Cotton Belt-CS100212 Cotton Belt Corridor
Stakeholder Meeting — City of Coppell
February 12, 2010
AGENDA
1. Project Purpose
2. Project Schedule
3. Project Summary
a. Upcoming Meeting
b. Ridership
c. Cost
d. Summary
4. DART Initiative
5. Open Discussion
Cotton Belt Corridor
Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 4
1.1 Purpose of the Study 4
1.2 The Planning Process 4
1.3 Regional Planning Context 4
1.4 Study Area 4
1.4.1 Corridor Description 4
1.5 Previous Work Efforts 4
1.5.1 System Planning Efforts 4
1.5.2 Mobility 2025: North Crosstown Task Force 4
1.5.3 2030 Transit System Plan: North Crosstown Corridor Focus Area 4
1.5.4 Environmental Review and Assessment of Rail Alignment Concepts,
September 2008 4
1.6 Stakeholder and Agency Outreach 4
2.0 Need and Purpose 4
2.1 Transportation Needs 4
2.1.1 Population and Economic Growth 4
2.1.2 Increased Transportation Demand 4
2.1.3 Sustainable Development Initiative 4
2.1.4 System Linkage and Intermodal Connections 4
2.2 Purpose 4
2.3 Mission Statement and Goals and Objectives 4
3.0 Development of Alternatives 4
3.1 Vehicle Technology 4
3.1.1 Light Rail Transit 5
3.1.2 Regional Rail 5
3.1.3 Commuter Rail 5
3.2 Definition of Alignment Alternatives 5
3.2.1 Grade Separations 5
3.2.2 Termini 5
3.2.3 Description of Alternatives 5
3.3 Stations 5
3.4 Rail Operations 5
3.5 Bus Operations 5
3.6 Capital Costs 5
3.6.1 Capital Cost Estimates 5
4.0 Affected Environment 6
4.1 Transportation System 6
4.1.1 Travel Patterns 6
4.2 Built Environment 6
4.2.1 Land Use and Zoning 6
4.2.2 Socio - Economic 6
4.2.3 Community Resources 6
4.2.4 Cultural Resources 6
February 2010 1 Review Copy
Cotton Belt Corridor
Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study
4.2.5 Parks and Recreation 6
4.2.6 Regulated Materials 6
4.3 Natural Environmental 6
4.3.1 Air Quality 6
4.3.2 Noise 6
4.3.3 Vibration 6
4.3.4 Water Resources 6
4.3.5 Biological Resources 6
4.3.6 Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands 7
4.3.7 Soils and Geology 7
4.3.8 Energy 7
5.0 Revenues 7
5.1 Current Revenue Sources 7
5.2 Revenue Projections 7
5.3 Potential Funding Methods 7
5.3.1 Public 7
5.3.2 Legislative Initiatives 7
5.3.3 Public /Private Partnerships 7
5.4 Funding Sources from Similar Systems 7
6.0 External Coordination 7
6.1 Meetings 7
6.1.1 Stakeholder Meetings 7
6.1.2 Corridor Strategy Team Meetings 7
6.2 Website 7
7.0 Summary 7
7.1 Study Background 7
7.2 Project Summary 7
7.2.1 Stations 7
7.3 Next Steps 7
Appendix A — Cost Estimates 8
Detailed Capital Cost Estimate Worksheets 8
Appendix B — Affected Environment 9
Transportation System 9
Corridor Level Transportation Facilities and Services 9
Travel Patterns 9
Built Environment 9
Land Use and Zoning 9
Socio- Economic 9
Community Resources 9
Cultural Resources 9
Parks and Recreation 9
Regulated Materials 9
Natural Environmental 9
Air Quality 9
Noise 10
Vibration 10
February 2010 2 Review Copy
Cotton Belt Corridor
Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study
Water Resources 10
Biological Resources 10
Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands 10
Soils and Geology 10
Energy 10
Appendix C — Meeting Summaries 11
February 2010 3 Review Copy
Cotton Belt Corridor
Chapter 7 — Summary Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study
1 Table 7 -1
2 Summary of Potential Corridor Impacts
Alternatives
Project Measure -
No - Build 1 2 3 4 5 6
Length (in miles) 0 25.4 26.3 44.6 25.4 24.8 25.1
From (Station) N/A DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA
To (Station) (1) N/A Bush Parker Road McKinney Bush Bush 12'" Street
Turnpike North Turnpike Turnpike
Number of Stations 0 9 10 17 9 8 9
Transit
Estimated Daily Ridership 0 6,500 6,600 12,100 5,900 5,600 5,800
Linked Regional Transit Trips 297,000 299,000 299,000 296,000 298,000 298,000 304,000
Corridor Travel Time (2) N/A 35.0 37.9 61.8 35.4 34.2 i 35.7
Major Employers (3) N/A 30 37 79 30 26 33
Activity Centers (3) N/A 271 306 425 271 269 281
Community Facilities (3) N/A 43 53 97 43 44 48
Land Use N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Compatible with Local Plans
Property Acquisition No No Yes Yes No Yes' No
(ROW Needed for Alignment)
Air Quality Impact Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive _ Positive Positive
Noise (4) (in acres)
Potential Sensitive Land Uses None 278 302 479 278 278 278
Vibration (4) (in acres)
Potential Sensitive Land Uses
Category 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Category 2 0 165 179 304 i 165 165 165
Category 3 0 113 123 175 113 113 113
Ecosystems No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Water Resources
Floodplain Crossings 0 10 10 19 10 11 10
Wetlands and Stream
Crossings 0 15 15 24 15 15 15
Historic and Archeological
Resources (5)
Potential Historical Sites 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Potential Archeological Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parklands and Other Section
4(f) Properties (5) 0 19 20 35 19 16 19
-
Geology and Soils No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact
Hazardous /Regulated
Materials (5)
Potential Contaminated Sites 0 1 1 3 1 1 1
Constructability (6) None Low High High Low Medium High
Total Cost (million, 2009 $) $0 $575 $610 $960 $575 $590 $660
3 Source: NCTCOG, February 2010
5 Notes:
6 1. For the purposes of ridership estimates, Alternatives 2 and 3 were examined. Upon examination and work efforts with
7 corridor stakeholders it was determined that the Cotton Belt Corridor could not share tracks with Light Rail Transit (LRT) in
8 DART's Red Line Corridor. Information included in each of the sections are only examined to Parker Road Station for
9 Alternative 3
10 2. Corridor Travel time is shown in minutes as the time to travel on the proposed system from end to end.
11 3. Information gathered is within' /2 mile of corridor alignment (facility centerline).
12 4. Information gathered is within 250 feet of corridor alignment (facility centerline).
13 5. Information gathered is within '/4 mile of corridor alignment (facility centerline).
14 6. This qualitative measure considered the difficulty in constructing an alternative as well as the disruption to adjacent
properties and /or rail operations during construction. Based upon feedback from strategy meetings, and discussions with
16 strategy team members regarding the eastern terminus options.
February 2010 7 -2 Review Copy