Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Cotton Belt Line-SY100401
i 1 1 1 1 1177( Ooubk Oak 1 �J Denton County Lewisville 1 121 1 Flower Mwntl 1 1 1 Trophy Club — 170: �ygstiaae SauthleFe 1 ,g, I u 12, 1 Hebron Collin rve 1 lano County P i Murphy I • ! 4L ■ a I% canonton 1 Wylie — — — r - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — . Addison 75 Richardson I 1 Pantego AArrgron � 1 Oak"orthing,- Gardens ' I 1 1 Fa'ec Nill l:ennadala 1 s ..l�arvil!e _, 1 J/ I 1 Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study North Central Texas Council of Governments Keller 2rrch ®ne %0 "O11h Richland Dallas Sag inaw Watauga Hills 11 Colle Yv' a 348 Euless 97 12 Bedla -d 36 1 INIl19 ® University Par* ® Richland Hills Hurst I Dallas Highland Park z9 ,u County 75-6 ,79 / eo3 I Henan c i y Tarrant I 1 County I — —^ 799 354 352. Fort worth I 1 Pantego AArrgron � 1 Oak"orthing,- Gardens ' I 1 1 Fa'ec Nill l:ennadala 1 s ..l�arvil!e _, 1 J/ I 1 Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study North Central Texas Council of Governments Cotton Belt Corridor Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study What is NCTCOG? The North Central Texas Council of Governments is a voluntary association of cities, counties, school districts, and special districts which was established in January 1966 to assist local governments in planning for common needs, cooperating for mutual benefit, and coordinating for sound regional development. It serves a 16- county metropolitan region centered around the two urban centers of Dallas and Fort Worth. Currently the Council has 233 members, including 16 counties, 165 cities, 23 independent school districts, and 29 special districts. The area of the region is approximately 12,800 square miles, which is larger than nine states, and the population of the region is over 6.4 million, which is larger than 35 states. NCTCOG's structure is relatively simple; each member government appoints a voting representative from the governing body. These voting representatives make up the General Assembly which annually elects a 15- member Executive Board. The Executive Board is supported by policy development, technical advisory, and study committees, as well as a professional staff of 235. MEM MEN, NCTCOG's offices are located in Arlington in the Centerpoint Two Building at 616 Six Flags Drive (approximately one -half mile south of the main entrance to Six Flags Over Texas). North Central Texas Council of Governments P. O. Box 5888 Arlington, Texas 76005 -5888 (817) 640 -3300 NCTCOG's Department of Transportation Since 1974 NCTCOG has served as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for transportation for the Dallas -Fort Worth area. NCTCOG's Department of Transportation is responsible for the regional planning process for all modes of transportation. The department provides technical support and staff assistance to the Regional Transportation Council and its technical committees, which compose the MPO policy- making structure. In addition, the department provides technical assistance to the local governments of North Central Texas in planning, coordinating, and implementing transportation decisions. Prepared in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation and the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration. "The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the opinions, findings, and conclusions presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, or the Texas Department of Transportation. " April 2010 April 2010 North Central Texas Council of Governments 121 Collin Denton Conceptual Engineering County Study County Murphy GM: t+Me.ma 1241a I jw or I Wye Dallas us I lei 72 -7 A*2 Dallas M. 10 County ass 78 �W— coy Tarrant County Fort W orf oah April 2010 North Central Texas Council of Governments Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study April 2010 North Central Texas Council of Governments NCTCOG Executive Board 2009 -2010 President Bobby Waddle Director Mayor, City of DeSoto Carter Burdette Vice President B. Glen Whitley County Judge, Tarrant County Secretary- Treasurer Linda Koop Councilmember, City of Dallas Past President John Murphy Councilmember City of Richardson Councilmember City of Fort Worth Director Mike Cantrell Commissioner, Dallas County Director Sheri Capehart Councilmember City of Arlington Cotton Belt Corridor Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Director Allen Harris Councilmember City of The Colony Director John Matthews Commissioner, Johnson County Director Bobby Mitchell Commissioner Denton County Regional Transportation Council 2009 -2010 B. Glenn Whitley, Chair Rob Franke, P.E. County Judge, Tarrant County Mayor, City of Cedar Hill Ron Natinsky, Vice Chair Bill Hale, P.E. Councilmember, City of Dallas District Engineer TxDOT, Dallas District Ron Brown Roger Harmon Commissioner, Ellis County County Judge, Johnson County Mike Cantrell Kathleen Hicks Commissioner, Dallas County Mayor Pro Tem, City of Fort Worth Sheri Capehart Vonciel Jones Hill Councilmember, City of Arlington Councilmember, City of Dallas Maribel Chavez, P.E. Joe Jaynes District Engineer Commissioner, Collin County TxDOT, Fort Worth District Ron Jensen Maurine Dickey Councilmember, City of Grand Prairie Commissioner, Dallas County Ron Jones Lee Dunlap Mayor, City of Garland Councilmember, City of Plano Pete Kamp Rudy Durham Mayor Pro Tem, City of Denton Councilmember, City of Lewisville Linda Koop Andy Eads Councilmember, City of Dallas Commissioner, Denton County Mike Leyman Charles Emery Councilmember, City of Mansfield Board Chair, Denton County Transportation Authority Matthew Marchant Councilmember, City of Carrollton Mark Enoch Board Member, Dallas Area Rapid Maher Maso Transit Mayor, City of Frisco Sal Espino Bill McLendon Councilmember, City of Fort Worth Councilmember, City of Hurst Chris Florance Pauline Medrano County Judge, Rockwall County Councilmember, City of Dallas Surface Transportation Technical Committee Jim Sparks, P.E., Chair City of Grand Prairie April 2010 iv Director Steve Terrell Mayor City of Allen Kelly Walker Mayor Pro Tem City of University Park General Counsel Jerry Gilmore Executive Director Mike Eastland John Monaco Mayor, City of Mesquite Rich Morgan Citizen Representative, City of Dallas John Murphy Councilmember, City of Richardson Robert Parmelee Chair, Fort Worth Transportation Authority Mark Riley County Judge, Parker County Rick Stopfer Councilmember, City of Irving John Tatum Citizen Representative, City of Dallas T. Oscar Trevino, Jr., P.E. Mayor, City of North Richland Hills Marti Van Ravenswaay Commissioner, Tarrant County Paul N. Wageman Chairman, North Texas Tollway Authority Bernice Washington Board Member Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport Bill l Whitfield Mayor, City of McKinney Kathryn Wilemon Councilmember, City of Arlington Michael Morris, P.E. Director of Transportation, NCTCOG Cotton Belt Corridor Table of Contents Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... ............................1 -1 1.1 Study Purpose ..................................................................................... ............................1 -1 1.2 The Planning Process .......................................................................... ............................1 -3 1.3 Regional Planning Context .................................................................. ............................1 -8 1.4 Study Area ........................................................................................... ............................1 -8 1.4.1 Description ............ ..... ...... . .... . ... .... ... .. .......... . ........ .. ........... . ...... .. ......... .. ........ ...1 -8 1.4.2 Freight Rail Operations ........................................................ ...........................1 -10 1.4.3 Major Employment Centers ................................................. ...........................1 -10 1.5 Previous Work and On -Going Efforts ................................................. ...........................1 -10 1.5.1 Mobility 2025: North Crosstown Task Force ........................ ...........................1 -12 1.5.2 DART 2030 Transit System Plan: North Crosstown Corridor Focus Area ......1 -12 1.5.3 Environmental Review and Assessment of Rail Alignment Concepts ............1 -14 1.6 Stakeholder and Agency Outreach ..................................................... ...........................1 -14 2.0 NEED AND PURPOSE... .......................................................................... ............................2 -1 2.1 Transportation Need ............................................................................. ............................2 -1 2.1.1 Population and Economic Growth ......................................... ............................2 -1 2.1.2 Increased Transportation Demand ....................................... ............................2 -3 2.1.3 Sustainable Development Initiative ....................................... ............................2 -6 2.1.4 System Linkage and Intermodal Connections ...................... ............................2 -8 2.2 Purpose ............................................................................................... ............................2 -9 2.3 Mission Statement and Goals and Objectives ..................................... ............................2 -9 3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................... ............................3 -1 3.1 Vehicle Technology ............................................................................. ............................3 -1 3.1.1 Light Rail Transit ................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.1.2 Light Rail New Technology ................................................... ............................3 -2 3.1.3 Commuter Rail ...................................................................... ............................3 -2 3.2 Definition of Alignment Alternatives ..................................................... ............................3 -4 3.2.1 Grade Separations ................................................................ ............................3 -4 3.2.2 Termini .................................................................................. ............................3 -4 3.2.3 Right -of -Way ......................................................................... ............................3 -7 3.2.4 Operating Rights ................................................................... ............................3 -7 3.3 Description of Alternatives ................................................................... ............................3 -8 3.3.1 No -Build Alternative .............................................................. ............................3 -8 3.3.2 Build Alignment Alternatives ................................................. ............................3 -8 3.3.3 Summary of Alternatives ...................................................... ...........................3 -17 3.3.4 Ridership Estimates ............................................................. ...........................3 -18 3.4 Stations ............................................................................................... ...........................3 -19 3.4.1 DFW Airport (Terminal A/B) Station ..................................... ...........................3 -19 3.4.2 Airport North Station ............................................................ ...........................3 -19 3.4.3 North Lake Station ............................................................... ...........................3 -19 3.4.4 Downtown Carrollton Station ............................................... ...........................3 -21 3.4.5 Addison Transit Center Station ............................................ ...........................3 -21 3.4.6 Knoll Trail St, ation ................................................................. ...........................3 -21 3.4.7 Preston Road (SH 289) Station ........................................... ...........................3 -23 3.4.8 Renner Village Station ......................................................... ...........................3 -23 3.4.9 University of Texas — Dallas (UTD) /Synergy Park Station ... ...........................3 -23 April 2010 v Cotton Belt Corridor Table of Contents Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 3.4.10 Bush Turnpike Station .......................................................... ...........................3 -25 3.4.11 12th Street Station ................................................................ ...........................3 -25 3.4.12 Downtown Plano Station ...................................................... ...........................3 -25 3.4.13 Parker Road Station ............................................................. ...........................3 -25 3.5 Rail Operations ................................................................................... ...........................3 -26 3.6 Bus Operations ................................................................................... ...........................3 -26 3.7 Costs .................................................................................................. ...........................3 -26 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .........................................................,......... ............................4 -1 4.1 Transportation System ......................................................................... ............................4 -1 4.1.1 Roadway System .................................................................. ............................4 -2 4.1.2 Transit System ...................................................................... ............................4 -2 4.1.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian ......................................................... ............................4 -3 4.1.4 Freight ................................................................................... ............................4 -4 4.1.5 Aviation ................................................................................. ............................4 -5 4.1.6 Travel Patterns ...................................................................... ............................4 -5 4.2 Built Environment ................................................................................. ............................4 -6 4.2.1 Land Use and Zoning ............................................................ ............................4 -6 4.2.2 Socio- Economic .................................................................... ............................4 -7 4.2.3 Community Resources .......................................................... ............................4 -8 4.2.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................... ............................4 -9 4.2.5 Parks and Recreation .......................................................... ...........................4 -10 4.2.6 Regulated Materials ............................................................. ...........................4 -10 4.3 Environmental Conditions ................................................................... ...........................4 -10 4.3.1 Air Quality ............................................................................ ...........................4 -10 4.3.2 Noise .................................................................................... ...........................4 -10 4.3.3 Vibration ............................................................................... ...........................4 -11 4.3.4 Water Resources ................................................................. ...........................4 -11 4.3.5 Biological Resources ........................................................... ...........................4 -12 4.3.6 Waters of the US, Including Wetlands ................................. ...........................4 -12 4.3.7 Soils and Geology ................................................................ ...........................4 -13 4.3.8 Energy .................................................................................. ...........................4 -13 5.0 FUNDING ................................................................................................. ............................5 -1 5.1 Current Revenue Sources ................................................................... ............................5 -1 5.2 Revenue Projections ............................................................................ ............................5 -3 5.3 Potential Funding Methods .................................................................. ............................5 -3 5.3.1 Public Funding Sources ........................................................ ............................5 -3 5.3.2 Legislative Initiatives ............................................................. ............................5 -8 5.3.3 Public- Private Partnerships ................................................... ............................5 -9 5.4 Funding Sources From Similar Systems ............................................. ............................5 -9 6.0 PROJECT COORDINATION ................................................................... ............................6 -1 6.1 Meetings .............................................................................................. ............................6 -1 6.1.1 Stakeholder /Agency Meetings .............................................. ............................6 -3 6.1.2 Corridor Strategy Team Meetings ........................................ ...........................6 -12 6.2 Website ............................................................................................... ...........................6 -15 7.0 SUMMARY .............................................................................................. ............................7 -1 7.1 Study Background ............................................................................... ............................7 -1 April 2010 vi Cotton Belt Corridor Table of Contents Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 7.2 Project Summary ................................................................................. ............................7 -1 7.3 Project Goals and Objectives .............................................................. ............................7 -6 7.3.1 Goal: Enhance Corridor Mobility and Accessibility ............... ............................7 -7 7.3.2 Goal: Encourage Economic Development ............................ ............................7 -8 7.3.3 Goal: Provide an Environmentally - Sensitive Transit Investment ......................7 -8 7.4 Next Steps ........................................................................................... ............................7 -8 APPENDICES Appendix A Cost Estimates Appendix B Affected Environment Appendix C Meeting Summaries Appendix D Performance Measures Appendix E Resolutions April 2010 vii Cotton Belt Corridor Table of Contents Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study LIST OF TABLES Table 1 -1 Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment Goals ............................... ............................1 -4 Table 1 -2 Identified Funding Needs for the DFW Region through 2030 ..........................1 -6 Table 1 -3 Comparison of the Cotton Belt Corridor in MTP and DART System Plans .... 1 -11 Table 2 -1 Dallas -Fort Worth Urbanized Area Demographics.....,... ....... ............................2 -1 Table 2 -2 Base Year and Projected Population and Employment ....... ............................2 -2 Table 2 -3 Planning Area Transportation Performance Measures ........ ............................2 -5 Table 2 -4 Alternative Growth Scenarios Compared to Historical Growth Model .............2 -7 Table 3 -1 Vehicle Technologies Considered ........................................ ............................3 -3 Table 3 -2 Eastern Terminus Options: Advantages and Disadvantages ..........................3 -7 Table 3 -3 Build Alternatives Station List ....................................,,........ ...........................3 -17 Table 3 -4 Estimated 2030 Daily Passenger Volumes ................ ..................................... 3 -18 Table 3 -5 Capital Cost Estimate Summary .......................................... ...........................3 -28 Table 4 -1 2005 Land Use ..................................................................... ............................4 -6 Table 4 -2 2000 Ethnicity Composition ................................................. ............................4 -7 Table 5 -1 Local Agency Funding Sources ........................................... ............................5 -1 Table 5 -2 Various Transit Agency Local Funding Sources ................. ...........................5 -10 Table 6 -1 Cotton Belt Corridor Meetings .............................................. ............................6 -1 Table 7 -1 Summary of Potential Corridor Factors ................................ ............................7 -2 Table 7 -2 SW2NE /Cotton Belt Passenger Rail System ....................... ............................7 -3 Table 7 -3 Summary of Station Findings ............................................... ............................7 -3 Table 7 -4 Summary of Achieving Project Goals and Objectives .......... ............................7 -7 April 2010 viii Cotton Belt Corridor Table of Contents Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 -1 Cotton Belt Corridor ............................................................. ............................1 -2 Figure 1 -2 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Process ........................... ............................1 -5 Figure 1 -3 Traditional Project Development Process ............................ ............................1 -7 Figure 1-4 Cotton Belt Study Areas ....................................................... ............................1 -9 Figure 1 -5 North Crosstown Corridor Study Alternatives ..................... ...........................1 -13 Figure 2 -1 System Performance 2007 and 2030 Level of Congestion .. ............................2 -4 Figure 3 -1 Western Terminus Option .................................................... ............................3 -5 Figure 3 -2 Eastern Terminus Options ................................................... ............................3 -6 Figure 3 -3 Rail Track Operating Rights: City of Grapevine to City of Carrollton ...............3 -9 Figure 3 -4 Rail Track Operating Rights: City of Carrollton to City of Plano .....................3 -10 Figure3 -5 Alternative 1 ........................................................................ ...........................3 -11 Figure3 -6 Alternative 2 ........................................................................ ...........................3 -12 Figure3 -7 Alternative 3 ........................................................................ ...........................3 -13 Figure3 -8 Alternative 4 ........................................................................ ...........................3 -14 Figure3 -9 Alternative 5 ........................................................................ ...........................3 -14 Figure3 -10 Alternative 6 ........................................................................ ...........................3 -15 Figure3 -11 Alternative 7 ........................................................................ ...........................3 -16 Figure3 -12 Alternative 8 ........................................................................ ...........................3 -16 Figure 3 -13 Station Areas: DFWIA A/B Terminal to Downtown Carrollton Station ...........3 -20 Figure 3 -14 Station Area Transportation System: Addison Transit Center Station to UTD /Synergy Park Station ................................................. ...........................3 -22 Figure 3 -15 Station Area Transportation System: Bush Turnpike to Parker Road Station3 -24 Figure 5 -1 Current Transit Service Areas .............................................. ............................5 -2 April 2010 ix Cotton Belt Corridor Table of Contents Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This Page Intentionally Left Blank. April 2010 x Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1— Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Cotton Belt Corridor is a proposed east -west rail corridor passing through portions of Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties in North Central Texas. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) purchased 52 miles of the corridor in 1990 from mile post (MP) 580.19 in Wylie to MP 632.27 in Fort Worth for potential future passenger rail. The corridor has been included in various DART service plans beginning with the 1983 DART Final Service Plan. The Cotton Belt Corridor has also been included in North Central Texas Council of Governments ( NCTCOG) metropolitan transportation plans (MTP) since 1993 as an alignment alternative for passenger rail. In 2005, the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) initiated planning for the Southwest -to- Northeast (SW2NE) Rail Corridor project, which would implement passenger rail service from southwest Fort Worth to Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport (DFWIA) by 2013. The SW2NE Rail Corridor utilizes the Cotton Belt Corridor from Tower 60 in Fort Worth to DFWIA. In 2006, the DART Board of Directors (DART Board) adopted the 2030 Transit System Plan, which included the Cotton Belt Corridor as the preferred alignment for east -west service between the DART Red Line light rail transit (LRT) and DFWIA. Considering other DART rail network commitments, estimated revenue service for the Cotton Belt Corridor is between 2025 and 2030. Figure 1 -1 illustrates the Cotton Belt Corridor location and the project limits for this study. As part of SW2NE Rail Corridor project, The T is evaluating the western segment of the Cotton Belt Corridor from southwest Fort Worth to DFWIA; this segment will not be addressed in this report. This study will examine the Cotton Belt Corridor from DFWIA to the existing DART Red Line. The Cotton Belt Corridor is included in the NCTCOG long -range MTP, Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas -Fort Worth Area — 2009 Amendment (Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment). With an anticipated DART revenue service date between 2025 and 2030, local and regional leaders are exploring possible project delivery methods to accelerate service to this corridor, including a public - private partnership (PPP) funding option. Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment identifies the Cotton Belt Corridor as a potential PPP project. To assist in accelerating the revenue service date on this corridor, NCTCOG is conducting a Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study (CE & FS). 1.1 STUDY PURPOSE NCTCOG, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Dallas -Fort Worth (DFW) region, initiated the CE & FS for the Cotton Belt Corridor in the fourth quarter of 2008. The primary purpose of the study is to support the potential early implementation of passenger rail service in the corridor. NCTCOG staff accomplished this by conducting outreach with key stakeholders and promoting an open forum to identify key issues, identify potential station locations, and examine alignment options. In addition, this study documents existing environmental conditions and identifies potential impacts. The study provides a foundation for future environmental documentation anticipated to be complete by DART. A key element of the study is to identify possible funding strategies intended to expedite project implementation. April 2010 1 -1 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1— Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study The CE & FS is organized into seven chapters. Chapter 1 examines the MTP's regulatory authority, planning process, regional planning context and also the study area, corridor description, previous work plans, and stakeholder and agency outreach efforts related to this study. The remaining six chapters are: • Chapter 2 • Chapter 3 • Chapter 4 • Chapter 5 • Chapter 6 • Chapter 7 Need and Purpose Development of Alternatives Affected Environment Funding External Coordination Summary 1.2 THE PLANNING PROCESS The adopted MTP is the instrument through which the MPO identifies fiscally sound regional transportation improvements. A series of federal legislative acts have specifically addressed and modified the MTP role. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) strengthened the role of the MTP, making it the central mechanism for the decision - making process regarding transportation investments. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21) passed into law in 1998 continued this emphasis. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU) was signed into law in 2005. SAFETEA -LU addresses the challenges facing transportation systems including safety, traffic congestion, freight movement efficiency, intermodal connectivity, and protecting -the environment. SAFETEA -LU metropolitan planning regulations require transportation plans, such as Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment, to be "fiscally constrained" meaning the plan must be based on reasonable assumptions funding will be available to implement projects contained in the MTP. Federal transportation acts and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) both impose air quality conformity requirements on an urbanized area's long -range transportation plan. The development of Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment was guided by three goal categories related to transportation, quality of life, and financing. Listed in Table 1 -1, these goals represent the regional commitment to a comprehensive, cooperative, and continuous transportation planning process for a balanced transportation network by recognizing the region's evolving transportation and air quality, needs. The direct link between land use, transportation, and air quality promotes sustainable development as a specific objective of Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment. April 2010 1 -3 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1— Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table 1 -1 Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment: Goals Transportation Goals Quality of Life Goals Financial Goals • Enhance mobility and • Promote the orderly Identify and actively pursue improve access for the economic development of the adequate, long -term, and movement of people and region stable sources for the goods 0 Encourage balanced land funding of transportation • Reduce traffic congestion use and transportation plans improvements and improve travel times and programs which Develop cost - effective • Develop a balanced, maximize transportation transportation projects, efficient, and dependable investments programs, and policies aimed multimodal transportation • Provide transportation at reducing the transportation system that reduces demand opportunities to the system capital and operating for single occupant vehicle traditionally underserved costs travel 0 Encourage the preservation Prioritize transportation funds • Support management and revitalization of to ensure the maintenance of strategies that optimize communities and the current and future transportation system neighborhoods transportation systems performance through . Support recreation and Preserve right -of -way for technology and innovation tourism transportation investments in • Improve the transportation a Encourage transportation advance of economic system safety investments that promote development • Provide stronger, more direct healthy and active lifestyles linkages between project . Avoid, mitigate, and enhance planning, funding, and the environmental impacts of implementation transportation improvements • Support local, regional, 9 Reduce energy consumption statewide, national, and a Improve air quality international intermodal transportation systems that provide mobility and accessibility for the movement of freight • Provide meaningful public involvement opportunities in the transportation plan development process Source: Mobility 2030 - The Metropolitan Transportation Plan — 2009 Amendment, April 2009 The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the DFW region as a nonattainment area for the eight -hour ozone standard. The CAAA of 1990 requires long -range transportation plans for all nonattainment areas to be in air quality conformity with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and demonstrate MTP projects meet air quality goals. In accordance with metropolitan planning regulations, Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment must include a congestion management process (CMP) to address congestion systematically. Challenged with modest transportation funding relative to identified needs, the DFW region optimizes its limited transportation funds by investing first in low -cost, high yield projects such as bottleneck improvements, synchronized signal systems, congestion management strategies, managed lanes, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, etc. In addition to investing in low cost, high yield projects; efforts are underway to induce travelers to modify their travel behavior by switching to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, or increasing auto occupancy levels. Implementing these behavior modifications would reduce the number of vehicles on the region's roadways, reducing the need to build additional automobile April 2010 1 -4 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1- Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study capacity projects including toll roads or tax - supported highways. Regional transit agencies including DART, Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA), and The T provided input to the MTP regarding transit and bus mode recommendations within their respective service areas. Figure 1 -2 identifi6s the DFW region's MTP process. Figure 1 -2 Maintenance and Operation of Existing Facilities improve Efficie-ncy of Trans. System Management Intelligent Trans. Systems Remove Trips From System CarpoolNanpool Program Pedestrian /Bicycle Facilities Induce Switch to Transit Bus /Commuter Rail/Light Rail Increase Auto Occupancy HOV System Additional Single Occupant Vehicle Capacity Metropolitan Transportation Plan Process Freeway /Tollway Regional Arterial t Polley Ll I 2030 I Plan Discussion Source: Mobility 2030 - The Metropolitan Transportation Plan - 2009 Amendment, April 2009 Transportation system performance information is developed as a product of the Dallas -Fort Worth Regional Transportation Model (DFWRTM) travel demand model throughout the MTP development process. This information guides system alternatives development and indicates the impact of various improvements. The improvements recommended in Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment include: • Regional congestion management strategies • Bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Managed /high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes • Passenger rail and bus transit improvements • Intelligent transportation system (ITS) technology • Freeway lanes • Toll road lanes • Improvements to the regional arterial and local thoroughfare system (i.e., intersection improvements and signal timing adjustments) The Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan (TMMP) is a needs -based plan, which quantifies transportation needs beyond the "fiscally constrained" barrier. Rather than a conservative approach focused on forecasted available funding, the TMMP is centered on the magnitude of unmet needs and provides decision - makers with a better understanding for the total April 2010 1 -5 �---►f Infrastructure ,tee E N .r N O U d to U w 3 f-- Rail and Bus 2 5 �n 0 'a L 1 d IC ■ HOV /Managed to c O • u- w J Freeway/Tollway and Arterial = Freeway /Tollway Regional Arterial t Polley Ll I 2030 I Plan Discussion Source: Mobility 2030 - The Metropolitan Transportation Plan - 2009 Amendment, April 2009 Transportation system performance information is developed as a product of the Dallas -Fort Worth Regional Transportation Model (DFWRTM) travel demand model throughout the MTP development process. This information guides system alternatives development and indicates the impact of various improvements. The improvements recommended in Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment include: • Regional congestion management strategies • Bicycle and pedestrian facilities • Managed /high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes • Passenger rail and bus transit improvements • Intelligent transportation system (ITS) technology • Freeway lanes • Toll road lanes • Improvements to the regional arterial and local thoroughfare system (i.e., intersection improvements and signal timing adjustments) The Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan (TMMP) is a needs -based plan, which quantifies transportation needs beyond the "fiscally constrained" barrier. Rather than a conservative approach focused on forecasted available funding, the TMMP is centered on the magnitude of unmet needs and provides decision - makers with a better understanding for the total April 2010 1 -5 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1— Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study transportation needs for each region in Texas. The TMMP indicates the DFW region is not adequately meeting current mobility needs and additional funding is needed. The TMMP applies the Texas Congestion Index, an index for measuring the mobility within each region, to help evaluate needs. The Texas Congestion Index uses the elimination of all facilities with a failing (F) level of service (LOS) as the target mobility level. Using this approach, an additional 4,638 lane miles are needed to eliminate all LOS F facilities; for the DFW region. This is in addition to the 8,526 lane miles already identified and included in Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment. The analysis used to identify these additional needs should be interpreted as an overall need to be resolved through a combination of multimodal approaches including freeways, toll roads, HOV, arterial street improvements, bus and rail transit, freight, and operational system improvements. As shown in Table 1 -2, estimates indicate the DFW region requires an additional $64.6 billion in 2009 dollars to fund the unfunded needs. The estimated cost of all funded projects in the adopted Mobility 20361- 2009 Amendment is $78.3 billion in 2009 dollars as shown in Table 1 -2. Inclusive of all funded and unfunded needs, the estimated cost of all projects in the plan is $142.9 billion in 2009 dollars. Primary funding sources for the MTP include federal and state motor fuel tax, local roadway monies, local transit taxes, and innovative financing. The Cotton Belt Corridor is a key element of Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment; however, regional needs have out -paced funding availability. Table 1 -2 Identified Fundinq Needs for the DFW Reqiion through 2030 Metropolitan Transportation System Components Funded Needs Billions /2009$ Unfunded Needs Billions /2009$ Operation and maintenance $20.6 Congestion mitigation strategies $2.3 Bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transportation enhancements $1.2 Rail and bus transits stem $12.1 HOV and managed facilities $3.6 Freeway and toll roads stem $29.2 $14.0 Regional arterial and local thoroughfare system $6.3 $6.6 Additional cost to purchase right-of-way $1.2 Rehabilitation $2.9 $35.4 Goods movement/rail freight $7.4 Tota12 $78.3(55%) $64.6(45%) $142.9 Billion Source: NCTCOG, April 2009 Notes: 1. There is $3.4 billion planned to be obtained through the Regional Transit Initiative. Majority of the other funding is planned to be funded through transit agency sales tax revenues and grant revenues. 2. Includes Freeway -to- Freeway Interchanges Figure 1 -3 outlines the traditional transit project development process designed to identify, develop, and implement proposed projects. To expedite Cotton Belt Corridor implementation, the process may employ an array of innovative strategies from financing mechanisms, such as the PPP, to identifying new delivery methods, such as design - build, which have recently been used in the region. April 2010 1 -6 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1— Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Figure 1 -3 Traditional Project Development Process Project Inclusion Decision Decision. Decision. Final Project Conception in MTP Stop or Proceed Stop or Proceed Stop or Proceed Recommendation Opens i O O Feasibility Stud / r Environmental Review/ r r Long -Range Planning Alternatives Analysis Engineering Engineeng i Final Design Construction i Operation Source: NCTCOG, August 2009 Stakeholder and agency involvement is included in each step. Step 1, the long -range planning process involves local, state, regional, and federal transportation officials and ensures opportunities for citizens throughout the region to contribute input and feedback. Warranted projects with available funding are added to the regional MTP. Depending on project scope and length, Step 1 may include several studies. For the Cotton Belt Corridor, Step 1 equates to transit system plan development, including several feasibility and conceptual engineering studies. For long distance corridor transit projects or those on new alignments, Step 2 of project development may be a feasibility study. The purpose of the feasibility study is to determine a general alignment, viable technology, and a range of realistic financial plans. The analysis includes data collection, documents transportation needs, identifies issues to be addressed, and identifies potential corridors and technologies. The analysis is based on travel demand forecasting, cost estimates, revenue estimates, socio- economic conditions, and environmental data collection. The feasibility study typically concludes with the identification of a recommended corridor, technology, and sources of funding for further study. As more fully discussed in Section 1.5, the Cotton Belt Corridor is part of a broader focus known as the North Crosstown Corridor. The North Crosstown Corridor is comprised of railroad corridors along the Cotton Belt, Kansas City Southern (KCS), and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) owned rail lines. Many North Crosstown Corridor issues were evaluated in this CE & FS to further quantify and qualify these issues and incorporate public concerns. Ultimately, the CE & FS will result in the identification of a corridor concept to be further examined in subsequent environmental studies. In Step 3, the locally preferred alternative (LPA) and a No -Build alternative are developed at a more detailed analysis level focusing on the social, economic, and natural environmental effects, as well as travel demand, potential revenue sources, and construction cost estimates. This information helps decision-makers assess the potential effects on the community and environment. The environmental review includes development of specific mitigation strategies for potential negative effects, summarizes project benefits, and further develops potential funding mechanisms. The analyses are documented and reviewed by federal and state agencies, decision - makers, and the public to aid in making an informed decision by assessing the No -Build alternative and the LPA. Assuming the environmental document is approved and a built alternative is selected, a project typically advances to Step 4, the final design stage. During the final design stage, the implementing agency, financing, staging and construction schedule are determined. Any needed right -of -way is acquired or preserved before construction begins. As the Cotton Belt Corridor project may be financed through some form of PPP approach, the steps in the project development process may differ after environmental clearance. April 2010 1 -7 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1— Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 1.3 REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT NCTCOG is the MPO of a 12- county metropolitan region centered in Dallas and Fort Worth. Since the early 1970s, MPOs have had the responsibility of developing and maintaining a federally mandated long -range MTP. The MTP identifies transportation needs; guides federal, state, and local transportation expenditures; and is the basis for project specific studies. The current NCTCOG MTP is Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment. Based on the DART 2030 Transit System Plan adopted by the DART Board in October 2006, the NCTCOG Mobility 2030 plan incorporated the Cotton Belt as the preferred North Crosstown alignment. 1.4 STUDY AREA The Cotton Belt Corridor study area is a one -mile radius from the proposed rail alignment, which extends approximately 26 miles from DFWIA eastward to connect with the DART Red Line in Plano and Richardson. The study area includes many employment centers, diverse neighborhoods, and DFWIA; a regional employer home to approximately 60,000 jobs. The study area encompasses portions of nine cities including, Addison, Carrollton, Coppell, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Grapevine, Irving, Plano, and Richardson. The proposed connection at DFWIA between the Cotton Belt Corridor and the SW2NE Commuter Rail project would facilitate intra- region travel by addressing common regional mobility needs. A broader planning area was established to identify travel characteristics for the corridor. The planning area includes portions of Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties and is generally bound by the Sam Rayburn Tollway on the north, Interstate Highway (IH) 635 to the south, State Highway (SH) 360 to the west, and SH 5 and Shiloh Road to the east. Figure 1 -4 illustrates the corridor study and planning areas for the Cotton Belt Corridor within the DFW region. 1.4.1 Description The Cotton Belt Corridor is owned by DART and spans 52 miles from Tower 60 in Fort Worth to Cotton Belt Avenue in Wylie. The right -of -way varies throughout the corridor, but is generally 100 feet in width. The corridor includes 54 total roadway crossings (44 at -grade crossings and 10 grade- separated crossings). The roadway crossings include a number of major facilities: IH 35E, Dallas North Tollway (DNT), President George Bush Turnpike (F'GBT), and US 75 (North Central Expressway). The corridor is anticipated to interface with four other major passenger rail lines: • DART Red Line LRT (existing) • DART Green Line LRT service to downtown Dallas (under construction) • DART Orange Line LRT service to DFWIA (under construction) • BNSF Corridor service from Irving to Frisco (proposed) April 2010 1 -8 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1— Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 1.4.2 Freight Rail Operations Within DART owned right -of -way, three freight railroads operate in the Cotton Belt Corridor. Section 3.2.4 addresses this topic in greater detail. 1.4.3 Major Employment Centers Seventy -two major employment centers are located within the Cotton Belt Corridor including DFWIA, Frito -Lay, Hewlett Packard, and University of Texas at Dallas (UTD). Major activity centers along the corridor include Addison Circle, DFWIA, and UTD in Richardson. UTD is a full service university with bachelors and graduate degree programs. Approximately 14,500 students were enrolled at UTD in 2009. 1.5 PREVIOUS WORK AND ON -GOING EFFORTS Many study efforts and recommendations formed the basis for this CE= & FS. A passenger rail corridor concept from Fort Worth to Plano has been included in DART service plans since 1983 and since the 1986 regional MTP Mobility 2000: The Regional Transportation Plan for North Central Texas (Mobility 2000). In the DART Final Service Plan in 1983, the Cotton Belt Corridor was designated to provide passenger rail service between Carrollton and Plano. Due to a failed bond referendum, the DART Rail System Plan identified the corridor as "unprogrammed" in 1988. The failed referendum forced DART to construct passenger rail lines under a "pay as you go" system. Although the corridor was not programmed, the 1989 DART Transit System Plan recommended right -of -way purchase and preservation. The purchase of the Cotton Belt Corridor was complete in 1990. During the 2010 DART Transit System Plan development, a "North Crosstown Corridor" was identified including Cotton Belt, KCS, and BNSF railroad corridor alignments. Table 1 -3 lists the Cotton Belt Corridor planning efforts included in the various MTP and DART system plans. As noted in Section 1.0, the Cotton Belt Corridor western segment is being developed by The T. A comparison of The T service and system plans to NCTCOG MTPs would be similar to project comparisons with the DART service plans and NCTCOG MTPs described in Table 1 -3. April 2010 1 -10 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1- Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table 1 -3 Comoarison of the Cotton Belt Corridor in MTP and DART Svctpm Plans Name of Plan Planned Cotton Belt Project (s) DART Final Service Plan, April 1983 • At -grade passenger rail service from downtown Carrollton to North Central Corridor (existing Red Line LRT Mobility 2000 - The Regional Transportation • Right -of -way preservation, railroad corridor from Plan for North Central Texas, May 1986 downtown Fort Worth to Plano DART Transit System Plan, June 1989 0 Future right-of-way reservation Mobility 2010 Plan Update - The Regional 0 New rail facility on Cotton Belt Corridor from Transportation Plan for North Central Texas, IH 35E to US 75 (Carrollton to Plano) October 1993 • Possible interline with rail on IH 35E corridor • Possible interline with rail Cotton Belt Corridor to DFWIA DART Transit System Plan, November 1995 North Crosstown Corridor Alternatives • Passenger rail along BNSF • Passenger rail on Cotton Belt Corridor from Red Line LRT to DFWIA • Passenger rail in SH 190 corridor Mobility 2020 - The Metropolitan 0 Commuter rail on Cotton Belt Corridor from Parker Road Transportation Plan, December 1996 or Addison Transit Center to DFWIA • Light rail from Addison Transit Center to IH 635/US 75 Mobility 2025 - The Metropolitan North Crosstown Study Area (Options) Transportation Plan, January 2000 0 Passenger rail along Santa Fe and Burlington Northern lines • Passenger rail on Cotton Belt Corridor from Parker Road to DFWIA • Passenger rail on Cotton Belt Corridor from Addison Transit Center to DFWIA • Light rail from Addison Transit Center to IH 635/US 75 Mobility 2025 Update - The Metropolitan North Crosstown Study Area (Options) Transportation Plan, May 2001 a Passenger rail along Santa Fe and Burlington Northern lines • Passenger rail on Cotton Belt Corridor from Parker Road to DFWIA • Passenger rail on Cotton Belt Corridor from Addison Transit Center to DFWIA • Light rail from Addison Transit Center to IH 635/US 75 Mobility 2025 - The Metropolitan North Crosstown Study Area (Options) Transportation Plan - 2004 Update, January • Passenger rail along Santa Fe and Burlington Northern 2004 lines • Passenger rail on Cotton Belt Corridor from Parker Road to DFWIA • Passenger rail on Cotton Belt Corridor from Addison Transit Center to DFWIA • Light rail from Addison Transit Center to Forest Lane Station on DART Red Line LRT April 2010 1 -11 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1— Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table 1 -3 Comparison of the Cotton Belt Corridor in MTP and DART System Plans (continued) Name of Plan Planned Cotton Belt Project (s) Mobility 2025 - The Metropolitan North Crosstown Study Area (Options) Transportation Plan - April 2005 . Passenger rail on Cotton Belt Corridor from Parker Road Amendment, April 2005 to DFWIA Passenger rail service along BNSF and KCS Corridors from Carrollton to Richardson • Light rail from Addison Transit Center to Forest Lane Station on DART Red Line LRT DART 2030 Transit System Plan, October 0 Express rail on Cotton Belt Corridor from DART Red 2006 Line LRT to DFWIA Mobility 2030 - The Metropolitan 0 Light rail /new technology: DFWIA to downtown Plano or Transportation Plan, June 2007 Bush Turnpike Station Mobility 2030 - The Metropolitan Transportation Plan - 2009 Amendment, Light rail /new technology: DFWIA to downtown Plano or -April 2009 Bush Turnpike Station Source: NCTCOG, September 2009 1.5.1 Mobility 2025: North Crosstown Task Force The North Crosstown Corridor necessitated additional study to explore possible options for enhanced transit services in the corridor. The first efforts began in 1999 with the NCTCOG initiated North Crosstown Task Force. The objective of the task force was to refine a recommendation for the NCTCOG Mobility 2025 — The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (Mobility 2025). The task force was comprised of NCTCOG staff, DART staff, and community stakeholders. Task force results were presented during NCTCOG Transportation Department public meetings in January 2000. While no decisions were made on a preferred option, an additional corridor was identified for study; a LRT corridor along IH 635 (LBJ Freeway) and Inwood Road connecting the DART Red Line to Addison. The Regional Transportation Council (RTC) January 2000 adopted the North Crosstown Corridor Task Force recommendations with all potential route segments (including Cotton Belt, KCS and BNSF corridors) included in the Mobility 2025 Plan. The recommendations were carried forward through the 2001 and 2004 updates to the Mobility 2025 Plan. 1.5.2 DART 2030 Transit System Plan: North Crosstown Corridor Focus Area Given the range of options to serve the North Crosstown Corridor, DART identified the Cotton Belt Corridor as a focus area in the DART 2030 Transit System Plan completed in 2006. DART conducted a higher level alternatives analysis and completed an Existing Conditions Report in June 2005. The system plan concluded the proposed North Crosstown Corridor area would have insufficient roadway capacity to accommodate projected travel demand by 2030. The identified shortfall would be equivalent to more than 10 freeway lanes. In addition, uncongested east -west travel and regional connectivity for corridor cities, activity centers, and DFWIA is an important regional goal. The North Crosstown Corridor Focus Area identified a comprehensive investment strategy to be included in the DART 2030 Transit System Plan and NCTCOG Mobility 2030. April 2010 1 -12 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1— Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study The North Crosstown Corridor Focus Area alternatives analysis evaluated several alignment alternatives and vehicle technologies, including various forms of bus and rail. Three main corridor alignment alternatives emerged: the Cotton Belt Corridor, the KCS /BNSF (combined) Corridor, and the LBJ Freeway /Inwood Road Corridor. Figure 1 -5 illustrates the corridor and service options studied. Figure 1 -5 North Crosstown Corridor Study Alternatives ........................ ....... . ......................... I..... ....................... j............................................. ........................................................_ ............................... )k i YY��(�1F1�9f io N .y pip }4 t ton Richard lson Rowlett Fa mneers Garland ".."° Branc wR...w �� +✓ W+WMNMw® M,IN ; 1nlYerS " 'o M L ess Raft i IrYing Park r2 04 ninutep4ak4jff-peakwVefmquencyj Hloland t LM rk rx ■ ■ Rapid Rail r 1 raQ04nlnute peWoff-peak sQr Ice frequenc/} E..3 ..... ......................_....... L..... ...1................rir+...... ........ .. ........ ........... ...................................... Source: DART, October 2006 In addition to rail alternatives, DART examined various bus options on Belt Line Road, PGBT, and LBJ Freeway as methods to add capacity and meet future travel demand. The study evaluated the corridors based on ridership potential, cost - effectiveness, and affordability and provided a summary of existing socio- economic and environmental conditions within the corridor. The analysis identified the Cotton Belt Corridor as an "express" passenger rail service from DFWIA to the DART Red Line, as the most effective route to serve this corridor. In addition, bus service and potential long -term light rail service in the LBJ Freeway corridor (post -2030) was recommended. Eight DART sponsored public meetings were held during the North Crosstown Corridor Focus Area alternatives analysis. Residents in communities along the corridor raised several issues regarding the proposed alignment; specifically, vehicle technology, design, and corridor safety. These concerns led to Resolution 061835, passed by the Dallas City Council that recommended a set of conditions for implementing the Cotton Belt Corridor within the Far North Dallas area. Resolution 061835 includes: • Rail technology used within the corridor is similar to light rail transit. • Rail line is below -grade from at least 1,500 feet east of Meandering Way to 2,000 feet west of Preston Road. • Freight rail service is eliminated. April 2010 1 -13 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1— Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study • Stations are provided at Knoll Trail, Preston Road (neighborhood station), and west of Coit Road. • Enhanced landscaping sound attenuation using cantilevered barriers are provided adjacent to single - family residential areas. • Cooperation is provided in the development and implementation of a trail within the Cotton Belt Corridor (A component of the Dallas Trail Master Plan). In 2006 the DART Board recommended including the Cotton Belt Corridor as the preferred alignment in the DART 2030 Transit System Plan. Responding to many Far North Dallas resident concerns and Dallas City Council Resolution 061835, the DART Board included a set of corridor development conditions to guide future corridor planning efforts in the DART 2030 Transit System Plan. These conditions and their inclusion in the DART 2030 Transit System Plan were adopted as Resolution 060177 at the October 2006 DART Board Meeting. The Dallas City Council Resolution 061835 and DART Board Cotton Belt Corridor Resolution 060177 can be found in Appendix E. 1.5.3 Environmental Review and Assessment of Rail Alignment Concepts In 2008, DART developed the Environmental Review and Assessment of Rail Alignment Concepts report and maps for the Cotton Belt Corridor. The report was conducted to provide information on key issues associated with constructing either an at -grade option or a below - grade option in Far North Dallas and how each option could be addressed. The report outlined the Cotton Belt Corridor project planning history and public involvement efforts, assessed the general environmental conditions in the Cotton Belt Corridor, identified sensitive areas, and documented key issues raised by the Far North Dallas community. The effort also analyzed the design concepts, potential impacts, and mitigation options for an at -grade and below -grade alignment in the Far North Dallas area. The report concluded a below -grade structure is a possible design technique used to mitigate potential impacts such as noise, vibration, visuals, and traffic. Constructing a below -grade structure could create additional impacts to natural features compared to an at -grade structure. The study recommended that each option be further developed in the preliminary engineering phase to fully understand the extent of potential impacts, mitigation, feasibility and effectiveness, as well as the cost implications and cost sharing options. 1.6 STAKEHOLDER AND AGENCY OUTREACH The Cotton Belt Corridor CE & FS has been conducted in a proactive process to allow regional stakeholders and agency representatives the opportunity to gain knowledge and provide input. Chapter 6 provides detailed information regarding project meetings and outreach efforts for the Cotton Belt Corridor. NCTCOG coordination efforts included two types of meetings: Stakeholder /Agency Meetings and Corridor Strategy Team Meetings. Input from these meetings was used to guide the CE & FS and develop and evaluate alternatives. Individual Stakeholder /Agency Meetings were held with technical staf representing local and regional governments and transportation providers throughout the corridor. These meetings were conducted during the initial stages of each study element. The Stakeholder Meetings April 2010 1 -14 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1— Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study were designed to solicit technical input and professional judgments regarding critical study elements furthering the project goals and objectives. Corridor Strategy Team Meetings were held prior to major milestones to provide participants the opportunity to receive project data. Participants provided input focused on issues concerning their constituents. These meetings served as a forum for discussion of issues from a policy level perspective and provided the opportunity for participants to gain a similar level of understanding regarding the project. April 2010 1 -15 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 1- Introduction Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This Page Intentionally Left Blank. April 2010 1 -16 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 2 — Need and Purpose Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 2.0 NEED AND PURPOSE This chapter discusses the need and purpose for transportation improvements within the Cotton Belt Corridor. It also provides information on the established mission statement, goals, and objectives for the project used to guide the development of this document, as well as subsequent phases of project development and implementation. 2.1 TRANSPORTATION NEED The need for the Cotton Belt Rail Corridor is based on population and employment growth, increased transportation demand, sustainable development initiatives, system linkages, and intermodal connections within the study area and the Dallas -Fort Worth (DFW) region. The Cotton Belt Corridor is included in the regional long -range metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) and the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) 2030 Transit System Plan. 2.1.1 Population and Economic Growth Texas has been one of the ten fastest growing states in the nation. According to the United States (US) Census Bureau., Texas added 3.9 million persons between 1990 and 2000, a 22.8 percent increase. By comparison, the US population grew by 32.7 million persons between 1990 and 2000, an increase of 13.2 percent. In 2000, the DFW urbanized area grew to 5,067,400 persons, a 29.3 percent increase in population since the 1990 Census. Based on 2008 population estimates, the DFW urbanized area is the fourth most populous in the nation. The DFW region has sustained population and economic growth due to three primary factors, a favorable business climate, attractive tax policies, and an abundance of available land. The region, like the nation in general, has benefited from an unprecedented period of growth, which has increased the need for an efficient transportation system. The current economic downturn has slowed the rate of growth over the near term. However, Texas and the DFW region have fared better than the majority of the country and are expected to recover more quickly. Historically, this has been the case with previous downturns in the economy. It is anticipated the population of the DFW region will increase by almost three million people over the next 20 years. Table 2 -1 shows the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) regional projections for population, households, and employment for the DFW urbanized area. The 10- county urbanized area includes: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties. Approximately 70 percent of the population increase is expected to occur within four core counties: Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant. Table 2 -1 Dallas -Fort Worth Urbanized Area Demographics Year Population Households Employment 1990 Census 3,920,094 1,462,047 2,033,973 2000 Census 5,067,400 1,886,700 3,158,200 2010 6,328,200 2,350,300 3,897,000 2020 7,646,600 2,851,400 4,658,700 2030 9,107,900 3,396,100 5,416,700 Source: NCTCOG Demographic Forecast Information (January 24, 2007) and US Census Bureau April 2010 2 -1 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 2 - Need and Purpose Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table 2 -2 shows the projected populations and employment for municipalities along the Cotton Belt Corridor. A total population increase of approximately 15 percent and a 43 percent increase in employment are projected within the study area between 2000 and 2030. Table 2 -2 Base Year and Projected Population and Employment Location Population Employment 2000 2030 % Change 2000 2030 % Change Addison 14,454 19,313 33.6% 45,649 66,213 45.0% Carrollton 109,364 124,086 13.5% 68,199 83,148 21.9% Co ell 36,191 45,410 25.5% 18,401 29,380 59.7% Dallas 1,202,592 1,404,847 16.8% 1,038,314 1,390,219 33.9% Farmers Branch 28,028 43,978 56.9% 75,013 156,798 109.0% Grapevine 41,909 49,484 18.1% 49,565 85,475 72.5% Irving 196,632 225,714 14.8% 165,435 276,941 67.4% Plano 222,498 257,061 15.5% 115,048 184,205 60.1% Richardson 92,577 113,815 22.9% 94,792 163,014 72.0% Total 1,944,245 2,283,708 17.5% 1,670,416 2,435,393 45.8% Study Area 200,541 230,274 14.8% 256,704 366,017 42.6% Source: NCTCOG 2030 Demographic Forecast Within the study area, there are 28 employers with 500 or more employees. The largest concentration of employees is Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport (DFWIA), which has over 60,000 on- airport employees. Major employers located on the airport site include American Airlines, DFWIA, and Federal Express. Other major employers in the study area include Alcatel, Perot Systems, and University of Texas at Dallas (UTD). UTD is primarily a commuter campus with 14,500 students enrolled in 2009. Throughout the Cotton Belt Corridor, access to major employers and activity centers is primarily by personal motor vehicle. Job growth in regions outside of the traditional downtown areas, such as the Cotton Belt Corridor study area, will continue to change journey to work patterns. The Cotton Belt Corridor study area is a net importer of employees with higher employment than residential population. As shown in Table 2 -2, study area communities show a greater increase in employment than residential population. In example, Addison has daytime employment over three times the daytime residential population today and in 2030. The projected increase of population in the corridor will increase demand for access to an east/west route that would provide access to employment centers and the surrounding area. `Job sprawl' is addressed in several papers from The Brookings Institute. Job Sprawl. Employment Location in US Metropolitan Areas cites a statistical correlation between a metro area's political balkanization and employment decentralization caused by a large number of municipalities competing for major employers. Job Sprawl Revisited: The Changing Geography of Metropolitan Employment makes note of the steady decentralization of employment between 1998 and 2006 with the southern US metropolitan areas being particularly emblematic of an outward shift of job share from the urban core. The DFW region exemplifies this trend. The projected increases in population and employment, the attraction of businesses to relocate further from the urban core, and the already congested roadway network are anticipated to create severe mobility challenges and the need for additional transportation improvements in the Cotton Belt Corridor study area. April 2010 2 -2 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 2 — Need and Purpose Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 2.1.2 Increased Transportation Demand As mentioned in Section 2.1.1, not only have population and employment increased, but the nature of travel has also changed in ways that contribute to increased traffic congestion. Changes in land use associated with suburbanization have had an effect on the characteristics of travel. Rather than the suburb -to- central city commute of the past, current commuting patterns are more widely scattered, as inter- and intra- suburban travel and reverse commute trip patterns have increased. Despite the rapid pace at which growth has occurred, and is projected to continue, limited funding for transportation improvements has seriously constrained the region's ability to solve ground transportation issues. As discussed in Section 1.2, Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas — Fort Worth Area - 2009 Amendment (Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment) is the current fiscally constrained MTP for the DFW region. It presents a system of transportation improvements needed to maintain mobility in the DFW metropolitan area over the next 20 years and serves as a guide for the expenditure of state and federal funds within the region. Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment recommends over $78.3 billion (2009 dollars) in transportation improvements. Despite this level of investment in the transportation system, congestion is projected to increase by 2030. Future roadway capacity is insufficient to accommodate the projected travel demand. Roadway upgrades and expansion cannot keep pace with changing residential and commercial development patterns, leading to increasing congestion and delay. Figure 2 -1 illustrates the congestion levels during the peak hour under 2007 and 2030 conditions. The 2030 conditions represent anticipated congestion levels with all MTP projects completed. The increase in congestion is directly attributed to the projected 15 percent population increase and 43 percent employment increase in the study area. April 2010 2 -3 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 2 — Need and Purpose Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Figure 2 -1 System Performance 2007 and 2030 Level of Congestion The Metropolitan Transportation Plan Areas with No Congestion Areas with Light Congestion Areas with Moderate Congestion Areas with Severe Congestion Roadways cvv1 Annual Cost of Congestion $4.2 Billion Source: NCTCOG, April 2009 cVou Annual Cost of Congestion $6.5 Billion orridor The roadway system in the Cotton Belt Corridor planning area includes numerous highways, toll roads, and regional arterials; see Chapter 1, Figure 1 -4. These roadways operate predominately north - south. The major east -west corridors in the planning area include Interstate Highway (IH) 635, Belt Line Road, President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT), and Sam Rayburn Tollway which generally parallel the Cotton Belt Corridor. IH 635 is the fourth most congested roadway in Texas. The roadway includes eight main lanes and two (one in each direction) interim high- occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Planned roadway reconstruction will add two main lanes and six managed lanes to replace interim HOV lanes. Roadway construction is scheduled to begin in 2010. In 2007, IH 635 from IH 35E to US 75 (North Central Expressway) carried over 250,000 vehicles per day, and is projected to carry 429,000 vehicles per day by 2030. Generally, Belt Line Road is a six -lane regional arterial throughout the planning area. A 2.3- mile section from Denton Tap Road to MacArthur Boulevard is currently four lanes and is scheduled to be widened to six lanes in the near future. In 2007, the Belt Line Road carried over 58,000 vehicles per day and is projected to carry 67,000 vehicles per day by 2030. The PGBT is currently six lanes and is planned to be widened to eight lanes prior to 2030. This tolled facility carried 119,000 vehicles per day in 2007 and is projected to carry 167,000 vehicles per day by 2030. April 2010 2 -4 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 2 - Need and Purpose Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study • The Sam Rayburn Tollway was recently completed and opened to traffic. The roadway is six lanes and is anticipated to be widened to eight lanes prior to 2030. As indicated in Figure 2 -1, the existing roadway system within the Cotton Belt Corridor planning area is currently experiencing moderate to severe congestion. More specifically, in 2007 approximately 18.9 percent of existing roadway segments in the planning area were at level -of- service (LOS) D or E and 28.4 percent were at LOS F. LOS is a rating system used to measure operating conditions such as freedom to maneuver, speed, comfort, convenience, and safety for roadways, with "A" being best and "F" worst. LOS ratings estimate the maximum traffic a facility can accommodate while maintaining reasonable traffic operations. Table 2 -3 shows the 2007 and 2030 performance measures calculated for the planning area roadway network. Table 2 -3 Plannina Area Transportation Performance Measures Performance Measure 2007 2030 Percent Change Vehicle Miles of Travel per Day 42,201,065 60,302,476 42.9% Vehicle Hours of Travel per Day 1,230,437 1,734,876 41.0% Vehicle Hours of Congestion Delay per Day 217,526 360,891 65.9% Lane Miles in Study Area 6,862 8,348 21.7% Percent Lane Miles at LOS D, E 2007 2030 Percent Change Freeway/Toll Road 28.0% 31.0% 10.7% Principal Arterial 19.7% 22.1% 12.2% Minor Arterial 21.9% 17.1% -21.9% Collectors 9.3% 8.8% -5.4% Freeway Rams 16.6% 14.0% -15.7% Frontage Roads 18.3% 19.1% 4.4% HOV 22.1% 27.9% 26.2% Total Roadway Network 18.9% 18.8% -0.5% Percent Lane Miles at LOS F 2007 2030 Percent Change Freeway/Toll Road 37.5% 48.4% 29.1% Principal Arterial 50.0% 53.7% 7.4% Minor Arterial 26.4% 43.1% 63.3% Collectors 19.5% 28.4% 45.6% Freeway Rams 19.0% 27.4% 44.2% Frontage Roads 30.9% 40.0% 29.4% HOV 9.8% 24.8% 153.1% Total Roadway Network 28.4% 40.6% 43.0% Source: NCTCOG, 2009 As shown in Table 2 -3, even with the addition of almost 1,500 lane miles, 18.8 percent of the roadway sections in the planning area are projected to be at LOS D and E and 40.6 percent at LOS F in 2030. The percentage of roadways experiencing LOS D and E conditions remain virtually the same between 2007 and 2030, but the percentage of roadways experiencing LOS F increases by 43.0 percent. As congestion worsens, drivers will increasingly use arterials and local streets to avoid the anticipated traffic and delays on the freeways and toll roads. April 2010 2 -5 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 2 — Need and Purpose Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study In 2030, the planning area is expected to experience an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours of travel (VHT), and vehicle hours of congestion delay. DART currently operates most transit service provided within the planning area. DART operates numerous bus routes, as well as several special or shuttle routes to serve UTD and employers along North Central Expressway. The current all -bus network in the study area generally operates in mixed traffic, which could lead to unreliable service. The need for additional transportation facilities has been documented in Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment based on regionally approved demographic projections. Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment recommends the use of light rail - compliant technology along the North Crosstown (Cotton Belt) Corridor from DFWIA to downtown Plano /PGBT. The DART 2030 Transit System Plan, dated October 2006, includes express rail on the Cotton Belt Corridor from DFWIA to the Red Line light rail transit (LRT) system. Travel forecasts were performed to evaluate the existing transportation system by assigning 2030 travel demand data to the 2005 and 2030 roadway networks. The regional planning process strives to best allocate limited financial resources by maintaining and operating existing facilities, improving efficiencies of existing facilities, reducing single- occupant vehicle trips, increasing transit trips, and increasing auto occupancy. 2.1.3 Sustainable Development Initiative As identified in Section 2.1.1, the DFW urbanized area is forecasted to grow to over almost 9.1 million people and 5.4 million jobs by the year 2030. This represents approximately an 80.0 percent increase in population and a 72.0 percent increase in employment from 2000 to 2030. Population and employment densities within the Cotton Belt Corridor study area are expected to increase 15.0 percent and 43.0 percent, respectively. The population to employment discrepancy indicates the study area is an employment attractor. While the densities of some urban areas within the region will increase, the region continues to suburbanize. A driving factor in the continued suburbanization is the availability of more affordable housing options outside the four core counties. Analysis of previous demographic growth trends include increased automobile ownership, more single- occupant travel, increased suburbanization, and increased VMT in the region. These challenges were recognized during the development of Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment. A specific objective of Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment is advocating sustainable development through the direct link between land use, transportation, and air quality. Market response to different transportation improvements and various land use types warrant different transportation infrastructure. Combinations of transportation and land use can lead to substantially different travel behaviors. For example, higher densities, mixed -land uses, and increased transportation alternatives can reduce overall VMT. Air quality is another critical issue for the DFW region. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the DFW region as a nonattainment area for the eight -hour ozone standard. The Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) of 1990 requires transportation plans for all nonattainment areas to be in air quality conformity with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and demonstrate projects in the MTP meet air quality goals. Encouraging developments throughout the region to adapt to sustainable development characteristics could lead to lower emissions and improve air quality. April 2010 2 -6 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 2 - Need and Purpose Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study NCTCOG conducted a series of demographic sensitivity analyses to assess the potential impacts of alternative growth scenarios on the region between 2010 and 2030. Historically, the DFW region has grown outward with new development turning rural areas into suburban municipalities. Within the alternative growth scenarios presented by NCTCOG, households and employment locations were redistributed throughout the region to simulate alternative market assumptions. Brief descriptions of each scenario follow: • Rail Scenario: Population and employment estimates for 2030 were redistributed while maintaining regional population and employment control totals. Growth was subtracted from rural areas and added primarily to passenger rail station areas. • Infill Scenario: Population and employment estimates for 2030 were redistributed while maintaining regional population and employment control totals. Growth was subtracted from rural areas of the region and added primarily to infill areas along existing freeways and tol (ways. • Rail with County Control Totals (RCCT) Scenario: Population and employment estimates for 2030 were redistributed while maintaining population and employment control totals for the region and each individual county. Growth was subtracted from rural areas of each county and added primarily to passenger rail- oriented areas. • Vision North Texas (VNT) Scenario: Population and employment estimates for 2030 were redistributed while maintaining regional population and employment control totals. Growth was distributed based on VNT participant feedback. • Forward Dallas! Scenario: Created for the City of Dallas, population and employment estimates for 2030 were redistributed based on the final alternative demographic dataset created during the Forward Dallas! Comprehensive Plan process. Table 2-4 reveals travel demand and air quality effects based on each scenario. Results indicate a strong correlation between Rail and VNT scenarios, both reducing the greatest amounts of ozone emissions, VMT, and hours of congestion delay in the region. Table 2-4 Alternative Growth Scenarios Compared to Historical Growth Model Data of Interest Rail Scenario Infill Scenario RCCT Scenario VNT Scenario Forward Dallas! MPA Average of Trip Length -8% +3% -0.01% - 10.85% -2.9% MPA Rail Transit Boardings +52% +9% +8% +11.13% +7.4% MPA Non -Rail Transit Boardin s +29% +11% +5% +15.98% +11% MPA Vehicle Miles Traveled -6% -5% -1.2% -9.43% -2.2% MPA Vehicle Hours Traveled -9% -7% -1.7% -14.31% -5.7% Total Vehicle Hours of Delay -24.0% -19.0% -4.0% -32.5% -14.5% Lane Miles Needs -13.0% -10.0% -13.3% - 30.90% -32.1% Financial Needs billions -$9.5 -$6.7 -$2.9 -$15.6 -$7.0 Roadway Pavement Needs (s q. mi. -8.3 -6.5 -0.7 -9.8 -1.6 NOx Emissions -4.1% -3.9% -1.2% -8.47% -2.4% VOC Emissions -5.3% -5.2% -1.5% - 11.02% -3.0% Source: NCTCOG, Mobility 2030 -- 2009 Amendment, April 2009 The alternative growth scenarios are presented as suggested alternatives municipalities could incorporate into land use policies to improve regional transportation and environmental conditions. Because federal, state, and local transportation agencies have no power to control regional growth and land development, the MTP provides these alternatives as guidance to April 2010 2 -7 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 2 — Need and Purpose Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study local planners and developers to help local governments determine the most efficient way to grow. By presenting these options, the land use planning initiative can be aligned with regional transportation goals. The region has established four basic sustainable development policy directions to promote an important new direction in local development patterns. • Utilize existing system capacity • Improve rail mobility • Promote mixed -use • Improve access management. These are based on an increased desire for a greater variety of transportation options, mixed - use developments, and sustainable communities with a sense of place. If implemented these policies could lead to more sustainable development patterns and federal air quality standards attainment for the region. Passenger rail within the Cotton Belt Corridor would support these policies and could reduce the need for new infrastructure including, utilities, transportation, emergency response, government facilities, water, etc. 2.1.4 System Linkage and Intermodal Connections Passenger rail is an integral component of the DFW region MTP to help provide for a reliable transportation network in North Central Texas. The proven ability of rail service to improve mobility will play a crucial role in meeting future transportation needs. The Cotton Belt Corridor has a unique opportunity to link residents with numerous other transportation facilities throughout the region. DFWIA is at the western terminus of the study area. In addition to being a large employer, DFWIA is the third busiest airport in the world based on aircraft movements and the seventh busiest airport in the world based on passenger traffic. Located near the study area midpoint is Addison Airport. Addison Airport is the busiest general aviation airport in Texas. Additionally, the DFW region currently has over 48 miles of LRT and 35 miles of commuter rail in operation. At the eastern terminus, DART operates the Red Line LRT service, generally operating north - south. Several transit projects are under construction or planning, which includes new passenger rail services and LRT expansions. These expansions all have a regional, line -haul focus. • The Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) completed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 2009 on the Southwest -to- Northeast (SW2NE) Commuter Rail project. The T is currently seeking Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approval to enter Preliminary Engineering and complete the Final EIS to support a funding request to design and build this 40 -mile rail corridor. The SW2NE Commuter Rail project would provide passenger rail service from southwest Fort Worth, travel through downtown Fort Worth, to DFWIA. This rail line would connect to the DART Orange Line LRT and the Cotton Belt Corridor. • The DART Orange Line is currently in design and construction from its connection with the DART Green Line at Webb Chapel Extension and Denton Drive in northwest Dallas to DFWIA A/B Terminal. This 14 -mile LRT will provide passenger service to the region through the city of Irving to DFWIA. The line is anticipated to open in stages: December 2011 to Las April 2010 2 -8 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 2 — Need and Purpose Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Colinas, December 2012 to Belt Line Road, and December 2013 to DFWIA. In June 2009, the DART 2030 Transit System Plan was amended to include a "phased approach" for creating an Orange Line connector to the Cotton Belt. The second phase could be integrated as part of the Cotton Belt Corridor project. The DART Green Line is under construction from downtown Dallas north to Farmers Branch and Carrollton and south to the Pleasant Grove community in Southeast Dallas. The 28- mile LRT will connect with existing rail services in downtown Dallas, as well as provide a connection to the Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) commuter rail line in Carrollton. This line will open in stages; the initial 2.7 miles opened in September 2009 linking Victory Station to Fair Park and MLK Jr. Station and the remaining sections are anticipated to open in December 2010. DCTA is constructing a commuter rail line, known as the A- Train, from Carrollton to Denton. The A -Train will generally operate on a portion of the former Union Pacific Railroad right -of- way owned by DART. The line roughly parallels IH 35E and will operate between the DART Green Line Trinity Mills Station at PGBT and continues north to downtown Denton. This line is projected to be fully operational by fall 2012. A long term plan is to extend the line further south to downtown Carrollton where it could interface with the Cotton Belt Corridor. 2.2 PURPOSE The primary purpose of the Cotton Belt Corridor is to provide a passenger rail connection to improve mobility, accessibility, and system linkages to major employment, population, and activity centers. Passenger rail service implementation within the Cotton Belt Corridor will provide an alternative to traffic congestion within the planning area. By connecting three LRT lines and two CRT lines, regional connectivity is a key Cotton Belt Corridor component. The Cotton Belt Corridor also offers opportunities to connect with other proposed regional rail corridors such as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Corridor between Frisco and Irving, connecting in downtown Carrollton. Regional demand for travel in the planning area is projected to increase along with congestion. Project implementation would improve transit performance in the planning area by offering a new, more reliable service. The project seeks to reduce peak period congestion levels and regional air quality improvement by providing a new transportation option. 2.3 MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study is to: • Identify key corridor issues • Identify potential station locations • Examine alignment options • Document existing environmental conditions • Identify potential impacts, and suggest funding strategies By accomplishing these goals the study will help expedite project implementation. To support this effort, corridor stakeholders developed the following mission statement to guide the study: Provide additional transportation choices connecting major activity centers from Fort Worth to northern Dallas County and southern Collin County by efficiently developing safe, fiscally sound, environmentally conscious and regionally supported mobility improvement projects that support April 2010 2 -9 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 2 — Need and Purpose Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study economic opportunities and sustain or augment the quality of life and mobility for the citizens of the Dallas /Fort Worth Metroplex. Additionally, corridor stakeholders established a set of goals to support the mission statement and transportation improvements in the Cotton Belt Corridor. The goals and objectives respond to the underlying transportation needs defined in this chapter. Goal: Enhance corridor mobility and accessibility Objectives: • Provide connectivity to existing and planned passenger rail facilities • Provide transportation investments serving future population and employment growth • Improve access to existing and emerging major activity centers • Increase access to transit • Increase transit usage • Provide cost - effective options Goal: Encourage economic development Objectives: • Encourage employment opportunities • Encourage economic development opportunities • Ensure consistency with regional and local transportation and comprehensive plans • Encourage strategies for land use development and redevelopment Goal: Provide an environmentally - sensitive transit investment Objectives: • Minimize negative project effects to the community • Minimize negative project effects to the built environment • Minimize negative project impacts to natural and cultural resources • Improve air quality April 2010 2 -10 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES The Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study (CE & FS) identifies various alignment alternatives within the Cotton Belt Corridor. Alternatives were developed based on the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Board of Directors (DART Board) set of corridor development conditions previously discussed in Section 1.5 and information obtained from a variety of documents including: DART 2030 Transit System Plan; 2030 Transit System Plan - North Crosstown Corridor. Existing Conditions Report, 2005 DART Cotton Belt Corridor: Environmental Review and Assessment of Rail Alignment Concepts, 2008 North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas -Fort Worth Area - 2009 Amendment (Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment) Corridor stakeholders also contributed to the development of alternatives within the study area. Information concerning each alternative was collected and presented to the stakeholders. A decision regarding a preferred alternative will be determined in a subsequent study effort. 3.1 VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY Evaluating potential vehicle technologies acceptable for Cotton Belt Corridor conditions is a major study component. The primary objective is to select a cost - effective, efficient passenger rail service vehicle technology that is sensitive to the needs and concerns of communities located within the corridor. Based upon findings from previous efforts and input received from corridor strategy meeting participants, the following vehicle types were considered for study in the Cotton Belt Corridor: Light Rail Transit (LRT), Light Rail New Technology (LRNT), and Commuter Rail. 3.1.1 Light Rail Transit LRT vehicles provide medium- to high- capacity passenger service used for both short and medium length trips typically from a center city to surrounding urban communities within a given city or metropolitan area. LRT trains may employ a single car, but typically operate as a multi- unit train. Maximum LRT train length is often determined by the minimum city block length to avoid blocking vehicular traffic on surface cross streets. Light rail cars typically range in length from approximately 50 feet to over 100 feet. Currently, the seating capacity of a LRT vehicle within the DART system is 96 seats per car. LRT vehicles accommodate standing passengers. Most LRT systems are implemented within exclusive rights -of -way. However, LRT vehicles do not meet the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) crash worthiness standards, and for this reason cannot operate on right - of -way with freight traffic unless separated spatially or temporally. Capital cost for a LRT system is estimated at $60 to $80 million per mile, with increased costs when large infrastructure elements are needed, such as bridges, tunnels, etc. Recently, DART completed retrofitting their LRT vehicle fleet with the insertion of a low -floor, center section. Transforming existing LRT vehicle fleet to Super Light Rail Vehicles (SLRV) expands the original length of the LRT vehicle from 92 feet, 8 inches to 123 feet, 8 inches. LRT April 2010 3 -1 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study vehicles are powered by electricity from overhead wiring suspended from poles within the right - of -way. The SLRV vehicle is currently the primary passenger rail vehicle in the DART system. 3.1.2 Light Rail New Technology LRNT vehicles are envisioned as a new breed of passenger rail conceived for the DFW region with application to other metropolitan areas. As discussed in Section 1.5, the Dallas City Council Resolution 061835 and DART Board Resolution 060177, found in Appendix E, recommend a commuter rail vehicle not be considered for this corridor. These resolutions specified a vehicle type with the size and features similar to the current DART SLRV. DART staff in coordination with the FRA, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and passenger rail industry leaders, is currently developing LRNT vehicle specifications. Vehicle development efforts will ensure the LRNT vehicle will meet the following criteria: • Noise and vibration consistent with SLRVs • Overall bulk (height, length, and width) within eight percent of a SLRV • Compliance with FRA design and safety regulations • Compliance with US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 requirements for non - road engine standards The two primary differences between the conceptual LRNT vehicle and an existing SLRV are vehicle propulsion and the ability to withstand a freight train crash. The LRNT vehicle may be powered by either an electric or non - electric engine and will not be powered by overhead wiring equipment. LRNT vehicles will be designed to provide passenger rail service within suburban areas and to connect these areas to central cities. LRNT trains are conceived to be one to four cars in length, with a per car capacity of 120 to 200 passengers, including standees. Initially, service may be offered only during peak travel periods. As the system matures service could be operated throughout the weekday and weekends. Estimated capital costs for a LRNT system range from $20 to $40 million per mile. New Jersey Transit Riverline, Austin Capital MetroRail, and soon the Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) A- train, which is currently under construction, are examples of systems employing a form of LRNT vehicle technology; however, these system vehicles are not FRA crash worthiness compliant and thus are unable to operate on tracks shared with freight trains without a variance. 3.1.3 Commuter Rail Commuter rail systems are designed to provide passenger service over longer distances normally extending 10 to 50 miles from the center city. Services could be city -to -city or center city to suburban region. Commuter rail vehicles normally consist of a push -pull locomotive and several single or bi -level passenger cars. The dimensions of a commuter rail passenger car are typically 60 to 80 feet long, 10 to 11 feet wide, allowing for a seating capacity of 60 to 170 passengers. The larger passenger car provides more seating capacity and less standing room than a typical LRT vehicle. Commuter rail passenger cars are typically propelled by a separate diesel or electric locomotive engine. Most commuter rail systems are implemented within existing railroad right - of -way sharing tracks with freight trains. Commuter rail vehicles meet FRA crash worthiness standards. April 2010 3 -2 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Typical capital cost estimates for commuter rail lines range up to $25 million per mile, depending upon existing track infrastructure condition and available right -of -way. The Virginia Railway Express servicing suburban Washington, D.C. and the Long Island Railroad servicing suburban New York City are city -to- suburb commuter rail examples. Commuter rail is often employed to connect one central city to another if the cities are in close proximity. The Trinity Railway Express (TRE) connecting Dallas and Fort Worth is an excellent example of a city -to- city commuter rail system. Table 3 -1 provides a vehicle technology summary. Light Rail TALI -. 1% w -•_• • ww•c. w 1 v a I %. w 1— .1111ulugieb %,onSioerea • Connects urban communities with CBD and urban activity centers • Vehicles are electrically powered from overhead wires • Capable of running in street or on exclusive right -of -way • Vehicles are not FRA crash compliant Commuter Rail C.. n n nr nnnn • Used for passenger rail services between downtown and distant suburbs (Long Island, New York) • Used to connect large central cities (West Palm Beach /Ft. Lauderdale /Miami in south Florida and Dallas /Ft. Worth in north Texas) • Service may be on tracks shared with freight railroad operations • Vehicles are FRA crash compliant • Service provided by equipment generally characterized as "push- pull" , gal1u 1 y �u I V C11 w 14%, 1 Uvv, JejJleinuer tuua April 2010 3 -3 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 3.2 DEFINITION OF ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES The CE & FS incorporates the general corridor alignment and Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport (DFWIA) connection previously determined by other corridor study efforts with a slight variation of station locations and options for connecting to the DART Red Line LRT. For the CE & FS, alignment alternatives were identified connecting the DFWIA with Richardson and /or Plano. Various station locations were identified based on stakeholder input and previous study efforts. Three alignment options have been developed for the eastern terminus connection to the DART Red Line. In addition to DART Red Line connection options, one alignment variation is proposed within the City of Coppell. 3.2.1 Grade Separations Within the Cotton Belt Corridor, there are 54 roadway crossings, with 10 existing grade separated crossings. Additional traffic analyses and travel demand forecast modeling will be required for each at -grade crossing in the next project development phase. For this study, a cursory grade separation analysis was conducted to determine if existing at -grade crossings are warranted for grade separation. The analysis deemed a roadway warranted for grade separation if one of the following criteria is satisfied: • Traffic volumes greater than 40,000 daily vehicles • Roadway is a six -lane divided facility The cursory analysis indicated the following roads are existing at -grade crossings that meet one or both criteria previously stated based on year 2030 model results identified in the Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment. • Denton Tap Road • Belt Line Road (alignment would cross road twice near potential North Lake Station) • MacArthur Road • Luna Road • Marsh Lane • Midway Road • Coit Road • Custer Road • Waterview Parkway Information from this analysis was used in the development of cost estimates for each alternative and is provided in Section 3.7. A detailed grade separation analysis is needed in the next project development phase. This analysis would determine if the addition of passenger rail service would increase vehicle queuing or decrease roadway level of service (LOS) to levels warranting grade separation. DART established a policy regarding grade separation by resolution in 1997. This policy outlines the criteria for warranting grade separation of roadway intersections with passenger rail. 3.2.2 Termini The western terminus is proposed for a location at DFWIA A/B Terminal. This location would connect the Cotton Belt Corridor with the DART Orange Line LRT from Irving and downtown Dallas, and The Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) Southwest -to- Northeast (SW2NE) April 2010 3 -4 Source: UAM I, N I UUG, May 2009 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Commuter Rail Corridor from downtown Fort Worth. The Cotton Belt/SW2NE /Orange Line connection will provide a more integrated passenger rail system for the DFW region. For the purposes of this study, the station at DFWIA A/B Terminal is the assumed Cotton Belt Corridor western terminus. Figure 3-1 shows the western terminus and proposed connections with the DART Orange Line and The T SW2NE. Figure 3 -1 Western Terminus Ontion There are three options for the eastern terminus allowing passengers to connect to the DART Red Line. DART Red Line connecting station locations studied are: Bush Turnpike, Downtown Plano, and a new station at the corridor right -of -way intersection with the DART Red Line near 12`h Street and Avenue J in Plano. A fourth option would be to continue the Cotton Belt rail service north to the towns and cities along the proposed McKinney Rail Corridor. Figure 3 -2 illustrates the three eastern terminus station options and the advantages and disadvantages of each terminus option are listed in Table 3 -2. April 2010 3 -5 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table 3 -2 Eastern Terminus Options: Advantaqes and Disadvantaqes Terminus Terminal Option Station Advantages Disadvantages 1 Parker Road Seamless connection Infeasible with phase I FRA- com liant vehicle 12 th Street Allows ease of eastern Requires reconstruction of 2 extension to the City of Wylie light rail bridge over corridor with no service for approximately one-year Bush Turnpike No impact to Red Line service Trains require reverse 3 (connection Additional economic movement from North ) development opportunity Bush Turnpike Allows for train same direction Requires most additional 4 (connection movement to the north or east construction of Cotton Belt from South) I I alignment 3.2.3 Right -of -Way The Cotton Belt Corridor right -of -way is a former Union Pacific Railroad (UP) line extending from north Fort Worth to Wylie, spanning approximately 60 route miles. The right -of -way is currently owned by DART and has been designated a preserved corridor for passenger rail service. With variations, the right -of -way width is generally 100 feet. South of the Cotton Belt right -of -way into DFWIA there is no existing rail right -of -way. For the CE& & FS, only segments from just west of International Parkway to the DART Red Line are being studied. The alignment is also assumed to follow a path planned by The T SW2NE Commuter Rail project. 3.2.4 Operating Rights Four freight railroad companies operate within the corridor through agreements on tracks that are owned by DART. Various agreements control freight service activity within the Cotton Belt Corridor. The Fort Worth and Western Railroad (FWWR) and the UP have track rights from Tower 60 in Fort Worth to the Downtown Carrollton Station. At this station, freight trains either continue on the DART -owned Cotton Belt tracks or turn northward on Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) owned tracks. The UP does not operate freight service from Tower 60 to downtown Carrollton. The following freight service conditions exist east of the Downtown Carrollton Station: Downtown Carrollton to Renner Junction (in Richardson) • The Dallas, Garland, and Northeastern Railroad Company (DGNO) operate trains, have dispatching responsibilities, and maintain the tracks. ■ The DGNO currently dispatches approximately six trains weekly. • The UP has track use rights, but operates no trains. Renner Junction to Wylie • The Kansas City Southern (KCS) Railroad operates trains, has dispatching responsibilities, and maintains the tracks. • The KCS currently dispatches approximately two trains daily. • Previous dispatching activity had been approximately 12 trains daily. • The DGNO has track use rights. • The UP has track use rights but operates no trains. April 2010 3 -7 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Currently, a short -line freight rail service operates a limited freight service schedule in McKinney on DART owned tracks. Since March 2007, freight service has not operated in the Cotton Belt Corridor between Knoll Trail and Renner Junction in Richardson. Due to this inactivity, DART initiated a freight abandonment process in October 2009 with the Surface Transportation Board (STB). In January 2010, DART was granted approval from the STB to abandon freight service. The abandonment helps address citizen concerns and eliminates the need for an additional track in the Far North Dallas area. Figures 3 -3 and 3 -4 illustrate the track rights within the corridor and the section that was approved for abandonment. 3.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 3.3.1 No -Build Alternative The No -Build Alternative will be carried forward into the next project development phase for comparison to build alternatives. The No -Build Alternative assumes the background roadway, thoroughfare, and transit network included in Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment are in place in 2030. Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment includes Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements such as ramp metering, variable message signs, and incident management systems. The No -Build Alternative will include all planned improvements to the region's roadway and transit systems as identified in Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment except for the Cotton Belt Corridor passenger rail and associated support bus services. Many transit services included in the Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment, specifically the regional rail network of proposed rail lines, will require additional funding sources. 3.3.2 Build Alignment Alternatives The build alternatives are based on the general corridor alignment recommended in the DART 2030 Transit System Plan approved in October 2006 and input from various technical staff representing the cities along the corridor, transit agencies' previous study efforts, and corridor stakeholders (see Section 1.5 for more information). All eight build alternatives are proposed to operate within the Cotton Belt Corridor from just north of DFWIA eastward to Plano and Richardson. Within each alternative, there are variations in potential station locations, a proposed route deviation to serve potential new development near North Lake, and terminus options for transfer connections to the DART Red Line. The following describes each alignment alternative including potential station locations and a logical eastern terminus. For each alternative, a service extension eastward remains viable. April 2010 3 -8 Denton County Flower Mound -"2 , '9rJ� Grapevine --- { — — —Lake -- -- - - -- -- � 1P1 CM -- irpo�rE North. t Grapevine County 7 <� j a L:I 0 0.45 0.9 1.8 2.7 Miles North Central Texas Council of Governments I I I a , , .i CAIB _j, 1- Legend .I -Goliur County -= Knoi - / Addison !Airport 4' Carroll wn Co ell pp j uvvJnLvriII `J Carrollton ., North-- _ -- --- � � 17- FA—ddis,_ Transit cr. North I J Dollas County Farmers Branch 1'14 4 Irving Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport ~ _ !. f, f Potential Station Rail Operators i Highways/Tollways Airports Locations BNSF Major Arterials Lakes Potential Cotton Belt Line DART /DGNO Q Station Study Areas Q City / Town Limits FWWR 0 Corridor Study Area County Limits + THE Denton ,-Collin County County Tarrant ""Dallas County County j Key Map 0 "e 8 0 0 s `a 0 <, • �_ 6UInJ! a8 UOzSI iSUe y�ue�8 s�awae� hp�d r^ ., j __!!addo0 pue!.ie0 sc _ .� u04I10aae:D. - - -�,n uMO;UMOQ se##ep ! ` __uas ppV .._ uospaegO!a :podjlyl uoslppy i �se /e(] p � � v° uollloiae0 �1. 1 - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - -- - - - -- -;- - -- nysn8 °y #, -- --------------------- w Joe S, 4}Z 61 a ialn _ if;unoo inW oue Ifli noo --..., / r ✓� + J04 ed uoagaH �oloO�;gl Apn4S Buipun pue Buij;aauiBU3 jen4daouoo • • • . , , _ s�uewwano� ;o pauno0 sexal !e�3ua� yuoN d y Kai _- I Sal + - - _ I A;unoo if;unoj sl!w!l AlunoO D eajyApn ;S jop!jjo0 Q HMMd sepep _ ;ueaael sl!w!l unnol / A;!O 0 seaaV APniS uo!lelS 0 ONOGLL2JV0 —F— au!l Aa8 uolloo le!lualod 1 sa�el E::] s!eualiV io#eW dSNB .. suogeoo7 ai!w L a 6'0 svo a � un f ;un0o spodny sAemllOiJsAemq6lH ef N u,1/o0 � -1 uo )uap pua6a- <, • �_ 6UInJ! a8 UOzSI iSUe y�ue�8 s�awae� hp�d r^ ., j __!!addo0 pue!.ie0 sc _ .� u04I10aae:D. - - -�,n uMO;UMOQ se##ep ! ` __uas ppV .._ uospaegO!a :podjlyl uoslppy i �se /e(] p � � v° uollloiae0 �1. 1 - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - -- - - - -- -;- - -- nysn8 °y #, -- --------------------- w Joe S, 4}Z 61 a ialn _ if;unoo inW oue Ifli noo --..., / r ✓� + J04 ed uoagaH �oloO�;gl Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 3.3.2.1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 originates at the DFWIA Terminal A/B Station and continues on a new track alignment within the proposed SW2NE Rail Corridor. The alignment crosses International Parkway [State Highway (SH) 971 and travels north and west to the proposed North Airport Station in Grapevine. The alignment moves eastward and transitions onto the Cotton Belt freight rail corridor, approximately one mile west of SH 121. The alignment continues eastward to Coppell. In Coppell, the alignment deviates from the existing corridor, turning slightly east and crossing Belt Line Road approximately 1,100 feet west of the intersection of Belt Line and Moore Roads. The alignment would be in a new right -of -way parallel to Belt Line Road near North Lake in Dallas. The alignment continues east and transitions back to the Cotton Belt right -of -way just east of the intersection of Belt Line Road and Johnson Lane. From there, the alignment continues along the Cotton Belt right -of -way eastward across US 75 (North Central Expressway) and deviates from the right -of -way just north of Plano Parkway in Plano. From Plano Parkway, Alternative 1 turns south following an abandoned railroad right -of- way owned by Richardson. The alignment runs parallel and adjacent to the DART Red Line tracks. The alignment would terminate at the Bush Turnpike Station in Richardson. Figure 3 -5 identifies the alignment and proposed station locations for Alternative 1. Figure 3 -5 Alternative 1 Source: NCTCOG, October 2009 3.3.2.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 follows the sarne alignment as Alternative 1 between DFWIA and North Central Expressway. From North Central Expressway, the alignment would continue in the existing railroad right -of -way and would turn north and join the DART Red Line tracks. The alignment could provide service to the (Downtown Plano Station and terminate at the Parker Road Station in Plano. This alternative would serve the same proposed station locations as Alternative 1 and serve the Downtown Plano and Parker- Road Stations on the DART Red Line. April 2010 3 -11 Alternative 1 Cotton Belt Corridor Town of f.. pnaor+ oil, ; n.na City of :,- -,� J C .1 ws Pi.n. 1 Conceptual Engineering _ -J - To— Flow. Mound I j - r' � rti � r�dar„ and Funding Study Denton � � 1, / % w -- county - See Inset _ °- Legend �� ' "_1 1 UT ® Potential Station Location - . - -- -- - -- - -- -- l�enne� V.r�YnQrg Cotton Belt Corridor ., Lake n : i T —� or Nld9e I Par/('!. The Ts SW2NE Corridor day �aa `., �_ And °" Preston R ® ;R'! d ® Existing Rail Station i r cM or ' Qrap —n. .. r otth `DoWnto - '4adiso7 Tra Rr:na�idawn i city or ahe w%1 a.n.nd r ' ( nS1C1C@ DART Red Line DART Blue Line 1 j,ak Car I grrpo V+ y-- ,- 1 car a rOttipn � __J Proposed Rail Station �h -- `city Proposed Rail Corridors T gent ' ! Dauol a county oanaa D PwAZI Highway j r_ -••• day q-` — I I rt(aq/e Alignment will run rej► via abandoned right -of -way to Bush Turnpike Station `car DRAFT v o 1 22 3 --J day E. or w +` Bviford „.! k .g i . ' -c� u.HRlyrPark® Bush Turnpike Miles Source: NCTCOG, October 2009 3.3.2.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 follows the sarne alignment as Alternative 1 between DFWIA and North Central Expressway. From North Central Expressway, the alignment would continue in the existing railroad right -of -way and would turn north and join the DART Red Line tracks. The alignment could provide service to the (Downtown Plano Station and terminate at the Parker Road Station in Plano. This alternative would serve the same proposed station locations as Alternative 1 and serve the Downtown Plano and Parker- Road Stations on the DART Red Line. April 2010 3 -11 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Vehicle technology is a key component when determining the feasibiliity of interlining the Cotton Belt Corridor with the DART Red Line. The DART Red Line LRT system vehicles are not considered FRA compliant for crash worthiness. The preferred vehicle technology for the Cotton Belt Corridor is a FRA crash worthiness compliant vehicle that is currently under development. Due to right -of -way constraints, operating a FRA crash worthiness compliant vehicle with non - compliant vehicles is not possible on the DART Red Line. Under existing conditions, a third track would be required for Alternative 2 to access the downtown Plano and Parker Road stations. Current right -of -way constraints prevent the addition of another passenger rail track through Plano. The right -of -way constraints caused by vehicle technology obstacles eliminated Alternative 2 from further consideration early in the study process. Figure 3 -6 graphically illustrates Alternative 2. Figure 3 -6 Alternative 2 Source: NCTCOG, October 2009 3.3.2.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would provide the same service to Parker Road Station as described in Alternative 2. From the Parker Road Station, the alignment would interline with the proposed McKinney Corridor and operate within the DART owned right -of -way through Plano, Allen, Fairview, and McKinney. The alignment terminates north of University Drive (US 380) in McKinney. There are seven additional stations included with this alternative: Legacy Drive, Allen [Farm -to- Market Road (FM) 21701, Stacy Road, Fairview (SH 5), Downtown McKinney, University Drive, and McKinney North (a terminal station north of University Drive). Figure 3 -7 illustrates the alignment and station locations for Alternative 3 within the Cotton Belt Corridor study area. Early in the CE & FS efforts, a "travel shed" analysis was conducted to determine the dominant travel pattern for travelers in the central Collin County area. The effort was conducted to determine if a passenger rail service connecting central Collin County to origins and destinations southwest of central Collin County is warranted. A selected zone analysis using the adopted Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment travel demand model was performed. The objective was to understand the feasibility of interlining the Cotton Belt Corridor with the Red Line /McKinney Rail Corridor. The analysis identified the primary directional destination for all trips and for work -based trips originating from or destined to central Collin County. Results April 2010 3 -12 Alternative 2 Cotton Belt Corridor Town df--' e,�,�o. - �, :-- ,e.Ra' 1 cdycf orydt Conceptual Engineering f — -, ny d �� — - a m7Mot Flower Mound I (� I '� - -{- , nset f' f� - collie "Cry �-�• and Funding Study Denton County r. ti_ ( lafvfn "- Coanry Legend �..,¢ Potential Station Location - - -- ergY = Cotton Ben Corridor Lake `. - •. A a /rage drlr Addis- preStpn = The Ts Sw2NE Corridor , c Yt Rd ® , t ® Existing Rail Station t C" of " t ,F:: - - 0 gaais ,: City Or Nor o W L ort Tr. R.h.. bit CNY of - -� DART Red Line G "��` uk th Cake , ntown Ca � — ans I? oariand : DART Blue Line Airport No r ' city of ere Branch -Tarrant \ rth ' Ottton ®~ rater city of - Proposed Rail Station Proposed Rail Corridors county ,,. County Dail,,. ® Highway 9 Y f Alrportt'A/ ;V P- arkerRoad eTermi Alignment will run DRAFT o t 2 3 C ry ✓^ '- to Downtown Plano and Downtown Plano m « T+ C" f EaM SWWd �MYd9f _ :u Parker Road Stations Mies , Source: NCTCOG, October 2009 3.3.2.3 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 would provide the same service to Parker Road Station as described in Alternative 2. From the Parker Road Station, the alignment would interline with the proposed McKinney Corridor and operate within the DART owned right -of -way through Plano, Allen, Fairview, and McKinney. The alignment terminates north of University Drive (US 380) in McKinney. There are seven additional stations included with this alternative: Legacy Drive, Allen [Farm -to- Market Road (FM) 21701, Stacy Road, Fairview (SH 5), Downtown McKinney, University Drive, and McKinney North (a terminal station north of University Drive). Figure 3 -7 illustrates the alignment and station locations for Alternative 3 within the Cotton Belt Corridor study area. Early in the CE & FS efforts, a "travel shed" analysis was conducted to determine the dominant travel pattern for travelers in the central Collin County area. The effort was conducted to determine if a passenger rail service connecting central Collin County to origins and destinations southwest of central Collin County is warranted. A selected zone analysis using the adopted Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment travel demand model was performed. The objective was to understand the feasibility of interlining the Cotton Belt Corridor with the Red Line /McKinney Rail Corridor. The analysis identified the primary directional destination for all trips and for work -based trips originating from or destined to central Collin County. Results April 2010 3 -12 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study indicated approximately 55 percent of the trips in both the work trip and all trip purposes categories were destined to, or originated from, central Dallas County. The remaining 45 percent of trips were destined to, or originated from, areas to the south and west of central Collin County. With the identified travel patter, it was deemed appropriate to investigate the feasibility of passenger rail service connecting central Collin County with DFWIA and other locations. Right -of -way and vehicle technology obstacles discussed for Alternative 2 also apply to Alternative 3. Figure 3 -7 Alternative 3 Source: NCTCOG, October 2000 3.3.2.4 Alternative 4 Alternative 4 would follow the same alignment as Alternative 1 to Bush Turnpike Station in Richardson. This alternative proposes to have the same station locations with a proposed station at Knoll Trail replacing a proposed station at Preston Road. Figure 3 -8 illustrates Alternative 4. April 2010 3 -13 Alternative 3 Cotton Belt Town of °.' ooutR OAk' '. Cy BI"' .. Town W y� Crty al C'nrw °' 'Parker I Corridor Conceptual Engineering Tow "O' Flower MOend ( �a,e " J -• !_Y_ Ti- ray Cd See Inset r Colvin ��0 and Funding tud g y Denton County �_ (r - Counry Map by Legend ' Potential Station Location ------ Laakee e �. �r o o� neV ergY P ark Cotton Belt Corridor The Ts SW2NE Corridor T In a Preston city .1 dmean p ® ; _ _ atSOq ® Existing Rail Station DART Red Line ' ' ckym - ', th °, D � "�L R n M-n Crt °r xLai, wn'to wn- Can Tans %rice gar �a '--" DART Blue Line q %rport N �, / /tOn _ _ntelr city of Proposed Rail Station "arrant minty ?- firth i " DaMa urr al _ count wna• Proposed Rail Corridors �Fw Atrport ...... Highway - r' — iA� P�arkerRoad ( 6 re- DRAFT o+rrw- 1et'"' Cky f c .' Alignment will run to Downtown Plano and Parker Road Stations; continuing ` o t 2 3 j m u ttoa E�Ne' .; Wong service to McKinney Corridor stations DOwntOWn Plano Miles Source: NCTCOG, October 2000 3.3.2.4 Alternative 4 Alternative 4 would follow the same alignment as Alternative 1 to Bush Turnpike Station in Richardson. This alternative proposes to have the same station locations with a proposed station at Knoll Trail replacing a proposed station at Preston Road. Figure 3 -8 illustrates Alternative 4. April 2010 3 -13 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Figure 3 -8 Alternative 4 Source: NCTCOG, October 2009 3.3.2.5 Alternative 5 Alternative 5 would follow the same alignment as Alternative 1 to Alma Road. From Alma Road, the alignment would deviate from the Cotton Belt right -of -way and continue on a new track alignment parallel to the President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT), transition south and east to run parallel and adjacent to Spring Creek and cross North Central Expressway on a new bridge structure. After crossing North Central Expressway, the alignment would turn northward adjacent to the south bound station frontage road and terminate adjacent to the Bush Turnpike Station southbound platform in Richardson. For ridership modeling purposes, the Renner Village Station is removed from this alternative to examine the correlation between fewer stations and projected ridership. Figure 3 -9 identifies the alignment and station locations for Alternative 5. Figure 3 -9 Alternative 5 Alternative 5 Cotton Belt Alternative 4 Cotton Belt Tow °°' Dout"Oak' Corridor Conceptual Engineering cay of _—. ij!( .. ewia r cm °f Tow rThe l;glonYl CRY of C,ty of Parker Corridor -caynf » — •Y°rpnr -, I c ay of �• Ha•" : ^ " - —. rJ. �'� i Piano r�na conceptual Engineering P� °wa; end _ r V .14ap - ` y T ® Potential Station Location f' 1 .— _ —_ —._� Town dl cay m �:, e� Addison Pre stop and Funding Study Denton i eoPpen � r,l R d '' Cy of city of Grape— county 'r_ fraw ( County _ -' >.��.; , See Inset '- � -, Legend C-* I ' Map " " -- -✓ 1 , ® Potential Station Location Downtown Plano . .. Highway Alignment will run via new �h,a___ __ (A /8 right -of -way and US 75 crossing ° .„ n1) to Bush Turnpike Station �,••. f, __ .__- i — ,— _ —_.__ %� gay o< - ginner - -�Yner -- '— – _ V 9y �-- Cotton Belt Corridor Lake - m IIE Miles SFJ } mronro . %qag@ Park i — of The Ts SWZNE Corridor s Coy of c °per" �' 1r ,,, A °° °O { /^� ;4aK ■ Existing Rail Station c�yuf c•Y.w D e ph o oh, Q %r m °w C{ WU h, ntow T7ans� jc a /,- _s D ART Red Lin e D AR T Blue Line ufniak4 - Arrp? ' r S @@ l @r!'° / /t1j n t@-- - coy or Proposed Rail S tation ort I N �C n— Ba°1A T.— Or © Proposed Rail Corridors cay or a county DFWglr ,` Coi,my oanaa Downtown Piano . -. - Highway � Y DRAFT City .1 ` portiA�gTerrn� Alignment will run o t Gaya crcy° via abandoned right -of -way m w6,ry, Cry or Eule•• B*O1a0 �� l kvinq , .. to Bush Turnpike Station Bus. Miles (' Source: NCTCOG, October 2009 3.3.2.5 Alternative 5 Alternative 5 would follow the same alignment as Alternative 1 to Alma Road. From Alma Road, the alignment would deviate from the Cotton Belt right -of -way and continue on a new track alignment parallel to the President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT), transition south and east to run parallel and adjacent to Spring Creek and cross North Central Expressway on a new bridge structure. After crossing North Central Expressway, the alignment would turn northward adjacent to the south bound station frontage road and terminate adjacent to the Bush Turnpike Station southbound platform in Richardson. For ridership modeling purposes, the Renner Village Station is removed from this alternative to examine the correlation between fewer stations and projected ridership. Figure 3 -9 identifies the alignment and station locations for Alternative 5. Figure 3 -9 Alternative 5 Source: NCTCOG, October 2009 April 2010 3 -14 Alternative 5 Cotton Belt Town of 1 oognA Oak' Town tN' cityN tws d� Piano j; -C4 of Park er Corridor Conceptual Engineering cay of _—. ij!( .. ewia r Fluwe M and -caynf » — •Y°rpnr and Funding Study counr County - ,S (" _. see Inset -.- Legend _ r V .14ap - ` y T ® Potential Station Location Lake} 1 .— _ —_ —._� Town dl cay m �:, e� Addison Pre stop -- -- — S Y n P ark f Cott o n Belt Corridor The Ts SW2NE Corridor ® Existing Rail Station i eoPpen � r,l R d Cy of city of Grape— -, dd %S ° city Of R ort ♦ ow Pr an � ktuN•on ap or -a. G land ® DART Red Line DART Blue Line fraw r I Iu' Carr °/ /ton Car, or %r port /Voi nh city n@r- Proposed Rail Station Proposed Rail Corridors C-* iaof Dar a cDo-de1,Jna_ ry QF W Airport' Downtown Plano . .. Highway Alignment will run via new �h,a___ __ (A /8 right -of -way and US 75 crossing ° .„ n1) to Bush Turnpike Station _` DRAFT o t 2 s city Coy :. i cayof 1O1nq = m IIE Miles SFJ �� u- 9— tyfPa,k l _ 41. , ® Bush Turnpike s Source: NCTCOG, October 2009 April 2010 3 -14 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 3.3.2.6 Alternative 6 Alternative 6 would operate within the Cotton Belt rail right -of -way similar to Alternative 1 and would terminate service at the intersection with the DART Red Line service. A new station would connect the DART Red Line and the Cotton Belt Corridor right -of -way near 12th Street, between Avenue J and Avenue K in Plano. Figure 3 -10 illustrates Alternative 6. Figure 3 -10 Alternative 6 Source: NCTCOG, October 2006 3.3.2.7 Alternative 7 Alternative 7 would follow the same alignment as Alternatives 1 and 4 to Bush Turnpike Station in Richardson. This alternatlive proposes to have the same station locations including the proposed station at Knoll Trail in addition to the proposed station at Preston Road. Figure 3 -11 illustrates Alternative 4. All potential station locations are included with Alternative 7. April 2010 3 -15 Alternative 6 Cotton Belt T °wn °, _,. onydd�dk ;y f-- TewnOf C.� °, °1 TV. Corridor Conceptual Engineering r °w °m Flower MOf ( ,ti" _' T � ' r' ./ - Te t M and Fundin Stud 9 y County - -- county See Inset Legend { i Map r---- —"� a Potential Station Location - SUaaeu'"e- - - -- �-- -- --- -- -- e Rnne F yn @T 9Y.P .�....t Cotton Be n Corridor � - draon �! 'To na a9e t ark city ^otl :nn car ° Presto c n Rq,. The Ts SWINE Corridor ® Existing Rail Station ts, NOh: Do �aa'SOn I �' DART Red Line cn , r ^atlan Cq or v ° r wrtt jr p,y of Grapel— Norm , Ldk own- . ; -anSr a.rvntl uthWk¢. I Lake, -' a �_ Cary• , �eh ( t� - J f@r -' - O� /f0/j DART Blue Line •tt /rpo rt i •2 city or J - - J N r e s emote - Proposed Rail Station Tanant county I I DFwAirpo O�f7^�.,�.,�� Oauas cty^r county D.U. Downtown Proposed Rail Corridors —° Highway �= Plano „' car °t -- -�"° Of x(4/8 12th Street Tef J e d l Alignment will run via corridor DRAFT o y 3 jjjN ciry s cnym right -of -way to a new station at Bush m ae 12th Street Station Turn ike P Miles Source: NCTCOG, October 2006 3.3.2.7 Alternative 7 Alternative 7 would follow the same alignment as Alternatives 1 and 4 to Bush Turnpike Station in Richardson. This alternatlive proposes to have the same station locations including the proposed station at Knoll Trail in addition to the proposed station at Preston Road. Figure 3 -11 illustrates Alternative 4. All potential station locations are included with Alternative 7. April 2010 3 -15 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Figure 3 -11 Alternative 7 Source: NCTCOG, February 2010 3.3.2.8 Alternative 8 Alternative 8 combines portions of Alternatives 3 and 5. Alternative 8 would follow the same alignment as Alternative 5 from DFWIA to the Bush Turnpike Station southbound platform in Richardson. The alignment would use the DART Red Line tracks through Plano serving Downtown Plano and Parker Road Stations. DART Red Line service terminates at the Bush Turnpike Station. Existing DART Red Line service in Plano would be replaced by Cotton Belt LRNT service. The alignment would continue north of Parker Road to serve the same stations in the McKinney Corridor as in Alternative 3. All potential stations including Knoll Trail and Renner Village are served in this alternative. Figure 3 -12 identifies the alignment and station locations for Alternative 5. Right -of -way and vehicle technology obstacles discussed for Alternative 2 also apply to Alternative 8. Figure 3 -12 Alternative 8 Altemative 7 Cotton Belt Corridor Town °r. - DaV�nak' C" of _ FbwewM�nd I j „`�` -T+J =I coy d, town ofT�e- ,y' City of ,P kef tleErdgE FYarro } rti -,. c rt Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study �earon Canty ti_ 1 t camty See Inset - Legend FlowerM and Map Y ® Potential Station Location a\` t co'w'ry ty _ r Cotton Bell Corridor Vltta9e gY Prk {ds coum°oY, �,_„ The Ts Sw2NE Corridor c P of f.�,......: a noe so�preston R ® d root) Existing Rail Station t NO .- Grapevine ,.,.In.. rth (ak emiaktr a e " QOWnt 'q C/(� %S %Cry n�ceadmn i CMa to C asst C Garland 8rrpt ertt er -' ` tt0 �� DART Red Line r� DART Blue Line q jr 'k! Port ?Idrmen cdy or . _ e.:,n<n n Proposed Rail Station Po N Ort/7 - - Proposed Rail Corridors r. C', cn r Callas ® Proposed Rail Station Airpo Courrry --- Highway rt '_• � I (q/S will run DRAFT Ter _Alignment via abandoned right -of -way to Bush Turnpike Station y n� „ F c Eae�„ city t I °r Bush Turn Ike u un .2, park® p Miles Source: NCTCOG, February 2010 3.3.2.8 Alternative 8 Alternative 8 combines portions of Alternatives 3 and 5. Alternative 8 would follow the same alignment as Alternative 5 from DFWIA to the Bush Turnpike Station southbound platform in Richardson. The alignment would use the DART Red Line tracks through Plano serving Downtown Plano and Parker Road Stations. DART Red Line service terminates at the Bush Turnpike Station. Existing DART Red Line service in Plano would be replaced by Cotton Belt LRNT service. The alignment would continue north of Parker Road to serve the same stations in the McKinney Corridor as in Alternative 3. All potential stations including Knoll Trail and Renner Village are served in this alternative. Figure 3 -12 identifies the alignment and station locations for Alternative 5. Right -of -way and vehicle technology obstacles discussed for Alternative 2 also apply to Alternative 8. Figure 3 -12 Alternative 8 Source: NCTCOG, February 2010 April 2010 3 -16 Altemative 8 Cotton Belt Corridor Town or o, t,Oak °„ - 1 - n —^ Town at Cy CM °r �nY °r °r• J IGara11 S Pran° � Parker e ,J — ! Conceptual Engineering FlowerM and j r' _ i:? See Inset ? rte Map rlemox "•_;;. and Funding Study a\` t co'w'ry ty _ Legend Potential Station Location Ukc ` -� aYger ------ - - - - -; r c fo11on wo a er Vlt /a a 9Y Park Cotton Batt Corridor The Ts SW2NE Corridor •'" - "- Ae °'�° .Presto I c op��� ® Existing Rail Station t' Rq r coy o, urvot Grap-Ine -` - No , DOWnto AadnSOri T� R na dmn crty or ru, tyn anst� Garland DART Red Line ee� DART Blue Line . uthlakR= _ qt ,... C� ° _ CarroIts - en t, - -� rport Proposed Rail Station IV - nnav,r 1 Alignment will run to Bush Turnpike, Proposed Rail Corridors C.""ry I Downtown Plano and Parker Road Stations; 75 DFW'4trport continuing service to McKinney Corridor stations r Road - ® - - -- Highway Cora -" - ' _ ,.,..� , q�g Terre' Down Plano ! DRAFT ` ateyrt ) on of I I ,r or �Urnpike 0 1 2 3 m �, r seer a, Eaas. „ I ir��ny a i Mlles Source: NCTCOG, February 2010 April 2010 3 -16 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 3.3.3 Summary of Alternatives Table 3 -3 provides a matrix identifying potential stations for each alternative. All eight build alternatives include the following station locations: DFW Airport (A/B Terminal), Airport North, Coppell /North Lake, Downtown Carrollton, Addison Transit Center, and UTD /Synergy Park. In Alternatives 2, 3, and 8 continuing on the DART Red Line LRT tracks service will be provided to the Downtown Plano and Parker Road Stations. Table 3 -3 Build Alternatives Station List Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 From (Station) DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA T o (Station) Bush Turnpike (Parker Road McKinney North Bush Turnpike Bush Turnpike 12th Street Bush Turnpike McKinney North Total Number of Stations 9 10 17 9 8 9 10 19 Cotton Belt Corridor: DFWIA X X X X X X X X Airport North X X X X X X X X North Lake X X X X X X X X Downtown Carrollton X X X X X X X X Addison Transit Center X X X X X X X X Knoll Trail X X X Preston Road X X X X X X X Renner Village X X X X X X X UTD /Synergy Park X X X X X X X X Bush Turnpike X X X X X Downtown Plano X X X Parker Road X X X 12 th Street X McKinney Corridor North of Parker Road: Legacy Drive X X Downtown Allen X X Stacy Road X X Fairview /SH 5 X X Downtown McKinney X X US 380 XT X McKinney North X I X Source: NCTCOG, September 2009 April 2010 3 -17 86 -£ 060,7 Iladv 060Z Aieniga_� '000lDN :eoanog 009`ti6 008`9 008`s 009`s 006`5 006`Z6 009`9 OOs`9 dlys.iop!M leool 096 Ot,6 Z 43JON AGUUNON 009 OIL an!aa AI!sJan!uf1 lsed — Og£ Sfl Ogg 06t, Aeuui>ioVI uMoluMoa 069 009 S HS — Malnuled 009 0£9 peo2l AoelS 098 OSt, OLIZ WJ — Uall`d ON Ot, anuQ AOe6a-1 (8 pue g sanl;euaa;JV ao ,J) suollelS joplaaoC) AauuiNoW OS 6' 6 0£0` 6 009 peo�j Ja� jed 09Z OtL ON oueld uMOluMO4 OSt, laaulS y,Z 6 0V0`Z 008 068 OZL 09L 9�!duanl ysn8 09£ OLZ 0£Z 09£ OSZ OL£ OLZ 09Z �jed A6aauAs /ciin 0£6`6 0£9 06L 09L OLO`6 M 008 96ell!nJauua�l 099 009 08t, 0 t7 OZ9 019 019 peon{ uolsejd 06Z 09Z OZ6 I1eJlllou}{ 066 OOL OZL 09L 0£L OZO' 6 06L OLL Jaluao 3!suejl uos!ppy 060Z 0 19'1 Ott' 6 OOV 6 009' 6 0£6' 6 069 6 OLS 6 uolllOJJeo uMoluMoQ 09£ 09£ OS£ OS£ 09£ 09£ 09£ 09£ ail] WON 09L 099 OZ9 019 O£9 OIL 099 Ot79 WON laodj!y OZ6 Ote 008 06L ON OL6 099 Obg (Ieu!wial 8/`d) ` lM:J4 8 L 9 5 £ Z 4 uolle }s san!}euJa}Ibr sawnlon Ja uassed I1ea OEOZ pa MRS3 17-£ olgel . ,V-C alge}_ ui paluasaid aje pue paleingel aaam aop!aaoo eql pue uollels yoea le Al!nlloe Allep ayl JOl salewlls3 'anllewalle aop!aaoo yoea aol palelnoleo aaaM selewllse dlysjap!�:l -slaselep olydeibowep palepdn ayl aleaodaooui ll!M aseyd uolleluaweldwl loafoid lxau ayl -sluawuaanO6 leool Aq pauluaaalap se suolleool leaanas aeau luawdolanap poledlollue leuolllppe aleaodaooui ll!M `luawdolanap japun Alluaaano (d1W) veld uolleliodsueal uelllodoilew S£OZ ayl aol slas elep olydei6owep ayl 'S£OZ JeGA uoziaoy lxau ayl JOI lapow pueuaap laneal a pue slaselep ayl buldolanap Alluaiino si gels OO:Dl:DN ayl -paled!o!lue ueyl ssal aq Aew suolleool Uollels snolaen le saapu palew!lse ayl `laselep olydeibowep paldope ayl buiAoldwa Aq -paldope se loselep olydeibowep ayl of @pew OJOm suOileaalle ON '0£OZ to aeaA uozuoy ayl aol suoll!puoo paloafoid selenlena Apnls slyl ui pasn uollewio ;ui lapow ayl •uoibei ayl aol loselep olydei6owep lelo!}}o ayl paaaplsuoo aae pue paeOq anllnoax3 000lON ayl Aq poldope aaaM asloaaxe bullapow ayl ui pasn sloselep lndul olydeibowaa -lapow 6ullse0eJOl puewap laneal luaLuPuawV 600,7 — OCOZ �fl!l!goyV eql bulsn palelnoleo aaaM aopuaoo lla8 uollo:D ayl ui saapu palewllse `sanbluyoal bullseoaao} dlysaap!i 3!sueal piepuels 6ulsn sa}eual }s3 dlysjep!N ti'£'£ Apn ;S 6u►pung pue BuyeautBu3 len;deouoo sani ;euaa ;;d JO luawdo/anaQ — v re ;deg3 ,ioplaioo ;lag uo ;;oo Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 3.4 STATIONS The potential Cotton Belt regional rail service could provide up to 10 new stations depending on the build alternative selected. Station platforms would be approximately 300 to 500 feet in length and would be described as one of the following: • Center platforms — station platforms in the center of the right -of -way adjacent to each other with the tracks on the outside of the station platforms • Side platforms — station platforms in the center of the right -of -way across from each other with the tracks on the inside of the station platforms Generally, parking would be provided at stations where demand warrants and space allows, these considerations will be evaluated in the next project development phase. For the purposes of this study, parking for passengers would be provided at all stations with the exception of DFWIA, Preston Road, and Downtown Plano. The following sections describe the potential station locations. 3.4.1 DFW Airport (Terminal A/B) Station The potential DFWIA Station would be located at Terminal A/B. This station location was selected via previous study Efforts between DART, DFWIA, The T, and NCTCOG. The airport offers a variety of methods to access the terminal including passenger loading /unloading zones, short -term parking near the terminal, and remote and express long -term parking lots with shuttle bus service to the terminal. This station would provide air travelers and DFWIA employees access to the passenger rail system. As a potential terminus of the DART Orange Line and The T SW2NE Commuter Rail project, this station permits transfers between several passenger rail lines. There is no planned bicycle access for this station. Figure 3 -13 shows the transportation facilities near this station. 3.4.2 Airport North Station Proposed Spur 382 would provide vehicular access to the potential Airport North Station. The station is accessible from SH 121/SH 114 and SH 26, and on local streets (Wall Street/Coppell Road and Dallas Road) within Grapevine. Local streets and sidewalks would accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access. Planned in the regional veloweb, the Grapevine Cotton Belt Trail would parallel the Cotton Belt Corridor in the area around this station. This location could also serve as a connection between The T SW2NE Commuter Rail project and the Cotton Belt Corridor for passenger rail users. Additional local feeder bus service will be considered for this station. Figure 3 -13 shows the transportation facilities near this station. 3.4.3 North Lake Station The potential North Lake Station would be located on new alignment on the south side of Belt Line Road between Moore and South Northlake Roads on the north side of North Lake in Dallas. Belt Line Road is an east -west major arterial connecting MacArthur Boulevard and Denton Tap Road. The local street network, organized to provide access to Belt Line Road, supports trips destined to the station from outside the local community. Local streets and sidewalks accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access. The potential station location is situated on a portion of the planned Cypress Waters development. In the regional veloweb, the North Elm Fork Trail runs parallel to the rail corridor near this station. The potential re- alignment to the south side of Belt Line Road and station relocation allows for access to the proposed April 2010 3 -19 a "e S 0 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study transit oriented development as well as avoidance of traffic conditions at Belt Line Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Additional local feeder bus service could be considered for this station. Figure 3 -13 shows the transportation facilities near this station. 3.4.4 Downtown Carrollton Station The proposed Downtown Carrollton Station is planned to be a major hub in the regional passenger rail system. The station would be located at the intersection of Belt Line Road and Denton Drive. The station could accommodate passenger rail service from three passenger rail lines. The DART Green Line, currently under construction, will stop at an elevated Downtown Carrollton Station. The potential Cotton Belt Corridor would provide an at grade station platform to facilitate transfers to and from the DART Green Line. The proposed Frisco Rail Corridor is anticipated to share the platform along the Cotton Belt. DART operates several bus routes in the area with plans to expand bus operations to feed the DART Green Line service upon opening in late 2010. Roadway access to this station would be accommodated on Belt Line Road, Broadway Street, and Interstate Highway (IH) 35E, which is located approximately 0.25 miles west of the station. Local streets and sidewalks and the Cotton Belt Dallas County trail will accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access. Figure 3 -13 shows the transportation facilities near this station. 3.4.5 Addison Transit Center Station The proposed Addison Transit Center Station would be located at the Addison Transit Center in Addison. The Addison Transit Center currently serves as a DART bus transit center. Cotton Belt Corridor rail construction would trigger plans for expanded local feeder and circulator bus services. Belt Line Road, Arapaho Road, Addison Road, Quorum Drive, and the Dallas North Tollway, located approximately 0.50 miles east of the station; accommodate roadway access to this potential station. Local streets and sidewalks and the Cotton Belt Dallas County Trail would accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access. Addison hosts several festivals annually at the Addison Circle Park, located less than 0.25 miles north of the potential station location. Figure 3 -14 shows the transportation facilities near this station. 3.4.6 Knoll Trail Station The Knoll Trail Station would be located near the intersection of Knoll Trail and Arapaho Road in the city of Dallas. Knoll Trail, Keller Springs Road, Arapaho Drive, Belt Line Road, and the Dallas North Tollway (located approximately 0.25 miles west of the station) can accommodate roadway access to the potential Knoll Trail Station in Dallas. Local streets and sidewalks and the Cotton Belt Hike and Bike trail would accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access. Dallas has designated on- street bicycle routes along both Keller Springs Road and Arapaho Drive. Additional local feeder bus service for this station to supplement the existing bus service will be considered for this station. Figure 3 -14 shows the transportation facilities near this station. April 2010 3 -21 -=- KtEL-L-ER�SPRINGS-RD_---' - FRANKF_ORD :RD 344 7 0 jJ r 0: o { ARAPAHO-RD r t _ —eCCooulnlin(y ' I T — - Dallas } Q'( t i It � t - �3 -/361; 3 �_ 47 I " K I t _w .;- 2.,....- 362 =:883 r_ 333 �w rn -• -- -° -- - -- ---- - - -^-- � - - �- w� I - -- - F----- - -- --- - 31:_..7� BI - -T L -INE i D x400 M t t O it Addison Transit Center & Knoll Trail Station Renner Village Station r r �3 v 4." — -' �ff � o _RENNER =RD r unm y p�i U � �j�" County oil v Preston Road Station UTD /Synergy Park Station Legend Potential Station •• - DCTAA -train —I— THE Airports Denton i Collin U El Location Lakes County County DART Blue Line Potential Frisco Line � L� ® t _ _ t_ 0 0.75 0.3 as 0.9 Red Line Stations DART Green Line Potential McKinney Line �, Station Study Areas � mm_,_,_,,,_—_ Potential Cotton Belt Line Wes — — Potenital Waxahachie Line Corridor Study Area DART Orange Line _ Potential SW2NE Corridor — Highways/Tollways Cn'. County Limits Tarrant Dallas t _ _ _ • • Transit Bus Route DART Red Line — o -- Regionally Significant 0 City / Town Limits County t County Planned Bike /Pedestrian Facility Major Arterials ! 8 Existing Bike /Pedestrian Facility Minor Arterials Key Map 0 North Central Texas e e • _ • Council of Governments Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 3.4.7 Preston Road (SH 289) Station The potential Preston Road Station in Dallas would be located at the intersection of Preston Road and Keller Springs Road with roadway access provided by both. Local streets and sidewalks and the Cotton Belt Hike and Bike Trail would accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access. Dallas has designated on- street bicycle routes along Keller Springs Road in the area near the station. Additional local feeder bus service for this station to supplement the existing bus service would be considered for this station. Figure 3 -14 shows the transportation facilities near this station. 3.4.8 Renner Village Station The proposed Renner Village Station would be located between Dickerson Street and Coit Road. McCallum Boulevard, Coit Road, Hillcrest Road, and Frankford Road would accommodate the primary roadway access to the potential Renner Village Station in Dallas. The PGBT is located approximately 0.75 miles north of the potential Renner Village Station location. Local streets and sidewalks and the Cotton Belt Hike and Bike, Preston Ridge South, Rowlett Creek Central, and Rowlett Creek North Trails, would accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access. Dallas also has designated on- street bicycle routes along McCallum Boulevard, Meandering Way, and Frankford Road in the area near the station. Additional local feeder bus service for this station to supplement the existing bus service will be considered for this station. Figure 3 -14 shows the transportation facilities near this station. Plans are being developed to redevelop Dickerson Street and the surrounding neighborhood into a "complete street" concept. Complete Streets are roadways designed and operated to enable safe, attractive, and comfortable access and travel for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transportation users of all ages and abilities are able to safely and comfortably move along and across a complete street. Proponents claim Complete Streets create a sense of place and improve social interaction, while generally improving property adjacent land values. Dickerson Street will be the first Complete Street project in Dallas. 3.4.9 University of Texas — Dallas (UTD) /Synergy Park Station The potential UTD /Synergy Park Station location in Richardson would be within 0.50 miles of the PGBT, with local access via 'Waterview Parkway, Renner Road, Point North Parkway, Synergy Park Boulevard, and Floyd Road. Local streets and sidewalks and Rowlett Creek North Trail would accommodate bicycle and pedestrian access. Richardson has designated on- street bicycle routes along Floyd Road, Synergy Park Boulevard, Point North Parkway, and Renner Road in the area near the station. Additional local feeder bus service for this station to supplement the existing bus service will be considered for this station. Figure 3 -14 shows the transportation facilities near this station. April 2010 3 -23 J •,,,,� �, _ _ „843 _ _ _ �"'� jt/ � u PLAN0•PKWY ---i ! i a -- 0 i 1 1 I i .Y �1'It• Q. + � �'•( - _) (_ S � - _ :, w...._ - .,�� -..,t; - { t -350 - ; 15TH -�- ;; r' tr- 14TH•ST- -�—. -� -Z -- �, .-�i �_ 883 - �Q- ••..` -' j .. _ - _Qt- -_ sRENNER -RU" -_, �.� -- - _ r _ �t �i -� 1 f,_ _{_A. _--.. � !� �. art : w,,,.+wd'-- "- �..i�" C7°""7 '1 t� r t i - �°"'j t t � w - - - - �'• -"'!� - •�,_- Bush Turnpike Station Downtown Plano Station PARKE 'RD '�;"i+,•tJ,. _. � r t Y ��' -, - •:� � � _ . � 1�`—' i t „pay, 5�t'"" i�� s` _r 15TH ST� - - 15TH +ST S - - ` - - -, - - i r� ....� a f - 11 j _ �I I 4 14TH ST FM+ROAD 1 2514'" "'r 1 I ., �'- ,'- - - „ - -- - i "•ik• J _ _ 1--"'r i'1 Q -'� ' t t P h UJI it +._ _ 3 - t. t. - ____ :___•.- � ,� 41 0--� RK BLVD oo - a . .. J - - - 841-1 1 �, J - �r- - - - -- - __- -- --- r _. )y J r. 7` �.. 84 - PLANO PKWY, 12th Street Station Parker Road Station Legend Potential station --. -- DCTAA -train THE Airports Denton + Collin U a Location - DART Blue Line Potential Frisco Line Lakes County County Red Line Stations Potential McKinne Line "' Station Study Areas 0 0.15 0.3 0,6 o.9 DART Green Line y „sx maes Potential Cotton Belt Line - - Potenital Waxahachie Line Corridor Study Area x `I o DART Orange Line i Potential SW2NE Corridor Highways/Tollways C-1 County Limits Tarrant ° Dallas DART Red Line _ • • Transit Bus Route Count + County Regionally Significant Arterials Q City /Town Limits y ` y � Planned Bike /Pedestrian Facility Major Arterials $ Existing Bike /Pedestrian Facility - - - - -- Minor Arterials Key Map o North Central Texas - 1131 Council of Governments T • i Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 3.4.10 Bush Turnpike Station Located on East PGBT approximately 0.50 miles from the North Central Expressway and the PGBT interchange in Richardson, a network of one -way frontage roads accommodates access to the Bush Turnpike Station. Bicycle and pedestrian access as identified in the regional veloweb plan is on the Rowlett Creek North and North Duck Creek Trails. Direct pedestrian and bicycle access to the facility is currently provided by the local street network. DART feeder bus service is in place for this station and will be expanded if demand warrants. A new platform would provide the connection between the DART Red Line and the Cotton Belt Corridor for rail transit users. Figure 3 -15 shows the transportation facilities near this station. 3.4.11 12th Street Station The potential 12th Street Station would be located on 12th Street between Avenue J and Avenue K within 0.50 miles of North Central Expressway in Plano. Major arterials near the station include 14th Street, 15th Street, K Avenue, and L Avenue. Bicycle and pedestrian access as identified in the regional veloweb plan is on the Lavon Link Trail. Plano has plans for designated on- street bicycle routes along F Avenue, G Avenue, I Avenue, N Avenue, O Avenue, Summit Avenue, 10th Street, and 16th Street. Direct pedestrian and bicycle access to the facility is currently provided by the local street network. Additional local feeder bus service for this station to supplement the existing bus service will be considered for this station. This location could serve as a connection between the DART Red Line and the Cotton Belt Corridor for rail transit users, using a bi -level station design. Figure 3 -15 shows the transportation facilities near this station. 3.4.12 Downtown Plano Station Located on 15th Street and Avenue J within 0.50 miles of North Central Expressway in Plano, the local street network provides direct access to the Downtown Plano Station. Major arterials near the station include; 14th Street, 15th Street, K Avenue, and L Avenue. Bicycle and pedestrian access as identified in the regional veloweb plan is on the Lavon Link Trail. Plano has plans for designated on- street bicycle lanes along E Avenue, F Avenue, G Avenue, I Avenue, N Avenue, O Avenue, 16th Street, and 18th Street. Direct pedestrian and bicycle access to the facility is currently provided by the local street network. DART local transit feeder bus service is in place for this station and will be expanded if demand warrants. This location could serve as a connection between the DART Red Line, the proposed McKinney Rail Corridor, and the Cotton Belt Corridor for rail transit users. This station location poses potential issues due to right -of -way constraints and vehicle technology obstacles which may eliminate Alternatives 2, 3, and 8. Figure 3 -15 shows the transportation facilities near this station. 3.4.13 Parker Road Station Located on Archerwood Street between Park Boulevard and Parker Road within 0.50 miles of North Central Expressway in Plano, the local street network provides direct access to the Parker Road Station. Major arterials near the station include, Parker Road, Park Boulevard, and K Avenue. Bicycle and pedestrian access as identified in the regional veloweb plan is on the Lavon Link Trail. Plano has plans for designated on- street bicycle lanes along Central Parkway and Archerwood Street adjacent to the station. Several off - street facilities along Spring Creek Parkway, approximately 0.50 miles south of the station also provide access. Direct pedestrian and bicycle access to the station is currently provided through the local street network. DART local transit feeder bus service is in place for this station and will be expanded if demand April 2010 3 -25 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study warrants. This location could serve as a connection between the DART Red Line, the proposed McKinney Rail Corridor, and the Cotton Belt Corridor for rail transit users. This station location poses potential issues due to right -of -way constraints and vehicle technology obstacles which may eliminate Alternatives 2, 3, and 8. Figure 3 -15 shows the transportation facilities near this station. 3.5 RAIL OPERATIONS Proposed Cotton Belt Corridor operations would be similar to current THE rail service operations. Rail service would be provided between 5:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. with non - service hours reserved for maintenance. During peak periods (weekday mornings from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and afternoons from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) rail service would operate with twenty - minute headways. During the off -peak operating periods (mid -days between 9:00 am to 3:00 p.m., evenings from 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m., and weekends) the route is planned to operate with 60- minute headways. Regional rail passenger service and freight service operations would coexist within various Cotton Belt Corridor segments. It is assumed one track would be dedicated for passenger service and a shared track would be maintained for both passenger and freight service. However, some sections may have single track to minimize impacts if service can be accommodated within the operating plan. The separation between the tracks and vehicle type considered would meet FRA and FTA requirements. The proposed operating concept would be reviewed and modified within the next project development phase. Currently land is vacant on the north side of the Cotton Belt Corridor east of the DART Red Line. This location could serve as a vehicle lay -over facility. Additional analysis in the next project development phase will determine the best location for a vehicle lay -over facitlity. 3.6 BUS OPERATIONS Currently, DART operates 33 bus routes within the study area, with many routes providing east/west service. According to the DART 2030 Transit System Plan, enhanced bus services are recommended within the corridor along Preston Road and express bus services along the Dallas North Tollway. Under its current operation, the Addison Transit Center would be the busiest station for bus service. In general, some bus routes would serve a feeder bus role. Bus routes and headways would be adjusted to match needs associated with the rail service schedule. Operations within the corridor will be evaluated in the next project development phase for possible modifications to provide connections to new stations within the corridor. 3.7 COSTS Conceptual capital costs were estimated for the eight build alternative scenarios considered in this study. DART Capital Cost Methodology, recent THE construction bids, and previous work efforts from the NCTCOG Regional Rail Corridor Study (RRCS) and Rail North Texas efforts were the basis for unit and line item costs. The information and methodology contained in DART Capital Cost Methodology are in accordance with FTA guidelines for the preparation of capital cost estimates. Cost estimate items are grouped based upon the FTA Standard Cost Categories (SCCs) for major capital projects. These include: April 2010 3 -26 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study • Guideway and track elements (including bridge structures and potential grade separations) • Station, stops, terminals and intermodal • Support facilities: yards, shops, administrative buildings • Site work and special conditions • Systems • Right -of -way, land, existing improvements • Vehicles • Professional services • Unallocated contingency Assumptions included as part of the conceptual capital cost estimates are: • A grade separation is suggested if a crossing is a major arterial that is /or expected to carry more than 40,000 vehicles per day or is a six -lane divided facility. • In areas along the corridor where a new bridge structure and /or replacement of an existing structure is needed for creek or stream crossings (approximation based upon previous study of existing stream /wetland crossings within corridor). • Station locations proposed to include parking, 300 parking spaces per station is included in the cost estimates. Some station locations will not have parking and will be further studied in the next project development phase. • All capital cost estimates have been developed using current year (2009) dollars. • Unit costs are based on averages of costs for similar recent construction in the DFW region. • As recommended by DART Capital Cost Methodology, a 30 percent design contingency is added to the civil engineering cost estimate to cover possible unit cost changes as projects progress through various design development stages. • A 10 percent construction contingency is added to the estimated construction cost estimate to cover unforeseen costs incurred during construction. • As recommended by DART Capital Cost Methodology, a 32 percent add -on allowance is added to construction cost estimates for professional services to cover administrative costs. These values reflect the DART cost to provide administrative services and are capitalized against the project. • As recommended by DART Capital Cost Methodology, right -of -way is estimated to be approximately four percent of the estimated construction costs for regional rail. This does not include the right -of -way presently owned by DART and generally represents land typically needed for stations and station access. • An additional one percent of construction cost is added to cover potential environmental mitigation not incorporated into the design. Cost estimates include all infrastructure items: track installation, land acquisition, stations, parking, signal system installation, and equipment acquisition. Cost assumptions do include elevated or sub -grade sections along the corridor. A detailed grade separation analysis will confirm if the addition of passenger rail service would pose the need for the proposed grade separations in the next project development phase. Infrastructure requirements were identified at a conceptual level based on proposed alignments. For example, the quantity of track needed is based on the proposed route length and available existing track along the corridor. Table 3 -5 provides a capital costs summary by cost category (guideway, stations, vehicles, etc.) for each alternative. Detailed worksheets based on the DART Capital Cost Methodology were April 2010 3 -27 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 3 — Development of Alternatives Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study developed to calculate capital cost estimates for each alternative. Each worksheet includes the relevant alternative elements by unit costs for each item. Detailed worksheets providing capital cost estimate information for the corridor are provided in Appendix A. Table 3 -5 Capital Cost Estimate Summary Alternative Rail Ca ital Cost in Millions 2009 Dollars 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Length Miles 25.4 26.3 44.6 25.4 24.8 25.1 25.4 44.7 Eastern Terminus Station Bush Turnpike Parker Road McKinney North Bush Turnpike Bush Turnpike 12 Street Bush Turnpike McKinney North Guideway $120 $125 $220 1 $120 $135 $126 $124 $215 Stations $40 $45 $80 $40 $40 $40 $45 $85 Yard & Shop $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 Sitework & Special Conditions $130 $130 $140 $130 $130 $163 $130 $140 Systems $45 $55 $77 1 $45 $45 $50 $50 $75 Allowances $295 $305 $435 $295 $300 $320 $300 $440 Right-of-Way $14 $16 $22 $14 $19 $20 $20 $22 Vehicles $103 $121 $173 $103 $103 $103 $103 $195 Unallocated Contingency $50 1 $50 $50 $50 1 $50 $50 $50 $50 Grand Tota12 $800 $850 $1,200 $800 $825 $875 $825 $1,225 Cost Per Mile (in million $ ) $31.66 $32.04 $26.42 $31.66 $33.01 $34.46 $32.11 $26.93 Source: NCTCOG, DART — March 2010 Notes: 1. Allowances were calculated by summing the Design Contingency, Construction Contingency, DART Add -on Allowance, and Environmental Allowance in the detailed capital cost worksheets in Appendix A. 2. Numbers are rounded and are slightly different from detailed estimates. April 2010 3 -28 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Chapter 4 summarizes the social, economic, and natural environmental resources within the Cotton Belt Corridor study area (see Section 1.4). These resources include: • Transportation system • Land use • Zoning • Socio- economic indicators • Community facilities • Cultural resources • Parklands • Recreational areas • Regulated material sites • Air quality • Noise • Vibration • Water resources • Biological resources • Waters of the US • Soils • Geology • Energy This information was developed using the best available data from federal and state resource agencies and local governments. This information was developed to help understand the existing environmental conditions within the corridor and to assist with early identification of potential issues and opportunities along the corridor. The data also provides a foundation for future environmental studies. Appendix B provides a more detailed accounting of this information along with the legal and regulatory context, methodology /research, existing conditions, and when available, future projections and plans. 4.1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM To be efficient and effective, the proposed Cotton Belt Corridor will need to be integrated into the existing transportation system of roadways, transit routes, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, railroads, and aviation facilities. Data collection to document the existing conditions of, and proposed changes to, the transportation system within the Cotton Belt Corridor came from a variety of sources. The primary data source regarding the transportation system's existing conditions and proposed improvements is the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Dallas -Fort Worth (DFW) region, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T). April 2010 4 -1 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 4.1.1 Roadway System According to the 2000 United States (US) Census, over 90 percent of workers in the DFW region traveled to work in a car, truck, or van. When motorcycles, buses, and taxis are included, the percentage of work trips that utilize the roadway system is over 93 percent. The regional roadway network is primarily comprised of limited access highways and other federal and state principal highways and arterials. Several regionally significant arterials pass through the Cotton Belt Corridor study area. Figures B -1 and B -2 in Appendix B show the major highways, toll roads, and regionally significant arterials within the study area. The major facilities generally parallel to the Cotton Belt Corridor are Interstate Highway (IH) 635, International Parkway [State Highway (SH) 97)], SH 121 and the President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT). Figures B -3 and B-4 in Appendix B illustrate the travel demand model identified level of service (LOS) for roadways, including regionally significant arterials, within the study area. The regional travel demand model indicated various IH 635 segments were operating at LOS D, E or F in 2007, while various segments on the tolled corridors (SH 97, SH 121 and the PGBT) operated at LOS C or better. Facilities generally perpendicular to the corridor are IH 35E, US 75 (North Central Expressway), SH 114, and the Dallas North Tollway (DNT). These facilities generally were operating at LOS D, E, or F in 2007. There are several roadway improvement projects planned within the study area as shown in Tables B -2 and B -3 in Appendix B. Two major corridor improvements fall within two miles of the study area, IH 635 and SH 121. Most major projects include the addition of tolled or managed lanes. Travel time improvements associated with additional capacity are distributed among system users based on the users ability to pay for access to the tolled or managed lanes. Figure B -5 in Appendix B shows the locations of planned projects on highways, toll roads, and regionally significant arterials. As shown in Figure B -6 in Appendix B, the Cotton Belt Corridor passes through areas currently experiencing moderate to severe congestion. It is likely congestion levels will be more severe by 2030, even if all planned projects, including the Cotton Belt Corridor passenger rail line, are constructed. Figures B -7 and B -8 in Appendix B depict the projected LOS for roadways within and near the study area in 2030. By comparing the projected 2030 congestion levels to 2007 levels, the LOS trend for the study area roadways is consistent with the regional trend. 4.1.2 Transit System The Cotton Belt Corridor study area falls within the service area of two transit providers: DART and The T. Data describing the existing and near -term expansion of transit routes and ridership was provided by DART and The T. NCTCOG provided information regarding the long -range regional planning for bus transit and passenger rail projects. Currently, DART operates most transit service provided within the study area. The DART Red Line light rail transit (LRT) runs north -south near the eastern terminus of the Cotton Belt Corridor and has been operational to its current northern terminus at Parker Road Station in Plano since 2002. Table B-4 in Appendix B lists the 33 DART bus routes passing through some portion of the study area including: five local routes; three express routes; 10 transit feeder lines; six cross -town bus routes; and nine special or shuttle routes, including those serving Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport (DFWIA). Figures B -9 and B -10 in Appendix B show the April 2010 4 -2 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study transit services currently provided within the study area. With the exception of existing and future LRT stations, the Addison Transit Center is the only park- and -ride facility within the study area. Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) also provides transit service in the study area. The Commuter Express serves passengers traveling to downtown Dallas from park- and -ride locations in Denton and Lewisville and from the University of North Texas (UNT) campus in Denton. Reverse commute trips northbound from downtown Dallas stop at the DART North Carrollton Transit Center, the Lewisville Park and Ride, LINT, Texas Woman's University (TWU), and the DCTA Central transit center. In the study area DCTA Commuter Express bus service passes through the study area with zero stops. Figures B -9 and B -10 in Appendix B identify these routes. In addition to existing LRT service provided by the DART Red Line, DART and The T are constructing or planning new passenger rail lines within the study area. Table B -5 and Figures B -9 and B -10 in Appendix B illustrate the proposed passenger rail projects. The DART Green Line (Northwest Corridor) is a new LRT line currently under construction and projected to be fully operational in December 2010. The DART Green Line generally follows the former Union Pacific Railroad (UP) right -of -way connecting Carrollton to southeast Dallas. The T is developing a regional rail project known as the Southwest -to- Northeast (SW2NE) Rail Corridor project. The proposed regional rail line follows portions of the Fort Worth and Western Railroad (FWWR), UP, and the DART -owned Cotton Belt tracks. The SW2NE Rail Corridor project extends from southwest Fort Worth at approximately Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, continues through Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWIA. This rail line could connect directly with the Cotton Belt Corridor rail line at the DFWIA North (A/B Terminal) station. 4.1.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities exist at several locations within the study area. Municipalities with existing or planned facilities include Addison, Carrollton, Coppell, Dallas, Grapevine, Plano, and Richardson. NCTCOG also has a future planned regional network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities detailed in the Regional Veloweb. The primary bicycle and pedestrian data sources include NCTCOG and the most recent comprehensive plans for the previously named municipalities. NCTCOG maintains the data describing the existing and planned regional bicycle and pedestrian facilities associated with the Regional Veloweb initiative. The Regional Veloweb is a 644 -mile, designated off - street trail network planned to provide bicycle and pedestrian connections in the DFW Metroplex. Figure B -11 in Appendix B shows the locations of existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements in the study area. There are many portions of the Regional Veloweb planned for inclusion into existing active freight rail corridors, including the Cotton Belt Central and Cotton Belt Dallas County trails, which follow almost the entire alignment of the Cotton Belt Corridor rail line. Tables B -6 through B -8 in Appendix B lists the existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the study area. April 2010 4 -3 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Approximately 46 miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities are currently operational within the study area. Most of the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities are located in the eastern half of the study area. Several municipalities within the study area have planned expansions to their local bicycle and pedestrian trail systems. Plano has committed to approximately 15 miles of additional on- street bicycle lanes within the city limits. Dallas, Grapevine, Plano, and Richardson have identified 15 total additional miles of off - street bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 4.1.4 Freight The existing roadway system accommodates most freight movement within the study area. There are approximately 18 weekly freight train round trips on the Cotton Belt rail line and additional activity on rail lines intersecting the Cotton Belt. The primary data sources are NCTCOG and TxDOT. The TxDOT data describes the freight rail system, while NCTCOG data tracks the locations of freight intensive facilities, freight oriented developments (FODs), and Free Trade Zones (FTZs). Figures B -12 and B -13 in Appendix B illustrate the locations of freight rail facilities within the study area. The study area has a large concentration of freight intensive facilities including four industrial parks, 133 warehouses, 27 distribution centers, 31 manufacturing centers, and one terminal. These facilities are concentrated mainly in three portions of the study area: near DFWIA in Grapevine, Irving, and Coppell; south of the Cotton Belt rail line in Carrollton, Farmers Branch, and Addison; and east of the northern study area in McKinney. Access to freight rail service was an important location factor for many of these facilities. Another important regional freight system component are federally designated FTZs where goods are considered outside of US Customs territory. Within FTZs, goods can be stored, distributed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, and repackaged prior to officially entering US Customs territory. There are two FTZs within the study area, one for DFWIA (FTZ #39) and one of its satellite FTZs (FTZ #39 -G). Also identified are FOD areas. A FOD is an area that consolidates manufacturing, warehousing, distributing, and freight forwarding operations in a location with ready access to a multimodal transportation network allowing efficient and effective goods movement. The Valwood Business Park in Carrollton is the only FOD within the study area. Owned by DART, the Cotton Belt rail line provides active freight rail service throughout the study area and accounts for 23.2 miles (71 percent) of main line freight rail trackage. At the proposed Downtown Carrollton station location, both UP and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) main lines cross the Cotton Belt rail line. In addition, a Kansas City Southern (KCS) main line crosses the Cotton Belt rail line in Richardson. The study area contains one rail yard, the Mercer Yard in Carrollton, near the junction of the Cotton Belt rail line with the UP and BNSF lines. Mostly owned and operated by DART, the Cotton Belt Corridor includes numerous spurs that serve freight rail customers from the main rail lines. Table B -9 in Appendix B details the lengths of freight rail tracks within the study area broken down by owner and facility type. As noted in Section 3.2.4, the Surface Transportation Board (STB) has deemed freight service abandoned between Knoll Trail Station and the Renner Junction. April 2010 4 -4 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study In the study area, the only planned change in the goods movement system is the potential expansion of truck lane restrictions along the IH 35E and US 75 corridors; each identified by NCTCOG for potential long -term intercity truck lane restrictions. If implemented, the proposed expanded truck lane restrictions along these facilities would not allow trucks with three axles or more in the left -most lane except in areas within one -mile of a left exit or entrance to the facility. There has been no timeframe identified for the implementation of additional truck lane restrictions for these corridors. 4.1.5 Aviation Two primary commercial service airports serve the DFW region, DFWIA and Dallas Love Field. DFWIA and Fort Worth Alliance Airport handle the majority of air cargo traffic within the region. Airport data sources include NCTCOG, TxDOT, and the individual airports. TxDOT tracks near - term improvements to aviation facilities statewide as part of the Unified Transportation Plan (UTP); the most recent version released in 2007, which covers 2007 through 2017. There are two public use airports within the study area, DFWIA and Addison Airport. Figure B -12 in Appendix B shows the location of these facilities. The dominant airport for both passenger and air cargo services for the region, DFWIA, is a major intermodal transportation hub and important regional employment center. According to its most recent annual report, Addison Airport is transitioning from a small general aviation facility to a regional reliever airport. The UTP identifies improvements to the Addison Airport, which focus on updating the runway, lighting, signage, and automated approach path indicators. The DFWIA master plan calls for the near -term addition of taxiways on the north and south ends of the existing runways. Construction of additional runways is included in the long -term plan. DFWIA is planning transit rail connections to the airport terminal from the DART Orange Line LRT and The T SW2NE Rail Corridor project. 4.1.6 Travel Patterns Commuting patterns and major activity centers within the study area and throughout the region were reviewed for potential interactions with the Cotton Belt Corridor. The data for this section comes from the US Census Bureau and NCTCOG. Data compiled from both the 1990 Census and 2000 Census indicate travel patterns have changed over time. According to the 2000 Census, 71.5 percent of employees work within their county of residence, and only 36.6 percent work within the city or town where they reside. For the 2000 Census, the Dallas -Fort Worth Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) central cities were Arlington, Dallas, Denton, Fort Worth, and Irving. About 45 percent of study area residents work in one of these five central cities. Respondents to the 2000 Census reported almost 92.0 percent of commuters used a car, truck, or van; with 81.1 percent of the commutes consisting of drive alone trips and the other 10.9 percent in two or more person carpools. Among workers, the other methods reported by at least 1,000 workers for accessing employment and their overall share of commutes were working from home, 3.8 percent; walking to work, 2.0 percent; and public transportation, 1.2 percent. Travel time to work for study area residents was generally lower than the region as a whole. Approximately 42.0 percent of study area residents have commutes of 20 minutes or less, while only 37.3 percent of commuters in the DFW region arrive at their place of employment within 20 April 2010 4 -5 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study minutes. Similar differences were observed for commutes of 30 minutes, 66.1 percent for study area residents versus 58.3 percent for the DFW region. After 45 minutes, 89.9 percent of study area residents have reached their place of employment compared to only 82.3 percent of commuters in the DFW region. Table B -10 through B -12 in Appendix B shows how study area residents compared to DFW residents by place of work, mode choice travel patterns for employment related trips, and travel time range. The geographical distribution of places of employment for workers in the study area remained stable between 1990 and 2000, as did mode choice. The largest change in employment distribution is reduction of workers commuting to a central city and an increase in commuting to suburban area jobs. The trend in travel times for commuters indicates workers in the study area are taking longer to get to their places of employment. The NCTCOG regional travel demand forecast model includes detailed information regarding special trip generators, such as shopping malls and hospitals that attract more trips to an area than other developments with similar levels of employment. There are several special trip generators within the study area: DFWIA, the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD), Collin Creek Mall, Prestonwood Town Center, and the Plano Rehabilitation Hospital. 4.2 BUILT ENVIRONMENT The built environment describes the land use, zoning, socio- economic conditions, community resources, cultural resources, park and recreation areas, and regulated material sites within the study area. 4.2.1 Land Use and Zoning The project study area encompasses portions of Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties and the municipalities of Carrollton, Coppell, Dallas, Grapevine, Irving, Plano, Richardson, and Addison. Table 4 -1 identifies various land use types within the study area. Over 24 percent of the study area is classified undeveloped land with residential areas accounting for the majority of developed land. Figures B -14 and B -15 in Appendix B graphically illustrate the land use in the Cotton Belt Corridor area. Table 4 -1 2005 Land Use Land Use Type Acres of Land Use Percentage of Land Use Residential 7,821.58 27.01% Govern ment/Educational 3,332.32 11.51% Commercial 3,397.62 11.73% Industrial 1,565.86 5.41% Infrastructure 588.46 2.03% Airports 2,523.61 8.71% Dedicated 1,908.70 6.59% Water 833.95 2.88% Undeveloped 6,986.58 24.13% Total* 28,958.681---1"1'650% Source: NCTCOG GIS Land Use, 2005 * Total may be different due to rounding. April 2010 4 -6 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 4.2.2 Socio- Economic Existing socio- economic conditions in the Cotton Belt Corridor includes community facilities, employment, economics and developments, environmental justice populations, and limited English proficiency (LEP) populations. Table 4 -2 shows the population, race, and ethnicity for Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant counties and the study area. Table 4 -2 2nnn Fthnirifv r_mmnf%aMr %r% Characteristic White Black American Indian Asian Native Hawaiian Other Race Two or more Hispanic' Collin Count Population 400,181 23,561 2,323 34,047 230 20,957 10,376 50,510 Percent 81.40% 4.80%1 0.50% 6.90% 0.00% 4.30% 2.10% 10.30% Dallas County Population 1,294,769 450,557 12,499 88,369 1,277 311,504 59,924 662,729 Percent 58.40% 20.30% 0.60% 4.00% 0.10% 14.00% 2.70% 29.90% Tarrant Coun Population 1,030,208 185,1431 8,300 52,594 2,522 131,393 36,329 285,290 Percent 71.20% 12.80% 0.60% 3.60% 0.20% 9.10% 2.50% 19.70% Sltudv Area Population 203,287 15,891 1,185 23,513 127 18,300 6,906 45,666 Percentl 75.50% 5.90% 0.40% 8.70% 0.10%1 6.80% 2.60% 17.00% .74UIl.C. US Census, LVUU ' Hispanic persons are not considered a separate race and may belong to any race, which is why the percentages do not add up to 100 percent. 4.2.2.1 Ethnicity There were 57 census tracts identified in the study area for the Cotton Belt Corridor as shown in Figures B -16 through B -18 in Appendix B. The study area has approximately 32.1 percent minority population, which includes Hispanic persons; compared to approximately 22.5 percent minority for Collin County, 54.8 percent minority for Dallas County, and 36.9 percent for Tarrant County. The ethnic composition of the study area is approximately 75.5 percent White, 17.0 percent Hispanic (or Latino), 8.7 percent Asian, 5.9 percent Black/African- American, 0.4 percent American Indian /Alaska Native and less than 0.1 percent Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. The study area exhibits a higher percentage of ethnic minorities over Collin County, but has less percentage of ethnic minorities than Dallas and Tarrant Counties. Although the study area is not classified as minority, eight specific census tracts were identified as having majority minority populations (319.00, 137.13, 137.14, 137.17, 137.18, 141.12, 137.19, and 137.13). Table B -18 in Appendix B shows population and race by census tract. 4.2.2.2 Age The median age of residents within the study area is 35 years; the median age in Collin County is 33 years, Dallas County 31 years, and Tarrant County 32 years. Approximately 30 percent of study area residents are under 18 or older than 64 years. This is lower than all three counties in the study area; Collin County had 34 percent, Dallas and Tarrant Counties had 36 percent of their population under 18 or over 64 years. This population cohort represents non - drivers or infrequent drivers who tend to be more dependent on mass transit and carpooling for mobility. April 2010 4 -7 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study In addition, the study area has a higher percentage than Collin County for average of households that do not have an automobile available, but is lower than Dallas and Tarrant Counties. Table B -19 in Appendix B details this information. 4.2.2.3 Poverty Levels According to the 2000 Census, average median household income in the study area of $64,515 is lower than Collin County at $70,835, but is higher than Dallas County at $43,324 and Tarrant County at $46,179. The poverty rate for the study area is also higher than Collin County, but lower than Dallas and Tarrant Counties. Using 2000 Census data and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definition of low- income household, 33 census tracts out of 57 were determined to have low- income residents. These census tracts are located in the three study area counties. Table B -19 in Appendix B shows median household income and poverty levels for each census tract in the study area. 4.2.2.4 Language Census tract data for "Ability to Speak English for the Population Five Years and Over" indicates an average of 6.7 percent of the residents in the study area speak English "Not Well" or "Not At All." The average for Collin County was 3.5 percent, Dallas County was 11.2 percent, and Tarrant County was 6.0 percent. Of those persons who did not speak English well, Spanish was the preferred language. Tables B -21 and B -22 in Appendix B shows data from the 2000 Census including languages spoken by the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) population over five years of age from the 51 census tracts in the study area. 4.2.3 Community Resources This section discusses major activity centers, employment, and community facilities. 4.2.3.1 Major Activity Centers Major activity centers and developments are defined as places employing over 100 employees at one location and /or a building structure with over 100,000 square feet of space. The study area has over 660 major activity centers and developments: • Three cultural • 45 education • Four government • 32 hotel /motel • 211 industrial • 10 institutional • 147 multi - family • Four mixed -use • 136 office • Three recreational • 62 retail • One service • Five single - family April 2010 4 -8 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Notable major activity centers in the study area include Addison Airport, DFWIA, and UTD. All three of these facilities are regional destination points. Table B -23 in Appendix B lists the number of existing major activity centers in the study area by type and municipality. 4.2.3.2 Employment Major employment centers are defined as 250 employees or more at a single location. There were 72 major employers identified within the study area. Table B -24 in Appendix B lists the major employers in the study area. Plano had the highest number of major employers with 20, Carrollton has 15 major employers, and the remaining eight cities have seven or less major employers. There are 10 major employers with over 1,000 employees; three of these companies are located in Richardson, two are located in Plano and one each in Addison, Carrollton, Coppell, Grapevine and DFWIA. DFWIA is a major employment center. American Airlines /AMR located at DFWIA has 11,842 employees, which is over 9,000 more employees than any other employer on the list. 4.2.3.3 Community Facilities There were 119 community facilities identified within the study area, categorized into 10 distinct types: • Cemetery • Cultural facilities • Educational • Emergency services • Governmental • Medical facilities • Nursing homes • Places of worship • Recreational facilities • Transportation Table B -25 in Appendix B lists the number of community facilities by city /town. The majority of community facilities focused on educational and recreational uses. 4.2.4 Cultural Resources Identified in the study area are 28 known cultural resources. Tables B -26 through B -29 and Figure B -19 though B -22 in Appendix B depicts the locations that include: • Two nationally registered districts • One museum • 18 historical markers • Seven cemeteries Specific archeological data was not obtained for the study area; however, there were 38 archeological projects conducted in the study corridor by other projects spread among six of the nine cities /towns in the study area. April 2010 4 -9 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 4.2.5 Parks and Recreation Identified were 88 parks and recreational areas. There are two greenbelts, two preserves, and one nature area designated by the cities /town. The features database returned 16 different types of facilities in the nine municipalities in the study area. Table B -32 in Appendix B lists the name, type, and location of each facility. 4.2.6 Regulated Materials Identified were 12 landfill sites and two mining sites in the study area; no radioactive or Superfund sites were identified. Of the 12 identified landfill sites, two were closed and are no longer used as disposal sites. Four sites were unauthorized landfill sites with no permitting for disposal or dumping. These sites would most likely be a source of hazardous contamination because of the deficiencies in regulation for dumping and disposal and the type of waste disposed. The remaining six identified landfills were active, authorized landfills with registered permits with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for waste disposal. Figures B -23 through B -24 in Appendix B show the location of the potential hazardous materials sites in the Cotton Belt Corridor study area. 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS This section describes environmental conditions within the study area in terms of air quality, noise, vibration, water resources, biological resources, waters of the US, soils, geology, and energy. 4.3.1 Air Quality Air quality is a regional problem, not a localized condition. The study area is designated as a moderate nonattainment area for the eight -hour ozone standard by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The NCTCOG eight -hour ozone nonattainment region includes Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties. Hood, Hunt, and Wise Counties are also currently under review by the EPA for nonattainment for eight -hour ozone standards. Directly related to the formation of ozone is emissions from motor vehicles and point sources. The primary pollutants from motor vehicles are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides (NOx). There are no sensitive receivers within the study area; however, two sensitive receivers are within the planning area. Table B -34 in Appendix B lists the four highest daily maximum eight -hour ozone concentrations recorded annually from 2000 to 2009 at the Dallas North No.2 [Continuous Air Monitoring Station (CAMS) 63] and Grapevine Fairway (CAMS 70) monitoring stations, which are the closest active monitoring stations to the study area. 4.3.2 Noise The 2005 land uses described in Appendix B, Section B.2.1 were used to determine the amount of acres of potential noise sensitive land uses surrounding the existing Cotton Belt Corridor rail line. Within the 250 -foot buffer, 177 acres (15.6 percent) were identified as residential land use, 70 acres (6.2 percent) were identified as parkland use, 53 acres (4.3 percent) were identified as institutional land use, and two acres (0.1 percent) were identified as hotels or motels. This totals 302 (26.2 percent) acres of potential noise sensitive land use within the study area. In April 2010 4 -10 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study addition, the existing Cotton Belt rail line has freight activity. This freight activity is light and the existing land use areas have adapted to the light to moderate freight rail noise surrounding the existing rail line. 4.3.3 Vibration GIS data for 2005 land use determined the amount of acres of vibration sensitive land uses surrounding the existing Cotton Belt rail line. In the study area, no Category 1 land uses were identified. Category 2 land uses totaled 179 acres (15.7 percent) which included residential land use, hotels, and motels. Category 3 land uses totaled 123 (10.5 percent) acres which included institutional buildings (such as government buildings) and park and recreational facilities. Each of the identified land use types could contain specific vibration sensitive receivers. Figures B -14 through B -15 in Appendix B identifies the noise sensitive land uses for the study area. 4.3.4 Water Resources Two major floodplain districts cover the study area: the Northwest Dallas County Flood Control District and the Trinity River Authority. A total of 3,700 acres of 100 -year floodplain is located in the study area. In addition, 2,000 acres of 500 -year floodplain were identified. These floodplains are located around the numerous streams that cross the project study area as shown in Figures B -30 through B -33 in Appendix B. The largest floodplain area occurred along the Elm Fork Trinity River, which crosses the Cotton Belt rail line near the intersection of the rail line and the PGBT. Numerous streams cross the project area. These streams included unnamed tributaries and aqueducts. Larger streams include Brent Tree Creek, Bowman Branch, Canyon Creek, Cottonwood Branch, Cottonwood Creek, Elm Fork Trinity River, Grapevine Creek, Hutton Branch Creek, McKamy Branch East Fork, McKamy Branch, Perry Branch, Pittman Creek, Rawhide Creek, Rowlett Creek, Shawnee Park Pond, Silver Lake Branch, South Creek, Spring Creek, and White Rock Creek. Two major water districts encompass the study area. Richardson and Plano are included in the North Texas Municipal Water District. The Upper Trinity Regional Water District includes Carrollton. The remaining municipalities are not a part of a water district but manage their water as separate municipalities. Two major water body segments occur in the study area: Elm Fork Trinity River below Lewisville Lake (segment ID 0822) and Grapevine Lake (segment ID 0826). The Elm Fork Trinity River is listed on TCEQ 2008 303(d) list for impaired water body segments. Downgradient effects to this section of the Elm Fork Trinity River include bacterial contamination. All municipalities within the study area have Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permits. Dallas and Plano have medium or large MS4 permits (Phase 1). Carrollton, Coppell, Grapevine, Richardson, and Addison have small MS4 permits (Phase 2). As development and growth continues in the project area, the potential for additional impacts to water quality may occur. April 2010 4 -11 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 4.3.5 Biological Resources The study area is contained in two major ecological areas: the Blackland Prairies on the east and the Cross Timbers and Prairies on the west, as well as two ecoregions: Eastern Cross Timbers and the Northern Blackland Prairie. Additionally, identified in the study area are three vegetation types from the Vegetation Types of Texas. Table B -38 in Appendix B list the acreage and percent of vegetation type in the study area. The majority of the study area falls into the "crops" category with approximately 16,843 acres (47.8 percent). Grassland types covered approximately 6,277 acres (17.8 percent) while urban areas accounted for approximately 12,097 acres (34.4 percent). Tables B -38 and B -39 in Appendix B describes the vegetation type and typical species found in each vegetation type and where the distribution of the vegetation type occurs. Figures B -34 and B -35 in Appendix B also illustrate the vegetation types. A search through the Natural Diversity Database (NDD) from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) was conducted for the study area for potential threatened and endangered species, species of concern, protected species, and vegetation series. The search yielded one occurrence in the study area; a rookery, ID number 3672. Last known observance was 1990. As the study area becomes more developed, biological resources would decline. Vegetation and wildlife habitat would be converted to urban and suburban areas based on future population growth as described in Chapter 2. Creation of parks and green space could offset any permanent impacts. Impacts to threatened and endangered species could occur if it were determined their habitat would be impacted by future growth. Although some species would lose habitat, some have adapted to living within an urban environment if the right combination of surrounding foraging areas remain; such as the Interior Least Tern species, which nests on the gravel rooftops of buildings. 4.3.6 Waters of the US, Including Wetlands Numerous streams intersect the project area, including one major river, the Elm Fork Trinity River. Over 305,000 linear feet of major streams were identified in the study area. Table B-40 in Appendix B lists the linear footage by stream. The longest stream located in the study area was Grapevine Creek at approximately 44,000 linear feet. This stream originates near DFWIA and travels east, joining the Elm Fork Trinity River south of the study area. Ephemeral and some intermediate streams will require field investigations in subsequent environmental studies. Approximately 130 acres of wetlands and lakes exist within the study area. Lakes accounted for less than two percent of the study area, with the majority located along the fringe of the study area. The exception was North Lake, with over half of the lake within the study area. There were very few wetlands identified in the study area. Most wetland areas were located in proximity to the Elm Fork Trinity River. Table B -41 in Appendix B shows acreage of wetlands and lakes in the study area and the percent of the entire study area they encompass. Figures B -36 and B -37 in Appendix B show the locations of the potential wetlands. April 2010 4 -12 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 4.3.7 Soils and Geology The study area lies on top of three major geological formations: the Austin Chalk, the Eagle Ford Formation, and the Woodbine Formation. Other minor geological units included water, alluvium, and terrace deposits. Two aquifers occur in the study area: the Trinity Aquifer and the Woodbine Aquifer. Figures B -38 and B -39 in Appendix B show the locations of these geological features. The soils located within the study area were described and mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The study area contained 84 unique map unit types. These map units are condensed into 20 separate soil series and three non - series soils. Table B -42 in Appendix B details soils in the study area. Figures B-40 and B -41 in Appendix B graphically display the soil series in the study area. Additional land development could change the soils in the study area. During land development the top layer of soil could be disturbed and altered beyond its existing properties. While these changes could occur to the top layers of soil, the deeper soil horizons would remain unchanged in the future. 4.3.8 Energy Energy use for transit projects is described by converting vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to British Thermal Units (BTUs). The NCTCOG 2009 traffic performance reports for the region reported an average daily VMT for the nine - county region at 158,372,194 miles travelled. This daily VMT converts to 987 billion BTUs of energy usage. This equals approximately 170,195 barrels of oil per day for the DFW region. The study area will see an increased consumption of energy as the population and area becomes denser. More vehicles and more VMT will increase the amount of energy required for the region and the study area. April 2010 4 -13 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 4 — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This Page Intentionally Left Blank. April 2010 4 -14 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 5 — Funding Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 5.0 FUNDING Chapter 5 provides an overview of current transportation infrastructure funding in the Dallas -Fort Worth (DFW) region and the current revenue projections and shortfalls in rail transit funding. Potential funding sources proposed for consideration by regional decision - makers are highlighted. Also included is Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) innovative efforts in seeking a public - private partnership (PPP) to help fund expedited corridor implementation. Lastly, selected funding sources utilized by other transit providers are described. 5.1 CURRENT REVENUE SOURCES The Cotton Belt Corridor, as detailed in Section 1.4, is being studied from Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport (DFWIA) to the corridor's connection with DART's Red Line light rail transit (LRT) service. In the corridor study area there are six municipalities within a transit service area. Five municipalities are in the DART service area, one municipality is in the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) service area, and one municipality is not in a transit service area. DART local funding is derived from a 1.0 cent sales tax from the City of Dallas and 12 additional municipalities within Collin and Dallas Counties. The T utilizes a 0.5 -cent sales tax as their local funding source from the Cities of Blue Mound, Fort Worth, and Richland Hills. Grapevine is also a T member city under a special agreement allowing Grapevine to provide a 0.375 -cent (3/8 -cent) sales tax for the purposes of providing passenger rail service within the city. Table 5 -1 provides a current local government funding sources summary for the regional transit providers. Table 5 -1 Local Aaencv Fundinn Sniircac Source: NCTCOG, DART, FWTA, and DCTA, 2009 DART founding legislation specifies any city adjoining Dallas or a DART member city is eligible to join the DART service area. A 1.0 cent sales tax is currently required to become a DART member city. Many cities have dedicated all available sales tax revenues for other purposes; therefore, sales tax revenues are not available for the purpose of joining a transit service area for many of the current non - member municipalities. Figure 5 -1 illustrates the Cotton Belt Corridor study area within existing transit service areas. April 2010 5 -1 Local Government Amount _ Service Area Agency Funding Source cents Cities Addison, Carrollton, Cockrell Hill, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Garland, DART Sales tax 1.0 Glenn Heights, Highland Park, Irving, Plano, Richardson, Rowlett and University Park Sales tax 0.5 Blue Mound, Fort Worth, The T and Richland Hills Sales tax 0.375 Grapevine Denton County Transportation Sales tax 0.5 Denton, Highland Village Authority DCTA) I and Lewisville Source: NCTCOG, DART, FWTA, and DCTA, 2009 DART founding legislation specifies any city adjoining Dallas or a DART member city is eligible to join the DART service area. A 1.0 cent sales tax is currently required to become a DART member city. Many cities have dedicated all available sales tax revenues for other purposes; therefore, sales tax revenues are not available for the purpose of joining a transit service area for many of the current non - member municipalities. Figure 5 -1 illustrates the Cotton Belt Corridor study area within existing transit service areas. April 2010 5 -1 727 D�eWon ------------- r -------- ------ �._- Collin•- °-� // Coc nt - - - -77 - l t.,7nl -a Lake ' � ._,_ 1 . _ { 1 _' 1 f/ /fir �• Y I / - - - - - - - - 0 1 Tara, i 1 County ,- / /C'OUn1y `,✓ J._,f._._,J /�'L. �1 ° /i'°...:�.1� 1 ••i i 1 1 i 774 i 0 0 727 360 f t - �_- 4,_._,_.:._ ' _, y _._.�- _,_,_.�.,_,_, /_. ,..,_.� --� -' '•/ �-• %/" . i 1 354 4 Legend Denton Collin 13 Potential Cotton Belt Stations 7 DCTAA -train -}- THE 0 DART Service Area County O � County 0 0s 1 2 3 DART Blue Line - Potential Frisco Line ® DCTA Service Area - -r - - -- -- Mlles Potential DART Red Line Connection DART Green Line - Potential McKinney Line Q City/ Town Limits = O Other Rail Stations - Tarrant Dallas - ��l Potential Cotton Belt Line DART Orange Line - Potenital Waxahachie Line -_j County Limits County County Potential SW2NE Corridor DART Red Line Highways/Tollways Airports - - Major Arterials [_ Lakes Key Map North Central Texas • Council of Governments ��,,,Belt Corridor Conceptual Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 5 — Funding Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 5.2 REVENUE PROJECTIONS The DART 2030 Transit System Plan was developed within long -range financial plan constraints. The DART 2030 Transit System Plan indicates full funding of capital and operating requirements would support a revenue service date of 2027 for the Cotton Belt Corridor. The DART 20 -Year Financial Plan within its Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Business Plan anticipates Cotton Belt Corridor construction will begin in 2025 with revenue service in FY 2028. However, regional stakeholders have requested passenger rail service in the corridor as early as 2014. This timeframe corresponds with projected revenue service date for the Southwest -to- Northeast (SW2NE) Rail Corridor project. Completing both the east (DART) and west (The T) segments concurrently will provide a greater benefit than completing the segments separately. The DART FY 2010 Business Plan indicates the Cotton Belt Corridor is not fully funded in 2014 and will require additional funding sources to meet the requested 2014 service date. 5.3 POTENTIAL FUNDING METHODS This section describes the potential public funding sources, legislative initiatives, and public - private- partnerships (PPP). 5.3.1 Public Funding Sources From 2004 to 2009, various committees and studies organized or supported by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) have examined potential funding sources for transportation facility implementation. The following describes numerous potential public funding sources. 5.3.1.1 Access Fee A fee assessed on non - residential taxable property (per square foot) located near transit facilities. This fee is similar in concept to a Business Improvement District (BID) where a specified boundary is established near a station for assessment purposes. This fee could be incorporated with property taxes to implement passenger rail service. 5.3.1.2 Bond Anticipation Note Bond anticipation notes are short-term bonds issued by governments and corporations anticipating the proceeds of a larger future bond. Issuing entities use the notes as short-term financing. 5.3.1.3 Capital Leasing Transit agencies generally use capital leasing to help with purchasing transit vehicles. In general, capital leasing is a lease that meets one or more of the following criteria: • The lease term is greater than 75 percent of the property's estimated economic life. • The lease contains an option to purchase the property for less than fair market value. • Property ownership is transferred to the lessee at lease term expiration. • The lease payments present value exceeds 90 percent fair market value. April 2010 5 -3 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 5 — Funding Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 5.3.1.4 Debt Service Reserve with Federal Transit Administration Cash reserves set aside by a borrower to ensure full and timely payments to bond holders. An agency must first issue bonds, equal to approximately one -year of debt service payments to support an eligible transit capital project. The agency can then apply for 80 percent reimbursement. 5.3.1.5 Driver's License Fee Increase A fee assessed to individuals for a drivers license renewal. Currently, driver license fees are a State of Texas General Fund revenue source. Legislative action would be required to use any driver license fee to implement passenger rail service. 5.3.1.6 Emissions Fee A surcharge applied to personal vehicles during annual inspection. Currently, fees collected are deposited into the General Fund with 60 percent of fees collected allocated to the Texas Air Control Board. All or a portion of the funds collected could be used to implement passenger rail service. Legislative action would be required to transfer the funds provided by the surcharge for use in implementing passenger rail service. 5.3.1.7 Fare Box Revenue Bonds The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21) authorized the use of farebox revenues and anticipated grant receipts as collateral for revenue bonds. Revenue bonds can only be backed by farebox revenues if the level of state and local funding committed to transit for the three years following the bond issue are higher than the funds that were committed in the three years prior to the bond issue. Agencies must identify another source of funds for operating expenses before issuing a revenue bond. The Metropolitan Atlanta Regional Transit Authority (MARTA) is the only agency of five transit agencies surveyed to use farebox revenue bonds. 5.3.1.8 Grant Anticipation Notes Revenue bonds backed by anticipated grant receipts. Grant Anticipation Notes (GANs) were enabled by the establishment of program funding firewalls in TEA -21. Principal and interest on GANs are eligible to be repaid with FTA capital funding. Proceeds raised by a GAN can be used for the local match for a FTA supported project. 5.3.1.9 Hotel Room Rental Tax Levied as a percent of the total rate on hotel room rentals. A municipality or county may impose a local hotel room rental tax rate, in addition to the state tax, for the sole purpose of promoting tourism and the convention and hotel industry. Legislative action would be required to dedicate a hotel room rental tax to implement passenger rail service. 5.3.1.10 Local Option Motor -Fuel Sales Tax Levied on the quantity of motor fuel purchased within a specified local government jurisdiction. The local option motor -fuel sales tax allows local governments a choice to levy an additional April 2010 5 -4 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 5 — Funding Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study motor -fuel tax. State legislative action would be required to implement any additional motor -fuel tax and for the revenue generated to be allocated to implementing passenger rail service. 5.3.1.11 Local Subsidy Option Allows a municipality the option to raise revenue from designated sources. The local subsidy could be a surcharge to local services (e.g., trash collection, utilities). All or a portion of the funds could be used to implement rail passenger service in a municipality. Legislative action would be required to enable local governments the ability to institute a local subsidy option and dedicate revenues for implementing passenger rail service. 5.3.1.12 Mobility Improvement Fee A proposed fee added to the annual vehicle registration fee. Legislative action would be needed to implement the increase and allocate revenues to passenger rail service. 5.3.1.13 Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Levied on all retail motor vehicle sales in Texas. The tax would also be levied on motor vehicles purchased at retailers outside the state and used on Texas public highways by a Texas resident. Currently, the revenues from this tax are placed within the state Foundation School Fund or the General Fund with small amounts retained at the county level. Legislative action would be needed to redirect these funds to passenger rail service. 5.3.1.14 New Resident Impact Fee Applied to new residents registering a vehicle in the State of Texas for the first time. Currently, a fee of $90 is paid, in addition to new resident vehicle registration fees. Revenues from this tax are combined with revenues from the motor vehicle sales tax and are used for the state Foundation School Fund or the General Fund. Legislative action would be required to use these funds for passenger rail service. 5.3.1.15 Parking Fee Allows municipalities who own and /or operate parking facilities to impose a surcharge by the space and by the hour at city -owned parking lots and garages. A similar fee could be levied as a percentage of total parking charges to parking operators in a municipality, regardless if the operator is publicly or privately owned. All or a portion of collected revenues could be used to provide a share of the cost needed to implement passenger rail service in a municipality. 5.3.1.16 Payroll and Self Employment Tax This option is currently used in the State of Oregon where a percentage of wages paid by an employer and /or the net earnings from self - employment are taxed with proceeds used for services within a transit service boundary. The rate increases annually by 1/100 of a percent for a 10 -year period currently set to conclude in 2014. Legislative action would be required to implement this fee as a funding source and for revenues generated to be used for passenger rail service. April 2010 5 -5 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 5 — Funding Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 5.3.1.17 Property Tax A local tax imposed on individual properties. Property tax is typically the largest single funding source for many community service providers (e.g., schools, police, fire, hospitals). Local legislative action and potential voter approval would be required to allocate or increase funds for implementing passenger rail service in a municipality. 5.3.1.18 Public Improvement Districts The Public Improvement District (PID) Assessment Act (Chapter 372 of Local Government Code) allows any city to levy and collect special assessments on property within the city or within the city's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Uptown Dallas is considered a PID and provides civil improvements to the uptown area. While no Texas transit agencies are considered PIDs, a PID could be established to provide improvements in the acquisition, construction, and improvement of transit facilities. 5.3.1.19 Real Estate Transfer Tax State and local taxes assessed on real property when property ownership is transferred. Currently, there is no statewide real estate transfer tax. Legislative action would be required to implement this fee as a funding source and the funds generated from this source to be used for passenger rail service implementation. 5.3.1.20 Regional Toll Surcharge An additional flat rate fee per trip on designated toll facilities. The surcharge could be pooled and used for implementing passenger rail services. Possible legislative approval, in addition to approval and agreements between implementing toll road and transit agencies, would be required. 5.3.1.21 Rental Vehicle Tax A tax imposed on the gross rental receipts from the temporary lease of vehicles. Currently, rental vehicle tax revenues are combined with revenues from the motor vehicle sales tax and are placed within the state Foundation School Fund or the General Fund with small amounts retained at the county level. Legislative action would be needed to redirect these revenues to passenger rail service implementation. 5.3.1.22 Sales Tax Currently, the state sales tax is capped at 8.25 percent. The state sales tax is 6.25 percent and local governments can collect up to two percent. Municipalities have many uses for sales tax revenue, including city services, property tax reduction, economic development bonds /incentives, and transit services. Many municipalities utilize the full amount of local sales tax allowed, thus these municipalities are unable to contribute sales tax revenues to implement transit service. Legislative action would be required to raise the existing state sales tax cap to provide a funding source for passenger rail service. April 2010 5 -6 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 5 — Funding Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 5.3.1.23 Special Purpose District Special purpose districts (SPD) are taxing entities created to generate revenue for a specific reason such as crime control, libraries, or emergency services. Several transit agencies nationwide are considered a SPD, but none in the State of Texas. The Triangle Transit Authority in North Carolina is an example of a regional transit agency providing passenger rail service across multiple municipalities within three Raleigh /Durham /Research Triangle Park region counties. Legislative action would be required to allow special purpose districts as a funding source and for revenues generated to be used for passenger rail service. 5.3.1.24 State Infrastructure Bank The State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) is a revolving fund created and established by a state department of transportation with the capacity to offer direct loans and various lines of credit to enhance surface transportation projects. Special accounts have been established in 21 states to assist transit project funding. The SIB program helps accelerate project delivery by allowing the SIB to borrow funds instead of waiting for grant funding to be approved. The State of Texas currently has a SIB loan program. 5.3.1.25 Surface Coverage Fee The surface coverage (or storm water) fee is a tax levied per square foot on impervious surfaces in a given area, such as building footprints and parking lots. The surface coverage fee could be imposed within a given area or region for the intended purpose of implementing passenger rail service. Currently, this tax is not imposed in the region or the state. Legislative action would be required to implement this fee as a funding source and for revenues generated to be used for passenger rail service. 5.3.1.26 Tax Increment Financing District A Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District is a tool local governments can employ to publicly finance needed infrastructure within a defined area. The cost of improvements to the area is repaid by the contribution of future tax revenues by each taxing unit levying taxes against the property. Traditionally TIF funds are generated and used for rail stations and station areas. 5.3.1.27 Tire Tax A tax imposed on the purchase of passenger vehicle tires, in addition to the sales tax collected. Currently, this tax is not imposed in the region or the state. Legislative action would be required to implement this fee as a funding source and for revenues generated to be used for passenger rail service. 5.3.1.28 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA) — The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998 (TIFIA) established a federal credit program for eligible transportation projects of national or regional significance under which the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) may provide three forms of credit assistance — secured (direct) loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit. The program goal is to help attract new investment capital to transit projects incapable of generating sufficient revenues through user charges or dedicated funding sources. Eligible projects April 2010 5 -7 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 5 — Funding Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study through this program must meet certain criteria. For example, a minimum project cost of $50 million and federal funding for the project cannot exceed 33 percent of the eligible cost. 5.3.1.29 Turnkey Service Turnkey, in general is a product or service designed, supplied, built, or installed fully complete and ready to operate. Under this scenario, the transit agency would enter into an agreement with a private sector company to construct and build the transit facility. Upon completion, the agency will take charge of operating and maintaining the facility. This method may be used with a public /private partnership. 5.3.1.30 Vehicle Miles Traveled User Fee A fee charged to vehicle owners based on miles driven rather than the traditional fuel consumption method. A vehicle miles traveled (VMT) user fee would require vehicles to install monitoring equipment to calculate the total number of miles traveled over a given period. The fee would be assessed to the registered vehicle owner with revenues used to implement passenger rail service. In many states, this fee is being proposed as an infrastructure funding mechanism to replace the motor fuel tax. Enabling legislation has not been enacted by any state or at the national level. 5.3.1.31 Vehicle Property Tax A vehicle property (or ad valorem) tax is levied on the fair property value of a vehicle. This tax is assessed as a percentage of estimated worth and would be limited to personal passenger vehicles. Currently, this tax is not imposed in the region or state. Legislative action would be required to implement this fee as a funding source and for revenues generated to be used for passenger rail service. 5.3.1.32 Vehicle Registration Fee An annual assessment on vehicle ownership collected in Texas through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Local fees are assessed and collected by the County Tax Assessor - Collector's office. Legislative action would be needed to direct these revenues to implement passenger rail service. 5.3.2 Legislative Initiatives Several locally sponsored initiatives to the State Legislature over the past six years have proposed legislation to allow residents within the DFW region an option to provide passenger rail service. When the Texas Local Option Transportation Act (TLOTA) was sent to the region's legislative delegation for the 2009 Legislative Session, six funding options were provided for review and possible legislative adoption. The local option fees would have included one or a combination of: • New resident impact fee • Mobility improvement fee • Drivers license fee • Local option gas tax • Parking fee April 2010 5 -8 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 5 — Funding Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study • Emission fee Five of these six options are current fees collected and deposited into the State's General Fund for various uses. One initiative proposed that each option considered would have all or a portion of the increased revenues dedicated to implement passenger rail service within the DFW region. The initiative did not receive legislative approval during the 2009 Legislative Session. These options would require legislative action to dedicate certain sources toward implementing passenger rail service in the region. In the next project development phase, all potential funding sources should be evaluated to determine which source or sources will best benefit the region in implementing passenger rail service. 5.3.3 Public- Private Partnerships A PPP is a contractual arrangement formed between public and private sector entities. Such an arrangement typically provides for extensive private sector participation in the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and /or financing of an infrastructure project. Under a PPP, public facility or system ownership is typically retained by the public entity. The private entity generally invests its own capital for design and development. A PPP, although a contractual arrangement, differs from a typical service contract in that the private entity makes a significant, at -risk, equity investment. In a PPP the public entity gains access to new revenue or service delivery capacity without providing up -front construction financing. DART began a PPP initiative in June 2009 by obtaining information through a request for information (RFI) from interested parties for the Cotton Belt Corridor. Based on the information gathered, DART staff is developing a business case for the Cotton Belt Corridor. DART has met with many respondents seeking feedback on various items relating to technical issues, procurement, governance, financing, and project funding. Some PPP benefits include an accelerated project delivery process and improved service quality. If DART concludes the information gained from the RFI process is useful, the agency may continue the process by issuing a request for qualification (RFQ) and finally a request for proposals (RFP). 5.4 FUNDING SOURCES FROM SIMILAR SYSTEMS Several transit agencies around the country were surveyed to gauge the methods employed to fund transit service. Results indicate the DFW region is similar to other metropolitan areas by utilizing a sales tax as the primary local funding source. DFW and the Denver region collect the sales tax at the municipal level while the Atlanta region and San Diego County collect the sales tax at the county level. Table 5 -2 provides a list of transit systems surveyed and the local funding sources used by each. Four of the five of the transit systems surveyed use a percentage of local sales tax to provide transit service. MARTA dedicates 50 percent of sales tax revenues for capital improvements and the remaining 50 percent to daily system operation. The percentage of local funding spent on capital and operating expenses varies by each transit provider. The DART FY 2010 Business Plan estimates 81 percent of sales tax revenues are used for daily operation costs. April 2010 5 -9 01-9 Ol, OZ I!jd`d 60OZ '19W -PI Pue '41ON 'pueil punoS `a12i `Vj2:IVW :aojnoS jopjs!(] jaW ua0aad } 86Lg'0 xel juaw of wo ue o P I� d a u � W -. 1 sjeAoldw3 FXijunoo -119s pue 110JAed .iajup S ba!(] ueS WOO 5L'0 xel sales pool 0691(] ues pue Jajseo(] - (]1 (]N saljunoo yslwogouS xel sales pue a0aa1d Woo Vo 01 E'0 le000910149n JoJoNl alpeas j!suejl punoS `6u1}l 10 seaie ueclin saljuno0 PIaM PUB sel6no(] `9oyedeiy `swept' 10 suol:Pod saljuno0 u0siamer Jua0 9'0 xel sales le0ol aanua(] (]lb pue `a9nu9(] `plagwooig `ioppog . saljuno0 uo;ln j pue gle}la(] `ejueljy 10 Aj!(] }ua0 5.0 xel sales ejuelid vi lvW uol;oallo(] a;ell sao,inoS uol as AouaBV Bulpunj jo lanai Bulpunj Buipunj saoinoS Bulpun.1 leoo-1 AoueBV 4!sueil snol.'en Z -g olgel Apn ;S Bugpund pue Buyeaufflu3 len ;deouoo Bugpund — g as }deyo iop!ajoo ;;aa uopoo Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 6.0 PROJECT COORDINATION The Cotton Belt Rail Corridor Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study (CE & FS) was conducted in a proactive process by the North Central Texas Council of Governments ( NCTCOG) to allow regional stakeholders and agencies to gain knowledge, keep informed, and provide input in the study efforts. Chapter 6 summarizes the coordination efforts and results of those meetings. 6.1 MEETINGS Coordination efforts included two meeting types: Stakeholder /Agency meetings and Corridor Strategy Team Meetings. Stakeholder /Agency meetings included technical staffs representing individual municipalities and transit agencies with a vested interest in the corridor. The purpose of the Stakeholder /Agency Meeting was is to ensure all stakeholder and individual partnering agency needs were expressed and incorporated into the CE & FS as appropriate. The meetings were also an opportunity to answer direct individual partner concerns and to solicit technical input. The Corridor Strategy Team Meetings served as a forum to bring together stakeholder /agency meeting participants, local elected and appointed officials, and the general public. The meetings were designed as a forum to guide the CE & FS and to develop and evaluate alternatives. Table 6 -1 lists all meetings held with these two groups. Table 6 -1 Cotten Reif Cnrridnr Monfinnc Date Meeting Location - . Type of Meeting 12/12/2008 Advancing Rail in North Texas Strategy Meeting — Cotton Belt NCTCOG Office Corridor Strategy Corridor Team 1/23/2009 Advancing Rail in North Texas Strategy Meeting — Cotton Belt NCTCOG Office Corridor Strategy Corridor Team 4/22/2009 Town of Addison Addison Stakeholder /Agency Conference Center 4/24/2009 City f Carrollton y City of Carrollton Stakeholder /Agency Offices 4/30/2009 Billingsley Properties NCTCOG Office Stakeholder /A enc 5/6/2009 City f Dallas y Dallas City Hall — Stakeholder /Agency Plannin Offices 5/6/2009 Cit of Richardson y City of Richardson Stakeholder /Agency Offices 5/7/2009 Collin County tY ollin County Stakeholder /Agency Offices 5/7/2009 City of Coppell City of Coppell Stakeholder /Agency Offices 5/7/2009 City f Plano y City of Plano Stakeholder /Agency Offices 5/21/2009 Dallas Area Rapid Transit NCTCOG Office Stakeholder/Agency 5/22/2009 Advancing Rail in North Texas Strategy Meeting — Cotton Belt NCTCOG Office Corridor Strategy Corridor Team April 2010 6 -1 0LOZ Jpdb O6OZ Ajenjga_� `000loN :oojnoS weal (6a�ea�S aopl�aoa aoi �O JOOlON Copp o a �I a uo 0 O — 6u! as (60 ea lS sexal 41JoN u! Ile2j 6ulouenpb O LOZ /6 L/Z Aoua6b /aaplo4aNeIS sao!}}O 6uluueld sellea 10 40 —IIeH 40 Sellea 0 LOZ /9 L/Z Aoua6b /japlo4aNejs uoslb sao!}0 o umol uos! PPb o uno l 0 LOZ /5 L/Z Aoua6b /aaplo4aNejs sao!}�0 Iladdoa jo 40 Iladdoa 10 �4!0 O LOZ /Z L/Z Aoua6b /aaplo4aNejS sao!}}O oueld 10 AID oueld 10 40 0 L OZ /Z L/Z oua b /aaplo4aNejS 90WO OOa.LON NIsulIeN uo�J uewllounoa sellea OLOZ /LL /Z Aoua6 b/ PI 4 �I }S ja o a e sao!}}O �unoa ullloa �4uno a II u! o O 0LOZ /LL/Z Aoua6b /japlo4aNeIS saol�lO uo1llaaea 10 Ajla uollloijea jo Ajla 0 LOZ/0 L/Z Aoua6b /aaplo4aNejS sao! -4O uosp iegON jo 40 uospae4o!b jo 43 0 L OZ/0 L/Z Joppioa weal �(6a�e��S �opl��oO ao!�O JOalaN 1198 uo}}oa — 6ullaavl �(6a1eils sexal 4PON u! Ile�l 6ulouenpb 600Z/9 L/0 L �(oua6 �a o a e b/ PI 4 �I }S saolO 6uluueld 12iba 4lsuej !de ear se e 1 P b b II a 6007 /Z WO L oua b /japlo4aNejS a0WO JOalaN ANsulleN uo�j uewllounoa sellea 6007/8/0 L Aoua6b 1japlo4a�eIS sao! -4O uluueld —IIeH 40 Sellea sellea 10 Aj!a 6007/8/0 L Aoua6 ja o a e b/ PI 4 �i �S seo!jjO 6uluueld iHvG Ilsuea !de eaa se e 1 P b b II 0 6007 /Z /O L Aoua6b /aaplo4aNejS sao! .4O uospae4ol�l jo 40 u0spae4o121 jo AI!a 6007/ L/0 L �(oua6b /aaplo4a�{eIS SGOW O � junoa U11 100 unoO ullloa 600Z/OE/6 Aoua6b /aaplo4aNejs s931}}0 Iladdoa Jo 40 Iladdoa jo Aj!o 600Z/6Z/6 Aoua6b /aaplo4ajeIS sao!}}p uoslppb }o unnol uos! PPb o unno 1 600Z/8Z/6 (oua6 / ja I o a e �S seo!jjO oueld 10 Ala oue Id o ( ! a 6007/57/6 Aoua6b /Japlo4aNejS sao! -4O u01I10ijea }o 40 u01110iaeO jo ApO 600Z /tiZ /6 oua b /aaplo4aNejS 1 90WO JOalaN I Ilsuejl p! ell eaJb sellea 600Z /ti L/8 uijeeW jo edA.L uol ;e�o� uijeeW a ;ea (penuiluoo) souijeeW jopijjoa;la8 uol;oa 6 -g angel Apn;S Mgpunj pue 6utiaeuiBu3 len;deouoo uos ;eugpaoo3 jeuja ;x3 — g ja;deyo aopuao3 ;196 uo UO3 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 6.1.1 Stakeholder /Agency Meetings Throughout the project there were three rounds of Stakeholder /Agency Meetings, totaling 28 individual meetings. Stakeholder /Agency Meetings were scheduled at project milestones and prior to Corridor Strategy Team Meetings. The purpose of the Stakeholder /Agency Meeting was to inform staff level stakeholders of important project events and milestones. In addition, Stakeholder /Agency Meetings were used to solicit input from stakeholders regarding project elements. The following sections reflect meeting notes from the stakeholder meetings. 6.1.1.1 Round One —April to May 2009 April 22, 2009 NCTOCG staff met with the Addison City Manager, a current Councilmember and a former Councilmember. The town representatives proposed the Addison Transit Center Station be located at the current DART Addison Transit Center. The group toured the area near the DART Addison Transit Center and areas within Addison. Highlighted items include: • Parcels near the DART Addison Transit Center have been reserved for parking and /or transit oriented development (TOD). • Addison Circle Park is viewed as a gateway to the proposed station. • Residential growth is occurring within the city. • There are potential opportunities for additional commercial development and employment growth. April 24, 2009 NCTCOG staff met with Carrollton city staff. This meeting confirmed the Downtown Carrollton Station as the preferred station location for the Cotton Belt Corridor. It was indicated a station at Josey Lane was unnecessary. Also, it is anticipated the Mercer Rail Yard will be relocated to allow access for both the Cotton Belt and Frisco passenger rail lines to be located at the Downtown Carrollton Station and to promote additional development near this new station. April 30, 2009 NCTCOG staff met with the Senior Vice President of Development for the Billingsley Company and a representative from Kimley -Horn & Associates regarding development plans for the proposed Cypress Waters development on the south side of Belt Line Road near North Lake. Proposed plans show development is within Dallas city limits between Coppell and Irving. The plan includes: • Green space surrounding the approximately 1,000 acre lake • Four million square feet of office space • 10,000 housing units (potentially 30,000 units) • Re -align Belt Line Road and the rail line to the south from current locations to allow the station to be built within Dallas city limits The developers presented a tentative timeline completing a portion of the project along Belt Line Road within five years. Development plans have not been presented to Coppell or Dallas for final approval. April 2010 6 -3 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study May 6, 2009 The Dallas Assistant Director of Development Services and other city staff met with NCTCOG staff. City staff provided a review of the DART 2030 System Plan. The Dallas City Council resolution on the Cotton Belt Corridor was discussed. This resolution and system plan both reference preferred station locations at Knoll Trail and Coit Road; and if a station is necessary, Preston Road could be included. City staff noted Dallas Councilman Ron Natinsky wanted to ensure the resolution conditions are met. Councilman Natinsky was concerned the rail corridor conditions within the resolution may not be realized which may jeopardize Cotton Belt Corridor passenger rail line support from north Dallas residents. May 6, 2009 The Richardson City Manager, Director of Development Services, Assistant Director of Development Services, and other city staff met with NCTCOG staff to discuss the Richardson's development plans regarding the Cotton Belt Corridor and station locations. City staff indicated the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) has been in discussions with DART concerning a potential station location near the UTD campus. City staff recommended one station in Richardson to be located at the proposed UTD site. UTD has confirmed the importance of transit, especially with their large student population. City staff noted Jacobs Engineering has been hired to perform an alternative analysis to assist Richardson and UTD to maximize development potential and best position development opportunities. The city envisions the Cotton Belt Corridor would proceed to Plano through the Bush Turnpike Station on the DART Red Line light rail transit (LRT). Richardson no longer recognizes a potential station at Custer Road. The City also informed NCTCOG staff Jacobs Engineering would be evaluating the best alternative for a passenger rail line connection to the DART Red Line in Richardson or Plano. Richardson owns an abandoned rail spur within Plano located in the southwest quadrant of the Cotton Belt Corridor intersection with the DART Red Line LRT. City staff believes if the Cotton Belt rail line and the DART Red Line intersect at the Bush Turnpike Station, opportunities to develop privately owned land surrounding that station could be maximized. May 7, 2009 NCTCOG staff met with the Collin County Engineering Director and a member of the Collin County Planning Board. The purpose of the meeting was to brief county staff on the current project status and to document the county's positions. County representatives deferred to the individual cities for judgment regarding station locations and the eastern terminus alignment. May 7, 2009 The Mayor of Coppell, City Manager, and the Engineering and Public Works Director met with NCTCOG staff to discuss concerns regarding the Cotton Belt Corridor. City representatives did not have an official position regarding the Cypress Waters development, but understand Irving views Cypress Waters as a competitor to planned TOD projects in Irving. Concerns included: • Funding responsibility for relocation of Belt Line Road /railroad tracks and station construction • Additional through traffic generated by the station on Belt Line Road and throughout the neighborhoods April 2010 6 -4 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study • Types of potential mitigation for delays associated with railroad crossings (there are seven at -grade intersections in the city) • Noise • Pollution • Vehicle type City staff gave preference to a below -grade alternative similar to the solution identified for Far North Dallas. The city stressed seeking a balance between receiving benefits from the rail line without causing negative impacts to Coppell and its residents. May 7. 2009 NCTCOG staff met with the Plano Executive Director and City Engineer. The Cotton Belt Corridor was identified as the top priority for the Plano City Council among the three potential passenger rail corridors traveling through the City of Plano. Residents and City Council members understand the importance of connecting to Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport ( DFWIA) and the Town of Addison employment centers. The city believes Bush Turnpike Station would be difficult to access for the majority of city residents. According to city staff, residents would benefit most if the Cotton Belt Corridor included a station at the existing Parker Road Station. May 21, 2009 NCTCOG staff met with the DART rail planning staff to discuss the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting and to coordinate the DART current work efforts with the NCTCOG work efforts. DART staff provided vehicle technology development efforts and Cotton Belt project development effort updates. The group discussed the following topics: • DART staff is developing a schedule for both a federal and non - federal document review focused on completing the project in December 2013 (contingent upon vehicle selection /production and legislative efforts) • Project ridership estimates • The Trinity Railway Express (TRE) may provide dispatch service for the entire corridor (Sycamore School Road to DART Red Line) • Frisco Corridor interaction at the Downtown Carrollton Station • In Dallas, a single track alignment is preferred based on a 2006 Dallas City Council Resolution • Three to five mile station spacing is standard • Funding • DART Board Member concerns • Community input based on DART commitments in Dallas DART staff stated public - private partnership (PPP) success required environmental clearance and 15 percent design plans. The proposed Cotton Belt Corridor PPP will be divided into four segments: Segment 1 — From DFWIA to DART Red Line Segment 2 — Downtown Fort Worth to DFWIA Segment 3 — Sycamore School Road to Downtown Fort Worth Segment 4 — DART Red Line to Wylie April 2010 6 -5 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 6.1.1.2 Round Two — August to October 2009 August 14, 2009 NCTCOG staff met with DART staff to discuss agency coordination efforts regarding the Cotton Belt Corridor project. DART staff informed NCTCOG staff that DART would pursue a General Engineering Consultant (GEC) contract to continue project development efforts following the conclusion of the NCTCOG effort. DART staff also provided a PPP initiative update. September 24, 2009 NCTCOG staff met with Carrollton city staff to discuss the Cotton Belt Corridor goals. The group discussed the DART plan to complete five percent engineering plans by late 2010 in an attempt to open for revenue service by 2013 -2014. Interlining the Cotton Belt Corridor with the DART Red Line LRT on the eastern end is a complex issue. DART is attempting to receive Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) approval to build a crash compliant vehicle for the purpose of operating on the Cotton Belt Corridor. Other concerns facing DART regarding possible interlining with the Red Line LRT include, modifying two existing Plano stations (Downtown Plano and Parker Road) to accommodate different vehicles and how two different vehicles will affect operations. These issues may alter recommendations moving forward to the next Cotton Belt Corridor study. Concerns over how current non - member DART cities could be incorporated into the DART system were raised. The DART Board of Directors (DART Board) will address the member city issue. September 25, 2009 NCTCOG staff met with Plano city staff. The purpose was to inform representatives and seek input regarding data collection efforts. The five alternatives under study and the associated ridership estimates were presented by NCTCOG staff. City staff presented a new potential alignment with a transfer station near 12th Street on the DART Red Line. This option would allow the Cotton Belt Corridor to eventually continue traveling east to the City of Wylie. The estimated volumes at various stations were questioned. NCTCOG staff reported the volumes were calculated with the adopted regional travel demand forecasting model but would be reviewed for accuracy. NCTCOG staff presented the various criteria used to describe the various stations and alignment alternatives. Plano staff suggested categorizing the stations as terminating, mid - section, and interconnection and suggested local preference should be the deciding factor in station location. September 28, 2009 Addison town staff met with NCTCOG staff to discuss the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting and corridor level evaluation criteria. Several questions were posed regarding evaluation criteria including: • What is the definition of an activity center? • Will Addison be needed in evaluating the criteria? • How will water quality be reviewed? • What data will be used to evaluate population and employment? April 2010 6 -6 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Town staff indicated data would be provided as needed. The Town of Addison has proposed to build the station. There were concerns raised that potential stations at Knoll Trail and Preston Road seem too close to the DART Addison Transit Center Station to be efficient. The action items for NCTCOG staff included, providing a list of additional data needs for the evaluation to Addison staff, reviewing the land use projections for the town, determining where the traffic nodes are for the station locations, add station access for paratransit riders, and review funding sources. September 29, 2009 The Coppell City Manager and the Director of Engineering met with NCTCOG staff to discuss the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting. It was suggested discussions be held regarding creation of an Interlocal Agreement designed to accommodate cities that are unable to join the DART system at the full one -cent funding level. Coppell affirmed interest in learning more about this option. Will Coppell be able to leverage city funds to be a DART member city or would Coppell have to wait for service? DART can answer funding questions and it was suggested the City meet with DART to discuss the options. The below -grade option designed to eliminate at -grade roadway crossings was preferred by Coppell. Concerns regarding the anticipated additional traffic on Denton Tap Road, Belt Line Road, and MacArthur Boulevard heading to the rail station through Coppell were expressed. Other topics discussed: • Station and corridor level evaluation criteria • An FRA crash compliant vehicle • 2013 -2014 target date for beginning service Action item for the next meeting: NCTCOG will provide the standard costs for a station. September 30, 2009 NCTCOG staff met with Collin County staff to discuss the corridor /station level criteria. County staff questioned the demographics used for the evaluation. Mobility 2030: the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas -Fort Worth Area — 2009 Amendment (Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment) approved demographics were used for the evaluation. Updated demographics are projected to be available in early 2010; however, this CE & FS will not use the new demographic set. Ridership estimates were also discussed. October 1, 2009 NCTCOG staff met with the Richardson City Manager, Director of Development Services, and Assistant Director of Development Services to discuss the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting and the CE & FS status. It was requested city staff provide feedback regarding station and corridor level evaluation criteria. City staff suggested Alternative 5 be modified to incorporate results from the study being conducted by Jacobs Engineering for Richardson regarding the Cotton Belt Corridor connection to the DART Red Line. This option recommends moving the alignment south of the current eastern terminus in Alternative 5. Portions of the land in the southwest corner of US 75 (North Central Expressway) and PGBT is not considered developable; and this option would allow for more flexibility in planning efforts for an eastern expansion. The city suggested more discussions for eastern terminus options, focused on the advantages and disadvantages for each alternative. The group discussed PPP opportunities for the corridor. NCTCOG staff provided a brief update of DART plans to move forward with the April 2010 6 -7 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study next study despite not receiving clear direction regarding the construction method to be employed (design /build or design /build /operate /maintain). UTD is also awaiting the DART effort on the PPP for a potential station location. It was reiterated that Richardson believes only one station is needed between Coit Road and US 75, the UTD /Synergy Park station, and requested future distributed project information sheets reflect the requested UTD /Synergy Park station only. October 2. 2009 NCTCOG staff met with DART staff. Primary discussion topics included: • DART will have a general planning consultant on board in early January to provide five percent design plans for the Cotton Belt Corridor by end of 2010. • DART is unable to commit to station locations without public involvement and additional technical information. • Costs will be provided in standard cost code categories per FTA guidelines. • DART is pursuing freight abandonment approval from FRA from Knoll Trail to Renner Junction. • Many technical issues regarding regional rail vehicle technology remain unresolved. • Cost for a maintenance yard should be included in the project capital cost estimate. October 8, 2009 NCTCOG staff met with City of Dallas staff to discuss station and corridor level criteria and ridership estimates. City staff suggested the local street network be included as station level criteria as a bicycle and pedestrian network surrogate. City staff identified an alignment along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) line leading to Garland as an additional alternative to be considered and requested the Renner Village Station be moved to Coit Road to make certain the Campbell crossing remained viable. October 8, 2009 NCTCOG staff met with Dallas Councilman Ron Natinsky to provide a project update and to present meeting materials for the next Corridor Strategy Team Meeting. The draft meeting agenda and draft presentation were reviewed. Summary details of proposed development in the Galleria area and northward toward the proposed Knoll Trail Station were provided by the councilman. Councilman Natinsky suggested the Renner Village Station be relocated to the west side of Coit Road at Dickerson Street. Knoll Trail and the Renner Village Station are high priority stations for the City of Dallas. October 12, 2009 NCTCOG staff met with DART staff to discuss the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting and to seek comment from DART staff regarding the CE & FS document approach. DART staff suggested the CE & FS document should be an open, informational document absent recommendations. This approach allows DART staff to keep all options open as innovative funding options are sought for the Cotton Belt Corridor. NCTCOG staff provided a meeting preview and sought comment regarding the draft presentation. NCTCOG staff informed DART staff of recent individual stakeholder meetings. April 2010 6 -8 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 6.1.1.3 Round Three —February 2010 February 10, 2010 NCTCOG staff met with the Richardson City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Director of Development Services, and Assistant Director of Development Services to discuss the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting, the CE & FS status, initial plans for the study to transition to DART for the next phase, and CE & FS document completion for stakeholder review. NCTCOG staff provided city staff a CE & FS document summary, including ridership estimates, potential corridor impacts summary, and capital cost estimates for each alternative. Each alternative is related to an eastern terminus option interface with the DART Red Line in Plano or Richardson. NCTCOG staff requested city staff provide feedback regarding the summary of potential impacts, ridership estimates, and preliminary cost estimates prior to the Corridor Strategy Team Meeting. City staff provided updated information for Alternative 5 from the study being conducted by Jacobs Engineering for Richardson regarding the Cotton Belt Corridor connection to the DART Red Line. City staff suggested the modifications be included in the cost estimates for Alternative 5. February 10, 2010 NCTCOG staff met with Carrollton city staff to discuss the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting, the CE & FS status, initial plans for the study to transition to DART for the next phase, and CE & FS document completion for stakeholder review. NCTCOG staff provided city staff a CE & FS document summary, including ridership estimates, potential corridor impacts summary, and capital cost estimates for each alternative. Each alternative is related to an eastern terminus option interface with the DART Red Line in Plano or Richardson. NCTCOG staff requested city staff provide feedback regarding the summary of potential impacts, ridership estimates, and preliminary cost estimates prior to the Corridor Strategy Team Meeting. City staff confirmed a second station would not be sought for the Cotton Belt Corridor and the city is working with the Carrollton- Farmers Branch ISD to acquire the land needed for the Mercer Rail Yard relocation. February 11, 2010 NCTCOG staff met with Collin County staff to discuss the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting, the CE & FS status, initial plans for the study to transition to DART for the next phase, and upcoming completion of the CE & FS document for stakeholder review. County staff stated there is a real need for passenger rail service in Collin County and planning for future rail lines is important. NCTCOG staff provided an update regarding demographic information and stated new ridership estimates will be provided in the next project development phase. February 11, 2010 NCTCOG staff met with Dallas City Councilman Ron Natinsky to provide a project update and to present meeting materials for the next Corridor Strategy Team Meeting. The draft meeting agenda and draft presentation were reviewed including ridership estimates, a potential corridor impacts summary, and capital cost estimates for each alternative. Concerns regarding the absence of an alternative including all three Dallas locations were raised. Councilman Natinsky summarized details of proposed zoning changes in the area surrounding the Knoll Trail Station and also mentioned that Renner Village Station could be moved to a more central location to April 2010 6 -9 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study allow potential development on both sides of Coit Road to access the station. Councilman Natinsky suggested the following: Cost and ridership information from the west side of the Cotton Belt Corridor be included in the analysis Model a new alternative including all Dallas stations Model a new alternative using the Bush Turnpike Station and continuing northward to Plano and McKinney Councilman Natinsky outlined acceptable conditions for passenger rail service on the Cotton Belt Corridor through Dallas: • Depression of tracks through the corridor • Light Rail New Technology (LRNT) vehicle technology • All three stations must be built in the corridor • The abandonment of freight rail service in Dallas February 12, 2010 NCTCOG staff met with Plano city staff to discuss the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting, the CE & FS status, initial plans for the study to transition to DART for the next phase, and CE & FS document completion for stakeholder review. NCTCOG staff provided city staff a CE & FS document summary, including ridership estimates, potential corridor impacts summary, and capital cost estimates for each alternative. Each alternative is related to an eastern terminus option interface with the DART Red Line in Plano or Richardson. NCTCOG staff requested city staff provide feedback regarding the summary of potential impacts, ridership estimates, and preliminary cost estimates prior to the Corridor Strategy Team Meeting. City staff noted their concerns: • Alternative 3 would be the best solution for rail service if the proposed regional rail vehicles could share the same tracks with LRT vehicles in Plano • An LRT expansion north to McKinney would not be economically feasible and sales tax commitments from towns and cities within the McKinney corridor would stall the project for decades • Alternative 6 should be less expensive than Alternative 5 due to environmental concerns surrounding the Richardson South Option • Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 are expensive and deter the option of eastern expansion to the city of Wylie • Plano would oppose any alternative that proposes terminating LRT service at Bush Turnpike Station and operating only regional rail service to the two existing DART LRT stations within Plano City staff suggested providing additional information on the development of cost estimates, as well as methodology on the project measures used in the summary of potential corridor impacts handout in advance of the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting. February 12, 2010 The Coppell City Manager, Deputy City Manager, and the Director of Engineering met with NCTCOG staff to discuss the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting, the CE & FS status, April 2010 6 -10 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study initial plans for the study to transition to DART for the next phase, and CE & FS document completion for stakeholder review. NCTCOG staff provided city staff a CE & FS document summary, including ridership estimates, potential corridor impacts summary, and capital cost estimates for each alternative. Each alternative is related to an eastern terminus option interface with the DART Red Line in Plano or Richardson. NCTCOG staff requested city staff provide feedback regarding the summary of potential impacts, ridership estimates, and preliminary cost estimates prior to the Corridor Strategy Team Meeting. City staff provided an update on city efforts with the Billingsley Company and Dallas regarding the Cypress Waters development and how Cotton Belt Corridor re- alignment would benefit the city and the development. The city confirmed their interest to have the alignment operate below -grade from west of Denton Tap Road to east of MacArthur Road. City staff reaffirmed their concerns regarding potential surface traffic issues along MacArthur, Moore, and Denton Tap Roads. City staff noted a Town Hall meeting on March 2nd will discuss the Cypress Waters development and how the Cotton Belt Corridor could be incorporated into the development. February 15, 2010 The Town of Addison staff met with NCTCOG staff to discuss the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting, the CE & FS status, initial plans for the study to transition to DART for the next phase, and CE & FS document completion for stakeholder review. NCTCOG staff provided city staff a CE & FS document summary, including ridership estimates, potential corridor impacts summary, and capital cost estimates for each alternative. Each alternative is related to an eastern terminus option interface with the DART Red Line in Plano or Richardson. NCTCOG staff requested city staff provide feedback regarding the summary of potential impacts, ridership estimates, and preliminary cost estimates prior to the Corridor Strategy Team Meeting. Town staff suggested additional mitigation options should be considered while studying each corridor alignment within sensitive communities. Town staff shared concerns regarding the proposed station at Knoll Trail and indicated the distance between the Knoll Trail and the Addison Transit Center is too close. Town staff believes if the concept is regional rail service then stakeholders and decision makers should apply those principles, especially in the case of station locations. February 16, 2010 NCTCOG staff met with Dallas city staff to discuss the upcoming Corridor Strategy Team Meeting, the CE & FS status, initial plans for the study to transition to DART for the next phase, and CE & FS document completion for stakeholder review. NCTCOG staff provided city staff a CE & FS document summary, including ridership estimates, potential corridor impacts summary, and capital cost estimates for each alternative. Each alternative is related to an eastern terminus option interface with the DART Red Line in Plano or Richardson. NCTCOG staff requested city staff provide feedback regarding the summary of potential impacts, ridership estimates, and preliminary cost estimates prior to the Corridor Strategy Team Meeting. City staff provided NCTCOG staff with a copy of the Dallas City Council Cotton Belt Corridor resolution. City staff indicated a trench alignment through the city is critical for Dallas. Resolution items have been taken into consideration within this study and will be addressed in the next project development phase. April 2010 6 -11 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 6.1.2 Corridor Strategy Team Meetings During the study, five Corridor Strategy Team Meetings were held. Meeting summaries for each are found in Appendix C. A summary of each meeting is provided in the following sections. 6.1.2.1 December 2008 The primary purpose of the initial Cotton Belt Corridor Strategy Team Meeting was to introduce the project and begin communications between the stakeholders throughout the corridor. Other goals included gaining consensus for the approach and work program scope. Meeting participants included local government elected and appointed officials, local government staff, transportation agency staff, consultants, and the general public. Participants agreed the NCTCOG Cotton Belt Corridor effort would include only the eastern segments from DFWIA to Plano or Richardson. The western segments from southwest Fort Worth to DFWIA fall under the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) Southwest -to- Northeast (SW2NE) Commuter Rail Corridor study. The meeting included presentations regarding previous Rail North Texas (RNT) efforts and a Cotton Belt Corridor overview including destinations, potential station locations, need for a new vehicle technology, and other sensitive issues. A status report for the SW2NE Commuter Rail Corridor study included information from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as submitted to the FTA for review. Comments were solicited for the proposed work program, specifically, how should the region proceed with the Cotton Belt Corridor regarding study efforts and vehicle technology? Consensus from the participants was to view the corridor at the regional level with respect to vehicle technology and expediting the eastern segment. The intent is to begin revenue service on both the eastern and western segments at approximately the same time. Work program elements were identified to include access to DFWIA, ridership estimates and connections to the DART Green and Red Line LRT services. Connection or interlining with the proposed Frisco and McKinney Rail Corridors also should be examined. Action items from this meeting include: • NCTCOG staff will develop a final work plan to include a list of tasks and assignments with a clear goal and mission statement for stakeholders review. • NCTCOG staff was instructed to share information on TOD initiatives in the region. • Information regarding the Regional Railroad Crossing Banking Program will be presented at the next meeting. • DART will examine closing at -grade roadway crossings in the corridor. 6.1.2.2 January 2009 The meeting purpose was to highlight key issues for corridor stakeholders to consider throughout the study process, including: • PPP opportunities • Coordinating with the Fort Worth and Western Railroad (FWWR) • Receive FRA vehicle technology approval • Access to DFWIA and the interface with the airport transportation system April 2010 6 -12 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study • Opportunities for mixed -use development • Working with residential communities in identifying sensitive sites • Working with railroad companies regarding track use rights • Ridership estimates The Cotton Belt Corridor project is considered time - sensitive and stakeholders were encouraged to quickly address issues with the goal to expedite project implementation. Participants received a brief December 12, 2008, meeting review and were asked to provide comments /revisions to the meeting summary. Comments were solicited on whether two standing committees should be formed, one policy related and one technical related. During the discussion the group determined meetings will be open to all stakeholders with the focus of each meeting stated as technical or policy related. A Cotton Belt Corridor overview was presented. Participants provided several issues regarding access to DFWIA, Orange Line LRT, SW2NE Commuter Rail Corridor, and the airport people mover system. Participants received a status report on initial efforts by DART regarding vehicle technology which is focused on the goal of securing a new rail vehicle for the region. Information on a draft work plan for the corridor and information on the NCTCOG Regional Railroad Crossing Banking Program and Sustainable Development initiatives were also presented. Participants provided feedback on: • The draft work plan • Integration issues with the Cotton Belt Corridor and the DART Red Line LRT • Study integration with full project development schedule efforts coordinated with SW2NE Commuter Rail Corridor project • Vehicle technology evaluation regarding neighborhood sensitivity • A proposal for one vehicle technology to be implemented for the regional rail system Next steps include providing an action item matrix to identify items of concern to be addressed on a parallel effort as the study progresses. 6.1.2.3 May 2009 Status reports for the following were presented: • The T SW2NE Commuter Rail Corridor project • Passenger rail access in the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) corridor • Colleyville's position on the SW2NE Commuter Rail Corridor project and possible prohibition on a station location within the city • DART PPP efforts • DART vehicle technology development efforts • NCTCOG Cotton Belt Corridor study efforts including progress to date, project mission, goals, and objectives • Individual stakeholder meeting summaries regarding potential stations and station issues and concerns April 2010 6 -13 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Participants provided comments regarding vehicle technology efforts, potential station locations, and project work efforts. Next steps include providing a meeting summary, working with Carrollton to advance development in the area, updates on an approach to providing rail access to DFWIA and exploration of long -term expansion considering Wylie and Hunt County. 6.1.2.4 October 2009 The purpose of the meeting was to provide information on study efforts related to the alternatives considered and ridership estimates. Status reports for the following were presented: • SW2NE Commuter Rail Corridor project • DART Request for Information (RFI) on potential PPP initiative • DART vehicle technology development effects • DART efforts to continue corridor implementation after this study • Individual Stakeholder /Agency Meeting summary regarding potential stations and station issues and concerns • Cotton Belt Corridor alternatives, eastern terminus options, and preliminary ridership estimates by station for each alternative Stakeholders provided feedback on each presentation through comments and concerns expressed to DART and NCTCOG staff. The DART PPP initiative is designed to expedite project implementation within the Cotton Belt Corridor. Participants provided PPP presentation comments to better understand obstacles to an effective partnership for the region. Meeting participants interested in the DART PPP procurement process were asked to avoid posing questions in direct conflict to the process. Participants were directed to the DART Web site for more information regarding the PPP initiative. Next steps include continued coordination with local government and agency staff within the study area and to receive comments on the first four chapters of the CE & FS from DART staff. 6.1.2.5 February 2010 The final Corridor Strategy Team Meeting included the following presentations: • The T SW2NE Commuter Rail Corridor project • DART PPP initiative status • Update on LRNT vehicle technology development efforts • Summary of Cotton Belt Corridor CE & FS Findings • proposed station locations • alternative alignments evaluated • capital cost estimates Stakeholders provided feedback on each presentation through comments and concerns expressed to The T, DART, and NCTCOG staff. Participant comments focused on ridership projections, cost estimates, and how to keep opportunities for an eastern extension open. April 2010 6 -14 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 — External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Next steps include distribution of the CE & FS Document to stakeholders for a two -week review beginning February 26, and to coordinate efforts to incorporate bridge construction for the SW2NE Commuter Rail Corridor project over SH 121 and SH 114 into the DFW Connector Project. 6.1.2.6 April 2010 The final Cotton Belt Corridor Committee Strategy meeting was conducted on April 2, 2010, with discussion focused on two primary areas: (1) corridor analysis and results as documented in the CE & FS final report reviewed by all stakeholders and (2) presentation on an innovative finance approach to be investigated on a regional basis led by the Regional Transportation Council (RTC). NCTCOG staff reminded all project stakeholders that the final report does not conclude with any final decisions and /or recommendations, but does set the stage for quick entry into the next phase of engineering and environmental clearance. Resolutions by the DART Board of Directors and The T Board of Directors requesting the RTC to assume to the lead in the innovative finance investigations were adopted previous to this meeting and discussed. 6.2 WEBSITE Information regarding the Cotton Belt Corridor CE & FS is provided through a Web site (www.nctcog.org /trans /spd /transitraii /CtnBIt) which began in December 2008. Project information includes draft reports, meeting information, and NCTCOG staff dedicated to this project. All information on the Web site, was and is, reviewed and updated on a regular basis. April 2010 6 -15 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 6 - External Coordination Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This Page Intentionally Left Blank. April 2010 6 -16 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 7 — Summary Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 7.0 SUMMARY 7.1 STUDY BACKGROUND The Cotton Belt Corridor Conceptual Engineering & Funding Study (CE & FS) began as a supplement to the Rail North Texas (RNT) initiative. The CE & FS was initiated to provide detailed corridor information to public officials, partnering municipality staff, and the public in advance of a potential county -wide transportation project referendum enabled in the proposed Texas Local Option Transportation Act ( TLOTA). After the TLOTA legislation failed in 2009, the Cotton Belt Corridor CE & FS focus switched to enhancing project development efforts by expediting the required environmental document process. Cotton Belt Corridor passenger rail service implementation efforts began with inclusion in the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) DART Final Service Plan in 1983. The first regional prioritization occurred with inclusion in North Central Texas Council of Governments ( NCTCOG) long -range metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) Mobility 2000: The Regional Transportation Plan for North Central Texas (Mobility 2000) in 1986. The Cotton Belt Corridor was selected as the preferred alignment to serve the North Crosstown Corridor as part of the DART 2030 Transit System Plan. Subsequently, the Cotton Belt Corridor was identified in Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas -Fort Worth Area — 2009 Amendment (Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment). In the early 2000's, the region identified funding shortfalls for implementing several regional passenger rail projects, including the Cotton Belt Corridor. Subsequent regional passenger rail program development efforts have included the NCTCOG Regional Rail Corridor Study (RRCS) and the RNT initiative. These efforts were primarily focused on obtaining additional funding from the Texas Legislature for regional passenger rail implementation. The RNT initiative was specifically targeted to gain approval for the TLOTA during the 2009 Texas Legislative Session. Legislative initiatives regarding local transit funding assistance in 2005, 2007, and 2009 failed to gain approval. The region plans to pursue a transit funding initiative during the 2011 Texas Legislative Session. 7.2 PROJECT SUMMARY Table 7 -1 presents an information summary for the No -Build and Build Alternatives. The qualitative information presented was gathered from multiple sources, including stakeholders, previous study efforts, industry standard databases, and staff research. The project measures listed in Table 7 -1 are defined in Appendix D. April 2010 7 -1 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 7 - Summary Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Tahla 7 -1 Summary of Potential Corridor Factors Source: NCTCOG, February 2010 Notes: 1. Based upon feedback from strategy meetings and discussions with strategy team members regarding the eastern terminus options. The complete Cotton Belt system includes the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) Southwest -to- Northeast (SW2NE) Rail Corridor project under study and the Cotton Belt Corridor project detailed in this CE & FS. The system extends from Sycamore School Road in southwest Fort Worth to the DART Red Line light rail transit (LRT) in Plano and Richardson. The T has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and is awaiting permission to proceed to the Preliminary Engineering project development phase. Both proposed passenger April 2010 7 -2 Alternatives No- Project Measure Build 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Length (in miles) 0 25.4 26.3 44.6 25.4 24.8 25.1 25.4 44.7 From (Station) N/A DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA DFWIA Bush Parker McKinney Bush Bush 12`h Street Bush McKinney To (Station) N/A Turnpike Road North Turnpike Turnpike Turnpike North Number of Stations 0 9 10 1 17 9 8 9 10 19 Transit Estimated Daily Ridership 0 6,500 6,600 12,100 5,900 5,600 5,800 6,900 14,600 Linked Regional Transit Trips 297,000 299,000 299,000 296,000 298,000 298,000 304,000 298,000 295,000 Corridor Travel Time (minutes) N/A 35.0 37.9 61.8 35.4 34.2 35.7 1 36.0 65.0 Property Acquisition No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes (ROW Needed for Alignment) Total Cost (million, 2009 $) $0 $800 $850 $1,200 $800 $825 $875 $825 $1,225 Land Use N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Compatible with Local Plans Major Employers N/A 9 13 1 13 9 9 11 9 15 Activity Centers N/A 67 95 95 87 59 79 92 123 Community Facilities N/A 9 17 17 7 8 13 9 18 Historic and Archeological Resources Potential Historical Sites 0 2 11 11 2 5 8 2 17 Potential Archeological Sites 0 18 18 18 18 18 15 18 24 Parks, Trails, and Recreation 0 36 47 47 37 29 39 41 58 Facilities Hazardous /Regulated Materials Landfill Sites 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Air Quality Impact Negative Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive Noise (in linear feet) Potential Sensitive Residential 0 33,275 [36,768 36,768 33,275 34,219 34,328 33,275 36,314 Potential Sensitive Park/Rec. 0 13,422 13,979 13,979 13,422 13,422 13,422 13,422 13,979 Potential Sensitive Institutional 0 9,995 11,341 11,341 9,995 9,645 10,405 9,995 10,935 Vibration (in acres) Potential Sensitive Land Uses Category 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Category 2 0 33,275 36,768 36,768 33,275 34,219 34,328 33,275 36,314 Category 3 0 23,417 25,320 25,320 23,417 23,067 23,827 23,417 24,914 Water Resources 100 -yr Floodplain (linear feet) 0 9,910 9,910 9,910 9,910 12,378 9,910 9,910 12,378 500 -yr Floodplain (linear feet) 0 9,950 9,950 9,950 9,950 9,678 9,950 9,950 9,678 Stream Crossings 0 14 14 14 14 14 14 1 14 14 Ecosystems None None None None None None None None None Constructability Difficulti') I None Low High High I Low I High I High Low High Source: NCTCOG, February 2010 Notes: 1. Based upon feedback from strategy meetings and discussions with strategy team members regarding the eastern terminus options. The complete Cotton Belt system includes the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) Southwest -to- Northeast (SW2NE) Rail Corridor project under study and the Cotton Belt Corridor project detailed in this CE & FS. The system extends from Sycamore School Road in southwest Fort Worth to the DART Red Line light rail transit (LRT) in Plano and Richardson. The T has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and is awaiting permission to proceed to the Preliminary Engineering project development phase. Both proposed passenger April 2010 7 -2 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 7 — Summary Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study rail lines share a common station at the DFWIA Terminal A/B Station. Combining the projects using the SW2NE Locally Preferred Alternative and Alternative 8 as defined in the Cotton Belt CE & FS would result in an 81.7 -mile, passenger rail corridor serving the DFW region. Additional details for a combined system are identified in Table 7 -2. Table 7 -2 SW2NE /Cotton Belt Passenger Rail Svstem Source: NCTCOG, February 2010 " The Cotton Belt costs is in 2009 dollars and the SW2NE is in 2008 dollars Typically roadway performance measures are calculated to determine the proposed transit system's effect on study area facilities. As the Cotton Belt Corridor build alternatives are very similar in scope, differences in roadway performance measures were not identified. Travel demand model use is confined to project viability through transit performance measures. Potential station locations were identified using information gathered from previous study efforts in conjunction with input from corridor stakeholders. Table 7 -3 provides an overview of benefits and challenges for each potential station location. Table 7 -3 Summary of Station Findings DFW Airport Terminal A/B Station Benefits: Cost Per • Connects to the DART Orange Line and Annualized The T SW2NE corridor Length • DFWIA connection Mile Annual Cost Per Corridor miles Cost in million $ Ridership Rider Cotton Belt Alternative 8 44.7 $ 1,225,000,000 $ 26.9 4,088,000 $ 20.98 SW2NE 37.0 $ 531,300,000 $ 14.4 3,634,400 $ 10.23 Combined 81.7 $ 1,756,300,000 $ 21.5 7,722,400 $ 15.92 Source: NCTCOG, February 2010 " The Cotton Belt costs is in 2009 dollars and the SW2NE is in 2008 dollars Typically roadway performance measures are calculated to determine the proposed transit system's effect on study area facilities. As the Cotton Belt Corridor build alternatives are very similar in scope, differences in roadway performance measures were not identified. Travel demand model use is confined to project viability through transit performance measures. Potential station locations were identified using information gathered from previous study efforts in conjunction with input from corridor stakeholders. Table 7 -3 provides an overview of benefits and challenges for each potential station location. Table 7 -3 Summary of Station Findings DFW Airport Terminal A/B Station Benefits: Challenges: • Connects to the DART Orange Line and • Adds time and distance to The T SW2NE The T SW2NE corridor connection • DFWIA connection . DFWIA connection logistics • Serves largest employer in the corridor • DFWIA property needed for right-of-way Airport North Station Benefits: Challenges: • Serves commuters originating . Potential parking challenges associated from /destined to points north and west with airport travelers using station for • Serves large employment centers near access to DFWIA station . Station area is airport property • Local street network provides bicycle and • Additional investigation needed to pedestrian access determine station area development • Land available for TOD opportunities potential • Location not in DART service area April 2010 7 -3 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 7 — Summary Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table 7 -3 Summary of Station Findinas (continued) North Lake Station Benefits: Challenges: • Connects to proposed Waters Creek TOD • Potential impacts to nearby Coppell site neighborhoods • Located within the DART Transit Service • Potential re- alignment of Belt Line Road Area • Realign railroad tracks • Access from major arterial roadways serving Co ell, Dallas, and Irvin Downtown Carrollton Station Benefits: Challenges: • Major transit hub • Mercer Yard relocation • Connects to the DART Green Line LRT • At -grade freight crossing with BNSF • Connects to proposed Frisco Corridor Corridor • TOD and redevelopment opportunities • Local street network provides bicycle and pedestrian access Addison Transit Center Station Benefits: Challenges: • Adjacent to the existing DART Addison Proximity to potential Knoll Trail Station Transit Center • Land reserved for TOD opportunities • Major employers, special events, and activity centers within 0.5 -mile • Local street and sidewalk network provides bicycle and pedestrian access • Access to Belt Line Road and Dallas North Tollwa Knoll Trail Station Benefits: Challenges: • Connects to major employers and activity • Proximity to existing DART Addison Transit centers Center Station • Access from Dallas North Tollway, • Proximity to potential Preston Road Station Arapaho Road, and Keller Springs Road • Access to Galleria Area via existing bus connections • Potential to spur redevelopment of under- utilized retail center • Access to Cotton Belt Hike and Bike Trail • City of Dallas ForwardDallas! Comprehensive Plan supports station April 2010 7 -4 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 7 — Summary Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table 7 -3 Summary of Cfnfinn Pinrlinnc I^--* ....... % Preston Road Station Benefits: Challenges: • Access from Preston Road and Keller . Undeveloped land within floodplain Springs Road . Proximity to potential Knoll Trail Station • Local street network provides bicycle and pedestrian access • Access to Cotton Belt Hike and Bike Trail • Land available for station area • City of Dallas ForwardDallas! Comprehensive Plan supports location as neighborhood station • Serves medium density residential neighborhood Renner Village Station Benefits: Challenges: • Access from Coit Road, Frankford Road, Proximity to potential UTD /Synergy Park and McCallum Boulevard Station • Near proposed Texas A &M Urban Living Laboratory site • Access to Cotton Belt Hike and Bike Trail • The City of Dallas ForwardDallas! Comprehensive Plan supports station • Serves medium density residential neighborhood • Neighborhood redevelopment opportunities -UTD/Synergy Park Station Benefits: Challenges: • Serves major employers on Waterview Proximity to potential Renner Village Parkway Station • Location near site of UTD North Campus Expansion • Local streets and sidewalk networks provide pedestrian and bicycle access • City of Richardson Comprehensive Plan supports station Bush Turnpike Station Benefits: Challenges: • Connects Cotton Belt and DART Red Line Limits potential for Cotton Belt Corridor LRT eastern extension • TOD opportunities near station • City of Richardson Comprehensive Plan supports station • City of Richardson Comprehensive Plan supports TOD opportunities • Nearby land owners support station April 2010 7.5 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 7 — Summary Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table 7 -3 Summary of Station Findinqs (continued) 12 1h Street Station Benefits: Challenges: • Connect Cotton Belt and DART Red Line • Vertical transfer to DART Red Line LRT LRT • Requires realignment of DART Red Line • Allows service expansion eastward LRT bridge above Cotton Belt • Neighborhood redevelopment • Proximity to potential Downtown Plano opportunities station • Local street network provides bicycle and • Possible double track of US 75 crossing pedestrian access needed • Utilizes existing US 75 crossing • Potential impact to DART Red Line • Access to major employment centers operations during construction • Requires transfer for trips to /from the north Downtown Plano Station Benefits: Challenges: • TOD adjacent to station • Desired regional rail vehicle type not • Local street and sidewalk network provides compatible with existing LRT vehicle bicycle and pedestrian access • Station expansion opportunities limited • Serves major activity centers • Proximity to potential 12th Street Station • Possible double track of US 75 crossing needed Parker Road Station Benefits: Challenges: • Station considered a multi -modal facility • Desired regional rail vehicle type not • Station parking available compatible with existing LRT vehicle • Neighborhood redevelopment • Station expansion opportunities limited opportunities • Possible double track of US 75 crossing • Serves major activity centers needed • Allows service expansion northward Source: NCTCOG, December 2009 7.3 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The mission statement, goals, and objectives for the Cotton Belt Corridor were presented in Chapter 2. The mission statement, authored by corridor stakeholders, was: Provide additional transportation choices connecting major activity centers from Fort Worth to northern Dallas County and southern Collin County by efficiently developing safe, fiscally sound, environmentally conscious and regionally supported mobility improvement projects that support economic opportunities and sustain or augment the quality of life and mobility for the citizens of the Dallas /Fort Worth Metroplex. Additionally, corridor stakeholders established a set of goals to support this mission statement and transportation improvements in the Cotton Belt Corridor. The goals and objectives respond to the underlying transportation needs defined in Chapter 2. Table 7-4 summarizes the No Build and Build Alternatives performance in achieving the stated goals and objectives. The following subsections elaborate on the performance regarding how the No Build Alternative and Build Alternatives address stated project goals and objectives. April 2010 7 -6 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 7 — Summary Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table 7-4 Summary of Achieving Prnirar -f r%nnlc nnrl nE.in,+ivnc Project Goals No Build Alternative Build Alternatives Goal: Enhance corridor mobility and accessibility • Provide connectivity to existing and planned passenger rail facilities + • Provide transportation investments serving future population and employment growth - + • Improve access to existing and emerging major activity centers + • Increase access to transit _ + • Increase transit usage + • Provide cost - effective options O + Goal: Encourage economic development • Encourage employment opportunities - + • Encourage economic development opportunities - + • Ensure consistency with regional and local transportation and comprehensive plans + • Encourage strategies for land use development and redevelopment _ + Goal: Provide an environmental) - sensitive transit investment • Minimize negative project effects to the community O O • Minimize negative project effects to the built environment O O • Minimize negative project impacts to natural and cultural resources O O • Improve air quality + Legend: + Better U Neutral - Worse 7.3.1 Goal: Enhance Corridor Mobility and Accessibility This goal included six objectives related to corridor mobility and accessibility. The No Build Alternative would not improve mobility or accessibility in the corridor. Furthermore, it would not increase transit usage in the Cotton Belt Corridor. The No Build Alternative does not include new transit facilities in the Cotton Belt Corridor. Therefore, there would be no new capital costs associated with this alternative. The No Build Alternative includes those transit projects not associated with any Build Alternative but are included in the Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment. Therefore, transit service in the corridor would remain near current levels. As traffic congestion increases in the corridor, existing bus speeds could decrease resulting in a negative impact on transit ridership. The No Build Alternative does not represent a cost effective transportation solution. The Build Alternatives would provide direct connections to several passenger rail lines including the DCTA A -Train Commuter Rail, DART Green Line LRT, DART Red Line LRT, and DART Orange Line LRT. These connections provide access to the 93 miles of LRT and 56 miles of commuter rail lines either existing or under construction. Depending on the alternative, the Build Alternatives would include eight to 19 stations. This would help maximize regional transit system connectivity and access to existing and emerging major activity centers and destinations throughout the corridor and region. April 2010 7 -7 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 7 — Summary Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study The Cotton Belt Corridor would introduce a new transit service in the corridor and provide a cross -town travel alternative through the northern portion of the region. The result would be increased transit ridership and mobility benefits. The Cotton Belt Corridor planning area is already experiencing congestion which will continue to increase as the population increases (see Section 2.1.2) even though roadway improvements are planned. Additionally, many major roadways in the planning area are at their maximum size. The Cotton Belt Corridor provides a cost - effective option to increase mobility within an existing transportation corridor while helping reduce dependence on motor vehicles and increases transit usage. 7.3.2 Goal: Encourage Economic Development This goal included four objectives. The No Build Alternative would maintain the status quo regarding the transportation system and the development trends in the Cotton Belt Corridor. As such the No Build Alternative would not support public and private economic development and redevelopment efforts. The Build Alternatives are consistent with many local plans identifying public and private economic development and redevelopment efforts. The Build Alternatives represent a permanent transit investment in the corridor and acts as a catalyst in furthering public and private plans. The Build Alternatives would improve the transportation system by providing the Cotton Belt Corridor with more travel choices between residential areas, major destinations, and employment centers. In addition to the transportation enhancements, the Build Alternatives would contribute positively to the achievement of local economic development and redevelopment goals and their associated benefits. 7.3.3 Goal: Provide an Environmentally - Sensitive Transit Investment This goal included four objectives. The No Build Alternative would not have a negative effect on the built and natural environments or the cultural resources. However, the No Build Alternative could impact the community through increased congestion and travel times. Additionally, the No Build Alternative would not be consistent with 2030 Mobility — 2009 Amendment and its associated transportation air quality conformity determination. This alternative would continue the dependence on motor vehicle travel, thereby detracting from regional transportation air quality improvement initiatives. The Build Alternatives are primarily along existing freight rail lines. This helps minimize potential negative effects to the community, built and natural environments, and cultural resources. Minimal to no additional right -of -way would be needed. By increasing transit usage and decreasing dependence on motor vehicle travel, the Build Alternatives would help improve regional air quality. 7.4 NEXT STEPS The Cotton Belt Corridor CE & FS has identified elements for consideration in the next project development phase. The following lists these elements and potential actions needed. • Corridor Ridership Projections • Incorporate 2035 travel demand forecast model • Incorporate 2035 demographic inputs • Vehicle Technology Work Efforts o DART to continue regional rail vehicle development efforts April 2010 7 -8 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 7 — Summary Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study • Public Private Partnership Work Efforts o NCTCOG to continue efforts to secure private sector project support and funding • Next Project Development Phase • Initiate an environmental assessment study • Initiate preliminary engineering efforts to achieve a five percent level of design • Conduct a comprehensive public involvement process by establishing a Public and Agency Involvement program to continue key stakeholder participation during project development • Determine final station locations and alignment through stakeholder consensus • Determine project implementation phasing schedule • Identify and secure appropriate funding sources • Achieve environmental documentation approval from reviewing agencies April 2010 7_9 Cotton Belt Corridor Chapter 7 — Summary Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This Page Intentionally Left Blank. April 2010 7 -10 A - Cost Estimates Appendix A Cost Estimates April 2010 A -1 Cotton Belt Corridor r and Fundina Sfiidw Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix A - Cost Estimates Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This Page Intentionally Left Blank. April 2010 A-2 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Cotton Belt Corridor Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study A /temative 1 CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 1) Corridor Limits: From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To Bush Turnpike Station Total Length (Mlles): 25.4 Total Length (Feet): 134,112 No. Of Stations: 9 No. of Vehicles: 10 No. of Support Buses: 20 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Subtotals 10.01 New Main Track, 136# CWR (Ties, rail, ballast) 134,112 FT $310 $41,574,720 10.02 New Siding / Double Track, 136# CWR 10.03 New Station Siding Track, 136# CWR 5,000 FT $310 $1,550,000 10.04 New Turnout #20, 136# Rail 11,880 FT $310 $3,682,800 10.05 New Turnout #20, 136# Rail, Station Siding / double track 10 EA $485,000 $4,850,000 10.06 New Railroad Diamond Crossing, 136# Rail 18 EA $485,000 $8,730,000 10.07 Highway /Railroad Grade Separation (RR over Roadway) 0 EA $400,000 $0 10.08 Railroad/Railroad Grade Separation (Railroad over RR) 8 EA $7,000,000 $56,000,000 10.09 New Bridge, Concrete ($65 /SF) 0 TF $6,500 $0 10.10 Retaining Wall (0 FT - 10 FT High), one side 0 TF $1,200 $0 10.11 Retaining Wall (10 FT - 20 FT High), one side 0 LF $575 $0 10.12 Fencing 0 LF $1,200 $0 268,224 LF $20 $5,364,480 $121,752,000 20 PASSENGER STATIONS & PARKING 20.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 27 20.02 Utilities Allowance AC $100,500 $2,713,500 20.03 Station, At- Grade, Center Platform (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 9 0 Station $325,000 $2,925,000 20.04 Station, At- Grade, 2 Side Platforms (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 9 EA $1,700,000 $0 20.05 Parking Spaces, Surface Lot EA $2,831,000 $25,479,000 20.06 Pedestrian Overcrossing 2,700 EA $3,000 $8,100,000 20.07 New Roadway for Station Access 0 EA $1,000,000 $0 20.08 Reconstruct Roadway for Station Access 12,150 SY $60 $729,000 5,850 SY $30 $175,500 $40,122,000 30 MAINTENANCE & LAYOVER FACILITIES 30.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 2.5 AC $6,000 $15,000 30.02 30.03 New Yard Track, 115# CWR New Turnout #10, 115# Rail 5280 FT $280 $1,478,400 30.04 Track Bumping Post 2 EA $350,000 $700,000 30.05 Layover Facility Building 2 EA $7,500 $15,000 30.06 Shop Fire Protection, Security, and Environmental Systems 600 SF $250 $150,000 30.07 Yard Service Aisle Crossing (Crossbucks) 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 30.08 Yard Service Aisles 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 30.09 Fencing 7,112 SY $15 $106,680 30.10 Utilities Allowance 2,300 LF $20 $46,000 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 $2,961,080 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 25.4 MI $12,000 $304,800 40.02 40.03 Earthwork, Excavation Utilities Allowance (Alignment) 28,512 FT $4,200 $119,750,400 40.04 New Railbed - Mainline 25.4 MI $40,000 $1,016,000 40.05 New Railbed - Station Sidings 25.4 MI $286,000 $7,264,400 40.06 New Railbed - Passing Sidings 2.25 MI $286,000 $643,500 0.9 MI $286,000 $270,833 $129,249,933 50 SIGNALING & COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 50.01 Communications System (Trains, Stations, Yards, etc.) 50.02 Positive Train Control (PTC) - Locomotives & Cab Cars 1 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 50.03 PTC - Wayside (control points, switches, intermediate signals) 8 EA $100,000 $800,000 50.04 PTC - Office 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.05 PTC - Communications 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.06 PTC - System Engineering 1 EA $1,700 $1,700 50.07 PTC - Program Management 1 EA $24,500 $24,500 50.08 CTC System (at Control Points) 1 EA $11,500 $11,500 50.09 Minor Street At -grade (New /Modify Gates & Devices) 1 EA $750,000 $750,000 50.10 Major Street At -grade (New Gates & Warning Devices) 11 EA $345,000 $3,795,000 50.11 At -Grade Crossing Surface, Concrete Panels 24 EA $515,000 $12,360,000 50.12 Rail Safety Measures (including flagging) 800 LF $600 $480,000 50.13 Special Conditions Contingency 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 25.4 MI $1,000,000 $25,400,000 Subtotal $46,672,700 Basic Civil /Systems Cost $340,757,713 April 2010 A -3 60 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION 60.01 R.O.W. Allowance (Alignment) (4% of Subtotal of Design Contingency) % 0.04 $17,719,401 70 VEHICLES 70.01 Rail Vehicles, FRA- Compliant DMU 70.02 Buses for Feeder Bus Service 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 90.01 Environmental Mitigation Total Project Cost Cost Per Mile April 2010 A-4 10 EA $8,800,000 $88,000,000 20 EA $750,000 $15,000,000 1 EA $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $17,719,401 $103,000,000 $50,000,000 $804,187,990 $31,660,944 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix A - Cost Estimates Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Alternative 1 CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Altemative 1) Corridor Limits: From DFWIA (Terminal AIB Station) To Bush Turnpike Station Total Length (Miles): 25.4 Total Length (Feet): 134,112 No. Of Stations: 9 No. of Vehicles: 10 No. of Support Buses: 20 DART Allowances Design Contingency (30 %) % 0.30 $102,227,314 Subtotal $442,985,027 Construction Contingency (10 %) % 0.10 $44,298,503 DART Add-on Allowance (32 %) % 0.32 $141,755,209 Subtotal $629,038,739 Environmental Allowance (1 %) % 0.01 $4,429,850 Subtotal $633,468,589 60 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION 60.01 R.O.W. Allowance (Alignment) (4% of Subtotal of Design Contingency) % 0.04 $17,719,401 70 VEHICLES 70.01 Rail Vehicles, FRA- Compliant DMU 70.02 Buses for Feeder Bus Service 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 90.01 Environmental Mitigation Total Project Cost Cost Per Mile April 2010 A-4 10 EA $8,800,000 $88,000,000 20 EA $750,000 $15,000,000 1 EA $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $17,719,401 $103,000,000 $50,000,000 $804,187,990 $31,660,944 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Cotton Belt Corridor Alternative 2 Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 2) Corridor Limits: From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To Parker Road Station Total Length (Miles): 26.3 Total Length (Feet): 138,864 No. Of Stations: 10 No. of Vehicles: 12 No. of Support Buses: 20 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Subtotals 10.01 New Main Track, 136# CWR (Ties, rail, ballast) 10.02 New Siding / Double Track, 136# CWR 138,864 FT $310 $43,047,840 10.03 New Station Siding Track, 136# CWR 5,000 FT $310 $1,550,000 10.04 New Turnout #20, 136# Rail 13,200 FT $310 $4,092,000 10.05 New Turnout #20,136# Rail, Station Siding / double track 10 EA $485,000 $4,850,000 10.06 New Railroad Diamond Crossing, 136# Rail 20 EA $485,000 $9,700,000 10.07 Highway /Railroad Grade Separation (RR over Roadway) 0 EA $400,000 $0 10.08 Railroad /Railroad Grade Separation (Railroad over RR) 8 EA $7,000,000 $56,000,000 10.09 New Bridge, Concrete ($65 /SF) 0 TF $6,500 $0 10.10 Retaining Wall (0 FT - 10 FT High), one side 0 TF $1,200 $0 10.11 Retaining Wall (10 FT - 20 FT High), one side 0 LF $575 $0 10.12 Fencing 0 LF $1,200 $0 277,728 LF $20 $5,554,560 $124,794,400 20 PASSENGER STATIONS & PARKING 20.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 20.02 Utilities Allowance 30 AC $100,500 $3,015,000 20.03 Station, At- Grade, Center Platform (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 10 0 Station $325,000 $3,250,000 20.04 Station, At- Grade, 2 Side Platforms (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 10 EA $1,700,000 $0 20.05 Parking Spaces, Surface Lot EA $2,831,000 $28,310,000 20.06 Pedestrian Overcrossing 3,000 EA $3,000 $9,000,000 20.07 New Roadway for Station Access 0 EA $1,000,000 $0 20.08 Reconstruct Roadway for Station Access 13,500 SY $60 $810,000 6,500 SY $30 $195,000 $44,580,000 30 MAINTENANCE & LAYOVER FACILITIES 30.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 30.02 New Yard Track, 115# CWR 2.5 AC $6,000 $15,000 30.03 New Turnout #10, 115# Rail 5280 FT $280 $1,478,400 30.04 Track Bumping Post 2 EA $350,000 $700,000 30.05 Layover Facility Building 2 EA $7,500 $15,000 30.06 Shop Fire Protection, Security, and Environmental Systems 600 SF $250 $150,000 30.07 Yard Service Aisle Crossing (Crossbucks) 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 30.08 Yard Service Aisles 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 30.09 Fencing 7,112 SY $15 $106,680 30.10 Utilities Allowance 2,300 LF $20 $46,000 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 $2,961,080 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 40.02 Earthwork, Excavation 26.3 MI $12,000 $315,600 40.03 Utilities Allowance (Alignment) 28,512 FT $4,200 $119,750,400 40.04 New Railbed - Mainline 26.3 MI $40,000 $1,052,000 40.05 New Railbed - Station Sidings 26.3 MI $286,000 $7,521,800 40.06 New Railbed - Passing Sidings 2.5 MI $286,000 $715,000 0.9 MI $286,000 $270,833 $129,625,633 50 SIGNALING & COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 50.01 Communications System (Trains, Stations, Yards, etc.) 50.02 Positive Train Control (PTC) - Locomotives & Cab Cars 1 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 50.03 PTC - Wayside (control points, switches, intermediate signals) 8 EA $100,000 $800,000 50.04 PTC - Office 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.05 PTC - Communications 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.06 PTC - System Engineering 1 EA $1,700 $1,700 50.07 PTC - Program Management 1 EA $24,500 $24,500 50.08 CTC System (at Control Points) 1 EA $11,500 $11,500 50.09 Minor Street At -grade (New /Modify Gates & Devices) 1 EA $750,000 $750,000 50.10 Major Street At -grade (New Gates & Warning Devices) 13 EA $345,000 $4,485,000 50.11 At -Grade Crossing Surface, Concrete Panels 27 EA $515,000 $13,905,000 50.12 Rail Safety Measures (including flagging) 800 LF $600 $480,000 50.13 Special Conditions Contingency 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 26.3 MI $1,000,000 $26,300,000 Subtotal $49,807,700 Basic Civil /Systems Cost $351,768,813 April 2010 A -5 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Alternative 2 Cotton Belt Corridor Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 2) Corridor Limits: From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To Parker Road Station Total Length (Miles): 26.3 Total Length (Feet): 138,864 No. Of Stations: 10 No. of Vehicles: 12 No. of Support Buses: 20 DART Allowances Design Contingency (30 %) % 0.30 $105,530,644 Subtotal $457,299,457 Construction Contingency (10 %) % 0.10 $45,729,946 DART Add-on Allowance (32 %) % 0.32 $146,335,826 Subtotal $649,365,229 Environmental Allowance (1 %) % 0.01 $4,572,995 Subtotal $653,938,224 60 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION 60.01 R.O.W. Allowance (Alignment) (4% of Subtotal of Design Contingency) % 0.04 $18,291,978 70 VEHICLES 70.01 Rail Vehicles, FRA- Compliant DMU 70.02 Buses for Feeder Bus Service 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 90.01 Environmental Mitigation Total Project Cost Cost Per Mile April 2010 A -6 12 EA $8,800,000 $105,600,000 20 EA $750,000 $15,000,000 1 EA $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $18,291,978 $120,600,000 $50,000,000 $842,830,202 $32,046,776 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 20.02 Utilities Allowance 51 AC Cotton Belt Corridor Alternative 3 20.03 Station, At- Grade, Center Platform (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 17 0 Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 3) 20.04 Station, At- Grade, 2 Side Platforms (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 17 EA $1,700,000 From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To McKinney North 2 Station 20.05 Parking Spaces, Surface Lot EA Corridor Limits: (McKinney Corridor Interline) 20.06 Pedestrian Overcrossing 5,100 EA Total Length (Mlles): 44.6 20.07 New Roadway for Station Access 0 EA Total Length (Feet): 235,488 20.08 Reconstruct Roadway for Station Access 22,950 SY No. Of Stations: 17 11,050 SY No. of Vehicles: 17 30 MAINTENANCE & LAYOVER FACILITIES No. of Support Buses: 20 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 2.5 AC $6,000 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Subtotals 10.01 10.02 New Main Track, 136# CWR (Ties, rail, ballast) New Siding / Double Track, 136# CWR 235,488 FT $310 $73,001,280 10.03 New Station Siding Track, 136# CWR 9,000 22,440 FT FT $310 $2,790,000 10.04 New Turnout #20, 136# Rail Shop Fire Protection, Security, and Environmental Systems 600 $310 $6,956,400 10.05 New Turnout #20,136# Rail, Station Siding / double track 18 EA $485,000 $8,730,000 10.06 New Railroad Diamond Crossing, 136# Rail 30 EA $485,000 $14,550,000 10.07 Highway /Railroad Grade Separation (RR over Roadway) 0 EA $400,000 $0 10.08 Railroad /Railroad Grade Separation (Railroad over RR) 14 EA $7,000,000 $98,000,000 10.09 New Bridge, Concrete ($65 /SF) 0 TF $6,500 $0 10.10 Retaining Wall (0 FT - 10 FT High), one side 1,036 TF $1,200 $1,243,200 10.11 Retaining Wall (10 FT - 20 FT High), one side 0 LF $575 $0 10.12 Fencing 0 LF $1,200 $0 40.03 Utilities Allowance (Alignment) 470,976 LF $20 $9,419,520 $214,690,400 20 PASSENGER STATIONS & PARKING 20.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 20.02 Utilities Allowance 51 AC $100,500 $5,125,500 20.03 Station, At- Grade, Center Platform (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 17 0 Station $325,000 $5,525,000 20.04 Station, At- Grade, 2 Side Platforms (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 17 EA $1,700,000 $0 20.05 Parking Spaces, Surface Lot EA $2,831,000 $48,127,000 20.06 Pedestrian Overcrossing 5,100 EA $3,000 $15,300,000 20.07 New Roadway for Station Access 0 EA $1,000,000 $0 20.08 Reconstruct Roadway for Station Access 22,950 SY $60 $1,377,000 11,050 SY $30 $331,500 30 MAINTENANCE & LAYOVER FACILITIES 30.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 2.5 AC $6,000 $15,000 30.02 30.03 New Yard Track, 115# CWR New Turnout #10, 115# Rail 5280 FT $280 $1,478,400 30.04 Track Bumping Post 2 EA $350,000 $700,000 30.05 Layover Facility Building 2 EA $7,500 $15,000 30.06 Shop Fire Protection, Security, and Environmental Systems 600 SF $250 $150,000 30.07 Yard Service Aisle Crossing (Crossbucks) 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 30.08 Yard Service Aisles 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 30.09 Fencing 7,112 SY $15 $106,680 30.10 Utilities Allowance 2,300 LF $20 $46,000 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 44.6 MI 40.02 Earthwork, Excavation $12,000 $535,200 40.03 Utilities Allowance (Alignment) 28,512 FT $4,200 $119,750,400 40.04 New Railbed - Mainline 44.6 MI $40,000 $1,784,000 40.05 New Railbed - Station Sidings 44.6 MI $286,000 $12,755,600 40.06 New Railbed - Passing Sidings 4.25 MI $286,000 $1,215,500 1.70 MI $286,000 $487,500 50 SIGNALING & COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 50.01 Communications System (Trains, Stations, Yards, etc.) 1 50.02 Positive Train Control (PTC) - Locomotives & Cab Cars 8 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 50.03 PTC - Wayside (control points, switches, intermediate signals) 1 EA $100,000 $800,000 50.04 PTC -Office EA $25,000 $25,000 50.05 PTC - Communications 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.06 PTC - System Engineering 1 EA $1,700 $1,700 50.07 PTC - Program Management 1 EA $24,500 $24,500 50.08 CTC System (at Control Points) 1 EA $11,500 $11,500 50.09 Minor Street At -grade (New /Modify Gates & Devices) 1 22 EA $750,000 $750,000 50.10 Major Street At -grade (New Gates & Warning Devices) EA $345,000 $7,590,000 50.11 At -Grade Crossing Surface, Concrete Panels 33 EA $515,000 $16,995,000 50.12 Rail Safety Measures (including flagging) 800 LF $600 $480,000 50.13 Special Conditions Contingency 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 44.6 MI $1,000,000 $44,600,000 $75,786,000 $2,961,080 $136,528,200 Subtotal $74,302,700 Basic Civil /Systems Cost $504,268,380 April 2010 A -7 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Alternative 3 CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Altemative 3) Construction Contingency (10%) From DFWIA (Terminal AIB Station) To McKinney North 2 Station Corridor Limits: (McKinney Corridor Interline) Total Length (Miles): 44.6 Total Length (Feet): 235,488 No. Of Stations: 17 No. of Vehicles: 17 No. of Support Buses: 20 DART Allowances Cotton Belt Corridor Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Design Contingency (30 %) % 0.30 $151,280,514 Subtotal $655,548,894 Construction Contingency (10%) % 0.10 $65,554,889 DART Add-on Allowance (32 %) % 0.32 $209,775,646 Subtotal $930,879,429 Environmental Allowance (1%) % 0.01 $6,555,489 Subtotal $937,434,918 60 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION 60.01 R.O.W. Allowance (Alignment) (4% of Subtotal of Design Contingency) % 0.04 $26,221,956 70 VEHICLES 70.01 Rail Vehicles, FRA- Compliant DMU 17 EA $8,800,000 $149,600,000 70.02 Buses for Feeder Bus Service 20 EA $750,000 $15,000,000 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 1 EA $50,000,000 $50,000,000 90.01 Environmental Mitigation Total Project Cost Cost Per Mile April 2010 A-8 $26,221,956 $164,600,000 $50,000,000 $1,178,256,874 $26,418,316 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Alternative 4 Cotton Belt Corridor Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 4) From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To Bush Turnpike Station Corridor Limits: (Knoll Trail Station in lieu of Preston Road Station) Total Length (Miles): 25.4 Total Length (Feet): 134,112 No. Of Stations: 9 No. of Vehicles: 10 No. of Support Buses: 20 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Subtotals 10.01 New Main Track, 136# CWR (Ties, rail, ballast) 10.02 New Siding / Double Track, 136# CWR 134,112 FT $310 $41,574,720 10.03 New Station Siding Track, 136# CWR 5,000 FT $310 $1,550,000 10.04 New Turnout #20,136# Rail 11,880 FT $310 $3,682,800 10.05 New Turnout #20, 136# Rail, Station Siding / double track 10 EA $485,000 $4,850,000 10.06 New Railroad Diamond Crossing, 136# Rail 18 EA $485,000 $8,730,000 10.07 Highway /Railroad Grade Separation (RR over Roadway) 0 EA $400,000 $0 10.08 Railroad /Railroad Grade Separation (Railroad over RR) 8 EA $7,000,000 $56,000,000 10.09 New Bridge, Concrete ($65 /SF) 0 TF $6,500 $0 10.10 Retaining Wall (0 FT - 10 FT High), one side 0 TF $1,200 $0 10.11 Retaining Wall (10 FT - 20 FT High), one side 0 LF $575 $0 10.12 Fencing 0 LF $1,200 $0 268,224 LF $20 $5,364,480 $121,752,000 20 PASSENGER STATIONS & PARKING 20.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 20.02 Utilities Allowance 27 AC $100,500 $2,713,500 20.03 Station, At- Grade, Center Platform (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 9 0 Station $325,000 $2,925,000 20.04 Station, At- Grade, 2 Side Platforms (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 9 EA EA $1,700,000 $2,831,000 $0 20.05 Parking Spaces, Surface Lot $25,479,000 20.06 Pedestrian Overcrossing 2,700 EA $3,000 $8,100,000 20.07 New Roadway for Station Access 0 EA $1,000,000 $0 20.08 Reconstruct Roadway for Station Access 12,150 SY $60 $729,000 5,850 SY $30 $175,500 $40,122,000 30 MAINTENANCE & LAYOVER FACILITIES 30.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 2.5 AC $6,000 $15,000 30.02 30.03 New Yard Track, 115# CWR New Turnout #10, 115# Rail 5280 FT $280 $1,478,400 30.04 Track Bumping Post 2 EA $350,000 $700,000 30.05 Layover Facility Building 2 EA $7,500 $15,000 30.06 Shop Fire Protection, Security, and Environmental Systems 600 SF $250 $150,000 30.07 Yard Service Aisle Crossing (Crossbucks) 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 30.08 Yard Service Aisles 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 30.09 Fencing 7,112 SY $15 $106,680 30.10 Utilities Allowance 2,300 LF $20 $46,000 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 $2,961,080 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 25.4 MI 40.02 Earthwork, Excavation $12,000 $304,800 40.03 Utilities Allowance (Alignment) 28,512 FT $4,200 $119,750,400 40.04 New Railbed - Mainline 25.4 MI $40,000 $1,016,000 40.05 New Railbed - Station Sidings 25.4 MI $286,000 $7,264,400 40.06 New Railbed - Passing Sidings 2.25 MI $286,000 $643,500 0.9 MI $286,000 $270,833 $129,249,933 50 SIGNALING & COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 50.01 Communications System (Trains, Stations, Yards, etc.) 1 50.02 Positive Train Control (PTC) - Locomotives & Cab Cars LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 50.03 PTC - Wayside (control points, switches, intermediate signals) 8 EA $100,000 $800,000 50.04 PTC - Office 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.05 PTC - Communications 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.06 PTC - System Engineering 1 EA $1,700 $1,700 50.07 PTC - Program Management 1 EA $24,500 $24,500 50.08 CTC System (at Control Points) 1 EA $11,500 $11,500 50.09 Minor Street At -grade (New /Modify Gates & Devices) 1 EA $750,000 $750,000 50.10 Major Street At -grade (New Gates & Warning Devices) 11 EA $345,000 $3,795,000 50.11 At -Grade Crossing Surface, Concrete Panels 24 EA $515,000 $12,360,000 50.12 Rail Safety Measures (including flagging) 800 LF $600 $480,000 50.13 Special Conditions Contingency 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 25.4 MI $1,000,000 $25,400,000 Subtotal $46,672,700 Basic Civil /Systems Cost $340,757,713 April 2010 A -9 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Alternative 4 Cotton Belt Corridor Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 4) From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To Bush Turnpike Station Corridor Limits: (Knoll Trail Station in lieu of Preston Road Station) Total Length (Miles): 25.4 Total Length (Feet): 134,112 No. Of Stations: 9 No. of Vehicles: 10 No. of Support Buses: 20 DART Allowances Design Contingency (30 %) % 0.30 $102,227,314 SubtottI_�__�_ 2,985_027 Construction Contingency (10 %) % 0.10 $44,298,503 DART Add -on Allowance (32 %) % 0.32 $141,755,209 Subtotal $629,038,739 Environmental Allowance (11%) % 0.01 $4,429,850 Subtotal $633,468,589 60 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION 60.01 R.O.W. Allowance (Alignment) (4% of Subtotal of Design Contingency) 70 VEHICLES 70.01 Rail Vehicles, FRA- Compliant DMU 70.02 Buses for Feeder Bus Service 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 90.01 Environmental Mitigation Total Project Cost Cost Per Mile April 2010 A -10 % 0.04 $17,719,401 10 EA $8,800,000 $88,000,000 20 EA $750,000 $15,000,000 1 EA $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $17,719,401 $103,000,000 $50,000,000 $804,187,990 $31,660,944 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Cotton Belt Corridor Alternative 5 Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 5) Corridor Limits: From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To Bush Turnpike Station (Richardson South Design Option) Total Length (Mlles): 24.8 Total Length (Feet): 130,944 No. Of Stations: 8 No. of Vehicles: 10 No. of Support Buses: 20 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Subtotals 10.01 10.02 New Main Track, 136# CWR (Ties, rail, ballast) 130,944 FT $310 $40,592,640 New Siding / Double Track, 136# CWR 10.03 New Station Siding Track, 136# CWR 5,000 FT $310 $1,550,000 10.04 New Turnout #20, 136# Rail 10,560 FT $310 $3,273,600 10.05 New Turnout #20,136# Rail, Station Siding / double track 10 EA $485,000 $4,850,000 10.06 New Railroad Diamond Crossing, 136# Rail 16 EA $485,000 $7,760,000 10.07 Highway /Railroad Grade Separation (RR over Roadway) 0 EA $400,000 $0 10.08 Railroad/Railroad Grade Separation (Railroad over RR) 7 EA $7,000,000 $49,000,000 10.09 New Bridge, Concrete ($65 /SF) 0 TF $6,500 $0 10.10 Retaining Wall (0 FT - 10 FT High), one side 4,620 TF $5,000 $23,100,000 10.11 Retaining Wall (10 FT - 20 FT High), one side 0 LF $575 $0 10.12 Fencing 0 LF $1,200 $0 261,888 LF $20 $5,237,760 $135,364,000 20 PASSENGER STATIONS & PARKING 20.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 24 20.02 Utilities Allowance AC $100,500 $2,412,000 20.03 Station, At- Grade, Center Platform (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 8 0 Station $325,000 $2,600,000 20.04 Station, At- Grade, 2 Side Platforms (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 8 EA $1,700,000 $0 20.05 Parking Spaces, Surface Lot EA $2,831,000 $22,648,000 20.06 Pedestrian Overcrossing 2,400 EA $3,000 $7,200,000 20.07 New Roadway for Station Access 0 EA $1,000,000 $0 20.08 Reconstruct Roadway for Station Access 10,800 SY $60 $648,000 5,200 SY $30 $156,000 $35,664,000 30 MAINTENANCE & LAYOVER FACILITIES 30.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 2.5 AC $6,000 $15,000 30.02 30.03 New Yard Track, 115# CWR New Turnout #10, 115# Rail 5280 FT $280 $1,478,400 30.04 Track Bumping Post 2 EA $350,000 $700,000 30.05 Layover Facility Building 2 EA $7,500 $15,000 30.06 Shop Fire Protection, Security, and Environmental Systems 600 SF $250 $150,000 30.07 Yard Service Aisle Crossing (Crossbucks) 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 30.08 Yard Service Aisles 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 30.09 Fencing 7,112 SY $15 $106,680 30.10 Utilities Allowance 2,300 LF $20 $46,000 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 $2,961,080 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 24.8 MI $12,000 $297,600 40.02 40.03 Earthwork, Excavation Utilities Allowance (Alignment) 28,512 FT $4,200 $119,750,400 40.04 New Railbed - Mainline 24.8 MI $40,000 $992,000 40.05 New Railbed - Station Sidings 24.8 MI $286,000 $7,092,800 40.06 New Railbed - Passing Sidings 2 MI $286,000 $572,000 0.9 MI $286,000 $270,833 $128,975,633 50 SIGNALING & COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 50.01 Communications System (Trains, Stations, Yards, etc.) 50.02 Positive Train Control (PTC) - Locomotives & Cab Cars 1 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 50.03 PTC - Wayside (control points, switches, intermediate signals) 8 EA $100,000 $800,000 50.04 PTC - Office 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.05 PTC - Communications 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.06 PTC - System Engineering 1 EA $1,700 $1,700 50.07 PTC - Program Management 1 EA $24,500 $24,500 50.08 CTC System (at Control Points) 1 EA $11,500 $11,500 50.09 Minor Street At -grade (New /Modify Gates & Devices) 1 EA $750,000 $750,000 50.10 Major Street At -grade (New Gates & Warning Devices) 9 EA $345,000 $3,105,000 50.11 At -Grade Crossing Surface, Concrete Panels 24 EA $515,000 $12,360,000 50.12 Rail Safety Measures (including flagging) 800 LF $600 $480,000 50.13 Special Conditions Contingency 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 24.8 MI $1,000,000 $24,800,000 Subtotal $45,382,700 Basic Civil /Systems Cost $348,347,413 April 2010 A -11 60 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION 60.01 R.O.W. Allowance (Alignment) (4% of Subtotal of Design Contingency) % Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix A - Cost Estimates Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Alternative 5 CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 5) $18,114,065 70 VEHICLES 70.01 Rail Vehicles, FRA- Compliant DMU Corridor Limits: From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To Bush Turnpike Station (Richardson South Design Option) $8,800,000 $88,000,000 Total Length (Mlles): 24.8 70.02 Buses for Feeder Bus Service 20 EA Total Length (Feet): 130,944 $15,000,000 $103,000,000 No. Of Stations: 8 1 EA $50,000,000 No. of Vehicles: 10 90.01 Dallas Environmental Mitigation No. of Support Buses: 20 DART Allowances Total Project Cost Design Contingency (30 %) % 0.30 $104,504,224 Subtotal $452,851,637 Construction Contingency (10 %) % 0.10 $45,285,164 DART Add-on Allowance (32 %) % 0.32 $144,912,524 Subtotal $643,049,325 Environmental Allowance (1 %) % 0.01 $4,528,516 Subtotal $647,577,841 60 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION 60.01 R.O.W. Allowance (Alignment) (4% of Subtotal of Design Contingency) % 0.04 $18,114,065 $18,114,065 70 VEHICLES 70.01 Rail Vehicles, FRA- Compliant DMU 10 EA $8,800,000 $88,000,000 70.02 Buses for Feeder Bus Service 20 EA $750,000 $15,000,000 $103,000,000 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 1 EA $50,000,000 $50,000,000 90.01 Dallas Environmental Mitigation $50,000,000 Total Project Cost $818,691,907 Cost Per Mile $33,011,770 April 2010 A -12 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Cotton Belt Corridor Alternative 6 Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 6) Corridor Limits: From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To 12th Street Station Total Length (Miles): 25.1 Total Length (Feet): 132,528 No. Of Stations: 9 No. of Vehicles: 10 No. of Support Buses: 20 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Subtotals 10.01 10.02 New Main Track, 136# CWR (Ties, rail, ballast) 132,528 FT $310 $41,083,680 New Siding / Double Track, 136# CWR 10.03 New Station Siding Track, 136# CWR 5,000 FT $310 $1,550,000 10.04 New Turnout #20,136# Rail 11,880 FT $310 $3,682,800 10.05 New Turnout #20, 136# Rail, Station Siding / double track 10 EA $485,000 $4,850,000 10.06 New Railroad Diamond Crossing, 136# Rail 18 EA $485,000 $8,730,000 10.07 Highway /Railroad Grade Separation (RR over Roadway) 0 EA $400,000 $0 10.08 Highway /Railroad Grade Separation (US 75 Service Rds & Plano Pkwy) 8 0 EA $7,000,000 $56,000,000 10.09 Railroad /Railroad Grade Separation (Railroad over RR) LS $12,850,481 $0 10.10 New Bridge, Concrete ($65 /SF) 0 TF $6,500 $0 10.11 Retaining Wall (0 FT - 10 FT High), one side 0 TF $1,200 $0 10.12 Retaining Wall (10 FT - 20 FT High), one side 0 LF $575 $0 10.13 Fencing 0 LF $1,200 $0 265,056 LF $20 $5,301,120 $121,197,600 20 PASSENGER STATIONS & PARKING 20.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 27 20.02 Utilities Allowance AC $100,500 $2,713,500 20.03 Station, At- Grade, Center Platform (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 9 1 Station $325,000 $2,925,000 20.04 Station, At- Grade, 2 Side Platforms (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 8 EA $1,700,000 $1,700,000 20.05 Station, Aerial, Center Platform (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc) 0 EA $2,831,000 $22,648,000 20.06 Parking Spaces, Surface Lot 2,700 EA EA $4,600,000 $3,000 $0 $8,100,000 20.07 Pedestrian Overcrossing 0 EA $1,000,000 $0 20.08 New Roadway for Station Access 12,150 SY $60 $729,000 20.09 Reconstruct Roadway for Station Access 5,850 SY $30 $175,500 20.10 Elevators 2 EA $250,000 $500,000 $39,491,000 30 MAINTENANCE & LAYOVER FACILITIES 30.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 2.5 AC $6,000 $15,000 30.02 30.03 New Yard Track, 115# CWR New Turnout #10, 115# Rail 5,280 FT $280 $1,478,400 30.04 Track Bumping Post 2 EA $350,000 $700,000 30.05 Layover Facility Building 2 EA $7,500 $15,000 30.06 Shop Fire Protection, Security, and Environmental Systems 600 1 SF $250 $150,000 30.07 Yard Service Aisle Crossing (Crossbucks) LS $200,000 $200,000 30.08 Yard Service Aisles 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 30.09 Fencing 7,112 SY $15 $ 6 30.10 Utilities Allowance 2,300 LF $20 $4,680 $46,000 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 $2,961,080 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 25.1 MI $12,000 $301,200 40.02 40.03 Earthwork, Excavation Utilities Allowance (Alignment) 28,512 FT $4,200 $119,750,400 40.04 New Railbed - Mainline 25.1 MI $40,000 $1,004,000 40.05 New Railbed - Station Sidings 25.1 MI $286,000 $7,178,600 40.06 New Railbed - Passing Sidings 2.25 MI $286,000 $643,500 40.07 DART Red Line Modifications (from 12th Street Station Analysis) 0.9 MI $286,000 $270,833 1 LS $33,389,604 $33,389,604 $162,538,137 50 SIGNALING & COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 50.01 Communications System (Trains, Stations, Yards, etc.) 1 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 50.02 Positive Train Control (PTC) - Locomotives & Cab Cars 8 EA $100,000 $800,000 50.03 PTC - Wayside (control points, switches, intermediate signals) 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.04 50.05 PTC - Office PTC - Communications 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.06 PTC - System Engineering 1 EA $1,700 $1,700 50.07 Minor Street At -grade (New /Modify Gates & Devices) 1 1 EA $24,500 $24,500 50.08 CTC System (at Control Points) EA $11,500 $11,500 50.09 Minor Street At -grade (New /Modify Gates & Devices) 1 EA $750,000 $750,000 50.10 Major Street At -grade (New Gates & Warning Devices) 11 lA $345,000 $3,795,000 50.11 At -Grade Crossing Surface, Concrete Panels 24 800 EA $515,000 $12,360,000 50.12 Rail Safety Measures (including flagging) LF $600 $480,000 50.13 Special Conditions Contingency 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 25.1 MI $1,000,000 $25,100,000 Basic Civil/Systems Cost April 2010 A -13 Subtotal $46,372,700 $372,560,517 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Cotton Belt Corridor Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Alternative 6 CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 6) Corridor Limits: From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To 12th Street Station Total Length (Miles): 25.1 Total Length (Feet): 132,528 No. Of Stations: 9 No. of Vehicles: 10 No. of Support Buses: 20 DART Allowances Design Contingency (30 %) % 0.30 $111,768,155 Subtotal $484,328,673 Construction Contingency (10 %) % 0.10 $48,432,867 DART Add -on Allowance (32 %) % 0.32 $154,985,175 Subtotal $687,746,715 Environmental Allowance (1 %) % 0.01 $4,843,287 Subtotal $692,590,002 60 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION 60.01 R.O.W. Allowance (Alignment) (4% of Subtotal of Design Contingency) 70 VEHICLES 70.01 Rail Vehicles, FRA- Compliant DMU 70.02 Buses for Feeder Bus Service 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 90.01 Environmental Mitigation Total Project Cost Cost Per Mile April 2010 A -14 % 0.04 $19,373,147 10 EA $8,800,000 $88,000,000 20 EA $750,000 $15,000,000 1 EA $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $19,373,147 $103,000,000 $50,000,000 $864,963,149 $34,460,683 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Alternative 7 CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 7) Cotton Belt Corridor Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Corridor Limits: From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To Bush Turnpike Station Including 20.01 Knoll Trail Station via Richardson North Alternative 30 AC $100,500 $3,015,000 Total Length (Miles): 25.4 Utilities Allowance Station, At- Grade, Center Platform (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, 10 Station $325,000 Total Length (Feet): 134,112 20.04 etc.) Station, At- Grade, 2 Side Platforms (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 0 10 EA No. Of Stations: 10 20.05 Parking Spaces, Surface Lot No. of Vehicles: 10 $28,310,000 20.06 Pedestrian Overorossing No. of Support Buses: 20 $3,000 $9,000,000 20.07 10 GUIDEWAY & TRACK ELEMENTS Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Subtotals 10.01 New Main Track, 136# CWR (Ties, rail, ballast) 134,112 FT $310 $41,574,720 10.02 New Siding / Double Track, 136# CWR 5,000 FT $310 $1,550,000 10.03 New Station Siding Track, 136# CWR 13,200 FT $310 $4,092,000 10.04 10.05 New Turnout #20,136# Rail New Turnout #20, 136# Rail, Station Siding / double track 10 EA $485,000 $4,850,000 10.06 New Railroad Diamond Crossing, 136# Rail 20 EA $485,000 $9,700,000 10.07 Highway /Railroad Grade Separation (RR over Roadway) 0 EA $400,000 $0 10.08 Railroad /Railroad Grade Separation (Railroad over RR) 8 EA $7,000,000 $56,000,000 10.09 New Bridge, Concrete ($65 /SF) 0 TF $6,500 $0 10.10 Retaining Wall (0 FT - 10 FT High), one side 0 TF $1,200 $0 10.11 Retaining Wall (10 FT - 20 FT High), one side 0 LF $575 $0 10.12 Fencing 0 LF $1,200 $0 $200,000 $200,000 268,224 LF $20 $5,364,480 $123,131,200 20 PASSENGER STATIONS & PARKING 20.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 30 AC $100,500 $3,015,000 20.02 20.03 Utilities Allowance Station, At- Grade, Center Platform (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, 10 Station $325,000 $3,250,000 20.04 etc.) Station, At- Grade, 2 Side Platforms (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 0 10 EA $1,700,000 $0 20.05 Parking Spaces, Surface Lot EA $2,831,000 $28,310,000 20.06 Pedestrian Overorossing 3,000 EA $3,000 $9,000,000 20.07 New Roadway for Station Access 0 13,500 EA SY $1,000,000 $60 $0 20.08 Reconstruct Roadway for Station Access 6,500 SY $810,000 $30 $195,000 $44,580,000 30 MAINTENANCE & LAYOVER FACILITIES 30.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 2.5 AC $6,000 $15,000 30.02 30.03 New Yard Track, 115# CWR New Turnout #10, 115# Rail 5280 FT $280 $1,478,400 30.04 Track Bumping Post 2 EA $350,000 $700,000 30.05 Layover Facility Building 2 EA $7,500 $15,000 30.06 Shop Fire Protection, Security, and Environmental Systems 600 1 SF $250 $150,000 30.07 Yard Service Aisle Crossing (Crossbucks) LS $200,000 $200,000 30.08 Yard Service Aisles 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 30.09 Fencing 7,112 SY $15 $106,680 30.10 Utilities Allowance 2,300 LF $20 $46,000 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 $2,961,080 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 25.4 MI $12,000 $304,800 40.02 40.03 Earthwork, Excavation Utilities Allowance (Alignment) 28,512 FT $4,200 $119,750,400 40.04 New Railbed - Mainline 25.4 MI $40,000 $1,016,000 40.05 New Railbed - Station Sidings 25.4 MI $286,000 $7,264,400 40.06 New Railbed - Passing Sidings 2.5 0.9 MI $286,000 $715,000 MI $286,000 $270,833 $129,321,433 50 SIGNALING & COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 50.01 Communications System (Trains, Stations, Yards, etc.) 1 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 50.02 Positive Train Control (PTC) - Locomotives & Cab Cars 8 EA $100,000 $800,000 50.03 PTC - Wayside (control points, switches, intermediate signals) 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.04 50.05 PTC - Office PTC - Communications 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.06 PTC - System Engineering 1 EA $1,700 $1,700 50.07 PTC - Program Management 1 EA $24,500 $24,500 50.08 CTC System (at Control Points) 1 EA $11,500 $11,500 50.09 Minor Street At -grade (New /Modify Gates & Devices) 1 11 EA $750,000 $750,000 50.10 Major Street At -grade (New Gates & Warning Devices) EA $345,000 $3,795,000 50.11 At -Grade Crossing Surface, Concrete Panels 24 800 EA $515,000 $12,360,000 50.12 Rail Safety Measures (including flagging) 1 LF $600 $480,000 50.13 Special Conditions Contingency 25.4 LS MI $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $25,400,000 Subtotal $46,672,700 Basic Civil/Systems Cost $346,666,413 April 2010 A -15 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Cotton Belt Corridor Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Alternative 7 CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 7) From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To Bush Turnpike Station Including Corridor Limits: Knoll Trail Station via Richardson North Alternative Total Length (Miles): 25.4 Total Length (Feet): 134,112 No. Of Stations: 10 No. of Vehicles: 10 No. of Support Buses: 20 DART Allowances Design Contingency (30 %) % 0.30 $103,999,924 Subtotal $450,666,337 Construction Contingency (10 %) % 0.10 $45,066,634 DART Add -on Allowance (32 %) % 0.32 $144,213,228 Subtotal $639,946,199 Environmental Allowance (1 %) % 0.01 $4,506,663 Subtotal $644,452,862 60 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION 60.01 R.O.W. Allowance (Alignment) (4% of Subtotal of Design Contingency) % 0.04 $18,026,653 70 VEHICLES 70.01 Rail Vehicles, FRA- Compliant DMU 70.02 Buses for Feeder Bus Service 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 90.01 Environmental Mitigation Total Project Cost Cost Per Mile April 2010 A-16 10 EA $8,800,000 $88,000,000 20 EA $750,000 $15,000,000 1 EA $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $18,026,653 $103,000,000 $50,000,000 $815,479,516 $32,105,493 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Cotton Belt Corridor Alternative 8 Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 8) Subtotal $71,477,700 Basic Civil /Systems Cost $508,419,380 April 2010 A-17 From DFWIA (Terminal AB Station) To McKinney North 2 Station Corridor Limits: (McKinney Corridor Intedine)via Richardson South Alignment Total Length (Mlles): 44.7 Total Length (Feet): 236,016 No. Of Stations: 19 No. of Vehicles: 19 No. of Support Buses: 20 10 GUIDEWAY &TRACK ELEMENTS Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost Subtotals 10.01 New Main Track, 136# CWR (Ties, rail, ballast) 236,016 FT $310 $73,164,960 10.02 New Siding / Double Track, 136# CWR 9,000 FT $310 $2,790,000 10.03 New Station Siding Track, 136# CWR 25,080 FT $310 $7,774,800 10.04 10.05 New Turnout #20, 136# Rail New Tumout #20, 136# Rail, Station Siding / double track 18 EA $485,000 $8,730,000 10.06 New Railroad Diamond Crossing, 136# Rail 38 EA $485,000 $18,430,000 10.07 Highway /Railroad Grade Separation (RR over Roadway) 0 13 EA $400,000 $0 10.08 Railroad/Railroad Grade Separation (Railroad over RR) EA $7,000,000 $91,000,000 10.09 New Bridge, Concrete ($65 /SF) 0 1,036 TF TF $6,500 $1,200 $0 $1,243,200 10.10 Retaining Wall (0 FT - 10 FT High), one side 0 LF 10.11 Retaining Wall (10 FT - 20 FT High), one side 0 LF $575 $0 10.12 Fencing $1,200 $0 472,032 LF $20 $9,440,640 $212,573,600 20 PASSENGER STATIONS & PARKING 20.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 57 AC $100,500 $5,728,500 20.02 20.03 Utilities Allowance Station, At- Grade, Center Platform (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 19 Station $325,000 $6,175,000 20.04 Station, At- Grade, 2 Side Platforms (Canopy, Fare Equip, Security, etc.) 0 19 EA EA $1,700,000 $2,831,000 $0 $53,789,000 20.05 Parking Spaces, Surface Lot 5,700 EA $3,000 $17,100,000 20.06 Pedestrian Overcrossing 0 EA $1,000,000 $0 20.07 New Roadway for Station Access 25,650 SY $60 $1,539,000 20.08 Reconstruct Roadway for Station Access 12,350 SY $30 $370,500 $84,702,000 30 MAINTENANCE & LAYOVER FACILITIES 30.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 2.5 AC $6,000 $15,000 30.02 New Yard Track, 115# CWR 5280 FT $280 $1,478,400 30.03 New Turnout #10, 115# Rail 2 EA $350,000 $700,000 30.04 Track Bumping Post 2 EA $7,500 $15,000 30.05 Layover Facility Building 600 SF $250 $150,000 30.06 Shop Fire Protection, Security, and Environmental Systems 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 30.07 Yard Service Aisle Crossing (Crossbucks) 1 EA $50,000 $50,000 30.08 Yard Service Aisles 7,112 SY $15 $106,680 30.09 30.10 Fencing Utilities Allowance 2,300 LF $20 $46,000 1 LS $200,000 $200,000 $2,961,080 40 SITEWORK & SPECIAL CONDITIONS 40.01 Earthwork, General Clearing and Grading 44.7 MI $12,000 $536,400 40.02 40.03 Earthwork, Excavation Utilities Allowance (Alignment) 28,512 FT $4,200 $119,750,400 40.04 New Railbed - Mainline 44.7 MI $40,000 $1,788,000 40.05 New Railbed - Station Sidings 44.7 MI $286,000 $12,784,200 40.06 New Railbed - Passing Sidings 4.75 MI $286,000 $1,358,500 1.70 MI $286,000 $487,500 $136,705,000 50 SIGNALING & COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 50.01 Communications System (Trains, Stations, Yards, etc.) 1 LS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 50.02 Positive Train Control (PTC) - Locomotives & Cab Cars 8 EA $100,000 $800,000 50.03 PTC - Wayside (control points, switches, intermediate signals) 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.04 50.05 PTC - Office PTC - Communications 1 EA $25,000 $25,000 50.06 PTC - System Engineering 1 EA $1,700 $1,700 50.07 PTC - Program Management 1 1 EA $24,500 $24,500 50.08 CTC System (at Control Points) EA $11,500 $11,500 50.09 Minor Street At -grade (New /Modify Gates & Devices) 1 18 EA $750,000 $750,000 50.10 Major Street At -grade (New Gates & Warning Devices) 30 EA EA $345,000 $515,000 $6,210,000 $15,450,000 50.11 At -Grade Crossing Surface, Concrete Panels 800 LF $600 $480,000 50.12 Rail Safety Measures (including flagging) 1 LS $1,000,000 $1,000,000 50.13 Special Conditions Contingency 44.7 MI $1,000,000 $44,700,000 Subtotal $71,477,700 Basic Civil /Systems Cost $508,419,380 April 2010 A-17 Appendix A - Cost Estimates Cotton Belt Corridor 60.01 R.O.W. Allowance (Alignment) (4% of Subtotal of Design Contingency) % Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Alternative 8 CORRIDOR: Cotton Belt Corridor (Alternative 8) 70 VEHICLES 70.01 Rail Vehicles, FRA- Compliant DMU 19 EA $8,800,000 $167,200,000 From DFWIA (Terminal A/B Station) To McKinney North 2 Station 70.02 Buses for Feeder Bus Service 20 EA $750,000 $15,000,000 Corridor Limits: (McKinney Corridor Interline)via Richardson South Alignment Total Length (Miles): 44.7 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY Total Length (Feet): 236,016 90.01 Environmental Mitigation 1 EA $50,000,000 $50,000,000 No. Of Stations: 19 No. of Vehicles: 19 Total Project Cost No. of Support Buses: 20 Cost Per Mile DART Allowances Design Contingency (30 %) % 0.30 $152,525,814 Subtotal $660,945,194 Construction Contingency (10 %) % 0.10 $66,094,519 DART Add-on Allowance (32 %) % 0.32 $211,502,462 Subtotal $938,542,175 Environmental Allowance (1 %) % 0.01 $6,609,452 Subtotal $945,151,627 60 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION 60.01 R.O.W. Allowance (Alignment) (4% of Subtotal of Design Contingency) % 0.04 $26,437,808 $26,437,808 70 VEHICLES 70.01 Rail Vehicles, FRA- Compliant DMU 19 EA $8,800,000 $167,200,000 70.02 Buses for Feeder Bus Service 20 EA $750,000 $15,000,000 $182,200,000 90 UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY 90.01 Environmental Mitigation 1 EA $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 Total Project Cost $1,203,789,435 Cost Per Mile $26,930,412 April 2010 A-18 B - Affected Environment Appendix B Affected Environment April 2010 g_1 Cotton Belt Corridor i and Fundina Studv Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This Page Intentionally Left Blank. April 2010 B -2 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study TABLE OF CONTENTS B. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................... ............................... B -7 B.1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ....................................................... ............................... B -7 B.1.1 Corridor Level Transportation Facilities and Services ................. ............................... B -7 B.1.1.1 Roadway System .......................................................... ............................... B -7 B.1.1.2 Transit System ......... ............................... ............ B -20 ........ ............................... B.1.1.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian ............................................... ............................... B -24 B.1.1.4 Freight ........................................................................ ............................... B -28 8.1.1.5 Aviation ....................................................................... ............................... B -31 B.1.2 Travel Patterns ................................................ ............................... ........... B -32 ............... 8.1.2.1 2000 Census Data ...................................................... ............................... B -32 8.1.2.2 Census Data Trends ................................................... ............................... B -34 8.1.2.3 Special Trip Generators .............................................. ............................... B -35 B.2 BUILT ENVIRONMENT ................................................................. ............................... B -36 B.2.1 Land Use and Zoning ................................................................ ............................... B -36 8.2.1.1 Legal and Regulatory Context .................................... ............................... B -36 8.2.1.2 Methodology/ Research ............................................... ............................... B -37 B.2.1.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections / Plans ...... ............................... B -37 B.2.2 Socio- Economic ................... ............ B -43 ......................................... ............................... B.2.2.1 Legal and Regulatory Context .................................... ............................... B -43 B.2.2.2 Methodology/ Research ............................................... ............................... B -44 B.2.2.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections ................ ............................... B -44 B.2.3 Community Resources .............................................................. ............................... B -55 B.2.3.1 Legal and Regulatory Context .................................... ............................... B -55 B.2.3.2 Methodology/ Research ............................................... ............................... B -55 8.2.3.3 Existing Conditions ..................................................... ............................... B -55 B.2.4 Cultural Resources ......................... ............. B -59 .............................. ............................... 8.2.4.1 Legal /Regulatory Context ........................................... ............................... B -59 B.2.4.2 Methodology/ Research ............................................... ............................... B -62 8.2.4.3 Existing Conditions ..................................................... ............................... B -62 8.2.4.4 Archeological Resources ............................................ ............................... B -69 B.2.5 Parks and Recreation ................................................................ ............................... B -70 B.2.5.1 Legal /Regulatory Context ........................................... ............................... B -70 B.2.5.2 Methodology/ Research ............................................... ............................... B -70 B.2.5.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections ................ ............................... B -70 B.2.6 Regulated Material Sites ........................................................... ............................... B -73 B.2.6.1 Methodology/ Research ............................................... ............................... B -73 8.2.6.2 Existing Conditions and Future Projections ................ ............................... B -73 B.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................... ............................... B -76 B.3.1 Air Quality .............................................................................. ............................... B -76 B.3.1 .1 Legal and Regulatory Context .................................... ............................... B -76 8.3.1.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics ............................................ ............................... B -77 8.3.1.3 Particulate Matter ....................................................... ............................... B -78 B.3.1.4 Conformity ............................................. ............................... B -78 ..................... B.3.1.5 Methodology/ Research ............................................... ............................... B -78 8.3.1.6 Existing Conditions and Future Projections ................ ............................... B -78 B.3.2 Noise ......................................................................................... ............................... B -82 8.3.2.1 Legal and Regulatory Context .................................... ............................... B -82 8.3.2.2 Human Perception Levels .......................................... ............................... B -83 April 2010 B -3 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study April 2010 B-4 B.3.2.3 Evaluation Criteria ...................................................... ............................... B -84 B.3.2.4 Methodology ............................................................... ............................... B -86 B.3.2.5 Existing Conditions and Future Projections ................ ............................... B -86 B.3.3 Vibration .................................................................................... ............................... B -87 B.3.3.1 Human Perception Levels .......................................... ............................... B -87 8.3.3.2 Vibration Criteria ......................................................... ............................... B -88 B.3.3.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections ................ ............................... B -89 B.3.4 Water Resources ....................................................................... ............................... B -90 B.3.4.1 Legal /Regulatory Context ........................................... ............................... B -90 B.3.4.2 Methodology ............................................................... ............................... B -91 8.3.4.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections ................ ............................... B -91 B.3.5 Biological Resources ................................................................. ............................... B -96 8.3.5.1 Legal /Regulatory Context .......................................... ............................... B -96 B.3.5.2 Methodology/ Research ............................................... ............................... B -98 B.3.5.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections ................ ............................... B -99 B.3.6 Waters of the US, Including Wetlands ..................................... ............................... B -102 B.3.6.1 Legal and Regulatory Context .................................. ............................... B -102 B.3.6.2 Methodology/ Research ............................................. ............................... B -103 B.3.6.3 Existing Conditions ................................................... ............................... B -104 B.3.7 Soils and Geology ................................................................... ............................... B -107 B.3.7.1 Legal /Regulatory Context ......................................... ............................... B -107 B.3.7.2 Methodology/ Research ............................................. ............................... B -107 8.3.7.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections ............................................. B -107 B.3.8 Energy .......... ............................... B -118 B.3.8.1 Legal /Regulatory Context ......................................... ............................... B -118 B.3.8.2 Methodology/ Research .............................................. ............................... B -118 8.3.8.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections .............. ............................... B -118 April 2010 B-4 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study LIST OF TABLES Table B -1 Regionally Significant Arterials within the Study Area ...... ............................... B -13 Table B -2 Planned Improvements to Highways and Tollways within the Study Area...... B -15 Table B -3 Planned Improvements to RSAs within the Study Area ... ............................... B -15 Table B -4 DART Bus Routes within the Study Area ......................... ............................... B -20 Table B -5 Rail Transit within the Study Area .......................... ......... . B -23 ............................... Table B -6 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities within the Study Area .................... B -25 Table B -7 Funded Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities within the Study Area ..................... B -27 Table B -8 Planned Regional Veloweb within the Study Area ........... ............................... B -27 Table B -9 Freight Rail Lines within the Study Area ........................... ............................... B -31 Table B -10 2000 Commuting Patterns ................................................ ............................... B -32 Table B -11 2000 Census Mode of Travel to Work .............................. ............................... B -33 Table B -12 Year 2000 Commuting Travel Times... ............................. ............................... B -34 Table B -13 Census Place of Work Trends within the Study Area ....... ............................... B -34 Table B -14 Census Mode of Travel to Work Trends within the Study Area ....................... B -36 Table B -15 Census Commuting Travel Time Trends within the Study Area ...................... B -36 Table B -16 2005 Land Use ............... ..... ............................... B -37 .............. ............................... Table B -17 2000 Ethnicity Composition .............................................. ............................... B -48 Table B -18 Population, Race, and Ethnicity by Census Tract ............ ............................... B -49 Table B -19 Population Characteristics within Study Area ................... ............................... B -52 Table B -20 Means of Transportation to Work for Populations Over 16 ............................. B -52 Table B -21 Income, Poverty Level, and LEP by Census Tract ........... ............................... B -53 Table B -22 Languages Spoken by LEP populations in the Study Area ............................. B -55 Table B -23 Existing Major Activity Centers ......................................... ............................... B -56 Table B -24 Major Employers in the Cotton Belt Corridor .................... ............................... B -56 Table B -25 Community Facilities by City / Town ................................... ............................... B -59 Table B -26 Number of Structures from 2007 Parcel Data within Study Area .................... B -62 Table B -27 NRHP- Listed Districts in the Study Area .......................... ............................... B -63 Table B -28 THC Listed Museum in the Study Area ............................ ............................... B -63 Table B -29 Historical Markers ................ B -68 Table B -30 Cemeteries within the Study Area . ............................... ... ...... . B -68 ......................... Table B -31 Archeological Projects .................... ...... B -69 ................... ............................... Table B -32 Parks and Recreational Facilities in the Study Area ......... ............................... B -71 Table B -33 Air Pollution Concentrations Required to Exceed the NAAQS ........................ B -76 Table B -34 Four Highest Eight -Hour Ozone Concentrations .............. ............................... B -79 Table B -35 Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria ............... B -85 Table B -36 Ground -Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria .......... ............................... B -89 Table B -37 Federal /State Listed Species for the Cotton Belt Study Area .......................... B -98 Table B -38 Vegetation Types in the Study Area ................................. ............................... B -99 Table B -39 Typical Vegetation Type and Distribution ......................... ............................... B -99 Table B -40 Linear Feet of Stream within the Study Area .................. ............................... B -104 Table B -41 Acres of Waters of the US .............................................. ............................... B -104 TableB -42 Soil Series ...................................................................... ............................... B -113 April 2010 B -5 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study LIST OF FIGURES Figure B -1 Existing Roadway System: SH 360 to Springfield Boulevard .......................9 Figure B -2 Existing Roadway System: Springfield Boulevard to SH 5 .........................10 Figure B -3 2007 Level of Service: SH 360 to Kelly Boulevard ........ .............................11 Figure B -4 2007 Level of Service: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5 ............ .............................12 FigureB -5 Planned Roads .............................................................. .............................16 Figure B -6 Levels of Congestion within the DFW Region ............... .............................17 Figure B -7 2030 Level of Service: SH 360 to Kelly Boulevard ........ .............................18 Figure B -8 2030 Level of Service: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5 ............ .............................19 Figure B -9 Existing and Committed Transit System: SH 360 to Kelly Boulevard ......... 21 Figure B -10 Existing and Committed Transit System: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5 .............22 Figure B -11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ................................... .............................26 Figure B -12 Goods Movement and Aviation Facilities: SH 360 to Kelly Boulevard ........ 29 Figure B -13 Goods Movement and Aviation Facilities: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5............30 Figure B -14 2005 Land Use: SH 360 to Kelly Boulevard .................. .............................38 Figure B -15 2005 Land Use: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5 ...................... .............................39 Figure B -16 2000 Census Tracts: SH 360 to MacArthur Boulevard .. .............................45 Figure B -17 2000 Census Tracts: MacArthur Boulevard to Dallas North Tollway .......... 46 Figure B -18 2000 Census Tracts: Dallas North Tollway to Jupiter Road .......................47 Figure B -19 National Register Historic Districts ................................. .............................64 Figure B -20 Historic Resources: SH 360 to MacArthur Boulevard .... .............................65 Figure B -21 Historic Resources: MacArthur Boulevard to Dallas North Tollway ............ 66 Figure B -22 Historic Resources: Dallas North Tollway to Jupiter Road .........................67 Figure B -23 Hazardous Materials: SH 360 to Kelly Boulevard .......... .............................74 Figure B -24 Hazardous Materials: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5 .............. .............................75 Figure B -25 Air Quality Monitoring Stations: SH 360 to Kelly Boulevard .......................80 Figure B -26 Air Monitoring Stations: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5 ........... .............................81 Figure B -27 Examples of Typical Outdoor Noise Exposure .............. .............................84 Figure B -28 FTA Noise Impact Criteria ............................................. .............................86 Figure B -29 Typical Ground -Borne Vibration Levels and Criteria ..... .............................88 Figure B -30 Floodplains: SH 360 to Kelly Boulevard ........................ .............................92 Figure B -31 Floodplains: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5 ............................ .............................93 Figure B -32 Water Resources: SH 360 to Kelly Boulevard ............... .............................94 Figure B -33 Water Resources: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5 ................... .............................95 Figure B -34 Vegetation Types of Texas: SH 360 to Kelly Boulevard ...........................100 Figure B -35 Vegetation Types of Texas: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5 ... ............................101 Figure B -36 NLCD Wetlands: SH 360 to Kelly Blvd ......................... ............................105 Figure B -37 NCLD Wetlands: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5 .................... ............................106 Figure B -38 Geological Formations: SH 360 to Kelly Boulevard ...... ............................108 Figure B -39 Geological Formations: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5 .......... ............................109 Figure B -40 Soil Series: SH 360 to Kelly Boulevard ........................ ............................116 Figure B -41 Soil Series: Kelly Boulevard to SH 5 ............................. ............................117 April 2010 B-6 B — Affected Environment B. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Cotton Belt Corridor I and Fundina Studv Appendix B includes researched information for the Cotton Belt Corridor regarding affected environment and existing conditions as summarized in Chapter 4. The study area used in this appendix represents a one -mile area surrounding the proposed Cotton Belt Corridor. The one - mile area best represents the potential resources possibly affected by the proposed project. B.1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM This section discusses the existing transportation systems and planned improvements within the Cotton Belt Corridor study area. B.1.1 Corridor Level Transportation Facilities and Services The proposed extension of passenger rail to Plano or Richardson along the Cotton Belt Corridor will need integration into the existing transportation system of roadways, transit routes, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, railroads, and aviation facilities. This section documents the existing and planned conditions of that transportation system within and near the study area. The focus of this section is to document the flow of people and goods traveling parallel to or along the proposed passenger rail corridor, as well as the potential interactions with transportation facilities that cross the rail line. Data collection to document the existing conditions of, and proposed changes to, the transportation system within the Cotton Belt Corridor came from a variety of sources. The primary sources of data regarding the existing condition and proposed improvements are the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Dallas -Fort Worth (DFW) region, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T). Resource agency databases were also major sources for the data collection used in this section. Each subsection will include a full accounting of the data sources used for the maps and tables included in this report. 13.1.1.1 Roadway System According to the 2000 United States (US) Census, over 90 percent of workers in the DFW region traveled to work in a car, truck, or van. When motorcycles, buses, and taxis are included, the percentage of work trips that utilize the roadway system is over 93 percent. The regional roadway network is primarily comprised of interstate highways and other federal and state principal highways and arterials. Several regionally significant arterials (RSAs) pass through the Cotton Belt Corridor study area. The local roadway system around each potential station in the study area is discussed Section 3.3. The travel model forecasts used in NCTCOG's long -range metropolitan transportation plan (MTP), Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas -Fort Worth Area, 2009 Amendment (Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment), are the source of information regarding current and projected level of service for the major roadways within the study area. April 2010 B -7 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Current System The most important transportation facilities in the roadway network are the interstate highways (IH), US highways, state highways (SH), and regional toll roads. Figures B -1 and B -2 show the major highways, toll roads, and RSAs within the study area. The major facilities that run generally parallel to the Cotton Belt Corridor are IH 635, International Parkway (SH 97), SH 121, and the President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT). Figures B -3 and B-4 illustrate the modeled level of service (LOS) for roadways, including RSAs, within the study area. The regional travel demand forecast model indicated various IH 635 segments were operating at LOS D, E, or F in 2007, while various segments on tolled corridors (SH 97, SH 121, and the PGBT) operated at LOS C or better. Facilities that are generally perpendicular to the corridor are IH 35E, US 75 (North Central Expressway), SH 114, and the Dallas North Tollway (DNT). These facilities generally were operating at LOS D, E, or F. Table B -1 lists the roadway segments that make up the RSA system within the study area; most of these RSAs serve north -south traffic movements. According to Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment model runs, every north -south RSA within the study area, except MacArthur Boulevard, had a LOS of F for at least some portion of the day in 2007. April 2010 B-$ Flower Mound FM Grapevine' Lake Hebron— Denton County ND G Lewisville-,„ "� OU- ' ' i c / Or a_ n ts1 a Carrollton z o as z a z SANDY LAKE RD ' WHITLOCK LN, LLJ In 0 jl C oppell bowntown v o ? j' Carrollton 3ETHNL SCHOOL RD NF_`,1.,� \ BEL� LINE J North c SBY RD Y *+ i J Northt Lake o rncE Ro J Tarrant` County t.¢+ a DFW Airport (A/B Term) Euless 360 c. vD NOrih �° SPRINGVALLEr -. Lake — o c v` ah �� Dallas z `� d County Farmers Br w 4E-t ROYAL Irving .. ..... V Legend Level of Service A, B, or C Level of Service D or E Level of Service F City /Town Limits County Limits Lakes 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles North Central Texas Council of Governments Potential Station Locations Proposed Corridor Corridor Study Area Lj Station Study Area Wise ; Denton Collin j County! County County « N Rockwall j County -- j Tarrant Dallas • • • County County Kaufman • • j _ _�__ i County Johnson i Ellis H LING �zC LINE ... °.rt, Q Dallas D < O KBROOK BELINE RD MAIN ST ELT LINE f FYKERD r — ❑Add On � � �ansitenter 0 Dallas _. County o � o z Farmers Branch z O gas I VA LEY VIEW LN Garland Legend Level of Service A, B, or C Level of Service D or E Level of Service F City /Town Limits County Limits Lakes 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles North Central Texas • Council of Governments Potential Station Locations DART Red Line Station Proposed Corridor Corridor Study Area Station Study ,Area A Wise Denton i Collin j r County! County County F2ockwall I County Tarrant Dallas ; - .' County County Kaufmai County Johnson 1 — Ellis SO- - -� County County -...� c County PARK BLVD " -- -� JRLV 544 r — � _ Street UTD/ H T T GEORGE BU RN PI 15TH ST E W Synergy Par k -� Renner Village U o P •= !a. / E ~ O ---� -- Preston ' - --- -Knoll - -- Ra<�J BL W ° °n Bush ^ '-- - - -- - - -- Trail Ile - -� - - - - -- Turnpike -- - --- - - -- Iton � °"°---�AMPBE tJ r R SPR i.,. RS Richardson LINE ... °.rt, Q Dallas D < O KBROOK BELINE RD MAIN ST ELT LINE f FYKERD r — ❑Add On � � �ansitenter 0 Dallas _. County o � o z Farmers Branch z O gas I VA LEY VIEW LN Garland Legend Level of Service A, B, or C Level of Service D or E Level of Service F City /Town Limits County Limits Lakes 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles North Central Texas • Council of Governments Potential Station Locations DART Red Line Station Proposed Corridor Corridor Study Area Station Study ,Area A Wise Denton i Collin j r County! County County F2ockwall I County Tarrant Dallas ; - .' County County Kaufmai County Johnson 1 — Ellis SO- - -� County County Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -1 Reaionally Sianificant Arterials within the Studv Area April 2010 B -13 RSA Segment Current Length Street ID* Limit A Limit B Lanes Direction miles Belt Line Road 8.1 DNT frontage Meadowcreek Drive 6 East -West 1.2 northbound Belt Line Road 9 Josey Lane Webb Chapel Road 6 East -West 1.1 Belt Line Road 9.1 PGBT inorthbound/ Josey Lane 6 East -West 3.0 Luna Road Belt Line Road 9.2 Webb Chapel Road DNT frontage 6 East -West 2.9 southbound Belt Line Road 10 MacArthur PGBT southbound 6 East -West 1.0 Boulevard Belt Line Road 10.1 Denton Tap MacArthur 4 East -West 2.3 Road /Belt Line Road Boulevard Belt Line Road 11 Southwestern SH 183 frontage 6 North- 0.8 Boulevard /Belt Line westbound South Road Business 114/ 126 Park Boulevard SH 26 4 East -West 0.5 Northwest Highway Campbell Road 79 SH 289/ Collins Boulevard 6 East -West 2.5 Preston Road Coit Road 40 Collin County line Cliffbrook Drive 6 North- 0.7 South Coit Road 216 SH 121 Collin County line 6 North- 1.4 South Denton Tap 73 SH 121 frontage Southwestern 6 North- 1.3 Road northbound/ Boulevard /Belt Line South eastbound Road FM 2281/ 74.3 Denton County line Luna Road ramps 6 North- 2.8 Old Denton South Road/ Luna Road FM 544/ 222 Midway Road US 75 6 East -West 0.6 Park Boulevard FM 544/ 217 US 75 SH 78 6 East -West 1.3 Plano Parkway Luna Road 74 SH 161 frontage Royal Lane 6 North- 0.0 soutbound /Crosby South Road MacArthur 81.3 SH 161 Belt Line Road 6 North- 1.1 Boulevard South Midway Road 38 Belt Line Road Spring Valley 6 North- 0.8 South Midway Road 38.1 Trinity Mills Road Belt Line Road 6 North- 1.2 South April 2010 B -13 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -1 Regionally Significant Arterials within the St dy Area I continued Source: NCTCOG, 2009 *RSA Segment ID corresponds to roadway designations in Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment While most east -west RSAs had higher LOS than north -south RSAs, travelers on several portions of Belt Line Road also experienced LOS F conditions. Between Denton Tap Road in Coppell and Midway Road in Addison, Belt Line Road is the facility that runs most closely parallel to the planned Cotton Belt Corridor. East of Addison, the corridor turns northeast and no RSAs provide a parallel route. Planned System Improvements There are six highway or toll road improvement projects included in the MTP that fall within the study area. Two additional major corridor improvements fall within two miles of the study area, IH 635 and SH 121. Table B -2 lists these projects. Most of the improvements call for the addition of tolled or High Occupancy (HOV) /managed lanes; travel time improvements associated with additional capacity are distributed among system users based on the users' ability to pay for access to the tolled or managed lanes. April 2010 B -14 RSA Segment Current Length Street ID* Limit A Limit B Lanes Direction miles Parker Road 232 US 75 SH 5/ 6 East -West 0.3 K Avenue Plano Road 210.3 Renner Road Greenville Avenue N 14 North- 0.2 South SH 26 126.1 Texan Trail Grapevine Mills 6 North- 1.3 Boulevard S South SH 289/ 39 McCallum Boulevard Northwest Highway/ 6 North- 2.4 Preston Road Loop 12 South SH 289/ 228 Genstar Lane/ McCallum Boulevard 13 North- 0.8 Preston Road Bentwood Trail South SH 5/ 210.2 Exchange Parkway Renner Road 6 North- 3.5 Greenville South Avenue/ K Avenue Source: NCTCOG, 2009 *RSA Segment ID corresponds to roadway designations in Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment While most east -west RSAs had higher LOS than north -south RSAs, travelers on several portions of Belt Line Road also experienced LOS F conditions. Between Denton Tap Road in Coppell and Midway Road in Addison, Belt Line Road is the facility that runs most closely parallel to the planned Cotton Belt Corridor. East of Addison, the corridor turns northeast and no RSAs provide a parallel route. Planned System Improvements There are six highway or toll road improvement projects included in the MTP that fall within the study area. Two additional major corridor improvements fall within two miles of the study area, IH 635 and SH 121. Table B -2 lists these projects. Most of the improvements call for the addition of tolled or High Occupancy (HOV) /managed lanes; travel time improvements associated with additional capacity are distributed among system users based on the users' ability to pay for access to the tolled or managed lanes. April 2010 B -14 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -2 Planned Improvements to Hiahways and Tollways within the Studv Area Source: NCTCOG, 2009 The RSAs within the study area pass through developed areas, constraining the possibility of expanding these facilities to carry more traffic. Through the year 2030, only three of the 25 identified RSA roadway segments anticipate having added lane capacity. Table B -3 lists the RSA segments with planned expansions of two additional lanes for each facility. The length of these three segments is 4.3 miles (12 percent) of the total 34.9 miles of RSAs within the study area. The additional lanes will increase the total lane miles of RSAs within the study area to 211.8 miles, an increase of only 4.2 percent over the next two decades. Figure B -5 shows the locations of planned improvements to highways, toll roads, and RSAs. Table B -3 Planned Improvements to RSAs within the Study Area Corridor Current Planned Year Facility Number Limit A Limit B Lanes Planned Lanes Operational DNT 8 SH 121 Ro al Lane 6 Toll 8 Toll 2010 -2019 IH 35E 17 SH 121 IH 635 6 Main 6 -8 Main 2020 -2025 Northbound Drive 2 HOV 4 HOV/Managed IH 635 23 Luria Road US 75 8 -10 Main 8 -10 Main 2010 -2019 Belt Line Road Boulevard 0 -2 HOV 4 -6 HOV/Managed PGBT 35 SH 78 IH 35E 6 Toll 8 Toll 2010 -2019 SH 114 36 SH 121 Loop 12 4 -6 Main 8 Main 2020 -2025 4 HOV/Managed DFW 38 SH 97 Kimball Avenue 4 -8 Main 6 -13 Main 2010 -2019 Connector SH 360 Dallas County 4 -8 Main 0 -9 HOV /Managed SH 114 SH 121 Line 6 Main SH 121 SH 121 Royal Lane 4 Main IH 635 Stone Myers SH 360 Parkway SH 121 40 DNT BU 121 6 Toll 8 Toll 2010 -2019 US 75 53 Exchange IH 635 6 -8 Main 6 -10 Main 2007 -2019 Parkway 2 HOV/Managed Source: NCTCOG, 2009 The RSAs within the study area pass through developed areas, constraining the possibility of expanding these facilities to carry more traffic. Through the year 2030, only three of the 25 identified RSA roadway segments anticipate having added lane capacity. Table B -3 lists the RSA segments with planned expansions of two additional lanes for each facility. The length of these three segments is 4.3 miles (12 percent) of the total 34.9 miles of RSAs within the study area. The additional lanes will increase the total lane miles of RSAs within the study area to 211.8 miles, an increase of only 4.2 percent over the next two decades. Figure B -5 shows the locations of planned improvements to highways, toll roads, and RSAs. Table B -3 Planned Improvements to RSAs within the Study Area Source: NCTCOG, 2009 * RSA Segment ID corresponds to roadway designations in Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment As shown in Figure B -6, the Cotton Belt Corridor travels through areas that currently experience moderate to severe congestion. Even if all planned improvements, including the Cotton Belt Corridor rail line, are constructed, 2030 congestion levels are expected to be more severe. Figures B -7 and B -8 depict the projected LOS for roadways within and near the study area in 2030. By comparing projected LOS levels in 2030 to those shown for 2007, in the previous Figures B -3 and B -4, the trend for the roadways in the study area are consistent with the regional trend. April 2010 B -15 RSA Planned Segment Current 2030 Length Street ID* Limit A Limit B Lanes Lanes miles Belt Line Road 8.1 DNT frontage Meadowcreek 6 8 1.2 Northbound Drive Belt Line Road 10.1 Denton Tap Road/ MacArthur 4 6 2.3 Belt Line Road Boulevard !Midway Road 38 Belt Line Road Spring Valley 6 8 0.8 Source: NCTCOG, 2009 * RSA Segment ID corresponds to roadway designations in Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment As shown in Figure B -6, the Cotton Belt Corridor travels through areas that currently experience moderate to severe congestion. Even if all planned improvements, including the Cotton Belt Corridor rail line, are constructed, 2030 congestion levels are expected to be more severe. Figures B -7 and B -8 depict the projected LOS for roadways within and near the study area in 2030. By comparing projected LOS levels in 2030 to those shown for 2007, in the previous Figures B -3 and B -4, the trend for the roadways in the study area are consistent with the regional trend. April 2010 B -15 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Figure B -6 Levels of Congestion within the DFW Region r The Metropolitan U Transportation Plan Areas with No Congestion Areas with Light Congestion Areas with Moderate Congestion Areas with Severe Congestion Roadways cuVi /Usu Annual Cost of Congestion $4.2 Billion Annual Cost of Congestion $6.5 Billion Source: NCTCOG, 2009 April 2010 B -17 Denton unty Flower Mound Co SOUND GROV D Lewisville Grapevine Lake FM 2499 L z 0 z SANDY LAKE RI coppell BE VL SCHOOL RD -�Airpo rt North North w— Lake �' ovine Dallas z nt IIRF� D County Ity DFW Airport (A/13 Term) Euless 7 1- n Legend Level of Service A, B, or C Level of Service D or E Level of Service F City/Town Limits County Limits Lakes H c b, on 01 U) Z �bow'n'town - TA BEL[ LINE_ LU brth SBY RD �c > CO SPRING VALLEYLW8. wn, !,o Carrollton n BE LLL �NE SY -Q �3 LN Farmers Branch FT-I ROYALL Potential Station Locations Proposed Corridor Corridor Study Area Station Study Area 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Wise Denton Collin I i i I Countyl County County Miles 1 _ --E] Rockwall Tarrant i Dallas qqEqty- County I County Kaufman County North Central Texas nd Johnson Ellis Council of Governments Funding t y rnlintil ('--h, - �r� Li Lewisville SP RI CREEK PKWY The Colony .m Heb on i. z C Plano LL Denton ollin r o PARK BLVD U !bounty FM 544 County hLV;. �• UTD/ Street 1V T N = `14 5TH ST M ; P T GEORGE BU RNPI nergy Parlk r� Rennei Ar 0 }, }/ W Ilage- — - 'FR, FO Ef� RD a — _ Preston - - - -- —I -' wRoad MCC, BL'vt W -Po Bush - - -- - - - -- K.nol l- �_ A . ;= - - - - -- • �;�Turnpike - "� � Tra i I -- z Carrollton AMPBELL R m KELLER SPRINGS RD z l Add,sonk`I'�" RSA" u Richardson t#iJ s _T INE NE c -i i7all a5 - a _ 75 _K D ¢ — Dh i:O } MAIN ST r I '� BELT LINE FYKERD �I Add�On Dallas nsit Center _ d � a 'County G . O Farmers Branch C — z t Vzl LEY VIEW - •.. � "r Garland Legend Level of Service A, B, or C Level of Service D or E Level of Service F City /Town Limits _J County Limits Lakes 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles North Central Texas Council of Governments Potential Station Locations DART Red Line Station Proposed Corridor Corridor Study Area Station Study Area Wise ; Denton I Collin { County! County C, ounty Rockwall Cty- Tarrant 1 Dall oun Dallas 3 • • " County County }Kaufmar County • Johnson ! ~ Ellis `��, Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study B.1.1.2 Transit System The Cotton Belt Corridor study area falls within the service area of the three transit providers: DART, Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA), and The T. This section will detail the current services provided, the near -term changes to transit service, and the long -range plans for the transit system in the study area. Data used in this section came from four sources: DART, DCTA, The T, and NCTCOG. Data describing the existing and near -term expansion of transit routes and ridership was gathered from DART, DCTA, and The T. Information regarding the long -range regional planning for transit rail projects is from NCTCOG. The travel model forecasts used in the Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment are the source of information regarding projected ridership for the planned transit rail facilities within the study area. Current System Currently, DART operates most of the transit services in the study area. The DART Red Line light rail transit (LRT) runs north south near the eastern terminus of the Cotton Belt Corridor and has been operational to its current northern terminus at Parker Road Station since 2002. There will be a need to accommodate transfers from the DART Red Line to the Cotton Belt Corridor rail line; Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2 of this report discusses several possible methods for meeting this need. Table B -4 lists the 33 DART bus routes that pass through some portion of the study area, which includes five local routes; three express routes; 10 transit feeder lines; six cross- town buses; and nine special or shuttle routes, including those that serve Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport (DFWIA). Figures B -9 and B -10 show the transit services currently provided within the study area. The Addison Transit Center is the only park- and -ride facility within the study area. It accommodates parking for 300 vehicles and serves as a hub for local and express bus routes within the Addison. The proposed Addison rail station would be at the Addison Transit Center. Table B -4 DART Bus Routes within the Study Area Route Route Type 31 Local 36 Local 183 Local 184 Local 185 Local 204 Express 205 Express 210 Express 308 Transit Feeder 310 Transit Feeder 331 Transit Feeder 333 Transit Feeder 341 Transit Feeder 344 Transit Feeder 347 Transit Feeder 350 Transit Feeder 361 1 Transit Feeder Source: DART, 2009 Route Route Type 362 Transit Feeder 400 Crosstown 410 Crosstown 451 Crosstown 452 Crosstown 463 Crosstown 488 Crosstown 801 Special, /Shuttle 802 Special/Shuttle 804 Special /Shuttle 824 Special, /Shuttle 829 Special, /Shuttle 841 Special /Shuttle 843 Special,lShuttle 870 Special, /Shuttle 883 1 Special/Shuttle April 2010 B -20 Flower Mound �O FP�I 2499 ~i Grapevine's Lake �S ov Airp 15) Nol ::GrapeOine� _ .WAIF ',� Tarrant SCHOOL RD H SANDY Lt4KE RD RO North ;r Lake Lu t� Zv ��001 A rb 11 „4 E ROYAL LEI DFW.Airport Irving - 5---; (A/B'Term) 360 O 4 Legend ,uilton,q m Ip O y �o HITLOCK L W CROSBY D Y ds. O FYKE RD m2 RIN VALLEY _N'0 H rr o Farnne!ZjBranch Dally �T� Potential Station Locations AQ] Transit Center Highways /Tollways Proposed Corridor Committed DART LRT Regionally Significant Arterials Proposed SW2NE: Corridor Committed DCTA CRT -- Major Arterials Corridor Study Area • • DART Bus Line City /Town Limits Station Study Area • • DCTA Bus Line F-1 County Limits • • The T Bus Line Lakes 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles totton Conceptuid North Central Texas and Council of Governments 4 i Wise l Denton Collin j Countyi County County _ t N ; - Rockwall � County -- ; Tarrant Dallas • • County County !Kaufman ; County Johnson j i Ellis 1, Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected' Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study DCTA provides the only other active transit service that runs through the study area. The DCTA Commuter Express serves passengers traveling to downtown Dallas from park- and -ride locations in Denton and Lewisville and from the University of North Texas (UNT) campus. Reverse trips from downtown Dallas stop at the DART North Carrollton Transit Center, the Lewisville Park and Ride, LINT, Texas Woman's University (TWU), and the DCTA Central transit center. There are no Commuter Express stops within the Cotton Belt Corridor study area. Figures B -9 and B -10 show these routes. Planned System Improvements In addition to existing LRT service provided by the DART Red Line, all three transit agencies are constructing or planning new transit rail lines that will travel through the study area. Table B -5 lists and Figures B -9 and B -10 illustrate the existing and planned transit rail projects. Table B -5 Rail Transit within the Study Area Transit Agency (Project Type Project Name Mode Length miles DART Existing Red Line Light Rail Transit 4.3 DART Under Construction Green Line (Northwest) Light Rail Transit 6.0 DCTA Under Construction The A -Train Commuter Rail 1.6 The T Committed Southwest -to- Northeast Commuter Rail 1 4.8 Source: DART, 2009; DCTA, 2009; and The T, 2009 The DART Green Line (Northwest Corridor) is a new LRT line currently under construction and projected to open in December 2010. The DART Green Line generally follows the former Union Pacific Railroad (UP) right -of -way connecting Carrollton to downtown Dallas. The DART Green Line will feature 12 new stations: Victory, Market Center, Southwestern Medical District (SMD) /Parkland, Inwood, Love Field, Bachman, Walnut Hill /Denton, Royal Lane, Farmers Branch, Downtown Carrollton, Trinity Mills, and North Carrollton /Frankford. DCTA is constructing the A- train, a regional passenger rail line, to serve central and southern Denton County. The A -train route, approved by the DCTA Board of Directors in May 2005, generally travels along the east side of IH 35E. The rail line is approximately 21 miles in length traveling from Denton to Carrollton. There are five planned rail stations to serve passengers in Denton County. Completion of the first phase of The A -train is planned to occur simultaneously with completion of the DART Green Line to North Carrollton Station. This will allow passengers on the A -train to transfer to LRT at the transfer station located at Trinity Mills Road in Carrollton, travel to downtown Dallas and other transit points in the North Central Texas region. DCTA plans to extend the A -train to the Carrollton Square Station to facilitate transfers to the proposed Cotton Belt Corridor and Frisco Corridor rail lines. The T and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), have initiated an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Southwest -to- Northeast (SW2NE) Rail Corridor project. The proposed commuter rail line follows portions of the Fort Worth and Western Railroad (FWWR), UP, and the DART -owned Cotton Belt railroad lines. The SW2NE travels from southwest Fort Worth at approximately Sycamore School Road, through downtown Fort Worth, continues through Haltom City, North Richland Hills, Colleyville, and Grapevine to the northern entrance of DFWIA. April 2010 B -23 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This rail line would connect directly with the Cotton Belt Corridor rail line at the DFW Airport A/B Terminal Station. Two other rail lines are currently in future transportation plans but have not been committed for implementation by a transit agency. Depending on funding, environmental impacts, and viability, these lines may add additional connectors for the Cotton Belt rail line. The Frisco Corridor is a proposed line from Irving to Frisco intersecting the Cotton Belt at the Downtown Carrollton Station. The second proposed rail project is passenger rail service from the DART Red Line terminus at Parker Road to McKinney. Depending on the alternative chosen, the Cotton Belt Corridor could intersect this project near the southern terminus. B.1.1.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities exist at several locations within the study area. Municipalities with existing or planned facilities include, Addison, Carrollton, Coppell, Dallas, Grapevine, Plano, and Richardson. NCTCOG also has a future planned regional network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities detailed in the Regional Veloweb. The data used in this section comes from NCTCOG and from the most recent comprehensive plans of the previously named municipalities. NCTCOG maintains the data describing the existing and planned regional bicycle and pedestrian facilities associated with the Regional Veloweb initiative. Current Svstem There are currently about 46 miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the study area. On- street bike lanes in Dallas account for slightly more than 25 miles (55 percent), with the remaining facilities located off - street or on greenways. As illustrated in Figure B -11, most of the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities are located in the eastern half of the study area. Table B -6 provides a complete list of the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the study area. Planned System Improvements Several municipalities within the study area have planned expansions to their local bicycle and pedestrian trail systems. Plano has committed to approximately 15 miles of additional on- street bicycle lanes within the city limits. Dallas, Grapevine, Plano, and Richardson have identified 15 total additional miles of off - street bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Listed in Table B -7 and shown in Figure B -11 are the funded bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Regional Veloweb is a 644 -mile, designated off - street trail network planned to provide bicycle and pedestrian connections in the DFW region. The Regional Veloweb alignment, introduced in Mobility 2010: The Regional Transportation Plan for the North Central Texas Regional (Mobility 2010), was determined through the cooperative efforts of local governments and NCTCOG. Figure B -11 shows the locations of planned bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements in the study area. There are many portions of the Regional Veloweb planned for inclusion into existing active freight rail corridors, including the Cotton Belt Central and Cotton Belt Dallas County trails, which follow almost the entire alignment of the Cotton Belt Corridor rail line. Table B -8 lists the Regional Veloweb trails that fall within the study area. April 2010 B -24 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected' Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -6 Existinq Bicvcle and Pedestrian Facilities within the Studv Area Data Source Trail Name Facility Length miles Addison Park Plan Beltway Drive Greenway 0.7 Addison Park Plan Easement Park Trail Off - Street 0.5 Addison Park Plan Les Lacs Park Trail Off - Street 1.2 Addison Park Plan Les Lacs Trail East Off - Street 0.6 Addison Park Plan Les Lacs Trail South Off - Street 0.5 Addison Park Plan Marsh Lane Greenway 0.4 Addison Park Plan Quorum Park Greenway 0.2 Carrollton Park Trails Jimmy Porter Park Off - Street 1.1 Carrollton Park Trails Mclnnish Park Off - Street 1.3 Coppell Bike Plan Unknown Soft Surface 0.8 Dallas Bike Plan Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 340 On- Street 1.6 Dallas Bike Plan Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 350 On- Street 4.5 Dallas Bike Plan Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 360 On- Street 6.0 Dallas Bike Plan Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 37 On- Street 6.2 Dallas Bike Plan Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 370 On- Street 4.3 Dallas Bike Plan Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 45 On- Street 2.6 Dallas Bike Plan Preston Ridge Trail Off - Street 1.1 Dallas Bike Plan Preston Ridge Trail Extension Off - Street 1.3 Dallas Bike Plan Unknown Off - Street 0.4 Grapevine Bike Plan Opry Land Trail Off- Street 0.6 Plano Bike Plan Chisholm Trail Off - Street 1.5 Plano Bike Plan Santa Fe Trail Off - Street 0.5 Plano Bike Plan Shawnee Park Trail Off - Street 0.4 Plano Bike Plan Willow Creek Park Trail Off - Street 1.0 Richardson Bike Plan North Duck Creek Off - Street <0.1 Richardson Bike Plan Plano Trail Greenway 0.3 Richardson Bike Plan Renner West Trail Off - Street 1.8 Richardson Bike Plan Spring Creek Nature Trail Off - Street 0.2 Richardson Bike Plan Spring Creek Nature Trail, Phase 1 Off - Street 0.2 Richardson Bike Plan Spring Creek Nature Trail, Phase 2 Off - Street 0.3 Richardson Bike Plan University of Texas at Dallas Trail Off - Street 2.5 Unknown Haggard Park Off - Street 0.4 Unknown North Lake Park Off - Street 0.3 Unknown I Spring Creek Nature Trail I Off - Street 0.3 Source: NCTCOG, 2009 April 2010 B -25 t f 3rapen&d - Lake tt4 121 360 VN 0 0.5 1 2 3 ��nues North Central Texas Council of Government ti. Z. � I IM t @ 5 j 1 }- � 114 < ' t f Legend Denton Collin Potential Cotton Belt Stations — Existing, Regional Veloweb -- Existing, On- Street Highways/Tollways County County Potential Cotton Belt Line Funded, Regional Veloweb Funded, On- Street Major Arterials - -- -- I -- Potential SW2NE Corridor ° �` Planned, Regional Veloweb Funded, Off - Street or Greenway City /Town Limits Tarrant Dallas Existing, Off - Street �� County Limits County County t _ Lakes s Key Map 0 0 s Corridor • • tual Engineering and Funding Study E Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected' Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -7 Funded Bicvcle and Pedestrian Facilities within the Studv Area Data Source Trail Name Facility Length miles Dallas Bike Plan University of Texas at Dallas Trail Off - Street 0.6 Grapevine Bike Plan Unknown Greenway 0.6 Plano Bike Plan 15th Street Station Greenway 0.7 Plano Bike Plan North Duck Creek Off- Street 1.1 Plano Bike Plan Parker Road Station Greenway 0.5 Plano Bike Plan Plano Bike Plan, Route 402 On- Street 1.3 Plano Bike Plan Plano Bike Plan, Route 404 On- Street 0.5 Plano Bike Plan Plano Bike Plan, Route 408 On- Street 1.2 Plano Bike Plan Plano Bike Plan, Route 416 On- Street 0.4 Plano Bike Plan Plano Bike Plan, Route 61 On- Street 0.7 Plano Bike Plan Plano Bike Plan, Route 71 On- Street 1.3 Plano Bike Plan Plano Bike Plan, Route 73 On- Street 1.0 Plano Bike Plan Plano Bike Plan, Route 75 On- Street 1.9 Plano Bike Plan Plano Bike Plan, Route 85 On- Street 1.8 Plano Bike Plan Plano Bike Plan, System Improvements On- Street 5.3 Plano Bike Plan Rail to Trail Conversion Off - Street 1.0 Richardson Bike Plan Cotton Belt Central Off - Street 5.2 Richardson Bike Plan University of Texas at Dallas Trail Off - Street 2.1 Richardson Bike Plan Unknown Greenway 1.4 Richardson Bike Plan Unknown Off- Street 0.3 Unknown North Duck Creek Off - Street 1.2 Source: NCTCOG, 2009 Table 13-8 Planned Regional Veloweb within the Study Area Data Source Trail Name Length miles Co ell Bike Plan North Elm Fork 2.0 Dallas Bike Plan Cotton Belt NE Dallas County 7.6 Dallas Bike Plan Preston Ridge South 3.1 Grapevine Cotton Belt Trail Cotton Belt NE Tarrant County 3.6 Richardson Bike Plan North Duck Creek 6.7 Richardson Bike Plan Rowlett Creek North 7.0 NCTCOG Cotton Belt Central 1.1 NCTCOG Cotton Belt Dallas County 35.1 NCTCOG Lavon Link 2.4 NCTCOG North Duck Creek 0.2 NCTCOG North Elm Fork 0.8 NCTCOG Rowlett Creek Central 1.7 Source: NCTCOG, 2009 April 2010 B -27 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 113.1.1.4 Freight The source of data used is this section was NCTCOG and TxDOT. Data collected from TxDOT describes the freight rail system. NCTCOG tracks the locations of freight intensive facilities, freight oriented developments (FOD), and Free Trade Zones (FTZs). The existing roadway system serves most freight movement within the study area. There are approximately 18 freight -rail train trips per week within the Cotton Belt rail line and additional activity on intersecting rail lines. There are also several freight intensive facilities, such as distribution centers, warehouses, and terminals within the study area. Current System Several locations within the study area have a large concentration of freight intensive facilities including, four industrial parks, 133 warehouses, 27 distribution centers, 31 manufacturing centers, and one terminal. These facilities are concentrated mainly in three areas: near DFWIA in Grapevine, Irving, and Coppell; south of the Cotton Belt rail line in Carrollton, Farmers Branch, and Addison; and east of the DART Red Line in McKinney. Access to freight rail service was an important factor in the choice of location for many of these facilities. Shown in Figures B -12 and B -13 are locations of the freight intensive facilities. Another important component of the regional freight system are federally designated FTZs where goods are considered outside of US Customs territory. Within FTZs, goods can be stored, distributed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, tested, and repackaged prior to officially entering US Customs territory. The benefits of these zones include reduced /deferred duty rates, reduced inventory taxes, and increased security while goods are moving through the supply chain. There are two FTZs within the study area, one for DFWIA (FTZ #39) and one of its satellite FTZs (FTZ #39 -G). Shown in Figure B -12 are the locations of the FTZs in the study area. Also identified are FOD areas. A FOD is an area that consolidates manufacturing, warehousing, distributing, and freight forwarding operations in a location with ready access to a multimodal transportation network and allows for the efficient and effective movement of goods. By clustering freight transportation services, FOD areas allow transfer costs to be kept to a minimum, increase reliability in delivery and pick -up times, and reduce the overall cost of consumer goods. Of the 24 identified FODs in the DFW region shown in Figure B -12, the Valwood Business Park in Carrollton is the only FOD within the study area. Owned by DART, the Cotton Belt rail line provides active freight rail service throughout the study area and accounts for 23.2 miles (71 percent) of main line freight rail tracks. At the proposed Downtown Carrollton Station location, both UP and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) main lines cross the Cotton Belt rail line. In addition, a Kansas City Southern (KCS) main line crosses the Cotton Belt rail line in Richardson. The study area contains one rail yard, the Mercer Yard in Carrollton, near the Cotton Belt rail line junction with the UP and BNSF lines. Mostly owned and operated by DART the numerous spurs serve freight rail customers from the main rail lines. Table B -9 details the lengths of freight rail tracks within the study area broken down by owner and facility type. Figures B -12 and B -13 illustrate the locations of freight rail facilities within the study area. April 2010 B -28 • - B-Ir Goods MmlMKid AviaMIRWhities wHebron - D D W f w Denton Lewisville Flower Mound -Ounf✓ OUND GROV If v aiv'w w FTZ�+168 o WW w z W w WW� . r W �.. 1 of AIR w a o 12 uZarrol lton m W; w p O Grapevine ;Freeport N04: wD WWw__ \, z SANDY KE RD p HITLOCK L y D w - ?w u_ Lake �, Industrial Coppell '— Downtown ° L ' ,. Park W H I a wD D w rrollton w _. D w o zew �� I ��wOL RD G \NER B L wg� - North �wVaLwooci w C SBY D Y LU 0 Airport - { "`ii • ! % FYKE RD o W' t Lake Bus�nes.., Www % North W W N North 5� tParkkwR A ^ o W W� 4 I `ii, ate A Lake "r °V4V D w w Grapevine - Ir?tp t" w r v Ww W D W }7 wD, W z U wW WW W WW , W Tarrant IRFI D :-} o D ¢� w- w Cowlty 1 W -;;�"r W � Branch , DW • o i ? W D { e W 1, • Pr D "+ 114 D r w ' W W W 3� w 13t W W W w www w' P =.� W DFW!Alrport; � Irving � _ .. oYALL (A/B`Term) I w w W W w D W W f W ® WW D D `. W Dallas W _ .:. x Euless qk �..: _ ;,.1 W`W W w , 360 % Q j D WW w D w W. TIVD #� I 3" W v w Legend + Air Carrier BNSF Railroad Highways /Tollways D Distribution Center DART Railroad Regionally Significant Arterials ® General Aviation --I-' KCS Railroad - - Major Arterials 0 Industrial Park --4- UP Railroad Airport .Y Manufacturing —F- Other Railroad Free Trade Zone (FTZ) El Potential Station Locations Freight Oriented Development ® Railyard Corridor Stud Area Proposed Corridor y T Terminal Station Study Area W Warehouse t I I 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Wise ; Denton i Collin j I —ITHTI Th I Countyl County County Miles k, � Rockwall 1 County-- -== j Tarrant Dallas • • • • • County County Kaufman • • • : I _ i _ �_ ;County North Central Texas I ITTITS - -� "' Johnson i Ellis i Council of Governments County County'• D )j j 11e WY The Colony "tom }1) SPRI CREEK PK 9 4J 0 O BLVD U Vll Legend 14TH ST '{+ Air Carrier BNSF Railroad �,.=t Knoll Highways /Tollways D w TraII Regionally Significant: Arterials General Aviation ,.,.� CAMP Carrollton i n LLER SP NGS RD L _ R SPFt1N — tL Other Railroad .Add i s o n K-t Ck: ;N� Manufacturing DART Red Line Station Freight Oriented Development ® w a Corridor Stud Area y w T Terminal U IV yw wo o E -LMiE RD Dallas r p ACIwG BEL INE RD Y K FYKE RD O Y.BR ""'as T- ~ - - -" .`,enter 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 County — o "' I j w w w"' /D z Fanners Branch Z County I _ w wwwD 2.9 w NV Miles VA LEY V1 If Rockwall g County - -- Legend 14TH ST '{+ Air Carrier BNSF Railroad Highways /Tollways D Distribution Center DART Railroad Regionally Significant: Arterials General Aviation + KCS Railroad Major Arterials i —f- UP Railroad Airport Industrial Park Other Railroad Free Trade Zone (FTZ) ;N� Manufacturing DART Red Line Station Freight Oriented Development ® Railyard Potential Station Locations Corridor Stud Area y T Terminal Proposed Corridor Station Study Area W Warehouse 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Wise Der, ton Collin I j County! County County I Miles 1 Rockwall County - -- =_ _ ; Tarrant Dallas I " " + I County County ;Kaufman • • .. ,. j I County North Central Texas • • • • Johnson ! Ellis Council of Governments I (Hunt. r..,, f" I Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -9 Freight Rail Lines within the Study Area FBNSF road Company Name Facility Type Length miles Railwa Main Line 3.4 F Railway Spur 1.7 DART Main Line 27.3 DART Spur 13.1 KCS Main Line 2.5 UP Main Line 3.4 Unspecified Spur 3.4 Source: TxDOT, 2009 Planned System Improvements Because private companies serve most freight movements, few planned changes in the freight system are publicly available. In the study area, the only planned change in the goods movement system is the potential expansion of truck lane restrictions along the IH 35E and US 75 corridors; each identified by NCTCOG for potential long -term intercity truck lane restrictions. If implemented, the proposed expanded truck lane restrictions along these facilities would not allow trucks with three axles or more in the left -most lane except in areas within one -mile of a left exit or entrance to the facility. There has been no timeframe identified for the implementation of additional truck lane restrictions for these corridors. 13.1.1.5 Aviation Two primary commercial service airports serve the DFW region: DFWIA and Dallas Love Field. These airports serve the needs of the flying public by hosting scheduled commercial and private airline service. In addition, several airports in the region provide the same function within the DFW region as seaports serve in coastal regions. These facilities supply North Central Texas with access to world markets, allowing the region to compete for high -value overseas trade opportunities. DFWIA or Fort Worth Alliance Airport handles the majority of air cargo traffic within the region. There were several sources used to collect the data for this section, NCTCOG, TxDOT, and the airports. NCTCOG maintains data describing the location of airports within the region. TxDOT tracks near -term improvements to aviation facilities statewide as part of the Unified Transportation Plan (UTP); the most recent version released in 2007, which covers 2007 through 2017. Current System There are two public use airports within the study area: DFWIA and Addison Airport. Figure B -12 shows the location of these facilities. The dominant airport for both passenger and air cargo services for the region, DFWIA is a major intermodal transportation hub and important regional employment center. According to its most recent annual report, Addison Airport is transitioning from a small general aviation facility to a regional reliever airport. April 2010 B -31 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Planned System Improvements The DFWIA master plan calls for the near -term addition of taxiways on the north and south ends of the existing runways. Construction of additional runways is included in the long -term plan. Transit rail connections to the airport terminal from the DART Orange Line and The T SW2NE Rail Corridor project are being planned by DFWIA in coordination with DART and The T. The UTP identifies the improvements scheduled for the Addison Airport. These improvements focus on resurfacing the runway and updating the runway lighting and signage to comply with current standards; as well as, updating the automated approach path indicators and some improvements regarding drainage. Density of development surrounding the Addison Airport makes extending the runway or adding additional runways unfeasible. B.1.2 Travel Patterns This section discusses the general travel patterns in the study area. Commuting patterns and major activity centers within the study area and throughout the region were reviewed and their potential interactions with the Cotton Belt Corridor. The data for this section comes from the US Census Bureau and the NCTCOG. Data compiled from both the 1990 Census and 2000 Census show how the data has changed over time. B.1.2.1 2000 Census Data According to the 2000 Census, 71.5 percent of employees work within their county of residence, and only 36.6 percent work within the city or town where they reside. For the 2000 Census, the DFW Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) central cities were Arlington, Dallas, Denton, Fort Worth, and Irving. About 45 percent of the employees in the study area acre located in one of these five central cities. Table B -10 shows a comparison between 2000 Census place of work data between the study area residents and the NCTCOG region. Table B -10 2000 Commuting Patterns 2000 Census Category Study Area DFW Re ion Percentage Difference Number Percent Number Percent Place of Work By State Worked in state of residence: 119,066 99.0% 2,503,569 99.3% 0.3% In county of residence 85,917 71.5% 1,801,520 71.5% 0.0% Outside county of residence 33,149 27.6% 702,049 27.9% 0.3% Worked outside of state 1,142 1.0% 17,242 0.7% -0.3% Place of Work By Place (City or Town Living in a lace: 120,208 100.0% 2,334,009 92.6% -7.4% Worked in place 44,024 36.6% 918,429 36.4% -0.2% Worked outside place 76,184 63.4% 1,415,580 56.2% -7.2% Not in identified place 01 0.0% 186,802 7.4%1 7.4% April 2010 B -32 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -10 2000 Commuting Patterns continued 2000 Census Cate go Stud Area DFW Region Percentage Difference Number I Percent Number Percent Place of Work By MSAdPrimary Metropolitan Statistical Area PMSA Living in an IVISA/PMSA: 120,208 100.0% 2,498,690 99.1% -0.9% Worked in MSA/PMSA of residence: 112,883 93.9% 2,222,515 88.2% -5.7% Central city 54,318 45.2% 1,229,534 48.8% 3.6% Remainder 58,565 48.7% 992,981 39.4% -9.3% Worked in a different fOSA/PMSA: 6,845 5.7% 257,701 10.2% 4.5% Central city 4,049 3.4%1 163,655 6.5% 3.1% Remainder 2,796 2.3% 94,046 3.7% 1.4% Worked outside an IVISA/PMSA 480 0.4% 18,474 0.7% 0.3% Not living in an MSA/PMSA: 0 0.0% 22,121 0.9% 0.9% Central city 0 0.0% 5,739 0.2% 0.2% Remainder 0 0.0% 4,814 0.2% 0.2% Worked outside an M; >A/PMSA 1 01 0.0%1 11,5681 0.5%1 0.5% Source: 2000 US Census Respondents to the 2000 Census reported that almost 92 percent of commuters used a car, truck, or van; with 81.1 percent of the commutes consisting of drive alone trips and the other 10.9 percent in two or more person carpools. Among workers, the other methods reported by at least 1,000 workers for accessing employment and their overall share of commutes were; working from home, 3.8 percent; walking to work, two percent; and public transportation, 1.2 percent. Table B -11 shows how study area residents compare to DFW region residents by mode choice travel patterns for employment related trips. Travel time to work for the residents of the study area were generally lower than the region as a whole. About 42 percent of study area residents have commutes of 20 minutes or less, while only 37.3 percent of commuters in the DFW region arrive at their place of employment within 20 minutes. Similar differences were observed for commutes of 30 minutes, 66.1 percent for study area residents versus 58.3 percent for the DFW region. After 45 minutes, 89.9 percent of study area residents have reached their place of employment compared to only 82.3 percent of commuters in the DFW region. Table B -12 shows the proportions of respondents within each reported travel time range for residents of the study area and for the DFW region. Table B -11 2000 Census Mode of Travel to Work Mode of Travel to Work Study Area DFW Re ion Percentage Difference Number Percent Number Percent Car, truck, or van: 110,571 92.0% 2,336,605 92.7% 0.7% Drive alone 97,526 81.1% 1,985,212 78.8% -2.4% Carpool 13,045 10.9% 351,393 13.9% 3.1% Public Transportation: 1,405 1.2% 45,798 1.8% 0.6% Bus or trolley bus 1,254 1.0% 40,141 1.6% 0.5% Motorcycle 53 0.0% 2,557 0.1% 0.1% Bicycle 276 0.2% 3,441 0.1% -0.1% Walked 2,394 2.0% 37,350 1.5% -0.5% Other means 965 0.8% 19,765 0.8% 0.0% Worked at home 4,544 3.8%1 75,295 3.0% -0.8% Source: 2000 US Census April 2010 B -33 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -12 Year 2000 Commutinq Travel Times Travel Time Study Area DFW Re ion Percentage Difference Number Percent Number Percent Did not work at home: 115,664 96.2% 2,445,516 97.0% 0.8% 0 to 14 minutes 29,300 24.4% 547,425 21.7% -2.7% 15 to 29 minutes 47,121 39.2% 877,137 34.8% -4.4% 30 to 44 minutes 27,523 22.9% 587,923 233% 0.4% 45 to 59 minutes 7,266 6.0% 243,820 9.7% 3.6% 60 to 89 minutes 3,050 2.5% 134,013 53% 2.8% 90 or more minutes 1,404 1.2% 55,198 2.2% 1.0% Worked at home 4,5441 3.8%1 75,2951 3.01% -022A Source: 2000 US Census 13.1.2.2 Census Data Trends As shown in Table B -13, the geographical distribution of places of employment for workers in the study area remained stable between 1990 and 2000. The proportion of workers employed within the state was unchanged and the percentage of workers remaining within their county of residence changed by less than one percent. When comparing the 2000 and the 1990 Census, a slightly smaller proportion of workers were employed in their city or town of residence. The largest change in employment distribution is reduction of workers commuting to a central city and an increase in commuting to suburban area jobs. Like the trends in the geographic distribution of employment, the mode choices of study area commuters did not change drastically between 1990 and 2000. Table B -14 summarizes the responses of workers in the study area to mode choice questions from the 1990 and 2000 Census. The proportion of commuters increased within the study area for the mode choices: carpooling, walking, and working from home. The greatest percentage reduction among the reported mode choices was driving alone which accounted for 2.8 percent fewer trips in 2000 than in 1990. The total number of workers in the study area increased in those ten years, so there was a corresponding increase in total number of people choosing each mode, except for taxis and motorcycles. Table B -13 Census Place of Work Trends within the Study Area Census Category 1990 Census 2000 Census Differences Number I Percent Number I Percent Number I Percent Place of Work By State Worked in state of residence: 89,612 99.0% 119,066 99.0% 29,454 0.0% In county of residence 64,029 70.7% 85,917 71.5% 21,888 0.7% Outside county of residence 25,583 28.3% 33,149 27.6% 7,566 -0.7% Worked outside of state 896 1.0% 1,142 1.0% 246 0.0% Place of Work By Place (City or Town Living in a lace: 90,508 100.0% 120,208 100.0% 29,700 0.0% Worked in place 34,550 38.2% 44,024 36.6% 9,474 -1.6% Worked outside place 55,958 61.8% 76,184 63.4% 20,226 1.6% Not in identified place 0 0.0% 01 0.0% 01 0.0% April 2010 B -34 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -13 Census Place of Work Trends within the Studv Area continued Census Category 1990 Census 2000 Census Differences Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Place of Work By MSA/PAIISA Living in an MSA/PMSA: 90,508 100.0% 120,208 100.0% 29,700 0.0% Worked in MSA/PMSA of residence: 83,395 92.1% 112,883 93.9% 29,488 1.8% Central city 43,004 47.5% 54,318 45.2% 11,314 -2.3% Remainder 40,391 44.6% 58,565 48.7% 18,174 4.1% Worked in a different MSA/PMSA: 7,113 7.9% 6,845 5.7% -268 -2.2% Central city 3,980 4.4% 4,049 3.4% 69 -1.0% Remainder 2,843 3.1% 2,796 2.3% -47 -0.8% Worked outside any MSA /PMSA 290 0.3% 480 0.4% 190 0.1% Not living in an MSA/PMSA: 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Central city 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Remainder 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Worked outside any MSA/PMSA 1 0 0.0%1 0 0.0%1 0 0.0% Source: 2000 US Census The trend in travel times for commuters indicates that workers within the study area are taking longer to get to their places of employment. As shown in Table B -15, the proportion of workers with commute times less than 20 minutes decreased and the proportion of workers with commute times within each interval over 30 minutes increased. Overall, the proportion of workers with commutes less than 20, 30, and 45 minutes decreased by 3.4 percent, 2.7 percent, and 1.1 percent, respectively. From Table B -15, percent of workers traveling to work decreased for the 0 -14 minutes and 15- 29 but increased for the other census categories for longer travel. Overall, the Study Area showed a decrease in workers that did not work at home. 13.1.2.3 Special Trip Generators The NCTCOG regional travel model includes detailed information regarding special trip generators, such as shopping malls and hospitals that attract more trips to an area than other developments with similar levels of employment. There are several special trip generators within the study area: DFWIA, the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD), Collin Creek Mall, Prestonwood Town Center, and the Plano Rehabilitation Hospital. Allowing for transit rail access to these locations within the Cotton Belt Corridor study area would provide an important service to these regional) facilities and the people who use them. April 2010 B -35 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -14 Census Mode of Travel to Work Trends within the Study Area Mode of Travel to Work 1990 Census 2000 Census Differences Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Car, truck, or van: 84,483 93.3% 110,571 92.0% 27,706 -1.4% Drive alone 75,998 84.0% 97,526 81.1% _26,088 21,528 -2.8% Carpool 8,485 9.4% 13,045 10.9% 4,560 1.5% Public Transportation: 1,221 1.3% 1,405 1.2% 184 -0.2% Bus or trolley bus 1,121 1.2% 1,254 1.0% 133 -0.2% Streetcar or trolley car 4 0.0% 7 0.0% 3 0.0% Subway or elevated 21 0.0% 64 0.1% 43 0.0% Railroad 9 0.0% 39 0.0% 30 0.0% Ferryboat 0 0.0% 5 0.0% 5 0.0% Taxicab 66 0.1% 36 0.0% -30 0.0% Motorcycle 229 0.3% 53 0.0% -176 -0.2% Bicycle 158 0.2% 276 0.2% 118 0.1% Walked 1,172 1.3% 2,394 2.0% 1,222 0.7% Other means 695 0.8% 965 0.8% 270 0.0% Worked at home 1 2,5501 2.8%1 4,5441 3.8%1 1,9941 1.0% Source: 2000 US Census Table B -15 Census Commuting Travel Time Trends within the Study Area Travel Time 1990 Census 2000 Census Differences Number Percent Number Percent Number I Percent Did not work at home: 87,958 97.2% 115,664 96.2% 27,706 -1.0% 0 to 14 minutes 23,541 26.0% 29,300 24.4% 5,759 -1.6% 15 to 29 minutes 36,919 40.8% 47,121 39.2% 10,202 -1.6% 30 to 44 minutes 19,553 21.6% 27,523 22.9% 7,970 1.3% 45 to 59 minutes 5,231 5.8% 7,266 6.0% 2,035 0.3% 60 to 89 minutes 1,920 2.1% 3,050 2.5% 1,130 0.4% 90 or more minutes 794 0.9% 1,404 1.2% 610 0.3% Worked at home 1 2,5501 2.8%1 4,5441 3.8%1 1,9941 1.0% Source: 2000 US Census B.2 BUILT ENVIRONMENT B.2.1 Land Use and Zoning This section describes the current land uses, development trends, and local government plans and policies in the study area. B.2.1.1 Legal and Regulatory Context Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code establishes the framework under which municipal governments in Texas control land use. The purpose of this code is to promote the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare and to protect and preserve places and areas of historical, cultural, or architectural importance and significance. This code allows municipal governments (local municipalities and counties) to have direct control to establish rules for the use of structures and land. Section 211.004 of the Local Government Code requires that zoning April 2010 B -36 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study regulations adopted must conform to a comprehensive plan. Each municipality has the ability to set regulations on land use and zoning within its boundaries. In addition, counties can regulate land use in non - incorporated areas in their county. Each county and municipality in the study area all have various land use and zoning regulations implemented for control of growth. B.2.1.2 Methodology /Research The NCTCOG Geographical Information System (GIS) 2005 land use data for the study area was used. In addition, aerial photography and the GIS land use data helped determine the specific existing land use around each transit station. B.2.1.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections /Plans This section discusses the land use and zoning around the Cotton Belt Rail Corridor. The project study area encompasses portions of Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties and the Cities of Carrollton, Coppell, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Grapevine, Irving, Plano, Richardson, and the Town of Addison. Potential stations may be located in these cities or town. The 2005 GIS land use data was subdivided into nine categories: residential (single - family, multi - family, and mobile homes). government/educational (group quarters and institutional), commercial (office, retail, and mixed -use), industrial; infrastructure (roadway, utilities, and transportation), airports; dedicated (parks, landfill, and flood control), water; and undeveloped (under construction, vacant, parking (Central Business District), expanded parking, and gravel]. Table B -16 shows the comparison of the land use types to the subareas within the study area. Figures B -14 and B -15 illustrate the land use in the Cotton Belt Corridor area. Table B -16 2005 Land Use I -and Use Type Acres of Land Use Percentage of Land Use Residential 7,821.58 27.01% Govern ment/Educational 3,332.32 11.51% Commercial 3,397.62 11.73% Industrial 1,565.86 5.41% Infrastructure 588.46 2.03% Airports 2,523.61 8.71% Dedicated 1,908.70 6.59% Water 833.95 2.88% Undeveloped 6,986.58 24.13% Total" 28,958.68 100.00% Source: NCTCOG GIS Land Use, 2005 " Total may be different due to rounding. The results indicate over 24 percent of the study area is classified undeveloped land with residential areas accounting for the majority of the developed land. In the following section, each station in the study area is reviewed for land use and zoning efforts by the city or town that the rail station would reside presented geographically west to east, within a 0.5 -mile radius. April 2010 B -37 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study DFW Airport (A/B Terminal) Station (Proposed) The proposed DFW Airport Station would be located at Terminal A/B. All land use is classified as airport or runway. The airport is located on the Dallas/Tarrant County line and within the cities of Grapevine and Irving. There are no plans for changes in land use in this area. Airport North Station (Proposed) The proposed Airport North Station would be located in the downtown area of Grapevine near the intersection of Hudgins Road and Spur 382, north of SH 121 in Tarrant County. The majority land use is undeveloped (83 percent), industrial (14 percent), residential (two percent), and infrastructure (one percent). The majority of the undeveloped land is part of DFWIA. The proposed future land use around the station will potentially change from undeveloped to mixed - use residential according to the local zoning /comprehensive plans. For the 0.5 -mile buffer around this station, this is the only proposed land use change. North Lake Station (Proposed) The proposed North Lake Station would be north of North Lake reservoir, south of Coppell in the City of Dallas. Dallas built the North Lake reservoir in the late 1950s as a cooling reservoir for a Dallas Power and Light Company electric power plant, currently TXU Energy. The majority land use is infrastructure (40 percent), residential (32 percent), undeveloped (14 percent), water (12 percent) and infrastructure (two percent). The proposed City of Dallas zoning for this site is mixed -use residential. Due to the station site being south of the current location of the rail line, the rail line and Belt Line Road proposed changes (see Section 3.4.3) have been included in the future zoning for this station study area. The majority of the residential land use is single - family structures in Coppell. North of this proposed site is Grapevine Creek Park, in the Coppell. There are minor changes from the existing land use in the future zoning plan for Coppell. Downtown Carrollton Station (Proposed) The proposed Downtown Carrollton station would be located in Carrollton, west of the IH 35E at the intersection of Broadway Street and Belt Line Road. The majority of land use is industrial (34 percent), undeveloped (26 percent), residential (24 percent), commercial (12 percent), governmental /education (two percent), infrastructure (one percent), and dedicated (one percent). Currently to the west, within the 0.5 -mile buffer of the proposed station, the land use is mostly industrial warehouses. The area directly adjacent to the proposed station is commercial which extends south of Belt Line to the Historic Old Downtown Carrollton square. The eastern side of the station area, within the 0.5 -mile buffer, is single - family residential. The proposed future land use around the station is mixed -use, residential mix, and industrial. Addison Transit Center Station (Proposed) The proposed Addison Station site would be located at the existing Addison Transit Center off Factory Street/Arapaho Road between Quorum Drive on the east and Addison Road on the west. The majority of land use is commercial (40 percent), airports (21 percent), industrial (15 percent), undeveloped (15 percent), residential (three percent), govern ment/education (two percent), infrastructure (two percent), and dedicated (two percent). Northwest of the transit center is Addison Airport. The majority of the rest of the 0.5 -mile radius around this station is April 2010 B -40 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study commercial, consisting of restaurants, hotels, and office buildings. North of the proposed station, there are several apartment complexes and parks. Knoll Trail Station (Proposed) The proposed Knoll Trail Station would be located north of Arapaho Road, just east of Knoll Trail Drive next to the Prestonwood Village shopping center. The majority of land use is commercial (36 percent), residential (27 percent), dedicated (18 percent), undeveloped (17 percent), infrastructure (one percent), and water (one percent). The commercial land consists of strip center shopping areas and office buildings both single- and multi- tenant. All of the residential facilities are multi- family dwellings. The undeveloped land is mostly green space and floodplain of the White Rock Creek. The forwardDallas! Comprehensive Plan suggests the area around this transit station would be predominately an urban neighborhood with less dedicated commercial centers or corridor. Preston Road Station (SH 289) (Proposed) The proposed Preston Road Station would be located at Preston Road and Keller Springs Road in Dallas. The majority of land use is residential (63 percent), dedicated (19 percent), undeveloped (14 percent), infrastructure (two percent), commercial (one percent), and government/education (one percent). A majority of the residential land use is single - family dwellings. The dedicated land consists of open space and Keller Springs Community Park. The undeveloped land is vacant and floodplain of the White Rock Creek. There is also a private school and a fire station within the 0.5 -mile buffer around the proposed transit station. A new dog park was opened on Keller Springs Road near the proposed station. The forwardDallas! Comprehensive Plan does not indicate there will be any change in the land use around this transit center. Renner Village Station (Proposed) The proposed Renner Village Station would be located in Dallas. The majority of land use is residential (48 percent), government /education (24 percent), undeveloped (20 percent), commercial (4 percent), industrial (2 percent), infrastructure (1 percent), and dedicated (1 percent). Residential is a combination of single- and multi - family dwellings. There are three institutional facilities: a Plano middle school, a private school, and Texas A &M University AgriLIFE Research and Extension Urban Solutions Center. The Dallas forwardDallas! Comprehensive Plan indicates the area around this proposed transit center would be mostly commercial center or corridors and urban neighborhoods. University of Texas — Dallas (UTD) /Synergy Park Station (Proposed) The proposed UTD /Synergy Park Station would be located at Synergy Park Boulevard and Waterview Parkway, south of PGBT and west of Custer Road in Richardson. The majority of the land use is undeveloped (66 percent), government /education (19 percent), commercial (seven percent), residential (three percent), infrastructure (three percent), and dedicated (two percent). The study area consists of several residential communities located to the southeast, though only a few are within the 0.5 -mile of the station area. South of the proposed station location is the institutional facility of UTD and the Practice Tee Golf Center. The dedicated land is Richardson. Future land use could change some of the undeveloped and commercial land south of the Cotton Belt frail track to institutional land use (with the expansion of UTD north April 2010 B -41 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study toward the Cotton Belt Corridor right -of -way) and north of the Cotton Belt rail track could change to mixed use from the corridor right -of -way to PGBT (SH 190). 12th Street Station (Proposed) The proposed 12th Street Station would be located on 12th Street in Plano, less than a 0.5 -mile south of the DART Red Line Downtown Plano Station and less than a mile north of the Bush Turnpike Station. The majority of the land use is industrial (33 percent), commercial (23 percent), and residential (14 percent), govern ment/education (13 percent), undeveloped (11 percent), infrastructure (four percent), and dedicated (two percent). Some of the major employers in this station study area are Federal Express, Home Depot, and the City of Plano. There are also two Boys & Girls Club facilities and three parks. Future land use plans for Plano identifies most of the area to remain in its current zoning, except the areas on either side of SH 5 /Municipal Avenue, planned to be more retail and less industrial then what currently exists. Bush Turnpike Station (Existing) The Bush Turnpike Station is located in Richardson on its northern border. This existing station resides at the southeast corner of US 75 and the PGBT. The surrounding 0.5 -mile land use and facilities study area impinges on Plano as well. The majority of the existing land use is undeveloped (70 percent), commercial (17 percent), industrial (seven percent), infrastructure (five percent), and government /education (one percent). The area around the Bush Turnpike Station is open fields and floodplains. Small industrial and commercial businesses dominate the remainder of the land with three large, multi- tenant office buildings and one large retail building, Fry's Electronics. Richardson has future land use and zoning as regional employment with a transit village surrounding the station. Plano identifies future land use around major highways as commercial and general commercial with some light industrial and research and technology centers. Downtown Plano Station (Existing) The Downtown Plano Station is located in the downtown area of Plano, east of US 75. The majority of the land use is residential (30 percent), commercial (28 percent), and government/education (21 percent), undeveloped (10 percent), industrial (six percent), infrastructure (three percent), and dedicated (two percent). Downtown Plano is predominantly small residential communities, government uses and retail areas. Numerous multi - family facilities (apartments and townhomes) are scattered throughout the 0.5 -mile land use and existing facilities study area. Commercial sites consist mostly of small downtown businesses. Government facilities include Plano City Hall, the Plano Police Department, Plano Department of Public Safety, Plano Fire Department Headquarters, and a fire station. Institutional buildings include Arlene Mendenhall Elementary School and two Boys & Girls Clubs. Future land use plans in Plano identify the area zoning as general commercial with residential and low intensity office; the business /government center for the City of Plano is located adjacent to the transit station. Parker Road Station (Existing) The Parker Road Station is the current terminus of the DART Red Line. The station resides in the northern portion of Plano east of US 75. The majority of land use is commercial (61 percent), residential (22 percent), undeveloped (nine percent), infrastructure (four percent), April 2010 B -42 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study industrial (three percent), and government/education (one percent). The Parker Road Station contains a number of large retail businesses including Best Buy, Kohl's, Target, and numerous "strip centers." Residential subdivisions are located east of the station with some multi - family units. Future land use plans by Plano have the area zoned for general commercial, freeway commercial, and some residential. B.2.2 Socio- Economic This section addresses the existing conditions for socio- economics in the Cotton Belt Corridor study area. Items covered include community facilities, employment, economics and developments, environmental justice, and limited English proficiency (LEP). B.2.2.1 Legal and Regulatory Context The study area was evaluated for compliance with Executive Orders 12898 and 13166, Title VI of 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title VI), US Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 5610.2, and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance. Executive Order 12898 entitled "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low - Income Populations" mandates that each federal agency "shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low- income populations..." The three fundamental principles of environmental justice are: To avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and low- income populations. To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision - making process. To prevent the denial, reduction, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and low- income populations. Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Service for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, requires federal agencies to examine the services they provide and identify any need for services to those with LEP. The Executive Order requires federal agencies to ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance provide meaningful access to their LEP applicants and beneficiaries. Failure to ensure that LEP persons can effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs and activities may violate the prohibitions under Title VI of the Civil Rights Restoration ,Act of 1987 and 42 US Code (USC) 2000d against national origin discrimination. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000d et seq., provides that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance. The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, interpreted Title VI regulations promulgated by the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to hold that Title VI prohibits conduct that has a disproportionate effect on LEP persons because such conduct constitutes national origin discrimination. April 2010 B -43 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study The objective of USDOT Order 5610.2 was to develop a process that "integrates the existing statutory and regulatory requirements in a manner that helps ensure that the interests and well being of minority populations and low- income populations are considered and addressed during transportation decision making." The policy states, "This will be done by fully considering environmental justice principles throughout planning and decision - making processes in the development of programs, policies, and activities, using the principles of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969..." The federal CEQ guidance document, Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, states: minority populations should be identified as either the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. A minority population definition is a group of people and /or community experiencing common conditions of exposure or impact that consists of persons classified by the US Census Bureau as Negro /Black /African - American, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, or other non -white persons. According to the US Census Bureau, the definition of a low- income population is a group of people and /or community that as a whole, lives below the national poverty level. Disproportionate environmental impacts from the exposure to an environmental hazard occur when the risk to a minority population or low- lincome population exceeds the risk to the general population B.2.2.2 Methodology /Research For environmental justice analysis, the demographics of Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties and study the area were analyzed. The 2000 Census data has been used to identify minority, low- income, and LEP communities in the study area. Social and demographic data for the census tracts comprising the study area were examined and analyzed to determine those tracts that are minority, low- income, and /or LEP populations within the context for the corridor's general population characteristics. This was accomplished by comparing the proportion for the minority population, the median household income, and LEP population reported for census tracts in the study corridor with the overall populations for Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties. B.2.2.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections Fifty -seven census tracts were identified in the study area for the Cotton Belt Corridor and are shown in Figures B -16 through B -18. Table B -17 shows the population, race, and ethnicity for Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties and the study area. April 2010 B -44 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -17 2000 Ethnicity Composition Source: U.S. Census, 2000 1. Hispanic persons are not considered a separate race and may belong to any race, which is why the percentages do not add up to 100 percent. The study area has approximately 32.1 percent minority population, which includes Hispanic persons; compared to approximately 22.5 percent minority for Collin County, 54.9 percent minority for Dallas County, and 36.9 percent for Tarrant County. The ethnic composition of the study area is approximately 75.5 percent White, 5.9 percent Black /African- American, 0.4 percent American Indian /Alaska Native, 8.7 percent Asian, 0.1 percent Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 17.0 percent Hispanic (or Latino). The study area exhibits a higher percentage of ethnic minorities over Collin County, but has less percentage of ethnic minorities than Dallas and Tarrant Counties. Race can be defined as a self- identification data item based on an individual's perception of his or her racial identity. Respondents on the 2000 Census Bureau form chose the race(s) with which they most closely identified. Ethnicity can be defined as the classification of a population that share common characteristics such as religion, traditions, culture, language, tribal, or national origin. Ethnicity can be viewed as ancestry, nationality, or country of birth; Hispanics can be of any race. Approximately 16.96 percent of the population in the study area is Hispanic. In the 2000 Census Bureau population by race /ethnicity data, the Hispanic (or Latino) population could include any of following seven race categories: White, Black /African - American, American Indian /Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, or Two or More Races. Table B -18 shows population and race by census tract. April 2010 B -48 Collin County Dallas County Tarrant County Study Area Characteristic Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent White 400,181 81.4% 1,294,769 58.4% 1,030,208 71.2% 203,287 75.5% Black 23,561 4.8% 450,557 20.3% 185,143 12.8% 15,891 5.9% American Indian 2,323 0.5% 12,499 0.6% 8,300 0.6% 1,185 0.4% Asian 34,047 6.9% 88,369 4.0% 52,594 3.6% 23,513 8.7% Native Hawaiian 230 0.0% 1,277 0.1% 2,522 0.2% 127 0.1% Other race 20,957 4.3% 311,504 14.0% 131,393 9.1% 18,300 6.8% Two or more 10,376 2.1%1 59,924 2.7% 36,329 2.5% 6,906 2.6% His anic 50,510 10.3% 662,729 29.9% 285,290 19.7% 45,666 17.0% Source: U.S. Census, 2000 1. Hispanic persons are not considered a separate race and may belong to any race, which is why the percentages do not add up to 100 percent. The study area has approximately 32.1 percent minority population, which includes Hispanic persons; compared to approximately 22.5 percent minority for Collin County, 54.9 percent minority for Dallas County, and 36.9 percent for Tarrant County. The ethnic composition of the study area is approximately 75.5 percent White, 5.9 percent Black /African- American, 0.4 percent American Indian /Alaska Native, 8.7 percent Asian, 0.1 percent Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and 17.0 percent Hispanic (or Latino). The study area exhibits a higher percentage of ethnic minorities over Collin County, but has less percentage of ethnic minorities than Dallas and Tarrant Counties. Race can be defined as a self- identification data item based on an individual's perception of his or her racial identity. Respondents on the 2000 Census Bureau form chose the race(s) with which they most closely identified. Ethnicity can be defined as the classification of a population that share common characteristics such as religion, traditions, culture, language, tribal, or national origin. Ethnicity can be viewed as ancestry, nationality, or country of birth; Hispanics can be of any race. Approximately 16.96 percent of the population in the study area is Hispanic. In the 2000 Census Bureau population by race /ethnicity data, the Hispanic (or Latino) population could include any of following seven race categories: White, Black /African - American, American Indian /Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, or Two or More Races. Table B -18 shows population and race by census tract. April 2010 B -48 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -18 Po ulation, Race, and Ethnicity by Census Tract Census Tract Total 2000 Population', White Black/ African- American American Indian/ Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific I Islander Some other Race Two or More Races Hispanic or Latin02 Collin County 316.11 3,696 2,647 381 18 416 0 116 118 385 100.0% 71.6% 10.3% 0.5% 11.3% 0.0% 3.1% 3.2% 10.4% 316.22 5,841 4,643 223 22 714 6 114 119 309 100.0% 79.5% 3.8% 0.4% 12.2% 0.1% 2.0% 2.0% 5.3% 316.23 3,187 2,110 79 17 432 3 492 54 887 100.0% 66.2% 2.5% 0.5% 13.6% 0.1% 15.4% 1.7% 27.8% 317.08 3,726 3,125 146 20 300 2 61 72 230 100.0% 83.9% 3.9% 0.5% 8.1% 0.1% 1.6% 1.9% 6.2% 317.09 4,257 3,431 177 9 498 1 67 74 188 100.0% 80.6% 4.2% 0.2% 11.7% <0.1% 1.6% 1.7% 4.4% 317.10 7,440 5,024 563 20 1,330 4 288 211 644 100.1% 67.5% 7.6% 0.3% 17.9% 0.1% 3.9% 2.8% 8.7% 318.02 5,774 4,584 323 24 542 1 179 121 495 100.0% 79.4% 5.6% 0.4% 9.4% <0.1% 3.1% 2.1% 8.6% 318.03 5,292 4,557 112 8 406 0 69 140 243 100% 86.1% 2.1% 0.2% 7.7% 0.0% 1.3% 2.6% 4.6% 318.04 2,362 -1,972 56 13 236 0 33 52 125 100.1% 83.5% 2.4% 0.6% 10.0% 0.0% 1.4% 2.2% 5.3% 318.05 5,416 4,670 92 24 484 0 64 82 218 99.9% 86.2% 1.7% 0.4% 8.9% 0.00/6 1.2% 1.5% 4.0% 319.00 4,099 2,199 495 39 52 6 1,112 196 2,630 100.0% 53.6% 12.1% 1.0% 1.3% 0.1% 27.1% 4.8% 64.2% 320.03 5,234 3,403 377 46 65 2 1,180 161 2,226 99.9% 65.0% 7.2% 0.9% 1.2% <0.1% 22.5% 3.1% 42.5% 320.07 7,721 5,049 710 37 433 2 1,009 481 2,540 100.0% 65.4% 9.2%1 0.5% 5.6% <0.10/ 13.1 %1 6.2% 32.9% Dallas Count 136.05 5,431 4,897 86 27 250 4 76 91 278 100.1% 90.2% 1.6% 0.5% 4.6% 0.1% 1.4% 1.7% 5.1% 136.06 5,219 4,178 287 34 372 0 206 148 599 100% 80.1% 5.4% 0.7% 7.1% 0.0% 3.9% 2.8% 11.5% 136.11 1,983 -1,811 37 2 114 0 8 11 48 100% 91.3% 1.9% 0.1% 5.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.6% 2.4% 136.12 7,298 5,777 514 34 4341 5 330 204 801 100% 79.2% 7.0% 0.5% 5.9% 0.1% 4.5% 2.8% 11.0% 136.13 8,185 5,820 878 21 604 6 638 218 1,723 100.1% 71.1% 10.7% 0.3% 7.4% 0.1% 7.8% 2.7% 21.1% 136.14 8,036 5,371 746 23 571 1 1,068 250 2,369 100% 66.8% 9.3% 0.3% 7.1% 0.1% 13.3% 3.1% 29.5% 136.16 3,406 2,625 249 12 1831 10 254 72 638 100.1%. 77.1 % 7.3% 0.4% 5.4% 0.3% 7.5% 2.1%- 18.7% 136.17 3,037 2,6591 861 13 173 1 511 541 195 100.0%1 87.6%1 2.8%1 0.4% 5.7% <0.0% 1.7%1 1.8%1 6.4% April 2010 B -49 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -18 Population, Race, and Ethnicity by Census Tract (continued) Census Tract Total 2000 Population', White Black/ African- American American Indian/ Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Some other Race Two or Hispanic More or Races Latin02 Dallas County continued 136.18 2,383 2,107 39 3 201 0 13 20 71 99.8% 88.4% 1.6% 0.1% 8.4% 0.0% 0.5% 0.8% 3.0% 136.19 5,330 4,739 86 7 361 1 57 79 197 100% 88.9% 1.6% 0.1% 6.8% <0.0% 1.1% 1.5% 3.7% 137.04 5,780 4,439 416 23 391 2 322 187 791 100% 76.8% 7.2% 0.4% 6.8% <0.1% 5.6% 3.2% 13.7% 137.12 2,107 1,594 38 18 47 0 337 73 886 100.1% 75.7% 1.8% 0.9% 2.2% 0.0% 16.0% 3.5% 42.1% 137.13 2,327 1,135 46 6 113 0 930 97 2,031 100.2% 48.8% 2.0% 0.3% 4.9% 0.0% 40.0% 4.2% 87.3% 137.14 5,620 3,546 153 20 176 1 1,496 228 3,466 100% 63.1% 2.7% 0.4% 3.1% <0.1% 26.6% 4.1% 61.7% 137.15 2,188 1,302 93 26 258 6 415 88 835 100.1% 59.5% 4.3% 1.2% 11.8% 0.3% 19.0% 4.0% 38.2% 137.16 4,761 3,514 169 29 508 0 420 121 1,187 99.9% 73.8% 3.5% 0.6% 10.7% 0.0% 8.8% 2.5% 24.9% 137.17 3,007 1,749 148 14 281 1 704 110 1,605 100.0% 58.2% 4.9% 0.5% 9.3% <0.1% 23.4% 3.7% 53.4% 137.18 4,815 2,720 217 36 694 0 989 159 2,681 99.9% 56.5% 4.5% 0.7% 14.4% 0.0% 20.5% 3.3% 55.7% 137.19 3,415 1,993 170 13 1,064 1 78 96 351 100.1% 58.4% 5.0% 0.4% 31.2% <0.1% 2.3% 2.8% 10.3% 137.20 5,238 3,755 398 43 397 3 461 181 1,214 100.1% 71.7% 7.6% 0.8 7.6% 0.1% 8.8% 3.5% 23.2% 137.21 6,087 4,777 358 21 724 0 122 85 450 100.0% 78.5% 5.9% 0.3% 11.9% 0.0% 2.0% 1.4% 7.4% 137.22 3,025 2,139 367 13 247 4 164 91 399 99.9% 70.7% 12.1% 0.4% 8.2% 0.1% 5.4% 3.0% 13.2% 137.23 4,962 4,212 241 27 215 0 164 103 492 100.0% 84.9% 4.9% 0.5% 4.3% 0.0% 3.3% 2.1% 9.9% 137.24 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 137.25 3,297 2,220 447 11 281 1 229 108 505 99.9% 67.3% 13.6% 0.3% 8.5% <0.1% 6.9% 3.3% 15.3% 138.01 6,723 3,659 866 28 687 9 1,204 270 2,544 99.9% 54.4% 12.9% 0.4% 10.2% 0.1% '17.9% 4.0% 37.8% 138.03 5,728 5,026 105 20 172 3 274 128 889 99.9% 87.7% 1.8% 0.3% 3.0% 0.1% 4.8% 2.2% 15.5% 140.02 1,304 959 53 1 157 1 53 80 168 100.0% 73.5% 4.1% 0.1% 12.0% 0.1%1 4.1% 6.1% 12.9% 141.09 9,068 6,470 676 21 1,484 4 198 215 693 100.0% 71.3% 7.5% 0.2% 16.40% <0.1% 2.2% 2.4% 7.6% 141.107 8,258 5,5481 1,145 35 1,132 4 202 192L 726 99.9% 67.2%1 13.9% 0.4%1 13.7% <0.1% 2.4% 2.3%1 8.8% April 2010 B -50 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -18 Population, Race, and Ethnicitv by Census Tract (continued) Census Tract Total 2000 Population', White Black/ African- American American Indian/ Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Some other Race Two or Hispanic More or Races Latin02 Dallas County continued 141.12 3,582 1,752 1,210 33 222 1 278 86 506 100.0% 48.9% 33.8% 0.9% 6.2% <0.1% 7.8% 2.4% 14.1% 141.19 4,294 3,800 77 21 251 0 62 83 296 99.9% 88.5% 1.8% 0.5% 5.8% 0.0% 1.4% 1.9% 6.9% 141.20 5,234 4,710 71 9 294 0 65 85 319 100.0% 90.0% 1.4% 0.2% 5.6% 0.0% 1.2% 1.6% 6.1% 141.21 3,462 2,487 310 15 464 2 109 75 355 100.0% 71.8% 9.0% 0.4% 13.4% 0.1% 3.1% 2.2% 10.3% 141.22 7,968 6,380 257 27 959 1 145 199 525 99.9% 80.1% 3.2% 0.3% 12.0% <0.1% 1.8% 2.5% 6.6% 141.23 5,689 4,794 140 20 533 1 86 115 343 100.1% 84.3% 2.5% 0.4% 9.4% <0.1% 1.5% 2.0% 6.0% 141.24 2,955 2,104 131 11 591 1 79 38 268 100.0% 71.2% 4.4% 0.4% 20.0% <0.1% 2.7% 1.3% 9.1 141.26 5,324 4,470 164 23 4301 2 154 81 401 100.0% 84.0% 3.1% 0.4% 8.1% <0.1% 2.9% 1.5% 7.5% 192.05 3,227 2,995 16 9 153 0 20 34 62 100.0% 92.8% 0.5% 0.3% 4.7% 0.0% 0.6% 1.1% 1.9% 192.06 6,129 4,673 150 11 989 4 193 109 477 99.9% 76.2% 2.4%1 0.2% 16.1% 0.1% 3.1% 1.8% 7.8% 192.10 3,968 3,777 421 9 73 1 261 40 105 100.0% 95.2% 1.1%1 0.2% 1.8% <0.1 % 0.7% 1.0% 2.6% Tarrant Count 1137.03 5,240 4,580 117 36 66 3 328 110 738 100.1% 87.4% 2.2% 0.7% 1.3% 0.1% 6.3% 2.1% 14.1% 1137.05 5,265 4,336 243 55 39 8 435 149 1,062 100.0% 82.4% 4.6% 1.0% 0.7% 0.2% 8.3% 2.8% 20.2% 1137.06 4,808 4,272 121 28 250 2 73 62 257 100.0% 88.9%1 2.5%1 0.6%1 5.2% <0.1 % 1 1.5%1 1.3% 5.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 1. Percentages do not include Hispanic percents; some are not perfect 100 percent due to rounding. 2. Hispanic persons are not considered a separate race, but may belong to any race. Although the general study area is not minority, specific census tracts are identified as minority populations. Five census tracts contain Hispanic populations with over 50 percent minorities in the census tract. Collin County census tract 319.00 contains 64.2 percent Hispanic population. The other four census tracts were in Dallas County, 137.13 with 87.3 percent, 137.14 with 61.7 percent, 137.17 with 53.4 percent, and 137.18 with 55.7 percent Hispanic populations recorded. Dallas County had the highest parentage of non - Hispanic minority populations census tract 141.12 reported 33.8 percent Black or African American alone, tract 137.19 reported 31.2 percent Asian alone, and tract 137.13 reported 40.0 percent some other race alone. Table B -19 presents population characteristics for Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties and the study area. The median age of residents within the study area is 35 years; the median age in Collin County is 33 years, in Dallas County 31 years, and in Tarrant County 32 years. April 2010 B -51 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Approximately 30 percent of residents in the study area are under 18 or older than 64 years. This is lower than all three counties in the study area, Collin County had 34 percent, Dallas and Tarrant Counties had 36 percent of their population fewer than 18 or over 64 years. This population cohort represents non - drivers or infrequent drivers who tend to be more dependent on transit and car pooling for mobility. In addition, the study area has a higher percentage than Collin County for average of households that do not have an automobile available, but is lower than Dallas and Tarrant Counties. Table B -19 Population Characteristics within Study Area Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 As shown in Table B -20, the study area and the three counties prefer to "drive alone" as the means for transportation to work. Dallas County exhibited the highest percentage of people utilizing alternative forms of transportation, 25.9 percent; while Collin County contained the lowest percentage of people using alternative forms of transportation at 12.9 percent. The study area fell in between Dallas and Collin Counties and was in line with Tarrant County 16.5 percent of the population using an alternative form of transportation. Table B -20 Means of Transportation to Work for Populations Over 16 Work Trip Collin C unty Dallas County Tarrant County Study Area Characteristic Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent Poverty 23,784 4.9% 293,267 13.4% 150,488 10.6% 17,908 6.7% Under 18 141,307 28.7% 619,031 27.9% 406,472 28.1% 63,323 23.5% Over 64 25,852 5.3% 178,872 8.1% 120,585 8.3% 17,608 6.5% Households with No Vehicle 4,690 2.6% 65,257 8.1% 29,971 5.6% 4,277 3.8% Median Household Income $70,835 $43,324 $46,179 $64,515 Median Age 1 33 31 32 35 Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 As shown in Table B -20, the study area and the three counties prefer to "drive alone" as the means for transportation to work. Dallas County exhibited the highest percentage of people utilizing alternative forms of transportation, 25.9 percent; while Collin County contained the lowest percentage of people using alternative forms of transportation at 12.9 percent. The study area fell in between Dallas and Collin Counties and was in line with Tarrant County 16.5 percent of the population using an alternative form of transportation. Table B -20 Means of Transportation to Work for Populations Over 16 Work Trip Collin County Dallas County Tarrant ounty Study Area Mode' Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent Drive Alone 220,301 83.6% 778,136 74.9% 572,670 81.5% 126,612 81.4% Carpool 25,152 9.5% 167,270 16.1% 91,675 13.0% 16,746 10.8% Public Transportation 2 4,378 1.7% 73,850 7.1% 8,638 1.2% 3,876 2.5% Walk/Bic cle 2,945 1.1% 18,739 1.8%1 10,731 1.5% 3,055 2.0% Other Means 1,573 0.6% 9,331 0.9% 5,170 0.7% 1,117 0.7% Alternative Transportation 3 34,048 12.9% 269,190 25.9% 116,2141 16.5% 24,8941 16.0% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 1. Work trip modes exclude workers who work from home. 2. Public Transportation includes: bus or trolley bus, streetcar or trolley car, or elevated, railroad, or taxicab. 3. Alternative Transportation combines carpool, public transportation, walk/bicycle, and other means. April 2010 B -52 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Median Household Income Table B -21 shows median household income and poverty levels for each census tract in the study area. According to the 2000 Census, average median household income of $64,515 in the study area is lower than Collin County at $70,835, but is higher than Dallas County at $43,324 and Tarrant County at $46,179. The poverty rate for the study area is also higher than Collin County, but lower, than Dallas and Tarrant Counties. Poverty Levels The US Census Bureau establishes income thresholds by family size and composition. Poverty is then measured by comparing the total income for a given family size and type to the threshold family income. If the family income is lower than the threshold value, the family is said to be in poverty. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has established the 2010 poverty guidelines; average threshold is $10,830 for one person and $22,050 for a family of four. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines a low- income household as one where income is 80 percent, or less, of the county median. The FTA uses the HUD definition for defining low- income populations in transit corridors; therefore, low- income for census tracts in Dallas County is $34,659, Collin County is $56,668, and Tarrant County is $36,943. The study areas low- income for census tracts utilizing the HUD standard is $51,612. The analysis of median income levels determined 33 census tracts out of 57 have low- income residents. These census tracts are located in all three counties in the study area. Table B -21 also includes information regarding LEP populations. Census tract data for "Ability to Speak English for the Population Five Years and Over" indicates an average of 6.7 percent of the residents in the study area speaks English "Not Well" or "Not At All." The average for Collin County was 3.5 percent, Dallas County was 11.2 percent, and Tarrant County was 6.0 percent. Of those persons who did not speak English well, Spanish was the preferred language. Table B -22 shows data from the 2000 Census including languages spoken by the LEP population over five years old from the 51 census tracts in the study area. Table B -21 Income, Poverty Level, and LEP by Census Tract Census Tract Percent Povert Median Household Income Percent that Speak English "Not Well" or "Not at All" Collin Count 316.11 4.2% $69,837 3.5% 316.22 3.5% $74,255 2.5% 316.23 13.4% $66,319 5.3% 317.08 5.9% $68,056 0.9% 317.09 4.0% $81,904 2.0% 317.10 7.0% $49,228 4.8% 318.02 6.0% $60,917 2.8% 318.03 2.6% $79,968 1.5% 318.04 14.5% $51,875 0.5% 318.05 2.7% $89,229 2.5% 319.00 26.1% $36,349 35.3% 320.03 17.5% $37,436 19.3% 320.07 11.2% $50,244 9.9% April 2010 B -53 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -21 Income. Povertv Level. and LEP by Census Tract (continued) Census Tract Percent Poverty Median Household Income Percent that Speak English "Not Well" or "Not at All" Dallas Count 136.05 1.3% $82,894 1.5% 136.06 5.2% $64,181 4.4% 136.11 1.2% $114,419 1.7% 136.12 6.4% $47,435 2.4% 136.13 12.6% $40,848 9.7% 136.14 12.6% $44,918 11.8% 136.16 10.0% $46,858 7.5% 136.17 4.4% $67,012 1.2% 136.18 3.3% $90,720 2.0% 136.19 0.9% $94,077 1.8% 137.04 6.2% $61,060 5.5% 137.12 5.0% $49,777 13.4% 137.13 18.8% $32,076 57.6% 137.14 18.2% $42,925 22.7% 137.15 2.3% $61,058 12.2% 137.16 5.3% $59,232 10.0% 137.17 10.2% $38,090 24.9% 137.18 12.9% $41,094 31.8% 137.19 9.6% $55,294 7.0% 137.20 5.6% $57,092 5.2% 137.21 1.2% $89,098 4.0% 137.22 5.4% $46,572 1.7% 137.23 3.3% $62,160 2.4% 137.24 0.0% $0 0.0% 137.25 4.7% $45,589 4.5% 138.01 9.3% $37,545 13.5% 138.03 2.2% $76,528 5.2% 140.02 7.4% $45,446 5.9% 141.09 3.2% $61,837 2.0% 141.10 6.1% $62,181 2.9% 141.12 7.8% $36,399 2.3% 141.19 0.2% $97,374 1.7% 141.20 1.0% $95,453 1.5% 141.21 8.4% $55,446 4.4% 141.22 1.4% $84,467 3.3% 141.23 2.0% $119,958 2.2% 141.24 1.7% $156,354 1.1% 141.26 0.2% $99,625 2.3% 192.05 1.3% $79,480 0.8% 192.06 17.3% $42,565 3.1% 192.10 1.7% $85,962 0.9% April 2010 B -54 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -21 Income, Poverty Level, and LEP by Census Tract (continued) Census Tract Percent Poverty Median Household Income Percent that Speak English "Not Well" or "Not at All" Tarrant Count 1137.03 8.7% $54,716 3.9% 1137.05 9.7% $40,216 7.3% 1137.06 1.0% $95,726 0.1% Average 6.7% $64,515 6.6% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Table B -22 Languages Spoken by LEP populations in the Study Area Language Number of LEP speakers Spanish 13,071 Other Indo-European 1,158 Asian and Pacific Island 2,185 Other 189 Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 6.2.3 Community Resources This section discusses the neighborhoods, community facilities, community services, and community cohesion within the study area. 13.2.3.1 Legal and Regulatory Context There are no specific legal or regulatory contexts for the analysis of community resources. 13.2.3.2 Methodology /Research The community facilities were determined using the NCTCOG GIS files for facilities in the NCTCOG region, as well as aerial photography, demographics from NCTCOG and the US Census Bureau, and consultation with local governments. These facilities include schools, places of worship, community centers, emergency services, etc. The analysis was performed to evaluate potential impacts to the community and community cohesion. For this study, each community was identified as each municipality in the study area. The definition of each community was based on input from stakeholders and the available information described at the municipality level. As mentioned in Chapter 1, Section 1.4, the Cotton Belt Corridor study area includes nine separate municipalities. Neighborhoods were identified within these communities as a group of residential houses in proximity with similar style and defined boundary from the surrounding area. Aerial photography and /or past neighborhood activist history in the project corridor identified these neighborhoods. 13.2.3.3 Existing Conditions Major Activity Centers Major activity centers were derived from the NCTCOG GIS files. This file tracks major activity centers throughout the NCTCOG region. Major activity centers are those that employ over 100 April 2010 B -55 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study employees at one location and /or building structure that have over 100,000 square feet of space. Table B -23 shows the existing major activity centers in the study area. Table B -23 Existing Major Activitv Centers Activity Center Type Addison Carrollton Co ell Dallas Farmers Branch Grapevine Irving Plano Richardson Cultural 2,697 2 Plano 1 Dallas -Fort Worth International Airport Grapevine 1,712 United States Postal Service 1 Education 1 12 8 10 1 1 1 8 3 Government Quarters 1 1 2 1 Hotel /Motel 16 1 7 2 5 1 Industrial 7 82 50 11 27 15 16 3 Institutional 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 Multi-Familv 16 29 71 52 4 3 12 15 9 Mixed -Use 1 1 1 1 Office 43 22 6 21 2 7 20 15 Recreational 1 2 Retail 12 5 2 9 2 30 2 Service 1 Single- Family 1 1 1 1 1 Total 1 981 1561 751 961 181 431 401 100 37 Source: NCTCOG GIS — Activity Centers, July 2009 Notable major activity centers in the study area include the Addison Airport in Addison, DFWIA on the Dallas/Tarrant County line in Irving and Grapevine, and UTD in Richardson. All three facilities are regional destination points. Employment Major employment centers in the study area were mapped using GIS information from NCTCOG. Major employers are defined as 250 employees or more at a single location. There were 72 major employers identified in the study area. Table B -24 depicts the major employers in the Cotton Belt study area. Table B -24 Major Employers in the Cotton Belt Corridor Company city Employees American Airlines /AMR DFW Airport 11,842 University of Texas at Dallas Richardson 2,830 Perot Systems Plano 2,697 Alcatel Plano 2,023 Dallas -Fort Worth International Airport Grapevine 1,712 United States Postal Service Co ell 1,600 Hewlett- Packard Richardson 1,200 Mary Kay Cosmetics Incorporated -- Headquarters Addison 1,183 Halliburton Energy Services Carrollton 1,125 April 2010 B -56 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -24 Major Employers in the Cotton Belt Corridor (continued) Comg)anv city Employees Lennox International Incorporated (Headquarters) Richardson 1,000 Pizza Hut Headquarters Dallas 984 State Farm Automobile Insurance Company Dallas 972 IBM Corporation Co ell 800 Aviall Services, Incorporated DFW Airport 760 McKesson Corporation/Data Processing Carrollton 725 Benecorp Business Services Plano 719 Ae on Direct Marketing Services Plano 700 TAC America's Carrollton 650 General Aluminum Corporation Texas LP Carrollton 583 Hotel Intercontinental Addison 564 Ava a Incorporated Co ell 550 PRC LLC Carrollton 530 G L I Holding Company Dallas 526 Container Store Co ell 500 Intervoice, Incorporated Dallas 500 Federal Express Corporation Grapevine 500 Great Wolf Lode Grapevine 500 Lennox International Richardson 500 HCA Patient Account Services Irving 475 Tri uint Semiconductor Division Headquarters) Richardson 442 Min and Food Stores Incorporated Co ell 433 Comp USA Incorporated Addison 418 Chartwell Diversified Services Addison 400 T -Netix Carrollton 400 H aft Regency DFW DFW Airport 400 City of Plano - City Hall Plano 400 Crest Cadillac Incorporated Plano 400 FedEx Kinko's Plano 400 Wal -Mart Su ercenter Plano 400 Mannnatech Inc (Headquarters) Co ell 390 Sara Lee Bakery Group Carrollton 380 A E R Manufacturing Carrollton 374 Action Windoor Technology Carrollton 370 McLane Foodservice District Carrollton 350 AT &T Dallas 350 JC Penney Plano 350 Hilite International Incorporated Carrollton 340 Maxim Integrated Products, Incorporated Farmers Branch 339 General Cable Industries Incorporated Plano 330 Bombardier Flex Jet Richardson 315 City of Plano Plano 306 Ford Motor Company Carrollton 300 Presto Products Carrollton 300 United States Postal Service Co ell 300 April 2010 B -57 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -24 Major Employers in the Cotton Belt Corridor (continued) Companv city Employees Alliance Data Systems Corp - Headquarters Dallas 300 Bank of America Home Loans Dallas 300 Grand H att DFW DFW Airport 300 Embassy Suites Grapevine 300 Bristol Hotel Tenant Company Plano 300 City of Plano Fire Department Plano 300 Fry Electronics Plano 300 Stewart Systems Plano 300 Mac 's Plano 295 Haber Fabrics Carrollton 292 Priority Fulfillment Services Plano 283 Genesis Corporation Irving 275 System Electric Corporation Plano 270 Dallas Cowboys Football Club Irving 255 Crowne Plaza Hotel Addison 250 Hilton Reservations World Wide LLC Carrollton 250 Healthmarkets Plano 250 Sears Plano 250 Source: NCTCOG GIS — Major Employers, September 2009 Plano had the highest number of major employers at 20, Carrollton had 15 major employers, and the other eight cities (including DFWIA) had seven or less major employers. There are 10 major employers with over 1,000 employees; three of these companies are located in Richardson, two are located in Plano, and the remaining companies with over 1,000 employees are located in Addison, Carrollton, Coppell, Grapevine and DFWIA. American Airlines /AMR located in DFWIA has 11,842 employees; over 9,000 more employees than any of the other employers on the list. Community Facilities There were 119 community facilities identified within the study area, categorized into 10 separate types: cemetery, cultural facilities, educational, emergency services, governmental, medical facilities, nursing homes, places of worship, recreational facilities, and transportation. Table B -25 lists the number of community facilities by city /town. April 2010 B -58 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -25 Community Facilities by it /Town Source: NGTCOG 6I3 — Features, July 2009 1. Emergency services include fire and police stations. 2. Governmental includes city halls, post offices, and public safety office. 3. Medical Facilities include a blood bank, hospital, and medical office. 4. Recreational Facilities include golf courses, libraries, recreation /community centers, and stadiums /arenas. 5. Transportation includes general aviation /airports and light rail stations. The majority of community facilities focused on educational and recreational uses; the least number of community facilities were cultural. Carrollton recorded the most community facilities with a total of 30, accounting for 25 percent of all community facilities in the study area. Farmers Branch contained the fewest community facilities with one facility, equaling one percent of all facilities in the study area. 6.2.4 Cultural Resources B.2.4.1 Legal /Regulatory Context Cultural resources include buildings, sites, structures, objects, landscapes, and districts that embody significant aspects of local, state, or national history. This section enumerates those historical and archeological resources identified within the study area of the project. Federally permitted, licensed, funded, or partially funded with federal money must comply with Section 106 of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 requires that every federal agency "take into account" the undertaking's effects on historic properties. Furthermore, Section 106 requires federal agencies to seek comments from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The process for coordinating with the ACHP and meeting the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA are set forth in federal regulation at Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800). The process includes planning for public involvement, identification of historic resources, assessment of affects, and resolution of adverse effects. April 2010 B -59 = M a) c o c d c r-- c E , _ ,� c'e z p ea •.—°• 0 d y = d = IM � C CL ms's *� d `° = C a + E 7 L- CD Z ! .V .� to V .V y V v v w W W 0 2 LL z a 3 � LL t` 0 Addison 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 Carrollton 3 2 12 4 2 2 1 4 Co ell 8 2 2 1 Dallas 10 3 1 6 4 Farmers Branch 1 Grapevine 1 1 1 Irving 1 3 1 Plano 8 3 3 1 2 4 2 Richardson 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 Total 4 2 45 17 10 3 10 3 19 6 Source: NGTCOG 6I3 — Features, July 2009 1. Emergency services include fire and police stations. 2. Governmental includes city halls, post offices, and public safety office. 3. Medical Facilities include a blood bank, hospital, and medical office. 4. Recreational Facilities include golf courses, libraries, recreation /community centers, and stadiums /arenas. 5. Transportation includes general aviation /airports and light rail stations. The majority of community facilities focused on educational and recreational uses; the least number of community facilities were cultural. Carrollton recorded the most community facilities with a total of 30, accounting for 25 percent of all community facilities in the study area. Farmers Branch contained the fewest community facilities with one facility, equaling one percent of all facilities in the study area. 6.2.4 Cultural Resources B.2.4.1 Legal /Regulatory Context Cultural resources include buildings, sites, structures, objects, landscapes, and districts that embody significant aspects of local, state, or national history. This section enumerates those historical and archeological resources identified within the study area of the project. Federally permitted, licensed, funded, or partially funded with federal money must comply with Section 106 of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 requires that every federal agency "take into account" the undertaking's effects on historic properties. Furthermore, Section 106 requires federal agencies to seek comments from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The process for coordinating with the ACHP and meeting the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA are set forth in federal regulation at Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800). The process includes planning for public involvement, identification of historic resources, assessment of affects, and resolution of adverse effects. April 2010 B -59 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study For Section 106 purposes, any property listed in or eligible for, listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is considered historic. The NRHP is an inventory maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. To be considered for listing in the NRHP, buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts must meet standards of historic significance defined by the Keeper of the National Register (36 CFR 60). A property must be evaluated within its historic context and it must retain characteristics that make it a good representative of properties associated with that aspect of the past. The NRHP Criteria for Evaluation state: "The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: (A) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (B) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or (C) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (D) Have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history." In addition to being significant under one or more of the criteria previously listed, a NRHP site must also retain historic integrity of those features necessary to convey its significance (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1998:3). The Keeper of the National Register has identified and defined seven aspects of historic integrity by which potential candidates for the NRHP must be measured: • Location — Place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred Design — Combination of elements creating the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property • Setting — Physical environment of a historic property • Materials — Physical elements combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property • Workmanship — Physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture of people during any given period in history or prehistory • Feeling — A property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time • Association — Direct link between an important historic event, person, or period and a historic property The Antiquities Code of Texas (ACT) (Texas Natural Resources Code of 1977, Title 9, Heritage, Chapter 191) established the Texas Historical Commission (THC) as the legal custodian of cultural resources, historic and prehistoric, within the public domain of the State of Texas (Section 191.051). The authority of the THC extends to designation and protection of State Archeological Landmarks (SAL), which can be historic buildings and structure, shipwrecks, or archeological sites. The ACT protects all cultural resources located on land owned or controlled by the State of Texas, one of its cities, counties, or other political subdivisions. Under the ACT, any historic or prehistoric property located on publicly owned land may be determined eligible as a SAL. Conditions for formal landmark designation are covered in Chapter 26 of the THC Rules of Practice and Procedure for the ACT. The THC Department of Antiquities Protection (DAP) April 2010 B -60 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study must authorize groundbreaking activities affecting public land. Authorization includes a formal antiquities permit, which stipulates the conditions under which survey, discovery, excavation, demolition, restoration, or scientific investigations would occur. The law contends that a structure or building located on state land has historical interest if it: • Was the site of an event that has significance in the history of the U.S. or the State of Texas? • Was the site significantly associated with the life of a famous person? • Was the site significantly associated with an event that symbolizes and important principle or ideal? • Does it represents a distinctive architectural type and has value as an example of a period, style, or construction technique? • Is important as part of the heritage of a religious organization, ethnic group, or local society [Section 191.092(b)]. Part II of Title 13 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) includes a chapter governing the practice and procedure of the THC (13 TAC 26). Section 26.7 of this chapter states that a historic resource can be designated a SAL if it: (1) is publicly or privately owned and listed in the NRHP and (2) meets one or more of the following six eligibility criteria: • Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history • Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past • Important to a particular cultural or ethnic group • The work of a significant architect, master builder, or craftsman • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, possesses high aesthetic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction • Has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to the understanding of Texas culture or history Owner consent for designation of publicly owned properties is not required. Once considered a SAL, a resource may not be removed, altered, damaged, or destroyed without a contract or a permit issued for by the THC. Once this permit is issued, the THC would grant, at maximum, a one -time extension beyond the original period for the required investigations. In addition, federal transportation projects have to consider the project's effects on Section 4(f) properties. A Section 4(f) property is a publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife management area, or any significant historic property. Regulations prescribing procedures for implementing the Section 4(f) process are in Section 4(f) of the 1966 DOT Act [23 CRF 771.135 Section 4(f)]. The Texas State Historic, Preservation Officer (SHPO) coordinates state participation in implementing Section 106. In accordance with the ACHP guidelines, the implementing agency would consult with the Texas SHPO on this undertaking if the project were to receive federal funds. April 2010 B -61 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study B.2.4.2 Methodology /Research The THC Texas Historic Sites Atlas data was utilized to review the Official State Historical Markers (OSHM), NRHP properties, museums, and cemeteries in the study area. With a projected construction date of 2020 and a five -year buffer to allow for unexpected delays, 1975 was established as the cutoff date for evaluating non - archeological resources that meet the 50- year age guideline for NRHP eligibility. The year 1975 was established to help assess if a structure could be of historic age and does not establish NRHP eligibility. GIS parcel data was used for all counties in the study area to determine the year the building on the parcel was built. All of these features were investigated also using GIS data to identify potential historical resources and locations in the study area. An area of potential effect for historic properties was not established for this study because a specific corridor has not been selected; the purpose of this research was to determine the existing and known historic sites. The study area is defined in Chapter 1, Section 1.0. Only archeological resources listed on the NRHP are included. It is assumed archeological sites can be avoided within 0.5 to one -mile of the corridor. This would be studied further during the formal environmental and permitting process. B.2.4.3 Existing Conditions To identify potential historic -aged resources and locations in the study area, available parcel data that contained records of the year a structure was built was evaluated for Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties. As mentioned previously, 1975 was the established cutoff date for evaluating non - archeological resources that meet the 50 -year age guideline for NRHP eligibility. Within the study area, there are 10,744 parcels that have a structure that was built in, or prior to 1975. Age alone does not establish NRHP eligibility, but any property over 50 years in age could be eligible. Table B -26 shows the number of structures built from 1835 to 1975. Beginning in 1905, they were grouped by county and study area divided by decades. Table B -26 Number of Structures from 2007 Parcel Data within Study Area Years Collin County Dallas County Tarrant County Study Total 1835 -1905 13 5 3 21 1906 -1915 15 13 7 35 1916 -1925 28 29 9 66 1926 -1935 48 49 6 103 1936 -1945 74 84 27 185 1946 -1955 251 535 80 866 1956 -1965 1,226 1,473 78 2,777 1966 -1975 3,500 3,060 131 6,691 Total 1 5,155 1 5,248 1 341 1 10,744 Source: Parcel Data — Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties, 2007 April 2010 B -62 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study There are two nationally registered historic districts in the study area. Both districts are located in the City of Grapevine, Tarrant County. Table B -27 lists these districts and Figure B -19 illustrates the locations of these districts. Recognized by the National Register and logged in the Texas Historic Sites Atlas these districts are areas that possess a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. Table B -27 NRHP- Listed Districts in th St d A NRHP Name e u Y NN ICQ 4200000073 Reference 1 1509 North Perry Road Carrollton Smirra• THr. gnnR Number District Name Address City Listed Date McKinney Along railroad tracks, roughly Grapevine 9/4/1997 97001109 Commercial Historic bounded by Hudgins, Dooley, District and Dallas Streets Original Town Roughly bounded by Texas, Grapevine 7/10/1998 98000736 Residential Historic Austin, Hudgins and Jenkins District Streets SnurrP• THr: gnnR The NRHP list maintained by the Secretary of the Interior consists of more than 2,300 properties for Texas. In the study area, there were no NRHP - listed properties currently listed. The THC Local History Programs Division compiled a database listing more than 500 museums throughout the state of Texas. Types of museums include general, art, historic, and children's museums; as well as special interest museums catering to interests as diverse as agriculture, firefighting, or chronicling personalities from Texas. Based on the THC GIS data, there is one THC listed museum located in the study area. Table B -28 contains information about this location. In addition to the THC inventory of museums, one other museum, the Cavanaugh Flight Museum, was identified in the study area in Addison at the Addison Airport. Table B -28 THC I iC+Crl MIIO -pl , ;— ft— 06..A.. A Atlas Number Name %ING %RLUU_y M1CA Address city 4200000073 A.W. Perry Homestead Museum 1 1509 North Perry Road Carrollton Smirra• THr. gnnR There are 18 historical markers in the study area, located within five of the nine municipalities identified. Table B -29 lists the historical markers. Figures B -20 through B -22 illustrates the locations of these historical resources. April 2010 B -63 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -29 Historical Markers Name City/Town Addison State Bank Addison Bethel Cemetery Co ell First Baptist Church of Plano Plano First Baptist Church of Renner Dallas First Christian Church of Plano Plano First Methodist Church of Plano Plano Grapevine Springs Park Co ell Parrish Family Cemetery Co ell Perry Cemetery Carrollton Perry Cemetery Carrollton Perry, Alex W. and Sarah, Homestead Carrollton Plano Cemetery Plano Plano High School and Gymnasium Plano Plano National Bank /I.O.O.F. Lodge Building Plano Shiloh Baptist Church Plano Texas Electric Railway Station Plano Union Baptist Church Carrollton Wilson, Ammie, House Plano Source: THC, 2008 The majority of the historical markers were located in Plano, nine (50 percent). Carrollton had four (22 percent), Coppell had three (17 percent), and both Addison and Dallas had one each (six percent) for a total of 18 historical markers. In addition to its other historical resources, THC maintains a database of cemeteries. Locations of cemeteries were found by the THC using United States Geological Survey (USGS) and THC field investigation using Trimble global positioning system (GPS) -to record and verify horizontal accuracy. Using the THC database, seven cemeteries were recorded for the study area. Table B -30 lists, by city, the cemeteries logged in the THC and USGS database. Table B -30 Cemeteries within the Study Area Cemetery Number Name City DL -0016 Carrollton Black Carrollton DL -0019 Hilltop Memorial Park Carrollton TR -0O25 Morgan Hood Survey Pioneer Grapevine COL -0040 Mutual Plano COL -0006 Old City Plano DL -0043 Perry Carrollton COL -0083 Routh Richardson Source: THC, 2008 April 2010 B -68 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 13.2.4.4 Archeological Resources Specific archeological data for the study area could not be obtained. To prevent poachers from stealing or destroying archeolog ical artifacts, only certified archeologists can access this information. Table B -31 shows the 38 archeological projects that have been conducted in the corridor. These projects spread out among six of the nine study area municipalities. Table B -31 Archeolo it-ml Pro' t Date Conducted I Implementing-Agency ec s I Pro'ect Type 00/74 EPA Survey 07/78 HCRS 09/81 TxDOT -Survey Survey 09/81 TxDOT Survey 09/81 TxDOT Survey 04/82 TxDOT Survey 04/82 TxDOT Survey 01/84 TxDOT Survey 01/84 TxDOT Surve 07/84 TOOT Survey HCRS Survey 11/84 TOOT Surve 108/84 11/85 FHWA Survey 08/87 FMHA Survey 03/88 TxDOT Surve 08/88 FHWA Survey 05/91 FHWA Survey 07/92 FHWA Survey 08/94 Unknown Surve Survey 12/94 TTA 02/95 Unknown Survey 02/95 Unknown Survey 04/96 DART Survey 04/96 DART Survey 04/98 TTA Survey 05/99 USAGE -FW Survey 03/01 DART Survey DART Survey 03/04 TOOT Survey 103/01 08/04 TF'WD City of Richardson Survey 10/04 TOOT Surve 06/05 USACE-FW Survey 10/05 04/07 TxIDOT FAA Reconnaissance Survey Surve 06/07 FAA Survey Unknown Unknown Survey Unknown Unknown Survey Unknown Sniirna- TWr' 2008 Unknown Test _—A April 2010 B -69 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 13.2.5 Parks and Recreation 13.2.5.1 Legal /Regulatory Context Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 [Title 49 USC, Section 1653 (f), as amended and codified in 49 USC, Section 303 in 1983], states the Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or project requiring use of publicly -owned land of a public park, recreation area, wildlife /waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the officials having jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, refuge or site) only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to such use and the project includes all planning to minimize harm. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Code, Title 3, Chapter 26 contains similar language concerning the taking of park and recreational lands. TPWD restricts the use or taking of any public land designated and used as a park (recreation area, scientific area, wildlife refuge, or historic site) unless the department, agency, political subdivision, county, or municipality determines there is no feasible and prudent alternative and that the project/program includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the land. Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act requires that any outdoor recreational facilities acquired with Department of Interior (DOI) financial assistance under the LWCF Act, as allocated by the TPWD, may not be converted to non- recreational use unless the Director of the National Park Service grants approval. 13.2.5.2 Methodology /Research Existing park and recreation areas were identified based on project mapping. The locations of parks and recreational areas were mapped from three data sources: the NCTCOG parks dataset, the NCTCOG cultural features dataset, and the State of Texas parks and wildlife management areas dataset. This report identified recreational areas by evaluating the context of the surrounding neighborhoods and adjacent properties; access routes between the facilities and their users, ownership and /or jurisdiction, and associated impacts. 13.2.5.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections Based on the GIS data, a total of 88 parks and recreational areas were identified. There are two greenbelts, two preserves, and one nature area that have been designated by the cities /town. The features database returned 16 different types of facilities in the nine municipalities in the study area. Table B -32 shows the name, type, and location of each facility. April 2010 B -70 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -32 Parks and Recreational Facilities in the Study Area Name Type Location (city/town) Addison Circle Park Addison Amphitheater Amphitheater Carrollton Bent Tree Country Club Golf Course Dallas Bos ue Park Addison Boys & Girls Club Recreation/Community Center Plano Boys & Girls Club - Collin Recreation/Community Center Plano Boys & Girls Club of Plano Recreation/Community Center Plano Campbell Green Community Dallas Canyon Creek Count Cry lub Golf Course Richardson Celestial Park Park Addison Champions Park Park Irvin Chisholm Trail Greenbelt Greenbelt Plano City Square Park Carrollton Clifford E "Bill" Hall Park Carrollton Columbian Country Club Golf Course Carrollton Custer Park Park Richardson Dallas Cowboys Football Club Recreation/Comm unity Center Irvin Dimension Park Carrollton Douglas Community Center Community Center Plano Dr. Pepper Star Center - Valley Ranch Recreation/Community Center Irvin Duck Pond Park Park Coppell Elm Fork Nature Preserve Preserve Carrollton Esplanade Park Park Addison Francis Perry Park Carrollton Frankford Neighborhood Dallas Galat n Woodland Preserve Preserve Richardson Grapevine Creek Park Park Coppell Grapevine Springs Park Park Coppell Gravley Park Carrollton Haggard Park Park Plano Harrington Park Park Plano Holman D Rhoton Park Carrollton Hunterwood Park Park Coppell Jimmy Porter Park Carrollton Josey Ranch Greenbelt Greenbelt Carrollton Josey Ranch Sports Complex Sorts Complex Carrollton Keller Springs Park Carrollton Keller Springs Communit Dallas Kiowa Neighborhood Dallas Kiowa Parkway Linear Dallas Les Laces Linear Trail Trail Addison Loos Athletic Center Sports Complex Addison MacArthur Park Park Coppell Mary Heads Carter I Park I Carrollton April 2010 B -71 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -32 Parks and Recreational Facilities in the Studv Area (continued) Name Type Location (city/town) Mclnnish Sports Complex Sport Complex Carrollton Middle School Park School Park Grapevine Mill Valley Park Carrollton North Lake Park Park Dallas Oakbrook Park Farmers Branch Old Renner Neighborhood Dallas Overland Trail Trail Plano Patriot Playground School Park Plano Philippine Community Center Inc. Recreation/Community Center Carrollton Pioneer Park Carrollton Pioneer Cemetery Cemetery Plano Point North Park Park Richardson Practice Tee Golf Center Golf Course Richardson Prairie Creek Park Park Richardson Preston Green Neighborhood Dallas Preston Trail Golf Club Golf Course Dallas Prestonwood Country Club Golf Course Dallas Proposed Athletic Fields Sports Fields Carrollton Quorum Park Park Addison RE Good Sports Complex Sports Complex Carrollton Renner West Linear Linear Richardson Riverchase Golf Course Golf Course Co ell Riverchase Park Park Co ell Rodeo Park Park Irvin Rural America Park Carrollton Santa Fe Trail Trail Plano Schell Park Park Plano Sgt. Mike McCreary Sports Fields Sports Fields Plano Shawnee Park Park Plano Spring Creek Nature Area Nature Area Richardson Summerfield 2 Park Carrollton Sunshine Harbor Park Park Grapevine Thomas Park Carrollton Twin Lakes Neighborhood Dallas Unnamed Park Grapevine Unnamed Park Grapevine Villawood Linear Park Park Co ell Wagon Wheel Park Park Co pell Ward Steenson Park Carrollton Westwood Park Park Plano White Rock Creek Trail Trail Addison Willowcreek Park Park Plano Winnwood Park Park Addison Woodhurst Linear Park I Park I Co ell Source: NCTCOG GIS — Features and Parks, 2009 April 2010 B -72 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 13.2.6 Regulated Material Sites Environmental due diligence is performed on a property to identify and evaluate the potential for environmental contamination and to assess the potential liability for contamination present at the property. The first step in the environmental due diligence process is a hazardous/ regulated materials assessment. In November 2006, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the final All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Rule - Environmental Site Assessments, Phase I Investigations - that established the specific regulatory requirements and standards for conducting AAI to qualify for one of the three landowner liability protections under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Brownfields Amendments. The purpose of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with the subject property. A recognized environmental conditions is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on the subject property under conditions indicating an existing release, a past release or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the subject property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the subject property. 13.2.6.1 Methodology /Research The hazardous /regulated materials investigation is conducted to identify the known presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on any property under conditions indicating an Existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into the ground, ground water, or surface water in the study area. GIS data from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and NCTCOG provided various types of data on potentially hazardous sites. These include the location of closed and active Superfund sites, unauthorized and authorized landfill sites, mining areas, and radioactive sites. 13.2.6.2 Existing Conditions and Future Projections Four types of hazardous materials were investigated by this method: radioactive sites, Superfund sites, landfills, and mining areas. These types of hazardous materials do not encompass all the types that could occur in the study area, but represent all the data that is readily available for the Cotton Belt study area. Other types of potential hazardous sites that were not available in the research include leaking petroleum tanks, Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) small and large quantity generators, Emergency Response Service (ERS) spills, and other various hazardous materials sites. A total of 12 landfill sites and two mining sites were identified in the Cotton Belt study area; no radioactive or Superfund :sites were identified. From the 12 identified landfill sites, two were identified closed and are no longer used as disposal sites. Four sites were unauthorized landfill sites with no permitting for disposal or dumping. These sites would mostly likely be a source of hazardous contamination because of the deficiencies in regulation of the site for dumping and disposal and the type of waste disposed. The remaining six identified landfills were active, authorized landfills with registered permits with TCEQ for waste disposal. Although this data identified potential areas, actual contamination of soil and /or ground water would not be determined until field investigations would occur during the next project development phase. Figures B -23 through B -24 show the location of the potential hazardous materials sites in the Cotton Belt study area. April 2010 B -73 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 6.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The following sections discuss the regulatory guidance, methodology, existing conditions, and future projections. Although the Cotton Belt project goal is local and private funding, the potential exists for the use of federal money for the project. Due to the passible need for federal funding assistance, federal regulatory guidance will be followed In addition, regulations not dependent on federal funding will also be followed. 13.3.1 Air Quality The EPA regulates air quality. The EPA delegates this authority to the governor, who has delegated authority to the TCEQ for monitoring and enforcing air quality regulations in Texas. NCTCOG conducts air quality modeling for the region. 6.3.1.1 Legal and Regulatory Context In compliance with the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1977 and 1990, the EPA promulgated and adopted the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) to protect public health, safety, and welfare from known or anticipated effects of six criteria pollutants. These six criteria pollutants are ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM), and lead (Pb). Table B -33 lists the NAAQS for these six pollutants. Irnkio R -41 Air Pnihifinn Concentrations Required to Exceed the NAAQS April 2010 B -76 Averaging Primary Secondary Pollutant Period Standard NAAQS* NAAQS** Ozone 8 -hour The average of the annual fourth highest daily eight -hour 76 ppb 76 ppb maximum over a three -year period is not to be at or above this level. Carbon 1 -hour Not to be at or above this level more than once per 35.5 ppm 35.5 ppm Monoxide calendar y ear. 8 -hour Not to be at or above this level more than once per 9.5 ppm 9.5 ppm calendar y ear. Sulfur 3 -hour Not to be at or above this level more than once per -- 550 ppb Dioxide calendar y ear. 24 -hour Not to be at or above this level more than once per 145 ppb -- calendar ear. Annual Not to be at or above this level. 35 ppb -- Nitrogen Annual Not to be at or above this level. 54 ppb 54 ppb Dioxide Respirable 24 -hour Not to be at or above this level on more than three days 155 155 pg /m Particulate over three years with daily sampling. /m3 Matter (10 Annual The three -year average of the annual arithmetic mean 51 pg /m3 51 Ng /m3 microns or concentrations at each monitor within an area is not to be less) (PM10) at or above this level. April 2010 B -76 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B -33 Air Pollution Concentrations Re u' d t E ppm = parts per million, ppb parts per billion, Ng /m3 = microgram per cubic meter "Primary NAAQS: the levels of air quality that the EPA judges necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. "Secondary NAAQS: the levels of air quality that the EPA judges necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects. The CAAA requires all states to submit a list identifying those air quality regions, or portions thereof, which meet or exceed the NAAQS or cannot be classified because of insufficient data. Portions of air quality control regions that are shown by monitored data or air quality modeling to exceed the NAAQS for any criteria pollutant are designated "nonattainment" areas for that pollutant. The CAAA also establishes time schedules for the States to attain the NAAQS 6.3.1.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics In addition to the criteria„ air pollutants for which there are NAAQS EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human -made sources, including on -road mobile sources, non -road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the CAAA. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non -road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. The EPA is the lead federal agency for administering the CAAA and has certain responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001)]. This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the CAAA. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline program, its national low emission vehicle standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy - duty engine and vehicle standards and on- highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects that even with a 64 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), these programs would reduce on- highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3- butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and would reduce on- highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent. The technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. Relliable methods do not exist to estimate accurately the health impacts of MSATs at the project level. April 2010 8 -77 Averaging ire o xceed the NAAQS continued Pollutant Period Standard Primary NAAQS* Secondary NAAQS** Respirable Particulate 24 -hour The three -year average of the annual 98 percentile 66 pg/m3 66 pg /m for each population- oriented monitor within an area is Matter (2.5 not to be at or above this level. microns or less) Annual The three -year average of annual arithmetic mean 15.1 pg /m 15.1 pg/m concentrations from single or multiple community - (PM2.5) oriented monitors is not to be at or above this level. Lead Quarter 1 Not to be at or above this level. 1.55 /m 1.55 /m Source: TCEQ. Mav 2nnA ppm = parts per million, ppb parts per billion, Ng /m3 = microgram per cubic meter "Primary NAAQS: the levels of air quality that the EPA judges necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. "Secondary NAAQS: the levels of air quality that the EPA judges necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects. The CAAA requires all states to submit a list identifying those air quality regions, or portions thereof, which meet or exceed the NAAQS or cannot be classified because of insufficient data. Portions of air quality control regions that are shown by monitored data or air quality modeling to exceed the NAAQS for any criteria pollutant are designated "nonattainment" areas for that pollutant. The CAAA also establishes time schedules for the States to attain the NAAQS 6.3.1.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics In addition to the criteria„ air pollutants for which there are NAAQS EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human -made sources, including on -road mobile sources, non -road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the CAAA. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non -road equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. The EPA is the lead federal agency for administering the CAAA and has certain responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001)]. This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the CAAA. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs, including its reformulated gasoline program, its national low emission vehicle standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy - duty engine and vehicle standards and on- highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects that even with a 64 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), these programs would reduce on- highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3- butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and would reduce on- highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent. The technical shortcomings of emissions and dispersion models and uncertain science with respect to health effects prevent meaningful or reliable estimates of MSAT emissions and effects of this project. Relliable methods do not exist to estimate accurately the health impacts of MSATs at the project level. April 2010 8 -77 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 13.3.1.3 Particulate Matter EPA has also determined the health effects of fine PM and has set the standard PM of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) to ensure the protection of public health. The PM2.5 standard was finalized on October 17, 2006, and the final rule for state plans for PM2.5 inonattainment areas were issued March 29, 2007. The EPA designated the DFW region as in attainment for PM2.5 by the EPA on December 18, 2007. 13.3.1.4 Conformity The study area is located in Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties, which have been designated as a moderate nonattainment area for eight -hour ozone by the EPA. Therefore, the transportation air quality conformity rule does apply to the region and is subject to a regional air quality analysis. Transportation air quality conformity is a CAAA requirement that calls for EPA, USDOT, and various regional, state, and local government agencies to integrate the air quality and transportation planning processes. Transportation air quality conformity supports the development of transportation plans, programs, and projects that enable areas to meet and maintain national air quality standards for ozone, PM, and CO. Transportation plans, programs, and projects have to support, and must be in conformity with, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for achieving the NAAQS. Under Section 176(c) of the CAA [42 USC Section 7670(c)], federal agencies such as the FTA and FHWA are prohibited from engaging in, supporting in any way, providing financial assistance for, licensing or permitting, or approving any activity that does not conform to an approved SIP. Because this project is located in a nonattainment area, the federal implementing agency would be responsible for ensuring that projects conform to the SIP. A conforming project definition is one that conforms to the SIP objectives of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of those standards. Under the transportation conformity rule, if a project is included in the emissions analysis of the MTP or Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), and the FTA or FHWA and EPA have approved this plan or program as conforming to the SIP, then the project is presumed to conform. If the project's emissions are not analyzed in the MTP or TIP, then a separate project -level conformity determination is required. Showing that emissions under a build alternative are less than the no build alternative demonstrates project level conformity. 13.3.1.5 Methodology /Research Air monitoring station locations were identified using the NCTCOG GIS database and determining the nearest active federal air monitoring stations. Specific monitor readings were obtained through the TCEQ air monitoring data Web site. The NCTCOG Web site for air quality identified specific programs implemented by the region to improve air quality. 13.3.1.6 Existing Conditions and Future Projections Air quality is a regional problem, not a localized condition. The study area is located in Collin, Dallas, and Tarrant Counties, which has been designated as a moderate nonattainment area for eight -hour ozone by the EPA. The NCTCOG eight -hour ozone nonattainment region includes Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant Counties. In addition, Hood, Hunt, and Wise Counties have been proposed to be added as nonattainment for April 2010 B-78 B — Affected Environment Conceptual Cotton Belt Corridor i and Fundina Studv eight -hour ozone standards. These additional counties are in review by the EPA. The formation of ozone is directly related to emissions from motor vehicles and point sources. The primary pollutants from motor vehicles are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), CO, and nitrogen oxides (NOx). VOCs and NOx can combine under the right conditions in a series of photochemical reactions to form ozone. The DFW region is in attainment for CO, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, PM, and lead. The modeling procedures for ozone require long -term meteorological data, detailed area -wide emission rates, and activity levels for all emission sources (on -road, non -road, point, and area). Accordingly, concentrations of ozone are modeled by the regional air quality planning agency for the SIP. The TCEQ monitors airborne pollutants in the DFW region on a continuous basis. Ozone is monitored every hour of the day, every day. Table B -34 lists the four highest daily maximum eight -hour ozone concentrations recorded annually from 2000 to 2009 at the Dallas North No.2 [Continuous Air Monitoring Station (CAMS) 63] and Grapevine Fairway (CAMS 70) monitoring stations, which are the closest active monitoring stations to the study area. Figures B -25 and B -26 show the location of the air monitoring sites in relation to the study area. Table B•-34 Four Hi hest Ei ht -Ho r O C M zone oncentrations Highest Second Hi hest Third Highest Fourth Hi hest --f Year Date Level* Date Level* Date Level* Date Level* CAMS 63 Dallas North No.2 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 670Grapevinie 07/14/00 08/19/01 08/09/02 08/07/03 08/02/04 07/14/05 31 /06 14/07 14/08 1/09 evine 128 113 111 135 121 120 103 101 108 78 Fairwa * 08/02/00 08/04/01 06/23/02 05/18/03 08/04/04 06/15/05 07/21/06 09/21/07 07/01 /08 05/20/09 ** 126 111 103 120 107 120 100 101 92 77 09/02/00 09/12/01 09/14/02 05/31/03 07/19/04 09/01 /05 09/01 /06 08/15/07 08/21 /08 03/17/09 121 105 102 118 104 117 96 94 92 73 08/24/00 118 09/14/01 100 09/27/02 98 07/18/03 07/16/04 107 101 05/20/05 116 08/23/06 93 07/25/07 06/23/08 03/19/09 93 91 72 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 ** Source: TCFO 4/00 4/01 08/09/02 06/28/03 08/02/04 06/15/05 09/01 /06 08/14/07 09/29/08 05/20/09 Air Mnnitnrinn 122 133 150 122 125 112 115 123 93 84 Ctnf - 08/25/00 08/03/01 07/09/02 07/31 /03 09/11/04 07/14/05 08/31 /06 07/25/07 08/14/08 05/19/09 7nno 98 118 130 113 119 P79 07/19/00 06/16/01 06/24/02 09/09/03 06/24/04 08/02/05 07/18/06 08/15/07 06/23/08 04/10/19 9 4 112 128 110 109 110 106 107 91 76 08/23/00 08/19/01 06/23/02 08/07/03 07/20/04 06/21/05 07/09/06 93 110 120 110 104 106 E__1 04 09/21 /07 07/01/08 05/21/09 102 86 75 • •• •� �. aaw aivi ., LVVJ * All ozone measurements are in parts per billion '* 2009 results as of May 22, 2009 * ** CAMS 70 began monitoring on 7/19/00 April 2010 B -79 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study In addition to controls included in the next SIP and in the MTP, several efforts have been initiated at the local level through NCTCOG to improve air quality. The following list gives some of the major programs that NCTCOG has implemented to improve air quality: • AirCheckTexas — Provides financial aid for vehicles failing the emissions portion of the state inspection or those vehicles that have reached 10 years of age for specific financially constrained persons and families. • Clean Fleet Vehicle Program — Promotes replacement of fleet vehicles with low- emitting vehicles, and provides tools to assist fleet managers with making clean vehicle decisions, decreasing a fleet's impact on air quality. • Diesel Vehicle Idling Programs — A set of programs aimed to prevent excessive idling of diesel vehicles. • Intelligent Transportation Systems — A network of roadway monitors that informs transportation operators, emergency response units, and the public of current traffic conditions throughout the DFW area. • Light- Emitting Diode Traffic Signals — Replaces incandescent traffic signal lamps with LED lamps, reducing energy needs. • North Central Texas Clean School Bus Program — Retrofit and replace school buses in the DFW area with cleaner technology and provide educational resources for reducing school bus emissions. • Ozone Season Lunch Bag Program — Encourage workers to bring their lunch to work on air pollution watch and warning days. • Regional Smoking Vehicle Program — Encourages drivers to voluntarily repair and maintain their vehicles through public awareness and vehicle reporting. • Truck Lane Restriction Policy — Various highways throughout the DFW area prevent trucks from using the left lane to allow for greater traffic flow. • Try Parking It — a Web site that provides a method to track, log, and reward work -based trips that utilize alternative commutes and also provides statistics on reduced miles and trips. EPA emission reducing rules are expected to reduce air pollution by 2020. The ongoing improvements in vehicle emissions and industry emissions will have positive impacts on reducing air pollution for the future. Regional programs will also contribute in the decrease from NAAQS and MSATs. With the combined federal and local efforts, air quality is expected to improve in the future. B.3.2 Noise B.3.2.1 Legal and Regulatory Context A noise assessment is required as part of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process through FTA. The noise assessment for this study area is based on the procedures established in the FTA guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Report FTA- VA -90- 1003 -06). FTA procedures include characterization of the existing noise environment along the corridor, projections of future noise levels including transit sources, assessment of long- and short-term impacts and discussion of mitigation measures. This section will focus on the characterization of the existing noise element along the corridor. April 2010 B -82 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 13.3.2.2 Human Perception Levels Noise is typically defined as unwanted or undesirable sound, where sound is characterized by small air pressure fluctuations above and below the atmospheric pressure. The basic parameters of environmental noise that affect human subjective response are: intensity or level, frequency content, and variation with time. The first parameter is determined by how greatly the sound pressure fluctuates above and below the atmospheric pressure, and is expressed on a compressed scale in units of decibels. By using this scale, the range of normally encountered sound can be expressed by values between zero and 120 decibels. On a relative basis, a three - decibel change in sound level generally represents a barely - noticeable change outside the laboratory, whereas a 10- decibel change in sound level is typically perceived as a doubling (or halving) in the loudness of a sound. The frequency content of noise relates to the tone or pitch of the sound, and is expressed based on the rate of the air pressure fluctuation in terms of cycles per second (called Hertz and abbreviated as Hz). The human ear can detect a wide range of frequencies from about 20 Hz to 17,000 Hz. However, because the sensitivity of human hearing varies with frequency, the A- weighting system is commonly used when measuring environmental noise to provide a single number descriptor that correlates with human subjective response. Sound levels measured using this weighting system are called "A- weighted" sound levels, and are expressed in decibel notation as "dBA." The A- weighted sound level is widely accepted by acousticians as a proper unit for describing environmental noise. Because environmental noise fluctuates from moment to moment, it is common practice to condense all of this information into a single number, called the "equivalent' sound level (Leq). Leq can be thought of as the steady sound level that represents the same sound energy as the varying sound levels ovE�r a specified time period (typically one hour or 24 hours). Often the Leq values over a 24 -hour period are used to calculate cumulative noise exposure in terms of the Day -Night Sound Level (Ldn). Ldn is the A- weighed Leq for a 24 -hour period with an added ten - decibel penalty imposed on noise that occurs during the nighttime hours (between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.). Many surveys have shown that Ldn correlates with human annoyance; and therefore, this descriptor is widely used for environmental noise impact assessment. Figure B -27 provides examples of typical noise environments and criteria in terms of Ldn. While the extremes of Ldn are shown to range from 35 dBA in a wilderness environment to 85 dBA in noisy urban environments, Ldn is generally found to range between 55 dBA and 75 dBA in most communities. As shown in Figure B -27, these Ldn values span the range between an "ideal" residential environment and the threshold for an unacceptable residential environment according to representative federal agency criteria. April 2010 B -83 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Figure B -27 Examples of Typical Outdoor Noise Exposure Ldn Typical Environments dBA Typical Criteria Ambient close to —* Urban Freeways or Major Airports 751 f--- HUD Threshold for Unacceptable Housing Urban Ambient ---► 170 Environment * — HU many Acceptable Normally Acceptable Suburban Ambient Housing Environment f EPA Ideal Residential Goal Rural Ambient — Wilderness Ambient —+r Source: FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 2006 Other Descriptors of Noise Events. As discussed previously, the basic noise unit for transit noise is the A- weighted sound level, which describes the noise at any moment in time. As a transit vehicle approaches, passes by, and then recedes into the distances, the A- weighted sound level rises, reaches a maximum and then fades into the background ambient noise caused by other sound sources. The highest sound level reached only for a very short time during this pass -by is called the "maximum sound level" (Lmax) associated with that event. • The annoyance of intrusive noise sources, such as a train or bus pass -by depends on how loud it is, as well as how long the noise lasts. The sound exposure level (SEL) is a noise metric that takes into account both the level and duration of noise events. The SEL of noise events are used to calculate the Leq or Ldn noise level for assessing potential impact. 6.3.2.3 Evaluation Criteria Noise impact is assessed according to criteria defined in the FTA guidance manual. The FTA noise impact criteria are founded on well- documented research on community reaction to noise and are based on change in noise exposure using a sliding scale. Although higher transit noise levels are allowed in the FTA noise impact criteria for neighborhoods with high levels of existing noise, smaller increases in total noise exposure are allowed with increasing levels of existing noise. FTA noise impact criteria, classifies noise sensitive land uses into three categories: Category 1: Buildings or parks, where quiet is an essential element of their purpose. Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes residences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost importance. April 2010 B-84 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study • Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, places of worship, and active parks. Ldn is used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas (Category 2). For other noise sensitive land uses, such as outdoor amphitheaters and school buildings (Categories 1 and 3), the maximum one -hour Leq during the facility operating period is shown in Table B -35. Table B -35 Land Use Cate ories and Metrics for T 't N Land Use Noise Metric rans i vise im act Criteria Category dBA Description of Land Use Category Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. This category includes lands set aside for 1 Outdoor serenity and quiet, and such land uses as outdoor Leq(hf amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls. Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This 2 Outdoor Ld, category includes homes, hospitals and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, theaters, and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as 3 Outdoor speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Leq(h)* Places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums, campgrounds, and recreational facilities can also be considered to be in this category. Certain historical sites and parks are also included. Sours• PTA• Tro o;+ Al. ;. .,.,,J %/:� _..— • •u•, -.• .—.- Div v UIOLIUrl nrlPacl Assessment. 2006 Leq for the noisiest hour of transit- related activity during hours of noise sensitivity There are two levels of impact included in the FTA criteria: Severe: A significant percentage of people are highly annoyed by noise in this range. Noise mitigation would normally be specified for severe impact areas unless it is not feasible or reasonable. Moderate: In this range of noise impact, noise mitigation would be considered and adopted when it is considered reasonable. While impacts in this range are not of the same magnitude as severe impacts, there are other project- specific factors to be considered to determine a reasonable application of mitigation. These other factors can include the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and number of noise - sensitive land uses affected, effectiveness of mitigation, community views, cost, and other special protections provided by law [e.g., Section 4(f of the DOT Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act]. The FTA noise impact criteria are illustrated in Figure B -28. The noise criterion compares the existing noise exposure and project - related noise exposure to determine impacts. April 2010 B -85 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 80 N 75 a C 70 0 rn Q 65 Um 'o 0 N 60 o M X x W coo 55 d J N .0 50 0 IL 45 i r� . Figure B -28 FTA Noise Impact Criteria SEVERE IMPACT MODERATE IMPACT/ NO IMPACT Note: Noise exposure is in terms of Le. (h) for Category 1 and 3 land uses, Ldn for Category 2 land uses. 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Existing Noise Exposure (dBA) 85 80 M T 75 p R 70 U Q L rn 65 K N w� aD C 0 fi0 rn 0 J Z 55 0 a 50 45 80 Source: FTA: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006 13.3.2.4 Methodology To analyze the potential for noise impacts, 2005 land use data was used in GIS to determine noise sensitive land use types in this study area. Since noise impacts from transit sources are generally confined within 100 feet of the railroad corridor, land use was analyzed within a conservative 250 -foot buffer of the railroad corridor to determine acres of potential noise sensitive receivers. Table B -35 identifies sensitive land use by FTA. 13.3.2.5 Existing Conditions and Future Projections GIS data for 2005 land use was used to determine the amount of acres of noise sensitive land uses surrounding the existing Cotton Belt Corridor rail line. In the 250 -foot buffer, 177 acres (15.6 percent) was identified as residential land use, 70 acres (6.2 percent) was identified as parkland use, 53 acres (4.3 percent) was identified as institutional land use, and two acres (0.1 percent) was identified as hotels or motels. This totals 302 acres (26.2 percent) of noise sensitive land use. This land use could contain specific noise sensitive receivers. In addition, the existing Cotton Belt rail line has freight activity. This freight activity is light and the existing land use areas have adapted to the light to moderate freight rail noise surrounding the existing rail line. April 2010 B -86 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study As detailed in Section E3 2.1 the built environment, the land use and demographics for this study area shows continued, accelerated growth. As growth continues, more sensitive land use types may develop near the proposed rail corridor. B.3.3 Vibration Ground -borne vibration is the shaking motion of the ground due to a source such as a train, bus or truck passing by. Vibration waves are generated at the source, pass through the ground, and into nearby buildings. B.3.3.1 Human Perception Levels Human sensitivity to vibration typically corresponds to the amplitude of vibration velocity within the low- frequency range of approximately four to 200 Hertz. A common metric used to quantify vibration amplitude is the peak particle velocity (PPV), defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibratory motion. PPV is typically used in monitoring blasting and other types of construction - generated vibration, since it is related to the stresses experienced by building components. Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating building damage, it is less suitable for evaluating human response. People tend to respond to vibration signals over a period of time. Thus, ground -borne vibration effects on people from transit trains are characterized in terms of the "smoothed" root mean square (rms) vibration velocity level averaged over one second. All vibration levels reported in this document are in velocity decibels (VdB), with a reference quantity of one micro -inch per second. VdB is used in place of dB to avoid confusing vibration decibels with sound de6bels. Figure B -29 illustrates typical ground -borne vibration levels for common sources, as well as criteria for human and structural response to ground -borne vibration. As shown, the range of interest is from approximately 50 to 100 VdB, from imperceptible background vibration to the threshold of damage. Although the approximate threshold of human perception to vibration is 65 VdB, annoyance is usually not significant unless the vibration exceeds 72 VdB. The basic concept of ground -borne vibration is that train wheels rolling on the rails create vibration energy that is transmitted through the track support system into the transit structure and then transmitted into nearby buildings. Ground -borne vibration is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The amount of energy that is transmitted into the transit structure is dependent on factors such as the type of vehicle and the smoothness of the wheels and rail. The transmission of vibrations from the transit structures into nearby buildings is dependent on the type of soils and rock between the train and the building, as well as the type of foundation and structure of the building. When ground -borne vibrations propagate from the train to nearby buildings, the floors and walls of the building structure v✓ould respond to the motion and may resonate at natural frequencies. The vibration of the walls and floors may cause perceptible vibration, rattling of items such as windows or dishes on shelves or a rumble noise. The rumble is a low- frequency noise radiated from the motion of the walls, floor, and ceiling surfaces. In essence, the room surfaces act like a giant loudspeaker. This is ground -borne noise. April 2010 B -87 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Figure B -29 Typical Ground -Borne Vibration Levels and Criteria Human/Structural Response Velocity Typical Sources Level' (50 ft from source) Threshold, minor cosmetic damage fragile buildings Difficulty with tasks such as reading a VDT screen Residential annoyance, infrequent events (e.g. commuter rail) Residential annoyance, frequent —► events (e.g. rapid transit) Limit for vibration sensitive —{ equipment. Approx. threshold for human perception of vibration 4— Blasting from construction projects f— Bulldozers and other heavy tracked construction equipment � Commuter rail, upper range 4 Rapid transit, upper range — Commuter rail, typical — Bus or truck over bump — Rapid transit, typical — Bus or truck, typical ---- Typical background vibration • RMS Vibration Velocity Level in VdB relative to 106 inches/second Source: FTA: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 2006 The potential annoyance of ground -borne noise is most closely correlated with the A- weighted sound level. However, there are potential problems in using the A- weighted sound level to characterize low- frequency ground -borne noise. Human hearing is not equally sensitive to all frequencies. If a sound has low- frequency content, it seems louder than broadband sounds that have the same A- weighted level. This is accounted for by setting impact criteria limits lower for ground -borne noise than would be the case for broadband noise. B.3.3.2 Vibration Criteria The FTA criteria for vibration impact are based on land use and vehicle frequency, as shown in Table B -36. FTA vibration criteria are not dependent on existing vibration levels in the community. There are some buildings, such as concert halls, recording :studios and theaters, which can be very sensitive to vibration, but do not fit into any of the three categories listed in Table B -36. Due to the sensitivity of these buildings, they usually warrant special attention during the environmental assessment of a transit project. Table B -36 gives criteria for acceptable levels of ground -borne vibration for various types of special buildings. April 2010 B-88 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table 13-36 Grnunrl -Rnrnn Vihrn4i ^r. --A Kl—: -- 1.—.-_— r. _ __ 1. "Frequent Events" is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category. 2. "Occasional Events" is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter trunk lanes have this many operations. 3. "Infrequent Events" is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most commuter rail branch lines. 4. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration - sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. Vibration - sensitive equipment is generally not sensitive to ground -borne noise. B -3.3.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections GIS data for 2005 land use was used to determine the amount of acres of vibration sensitive land uses surrounding the existing Cotton Belt Corridor rail line. In this study area, no Category 1 land uses were identified. Category 2 land uses totaled 179 acres (15.7 percent) which included residential land use, hotels, and motels. Category 3 land uses totaled 123 acres (10.5 percent) which included institutional buildings (such as government buildings) and park and recreational facilities. Each of these identified land use types could contain specific vibration sensitive receivers. Figures B -14 through B -15 show the land use types for the corridor In addition, the existing Cotton Belt rail line has freight activity. This freight activity is light and the existing land use areas have adapted to the light to moderate freight rail noise surrounding the existing rail line. As detailed in the built environment, Section B.2.1, the land use and demographics for the study area continued accelerated growth. As growth continues, more sensitive land use types may develop near the proposed rail corridor. April 2010 B -89 - - -- . . "I GBV Impact Levels VIOW ini aL;< Criteria GBN Impact Levels I'VdB re one micro -inch /sec 06 re 20 micro Pascals Land Use Frequent Occasional Infrequent Frequent Occasional Infrequent Category Events' Events2 Events' Events' Events2 Events3 Category 1: Buildings where vibrations would interfere with 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 N /A4 N /A4 N /A4 interior o erations Category 2: Residences and buildings where 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA people normally ory 3: rInstitutional land ith 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA ly daytime use Source- FT A May 977. 1. "Frequent Events" is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category. 2. "Occasional Events" is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter trunk lanes have this many operations. 3. "Infrequent Events" is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most commuter rail branch lines. 4. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration - sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors. Vibration - sensitive equipment is generally not sensitive to ground -borne noise. B -3.3.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections GIS data for 2005 land use was used to determine the amount of acres of vibration sensitive land uses surrounding the existing Cotton Belt Corridor rail line. In this study area, no Category 1 land uses were identified. Category 2 land uses totaled 179 acres (15.7 percent) which included residential land use, hotels, and motels. Category 3 land uses totaled 123 acres (10.5 percent) which included institutional buildings (such as government buildings) and park and recreational facilities. Each of these identified land use types could contain specific vibration sensitive receivers. Figures B -14 through B -15 show the land use types for the corridor In addition, the existing Cotton Belt rail line has freight activity. This freight activity is light and the existing land use areas have adapted to the light to moderate freight rail noise surrounding the existing rail line. As detailed in the built environment, Section B.2.1, the land use and demographics for the study area continued accelerated growth. As growth continues, more sensitive land use types may develop near the proposed rail corridor. April 2010 B -89 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study B.3.4 Water Resources This section describes the hydrology and water quality of the study area in terms of surface floodplains, water quality, groundwater, and drainage. Discussion of the waters of the US, including wetlands is in Section B 3.6. 113.3.4.1 Legal /Regulatory Context Floodplains As required by Executive Order 11988, federal agencies are prevented from contributing to the adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and the direct or indirect support of floodplain development. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulates alterations to, or development within, floodplains as mapped on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Additionally, communities can develop more stringent local floodplain ordinances as part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), allowing reduced rates on flood insurance premiums within their jurisdiction (44 CFR 60.1). Water Quality Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to certify that a proposed CWA Section 404 permit would not violate water quality standards. The TCEQ issues Section 401 water quality certifications for projects, prior to approval of the Section 40.4 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE). If an individual permit is required, the TCEQ makes the certifications for all non -oil and non -gas projects. Initiating the Section 404 permit process with the USACE automatically initiates the Section 401 certification process. One aspect of the Individual Permitting (IP) process is the requirement for Section 401 water quality certification. For IPs with impacts of less than three acres or 1,500 feet of linear stream, a Tier I Water Quality Certification Checklist must be submitted with the Section 404 IP package. For impacts of greater than three acres or 1,500 feet of linear stream, a Tier 11 individual review would be required, which includes an alternative analysis. The proposed project would be compliant with whichever (Tier I or il) certification checklist is required. The design and construction would include construction and post- construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to manage storm water runoff and control sediments. General Permit for Construction Activity Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( TPDES) For projects disturbing over one acre, TPDES General Permit No. TXR150000, under provisions of Section 402 of the CWA and Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code, require contractors to comply with conditions in the General Permit for Construction Activity. This requires preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), in addition to adherence to rigorous BMPs designed to reduce or eliminate impacts to water resources. This permit would include BMPs to control total suspended solids that could be introduced into surface water. Phase I of the program, issued in 1990, requires cities with a population greater than 100,000 to develop storm water management programs. Phase II is the second stage of the EPA's storm water management program requirements. It affects many small cities, some counties, and other entities that operate municipal separate storm sewer systems in urbanized and other April 2010 B -90 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study densely populated areas. The TCEQ, the Phase II regulatory authority in Texas, is responsible for identifying the designated populated areas. The Phase II storm water rule requires operators of certain small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) to develop and implement a storm water program. In efforts to improve water quality in streams, lakes, bays and estuaries, the EPA developed the storm water program to control polluted runoff from urban areas. Each regulated small MS4 is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain storm water permit coverage, typically by complying with the Phase II general permit requirements. Six minimum control measures must be addressed to control polluted storm water runoff. The initial submission for permit coverage must detail the programs, activities, and measurable goals that will be implemented over the five -year permit term to comply with the permit requirements. For the first permit term, reports detailing the progress of the SWMP must be submitted to the TCEQ on an annual basis. B.3.4.2 Methodology Using NCTCOG GIS data, floodplains, streams and lakes, and impaired streams and lakes were mapped and a determination per each resource was summarized if it occurs within the study area. Figures B -30 through B -33 show all water quality related resources: floodplains, streams, lakes, and impaired waters. B.3.4.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections Two major floodplain districts cover the study area: the Northwest Dallas County Flood Control District and the Trinity River Authority. A total of 3,700 acres of 100 -year floodplain was located in the study area. In addition, 2,000 acres of 500 -year floodplain was identified. These floodplains were located around the numerous streams that cross the project study area and are shown in Figures B -30 through B -33. The largest area of floodplain occurred along the Elm Fork Trinity River, which crosses the Cotton Belt Corridor rail line near the intersection of the rail line, and the PGBT. Numerous streams cross the project area. Over 305,000 linear feet of stream were identified in the project study area. These streams included unnamed tributaries and water irrigation areas. Larger streams include: Brent Tree Creek, Bowman Branch, Canyon Creek, Cottonwood Branch, Cottonwood Creek, Elm Fork Trinity River, Grapevine Creek, Hutton Branch Creek, McKamy Branch East Fork, McKamy Branch, Perry Branch, Pittman Creek, Rawhide Creek, Rowlett Creek, Shawnee Park Pond, Silver Lake Branch, South Creek, Spring Creek, and White Rock Creek. A more detailed discussion of streams is in Section B.3.6, Wetlands /Waters of the U.S. Two major water districts encompass the study area. The North Texas Municipal Water District encompasses the Cities of Richardson and Plano. The Upper Trinity Regional Water District includes the City of Carrollton. Two major water body segments occur in the study area: Elm Fork Trinity River below Lewisville Lake (segment ID 0822) and Grapevine Lake (segment ID 0826). The Elm Fork Trinity River is listed on the TCEQ's 20013 303(d) list for impaired water body segments. Downgradient effects to this section of the Elm Fork Trinity River include bacterial contamination. April 2010 8 -91 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study All the municipalities within the study area have MS4 permits. The Cities of Dallas and Plano have medium or large MS4 permits (Phase 1). The remaining municipalities of Carrollton, Coppell, Richardson, and Addison have small MS4 permits (Phase 2). As development and growth continues in the project area, the potential for additional impacts to water quality may occur. But, with the enforcement of the regulations previously cited and use of water quality preventive measures such as BMPs during construction and a SWPPP, post- construction, it is anticipated adverse impacts would be mitigated. B.3.5 Biological Resources This section discusses the existing biological resources and the protection they are afforded. These resources include vegetation, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species. B.3.5.1 Legal /Regulatory Context Vegetation The Executive Memorandum on Beneficial Landscaping Practices was published in the August 10, 1995, Federal Register. It requires that all agencies comply with NEPA as it relates to vegetation management and landscape practices for all federally assisted projects. The Executive Memorandum directs that where cost - effective, and to the extent practicable, agencies will: • Use regionally native plants for landscaping; • Design, use, or promote construction practices that minimize adverse effects on the natural habitat; • Seek to prevent pollution by, among other things, reducing fertilizer and pesticide use; • Implement water - efficient and runoff - reduction practices; and • Create demonstration projects employing these practices. Executive Order 13112 on Invasive Species requires that federal agencies identify actions that can affect the disposition or introduction of invasive species, use relevant programs to prevent the introductions of such species, control invasive species, monitor known populations of invasive species, and restore areas affected by such species. Wildlife In addition to regulatory guideline of vegetation, there are regulations pertaining to wildlife. Several laws and regulations govern impacts to wildlife resources, most notably the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of 1958, and the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (SFA) of 1976, as amended. The MBTA implemented a treaty that was signed by the US, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and Russia. The law affords protection to virtually all migratory birds, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The MBTA affords protection to over 800 species. The FWCA requires federal agencies to solicit comments from both the USFWS and the state agency (i.e., TPWD) regarding the impacts of federal actions on wildlife species. The SFA implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service is the authority for all fishery management activities, regulating essential fish habitat. April 2010 B -96 B — Affected Environment Conceptual Threatened and Endangered Species Cotton Belt Corridor 7 and Fundina Study The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended prohibits the "taking" of listed species and the destruction of habitats critical to the survival of federally listed species. The designation of "endangered" indicates that the entire species appears to be in danger of extinction. A designation of "threatened" indicates a species for which protective measures appear to be required to prevent a species from becoming endangered. The word "take," according to the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants 50 CFR 17.3, includes "harass, harm, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." In this context, "harm" means an act that actually kills or injures protected wildlife. The interpretation includes substantial habitat modification or degradation that results in actual injury or death to listed species (i.e., impairment of essential behavior patterns). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668 -668d) of 1940, as amended, gives protection to Bald and Golden Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus and Aquila chrysaetos) similar to the endangered species act. The Bald Eagle was removed from the federal threatened and endangered list (effective August 8, 2007). Bald Eagles are now afforded protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act which prevents a person to "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any Bald Eagle ... [or any Golden Eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb." It further defines "disturb" as "to agitate or bother a Bald or Golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available injury to an eagle; a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding or sheltering; or nest abandonment, but substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior." Somewhat similar legislation (i.e., Section 65.171 -176 and 69.01 -69.9 of the Texas Administration Code) has been passed by the State of Texas and the TPWD has the responsibility of listing species within the state. In addition, the Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 68 and 88 for the State of Texas, contain the regulations of endangered species and plants. Both the state and federal laws afford protection to the organism from direct taking. However, state laws do riot include prohibitions on impacts to habitat, only to activities that would directly affect a listed species. Fourteen taxa are listed by the federal and /or state government agencies in the three counties traversed by the study corridor area, shown in Table B -37. April 2010 B -97 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Tmhrc R37 FaripmIlAtnte Listed Species for the Cotton Belt Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Birds American Peregrine Falcon Falco pere rinus anatum -- T Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus DM T Black-Capped Vireo Vireo atrica ilia E E Golden - Cheeked Warbler Dendroica chrysoparia E E Interior Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos E E Piping Plover Charadrius melodus T T White -Faced Ibis Ple adis chihi -- T Whooping Crane Grus americana E E Wood Stork M cteria americana -- T Mammals Grey Wolf Canis lupus -- E Red Wolf Canis rufus -- E Reptiles Alligator Snapping Turtle Macrochel s temminckii -- T Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum -- T Timber /Canebrake Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus -- T Source: USFWS, June 2009; TPWD, June 2009. E = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate species, DM = Delisted Taxon, Recovered, Being Monitored First Five Years. 'These species having listings in Texas, but have been identified by the USFWS to not occur in any of the 12 counties in the study area. B.3.5.2 Methodology /Research Research for the existing conditions was conducted through GIS. Data for vegetation was obtained from the TPWD and based on the Vegetation Types of Texas and the TPWD ecoregions. Potential threatened and endangered species, as well as species of concern, were obtained through the Natural Diversity Database (NDD) from TPWD. This database tracks confirmed sightings and locations of threatened and endangered species (as well as candidate species), species of concern, and special habitat series; the NDD was consulted on May 22, 2009 (versions February 12, 2009). Existing conditions of wildlife is difficult to obtain without extensive field investigations throughout the study area. Because of the inability to conduct these surveys, habitat was used as a proxy for wildlife. In general, the type of species that occur within an area is based on the type of habitat present. In addition, areas of high degree of human activity exhibit less diversity and have a lower habitat value to wildlife than undisturbed habitats. Evaluation of areas of human disturbance derived from the land use section, Section B.2.1. Aerial photography was used as the basis for habitat fragmentation. Future conditions for all biological resources are based on existing trends in development discussed in previous sections. April 2010 B-98 Appendix B — Affected Environment Cotton Belt Corridor Conceptual and Funding Study B.3.5.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections The study area is contained in two major ecological areas: the Blackland Prairies on the east and the Cross Timbers; and Prairies on the west. The study area is further defined into two ecoregions: Eastern Cross Timbers and the Northern Blackland Prairie. Three vegetation types from the Vegetation Types of Texas were identified in the study area. Table B -38 list the acreage and percent of vegetation type in the study area. Figures B -34 and B -35 also illustrates the vegetation types. i ame ti-its Vegetation Types in the Study Area Other Native or Introduced Grasses Urban TPWD Vegetation Code Number 44 45 46 Source: TPWD GIS: Vegetation Tvnac of Tavx The majority of the study area falls into the "crops" category with approximately 16,843 acres (47.83 percent). Grassland types covered approximately 6,277 acres (17.82 percent) of the study area while urban areas accounted for approximately 12,097 acres (34.35) percent. Table B -39 describes the typical vegetation species found in each vegetation type and where the distribution of the vegetation type occurs. Percent in Acres I Stud Area 16,843 47.83% 61 277 17.82% 12,097 34.35% The majority of the study area falls into the "crops" category with approximately 16,843 acres (47.83 percent). Grassland types covered approximately 6,277 acres (17.82 percent) of the study area while urban areas accounted for approximately 12,097 acres (34.35) percent. Table B -39 describes the typical vegetation species found in each vegetation type and where the distribution of the vegetation type occurs. Source: TPWD: Veaetation Tvna.c of Tav— Coti norm April 2010 B -99 dale: 6 -sy I ypical Vegetation Type and Distribution Vegetation Type/Code No. Commonly Associated Plants Distribution Crops (44) Cultivated cover crops or row crops providing food Statewide and /or fiber for either man or domestic animals. This type may also portray grassland associated with cro rotations. Other Native or Mixedl native or introduced grasses and forbs on Primarily northeast, Introduced Grasses (45) grassland sites or mixed herbaceous communities east - central, and resulting from the clearing of woody vegetation. south Texas This type is associated with the clearing of forests in northeast and east - central Texas and may portray early stages of Type 41, Young Forest. Also occurs in the South Texas Plains where brush has been cleared. Such areas are particularly subject to chan a due to re-growth brush. Urban (46) Urban vegetation types as usually associated with Statewide landscaped and ornamental species planted in urban areas. This could also include maintained grasses along roadside right -of -ways and in urban ditches. Source: TPWD: Veaetation Tvna.c of Tav— Coti norm April 2010 B -99 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study The NDD provides actual recorded occurrences of protected species and 'vegetation series throughout the State of Texas. Searches in the NDD yield a GIS shapefile that maps a general area that the element of occurrence was documented. With this information, further investigation of these areas can confirm the presence of the documented species or vegetation series and avoid them whenever possible. A search through the NDD from TPWD was conducted for the study area for potential threatened and endangered species, species of concern, protected species, and vegetation series. The search yielded one occurrence in the study area; a rookery, ID number 3672. Last known observance was 1990. As the study area becomes more developed, biological resources would decline. Vegetation and wildlife habitat would be converted to urban and suburban areas based on future population growth as described in Chapter 2. While impacts would be permanent, these changes may be offset by creation of parks and green space. Impacts to threatened and endangered species could occur if it was determined that their habitat would be impacted by future growth. Although some species would lose habitat, some have adapted to living within an urban environment if the right combination of surrounding foraging areas remain; such as the Interior Least Tern species, which nests on the gravel rooftops of buildings. B.3.6 Waters of the US, Including Wetlands B.3.6.1 Legal and Regulatory Context Waters of the US, including wetlands, are afforded protection under the CWA. Enforcement of the CWA falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA and USACE. The CWA regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material into waters of the US. This includes rivers, perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams, bogs, sloughs, lakes, on- channel ponds, and wetlands. Section 404 Permit (CWA) Section 404 of the CWA would require a permit for activities that would result in fill of jurisdictional waters of the US. These permits could be IPs or General Permits. General Permits include both regional and nationwide permits (NWP). NWP 14 is intended to provide a means of permitting linear transportation projects and may apply in this case. However, all Section 404 permitting would be coordinated with the Regulatory Branch, Fort Worth District of the USACE. The USACE is responsible for confirming all jurisdictional determinations, as well as establishing the appropriate permitting avenue. April 2010 B -102 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 This act prohibits the construction of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over or in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other navigable water of the US until the consent of Congress to the building of such structures shall have been obtained and until the plans for the same shall have been submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of War. These structures may be built under authority of the legislature of a state, across rivers and other waterways the navigable portions that occur wholly within the limits of a single state, provided the location and plans of the structure are submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of War before construction is commenced. It is also required that when plans for any bridge or other structure have been approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of War; it is unlawful to deviate from such plans either before or after completion of the structure unless the modification of said plans has previously been submitted to and received the approval of the Chief of Engineers and of the Secretary of War. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 This act prohibits the creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the US that has not been affirmatively authorized by Congress. The construction or commencement of building any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the US, outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been established, except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War is regulated under this Act. This Act also prohibits the excavation, fill, or any manner of alteration /modification to the course, location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or enclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the US. Work in navigable waters must be recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War prior to beginning construction. Section 14 of the River and Harbors Act (33 USC 408) This act prohibits any person from taking possession, or making use of for any purpose, or build upon, alter, deface, destroy, move, injure, obstruct, or impair the usefulness of any sea wall, bulkhead, jetty, dike, levee, wharf, or pier in the whole or part. The Secretary of the Army may grant permission for the temporary occupation or use of the features. The Secretary of the Army may also grant permission for the alteration or permanent occupation or use of these features. B.3.6.2 Methodology/Research Data to identify the extent of waters of the US, including wetlands, was done through NCTCOG GIS. Stream data, maintained by NCTCOG, from baseline data from TCEQ identifies the majority of the streams and water bodies within the study area. Wetland data was derived from 2001 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) from the EPA though GIS, the most recent dataset available. April 2010 B -103 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B-40 Linear Feet of Stream within the Study ,Area Stream Name Linear Feet Aqueducts 4,352 Bent Tree Cc 1,227 Bowman Branch 5,895 Canyon Creek 2,778 Cottonwood Branch 26,915 Cottonwood Creek 5,663 Elm Fork Trinity River 12,636 Grapevine Creek 43,890 Hutton Branch Creek 35,202 McKamy Br E Fork 14,632 McKamy Branch 21,883 Perry Branch 3,905 Pittman Creek 6,774 Rawhide Creek 2,754 Rowlett Creek 1,834 Shawnee Park Pond 355 Silver Lake Branch 2,775 South Creek 4,719 Spring Creek 15,717 Stream 12,671 White Rock Creek 17,189 Unnamed Tributaries 611264 Source: NCTCOG GIS: Streams, 2009 13.3.6.3 Existing Conditions Table B -40 shows the amount of linear feet of streams in the study area. Table B -41 shows the acres of wetlands and lakes in the study area and the percent of the entire study area they encompass. Figures B -36 and B -37 show the locations of the potential wetlands. TahIP R_d1 Acres of Waters of the US Name Acres Percent: of Study Area DFW Lake 4.1 <0.1 Grapevine Lake 3.4 <0.1 % North Lake 476.8 -1.3% Smaller unnamed ponds/lakes 131.5 0.4% Total Lakes 615.8 1.7% Woody wetlands 40.2 0.1% Emergent Herbaceous wetlands 89.5 0.3% Total Wetlands 1 129.7 1 0.4% Source: NLCD GIS, 2001 April 2010 B -104 dix B — Affected Environment Cotton Belt Corridor Y and Fundinn itiim, Numerous streams intersected the project area, including one major river, the Elm Fork Trinity River. Over 305,000 linear feet of major streams were identified in the study area. The longest stream located in the study area was Grapevine Creek, which included approximately 44,000 linear feet. This stream originates near the DFWIA and travels east, joining the Elm Fork Trinity River south of the study area. Likely, ephemeral and some intermediate streams would not be reported though the GIS files; whose location would require field investigations further into the environmental studies. Lakes accounted for less than two percent of the study area. The majority of the identified lakes were located along the fringe of the study area. The exception was North Lake, with over half of the lake area within the study area. Very few wetlands were identified in the study area, most of the wetland areas were located in proximity to the Elm Fork Trinity River. Development within the study area has the potential to reduce the linear feet of streams and acreage of waters of the US. All impacts to streams and wetlands are regulated by the USACE. Due to the enforcement of USACE mitigation policies, no net loss of waters of the US in the study area is anticipated. B.3.7 Soils and Geology This section discusses the soils and geology of the study area through soil data, geological data, and aquifer data. B.3.7.1 Legal /Regulatory Context Except for prime and unique farmlands, soils and geology are not associated with legal laws or regulations in this region. B.3.7.2 Methodology /Research GIS data was obtained and used to identify the geological components, including aquifers, and the soil components of the study area for the Cotton Belt Corridor rail line. Data for the geological formations was obtained from the USGS, which included GIS data and descriptions of the geological formations. Aquifer data was obtained from the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) in the form of GIS and aquifer descriptions. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) provided) soil data in GIS and description form. 8.3.7.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections Geological The study area lies on top of three major geological formations: the Austin Chalk, the Eagle Ford Formation, and the Woodbine Formation. Other minor geological units included water, alluvium, and terrace deposits. Figures B -38 and B -39 show the locations of these geological features. Geological formations change slowly from extended periods of time and changes in the overall environmental landscape of the region. These geological formations are expected to remain in the future. April 2010 B -107 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Major Geological Formations Austin Chalk - This formation is a large chalk formation from the Phanerozoic, Mesozoic, and Cretaceous -Late ages. Primary rock type is limestone, secondary is mudstone, and tertiary is clay or mud, bentonite, and mudstone. The majority of the study area, 45.5 percent, lies on this geological formation. The area covered includes the eastern half of the entire study area. Austin Chalk is a massive chalk formation with some interbeds and partings of light grey calcareous clay. Middle portions are mostly thin - bedded marl with interbeds of massive chalk and hard lime mudstone to soft chalk with light grey and weathers white color. The chalk is mostly microgranular calcite with minor foraminifer test and Inoceramus prisms, with local thin bentonitic beds in lower parts. Thickness is around 600 feet and marine mega fossils are scarce. Eagle Ford Formation - This formation is a shale and limestone geological area from the Phanerozoic, Mesozoic, and Cretaceous -Late ages. The primary rock type is shale, secondary is siltstone, and tertiary is limestone. A large portion of the study area, 40.2 percent, is covered under the Eagle Ford Formation. This area includes the majority of the western half of the study area. The Eagle Ford Formation is composed of shale, siltstone, and limestone. The upper portion of this geological formation is limestone and shale, a light - yellowish -brown color and flaggy. The lower portion is siltstone and very fine - grained sandstone, light- yellow to gray and laminated flaggy. Some limestone in the lower portion is silty, medium -brown and laminated. Overall thickness is 75 to 200 feet and thins to the northeast of the geological formation. Woodbine Formation - The Woodbine Formation was the result of ancient marine beds from the Phanerozoic, Mesozoic, and Cretaceous -Late ages. Primary rock type is shale, secondary is sand, and tertiary is clay or mud, limestone, coal, and tuff. Only a small portion of the study area, 1.3 percent, contains this geological formation. This formation is located on the northern edge of the western side of the study area, north of the DFWIA. The Woodbine formation is defined by the USGS as various interlensing sequence of nonmarine, brackish - water, and marine beds of sand, clay, sandstone, and shale 350 to 600 feet thick. This formation contains coarse grained volcanic sand and tuff crossbedded with dark green and olive green colors. Fossil plants and few marine mega fossils can be found in this formation. Woodbine fossils include ammonites, gastropods, pelecypods, brachiopods, and foraminifers. This formation has an average thickness of 500 feet thinning eastward. Minor Geological Units Alluvium - The alluvium geological areas account for the third most prevalent type in the study area, 10.2 percent. Alluvium is located generally in areas of rivers and is mostly composed of silt and clay particles with larger sand and gravel. As a geological feature, these areas have extended underneath the surface and have formed this same mixture below the surface. The alluvium in the study area directly relates to the Elm Fork Trinity River that crosses the study area. Terrace Deposit - Terrace deposits are flat platforms adjacent to streams that were located in a former floodplain. These higher platforms form with a stream or river, cuts a deeper channel, leaving the terrace deposits outside the stream and floodplain. The terrace deposits are mostly striated layers of gravel, sand, and sediments. This geological area accounts for the smallest amount in the study area, 1.2 percent. The location of this geological area is adjacent to the alluvium geological areas from the Elm Fork Trinity River. April 2010 B -110 B — Affected Environment Cotton Belt Corridor r and Fundina Sturiv • Water - In reference to the larger lakes, the USGS has identified some geological areas as water. As a geological type, water accounted for 1.7 percent of the study area. The water areas occurred in two locations; North Lake and Grapevine Lake. Both of these lakes are located in the western half of the study area. Aquifers Two aquifers occur in the study area, the Trinity Aquifer and the Woodbine Aquifer. Aquifers are large sources of water that change slowly from large environmental changes over extended periods of time. While there are no changes expected for the future, water levels could drop as the population increases in the study area and more water is drawn from the aquifers or from surface water, which recharges the aquifer. Trinity Aquifer - The Trinity Aquifer is a major aquifer; its downdip area is also located in and encompasses the entire study area. The Trinity Aquifer consists of early Cretaceous age formations of the Trinity Group. These formations occur in the band extending through the central part of the state, in all or parts of 55 counties; from the Red River in North Texas to the Hill Country of South - Central Texas. Trinity Group deposits also occur in the Panhandle and Edwards Plateau regions where they are included as part of the Edwards - Trinity (High Plans and Plateau) aquifers. Formations comprising the Trinity Group are (from youngest to oldest): the Paluxy, Glen Rose, and Twin Mountains- Travis Peak. Updip, where the Glen Rose this or is missing, the Paluxy and Twin Mountains coalesce to form the Antlers Formation. The Antlers consist of up to 900 feet of sand and gravel, with clay beds in the middle section. Water from the Antlers main use is irrigation in the outcrop area of North and Central Texas. Forming the upper unity of the Trinity Group, the Paluxy Formation consist of up to 400 feet of predominately fine to course - grained sand interbedded with clay and shale. The formation pinches out downdip and does not occur south of the Colorado River. Underlying the Paluxy, the Glen Rose Formation forms a gulfward- thickening wedge of marine carbonates consisting primarily of limestone. South of the Colorado River, the Glen Rose is the upper unit of the Trinity Group and is divisible into an upper and lower member. In the north, the downdip portion of the aquifer becomes highly mineralized and is a source of contamination to wells drilled into the underlying Twin Mountains. The basal unit of the Trinity Group consists of the Twin Mountains and Travis Peak formations, which are laterally separated by a facies change. To the north, the Twin Mountains Formation consists mainly of medium to coarse - grained sands, silty clays, and conglomerates. The 'Twin Mountains is the most prolific of the Trinity aquifers in North Central Texas; however, the quality of the water is generally not as good as that from the Paluxy or Antlers Formations. To the south, the Travis Peak Formation contains calcareous sands and silts, conglomerates, and limestones. The formation subdivisions follow members in descending order: Hensell, Pearsall, Cow Creek, Hammett, Sligo, Hosston, and Sycamore. Extensive development of the Trinity Aquifer has occurred in the DFW region where water levels have historically dropped as much as 550 feet. Since the mid- 1970's, many public supply wells have been abandoned in favor of surface -water supply, and water levels have April 2010 B -111 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study responded with slight rises. Water -level declines, of as much as 100 feet, are still occurring in Denton and Johnson Counties. The Trinity Aquifer is the most extensively developed from the Hensell and Hosston members in the Waco area, where the water level has declined by as much as 400 feet. Woodbine Aquifer - The Woodbine Aquifer is a minor aquifer; it crosses the study area extending mostly north and south. Both the outcrop and downdip areas of the Woodbine Aquifer are located in the entire study area. From the TWDB, the Woodbine aquifer extends from McLennan County in North - Central Texas northward to Cook County and eastward to the Red River County, paralleling the Red River. Water produced from the aquifer furnishes municipal, industrial, domestic, livestock, and small irrigation supplies throughout its North Texas extent. The Woodbine Formation of Cretaceous age is composed of water - bearing sandstone beds interbedded with shale and clay. The aquifer dips eastward into the subsurface where it reaches a maximum depth of 2,500 feet below land surface and a maximum thickness of approximately 700 feet. The Woodbine Aquifer is three water - bearing zones that differ considerably in productivity and quality. Only the lower two zones of the aquifer supply water for domestic or municipal uses. Heavy municipal and industrial pumpage has contributed to water -level declines in excess of 100 feet in the Sherman- Denison area of Grayson and surrounding counties. Chemical quality deteriorates rapidly in well depths below 1,500 feet. In areas between the outcrop and this depth, quality is considered good overall, as long as groundwater from the upper Woodbine is sealed off. The upper Woodbine contains water of extremely poor quality in downdip locales and contains excessive iron concentrations along the outcrops. Soils Soils located within the study area are described and mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The NRCS maintains digital data, in addition to literature over soil types, series, associations, taxonomy, and the location of these units. Soil types in the study area were determined from 2009 GIS data obtained from the NRCS. Development could change the soils in the study area. When development occurs, the top layer of soil could be disturbed and altered beyond its existing properties. While these changes could occur to the top layers of soil, the deeper soil horizons would remain unchanged in the future. The study area contained 84 unique map unit types. These map units are condensed into 20 separate soil series and three non - series soils. Table B -42 details the soils in the study area. Figures B -40 and B -41 graphically display the soil series in the study area. April 2010 B -112 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table B-42 Soil Series Name Altoga Series Description The Altoga series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in calcareous clayey sediments. These soils are on gently sloping to strongly sloping erosional uplands. Surfaces are convex and slopes range from one to 12 percent. Percent in Stud Area 0.7% Arents* Arents are the Entisols that do not have horizons because they have been deeply mixed by plowing, spading, or other methods of moving by humans. The soils retain fragments that can be identified as parts of a former spodic or argillic horizon, but the fragments do not themselves form horizons. 1.9% Austin Series The Austin series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately slowly permeable soils that formed in chalk and interbedded marl. These soils are on nearly level to sloping erosional uplands. Slopes range from zero to eight percent. 9.3% Axtell Series The Axtell series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils on Pleistocene terraces. The soil formed in slightly acid to alkaline clayey sediments. Slopes are dominantly zero to five percent, but range to 12 percent. 0.4% Bastsil Series The Bastsil series consists of very deep, well drained moderately permeable soils that formed in the loamy alluvial sediments. These nearly level to gently sloping soils are on stream terraces. Slopes range from zero to five percent. 0.3% B me Series The Birorrie series consists of moderately deep, well drained, slowly permeable soils that formed in iron enriched loamy and clayey sediments. These gently sloping to moderately steep soils are on low hills and ridges. Slopes range from two to 20 percent. 0.2a% o B Se The Branyon series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils that formed in calcareous clayey sediments. These soils are on nearly level to very gently sloping Pleistocene terraces. Slopes range from zero to three percent. 1.8% Burleson Series The Burleson series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils that formed in alkaline clayey sediments. These soils are on nearly level to gently sloping Pleistocene terraces. Slopes ran a from zero to five percent. 1.8% Crockett Series Dalco Series The Crocket series consists of soils that are deep to weathered shale. They are moderately well drained, and very slowly permeable. These soils are on uplands. These nearly level to moderately sloping soils formed in alkaline residuum derived from shales and clays. Slopes are dominantly one to five percent, but range from zero to 10 percent, The Dalco series consists of moderately deep, moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils. These soils are on nearly level to gently sloping u lands. Slopes range from zero to five percent. 1.4% 2.7% Dutek Series The Dutek series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils formed in loamy to sandy alluvial material. These soils are on gently sloping to strongly sloping high stream terraces of the uplands. Slopes range from one to 12 percent. 0.1% Eddy Series The Eddy series consists of shallow to very shallow, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in chalky limestone. These soils are on gently sloping to moderately steep uplands. Slopes range from one to 20 ercent. 2.9% April 2010 B -113 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B - Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Ir 1, 1.. 0 _A7 Qnii Carina /rnnfinliarf1 April 2010 B -114 Percent in Name Description Study Area Ferris Series The Ferris series consists of soils that are deep, to weathered shale. 3.4% They are well drained, very slowly permeable soils that formed firom weakly consolidated calcareous dense clays and shales. These soils are on sloping or moderately steep uplands. Slopes range from one to 20 percent. Frio Series The Frio series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately slowly 3.6% permeable soils that formed in the loamy and clayey calcareous alluvium. These flood lain soils have slopes ranging from zero to two percent. Heiden The Heiden series consists of soils that are well drained and very slowly 5.2% Series permeable. They are deep to weathered shale. These soils are on nearly level to moderately steep uplands. Slopes are mainly three to ei ht percent but range from 0.5 to 20 percent. Houston The Houston Black series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, 38.6% Black Series very slowly permeable soils that formed from weakly consolidated calcareous clays and marls of Cretaceous Age. These soils are on nearly level to moderately sloping uplands. Slopes are mainly one to three percent, but range from zero to eight percent. Justin Series The Justin series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately slowly 0.8% permeable soils that formed in clayey and loamy sediments. These nearly level to gently sloping soils are on uplands. Slopes range from zero to five percent. Leson Series The Leson series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, very 0.4% slowly permeable soils that formed in alkaline shales and clays. These soils are on nearly level or gently sloping uplands. Slopes range from zero to five percent. Lewisville The Lewisville series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately 2.9% Series permeable soils that formed in ancient loamy and calcareous sediments. These upland soils have slopes of zero to 10 percent. Lott Series The Lott series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately slow 0.5% permeable soils that formed in marly materials. These gently sloping to moderately sloping soils are on stream divides and low ridges. Slopes ran a from one to eight percent. Mabank The Mabank series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, very 0.5% Series slowly permeable soils that formed in alkaline clays. These soils are on nearly level to gently sloping terraces or remnants of terraces associated with uplands. Slopes are mainly less than one percent but range from zero to give percent. Navo Series The Navo series consists of deep, moderately well drained, very slowly 1.0% permeable soils that formed in clayey sediments. These nearly level to sloping soils are on stream divides. Slopes range from zero to eight ercent. Normangee The Normangee series consist of soils that are deep to weakly 0.1 Series consolidated shale. They are moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils that formed in Cretaceous Age clay materials. These soils are on nearly level to moderately sloping uplands. Slopes range from zero to eight percent. Seagoville The Seagoville series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, 0.2% Series very slowly permeable soils formed in clayey alluvium over loarny alluvial sediments. These soils are on nearly level floodplains. Slopes are mainly less than one percent, but range to two percent. April 2010 B -114 B - Affected Environment Table B -42 Soil Series (continued Cotton Belt Corridor 1 and Fundina Studv Name Silawa Series Descri tion The Silawa series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in sandy and loamy sediments. These soils are on nearly level to strongly sloping terraces. Slopes range from zero to 13 percent. Percent in Study Area 0.8% Silstid Series Stephen Series The Silstid series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in residuum weathered from beds of sandy or loamy materials and interbedded sandstones. These nearly level to sloping soils are on uplands. Slopes range from zero to eight percent. The Stephen series consists of shallow, well drained, moderately slowly permeable soils formed in interbedded marl ad chalky limestone. These soils are on gently sloping to sloping uplands. Slopes are mainly one to five perc ent but range from one to eight percent. <0.0% 4.6% Sunev Series The Sunev series consists of very deep, well drained moderately permeable soils that formed in loamy soil materials. These soils are on nearly level to moderately steep terraces or colluvial footslopes. Slopes range fro zero to 15 percent. 0.2% -inn Series The Tinn :series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils that formed in calcareous clayey alluvium. These soils are on floodplains of streams that drain the Blackland Prairies. Slopes are dominantly less than one percent but range from zero to two percent. 0.1% Trinity Series The Trinity series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils on floodplains. They formed in alkaline clayey alluvium. Slopes are typically less than one percent, but range from zero to three p E�rcent. 7.4 Urban Land" Urban land consists of altered soil by human activities for landscaping, construction, buildings, and parks. These soils generally display little or no soil horizon as the existing soil has been modified or other soil has been added. 3.2% Ustorthents Ustorthents are the Orthents of cool to hot regions. They have an ustic moisture regime and a temperature regime warmer than cryic. They are neutral to calcareous, but some are acid. Slopes are moderate to steep but are gentle in a few areas. <0.1 Water* Water consists of soils that occur in areas underneath lakes and large rivers. These soils have been disturbed by water movement and usually have lar a amounts of sediment accumulated throughout. 1.7% Wilson Series The Wilson series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils that formed in alkaline clayey sediments. These soils are on nearly level to gently sloping stream terraces or terrace remnants on uplands. Slopes are mainly less than one percent but range from zero to five percent. 3.2% Source: NRCS Soils GIS & Taxonomy, 2009 These soil types are not soil series because of the absences of soil layers and horizons, but represent a general classification April 2010 B -115 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix B — Affected Environment Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study 13.3.8 Energy 13.3.8.1 Legal /Regulatory Context Energy is not associated with any legal or regulatory laws. 13.3.8.2 Methodology /Research Energy usage for transit projects are described through VMT and converted to British Thermal Units (BTUs). One objective of transit projects is to reduce the VMT for a. region and, therefore, reduce the BTUs of energy consumed. VMT was derived from NCTCOG's traffic model and includes all metropolitan planning area (MPA) counties: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant. The VMT was converted to give the existing energy usage for the region. According to the USDOT in 1993, an average vehicle mile is equivalent to approximately 6,233 BTUs. In addition, one barrel of oil is approximately 5.8 million BTUs according to the USDOT, 2002. 13.3.8.3 Existing Conditions and Future Projections The NCTCOG 2009 traffic performance reports for the region reported an average daily VMT for the nine - county region at 158,372,194. This daily VMT converts to 987 billion BTUs of energy usage. This equals approximately 170,195 barrels of oil per day of usage for the DFW region. The study area will see an increase consumption of energy as the population and area becomes denser. More vehicles and more VMT will increase the amount of energy required for the region and the study area. April 2010 B -118 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix C - Meeting Summaries Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Appendix C Meeting Summaries April 2010 C -1 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix C - Meeting Summaries Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This Page Intentionally Left Blank. April 2010 C -2 Advancing Rail in North Texas Strategy Meeting Cotton Belt Corridor Friday, December 12, 2008 Attendance There were 47 signed -in, with representatives from Addison, Carrollton, Colleyville, Coppell, Dallas, Dallas County, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Denton County Transit Authority (DCTA), Dallas -Fort Worth (DFW) International Airport, Farmers Branch, Fort Worth, Haltom City, Hurst, Irving, North Richland Hills, Plano, Richardson, Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T), Tarrant County, Southlake, North Central Texas Council of Governments ( NCTCOG) staff, and two consultant companies Dannenbaum Engineering and Ziebarth & Associates, Inc.. Purpose The main purpose of this meeting was to increase communication for the interested parties along the Cotton Belt Corridor and help facilitate implementation. A secondary meeting purpose was to gain a consensus for the scope of work program to employ: eastern segments only, western segments only or full corridor. Corridor Overview and Status Report Michael Morris, Director of 'Transportation for the NCTCOG began by briefly discussing Rail North Texas at the regional level. There are 250 miles of rail on the current transportation plan there with 215 miles in the Rail North Texas Plan pending funding identification. The Cotton Belt is unaffected. Mr. Morris then explained the limits of the Cotton Belt Corridor with areas of destination, potential station locations, the need for a new type of rail technology, and sensitive corridors through different city limits. Then he moved on to explain the NCTCOG staff has developed fact sheets which were provided as handouts (Full Corridor — Fort Worth to the Richardson /Plano /East; Western Segments — Fort Worth to DFW Airport; and Eastern Segments — DFW to Richardson /Plano /East). He identified several issues and explained the maps on the back of the fact sheets. Mr. Morris complimented DART on their efforts to solve a national problem and develop a new passenger vehicle that is compliant for both light rail and freight rail corridors. He explained the issue with using the current light rail vehicles in 'this predominantly freight rail corridor. Basically the current light rail vehicles used by DART require an overhead electrification system which is not compatible with freight rail vehicles. An illustration of a hybrid vehicle currently being tested in Austin was displayed. The hybrid vehicle may be appropriate for the Cotton Belt Corridor if it receives approval from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to operate in conjunction with freight rail. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 1 of 6 12/12/2008 Work Program Discussion Mr. Morris opened up the floor for discussion about how the region would like to proceed: as one larger group, as sub - groups, or in a third group to focus specifically on vehicle technology. Mr. Morris stated he comes from a bias that looking at the corridor as one group on a regional level there will be things everyone learns that can help both sides of the region which will allow transit service to be implemented more quickly. Mr. Morris asked for any other perspectives or views on the corridor, status, or other items regarding the corridor overview. The next discussion topic focused on additional thoughts for what would be needed to advance the study and implement passenger service in the Cotton Belt Corridor as quickly as possible. Nancy Amos, with the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, distributed several Southwest -to- Northeast (SW2NE) Rail Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Executive Summary. Ms. Amos wanted to ensure those from the East side of the region understands the current status for the corridor and that the project is not starting at ground zero. The DEIS has been submitted to the FTA. Robert Parmelee, Chairman Fort Worth Transportation Authority, does not think splitting the corridor would be a good idea and feels the corridor should be looked at as a whole in the region. Mr. Parmalee stressed the region should be aware of what has been done on the West Segments. His personal opinion is this project should be accelerated by the region to get people to their destinations fast, safe, and more affectingly. He supports the option of combining the Western and Eastern Segments and working together to implement the project. Mr. Morris asked the group: "What are the elements of this that you would like to see as part of this effort?" Mr. Morris would like to see RTC support DART's effort in developing a cleaner, safer vehicle. Bill Keffler, City Manager, City of Richardson, was interested in the partnering effort to accelerate the project. He suggested a public /private partnership could benefit the project. He also stated he thought a full corridor study would be better and that DART and The T's coordination was important. As a current member of DART (within the DART service area), he suggested the sales tai; DART collects in the coordinating cities be allocated toward this project. Frank Turner, Executive Director City of Plano, stated he supports a unified approach to study the corridor and is encouraged at the open process looking at various technologies, station locations, and termini. He supports the Eastern terminus to remain flexible for a possible future connection to the DART Red Line. When looking at the Eastern terminus he would like to ensure the potential extensions, parking, and access all be investigated thoroughly, due to their importance. He had concerns stemming from several documents Cotton Belt Corridor Page 2 of 6 12/12/2008 which identify the Bush Station as the Eastern terminus for the Cotton Belt Corridor. Mr. Turner suggested the Parker Road Station may be a more appropriate Eastern terminus. Mike Curtis P.E, Managing Director, City of North Richland Hills, stated he was very interested and supports DART's efforts on the new vehicle technology. His concern was how would this study affect The T's current environmental process? Mr. Morris replied that this effort would not slow down the Fort Worth to DFW Airport or the Denton to Carrollton current efforts. Loretta Ellerbee, Piano's Representative for the DART Board, stated that she can not speak for the DART Board, but wants to make sure everyone understands DART owns the right -of -way along the Cotton Belt Corridor, and DART would like to accelerate progress on the corridor through a cooperative effort. DART wants to use a single vehicle that is compliant with FRA and LRT standards, though there is not a currently available vehicle that meets all the needs for this corridor and has been approved by the FRA. The plan is the initial vehicle purchased for the Cotton Belt Corridor will be similar to the current THE vehicle with potential to switch to a new technology when it is available. The initial vehicles would be switched to THE service when the new technology is implemented. Wayne Friesner, DART Vice President Commuter Rail stated the DART Board has not discussed the full corridor idea, but probably would support it. Current LRT vehicle technology is not possible in the Cotton Belt Corridor due to the presence of freight traffic in the corridor. DART is studying a hybrid vehicle which is compatible with both light rail vehicle technology and commuter rail vehicle technology. This is the vehicle Mr. Morris discussed in the presentation. The plan is to eventually have one vehicle operate in the Cotton Belt Corridor from the Western terminus to the Eastern terminus. FRA is looking at more crash avoidance rather than "crash- resistant "' cars, which is been utilized in European vehicles. John Hedrick, DCTA President, stated the DCTA service from the City of Denton to Carrollton will be open in 2010 and that they are currently in the vehicle procurement process. Mr. Hedrick indicated he could not discuss the vehicle type to be purchased for the service. David Kelly, Mayor of Colle,yville, supports the full corridor idea and would like to see one vehicle be used for the entire corridor. He wanted to ensure the group did realize there were sensitive areas on the Western side of the corridor, too, and was wondering if all the sensitive areas have been identified. He would also like to get the word out that this is a regional corridor not a local one. Clay Phillips, Deputy City Manager, City of Coppell, supports the regional approach and would like to see Cotton Belt Corridor Page 3 of 6 12/12/2008 one vehicle being used along the entire corridor. He stated Coppell is not in DART's service area and is worried about the impact to traffic on local streets. Did not see any grade separations in the DEIS, and would like to make certain to include a work item to address the issue of grade separations. Mr. Phillips also wanted to include an investigation of traffic volumes on adjacent streets in the work program. He would also like to discuss proposed station locations in more detail. Mr. Morris suggested instead of using the current rail line through Coppell that a new alignment may be built to support Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and avoid, mitigate and enhance some sensitive areas. Danny Scarth, Fort Worth City Council, supports the regional rail approach. He would also like to have the group look at the vehicle technology issue in more detail, with the need to agree on a future vehicle technology but to also consider an interim vehicle technology to not slow down current efforts. He would like to see the corridor be built in conjunction with TODs where there are groups of people that need access to jobs, which will show benefits to both employees and employers. Demographics should assist in the placement of stations within the corridor, and public participation. William Tsao P.E., Dallas's Representative to the DART Board, stated that the hybrid vehicle technology shown in the presentation is close to FRA standards and is being tested in Austin. Test results should be available at the end of this year. He also wanted to ensure the hybrid vehicle! technology being tested is not called 'commuter rail' which is associated with diesel trains and not publicly acceptable. The term 'commuter rail' will make it harder to 'sell' diesel car technology to North Dallas and other sensitive areas. He suggests calling the new vehicle'New Light Rail Technology.' Having a unified vehicle choice will create a market for the vehicle manufacture, especially with other markets also interested in this technology. He also wanted to make certain the group understood not all Cotton Belt ROW is owned by DART. DART only owns the track to Center Point. He had questions about the ownership of the track to downtown Grapevine. Larry Cunningham, City Manager, City of North Richland Hills (NRH), supports the regional approach to the corridor. Currently, NRH is not part of The T, but is working toward that and would like to learn about the TOD experience of other communities, there are many opportunities in NRH -for that type of development. Frank Turner, Executive Director City of Plano, suggested at the group review the new vehicle technology carefully and must conform to what the users want. The line should be demand based on headways, because potential demand may be higher than expected and shortened headways need to support employees and TOD. Mr. Morris stated the travel demand model shows frequent service may not be viable initially. The freight Cotton Belt Corridor Page 4 of 6 12/12/2008 movement schedule controls viability and frequency of passenger service. Mr. Turner would like to ensure the vehicle technology is able to accommodate future growth. Steve Salin, DART Vice President of Commuter Rail, stated the rail line characteristics should be specified early in the process. Vehicle selection and station spacing should be specified at the same time in the process. He also stated that going `off -line' will be costly. Grade separations and station spacing should be closely examined in the process. Ron Whitehead, City Manager of the Town of Addison, supports the regional rail approach. He used the DNT as an example of how transit and developers can create a 'win -win' situation for cities. The Cotton Belt Corridor project has the potential to affect the entire region in a positive way. Greg Royster, DFW Airport Planning, stated the airport has been working with The T and DART to identify a station location at the airport. This station would be a hub and very complicated to build. A potential location is between Terminals A and B which would connect the eastern and western sections of the corridor. The launch for design will be in March to be ready in 2010. Bill Keffler, City Manager, City of Richardson, stated he was worried about distractions, such as this corridor verses Rail North Texas, which will take away from the momentum moving this corridor forward. Specifically, the amount of different timeframes to coordinate the different corridors is a concern. He feels the station location topic should not be discussed at this stage of the project and the communities should work together to reduce conflicts. He also suggested that broad sweeping comments may lead to collateral damage in the future and should be limited or not made. He would also like to see the communications and overall process transparent to ensure public involvement. Dave Davis, Traffic Engineer, Farmers Branch, stated the Dallas North Tollway (DNT) corridor may be more important to ridership then the DFW Airport route. Addison and the Galleria are two big attractions along the DNT corridor that will affect the ridership. Stakeholders should capitalize on passengers in the DNT corridor. The current Cotton Belt design is not a walkable distance to these attractions, which will lessen ridership. Mr. Morris would like a few tasks added to the investigation of this corridor. Ridership when attractions and employment sheds are connected to the Cotton Belt corridor should be examined. Trackage rights need to be worked on and we need to figure out how to integrate service rights and ownership into the needs of the region. What is the appropriate terminus in the West? Examine the access points to DFW Airport in more detail. How will the regions attractions along the Cotton Belt be included in the corridor? Cotton Belt Corridor Page 5 of 6 12/12/2008 Cinde Weatherby Gilliland, City of Fort Worth, noticed most Cities involved were present and provided their opinions, but the City of Dallas was not in attendance. She asked about the City of Dallas's viewpoint regarding the Cotton Belt Corridor. Mr. Morris stated City of Dallas Councilman Ron Natinsky has been instrumental in getting the Cotton Belt up and running as soon as possible as well as working with public - private partnership coordination. Mr. Morris also indicated the meeting was being recorded and Mr. Natinsky would review the recording. Next Step Mr. Morris stated he would like his team to develop a three to four page work plan including a list of tasks and assignments of tasks. He would also like the group to share information on TOD and lessons learned and get back together with this group at the end of January. DART was tasked with considering closing at -grade crossings and costs associated with them. Mr. Morris would like his team to look into the grade crossing banking program that was established and present their findings for this corridor. He would like the cities to look at roadways within their jurisdiction that could be affected by the corridor. He would also like to have the work plan out in advance of the next meeting for review. Dave Davis, Farmers Branch, would like to have a clear goal and mission statement in the work plan. Consensus from the group is the Cotton Belt Corridor should be developed as a full corridor. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 6 of 6 12/12/2008 Advancing Rail in North Texas Strategy Meeting Cotton Belt Corridor Friday, January 23, 2009 Attendance There were 57 participants signed -in, with representatives from Addison, Carrollton, Colleyville, Coppell, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Flower Mound, Fort Worth, Haltom City, Hurst, Irving, North Richland Hills, Plano, Richardson, Collin County, Dallas County, Tarrant County, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Denton County Transit Authority (DCTA), Dallas -Fort Worth (DFW) International Airport, Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T), North Central Texas Council of Governments ( NCTCOG) staff and consultants from Blaydes Consulting, Dannenbaum Engineering, Dean International, HDR, Kimley -Horn and Ziebarth & Associates. Michael Morris, Transportation Director, NCTCOG, began the meeting by welcoming the participants and initiated a round of introductions. Meeting Purpose and Committee Structure Michael Morris, NCTCOG, gave a summary of the meeting and outlined the key issues for the participants to consider throughout the study process. • Private — public partnership opportunities • Cooperation with the Fort Worth and Western (FWWR) railroad ■ Vehicle technology and receiving FRA compliance ■ Providing service to DFW International Airport and how the service would interface with the current airport transportation system • Opportunities for mixed -use development • Working with residential communities in identifying sensitive sites • Working with railroad companies regarding trackage rights • Issues with ridership and usage by location Michael Morris, NCTCOG, expressed the study, and the project as a whole, is time - sensitive and encouraged the group to move quickly to address the noted issues with the goal of expediting the project. December 12, 2008 Strategy Meeting Summary Tom Shelton, Senior Program Manager, NCTCOG provided a hard copy of the meeting summary from December 12. He asked participants to review the notes and send comments and changes via e-mail. Tom Shelton, NCTCOG, suggested setting up two committees, one with a policy focus and one with a technical focus. Michael Morris, NCTCOG, recommended that instead of separate committee participants; anyone is encouraged to attend any meeting, but when the meeting is advertised, the meeting focus be stated (policy or technical related) and thus the appropriate representatives can attend. Steve Salin, Vice President - Rail Planning, DART, requested staff take into consideration the timing of transit agency's board meetings when planning future strategy meetings. Corridor Overview Chad Edwards, Program Manager, NCTCOG provided an overview of the three fact sheets for the corridor. Nancy Amos (FWTA — the T), suggested extending the project limits to include the SW2NE rail line from Tower 60, through Downtown Fort Worth to Sycamore School Road. Participants discussed the importance of passenger access and security interface at the DFW International Airport Station. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 1 of 3 01/23/2009 Several issues were raised including: • Should the Cotton Belt corridor provide access to proposed Terminal A & B Station? ■ Should the Orange Line provide a connection to the Cotton Belt corridor or end at the Terminal A & B Station? ■ Should the airport extend the People Mover system north to connect with the Cotton Belt corridor? It was suggested that rail access to the airport be one focus of the next strategy meeting and Jeffrey Fegan, Chief Executive Officer, Dallas -Fort Worth International Airport should be in attendance for the discussion. It was requested NCTCOG staff provide a close -up view of the area surrounding both the DFW International Airport and Downtown Carrollton Stations for review at the next meeting. Mr. Salin, DART, initiated discussion regarding the status of the hybrid rail vehicle. Wayne Friesner, DART liaison, TRE, stated DART has had three meetings with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to receive FRA compliance on the Stadler rail vehicle (currently being tested for Austin's commuter rail line). DART staff is working with rail manufacturers and other rail cities to garner consensus on creating a market for the hybrid vehicles. The goal is have FRA approval on the Stadler vehicle with slight modifications to meet compliance sometime this summer. Gary Thomas, Chief Executive Officer, DART, stated the first goal is to receive FRA compliance on a rail vehicle for the Cotton Belt corridor that has the look of a light -rail vehicle, but can operate in mixed traffic with freight rail without a waiver. The next step would include an investigation to determine the vehicle's compatibility in order to interface with the design of current light rail system. Draft Work Program Tom Shelton, NCTCOG, summarized the draft work program and stated the :strategy of the program is a collaborative effort with stakeholders. Some of the work effort outcomes include: ■ A draft copy of the introduction will be ready for next meeting ■ Fatal Flaw analysis will be conducted to see which alignments and stations are not feasible • Study will investigate if it is possible to build the project without federal funds • Rail North Texas Legislative Initiative (now TLOT Act) may be the key to locally funding the corridor • Need to determine whether private partnerships will invest in corridor A matrix will be created to show where those specific task items are located within the scope of the work program and a more detailed vision and mission statement will be created for the corridor. Suggestions for the work program from participants include: • A critical path analysis be used to prioritize tasks for the study ■ Addition of a section dedicated to coordination with the freight rail companies ■ A need to integrate study schedule with DART and the T's project development efforts in the corridor ■ Rail Car Technology should be the deciding factor in how study moves forward — work effort should take a different path from the work program Mr. Shelton, NCTCOG, provided information on NCTCOG's Grade Crossing Banking and Sustainable Development programs and each department's current work efforts. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 2 of 3 01/23/2009 A comment was raised in regards to the vehicle technology and could the vehicle be built in time for rail lines that are either programmed or about to begin construction. Additional comments included: • Issues of integration between Cotton Belt corridor and DART Red Line at Parker Road Station • General concept of Rail North Texas funding objectives and the need to keep all revenue options open • Integrating of the feasibility study schedule with full project development schedule work efforts by DART and The T staff (study to final design and implementation) • Evaluation of vehicle technology and possible effects to sensitive neighborhoods, the timing of receiving FRA compliance • How the 80/20, rule helps to determine the short-term eastern terminus • Proposed that one vehicle type be used for entire regional rail system Next Steps • Questions and comments from this meeting will be incorporated into meeting minutes and provided to participants • Creation of an action item matrix to identify specific items of concern to be addressed on a parallel effort as the study progress Next Meeting TBD Cotton Belt Corridor Page 3 of 3 01/23/2009 Meeting Summary Advancing Rail in North Texas Strategy Meeting Cotton Belt Rail Corridor Friday, May 22, 2009 Attendance There were 68 participants signed -in, with representatives from Addison, Carrollton, Colleyville, Coppell, Dallas, Flower Mound, Fort Worth, Haltom City, Irving, North Richland Hills, Plano, Richardson, Collin County, Dallas County, Tarrant County, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Denton County Transit Authority (DCTA), Dallas -Fort Worth (DFW) International Airport, Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T), North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) staff and consultants from Archer Western Contractors, Billingsley Company, Blaydes Consulting, Dannenbaum Engineering, Dean International, Herzog Transit Services, HNTB, Jacobs, Kimley -Horn, Stemmons Corridor Business Association, Texas Rail Advocates, URS, and Ziebarth & Associates. A copy of the sign -in sheet is located on the Web site. The meeting was held in the Transportation Council Room at the NCTCOG offices in Arlington. Handouts included: an agenda, a copy of the presentation, a copy of Wayne Friesner's presentation "The North Texas Regional Vehicle ", two maps illustrating the eastern and western segments of the proposed Cotton Belt Corridor, and the January 23, 2009 meeting minutes. These materials can be found on the Web site at: nctcog.org /trans /spd /inclex. No amendments to the January 23, 2009 minutes were noted. Current Status of SW2NE Commuter Access to Union Pacific Railroad (UPP) Duncan Subdivision through Tower 60 — Dick Ruddell, The T Mr. Rudell gave a brief update on the negotiations between TxDOT, NTTA, The T, and UP. The negotiations are ongoing, but the discussions up to this point have been positive. The deadline for completing negotiations has been pushed to June 17. Comments /Concerns: ■ None Status of DART's Request for Information (RFI) on Potential Public- Private Partnerships (PPP) — Steve Salin, DART DART noted all information relayed at any corridor strategy meeting is for purposes of an open forum of discussion. Nothing said by DART is to be considered or inferred as final DART policy or commitment. DART gave a brief overview of the RFI process. The RFI includes four corridor segments or phases. • Segment 1: DFW Airport to DART Red Line • Segment 2: Southwest Fort Worth to Downtown Fort Worth • Segment 3: Downtown Fort Worth to DFW Airport • Segment 4: DART Red Line to Downtown Wylie The Request for Information (RFI) is considered a preliminary phase in the public procurement process. If DART elects to move forward with a formal procurement process involving any combination of design, construction, operation, maintenance and financing of the Cotton Belt Rail project using some form of PPP, DART's Procurement Department (DART Procurement) anticipates issuing a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to anyone interested in competing for the PPP. Although a firm procurement plan has not been established, DART Procurement Cotton Belt Corridor Page 1 of 4 05/22/2009 anticipates issuing such an RFQ by September 2009. Following the RFQ will be a Request for Proposals (RFP). DART will be hosting a RFI symposium on Friday, June 12, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., at Union Station, 400 South Houston St., in downtown Dallas. Expert speakers will present information on the proposed Cotton Belt PPP and answer any questions. Comments /Concerns: ■ None Colleyville Position of Commuter Rail Project and Stations — Dick Ruddell, The T At the May 5 council meeting, the Colleyville City Council considered an ordinance submitted by citizens opposed to a rail stop in Colleyville, requesting permanent prohibition of a rail stop and lowering of the rail bed, as well as rescinding a previous resolution. By city charter, all ordinances require a first and second reading. The May 5 meeting marked the first reading for proposal and, therefore, was not eligible for a council vote. At the May 19 meeting, the Colleyville City Council again considered the resolution and ordinance proposed in a petition submitted to the city in April. Is it anticipated the ordinance will make it to the ballot. Comments /Concerns: • None Potential Vehicle Technology— Wayne Friesner, DART A comprehensive presentation was given on vehicle technology entitled The North Texas Regional Vehicle, A Federal Railroad Administration — Compliant Diesel Multiple Unit. The presentation is available on the Web site. Comments /Concerns: • Important to be sensitive to neighborhood concerns • There are currently no efforts to blend a FRA Compliant Vehicle with the Light Rail Technology • Need to be cognizant of Crash Energy Management Current Status of DFW Airport Rail Access Various scenarios are being considered for how passenger trains will access passengers at terminals at the DFW Airport. A decision by DART is anticipated in June. Ridership forecasts need to be made for how connections will be made. The RTC has had plans for commuter rail service in the Cotton Belt Corridor for years and still believes this is a corridor that must be pursued. Comments /Concerns: ■ None Corridor Alignment and Station Alternatives NCTCOG staff met with individual cities and other agencies to discuss rail stations and other concerns within each area for the rail corridor. Results of each meeting were highlighted in the presentation and additional comments requested from the participating city or agency. • Coppell; no additional comments • Carrollton; additional comments: • An agreement has been signed with the developer to build in the next ten years • Important to consider transfer options • Addison; additional comment: o Town of Addison is eager to move forward Cotton Belt Corridor Page 2 of 4 05/22/2009 Dallas; additional comments: • There will likely be three stops in Dallas • Consideration of hike and bike trails to the stations Richardson; additional comments: • UT has been a great neighbor and working on Phase 2 of a joint study • There has been $1 billion in construction at UT Dallas, they are eager for a station • Need to work with DART on a Red Line connection. Plano: additional comments: • Rail technology going to have a big impact • Vehicle technology at the Bush station must be compatible to light rail • Many complex issues that need to be solved • Most ridership will be from the north • Need to respond to future growth patterns during planning • Parking limitations Comments /Concerns: • Important to encourage and develop private /public partnerships • Carrollton going to be a complex hub with the proposed six trains traveling through the downtown area • Depression of Belt Line road • Need to consider station parking implications in Dallas • Important to consider station and rail accessibility for all educational institutions • Addison has been paying and waiting a long time for rail service and this has to be considered a priority • If TLOTA fails to pass, the rail corridors will have to be taken off the MPO long range plans • Prioritization of the corridors is not at the forefront currently, but the Cotton Belt is a corridor that is anticipated being completed Project Mission /Study Goals and Objectives The mission statement and suggested study goals and objectives were presented. These are available in the presentation handout and on the Web site. Please review the goals and objectives and send amendments to kfeldt65Dnctcog.org. It is vital all interested parties are proceeding under the same guiding principles. To make the meetings more productive, the meeting focus has been designated on the project schedule: T = Technical focus P = Policy focus C = Combined technical and policy focus Comments /Concerns: ■ None Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study There was a brief update on the Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study. Progress to date is in the presentation. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 3 of 4 05/22/2009 Action Items: • Meeting summary from the May 22, 2009 meeting will be distributed, please send any comments or suggestions to kfeldt(cDnctcog.org • Review the mission statement, project goals and objectives, please send any comments to kfeldtC�nctcog.org • DART will be hosting a RFI symposium on Friday, June 12, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., at Union Station, 400 South Houston St., in downtown Dallas • NCTCOG staff to work with City of Carrollton to try to speed along development • Airport connections be considered as a bullet point on the next agenda. • Obtain GIS map of the University of Texas in Richardson • Due diligence in exploring all opportunities for near- and long -term expansion considering Wylie and Hunt County Cotton Belt Corridor Page 4 of 4 05/22/2009 Meeting Summary Advancing Rail in North Texas Strategy Meeting Cotton Belt Rail Corridor Thursday, October 15, 2009 Attendance There were 95 participants signed -in, with representatives from the North Central Texas Council of Governments ( NCTCOG) Regional Transportation Council (RTC) and the Surface Transportation Technical Committee (STTC); the municipalities of: Addison, Carrollton, Colleyville, Coppell, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Flower Mound, Fort Worth, Haltom City, Hurst, Irving, North Richland Hills, Plano, Richardson; Collin County, Dallas County, Tarrant County; Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Denton County Transit Authority (DCTA), Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T), Dallas. -Fort Worth (DFW) International Airport and consultants from Archer Western Contractors, Billingsley Company, Blaydes Consulting, Civil Associates, Dannenbaum Engineering, Dean International, Energy Future Holdings, Halff Associates, Herzog Transit Services, HDR Engineering, HNTB, Jacobs, Kimley -Horn, Luminant, Masterplan (Onc:or), Oncor Electric Delivery, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Stemmons Corridor Business Association, Texas Rail Advocates, URS, UT Dallas, and Ziebarth & Associates. A copy of the sign -in sheet is located on the Web site.at: www.nctcog.org /trans /si)d.transitrail /CtnBli_ The meeting was held in the Transportation Council Room at the NCTCOG offices in Arlington. Handouts included: an agenda, a copy of the presentation, a map of the potential station locations and the May 22, 2009 meeting minutes. These materials can be found on the Web site at: www .trans /sod /transitrail /CtnBIt. No amendments to the final May 22, 2009 minutes were noted Welcome and Introductions — Michael Morris, NCTCOG Following welcomes and introductions, Michael noted to the meeting participants that DART and The T are currently engaged in the processes of a Request for Information (RFI) seeking to identify individuals and firms interested in entering into a Public Private Partnership (PPP) to design, construct, operate, maintain and finance the regional passenger rail service that will be known as the Cotton Belt Rail Line. Michael requested that all questions and comments which could be in direct conflict to the ongoing implementation of the procurement process, respectively be avoided. For more information regarding the RFIs and PPP reported on in this meeting, please visit the DART Web site at DART.org - Cotton Belt Public Private Partnership Request for Information. Michael highlighted the goals of the Cotton Belt Strategy meetings and the ongoing efforts to expedite the rail project approximately 25 years. Current Status of Fort Worth The T, SW2NE Commuter Rail Project — Dick Ruddell, President, The Fort Worth Transportation Authority Mr. Rudell gave a brief update on the SW2NE Commuter Rail Corridor project which will utilize the Cotton Belt Corridor, but also extends further southwest into the city of Fort Worth. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 1 of 7 10/15/2009 Highlights: • Presented a map of the corridor which was submitted for the environmental clearance and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). • Completing a New Start federal funding application, anticipated to be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) sometime in the fall of 2009. • Will need New Start federal funding at approximately 50 percent of project costs. • Total project costs approximately $500 million. • Some station site property has been acquired for bus facilities. Property acquisitions will be an ongoing process. • Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) expected to be submitted to the FTA in the fall of 2010. • Negotiations with the railroads and DART are an ongoing process that continues to be positive. • Record of Decision from New Start federal funding application hopeful for 2010 or early 2011. • Exact method of designing and constructing of the SW2NE rail corridor has yet to be determined. • Cooperating with DART on PPP proposal. • Working with DART on vehicle technologies. • Still hopeful for target start date in late 2013. Comments /Concerns: • Coordinate a meeting of the staff of DART, The T, and the design -build contractor of the DFW Connector project. The contractor is close to receiving notice to proceed to begin construction on the S.H. 121 and S.H. 114 roadways. There is a new bridge slated for this location. It would be ideal to integrate the bridge construction sequence with the transit construction plans. • Portions of the DFW Connector project are being funded with Texas Mobility Funds. TxDOT continues to experience severe financial crisis, so it is important to get the Texas Mobility Funds committed. • DART meets every couple of weeks with TxDOT to coordinate planning of the DFW Connector project, which includes the contractor. Status of DART's Request for Information (RFI) on Potential Public- Private Partnerships (PPP) — David Leininger, Chief Financial Officer, DART Mr. Leininger gave a detailed presentation on the progress to date of DART's RFI initiative to gauge interest from firms for entering into a PPP to design, construct, operate, maintain, and finance the Cotton Belt Corridor Rail Line. Highlights: • DART hosted a very successful RFI symposium on Friday, June 12, 2009 to present information on the proposed Cotton Belt PPP and answer any questions. The purpose was to begin the process of broad market exposure to bring the Cotton Belt Corridor initiative to the forefront by exploring interest in more complex public /private funding partnership opportunities to design, construct, operate, maintain and finance the Cotton Belt Corridor Rail Line. • The symposium was meant to be an unstructured forum to present the information and gauge interest. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 2 of 7 10/15/2009 • The benefits of a PPP would accelerate the construction process and help decrease costs through more integrated cooperation. • DART is working closely with The T to coordinate efforts and integrate all information. • The Cotton Belt Corridor Rail Line is currently in the DART 2028 financial plan; the goal is to expedite the Cotton Belt corridor to the 2013 or 2014 time period. • DART would like to maintain a neutral revenue cost solution while expediting the project. • Very complicated process and the challenge is how to most effectively package the PPP. • On the date of the announced closing of the RFI there were 49 respondents; approximately 10 additional entities have since submitted proposals. Further meetings and discussions have occurred with the interested parties to address questions and concerns. • There are generally two standard structures that will be pursued: ➢ A program management structure is somewhat similar to a design, build, operate, and maintain without a finance component. ➢ The concessionaire model would include a finance component. • Generally, the feedback has indicated the financing available from a private entity would equate to perhaps 20 to 30 percent of total project costs (anticipated to be around $200 - $300 million.) • Any funding advance from the private sector would be expected to be repaid with interest. • It is likely there would need to be some eventual statutory guidance from the legislature for any long -term contracts. • Fare box pricing structure is a complicated negotiating point. Other revenue streams may need to be explored for continued private investment interest. • Through a concessionaire structure it would be anticipated the private sector would assume 100 percent of the operating expenses for approximately 15 years until DART is able to assume the operating costs and begin some form of repayment schedule around 2028. • Initially, interest in the PPP was low due to the national economic; environment, but it seems it is turning around. • Next steps: ➢ Define and complete development of a possible business case scenario. ➢ Host a second symposium in late January or February 2011) to present refined information and viable business plans. ➢ A more conventional RFQ and RFP process would then be initiated to continue to move the project forward. ➢ Hopefully, by early 2011 there would be a final selection encompassing the concessionaire type structure. Comments /Concerns: • It was noted in the presentation that a probable concessionaire is likely to want the initial financing of 20 to 30 percent repaid, in addition to a reasonable profit. How will that be accomplished? ➢ Broadly, DART continues to examine the expected financial picture in the year 2028 timeframe such as anticipated debt service load and operating subsidies, etc. If the Cotton Belt rail project can be expedited 15 years or so, it will be a lot less expensive to build and finance. There are a couple possible options for repaying the debt at a later time period Cotton Belt Corridor Page 3 of 7 10/15/2009 such as, issuing debt and taking out an obligation to repay the loan, or repay the concessionaire in a ten to 15 year time period. Other considerations are that during this proposed time period between 2012 and 2028 the concessionaire would be receiving revenues from various fees, etc. All viable options are being reviewed. It was noted in the presentation that ideally a private entity would provide an upfront payment of 20 to 30 percent of total cost, including operating cost, of the project. That leaves 70 to 80 percent costs that would need to be financed by the public sector, where will this funding come from? ➢ Keep in mind that in DART's 2028 financial plan, funding is anticipated to be 100 percent from DART. The debt service cost in the intervening time period of 2012 to 2027 is what needs to be addressed. Funding of this debt can be addressed in a number of ways, Capital Appreciation Bonds is a partial solution, although some funding will need to come from external sources and these are areas of concern currently under review. In the presentation, fare box recovery was addressed and the need for the public entity to assume this cost. Please elaborate. ➢ Fare box recovery will be addressed with the business plan. The fare box recovery discussion is very complex and will be addressed in upcoming discussions. There is an assumption that the private entity will need to assume some portion of the risk of the project. Potential Vehicle Technology — Wayne Friesner, Vice President, Commuter Rail, DART At the May 22, 2009 meeting there was a comprehensive presentation on regional rail vehicle technology entitled The North Texas Regional Vehicle, A Federal Railroad Administration — Compliant Diesel Multiple Unit. This presentation is available on the Web site: nctcog.org /trans /sr)d /transitrail /CtnBlt. A detailed update on the activities since the last presentation on vehicle technology was given. Highlights: • The vehicle must be Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) compliant. • Must meet Tier, 4 non -road engine standards. Currently, there is not a lot of information available on the Tier 4 engines and as the nation is steering to cleaner, more efficient technologies this is an area that will need to be addressed. • The intent is to keep the vehicle design to `off- the - shelf" technology whenever possible to control costs. • Ridership projections are critical as the design of vehicles continues to move forward. • The FRA has formed an engineering task force reporting to the Passenger Rail Safety Working Group of the Rail Safety Advisory Committee to produce a set of technical evaluation criteria and procedures. • Ongoing meetings with critical stakeholder participation continue. • Final report of task force due to FRA by early December. • Freight traffic abandonment possible on portion of the Cotton Belt Corridor, process ongoing. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 4 of 7 10/15/2009 Comments /Concerns: • A FRA compliant vehicle is mandatory. Is it still to be assumed the vehicle being designed will not be able to operate on the same track as Light Rail Transit (LRT)? ➢ Correct, it will not be able to operate on LRT. There have been numerous discussions about the possibility of this option, but it does not appear that it is going to be a viable option anytime in the near future. • The emphasis presently is on the FRA compliant vehicle. But a vehicle that can operate on a LRT, although in the very long -term, is still a future possibility. • The engineering task force is a very positive step. Implementation of Cotton Belt Corridor through Upcoming DART Efforts — Steve Salin, Vice President, Rail Planning, DART A brief presentation on the upcoming DART Next Steps was given. Due to procurement rules, some information was limited for discussion. Highlights: • Issuance of the General Planning Consultant solicitation. • The Cotton Belt Corridor Rail Line is the First Task for this solicitation and hopefully will be under contract in January 2010. • Anticipate 12 to 18 months to complete 5 percent design plans. The 12 to 18 month time differential will depend on a number of variables, including many of the issues discussed in today's meeting. It is anticipated the 5 percent design level will remain consistent. • Pre - proposal conference scheduled for October 21, at DART headquarters. Be sure to confirm location on DART Web site. • Proposals due November 2, 2009 at 2 p.m. • At this point a federal process is being assumed and initial actions are being taken to explore all federal funding opportunities. • Program schedule is not developed at this time; too many variables remain unknown. • DART is shooting for 2014 revenue service date, but a lot of conditions must fall into place to reach this target. Comments /Concerns: • Need to continue to consider all funding alternatives. There are a number of sources available and it will be necessary to look outside the box. • DART is extremely busy with a number of complex projects moving simultaneously. NCTCOG Progress and Next Steps — Tom Shelton, Senior Program Manager, NCTCOG Due to time constraints and the large amount of information being presented, Tom Shelton quickly went through NCTCOG's progress to date and possible next steps. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 5 of 7 10/15/2009 Highlights: • Recently, NCTCOG staff met with a variety of stakeholders, cities, and locally elected officials to solicit input from all interested parties concerning the Cotton Belt Corridor Rail Lune. • NCTCOG believes it is vital to engage all interested parties. • Need to address what decisions can be made as a group and which decisions will be addressed by DART. • A significant issue NCTCOG has been involved with is the station locations and preferences of each city /town. Also, the need for parking at stations is being addressed. • As the project moves forward, NCTCOG will work with DART on the proper level of public involvement needed. • Ridership and travel demand forecasts have been initiated. The numbers presented are very early draft, conceptual ridership figures. These initial ridership figures are based on Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas -Fort Worth Area: 2009 Amendment; so it should be noted that the ridership numbers are based on older levels of land use and demographics. • NCTCOG is working aggressively on the next evolution of the models and cooperating with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on the issue. • NCTCOG will be working with DART to address any ridership concerns for the PPP. • Connectivity to neighborhoods, communities and educational institutions is very important. • Connectivity to DART Red and Green lines and the regional rail network is very important. • Six alternatives, with initial ridership projections, have been identified by NCTCOG staff and the alternatives are illustrated in the presentation on the Web site. • How and where to connect to the Red Line is a complex issue. • Metropolitan planning area boundary expansion was approved by the RTC in October and is awaiting final approval from the Texas Transportation Commission. Keep in mind the future planning implications. Comments /Concerns: • Will the ridership numbers that are presented be lower once the rail lines are interlined? ➢ Correct, that is what would be anticipated. ➢ NCTCOG should run a model of projected ridership numbers representing interlined rail lines. • Please review the ridership numbers on alternative three. Although a transfer will increase ridership, it may be overstated in this case. • If there are concerns or issues that have not been addressed for station locations, these concerns need to be brought forward by year's end. • Still need to address the DART member cities and non - member cities financial concerns. • The Red Line is included in all modeling alternatives. • What are the future regional goals for extending rail even further east to the cities of Wylie or perhaps Greenville and ensure that the station permits head in access to the DART line (former Cotton Belt) which extends to Wylie. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 6 of 7 10/15/2009 ■ All ideas are on the table, but it is important to not let planning get in the way of planning. At critical junctions it is vital to move forward, but leave viable options for future expansion capabilities. Action Items: • Coordinate a meeting of the staff of DART, The T, and the design -build contractor of DFW Connector project regarding the bridge construction S.H. 121/114. • Pre - proposal conference scheduled for DART General Planning Consultant solicitation, October 21, 2009. Space is limited. Please register and confirm location at the DART Web site. Proposals due November 2, 2009 at 2 p.m. • Within the few weeks NCTCOG will begin uploading Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Sections 1 through 4 onto the Web site for review and comments. • Confirm that right of way in downtown Plano it is too tight for a parallel rail line. • Communicate any concerns or issues that have not been addressed for station locations, these matters need to be brought forward by year's end. Next Meeting Anticipated to meet again in December Cotton Belt Corridor Page 7 of 7 10/15/2009 Meeting Summary Advancing Rail in North Texas Strategy Meeting Cotton Belt Rail Corridor Friday, February 19, 2010 Attendance There were 84 participants signed -in, with representatives from the North Central Texas Council of Governments ( NCTCOG) Regional Transportation Council (RTC) and the Surface Transportation Technical Committee (STTC); local citizens; the municipalities of: Addison, Allen, Benbrook, Carrollton, Colleyville, Dallas, Farmers Branch, Fort Worth, Hurst, Irving, North Richland Hills, Plano, Richardson; Collin County, Dallas County; Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Denton County Transit Authority (DCTA), Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T), North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA), Dallas -Fort Worth (DFW) International Airport; Greenville Economic Development Board; and consultants from Archer Western Contractors, Billingsley Company, Blaydes Consulting, Civil Associates, Bowman Engineering, Bridgefarmer & Associates, C & M, Dannenbaum Engineering, DC Strategic Consulting, Dean International, Herzog Transit Services, HDR Engineering, HNTB, HTSI, Jacobs, Kimley -Horn, Lea & Elliott, LTK Engineering, Masterplan (Oncor), NRP Group, Parliament Group, Parsons Brinckerhoff, STV Incorporated, TBG Partners, Texas Rail Advocates, URS, Ziebarth & Associates. A copy of the sign -in sheet is located on the Web site at: www.nctcoa.ora/tranS/SDd.transitrail/CtnBIt. The meeting was held in the Transportation Council Room at the NCTCOG offices in Arlington. Handouts included: an agenda, a copy of the presentation, a table Summary of Potential Corridor Impacts, and the October 15, 2009 meeting summary. These materials can be found on the Web site at: www.nctcoci.org /trans /spd /transitrail /CtnBlt. No amendments to the October 15, 2009 minutes were noted. Welcome and Introductions — Michael Morris, NCTCOG Following welcomes, Michael thanked all the stakeholders for their hard work and ongoing efforts for moving forward with implementation of the Cotton Belt Corridor. Michael noted the importance of continuing to meet necessary goals and milestones in a timely manner in order to expedite the Cotton Belt Corridor to construction. Michael gave a brief update on the status of various regional rail efforts throughout the region, highlighting the SW2NE Commuter Rail Project and the Cotton Belt Corridor and the enormous strides achieved by DART and The T the past few years. Current Status of The T, Southwest to Northeast (SW2NE) Commuter Rail Project — Curvie Hawkins, Director of Planning, The T Mr. Hawkins gave a detailed presentation on the current status of the SW2NE Commuter Rail Corridor project which extends from southwest Fort Worth, travels through downtown Fort Worth, and utilizing the Cotton Belt Corridor travels into the Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport (DFWIA). Cotton Belt Corridor Page 1 of 7 2/19/2010 This presentation can be found on the NCTCOG Web site at: www.nctcog.org/trans/spd.transitrail/CtnBIt. For more information on the SW2NE Commuter Rail Project please visit: www.sw2nerail.com. Highlights: • Updated the attendees on current project activities and status. • Modeling efforts are critical. • Briefly highlighted the illustrated timeline - Milestones for the Commuter Rail Project. • Continues to work closely with DART on all applicable aspects of the project. • Still hopeful for target start date in late 2013 for the SW2NE Commuter Rail Project. Questions /Comments: • Important to coordinate with the design -build contractor of the DFW Connector project regarding construction of a bridge for the railway slated to cross SH 121. There may be opportunities to use Category 2 Funds to integrate this bridge construction sequence with the roadway construction. Although it may be concluded at this point in time this is not feasible, it is important at this early stage to explore all facets of the bridge construction. • Believed by NCTCOG that the travel modeling efforts requested by The T and the FTA for this project are complete. Due to a weather delay, a conference call is being rescheduled to discuss these issues and concerns and NCTCOG is confident the process will be able to move forward. Status of DARrs Pursuit of Potential Public - Private Partnerships (PPP) — Gary Thomas, President/Executive Director, DART Mr. Thomas gave a detailed status report on the recent efforts by DART. Highlights: • DART supports all efforts of The T SW2NE Rail Corridor Project. ■ $700 million New Starts full funding grant received. • 25% of all light rail transit (LRT) under construction in North America is in North Texas. • The transit sector has no real experience with PPP so the efforts are ongoing, evolving, and very complex. • The result of the Request for Information (RFI) held in June 2001 concluded there is a lot of interest by various entities for entering into a PPP. Efforts to gather information continue by meeting with all interested parties and exploring all the complex opportunities and issues surrounding this concept. • Financing and funding are naturally key components. • As the PPP approach is continually being defined, the most important aspect is to keep the discussion open to all ideas in order to cultivate the most creative solutions to move forward; not only for the Cotton Belt Corridor, but to lay a foundation for any future opportunities for PPP in transit projects. • Introduction of Steve McCullough who will be a lead in assisting to facilitate and coordinate efforts on the project. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 2 of 7 2/19/2010 Questions /Comments: ■ Is it being anticipated that the final PPP agreement parameters and the regional rail vehicle technology introduction will fall into place concurrently? ➢ That is certainly the ideal, hopefully around the 2013 timeline. Update on Investigations on Potential Regional Rail Vehicle Technology — Wayne Friesner, Vice President, Commuter Rail, DART At previous meetings there were comprehensive presentations and status updates on regional rail vehicle technology. These presentations are available on the Web site at: nctcoa. orp /trans /sgd /trans itrai I /Ctn Blt. Mr. Friesner presented activities to date on vehicle technology. Per request, Mr. Friesner gave a brief background on the impetus for new vehicle technology: The unique nature of the Cotton Belt Rail Corridor, which includes high levels of freight activity, created a demand for a vehicle that doesn't exist. This demand is essentially a passenger rail vehicle that must comply with all the safety requirements of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The past year -long efforts have been close consultations with manufacturers and interested partners to design, for implementation, such a vehicle. As demand across the country continues to increase for more rail that travels into and near suburban neighborhoods and urban areas, the need for a sleeker more aesthetically pleasing vehicle is the challenge. Highlights: • The exterior concept of the vehicle would be very similar to the vehicle used in Austin and the vehicles that are expected to be used by DCTA for the A- Train. • Local efforts have helped drive an industry wide interest in the concept of a Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) that would be FRA compliant. • There has been intense collaboration with local, national, and international partners during this process to establish the standards for a vehicle. • Ongoing meetings with critical stakeholder participation continue. • Final report of Passenger Rail Safety Working Group due to the FRA by late March /early April. • Possible national procurement of vehicles would be ideal. • Rail abandonment successful on portion of Cotton Belt between Dallas North Tollway and Renner Junction, effective January 27, 2010. Comments /Concerns: ■ As this process moves forward there is an interesting opportunity to actively pursue the potential for these vehicles to be manufactured in the North Central Texas region. ➢ A number of interested manufacturers in this new technology are international, so with Federal funding guidelines for "Buy American" it is correct to say this is a real possibility. ➢ This could also tie into the next generation of high -speed rail vehicles which are facing similar challenges. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 3 of 7 2/19/2010 ➢ Notwithstanding other issues, the exchange rate alone can be a huge financial incentive for international companies to assemble this product here. • The pace of progress that has been made in the Cotton Belt Rail Corridor since 2004 is commendable. • Applaud DART for the successful and timely efforts for the new regional rail technology concept, in addition to all the achievements thus far. • In the presentation the FRA appears to be very involved in the process. Is the impression the FRA will continue to be an eager partner for advancing this process during the specification phase or is the impression the FRA will be approaching the process in the manner of strictly regulators? ➢ The FRA has, at every step, been an engaged partner in advancing the concept of this new vehicle technology and it is anticipated they will continue to do so. • Need to begin to focus on how this rail car is going to be marketed. ➢ The marketing of the new vehicle should be determined by the regional partners. ➢ In other parts of the country, technology for these types of rail corridors is traditionally defined as commuter rail, operating on schedules promoting commuter time ridership. This region's rail network is not necessarily going to operate as a strictly commuter rail network, but is going to focus on a regional rail network that operates on a day long ridership schedule. This should be reflected in the name. ➢ The words "new technology" may want to be included in the name in order to bring to the forefront of public perception that these are new, more neighborhood aesthetic and environmentally friendly vehicles. • As a region, addressing how the Cotton Belt Corridor is going to interline with the other proposed rail corridors should be analyzed carefully before final decisions are made. • Need to also begin exploring the possibilities for coordinating how light rail vehicles could travel on freight rail lines, even if it would be for short spans for maintenance services only. • Is The T anticipating using this new technology vehicle on The SW2NE Rail Corridor? ➢ If it were feasible at the right time and place, The T would certainly explore all opportunities to utilize the new vehicle. Cotton Belt Corridor CE & FS — Summary of Findings and Discussion — Tom Shelton, Senior Program Manager, NCTCOG Tom Shelton and Kevin Feldt presented an overview of the objectives and coordination efforts of the draft Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study (CE & FS). There was a brief summary of the CE & FS findings, potential station locations, the alternatives evaluated, and draft capital cost elements. These are in the presentation located on the Web site at www.nctcog.org /trans /spd /transitrail /CtnBIt.. Highlights: ■ Recently, NCTCOG staff met with a variety of stakeholders, cities, and locally elected officials to solicit input from all interested parties concerning the Cotton Belt Corridor Rail Line and integrate any issues or concerns into the CE & FS. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 4 of 7 2/19/2010 • In order to be as comprehensive to regional concerns as possible and involve all interested parties in the decision making process, NCTCOG believes in the importance of maintaining open dialog with all stakeholders throughout the entire process. • The first draft of the CE & FS is complete. • The draft will be forwarded Friday, February 26, 2010 via email for stakeholder review. • There will be a two week review period. • Overall stakeholders were pleased with the progress of the CE & FS. • Preferred that the possible double transfer from the North be eliminated. This is going to be a complex issue to solve, dependent on the vehicle technology used. • The next phase of the project is the environmental review. A lot of final decisions will occur during this next phase and NCTCOG will be happy to corroborate with DART on any issues. • Focus will quickly need to be re- directed on the next Legislative Session and the opportunity to once again try to gain alternative funding sources for transportation projects, with some spotlight on regional rail in the Dallas Fort Worth region. • Stations and ridership numbers will continue to be evaluated and updated throughout the next phase of this project. Comments /Concerns: • Kudos to Mayor Peters and Councilman Natinsky's dedicated efforts to the North Lake Station and the unique challenges this area presents. • The capital cost/mile figures were incorrect in the presentation slide on Page 14; this will be corrected before the presentation is placed on the Web site. • The cost/mile seems high, at approximately $38 million /mile on some alternatives. ➢ The costs will vary on different segments of the corridor, rising or fall depending on the construction and/or other localized needs. ➢ Keep in mind cost/mile for LRT can be upwards of $70 million. • The capital costs were amortized over 30 years. This does not include operations and maintenance. It would be nice to have an estimate that includes these costs. Also, but not necessarily immediately, an ideal would be able to reference for example; what is the actual total cost of carrying a passenger on the train from point A to point B. ➢ Agreeable, but we need to be careful about these discussions raising fare box recovery issues. This raises questions about fare box recovery ratios and the subsidizing of fares, leading to questions about varying fares for different destinations, etc. These are complex policy issues that are a whole other discussion, but will definitely need to be addressed at some point. • It would be helpful to categorize costs further; i.e., vehicle costs, the cost of building the stations, cost of laying track, etc. ➢ Costs are further clarified in the CE & FS. • Among other concerns on the capital cost estimates, Construction Difficulty in the Summary of Potential Corridor Impacts table needs more scrutiny, particularly in reference to Alternatives 5 and 6. Define how ratings were concluded. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 5 of 7 2/19/2010 • Concerning the presentation slide 2030 Daily Passenger Estimates on Page 13, is ridership annualized only to DFWIA or do these estimates include the western side of the region? If ridership estimates are only to DFWIA, before the CE & FS is released, please annualize ridership for the entire corridor so the T efforts are included; also please break down the east and west sides of the region. ➢ These particular ridership estimates illustrate only to DFWIA, but the modeling efforts include the western side of the region. • It appears that in some of the daily passenger estimates two variables are being combined when altering station locations and /or variations in routing for purposes of comparing ridership modeling results. The results need to be clear, have the ridership numbers changed because of the station location or was it the result of the routing being altered? • When planners make population and demand projections, there is often more demand for mass transit in urbanized areas, how is this factored into the daily passenger estimates? ➢ Working in cooperation with the transit agencies, there is a lot of data collected on how transit users behave and their sensitivities to factors such as travel times by train compared to by automobile, wait times, parking costs if choose to drive an automobile, distances that must be traveled to a station, is there parking at the station, etc. A variety of contingencies are factored into the modeling. The basic assumption is that people's sensitivities to these factors are the same, if an individual is living in an urbanized location or a suburban location. • Was the ridership modeling based on ridership patterns in this region only or were factors included that other urban centers in the country experience? Some plans indicate the frequency of service is 40 minutes or more. This wouldn't seem very useful for the dedicated transit users. ➢ Behavior patterns across the demographic spectrum are studied. ➢ Very generally, the ridership model is run, the ridership is reviewed, load factors are determined and frequencies are adjusted, keeping in mind various sensitivities to wait times, etc. It is very sophisticated. ➢ It should be noted that this past year DART agreed to data collection to study wait times. The conclusion, to DART and the T's credit, is wait times were at around 8 minutes or less, regardless of the frequency of the service. What this concludes in the real world is that rider knows the transit schedules are reliable and will confidently adjust their schedules to the accuracy of the train schedule. ■ It must be noted that the conclusions of cost and ridership estimates should be taken with the preverbal grain of salt. Ultimately these are speculations. Before committing to this particular corridor there other important questions that need to be analyzed such as: Where is the future growth in ridership coming from? How are these areas going to be served most efficiently? What exactly, are the interconnections going to be between the Cotton Belt Corridor and the other rail corridors being proposed in the region? What are the implications of reconstruction costs? Is feasibility considered equally with ridership estimates? Greenville, McKinney, Wylie, and other points east must be in the equation. There are further technology issues these areas raise that should be scrutinized before final decisions are made on the Cotton Belt Corridor. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 6 of 7 2/19/2010 How are fares going to be collected and enforced? Will there be the current system of a type of honor system or will there be a more structured entry point like other urban areas utilize where you have to pay and have a ticket before getting on the train. ➢ It is anticipated fares will be collected similar to the pay system currently used in this region. Studies have shown the implementation and maintenance of the control systems often cost more than the amount of revenue that is lost due to dishonest users of the system. DART and The T have been very successful with their enforcement program; it is flexible and has the benefit of being adjustable. ➢ The strategy is for the regional system to be seamless and this includes revenue collection. This will prevent the difficulties that arise when varying fare collections occur in different parts of a network. Action Items: • Distribute CE & FS via email on Friday, February 26, 2010. • Review CE & FS and provide comments within the requested two week deadline. • It is vital that the stakeholders and their relevant staff members read the CE & FS carefully and provide feedback and comments about anything in the report. The worst thing that could happen is to spend all the time and money on this study, as well as all the other work that goes into these projects, and to not get the information right due to lack of response; then have to go back and re- evaluate the work. This must be an inclusive process with all members actively participating. • Research opportunities for the bridge construction near the DFW Connector project. Next Meeting Anticipated to meet again in March Cotton Belt Corridor Page 7 of 7 2/19/2010 Meeting Summary Advancing Rail in North Texas Strategy Meeting Cotton Belt Rail Corridor Friday, April 2, 2010 Attendance There were 55 participants signed -in, with representatives from the North Central Texas Council of Governments ( NCTCOG) Regional Transportation Council (RTC); the municipalities of: Addison, Arlington, Carrollton, Coppell, Dallas, Fort Worth, Irving, North Richland Hills, Plano, Richardson; Dallas County; Tarrant County, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), The Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T), Texas Department of Transportation North Region, Dallas -Fort Worth International Airport, University of Texas Arlington; and consultants from Archer Western Contractors, Billingsley Company, Bridgefarmer & Associates, Burns & McDonald, Dannenbaum Engineering, Dean International, Herzog Transit Services, HNTB, Kimley -Horn, Masterplan (Oncor), Parsons, Parliament Group, PB Americas, URS, and Ziebarth & Associates. A copy of the sign -in sheet is located on the Web site at: www.nctcog.or-q/trans/spd.transitrail/CtnBIt. The meeting was held in the Transportation Council Room at the NCTCOG offices in Arlington. Handouts included: an agenda, a copy of the presentation, and the February 19, 2010 meeting summary. These materials can be found on the Web site at: www.nctcog.or-q/trans/spd/transitraii/CtnBIt. No amendments to the February 19, 2010 meeting summary were noted. Welcome and Introductions — Michael Morris, NCTCOG Following welcomes, Michael thanked all the stakeholders for their hard work and ongoing efforts for moving forward with implementation of the Cotton Belt Corridor. Michael noted the Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study (CE & FS) is complete and this will be the final meeting of the Cotton Belt Corridor Strategy Team focusing on the CE & FS. Cotton Belt Corridor discussions will continue, particularly in relation to innovative finance strategies, in order to expedite the Cotton Belt Corridor to construction. A resolution has been presented for the NCTCOG and the RTC to pursue innovative funding strategies for the Cotton Belt Corridor: • DART Executive Board — Approved March 23, 2010 • RTC Action — April 8, 2010 • The T Executive Board — Approval anticipated April 21, 2010 Current Status of The T, Southwest to Northeast (SW2NE) Commuter Rail Project — Curvie Hawkins, Director of Planning, The T Mr. Hawkins gave a brief update on the current status of the SW2NE Commuter Rail Corridor project which extends from southwest Fort Worth, travels through downtown Fort Worth, and utilizing the Cotton Belt Corridor travels into the Dallas /Fort Worth International Airport (DFWIA). Cotton Belt Corridor Page 1 of 6 4/2/2010 For more information on the SW2NE Commuter Rail Project please visit: www.sw2nerail.com. Highlights: • Modeling efforts are critical; awaiting endorsement of the regional travel demand model by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) • NCTCOG generates the travel demand model for the DFW region • The FTA must approve the results of the modeling efforts for a project to move forward, the modeling results determine such factors as: ➢ridership numbers ➢the number of parking spaces needed ➢the number of train sets needed ➢,aids in determining future operating and maintenance costs • Continue active land acquisitions and implementation of park and ride stations, bus facilities, and efforts for the TCU transfer center • Access to DFWIA is a complex aspect of the SW2NE rail project requiring close coordination between DART, The T, FTA, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) • Continue to work closely with TxDOT and the design -build contractor on the DFW Connector project and implementation of rail connectivity to DFWIA • A number of Memorandum of Agreements (MOA) covering a range of issues will be necessary; from design and construction responsibilities, to security concerns, down to who will be responsible for daily maintenance of the facility, etc. • DFWIA responsible for the design and construction of the station platform • Introduction of a new Project Manager, Bob Baniewicz who will be assuming the lead in guiding the SW2NE to final construction Questions /Comments: • Availability of Texas Mobility Funds confirmed to aid with construction of the Cotton Belt Line into DFWIA • Cannot run light rail transit vehicles (DART Orange Line) and commuter rail transit vehicles (Cotton Belt Corridor) on the same track • May be possible to use Category 2 Funds on the DFW Connector project and the bridge at SH 121 and SH 113; this could equate to substantial cost savings • Believed by NCTCOG that the travel modeling efforts requested by The T and the FTA for this project are complete; discussions are ongoing and a positive outcome is expected • Modeling for the Cotton Belt Corridor is the same travel model that was successfully used for a past New Starts application awarded to DART • Anticipated the majority of riders will not have a destination of DFWIA on the DART Orange and Red Line corridors; these corridors, in addition to the Cotton Belt and SW2NE, is expected to be a more highly traveled route for riders across the region • Status on possible delays of the DART Orange Line o DART continues to assess all conditions for the Orange Line, it is too early in the process for any confirmations Cotton Belt Corridor Page 2 of 6 4/2/2010 Review Comments on Cotton Belt Corridor NCTCOG CE & FIN Report - Tom Shelton, Senior Program Manager Tom Shelton Tom Shelton presented an overview of the objectives and coordination efforts of the CE & FS. It was requested at the last meeting that key stakeholders carefully review the document and send any comments or concerns to NCTCOG staff. These comments, where applicable, were integrated into the CE & FS and the document is being finalized. Tom gave a brief summary of the comments and these are in the presentation located on the Web site at www.nctco-g.org /trans /spd /transitrail /CtnBIt. Highlights: • The CE & FS is complete • Distribution of the CE & FS will encompass two methods: • Electronic file for personal downloading • Elected officials and key stakeholders will receive some version of a hardcopy • Consensus is to print the final report Comments /Concerns: • Addison has initiated a number of transit oriented developments around the proposed station and anticipates ridership demand will increase in this area • Special event, weekend, major airports, regular stadium /convention events may become more of a focus in future travel demand modeling • Options for future expansion east will remain viable • The CE & FS is a helpful starting point for the DART Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the corridor; the final documentation will of course be altered substantially • Public involvement is an important part of the process and will need to be initiated and incorporated into any final environmental document • All engineering designs will need to be verified Next Phase of Cotton Belt Corridor — DART Environmental Study — John Hoppie, Project Manager, DART Mr. Hoppie gave an overview of the next phase of the project, the EIS; it's scope of work, schedule, and committee process. To view various stages of the development process, definition and scope, environmental documentation, project schedule, and agency /public involvement please see the presentation at: www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/transitrail/CtnBit.. Highlights: • Project development is currently entering the stages of alternative analysis/ alignment refinement, developing the locally preferred alternative (LPA), and preliminary engineering /environmental documentation • Significant public involvement occurs during these stages • Innovative financing is a new and unique aspect for this corridor that may alter the traditional steps of this process • If federal funds are used on a project, a specific process must be followed • Various corridor conclusions need to be determined concerning the DART Red and Green Lines Cotton Belt Corridor Page 3 of 6 4/2/2010 ■ DART Mitigation Guidance document available on DART Web site at www.dart.org. Comments /Concerns: • The final EIS documentation is slated at 18 months, is there any way to expedite this? o No, this is a very convoluted process and it is believed the 18 -month time period is already pared down as much as possible. There are some areas that may take more or less time, but overall this is a realistic assumption. • The funding issues need resolution. Until funding is confirmed, it is difficult to move forward. The challenge will be reaching a balance with the amount of funding received and the design possible. • Engineering the project is the real challenge, and this process is just getting initiated. • The base alignment is the existing corridor, without any grade separations unless warranted. Anything over and above the baseline alignment is considered a design option. The less design options there are, the faster the project moves forward. • Due to past experiences working with the FTA, project review isn't expected to be a problem. If any concerns arise with the federal reviews it is anticipated these would occur with the FRA and FAA. • From DART's prospective, is the Cotton Belt being considered the start of a brand new project or has the work of this committee and others over the past few years served as a jumping off point that can be fine tuned and implemented that will further the project along? • The FTA and DART project development process will be followed, but work completed up to this point will be helpful and utilized. • Public involvement will be initiated. • Technical Advisory committees will be established to guide the project. • A series of meetings with east and west side partners will be ongoing to ensure everyone is under consensus. • Dallas and Coppell have worked hard and hold a vested interest in the North Lake Station; it is believed long standing issues have been addressed and each is eager to continue the momentum and move forward. o There are a number of issues that need to be addressed, particularly with funding and the new vehicle technology, but DART is in agreement with the region regarding the Cotton Belt project and will work in cooperation to move the project along as expeditiously as possible. • If no federal funding were needed, are there options for the private sector to perform some of these environmental processes that may be expedite the process? • There are two schedules, one if federal funding is used and one if federal funding is not used. The federal funding requirements typically add about one year to the process, it is anticipated federal funds will be necessary and until this is defined it is difficult to move forward. • It is believed the project has been streamlined as much as possible within the known parameters. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 4 of 6 4/2/2010 • Is DART fully committed to the Cotton Belt project? There will be ongoing discussions and meetings throughout the year and it is expected DART will be an active participant in all discussions. • DART is fully committed to the Cotton Belt project. • Until funding is confirmed it is difficult to give concrete answers to many questions. • Why isn't the innovative financing component shown as part of the process in DART's work flowcharts in the presentation? • The flowcharts presented are the typical process for project development in which financing is usually known at this point in time. For this project funding is still an unknown component. • Based on the resolution discussed earlier, financing is not DART's responsibility. The presentation outlined the ongoing process of the project from the EIS and engineering stages. • Once the financing details are resolved this aspect will certainly be integrated into the process. • Traditionally in transit, funding has to be identified before the process can move forward. One of the goals is the idea of breaking the mold of how projects are built and moving projects through the process faster. This may include making and integrating valid assumptions that can be put into place that, in this instance, allow the environmental process to keep moving forward. • There are likely sections of the corridor where different alternatives will need to be evaluated, not only in relation to costs and engineering feasibility, but future expansion opportunities and impacts on operations, etc. What can the stakeholders do to help identify and accelerate these considerations in order to expedite the project delivery process? • There are complicated areas within the corridors, specifically the downtown Carrollton Station, the area around DFWIA, and the Red Line interface. Outside of these areas the overall alignment is pretty straightforward. • It is anticipated there will be three teams at the outset to deal specifically with the issues above. • Modification to station areas will be fairly straightforward. • One of the best ways to expedite work is for cities along the corridor to make readily available any staff resources for document review, etc. • A series of technical teams will be assembled. Cities along the corridor may be asked for individuals to help fill these roles. • A number of subsurface utilities exist along the corridor that will need to be identified and possibly relocated. Any detailed drawings or information gathering regarding these would be appreciated. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 5 of 6 4/2/2010 Innovative Finance — Michael Morris, Director of Transportation, NCTCOG Michael gave a fairly detailed presentation on the highlights of a revised approach for investigating innovative financial opportunities. These were recently discussed with STTC, DART, The T, and RTC action is expected April 8. For more detailed information please view the presentation at www.nctcog.org /trans /spd /transitraiI /CtnBit. Highlights: • RTC assumes responsibility for the innovative finance component; this is the only role NCTCOG will play. • NCTCOG staff involvement in the environmental process for the SW2NE and /or Cotton Belt Corridor, so if any innovative finance opportunities arise these can be executed efficiently with all planning. • Vital to remain coordinated with DART and The T regarding financial model development and integrate any financial elements into their software for consistency. • All revenue sources will be investigated. • Operating costs are an ongoing concern that will need to be addressed in funding solutions. Comments /Concerns: • DART is fully supportive of the Cotton Belt Corridor. • The T is fully supportive of the Cotton Belt Corridor. • Although expediting the corridor is the goal, it is not the goal to jeopardize any federal funding, so processes will be followed as necessary. • Exploring innovative financing is a great opportunity whatever the outcome. Action Items: • Distribute the final CE & FS. • Important to coordinate with the design -build contractor of the DFW Connector project regarding the construction sequence of a bridge for the railway slated to cross SH 121 and SH 114. • If anyone would like to meet with NCTCOG staff to discuss any aspects of the CE & FS before final release, please contact staff as soon as possible; they will be happy to discuss any concerns. • For this corridor, in order to expedite the process as much as possible, it will be vital that any requested review periods of information sent to stakeholders be adhered too; DART is only able to move as far and as fast as the information allows. • Meet with DART to discuss any viable assumptions that can be implemented and ensure that the innovative financing component is fully integrated with DART's process so that all aspects of the process are actually being expedited. • Begin exploring all innovative finance opportunities. Cotton Belt Corridor Page 6 of 6 4/2/2010 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix C - Meeting Summaries Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This Page Intentionally Left Blank. April 2010 C -36 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D - Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Appendix D Evaluation Measures April 2010 D -1 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This Page Intentionally Left Blank. April 2010 D -2 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study TABLE OF CONTENTS D. EVALUATION MEASURES ................................................... ............................... D-4 D.1 Length ..................................................................................... ............................... D -4 D.2 Transit ..................................................................................... ............................... D-4 D.3 Property Acquisition ................................................................ ............................... D -4 DATotal Cost ................................................................................ ............................... D -4 D.5 Land Use ................................................................................. ............................... D -4 D.6 Major Employers ..................................................................... ............................... D -5 D.7 Activity Centers ....................................................................... ............................... D -6 D.8 Community Facilities ............................................................. ............................... D -10 D.9 Historical and Archeological Resources ................................ ............................... D -11 D.10 Parks, Trails, and Recreation Facilities ................................. ............................... D -13 D.11 Hazardous and Regulated Materials ..................................... ............................... D -15 D.12 Air Quality Impact .................................................................. ............................... D -15 D.13 Noise ..................................................................................... ............................... D -15 D.14 Vibration ................................................................................ ............................... D -16 D.15 Water Resources ................................................................... ............................... D -17 D.16 Ecosystem ............................................................................. ............................... D -17 D.17 Constructability ...................................................................... ............................... D -18 LIST OF TABLES Table D -1 Stations on Local Plans ............................................... ............................... D -5 Table D -2 Major Employers within Station Analysis Areas .......... ............................... D -5 Table D -3 Activity Centers within Station Analysis Areas ............ ............................... D -6 Table D-4 Community Facilities within Station Analysis Areas .. ............................... D -10 Table D -5 Historical Features within Station Analysis Areas ..... ............................... D -11 Table D -6 Archeological Investigations within Station Analysis Areas ...................... D -12 Table D -7 Parks, Trails, and Recreation Facilities ..................... ............................... D -13 Table D -8 Hazardous /Regulated Materials within Station Analysis Areas ................ D -15 Table D -9 Noise Sensitive Land Use along the Cotton Belt Corridor ........................ D -16 Table D -10 Vibration Sensitive Land Use along the Cotton Belt Corridor ................... D -16 Table D -11 Rail Centerline Floodplain Crossings ........................ ............................... D -17 April 2010 D -3 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study D. EVALUATION MEASURES This section describes socio- economic, cultural, and natural features in close proximity to the Cotton Belt Corridor or near the potential station locations. The station analysis areas consist of the vicinity within one -half mile of each potential station location. Some measures use alternate geographic areas for analysis as described within the relevant sections. DA LENGTH The alignment length was measured in miles. The Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping application ESRI ArcMap to calculate the alignment distance. D.2 TRANSIT Transit information was obtained from the Dallas -Fort Worth Regional Travel Demand Model (DFWRTDM) using transit networks approved in the long -range metropolitan transportation plan (MTP), Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas -Fort Worth Area — 2009 Amendment (Mobility 2030 — 2009 Amendment). Detailed information on ridership estimates is in Section 3.3.4. Estimated Daily Ridership - The estimated passengers boarding and alighting at a station during an average weekday, 24 -hour period. Linked Regional Transit Trips - Represents the total number of average weekday, one - way transit trips within the regional network. Corridor Travel Times - The amount of time, in minutes, to travel from end to end for a distinct alternative; evaluated corridor travel times included headways, load /unload time, acceleration time, and deceleration time. D.3 PROPERTY ACQUISITION This qualitative measure estimates if additional right -of -way, outside of the existing railroad right -of -way, needs acquisition. DA TOTAL COST The total project cost estimated for each alternative. Detailed information on cost is located in Section 3.7. Appendix A also provides detailed cost estimates. D.5 LAND USE Compatibility with Local Plans denotes if the corridor alignment alternative is included in local government comprehensive plans, if the potential station location is included in the local government comprehensive plans, or the potential station location zoned as transit oriented development (TOD). Table D -1 provides a summary of the status of the station and if the station is in the cities or agencies plan. Detailed information on this measure is in Appendix B, Section B.2.1. April 2010 D -4 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D – Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table D -1 Stations on Local Plans Station Status Plan DFW Airport Proposed DFWIA Airport North Proposed City of Grapevine North Lake Proposed City of Dallas Downtown Carrollton Under Construction DART Addison Transit Center Proposed Town of Addison – TOD Knoll Trail Proposed City of Dallas Preston Road Proposed City of Dallas Renner Village Proposed City of Dallas UTD /Synergy Park Proposed City of Richardson Bush Turnpike Existing City of Richardson – TOD 12th Street Proposed Hotel Intercontinental Downtown Plano Existing City of Plano Parker Road Existing City of Plano Source: DART, Meetings with partner cities and city plans D.6 MAJOR EMPLOYERS Based on a review of the data discussed in Section B.2.3 of Appendix B, major employers within the station analysis areas were identified. Table D -2 lists the major employers near each station. Table D -2 Major Employers within Station Analysis Areas Name of Employer Number /Location DFW Airport Station 0 Airport North Station 0 North Lake Station 0 Downtown Carrollton 3 PSS World Medical, Inc. City of Carrollton Classic Balloon Corporation Citv of Carrollton Matrix Interior Construction City of Carrollton Addison Transit Center Station 2 Hotel Intercontinental Town of Addison GLI Holding Company City of Dallas Knoll Trail Station 0 Preston Road Station 0 Renner Village Station 0 UTD/Synergy Park Station 2 Hewlett- Packard City of Richardson Bombardier City of Richardson Bush Turnpike Station 2 Priority Fulfillment Services City of Plano —Fry's Electronics City of Plano April 2010 D -5 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table D -2 Major Employers within Station Analysis Areas (continued) Name of Employer Number /Location 12 th Street Station DFW Airport Station 3 City of Plano Police Department City of Plano City of Plano Fire Department City of Plano Plano City Hall City of Plano Downtown Plano Station 1061 -1065 East Northwest Highway 4 Plano City Hall City of Plano City of Plano Fire Department City of Plano City of Plano Police Department City of Plano Bristol Hotel Tenant Company City of Plano Parker Road Station 1300 North 1 -35 2 Benecorp Business Services City of Plano Crest Cadillac, Inc City of Plano Source: NCTCOG, 2009 D.7 ACTIVITY CENTERS Based on a review of the data discussed in Section B.2.3 of Appendix B, activity centers within the station analysis areas were identified. Table D -3 lists the activity centers near each station. Table D -3 Activity Centers within Station Analysis Areas Name of Activity Center Number/Type DFW Airport Station 0 Airport North Station 4 1100, 1102, 1104 Dallas Road Industrial 1200, 1220, 1240 Dallas Road Industrial 1061 -1065 East Northwest Highway Industrial Grapevine Station Mixed Use North Lake Station 0 Downtown Carrollton 10 1206 Tappan Circle Industrial 1300 North 1 -35 Industrial 1301 West Belt Line Road Industrial 1445 West Belt Line Road Industrial Carrollton Crossing Development Mixed Use Classic Balloon Corporation Industrial Downtown Carrollton TOD Apartments Multi-Family National Duct Systems I Industrial PSS /JC International Carrollton Industrial Park Industrial Vehicles in Motion/TCB Industrial April 2010 D -6 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table D -3 Activity Centers within Station Analysis Areas continued Name of Activity Center Number/Type Addison Transit Center Station 25 15280 Addison Road Office 15777 Quorum Multi-Family 5025 Arapaho Road Office Addison Circle Mixed Use Addison Circle One Office Addison Circle Phase II Multi-Family Addison Circle Phase III Multi-Family Addison Walk Retail Aventura Condominiums Multi-Family Champps Americana Retail Cit homes Addison Circle Multi-Family Colonnade I Office Colonnade II Office Colonnade III Office Greyhound Lines Inc Office Hotel Intercontinental Hotel /Motel Midway Press LTD Industrial Millennium Park Phase I Office Omnifli ht Inc Industrial Post Addison Circle Multi-Family Residence Inn By Marriott Hotel /Motel Spectrum Center Office Summerfield Suites Addison Hotel /Motel Two Addison Circle Office Wingate Inn Hotel /Motel Knoll Trail Station 25 15400 Knoll Trail Office 15851 Dallas Parkway Office 5310 Keller Springs Multi -Famil Allegro Addison Multi-Family Bear Creek Multi-Family Beckett Publications Inc Office Bent Oaks Multi-Family Bent Tree Condominiums Multi-Family Bonaventure Condominiums Multi-Family Covington Point Multi-Family Estancia Townhomes Multi-Family Fairwa s of Bent Tree Multi-Family MBNA Information Services Inc Office Prestonwood Town Center Retail Prestonwood Village Retail Saddlebrook I Multi-Family Saint Moritz I Multi-Family April 2010 D -7 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table D -3 Activity Centers within Station Analysis Areas continued Name of Activity Center Number/Type Knoll Trail Station continued Sta brid a Suites Hotel /Motel Tollway Plaza I Office Tollway Plaza II Office Tollway Towers Office Trails on Knoll Trail Multi-Family Turnberry We Multi-Family The Tuscan Multi-Family Villas of Bent Trails Multi-Family Preston Road Station 5 Fairhill School Education Fountains of Prestonwood Multi-Family Lawn at Glen Abbey Multi-Family Lawn at Glen Abbey Single Famil Prestonwood Trails Multi-Family Renner Villa a Station 12 Ashwood Park Multi-Family Chatham Court Multi-Family Chatham Court Reflections Multi-Family Courts of McCallum Multi-Family Frankford Middle School Education Gables on McCallum Multi-Family Mandalay Multi-Family McCallum Crossings Multi-Family McCallum Glen Multi-Family McCallum Meadows Multi-Family McCallum Oaks Multi-Family Willow Green Condos Multi-Family UTD/Synergy Park Station 8 Points at Waterview Office Granite 190 Center One Office Granite 190 Center Two Office Granite 190 Center Three Office Hewlett Packard Office Reliant Healthcare Rehabilitation Hospital Institutional UTD Dormitory Group Quarters Waterview Plaza Office Bush Turnpike Station 3 Atrium at Collin Ride Office Fry's Electronics Retail Regal Research I Industrial April 2010 D -8 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table D -3 Activitv Centers within Station Analvsis Areas lcontinuedl Name of Activity Center Number/Type 12 th Street Station 15 15" Street Village Multi-Family 820 -860 F Avenue Office Citv of Plano Institutional Eastside Village Phases I & II Mixed Use Federal Express Corporation Industrial Home Depot Retail MCI Worldcom Communcations Industrial Plano City Hall Institutional Plano Crossing Business Center Industrial Plano Police Headquarters Institutional Southern Land Apartments Multi-Family Tenth Street Industries Industrial Downtown Plano Station 16 15 1h Street Village Multi-Family Alta Vista Multi-Family City of Plano Institutional Collin Park Apartments Multi-Family Eastside Village Phases I & II Mixed Use Enfora LP Office Home Depot Retail Lexington Park at Rice Field Multi-Family Mendenhall Elementary School Education Plano City Hall Institutional Plano Police Headquarters Institutional Southern Land Apartments Multi-Family Southfork Hotel Hotel /Motel Tenth Street Industries Industrial Parker Road Station 15 720 East Park Boulevard Suite Office Ashley Park Townhomes Multi-Family Bank of America Plano Tower Office Burlington Coat Factory Shopping Center Retail Crest Cadillac Inc Retail GTE Southwest Incorporated Industrial Kohls Department Stores Inc Retail La Jolla on Park Multi-Family Park Mall Shopping Center Retail Parker Central Plaza Retail Parker Crossing Shopping Center Retail Parker Town Centre Retail Pleasant Park Apartments Multi-Family Republic Place Office Target Retail Source: NCTCOG, 2009 April 2010 D -9 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study D.8 COMMUNITY FACILITIES Based on a review of the data discussed in Section B.2.3 of Appendix B, community facilities within the station analysis areas were identified. Table D -4 lists the community facilities near each station. Table D-4 Communitv Facilities within Station Analvsis Areas Name of Community Facility Number/Facility Type DFW Airport Station 0 Airport North Station 0 North Lake Station 0 Downtown Carrollton Station 2 Philippine Community Center Inc Recreational Josey Ranch Athletic Complex Stadium Addison Transit Center Station 2 Addison Main Post Office Post Office Addison Fire Station # 1 Fire Knoll Trail Station 0 Preston Road Station 2 Fairhill School Education Dallas Fire Station # 7 Fire Renner Village Station 1 Frankford Middle School Education UTD/Synergy Park Station 1 Reliant Healthcare Rehabilitation Hospital Hospital Bush Turnpike Station 1 Bush Turnpike Station Li ht Rail Station 12 th Street Station 5 Boys & Girls Club of Plano Recreation Plano Police Headquarters Police Plano Public Safety Commissioner Public Safety Downtown Plano Station Li ht Rail Station City of Plano Fire Department Fire Plano City Hall City Hall Downtown Plano Station 8 Boys & Girls Club of Plano Recreational Plano Police Headquarters Police Plano Safety Commissioner Public Safety Downtown Plano Station Light Rail Station City of Plano Fire Department Fire Plano City Hall City Hall Plano Downtown Finance Post Office Post Office Mendenhall Elementary School Education Parker Road Station 1 Parker Road Station Light Rail Station Source: NCTCOG, 2009 April 2010 D -10 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study D.9 HISTORICAL AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Based on the data discussed in Section B.2.4 of Appendix B, historical resources within the station analysis areas were identified. Listed in Table D -5 are the historical properties, districts, markers and cemeteries within one -half mile of stations. Table D -5 Historical Features within Station Analvsis Areas Name of Historical Feature Number /Feature Type DFW Airport Station Total 0 Airport North Station Total 0 North Lake Station Total 1 Bethel Cemetery Historical Marker Downtown Carrollton Station Total 0 Addison Transit Center Station Total 1 Addison State Bank Historical Marker Knoll Trail Station Total 0 Preston Road Station Total 0 Renner Village Station Total 0 UTD/Synergy Park Station Total 0 12 th Street Station Total 6 Old City Cemetery Cemetery Plano Cemetery Historical Marker Plano High School and Gymnasium Historical Marker Plano Nation Bank /I.O.O.F. Lodge Building Historical Marker Shiloh Baptist Church Historical Marker Texas Electric Railway Station Historical Marker Bush Turnpike Station Total 0 Downtown Plano Station Total 9 First Baptist Church of Plano Historical Marker First Christian Church of Plano Historical Marker First Methodist Church of Plano Historical Marker Old City Cemetery Cemetery Plano Cemetery Historical Marker Plano High School and Gymnasium Historical Marker Plano National Bank/1.0.0.F Lodge Building Historical Marker Shiloh Baptist Church Historical Marker Texas Electric Railway Station Historical Marker Parker Road Station Total 0 Source: NCTCOG, 2009 Based on the data discussed in Section B.2.4 of Appendix B, archeological resources within the station analysis areas were identified. Listed in Table D -6 are the archeological investigations within 0.5 miles of stations. April 2010 D -11 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table D -6 Archeoloqical Investigations within Station Analysis Areas Investigating Agency Type Number /Date DFW Airport Station Total 0 Airport North Station Total 3 FHWA Survey May 1991 TxDOT Survey March 2004 FAA Survey Aril 2007 North Lake Station Total 1 Downtown Carrollton Station Total 4 Unknown Survey February 1995 Unknown Survey February 1995 DART Survey March 2001 DART Survey March 2001 Addison Transit Center Station Total 1 TxDOT Survey August 1984 Knoll Trail Station Total 1 USACE Survey June 2005 Preston Road Station Total 1 USACE 72-urvey June 2005 Renner Village Station Total 0 UTD/Synergy Park Station Total 1 TxDOT Survey September 1981 12 th Street Station Total 3 TxDOT Survey Aril 1982 FHWA Survey November 1985 DART Survey Aril 1996 Bush Turnpike Station Total 6 TxDOT Survey September 1981 TxDOT Survey February 1982 TxDOT Survey February 1982 DART Survey Aril 1996 DART Survey Aril 1996 TxDOT Reconnaissance Survey October 2005 Downtown Plano Station Total 2 FHWA —survey November 1985 DART Survey Aril 1996 Parker Road Station Total 4 TxDOT Survey Aril 1982 FHWA Survey November 1985 TxDOT Survey March 1988 DART Survey Aril 1996 Source: NCTCOG, 2009 April 2010 D -12 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study D.10 PARKS, TRAILS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES In Appendix B, a review of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities (trails) were discussed in Section 8.1.1.3 and the park and recreation facilities were discussed in Section B.2.5. All of the facilities within 0.5 miles of stations are listed in Table D -7. Table D -7 Parks, Trails, and Recreation Facilities Name and Station Number /Feature Type DFW Airport Station 0 Airport North Station 1 Cotton Belt NE Tarrant County — Planned Trail North Lake Station 1 Cotton Belt Dallas Count — Planned Trail Downtown Carrollton Station 6 City S uare Park Cotton Belt Dallas Count — Planned Trail Francis Perry Park Josey Ranch Athletic Complex Stadium /Arena Philippine Community Center Community Center Pioneer Park Addison Transit Center Station 5 Addison Circle Park Bos ue Park Cotton Belt Dallas Count — Planned Trail Esplanade Park Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 340 — Existing Trail Knoll Trail Station 5 Cotton Belt Dallas Count — Planned Trail Cotton Belt NE Dallas Count — Planned Trail Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 340 — Existing Trail Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 350 — Existing Trail Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 37 — Existing Trail Preston Road Station 4 Cotton Belt NE Dallas Count — Planned Trail Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 350 — Existing Trail Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 360 — Existing Trail Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 37 — Existing Trail Keller Springs Park Renner Village Station 7 Cotton Belt NE Dallas Count — Planned Trail Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 360 — Existing Trail Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 370 — Existing Trail Greater Dallas Bike Plan, Route 45 — Existing Trail Preston Ridge South — Planned Trail Preston Ridge Trail Extension — Existing Trail Rowlett Creek Central — Planned Trail Rowlett Creek North — Planned Trail April 2010 D -13 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table D -7 Parks, Trails, and Recreation Facilities (continued) Name and Station Number /Feature Type UTD/Synergy Park Station 6 Cotton Belt Central — Planned Trail Point North Park Park Rowlett Creek North — Planned Trail University of Texas at Dallas Trail — Existing Trail University of Texas at Dallas Trail — Planned Trail Unknown Name — Planned Trail Bush Turnpike Station 6 Cotton Belt Central — Planned Trail North Duck Creek — Planned Trail Plano Bike Plan, Route 75 — Planned Trail Plano Trail — Existing Trail Rowlett Creek North — Planned Trail Spring Creek Nature Trail, Phase 2 — Existing Trail Unknown Name — Planned Trail 12t Street Station 9 15 Street Station — Planned Trail Boys & Girls Club of Plano Community Center Cotton Belt Central — Planned Trail Douglas Community Center Community Center Haggard Park Haggard Park Trail — Existing Trail Lavon Link — Planned Trail North Duck Creek — Planned Trail Plano Bike Plan, Route 75 — Planned Trail Downtown Plano Station 11 15 th Street Station — Planned Trail Boys & Girls Club of Plano Community Center Cotton Belt Central — Planned Trail Douglas Community Center Community Center Haggard Park Haggard Park Trail — Existing Trail Lavon Link — Planned Trail North Duck Creek — Planned Trail Plano Bike Plan, Route 75 — Planned Trail Plano Bike Plan, Route 404 — Planned Trail Plano Bike Plan, Route 408 — Planned Trail Parker Road Station 6 15 Street Station — Planned Trail Lavon Link — Planned Trail Parker Road Station Trail — Planned Trail Plano Bike Plan, Route 73 — Planned Trail Plano Bike Plan, Route 75 — Planned Trail Rail to Trail Conversion — Planned Trail Source: NCTCOG Facilities, Parks, and Trails Data, 2009 April 2010 D -14 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study D.11 HAZARDOUS AND REGULATED MATERIALS Based on a review of the hazardous and regulated materials data discussed in Section B.2.6 of Appendix B, the station analysis area only included two landfill sites. Two incinerators sites are located near the proposed DFWIA station. No other landfills were located near potential stations along the corridor. The number and status of landfill sites within each of the station analysis areas are included in Table D -8. Table D -8 Hazardous/Regulated Materials within Station Analysis Areas Station Number of Landfill Sites Status DFW Airport 2 Active Airport North 0 North Lake 0 Downtown Carrollton 0 Addison Transit Center 0 Knoll Trail 0 Preston Road 0 Renner Village 0 UTD/Synergy Park 0 Bush Turnpike 0 12 Street 0 Downtown Plano 0 Parker Road 0 Source: NCTCOG, 2010 D.12 AIR QUALITY IMPACT This qualitative measure estimates the impact a new rail alternative would have on the regional air quality. Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1 provides detailed information on this measure. D.13 NOISE Based on the data discussed in Section B.3.2 of Appendix B, noise sensitive land use near the Cotton Belt Corridor was identified. As shown in Table D -9, the land use directly adjacent to the rail line right -of -way included 48,398 linear feet (24.1 percent) of residential land use, 17,704 linear feet (8.8 percent) of park or recreational land use, and 13,741 linear feet (6.9 percent) of institutional land use. This totals 79,843 linear feet (39.8 percent) of noise sensitive land use. These land uses could contain specific noise sensitive receivers. April 2010 D -15 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D - Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table D -9 Noise Sensitive Land Use along the Cotton Belt Corridor Station Segments Linear Feet of Land Use Types Residential Park or Recreational Institutional DFW Airport to Airport North 0 0 0 Airport North to North Lake 4,947 569 2,739 North Lake to Downtown Carrollton 4,319 2,234 285 Downtown Carrollton to Addison Transit Center 7,324 3,502 2,970 Addison Transit Center to Knoll Trail 404 441 617 Knoll Trail to Preston Road 3,667 3,555 0 Preston Road to Renner Village 11,370 3,120 367 Renner Village to UTD/Synergy Park 772 0 2,668 UTD/Synergy Park to Alma Drive 0 0 0 Eastern Terminus Options Alma Drive to Bush Turnpike North 472 49 350 Alma Drive to Bush Turnpike South 1,416 0 0 Alma Drive to Parker Road 3,966 557 1,696 Alma Drive to 12 Street 1,525 0 759 Alma Drive to Parker Road via Bush Turnpike 8,216 3,677 1,290 Source: NCTCOG, 2010 D.14 VIBRATION Based on the data discussed in Section B.3.3 of Appendix B, vibration sensitive land use near the Cotton Belt Corridor was identified. As shown in Table D -10, the land use directly adjacent to the rail line right -of -way included no Category 1 land uses. Category 2 land uses totaled 48,398 linear feet (24.1 percent) which included residential land use, hotels, and motels. Finally, 31,445 linear feet (15.7 percent) of Category 3 land uses were identified; these land uses included institutional buildings (such as government buildings), and park and recreational facilities. Each of these land use types identified could contain specific vibration sensitive receivers. Table D -10 Vibration Sensitive Land Use along the Cotton Belt Corridor Station Segments Linear Feet of Land Use Types Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 DFW Airport to Airport North 0 0 0 Airport North to North Lake 0 4,947 3,308 North Lake to Downtown Carrollton 0 4,319 2,519 Downtown Carrollton to Addison Transit Center 0 7,324 6,472 Addison Transit Center to Knoll Trail 0 404 1,058 Knoll Trail to Preston Road 0 3,667 3,555 Preston Road to Renner Village 0 11,370 3,487 Renner Village to UTD/Synergy Park 0 772 2,668 UTD/Synergy Park to Alma Drive 0 0 0 April 2010 D -16 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Table D -10 Vibration Sensitive Land Use along the Cotton Belt Corridor fcontinupol Station Segments Linear Feet of Land Use Types Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Eastern Terminus Options 0 0 0 Alma Drive to Bush Turnpike North 0 0 472 1,416 399 0 Alma Drive to Bush Turnpike South Alma Drive to Parker Road 0 3,966 2,253 Alma Drive to 12 th Street 0 1,525 759 Alma Drive to Parker Road via Bush Turnpike 0 8,216 4,967 Source: NCTCOG, 2010 D.15 WATER RESOURCES Based on the data discussed in Section B.3.4 of Appendix B, floodplains along the Cotton Belt Corridor rail line were identified. The linear feet of floodplain crossings by the Cotton Belt Corridor rail line was calculated using the centerline length along the rail line main segment that intersects identified Federal Emergency Management Agency Q3 floodplains. As shown in Table D• -11, the total rail centerline length of 25.4 miles (134,112 linear feet) included 9,910 linear feet (7.3 percent) of 100 -year floodplain crossings and 9,950 linear feet (7.4 percent) of 500 -year floodplain crossings. This totals 19,860 linear feet (14.7 percent) of identified floodplain crossings for the Cotton Belt Corridor. Table D -11 Rail Centerline Floodolain Crossinas Station Segments Linear Feet of Flood lain Stream Crossings 100 -Year 500 -Year DFW Airport to Airport North 0 0 0 Airport North to North Lake 841 0 4 North Lake to Downtown Carrollton 6,084 9,113 2 Downtown Carrollton to Addison Transit Center 0 0 Addison Transit Center to Knoll Trail 0 99 Knoll Trail to Preston Road 1,117 79 Preston Road to Renner Village 1,360 73 Renner Village to UTD/Synergy Park 0 0 UTD/Synergy Park to Alma Drive 0 147 Eastern Terminus Options 3 Alma Drive to Bush Turnpike North 507 440 4 Alma Drive to Bush Turnpike South 2,975 168 2 Alma Drive to Parker Road 507 440 1 Alma Drive to 12 th Street 507 440 4 Alma Drive to Parker Road via Bush Turnpike 2,975 168 3 Source: NCTCOG, 2010 D.16 ECOSYSTEM The Natural Diversity Database (NDD) from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department provides actual recorded occurrences of protected species and vegetation series throughout the State of Texas. Areas near reported occurrences can be investigated further to confirm the presence of the documented species or vegetation series and avoid them whenever possible. A search through the NDD was conducted for the study area for potential April 2010 D -17 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix D — Evaluation Measures Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study threatened and endangered species, species of concern, protected species, and vegetation series. As noted in Appendix B, Section 13.3.5, there are no occurrences of threatened or endangered species or wildlife management areas listed within the study area. D.17 CONSTRUCTABILITY A qualitative measure to gauge the level of construction difficulty for each alternative. The measure is based on the level of several factors including, estimated additional right of way needed for construction, perceived obstacles (e.g. permits, public acceptance), and additional structures needed. The evaluation for this qualitative measure was stated using "high" (easily built), "medium" (requires more effort to build), and "low" (has obstacles to overcome to build). April 2010 D -18 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix E - Resolutions Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study Appendix E Resolutions April 2010 E -1 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix E — Resolutions Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This Page Intentionally Left Blank. April 2010 E -2 CITY OF DALLAS September 29, 2006 Mr. Gary Thomas President/Executive Director Dallas Area Rapid Transit P.O. Box 660163 Dallas, Texas 75266 -7205 Dear Mr. Thomas: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft 2030 Transit System Plan prior to final consideration by your Board. Overall, the report does a good job of comprehensively addressing all of DART's core services and reflects the substantial work that your staff has undertaken over several years to get to get this point. The City of Dallas is pleased to see the inclusion of the Scyene light rail transit spur off the Southeast line and the extension of the West Oak Cliff light rail transit line among the rail transit recommendations. However, the City is extremely disappointed that the report does not reflect the top rail transit priorities supported unanimously by the City Council when they approved Resolution #061835 (attached) on June 28, 2006. The Council, through its Transportation and Environment Committee, has been extensively engaged in the development of the Transit System Plan through regular briefings and interaction with your staff. Their recommendation making an extension of the South Oak Cliff LRT line to 1- 20 /Bonnieview its top priority reflects a deeply held belief that the inland port area is becoming the economic engine driving development in the southern sector. In addition, the inclusion of the Cotton Belt as its second priority represents a dramatic shift of support for rail transit in this corridor provided that DART adheres to the Council's conditions designed to make the rail line compatible with the community. The Council's support for rail transit in the Cotton Belt corridor also shows its desire to support projects that are important to suburban member cities. OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL. DALLAS TFYAS 75201 TFIF_PHONE 214 570 -3302 Mr. Gary Thomas September 29, 2006 Page 2 I want to urge you and your Board to give careful consideration to the City's rail transit priorities as identified in the Council resolution. Please call me at 214- 670- 3296 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, -ham QpO' nary K. Suhm P City Manager Enclosure c: Mayor and Members of the City Council Dallas DART Board Members Ryan S. Evans, Assistant City Manager Jill A. Jordan, P.E., Assistant City Manager Ramon F. Miguez, P.E., Assistant City Manager David C. Dybala, P.E., Director, Public Works and Transportation Theresa O'Donnell, Director, Development Services COUNCIL CHAMBER 1 ' 1. 1�,�,• WHEREAS, DARTS Transit System Plan is a fInancially- cbnnstralned plan that guides " WW" development of rail, bus, paratraansk and high- occupancy lane projects within their service area; and, WHEREAS, DART last approved an update of their Transit System Plan in 1996 and Is my CU &- developing a new Trane6 System Plan to guide transit development through the year 2030; and, WHEREAS, the use of federal transit funding and long -term debt can sigriftantty Increase the financial capacity available for transit development; and, WNgREAS.. the development of new rail transit lines and extensions can work In concert with the Citys Forward Dallas! Comprehensive Phut and other land usWeconomic development policies to promote development In high priority areas such as the Soudlern Sector of the City, Including the SouthPort area. Now, TherefOM BE R RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS: Section 1. That the City Council urges the DART Board to include a reasonable estimate of federal funding availability and the potential to Issue long-term debt when establishing Ns financial capacity for ths.2030 Trans* System Plan. gin Z. . That the City Council endorses the following prioritized list of rail trarwit lines for in LWw in the 2000 System Plan Update: 1) South Oak Cliff (Blue) LRT Una, Extension to SouthPort at I- 2&SonnWA@w 2) Cotton Bek LRT Uns from Bush TurnpMa to Downtown Carrollton vow the ummaL 3) Soutfneaat (Green) LRT Line Extension On &YOM b Meaty* 4) West Oak Cliff (Red) LRT Unq extension to Redbird or Mountain Creek s) West Oaks LRT Une from Dallas COD to Loop 12/Jefferson Boulevard 6) Cotton Belt Express Rail Uns from Downtown Carrollton to DFW Airport 0"Mm RM P OWWR M am eowra-v s an NOWAM COUNCIL CHAMBER 1 � T LBJ/Parkway Center LRT Line from the North Central (Red) Line Redj 1 SOk gj LBJ/Forest LRT Line from the Garland (Blue) Line to the No Central g) Southeast (Green) LRT Line Extension to 1 -20 10) LSJ LRT Line from the DNT /Gslleria to the Northwest (Green) Line Section 3�. That this resolution shah take 8 darter of the City from and dar of Dallas and its pasasgs to accordance with the provisions of the accordingly so resolved. Dk button: Public Wa1u and Trensportatlon, Cheryl NWwW- OCMC, Roorn 101' Public Woft and Tnmsportatlo % John Brunk. City HA LISS City Atlormy C�MCN. JUN 28 20 C" 9 / , Dallas Area Rapid Transit RESOLUTION of the DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT (Executive Committee) Approval of the 2030 Transit System Plan 060177 RESOLUT /ON WHEREAS, the DART Service Plan is required by Texas Transportation Code; and WHEREAS, the Transit System Plan is the long range element of the DART Service Plan; and WHEREAS, the DART Board of Directors adopted a set of Guiding Principles in October 2001 to guide the development of the 2030 Transit System Plan update; and WHEREAS, the DART Board has been briefed and provided input over the last several years regarding the evaluation results and development of the 2030 Transit System Plan; and WHEREAS, a comprehensive outreach plan for the public, interested organizations, and member cities was developed and implemented during the effort; and WHEREAS, the DART Board of Directors authorized the distribution of the Technical Report for the Draft 2030 Transit System Plan to the public and member cities for review and comment in July 2006 (Resolution No. 060123); and WHEREAS, several comments were received from the public and member cities; and WHEREAS, the DART 2030 Transit System Plan needs to be consistent with the NCTCOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan to ensure coordinated regional planning and eligibility for federal funds; and WHEREAS, funding for expenditures included in the 2030 Transit System Plan are not within current FY 2007 Twenty-Year Financial Plan allocations and will require voter approval for additional long -term debt for completion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Board of Directors that: Section 1: The 2030 Transit System Plan as shown in Exhibit 1 is hereby adopted, including proposed bus and rail project timing and staging, with the modification to the Rail Element and the Vision Element as outlined in Exhibit 2. Section 2: The President/Executive Director or his designee is authorized to reformat the Final 2030 Transit System Plan document consistent with this resolution and to distribute the document. dcs 1024PABf Am 1 10/24/06 -7:00 PM 060177 Section 3: The FY 2007 Twenty -Year Financial Plan is amended to include expenses and revenue needed for projects identified in the 2030 Transit System Plan, and future Twenty -Year Financial Plans will include other expenses and revenue required by the 2030 Transit System Plan as further cost, schedule, service level, and possible voter approval of long -term debt are determined. Section 4: The Transit System Plan will be reviewed periodically and updated in conjunction with the NCTCOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan, taking into consideration updated demographics and financial projections. Section 5: The DART Service Plan will be amended in the future to include specific facility locations and alignments for projects in the 2030 Transit System Plan, once those projects are developed in greater detail. ATTEST: Gary . Tho President/ tive Director October 24, 2006 Date dcs 1024PABf .doe 2 10/24/06 -7:17 PM C' )t 3: a V ............................................................................. ............................... COTTON BELT Corridor Development Conditions ............. - ...... ... ........... .... .................. ............. The following conditions are contained within DART Board i Resolution 060177 (approved October 24, 2006) to guide future planning efforts in this corridor: a) Actively pursue discussions with current users and rights holders regarding removal of freight from corridor. b) DART will consider all mitigation alternatives in working with cities on environmental concerns. Evaluate potential impacts (noise, vibration, visual, traffic, safety, etc.) consistent with measures used in other DART projects. The City of Dallas preference is a trench. (Per the resolution, up to s $50 million is allocated for these purposes) C) Noise /vibration impacts will be mitigated to a level consistent with DART light rail. d) Locomotive - hauled passenger rail will not be considered. e) The size (length, height and width) of a rail car would generally be the same as the current DART light rail vehicle, within 8% measured in bulk as cubic feet.* fl Emissions will meet or beat Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards of Tier IV (2011 -2014) g) City of Dallas has a preference for stations at Knoll Trail, Preston Road and west of Coit Road. h) City of Dallas preference is to minimize number of tracks. *Note: Discussions between DART and City of Dallas also focusec on providing an equivalent number of passenger seats. °,W. MEN o _PRA SIT • Coordination with DFW International Airport and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) regarding airport access (see also Section 3.3). • Coordination with the City of Dallas to preserve right -of -way to incorporate a trail consistent with the City of Dallas Trail Master Plan and consistent with DART policy. • Pursuit of quiet zones where feasible to minimize noise. • Exploration of funding and cost - sharing opportunities for portions of the Cotton Belt that are outside the DART Service area. Although the LBJ /Inwood Corridor is included in the Vision Element of the 2030 Transit System Plan, DART will coordinate with the Texas Department of Transportation on the final design and reconstruction of LBJ to not preclude light rail, and to maximize opportunities and access for express bus service. Further information on these key issues and their role in the Project Development Strategy is included in Chapter 7, Implementation and Phasing. 3.3 Airport Access Transit access to DFW International Airport and Dallas Love Field is a priority for future DART system expansion. Airport access can help to create a more seamless transportation system and improve the image of Dallas -Fort Worth as a world -class region. The proposed approach for transit access to each airport, including any outstanding issues, is discussed below. 3.3.1 Dallas Love Field Dallas Love Field airport is located adjacent to the Northwest Corridor light rail line, which initiated construction in 2006. Annual passenger activity at Dallas Love Field is approximately 7 million passengers, ten percent of which is connecting passengers. Direct light rail access to Dallas Love Field was evaluated in detail as part of the Northwest Corridor Preliminary Engineering/ Environmental Impact Statement (PE /EIS) phase. During that effort, several concepts were developed to serve Love Field. One concept, a tunnel option with a station at the Love Field terminal area, wraS rPflnP(i thmi Inh tha PF /FIC nrnr acc Thic I nvo Field Tunnel Option would have added a $160 million incremental cost to the project. The DART Board of Directors and the City of Dallas executed an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) in February 2004, which included key conditions to be met in order for DART to include the tunnel option as part of the Northwest Corridor project. Since DART was pursuing a $700 million Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), maintaining a "Recommended" New Starts rating on the Northwest /Southeast Minimum Operating Segment (NW /SE MOS) project with the Love Field Tunnel option was a key condition. Funding commitments were also a condition, in which DART made a $20 million contribution. Other funding partners included the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), the City of Dallas, and Dallas County. The primary funding source from the City of Dallas was assumed to be proceeds from a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) at Dallas Love Field. On November 23, 2004, DART was notified by FTA that the NW /SE MOS Federal Project with the Love Field tunnel would receive a "Not Recommended" rating due to "low" cost-effectiveness, thereby making the project ineligible to proceed to final design or obtain federal October 2006 Cotton Belt Corridor Appendix E — Resolutions Conceptual Engineering and Funding Study This Page Intentionally Left Blank. April 2010 E -10