Technical Work Group Meeting, Southeast Connector Update Photo by - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
technical work group meeting southeast connector update
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Technical Work Group Meeting, Southeast Connector Update Photo by - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jun 27, 2023 19 likes •351 views

Technical Work Group Meeting, Southeast Connector Update Photo by Liam Frederick I-20, I-820 & US 287 February 21, 2019 TECHNICAL W WORK RK GR GROUP M MEETING NO. 3 . 3 | February 2 21, 2019 19 Age genda da 1 Introductions 2

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Photo by Liam Frederick

Technical Work Group Meeting, Southeast Connector Update

I-20, I-820 & US 287 February 21, 2019

TECHNICAL W WORK RK GR GROUP M MEETING NO. 3 . 3 | February 2 21, 2019 19

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Introductions July 2018 Public Meeting Past Activities Current Status Next Steps Other Issues / Discussion

1 2 3 4 5 6

Age genda da

1

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

slide-3
SLIDE 3

2

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

273 Attended

  • 203 General Public
  • 14 Elected Officials
  • 56 Project Representatives

174 Written Comments

  • 33 Received at Meeting
  • 115 E-mailed
  • 26 Mailed

2.

  • 2. July

July 19, 9, 20 2018 Public Public Me Meeti ting

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

– 88 Comments Com

  • mments fr

s from

  • m Ju

July ly P Publ blic Me Meeting – 49 Comments – 25 Comments – 51 Comments

NB B Entran ance R Ram amp f from M m Meado adowbrook SB E SB Entran ance R Ram amp f from Br m Brentwood St Stair air Noise se W Wal all St Study dy Cr Crai aig St Street Br Bridg idge A Access ss / / Ped d Br Bridg idge

3

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

  • Com
  • mpil

iling Pu ing Public M Meeting ting Sum ummar ary

  • Held Additi

itional nal Pu Public Outre utreac ach

– Town Ha Hall Me Meeti tings with th State te Rep Colli llier – Comm mmunit ity Me Meeti ting wit with Council cilwoman man Biv Bivens – Vario ious s Cities – Lio ions and and Opt ptimist Cl Clubs

  • Focus S

Stud tudy A Are rea a on

  • n Northern

n I-820 ne near ar Me Mead adowbrook

– NB NB Entra ranc nce Ramp fro rom Mea eado dowbrook – SB Entrance ce Ramp from m Brentwood d Stair air – Craig aig Street Bridge idge Acces ccess / Pedest edestrian ian Bridg idge

4

3. Past ast Activ tivit itie ies

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

6

Northbou

  • und E

Ent ntranc nce R Ramp f from

  • m M

Meadowbrook

  • ok

North

Proposed Removal of Northbound I-820 Entrance Ramp from Meadowbrook Dr.

Meadowbrook Dr. I-30 6

WHY? Y? – Con

  • ngesti

tion a and Sa Safety – Conflicts with Exit to Brentwood Stair and I-30 Direct Connections causing heavily congested weaving movements and accidents – Distance between ramps near minimum spacing lengths described in roadway design guidelines

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

PROPOSED ED ADDITIO IONAL A ALTERN RNATIVES ES EVALUAT ATED – No No-Buil ild (Do Nothing) Alterna rnative – A1 A1: Removal of northbound entrance ramp from Meadowbrook Dr (as shown at Public Meeting) – A2 A2: Reconstruct northbound entrance ramp from Meadowbrook Dr and exit ramp to Brentwood Stair Rd – A3 A3: Construct braid ided r ramps ps (ramps that are bridged, one over the other) for northbound entrance from Meadowbrook Dr and exit to Brentwood Stair Rd – A4 A4: Construct northbound entrance ramp from Meadowbrook Dr and removal of the exit ramp to Brentwood Stair Rd

7

Northbou

  • und E

Ent ntranc nce R Ramp f from

  • m M

Meadowbrook

  • ok
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

Northbou

  • und E

Ent ntranc nce R Ramp f from

  • m M

Meadowbrook

  • ok – No

No Build ld A Alt lternative

8

North

Meadowbrook Dr. I-30

Pro ros:

  • Access remains as today

Cons: ns:

  • Distance between ramps near minimum

spacing lengths described in TxDOT and National Guidelines

  • Heavily congested weaving movements
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

Northbou

  • und E

Ent ntranc nce R Ramp f from

  • m M

Meadowbrook

  • ok – Altern

rnative A e A1

9

North

I-30

Pro ros:

  • Eliminates existing mainlane weaving from

Meadowbrook entrance ramp reducing congestion and improving safety

  • Design meets TxDOT and National

Guidelines for ramp spacing criteria Cons: ns:

  • Traffic from Meadowbrook must pass through

a signal to access mainlanes

Ba Base sed on

  • n input fr

from

  • m T

Town wn H Hall ll Me Meetings, s, Not Reco commend nded f d for Fur urther E Evaluat ation

Meadowbrook Dr.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

Northbou

  • und E

Ent ntranc nce R Ramp f from

  • m M

Meadowbrook

  • ok – Altern

rnative A e A2

10 I-30

Pro ros:

  • Existing northbound ramps are

reconstructed to allow additional mainlanes capacity Cons: ns:

  • 1345’ between entrance & exit ramps does not

meet minimum TxDOT and National Guidelines

  • 865’ between exit ramp & direct connection

does not meet minimum TxDOT and National Guidelines

  • Traffic from the northbound I-820 on-ramp

from Meadowbrook wanting to continue northbound on I-820 must weave over 2 lanes in a distance of 1330’

  • Reduced shoulders on existing mainlanes

North

Meadowbrook Dr.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

Northbou

  • und E

Ent ntranc nce R Ramp f from

  • m M

Meadowbrook

  • ok – Altern

rnative A e A3

11 11 I-30

Exam ample o

  • f “

“Br Braid aided Ramps”

  • East

stbound I I-30 30 exit t to N Nola lan Ryan Exp xpwy wy/B /Baird F Farm rm Rd Rd/ / AT&T &T W Way in Arlington

North

Meadowbrook Dr.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

12 12

Pr Pros:

  • All direct movements remain available

I-30

North

Meadowbrook Dr.

Co Cons:

  • Traffic from northbound I-820 on-ramp from

Meadowbrook wanting to continue northbound

  • n I-820 must weave over 1 lane in 450’
  • 1220' ramp spacing would not meet minimum

National Guidelines

  • Elevated ramp near neighborhood could

increase noise levels

  • Potential displacements of residents
  • Reduced shoulders on mainlanes
  • Normandy Road cul-de-sac
  • Grades on elevated ramp greater than 4% max

Northbou

  • und E

Ent ntranc nce R Ramp f from

  • m M

Meadowbrook

  • ok – Altern

rnative A e A3

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

Northbou

  • und E

Ent ntranc nce R Ramp f from

  • m M

Meadowbrook

  • ok – Altern

rnative A e A4

13 I-30

Pr Pros:

  • Ramp spacing would meet minimum TxDOT

and National Guidelines

  • Weaving and congestion levels would

improve compared to the No-Build alternative by maintaining 4 mainlanes until the John T. White exit ramp Co Cons:

  • Lambeth Lane would be closed off from frontage

road (cul-de-sac)

  • Remove exit ramp to Brentwood Stair (traffic must

travel through signal at Meadowbrook)

  • Increase volume on the northbound exit ramp to

Meadowbrook

  • Increase traffic volumes at the Meadowbrook

intersection

  • Reduced shoulders on mainlanes

North

Meadowbrook Dr.

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

Proposed Removal of Southbound I-820 Entrance Ramp from Brentwood Stair Rd.

North

WHY? Y? – Con

  • ngesti

tion a and Sa Safety – Conflicts with I-30 Direct Connections and Exit Ramp to Meadowbrook Dr causing heavily congested weaving movements – Distance between ramps near minimum spacing lengths described in roadway design guidelines

Sout

  • uthbou
  • und E

Ent ntrance R Ramp f from Brent ntwoo

  • od Stair

Meadowbrook Dr. Craig St. 14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

PROPOSED ED ADDITIO IONAL A ALTERN RNATIVES ES EVALUAT ATED – No No-Buil ild (Do Nothing) Alterna rnative – B1: Removal of southbound entrance ramp from Brentwood Stair Rd (as shown at Public Meeting) – B2: Construct braided r d ramps (ramps that are bridged, one over the other) for southbound entrance ramp from Brentwood Stair Rd and exit ramp to Meadowbrook Dr – B3: Removal of southbound entrance ramp from Brentwood Stair Rd but construct southbound bypass f front ntage r road l d lane under Meadowbrook Dr to access southbound I-820 entrance ramp – B4: Reconstruct southbound entrance ramp from Brentwood Stair Rd and exit ramp to Meadowbrook Dr

15

Sout

  • uthbou
  • und E

Ent ntrance R Ramp f from Brent ntwoo

  • od Stair
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

16 I-30

Pro ros:

  • Access remains as today

Cons: ns:

  • Distance between ramps near minimum

spacing lengths described in TxDOT and National Guidelines

  • Heavily congested weaving movements

Sout

  • uthbou
  • und E

Ent ntrance R Ramp f from Brent ntwoo

  • od Stair – No

No Build ld A Alt lternative

North

Meadowbrook Dr.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

17

Sout

  • uthbou
  • und E

Ent ntrance R Ramp f from Brent ntwoo

  • od Stair – Altern

rnat ativ ive B B1

Co Cons:

  • Traffic from Brentwood Stair must pass through a

signal to enter mainlanes

  • Distance between proposed southbound

Meadowbrook exit and existing I-30 connections is less than the distance between the existing southbound Meadowbrook exit and I-30 connections

Based o

  • n i

input f from

  • m T

Town n Hall Meetings, N Not Recommen ended ded for F r Further er Ev Eval aluation

I-30

Pr Pros:

  • Eliminates existing mainlane weave from

Brentwood Stair entrance ramp reducing congestion and improving safety

  • Meets TxDOT and National Guidelines for

ramp spacing criteria

  • Relocated exit ramp to Meadowbrook

provides for additional storage or queueing of vehicles from intersection

North

Meadowbrook Dr.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

18

Sout

  • uthbou
  • und E

Ent ntrance R Ramp f from Brent ntwoo

  • od Stair – Altern

rnat ativ ive B B2

I-30

Exam ample o

  • f “

“Br Braid aided Ramps”

  • East

stbound I I-30 30 exit t to N Nola lan Ryan Exp xpwy wy/B /Baird F Farm rm Rd Rd/ / AT&T &T W Way in Arlington

North

Meadowbrook Dr.

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

19

Sout

  • uthbou
  • und E

Ent ntrance R Ramp f from Brent ntwoo

  • od Stair – Altern

rnat ativ ive B B2

Pr Pros:

  • All direct movements remain available

I-30

North

Meadowbrook Dr.

Co Cons:

  • Additional potential displacements
  • Heavy traffic volumes weaving between I-30 direct

connectors & exit to Meadowbrook

  • 1550' ramp spacing does not meet minimum

National Guidelines

  • Elevated ramp could cause increased noise
  • Existing driveway along frontage road (providing

access to property #918) is removed—access maintained via Brentwood Stair

  • Grade on elevated ramp greater than 4% maximum

that should be used by TxDOT guidelines

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

20

Sout

  • uthbou
  • und E

Ent ntrance R Ramp f from Brent ntwoo

  • od Stair – Altern

rnat ativ ive B B3

I-30

Exam ample o

  • f “

“By Bypas ass F Frontag tage Road L Lane ne”

  • Nor

Northbo bound U US 75 at Leg Legacy D Dr in in Pl Plano ano

North

Meadowbrook Dr.

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

21

Sout

  • uthbou
  • und E

Ent ntrance R Ramp f from Brent ntwoo

  • od Stair – Altern

rnat ativ ive B B3

Co Cons:

  • Ramp spacing between Meadowbrook exit and

frontage road bypass undesirable

  • Weaving between exit ramp and frontage road

bypass

  • Properties #516 and #517 do not meet

recommended access control at exit ramp criteria Pr Pros:

  • Traffic southbound from Brentwood Stair

bypass Meadowbrook signal

  • 2000’ ramp spacing meets minimum TxDOT

and National Guidelines

  • Relocated exit ramp to Meadowbrook

provides for additional storage or queueing

  • f vehicles from intersection

I-30

North

Meadowbrook Dr.

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

22

Sout

  • uthbou
  • und E

Ent ntrance R Ramp f from Brent ntwoo

  • od Stair – Altern

rnat ativ ive B B4

Co Cons:

  • Heavy weaving traffic causes high congestion
  • 1500' ramp spacing does not meet National

Guidelines

  • Less space from Meadowbrook to exit ramp for

vehicle storage from signal

  • Requires channelization to prevent access to

properties #507 and #508-A from the Meadowbrook exit ramp

  • Existing driveway along frontage road providing

access to property #918 is removed—access maintained via Brentwood Stair Road

I-30

North

Meadowbrook Dr.

Pr Pros:

  • Southbound ramps would be reconstructed

to allow additional mainlane capacity

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

– Existing Craig Street bridge has narrow sidewalks

Craig aig Street B Brid idge A Access / / Pedestr trian ian B Brid idge

23 Image from Google.com street view Looking West on Craig Street

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

– Proposed Craig Street bridge would be wider with shared use lanes (cars and bikes) and wide sidewalks

Craig aig Street B Brid idge A Access / / Pedestr trian ian B Brid idge

Proposed Craig St. Bridge: 1 shared use lane in each direction with Wide Sidewalks / Paths (see typical section below)

24

Proposed Craig Street

Craig St.

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

– Existing pedestrian bridge to be removed because of vertical clearance/height conflicts – Potential conflicts with overhead/high mast power lines – Potential pedestrian bridge meeting American with Disability Act (ADA) requirements expected to be very long and high over roadway

Craig aig Street B Brid idge A Access / / Pedestr trian ian B Brid idge

Image from Google.com street view Looking South on I-820 25 Power lines Pedestrian Bridge

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

Existing Pedestrian Bridge to be removed

North

Craig aig S Street t Brid idge A Access / Pedestrian ian B Brid idge – Altern rnative P Presen sented a ed at P Public Meet eting

Proposed Craig St. Bridge

Meadowbrook Dr.

  • E. Lancaster Ave.

Craig St. 26

Cons: ns:

  • Removal of existing Pedestrian

Bridge Pro ros:

  • Wider Craig St Bridge with wide sidewalks

and shared use lanes for bikes

  • Cross over frontage roads and mainlanes
  • Loop connections would have sidewalks
slide-27
SLIDE 27

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

Existing Pedestrian Bridge to be removed

Craig aig S Street t Brid idge A Access / Pedestrian ian B Brid idge – Altern rnativ ative P Pedestr trian ian B Brid idge Concept

Proposed Pedestrian Bridge

27

Pro ros:

  • Pedestrian bridge reconstructed
  • Cross over frontage roads

Co Cons:

  • Oncor transmission lines must

be relocated much higher to avoid new pedestrian bridge

  • Cravens Road access revised

(cul-de-sac)

  • Additional right-of-way needed
  • “Switch-back” ramps required to

meet ADA grades adds to travel length

Bas ased o d on in input f from T Town Hal Hall Meeting ings, N Not Reco commend nded d for Fur urther E Evaluat atio ion

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

  • Co

Comple pleted ed Le Level C C/D /D and and some Le Level B B Sub-surfa face Util Utility ity Eng Engine ineering ring

  • Inter

erse section T Traffic Co c Counts s and Project ctions

– Curr urrent ntly ly under revie iew by by TxD xDOT

  • Refine

inement nt of Pre

  • f Preferre

red Alternat rnativ ive

– Inco corpo porat atio ion of the the Northern rn I-820 820 Focus us St Study Inpu put – Op Optim imiz izat atio ion of Al Alignments

28

3.

  • 3. Past Act

ctivities (co (cont ntinue ued)…

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

  • Sche

chematic Develo lopment nt of f Reco commend nded Alt ltern rnative

  • En

Envir iron

  • nmental

al Studies a and nd Ana naly lyses

  • Drain

Drainag age Cr Crossings ngs Surveyi ying ng

  • Drain

Drainag age Studie ies

  • Traf

affic ic Ana naly lyses

  • In

Init itiat iate In Interst state Access Ju ss Just stif ific icatio ion R Repor port

  • Union

ion P Pac acific ic R Rail ailroa

  • ad Coor
  • ordin

inatio ion

  • In

Init itiat iate De Desig sign-Visu isual aliz izat atio ion

  • Con
  • ntin

inued Pu Public ic In Invol

  • lvement an

and Ou Outre reach

  • Ne

News wsletter

29

4.

  • 4. Cur

Current nt St Status us

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

5. Next xt Steps ps

30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

Futu ture P Public H Hea earing On-Ca Call P Present ntatio ions

Publi Public c In Input ut Co Cont ntinue ues

Town wn H Hall Me Meetings Me Meeting wi with P h Prope

  • perty O

Own wners Wor

  • rkshop

shops

31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

32

6.

  • 6. Ot

Othe her Is Issue ues / / Discus cussion

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Technical Work Group Meeting No. 3 February 21, 2019

Tha Thank nk You u for Attend nding!

Pr Proje

  • ject C

t Cont

  • ntac

act I t Inf nformat

  • rmation

ion

www www.t .txd xdot.gov v Se Search ch f for: “ “So Southeast Co Connector” 817 17-37 370-680 6807 SoutheastCon

  • nnector@
  • r@txdot.g

.gov Curtis Loftis, P.E. TxDOT Project Manager Southeast Connector TxDOT Fort Worth District 2501 S.W. Loop 820 Fort Worth, TX 76133 Naser Abusaad, P.E., AICP Consultant Project Manager Southeast Connector Civil Associates, Inc. 9330 LBJ Frwy., Ste. 1150 Dallas, TX 75243

33