TxDOT District Personnel
TxDOT Headquarters Personnel
Federal Highway Administration
D.A.R.T.
State Elected Officials
City of Mesquite Elected Officials
City of Mesquite
City of Dallas
City of Garland
Local Retail Representatives
Consulting Firms Representatives
Other staff, participants, and support personnel.

Option DA-7 (Rejected)
Eliminates the southbound frontage road on IH 635 and the southbound exit ramp from IH 635 to Town East Boulevard.

Advantages:

• Provides direct access from IH 30 to Town East Boulevard.
• Direct connector ramp to Town East Boulevard does not have to merge with frontage road.

Disadvantages:

• Eliminates access to Town East Boulevard from southbound IH 635.
• Access between IH 30 frontage roads, Galloway, Oates, LaPrada, and Town East Boulevard would be eliminated since the frontage road is not provided south of the IH 635/IH 30 interchange.

Team Finding and Conclusion, DA-7:
Option DA-7 is rejected by the Group since the basic functional requirement of direct access between IH 635 and Town East Boulevard is not provided, and local access via the frontage roads would be diminished.

Option DA-6
Modifies the direct connector design to provide a local ramp from the IH 30 WB to SB ramp to Town East Boulevard prior to the merge of the IH 30 EB to SB direct connector ramp. Adds a local ramp from Town East (collector road) to the NB to EB direct connector after the diverge with the NB to WB direct connector.

Advantages:

• Provides direct access from WB IH 30 to Town East Boulevard and from Town East Boulevard to EB IH 30.
• Eliminates the weave on the IH 30 to SB IH 635 direct connector.
• Provides improved spacing for various merge and diverge gores.

Disadvantages:

• Does not provide direct access between EB IH 30 and Town East Boulevard or from Town East Boulevard to WB IH 30.
• Requires additional right of way on both the east and west sides for the local ramps to/from the direct connectors.
• Requires unusual geometric design for the local ramp connections considering driver expectations, traffic operations, and safety.
• This could be a very difficult design configuration considering the roadway profiles and structural requirements.
• This option would require a complete reconfiguration of the direct connectors to accommodate the ramps as planned. The geometric feasibility of these connections would need to be determined after further design analysis.

Team Finding and Conclusion, DA-6:
A modified version of Option DA-6 was suggested for further analysis by the Group. Option DA-6 as presented is rejected by the Group since direct access is not provided from EB IH 30 to Town East Boulevard and considering the difficulty associated with the traffic operations, design features, and right of way requirements.

Option DA-6 (Modified)
A modified Option DA-6 was recommended for continued analysis as a secondary alternative to DA-2. The modification involves considering a left-hand ramp from the WB to SB direct connector rather than the right-hand ramp. This modification will still not permit access from EB IH 30 to Town East Boulevard but it may improve the traffic operations and may minimize the amount of reconfiguration needed for the interchange.

It is understood by the Group that this modified option will require more design development before it is deemed geometrically-feasible. The additional design development will only be undertaken if the primary alternative (DA-2) needs to be dismissed after further analysis.

Team Finding and Conclusion, DA-6 (Modified):
Further evaluation will be required to determine the feasibility and desirability of Option DA-6 (Modified), if the preferred option DA-2 is not selected.

Option DA-5 (Rejected)
Modifies the south legs of the IH 635/IH 30 interchange to a "dual point" connection design. Provides ramps from IH 30 WB to SB direct connector to Town East Boulevard and from Town East Boulevard to NB to EB direct connector to IH 30.

Advantages:

• Direct access is provided between WB IH 30 and Town East Boulevard and between Town East Boulevard and EB IH 30.
• Reduces the weave problem on the SB direct connector.

Disadvantages:

• No direct access is provided between IH 635 and Town East Boulevard (north side) either northbound or southbound.
• No frontage roads will be provided on IH 635 through the interchange.
• No direct access is provided from IH 30 EB to SB direct connector to Town East Boulevard or from Town East Boulevard to the NB to WB direct connector.
• Requires additional right of way on both sides for the local ramps to the direct connectors.

Team Finding and Conclusion, DA-5:
Option DA-5 is rejected by the Group since direct access is not provided from EB IH 30 to Town East Boulevard. No direct access is provided between Town East Boulevard and IH 635 either northbound or southbound, and the frontage roads on IH 635 do not extend through the IH 635/IH 30 interchange, limiting local circulation and connectivity.

Option DA-4 (Rejected - Not Feasible)
Modify the south legs of the interchange to "dual point" connections and provide access similar to the existing (what is currently on the ground).

Note: Option DA-4 had been determined to be "Not Feasible" prior to the actual Design Charette. This option was based on the concept of rebuilding the interchange as a "dual point" interchange, to current design standards, and maintaining a similar ramp access to Town East Blvd. This configuration could simply not be constructed so this alternative was deemed "Not Feasible".

Option DA-3 (Rejected)
Extend the direct connector ramps to overpass Town East Boulevard and to braid with the Towne Centre Drive SB exit ramp and the Towne Centre Drive NB entrance ramp. Provide direct access to/from the direct connector ramps and Town East Boulevard.

Advantages:

• Direct access is provided between IH 30 and Town East Boulevard.

• Direct access is provided between IH 635 and Town East Boulevard.

Disadvantages:

• Does not allow for access to Towne Centre Drive from IH 30, negating some of the benefits of distributing the traffic between Town East Boulevard and Towne Centre Drive.
• Loss of visibility to businesses adjacent to the freeway due to the elevated direct connector ramps.
• Cost for this option is very high because of the long expensive elevated direct connection structures.
• Negative visual impact associated with the long elevated direct connection structures.

Team Finding and Conclusion, DA-3:
Option DA-3 was rejected based on the restricted access to Towne Centre Drive, the excessive cost of the direct connector structures, the negative visual impact of the large structures, and the loss of visibility to the businesses adjacent to the freeway.

Option DA-1 (Rejected)
Add local ramps to/from Town East Boulevard to/from IH 30 direct connectors. Retain the proposed ramps to/from IH 635 and the frontage roads to allow direct access to Town East Boulevard.

Advantages:

• Provides for direct access between the IH 30 direct connectors and Town East Boulevard and between IH 635 and Town East Boulevard both NB and SB.

Disadvantages:

• The geometry is not acceptable for the design speeds.
• Weaving operations on the direct connectors are a concern, especially for the NB frontage road ramp to WB on IH 30, which will require two lane changes in just over 1,000 feet.
• Signing and driver expectancy/decision distance are problems.

Team Finding and Conclusion, DA-1:
Option DA-1 as presented was rejected based on the problems associated with geometric design, traffic operations, and driver expectancy.

Design Option 0 (TxDOT Preliminary Schematic Design)
"Option 0" is the current preliminary Schematic Design as presented by TxDOT for the IH 635 corridor and the IH 635/IH 30 interchange.

Advantages:

• Provides a high level design for the IH 635 corridor and the multi-level interchange.
• Provides desirable geometric design for the direct connector ramps.
• Provides direct access between IH 635 and Town East Boulevard.
• Provides for direct access between IH 635 and Towne Centre Drive.
• Provides for direct access between IH 30 and Towne Centre Drive.

Disadvantages:

• Does not provide for direct access from IH 30 to Town East Boulevard from either the eastbound or westbound direction.

Team Finding and Conclusion, DA-0:
"Option 0" is rejected by the Group since no direct access is provided to Town East Boulevard from IH 30. TxDOT has agreed to continue to pursue other design options that will provide a more favorable functional solution to the access question.

Option DA-2
(DA-2) involves modifications to Option DA-1 by shifting the ramp noses to the south to improve the design to the maximum extent possible. Option DA-2 only addresses the southbound direction.

Advantages:

• Provides for direct access between the IH 30 direct connectors SB and Town East Boulevard and between IH 635 and Town East Boulevard both NB and SB.
• Improves the geometric design and the traffic operations, compared with Option DA-1.

Disadvantages:

• Note: The Group noted that Option DA-2 requires additional evaluation to provide the maximum amount of design efficiency and traffic operational considerations for the local exit ramp from the SB direct connector from IH 30.

Team Finding and Conclusion, DA-2:
Option DA-2 was determined by the Group to be the most acceptable solution for providing direct access to Town East Boulevard from IH 30, while retaining all of the desirable design features incorporated into the proposed design. Additional evaluation will be required to optimize the design and to determine if the traffic operations and performance characteristics are acceptable.

Egress From Town East Boulevard to IH 30
If the ingress to the Town East Boulevard area from IH 30 is provided by Option DA-2, the issue of egress from the Town East Boulevard area to connections with IH 30 eastbound and westbound requires consideration. The possible design options were discussed by the Group. One possible option, designated as DA-8, was presented and is described as follows:

Option DA-8
Provide a local ramp from the northbound collector road (frontage road) to the EB IH 30 direct connector. A barrier separation would be provided to prevent traffic from entering the WB IH 30 direct connector lanes. This barrier separation would eliminate a potentially serious traffic weave.

This option would provide direct access from the Town East Boulevard area to EB IH 30. Traffic desiring to enter IH 30 westbound would utilize the local frontage road system through the IH 635/IH 30 interchange and would enter IH 30 west of Gus Thomasson Road.

Advantages:

• Provides direct access for traffic from the Town East Boulevard area to eastbound IH 30.

Disadvantages:

• Requires adding a local ramp to a major freeway to freeway direct connector. This design violates driver expectancy and introduces a conflict point and merge in the direct connector ramp.
• Introduces variable speed traffic onto a high speed freeway to freeway direct connector.
• Requires additional right of way on the east side of IH 635 north of Town East Boulevard, which may involve developed property and businesses.
• Introduces a moderate to high construction cost element.

Team Finding and Conclusion, DA-8:
DA-8 is not a preferred design option considering the traffic operations and safety issues associated with introducing local traffic onto a high speed freeway to freeway direct connector. The egress from Town East Boulevard area should be provided through one of the "Indirect Access" options.

Option IA-1
Add bypass roads along IH 30 at Galloway Avenue and at Gus Thomasson Road.

Option IA-2
Add a bypass road along IH 30 only at Galloway Avenue and keep the "jughandle" ramps at Gus Thomasson Road.

Option IA-3
Provide only signing along IH 30 for the IH 635 frontage roads, or name the frontage roads and sign accordingly. This concept assumes that there would be no bypass roads at Galloway Avenue or at Gus Thomasson Road and that the local traffic could be accommodated through the traffic signals at the intersections.

These concepts all assume that the local traffic exiting from the Town East Mall area is routed on the frontage road system through, or adjacent to, the IH 635/IH 30 interchange in order to access IH 30 either eastbound or westbound. One or more of these Indirect Access options may be utilized to provide an acceptable design solution and to avoid compromising the efficiency and safety of the direct connector ramps within the interchange.

The Group concluded that Option IA-3 (signing) would be evaluated first to determine if the traffic operations and level of service are acceptable through the design year. If the anticipated performance characteristics at the Galloway Avenue and/or Gus Thomasson Road intersections were unacceptable, Options IA-1 and IA-2 could be considered, with bypasses provided just to serve the egress traffic. Not having to provide the bypasses in the "ingress" direction will minimize right-of-way impacts and provide design flexibility in accommodating the egress bypasses

Team Finding and Conclusion, (Indirect Access):
Give further consideration to the "Indirect Access" options to determine the most appropriate solution for providing egress from the Town East Boulevard to IH 30 eastbound and westbound.

Option DA-9 (Rejected)
Adds left-hand exits from IH 30 EB and WB that would serve as direct connectors to Town East Boulevard. The precise alignments of those connections have not been completely developed.

Advantages:

• The left-hand connections would provide direct access from EB and WB IH 30 to Town East Boulevard.
• This option would not include ramps from direct connectors.

Disadvantages:

• Left-hand ramps from IH 30 would be against driver expectancy.
• The connections from IH 30 to Town East Boulevard would require additional right-of-way on both sides of IH 635 between IH 30 and Town East Boulevard.

Option DA-10 (Deferred for Further Study)
Takes the third level of the interchange and places it below IH 635. The remaining roadway grades would be about the same. The IH-30 frontage road would remain on its existing alignment and the EB exit ramp to Galloway would be removed. The IH-635 SB and NB frontage roads would be realigned.

Advantages:

• The existing WB to SB and EB to SB direct connector structures, or new ramps built on the same alignments, would serve as direct ramps between IH 30 and Town East Boulevard.
• The direct connector from IH 30 to NB IH 635 could tie in quicker to allow access to Galloway on IH 635.
• May provide longer queue length for ramp to Town East Boulevard.
• Could permit improved signing.

Disadvantages:

• Requires cut and cover section for depressed roadways.
• Roadway profiles for the depressed section may be a problem for drainage. No pumps would be allowed in the design so positive drainage would be required for this concept to be feasible.
• Would require complete redesign of the interchange schematic concepts, resulting in delay to the development process.
• May introduce additional problems for construction under traffic.
• This is a dramatically different idea and the revised alignments, and resultant assumed improvements, would require significant design efforts to determine the true extent of the impacts of the changes.

Team Finding and Conclusion, DA-10:
Option DA-10 was offered as a new idea at the Design Charette. No evaluation information has been developed to determine if the concept is feasible or desirable. The Group agreed that this concept should be kept for further study, if Options DA-2 and DA-6 (Modified) are determined to be unfeasible or undesirable.