Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study
Executive Summary
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) conducted a formal study of the
Regional Outer Loop concept from June 2007 to September 2011. The Regional Outer Loop
concept was initially envisioned as a series of separate limited-access facilities with
independent utility that could form a system to facilitate circumferential travel around the DallasFort Worth metropolitan region. The facility was first identified in Mobility 2030: The
Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas-Fort Worth Area (Mobility 2030) as part of a
long-term multi-modal vision for the region to serve automobile and truck traffic bypassing the
region and to accommodate future growth.
The purpose of the Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study was to evaluate the need
and feasibility for an outer loop around the Dallas-Fort Worth region as well as identify a
potential corridor(s). The concept was derived from numerous studies conducted over the last
50 years, which proposed various facilities around Dallas and Fort Worth. However, those
independently considered facilities were not necessarily linked together to comprise a system.
The idea of connecting these facilities was primarily generated as the regional response to the
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Crossroads of the Americas: Trans-Texas
Corridor Plan, released in June 2002; more specifically to the Trans-Texas Corridor-35 (TTC35) Tier One Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which was released in April 2006.
While the original concept of the TTC-35 was to bypass regions of high development densities,
it was clear to the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) that the TTC-35 could be developed
to coincide with other planned improvements in the region. This approach could maximize
revenue, solve near-term congestion needs, and benefit the long-term economic development
and mobility needs of the state while having a positive impact on congested urban areas.
Work on the Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study began following the decision by
TxDOT to incorporate the adopted RTC vision as an alternative into the TTC-35 Tier One DEIS.
In addition, both Collin County and Rockwall County had initiated local efforts at that time to
identify and preserve future outer loop corridors based on the needs and sensitivities of their
residents. The Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study was initiated to facilitate
coordination between local, regional, and state initiatives and ensure that future decisions
regarding engineering, financial, environmental, and other considerations could be made both
timely and all-inclusive. Early coordination is reinforced by Sections 6001 and 6002 of Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
These provisions enhance the consideration of environmental issues and impacts within the
transportation planning process and encourage the use of the products from planning in the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Based on SAFETEA-LU, Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administrative (FTA) issued transportation planning
regulations that strongly support the integration of transportation planning with NEPA
environmental review. The regulations allow a state, MPO, or public transportation operator to
use the results and decisions of planning (corridor and subarea) studies as part of their overall
project development process under NEPA.
ES.1.1 Study Area
The Regional Outer Loop study area included portions of Collin, Denton, Ellis, Hood, Hunt,
Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise Counties. These counties surround
and are immediately adjacent to the more urbanized, core counties of Dallas and Tarrant. The
study area is shown in Figure ES-1. Generally, the study area was 10 to 15 miles in width. This
November 2011
ES-1
Final
Montague
County
ª
K
Wise
County
9
( Tarrant
l
&
%
Parker
County
County
$
c
"
!
¼
A
Hood
County
Ä
A
e
I
(
d
&
%
3
2
Dallas
County
Þ
A
16
1
$
h
"
!
15
I
m
$
a
"
!
$ K
a
"
!
x 17
!
$
a
"
e
I
Johnson
County
Rockwall
County
(
k
&
%
Ï
A
§
K
4
¤
?
$
c
"
!
$
a
"
!
©
K
Hunt
County
14
Ã
A
§
K
6
ª
K
i
I
(
c
&
%
d
A
Ù
A
5
Collin
County
(
d
&
%
¬7
?
Ä
A
13
12
County
8
Fannin
County
i m
I
C
K
©
!
$
d
"
11
Æ 10
A
Denton
ª
K
§
K
U
y
$
a
"
!
Grayson
County
Cooke
County
Kaufman
County
¤
?
x
K
Ellis
County
(
c
&
%
Henderson
County
Somervell
County
Erath
County
Bosque
County
Legend
Major Roadway
Study Area Limits
Navarro
County
Hill
County
.
TxDOT Loop 9 Study – Conducted Separately
(for more information see www.loop9.org)
County Limits
Loop 9 DEIS Alignments
MPA Boundary
Loop 9 Study Area
Lakes
0
5 10 15 20
Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Report
Study Area and Subareas
Figure ES-1
Map Date: April 2009 Source: NCTCOG
Miles
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary
study area was based on the previously mentioned RTC recommended corridor, existing and
future demographics, development patterns, and major environmental constraints such as
regional lakes and recreational areas.
Additionally, the study area was divided into subareas based on the major existing and
proposed radial roadways. This was done for three reasons: 1) to account for variability in
section feasibility and implementation, 2) to tabulate the identified effects on a subarea basis,
and 3) to enable subsequent environmental studies to combine subareas as a function of future
implementation and to establish logical termini.
ES.1.2
Study Timeline
The Regional Loop Corridor Feasibility Study was conducted over a four-year period, beginning
in 2007. Figure ES-2 shows the timeline for the study.
Figure ES-2. Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study Timeline
2007
Task
Data Collection
Q3
Q4
2008
Q1
Q2
Q3
2009
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2010
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2011
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Need and Purpose
Public and Agency Outreach
 Stakeholder Meetings
 Resource Agency Meetings
 Public Meetings
Methodology
Phase 1
 Path Development
 Evaluation
Phase 2
 Corridor Development
 Evaluation*
Recommendations
Finalize Report
Key decision point
* The evaluation of the Phase 2 corridors was delayed while awaiting an update to the future regional demographics,
upgrade to the Dallas-Fort Worth regional travel model, and preparation of Mobility 2035.
ES.2 NEED AND INTENT
Historically, Texas has been one of the 10 fastest growing states in the nation. As a result of
high growth rates, the demand for efficient transportation in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan
area continues to increase. A favorable business climate, attractive tax policies, and an
abundance of available land contribute to the population and employment growth of the region.
Based on 2010 United States (US) Census population estimates, the Dallas-Fort Worth
metropolitan area is the fourth most populous in the nation. The study cited five factors
influencing regional transportation needs in the Dallas-Fort Worth region:

Population growth – By 2035, the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan planning area (MPA) is
forecasted to have a population of 9.8 million people. It is estimated that between 2010 and
2035, the population of Dallas and Tarrant Counties will grow at rates of 32 percent and 56
November 2011
ES-3
Final
Q4
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary



percent, respectively. The projected population growth rate between 2010 and 2035 for the
counties surrounding Dallas and Tarrant Counties is estimated to range from 59 percent
(Denton County) to 120 percent (Rockwall County).
Employment – Similar to the population projections, employment is projected to increase 37
percent and 56 percent, respectively, in Dallas and Tarrant Counties between 2010 and
2035. The projected employment growth during this same time period for the counties
surrounding Dallas and Tarrant Counties is estimated to range from 70 percent (Hunt
County) to 125 percent (Rockwall County).
Regional travel demand - Mobility 2035: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for North
Central Texas (Mobility 2035) estimates that even with the implementation of planned
transportation improvements, congestion delay would increase by 44 percent compared to
2012 mobility levels in the Dallas-Fort Worth MPA.
System linkages and intermodal connections – The Dallas-Fort Worth region is the major
economic engine in the State of Texas. From the region, nearly the entire US population
can be reached by truck within 48 hours. The Dallas-Fort Worth region is considered by
most economic and logistics experts to be the primary truck, rail, and air cargo center in the
southwestern US, as well as the primary urban gateway between the US and Mexico.
Based on the inclusion of the RTC vision into the TTC-35 Tier One EIS and Mobility 2030, the
intent of the Regional Outer Loop project is to:






Allow multiple bypass options for international, interstate, and intra-state traffic not destined
for the region.
Help manage congestion for predominant commuter routes that traverse the heavily
urbanized areas in the heart of the region.
Improve capacity, mobility, and accessibility for outlying communities and developing areas
throughout the region by providing direct links to existing major radial highways.
Serve population areas that currently lack major limited-access facilities for inter-suburban
travel
Help manage long-term regional congestion from rapid population and employment growth
and development.
Provide the basic transportation infrastructure necessary to allow for expansion that
accommodates varied travel demands or modes as warranted.
ES.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The existing and future conditions of social, economic, and natural environmental resources
within the study area for the Regional Outer Loop were researched and documented. The best
available data was gathered for the following resources: land use, farmland, demographics,
community resources, cultural resources, parklands and recreational areas, visual quality,
utilities, employment, development, air quality, geology, soils, water resources, biological
resources, and regulated/hazardous materials.
ES.4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The existing transportation system in the Dallas-Fort Worth region is extensive. It is composed
of roadways, truck facilities, railroads, airports, transit services, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and
safety and security elements. Over $100 billion in improvements and new transportation
facilities are planned over the next 24 years.
ES.5 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
The Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study was developed through a proactive public
and agency process. Almost 150 meetings and presentations were conducted to allow local
governments, resource agencies, and the public to gain knowledge and provide input
November 2011
ES-4
Final
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary
throughout the study effort. Table ES.1 lists the agencies and local governments that
participated in the process. Meetings were held at key decision points throughout the study to
allow constructive input and help provide direction to the process and recommendations. Over
660 comments were documented through the process. Public and agency involvement efforts
included the following activities:





Corridor Refinement Team – This team guided and managed the Regional Outer Loop
through the project development process and technical evaluation. This team met 23 times
over the course of the study.
Stakeholder Meetings – Throughout the study, 25 meetings were held with stakeholders to
gain input and coordinate efforts with elected officials and staff from local governments.
These meetings helped ensure that consideration of local community context, environmental
constraints, and other factors are included in the identification of a solution.
Resource Agencies – Three meetings with resource agencies were held. The meetings
helped inform resource agencies of study effort, gather input, and discuss collaborative
strategies for continued interaction throughout the project development process.
Public Meetings – The public has been kept informed of the study through the NCTCOG
regional public meetings. The Regional Outer Loop was presented at 16 public meetings.
Briefing and Presentations – As requested, almost 80 briefings and presentations were
made to interested parties during the course of the study.
Table ES.1.
Participating Agencies and Governments
Corridor Refinement Team
TxDOT Multimodal Division
FHWA
TxDOT Texas Turnpike Authority (TTA) Division
NCTCOG
TxDOT TTA – Corridor Engineering Team (CET) (HDR Inc.)
TxDOT Dallas District
TxDOT TTA – CET (HNTB)
TxDOT Design Division
TxDOT TTC – Segment Engineer (Michael Baker)
TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division
TxDOT TTC – Segment Engineer (Atkins formerly PBSJ)
TxDOT Fort Worth District
Resource Agencies
Natural Resources Conservation Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
US Army Corps of Engineers
Texas Historical Commission
US Environmental Protection Agency
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Stakeholders
Johnson County
City of Terrell
City of Heath
City of Aledo
Kaufman County
City of Weatherford
City of Hudson Oaks
City of Anna
Mid-Way Airport
Collin County
City of Joshua
City of Annetta South
North Texas Commission
Collin County Municipal
City of Lancaster
City of Arlington
North Texas Tollway
District 1
City of Mansfield
City of Boyd
Authority
Cooke County
City of Melissa
City of Burleson
Parker County
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
City of Mesquite
City of Celina
Rockwall County
Dallas County
City of Midlothian
City of Cleburne
Tarrant County
Denton County
City of North Richland Hills
City of Commerce
Members of the Texas
Denton County
City of Oak Ridge
City of Denton
Legislature
Transportation Authority
City of Ovilla
City of Forney
Town of Flower Mound
Ellis County
City of Post Oak Bend
City of Fort Worth
Town of Scurry
Fort Worth Transportation
City of Red Oak
City of Frisco
Town of Union Valley
Authority
City of Royse City
City of Glenn Heights
TxDOT
Grayson County
City of Rockwall
City of Granbury
Wise County
Hood County
City of Seagoville
City of Grand Prairie
Hunt County
City of Springtown
City of Greenville
ES.6 CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
Three guiding principles and objectives were developed for the study based on regional
transportation goals included in Mobility 2030; RTC policies; defined needs; sound planning
principles to avoid and minimize negative effects; and input from stakeholders. Each guiding
November 2011
ES-5
Final
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary
principle entailed a set of objectives that the planned facility should address. These principles
and objectives were then used to guide the development of the evaluation characteristics.
Guiding Principle 1: Improve regional travel efficiency and circumferential mobility
Objectives:
 Manage area roadway congestion
 Provide a sustainable and efficient transportation solution that supports the intrastate,
interstate, and international travel needs of people, goods, and services
 Provide connectivity to existing and planned roadway systems, passenger rail, freight rail,
and airports
 Provide for the opportunity to preserve sufficient right-of-way to ensure future flexibility in the
implementation of future regional transportation facilities
 Improve travel time within the region
Guiding Principle 2: Minimize the potential for negative social and economic effects
Objectives:
 Ensure the solution is compatible with regional and local transportation and comprehensive
plans
 Minimize the potential for residential and business displacements
 Minimize the potential for negative effects to communities and traditionally underserved
populations
 Improve access to existing and emerging major trip activity centers
 Minimize the potential for negative effects to community facilities and recreational resources
 Minimize the potential for negative effect to major utilities, regulated material sites, and wells
Guiding Principle 3: Minimize the potential for negative effects to natural and cultural
resources
Objectives:
 Minimize the potential for negative effects to regional air quality
 Minimize the potential for negative effects to natural resources
 Minimize the potential for negative effects to archaeological and historical resources
 Minimize the potential for negative effects on preserves and conservation areas
ES.6.1 Corridor Development
In the context of the Regional Outer Loop Feasibility Study, a corridor was defined with a width
of approximately one-mile. This width was established based on planning judgment and
experience. This width would not be the ultimate width of the facility; it merely would help to
define a future corridor to be studied and allows for flexibility in the future development of
alignment alternatives to help avoid and minimize negative social, economic, and environmental
effects. This would also allow for the opportunity to include multiple modes such as rail, utilities,
truck lanes, bicycle, and pedestrian. The Regional Outer Loop was first included in the Mobility
2030 as a tolled facility. Both the RTC and TxDOT have policies requiring new location facilities
to be evaluated as a toll road because of funding shortfalls. Therefore, the corridors were
modeled with tolls with rates equivalent to existing toll facilities in the region and adjusted for
inflation to the year 2035.
The development and evaluation of corridors was accomplished through a two-phase screening
process as shown in Figure ES-3. Evaluation/performance characteristics were established
prior to the development of the corridors.
November 2011
ES-6
Final
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary
Figure ES-3. Corridor Development Process
Within each of the 17 subareas, three to eight corridor paths were developed during Phase 1 for
a total of 105 paths. Preliminary corridor paths were developed and considered in each
subarea based on previous studies; aerial photogrammetry; social, economic, and natural
environment factors; input from stakeholders; and the guiding principles and objectives. The
developed corridor paths attempted to provide connectivity (e.g., linkages to roadway,
passenger rail, freight rail, and airports), avoid and minimize negative impacts to the built and
natural environments, and utilize existing roadway facilities to the greatest extent possible.
ES.6.2 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Evaluation Results
During the Phase 1 evaluation, the paths were screened based on potential negative impacts to
the built and natural environments, local support/opposition, and proximity to other
transportation facilities. The paths that did not best meet these characteristics were eliminated
from consideration. The preliminary corridor paths were reduced to the most viable and
reasonable paths for Phase 2 evaluation (see Figure ES-4).
Of the 55 paths remaining following the Phase 1 screening evaluation, 22 paths were along a
combination of new location and existing facilities, 19 were on new location, 13 used existing
facilities exclusively, and one path used a planned facility. By selecting a path in each of the 17
subareas, the paths were combined to form eight full-length (i.e., 240 miles) corridor options
from US 67 to US 175 (clockwise around the region). Each of the 55 paths was included in at
least one corridor. Eight representative combinations were designed to assess the range of
travel demand for the corridor without modeling every possible combination of paths. These
corridors were evaluated against 37 performance characteristics based on 2035 travel demand
and potential social, economic, and environmental effects; these characteristics mirror issues
that would be addressed during a NEPA review process (see Tables ES.2 and ES.3). A no
build corridor was also evaluated.
November 2011
ES-7
Final
Ray
Roberts
Lake
Sanger
Alvord
Weston
Celina
Blue Ridge
Aubrey
Chico
$
d
"
!
Krum
©
K
Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Report
Prosper
Cross Roads
Lincoln Park
Decatur
Denton
Denton
County
Bridgeport
Runaway Bay
Oak Point
Shady Shores
Ponder
New Hope
DISH
Argyle
Corral City
Justin Northlake
Rhome
Little Elm
Newark
Ã
A
Haslet
Pecan Acres CDP
Carrollton
Azle
Addison
Coppell
Farmers Branch
Eagle
Mountain
Reservoir
Saginaw
Blue Mound
Bedford
Irving
Euless
University Park
Highland Park
Lake Worth
Lake Sansom Park
Tarrant Worth
River Oaks
County
Hudson Oaks
$
a
"
!
½
A
Lake Pantego
Arlington
Annetta North
Annetta
Dalworthington Gardens
Aledo
Annetta South
Lake
Ray
Hubbard
Benbrook
Edgecliff Village
Arlington
$
a
"
!
Mountain
Creek
Lake
Rockwall
County
County Limits
Subarea Limits
McLendon-Chisholm
White
Rock
Lake
m
I
Mesquite
Ó
A
Cockrell Hill
Forney
Key Map
Terrell
Balch Springs
$
a
"
!
Talty
Wise
8
Grand Prairie
Seagoville
Forest Hill
Post Oak Bend City
Hutchins
Duncanville
Kennedale
Benbrook
Lake
City/Town Limits
Rockwall
Heath
Dallas
Dallas
County
$
c
"
!
Fort Worth
Loop 9 Southeast DEIS Alternatives
Sunnyvale
(
l
&
%
Westworth Village
White Settlement
Westover Hills
Union Valley
Mobile City
(
k
&
%
Hurst
Haltom City
Richland Hills
Lakeside
Lake
Parker
County Weatherford
Willow Park
Roadway
Colleyville
Watauga
North Richland Hills
Other Items
Royse City
Rowlett
Garland
Eliminated from Further Consideration
$
c
"
!
Fate
North
Lake
Grapevine
Studied Further as Path E
Nevada
Lavon
Sachse
Richardson
Studied Further as Path D
Wylie
St. Paul
Oak Ridge
Crandall
¼
A
(
d
&
%
Rendon CDP
Mansfield
Joe
Pool
Lake
e
I
Wilmer
DeSoto
Lancaster
b
?
Cedar Hill
Glenn Heights
Ovilla
Burleson
Cresson
x
K
Combine
©
K
C
m
Godley
Somervell
County
Alvarado
Ellis
County
Lake
Pat
Cleburne
$
h
"
!
Waxahachie
§
K
Maypearl
Grandview
(
c
&
%
Mabank
2
1
15
16
17 Kaufman
Ellis
Navarro
Henderson
County
Ennis
Bardwell
Reservoir
Bardwell
Alma
Navarro
County
10
Miles
Seven Points
Garrett
Lake
Waxahachie
Cleburne
e
I
3
Johnson
012345
Palmer
Venus
Keene
Pecan Plantation CDP
Hunt
Kemp
Joshua
Johnson
County
Hood
Lake
County Granbury
13
Collin
Rosser
Granbury
De Cordova Bend
Dallas
Somervell
Grays Prairie
Cottonwood
Midlothian
4
Hood
Scurry
Pecan Hill
12
Rockwall
Tarrant
Oak Grove
Oak Leaf
Briaroaks
Cross Timber
11
5
Ferris
Red Oak
10
Denton
14
6
Parker
Kaufman
Kaufman
County
9
7
Everman
Crowley
Oak Trail Shores CDP
Studied Further as Path B
Studied Further as Path C
Caddo Mills
Josephine
Parker
Plano
Greenville
.
Note: The displayed corridors represent one-mile wide corridors and do not represent final alignments. Corridor-specific alignments and operational characteristics will be determined through ongoing project development.
No third party is authorized to rely on this map for development, construction, bidding, or permit purposes.
15
Map Date: July 2011 Source: NCTCOG 2011
Sanctuary
i
I
Hebron
Grapevine
Lake
Keller
Pelican Bay
Eagle Mountain CDP
Hunt
County
Lavon
Lake
Murphy
Southlake
Reno
Studied Further as Path A
Lucas
Allen
The Colony
Lewisville
Briar CDP
Results of Phase 1 Analysis
Farmersville
Fairview
Flower Mound
Roanoke
Trophy Club
Westlake
ª
K
Frisco
Lake
(
c
&
%
Double Oak
d
A
Springtown
Hickory Creek
Copper CanyonHighland Village
Bartonville
(
d
&
%
Aurora
Weatherford
Princeton
Lowry Crossing
Corinth
New Fairview
Legend
McKinney
Collin
County
Hackberry
Lakewood Village
Lake Dallas Lewisville
Paradise
Ù
A
Figure ES-4
Celeste
Melissa
Krugerville
ª
K
Boyd
Phase 2 Paths
Anna
§
K
Wise
County
Fannin
County
Pilot Point
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary
Table ES.2
Phase 2 Evaluation Summary (Corridors 1 through 4)
Performance Characteristic
Daily congestion delay
Lane miles at level-of-service
ABC
Lane miles at level-of-service
DE
Lane miles at level-of-service F
Average travel speeds
Average traffic volumes on the
proposed facility
Length
Passenger rail facilities
Freight rail yards/facilities
Airports
Use of existing/planned
transportation facilities
Compatibility with regional and
local planning documents
Land use
Prime farmland
Minority population
Low-income population
LEP population
Public facilities
Parks
Preserves, state parks, and
wildlife management areas
Existing major developments
Proposed major developments
Major employers and special
generators
Air quality sensitive receptors
Recorded state and federal
historic resources
Historic-aged structures
Cemeteries
100-year floodplains
Lakes
Streams
Wetlands
Cropland
Natural diversity database
element of occurrence
Surface wells
Power plants
Pipelines
Regulated/hazardous material
sites
November 2011
Unit of
Measure
hours
percentage
1
276,338
78.3%
percentage
9.4%
percentage
mph
count
miles
count
count
count
percentage
Corridor
2
281,889
77.4%
3
278,079
78.6%
4
277,219
78.4%
10.1%
10.4%
9.9%
12.3%
41.36
22,000
12.4%
41.45
22,700
11.0%
41.94
48,000
11.7%
41.57
37,400
238
1
0
0
34% - 35%
224-225
1
0
1
25% - 26%
209-211
4
1
1
62%
227-228
3
1
1
48%
10
10
7
11
percentage
percentage
percentage
count
count
count
10%
52,356 52,463
24%
10%
3%
13
4
1
10%
57,703 57,989
23%
8%
2%
9
3
1
13%
55,787 55,966
28%
8%
3%
73
28
1
11%
62,861 63,040
26%
7%
3%
38
15
1
count
count
count
10 - 11
1
1
1-2
4-5
0
76
31 - 32
14
36
21 - 22
5
count
count
4
10
2
11
46
18
28
16
752 - 759
26
19,229 19,290
1,196 - 1,218
1,364,9531,380,090
1,231-1,236
9%
13
924 - 939
19
17,226 17,668
1,148 -1,185
1,158,2671,180,634
1,171- 1,176
13%
10
3,943 -3,951
24
18,794 19,175
1,810 - 1,825
1,002,4951,009,729
1,849
13%
4
2,092 - 2,100
27
19,106 19,487
1,016 - 1,031
1,080,5431,087,773
1,853
14%
3
745
0
2,088,9812,104,903
9
895
0
2,311,5922,327,514
9
742
0
2,138,1062,138,584
26
670
0
2,111,2282,111,706
23
count
percentage
acreage
count
count
acreage
acreage
linear feet
acreage
acreage
count
count
count
linear feet
count
ES-9
Final
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary
Table ES.3
Phase 2 Evaluation Summary (Corridors 5 through 8 and No Build)
Performance Characteristic
Daily congestion delay
Lane miles at level-of-service
ABC
Lane miles at level-of-service
DE
Lane miles at level-of-service
F
Average travel speeds
Average traffic volumes on the
proposed facility
Length
Passenger rail facilities
Freight rail yards/facilities
Airports
Use of existing/planned
transportation facilities
Compatibility with regional and
local planning documents
Land use
Prime farmland
Minority population
Low-income population
LEP population
Public facilities
Parks
Preserves, state parks, and
wildlife management areas
Existing major developments
Proposed major developments
Major employers and special
generators
Air quality sensitive receptors
Recorded state and federal
historic resources
Historic-aged structures
Cemeteries
100-year floodplains
Lakes
Streams
Wetlands
Cropland
Natural diversity database
element of occurrence
Surface wells
Power plants
Pipelines
Regulated/hazardous material
sites
November 2011
Unit of
Measure
hours
percentage
5
274,718
78.3%
percentage
9.9%
9.7%
9.3%
10.1%
10.3%
percentage
11.8%
12.7%
12.8%
11.8%
12.8%
mph
count
41.66
33,800
41.49
28,500
41.54
29,600
41.61
28,900
40.51
0
225-227
3
1
1
47%-48%
226-228
3
1
1
35%-36%
240
3
1
0
43%-45%
236-238
3
1
1
45%-47%
0
0
0
0
100%
12
12
12
10
0
percentage
12%
11%
10%
10%
acreage 60,240-60,443 61,404-61,690 54,249-54,356 63,767-64,149
percentage
24%
25%
24%
24%
percentage
8%
8%
10%
9%
percentage
3%
3%
3%
3%
count
28-30
24
26
33-35
count
7
5
7
8
count
1
1
1
1
0%
0
0%
0%
0%
0
0
0
miles
count
count
count
percentage
count
Corridor
6
283,265
77.6%
7
278,577
77.9%
8
No Build
275,455 273,376
78.0%
76.9%
count
count
count
26
6-7
4
21 - 22
6-7
4
29 - 30
5
5
30
5-6
4
0
0
0
count
count
18 - 20
14
16
11
18
12
20 - 22
14
0
0
count
2,001-2,151
1,493-1,501
1,520-1,527
2,001-2,151
count
25 - 26
26
28
22-23
acreage 19,408-19,856 18,332-18,774 21,184-21,245 18,671-19,119
acreage
1,022-1,037
1,041-1,078
1,172-1,194
993-1,008
linear feet
1,082,4571,170,6121,324,5481,178,8691,099,371
1,192,979
1,339,685
1,195,783
acreage
1,386-1,391
1,384-1,389
1,376-1,381
1,777-1,782
acreage
13%
14%
9%
13%
count
2
6
9
10
0
0
0
0
0
count
count
linear feet
count
694-695
0
2,164,8402,193,341
19
ES-10
550
0
2,127,9471,143,347
19
668
0
2,129,1892,145,111
17
0
0%
0
865-866
0
2,366,2012,338,656
21
0
0
0
0
Final
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary
The Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Travel Model was used to generate 2035 travel volumes. The
corridors ranged from 209 miles (Corridor 3) to 238 miles (Corridor 8) in length. From a travel
demand perspective, Corridor 3 performed slightly better than the other seven regional build
corridors modeled. The average traffic volume for Corridor 3 was 48,000 vehicles per day (vpd)
in 2035, but this can be directly related to the fact that Corridor 3 also has the highest utilization
of existing facilities (62 percent). As the best performing corridor, the travel demand effects of
Corridor 3 at the regional level were also evaluated. At the study area level, Corridor 3 did not
perform substantially better than the No Build for the study area. Overall, none of the regional
build corridors modeled substantially improved local or regional congestion levels.
The findings of the Phase 2 evaluation were compared to the original intent and premise cited in
Section ES.2. None of the regional corridors met the intent of the Regional Outer Loop concept
as originally conceived (see Table ES.4). Therefore, a continuous, circumferential Regional
Outer Loop is not warranted based on 2035 traffic projections. The majority of the corridor path
modeled and all full-length corridors have insufficient volumes to justify construction of a
controlled access facility. Additionally, based on limited transportation funding, there are more
pressing regional and local transportation needs to be met in other parts of the region.
Table ES.4
Phase 2 Evaluation Results Compared to the Original Project Intent
Intent
Allow multiple bypass options for international,
interstate, and intra-state traffic not destined for
the region.
Help manage congestion for predominant
commuter routes that traverse the heavily
urbanized areas in the heart of the region.
Improve capacity, mobility, and accessibility for
outlying communities and developing areas
throughout the region by providing direct links
to existing major radial highways.
Serve population areas that currently lack
major limited-access facilities for intersuburban travel
Help manage long-term regional congestion
from rapid population and employment growth
and development.
Provide the basic transportation infrastructure
necessary to allow for expansion that
accommodates varied travel demands or
modes as warranted.
Met by the Regional Outer Loop?
No. A Regional Outer Loop would provide an alternate
route around the region; however, the length of the
route does not appear to make it an attractive option as
a bypass. As a bypass, the route would add
substantially time and cost (operating and toll).
No. Based on the travel demand model the Regional
Outer Loop does not help reduce congestion in the
region or on heavily used commuter routes.
No. While the Regional Outer Loop would improve
capacity and in some cases accessibility, congestion
delay, the level-of-service, and average travel speeds
would be similar to the no build.
Maybe. While the Regional Outer Loop connected
numerous suburban communities, the travel demand
model did not show travel volumes in 2035 would
require a major limited-access facility in most subareas.
No. Based on the travel demand model the Regional
Outer Loop does not help reduce long-term regional
congestion. Furthermore, future 2035 demographics
show greater densification of the core counties rather
than the outer counties.
Maybe. The Regional Outer Loop could be designed to
allow for expansion and future transportation modes.
ES.6.3 Study Recommendations
Though a continuous regional transportation facility is not warranted, some of the paths
evaluated had high traffic volumes. The predicted 2035 traffic volumes were compared to
warrants based on the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual and tested for
independent utility. Improvements in five of the 17 subareas are recommended for further study
as future controlled access facilities (see Figure ES-5). Based on the analysis conducted as
part of the Phase 2 evaluation and logical termini guidelines, the following individual projects
and logical termini are recommended:
November 2011
ES-11
Final
Ray
Roberts
Lake
Sanger
Alvord
Chico
Bridgeport
Runaway Bay
(1
Oak Point
Shady Shores
DISH
Argyle
New Fairview
Corral City
Justin Northlake
Rhome
Copper CanyonHighland Village
Bartonville
(
d
&
%
Aurora
Roanoke
Trophy Club
Westlake
Briar CDP
Ã
A
Haslet
Pecan Acres CDP
Reno
Sanctuary
Azle
i
I
Coppell
North
Lake
Eagle
Mountain
Reservoir
Watauga
North Richland Hills
Bedford
Irving
Euless
University Park
Hurst
Haltom City
Richland Hills
Lakeside
Lake Worth
Sansom Park
Lake
Tarrant Worth
County
Hudson Oaks
$
a
"
!
Weatherford
Lake Pantego
Arlington
Annetta North
Annetta
½
A
Dalworthington Gardens
Aledo
Annetta South
Benbrook
Edgecliff Village
Arlington
$
a
"
!
Mountain
Creek
Lake
Lake
Ray
Hubbard
(
k
&
%
Subarea Limits
Union Valley
Subareas with no Controlled Access
Facility Recommendations
Mobile City
Rockwall
County Limits
Rockwall
County
Heath
McLendon-Chisholm
m
I
Labels: Phase 2 Path (Preliminary Path)
Mesquite
Ó
A
Cockrell Hill
Forney
Key Map
Terrell
Balch Springs
$
a
"
!
Talty
Wise
8
Grand Prairie
Seagoville
Forest Hill
Post Oak Bend City
Hutchins
Duncanville
Kennedale
Benbrook
Lake
New Roadway (Planned Highway/Tollway)
Royse City
Rowlett
Dallas
Dallas
County
$
c
"
!
Fort Worth
White
Rock
Lake
New Roadway (Under Construction)
Sunnyvale
(
l
&
%
River Oaks
Westworth Village
White Settlement
Westover Hills
Roadway
$
c
"
!
Colleyville
Saginaw
Blue Mound
Does Not Meet Warrant
Nevada
Fate
Garland
Oak Ridge
Crandall
¼
A
(
d
&
%
Rendon CDP
Mansfield
Joe
Pool
Lake
e
I
Wilmer
DeSoto
Lancaster
b
?
Cedar Hill
Glenn Heights
Ovilla
Burleson
Cresson
x
K
Combine
©
K
C
m
Godley
Joshua
Granbury
De Cordova Bend
Hood
Lake
County Granbury
Alvarado
Keene
Pecan Plantation CDP
Somervell
County
Venus
Johnson
County
2C (
ii)
2– vi
1
1–
B(
iv)
e
I
Lake
Pat
Cleburne
Hunt
3
Johnson
2
1
15
16
17 Kaufman
Ellis
Navarro
Kemp
012345
Palmer
Ellis
County
$
h
"
!
§
K
Maypearl
(
c
&
%
Mabank
Henderson
County
Ennis
Bardwell
Reservoir
10
Miles
Seven Points
Garrett
Lake
Waxahachie
Alma
Navarro
County
.
Note: The displayed corridors indicate general transportation need and do not represent final alignments. Corridor-specific alignments and operational characteristics will be determined through ongoing project development.
No third party is authorized to rely on this map for development, construction, bidding, or permit purposes.
Grandview
13
Collin
Rosser
Waxahachie
Cleburne
Dallas
Somervell
Grays Prairie
Cottonwood
Midlothian
4
Hood
Scurry
Pecan Hill
12
Rockwall
Tarrant
Oak Grove
Oak Leaf
Briaroaks
Cross Timber
11
5
Ferris
Red Oak
10
Denton
14
6
Parker
Kaufman
Kaufman
County
9
7
Everman
Crowley
Oak Trail Shores CDP
Warranted, but not Recommended
Other Items
Caddo Mills
Lavon
Sachse
Farmers Branch
Greenville
Wylie
St. Paul
Richardson
Addison
Highland Park
Lake
Parker
County Weatherford
Willow Park
Parker
Plano
Hebron
Carrollton
Grapevine
Hunt
County
Lavon
Lake
Lucas
Allen
Josephine
Grapevine
Lake
Keller
Pelican Bay
Eagle Mountain CDP
Meets Warrant (at least 38,000 VPD)
Murphy
Southlake
Farmersville
Fairview
Flower Mound
Newark
ª
K
Frisco
The Colony
Lewisville
d
A
Springtown
Little Elm
(
c
&
%
Double Oak
Princeton
Lowry Crossing
Lake
Hickory Creek
Legend
Controlled Access Facility
New Hope
McKinney
Collin
County
Hackberry
Corinth
Lakewood Village
Lake Dallas Lewisville
Paradise
Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Report
Cross Roads
Lincoln Park
Ponder
Ù
A
12C (12–v)
11B (11–ii)
Celeste
Melissa
Prosper
Denton
Denton
County
Boyd
©
K
10
Decatur
Wise
County
Krugerville
B
ª
K
Weston
Celina
Blue Ridge
Aubrey
0–
$
d
"
!
Krum
11B (11–iii)
0–iv)
Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study
Recommendations
Figure ES-5
Bardwell
15
Map Date: July 2011 Source: NCTCOG 2011
§
K
Anna
iii
)
10C (1
Fannin
County
Pilot Point
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary





US 67 from proposed Loop 9 to proposed SH 360 (add capacity)
US 67 from proposed SH 360 to IH 35W (add capacity), including a new location bypass
around Alvarado
Loop 288/FM 428 or new rural arterial from IH 35 to FM 428 at FM 2153 (add capacity or
new location)
FM 428 and new location Aubrey bypass from FM 428 at FM 2153 to the Dallas North
Tollway (add capacity and new location)
Planned Collin County Outer Loop from Dallas North Tollway to US 75 (new location)
Each of these projects will have its own set of needs and challenges that will require more
detailed, corridor specific planning studies. Based on the best available information and input
gathered for the Regional Outer Loop Feasibility Study, Table ES.5 summarizes the existing
number of lanes, existing right-of-way width, and potential issues and concerns for each of the
recommended projects. Note that the issues listed should not be construed as exhaustive.
Other social, economic, environmental, and political challenges may be revealed through further
study or may develop prior to the initiation of further studies.
Table ES.5
Facility/
Project Type
US 67
From proposed
Loop 9 to
proposed SH 360
(Add capacity)
US 67
From proposed
SH 360 to
IH 35W
(Add capacity)
Potential Issues and Concerns
Number
of
Existing
Existing Right-of-Way
Lanes
Width
Potential Issues/Concerns
4-lane
300 to 600 feet  Current RTC toll policies would prevent conversion of the
divided
through
existing free lanes of US 67 to a toll road
Midlothian
 Utilizing US 67 could require modifications at the recently
completed US 67/US 287 interchange
250 feet from  The Cities of Cedar Hill and Midlothian conditionally
Wyatt Road to
support this path as long as Loop 9 Southeast would
SH 360
extend to US 287
 Possible fully directional interchange at US 67/SH 360
could impact a nearby electrical substation and several
major radial power lines
 Displacements could occur on the north side of the US
67 between US 287 and the SH 360 extension to avoid
impacting the BNSF rail line on the south side of the US
67
 This path could allow direct access to/from the Railport
Industrial Area in Midlothian
4-lane
250 feet from  Conversion of US 67 to a limited access facility could
divided SH 360 to Ellis
cause displacements to residential and commercial
County Line
properties in the City of Venus, particularly at the new
Patriot Estates development
220 feet in
 Incorporating this path with US 67 could require
rural areas
continuous access roads for local access along existing
US 67; access roads increase construction costs and
200 feet near
right-of-way width and could likely reduce toll feasibility
Venus and
 Access roads could be needed near the IH 35W
Patriot Estates
interchange to replace access to/from Johnson County
subdivision
Roads 604 and 707
180 feet in
Alvarado
November 2011
ES-13
Final
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary
Table ES.5
Facility/
Project Type
Alvarado Bypass
From US 67 to
IH 35W
(New location)
Loop 288/FM 428
or new rural
arterial
From IH 35 to
FM 428 at
FM 2153
(Add capacity or
new location)
Number
of
Existing
Lanes
0
FM 428 and new
location Aubrey
bypass
From FM 428 at
FM 2153 to the
Dallas North
Tollway
(Add capacity
and new location)
Planned Collin
County Outer
Loop
From Dallas
North Tollway to
US 75
(New location)
November 2011
0 to 4
lanes
divided
0 to 2
lanes
0
Potential Issues and Concerns (continued)
Existing
Right-of-Way
Width
Potential Issues/Concerns
None
 North of Alvarado, the path could adversely affect local
access and displace widely scattered pockets of
residences, as well as some commercial development
along IH 35W
0 feet for new  A Denton ISD magnet school, administration building,
location rural
stadium, natatorium, and water park is located at the
arterial
northwest corner of Loop 288 and FM 428
 A new interchange at Loop 288 could alter the existing
220 to 260 feet
FM 428 interchange, Stuart Road, and Kings Row
for Loop 288
intersections
main lanes
 Potential displacements along Loop 288 could be limited
because the facility already has a substantial right-of-way
500 feet at
width
Loop 288
 City of Denton has indicated support for this path option
interchanges
for a new location alignment
 Developer for The Hills of Denton (between IH 35 and
60 to 100 feet
FM 2164) has expressed support for a new location
for FM 428
alignment and included it in the initial land use plans for
the development
 Potential floodplain affects at Elm Fork Trinity River
 Scattered residential developments adjacent to the path
could be displaced or have local access adversely
impacted
 This path lies within three miles of Loop 288 which is
expected to be upgraded to a full freeway facility prior to
year 2030
0 feet for
 Scattered residential development could be displaced
Aubrey bypass
and local access adversely affected along and adjacent
to FM 428, particularly near FM 2153 and the City of
80 to 100 feet
Aubrey
for FM 428  Scattered residential developments along the new
location portion could be displaced or have local access
adversely impacted
 Several horse farms and other agricultural areas could
be displaced near the City of Aubrey
 Potential floodplain affects at Elm Fork Trinity River
 Potential impacts to Ray Roberts Greenbelt
None
 A fully directional interchange with the Locally Preferred
Alternative for the Collin County Outer Loop was
approved in November 2008 as part of the final
schematic for the Dallas North Tollway Phase 4A
Extension
 Potential displacements and adverse local access
impacts to the scattered residential development that
exists along and adjacent to this path
 Crosses scattered areas devoted to agricultural uses
 Crosses several drainage basins
ES-14
Final
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary
One of the major issues that will face all of these projects is funding. The estimated 2035 travel
demand volumes were based on a tolled facility. None appear to have traffic volumes high
enough to be able to fund themselves 100 percent based on tolling; therefore, other federal,
state, and/or local funding would be needed. If proposed as a non-tolled facility, the 2035 traffic
volumes could likely be higher than a tolled facility. In either case funding a tolled or non-tolled
could be very difficult because of a lack of transportation monies within the region.
ES.6.4 Changes in Context Occurring during the Study
In the course of any multi-year transportation study, the context in which a study is conducted
can change. Due to the regional scale of the Regional Outer Loop study, changes over time
and geography were compounded during its four-year study. The following characterizes these
fundamental changes that helped shape the recommendations:



New regional demographic data and development – Previous demographics placed
significant growth in the outside of the core counties (Dallas and Tarrant); projecting
development to occur away from the center of the region. Under the new 2035
demographics, population and employment is expected to increase more in the core of the
region with growth occurring through infill and revitalization, which affected travel demand
throughout the region. Roadways in the center of the region received more growth in traffic
while most roadways in outer areas saw a decrease in traffic.
Funding – Based on the evaluation of historic trends, current state of transportation funding,
and plausibility of future funding, the fiscally constrained Mobility 2035 has approximately
$45 billion less programmed transportation improvements than Mobility 2030.
State priorities – The no build alternative was selected and approved for the TTC-35 project.
However, TxDOT formed community-based committees to develop a vision for IH 35 that
supported stated mobility goals while providing continuity with local and regional projects.
When the study began in 2007, the adopted metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) was Mobility
2030. Mobility 2030 showed the Regional Outer Loop as a tollway that would be implemented
by 2030. In July 2011, this plan was superseded by Mobility 2035. The development of Mobility
2035 required a re-evaluation of expected funding sources that were included in the previous
MTP (Mobility 2030). Mobility 2035 identifies only two sections of the original Regional Outer
Loop as being implemented before 2035: Loop 9 SE from US 175 to US 287 and the Collin
County Outer Loop from Dallas North Tollway (Phase 4A) to SH 121. However, it should be
noted that this feasibility study was based on needs and not on the availability of funding.
Furthermore, a project not being listed in the financially constrained MTP does not preclude it
from further study. A study could still be undertaken but could not receive federal or state
approval until included in the financially constrained MTP.
ES.7 NEXT STEPS
The purpose of the Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study was to evaluate the need
and feasibility for an outer loop and indentify a potential corridor(s) for future study. Based on
the Phase 1 and Phase 2 evaluations conducted, a continuous, circumferential Regional Outer
Loop is not warranted based on 2035 traffic projections. However, several projects are
recommended for further study. None of the recommended projects appear to have traffic
volumes high enough to fund themselves 100 percent based on tolling; therefore, other federal,
state, and/or local funding would be needed. To be eligible for federal and state funding,
projects would need to follow FHWA and TxDOT project development guidelines and all
applicable environmental regulations such as the NEPA.
Prior to beginning environmental and engineering studies, it is recommended that the
information and data included in Regional Outer Loop Corridor Feasibility Study Report be
November 2011
ES-15
Final
Volume I – Regional Outer Loop
Corridor Feasibility Study Report
Executive Summary
reviewed and updated based on the latest available information and input from the public and
resource agencies. While this information could help provide a basis for future studies and
establish baseline social, economic, and environmental conditions, each study should establish
a specific need and purpose and include further development and evaluation of the typical
section and alignment alternatives. These alternatives need to be coordinated with local and
regional transportation plans for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The alternatives, as
well as a no build alternative, must be developed to an adequate level of detail to allow for
evaluation of the affected social, economic, and natural environments; travel demand; and
costs. To the extent possible, impacts should be avoided or minimized during the development
of the specific alignments for the corridors. However, in all cases, avoidance and minimization
of negative impacts will not be possible so mitigation would be necessary.
As the corridors recommended for further study move into the next phase of development, a
comprehensive, open, and proactive public and agency participation plan should be developed
for each project. As stated previously, over 660 comments were documented through the
Regional Outer Loop Feasibility Study process. These comments should be reviewed and
future public and agency involvement plans need to build upon these efforts and those of
previous studies. Coordination efforts should begin at the start of each study.
On an annual basis, NCTCOG will prepare a report on any changes, updates, or progress that
has been made since the last report. The purpose of the status report will be to help maintain
the viability of the findings of this report and to document various changes as they occur.
November 2011
ES-16
Final