| Search: | |
| Home | Contact Us | Tools & Plug-Ins |
|
|
|||
|
||||
Project Description | Study Area Map | Alternatives | Goals and Objectives | Public Involvement | Public Meetings | Work Group Meeting Minutes | Community Advisory Work Group Meeting Minutes | Newsletters | Contact List | Slide Presentation | Summary of Corridor Improvement Study Recommendations | Public Hearing Project Analysis and Possible Alternatives Introduction This paper provides a summary of procedures to be used to analyze and screen alternative transportation plans developed in the SH 360 Corridor Improvement Study (CIS). This study is intended to develop a locally-preferred plan of action to solve transportation problems along the north-south corridor through Arlington and Grand Prairie as outlined in the map below. The corridor includes the Cities of Arlington and Grand Prairie, plus small portions of Irving, Euless and Fort Worth. The corridor lies predominantly in Tarrant County, with the eastern edge extending into Dallas County. The study is managed by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Fort Worth District, who will act as the lead agency. The work will be developed as a cooperative effort among local and state agencies and citizens with an interest in the corridor. The State Highway 360 Corridor covers about 30 square miles, centered along SH 360 (Watson Road) through Arlington and Grand Prairie, from IH-20 to north of IH-30, including the IH-30 interchange. This Corridor Improvement Study (CIS) is based on the study format formerly known as a Major Investment Study (MIS). An MIS was a transportation planning process established by the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, which was required for all corridors where a major transportation investment was anticipated to have a regional impact, and where federal funds were potentially involved. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, known as TEA-21, no longer mandated a formal MIS, but continued the requirement for multi-modal advanced planning and public involvement. Based on the comprehensive, multi-modal nature of this study, we have termed it a "Corridor Improvement Study." Once a recommended plan of action is determined in the CIS, the formal environmental assessment (EA) will be completed. An environmental assessment requires early and continuous coordination and consultation among state and federal agencies on projects with potential federal funding, to assure thorough consideration of environmental protection issues. Details of the public involvement for this study are included in the publication "Public Involvement and Agency Coordination Plan for the SH 360 Corridor Improvement Study". The SH 360 Corridor Improvement Study will evaluate many alternative plans for solving the area transportation problems. This paper outlines a framework for evaluating all alternatives brought forward in the study by the stakeholders, and communicating the resulting information back to this group. The stakeholders for this project include community interests (commuters, businesses, residents, freight carriers, environmental interests, and others), local elected officials, and involved agencies. The work will start with identification of the transportation problem, and end with the selection of a locally-preferred alternative. A combined CIS and EA process provides for continuous involvement of the
different groups of stakeholders in the study area. Under the Corridor
Improvement Study and Environmental Assessment, one agency takes the lead,
but all potential implementing agencies and the public are involved, because
the final outcome will typically require coordinated action by many
agencies. Comparison Of Alternatives This study will most likely involve the analysis of a very large number of alternatives, all of which will have to be acted on at some level of detail to move the process forward. The study anticipates a gradual reduction in the number of alternatives by a short-list process, where promising alternatives are moved forward and less desirable alternatives are set aside. This will reduce the numbers of alternatives over time, and allow a higher level of detailed analysis on the remaining candidates.
Comparisons of alternatives for the SH 360 Corridor are proposed to be developed under the following broad categories:
Comparisons of alternatives are proposed to be provided where appropriate, using a five-point rating system as shown in the table below, measuring effects from "Major Negative" to "No Effect/Neutral" to "Major Positive". In the later stages of the study, it is expected that the information will be more detailed and can be provided as specific measurements. For instance, wetland impacts for detailed alternatives would be shown as measured acreage for the various alternatives; displacements would be listed as the specific number of houses or other buildings impacted; visual impacts will be shown as the total number of feet of elevated structures.
The development and comparison of alternatives for this study is proposed to occur in three stages, as described in the following paragraphs: First Stage Analysis Of Alternatives During the first stage of the analysis, a detailed traffic model will be developed and verified for the study corridor to identify the demand on the transportation system for the years 1995 (baseline year) and 2025 (design horizon year.) Based on this traffic model, other engineering investigation, and citizen and agency input, the study team will develop an initial list of the transportation problems and needs in the corridor. This problem definition will in turn be used to suggest an appropriate work plan to guide the efforts of the study team and involved agencies in the second stage of the analysis. This plan will be subject to public review during the initial meetings of the Community Advisory Work Group in the second quarter of 2001. The work plan at this level is expected to focus on strategies for solution of the identified problems rather than specific alternatives. This study will begin by considering a wide range of options to solve north-south transportation problems in the corridor. This stage of analysis is very broad and will consider travel strategies such as:
Additionally, other viable alternatives as brought forward by the stakeholders will be considered during the study. It is proposed that the following general information will be provided about work plan items under consideration:
Second Stage Analysis Of Alternatives The second stage of the analysis is intended to develop preliminary alignments and operational details of the alternatives identified for further study in the First Stage analysis, and to support the analysis with exploratory-level traffic modeling. The following information may be considered for these alternatives: Environmental Effects
Mobility Benefits
Social And Economic Effects
Cost Effectiveness And Affordability
Other Effects
The evaluation criteria listed in the table above were derived from a master list of criteria in Appendix "A", but do not include all of those items. The intent of the criteria in the table above is to simplify the evaluation of alternatives, by considering only critical items or combining several related issues into one aggregate rating. The Master List of Evaluation Criteria is more extensive, and will be reviewed during each stage of the study to ensure relevant and decisive criteria are utilized. The Second Stage will screen a short-list of alternatives for more detailed analysis in the Third Stage. Third Stage Analysis Of Alternatives The third stage is intended to develop layouts and operational details of
alternatives identified for further study from the Second Stage analysis.
The criteria and measures used during the third stage of the analysis are
proposed to include all of those used in the second stage. Additions or
deletions to the criteria set will be made based on experience from the
second stage analysis and input from all stakeholders. The third stage is
intended to screen the available list of alternatives down to a single
locally-preferred alternative (plan of action). Conclusion Of The Study The public process for the SH 360 Corridor Improvement Study is proposed to reach consensus on a locally-preferred alternative in late 2001. With a successful conclusion of the public process, official agency action on the study is proposed to take place in late 2001 or the first quarter of 2002. This will be initiated by briefings to key agencies, including the Cities of Arlington, Grand Prairie, and Fort Worth, the Counties of Dallas and Tarrant, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The "T"), and the North Texas Tollway Authority. Assuming concurrence from these agencies, official regional action is proposed to follow at a briefing to the North Central Texas Council of Governments’ Regional Transportation Council. This will officially integrate the SH 360 Corridor proposed action plan into Mobility 2025, the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Transportation Plan, resolving its influence on the regional congestion management and air quality plan, as well as identifying the financing sources. The SH 360 Corridor Improvement Study will clearly identify the community’s preferred plan of action for dealing with transportation needs in the study corridor. The study procedures outlined in this paper are intended to provide a focused process for making decisions on this project, and developing a plan which meets the various goals of the project, including environmental, social, financial, and technical feasibility.
Appendix A : Master List of Alternative Evaluation Criteria. Click to view :
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
 |
|
|
© Copyright 2012, TxDOT All Rights Reserved. |
Disclaimer | Accessibility Policy | Privacy and Security Policy | Open Records | TxDOT Contacts |
