The Southern Gateway IH 35E/US 67 Transportation Study November 18 & 21, 2002 The Southern Gateway IH 35E/US 67 Transportation Study Public Meetings

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Study Area

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Ongoing Major Projects Loop 9 East Corridor Project Pegasus/ Trinity Parkway Loop 12/IH 35E IH 35E

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Project Development Process Major Investment Study (MIS) Schematic Design Environmental Assessment Final Design Construction Focus of our project Identify Need Right-of-Way Purchase 2 to 5 years 4 to 15 years

Project Schedule

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Project Goals  Solutions for 2025 and beyond  Improve mobility in southern Dallas County  Enhance safety on IH 35E and US 67  Maximize positive environmental and socio-economic opportunities  Minimize negative environmental and socio-economic effects  Provide affordable and cost-effective transportation solutions

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Public Involvement - Goals  Inclusive  Open communication  Focus on solutions  Many ways to get information  Many ways to provide comments  Maintain an aggressive schedule

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Work Groups and Meetings Public Involvement Policy Work Group Elected officials and transportation leaders Community Work Group Residents, businesses, institutions, commuters, environmental org’s Staff Work Group Technical staff from governmental and regulatory agencies Public Meetings Open to all interested parties Public Hearings Open to all interested parties

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Public Involvement Tools  Work Group Meetings  Public Meetings/Hearings  Newsletters  Web site  Information packet  Presentations  Print and Broadcast Media

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Study Area Map IH 35E/US 67 Study Corridor

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Traffic Volumes - Existing vpd: vehicles per day 190,000 vpd 100,000 vpd 80,000 vpd 60,000 vpd 120,000 vpd

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Freeway Accidents 379 accidents/year 119 accidents/year 180 accidents/year 68 accidents/year Note: Average reported accidents per year, These accident rates are similar to the regional averages.

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Population and Employment Growth % Change Population4,536,0006,671,00047 % Employment2,691,0003,907,40045 % Metropolitan Planning Area Note: The Metropolitan Planning Area consists of Dallas, Collin, Tarrant, Denton, Rockwall Counties and parts of Ellis, Johnson, Parker, Kaufman Counties

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, Congestion Levels

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, Congestion Levels

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Transportation Solutions  Bicycle & pedestrian facilities  City street improvements  Bus transit  Rail transit  Transportation System Management  Travel Demand Management  Freeway and HOV improvements

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Transportation Solutions  Bicycle & pedestrian facilities  City street improvements  Bus transit  Rail transit  TSM  TDM Non-Freeway/HOV Alternatives

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Traffic Volumes Total Demand vpd: vehicles per day 340,000 vpd 140,000 vpd 180,000 vpd 170,000 vpd150,000 vpd

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Traffic Volumes - Existing and 2025 Demand vpd: vehicles per day 1999: 190,000 vpd 2025: 340,000 vpd 1999: 80,000 vpd 2025: 180,000 vpd 1999: 60,000 vpd 2025: 170,000 vpd 1999: 100,000 vpd 2025: 140,000 vpd 1999: 120,000 vpd 2025: 150,000 vpd

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Freeway and HOV Alternatives  Demand exceeds what can be accommodated using non-freeway alternatives  Mobility focus is on moving people, not necessarily vehicles  HOV alternatives provide additional person-capacity  Freeway/HOV alternatives constrained by adjacent land uses - minimize or eliminate ROW impacts

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Finding Balance Transportation Needs vs. Right-of-Way Requirements Economic Development Environment Aesthetic Designs

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Evaluation Criteria  Mobility and Safety  Environmental Impacts  Flexibility and Compatibility with other Projects  Cost Effectiveness  Engineering Feasibility SignificantSomeNoSomeSignificant NegativeNegativeEffectPositivePositive EffectEffectNeutralEffectEffect

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Environmental Analysis  Extensive data collection effort ongoing  Documented environmental constraints  Critical issues identified to date: ü Noise impacts ü Visual impacts ü Historic districts ü Parks (including Dallas Zoo) ü Cemeteries ü Creeks and wetlands ü Community cohesion ü Air quality impacts

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Historic District Dallas Zoo McAdams Cemetery Noise impacts Visual impacts Air quality impacts Creeks & wetlands ThurgoodM arshall Rec Center Boulder Park Laurel Land Cemetery

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Freeway and HOV Alternatives IH 35E North, North of Marsalis IH 35E North, South of Marsalis IH 35E South US 67 North US 67 South

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Transportation SYSTEM Project Pegasus/ Trinity Parkway IH 35E North

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Transportation SYSTEM

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 IH 35E North North of Marsalis

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 IH 35E North South of Marsalis

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 IH 35E North - Alternatives  No-Build  Freeway General Purpose Lanes - 4 in each direction - 5 in each direction - 6 in each direction  HOV or Special Use Lanes - None - 1 in each direction - 1 reversible - 2 reversible - 3 reversible  At-Grade and Elevated were considered

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 IH 35E North – Draft Preferred Alternative 5 Mainlanes + 2 Reversible Lanes + 5 Mainlanes

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 IH 35E South US 67 to Danieldale

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 IH 35E South - Alternatives  No-Build  Freeway General Purpose Lanes - 3 in each direction - 4 in each direction  HOV or Special Use Lanes - None - 1 in each direction - 1 reversible - 2 reversible  At-Grade and Elevated were considered

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 IH 35E South – Draft Preferred Alternative 3 Mainlanes + 1 Reversible Lane + 3 Mainlanes

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 US 67 North IH 35E to IH 20

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 US 67 North - Alternatives  No-Build  Freeway General Purpose Lanes - 2 in each direction - 3 in each direction - 4 in each direction  HOV or Special Use Lanes - None - 1 in each direction - 1 reversible - 2 reversible  At-Grade and Elevated were considered

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 US 67 North – Draft Preferred Alternative 3 Mainlanes + 2 Reversible Lanes + 3 Mainlanes

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 US 67 South IH 20 to Belt Line

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 US 67 South - Alternatives  No-Build  Freeway General Purpose Lanes - 2 in each direction - 3 in each direction - 4 in each direction  HOV or Special Use Lanes - None - 1 in each direction - 1 reversible - 2 reversible  At-Grade and Elevated were considered

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 US 67 South – Draft Preferred Alternative 3 Mainlanes + 1 Reversible Lane + 3 Mainlanes

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 New Frontage Roads?  Existing frontage roads will not be removed  No existing frontage roads from 12th Street to Saner  Should new frontage roads be added?  Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Frontage Roads Benefits and Costs Note: This analysis is limited to IH 35E from 12th Street to Saner

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 New Frontage Roads? Recommendation New frontage roads should not be constructed between 12th Street and Saner.

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Design Standards  Design Standards have changed over time - Inadequate vertical clearances - Inadequate lane and shoulder widths - Substandard ramps and merge lanes - Tight curves on freeway lanes - Problems primarily on IH 35E North segment

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Preferred Alternative Presentations  Cities - Dallas - Cedar Hill - DeSoto - Duncanville - Lancaster  Dallas County  DART  North Texas Tollway Authority  NCTCOG These presentations will take place over the next two to four months and the Work Groups will be briefed on the presentations at future meetings.

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Project Development Process Major Investment Study (MIS) Schematic Design Environmental Assessment Final Design Construction Focus of our project Identify Need Right-of-Way Purchase

Project Schedule Final design, right-of-way purchase and construction begin after final environmental approval

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Urban Design Aesthetics  Landscape - Plantings - Edge treatments - Blending  Hardscape - Bridge design - Retaining walls - Sound walls - Light structures - Cross streets Community Planning  Community cohesion  Context sensitive design  Land use impacts  Bike & pedestrian access  Economic development

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Questions and Comments

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 For More Information  Visit the project web site:  Timothy M. Nesbitt, P.E. Project Manager Texas Department of Transportation P.O. Box Dallas, Texas Phone: Fax:

Public Meetings - November 18 & 21, 2002 Acronyms CBD = Central Business District DART = Dallas Area Rapid Transit ETR = Employer Trip Reduction FHWA = Federal Highway Administration HOV = High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes ITS = Intelligent Transportation Systems LPA = Locally Preferred Alternative MTIS = Major Transportation Investment Study NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement NCTCOG = North Central Texas Council of Governments NTTA = North Texas Tollway Authority TxDOT = Texas Department of Transportation TDM = Transportation Demand Management TSM = Transportation System Management VPD = Vehicles Per Day

Thank You for Attending