/l .'. -< N 0 􀁾􀀠 Z n (5 0 􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀁡􀀠 􀁾􀁾􀀠 g i {!j ! c 􀁾􀀮􀀠 c I i:J • .." § 􀁾􀀠 > ... 􀁾􀀠 {\ 􀁾􀁾􀀠 
...􀁾􀀠North Central Texas Council Of Governments March 3, 2005 9 k!t: 􀁾􀀠 􀀨􀀻􀁹􀁬􀁾􀀭􀁗􀀡􀁟􀀠 􀀰􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾 i---tf4 􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁦􀁩􀀬􀁁􀀮􀀮􀁁􀁾􀀺􀀻􀁝􀀯􀀮􀁊􀀠 tv<-􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁥􀀭􀁌􀀠f...--Mr.
Ron Whitehead 􀁾􀀡􀁾􀁾􀁮􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁳􀁯􀁮􀀠 􀁃􀁌􀀱􀁯􀀯􀁾􀀠Iff) ?\ 􀁾􀀯􀁾􀁾􀀠 P.o. Box 9010 '1 1./iJ Ii _ 􀁾􀀠..w' -I 􀁾􀀠 Addison, TX 75001-9010 tyl..-J.•4·.l.:tPf. {/UVVL U_ I 􀁾􀀠 , Dear
Mr. Whitehead: 􀁾􀁾􀀬􀁐􀀼􀁬􀀠􀁾 /.s-The North Central Texas Council of Govemments (NCTCOG) serves as the Metropolita Planning Organization (MPO) for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan
Area. One of the primary functions of an MPO is to review the transportation and transportation-related air quality need!1 of the Metropolitan Planning Area and develop a work plan for
utilizing federal transportation planning funds to address these needs. The Metropolitan Planning Area for North Central Texas consists of Collin, Dallas, Denton, Rockwall, and Tarrant
Counties and portions of Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, and Parker Counties. As the MPO for the North Central Texas area, NCTCOG has been responsible for the annual development and implementation
of the Unified Planning Work Program for Regional Transportation Planning (UPWP). The UPWP documents the metropolitan transportation planning process and planning tasks to be conducted
over the course of the fiscal year that utilize federal and other transportation planning funds. NCTCOG staff, in consultation with local governments and transportation agencies. conducts
the selected projects. In the event that a planning study requires an area of expertise that NCTCOG staff is unable to address, consultant services may be pursued to assist with the
work. In this case, the participating local government or agency may be asked to provide financial support for the project. The Regional Transportation Council (RTC). as the transportation
policy body for the MPO, approves the UPWP for submission to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). the state agency responsible for managing the metropolitan planning process.
A draft UPWP must be submitted to TxDOT by June 1. The Regional Transportation Council will be asked to approve a final UPWP in July. Metropolitan Planning Organizations are pemnitted
to develop two--year Work Programs, and some MPOs across the State have had success in this approach. Pending Regional Transportation Council approval on March 10, NCTCOG plans to submit
a two-year Work Program for FY2005-2007. c;.c... 616 Six Flags Drive. CenterpoinC Two P. O. Box 5888, Arlington, Texas 76005-5888 (817) 640·3300 FAX: 817-640-7806 0 reoycled papa, 'NWW.nclcog.org

Page Two March 3, 2005 Emphasis areas within the UPWP include preparation of the Transportation Improvement Program, air quality planning, development and monitoring of the metropofitan
transportation plan, and congestion management, all of which are necessary to meet federal MPO planning requirements. In addition, NCTCOG staff will continue its active involvement in
a number of transportation and air quality planning areas including: technical support for major corridor investment studies, bicycle and pedestrian glanning, intermodaVfreight planning.
safety. altemative fuels programs, information systems. public outreach and education, travel forecasting model development, and sustainable development initiatives. The emphasis of
the UPWP is on planning activities. Projects that require preliminary engineering or design services are not eligible for UPWP funding. Listed below are the NCTCOG Transportation Department
Senior Program Managers and their respective areas of responsibility with regard to our planning activities identified in the Unified Planning Work Program: Dan Lamers. Transportation
Planning, 817/695-9263 Ken Cervenka, Information Systems and Model Development, 817/695-9266 Chris Klaus, Air Quality Planning and Operations. 817/695-9286 Mike Sims, Public Outreach
and Program Development, 817/695-9226 Ken Kirkpatrick, Rscal Management and Transit Operations, 817/695-9278 As part of the UPWP deVelopment process, local governments and transportation
agencies within the Metropolitan Planning Area are asked to review their transportation planning needs and submit projects for potential inclusion in the UPWP. Often, local communities
will submit similar project needs, and this allows projects to be combined into larger regional initiatives. Enclosed is a Project Submittal Form to be used by local govemments and transportation
agencies to request consideration of proposed projects. This form is also provided online at ht!p:llwww.nctcOQ.org/trans/work program!. Local governments and agencies are encouraged
encouraged to submit proposed planning studies for a 2005-2007 UPWP. The time period covered by this Work Program is October 1, 2005 through September 30. 2007. Since this may be a two-year
Work Program, please indicate on the form your anticipated timeframe for project initiation. The 20 percent funding match required for use of federal transportation planning funds will
be provided by the Texas Department of Transportation in the form ot.in-kind staff support to the metropolitan planning process. An additional federal requirement for the UPWP is that
this document includes an inventory of transportation and air quality planning activities taking place throughout the Metropolitan Area, regardless of the agency conducting the work
or the funding source. The enclosed form titled, "Planning Studies Inventory," (also provided online at same address as above) should be used to provide information about planning studies
of regional significance in which your organization will be involved over the next two years. years. These studies will be inventoried and included in the 2005-2007 UPWP. We appreciate
your cooperation in providing this information. Submittal forms documenting proposed planning projects and plannIng studies to be inventoried should be submitted to NCTCOG by Friday,
April 1, 2005, In order to be considered for inclusion in the 2005-2007 UPWP. 
Page Three March 3, 2005 If you have any questions regarding the Unified Planning Work Program, please contact Vickie Alexander, Administrative Program Supervisor, at 817/695-9242. You
may also contact the Senior Program Managers named above if you have questions regarding a potential project in a particular area. We appreciate your assistance in the development of
this planning document as we continue to address our transportation issues from a regional perspective as emphasized in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Qentury, our guiding
legislation. Sincerely, Dan Kessler Assistant Director of Transportation VA:ac Enclosures co: R. Scott Wheeler, Mayor, Town of Addison Jim Pierce, Interim Director of Public Works, Town
of Addison 
2005-2007 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING NEW PROJECT SUBMITTAL FORM FOR PLANNING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Proposed Planning Project Title: Estimated
Cost: Anticipated Timeframe for Project Initiation: Proiect 􀁛􀀩􀁾􀁳􀁣􀁲􀁩􀁰􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠 -i i , Requested By: Title: i Agency: Telephone: . Please submit UPWP planning project Ideas to
the North Central Texas Council of Governments by Friday, April 1, 2005. Forms may be mailed, faxed, or e-malled to Angle Carson, TransportatIon Department, P.O. Box 5888, Arlington,
TX 76005-5888, (817) 695-9239 (Fax). acarson@nctcog.org. 
Regional Thoroughfare Plan Meeting Northwest Dallas County North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportalion Department Friday, June 20, 2003 9:00 a.m. Carrollton City Hall Carrollton,
Texas AGENDA 1. Welcome 2. Introductions 3. Regional Thoroughfare Plan Scope and Purpose 4. Regional Thoroughfare Plan Schedule 5. Thoroughfare Plan Conflict Resolution 6. Question and
Answers 7. Adjourn Contact Information Jeff Neal Tim Young Senior Transportation Planner Urban Planner II (817) 608-2345 (817) 695-9288 jneal@nctcoq.orq tyounq@nctcoq.orq North Central
Texas Council of Governments 616 Six Flags Dnve, Suite 200, Centerpoint Two Arlington, Texas 76005-5866 htlp11www.nctcog.org 
North Central Texas Council Of Governments June 3, 2003 Mr, Jim Pierce Town of Addison P,O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Dear Mr, Pierce: The North Central Texas Council of Governments
(NCTCOG) is in the process of creating a 2003 Regional Thoroughfare Plan (RTP) to help ensure regional consistency and cohesiveness among the various local government planning processes.
Over the past couple of months, we have collected local government thoroughfare planning documents throughout the region and have begun to update our information systems to reflect this
new long-range picture. NCTCOG has identified several potential inconsistencies between municipal and county thoroughfare plans. The time has now come for NCTCOG to meet with the various
county and municipal governments regarding the next steps in this process. We will be conducting a meeting on Friday, June 20, 2003, in the Council Briefing Room at the Carrollton City
Hall located at 1945 East Jackson Road in Carrollton, Texas. This meeting will cover all of the local governments in the northwest Dallas County area, This meeting will begin at 9 a.m.,
and should conclude by 10:30 a.m. It is imperative that each city and county has a representative attend this meeting so that the areas you represent will be accurately reflected and
included in the regional planning process. Please make every effort to attend. If for any reason your municipality cannot be represented, please contact Tim Young so that other methods
of meeting with our staff can be discussed. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Tim Young at (817) 695-9288 or tyoung@nctcog.org. Sincerely, 􀀱􀁾􀁾􀀠 Jeff
Neal Tim Young Senior Transportation Planner Urban Planner II TY:cd cc: 2002-2003 UPWP Element 5.02 Project File Dan Lamers, NCTCOG Michael Burbank, NCTCOG Greg Royster, NCTCOG Berrien
Barks, NCTCOG 616 Six Flags Drive, Centerpoint Two P. O. Box 5888. Arlington, Texas 76005-5888 (817) 640-3300 FAX: 817-640-7806 ® recycled paper http://www.dfwinfo.com 
NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETINGS AGENDA Monday, March 31, 2003,6:30 p.m., Dallas Bachman Recreation Center Tuesday, April 1,
2003, 4:30 p.m., Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center Wednesday, April 2, 2003, 7:00 p.m., Carrollton City Hall 1. Welcomellntroductions -Michael Morris --Recognition of Kaiden
Collier for "Cell Phone Sally" Campaign (April 2 only) --Strategic Plan 2003-2007 --NCTCOG Open House, April 11 , 2003 2. Amendments to the 2002-2003 Unified Planning Work Program and
Development of the 2003-2004 Unified Planning Work Program -Dan 􀁋􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁬􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀺􀁊􀀠 -z...... 􀁾􀀠 3. Blueprint for the Future: An Overview of Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation
Plan -Dan Lamers 4. Transportation Funding -Short-Term Projects --2004-2006 Transportation Improvement Program -Dan Rocha 􀁾mr /􀁾􀀠 --Regional Railroad Crossing Reliability Partnership
Program -Rachel Harshman/Mike Sims --Fort Worth Transportation Authority "the T" FY 2003 Program of Projects -Frank Davis 5. Transportation Partnership Programs -Michael Morris 6. Opportunity
for Public Comment 􀁾 􀁾 J..;;v-7. Adjournment 􀁾 􀁔􀁸􀁄􀀨􀀩􀁔􀀨􀁁􀁊􀀱􀁔􀀷􀀱􀀨􀁾􀁾􀀠
North Central Texas Council of Governments Public Meetings Monday, March 31, 2003, 6:30 p.m Tuesday, April 1, 2003, 4:30 p.m. Bachman Recreation Center (ntermoda( Transportation Center
2750 Bachman Drive 1001 Jones Street Dallas, Texas 7522 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Wednesday, April 2, 2003, 7:00 p.m. Carrollton City Hall 1945 East Jackson Road Carrollton, Texas 75006
PlIBI_IC MEETING COMMENT SHEET o I wish to make an oral comment at the public meeting (Please return to Registrar)· Name.___________________________________________________________________
Organization_____________________________________________________________ 􀁔􀁏􀁰􀁩􀁃􀁾____􀁾􀁾􀁾________􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀷􀀷􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠 ·Oral comments
will be encouraged throughout the public meeting. Please submit this form if you have a topic-specific oral comment for the record and plan to leave the meeting early. o I wish to submit
a written comment To submit comments or questions by mall,fax, or e-mail. please return to: North Central Texas Council of Govemments-Transportation Department P.O. Box 5888, Arlington,
TX 76005-5888 Phone: (817) 695-9240 Fax: (817) 640-3028 E-mail: jwalker@nclcog.ora Web-site: http://www.nctcog.org 
2002-2004 Transportation Improvement Program for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area Transportation Improvement Program for the Dalla,·Fort W crth Metropolitan Area North Cenlral
Texas Council of Gave rnments Introduction: The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a listing of surface transportation projects funded with federal, State, and local funds within
the DaUas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area. The TIP is developed through a cooperative effort of the North Central Texas Council of Governments' Regional Transportation Council, the Texas
Department of Transportation, local governments, transit authorities, and other transportation agencies. The TIP contains projects with committed funds over a multi-year period. Project
listings are balanced to available resources. Geographic Area: The TIP is divided into the Eastern Subregion (Collin, Dallas, Denton and Rockwall Counties, northern Ellis County and
western Kaufman County) and the Western Subregion (Tarraflt County, northern Johnson County and eastern Parker County). TIP Budget: The Transportation Improvement Program contains project
listings totaling $3.3 billion (highway and transit) in fiscal years 2002-2004. Exhibit A shows the amount of funds in the federal, state and local funding programs in the 2002-2004
TIP. Key Contacts: Dan Rocha, Principal Transportation Planner Christie Jestis, Transportation Planner LaDonna Smith, Transportation Planner Omar Barrios, Transportation Planner 616
Six Flags Drive, Suite 200, Centerpoint Two P.O. Box 5888, Arlington, Texas 76005-5888 Phone: (817) 695-9240; fax: (817) 640-3028 http://www . n ctcog. orgftrans North Central Texas
Council of Governments 
2002·2004 Transportation Improvement Program for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area EXHIBIT A: 2002·2004 Transportation Improvement Program Funding in Federal, State and Local Funding
Programs c: ..---o m III Dallas 􀁾􀀠 • Fort Worth Federal State local Project Selection Responsibility MPO-Se/ected Prolects As the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region,
NCTCOG's Regional Transportation Council has responsibility for selecting projects in the following funding categories: • Surface Transportation Program-Metropolitan Mobility (STP-MM)
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) • Urbanized Area Formula Program (UAFP) • Urban Street Program Texas Department of Transportation-Selected Projects
Except for demonstration projects and the Transit Capital Program, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is responsible for selecting projects for all other funding programs.
The two local TxDOT districts (Dallas and Fort Worth) in the region have responsibility for selecting projects for various funding sources at the district level, while the Texas Transportation
Commission selects projects on a statewide competitive basis. Local governments may submit projects directly for consideration by TxDOT. Can for Projects I Project Nomination As funds
are available, the Regional Transportation Council, the transportation policy-making body for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area, issues a Call for Projects for selected funding
programs to local governments and transportation agencies. Since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the RTC has issued several calls for projects.
After issuing a Call for Projects, the period for receiving candidate project applications 2 North Central Texas Council of Governments 
2002-2004 Transportation Improvement Program for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area is usually 90-120 days. Projects are screened to ensure that they are appropriate for available
funding categories. Project Evaluation, Prioritization and Ranking MPO-Se/ected Projects NCTCOG first developed project selection and evaluation criteria for the 1993 Transportation
Improvement Program. The selection of the criteria was based on surveys of local transportation professionals and elected officials. Twenty-one criteria were included in the survey.
Final selection criteria were cost-effectiveness (current and future), air quality/energy conservation, local cost participation, and intermodal/multimodal/social mobility. Specific
criteria and weighting values apply to each funding program, as shown in Exhibits C through E. These criteria are updated periodically. Surface Transportation Program-Metropolitan Mobility
(STP-MM) Within the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area, STP funding is provided in three principal categories: the Surface Transportation Program-Metropolitan Mobility (STP-MM) in which
funding is allocated to the Dallas-Fort Worth urbanized area, Surface Transportation ProgramUrban Mobility (STP-UM) which provides funds for those areas outside the urbanized area but
with a population greater than 5,000: and the Surface Transportation Program-Rural Mobility (STP-RM), which includes funding for areas with a population less than 5,000. These funding
areas are shown in Exhibit B. EXHIBIT B: Surface Transportation Program Funding Areas _ Metropolitan Mobility _ Urban Mobility I I Rural Mobility Projects inside the Metropolitan Area
with STP-UM or STP-RM funding are selected by TxDOT in consultation with the MPO. Projects funded under the STP-MM category are the 3 North Central Texas Council ofGovernments 
2002-2004 Transportation Improvement Program for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area programming responsibility of the MPO in consultation with TxDOT. The majority of improvements
funded with the STP-MM program include new roadway construction, roadway widenings and intersection improvements on farm-Io-market roads and major arterials. Calls for Projects in the
STP-MM funding program were issued in 1992 and 1999. The next Call for Projects will be issued in 2002, following the redefinition of the Urbanized Area Boundary by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The current STP-MM project selection criteria are shown in Exhibit C. EXHIBIT C: STP-MM Project Selection Criteria CRITERIA Current cost-effectiveness (1995) Future cost-effectiveness
(2020) Air quality/energy conservation (1995) Local cost participation Intermodal/multimodallsocial mobility Total POINTS 24 18 18 24 16 100 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program (CMAQ) The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) provides funds for transportation projects designated by the federal Clean Air Act as being in nonattainment
of clean air standards. These projects must contribute to the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. CMAQ funds are apportioned to the states based on nonattainment area
populations and the severity of air quality problems. Annually, the Dallas-Fort Worth area receives CMAQ funding that must be spent in the four-county ozone nonattainment area consisting
of: Collin, Denton, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties. Examples of projects programmed in the 2002-2004 TIP with CMAQ funding include intersection improvements, signal system improvements,
park-and-ride lots, high occupancy vehicle lanes, van pool and rideshare programs, incident detection and response programs, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, conversion of transit
buses and other public vehicles to alternative fuels, and transit system improvements. As these projects help to reduce vehicle emissions, many of them are included in the State Implementation
Ptan. Calls for Projects in the CMAQ funding program were issued in 1992, 1994 and 1999. The next project call is anticipated to be in 2002, in conjunction with the STP-MM Call for Projects.
The current CMAQ project selection criteria are shown in Exhibit D. EXHIBIT 0: CMAQ Project Selection Criteria CRITERIA POINTS Current cost-effectiveness (1995) 20 Air quality/energy
conservation (1995) 20 Local cost participation 20 Intermodal/multimodallsocial mobility 20 Congestion Management System strategy I Transportation Control Measure 20 Total 100 4 North
Central Texas Council of Governments 
2002-2004 Transportation Improvement Program for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area Urbanized Area Formula Program Consistent with previous legislation, the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan
Area continues to receive Urbanized Area Formula Program (UAFP) funding for transit projects. In addition to UAFP funding for the Dallas-Fort Worth Urbanized Area, the TIP also includes
funds for both the Denton and Lewisville Urbanized Areas. Total Urbanized Area Formula Program transit funding for the Dallas-Fort Worth, Denton, and Lewisville Urbanized Areas is dependent
upon on Congressional allocations and is about $40 million annually. Examples of transit projects funded under this program in the 2002-2004 TIP include: bus replacement, vehicle acquisition,
park-and-ride facilities, and tranSit stations. A Call for Projects in the Urbanized Area Formula Program was issued in 1992. Since that time, project identification and selection have
been carried out cooperatively with local transit providers. Urban Street Program The Urban Street Program is a TxDOT program providing local entities the opportunity to submit projects
for funding consideration. Specifically, the Urban Street Program was established for urbanized areas with populations over 50,000 to reconstruct urban arterial streets that support
the state highway system. The types of roadway improvements eligible for funding include arterial street reconstruction and rehabilitation projects. The state has aSSigned project selection
authority for this program to the Regional Transportation Council. Calls for Projects in the Urban Street Program were issued in 1995 and 1998. Project selection criteria used in those
calls are shown in Exhibit E. No further Calls for Projects under the Urban Street Program are antiCipated as available funding is fully programmed. EXHIBIT E: Urban Street Program Project
Selection Criteria CRITERIA POINTS Mobility (total dollars per person-mile) Pavement condition index Local government objectives: Economic Development; Safety; Goods movement; Urban
revitalization; Enhanced accessibility; Interjurisdictional project -35 35 30 Total 100 TxDOT-Selected Projects The Unified Transportation Plan (UTP) is used to prioritize projects selected
by the Texas Transportation Commission, for inclusion in the TIP. The UTP is a 10-year project listing that guides project planning and development. TxDOT uses various costeffectiveness
indices for a project to determine how it progresses through various stages of project development. According to State law, TxDOT may over-program the UTP by as much as 30 percent. Hence,
the UTP may contain additional projects beyond those included in the TIP. Other programs, generally rehabilitation and safety, are selected by the local TxDOT District offices. In order
for any of these additional projects to move 5 North Central Texas Council of Governments 
2002·2004 Transportation Improvement Program fo, the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area forward into the programming and construction stages, they must be included in the Transportation
Improvement Program. TxDOT's UTP programming process is currently under review, and changes to the number and type of funding programs are expected. Air Quality Conformity The Dallas-Fort
Worth Region has been designated as nonattainment for exceeding the pollutant ozone and is labeled "serious" on a scale of marginal to extreme. Many transportationrelated control measures
in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) are contained in the TIP. As required by the conformity rule, the conformity analysis is based on the most recent planning assumptions at the time
and uses the Environmental Protection Agency's mobile source emission factor model MOBILE5 for conformity analysis. Financial Constraint As required by the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the TIP must not exceed available resources. For MPO-selected funding programs, candidate projects compete for funding on the basis of their ranking as
determined by the evaluation criteria. Project listings must be balanced to available resources, so only the highest ranked projects are included in the Transportation Improvement Program.
TxDOT selects from projects that have construction authority for inclusion in the TIP, although the project listings are balanced to available funding so that only the most cost-effective
projects are selected for the TIP. All TxDOT projects included in the Metropolitan TIP are also included in the Statewide TIP (STIP). TxDOT's UTP programming process is currently under
review, and changes to the number and type of funding programs are expected. Public Participation NCTCOG and TxDOT hold joint public meetings during TIP development. Numerous other meetings
are held during major project selection efforts. The RTC adopted procedures requiring that a public meeting be held 30 days prior to RTC approval of the document with a 1􀁾􀀭􀁤􀁡􀁹􀁹􀀠written
comment period. NCTCOG also relies on the Major Investment Study (MIS) process to accomplish public involvement goals. Cooperative Decision-Making Both the Dallas and Fort Worth TxDOT
District Engineers are members of the RTC and have representatives on the Surface Transportation Technical Committee. Projects in the TIP that are selected by the RTC are done so in
consultation with TxDOT, local governments, and local transportation authorities. Likewise, TxDOT selects projects in cooperation with the MPO. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and the
Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T) have representatives at all levels in the policy and technical committee hierarchy, and are included in the decision-making process. (; North
Central Texas Council of Governments 
2002-2004 Transportation Improvement Program for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area Additional Information Key contact individuals are listed on the first page of this document
The TIP is available in the following formats: • Printed documents (3-ring binder) and CD-ROMs are available from the Regional Information Center (817-695-9140). • An electronic document
is also available at NCTCOG's Intemet site at http://www.nctcog.org/trans/tip/index.html. • The TfPINS interactive website is now available, which will allow users to obtain detailed
information about funded transportation projects, including the location, the amount of committed funding and the responsible agency. TfPINS can be accessed at NCTCOG's transportation
library computers, or at http://www.nctcoc.org/trans/tipinsiindex.htm!. EXHIBIT F: TIPINS Web Site Transportation hnprovement llPJNS Program Information System: Home Page = Welcome to
TIPINS, NCTCOG's Transportation Improvement Program Information System! These pages are designed to provide information about the Transportation Improvement Program (rIP) projects m
the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan planning area. Currently, the system includes projects selected or programmed by the Regional Transportation Council; information on TxDOT-selected
projects will be available at a later date. What is the TIP? Please select one of the following methods to begin your TIP search: lEI Query using parameters that you input (such as city
and project type) Use Interactive map to identify projects in your area of interest ... Change Slide. .. 7 North Central Texas Council ofGovernments 
STRATEGIC INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES The Ninth Annual Presentation from the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area to the Texas Transportation Commission March 27, 2003 
Faced with limited resources and a growing demand for increased transportation system capacity, "strategic investment opportunities" that leverage federal, State, and local transportation
dollars should be pursued. This year's presentation by the Dallas-Fort Worth Area Partners In Mobility focuses on what is being planned and financial opportunities for addressing the
mobility needs of North Central Texas. It includes critical elements of the region's Metropolitan Transportation Plan, performance of the transportation system, and enchancing partnership
funding programs withthe Texas Transportation Commission. Jlegional Rail System Mobility 2025 Update: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan calls for the construction of $49 billion in transportation improvements.
The regional rail system is a major component of the region's multimodal transportation system. Dallas Area Rapid Transit's (DART) recent opening of the Northeast Line to Garland and
the extension of the Dallas North Central Line into Richardson and and Plano, completes 44 miles of the planned 66 mile light rail system, which now serves over 55,000 daily commuters.
Efforts are underway to begin construction on two additional radial corridors of the DART system. Future light rail construction is not limited to only the Dallas area, as plans call
for the construction of a light rail system in Fort Worth, with the initial construction to serve the central business and hospital districts. The Trinity Railway Express (TRE) commuter
rail line connects downtowrl Fort Worth, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, and downtown Dallas. The TRE continues to grow in ridership, with more than 7,500 riders daily. The
TRE Line serves as a model for expanding commuter rail, as plans call for 150 miles of additional service. The Regional Transportation Council, Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
staff, and the transportation authorities have embarked on an extensive regional rail corridor study to evaluate the feasibility of expanding rail service outside current transportation
authority service areas. Ten corridors have been identified for system expansion. Regional policy leaders have also begun a dialogue on future institutional structures to facilitate
the construction and operation of additional public transportation services. 
Freeways and High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Dallas-Fort Worth residents travel more than 120 million vehicle miles (VMT) per day. Over half of this travel occurs on the freeway network
that serves as the backbone of the region's transportation system. By the year 2025, daily VMT is projected to exceed 200 million miles daily. To accommodate this growth in travel demand,
the Mobility 2025 Update calls for the construction of 2r500 additional freeway miles at an estimated cost of $11.5 billion. To meet demand in the most heavily traveled corridors, the
Plan also calls for the construction of 266 miles of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. The feasibility of Mobility 2025 Update HOV and Managed Facility System using value pricing strategies
as a mechanism for integrating toll, express, and HOV lanes into a "managed lane" program is currently being evaluated. Collaboration between the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT),
North Texas Tollway Authority (NITA), transportation authorities, local governments, and the MPO will continue to be vital in the funding, deSign, construction, and operation of this
system. Mobility 2025 Update Freeway and Tollway System legend _ Improve Ex1s!lng Freeway _ New Staged Froeway _ N&W Stagoo Tollway l1li New Stagoo Parkway _ Upgrade 10 PartrNay _ Pntserve
Rlgld-of.Way Dallas CBD Fort Worth CaD 􀁾􀁩􀀧􀀭 􀁾.. i-:. ." ---: -:_._'_... 
Regional Tollway System Since the Dallas-Fort Worth Area Partners In Mobility first appeared before the Texas Transportation Commission in 1995, 137 new tollway lane miles have been
constructed at a cost of $700 million. Today, daily toll road transactions in North Texas are approaching 780,000 with more than 668,000 toll tag users. Currently; the North Texas Tollway
Authority is pursuing the construction of more than $2 billion of additional tollway construction throughout the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Projects include the 121-T Southwest Parkway,
the Trinity Parkway; the extension of the Dallas North Tollway, and construction of the eastern expansion of the President George Bush NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY Turnpike from S.H.
78 to lH. 30 and Segment IV from LH. 35E to lH. 635. Completion of each of these projects will require close collaboration between TxDOT and NITA in the design, funding and construction
phases. Dallas-Fort Worth Tollway Status 􀁾􀁁􀁾􀀠 --&i&-lk>g1"_,.. __􀁉􀀧􀁪􀁾􀁜􀁉􀁮􀁤􀁥􀀨􀁾􀀠 -o..r--.p-.,SIv</r _-'a\2!Ic..ndkIIrIIo 􀁉􀁴􀁑􀁖􀁾􀁟􀀱􀁓􀁮􀀠 ...... ---.--.-.-.-..-,_,"-"...
4 
Regional Growth and Transportation System Performance North Texas continues to experience dramatic growth as the area's population now exceeds 5.7 million people. Despite a slowing economy,
the year 2002 represented the seventh straight year in which the region's population grew by more than 100,000 persons. Forecasts by the Texas State Data Center project that this growth
trend will continue as the North Texas region is expected to reach nearly nine million persons by the year 2030. The Dallas-Fort Worth area continues to lead the State in economic measures
including the creation of new jobs, retail sales, and regional 2003 Projected Texas Regional Gross Product San Antonio Austin 6.61% 7.64% EI Paso 2.06% 􀁄􀁡􀁬􀁦􀁡􀀤􀁾􀁆􀁯􀁲􀁴􀀠Worth
34.26% Houston-Galveston 28.47% Sourr:e: Perrymnn ConsuUonbl.lm:. All Other 20.96% MOnitoring the performance of the transportation system is vital to ensure that the limited funds available
for transportation system improvements are used to build, operate, and maintain asafe and efficient transportation system. Securing additional funding for needed transportation improvements
is contingent upon providing meaningful performance standards to policy makers who are meed with the difficult challenge of allocating limited resources. The Texas Transportation Institute's
(TTl) Urban Mobility Study annually reports the levels of congestion in major cities across the U.S. Latest study findings support local observations that traffic congestion in the Dallas-Fort
Worth area continues to worsen. When compared to other U.S. metropolitan areas, the deterioration of travel time for motorists is alarming and points to the need for expediting construction
and expanding traffic management programs across the region. 5 
----Enhanced Texas Transportation Commission! Regional Transportation Council Partnership Program Since 1995, the partnership between the Texas Transportation Commission and the Regional
Transportation Council has been instrumental in funding transportation improvements that otherwise would have been delayed or remained unfunded. However, the dramatic and sustained growth
of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, coupled with limited funding, is resulting in higher levels of traffic congestion and a continued deterioration of our air quality. Therefore, an enhanced
partnership program that focuses on strategic investment opportunities with major regional mobility benefits is needed. Major components of this proposed $3.2 billion Texas Transportation
Commissioni Regional Transportation Council Enhanced Partnership Program include: 1. Using "performance based programming" in the TxDOT Unified Transportation Program (UTP) for the geographic
allocation of Category Two funds, to determine the appropriate level of funding to the TxDOT Dallas and TxDOT Fort Worth Districts relative to other metropolitan area TxDOT.districts
across the State 2. Reprioritizing selected TxDOT UTP Priority Two projects to expedite additional or underfunded regional transportation projects 3. Leveraging tollway bond funds to
advance collaborative funding between the Texas Tollway Authority and NTTA in constructing regional tollway/managed lane projects in North Texas 4. Allocating $100 million per year of
the Texas Transportation Commission s Strategic Priority funds to the TxDOT Dallas and TxDOT Fort Worth Districts to construct freeway/tollway system improvements 5. Using over $300
million of federal Surface Transportation Program-Metropolitan Mobility (STP·MM) funds al/ocated by the Regional Transportation Council in partnership with TxDOT to move forward on the
construction of major freeway system improvements Enhanced Partnership Program Ten Year Program Slaglng Concepts r--....,....,. 􀀢􀁾􀁈􀀢􀀮􀀠 _e.-•....-,""""" 􀀭􀁎􀁲􀀼􀁉􀁗􀁾􀁾􀁟􀀠 􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀬􀀮..........
􀁉􀁡􀁴􀁯􀀾􀁾􀀠 
Actions for Commission Consideration Streamlining and Funding Freeway Construction Significant progress has been made during the past decade on the detailed refinement of freeway corridor
recommendations. The Commission is urged to support TxDOT's initiatives expediting the environmental review, engineering. and design process, thus moving major freeway projects forward
to construction. High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes More than 260 miles of permanent High Occupancy Vehicle lanes are planned for Dallas-Fort Worth's roadways during the next twenty years.
The Commission is urged to fully participate in the design, construction, and operation of these important projects and their potential transition into managed lane facilities. Regional
Rail SystemlTrans Texas Corridor Integration Regional rail system expansion is being planned to augment the successful DART light rail and TRE commuter rail systems. The Commission is
urged to support TxOOT's participation in evaluating opportunities for integrating the proposed Trans Texas Corridor with passenger and freight rail system in the Dallas-Fort Worth region.
Tollway Participation NITA is focused on funding and constructing $2 billion of additional tollways in North Texas. The Commission is urged to continue the collaborative funding between
NITA and TxOOT in the construction of these facilities. which are vital to improving mobility. Transportation System Performance Transportation performance measures are becoming increaSingly
important in monitoring congestion levels, measuring the benefits of system improvements and guiding future allocations of limited transportation dollars. The Transportation Commission
is urged to support the use ofperformance measures as part of ongoing initiatives to refine TxDOT's Unified Transportation Program. The TTClRTC Partnership Program The Regional Transportation
Council is dedicating over $300 million of Surface Transportation Program-Metropolitan Mobility funds to the Texas Transportation Commission/Regional Transportation Council Partnership
Program which will assist TxDOT with the construction of critical mobility projects in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The Commission is urged to support this highly successful partnership
program through allocation of Commission Strategic Priority funding to expedite construction of these projects. 7 
Dallas-Fort Worth Area Partners In Mobility The Dallas-Fort Worth Area Partners In Mobility is pleased to appear before the Texas Transportation Commission. The Partners In Mobility
is a coalition of public and private sector organizations that recognize an increased investment in the surface transportation system is vital to sustaining economic development of the
area and preserving the quality of life for North Texans. The delegation's appearance before the Commission on March 27, 2003 marks the ninth consecutive year of the region's presentation
to the Commission. 
This State of the Region summary provides a report on the performance of the region's transportation system in order. to ensure that the limited funding available continues to be invested
in projects that contribute the most to moving people and goods efficiently. Identifying the right tools to improve mobility is critical as population and congestion continue to grow.
Traditional freeways offer increased capacity through additional lanes and bottleneck improvements. The region's high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes utilize design and operational improvements
to impact travel behavior and increase efficienqy. Passenger rail offers an alternative that adds capacity by reducing the number of vehicles on the roadways. Other tools such as Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS), Sustainable Development 􀀬􀁾􀀧􀁭􀁤􀀠Congestion Management also contribute to improving the performance of the transportation system: This report summarizes
regional progress on implementing a variety of these strategies as well as the impacts on key air quality, safety, economic development and reliability measures. On the Cover: The High
F,ve Interchange at Central Expressway and L8J Freeway in Dallas is one ofseveral major construction projects underway in the region. When complete, this five-level ;nterchange will
improve traffic flow through bottleneck removal. HOV fravel fanes, additional capacity, improved frontage road connections and 8 bicycle and pedestrian undetpass. 2 
1 􀀬􀀺􀀧􀁾􀀡􀀠 ":\f'", 􀀧􀀦􀀢􀀺􀀢􀀮􀀼􀀻􀁪􀀬􀁾􀀮􀀧􀀺􀀻􀀠 " '-'}'/; 􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀠 􀁾􀀠 >;;::'''.-",,'''<-., -. : "I ',.I 􀁔􀁲􀁡􀁦􀁦􀁩􀀧􀁬􀀺􀀭􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁧􀁾􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁑􀁾􀁬􀁓􀀰􀁮􀁥􀀠61 the ' 􀁔􀁨􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁣􀁾􀁯􀁳􀁥
􀁩􀁏􀁲􀁰􀁱􀁾􀀼􀀻􀁬􀁬􀁲􀁮􀁾􀁾􀁥􀁮􀀠 Newffuridjrrg Partrillrshlps 􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁾being 􀁧􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁳􀁴􀀠challengels fac:ing the' roadway cOF\ditiQns aRproact) LOS devaloped to increaseinVestlilenl
Dallas-Fort Worth area: It results ' E and F, which indicate 􀁳􀁬􀁯􀁷􀁥􀁲􀀡􀁪􀀬􀁩􀁾􀀬􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁨􀁳􀁰􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁩􀀰􀁬􀀱􀁉􀁡􀁃􀁬􀁬􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁥􀁳􀀮􀀠 " in motorist 􀁦􀁲􀁾􀁳􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀬􀀧􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁲􀁥􀀸􀀤􀁥􀀨�
�􀀢􀀢􀀠 rnoVingtraffic and, at times. " ,,',,;. c 􀀺􀀡􀁾􀀺􀀬􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀠,':' commuiing times, loss of " 􀀧􀁢􀁴􀁩􀁭􀁰􀀬􀀡􀁾􀁲􀀻􀁴􀁯􀀭􀁢􀁾􀀡􀁊􀀱􀁰􀁥􀁲 traffic, lpw,;', 'i. , productiviiy,
higher automobile levels, of service translate jnto high .... , im;urance rates, increased costs levels olcongestipn: :Congesllbnin c· ': . for transporting goods and a the Dalii,u,-FortWort.h
􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁾􀀠h;:lS ,,' deterjoration 01 air quality. ' 􀁧􀁲􀁯􀁷􀁮􀁳􀁵􀁢􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁮􀁴􀁩􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁹􀁱􀁾􀁲􀁩􀀬􀁛􀁩􀁧􀀠peal<' , , , " traffic 􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁩􀀰􀀹􀁾􀀯􀁔􀁨􀁥􀀠iiCijaQefit 9hart One 􀁣􀁾􀁭􀁰􀁯􀁮􀁅􀁭􀁴􀀠of
􀁾􀁮􀁧􀁥􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁯􀀬􀁦􀀱􀀠is an iII,ustrates the ipCre\l:S6' i,n highly" ",..increase iildaily vehiCie' miles ,',congested roadways:,; ',' " ,lrq,veled (VMT) in the'Dalias-Fprt", .,,',"
,"i, , ",;:,'c ... 􀁾􀀼􀁩􀁲􀁴􀁬􀀱􀁟are.a. Vehicle miles ,\raveled' 􀀱􀁾􀁨􀁥􀁬􀁰􀀠􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀻􀀻􀁩􀁡􀁴􀁥􀀠<5ongestion intbEl l.z;;;!.: 􀀬􀀬􀀻􀁾􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁥􀀺􀀠􀁩􀁮􀁩􀀿􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁾􀁥􀁤􀀠by over
i 00 " !" , 􀁑􀁾􀁬􀁉􀁡􀁳􀁾􀁦􀁏􀁬􀀻􀁦 V'{orfh!jlrea, 􀀬􀂧􀁾􀁶􀁥􀁛􀁡􀀡􀀺􀀬􀀼􀀺􀀠 {i,: :,l::ipeJ9E'ntslnce 19f1O, Population '(;ille'gories ofGp!jgestlorl'" ,",i ' .i' ::,:,;":0 ! grolA'!fi.high.eremplo
Yl)1ent leve,Is., 􀀧􀁍􀁩􀁩􀀮􀁮􀁡􀁧􀁾􀁲􀁮􀁾􀁮􀁴􀀡􀂧􀁹􀁳􀁴􀁾􀁦􀀱􀀩􀁽􀀡􀁱􀀿􀁪􀁥􀀧􀀿􀁴􀁳􀀠' " ".', ' inqreasesil], automobIle ownerShip, "al'e beifl9 il)1plemente,g:'iSUCh a}jifgreate( 􀀧􀁓􀁵􀁢􀁵􀁩􀁢􀁾􀁮
􀁩􀁺􀁡􀁩􀁩􀁑􀁮􀀸􀀡􀁬􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁪􀁥􀁣􀁩􀀡􀀬􀀠􀁩􀁲􀁩􀁤􀁵􀁣􀀡􀁥􀀺􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁤􀁳􀁩􀁧􀁮􀁾􀁌􀀠 ,contributetp this increas1i,,. i 'an,d interse,:tion if)jpioYeriients., " , ' ": bOttleneckrern,ovcil!;and,i;Ji
gti\ ' Alpng with 􀁦􀁲􀀺􀁬􀁨􀀢􀀻􀀧􀁡􀁳􀁥􀁤􀁩􀁩􀁲􀁡􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁾􀀠 " ' ocCupancy 􀁶􀁥􀁨􀁩􀁾􀁬􀁥􀀬􀀨􀁈􀁏􀁶􀁬􀁬􀁩􀁊􀁮􀁥􀁳􀀬 cOligestion comes a decline in the ,: '!;' ' , :, ,;," " " performanceofthe
transpoT1ation ,," Dallas 􀁁􀁲􀁥􀁡􀀺􀁒􀁡􀁰􀁬􀁤􀀼􀀻􀁲􀁲􀁩􀁵􀁩􀁾􀁩􀁩􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁤􀀧􀁩􀁨􀁾􀀠 system, Level of Siirvicti(LOS)' is F;o,riWofth 􀁔􀀨􀁡􀁲􀀩􀁳􀁰􀀧􀁾􀁲􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁩􀀺􀁭􀁁􀁾􀁩􀁨􀁯􀁲􀁩􀁴􀁹􀀠
a standard measure, of system 􀁰􀁲􀁩􀁩􀁶􀁩􀁾􀀡􀁩􀁶􀁡􀁦􀀩􀁰􀁯􀁯􀁬􀀬􀁳􀁥􀁲􀁶􀁩􀁣􀁥􀀬􀁴􀁯􀀠area performance, ,determimid by , emplilyen, and employees, Almost measuring the: volume of iraffiC'<ln,
200vanpo'ols operate in the regIon a roadway and comparing it with and reduce vehicle miles traveled , the roadway capaqity. or amount of by 133,799 each workday, The 'traffic the roadway
is deSignedi9 region has a variety of initiatives accommodate, Level of Service geared to illcrease average auto is measured on a scale from, oCcupancy ane! improve , A to F. LOS A,
A, B, ,C and Dare ' 􀁣􀁾􀁭􀁧􀁥􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀮􀀠 ' 􀁣􀁨􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁣􀁩􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁺􀁥􀁤􀀠by slight delays; ; ", " .. -, 3 
, ." 􀁾􀀠 􀀢􀀬􀀬􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀠 􀀢􀁾􀀠.' ", 􀁾􀀠 ", According to the year 2000 􀁰􀁬􀁡􀁣􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁳􀁩􀁸􀀠􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁩􀁥􀁳􀀭 Fort Worth, . Census,the DFW area continued . l?aHas, Fn.sco, McKinney, Arlington
to experience high levels of growth ,and plano. . '" ;' between 1990 and 2000. Collin' ..... . . 􀁃􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁴􀁙􀀧􀁾􀁰􀀢􀁲􀁩􀀤􀁮􀁣􀁥􀁤 the greatest In 􀁲􀁥􀁣􀁥􀁾􀁴􀀠years, Dall!,\s and
Fort perceniage qf growth in Texas worth have encoul'i'lged" .. ' during th'at period with 􀁡􀁾􀀠increase . redeYelopmentproj'ects In. fheir ,_.," of 86 ,'perc€int' 'Similarly,benton'
in:io'oim neighborboods and the CotWity fahked seyen'tj1statewide inve.stmelJts arebegiliningt6 pay in perc€intage 􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁳􀁥􀀠of growth " off, 'The adjacent table shows the ancl
tne former urbimi+ed areas of fastesfgroWing.6ilies between . " ;!"" ·Fastest 􀁇􀁲􀁯􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠􀁃􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁥􀁳􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁨􀁥􀀠 'oeni6bi:\nd 􀀮􀁾􀁥􀁙􀀡􀁩􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁩􀁉􀁉􀁥􀀮􀁷􀁥􀁲􀁥􀀠 . 􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁵􀁡􀁲􀁹􀀠􀀲􀀰􀀰􀀲􀁡
􀁮􀁤􀀧􀀮􀁊􀁡􀁨􀁵􀁡􀀺􀁩􀁙􀁾􀀲􀀰􀁩􀁊􀀳􀀮􀀠 . . N91:th Central Texas Region . . ·combineCiinto !fsirigleThese 􀁧􀁲􀁯􀁷􀁦􀁂􀀺􀁰􀁾􀁴􀁬􀁥􀁭􀁳􀀠havioh . . . ,2002 􀀭􀁊􀁡􀁮􀁵􀁡􀁲􀁹􀁾􀀰􀁾􀀳􀀠
.... 􀀬􀁵􀀨􀁢􀁾􀁮􀁩􀁺􀁥􀀨􀀺􀀨􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁡􀀠o'f greater than, . serious implicationsior . ' , .,20o;600in 􀁰􀁯􀁰􀁩􀀮􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀬􀀠...' .'.. '. 􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁾􀀡􀀮􀁩􀁰􀁏􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁰􀁩􀁩􀂷􀁰􀁬􀁡􀁮􀁮􀁩􀁨􀁧􀀠􀁩􀁭􀁤�
�􀀠 􀀮􀁩􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁯􀀳􀀠􀁰􀁰􀁰􀁾􀁩􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁰􀁮􀀻􀁥􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁭􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁳􀁾􀁨􀁯􀁗􀀠',,' gervicedeliveryin the • ;., ..'. • ,.·lhat·:ths'four,drban 'cpuntiesiQI. .'. Dallas-Fort Worth area) 􀀢􀀧􀀻􀁪􀀺􀀩􀁡􀁬􀁬􀂧􀁬�
�􀀻􀁔􀁡􀁩􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁴􀀬􀁰􀁥􀁾􀁩􀁯􀁲􀁩􀀺􀁡􀁮􀁤􀀠Collin ) have'a combined population,of .. 5;069;890.;More tilan 30 pet<;snt' Of the region's growth in'ZOOl t()bk .',' 4 
, 􀁾􀁶􀁯􀀧􀁲􀁬􀀭 􀀭􀁾􀁀􀁾􀀠 -􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀢􀁾􀀬􀀠 􀀧􀁉􀀧􀁾􀀠 􀀬􀁾􀀠 􀀻􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀠 " -":__ 􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀠 -, I \. '" • ". 􀁉􀀯􀁾􀁟􀀠 ,;:.-􀁾􀀠 -􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀠 ,:-;: ' .:. -_-_ J' , " Sustainable
Development .'-.iii}, -: . ,.,()I-" 􀁾􀀠 ,'. 􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀠 .-'.-:. 􀁓􀁵􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁩􀁾􀁡􀁢􀁬􀁥􀀧development " , leverages the land usel transportation, 'relationship to improve mobiliiy, enhance
air' ", , quality, support ecpnomic growth; ,and ensure the financial stabilitY of the transportation system, By focusing on aliariety of , transportation arid groWth options, sustainable'
development offers' , , a wide range of development ",' , 􀁾􀀧􀁯􀁰􀁰􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁵􀁮􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁥􀁳􀀠forlocal go\,Eifnmeriis, The Regional Transportation 'CQuncil recognizes foiir categories ,
"", o'i'sysiainabli3 deveJopmemi:' , Strategic 'Urban 􀁄􀁾􀁶􀁥􀁬􀁯􀁰􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀬􀀠' 􀀧􀁉􀁮􀁴􀁾􀁧􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀠l,:andUse Planning/Urban Dllsign, Transit"Orienied Development and Access 􀁍􀁡􀁮􀁡􀁧􀁥􀁲􀁲􀁩�
�􀁮􀁴􀀮􀀠" Some local sustainable development p'rojects include: Addison Circle, Galaiyn Park, Cedars Station, Mockingbird Station, and the Plano Transit Center. Each of these projects
exhibits elements ofplanning and development that support multi-modal transportation ' opportunities such as rail, automobile, bicycle and/or 100 􀁾􀀺􀀭 : ,', ',.,. 􀁾􀀮􀀠f': . 􀁰􀁾􀁤􀁥􀁳􀁴􀁲􀁩􀁡􀁮􀁴
􀀻􀁡􀁶􀁾􀁌􀀠PleSe projects therefore'suppOrt the air q'ualiiy and congestion mitigatipngoals of the region. ""'., ",. In October 2001, the Regional Transportation Council commitied $40
million in federalfynds to 19 "Joint Venture" sustairiable'" development projecis,'nine raii 􀁣􀁯􀁲􀁲􀁩􀁤􀁯􀁾􀀠stud ills; antj an outreach program that encourages'local ,􀁧􀁯􀁜􀁩􀁥􀁲􀁲􀁩􀀧􀁭􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁴�
�􀀠to participate in " sustainable delieJopment activities. , .' . 􀀮􀁾􀀠 -:-.', ..." NCTCOGcreated the Cenier of DEwelbpmenfExcelience in ,,' ' 2002 to support the su'stainatile 􀁤􀁥􀁶􀁾􀁬􀁯􀁰􀁭􀁥􀁮
􀁴􀀠initiative'; a " ' , 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁨􀁥􀁮􀁳􀁩􀁾􀁥􀀠eitort to bring together public and private:sector experts in the environmental, ' transportation, development, and information analysis
fields ' to address the regional issues and infrastructure concerns of the future, Staff has worked closely with TxDOT and developer interests to advance innovative access management
strategies. -':,c' -in n61w private in>'esl!mEmt;. in!,/u(iin!'J 234living' units , 􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁦􀀬􀀺􀁾􀀧􀀻􀁨􀀢􀁏􀁤􀀠 ;etail at the siation p, 19BO 5 
Transportaifon :system reliability is affected by the information available Jotransportation professionals to identify, resP9rid . to and mitigate nonrecurring · congestion ..AcCidents,
stalled cars•.flat tires, and debris in the .. ·road·iue the primary: reasons for no'nrecurring congestion .. These primary. reasons are 􀁲􀁥􀁦􀁥􀁲􀁲􀁾􀀠to as incidents. Weather and.
special, . · .events such assportiil!leveniS and . . 'shorHerm construction can also 􀁃􀀯􀀧􀀻􀀡􀀻􀀬􀀮􀀼􀀻􀁾􀁩􀀺􀀶􀁡􀁩􀁩􀁓􀁥􀀬􀁮􀁯􀁮􀁲􀁥􀁣􀁵􀁲􀁲􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠Conflestion. ,,' :.,.:,:;:":,.,
The Texas Transportation Institute ·"Zl.5t'· Urban Mobility study indicates.. . .,;;:' that 52 to 58 pEircenl'ofdelay', ': 'experienced by, motorists in an : 􀀺􀀻􀀧􀁾􀁵􀁲􀁢􀁡􀁮􀀠areas
is Caused by inCidents. :Components oflnte'liigent . " Transportaiion Systems (ITS) can _ · help 􀁭􀁩􀁮􀁩􀁭􀁩􀁾􀁥􀀠defay; in turn making the'transportationsysiem '. more reliable for
travelers. . -􀁾􀀠, Traffic mOnit6iiQg'i1hd incident to¢lfjar the scehe of an i.n,cidilQI detection ana'response systems .' ll$'quiCl:dyas possible, . are applications of ITS that are
. ". ';!prptectjngthe s<jifetypf 􀁴􀁾􀁥􀀠victims operating on portions of ihe"alid'tl:1e responders, .Duii,ng' 20Q2, . trahsp'ortaUori:system in the NCTCOG begftn wqJ1<inilon a ' Dallas'Fort
Worth anoia. This work . curriculum 􀁦􀁱􀁲􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁮􀁌􀁩􀁥􀁾􀁰􀁯􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁳􀀠 takes place at traffic' maragement .to. be trained on'the roles and '.' centimLThe Tex3sD.epartment of
.' responsibilities ai':the scene ,¢I an Transportation operat9d MObility· . 􀁩􀁮􀁤􀁑􀁾􀁮􀁴􀀺􀀺􀁲􀁨􀁥􀀠􀁄􀁡􀁬􀁩􀁡􀁳􀀭􀁩􀀽􀁯􀁾􀁗􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁨􀀠 Assistancef?atrolsare dispatched area has invested
approximately' . for miflodnddenissuch as flat $125rniilioriiri frs prpjects, .• . . tire,SOi;;Jebris.They provide "·...';bqvering 􀁡􀁢􀀶􀁦􀁊􀁴􀀬􀁾􀀵􀀰􀀧􀀠􀁣􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁩􀁾􀁥􀀠􀁭􀁩􀁬􀁾􀂧􀀠
" assistari-OO.to stranded 􀁭􀁯􀁴􀁯􀁲􀁩􀁳􀁴􀁳􀀬􀀱􀀹􀁜􀀱􀁾􀁬􀁰􀀠􀁩􀁭􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁾􀁴􀁲􀁃􀁜􀁩􀁬􀁳􀁰􀀶􀁾􀁡􀀬􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀬􀀠 and 􀀨􀁥􀀧􀁩􀁮􀁯􀁖􀁥􀁤􀁅􀀡􀁾􀁲􀁩􀁳􀀧from the.' ·'sYstem.rE!Uabilii)i
in.lher.egion.' .' roadwaybefore.,the inCitle[Jt.,.:· The cOlistructionof light rail;.a,r1d ·becomes,i.!. rflajO[ 􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁃􀀺􀀠distracti9n.:' ',ie'glonalrail on 􀁤􀁥􀁤􀁩􀁣􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁾􀁩􀁲􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁴􀁳􀀭�
�􀁦􀂭 During 2002, the Mobilitywa,y ]'ncreasereliabililylortljeuser 􀁁􀁾􀁳􀁲􀀧􀀿􀁦􀀺􀁡􀁮􀁣􀁥􀀠Patrols in 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀀮􀀠qallas-.. ' ..', pe,cause 01, the 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁭􀁩􀁴􀁭􀀮􀁾􀁮􀁩􀀠to ....:
􀁆􀁯􀁲􀁦􀁗􀁏􀁲􀁦􀁾..ar.ea assisted rhorethan '. on-time performance,' . '.-' 51,000 motonsts, When maj9r i!1cidents occur, many agencies respond to the scene to clear ,the rooawaY. The
objective is 6 
,. •:"' r I-,􀁾",,􀀠-_. ,􀁾􀀬􀀧'􀀠,..':. , 'l" ""c"' ,I , ' ' , ".. .. 0:»' 􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀻􀀢􀀠 c -.," Choices ,'-􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀠 ",,';:' '", , 􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀼􀀠 , 􀁾􀀧... 􀀬􀀻􀀧􀁾􀀺􀀬􀀠 􀀧􀀬􀀬􀁾􀁩􀀧􀁴􀀺􀀼􀀠
."., ,.) ," ,', :;.<r:· 􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠. ,During 2002 ilJid2003;;many' ,', 􀁔􀁨􀁥􀁒􀁥􀁧􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁡􀁬􀁩􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁾􀁰􀁑􀁲􀁦􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁛􀁬􀀼􀀠", '" other 􀁲􀁯􀁾􀁵􀀺􀁬􀁷􀁡􀁹􀁣􀁡􀁰􀁡􀁣􀀡􀁩􀁹􀁶􀁡􀁲􀁩􀁥􀁳􀀠􀁦􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀠
sfgnific'!nt jransportation'j, '" Council places a'higti' prioiItY on \yearto;\let..r, l)1ajof'Regjonal ", " ' 'improvements 􀁣􀁡􀁭􀁥􀁯􀁮􀀷􀁬􀁩􀁲􀁩􀁾􀀠 ".": 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁪􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁾􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮
􀀬􀀠ollen ' 􀀢􀀩􀁽􀁡􀁮􀁾􀁾􀀶􀁩􀀺􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁩􀀹􀁲􀁦􀁴􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁣􀁩􀁬􀀠􀁰􀁡􀁲􀁴􀁬􀀩􀀬􀁥􀁲􀁳􀁨􀁩􀁰􀁾􀀬􀀠 ,"providing cttizenswith additional" ,'liw"ragihg 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀀬􀁬􀁡􀁳􀁴􀀠missing,fllnds Or.
􀀻􀁯􀁡􀁶􀀧􀁥􀀧􀀩􀁾􀁮􀁡􀁢􀁬􀁥􀀹􀁴􀁨􀁥􀀠region toseea options in planning their day-to,day " 􀁡􀀤􀁳􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁩􀁮􀁩􀁦􀁦􀁩􀀧􀁩􀁜􀁩􀁬􀀱􀁥􀀺􀀺􀁴􀁩􀁩􀀧􀀱􀀧􀁉􀁬􀁬􀁻􀁾􀁦􀁩􀁭􀁮􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠steps steadiiy
jriGreasingtrend ir,; ," travel, and expanding' capacttyon '!1ecessary to'niove'a"project ," transportation funding', "c" sOnie of.the region's most fo)Ward, While th",/egipn's' ;-'
impOrtaIJt routes, 􀁥􀁸􀁰􀁥􀁮􀁤􀁩􀁴􀁵􀁴􀁾􀁳􀀠ohnevtireEiwayanQAI$o 􀁫􀁥􀁾 16 expediting 6iojects 􀀧􀁩􀁾􀀠 " 􀀮􀁾􀀠 ";"<'," environmentillstreamli'ning, " Transportatibn 'and environmenial
" ptof!,)ssionals 1i\fork (ogether witt) "t;lJlf\Jral;archeOlogica(histofic;and , 􀀶􀁯􀁲􀁲􀁩􀁦􀁮􀁵􀁛􀁬􀁩􀁴􀁹􀁯􀁲􀁧􀁡􀁮􀁩􀁺􀁡􀁦􀁩􀀹􀀰􀁾􀁴􀀹􀀠􀁩􀁾􀁶􀁩􀁥􀀬􀀮􀀮􀁝􀀾􀀠 ,. 'Iopal 􀁉􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁾􀁰􀀨􀀩􀁲􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁩
􀁯􀁮􀀠projeCts e<lrly in ," , c' Ihih:ilanningprqcess.TliiS allOWs; ,',' 􀀮􀁴􀁨􀀢􀁾􀀬􀀠regitint6 sucCessfully 􀁲􀁩􀁩􀁥􀁾􀁴􀁋􀁥􀁹􀀧􀀠"'" ", ,', ,9QV\fOnmerit!;i goa!s!n 􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁭􀁾􀁬􀁾􀀧􀀻􀁩􀀬􀀠
, m,anfler and build abetter "," 􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁑􀁳􀁰􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁬􀁯􀁦􀀱􀀮􀁳􀁹􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁭􀀮􀁣􀀧􀀠 J." 􀀭􀁲􀀧􀀢􀁾􀀺􀀠 ,. : Tollway. ran and, HOV 􀁦􀁡􀁣􀁩􀁬􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁥􀁾􀀠 ,"; " developed through January
2004 􀁤􀁥􀁭􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁥􀀠the hard work and commitment of iheRegiona! Transportation Council ,to increasing the number of mobility choices, enhancing transportation reliability and
improving air quality, Seamless service delivery to all users in an environmentally friendly manner with significant -Tollways opportunity for flexible urban _ RailLines design amenities
brings choice to project implementation. -HOVLanes 7 
, 1 -, ' 􀁾􀀠 " , , r I I ,"'".>-, -', l' , " ..., • ...1" -:; :'.'0;-_ ..... I Community Outreach 􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀠 􀁾􀀬􀀭􀀺􀀠 -:' ',--" ' --,,-' . ' ;.' : '. , ' ",£:'"+;;"':'" iutreaCh 􀁥􀁦􀁦􀁯􀁦􀁩􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁲
􀁥􀀢􀀠 ;: 􀀧􀁲􀁉􀁾􀀻􀁤􀀬􀀧􀁮􀁑􀀺􀀧􀁩􀁩􀀧􀀠􀀮􀁴􀀨􀁩􀀧􀀼􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁡􀁴 􀁤􀁩􀁡􀁬􀁯􀁜􀁬􀁜􀁬􀁥􀁳􀁣􀁩􀁩􀁨􀁾􀀻􀀠 ;71,,,.,nii,'of 􀁴􀁦􀁪􀁯􀁩􀀿􀁾􀁾􀁨􀁢􀀠arl"ffnrtadea ," ',' ,0 ' 􀁳􀁙􀁩􀀾􀁴􀁜􀁬􀁬􀁔􀁬􀀻􀁬􀁪􀁬􀁲􀁥�
�􀀺􀀻􀁯􀁏􀁾􀁩􀁤􀁟􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁤􀁡􀁮􀁑􀀢􀀠' id:dre:ss"d'bY'piili!,yoffii:ipls, 􀀺􀀻􀀧􀀺􀁾􀁵􀀠 " ':'incli'ide:, ' ':'" I • UtlliziQg a 􀁾􀁾􀀨􀁮􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁨􀁥􀁮􀁓􀁩􀁶􀁥􀀠 mailinif list of almost7,QOO
, indiViduals and organizations, , 'interested in transportation' ' , issues, • Publishing a variety of newsletters, reports, planning , summaries and other dacuments • Canducting surveys
to. gauge P!lblic apinian abaut transpartatian issues "_Maintaining the website at "wWw,nctcog,org/trans 8 
• • "':""t .. 􀁾􀁺􀀬􀀧􀀠 􀁾 -"-9' "" -',', 􀁾􀀠 , ' 􀁾􀀠 ."_ 􀀧􀀻􀀺􀀻􀁾􀀧􀁦􀀧􀀠 -􀁾􀀠 1" . J \.' n, , '. 􀁾􀀭􀀻􀀠 ;; 􀀮􀁾􀀠 • ',--' ;. 􀁾􀀠 . •. I Public Transportation . 􀀬􀁾􀀭􀀺􀀠
. /:--'. .. :..;-, 􀁾􀀮􀀠 .' . 4 􀁾􀁜􀀢􀀬􀀯􀁾􀀮􀁦􀀬􀁾􀀧􀁬􀀧􀀠 . 􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀭􀁻􀀭􀀻􀀻􀁾􀁪􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀻􀁾􀀭􀀺􀀠'.' .-..--. ':., 􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀢􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀠 . .􀁹􀁾􀀻􀀺􀀠 ::,. 􀁩􀁬􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀁾􀀱􀀻􀀺􀀠.
\-"-}' 􀀯􀀿􀁾􀀭􀀬􀀠 _,"v-:::: :""" ·>_􀀱􀁾􀀺􀁟􀀺􀁾􀀮__':_:;?11t·:::.,. ; 􀀻􀀮􀀭􀀱􀁾􀀺􀂣􀀺􀁩􀁩􀀻􀁾􀀺􀀮􀁙􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀢􀀠􀀢􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁽􀀢􀀮􀀺􀀭 .'􀀢􀀯􀁩􀀺􀁎􀁬􀁮􀁥􀁦􀁥􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁩􀁩􀁳􀁾􀀳􀀻􀁦􀀮􀀺􀁥􀁾􀁮􀁾􀁰􀁡􀁹
a " 􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁾􀀻􀀶􀁾􀁲􀁴􀁡􀀩􀁩􀁏􀁾􀀬􀀻􀁥􀁲􀁶􀁩􀀶􀁾􀂧􀀮􀁴􀁩􀁾􀂧􀁬􀀧􀀠.. '.,,, 􀁲􀁥􀁧􀁩􀁳􀁴􀀻􀀻􀁥􀀺􀁤􀁊􀀶􀁲􀀬􀁴􀁨􀁜􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁣􀁥and . " sales tax}ncremeni\to tf{i'Eirpublic region, AcceSsto·theL
.. · ..􀀧􀁩􀁬􀁨􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀱􀁉􀁴􀀱􀁧􀁾􀀶􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁣􀁴􀁗􀀬􀁗􀁈􀁅􀀡􀀽􀁕􀀳􀀺􀀧􀀠...... '.' transportation 􀀱􀀡􀁬􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁬􀁯􀁩􀁩􀁴􀁩􀀮􀁾􀀺􀀬􀀺􀁬􀁄􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁡􀁳􀀮􀀺􀀠:;. 'transpOItationsystem 􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁬􀁵􀁤􀁥􀁳􀀺􀁬􀁾􀀠
􀁡􀁢􀀮􀁴􀁾􀀻􀀧􀁴􀀹􀁰􀁲􀁾􀁙􀁩􀁾􀁥􀀠97% dIlle 􀂷􀀮􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀻􀁾􀁁􀁲􀁥􀁡􀀠􀁒􀁡􀁰􀁩􀁤􀀮􀁔􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁳􀁩􀁴􀀨􀁄􀁾􀁒􀁬􀀱􀀻􀀠􀁄􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁯􀀧􀁾􀁊􀁉􀁩􀁅􀀱􀀮􀀠abiJity {;Jt ill! populatioristo' 􀀮􀀧􀁲􀀧􀁥􀁱􀁬􀀬􀁬􀁾􀀬􀁾􀁴�
�􀁤􀀬􀀡􀁲􀁩􀁰􀀧􀁓􀀻􀀧􀀻􀁰􀁲􀁩􀁯􀁲􀀠to 􀁴􀁨􀁬􀁾􀀠 .\,.' 􀁃􀁯􀀮􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁹􀀠Transppt:!'ation Authority. . 􀁴􀀡􀀧􀀼􀁬􀀻􀀧􀁾􀁉􀀮􀁙􀁶􀁮􀁾􀁾􀁥􀀧􀁲􀁨􀁥􀁹􀀠􀁷􀁩􀁾􀁨􀀠tog6, . partnershif?i 􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁲􀁩􀁳􀁰􀁢􀀧􀁲􀁴
􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁏􀁛􀂥􀁩􀁨􀀢􀀠 :(bCTA) arid ttie'Fort Worth . within the region..Tnis·inciudes .. the£;.e,cjties wasavailabl;i;for :.':" .. 􀁔􀁲􀁾􀁮􀂧􀁐􀁃􀀡􀁲􀁵􀀺􀁬􀁩􀀶􀁮􀀠Authority (TheT). 'access
for specialpopulaiiok.. '. 􀂷􀀮􀁲􀀧􀁮􀁥􀁤􀁪􀁣􀁾􀁲􀁊􀁲􀁩􀁬􀀿􀀤􀀠􀁯􀁾􀁦􀁦􀀧􀀠,. '.. 􀁓􀁥􀁲􀁖􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁳􀁐􀁴􀁯􀁶􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁤􀀠include-sail, bus such as theelderlyJdw'incorrie ..', .1;:"'.:, .,F
.. ,., and p(lri'tgansit, high occupancy.:' and persons with 􀁤􀁪􀁳􀁡􀁢􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁴􀁪􀀬􀁛􀀴􀁾􀀧􀀠 NCTCOG, DART, The:T ana : vehicle lanes and rideshartl , . ,'. .,. . 􀁢􀀶􀁔􀁁􀀧􀁡􀁲􀁥􀀧􀀶􀁾􀁲􀁲􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁬􀁹
􀀠w6rking on DART and The;T,t()taled .... Sixteen transportation proyitl"rs .' a c6mpreh!insive Regional Rail 􀂷􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀻􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁳􀁡􀀮􀁾􀁥􀁾􀀱􀁾􀁩􀀻􀁾􀀮􀀱􀀠 milliqri Jjus/􀁲􀁥􀁣􀀮􀁥􀁩􀁶􀁥􀁤􀁦􀁾􀁩􀁊
􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁬􀁦􀁬􀀺􀁩􀁮􀁤􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠􀁩􀁲􀁩􀀲􀁩􀁊􀀰􀀲􀁯􀁬􀀮􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁲􀁪􀁤􀁯􀁲􀀬􀁓􀁴􀁵􀁣􀀺􀁬􀁻􀀠11]9 !jtudy .. b 2002. The first: $760,OOO,colhparedto $676;000 􀀧􀂷􀀮􀀬􀁷􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁰􀁩􀁱􀁖􀁩􀁤􀀡􀁬􀁳􀁯􀁵􀁴􀁝􀁤􀀹􀁡􀁩�
�􀁩􀁩􀁮􀁤􀁾􀀺􀀠.> :" 􀁾􀀭􀀮􀀠 20:mile light· rafl.!heY§li,khElfor('l;' to subsidIze the, '. . recOrllmendalions'topoiicy Otiicials 􀀺􀁾􀁴􀀺􀁩􀁬􀁩􀁴􀀬􀁜􀁲􀀠􀁾􀁶􀁾􀁴􀀢􀁭􀀠opEmed. in 1996:
" .. 'costo!.tnese 􀁣􀁵􀁳􀁴􀁯􀁭􀁩􀁾􀁥􀁤􀁳􀁥􀁲􀁶􀁩􀁣􀁥􀁳􀀮􀀠 􀀢􀀧􀁏􀀺􀁾􀁨􀁯􀁾􀁪􀁾􀁥􀁹􀀬 􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁢􀁥􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁥􀁭􀁾􀁮􀁌•. : 􀀡􀀮􀀻􀁜􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀻􀁾􀁲􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁢􀀻􀀻􀁣􀁬􀁩􀀺􀁩􀀡􀁴􀁬􀁦􀁲􀀺􀁡􀁩􀁬􀀺􀁩􀁾􀁥�
�􀀮􀁥􀀠i i.4 􀂷􀂷􀂷􀁁􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁮􀁹􀀬􀀠iiervi!!esin Johnson:" '. 􀁰􀁡􀁳􀀡􀁩􀁅􀁬􀁾􀁧􀁥􀁲􀁬􀁡􀁩􀁬􀀮􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁶􀁩􀁣􀁥􀁳􀀠ttirougnoi:i)"',, '"i pha,se 01 ";'Couijiy 􀁷􀁥􀁲􀁥􀀬􀁥􀁾􀁾􀀼􀁩􀁮􀁤􀁥􀀺􀁤􀀻􀁰�
�􀀼􀁬􀁦􀀡􀁩􀁡􀁮􀁙􀀻􀀧􀀠 , thepallal?:F:ort liVorth region, 􀁻􀁾􀀬􀀻􀀻􀀬􀀺􀀧􀀠·.i·· . 􀁒􀁡􀁩􀁩􀁬􀁷􀁾􀁉􀁙􀀠Express through'a$500,000.grant.awarded ..' Study results will refine .... .
..... ,. :(TRE) opened in111was not,through'the TexasTrarisportation . recommendations for the •,until 2001 thattiie 􀁤􀁯􀁷􀁮􀁴􀁯􀁷􀁾􀁳􀁰􀁦􀀮􀀠 Commission.···· . ". metropolitl,lnfranspo,rtation plan, Dallas and FortWprtlhvei'e
linked" . :. '. .' . " '.' guide future decisi!lns regarding by the TRE. Annual boardings oniriTarrant County, TXi:iOT has a .• . regionalr(lil staging and the TREwere approXimately
.$200,QOO contraCt With The Tto 􀁩􀁭􀁰􀁬􀁥􀁩􀁮􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁩􀀨􀀩􀁮􀀠and outiine . 700,000 in 2600. . provide special servicfis fbr financilif and institutional structures. residents of
''cities thafa're not" . -... In addition to DART and The T, members of The T: Almost over 75 organizations provide fburhundred people have 9 
'-,; 􀀮􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀬 ..;""" 􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁾􀁖􀀧􀀮􀀠 􀀧􀀬􀁾􀀬􀀠 " .. 􀀾􀁾􀀺􀀠 .' ... =-...... A<.,!:.::""'-􀁯􀀺􀀧􀁾􀀬􀀺􀁾􀁣􀀧􀀭 􀁈􀁩􀀹􀁾􀁷􀁡􀁹􀀠safetY 􀁩􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳􀀬􀀳􀀬􀀵􀀰􀀰􀁏􀁦􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁳􀁥􀁨􀁡􀁰
􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁤􀀠in Texas HoWever, 􀁴􀁾􀁥􀁎􀁾􀀻􀀻􀁾􀁮􀁡􀁉􀁍􀁥􀁡􀁮.... which reduce highway fatalities' of which 557 ocburred in our area. 􀁓􀁴􀁲􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁳􀀲􀀰􀀰􀀲􀁲􀁥􀁰􀁯􀁲􀁴􀀬􀀠which 􀁣􀁢􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁤􀀠.
and injuries; inclupe:a divers!!: TheQFW region has one 􀁦􀁡􀁴􀁡􀁬􀁩􀁴􀁙􀁪􀁴􀁾􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁣􀀠inCident, demographic and set ofacthiities implemented\ . . 􀁦􀁯􀁲􀀬􀁥􀁜􀁦􀁥􀀬􀁲􀁹􀁾􀀺􀀸􀀰􀀹􀀠residents
. " ·'juhdingdala, rated thE) Dailas-Fort by a variety of iransportation corrip;;irableto the national average Worth Metropolitan Area as ninih in : professionals. Safety . ." of one
to 6,600. the top ten most 􀁤􀁡􀁾􀁧􀁥􀁲􀁯􀁩􀁩􀁳􀁰􀁬􀁡􀁣􀁥􀁳􀀠 . improvements are traditionally' for pedestrians 'in the country. . . . categorized by the "3E's" -'. In .1.999, 􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁾􀁥􀁧􀁦􀀶􀁮􀁡􀁬�
�􀁵􀁭􀁢􀁥􀁲􀀠of' ,> engiQeElring, education, and' faialiiies per 100 million vehi'ble Overall, the region's collective enforcement, but other activities, miles travelep (VMT) was 1.07
effort 'to provide a safer such as' emergency medicaJand it seems io be continuing to transportation system is a. 􀁳􀁥􀁲􀁶􀁩􀁣􀁥􀁾􀀠and 􀁭􀁡􀁩􀁲􀁩􀁴􀁅􀁭􀁡􀀺􀁾􀀲􀁥􀀠are" decrelise,'Thjsmeans
a13% ': .. ' .... 􀁣􀁨􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁥􀁮􀁧􀁪􀁮􀁧􀁾􀀧􀁮􀁩􀁬􀁣􀁏􀁨􀁬􀁩􀁮􀁵􀁯􀁊􀁳􀀮􀀠 . ali?O relevant. .improv\3ment in the fatality rate and 􀀧􀁣􀁩􀁾􀁥.. 􀁎􀁃􀁔􀁃􀀻􀁏􀁇􀁩􀁾􀀠committed.to 'k ..'
,a7,6%decreai3eiri the miin,ber 􀀮􀁭􀁯􀁮􀁩􀁜􀁯􀁲􀁩􀁮􀁧􀁡􀁶􀁾􀁲􀁩􀁥􀁴􀁙􀁯􀁦􀁳􀁡􀁦􀁥􀁴􀁙􀀠 ..>. 􀁴􀀭􀁪􀁾􀁔􀁃􀀨􀀩􀁇􀁨􀁡􀁳􀀮􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁲􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀠aprpgrarilto . offatalities.90mpared to the .....'
faCiorsinorderio improve safety .eli'i>,lUate the state of the regidr ·..... previous year. This is a significant '.th·roughout the trarispol'\ation . 'wiih regard to highway crashes::
􀁾•. 􀂷􀂷􀁩􀁭􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁭􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁢􀁥􀁣􀁡􀁾􀁳􀁥􀀮􀁎􀁍􀁔􀀠have .... ';'system, . 'lil1999, .about 42,000 people were "increasedaboul 6% in the. same ,,Rille.d in motor vehipletraffic' time··period.
. . In addition, NCTCOG staff is -'.crashes in the United States; engaged in the. Railroad Crossing Reliability Partnership Program, which will fund nearly $10 million in rail crossing
imp'rovements throughout the region. Eligible projects include the addition of new gates and lights to existing crossings, as well as the closure of crossings that may merit such consideration.
Fatality Rate for Roads 􀁾􀀭...􀁾􀀬􀀠􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀬􀀠 􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀭􀀬􀀠 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year 10 
••••••• ";'; . !. 􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀻􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀧􀁲􀀺􀀭􀁹􀀺􀀧􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀢􀀠 :, . -.'.;', . ;·:_,:;0."...... . "; -: The Reglonal1ransportation environment. High-risk groups RTC;led 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁪􀁥􀁣􀁩􀁩􀀼􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁧􀁲􀁡�
�􀁮􀁳􀀬􀁾􀀬􀁬􀁤􀀬􀀠 Council's aggressive initiatives to · include children, elderly, individuals po[jcies geared tOwards 􀁡􀁩􀁲􀀺􀁱􀁵􀁾􀁬􀁩􀁴􀁹􀀠 fund and support transportation '. with
respiratory problems, 'and improvement. . One oi me regipn's related air quality projects is " adults yvho participate in outdoor "most sigl)ifii;arit 􀁩􀁲􀁩􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁶􀀬􀁾􀁳􀀠)s'the
improving air quality in the region. activities The financial impact expanded Inspeciion a6'd "'.' . As the chart below shows, Nitrogen goes beyond health care to include Maintenance'
􀁐􀁾􀁱􀁧􀁲􀁡􀁲􀁬􀁩􀀧􀁩􀁮􀀬􀁃􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁩􀁮􀀬􀀧􀀢􀀠 Oxide (NOx) emissions have the loss of business and economic Dallas; 􀁄􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁯􀁮􀀬􀁾􀁅􀁉􀁉􀁩􀁾􀀬􀀠􀁊􀁯􀁨􀁾􀁳􀁯􀁲􀁩􀀬􀀠 dropped substantially
in the last opportunities 􀁦􀁯􀁲􀁩􀁨􀁥􀁾􀁾􀁧􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀮􀀠 Kaufman,Parker, RockWall; imd few years. RTC initiatives' accOunt Tar;ani Counties. 􀁌􀁯􀁷􀀭􀁩􀁲􀁩􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁾􀀠 for over 16 tons per
day of NOx · According to the National Ambient 􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁳􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀬􀁷􀁨􀁯􀁳􀁥􀀠vehicles iailto . " reductions.in the latesUmalysis Air QUiility Standards, attainment . meet the 􀁲􀁾􀁱􀁗􀁩􀁲􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳􀀠
of 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀀠new' "provided to the EPA. Overall, the' under 􀀡􀁨􀁾􀀠I-hour standard. is tests, maYbe eiigib('e tortlie 􀁾􀁥􀁷􀁬􀁹􀀠 NO/< emissions from the region's reached when there
are no more.. .creptep AirCheck Texas Repaif'and transpprtation system have . · tha'hthree ,exceedances per '" . '. ReplaC'ernentAssistance .f'rpgram, ' ,'dropped frorr 318 tons per
day in . monitor 􀁷􀁩􀁴􀁨􀁩􀁾􀀠a donsecutive . . '. '. • AdditionaJ e,florts will toeus on". ". , 19116 to 251 tons per day in 2003. . three:year period. The chart below· di,eserengines,
highcemitting 􀁾􀀠 ) .. · depicts the hisioricaltre.nd toWards'" Vf:!hicles, low vehicle spee'ds; high. While the Dallas-Fort Worth area is rea<;;hing attainmeni under the :vehich3 speeds,
hard accelera\ions; ... .' -..􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀠 improving, the region still does not I-hOur standard in the region. ccild start? and excessive'itili"g> .. 'meet federal air quality standards
for the po'llutant ozone. This is a Even with the region's growth in ... critical issue for the region because' population, positive progress has '. high levels of ozone concentrations
been made toward reaching are damaging to. our health and the attainment through the many AticheckTexasw' 11 
·';: 􀁗􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁥 mosiu.s.metropoUtan areas have water ports ihat all9w domestic and intemational1rl!-deto grow, the Dallas,Fort Wortfr region has air cargo facilities that must . fulfill
that role. These facilities , , P'rovige North Centra! Texas ' access to world markets in order to compete for global trade opportunities. The region is home to 16 cOmmercial, geiwral
aviation ", , and reliever airports'; iru::ludingthe ,natjon's third busiest airport ' .;,:':'(Dllllas/For:t Worth Intermitiona(, " J' Airport) and the nation's first major industril.'11
airport (Fo"rt Worth AllianCe Airport). In 2001, the Da,lIflSff0rt Worth Intema,tional Airport Rail Planning and Implementation Study was conducted witn .the goal of providing "a se'amles$,
customer sensitive, affordable; clearly a,chievable rail interface belwee'n tlie rElgional rail System and the DFW'ln\erriational AIrport Centra,l Tl'lrlnil)al Area." The resulting,';
, preferre. d alternative will provide ' ".-","-' " 􀁾􀀮􀀠 "3·" " :. ':.':' '-,. regional 􀁣􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁩􀁾􀂢􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁴􀁯􀀠QF\IV ' ' .f.jrport via cOmmuter lail:servlce :of,l the Cotton
Belt u,:.le', extended ," light rail transit 􀁳􀁥􀁲􀁶􀁩􀁾􀁥􀁦􀁲􀁯􀁭􀀠Dl;tllas and,bus 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁮􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀀰􀀡􀀱􀁾􀁴􀁯􀀠the TRE by 2025.', ",' , , " 1 :Nbntr Texas ecmmiiston. DalfasIForl
Worth' 􀀢􀁍􀁥􀁴􀁲􀁯􀁐􀁉􀁥􀁾􀀬􀀧􀀠Logis,ij,'Center Of lh¢Americas. NQ'IIfimber 1999 ,t DART 􀁩􀁾􀀠studyi;;g,'lhe extension of the notth ctXmection rome to. the east. ',' § 􀀧􀁄􀁡􀁬􀀡􀁡􀁾􀁏􀁲􀀱􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁨
􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁴􀁾􀀧􀀺􀁭􀁥􀁴􀁻􀁣􀁊􀁩􀁁􀁩􀀻􀁰􀀻􀀬􀀻􀀬􀀠, RaJ1Planning and ImplemenLeUon stUdy, 􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁬􀁩􀁬􀁬􀀬􀁥􀀠Summaty ,.::"" ,'-. ':' '. , .'" 􀁄􀀬􀀡􀁬􀁉􀁡􀁳􀁬􀁆􀁾􀁲􀁴􀀠Worth 􀁉􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁭􀁡􀁾􀀼􀁊􀁦􀀱􀁡􀁬
Airport .4J;m;al passengers includes hoardings, transfers andlaiJding5 " 12 
􀁾􀀠 ..:_/..:;.."'"-::: .....' :-,,' '-1-" 􀁾􀀮􀀠 ,.1_" 1 ... 􀀺􀁾􀀻􀀠 Goods Movement NCTCOG's freight 􀁰􀁬􀁾􀁮􀁮􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠 , addresses the impact of truck traffic', rail freight, and
other goods movements in and throughout ihe Dallas-Fort Worth region, Our, region is the largest non-border international port in the nation, where freight is maved, transferred, and
distributed to destimltia['lS across the State af Texas and araund the world,', The regian's transportation network supports moreihan 600r;,o.lor/frucking carriers anii . alriiasf100
freight forwarder's' 􀀧􀀻􀁡􀁨􀁤􀀩􀀤􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁩􀁤􀁾􀁲􀁥􀁤􀀠by most . \ecanomic arjd logistics experts "' Ihe primary trljcking/raiVair c"rgo ' center in the'Southwest. ' I 􀁾􀀭􀀭 􀀢􀀬􀁾􀀬􀀠:
: " -􀀧􀀬􀀺􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀠 --, ,: 􀁾􀀧􀀠 '" 􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀠 NCTCOG 􀁳􀁴􀁾􀁦􀁦􀀠lias recently ", " undertaker{a regianwjde Freight ' Battleneck Study an behalloi the' 􀁒􀁥􀁧􀁩􀁡􀁮􀁾􀁩􀀠Transportatian
CounciL, : . , this $qQOJJf)O study will " .' " , investigate both truck and i'ail : bottlene(;,kS in!he 􀁄􀁡􀁕􀁡􀁳􀁾􀁆􀀧􀀿􀁲􀁴􀀠 , Warthrilgian, as'w€lll as"PfOvide , valuabie 􀁦􀁥􀁥􀁤􀁢􀁡􀁰􀁫􀁬􀁯􀁩
􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁰􀁩􀀱􀀹􀀰􀁩􀁆􀁬􀀹􀀠, Regional RailC\irridor St!.idY, • 􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀻􀁯􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁯􀁩􀁡􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁳􀀻􀁾􀁏􀀠 the 􀁾􀀠 .,::: r' 􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀬􀀠 􀀬􀀺􀀺􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀮􀀺􀁾􀂫􀀺􀀻􀀮􀁽􀀠 .:,'i', 􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀺􀁘􀀿􀀧􀀵􀀬􀁾􀀠
􀂷􀂷􀁾􀂷􀀺􀁴􀀮􀀺􀁻􀀺􀀺􀀠" ,': 􀀬􀁾􀀺􀀬􀀺􀀠'; In 􀁡􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁡􀁮􀁾􀀠􀁳􀁴􀁾􀀻􀁦􀀧􀁩􀁲􀁯􀁾􀀠TXDOT 'a'nd NCTCOG 􀁨􀁡􀁶􀁥􀀢􀁢􀁥􀁾􀁮􀀠cii6rdlnating '" tOJ)'liigjn 􀀻􀁩􀀻􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁩􀁡􀁲􀁩􀁡􀁬􀀠􀁳􀁴􀁵􀁾􀁹
,of.1he , 􀁊􀁥􀁾􀀤􀁪􀁢􀁩􀁬􀁩􀁴􀀧􀁴􀀡􀀺ap'plicability,iwrac1s, • an'a effectiveness' of various truck, rnaQagernent strategiEiS'on the " " 􀁲􀁥􀁧􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀺􀁳􀀬􀁦􀁲􀁥􀁥􀁷􀁡􀁹􀁾􀁹􀁳􀁴􀁥􀁭􀀺􀀢􀀠
, Sti'ategies include idle rerJuction opporll,inllies, dedicated'truck " , lanes andinJck operation ", , guideiiries: ", ; ,::, 􀁦􀀺􀂷􀀧􀁾􀀬􀀠 􀀮􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀠 . 􀀺􀀺􀀢􀀼􀁾􀀧􀀻􀀧􀀢􀀠 ,." 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀠
􀀾􀀻􀀧􀀮􀁾.. ' , ,t' M:![JI;' TeKas·commlssian•.'DaJIas/F.ort wqf#i 1" 􀁍􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀯..􀁯􀁧􀁩􀁳􀁬􀁩􀁾 qenter Of.me 􀁁􀁲􀁮􀁾􀁲􀁩􀁃􀁡􀁳􀀭 . Novembei"1999 ' : ,':"1 " "'., I" '.> . .r:··
'3'/. 􀀧􀀻􀀮􀀬􀀮􀁾􀀧􀀠 . "" 􀁾􀀻􀀢􀀠 .. ;,.. '. ..;., Year.', , 􀀢􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁣􀁥􀁾􀁧􀁥 ot 􀁾􀁦􀁦􀁦􀀨􀀻􀀠on lhe :(egion's I;whvktY5 􀁾􀁪􀁾􀁪􀀷􀁊􀁾􀀯􀀮􀁳􀀧􀀬􀀠." 13 
.19QO CongestiohLevels .' Areas of Moderate . _. Pe*-Pt0Oci Congestion ..;. . \ 􀁾􀀠 1980 . ..' .LJride;'rstanding th.e'JOt;;allori anilnature.. of :; trafficqonge$liQb 􀀬􀁩􀀨􀁬􀁣􀁲􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁾􀀱􀀠􀁩􀁮􀁬
􀂥􀁬􀁳􀁥􀁊􀀡􀁳􀁩􀁾􀁧􀀮􀂷􀀠 . ··ft1tu(e transportation needs, As iljusl(aled·, ..'. inthis;g'r'aphic, in 􀀱􀀹􀀡􀀱􀁏􀀧􀀺􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁦􀁦􀁩􀀨􀁪􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁬􀁧􀁩􀀺􀁩􀀱􀁬􀁴􀁔􀁯􀁮􀀺􀀠 ..•. . in the Dal[as"Fort
Worth area waslimitea' '. prif'!1arily to central arid nqrthern Dallas .􀁃􀁯􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁹􀀮􀀠The annual cost of congestion to ""Dalias-Forl Worth commuters was ". ..' . ;astimatedaftl 􀀤􀀲􀀮􀀷􀁢􀁩􀀡􀀱􀁩􀀶
􀁮􀀧􀁩􀁾􀀱􀀶􀁳􀁴􀀮􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁶􀁥􀁬􀁴􀁩􀁭􀁥􀀢􀀠 and produc!iv.ity. ... ,.,'..... .". ' .... 2000 Congestion Levels Areas 01 Moderate-Peak-Period CongcsUon Areas of Severe -Peak-Period Congestion
Annual Cosl of 􀁃􀁯􀁮􀁧􀁥􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠::: $5.3 Billion _ 2000 ..... """ .. 􀀬􀀬􀀢􀁜􀀬􀁜􀀬􀁾􀀾􀀬􀁾􀀠 r,";> '. ',,:.. :. J ,....􀁾􀀠 ..... i, .... ,". , .. 􀁅􀁜􀁹􀀺􀁴􀁲􀁥􀁾􀂥􀁥􀁡􀀻􀁉􀁩􀀧􀁬􀀱􀁐􀁑􀁏􀀻􀀭􀁴
􀁲􀁡􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁃􀀠congestipnJn:thEl' 􀀻􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁉􀁉􀀿􀀬􀁾􀁪􀁬􀀧􀁬􀀭􀁳􀁾􀁦􀀹􀁾􀂥􀁩􀁦􀀹􀁲􀁩􀁴􀁩􀀧􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁾􀀺􀀡􀁜􀁡􀀨􀁌􀁃􀁨􀁡􀁲􀁩􀀡􀁩􀁬􀁛􀀱􀀧􀀠 .;i. 􀁤􀁨􀁾􀁭􀁡􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁾􀀻􀀺􀀮􀁣􀁯􀁉􀀱􀁑􀁥􀁳􀀮􀁴􀀮􀁩􀁾􀀮􀁩􀁪􀀻􀁡
􀁉􀁾􀀮ng.".V.".S:}7i!ii'L"'· LH. :63!H'fw' FreewaJ(, I.H:-'35E"'i' 'Y' """ 􀁓􀁴􀁥􀁭􀁲􀁬􀁦􀀶􀁩􀁜􀁳􀀧􀁆􀁾􀀿􀁷􀁡􀁙􀀻􀁾􀁯􀁱􀁬􀀧􀁬􀁾􀀡􀁬􀁌􀁸􀁴􀁂􀁾􀀧 in 􀀺􀁄􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁦􀀻􀁩􀀡􀁬􀀻􀁃􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁴􀁙􀀨􀁉􀀺􀁉􀁾􀀹􀁦􀁩􀁲
􀁅􀁬􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁹􀀬􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁾􀁥􀁤􀀮􀀧􀀠 , SubStantiillgri:\wth:iri portions ofCollin, . Dallas; Denton and T(lrrantCourities resulted in traffic·'ievel"i"thathad once been confined to'North
Dallas .. ,Ihe eStimated cost of congestion to mQtorists " ,.' ,exceeded $5.3 billion annually, .. 14 
: 􀁾􀀢􀀺􀁟􀀬􀀺􀀨􀀭􀀢􀁲􀀭􀀺..... ',' ;:;:.'._.,:'.' :1. 􀁪􀁾􀀺􀀠 􀀺􀁾.. 􀁾􀀮􀀠 What is NCTCOG? r-􀀬􀀬􀁜􀁾􀀬􀀠-' -􀀯􀀻􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀠 ': 􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀁾􀀠 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠 . The North Central Texa"
Councilbf Governments (NCTCOG) is 􀁡􀁶􀁯􀁨􀁪􀁾􀁴􀁡􀁲􀁹􀀠association of local 􀁧􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁭􀁛􀁨􀁥􀁾􀁴􀁳􀀠􀁷􀁩􀁴􀁨􀁩􀁮􀀧􀀺􀁴􀁨􀁾:16-county North Central Texas region. The agency was established
In 1966 to assist local gov.emments in planning for common needs, cooperating for mutual benefit, and coordinating for sound regional' development North Central 􀁔􀁥􀁾􀁾􀁤􀁳􀀠a 1&co'unty
region 􀁷􀁊􀁾􀀠a population of 5,5 million and an area of approximalaly 12,800 square miles. NCTCOG has 231 member govemmenls,includ[rig all '6 counties, 164 cities, 23 independent school
districts, ,and,28 􀁳􀁾􀁥􀁣􀁩􀁡􀁬􀀠districts, ;:: Since 1974, NCTCOG has served as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for transportatiOn in the Dallas-Foil wd«t;' Metropolitan
Area, The Regional Transportation Council is,the policy body for !he Metropolitan Planning OrganiZation. The Regional Transportation Council consists or 40 members. predominantly local
􀁥􀀬􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁥􀁤􀀠􀁯􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁣􀁩􀁾􀁬􀁳􀀮􀀠􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁳􀁥􀁥􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀮􀁴􀁾􀁥􀀠regio.nal :: transportation planning process. NCTCOG's Department of Transportation is 􀁲􀁾􀁳􀁰􀁯􀀧􀁮􀁳􀁩􀁢􀁬􀁥􀀠for
support anq sfaff.assistance·to the Regional Transportation Council and its technical committees, which 􀁣􀁾􀁭􀁰􀁲􀁩􀁳􀁥􀂷􀁴􀁨􀁥􀀠MPO 􀁰􀀮􀁯􀁬􀁩􀁣􀁹􀁾􀁭􀁡􀁫􀁾􀁮􀁧􀀠siiuct':Jre: " NCTCOG
Executive Board 2003-2004 President Jack liatchell COmmissioner, Conin County ViCe President Bob Phelps Mayor, CUy of Farmers Branch Secretary·ireasurer Wayne Gent County Judge, Kaufman
County Past President James O'Neal Mayor Pro Tem, City of Lancastor D\rnclof Mike Cantrell 􀁃􀁯􀁭􀁭􀀱􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁾􀁮􀁥􀁲􀀮􀀠􀁏􀁡􀁬􀁊􀁾􀁳􀀠County '''" Oirector 􀁩􀁯􀁾􀀠Vandergriff , County
Judge, Tarrant County 􀁄􀁩􀁦􀁾􀁯􀁲􀀠 Wendy Davis Councilmomber, City oj Fort Worth Director John Heiman, Jr. Councilmember, Clty of Mesquite Regional Transportation Council 2004 B. Glen
Glen Whitfey, Chair Commissioner. Tarrant County Jack Hatchell, Vice Chair Commissioner, Collin County Wendy Davis, Secretary Councilmember, City of Fort Worth Pedro Aguirre Board Member
Dallas/Fort Worth International AllPort Gyna Bivens Chair Fort Worth Transportation Authority Ron Brown Commisstoner. Ellis County Mark Burroughs Mayor Pro Tem. City of Denlan 􀁍􀁰􀁲􀁩􀁾􀀱􀀠􀁃􀁨􀁡􀁶�
�􀁾􀀾􀀠P.E. DiStrict,Engineer Texas'Department of TransP9r1ation. Fort Worth District .' Bob Day Mayor, City of Gar!and Charles Emery ChIDr Denton County Transportation Authority Pat
Evans Mayor, City 􀁯􀁾􀀠Plano Lois Finkelman Collncilmemoor. City 01 Dallas Sandy Grayson Councilmembe:r, City of. Dallas Bin fiale, P,E, Dislrict Engineer Texas Department of Transportatlon.
Dallas District Roger Harmon Counly Judge. Johnson Collnly Becky Haskin COUneilmember, City of roo Worth. John Heiman, Jr, . .Couoolmember, City of 􀁍􀁥􀁳􀁱􀀢􀁵􀁩􀁴􀁾􀀠 􀁒􀁯􀁮􀁊􀁾􀁮􀀠
",' , 'Mayor Pro Tem, CitY· 􀁏􀁦􀀮􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁤􀀠Prairie. 􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁴􀀠􀁋􀁥􀁬􀁩􀁨􀁾􀁲􀀺􀀮􀀠 . " 􀀬􀁜􀀬􀁾':._ . Co'un!y Judge, 􀁾􀁡􀁉􀀻􀁪􀁡􀁳􀀠􀁃􀁯􀁵􀁾􀁴􀁹 :'",:.. .Unda·Koop . Board
Member, DaUas Area Rapid Ti'wit 'Olrector Euline Brock_: ' ... : . Mayor, City of'Denlon OirectOr. Pauia Baucum Councilmembe:r; 􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁙􀀠of Midlothian Director Oscar Trev:ino Mayor,
City 􀁾􀁦􀀠North 􀁁􀁩􀁃􀁨􀁦􀁡􀁮􀁾􀀠Hills Direcior Chad Adams County Judge, Ellis County Kenneth Mayfield Commissioner. Dallas Counly Steve McCollum Councllmember, CUy of Arlinglon Jack
Miller Director. North Texas Tollway Aulhorily Rich Morgan cmum Representative, City of Dallas John Murphy Mayor Pro Tern, City oJ Richardson Mike Nowels Deputy Mayor Pro Tern. City
0' lewisville Ed Oakley " Counclimember, City 01 DaI!as Joe Putnam Mayor, Cjty or Irving Chuck Sllcox Collncilmember, City of Fort Worth Grady Smithey Mayor Pro Tem, C'I)' of Otmcamnllc
Genera! Counsel Jerry Gilmore 􀁅􀁸􀁥􀁣􀁕􀁬􀁩􀁾􀁥􀀮􀀠􀁰􀁦􀁴􀁾􀁯􀀮􀁲􀀠 . .,...•: R. Michael E!'IsUand . Mark Stokes Mayor. Cily 0{ earfonton John Tatum Citizen Representative. City of
Dallas Maxine Thomton.-Reese· Councilmember, City of Dallas Oscar Trevino Mayor, City of Nortn Richland Hills carl Tyson Mayw Pro Tern, City of Eu'.ess Marti VanRavenswaay Commissioner,
􀁔􀁡􀁾􀁮􀁬􀀠County . CYOlhia White Commissioner, Oer}ton' County.'_ Bill Wnitflefd Mayor, City of 􀁍􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁮􀁥􀁹􀀧􀀮􀀠 Kathryn Wilemon .' Coi.mcllmember, CiW".'ol Arlinglon ". .-..􀁾􀀠
.r' . Mark Wright-: .Mayor, City or 􀁋􀁥􀁮􀁮􀁥􀁤􀁾􀁦􀁥􀀠 Mict'lael Morris, P."E. .'( Tra"nsportation DireclOr. 􀁾􀁃􀁔􀁃􀁏􀁇􀀠 The contents of this report reffeci the views of the authors
who are resPonSible for the opinions, findings, and conclusions presented herein The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Federaf Highway Admimitralionl the
Federal Transit P..dministration, or tf)e Texas Department of Transportation. This document was prepared in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transpottation and the U.S.-Oepattment
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration. Administration. ' 
NCTCOG Transportation Department Staff Michael Morris Director of Transportation Dan Kessler Assistant Director of Transportation Vickie Alexander' Administrative Program Supervisor
RosieArd Administrative Program Coordinator Susana Avila AlrCheck Texas Program Services Assistant Wilfted eabblll Transportation Planner II Berrien Barks Transportation Planner! Felice
Barlett Urban Planner I Omar Barrios Transportation Planner II Aaron Batiste Computer Support TechniCian "-􀀢􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠 Wes Beckham, P.E. Transportation Engineer 11 Therese Bergoon Execulive
Secretary Bob Best Compuler Systems 􀁁􀁤􀁭􀁩􀁮􀁩􀁾􀀨􀁡􀁴􀁯􀁲􀀠 , Natalie BeHger Pt1t'1cipal Transportation Planner Aruna Birakayala Transportation Planner 11 Fay Bishop 􀀮􀀬􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁰􀁾􀀬􀂧􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁰􀁲􀁹
􀀠 Michelle Bloomer Senior Transporlalion 􀁰􀁲􀁡􀁭􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀠 ,.-f.tuth Soward ,.Senior 􀀺􀁾􀁰􀁏􀁲􀁩􀁡􀁉􀁩􀁏􀀬􀁮􀀠􀁰􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀠 Michael Burbank Principal Transportalion Angie Carson
::u. AdminiSirativet"Seeretary II , "." ";'\ Ken 􀁃􀀮􀁮􀀬􀁥􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁅􀀮􀀠 Ying Cheng Cheng Urban Planner II Brian Croaks TransponalfOO Pranner 1I Amanda Cuba Urban Planner I Chad Edwards
Senior Transportation Planner Brian Flood Transportation Planner II Melissa Foreman Transportalion Planner U Cecile Grady Administrative Secretary II Robert Hall GIS AnalySi/l Rachel
Harshman Transportation Planner II Lynn Hayes Principal Transportation Planner Tamara Hollowell Intern Alicia Hopkins Urban Planner II Christie Jestis Transporiation Planner II David
Jodray , 􀁾􀀠 PrinCipal Transpor1alion Planner Dora Kelly AirCheck Texas Program Services Assis\ant Lisa Key Admlrnslrative Secretary"1 Alauddin Khan "d"••• TransportatiOii PIat)oer"!1.
.,::f"(> """. Barbara Maley Principal Transportation Planner Shirley Mathews Transportation Planner-I Richard McComb AirCheck Texas Program Analyst Chad McKeown Senior Transportation
Plan.ner Amsh Mirzael Principal Transportation Planner Mindy Mlze Transportation Planner II Jeff Neal Senior Transportation Planner Manan Pardue Grants Coordinator Trey Pope AirChackTexas
ptogmm Analyst Verele Pruitt..Jenkins AdminisUalive Program Coordinator Vljaya Pusuluri Urban Planner II H,R. Ranganalh Senior Transportation System Modele! Chris Reed Transportation
Planner II CarrIe 􀁁􀁥􀁾􀁳􀁥􀀠 Urban Planner II Dan Rocha Senior Program Manager Greg Roysler, P.E. "Princjps:I.Transportation EngirJeer . 􀀢􀀢􀁍􀁾􀁉􀁻􀁓􀁡􀁴􀁴􀁬􀁥􀁴􀂷􀀠 Senior GiS-Analyst
i:'·:' Mark Stephens Transportation Planner I Shannon Stevenson AirCheck Texas Program Coordinator Dianna Tapps Computer Support Technician Francisco Torres, "RE. Principal Transportation
Engineer Barbara Walsh Administrativo Secretary II Mitzi Ward Transportation Planner II Jared While Transportation Planner II Dawn Wills Transportation Planner Ii Tim Young Transportalion
Planner II Kathleen Yu Transportation planner II Christie Zupancic Senior Transportation Planner Contributing NCTCOG Staff Krlsty Libotte Keener Graphlc Design Coordinator Public Affairs
h, f "M', 􀀢􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠" 
Introduction Mobility 2025 Update: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan is a comprehensive, multimodal blueprint for transportation systems and services aimed at meeting the mobility
needs of the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Metropolitan Area. It serves to guide the expenditure of the more than $49 billion of federal, State, and local funds expected to be available for
transportation improvements through the year 2025. More than that, it recognizes the heightened awareness of the growing concems for improved air quality, public acceptance of major
transportation facilities, and the need for adequate financial resources for Plan implementation. Mobility 2025 Update is the product of the comprehensive, cooperative, and continuous
transportation planning efforts among local govemments, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T), Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), North
Texas Tollway Authority (NITA), Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), and the Dallas/Fort Worth Intemational Airport. The Plan Update was adopted in May 2001 by the
Regional Transportation Council (RTC) and the Executive Board of the North Central Texas Council of Govemments (NCTCOG), together serving as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
for the DFW Metropolitan Area. The development of Mobility 2tJ25 Update was guided by the prinCiples set forth in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st " <.,,',,"., ',,' , Century
(TEA-21) and the requirements of the Clean Air Act ""j.=,cc,,/jfl2Jfl1endments of 1990. TEA-21 was passed by federal :AiilfC-'j:.;'.;,?" 􀁾􀁜􀀠,:,7tJlgis/ators in June 1998 and continues
the philosophy set out 􀀧􀁊􀁩􀁜􀁾􀀭􀀻􀀧􀁊􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀺􀀻􀀲􀁴􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀺􀀥􀀧􀁩􀀱􀀺􀀬􀁾􀀬􀁢􀀱􀁬􀁊􀀩􀁨􀁥􀀠Interm.odal Surface Transportation 􀁅􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁣􀁩􀁥􀁮􀁣􀁾􀀠Act of 1991 ,1(:''''+@c'i}.-''''
, ((STEA), which strengthened the role of the plannmg process , ' , ,', 􀀢􀁢􀁾􀀺􀀬􀁪􀁪􀁡􀁫􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠it a central decision-making mechanism for ,:••􀀬􀁽􀁾􀀧􀁴􀀡􀀧􀁊􀀻􀀻􀀦􀁬􀁯􀁰􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠and
funding of of the metropolitan transportation ,";,' i.';,{;N</sYstem. Because the DFW Metropolitan Area is a deSignated " , ','" "'k',nonattainmentarea for the pollutant ozone, the Plan
Update : must be updated every three years and must demonstrate that its plans, projects, programs, and policies are consistent with State and regional air quality improvement goals.
2 
Plan Development Process Growing concems regarding the region's air quality and the anlicipated lack of funding for future needed transportation improvements, mandated that Mobility
2025 Update be developed in a way that focuses on lower-cost, highly cost-effective strategies before considering more traditional large-scale capacity improvements. Through this process,
recommendations were developed which aggressively target traffic congestion and improve air quality for the region. The Plan Update development process, as adopted by the ATC, began
with the allocation of resources for the maintenance and operation of the current transportation system. Then, transportation system management strategies such as freeway bottleneck
improvements, intelligent transportation system applications, intersection improvements, and traffic signal coordination were identified to maximize the efficiency of the current transportation
system. An aggressive travel demand management program was then developed to encourage strategies such as telecommuting, bicycle, and pedestrian travel in an effort to eliminate as many
trips as possible from the transportation system. Additional vehicle trip reductions were targeted through the development of public transportation options, such as bus and rail tranSit,
as well as high occupancy facilities in corrtdors where feasible. Additional capacity for single-occupant vehicles was identified in the Outreach EHorts Public involvement was a key
component in the development of MObility 2025 Update. Consistent with the public involvement procedures adopted by the Regional Transportation Council, extemal public meetings were held
on the draft Mobility 2025 Update, and 30 days were allowed for public comment prior to adoption of the Plan Update. There were 10 public meetings held beginning in February 2001 to
keep the community aware of the progress and issues associated with the Plan Update development. Three media briefings were provided to inform print and broadcast media of the development
of Mobility 2025 Update, encourage attendance and form of freeway/tollway lanes and arterial street lanes where appropriate. Throughout the development of each of these components, air
quality and financial impacts were evaluated to ensure that financial feasibility and air quality conformity requirements could be met. In addition, consideration was given to sustainable
development and intermodal opportunities. Infrastructure Maintenance and 'tl -III Operations c c: + "(J).'"! -'•iii Intelligent Transportation 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺 ._ c: '" Systems and c .1-ii 1"::
0 Transportation Systems := Q (.l C Q. Management -Q. '" cO 7a -+ ., '" 0" _ E o c: c: Travel Demand Q.'􀁾􀀠 Management c <C 􀁾􀀮􀀡􀁬􀀡 'tl + ",0Rail and Bus Co; ;"";; tmprovements Ja"g
'0 + fta: E• c: • -Q) u'c"::: HOVIManaged ."1,9.5Facilities + ('J") i.' Freeway/Tollway and Arterial Improvements ',,,;. 􀀢􀀢􀀺􀀮􀀧􀀢􀁾􀀢􀀠 participation, and to educate the public about
Mobility 2025 Update. Recommendations of the Plan Update were developed under the guidance of the the elected officials who comprise the Regional Transportation Council. Technical guidance
and support was provided by NCTCOG's Surtace Transportation Technical Committee, the Travel Demand ManagemenllCongestion Management System Committee, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Task Force. 3 
Regional Growth The Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area was one of the most rapidly growing areas in the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s. Year 2000 Census data shows that the DFW Metropolitan
Area is the ninth largest metropolitan area In the country with a grow1h rate more than twice that of the eight larger areas. Larger today In population than 27 states and as the largest
metropolitan area In Texas, the Dallas-Fort Worth area is a major economic and social force. Representing approximately one-third of the State's gross regional product, the region is
a national and statewide leader in job grow1h and is consistently named among the most attractive U.s. metropolitan areas for corporate expansions and relocations. This trend of rapid
grow1h is expected to continue through the year 2025. According to projections performed independent of the Plan Update by the NCTCOG Research and Information Services Department, population
will grow by 47 percent, from 4.5 million to 6.7 million persons, and employment by 45 percent, from 2.7 million to 3.9 million jobs. On average, the region is expected to add population
at a rate of 82,000 persons per year and employment at a rate of 47,000 jobs per year. This is equivalent to adding two cities the size of Dallas orfour cities the size of Fort Worth.
The dramatic grow1h of the region will have significant accessibility, mobility, and economic implications. If current travel trends continue, this translates into more travel resulting
in increased traffic congestion and negative air quality impacts. These trends include: increases in automobile ownership, drive alone travel, and suburbanization, resulting in more
and longer trips. Unless a way to modify the travel characteristics of the residents of lhe region is found, an already overburdened transportation system will have to absorb this increase
in travel. To this end, Mobility 2025 Update contains plans, programs, policies, and projects aimed at balancing transportation and land-use decisions in a way that accommodates the
grow1h while minimizing any negative transportation, air quality, and community impacts. Mobility 2025 Update balances the goals of the region through a diversified approach of short
and long-range modal commitments. 4 
Congestion Management Strategies The need to operate the current High Occupancy Vehicle/Managed transportation system as efficiently as Facilities. Transportetion Management possible
is a top priority, because of the Associetions are public/private air quality and financial challenges organizations that implement congestion faced by the Dallas-Fort Worth management
strategies and other local Metropolitan Area. Mobility 2025 transportation projects in small, Update recommends three types of geographically defined areas. Many management approaches
proven to be transportation management cost-effective tools in addressing these associations are incorporated, non-profit challenges. Travel Demand organizations made up of employers,
Management, Transportation System developers, building owners, and local Management, and Intelligent government representatives and are Transportation Systems are very located in dense
employment areas. cost-effective, quick-implementation projects, policies, and programs that The TransportationSystem encourage the use of alternate travel Management (TSM) approach to modes and improve the efficiency of the congestion mitigation seeks to identify transportation system. improvements
to new and existing facilities of an operational nature. Travel Demand Management (TDM) These techniques are designed to strategies address the demand side of improve traffic flow and
safety through travel by reducing the number better management and operation of of on roadways existing transportation facilities. TSM I. to . strategies that are adopted in Mobility
􀀬􀁾􀁡􀁤􀁯􀁦􀁬􀁴􀁥􀁣􀁬􀀠_., 2025 Update include intersection In"h"I'" employer trip and removal of freeway the 􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁩􀀢􀁩􀀧􀁬􀁩􀁾􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁴􀁾􀁴􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁾􀁦􀁩􀁾􀀬􀁣􀁾􀁧􀁓􀁩􀁧􀁮􀁡􀁬
programs, van pool programs, Int,ersection ride facility development, and portation management asllociati')n creation, The employer trip program is a cooperative the public and private
targets commute vetlicle employees that work for .. signal enhancements employers. Allematives timing optimization, signal eqlujplinent alone, such as 􀁲􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁳􀁾􀁬􀁡􀁲􀁩􀁲􀀠 upgrades,
and system interconnection, telecommuting, flexible .: Freeway and arterial bottleneck removal programs, transitpass oonlsists of improving insufficient and deceleration lanes and Dorizolltal
and vertical distances to and to . , : or no trarisitavaillable. This 􀀺􀀺􀀢􀀢􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀧􀀢􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀧􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀠 aims at increasing average occupancy during peak'
periods, thereb.\> decreasi,ng drive-alone travel. Park-a'hd-ride facilities can also be effective in reducing vehicle trips by increasing vehicle occupancy, These facilities serve as
collection areas for persons using ridesharing alternatives, the recommended bus/rail system, and inadequate signage and pavement striping, and other geometriC characteristics. The planning,
programming, and implementation of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) programs and projects is another tool that is recommended for this region. ITS utilizes closed closed circuit
teleVision, lane control signals, dynamic message signs, ramp meters, mobility assistance patrols, and traffic flow detectors to identify and manage the conditions of the transportation
system. The region is developing integrated arterial and freeway/tollway systems along strategic corridors in the DFW Metropolitan Area. The transit region, DART and d!SI)at<:h and systems.
ITS systems hrr,vlieIA operators information 5 
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities One of the goals of the pedestrian and bicycle aspect of the Plan has been to advance these travel modes into more detailed planning, programming, and
construction. This portion of Mobility 2025 Update identifies strategies to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility, as well as increase the service area of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities within the region. The recommended facilities were developed to serve short trips, generally less than five miles, particularly in high density areas, mixed-use areas, and
along congested travel corridors. The Plan Update calls for $754 million of improvements including the regional Veloweb system, an on-street bicycle improvement program, pedestrian and
bicycle transportation districts, and support for local pedestrian and bicycle initiatives. 'fhe regional Veloweb is a 30S-mile system of interconnected, off-street bicycle facilities
with 1'J".de,-sElpelfalted crossings and pavement markings designed to serve bicycle commuter traffic. The Plan Update encourages the use of wide outside lanes to increase safety for
bicyclists. The Plan Update also endorses the signed on-street route systems of several local . governments which identity the network of streets that are preferable for bicycle traffic
in their cities. Pedestrian and bicycle districts are areas with activity densities and land-use characteristics conducive to pedestrian and bicycle usage. Funds will be used to improve
and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle facilities to accommodate and encourage their use including the construction of on and off-street bicycle facilities, Sidewalks, crosswalks, landscaping,
and the prOVision of support facilities such as bicycle racks and shower! changing facilities. In addition, technical support will be provided to local governments for the Identification,
planning, and implementation of safe, effective pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Mobility 2025 Update Bicycle Facilities legend 􀁦􀁾􀁴􀀱􀀡􀀠 Bicycle Transportation Districts _ Recommended
Vetoweb Routes candidate Veloweb Routes EXisting Off-Street Hard Surface Trail (ImprOved} Programmed Off-Street Bicyt:lefPedestrtan Facilities New'lWlUty !ocat!on$lndltate tnlnsporta1lon
needs and do tu;)! 􀁴􀁥􀁰􀁾􀁲􀁲􀁴 $pecllie allgnmeflts. AU 􀁾􀀮􀁬􀁬􀁤􀀤􀁴􀁉􀀡􀁬􀁧􀀠m!ffO\1d rlg:hl$o()f-way mould be monitOlll<\ tor 􀁰􀁯􀁴􀁦􀁬􀁮􀁬􀁬􀁜􀀱􀀨􀀨􀁾􀁜􀁾􀁲􀁣􀀠 Iramiportal1oo
eorridOrB. All ve!(iweb routes shoukI be targeted lor rlghl..ol-way preseNatiOIl,. North 􀁃􀁥􀁮􀁾􀁲􀁡􀀡􀀠Texas N Council ot Governments Trnnsportal1on A • 6 
Regional Rail and Bus Transit Systems The transit component of the Plan includes local bus, express bus, commuler rail, light rail, and rail technologies yet to be determined, Currently,
each one of these technologies exists in various parts of the region, The Fort Worth Transportation Authortly and Dallas Area Rapid Transit currently provide traditional fixed-route
transit service in their respective service areas, The City of Denton also operates limited fixedroute transit service. Currently, 34 miles of light rail service is available in the
DART service area in the North Central Expressway corridor, the South and West Oak Cliff corridors, and in downtown Dallas, DART and The T jointly operate 25 miles of commuter rail service
on the Trinity Railway Express. Analysis of the rail and bus transit systems for the Plan focused on the extension and expansion of each of these modes as appropriate. A series of rail
alternatives was developed and evaluated to arrive at the final recommendations which include 77 additional miles of light rail, 152 additional miles of commuter rail, and 141 miles
of rail where the technology or institutional structure to implement and operate the service is undefined pending additional study. Also included is a recommendation for 25 miles of
special events service to the Texas Motor Speedway from Fort Worth. In addition, a recommendation is made in the North Crosstown continue to investigate the most for rail service in
that corridor. rail system I ;;:;l;;5;::::: Intercity Rail Corridor r FreewaysIParkways --_ ... Existing Rail Corridors All eXisting railroad rlght!xlf..way should be monltorOO fol'
pofMtUar moore transporta1!on oortidoo. New facility locations Indicste I.Jansportation needs and do not repre&er!t speclfte alignments. • STAGED RAIL (Must meet two of !he foUowJng)
Reflned rail forecasts are necessary to determIne lectmology end alignment ExteMlon Into Ofympie VIllage SIte (South Oak Cllff LRT) tnsUtutJonal structure tor Implementation to be determJned
􀁾􀀠DART end FWTA expansion 􀀨􀁰􀁲􀁾􀁦􀀡􀀧􀁦􀁬􀁥􀁤􀀩􀀠or New transIt authorities will be created -Other sources 01 funding to be pursued Northern Cotlonbetl CQf1Idot, f!'(lm Parker Road
North Cer;tral Texas N Council .of Govemments A -raIl aklng Transportation 1.\ tlr'I oIBSli;ltf! Il1Ul$flloo. to light mil r • anAddlson 􀁨􀀧􀁜􀀧􀁉􀁾 Center. 7 
HOV and Managed Facilities High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are becoming a common solution toward reducing freeway congestion across the country, including the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan
Area. The key to a successful HOV facility is to manage the demand so that it never exceeds the capacity, thereby maintaining a high level-of-service. The HOV concept is to move the
same, or more, people in fewer vehicles faster and more reliably than a typical congested freeway lane. However, one common criticism regarding HOV lanes is the perception that they
do not carry as many vehicles as a mixed-flow lane and are often underutilized in the offpeak periods. In response to this issue, Mobility 2025 Update extends this managed concept to
efficiently utilize the capacity in the off-peak periods by treating them as express lanes for non-HOV users, but still managing the demand by charging a user fee or toll. Two types
of HOV IManaged Facilities are identified in Mobility 2025 Update: Reversible and Two-Way. Reversible facilities are recommended in corridors where the HOV demand is directional; heavy
in one direction during the morning peak period and the opposite direction in the evening peak period. On these facilities the number of lanes required to accommodate the peakperiod
demand in the peak direction are constructed. They offer ramps and gates that only allow traffic to enter and exit in the proper direction during the appropriate time period. At some
point during the day, the lanes are closed to allow those access points to close and those necessary to accommodate the traffic in the reverse direction to open. Two-Way facilities are
recommended where the HOV demand warrants providing the capacity in both directions during the morning and evening peak periods. These facilities are available in both directions for
the entire day. The managed concept can also be applied to existing or proposed tollways through differential tolls charged by auto occupancy. In this scenario, a higher toll could be
charged to non-HOV users, a lower or no toll could be charged to HOV users, and a toll plaza bypass lane could be offered for qualified vehicles to avoid the delay at toll booths. This
type of facility is identified in Mobility 2025 Update as a Managed HOV/lntegrated Tollway. This Managed Facility concept is proposed because a properly operated facility would provide
relatively congestion-free travel through an auto occupancy and toll management approach. HOV facilities can be built which provide travel time advantages to those willing to carpool,
vanpool, or take public transportation, while providing a revenue source to offset construction and operating costs. In addition, tollways can be built which generate revenue, and vehicle
occupancies are increased through toll management strategies designed to encourage carpools and vanpools. Mobility 2025 Update contains recommendations for an extensive HOV and Managed
Facility system. The Plan Update calls for constructing the equivalent of over 600 lane miles of HOV IManaged Facilities at a cost 􀁯􀁦􀁾􀁧􀀮􀁬􀀠p.iIIl9n. VJ" . "-";-):'; 􀀺􀀻􀀿􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁽􀀨􀀺􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀺􀁾
􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀩􀀠 "' ':",'. ,;' ','" ------------------"' 􀀭􀁾􀀠" a -North CentraL Texas N = Council of Govoernmenls 1 Tr"nsportaUon i\ 8 
Freeway/Tollway System A major component of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Transportation System is the regional freeway and tollway system. The system continues to carry nearly
half of all vehicular travel in the area. Even considering the availability of other multimodal options and advanced traffic management strategies, there will still be significant demand
placed on the region's roadway system. Mobility 2025 Update calls for the addition of 2,479 lane miles of new freewayl tollway capacity at a cost of $11.5 billion and $1.3 billion is
expected to come from tolls and user fees. Mobility 2025 Update faces the challenge of balancing a huge demand on an already over-used system, with constrained funding resources from
traditional fuel tax and vehicle registration fee revenues. Over the past few years, the idea of user-fee based roadways has been growing in popularity and acceptance. To that end, it
is the Regional Transportation Council's policy to evaluate toll or congestion pricing feasibility for new freeway capacity. The RTe is not considering conversion of existing free roadways
to toll ways. There are six categories of improvements identified for the freeway and tollway system outlined in Mobility 2025 Update. Improving Existing Freeways includes the widening
of existing freeways by adding two or more lanes or the reconstruction of existing freeways to add additional capacity through bottleneck improvements as well as accommodating other
improvements, New Staged Freeways are in corridors where there is currently no freeway, but one is warranted by 2025 and could be constructed in stages as the demand warrants, The New
Staged Tollway category identifies corridors where revenue estimates support for the construction of new tollway capacity by 2025. New Staged Parkways are facilities that have sufficient
demand for a major transportation facility, but not a full freeway or tollway. Service roads, interchanges, or grade separanons could be constructed initially. In addition, these could
be planned and and designed in such a way to convert them to a freeway or tollway at some time after 2025. The Upgrade to Parkway category identifies corridors where an arterial roadway
exists today, but demand by 2025 is sufficient to require the additional capacity offered by a regional facility. The final category is Preserve Right-of-Way, where demand is not expected
to be strong enough to warrant the construction of a transportation facility, but the corridor should be preserved for future system capacity. The development of the projects in these
corridors will move forward toward implementation and wi!! be refined as the corridors proceed through the advanced planning. design, and engineering phases. Mobility 2025 Update Freeway
and Tollway System Legend _ Improve EK!st!ng Freeway _ New Staged Freeway ... New Staged ToUway 􀁾 New Staged Parkway _ Upgrade to Parkway 􀁾 Pres&Ne Fllght-of·Way Dallas CaD Fort Worth
caD AddlllanlllltAd 􀁬􀁭􀁰􀁴􀁴􀁯􀁾􀀠treew,ay IfIl.ercbangea lind lierv«:e ((!.!Ida: wuuld 􀁢􀁱􀀬􀀬􀁾 on aflllWl1iuv facilitIes In ordoT k> acctlm<:K!lIW" t;,.W:oc::II! I:Ietween mobUlly
lind 􀁾􀁥􀀤􀀤 nl!1)d5. NewfaclUly 1<x!lilh:II1,lndlCllW trnnspooUtiQ(l nuda and do rlQINpl'¥l$(l'iI IIpo1:l!lfC n!!gnlTKlnl6. The need lor 4odltorlnl 􀁑􀁡􀀤􀁬􀁬􀁷􀁩􀀺􀁾􀁴 capacity iii
loontliled In Ihe cntth:lot bolwoon NOrthWOlil\ HIQhwaV lind Mocilinghird Lane rrom US 7S to SH 1mH 351:. Further st!JdV;$ 􀁮􀁬􀁬􀀧􀁥􀁤􀁾􀁤􀀠IQ tetlM aHgmnenl end opomtionol !.'ih&raeICr1&Uru::.
i 9 
Regional Arterial System The Regional Arterial System is a subcomponent of a broader regional thoroughfare system. The NCTCOG Regional Thoroughfare Plan (RTP) recognizes the network
of arterial facilities having regional travel significance upon which the Regional Arterial System is based. The RTP includes all roadways classified as principal arterialS through the
TEA-21 functional classification effort, as well as the National Highway System (NHS). In addition to the basic framework of federally designated facilities, complementary local government
prinCipal arterials are incorporated to complete the 1.731 miles of regional arterials. The only changes incorporated since the January 2000 adoption of the regional arterials were those
identified through the Mobility 2025 Update public meetings in spring 2001 where one modification was made to the Regional Arterial System at the request of a local government Another
six regional arterials incorporated minor changes to the proposed number of lanes that have been included in the amendment of the Regional Thoroughfare Plan arterial network. The Regional
Arterial System is a critical component of the Plan Update in providing transportation support and access. The importance of regional arterials to the overall Plan Update becomes increasingly
essential as reliever facilHies to parallel freeways and tollways, as well as, supporting' accessibility to other regional facilities to and from local land uses. Travel on regional
arterials is expected to rise almost 48 percent over current levels by the year 2025. The Regional Arterial System has evolved as a tool to quantify the amount of future arterial capacity
needed to support the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS). Based on the importance of providing user mobility and access throughout the region, a total of $5.7 billion in arterial
capacity funds is expected to be available to maintain existing regional arterials and build neW components. The Plan Update identifies $3.1 billion committed to the 1,731 mile deSignated
Regional Arterial System and $2.6 billion of additional local funds for other arterial improvements through the year 2025, as reflected in the Financial Plan. The updated Regional Arterial
System map shows a shaded area surrounding the urban core in recognizing that the regional arterial network must be expanded in the future to support long-term growth. At present, the
future arterial needs have not been fully studied for all of the shaded area shown on the map. The main purpose for showing the shading is to identify the need for a more comprehensive
regional arterial network in the outlying areas to support the growth that is being forecast in those areas. Additional studies will be needed to substantiate the magnitude and extent
of improvements that may be warranted beyond 2025. Mobility 2025 Update Regional Arterial System -Regklrlllr,!bterials -Existing Flfiewavs snd ThllwBys .... 􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀠 PrQpqHd froowavs
und Tollways 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁍􀀠 pmseNe-n!ghl-of.Way -L.oeulgovummentthoroughfaro plans v.uy In 􀁴􀁍􀁾 􀁾 corridors 􀁾􀀺􀀧􀁦􀀬􀀧􀁩􀀠 Thoroughtare Spacing RevIew New facility Joenllons Indleate
t.raMportatlon 􀁾􀁑 and do net reJ)f&$llnt $peclfk: all!Jflments. Baaed on HCTCOG's Regional Thorougitfare Plan 10 
Intermodal/Freight Transportation The North Central Texas region represents one of the largest "inland· ports" in the nation where freight is moved, transferred, and distributed to destinations
across the State and around the world. North Central Texas has one of the most extensive surface, air, and rail transportation networks in the world, providing trade opportunities lor
the more than 600 motor/trucking carriers and almost 1 00 freight forwarders that operate out 01 the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area. The region is the primary economic engine in
Texas, representing about one-third of the State's total economic output. As a measure of the region's strategic geographic position for goods movement, 41 million people in 80 major
cities can be reached overnight from the DFW Metropolitan Area by truck or rail. The nation's largest rail lines operate in the region and coordinate with trucking shippers at four intermodal
freight centers located on or near significant highway corridors. Overall, the region is considered by most economic and logistics experts as the primary trucking/raillair cargo center
in the Southwest and will grow in importance as a prindpal international marketplace in the 21st century. Furthermore, the significance and impact to the regional economy and goods movement
of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was enacted in 1993, cannot be understated. Trade from the DFW Metropolitan Area to Mexico and Canada has more than doubled
to $2.3 billion, Interstate Highway 35 has grown in importance, as it extends from the Texas-Mexico border to northern Minnesota. Referred to as the NAFTA Superhighway, this major north-south
route also serves both the Fort Worth Central Business District and the Dallas Central Business District. Two critical goals of the IntermodaV Freight Transportation Planning process
in the region is increased mobility and improved safety, By working with local govemments and private-sector pertners, strategic projects that address these goals can be identified,
and consequently, funding opportunities lor these improvements can be sought. The Strategic Routing System, lor instance, identifies the NAFTA corridor and other major lreight corridors
as roadways that should be targeted for improvements. The Hazardous Materials Truck Route is another important element ollhe freight route system, In addition, a program that identifies
and prioritizes at-grade highway-railroad crossings will assist in guiding improvement funds. Mobility 2025 Update recognizes the importance of goods movement in this region. As transportation
funds are made available, careful consideration will be given to projects that impact the mobility and safety 01 the transportation system, particularly in the context . . 􀁾􀀠 i 􀁾􀀢􀀭
MetTopoUian Planning Area 􀁾􀀠tH. 35 E I W Merge at Hillsboro -Southern Boundary 10 HillsbOro Yo Mobility 2025 U p',. d,a te. ...... " Interstate Highway 􀀳􀁾􀀮􀀠NAFTA> Corridor 􀁔􀁥􀁣􀁨􀁮􀁯􀁬􀁯􀁧􀁹�
�􀁥􀁰􀀱􀁾􀁙􀁩􀀡􀀧􀁥􀁾􀁦􀀧 . •. -.." 􀀢􀀢􀁾•.".,......<.-' I.H. 35 􀁦􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁧􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀧􀁔􀁲􀀬􀁣􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁐􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠-J System 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁮􀁾􀀠 ,":';"-•• Dynamlc.Message SJgns
(PoWntlallExls!fng sttes) _ Speed Detecllon _ IneldGnt Bypass Routes "," •+ 11 
System Performance A transportation system's performance can be measured in many ways. especially when talking about a multi modal transportation system, It is often measured in terms
of how successful the system is in reducing roadway traffic congestion, If mullimodal options, trip reduction programs, system management projects, and other travel policies are effective,
the result will be reflected through reduced congestion on the roadway system, However, demographic growth may increase faster than transportation system capacity can be provided, either
due to implementation issues or financial constraint. In 1999. the daily vehicle miles of travel was 125 million in the region, Regionwide, 38 percent of all roadways were congested
during the peak hour, resulting in $5,3 billion in lost productivity due to traffic congestion annually. Travel and congestion is not uniform throughout the region. In 1999, the most
severe congestion was in the north Dallas County/south Collin County area around I.H, 635 (LBJ). I.H. 35E (Stemmons), and the Dallas North Tollway. If the expected demographic growth
were to occur, and there were no major transportation improvements through the year 2025, there would be over 1999 Congestion levels Legend Areas of Mooemb't fiE Peak-Period Congeslkm
Ama$ at sevlllre -Peak-Perlod CongestIon Annual Cosl 01 COngElil/on 0:: $$.3 BIllion 􀁾__􀀬􀁾􀀮􀀬.. u 􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀱􀀠 2025 Congestion Levels Legend Areas of Moderate =--,),-1 a Peale'Perlod
CongestlQn Areas of Severe -Peak·Perlod CongestIon AIInual Cost of Congestion "" $8.2 BtIIlon .".. 200 million vehicle miles of travel in the region with 65 percent of the roadways congested
in the peak hour. resulting in $15.6 billion in congestion costs. This, of course, is an unrealistic scenario since some transportation improvements will certainly occur, and if they
did not, the region would not altract the expected demographic growth. However, it is a good indication of how much impact the population and economic growth will have if we do not provide
significant transportation system capacity to accommodate it. If the projects, programs, and poliCies ..,J;X)ntained in Mobility 2025 Update are implemented. 45 percent of the roadways
will be congested with an annual congestion cost of $8.2 billion over 50 percent more than the cost in 1999, Severe congestion will spread to include southeast Denton County and additional
portions of north Dallas and south Collin Counties, Financial, environmental, and social constraints will make it very difficult to accommodate the increased demand for travel resulting
from the regional growth. If we are to meaningfully reduce congestion levels, we must continue 10 aggressively pursue additional congestion mitigation strategies aimed at reducing vehicular
travel and making the transportation system more efficient, as well as addiHonal revenue to implement those strategies, 12 
The Role of Maior Investment Studies As part of the development of Mobility 2025 Update, corridors are evaluated from a regional, system-level perspective for major transportation improvements
such as freeways, tollways, high occupancy vehicle lanes, and rail facilities, The Plan Update makes general recommendations in each corridor to meet the increasing demand on the roadway
and transi! systems, For each specific corridor recommended for improvement in the Plan Update, federal regulations developed under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991, and proposed under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 sl Century, require thai a comprehensive and detailed analysis be conducled, Under ISTEA, these analyses were called
major investment studies, Under TEA-21, a major investment 􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁦􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁾􀀠longer be required as a Sl planning item, but wlll be integrated into the metropolitan transportation
planning process as a corridor refinement study, These corridor refinement studies studies selVe as a bridge between the regional planning process and the more detailed environmental
analysis and project design and engineering phases, The goal of these studies is to achieve local consensus on a preferred alternative and investment strategy. This is accomplished through
a comprehensive and aggressive agency and public involvement process, These studies include more than simply solving the mobility needs in the corridor, they also achieve additional
goals by integrating local government land-use policies, neighborhood and community goals, environmental issues, and economic dellelopment objectives. Through this comprehensive process,
major transportation facilities can enhance a community's quality of life rather than detracting from it. Several major investment studies have been completed under the ISTEA regulations.
The recommendations from these studies are reflected in Mobility 2025 Update. There are also major investment studies which were underway at the time Mobility 2025 Update was developed.
For those studies, the recommendations in the Plan Updale reflect the latest information available for each corridor at the time the Plan Update was developed. As each study is completed,
specific recommendations wHhin each corridor may change. If this occurs, the new recommendations will be incorporated into Mobility 2025 Update or in the development of subsequent Plans,
as appropriate. Preferred Major Investment Studies Alternatives Legend -Mobility 2025 Update FreewaysIParkWl!IYS _ Rail _ Roadway The maJQ( investment studies on this map represent general
corridor improvements as Identified In Mobility 2025 Update. Recommendations for specific 'acility Improvements are pending completion 01 each MIS, HodhCerrtralTeX8B N Coundt of Govemments
i TrAntl'pcrtaflQo 􀁾􀀠 • 13 
Sustainable Development Mobility 2025 Update establishes sustainable development as a strategic approach to transportation planning, programming, and construction. Sustainable development
leverages the land-use/transportation relationship to improve mobility, enhance air quality, and support economic growth in ways that utilize the existing and planned transportation
system in an efficient manner, By providing planning support for a diverse range of mobility options such as rail, automobiles, bicycling, transit, and walking, the Plan Update helps
local governments present a range of development opportunities to the private sector, The Plan Update recognizes four categories of sustainable development: the utilization of existing
system capacity, the mixinglintegration of land uses, increased rail mobility, and improved access management Overall, the objectives of these practices are to: respond to local initiatives
for town centers, mixed-use growth centers, transit oriented developments, infillibrownfieid developments, and pedestrian oriented projects; complement rail investments with coordinated
investments in park-and-ride facilities and pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and promote economic development appropriately throughout the region while improving air quality and traffic
congestion by reducing vehicle miles traveled per person. Private developers and local §8vernments are leading the way with a collection of existing sustainable development projects
including: Addison Circle, Downtown Fort Worth, and the DART Ught Rail Stations. In one example, current construction at the Mockingbird light rail station features developer sponsored
pedestrian linkages to the adjacent station and retail office and multifamily areas. Mobility 2025 Update builds on these successes by recommending strategies to meet financial constraints,
diversify mobility, and improve air quality regionwide, 14 
Ultra Low*Emitting Vehicles The use of alternative fuels and ultra low-' emitting vehicles are important to the United States and the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area. It Can lessen
dependence on foreign products, create domestic jobs, and have a positive impact on air quality.Currently, there are 7,000 publicly and privately owned alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) operating on the roadways of North Central Texas, which are powered by propane, natural gas,
and electricity. In the DFW Melropolitan Area, federal and State financial incentives have been available for several years to encourage fleets to adopt ultra low-emitting vehicle technologies.
Transit agencies and publio-sector fleets have benefited greatly from these incentives. The recommendations outlined in Mobility 2025 are flexible and targeted toward taking advantage
of available incentives, both current and future, to encourage the continued advancement of vehicle technologies and equipment availability 10 fleets and for private use. Between 1994
and 2001, more than $5 million was used to pay a portion of the incremental cost of alternative fuel vehicles for public fleets, resulting in more than 3,000 light-duty AFVs being placed
into public fleets during this time period. Area transit agencies also received financial assistance in building a total fleet of 300 alternative fuel buses in the region. The DFW Metropolitan
Area participates in the U.S, Department of Energy's Clean Cities Program. Since 1995, Dallas-Fort Worth Clean Cities has been promoting the use of alternative fuels in the area. The
organization hosts events, demonstrations of alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles, and regularly scheduled informative meetings. Clean Cities members also work with national
and Statewide coalitions to coordinate vehicle purchases, education and training, and infrastructure needs in order to support the growing industry. The Ultra Low-Emitting Vehicles Program
will continue to play an important role in the mobility and air quality considerations of the region. As existing technologies change and new technologies evolve, policies to capitalize
on their benefits should be put in place. 15 
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities The goal of the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program is to provide efficient, reliable, comprehensive, and coordinated transportation services
to meet the special transportation needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities. Funding for the Program is available for metropolitan, small urban, and rural areas through federal,
State, and local sources. This funding can be used for the purchase of replacement vehicles, new vehicles for service expansion, and auxiliary equipment to transport the elderly and
persons with disabilities. The Mobility 2025 Update financial plan includes $80 million in funding for currently programmed or future Elderly and Persons with Disabilities projects.
In accordance with State rules, projects are selected annually by the TxDOT Dallas and Fort Worth District Offices. As the MPO for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area, the North
Central Texas Council of Governments provides input as appropriate for the inclusion of projects in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). EXisting ru ral and urban transit districts
and metropolitan transit authorities are the primary reCipients of funds, for their respective service areas, under this Program. For those areas not currently served by transit providers,
or in cases where the existing provider is unable to provide the service, TxDOT may chose an alternative primary reCipient. Private, nonprofit organizations and associations are eligible
to receive funds as secondary recipients. In addition, local public agencies approved by the State to coordinate transportation services, and any public agency that certifies that nonprofit
organizations in the area are not readily available to carry out the services, may also receive funds as secondary reCipients. Issues continue to be raised regarding the lack of transportation
services for elderly and persons with disabilities. NCTCOG has assumed a leadership role in the efforts to improve and coordinate transportation services for the region's elderly and
persons with disabilities. This should be accomplished through the program recommendations shown at left. 16 
Financial Plan One of the most important aspects thoroughfare construction, as the Since the Plan Update is not tied to of Mobility 2025 Update is the primary source of revenue for these
any specific revenue generation identification and analysis of the improvements is motor fuel taxes. strategy such as gas tax increases financial resources available to This source of
revenue continues to or percentage of gas tax revenue implement its recommendations. be eroded by the diversion of funds returned to the State, it puts an Not only is this financial
analysis a to non-transportation purposes. increasing burden on the RTC to sound planning practice, it is also The impacts 01 inllation, and improved monitor the financial slluation
of the required by ledler,lq,lw.:T ...A_:n· vehicle efficiency resulting in lesspl!ln Up-date on a regular basis and requires that the available revenue per mile driven by 􀁭􀁩􀀩􀀮􀁾􀁥􀂧􀁤􀁪􀁵􀁳􀁴􀁭�
�􀁮􀁴􀁳􀀠'lccordingly. ' constrained to commuters also reduce this revenue.B!;ca.tise implemimfallon is . resources. The 􀁁􀀡􀂷􀁉􀁝􀁓􀁉􀁾􀀺􀁉􀁓􀀠an estimated $3.3 billion 01 . i .. 􀀺􀀮􀁣􀀺􀀮􀀼􀀻􀁏􀁲
􀀻􀁴􀁾􀁮􀁧􀁥􀁮􀁱􀁊􀁐􀁯􀁮􀀠tl:li; need for Update is il status quo 􀁣􀁯􀁬􀀱􀁤􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁣􀁩􀁩􀀧􀁩􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀻􀁣􀂷􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀼􀁩􀁧􀁩􀁦􀀬􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁡􀀡􀁜􀁲􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁵􀁥􀀻􀀠the RTC wil) .'.: the 24-year
life of -the Regional '. ·•.􀂷􀀺􀀺􀀢􀁣􀁰􀁨􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁵􀁥􀁾􀀠monitor State and Jederal Thirty seven oelccent''$' 􀁩􀀡􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁲􀁾􀁲􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁡􀁮􀁤􀀠other 'c' •• jiigislative
initiil,ives to e[lsuiillliat the Plan's financial 􀀺􀀡􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁣􀀻􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀦􀀢􀀧􀀺􀀱􀀺􀀻􀁦􀀠 a have 􀀬􀁦􀁕􀁬􀁊􀁤􀀡􀁲􀁹􀀹􀁽􀁾􀀮􀁬􀀱􀀭􀁙􀁾􀁈􀁡􀁢􀁬􀁥􀀠to 􀁩􀁭􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠 dmiraeinctteenda
tnocwea rodf tohpee rsaytsiotenm while $30.9 billion is allocated across the :: 􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀡􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁲􀁥􀁤􀁾􀁾􀁕􀁃􀁹􀁬􀁥􀁡􀁛􀁝􀀮􀁧􀁲􀁳􀀬 . to reduce Mofllhty 􀀲􀀰􀁾􀀩􀁕􀁰􀁤􀁡􀁴􀁡.
.....',..: " .,.)i, . various muttimodal transportation saynsdt eemlig i􀁩b􀁾l􀀺e􀁾 􀁲􀁾􀀷􀁾􀁾􀁮􀁾􀁆􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠on need As part of the 􀁤􀁥􀁜􀁬􀁥􀁬􀁾􀁲􀁰􀀠 2025 Update. the each
program arE,a••lla!!. adopted goals estimated identified; 􀁴a􀁨n􀁥d􀁮 􀁩􀁨􀁾􀁥􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁴􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀡􀁾􀁝􀀱 analysis of the transportation . out including investi.gation sources
of funds, funding fonnljlas; , .. and the 􀁡􀁤􀁭􀁩􀁮􀁩􀁳􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁥􀀺􀁰􀁲􀀹􀁣􀁥􀁳􀁳􀀬􀁥􀁳􀀺􀁴􀁨􀁾􀁴􀀮􀀺􀀠 result in taxes and feeS being' : ',' .. collected and expanded ·for specific
􀁄􀁥􀁤􀁩􀁣􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁾􀁬􀁯􀁣􀁡􀁬􀁾􀁬􀁥􀁾􀁴􀁡􀁸􀀠. transportation improvements. revenue combined with federal formula and discretionary funding The primary sources of revenue and passenger
fares are used to for transportation maintenance, build and operate public transportation operation, and capital improvements systems. The transit agencies include federal and State
motor luel prepare operating and financial plans taxes. State vehicle registration fees, to ensure continued system operation dedicated transportation authority sales and expansion.These
plans which taxes, tollway revenue, and local assume continued growth in transit government bond programs. The readership, transit fares. and sales analysis revealed that jf the rates
tax revenue, were integrated associated with these revenues remain into this effort. at their current levels, or status quo, there would not be sufficient funding to construct Ihe recommendations
of this Plan Update. This is particularly critical in the area of freeway and 17 
Air Quality Conformity Conformity is the mechanism in the Clean Air Act (CM) that requires the Plan Update to be consistent with State and local air quality objectives and goals. Conformity
also mandales that the Plan Update meel federal clean air standards through implementation strategies contained in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). To meet the requirements of the
CAA and SIP, the Plan Update shall be consistent with established mobile emission budgets, contribute to mobile source emission reductions, and provide for the timely implementation
of transportation control measures. CONFORMITY OF THE 􀀲􀀰􀀰􀀲􀁾􀀲􀀰􀀰􀀴􀀠TIP AND THE 2025 METROPOUTAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE FOR THE OALLASJFORT WORTH METROpOLITAN AREA 􀁎􀁬􀁴􀁲􀁯􀁾􀁮􀀠Oxide
emissIons 4<10 i' ii 300 0 0 ". Attainment Oernon6tralon SIP •0 NOx Emlsslon Budget = 154,30 (tonsfday) 200 􀁾􀀠 wE a 100 z 0 1990 2007 2015 2025 􀁁􀁮􀁡􀁬􀁹􀁳􀁬􀁾􀀠Year Transportation
Control Measures (TCMs) are projects and programs specifically designed to reduce the region's congestion and improve air quality. Typical TCMs include intersection and signal improvements,
freeway corridor management projects, HOV lanes, and travel demand reduction strategies, all of which are components of the Plan 'Update and inventoried in the Transportation Improvement
Program. Transportation strategies included in the Plan Update shall be subjected to an intensive air quality conformity review due to the serious ozone nonattainment status of the Dallas-Fort
Worth Metropolitan Area. The air quality conformity analysis focuses on the principle ozone-causing pollutants of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Two specific
emission tests are conducted in the conformity analysis. First, future year VOC and NOx emissions must be below the established budgets identified in the SIP, and second, they must be
below the base year 1990. The resuH of the air quality conformity analysis conducted on the Plan Update indicates that the Plan Update is consistent with both the VOC and NOx emission
budgets in the attainment demonstration SIP and contributes to emission reductions when comparing the analysis years 2007,2015, and 2025 to 1990 emission estimates. This allows projects,
programs, and policies contained in the Plan Update to move forward to advance planning and implementation within the region. In order for the region to continue to thrive economically,
efforts must be focused on the commitments to implement transportation improvements with positive air quality benefits. Failure to do so will jeopardize the region's quality of life,
public health, environment, and the ability to implement the projects and programs in the Plan Update. CONFORMITY OF THE aooo TIP AND 2025 METROPOlITAN TRANSPORTAnON PLAN FOR THE OALlASiFORT
WORTH METROPOUTAN AREA VclaUie Organlc Compound EmissIons '00 􀁁􀁴􀁴􀁡􀁬􀁾􀁮􀁴􀀠Demonstralion SIP voe Emiss:km £uJdgot '" 107.60 (tonsfday} • '990 2007 2015 2025 18 
What is NCTCOG? , The North Central Texas Council ofGovernments (NCTCOG) is a voluntary association of local governments within the 16-county North Central Texas region. The agency was
established in 1966 to assist local governments in planning for common needs, cooperating for mutual benefit, and coarcJinating far sound regional development. North Central Texas is
a 16-coun/y region with iii. population of 4.6 million and an area of approximately 12,800 square miles. NCTCOG has 232 member governments, including all 16 counties, 163 cities, 26
independent school districts, and 27 special districts. Since 1974, NCTCOG has served as the Metropolil1'1n Planning Organization (MPO) for transportation in the Dal/as-Fort Worth Metropolitan
Area. The Regional Transportation Council is the policy body for the Metropolitan Planning Orgenization. The Regional Transportation Council consiSls of 37 members, predominantly local
elected officials, overseeing the regional transportation planning process. NCTCOG's Department of Transportation is responsible for support and staff assistance to the Regional Transportation
Council and its technical committees, which comprise the MPO policy-making structure. NCTCOG Transportation Department Staff Transportation Department F.lY Church Executive $eaelary
Nan MilleI' Mark Stephens Michael MOrris Senklr Transportation Pial'mer Tr.msportatJon Planner I Direclor 01 Transportation Erin Clark Arash M!rzael Tran$pOrtation PlanMiI SeniotTransportatiOn
Plal"llU):r FrancIscO Torres-VerdIn Dan Kessler Senior Transportation Planner Assis;lant Director 01 Transportalion Kathie Cridet Executive Seaelary MIndy Mile Transportation Planner
1/Jacqueline liJrentine Dan lamets AdmInistrative S€i:fetary U Principal Transportation Engineer Brian Crooks Trnnsportation Planrtef" II Jeffrey Neal Senior TratlSportation Planne.
Barbara Walsh Vk:kle Alexander AM\inistrafr.te. SecreLary II Adrnirislr31ive Assistant II Chad Edwards SorIs: Paletllk i'ransportation Planner II Transpor1ation Planner I Mitzi Ward
ZTntia Alfaro Transportation Planner II Transportallon Intem II Brian Flood Transponalion Planner I Marian Pardue Grants Coordinator Jared WhIte WUf(ed BebbJli Transponalion Planner
II Robert Hall Vetere Pnlitt.Jenkins: TranspOrtation Planner I Transportalion Planner I Mmlnlstrative Assistant I Dawn WIlls Felice Barlett Trnnsportallon Planner I Urban Planner I flaettcS
Harshman V1jaya Puaulurt Transportation ?tanner! Transportation Imem II TImothy Young o mar Bartlos Urban Planner I Transportation Planner r WesBockham Lynn Hayes: Prirn:ipal Transportallon
Planner H.Jt Ranganath seniOr Transportation System lIAOdeler Jaequellne Zee Transportati01l Intom I Transportation Engineer II UarcHesler Transportation ?fanner J Chris Reed TranspO!tallon
Planner II Christie Zupancle Ttwrese Bergeon Administrative Secretary [I Cathy Htrffman Morris: AdmInistrative Assistmlll Carrie Reese Urban Planner I Senior Transpoflation Planner Bob
Best CompUler Systems Administrator Chrtstle Jestls Transportation Planner I Roxane Roberts AdminIstrative Secretary II Contributing NCTCOG Staff Namlll! 80ttswr Senior Transponation
Planner Michelle Bloomer Senior TransportatiOn Planner Davld Jodray Senior Transportation Planner SaIJad Khan Transportation Intern II Dan Aoclla Principal Transportaikm Planner 􀁇􀁲􀁾
Royster Principal Transportation Ell9inoor Public Affairs Department Kr1$1y lIbotto Keener Graphic (}(tslgner Sbahram BOhlull Transponalion Planner II Christopher Klaus: Principal TtarlspOrtation
Planner MarkSatUer GIS Anattst II ftesea.rch and Information Services Department Ruth Boward Senior Transportation Planner Al.mhulUu GIS Analyst I Kim Seymour Urban Planner I Bob O'Neal
Director of RIS Michael Burbank Principal Transportatron Planner Barbara Maley Principal Tran$p<!rtalion Planner Md Shahabuddln Transportation P!a.rmcr I Rocky Gardiner Manager of Reseafch
Ken Centenka Principal Transportation Engineer Chad McKeown Transportation Planner It MIke Sims Principal Transportation Planner Ylng Cheng Urban Planner I Julie Meador laOonna Smilh
Administrative SecretalY Il T ransportallon Planner II 19 
NCTCOG Executive Board 2001-02 President Mike Cantrell Commissioner. Dallas County Vice President James O'Neal CouneUmember, City of lancasler Secretary-Treasurer Jack Hatchell Commissioner.
Collin County Past President Mary Poss Intelim Mayor, City of Dallas Ron Harmon, Chairman Johnson County John Murphy, Vice Chairman City of Richardson B. Glen WhlUey. Secretary Tarrant
County Ron Brown Ems County Mark BUl'fOughs City cf Denton Jim Carter Denton County Wendy Davis City of Fort Worth Harry Englert City of Grand Prairie LoIs Finkefman City of Oallas Sandy
Grayson City of Dallas Director Tom Vandergriff County Judge, Tarrant County Director Wendy Davis Councilmember, City of Fort Worth Director AlanWalne Councilmembet. City of oallas Director
Charles Beatty Mayor, City cf Waxahachie Director WayneOgte CoonCilmember, City of Arlington Dlreclor Wayne Gent County Judge. Kaufman County Director Mary lib Sateh Mayor. City of Euless
Director Bob Phelps Mayor, City 01 Farmers Branch Regional Transportation Council Council 2001 Unde: Harper Brown City of !rvlng Becky tbskin City of Fort Worth Jack Hatchell Collin
County John Heiman, Jr. City 01 Mesquite Jerry Hiebert North Texas Tollway AulhOlity Lowell Hyatt City of Garfand lee Jackson Dallas County UndaKoop Dalras Area Rapid Transit Ken Lambert
City of Plano Kenneth Mayfield Dallas County Jay Nelson Texas Department of Transportalion. Dallas District Mike Nowels C11y of Lewisville Mary Poss City of Dallas Dave Ragan Fort Worth
Transit Authority Pat Remington City of Arlington Charles Scoma City of North Richland Hlils Chuck Silcox City of Fort Worth Grady Smithey City of Duncanville Robert Stimson City of
Dallas Director Unda Harper Brown Councllmember. Cily of Irviog General Counsel Jerry Gilmore Attorney at Law, Dallas Executive Director R. Michael Eastland Mark stokes Cily of Carrolilon
Steve Terrell City of Alleo Maxine Thornton-Reese City of Dallas Carl Tyson City of Euless Marti VanRavenswaay Commissioner, Tarrant County Mark Wright Mayor. CRy of Kennedala vacant
City 01 Dallas Vacant TxDOT -Fort Worth District Michael Morr1s Transportation Director, NCTCOG Air Transportation Surtace Transportation Travel Demand ManagemenU Technical Advisory
Committee Technical Committee Congestion Management Robert Porter Jim DriscoJi System Committee Chairman Chairman Martha Musgrove Chairperson The conlents of this repcm reflect lhe views
of the authors who are responsible lor the opinions, findings, and concfus.i.aQs presented heroin. The conlents do not necessarily (e/Met the views or policies oflhe Federal Highway
Administmlion, the Federal Transit Administration, or lhe Texas Department of Transportation This document was prepared in cooperatiOn with the Texas Department of Transportation and
the U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transil Adminislration North Central Texas Council of Governments P. O. Box 5888 Arlington, Texas 76005·5888

􀁲􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭 '-y 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀬􀀭 􀁾􀀠 􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀢􀀬􀁾􀀬􀀭􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀭􀀷􀀭􀀧􀀭􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀭􀀮􀀠 􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀧􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀁾􀀠 􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠 􀀷􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠 "-,,.., ; North Central Texas Council
of Governments, _ Qecember 2001 ; L_......􀁾􀁟􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠 __􀁾􀀬􀀠 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠__ "'-'= 􀁾􀀠 _ 􀁾􀀮􀀠 _, _" __􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀁟􀁾􀀮􀀼􀀠 _. _' A 􀁾􀁟􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁟􀁟􀀠 􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀢􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀠_ "'"'___ 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠___"
A 􀁾􀁟􀀬􀀠 ." 􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀠 • _ _ 􀁾􀁟􀀮􀀠c, 􀁾􀀠 "-' To establish a regional thoroughfare network that • Incorporates the primary features of each city's thoroughfare plan, • Promotes regionwide
consistency and continuity by identifying variations in arterial alignments and classification between jurisdictions, and • Influences local decisions by providing essential information
on how each city's thoroughfares are connected to the greater regional system and thereby impact transportation decisions beyond their own jurisdictional boundaries. To expand and improve
a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning effort and make make a single source available for a higher level of coordination among the various jurisdictions
that share the responsibility for creating and maintaining an effective transportation system in the North Central Texas region. To increase local govemmental and public involvement
in the planning and construction of both regional and local thoroughfares, allowing for greater coordination of thoroughfare plans and standards. In 1974, the GoverllPr of Texas designated
the North Central Texas CounCil of Govemments (NCTCOG) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Federal laws define the responsibilities of MPOs
with regional transportation planning as a major element. In accordance with federal law, an MPO offers leadership and technical expertise to address transportation issues from a regional
perspective. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21sf Century (TEA-21) reinforces the importance of regional transportation planning through voluntary cooperation and coordination
coordination among all entities in the region. Regional planning includes the public, all of the various local governments, transportation authornies, North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA),
the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), and the Council of Governments as the MPO. In 1977, local governments in this region cooperated with NCTCOG to establish the area's first
Thoroughfare Plan for North Central Texas. 
NCT-COG completed major updates to the Plan in 1994 and 2000. The Regional Thoroughfare Plan incorporates many of the elements and concepts developed in the original Plan as well as
both updates. In 2001, the Plan was amended to reflect recent changes by local agencies. The Regional Thoroughfare Plan is designed to be a guide for local and regional planning efforts,
and places emphasis on being sensitive to local needs. The Plan seeks to provide for local mobility and adequate local properly access as well as to support and enhance the freeway system.
The Regional Thoroughfare Plan strives to meet those objectives in combination with the input of local ideas and values to create an effective, concise document that will promote consensus
regarding the regional thoroughfare system. Population The NCTCOG nine-county urban area is not only one of the fastest growing areas in the State, the Dallas-Fort Worth area leads the
State in terms of population growth according to the U.S. Census. When NCTCOG's first Regional Thoroughfare Plan was developed in 1977, 2.7 million people lived in the region. In the
past 23 years, more than two million people moved into the nine-county urban area to reach a 2000 population of 4.8 million persons. In just the decade of the 90s, the region's population
grew by over one million people, Which represents a growth rate of 21 percent. In 1999 alone, over 160,000 persons moved into the ninecounty urban area to set a one-year growth record.
Approximately one-fourth of all Texans live in the North Central Texas region. Continued high growth rates are forecast for the future. The population is projected to swell by 47 percent
resulting in the population exceeding seven million by 2025. Emplovment The NCTCOG nine-county urban area also affords considerable employment opportunities. There were 1.3 million jobs
in 1977 that more than doubled to nearly 2.7 million by 2000. The year 2025 employment forecast is projected to exceed 3.9 million jobs. The population-to-employment ratio has shown
a steady decline from 1 85 persons per job in 1977 to 1.82 in 2000 and is predicted to continue to decline to 1.79 in 2025. This trend follows the movements in declining family size,
increasing two-worker households, and workers holding multiple jobs. Unemployment figures in this region are relatively low and normally well below the national average. This is due
in part to a diverse economy. The Dallas-Fort Worth area attracts employment in three key market areas: corporate headquarters, national defense industry, and high·technology industry.
Factors contributing to this area's success in attracting employers include being centrally located in the United States with convenient airport access, a large tourism economy, and
availability to several major universities in the region. Metropolitan Area In addition to steady population and employment growth, the urbanized area also is spreading outward. In 1977,
NCTCOG's "Intensive Study Area" (ISA) for regional planning encompassed 2,573 square miles, and transportation planning .... activities were focused within this area. Due to the \ population
growth shown in the 1980 Census, the Igeography was expanded to include 3,212 square /miles and was renamed the "Transportation Study Area" (TSA). As a result of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the region was redefined based on the 1990 Census and to oblige the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for planning within an air
quality "ozone nonattainment area," and was renamed the "Metropolitan Planning Area" (MPA). The MPA designation has since been shortened to the "Metropolitan Area" (MAl. The MA is centered
on the four urban counties in the nonattainment area: Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant. Also included in the MA are portions of the five bordering counties (Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman,
Parker, and Rockwall). The MA, therefore, takes in 69 percent or 4,980 square miles of the 7,202 square miles contained in the NCTCOG nine-county urban area. The generally flat topography
of the the Dallas-Fort Worth area is between 600 to 700 feet above sea level. Numerous man-made lakes provide valuable water resources, as well as the opportunity to enjoy outdoor recreation.
Traversing the region from west to east is the Trinity River. Acting as a natural barrier, the Trinity and its adjacent flood plain distinclly impedes north-south travel. This major
waterway is an asset to the area, but also creates many challenges. The added expense involved in crossing the Trinity River poses severe limitations on transportation planning alternatives.
In the past ten years, the area has seen flooding in the Trinity River corridor of 100-year magnitude that reinforces the need for robust transportation planning solutions that address
the area's physical features. 2 
THOROUGHFARE SELECTION CRITERIA 􀁾􀀠 􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠 . /,", /"', The following seven criteria were applied to arterials within the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area. • TEA-21 Functional Classification
• National Highway System • City and County Thoroughfare Plans • Mobility 2025 Plan Update Regional Arterial System • Thoroughfare Spacing • Completing Gaps • Continuous Regional Routes
TEA·21 Functional Classification The Transportation Equity Act for the 2tst Century requires all urban areas to functionally classify public roadways in order to prioritize funding.
Within the Dallas-Fort Worth urbanized area, TxDOT and NCTCOG joined together in taking responsibility for the classification effort. Originally undertaken in 1992 as part of ISTEA,
the functional classification network was updated in 1997 as part of the implementation of TEA-21. Outside the Dallas-Fort Worth urbanized area, TxDOT assumed primary responsibility
for defining the functional classes in the small urbanized areas and the rural areas. The Dallas-Fort Worth functional classification effort grouped all public roadways into four categories:
PrinCipal Arterials, Minor Arterials, Collectors, and Local Streets with the primary focus being concentrated on the first three categories. If a roadway project is to be eligible for
federal funds, the roadway must be functionally classified as a Collector or above within an urban area or as a Major Collector or above in the rural areas. National Highway System The
National Highway System (NHS) represents a 163,000 mile system of transportation routes of national importance. The NHS covers a network of interconnected principal arterial routes that
serve major population centers, border crossings, ports, airports, public transportation facilities, and other intermodal transportation facilities. The NHS system includes all Interstate
System segments, all strategic highways and their connectors, and any other urban or rural "PrinCipal Arterials" meeting the goals of the NHS. By providing these essential linkages between
different modes of transportation, NHS creates a seamless network for the rapid movement of people and products. City and County Thoroughfare Plans The Regional Thoroughfare Plan assists
in the coordination of local plans by representing the single source of information that identifies the thoroughfare planning efforts in the region. Intended as more than just a composite
olloeal thoroughfare plans, the Regional Thoroughfare Plan shows the primary traffic arteries when land uses reach capacity under a "build-out" scenario. In other words, this Plan identifies
the ultimate system of arterials when the region is completely developed. City and county plans were incorporated where appropriate to indicate the future proposed thoroughfares that
will carry traffic across multiple jurisdictions. The Regional Thoroughfare Plan provides a basis upon which local governments, transit authorities, NITA, TxDOT, NCTCOG, and the public
can work together to resolve regional transportation planning issues across jurisdictional boundaries. The Plan does not constrain individual city or county goals in any way. Nor does
the Plan imply or grant approval of an implementation strategy. Local governments are encouraged to monitor and implement their various individual components that define the Plan. Mobility
2025 Plan UpdateRegional Arterial System A system of arterial thoroughfares is needed to provide local access and effectively support the backbone of any vehicular transportation system
the freeway system. The Regional Thoroughfare Plan supports accessibility to the freeway system through the regional thoroughfare network. The "Regional Arterials" that are identified
in the Regional ThoroughfarePlan have been used to construct the Regional Arterial System component of Mobility 2025 Update: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The Regional Arterial System quantifies the amount
of future arterial capacity needed to complement and enhance the freeway and transit systems with the necessary access to and from local land uses to support the overall MetropOlitan
Transportation System. Thoroughfare Spacing Desirable thoroughfare spacing is a function of the capacity of the system, transit facilities, and the effect on the freeway system. Spacing
was reviewed to ensure logical roadway layout consistent with standard transportation planning practices. Specific ranges for spacing benchmarks are presented later in an exhibit on
thoroughfare classification guidelines. In general, the ideal standard for sufficient coverage of "Regional Arterials" is a network grid spaced from one to five miles apart. 3 
Completing Gaps Identifying gaps in otherwise continuous roadway segments assists in determining potential restrictions to traffic flow that create an operational strain on the surrounding
arterial network. The completion of a small roadway segment between two existing facilities can significantly reduce circuity. The Regional Thoroughfare Plan gives neighboring communities
an opportunity to see how individual roadway systems affect areas larger than just one city. Continuous Regional Routes Providing for long trips over continuous routes that link multiple
city or county population and employment centers is important for mobility and orderly development. Identifying the corridors where anticipated traffic demand exceeds the operational
capacity of the freeway and transit networks is essential for financially responsible planning and programming of transportation improvement funds. "Regional Arterials" will play an
increasingly important part serving as alternate routes to relieve congested freeway corridors. The roadway designations used in the Regional Thoroughfare Plan are intended to provide
regional consistency, yet be broad enough to allow for local flexibility. The Plan intends to standardize, from a regional perspective, how roadways are claSSified due to the wide variation
in how roadways are characterized at the federal, state, and local levels. Exhibit I presents a summary of typical thoroughfare classification guidelines. These guidelines provide general
information that help define the overall function and performance characteristics of a thoroughfare. Exhibit I cross classifies the roadway classification guideline criteria according
to three functional classification categories ("Freeways! Tollways,' "Regional Arterials," and "Other Arterials"). The functional classification categories are further subdivided into
eight roadway classes. n,e criteria used to classify the thoroughfares include: trip length, traffic volumes, service to activity centers, system continuity, facility spacing, land-use
interaction, access management, intersection treatment, median treatment, design speeds, and 􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁳􀁾􀀠service. These criteria are used to classify the thoroughfares and provide
a guide to encourage uniformity in faCilities to serve regional traffic and help cities be aware of the factors that form the basis for good design practice. Exhibit II describes the
eight overlapping roadway classes that define the three functional classification categories: two classes for "FreewaysITollways," three for "Regional Arterials," and three for "Other
Arterials." While the terminology shown in Exhibit II is unique to this area, the meanings are consistent nationally so that all urban areas across the country can be compared, The definitions
for these eight roadway classes intentionally overlap. "Regional Arterials" can range from Urban Expressways to Principal Arterials while "Other Arterials" may range from Enhanced Principal
Arterials down to Minor Arterials. The relative service characteristics of any roadway will vary based on a number of factors that include, but are not limited to: speed, traffic volume,
number of lanes, geometrics, level of service, traffic patterns, and time-of·day. "Collector Streets" and "Local Streets" are not included in the Plan. These facilities, by definition,
are for local access only and therefore are not of regional significance. The "Freeways/Tollways" identified through the needs-based planning process in the Mobility 2025 Plan Update
are shown on the map for reference purposes only. The basic framework of "Regional Arterials" includes those arterials functionally classified under TEA·21 as well as the arterials identified
through the NHS. The principal arterials identified in the city and county thoroughfare plans fill out the complete inventory of "Regional Arterials." The "Other Arterials" are composed
of the minor thoroughfares that support and enhance the "Freeways/Tollways" and "Regional Arterials" by providing the interconnections between the higher and lower roadway classifications
to facilitate land access. : REVIEW & 􀁾􀁅􀁆􀁉􀁎􀁅􀁍􀁅􀁎􀀱􀁊􀀢􀀠PROCESS' , 􀁾􀀬􀀧􀀠 Every effort was made in the review and refinement process to include the technical and political
leadership of the Dallas-Fort Worth region as well as the public in order to update the Regional Thoroughfare Plan. All local government agencies were contacted to gather recent thoroughfare
. plan modifications. For example, in the 2000 update, NCTCOG staff contacted 128 local governmental agencies of which 63 agencies, or almost 50 percent, were found to have revised their
thoroughfare plans. Through this process, potential concerns can be resolved. The outreach process includes presentations and progress reports to keep everyone informed throughout the
project. Public meetings are held around the region to allow for comment from the general public. Regional workshops make it 4 
01 Exhibit I THOROUGHFARE CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES Ctjleria Trip Length Traffic Volume Service to Acl!vlly Center System Conllnuity 􀁌􀁡􀁮􀁤􀁾􀁕􀀤􀁥􀀠 Intel'aCtion Access Management
Intersection Treatment Median Treatmem DeSign Speeds Transit Service very long very high 􀁔􀁥􀁧􀁾􀁮􀁡􀁬􀀠and major generalors connects to other freeways. urban expressways. regional,
principal, and minor arterials should not penetrate neighborhoods fuJly controlled lully Qrade separated barrier 55·65 mph express long to very long high to very high regional and major
generators and spocialized land uses connects 10 freeways, other urban expressways, regional. prIncIpal. and minor arterials should not penetrate neighborhoods lully controlled, Ino
median access, specialized design controls limiting curb access are used to facilitate traffic flow and ensure safety grade separated al aU intersections barrier 50·55 mph express long
high regional and major generators and specialimd land uses connects to freeways, urban expressways, reglonal, principal, and minor arterials should not penetrate neighborhoods partially
controlled, specialized design controls limiting curb access are used to facilitate traffic flow and ensure safety grade separalad at isolated intersections barrier or restricted left·tum
bays 45·50 mph expreSS and loca! long high regional and major generators and specialized lend uses connects to freeways, urban expressways, regional, prIncipal, and minor arterials should
not penetrate neighborhoods partially controlled, specialized design controls are used ro provide median and curb access and ensure safelY grade separated at ISOlated Intersections 􀁬􀁥􀁦􀁴􀁾􀁴􀁵􀁲􀁮
􀀠lanes or bays 40·45 mph express and local moderate !o long high regional maJor and minor generators and specialized land uses connects to freeways. urban expressways, regional, principal,
minor arterials, and collectors should not penetrate neighborhoods partially controlfed, spacing and design controls are used to facltitata traffic flow and ensure safety grade separated
at isolat&d Intersectlons left-tum lanes or bays 􀀴􀀰􀁾􀀴􀀵􀁭􀁰􀁨􀀠 express and local moderate to long moderate to high regional major and minor generators and specialized land uses
connects to freeways urban expessways, regional, principal. minor arterials, and colleotors shoutd nol penetrate nleghborhoocis partially controlle<1, spacing and deSign controls are
used to fac!litala traffic: flow and ensure safety at-grada !eft·turn lanes or bays 40 45 mph express and loca! moderate to long moderate 10 high regional major and minor generators
and specialized land u.as should nol penetrate neighborhoods partially controlled, spacing and daslgn controls are used to faoilitate traffic flow and ensurE! safety atwgrade leH-tum
lanes or bays 40·45 mph express and local moderate moderate minor generators and individual communities community continuity, oonnects with princlpa! artMal and freeway syslems, usuelly
does not cross community boundaries should not penetrate neighborhoods control is limlled desIgn controls are used to ensure safety al-grade none 40 mph focal 
FREEWAYSlTOLLWAYS curb and median access 􀁣􀁯􀁾􀁴􀁲􀀹􀁉􀁳􀀬􀁡􀁮􀁣􀁩􀀠 ';> 􀁾􀀢􀀠 Regional Arterial .. . . .. ... .... .•• .. .• . A major arterial roadway designed 10 serve the, mQvemerifof1raffiC
with improved intersections and signalprogressioninCludinl!rui1l! 􀁾􀁉􀁩􀁣􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀮􀀠 OTHER ARTERIALS 6 
possible for the participation of the local government technical staff to participate in the review process. Separate meetings are held to help clarity the Plan's components. Also, additional
discussions are conducted by telephone that contribute valuable information by providing insight as to how the region's local governments use and depend on the Regional Thoroughfare
Plan. One thoroughfare alignment issue remains unresolved and has been noted on the Regional Thoroughfare Plan map for future resolution. NCTCOG's Surface Transportation Technical Committee
(STTC) and Regional Transportation Council (RTC) monitored the Plan's review and refinement process. Upon completion of this process, initial approval of the Plan was sought from the
professional planners and traffic engineers who are members of STTC. The RTC, which represents the MPO, is primarily composed of elected officials from around the region. In May 2001,
the Regional Transportation Council amended the Regional Thoroughfare Plan through resolution. Implementation of the Regional Thoroughfare Plan is primarily the responsibility of city
and county governments. transportation authorities, and TxDOT. Funding and programming of these improvements is carried out through NCTCOG's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
prepared biannually by the North Central Texas Council of Governments in cooperation with these agencies. Other funding sources may include local bond programs or developer participation.
The Thoroughfare Plan represents a build-out of the ultimate regional thoroughfare system and does not attempt to represent the need for or the timing of specific construction projects.
This is a true longrange plan based on currently existing plans approved by local elected officials but carries no recommendation for any roadway improvements. However. constant input
from the local government planning process is necessary to maintain a current inventory of thoroughfare plans. This Plan provides a logical scenario of arterial development based on
current trends as well as expectations of the future. This Plan should be used as a guide for local planning to support and promote orderly and planned growih. It should also be a starting
point for needs-based arterial studies. This Plan may be used as a basis for city or county bond programs, regional land-use plans. economic development initiatives, and regional transportation
plans. PLAN"UPDATt: PRt>CEOURE ' 􀀺􀀮􀀧􀁾􀀠 , '" 􀁾􀀠 /" 􀁾􀀠 , ;,",' 􀀢􀁾􀀢􀀠􀀾􀁾􀀠 The Plan is designed to be flexible to meet the goals of individual cities or counties as they change
over time and provide the framework from which local decisions may be based. The Plan is intended to foster discussion and negotiation between neighboring interests. It is reasonable
to assume that, through this process, changes to the Regional Thoroughfare Plan will emerge over time. As local plans are amended and updated to reflect changing economic conditions.
local opinion. technological advances, social conditions, or simply a shift of priorities, the Regional Thoroughfare Plan should be modified to reflect those changes. Consideration of
the Plan's role is essential to development of the overall Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program. A review and update study will be scheduled every
three years to coincide with the review cycle of the MetropOlitan Transportation Plan. It has been determined that more frequent updating is necessary in order to keep abreast of thoroughfare
plan changes being issued by local government agencies in the Dallas-Fort Worth region. In recognition that local governments' thoroughfare plans are continually under revision. an additional
study at the approximate mid-point in the three-year cycle will also be initiated. With a study every 18 months, this schedule will result in an almost continuous ongoing review and
refinement process. Local and regional planning efforts can greatly benetn from a comprehensive regional thoroughfare plan that identifies the most current information available. NCTCOG's
Regional Thoroughfare Plan provides a single source of information for the review of the key arterial infrastructure currently existing or being planned in the future. Local governmental
agencies are encouraged to use this information and the accompanying documentation contained in NCTCOG's Thoroughfare Planning and Design Guidelines, June 1995, to help in the development,
modification, and implementation of their local plans. In summary, the Regional Thoroughfare Plan is intended to represent the intentions and expectations of individual cities and counties
in developing an ultimate thoroughfare system while maintaining a regional perspective. 7 
,NCTCOG PreS"ident: ..' 8 
WHAT IS Nc:rrCOG? 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀠 . ',"'" 􀀮􀁾􀀧􀀠 ;,:. ' ,:::' j 􀁾􀀠 • " 􀁾 '"" /h ;:, The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is a voluntary association of local governments
within the 16-county North Central Texas region. The agency was established in 1966 to assist local governments in planning for common needs, cooperating for mutual benefit, and coordinating
for sound regional development. North Central Texas is a 16-county region with a population of 4_6 million and an area of approximately 12,800 square miles. NCTCOG has 232 member governments,
including all 16 counties, 163 cities, 26 independent school districts, and 27 special districts. Since 1974, NCTCOG has served as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for transportation
in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area. The Regional Transportation Council is the policy body for the Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Regional Transportation Council consists
of 37 members, predominantly local elected officials, overseeing the the regional transportation planning process. NCTCOG's Department of Transportation is responsible for support and
staff assistance to the Regional Transportation Council and its technical committees, which comprise the MPO policy-making structure. Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Deparimentof
Transportation and the V.S. Depariment of Tlanspo;ation, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors
who are responsible for /he opinions, findings, and conclusions presented herein. The contents do not necessarily refleetthe views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration,
the Federal Transit Administration, arlhe Texas Department af Transportation. Presorted Standard U. S. POSTAGE PAID Arlington, Texas Permit 90 North Central Texas Council of Governments
Department of Transportation P. O. Box 5888 Arlington, Texas 76005-5888