s.m. wright ppt

8/9/2019 S.M. Wright PPT

1/19Page 1

. M. Wright Project March 30, 2010 Public Meeting

Texas

of Transportation Department Halff Associates, Inc.

Proposed SM Wright Project

IH 45/SM WRIGHT

Proposed SM Wright Project

IH 45/SM WRIGHT

March 30, 2010 March 30, 2010 March 30, 2010

Texas Department of TransportationTexas Department of TransportationTexas Department of Transportation

Halff AssociatesBaker Consulting Associates

Halff AssociatesHalff AssociatesBaker Consulting AssociatesBaker Consulting Associates

Texas Department

of Transportation

Dallas District

Agenda

Why is this project needed? What is the process? How has the community been involved? What is being studied? Next Steps

Why is this project needed? What is the process? How has the community been involved? What is being studied? Next Steps


2/19Page 2


Texas


Project Need& Overview

Project Need& Overview

SM Wright Project Scope

To developTo developconcepts for theconcepts for theSM Wright ProjectSM Wright Projectwith a focus onwith a focus onincreased safetyincreased safetythrough removingthrough removingthe CF Hawn tothe CF Hawn toSM Wright bend,SM Wright bend,improved mobilityimproved mobilityand efficiency,and efficiency,

while enhancingwhile enhancingcommunitycommunityconnectivity andconnectivity andaesthetics.aesthetics.

ProposedTrinity Parkway

(by others)

Project Study Area

45

45

175

30


3/19Page 3


Texas


SM Wright Fundamentals

H a t c h e r S t H a t c h e r S t

45

C ol oni al A v

e

C ol oni al A v

e

S.M. Wright FreewayS.M. Wright Freeway

Current 6-Lane freeway & frontage roads serve over110,000 vehicles per day (vpd).

Diversion to I-45 and Trinity

Parkway reduces SM Wrighttraffic to about 40,000 vpd.

raffic reduction no longer needsfreeway or bridges on SM Wright.

Remaining local & through trafficvolume requires only 6-lanesignalized arterial.

No added (new) right-of-way isanticipated for SM Wright.ROW is anticipated for US 175connection to IH 45.

Design of SM Wright interchangeat SH 310 is part of this project.

Current 6-Lane freeway & frontage roads serve over110,000 vehicles per day (vpd).

Diversion to I-45 and Trinity

Parkway reduces SM Wrighttraffic to about 40,000 vpd.

Traffic reduction no longer needsfreeway or bridges on SM Wright.

Remaining local & through trafficvolume requires only 6-lanesignalized arterial.

No added (new) right-of-way isanticipated for SM Wright.ROW is anticipated for US 175connection to IH 45.

Design of SM Wright interchangeat SH 310 is part of this project.

This Projects Traffic Flow

I H 4 5

S M W r i g h t

F r e e w a y

U S 1 7 5 Ideal NeighborhoodRochester Park

N

45

L a m a

r

T o d a y T o d a y s s

C o m m u t e r F

l o w

C o m m u t e r F

l o w

P r o p

o s e d

P r o p

o s e d

C o m m

u t e r F

l o w o n

C o m m

u t e r F

l o w o n

D i r e c

t C o n

n e c t i

n g R a

m p s

D i r e c

t C o n

n e c t i

n g R a

m p s

Proposed Project Concept Add direct connecting ramps between US 175 CF Hawn Freeway & IH 45 Improve IH 45 capacity to facilitate new direct connecting CF Hawn ramps Provide access between CF Hawn & SM Wright through a grade separated interchange Convert SM Wright to a low speed, signalized, pedestrian-friendly, landscaped arterial Spacing provided to allow proposed Trinity Parkway connection and extension

P r o p

o s e d

T r i n i

t y P a

r k w a

y


4/19Page 4


Texas


This Projects Traffic Volumes

I H 4 5

S M W r i g h t

F r e e w a y

U S 1 7 5 H a t c h e r S t r e e t N

45

L a m a

r

T o d a y T o d a y s s

C o m m

u t e r F l o w

C o m m

u t e r F l o w

P r o p o s e

d

P r o p o s e

d

C o m m

u t e r F l o

w

C o m m

u t e r F l o

w

20092030 No Build2030 Alternative 12030 Alternative 2

Note: Daily Traffic Volumes areApproximate, NCTCOG

96,500125,000189,700212,100

100,800124,700122,700122,800

00

74,30097,200

116,200133,100

48,00039,800

107,900126,500117,600128,800

8,20021,80021,80021,900

S H 3 1 0

F u t u r e

T r i n i t y

P a r k w

a y

Project ProcessProject Process


5/19Page 5


Texas


Project Process

1. DEVELOP CONCEPT1. DEVELOP CONCEPTALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES

2. EVALUATE CONCEPT2. EVALUATE CONCEPTALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES

3. SELECT PREFERRED3. SELECT PREFERREDALTERNATIVEALTERNATIVE

4. REQUIRED FHWA APPROVALPREPARE DRAFT SCHEMATIC &

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

4. REQUIRED FHWA APPROVAL4. REQUIRED FHWA APPROVALPREPARE DRAFT SCHEMATIC &PREPARE DRAFT SCHEMATIC &

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTDRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

P u

b l i c

P a r t

i c i p a

t i o n a n d

P u

b l i c

P a r t

i c i p a

t i o n a n

d

A g e n c y

C o o r d

i n a

t i o n

A g e n c y

C o o r d

i n a

t i o n

5. REQUIRED FHWA APPROVALPREPARE FINAL SCHEMATIC &

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

5. REQUIRED FHWA APPROVAL5. REQUIRED FHWA APPROVALPREPARE FINAL SCHEMATIC &PREPARE FINAL SCHEMATIC &

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

WE AREHERE

Community InvolvementCommunity Involvement


6/19Page 6


Texas


Invited Community Participants

H.S. Thompson Elementary School (DISD)NCTCOGMLK, Jr. Elementary School (DISD)TxDOT

DHA Rhoades TerraceCity of Dallas (PW & T, PARD, DPD)DHA Turner CourtsDARTDHA Park ManorNTTA

Public Agencies

Major commercial property ownersSouth Dallas Nursing HomeSt. Philips School and Community CenterSouth Dallas Baptist ChurchGrace & Mercy Missionary Baptist ChurchPeoples Missionary Baptist ChurchGreater New Zion Baptist ChurchNew Hope Baptist Church

Other Key Stakeholders

T. R. Hoover CDCInnercity Community Development Corp.Dallas Black Chamber of CommerceClean South DallasForest Heights Neighborhood Development Corp.SouthFair Community Development Corporation

Nonprofit Organizations

Ideal Neighborhood AssociationForest Heights Neighborhood AssociationWendelkin/Driscoll Neighborhood AssociationQueen City Neighborhood AssociationSouth Boulevard/Park Row Historic District

Adjacent Neighborhood Associations

Community Involvement

Dallas Council Trinity River Committee Briefing - February 5, 2008

SM Wright 1 st Stakeholder Work Group Meeting Mar. 31, 2008

SM Wright 2 nd Stakeholder Work Group Meeting Sept. 9, 2008

City of Dallas Public Meeting hosted by Councilmember Davis Oct. 14, 2008

SM Wright 3 rd Stakeholder Work Group Meeting Dec 9, 2008

SM Wright 4 th Stakeholder Work Group Meeting Jan. 13, 2009

Dallas Council Trinity River Committee Briefing - April 21, 2009

SM Wright TxDOT Public Meeting April 28, 2009

Trinity Pkwy NTTA Public Hearing May 5, 2009

SM Wright Project Elected Officials Briefing March 8, 2010

SM Wright Project TxDOT Public Meeting March 30, 2010Topic: SM Wright Final Design, US 175 and IH 45 Alternatives Analysis


7/19Page 7


Texas


What is Being Studied?What is Being Studied?

Study Segments

ProposedTrinity Parkway

(by others)

Project Study Area45

175

30

SM WrightRedevelopment

IH 45Improvements

US 175 to IH 45Connection


8/19Page 8


Texas


US 175 to IH 45 Connection

45

175

30

US 175 to IH 45Connection

Project Study Area

175

45

45

S M W

r i g h t F w y .

CF Hawn FRWY

US 175 to IH 45 Connection

Goal Increase safety by removing the freeway curve atCF Hawn and SM Wright.This Project Build new freeway to freeway ramps fromCF Hawn to IH 45 with widening of IH 45. Design toprovide room to connect and extend proposed TrinityParkway. The ramp connection impacts (south of IH 45)include approx. 34 acres of right of way need (no impacts toexisting historical district) on 42 parcels with 8 potentiallydisplaced commercial buildings and 9 potentially displacedresidential buildings (includes 3 garage/shed structures).


9/19Page 9


Texas


IH 45 Improvements


175

30

IH 45Improvements

IH 45 Alternative #1

IH 45 Alternative #1 Design

Provide two-lane direct connecting ramps between CF Hawn and IH 45.

Widen IH 45 from a total of six main lanes to eight main lanes.

To minimize ROW impacts, the main lanes utilize 11 lanes and 2 inside shoulders. Thesewidths do not meet TxDOT and FHWA design standards, which requires a design exception.

Minimal ROW is needed along IH 45. ROW is required for the CF Hawn ramp connections.

Based on NCTCOG 2030 traffic projections, Alternative #1 experiences significantly morecongestion than Alternatives 2A & 2B. Inadequate capacity for Alternative #1 forces abreakdown in traffic (congestion) along IH 45, CF Hawn, and SM Wright within the project limits.

24 4 @ 11 4@11 241010 2 2

ROW VARIES 220 TO 500

NorthboundSouthbound


10/19Page 10


Texas


IH 45 Alternative #2A

IH 45 Alternative #2A Design

Provide three-lane direct connecting ramps between CF Hawn and IH 45.

Widen IH 45 from a total of six main lanes to ten main lanes.

To minimize ROW impacts, the main lanes utilize 11 lanes and 4 inside shoulders. Thesewidths do not meet TxDOT and FHWA design standards, which requires a design exception.

Right Of Way (ROW) is needed along IH 45 and for the CF Hawn ramp connections.

24 5 @ 11 5@11 241010 4 4



IH 45 Alternative #2B

IH 45 Alternative #2B Fact Sheet

Provide three-lane direct connecting ramps between CF Hawn and IH 45.

Widen IH 45 from a total of six main lanes to ten main lanes.

The main lanes utilize 12 lanes and 10 shoulders. These widths meet TxDOT and FHWA design standards and do not require a design exception.

Right Of Way (ROW) is needed along IH 45 and for the CF Hawn ramp connections.

24 5 @ 12 5@12 241010 10 10




11/19Page 11


Texas


Comparison of Alternatives

No impact15 residential bldgs(includes 7 garages)5 commercial bldgs

39 parcels4.1 acres2B

No impact2 residential bldgs(includes 1 garage)4 commercial bldgs

31 parcels2.6 acres2A

No impact0 displacements4 - parcels0.6 acres1

HistoricalDistrictImpacts

PotentiallyDisplaced Buildings

# of ParcelsImpacted

ROW Needalong IH 45

(acres)

IH 45 Alt. #

The Right of Way (ROW) impacts for the ramp connections between IH 45 and CF Hawnare the same for all IH 45 alternatives. The ramp connection impacts include:

Approx. 34 acres of ROW need (no impacts to existing historical districts)42 parcels impacted8 potentially displaced commercial buildings9 potentially displaced residential buildings (includes 3 garage/shed structures)

IH 45 ALTERNATIVES ROW IMPACT COMPARISON

SM Wright Redevelopment


175

30

SM WrightRedevelopment


12/19Page 12


Texas


Concept Development

SM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONSPREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED:

Roadway Alignment Split Alignment Single Alignment one side Single Alignment meandering

Connections & Access Through Streets Cul-de-Sacs Tee Intersections

Residual Land Use Recreation/Park or Green Space Parking Redevelopment

No new right of way

SM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONSPREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED:

Roadway Alignment Split Alignment Single Alignment one side Single Alignment meandering

Connections & Access Through Streets Cul-de-Sacs Tee Intersections

Residual Land Use Recreation/Park or Green Space Parking Redevelopment

No new right of way

Residential AreasResidential Areas Commercial Areas Civic Areas Park Areas Undeveloped Areas

Major Linkages & Nodes

S e c

t i o n

B r e a

k

S e c

t i o n

B r e a

k

Existing Land Use and CrossingsSM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENTSM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENT


13/19Page 13


Texas


Preferred Concept

Turtle Creek Boulevard

Meandering Alignment

SM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENTSM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENT

Concept Access/Residual LandSM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENTSM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENT


14/19Page 14


Texas


SM Wright Freeway Enhancements & Revitalization StudyConcept Enhancement PlanSM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENTSM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENT

SM Wright FreewayConvert to Low-speed Arterial

Existing Proposed

Concept AestheticsNorth at PennsylvaniaSM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENTSM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENT


15/19Page 15


Texas


Existing Proposed

Concept AestheticsSouth at Metropolitan

SM Wright FreewayConvert to Low-speed Arterial

SM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENTSM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENT

SM Wright Freeway Enhancements & Revitalization StudyConcept Enhancement PlanSM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENTSM WRIGHT REDEVELOPMENT


16/19Page 16


Texas


SM Wright / CF Hawn Intersection

Option 1 Design Elements A) Enhanced Vehicular Paving

B) Gateway ArchC) Major/Minor Decorative Gateway Monuments

A AA ABBBB

C CC C

D DD D

E EE E

D) Vegetative Greenwall

E) Potential Commercial Development

SM Wright / CF Hawn Intersection

Option 2 Design Elements A) Enhanced Vehicular PavingB) Iconic Gateway Entry MonumentsC) Decorative Gateway Monuments

D) Form Line ConcreteE) Ornamental Grass PlantingsF) Potential Commercial Development

A AA A

BBBB

C CC C

D DD D

E EE E

F FF F


17/19Page 17


Texas


Monuments and Gateways

Neighborhood Gateways


18/19Page 18


Texas


Greenwalls

Enhanced Walls & Paving


19/19


Next Steps

S.M. Wright Project Schematic & EnvironmentalDevelopment 4-6 month process

S.M. Wright Project Schematic & Environmental

Review & Approval 10-12 month process S.M. Wright Public Hearing Summer 2011 FHWA Approval (anticipated) Fall 2011 S.M. Wright Project Construction 2012-2014

(Dependent on Funding) Adjacent Corridor

Redevelopment(City of Dallas)- Ongoing

Tim Nesbitt, P.E.TxDOT Project Manager

Texas Department of TransportationP.O. Box 133067Dallas, Texas 75313-3067Phone: 214-320-6245Fax: 214-320-4470

Or visit the project web site at:www. smwright project.org

For More Information

s.m. wright ppt

Documents