++
JXM
' A ,; ' •- .'
'$£;(
§•*?
•-•i> ''--"" ''
$**'?*!' £•
5H
-^ * " ,:;
_ $ ' « _ ' 1 1
;^- 1-- - \
' t ' i.\~-
^~K" £ -*v V~-
f^'.^t " V",-^-'-,'-iC;.1-'"*' :V;.
"ftjK^IiJ
'*> 1. 'C^- iv"•-' •*•'. --~^<>
!fc-, . :\C*~~'-
fs* '"".-'> -.'_--'.
-*<T-^ ^Du-^ BB^ ^J\^r$^-, ~ ^
."'*•,! f^j ," ""
;-M5-C » "' ' '
^.-ri- -^
S3*£^^H-^.;
«w:-^^'l
& y! X! • --J,,-~ s;_^ ~5j.-
--. - -"
*- Worse - - O - - Better
Mav 24, 1996 CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION MATRIX - EAST SECTION DRAFT
Criteria
Travel- Supply (Vehicle capacity)
-Demand
Travel Performance'
Corridor Congestion Costs
Accessibility
Safety Impacts
Operational Flexibility
Design Flexibility
Multimodal Flexibility
Specific Right-of-WayImpacts
Buildings with Displacement
Specific Visual Impacts
- From Adjacent Properties
- Commercial Visibility
Corridor Air Quality Impacts
Specific Noise Impacts
Constructibility
General
- Physical
- Biological Resources
General Social /Neighborhood Resources
Costs ($M)- Construction and ROW
Revenue GenerationPotential
Cost Effectiveness
Base CMS
0+
ooo+o0
oooo
oo+•+0
+ooo+
0
++
8-2
+
+o++
++++++
0
o++-0
.0
o+
429
o++
10-2
++
+++++++++++
--++--.0
oo+469
o++
8-2R
+
+++
++++++o
oo++-o-O
o+
414
o++
10-2R
++
+++++++++++
--++--
JO
o0+
449
o++
8-3R
++
+++
++++++
--++---O
o+
471
O
++
10-3R
++
+
++
++
++
+
+
++
+
•
--
--
++
+
-
-
JO
0
0+
539
O
++
8-4
++
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
-
-
-O
o0+
469
O
++
l&f">**•* -" ff._-fA-
"*•%> r= «£--"•.£>^^ir--'4?, ''.-'- 'X?
Hiil ' Jr:4:.v;c:'*st
>•>• i * :— "*:mhfSf-^fr,*wa
,«V&i"-* t«*ife>'I*?:X55V ^ "-;-- *
fii*l. r-*'
.•-"'s-t^C'"i~i-ir
~V- I* , "
#•€-^9W-;*;
-%V~ ft-.^=£1. jV> ~^i-f^ (••••Jj. ^V"^* ^•^
'- "• M
ySS^z;•yti::&&;IJ^5&
1ft- l -v-"l-S:$>^
-WmfSg^5fe!a?%••?^X,£r-^5f.'^s^?m
"if-^f'Vff.
Sl'-f-'S. ?
j>s?ssA'««^ :'C"J:S
»-- ft'f S-;^j<gijf-.f^ *t.-^~ ^> ^^
- 53P*- -., '1,-ft';- f'?'!' J J- ^^
-""•"•*.> i?*1
;---A -r-'^~~t ^- -*.:-'' i
"-.*]?-,;-'••.
:H 1./
Worse - - O - - Better
March 11, 1996 CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION MATRIX -WEST SECTION DRAFT
Criteria
Travel- Supply (Vehicle capacity)
Travel Performance
Corridor Congestion Costs
Accessibility (Mainlane)
Safety Impacts •
Operational Flexibility
Design Flexibility
Multimodal Flexibility
Specific Right-of-Way Impacts
Buildings with Displacement
Specific Visual Impacts- From Adjacent Properties- Commercial Visibility
Corridor Air Quality Impacts
Specific Noise Impacts
Constructibility
General- Physical- Biological Resources
^
General Social / NeighborhoodResources
Costs ($M)- Construction and ROW
Revenue Generation Potential
Cost Effectiveness
Base CMS
0
o0
oooo
o
o0
ooo+oo
ooo
0
++
8-4
+
+++0+
+o+
+
+
~-.++-
-O
oo+423
+
++
10-4
+++++++o+
V+
"«
—+++-
-O
0
-O
447
+
++
8-6(M)
++
+++++++oVV++
"«
—+++-
.0o_o449
VV
8-6(T)
++
++++++++oVo
++
-O
-oo+---o_o878
V+
10-6
V++++++++o
V+
++
--o++-
--o.0
897
++
+
6-4-4
++
+++++o++
+
V--o++-
--o-O
793
V+
8-4-4
+++++++o
++
++
V--«-++---o-O
809
V+
Worse - -- O- +,++ ,+ + +- Better
West RecommendationExercise Results
8 Mainlanes - 6 HOV (Median)10-4/8-68 - 6 (T)8 - 6 (M)
8-4-48-6(M)/8-6(T)8 - 6 (M)8 - 6 (M)
LBJ Major Investment Study
March 11, 1996 CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION MATRIX -WEST SECTION DRAFT
Criteria
Travel- Supply (Vehicle capacity)
Travel Performance
Corridor Congestion Costs
Accessibility (Mainlane)
Safety Impacts
Operational Flexibility
Design Flexibility
Multimodal Flexibility
Specific Right-of-Way Impacts
Buildings with Displacement
Specific Visual Impacts- From Adjacent Properties- Commercial Visibility ,
Corridor Air Quality Impacts
Specific Noise Impacts
Constructibility
General- Physical- Biological Resources
General Social / NeighborhoodResources
Costs ($M)- Construction and ROW
Revenue Generation Potential
Cost Effectiveness
Base
•
CMS
O
O
ooooo
o
oo
ooo+0
o
ooo
o++
8-4
++++o*+o+
++~^
-++-
-O
o0+
423
+++
10-4
+++++++o+V+
-_-— — ,
«+++-
-O
.0
.0447
+++
<"KM>,
•**».'i*r
;*H£>*+;
i*:i:;tQ;;:
; % t
^Hflr '
^H^P -*
•£*•<;V^^•••"^-r
;+H|;;J&:;:}--j|
~ ^ " "
•--iT!: '"
^W-m^
* ,-- ; -i*f
' H^F;"
,-^O^P ,
iN '- -*
;**;r**?-
>!**:
i*i-,HHK;;Q-;
W
•ffi
'*$'•?&•4 ;••, v-, .A • -W
>;ar
5*^-:is-o;N?-',: ?-"^ .;-
-^r
^J>
~:i*\W^
10-6
V++++++++oV+
++-—
0
++-
--o-O
897
+++
6-4-4
+++++++O
++*•v-—
O
+
+
-
-
-O
_o793
V+
8-4-4
+++++++O
++
++•v
—_
-+
+
-
-
-O
-O
809
V+
Worse - _- O- +,++ ,+ + +- Better
May 24, 1996 CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION IVfATRTX -WEST SECTION DRAFT
Criteria Base CMS 8-4 10-4 10-6 6-4-4 8-4-4
Travel- Supply (Vehicle capacity)- Demand
O Vo
Travel Performance 02 i.f:
Corridor Congestion Costs o 0
Accessibility (Mainlane) o,.
'
Safety Impacts o o o o O O
Operational Flexibility 0 VDesign Flexibility o VMultimodal Flexibility o V VSpecific Right-of-Way Impacts oBuildings with Displacement oSpecific Visual Impacts- From Adjacent Properties- Commercial Visibility
0 o 0
oCorridor Air Quality Impacts
Specific Noise Impacts oConstructibility o -fl
General- Physical- Biological Resources
0 .0 .0 - t '
o o o o O oGeneral Social / NeighborhoodResources o o .0
~.0 -O .0
Costs ($M)- Construction and ROW
423 447 897 793 809
Revenue Generation Potential o VCost Effectiveness
f- Worse - _- O- + - Better
8-6(M) - Advantages, Problem
Advantages:
• Comparable capacity and performance to other alternatives• No increase in number of mainlanes increases High Occupancy/Toll (HOT)
lane usage• Among lowest in construction cost• Standard construction project• Good revenue potential• Cost effective• Combined HOT lanes provide good operational flexibility and simplified
access• Accommodates all modes including room for future transit• Opportunity for private funding partnership• Increased local traffic mobility on bypass frontage roads
Problem:
• Requires the most right-of-way and displacements
37
o55
qK
D-,
K fc, e. o A
K O
Q
COH
SSI-H
COCO
w K
CD Jz;
CO
1=u
oo O-co
O-
O-
COH
55I—H
<
COu
.8 °-il °"w O-
CO
w O
COH55
%t-*
a
36
0
o1 1 .MH~-O o
« t. o
O
•-T-I
»
CO
3g'N1* S ai _; O 4
I-M
CD
CO
2»-«
„
<;j «
Q a
CO
CO
a,XH
0a
B«xH
>o
COH2•<.J
•<5W
2.WO
a
OT
«
COCO
>o
OT
9os
o
«£:«
a
38
8-6(T) - Advantages, Problem
Advantages:
• Comparable capacity and performance to other alternatives• No increase in number of mainlanes increases High Occupancy/Toll lane
usage• Lowest in right-of-way impacts and displacements• Good revenue potential• Combined HOT lanes provide good operational flexibility and simplified
access• Accommodates all modes including room for future transit• Opportunity for private funding partnership• Increased local traffic mobility on bypass frontage roads
Problem:
• Construction cost and constructability
39
Steps to get there...
* Adopt TAC/SCDC Recommendation* Present Recommendation to LBJEB
> Briefing meetings to Cities, etc ...> Continued committee refinement> Prepare drawings for public meeting> Hold public meeting> Evaluate public & committee input> Prepare Final MIS Recommendation
* Arrive at an LBJEB recommendationLBJ Major Investment Study
uture - What we will do
* Arrive at an LBJEB Recommendation* Local consensus - Cities and County* Regional consensus - DART, TTA, RTC* State consensus - Transp. Comm.* Federal consensus - FHWA and FTA* Follow MIS recommendations in NEPA* Implement short term improvements* Continued public involvement program
LBJ Major Investment Study