| Search: | |
| Home | Contact Us | Tools & Plug-Ins |
|
|
|||
|
||||
 |
IH 635 ( LBJ Freeway ) Corridor Study - Project Information |
|
LBJ Home Page | Now News | Project Update | Project Information | Implementation Approach | Meetings | Newsletters | Contact List | Frequently Asked Questions | Texas Turnpike Authority | Dallas District Home Page | |
| |||||||||||||||||||
Purpose and Need LBJ Public Involvement Organizational Structure and Program Development and Evaluation of Concepts and Alternatives Locally Preferred Alternative Development and Evaluation Locally Preferred Alternative Locally Preferred Alternative Consensus Advanced Planning Phase | |||||||||||||||||||
|
LBJ Major Investment Study - Executive Summary [Dec 1996] The I.H. 635/LBJ Freeway (LBJ) corridor is located in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. The study corridor is approximately 21 miles (33.8 km) in length along the northern and eastern sections of the LBJ Freeway extending from west of I.H. 35E to U.S. 80. The corridor is bounded by Belt Line Road and Loop 12. Municipalities located along I.H. 635 include the cities of Dallas, Farmers Branch, Garland, and Mesquite. LBJ generally consists of eight mainlanes except at interchanges. One-way service roads are generally two and three lanes wide and are not continuous. Right-of-way (ROW) width varies from 330’ to 450’ depending on the existence of service roads, interchange design, and drainage requirements. Purpose and Need The LBJ corridor encompasses one of the most highly developed commercial and residential areas in north Texas. The completion of LBJ in the 1970’s resulted in significant population and employment growth in the LBJ corridor. This growth and the opening of D-FW Airport led to traffic demand which greatly exceeded predictions. LBJ serves a variety of trip purposes including long distance trips accessing other regional facilities including I.H. 35E, Dallas North Tollway, U.S. 75, I.H. 30 and U.S. 80 and shorter, local trips between residential and commercial developments within the corridor. The combination of these users has resulted in traffic counts on the most congested sections of LBJ approaching 250,000 vehicles per day which has caused significant congestion for many hours each day. Predicted development and travel demand growth for the area indicate that the problem will continue to worsen for the foreseeable future. Early in the MIS process, four specific areas of concern were identified that must be addressed by a proposed solution for the LBJ corridor.
LBJ Public Involvement Organizational Structure and Program Past problems with the public acceptance of proposed transportation improvements on LBJ and other corridors led the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to propose an extensive and unprecedented public involvement process for the study. Through a series of meetings, TxDOT, community and political leaders developed an LBJ Executive Board structure and a design strategy outline. The Dallas City Council approved the process in February 1993. The LBJ Executive Board was formed to represent six Work Groups which were identified as sub-sets of the general public impacted by LBJ. The Executive Board was supported by a Technical Advisory Committee and Study Concept Development Committee. Focus Groups were also formed to study identified issues in greater detail in support of the other LBJ committees. All of these groups met on a regular basis either throughout the study length or during specific periods. In addition, a number of meetings were held with the general public, cities, county, and chambers of commerce, among others. In total, there were more than 180 meetings between early 1993 and late 1996.
Development and Evaluation of Concepts and Alternatives The cooperative identification of problems and potential solutions for LBJ began with an initial series of Work Group meetings. These meetings led to the development of an Alternative Definition List which summarized all potential solutions discussed. After the initial development of problems and potential solutions, the study was structured to include a two-step screening process that would allow study participants to initially examine a broad range of concepts and ideas before focusing on the most promising ideas. This led to the eventual development of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The first step in the screening process involved developing Baseline, Congestion Management System (CMS), and "Build" concepts based on the Alternative Definition List. The eleven Build concepts varied based on the number and configuration of general purpose, HOV lanes, express lanes, and frontage road options. The concepts had a range of ten to sixteen controlled access lanes. The regional travel forecast was updated with new growth factors, traffic volumes and Origin/Destination information. The concepts were evaluated using Criteria Set 1 which included quantitative measures (travel demand, travel performance, air quality impacts, and congestion costs) and qualitative measures (right-of-way impacts, visual impacts, accessibility, noise impacts, operational flexibility, and multimodal flexibility). This evaluation eliminated those concepts from further study which were inadequate from a travel performance standpoint. The results of the evaluation confirmed that improvements are needed for the following reasons:
In addition, the Board concluded that the following Build concepts be studied further:
Locally Preferred Alternative Development and Evaluation The second step in the study screening process was to refine the concepts identified for further development and undertake a more detailed evaluation of their impacts. To do so, the Board developed the Decision-Making Framework (DMF) and Criteria Set 2. The DMF is a five step action plan consisting of criteria, goals and objectives, candidate design elements/strategies, potential trade-offs, and methods of measurement, evaluation, selection. The DMF is founded on the four goals developed for the study:
In order to evaluate the remaining concepts, concept schematics were prepared (three concepts on the west and two on the east) which represented, in drawing format, the range of concepts still under consideration. Input from the LBJ committees and the general public who viewed the concept schematics at LBJ Open Houses led to the "blending" of the features in the concept schematics to produce a final set of alternatives for the West and East Sections. Evaluation Matrices were used to compare and summarize the various alternatives graphically for all of the DMF criteria. The LBJ planning participants used the Evaluation Matrices and selected West and East LPA’s.
The LPA represents a consensus solution which warrants continued development, refinement, evaluation, and eventual implementation. By selecting an LPA at this level of detail, study participants can concentrate on solving design details for one alternative to expedite the planning process.
The West LPA is a combination of two Criteria Set 2 alternatives, both of which have 8 Mainlanes and 6 High Occupancy Vehicle/Toll (HOT) lanes. The difference between the two was that in one the HOT lanes were at-grade in the median and in the other the HOT lanes were tunneled beneath the mainlanes. The combination of the two is an attempt to balance the trade-offs between ROW impacts and cost.
West LPA Estimate of Probable Construction Cost:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
The East LPA was initially 10 Mainlanes and 4 HOV Lanes. The Recommended LPA was refined by subsection:
| |||||||||||||||||||
|
East LPA Estimate of Probable Construction Cost:
General Recommendations and Strategy Endorsements In addition to the specific LPA recommendations, the Board recommended the following for consideration during the planning phase: Public Involvement: Active public involvement should continue with the formation of a committee to serve in an advisory capacity during the schematic development and environmental evaluation phases. This level of public involvement will be in addition to all public meetings and hearings required by federal, state and local authorities. East and West: The LBJ Corridor Study should be divided into East and West sections for schematic development and environmental evaluation in order to ensure maximum planning effectiveness and progress. The Executive Board recognizes that there are many aspects, issues and concerns that will continuwe to be addressed through planning. The Board endorses the continued study of the following strategies, recognizing that the list is not comprehensive in nature:
Locally Preferred Alternative Consensus The LBJ Executive Board prepared a report, "LBJ Executive Board - Report to Recommend a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for Improvements to the I.H. 635 (LBJ) Corridor from Luna Road to U.S. 80", to define and present the LPA. Based on the report, a series of presentations were made to area cities, Dallas County, transportation agencies and other interested organizations that resulted in resolutions and letters supporting the LPA. The LPA consensus became complete when the Regional Transportation Council finalized Mobility 2020 on December 12, 1996 and it included the LBJ LPA in its entirety. The LPA was able to be included because a preliminary financial feasibility analysis identified a variety of sources that can be utilized to fund the LBJ LPA. The MIS LPA will serve as the basis for the development of the schematic designs and the resulting environmental analyses of the corridor alternative. Also, during the planning phase, the unresolved issues of the MIS will be addressed. | |||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
© Copyright 2012, TxDOT All Rights Reserved. |
Disclaimer | Accessibility Policy | Privacy and Security Policy | Open Records | TxDOT Contacts |