Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 7242 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7242 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council December 18, 1987 vz Subject: 1-30/1-35 INTERCHANGE PROJECT IN DOWNTOWN FORT WORTH Isis At the 1-30 Working Group meeting on December 16, 1987, the Consultants for the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation passed out and explained the attached information. At the conclusion of their explanation, the Consultants stated that they tentatively recommend to the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation that they believe the Vickery alternative is the preferred alternative and should be selected. The staff plans a full presentation of the alternatives for the City Council at the January Worksession. If there are any questions, we will respond upon request. � uglas ma Ci Wty Manager DH/sf nnn Attachments (3) ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1— >rr ~ W � _ F 4 IL r if •y r��fy a II 3I sa -. � 33 # i �p§33ag-• 8 .rj88�� r J a# 3:4 a �II _.0 ,# {««� 88�.`8"a 8g & +' I# "if 1,11T f'3 1 'a' ist s ' I 1�E1IHP i4 �1i3 st '��# a 4gs t'�x8�" la,'a !jy:1 I �-IR, w t o� °:z. �rtJl$�Yl _i. 1 _•.laid ;.._ , ', {s ui cc WE I: . a +'y1i as i a 'ri '•o W v V1 lu IWi zz O Vi iC O C JOL W LC ' � to s<o z Ow W W ATTACHMENT "B" O► SECTION 8 - EVALUATION OF FINALIST ALTERNATIVES 8-1 The final evaluation of five alternatives is presented in this section. The five alternatives evaluated are as follows. • Expanded Elevated (Figures 8-2 through 8-6) • Modified Expanded Elevated (Figures 8-7 through 8-11) • Depressed (Figures 8-12 through 8-16) • Vickery Alignment (Figures 8-17 through 8-21) • Do Nothing Each of these alternatives has been described in a previous section (Description of Alternatives 3.0). Each alternative was evaluated as to its ability to achieve the goals and objectives set forth in the Evaluation Matrix, and the results of this evaluation are summarized in Figure 8-1. The following narrative presents the factors considered in each row of the Evaluation Matrix as well as the rela- tive strengths and weaknesses of each alternative. 8.1 SUMMARY OF FINALIST ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MATRIX 8.1.1 Design 1.1 OW Goal: Adequate to Meet 2010 Traffic Demand Objective: Achieve Level of Service C Based upon the traffic forecasts for the year 2010 for each alternative, peak-hour demands were estimated for morning and afternoon peaks. These esti- mated peak-hour demands included consideration of the traffic flow characteristics , into and out of the central business district (CBD). Operational analyses were then performed to determine the resulting level of service during peak hours in the design year (2010). None of the alternatives were found to totally meet the objective of operating at or above Level of Service C. In most instances, the lower level of service resulted from weaving problems on the outside lane between an on-ramp and an off-ramp. In order to show a meaningful comparison of the different alternatives, the percentage of total lane-miles of the project which would operate at conditions Level of Service C or better during the average peak hour were calculated. The resulting comparison is as follows. Expanded Elevated 82 percent Modified Expanded Elevated 83 percent Depressed 80 percent Vickery Alignment 93 percent Do Nothing 42 percent 8.1.2 Design 2.2 op` Goal: Facility Reliability Objective: Minimize Operating Constraints The five alternatives were evaluated concerning their relative suscep- tibility to flooding, icing, spills, fires, and accidents that might disrupt or 8-2 close the freeway. All of the alternatives have long structures in the inter- change area which will be subject to icing. Those portions of the facilities going under the railroads or depressed through downtown will be subject to possible flooding during heavy rains. The constrained-width roadway sections, whether elevated or depressed, are susceptible to closure due to hazardous spills or fires. In short, none of the alternatives score very well toward meeting this objective, and there are no significant differences in the susceptibility of the "build" alternatives to operating constraints. All four "build" alternatives were assigned a rating of "Fair" for this objective. The No-Build Alternative, however, is more susceptible to closure due to accidents because of its narrow width and the severe traffic congestion that it will experi- ence, Therefore, the No-Build Alternative was assigned a score of "Poor" for this objective. 8.1.3 Design 2.2A Goal: Facility Reliability Objective: Emergency Detour Capability The alternatives were rated on the availability and accessibility of emergency detour roadways. Lancaster Avenue can be used as a detour for the IH-34 mainlanes on any of the alternatives. Detours for the IR--35W mainlanes will be equally as circuitous for all alternatives. Only two of the alternatives, the Modified Expanded Elevated and the Vickery Alignment, have full-width inside shoulders which can be used as detours around stalled vehicles and minor acci- dents. The existing facility, which will remain under the Do Nothing Alternative, is only two lanes wide in many places and has narrow shoulders that cannot serve as a detour lane. The Do Nothing Alternative offers virtually no detour capa- bility on the facility itself. The resulting ratings for the five alternatives' ability to provide emergency detour capability is as follows. Expanded Elevated Fair Modified Expanded Elevated Good Depressed Fair Vickery Alignment Good Do Nothing Poor 8.1.4 Design 3.3 Goal: Facility Safety Objective: Minimize Accident Potential Freeways are inherently safer than other traffic facilities because all crossing traffic and driveways have been eliminated. Differences in accident rates between freeways can usually be attributed to geometric design deficien- cies, signing problems, or traffic congestion. These factors were considered OW in evaluating how effective each of the alternatives would be in minimizing accident potential. The Vickery Alignment scored the best of all alternatives because it has the fewest number of design variances, it offers better opportuni- ties for signing because of the greater distances between decision points, and 8-3 it will have the best overall traffic flow. The Modified Expanded Elevated and the Depressed alternatives score slightly lower than the Vickery Alternative on all three counts. The Expanded Elevated Alternative has three times as many design variances as the Vickery Alignment and almost twice as many as the other two "build" alternatives, so it has a slightly higher accident potential. Finally, the Do Nothing Alternative scores the poorest of all on accident poten- tial because of its numerous design variances, poor signing, and severe conges- tion. The resulting scores of all alternatives on minimizing accident potential is as follows. Expanded Elevated Fair Modified Expanded Elevated Good Depressed Good Vickery Alignment Excellent Do Nothing Poor 8.1.5 Design 4.4 Goal: Economical Design Objective: Economical Materials and Construction Techniques For the most part, all of the "build" alternatives use standard freeway construction materials and techniques. All of them will require some longer than usual spans over the railroads and in the interchange area, but these spans are no longer than those in many other freeway interchange projects. The Modi- fied Expanded Elevated design, however, incorporates a very unusual structural support to achieve a long cantilever of the elevated roadway over Lancaster Avenue. Also, the depressed design includes some highly unusual structural design for the retaining walls and suspension of Lancaster Avenue over the main- lanes. Because of these highly unusual design features, the Modified Expanded Elevated and the Depressed alternatives are considered complex, while the Vickery Alignment and the Expanded Elevated alternatives are considered to be standard. No construction activity is involved with the Do Nothing Alternative, so this objective is not applicable. 8.1.6 Design 4.4A Goal: Economical Design Objective: Ease of Maintenance Factors considered in evaluating the various alternatives on ease of maintenance included accessibility for maintenance vehicles and room for per- forming maintenance operations. All of the "build" alternatives are very similar in these attributes with many elements on which maintenance vehicles will have to be located on the roadway itself during maintenance operations. All "build" alternatives were assigned a rating of "Fair." The existing facility has already deteriorated to the point that it needs frequent and extensive maintenance, and it is so narrow that maintenance operation results in a virtual closing of the freeway. Hence, the Do Nothing Alternative was assigned a rating of "Poor." e"` 8-4 8.1.7 Design 5.5 Goal: Maximize Operating Performance Objective: Maximize Average Vehicle Speeds Traffic operational analyses were performed for all alternatives to ascertain the speeds that vehicles will be able to travel along the mainlanes during the average peak hour in the year 2010. Speeds along IH-30 were calcu- lated between Riverside Drive and Forest Park Boulevard. The section evaluated on IR-35W was between Hattie Street and Luella Street. The calculated speeds were then weighted in proportion to length of segment and averaged together. The resulting estimated average peak-hour speed for each alternative in the year 2010 is as follows. Expanded Elevated 49 mph Modified Expanded Elevated 49 mph Depressed 48 mph -Vickery Alignment 51 mph Do Nothing 32 mph 8.1.8 Design 6.6 Goal: Improve Mobility and Accessibility Objective: Activity Center Access/Interchange Movements Two factors were considered in evaluating this objective: (1) access opportunities between IH-30 and the CBD and (2) turning movements provided in the IH-35W/IH-30 interchange. The existing facility has more access ramps than will be provided by any of the "build" alternatives. Of course, many of these existing ramps are so closely spaced that they cause operational and safety problems. Nevertheless, the Do Nothing Alternative ranks the highest for this objective. The total number of ramps provided by each alternative is as follows. Expanded Elevated 19 Modified Expanded Elevated 19 Depressed 19 Vickery Alignment 18 Do Nothing 25 8.1.9 Design 6.6A Goal: Improve Mobility and Accessibility Objective: Integrate to Arterial System Each of the "build" alternatives provide a total of 23 ramps between the mainlanes and various arterial streets in the project area. This number of ramps provides excellent integration between the freeway system and the arterial op", street system. The existing facility, however, has a total of 27 access points between the mainlanes and arterials. So, the No-Build Alternative ranks the highest for this objective. O. 8-5 8.1.10 Design 6.6B Goal: Improve Mobility and Accessibility Objective: Minimize Impact to Arterial System Two factors were considered in evaluating the alternatives under this objective. First, the changes in arterial street continuity resulting from the project were identified. All of the "build" alternatives sever Vickery Boulevard between Henderson Street and University Drive, but they create a new connection between Summit Avenue and 8th Street so that their net impact on arterial con- tinuity is zero. Second, the number of signalized intersections that would be overloaded by the volume of traffic exiting at a specific freeway ramp were identified for each alternative. The Expanded Elevated, the Modified Expanded Elevated, and the Depressed alternatives each overload two signalized inter- sections. The Vickery Alignment overloads one signalized intersection. The No-Build Alternative also overloads one intersection. 8.1.11 Design 7.7 Goal: High Level of Design Aesthetics Objective: Combine Engineering Requirements and Physical Appearance Every effort will be made to design the selected alternative as aestheti- cally pleasing as possible. However, certain constraints are inherent to some alternatives which will limit just how aesthetically pleasing they can be. Both elevated alternatives will be massive structures which will dominate their imme- diate environs; hence, despite all efforts to design an attractive structure, the net aesthetic appearance of these alternatives will be "Fair." The Depressed Alternative will require safety treatments along Lancaster Avenue to prevent vehicles and pedestrians from falling onto the mainlanes, but these constraints should not prevent the achievement of a "Good" aesthetic appearance. The Vickery Alignment has fewer constraints on its design, so a "Good" aesthetic appearance should be easily achievable with this alternative. The No-Build Alternative is rated as "Fair" in aesthetics. 8.1.12 Level of Service/Operations 1.1 Goal: Improve Mobility/Reduce Delay Objective: Minimize Average Travel Times In order to evaluate the five alternatives under this objective, the time required to make certain trips during peak hours in the year 2010 were estimated for each alternative. The following three types of movements were evaluated and assigned the relative weightings shown. o Cross-town movements along IH-30 between Riverside Drive and Forest Park Boulevard (60 percent). o Interchange movements between IH-30 and IH-35W (25 percent) . o CBD to IH-30 movements (15 percent) . 8-6 The average peak-hour design year travel times were calculated and then summed in accordance with the weighting factors for each movement. The resulting composite travel times in minutes are as follows. Expanded Elevated 5.8 minutes Modified Expanded Elevated 5.8 minutes Depressed 5.8 minutes Vickery Alignment 5.8 minutes Do Nothing 8.3 minutes 8.1.13 Level of Service/Operations 2.2 Goal: Achieve "User-Friendly" Facility Objective: Signing/Clear Decision Points Most drivers establish a priority among their various driving functions. If they are busy trying to avoid collisions with merging vehicles or controlling their vehicle on steep grades or tight curves, they do not bother to try to read informational signs. Therefore the opportunity to provide effective signing on an urban freeway is severely constrained by the geometric attributes of that facility. The five alternatives were evaluated for their potential to be ade- OP161 quately signed primarily on their geometric layouts. The highest rating was given to the Vickery Alignment because its decision points are separated by greater distances. The three "build" alternatives along the existing corridor received lower ratings because of the shorter spacings between decision points and tighter curves involved. The No-Build Alternative received the lowest rating because of its even shorter spacings and sharper curves. The resulting ratings are as follows. Expanded Elevated Fair Modified Expanded Elevated Fair Depressed Fair Vickery Alignment Good Do Nothing Poor 8.1.14 Level of Service/Operations 2.2A Goal: Achieve "User-Friendly" Facility Objective: Geometric Attributes Current design standards for freeways have evolved over the four decades of freeway use. These standards have been modified to increase safety and improve the comfort of the driving public. Maximum allowable grades have been reduced, minimum radii curves have been improved, convergence/divergence angles for ramps have been modified for better visibility, spacing between ramps has been increased to reduce weaving problems, and sag and crest vertical curves have been smoothed to reduce the roller-coaster effect, thus improving sight OP► distances. Indeed, if a facility could be designed without a single variance from the "desirable" guidelines in the current State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SDHPT) Design Manual, it would be a very "user-friendly" facility. OPOI 8-7 The geometric attributes of these five alternatives were evaluated by counting the number of design variances that each alternative has from the latest SDHPT Design Manual guidelines. In this rating, the lower the number of vari- ances, the better the resulting geometric design. The resulting number of vari- ances for each alternative is as follows. Expanded Elevated 68 Modified Expanded Elevated 35 Depressed 37 Vickery Alignment 23 Do Nothing 200+ 8.1.15 Level of Service/Operations 3.3 Goal: Provide Cost-Effective Facility Objective: Cost-Effectiveness Index The cost-effectiveness index used for this evaluation is a simplified benefit/cost ratio. The only benefits considered were the savings due to reduced delay time and reduced fuel consumption. The value of time assumed in this analysis was a minimum wage equivalent of $3.35/hour for individuals and an average cost of $35.00/hour for commercial vehicles on business trips. It was further assumed that the cost of fuel would average $1.25/gallon in 1987 dollars over the 20-year design life of the project. The total savings accrued over the 20-year life of the project were then divided by the implementation costs to yield the cost-effectiveness index. The resulting ratings for each alternative in dollars saved/dollars spent are as follows. Expanded Elevated 3.1 Modified Expanded Elevated 2.7 Depressed 2.5 Vickery Alignment 2.5 Do Nothing N/A 8.1.16 Level of Service/Operations 3.3A and 3.3B An evaluation of these two parameters concerning minimizing operating costs for trucks and passenger cars would be based on the same factors used in evaluating several other parameters in the Evaluation Matrix (Level of Service, Average Speeds, and Delay Time). Ratings of these parameters would be redundant and offer no different information; therefore, these two parameters will not be rated as a part of this evaluation. 8.1.17 Cost/Construction 1.1 Goal: Lowest Cost Facility Achievable Objective: Minimize Implementation Cost A detailed cost estimate was prepared for each of the "build" alterna- tives. The unit costs used in these estimates are based on the latest average bid prices received for highway construction in the Fort Worth District. These Opk 8-8 unit prices are considerably lower than those used in previous cost estimates for this project. The total implementation (construction costs + right-of-way costs + engineering costs + contingency) costs for the various alternatives are as follows. Expanded Elevated $103 million Modified Expanded Elevated $119 million Depressed $127 million Vickery Alignment $138 million Do Nothing N/A 8.1.18 Cost/Construction 2.2 Goal: Available Funding Objective: Identify Funding Availability/Eligibility This project involves two Interstate Highway facilities, which qualifies it for 90 percent federal funding. The only difference in the funding for the different alternatives is in how much of the project will be eligible for "new" Interstate funding and how much will have to be constructed with 4R funds. In all alternatives the interchange portion and the eastern portion will qualify Opl► for Interstate funds, while the western portion will only qualify for 4R funding. There may be slight differences between alternatives in precisely where the dividing line between 1 and 4R funding occurs. However, with the new funding levels based on increased gasoline taxes (now at $0.09 federal and $0.15 state tax/gallon), adequate funds should be available from both 1 and 4R sources to fund this project. 8.1.19 Cost/Construction 3.3 Goal: Ease of Implementation Objective: Phased Construction A detailed plan has been developed for the sequence of construction and traffic handling during construction for each of the "build" alternatives. Two lanes of freeway traffic in each direction can be kept open during the construc- tion process for each alternative. However, the complexity of phasing construc- tion varies significantly between the alternatives. The Modified Expanded Elevated is rated as "Very Complex" because of the problems associated with the new alignment crossing the existing alignment and the construction of unusual structural bents. The Depressed Alternative is also rated as "Very Complex" due to the need to excavate below existing facilities within the right-of--way. The Expanded Elevated is rated as "Complex" due to the problems of widening an exist- ing structure in a narrow right-of-way with heavy street traffic underneath the structure. The Vickery Alignment is rated as "Normal" in phasing complexity because much of it is constructed on a new alignment without the constraints of the Lancaster Avenue corridor. Since no construction is involved with the Do OW Nothing Alternative, a rating for it is not applicable under this objective. " 8-9 8.1.20 Cost/Construction 3.3A Goal: Ease of Implementation Objective: Minimize Utility Relocation Problems Originally, it was thought that one of the major problems associated with utility relocations would be a delay in implementation time. Further analyses, however, indicate that utility relocation activities are not on the critical path for any of the alternatives. Other utility relocation problems considered in rating the various alternatives included costs, disruption of traffic during relocation, and impacts on utility system networks. The resulting ratings of utility relocation problems for the five alternatives are as follows. Expanded Elevated Minimal Modified Expanded Elevated Moderate Depressed Severe Vickery Alignment Moderate Do Nothing None 8.1.21 Cost/Construction 4.4 Goal: Minimal Inconvenience to Public oplk Objective: TCP Convenience to Public Any roadway construction will present some inconvenience to the travel- ing public. Every effort was made in the development of detailed sequence of construction/traffic handling plans for each alternative to minimize this inconvenience. Nevertheless, the different alternatives will result in varying degrees of inconvenience for the traveling public. A rating of "Severe" was assigned to the Depressed Alternative because of the longer construction period (6 years), shifting of Lancaster Avenue traffic from one side of the excavation to the other, and numerous shifts in mainlane traffic to narrow temporary lanes. The level of inconvenience was considered "High" for both of the Elevated alter- natives because of the numerous detours of freeway traffic involved. The Vickery Alignment is considered to impose only a "Moderate" level of inconvenience on the traveling public because it has the shortest duration of construction (4.5 years) and much of that construction can be accomplished without detouring freeway traffic. The Do Nothing Alternative involves no construction, so it has no resulting inconvenience to the public during construction. 8.1.22 Cost/Construction 4.4A Goal: Minimal Inconvenience to Public Objective: Minimize Duration of Implementation The existing facility experiences severe congestion during numerous hours of each day. Therefore, the sooner that an expanded facility can be provided, the O. less time that the traveling public will have to suffer the inconvenience of the current congestion. The ratings of the various alternatives under this objective are based on the total implementation time required. Of course, the Do Nothing OW 8-10 Alternative involves no implementation time, but neither does it provide any benefits in reduced congestion, so a rating for it is not applicable under this objective. Total implementation times for the alternatives are as follows. Expanded Elevated 6.5 years Modified Expanded Elevated 9.5 years Depressed 10.0 years Vickery Alignment 8.5 years Do Nothing N/A 8.1.23 Cost/Construction 4.48 Goal: Minimal Inconvenience to Public Objective: Minimize Fire/Police Reroutes/Detours For this objective, the alternatives were rated on the disruption to typical fire and police routes that would be necessary during construction. The Depressed Alternative results in major reroutings because each of the north-south streets will have to be closed at some time for construction of bridges over the depressed freeway. The other "build" alternatives will have minimal impacts on police and fire routes. The Do Nothing Alternative will have no impacts. 8. 1.24 Cost/Construction 4.4C Goal: Minimize Inconvenience to Public Objective: Minimize Residential Impacts This objective concerns the impacts of construction traffic, noise, dust, vibration, etc. on residential units in close proximity to the construction site. The number of residential units in close proximity is the same for all "build" alternatives. A total of 509 residential units (414 apartments near the west segment of the project and 95 low-income housing units near the east segment of the project) will experience some impacts during construction. A rating for the Do Nothing Alternative is not applicable under this objective. 8.1.25 Cost/Construction 4.4D Goal: Minimal Inconvenience to Public Objective: Minimize Business Impacts This objective concerns the impacts of construction traffic, noise, dust, vibration, etc. on commercial establishments in close proximity to the construc- tion site. All three "build" alternatives using the existing corridor will have some impacts on 63 commercial buildings along the Lancaster Avenue corridor. The Vickery Alignment will also impact these buildings during the removal of the existing elevated and it will impact an additional 12 businesses along the new alignment, for a total of 75 businesses. A rating for the Do Nothing Alternative OW is not applicable under this objective. 8-11 8.1.26 Socioeconomic Impacts 1.1 Goal: Minimize Effects on Protected Property Objective: Minimize Impacts Parks All potential proximity effects of the various alternatives on the Water Garden were considered under this objective. The noise study indicates that there is no measurable difference in noise between any of the alternatives. The Air Quality report shows that the concentration of vehicle emissions will be slightly greater for the Depressed Alternative, but that none of the result- ing concentrations will approach the maximum guidelines established by EPA. Construction activities for the three "build" alternatives in the Lancaster Avenue corridor will have significant temporary impacts of a similar nature. The Vickery Alignment will impose minimal construction impacts on the Water Garden. The most apparent proximity effect for any of the alternatives will be the visual impact. Based upon all of the considerations mentioned above, the following ratings were assigned to the various alternatives for their impacts on the Water Garden. Expanded Elevated Poor Modified Expanded Elevated Poor Depressed Fair opbl Vickery Alignment Good Do Nothing Fair 8.1.27 Socioeconomic 1.1A Goal: Minimize Effects on Protected Properties Objective: Minimize Effects on Historic Structures There are four historic structures to be considered in the evaluation of alternatives under this objective. The T&P Passenger Terminal, the U.S. Post Office Building, and the T&P Freight Terminal are all located on the south side of Lancaster Avenue in the center portion of this project. The Public Market Building is located in the western portion of the project. Because all of these buildings are currently being used for commercial activities, the most significant proximity effects are those associated with the construction process. The convenient access that these buildings currently enjoy will be reduced during construction. Other proximity effects on these buildings will be very similar to those discussed for the Water Garden. The Vickery Alignment, however, will still be in close proximity to the Public Market Building as it crosses over the railroad tracks behind the Public Market. The Vickery Alignment results in a shifting of the heavily traveled mainlanes from immediately in front of the Public Market to a slightly more distant location in the rear of the building, a change which should have an overall beneficial effect on the commercial via- bility of the building. The resulting ratings assigned to the various alterna- tives after consideration of all proximity factors are as follows. ` 8-12 Expanded Elevated Poor Modified Expanded Elevated Poor Depressed Poor Vickery Alignment Fair Do Nothing Fair 8.1.28 Socioeconomic 1A.1 Goal: Achieve Least Adverse Visual Impacts Objective: Maximize Compatibility With Adjacent Structures The adjacent structures considered under this objective include the com- mercial office buildings, public buildings, and hotel located along the existing facility. For the Vickery Alignment, the adjacent structures include railroad yards on the north and light industrial buildings on the south. The ratings assigned to the various alternatives for their compatibility with adjacent struc- tures are as follows. Expanded Elevated Poor Modified Expanded Elevated Poor Depressed Fair Vickery Alignment Good Do Nothing Poor 8.1.29 Socioeconomic 2.2 Goal: Reduce Traffic Congestion Objective: Reduce Delay Time The total number of vehicle hours of delay time that will be experienced by the traveling public over a 20-year period was estimated for each alternative. These estimates are based on a correlation of the density of traffic on a segment of urban freeway and the corresponding congestion experienced on that segment. The resulting estimates of millions of vehicle-hours of delay time for each alternative are as follows. Expanded Elevated 2.7 Modified Expanded Elevated 2.3 Depressed 2.3 Vickery Alignment 0.0 Do Nothing 36.7 8.1.30 Socioeconomic 3.3 to 3.3C Goal: Improve Air Quality Objective: Reduce Emissions 001, The analyses included in the air quality report show that vehicular emissions will be reduced by any of the "build" alternatives over the Do Nothing Alternative. However, even the volume of emissions that would result from the 8-13 Do Nothing Alternative would not cause any concentrations of pollutants that would even approach the maximum allowable guidelines established by EPA. For example, the concentration of carbon monoxide in the Water Garden is estimated to vary from a low of 1.8 ppm for the Vickery Alignment to a high of 3.0 ppm for the Do Nothing Alternative. EPA's maximum allowable guideline for carbon monoxide is 35.0 ppm. The analyses for other emissions show similar results; consequently, all "build" alternatives could be considered to be "Good," while the Do Nothing Alternative would rate a "Fair." 8.1.31 Socioeconomic 4.4 Goal: Mitigate Noise/Vibration Objective: Minimize Noise Levels The noise studies indicate that there is no measurable difference between the noise levels resulting from any of the alternatives. The measurements of existing noise along the corridor, however, indicate that noise levels exceed the maximum allowable under DOT guidelines. Therefore, noise mitigation measures will have to be considered for all alternatives. All alternatives were assigned a rating of "Fair" for this objective. op,. 8.1.32 Socioeconomic 4.4A Goal: Mitigate Noise/Vibration Objective: Minimize Vibration No information had yet been received from the subconsultant charged with performing detailed vibration analyses when this evaluation was performed. In the absence of more definitive information, it is assumed that all of the alter- natives will have very similar vibration characteristics except the Depressed Alternative. It seems logical that somewhat higher levels of vibration affecting adjacent buildings could occur during the excavation of portions of the rock strata under Lancaster Avenue. Accordingly, a rating of "Poor" was assigned to the Depressed Alternative, and all other alternatives were assigned a rating of "Fair." 8.1.33 Socioeconomic 5.5 Goal: Minimum Acquisitions Objective: Minimize Business Displacements The total number of existing business operations that will be displaced by each of the alternatives is as follows. Expanded Elevated 2 Modified Expanded Elevated 3 Depressed 4 ► Vickery Alignment 7 Do Nothing 0 OW 8-14 8.1.34 Socioeconomic 5.5A Goal: Minimum Acquisitions Objective: Minimize Residential Displacements All of the "build" alternatives will displace a trotal of 124 low-income housing units located in the northeast quadrant of the interchange between IH-30 and IH-35W. The Do Nothing Alternative displaces no residences. 8.1.35 Socioeconomic 5.58 Goal: Minimum Acquisitions Objective: Minimize New Right-of-Way Acquisition In evaluating this objective, the amount of new right-of-way (exclusive of railroad agreements) was estimated for each alternative. The number of acres of new right-of-way required for each alternative is as follows. Expanded Elevated 6.0 acres Modified Expanded Elevated 6.4 acres Depressed 7.7 acres Vickery Alignment 26.1 acres Do Nothing 0.0 acres 8.1.36 Socioeconomic 6.6 Goal: Maintain Water Quality Objective: Minimize Impact to Existing Drainage System All of the "build" alternatives will have some impact on existing drain- age systems. However, the project is located in the midst of dense commercial development where most of the land is already covered with buildings or parking lots, so the increases in water runoff will be minimal. Also, the Trinity River crosses the project on either end so that outfall locations are close to the project. For these reasons, all of the "build" alternatives will have only minimal impacts on the existing drainage systems. The Do Nothing Alternative will not affect the existing drainage system. 8.1.37 Socioeconomic 6.6A Goal: Maintain Water Quality Objective: Minimize Impacts on Receiving Waters/Water Quality The initial wash of roadway systems removes an accumulation of particles of rubber, spilled oil and fuel, and some sediments from vehicular emissions that are considered pollutants. However, by the time that the stormwaters from roadways reach an outfall location, this initial wash is diluted by water from +,, other sources and additional rainfall so that it rarely causes any problem to R� , aquatic life. During the construction period, appropriate measurer: will be taken to control erosion and protect water quality. There are no apparent differences 1p. 8-15 between the various alternatives in their impacts on water quality; therefore, all alternatives are assigned a rating of "Fair." 8.1.38 Socioeconomic 7.7 Goal. Enhance Local Economy Objective: Provide Construction Jobs The average number of construction jobs that would be created in the Fort Worth area due to the construction of this project were estimated for each alternative using typical econometric multipliers. The total employment gener- ated will be directly proportional to the construction cost for each alternative, but the average number of jobs varies inversely with the construction period. The resulting average number of jobs that will be created by each alternative is as follows. Expanded Elevated 362 Modified Expanded Elevated 322 Depressed 297 Vickery Alignment 405 Do Nothing 0 8.1.39 Socioeconomic 7.7A Goals Enhance Local Economy Objectives Provide Opportunity for Future Development/Redevelopment All of the "build" alternatives will improve traffic flow in the project area and to the CBD. This improved accessibility will encourage new development in the area. The differences in the stimulus provided by the "build" alterna- tives for redevelopment lies in the relative attractiveness of specific sites. Either of the Elevated alternatives will continue to present a psychological barrier between the property on the south side of Lancaster Avenue (north of the railroad) and the CBD. Both the Depressed Alternative and the Vickery Alignment would remove this psychological barrier, thereby making this property more attractive to investors for redevelopment. Additionally, the location of the Vickery Alignment through the area that is currently light industrial in nature might encourage some redevelopment of land on the south side of the rail- road to higher and better uses. The ratings assigned to the various alternatives concerning their potential to stimulate new development and redevelopment are as follows. Expanded Elevated Fair Modified Expanded Elevated Fair Depressed Good Vickery Alignment Excellent Do Nothing Poor 8-lb 8.1.40 Socioeconomic 8.8 Goal: Avoid Sensitive Areas Objective: Preserve Schools, Hospitals, Churches, and Natural Habitat None of the remaining alternatives come close to schools, hospitals, or churches. Neither do they disturb any natural habitat. Therefore, all five alternatives are assigned a rating of "Good" under this objective. 8.1.41 Socioeconomic 9.9 Goal: Maintain Consistency With Local Plans Objective: Consistent With Local Plans, Policies, Programs All plans developed by any local agency for roadway improvements in the Fort Worth area during the past 15 years have included an expansion of capacity along IH-30 and IH-35W. Therefore, the Do Nothing Alternative is inconsistent with local plans. The Vickery Alignment is slightly different than the location shown for expanding IH-30 on previous plans, but it is compatible with all other elements of local plans, policies, and programs. The remaining three alterna- tives are totally consistent with local plans. 8.1.42 Socioeconomic 10.10 Goal: Maintain Neighborhood Cohesion Objective: Minimize Neighborhood Traffic/Does Not Isolate None of the remaining five alternatives being evaluated will divide a neighborhood or generate unwanted traffic through a neighborhood. All alterna- tives are assigned a rating of "Good" under this objective. Attachment "C" SUMMARY OF RELATIVE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES Expanded Elevated Strengths Weaknesses Construction Mtrls & Technique Emergency Detour Capability Cost Effectiveness Index Accident Potential Cost to Implement Aesthetics Utility Relocation Problems Geometric Attributes Implementation Time Parklands Business Displacements Compatibility with Surroundings R.O.W. Acquisition Delay Time Future Development Modified Expanded Elevated Strengths Weaknesses Emergency Detour Capability Construction Mtrls & Techniques Aesthetics Phased Construction Parklands Compatibility with Surroundings Future Development Depressed Strengths Weaknesses Aesthetics Level of Service Emergency Detour Capability Construction Mtrls & Techniques Average Speed Phased Construction Utility Relocation Problems TCP Convenience Implementation Time Fire/Police Detour Vibration Construction Jobs Vickery Alignment Strengths Weaknesses Level of Service Activity Center Access Emergency Detour Capability Cost Effectiveness Index Accident Potential Cost to implement Construction Mtrls & Techniques Business Impacts/Construction Average Speed Business Displacements Impacts to Arterial System R.O.W. Acquistion Aesthetics Signing Geometric Attributes Construction Phasing TCP Convenience Parklands Historic Structures r_ozpatibilitY %tth Surroundings Delay Time COt�BLtuctiou Sobs Future Development I