TECHNICAL ADSVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "TECHNICAL ADSVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA"

Willis Harper
5 years ago
Views:

1 Sherman Denison Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) TECHNICAL ADSVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA Wednesday, February 21, 9:00 am Texas Department of Transportation 3904 US 75, Sherman, Texas Please visit our MPO website for background materials under the Committees/Meetings link or under News and Announcements at our home page. I. Call to order II. Acknowledgment of Quorum by Chairman Action Items: III. Consider approval of the minutes of the MPO TAC meeting of February 7, 2018 Information/Presentation Items: IV. Update on the Grayson County Thoroughfare Plan V. Announcements (Informal Announcements, Future Agenda Items, and Next Meeting Date) MPO Policy Board Next meeting March 7, 2018 at 8:00 a.m. TAC Next meeting March 21, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. VI. Public Comment Period VII. Adjournment All meetings of the Sherman-Denison Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Technical Advisory Committee are open to the public. The MPO is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Reasonable accommodations and equal opportunity for effective communications will be provided upon request. Please contact Julie Lollar at the County Judge s Office at at least 24 hours in advance if accommodation is needed. The above notice was posted at the Grayson County Courthouse in a place readily accessible to the public and made available to the Grayson County Clerk on or before February 16, NOTE: The TAC agenda/packet is only distributed digitally, no paper copies will be sent. If you need a printed copy please contact MPO staff. Clay Barnett, P.E.

2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE SHERMAN-DENISON MPO Conference Room Texas Department of Transportation 3904 US 75 Sherman, TX February 7, :00 a.m. Committee Members Present: Clay Barnett, P.E., Chairman Sherman-Denison MPO Clint Philpott, P.E. City of Sherman Kevin Farley Small Cities Representative (Pottsboro) Aaron Bloom, P.E. TxDOT Sherman Area Engineer Bill Benton Grayson County Committee Members Absent: Judson Rex, AICP City of Denison Non-Voting Members Present: Josh Walker Texoma Area Paratransit System (TAPS) Non-Voting Members Absent: Barbara Maley Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Nick Page TxDOT TPP Division Guests Present: Len McManus, P.E. McManus & Johnson Michael Hutchins Herald Democrat John Ho Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Ken Hughes Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Mike McAnelly CoPlan Steve Spillette CDS Ty Jacobsen CDS Alberto Merrado Flores Lockwood, Andrews & Newman Lee Lawrence City of Gunter Carley Banks KTEN I. Call to Order Mr. Barnett called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. II. Acknowledgement of Quorum by Chairman Mr. Barnett declared a quorum of the Technical Advisory Committee present. 1

3 III. Review and Approval of Meeting Notes for January 17, 2018 meeting Motion to approve was made by Mr. Benton, seconded by Mr. Bloom. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. Presentation and Discussion on Demographic Data for the Grayson County Thoroughfare Plan Mr. Barnett stated that the SDMPO has been working on the Thoroughfare Plan since summer last year and that one of the deliverables was a demographics study. He stated that the demographics are utilized by the state to allocate state transportation funding. At this point Mr. Barnett turned the meeting over to Mr. Steve Spillette with CDS for the presentation on the demographic information. The presentation is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Mr. Spillette stated that the demographic distribution was still in the preliminary stage and would be adjusted based upon feedback. Mr. Barnett requested that we discuss the presentation in two parts: 1) total growth rates, and 2) distributions across the county. Mr. Barnett gave some background on the different models utilized by TxDOT and our deviation from the models may spark some discussion by TxDOT. Mr. Barnett stated that the model prepared by CDS was aggressive, but not unreasonable. Mr. McAnelly stated that the 2016 American Community Survey showed a significant uptick in Grayson County population and these projections carry this forward. He stated that this is in line with what we have seen in Collin and Denton counties and that these are defensible numbers. Mr. Farley asked if the future tollway had been taken into account when allocating the populations. Mr. McAnelly confirmed that it was and stated that he analyzed the TAZs along the tollway and confirmed that the traffic was distributed to the toll road. Mr. Jacobson said that even extending the toll road to the southern county line would impact growth in that region. Mr. Barnett stated that CDS was also interested in any feedback on growth in the region. He continued that the county was witnessing growth in the Van Alstyne and Pottsboro areas. Mr. Barnett explained that if population increased in one area, it would need to decrease in another. Mr. McManus stated that there are 780 lots in and around Van Alstyne and that this lines up with the figure in the first slide. Mr. Philpott stated that there have been 200 building permits in Sherman last year alone which is double what it traditionally was. Mr. McManus stated that Van Alstyne had 110 building permits pulled last year. Mr. Bloom expressed concern the population distributed to RAZ 14 may be short considering the Austin Landing Subdivision. Mr. Philpott confirmed that there were 200 lots under development in that RAZ and that the distribution appears to be low. Mr. Bloom also mentioned that there was also a lot of development at US 75 and FM 691. Mr. Farley asked about the Gunter area. Mr. Barnett stated from a county perspective that there were not a lot of permits issued for this area. Mr. Barnett solicited feedback from Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence stated that Gunter is looking at a development on the edge of town that has 800 lots and that the bridges development is still growing. They are looking at a 200 lot senior living center. Mr. Lawrence stated that the extension of toll road would greatly affect this region and that RAZ 5 needed to have more population distributed to it. 2

4 Mr. Barnett clarified that RAZ 17 was the same color as RAZ 16 and 8. Mr. McAnelly stated that this is when the toll way would be constructed. Mr. Philpott mentioned that the new Sherman Highschool would be built in the RAZ 2 and that it may impact growth in RAZ 2 and 16, but that it may be limited to around the high school. Mr. Spillette stated that the pace of growth ramps up in Mr. Barnett mentioned that RAZ 9 was still too aggressive. Mr. Farley mentioned that the Schuler Development may impact RAZ 17. Mr. Barnett mentioned that the Schuler Development was a large development with 2,000 lots and that it was moving slower, but it could come to fruition in this time frame. Mr. Benton mentioned that RAZ 5 would be more aggressive then shown. Mr. Barnett mentioned that RAZ 7 may be a little aggressive if the population was needed to shift to RAZ 5. Mr. Benton mentioned that the Gunter area looked low. Mr. Lawrence mentioned that the job growth in the Collin County area would drive population growth in this area. Mr. Barnett mentioned that RAZs 7, 8 and 9 was still aggressive and that RAZ 17 may be a little low. He also mentioned that RAZs 1, 2 10, and 14 all looked a little low. Mr. Benton and Mr. Bloom mentioned that the growth in RAZs 5 & 6 needed to be reversed. Mr. Lawrence mentioned that developers have bought large parcels of land in RAZ 5 making it easier to develop. Mr. Barnett mentioned that RAZs 5 and 6 did need to be switched and that RAZ 10 needed to show more population growth. Mr. Benton mentioned that if you blended the growth between McKinney and Sherman over the last several years that it would give a pretty good indication of future growth in Grayson County. IV. Recommend Adopting Project Ranking Criteria to the Policy Board Mr. Barnett explained that the TAC and Policy Board went through this exercise roughly five years ago for the 2040 MTP. Mr. Barnett mentioned with the upcoming 2045 MTP and the release of Decision Lens, he recommended taking another look at the project ranking criteria utilizing this new program. Mr. Barnett mentioned the different criteria that Decision Lens uses to rank the projects. Mr. Barnett mentioned that the FAST Act requires that we look at Transportation Choices and Environment as criteria. He explained that Community Support was developed as part of the US 75 study and the City of Sherman requested that there be a criteria for local match. Mr. Barnett covered the results from the efforts five years ago along with the results from the states. Mr. Barnett stated that he sent this out in December and gave the TAC a month to complete. He reviewed the submissions from the TAC, noted that they were all within a few percentage points, and presented the averaged results. Mr. Barnett stated that although we only have four data points, they are fairly consistent. He then covered the results that are included as an attachment to the minutes and are incorporated herein. Mr. Benton voiced a concern on the community support and financial piece in that it puts the smaller cities in the county at a disadvantage and that a local match could be a financial burden to a local community. Mr. Benton also mentioned that there needs to be an emphasis on regional projects where the traffic is more regional to the county and that the project needed to be viewed differently than a project that met a local need. Mr. Barnett mentioned that the Community Support was one component that was ranked at roughly seven percent and that we needed to take into account the community s views. He also stated that the City of Sherman s request to add criteria for local match should be taken into consideration if they were willing to being funding to the table. Mr. Barnett continued that after the projects were ranked, the projects would be considered by both the TAC and the Policy Board and that the items mentioned by Mr. Benton could certainly be 3

5 taken into consideration at that point. Mr. Philpott asked if this was the final version of what would be used to rank projects. Mr. Barnett confirmed that it was the final version of what would be used to rank projects, but that it was only one component of the decision and that regional considerations would be taken into account at both the TAC and Policy Board levels. Motion to recommend the blended ranking criteria to the Policy Board was made by Mr. Farley, seconded by Mr. Philpott. Motion carried unanimously. V, VI. Recess to Executive Session and Review, Discuss, and Rank Proposals Received for the Grayson County Freight Mobility Plan The TAC recessed into Executive Session at 10:24 am. VII. Reconvene Regular Session of TAC Meeting and Motion to Recommend Entering into a Contract with the Highest Ranked Consulting Team to the Policy Board The TAC reconvened into Regular Session at 11:16 am. Motion to recommend entering into a contract with Cambridge Systematics for the Grayson County Freight Mobility Plan to the Policy Board made by Mr. Benton, seconded by Mr. Bloom. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Announcements Mr. Barnett stated that the next meeting of the TAC will be February 21, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. and the next meeting of the Policy Board is on March 7, 2018 at 8:00 a.m. VII. Public Comment Period No citizens appeared before the Technical Advisory Committee. VIII. Adjournment Having no further business, Mr. Barnett adjourned the meeting at 11:19 am. Clay Barnett, P.E., Chairman, SDMPO Technical Advisory Committee 4

6 Demographic Forecast Overview Variables to prepare: Population Households Household size Jobs (with categories) Household income Non-standard generators Two-part process: County-level Small-area level

7 Demographic Forecast Overview County-level Gather historical data (complete) Obtain 2013 baseline estimates (complete) Forecast control totals (draft complete) Small-area level Define geography (RAZ/TAZ) (complete) Develop 2013 baseline estimates (complete) Develop RAZ/TAZ forecast (in process)

8 Forecast Geographies - RAZ

9 Forecast Geographies RAZ and TAZ

10 County-Level Process Detail Collect historical data Population / households / income Census and ACS Employment QCEW Gather and compare other projections TxSDC (3 scenarios) TxWDB Woods and Poole Gather / analyze comparable counties historical data DFW area Other TX metro suburbanizing counties

11 Comparable Suburbanizing Counties DFW area Collin Denton Other metros Houston Brazoria, Fort Bend, Montgomery, Waller Austin Bastrop, Hays, Williamson San Antonio - Comal

12 Comparable Suburbanizing Counties Ann. Growth Rate 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Year 1-10 Year Year Year Collin Denton Fort Bend Montgomery Brazoria Williamson Hays Comal Bastrop Waller

13 County-Level Process Approach Population-driven Analysis of historical growth and growth rates in comparable suburbanizing counties Assessment of timing for large-scale suburban development Examination of other Grayson County projections Examination of TxSDC 1.0 DFW-area county projections

14 Grayson C0unty Draft Forecast Historical and Projected Population Grayson Co Total 120, , , , , , , , ,876 5 Yr. Growth 4,590 9,733 12,844 20,726 29,704 38,702 45,301 52,399 Historical and Projected Compound Annual Growth Rates Grayson Co CAGR 0.7% 1.5% 1.8% 2.7% 3.3% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5%

15 Projected Grayson Annual Growth Rates 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% CDS Grayson TxSDC 1.0 TWDB Woods & Poole

16 Other DFW-Area County Projections

17 DFW Area Counties Forecast Growth Rates 5.0% 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% CDS Grayson TxSDC Grayson TxSDC Collin TxSDC Denton TxSDC Cooke TxSDC Hood TxSDC Hunt

18 Household and Employment Forecasts Generated via ratios to population Historical and Projected Households Grayson Co Total 46,905 47,538 50,448 55,866 64,416 76,631 93, , ,577 5 Yr. Growth 2,910 2,910 5,418 8,550 12,215 16,746 19,164 23,037 Historical and Projected Employment Grayson Co Total 41,606 44,755 49,222 54,935 63,917 76,941 94, , ,203 5 Yr. Growth 3,149 4,467 5,713 8,982 13,023 17,542 21,549 26,171

19 Next Steps: Small-Area Growth Forecast RAZ level Analyze and score growth factors Allocate county growth to RAZs (shift-share) per scoring Primary research to make adjustments to growth shares Infrastructure improvements Floodplains / environmental conditions Other large-scale factors

20 Next Steps: Small-Area Growth Forecast RAZ-to-TAZ growth allocation (shift-share) Research to determine growth shares and adjustments Planned developments Ownership characteristics Local planning policies

21 Draft RAZ-Level Forecast

22 Draft RAZ-Level Forecast

23 Draft RAZ-Level Forecast

24 Draft RAZ-Level Forecast

25 Draft RAZ-Level Forecast

26 Performance Measures Numbers you fill in Must add up to 100% Main Performance Measure Weight Submeasure 1 Weight Main Performance Measure Submeasure 1 Submeasure 2 Safety 30.75% Crash Count 32.50% Estimated Impact on Fatal and Incapacitating Injury Crashes Estimated Impact on Total Crashes Submeasure 2 Weight Data Source Description 65.00% Decision Lens 35.00% Decision Lens 100% Crash Rate 46.25% Estimated Impact on Fatal and Incapacitating Injury Crash Rate 65.00% Decision Lens Estimated Impact on Total Crash Rate 35.00% Decision Lens 100% Safety Project Classification (DCIS P1) 10.00% Decision Lens Whether or not the project is marked as a safety project in DCIS. Most all of our projects are capacity projects, not safety projects. Societal Cost Savings 11.25% Decision Lens Reference Decision Lens Literature 100% Preservation 21.25% Bridge Condition 45.00% Reduction in Structurally Deficient Deck Area 60.00% Decision Lens Deck Area Receiving Preventative Maintenance 40.00% Decision Lens 100% Pavement Condition 55.00% Reduction in Poor Lane Miles (by Ride Score) 32.50% Decision Lens Lane Miles Receiving Preventative Maintenance (by Ride Score) 18.75% Decision Lens Reduction in Poor Lane Miles (by Distress Score) 30.00% Decision Lens Lane Miles Receiving Preventative Maintenance (by Distress Score) 18.75% Decision Lens 100% 100% Congestion Reduction (MPO) 20.25% Benefit Congestion Index - Auto 22.00% Decision Lens Benefit Congestion Index - Truck 19.50% Decision Lens Normalized Congestion Index - Auto 18.25% Decision Lens Normalized Congestion Index - Truck 15.75% Decision Lens Intermodal Connector (MPO) 9.75% Decision Lens Roadways that lead to locations where freight can change modes of tranportation such as the intermodal facility in Denison. Miles of New Connectivity (MPO) 14.75% Decision Lens New roadways. 100% Effect on Economic Development 10.88% Economic Importance 41.25% National Highway System (NHS) Route 58.75% Decision Lens The National Highway System includes all roadways classified as a principal arterial or above. National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) 41.25% Decision Lens National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) includes US 75 from the Collin County Line to SH 91 and SH 91 from US 75 to Spur % System Usage 58.75% Base ADT 62.50% Decision Lens Base Percent Trucks 37.50% Decision Lens 100% 100% Effects on the Environment 3.38% Right-of-way Requirements 66.25% Manual Entry The amount of right-of-way that will be required. Floodplain Impacts 33.75% Manual Entry The degree to which the project will impact the floodplain. 100% Transportation Choices 6.38% Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations 57.50% Accesses schools, parks, large employer, multifamily or mixed-use residential, or shopping 35.00% Manual Entry Population densities in surrounding area 26.25% Manual Entry Access to transit stops 16.25% Manual Entry Serves both bicyclists and pedestrians 22.50% Manual Entry 100% Project Included in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (BPP) 42.50% Bike Lanes 41.25% Manual Entry Bike Route 32.50% Manual Entry Future Transportation Alternative Candidate 26.25% Manual Entry 100% 100% Community Support 7.13% Survey Results 47.50% Manual Entry Ten Percent (10%) Local Match Commitment 52.50% Manual Entry % 100%

27 SHERMAN-DENISON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) AGENDA ITEM IV INFORMATION/PRESENTATION ITEM February 21, 2018 Update on the Grayson County Thoroughfare Plan BACKGROUND: Mr. Clay Barnett, P.E., Executive Director of the Sherman-Denison MPO, will lead a presentation and discussion on the Grayson County Thoroughfare Plan, which includes a map, cost estimates, design criteria and funding options. ACTION REQUESTED: None ATTACHMENTS: click underlined items for attachment None STAFF CONTACT: Clay Barnett, P.E., , barnettc@co.grayson.tx.us

ALL Counties. ALL Districts

ALL Counties. ALL Districts TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ALL Counties rhnute ORDER Page of ALL Districts The Texas Transportation Commission (commission) finds it necessary to propose amendments to. and., relating to Transportation