R. SCOTT WHEELER MAYOR • TOWN OF ADDISON, TEXAS June 24, 2003 Post Office Box 9010, Addison, Texas 75001-9010 (972) 450-7026 Fax (9'72) 450-7043 E-mail: swheeler@ci.addison.lX.us The
Honorable John Cornyn United States Senate 517 Hart Senate Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Cornyn: This is to express my concern over a proposal that may come before the Senate
Finance Committee that will shift almost all of the motor fuel tax money .that currently goes to mass transit, toward support for federal highway programs. The Town of Addison is a member
city of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit System and we have been waiting patiently for urban passenger rail transit to serve our Town. This proposal that would cut funds for mass transit
would certainly further delay many transit projects, not only in our system, but all across the country. Accordingly, we ask that you take whatever steps appropriate to oppose this measure
and any such change in transit financing. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions about this request. Sincerely, R. Scott Wheeler Mayor
R. scon WHEELER MAYOR • TOWN OF ADDISON, TEXAS June 24, 2003 Post Office Box 9010, Addison, Texas 75001-9010 (972) 450-7026 Fax (972) 450-7043 E-mail: swheeIer@ci.addison.tx.us The Honorable
John Comyn United States Senate 517 Hart Senate Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Cornyn: This is to express my concern over a proposal that may come before the Senate Finance
Committee that will shift almost all of the motor fuel tax money that currently goes to mass transit, toward support for federal highway programs. The Town of Addison is a member city
of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit System and we have been waiting patiently for urban passenger rail transit to serve our Town. This proposal that would cut funds for mass transit would
certainly further delay many transit projects, not only in our system, but all across the country. Accordingly, we ask that you take whatever steps appropriate to oppose this measure
and any such change in transit financing. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions about this request. Sincerely, R. Scott Wheeler Mayor
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION DART SERVICE AREA ftI'.....􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀮􀁊􀁾.....IIiLGlE... IHEIGHTS LEGEND R.O.W. ACQUIRED BY DART -----R.O.W. WITH PURCHASE OPTION R.O.W. TO BE ACQUIRED RAILTRAN
R.O.W. • LRT STARTER SYSTEM • TRANSIT CENTER DRAWN BY DART CADO DEPARTMENT
1992 NON CBO BUS ROUTES ®
TRANSIT SYSTEM PLAN DART SERVICE AREA LEGEND ••••••••• COMMUTER RAIL LINE (1990 • 1996) PART OF STARTER SYSTEM ·.H..",.·" H.O.V. TRANSITWAY (1990·2010) -LIGHT RAIL STARTER SYSTEM (1990
-1996) ..",,,nnn,,, LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM (1997 • 2010) ----. LIGHT RAIL EXTENSIONS (POST 2010) "''''"0""0< SYSTEM EXPANSION DRAWN BY DART CADD DEPARlVENT
EXISTING & PROPOSED DART TRANSIT FACILITIES THROUGH 1996 • • ••••• • H.O.V. LANE IUMDD DEVI!I.OPIIEIIT) IXISTINQ •••••••• H.O.V. LANE IEXISTING) ...>.J.. 􀁜􀀬􀁾􀁜􀀮 􀁜􀀮􀁾.. SITE IE
SITE 4E CBD BUS TRANSFER FACILITIEB Altern.Uv. loclltlona • BUB PUL8I! POIHT IEXBTINllI BUB TRANIIT CENTER IEllJ8TINGI) BUI PARK .. RDE IEIUITINa) LRT STARTER BYSTEII .. STATIONI IUJlDER
DEVELOPIIEHT) COIIIIUT!II RAIL .. STATIONS IUNDER DEVROPIiENn SUI TRANSIT CENTER IUMDD DEVELOPllENT) BUI TRANSIT CENTER/PARK .. RIDE/PULIE POINT IUJlDER STIIIIY! BUS PA88EIlClER TRANSI'BI
LOCATION IUNDD BTUDY! t BINCILETOH BLVD AT BERNAL 2 TORONTO AT W2lITIIORELAND S a'IlClLETON aLVD AT HAIIPTON ROAD " .lEI'I'ER80H BLVD AT WE8T1IORBLAHD ROAD a .lEFFEABOM BLVD/DAV18 STREET
AT HAIIPTON a CAIIP WI8DOII ROAD AT WmllORELAND ROAD 7 LEDBETTER DRIVE AT HAIIPTON ROAD a LEDBETTER DRIVE AT BONNIE VIEW ROAD • LAD! JUNE ROAD AT BUCKNER BLVD to UATD! L KINO, JR. BLVD
AT DAKLAND tt EXPOBITION AT PARRY •... • -=.--,-,' LEGEND .....e-.... ••PROPOSED:
SUBURBAN TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 1. Remain a part of DART and work for regionalism 2. Suburban cities withdraw and deal with individual transit needs through budget (ad valorem). 3. Suburban
cities withdraw and form a regional transit authority funded by sales tax. 1. STAY WITH DART • How do we achieve the ability to function regionally? • Appointed vs. Elected Board -Eminent
Domain? -Will Dallas ever respect the suburbs as partners? • Light Rail program will cost more and scheduled extensions will slip. Budget constraints will prevent expansion of the Bus
system unless rail program schedule is extended even more. • Is access/mobility to downtown Dallas important to the economic future of the suburbs?
2. INDIVIDUAL CITIES DEAL WITH TRANSIT NEEDS ADVANTAGE • No MTA Tax on sales • Tailored program to needs DISADVANTAGE • Funded through property taxes • Less coordinated with other cities
3. FORM SUBURBAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY • MTA Tax: $82,489,000 collected from suburbs in FY91 • Suburban Bus service (Express and Local) Is currently provided by contract to DART by ATE ($20M/yr)
• Cottonbelt Commuter Rail possible to DFW (need operating rights) • Other capital projects affordable (HOVs, Local Assistance) ...
SUBURBAN TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE Concept Financial Plan Sources of FundsSales Tax Fare Box 􀁾 $82,489,000 $5,000,000 .NM $85,788,560 $5,000,000 􀁾 $89,220,102 $5,000,000 􀁾 $92,788,906 $5,500,000
1Jm $96,500,463 $5,500,000 ws. $100,360,481 $5,500,000 1m2 $104,374,901 $6,050,000 2.QQQ $108,549,897 $6,050,000 ITotal Sources of Funds $87,489,000 $90,788,560 $94,220,102 $98,288,906
$102,000,463 $105,860,481 $110,424,901 $114,599,8971 Uses of Funds Operating Uses of Funds Operating Expenses $4,000,000 $4,160,000 $5,826,400 $6,059,456 $6,301,834 . $6,553,908 $6,816,064
$7,088,706 Bus Operating Expense $20,000,000 $21,400,000 $22,898,000 $24,500,860 $26,215,920 $28,051,035 $30,014,607 $32,115,630 Bus & Van Replacement $4,000,000 $4,160,000 $4,326,400
$4,499,456 $4,679,434 $4,866,612 $5,061,276 $5,263,727 Capital PlannIng $3,000,000 $3,120,000 $3,244,800 $3,374,592 $3,509,576 $3,649,959 $3,795,957 $3,947,795 Capital Proarams Cottonbelt
Commuter Rail $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000 Maintenance Facility $18,000,000 L Total Uses of Funds $69,000,000 $62,840,000 $66,295,600 $68,434,364 $40,706,764 $43,121,513
$45,687;904 $48,415,858 I Operating Reserve $7,750,000 $8,210,000 $9,073,900 $9,608,591 $10,176,691 $10,780,378 $11,421,976 $12,103,965 This plan assumes that the current Bus Fleet used
in suburban service (200) and transit centers would become the property of the suburban entity. This represents $300M In assets, that was funded 80% by the Federal Government. The Cottonbelt
Is a $20M asset that Is also assumed to be transfered. Any additional capital projects are eligible for Federal funding, subject to compliance with the extensive requirements of the
process. 4/30/92
DART Sales Tax Trends 200,000,000 180,000,000 160,000,000 140,000,000 120,000,000 100,000,000 80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000,000o1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
til 􀁾onQ) o o Ia-: c>o< <IC til Q) co en ,.... 0) >LL. os::: C'a Q. en ==== .c .... N ... CO 􀁾 '::R. ,.. .c 5 tit tit 􀁾 en 􀁾 en 􀁾 enm ... eta: CI) 􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁊􀁾 .s::: ...J·m -􀁥􀁴􀁾
0 een
Population, Sales Tax Collections, & Per Capita Sales Tax Comparison between 1986 and 1991 DART Service Area 86 Population FY86 Sales Tax '86 Per Capita 1990 Census FY91 Sales Tax '91
Per Capita Dallas 941,700 $98,853,564 $104.97 1,006,877 $117,012,000 $116.21 Garland 174,550 $8,217,740 $47.08 180,650 $10,174,000 $56.32 Irving 141,600 $12,567,386 $88.75 155,037 $19,730,000
$127.26 Plano 108,000 $9,074,009 $84.02 128,713 $16,046,000 $124.66 Carrollton 68,450 $5,829,522 $85.16. 82,169 $8,572,000 $104.32 Richardson 74,250 $8,249,877 $111.11 74,840 $11,915,000
$159.21 Farmers Bran 24,400 $9,378,478 $384.36 24,250 $7,319,000 $301.81 Addison 9,550 $3,384,778 $354.43 8,783 $5,320,000 $605.72 Univ Park 22,550 $1,051,876 $46.65 22,259 $1,519,000
$68.24 Highland Pad 9,000 $833,240 $92.58 8,739 $922,000 $105.50 Rowlett 15,200 $534,665 $35.18 23,260 $639,000 $27.47 Coppell 10,500 $332,877 $31.70 0 $0 $0.00 Flower Mound 11,800 $212,051
$17.97 0 $0 $0.00 Glenn Hts 4,000 $26,293 $6.57 4,564 $37,000 $8.11 Cockrell Hill 3,050 $76,627 $25.12 3,746 $64,000 $17.08 Buckingham 103 $0 102 $232,000 $2,274.51 Total 1,618,703 $158,622,983
$97.99 1,723,989 $199,501,000 $115.72
DART-SYSTEM ELEMENTS BACKGROUND Shortly after being established in 1983, DART began implementing the original Service Plan with the initiation of express buses to downtown Dallas. These
express buses started from leased parking lots owned by churches, shopping centers and movie theaters. Since then, there have been seven permanent transit centers built with another
four currently under development. Over 100 buses and vans operating on 27 routes travel between these transit centers each weekday. These suburban local and crosstown routes carried
over 3 million passengers last year. While establishing the basic level of transit service in cities that previously had no transit service was a high priority, work was also underway
to develop a system of high capacity transit projects for the long term. The latest blueprint for these long range high capacity projects was approved by the DART Board of Directors
in 1989. The DART Transit System Plan was developed following extensive community involvement and technical analysis, with emphasis on cost effectiveness. Listed below are elements of
the existing system or Transit System Plan components. Maps depicting these components are attached. TRANSIT CENTERS Located throughout the DART service area, these facilities serve
as collection points for passengers to access express buses to downtown Dallas and as transfer points for local and crosstown bus riders. Several of these facilities will also transition
into park and rides for the high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane system and/or rail stations. BUS NETWORK By establishing these transit centers, DART has been able to provide a grid bus
route network in the northern tier of DART-member cities. This permits travel across the region without going through downtown Dallas. In 1983 there were two non-CBD routes, today there
are 34 non-CBD routes with plans that could add another nine. As the bus network is modified to provide feeder service to the rail system there is the
companion benefit of enhancing crosstown travel. DART Service Planning is studying expanding the grid network into Dallas with rail stations and transit centers serving as the focal
points. THOROUGHFARE programs that rebuilt and/or service. IMPROVEMENTS There are three target arterials that should be widened to provide improved transit HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES
-There are three intermediate action and three permanent high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in the DART System Plan. The six HOV's are in the following stages of development: Intermediate
1. East R.L. Thornton -opened in 1991. 2. Stemmons (north of LBJ) -will open in 1994. 3. LBJ -due operational intermediate 􀁯􀁾 LBJ) this Plan. Permanent to the relatively high cost
and short life (between completion of this project and starting reconstruction project is no longer in the Financial 1. LBJ the HOV is a component of the reconstructed LBJ Freeway that
is scheduled as an early construction item, opening in 2003. 2. North Central (north of LBJ) -the median of this recently rebuilt freeway was designed for simple conversion to an HOV
when demand warrants. As part of the LBJ HOV project, direct connections to this North Central HOV will be built. 3. Stemmons (north and south of LBJ) this project will greatly improve
mobility through the highly congested Stemmons/LBJ interchange. It will be designed to provide through trips on Stemmons as well as direct connections with the LBJ HOV. COMMUTER RAIL
Using self-propelled vehicles, rail service to Irving is scheduled to be open in 1994, pending agreements with the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. Future extension to D/FW International
Airport is in the Transit System Plan.
LIGHT RAIL The first 20 miles, termed the starter System, are within the Dallas city limits. The first extensions are scheduled to Richardson, along the former Southern Pacific right-of-way
and to Garland along the former Union Pacific right-of-way. The Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement, scheduled to start in the fall of 1992, will begin the development
process for the North Central light· rail line extension into Richardson. This extension will provide rail service to the high employment areas in north Dallas, Richardson and Plano.
RIGHT-OF-WAY PRESERVATION -DART has secured over 150 miles of linear right-of-way to preserve it for transit purposes. Among the purchases is the former Cotton Belt Railroad right-of-way
which extends across the northern tier of DART-member cities.
SUBURBAN TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES 1. Remain a part of DART and work for regionalism 2. Suburban cities withdraw and deal with individual transit needs through budget (ad valorem). 3. Suburban
cities withdraw and form a regional transit authority funded by sales tax. 1. STAY WITH DART • How do we achieve the ability to function regionally? • Appointed vs. Elected Board -Eminent
Domain? -Will Dallas ever respect the suburbs as partners? • Light Rail program will cost more and scheduled extensions will slip. BUdget constraints will prevent expansion of the Bus
system unless rail program schedule is extended even more. • Is access/mobility to downtown Dallas important to the economic future of the suburbs?
2. INDIVIDUAL CITIES DEAL WITH TRANSIT NEEDS ADVANTAGE • No MTA Tax on sales • Tailored program to needs DISADVANTAGE • Funded through property taxes • Less coordinated with other cities
3. FORM SUBURBAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY • MTA Tax: $82,489,000 collected from suburbs in FY91 • Suburban Bus service (Express and Local) is currently provided by contract to DART by ATE ($20M/yr)
• Cottonbelt Commuter Rail possible to DFW (need operating rights) • Other capital projects affordable (HOVs, Local Assistance)
SUBURBAN TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE Concept Financial Plan Sources of FundsSales Tax Fare Box 􀁾 $82,489,000 $5,000,000 􀁾 $85,788,560 $5,000,000 􀁾 $89,220,102 $5,000,000 1996 $92,788,906
$5,500,000 lm.Z $96,500,463 $5,500,000 1W6. $100,360,481 $5,500,000 􀁾 $104,374,901 $6,050,000 2.QQQ $108,549,897 $6,050,000 [TOtal Sources ofFUrldS $87,489,000 $90,788,560 $94,220,102
$98,288,906 $102,000,463 $105,860,481 $110,424,901 $114,599,8971 Uses of Funds Operating Uses of Funds Operating Expenses $4,000,000 $4,160,000 $5,826,400 $6,059,456 $6,301,834 $6,553,908
$6,816,064 $7,088,706 Bus Operating Expense $20,000,000 $21 ,400,000 $22,898,000 $24,500,860 $26,215,920 $28,051,035 $30,014,607 $32,115,630 Bus & Van Replacement $4,000,000 $4,160,000
$4,326,400 $4,499,456 $4,679,434 $4,866,612 $5,061,276 $5,263,727 Capital Planning $3,000,000 $3,120,000 $3,244,800 $3,374,592 $3,509,576 $3,649,959 $3,795,957 $3,947,795 Capital Programs
Cottonbelt Commuter Rail $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000 Maintenance Facility $$18,000,000 Total Uses of Funds $69,000,000 $62,840,000 $66,295,600 $68,434,364 $40,706,764
$43,121,513 $45,687,904 $48,415,858 I Operating Reserve $7,750,000 $8,210,000 $9,073,900 $9,608,591 $10,176,691 $10,780,378 $11,421,976 $12,103,965 This plan assumes that the current
Bus Fleet used in suburban service (200) and transit centers would become the property of the suburban entity. This represents $300M in assets, that was funded 80% by the Federal Government.
The Cottonbelt is a $20M asset that is also assumed to be transfered. Any additional capital projects are eligible for Federal funding, subject to compliance with the extensive requirements
of the process. 4/30/92
DART Sales Tax Trends 200,000,000 180,000,000 160,000,000 140,000,000 120,000,000 100,000,000 80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000,00001984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
en c: .-o-oQ) o o .c..:. >< co < .... e en Q) co en T""" 0) >L1. fIl co co C fIl .c :E:E ... ....N ::I .c 􀁾 ... c:o 􀁾 ... ::I 􀁾􀁾 en 􀁾 􀁾 . . fIl ... (/)al (1) c:r:a: .r:: 􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁊􀁾
-...Jal 0 􀁣􀀺􀁲􀀺􀁾 CfIl
Population, Sales Tax Collections, & Per Capita Sales Tax Comparison between 1986 and 1991 DART Service Area 86 Population FY86 Sales Tax '86 Per Capita 1990 Census FY91 Sales Tax '91
Per Capita Dallas 941,700 $98,853,564 $104.97 1,006,877 $117,012,000 $116.21 Garland 174,550 $8,217,740 $47.08 180,650 $10,174,000 $56.32 Irving 141,600 $12,567,386 $88.75 155,037 $19,730,000
$127.26 jPlano 108,000 $9,074,009 $84.02 128,713 $16,046,000 $124.66 Carrollton 68,450 $5,829,522 $85.16 82,169 $8,572,000 $104.32 Richardson 74,250 $8,249,877 $111 .11 74,840 $11,915,000
$159.21 Farmers Bran 24,400 $9,378,478 $384.36 24,250 $7,319,000 $301.81 Addison 9,550 $3,384,778 $354.43 8,783 $5,320,000 $605.72 Univ Park 22,550 $1,051,876 $46.65 22,259 $1,519,000
$68.24 Highland ParI 9,000 $833,240 $92.58 8,739 $922,000 $105.50 Rowlett 15,200 $534,665 $35.18 23,260 $639,000 $27.47 Coppell 10,500 $332,877 $31.70 0 $0 $0.00 Flower Mound 11,800
$212,051 $17.97 ° $0 $0.00 Glenn Hts 4,000 $26,293 $6.57 4,564 $37,000 $8.11 Cockrell Hill 3,050 $76,627 $25.12 3,746 $64,000 $17.08 Buckingham 103 $0 102 $232,000 $2,274.51 Total 1,618,703
$158,622,983 $97.99 1,723,989 $199,501,000 $115.72
7 MOBILITY 2010 UPDATE GOALS 1. ISTEA Requirements/Guidelines 2. Financially Constrained Plan 3. Public and Agency Involvement 4. Mobility and Access 5. Economic Growth/Land Use Compatibility
6. Multi-Modal/Congestion Management Alternatives 7. Right-Way Preservation 8. Innovative Financing/Additional Funding Needs 9. Environmental, Economic, and Social Benefits 10. Guide
Expenditure of Transportation Funds 11. Inventory and Maintain Needs Plan 3
.c: MOBILITY 2010 PLAN UPDATE ISTEA REQUIREMENTS Extend Plan to Metropolitan Area Boundary Develop a Financially Constrained Plan Include Transportation Enhancement Component Address
Intermodal and Multi-modal Needs Account for Maintenance Costs Meet Air Quality Conformity/SIP Requirements Consider ISTEA's 15 Factors
U1 MOBILITY 2010 PLAN UPDATE ADDITIONAL NEEDS Expand Congestion Management Component Refine Plan Recommendations by Mode Develop Consistency with TIP Improve on Cost Information Increase
Public Involvement Provide Design Year Volumes
en MOBILITY 2010 PLAN UPDATE ADDRESSING THE FINANCIAL SHORTFALL Implement a Multi-modal Management Approach Fund only Cost-Effective Capital Improvements Pursue Dallas-Fort Worth Share
of State and Federal Discretionary Funds Develop Incentives for Local Government and Private Sector Participation Advance Additional Funding Options
􀁾 MOBILITY 2010 PLAN UPDATE ADDITIONAL FUNDING OPTIONS Tollroad Construction Peak-Period Pricing Motor Fuel Taxes Motor Vehicle Registration Fees Truck Weight Taxes Impact Fees (Chapter
395)
1994 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN -TxDOT National Highway System • Category 3A Funding Summary ($ millions) Level of Authority Fort Worth District Dallas District III $ 83.99 $ 4.50 II 187.45
900.98 I 1,075.03 333.80 Hold 520.93 269.33 $1,867.40 $1,508.61 Source: TxDOT, 1994 PDP September 1993
DRAFT TxDOT District 18 -2010 Funding Outlook -Base Case (Millions Current Year Dollar) Funding 􀀧􀀱􀀱􀀡􀀺􀁾􀀧􀁉􀁾􀁬􀁩􀀡􀀱􀁜􀀱􀀱􀀡􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁪􀀡􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁜􀁉􀁉􀁾􀁬􀁴􀁬􀁾􀁜􀁉􀀧􀁪􀁬􀁾􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀁉�
�􀁬􀁬􀀱􀁾􀀢􀁾􀁾􀂷􀂷􀁬􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁩􀁬􀁬􀂷􀀺􀁩􀁊 10 Year Total 10 Year for 10 Year for 17 Year Total Amount for Amount for SafetyI Category Within MAB Capacity Main. &Other Within MAB Capacity
Main. &Other 1 Interstate Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Interstate Maintenance (HOV) 156 0 156 265 0 265 3A NHS Mobility 538 538 0 915 915 0 3B Texas Trunk 95 95 0 161 161 0 3C NHS Rehabilitation
27 0 27 45 0 45 3D NHS Traffic Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 3E NHS Miscellaneous 8 8 0 14 14 0 4A* STP-Safety 58 0 58 99 0 99 4B* STP-Enhancements 58 0 58 99 0 99 4C STP-MM 289 289 0 491 491
0 4D STP-UM 32 32 0 54 54 0 4E STP-RM 24 24 0 40 40 0 4F State Rehabilitation 88 0 88 149 0 149 4G* STP-Railroad Grade Cross 16 0 16 27 27 0 5 CMAQ 288 0 288 490 0 490 6A On-System Bridge
117 117 0 198 198 0 6B Off-System Bridge 20 20 0 34 0 34 7 Preventive Maintenance 61 0 61 104 0 104 8 State F.M. 9 9 0 15 15 0 9* State Park Roads 8 8 0 14 0 14 10* Rehab of Signs &Signals
32 0 32 55 0 55 11 State Funded Discretionary 21 21 0 36 36 0 12· Commission Strategic Prior 139 139 0 236 236 0 13 State Funded Mobility 361 361 0 614 614 0 14 State Rehabilitation
23 0 23 39 0 39 15 Federal Demonstration 0 0 0 0 0 0 16· Miscellaneous 29 29 0 49 49 0 17 PASS Metro Match 30 30 0 30 30 0 18 PASS 115 115 0 115 115 0 District 18 Total 2642 1835 807
4388 2995 1393 Source: NCTCOG in consultation with TxDOT -Assumes TxDOT Funding to Remain at Current Levels
MOBILITY 2010 UPDATE REVENUE FORECAST Available Funding ($ millions) Current Funding Moderate Mode/Scenario Levels Growth Roadway District 2 Capacity $1,336 $2,567 District 18 Capacity
$2,995 $3,977 Capacity Subtotal $4,331 $6,544 Transit Section 3 $ 794 $1,802 Section 9 $ 334 $ 480 Capacity Subtotal $1,128 $2,282 Capacity Total $5,459 $8,826
'. MOBIUTY 2010 UPDATE REVENUE FORECAST AVAILABLE FUNDING ($ millions) I Mode \ Scenario I Current Funding Moderate Levels* Growth** Roadway District 2 Capacity $1,336 $2,567 Safety,
Maintenance Ie Other $900 $1,712 District 18 Capacity $2,995 $3,977 Safety, Maintenance Ie Other $1,393 $1,871 Capacity Subtotal $4,331 $6,544 Transit Section 3 $794 $1,802 Section 9
$334 $480 Capacity Subtotal $1,128 $2,282 Capacity Total I $5,459 I $8,826 I
Assumptions ** Moderate Growth Scenario Gas Tax (cents/calion) (Mure scenarios will assume gas tax increases) Year Total Highway Transit Total Highway Federal Fund Fund State Fund 1994
18.3 10.0 1.5 20 15 1996 18.3 12.0 2.0 20 15 2010 18.3 12.0 2.0 20 15 o Texas averages a 94% return on federal gas tax Growth o 1% annual increase in gasoline sales o 2% annual increase
in vehicle registrations o General Fund support fo! federal mass transportation continues at current level ($) Revenue Distribution o TxDOT District 2 maintains a 9% share of TxDOT funding
o TxDOT District 18 maintains a 16% share of TxDOT funding o Current proportions of construction and maintenance expenditures are maintained o Current proportions of FTA Section 9 is
maintained and Section 3 proportion is doubled due to aggressive regional effort Inflation o Inflation effects will be added in future scenarios
Assumptions * Status Quo Scenario Gas Tax o No real increase in revenue due to gas tax increase o Texas averages a 94% return on federal gas tax Growth o No real growth is assumed o
Funding levels remain essentialy the same as today Revenue Distribution o TxDOT District 2 maintains a 9% share of TxDOT funding o TxDOT District 18 maintains a 16% share of TxDOT funding
o Current proportions of construction and maintenance expenditures are maintained o Current proportions of FTA Sections 3 and 9 are maintained Inflation o Inflation effects will be added
in future scenarios
SUMMARY OF HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE AND RAIL WARRANTS Freeway Rehabilitation Costs1 $15.6 MlCenter Line Mile Freeway (at arade) $2.5 M/Lane Mile Freeway (elevated) $3.5 MlLane Mile HOV
Lane (at grade) $5.0 M/Lane Mile HOV Lane (elevated) $7.0 M/Lane Mile ROW $1.56 MlLane Mile 1 $2.6 MlLane Mile x 6-Lane Facility = $15.6 M/Center Line Mile Ratio of HOV Costs/Freeway
Costs = 1.0 General HOV Warrant: 1,900 Persons per Lane x 1.14 AO =2,166 x 1.0 =2,200 Persons/Peak Hour/Peak Direction Freeway Costs with Rehabilitation $23.72 M Commuter Rail $ 5.0
M (Ratio 0.2) Lower Cost Light Rail $15.0 M (Ratio 0.6) Light Rail Extension $25.0 M (Ratio 1.1) General Rail Warrant (2,200 x Ratio): Commuter Rail 2,750 Weekday; 440 Peak Hour/Peak
Direction Lower Cost Light Rail 8,250 Weekday; 1,320 Peak Hour/Peak Direction Light Rail Extension 15,125 Weekday; 2,420 Peak Hour/Peak Direction
MOBILITY 2010 PLAN UPDATE AVERAGE RAIL LINK VOLUMES BY SEGMENT SEGMENT RAIL SEGMENT DESCRIPTION LIGHT RAIL LIGHT RAIL COMMUTER RAIL COMMUTER RAIL NUMBER MODE LINE FROM TO DAILY l'lIDERS
PKHRRIDERS DAILY RIDERS PKHRRIDERS COMMENTS 1 Light Rail Starter CBD Transit Mall Houston Ross 45,000 7,515 N/A N/A Committed Light Rail 2 Light Rail Starter SouthlWest Oak Cliff Houston
Clarendon (Split) 33,200 5,544 N/A N/A Committed Light Rail 3 Light Rail Starter West Oak Cliff Clarendon (Split) Tyler St. 13,800 2,305 N/A N/A Committed Light Rail 4 Light Rail Starter
West Oak Cliff Tyler St. Illinois Ave. 7,700 1,286 N/A N/A Committed Light Rail 5 Light Rail Starter South Oak Cliff Clarendon (Split) Kiest Blvd. 11,300 1,887 N/A N/A Committed Light
Rail 6 Light Rail Starter South Oak Cliff Kiest Blvd. Loop 12 5,500 919 N/A N/A Committed Light Rail 7 Light Rail Starter North Central Ross Mockingbird 41,900 6,997 N/A· N/A Committed
Light Rail 8 Light Rail Starter North Central Mockingbird Park Lane 32,500 5,428 N/A N/A Committed Light Rail 9 Light Rail Ext. South Oak Cliff Loop 12 Camp Wisdom 200 33 N/A N/A Light
Rail Local Funds 10 Light Rail Ext. Pleasant Grove Ross (Transit Mall) Dolphin Rd. 8,600 1,436 N/A N/A Initia' I ight Rail 􀀮􀁳􀀫􀁾􀁣􀁲􀀧􀁤 Le L tv 11 Light Rail Ext. Pleesant Grove
Dolphin Rd. Elam Rd. 4,300 718 N/A N/A Staged Low Cost Light Rail 12 Comm./Lrt. Ext. Garland Mockingbird Lane IH 635 8,000 1,336 2,500 400 Staged Low Cost Light Rail/Commuter Rail 13
Comm./Lrt. Ext. Garland IH635 Walnut St. 4,300 718 2,300 368 Staged Low Cost Light Rail/Commuter Rail 14 Light Rail Ext. North Central Park lane IH635 26,100 4,359 N/A N/A Light Rail/Staged
Low Cost Light Rail 15 Light Rail Ext. North Central IH 635 Ir1le1'tlrbIm St. f\ r 􀁾􀁾􀀿 􀁾 16,700 2,789 N/A N/A Light Rail/Staged Low Cost Light Rail 16 Light Rail Ext. North Central
Interurban St. FM 544 9,200 1,536 N/A N/A Light Rail/Staged Low Cost Light Rail 􀁾􀁗􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀬􀂷 17 Commuter Rail Cottonbelt FM544 (Plano) Dallas North Tollway N/A N/A 2,900 464 Commuter
Rail 18 Commuter Rail Cottonbelt Dallas North Tollway IH 35 E N/A N/A 2,400 384 Commuter Rail 19 Commuter Rail Cottonbelt IH 35 E D/FW Airport N/A N/A 500 80 Future Commuter Rail EX1ension
20 Comm./Lrt. EX1. Stemmons Union Station Love Field 10,000 1,670 6,300 1,008 Staged Low Cost Light Rail/Commuter Rail 21 Comm./Lrt. Ext. Stemmons (Las Colinas) Walnut Hill O'Connor
Blvd. 2,900 484 2,700 432 Staged Low Cost Light Rail/Commuter Rail 22 Comm./Lrt. EX1. Stemmons Love Field IH635 4,700 785 4,400 704 Staged Low Cost Light Rail/Commuter Rail 23 Comm./Lrt.
Ext. Stemmons IH635 Dickerson Blvd./SH190 3,000 501 4,000 640 Staged Low Cost Light Rall/Commuter Rail 24 Commuter Rail Railtran Fort Worth CBD Centreport Station N/A N/A 4,000 640 Commuter
Rail 25 Commuter Rail Railtran Centerport Station S. Irving Station N/A N/A 6,700 1,072 Commuter Rail 26 Commuter Rail Railtran S. Irving Station DallasCBD N/A N/A 7,100 1,136 Commuter
Rail 27 Commuter Rail Railtran Centerport Station D/FW Airport N/A N/A 1,000 160 Future Commuter Commuter Rail EX1enslon Source: NCTCOG 9/17/93
TOLL ROAD ANALYSIS * FRTG VOLUME PERCENT LANES TOTAL REVENUE I LIMITS (YIN) (1000'S) VOLUME COST ANNUAL COST RETAINED (1) (2) FREE $0.08 $0.12 (MIL) $0.08 $0.12 WEST FORK TRINITY IH820
-SH360 N 88 68 55 n% 4 $161 1.53 1.87 SH360 -SH161 N n 60 49 780/0 4 $74 1.36 1.66 SH161 -lP12 N 89 70 56 80% 4 $131 1.60 1.80 lP12 -TRNTY PKY N 57 45 39 79% 4 $134 1.02 1.30 TRINITY
PARKWAY IH35E -W. FORK N 143 74 55 51% 10 $10 0.66 0.75 W. FORK -IH30 N 167 97 75 58% 10 $60 0.92 1.08 IH30 -SANTE FE N 163 114 94 70% 8 $21 1.30 1.58 SANTE FE -US75 N 96 64 49 67% 6
$42 0.97 1.10 SA 190<····· .... IH35E-DNT YIN 97 54 38 56% 6 $111 0.82 0.85 DNT-US75 YIN 97 54 35 46% 6 $180 0.81 0.79 US75 -SH78 Y 70 32 22 46% 6 $102 0.48 0.49 SH78 -IH30 N 50 32 28
63% 4 $180 0.72 0.95 􀁎􀁾􀀮􀂷􀂷􀁔􀁁􀁒􀁐􀁋􀁗􀁙 IH35W -US377 N 25 15 9 60% 4 $50 0.34 0.29 SA 121 .... INT.PKY-FM2281 Y 64 40 28 62% 4 $99 0.89 0.95 FM2281 -US75 Y 39 21 16 56% 4 $228
0.50 0.56 SH121. (S.W.FRWY) IH35W-IH30 N 90 69 59 74% 8 $60 0.82 1.05 IH30-IH20 YIN 84 49 43 66% 6 $56 0.73 1.10 IH20 -S.S. RD YIN 40 29 24 64% 4 $38 0.65 0.81 8.S. RD-FM1187 YIN 13
7 4 53% 4 $75 0.16 0.14 SH 161 BElTLlNE -IH635 Y 173 145 129 84% 10 $34 1.31 1.75 IH635 -IH35E N 112 69 54 62% 6 $74 1.04 1.20 SH183 -IH30 Y 133 88 65 66% 8 $111 1.04 1.15 IH30-IH20
Y 68 34 26 49% 4 $69 0.75 0.86 SANTE FE BYPASS :: . . ... IH35E -IH30 N 54 40 30 55% 4 $15 0.90 1.01 S.LOOP9 .. ........ IH35W -US287 N 15 9 6 58% 4 $383 0.20 0.19 US287-US67 N 27 19
14 71% 4 $530 0.43 0.48 US67 -IH35E N 16 8 5 49% 4 $70 0.18 0.18 􀁅􀁾􀁗􀀧􀁃􀁏􀁎􀁎􀁅􀁃􀁔􀁏􀁒 . .'. . .. SH360 -SH161 N 53 34 28 63% 6 $75 0.51 0.63 1) Based on average cost of $4.00 million
per lane mile 2) Annual revenue based on 300 days of operation Costs obtained by assuming 6% discount rate for 40 years • Existing plus committednetwork -1993 TIP20 Source: NCTCOG, 1993
\D 􀁾 iamI CIIIYMl􀁾􀁺􀁩􀀱􀁉􀁏􀁾 􀁾􀀮 _A __ MOBILITY TOLL 2010 ROAD PLAN UPDATE ANALYSIS LEGEND -NEW I'II&VMft XIXJX VOLUMe AM" 􀀱􀁾􀀱
MOBILITY 2010 PLAN UPDATE Congestion Management Planning Strategies Begin Comprehensive Congestion Management Data Collection System Develop Regional Congestion Management Plan/System
Conduct Rall/HOV AA Studies at Regular Intervals Conduct Freeway and Design Studies Integrated with AA Process
---MOBILITY 2010 PLAN UPDATE Congestion Management Implementation Strategies Implementation through the Transportation Improvement Program Establishment of Transportation Management
Associations Expansion of Traffic Management Teams Voluntary Employer/Employee Programs Implementation of Policies and Programs Through TxDOT, Transit Authorities and Local Governments
MPO Coordination of Programs Sub-Area Focus Planning and Implementation " r
M.OBILITY 2010 PLAN UPDATE Performance Evaluation Congestion Management Percent Performance Measure Base System System Change* Vehicle Mlle. of Travel 121.56 million 119.99 million .
-1.29% Vehicle Hours of Travel 5.00 million 4.80 million -4.00% Average Loaded Speed 25.74 mph 26.23 mph, +1.90% Veh Hrs of Traffic Control Delay 0.34 million 0.25 million -26.82% Veh
Hrs of Congestion Delay 2.13 million 2.02 million -5.16 % Total Veh Hrs of Delay 2.47 million 2.27 million -8.10% * Total Annual Benefits =$464 million Benefit/Cost =8
MOBILITY 2010 PLAN UPDATE Annual Congestion Annual Congestion Management 􀁓􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁧􀁾 Benefits Costs Traffic Signal Improvements $187 million $3.3 million Intersection Improvements
$365 million $7.5 million Freeway Incident Detection/Response -􀁾 Surveillance and Response $ 50 million $11 million Motorist Assistance Program $ 200 million $12 million Employer Trip
Reduction Program $ 97 million $ 1 million Vanpool Program $ 33 million $4.3 million Park·N·Rlde Facilities $ 22 million $ 3 million TOTAL $954 million $42.1 million
RECEIVED MAY I 2 1994 Mayor's Meeting DART Update April 22, 1994 CITY MANAGER Attendance City Mayor City Manager Addison Rich Beckert, Mayor Ron Whitehead, City Manager Carrollton Milburn
Gravely, Mayor Dan Johnson, City Manager Cockrell Hill Tony Hinojosa, Mayor Charles Slayton and Richard Perez, Councilmembers Farmers Branch Calla Davis, Mayor Pro Tern Richard Escalante,
City Manager Garland Bob Smith, Mayor JeffMuzzy, ACM Highland Park Bob Wilbur, Mayor Pro Tern George Patterson, City Manager Irving Morris Parrish, Councilmember Steve McCullough, City
Manager Plano James Muns, Mayor Tom Muehlenbeck, City Manager James McCarley, ACM Richardson Gary Slagel, Mayor Jerry Hiebert, ACM Rowlett Mike McCallum, Mayor Mike Gibson, City Manager
University Park Barbara Hitzelberger, Mayor Bob Livingston, City Manager The meeting began at 10:30 a.m. with Mayor Slagel stating that the purpose was to have a general discussion about
the present status and impressions ofDART. Mayor Slagel offered a positive review ofthe meeting that had occurred between Roger Snoble and the Richardson Council. He suggested that the
meeting should focus on the upcoming DART Service Plan revisions, the status oftransportation planning throughout the region and a review ofhow DART could best playa role in the near
term. Overall, the discussion was very positive regarding DART's performance over the past 12 months. The following is an account ofthose discussions and a summary ofthe actions from
the meeting. General Feedback Mayor Muns indicated that with the revised Service Plan in the works, DART needs to make something happen in the next two years or it would be difficult
to forestall a pull-out election in Plano. He also stated that Plano had asked DART for information about
Mayors Meeting on DART 5/6/94 page 2 pulling out ofDART. They had been told that it would cost Plano $51 million. Plano questions the validity ofthose numbers, but in any event it would
take 2 years for Plano to withdraw. James McCarley indicated that DART should consider extending funding of the LAP program. Tom Muehlenbeck indicated that it may be wise for suburbs
to have a "back-up plan" for providing transportation services should there be a rash ofwithdrawal elections in 1996. Dan Johnson indicated that at the recent DRMC meeting Snoble was
asked about the New Vision Plan and commuter rail issues. Snoble's responses did not seem to indicate that they are looking at a financially constrained plan, as does the New Vision
Plan. It is hard to determine whether financial problems are the fault ofDART, Dallas or both. He indicated that the new Board seemed to be doing a better job. Richard Escalante indicated
that they had a good meeting with Snoble, but that he doesn't seem to be a proponent for low cost rail extension, such as the single track method. Farmers Branch feels that immediate
service of some type is very important. Councilmember Morris Parrish indicated that Irving is moderately pleased with progress on their commuter rail, although service will take 18 months
to begin after the agreements are signed, and they are not yet signed. Mayor Smith indicated that Garland had a positive meeting with Roger Snoble, but that Snoble indicated that Dallas
is "ready to go it alone" if suburbs withdraw from DART. A brief discussion ofDART's fare box recovery proposals followed. It was the general consensus that this is an operational issue
and should be resolved by DART management and board and not suburban action. There was also a discussion about the new Board configuration and the appointment process ofrepresentatives
by cities who shared representatives. The consensus was that the present process is working well, so long as a regional perspective is maintained. There was the feeling that the DART
LAP funds have done a great deal ofgood for the region and should be better publicized by DART. Mobility 2010 Plan Mayor Slagel reviewed in some detail the NCTCOG 2010 Mobility Plan,
and its provisions for rail, HOV and highway extensions. The consensus ofthe group was that any revised DART Service Plan should closely resemble the NCTCOG Plan. There was positive
discussion regarding the potential ofthe Cotton Belt both providing service to the airports as well as linking the major employment centers. Both Mayors Muns and Slagel stated that their
cities look favorably on stopping the Central light rail line at LBJ in favor of using the available dollars to develop that commuter rail corridor. Bus Service A poll was taken regarding
the impact and importance ofcurrent bus service. It was felt that DART bus service is an important element in addressing our current and future air quality issues. All felt that bus
service is important to both their residential citizens and corporate citizens as an effective method ofimporting ofimporting and exporting workers. All cities
Mayors Meeting on DART 5/6/94 page 3 have developed a dependence on the express service. In most cases, the use ofthe bus system for internal service was felt to be marginal. The consensus
of the group was that DART should do a better job of matching equipment and routes with actual need. It was felt that the public still takes issue with DART's bus service primarily due
to the 50 passenger busses carrying 4 or 5 riders Conclusions and Actions In conclusion, the members agreed that the following issues were ofutmost importance and should be addressed;
• Mayors should have the opportunity to review the DART staff concepts for the revised System Plan before it is presented to and approved by the DART Board. Once made public, it w1.l1be
more difficult to make changes than if there is input to a Draft Plan. Mayor Slagel will pursue setting such a meeting. . . . • All cities will communicate to their DART representatives
their desires to have the revised DART service plan conform to the 2010 COG plan. Mayor Slagel had COG deliver information about the 2010 COG Mobility Plan to each ofthe Mayors for their
discussions. Each city will pursue this separately. • All cities will communicate to their DART representatives the need to provide visible service progress by 1996, an issue which is
crucial to DART's continued viability. Suburban cities will also make it very clear that they are willing to trade high cost services at some distant time in the future for lower cost
solutions in the next couple of years. Each city will pursue this separately. • A request would be made to DART for a review oftheir financial staffs projections for Dallas supporting
DART without funding from the suburbs. Mayor Slagel will make the request. • A request would be made to DART to review their analysis ofthe legal and financial implications to each member
city in the event of a 1996 withdrawal. Mayor Slagel will make the request. • A "what if' review would be conducted to determine how bus service could be provided to any suburb that
may be be faced with a 1996 withdrawal. City Manager Muehlenbeck will lead the review effort. The meeting adjourned at Noon. job 516/94 n:mmyrdart
Dallas Area Rapid Transit P.O. Box 660163 Dallas. Texas 75266·0163 214/149·3278 RECEIVED SEP -9 1994 CITY MANAGER 􀀡􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀻 September 8, 1994 Honorable Rich Beckert
Mayor Town of Addison P.O. Box 144 Addison, TX 75001 FAX #960·7684 Dear Mayor Beckert: On Tuesday, September 6, 1994, we faxed a copy of a staff analysis on the financial impact on a
member citY that elects to withdraw from DART. The Board discussed this analysis on Tuesday and intends to continue discussions on September 13, 1994. We will forward a final copy of
this analysis to you after the Board completes it's review. Sincer y, 􀁾􀁡􀁤􀁹􀁣􀁬􀁾 Kathy Ingle Chair KI:stg c: Ron Whitehead, City Manager Board of Directors Roger Snoble /'to'd e-89L0966
01
III•••• _ ' , --, F4X Transmission RECEIVED DART Pages: 19 (including this one) September 6, 1994 1:59 PM Front Kathy Ingle SEP -61994 Questions? Call 749-3347 Fax 749-3651 , 214/960-7684
To: Mayor Rich Beckert/City Manager, 􀁾􀁯􀁮 rfuitehead 􀁾􀁾􀁃􀁾􀀧􀁾􀁔􀁾􀁙􀁾􀁍􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁾 Company: Town: of Addison Address: Date: Time: '. Message: "-Attached is a copy
of a paper prepared by DARt staff in response to your request regarding the withdrawal of member <?ities from DART. Due to the importance of this subject to the member cities and since
it is being discussed by the Board today, we felt it was important to fax you a copy'Of the preliminary draft today. Since this is being reviewed by the Board, there could be changes
made. We will mail you a final version on Friday after the Board has reviewed the paper. Attachment
TentatIve and Prellmfnary For 􀁾􀁳􀁣􀁵􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮 Purposes Only DRAFT Financial Considerations Regarding the Withdrawal of a Member City from DART September 6, 1994 Introduction and Purpose
The purpose of this report is to: 1. Sununarize when and how a member city can elect to withdraw from DART; 2. Estimate the financial impact ofa withdrawal decision; and 3. Address how
the various debt scenarios in DART's Draft FY 1995 Financial Plan affect a member city's financial obligation ifthey choose to withdraw. Please note that the projected amounts and financial
liabilities described in tbis memorandum are to facilitate discussion or withdrawal issues aDd not meant to commit the Agency to any predetenn.ined position or calculation methodology.
Tbe calculation or a member city's obligation per DART's enabling legislation is subject to Board policy decisions and legal considerations. Withdrawal Options for Member Cities pel'
1118y The withdrawal of a member city is addressed in DART's enabling legislation; specifically in Section 9A. Article IIISy, Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, as amended. (See
Attachment #I) Initiation of Withdrawal. There are two methods to initiate a withdrawal election from DART. First, the governing body of the unit of election (i.e. city council) may
call an election for withdrawal. Second, any qualified voter of a member city may request an 'official petition for withdrawal from the city secretary. The petition must be signed by
not less than 8% of the registered voters in that unit of election and returned to the city secretary within 60 days. If the petition is judged to be valid. the city shall have an election
for withdrawal. Timing of Elections -A withdrawal election can only occur during the calendar year of 1996 or every six years thereafter (2002. 2008. 2014, etc.). If called. the eleGtion
is to be held on the first unifonn election date following the expiration of 45 days after the election is called. If the election is called) the proposition stated in the ballot shall
read: "Shall the Dallas Area Rapid Transit be continued in (the name of city)." The election shall be held at the regular precincts and voting places in accordance to the Texas Election
Code. If the majority of the qualified 􀁶􀁯􀁴􀁥􀁾 in the city vote in favor of the proposition, DART will continue in that city. If the proposition fails, then as of the midnight that
the election returns are canvassed, all public transportation services provided by DART would tenninate and the financial obligations oftbe authority attributable to that city would
c:ease to accrue. ·1· Tentative and PrelJminary For Discussion Purooses Onlv
Tentatrve and Prellmfnary For Discussion Purposes Only Financial Impact on a Withdrawinc City The withdrawal ofa unit ofelection under DART's legislation is subject to the requirements
ofthe United States and Texas constitutions prohibiting the impainnent of contracts. Thereforet DARTs statute requires continued collection of sales taxes in a "unit of election" (i.e.
member city) until the "financial obligation-ofthat member city is reduced to zero. The statute defines the computation to calculate a member city's financial obligation. Each member
city is responsible for its share ofDARTs general financial obligation, plus that city's specific financial obligation. less that city's share ofDART's unencumbered assets. A DART staff
estimate of each city's projected liability is included in Attaclunent 2. DARTs general obligation is allocated to member cities based on the ratio of population of that member city
to the total population of the DART SeIVice Area. A sununary of each city's population percentage is included in Attachment 3. The general obligation is composed of the following elements.
(a) "The current obligations of the authority authorized in the current budget and contracted for by the authority;II (b) "The amount of contractual obligations outstanding at that time
for capital or other expenditures in the current or subsequent years, the payment of which has not been made or provided for from the proceeds of notes, bonds, or other obligations;"
(c) "All amounts due and to become due in the current and subsequent years on all notes, bonds, or other securities or obligations for debt issued by the authority and outstanding;"
(d) "The amount required by the authority to be reserved for aU years to comply with financial covenants made with lenders, bond or note holders, or other creditors or contractors;"
and (e) "Any additional amount, which may include an amount for contingent liabilitiest determined by the executive conunittee to be the amount necessary for the full and timely payment
of the current and continuing obligations of the authority. to avoid a default or impairment of those obligations. " A member city's specific obligation is defined as "any additional
amount detennined by the executive committee [i.e. Board) to be necessary and appropriate to allocate to the member city because of current and continuing obligations of the authority
that relate specifically to that member city" plus "the amount of cost incurred by the authority for any capital improvements transferred to the city, if any." The "unencumbered assets
of the authority consist of cash, cash deposits. certificates of deposit, and bonds, stocks,·and other negotiable securities," that are not pledged for repayment ofexisting contractual
or debt obligations. These assets are prorated to each member city· based on the -2-Tentative and Preliminary For Discussion Purposes Only
Tentative and Preflmlnary For DIscussion Purposes Only average of that city's population percentage and percentage of total sales taxes collected by DART. Please refer to Attachment
3 for a summary of sales tax percentages for each member city. General OQligation and Unencumbered Assets The following chart summarizes DART's estimated general liability and unencumbered
assets as of March 31, 1994 and September 30J 1996. The following DART starr estimates are based on current information. The actual general obligatioDs and unencumbered assets in 1996
will vary depending on actual contract 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁭􀁩􀁴􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳􀁾 debt outstanding, and contingent liabilities at the time of a withdrawal election. In addition, the DART Board will have
to make several policy decisions in order to finalize the obligation caJculationin the event that a city.elects to withdraw from DART. Total General Obligation (a) Budgeted and contracted
(b) Capital and other contractual obligations (c) Debt outstanding (d) Debt reserves (e) Contingent and other liabilities $75.4 $90.9 447.8 188.2 20.5 275.0 0.0 0.0 107.2 107.7 􀀡􀁾􀀺􀁴􀁾􀀨􀀮􀁬􀁴􀁧􀀺
􀁾􀁩􀁪􀂷􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀣􀀬􀁩􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀂷􀀺􀀻􀁩􀀺􀀻􀀺􀂷􀁾􀁦􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀂷􀁾􀀮􀀻􀀺􀀡􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁩􀀺􀁻􀁾􀂷􀁦􀀺􀀻􀂥􀁾􀀻􀂷􀀨􀁩􀀻􀀮􀁉􀁻􀀺􀀧􀀻􀂷􀀾􀀺􀂷 􀂷􀂷􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁩􀀻􀁾􀂷􀀺􀀰􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀤􀂷􀁦􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁾
􀀺􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁾􀁦􀀻􀀻􀁾􀁩􀁜􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁪􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀹􀀮􀀺􀀿 Note 1 • The above DART still" estimates are besed 0C1 cum:nt infonnatiOll Th¢ aetual general obligations and uoencuznbered assets in 1996
will vary depc:oding 􀁾 actual contract commitments, debt outstaIIding. and continacnt liabilities at the time of a withdrawal clcetiOll. In addition, the; DART Board will have to make:􀁾
policy decisions in order to fJ.DAIize the obligation calculation in the event lhala city elects to withdraw from DART. (9/6194). The March 3 I. 1994 amounts for lines (a) and (b) are
estimated contract commitments. We did not perform a detailed compilation of all existing 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁣􀁴􀁵􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁩􀁡􀁢􀁩􀁬􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁥􀁳􀁾 howeverJ the majority of of line (b) is related
to known conunitments for light rail. commuter rail. and bus projects, and multi-year contracts for suburban bus and paratransit operations. Line (b) has been reduced by the amount of
Federal participation in these contracts (e.g. $160 million on the LRT segment). The $20.5 million ofdebt outstanding on line (c) relates to the corporate headquarters note. Line (e)
is based on actual general ledger liabilities at March 31 J 1994. plus the unfunded pension liability of S18.1 million. Total unencumbered assets are based on cash, cash reservesJ and
investments per the general ledger at March 3 J. 1994. Tentative and PrelimInary For Discussion Purposes Only
Tentative and Preliminary For Discussion Purposes Only The September 30, 1996 amounts are based on projected assets, liabilities. and contractual commitments in the Draft FY 1995 Financial
Plan. We have assumed the "Series of Five Year Notes-option which projects S275 million of debt. Under this option, DART would repay the corporate headquarters note ($20.5 million) and
unfunded pension liability ($18.1 million). The major difference in general obligation amounts between today and 1996 is the transfer or funds (rom contractual obligations (line b) to
debt (line c) and tbe reduction in unencumbered assets. DART intends to use cash on band and issue debt to pay (or existing contract commitments. Specific Obligations DARTs enabling
legislation requites obligations specific to a member city to be allocated 1000.10 to that city. An example of a specific obligation would be the repayment of Federal funds for a transit
center that was no longer going to be used for transit purposes because of the withdrawal of a member city. This concept may also apply to repayment of Federal funds for buses. fixed
guideway, and equipment that were no longer necessary due to the withdrawal of one or more member cities. For the purposes of this report. we only address specific obligations for the
repayment of Federal funds on capital facilities (i.e. transit centers) located in the respective cities. Attachment 4 highlights all capital facility costs and associated Federal funds
by member city. Dallas has been excluded from this computation since it is unrealistic to assume that the central city would withdraw from the Agency. If a member city elects to withdraw
from DART, it has two options with respect to the capital facilities located within the city limits. Option 1· A withdrawing city has 30 days to claim a transit center, or any other
real estate (excluding right-or-way) or capital improvement located within the city. If the facility was built with Federal funds and the city intends to use the facility for mass transit.
then the grant must be transferred to the withdrawing city. If the city does not intend to use the facility for mass transit purposes, then the grant must be repaid. In both cases, the
city must reimburse DART for its share of the capital cost of the facility. Notwithstanding the above. DART may make a statutory finding that it has a continuing need for the facility.
In this case, DART has the right to use the facility for 15 years or the remaining amortization period of the Federal grant, whichever is longer. Under this option, DART would have the
obligation to pay all operating and maintenance costs of the facility. IfDART continues to use the facility for mass transit purposes, the Federal grants would not have to be repaid.
Option 2 • If the withdrawing city does not want the facility, then it remains with DART, regardless of whether DART has a continuing need for the facility. If DART has a continuing
need for the facility, the Federal grant would not have to be repaid. IfDART does not have a continuing need for the facility, then the grant Tentative and Preliminary For DiscussIon
Purposes Only
Tentative and Preliminary For Discussion Purposes Only would have to be repaid. In this case. the member city would be Hable for the unamortized portion ofthe outstanding Federal grants
relating to the transit center. For purposes of calculating specific obligations included in Attachment 2. we have assumed Option 2: (i.e. member cities do not elect to take title to
the facility and that DART does not exercise its option to continue to use the facility for mass transit purposes). Under this option. the member city would only be responsible for repaying
the unamortized portion of the outstanding Federal grant. Repayment Assumptions Attachment 2 summarizes the estimated length of time that sales taxes would need to be collected in a
member city to repay that city's net obligation. This required us to make assumptions and project sales tax collections for each member city. This is difficult to predict accurately
because of the reduction in the sales tax base beginning January 1, 1995. We cannot be sure what the impact ofthis change will be on a state-wide or regional 􀁢􀁡􀁳􀁩􀁾 let alone on
an individual city basis. DART's FY 1995 Budget assumes a 70.4 reduction on a regional basis. For purposes of the payback period included in Attachment 2. we have assumed that each member
city will continue to contribute the same percentage ofDAR1"5 total sales tax coUections as they contributed in FY 1993 and FY 1994. A summary of historical and projected sales tax collections
by city are included in Attachment 5. Readers ofthis report should be aware ofthis limitation and may want to adjust the estimated payback period for their own sales tax projections.
Impact of Debt on. Withdrawing City The Draft FY 1995 Financial Plan includes three different financing options. Under.lI three scenarios, short-tenn debt issued in 1995 and 1996 are
aecessary to complete the Starter System and repay existing contract commitments. DART staff has recommended a commercial paper program to provide flexibility to borrow funds only when
needed for capital expenditures. In addition, commercial paper does not require DART to maintain additional debt reserves that would add to the general obligation computation shown above
(line d). The following chart summarizes projected debt outstanding at September 30. 1996 under each option. Please refer to the Draft FY 1995 Financial Plan for more detail on these
debt options. 􀁉􀁲􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀀺􀁴􀁬􀀮 Debt Limited to Five Years $229.1 Series ofFive Year Notes 275.0 Long Term Bonds 280.0 Debt outstanding under the Debt Limited to Five Years
option is composed of $209 million of short-term notes and the $20.5 million note on the corporate headquarters. Under the Series of Five Year Notes and Long Tenn Bonds options, the
corporate headquarters note and the $18.1 -5-Tentative and Preliminary For Discussion Purposes Only
Tentative and Prelrmlnary For DiscussIon Purposes Only million pension liability are repaid in 1995. If DART chooses the Debt Limited to Five Years option, the general obligation computation
above would be reduced by $27.8 million. This equates to a reduction of approximately one-tenth of one year from each member city's payback calculation shown in Attachment 2. If this
option is chosen, the trade-off is that the Garland. Richardson. and Plano light rail Jines will be delayed approximately 4 years. It is important to Dote tbat under any of the financing
OptiODS discussed above, the issuance or commercial paper in FY 1995 and FY 1996 does not bave a material impact on a member city's financial Obligation because that obligation already
exists today. This is apparent by comparing lines (b) and (c) on the General Liability chart on page 3. DART currently has over $447 million of outstanding contractual commitments that
must be repaid. By the end of FY 1996. this commitment will be reduced to approximately S188 million through the payment of cash on hand and the issuance ofdebt. The additional debt
issuances after 1996 are currently scheduled after the withdrawal elections and are therefore not anticipated to impact a member cityts financial obligation in 1996. These issuances
are proposed in the Series of Five Year Notes and Long Tenn Bonds options to continue build--out of the light rail system to Garland and Richardson by 2001 and Plano by 2002. Conclusign
The withdrawal of a unit of election under DART's enabling legislation is subject. to the requirements of the United States and 􀁔􀁾 Constitutions prohibiting the impainnent of contracts.
Therefore. member cities are responsible for DART's existing contract commitments that exceed $447 million as ofMarch 31. 1994. The issuance ofdebt in FY 1995 and FY 1996 as projected
in the Draft FY J99S Financial Plan will not significantly impact a member city's financial obligation in FY 1996 because the debt will be issued to pay for existing contract liabilities.
Debt Debt issuances after 1996 are projected to be scheduled after the withdrawal elections and are not anticipated to impact a member city's financial obligation in 1996. Tentative
and Preliminary For Discusslon Purposes Only
A'ITACBMENT 1 Page 1 of 8 TX ClV ST Art. 1118y PAGE 11If the votes cast are such that the authority ceases to exist in its en . ety, the executive committee shall enter an order so declaring
and file a rtified copy of the order with the state Highways and Public Transportation mmission· and the comptroller of pUblic accounts, and the authority shall be ·ssolved. (h) The
cost of the onfirmation election shall be paid by the creating entity or entiti {i}·-If the election result 'n the confirmation of an authority, the' authority shall, within the limit
onfirmed, be authorized to function in accordance with the terms of this and the executive committee may levy and collect the proposed tax within limits. In no event shall the tax authorized
under this Act be levied ny unit of election which has failed to confirm the authority. (j) If the continued existence of an authority is t confirmed by election within three years after
the effective date of resolution(s} or order(s) initiating the process to create the authority, authority ceases to exist on the expiration of the three years. (k), (1) Repealed by Acts
1985, 69th Leg., ch. 101, s 4, 1985. Withdrawals from Authority Sec. 9A. (a) A unit of election may withdraw from an authority created under this Act only in accordance with this section.
An attempt to withdraw from an authority in a manner other than that provided by this section is void. (b) Subject to other provisions of this section, the governing body of a unit of
election may on its own initiative call an election 􀁩􀁾 the unit of election and SUbmit to the voters of the unit of election the proposition prescribed by Subsection (f) of this section.
An election ordered under this subsection for a unit of election located in an authority consisting of one SUbregion governed by a subregional board created under Section 6 of this Act
is not held if the governing body rescinds the order and notice of the election before the 45th day before election day. The governing body shall promptly give notice of the rescission
in the same manner as the notice of election given under SUbsection (e) of this section. (c) On receipt of a petition under Subsection (g) of this section, the governing body of a unit
of election shall examine the petition. If the governing body determines that the petition conforms with the requirements of this section, the governing body, SUbject to the other provisions
of this section, shall call an election in the unit of election and SUbmit to the voters of the unit of election the proposition' prescribed by SUbsection (f) of this section. The governing
body may call and hold pUblic hearings and may conduct or order any investigations the governing body considers appropriate in making the determination under this subsection. The governing
body's determination is conclusive
AirACBKENT 1 Page 2 of 8 TX CIV ST Art. 111Sy PAGE 12 of all issues involved. If the governing body determines that the petition conforms to the requirements of this section, the governing
body shall call an election. If the governing body determines that the petition does not conform to the requirements of this section, the governing body shall reject the petition and
may not call an election. 􀁾 petition rejected under this subsection is void and may not be used in connection with any subsequent petitioning process. (d) (1) An election for withdrawal
in a unit of election under this section, whether by governing body initiative or by petition, may not be called more frequently than once during: (A) the 12-month period immediately
following the date of the election creating the authority; or (B) each 12-month period thereafter. (2) Notwithstanding Subdivision el} of this sUbsection, if the unit of election is
located in a subregion governed by a subregional board created under section 6 of this Act, an election for withdrawal of the unit of election under this section, whether by governing
body initiative or by petition, 􀁾􀁡􀁹 be held not more frequently"than onCe during: (A) each calendar year before January 1, 1992; (B) the calendar year of 1996; or (C) every sixth
calendar year after 1996. (e) An election called under this section shall be held on the first uniform election date for that type of election under the Election Code following the expiration
of 12 calendar months after the date the election is called, except that if the unit of election is located in a sUbregion governed by a subregional board created under Section 6 of
this Act, the election shall be held on the first uniform election date for that type of election under the Election Code following the expiration of 45 days after the date the election
is called. Immediately on calling an election, the governing body of the unit of election shall give notice of the election to the executive 􀁣􀁯􀁾􀁭􀁩􀁴􀁴􀁥􀁥􀀬 the State Department
of Highways and PUblic Transportation, and the comptroller of public accounts. (f) In an election called under this section, the governing body of the unit of election shall SUbmit the
􀁦􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁯􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁧 proposition: "Shall the (name of authority) be continued in (name of unit of election)?" The election shall be held in the regular precincts and at the regUlar voting
places of the unit of election in accordance with the Texas Election Code. The governing body of the unit of election shall canvass the returns of the election at the earliest practicable
date after the election. If a majority of the qualified voters voting at the election votes in favor of the proposition, the authority shall continue in the unit of election. If a majority
of the qualified voters voting at the election votes against the proposition, the authority ceases to exist in
TX CIV ST Art. 1118y PAGE 13 ATl'ACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 8 the unit of election at midnight on the date the election returns are canvassed, and the financial obligations of the authority
attributable to the unit of election cease to accrue at that time. (9) A person vho is a qualified voter of a unit of election may apply to and obtain from the city or town secretary
or other clerk or administrator of the unit of election Official numbered and properly authenticated petitions for vithdrawal prepared by the city or town 􀁯􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁣􀁩􀀮􀁾􀁬 in accordance
with this sUbsection, in an amount requested by the person. Not 􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁥 than one petition may be outstanding at anyone time. The secretary, clerk, or administrator shall authenticate
and deliver additional sheets to the person as requested during the period for obtaining signatures. To be valid, a petition must contain the signatures of not less than 20 percent of
the registered voters of the unit of election, as listed on the official voter registration lists of of the county or counties in which the unit of election is located, except that if
the unit of election is located in a SUbregion governed by a subregional board created under section 6 of this Act, the petition must contain the signatures of not less than 􀁥􀁩􀁧􀁾􀁴
percent of the registered voters of the unit of election. The petition 􀁾􀁵􀁳􀁴 be filed with the secretary, clerk, or administrator of the unit of election on or before the 60th day
after the date the person received the first sheets of the petition. The secretary, 􀁣􀁬􀁥􀁾􀁫􀀬 or administrator shall 􀁥􀁸􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁥 the petition and file a raport to the governing
body of the unit'of election stating Whether, in the opinion of the secretary, clerk, or . administrator, the petition conforms to the requirements of this section. On receipt of the
report, the 􀀹􀀰􀁶􀁾􀁲􀁮􀁩􀁮􀁧 body shall conduct its examination as required by Subsection (c) of this section. In the event a petition is determined not to conform to the requirements
of this section, a sheet of signatures that is a part of the petition containing valid signatures may not be used in connection with any SUbsequent petitioning process. ,(h) (1) Except
as provided by subdivision (2) of this subsection, the petition may consist of mUltiple sheets, each of which must be authenticated by the secretary, clerk, or administrator. Each sheet
shall be headed with a statement in all capital letters regarding the nature of the petition as follows: "THIS PETITION IS TO REQUIRE AN ELECTION TO BE HELO IN (name of the unit of election)
TO DISSOLVE (name of authority) IN (name of the unit of election) SUBJECT TO THE CONTINUED COLLECTION OF SALES TAXES FOR THE PERIOD REQUIRED BY LAW. d An affidavit of the person who
circulated each sheet shall be affixed or printed on each sheet in the following form and substance, and the affidavit shall be executed before a notary public:
ATTACHMENT 1 Page 4 of 8 TX CIV ST Art. 111Sy PAGE 14 "STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF I, , affirm that I personally witnessed each signer affix his or her signature, the date of signing, his
or her voter registration number, and his or her residence address and zip code to this page of this petition for the dissolution of (name of authority) in the (name of unit of election).
I affirm to the best of my knowledge and belief that each signature is the genuine signature of the person whose name is signed and that the date entered next to each signature is the
date the signature was affixed to this page. Sworn to and sUbscribed before me this the 19 _ (SEAL) day of __, Notary PUblic, State of Texas" Each sheet of a petition shall be submitted
at the same time and within the period specified in Subsection (g) of this section. Eacn person signing a petition must sign the petition in person in ink or indelible pencil and must
personally enter beside his or her signature his or her current residence address and zip-code, code, his or her correct voter registration number, and the date of signing. Any signature
not accompanied correctly by all of the information required by this subsection is void and may not be counted in determining the validity of the petition. (2) If the unit of election
is located in a SUbregion having a principal city with a popUlation larger than"SOO,OOO, the petition may consist of multiple sheets, each of Which must be authenticated by the secretary,
clerk, or administrator. Each sheet shall be headed with a statement in all capital letters regarding the nature of the petition as follows: "THIS PETITION IS TO REQUIRE AN ELECTION
TO BE HELD IN (name of the unit of election) TO DISSOLVE 􀀨􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁥 of authority) IN (name of the unit of election) SUBJECT TO THE CONTINUED COLLECTION OF SALES TAXES FOR THE PERIOD
REQUIRED BY LAW.II An affidavit of the person Who circulated each sheet shall be affixed or printed on each sheet in the following form and SUbstance, and the affidavit shall be executed
before a a notary public:
A'l'1'ACBKENT 1 Page S of 8 TX CIV 􀁓􀁾 Art. 1118y 􀁾􀁁􀁇􀁅 15 "STATE OF TEXAS COUNTy'OF I, , affirm that I personally witnessed each signer affix his or her signature to this page of
this petition for the dissolution of (name of authority) in the (name of unit of election). I affirm to the best of 􀁾􀁹 knowledge and belief that each signature is the.. genuine signature
of the person whose name is signed and that the date entered next to each signature is the date the signature was affixed to this page. I further affirm that I have verified that the
signer is a registered voter and that the registration nUmber on the petition is correct. Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 19 _ (SEAL) ______ day of _' Notary Public, State
of,.Texas" Each sheet of a petition shall be submitted at the same time and within the period specified in subsection (9) of this section. Each person signing a petition must sign the
petition in person in ink or indelible pencil and must enter or have entered beside his or her signature his or her current residence address and zip code, his or her correct voter registration
number, and the date of signing. Any signature not accompanied correctly by all of the information required by this SUbsection is void and may not be counted in determining the validity
of the petition. (i) On the effective date of the withdrawal of a unit of election from an authority created under this Act, all pUblic transportation services provided by the authority
to the unit of election shall cease. The withdrawal, however, does not affect any existing or future rights of the authority to proceed through the corporate 􀁬􀁩􀁾􀁩􀁴􀁳 of the unit
of election to continue uninterrupted service to other units of election that have not withdrawn or that become a part of the authority in the future. In a unit of election that withdraws
from an authority consisting of one subregion governed by a subregional board created under Section 6 of this Act, title to all real estate and improvements thereto, except a right-of-way
or an improvement to a right-ot-way, made by the authority within the boundaries of the unit of election shall vest in the unit of election if the unit of election acts within 30 days
of the effective date of the election by resolution to claim said real estate and improvements. In the event that the real estate and improvements are
ATTACHMENT 1 Page 6 of 8 TX CIV ST Art. 1118y PAGE 16 within 30 days of the effective date of the election determined by the authority to be necessary to the continuation of service
to remaining units of election, the authority may retain the Use of said real estate and improvements for a period not to exceed 15 years or the duration of the authority's remaining
federal grant obligation for the facility, whichever is greater. If the authority retains the use, the authority shall be responsible for all operation and maintenance costs of the facility.
(j) (1) The withdrawal of a unit of election under this section is subject to the requirements of the constitutions of the United States of America and this state prohibiting the impairment
of contracts. Except as provided by subdivision (2) of this SUbsection, taxes shall continue to be collected in the unit of election until an amount of taxes equal to the total financial
Obligations of the unit of election to the authority has been collected. To determine the the amount of the total financial obligations of the unit of election, the executive committee
shall compute, as of the date of withdrawal, the total of: (1) the current obligations of the authority authorized in the current bUdget. and contracted for by the authority; (2) the
amount of contractual obliqations outstanding at that time for capital or other expenditures in the current or subsequent years, the payment of which has not been made or provided for
from the proceeds of notes, bonds, or other obligations; (3) all amounts due and to become due in the current and subsequent years on all notes, bonds, or other securities or obligations
for debt issued by the authority and outstanding: (4) the amount required by the' authority to be reserved for all years to comply with financial covenants made with lenders, bond or
note holders, or other creditors or contractors; (5) any additional amount, Which may include an amount for contingent liabilities, determined by the executive committee to be the amount
necessary for the full and timely payment of the current and continuing obligations of the authority, to avoid a default or impairment of those obligations; and (6) any additional amount
determined by the executive committee to be necessary and appropriate to allocate to the unit of election because of current and continuing financial obligations of the authority that
relate specifically to the unit of election. The unit of election's share of the financial obligations of the authority under the first five computations required by this subsection
shall be in the 􀁳􀁡􀁾􀁥 ratio that the population of the unit of election has to the total population of the authority, according to the most recent and available popUlation data of
an agency of the federal government, as determined by the executive committee. The unit of election's total financial obligation is the sum of the first five computations required by
this subsection plus the amount allocated directly to the unit of election under the last computation required by this subsection. The executive committee shall certify to the governing
body of the unit of election and to the comptroller of public accounts the amount of the total financial obligation of the unit of election. The comptroller of
AITACBMENT 1 Page 7 of 8 TX CIV ST Art. 11l9y PAGE 17 public accounts shall continue to collect taxes in the unit of election until an aggregate amount equal to the total financial obligation
of the unit of election has been collected and actually paid to the authority. After that amount has been collected, the comptroller of pUblic accounts shall discontinue collecting in
the unit of election the taxes imposed under this Act. (2) The withdrawal of a unit of election from a regional transportation authority consisting of one subregion governed by a subregional
board created under Section 6 of this Act is subject to the requirements of the constitutions of the United states of America and this state prohibiting the impairment of contracts.
Taxes shall continue to be collected in the unit of election until an amount of taxes equal to the total financial obligations of the unit of election to the authority has been collected.
Except as provided by Subsection (1) of this section, to determine the amount of the total financial obligations of the unit of election, the executive committee shall compute, as of
the date of withdrawal, the total of: (1) the current obligations of the authority authorized in the current budget and contracted for by the authority; (2) the amount of contractual
obligations outstanding at that time for capital or other expenditures in the current or SUbsequent years, the payment of Which has not been made or provided for 􀁦􀁲􀁯􀁾 the proceeds
of notes, bonds, or other obligations: (3) all amounts due and to become due in the current and SUbsequent years on all notes, bonds, or • other securities or obligations for debt issued
by the authority and outstanding: (4) the amount required by the authority to be reserved for all years to comply with financial covenants made with lenders, bond or note holders, or
other creditors or contractors; (5) any additional amount, which may include an amount for contingent liabilities, determined by the executive committee to be the amount necessary for
the full and timely payment of the current and continuing obligations of the authority, to avoid a default or impairment of those obligations; and (6) any additional amount determined
by the executive committee to be necessary and appropriate to allocate to the unit of election because of current and continuing financial obligations of the authority that relate specifically
to the unit of election. The unit of election's share of the financial obligations of the authority under the first five computations required by this subsection shall be in the same
ratio that the popUlation of the unit of election has to the total population of the authority, according to the most recent and available population data of an agency of the federal
government, as determined by the executive committee. The unit of election's total financial obligation is the sum of the first five computations required by this subsection plus the
amount allocated directly to the unit of election under the last computation required by this SUbsection, plus the amount of the cost incurred by the authority for any capital improvements
transferred to the unit of election under Subsection (i) of this section and less the unit of election's share, not to exceed the sum of the seven computations
TX CIV ST Art. 111Sy PAGE 18 ATTACBHENT 1 Fage 8 of 8 required by this subsection, of the total amount of the unencumbered assets of the authority that consist of cash, cash deposits,
certificates of deposit, and bonds, stocks, and other negotiable securities. The unit of election's share of those assets is determined by the executive committee as an amount equal
to the authority's total unencumbered assets described by this subdivision, multiplied by the average of the following:(A) the population of the unit of election divided by the population
of all units of election of the authority, and (B) the total sales tax contributed by the unit of election to the authority divided by the total sales tax contributed to the authority
by all units of election of the authority. (k) The executive committee shall certify to the governing body of the unit of election and to the comptroller of pUblic accounts the amount
of the total financial obligation of the unit of election. The comptroller of pUblic accounts shall continue to collect taxes in the unit of election until an aggregate amount equal
to the total financial obligation of the unit of election has been collected and actually paid to the authority. After that amount has been collected, the comptroller of public accounts
shall discontinue collecting in the unit of election the taxes imposed under this Act. (1) A unit of election that is located in an authority consisting of one SUbregion governed by
a subregional board created under Section 6 of this Act and that withdraws before January 1, 1992, is not obliqated to the authority for any financial obligation remaining after making
the computations required by Subsectipn (j) of this section. Powers of the Authority c. 10. Ca) The authority when created and confirmed shall constitute a pub· body corporate and politic,
exercising pUblic and essential governme functions, having all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out an fectuate the purposes and provisions of this Act, including but not
. ited to the following powers granted in this section. (b) The authority shall ve perpetual succession. (c) The authority may sue an e sued in all courts of competent jurisdiction and
may institute and p ecute suits without giving security for costs and may appeal from a . dgment or jUdgments without giving supersedeas or cost bond. (d) The authority may acquire by
grant, purcha gift, devise, lease, or otherwise and may hold, use, sell, lease, or dispos f real and personal property of every kind and nature whatsoever and . enses, patents, rights,
and interests necessary, convenient, or usefu r full exercise of any of its powers pursuant to the provisions of th Act.
Tentative and Preliminary for DIscussion Purposes Only Attachment #2 Proje<:ted Financial Obligation of Member Cities (Note 4) at March 31, 1994 and September 30. 1996 9/6194 􀀮􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁾􀁩􀁦􀀮􀁾
􀁾􀁩􀀨􀁬􀁬􀁧􀁩􀁩􀁾􀁛􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁮􀁩􀁲􀀧􀁾􀁩􀁪􀁾􀁬􀁾􀀻􀁬􀁛􀁩􀁬􀁩􀀧􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁊􀁲􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁩􀁬􀀡􀁲􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁷􀁩􀁾􀁩 ;: ":" <:," : 􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀻 (;", 􀁾􀀮 􀁾􀁾.•, 􀀮􀁾􀀻􀁾 􀁾 ;;:; ; 􀁾􀀮 􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀺􀀺􀀮
o":'::} 􀁩􀁾􀁾 :;::..􀁾􀀺..;􀁾􀀮 :;" Addison $3.316 $0 $(3,832) $(516) 􀁉􀁴􀀥􀁩􀁈􀁭􀁭􀁾􀁾􀁒􀁧 $3.372 $2,422 $(2.053) 53,741 􀀺􀂷􀁎􀁭􀁍􀁽􀁭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁴 Buckingham 39 0 (63) (24) 􀀡􀁭􀁈􀁵􀁭􀁲􀀺􀂫􀁾􀁾􀁈
39 0 (34) 5 􀂷􀁭􀁾􀁭􀁭􀀮􀁜􀁤􀁬􀀤􀀺􀁜􀀧 Carrollton 31.024 1,635 (11.144) 21,515 mHHHHHti.H 31.544 1,499 (5.970) 27,073 􀀮􀀻􀀨􀁾􀀻􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀻􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻 Cockrell Hin 1.414 0 (317)
1,097 mmmHi;.i:oH 1.438 0 (170) 1,268 \11:i!:·WtJ';91· Farmers Branch 9,156 0 (6.472) 2,684 iiUlilbf:*J:i 9.309 220 (3,467) 6,061. ::.':.:>::::o:n 􀀺􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁪􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀂷􀁾􀂷􀀺 􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾
􀀮􀀻􀁾􀀺 􀁾􀀻􀀧..:.:.: :.:....􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀻􀀺􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀺􀀺 􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀺 Garland 68.208 8.071 (19.424) 56,855 􀁬􀁭􀁡􀁨􀁦􀁩􀀡􀁾􀁴􀁉􀁾􀀢􀁍 69.350 7.694 (10,406) 66,638 􀀼􀀻􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀾􀂷􀀡􀁩􀀻􀂷􀂷􀁾􀁾􀀤􀁲
GleMHeights 1.723 529 (350) 1,901 aWnH!iis.:4;i 1.752 496 (187) 1,061 􀂷􀀺􀂷􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀁩􀀢􀀼􀀲􀁩􀁾􀀵􀀧􀀼 ...,.:,.:.;--,..r-,.. '": ;: . Highland Park 3.300 0 (1.231) 2,069 􀁮􀂷􀀻􀁭􀁪􀁈􀁲􀁭􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁈
3,355 0 (659) 1,696 􀀼􀁌􀀮􀀺􀂷􀁜􀀺􀂷􀀻􀀲􀁾􀁬􀁌 Irving 58,537 6.669 (22.63S) 42,571 mHlhH-i\:£?t; 59.517 6,460 (12,126) 53,851 􀂷􀁾􀀻􀀧􀀻􀂷􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁮􀀻􀀻􀀱􀁾􀀹􀁩􀂷 Plano 48.598 5.771 (18.275)
36,094 􀁈􀁈􀁗􀁬􀀡􀁈􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁨 49.412 5.433 (9,190) 45,055 .y:::<:·j.S> Richardson 28.257 5.227 (12.202) 21,182 mm;\HH'tl:; 28.730 5,000 (6,537) 21,193·:··: 􀀧􀀮􀂷􀁬􀁾􀀧􀀻 Rowlett 8.782
0 (2.099) 6,683 􀀻􀀮􀁪􀁗􀁕􀀻􀁪􀁈􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀺 8.929 0 (1.124) 7,80S, ,:. ,. .6.2!· University Park 8.404 0 (2.555) 5,849 􀁮􀁭􀁭􀁾􀁗􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁉􀀻 8.545 0 (1,369) 7,176 :'·;:,:;",3.6· SubtoW
l:I􀁾􀁴􀁈􀁪􀀺􀁪􀁈􀀱􀁾􀀲􀀷􀀰􀀻􀀱􀀵􀀧􀀸􀁈􀁅􀀻􀀡􀁓􀀲􀁴􀀿􀁾􀀺 i 􀀢􀀬􀁾􀀨i'dO:S99)'i􀀺􀀤􀁩􀀧􀀸􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁩􀁈 􀁭􀁭􀁭􀁈􀁗􀁪􀁩􀁾􀀱􀀱􀀡􀁾􀀱􀀤􀀲􀀻􀀱􀁾􀁾􀀲􀀹􀀻􀀲􀁮 􀁭􀂷􀁾􀀲􀁾􀀮􀀲􀁾􀀩􀀺 ',)$($3;89i)
􀁩􀁴􀀤􀀱􀀵􀀰􀁾􀀶􀀲􀀴􀀧􀀻􀀮􀀺 ;H;":" [1;􀁄􀁪􀁡􀁾 ;: Dallas 380.164 n1a (147.572) ufa 􀁡􀁕􀁭􀁧􀁈􀀻􀀣􀁾􀁈 386.530 nla (79,059) n1a 􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁪􀁾􀀱􀀺􀀺􀀻􀂷􀁾􀁧􀁄􀀯􀁉􀀨􀀺 􀁔􀁯􀁴􀁡􀁆􀀻􀁩􀀺􀀮􀁙􀀻􀁾􀂷􀁭􀁭􀁈􀁩
a$6S.􀁡􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁪􀁜􀀺􀁾􀁈􀁭􀁈􀁈􀀻􀀺􀀺􀁑􀁉􀁾􀁲 􀁴􀀤􀁻􀀲􀀴􀁾􀁾􀁜􀀨􀀷􀁉􀀩􀁜 􀁴􀁭􀁈􀁭􀀡􀁾􀀯􀁾􀁈 􀁾􀁈􀁈􀁕􀁈􀁈􀁗􀁾􀁾􀀡􀁭􀁾􀁊􀀻􀀣􀀮􀁾􀁲􀀮􀀡 􀁭􀁈􀁈􀂷􀀯􀁩􀀺􀁩􀁊􀀯􀀮􀁾􀁕􀀻􀀤􀁻􀀱􀀳􀁩􀀻􀁑􀁳􀂷􀁦􀀩
􀁮􀁮􀀻􀁭􀀻􀁾􀁴􀁴􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁮 􀁧􀀻􀁭􀁴􀀻􀁾􀁆􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁩 Note 1-General obligations are based on total DART general obligations times the population percentage shown in Attachment J. Note 2 •
Specific obligatiolls are based on information in Attachment 4. Note 3 • Asset sh.aJe is based on total unencumbered assets times average of population and sales tax percentage (see
Attachment 3). Note 4 ·ncse projections are DART sta1rs estimates based on information available today. The actual general obligations and unencumbeJ'ed 8.S$CtS in 1996 witt vaJ)' depending
on actual contract commitments. debt outstanding, and contingent liabilities at the lime ofa wichdl3wal election. In addition, the DART Board ofDiftdors will have to make many policy
decisions in order to ascertain a member city's finanCial obligation, ifthat city elects to withdraw from DART Tentattve and PreUmlnary For DiscussIon Purposes Only
Note 1 Note 2 Note 3 Tentative and Preliminary For Discussion Purposes Only Attachment #3 Percentage of Population and Sales Taxes .By Member City 􀀺􀁩􀁾􀀦􀁾􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁾􀂷􀁾􀀺􀁦􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁾
􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁳􀀮􀁉􀀡􀀱􀀰􀀮􀁾􀁩􀁾􀀺􀁩􀁧􀁦 Addison 0.51% 2.58% 1.55% Buckingham 0.01% 0.04% 0.03% Carrollton 4.77% 4.21% 4.49% Cockrell Hill 0.22% 0.04% 0.13% Dallas 58,400.10 60.52% 59.46%
Farmers Branch 1.40% 3.81% 2.61% Garland 10.48% 5.18% 7.83% GleM Heights 0.26% 0.02% 0.14% Highland Park 0.51% 0.49% 0.50% Irving 8.99% 9.25% 9.12% Plano 7,470./0 7.26% 7.37% Richardson
4.34% 5.49% 4.9Z% Rowlett 1.35% 0.34% 0.85% University Park 1.29% 0.77% 1.03% 􀀡􀁦􀀹􀁾􀂧􀁉􀁦􀀮􀁅􀀲􀂧􀀺􀀵􀀴􀂧􀁾􀁧􀀻􀁾􀂷􀀡􀀻􀁉􀁦 􀀻􀁾􀀱􀀹􀀹􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁪􀁯􀀮􀁾􀀻􀁾 􀀺􀁈􀁊􀁩􀁪􀀹􀀺􀀹􀀹􀀬􀁾􀁾 􀁾􀀿􀀻􀁦􀁾􀀺􀁊􀂧􀁾
􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁾􀀺 Population percentages based on 1990 Census Data. DART's general liability is distributed to member cities based on population. Sales tax percentages are based on actual
member city collections from 1984 through 1994 as reported to DART by the State Comptrollers Office. DARTs unencumbered assets are allocated to member cities based on the average ofpopulation
and sales taxes. September 6. 1994 Tentative and Preflmlnary For Discussion Purposes Only
Tentative and Preliminary For Discussion Purposes Only Addison Addison Transit Center $0 so $6,018 $2,422 Carrollton Carrollton Transit Center 1.635 6.563 1,499 Farmers Branch Farmers
Branch Park & Ride ° o 500 220 496 5,522 938 1,555 3.970 1,726 3,707 5,000 1.468 3,553 6,145 8,066 2,614 8.725 1,221 7.281 529 5,227 5.646 1.023 1,883 3.888 8,066 2.674 1,468 8.725 1.221
7,281 Richardson Richardson Transit Center Plano Plano Transit Center East Plano Transit Center Tentative and Preliminary For Discussion Purposes Only Glenn Heights Glenn Heights Transit
Center Irving North Irving Transit Center South Irving Transit Center Garland Central Garland Transit Center 3,553 1.696 South Garland Transit Center 6.145 4.105 Lake Ray Hubbard Trans.
Cu. (WIP) 3.577 2,270 3,571 2,169 􀀮􀁾􀀻 ::; 􀀺􀀭􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀻􀀧􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀢􀀼􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀻􀀧􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀻 :;::"'; 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺 􀀺􀁾􀀺 􀁾􀀺􀁯􀀺􀀮􀁣􀁾􀀮􀀻􀀻 􀀺􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀬􀀺􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀻􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀻􀁾􀀻􀀮􀀻
􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀻􀀮􀀮􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀺􀀻􀀬􀀬􀀺􀀻􀀮􀀬􀀺􀀻􀀬􀀻􀁾􀀾􀀺􀀺􀀧􀁁􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀺 􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀼􀀺􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀺􀀢􀀢 􀀻􀀺􀀮􀀻􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀻􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁾􀂥􀁾..􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀺􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀺􀀭􀁃••􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀡􀀺􀀧􀀮􀀻�
�􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀮􀁾 􀀮􀀢􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀬􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀬􀁚􀀢􀁾􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀧 ..􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀻􀀻 ...􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀬 􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀺 􀀺􀀺􀀷􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀧
.·.G.·.·..􀀺􀁡􀀺􀀮􀀧􀀮􀂷􀀮􀂷􀁾.􀀮.􀁾•􀀺􀁾􀀺􀂷􀀮􀀧􀀮􀂷􀁾􀀮􀁄􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮•􀂷􀀮.􀁁􀁡􀀮􀂷􀁾.􀀮.􀀧􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀺.!...T..·..􀀻􀀮'􀁯􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮􀀧􀀮􀂷􀀮􀁾􀀬􀀮.􀂷􀁾·􀁎.·.I·.:..􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁟􀀮􀁟􀁾􀀮􀁾 ..􀀺􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀺􀀬􀁾..􀀺􀀮􀁾
.... 􀁶􀀮􀀬􀀢􀀢􀀮􀀺􀀬􀀮􀀺􀁾􀁾.􀀦.􀀺􀀮􀁾􀁅􀀺􀀭.􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀬􀀮..􀀬􀀺􀁾.􀀬􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀡􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮.􀀺􀁟􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀬􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀻􀀺􀀬..􀁾..􀁲􀀺.􀁁􀁉􀀮􀀬􀀧􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀬􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀻􀀾􀁾􀀻􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀺.􀁾;.:.:•...'􀀻􀀺􀀮􀀡􀁾􀀮􀀺�
�􀀺􀀮􀀺...􀀮􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀧􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀮 􀂷􀂷􀁾􀂷􀁾...􀂷􀂷􀁓􀀱􀀳􀂷􀁾􀀷􀁓 ..··...:-...:·...·...::..􀂷􀂷􀁾􀀮􀀺 􀀢􀀧􀀷􀁴􀂷􀁾􀂷.......􀀺􀁾􀂷...··S13..􀁾􀀷􀀵 ..􀀭􀀻􀀮􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀧􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀺􀂷􀀺􀂷􀀺􀀻􀀮􀀺􀀧􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀺
􀁾 La;";", 􀁾 􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾 .. 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁌.. 􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀭􀀭 􀁾 􀀭􀁲􀁲􀁾􀀮􀁾􀂷􀁾􀀺􀀻􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀧􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀧􀀧􀀧 􀁾􀁾 .. 􀁾􀀮 􀁾 .. 􀁾 􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾 : 􀁾􀀺 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾
:.,:• •􀀻􀁧􀁾􀁩􀁾􀀺􀀺..""'.:"' 􀁾 .. 􀁾􀁾􀁾..􀁾..;..􀁾􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾 ..􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀡􀀮􀀺􀀺 Note: There are DO captial c:osts for 􀁂􀁵􀁥􀁾􀁮􀁧􀁨􀁡􀁭􀀬 Cockrell Hill. f{jghland Park.
Rowlett, Of University Park. r\ r,:· ,: ; 1: :1 􀁾􀀧 􀁾 t i(: "􀁾 I 1.' d n􀁾􀀺 :! " 􀁾 1 it: ;.4, If ;! 􀁾 :!'I I, :i I: I '1 'iIi
Dallas Area RapidTransit· .... -----.. , Sales Tax Collections & Forecasts (in oao'sJ Attachment 5 FiSCAl DART COCKRELL FM..EAS flOWER GlENN HIGtV.ND UNIVERSIlY :lEAB. .mra. AOlJ.ISOtf
BUCKINGHAM CARROLLTON 􀁾 00ffiU. D&.l.AS. IIBANQJ IdOI..Ul CA8LAND ilfWttlS. ..PllBK lfMNG. fLAHQ R!CtWiOSOtt BOt11.EIl 􀁾 19&C 593.889 $2.14$ so $3.241 $46 51'57 $61.243 $3,526 S$4
$5.587 $1011 S454 $8.720 Sot.032 SoC,95lI 5213 sao, 1965 5154.0UJ $3.640 SID 55.290 $7' $25f $101,033 $5.1168 5119 $7.832 $19 S656 511.902 58.117 . $8.2lloC $511 $1.17' 1986 $158,623
$3.39:S till 55.830 $77 $33) 􀁾􀀸􀀵􀀭􀀴 $9.378 $112 $8,218 126 $833 512.561 59.074 $8.250 􀁾 $\,052 1987 $145.815 $3.26' 5' 55.632 Wf 5283 $93.41>1 15.826 $209 W.853 $24 $655 $13.083
$9.501'1.506 SoC18 $t.09' 1988 51M.SotI SoC.01& S3 58.493 $71 S358 51cn..280 $6.265 5246 $8.S85 127 5871 $14.299 511.361 58.704 $547 $1.409 t989 $181.288 $5.'31 $19 tl,43oC SIll $462 5110,496
58,974 1201 $9.599 S3Q 1&31 516.678 􀁓􀁉􀀲􀀮􀀲􀀲􀁾 SS.ll6O S'62 $1.507 1990 $194.13' $5.776 $127 127 18.258 $88 till $117.192 $7.248 10 $9.863 So» SS48 518.74e $13.681 510.5'4 s&lt $1.!\046
1991 5191.494 $5.304 S221 $8.528 $63. $0 5116.898 $7.018 1IO $10••19 S40 S933 Sl9.9lI5 Sl6.171 $l1.947 S6IS7 11.59' 1992 S'101.685 15.382 1119 19.254 $52 50 1116.611 51.175 so $10.239
S40 $943 $20.2e8 $16,753 $12."'2 flOl 51.493 1993 $11"417 SG.36S 51n 511.066 $52 till 5124.819 SI.301 so 110.90l $41 $1. \11 $12.085 S20.047 $12.00 $867 SUl74 1994" '""553 $3.)54 591
$6.041 127 so $66.258 SOC....243 10 1S.66'S $2' S'562 'l3, 180 $11.544 ;213 $5l4 SlS38 TOTAL. ==l1.m:98S S47.2es $819 171.256 .103 $(643 $1.109.4" §iI.•l9 $1.148 S'94.869 $317 suM $168.510
$131106 􀀱􀀱􀁾􀁴􀀱􀀷􀀱 1015 114 "Figut. -llltouoh Maldl 1994 onl)'. 􀁔􀁨􀁾􀁾_ ptepan!d by TteMUry 5-16-94• ............... .􀁾􀀬􀀮 ". , . .... 􀁾 . 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁽􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁭􀁭􀁾􀁧􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁒􀁴�
�􀁦􀁴􀁴􀁾􀀢􀁭􀁭􀀡􀁴􀂧􀁾􀁵􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾 " 􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮 • •••• •••􀁾􀀼􀀧 •••••• 􀁬􀀭􀁾.•􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁦􀀮􀀪􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁳􀁊􀁶􀁾􀁮􀁮􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁦􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁭􀁡􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀢􀁦 􀁦􀁩􀁢􀁦􀁾􀁬􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁦􀂧􀁾􀁾-n.
q.t . 􀁩􀁾􀁦􀁾􀀢􀁎􀀧􀀮􀁴􀁸􀁾􀁕􀀢􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁒􀁴􀀱􀀺􀁬􀀧􀁦􀁴􀀺􀁓􀁩􀁲􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀺􀁬􀁬􀀧􀁾􀀩􀁬􀀮􀁭 􀀡􀀧􀀢􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁪􀂧 ._..._._-_. -....._...._. Fm-3$4 􀁈􀁩􀁾􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁣 􀀮􀁾 93/94 lJ:!tlII ,.
IQllI1 Yo AddlSOft 147.265 2.579% 612.900 2.870% 6uclGlIgllllm 619 o.OC5% $35/i 0.079% carrolfton 77.258 4.215% m.627 5.079% CocMlIIHill 700 0.038% $105 0.023% Tentatrve and PrelJmfnary
081_ 1.'09.4" eQ.524% 5253.984 56.501% FBrmers Btanch 6S,819 3.809% 515,589 3.464% For Discussion Purposes Only Galland 􀀹􀀴􀀮􀁾 $.175% $21.940 4.881"-GIBnn HeWl!. 317 0.01'1% $(12 0.018%
H1g'II.nd Pane 8,889 􀁯􀀮􀁾 $2.181 0.487% INlng 189.520 902"''' $47.746 '0.82)% PlIno 133.106 1.'1Cl1% $42.MO 11.464'" Riehltd_ 100.671 $.4$2% $24.149 5.:'!73'\. RowIelI ..275 0.342%
$1.887 0.420% 􀁕􀁲􀁴􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁹􀁐􀁡􀁲􀁴􀁣 14.018 0.76ho 􀁾􀀲􀀰􀀱 0.113"-SI.m.m lOO.OOO'JI :.m lCO.OOCri.-􀁾􀁉 $1.843 􀁾Mowld $1.145 TOTA SL&l5.....9M.. 􀀣􀁩􀁩􀀧􀁬􀀼􀀪􀁩􀀱􀀮􀁾􀀱􀁦􀁬􀁾􀁲􀁾􀁾􀁗􀁭􀁩􀀧􀀢􀀺􀁩
􀁍􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁭􀁪􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁊􀁭􀀢􀁴􀁾􀁬􀁾􀀪􀀢􀀬􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀺􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁗􀀮􀀮􀁩􀀮􀁩􀀮􀀬􀁬􀀢􀁩􀁩􀁾􀁾􀂻􀀧􀁩􀁴 􀀢􀀢􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀪􀁾􀁴􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁾􀁾 ..􀁾􀀢􀀮􀁟􀁾􀁓􀁗􀁊􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁬􀀮􀁴􀀮􀁬􀁊􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁊
..􀁨􀁾􀁾􀀤􀀮􀁬􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀺􀁬􀁴􀀺􀀬􀁾􀀼􀁴􀁴􀁭􀀮􀀬􀁾 .􀀢. 􀁴􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀮􀁩􀀡􀀮􀁾􀀢􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁭􀁦􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁩􀀯􀀢􀁾􀁩􀀧􀀻􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁬􀀪􀀺􀁕􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀪􀀬􀀪􀁾􀁾􀁭 ..􀁾•.􀁾􀀮􀁊􀀧􀀮􀀡􀁴􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀻􀁅􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀬
􀀪􀁾􀀭􀀻􀁬􀂫􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀮􀂷􀀮􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾 2.11"" G.Gnl% 5.01"" 0.123% 􀀵􀀸􀀮􀁾 U64% 4.11.1% 0.01'" OMJ'%, 100«23% ••464% 5,373% 0.410% O.71n. SAleS TAX COCKRELL fARMERS GlfNN l-lIGHLAND
UNIVERSlIY fORecASI AOOlSQti f!UCKlNGHtW CMROI.lTOO l:1ILL. MI.AS aBlINCH GARLAND HEIGI::IIS.lABK I8WtG aMiO 􀁾RO\IYLEIT 1'1\BK mulOO $6.515 $\18 $U.111 $53 S'29.105 $6.208 S11,03O $-til
$1.076 525.681 122.493 $12.108 $1.020 $1.633 231.000 $6.630 $182 $11.132 $54 S130.5JO $6.001 􀀤􀀱􀀱􀀮􀀲􀀷􀁾 $42 $1.124 $24,53ll $21.863 $l2....11 $910 $1.648 237.500 sa.616 $167 $12.062
S55 5134.203 $8.226 SI1.593 SoC3 $1. '56 $25.229 522....18 512,760 $997 $1.694 252.«:0 . 17.256 $tOO 512.839 $59 􀀱􀀱􀀴􀀲􀀮􀁾􀀹 $8.756 $12.3041> S46 S1.230 s:l6.854 mm $13.582 $1.081
$1.804 26'9.!>CO $1,736 S2l3 $13.687 $6'3 $152.265 $9.335 513. '55 $49 $1.312 $26.628 S25,S06 $l4.419 $1.131 $1.923 261.400 $8.246 $227 "4.596 $187 5161.400 $9.955 514.028 S52 $1.399
$30.529 $27.201 $lM41 $1.201 S1.050 306.0400 18,794 S242 􀀤􀀱􀁾􀀮􀀵􀀸􀀱 $12 $1"13,138 511>.613 $14,9!58 S56 $1.491 $32.548 􀁾􀀹􀀹􀀹 518.462 $'.286 $2.166 326.500 19.371 $258 $16,582
$76 $184.494 511.309 515.931 159 $1.569 $34.683 $30.901 SI7.542 $1.371 $2.329 341.SOO 19.965 $214 $17.666 $81 5196.587 $12.050 $16.982 S63 $1,603 $36,958 $32.926 Sl8,691 $1.460 $2.482
370.500 $10.633 $292 Sl6.816 $87 $209.351 512.833 518.085 167 51.800 $19.351 $35.06:5 519.008 $1.5M 12.643 394.500 511,322 $311 S2G.03S $92 un.9lD SI3.664 519.256 sn $1.920 541.906 $31.337
s:lt.1g:; $1.1106 12.615 􀁾􀁬􀁧􀀬􀀱􀀰􀀰 $12.045 $:)31 521,315 $98 $231.158 sl·um $20.486 $16 $2.043 $44.563 $39.n2 $22.549 $1.162 S2.994 􀁾􀀴􀀶􀀮􀀴􀀰􀀰 $12.612 5352 s:l2.611 $104 􀁾􀀮􀀲􀀴􀀱􀀱
515.462 121,789 181 $2,172 147.419 542.249 $23,963 $1.814 13.105 474.500 113.618 1314 $24.008 $ltl $268,124 518.435 m.'61 see 12,300 $50.404 $44.908 S25.49'J '1.992 $3.385 504.100 $14.468
$3!l8 s:l5.8J1 $118 $2&l85O 511.461 n4.606 $92 􀀱􀀲􀀮􀁾 $53,548 147.710 $27.083 12.116 􀀤􀀳􀀮􀁾􀀷 :'135,300 51!5,363 S422 $27.186 $125 $3Q2.480S18.M1 􀁓􀀲􀀶􀁾􀀱􀀲􀀹 S91 􀁾􀀸􀀰􀀵 􀀤􀀵􀀶􀁾
150,683 $28760 $2,'47 m19 '5,635,000" . $161;629· .... $4-441--· .. -$2M,217' ... SU'S '13,182.725-􀀭􀀭􀀵􀁉􀁬􀁮􀀬􀀴􀀴􀀷􀀢􀁾􀁦􀀴􀀬􀁬􀁩􀁦􀁦􀀧􀀭􀀢 Stjll'2!l" . 􀀧􀁦􀀲􀀷􀀻􀀳􀀷􀁓􀁾􀀬􀁦􀀲􀀵
·sm.Sot7 􀁴􀁩􀁬􀀷􀁍􀁾􀀳􀀻􀀷􀀰􀀸􀀭􀂷 . $40, lea· EI 19904 1995 1996 lOO? 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20lY.1 2008 ..... 2001 I.D 2008 2009 -i o-i Dr"U
jI1 IIj J1j Corridor Planning Study NORTH CENTRAL CORRIDOR NORTH OF PARK LANE Evaluation of Alternatives April. 1994 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
This Corridor Planning Study is a cooperative effort of the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION and DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT assisted by BARTON-ASCHMAN
ASSOCIATES, INC. in association with ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. Carter and Burgess, Inc. GSW and Associates, Inc .. Sasaki Associates, Inc. John S. Chase, FAIA, Architects, Inc. Urban
Analytics LKC Consulting Dikita Engineering Cynthia A. Weatherby Consulting Metrocount North Central Texas Council of Governments ]]]]]]'., ...•... J'd]J"] 􀁾􀀭􀀧 J]..J. . . ']J]J']
rr rr. (LLL CORRIDOR PLARNIBG STUDY BORTH CBIITRAL CORRIDOR Borth of Park Lane BVALUATIOB 01' ALTE1UJATIVBS REPORT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT April, 1994
II Ii [I rf -i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLB OP CORTBNTS Chapter One -Introduction Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures 15 7791 11 11iv vi Background Scope Of Study North Central Corridor, north
of Park Lane, AA/DEIS Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Of Evaluation Of Alternatives Report 1.1 Project 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2 Purpose Chapter Two -Purpose ADd Need 2.1
specific Transportation Problems In The Study Corridor lt) . 1[r{{I' f 2.2 The Need For Transportation Improvements Chapter Three -Description Of Alternatives 3.1 Range Of Alternatives
Considered 3.2 No-Build Alternative 3.3 TSM Alternative 3.3.1 Bus Transit System 3.3.2 Fixed Guideway Transit Improvements 3.4 Light Rail Transit Alternatives 3.4.1 Definition of LRT
Alternatives 3.4.1.1 LRT/Parker Road Alternative 3.4.1.2 LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate Capacity 3.4.1.3 LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative 3.4.2 station Vicinities 3.4.3 Bus Transit
System 3.4.4 Common Elements of LRT Alternatives 3.4.4.1 Technology i 15 16 16 17 20 20 24 24 24 25 25 29 29 33 34 34
3.4.4.2 3.4.4.3 3.4.4.4 3.4.4.5 TABLB 01' COIiTBNTS Reservation of Part of DART/SPRR ROW for Potential Future HOV Facility Roadway Grade Crossings Maintenance and storage Facility Requirements
operating and Fare Policies 34 34 36 36 iII, Chapter I'our -Evaluation Of Alternative. 37 4.1 Evaluation Framework 37 4.1.1 study Goals And Objectives 37 4.1.2 Decision Framework 40
4.2 Project Effectiveness -Travel and Mobility Goal 43 4.2.1 Existing Transportation Services 43 4.2.1.1 Travel Patterns 43 4.2.1.2 Transportation System utilization 44 4.2.2 Travel
and Mobility Impacts 48 4.2.2.1 Travel Demand Impacts 49 4.2.2.2 Transportation System Supply Impacts 52 4.2.2.3 Transportation System Performance Impacts 54 4.2.2.4 Localized Traffic
Effects 55 4.3 Project Effectiveness -Environmental Goal 4.3.1 Noise and Vibration 4.3.1.1 Affected Environment 4.3.1.2 Potential Noise Impacts 4.3.1.3 Potential Vibration 4.3.2 Parklands
4.3.2.1 Affected Environment 4.3.2.2 Potential Impacts 4.3.3 Visual and Aesthetics 4.3.3.1 Affected Environment 4.3.3.2 Potential Impacts 4.3.4 Acquisitions and Displacements 4.3.4.1
Affected Environment 4.3.4.2 Potential Impacts 4.3.5 Air Quality 4.3.5.1 Affected Environment 4.3.5.2 Potential Impacts 4.3.6 Cultural Resources 4.3.6.1 Affected Environment 4.3.6.2
Potential Impacts 4.3.7 Hazardous/Regulated Materials ii 56 58 58 60 63 64 64 66 68 68 68 70 70 71 71 71 72 73 73 75 76 iI
rLfl[II.l[[rLtLL[ TABLB OP CON'l'BlfTS 4.3.7.1 Affected Environment 4.3.7.2 Potential Impacts 4.3.8 Wetlands 4.3.8.1 Affected Environment 4.3.8.2 Potential Impacts 4.3.9 Other Environmental
Considerations 4.3.9.1 Ecosystems 4.3.9.2 Hydrology/Water Quality 4.3.9.3 Energy consumption 4.4 Project Effectiveness -Equity Goal 4.4.1 Population and Employment 4.4.1.1 Transportation-Disadvantage
d Population 4.4.1.2 Regional Accessibility 4.4.2 Land Use and Economic Development 4.4.2.1 Regional Land Use and Development Impacts . 4.4.2.2 Corridor-Level Land Use and Development
Impacts 4.4.2.3 Consistency With Land Use Plans 4.4.2.4 Joint Development Issues 4.4.3 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion 4.4.3.1 Neighborhood Integrity 4.4.3.2 Community Cohesion
4.5 cost-Effectiveness/Financial Feasibility 4.5.1 Capital Costs 4.5.2 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs 4.5.3 Cost-Effectiveness 4.5.4 Financial Feasibility 4.6 Other Considerations
And Evaluation Factors Chapter Pive -comparative Analysis Of Alternatives 5.1 Trade-Offs Among Alternatives 5.1.1 Similarities Among Alternatives 5.1.1.1 Similarities Of Minor Consequence
5.1.1.2 Similarities Of Major Consequence 5.1.1.3 Diverse Levels Of Impact 5.1.2 Difference Between Alternatives 5.1.3 Affected Interests 5.2 Evaluation Summary iii 76 77 79 79 81 82
82 83 85 85 86 86 86 89 89 89 92 95 95 95 96 97 97 98 99 99 100 103 103 103 103 104 105 106 107 107
TABLB 01' COltTDTS Chapter six -Next steps 6.1 Public Review/Involvement 6.2 Select LPA 6.3 Prepare LPA Report 6.4 EIS/Engineering/Designiv 110 110 110 111 111 i1__ Il--
r' [. f' f. [f(..􀁾;'.J [.'.•....'. '.-."' >-" LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Freeway Traffic Conditions In Northern Corridor 12 2.2 Arterial Traffic Conditions In Northern Corridor 13 3.1 Preliminary
operating Plan, LRT/Parker Road Alternative 27 4.1 1990 Daily Home-Based Work (HBW) Person Trips 44 4.2 Current study corridor Transit Ridership 45 4.3 Summary Of Travel Demand Impacts
50 4.4 Summary Of System Supply Impacts 53 4.5 Summary Of Transportation Performance Impacts 54 4.6 Projected Station Vicinity Population and Employment (2010) 88 4.7 1990-2010 Population
And Employment Projections 90 5.1 Evaluation of Alternatives 108 v
LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 DART Service Area 1.2 Transit System Plan 1.3 LRT Starter System 1.4 Northern Corridor 3.1 No-Build Alternative 3.2 TSM Alternative 3.3 TSM Alternative -Express Bus
Routes 3.4 LRT/Parker Road Alternative 3.5 LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity 3.6 LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative 3.7 LRT vertical Profile At Road crossings 4.1 Existing
Corridor Traffic Volumes 4.2 Environmental Study Area 4.3 Noise Sensitive Locations Along LRT Alignment 4.4 Parklands 4.5 Visual/Aesthetic Resources 4.6 Cultural Resources 4.7 Sites
Appearing On Regulatory Agency Data Bases 4.8 "Suspect" Wetlands 4.9 Surface Water Resources vi 23 46 18 21 23 26 28 30 35 46 59 62 65 69 74 78 80 84 IrI,I· III.
rrl[[: EXECUTIVB SUIOIARY 1.1 Project Background Organized in 1983, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) consists of 14 member cities in Dallas, Denton, and Collin Counties, forming a 700
square mile service area. In June 1989, the DART Board of Directors adopted a Transit System Plan with 66 miles of light rail transit (LRT), 37 miles of high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV)
facilities and 18 miles of commuter rail. Construction has begun on DART's first 20 miles of the LRT "Starter System." DART's LRT Starter System is divided into three "lines" with a
Central Business District (CBD) transitway mall (Figure S-l). o The south oak Cliff Line will connect Ledbetter Road to the CBD. !ii...,_ oo The .est oak Cliff Line will be constructed
from Westmoreland Road to just south of the Trinity River bridge near Corinth Street where it will join the South Oak Cliff Line and enter the CBD. The Borth Central Line will connect
Park Lane in the northeast to the CBD. o In the Dallas CBD, LRT service from/to these three lines will operate on a transitway mall to be constructed along Bryan Street and Pacific Avenue.
The Fixed Guideway Implementation Schedule, also adopted by the Board as part of the Transit System Plan, calls for DART's LRT Starter System to be completed in 1996. Beyond development
and adoption of the Transit System Plan and implementation of the LRT Starter System, DART has set additional priorities for development of the plan's elements. The resolution adopting
the Transit System Plan calls for the concurrent implementation of LRT service in the North central Corridor, north of Park Lane and the Northeast (Garland) Corridor by the year 2001.
The DART Board of Directors adopted a subsequent resolution March 24, 1992, selecting the North Central corridor, north of Park Lane, as the priority corridor for extending the LRT Starter
System. DART intends to seek a capital grant from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to assist in funding an extension of the LRT Starter System. Studies of needed improvements
to support the funding grant application and meet requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are being prepared for the North Central Corridor, north of Park Lane,
and the Northeast Corridor. Alternative transportation improvements for the North Central Corridor, north of Park Lane (referred to hereinafter as the "Study ES-1
TRANSIT SYSTEM PLAN LEGEND I I I COMMUTER RAIL LINE •••• HOY TRANSITWAY ---LIGHT RAIL STARTER SYSTEM f19.&) ••••• LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM (1997-2005) ::JccCCtLIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM
(POST 2005) iI Iii. II! it. rI 􀁌􀀺􀁓􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁕􀁴􀀮􀀡􀀺􀁒􀁾􀁃􀀺􀀮􀀡􀀺􀁅􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀁓􀀽􀀺􀁣􀁯􀀲􀁐􀀺􀀮􀀡􀀮􀀡􀀮􀁬􀁮􀀡􀀮􀁩􀁧􀁾􀁬􀁮􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁯􀁲􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁭􀁾􀀸􀁾􀁴􀁬􀁾􀁯􀁮􀀮􀀡􀀮􀀬􀁾􀁏􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀁃􀁾􀁴􀁯􀁾
􀁢􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀁲􀀮􀀺•􀀮􀀮..:.19:.:9:,:2;.:..-----------------....... 14 Figure 5-1 r!
The work activities relating to the AA/DEIS study, which narrowly focused on transit solutions, have been revised in response to corridor") are the subject of this report. The study
corridor is a loosely defined geographic area that represents the travelshed for most trips that would use the alternative transportation improvements being considered (refer to Figure
S-l). The North Central Line of DART's LRT starter system, when completed in 1996, will extend to an interim terminal station at Park Lane. continuing planning and engineering studies
are focused on the study Corridor, which extends north from Park Lane and includes portions of three cities: Dallas, Richardson, and Plano. In the Fall of 1992, the DART Board, in cooperation
with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MFO) and FTA, initiated a study officially designated as the "North Central corridor, north of Park Lane, Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental
Impact statement (AA/DEIS)." The purpose of DART's the AA/DEIS study was to provide a basis for selecting the most appropriate transit improvement for the study Corridor. Subsequent
to initiation of the AA/DEIS study, the u.s. Congress passed and the President signed into law the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).l This Federal legislation
caused FTA, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to change the manner in which the project development process unfolds. In response to the passage of ISTEA,
FTA and FHWA recently promulgated Joint Planning Regulations "governing the development of statewide plans and programs. ,,2 Implementation of these regulations is intended to "ensure
the adequacy of statewide AmI metropolitan (emphasis added) transportation planning and programming and the eligibility of metropolitan areas and State for Federal highway and transit
funds.,,3 The new regulations have changed FTA's project development process for major transportation investment projects, especially transit projects being developed under the sponsorship
of FTA. The new regulations establish a framework for performing "major investment (corridor or SUbarea) studies, [Which] shall be undertaken to develop or refine the [local transportation]
plan and lead to decisions by the MFO, in cooperation with participating agencies, on the design concept and scope of the investment.,,4 r([rr ' [[f' I 234 Public Law 102-240, 105 Statute
1914. "Statewide Planning; Metropolitan Planning," Final Rules, 23 CFR Part 450, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and 49 CFR Part 613, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal
Realster, Vol. 58, No. 207, Thursday, October 28, 1993, p. 58040. Ibid. Ibid. ES-3
changes in Federal policy regarding the planning and programming of major transportation investment projects. The new "Corridor Planning study" focuses on evaluating multimodal transportation
solutions for the Study Corridor. The reorientation of the study focus means temporarily suspending preparation of the AAIDEIS document in favor of a more direct, but less detafled "Evaluation
of Alternatives Report," which identifies key trade-offs among potential modal solutions. Draft and Final EIS documents will be prepared subsequent to this activity, during Preliminary
Engineering (PE) of the LPA. This Evaluation of Alternatives Report is' intended to assist community decision-makers in the selection of a "Locally Preferred Alternative" (LPA) for the
Study Corridor. It is intended to (1) provide adequate understanding of the purpose for a major investment in transportation improvements in the StUdy Corridor and (2) establish the
need for proposed improvements. This report contains descriptions or definitions of the alternatives being considered and provides a comparison of the trade-offs among alternatives,
focusing on similarities, differences, and affected interests. The selection of the LPA will include definition of the design concept and scope of the proposed investment. The LPA will
be advanced to Preliminary Engineering for more detailed definition, examination, and analysis. Physical, operating, environmental, and cost aspects of the LPA will be examined in detail
during the Preliminary Engineering phase. Detailed environmental studies, inclUding the identification of mitigation measures, will be fully documented as Preliminary Engineering and
preparation of the DEIS and Final EIS proceeds • All aspects of the transportation infrastructure in the StUdy corridor will be reviewed. 1.2 Purpose And Need The StUdy Corridor currently
is served by two major freeways, an extensive grid system of streets and arterials, and a bus system that operates daily in mixed traffic on city streets. Despite the existing transportation
infrastructure and planned improvements (particularly, widening US 75 and the addition of HOV lanes on US 75 and IH 635), significant traffic congestion is anticipated to occur in the
Study corridor between now and the year 2010. Major increases in traffic are projected between now 'and 2010 along US 75, the major north-south freeway in this radial travel corridor.
The expected traffic increase reflects projected growth in residential, commercial, and industrial development throughout the Study corridor, especially in the cities of Richardson and
Plano. In addition, congestion delays are anticipated on many of the arterials. Most arterials are expected to operate at traffic levels of service (LOS) E or F by the year 2010. ES-4
II
l.Lr . I􀁾 ,rrllIlt[ The above-described transportation system characteristics and improvement plans form the basis for examination of a number of problems that represent the underlying
need for consideration of additional transportation improvements in the study Corridor. These problems are highlighted below. o Peak Hour congestion Increases Travel Times and Delays
on study Corridor Freeways and Arterial Roads Even with the improvements contained in the TIP,'certain sections of freeways and arterials still will experience unacceptable levels of
congestion (LOS E or worse). o Limitations of Existing DART Bus system Reduce opportunities to Meet Travel Demands of Existing and Prospective Ridership, Especially Reverse-commute Trips
to Employment Centers in study Corridor Limitations on the existing DART bus system creates an inequity in the distribution of service. Most of the metropolitan area's major employment
centers are located either inside or north of the Dallas CBD. Limited accessibility to employment centers in the Study Corridor reduces employment opportunities for workers living in
the south portion of the larger North Central Corridor as well as other portions of the DART Service Area. o Existing Land Use Development Prevents Most Major Roadway Facilities in study
Corridor from being Widened When the freeway and arterial widening projects identified in the TIP are completed, there will be almost no vacant ROW available for further roadway expansion.
o Unacceptable Air Quality The level of ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOx)' and hydrocarbon (HC) pollutants is expected to be reduced in the Study Corridor through
a combination of planned transportation improvements and technological advances in the reduction of vehicle emissions. The specific transportation problems outlined above indicate the
need to effect transportation improvements to (1) meet anticipated demand of the traveling public in the Study Corridor and (2) ameliorate other travel-related problems. Therefore, major
transportation investments in the Study Corridor are necessary to: • Improve Mobility; • Reduce Traffic Congestion; and • Increase People-Carrying Capacity. ES-5
1.3 􀁄􀁥􀁳􀁣􀁲􀁩􀁰􀁾􀁩􀁯􀁄 Of 􀁁􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁄􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥􀁳 Alternatives being considered for implementation in the study corridor include a No-Build Alternative, a Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) Alternative, and two LRT alternatives. 1.3.1 No-Build 􀁁􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁄􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀀮 The No-Build Alternative includes only those facilities and services in the Study corridor
that either already exist or are included in the 1992 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and committed for construction. Major transit capital improvements programmed for the study
Corridor under the No-Build Alternative are shown in Figure S-2. Programmed improvements include: o A one way, reversible HOV lane on the North Central Expressway (US 75) from Parker
Road to the LBJ Freeway (IH 635); o Two way, concurrent operation HOV lanes on the LBJ Freeway from Valley View Lane (proposed SH 161) to East R.L. Thornton Freeway (IH 30); o The North
Central Line of DART's 20-mile LRT Starter System to Park Lane. The definition of the No-Build Alternative includes: express bus service; local, feeder, and crosstown bus service; and
rail transit services (commuter and LRT) already committed to by the DART Board of Directors. The bus operating plan for the No-Build Alternative in the stUdy Corridor assumes that the
current level of bus transit service will increase as the population increases. committed DART projects outside the stUdy Corridor include the other lines of the LRT Starter System and
commuter rail from Union station in Dallas to the transit centers at South Irving and Dallas/Fort Worth (D/FW) International Airport. This overall definition of transit services, as
well as the committed highway network, are held constant among all the alternatives. i .. · (I. 1.3.2 TSX 􀁁􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁄􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥 The TSM Alternative represents an alternative that seeks
to accomplish two objectives. The first is to enhance, to the greatest 􀁾􀁥􀁧􀁲􀁥􀁥 practicable, existing and available transit services 1n the study corridor. The second is to augment
programmed improvements to maximize the operational capabilities and efficiencyof regular bus and express bus services now in place. . Two TSM alternatives initially were defined. The
TSM-NC HOV Alternative called for constructing two-way concurrent flow HOV facility in the median of the North central Expressway (US 75) south of LBJ Freeway. The two HOV lanes would
augment the HOV lane ES-6 rI
NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE Figure 5-2 LEGEND -LRT Starter System • Transit Center I LRT Station ....... Committed HOV Lane ES-7 ..J\ SouIce. Dellnllcn or All...􀁾MaICIll9114. ! I _D'EEK• .L.
-c--'--_--r----j 'Ii J􀁉􀁾 Ir----􀀭􀁴􀀺􀀮􀁐􀁁􀁒􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁋􀁾􀁅􀁒􀀽􀁄􀀺􀀮 􀀭􀀭􀀱􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀫􀁟􀁟􀀮􀀬A 1-: g 􀁾 EAST PLANO I 5ffi g S.'. TRANSIT􀁃􀁅􀁾􀁒 c_ PARK BLVD. 􀁾 􀁾
􀁾 I \ : 􀁾 PLANO P"""'. 􀁾 NORMAN F. 􀁾 i..IlTSrrr PKW'i. =. l--􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁦􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀮􀁲􀀺􀁾.􀀢..􀁾.􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁲􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮 81: 􀁌􀁏􀁏􀁉􀀸􀀧􀁾 FM SoU I... \ E􀁾 􀁾 􀁾􀁒􀁒􀀮 􀁾... 􀁾 AT&SFRA
􀁾 􀁾 􀁾􀀨􀀭􀀭􀀭 􀁾 "' o""-.,) -...... 􀁟􀁐􀁬􀀮􀁁􀁎􀁏􀁾 • 􀁾 􀀱􀀧􀀭􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀡􀁆􀁒􀁁􀁎􀁋􀁆􀁏􀁾􀀯􀁾􀁒􀁄􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁄􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀧􀀱􀁾􀀢􀀷􀀢􀀧􀀺􀀮􀀧􀁾􀀭􀀫􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁆􀁜􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀢􀁾􀀭􀀩 jl 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀬􀀮􀁾􀁜􀁾
􀀮 􀁾 D..d/",-", 􀁾􀁉􀁜 􀁾􀀯􀀧􀀯 􀁾 ',,! 􀁾 􀁾 ';f;:ICHARDSON 􀀮􀁳􀀺􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀢 ARAPAHO RD. l 􀁌􀀭􀀬􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁓􀁉􀁔 CENTER 􀀯􀁾􀀮􀁉􀁢 '",., 􀁾􀁖􀀭 􀁾􀁉􀀭􀀢 􀁾..􀁾􀀮􀀬 ........ 􀁾 1\ j 􀁾 ....
, I "oaT"' 􀁾 ./. 􀁟􀁗􀁬􀁬􀁙􀁾 f,s·'l1J a:; c:i 􀁾􀁾........􀁾􀁾 Tf 􀁾 '"-􀀬􀀮􀁾 l 􀁾 BUCKINGHAM RD. , t: 􀁾􀁾 􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁩􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀧􀀽􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀁉􀁉
\ LBJ FREEWAY 8 ....... 􀁾 V ....􀁾.......... """"","'"'''''' ....􀁴􀁾􀀮􀁾 􀁴􀁜􀁅􀁓􀁔􀁌􀁾􀁯􀀮 i 1 NORTH CENTRAL It' ."" " 􀁾 PARK &RIDE I. 11111 r--.... -;--r-w::..W;..:;,;Al:::.N:.::UT,;",;Sr:T.:...
....__-r--::;;;;;;;i""'-..1 1\ FORES)LN. I::.,· ""1 􀁾􀁾􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁬􀁾􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁾...􀁾􀁉􀀡􀀡􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭 :> /􀁾 \ 􀁾 ) I t 7 "":::::'1 I 􀁟􀁊􀁺􀀧􀁖􀁾􀁟􀁣􀀺􀁩􀁖 􀁾
!I It i § :z I ji"I --􀁾 􀁾 9 􀁾 lft$􀁾 􀁾 􀁾 lE ROYAl IN. 􀁾􀀢􀀬􀀾􀀧 I\! 􀀮􀀻􀁲􀀮􀀤􀁊􀁾􀀧 􀁾 􀁗􀀧􀁍􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁅􀁒􀁾􀁉􀁄􀀧 /2 􀁾􀀮 􀁾 c:i 􀀢􀀢􀁾􀁾 \ 􀁾__􀀭􀀱􀀭􀁟􀁾__ :z a:;" ____ a:; '"
> 􀁾 􀁾 9 WAlNUT HILL LN. izV i 􀁲􀀭􀁟􀁉􀀭􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀁾 _-+_2 PARKLN IY{ 'J 􀁑􀁾 􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀮 PARK LANE LRT S4ATION NW HIGHWAY (Terminus of LRT Starter System) I f r[; fiLL[[r
programmed for construction on US 75 north of LBJ Freeway and on LBJ Freeway. The TSM-SP HOV Alternative, in contrast, called for construction of a two-way, concurrent flow HOV facility
within the DART/SPRR ROW. This facility would have originated at the LRT Park Lane station and terminate at the East Plano Transit Center near Parker Road. The initial screening of these
alternatives led to the definition of less ambitious TSM objectives and a TSM Alternative without additional major HOV lanes/facilities south of LBJ Freeway. The TSM Alternative defined
for evaluation builds on the reversible HOV lane committed for construction in us 75 north of the LBJ Freeway (Figure S-3). Bus access to the North Central Park-and-Ride facility, south
of LBJ Freeway, would be improved. Further, bus ramps, providing direct access to the us 75 HOV lane, would be constructed at three transit center locations: • North of Arapaho Road
near the Richardson Transit Center; • South of SH 190 near a proposed SH 190 Transit Center; and • North of Park Boulevard at the East Plano Transit Center. These new ramps would permit
express buses to enter and exit the us 75 HOV lane and support expansion of express bus service in the study Corridor. The additional express bus service would provide direct access
to/from downtown Dallas for patrons using the transit centers. The TSM Alternative also calls for new or enhanced user facilities. These facilities would include: a new transit center
to be located near the proposed SH 190 Freeway; improvement of the existing transit center at the North Central P&R facility; and expansion of the Park Lane Station park-and-ride facility
to permanently accommodate "end-of-the-line" parking. The Park Lane station currently is designed only to serve interim demand, on the assumption that the LRT North Central Line will
be extended north of Park Lane. The 2010 bus operating plan assumed for the TSM Alternative includes all local, radial limited, crosstown, and circulator service included in and as defined
for the No-Build Alternative. The proposed new bus access ramps to the us 75 HOV lane would be constructed in lieu of extending the LRT North Central Line north of Park Lane. This would
provide more efficient access for express bus service in the Study Corridor. In addition, the TSM Alternative assumes initiation of seven additional express routes (for a total of nine
in the study Corridor) and bus circulator routes. ES-S I 􀁾II
{r TSM ALTERNATIVE t.. .-􀁾rI I SPRING CREEK PKWY. PARKER RD. AT&SF R.R. SOUIaI: DelInlion 01 AaernalMls, March 1994. ES-9 """" da: :I: 9:I: CIl LEGEND 1111111 Committed HOV Lane -LRT
Starter System Transit Center I LRT Station Proposed Transit Center Shuttle Service Area Figure 8-3
LR'll Alternatives Two LRT alternatives have been defined to satisfy travel needs in the study Corridor. Each represents an extension of the North Central Line of the LRT starter System
(beginning at the Park Lane station) within the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) right-of-way (ROW) recently purchased by DART (DART/SPRR ROW). Definition of the LRT alternatives also
acknowledges the potential future development of an HOV facility within the DART/SPRR ROW in addition to LRT facilities. And, each includes the committed and programmed improvements
to the existing bus transit and roadway system described for the No-Build Alternative. Some aspects of the bus transit system would vary between alternatives, reflecting the availability
of rapid (i.e., LRT) transit services. LR'll/parker Road Alternative ( . There are two options being considered for extending LRT service from Park Lane to Parker Road in Plano. The
LRT/Parker Road Alternative is defined as full development (i.e., construction and operation) of double track LRT service to Plano in accordance with design and operating criteria of
the LRT Starter System. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative, therefore, represents a completed system for the Study Corridor. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative would constitute a 12.3 mile
extension of the LRT Starter System north of Park Lane Station in the Dallas (Figure S-4). LRT service would operate within the former DART/SPRR ROW from Park Lane through Richardson
to Parker Road in Plano. This alternative would include a total of eight (8) stations in addition to the Park Lane Station plus a "Special Events" platform at 15th Street in the city
of Plano Downtown area. The operating plan for the LRT/Parker Road Alternative assumes an ultimate peak-hour headway of 10 minutes and an off-peak headway of 15 minutes. The LRT system
would operate on a double track guideway at a maximum operating speed of 55 miles per hour and have an average low-level platform station dwell time of 30 seconds. Generally, two-car
trains would operate most of the day, with some three-car trains in the peak periods and single-car trains in the evenings. LR'll/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity The second
option for extending LRT service to Parker Road has been defined in terms of staging LRT system development beyond Arapaho Road. This alternative, referred to as LRT/Parker Road Alternative
-Intermediate Capacity, would have no stations between Arapaho Road and Parker Road. Therefore, there would be only six stations beyond the Park Lane Station. North of Arapaho Road,
LRT service would be developed to accommodate near-term demand (Figure S-5). ES-10 II,I •
I LRT/PARKER ROAD ALTERNATIVE .J ARAPAHO STATION I -ICHARDSON NSITCENTER I I SPRING CREEK PKWY. da: i, IIII I t 1 .-r----..,--"""'-----: 􀁾 j􀁾 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁟􀁟􀁴􀀮􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀻􀁐􀁁􀁒􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀽􀁋􀁅􀁒􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀽�
�􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀻􀁄􀂷􀀧􀀭􀀭􀁟􀁟􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀁟􀀬􀁜􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁬 ..JPARKER ROAD STATIONI Ii! ci;:;:; 7" EAST PLANO 􀁾 􀁾 la' TRANSIT CENTER a :::E:?E 1-􀁆􀁐􀁁􀁒􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀺􀁋􀁔􀁂􀁬􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀁖􀁄􀁾
􀀮_-+ t-+ 􀀺􀁩􀁩􀀡􀀭􀀫􀁾􀀮􀁟􀀮􀀺􀁾 §!l1 I 15th STREET SPECIAL I J \ : E i( A EVENTS STATION : 􀁾􀀡􀀡􀀮􀁾 PLANO PKWY. ./\..-__􀁾􀀬􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁎􀁏􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁍􀁾􀁁􀁎􀀡􀀡􀀮􀀺􀁆􀀮􀁾􀁗􀀮􀁾􀁊􀁈􀀡􀀻􀁬􀁬􀀮􀁲􀁲􀁳􀁾􀁉􀀱
􀁔􀀺􀀢􀀺􀁐􀀢􀀺􀀺􀁋􀁗􀀧􀁦􀀮􀀽􀀭􀀧􀁾􀀵􀁾􀀱􀁩􀀻􀀺􀀬􀀺􀀢􀁴􀁴􀁾􀁩􀁮􀀻􀀺􀀭􀁓􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁔􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁬􀀭􀀽􀁏􀁏􀀻􀀧􀀺􀀢􀁲􀁳􀀭􀀬􀀭􀁬􀀬􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮 FM 544 ,....•_ -\ :: tI ., 􀁾􀁆􀁬􀁬􀁩 r􀁾 _ 􀀢􀀽􀀢􀁟􀁾
__ .•􀁾􀁾__􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀭􀁌􀀮 __ PLANO PKWY. -=. :II: .J SH 190 STATION I ::::::t"ooo...􀁾 ./􀁾 􀀭􀁾􀁾 􀁾􀁾 l 􀁾 ! ......􀁾􀀮􀀬 , I'\.. BElTliERD 􀁾 􀀮􀀻􀁾 .. SPRll
VAllEY RD. 􀁾􀁳􀀮􀀬􀀬􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀿􀀱􀀮􀂧􀀮􀁩􀀺􀁖 1 ......I SPRING VALLEY STATION J 􀀫􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁬􀁟􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁾 􀂷􀁨􀁾􀁊􀀮 7 ca:' 􀁾􀀮 fYi'/􀁾'-, 􀀮􀀢􀀧􀁾 􀁾
: __ BUCKINGHAM RD. c ...... if 􀁾 􀁾􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁲􀀺􀀭􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀺􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁉􀁉 , LBJ FREEWAY 8 .....􀁾. j 􀀮􀁊􀁉􀀢􀀺􀀧􀁌􀀭􀀽􀁂􀁾􀁊􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁓􀀽􀁔􀁁􀀽􀀽􀀺􀁲􀀺􀀺􀀭􀀺􀁉􀁏􀀺􀀺􀀢
􀀺􀀢􀁎􀀧􀀺􀀢􀀱􀀱 'IP /IIlIltllllllllll 111111111111111111111 􀁉􀁉􀁬􀁉􀁴􀁾􀁾 􀁩􀁦􀁾􀁙 0'" 1 NORTH CENTRAL.' .􀀭􀀬􀀮􀀣􀀣􀁾􀀮􀂧􀀺􀀺 " J \ PARK &RIDE 1 􀁾􀁾􀀣􀁉 --_+ rW;.::•,􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁗􀀺􀁁􀁌􀁎􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁕􀁔�
�􀀮􀀺􀀮􀁲􀁓􀁾􀁔􀀮__􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀻􀀻􀁾.......1 􀁾 (U< 1_;::􀀺􀀧􀀦􀁴􀁾􀀧􀀭􀁔􀀢􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀣􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁽􀀭􀀣􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀺􀁾􀀫􀀭􀀻􀀫􀁖􀀢􀀭􀀺􀀻􀀧􀁉􀀧􀀭􀀬􀁯􀀺􀀻􀁾􀀭􀂷􀁴􀀭􀁉 􀁛􀁊􀁾 g: ROYAL LN. ? /c:J
T 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮 _ 􀁾 􀁾 W. MILLER􀁾􀁰􀀮 J '" III 􀁾􀁩 . 􀁥􀀮􀁾􀀧􀀷􀀯 f----+---􀁾􀁩 'j WALNUT HILL STATIONI LEGEND 􀁾 a,A.A'\::=;; 111111111011 􀁾􀁳􀁥􀁤 Light Rail Transit _ _ 􀁴􀀭􀁟􀁾􀁃􀀵􀁾􀀮
WALNUT HILL LN. 􀁾􀀬􀁾􀁦􀁩􀁾􀁊􀀱􀀻􀀺􀂷􀀺􀀭􀀽􀀢􀀧􀁊 \ ..... 􀁾 􀁩􀁾 J'J 1111111 (CommTraitdtl)ed HOV Lane PARKLN 􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀮􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀁦􀁬􀁪􀁾 -LRT
Starter System g􀁾 􀀮􀀭􀁾 PARK LANE LRT STATION NW HIGHWAY .. (Terminus of LRT Starter System) • Transit Center I LRT Station , cs:D LRT Station Vicinity l· r!,rLr" r[ Soun:e: Delinllon
01 AlernaIMl6, March 1994. ES-11 Figure 5-4
LRT/PARKER ROAD ALTERNATIVE· INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY l 􀁜􀀭􀀽􀁓􀁐􀁾􀁒􀁉􀁎􀁇􀀺􀀬􀀺􀀬􀀺􀀬􀁃􀁒􀀽􀁅􀁬􀀨􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀧􀀺􀁐􀁾􀁲􀀺􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀬 rt 􀁦􀁾
•.-1__􀁾 PARKER RD. l j I 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀱􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁃􀁾􀀮􀁌􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁾􀁊J ...lPARKER ROAD STATIONI I a: d 􀁾 /' EAST PLANO
I m 􀁾 􀁾􀀽􀀮 TRANSIT CENTER 􀁾 􀁾􀀮􀀮 I PARKBLVO. U I • I \ : E 􀁾 : ! 􀁾 NORMAN F. WHITSITTPKWY. : ! I III SOUIIlll: DeIInllon 01 AlernaIIves, MlIICh 1l1e4. ES-12 I I Figure 5-5 I!.
!l.[[. [L[L[[ The operating plan between Park Lane and Arapaho Road would be similar to the LRT/Parker Road Alternative. Specific features defining this optional approach beyond Arapaho
Road are: • Use of existing tracks north of Arapaho Road, if possible, requiring single track operations through some segments; • No intermediate stations between Arapaho Road and Parker
Road; • 20 minute peak headway/3D minute off-peak headway north of Arapaho Road; • Single platform at the Parker Road station; and • Design and construction to accommodate the addition
of a second track and intermediate stations in the future, i.e., full development. The single station site north of Richardson would be an at-grade platform located immediately adjacent
the existing East Plano Transit Center bus loading/unloading facilities. The existing park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride facilities at this center would serve the function of the Parker
Road station contemplated under the LRT/Parker Road Alternative. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity has been included to permit consideration and evaluation of the
cost and ridership impacts associated with the decision initially to provide a minimal level of service beyond Richardson. It reflects the objective of DART to establish LRT service
to Plano, while recognizing DART's responsibility for developing the full regional LRT network defined in the Transit System Plan. However, this alternative would not include intermediate
stations at Campbell Road, SH 190, and 15th Street, because increased operating headways would lower expected boardings and alightings at these stations. Developing the LRT/Parker Road
Alternative in stages would permit financial resources available to DART to be directed toward the development of other LRT segments, such as the Northeast Line. LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative
The LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative would extend the LRT Starter System only 6.8 miles (Figure S-6). This LRT alternative would have an identical alignment and station configuration as
the LRT/Parker Road Alternative up to Richardson. Service would terminate at Arapaho Road after crossing over Arapaho Road. The LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative is considered to be the "minimum
operable segment" (MOS) for LRT service beyond Park Lane. The MOS is the shortest extension of the LRT Starter System that would preserve the greatest amount of ridership while reducing
construction costs and (in some cases) environmental impacts. That is to say, it is the minimum operable "new" segment that can be constructed and operated in a cost-effective manner.
ES-13
:L::R::T:/=A=R=A=PA=H=O==R=O=AD==A=LT=E=R=N=A=T=IV=E================:; IIi i. r" iiII I I SPRING CREEK PKWY. 1 II III IIII 􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁾 􀁾 /􀁾 --􀁾􀀢􀀮 A I ------r=:.:.:..::::=---
--i----l----li!-t.-----1hiJ EAST PLANO m g :.. TRANSIT CENTER !3 3;/. PARK BlVD. U c ..... 􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀂥􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀻􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁬􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀧􀁾􀀺􀁾 􀁾 \
NORMAN F. WHn'S1lT PKWY. : 􀁾 PLANO PKWY. ./J : 81: Loo/S.􀁾 FM 544 I... \ 􀁾􀁾 􀀮􀁾􀁎􀀮􀁱􀀮􀁱􀀮 􀁲􀁾􀀮 􀁔.􀀢1􀀧􀁾-􀁁-􀁔􀁾-􀀦-􀁓-􀁾􀁆-􀁾_􀁒􀀮.􀁒1􀀮􀁾-􀀭􀀭_􀁾􀀢,􀀢􀁾􀁊..􀀮.􀀮􀀧􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁬􀁲􀀮􀀮
􀀮􀀡􀁐􀁬􀁁􀁎􀁏􀁾􀁾􀁰􀁋􀁗􀁙􀀮􀀵􀀡􀀡􀀡_􀀺􀀮􀀮􀁟􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮\􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭:􀀭􀀭􀀻􀀻..􀀺I􀁴'J􀀭.J...__-+---r-----J1".,r--......__./, ----:--1 ----􀁾 􀁾 I 􀁾􀁲 .. RENNERRO. \ 􀁬􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮
􀀮􀀡􀀡􀁆􀁒􀁁􀁎􀁋􀁆􀁏􀁾􀁾􀁒􀁾􀁄􀁒􀁏􀁾􀂷􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁊􀁴􀀭􀁖􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀧􀀭􀁾􀀽􀀧􀁴􀁃􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀽􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀢􀁆􀁜􀁾􀀭􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁩􀀯􀁉􀁲􀀧􀁾) J '\ 􀁾 􀁉􀁜􀁾􀀢 1\. !'/􀀧􀀬􀁾 V I \.. .ir) ARAPAHO
STATION .0' 􀁾 􀁾 􀁾 WAICHA::;=....1 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀮􀀭􀀺 l 􀁾􀀮􀀮 SIT CENTER 􀀯􀁾􀀮􀁬􀁢􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀬 ., 􀁾􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭 [" I 􀁾􀁾 " , I'.. BELTlINE RD 􀁾 􀁾 I ,( 􀀱􀁊 􀁾􀁾􀀮 ,J " 􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁬􀀱􀀧􀀩􀁊 L
SPRING VAllEY RO. 􀀤􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀩􀁲􀁩􀀢􀀷 --l SPR!NG VALLEY STATION I ........ 􀁾 􀁾 g I 􀁾 BUCKINGHAM RD. • l LBJ FREEWAY 8!:: 􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮 _4􀁾f J LBJ STATION 􀁾􀁾 /....,. 􀁴􀁾􀁾 I"'§:V I
0'" , NORTH CENTRAL.' ..􀁾􀁾􀁻 􀁾51 􀁾 PARKI& RIDE 7 􀁄􀁾􀁾 􀁾􀀬􀁾􀁾 􀁾 t--_+__􀀭􀀫􀁾􀁷􀀮􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁁􀁬􀀺􀀡􀀡􀁎􀁕􀁔􀁾􀀺􀀡􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮----f-"""'::;;;;;;;j......_1 FOREST LN. 􀁁􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀧 '# 􀁾
:>􀁾/"<\1 '# "'If cl \ g ( I.A􀁾􀁪􀀢􀁝􀀮􀁁 ROYAL LANE 􀁓􀁔􀁁􀁔􀁉􀁾􀁎 I ci 􀁾􀁧 .......... ci 􀁾 g a: z 􀁉􀁨􀀬􀁾􀁖􀁩􀀢􀀢􀀢 􀁾 -#,# " a: a: a: ii 􀀬􀀮􀁴􀁴􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁊 o 􀀢􀀧􀁾 􀀮􀀢􀁾􀀮􀀢􀀧􀀺􀁽􀀧
I<j '# , .... 0 . 􀁾􀀺􀁉􀀺 c3' I 􀁾 ROYAl LN. 􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀮 g 􀁾􀀮 '# '# --􀁾 􀁾 􀁾 􀁾 􀁾􀁾 􀁾 􀁾􀀵 /T 􀁾􀁯􀀯􀀮􀀯 􀁾 W. MIllER Rp. ) Ul= '" ..-. iJ'V 􀁾􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭 -l:l § 􀁾 WALNUT HILL STATIONI
LEGEND >--g: =. A\. 􀁾 UIIIIUIIIU ProDOsed Light Rail Transit 􀁾 WALNUT HILL LN. 􀁉􀁉􀁾􀁗􀀧 c:: r-.... (DDIble Trad<) 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀁧􀀺􀀳􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀭􀁪􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀽�
�􀀽􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀱􀁲􀀺􀀻􀁾􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁩􀁴􀂧􀀢􀂷􀂷􀂷 􀁾 ....... Committed HOV Lane 􀁟􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁟􀁾􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀻􀁐􀁁􀀺􀀽􀀮􀀻􀁒􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀁋􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁌􀁎􀀺􀁴􀀮􀁲􀀭􀀭 􀁾 /J -LRT Starter
System . 􀁾 •,S. PARK LANE LRT STATION 􀁾 NW HIGHWAY I-= (Terminus of lRT Starter System) • Transit Center I LRT Station , ( <Z.J!:> LRT Station Vicinity Source: Delln.1on 01 AkernalMll,
March 1994. ES"'14 Figure 5-6
IF' {l[. lLfL rIl [[r[LLL[ This LRT alternative is shorter than the LRT/Parker Road Alternative; therefore, it would have only five additional stations beyond the Park Lane station.
Feeder bus service would operate to/from the East Plano Transit Center and other areas to the north. The LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative operating plan would be similar to the LRT/Parker
Road Alternative, because the operating segment between Park Lane and Arapaho Road is common to both. .' station Vicinities The possible vicinities for the location of LRT stations (as
shown in previous figures) was developed by DART based on projected demand for fixed guideway transit service derived from patronage forecasts prepared by DART and NCTCOG. The Walnut
Hill, LBJ Freeway, Arapaho Road, and Parker Road station vicinities are considered highest priority for service, based on ridership forecasts, cost, and joint development potential.
The Royal Lane and spring Valley station vicinities offer the next best potential for generating ridership. The Campbell Road, SH 190, and 15th street station vicinities offer the lowest
potential for ridership. Optional LRT station sites have been established in each of the station vicinities identified for the LRT alternatives. sites have been located within the limits
of the recommended station vicinities through consideration of: available land, roadway access, proximity to existing development, space requirements, and environmental conditions. station
platforms would be either at-grade or elevated, depending on the vertical alignment of the LRT tracks within the station vicinities. In some cases, alternative vertical and horizontal
alignments of the tracks have been considered. More detailed definition of the location and design of stations will be completed during Preliminary Engineering. 1.4 Evaluation Of Alternatives
ISTEA established a new policy for guiding consideration of proposed major transit investment projects, such as extension of the LRT starter System, before advancing them through the
FTA project development process. In the past, FTA rated major transit investment projects based on narrowly defined cost-effectiveness indices. ISTEA and new implementing regulations
require FTA to consider a broad range of evaluation criteria during the conduct or "corridor" or "subarea" studies. The new Joint Planning Regulations pUblished by FTA and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) indicate the sponsors of proposed major transportation investment proj ects now must consider, in addition to cost-effectiveness, the following factors:
• Mobility Improvements (specifically, travel time & travel opportunities, congestion relief, increased mobility for the transit dependent population); ES-15
• Social, Economic, and Environmental Effects (specifically, air pollution, noise pollution); • Safety; • Operating Efficiencies; • Land Use and Economic Development (specifically, transit-supportive
land use policies and patterns); • Financing; • Energy Consumption. S The regulations also indicate that corridor or subarea studies should incorporate, as appropriate, analyses of demand
reduction and operational management strategies (OMS). Major investment (corridor or sUbarea) studies are undertaken to provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of alternative
investments or strategies in attaining local, state, and national goals and objectives as well as cost-effectiveness project goals providing the local framework for evaluating transportation
improvement alternatives for the Study Corridor are stated below. o Travel and Xobility Goal -Provide a transportation system within the Study Corridor that meets the Study Corridor's
mobility needs and that is safe, efficient, and coordinated. o Environmental Goal -Provide a transportation system that preserves and enhances the Study Corridor's social and physical
environment and that minimizes potential impacts to sensitive resources. o Equity Goal Provide a transportation system that is consistent with the local community's goals and fairly
distributes the system's costs, benefits, and impacts among various population sUbgroups. In addition to considerations relating to the achievement of local and regional transportation,
environmental, and equity goals, there remains the need to examine the cost-effectiveness of project alternatives. Cost-effectiveness, as applied to major transportation capital investment
projects, is defined as the extent to which an alternative returns benefits in relation to its costs. 1.4 Evaluation Of Alternatives .fIIIl II I Table S-l summarizes the principal findings
and conclusions with respect to potential impacts of alternatives evaluated during the Corridor Planning StUdy conducted for the North Central Corridor, north of Park Lane. 5 ·Statewide
Planning; Metropolitan Planning,· Final Rules. ES-16 1[
Alternative ES-17 • FY 1993-94 Fjwpsjal Pian Table S-1 No-Build TSM LRT/Arapaho Road LRTlParker Road LRTlParker Road Evaluation of Alternatives (MOS) Staged Implementation Full Development
'1hpaDdI ameu Bill Scnice '1DcIudeI ProjedI of 􀁎􀁾􀁂􀁵􀁩􀁉􀁤AhIaIatiwlI .1DCIUdeI PmjecII 􀁯􀁦􀁎􀁾􀁂􀁵􀁩􀁬􀁤􀁁􀁬􀁬􀁭􀁬􀁡􀁩􀁷 • 1DcIudeI PmjecII of 􀁎􀁾BuildAbsmItiN • IDcIudeI ProjDcu
of 􀁎􀁾􀁂􀁵􀁩􀁬􀁤AbIlmative North Central Corridor, North ofPark Lane ·lnciudel Pn.jpiiWillld HOV 1.IlIIIlI1I2 us 7S • Additillaal RoIdMy Opntioaal ok • En!mioa ofLRT StanDr SyIliIID
III Araplho • Enmiaa ofLRT Stmar SytIIlID to PIrbr • EmmioD ofLRT StInDr Syaam to PEbr ok LBJ Free-r Low-Colt PhyIicallmpiovemems (UP) RoIId in RichIJdIoD RoIId in P1aDo Road inP1aDo
.1DCIUdeI otImTborouabf-hnpaUlIeiDbUtI • Expe...... ofEmtina ParkL-LRT •PMNew LRTSIatiooI • Sm NewLRTStmcmI •BiIbt New LRT SlatiDal plus Special EWlII!I • LRT TCIrIIIinuIlt ParkL-StaDoo
PakinI F.ciliI:y • 10 IIIimIIB Head_y in PIlat PIlriodI • 20 IJIiDJI!B HeadWll)' in PIlat PariodI NllIth of Platform in P1IDO • Bill ACCDII Ramp III US 7S novL-It • ReIUucbnd Bill RIa.
okHae8:qaII RIa. • 6.8 mile Double1ilIck Guide-r AIIpIho RoadLRT Slatioll • 10 IJIiDJI!B Headw.y in PIlat PeriodI RicbIrdIoaTrmn Comer • BillA_Rampllll us 7S HOY1.IlIIIlI • Bill Feeder
Senrice III nm.il Statioal • 12.3 mile Double okSmp1ilIck Guideway • 12.3 mile Double 1'nclt Guideway Evaluation Criteria/Performance Measures at ButP1mo Ir.SH 1901iaIIIit CeaIIr wiIb.
SidiDp • Bill Feeder Senrice III Trmsit StatioaI • Cin:ula1Dr Semc:e farTrmn Cemrn • Bill Feeder Servioe III nm.il SIatioaI NIA=Not Applicable 'Improwd ACCDII for Norm CeaIralPHFe. TRAVEL
& MOBILITY • Population within 1 mile of Transit Stations/Centers N/A 67,000 97,000 109,000 163,000 • Change in Daily Systemwide Transit Riders N/A Base +3,500 +3,800 +5,400 • Average
Transit Travel Time to CBD from: -LBJ Station/North Central Transit Center 26 26 21 21 21 -Arapaho Road Station 35 35 26 26 26 -Parker Road Slation 40 40 40 32 34 • Travel Time Savings
(Annual Annual Hours) N/A Base +948,800 +1,129,100 +1,536,900 Roadways • Reduction in Daily Roadway Vehicle Miles +18,460 Base -62,480 -68,160 -96,560 Traveled (VMT) EQUITY • Employment
within 1 Mile of Transit Stations/Centers N/A 117,780 164,000 172,000 238,000 ENVIRONMENTAL • Number of Noise Sensitive Sites Potentially Affected N/A N/A 20 34 34 • Number of Sensitive
ViSUal/Aesthetic Resources N/A N/A 11 15 15 Potentially Affected • Number of Parklands Potentially Affected N/A 1 4 5 5 • Number of Potential Displacements None None 2 2 2 • Change in
Air Emissions +0.2 Tons/Day Base -0.6 Tons/Day -0.7 Tons/Day -1.0 Tons/Day COSTIFINANCIAL FEASIBILITY • Added Capital Cost (Millions) Base +$44.9M +$215.3M +$267.6M +$324.1M • Available
Capital Funding 1996-2001* N/A $240-$250M $240-$250M $240-$250M $240-$250M • Added Annual Operating & Maintenance Cost Base +$8.2M +$7.6M +$6.3M +$9.8M (Millions of 1993 Dollars) 􀂷􀁃􀁯􀁳􀁾􀁅􀁦􀁦􀁥􀁣
􀁴􀁎􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁦􀁵􀁯􀁯􀁸􀀨􀁃􀁅􀁏 N/A Base $9.83 $11.25 $12.24 1IJJ -"1)",!J .J.. 􀁾􀁾 􀁾 ::J􀁾ii I B Jl 􀁾I' -·-11 ,l 􀁾􀁾 I I􀁾􀀭 It ]) :J] J
ES-18 The evaluation associated with the Project Effectiveness Environmental Goal focuses on the degree and character of impacts to the physical, social,. and cultural resources of the
Study Corridor. The potential for major environmental consequences from the implementation of each alternative was determined through review of available information and minimal field
reconnaissance. The purpose of the review was two-fold: (1) determine the general differences in effects, consequences, or impacts between the alternatives being considered; and (2)
differentiate between the significance of the different types of effects, consequences, or impacts anticipated. The evaluation associated with the Project Effectiveness -Travel and Mobility
Goal seeks to determine how well each alternat.ive improves travel times and accessibility within the study Corridor and to/from points outside the study Corridor. The LRT/Parker Road
Alternative would serve the greatest population within one mile of transit stations. It would make efficient transit services available to about 100,000 more persons than the TSM Alternative.
The result would be an additional 5,400 transit riders. The LRT/Parker Road -Intermediate Capacity option would add about 40,000 persons, while the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative would
add about 30,000. These two alternatives would add 3,800 and 3,500 transit riders daily to the transit system, respectively. Project Effectiveness -Travel and Mobility Goal Project Effectiveness
-Environmental Goal 1.4.1 Transit time savings would be a principal benefit resulting from more efficient transportation systems. The average trip travel time from three representative
station locations to the Dallas CBD is shown for all alternatives in Table S-l. The trip travel time forecasts indicate the LRT alternatives would reduce the trip travel time to the
Dallas Central Business District (CBD) from locations in the study Corridor. Average travel time saved in comparison to the No-Build and TSM Alternatives would range from 5 to 9 minutes.
It is estimated that the LRT/Parker Road Alternative would generate annual travel time savings of 1,536,900 hours. Annual travel time savings would be slightly less than 1 million hours
for the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative and about 1.1 million hours for the LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity option. The benefit of transit travel time savings would be
the attraction of more transit riders to DART's system. The attraction of riders to the transit system serving the study Corridor would reduce the daily non-transit vehicle miles of
travel in the DART Service Area. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative, which would provide full development of LRT service to Plano, would generate a reduction in daily vehicle miles of almost
100,000 miles. The other two LRT alternatives would result in reducing daily vehicle miles by 60,000 to 70,000 miles. r[[rr[' [' [LrftIe .LL
criteria for measuring the performance of an alternative relative to the environmental goal specifically address effects on the physical setting of the study Corridor. Five criteria
have been identified as "key" indicators of project effectiveness. o Noise -The number of noise sensitive sites affected by proposed transportation improvements and the nature of the
potential effects provides a measure to determine whether impacts have been minimized among alternatives. Little or no change in noise levels would be expected with implementation of
the TSM Alternative. Park-and-ride facilities would be expected to generate additional traffic in the local area. Where traffic volumes would be less than double the existing activity,
no significant impacts would occur. Facility design and orientation combined with landscaping and structural noise barriers may be used to mitigate possible noise impacts. The longer
LRT alternatives extending to Plano would create more noise impacts, potentially affecting 34 sensitive sites compared to only 20 under the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative. A number of
mitigation measures would be available to minimize any adverse noise impacts identified. Available measures include: use of resilient wheels on the LRT vehicle; installation of continuously-welded
steel rail; construction of sound barrier walls along the track in noise-sensitive areas; use of train operating speed limitations where needed; and procurement of quieter vehicles.
o Parklands -Alternative transportation improvements could adversely affect or impact parklands, recreation areas, historic or cultural sites, scenic areas, or other resources sUbject
to section 4(f) review. Each of the build alternatives would affect existing parklands. The TSM Alternative potentially would affect 1 park, the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative potentially
would affect 4 parks or open space areas, and the longer LRT alternatives extending service to Plano potentially would affect 5 parks or open space areas. Impact mitigation measures
will need to be defined during Preliminary Engineering, respecting any construction activity. and structural designs to be associated with crossing the creek. o Visual/Aesthetic -The
number of sensitive visual/aesthetic resources affected by proposed transportation improvements and the nature of the potential effects provides a measure to determine whether impacts
have been minimized among alternatives. Few impacts would result from implementing the TSM Alternative. Mitigation measures (such as, landscaping and designing facilities to fit in with
the surrounding community) may be employed to minimize potential visual/aesthetic impacts associated with this alternative. ES-19 !I l!<
The shorter LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative potentially would affect 11 sensitive sites, while the longer LRT alternatives extending service to Plano would potentially affect 15 sites.
Incorporation of mitigation measures into the design of the LRT system would minimize adverse visual impacts. stations and associated facilities can be designed to fit in with the, character
of the community or the surrounding neighborhood •. Landscaping can be incorporated into station site' design/layout to increase aesthetic appeal. The visual impacts of the aerial guideway
can be reduced by minimizing the size of support columns, maximizing the span lengths between columns, and installing a guideway which is of uniform color and texture. ',. ' Displacements
-The number of displaced 􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳􀀯􀁨􀁯􀁭􀁥􀁳 and," businesses provides a measure of the potential impacts on the '. fabric of the community. The TSM Alternative would not
create any displacements. The LRT alternatives would require displacement of at least two businesses to make space for proposed station facilities. Federal law provides for the relocation
and assistance of residents or businesses 􀁴􀁾􀁡􀁴 may be displaced by Federally funded community infrastructure improvements. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) mandates uniform and equitable treatment of all displaced persons or businesses, inclUding assistance with relocation services. DART would be
required to comply with the Federal relocation assistance law in compensating any businesses or residents that may be displaced as a result of the required acquisitions. [L[1riL· 0 IIL
rf' fl' 1rL[' o Air Quality -Reductions in automobile and bus emissions, as a function of annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) indicates the relative improvement of air quality, which
is a concern specifically identified in the framework of ISTEA. Any improvement in transportation efficiency will improve air quality. Thus, the TSM Alternative potentially could 􀁲􀁥􀁤􀁵􀁣􀁥􀁾􀀧
vehicle emission by about 0.2 tons per day. The LRT alternatives potentially would reduce vehicle emissions by 0.6 . to one ton per day over the TSM Alternative. 1.4.3 Project Bffectiveness
-Bquity Goal Equity criteria focus on the distribution of project effects or impacts across various segments of the'population. The criteria' are defined to determine whether any segment
of the study Corridor 's population, when compared to the region's popUlation as', a whole, is (1) paying a disproportionate share of costs or other impacts or (2) receiving a disproportionate
share of benefits. In the context of alternatives evaluation, the broadest consideration of equity means to weigh out the degree to which those in the local community bear the impacts
of a proposed project (i.e., the costs ES-20
and environmental impacts) compared to those who benefit through the ability to use the services to be provided by the proposed project and, thereby, gain a benefit (i.e., increased
mobility, access to jobs, etc.). In the absence of extensive and detailed demographic and economic investigations, this can be ascertained through an examination of changes in the social,
economic, and land use patterns of the study corridor, which would bring about opportunities for greater interaction. Table S-l shows that the LRT/Parker Road Alternative would improve
accessibility to the greatest number of employment opportunities in the study Corridor. Employment within one mile of transit stations included under the LRT/Parker Road Alternative
would be more than twice that served by the TSM Alternative. The LRT Arapaho Road Alternative would be less than a 50 percent improvement over the TSM Alternative. The improvement in
accessibility to employment opportunities with implementation of the LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity would be almost 50 percent better than the TSM Alternative. I
·1 1.4.4 Cost Effectiveness/Pinancial peasibility The elements of cost are very important to any project. Therefore, it is important that the evaluation methodology include weighing
thecosts of proposed transit improvements in the study Corridor against expected benefits and related impacts. Both short-term capital costs and long-term, continuing operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs must be considered. Relating the costs with the benefits of the project, in terms of increased ridership, reveals the cost-effectiveness of proposed alternatives. Finally,
the ability to fund both the short-and long-term costs must be evaluated to determine whether the proposed actions are financially feasible. Capital Cost The capital investment required
to implement the alternatives, obviously, is a key cost-effectiveness criteria. There are numerous components to project cost for any partiCUlar alternative. Property acquisition usually
is a major major component; however, the LRT alternatives incorporate the previously acquired DART/SPRR ROW. Therefore, this cost would be a smaller than usual portion of total project
cost for the LRT alternatives. Critical cost components include: civil/structural work associated with facilities (e.g., access ramps to HOV lane, stations, transit centers); vehicles
(bus and LRT); signalization and service equipment; and trackwork (LRT only). By definition, only planned and programmed costs would be incurred under the No-Build Alternative. The TSM
Alternative would involve capital expenditures for the construction of HOV ramps, transit centers, transit center improvements, and vehicles. The capital ES-21 Ii' i. I
rlI1r1fI [rrLIlLl cost associated with the TSM Alternative would be approximately $44.9 million. The capital cost associated with the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative (MaS) would be approximately
$215.3 million. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity would require about $50 million more, with an estimated total capital cost of $267.6 million. The LRT/Parker Road
Alternative, which calls for "full development"of the complete LRT system to Plano, would be the most expensive, with a total estimated capital cost of $324.1 million. It should be noted
that the ultimate cost of the LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate capacity ($333.6 million), which calls for staged implementation of LRT service beyond Arapaho Road, would "be
slightly higher than the LRT/Parker Road Alternative. The greater capital cost of staged implementation would result from delaying construction of the full, double track LRT system and
various other design and construction factors. Available capital Funding The FY 1993-94 Financial Plan (currently being updated), provides for the funding of capital projects in the
five-year period 1996-2001. Available funding for capital projects has been established at $240 to $250 million. Anticipated Federal grant funds account for 60 to 70 percent of the funds
available for capital projects. The No-Build Alternative would result in little additional direct financial burden for the community. Standard financing arrangements for replacing facilities
and the vehicle fleet would be required. The TSM Alternative would require the purchase of approximately 130 new buses to support expanded express bus service and new construction, as
indicated above. The HOV lane proposed for construction in US 75 north of LBJ Freeway has been programmed in the State's highway bUdget for several years. Available capital funding is
more than sufficient to cover the cost of the TSM Alternative, which is estimated at $44.9 million. Available capital funding also is sufficient to cover the cost of the LRT/Arapaho
Road Road Alternative, estimated at $215.3 million. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative and the LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate capacity would require new capital expenditures exceeding
that which is established as available in the FY 1993-94 Financial Plan. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative, the most expensive alternative being considered, would exceed available capital
funding by $74 to $84 million. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity, which offers capital savings in the near-term, would require $18 to $28 million more than is available.
It should be noted that the ability of DART to implement any build alternative depends on the availability of Federal funds at the time of the grant application and DART's ES-22
ability to incur long-term debt. The updated Financial Plan will reflect the latest assumptions regarding this matter. Annual opera"ting and Hain"tenance (O&HJ Cos"ts The year 2010 O&M
costs have been estimated in 1993 constant dollars for each of the alternatives. The total year 2010 O&M costs for the No-Build Alternative have been estimated at approximately $175.4
million. Implementation of the TSM Alternative would increase annual 2010 O&M costs by slightly less than 5% to about $183.6 million. O&M costs of the LRT/Parker Road Alternative ($185.2
million) would add $L 6 million to the TSM Alternative. Both the LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity and LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative would be less costly to operate than
the TSM Alternative at $181. 7 million and $183.0 million, respectively. Cos"t-Effec"tiveness Under current procedures, FTA uses the Cost Per New Rider Index to rate transit projects
proposed for Federal funding assistance. The Cost Per New Rider Index is a ratio between (1) the incremental costs of building and operating an alternative and (2) the incremental transit
riders attracted to that alternative. The incremental change compares the proposed system of services with that provided by the TSM Alternative. There are two versions of the New Transit
Rider Index. The "Total" New Transit Rider Index includes the total annualized capital cost of the project, while the "Federal" New Transit Rider Index includes only the Federally-funded
share of the project's annualized capital costs. The "Federal" New Transit Rider Index was computed for the alternatives being considered for the study corridor. The "Federal" New Transit
Rider Index for the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative was computed at $9.83. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity option yields and index of $11.25. The LRT/Parker Road
Alternative yields an index value of close to $12.24. 1.S comparison Of 􀁁􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥􀁳 The comparison of alternatives involves an examination of the "trade-offs" related with
the the choices. In general, trade-offs are the identified relationships among impacts, affected interests, and alternatives. Trade-offs show the effect of making selected changes in
alternatives by displaying how an action designed to achieve an effect in one impact area may have implications for other areas as well. For example, LRT alternatives are designed to
provide fast travel times and attract new riders, but the facilities are expensive to construct and operate; this affects the financial feasibility of the project. The examination of
trade-offs is particularly valuable when an alternative exhibits ES-23 \' I
[fr[r1r: 1L strengths and weaknesses in different areas and in differing degrees than other alternatives. The trade-offs analysis provides a basis for decision-makers to weigh the pros
and cons of each alternative and, ultimately, determine the desired future course of action. Key Differences Among Al.ternatives o The TSM Alternative would include four transit centers
directly served by dedicated Express Bus Routes. The transit centers would have expanded park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride facilities. Direct access to US 75 would be available for each
transit center. Expanded park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride would be developed at the LRT Park Lane station. o The LRT/Parker Road Alternative would include eight (8) stations plus a "Special
Events" Station in the Plano Downtown area. These stations would be located near or at: Walnut Hill, Royal Lane, LBJ Freeway, Spring Valley, Arapaho Road, Campbell Road, SH 190, 15th
Street (Special Events), and Parker Road. Dedicated "circulator" bus service would be established between stations, and "feeder" bus service would be oriented to the LRT stations. rj
rr: I' ·t[[Lt ooo The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity would not inclUde the Campbell Road, SH 190, and 15th Street Special Events Stations. These three stations were
identified as "low-activity" stations, because travel demand forecasts predicted total activity (Le., boardings plus alightings) would be less than 2,000. During initial screening of
potential ridership in the StUdy Corridor, an activity level of 2,000 was considered the minimum acceptable for inclUding a station vicinity in the LRT system. The Parker Road station
significantly exceeded the threshold of 2,000 boardings and alightings in all scenarios tested. Therefore, it is considered reasonable to extend LRT service to Parker Road while bypassing
the intermediate, poor-performing station vicinities. Dedicated "circula-tor" bus service would be established between stations, and "feeder" bus service would be oriented to the LRT
stations. The LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative would add five (5) stations to the LRT Starter System: Walnut Hill, Royal Lane, LBJ Freeway, Spring Valley, Arapaho Road. Predicted activity
at the Walnut Hill station is just shy of the 'threshold of 2,000 boardings and alightings. Dedicated "circulator" bus service would be established between stations, and "feeder" bus
service would be oriented to the LRT stations. The LRT alternatives potentially could require the removal of the T&NO RR bridge of White Rock Creek, depending on the alignment selected
at Royal Lane. ES-24
ooo The LRT alternatives could result in construction activity in the White Rock Creek Greenbelt and floodplain, depending on the alignment selected at Royal Lane. The TSM Alternative
would increase transit accessibility through the expansion of traditional express bus commuter services, while the LRT alternatives would increase transit accessibility through an intermodal
approach, using a combination of modes (i. e. , bus, express bus, circulator/feeder bUS, and LRT). The base operating headways for allLRT alternatives would be 10 minutes in the Peak
Period and 15 minutes in the Off-Peak Period. The LRT/Arapaho Road would not operate north of Arapaho Road in the City of Richardson. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity
would operate at 20 minute Peak and 30 minute Off-Peak headways north of Arapaho Road. o The LRT alternatives include the potential for future development of an HOV facility within the
DART/SPRR ROW to the extent that the cost of LRT system development is not affected. Affected In'terests o AM and PM commuters to the Dallas CBD would benefit mostly by the implementation
of the network of express bus routes proposed under the TSM Alternative, because the need to transfer to LRT service would not exist. o Drivers and service personnel of DART's bus system
would benefit more with implementation of the TSM Alternative, because there would be more operating hours. I . rI oo The downtown areas of Richardson and Plano would benefit from the
establishment of regular LRT service, connecting to the Dallas CBD and the regional LRT system. The real estate and development interests in the Corridor would be benefitted more by
the establishment of permanent LRT service with fixed property investment. Land adjacent the station sites gain slightly in value with permanent transit facilities and services. II.
I Assessment Of Choices In general, the LRT/Parker Road Alternative would result in the greatest transportation benefits, considering accessibility, ridership, travel time, and emissions
reduction. However, it would carry with it the greatest social and environmental impacts. This alternative would require the largest capital investment, exceeding available capital funds
by approximately $74 to $84 million and ES-25 I
J[r1r1r "Ir1. fL1[tL resulting in the highest annual O&M costs. The computed value of the "Federal" New Transit Rider Index is $12.24. The TSMAlternative would require the least capital
investment, but this alternative's annual O&M costs would be relatively high. No significant social or environmental impacts would be manifest with implementation of this alternative.
Accessibility for work or commute trips would be significantly enhanced with implementationof the expanded Express Bus service through four transit centers. But, neither travel time
nor accessibility would be improved to a significant degree. The LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative and the LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity would be roughly comparable in
terms of benefits and impacts. Because the latter alternative involves extending the LRT service to Parker Road, certain, environmental effects (noise, visual/aesthetic, and parkland
impacts) are associated with it that are not associated with the LRT!Arapaho Road Alternative. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate Capacity would require a larger capital investment,
exceeding the expected availability of capital funds by $18 to $28 million. On the plus side, the annual O&M costs for this alternative ($6.3 million) would be less than for the LRT/Arapaho
Road Alternative ($7.6 million). The computed Federal cost-effectiveness index for the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative is $9.83; this is less than that computed for the LRT/Parker Road
Alternative -Intermediate Capacity option ($11.25). 1.6 Next steps There are several steps to be completed from this point in order to advance the proposed extension of the LRT system
for the North Central corridor, north of Park Lane, into Preliminary Engineering and, ultimately, full implementation. Public Review/Involvement: Several informational meetings will
be conducted throughout the study Corridor. These meetings will focus on apprising affected agencies and interested citizens of the contents of,this Evaluation of Alternatives Report
and results of the evaluation. The recommended LPA, as determined from the evaluation, will be identified at these meetings. Persons attending the meetings will have the opportunity
to comment on or ask questions about the alternatives, the LPA, and/or assessments as to potential' transportation effects or environmental impact. Select: LPA After the pUblic review/involvement
activity is completed and comments are received, an LPA will be selected by the DART Board of Directors. Their decision will be based on the findings and ES-26
conclusions documented in this Evaluation of Alternatives Report and other pertinent information that may be deemed critical to selection of the LPA. The Board also will consider comments
and concerns raised during public review of the Evaluation of A1ternatives Report, including input from the pUblic, interest groups, and government agencies. The DART Board will forward
its decision to the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), the regional planning body, for action. The NCTCOG will consider the decision of the DART Board and define an
appropriate line of action, given the regional transportation planning and development program and available funds. Prepare LPA Report A Locally Preferred Alternative Report will be
prepared, following official action by NCTCOG adopting a specific action for transportation improvements in the North Central Corridor, north of Park Lane. The LPA Report will provide
a description of the preferred technology of the LPA and its alignment, operating plan, estimated costs, and associated financing plan. The LPA Report will be submitted to FTA with a
request to initiate Preliminary Engineering and prepare the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the project. This process is intended to provide DART and FTA with
the information necessary to assure that any transportation improvement built in the study Corridor represents a wise use of pUblic funds, and that community and environmental impact
issues related to its construction and operation are taken into account. EISIEngineeringlDesign FTA approval of the grant application will permit DART to initiate the Preliminary Engineering
phase of the project development process. Under the new planning regulations, it is during this phase that the Draft and Final EIS documents will be prepared. The EIS is assembled from
information in all areas of technical analysis. The document will provide a detailed description of the LPA, affected environment, expected impacts, and mitigation measures. Implementation
of the LPA will be evaluated against doing nothing (Le., a No Build or "No Action" alternative). The DEIS will be circulated for public examination, review, and comment. Specific coordination
will be maintained with affected government agency during this review process. Review of the DEIS will be followed by revisions, as necessary to respond to comments received, and preparation
of the FEIS. with pUblication of the FEIS and certain other administrative actions on the part of FTA, DART can proceed into Final Engineering/Final Design and then Construction/Implementation
phases of project development. ES-27 r'iIrj)< I.
ff·•· .. {{' f'".. 1l1"\I Chapter One 1I1TRODUCTION 1.1 Pro1ect Background Organized in 1983, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)· consists of 14 member cities in Dallas, Denton, and Collin
counties, forming a 700 square mile service area (Figure 1.1). In June 1989, the DART Board of Directors adopted a Transit System Plan with 66 miles of light rail transit (LRT) , 37
miles of high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) facilities and 18 miles of commuter rail (Figure 1.2). Twelve transportation corridors were identified during the development of the Transit System
Plan. 1 Nine of the corridors are radial in nature and focus on the Dallas Central Business District (CBD). The other three corridors are circumferential and are associated with non-CBD
travel patterns in the northern portion of DART's service area. One of the nine radial corridors is the North Central Corridor, which covers portions of the cities of Dallas, Richardson,
and Plano. The system planning effort was a comprehensive process that included the identification of logical travel corridors, development of alternatives designed to address the problems
of each corridor, technical analysis of each set of alternatives, and intensive public involvement. Construction has begun on DART's first 20 miles of the LRT "Starter System." DART's
LRT Starter System is divided into three "lines" plus a downtown transitway mall in the CBD (Figure 1.3). o The South Oak Cliff Line will connect Ledbetter Road to the CBD. o The West
Oak Cliff Line will be constructed from Westmoreland Road to just south of the Trinity River bridge, near Corinth Street where it joins the South Oak Cliff Line and enters doWntown.
o The North Central Line will connect Park Lane in the northeast to the CBD. o In the Dallas CBD, LRT service from/to these three lines will operate on a transitway mall to be constructed,
along Bryan Street and Pacific Avenue. The Fixed Guideway Implementation Schedule, also adopted by the Board as part of the Transit System Plan, calls for DART's LRT Starter System to
be completed in 1996. Alternative transportation System Plan Mobility Needs Assessment, October, 1988. 1
DART SERVICE AREA SOURCE: Scoplng Information, October, 1992. 2 \l Figure 1.1
rr--.-I[rf1l _ TRANSIT SYSTEM PLAN I !i LEGEND I I I COMMUTER RAIL LINE •••• HOY TRANSITWAY -_.LIGHT RAIL STARTER SYSTEM (199&) ••••• LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM (1997-2005) :J C C C C
C LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT SYSTEM (POST 2005) SOURCE: Scopln Information, October, 1992. 3 ,,"􀁾􀁜Ii /./􀁾....._.,/L ......., . ............. Figure 1.2
LIGHT RAIL STARTER SYSTEM SOURCE: Scoplng Information, October, 1992. I!\ [: 4 Figure 1.3
rrfrrIj" l improvements for the North Central Corridor, north of Park Lane (referred to hereinafter as the "study Corridor"), are the subject of this report. Scope Of Study The study
Corridor is a loosely defined geographic area that represents the travelshed for most trips that would use the alternative transportation improvements being considered (Figure 1.4).
The North Central Line of DART's LRT starter System, when completed in 1996, will extend to an interim terminal station at Park Lane at the south end of the study Corridor. Therefore,
continuing planning and engineering studies are focused on that portion of the North Central Corridor that is north of Park Lane. The Study Corridor begins at the Park Lane station and'
extends northward to Spring Creek Parkway in Plano, a distance of approximately 13 miles. The Study Corridor, includes portions of three cities: Dallas, Richardson, and Plano. The study
of alternative transportation improvements for the Study Corridor involves several steps in the project development process of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). DART's Scoping
Information document published October, 1992, 􀁾􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁳 a succinct summary of FTA's project development process. The FTA project development process is designed to aid in the
selection and implementation of the best transit solutions for transportation corridor mobility problems. This sequential process facilitates the selection of transit solutions that:
• Achieve mobility goals while minimizing social, economic, and environmental impacts; • Increase transit use and reduce travel times at a reasonable cost; The first phase of the process--system
planning--was completed in June, 1989, when the Transit System Plan was adopted by the DART • Have a fair distribution of costs and benefits; and • Are publicly acceptable. The process
includes definition of an overall system of improvements for the DART Service Area. By following the process, local transit providers are gu;ded in advancing alternatives from a low
level of design to very specific designs and identification of environmental impacts. Scoplng InformatIon, October, 1992, Alternatives AnalysiS/Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
North central Corridor, North Of Park Lane, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. 5 2 ir1L1It[
NORTH CENTRAL CORRIDOR • NORTH OF PARK LANE ................. ....... SOURCE: Scoplng Information, October, 1992. 6 STLCSWFigure 1.4 [" i
JrrLr t[\,[ . r1 11' L1r[: r, Board of Directors. since that time, a series of studies has been undertaken to establish the detailed planning and engineering knowledge necessary for
implementation of projects identified therein. As noted "above, construction of the LRT starter System is underway, with operations to begin in late 1996. Improvements now are being
addressed in the North Central Corridor, north of Park Lane, and the Northeast (Garland) Corridor. Borth Central corridor, north of Park Lane, AA/DBIS Beyond development and adoption
of the Transit System Plan and implementation of the LRT Starter System, DART has 􀁾􀁥􀁴 additional priorities for development of the plan's elements. The resolution adopting the Transit
System Plan calls for the concurrent implementation of LRT service in the North Central Corridor, north of Park Lane and the Northeast Corridor by the year 2001. The DART Board of Directors
adopted a subsequent resolution March 24, 1992, selecting the North Central Corridor, north of Park Lane, as the priority corridor for extending the LRT Starter System. DART intends
to seek a capital grant from FTA to assist in funding an extension of the LRT system. To be eligible for a grant, DART must meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) by satisfying regulations and guidelines established by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and FTA. These regulations and guidelines require that reasonable and feasible
alternative solutions to transportation problems be evaluated and their associated environmental impacts be thoroughly assessed. In addition, FTA must determine that a locally preferred
alternative (LPA) is cost-effective before it can be eligible for Federal funding. Therefore, the DART Board, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and FTA,
initiated the second phase of the project development process--a study officially designated as the "North Central Corridor, north of Park Lane " Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (AA/DEIS). n The purpose of DART I s AA/DEIS study was to provide" a basis for selecting the most appropriate transportation improvement for the Study Corridor. The
AA/DEIS study was being conducted in accordance with CEQ "Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended" (40 CFR
Part 1500, and FTA "Environmental Impact and Related Procedures" (49 CFR Part 622). Six major steps had been defined to be performed in progression, leading from consideration of a wide
range of possible alternatives (at the start of scoping) to the selection of an Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Intermodal Surface Transportation Bfficiency Act (ISTEA) Subsequent
to initiation of the AA/DEIS study, the U.S. Congress passed and the President signed into law the Intermodal Surface 7
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). 3 This Federal legislation caused FTA, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to change the manner in which the
project development process unfolds. This section summarizes the ISTEA legislation and regulations promulgated to implement the Act's requirements. It also discusses the Act's effects
on DART's AA/DEIS study efforts and the manner in Which DART is adjusting those efforts to meet the new requirements. ISTEA established new Federal policy regarding the development,
evaluation, and implementation of solutions to transportation problems in the country's major metropolitan areas. In response to ISTEA, FTA and FHWA promulgated Joint Planning Regulations
"governing the development of statewide plans and programs...4 Implementation of these regulations is intended to "ensure the adequacy of statewide and metropolitan· (emphasis added)
transportation planning and programming and the eligibility of metropolitan areas and state for Federal highway and transit funds. ,,5 The new regulations change the project development
process for major transportation investment projects, especially transit projects being developed under the sponsorship of FTA. The new regulations establish a framework for performing
"major investment (corridor or subarea) studies, [Which] shall be undertaken to develop or refine the [local transportation] plan and lead to decisions by the MPO, in cooperation with
participating agencies, on the design concept and scope of the investment. tt6 FTA, by initiating this new planning approach, is now allowing potential grant recipients to define and
identify an LPA without direct supervision. Potential projects coming out of the regional comprehensive planning process will be refined and evaluated at the local level. Nevertheless,
guidelines will be promulgated to assist local agencies in managing this new stUdy approach. Implementation of this new framework for planning requires extensive, coordinated agency
action and seeks to guide communities in the development of "multimodal" solutions to regional mobility problems as contemplated under ISTEA. Integrated environmental analyses must be
conducted as well as modal trade-off analyses. Effective cooperation and coordination with the many diverse interest groups becomes vitally important during the evaluation of { ·1.·
!" 3456 Public Law 102·240, 105 Statute 1914. "Statewide Planning; Metropolitan Planning," Final Rules, 23 CFR Part 450, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and 49 CFR Part 613. Federal
Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 207, Thursday, October 28, 1993, p. 58040. Ibid. Ibid. 8
f,rr: fL, rrt[; alternatives and development of a consensus plan, i.e., adoption of the LPA. The AA/DElS study undertaken for the study Corridor was designed and organized to provide
detailed examination, comparison, and evaluation of transportation alternatives in accordance with a comprehensive set of factors. These factors included environmental impacts, ridership
forecasts, capital cost, operating and maintenance cost, economic and cost-effectiveness considerations. The factors were defined to determine how well each alternative achieved regional
transportation goals and objectives. Performance with respect to the regional transportation goals and objectives was expected to play a major role in the selection of the LPA at the
conclusion of the study. Given changes in the Federal policy regarding the .,planning and programming of transportation improvement projects, FTA modified its project development process,
eliminating the AA/DElS phase. FTAhas permitted local communities to adopt for on-going projects the new approach defined above as a "major investment (corridor or subarea) study." The work activities relating to the
AA/DElS study, which narrowly focused on transit solutions, have been revised in response to changes in Federal policy regarding the planning and programming of major transportation
investment projects. The new "Corridor Planning study" focuses on evaluating multimodal transportation solutions for the study Corridor. The reorientation of the study focus means temporarily
suspending preparation of the AA/DElS document in favor of a more direct, but less detailed "Evaluation of Alternatives Report," which identifies key trade-offs among potential modal
solutions. Draft and Final ElS documents will be prepared subsequent to this activity, during Preliminary Engineering (PE) of the LPA. 1.2 Purpose Of Evaluation Of Alternatives Report
This Evaluation of Alternatives Report is intended to assist community decision-makers in the selection of an LPA for the study Corridor. The selection of the the LPA will include definition
of the design concept and scope of the proposed investment. The LPA will be carried into Preliminary Engineering for more detailed definition, examination, and analysis. Physical, operating,
environmental, and cost aspects of the LPA will be examined in detail during the Preliminary Engineering phase. As noted above, detailed environmental studies, inclUding the ident.ification
of mitigation measures, will be fully documented during Preliminary Engineering, and the DElS and FElS will be prepared •.... All aspects of the transportation infrastructure in the
study Corridor will be reviewed. . The five major components of the purpose and structure of this Evaluation of Alternatives Report are outlined below. 9
o Bstablish Purpose and Meed for project This Evaluation of Alternatives Report is intended to (1) provide adequate understanding of the purpose for a major investment in transportation
improvements in the study Corridor and (2) establish the need for proposed improvements. A summary of the project's purpose and need is provided in Chapter 2. o Description Of Alternatives
This Evaluation of Alternatives Report contains descriptions or definitions of the alternatives being considered. The definitions of alternatives are those formulated to date through
previous efforts associated with the AAIDEIS study. Alternatives being considered within the framework of this Evaluation of Alternatives Report include: a No Build Alternative (i.e.,
no improvement action undertaken), a Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, and two Light Rail Transit (LRT) Alternatives. Chapter 3 presents descriptions of these alternatives.
o Comparison Of Alternatives This Evaluation of Alternatives Report provides a comparison comparison of the transit improvement alternatives proposed for the Study Corridor. In Chapter
4, the evaluation process is outlined, existing conditions affected by the alternatives are summarized, potentially significant environmental impacts are noted, and other considerations
weighing on the selection of an LPA are presented. o Decision Pramework Chapter 5 of this Evaluation Report presents a comparative analysis of the trade-offs among alternatives, focusing
on similarities, differences, and affected interests. community input and the evaluation of potential impacts is an important part of this project. Information for both of these sources
will help ensure that significant social and environmental consequences are considered within an integrated decision-making process. o Action Document After pUblic review of this document,
the DART Board of Directors will consider the proposed improvements for the study Corridor. Their decision will be forwarded for action to the MPO, which is the regional transportation
planning and policy body, for approval and adoption as part of the regional transportation improvement program (TIP). The process for effecting project implementation is outlined in
Chapter 6. 10 (((iI
I[{If.co ., l.L{L r' lIl1l(.•...•􀁾.. "L Chapter Two PURPOSB AND BEED The study Corridor currently is served by two major freeways, an extensive grid system of streets and arterials,
and a bus system that operates daily in mixed traffic on city streets. Despite the existing transportation infrastructure and planned improvements, significant traffic congestion is
anticipated to occur in the study Corridor between now and the year 2010. Major increases in traffic are projected between now and 2010 along us 75, the major north-south freeway in
this radial travel corridor. The expected traffic increase reflects projected growth in ,residential, commercial, and industrial development throughout the study Corridor, especially
in the cities of Richardson and Plano. In addition, congestion delays are anticipated on many of the arterials. Most arterials are expected to operate at traffic levels of service (LOS)
E or F by the year 2010. Consequently, a number of goals have been established by the DART Board of Directors for transportation improvements in the study Corridor. These goals focus
on the need to improve transit service throughout the Study Corridor, minimize the environmental impacts of these improvements, and promote an equitable use of resources. The purpose
and goals of proposed transportation improvement alternatives, as outlined by the DART Board, are: • Optimize pUblic investment; • Increase transit usage within the corridor; • Integrate
DART services to provide a high level of mobility to people throughout the DART Service Area in a manner that will offer convenience and safety; • Reduce congestion on corridor freeways
and arterials; • Minimize adverse impacts to the natural, built, and. social environments; and • Reduce transportation-related energy consUmption and resultant air pollution. 2.1 Specific
Transportation Problems In The Study Corridor The 1992 Transportation Improvement Program for the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area (NCTCOG, 1992), also known as the TIP, identifies
all of the State and local street improvements that are programmed for construction within the next five years,' or proposed for the next 20 years. The roadway improvement plans for
the study Corridor in the TIP will provide some additional traffic-carrying capability to respond to the projected population and employment growth. For example, widening the North Central
Expressway (US 75) will add capacity to carry an additional 120,000 vehicles per day. 11
Table 2.1 presents 1990 and 2010 traffic volumes and volume-to-capacity (VIC) ratios7 for US 75 and the other freeways within the study Corridor. The table indicates the heaviest average
daily traffic (ADT) volumes along us 75 (240,000) will occur between IH-635 and Arapaho Road in Richardson. However, the most significant increase in ACT volumes along us 75 (91%) is
expected to occur between Arapaho Road in Richardson and Parker Road in Plano. This increase in traffic reflects the anticipated growth in residential, commercial, and industrial development
throughout the study corridor, especially in Richardson and Plano. Table 2.1 FRBEWAY 'l'RU'PXC COHDXTXOBS XB BORTBBRJ1 COIUUDOR 1990 2010 Location mra V/Cb mra V/Cb Incr•••• , Incr.a••
lorth central (US 75) Northwest Highway -IH 635 133.5 >.9 180 >.9 46.5 351 IH635 -Arapaho 135 >.9 240 >.9 105 78X Arapaho -Parker 97 .8->.9 185 >.9 88 911 LB.I Freeww UH 615) Preston
-US 75 197 >.9 261 <.8->.9 64 32X US 75 -Abrams 182 .8->.9 244 .8->.9 62 341 Abrams -Skillman Skillman 170 .8->.9 213 .8->.9 43 251 SH190Freeww Preston -AT&SF Railroad NIA --12 <.8->.9
----AT&SF Railroad -US 75 NIA --83 >.9 ----US 75 -Shiloh NIA --63 >.9 ----• ADT -Average Daily Traffic Volumes (in thousands) b VIC -Volume-to-Capecity Ratio So&rce: North Central Texas
Council of Governments A one-way, reversible HOV lane is programmed in the TIP for implementation on us 75; and two-way, concurrent flow HOV lanes are programmed for IH 635. No other
transit-related improvements currently are committed for implementation in the study Corridor. Table 2.1 indicates the freeway VI C ratios will be greater than 0.9 in some locations,
reflecting an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) liE." ThUS, unacceptable VIC ratios are expected in spite of iI I, 7 Ratio of roadway vOlume to roadway capacity for a specific time
period. 12 )I"
[rI[r[rrrI[{L the fact that designs for the widening project on US 75 assumed extension of LRT starter System to Plano. Should the LRT Starter System not be extended beyond Park Lane,
the ability of the freeway to accommodate the anticipated demand would be reduced further. congestion delays can be expected on many of the arterials in the Study Corridor. As indicated
in Table 2.2, NCTCOG has determined that most arterials in the Study Corridor are expected to operate at VIc ratios of greater than 0.9 by 2010. The projected VIC ratios reflect unacceptable
traffic operating conditions by local and national standards. Table 2.2 ARTER:IAL TRAPP:IC COI1D:IT:IOBS :IB BORTBBRIJ. CORR:IDOR 1990 2010 Arterial Location AW 􀁖􀀯􀁾 AW 􀁖􀀯􀁾 Northwest
Highway Preston -Audelia 41-73 >.9 34-73 >.9 Skillman Northwest Highway -Plano 28-75 >.9 29-85 >.9 Coit LBJ Freeway • Plano Parkway 30-85 <.8->.9 23-84 >.9 Preston Northwest Highway
-Spring Creek 14-60 <.8->.9 6-18 <.8->.9 Parkway Bel t Line Jupi ter -Preston 27-52 .8->.9 11-47 <.8->.9 Alexis Preston -Belt Line NIA --2 <.8 Polk Central -Frances NIA --4-9 <.8 \laloot
Hil l Preston -Audelia NIA --12-51 <.8->.9 • ADT -Average Daily Traffic Volumes (in thousands) b VIC -Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Scu'ce: North Central Texas Council of Governments The
above-described transportation system characteristics and improvement plans form the basis for examination of a number of problems that represent the underlying need for consideration
of additional transportation improvements in the StUdy Corridor. These problems are highlighted below. o Peak Hour conqestion on StUdy Corridor Preeways and Arterial Roads :Increases
Travel Times and Delays Tables 2.1 and 2.2 􀁣􀁬􀁥􀁡􀁾􀁬􀁹 indicate that, even with the improvements contained 1n the TIP, certain· sections of freeways and arterials still will experience
unacceptable levels of congestion (LOS E or worse). These congestion levels adversely affect mobility and the overall quality of life of area citizens. 13
o Limitations of EXisting DART Bus system Reduce Opportunitie. to Heet Travel Demands of EXisting and prospective Ridership, Bspecially Reverse-colUlute Trips to Employment centers in
study Corridor Limitations on the existing DART bus system creates an inequity in the distribution of service. Equity can be defined as the fairness of the distribution of transit costs,
benefits, and impacts across various population subgroups. Fairness does not necessarily mean that all subgroups are equally affected. Rather, fairness is determined by the extent to
which the costs and impacts of transit service are distributed in a way that is consistent with the community's goals. Data from NCTCOG indicate that the trend in the distribution of
employment within the Dallas metropolitan area has been movement toward the north. Most of the metropolitan area's major employment centers are located either inside or north of the
Dallas CBD. On the other hand, NCTCOG has determined that approximately 43 percent of the working residents in the highly transit dependent area of southern Dallas are working in or
north of the CBD. Limited accessibility to employment centers in the study Corridor reduces employment opportunities for workers living in the south portion of the larger North Central
Corridor as well as other portions of the DART service Area. o Existing Land Use Development Prevents Host Major Roadway Facilities in study Corridor from being Widened Limitations on
existing roadway right-of-way (ROW), especially with respect to us 7S--the North Central Expressway, prevent the addition of travel lanes that could increase capacity and reduce congestion.
Existing and planned development in the study Corridor utilizes all available property outside of the roadway ROW. Therefore, when the freeway and arterial widening projects identified
in the TIP are completed, there will be almost no vacant ROW available for further roadway expansion. o Unacceptable Air Quality The Dallas region is in a moderate non-attainment status
for ozone (03). The level of 03 , carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOx )' and hydrocarbon (HC) pollutants is expected to be reduced in the study Corridor through a combination of
planned transportation improvements and technological advances in the reduction of vehicle emissions. Notwithstanding expectations of reduced pollutants levels, the moderate non-attainment
status dictates that attention be given to 14 ). I,
fr[[ further transportation improvements capable of reducing ADT volumes and associated vehicle emissions. 2.2 The Need Por Transportation Xmprovements The specific transportation problems
outlined above suggest the need to effect transportation improvements to (1) meet anticipated demand of the traveling pUblic in the study Corridor and (2) ameliorate other travel-related
problems. Three primary needs for major transportation investments are summarized below. ILrI f' fLf[lL ooo Xmprove Mobility 9ne of the basic needs within a community is mobility for
its citizens. without mobility, workers are limited in job opportunities, and unproductive time is spent in traveling from one point to another. Significant shifts in the location of
jobs within the Dallas metropolitan area have affected accessibility to employment opportunities for many workers. Changes and improvements to the transportation system are necessary
to maintain vital, day-to-day social and economic interactions. Reduce Traffic conqestion Limitations on the capacity of existing streets and highways and the ROW available for increasing
capacity has created and will magnify congestion delays. Even with the on-going widening of US 75 in the StUdy Corridor and other planned improvements identified in the TIP, additional
capacity and/or service will be needed to achieve acceptable mobility conditions. Xncrease People-Carryinq capacity As noted above, most freeways and thoroughfares in the StUdy Corridor
cannot be widened to provide more capacity, because existing ROW is severely limited. Therefore, DART needs to consider transit improvements that can provide increased "people-carrying"
capacity within the current physical constraints posed by the existing and planned development pattern. Extension of the North Central Line of the LRT Starter System can provide this
needed additional "people-carrying" capacity by utilizing surplUS railroad ROW. 15
iI )ii i-II
ffr[r Chapter Three DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES Alternatives being considered for implementation in the study Corridor include a No-Build Alternative, a Transportation Systems Management
(TSM) Alternative, and two LRT alternatives. This chapter provides a description of each of the alternative transportation improvements being studied. The descriptions identify the physical
qualities of the service proposed and a summary of the operating plan. Detailed definitions of eaclS alternative may be found in the Definition of Alternatives Report. 3.1 Range Of Alternatives
Considered Five conceptual alternatives were established to generate discussion and comments during Project Scoping conducted in the spring of 1992. The alternatives ranged from doing
nothing, referred to as the "No-Build" Alternative, to extension of the LRT Starter System as far as the City of Plano at Parker Road, referred to as the LRT/Parker Road Alternative.
The No-Build Alternative was defined to include all projects already underway or programmed for implementation, i.e., ROV lanes on LBJ Freeway and US 75 north of LBJ Freeway, roadway
improvements in the Study corridor, and construction of the LRT Starter System to Park Lane. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative, as defined, included all the projects of the No-Build Alternative
and added to this base the extension of the LRT Starter System to Plano. These two alternatives effectively bound the opportunities for providing advanced transit services in the North
Central corridor, north of Park Lane. Beyond doing nothing, but short of extending the LRT Starter System to Plano, opportunities were defined for providing a lower level of LRT service
or a different type of transit service. A second LRT alternative was defined to establish the minimum extent to which LRT service could be extended and still be operationally feasible.
The Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) is the shortest extension of the LRT Starter System that would preserve the greatest amount of ridership while reducing construction costs and (in
some cases) environmental impacts. That is to say, it is the minimum operable "new" segment that can be constructed and operated in a cost-effective manner. Definition of the MOS resulted
in an alternative calling for extension of the LRT Starter System to the City of Richardson at Arapaho Road, referred to as the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative. LrLI1L[ 8 Definition of
Alternatives. Corridor Planning Study, North Central Corridor, North of Park Lane, March, 1994, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and Dallas Area Rapid
Transit. 16
FTA requires consideration of at least one Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative. Compared to some fixed guideway alternatives, TSM alternatives can be relatively low cost
approaches to addressing transportation problems. They also provide a baseline against which the cost-effectiveness of other more capital intensive alternatives may be evaluated. Two
TSM alternatives initially were defined. The TSM-NC HOV Alternative called for constructing two one-way concurrent flow HOV lanes in the median of the North Central Expressway (US 75)
south of LBJ Freeway. The two HOV lanes would augment the HOV lanes programmed for construction on US 75 north of LBJ Freeway and on LBJ Freeway. The TSM-SP HOV Alternative, in contrast,
called for construction of a two lane, two-way, concurrent flow HOV facility in the DART/SPRR ROW. This facility would originate at the LRT Park Lane Station and terminate at the East
Plano Transit center near Parker Road. The initial screening of these alternatives led to the definition of less ambitious TSM objectives and a TSM Alternative without additional major
HOV facilities south of LBJ Freeway. The screening of possibilities for LRT service led to the definition of an optional approach for development of LRT service. Under the LRT/parker
Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity, the LRT Starter System would be extended to Plano; however, in the initial phase there would be no stations between Arapaho and Parker Roads
and only single-track operations (where possible). The No-Build, LRT/Parker Road, and LRT/Arapaho Road Alternatives remained essentially unchanged after the initial screening. It was
decided to include in the definition of all LRT alternatives the option to reserve part of the DART/SPRR ROW for potential future construction of an HOV facility, provide the cost of
developing the LRT system was not affected. This incorporated the key element of the TSM-SP Alternative, leaving a single TSM Alternative focused on the US 75. Descriptions of the final
set of five alternatives proposed for evaluation and selection of an LPA are provided in the following sections. 3.2 No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative is examined to determine
the impact of not introducing transit improvements to the North central corridor, north of Park Lane. Evaluation of the No-Build Alternative also aids in the consideration of whether
benefits to be derived from transit improvements are worth the social, economic, and environmental impacts and the associated mitigation costs. Evaluation of the No-Build Alternative
is part of the environmental review process and must be given full consideration. The No-Build Alternative includes only those ; facilities and services in the stUdy Corridor that either
already exist or are included in the 1992 TIP and committed for construction. Major 17 II I I..
NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE LEGEND Figure 3.1 -LRT Starter System • Transit Center /LRT Station 1111111 Committed HOV Lane 18 I 􀁜􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀺􀁓􀁐􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀁒􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀻􀁉􀁎􀁇􀀽􀀽􀁃􀁒􀁾􀁅􀀽􀁅􀁋􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮
􀁐􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀁋􀁗􀁙􀀮􀀺􀁲􀀭􀀮__-+ -􀁾.........._-..._-J \ Source. DeIlnllan aI􀁾March 1ll94. F' lrlIrr(L[[LL
transit capital improvements programmed for the Study Corridor under the No-Build Alternative are shown in Figure 3.1. Programmed improvements include: o A one way, reversible HOV lane
on the North Central Expressway (US 75) from Parker Road to the LBJ Freeway (IH 635); oo Two way, concurrent operation HOV lanes on the LBJ Freeway from Valley View Lane (proposed SH
161) to East R.L. Thornton Freeway (IH 30); The North Central Line of DART's 20-mile LRT Starter System to Park Lane. II" The definition of the No-Build Alternative includes: express
bus service; local, feeder, and crosstown bus service; and rail transit services (commuter and LRT) already committed to by the DART Board of Directors. Committed DART projects outside
the Study Corridor include the other lines of the LRT Starter System and commuter rail from Union station in Dallas to the transit centers at South Irving and Dallas/Fort Worth (D/FW)
International Airport. This overall definition of transit services, as well as the committed highway network, are held constant among all the alternatives. The bus operating plan for
the No-Build Alternative in the Study Corridor represents the bus service expected to be provided in year 2010. No major changes from the FY 92 service levels have been made. It is expected
that some small changes will involve the reassignment of vehicles between routes to balance service supplied with demand loads. These changes may include reassignment of buses to relieve
routes that are currently experiencing heavy peak load conditions. The bus operating plan for the No-Build Alternative in the Study Corridor assumes that the current level of bus transit
service will increase as the population increases. Accordingly, an increase in vehicle miles of transit service is assumed. A result of this assumption is a decrease in transit schedule
adherence, because lower operating speeds will be associated with increased traffic congestion in the future. The No-Build Alternative also assumes continuation of the CBD-oriented,
radial bus bus transit service currently operated by DART. Guidelines derived from service standard policies adopted by the DART Board of Directors for establishing improved bus service
are incorporated in the definition of the No-Build Alternative. These guidelines are as follows: o Continue to provide service to all areas currently receiving bus transit service; o
Expand service consistent with DART's existing policy of servicing new demand; 19
[" r: l[r' l_ L: lt[[" rL[lt[ o Maintain existing service standards and provide more frequent service to the extent warranted by increased ridership; o Add direct bus service to study
corridor and non-corridor major employment areas, with service originating from the transit centers; and o Provide connecting bus service to the North Central Line of the LRT Starter
System. Details regarding changes in bus routing and schedules may be found in Chapter Three, Definition of Alternatives Report. 3.3 TSM Alternative The TSM Alternative represents an
alternative that seeks to (1) enhance, to the greatest degree practicable, existing and available transit services in the Study Corridor and (2) augment programmed improvements to maximize
the operational capabilities and efficiency of regular bus and express bus services now in place. Bus Transit System Generally, the TSM alternative emphasizes upgrading bus transit service
in the Study corridor through operational and minor physical improvements. Bus transit service service improvements would be complimented by roadway improvements that enhance bus operations.
These improvements would include: (1) operational and minor physical improvements, (2) selected intersection improvements, (3) limited street widenings, and (4) other focused traffic
engineering actions. DART would continue to provide Local Assistance Program (LAP) funds on an annual basis to member cities in the Study Corridor for improvements that enhance bus operations.
The bus service policies listed for the No-Build Alternatives are applicable to the TSM Alternative. This alternative builds on the reversible HOV lane committed for construction on
the North Central Expressway north' of the LBJ Freeway (Figure 3.2). Bus access to the North Central Park-and-Ride (P&R) facility, south of LBJ Freeway, would be improved. Further, it
is proposed that direct access ramps to the HOV lanes be constructed at three transit center locations: • North of Arapaho Road near the Richardson Transit Center; • South of SH 190
near the proposed SH 190 Transit center; and • North of Park Boulevard at the East Plano Transit Center. 20
TSM ALTERNATIVEI SPRING CREEK PKWY. PARKER RD. AT&SF R.R. Source: DeI1nllon 01 Alematha. March 1994. 21 BUCKINGHAM RD. W. WALNUT ST. LEGEND 1111111 Committed HOV Lane -LRT Starter System
• Transit Center I LRT Station o Proposed Transit Center Shuttle Service Area Figure 3.2 iII
rr [tr rr: [. L[[L[ These new ramps would permit express buses to enter and exit the HOV lane and support expansion of express bus service in the study Corridor. The additional express
bus service would provide direct access to/from downtown Dallas for patrons using the transit centers. The TSM Alternative also calls for new or enhanced user facilities. These facilities
would include: a new transit center to be located near the proposed SH 190 Freeway; improvement of the existing transit center at the North Central P&R facility; and expansion of the
Park Lane station P&R facility to permanently accommodate "end-of-the-line" parking. The Park Lane station currently is designed only to serve interim demand, on the assumption that
the LRT North Central Line will be extended north of Park Lane. The proposed new access ramps to the us 75 HOV lane would be constructed in lieu of extending the LRT North Central Line
north of Park Lane. The 2010 bus operating plan assumed for the TSM Alternative includes all local, local, radial limited, crosstown, and circulator service included in and as defined
for the No-Build Alternative. The TSM Alternative assumes, in addition, initiation of seven more express routes and bus circulator routes. Nine new express routes, operating via us 75,
would be inaugurated to take advantage of the new direct access ramps to the HOV lane (Figure 3.3). Existing Express Routes 200 and 201 would be dropped, because they duplicate portions
of the nine new express routes. The proposed new express routes, designated "A" through "I," would augment service provided by the LRT North Central Line that would terminate at the
Park Lane station. circulator route service would operate between the transit centers and major employment areas within the study Corridor. The new circulator route service would improve
the reverse-direction commute for employees working in the study Corridor and residing in other parts of or outside the study Corridor. This service generally would operate on short
headways for distances of one to three miles around the three bus transit centers and the Park Lane LRT station (refer to Figure 3.2). This would provide" service to a majority of the
employment opportunities beyond an acceptable walking distance of the bus transfer facilities. No new bus maintenance facilities would be necessary as a result of the improved bus service.
An allowance for maintenance activity related to adding buses at existing facilities is included as part of this alternative. service frequencies would be increased to provide a level
of bus transit serV1ce considered necessary to satisfy changes in trip-making patterns (e.g., to locations where new jobs are located) and trip volumes between now and the year 2010.
As with 22
"TUFA-A. I SPRING CREEK PKW'f. IWV<ERRD. 23 LEGEND -Routes Figure 3.3 IIr---.· II
rrl[r the No-Build Alternative, minor adjustments may be made to bus transit service levels on local, radial limited, crosstown, and circulator routes to optimally redistribute capacity
to meet changes in demand. No major structural changes are anticipated in the basic DART bus transit network. Details regarding changesin bus routing and schedules may be found Chapter Three, Definition of Alternatives Report. Fixed Guideway Transit Improvements The committed fixed guideway transit improvements assumed
for the No-Build Alternative are incorporated in the TSM Alternative. This includes DART's LRT starter System, particularly the North Central 􀀮􀁾 Line to Park Lane, and the commuter
rail service, as described for the No-Build Alternative. 3.4 Light Rail Transit Alternatives 24 Definitions of the key physical and operational or service features and characteristics
of the two LRT alternatives are provided in the following sections. The vicinities selected for the location of stations (optional station sites have been identified for most station
vicinities); facilities, equipment, and operating Definition of LRT Alternatives Technology, policies. The supporting bus transit system; and Two LRT alternatives have been defined to
satisfy travel needs in the Study Corridor. Each represents an extension of the North Central Line of the LRT Starter System within the DART/SPRR ROW, beginning at the Park Lane station.
Definition of the LRT alternatives also acknowledges the potential future development of an HOV facility within the DART/SPRR ROW in addition to LRT facilities. And, each includes the
committed and programmed improvements to the existing bus transit and roadway system described for the No-Build Alternative. Some aspects of the bus transit system would vary between
alternatives, reflecting the availability of rapid transit (i.e., LRT) services. This section begins with a description of the key differences between the LRT alternatives being considered.
The system and service descriptions are followed by descriptions of the common elements incorporated in the definition of the LRT alternatives, including: fr· [[[lLL
LRT/parker Road Alternative There are two options being considered for extending LRT service from Park Lane to Parker Road in Plano. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative is defined as full
development (i.e., construction and operation) of double track LRT service to Plano in accordance with design and operating criteria of the LRT starter System. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative,
therefore, represents a completed system for the Study Corridor. "LRT/Parker Road Alternative" is used throughout this report to refer to this full development option. The LRT/Parker
Road Alternative would constitute a 12.3 mile extension of the LRT Starter System north of Park Lane Station in the Dallas (Figure 3.4). LRT service would operate along the former DART/SPRR
ROW from Park Lane through the Richardson to Parker Road in the Plano. This alternative would include a total of eight (8) stations in addition 􀁾􀁯 the Park Lane Station plus a "special
Events" platform at 15t Street in the City of Plano Downtown area. The operating plan plan for the LRT/Parker Road Alternative assumes an ultimate peak-hour headway of 10 minutes and
an off-peak headway of 15 minutes. The LRT system would operate on a double track guideway at a maximum operating speed of 55 miles per hour and have an average low-level platform station
dwell time of 30 seconds. The estimated average operating speed between stations is based on LRT acceleration and deceleration rates (3.0 mph/second and 3.5 mph/second, respectively),
scheduled station dwell time, and the distance between stations. Table 3.1 displays the initial projected operating speeds between stations for the LRT/Parker Road Alternative. Generally,
two-car trains would operate most of the day, with some three-car trains in the peak periods and single-car trains in the evenings. I The second option for extending LRT service to Parker
Road has been defined in terms of staging LRT system development beyond Arapaho Road. This alternative, referred to as LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity, would have
no stations between Arapaho Road and Parker Road. Therefore, there would be only six stations beyond the Park Lane Station. North of Arapaho Road, LRT service would be developed to accommodate
near-term demand (Figure 3.5). 3.4.1.2 LRT/parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity I-I( The operating plan between Park Lane and Arapaho Road would be similar to the LRT/Parker
Road Alternative (refer to Table 3.1). Specific features defining this optional approach to providing service to Parker Road are: rI 25 lII
rrr[, t· r[. L LRT/PARKER ROAD ALTERNATIVE I SPRINll CREEK PKWV. PARKER RD. c:i rr ! AT&SFR.R. ------,,,, LEGEND IIIIIIIIIIU 􀁾􀁳􀁥􀁤 Light Rail Transit ( Trad<) .UIIII Committed HOV
Lane -LRT Starter System • Transit Center I LRT Station 􀁾 LRT Station Vicinity Source: DeIInllon al AIlernallla, MlIICh 1994. 26 Figure 3.4
TaJ:»le 3.1 PRBLIKIDRY OPERATING PLAIr LRT/PAlUtBll ROAD ALTERNATIVE Di.tance speed Tiae StatioD (Mile.) (MPH) (Minute.) Park Lane 0.43 to 0.80 23.56 1.61 Walnut Hill 0.43 to 1.15 31.10
1.79 Royal Lane 0.43 to 1.95 39.90 2.50 LBJ Freeway 0.43 to 1.65 37.38 2.22 spring Valley 0.43 to 1.65 37.38 2.22 Arapaho Road 0.43 to 1.00 28.36 1.69 Campbell Road 0.43 to 2.40 42.71
2.94 SH 190 0.43 to 1.90 39.52 2.45 Parker Road 0.43 Iote: O.4f 􀁍􀀡􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁳 is the schedultd 􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁬􀁾 dwell time. Source: Tfb e • , ·Statlon-To-Statlon Prt minar:( Network Codl"@􀁉􀁾􀀬
LRT 􀁁􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀱􀁖􀁥 -Parker Road,· 􀁾􀁥􀁦􀁾􀁮􀀱􀁴􀁬􀁯􀁮 Of Alternatives, 􀁯􀁾􀁾 r PllllYllng St North Centra CorrldO 6ftn Of Park Cane Mafch • • Use of existing tracks north of Arapaho
Road, if possible, requiring single track operations through some segments; • No intermediate stations between Arapaho Road and Parker Road; • 20 minute peak headway/30 minute off-peak
headway north of Arapaho Road; • single platform at the Parker Road station; and • Design and construction to accommodate the addition of a second track and intermediate stations in
the future, i.e., full development. The single station site north of Richardson would be an at-grade platform located immediately adjacent the existing East Plano Transit Center bus
loading/unloading facilities. The existing park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride facilities at this center would serve the function of the Parker Road Station contemplated under the LRT/Parker
Road Alternative. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity has been included to permit consideration and evaluation of the cost and 27
[ LRT/PARKER ROAD ALTERNATIVE INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY' ,,,, dII: § W.WAlNUTST. BUCKINGHAM RD. LEGEND ProDOsed Ught Rail Transit (S1nglli Trad<) 􀁾􀁳􀁥􀁤 Ught Rail Transit ( Trad<) Committed
HOV Lane -LRT Starter System • Transit Center I LRT Station C1Ii:> LRT Station Vicinity PARKER ROAD STATION EAST PLANO TRANSIT CENTER PARKER RD. cl II: mII) G I SPRING CREEK PKWY. ATUFR.R.
rIl[, r[lL ..[".."' ['"01 Source: DeIInlian at All8m8l'-, March ll1lM. 28 Figure 3.5
ridership impacts associated with the decision initially to provide a minimal level of service beyond Richardson. It reflects the objective of DART to establish LRT service to Plano,
while recognizing DART's responsibility for developing the full regional LRT network defined in the Transit System Plan. This option also recognizes that the forecast 􀁲􀁩􀁤􀁾􀁲􀁳􀁨􀁩􀁰
at intermediate stations (Campbell Road, SH 190, and 15t Street) would be lower with increased LRT operating headways north of Arapaho Road. Developing the LRT/Parker Road Alternative
in stages would permit financial resources available to DART to be directed toward the development of other LRT segments, such as the Garland Line. [ LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative The
LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative, also referred to as the MOS, would extend the LRT Starter System only 6.8 miles (Figure 3.6). This LRT alternative would have an identical alignment and
station configuration as the LRT/Parker Road Alternative up to Richardson. Service would terminate at Arapaho Road after crossing over Arapaho Road. Because this alternative is shorter
than the LRT/Parker Road Alternative, there would be only five additional stations beyond the Park Lane Station. Feeder bus service would operate to/from the East Plano Transit Center
and other areas to the north. The LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative operating plan would be similar to the LRT/Parker Road Alternative, because the operating segment between Park Lane and
Arapaho Road is common to both (refer to Table 3.1). The plan assumes an ultimate peak-hour headway of 10 minutes and an off-peak headway of 15 minutes. The LRT system would operate
on double track guideway at a maximum operating speed of 55 miles per hour and have an average low-level platform station dwell time of 30 seconds. The estimated average operating speed
between stations is based on LRT acceleration and deceleration rates (3.0 mph/second and 3.5 mph/second, respectively), scheduled station dwell time, and the distance between stations.
Generally, two-car trains would operate most of the day, with some three-car trains in the peak periods and single-car trains in the evenings. station Vicinities The list of possible
vicinities for the location of LRT stations was developed by DART based on projected demand for fixed guideway transit service derived from patronage forecasts prepared by DART and NCTCOG.
Optional LRT station sites have been established in the station vicinities identified for the LRT alternatives. sites have been located within the limits of the recommended station vicinities
through application of a comprehensive analysis process. Station platforms would be either at-grade or elevated, depending on the vertical alignment of the LRT tracks within the station
vicinities. 29 III l Ii,
[ LRT/ARAPAHO ROAD ALTERNATIVE [iLL[[ ATISFR.R. I SPRING CREEK PKWY. PARKER RD. dII: ! R,EN,NER RD. \ \ ,,,, LEGEND 1IIIIIIIIIn ProDOsed Ught Rail Transit (Dolble Track) ... 1... Committed
HOV Lane -LRT Starter System • Transit Center /LRT Station <:::ED LRT Station Vicinity L SOUlC8: DeIIn.1on 01 AIlernalMls, MaR:h 1ll94. 30 Figure 3.6
In some cases, alternative vertical and horizontal alignments of the tracks have been considered. Summary descriptions of the alternative station vicinities are provided below (see Figures
3.4, 3.5, & 3.6). Detailed descriptions of station vicinities are available in Definition of Alternatives Report. Ii o Park Lane Station -The Park Lane station initially would be located
directly south of Park Lane. This location would provide an at-grade, interim station for the LRT starter System. When the LRT Starter System is extended north of Park Lane, the permanent
station would be constructed as an aerial station above or directly north of Yark Lane. Primarily a commuter station for residential areas east and west of North Central Expressway,
the Park Lane Station also would serve nearby commercial areas and activity centers, notably: North Park Shopping Center, Caruth Plaza Shopping Center, and North Park East Office Complex.
Alternatives: LRT/Parker Road, LRT/Arapaho Road, and LRT/Parker Road -Intermediate capacity. Ito-Build and TSII Alternatives would require construction of a permanent Park Lane Station.
riI oo Walnut Hill station -There are three potential sites for the Walnut Hill Station. The Walnut Hill station would be at-grade directly north or south of Walnut Hill Lane or above
Walnut Hill Lane as part of the aerial guideway. primarily a commuter station, the Walnut Hill Station also would serve nearby commercial areas and activity centers, notably: Walnut
Glen Tower, Presbyterian Hospital, Walnut Place Nursing Home. Alternatives: LRT/Parker Road, LRT/Arapaho Road, and LRT/Parker Road -Intermediate capacity. Royal Lane Station -This station
would be located directly north or south of Royal Lane or immediately south of Forest Lane. The Royal Lane Station is a potential commuter station, which would serve residential areas
east and west of North Central Expressway. The Royal Lane Station also would serve nearby activity centers, notably: The Forest Park Office Complex, Royal Oaks Country Club, and Medical
city Hospital. Alternatives: LRT/Parker Road, LRT/Arapaho Road, and LRT/parker Road -Intermediate capacity. o LBJ Station -The LBJ Station would be located directly north or south of
LBJ Freeway. This station primarily would be a commuter station for originating trips, particularly from the Hamilton Park community. The LBJ Station also would serve as a destination
station serving area employment, inclUding Texas Instruments (TI). Alternatives: LRT/Parker Road, LRT/Arapaho Road, and LRT/Parker Road -Intermediate capacity. 31
rrlfrr!rr r[[[LL ooooo Spring' Valley station -The Spring valley Station would a grade-separated station located over Spring Valley Road. The Spring Valley Station primarily would be
a destination station serving nearby employment, commercial, and residential activity centers, notably: Blue Cross/Blue Shield, a Hotel, Office Complex, Commercial Centers, and a Water
Treatment Plant. Alternatives: LRT/Parker Road, LRT/Arapaho>: Road, and LRT/Parker Road -Xntermediate capacity. Arapaho Station The Arapaho Station would be located directly north of
Arapaho Road or further to the north between Woodall and Monte Blaine. The Arapaho Station would serve primarily as a commuter station, utilizing significant park-and-ride facilities
(1,100 parking spaces) available at the existing Richardson Transit Center. This 􀁳􀁾􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮 would provide access to the Richardson Municipal Center and other destinations in the
Study Corridor through bus services at the Richardson Transit Center. Alternatives: LRT/Parker Road, LRT/Arapaho Road, and LRT/Parker Road -Xntermediate capacity. Campbell Station -Three
potential sites for the Campbell Station have been identified. One is centered on the commercial development fronting on Lakeside, the other two are to the north of this development.
This station primarily would be a destination station serving significant existing employment activity, notably: BNR/Northern Telecom, Aetna, The Travelers, Hewlett Packard, Richardson
and Hilton Hotels, Texins Credit Union, and numerous other commercial and retail establishments. It also would serve potential future employment and activity centers. Alternatives: LRT/Parker
Road. SB 190 Station -The SH 190 Station would be directly north or south of the SH 190 Freeway, west of Plano Road. This station has the potential to be both a destination station,
serving future employment and commercial activity centers, and an originating station providing park-and-ride and. feeder bus access for areas to the east and west via the SH 190 freeway.
Alternatives: LRT/Parker Road. 15th Street special Events Station -This station would be located directly south of 15th Street or half way between 15th and 16th • Both locations offer
the opportunity to provide off-peak service for special events, such as Dickens Downtown, the Municipal Band concert series, and productions by the Plano Arts Council. This station also
would provide access to Haggard Park in Downtown Plano, the Douglas Community, Plano Municipal Center, and downtown commercial, retail, and service activities. Alternatives: LRT/Parker
Road. 32
o Parker Road S1;a1;ion -The Parker Road station would be located between Park Boulevard and Parker Road. This station would serve as the terminus for LRT service, utilizing significant
park-and-ride facilities (1,400 parking spaces) at the existing East Plano Transit Center. The station also would serve a wide range of commercial and retail activities situated north
and south of Parker Road. Al1;erna1;ives: LRT/Parker Road and LRT/Parker Road In1;ermedia1;e capaci1;y. 3 .... 3 Bus Transi1; Sys1;ea Separate bus operating plans have been defined for
the LRT alternatives. These plans are based on the TSM Alternative's operating plan. Some routes would act strictly as feeder bus service, while others would perform the dual role of
feeder bus service plus limited corridor or CBD service. Express bus service paralleling the LRT service would be eliminated. However, other express bus routes, serving areas that cannot
be served well by the LRT line or linked to it by new feeder bus service, would be retained. The general framework of the TSM bus service network would be modified for the LRT alternatives
according to the guidelines identified above for the No-Build Alternative. Most bus transit routes in the Study Corridor would be restructured or relocated to feed the LRT service. The
feeder bus service proposed for the LRT alternatives would be comprised of a network of 31 circulator and crosstown bus routes providing direct service to LRT stations north of Park
Lane. The feeder bus routes would be designed to meet several key objectives: o Maximize connections with LRT stations in the Corridor; o Facilitate continued and expanded local bus
circulation of each service by linking together primary transit traffic generators (development patterns for the year 2010 were considered during route design) along each feeder bus
route; and ,i": I o Maximize connections between bus routes in order to maintain regional connectivity. Proposed service levels on each route have been set to (1) meet anticipated demand
in the year 2010 and (2) provide for as many connections as possible between buses and the proposed LRT service. Details regarding changes in bus routing and schedules for each alternative
may be found Chapter Three, Definition of Alternatives Report. 33 II
As noted above, each alternative is based on extension of conventional the LRT technology of DART's LRT starter System beginning at the Park Lane station. There are several other common
elements or features between the two alternatives. The common elements or features are the focus of the following paragraphs. rr [fr 3.4.4.1 common Elements of LRT Alternatives Technology
[LIt The LRT technology isa proven and mature technology, which consists of a driver-operated, articulated"' vehicle using an overhead catenary for traction power. For this study, conventional
LRT technology is defined as having a capacity ranging from 5,000 to 20,000 passengers per hour in the peak direction. As presently conceived, DART's LRT technology would provide a capacity
of approximately 10,000 passengers per hour in the peak direction. Extending the LRT technology would permit at-grade road crossings, be able to negotiate tight radius curves, and be
compatible with the concept of a Transitway Mall in the Dallas Central Business District (CBD). The LRT technology would employ a mixture of cab signals, wayside signals, and modified
traffic signals. 3.4.4.2 Reservation of Part of DART/SPRR ROW for Potential Future ROV Facility 1[[Lr[r[ As noted above, each LRT alternative includes consideration of reserving part
of the DART/SPRR ROW for an HOV facility in the event it is warranted in the future. In accordance with direction from the DART Board of Directors, the reservation of ROW would be incorporated
as an element of the project to the extent that it does not affect the cost of LRT system development. A preliminary evaluation was conducted to determine the cost impacts of shifting
the LRT alignment to one side of the ROW to accommodate future construction of an HOV facility. The evaluation revealed an estimated cost impact to LRT system construction of between
$2 million and $4 million per mile. Roadway Grade crossings The northern terminus or northern-most station for LRT service in the Study Corridor would be the East Plano Transit Center
between Park Boulevard and Parker Road. The LRT alignment generally would be located in the middle of the DART/SPRR ROW from Park Lane north to Plano. Street crossings would be at-grade
or grade-separated (i. e., aerial or subsurface). Figure 3.7 shows the locations and configurations of grade crossings incorporated in the definition of the LRT alternatives. At-grade
crossings would be protected with gates, lights, and warning bells. 34
-lRT ROADWAY CROSSING CONFIGURATIONSLEGEND 1111111 LRT Starter System I()II At-Grade Crossing II[)I Grade-Separated IIIIIiJII Optional I[-j Source: D8f1nllan of 􀁁􀁉􀁥􀁾March Il194.
35 Figure 3.7
36 The maintenance and storage of additional bus and rail vehicles and equipment can be accommodated at existing and/or planned service facilities. The East Dallas Maintenance and storage
Facility would be able to accommodate additional buses. The Service and Inspection (S&I) Facility, now under construction south of the Dallas CBD, has sufficient design capacity to accommodate
the additional LRT vehicles. Implementation of one of the LRT alternatives, however, would require construction of additional storage tracks. The fare structure assumed for all alternatives
and all modes follow the current DART service/operating policies. Fares are calculated according to whether a route offers "local" or "premium" service. Local service is offered on Routes
1 -77, 82 -86, and 300 -400. Premium service is provided on Routes 78, 80, 81 and 200 -210. Transfers are always free between DART services with one exception. The cash fare difference
must be paid when transferring between Hop-A-Bus and regular routes. It is assumed that a self-service system of fare collection would be used for the LRT alternatives. A self-service
fare collection system would require roving fare inspectors to check that passengers have paid the proper fare. Fare vending and validation machines would be available at all stations
in sufficient numbers to service expect patronage demand. Standard, automated recording fare boxes would continue to be used on buses. DART policy for current and future park-and-ride
lots is to provide free parking for all users of the DART transit system. r[' I[rIl' lIrr [Ll[Ll 3.4.4.4 3.4.4.5 Maintenance and storage Pacility Requirement. Operating and Pare Policies
I: IrI
[t.: fL[l.[[[l Chapter Pour BVALUATZOJl 01' ALTERJIATZVBS This Evaluation of Alternatives Report is designed to provide community decision-makers with a knowledge and understanding of
the primary advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. The principal purpose of this chapter is to provide a framework within which the study Corridor transit improvement alternatives
will be evaluated. The evaluation process focuses on the impacts of each alternative being considered. This permits comparison of the relative impacts among alternatives. This comparative
process is based on goals and objectives relating to the planning and development of transportation improvement alternatives in the Dallas metropolitan area. Evaluation criteria defined
within this methodology provide a means to weigh out whether the alternatives meet the region's transportation goals and objectives. Having established the evaluation/decision framework,
the bulk of this chapter focuses on relevant technical information bearing on the decision, including: • Transportation Services and Mobility Impacts; • Environmental Impacts; • Equity
considerations; and • Cost Effectiveness/Financial Feasibility. Findings and conclusions derived from the technical information presented in this chapter are summarized in Chapter 5,
comparative Analysis of Alternatives. The key attributes of each alternative are compiled and organized in summary form in Chapter 5 to facilitate comparison and evaluation. 4.1 Evaluation
Pramework A discussion of project goals and objectives and key evaluation criteria is presented at this point to provide the necessary context for assessing the proposed alternatives.
A general, overall decision-making structure also is presented to guide in the evaluation of alternatives. study Goals ADd Objectives ISTEA directs that changes be instituted in the
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process for' major investments. ISTEA frames out a new policy for guiding consideration of proposed major transit investment projects (e.g., LRT)
before advancing them through the FTA project development process. In the past, FTA rated major transit investment projects based on narrowly defined cost-effectiveness indices. ISTEA
and new implementing regulations require FTA to consider a broad range of evaluation criteria during 37
the conduct of "corridor" or "subarea" studies. Major investment (corridor or subarea) studies are undertaken to provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness
of alternative investments or strategies in attaining local, state, and national goals and objectives. The new Joint Planning Regulations published by FTA and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) indicate the sponsors of proposed major transportation investment projects now must consider, in addition to cost-effectiveness, the following factors: Mobility Improvements (specifically,
travel time & travel opportunities, congestion relief, increased mobility for the transit dependent population); Social, Economic, and Environmental Effects (specifically, air pollution,
noise pollution); Safety; operating Efficiencies; Land Use and Economic Development (specifically, transit-supportive land use policies and patterns); Financing; 9 Energy consumption.
The regulations also indicate that corridor or subarea studies should incorporate, as appropriate, analyses of demand reduction and operational management strategies (OMS). Chapter 2,
Purpose and Need, defined the underlying transportation needs in the Study Corridor. The evaluation framework presented herein has been established to help decision-makers ferret out
configurations or combinations of alternative transportation improvements that meet both the underlying needs and purposes of the project, while being cognizant of the objectives of
ISTEA. Goals and objectives have been established for guiding the Corridor Planning Study. They are based on goals and objectives adopted as part of the DART Transit System Plan. It
is important to note that, the project goals and objectives are derived from DART's mission statement, which reads: The mission of Dallas Area Rapid Transit is to build and operate an
efficient and effective transportation system that. within the DART Service Area. provides mobility. improves the quality of life. and stimulates economic development through the implementation
of the DART Service Plan as adopted by the voters on August 13. 1983. and as amended from time to time. DART is a regional transit provider and its Service Area extends well beyond the
city limits of Dallas. Therefore, the ·1II 9 "Statewide Planning; Metropolitan Planning," Final Rules. 38 If!
[fL[[t. L transportation goals and objectives of NCTCOG and the cities of Dallas, Richardson and Plano have influenced DART's goals. The principal objective of the Corridor Planning
study is to identify the most feasible alternative for improving transportationin the study Corridor. The selected alternative--the LPA--will be analyzed in greater detail during Preliminary
Engineering. Project. goals providing the framework for evaluating transportationsimprovement alternatives for the study Corridor are stated below. o Travel and Mobility Goal -Provide
a transportation system within the study Corridor that meets the Corridor's mobility needs and that is safe, efficient, and coordinated. ,-.-o EnviroDlD.ental Goal -Provide a transportation
system that; preserves and enhances the study Corridor's social and:: physical environment and that minimizes potential impacts to sensitive resources. o Equity Goal Provide a transportation
system that is consistent with the local community's goals and fairly distributes the system's costs, benefits, and impacts among various population subgroups. In addition to considerations
relating to the achievement of local and regional transportation, environmental, and equity goals, there remains the need to examine the cost-effectiveness of proj ect alternatives.
Cost-effectiveness, as applied to major transportation capital investment projects, is defined as the extent to which an alternative returns benefits in relation to its costs. Generally,
the analysis of cost-effectiveness focuses on comparing the "benefit-to-cost" relationship of the higher cost alternative to that of a lower cost alternative. The lower capital cost
option of primary interest to FTA is the TSM Alternative. The TSM Alternative usually represents the most cost-effective 􀁳􀁯􀁬􀁵􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀂭 to a given transportation problem, because
significant .:.. transportation benefits can be achieved without large expenditures. for the construction of major new facilities. The TSM Alternative,; therefore, serves as a "baseline"
against which the benefits and costs of proposed major transit investments are evaluated. Specific decision-making criteria have been defined for each goal.:.-, These are presented in
the Sections 4.2 -4.4 below. Qualitative':'or quantitative information relating to each alternative has been'. developed with respect to these criteria to assist in determining. differences between the alternatives. The information
presented in; sections 4.2 -4.4 indicates how an alternative performs relative to each goal. section 4.5 presents capital and operating cost information for each alternative and an assessment
of cost-effectiveness and financial feasibility. 39
Deoision Pramevork This project has been initiated and carried out to investigate and establish the optimal transportation solution for the study Corridor. The Transit System Plan, adopted
in 1989, recommends the North central Corridor "have a light rail line on the DART-owned (former Southern Pacific Railroad) ROW between Arapaho Road and Mockingbird Lane. ,,10 To date,
DART has made a commitment to construct and operate the LRT Starter System in three corridors and the CBD. The North central Corridor is one of the corridors to be served by DART's LRT
"starter System." This Corridor Planning Study continues DART's investigation of future transit improvements in the Study Corridor. Particular attention has been given to extending the
LRT North Central Line north to Arapaho, which is in Richardson, and beyond to Parker Road in Plano. The alternatives defined earlier .in this document represent the range of choices
for future improvement. These -choices must be considered within a logical framework that first first addresses regional issues and concerns then directs attention to the specific potential
solutions proposed within the Study corridor. The decision tree presented below displays a series of choices to keep in mind while reviewing the information compiled in this document.
The first decision to be made is whether to move forward with an action to improve travel conditions in the Study;corridor, given the situation outlined in chapter 2, Purpose and Need.
Putting this in the form of a question: Is DART ready and willing to commit more resources toward detailed evaluation of potential transit improvements for implementation in the Study
Corridor? If DART determines that no action is justified at this time, there is no further need for planning activity to continue and attention can be focused on other activities for
improving transportation in the region. If DART chooses to pursue transit improvements in the study corridor, then the next choice is between the two "action" or build alternatives:
a TSM Alternative defined as HOV treatments with enhanced express bus service and circulator service or an LRT alternative defined as extending the LRT Starter System north of Park Lane.
The choice to continue planning activities and decide between a low-cost TSM Alternative and a major transit investment (Le., extension of the LRT North Central Line) is the real focus
of this document. The Transit System Plan already specifies that LRT should serve the North Central corridor at least to Arapaho in the City of Richardson in the near-term. It also notes
that "an HOV lane is planned to link North Central Expressway with an HOV lane in LBJ Freeway. It would extend from Parker Road in Plano to LBJ 10 Transit System Plan. 40 I1--(
i r[lLrc (I. r[[[lL,..:.. :•.... [ Do Nothinp __•• Accept the future conditions outlined In Chapter 2, -No-Build Purpose and Need, Including severe congestion on freeways and arterials
and decreased schedule adherence for transit operations. North Central Corridor North of Park Lane Project ! ExpandAEnhance r+ Bus Transit -+ TSM Alternative Do Something -r-+-MOS to
Arapaho Road (City of Richardson) 4 Extend LRT 􀁾􀀭􀀻􀀮􀁾 LRT/Parker Road Staged Implementation (City of Plano) 􀁾 Full System to Parker Road (City of Plano) Freeway in North Dallas.
nll ThUS, the choice is between: (1) Holding to the recommendation of the Transit System flgn to extend the LRT Starter System beyond Park Lane as a compliment to the programmed HOV
lane, or (2) Incorporating the programmed HOV lane on the North Central Expressway as part of a TSM Alternative with expanded Express Bus service and developing the Park Lane station
as a major LRT terminus with significantly more accommodations for 􀁰􀁡􀁲􀁫􀀭􀁡􀁮􀁤􀁾􀁲􀁩􀁤􀁥 users. A decision to move forward with the Transit System Plan recommendation to extend
the LRT starter System will bring up a 11 Ibid. 41
decision concerning the length of the LRT system and the level of service to be provided. Three opportunities for extending the LRT starter System have been defined. o As originally
defined in the Transit System Plan,LRT service would have been completed to Arapaho Road in Richardson by the year 2005. LRT service would be extended to SH 190 in the post-2005 period.
Therefore, the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative is directly representative of the Transit System Plan. This alternative also represents the "minimum operable segment" for extending the LRT
Starter System north of Park Lane. Thus, a decision to implement this alternative recognizes DART has no obligation to develop LRT service beyond Richardson in the near-term future (1997-2005).
This alternative does not include a significant, captial intensive transit element to serve Plano; however, the potential for extending LRT service is not precluded by its selection.
, . o The LRT/Parker Road Alternative calls for extension of the LRT North Central Line from from Park Lane to Parker Road in Plano. This goes beyond the recommendation of the Transit
System Plan, but has been defined as the primary LRT alternative for the Study Corridor. That is to say, the thinking of DART has been adjusted to reflect the desire to take the LRT
North Central Line all the way to the north end of the Study Corridor. This action would anticipate the ultimate LRT service concept embodied in the Transit System Plan and targeted
for implementation after 2005. In point of fact, this alternative would extend it somewhat by establishing LRT service north of the propose SH 190 Freeway to North Plano. o The LRT/Parker
Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity is defined in terms of the staging of LRT service development actions beyond Arapaho Road in the near-term. The staging of LRT service development
beyond Arapaho Road would permit DART to advance the timing of LRT service to Plano, while permitting it to simultaneously develop other LRT elements identified in the Transit System
Plan (particularly the Garland LRT Line). The LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate Capacity would result in cost savings for DART, because LRT service would operate on only a single
track (where possible) and fewer stations would be constructed. The LRT alternatives include consideration of reserving part of the DART/SPRR ROW for an HOV facility in the event it
is warranted in the future. As noted in Chapter Three, the evaluation revealed an estimated cost impact to LRT System construction of between $2 million and $4 million per mile. This
sequence of decisions is the basic decision framework on which this Evaluation Of Alternatives Report is based. This chapter 42 III'
43 presents the results of analyses and investigations regarding the potential impacts associated with implementing the alternatives identified for consideration. Existing Transportation
Services Travel Patterns Data used to determine travel patterns in the Study Corridor are based on information collected in the 1990 U.S. Census. NCTCOG staff expanded this sample "journey-to-work"
data to represent the work trip travel patterns throughout the Dallas/Fort Worth urbanized area, including the Study Corridor. There were 567,468 home-based work (HBW) trips associated
with weekday travel in the Study Corridor in 1990 (Table 4.1). This total includes both productions within and attractions to the Study Corridor. Forty-seven (47) percent or 191,133
of the 403,397 trips originating in the Study Corridor were destined for locations within the Study Corridor. Although over one-half of the Study This section provides a discussion of
existing transportation system characteristics in the study Corridor, identifies current plans for improvements, and presents expected impacts relating to the implementation of the alternatives
being considered. 4.2 project Effectiveness -Travel and Mobility Goal The evaluation associated with the Project Effectiveness -Travel and Mobility Goal seeks to determine how well each
alternative improves travel times and accessability within the study Corridor and to/from points outside the study Corridor. This section presents first a discussion of the existing
transportation services in the study Corridor. This is followed by an evaluation of the effectiveness of each alternative in achieving the travel and mobility goal. Chapter 5 presents
the principal findings and conclusions with respect to potential impacts and an examination of the "trade-offs" related with the choices just discussed. In general, trade-offs are the
identified relationships among impacts, affected interests, and alternatives. Trade-offs show the effect of making selected changes in alternatives by displaying how an action designed
to achieve an effect in one impact area may have implications for other areas as well. For example, LRT alternatives are designed to provide fast travel times and attract new riders,
but the facilities are expensive to construct and operate; ,this affects the financial feasibility of the project. The examination of trade-offs is particularly valuable when an alternative
exhibits strengths and weaknesses in different areas and in differing degrees than other alternatives. The trade-offs 􀁡􀁾􀁡􀁬􀁹􀁳􀁩􀁳 provides a basis for decision-makers to weigh the
pros and cons of each alternative and, ultimately, determine the desired future course of action. rrr" [L[[[[ [r[r: r
Table 4.1 1990 DAILY BOD-BASED WORK (eW) PERSON TRIPS 􀁾􀁲􀁩􀁰􀀮 fro. 􀁾􀁨􀀮 􀁂􀁾􀁵􀁤􀀷 􀁔􀁯􀁾􀀮􀁬 􀁾􀁲􀁩􀁰􀀮 􀁾􀁯 􀁾􀁨􀀮 􀁂􀁾􀁵􀁤􀀷 􀁔􀁯􀁾􀀮􀁬 Corridor Corridor •••• to the study Corridor
191,133 •••• to the South 74,297 •••• from the South 62,506 •••• to the North 8,687 •••• from the North 26,296 •••• to the East 24,791 •••• from the Bast 28,939 •••• to the West 104,489
•••• from the West 46,330 TOTAL mIPS 403,397 TOTAL mIPS 164,071 Corridor's work force traveled outside the study Corridor for employment, an additional 164,076 HBW trips were attracted
to locations within the study Corridor from outside the study Corridor. 4.2.1.2 Transportation System Utilization About one percent of the total HBW trips associated with weekday travel
in the Study Corridor in 1990 used the public transit system. Thirty-five (35) percent of the transit ridership was going to the CBD, while sixty-five (65) percent was bound for other
areas outside of the Study Corridor. Transit: syst:elll The study Corridor is served by a network of 32 DART bus routes. Bus transit service operates in mixed traffic on us 75 and other
study corridor roadways. There are six local, eleven express, nine circulator, and six crosstown routes. The "circulator" routes operate between transit centers. There are other bus
routes which pass through the southern edge of the study Corridor on their way to the CBD. The. study Corridor bus network generally is oriented in a north-south direction, radiating
from the CBD located to the south. Crosstown service to the suburbs and outlying areas is limited. Ridership on the bus· routes operating in the study corridor is summarized in Table
4.2. Highway/Roadway Syst:elll The existing highway system in the study corridor includes two freeways and a network of arterial roads and local streets. The 44 II[' I'
[r: rLr Lt, LfI Table 4.2 CURRENT STUDY CORRIDOR TRANSIT RIDERSHIP Averaae Weekdav RidershiD 20.662 Average. Weekend Passengers . saturday 3,660 Sunday 􀁾 Total 4,164 Average Monthlv
Passenaers 474,872 Source: DaUas Area Rapid Transit: Service Planning, October 1992. study Corridor is bisected by two freeways. The principal freeway is the North Central Expressway
or US 75. US 75 is part of a system of highways that radiates from the CBD freeway loop. US 75 runs in a north-south direction and carries an average of 100,000 to 135,000 vehicles per
day. US 75 currently is being widened throughout the North Central Corridor. Construction will be completed on the section north of Park Lane sometime during 1995. The section south
of Park Lane to the Dallas CBD will be completed by the year 2000. The other freeway in the Study Corridor is LBJ Freeway (IH 635). LBJ Freeway is a "crosstown," outer loop around Dallas
and carries an average of 170,000 to 200,000 vehicles per day. This volume of freeway traffic is the highest in the Dallas urbanized area. Plans are being prepared to widen LBJ Freeway,
although the construction period is not set. SH 190 is a second circumferential freeway under construction in the Study Corridor between the cities of Richardson and Plano. The service
roads for this freeway have been constructed east of US 75. Construction of the main lanes is not planned until after the year 2000. A grid-like street pattern exists for most of the
Study Corridor. Current weekday traffic volumes for principal roadways within the Study Corridor are shown in Figure 4.1. High traffic volum.as contribute to congestion delays. Local
and national standards suggest that, if the ratio of actual traffic volume to the theoretical traffic capacity of a roadway exceeds 0.9, traffic operating conditions are considered unacceptable.
The volume-to-capacity (VIC) ratios on many arterials in the StUdy Corridor are at or exceed the 0.9 standard. . All major surface streets in the Study Corridor, except Royal Lane, cross
the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) tracks at-grade. This results in traffic delays and safety problems when trains are 45
EXISTING CORRIDOR TRAFFIC VOLUMES II Figure 4.1 ! xx = Daily Volume in Thousands LEGEND 46 ! \"",,"oo,,.,'!'. _ c---􀁾 􀁩􀁾 :.---. 􀁲􀁐􀁁􀀽􀁒􀁋􀀽􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁅􀁒􀁾􀁒􀁄􀀺􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁤􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀁦􀁾􀁾􀀷􀁾A􀁾 L -I 􀁾 d;r-I I!! 􀁾 􀁉􀁮􀁌􀀬􀁥􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁬􀀮􀁉􀁟__􀁟􀁟􀁉􀁟􀀭􀁟􀁟􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾 􀁾 2 _1'\ 􀁾 PARK BLVD. 􀁾 􀁾 1"!i!!J.
I􀁌􀁾 rr' rLrlr-: r; operated on the tracks. The SPRR tracks (now owned by DART) are grade-separated at LBJ Freeway. Current design plans for SH 190 indicate the DART/SPRR tracks will
the cross frontage roads of this beltline facility (under construction) at-grade, but the tracks will be grade-separated at the main freeway lanes. parking The supply of parking in the
study Corridor generally meets or exceeds current demands. Large activity centers have extensive off-street parking facilities. Parking also is allowed on most minor arterials, collectors,
and local streets. Parking is not allowed on principal arterials. Railroads At present, there are four active freight rail lines operating through or traversing the study Corridor (refer
for Figure 4.1). All of the rail lines are single track, with no block signal systems. No passenger trains currently use any of these lines. The former Missouri, Kansas, & Topeka Railroad
(MKT RR), now owned by DART, is located in the southeast portion of the study Corridor. No freight trains operate on this line west of LBJ Freeway. Trains delivering construction materials
and equipment for DART's LRT starter System may use the portion of the line west of LBJ Freeway on an occasional basis. Local switching service is provided east of LBJ Freeway by the
Dallas, Garland and Northeastern Railroad (DG&NO RR), a short line based in Garland. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (AT&SF RR) owns and operates a line that crosses
the Study Corridor in Richardson. AT&SF RR has contracted to sell this line to the Kansas City Southern Railroad Company (KCS RR). KCS RR anticipates operating approximately six trains
daily on this line. This number will be reduced to four trains daily after a connection (referred to as the "Renner V" connection) is completed with the former st. Louis & Southwestern
Railroad (S&SW RR or Cotton Belt Railroad) near the campus of the University of Texas at Dallas northwest of the Study Corridor. The DART-owned Cotton Belt Railroad line runs generally
east-west through the Study Corridor in Plano. Except for the one train per day that operates between Addison and the Southern Pacific Transportation Company's Miller Yard on the south
side of Dallas, only local switching service is provided on this line. After completion of the" Renner V" connection, at least two KCS RR trains will use the cotton Belt Railroad line
east of Renner. The DART/SPRR line, parallelling US 75, soon will operate only local trains from Plano south to Richardson to serve customers on a track called the "Arapaho Lead." This
area is located south of Arapaho Road and east of Greenville Avenue. By January of 1995, a 47
connection from the AT&SF RR track will be constructed, and service will be from that line instead of the DARTjSPRR line. This action is the result of agreements DART has with AT&SF
RR and SPRR. Under the agreements, DART will finance construction of the new connection to relieve the DARTj SPRR line of commercial freight train traffic. It has not yet been decided
which railroad will provide service to Arapaho Lead customers or which entity will contract for the construction. Currently, the SP Transportation Company's train running between Addison
and Miller Yard uses this line to Plano. This train will soon be temporarily rerouted via the former MKT line, which parallels Denton Drive. The permanent route will be via the AT&SF
RR line south of Renner. A train to Dennison, north of Plano, also operates on this line six days per week. The SPRR is in the process of selling the line north of spring Creek Parkway
(the northerly limit of DART's ownership) to a private developer company--chisolm-Haggard. The through route to Denison will be severed and only local switching service, and possibly
a tourist train, will use the line north of Plano. IIIIrI 4.2.2 Travel and Mobility Impacts The goals adopted by DART and the policy considerations established by ISTEA have served as
the basis for defining travel and mobility "effectiveness" criteria. These criteria for measuring the performance of an alternative specifically address travel time and accessibility.
Five criteria have been identified as "key" indicators of project effectiveness: o DART's desire to maximize accessibility is reflected in the number of persons and jobs within a reasonable
distance (1 mile) of its services; o Maximizing ridership is a significant measure of the satisfaction of this goal, which can be measured by estimating the total annual ridership forecast
to be served by each alternative and determining the difference among alternatives; o Travel time changes provide a measure of achievement with regard to enhancing mobility and can be
measured by evaluating typical trips to determine the change in time between alternatives to make the trip; o savings in travel time reveal a gain in operational efficiency; and o Changes,
specifically reductions, in miles travelled (VMT) or the expected indicate the relative effectivenss obtaining congetion relief.48 actual annual vehicle rate of growth ofVMT, of an alternative
in II r, lr:
l[: Itr . [' , {[L[([ These and other criteria or measures of effectiveness have been employed to evaluate the study Corridor alternatives and to ascertain how well each alternative
"performs" relative to the criteria identified for consideration. The TSM Alternative and both the LRT alternatives would foster an increase in transit ridership. The LRT alternatives
would reduce transfer requirements about 2 to 3 percent. This would make transit travel more efficient for study Corridor residents. A discussion of travel/transportation impacts associated
with each alternative is presented below. Travel Demand Impacts Travel demand generally is defined as the initiation of per:son trips in response to the availability of and mobility
provided' by various transportation modes. The measures used to evaluate travel demand impacts are based on the different transit networks:and operating assumptions defined for each
alternative. Thus, the measures provide information on user response to a given set of assumptions regarding characteristics of and service provided by the transit system. The measures
of travel demand along with the system supply measures are used for determining system performance and level of service. Table 4.3 presents a summary of the travel demand impact measures,
which include linked 'and unlinked transit trips and passenger miles and hours of travel. Transit Trips Transit trips expected to be associated with each alternative were forecast in
terms of being "linked" or "unlinked." The forecast of linked transit trips counts all travel from the point of origin to the point of final destination as a single trip, whether or
not there was a transfer en route. That is to say, the individual segments of a transit trip involving transfer are "linked" to reflect one complete trip. "Unlinked" trips refers to
each individual transit vehicle boarding whether by payment of fare or by transfer. Thus, the various segments of a person's trip remain "unlinked." The number of unlinked trips will
always be greater than than the number of linked trips. Linked trips provides an estimate of how many people use the system, while unlinked trips provides a measure of the number of
persons using each route or mode within the system. The different measures of transit ridership provide information useful in sizing the required transportation system. Unlinked and
linked transit trips have been forecast by mode for each alternative, including: local bUS, express bUS, and LRT (refer to Table 4.3). Total unlinked transit trips range from 290,600
under the No-Build Alternative to 296,600 under the LRT/Parker Road Alternative. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate Capacity would produce about 2,700 fewer unlinked trips.
Rider 49
Table 4.3 SUMMARY 01' TRAVEL DEMAND IMPACTS Alternative 􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁡􀁲􀁫􀁥􀁲 􀁾􀁉 􀁾􀁉 Road -PerforaBnce Parker Arapaho Interae4iate Measure Ro-Build TSII Road Road capacity Daily Unlinked
Transit Trips • Local Bus 197,000 192,600 187,300 187,800 188,100 • Express Bus 47,900 56,000 39,100 41,400 39,400 • Fixed Guideway 45,900 43,500 70,200 64,800 66,400 • Total 290,600
292,100 296,600 292,100 293,900 Daily Linked Transit Trips • Fixed Guideway 44,800 42,700 68,700 63,500 65,000 • Total 195,500 196,800 203,600 201,200 201,600 • Added Riders1 ----5,400
3,500 3,800 Daily Linked Transit Trips by Time of Day • Peak --135,900 141,100 139,300 139,800 • Off-Peak --60,900 62,500 61,900 61,800 Daily Linked Transit Trips by Mode of Access •
Walk --160,200 161,400 160,300 160,100 • Automobile --36,600 42,200 40,900 41,500 Daily Passenger Miles • Local Bus 641,000 630,800 610,400 614,900 613,900 • Express Bus 601,100 641,900
467,200 509,700 473,800 • LRT 255,700 250,400 509,100 418,000 469,400 • Total 1,497,800 1,523,100 1,586,700 1,542,600 1,557,100 • \ Chg Fm TSM ----4.2\ 1.3\ 2.2\ Annual Net Travel Time
Benefit Over TSM • Total Hours ----1,536,900 948,800 1,129,100 • Dollars Saved ----$6,082,200 $3,065,600 $4,613,100 1 Estimate of "Added Riders" assunes the provision of LRT service
in the Northeast Corridor. activity on the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative and TSM Alternative are forecast to produce the same level of activity (292,100 unlinked trips). 50 ILIrIIl. Ii··
IIl
rr [rrLr.·.· l1![[' rLL[[[ It should be noted that the total number of unlinked trips does not differ significantly among alternatives. The maximum number of trips expected to occur
under the LRT/Parker Road Alternative is only two percent greater than the minimum number of trips expected to be produced under the No-Build Alternative. The key aspect of the values
shown for unlinked trips is the change in distribution between available modes of travel. Fixed guideway (i. e., .LRT) trips under the No-Build and TSM Alternatives would account for
about 15 percent of all unlinked trips. under tqe LRT alternatives, the share of trips using fixed guideway would rise to between 22 and 24 percent of all trips. The forecast of trips
for the LRT alternatives includes passengers, who access LRT service at stations via automobile, walking, or other manner of travel, and passengers, who transfer from' bus transit. Linked
transit trips (Le., bus to rail) are used to determine the number of added riders. By eliminating the the effect of transfers on the total number of system users (i.e., counting only
"linked" trips), the "net" increase in system ridership can be determined. A comparison of linked trips by alternative shows the expected increase in system ridership would be highest
for the LRT/Parker Road alternative. Ridership would increase by 5,400 trips daily, which would be about 54% higher than the shorter LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative (3,500). The LRT/parker
Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity with 3,800 added riders would be only slightly better than the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative. Table 4.3 also shows that the increase in transit
ridership would be manifested mostly in the Peak period, when congestion problems are greatest. There would be no significant change in the number of persons accessing transit services
by walking. However, the number of persons accessing transit services by automobile ( i. e. , park-and-ride or kiss-and-ride) would differ noticeably. Automobile access principally represents
work or commute trips. Therefore, an increase in automobile access trips would be reflected in reduced vehicle miles of travel on the study Corridor roadway system and freeways. The
travel forecast predicts 36,600 trips would access by automobile transit services provided under the TSM Alternative. Automobile access would increase to 42,200 trips under the LRT/Parker
Road Alternative, representing a 15 percent increase. The increase in automobile access trips under the other two LRT alternatives would exceed 10 percent. Passenger Niles Passenger
miles of travel summarize the total amount of travel by transit riders. Passenger miles are forecast to total 1,497,800 under the No-Build Alternative; the TSM Alternative would increase
passenger miles of travel by transit to 1,523,100. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative would bring about a 4.2 percent increase in transit ridership as measured by passenger miles !of travel.
The 51
LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative would bring about only a 1.3 percent increase in passenger miles. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate Capacity would be only slightly better, increasing
passenger miles of travel by transit 2.2 percent. The longer LRT/Parker Road Alternative would have the least number of local and express bus passenger miles and highest number of rail
passenger miles of all the alternatives. Travel Time Table 4.3 shows that the LRT/Parker Road Alternative would save existing riders slightly more than 1.5 million hours annually in
travel time over the TSM Alternative. This represents a financial benefit exceeding $6.1 million per year (current dollars). The amount of savings gained with implementation of the LRT/Parker
Road Alternative is significantly more than either the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative (948,800 hours and $3.1 million) or LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate Capacity (1,129,100 hours
and $4.6 million). (:. iI IL Transportation System supply Impacts Transportation system supply measures provide an indication of the amount of service provided by each alternative. Four
measures were used to evaluate the differences among the alternatives according to system supply: vehicle miles of travel (VMT), vehicle hours of travel (VHT), vehicle trips, and peak
vehicle requirements (Table 4.4). Vehicle Hiles and Hours of Travel Total vehicle miles and hours provide a measure of the amount of transit service forecast to be supplied on an average
day by the different alternatives. A comparison of vehicle miles by alternative shows that VMT associated with the TSM Alternative (122,100 miles) would be greater than that of the LRT
alternatives (114,000-116,000 miles). The reason for this is that the TSM Alternative includes a major expansion of express bus service over the No-Build Alternative. Regular, "local"
bus VMT would be approximately the same across all alternatives. As expected, rail vehicle miles would be significantly higher for the LRT alternatives. Similar differences are noted
noted in the comparison of total vehicle l;l0urs by 􀁡􀁬􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥􀀮 The measure of vehicle hours refers to hours 􀁾􀁮 revenue 􀁳􀁥􀁲􀁶􀁾􀁣􀁥􀀮 The TSM Alternative would have
the highest amount of total vehicle hours (7,960). Again,this would be due to operation of an extensive express bus route system. Express bus hours under the TSM Alternative would be almost 50 percent higher than under the LRT alternatives.
In contrast, rail hours would be almost 40 percent higher under the LRT alternatives. 52 rI . III It
[rrr rLLLrIi. , r: rr·· ..tL([r[ Table 4.4 SUMMARY OF DAILY SYSTEK SUPPLY IMPACTS 􀁁􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥 " 􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁡􀁲􀁫􀁥􀁲 􀁾􀁉 􀁾􀁉 Roael -Performance Parker Arapaho 􀁉􀁮􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁡􀁥􀁣􀀱􀁩􀁡􀁾􀁥
Measure Mo-Build 􀁾􀁓􀁍 Road Road 􀁣􀁡􀁰􀁡􀁣􀁩􀁾􀁊􀀧 Vehicle Hiles • Local Bus 72,600 72,600 73,000 73,000 73,100 • Express Bus 32,000 41,800 29,700 30,500 29,700 • Rail 7,700 7,700
13,000 11,400 " 11,200 • Total 112,300 122,100 115,700 114,900 .'. 114,000 Vehicle Hours • Local Bus 5,400 5,400 5,500 5,500 5,500 • Express Bus 1,600 2,200 1,400 1,500 1,400 • Rail
400 360 500 500 400 • Total 7,400 7,960 7,400 7,500 7,300 Vehicle Trips • Local Bus 7,700 7,700 7,400 7,400 7,400 • Express Bus 1,600 2,100 1,600 1,600 1,600 • Rail 680 700 680 680 600
• Total 9,980 10,500 9,680 9,680 9,600 Peak Vehicles • Local Bus 670 670 670 670 670 • Express Bus 300 430 270 280 270 • Rail 40 40 58 52 55 • Total 1,010 1,140 990 1,000 990 Vehicle
Trips The comparison of vehicle trips by transit reveals that the total number of trips under the LRT alternatives would be about eight percent less than under the TSM Alternative. A
reduction of local bus trips would result from reconfiguration to provide "feeder" bus service to the LRT service, replacing the extensive express bus route system proposed under the
TSM Alternative. Total 'vehicle trips would be greatest under the TSM Alternative, as there would a more extensive express 􀁢􀁵􀁳􀁾 network in the study Corridor, and this network would
feed the LRT service at Park Lane. Peak Vehicle Requiremen'ts The peak vehicle requirements measure refers to the number of vehicles needed to serve the study Corridor in the peak o
period. The peak vehicle requirement excludes extra vehicles on hand as spares or backup vehicles to those actually in operation or revenue 53
service. Table 4.4 shows that under the TSM Alternative a total of 1,140 bus and rail vehicles would be required during the peak period of travel. The TSM Alternative would have a large
number of express buses; 430 express buses would be required to serve the expanded express bus network in the peak period. The number of express bus vehicles would be reduced by 37 percent
under the LRT/Parker Road Alternative, while the number of Peak rail vehicles would be increased by about 45 percent. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative would require the least number of
vehicles (990). The number of local bus vehicles would remain the same for all alternatives. Overall, the LRT alternatives would reduce peak vehicle requirements by 12-13 percent. 􀁔􀁲􀁡􀁄􀁳􀁰􀁯􀁲􀁾�
�􀁾􀁩􀁯􀁄 􀁳􀁹􀁳􀁾.. PerformaDce 􀁉􀁭􀁰􀁡􀁣􀁾􀁳 Transportation performance measures represent relationships between travel demand and supply. They reflect the appropriateness of investment
in the transportation system by revealing the attractiveness of the proposed system to the user. Thus, the measures show the response of users to the service supplied or the advantage
gained by users with system improvements in place. Performance measures for each alternative are shown in Table 4.5. Table 4.5 SUJDIARY 01' TRAlfSPORTATIOIJ PBRPORJIA)JCB IMPACTS Alt.ernat.ive
UT/Parker UT/UT/Road -Parker Arapaho Int.eraediat.e Performance Measure Ro-Build TSII Road Road capacit.y Passengers/Vehicle llile • Local Bus 􀀲􀁾􀀷􀀱 2.65 2.57 2.57 2.57 • Express
Bus 1.50 1.34 1.32 1.36 1.33 • Rail 5.94 5.65 5.40 5.68 5.93 • Total 2.59 2.39 2.56 2.54 2.58 Passenger Trip Length 7.66 7.75 7.79 7.67 7.72 (Linked Trips Only) Passengers Per Vehicle
Hile The passengers per vehicle mile measure reveals the loading of the system of transit services provided for travel by DART. The TSM Alternative would be the least productive service
scheme, carrying less thatn 2.5 passengers per vehicle mile. Expansion of the 54 I.\! I[I:I
[f· -.. [Irli' t1rr," r[rL, l[['.-.•. .. [ express bus network would increase vehicle miles almost nine percent over the No-Build, but total transit trips would only increase by less
that one percent. The concentration of service that occurs with the LRT/Parker Road Alternative would minimize the overall downward effect associated with expanding transit service in
the study Corridor. This would lead to a more productive system of transit services, carrying 2.56 (plUS 7 percent) passengers per vehicle mile. The passengers per vehicle mile ratio
of' the LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity would be the highest (2.58), due to minimizing the miles of vehicle operations beyond Richardson while gaining a significant
number of new riders in Plano. Passenger Trip Length Although loading of the study Corridor's transit system would'not be dramatic with implementation of the build alternatives, each
would provide an additional benefit by increasing the opportunity for travel in the region. This is reflected by the increase in trip length. The LRT alternatives would produce a shift
of shorter local and express bus transit trips to the LRT system, resulting in slightly fewer system-wide transfers and longer trips. A slightly greater average trip length would be
achieved with implementation of the LRT/Parker Road Alternative, which would extend the LRT starter System to Plano. Expanding the express bus network, as defined under the TSM Alternative,
would result in a slight travel advantage over the other two LRT alternatives. Localized Traffic Effects The number of areas with localized traffic increases would be fewest under the
TSM Alternative compared to the LRT alternatives. The TSM Alternative would not include as many park-and-ride facilities. There would be a new transit center located near the proposed
SH 190 freeway and an improved transit center at the existing North Central park-and-ride facility. Both of these locations would experience localized traffic increases associated with
additional park-and-ride demand for expanded express bus services. The SH 190 freeway transit center location is the,same as the Parker Road station under the LRT/Parker Road Alternative.
However, the increase in traffic would be less under the TSM Alternative, because there would be a lower park-and-ride demand. The Park Lane station under the TSM Alternative would become
a permanent terminus. This would require expanded bus transit (express and local) and park-and-ride facilities to accommodate "end-of-the-line" transfers and parking. The LRT alternatives
would reduce overall travel by automobile. However, localized traffic increases would occur near stations2that have park-and-ride facilities. The greatest potential for impact due to
park-and-ride activity would occur at stations with the largest parking facilities or the greatest demand for parking. 55
Increases in traffic volumes associated with park-and-ride activity could have an effect on critical intersections in these station vicinities. Critical intersections are those which
have significant influence on traffic flow. Intersections may be deemed critical because of high traffic volumes, inadequate physical design, congestion, or a combination of these deficiencies.
Park-and-ride facilities would be located at the following LRT/Parker Road Alternative stations: Royal Lane, LBJ Freeway, Arapaho Road, SH 190, and Parker Road. A high potential for
localized traffic impacts under the LRT/Parker Road Alternative would be associated with the LBJ Freeway, Arapaho, and Parker Road stations. critical intersections near the Walnut Hill,
Spring Valley Road, and Campbell Road stations would not be significantly affected, because no park-and-ride facilities ar:e proposed for these locations. Under the LRT/Arapaho Road
Alternative, the number of areas with localized traffic increases would be fewer, because there there would be fewer stations--five as compared to eight under the LRT/Parker Road Alternative.
Only three of the five stations (Royal Lane, LBJ Freeway, and Arapaho Road) would include park-and-ride facilities. These station vicinities would experience greater localized traffic
increases, because a greater amount of park-and-ride activity. Nevertheless, the total number of critical intersections affected would be fewer under the shorter LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative.
This also would be true for the LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity, which would have only the Parker Road Station park-and-ride facilities beyond Arapaho Road. Implementation
of the LRT alternatives also would result in traffic impacts at surface streets, where the proposed LRT alignment (the DART/SPRR ROW) crosses at-grade. An analysis of fifteen at-grade
crossings of surface streets between Park Lane and Parker Road was conducted to determine potential operational impacts on traffic and the need for mitigation. The results of the analysis
revealed that grade separation could be justified at six at-grade crossings to avoid excessive queue lengths and traffic delay. 4.3 Project Bffectiveness -Bnvironmental Goal The evaluation
associated with the Project Effectiveness Environmental Goal focuses on the degree and character of impacts to the physical, social, and cultural resources of the Study Corridor. The
potential for major environmental consequences from the implementation of each alternative was' determined through review of available information and minimal field reconnaissance. The
purpose of the review was two-fold: (1) determine the general differences in effects, consequences, or impacts between the alternatives being considered; and (2) differentiate between
the significance of the different types of effects, consequences, or 56 II i' Ir--II' ',' IrII lII'
[f.·.<: 1r[rLrli. impacts anticipated. The following categories of potential impacts were examined: • Noise and Vibration • Parklands • visual and Aesthetics • Acquisitions and Displacements
• Air Quality • CUltural Resources • Hazardous/Regulated Materials • Wetlands • Ecosystems, Hydrology/Water Quality, and Energy. The review was not conducted at the same level of detail
􀁡􀁳􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁷􀁯􀁵􀁬􀁤 be expected in an EIS. The information provided herein 􀁷􀁩􀁾􀁬 be used as input to further, more detail environmental studies. An EIS will be prepared pursuant
to NEPA, during the PE phase of the project. Impacts should be minimized, if achievement of environmental goals is desired. The goals adopted by DART and the policy considerations established
by ISTEA, as cited above, have served as the basis for defining "effectiveness" criteria. criteria for measuring the performance of an alternative relative to the environmental goal
specifically address effects on the physical setting of the study Corridor. Five criteria criteria have been identified as "key" indicators of project effectiveness: rr-[rLLLLl ooooo
The number of noise sensitive sites affected by proposed transportation improvements and the nature of the potential effects provides a measure to determine whether impacts have been
minimized among alternatives; Alternative transportation improvements could adversely affect or impact parklands, recreation areas, historic or cultural sites, scenic areas, or other
resources subject to Section 4(f) review; The number of sensitive visual/aesthetic resources affected by proposed transportation improvements and the nature of the potential effects
provides a measure to determine whether impacts have been minimized among alternatives; The number of displaced residents/homes and businesses provides a measure of the potential impacts
on the fabric of the community;and,,-.. Reductions in automobile and bus emissions, as a function of annual VMT indicates the relative improvement of air 􀁱􀁵􀁾􀁬􀁩􀁴􀁹􀀬 which is a
concern specifically identified in the framework of ISTEA. 57
These and other criteria or measures of effectiveness have been reviewed to evaluate the study corridor alternatives and to ascertain how well each alternative "performs" relative to
environmental concerns. This section addresses these "key" impact concerns and the other major impact 􀁣􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁧􀁯􀁲􀁩􀁥􀁳 by presenting (1) a brief description of the existing environmental
conditions of the study Corridor and (2) a summary of potential consequences or impacts associated with the alternatives being considered. The brief picture of the "environmental setting"--the
setting within which the proposed action will take place--is provided to give context and perspective to potential consequences which must be recognized in the decision process. More
detail regarding the conditions of the affected environment may be found in the "Existing Conditions" Reports prepared for each of the major areas of environmental consideration studied.
These reports are available for review at the DART offices. Information regarding physical environmental conditions and potential environmental consequences is focused within a general
Environmental study Area shown in Figure 4.2. Immediate consequences associated with the alternatives being considered would be most readily apparent and measurable in the Environmental
study Area. The results of the analysis and investigation of potential consequences are presented below in accordance with the categories identified above. r: -III Hoise and vibration
Affected Bnvironment Twenty-one locations within 200 feet of the proposed LRT alignments were selected for obtaining a sample of existing noise levels. Sample monitoring was conducted
June 22 through June 24, 1993. The locations chosen included noise-sensitive receivers, such as apartments, houses, a hotel, a hospital, a park, and a day care center. Seven sites were
continuously monitored and 14 sites were monitored at 15-minute intervals. The "typical" magnitude of the day-night average sound level (DNL) value for an urban setting generally is
about 65 decibels (dB) on the A-Scale (dBA). DNL represents a measure to estimate the average noise level affecting a receiver. It is computed by averaging the hourly equivalent noise
level (Leq) measurements over a 24-hour period. A 10 dB penalty is added to Le values for the nighttime hours (10:00 pm -7:00 am) to account \or the greater relative impact of sound
producing activities when the prevailing ambient noise level is very low. The DNL noise metric ranged from 59 to 68 dBA at the seven continuously monitored sites. Leq levels at these
locations ranged 58 II· I.· IIII
,,,, Figure 4.2 Environmental Study Area 59 PARKER RD. dEX: EX: 􀁾 I SPRING CREEK PKWY. ATiSFR.R. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY AREA rr[[[
from 59 to 71 dBA between 10: 00 am and 2: 00 pm; 55 to 62 dBA between 4:00 pm and 7:00 pm; and 53 to 65 dBA between 10:00 pm and 1: 00 am. Leq levels at the 14 sites monitored at 15-minute
intervals ranged between 50 and 71 dBA between 10:00 am and 2: 00 pm; 53 and 64 dBA between 4: 00 pm and 7: 00 pm; and 53 and 65 dBA between 10:00 pm and 1:00 am. Proposed FTA guidelines
do not recommend documenting existing levels of vibration for alternatives analysis purposes, because ground vibration generally is very low unless train activity is present along potential
alignments. No recent train activity close to vibration-sensitive receivers has occurred along the portions of the DART/SPRR tracks, which are proposed for use within the definition
of the two LRT alternatives. Therefore, no measurements of existing vibration levels were conducted. I'II Potential Hoise Impacts The South Oak Cliff AA/DEIS indicated that train operations
had no adverse noise impacts at a distance farther than 200 feet from the track centerline. This spacing was used as a screening distance for review of potential LRT vehicle operation
impacts. The noise screening procedure was designed to identify the point at which LRT operations would have little possibility of noise impact. This procedure allows the focusing of
further noise analysis on locations where impacts are likely. No-Build Al'terna'tive Noise impacts associated with the No-Build Alternative would be dependent on the overall noise levels
produced by traffic flow on streets and highways, which is highly dependent on the number of vehicles and the speed of the traffic. The type of vehicle has only a small effect unless
heavy vehicles or the bus-type vehicle becomes a major percentage of the total traffic mix. Bus traffic would not become a major percentage of the total traffic mix along any of the
routes or major traveled ways in the Study Corridor. Thus, little or no change in the noise level would be expected. TSIf Al'terna'tive Noise impacts associated with the TSM Alternative
also would be dependent on the overall noise levels produced by traffic flow on streets and highways, which is highly dependent on the number of vehicles and the speed of the traffic.
The type of vehicle has only a small effect unless heavy vehicles or the bus-type vehicle becomes a major percentage of the total traffic mix. Bus traffic would not become a major percentage
of the total traffic mix along any of the routes or major traveled ways in the Study Corridor. ThUS, little or no change in the noise level would be expected. Localized impacts possibly
could be associated with ramps constructed for travel to/from the HOV lane on US 75. 60 II
rI.'..' [r[' lr llL[LL[".'. " J The TSM Alternative would include park-and-ride facilities at the proposed new SH 190 Freeway transit center and expanded facilities would be built at
the existing North Central park-and-ride facility and Park Lane station. These facilities would be expected to generate additional traffic in the local area. Although the actual extent
of new traffic activity is not known at this time, it should be noted that a 100% increase in traffic volume would be expected to increase the noise level by only 3 dBA. This is the
level at which an average listener begins to detect changes in noise. Where traffic volumes would be less than double the existing activity, no significant impacts would occur. There
also is the potential for adverse noise impacts from idling buses. This potential exists wherever noise-sensitive land uses are close to the area where the buses load and unload passengers.
The number and character of potentially impacted land uses will be analyzed in detail during preparation of the DEIS. LR'1' Alternatives There would be 20 sensitive sites located within
200 feet of the proposed alignment for the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative (Figure 4.3). A total of 34 sites would be within this distance with implementation of the LRT/Parker Road Alternative
and LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity. Further noise analysis will be done during preparation of the DEIS and PE to determine which of these noise-sensitive land uses
may actually be adversely affected by operation of LRT service in the DART/SPRR ROW. A number of mitigation measures would be available to minimize any adverse impacts identified. Available
measures include: use of resilient Wheels on the LRT vehicle; installation of continuously-welded steel rail; construction of sound barrier walls along the track in noise-sensitive areas;
use of train operating speed limitations where needed; and procurement of quieter vehicles. Further noise impact analyses would be required to determine the potential impacts associated
with HOV lanes within the DART/SPRR ROW. However, it can be concluded that the addition of HOV lanes in the ROW would result in a significant noise level increase. Barrier walls, landscaping,
and other noise mitigation treatments would reduce the significance of impact. All three LRT alternatives inclUde construction or improvement of park-and-ride facilities. The LRT/Arapaho
Road Alternative would have park-and-ride facilities at three stations, and the LRT/Parker Road Alternative would have such facilities at five stations. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative
-Intermediate Capacity would haVe four stations with park-and-ride facilities. These facilities would be expected to generate additional traffic in the local area. Although the actual
extent of new traffic activity is not known at this time, it should be noted that a 100% increase in traffic 61
NOISE SENSITIVE LOCATIONS ALONG LRT ALIGNMENT ATasF R.R. ------I SPRING CREEK PKWV. PARKER RD. oII: II: 562 ,,,, Noise Sensitive Locations Environmental Study Area Figure 4.3 ,"" II,
,I ".
rF[r·[L[[lrr r[' [' L[L[[ volume would be expected to increase the noise level by only 3 dBA. This is the level at which an average listener begins to detect changes in noise. Where
traffic volumes would be less than double the existing activity, no significant impacts would occur. There also is the potential for adverse noise impacts from idling buses. This potential
exists wherever noise-sensitive land uses are close to the area where the buses load and unload passengers. The number and character of potentially impacted land uses will be analyzed
during preparation of the DEIS. Potential Vibration Impacts There are a large number of factors that can influence the levels of vibration at the receiver location. The major factors
are identified below. o operational factors -Factors such as high' speed, stiff primary vehicle suspensions, stiff track support systems, jointed rail, flat or worn wheels, or worn rail
will increase the possibility of problems. o Guideway -The type of guideway, rail support system, and the mass and stiffness of the guideway structure will have an influence on the level
of ground-borne vibration. Directly radiated noise usually is the dominant problem from an at-grade guideway although vibration can be a problem. o Geology -Soil conditions have a strong
influence on the levels of ground-borne vibration. Vibration propagation is more efficient in stiff clay soils. Shallow rock seems to concentrate the vibration energy close to the surface,
resulting in ground-borne vibration problems at significant distances from the track. Factors, such as layering of the soil and depth to water table, generally are considered to have
significant effects on the propagation of ground-borne vibration. o Receiving' building' -Vibration levels inside a building are dependent on the vibration energy that reaches the building
foundation, the coupling of the building foundation to the soil, and the propagation of the vibration through the building. The general guideline is that the heavier mass of construction
construction materials used in a building, the lower the response will be to the incident vibration energy. Detailed analysis, involving evaluation of all these factors influencing vibration
impacts, will be conducted during preparation of the DEIS. 63
No-Build Alternative Improvements associated with the No-Build Alternative principally would be within the confines of existing transportation facilities. Vehicle operations as a result
of these improvements would not be a significant portion of current total vehicle operations. Therefore, no added exposure to vibrations would be expected. 'l'Slf Alternative Improvements
included with the TSM Alternative definition are not well defined, but it is unlikely this alternative would produce significant levels of increased ground vibration. The South Oak Cliff
Corridor EIS concluded that the increased volume of traffic associated with TSM elements was insignificant as a percentage of the daily volume. As a result, no significant change in
vibration was expected. The same conclusion is expected to be valid for the TSM Alternative for the study Corridor. LR'1' Alternatives FTA guidelines provide a basis for performing a
cursory vibration impact assessment by using screening distances associated with assumed normal vibration propagation. The screening distances for LRT projects are: 450 feet for Category
1 land uses; 150 feet for Category 2 land uses; and 100 feet for Category 3 land uses. Category 1 land uses include vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing buildings, hospitals
with vibration-sensitive equipment, and university research operations. Allresidential land uses and any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals, are included in Category
2. Institutional uses, such as schools, hospitals, libraries, and other institutions that do not have vibration sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference,
would be included in Category 3. Each of the noise-sensitive locations shown on Figure 4.4 also may be vibration-sensitive. More detailed analysis will need to be pursued during preparation
of the DEIS. I' I c ii I Parklands Affected Bnvironment There are 16 existing pUblic parklands within the Environmental Study Area (Figure 4.4). They include municipally-owned, pUblic
parklands (owned by the Cities of Dallas, Richardson, and Plano) and privately-owned recreational areas. There are four region-serving parks or open space/greenbelts. Three of the parklands
are considered to be "community" parks, having significant group-oriented facilities and large natural areas. The remaining nine parklands are considered to be "neighborhood" parks generally
10 acres or less in size. 64 IIII II
r[: [' L[r[[[ PARKLANDS I SPRING CREEK Pl<WY. PARKEARD. ATISF R.R. ------dII: II: 􀁾65 R,EN,NER RD. \ \ """" BUCKINGHAM RD. W. WALNUT ST. Parkland locations Environmental Study Area
Figure 4.4
Potential Impacts Potential impacts to parklands and open space must be carefully screened to determine whether the impact constitutes a "taking" within the framework of Section 4 (f)
of the u. S. Department of Transportation Act. If there is a potential "taking," then the significance of the parkland or open space to the community must be determined. A "taking,"
may be direct or indirect, as discussed above for cultural resources. A determination must be made that there is no other reasonable or practical alternative to the taking, before parkland
can be used for a pUblic transportation project. No-Build Alternative No impacts would be expected under the No-Build Alternative. !ISH Alternative The review of potential parkland impacts
conducted for purposes of this Evaluation Report, indicated the TSM Alternative potentially could directly or indirectly affect the spring Creek Nature Area. The extent and character
of impacts would depend on final plans for this new transit center to be built near the proposed SH 190 Freeway. Potential impacts to this resource would need to be determined once plans
for the TSM Alternative are better defined. LRT Alternatives Most of the parklands in the Study Corridor are of sufficient distance from the proposed LRT alignment that no adverse direct
or indirect impacts would be anticipated. The LRT alternatives would affect a greenbelt area located adjacent to the alignment in the area north of Royal Lane, where the track crosses
White Rock Creek. White Rock Creek and associated right-of-way are under the jurisdiction of the City of Dallas Public Works Stormwater Management Department. The "Leisure Trail," maintained
by Dallas Parks and Recreation Department, traverses the eastern side of the creek in this area. The greenbelt, due to its open space qualities and park-like qualities would be a resource
subject to review under Section 4(f). Such a review would be carried out during preparation of the DEIS. Impact mitigation measures will need to be defined during PE, respecting any
any construction activity and structural designs to .be associated with crossing the creek. The Royal Lakes Country Club also is located adjacent to the alignment and this greenbelt
􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁾 Royal Lakes Country Club is a privately-owned, members-only golf course. The boundaries of the club property are: Royal Lane and 􀁎􀁯􀁾􀁴􀁨􀁷􀁯􀁯􀁤 Park on the north; Greenville
Avenue on the east; and the DART/SPRR ROW on the west and south. However, the Country Club, because it is a 66 II,-I -Il
[Lr[:.--.'... •• [[[-'􀀮􀁾􀀬 L[Lr [' r[' [, r: LL[C.•· .,-' privately-owned, members-only organization, is not sUbject to examination under the requirements of Section 4(f). Two alignment
options for the LRT alternatives are being considered in the area of Royal Lane. The proposed alignment to the east of the existing DART/SPRR ROW likely would require acquisition of
a strip of land from the Country Club and necessitate the establishment of new ROW through the greenbelt. Also, some land in the White Rock Greenbelt would be required for station development
along with a portion of the Country Club property. The west alignment option would use the existing DART/SPRRROW, which could involve demolition of an historic bridge (see Section4.3.6.2). Use of the existing DART/SPRR ROW would preclude the need for Country Club property, but land from the White Rock Creek greenbelt would be required for station development.
Both the Country Club and greenbelt would be considered noise-sensitive receivers. They are located within the 200-foot screening distance of both alignment options. Therefore, noise
impacts are possible. Significant, adverse noise impacts on the greenbelt could be considered a "taking" under the guidelines of Section 4(f). Further noise analysis would be conducted
during preparation of the DEIS to determine if these resources would be adversely affected by noise levels produced from LRT operations. Mitigation measures would be identified to minimize
adverse impacts. Negative visual impacts to these recreational/open space areas also would result from installation of the LRT catenary and stations. Incorporation of mitigation measures
into the design of the LRT system elements would minimize adverse impacts. For example, a low-profile catenary can be installed to help minimize the visual impact of the LRT electrification
system. The station and associated facilities also can be designed to fit in with the area, and landscaping can be used in the station area to increase its aesthetic appeal. The Spring
Creek Nature Area in the City of Richardson would be adjacent the alignment for the LRT alternatives. This is a City of Richardson dedicated park, containing 51 acres of woods and 1.25
miles of trail. The Spring creek Nature Area extends along Spring Creek between North Plano Road and the DART/SPRR ROW. It would be subject to the provisions of Section 4(f). The area
also is within the 200-footnoise impact screening distance, and visual impacts also are a matter for concern. Impact mitigation measures for this open space resource would need to be
considered during PEe Alignment of the LRT/Parker Road Alternative and LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity would be just east of Haggard Park in downtown Plano. Haggard
Park is a 4.9 acre site, owned by the City of Plano. The park contains a children's playground, a pond, the Interurban Building with Museum and train car, and picnic 67
areas. The review of impacts to this park would be sUbject to the provisions of Section 4(f). Like the greenbelt and country club near Royal Lane, Haggard Park is located within the
200-foot screening distance for determining whether noise impacts would occur. If it is determined during the EIS process that adverse noise impacts would occur, mitigation measures
could be defined to minimize impacts. In addition, potential visual/aesthetic impacts from the LRT system elements must be considered. Mitigation measures, such as those discussed previously,
may need to be recommended. II Visual and Aesthetics Affected Environment Significant visual/aesthetic resources along alternative LRT alignments have been identified through a review
of planning reports and a "windshield" survey of the Environmental study Area. Generally, significant visual/aesthetic resources include historic structures, parklands, and undeveloped
open space. In addition, sensitive receptors, i.e., areas or users affected by changes in the visual/aesthetic quality of the adjacent area, have been identified. The primary sensitive
receptors of concern are residential areas adjacent to the alignments. The localities of sensitive visual/aesthetic resources and receptors in the project area are shown in Figure 4.5.
Potential Zapacts No-Build Al'terna'tive There would be no significant visual/aesthetic impacts associated with the No-Build Alternative. TSIf Al'terna'tive The TSM Alternative could
impact the visual/aesthetic setting anywhere direct access ramps to the HOV lane would be located. Impacts would be more significant near sensitive visual resources or receptors. In
addition, negative visual/aesthetic impacts could be associated with development of the new transit center near the proposed SH 190 Freeway, improvement of the existing North Central
park-and-ride facility, or expansion of the Park Lane Station park-and-ride facility. However, mitigation measures (such as landscaping and designing facilities to fit in with the surrounding
community) community) may.· be employed to minimize potential visual/aesthetic impacts under the TSM Alternative. LR'l' Al'terna'tives Although the LRT alternatives incorporate the existing
􀁄􀁾􀁔􀀯􀁓􀁐􀁒􀁒 ROW, there are several physical features unique to the 68
[" [' r,[r-·'--["LLlf : 􀁾t-[[' r[[, [' [.' ..• VISUAL /AESTHETIC RESOURCES I SPRING CREEK PKWY. PARKER RD. dII: II: 􀁾 ATISFR.R. 69 ;'!!, MIllER RID. ..W. KINGSLEY RD. LEGEND • Sensitive
Site Locations Environmental Study Area Figure 4.5
LRT technology that potentially could be significant with respect to the visual/aesthetic setting of the Environmental study Area. Physical features that could cause negative visual/aesthetic
impacts include: catenary, poles supporting the catenary, and other wires and supports associated with LRT power requirements. station platforms and other features associated with the
stations and transit centers (e.g., canopies, electrical transformers, parking areas, etc.) also can negatively affect the visual/aesthetic environment. In certain locations, aerial
guideways may be constructed to facilitate the crossing of major roadways. Aerial guideways would have a significant effect on the visual/aesthetic environment. The LRT vehicles/trains
themselves would project a different look than the SPRR locomotives and trains that operate along the proposed LRT alignments. However, because they generally would be perceived as more
modern, cleaner, and quieter than the existing trains, LRT vehicles/trains probably would not not be viewed as negatively. Incorporation of mitigation measures into the design of the
LRT system would minimize adverse visual impacts. Several of these measures were noted above in the discussion of cultural resources. Stations and associated facilities can be designed
to fit in with the character of the community or the surrounding neighborhood. Landscaping can be incorporated into station site design/layout to increase aesthetic appeal. The visual
impacts of the aerial guideway can be reduced by minimizing the size of support columns, maximizing the span lengths between columns, and installing a guideway which is of uniform color
and texture. rIjIIlII Acquisitions and Displacements Affected Environment Federal law provides for the relocation and assistance of residents or businesses that may be displaced by Federally
funded community infrastructure improvements. The uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) mandates uniform and equitable
treatment of all displaced persons or businesses, including assistance with relocation services. DART would be required to comply with the Federal relocation assistance law in compensating
any businesses or residents that may be displaced as a result of the required acquisitions. In addition, USDOT Regulation 49 CFR Part 24 addresses relocation planning for displaced businesses.
This Regulation requires that a detailed analysis of commercial displacements be performed after the LPA is selected. Estimated relocation costs are based on Federal guidelines and include:
costs for moving expenses; direct loss of tangible personal property not to exceed an amount equal to the reasonable expenses that would have been required to relocate 70 (I
LR'l' Alternatives No-Build Alternative 'l'Slf Alternative Potential Impacts Some landacquisition would be 􀁲􀁾􀁱􀁵􀁩􀁲􀁥􀁤 to increase the siz'e of park-and-ride facilities under the
TSM Alternative. An estimate of property acquisition requirements has not been prepared, but the requirement would be roughly comparable to those shown below for the Arapaho and SH 190
stations. In addition, land would be required at Park Lane, which would be the LRT Terminus, under the TSM Alternative. There would be no acquisition/displacement impacts associated
with the No-Build Alternative. 4.3.4.2 such property; reasonable expenses in searching for a replacement business; displacement payments equal to the average annual net earnings but
no less than $2,500 and no more than $10,000; and cost of land/building as determined by an appraiser. DART would be required to comply with this Regulation assisting displaced businesses
or residents. 71 The Dallas/Fort Worth (D/FW) urbanized area currently is in attainment status for all criteria pollutants except ozone. The region is classified as a "moder,aten nonattainment
area for ozone. Although the principal alignment for LRT service alternatives would be within the DART/SPRR ROW, some linear ROW requirements would exist where the existing ROW is of
insufficient width. These requirements have not been determined and must await greater design detail to be developed during Preliminary Engineering. Alignment ROW requirements are not
considered to be significant. The acquisition of additional ROW would be required to develop LRT stations. A preliminary estimate of station ROW requirements has been prepared and is
shown below: statioD Arapaho Royal Lane LBJ Freeway SH 190 (LRT/Parker :;.,' Right-of-way Requirements 62,800 sq. ft. 366,000 sq. ft. 471,200 sq. ft. Road only) 284,800 sq. ft. Affected
Bnvironment 4.3.5 Air Quality 4.3.5.1 rr [' [[: L[[L
It is important to note that during the past decade the number of times the ozone level exceeded Federal standards has decreased significantly from a high of 21 exceedance days in 1983
to four exceedance days in 1992 and 1993. Most of the exceedances have occurred in areas south and west of the study Corridor. Records available from the two air monitoring stations
closest to the study Corridor indicate there were no exceedances of the ozone standards during 1992 (the most recent data available). 4.3.5.2 Potential xmpacts Air quality impacts of
the alternative transit improvements proposed for the study Corridor were determined not to be significant, when viewed independently from regional air quality concerns. However, the
contribution to regional air quality, whether by way of improvement or degradation, is considered important. Each of the alternatives would contribute to reduced pollution, because some
person trips by automobile will be attracted to new public transit services encourage travelers to leave their automobiles and ride transit. . All proposed alternatives would be a positive
effort to reduce the total amount of vehicle miles traveled in the study Corridor and, therefore, the amount of pollutants. No-Build Alternative Some improvements in mobility would come
with the projects outlined under the No-Build Alternative. Mobility improvements would be translated into transportation efficiencies and aid slightly efforts to maintain regional air
quality. However, increasing congestion in the Study corridor, resulting from increasing travel, ultimately would impede traffic flow and bring about further deterioration of air quality.
TSIf Alternative The TSM Alternative would bring about a reduction in automobile vehicle miles of travel through expanded express bus transit service. This would be beneficial to regional
air quality. However, several hundred more buses would be operating in the Study corridor, and the problems associated with diesel fuel emission would need to be addressed. LR'1' Alternatives
Alternatives The LRT/Parker Road Alternative would have the highest transit ridership when compared to the other alternatives; therefore, it would be expected to have the greatest positive
benefit to regional air quality. Also, as noted above in the discussion of mode share, this alternative would attract a slightly greater commuter travel (1. e., home-based-work trips).
It is possible that localized carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots" could occur, due to localized 72 IIl\l
73 increases in traffic in the vicinity of LRT stations with expanded park-and-ride lots. At intersections where hot spots are anticipated, mitigation measures (e.g., widening of intersections
or installation of left-turn signals) could be employed to minimize adverse impacts. Air quality impacts likely would occur in the sliort-term, during construction activities. Air quality
impacts from construction would come from two sources: fugitive dust and emissions from equipment operation. Fugitive dust can be controlled with regular watering or other control measures.
Ground cover also can be re-established as quickly as practicable in areas left bare after construction. Adequate Federal and state regulations and controls are in place regarding the
operation of construction equipment. 􀁁􀁦􀁦􀁥􀁣􀁾􀁥􀀴 􀁂􀁄􀁶􀁩􀁲􀁯􀁮􀁭􀁥􀁄􀁾 􀁥􀁵􀁬􀁾􀁵􀁲􀁡􀁬 Resources 4.3.6.1 4.3.6 A more detailed survey of cultural resources will be conducted during
the Preliminary Engineering phase of this project in support of EIS preparation preparation activities. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the LPA will be defined in consultation
with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Properties with potential historic significance located within the APE will be 􀁥􀁶􀁡􀁬􀁵􀁡􀁾􀁥􀁤 to determine eligibility for listing
on the NRHP in accordance 'with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). An assessment of the potential impacts of the LPA on these properties will be An inventory
of cuItural resources (i. e. , historic and archaeological sites) in the Environmental study Area was prepared (Figure 4.6). The inventory of cultural resources was based on available
information provided by the Texas Historical commission, and the cities of Dallas, Plano, and Richardson, as well as from two studies prepared by the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT): Final Environmental Assessment US 75/IH 635 Interchange, February, 1993, and Final EnvirOnmental Impact Statement. US 75 from Spur 366 (Woodall Rodgers) to IH 635, July, 1986.
The results of this inventory indicate that no sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are located within the Environmental StUdy Area. The Texas Historical Commission'
s records reveal one possible archaeological site, but that site likely has been destroyed. There are 11 archaeological sites in the city of Dallas designated for further research to
determine their historical significance. There is a cemetery in the city of Richardson that has potential historic significance. The city of Plano has 13 structures designated as "Plano
Historic Landmarks" and two sites bear Texas Historical Commission SUbject Markers. In addition, a portion of downtown Plano has been recommended for local designation as an historic
district. -rf·:· " [[􀁛.􀀧􀁾.
CULTURAL RESOURCES I SPRING CREEK PKWY. Pu\NO INSET MAP ,... 74 ," , LEGEND • Historic/Archaeological Site Locations Environmental Study Area Figure 4.6 i1-I\.--:"
r[, [[r-" --[[-. --Lt!rr[' rr[[L[ prepared. Appropriate mitigation actions will be identified and integrated into the design/development of the LPA. Potential Impacts No-Build 􀁾􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀮􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥
No impacts to cultural resources would be expected. Continued limitations on accessibility to these important resources means that the community would not realize the fullest benefit
from their existence and presence. For example, the events in Plano would not be as accessible to the region as they would be should the LRT starter System be extended north of Park
Lane under the LRT/Parker Road Alternative and LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate Capacity. 'l'SII 􀁾􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀮􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥 The North Central park-and-ride facility, proposed for
expansion under the TSM Alternative, is located close to the st. Paul AME Church, institutional structure, and house at 12230 Coit Road. Expansion plans for this facility would need
to consider the location and setting of these structures. LR'l' 􀁾􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀮􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥􀁳 All of the sites identified in Figure 4.6 potentially could be impacted by the LRT/Parker Road
Alternative and LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity. All sites south of Arapaho Road potentially would be impacted by the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative. only three sites
could be impacted by the new and expanded transit facilities proposed under the TSM Alternative. Both direct and indirect impacts of project alternatives need to be considered in the
analysis of cultural impacts. Direct effects could occur as a result of the need to demolish/destroy or otherwise physically modify an historic structure or an archaeological resource.
Indirect effects commonly are associated with visual or noise impacts of the project, during either the construction period or SUbsequent operations. Indirect effects also include modification
of the "setting" or historic context of the resource in such a way as to affect its value to the community. There are only two locations where the LRT alternatives. potentially would
impact cultural resources: one is at Royal Lane and the other is in Plano. Implementation of the Royal Lane west alignment option (i.e., the DART/SPRR ROW), which is identified for all
LRT alternatives, would require demolition of the old Texas & New Orleans Railroad (T&NO RR) Bridge over White Rock Creek. According to the Historic Resources Survey of Dallas -Phase
Two, the T&NO RR bridge has been assigned a. high priority for further research regarding its 75
historic significance. The Royal Lane east alignment option, also identified for all LRT alternatives, is preferred and would avoid demolition of this bridge. ,The LRT/Parker Road Alternative
and LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate capacity potentially could cause indirect impacts to two Plano Historic Landmarks: the Moore House/Plano Masonic Lodge and the Plano National
Bank/IOOF Lodge. It also could affect portions of Old Town Plano, which has been recommended for local designation as an historic district. Although no survey has been undertaken to
determine eligibility for listing on theNRHP, the city of Plano has indicated that Old Town Plano is potentially eligible for listing. These two cultural resources and portions of Old
Town Plano are located within the 200-foot noise impact screening distance (refer to Section 4.3.1.2). More detailed noise analyses conducted during preparation of the DEIS will determine
whether adverse noise impacts actually would occur. Impact mitigation measures would be defined, if necessary. IlIl \I[.. Visual impacts to these cultural resources also are possible,
due to installation of the LRT catenary and other physical elements of the LRT system. The possible construction of a Special Events Platform, to be accomplished by the city of Plano
in conjunction with LRT service development, also would have a visual impact. Incorporation of mitigation measures into the design of both of these elements of the project would minimize
adverse impacts. For example, a low-profile catenary would help minimize the visual impact of the LRT electrification system. The City of Plano could design the platform and associated
facilities to be compatible with the historic character of Old Town Plano. Landscaping can be used to increase the aesthetic appeal and soften visual impacts. The Interurban Building
also is located in Old Town Plano adjacent to the DART/SPRR ROW, which would be the alignment for the LRT/Parker Road Alternative and LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate capacity.
From 1908 to 1948 this building served as a station on the Texas Electric Railway that linked Denison and Dallas. A museum exhibit inside the building presents a history of this Interurban
Line and Plano. The Interurban Building has been designated a Plano Historic Landmark, and the City of Plano also has indicated that this structure is potentially eligible for listing
on the NRHP. Because of its original use as a station on the Interurban Line, the reintroduction of an electrically-powered ,LRT system should be compatible with and may even enhance
the historic significance and character of this structure. Hazardous/Regulated Materials Affected Bnvironment il r! . I.. II To determine the potential for encountering hazardous or
toxic materials during construction, a search of Federal and State 76
r[' [rrL[' LLI· rr[' rLllL[ regulatory agency data bases was performed by Environmental Support Services, Inc. The search covered an area within one-eighth mile to either side of the
proposed LRT alignment. The search identified one CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) site, 52 RCRA (Resource conservation and Recovery Act)
sites, 54 PST (Petroleum storage Tank) facilities, 19 LPST (Leaking Petroleum 􀁳􀁴􀁯􀁲􀁾􀁧􀁥 Tank) sites, and 4 spill responses. The locations of sites listed in the regulatory agency
data bases is shown in Figure 4.7. The RCRA (with the exception of one site with a violation record) and PST sites are not shown, because these facilities do not necessarily pose any
hazard or threat. Also, during a biological field survey for this project, a biologist noted some 55-gallon drums in the Floyd Branch of cottonwood Creek and an area of 􀁳􀁴􀁾􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁥􀁤
vegetation in the immediate vicinity of Liquid Air corporation (Site 3). Potential Impacts A field survey of the RCRA site with a violation record, as well as the CERCLA and LPST sites
was conducted on January 11, 1994. The survey was limited to an outside general inspection of facilities; the inside of the buildings were not inspected. For some facilities, brief discussions
with on-site personnel occurred to aid in gathering pertinent information. The two suspect areas identified during the biological field survey for this project also were surveyed. Reasonable
care was used during this survey to avoid reliance upon data or information that is inaccurate. However, the accuracy or completeness of all available data and information was not able
to be verified. conclusions, relating to the potential consequences of hazardous/regulated materials, are based on the information reasonably available at the time of the survey which
was obtained within the context of the authorized Scope of Work. Some conclusions could be different, if the information upon which they are based is determined to be false, inaccurate,
or or incomplete. Conclusions drawn from the survey represent an assessment of the "potential" for encountering contaminated soils or hazardous materials during construction activities
associated with project alternatives. The survey was conducted and findings and conclusion prepared in accordance with a good faith effort and generally accepted industry standards regarding
such assessments. No other representations whatsoever should be implied or assumed concerning this information, including but not limited to ownership of any property or the interpretation
of any law. No-Build Alt=ernat=ive Excavation and construction associated with transit system improvements would occur principally on existing sites owned and operated by DART. However,
the potential to uncover or disturb hazardous materials would be present during construction activity. 77
SITES APPEARING ON REGULATORY AGENCY DATA BASES !1-rI c:i a:9􀁾 Site Locations Environmental Study Area ,,,\ RENNER RD. W. KINGSLEY RD. W. WALNlJT 8T. BUCKINGHAM RD. ATISF R.R. I I I
SPRING CREEK PKW'I'. I I ® II I PARKER RD. c:i a: m r-(I) ::;) 0 78 Figure 4.7 I_ I.
79 TSH Al'terna'tive LRT.Al'terna'tives Affec'te4 Bnvironmen't .e'tlan4s 4.3.8.1 Wetlands are land areas subject to regular, periodic inundation of water. Wetlands exhibit hydric soils
and support the growth of certain hydrophytic (water plant) vegetation. six "suspect" wetland areas have been identified within the Study Corridor (Figure 4.8). The locations of these
areas are: • Floyd Branch of Cottonwood Creek northeast of the Forest Lane crossing; Given that there are a number of contaminated sites located close to the proposed LRT alignments,
there would be' a potential to encounter hazardous materials during construction or excavation. Soil or groundwater contamination could present a significant impact on the construction
of proposed transit improvements. In-depth field studies would be undertaken during PE to determine the extent of contamination present in the area of construction activity. If contamination
is encountered during construction, appropriate disposal methods would be implemented in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. The discharge of wastewater suspected
of containing hazardous material into storm drains is forbidden without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit. The NPDES discharge permit may be
obtained if the discharge is well-characterized, meets discharge standards, and does not pose a threat to the surface water receiving the discharge. DART would be required to obtain
this permit, if necessary. The potential to uncover or disturb hazardous materials would be present during construction activity. Excavation for the... LRT alternatives would be limited
to placement of columns' and clearing/grubbing in preparation for station construction and creation of parking and other traffic areas. Much of this activity would occur within or immediately
adjacent to the existing DART/SPRR ROW. Excavation and construction for transit system elements of the TSM Alternative would occur principally on existing sites currently owned and operated
by DART. However, the potential to uncover or disturb hazardous materials would be present during any construction activity, particularly construction of the on/off ramps connecting
transit centers with the HOV lane on US 75. rrr[:r[[LLr r[r[L[[f􀁬􀁟􀁾􀁟􀁾 ['
"SUSPECT" WETLANDS AT&SF R.R. I SPRING CREEK PKWY. PARKER RD. ci a: !80 BUCKINGHAM RD. W. WALNUT ST. W. KINGSLEY RD. Wetland Locations Environmental Study Area Figure 4.8 r"'" r" II·
Ii• I"
81 TSH Al"terna"tive No-Build Al"terna"tive Stream 218 (a tributary of Spring Creek) north of the Lakeside Boulevard crossing; and Intermittent tributary of Spring Creek northeast of
the Renner Road crossing. Potential Impacts Floyd Branch of Cottonwood Creek south-southwest of the Floyd Road crossing; Floyd Branch of Cottonwood Creek north-northeast of the Floyd
Road crossing; Floyd Branch of Cottonwood Creek north of the Restland Road crossing; ••••• There would be no wetland impacts associated with the No-Build Alternative. It is not likely
that the TSM Alternative would affect any of the "suspect" wetlands, because the principal project elements of this alternative would be developed in existing ROW or on existing sites.
However, at this time, it is not known for certain 􀁷􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁲 the transit centers to be expanded and developed under the TSM Alternative would effect any of the "suspect" wetlands.
LR'l" Al"terna"tives 4.3.8.2 Avoidance of wetlands is best course of action. DART would be required to to obtain a section 404 Permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 before locating any structure, excavating, or discharging dredged or fill materials into areas determined to be wetlands. It is important to note that a Federal policy of "no
net loss" of wetlands is in place. If adequate mitigation measures are undertaken to avoid--to the fullest extent possible--draining, filling,or otherwise disturbing the "suspect" wetland
areas and the water resources supplying them, then significant adverse effects can be minimized. A wetlands determination would need to be carried out in cooperation with the u.s. Army
Corps of Engineers, before formulating final conclusions regarding potential impacts to "suspect" wetlands. All of the "suspect" wetlands potentially could be affected with implementation
of LRT/Parker Road Alternative and the LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity. Two stations to be constructed as part of the LRT/Parker Road alternative are located near
the "suspect" wetlands sites: the Forest Lane at-grade option rr'rrr
and campbell Road #2. The siting of the Forest Lane at-grade station option is close to Floyd Branch of cottonwood Creek. If the station remains to the south of Forest Lane, no encroachment
into these "suspect" wetlands would occur. The Campbell Road #2 station option is close to stream 218. No encroachment into these "suspect" wetlands would be expected, if the facilities
are built on the west side of the proposed LRT alignment. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity would not include the Campbell Road Station. The shorter LRT/Arapaho
Road Alternative also would not include the Campbell Road Station. And, this alternative would not have any effectson Stream 218 and the intermittent tributary of Spring Creek, which are north of Arapaho Road. other Environmental Considerations !.L Ecosystems A field reconnaissance was conducted
to identify and characterize the natural plant communities present in the Environmental Study Area. This activity also involved determining whether any rare or endangered plant species
were present. No rare or endangered plant species were observed. According to information obtained from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, there are no known occurrences of rare
or endangered plant species within the general vicinity of the project. A review of conditions in the Environmental Study Area revealed a number of creeks, streams, and other surface
water resources. These empty into Lake Ray Hubbard, White Rock Lake, or directly into the Trinity River. Among the more common aquatic species associated with these water resources are:
bull frogs, cricket frogs, black bass, gizzard shad, black crappie, golden shiner, green sunfish, red horse shiner, red ear sunfish, shiners, small sunfish, spotted sunfish, stoneroller,
and yellow catfish. There are no known occurrences of rare or endangered animal species within the general vicinity of the project. The potential exists to significantly affect aquatic
habitats, if the project results in any long-term contamination of surface water bodies or a reduction in local water quality. However, satisfactory mitigation measures could be implemented
to minimize adverse impacts. Excess surface runoff and potential pollutants from project sites can be retained during construction and subsequent transit operations. Existing vegetation
would be removed near some of the station sites to accommodate transit facilities; however, no existing habitats in the station vicinities are considered unique. Areas left bare after
construction would be revegetated as quickly as possible to minimize adverse impacts. 82 iI, . II·. I\ . ... II
[r(rrL[L Hydrology/water Quality Several streams and creeks cross or are located within the Environmental Study Area (Figure 4.9). Any action directly affecting water resources determined
to be "wetlands" would require a Section 404 Permit. More detail is provide on this subject in the discussion above concerning wetlands. A"U.S. Coast Guard Section 9 Permit would not
be required, because the identified surface water resources are not navigable waterways. SUrface rtat:er OUalit:y Hydrology and water quality impacts could occur during construction
as sediment and other materials are carried off-site by storm water runoff. Impacts associated with the operation of transit services under all alternatives would result primarily from
the addition of impervious surface for parking lots, HOV lane access ramps, etc. Added impervious surfaces would increase the amount of runoff and associated surface contaminants discharged
to area storm water systems and surface waters. The LRT alternatives potentially would have direct impacts on a number of the Study Corridor's surface water resources and, therefore,
surface water quality. The alignments of the LRT/Parker Road Alternative and the LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity would cross or would be located near nine of the surface
water resources in the Environmental StUdy Area. The shorter LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative would cross or be located near only six. Therefore, project development actions would have the
potential to affect surface water quality. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative would result in the greatest additional impervious surface, because it is a larger project with more stations
and parking. Also, because it would involve more stations, the potential surface water quality impacts during construction would be greater. The other build alternatives would involve
less construction activity and, ultimately, a smaller amount of impervious surfaces. Mitigati..on measures that retain excess surface runoff and potential pollutants would minimize surface
water quality impacts during both construction and operation of the project. The potential for runoff pollutants from large paved areas can be minimized through the installation of oil/water
separators installed in parking lot drains, sediment traps, and interception or diversion ditches around paved surfaces. Specific water quality impact mitigation measures will be examined
during preparation of.the DEIS andPE. No long-term effect on surface water quality would be expected with implementation of any of the alternatives, assuming the adoption of appropriate
mitigation measures.83
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES I SPRING CREEl< PKWY. PARKER RD. da: a: 􀁾G AT&SFR.R. ------84 R,EN,NER RD. \ \ """" BUCKINGHAM RD. W. WAlNUT8T. da: 9iJi W. KINGSLEY RD. LEGEND • Surface Water
Resources Environmental Study Area Figure 4.9 II.. Ir· . 11 II IIII I· irI\.
rf'·' ': . r[, r[[Ll Floodplains Facilities defined for the LRT alternatives would either span or border several floodplains associated with streams and creeks in the Environmental study
Area. Crossing of the floodplains, in most cases, would be via the existing DARTlSPRR ROW, and no adverse impacts would be anticipated. However, some station ,. options now being studied
and the alternative LRT alignment at Royal Lane would either be in or potentially could impact floodplains. All potential floodplain impact sites, with one exception, would be located
in the city of Dallas. Potential floodplain impacts associated with the Campbell Road station options would be within the City of Richardson. DART would be required to comply with all
applicable Federal, state, and local floodplain regulations and would obtain any necessary permits prior to construction. The terms of the permits would assure that no adverse impacts
to the floodplain would occur. Energy consumption Without a detailed assessment of the mix of travel modes in the study corridor, the level of modal activity, and the type of fuel consumed,
it is not possible to make a definitive conclusion regarding energy consumption. Nevertheless, based on transit ridership alone as a measure of energy consumption, more transit riders
would result in less fuel consumed. This assumption flows on the simple observation that transit vehicles carry a larger number of passengers per vehicle hour and the average amount
of fuel consumed per passenger hour would be less than for automobiles. Also, the LRTtechnology uses electricity for power, and electricity as direct "fuel" is more efficiently converted
to power than gasoline or diesel fuel. While, the overall energy requirements of LRT technology must consider the original source of the electricity, 1. e., the electric power generating
station, and the fuel used to generate the electricity (nuclear, coal, natural gas, hydroelectric), it must be noted that electricity generation is not dependent on nor stimulated by
the presence and operation of LRT service. 4.4 Proiect Effectiveness -Equity Goal Equity criteria focus on the distribution of project effects or impacts across various segments of the
population. The criteria are defined to determine whether any segment of the study Corridor's popUlation, when compared to the region's population as a whole, is (1) paying a disproportionate
􀁾􀁨􀁡􀁲􀁥 of costs or other impacts or (2) receiving a disproportionate share of benefits. Effects or impacts borne by the local popul?ltion include: improved mobility, reduced travel
times for transit users, reduced levels of congestion for auto users, and improved environmental quality in the region • These aspects of the transportation improvements 85
proposed for the Study corridor have been addressed in previous sections. In the context of alternatives evaluation, the broadest consideration of equity means to weigh out the degree
to which those in the local community bear the impacts of a proposed project (i.e., the costs and environmental impacts) compared to those who benefit through the ability to use the
services to be provided by the proposed project and, thereby, gain a benefit (i.e., increased mobility, access to jobs, etc.). In the absence of extensive and detailed demographic and
economic investigations, this can be ascertained through an examination of changes in the social, economic, and land use patterns of the Study corrridor, which would bring about opportunities
for greater interaction. The areas of examination selected for this purpose are: ••• 4.4.1 4.4.1.1 Population and Employment Land Use and Economic Development Neighborhoods and Community
cohesion. Population and Employment Transportation-Disadvantaged Population Providing essential services for transportation disadvantaged citizens has always been a primary national
and local concern. Effects or impacts on the transportation disadvantaged population also are of particular interest. This group includes low-income households, persons/households without
automobiles, minorities, the elderly, and environmentally challenged individuals. While not a specific measure of equity, the number of new transit trips produced by an alternative (Le.,
"added riders") is a surrogate measure for determining benefits to the transit-dependent population of the Studycorrdior. A certain percentage of new transit trips will be taken by transportation
disadvantaged persons. Therefore; the more equitable alternative will be the one that produces the most new transit trips. This alternative is the LRT/Parker Road Alternative. ii:. 4.4.1.2
Regional Accessibility The accessibility of the StudyCorridor's population to transit services is a key factor in their use. Because the utilization of transit services in widely scattered,
modern automobile-oriented urban areas is very low, a greater population with direct accessibility to the services will bring about greater utilization. It follows that a qreater number
of .jobs accessible' by transit services would promote use of transit for work-related trips. In addition to long-term job accessibility, short-term economic and employment effects from
the construction and operation phases would be experienced throughout the Study Corridor and the Dallas 86 ,, ..
[["....] [[rrr[r', 􀁾 • J LL[.U[] t urbanized area. The economy of the study Corridor and the Dallas urbanized area also would experience increased stimulus as a result of additional
expenditures for routine O&M required for any of the alternatives considered. No-Build 􀁁􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥 No significant economic benefit would be realized under the No Build Alternative.
In fact, an economic disbenefit could be predicted, given increasing congestion and reduced quality of life from inefficient, overcrowded transportation facilities. 􀀧􀁬􀀧􀁓􀁉􀁦􀁁􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥
The TSM Alternative would have the least positive'impact among the build alternatives with respect to long-term job accessibility, 􀁳􀁨􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁭 economic and employment effects
from the construction, because it would involve the least construction activity. The TSM Alternatives would be expected to generate the greatest direct economic effect once operations
are initiated, because it would involve the largest number of operating hours and miles. Expenditures for labor, fuel, maintenance, and administration would be greatest for this alternative,
which would translate 'into direct economic benefits. , Direct investments in stations, except for the two transit centers at Arapaho and Parker Roads, is not included in the TSM Alternative.
This minimizes the impact of the alternative on direct investment in the study Corridor and precludes using the expenditure of pUblic funds to support, enhance, or revitalize community
or neighborhood areas. The end result of the TSM Alternative, in terms of equity, is direct benefit to suburban carpoolers inbound to the center city through the implementation of AM
and PM express bus service. outbound travel from the center city to the northern part of the study Corridor would not be improved with implementation of the TSM Alternative. LR'l' 􀁁􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁩�
�􀁥􀁳 Table 4.6 shows projected population and employment for an area within one mile of the potential LRT station vicinities identified in the study Corridor. The total population served
by the longer LRT/Parker Road Alternative is projected to be 132,970 in the year 2010. Extending the LRT starter System beyond the City of Richardson (Arapaho Road) would make the 'regional
LRT system accessible to 35,600 more persons in the study Corridor. This represents a 37 percent increase over the shorter·LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative. 'The LRT/Parker Road Alternative
-Intermediate Capacity would add only the population shown for the Parker Road vicinity (12,000). 87
Table 4.6 PROJECTED STATION VICINITY POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT (2010) 􀁓􀁾􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁯􀁄 􀁖􀁩􀁣􀁩􀁄􀁩􀁾􀁹 􀁐􀁯􀁰􀁵􀁬􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁯􀁄 􀁂􀁉􀁉􀁰􀁬􀁯􀁙􀁬􀁬􀁥􀁄􀁾 park Lane 28,370 35,480 Walnut Hill
21,200 35,100 Royal Lane 15,600 23,000 LBJ Freeway 11,700 33,200 Spring Valley 12,300 13,700 Arapaho Road 8,200 23,700 􀁌􀁒􀁾􀀯􀁁􀁲􀁡􀁄􀁡􀁨􀁯 Road 􀁁􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥 97,370 164,180
Campbell Road 4,600 39,600 SH 190 7,000 17,100 15th street Special Events Platform* 12,000 8,400 Parker Road 12,000 8,300 􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁡􀁲􀁫􀁥􀁲 Road 􀁁􀀱􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥 -10',370 172,480
􀁉􀁄􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁥􀁤􀁩􀁡􀁾􀁥 􀁃􀁡􀁰􀁡􀁣􀁩􀁾􀁹 􀁌􀁒􀁾􀀯􀁐􀁡􀁲􀁫􀁥􀁲 Road 􀁁􀀱􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁶􀁥 132,970 237,580 􀀨􀁓􀁾􀁵􀁤􀁹 Corridor 􀁾􀁾􀁡􀀱􀀩 􀁓􀁾􀁵􀁤􀁹 Corridor, Excluding 15TH Street*
120,970 229,180 * Not used for Regular Daily Service. The total 2010 employment within one mile of all the station vicinities listed in Table 4.7 (excludinq 15th street) is projected
to be 237,580. Projected employment opportunities would be accessible to all persons in the reqion with access to the LRT system. About 45 percent more emploYmnt would be associated
with the longer LRT/Parker Road Alternative when compared to the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative. Extending the LRT system to Parker Raod would bring an additional 73,400 jobs within one·
mile of LRT service. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity would add only the employment shown for Parker Road (8,300). The LRT/Parker Road Alternative would have the
qreatest positive impact on employment durinq construction, because it would constitute a larqer project with qreater capital investment. The Intermediate Capacity LRT/Parker Road and
LRT/Arapaho Road Alternatives would be rouqhly comparable to each other. The considerable amount of fundinq for construction of the build 88 ,i I·· I . lII II I.
89 No-Build Al'terna'tive There are 11 major employers in the study corridor, and they tend to be concentrated along us 75. The major centers include: Blue Corridor-Level Land Use and
Development Xmpacts Land Use and Bconomic Development Regional Land Use and Development Xmpacts 4.4.2.2 4.4.2 The TSM Alternative focuses on enhancing movements through the study corridor,
especially along US 75--the North Central Expressway, during peak periods. The lack of actual investment or service extending beyond the study Corridor precludes a major influence on
land use and economic development. LRP Al'terna'tives Case studies in other urban areas have found that LRT facilities and services produce no net change in growth and development at
the regional level. This is expected to be the case for improvements proposed for the study Corridor. The No-Build Alternative would have no notable effect on regional land use and development.
TSlf Al'terna'tive The LRT/Parker Road Alternative would be expected to generate the greatest direct, long-term economic effect once operations are initiated, because it would involve
the largest number of operating hours and miles. Expenditures for labor, fuel, maintenance, and administration would be greatest for this alternative, which would translate into direct
economic benefits. The two other LRT alternatives would not significantly change operating costs in the study Corridor; therefore, the expected additional long-term, direct economic
effect would be negligible. The extent of service provided by the LRT/Parker Road Alternative also will open up new employment opportunities for persons living in the area south of Park
Lane, particularly south Dallas. Access to points at the south and north end of the study Corridor would be improved sUbstantially with implementation of the LRT/Parker Road Alternative.
Reduced mobility benefits would come with implementation of the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative, because LRT service would stop at Richardson. alternatives, which is expected to come from
the the Federal government, represents significant new money coming into the local economy. This promotes increases in business activity, jobs, and household income. rrr rr·· '·.."·:·
[[: [LLr [[r[. [LLf''. b
Cross/Blue Shield, Rockwell International, Texas Instruments, Travelers Insurance Company, Northern Telecom, Humana Hospital, Presbyterian Hospital, Richardson Medical Center, Collin
creek Mall, North Park Center, and Richland Community College. six of the 11 major employers are located within one-half mile or about a ten minute walk of the proposed LRT alignment
on the DART/SPRR tracks. Expected growth in population and employment within the DART service area, the Cities of Dallas, Richardson, and Plano, and the Study corridor is presented in
Table 4.7. As can be seen, significant growth is anticipated to occur within nearly all of the areas between 1990 and 2010. Table 4.7 1990-2010 POPULATION AND BKPLOYKBRT PROJBCTIONS
(Percent Increase) Population "plopent 􀁄􀁾 Service Area 1a\ 34\ Dallas 6\ 24\ Richardson 10\ 72\ Plano 44\ 63\ study COrridor a\ 16\ Dallas 5\ 17\ Richardson 17\ 63\ Plano 7\ a\ Source:
NCTCOG/Sasaki Associates, Inc. No-Build AIf;ernaf;lve The No-Build Alternative will suffice to support the current land use trends in the Study Corridor. However, it would not support
the changes necessary to focus development actions in the Study Corridor into more transportation-efficient patterns (e.g., clusters, high density, etc.) 'l'SIf AIf;ernaf;ive The TSM
Alternative offers the opportunity to improve the flow of travel through the Study corridor. A large number of travel movements taking advantage of the TSM Alternative's transportation
90 r-IIl'.:, f· l[
[􀁲􀀭􀀮􀂷􀁾 ... [rrLLLLr r: r[' [[. [[[[ elements (principally the HOV lane) would be oriented to destinations beyond the study Corridor. The efficiency of travel gained through the
use of the HOV lane and improved traffic flow would permit greater economic interaction, based on the assumption that time saved is money earned. The impact of proposed transit centers
on adjacent, existing land use charac;:teristics (e.g., employment) would be dependent on market forces operating in the immediate surrounding area and land use controls in place to
guide development and redevelopment. Therefore, the land use and area development benefits associated with the TSM Alternative generally would be indirect and diffuse. LRP Alternatives
The land use effects of the build alternatives at the corridor-level principally would be manifested as a redistribution of development not "new" or "additional" development. The LRT
alternatives would have permanent, fixed station facilities and services. These facilities and services would stimulate and attract development that depends on long-term, stable conditions.
The impact that stations have on adjacent, existing land use characteristics (e.g., employment) would be depehdent on market forces currently operating within the vicinity and the land
use controls in place to guide development and redevelopment. Thus, transit stations or centers are not expected to foster new markets, but they would serve as catalysts and focal points
for development. Development would be reoriented to the station vicinities, where accessibility is permanently enhanced. Land use controls, land use trends, and patterns of land ownership
in the station vicinities would be conducive to development or redevelopment. The constant flow of transit users in station vicinities would present a ready market for various commercial
interests. Over the long-term, economic interaction between station vicinities would establish stronger nodal development opportunities and strengthen the economic base of the study
Corridor. Corridor. Land use and area development decisions would be influenced along the full line. The most influential land use component of the LRT alternatives is the number of
stations, because stations become the focus of transit user activity. Therefore, the degree of influence would be greatest for the longer the LRT/Parker Road Alternative. TheLRT/Parker
Road Alternative potentially would provide the best opportunity for influencing land use patterns and economic development. This alternative would enhance accessibility more than the
other alternatives and have the most. stations. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity would have the second greatest potential followed by the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative--the
MOS. The TSM Alternative would have .the least potential of the build alternatives, because·· new or expanded development of transit centers would be limited to two locations. 91
4.4.2.3 consistency with Land Use Plans An evaluation of equity of land use and economic development effects also needs to consider a project's consistency with local land use plans.
The study Corridor includes portions of three cities with land use planning authority: Dallas, Richardson, and Plano. Cit:y of Dallas The City of Dallas prepared a Growth policy Plan
in 1987, which was revised in 1990 and 1993. The Growth Policy Plan is a long-range planning tool, providing a framework for the future development of Dallas, as well as a context for
the preparation of more detailed level plans, among these being station vicinity plans. The Growth Policy Plan calls for preparation of station vicinity plans to address: the linkage
of DART stations to employment centers and residential areas, site layout and design (including access improvements, urban design features, and impact mitigation measures), and, where
appropriate, development policies (Le., density bonuses necessary to support higher levels of development). No-Build Alt:ernat:ives The No-Build Alternative would not be consistent with
the City of Dallas' Growth Policy Plan 'l'SIf Alt:ernat:ive The development of transit centers to support express bus operations under the TSK Alternative would adhere to the basic principals
established for station planning and transit improvments. The design and operations of enhanced or expanded transit centers (including additional park-and-ride capacity) would need to
be more sensitive to the negative effects of traffic and the potential for incompatible commercial development. LRP Alt:ernat:ives The LRT alternatives would be the most consistent with
the City of Dallas' Growth Policy Plan, because they support ..... the desirability of capitalizing· on the development potential stimulated by LRT stations." The Growth Policy Plan
acknowledges that increased density and height is appropriate near many stations, but may be inappropriate for others, such as those in residential areas. Areas of higher developmE?ntintensity,
or "growth nodes" would inclUde mid-and high-density. residE?ntial and/or commercial and industrial development. Furthermore, development around LRT stations in low-density residential
areas should not encourage incompatible· commercial development. Any commercial development that is allowed adjacent to these stations should be of a neighborhood scale, providing for
the buffering of 92 !)\II ..rrIL \l\1\.
rr' r[0 [' [[LL[[[[' [[••", [[L[ station noise, light, and other obtrusive features. DART will continue to work with the City of Dallas on these issues as the plans for station design
develop. The Dallas Bike Plan was adopted by the City of Dallas in 1985 and identifies bike routes and trails throughout. the City. An important component of this plan is development
of connections with LRT stations, increasing accessibility to transit, and contributing to DART ridership. The Dallas Bike Plan calls for the extension of the Davenport/Melrose bike
route into Richardson, connecting with the Richardson Transit Center. The 1992 Trail Plan of the Dallas County Park and Open Space System identifies an eleven mile trail along the DART/SPRR
ROW. The trail would branch off from the DART/SPRR ROW to the southeast just south of RQyal Lane. DART would coordinate transit improvements/designs in the Study Corridor with both of
these plans to ensure compatibility and to enhance opportunities for transit ridership. City of Richardson The City of Richardson currently is in the process of finalizing a Comprehensive
Planning Guide. Richardson's Comprehensive Planning Guide is based on the assumption that DART will: (1) establish and adopt a Service Plan for Richardson, (2) implement transportation
improvements according to the adopted Service Plan, and (3) include in the Service Plan pOlicies relative to the development of various physical elements in the communities such as transportation,
housing, and public facilities. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Alternative incorporates certain improvements to the existing bus transit network, which will provide direct connections
to the LRT Arapaho Road Station. These new connections and enhanced Express Bus service, which would be have access to the new us 75 HOV lane, would improve overall transit services
for Richardson. 'l'SH Alternative Added Express Bus routes combined with direct access to the us 75 HOV lane and enhancement of the· Richardson Transit Center, would improve overall
transit services for Richardson. LR'.r Alternatives All of the 􀁾􀁵􀁩􀁬􀁤 alternatives are consistent with the expressed desires of the City of Richardson. The LRT alternatives would
result in the LRT starter system being expanded to serve Richardson along with the HOV lane improvements on us 75. ThE! TSM Alternative would expand express bus service only, improving
access to the DART bus system through enhancements at transit centers. DART would 93
consider the guidance found in the Richardson Comprebensive Planning Guide during preparation of the DEIS and PEe City of Plano The City of Plano adopted a Comprebensive Plan in 1987.·
The Plano Comprebensive Plan ..... encourages DART to develop and expand express bus service as well as light rail transit from Plano to major employment centers outside the City." The
City of Plano also also has prepared the Douglas Area study (1990) and Downtown Development Plan (1992). While the Douglas Area study identifies potential DART transit improvements for
the Douglas community, it does not make specific recommendations regarding which improvements are most desirable for implementation. The result of the study, however, was the establishment,
as one of the city's goals, the preservation of the Douglas area as a residential neighborhood with "alternative land uses along the perimeter." The Downtown Development Plan encourages
the development of an LRT station in downtown Plano, located either between 15th Place and 16th street or adjacent to Haggard Park. No-Build Alternative The No Build Alternative would
not address the transit objectives of the Comprebensive Plan and would not be consistent with the Downtown Development Plan, because the LRT starter System would not be extended to Plano.
TSIf Alternative The TSM Alternative would bring about significant expansion of express bus service for the community; however, the LRT Starter System would not be extended beyond Park
Lane. Therefore, this alternative is not consistent with with thecomprebensive Plan or Downtown Development Plan. . LR'P Alternatives The LRT/Parker Road Alternative and LRT/Parker Road
Alternative Intermediate Capacity would result in connecting the City of Plano to the regional LRT system and major employment centers. However, these two LRT alternatives would not
include expansion of express bus service. In this respect they would be inconsistent with the transit objectives of the City of Plano. Both the LRT/Parker Road Alternative and LRT/Parker
Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity would provide the opportunity for the city of Plano to develop a special events platform in the general vicinity of the downtown. The LRT/Arapaho
Road Alternative would not be consistent with the Comprebensive Plan or Downtown Development Plan, because the LRT Starter System would not be extended to Plano. 94 II·· II.'· ..liI
No committed joint development opportunities exist within the study Corridor. However, future opportunities (at the Campbell and SH190 station vicinities) may emerge in response to market demand. Joint development opportunities represent a potential for private sector contributions to the funding of proposed transit
improvements. Only the LRT/Parker Road Alternative would provide LRT service to these two station vicinities. r[r[r 4.4.2.4 4.4.3 Joint Development Issues Keiqhborhoods and community
Cohesion 95 No-Build Alternative Neighborhood integrity generally refers to sustaining the actual physical boundaries of a area defined by an identifiable set of common values, features,
patterns, or characteristics. The study Corridor generally is comprised of· loosely defined residential areas lacking distinct boundaries..·. or identities. However, several distinct
neighborhoods do exist;, including: 4.4.3.1 Keiqhborhood Inteqrity • Hamilton Park -City of Dallas • Richardson Old Town • Old Town Plano • Douglas Neighborhood -City of Plano • Haggard
Neighborhood -City of Plano. Transportation improvments issues associated with neighborhoods focus on neighborhood integrity and community cohesion. The No-Build Alternative, in itself,
would not impose additional barriers to social interaction or community functions. However, the No-Build Alternative would result in increased traffic congestion. Resultant access and
mobility restrictions associated with congestion under the No-Build Alternative would reduce the quality of life in the study Corridor's neighborhoods. It must be noted that the expected
increase in traffic congestion, resultant limitations on travel and mobility, and potential.'deterioration of quality of life fostered the undertaking of this study. Thus, the No-Build
Alternative would not be consistent with the established purpose and need for the project, as set forth in Chapter Two of this report. 'l'SII Alternative The TSM Alternative would not
significantly enhance travel within the study Corridor, but it would provide direct express service to many neighborhoods and enhance transportation for work trips, i.e., commuter travel.
Increased bus volumes associated with the TSM L[Llfr r[' :;.: r(-' 􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀻􀀮􀁾􀀮 ((l'· . -􀀧􀁾 ." [
Alternative are not likely to impose any new barriers to social interaction in the study Corridor. LRT Alf;ernaf;ives The LRT/Parker Road Alternative would best serve all of the identified
neighborhoods. Only Hamilton Park and Richardson Old Town would be served directly with implementation of LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative. The LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative would incorporate
feeder bus service, connecting LRT service with the Plano neighborhoods, but overall accessibility and mobility by transit would be of lesser quality than with the LRT/Parker Road Alternative.
The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity would provide direct access to the regional LRT system for residents of the Plano neighborhoods, but the level of service would
be less than with the LRT/Parker Road Alternative. Thus, accessibility would be enhanced, but convenience and directness of service would be inferior. None of the LRT alternatives would
present barriers to social interaction, because the guideway mainly would follow the the existing DART/SPRR ROW. This existing rail facility already established boundaries between neighborhoods.
Likewise, the TSM Alternative has no element that would create a barrier to social interaction within or between neighborhoods. Therefore, none of the alternatives would have an adverse
impact on neighborhoods or community cohesion. 1I ...... 3.2 community Cohesion Community cohesion generally refers to sustaining the perceived unity of an area, which often is based
·on the day-to-day interaction of the area's residents. No-Build Alf;ernaf;ive The No-Build Alternative represents a "status quo" position with respect to the overall social, economic,
and environmental setting of the study Corridor. There would be no direct effects from no action, but there are indirect effects that would result over time as the transportation situation
in the study corridor deteriorates. Congestion and other transportation inefficiencies would penalize the level and quality of social interaction and economic activity. TSH Alf;ernaf;ive
The TSM Alternative would improve the throughput of vehicles and, therefore, people in the study Corridor. Improved traffic flow would aid in sustaining the current levels of social
interaction and economic activity and support continued development. The TSM Alternative does not offer a true alternative to the current pattern of socioeconomic interaction that has
produced inefficient 96 r\
97 4.5 Cost-BffectivenesslPinancial Peasibility LRT Al'terna'tives land use patterns and widespread impacts on the natural environment. 4.5.1 capital Costs The capital investment required
to implement the alternatives, obviously, is a key effectiveness criteria. There are numerous components to project cost for any particular alternative. Properaty acquisition usually
is a major component; however, the LRT aiternatives incorporate the DART/SPRR ROW.'r Therefore, this cost would be a smaller than usual portion of total project cost for the LRT alternatives.
Critical cost components include: civil/structural work associated with facilities (e.g., HOV lanes, stations, transit centers); vehicles (bus and LRT); signalization and service equipment;
and trackwork(LRTorily). No-Build Al'terna'tive By definition, only planned and programmed costs would be incurred under the No-Build Alternative. The elements of cost are very important
to any project. Therefore, it is important that the evaluation methodology include include weighing the costs of proposed transit improvements in the study Corridor against expected
benefits and related impacts. Both short-term capital costs and long-term, continuing operating and maintenance (O&M) costs must be considered. Relating the costs with the benefits of
the project, in terms of increased ridership, reveals the cost-effectiveness of proposed alternatives. Finally, the ability to fund both the short-and long-term costs must be evaluated
to determine whether the proposed actions are financially feasible. The LRT alternatives would concentrate travel around the thinly defined corridor of the DART/SPRR ROW. This would
create ,limitations with respect to diffuse travel throughout the study Corridor. Focusing travel on the travel spine created by the LRT alternatives would alter the pattern of social
and economic interaction within the study Corridor. The permanent stations would become the focus of transit travel in the study Corridor and to/from points outside the study Corridor.
'The efficiency of connections with this spine would determine the manner in which land use and socioeconomic patterns· would change over time. Focused and efficient transportation activity
would reduce the degree to which environmental impacts associated with transportation requirements (particularly air quality and noise) are manifest in the study Corridor. LrLlIf' r['
rL[Lt-'. C' [ [' [' rr r
TSM Alternative The TSM Alternative would involve capital expenditures for the construction of HOV ramps, transit centers, transit. center improvments, and vehicles. The capital cost
associated with the TSM Alternative would be approximately $44.9 million. LRT Alternatives capital expenditures for theLRT Alternatives would go toward the construction of required trackwork,
stations, signalization, right-of-way/property acquisition, communications, traction power, vehicles, and fare vending and other service equipment. Extension of the LRT starter System
also would require some modifications to the elements of the LRT Starter System. The Service and Inspection Facility would need to be expanded (storage tracks added), and the signal
and communications equipment would need to be modified. The capital cost associated with the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative (MOS) would be approximately $215.3 million. The LRT/Parker
Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity would require about $50 million more, with an estimated total capital cost of $267.6 million. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative, which calls for
"full development" of the complete LRT system 􀁾􀁯 Plano, would be the most expensive. It has associated with it a total estimated capital cost of $324.1 million. It should be noted
that the ultimate cost of the LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity, which calls for staged implementation of LRT service beyond Arapaho Road, would be slighly higher ($333.6
million). The greater capital cost of staged implementation would result from delaying construction of the full, double track LRT system and various other design and construction factors.
jfI 4.5.2 Annual operating and Maintenance Costs continuing cost/financial feasibility issues are associated with vehicle O&M costs. The O&M costs of Local Bus service vary significantly
from those associated withExpress Bus service. And, LRT O&M costs differ widely from service using buses. Therefore, each alternative offers different combinations of costs, which results
in variation in annual O&M costs. The year 2010 O&M costs have been estimated in 1993 constant dollars for each of, the alternatives. The total year 2010 O&M costs for the No-Build Alternative
have been estimated at approximately $175.4 million. Implementation of the TSM Alternative would increase annual 2010 O&M costs by slightly less than 5% to about $183.6 million. O&M
costs of the LRT/Parker Road Alternative ($185.2 million) would add $1.6 million to the TSMAlternative. Both the LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate capacity and LRT/Arapaho Road
Alternative would be less costly to operate than the TSM Alternative at $181.7 million and $183.0 million, respectively. 98 1:-lI 1r1·..-.·-. --f,
99 The "Federal" New Transit Rider Index was computed for the alternatives being considered for the study Corridor. The LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative's "Federal" New Transit Rider Index
was computed at $9.83--the lowest of the three LRT alternatives being considered. The LRT/parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity option yields and index of $11.25. The LRT/Parker
Road Alternative yields an index value of close to $12.24. Rather than attempt to measure all benefits of a major transit investment, FTArecommends using a few measures to assess a wide
range of transportation and other benefits associated with a project. The direct benefits of a major transit investment are improvements in travel time and increases in transit ridership
over that provided by the TSM Alternative. Other indirect benefits, such as improved mobility, reduced congestion, and less air pollution, are consequences of the travel time and ridership
changes. Accordingly, FTA has defined two cost-effectiveness indices. FTA' s first index index uses travel time savings as the measure of a project's benefits, and the second index uses
new additional transit riders. Pinancial .easibility Cost-Bffectiveness 4.5.4 The criteria of financial feasibility is used to assess the impact of projected transit funding needs on
existing and potential sources of funds. In a detailed assessment of financial feasibility, funding.· requirements for both the" capital and O&M costs of each alternative are compared
to projected revenue from existing sources of funds and potential revenue from new' funding sources. The indicator of' financial feasibility for any given alternative, then, is the funding
surplus or deficit that would result from construction and long-term operation.' If a deficit is projected, additional revenue requirements and sources must be identified. The likelihood
of success in securing additional, new revenue sources (e.g., referenda, local legislation, state legislation, etc.) must be identified to assess financial 4.5.3 Under current procedures,
FTA uses the Cost Per New Rider Index (which is easier to compute) to rate transit projects proposed for Federal funding assistance. The Cost Per New Rider Index is a ratio between (1)
the incremental costs of building and operating an alternative and (2) the incremental transit riders attracted to that alternative. The incremental change compares the proposed system
of services with that provided by the TSM Alternative. There are two versions of the New Transit Rider Index. The "Total" New Transit Rider Index includes the total annualized capital
cost of the project, while the "Federal" New Transit Rider Index includes only the Federally-funded share of the project's annualized capital costs.
feasibility. Where existing and potential new sources of funds are not sufficient, the project is deemed to be financially infeasible. The FX 1993-94 Financial Plan (currently being
updated) provides for the funding of capital projects in the five-year period 1996-2001. Available funding for capital projects has been established at $240 to $250 million. Anticipated
Federal grant funds account for 60 to 70 percent of the funds available for capital projects. The No-Build Alternative would result in little additional direct financial burden for the
community. standard financing arrangements for replacing facilities and the vehicle fleet would be required. The TSM Alternative would require the purchase of approximately 130 new buses
to support expanded express bus service and new construction, as indicated 􀁡􀁢􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁾 The HOV lane proposed for the US 75 has been programmed in the State's highway budget for several
years. Available capital funding is more than sUfficient to cover the cost of the TSM Alternative, which is estimated at $44.9 million. It also is sufficient to cover the cost of the
LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative, estimated at $215.3 million. The LRT/parker Road Alternative and the LRT/parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity option would require new capital
expenditures exceeding the capital funding availability identified in the FX 1993-94 Financial Plan. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative, the most expensive alternative being considered,
would exceed available capital funding by $74 to $84 million. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity, which offers capital savings in the near-term, would require about
$18 to $28 million more than is available. 4.6 Other considerations And Evaluation Pactors Safety safety with respect to transportation principally. is a matter of minimizing conflicting
travel patterns--the more focused and controlled the travel pattern, the fewer the accidents. And, more obviously, the fewer the number of movements the lower the likelihood of conflicts
occurring. Therefore, the LRT alternatives offer the highest potential for increasing the safety of the traveling population in the Study Corridor,. However, the potential of train/automobile
conflicts would be created at all at-grade crossings of roadways by LRT vehicles. Operating Efficiencies The LRT/parker Road Alternative would have "in-service vehicle hours" equal to
the No-Build Alternative and have fewer operating vehicles in the peak period. At the same time, the number of transit trips in the Study corridor would be increased by about 100 i.:.:.":'
1'· lII 1r> I). !. I\\.:" -.-. Ll:&.
[rrrr[[[Lrrr􀁲􀁾 􀁴􀂷􀁾 [[[; (.....'. . . .,:.. [:. LJ [: II 2 percent accompanied by an increase in transit miles of about 3 percent. Thus, this alternative offers the ability to offer
more miles of service to more people, while keeping high-cost "in-service vehicle hours" constant. In contrast, the TSM Alternative would increase "in-service vehicle hours" 7.6 percent
and vehicle miles almost 9 percent, while producing a gain of less than one percent in transit trips. The LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative would produce a ridership increase equal to the
TSM Alternative but· have associated with it about 6 percent fewer vehicle miles and 6 percent fewer "in-service vehicle hours." Thus, the operating efficiency of transit services would
be improved with implementation of the LRT/Parker Road Alternative, which would require the same amount of "in-service vehicle hours," produce more vehicle miles, require fewer vehicles,
and generate increased ridership. The LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative would generate more vehicle vehicle miles and require fewer vehicles, but there would be an increase in "in-service
vehicle hours'" and the gain in ridership would be almost insignificant. The number of vehicles trips required for the LRT alternatives would be almost 4 percent less than required for
the No-Build Alternative. This would be reflect in maintenance savings. The gain in ridership associated with the TSM Alternative would be almost insignificant despite significant increases
in "in-service vehicle hours" and the requirement for more vehicles. Vehicle trips would be 4 percent greater than for the No-Build Alternative. Increased vehicle trips, miles, and hours
will be reflected in increased maintenance costs. Public Accept:ance DART's Transit System Plan was adopted after extensive community review and discussion. LRT service in the Study
Corridor is included in this plan. Delays in the implementation of elements of the Transit System Plan (i.e., extension of the LRT Starter system) in the Study Corridor resulted in the
formulation of a plan to construct the HOV lane in the center of US 75. With the passage of ISTEA, there now is a format for evaluating the two separate solutions to transportation problems
in the Study Corridor. Public acceptance varies with the alternatives, according to the degree to which an area is benefited through support for the current lifestyle and community/neighborhood
aspirations. The TSM Alternative and the LRT alternatives would serve to focus travel patterns/activity and require a change in commuting practices. The TSM Alternative, which would
offer significantlY expanded express bus service, would provide somewhat exclusive, personalized service from various communities/neighborhoods in the .Study Corridor to the center city
via the LRT station at Park Lane. The express bus routes may even take on an identity with respect to the areas served. In contrast, the LRT alternatives would orient a larger portion
of the Study Corridor's regionally-oriented 101
transit travel to a single "spine." Most north-south commuters opting to use transit would move through the study Corridor by way of the LRT service, operating on the former SPRR tracks.
Local, feeder bus service would provide access to the LRT service. There also would be park-and-ride options at some stations. Both proposals call for a transfer to the LRT system; public
acceptance would bea matter of when and under what conditions this transfer would take place. 102 r: l􀁲􀁾 ( . Iij
103 Chapter I'ive COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 01' ALTBRHATIVES The analysis presented in this chapter identifies trade-offs among the No-BUild, TSM, and LRT Alternatives. Specific measures
(absolute or relative) of the impacts of each alternative are related to specific measures (absolute or relative) of the impacts of every other alternative. A summary of findings is
presented in matrix form to aid in decision-making. The similarities among alternatives are highlighted below. Predicted or anticipated impacts are divided into three categories: • Those
with similar but negligible values for all alternatives considered; • Those with similar but significant values; and • Those with diverse values. Similarities Of Xinor Consequence Similarities
Among Alternatives 5.1.1.1 5.1.1 o None of the alternatives should have any significant impacts on vegetation, wildlife, or aquatic habitats. o None of the alternatives would create
barriers to social interaction or community cohesion. The guideway associated with the LRT alternatives would be Wholly contained within the DART/SPRR ROW (except possibly at Royal Lane),
following the 5.1 Trade-Offs Among Alternatives The trade-offs analysis is undertaken to gain an understanding of the major differences among, the alternatives being considered. It also
is intended to reveal the degree to which each of the alternatives achieves the stated goals of this project. The first consideration focuses on measures of specific impacts that are
similar among alternatives. The second consideration focuses on the differences between alternativesl• Measures of impacts are expressed quantitatively whenever possible and compared
on the basis of the incremental differences between them. For those impacts which are qualitative in nature, the differences between alternatives are described in narrative form and
the significance of the differences are assessed. Where the differences of impact between alternatives are significant, the size and nature of that difference will be presented. Lastly,
there is a discussion of the various interests that would be affected with implementation of the different alternatives. rf·o..:.---rr[[[[LLr [r.-.! L[' [[(.-. 􀀭􀁾 􀀨􀁾􀀮 bt'.'·' ..
,....
existing railroad tracks which already creates a corridor within, or boundary between, some neighborhoods. o None of the alternatives are expected to produce any net change in growth
or development at the regional level. o All alternatives potentially could have adverse noise impacts, but adequate means are available for mitigation. Similarities Of Kajor consequence
o The LRT alternatives potentially would aid in achieving air quality objectives, because travelers (particularly commuters) would be encouraged to leave their automobiles and ride transit.
The LRT/Parker Road Alternative is expected to divert the 􀁨􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁾􀁳􀁴 number of auto trips to transit; therefore, the potential contribution of this alternative to regional air quality
also would be the highest. The TSM Alternative potentially would result in a slight improvement in air quality, because the provision of expanded express bus service and circulator routes
is expected to attract commuter trips. o The LRT alternatives potentially would impact wetlands which exist along the DART/SPRR ROW. oooo New transit center and station facilities would
focus transit services for the rider. Any major investment in enhanced transit services and facilities would publicize a commitment to current riders and potential riders. The estimated
annual O&M costs associated with the alternatives would not vary significantly, ranging form $175.4 million under the No-Build Alternative to $185.2 million under the LRT/Parker Road
Alternative. There would be no significant difference between the build alternatives. Annual travel time saved for existing and new riders with implementation of the LRT/Parker Road
Alternative is forecast to be 1.5 million hours compared to the TSM Alternative. Annual travel time savings accruing to the other two LRT alternatives has been estimated at 950,000 and
1.13 million hours for the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative and LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity, respectively. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative potentially would result
in estimated travel time savings of $6.08 million annually for existing and new riders, when compared to the TSM Alternative. The value of annual travel time savings, relative to the
TSM . Alternative, would be $3.07 million for theLRT/Arapaho Road Alternative and $4.61 million for the LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity option. 104 )[' III.:. rII
rI
105 o The LRT alternatives potentially would require acquisition of strips of property from the Royal Oaks Country Club and golf course and White Rock Creek Greenbelt. o The LRT alternatives
include the potential for future development of an HOV facility within the DART/SPRR ROW to the extent that the cost of LRT system development is not affected. Diverse Levels Of Xmpact
o The LRT alternatives potentially would require significant acquisition of property and ROW for the development of stations and park-and-ridefacilities. o The estimated capital cost
for major investment in transit services and facilities varies from about $44.9 million for the TSMAlternative to $324.1 million for the LRT/parker Road Alternative. The LRT/Arapaho
Road Alternative would be the least cost LRT alternative with an estimated capital cost of $215.3 million. Initial, near-term (1996-2001) LRT development costs associated with the LRT/Parker
Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity option would be $267.6 million. It should be noted noted that the ultimate cost of $333.6 million for the LRT/Parker Road AlternativeIntermediate
capacity option, which calls for staged development of LRT service beyond Arapaho' Road, . would be slightly higher that the LRT/Parker Road' Alternative. The greater capital cost of
staged implementation would result from delaying construction of the full,·F'double track LRT system and various other design and construction factors. "T' o The LRT/Parker Road Alternative
would serve a projected resident population of about 163,000 persons and employment of about 238,000 within 1 mile of stations. This is significantly higher than the other two LRT alternatives
and more than double that of the TSMAlternative. o The extent of visual/aesthetic impacts likely would be greater for the LRT/Parker Road Alternative, because a greater number of sensitive
resources and receptors potentiallY would be affected. The TSM Alternative would be expected to have fewer 5.1.1.3 o The LRT/Parker Road Alternative would add 5,400 new transit riders
daily to DART's LRT system. The other two LRT alternatives would be produce significantly less new riders: 3,400 for the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative!and 3,800 for the LRT/Parker Road
Alternative -Intermediate capacity option. o The LRT alternatives potentially would impact a different number of parklands, because the length of the project and the number of stations
varies.
5.1.2 o visual impacts, because this alternative does not require installation of an overhead catenary system and its principal elements would be developed within the existing transportation
environment of US 75. However, proposed improvements to existing transit centers and construction of new facilities could result in some localized impacts. Difference Between Alternatives
The TSM Alternative would include four transit centers directly served by dedicated Express Bus Routes. The transit centers would have expandedpark-and-ride and kiss-and-ride facilities.
Direct access to US 75 would be available for each transit center. Expanded park-and-ride and kiss-and-ride would be developed at the LRT Park Lane Station. o TheLRT/Parker Road Alternative
would include eight (8) stations plus a "Special Events" station in the Plano Downtown area. These stations would be located near or at: Walnut Hill, Royal Lane, LBJ Freeway, Spring
Valley, Arapaho Road, campbell Road, SH 190, 15th Street (Special Events), and Parker Road. Dedicated "circulator" bus service would be established between stations, and "feeder" bus
service would be oriented to the LRT stations. 11.-'...'. -I\ 􀁾 . ooo The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity would not include the Campbell Road, SH 190, and 15th Street
Special Events stations. These three stations were identified as "low-activity" stations, because travel demand forecasts predicted total activity (Le., boardings plus alightings) would
be less than 2,000 per day. During initial screening of potential ridership in the Study corridor, an activity level of 2,000 was considered the minimum acceptable for inclUding a station
vicinity in the LRT system. The Parker Road station significantly exceeded the threshold of 2,000 boardings and alightings in all scenarios tested. Therefore, it is considered reasonable
to extend LRT service to Parker Road while bypassing the intermediate, poor-performing station vicinities. Dedicated "circulator" bus service would be established between stations, and
"feeder" bus service would be oriented to the LRTstations. The LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative would add five (5) stations to the LRT Starter System: Walnut Hill, Royal Lane, LBJ Freeway,
Spring 􀁶􀁾􀁬􀁬􀁥􀁹􀀬 Arapaho Road. 0 Dedicated "circulator" bus servl.ce would be· established between stations, and "feeder" bus service would be oriented to the LRT stations. The
LRT alternatives potentially could require the removal of the T&NO RR bridge of. White Rock Creek, depending on the alignment selected at Royal Lane. 106 l-II
rr,:',-,' [.r["LL[[rr[􀁛􀀺􀁾 .".::: 􀁲􀀧􀁾 .􀁾 [.'" 􀀧􀁾 ..:; [[i 􀁾I"r >-",' t·; o The LRT alternatives likely would result in construction activity in the White Rock Creek Greenbelt
and floodplain. The significance of potential impacts would depend on the alignment selected at Royal Lane. o The TSM Alternative would increase transit accessibility through the expansion
of traditional express bus commuterservices, while the LRT alternatives would increase transit accessibility through an intermodal approach, using a combination of modes (Le., bus,express bus, circulator/feeder bus, and
LRT). o The base operating headways for all LRT alternatives has been established at 10 minutes for the Peak Period and 15 minutes for the Off-Peak Period. These operating headways would
be maintained on the segment between Park Lane and Arapaho Road, which is common to all alternatives. The LRT/Arapaho Road would not operate north of Arapaho Road-in the city of Richardson.
The LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate capacity would operate at 20 minute Peak and 30 minute Off-Peak headways north of Arapaho Road because of the single track operation. 5.1.3
􀁁􀁦􀁦􀁥􀁣􀁾􀁥􀁤 􀁚􀁮􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁥􀀸􀁾􀀸 o AM and PM commuters to the Dallas CaD would benefit mostly by the implementation of the network of express bus routes proposed under the TSM Alternative,
because the need to transfer to LRT service would not exist. o Dri vers and service personnel of DART I s bus system would benefit more with implementation of the TSM Alternative, because
there would be more operating hours. o The downtown areas of Richardson and Plano would benefit from the establishment of regular LRT service, connecting to the Dallas CaD and the regional
LRT system. o The real estate and development interests in the Corridor would be benefitted more by the establishment of permanent LRT service with fixed property investment. Land adjacent
the station sites gain slightly in value with permanent transit facilities and services • 5.2 􀁅􀁶􀁡􀁬􀁵􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁯􀁮 Summary Figure 5.1 presents a summary of the principal evaluation criteria
defined fOr this Corridor Planning study of the North Central Corridor, north of Park Lane. Performance measures for each of the evaluation criteria employed in the matrix have been
extracted from the information presented in Chapter Four. In general, the LRT/Parker Road Alternative would result in the greatest 107
[.•..••.• 1f" II\.-"-IL r· I
1I I1 '1IJII..l1I '1r J:}1 Alternative Table 5-1 No-Build TSM LRT/Arapaho Road LRTlParker Road LRTlParker Road Evaluation of Alternatives (MOS) Staged Implementation Full Development
olixpaldl c:aneza luiSerYice olDcludel ProjoclI 􀁯􀁦􀁎􀁾􀁂􀁵􀁩􀁉􀁤􀁾 o􀁾ProjedI 􀁯􀁦􀁎􀁾􀁂􀁵􀁩􀁉􀁤AJIamatMI olDcJudel Projects of 􀁎􀁾􀁂􀁵􀁩􀁉􀁤A.JIiDrmdiwl o Inc1udeI Projects of􀁎􀁾􀁂􀁵􀁩􀁉􀁤AlIIlm
ative North Central Corridor, North of Park Lane olnc1udllll 􀁐􀁮􀀮􀁰􀁾HCNlAB CIIl us 75 o Adcfirim,l RoIdway OpanJiaIIIl.l: o Ex1amica. of LRI' StmDr 8yIJIm to Arapmo olimlllioa of
LRI' St.a1Dr SysJIlm to PIlrbrr o Ex1amica.ofLRI' StmDr SyRiIDto PIriIIlr .I: LBJ FnlDway Low-CoIt PhyIiI:allmpco-ma (LAP) Ro.d ill RicbudIaa Ro8d ill PIIDo Ro.d ill PIaDo olnc1udllll
atber'I'taouahf-lwpco-ms o Experwim ofExiItiq PII'kt-LRI' oPMNew LRI' SIlItimJI o Six Now LRI' StatioDI o BiabtNewLRI' Stadaal plul SpecialB_ o LRI' TermimIIat PIrkt-SUtioD PIrtiD& FKility
o 10 IDimlJD Iad_y ill Peak PIIriodI o 2D IIIiDuID Iadway ill Peak PeriodI North of Platform ill PImo o BillA_Ramp to us 75 HOVt-at o ReswI:nnd Bill R!L .I: 7 MInExpre. R!L .6.8 mile
Double Track Guideway ArapUo Road LRI' Statioa • 10 IIIiDuID HIlIdway ill PeakPeriodI RicbardIoa.Tnmil CeDIBr o 8UlI A_llampIto us 75 HOYU-o BIll Feedar SeMalto orr-it Statklas o 12.3
mile DoubIB .I: SiDaJeTack Guideway o 123 mile DoubIBTack Guideway Evaluation Criteria/Performance Measures at East PIaDo .I:SH 190 orr-it CeDIBr wiJhSidiDp o BIll Feeder SeMalto TllIDIil
Statioaa o Cireulalllr Semce flll' '1'nIIIIit CemIn o Bill Feeder SeMco to TllIDIil Statklas N/A =Not Applicable olmprvwldA_flll' North Cemnl Polll Fe. TRAVEL & MOBILITY • Population
within 1 mile of Transit Stations/Centers N/A 67,000 97,000 109,000 163,000 • Change in Daily Systemwide Transit Riders N/A Base +3,500 +3,800 +5,400 • Average Transit Travel Time to
CBD from: -LBJ StationINorth Central Transit Center 26 26 21 21 21 -Arapaho Road Station 35 35 26 26 26 -Parker Road SJation 40 40 40 32 34 • Travel Time Savings (Annual Hours) N/A Base
+948,800 +1,129,100 +1,536,900 . Roadways • Reduction in Daily Roadway Vehicle Miles +18,460 Base -62,480 -68,160 -96,560 Traveled (VMf) EQUITY • Employment within 1 Mile of Transit
Stations/Centers N/A 117,780 164,000 172,000 238,000 ENVIRONMENTAL • Number of Noise Sensitive Sites Potentially Affected N/A N/A 20 34 34 • Number of Sensitive VISual/Aesthetic Resources
N/A N/A 11 15 15 Potentially Affected • Number of Parklands Potentially Affected N/A 1 4 5 5 • Number of Potential Displacements None None 2 2 2 • Change inAir Emissions +0.2 Tons/Day
Base -0.6 Tons/Day -0.7 Tons/Day -1.0 Tons/Day COSTIFINANCIAL FEASffiILITY • Added Capital Cost (Millions) Base +$44.9M +$215.3M +$267.6M +$324.1M • Available Capital Funding 1996-2001*
N/A $240-$250M $240-$250M $240-$250M $240-$250M • Added Annual Operating & Maintenance Cost Base +$8.2M +$7.6M +$6.3M +$9.8M (Millions of 1993 Dollars) • Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI)
N/A Base $9.83 $11.25 $12.24 • FY 1993-946mnsi,J P1ap 108
rr r[[.•.., '. rLlr: [rL. [[LL transportation benefits, considering accessibility, ridership, travel time, and emissions reduction. However, it would carry with it the greatest social
and environmental impacts. This alternative also would require the largest capital investment, exceeding available capital funds by $74 to $84 million and resulting in the highest annual
O&M costs ($9.8 million). The computed value of the Federal cost-effectiveness index for the LRT/Parker Road Alternative is $12.24. The TSM Alternative would require the least capital
investment, but this alternative's annual O&M costs would be relatively high. No significant social or environmental impacts would be manifest with implementation of this alternative.
Accessibility for work or commute trips would be significantly enhanced with implementation of the expanded Express Bus service through four transit centers. But, neither travel time
nor accessibility would be improved to a significant degree. The LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative and the LRT/Parker Road Alternative -Intermediate Capacity would be roughly comparable in
terms of benefits and impacts. Because the latter alternative involves extending LRT service to Parker Road, certain environmental effects (noise, visual/aesthetic, and parkland impacts)
are associated with it that are not associated with the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative. The LRT/Parker Road Alternative Intermediate Capacity would require a larger capital investment,
exceeding the expected availability of capital funds by $18 to $28 million. On the plus side, the annual O&M costs for this alternative ($6.3 million) would be less than for the LRT/Arapaho
Road Alternative ($7.6 million). The computed Federal cost-effectiveness index for the LRT/Arapaho Road Alternative is $9.83; this is less than that computed for the LRT/Parker Road
Alternative -Intermediate Capacity option ($11.25). 109
( -fi[I !I
[r([rl[It II'-rrl[rLr[t[ Chapter Six OXT STEPS There are several steps to be completed from this point in order to advance the proposed extension of the LRT system for the North Central
Corridor, north of Park Lane, into Preliminary Engineering and, ultimately, fUll implementation. 6.1 Public Review/Involvement Public involvement remains a critical component of project
development process, which involves narrowing and refining a list of reasonable alternatives to an LPA. Therefore, community meetings and other pUblic involvement opportunities will
be instituted. This Evaluation of Alternatives Report will be subjected to pUblic review in the same manner as the AA/DEIS. Several informational meetings will be conducted throughout
the Study Corridor. These meetings will focus on apprising affected agencies and interested citizens of the contents of this Evaluation of Alternatives Report and findings and conclusion
contained herein. The recommended LPA, as determined from the evaluation, will be identified at these meetings. Persons attending the meetings will have the opportunity to comment on
or ask questions about the alternatives, the LPA, and/or assessments as to potential transportation effects or environmental impact. The informational meetings will be held during a
formal public review period of 30 days. A formal pUblic hearing (s) will be conducted at the end of this review period. At the public hearing(s), DART staff will summarize the key aspects
of the proposed project and highlight critical findings and conclusions. Public comments then will be received. 6.2 select LPA After the pUblic review/involvement activity is completed
and comments are received, an LPA will be selected by the DART Board of Directors. Their decision will be based on the findings and conclusions documented in this Evaluation of Alternatives
Report and other pertinent information that may be deemed critical to selection of the LPA. The Board also will consider comments and concerns raised during pUblic review of the Evaluation
of Alternatives Report, including input from the public, interest groups, and government agencies. The DART Board will forward its decision to the North Central Texas Council of Governments
(NCTCOG), the regional planning body, for action. The NCTCOG will consider the decision of the DART Board and define an appropriate line of action, given the regional transportation
planning and development program and available funds. 110
6.3 Prepare LPA Report A Locally Preferred Alternative Report will be prepared, following official action by NCTCOG adopting a specific action for transportation improvements in the
North Central Corridor, north of Park Lane. The LPA Report will provide a description of the preferred technology of the LPA and its alignment, operating plan, estimated costs, and associated
financing plan. The LPA Report will be submitted to FTA with a request to initiate Preliminary Engineering and prepare the Draft and Final Environmental Impact statement (FEIS) on the
project. This process is intended to provide DART and FTA with the information necessary to assure that any transportation improvement built in the study Corridor represents a wise use
of pUblic funds, and that community and environmental impact issues related to its construction and operation are taken into account. 6.4 BZs/Bnqineerinq/Desiqn FTA approval of the grant
application will permit DART to initiate the preliminary Engineering phase of the project development process. Under the new planning regulations, it is during this phase that the Draft
and Final EIS documents will be prepared. The EIS is assembled from information in all areas of technical analysis. The document will provide a detailed description of the LPA, affected
environment, expected impacts, and mitigation measures. Implementation of the LPA will· be evaluated against doing nothing (Le., a No Build or "No Action" alternative). The DEIS will
be circulated for public examination, review, and comment. Specific coordination will be maintained with affected government agency during this review process. Review of the DEIS will
be followed by revisions, as necessary to respond to comments received, and preparation of the FEIS. With pUblication of the FEIS and certain other administrative actions on the part
of FTA, DART can proceed into Final Engineering/Final Design and then construction/Implementation phases of project development. 111 \i
HDWARD PUTNAM ENTPR. '. TEL:214-985-9827 nII II Apr 30,92 9:28 No.OOt P.Ol 􀁾􀁜􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁦􀁩􀁾 . _ 􀁟􀁾 _ " 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁬 .,._ 􀁾􀁾􀁉 HERE COMES A FAXI 􀀢􀀮􀁟􀀭􀁾􀁟􀀮 --From Howard, £!.utnam
6l!IJlmr.168s SeJl",l.ding .,..1_.. ,rages Enclud1Jl)JJ[ 1'hi!LPage DAti:••i:.J.'?:.:1.k-.... CQY.MEHD=__••••􀀤􀀽􀀽􀁾••-==__M.M--.= 􀁾􀁯 􀁾􀀬 OUR PHONE & FAX IS: 214-985-9827 􀁬􀀱􀀽􀀮􀀽􀀺􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀮􀀧􀁗
􀀢􀀮􀀽.....􀁾􀁾􀁟􀀮􀁾􀀬.􀀮..􀀬􀀽􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀻􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀮􀁾
HOWARD PUTNAM ENTPR. TEL:214-985-9827 Apr 30,92 9:28 No.OOl P.02 The Morning News plans to run this 1n about a week, according to Carolyn Barta, Editor of the viewpoints page. This is
for your information in anticipation of your Mayors meeting tomorrow. Please do not make copies for distribution before it appears. I gave a copy to Florence this morning. She agrees.
§􀁾 April 30, 1992 ( F A X TO: Lynn Spruill 􀁾 Mayor-city of Addison 􀁾 Good Morning Lynn •.•••••• 􀁾a= 􀁾 Best of regards" 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁊 1f.D,ard Putnam ·,·,f· Howard D. Putnam Enterprises
P.O. Box 196336 Dallas, Teras 75.'179.6336 (214) 985·9821
HOWARD PUTNAM ENTPR. TEL:214-985-9827􀀮􀁄􀀮􀁒􀁁􀁬􀀮􀁾 Apr 30,92 9:28 No.OOl P.03 . FOR: DALLAS MORNING NEWS CAROLYN BARTA/VIEWPOINTS TO BE SUBMITTED ON MONDAY, MAY 4, 1992 HOWARD D.
PUTNAM 4/29/92214-985-9827
· HOWARD PUTNAM ENTPR. TEL:214-98S-9827 Apr 30,92 9:31 No.OOl P.OS Putnam/Barta/Viewpoints Page 2 coming to the end of an era. Many of the active civic servants Were ending careers in
public service and/or retiring from business. Then the Texas downfall of oil, real estate, and banking took many participants aotive in community projects, like DART, out of circulation.
people had other priorities and concerns. As banks and companies disappeared that we had known, others appeared with new names, new approaches and out of state ownership. Finanoial interests
and survival outweiqhed efforts for strong leadership in a united effort. Whenever that occurs, and a vacuum is created, then the door is open for special interest groups to publicize
and politicize their agendas. For the last several years Dallas has, been in political and racial gridlock, and I see no signs of a short term solution. DART has become the whipping
post for these attacks and agendas. Its organization makes it vulnerable and an easy targ&t. DART as structured was probably doomed from day one, we just wouldn't admit it. As a board
member in year one, we 􀁾 saw that a twenty-five person board was not workable. We saw that with Dallas having control of the voting that the suburbs were always going to be scratching
for their share of service and attention. Even without the bickering within Dallas , the process would be a difficult one. Recent discussions to change to a smaller and elected board
would do little in my opinion to 􀁩􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥 the prooess.
,HOWARD PUTNAM ENTPR. 􀁔􀁅􀁌􀀺􀁾􀀱􀀴􀀭􀀹􀀸􀀵􀀭􀀹􀀸􀀲􀀷 Apr 30,92 9:28 No.OOl P.04 putnam/Barta/Viewpoints Page 1 JWrl Bail. PrgSJra.a Should Ja TerminAted i Future Implications Some
will say we don't need another article on DART. others will say, leave Jack Evans, the neW Executive Direotor of DART, alone as he needs time to begin anew. I have known Jack Evans for
years and have great respect for his business acumen and civic leadership abilities. This viewpoint has nothing to do with any ohe individual. These thoughts are not an attempt to place
blame. That is of no value to the process. These comments are offered from the perspective of one who served on the original DART board in 1983, as the representative for Plano. From
day one I supported the DART concept baaed on the need for a regional ground transportation network. Even when many 􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁑 getting off the bandwagon, or train, I hung on. Three years
ago I cochaired the effort in Plano to approve the referandum to stay in DART. For all of its mistakes, faUlts and bureaucracy, I supported the conoept in the 􀁩􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁳􀁴 of a reqional
network. But in the past year, I have changed my mind and have conoluded it is time to terminate or derail the rail part of DART. Why after nine years and hundreds of millions of sales
tax dollars invested and some wasted, would I now want to burst the bubble? Here is why. DART was conceived over a decade ago under another name and different leadership. We were still
in an economic boom era. However the leadership, especially in Dallas, was
HOWRRD PUTNRM ENTPR. TEL:214-985-9827 Rpr 30,92 9:31 No.OOl P.06 putnam/Barta/Viewpoints Page 3 Maybe some gooa has 􀁣􀁯􀁾􀁥 out of this nine year excursion of wanderinq through the
wilderness looking for a place to lay our tracks. The metroplex has changed dramatically in growth patterns and demographics. Dallas 1s no longer the hub and everyone else the spokes.
The term metroplex is probably outdated., for it is truly a "region'l and rapidly expanding northward. toward the Red River, across the IITrinity Commons. II In Plano we are just complet.ing
phase one of our "Vision· 2015" project. A year long prooess with leaders from across the community to anticipate and aim Plano in a positive direct.ion looking out twenty five years.
Dr. Don Beck of the National Values Center in Denton, has facilitated the process. At t.his point it is only 􀁾 framework and a scaffolding. As soon as the Plano city council sees it.
for the first time and has their input, then it will be taken to the people for their input and opportunity to put meat on the careus. It is their cit.y. What the first phase clearly
shows is that the reqion is ,. becoming a grid, a spider web with several key destinations. Irving, LOs Colinas, Arlington, Garland, Addison, and Plano to name a few, have emerged in
these years as the homes of Fortune 500 companies and have become eoonomic entities in and of themselves. Travel patterns have changed. In Plano for example as many people come to Plano
to work each day as go somewhere else. 50-50, and ten years 8g0 it was 80% leaving for work. The rail plan as designed years ago does
HOWARD PUTNAM ENTPR. TEL:2l4-985-9827 Apr 30,92 9:33 No.002 P.Ol Putnam/Barta/Viewpoints page 4 not meet the needs for the year 2000 and beyond. It will be outdated before it is ever
built. The growth is across and between suburban destinations, not into and out of Dallas. . Rail is intrusive into neighborhoods. It is expensive and inflexible. Onoe there, it is permanent.
And certainly at qrade or street level, it isn't very rapid. What has worked has been the ability to adapt the bus and van system qUickly to the needs of the customer. HOV lanes, high
occupancy vehicle lanes, for buses again follow the flow and the expense is minimal compared to rail. Under that approach DART beomes a muoh simpler, lower cost bureaucraoy and 􀁥􀁾􀁩􀁥􀁲
to run. It can then truly become a network for. the region. Does it need to be 􀁴􀁡􀁸􀁰􀁾􀁹􀁥􀁲 owned? What about examininq privatization? The old argument about rail saving enerqy and
being more efficient 1s a weak one. Alternative sourees of fuel will be here in one form or another for buses, vans and autos. Our society demands flexibility and independence. Rail
no longer fulfills that request. For years we have been tauqht how to reduce stress. You 􀀮􀁾 can't medicate a problem forever. The real solution is to remove the cause of the problem.
In the case of the quest for regional transportation ••..•• put rail to bed_ •.• take DART out of the political stress ••••• and put our dollars to work in a productive manner.
From: Jerry Hiebert To: Mayor. Rich Beckert To:Beckert, Mayor, Rich From: Gary A. Slagel, Mayor Oate:6/24/93 Pages: 7 Dale: 6/24/93 Time: 16:11 :51 rI • 􀀮􀁟􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾 􀀧􀁐􀁾􀁧􀁥 1 of
7 Fax Number Comments: 9960-7684 Please call Eileen Hanson at 214-238-4249 if any pages of this fax are not received.
􀁆􀁾􀁯􀁭􀀺 Jerry Hiebert To: Mayor. Rich Beckert Dale: 6/24/93 Time: 16:12:35 COR DEVELOPMENT SVCS TEL No.1-214-238-4247 Page 2017 Jun 24,93 15:55 No .032 P.Ol =============8 2_. 4 TO:
. FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: DART Suburban Member City Mayors June 24, 1993 New IS-Member DART Board Appomtments The following cities have agreed to aggregate their populations for the purpose
of appointing DART Board representatives: 1. Dallas Plano Glenn Heights Cockrell Hill 2. Richardson Highland Park University Park Addison Buckingham 3. Carrollton Irving 4. Farmers Branch
Garland Rowlett Most of these cities are now in the process of making their appointments as well as finalizing their draft agreements with the cities in their group. In making your appointments,
be sure to make them effective July 2, 1993, to avoid any legal technicality related to the legislation not officially taking effect until July 1. Attached is another copy of the draft
agreement prepared by the City of Plano which several of the cities have already agreed to utilize. The majority of the appointments are expected to be made by July 5. The first currently
scheduled meeting of the new Board is July 27. !'. U Rox i\:liIaOH
From: Jerry Hiebert To: Mayor. Rich Beckert Dale: 6/24/93 Time: 16:13:48 COR DEVELOPMENT SVCS TEL NO.1-214-238-4247 Jun 24,93 􀁊􀁕􀁴􀁾􀀭􀀱􀀶􀀭􀀱993 13: 57 FROI'1 CI 1'1 OF PLANO TO P.O.
Box 8603S8 Plano. T9XiS 7SOS6-0358 214444'111 Fax. No. 214-424-009' MEMORANDUM DATE; June 16, 1993 Page 3 01 7 15:55 No.032 P.02 .238424':' P.82 TO: SUburban DART Mayors FROM: James
N. Muns Mayor, city of Plano SUBJECT: Draft Aggreqation Appointment Agreement Attached is a preliminary draft of the agreement we discussed with the City of Dallas at our meeting on
Monday, June 14, 1993. M(jyor ;eiitL·tlett has received Q copy for consideration regarding partioipation with the cities aggreqating their population for the ninth board member for pallas
and other cities. Based on discussion with some of the members, this draft is provided should your city desire a similar agreement. In essence, this agreement provides veto power of
ANY member city allowing the use of their population for additional bOartt appointments. Please advise advise if you have any suggestions or comments. I can be reaohed at 867-3997 or
you may forward comments to Assistant City Manager James McCarley at 578-7122 or via fax 424-0099. JNM/wkt Attachment
,....agtt ... UI I Jun 24,93 15:55 No.032 P.03 TO 2384247 p. 03 uale: 0/o!:4/lji;S lime: 10: 1:>:Ulj TEL No.1-214-238-4247 FR0i'1 CIT'Y OF 􀁐􀁌􀁲􀀺􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁏 ....rom: Jerry HleDen 10:
Mayor. lilCn tleCKen COR DEVELOPMENT SVCS JLlN-1S-1993 13:58 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. It RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY 01" ==--:-:.=-==:--==--' REGARDING
THE SELECTION 􀁐􀁒􀁏􀁃􀁾􀁓􀁓 FOR A SHARED MEMBER TO '!'Kt; 􀁕􀁁􀁾􀁬􀁷􀁁􀀤 AREA RAPID TRANSIT (DART) BOARD. KHBRBAS, A.rticle 1118Y, Vernons TeXaS civil statute, as amended, 􀁰􀁾􀁯􀁶􀁩􀁤􀁑􀁓
􀁣􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁾 hRVi"9 a fractional allocation for board membership to aggregate 1ts population with another city 􀁾􀁯 oppoint Q 􀀮􀁥􀁾􀁢􀁯􀁲􀀬 􀁾􀁮􀁤 􀀸􀁰􀁰􀁯􀁩􀁮􀁴􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁴 shall agree
on a method of makinq this appointment' ana WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of in conjunction with the city(s) of to afjlqreqate population tor the selection of a DART Boardmember;
and WHEREAS, it 􀁨􀁾􀁳 beQn determined by the city Council the most effective method to promot.e an area-wide approach to rS9ional mobility and transportation is aohievement of this
appointment through consensus of participating 􀁣􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁥􀁳􀁾 MOW. '1'H'F.RIlFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY TB£ _ CITY COUNCIL THAT: SD':tOJl 1. The City of ________-, and I will 􀁬􀁉􀁬􀁵􀁾􀁵􀀮􀁬􀀱􀁹
a9ree upon a candidate to serve as a DART Boardmember making use Of 􀁦􀁲􀁾􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁡􀁬 POPUlation 􀁾􀁕􀁪􀀧􀀺􀁊􀂣􀂷􀀱􀁯􀀡􀀱􀀺􀁊􀀱􀀺􀀱􀀱􀀮􀀱􀁵􀁮 tor a fu.ll Soardmember. It will be preferred
that this candidate who will serve more than one City Shall nave relJLuUld qualifications of interest bacx9rouna and experience. 􀁓􀁉􀁓􀀧􀁬􀀧􀁾􀀰􀀱􀁦 2. The City having the hiqbest.
percent.age of the fractional allocation shall submit a candidate for
.....agl:l ;) 01 I Jun 24,93 15:55 No.032 P.04 TO 2384247 F',l:l4 uate: O/""/lM lime: 10: 10:<::> TEL NO.1-214-238-4247 FRO/"I CITY OF PLANO t-rom: Jerry HleDen 10: Mayor. Hlcn tleCKen
=OR DEVELOPMENT Sf.)CS JUN-15-1993 13:59 Recolutio1'1 NO. fJRAFT approval by the other cities through the Mayor of, each city. If all cities concur with the nomination, thl.! lh..tiv1auAl
will be the DART Board appointment. SIC'l'Iotf 3. If concurrence with all cities is not reached on the individual nominated, another candidate must be proposed for consideration. This
candidate, and any subsequent 􀁮􀁯􀁭􀁩􀁮􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀬 may be proposed by any of the member cities part:icipating in BCilQrEl9aUon of population. All municipallties participating in
the agqregation for a specific Board seat 􀁾􀁵􀁳􀁴 aqree on the selection of an individual eandldate. DULY PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of • 1993. "alll•• N, MlUv;. MAYOR ATTEST:
􀁾􀁁􀁲􀀮􀁫􀁩􀁾 918kely. CITY SECRETARY APPItOVBD AS TO FOM: Gary r. chatham, CITY ATTORNEY
· , . . _, .., . COR DEVELOPMENT SVCS TEL No.1-214-238-4247 JUri 24,'9315:55 No .032 P.OS DART MEMBER CITIES COMPLETE AGREEMENTS TO AGGREGATE AND APPOINT DART BOARD MEMBERS The following
cities have agreed to aggregate their populations for the purpose of appointing DART Board representatives: 1. Dallas Plano Glenn Heights Cockrell Hill 2. Richardson Highland Park University
Park Addison Buckingham 3. Carrollton Irving 4. Farmers Branch Garland Rowlett SEE ATIACHMENT FOR REPRESENTATlVE ALLOCATION Most cities are in the process of passing resolutions adopting
the agreements on the 􀁡􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁥􀁧􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮 and on the method of agreeing on shared Board appointments. Most of the CItIes are expected to have their Board members agreed-upon and appointed
by July 5. The new legislation becomes effective July 1, 1993, and the first currently scheduled meeting of the new Board is Tuesday, July 27. For information on individual cities' appointments,
please contact either the individual city'S mayor or city manager. GH93132 􀁾􀁾 411 W. Arapaho Rd. Richardson, TX 7608O-C6-42 MaIlIq AdlIIw: P.O. Box 830309 Richardllon, TX 76083.0309
From: Jerry Hiebert To: Mayor. Rich Beckert Dale: 6/24/93 Time: 16:19:08 :dR DEVELOPMENT SVCS TEL No.1-214-238-4247 Page 7 of 7 Jun 24,93 15:55 No.032 P.OS BOARD ALLOCATlON* Dallas 8.76
Plano 1.11 Cockrell Hill 0.03 Glenn Heights .Q1M 9.94 Richardson 0.65 Highland Park 0.08 University Park 0.19 Addison 0.08 Buckingham ..0..00 1.00 Carrollton 0.71 Irving .1J.5 2.06 Farmers
Branch Garland Rowlett 0.22 1.57 0.20 􀁾 14.99 :$ Based on 1990 census. Dallas allocated 8 members + Plano, Cockrell Hill, Glenn Heights, and Dallas agree on one member. 6/24/93 gb
MAV 2 8 93 Regional I • Transportation P.O. Box 5888 • Arlington, Texas 76005-5888 • (817) 64<l:?300 Council May 25,1993 " 􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁊􀁉 􀀺􀀮􀁾􀁊 The Honorable Gary Slagel Mayor City of
Richardson P.O. Box 830309 Richardson, TX 75083 Dear Mayor Slagel and Mayor Beckert: The Honorable Rich Beckert Mayor Town of Addison P.O. Box 144 Addison, TX 75001 In April, the Regional
Transportation Council (RTC) approved revisions to its Bylaws. The revisions include development of RTC Subcommittees for programming purposes, integration of the Technical Committees,
representation formulas for RTC, and mechanisms to combine smaller political jurisdictions. Membership on the Council is either by direct membership or by indirect representation. In
the previous RTC structure, Richardson was directly represented by Gary Slagel. Addison had indirect representation through Dallas County. As a result of the Bylaws revisions, Richardson
and Addison have been combined into one group and are entitled to one seat on the Council. A copy of the RTC Bylaws is enclosed for your reference. Sections 3.A and 3.B pertain to membership
on the Council and appointment of representatives. These sections have been highlighted for your convenience. As noted in Section 3.B of the Bylaws, a group representative shall be selected
by a weighted vote of the affected Mayors/County JUdges using the maximum of the daytime or nighttime population. Please select an appointment to the Council in accordance with these
procedures. The designated representative must be an elected official. You may reappoint Gary Slagel or select a new representative. Please contact LaDonna Smith of my staff at 817/640-3300,
ext. 231, or by fax at 817/640-7806, with your designation. This designation should be confirmed in writing by both entities included in this group. The next meeting of the RTC is scheduled
for Friday, May 28, 1993, at which time the draft 1994 Transportation Improvement Program will be presented. Action on the TIP will be requested on June 17. An agenda for the the May
28 meeting is enclosed. Please pass this information on to your designated representative if appointed by this date. A new member orientation will be scheduled in June once new appointments
have been designated. The Transportation Policy Body for the North Central Texas Council of Governments (Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Dallas-Fort Worth Region)
Page Two May 25,1993 We look forward to hearing from you soon. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely. 􀀣􀀭􀀮􀁴􀁻􀀱􀀡􀁾 Michael Morris Director of Transportation
Ims Enclosures c: Bob Hughey, City Manager, City of RichardsonRon Whitehead, City Manager, Town of Addison
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP NIGHTTIME DAYTIME MAXIMUM CITY POP pop. DAYTIME & NIGHTTIME Collin County Plano 128,700 58,000 128,700 McKinney 21,300 15,000 21,300 Allen
18,100 4,000 18,100 Dallas County Dallas 1,007,000 848,000 1,007,000 Garland 181,000 88,000 181,000 Irving 155,000 110,000 166,000 Meequlte 101,000 33,000 101,000 Grand Prairie 100,000
82,000 100,000 Richardson 76,000 88,000 76,000 ...IIDuncanville 38,000 11,000 38,000 DeSoto 31,000 10,000 31,000 Fanners Branch 24,000 88,000 88,000 Rowlett 23,000 6,000 23,000 Lancallter
22,000 8,000 22,000 UniverBity Park 22,000 10,000 22,000 Cedar Hill 20,000 3,000 20,000 Balch Springs 17,400 4,000 17,400 Coppell 17,000 3,000 17,000 Addison 8,800 45,000 45,000 ---Denton
County Carrollton 82,000 83,000 82,000 Denton 88,000 34,000 88,000 L_llVille 47,000 18,000 47,000 The Colony 22,000 2,000 22,000 Flower Mound 18,000 3,000 18,000 B1isCounty 78,000 32,000
78,000 Waxahachie 18,000 5,000 18,000 Ennis 14,000 3,500 14,000 JohnllOO County 85,000 38,000 85,000 Cleburne 18,000 8000 18,000 Burleson 18,000 5,000 18,000 Rockwall County 24,000 11,000
24,000 Rockwall 11,000 8,000 11,000 TammtCounty Fort Worth 448,000 333,000 448,000 Arlington 282,000 87,000 282,000 North Richland Hill 48,000 12,000 48,000 Bedford 44,000 15,000 44,000
Eule88 38,000 8,000 38,000 Hurllt 34,000 18,000 34,000 Haltom City 33,000 12,000 33,000 Grapevine 28,000 25,000 28,000 Watauga 20,000 2,000 20,000 Benbrook 20,000 3,000 20,000 Man8fleld
18,000 4,000 18,000 White Settlement 16,000 4,000 16,000 Keller 14,000 1,000 14,000 Colleyville 13,000 2,000 13,000 ForelltHIII 11,000 2,000 11,000 • A88umed equal to employment. Source:
North Central Texas Council of Governments
BYLAWS AND OPERATING PROCEDURES REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL April 1993 STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES 1. The physical, economic, and social well-being of the region, its citizens, and business
enterprises, now and in the future, is determined to a great extent by its transportation system. Therefore, decisions involving transportation systems and subsystems must consider the
environmental, economic, and social impacts of the alternatives in the future development of the transportation system and must attain the principal objective of having an efficient,
safe, and practical system for moving people, goods, and services in the region according to their needs. 2. A transportation system can best be planned on a large-area basis involving
city, county, regional, and state jurisdictional responsibilities and a proper mix of various modes of travel. 3. Counties and cities have the local responsibility for anticipating and
meeting the transportation needs for adequately moving people and goods within their jurisdictions. However, the Texas Department of Transportation is charged, by law, with the responsibility
for planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining the State Highway System. In addition, duly authorized transportation authorities are responsible for planning, developing, and
operating public transportation services in their respective service areas. With new federal legislation, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), through the NCTCOG Regional Transportation
Council, has an expanded role in project selection and transportation project programming.
4. Evaluation of transportation alternatives and the determination of the most desirable transportation system can best be accomplished through a Regional Transportation Council (RTC)
of primarily elected officials as spokesmen for the counties and cities in the North Central Texas Region. The Regional Transportation Council will be the forum for cooperative decision
making by primarily elected officials of general purpose local governments and including representatives of entities responsible for highway and mass transit improvements. 5. The Regional
Transportation Council will make recommendations involving the regional transportation system to the counties and cities, the State, and the authorities for all modes of transportation.
Final decisions for implementing the regional transportation plan rest with the governing bodies of the counties and cities, the Transportation Commission, the Regional Transportation
Council, and the authorities. 6. The Regional Transportation Council will monitor the transportation planning process to assure that it is conducted in a manner consistent with requirements
of federal law and regulations. 7. In an attempt to fulfill the above concepts and to meet the requirements of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973, the Governor, on April 18, 1974, designated
the North Central Texas Council of Governments as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for transportation planning with the proviso that the Regional Transportation Council be the
decision-making group for regional transportation policy for the Dallas-Fort Worth urbanized area. More recently, the Governor has designated the Regional Transportation Council as the
MPO for the Lewisville and Denton urbanized areas. As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, the North Central Texas Council of Governments must assure that transportation
planning in the urbanized area is satisfactorily coordinated and integrated with other comprehensive planning 2
in the State Planning Region. These Bylaws and Operating Procedures spell out the manner in which the Regional Transportation Council shall fulfill its responsibilities as the cooperative
transportation decision-making group of the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. DEFINITIONS Section 1. The following definitions shall apply
to terms used in these Bylaws and Operating Procedures: A. Transportation Planning Process. The transportation planning process is the process of estimating future travel demand, identifying
transportation improvement alternatives, and evaluating those alternatives and financial resources to determine the best combination of facilities and services for all modes of travel.
B. Regional Transportation Plan. The Regional Transportation Plan is the delineation of the highway, transit, and airport facilities which would serve the projected travel demand for
a forecast year. Included in this intermodal transportation plan is a listing of projects for development of the proposed plan. In addition, as a second inventory, the Regional Transportation
Plan will include a subset of projects anticipated to be funded over the next 20 years and be developed consistent with federal guidelines. C. Regional Transportation System. The Regional
Transportation System is the continuous network of roadways and transit services that provides for movement and interchange" of people and goods, primarily between local jurisdictions
within the region. Included in the Regional Transportation System are highways and streets, parking and intermodal terminals, tollways, fixed-guideway transit lines, bus routes, taxi
services, paratransit and ridesharing services, railroad facilities, and general aviation and air carrier airports. 3
D. Regional Highway System. The regional highway system is those freeways, principal and minor arterials, tollways, truck terminals, parking facilities, and ridesharing services which
make up the system for travel by automobile or truck. E. Regional Public Transportation System. The regional public transportation system includes all fixed-guideway facilities, bus
routes, personal rapid transit, paratransit, and taxi services operated by public or private entities. F. Regional Airport System. The regional airport system is the collective airports
and heliports in the urbanized area which provide terminals for commercial air travel, general aviation, and air cargo. G. Metropolitan Area. The Metropolitan Area is that portion of
Dallas, Tarrant, Denton, Collin, Rockwall, and surrounding counties expected to be principally urbanized by 201 O. ORGANIZATION Section 2. The organization for regional transportation
planning shall consist of the Regional Transportation Council, Regional Transportation Council Program Subcommittees, and Technical Committees, as described in subsequent paragraphs
and sections of these Bylaws and Operating Procedures. A. Regional Transportation Council. The Regional Transportation Council shall be the forum for cooperative decision making by primarily
elected officials of general purpose local governments in the Metropolitan Area. 4
B. Regional Transportation Council Program Subcommittees. The Regional Transportation Council will have two Program Subcommittees defined along Texas Department of Transportation District
boundaries and will be composed of all members of the full Regional Transportation Council plus cities with a daytime or nighttime population of 10,000 persons or greater. Their primary
purpose is to discuss specific transportation projects within their subregion and recommend projects to the Regional Transportation Council for possible funding. All impacted entities
listed under Section 3.A will reside on the Subcommittees, and cities/counties with mUltiple seats will be represented by the number of seats on the RTC. C. Technical Committees. These
committees shall provide technical review and advice for the regional transportation planning process to the Regional Transportation Council. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL1 Section
3.. The following rules shall govern the procedure, membership, and records of the .! Regional Transportation Council and its Subcommittees. A. Membership;! Membership on the Regional
Transportation Council shall be provided for local governments in the Metropolitan Area, either by direct membership or by representation. Federally designated urbanized areas of 50,000
or greater, in which the Regional Transportation Council is serving as the Metropolitan Planning Organization, shall be provided direct membership. The following local governments and
public agencies shall be represented as indicated: Dallas County Tarrant County Collin County Denton County Ellis County, Ennis, and Waxahachie Johnson County, Burleson, and Cleburne
City of Dallas and University Park 5 22 11116
City of Fort Worth, Benbrook Forest Hill, and White Settlement City of Arlington City of Carrollton and Farmers Branch City of Denton City of Garland, Rowlett, and Rockwall County City
of Grand Prairie and Mansfield City of Irving and Coppell City of Mesquite and Balch Springs City of Plano, Allen, and McKinney City of Richardson and Addison Cities of Haltom City,
Keller, Watauga, and North Richland Hills Cities of Bedford, Euless, Hurst, Colleyville, and Grapevine Cities of Lewisville, The Colony, and Flower Mound Cities of Duncanville, DeSoto,
Lancaster, and Cedar Hill District Engineer, Dallas District, TxDOT District Engineer, Fort Worth District, TxDOT Representative, Eastern Subregion Transportation Authority Representative,
Western Subregion Transportation Authority TOTAL 311 1 (urbanized area) 11111111 (urbanized area) 111111 34 The representatives of the transportation authorities shall be approved by
all authorities in the respective subregions; the subregions are described in State law (VATS 111Sy). The transportation authority representatives shall be board members of an authority.
B. 􀁁􀁰􀁰􀁯􀁩􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁥􀁳􀀮􀁾􀀱􀀱 members of the RTC shall be elected officials except the two transportation authority representatives and the two TxDOT District Engineers. Representatives
of individual cities and counties shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the city councils and commissioners courts respectively. The appointing bodies are encouraged to
select members in common for the RTC and the NCTCOG Executive Board. The person representing a group of several cities shall be selected by a weighted vote using the maximum of the daytime
or nighttime population of the mayors/County Judges of the 6
cities/counties represented, and the person selected shall serve a two-year term beginning in January of even-numbered years. C. Ballots. A ballot shall be sent to each RTC member as
part of the meeting preparation package. Ballots should be used by absent members to indicate their position on any matters to be acted on by the RTC. Completed ballots received before
or at the RTC meeting shall be counted with votes of members attending the meeting, provided that a quorum of members is present at the meeting. Ballots shall not be counted if the proposal
submitted in the meeting preparation package mailed to members is changed in substance at the meeting. The Chairman shall decide whether the change is sufficient to discard ballots.
D. Attendance. Records of attendance of RTC meetings shall be kept and presented monthly as part of the minutes. These records shall be sent to the represented local governments quarterly.
RTC members that have missed at least three consecutive meetings or at least four meetings in in the preceding 12 months shall be dropped from the RTC roster, and the appointing bodies
shall be asked to name a new representative. The quarterly attendance notice shall indicate that such notice is standard practice and not indicative of any particular problem. E. Quorum.
At least 50 percent of the appointed members identified in Section 3.A above must be present at meetings for the RTC to take action. F. Officers. The Regional Transportation Council
shall elect a Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary for a term of two calendar years. Elections shall be held in the last meeting of each odd-numbered year. The Chairman shall appo"int
a nominating committee prior to the 7
last meeting of each odd-numbered year for the purpose of bringing before the Council a slate of officers for consideration. Officers shall be elected public officials appointed by and
from the governing body of the member government. In the event that the Chairman of the Regional Transportation Council cannot continue to serve at any time during his term of election,
the Vice Chairman shall automatically become Chairman. A vacancy in either the office of the Vice Chairman or Secretary shall be filled by the Regional Transportation Council in the
first meeting of the Council after the vacancy becomes known. In the event that the offices of Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary all become vacant, new officers shall be elected
at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Regional Transportation Council, with nominations from the floor. G. Meetings. At least one meeting shall be held annually by the Regional
Transportation Council, but the Council shall meet as often as necessary for the purpose of transacting the business at hand. The Chairman shall call the meeting and shall designate
in the written notice of the meeting the business to be transacted or considered. Written notice of the meeting, accompanied by an Agenda, shall be mailed to the members and major news
media at least 72 hours prior to the meeting and confirmed by telephone. The place of meetings shall be designated by the Chairman. All meetings shall be held as open meetings as defined
in Article 6252-17, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. H. Minutes. Minutes of the meetings shall be kept and shall be submitted to the members of the Council for approval. Minutes from
the Surface Transportation Technical Committee will also be transmitted to the RTC. 8
I. Staff Support. Staff support for the Regional Transportation Council shall be furnished by the staff of the North Central Texas Council of Governments and the Regional Planning Office
of the Texas Department of Transportation. J. Council Functions. Functions of the Regional Transportation Council shall be as follows: 1. Provide direction to the regional transportation
planning process. 2. Certify the coordination, comprehensiveness, and continuity of the regional transportation planning process. 3. Develop the Unified Planning Work Program, Regional
Transportation Plan, and Transportation Improvement Program in accordance with requirements of federal statutes and regulations. 4. Review the Transportation Improvement Program to assure
that transportation projects do not reasonably exceed what funding currently seems likely to be available for each metropolitan subarea, to the degree that is reasonable. 5. Review the
limits of the Metropolitan Area and make revisions considered appropriate. 6. Authorize transit planning technical assistance to transit operating agencies at their request. 7. Encourage
the Federal Aviation Administration to follow the General Aviation System Plan 2010. 8. Identify the kinds of consultant projects eligible for federal transportation funding. 9. County
representatives are appointed to represent the transportation needs of the entire county, especially those areas of the county within unincorporated areas, and local governments within
each county which are not directly represented on the RTC. It is the responsibility of the county representative to inform and discuss policies and actions of the RTC with those impacted
areas they represent and to communicate the transportation needs of these areas to the RTC. 10. RTC members representing groups of entities are appointed to represent the transportation
needs of all entities within the group. It is the responsibility of the RTC members representing groups to inform and discuss policies and actions of the RTC with elected officials in
in their impacted areas and to communicate the transportation needs of these areas to the RTC. 9
TECHNICAL COMMITTEES Section 4. The following rules shall govern the procedures, membership, and records of the Technical Committees. A. Technical Committees. The following Technical
Committees shall be the minimum number of committees formed to provide technical advice and review for the transportation planning process. 1. Surface Transportation Technical Committee
2. Air Transportation Technical Advisory Committee 3. Travel Demand Management Committee B. Membership. Members of the Surface Transportation Technical Committee shall be staff personnel
nominated by their respective governments or agencies and shall include at least one member from each jurisdiction and agency represented on the Regional Transportation Council. Membership
and voting on the Surface Transportation Technical Committee shall be provided to the following local governments and public agencies and shall be represented as indicated: • Each central
urban county within the Metropolitan Area shall have two representatives including: Dallas County 2 Tarrant County 2 • Each perimeter county in the Metropolitan Area shall have one representative
including: Collin County 1 Denton County 1 Ellis County 1 Johnson County 1 10
Rockwall County 1 • Each central urban city within the Metropolitan Area shall have three representatives including: City of Dallas City of Fort Worth 33 • Each suburban city within
the Metropolitan Area with a combined population and employment greater than 200,000 shall each have two representatives including: City of Arlington City of Garland City of Irving 222
• Each suburban city within the Metropolitan Area with a combined population and employment greater than 40,000 shall each have one representative including: City of Addison 1 City of
Bedford 1 City of Carrollton 1 City of Denton 1 City of DeSoto 1 City of Duncanville 1 City of Euless 1 City of Farmers Branch 1 City of Grand Prairie 1 City of Grapevine 1 City of Haltom
City 1 City of Hurst 1 City of Lewisville 1 City of Mesquite 1 11
City of North Richland Hills City of Plano City of Richardson 111 • The following planning agencies will be represented as listed: TxDOT District 2 2 TxDOT District 18 2 TxDOT Regional
Planning Office 1 TxDOT Division 10 {Austin) 2 Dallas Area Rapid Transit 2 Fort Worth Transportation Authority 2 RAILTRAN 1 Texas Turnpike Authority 1 TOTAL 51 Each city with an RTC
member representing multiple local governments and not having a Surface Transportation Technical Committee member by the above representation will also be provided one member. (RTC membership
on January 1, 1993, would result in one additional Technical Committee member.) Representatives from other local governments are welcome to attend the meetings. Members of the Travel
Demand Management Committee and the Air Transportation Technical Advisory Committee are selected on an as-needed basis and, as with the Surface Transportation Technical Committee, shall
be appointed by the Executive Board of the North Central Texas Council of Governments. 12
C. Officers. A Chairman, Vice Chairman, and a Secretary for the Surface Transportation Technical Committee, Travel Demand Management Committee, and the Air Transportation Technical Advisory
Committee shall be designated by the Executive Board of the North Central Texas Council of Governments for a term of two calendar years, beginning on January 1 of even-numbered years.
D. Meetings. Meetings of the Technical Committees shall be held as necessary to review and .. advise on matters referred to them. The Chairman shall call such meetings as necessary and
shall notify all Committee members. E. Minutes. Minutes of all meetings shall be kept and submitted to the membership of the Committee for approval and also provided to the RTC. The
Regional Transportation Council will be kept apprised of Surface Transportation Technical Committee membership by public agency. F. Staff Support. Staff support for the Surface Transportation
Technical Committee shall be furnished by the Regional Planning Office of the Texas Department of Transportation and by the North Central Texas Council of Governments. Staff support
for the Travel Demand Management Committee and the Air Transportation Technical Advisory Committee shall be furnished by the North Central Texas Council of Governments. G. Committee
Functions. The functions of the Technical Committees shall be to review and comment on all matters referred to them by either the Regional Transportation Council or their respective
Technical Committee Chairmen. The Surface Transportation Technical Committee, Travel Demand Management Committee, and the Air Transportation Technical Advisory Committee shall advise
the North Central Texas Council of Governments on projects submitted for review as part of the Texas Review and Comment System. 13
INTENT Section 5. These Bylaws and Operating Procedures are intended to provide rules and procedures to assure the orderly function of the regional transportation planning process in
North Central Texas. ADOPTION Section 6. These Bylaws and Operating Procedures shall be in full force and effect at such time as they have been approved by two-thirds vote of the Regional
Transportation Council at a meeting at which a quorum, as defined herein, is present. REVISION Section 7. These Bylaws and Operating Procedures may be revised by approval of two-thirds
of the members of the Regional Transportation Council at a meeting at which a quorum, as defined herein, is present. Changes in the Bylaws must be presented at one regularly scheduled
meeting and voted at a following regularly scheduled meeting. No Bylaw change shall be made that has not been presented at a previous meeting. The Chairman shall vote on Bylaw changes.
14
EDUCATION: EXPERIENCE: 1989 -Present 1984 -1989 1981 -1984 1977 -1981 1975 -1977 JOHN A. MURPHY 120 WEST SHORE DRIVE RICHARDSON, TEXAS 75080 (H) 214-690-3370 (W) 214-508-5158 MBA, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio; 1975 BA, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio; 1973 NationsBank, P.O.Box 831000, Dallas, Texas, 75283-1000 (formerly NCNB) Vice President. Manager -Treasury Services
Customer Support; Manage and coordinate support staff providing consulting services to corporate customers using Treasury Management Products. Consulting provided ..covers topics such
as: Bank Operations, Check Processing, Wire Transfer, ACH, Lockbox, Controlled Disbursement, Vault and ARP. NCNB, P.O. Box 831000, Dallas Texas, 75283-1000 (formerly First Republic Bank
and Republic Bank) Assistant Vice President. Manager -Check Processing Support; Managed half of Check Processing Operations including Return Items, Research and Adjustments, and Customer
Service Units. Directed staff of 120. Planned and administered annual budget of $10mm. Coordinated facility consolidation between Republic and Interfirst Bank operations units. Republic
Bank, P.O. Box 655961 Dallas, Texas 75265-5961 Senior Operations Analyst -Consulting Services/Check Processing Division; Coordinated facilities redesign for $5mm renovation. Staff administrator
and office manager. Customer Service and New Corporate Customer Representative. Southern Union Company, 1st International Bldg., Dallas, Texas, 75270 Rate Manager; Directed staff in
preparation and presentation of rate applications to municipal and state regulatory agencies. Organized and coordinated activities of department involved in regulatory actions including
legal, accounting and engineering. Advised and assisted senior management in planning regulatory strategy. Testified on accounting policy and procedures before various regulatory commissions.
Negotiated rate settlements. Rate Accountant: Supervised support groups charged with data collection, financial and statistical analysis, and document preparation. Analyzed and evaluated
operating performance, working capital and rate of return requirements. Prepared written testimony and testified before state and municipal regulatory agencies on various accounting
subjects including expense levels, inflation accounting, attrition and rate design..
Page 2 John Murphy Resume 1975 PROFESSIONAL AND CIVIC: MILITARY: REFERENCES: Ronald E. Stemmler and Associates (RESA), Athens, Ohio Consultant: Developed contract negotiation strategies
and policies for the State of Ohio and Ohio Department of Transportation. Analyzed and presented financial research findings on the State's energy requirements to management seminars.
Supervised research personnel. -Councilman, Richardson City Council, Richardson Texas 1991-93, reelected 1993 -Phi Gamma Delta Graduate Association -Chairperson, Caring for Children
Program 1991-1993 -Member, Treasury Management Association United States Air Force 1968-1972; Honorable Discharge Available on request
EDUCATION: EXPERIENCE: 1989 -Present 1984-1989 1981 -1984 1977 -1981 1975 -1977 JOHN A. MURPHY 120 WEST SHORE DRIVE RICHARDSON, TEXAS 75080 (H) 214-690-3370 (W) 214-508-5158 MBA, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio; 1975 BA, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio; 1973 NationsBank, P.O.Box 831000, Dallas, Texas, 75283-1000 (formerly NCNB) Vice President. Manager -Treasury Services
Customer Support; Manage and coordinate support staff providing consulting services to corporate customers using Treasury Management Products. Consulting provided covers topics such
as: Bank Operations, Check Processing, Wire Transfer, ACH, Lockbox, Controlled Disbursement, Vault and ARP. NCNB, P.O. Box 831000, Dallas Texas, 75283-1000 (formerly First Republic Bank
and Republic Bank) Assistant Vice President. Manager -Check Processing Support; Managed half of Check Processing Operations including Return Items, Research and Adjustments, and Customer
Service Units. Directed staff of 120. Planned and administered annual budget of $1 Omm. Coordinated facility consolidation between Republic and Interfirst Bank operations units. Republic
Bank, P.O. Box 655961 Dallas, Texas 75265-5961 Senior 0 perations Analyst -Consulting Services/Check Processing Division; Coordinated facilities redesign for $5mm renovation. Staff administrator
and office manager. Customer Service and New Corporate Customer Representative. Southern Union Company, 1st International Bldg., Dallas, Texas, 75270 Rate Manager; Directed staff in
preparation and presentation of rate applications to municipal and state regulatory agencies. Organized and coordinated activities of department involved in regulatory actions including
legal, accounting and engineering. Advised and assisted senior management in planning regulatory strategy. Testified on accounting policy and procedures before various regulatory commissions.
Negotiated rate settlements. Rate Accountant; Supervised support groups charged with data collection, financial and statistical analysis, and document preparation. Analyzed and evaluated
operating performance, working capital and rate of return requirements. Prepared written testimony and testified before state and municipal regulatory agencies on various accounting
subjects including expense levels, inflation accounting, attrition and rate design.
Page 2 John Murphy Resume 1975 PROFESSIONAL AND CIVIC: MILITARY: REFERENCES: Ronald E. Stemmler and Associates (RESA), Athens,Ohio Consultant: Developed contract negotiation strategies and policies for the State of Ohio and Ohio Department of Transportation. Analyzed and presented financial research findings
on the State's energy requirements to management seminars. Supervised research personnel. -Councilman, Richardson City Council, Richardson Texas 1991-93, reelected 1993 -Phi Gamma Delta
Graduate Association -Chairperson, Caring for Children Program 1991-1993 -Member, Treasury Management Association United States Air Force 1968-1972; Honorable Discharge Available on
request
EDUCATION: EXPERIENCE: 1989 -Present 1984 -1989 1981 -1984 1977 -1981 1975 -1977 JOHN A. MURPHY 120 WEST SHORE DRIVE RICHARDSON. TEXAS 75080 (H) 214-690-3370 (W) 214-508-5158 MBA, Ohio
University, Athens, Ohio; 1975 BA, Ohio University. Athens, Ohio; 1973 NationsBank, P.O.Box 831000, Dallas, Texas, 75283-1000 (formerly NCNB) Vice President. Manager -Treasury Services
Customer Support; Manage and coordinate support staff providing consulting services to corporate customers using Treasury Management Products. Consulting provided covers topics such
as: Bank Operations, Check Processing, Wire Transfer. ACH, Lockbox, Controlled Disbursement. Vault and ARP. NCNB. P.O. Box 831000, Dallas Texas, 75283-1000 (formerly First Republic Bank
and Republic Bank) Assistant Vice President. Manager -Check Processing Support; Managed half of Check Processing Operations including Return Items, Research and Adjustments. and Customer
Service Units. Directed staff of 120. Planned and administered annual budget of $10mm. Coordinated facility consolidation between Republic and Interfirst Bank operations units. Republic
Bank, P.O. Box 655961 Dallas, Texas 75265-5961 Senior Operations Analyst -Consulting Services/Check Processing Division; Coordinated facilities redesign for $5mm renovation. Staff administrator
and office manager. Customer Service and New Corporate Customer Representative. Southern Union Company. 1st International Bldg., Dallas, Texas, 75270 Rate Manager: Directed staff in
preparation and presentation of rate applications to municipal and state regulatory agencies. Organized and coordinated activities of department involved in regulatory actions including
legal, accounting and engineering. Advised and assisted senior management in planning regulatory strategy. Testified on accounting policy and procedures before various regulatory commissions.
Negotiated rate settlements. Rate Accountant: Supervised support groups charged with data . collection, financial and statistical analysis, and document preparation. Analyzed and evaluated
operating performance, working capital and rate of return requirements. Prepared written testimony and testified before state and municipal regulatory agencies on various accounting
subjects including expense levels, inflation accounting. attrition and rate design.
Page 2 John Murphy Resume 1975 PROFESSIONAL AND CIVIC: MILITARY: REFERENCES: Ronald E. Stemmler and Associates (RESA). Athens, Ohio Consultant: Developed contract negotiation strategies
and policies for the State of Ohio and Ohio Department of Transportation. Analyzed and presented financial research findings on the State's energy requirements to management seminars.
Supervised research personnel. -Councilman, Richardson City Council, Richardson Texas 1991-93, reelected 1993 -Phi Gamma Delta Graduate Association -Chairperson, Caring for Children
Program 1991-1993 -Member, Treasury Management Association United States Air Force 1968-1972; Honorable Discharge Available on request
Survey of Community Attitudes about DART Preliminary Findings April 8, 1993 Conducted by: Dr. Edward T. Rincon Survey Method Research Class University of Texas at Dallas
Introduction In March 1993, a study was initiated to examine community attitudes regarding Dallas Area Rapid Transit. To assure objectivity, interviews were conducted from March 12 -18
at the central telephone interviewing center of Rincon & Associates in Dallas, Tx. Eight graduate students from the Survey Research Methods course at The Unversity of Texas at Dallas
conducted all interviewing under the supervision and training ofDr. Edward T. Rincon. One professional bilingual interviewer from Rincon & Associates also assisted with Spanish-speaking
respondents. Study Objectives There were four stated objectives for the survey project: 1. Determine public awareness about DART Light Rail Construction now underway, and the future
willingness of area residents to use the system, especially in terms of downtown Dallas travel. 2. Determine the public approval rating ofDART since the new Transit System Plan was established
in 1989. 3. Determine rider perceptions ofcurrent DART service. 4. Provide the DART Public Affairs Department direction in communicating to taxpayers in the 14 city service area. The
following sections present a synopsis ofthe survey project.
Methodology Sampling Design A random digit sample (ROD) was acquired from Survey Sampling Inc., a professional sampling organization, for telephone exchanges within Dallas and Collin
counties. A total of 400 intetviews were completed from this sample, which is a probability sample of all telephone households within these two counties. By stratifying by all telephone
exchanges in the sampling area, a proportionate-to-size sample is drawn. A sample of400 respondents permits inferences to be made at a 95 percent confidence interval with a margin oferror
of plus or minus 5 percent. The following table presents the actual number of completed intetviews by race and sex, the unweighted percentage distribution and the weighted percentage
distribution. The weighted percents were derived by mathematically weighting the sample percentages by the 1990 Census information on race and sex distributions in Dallas and Collin
counties. Race White Black Hispanic Other Weighted Number Percent 290 72.5 57 14.2 39 9.8 14 3.5 Percent 63.4 17.6 15.8 3.2 Sex Male Female Total 166 234 400 41.5 58.5 100.0 49.4 50.6
100.0 Questionaire Design Working in conjunction with Media Relations Manager Ron Whittington ofDART, Dr. Rincon and the UTD graduate students designed a short, five-minute questionaire
that addressed general transportation issues. A Spanish-language version ofthe questionaire was also available.
Executive Sumlnary April 8, 1993 Summary of Key Findings Listed below are a few facts that should be kept in mind as issues are addressed. Awareness ofDART and Related Projects 1. Awareness
ofDART is high (94%) among Dallas and Collin County residents. 2. A majority (79%) of respondents are aware that DART is building a light rail system today. Awareness and Expected Usage
of the Light Rail System 3. Respondents who are aware ofthe light rail system, however, appear confused about its completion date. Only 9 percent correctly indicated DART's 1996 completion
date, 42 percent were unable to provide a date, and 49 percent provided a different date. 4. Respondents are optimistic about the potential success of the light rail system. About one
third (32%) believe that it will be very successful, while nearly half (45%) believe it will be somewhat successful. 5. Downtown workers appear enthusiastic about utilizing the light
rail system upon completion. One third (33%) of the downtown workers say they are very likely to use it upon completion, while another 29 percent are somewhat likely to use the Hight
rail system. 6. Nearly six out often (58%) respondents would use a light rail system to go downtown on weekends. I
Evaluation ofDART and DART Services 7. DART's current bus service is evaluated very positively, with 13 percent ofall respondents saying it is excellent and 39 percent indicating it
is good. 8. Given Dallas' political environment, nearly half(49%) of respondents nevertheless believe that DART has excellently or well since its adoption ofthe new transit plan in 1989.
9. Safety ofwaiting areas is cited as very important by DART non-riders (58%) in their decision not to ride the bus more often, followed by routing (52%), needing a car for work (48%),
frequency of service (41%), and travel time of buses (36%). Current and Expected Visits to Downtown Dallas 10. Almost seven in ten (68%) respondents would consider visiting downtown
Dallas more often for shopping and entertainment ifDART were to make downtown Dallas more accessible to them.. 11. About 21 percent of respondents visit downtown Dallas for weekend recreation
on a regular basis (3-4 times a month or more). 12. While awareness ofDART's HandiRides service is high (82%), only a small proportion (8%) ofrespondents have used the service.
Respondent Characteristics About 12 percent of respondents work downtown. Three fourths ofdowntown workers (73%) currently use a car or truck as their mode oftransportation. About 22
percent of respondents are DART riders while 78 percent are non-riders. Respondents reflect the racial and gender characteristics ofDallas and Collin county residents: White (63%), Black
(18%), Hispanic (16%), and others (3%); males (49%), females (51%).
University of Texas at Danas Graduate Students Participating in the DART Survey Chris Boyd, MPA major --Public Affairs JeffCarbiener, Ph. D. candidate --Political Economy Jackie Chandler,
MPA major --Public Affairs Carol Mendez, MPA major --Public Affairs Daniel Oney, Ph. D. candidate --Political Economy Anna Sicher, MPA major --Public Affairs Paula Tibandebage, Ph. D.
candidate --Political Economy Scott Walker, Ph. D. candidate --Political Economy
Question 1: Fi rst, have you ever heard of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, or DART? No 6.2%j Yes 20 40 60 80 93.8% 100% .Question 2: As you mayor may not know, a light rail system is a train
that holds about 150 people per car and runs on rail tracks at speeds up to 60 mph. Are you aware DART is bUilding a light rail system today? Didn't answer No Yes 78.9% 20 40 60 80 100
--DART Public Opinion PolI--
Question 3: Don't know 2030 2013 2010 2005 2004 2003 2002 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 In terms of what you have heard or read, what year do you think that the light rail system
is projected to open? _.__._ 41.7% 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.8% 3.7% 1,1%9.4% 4.0% ! 9.6% 6.3% i 􀀹􀀮􀀴􀁾 7.5% i 4.6% i 20 40 60 80 100 Question 4: Light rail systems are operating today
in Portland, San Diego and other large cities. How successful do you think a system like this will be in Dallas? Do you think it will be very successful, somewhat successful, or not
at all successful? Don't know Not successful Somewhat successful Very successful 45.3% 20 40 60 80 100% --DART Public Opinion PoJl--
Question 5: Do you currently work in downtown Dallas? Don't know Not employed No Yes 64.2% 20 40 60 80 100 % Question SA: What form of transportation do you usually use to travel to
and from work? , Bus 13f4% Carpool/vanpool Car or truck 20 40 60 80 100 % Question 58: Don't know Not likely Somewhat likely Very likely And what is the likelihood that you will ride
the light rail system to work when it is completed? Would you say it is very likely, somewhat likely or not at all likely?, *.6% 29.1$ 33;1% 20 40 60 80 100 % --DART Public Opinion Poll--
Question 6: For weekend recreation, about how often do you come downtown to visit Reunion Arena, city hall, the West End or other places in downtown Dallas? Would you say ... Don't know
Almost never 1-2 times/month 3-4 times/month 5 or more/month 20 40 56.1% 60 80 100% . Question 7: Would you use a light rail system to go downtown on weekends? Don't know No Yes 57.7%
20 40 60 80 100% --DART Public Opinion PolI--
Question 8: About how often do you ride the DART bus in the Dallas area? Would you say ... Never Under once/month Once a month Once a week 2·4 times a week 5 or more/week 68.3$ 20 40
60 80 100 % Question 9A: Would you say that routing, or where the buses go, is very important, somewhat important, or not at all important in your decision not to ride the DART bus more
often? Don't know Not important Somewhat important Very important 20 40 60 80 100 % --DART Public Opinion PolI--
Question 98: Would you say that frequency of service is very important, somewhat important, or not at all important in your decision not to ride the DART bus more often? Don't know Not
important Somewhat important Very important 20 40 41.2% 60 80 100 % Question 9C: Would you say that safety of waiting areas or while waiting is very important, somewhat important or
not important at all in yo.ur decision not to ride the DART bus more often? Don't know Not important Somewhat important Very important 57.7% 20 40 60 80 100 % --DART Public Opinion PolI--
Question 9D: Would you say that needing a car for work is very important, somewhat important or not at all important in your decision not to ride the DART bus more often? Don't know
Not important Somewhat important Very important 􀀴􀀸􀀮􀀳􀁾 20 40 60 80 100% .Question 9£: Would you say that the travel time of buses is very important, somewhat important or not at
all important in your decision not to ride the DART bus more often? --DART Public Opinion PolI--Don't know Not important Somewhat important Very important 20 􀁾􀀶􀀮􀀱􀀥 ; 40 60 80 100
%
Question 10: Overall, how do you rate DART's current bus service? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair or poor? Don't know Poor Fair Good Excellent 38.7% 20 40 60 80 100 % --DART
Public Opinion Poll··
Question 11: Has anyone in your household ever used DART's HandiRides service? Yes, used it No, aware of service No, not aware Don't know 20 40 60 80 100% Question 12: Given the political
environment in the Dallas area, how well do you think DART has performed since it adopted its new transit plan in 1989? Would you say DART's performance has been excellent, good, fair
or poor? Don't know Poor Fair Good Excellent •• 12j7% 􀀱􀀳􀁾􀁴􀀥 ••24.8% 20 40 41.0% 60 80 100 % --DART Public Opinion PolI--
Question 13: If DART were to make downtown Dallas more accessible, would you consider visiting Dallas more often for shopping and entertainment? Don't know 0.4% No Yes 20 40 60 80 100%
.. ", 􀀮􀀬􀀬􀁾 Question 14: What is your racial, ethnic origin? Are you white, black, Hispanic, Asian or some other origin? Other Asian Hispanic Black White 63.3% 20 40 60 80 100% .
--DART Public Opinion PolI--..
Language used during the interview: Spanish English 92. % 20 40 60 80 100% Gender of those interviewed: Female Male 59.6% ;j! 49.4% iii 20 40 60 80 100% --DART Public Opinion PolI--
April 8, 1993 Contaot: Ron Whittington 214/749-2675 Tony Salters 214/749-2662 INDEPENDENT SURVEY SHOWS MAJORITY SUPPORT RAIL CONSTRUCTION, DART'S PROGRESS SINCE 1989 More than 75 percent
of citizens in Dallas and Collin counties expect Dallas Area Rapid Transit's light rail system will be successful --and 62 percent of residents surveyed said they would ride the light
rail system when it is opened for service in 1996. The independent survey was conducted by graduate students in a survey Research Methods Class at the University of Texas at Dallas.
Questions were developed by the students and course instructor, Dr. Edward T. Rincon (a survey and research professional and UTD adjunct lecturer) in conjunction with DART's Media Relations
section. The survey results have an error rate of plus or minus five percent. "Many agencies use polls to guage taxpayer support and overall perceptions," said Rincon. "As a student
project, the survey was conducted at a minimal cost, but it rivals surveys that cost big dollars for veteran pollsters to conduct, and it gave students an opportunity to focus on important
urban issues." Given the political environment, nearly half (48.3%) believe DART has done a good to excellent job since DART adopted its new transit plan in 1989, while 24 percent say
DART has done a fair job. -more
There was a high level of awareness of DART (94%), and nearly 80 percent of those surveyed are aware that DART is under construction on the light rail system. other highlights of the
survey include: * While most people (79 percent) are aware DART is building the light rail system, only nine percent correctly identified 1996 as the completion year for the first 20
miles of the system; * About 77 percent of those surveyed believe the light rail system will be somewhat successful (45.3%) or very successful (32%) in Dallas; * About 62 percent of
the respondents said they will ride the light rail system when it is opened; * While 56 percent said they "almost never" go to downtown Dallas for weekend activities, six out of 10 respondents
said they would use the light rail system to go downtown, and 68.1 percent would consider visiting downtown more often if DART made downtown Dallas more accessible; * More than half
(52 percent) ranked DART's current bus service positively. People that do not ride DART buses said safety in waiting areas was a major concern in their decisions not to ride (58 percent),
and * The majority of citizens (72.5%) drive alone to work, and carpools and vanpools (14.2%) rank slightly higher than bus service (13.4) as a daily means of transportation to work.
The survey was conducted in March 1993, with results compiled from 400 telephone interviews with adults in Dallas and Collin counties. Using a five-minute bilingual questionnaire, students
addressed general transportation issues with adult respondents. The survey's results are based on the ethnic/gender percentages from the 1990 Census. The survey was developed to guage
pUblic awareness of light rail construction underway, determine DART's public approval rating and get input from riders about current bus service. -###-