project development decision points - dart.org · union station to oak cliff streetcar tiger...

Appendix AProject Development Decision Points

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMAPPENDIX A-1: PROJECT DEVELOPMENT DECISION POINTS

To: Jay Kline, AICP – DART Project Manager

From: Jerry Smiley, AICP – Project ManagerReggie Herman, AICP – Deputy Project Manager

Date: May 20, 2011

RE: Project Development Decision PointsGeneral Planning Consultant Services - Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)Contract ID C-1017751-01Task Order #14: TIGER Streetcar EA/PE

INTRODUCTIONThis Technical Memorandum documents the evolution of the Union Station to Oak Cliff DallasStreetcar Project from the initial Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery(TIGER) Grant alignment to the proposed build alternative. It also provides a narrative of themultiple “decision points” that have occurred throughout project development.

Although the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is the grantee of the TIGERGrant, the Project has become a collaborative endeavor among local entities. As grant recipient,NCTCOG is providing financial oversight for the project. The City of Dallas is the owner of theproject and has engaged Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) to advance all technical analysesregarding the project’s planning, environmental impacts, engineering, and constructionmanagement. The project partners have defined their roles and responsibilities through anInterlocal Agreement (ILA).

To ensure timely expenditure of the federal grant dollars, the U.S. Department of Transportation(DOT) has stipulated that key milestones be met. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) isoverseeing the fulfillment of grant requirements during implementation of the project.

TIGER GRANT APPLICATIONThe TIGER Discretionary Grants are a component of the American Recovery and ReinvestmentAct of 2009 (ARRA)–an act created to preserve and create jobs and promote economic recoverythrough investment in our transportation infrastructure. These grants were selected on acompetitive basis for capital investments in surface transportation projects that will have asignificant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, or a region.

As shown in Figure 1, the original TIGER Grant application submitted by NCTCOG identified twostreetcar alignments to enhance connectivity within downtown Fort Worth and Dallas,

Union Station to Oak Cliff Streetcar TIGER ProjectAppendix A-1: Project Development Decision Points 2

respectively. Furthermore, these two streetcar systems would provide a seamless transitconnection from the regional scale to the neighborhood scale. The Fort Worth streetcaralignment would be a starter segment, providing circulation in the central business district. TheDallas streetcar alignment would be a starter segment, enhancing access to Union Station fromNorth Oak Cliff and portions of downtown Dallas. Union Station serves as a transit hub for DARTbus service and light rail transit (LRT) for both the Red and Blue LRT lines; the Dallas terminal forAMTRAK; and the eastern terminus for the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) Commuter Rail Service.1

Figure 1

Regional Connection Map from ARRA TIGER Application

Source: North Central Council of Governments, 2009

1 A downtown Dallas streetcar system has been proposed as an alternative mode of transportation since 2005.Several stakeholders, including the City of Dallas and DART, have identified streetcar as a feasible alternative topromote downtown circulation, economic development, and connectivity of near downtown communities to theurban core. The proposed action is derived from a series of studies that served as the basis for the TIGER grantapplication:

City of Dallas Comprehensive Plan, “Forward Dallas!,” 2006 Study of Future Streetcar Options Final Report, 2007

Downtown Dallas Transit Study, 2009

D2 Downtown Transit Study, 2010


The TIGER Grant application requested $96 million ARRA funding for implementation of boththe Fort Worth and Dallas streetcar starter segments ($48 million each). Streetcar service on theproposed Dallas starter segment would originate in downtown Dallas at Harwood and MainStreets. As shown in Figure 2 (labeled in orange), the service would extend west along MainStreet to Houston Street. At this intersection the streetcar line would extend south alongHouston Street to Union Station. From this location the streetcar line would continue south onHouston Street, traversing the Trinity River via the Houston Street Viaduct. Once south of theTrinity River, the streetcar line would make a triangular loop, utilizing Zang Boulevard, BeckleyAvenue, and Greenbriar Lane, which is known as the Greenbriar Loop.

On February 17, 2010, the NCTCOG was selected for a potential $23 million TIGER Grant for theimplementation of the Dallas streetcar. The grant excluded the City of Fort Worth streetcarportion detailed in the application. The awarded amount was less than half of the federalfunding requested to implement the Dallas streetcar project.

Due to NCTCOG receiving only a portion of the requested funding, the project was evaluated todetermine which segment of the project would be constructed first. This evaluation consideredpublic support, potential for future funding, and ability to leverage the TIGER grant. A baseconceptual alignment was developed focusing on streetcar service from North Oak Cliff to UnionStation.

Figure 2ARRA TIGER Application – Dallas Segment

Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments, 2009


REVISED TIGER PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe Dallas segment of the TIGER grant application was strongly supported by the Oak Cliffcommunity. In fact, the Oak Cliff Transit Authority was formed in 2008 by a group of Oak Cliffresidents and businesses interested in revitalizing a segment of original Oak Cliff streetcar railline in an effort to:

Aid in Oak Cliff's economic redevelopment

Facilitate a pedestrian friendly work, live, and play environment

Support area businesses by creating park-and-ride options for merchants who are

unable to acquire Certificate of Occupancies due to restrictive parking issues

Assist in reducing the area’s auto emissions

Link downtown Dallas with Oak Cliff's burgeoning arts districts and the future Oak Cliff

Gateway

This grassroots effort also was supported by Oak Cliff’s two councilmembers, Dr. Elba Garcia andDavid Neumann.

One of the most critical aspects of developing this streetcar segment is establishing a railcrossing over the Trinity River, which separates the North Oak Cliff neighborhood from thedowntown core. A new rail crossing on the Houston Street Viaduct would provide the mostdirect connection. Because of the length of the bridge and its approaches (more than one mile),there is no ridership or adjacent development potential along this portion of the corridor. Thismakes this segment non-competitive for future funding, federal or otherwise.

While the $23 million TIGER Grant would fund only a small portion of the overall proposedstreetcar system, leveraging the grant with regional toll road revenue funds, allows the city andits partners to construct a portion of the streetcar system that would be difficult to fund throughtraditional means.

Alignment RefinementBased on this post-grant evaluation, the project, as reflected in Figure 3, was modified:

The downtown terminus was moved from Harwood Street and Main Street to UnionStation, a multimodal and regional transportation hub

The proposed alignment would cross the Houston Street Viaduct and create the“Greenbriar Loop” via Zang Boulevard to Colorado Boulevard to Beckley Avenue toGreenbriar Lane, and reconnecting with Zang Boulevard

The revised project eliminated the need to construct a new streetcar maintenancefacility and considered several design options to connect with existing LRT track toaccess the existing Central Rail Operating Facility

Potential stop locations were identified at the following locations: Union Station City Parking Garage Stop located on the Houston Street Viaduct Riverfront Stop (future stop to be determined on the Houston Street Viaduct,

which would be coordinated with the opening of the Trinity River Park) Greenbriar Lane and Zang Boulevard Colorado Boulevard and Beckley Avenue


Beckley Avenue and Greenbriar Lane (Greenbriar Loop)

Alignments for future expansion were identified and shown in relation to the initialconceptual alignment to assess compatibility in the study area

Figure 3Post-grant Refined Alignment

Source: URS, 2010


PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PROJECT DEFINITIONPrior to commencement of the preliminary engineering (PE) and environmental documentation,an analysis was performed to develop an accurate scope of work. The initial study area andalignment were again refined to correlate with the limited funds. The following assumptionswere included in the scope of work:

Project definition consists of a single at-grade track operating in a dedicated, bi-directional travel lane within the roadway right-of-way (ROW). Track placement woulddisplace automobile traffic and would be located primarily in the outside travel lanewith stops located within the ROW.

Construction would use the “shallow slab design” to reduce costs and construction time

For initial project design, the conceptual alignment was divided into several segments toestablish the base alignment. These segments are shown in Figure 4: Segment 1 is a 1.04-mile segment between Union Station and Greenbriar Lane

(the Houston Street Viaduct is 0.90 miles in length) Segment 2 is 0.39 miles from Greenbriar Lane to Colorado Boulevard Segment 3 is 0.19 miles from Colorado Boulevard to Beckley Avenue Segment 4 is 0.14 miles along Zang Boulevard to Beckley Avenue

Four alternative LRT connections would be considered for access to the Central RailOperating Facility.

The conceptual alignment does not include the “Greenbriar Loop” since an evaluation revealedit would not be financially feasible due to infrastructure needs and limited benefits to thesurrounding properties. Furthermore, there would be negligible increase in ridership and addedtravel time on the return trip to Union Station. Therefore, the conceptual alignment was refinedto include two possible southern termini, Colorado Boulevard and Beckley Avenue or ZangBoulevard and Beckley Avenue. Both termini would ensure streetcar service would be providedin proximity to the Methodist Dallas Medical Center.

Based on these modifications, the following stops were evaluated as part of the PE effort: Union Station City Parking Garage Stop Riverfront Stop Greenbriar Lane and Zang Boulevard Zang Boulevard and Oakenwald Street Colorado Boulevard and Beckley Avenue (alternate terminus) Zang Boulevard and Beckley Avenue (alternate terminus)


Figure 4Conceptual Alignment

Source: URS, 2011


FINAL PROJECT DEFINITIONThe final project definition was established during PE and initial environmental documentationefforts. As the detailed engineering was developed, the alignment was refined to primarilyreflect operational decisions and context sensitive design considerations.

Operational DecisionsDuring the PE effort, an analysis was conducted to develop the operational characteristics of theproposed action. Operational characteristics focused on several factors:

Time of operation

Frequency of service

Selection/location of stops

Connectivity to LRT

To not compete with the morning peak-hour LRT pull-out, the project partners agreed that thestreetcar would operate between 5am and 7pm. The analysis determined that a two-vehiclefleet could adequately serve this initial segment. Peak headways of 20 minutes and off-peakheadways of 30 minutes were established based on operating one vehicle in the corridor. Aspare vehicle would be stored on the non-revenue connection to the LRT tracks and could beswitched, when warranted. Further details are provided in Appendix C-1:Operations Analysis ofProposed Action.

The Union Station stop was moved from the north side of Young Street to the southwest cornerof Houston and Young streets. This action would eliminate traffic conflicts with the existing bustraffic in front of Union Station and avoid a serious reduction in level of service due to the futureconversion of Houston Street to accommodate two-way traffic. Furthermore, this site wasselected to lower the construction cost (less tail track) and lessen visual impacts to UnionStation, Ferris Park, and The Dallas Morning News building. Lastly, it preserves the option toexpand the future streetcar along either Young or Houston streets.

The City of Dallas Parking Garage stop was also eliminated since no development is currentlyproposed for the former Reunion Arena site. Eliminating this stop improves run times andreduces capital costs. The final design would not preclude a stop at this location in the future.

The Riverfront stop on the Houston Street Viaduct was intended to interface with therecreational and transportation elements of the Trinity River Corridor. This stop was eliminatedto reduce initial capital cost and improve run times as the Trinity River project is delayed.Provisions would be made for a future stop at this location.

Due to its proximity to the Methodist Dallas Medical Center, the Colorado/Beckley intersectionwas selected as the southern terminus for the proposed action. This location does not precludefuture extensions in any direction and directly serves the highest employment center in NorthOak Cliff. In addition, it provides better hospital access for mobility-impaired transit riderscompared to the Zang Boulevard/Beckley Avenue stop.

The following stops were included in the final project definition:

Union Station


Zang Boulevard and Greenbriar Lane

Zang Boulevard and Oakenwald Street

Colorado Boulevard and Beckley Avenue

To provide direct connectivity to the Central Rail Operating Facility, four options wereevaluated. Three of these options focused on the LRT tracks closest to Union Station near thesurface parking lot owned by Woodbine Development Corporation. The fourth option included astreet-running, non-revenue line from Union Station through the historic West End District.Early analysis and subsequent coordination with the developer supported the preferred optionthat would run parallel to Houston Street (east side of Woodbine property) to the LRT tracksbeneath the Houston Street Viaduct. This option is cost effective, provides the most directconnection to the LRT tracks with the least amount of impact (minimal property acquisition),and avoids construction in the Dallas Historic West End. Additionally, due to the connectivity tothe DART LRT, there would be the opportunity to draw power from the LRT traction power. Thiscould eliminate the need for an additional substation on the north end of the project. Furtherdetail regarding this analysis can be found in Appendix C-3: Non-revenue Connection to DARTLRT . Figure 5 illustrates final project definition.

Figure 5Final Project Definition

Source: URS, 2011


Context Sensitive Design DecisionsAs determined early in the evaluation phase of the project, the Houston Street Viaduct is listedas a historic resource on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This approximately 100-year-old structure is afforded certain protection and may only be significantly modified throughcoordination with the Texas Historical Commission (THC). Any significant modification wouldtrigger additional Section 4(f) evaluations and Memorandum of Agreement between the projectpartners, FTA, and the THC.

Early in the project, one of the cost savings measures considered was the interim use of a DARTSuper Light Rail Vehicle (SLRV). In the course of evaluating alternative vehicle technologies, itwas determined that a hybrid vehicle would eliminate the need for an overhead contact systemon the viaduct. Use of this technology would constitute an avoidance measure and possiblyobtain THC concurrence without a finding of adverse impact. This approach was approved bythe FTA and is critical to saving time in further coordination with the THC and U.S. Departmentof Interior.

Best Lane AnalysisThroughout the project development process, an iterative analysis of the “best lane” wasconducted for the streetcar. This further defined the horizontal alignment (lane allocation andplacement of track) for the streetcar. This analysis was critical in two areas: the Houston StreetViaduct and Zang Boulevard.

Currently, the historic Houston Street Viaduct is a three- to four-lane, one-way thoroughfarewith varying sidewalks widths of four to 13 feet on the north side and a four to six-foot sidewalkon the south side. It has an approximate length of a mile and roadway pavement width of 42feet (total width is approximately 50 feet). The alternatives developed considered thestructure’s geometric constraints as well as the need to balance the City’s future plans for two-way traffic. The following table briefly summarizes the five alternatives for lane allocation on theviaduct.


Table 1

Houston Street Viaduct Lane Allocation

AlternativeSidewalk

Width

RemainingPavement

WidthLane Allocation

1 4- foot 42 1 bi-directional exclusive streetcar lane and 3outbound traffic lanes

2 12-foot 34 1 bi-directional exclusive streetcar lane and 2outbound traffic lanes


4 8-foot + 10-foot bikeway

28 1 bi-directional exclusive streetcar lane and 1outbound traffic lane


Source: URS, 2011

These alternatives were evaluated for both the interim and ultimate condition. The interimcondition would add streetcar to the viaduct and maintain one-way traffic. The ultimatecondition would occur when the Houston Street Viaduct accommodates two-way traffic (noschedule has been determined for this condition). Evaluation criteria used to select thepreferred alternative are as follows:

Must allow flexibility for the ultimate build condition

Traffic level of service must be acceptable in the interim and ultimate conditions

Stops on the viaduct must be of sufficient width to accommodate streetcar boardingand alighting

Pedestrian traffic must be accommodated in the interim condition

Bicycle traffic should be accommodated in the ultimate condition

Impacts to the historic resource must be minimized

Alternative 3, as shown in Figure 6, was selected because the configuration minimizesconstruction impacts to the historic structure and preserves two southbound lanes in theinterim condition. The ultimate condition would support bi-directional, shared-lane streetcarservice in three lanes, with a reversible, peak-hour middle lane.


Figure 6Cross Section of Interim Condition

Source: URS, 2011

The initial design along Zang Boulevard aligned the streetcar in the far right, southbound lane.Upon further analysis, a significant utility conflict was identified. The relocation of a 16-inchwater line would cost nearly $1 million and would potentially result in construction delays.During the 5% design Visioning Workshop, a median-running alternative alignment along ZangBoulevard was introduced. Figure 7 shows a cross section of this alternative. This alternativepresented significant cost savings and mitigated driveway and intersecting street trafficconflicts. The Oakenwald Stop, now located within the center median, would provide pedestrianaccess via a new crosswalk, thereby serving both the residents on the north side of the roadwayand the park users on the south side of Zang Boulevard.

Figure 7Cross Section of Zang Boulevard Median

Source: URS, 2011

DOCUMENTATION OF OTHER KEY DECISIONSThe project development process, PE efforts, and environmental analyses have defined a projectthat is supported by both the project partners and the community. The efforts summarized in


this technical memorandum are the culmination of numerous analyses, coordination with theFTA, and community outreach. The following design technical memoranda, included in the EA asAppendix C, outline these other key decisions.

Design Consideration Technical Memoranda Operational Analysis of Proposed Action

Rationale for Wireless Streetcar Operations

Non-revenue Connection to DART LRT

Traction Power Substation Location Analysis

Alternatives Analysis—Best Lane Evaluation

Roadway Capacity Analysis

Proposed Off-site Construction Staging Areas

Detailed Inspection and Structural Analysis of the Houston Street Viaduct

Environmental Resources Technical MemorandaAs the project design and definition progressed, existing conditions within the project area wereevaluated. To maintain a very aggressive schedule, environmental impacts were preliminarilyascertained concurrent with the development of conceptual engineering. A re-evaluation of theimpacts was required as the project definition and engineering progressed.

All environmental analyses have been documented in the environmental resource technicalmemoranda included as Appendix D in the EA. These memoranda discuss the methodology,existing conditions, and potential impacts of the proposed project. Using the PE ProjectDefinition, a one quarter mile buffer was delineated as the study area for identifyingenvironmental constraints associated with the proposed project. The existing conditionsanalyses conducted for these resources include this study area. The impacts analyses assess theFinal Project Definition as outlined in this technical memorandum.

The following Resource Technical Memoranda outline existing conditions and anticipatedimpacts:

Assessment of Land Use Impacts

Assessment of Cultural Resources Impacts

Assessment of Hazardous Materials Impacts

Assessment of Socioeconomic Impacts

Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Assessment of Visual and Aesthetic Resources

Assessment of Parkland and Recreational Resources

Assessment of Soils and Geology

Assessment of Biological Resources

Assessment of Water Resources

Air Quality Impact Assessment

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment


LITERATURE/SOURCES CITED

North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). 2011. “Mobility 2030 – 2009Amendment (Chapter 16 – Regional Rail Map)”. Accessed April 20.http://www.nctcog.org/trans/mtp/2030/2009Amendment.asp

project development decision points - dart.org · union station to oak cliff streetcar tiger...

Documents