1 / 52

The Southern Gateway IH 35E/US 67 Transportation Study

The Southern Gateway IH 35E/US 67 Transportation Study. The Southern Gateway IH 35E/US 67 Transportation Study. Public Meetings. November 18 & 21, 2002. Study Area. Ongoing Major Projects. East Corridor. Loop 12/IH 35E. Project Pegasus/ Trinity Parkway. IH 35E. Loop 9.

ranit
Download Presentation

The Southern Gateway IH 35E/US 67 Transportation Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Southern GatewayIH 35E/US 67 Transportation Study The Southern GatewayIH 35E/US 67 Transportation Study Public Meetings November 18 & 21, 2002

  2. Study Area

  3. Ongoing Major Projects East Corridor Loop 12/IH 35E Project Pegasus/ Trinity Parkway IH 35E Loop 9

  4. Project Development Process Identify Need Major Investment Study (MIS) Focus of our project Schematic Design Environmental Assessment 2 to 5 years Final Design Right-of-Way Purchase 4 to 15 years Construction

  5. Project Schedule

  6. 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

  7. Public Involvement - Goals • Inclusive • Open communication • Focus on solutions • Many ways to get information • Many ways to provide comments • Maintain an aggressive schedule

  8. Work Groups and Meetings 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 Involvement

  9. Public Involvement Tools • Work Group Meetings • Public Meetings/Hearings • Newsletters • Web site • Information packet • Presentations • Print and BroadcastMedia www.thesoutherngateway.org

  10. IH 35E/US 67 Study Corridor Study Area Map

  11. Traffic Volumes - Existing 190,000 vpd 80,000 vpd 100,000 vpd 60,000 vpd 120,000 vpd vpd: vehicles per day

  12. Freeway Accidents 379 accidents/year 180 accidents/year 119 accidents/year 68 accidents/year These accident rates are similar to the regional averages. Note: Average reported accidents per year, 1997-1999

  13. Population and Employment Growth Metropolitan Planning Area % 1999 2025 Change Population 4,536,000 6,671,000 47 % Employment 2,691,000 3,907,400 45 % Note: The Metropolitan Planning Area consists of Dallas, Collin, Tarrant, Denton, Rockwall Counties and parts of Ellis, Johnson, Parker, Kaufman Counties

  14. 1999 Congestion Levels

  15. 2025 Congestion Levels

  16. Transportation Solutions • Bicycle & pedestrian facilities • City street improvements • Bus transit • Rail transit • Transportation System Management • Travel Demand Management • Freeway and HOV improvements Every Piece Helps

  17. Transportation Solutions Non-Freeway/HOV Alternatives • Bicycle & pedestrian facilities • City street improvements • Bus transit • Rail transit • TSM • TDM

  18. Traffic Volumes - 2025 Total Demand 340,000 vpd 180,000 vpd 140,000 vpd 170,000 vpd 150,000 vpd vpd: vehicles per day

  19. Traffic Volumes - Existing and 2025 Demand 1999: 190,000 vpd 2025: 340,000 vpd 1999: 80,000 vpd 2025: 180,000 vpd 1999: 100,000 vpd 2025: 140,000 vpd 1999: 60,000 vpd 2025: 170,000 vpd 1999: 120,000 vpd 2025: 150,000 vpd vpd: vehicles per day

  20. 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

  21. Finding Balance Transportation Needs vs. Right-of-Way Requirements Environment Economic Development Aesthetic Designs

  22. Evaluation Criteria • Mobility and Safety • Environmental Impacts • Flexibility and Compatibility with other Projects • Cost Effectiveness • Engineering Feasibility Significant Some No Some Significant Negative Negative Effect Positive Positive Effect Effect Neutral Effect Effect - - - 0 + + +

  23. Environmental Analysis • Extensive data collection effort ongoing • Documented environmental constraints • Critical issues identified to date: • Noise impacts • Visual impacts • Historic districts • Parks (including Dallas Zoo) • Cemeteries • Creeks and wetlands • Community cohesion • Air quality impacts

  24. Historic District McAdams Cemetery Dallas Zoo ThurgoodMarshall Rec Center Laurel Land Cemetery Boulder Park Noise impacts Visual impacts Air quality impacts Creeks & wetlands

  25. Freeway and HOV Alternatives IH 35E North, North of Marsalis IH 35E North, South of Marsalis US 67 North IH 35E South US 67 South

  26. Transportation SYSTEM IH 35E North Project Pegasus/ Trinity Parkway

  27. Transportation SYSTEM

  28. IH 35E NorthNorth of Marsalis

  29. IH 35E NorthSouth of Marsalis

  30. 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

  31. IH 35E North – Draft Preferred Alternative 5 Mainlanes + 2 Reversible Lanes + 5 Mainlanes

  32. IH 35E SouthUS 67 to Danieldale

  33. 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

  34. IH 35E South – Draft Preferred Alternative 3 Mainlanes + 1 Reversible Lane + 3 Mainlanes

  35. US 67 NorthIH 35E to IH 20

  36. 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

  37. US 67 North – Draft Preferred Alternative 3 Mainlanes + 2 Reversible Lanes + 3 Mainlanes

  38. US 67 SouthIH 20 to Belt Line

  39. 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

  40. US 67 South – Draft Preferred Alternative 3 Mainlanes + 1 Reversible Lane + 3 Mainlanes

  41. 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?

  42. Frontage RoadsBenefits and Costs Note: This analysis is limited to IH 35E from 12th Street to Saner

  43. New Frontage Roads? Recommendation New frontage roads should not be constructed between 12th Street and Saner.

  44. 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

  45. Preferred AlternativePresentations • 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.

  46. Project Development Process Identify Need Major Investment Study (MIS) Focus of our project Schematic Design Environmental Assessment Final Design Right-of-Way Purchase Construction

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

  48. 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 Urban Design

  49. Questions and Comments

  50. For More Information • Visit the project web site:www.thesoutherngateway.org • Timothy M. Nesbitt, P.E.Project ManagerTexas Department of TransportationP.O. Box 133067Dallas, Texas 75313-3067Phone: 214-320-6100Fax: 214-320-4470

More Related