ST9904-CS 981113 TxD~T
Note: Section numbers
drawings.
SH 121 TASK FORCE REmORT
in narrative below correspond to numbers on
Novembe~ ~3~ ~998
SH 121 CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS (STAGE I)
A. Section 1: Tarrant/Dallas County Line to North of
Denton Creek (A-lane divided highway
with 2-lane frontage roads)
Completed -- July 1992
B. Section 2: North of Denton Creek to IH 35E (4/6
lane divided highway)
(CSJ 0364-03-078 & 0364-03-077)
D. Section
E. Section 5:
Completed -- November 1993
Section 3~ IH 35E to East of FM 1171 (6-lane
divided highway)
Completed -- June 1991
East of FM 1171 to East of the Elm Fork
of the Trinity River (bridges)
Completed -- July 1988
East of the Elm Fork of the Trinity
River to West of the Burlington Northern
Railroad (4-lane divided highway)
(CSJ 0364-03-0A2)
Completed -- February 2, 1994.
Crlder Road Project (036A-03-079)
Completed -- September 1995
Section 6: West of the Burlington Northern Railroad
to East of Legacy (A-lane divided
highway)
(CSJ 0364-03-043)
Completed -- March 29,
Section 7: East of Legacy to East
divided) (including
intersection)
1994
SH 289 (4-lane
the SH 289
(CSJ 0364-04-028 a 0364-04-032)
Completed -- May 3, 1995
1
Section
SH 289 tO US 75 (~-lane divided)
(CSJ 0364-04-022)
The 1999 UTP, as approved by the C0~!S~o~ O~ 09-
24~98, includes this sectiOn under Prmor ty 2
status for NHS Mobility, category 3~i
A minute order was executed (by the Commission)
approving the proposal by Collin County to
contribute $3,852,060 and provide a soft match of
a minimum of 62 acres of right-of-way (estimated
to be worth $13,000,000) as the local share of
right-of-way funding on SH 121 from FM 423 to US
75. The Collin County Commissioners' Court has
executed the agreement to contribute funding.
TxDOT has received the $3,852,060 check and the 62
acres of donated right-of-way.
TxDOT's Environmental Affairs Division has com-
pleted the historical structure documentation and
has determined that the project is clear from
historical properties.
4. The Dallas District is proposing to build the
ultimate frontage roads with this project and
split the project into the following three
segments:
From To Length Cost
SH 289 Coit Road 2.720 Mile $10,453,333
Coit Road FM 2478 2.235 Mile $8,589,412
FM 2478 US 75 5.245 Mile $20,157,255
-- Total $39,200,000
II. SH 121 (SPUR 553) LEWISVILLE BYPASS (STAGE I)
A. Section
North of Denton Creek to Denton TaD Road
(3-lane frontage roads)
(CSJ 3547-03-002 & 3547-02-003)
This project let on 07-10-96 and J.D. Abrams was
the low bidder at $14,581,681.91. The Commission
awarded the contract at their July 1996 meeting.
Construction began on 11-7-96. This project was
opened to traffic on 10-09-98.
B. Section
Denton Tap Road to Lake Vista (3-lane
frontage roads)
Completed -- 1988
Section ~:
Lake Vista to IH
roads)
(CSJ 3547-01-002)
356 (3-lane
frontage
Opened to traffic on June 1, 1996.
Section 12:
IH 35E to Existing SH 121 Near FM 544
(3-lane frontage roads, freeway
constructed where frontage roads are not
proDosed)
(CSJ 3547-01-004)
This project let on 01-09-96 and Brown & Root,
Inc. was the low bidder with a bid of
$45,502,101.11. The Commission awarded the con-
tract at their 01-25-96 meeting and construction
began on 04-29-96.
Construction is 73% complete and the anticipated
completion date is April 1999.
Noise walls are proposed on the north side of SH
121 between Huffines and Hebron. The noise walls
will be constructed as a separate project to be
let today.
III. SH 121 FREEWAY IMPROVEMENTS (STAGE II)
A. Section
Tarrant County Line to North of
Creek (conversion to freeway)
(CSJ 0364-02-017 & 0364-03-064)
Denton
This project is currently listed as a Long Range
Project (LRP).
Candidate for Category 3A -- National Highway
System Mobility.
Estimated Construction Costs:
CSJ County From TO Cost
0364-02-017 Dallas Tarrant CL Denton CL $16,000,000
0364-03-064 Denton Dallas CL Denton Crk $ 3,000,000
Total $19,000,000
TxDOT had a completed schematic (not approved).
Property owners requested revisions to the sche-
matic at some of the grade separations which TxDOT
agreed to. The City of Grapevine (withlCon~iur~
rence frOm the City of Coppell) h~Srequ~i~ed
changes to the schematic to better handle itr~fifi~
at GraPevine Mills Mall which Tx/DoT agreedi!t0~
This section currently is not a high priority with
TxDOT because of its low ranking.
3
B. Section 14:
Existing SH 121 Near Denton Creek to
Existing SH 121 Near FM 544 (Lewisville
ByDass)(Mainlanes)
(CSJ 3547-03-003, 3547-02-004, &
3547-01-005)
LRP status for this project has been received.
Candidate for Category 3A -- National Highway
System Mobility.
3. Estimated Construction Costs:
CSJ County From To Cost
3547-03-003 Denton SH 121 Dallas CL $ 5,500,000
3547-02-004 Dallas Denton CL Denton CL $12,600,000
3547-01-005 Denton Dallas CL FM, 544 $73,500,000
Total $91,600,000
C. Section 15:
FM 544 to US 75
(Mainlanes)
(CSJ 0364-04-023, 0364-04-024,
0364-03-066, & 0364-03-067)
The selections for NHS Mobility, Category 3A, iin
the 1999 UTP, as approved by the Commissioni onii09-
24-98, include CSJi 036!4-03-066, CSJ 0364-03-0671
and CSJ 0364-04-023 underl Priority 2 status~ CSJ
0364-04-024 still has LRP status. TxDOT estimates
that construction plans can be complete 24 months
after Priority 2 status is received.
Schematic revisions were recently submitted to
Austin for approval. The Ohio Drive crossing was
realigned to be perpendicular to SH 121. The
Independence Parkway crossing was realigned to
follow existing property lines. Also changes were
made to the southeast quadrant of the SH
121/Dallas North Tollway interchange to lessen the
right-of-way needs. AUSi~ and FHwA a~Pro~ed
these reviSions
4
DALLAS DISTRICT
FISCAL YEAR 1999
FISCAL YE~ t999 2000 2001 2002
Interstate Construction (Category 1) 0 0 0 0
Interstate Maintenance (Category 2) 12,230,000 18,980,000 16,376,000 16,800,000
NHS Mobility (Category 3A) 133,115,600 37,729,000 10,270,000 43,204,000
NHS Texas Trunk System (Category 3B) 9,000,000 26,000,000 25,400,000 0
NHS Rehabilitation (Category 3C) 2,200,000 1,220,000 1,400,000 5,200,000
NHS Traffic Mgmt. Sys. (Category 3D) 0 0 0 0
NHS Miscellaneous (Category 3E) 257,500 0 0 0
STP Safety (Category 4A) 6,307,600 4,146,700 3,466,500 3,466,500
STP Trans. Enhance. (Category 4B) 5,276,050 7,204~883 0 0
STP MM (Category 4C) 44,463,454 44,463,454 44,463,454 44,463,454
STP UM (Category 4D) 9,800,000 0 10,000,000 7,000,000
STP RM (Category 4E) 3,700,000 2,410,000 6,000,000 1,200,000
STP Rehab. (Category 4F) 5,890,000 7,150,000 7,030,000 9,370,000
STP RR Grade Separations (Category 4G) 0 3,800,000 9,900,000 0
CMAO (Category 5] 38,456,375 38,456,375 33,456,375 33,456,375
On System Bridges (Category 6A) 7,567,372 12,956,015 43,911,373 12,063,350
Off System Bridges (Category 6B) 9,630,885 201,340 11,595,000 1,020,000
State Preventive Maintenance (Category 7) 11,117,714 10,225,000 10,225,000 10,225,000
State FM/RM Rehabilitation (Category 8A) 1,668,735 1,719,000 1,719,000 1,719,000
?M System Expansion (Category 8B) 1,182,425 0 5,536,884 0
State Park Roads (Category 9) 0 0 0 0
Traffic Control Devices (10A) 1,530,659 1,488,000 1,488,000 1,488,000
Rehab. of Traffic Mgxnt. Sys. (Category 10B) 550,000 I 400,000 400,000 400,000
State Funded Discretionary (Category 11) 2,000,000 5,501,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Strategic Priority (Category 12) 2,265,706 79,800,000 13,500,000 45,062,000
State Mobility (Category 13A) 0 0 0 0
Hurricane Evacuation Routes (Category 13B) 0 0 0 0
NAFTA Discretionary (Category 13C) 0 0 0 0
Urban Street Program (Category 13D) 2,484,820 2,484,820 2,484,820 2,484,820
State Funded Rehabilitation (Category 14) 5,908,385 6,712,000 6,712,000 6,712,000
Federal Demonstration Projects (Category 15) 41,501,000 0 I 6,406,000 0
Miscellaneous - Federal (Category 16) 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous - State (Category 16) 1,969,000 690,200 690,200 690,200
PASS Projects (Category 17) 8,902,741 8,000,000 0 0
koan to NTTA 40,000,000 20,000,000 0 0
TOTAL 408;9~6i02I 34!~737i78~ 2~8i024,699
ILl
Z
~oooo
oo .e
'exas Department of Transportation
1999
UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
EXI-HBIT A
1999 UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 significantly restructured
the availability of funds for transportation projects. The Transportation Equity Act of the 21st
Centm~ (TEA21) was passed by Congress on signed by the President on June 9, 1998 and carries
forward many of the programs established in ISTEA. It specifies the systems on which certain
funds can be used, expands the kinds of activities for which funds can be used and continues the
role of the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) in the planning and programming of
projects. TEA 21 requires each designated IMPO to develop a Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP), and the state to develop a Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (ST1P)
as a condition to securing federal funds for transportation projects. The 1999 ~
~ COTP) is the first UTP developed under the TEA 21 authorization bill.
The Texas Depaximent of Transportation (TxDOT) will continue its study of TEA 21 and adapt its
programs as the details continue to unfold.
The Texas Transportation Commission (commission) and TxDOT use the LrrP as TxDOT's ten
year plan for transportation project development. By updating the UTP annually, the commi.qsion
and TxDOT are able to customize the IJTP as many of the TEA 21 programs become better
defined. Annual updating also enables the UTP to serve as an integral part of the planning
process required by TEA 21.
TEA 21 requires each TIP to have a financial plan which addresses all federally funded projects
inside the IVlPO's area of responsibility. Projects listed in the STIP are the only projects which
will be approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit
Admini.qtration (FTA) to utilize federal funds. The STIP, the three year financial plan, and the
UTP are the backbone for developing projects for the intermodal transportation network in Texas.
Categories have been established in the UTP to reflect the various systems outlined by TEA 21
such as the National Highway System (NHS), and the Surface Transportation Program (STP) for
metropolitan, urban and rural areas. Most of the Texas Trunk System, as established by the
commi.qsion, qualifies for N-HS funds. Categories such as NHS are selected on a statewide basis
after evaluations and rankings.
Categories have also been established for thc various activities that reflect the intended use of
specified funds (such as safety, rehabilitation, preventive maintenance, Farm to Market Roads,
bridges, etc.) Each of these various activities utili:~ different criteria to determine projects. The
criteria attempts to highlight the projects that will best use that funding. For instance, mobility_
projects use cost, traffic volume, roadway capacity and other factors to evaluate whether a
particular proposed improvement is cost effective as a mobility improvement. (Most mobility
projects are part of NHS or STP.)
projects are evaluated using factors such as accident rate, traffic volume, cost, proposed
improvement accident reduction factors, and others.
Rehabilitation funds are distributed to districts using factors such as pavement condition, traffic
volume, track volume, and others.
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Ouality Improvement (CMAQ) category addresses congestion
mitigation and air quality improvement in non-attainment areas of the state. Fuads are distributed
to those non-attainment areas based on their population and the severity of air quality non-
attainment.
The commission authorizes projects in the UTP in several different ways. One way is for the
commission to authorize individual projects for inclusion in certain categories of work, and on an
annual basis, review and re-authorize projects as appropriate. These projects are usually ~
and bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects which typically take a significant length of !time
to develop. This is particularly true of expanded or added capacity, and new location projects.
These types of projects often require feasibility studies, route studies, public hearings,
environmental assessments, assessments of social and economic ~mpaet, and the purchase of right-
of-way.
Levels of authority have been estabhshed for mobility_ projects to allow timely project progression
through the various stages of project development. NHS mobility projects are evalua~l statewide
in comparison to other similar NHS mobility projects, based on cost effectiveness ranking and
availability of funds. Levels of authorization are assigned based on the project's stage of
development.
~ is authority for the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates (PS&Es),
and right-of-way acquisition. During Priority 2, project plato should be substantially
complete (geometric, structural, hydraulic, and pavement design approved by TxDOT's
Design Division) and a substantial mount of the required right-of-way acquired. Districts
should establish a proposed fiscal year for construction conU'aet award.
Priori _ty 1 is the authority for completion of PS&Es, utility adjusmaents and construction
(projects let to contract). Generally, Priority 1 projects are the highest and best ranked
projects that have letting dates w/thin the next four fiscal years. Projects should be
assigned letting dates only in Priority 1. Districts should have completed 75 percent of the
design work and right-of-way acquisition before moving from Priority 2 to Priority 1. The
mount of projects in Priority 1 is conah ained to four years of anticipated available
apportionments. The most recent year of Priority 1 (1999) is the current year letting list.
Another way the commission authorizes projects for some of the categories in the UTP is when
the commission authorizes program mounts (usually once a year) for activities which reflect the
commission's intentions to address a specific activity such as rehabilitation or preventive
maintenance. The program mounts for a particular program may be allocated to the districts by a
formula (with the formula also approved by the commission), with eligible projects developed by
the districts on an as-needed basis within their allocation. For other programs such as safety or
railroad signals, the program amounts are distributed on a statewide basis by the TxDOT division
office responsible for the administration of that program after the division office has evaluated,
ranked, prioritized and selected projects for the program.
The dollar amounts approved by the commission for the programs are generally based on
anticipated apportionments that will become available in the future. Projects in programs are
authorized for development so that they will be available for construction when the
apportionments are established an~nally.
Many of the programs are managed by TxDOT as ]0~flU0.alaIlc~. Projects developed as part of a
bank balance program can be selected for development, developed and let to contract with each
project's cost debited to the bank balance of funds available for that program. Most of the bank
balance programs consists of minor type projects directed towards preserving the current system
and safety. The bank balance way of developing projects for programs allows TxDOT (both the
districts and divisions) the flexibility to respond to modifications requested by the MPO and others
without going back to the comminsion for every project change or cancellation as long as the bank
balaace for that program is not exceeded.
A summary and discussion of each category of the UTP follows. The discussion includes the
description, restrictions, allocation to di~uicts, and policy for each category.
W~d~esday. Sept~ 09. 1998 1999 UHIF1ED TRA~(S~ORTATION
14:07:32 . .EGORY 3A - NATIONAL HI(~(AY SYSTE)~ - NO6ILITY
DISI~RICT HO~*~,S C~NTY ~' NO CONT-SEC-.X~
DALCAS COLLIN S~ 121 0364-04-023
LIMITS FROH: S~ 289
EXIST. FACILI1Y: 40~ 1~3P. FACILII'~: 4FR
OTHER P~RTICIPATION
LEVEL OIHER CATEGORIES OTHER CAT FUNDS
LENGTH SOLED OF CATEGORY 3A FUNDS
MILES OATE AUIHO~ITY EST ROW COST EST CONST 07ST
2.2 2
TO: DENTON C/L
DALCAS COLLIN US 75 0047L06-112 2.5 2
LIHITS FR~H: 0.3 mQ4 S. OF PARJ( BLVD.
EXIST. FACILITY: 6*F PROP. FACILITY: 8*F
TO: SPI~ING CREEK pA,~tAY
PR~. OF. SCR.: WIDEN FRet1 6 TO 8 LAN~S
$0
$0
$0
$0
56.656.163
· $0
$0
$2. SOO. 000
$2.500.000
DALLAS ~,- COD_IN SH 121 0364-04-022 10.3 2 $0
50
$39.200. 000
$31.500. 000 $39,200.000
LIHITS FROH: .US 75 )iD: SH 289
EXIST. FACILITY: 20~ PROP. FACILITY: 6DR
DALlieS DALLAS IH 30
LIMITS FR(3~: TAR~NT CD LINE
EXIST. FACILITY: 6*F ~. FACILITY:
I~OJ. DESC~.: WIDEN ~TRS. (30t4STRIJCT 4 LANE OtVIDEO RUR~ SECTIOI (PH&SE I)
1068-04-0~2 7.1 2 $0
$0
573.000.000
$600.000 s73.000,000
TO: LOOP 12
PNOJ. DESCR.: ~N 6 lO 10 LA~ES AND ADO INI~RCHA~GES. NOISE WALt
DALLAS OALLAS SH 161 2964-01-024 0.5 2
LIMITS FRDH: IH 30
EXIST. FACILITY: 0
LIHIIS FR~: ~T US 75-IH 625 I/C
EXIST. FACILITY: 6*F I~tO~. FACILITY: IO*F
50
$0
$0
$49.000.000
~49.000. 000
S2.400.000
LIMITS FROI4: LP 12 TI): IH :)SE
EXIST. FACILITY: 6'1: PeO~. FACILITY: 8*f I~OJ. OES(~.: WIDEN 6 lO B LANES AND ADO INTERO~k~GES. NOISE WALL
DALLAS OALCAS IH 635 2374-01-109 2.0 2
DAL~ SM 161 2964-01-010 4.1 2 $0
$0
$121.000.000
515. 000. 000 5121. 000.000
TO: SH 183
OALLAS IH 635 2374-01*107 2.0 2 $0
$0
$41.312.000
$0 $41.312.000
I~)J. [~cSCR.: REODUSll~UCT US 75-1H 635 I~ROJANGE WIll4 HDV CONNECTI(]~IS
DALLAS IH 30 10~-04-083 7.3 2 $0
$110.608.963
$t10.608.963
LIMITS FROH: AT US 7S-IH 635 I/C
EXIST. FACILITY: 6~ PROP. FACILITY: IO*F
$0
~OJ. DESCR.: RECOUST US 75-[H 635 INllERC~ANGE WI~ HDV 03~4NECTIONS
$0
S0
$14.691.000
Wednesday. Sept~be 09. E998 1999 UNIFIEO 11~AUSP(~TATION PROGRAq PAGE: 13
14:07:32 CA1[GORY 3A - NAT[0KRL HIGHdAY SYST6M - M~6IL[TY 309.BOOK
$40.364. 000
S40.364. 000
Pl~OJ. DESCR.: RECDt(ST US 7S-IH 63S Ih~fl~RC~fAN~ W!~H H0V ~CTIONS .
LIMITS FRDH: AT US 75.1)i 635 l/C
EXIST. FACILI1Y: 6*F P~. FACILITY: IO*F
DALt,~S DALLAS IH 20
LIHITS FROM: IH 20 AT LAKERIOGE PLANT (80ROll{Y) EXIT TO: .
EXIST. FACILITV: 6'0 PROP. FACILITY: 6'0 PROJ. DESCR.: CONSII~ 6 ~ DIV DE, BAN ~ SEPA~ATIO~
DALLAS OALLAS SH 161 Z964-01-009 3.7 2
$50.
S0
$0
$6.100.349
$6.100,349
Su
S0
$30.000.000
$6,200.000 S30.O00.O00
LI~iITS FROH: SP 303
EXIST. FACILII¥: 0
P~OP. FACILIIY: 4FR
TO: IH 30
DESER.: O0~b-IlUJCT 8 LANE FREB4AY Will{ 6 L.A~E FRONTAGE EOADS SECTIONS
2.0 2 ~u
$0
$17.000.000
DALLAS DAli, S SI( 161 2964-01-004
LIHI15 FR{IH: IH 20 TO: SP 303
EXIST. FACILITY: 0 PROP. FACILII¥: 4FR PROJ. DESCR.: CONSII~UCT 8 LA~E FRED4AY WI'lit 6 LANE FRO&'TADE ROAD
LI)tlTS FRO~: IH 35. EAST TO: US 77
EXIST FACILITY: 4'0 PRO(>. FACILITY: 6'0 PROJ. DESCR.: WIDEN TO 6 LANE OIVIOED URBAN
DALLAS DENTO~ SH 121 0364-03-067 3.3 2
LIHITS FROH: 'COLLIN C/L I0: FH 423
EXIST. FACILITY: 4,0 PRflP. FACILITY: 6FR pRoJ. DESCR.: ADO 4 LH Flay TO PROP 4 LN FRTG RDS
~ALLAS O~NTO~ SH 114 0353-02-029 7.5 2
LIHITS FROH: WISE C/L TO: IH 35W
EXIST. FACILITY: 2Ql PRDP. FACILITY: 40R PgOJ. DESQt.: WIDEN TO 4 LA~E DIVIDED
DALL~ D6NllON SH 121 0364-03-066 1.7 2
LIHITS FROH: FH 544 TO: FH 423
EXIST FACILITY: 4,0 PROP. FACILITY: 6FR pt~oj. DESCR.: ADO 4 LN FRI~Y TO PROP 4 LN FRI]NTAGE RD
DALLAS DENTON US 380 0135-10-023 2.5 2
$2.250.000
LIHITS FROH: LP 208 TO: US 77 IN DENTON
EXIST. FACILITY: 2CR PROP. FACILITY: 6'0 PRDJ DESCR: C{]~P3TRUCT 6 LA~E DIVIDED URBA~
$0
S0
S3.800.000
S3.800.000
$0
$0
$11.832.535/L----r
$o s11.832. 535 l~. J
S2. SO0.000
$0
$0
$24.000.000
$24.000,000
S5.209. 593
S5.209,593
$0
$0
$10.400.000
$1.000.000 $10,400.000