GARLAND ROAD/GASTON AVENUE/ GRAND AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY

Transcription

1 MEETING OF AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS GARLAND ROAD/GASTON AVENUE/ GRAND AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY CSJ

2 Meeting Agenda Opening Remarks State Representative Eric Johnson Welcome City of Dallas District 9 Council Member Mark Clayton Acknowledgments State Representative Kenneth Sheets Introductions of TxDOT and City of Dallas staff Mo Bur and Tim Starr Purpose and Scope of Study TxDOT Mo Bur Presentation of Alternatives/Traffic Analysis Kimley-Horn and Associates Group Work Session City of Dallas, Planning and Urban Design Report Out from Group Tables City of Dallas, Planning and Urban Design Next Steps and Schedule TxDOT PM Adjourn TxDOT Mo Bur 2

3 Purpose and Scope of Study TxDOT Garland Road/Gaston Avenue/Grand Avenue Intersection Improvement Alternatives Stakeholder Input and Coordination Considerations: Safety Efficiency of Operations Functionality Constructability/ Maintenance of Traffic Construction Cost ROW Context and Neighborhoods Aesthetics Bicycles Pedestrians Utilities Drainage Range of Potential Solutions (Alternatives) Evaluation and Selection of Preferred Alternative 3

4 Public Comments from May 16 Stakeholder Meeting Need better pedestrian and bicycle accommodations (16*) Traffic operations improvements (15) Roadway design improvements (13) Gateway urban design, art, trees and landscaping (13) Access issues driveways affect traffic and traffic affects driveways (8) Safety issues, need to slow cars down (8) Access to Santa Fe Trail (6) Economic development opportunity (6) Make it a T-intersection (4) Make it a roundabout (2) * Number of collected comments for each topic is in parenthesis 4

5 Alternatives Do nothing Repave, restore curbs Option 1 4-Leg, Modified T Option 2 Reverse T (Grand Avenue intersects Gaston/Garland) Option 3 Roundabout Option 4 Reverse T (Grand to Garland bypass lane) Option 5 Reverse T (Grand to Garland free right turn) 5

6 Do nothing (Required for Environmental Process) Poor pedestrian accommodation Poor bicycle accommodation Poor traffic level of service 6

7 Do nothing (Required for Environmental Process) Poor pedestrian accommodation Poor bicycle accommodation Poor traffic level of service Advantages Lower cost Landscaping opportunities 7

8 Features common to all Options Narrow ROW Multiple retail driveways Driveways at/in intersection High morning- and afternoon-peak hour traffic Vehicle delay is tradeoff to slower traffic 8

9 Features common to all Options Narrow ROW Multiple retail driveways Driveways at/in intersection High morning- and afternoon-peak hour traffic Vehicle delay is tradeoff to slower traffic Advantages Normal intersections Wider bridge Crosswalks and Sidewalks Trail access opportunities 14 Curb lanes Landscape opportunities 9

10 Features common to all Options Narrow ROW Multiple retail driveways Driveways at/in intersection High morning- and afternoon-peak hour traffic Vehicle delay is tradeoff to slower traffic Advantages Normal intersections Wider bridge Crosswalks and Sidewalks Trail access opportunities 14 Curb lanes Landscape opportunities 10

11 Features common to all Options Narrow ROW Multiple retail driveways Driveways at/in intersection High morning- and afternoon-peak hour traffic Vehicle delay is tradeoff to slower traffic Advantages Normal intersections Wider bridge Crosswalks and Sidewalks Trail access opportunities 14 Curb lanes Landscape opportunities 11

12 Features common to all Options Narrow ROW Multiple retail driveways Driveways at/in intersection High morning- and afternoon-peak hour traffic Vehicle delay is tradeoff to slower traffic Advantages Normal intersections Wider bridge Crosswalks and Sidewalks Trail access opportunities 14 Curb lanes Landscape opportunities 12

13 Features common all Options Narrow ROW Multiple retail driveways Driveways at/in intersection High morning- and afternoon-peak hour traffic Vehicle delay is tradeoff to slower traffic Advantages Normal intersections Wider bridge Crosswalks and Sidewalks Trail access opportunities 14 Curb lanes Landscape opportunities 13

14 Features common to all Options Narrow ROW Multiple retail driveways Driveways at/in intersection High morning- and afternoon-peak hour traffic Vehicle delay is tradeoff to slower traffic Advantages Normal intersections Wider bridge Crosswalks and Sidewalks Trail access opportunities 14 Curb lanes Landscape opportunities 14

15 Option 1: 4-Leg, Modified T 4 th -leg driveway Driveways at/in intersection Doesn t favor Gaston/Garland traffic pattern 15

16 Option 1: 4-Leg, Modified T th -leg driveway Driveways at/in intersection Doesn t favor Gaston/Garland traffic pattern Advantages Three lanes Grand/Garland Provides traffic gaps on Garland Rd. Continuous route to Arboretum 16

17 Option 1: 4-Leg, Modified T 4 th -leg driveway Driveways at/in intersection Doesn t favor Gaston/Garland traffic pattern Advantages Three lanes Grand/Garland Provides traffic gaps on Garland Rd. Continuous route to Arboretum 17

18 Option 1: 4-Leg, Modified T 4 th -leg driveway Driveways at/in intersection Doesn t favor Gaston/Garland traffic pattern Advantages Three lanes Grand/Garland Provides traffic gaps on Garland Rd. Continuous route to Arboretum 18

19 Option 2: Reverse T (Grand Avenue intersects Gaston/Garland) Driveways close to intersection 19

20 Option 2: Reverse T (Grand Avenue intersects Gaston/Garland) Driveways close to intersection Advantages Favors Gaston/Garland traffic pattern Some traffic gaps on Garland Rd. Large landscape opportunity 20

21 Option 2: Reverse T (Grand Avenue intersects Gaston/Garland) Driveways close to intersection Advantages Favors Gaston/Garland traffic pattern Some traffic gaps on Garland Rd. Large landscape opportunity 21

22 Option 2: Reverse T (Grand Avenue intersects Gaston/Garland) Driveways close to intersection Advantages Favors Gaston/Garland traffic pattern Some traffic gaps on Garland Rd. Large landscape opportunity 22

23 Option 3: Roundabout Cost: takes additional ROW and affects adjacent property No pedestrian signal cycle Poor bicycle accommodation Fails to provide adequate capacity 3-lanes on circular roadway 23

24 Option 3: Roundabout Cost, takes additional ROW and affects adjacent property No pedestrian signal cycle Poor bicycle accommodation Fails to provide adequate capacity 3-lanes on circular roadway Advantages Low operational cost Large gateway opportunity 24

25 Option 3: Roundabout Cost, takes additional ROW and affects adjacent property No pedestrian signal cycle Poor bicycle accommodation Fails to provide adequate capacity 3-lanes on circular roadway Advantages Low operational cost Large gateway opportunity 25

26 Option 4: Reverse T (Grand to Garland bypass lane) Poor access to Garland Rd properties Poor traffic gaps on Garland Rd. Pedestrian signal/driver expectation safety issue 26

27 Option 4: Reverse T (Grand to Garland bypass lane) Poor access to Garland Rd properties Poor traffic gaps on Garland Rd. Pedestrian signal/driver expectation safety issue Advantages Favors Gaston/Garland traffic pattern Large landscape opportunity 27

28 Option 4: Reverse T (Grand to Garland bypass lane) Poor access to Garland Rd properties Poor traffic gaps on Garland Rd. Pedestrian signal/driver expectation safety issue Advantages Favors Gaston/Garland traffic pattern Large landscape opportunity 28

29 Option 5: Reverse T (Grand to Garland free right turn) Poor traffic gaps on Garland Rd. 29

30 Option 5: Reverse T (Grand to Garland free right turn) Poor traffic gaps on Garland Rd. Advantages Favors Gaston/Garland traffic pattern Large landscape opportunity 30

31 Option 5: Reverse T (Grand to Garland free right turn) Poor traffic gaps on Garland Rd. Advantages Favors Gaston/Garland traffic pattern Large landscape opportunity 31

32 Projected Traffic Analysis Comparisons Options AM PM Do Nothing Option 1 4-Leg, modified T ++ + Option 2 Reverse T (Grand Avenue intersects Gaston/Garland) Option 3 Roundabout Option 4 Reverse T (Grand to Garland bypass lane) Option 5 Reverse T (Grand to Garland free right turn)

33 Response to public comments Topic Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Pedestrian and bicycle Traffic operations Roadway design Urban design, art, trees and landscaping Access issues Safety issues Access to Santa Fe Trail Economic development Make it a T-intersection Make it a roundabout 33

34 Group Work Session We need to hear from you: Preferences for Options Concerns and potential issues Aspirations, visions, goals, and objectives Ideas, techniques, solutions Break out into smaller groups for option discussion Report back 34

35 Next Steps and Schedule Stakeholder Meeting 1 May 16, 2016 Existing Conditions Issues and Opportunities Develop Conceptual Alternatives May - June 2016 Stakeholder Meeting 2 Late Summer 2016 Alternatives Evaluation Preferred Alternative Develop Schematic Layout Fall 2016 Stakeholder Meeting 3 Late Fall/Winter 2016 Refinement 35

36 THANK YOU GARLAND ROAD/GASTON AVENUE/GRAND AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY Meeting of Affected Property Owners and Stakeholders