MIRAC ACLE M MILE Stakeholder Meetings BACKGRO BA ROUND The - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

MIRAC ACLE M MILE

Stakeholder Meetings

BA BACKGRO ROUND

The Miracle Mile has been long overdue for public improvements. Aging and failing infrastructure has heightened the need to address this at this time. The City has been actively seeking the public’s input in determining the direction and nature of these improvements. The City has an

• pportunity to

partner with Dallas County to share costs for these potential improvements now. Dallas County application evaluates transportation infrastructure improvement projects that improve safety and functionality. Application must show improvement in mobility of vehicles and pedestrians.

PRO ROCES ESS

Present Selected Design Concept to Dallas County Council Meetings June, July, & August Stakeholder Meetings Alternative Scenario development Data summary Stakeholder meetings Parking survey to patrons and merchants Parking inventory and counts Traffic and pedestrian counts, modeling and study

PU PUBLIC I INVOLVEM EMEN ENT R RESULTS

Parking

• 1st in Ranking Survey
• Parking demand is high,

even at non-peak times.

• Adding additional parking

and/or maintaining current parking is a high priority

Pedestrian Flow

• 2nd in Ranking Survey
• Pedestrian safety is a main

concern

• ADA access and crosswalks

are highly desired

Traffic Flow

• 3rd in Ranking Survey
• Low priority for respondents
• Respondents do not want

the roadway widened, but do desire better traffic signal timing

Beautification

• 4th in Ranking Survey
• High desire to maintain

character and charm of Miracle Mile

• Desire identity signage for

retail center

RESUL ULTING DE DESIGN DE DECISIONS

Maximize Parking Needs Improve Pedestrian and ADA access Provide New Traffic Signals Add Green Spaces and Identification Signage

EXISTING C CONDI ONDITION

• 260 Total Parking Spaces (8 ADA)
• 2 - 12’-0” Travel Lanes
• Thru intersection at Armstrong with outdated traffic

signals

• Left-turn lane at Armstrong
• No Fire-Lane
• Limited ADA Access
• Limited Pedestrian Crossings
• Limited lighting
• Confusing traffic patterns
• No Identification Signage
• No landscaping or green space

DD AA CC BE

OPTION A N A

• 344 Total Parking Spaces (17 ADA)
• Tee Intersection at Armstrong with

New Traffic Signals

• New Configuration at Lomo Alto and

Douglas Intersections

• 2 - 11’-0” Travel Lanes
• Minimum Width Parking Drive Aisle
• Pedestrian Lighting
• Continuous Pedestrian Path between

DNT and Douglas

• Pedestrian Crossing at Armstrong
• Mid-block pedestrian crossing at

Lomo Alto

• Locations for Identification Signage

and Landscaping

• 6’ Sidewalk on both sides
• No Fire-Lane Provided
• Minimum Access Points for Thru-Traffic
• No Travel Lane Access for Northbound

Lomo Alto, resulting in heavier turning movements at Armstrong

• Public Access Easement Required on South

side

DD AA CC BA

OPTION A N A

OPTION B N B

• 243 Total Parking Spaces (13 ADA)
• Tee Intersection at Armstrong with New

Traffic Signals

• New Configuration at Lomo Alto and

Douglas Intersections

• 2 - 12’-0” Travel Lanes
• Fire Lane Access
• Pedestrian Lighting
• Continuous Pedestrian Path between DNT

and Douglas

• Pedestrian Crossing at Armstrong
• Mid-block pedestrian crossing at Lomo

Alto

• Landscaped median
• Locations for Identification Signage
• Better access to parking
• Lose 17 parking spaces
• Additional parking only on North Side
• Public Access Easement Required on

South side

DD AA CC BA

OPTION N B

OPTION N C

• 285 Total Parking Spaces (13 ADA)

(Similar configuration to existing)

• Tee Intersection at Armstrong with New

Traffic Signals

• New Configuration at Douglas
• Travel lane access at Lomo Alto
• 2 - 11’-0” Travel Lanes
• Wider Parking Drive-Aisle
• Pedestrian Lighting
• Continuous Pedestrian Path between DNT

and Douglas

• Pedestrian Crossing at Armstrong
• Mid-block pedestrian crossing at Lomo

Alto

• Locations for Identification Signage and

Landscaping

• Wider sidewalks and buffer area between

parking and lanes

• No Fire-Lane Provided
• Reduced Access Points for Thru-Traffic
• Public Access Easement Required on

South side

DD AA CC BA

OPTION N C

COSTS A AND CONSTRUCTION ON TIMING

• Overall Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
• $5.5M (Paving, Landscaping, Signals, Lighting, and Utilities)
• $1.7M for 30% Contingency (including inflation)
• $7.2M Total
• Disclaimers:
• Early in process
• Will depend on Construction Method
• General costs, not specific to any Option
• Construction Timing:
• Too early in the process to tell
• Duration dependent on construction methodology
• Construction $$ from Dallas County available 2022-2025

STAK AKEH EHOLDER ER M MEET EETINGS

• Two Meetings held on June 11th, at 3pm and 6pm
• Three Options presented, with opportunity to leave

comments

• Received 17 comment cards
• Option C had the most comments
• Option B was disliked by all
• A matrix of all comments is provided

MIRAC ACLE M MILE

Questions?