The URL can be used to link to this page

ST9904-PS 970616 SH 114 and SH 121 Major Investment Study Technical Committee Meeting City of Grapevine City Hall 200 South Main Street Conference Room A Monday June 16, 1997 Itinerary 1. Introductions 11. Handouts A. Technical Committee list ....................................................................................... TxDOT B. MIS process checklist ............................................................................................ TxDOT C. MIS process handout .......................................................................................... NCTCOG D. Demographics ................................................................................................... NCTCOG E. Select link analysis ............................................................................................ NCTCOG F. Validation results ............................................................................................... NCTCOG G. Modeling schedule ............................................................................................. NCTCOG III, Overview of events to come A. NEPA option 1 or 2 ................................................................................................ TxDOT B. Definition of problem statement ............................................................................ TxDOT C. Preparation of MIS critical path (timeline) ............................................................ TxDOT D. Focus Groups ......................................................................................................... TxDOT E. lnterlocal Agreements ........................................................................................ NCTCOG F. Select link analysis ............................................................................................. NCTCOG G Demographics .................................................................................................... NCTCOG IV. Organization of Technical Committee A. Focus Groups? ................................................................ Technical Committee Discussion B. Steering Committees? ................................................... Technical Committee Discussion IV Next Meeting A. When? ........................................................................... Technical Comminee Discussion B. Itinerary? ....................................................................... Technical CommiRee Discussion SH 114 Technical Committee Members: June 5, 1997 Mr. Don Williams Transportation Planner Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport P. O. Drawer 619428 DFW Airport, Texas 75261-9428 Phone Number; (972) 574-8171 Fax Number; (972) 574-0662 E-mail Address; Mr. Jerry Hodge Director of Public Works City of Grapevine P.O. Box 95104 Grapevine, Texas 76099 Phone Number; (817) 481-0372 Fax Number; (817) 481-0369 E-mail Address; Mr. Bob Price Senior Civil Engineer, Projects City of Grapevine P.O. Box 95104 Grapevine, Texas 76099 Phone Number; (817) 251-5153 Fax Number; (817) 481-0369 E-mail Address; Mr. Bob Whitehead Director of Public Works City of Southlake 667 North Caroll Avenue Southlake, Texas 76092 Phone Number; (817) 481-5581 ext 740 Fax Number; (817) 488-5097 E-mail Address; Page 1 of 5 SH 114 Technical Committee Me, mbers: Mr. Robert Jenkins, P.E. Principal Associate Barton-Aschman, Inc. 2630 West Freeway Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Phone Number; (817)877-5803 Fax Number; (817) 877-3214 E-mail Address; Robert_Jenkins~parmobil.ccmail.compuserve.com Mr. John Mack. P.E. Urban Program Engineer FHWA 826 Federal Building, 300 E. 8 th. Austin, Texas 78701 Phone Number; (512) 916-5988 Fax Number; (512) 916-5881 E-mail Address; Mr. Ron Carriker, P.E. Area Engineer FHWA 826 Federal Building, 300 E. 8 th. Austin, Texas 78701 Phone Number; (512) 916-5988 Fax Number; (512) 916-5881 E-mail Address; Mr. Gustavo Baez Transportation Planner II North Central Texas Council of Governments P.O. Box 5888 Arlington, Texas 76005-5888 Phone Number; (817) 695-9282 Fax Number; (817) 640-3028 E-mail Address; gbaez~nctcog.dst.tx.us Page 2 of 5 SH 114 Technical Committee Members: Mr. Dan Lamers, P.E. Principal Transportation Engineer North Central Texas Council of Governments P.O. Box 5888 Arlington, Texas 76005-5888 Phone Number; (817) 695-9263 Fax Number; (817) 640-3028 E-mail Address; dlamers~nctcog.dst.tx.us Mr. Joe Atwood, P.E. Planning Engineer Texas Department of Transportation, Fort Worth (TxDOT-FTW) P.O. Box 6868 Fort Worth, Texas 76115-0868 Phone Number, (817) 370-6614 Fax Number, (817) 370-6759 E-mail Address; jatwood~mailgw.dot.state.tx.us Mr. Steve Gilbmath, P.E. Director of Capitol Projects Town of Flower Mound 2121 Cross Timbers Flower Mound, Texas 75028 Phone Number; (214) 539-6006 Fax Number; (214) 539-3392 E-mail Address; Mr. Jim Foster, P.E. Director of Public Services City of Colleyville 5400 Bransford Rd. Colleyville, TX 76034 Phone Number (817) 577-7587, ext. 228 Fax Number (817) 577-7562 E-mail Address; jbf~flash.net Page 3 of 5 SH 114 Technical Committee Members: Mr. Paul Kruckemeyer, P.E. City Engineer City of Euless 201 N. Ector Drive Euless, Texas 76039 Phone Number (817) 685-1629 Fax Number (817) 685- Mr. Michael Barnes Director of Public Works City of Keller P.O~ Box 770 Keller, Tx. 76244 Phone Number (817) 431-1055 Fax Number (817) 431-2051 E-mail Address; kellerpw~gte.net Mr. Lyle Dresher, City Manager Director of Public Works City of Keller P.O. Box 770 Keller, Tx. 76244 Phone Number (817) 431-1055 Fax Number (817) 431-2051 E-mail Address Mr. Tom Dingier City Engineer City of Lewisville 1197W. Main at Civic Circle P.O. Box 299002 Lewisville, Texas 75029-9002 Phone Number; (214) 219-3491 Fax Number; (214) 219-3487 Page 4 of 5 SH 114 Technical Committee Me, mbers: Mr. Jim Driscoll Assistant Director Traffic and Transportation City of Irving P.O. Box 152288 Irving, Texas 75015 Phone Number; (214) 721-2646 Fax Number; (214) 721- Mr Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E. Director of Engineering and Public Works City of Coppell P.O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 Phone Number; (972) 304-3679 Fax Number; (214) Kyle Keahey Senior Environmental Planner System Planning Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) P.O. Box #660163 1401 Pacific Avenue Dallas, Texas 75266-7214 Phone Number: (214)-749-2828 Fax Number: (214)-749-3670 Dan Rocha Principal Transportation Planner NCTCOG P.O. Box 5888 Arlington, Texas 76005-5888 Phone Number: (817) 695-9265 Fax Number: (817) 640-3028 e-mail: drocha~nctcog.dst.tx.us Page 5 of 5 Major Investment Study Lead Agency Checklist DRAFT April 26, 1995 1. Initiate Major Investment Study V Letter from requesting agency to NCTCOG ~ NCTCOG transmits MIS requirements, procedures, and options to requesting agency 2. Initial Coordination Meeting - Local Transportation Agencies V' Invitation list - transportation representatives: NCTCOG TxDOT (District, RPO) T'FA DART FWTA Affected Cities Affected Counties V/ General MIS definitions, requirements, procedures V/Regional Transportation Plan recommendation in corridor v/Summary of results from other studies __MIS procedure to be followed in this corridor Option 1 - Consecutive MIS/NEPA Option 2 - Concurrent MIS/FA __ Option 3 - Concurrent MIS/DEIS __MIS schedule V/ Proposed MIS public involvement approach Mailing list Review committees, focus groups Public input meetings Newsletters 3 Initial Coordination Meeting - Local Non-Transportation Agencies V" Invitation list - non-transportation representatives NCTCOG Affected Cities Affected counties Local offices of federal and State resource agencies Major business or community groups V/General MIS definitions, requirements, procedures t/' Regional Transportation Plan recommendation in comdor V' Summary of results from other studies MIS procedure to be followed in this corridor- Milestone 1 __ Option I - Consecutive MIS/NEPA Option 2 - Concurrent MIS/FA __ Option 3 - Concurrent MIS/DEIS MIS schedule Proposed MIS public involvement approach 4 Initial Public Input/Scoping Meeting ¥/Initial Public Input Meeting - Options 1 & 2 Scoping Meeting - Option 3 ~ Invitation to general public, affected agencies vz General MIS definitions, requirements, procedures V/ Regional Transportation Plan recommendation in corridor I/ Summary of results from other studies MIS procedure to be followed in this corddor MIS schedule Proposed MIS public involvement approach Nailing list Review committees, focus groups Public input meetings Newsletters 5. Coordination Meeting - Federal, State, Local 'Transportstior) Agencies ~/ Invitation list - transportation representat;,ves: FHWA FTA FRA Texas Bicycle Coalition NCTCOG TxDOT (District, RPO) TTA DART FVVTA Affected Cities Affected Counties Concurrence with MIS/NEPA option recommended (Milestone 3) Intedocal Agreement outlining roles and responsibilities of all active p~rticipants (Milestone 2) Discuss range and scope of concepts/alternatives (mode and alignments) Proposed MIS public involvement approach Mailing list Review committees, focus groups Public input meetings Newsletters 6. Coordination Meeting - Federal, State, Local Non-Transportation Agencies Invitation List - Non-Transportation Representatives: EPA TNRCC HUD USFW USACE Nation Trust for Historic Preservation Office of Histodc Preservation (State of Texas) TPW Other Federal/State Resource agencies NCTCOG Affected Cities Affected Counties Concurrence with MIS/NEPA option recommended (Milestone 3) __Discuss range and scope of concepts/alternatives (mode and alignments) __Proposed MIS public involvement approach Mailing list Review committees, focus groups Public input meetings Newsletters 7~ Development and Evaluation of Concepts/Alternatives Include results of Regional Transportation Plan (Mobility 2010) as one altemative Review other previous studies for additional concepts/alternatives __Public outreach to identify other reasonable concepts/alternatives __Document range and scope of conceptslaltematives: 1990 model validation __ 2010 (or appropriate forecast year) baseline (Mobility 2010 with do nothing in corridor) __ 2010 baseline + regional CMS 2010 baseline + regional CMS + sensitivity analysis on proposed parallel tollroads 2010 baseline + regional CMS + corddor CMS strategies only __ 2010 baseline + regional CMS + other reasonable concepts/alternatives Including recommendation in Mobility 2010 Develop evaluation cdteda and process Consistency with Regional 'l'ransportation PtanlCongestion Management System Additional locally defined criteda Recommend Locally Preferred Alternative Cost/Revenue analysis Evaluate for consistency with Regior, at Transportal$on P~ar'JCongestion Management System 8. Prepare Draft MIS MIS only (Option 1) MIS/EA (Option 2) MIS/DEIS (Option 3) Endorsement of recommendations by affected local agencies Cities Counties __ Transportation Authorities Public Hearing (Options 2 & 3 only) 9. RTC Concurrence (Milestone 5) Draft MIS to RTC Resolution endorsing recommendations Determine Impacts on Regional Transportation Plan Scope of recommendations Financial constraints Modify Regional Transportation Plan if necessary Scope of recommendations Financial constraints Determine Impacts of Regional Congestion Managemenl System Modify CMS if necessary 10.Funding Agency Concurrence Draft MIS to funding agency Resolution endorsing recommendations 1 1.Inclusion in TIP - Engineering Only Request from funding agency to include in TIP for engineering only s~rc action on TIP modification GARC action on TIP modification __RTC action on TIP modification Request STIP modification 12.Prepare Final NEPA Documents NEPA process - EA or DEIS/FEIS (Option 1) FEA (Option 2) __FEIS (Option 3) Public Hearing on final document __Submit to appropriate federal agency __Receive ROD/FONSI 13.Inclusion in TIP for ROW and Construction Request from funding agency sTrc action on TIP modification RTC action on TIP modification Request STIP rnoditication Let contracts Employment for Cities in the Corridor CITY 1995 2010 DIFF (%) Colleyville 2,700 5,850 116.67% Coppell 6,800 14,850 118.38% Euless 11,950 17,770 48.70% Flower Mound 3,450 9,200 166.67% Srapevine 24,950 43,100 72.75% Irving 122,350 164,600 34.53% Keller 1,300 4,650 257.69% Lewisville 16,250 21,150 30.15% Southlake 3,800 9,600 152.63% TOTALS 193,550 290,770 50.23% Source: NCTCOG, October 1996 C:\PRO JECTS~MIS_II4~QUATRO~DEMOGRA.WB 1 Employment for Cities in the Corridor CITY 1995 2020 DIFF (%) Colleyville 2,700 8,400 211.11% Coppell 6,800 19,500 186.76% Euless 11,950 21,850 82.85% :lower Mound 3,450 13,050 278.26% Grapevine 24,950 55,700 123.25% Irving 122,350 192,350 57.21 % Keller 1,300 7,400 469.23% Lewisville 16,250 28,100 72.92% Southlake 3,800 15,350 303.95% TOTALS 193,550 361,700 86.88% Source: NCTCOG, October 1996 C:'~PROJECTS'~MIS_I 14\QUATRO~DEMOGRA,WB1 Population for Cities in the Corridor CITY 1995 2010 DIFF (%) Colleyville 16,000 32,350 102.2% Coppell 23,800 38,450 61.6% Euless 39,750 47,650 19.9% Flower Mound 28,550 51,200 79.3% Grapevine 33,050 44,950 36.0% Irving 165,950 200,150 20.6% Keller 17,800 30,750 72.8% Lewisville 52,800 81,750 54.8% Southlake 12,750 26,350 106.7% TOTALS 390,450 553,600 41.8% Source: NCTCOG, October 1996 C:\PROJECTS\MIS_'I 14\QUATRO\DEMOGRA.WBI Population for Cities in the Corridor CITY 1995 2020 DIFF(%) Colteyville 16,000 40,200 151.3% Coppell 23,800 48,400 103.4% Euless 39,750 48,650 22.4% Flower Mound 28,550 68,900 141.3% Grapevine 33,050 48,750 47.5% Irving 165,950 216,200 30.3% Keller 17,800 39,850 123.9% Lewisville 52,800 97,950 85.5% Southlake 12,750 35,450 178.0% TOTALS 390,450 644,350 65.03% Source: NCTCOG, October 1996 C:~PROJECTS~MIS_I 14\QUATRO\DEMOGRA.WBI o 0 · · · · · z~o · · · · · · · · · · LLI TRANSPORTATION MODELING SCHEDULE S.H. 114/S.H. 121 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY h,lq'l TASK START END COMMENTS DATE DATE PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS Selected link analysis Jan 97 Identify traveler-desired route ALL-or-Nothing assignment Interchange of HBW trips between districts Identify subarea corridor Definition of the subarea corridor 1995 VALIDATION DEMOGRAPHICS Review TSZ size & demographics Split TSZ based on total activity Develop zone structure NETWORKS Obtain comments from cities and decision Review networks makers Review approach links 4-STEP PROCESS Trip generation Check special generators Trip distribution Review average trip length Mode choice or MS-MOVE Traffic assignment POST PROCESSING/EVALUATION Validation Testing June 97 Compare traffic counts vs. forecasted volumes. Develop district structure for evaluation. 2020 FORECASTS FUTURE FORECASTS ALL-or-Nothing alternative Alternative to test traveler-desired routes Alternative to test 2020 volumes on 1995 Do-Nothing alternative network Baseline Alternative To be defined during the study CMS Alternative Aggressive CMS implementation Roadway Alternative (s) New alignment(s), etc Transit Alternative Concur with DART, MOB2020, etc. Tollroad Alternative Concur with TTA, MOB2020, etc, LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Source: NCTCOG C:\PROJ EOTS\MIS_114\WORDS\SCHEDU LE,DOC S.H. 1211S.H. 114 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY ~1~/~ DRAFT MOBILITY 2020 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS* Travel Demand Management Regional Employer Trip Reduction Continue annual operation of existing program as a public/private cooperative effort Voluntary program targets region's large employers - Focus inside and outside transit service areas - Demonstrate effectiveness of program to meet goal of reduced single occupant vehicle travel Vanpools - Program implementation through public agencies, public/private TMAs, and private sector employers Program targets long work commute trips Public subsidy, directed to vanpool rider, targets 1 to 2-year start-up costs Park-N-Ride Lots - Candidate future sites: Grapevine Shopping Area, Vista Ridge Mall, SH 114 at Kirkwood - Locate and design facilities that are conducive to bus transit, vanpools and carpools Transportation Management Associations - Candidate future sites: SH 114 n/o SH 183, DFW International Airport, SH 114 at Kirkwood Public funding targets 1 to 2-year start-up costs * Exclusive of Mobility 2020 freeway and rail/bus system recommendations S.H. 121/S.H. 1'14 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY MOBILITY 2020 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS* Trans ortation S stems Mana ement Intersection Improvements - Programmed projects included in TIP - Future projects include: installation of traffic control devices, traffic channelization, grade separations and addition of turning lanes - Future project locations to be considered through Major Investment Studies Signalization Improvements Programmed projects included in TIP Future projects include: signal optimization, signal upgrades, and system interconnection Future project locations to be considered through Major Investment Studies Freeway Bottleneck Removal - Future project locations to be considered through Major Investment Studies Other TSM and TDM Considerations Special Events Management Freeway Bottleneck Removal * Exclusive of Mobility 2020 freeway and rail/bus system recommendations S.H. 1211S.H. 114 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY MOBILITY 2020 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS* Advanced Transportation Management Advanced Traveler Information System Integration of information system across jurisdictional lines (seamless system) Real-time information on traffic conditions and travel opportunities Varied communication technologies linked to transportation management centers Cellular phone-based traffic incident detection Pre-trip and en-route travel information Integration of personal, public and freight transportation systems and services Advanced Traffic Management System Integration of freeway and arterial system management across jurisdictional lines Courtesy Patrols (minor incident management) Major incident clearance and traffic management Coordinated incident clearance plans and procedures - Incident responsive traffic signal timing plans/freeway closure diversions - Targeted facilities include: SH 121, SH 114, SH 360, IH 635, IH 35E, SH 161/190, SH 183, all new limited access highways, strategic arterials * Exclusive of Mobility 2020 freeway and rail/bus system recommendations 3 S.H. 1211S.H. 114 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY MOBILITY 2020 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS* Advanced Transportation Management, Continued Advanced Public Transportation System - Enhanced safety systems - Personalized public transportation (demand responsive and flexible routing) Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities On-Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Refer to NCTCOG's Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning and Design Guidelines Off-Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Recommended Facilities: Cottonbelt, serves as the spine through north Tarrant and Dallas Counties (37 miles); Big Bear Creek, links the mid-cities in northeast Tarrant County Bicycle Transportation Districts Southlake/Grapevine, Lewisville/Flower Mound: Candidate Areas for Future Implementation/Study and Development Assistance * Exclusive of Mobility 2020 freeway and rail/bus system recommendations 4 S.H. 'I211S.H. 114 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY MOBILITY 2020 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS* Hih Occu anc Vehicle S stem 1 Lane, Reversible HOV S.H. 114 from S.H. 121 to S.H. 161 2 Lane, Reversible HOV/Off-Peak Express Lanes I.H. 35E from F.M. 2181 to I.H. 635 ,~e_qional Arterial System (See Thoroughfares section of Mobility 2020) Other~,,Mobility 2020 Plan,,,,,Recommendations IntermodallFreight North American Free Trade Agreement Air Carrier Airport Access Alternative Fuels Federal and State Legislative Mandates Transit & Public Sector Alternatives Fuels Programs Clean Cities Program for Alternative Fuels Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program Transportation Enhancements * Exclusive of Mobility 2020 freeway and rail/bus system recommendations 5 A Cooperative Approach for the Dallas-Fort Worth Area CentraI Texas Council of Governments of Transportation 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 223 members, including 16 counties, 158 cities, 25 independent school districts and 24 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 4.2 million, which is larger than 30 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 an 11-member Executive Board (9 local elected officials and 2 regional citizens). The Executive Board is supported by policy development, technical advisory, and study committees, as well as a professional staff of approximately 100. 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 U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. "The contents of this report reflect th~ 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." NCTCOG Executive Board 1995-96 President Jewel Woods Ceuncilmember, Fort Worth Vice President Jim Jackson Commissioner, Dallas County Secretary-Treasurer Elzie edom Councilmember, Arlington Past President Gary Slagel Mayor, Richardson Director Donna Halstead Councilmember, Dallas Director Tom Vandergrlff County Judge, Tarrant County Director Ron Harmon Commissioner, Johnson County Director Jack Miller Councilmember, Denton Director Ron Harris County Judge, Collin County Regional Citizen Representative (non-metro) Penny Redington Ellis County Regional Citizen Representative (urban) Frank Longoria Dallas County General Counsel Jerry Gilmore Attorney at Law, Dallas Executive Direc[or R. Michael Eastland Regional Transportation Council 1995 Chairman Jim Jackson Commissioner, Dallas County Vice Chairman Henry Wilson Councilmember, City of Hurst Secretary Donna Halatead Councilmember, City of Dallas Bob Hampton Commissioner, Tarrant County Tom Vandergrlff County Judge, Tarrant County Jack Hatchell Commissioner, Co[lin County Kenneth Mayfleld Commissioner, Dallas_ County Jeff Moseley County Judge, Denton County Ron Brown Commissioner, Eltis County Ron Harmon Commissioner, Johnson County Robert Stimson Councilmember, City of Dallas Virginia Nell Webber Mayor Pro Tem, City of Fort Worth Kenneth Barr Councilmember, City of Fort Worth Chuck SIIcox Councilmember, City of Fort Worth Dottle Lynn Mayor Pro Tern, City of Arlington Chris Rose Mayor, City of Cedar Hill Jack Miller Councilmember, City of Denton David Blair Mayor, City of Farmers Branch Larry Llpscomb Mayor, Town of Flower Mound Lee Smith Councilmember, City of Garland Teri Jackson Councilmember, City of Grand Prairie Mords Parrlsh Mayor, City of Irving John Helman, Jr. Mayor Pro Tam, City of Mesquite Tommy Brown Mayor, City of North Richland Hills Dick Bode Counciimember, City of Piano John Murphy Councilmember, City of Richardson Harold Peek Councilmember, City of University Park Jay Nelson Texas Department of Transportation, Dallas Distriet Charles W. Heald Texas Department of Transportation, Fort Worth Distriet Kathy ingle Dallas Area Rapid Transit Elaine Petrus Fort Worth Transportation Authority James Griffin Texas Turnpike Authority Vacant Cities of Dallas and University Park Vacant Cities of Dallas and University Park Vacant Cities of Oailas and University Park Michael Morris Transportation Director, NCTCOG Air TransportaUon Technical Advisory Committee Don Paschal, Jr. Chairman Surface Transportation Technical Committee Lisa Pyles Chairman Travel Demand Management Committee Catherine Simpson Chairman ABSTRACT TITLE: AUTHORS: SUBJECT: SOURCE OF COPIES: DATE: NUMBER OFPAGES: ABSTRACT: Performing Major Investment Studies in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area: A Cooperative Approach Dan Lamers, Principal Transportation Engineer Greg Royster, Transportation Planner I Major Investment Study, Transportation Planning Regional Information Center NCTCOG P.O. Box 5888 Arlington, Texas 76005-5888 (817) 640-3300 December 1995 30 Major investment studies (MIS) are a subset of the more comprehensive metropolitan transportation system planning process. Under the metropolitan planning regulations, major investment studies are required to support decisions on significant transportation investments where federally funded major transportation investments are being contemplated. While federal transportation planning regulations require that major investment studies be performed, the development of a methodology for performing them has largely been left up to each metropolitan area. The general methodology for the MIS process summarized in this paper is the result of a cooperative effort between the North Central Texas Council of Governments, the Texas Department of Transportation, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, and the Texas Turnpike Authority. It provides an overview of major investment study requirements and the approach developed for conducting major investment studies in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. This methodology ensures consistency with regional transportation planning procedures regardless of who performs the study. I II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... I-1 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................ I1-1 OVERVIEW OF MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDIES ................................... II1-1 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY PROCEDURE ......................................... IV-1 REFERENCES Exhibit I1-1 IV-1 IV-2 IV-3 IV-4 LIST OF EXHIBITS Page System Planning/CMS/MIS Integration ..................................................... 11-2 MIS Process .............................................................................................. IV-2 Option 1: Sequential MIS/NEPA ................................................................ IV-3 Option 2: Concurrent MIS/EA .................................................................... IV-4 Option 3: Concurrent MIS/ElS ................................................................... IV-5 I. INTRODUCTION The major investment study (MIS) is a subset of the more comprehensive metropolitan transportation system planning process. Under the metropolitan planning regulations, 2 major investment studies are required to support decisions on significant transportation investments. Where federally funded major transportation investments are being contemplated, the MIS should identify all reasonable alternative strategies for addressing the transportation demands and other problems at a corddor or subarea level of the metropolitan area. The MIS should provide information to elected officials, technical staff, the business community, and the general public on the costs, benefits, and impacts of these alternatives so that an informed choice can be made. A MIS will be initiated in all corridors or subareas where one or more elements of the regional transportation planning process identify the need for additional transportation system capacity in a particular corridor. While federal transportation planning regulations require that major investment studies be performed,2 the methodology for performing them has largely been left up to each metropolitan area. The general methodology for the MIS process summarized in this paper is the result of a cooperative effort between the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FVVTA), and the Texas Turnpike Authority (']-FA). It is divided into four sections: This introduction; the relationship of MIS with the regional transportation plan and congestion management system; an overview of major investment studies and the cooperative partnership of all participants to ensure that the study meets local, regional, state, and federal needs; and a description of the procedural steps for performing the Because the MIS addresses an array of factors in a focused fashion, this should lead to improved transportation decisions consistent with land use, environmental considerations, transportation system performance and community resoumes. The MIS framework also provides a mechanism through which highway, transit, and multimodal alternatives can be developed through a single integrated process. Major investment studies will also provide input to subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents prepared on the preferred investment strategy. Under previous procedures, it sometimes became necessary during project level studies to revisit certain elements of the system planning process and review NEPA documents to better define the purpose of and need for a proposed project, or to more fully consider a wider range of alternatives. By doing more thorough analyses in the planning stage, potentially redundant analyses can be reduced or eliminated, assuring decisions that reflect transportation, land use, environmental and community objectives. This process will also reduce the amount of time and cost needed to implement a preferred investment strategy. I-2 II. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND _CONGESTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Historically, transportation facilities are planned to provide relatively uncongested travel during peak hours. However, because of funding shortfalls, it seems doubtful that this level of service can always be achieved. In addition, federal law prohibits single-occupant vehicle (SOV) capacity from being added in transportation management areas (urbanized areas with a poPulation greater than 200,000) which are also nonattainment areas for ozone, unless the recommendation is part of the regional congestion management system (CMS).1,2.3 The planning approach used in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to address both of these issues is to satisfy the demand for a different hour of the day when the demand is not as great. A plan is then developed which aggressively manages the transportation system and travel demand in the peak hours,s Two key issues are involved in this philosophy--the equitable allocation of resources in the regional transportation plan (RTP) and the development of the congestion management system. The approach focuses on transportation system management (TSM) and travel demand management (TDM) activities in the peak hours where the demand would not be satisfied by other capital intensive projects. Additional capacity would only be provided where TSM/TDM strategies would not reduce congestion sufficiently to satisfy the non-peak travel demand. As a result, a sedes of scaled-back projects are proposed across the region rather than concentrating resources in a few heavily congested areas and providing no improvements in other areas. Since these recommendations are the results of the system planning process which is aimed at maximizing system-level performance and financial issues, the results in each corridor must be refined to reflect the specific issues associated with that corridor. This refinement of the RTP and CMS is the purpose of the major investment study, if the recommendations of the MIS are different from those of the RTP or CMS for the same horizon year, including the financial placeholder assumption, the RTP and CMS must be updated to reflect the recommendations. Since the RTP, including the CMS component, is financially constrained, any change in the financial assumption for the corridor will impact the entire RTP and should be thoroughly evaluated. The relationship of the major investment study process, the congestion management system, and the regional transportation plan is shown in Exhibit I1-1. Further discussion on this issue is contained in sections of Chapter IV of this document under Regional Transportation Plan Consistency and Regional Congestion Management - System Consistency. EXHIBIT I1-1 SYSTEM PLANNING/ CMS/MIS INTEGRATION [R6~16~al l~n-nlh PF6des§ .... , Transportation Conformlt Plan Congestlonsym~m Major -- -- Investment Financial Study Assessment Conformity Implementation I - T 11-2 III. OVERVIEW OF MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDIER MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY WARRANT In all urban areas, federal regulations require that a major investment study be performed wherever the need for a major metropolitan investment is identified and federal funds are potentially involved?,2 A MIS will be initiated in each corridor or subarea where one or more elements of the regional transportation planning process identify the need for additional transportation system capacity. Examples of proposed projects which would require a MIS include the following: New access controlled roadways (including single and high occupancy vehicle facilities) on new rights-of-way or the extension of an existing roadway of a mile or more An expanded roadway with the equivalent increase of one lane of capacity by any means for a distance of a mile or more A new fixed-guideway facility with the introduction of new service or the extension of service of an existing facility of a mile or more Expanded fixed-guideway service with a substantial increase in service on an existing facility NCTCOG, TxDOT, DART, FWTA, and TTA will identify major investment studies expected to be initiated each year as part of the development of the metropolitan area's Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). Only those corridors or subareas which are identified through the regional transportation planning process will be considered as potential major investment studies. If other implementing agencies wish additional corridors to be considered, those corridors must first be evaluated in the context of the regional transportation planning process before a major investment study will be performed. All MIS activities must be included in the UPWP. A.qency Participation in Major Investment Studies As mentioned previously, a MIS is a cooperative effort between all participants and affected agencies. At a minimum, the following agencies and organizations should be involved to the appropriate degree in all major investment studies:2 · Metropolitan Planning Organization (NCTCOG) · State Department of Transportation (Texas Department of Transportation - TxDOT) · Service Area Transit Agency (Dallas Area Rapid Transit - DART or Fort Worth Transportation Authority - FWTA) · Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) · Federal Transit Administration (FTA) · Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) · State Natural Resource Conservation Agency (Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission - TNRCC) · Affected counties, local governments and other public agencies Because the MIS regulations consider factors such as social and economic effects in the corridor, other affected agencies may be involved, including community development and governmental housing agencies. Such agencies may include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, federal and state welfare agencies, and downtown development organizations. These agencies should be included in all coordination meetings with the MIS team if substantial involvement is expected in residential or commercial areas under their jurisdiction. locally preferred alternative. In many cases it may be beneficial to involve the public more actively as members of focus groups, task forces, or advisory committees. This approach makes the public part of the decision-making structure and ensures that the process is open and responsive to the community. It is important to note that while public involvement activities are performed as part of the RTP development process, it is at a level appropriate for system planning. In most cases, corridor- specific public forums or meetings are not held at this level since the performance of the total transportation system and not that of each individual corridor or facility is emphasized. As part of each major investment study, a detailed public involvement structure must ensure that public involvement is appropriate for the scope and magnitude of the issues that will be addressed in the corridor. The public involvement structure should be coordinated into each participating agency's public involvement procedures. If the MIS requires a draft environmental assessment (DEA) or draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), all appropriate National Environmental Policy Acts (NEPA) and other federal requirements as they pertain to transportation projects must be'rnet.4's IV. MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY PROCEDURE INTRODUCTION As previously mentioned, the major investment study process is federally required under the final rules for metropolitan transportation planning.2 This ensures that the MIS process is linked to the metropolitan transportation planning process as required by ISTEA.~ Exhibit I1-1 illustrated how major investment studies are incorporated into the overall metropolitan transportation planning process. The following options were developed to fulfill the MIS process as established jointly by NCTCOG, TxDOT, DART, FWTA, and TTA for the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Exhibits IV-1 through IV-4 illustrate these ~rocedures. Option 1 is a consecutive MIS/NEPA process ~n which the MIS is performed first and followed later with a DEA or DEIS document. Option 2 is a concurrent MIS/NEPA process in which a DEA is performed as part of the MIS and followed later with a DEIS if necessary. Option 3 is also a concurrent MIS/NEPA process in which a DEIS is prepared as part of the MIS and followed later with a final ElS (FEIS). Note that these procedures are to be used as a guide in determining the types of effort required and are not intended to indicate legal requirements. The actual procedures to be followed by the requesting agency will be negotiated as part of the coordination process and may differ from those presented here if circumstances require. Initiate Major Investment Study As described previously, the identification and prioritization of major investment studies are joint efforts between NCTCOG, TxDOT, DART, FWTA, and TTA. Each major investment study EXHIBIT IV-1 MIS PROCESS INITIATE MIS INITIAL COORDINATION MEETING - LOCAL TRANSPORTATION REPRESENTATIVES Milestone #1 INITIAL COORDINATION MEETING- LOCAL NONTRANSPORTATION REPRESENTATIVES Milestone #1 OPTION 1: SEQUENTIAL MIS/NEPA OPTION 3: CONCURRENT MIS/ElS IV-2 EXHIBIT IV-2 OPTION 1: SEQUENTIAL MIS/NEPA Continuous Public Involvement Initial Public Input · Coordination with Federal/State Transportation Representatives [ Coordination.wi'--thFederal/St,a. te -] Milestone #2 Milestone #3 r~t Development o.f Concepts/Alternatives ?. r i Evaluation of. I Concepts/AlternatEves ..... ·, Milestone uran Ml~ ·1 #4 Regional Transportation Congestion' Management Plan Impacts· ·System Impacts I RTC Concurrence I Mlleetone #5 · I Final MIS Document I Notice of Intent Scoping Meeting Continuous Public Involvement FEA/FEIS Record of Decision · IFunding Agency Concurence · I T~P (ENGR)I LNEPA] ITIP (ROW/Construction)I IImplementati°n I " IV-3 EXHIBIT IV-3 OPTION 2: CONCURRENT MIS/EA Continuous Public Involvement I Initial Public Input · Coordination with Federal/State Transportation Representatives · Coordination with Federal/State Nontransportation Representatives · ~1 Development o.f I ' IConcepts/~lternat'ves I I Evaluation of · Concepts/Alternatives · I Draft DF-A/MIS I Milestone #2 Milestone #3 · I Public Hearing I · · Milestone #4 IRegional Transportation Plan Impacts I I CongestiOnsystem Managementlmpacts I · · I RTC Concurrence I Milestone #5 · Final MIS Document I · IFundlng Agency Concurrence ITiP (ENGR) I IFEA/FONsl I II'lP (ROW/Construction) I IImplementation I IV-4 EXHIBIT IV 4 OPTION 3: CONCURRENT MIS/ElS Continuous J Notice of Intent J Public Involvement ~Meeting Coordination with Federal/State Transportation Representatives · Coordination with Federal/State Nontransportation Representatives Development of J - Eva. lu, a.?.on oL I Concepts/Alternatives J J Draft MIS/DEIS J Milestone #2 Milestone #3 I Regional Transportation Plan Impacts S~stem Impacts · J RTC Concurrence J Milestone · #5 I Final MIS Document I · J~Public Hearing·l Milestone#4 Congestion Management ? ~ Concurrence~ IFEIS/ROD] I TIP (ROW/Construction) I Implementation I IV-5 must be included in the UPWP. An agency interested in initiating a major investment study should indicate this desire to the MPO. Written notification should include a description of the corridor to be studied and the approximate limits of the corridor. In addition, the implementing agency's schedule and other technical or administrative constraints or procedures should be identified. The MPO will then advise the requesting agency of the procedures that are to be followed, particularly with regard to the coordination meetings, system planning results and procedures, public involvement procedures, and general MIS requirements. As soon as practical, a coordination meeting should be initiated to discuss the study with other participating agencies. Initial Coordination Meeting The initial coordination meetings are intended to bring together local agencies and groups to discuss the transportation problems in the MIS corridor. The initial coordination should include study participants and local officials in jurisdictions likely to be affected by the study results. The major purpose of the meetings is to agree that the MIS should be initiated now and on the general approach for conducting the study. As shown in Exhibit IV-'I, Milestone 1 is an agreement on which of the three MIS/NEPA options should be followed. In addition, a schedule of proposed public involvement activities should be discussed. As Exhibit IV-1 shows, it may be desirable to hold two meetings: one with representatives from transportation agencies or local government transportation departments and one with local government nontransportation officials. More detail concerning the MIS and the need for the IV-6 transportation facility being studied could then be provided to those agencies or individuals who may not be as familiar with the issues as the transportation officials. Publish Notice of Intent If Option 3, concurrent MIS/DEIS, is chosen as the preferred procedure, NEPA requires that a Notice of Intent to prepare a DEIS be published in the Federal Reqister.4 This notifies the federal government, the public, and other agencies that a DEIS will be prepared. FTA and/or FHWA must appoint a coordinator to oversee the DEIS requirements if Option 3 is chosen. Scopin.q Meetin~ Under Option 3, following the Notice of Intent, a "scoping" meeting is held rather than an initial public involvement meeting. The meeting format is similar to the initial public involvement meeting described below but is intended to fulfill the legal requirements of NEPA for initiating a DEIS. The lead agency should document the results of the scoping meeting. As with Notice of Intent, this is only required if Option 3 is chosen. Initial Public Involvement After the initial coordination meetings, under Options 1 or 2, an initial public involvement effort should be undertaken to establish a context for subsequent public involvement efforts. This effort should seek to understand the general attitudes and opinions of the public, businesses, and other affected groups. The purpose of this effort is to explain to the community the purpose of the MIS and the procedures that will be followed to complete the study, including the proposed public involvement structure and process. The public will also be briefed on previous study findings in the corridor, including the results and recommendations of the IV-7 regional transportation plan, the regional congestion management system, and other relevant planning activities. In addition, any initial concepts or alternatives that have been suggested will be outlined, and the public will be asked for their thoughts on additional concepts or alternatives. The proceedings of this and all public involvement activities should be described and summarized by the lead agency and included in the final documentation of the MIS. Continuous Public Involvement ISTEA' requires proactive public involvement at the system planning level in metropolitan transportation planning? Because of this and the link to the NEPA process, continuous public involvement is essential to the success of the MIS and the eventual programming and implementation of the recommendations. A proactive and continuous public involvement process gives the public confidence that decisions are being made in a fair and open process and provides public agencies meaningful input and feedback on critical corridor issues. The lead agency shall coordinate their public involvement process with those of NCTCOG and other participating agencies to ensure that the metropolitan transportation planning and NEPA requirements are met. Public involvement should include regular meetings or briefings for all affected agencies, periodic public meetings, and if necessary, workshops and public hearings. The proceedings of all public involvement activities should be described and summarized by the lead agency and included in the final documentation of the MIS. Coordination Meetin,qs These coordination meetings should include the agencies identified previously in the initial coordination meeting and other appropriate agencies. At a minimum, those agencies identified in the planning regulations2 should be considered for inclusion, as well as state and federal representatives from other appropriate agencies. These meetings should include a discussion IV-8 of the range and scope of concepts or alternatives to be examined as part of the MIS, including mode and general alignments. The roles and responsibilities of all participating agencies shall be determined. All decisions made should be a result of the cooperative process and documented in the final MIS report. As Exhibits IV-1 through IV-4 show, Milestones 2 and 3 should be completed at this time. Milestone 2, an interlocal agreement, shall be developed and signed by all active participants in the studY. This clearly identifies the roles and responsibilities of each agency. Milestone 3 is the agreement from other affected agencies with the results of Milestones 1 and 2. The proceedings of the coordination meeting should be written and distributed to all meeting participants. The wdtten proceedings should be included in the final documentation of the MIS. Development and Evaluation of Concepts and Alternatives The development and evaluation of reasonable alternatives are the head of the MIS process and ultimately lead to the selection of one or more locally preferred alternatives. These will include the development of an appropriate validation year (1990, or other agreed upon year) travel model for the study corridor or subarea, three forecast year (2010, 2020, or other approved forecast year) baseline scenarios, and several forecast year concepts and alternatives. Validation 1990 (or appropriate year) demographics as approved by NCTCOG's Executive Board 1990 transportation system IV-9 Forecast Baselines · All concepts will use 2010, 2020, (or other approved forecast year) demographics as approved by NCTCOG's Executive Board: Regional transportation plan transportation system with no-build conditions in the study corridor 2. #1 above with the regional congestion management system #2 above with appropriate toll roads from the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) approved short list assumed which affect the study corridor An analysis should also be performed comparing the results of Baselines I and 2. This quantifies the effects that the regional CMS has on travel in the corridor. An analysis should be performed between Baselines 2 and 3 to determine the impact that parallel toll roads may have on the study corridor. If no effects are shown, Baseline 2 should be used as the official baseline from which to compare alternatives. If there are effects in the corridor, a decision must be made among all study participants as to which baseline is most appropriate. This decision should be documented in the final MIS documentation. Forecast Year Concepts or Alternatives All will use: · Forecast year demographics as approved by the NCTCOG's Executive Board · Effects of the approved regional CMS, either Baseline #2 or #3 above will be used for the study corridor baseline Required alternatives: 1. True do-nothing (no-build) which assigns year 2010, 2020, (or appropriate forecast year) traffic to the validation year transportation system An aggressive corridor transportation systems management and travel demand management alternative with strategies not specifically identified in the regional CMS Capital improvements such as additional single-occupant vehicle (SOV) capacity, high-occupant vehicle (HOV) capacity, rail or other fixed-guideway facilities. Any new SOV capacity on limited-access facilities in new 'rights-of- way must be evaluated as a toll facility per regional and State policy. In addition, CMS strategies identified to support the capital alternatives should be included to maximize the efficiency of the alternatives. IV-10 The preliminary screening of modal concepts in the regional transportation plan may result in the emphasis of a particular mode in the major investment study, particularly once the lead agency is identified. However, it is important that a balanced transportation system for the entire corddor be evaluated. Other major capital alternatives of other modes need not be evaluated in detail, but the screening of those major modal atternatives from the RTP should be well documented and explained in agency and public involvement meetings. Appropriate support facilities of all modes should be identified for inclusion in the final preferred alternative. For eXamPle, if the MIS recommends a new commuter rail facility in the corridor, it may also recommend that additional roadway and intersection capacity be provided for access to stations. In addition, other non-traditional modes such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities and freight movement accommodations should also be included as appropriate. The results of the alternatives analysis should be presented to all affected agencies and the public for comment and consideration along with any recommendations from the MIS team. All alternatives should be technically evaluated using procedures and performance measures consistent with the development of the RTP and CMS. The MPC will be responsible to ensure this consistency. If the recommendations of the MIS differ from those identified in the RTP or regional CMS, the RTP or CMS should be updated to reflect the new recommendations. Further discussions on this issue are provided in the Regional Transportation Plan Consistency and Regional Congestion Management System Consistency sections below. Preparation of Draft Maior Investment Study Following the evaluation of alternatives, one or more locally preferred alternatives should be selected (Milestone 4), and a draft MIS document should be prepared. If Options 2 or 3 were chosen, the DEA or DEIS should also be prepared. The results of the MIS, including the IV-11 ' DEA/DEIS if appropriate, should be reviewed by all affected individuals and agencies. If Options 2 or 3 were chosen and a DEA/DEIS has been prepared as part of the MIS, appropriate NEPA guidelines should be followed to ensure proper review including conducting a formal public hearing on the results, if necessary. It should be recognized that under Options I or 2; no formal public hearing is specified. It may be desirable, however, to conduct a public meeting to explain the results to those who may not have been actively involved in the study. Once the implementing agency has completed the draft MIS, the recommendations must be endorsed by the lead agency with a recommendation that the locally preferred alternative be endorsed by the Regional Transportation Council. This endorsement may require modifications to the regional transportation plan and the regional congestion management system. Ref~ional Transportation Plan Consistency Federal guidance requires that the results of the MIS be incorporated into the regional transportation plan.2 If a placeholder was included in the plan, both from a design concept and financial standpoint, the placeholder must be replaced with the final recommendations of the MIS. If the design concept is the same as in the plan, no modification to the plan is necessary, however, endorsement of the recommendations is necessary. If the design concept is different (i.e. mode, number of lanes, approximate spacing of interchanges, major alignment IV-12 differences) the plan must be modified by the RTC for the recommendations to proceed to further project development. In addition to the design concept, the financial implications of the MIS recommendations must also be consistent with the plan's financial assumptions. As part of the MIS, more refined costs and revenue figures should be developed which indicate how the project is expected to be financed and operated. If the refined net cost of the locally preferred altemative (LPA) is different than the plan assumption, two options are possible, assuming the RTC wishes to endorse the design concept as prepared. The first option is simply to modify the funds associated with the corridor in the plan. However, since the plan is financially constrained, funds must either be reduced in other corridors or additional funding sources must be identified, such as user fees, which should have been identified as part of the MIS. The second option would be to stage the recommendations such that only a portion of the project is constructed within the plan hodzon and the remaining portions are delayed to out years. This approach may result in the design concept being modified in the plan since the entire project would not be constructed in the plan year. Regional Congestion Management System Consistency Federal guidance requires that a congestion management system be developed for all metropolitan areas with a population greater than 200,000.2'3 One of the requirements of the CMS is to identify strategies which maximize the efficiency of the existing transportation system and any major improvements to the transportation system. The results of an MIS should, therefore, include strategies which provide for maximum operational efficiency of the LPA. The strategies should range from general policy guidelines for transportation management to specific projects such as parallel arterial intersection improvements or IV-13 rail/arterial grade separations. These strategies are part of the MIS recommendations and should be included in the LPA cost estimates as appropriate. As with the regional transportation plan, if differences exist between the regional CMS and the MIS strategies, the regional CMS should be modified to reflect those changes, subject to the same financial constraints of the plan. In addition, federal regulations prohibit single-occupant vehicle capacity from being added in areas which are designated ozone nonattainment areas. If the LPA includes a recommendation for additional SOV capacity, the SOV justification should be consistent with the regional CMS strategies. ReRional Transportation Council Concurrence Following lead agency endorsement, the RTC must endorse the recommendations (Milestone 5). The recommendations of the MIS must be the same as the recommendations in the RTP for the same corridor. If differences exist and the RTC endorses the results of the MIS, the RTP must be modified to reflect the results. If corridor-specific congestion mitigation strategies have been developed which are not specifically ~ontained in the regional CMS, they should be evaluated for potential inclusion in the regional CMS. If the RTP is modified to include the results of the MIS, a conformity analysis must be performed, as appropriate, on the revised RTP. A public meeting must also be held in accordance with NCTCOG's public involvement procedures. The revised RTP must then receive a conformity determination by FTA, FHWA, and EPA before it becomes officially adopted. IV-14 The final MIS report should be a single document with an agreement signed by all agencies that participated in the study. This agreement will demonstrate state, regional, and local commitment to the recommendations and strategies identified in the MIS. Inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Proqram Before the projects identified in the MIS can proceed to engineering and design, and before a DEA or DEIS (Option 1), FEA (Option 2), or FEIS (Option 3) can be prepared, they must be included in a conforming TIP. In many cases, they will be included only for information to indicate that additional planning and engineering work is proceeding but that no project is programmed for right-of-way acquisition or construction at this time. If included in the TiP for implementation, a public meeting must be held in accordance with the MPO's public involvement procedures, and a conformity determination may be required. Preparation of Final NEPA Documents After the projects are included in a conforming P, TP and TIP, but prior to proceeding to final design, subsequent NEPA documentation should be prepared. If Option 1 is selected, preparation of a DEA or DEIS may then proceed. If Options 2 or 3 are chosen, the preparation of the FEA and FEIS may then proceed. Once completed and appropriate public involvement procedures have been followed, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or P,ecord of Decision (ROD) may then be requested by the federal goYernment. Once a FONSI or ROD has been issued, the project may proceed with implementation when appropriate financial resources have been secured. However, one issue regarding the consistency of NEPA regulations and MIS regulations is unresolved. Current regulations state that the FONSI or ROD can only be issued for the IV-15 portion of the project which is contained in the conforming regional transportation plan and transportation improvement program, As mentioned above, the system planning methodology in the Dallas-Fort Worth area utilizes a fourth-hour of the day and staging approach to financially constrain the plan,s On the other hand, the MIS identifies the most efficient transportation solutions for the corridor dudng all hours and may even have a different planning hodzon year than the plan. In this case, the staging of the MIS must be in agreement with that of the plan for the system plan year. This would lead to only the staged portion of the MIS recommendations receiving a FONSI or ROD since only that portion is in the conforming plan. This further complicates the issue since the plan methodology is flexible enough so that if the financial outlook for the region improves, the plan and MIS can then be staged differently, but still remain within the full recommendations of the MIS. However, the revised recommendations would no longer be consistent with the FONSI or ROD previously issued. Not only would this require a supplemental (or completely new) EA or ElS, it could confuse and confound the public who would probably not understand this issue. Since the NEPA regulations are currently under review, it has been suggested by NCTCOG that the federal government adopt a two-stage FONSI or ROD. The first stage would recognize that an ultimate facility is recommended for a corridor, but that only the staged portion of the recommendation is officially approved for implementation. The second stage would allow for the subsequent approval of the final phases of the project upon secudng the necessary funds. This would inform the public about eventual final design for a facility and that financial constraints will actually be implemented initially. IV-16 REFERENCES U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, (December 18, 1991), PL 102-240. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Metropolitan Transportation Planning Regulations, 23 CFR 450 (c), (October 1993). U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Congestion Management System, 23 CFR 500, (December 1993). U.S. DePartment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures; Final Rule, 23 CFR 771, (August 1987). U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Presidential Documents., (February 1994), Section 4-4 (4-401). 6 North Central Texas Council of Governments, Mobility 2010 Plan Update, (September 1995) 7 North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Public Involvement Procedures, (June 1, 1994)