R-766-12-86RESOLUTION NO. 766-12-86(R)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ALLEN, COLLIN COUNTY,
TEXAS, SUPPORTING AND ENDORSING THE 1986 GREATER
DALLAS MOBILITY PLAN.
WHEREAS, traffic and transportation is recognized as being
a major concern of the majority of our citizens; and,
WHEREAS, in 1982 a detailed study was conducted which defined
the magnitude of the transportation problem that existed at that
time; and,
WHEREAS, the 1986 Greater Dallas Mobility Plan is a complete
update and expansion of the 1982 report; and,
WHEREAS, the 1986 Greater Dallas Mobility Plan represents the
combined efforts of the Metroplex Mayors Committee on State High-
way Finance; and,
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the City of Allen is an
important part of the Metroplex Transportation System;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ALLEN, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, THAT:
_SECTION I. The City Council of the City of Allen, supports
and endorses the goals of the 1986 Greater Dallas Mobility Plan
and the suggested mechanism by which they may be achieved.
SECTION II.
upon its passage.
This resolution shall take effect immediately
DULY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ALLEN, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 4th DAY OF DECEMgFg ,
•:.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Marty Hendrix, MC, CITY SECRETARY
INTRODUCTION
The Greater Dallas area is at another decision-making crossroads regarding
the adequacy and efficiency of its transportation system. Although we have
made significant progress in upgrading the system in order to accommodate
our rapid growth, traffic congestion levels are at an all-time high. We have
fallen short of the farsighted, more balanced system that is needed to im-
prove mobility in the Greater Dallas area today. If, as anticipated, the region
continues to experience population and employment increases, then we
must also plan to accommodate the inherent transportation needs that re-
sult from this growth.
Transportation has been identified by almost every major area business,
government, and civic group as the Number One priority of the 80's and
beyond. For example, the latest Dallas Trendline survey conducted by The
Dallas Chamber indicated that 48 percent of the respondents perceive
transportation and traffic to be a major concern. The next closest category
of major concern was the impact of growth and overpopulation, listed by 8
percent of the respondents as the most important issue. Concerns such as
crime, housing, and education also ranked far below transportation.
The majority of our citizens feel their quality of life has deteriorated due to
increased congestion. Many feel that transportation is an issue that can
literally halt the economic prosperity and vitality of our community. As traffic
conditions worsen, we can no longer foster growth with its associated eco-
nomic benefits.
The situation will not improve unless the public and private sectors, with the
support of the citizens of Greater Dallas, develop a plan of action to improve
mobility and prepare for anticipated growth. The scenario will be alarming if
we merely maintain the status quo in our transportation systems. Some of
the negative effects which could occur include the following:
■ Our highways and thoroughfares would be greatly more congested
than at present with economic stagnation occurring at impossibly con-
gested areas, particularly at employment and retail centers.
■ The labor force would have more difficulty getting to employment
_ centers and employers would experience trouble recruiting and retain-
ing employees at those facilities.
■ Property values could decline as development abandons heavily con-
gested areas.
■ Rush Hour could evolve into Rush Day, with peak period volumes
occurring throughout the daylight hours.
To avoid this scenario, the Greater Dallas area, needs an aggressive, yet
pragmatic, approach to its transportation challenges. This approach should
be based on sound transportation and environmental planning principles.
What is needed is a balanced transportation system that includes improved
and expanded freeways and thoroughfares, public transportation, and pri-
vate sector programs.
To date, the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation
(SDHPT), the Texas Turnpike Authority (TTA), the Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Authority (DART), the North Central Texas Council of Governments
(NCTCOG), the City of Dallas, surrounding municipalities, Chambers of
Commerce, and the private sector have all been active in planning and
implementing programs to reduce traffic congestion. These programs have
been effective to a point. But the challenge in Greater Dallas is of a magni-
tude that requires a unified, solidly -supported effort that details a plan of
action for the area as a whole. The plan must also establish the framework
for a partnership of state, local, and private resources.
Greater Dallas, unlike other large metropolitan areas in Texas, is a complex
region, composed of many jurisdictions. This complexity and diversity re-
quires that the principles of compromise and consensus be applied more
stringently than in the past if we are to improve the movement of people and
goods today, and even more so as we plan for anticipated growth. With
unified, action -oriented planning, the considerable resources of the Greater
Dallas area can be utilized to develop the full potential of our transportation
system.
7
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The 1986 Greater Dallas Mobility Plan represents the combined efforts of
the Metroplex Mayors Committee on State Highway Finance and The Dallas
Chamber of Commerce. This plan is an exhaustive and expanded update of
a similar effort conducted in 1982.
On January 31, 1985, the mayors of Dallas and the adjoining suburbs met to
authorize creation of a five -member Executive Committee on State Highway
Finance to actively pursue policies which will ensure a greater share of state
highway funds for the Dallas region. A Chairman was subsequently se-
lected, who then appointed four members as representatives of the four
quadrants of the Greater Dallas area. The committee and the respective
areas they represent are as follows:
Jack Worley — (Chairman) — Dallas, Highland Park, University
Park.
Charles Acton — Cedar Hill, DeSoto, Duncanville, Glenn Heights, Lan-
caster, Midlothian, Waxahachie.
W. Jack Hatchell —Addison, Allen, Carrollton, Farmers Branch, Frisco,
McKinney, Murphy, Parker, Plano, Richardson,
Sachse, The Colony.
Frank P Skipper —Coppell, Denton, Flower Mound, Grand Prairie, Irv-
ing, Lewisville.
Phil Young — Balch Springs, Garland, Hutchins, Mesquite,
Rowlett, Sunnyvale, Wilmer
Vic Boyer (Staff) —Manager — Community Affairs, The Dallas Chamber
As previously stated, the primary function of the Executive Committee is to
serve as an advocacy body to lobby for Greater Dallas' equitable share of
State highway funding, the monies of which are allocated at the discretion of
the State Highway and Public Transportation Commission. The publication
of this report is the first major step in accomplishing this mission.
The Executive Committee represents the beginning of an ongoing, active,
and intensive consensus -building effort to focus on implementation pro-
grams for transportation facilities. The Committee is the nucleus of a much
larger combination of leaders in every sector of the Greater Dallas com-
munity. The makeup of the Committee and its flexibility for public/private
sector interaction gives this group the ability to operate in the political arena
in a most effective manner.
The task is not complete with the publication of this document. While the
need and justification for transportation facilities is clearly defined herein,
the goals established will not be achieved unless individuals and agencies
in Greater Dallas actively support the ongoing effort. In a changing econ-
omy, we must be more competitive for our fair share of transportation tax
dollars. We must also provide the local leadership to actively seek new
sources of revenue and see that all transportation funds are channeled to
those projects which best meet the needs of local communities, projects
which provide the greatest reduction in congestion and most favorable cost
to benefit ratios.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS
There are two other recent planning efforts which relate directly to transpor-
tation issues in Greater Dallas. The first, Mobility 2000, was published in
May, 1986 by NCTCOG. The second, 1987 Transportation Improvement
Program, was published by NCTCOG in July, 1986.
Mobility 2000 provides a long-term framework for transportation system
development in the 16 counties of the Dallas/Fort Worth Metropolitan area.
The plan's emphasis is on regional facilities such as freeways, tollways, and
significant improvements to mass transit. The Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) is concerned in much greater detail with the definition of
funding requirements for federal, State, and local transportation facilities.
The emphasis is on shorter term projects at a detailed level of specificity.
The development of the 1986 Greater Dallas Mobility Plan drew heavily from
both of these sources. While the richness and currency of detail in the TIP
was especially helpful, only 11 of the cities in the study area were repre-
sented. To supplement these missing data, this report further relied upon
individual thoroughfare planning efforts of each of the 35 participating cities
represented by the Metroplex Mayors Committee, and on the broader plan-
ning efforts of NCTCOG, SDHPT, TTA, DART, and The Dallas Chamber.
The 1982 Greater Dallas Mobility Study was the foundation upon which this
report was developed. The 1986 Mobility Plan is an outgrowth and expan-
sion of the techniques and recommendations of the 1982 report. The 1986
report:
■ Covers the changes in the transportation system in the last four years
■ Updates the levels and measures of congestion
■ Defines the needs and costs in more detail than was possible in 1982
■ Provides a definitive set of Mobility Plan Goals and recommendations
to achieve them.
The Mobility Plan synthesizes all these data into a focused needs analysis,
specific to the urbanized areas in Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Kaufman, and
Rockwall counties which are under the jurisdiction of SDHPT District 18 for
construction and maintenance of State and federally funded roadway pro-
jects. The report provides very little new information not already identified in
the previously published reports. It does, however, present the materials in a
unified manner. It more strongly emphasizes the urgency of the transporta-
tion problem in Greater Dallas, and it more aggressively establishes an
implementation program for the plan.
THE MOBILITY PLAN
For purposes of this study, the term "Greater Dallas" will refer to the ur-
banized portions of the six -county region. Since most traffic congestion
occurs around major work centers and during commutes between home
and work, Dallas County serves as the basis for many statistical analyses
and employment -oriented information.
In developing this study, the Executive Committee and its consultants
served as a forum wherein all area communities and agencies concerned
with transportation in the region were invited to provide input. The Greater
Dallas Mobility Plan is then a compilation of local, county, regional, and
State transportation planning efforts currently underway in Greater Dallas.
10
The fourteen -year period between 1986 and 2000 was used for evaluation of
congestion impacts and assessment of need in the Greater Dallas Mobility
Plan. Projects were grouped into short-range (2-5 year) immediate need,
and mid-range (6-14 year) intermediate need categories. This process al-
lowed for identification of the supply and demand needs of our transporta-
tion system, both now and for future growth which will inevitably occur.
The report is divided into four major sections: l.) Mobility Demand describes
the magnitude of, and reasons for, congestion in Greater Dallas. 2.) Mobility
Supply establishes the recommended roadway and transit projects needed
by the turn of the century. 3.) Mobility Plan Implementation provides a
framework for continuing the process of an integrated and comprehensive
plan that is flexible and adaptable to changing conditions. 4.) The Support-
ing Data section acknowledges the contributions of the primary contributors
to this report, lists detailed project tables for each agency, contains a series
of maps showing each roadway project, and concludes with a description of
the detailed set of calculations used to develop the cost of congestion.
Central to the findings of this study is the philosophy that the transportation
system for Greater Dallas in the year 2000 must be based on several modes
of transportation, functioning as a balanced system. The concern of our
communities is shifting to reflect a new commitment to the balanced ap-
proach. This is evidenced by their initial and continuing strong support of
mass transit. The citizens of Greater Dallas have demonstrated, and are
justly proud of, their collective ability to depart from traditional solutions and
become more innovative in solving our transportation problems, including
optimizing the efficiency of the network and facilities already in place. The
Greater Dallas Mobility Plan of 1986 is an important step in establishing a
framework for that process to move forward.
11
MOBILITY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The previous two chapters identified the magnitude of the transportation
problem in Greater Dallas and the extent of the roadway and transit facilities
required for an acceptable solution. This definition of the demand for, and
needed supply of, transportation facilities is a necessary first step in a series
of actions by which the Mobility Plan is carried to a successful implementa-
tion. This chapter sets forth a program of technical, organizational, and
political solutions by which implementation can effectively be achieved.
Many of the suggestions made have been offered in the past without effec-
tive action being taken. They are still valid and worthy of consideration.
Others are innovative ideas which should be explored in depth.
ORGANIZATION
The implementation of the Mobility Plan is predicated upon a clearly defined
organizational structure consisting of individuals who are widely recognized
and who have the authority to act in meeting the requirements which the
project demands. A "Metropolitan Transportation Coalition (MTC)" should
be organized to meet on a monthly basis to monitor implementation of the
mobility plan. Such a group would be responsible for organizing area -wide
highway lobbying efforts, ensuring that each implementing agency does its
part to complete the mobility plan, updating the mobility plan on an annual
basis, reviewing the progress of major projects on a regular basis, encour-
aging right-of-way donations and other private sector contributions, and
resolving any political and/or organizational impediments to the implemen-
tation of the Mobility Plan.
The coalition should be expanded to include not only the Metroplex mayors,
but also the County Judges of Dallas, Collin, and Denton Counties. By so
doing, participation at all levels of government would be achieved.
The MTC should be provided with a budget sufficient to cover the cost of
yearly mobility plan updates. Staff support from SDHPT TTA, NCTCOG,
DART, and the larger cities and counties should be available to keep tech-
nical data up-to-date. The Dallas Chamber should continue to provide at
least a part- time staff person to assist in the coordination of activities. A
32
consultant may be needed for limited periods when the plan is updated on
an annual basis.
The MTC Steering Committee should consist of the following members:
■ The Mayor of Dallas.
■ One Mayor from each of the four quadrants of the study area.
Membership would be rotated annually among the participating
cities.
■ TheCounty Judges of Dallas, Collin, and Denton Counties.
■ A representative of the Regional Transportation Council who resi-
des in the Greater Dallas area.
■ The SDHPT District 18 Engineer.
■ The Chief Engineer of the Texas Turnpike Authority.
■ The Executive Director of DART.
■ A volunteer from the Greater Dallas business community to head
a task force of area chamber of commerce representatives and
business leaders to expedite the implementation of specific proj-
ects within the Mobility Plan.
■ Highway Commissioner Bob Bass; David Cain, Chairman of the
House Transportation Committee; and a member of the Greater
Dallas congressional delegation would serve as ex -officio
members.
It is the intention of the Metropolitan Transportation Coalition in fulfilling its
mission to cooperate fully with the North Central Texas Council of Govern-
ments and the Regional Transportation Council. One of the major functions
of the MTC will be to lobby for the implementation of the projects included in
the Regional Transportation Plan (Mobility 2000) and the 1987 Transporta-
tion Improvement Program (TIP). This is in recognition of NCTCOG's official
role in regional State and federal transportation planning.
MOBILITY PLAN GOALS
To accomplish its objectives in the most effective manner, the MTC should
function under the direction of a clearly defined set of goals. As the Mobility
Plan itself is subject to periodic update, goals should be re- evaluated and
revised as conditions change. The initial implementation goals are as
follows:
33
1. To clearly define the magnitude and extent of the transportation chal-
lenge in Greater Dallas, today and in the near-term future.
The first major goal has been accomplished with publication of this report. It
should be noted that the materials presented herein are designed to be part
of a "living document" which is subject to systematic and periodic update.
The table and map formats are designed to be quickly changed when
necessary due to changing conditions. Any or all materials can be readily
replaced in the 3 -ring notebook.
2. To aggressively market the Mobility Plan through frequent and regular
status reports to our State and Federal legislative delegations, to civic
and governmental bodies within the region, to the media, and to the
general population of Greater Dallas.
One of the major and most important functions of the MTC is to ensure that
the key elements of the Mobility Plan get a high degree of public and
political exposure. Many ambitious programs have failed because of lack of
aggressive action. The following list of activities are, for the most part,
issues which must be addressed immediately, before the Texas Legislature
meets in regular session in January of 1987. Our needs must be clearly
understood and defendable and they must be presented as a consensus of
the private and public sectors of all of Greater Dallas. The action plan
highlighted below should be a first order of business of the MTC.
■ Presentations should be made to each participating City Council and
County Commissioners Court in the Greater Dallas area. Each body
should formally endorse the plan.
■ A similar presentation should be made to each of the area's chambers
of commerce to enlist support of the private sector. Again, the plan
should be endorsed by these groups.
■ A formal presentation should be made to the State Highways and Pub-
lic Transportation Commission which: 1.) Emphasizes the needs out-
lined in the report, 2.) Demonstrates the willingness of Greater Dallas to
do its part in plan implementation, and 3.) Clearly shows the wide-
spread support of the plan at all levels.
34
■ A vigorous lobbying campaign should be conducted to convince our
state legislative delegation that we are unalterably opposed to any
diversion of current or future highway monies for which our citizens
overwhelmingly voted to tax themselves.
■ Develop a legislative package based on the innovations presented in
subsequent sections of this chapter for introduction by our delegation in
the upcoming regular session.
■ Support an all -day Transportation Issues Forum to be attended by key
business and government leaders, media, public affairs interest
groups, area Chambers of Commerce, and various transportation con-
sulting and engineering organizations. The forum would serve as a
medium to introduce the 1986 Mobility Plan to a large audience and
allow for detailed discussion of plan elements and related transporta-
tion issues. The forum should be held in January of 1987 and be the
first of an annual series of similar events.
■ The MTC should establish project task forces headed by business and
community leaders for evaluation of the status of the key freeway and
tollway projects described in this report. The task forces should con-
tinually monitor specific recommendations on methods by which the
construction of each facility can be advanced.
■ Finally, the MTC should clearly inform our congressional delegation
that a top priority for the citizens of Greater Dallas is the maximum and
fair return of the dollars we send to the Highway Trust Fund in
Washington.
3. To maintain current sources of revenue and to actively pursue new fund-
'ing sources within the public sector.
In addition to ensuring that Greater Dallas receives its share of traditional
state highway revenues on a formula basis, we should pursue legislative
changes that would provide more State funds for roadway programs. This
should be done in conjunction with other large urban areas in the state. All
suggestions for legislative changes should be made in the context that
highway and public transportation funds are generated from user fees rather
35
than general revenues. Possible legislative changes at the State level may
include some or all of the following measures:
■ Increase the existing State Motor Fuel Tax 5 cents per gallon as Lt.
Governor Hobby of Texas recently suggested.
■ Extend the sales tax to apply to the wholesale price of gasoline and
dedicate the money to highway projects. In addition to state funds, both
the cities and DART, who now have a one -cent sales tax, would benefit.
■ Investigate a local option sales tax on gasoline to be used at the discre-
tion of local governments for any transportation purpose, i.e., transit or
highway.
■ Consider an indexed motor fuel tax that would not increase taxes now
but would increase them with any future motor fuel price increases.
■ Devise a formula for proportionally higher increases in vehicle registra-
tion fees for heavier vehicles which do the most damage to the roadway
system.
■ Consider "buying back" or federal dedication of selected segments of
the freeway system for conversion to tollways to support maintenance
and future expansion. Federal regulations regarding this action have
recently been eased, but specific congressional action is needed.
■ In a like manner, pursue the conversion of new freeway facilities to
tollways partially funded by State and federal monies. This approach is
being considered in other states.
■ Dedicate State Motor Vehicle Sales Tax to the Highway Trust Fund_ by
shifting this fee from the general revenue account.
■ Support legislation which would allow the counties and the cities to
underwrite TTA revenue bonds in order to obtain more favorable inter-
est rates, thereby expediting the construction of needed tollway
projects.
36
■ Encourage legislation which would allow the SDHPT to introduce new
contracting and management procedures to speed up roadway con-
struction. These changes would affect staffing levels, compensation
levels -which must be competitive with private industry, obsolete work
rules, and unnecessarily burdensome procedures, many of which have
been imposed by legislative action and the Federal Highway
Administration.
Local jurisdictions within Greater Dallas must also be willing to enact ordi-
nances and undertake other actions to increase our share of revenue for
roadway programs. Some of the required actions may include, but are not
limited to:
■ Increase local taxes, including the addition of the'/2 cent optional sales
tax dedicated to roadway improvements, and increases in the ad val-
orem property tax for specific transportation improvements.
■ Assist in the establishment of non-profit corporations under Texas law
to assemble contributions of land, money, engineering services, land-
scaping, etc., from the private sector for specific projects. This tech-
nique has been used successfully in Houston for the Grand Parkway
now under construction.
■ Commit local bond program money for partnership participation on
road projects with the SDHPT. The City of Plano has done this with
excellent results.
■ Establish and enforce procedures which would define, preserve, and
publicize road rights-of-way. Such procedures could include thor-
oughfare plans, reservation of rights-of-way, purchase of rights-of-way,
developmental ordinances requiring right-of-way donations, and signs
advising the public of the location of future roadway facilities.
■ Establish Road Utility Districts (RUD's) similar to Municipal Utility Dis-
tricts (MUD's) wherein unincorporated areas can tax themselves for
roadway improvements.
4. To encourage more focused interaction and cooperation between multi -
jurisdictional agencies responsible for surface transportation in the
Greater Dallas area. 37
The two primary public sector funding sources for roadway improvements
are local and State agencies, specifically the City and County governments
and the SDHPT. Local and State agencies function in a different political
arena and each is responsible to a different constituency. The mechanisms
available to implement new programs or expand traditional resources are,
therefore, different. As the Mobility Plan moves forward, the MTC must be
sensitive to these differing requirements and limitations.
5. To expand the role of the private sector in facility construction through
voluntary and mandated actions including contributions, joint develop-
ment, impact assessments, user fees, construction incentives, and
other new and innovative techniques.
The MTC should work actively to develop policies which will encourage the
private sector through voluntary efforts, or require through legislative man-
date, an expanded participation in transportation improvements. Some of
these techniques which have been previously discussed or alluded to are
included in the following expanded list:
■ Increase and/or institute user fee assessments such as parking sur-
charges, developer building permit fee increases, activity center em-
ployee taxes, special assessment districts, local vehicle registration
fees, and a host of others which are directed to the users who benefit
most from the local transportation system.
■ Increase the requirements of private sector involvement in funding
transportation improvements through increased right-of-way dedication
and additional increases in the percentage of construction required by
developer for new or improved thoroughfares.
i Provide continued and increased agency support for the TSM concepts
which require significant public sector participation.
■ Develop a uniform set of criteria for a strong incentive bonus program
for contractors who finish critical roadway projects ahead of schedule.
Likewise, strengthen the penalty program for those who finish late.
6. To support innovative programs which make maximum use and effi-
ciency of the existing transportation infrastructure.
The main thrust of this report has been to identify capital intensive con-
struction projects which are needed to improve mobility in Greater Dallas. Of
equal importance to the region is a focus on low-cost improvements which
maximize the efficiency of the system already in place.
The collective set of techniques in use in Greater Dallas to improve system
efficiency and capacity are referred to as Transportation Systems Manage-
ment (TSM). Major elements of TSM are in place in many of the study area's
municipalities. Some of the more familiar include:
■ Identification and relief of bottlenecks
■ One-way streets
■ Elimination or restriction of parking
■ Dedicated lanes for special vehicles
■ Sequential signalization
■ Turn lanes
■ Freeway ramp metering
■ Flexible work hours
■ Ride -sharing
■ Transportation Management Associations
The MTC Steering Committee should monitor these activities and where
appropriate, make recommendations for standardization of procedures and
uniform application of techniques.
One of the functions of the MTC should be the active sponsorship of inno-
vative strategies which help to move traffic more efficiently on the existing
street networks. One such innovation is the concept of the Super Street in
which a selected network of major arterial streets is upgraded to as high a
classification as possible through maximum grade separation at intersec-
tions and control of access from adjacent land uses. The classification of
these streets lies somewhere between the typical freeway and the typical
major arterial street. They are characterized by limited, rather than complete
control of access.
An example of the limited application of this concept is the agreement
between the City of Plano and the SDHPT for upgrading and grade separa-
tion on Preston Road (S.H. 289) in Plano. The City of Dallas is also working
with SDHPT to grade separate selected intersections in North Dallas. Dallas
01
has experimented with the concept in a limited manner on portions of Loop
12, Irving Boulevard, and several other locations in the city.
To this date, the super street application has not been coordinated in a
systems concept. What is needed is a unified program which transcends
local jurisdictional boundaries. A focused state -local cooperative program of
this type would provide more useful capacity more quickly and more cost-
effectively to urban areas than the separate efforts currently represented by
the State highway program and by local government street improvement
activities. The MTC should be the focal point to initiate this inter -agency
cooperation through development of a feasible system and a set of criteria
and design standards which recommend methods of grade separation and
access control.
Greater Dallas, through the MTC, must pursue all these avenues, and more,
if we are to meet the transportation challenges with which we are faced. We
must forge a partnership between State and local governments and the
private sector. The mission of this study has been to demonstrate Greater
Dallas' transportation needs and to suggest that the solutions lie with all our
citizens — government, corporate, and private working toward a common
goal by utilizing the strengths that are unique to each group.
M
21
GREATER DALLAS MOBILITY PLAN -1986
Freeway Facilities
Estimated Costs
Project Length R.O.W. Constr. Total Prior-
i nceflon Description (Mlles) ($M. ) ($ M) (S M) ity Remarks
I.H. 30
I.H. 635 to S.H. 205
Widen to 6 Lanes
12.2
0.31
83.65
83.96
A
B
Funded
Not Authorized
Dallas/
I.H. 35E to I.H. 45
Capacity Improvements
1.8
15.00
70.00
85.00
Fort Worth
I.H. 45 to U.S. 80
Widen to 10 Lanes
7.0
44.75
50.05
94.80
B
5 Yr. Dev.
7lunpike
Schedule
Tarrant Co. Line to I.H. 35E
Widen to 8 Lanes
14.0
---
51.45
51.45
B
5 Yr. Dev.
Schedule
I.H. 35E
Beltline Rd. to I.H. 20
Widen to 6 Lanes
3.6
8.03
7.19
15.22
A
5 Yr. Dev.
Schedule
R.L. Thorton
Fwy.
Beltline Rd. to
Widen to 6 Lanes
1.0
2.23
2.00
4.23
B
Not Authorized
Parkerville Rd.
U.S. 67 to I.H. 30
Widen to 10 Lanes
4.7
---
22.65
22.65
B
5 Yr. Dev.
Schedule
I.H. 35E
I.H. 30 to S.H. 190
Capacity Improvements
17.9
---
628.09
628.09
B
5 Yr. Dev.
Stemmons Frwy.
Schedule
S.H. 190 to F.M. 1171
Widen to 8 Lanes
6.4
13.86
30.66
44.52
B
5 Yr. Dev.
Schedule
I.H. 35E
F.M. 1171 to U.S. 77
Widen to 6 Lane
13.4
-----
40.70
40.70
A
Denton Co.
I.H. 45
Malloy Bridge Rd. to
Rehabilitation Only
2.0
-
15.00
15.00
A
5 Yr. Dev.
C.F. Hawn Fwy.
S. of F.M. 660
Schedule
I.H. 635
Beit Line Rd. to
Build 6 Lanes
2.1
---
10.70
10.70
A
Irving
L.B.J. Fwy.
MacArthur BI.
Not Authorized
MacArthur BI. to I.H. 30
Widen to 10 Lanes
21.5
1.80
117.16
118.96
A
5 Yr. Dev.
Schedule
C.R.I. & P.R.R. to S.H. 352
Capacity Improvements
23.0
---
88.20
88.20
B
Not Authorized
I.H. 30E to I.H. 35E
Hov Lanes
18.3
-
575.00
575.00
B
Not Authorized
SDHPT/Dart
Spur 408
Loop 12 to I.H. 20
Widen to 6 Lanes
4.3
-
10.10
10.10
A
Not Authorized
U.S. 67
I.H. 35E to I.H. 20
Widen to 8 Lanes
4.8
---
38.40
38.40
B
Not Authorized
Marvin D.
Love Fwy.
I.H. 20 to Belt Line Rd.
Widen to 6 Lanes
5.6
-
13.15
13.15
B
Not Authorized
U.S. 67
Belt Line Rd. to Midlothian
Capacity Improvements
6.0
-
31.97
31.97
A
Const. Author.
J. Elmer
to Ellis Co.
Weaver Fwy.
Line
U.S. 75
S. of Hall St. to
Widen to 8 Lanes
9.1
190.01
310.00
500.01
A
Central Expwy.
S. of I.H. 635
Spring Creek Pkwy. to
S.H. 121
Capacity Improvements
7.3
0.20
56.28
56.48
A
U.S. 80
I.H. 30 to Belt Line Rd.
Capacity Improvements
4.7
-
9.40
9.40
B
Not Authorized
S.H. 114
Tarrant Co. Line to S.H. 183 Capacity Improvements
10.0
---
133.88
133.88
B
Not Authorized
John W.
Carpenter Fwy.
S.H. 121
Tarrant Co. Line to
Build to 4 Lanes
3.2
12.65
42.92
55.57
A
New Fwy.
F.M. 3040
Tarrant Co. Line to
Widen to 6 Lanes
3.2
-----
7.00
7.00
B
Not Authorized
F.M. 3040
F.M. 3040 to S.H. 289
Budd 6 Lanes
14.0
----
125.00
125.00
B
Not Authorized
S.H. 289 to U.S. 75
Build 6 Lanes
10.0
-----
34.00
34.00
1 B
Not Authorized
Priortty A = 2-5 years; Priority B = 6-14 years
SDHPT
GREATER DALLAS MOBILITY PLAN -1986
Freeway Facilities
Estimated Costs
Project Length R.O.W. Constr. Total Prior-
Descrintion (Miles) (SM. ) ($M) (S M) ity Remarks
Project
S.H. 161
I.H. 635 to Belt Line Road
Build 6 Lanes
3.9
25.00
88.76
113.76
A
4 Yr. LU Bing
SchNew
Fwy.
Belt Line Road to I.H. 30
Build 4 Lanes
13.4
29.22
162.31
191.53
A
Schedu le
I.H. 30 to I.H. 20
Build 4 Lanes
6.0
15.00
70.00
85.00
A
Schedule
S.H. 183
Trinity River to Loop 12
Widen to 8 Lanes
1.2
-
5.73
5.73
A
Schedu Lettle
Airport Fwy.
Loop 12 to Tarrant Co. Line
Capacity Improvements
6.9
-
201.48
201.48
B
Not Authorized
Trinity River to I.H. 35E
Capacity Improvements
1.7
-
3.37
3.37
B
Schedule
S.H. 190
I.H. 35E to S.H. 78
Build 4 Lanes
20.8
289.18
216.14
34.80
505.32
34.80
A
B
New Fwy.
I.H. 35E to S.H. 78
Widen to 8 Lanes
17.4
9.0
_
31.50
31.50
B
Not Authorized
S.H. 78 to I.H. 30
Build 4 Lanes
19.62
19.62
B
Not Authorized
I.H. 35E to S.H. 121
Build Lanes
4.0
-
Loop 9
U.S. 67 to I.H. 45
-4
Frontage Roads Only
15.0
11.00
21.00
32.00
B
Not Authorized
Loop 12
Spur 408 to I.H. 35E
Capacity Improvements
10.0
-
51.25
51.25
1 B
Not Authorized
Priority A = 2-5 years; Priority B = 6-14 years
R.O.W. Costs (Millions) $ 658.24
Construction Costs (Millions) $3,510.56
Total Costs (Millions) $4,168.80
SDHPT
GREATER DALLAS MOBILITY PLAN -1986
Arterial Street Improvements
Ma Project Length Est. Cost Prior -
Project No Location Description Agency (Miles) (Millions) ity Remarks
Abrams Rd.
1
Kingsley Rd. to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
1.8
1.70
A
With Dallas Co./
Meadowknoll Dr.
Local
Dallas
Arapaho Rd.
3
At Preston Rd.
Grade Separation
State
0.2
5.00
B
Not Authorized
Belt Line Rd.
8
Duncanville Rd. to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
3.0
6.40
A
With DeSoto
Hampton Rd.
Local
Belt Line Rd.
8
Hampton Rd. to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
2.0
4.20
B
With DeSoto
I.H. 35E
Local
Belt Line Rd.
3
At Preston Rd.
Grade Separation
State
0.2
3.00
A
Not Authorized
Bernal Dr.
1
Canada Dr. to
Build Trinity
State/
1.1
20.00
B
With Dallas Co.
Irving Blvd.
River Bridge
Local
Bernal Dr.
1
At Premier Dr.
Grade Separation
State/
-
3.00
B
With Dallas
Local
Not Authorized
Blackburn St.
1
At M.K.T. R.R.
Grade Separation
State/
0.2
0.73
B
With Dallas
Local
Buckner BIJ
1
At Northwest Hwy.
Grade Separation
State/
0.3
5.00
A
With Dallas
Audella Rd.
Local
Buckner BI.
1
At M.P.R.R.
Grade Separation
State/
0.2
5.00
A
With Dallas
Local
Campbell
3
At U.S. 75
Grade Separation
State/
0.2
10.00
A
With Richardson
Underpass
Local
Cedar Springs Rd.
1
Pearl St. to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
0.5
3.00
B
With Dallas
Routh St.
Local
Not Authorized
Clark RdJ
9
Camp Wisdom
Build 6 Lane
State/
0.5
12.00
A
With Dallas Co.
Spur 408
Rd. to I.H. 20
Connection
Local
Corinth St. Rd.
1
At Santa Fe R.R.
Grade Separation
State/
0.2
2.46
A
With Dallas
Local
Cross Timbers RdJ
4
W. City Limits
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
8.1
14.92
A
With Flower Mound
F.M. 1171
to E. City Limits
Local
Custer RdJ
5
Carpenter Rd.
Widen to 6 Lanes
State
2.0
5.60
A
Not Authorized
F.M. 2478
to McDermott Dr.
Denton RdJ
4
S.H. 121 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State
0.4
0.85
A
F.M. 544
to F.M. 2281
Denton RdJ
4
F.M. 544 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State
2.5
6.70
A
F.M. 2281
Rosemeade
Exchange Pkwy.
6
At U.S. 75
Grade Separation
State/
0.2
0.36
B
With Allen
Local
F.M. 407
4
W. City Limit
Build 6 Lanes
State/
1.4
3.00
A
With Lewisville.
to I.H. 35E
Local
F.M. 407
4
W. Co. Line
Build 6 Lanes
State/
2.5
4.50
B
With Flower Mound
to E. Co. Line
Local
Not Authorized
F.M. 426
4
U.S. 77 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
1.6
0.98
B
With Denton
Jannie Dr.
Local
Not Authorized
F.M. 544
6
At Rowlett Creek
Widen Bridge to
State
0.2
0.04
A
6 Lanes
Priority A = 2-5 years; Priority B = 6-14 years
SDHPT
GREATER DALLAS MOBILITY PLAN -1986
Arterial Street improvements
Map Project Length Est. Cost Prior -
r, -r! Von Aaencv (Mlles) (Millions) Ity Remarks
Project no. LOCa..,��Prior-
r,-r! Von
Priority A = 2-5 years; Priority B = 6.14 years
SDHPT
6
Los Rios BI. to
den to 6 lanes
Widen
..
State/
1.8
6.61
A
With Plano
F.M. 544
Plano City Limits
F.M. 544
6
Plano City Limits
Widen to 6 Lanes
State
0.7
1.75
A
6
to Murphy Rd.
Murphy Rd. to
den to 6 Lanes
Widen
5.75
B
With Collin Co.
F.M. 544
F.M. 1378
Local3
State/
0.8
1.60
A
With Carrollton
F.M. 544
4
Josey Ln. to
Build 6 Lanes
l
Plano Pkwy.
F.M. 663
8
At U.S. 287
Grade Separation
State/
2.00
B
With Midlothian
Bypass
-
S.H. 423 to
Widen to 4 lanes
State/
9.1
10.92
B
With Frisco
F.M. 720/
5
Main St.
F.M. 2478
Local
State/
5.8
10.86
B
With Collin Co./
F.M. 720
5
F.M. 2478 to
Build 6 Lanes
Local
McKinney
Eldorado Pkwy.
F.M. 1171/
4
W. City Limits
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
2.1
3.94 _
A
With Lewisville
Main St.
4
to I.H. 35E
I.H. 35E to
Widen to 4 Lanes
l
State/
1.6
5.40
A
With Lewisville
F.M. 1171/
Main St
S.H. 121
l
F.M. 1382
9
Across S. Mountain
Widen Bridge to
State/
0.5
3.25
B
With Dallas
Creek Lake Park
6 Lanes
Local
F.M. 1382
9
Spur 303 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State
2.8
5.47
A
F.M. 1382
9
I.H. 20
I.H. 20 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State
6.8
19.69
A
U.S. 67
F.M. 1515
4
Breen Rd. to
Widen to 4 Lanes
State/
1.9
1.60
B
WithADuth toned
I.H. 35E
F.M. 2170
6
Allen Heights Rd.
Widen to 4 Lanes
State/
1.2
2.66
A
With Collin Co.
to Dillehay Rd./
l
F.M. 2170
6
F.M. 2551
Allen Heights Rd.
Widen to 6 Lanes
1.2
2.40
B
With Collin Co.
to Dillehay Rd./
Local
F.M. 2551
F.M. 2181
4
I.H. 35E to
Widen to 4 Lanes
2.0
1.22
A
With Denton
4
Ryan Rd.
Ryan Rd. to
Build 4 Lanes
Local
State/
2.4
2.88
B
With Denton
F.M. 2181
F.M. 2499
F.M. 2449
4
I.H. 35E to
Build 4 Lanes
State/
8.8
10.51
B
With Denton
Chinn Chap Rd.
Local
F.M. 2499
4
F.M. 2181 to
Build 4 Lanes
State/
4.4
7.63
B
With Denton Co.
Not Authorized
4
F.M. 207
F.M. 407 to
Build 4 Lanes
Local
State/
7.0
8.74
A
With Flower Mound
F.M. 2499
S. Co. Line
Local
F.M. 2514/
6
Los Rios Bl. to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State
0.5
2.07
A
Parker Rd.
Cottonwood Creek
Forest Ln.7
I.H. 635 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State
0.8
2.52
A
With Dallas
Audelia Rd.
Priority A = 2-5 years; Priority B = 6.14 years
SDHPT
GREATER DALLAS MOBILITY PLAN -1986
Arterial Street Improvements
Map Project Length Est. Cost Prior -
No Lncatinn Descriotion Agency (Miles) (Millions) ity Remarks
Mockingbird Ln.
1
At Harry Hines BI.
Complete Cloverleaf
State/
2.00
A
With Dallas
Local
Not Authorized
Northwest Hwy.
1
At I.H. 35E
Grade Separation
State/
2.00
A
With Dallas
Local
Not Authorized
Northwest Hwy.
1
At Loop 12
Grade Separation
State/
-
2.00
A
With Dallas
Low
Not Authorized
Northwest Hwy.
1
Easton Rd. to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
2.9
6.00
B
With Dallas
I.H. 635
Local
Not Authorized
Piano Rd.
7
At Belt Line Rd.
Grade Separation
State/
0.2
5.50
B
With Richardson
Local
Preston RdJ
3
At Spring Valley Rd.
Grade Separation
State
0.2
5.00
B
Not Authorized
S.H. 289
Preston RdJ
5
S.H. 121 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
3.6
6.48
A
With Collin C0./
S.H. 289
Main St.
Local
Frisco
Preston RdJ
5
Main St. to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
4.4
7.84
B
With Collin Cod
S.H. 289
U.S. 380
Local
Frisco
Red Bird Ln.
8
Hampton Rd. to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
1.0
2.50
B
With Dallas
Polk St.
Local
Not Authorized
Red Bird Ln.
9
U.S. 67 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
1.4
3.50
B
With Dallas
Westmoreland Rd.
Local
Not Authorized
Regal Row
1
At I.H. 35E
Grade Separation
State/
-
3.00
A
With Dallas
Local
Not Authorized
Regal Row
1
At S.H. 183
Grade Separation
State/
-
3.00
A
With Dallas
Local
Not Authorized
Roundgrove Rd.
4
W. Co. Line
Build 6 Lanes
State/
3.3
5.94
B
With Lewisville
to I.H. 35E
Local
Not Authorized
Roundgrove Rd.
4
At I.H. 35E
Grade Separation
State/
-
9.00
A
With Lewisville
Local
Royal Ln.
2
At O'Connor BI.
Grade Separation
State/
0.4
2.50
B
With Irving
Local
Not Authorized
Royal Ln.
2
At S.T.L.&S.F. R.R.
Grade Separation
State
0.2
3.00
B
Not Authorized
Royal LnJ
1
Skillman St. to
Grade Separation
State
0.2
3.00
B
Not Authorized
Miller Rd.
Audelia Rd.
Scyene Rd.
1
At S.P. R.R.
Grade Separation
State
0.2
3.00
A
Not Authorized
Skillman St.
1
Whitehurst Rd.
Grade Separation
State/
0.3
10.00
B
With Dallas
to Audelia Rd.
Local
Spring Valley
3
At U.S. 75
Grade Separation
State/
0.2
10.00
B
With Richardson
Local
S.H. 5
6
Parker Rd. to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State
0.7
2.20
A
Bowman Branch
S.H. 5
6
N. of Spring
Widen to 6 Lanes
State
5.8
10.40
A
Creek Pkwy.
to Exchange Pkwy.
S.H. 5
6
Exchange Pkwy.
Widen to 4 Lanes
State/
3.8
4.60
B
Collin Co.
to S.H. 121
Local
Priority A = 2-5 years; Priority B = 6-14 years
SDHPT
GREATER DALLAS MOBILITY PLAN -1986
Arterial Street Improvements
Map Project Length Est. Cost Prior-
M_,...�fl- nescrintion Aaencv (Miles) (Millions) ity Remarks
S.H. 66
7
Dallas Co. Line
Widen to 4 Lanes
State/
2.0
23.48
A
With Rowlett
to E. Side Lake
l
Ray Hubbard
S.H. 66
7
Dairy Rd. to
Widen to 4 Lanes
State/
5.0
12.88
A
With Rowlett
Rockwall Co. Line
Local
S.H. 78
7
S.H. 66 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State
2.8
15.57
A
Prop. S.H. 190
S.H. 78
7
Prop S.H. 190
Widen to 4 Lanes
State
12.7
36.88
A
to S.H. 205
S.H. 114
2
Tarrant Co. Line
Widen to 4 Lanes
State
9.0
44.00
A
to Wise Co. Line
S.H. 121
4
S. City Limits to
Widen to 4 Lanes
State/
1.7
22.50
A
With Lewisville
F.M. 3040
S.H. 121
4
F.M. 3040 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
3.0
17.10
A
With Lewisville
F.M. 1171
S.H. 121
4
F.M. 1171 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
2.0
8.80
A
With Lewisville
E. City Limits
S.H. 121
4
E. City Limits to
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
1.7
7.80
A
With Lewisville
F.M. 544
al
S.H. 121
5
S.H. 289 to U.S. 75
Frontage Roads Only
State
10.0
50.60
A
Not Authorized
S.H. 121
5
At S.H. 289
Grade Separation
State/
2.00
A
With Collin Co.
Not Authorized
Low
S.H. 161
9
I.H. 20 to U.S. 67
Build 4 Lanes
State/
5.2
39.04
B
With Grand Prairie
Local
S.H. 183
1
At Empire Central
Grade Separation
State/
-
3'00
A
Dallas
Not AuthorizedLocal
S.H. 205
7
S.H. 66 to
Widen to 4 Lanes
State
1.7
10.49
A
I.H. 30
S.H. 205
7
I.H. to
Widen to 4 Lanes
State
1.3
1.60
A
Not Authorized
Terrell Rd.
Spur 348
2
S.H. 114 to
Build 6 Lanes
State/
1.0
2.90
A
With Irving
O'Connor BI.
Local
Skillman SL
1
Merriman Pkwy.
Widen to 6 Lanes
State
2.5
6.70
A
to I.H. 635
U.S. 67
8
At 8th St.
Grade Separation
State/
-
4.00
B
With Midlothian
Local
U.S. 77
4
Bonnie Brae Ln.
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
1.2
1.50
B
With Denton
to I.H. 35
Local
Not Authorized
U.S. 77
4
Bonnie Brae Ln.
Widen to 6 Lanes
State/
1.8
2.20
B
With Denton
to Bolivar St.
Local
Not Authorized
U.S. 77
4
Bolivar St. to
Widen to 3 Lanes
State/
0.7
0.21
B
With Denton
U.S. 380
Local
Not Authorized
U.S. 77
8
M.K.T. R.R. to
Widen Viaduct
State/
1.6
2.40
A
With Waxahachie
Lavista Rd.
to 5 Lanes
Local
Not Authorized
U.S. 77
8
U.S. 287 Bypass
Widen to 5 Lanes
State/
2.7
5.10
A
With Waxahachie
to F.M. 387
Local
Not Authorized
U.S. 77
8
F.M. 387 to
Widen to 4 Lanes
State
2.3
3.45
A
Not Authorized
FM. 342
Priority A = 2-5 years; Priority B = 6-14 years
SDHPT
GREATER DALLAS MOBILITY PLAN -1986
Arterial Street Improvements
Map Project Length Est. Cost Prior-
Prolect No. Location Description Agency (Miles) (Millions) ity Remarks
Allen Heights Dr.
6
Stacey Rd. to
Build 4 Lanes
Local
1.1
1.32
B
Exchange Pkwy.
Allen Heights Dr.
6
Exchange Pkwy.
Widen to 6 Lanes
Local
1.0
1.20
A
to F.M. 2170
Allen Heights Dr.
6
F.M. 2170 to
Build 6 Lanes
Local
2.1
3.80
A
Chapparal Rd.
P
Alma Rd.
5
Ridggeview Dr. to
Build 6 Lanes
Local
3.4
7.00
A
Hedgecoxe Rd.
Bethany Rd.
5
Alma Rd. to
Widen to 6 Lanes
Local
1.4
2.50
A
U.S. 75
Bethany Rd.
6
U.S. 75 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
Local
1.5
3.50
A
Allen Heights Dr.
Chapparal Rd.
6
S.H. 5 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
Local
2.0
4.50
B
Allen Heights Dr.
Exchange Pkwy.
6
U.S. 75 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
Local
1.6
3.70
A
Allen Heights Dr.
Main StJ
6
U.S. 75 to
Widen to 6 Lanes
Local
2.2
4.80
A
F.M. 2170
Allen Heights Dr.
McDermott DrJ
5
Custer Rd. to
Widen to 6 Lanes
Local
2.9
5.90
A
F.M. 2170
Watters Rd.
McDermott DrJ
Watters Rd. to
Widen to 8 Lanes
Local
0.3
0.70
A
F.M. 2170
U.S. 75
Watters Rd.
5
S.H. 121 to
Build 6 Lanes
Local
3.8
6.80
B
F.M. 2170
Priority A = 2-5 years; Priority B = 6-14 years
Priority A Costs $33.10M
Prlority B Costs $12.62M
Total Costs $45.72M
ALLEN