I.H. 635 (LBJ) Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS)

LBJ Major Investment Study

LBJ Executive Board Meeting Agenda March 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 Congestion Management System

Focus Group A Corridor TSM s

Focus Group C Corridor TDM Focus Group B LBJ Facility Components Focus Group D LBJ TSM

BJ Organizational Chart

Technical Advisory Committee ,. (TAG) V

LBJ Major Investment Study

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

Study- Concept Concept Development (SCDC)

I.H. 635 (LBJ) Corridor Major Investment Study Process

| Public Outreach

Gcicils and Objseayss V

i j

Deyelppmerit^: i Analysis J |

Path 1 Forward

Locally Preferred Alternative

ier Public Involvement j * Feasibilty

• Now

* Planning / NEPA K Before * Design * Construction LBJ Major Investment Study

^j^Major Investment Study Agency Partners * TxDOT - Lead Agency i

* NCTCOG - MIS Guidance

* TTA - Area Tollway Authority * DART - Local Transit Provider LBJ Major Investment Study

*

03/11/96

15:12

©6403028

NCTCOG TRANSPORT

I.H. 635 CORRIDOR STUDY PROCESS SUMMARY MIS Coordination

—^ 0)

I o c 3 CL

(0 3 O 3 C

"c o

o I

Regional/State/Federal Consensus

±

NEPA/Design Implementation North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department

©007/007

03/11/96

15:10

©6403028

NCTCOG TRANSPORT

0002/007

MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY WHY PERFORMED

Provide for Early Consideration of Environmental and Community Issues

Consensus Building Through Extensive Public Involvement

Improve Transportation Investment Decisions

North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department

03/11/96

15:10

©6403028

NCTCOG TRANSPORT

0003/007

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT Mobility 2010 Update (1993) 2010 Planning Horizon HOV/Express East-side Widening

I.H. 635 (LBJ) Major Investment Study (1993-1996) 2015 Planning Horizon Various Multimodal Configurations

Mobility 2020 (1996) 2020 Planning Horizon Incorporation of MIS Recommendations

North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department

6

03/11/96

15:11

Q6403028

NCTCOG TRANSPORT

RTP/MIS CONSISTENCY Design Concept (Conformity Placeholder) General Alignment

# Lanes/Tracks # Interchanges/Stations Interchange/Station Spacing

Cost Implications (Financial Constraint Placeholder) Net Cost Revenue Generation Potential Funding Source Staging/Phasing

North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department

®004/007

03/11/96

15:11

©6403028

NCTCOG TRANSPORT

©005/007

RTP/MIS CONSISTENCY OPTIONS Amend Regional Transportation Plan Include LPA directly Update Financial Plan Possible Elimination of Other Projects

Staged Construction of LPA Logical Phasing Sequence Fit Within Financial Placeholder Amend Plan if Necessary

North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department

10

RTC CONCERNS & CONDITIONS FOR INCLUSION OF LPA IN RTP Must Have Strong Local Consensus

Must Be Cost-Effective

Must Fit Into Financially-Constrained Regional Transportation Plan

Must Allow RTP To Meet All Air Quality Conformity Requirements

North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department

It

TAC/SCDC Recommendation Presented for Discussion and Consideration by the LBJ Executive Board for Concurrence to Prepare the Recommendation for Presentation to the Public LBJ Executive Board March 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 LBJ Major Investment Study

1LJ^

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 arterial roadways .* Additional traffic that does use LBJ will increase the hours of congestion on the facility * Increased corridor congestion could ultimately have a negative impact on the local economy LBJ Major Investment Study

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

1990 Existing

2010 Baseline

2010 Build

Percent on Streets • Percent onLBJ Freeway

Criteria Set 2 Goal Statement Building on concepts identified from Criteria Set 1, develop through partnerships a Locally Preferred Alternative which will improve mobility in the corridor in a cost-effective manner, while enhancing the quality of life and the economic viability of the "neighbors" of LBJ Freeway.

LBJ Major Investment Study

17 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, General Physical and Social Issues

Goal #4: Cost Effectiveness - Costs, Revenue Generation, Cost Effectiveness LBJ Major Investment Study

,

-1 Q

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 disqualify a particular alternative * Differences between alternatives could not be measured or were relatively small for these criteria * All of these criteria will be specifically addressed in the NEPA process LBJ Major Investment Study

Important Criteria * Accessibility * Safety Impacts * Operational Flexibility * Design Flexibility * Multimodal Flexibility * Specific Visual Impacts LBJ Major Investment Study

* Corridor Air Quality Impacts * Specific Noise Impacts * General Physical & Biological Resources * General Social/ Neighborhood Resources 20

Key Criteria * Differences between alternatives were significant for these criteria

LBJ Major Investment Study

21

Key Criteria * Travel Demand & Supply * Travel Performance * Corridor Congestion * Specific Right-ofWay Impacts

LBJ Major Investment Study

* * * *

Buildings Displaced Constructibility Costs Revenue Generation Potential * Cost Effectiveness

22

I.H.635 STUDY AREA PERFORMANCE DISTRICTS

March 11, 1996

CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION MATRIX - EAST SECTION

DRAFT

CMS

8-2

0+

+ ++

+ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

0

+

+

+ + + ++

Operational Flexibility

o o+ ++ o+ + ++ 0 ++ ++ o + + o + +

Design Flexibility

0

Multimodal Flexibility Specific Right-of-Way Impacts

Base

Criteria Travel

10-2

8-2R

10-2R

8-3R

10-3R

8-4

10-4

- Supply (Vehicle capacity) -Demand

Travel Performance Corridor Congestion Costs Accessibility Safety Impacts

Buildings with Displacement Specific Visual Impacts - From Adjacent Properties - Commercial Visibility

Corridor Air Quality Impacts

+

0

+ +

+ +

+ + +

o

- -

-O

o o o o +• + + + ^f

""

\*-S

""

o o + + \^

+ + + + + ++ + ++ + ++ ++ + ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + ++ + + + + +

- -

+ +

+ ++ + +

+ ++ + +

-

- -

-

-

.0

-O

.0

-O

.0

o

0

o

+

o+

0+

o o+

+ +

-

Constructibility

+

0

- - - o -

General - Physical

0

JO

JO

- Biological Resources

0

o o

f- Worse -

.0

-

o+ +

0+

o o + o+

429

469

414

449

471

539

469

537

o

o

o -o

o

o

o

O

Costs (SM) - Construction and ROW

Cost Effectiveness

"

\~f

0

Revenue Generation " Potential

-

™

Specific Noise Impacts

General Social / Neighborhood Resources

"

0

++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ -o -

- Better

25-

East Recommendation Exercise Results 10 Mainlanes - 4 HOV 10-4 10-4 10-4 10-3RorlO-4

LBJ Major Investment Study

o/;

March 11, 1996

CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVAT.f TATTON MATRTY - EAST SECTION

Criteria

Base

CMS

8-2

10-2

8-2R

10-2R

8-3R

o+ + ++ + ++ ++

Travel

10-3R

0

Travel Performance

+

+

o o+ ++ o+ + ++

+ + + ++ + + +

+

+

++ +

Multimodal Flexibility

++ + ++ ++ 0 ++ ++ + + o + + + + o + + + + + 0 + o + + + + +

Specific Right-of-Way Impacts

0

Buildings with Displacement

0

Corridor Congestion Costs Accessibility Safety Impacts Operational Flexibility Design Flexibility

Specific Visual Impacts - Commercial Visibility

Corridor Air Quality Impacts Specific Noise Impacts Constructibility

- Physical - Biological Resources

General Social / Neighborhood Resources Costs ($M)

-

0

+ +

o + +

0

o o +• + + +

- -

-

++

++

+

+

'$£;(

++

+

§•*?

++

+

++

++

+

+

+

+

+ +

- - - + 0 - 0 -

-

.0

.0 o

o

-O

-O

-O

Cost Effectiveness

$** '?*! 5H

-^ * " ,:;

++

+

+

+'

_$'«_'

^- 1-- - \

«

'

--

-

t '^i.\~-

^~K" £ -*v V~-

f^'.^t " V" ,-^-'-,'-

o + o+

"ftjK^IiJ

++

+ '*> 1. 'C^-

+

+

!fc -,

-

-

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

J\^r$^-, ~ ^

-

-O

-

.0

."'*•,! f^j

," ""

^;-M5-C » "' ' '

+

0+

429

469

414

449

471

539

469

o o

o

o o

o

O

O

o + o+ o+ 0

++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ - O -

. :\C*~~'-

-*^^ir-'4?, ''.-'- 'X?

Hii

l^'^:Jr:4:

.v;c '*st

mh

++

++

+

+

wa fSf-^fr,*

,«V&i"-* t

«*ife>

'I*?: X55V ^

+

+

++

+

+

+

"-;-- *

fii *l.^r-*' .•-"'s- t ^C'" i ~ i - ir

~V- I*

,"

#•€ -^9W-;*;

- o -

-

ff._-fA-

>•>• i * :— "*:

•

o 0 o o +• + + +

l&f ">**•* -"

- Supply (Vehicle capacity) -Demand

DRAFT

449

-%V~ ft-. ^=£1. jV> ~^i-

f^ (••••Jj. ^ V"^* ^•^

--

-

--

-

'-^"•^M

++

+

ySS^z; •yti::&&

+

+

;IJ^5&

1ft

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

-

-

-O

JO

-O

o +

0

o

0+

0+

471

539

469

-WmfSg ^5fe!a?% ••?^X,£r-^5f.'

^s^?m "if-^f'Vff.

Sl'-f-'S.^?

j>s?ss A'««^ :'C" :S J

»-- ft'f^S -;^j ^^

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

o o

o o O O O ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

Revenue Generation Potential

0

Cost Effectiveness

J J- ^^

1

-""•"•*.> i?* ;---A -r-' ^~~t

^- -*.:-'' i

"-.*]?-,;-'••.

:H^1./ Worse -

- O -

- Better

March 11, 1996

CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION MATRIX -WEST SECTION

Criteria

Base

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 / Neighborhood Resources

CMS

8-4

0

~

o o . o + + + o o o -O o o o o+ 423

Worse -

8-6(T)

+ ++ ++ ++ o ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ ++ 0 o 0+ + ++ ++ o + + + ++ o o o o o o + + V V o + V V o o + + ++ ++

Costs ($M)

Cost Effectiveness

8-6(M)

0

- Construction and ROW

Revenue Generation Potential

10-4

""

-O

10-6

6-4-4

DRAFT

8-4-4

V ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ + + ++ + + o o o V ++ ++ + + ++ ++ V V

- - --

« « - - - « o o o +—+ +—+ o + + + +

+

-

+

- - -

+ -

-

-

-

o

-O

.0 - - o o o o _o _o .0 -O

-O

447

449

793

809

-O 0

+

878

+ -

897

-

+ + V V ++ V V ++ ++ ++ V + + + + 0

-- O- +,++

,+ + +- Better

West Recommendation Exercise Results 8 Mainlanes - 6 HOV (Median) 10-4/8-6 8 - 6 (T) 8 - 6(M) 8-4-4 8-6(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 Base

Criteria Travel

CMS

O

- Supply (Vehicle capacity)

8-4

10-4

;ar + + + ;

Operational Flexibility Design Flexibility

%

t

•v •v

Multimodal Flexibility Specific Right-of-Way Impacts Buildings with Displacement

——

Specific Visual Impacts - From Adjacent Properties - Commercial Visibility

8-4-4

• ,

Corridor Air Quality Impacts

+ +

Specific Noise Impacts

0

Constructibility

o

General - Physical - Biological Resources

General Social / Neighborhood Resources Costs ($M)

+ ;J&: 5*^-: + - - ;:}--j| is-o; ~^ " "

o -O -O o o .0 o 0+ .0 423

- Construction and ROW

Revenue Generation Potential Cost Effectiveness

Worse -

—

N?-',:^?-" •--iT!:^' ^^.;-

"^ -^r

^W- ^ > J

m^ * ,-- -i*f ;

447

o + + ++ ++ ++

,-^O^P ,

_- O- +,++

_

+

+

-

-

o

-

-

O

-

O

-O

_o

-O

-

~:i*\ W ++ V V + + ^ ^

'^H^F;"

—

897

793

+

,+ + +- Better

809

May 24, 1996

CRITERIA SET 2 - OVERALL EVALUATION IVfATRTX -WEST SECTION

Base

Criteria Travel - Supply (Vehicle capacity) - Demand

CMS

6-4-4

8-4-4

O

O

V 2

Corridor Congestion Costs

o o o

Operational Flexibility

0

Design Flexibility

o

Multimodal Flexibility

o

Specific Right-of-Way Impacts

o

Buildings with Displacement

o

Specific Visual Impacts

0

- From Adjacent Properties - Commercial Visibility

10-6

o 0

Safety Impacts

10-4

O

Travel Performance

Accessibility (Mainlane)

8-4

DRAFT

i.f:

0 ,.

'

o

o

o

V V V V

o

0

o

O

o

.0

-O

.0

897

793

809

o

Corridor Air Quality Impacts Specific Noise Impacts Constructibility

General - Physical - Biological Resources

General Social / Neighborhood Resources

o o

-fl

.0 .0 o o o o o .0

0

Costs ($M)

423

447

-

t

'

~

- Construction and ROW

Revenue Generation Potential

o

V

Cost 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

q

o

K

55

K fc, e

. o A

K

O

D-, CO H

CO

u

SS I-H

Q CO CO

w

CD Jz;

1= u

.8 °-

il °"

K

w Ooo co

OOO-

w

O

CO CO H

CO H 55

% t-*

a

55 I—H