􀀻􀁾􀀧􀀻􀀮􀀭􀁦􀁟􀀢􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀻􀁟􀀭􀀽􀀮􀀮􀁟􀁊􀀮􀀬􀁟􀀠__ -􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭􀂷􀂷􀂷􀀠 . . " -􀁾􀀠 ·-- ' • MOBILITY 2025 NORTH CROSSTOWN CORRIDOR OVERVIEW OF TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION North Central Texas Council of Governments North Crosstown Corridor Recommendations Objective: Identify a transportation recommendation for the North Crosstown Corridor for inclusion in the Mobility 2025 Plan. Current Status: Developed staff technical recommendation awaiting discussion with North Crosstown Corridor Task Force and public input for Regional Transportation Council approval on 􀁊􀁡􀁮􀁵􀁲􀁲􀁾􀁴􀀻􀀱􀀬􀀺􀀰􀁾􀀰􀁑 􀁏􀀠__ .. 􀀢􀀧􀀧􀀢􀀧 􀀰 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭.. • Moblhty2025F._--_ .. •--.··:·'lff·_ .... -_· 0 .--􀁾􀀠•• --·. --·-· i : 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀠g::: 􀀧􀀦􀀷􀀨􀀱􀀡􀀡􀀱􀀯􀁦􀁦􀀺􀀬􀁽􀀢􀁾􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭 4 . 􀁥􀁶􀁾􀀯􀀴􀁐􀁾􀀠¢v-e' Y Technical Recommend _ •· ·f!,_• ___ -_·-􀁾􀁾􀀠,: 􀁾􀀼􀀠· · --. -· 1. First Pri?rity: I · .. · · .. 􀁸􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠 :.:;J -_ -· International fl. ·--0 -•• _. -•• •• -·,_ • , -•• • : · · .{Fort Worth _ . /commendations from aste11 1 tetmiAI:ls at af'l 0 b 􀁾􀀠 the Northwest · · .· · C, f-' (}.., Addison lntermodal Facility. (see MobilitY zuzu ncu11. (/l'l" separation warrants in corridor.) ' ,Apply rail grade /2. Reaffirm a Santa Fe/Burlington Northern connection from the Northeast Line to the Cottonbelt C9rridor using the Burlington Northern alignment. 3 Eliminate the S.H. 190 alignment and the "utility corridor" alignment. _A} Add rail sections from an Addison lntermodal Facility to the southeast, along 􀁾􀀠' " the I. H. 635 corridor, to meet the North Central Line. J p 5. Extend the North Central Line to the City of Allen and market the need to join ,...n a transportation authority. · -􀁾􀀠 C tP" /J" 6. Delete the Cottonbelt section east of Addison and maintain Mobility 2020 e r terminology: • "all existing railroad rights-of-way should be monitored for potential future transportation corridors" and add terminology that reiterates that: fo +l-.c • the Cottonbelt Rail Line would be re-studied at 3-year intervals with the Mobility Plan frequency and when a Major Investment Study/Environmental Impact Study is started in the Santa Fe, Burlington Northern or I. H. 635 corridors. 7. Request public input 􀁲􀁥􀁧􀁡􀁲􀁤􀀡􀁮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁨􀁥􀁳􀁥􀀠recommendations. 􀁾􀁴􀁶􀀠 􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁳􀀮􀀠 􀀮􀁊􀁦􀁾􀀠 ;7eMS /2.E;c. -a,yr 􀁔􀁾􀀠􀁃􀁦􀁬􀁕􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁶􀀴􀀬􀀠 ""-(/.A 􀁾􀁜􀀬􀁊􀀮􀀮􀀠 0 ,+, \ 􀀭􀁾􀁊􀀠 #-t .tiJfH .... n'( I ...., 􀀧􀀧􀀢􀀧􀁬􀁥􀀭􀁕􀁖􀁾􀁥􀁶􀁴􀀬􀀠)_.y o/-" '· 􀁥􀁴􀀾􀁦􀀡􀀮􀁩􀀼􀁊􀁾􀀠 North Crosstown Corridor Recommendations Objective: Identify a transportation recommendation for the North Crosstown Corridor for inclusion in the Mobility 2025 Plan. Current Status: Developed staff technical recommendation awaiting discussion with North Crosstown Corridor Task Force and public input for Regional Transportation Council approval on January 13, 2000. Background Technical Data: • Mobiiity 2020 Plan: Rail Recommendations • Rail Ridership Warrants • Mobility 2025 Plan: Maximum System Alternative 1 • Mobility 2025 Plan: Alternative 4 • North Crosstown Corridor Study: Light Rail Alternative 4 • North Crosstown Corridor Study: Commuter Rail Alternative 4 Technical Recommendations: 1. First Priority: Pursue commuter rail service from Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to the east with access to the rail recommendations from the Northwest Major Investment Study, with tt:ls-iAitial eastem 􀁬􀁥􀁦􀁦􀁬􀁬􀁩􀁁􀁾􀁳 􀀠at al'l fo +k.o Addison lntermodal Facility. (see Mobility 2020 Plan). (Apply rail grade separation warrants in corridor.) 2. Reaffirm a Santa Fe/Burlington Northern connection from the Northeast Line to the Cottonbelt 􀁃􀁾􀀾􀁲􀁲􀁩􀁤􀁯􀁲􀀠using the Burlington Northern alignment. 3 Eliminate the S.H. 190 alignment and the "utility corridor" alignment. Add rail sections from an Addison lntermodal Facilitv to the southeast, along the I. H. 635 corridor, to meet the North Central Line. J V 5. Extend the North Central Line to the City of Allen and market the need to join ,Jl a transportation authority. 􀁾􀀠 --crY" /J /6. Delete the Cottonbelt section east of Addison and maintain Mobility 2020 e ,..... terminology: • "all existing railroad rights-of-way should be monitored for potential future transportation corridors" and add terminology that reiterates that: • the Cottonbelt Rail Line would be re-studied at 3-year intervals with the Mobility Plan frequency and when a Major Investment Study/Environmental Impact Study is started in the Santa Fe, Burlington Northern or I. H. 635 corridors. 7. Request Request public input 􀁲􀁥􀁧􀁡􀁲􀁤􀀡􀁮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁨􀁥􀁳􀁥􀀠recommendations. 􀁾􀁴􀁶􀀠 􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁧􀀮􀀠 􀁾􀁾􀀠 t"'/eA.t-$ /2Gc 0 􀁾􀀠y T6Cst?( cev.. . I 􀁾􀁶􀀭􀁥􀀮􀀠 􀁾􀀬􀀠􀁲􀁾􀁬􀀠􀁦􀀰􀁥􀁣􀁕􀀭􀁴􀀮􀁵􀁴􀁬􀁾􀀠􀁜􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀣􀁹� �􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀠 Schedule: North Crosstown Corridor Task Force meeting-December 7, 1999 Mobility 2025 Public Meetings -Dallas, December 6, 1999 Plano , December 7, 1999 North Richland Hills, December 8, 1999 Regional Transportation Council Information-December 9, 1999 North Crosstown Corridor Public Meetings-G ;3 l:l 􀁾􀀠..j. 1M<-Piano, December 7, 1999 ???? , December 13, 1999 ???? , December 14, 1999 ???? , December 16, 1999 ???? , January 5, 2000 ???? , January 6, 2000 Regional Transportation Council Action -January 13, 2000 Mobility 2020 Rail System • Norlh 􀁃􀁯􀁮􀁬􀁲􀁮􀁩􀁔􀁯􀁾􀀼􀁊􀁳􀀠 :r-.1" Council ol 􀁾􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁭􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁬􀁳􀀠 4\ TrnnsporiOJiron 􀁦􀀧􀁾􀀠 -COMMITIED LIGHT RAIL ll\ll}iill1 COOPERATIVELY FUNDED RAIL -COMMITIEO COMMUTER RAIL -RAIL SYSTEM EXPANSION PENDING FURTHER STUDY IIIII COMMUTER RAIL SPECIAL EVENT SERVICE PENDING FURTHER STUDY • POSSIBLE EASTERN TERMINUS 1·4 AREAS FOR FURTHER STUDY -EXISTING RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY All existing railroad rights-of-way should be monilored for potential future transportation corridors. New facilily locallons indicate transportation needs and do not represent specilic alignments. X I ""' w ,. SUMMARY OF MOBILITY 2020 RAIL WARRANTS Equity Warrant Mobility 2020 I (Mayors' Mobility 2020 Rail Equity Rail Committee Rail Warrant Warrane I Technology April1995) (August 1996) (October 1996) · Commuter ---3,100 1,120 Intermediate 5,000 11,900 4,300"' Capacity Light Rail Full Capacity ---16,900 6,100 Light Rail ' Advanced ---28,000 10,120 Technology (Aero Rail) Light Rail/---42,500 15,360 Tunnel -Used in Determining Rail Extensions 2 · Determined by Pleasant Grove from Jim Miller to Buckner Blvd. m >< ::c 0:1 -1 >< I N .... tn > tn >< (!)-01-􀀰􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀠a.. a:: lt)W Nlo...J N<( 􀁾􀀠-...J -m 0 :E >-Q) c c 443 .><: (J 􀁾􀀠 .... 􀀿􀁊􀁾􀀧􀁉􀀮􀀠 0 (J 1/) .... u. s,B s • "' ,._ \g ee e ,794 .;: " § R,' 3253 Frisco Mckinney J; 􀁾􀂷􀀠 􀁾􀀭 􀀯􀁾􀀠 *"I" 􀁾􀀬􀁲􀁦􀀠 Ce I 􀁾􀀠 11) ( 􀁁􀁾􀁐􀀠 􀁾􀀠Ul 798 I' i 50' • Rowlett Rockwall ,, Mesquite • "' ,. ".'. > .... MOBILITY 2025 MAXIMUM SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 4 􀀰􀁾􀀠5439 "" " 􀁾􀀠 ""' ' "' ...." "' Legacy 􀀳􀀹􀀸􀀵􀁾􀀠 1 3 0 9 • .,. .p, • 9 3 9 8 1684 To 29 < .. "' ""' ' ""' ' .." ' 􀁾􀀠 0 .... "' P Ian o .... < .. ".-' 6 6 9 7 • * Pulse Nodes • Rail Stations 􀁾􀁂􀀭􀀱􀀺􀀠Allen/WOC 􀁾􀀬􀀮􀁹􀀮􀀠B-2: RowleWSOC 􀁾􀀠8-3: Las Colinas APT ;& B-4: DFW Circulator 􀁾􀀠8-5: Fort Worth Trolley 􀁾􀁡􀀭􀁡􀀺􀀠JeHerson Circulator 􀁾􀀠8-20: Mckinney Avenue Trolley f'\;f 8-21: Denton/PG 8-23: SH114 -. J· 8-24: LBJ 􀁾􀀠8-25: Cotton belt 􀁾􀀠8-30: Trinity Railway Express 􀁾􀀠8-33: BN/LEGILBJ 􀁾􀁂􀀭􀀳􀀱􀀺􀀠Dorothy Spur 􀁾􀀸􀀭􀀳􀀴􀀺􀀠Special Events c...f!--􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁶􀁖􀀠/SW Fort Worth MOBILITY 2025 MAXIMUM SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE 4 IH35W • ••• • s • ., • "' 􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀠 f _ I • ''"'f/L.l. _ .... 􀀬􀁾􀁾􀀠 􀂣􀀧􀂷􀁾􀀠 MH _-------II 􀁾􀀠 25<4 4Qii 1729 ..LESt N A 5nv Rowlett -·-ca O:::rn ..... Cl) .cE .2' ::::1 ..Jo S::> 3:-.::t 0 Cl) 1n> tn:;::; o ca ... s:: o ... .cS 􀁾􀂭o _.. I ':!to 􀁾􀀠 :r--;r A 􀁾􀁃􀀭􀀰􀀱􀀭􀀹􀀹􀀠WED 06:54PM BRW W FAX:2148550332 PAGE 8 AFFO.RDABtliTY WtTH 􀁌􀁏􀁎􀁇􀁾􀁔􀁅􀁒􀁍􀀠FH\IANCIN.G tOTAL PROJECT COSt:· UP TO FRANKFORD WITH OPTIONS TO WEST ($M} WITH ESTIMATED DATES OF OPERATION l E G E N D -Base LRT Alignment nu Routing Option/Extensions e Target LRT Station Area J::] Existing LRT Transitway Mall fi Existing TRE Station ''----P.'1 Existing TRE/LRT Station . SH 190 GEORGE ' ... 􀀭􀁾􀂷􀀠􀀭􀁾􀀠· .. :· .. '· 􀂷􀀺􀁾􀀠.. · .. =·"': ''"·" .... BUSH TURNPIKE ) .. 􀀯􀁦􀁬􀀡􀁾􀁋􀁲􀀺􀁯􀀮􀁒􀁄􀁟􀁾􀁟􀁄􀀮􀀠 · ... : TRIN!TY .. '. 􀁴􀁯􀁾􀀾􀀢􀁾􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀧􀁾 􀀡􀀧􀀮􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁦􀀻􀀺􀀻􀁟􀀺􀁦􀀬􀀺􀀬􀀻􀀮􀀠 -·· · r 􀁍􀁩􀁌􀁌􀁾􀀠KO. ·-i I ·•, . 􀀢􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀠 ·-.KJPJ8 .. 􀀵􀁦􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁲􀀮􀀻􀁳􀁟􀁾􀁟􀁱􀀮􀀠' ' 6)1.1/JnilsJ,._ 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠 .fr--􀁆􀁙􀁴􀁬􀀮􀁮􀁾􀁆􀁴􀁾􀀠 . . . 􀀭􀁾􀀠·.\ 8ELTLINo An . . . . ----.... .. ··--·--. 􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀮􀂷􀁾􀂷􀁾􀂷􀂷􀂷􀀮􀂷􀁾􀀮􀀭 􀀢􀀧􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀠.. 􀂷􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀻􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠 ·' h'l;V CORRJCOR UD/TEXAS STADIUM VS. MANANA SPUR WESTERN TERMINUS OPTIONS Soun:e: BRW,Inc:. · DAirr/_. : M I S Date: November. 1999 .. · · ·· 12/02/99 14:27 '5'6403028 NCTCOG TRANSPORT 1410011001 North central Texas COunci of Governments TO: John Baumgartner Director of Public Works, Town of Addison FROM: Julie K P. Dunbar, P.E., Principal Transportation Engineer DATE: ....::.D.:.ece:.:::m:::b:::e.:..r 2:::•:...1:.:9..:.9.:.9 ____ TELEFAX NUMBER: (972) 450-2837 Number of pages Oncluding this cover sheet): _1!..-______ _ MESSAGE: REMINDER: The next meeting of the North Crosstown Corridor Evaluation Task Force is scheduled for Tuesday, December 7, 1999, In the Farmers Branch Library, 13613 Webb Chapel Road. Some members of the Task Force have a conflict on that day with a meeting that is to be held at DART from 12 noon to 3 p.m. on the Northwest Corridor MIS. In order to allow them to get from the DART meeting to the Farmers Branch Library, we are going to delay the start of the Task Force meeting until 3:30 p.m. Please make note of the new time. Thanks, Julie We are transmitting from a Canon FAX-L775. Our telefax number is (817) 64Q-3028. If you have any problems with this transmittal, please call (817) 695-9240. Thank you. TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT 616 Silc Flags Drive, Centerpoint Two P.O. Box 5888, Arlington, Texas 76005-5888 (817) 695-9240 MOBILITY 2020: NORTH CROSSTOWN CORRIDOR EVALUATION TASK FORCE (APRIL 1996 -DECEMBER 1999) DECISION PROCESS AGENDA 1. Action: Does the committee wish to consider a position on a North Crosstown recommendation for presentation to the Regional Transportation Council? If yes, what is your opinion on: • • • • • The "utility" corridor? Rail under the George Bush Toll Road? The Sa;1ta Fe/Burlington Northern alignment? The Cottonbelt alignment (west of Addison, east of Addison, the role of DART's financial commitment? The LBJ Rail connection between North Central and Addison The North Central Extension to Allen? If no, keep a recommendation for Mobility 2025 (clarify role of LBJ and Central Extension)? 2. Under either position above, what is the public involvement process for January? -/lhs -IS. No/,t:2.ec_ -' ; , /H/£ /S 􀁲􀀯􀁥􀁴􀀭􀁾􀀠 YO v>6 􀁾􀀠 Rail Altemi'v4 E1uatlon Process EVALfTION PROCESS LRT LRT LRT LRT LRT LRT LRT LRT LRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CRT CATEGORY CRITERIA MEASURE TYPE ALT1 ALT2 ALT3 ALT4 ALT51 ALTB ALT71 ALTI ALT8 ALT1 ALT21 ALT4 ALT51 ALT7 ALTI ALT81 Boardings/Aiiahtinas 7,409 7,311 7,397 7,751 7,330 7,418 7,444 7,810 2,002 4,914 4,855 4,134 4,865 4,686 5,957 1,325 Mobility Ridership 􀁔􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁳􀁾􀀠sys1smwide 232,808 233,409 235,031 234,879 233,635 235,282 235,400 235,420 232,648 232,212 232,825 233,837 233,050 233,478 233,921 232,050 ridershi ··-····--·---!P...-........ -··-·· -------·······-t-·-----------------··-------------r····-· --··-·· ------------·---· -----Activity Employment at Centers ActMty Centera 273,575 222,450 222,450 323,100 228,925 228,925 270,075 263,600 140,850 273,575 222,450 323,100 228,925 270,075 263,600 140,850 Assessed Environmental -􀁾􀀠 􀁎􀁯􀁦􂀢􀁾􀀠 Exposure2 --=-27.8( 􀀯􀀲􀀧􀀴􀀮􀀹􀁾􀀠 34.6%( ) 38.5% 38.0% 35.8% 27.7% 􀀲􀀷􀀮􀀸􀁾􀀠[:?< i""'249% 34.6%( 24."> 38.5% 38.0% 27.7% '24.8% 􀁾􀀠 lmpects (percent red, purple r-"/􀁾􀂷􀀠 and pinkl Number of schools High 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 􀁾􀀨􀀷􀁣􀀠 fJ-within 112 mile buffer Middle 6 8 5 5 5 4 5 6 4 6 6 5 5 5 6 4 :Jfoftl (by type} Elem. 5.5 9 6 4 6.5 6.5 6.5 9 2 5.5 9 4 6.5 6.5 9 2 Number of fire stations within 112 5 6 5 5 4 3 4 6 3 5 6 5 • 4 6 3 mile buffer Number of Environmental/Sensit;ve fires1litionaervice 12 13 13 10 9 9 10 14 4 12 13 10 9 10 14 4 Quality of Sites areas that cross ura aver a rail 6ne . Number of ochool High 15 16 13 15 14 11 16 16 7 15 16 15 14 16 18 7 atiBndance Middle 12 17 12 13 16 11 17 18 7 12 17 13 16 17 18 7 boundaries that Elem. 14.5 24 18 13 20.5 14.5 21.5 25 8 14.5 24 13 20.5 21.5 25 8 cross over rail nne Traffic Number of at11rade 36 37 34 38 34 31 38 39 20 38 37 38 34 36 39 20 lmpects crossings Number for separation 5 1 1 8 1 1 2 2 2 5 1 8 1 2 2 2 Rail length (miles) 28.55 30.35 28.35 23.57 27.24 25.24 38.54 41.85 13.24 28.55 30.35 21.84 25.81 38.81 41.85 41.85 13.24 Paasl!ngec Miles 83583 88839 103387 54748 52358 58849 84411 112804 8054 22810 22738 38808 20154 40551 52108 6180 Annualized P Miles IMl 24.33 25.85 28.88 14.23 13.61 15.33 16.75 29.33 2.09 5.83 5.91 9.52 5.24 10.54 13.55 1.80 Capital Coot" ISM) 453.6 505.1 􀁾􀀱􀀮􀀱􀀠 413.8 454.7 420.7 628.8 tm.2 228.4 175.3 187.0 159.7 162.1 215.7 240.7 89.8 Cost Total Cost Annuaf!Zed Capital Cost' ($M) 54.5 60.7 56.7 49.8 54.7 50.8 75.4 81.4 27.5 21.1 22.5 19.2 19.5 25.9 28.8 10.8 Elfectlveneso Effectiva. Annualized Fare Revenue' ($M) 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 0.5 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.5 0.3 .?0 Net Cost !$Ml 52£, 􀁾􀀠-47.7 52.8 48.7 73.4 79.5 28.9 19.8 21.2 ......... 18.2 ..24.L 2Z.4. 10.4 n Net Cost per ll\ L16 􀁾􀀲􀀮􀀲􀀹􀀮􀀯􀀠(\.52.04 $3.35 $3.88 $3.17 $4.39 $2.71 $12.87 $3.34 $3.59 tl-$1.90 ) $3.48 . 4S2.35 r1...s2.02 $6.51 .... 􀁾􀀠fy p Miles -= -""= .....,...., '"' 1 Net Cost per boarding ($) s 27.32 s 30.96 $ 28., s 123.69 s 27.69 s 25.23 s 37.94 s 40.16 s 51.76 [SC 15.50 Kt 163 􀀱􀁾􀀠\16.86 􀂷􀁾􀀠 􀀠 14.41 􀁾􀀭􀀲􀀹􀀠􀁾􀀠17.69 s 30.28 -and aflghtin