Interstate 820 Corridor Logo IH 820 Corridor Alternatives Analysis
IH 30 to IH 20

Project Description | Study Area Map | Purpose and Need | Project Schedule | Evaluation Criteria | Goals and Objectives | Alternatives | Public Involvement | Work Group Meeting Minutes | Public Meetings | Newsletters | Draft Recommended Plan of Action | Contact List | Slide Presentations | Glossary


Work Group Meeting Minutes

Date of Meeting: Oct. 30, 2001 Location: East Fort Worth Regional Library
Subject: IH 820 Corridor Alternatives Analysis Work Group Meeting #7
Attendees: Please see attached attendance sheet
Meeting Summary:

Introductions:

Introductions were made around the room. Matthew Asaolu, Project Manager from the TxDOT Fort Worth District called the meeting to order at 10:00 AM.

Meeting Notes Approval:

There were no comments received on the July 17, 2001 meeting notes.

Meeting Handouts:

Agenda

E-Mail Notice for IH-820 Presentations

Draft Memo of the Draft Recommended Alternative

Handout of Express Lane Model Run, North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)

Handout of Goods Movement Plan from Mobility 2025, NCTCOG

Public Involvement Update:

Robin Joseph (PB) provided a brief summary of public involvement efforts since the last work group meeting:

  • Mike Talambus, of the South West Arlington Action Team (SWAT) requested a briefing meeting on October 4, 2001. On that occasion, Naser Abusaad and Matthew Asaolu provided an overview of the IH 820 Study. The session was very beneficial for both sides and several key issues related to traffic impacts, transit options, and removal/ reconstruction of area exits/or entrances were discussed.
  • Between now and the public meeting, the workgroup members may invite the Study Team to give small presentations to their organizations and have the Study Team available for question and answer sessions. These meetings are very beneficial because of the small setting where issues can be addressed in detail, and questions can be answered immediately. Based on a request from the last workgroup meeting in July, Robin provided a draft of an e-mail that can be sent out by workgroup members to their associates. The Study Team will send out the e-mailed statement to the workgroup for members to forward.
  • The public meeting is tentatively scheduled for January 31, 2002 at Dunbar High School off of Ramey Avenue. Matthew Asaolu emphasized that this meeting is very tentative and will depend upon further refinement of the study area limits and schematic design.
  • Robin stated that our next workgroup meeting will be January 15, 2002 at the Fort Worth East Regional Library. Another workgroup meeting has been added to the series of meetings so that we can maintain our project schedule. Please note that this meeting is scheduled for May 21, 2002 and will follow the meeting on March 19, 2002.

Project Status:

Naser Abusaad, Project Manager from the consulting firm of Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), provided a project status report for the IH 820 Corridor Study. Naser’s project status and comments from the workgroup are summarized below.

Schedule Update

  • We are currently working on the 60% design schematic which sets the footprint for the project, determining the right-of-way impacts, analyzing ramping schemes, and conducting Level of Service (LOS) analysis to determine how the facility to operate in the future. We plan to submit the schematic to TxDOT in mid-December. In mid-January we would like to follow-up with our first draft of the environmental assessment that will give an overview of the project’s impact on social-economic issues and the environment.
  • We hope to have the second public meeting at the end of January (very tentative). At the first public meeting we presented the problems/issues on IH820 and concept drawings of what we think our preferred alternative will look like. At the next public meeting we are preparing to show the recommended preferred alternative which will show a detailed layout where ramps and right-of-way will be needed. We will collect comments from the meeting and then work towards the 90% submittal that will address comments from the second public meeting. The capstone of the project will be a public hearing where the approved design schematic will be presented to the public.

TxDOT Frontage Road Memorandum

  • Since the last work group meeting, the Texas Transportation Commission (TTC) has released a new policy on frontage roads via a memo. The memo issued to TxDOT engineers directs the agency to no longer build frontage roads in the state of Texas. Because of freeway operations, budgetary, maintenance, and right-of-way issues, the commission recommends that any further construction of frontage roads be prohibited. A public meeting will be held in November in Austin with cities, counties, public officials, and adjacent property owners will voice their concerns.

Naser mentioned that our direction from TxDOT is to proceed cautiously with the project since we currently have frontage roads on the project that will be re-constructed. This decision will be overturned if the commission does not alter the policy, if so access rights will have to be reconsidered. Hopefully, by the end of November we’ll get direction from TTC on how to proceed.

Matthew emphasized that according to TxDOT the frontage road issue really concerns mobility on throughlanes. The frontage roads create problems because of numerous ramps and driveways of property owners that affects movement on mainlanes. For the IH 820 project, most of the frontage roads are already in place and it will be very difficult to remove these roads. This policy may not affect this project unless areas where we propose new ramps will require additional frontage roads on IH-20, for example. Further direction should be forthcoming. Right now there is no definitive answer. We will keep the workgroup up to date.

Comments

  • Robert Knezek from SWAT mentioned that the flow of traffic and interruptions to traffic from incidents, entering volumes, and accidents are a major concern on IH-20. He believes that there is no suitable alternative to improving I-20 without also improving frontage roads.

Naser agreed that frontage roads are necessary. Naser will be drafting a Memo to TxDOT about how frontage roads benefit access and mobility. Frontage roads help to bypass accidents and other traffic incidents. We also recommend $38 Million dollars of ITS (Intelligent Transportation Systems) elements that include changeable message signs and surveillance cameras to warn motors of incidents.

  • Matthew stated the frontage road issue might have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Another scenario on IH-20 might include frontage roads with few ramps to the mainlanes, so that operations on the major facilities will not be impeded. Ultimately this is an issue of mobility versus access, which is why it is being researched now.

60% Schematic Design Phase

  • At the workgroup meeting in July, we discussed removing the Craig Street Bridge and possibly relocating it to another location. We developed 2 options: 1) keeping Craig street in place, but removing the pedestrian structure, and 2) relocating the Craig Street bridge to Greenlee Street (north of Craig Street). The workgroup felt that Greenlee Street option was a good idea because it serves ramping issues better and connects the communities east and west. It is closer to the existing pedestrian structure, so the bridge at Greenlee may serve to address vehicular and pedestrian issues.
  • Removing Craig Street Bridge would cause the existing Craig Street to tie into the frontage road. If we extend Greenlee across from East to West, we would depress the mainlanes in the area, so the mainlanes go under the proposed bridge. The design will cut into the hill and use retaining walls between the frontage roads and the mainlanes in both directions on IH 820. From a community standpoint, there will not be a view of the highway. The community would only see Greenlee bridge which would be elevated from west to east. We propose a braided ramp design (one ramp is bridged over another) to prevent weaving and provide better access.
  • Naser described the traffic pattern for Craig Street. Between the on ramp from Meadowbrook SB and the exit ramps to Lancaster and Rosedale, there is a failing section on the mainlanes because the weave distance is too short. In the NB direction, traffic is at LOS E.
  • Naser stated that after further analysis, the recommendation is to go with the Greenlee option where the Craig Street Bridge would be removed. The Consultant Team will meet with TxDOT and the City of Fort Worth to discuss the alternatives. The Study Team anticipates that the depressed road design with retaining walls could also shield possible noise impacts.

Comments

  • Jim Robertson from Hicks and Company stated that this design would have benefits to the residential neighborhoods. The Greenlee option works better for park access and safety. The City of Fort Worth could extend the sidewalks on Greenlee to connect them with the park. If the State will provide sidewalks for the Greenlee Bridge, the City can come in and connect those sidewalks to the park.
  • Poonam Wiles from the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) commented that the design at Greenlee Bridge is well done. The main issue is coordinating with the City of Fort Worth and working with the neighborhood to remove Craig Street Bridge. The workgroup can provide the Study Team with guidance on the community-related issues.

Naser stated that we will draw up alternative circulation maps that will indicate what could happen to local traffic if Craig Street is removed. This will indicate how well this option fits in with the thoroughfare plan for the Handley area.

  • Jeff Neal from NCTCOG was concerned about the frontage road weave section that will occur under the railroad bridge.

Naser/Matthew stated that this design would optimize the mobility on the frontage roads. Currently there is no NB frontage road that crosses the railroad. We propose to limit access for the frontage roads (retaining walls will be built). There will be no driveway access to the frontage road. The frontage road will have three lanes and then could taper to two lanes on the ramps (including one auxiliary lane). This depressed roadway option will cost more than at-grade options.

  • Matthew asked if it was possible to design a U-turn at Lancaster (north of) and the frontage road so that people who used to use Craig Street Bridge could make a U-turn.

Naser stated that it is not geometrically feasible because of adjacent ramp geometry.

Poonam asked if there are issues related to signalization at Greenlee in addition to cross traffic concerns on Greenlee. There may be homes that face Greenlee. She asked if it would be possible to construct a double U-turn at Greenlee or some other configuration that would have less impact on the neighborhoods. Volumes at Craig Street bridge show that it is used for through traffic, and more may have to be done at Greenlee to address traffic flow.

Naser/Matthew stated that a Texas U-turn might affect pedestrian traffic at Greenlee. However, if we physically divide/barrier the sidewalk from the traffic on Greenlee, it might work. The signal analysis will help to decide the best option.

Christy Lambeth from DeShazo Tang & Associates stated that for the signal analysis, traffic from Craig Street was shifted to Greenlee to determine a worse case scenario. She said the volumes on Greenlee would not be high.

Naser/Matthew stated that if volumes were not a problem, the focus would be on alternative routes to move east-and west between Lancaster and Greenlee. There are many residential streets on the west and east side of the neighborhoods that can connect to Greenlee.

Design Traffic Update

  • Naser thanked Poonam and TTI who are under contract with TxDOT to produce design traffic for IH-20. The traffic analysis was delivered on schedule (October 15, 2001). The Study Team has met with TxDOT, NCTCOG and TTI to discuss review volumes and interpret the results. We are proceeding with our design and LOS analysis on IH-20.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

  • The design team has provided right-of-way information to the environmental team led by Jim Robertson of Hicks & Company. The proposed roadway design (based on preliminary cross-sections) requires consideration of side-slopes and tie-ins to existing ground. Due to ramping issues and frontage road design, the team focused on frontage roads to assess right-of-way issues. This information will be used in the EA to examine the impacts of the project with respect to the environment. We are hoping for a January time-frame to deliver a draft to TxDOT.

Submittal of Preferred Alternative

  • Naser referred to the handout of a Memo to Matthew regarding the Draft Recommended Preferred Alternative (dated October 15, 2001). This memo was extracted from the conclusion of the Draft Alternatives Analysis Report. We reviewed these elements at the last workgroup meeting in July, but this handout provides a good summary. Please forward all comments to Matthew or Naser.

B: TDM/TSM and Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements – RECOMMENDED

With this package of improvements (signals, intersections, traveler information, and implementation of travel demand measures) non-recurrent congestion (accident and incident) is decreased and quality of life is improved when combined with bicycle/pedestrian improvements that provide better access to transit.

C: Parallel routes (Witchita/Mitchell, Miller, Green Oaks) – NOT RECOMMENDED

This alternative is dropped from further evaluation due to minor improvements to the mainlanes on IH-820. This alternative has many right-of-way impacts, and a high cost/benefit ratio. Some residents at the public meeting preferred that parallel route traffic be directed to the mainlanes rather than encourage additional throughput in neighborhoods. Improvements to signals and intersections on these parallel routes will be carried out as part of Alternative B.

D: Highway Improvements - RECOMMENDED

Segment I – (from Meadowbrook to US 287)

The alternative recommended for segment consists of reconstruction to 4 mainlanes (in each direction) and 3-lane frontage roads (in each direction) and ramp improvements.

Segment II - (from US 287 south to IH 20)

The recommendations consist of 5 mainlanes (at-grade or depressed in each direction), 3 frontage road lanes (in each direction), and a 2-lane reversible Managed High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) or Express Lane in the median (generally at-grade).

Segment III – (IH 20 between US 287 and IH 820)

The option consists of 5 to 6 mainlanes (in each direction, at-grade or retaining walls), 3 frontage road lanes (in each direction), and a 2-lane reversible Managed HOV or Express Lane (generally at-grade). The 6-lanes would occur where there are on/off ramps for an auxiliary lane.

E: Rail Improvements – RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDY BY ANOTHER ENTITY SUCH AS NCTCOG, OR THE FORT WORTH-T

The Study Team recommends that the South UP Commuter Line (Southern Line crossing near Old Mansfield Highway near IH 20) be carried forward as part of a future study because the proposed line meets preliminary passenger warrants. The North UP Commuter Rail (East-West route crossing between Lancaster and 303) discussed in Mobility 2025 is endorsed by this study.

Travel Demand Model Update:

  • Naser explained that there has been some discussion as to whether the Managed Reversible HOV or Express Lane option would be more beneficial to the study corridor. Under the Managed HOV option, single occupancy drivers would pay to use the facility (toll). The study team recommends that the Managed HOV option be included in the recommended preferred alternative. NCTCOG will look at the air quality conformity model to see if the option is consistent with it. This may change some of the wording in the recommendation.
  • Jeff Neal stated that NCTCOG is continuing to analyze the Express Lane concept. Several model scenarios were run to look at the Express Lane option (please see handout DMFE5). The model run is based on the same design assumptions that resulted from the Value Engineering Study (same number of lanes, ramps etc). The LOS analysis on the facility shows positive results indicating that the Express Lane facility will not reach congested levels in 2025 (LOS D). In addition, the Express Lane model showed other mobility benefits by removing several thousand vehicles per day from the mainlanes. The graphic illustrates that the percent lane miles, and annual congestion delay costs are slightly better than the Managed HOV option.

Jeff also pointed out that NCTCOG ran a model that adds a mainlane in each direction to DMFE5 on US 287 from Berry Street to IH-30 (referred to as DMFE6). These limits fall slightly beyond our study area. When performance measures are compared, the change in results is minimal. This tells us that adding a mainlane on US 287 is not necessary at this time.

NCTCOG will test the Express Lane concept and the Managed HOV concept based on regional air quality conformity standards. The good news is that emissions levels for the Tarrant County will not change regardless of which option is chosen. Jeff said that this air quality information favors continued discussions of the Managed HOV option which offers a more controlled measure for managing congestion during the peak hour, and in later years when additional traffic congestion is expected.

Comments

  • Jim Robertson asked if the addition of toll plazas under the Managed HOV scenario would affect air quality.

Jeff stated that this is a concern, but the model assumes a "toll-tag" system that would reduce delay of a majority of vehicles at toll plazas. This is something that will be analyzed further in the conformity model. The concern to look at the Express Lane option came from two assumptions; 1) the facility is short approximately 3.5 miles, and it was thought that a toll plaza on a Managed HOV "could" cause traffic stack-ups; 2) Mobility 2025 recommends a separate Express Lane the facility for this corridor.

However, because the number of lanes will be unchanged for either option, there may not be a concern.

  • Jim Robertson asked if there will be some traffic operations analysis to determine where Express Lanes would merge back in with general purpose lanes.

Jeff stated that the traffic model incorporates the transition points where Express Lanes or Managed HOV would merge with mainlanes. The results are positive at US 287 and on IH-20.

Naser added that the design of the roadway does not allow the Express Lanes to merge directly onto the mainlanes; essentially the Express facility would become the left lane at all four transition points and continue through at US 287 and IH-20.

  • Matthew asked Salvador Deocampo from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) what FHWA would recommend in this scenario if Express Lane and Managed HOV model results are almost equal.

Salvador stated the FHWA supports HOV, but if Express Lanes work that they would also support that option. He stated that this may require further input from local agencies and the public to steer this decision one way or another.

  • Naser stated that we should do additional modeling of these options (Managed HOV or Express Lanes) using the new traffic counts from TTI that show higher volumes on these roadways. Jeff agreed that additional analysis should be conducted with these new numbers.

 

Goods Movement Presentation:

  • Mike Sims, AICP, from NCTCOG provided a briefing on Goods Movement in the IH 820 corridor. He stated that NCTCOG has a goods movement program with established goals to address safety issues related to truck and rail traffic, and address economic impacts and economic developing occurring through goods movement in an area. Please contact Mike at NCTCOG for a copy of the presentation msims@dfw.info.com.

Mike mentioned that truck traffic on the IH-820 corridor is expected to increase steadily through the year 2025. Trucks try to avoid congestion. Approximately 8% of all NAFTA truck traffic comes through Texas and eventually the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The 1999 traffic estimates show that about 7.8% of traffic on the regional freeway system in Dallas-Fort Worth are heavy trucks.

Estimated 1999 peak hour traffic volumes for heavy traffic on IH-820 is approximately 2% (north/south study area), 4% between IH-35 west and IH-820 east, and 5%on IH-20 from IH-820 to SH 360.

Heavy truck traffic is growing 4.5 times faster than all other traffic since the mid 1990’s. Currently, the estimated annual growth of truck traffic is 7% for the region, and the annual growth of all other traffic in the region is about 2%.

Regarding ITS initiatives related to goods movement, Mike stated that NCTCOG is encouraging more changeable message signs on major heavy truck routes in the region particularly on the IH-35 corridor. This message signs would encourage trucks on IH-35 to take alternative routes on IH-820 west or east. Additional coordination is necessary with regard to designing ramps, and ITS communications.

On the issue of frontage roads, Mike said that ITS could be used to identify frontage roads to be used as alternative routes. The cities in the region went through an extensive effort a few years ago to identify the best routes for hazardous materials truck traffic. The IH-20 corridor is designated for transporting radio-active waste, therefore, for safety reasons the IH-20 East Loop 820 split is of interest to the NCTCOG. If something occurs along a major corridor, we need to ensure that safety improvements are made on these facilities and at adjacent frontage roads. This underscores the importance of frontage roads.

Another item of interest that Mike discussed was rail crossings in our study corridor. He mentioned the NCTCOG study for a Commuter Rail line along the existing UP North line that runs from downtown Dallas to downtown Fort Worth and crosses Lancaster. He encouraged the Study Team to keep in mind that future rail line may be added to that corridor in the future.

Comments

  • Naser stated that current design replaces the railroad crossing bridge south of where it is now, so it would be possible for others to construct a rail track.

Matthew stated that we can design for expandability if the UP railroad requests it and is prepared to pay for it. However, that money will not be included in the cost of this study.

Adjourn:

The meeting was adjourned at 12 Noon. The next work group meeting is scheduled for January 15, 2002.

Actions Required:

  • PB to send e-mail to the Work Group members regarding presentations on IH 820 that can be forwarded to others.
  • PB to develop a map of proposed traffic circulation for the Craig Street Bridge removal option.
  • The Study Team will continue working on the 60% design schematic and environmental assessment report on it at the next meeting.
  • TxDOT and PB to schedule a meeting with Fort Worth Planning and Parks Department to discuss the issue of the Craig Street Bridge.
Attendees:
Jerry Simons, City of Fort Worth 
Sal Deocampo, P.E., FHWA – Texas Div.
Rachel Harshman, NCTCOG
Edward Stephen, P.E., FHWA – Texas Div.
Poonam Wiles, P.E., TTI
Lena George, Parsons Brinckerhoff 
Jeff Neal, NCTCOG
Robin Joseph, AICP, Parsons Brinckerhoff 
Naser Abusaad, P.E., AICP, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Christy Lambeth, De Shazo, Tang & Associates
Randy Skinner, Tarrant County
Wendy Block, Hicks & Company
Phil Weston, P.E., Turner, Collie & Braden
Robert Knezek, Southwest Arlington Action Team
Matthew Asaolu, P.E., TxDOT Project Manager
David Cowley, The-T
Jamye L. Sawey, TxDOT ENV
John Barnett, Glencrest Civic League
Jim Robertson, AICP, Hicks & Company
Linda Morrow, South Edgewood Assoc.
Hugh Collins, Holy Tabernacle Church
Mike Sims, AICP, NCTCOG
These meeting notes represent a summary of the meeting as interpreted by the note taker. Please review and notify Robin Joseph at Parsons Brinckerhoff within 10 days of any additions, corrections, or deletions to the meeting notes. If there are any changes, the changes will be distributed to each work group attendee prior to the next meeting.

 

Distribution: Central File 22413-5.2.1 by: Robin Joseph, AICP
Work Group Members Project Web Page. 11-21-01

 Attendance Sheet

check mark icon - attended

Name and Address

Organization

Phone #

Fax #

E-Mail Address

E.L. Bowman

2513 South Edgewood Terrace

Fort Worth, TX 76105

Greater Mt. Tabor Association

(817) 534-6943

(817) 534-1544

PastorElb@aol.com

 

Rico Brown

Chairman

P.O. Box 1788

Arlington, TX 76004

African American Chamber of Arlington

(817) 417-8888

(817) 419-6275

Rico.brown@tkayoe.com

 

Wes Jury

President

316 West Main Street

Arlington, TX 76004-1486

Arlington Chamber of Commerce

(817) 275-2613

(817) 261-7389

wjury@chamber.arlingtontx.com

Theresa O'Donnell, AICP

Director of Planning

101 W. Abram

PO Box 231

Arlington, TX 76004

City of Arlington

(817) 459-6650

(817) 459-6669

Odonnellt@ci.arlington.tx.us

 

Dan Walsh, P.E.

Engineering Manager

1000 Throckmorton Street

Fort Worth, TX 76102

City of Fort Worth

(817) 871-8702

(817) 871-8092

WalshD@ci.fort-worth.tx.us

check mark icon - attended

Jerry Simons

Engineering Manager

1000 Throckmorton Street

Fort Worth, TX 76102

City of Fort Worth

(817) 871-7657

(817) 871-8092

Simmonsj@ci.fort-worth.tx.us

 

 

 

David White

Assistant City Manager

209 N. New Hope Road

Kennedale, TX 76060

City of Kennedale

(817) 478-5418

(817) 483-0720

 
 

Kay Granger

Representative

1701 River Run Rd. , Ste. 407

Fort Worth, TX 76107

Congressional District 12

(817) 338-0909

(817) 992-9593

(scheduler)

(817) 335-5852

 
 

Franklin Moss

1000 Throckmorton Street

Fort Worth, TX 76102

Councilman District 5

(817) 871-8805

(817) 871-6187

District5@ci.fort-worth.tx.us

 

Tom Simerly, P.E.

400 South Houston, Ste. 330

Dallas, TX 75202-4899

DeShazo, Tang & Associates

(214) 748-6740

(214) 748-7037

Tom.Simerly@deshazotang.com

check mark icon - attended

Christy Lambeth

400 South Houston, Ste. 330

Dallas, TX 75202-4899

DeShazo, Tang & Associates

(214) 748-6740

(214) 748-7037

Christy.Lambeth@deshazotang.com

 

Donna Evans

House District 95

1100 Circle Drive, Ste. 200

Fort Worth, TX 76119-8111

District 95 Office of Representative Glen Lewis

(817) 536-6772

(817) 536-4587

Pat.Wells@house.state.tx.us

 

Lawanda Thomas

House District 95

1100 Circle Drive, Ste. 200

Fort Worth, TX 76119-8111

District 95 Office of Representative Glen Lewis

(817) 536-6772

(817) 536-4587

LaWanda.Thomas@house.state

tx.us

 

Charlene McAdoo

6249 Vel Drive East

Fort Worth, TX 76112

East Fort Worth Neighborhood Coalition

(817) 654-0373

(817) 654-0373

Charilemac@sbcglobal.net

Nell Cass

4128 Freddie Street

Fort Worth, TX 76119

Eastland Neighborhood Association

(817) 536-5217

Dandraper2413@hotmail.com

 

Michael Jansky, P.E.

1445 Ross, 13th Floor

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

EPA – EIS Division

(214) 665-7451

(214) 665-7446

Jansky.michael@epa.gov

 

John Behnam, P.E.

1445 Ross, 13th Floor

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

EPA- Air Planning Section

(214) 665-7247

(214) 665-7427

Behnam.jahanbakhgh@epa.gov

Sandra E. Allen

Environmental Programs Coordinator

300 East Eighth Street, Ste. 826

Austin, TX 78701

FHWA-Texas Division

(512) 536-5944

(512) 536-5990

Sandra.Allen@fhwa.dot.gov

 

 

 

check mark icon - attended

Salvador Deocampo

Urban Engineer

300 East Eighth Street, Ste. 826

Austin, TX 78701

FHWA-Texas Division

(512) 536-5951

(512) 536-5990

Salvador.deocampo@fhwa.dot.gov

Edward Stephen, PE (FHWA)

300 East Eighth Street, Ste. 826

Austin, TX 78701

FHWA-Texas Division

(512) 536-5971

512) 536-5990

Deanna Anderson

Director of Planning and Scheduling

1600 East Lancaster Avenue

Fort Worth , TX 76102

Fort Worth Transportation Authority

(817) 215-8632

(817) 215-8902

Danders@the-T.com

 

check mark icon - attended

David Cowley

Planning Analyst

1600 East Lancaster Avenue

Fort Worth , TX 76102

Fort Worth Transportation Authority

(817) 215-8636

(817) 215-8902

Dcowley@the-T.com

check mark icon - attended

John L. Barnett

2617 Rodeo

Fort Worth, TX 76119

Glencrest Civic League

(817) 536-9790

 

Jbarnett5@netzero.net

johnreesebarnett@aol.com

 

Rev. Robert Coleman

6020 Meadowbrook Drive

Fort Worth, TX 76112

Handley Meadowbrook Christian Church

(817) 451-3752

(817) 451-7754

 

 

 

check mark icon - attended

Jim Robertson, AICP

1504 West 5th Street

Austin, TX 78703

Hicks & Company

(512) 478-0858

(512) 474-1849

Jrob@hicksenv.com

check mark icon - attended

Hugh Collins

1733 Bunch Drive

Fort Worth, TX 76112

Holy Tabernacle Church of God in Christ

(817) 451-8210

 

Mike Barton

President

P.O. Box 604

Kennedale, TX 76060

Kennedale Chamber of Commerce

(817) 568-2685

(817) 483-0720

 
 

Greg Royster

P.O. Box 5888

Arlington, TX 76005

NCTCOG

(817) 695-9285

 

(817) 640-3020

Groyster@dfwinfo.com

check mark icon - attended

Jeff Neal

P.O. Box 5888

Arlington, TX 76005

NCTCOG

(817) 608 - 2345

 

(817) 640-3028

Jneal@dfwinfo.com

 

Hazel Peace

1103 East Terrell Street

Fort Worth, TX 76104

Near Southeast Council

(817) 335-1916

 

 

 

 
 

Lisa Hunsaker-Turner

3020 SE Loop 820

Fort Worth, TX 76140-1015

Congressman Martin Frost

(817) 293-9231

(817) 293-6526

Llisa.hunsaker@mail.house.gov

 

Chris Anderson

Planning Director

5900 West Plano Parkway, Suite 100

Plano, TX 75093

North Texas Tollway Authority

(214) 461-2021

 

Canderson@ntta.org

Roy C. Brooks

Tarrant County

3212 Miller Avenue

Fort Worth, TX 76119

Office of Commissioner Dionne Bagsby

(817) 531-5600

(817) 531-5633

rbrooks@tarrantcounty.com

check mark icon - attended

Lena George

2777 Stemmons Freeway, Ste. 1333

Dallas, TX 75207

PBQD

(214) 638-2888

(214) 638-2893

GeorgeL@pbworld.com

check mark icon - attended

Naser Abusaad, P.E.

2777 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1333

Dallas, TX 75207

PBQD

(214 )638-2888

(214) 638-2893

Abusaad@pbworld.com

check mark icon - attended

Robin Joseph, AICP

2777 Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1333

Dallas, TX 75207

PBQD

(214) 638-2888

(214) 638-2893

joseph@pbworld.com

Isaac C. McKenzie

4801 E. Loop 820 South

Fort Worth, TX 76119

Saint Jude Missionary Baptist Church

(817) 496-9708

(817) 496-9572

 

 

 

check mark icon - attended

Linda Morrow

4641 Lois Street

Fort Worth, TX 76119

South Edgewood Neighborhood Association

(817) 534-8786

(817) 263-3758

 

 

check mark icon - attended

Randy Skinner

Traffic Planner

100 East Weatherford Street, Ste. 401

Fort Worth, TX 76196

Tarrant County

(817) 884-1250

Rskinner@tarrantcounty.com

Frank Espino

1101 East Arkansas Lane

Arlington, TX 76010

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

(817) 469-6750

(817) 274-4445

Fespino@tnrcc.state.tx.us

check mark icon - attended

Poonam Wiles, P.E.

Research Engineer

110 N. Davis, Ste. 101

Arlington, TX 76013

Texas Transportation Institute

(817) 261-1661 ext. 524

(817) 461-1239

p-wiles@tamu.edu

check mark icon - attended

Phil Weston, P.E.

1200 Summit Avenue, Ste. 600

Fort Worth, TX 76102

Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc.

(817) 332-8977

(817) 332-8979

Phillip.Weston@tcb.aecom.com

 

Elizabeth Hilton, P.E.

125 East 11th Street

Austin, TX 78701-2483

TxDOT Design Division

(512) 416-2689

(512) 416-2701

Ehilton@dot.state.tx.us

 

Rene Garcia

125 East 11th Street

Austin, TX 78701-2483

TxDOT Design Division

(512) 416- 2197

(512) 416-2701

Rgarci1@dot.state.tx.us

 

Dean Tesmer

125 East 11th Street

Austin, TX 78701-2483

TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division

(512) 416-2649

(512) 416-2746

dtesmer@dot.state.tx.us

Michele Skinner

125 East 11th Street

Austin, TX 78701-248

TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division

(512) 416-2644

MSKINNE@dot.state.tx.us

check mark icon - attended

Matthew Asaolu, P.E.

P.O. Box 6868

Fort Worth, TX 76115-0868

TxDOT Project Manager

(817) 370-6852

(817) 370-6759

Masaolu@dot.state.tx.us

Jody Hodges

P.O. Box 6868

Fort Worth, TX 76115-0868

TxDOT Public Relations

(817) 370-6737

(817) 370-6690

Jhodges@dot.state.tx.us

Ram Gupta

Texas Department of Transportation

South Tarrant County Office

2501 SW Loop 820

Fort Worth, TX 76133-2300

STO - Engineer

(817) 370-6637

(817) 370-6797

rgupta@dot.state.tx.us

Tom Hudspeth

1100 Commerce Street, Rm #8A11D

Dallas, TX 75242-0216

US Army Corps of Engineers, Southwest Division

(214) 767-2177

Thomas.hudspeth@usace.army.mil

 

Rebecca Griffith

CESWF-BD

819 Taylor Street, RM 3A32H

PO box 17300

Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300

US Army Corps of Engineers

Fort Worth District

 

(817) 978-3311

Rebecca.s.griffith@swf02. usace. army.mil

 

Glenn Forbes

1150 South Freeway, Ste. 148

Fort Worth, TX 76104

Southeast FW, Inc.

(817) 871-6542

(817) 332-6432

gforbes@southeastfw.com

check mark icon - attended

Jamye Sawey

P.O. Box 6868

Fort Worth, TX 76115

TxDOT

(817) 370-6862

(817) 370-6759

jsawey@dot.state.tx.us