March 6, 2007

Jennifer Halstead
HNTB
5910 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 200,
Plano, TX 75093

 
RE:  SH 121 Collin County Environmental Re-evaluation

Dear Ms. Halstead:
 

Listed below are my comments regarding the SH 121 Collin County Environmental Re-evaluation dated January 2007 which I received on January 26, 2007.  I appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments on this document due to the magnitude of impact this proposed toll road will have on the City of Frisco, its citizens and the rest of the region.

1. The City of Frisco received the notice of the Public Hearing on February 2, three weeks prior to the Public Hearing.  Attached is a copy of the stamped notification received by the City.  Typically TxDOT has provided at least 30 days notice of Public Hearings.  Why wasn't the typical 30 day notice provided in this Public Hearing?

 

2. This entire document is in many cases an exact word for word copy of the SH 121 Denton County Environmental Assessment which accounts for many of the errors in the document.  There is little to distinguish it as an individual project separate from the Denton County project.  Many of the references are more accurate to the Denton County project than the Collin County project for the majority of the document.  Shouldn't each Environmental Assessment be unique to the corridor and not a boiler plate document?

 

3. According to NCTCOG Memorial Drive analysis received by the City of Frisco on March 1, 2007, NCTCOG used 15 cents per mile for the toll analysis to generate the 2030 volumes on the toll road.  If the same analysis was used for this Environmental Assessment for the 2025 traffic volumes and the Comprehensive Development Agreement with Cintra escalating the tolls every 2 years, then the volumes shown in the EA are incorrect.  It is highly unlikely that no increases will occur in the approximate 20 years until 2030 and it is stated in the EA that traffic diverts from the toll road as tolls increase over time.  Therefore the volumes will decrease on the main lanes as stated in the EA as toll rise and increase on the adjacent frontage roads and other arterial street system.

 

4. Did the modeling take into account the Business Terms for State Highway 121 in Collin and Denton Counties which were included in the Appendix which state under item #1 that the "maximum weekday peak period toll rate in 2010 is 17 cents/mile.  The weekday peak period is currently defined as 6:30 am to 9:00 am and 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm.  The RTC would need to approve any changes to this definition."?  If peak toll rates are proposed by Cintra and were not modeled, then the traffic volumes during the peak hours would not be correctly reflected.  NCTCOG is greatly interested in implementing peak hour tolling.  Does the Cintra contract anticipate peak hour tolling?  If so, shouldn't the modeling account for this diversion of traffic?

 

5. There are a significant number of abbreviations in this document.  A glossary of abbreviations and their definition would be helpful for the lay person to read.  I have had several citizens ask me questions about all of the terminology used for the abbreviations throughout the document.

 

6. Emergency response times are established by national standards.  It is anticipated that due to these standards that the City of Frisco will be required to build additional Fire Stations in order to meet the 5 minute emergency response time (1 minute to dispatch and 4 minutes to drive) as a result of the congestion created by the toll road diversion. 

 

7. Page 1 - "near neighbor/near timeframe projects" is terminology that was specifically used by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) during the SH 121 Denton County Toll Road Environmental process due to the gasoline sales tax funding that was already funding the construction of this segment of SH 121.  Since there is minimal "gasoline sales tax funding" of SH 121 main lanes in the Collin County portion, (only from DNT to Hillcrest) it not the correct terminology to use "near neighbor/near timeframe" for projects that would be agreed upon.  The Regional Transportation Council (RTC) does not intend to use "near neighbor/near timeframe" funding for SH 121 Collin County.  The correct or more accurate terminology would be "Excess Toll Revenue Sharing."  The funding will be 75% up front and 25% over time in accordance with the NCTCOG Regional Transportation Council (RTC) "Business Terms for the State Highway 121 in Collin and Denton Counties". 

 

8. Page 1 - It is this source of funding that will fund projects as agreed upon by a cooperative TxDOT-RTC selection process which considers the desires of the cities and counties in which the revenue-generating project is located, (as per the NCTCOG RTC Business Terms for the State Highway 121 in Collin and Denton Counties) not the "elected officials in Collin County" as stated in the second paragraph. 

 

9. Since the rates on the SH 121 toll road will be higher than the rates on the DNT/PGBT over time, was this differential modeled?  Since the rates will be higher on the SH 121 toll road, traffic is likely to divert to the DNT/PBGT.  What is the impact to these toll roads and other facilities?

 

10. The rates of the non-single vehicles on SH 121 versus the NTTA system are significantly different.  The rates for SH 121 trucks, and other large vehicles will divert even further traffic to the frontage road and arterials.  Was this differential in price between systems analyzed?  It is often viewed in pavement design/analysis that the typical 18-wheeler does the same damage as 5,000 cars to a street.  The percentage of trucks is typically what will accelerate the end of life of a pavement. The diversion of these heavy vehicles to our local arterial streets due to the high toll rates will further burden the local communities.  What analysis was done regarding truck traffic and its diversion? 

 

11. What analysis was done to the existing frontage road pavement section due to the higher truck volume (diversion) and the Eagle Ford Shale issue.  Can the frontage roads withstand this additional truck load?

 

12. What safety issues will occur as a result of this diversion of truck traffic to the frontage roads?  There have been several fatalities along the SH 121 frontage roads in the past several years.  Many of these involve truck traffic.  If the truck traffic diverts to the frontage roads and arterials, it is anticipated the fatality rates not to decrease.  How was this safety issue studied?

 

13. Page 1 - Footnote 2 - There will not be any "near neighbor/near timeframe" projects for SH 121 Collin County.  There will be "Excess Toll Revenue Sharing Up front projects." 

 

14. Page 2- The tolling of SH 121 is stated to accelerate the construction of SH 121 from Hillcrest to US 75 approximately 10 years earlier.  However, TxDOT has used in its News Release dated February 28, 2007 on its Website http://www.dot.state.tx.us/news/003-2007.htm that the construction by tolling has accelerated it 25 years earlier.  Which is the correct definition of when the project would have been built?  10 years earlier or 25 years earlier?  The Two Futures for Collin County: Incremental Versus Leveraged (SH 121 Feasibility Study Report), April 2005, on page 1 states that no funding is available for at least the next ten years to construct the rest of the corridor, including the freeway-to-freeway interchanges.  However, in the press release awarding the project to Cintra, TxDOT claims it would be 25 years before it would be built.  Given the high demand for this corridor, congestion in the region, it seems unlikely that the region would delay building this corridor for 25 years. However, it is important to provide non-conflicting facts. 

 

15. Page 2 - In the second paragraph change the title of "near neighbor/near time frame" to "Excess Toll Revenue - Up Front Payment Projects"

 

16. Page 3 - Second Paragraph.  The RTC only voted to change the Denton County portion of SH 121 to a toll road in October 2004.  The Collin County portion of SH 121 was not voted to be modified at this time.  The correct date is January 2007 when the Mobility 2030 Plan was adopted by the RTC.

 

17. Page 3 - Second Paragraph.  The City of Frisco is not in support of the SH 121 as a toll road.  See attached Resolution 06-04-75R.  Please modify this paragraph and all other paragraphs as necessary to accurately reflect each city's support of this toll road.  Each city had a specific resolution and specific type of support or non-support regarding SH 121 as a toll road.  It would be helpful to include these in the EA in the Appendix.

 

18. Page 3 - Third Paragraph.  The small amount of gasoline funds for the main lanes is not planned on being reallocated in this project.  Only "Excess toll revenue funds up front and over time" are planned to be utilized.  Please modify this paragraph accordingly.

 

19. Page 3 - Third Paragraph. This paragraph needs to be rewritten.  It does not match the RTC "Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan - Excess Toll Revenue Sharing Policy" which states that "Excess revenue from individual toll project shall be placed in county-specific accounts and prorated based on the residential county of all toll payers on all toll roads.  Revenue from eastern and western subregion toll users will result in an adjusted split of Category funds.  This adjustment will be made to the eastern and western category funding allocation at the time of its implementation.  These funds can be used to fund future projects either on or off the State system."  These funds will not be used solely to fund the projects for the same transportation system users as on SH 121 in Collin County as stated in the document.  They will also be used to fund projects in Denton, Tarrant, and Dallas County since there are toll roads that extend currently across the region and toll road users from each of those counties.

 

20. Page 4 - Under the Objectives of the project, it states that one of the primary objectives of the proposed toll facility is to create a revenue source to fund future capacity improvements along the corridor.  What capacity improvements are planned as part of the Cintra contract? Since the project is LOS F in 2030 is Cintra required to add capacity to the main lanes prior to this time frame? Since this is a 50 year agreement, what thresholds are established to remove congestion such as was immediately evident along the President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT) when it opened recently and it was not widened?  With air quality conformity issues in the region, how would any widening occur?  It is my understanding, that this is one on the reasons PGBT has not been allowed to widen their single occupancy lanes.  If this similar situation would occur in the SH 121 corridor, how can this statement be an objective of the project?

 

21. Page 4 - Under the Objective - I strongly concur with the statement that the excess toll revenue should stay in the local area.  However, I do not believe this is the direction the RTC and TxDOT are currently going with the policies that are in place.  It is also not "near neighbor" by definition.

 

22. Page 4 - I did not see evidence of "acceleration of local tax-base growth due to the construction of this project" included in the Environmental Assessment.  Please provide information on how you are making this assumption.

 

23. Page 5 - How long will it take to get a FONSI for this project?

 

24. Page 7 - Third Paragraph. "Near Neighbor/Near timeframe" is not being used by TxDOT or the RTC in the SH 121 Collin County project.  This paragraph is inaccurate.  Projects miles away which have no relevance to the SH 121 traffic patterns could be funded with excess revenue from this toll road since the projects are within anywhere the four counties and are not limited to the nearness to SH 121 or serving the same transportation users.

 

25. Page 7 - Fourth Paragraph.  Delete the reference to "near neighbor/near timeframe."

 

26. Page 8 - Paragraph Two.  Since NTTA is only guaranteed to be a provider for the first 5 years of the CDA contract, this could lead to problems with between toll providers in the near future if NTTA does not successfully negotiate as the toll collection services after the first 5 years.  This is not in the best interest of the motorist using the facility and could lead to higher charges being paid by the user of the toll road.

 

27. Page 8 - Paragraph Three.  Spell out "ETC".

 

28. Page 8 - Paragraph Three. Right of way is not 100% complete.  The City of Frisco still owns land along that is not in TxDOT's name.  Please contact the City of Frisco Engineering Department for further information on how to acquire this land from the City of Frisco. 

 

29. Page 8 - Last Paragraph.  Update the costs of the project.  You only list the electronic toll components of the project and neglected to list any costs for the construction of the main lanes from Hillcrest to US 75 or the costs of the existing construction from DNT to Hillcrest and/or the service roads from DNT to US 75.  This is a significant error in this Environmental Assessment to assume that there is no cost associated with the construction of the main lanes or the interchange at US 75.

 

30. Page 11 - Last Paragraph.  Does anything need to be added about the additional charge for the invoice to this paragraph for the cash transactions?

Page 11 - Last Paragraph.  Does anything need to be added about the additional charge for the invoice to this paragraph for the cash transactions?

 

1. Page 11 - Last Paragraph.  Does this section need to describe the police/fire/emergency response policy with other agencies using the SH 121 Collin County Toll Road?  This will be different than has been historically used on the NTTA facilities and has been a concern raised in the Denton County portion that is already being tolled.  A paragraph regarding TxDOT's operation may be appropriate.

 

2. Page 12 - First Paragraph.  Section 4.3 A more appropriate title may be "Excess Toll Revenue Projects" instead of "Near Neighbor/Near timeframe Projects"

 

3. Page 12 - Figure 4-2. This figure indicates that the braided ramp for the Stonebriar Mall between Preston and Parkwood will not be built with this project but be "future".  This ramp was committed to be built by the Dallas District Engineer with this project but now is shown in the EA as "future".  When will this ramp be constructed and by whom?  This delay will mean the mall traffic will travel through several additional signals and increase congestion and reduce air quality.

 

4. Page 12 - Second Paragraph.  The statement about gasoline sales tax is incorrect.  The majority of the main lanes costs are being funded from the CDA.  Please provide a cost comparison of the CDA costs versus the gasoline sales tax funding in Collin County if you are going to use this analysis.

 

5. Page 13 - First Paragraph.  Clarify the second sentence to state $700 million in "today's dollars" or "present value" if you are referencing the Footnote.

 

6.  Page 13 - Second Paragraph.  The first sentence is incorrect.  The projects would be "Excess Revenue Up Front Payment Projects".  The projects would be identified by the cities and the counties in which the revenue-generating project is located.  NCTCOG held the first series of meetings the weeks of February 19 and February 26 with Tarrant, Collin, Denton and Dallas Counties.  Each of the CDA Task Forces was provided a summary of the planning elements and RTC Toll Policies.  Representatives from cities, counties and other agencies attended each of these meeting to learn about the selection process for these projects.  Projects are anticipated to be selected this summer for the "up front funding".  Delete the reference to "near neighbor/near timeframe".

 

7. Page 14 - Describe the Public Hearing process in Detail which occurred on February 26^th and the comments which were received.

 

8. Page 15 - Second Paragraph.  The Future Land Use Plan/zoning in any city can be modified at any time at the request of a property owner and the approval of the City Council.  With all of the non-residential zoning along SH 121, it will be a very long time before it can be absorbed, therefore it may be likely that property owners will be requesting that they be allowed to meet the property demands at that time, which is most likely residential.  This is similar to what has occurred in Coppell and Carrollton along the SH 121 corridor.

 

9. Page 16 - Second Paragraph - the second sentence states that the SH 121 toll is "not" consistent with the areas financially constrained long-range plan known as Mobility 2025.  However, it will be in the Mobility 2030 Plan but this document is not anticipated to receive air quality conformity until Spring/Summer 2007.  How can TxDOT award the contract to Cintra without air quality conformity? How can work proceed without this?  No other City, County or TxDOT project with federal dollars has been allowed to proceed by TxDOT or NCTCOG without completed these 2 processes.

 

10. Page 16- Third Paragraph - the long range conformity determination and US DOT TIP are not expected to be approved until the April/May timeframe.  How can this Environmental Assessment be approved prior to these documents being approved?

 

11. Page 16 - Third Paragraph.  Has the STIP been approved yet?  If not how can the projects proceed to construction?

 

12. Page 16 - Fourth Paragraph.  Where is the location for the highest CO emissions readings in 2011 that you recorded? 

 

13. Page 17 - Congestion Management System.  Why are no other improvements other than the grade separations listed for this section?  There are numerous CMAQ, ITS, vanpooling, signal hardware upgrades, intersection improvements, deceleration lanes, left turn lanes, signal retiming, new signal installations, sustainable development & transit oriented development is extremely strong in Frisco and Plano as well as these programs are almost all listed in the TIP.  New signal timing is being implemented along the SH 121 corridor which is not listed in the EA.  Why was all of this information not listed in the Environmental Assessment? 

 

14. Page 18 - Table 5-2.  The year the grade separation was constructed/implemented at Preston & SH 289 was 2006.

 

15. Page 18 - Table 5-2.  The year the Hillcrest grade separation should be verified with TxDOT but it hasn't been construction to date, therefore it will be at least a 2007 date.

 

16. Page 18- Table 5-2.  The year of implementation of the McKinney system should be verified with McKinney.  The implementation year you list may be from the TIP and not necessarily the year of construction.

 

17. Page 19 - Chart is illegible to the left side of the graph.

 

18. Page 20 - Last paragraph.  You state that there were no MSATs were found to have elevated levels within Dallas County during 2005.  What about Collin County?

 

19. Page 20 - Table 5-3.  Should this data be updated to 2006 information?

 

20. Page 21 - Second Paragraph.  According to your information, populations living near major roadways had generally lower income and education levels. However, you did not study and residential housing within the 500 m corridor. However, there are residential areas within these boundaries.  Since you state that the wind direction and speed affects this, what studies were done to see what increase effect would the toll road have on the residents of Frisco (and the other communities) along Snowshill Drive near the vicinity of SH 121 between Independence and Custer?  Were any specific locations studied regarding elevated pollution levels due to this issue?  There are residents in the vicinity and due to the wind speed and direction that should be affected by this construction. What other residential locations should be studied if any?

 

21. Page 22 - You state that you used the same area used in the Major Investment Transportation Study (MIS) or alternatives analysis.  You state you used three scenarios all for the year 2030.  However, all of your traffic volumes were generated for 2025.  Shouldn't these traffic volumes match to compare emissions?  Otherwise you are comparing 2030 numbers versus 2025 numbers.

 

22. Page 23 - First paragraph - same comment as above regarding 2025 and 2030 years.  The years should be consistent.

 

23. Page 23 - Table 5-6.  Are any of these MSAT produced from any of the factories or businesses in existence along SH 121 today?  If so, were they taken into account in these calculations?

 

24. Page 24 - Second Paragraph.  Define CEQ.

 

25. Page 26 - First Paragraph - Define PM10 and PM2.5.

 

26. Page 27 - Table 5-7. What air toxics were studied as part of this re-assessment?  What air toxics exist in the corridor?  What air toxics will increase as a result of the SH 121 toll road?

 

27. Page 28 - Second Paragraph. Define RFG.

 

28. Page 28 - Second Paragraph. Define CAA.

 

29. Page 28 - Second Paragraph. Define PM.

 

30. Page 28 - Last paragraph.  You state that overall the minority population of the project area represent 23.3 percent of the total population.  This is a significant portion of the population.  How is environmental justice served if these people are required to travel on the "free" frontage roads since they can not afford the toll road?  This will also increase congestion and reduce air quality as additional motorists are forced onto the service roads which contain many traffic signals and lower speed limits. These individuals also typically have the oldest, highest polluting vehicles which will further now pollute the air at each signal they must stop.  As you state on the top of page 31, the economic impact to these low-income residents would represent a higher percentage of household income than for non-low income households.  The service roads are also at LOS F which is gridlock.

1. Page 32.  Paragraph Five.  You state that the toll rates for SH 121 would be consistent with the other toll rates in the region.  This is not correct.  The toll rate for SH 121 is set at 14.5 cents (avg) with permitted 17 cents for peak hour while toll tag users on DNT currently pay around 10.5 cents.  Also with the increases projected by the CDA, it is unlikely the NTTA rates will also escalate at the same rate as the CDA.  Therefore this statement is not correct.

 

2. Page 33.  First Paragraph.  You state that the SH 121 frontage roads as well as the local arterial roadways like Legacy, Lebanon, Hedgecoxe, Main/FM 720, McKinney etc are available to provide non-tolled alternatives.  At the public hearing these were also stated as alternatives to not paying the tolls.  However, no analysis exists in the Environmental Assessment that indicates the impact to these local roads and the impact to the local governments as a result of the conversion of this freeway from a "free road" to a "toll road".  The public was not provided this information.  The travel time is stated to be greatest at peak hours of travel when traffic congestion within the SH 121 corridor would be greatest.  This amount of time is also not provided.  Please quantify these times.

 

3. Page 33 - First Paragraph.  The travel time is stated to be greatest at peak hours of travel when traffic congestion within the SH 121 corridor would be greatest.  This amount of time is also not provided.  Please provide this information in time and cost per person for this travel time.  Since the low income resident is most affected environmental justice issues should be considered.  NCTCOG recently provided as part of the CDA Task Force the "Unmet 2030 Peak Hour Demand" which indicates a number of roadways that are in the vicinity have high "unmet peak hour demands."  These unmet demands create the need for extra lanes of arterial streets to be built in already constrained areas.  The additional lanes are not physically possible.  However, the EA does not address this need and the environmental justice issues it creates.

 

4. Page 33 - Second Paragraph.  How did TxDOT intend to achieve the visitor, rental car, and out-of-state person that aren't familiar with the system that has been discussed for the past two years?  There is nothing in this section of the EA discussing this issue.

 

5. Page 34 - Third Paragraph.  What is the maximum additional percent premium charge allowed by the CDA?  What is the maximum processing fee allowed?  Is interest charged on the monthly bill if unpaid? What is the minimum threshold for a bill to be sent for a "cash" person that travels SH 121 without a toll tag?

 

6. Page 34 - Fifth Paragraph.  Since many low-income residents do not have credit cards, may not have bank accounts, and are reluctant to have prepaid accounts due to a variety of reasons such as illegal immigrant status etc. this higher toll rates negatively affect their socioeconomic class.  Since 25% of the population living in the vicinity of SH 121 are low-income and the tolls are expected to rise with inflation each year, this will over time become even more pronounced.  How was this analyzed?  Please quantify this effect over time as tolls are increased and as the peak hour tolling is implemented.

 

7. Page 34 - Sixth Paragraph.  At the time this EA was printed, the statement about CCART not having regularly scheduled trips in the service area was incorrect.  Frisco has contracted with them for the past several years to provide a fixed route throughout the City.  This service was recently voted on to be discontinued in May 2007.  A transit study will be performed to determine future needs of transit throughout the City.  Plano is a member of DART.  According to the DART website, bus service exists currently just south of SH 121 in the Legacy Business Park. 

 

8. Page 35 - First Paragraph.  What is the policy for fire/police/emergency vehicles on the proposed toll road?  Since issues have arisen on the Denton County portion of the SH 121 toll road, shouldn't the TxDOT policy/practice be noted and its effect on these local agencies in the EA?

 

9. Page 35 - Second Paragraph.  Should the fact that the impact to the local cities to pay for the construction and maintenance of the high mast lighting on the toll road be mentioned in the EA since this cost is being required to be paid for by the local agencies instead of Cintra?  This is double taxation by the motorists.

 

10. Page 35 - Third Paragraph.  You state that the existing commercial and industrial land uses are likely to continue developing more densely adjacent to the proposed toll facility.  State your rationale for this statement.  Frisco has no plans to change its zoning due to the toll road adoption.  Have you discussed this with other city planning departments in order to come to this determination?

 

 

11. Page 36 - Third Paragraph.  The third sentence states that "It is anticipated that development opportunities along the SH 121 facility would be facilitated by the proposed implementation of tolling."  However the remainder of the paragraph states that the implementation of the tolling does not influence the development and that development would occur whether or not SH 121 toll road occurred and it does not effect the population density nor growth rate.  Therefore, the "italics" sentence above contradicts the remainder of the paragraph and should be eliminated.  The proposed SH 121 toll road will not negatively nor positively affect the development in the corridor. 

 

12. Page 36 - Fourth Paragraph.  The first sentence needs to be rewritten.  There are no "near neighbor/near timeframe" projects for the Collin County SH 121 Project.  Since it is unknown at this time, where these projects will be located, it is unclear whether these projects will influence the cities immediately adjacent to the SH 121 area.

 

13. Page 36 - Fourth Paragraph.  The Mobility 2030 Plan contains the SH 121 Collin County toll road; however, the traffic model used for this Environmental Assessment was the Mobility 2025.  This is inconsistent with the Financially Constrained Plan.  The Collin County portion of SH 121 is not in the 2025 Plan, it is only in the 2030 Plan.

 

14. Page 37 - First Paragraph.  There are no Near Neighbor/Near Timeframe projects.  All projects are "Excess Toll Revenue" with 75% up front funding and 25% over time as determined by the RTC.

 

15. Page 37 - Second Paragraph.  "A potential indirect impact of tolling could be an increase of traffic through neighborhoods as a result of motorists trying to avoid the toll."  I concur with your statement.  The NCTCOG 2030 "Unmet Peak Hour Demand" on the arterial street systems demonstrates that the traffic is attempting to cut through arterial streets since the SH 121 main lanes are also over capacity.  What solution for the main lanes of SH121 and the local cities do you propose to avoid this congestion and air quality issue? If the roadway is a "free" roadway it is more likely that the motorist will stay on SH 121, however, since it is proposed to be a "toll" road, people are more likely to exit the "toll road" and divert to another "free road" rather than sit in gridlock and pay for that service.

 

16. Page 37 - Fourth Paragraph.  Since SH 121 is diagonal and the arterials are primarily north and south, there exists inefficiency for motorists to avoid the SH 121 and travel parallel routes.  However, they are traveling parallel routes as predicted from the 2025 Mobility modeling in Appendix C.  The frontage road with diamond interchanges which have long cycle lengths with long delays and unmet demands as well lead motorists also to use arterials in the adjacent cities.  What analysis was done to determine how TxDOT will address the needs of the local communities as a result of the impact of this toll road diversion?  Please quantify this delay.

 

17. Page 37 - Fourth Paragraph.  What toll increase scenarios were considered and modeled as part of this Environmental Assessment?  Was only 15 cents per mile analyzed for 2025?  You state that "the potential for increased congestion along the frontage roads (and I believe also the other arterials) over time as the traffic demand for the non-toll option increase is also an indirect impact of tolling."  If you only considered 15 cents per mile in 2025, then all of the traffic volumes would not be correct for 2025 since your statement about traffic demand would drive motorists to seek non-toll options as the tolls increase.  By 2025, the toll rates would be higher than 15 cents under the Cintra contract.  Therefore shouldn't all of the traffic volumes be recalculated with Mobility 2030 numbers and the correct escalation of toll rate assumptions in the Cintra contract?

 

18. Page 37 - Fourth Paragraph.  You state that "Increased congestion may result in air quality implications as the proposed project is located in Collin County, which is part of the EPA's designated eight-hour, nine county non-attainment area for pollutant ozone."  What implications?  If this is correct, then what air quality implications exist as a result of the proposed Cintra toll rates in year 2030?  At the end of the proposed Cintra 50 year contract?  Shouldn't all of these issues been addressed as part of the Environmental Assessment given the EPA's concern and the non-attainment area in Collin County?

 

19. Page 38 - First Paragraph.  You state that a family living at or under the poverty level would still make 250 round-trips per year and spend $455 per year or 2.2% of their household income on the proposed SH 121 toll road.  Is this assumption correct?  If you are living on poverty with your family, would you spend 2.2% of your family's gross income on toll fees?  Most City of Frisco employees who are lower income, but not at poverty levels, have already stated that they can not afford the proposed toll road.  How is this assumption relevant if the poverty person can not afford the luxury of spending $455 of his gross income on tolls?

 

20. Page 38 - First Paragraph.  In order for Frisco and other cities in the corridor to attract businesses, they must hire employees for the service sector and support staff.  This sector employment market is greatest effected by the toll road and its cost to use it.  Businesses may choose to locate to other locations due to the negative transportation cost.

 

21. Page 38 - First Paragraph. According to the FHWA website, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The Executive Order requires that each Federal agency shall, to the greatest extent allowed by law, administer and implement its programs, policies, and activities that affect human health or the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately high and adverse" effects on minority and low-income populations.  Adverse Effects as defined by the FHWA website means "the totality of significant individual or cumulative human health or environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic effects, which may include, but are not limited to: bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or death; air, noise, and water pollution and soil contamination; destruction or disruption of man-made or natural resources; destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community's economic vitality; destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services; vibration; adverse employment effects; displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations; increased traffic congestion, isolation, exclusion or separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader community; and the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of, benefits of FHWA programs, policies, or activities."  Don't the toll costs with the allowed escalation factors, plus peak hour tolling, with ALL electronic tolling and no ability to pay cash, and NO true parallel route without traveling the frontage road with a LOS F during the peak hour adversely affect the low-income population living in the corridor?   Please explain how this does not meet the definition of Adverse Effect.

 

22. Page 38 - The Business Terms for State Highway 121 in Collin and Denton Counties which were included in the Appendix which state under item #1 that the "maximum weekday peak period toll rate in 2010 is 17 cents/mile.  The weekday peak period is currently defined as 6:30 am to 9:00 am and 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm.  The RTC would need to approve any changes to this definition."  Were the traffic volumes simulated during peak hours with this rate since the rate directly affects the poverty and low income decision to use this road?  With peak hour increase in the toll directly negatively influences their ability to have access to this road with the higher toll rates during peak hours during the same time the 25% of the population in the area desires to use the roadway.  Since the frontage roads are at LOS F, they are not a viable alternative.  Is this not creating an Environmental Justice issue?

 

23. Page 38 - Second Paragraph.  The Cities of McKinney, Allen and Frisco are capped at the maximum sales tax and cannot join a transit provider without the cap being raised on the sales tax.  The City of Plano is a member of DART.

 

24. Page 38 - Third Paragraph.  You state that "potential for increased congestion along the frontage roads may also have an impact on commercial properties in terms of access to commercial services and places of employment." How was this determined?  From reviewing the traffic volumes on the frontage roads they are over capacity in many locations and will be affected especially during peak hours which are the same as the peak hours of many commercial/retail developments.  Since the majority of the cities have already developed and/or have zoned the land surrounding SH 121 as commercial/retail, what solutions were studied as part of this environmental assessment?  You state that the LOS for the frontage roads is F in 2025.  This is gridlock and will have a significant negative impact on the development and/or redevelopment of the surrounding land uses.  However, you do not address any solutions to the impact of diverting traffic from the main lanes to the frontage roads which contributes to this decline.

 

25. Page 40 - Second Paragraph.  Define RSA. Resource Study Area?

 

26. Page 43 - What future developments anticipate would likely remove woodland areas within the main lane construction? The majority of the vacant land adjacent to the proposed corridor is agricultural in nature or has already been cleared due to the frontage road construction.

 

27. Page 44 - Table 5-11.  Change the "near neighbor/near time frame" to "Excess Toll Revenue" in each category.

 

28. Page 44 - Table 5-11.  Under Air Quality you state "Decrease in congestion on tolled mainlanes would likely benefit air quality."  However, in the traffic volumes provided in Appendix C, the volumes exceed the capacity in peak hours; therefore this statement is not true since this is the time of day that typically the region exceeds ozone and other air quality measures.  This statement should be eliminated.

 

29. Page 44 - Table 5-11.  Under Environmental Justice you state that low income individuals "may" be impacted.  Shouldn't the terminology be "will" instead of "may" given the impact on an average family of $20,000?  For example if they lived in McKinney and worked at DFW Airport as a custodian at one of the hotels, there are few routes for them to go to their place of employment.  What would be their total cost as a "cash" payer to work a normal work-year versus the typical "toll tag" person?  The ETC system detrimentally affects this type of person and also affects where this person can obtain a job.  Many of the jobs at the DFW Airport are low-income jobs but there are few ways to attract these types of lower income jobs and low-income residents/employees.  The implementation of the ETC without any cash option will adversely impact this population and these minority businesses.

 

30. Page 44 - Table 5-11.  Until the funding for the "Excess Toll Revenue" is determined to be located, this is not a true statement.  From reviewing the NCTCOG's Mobility 2030 Unmet Peak Hour Demand, to make this statement true, the funding from the Excess Revenue will need to be assigned to relieve these overburdened roadways and then the model "rerun" to determine if this statement can be made in the Environmental Assessment.  Until then, it is not a true statement.

 

31. Page 46 - First Paragraph.  Change the "near neighbor/near timeframe" to "Excess Toll Revenue"

 

32. Page 46 - Second Paragraph.  Land development has developed slower when a slower according to our Planning Department than when a freeway.

 

33. Page 47 - Third Paragraph.  Change the "near neighbor/near timeframe" to "Excess Toll Revenue"

 

34. Page 48 - First Paragraph.  TxDOT eliminated the STEP funding according to the Frisco Planning Department.  They would request additional funding for hike/bike trails to continue in the corridor.

 

35. Page 48/49 - I do not see any specifics on air quality mentioned regarding SH 121. These are merely boiler plate pages.  With the volume of traffic predicted, please explain the air quality issues of SH 121 in 2030.

 

36. Page 50/51 - I do not see anything specific regarding Environmental Justice.  These are merely boiler plate pages.  You state that NCTCOG does not have information available at this time regarding environmental justice.  Shouldn't TxDOT have performed this study since the toll rates will escalate each year and start 50% higher than NTTA's current toll rate?

 

37. Page 51 - The statement regarding the frontage roads is incorrect.  The frontage roads are not part of this environmental assessment.  All of the frontage roads between US 75 and the DNT are currently open to traffic.  If you are discussing "wealthy" income then this is a true statement, they can drive the main lanes.  However, isn't the purpose of this section of the EA to discuss Environmental Justice not the wealthy?

 

38. Page 52 - Under Cumulative Impacts you site the US Census Bureau as this Study Area having "some of the high median household income and lower poverty rates in the state of Texas, if not the nation."  However, 25% of the population is low income as you state on Page 34.  This population will not be able to afford the toll road.  The SH 121 frontage roads are also over capacity during peak hours (and beyond) according to NCTCOG's 2030 model of Unmet Peak Hour Demand therefore this will not be a viable solution as you proposed.  The frontage roads can not be expanded.  What other solutions do you propose?

 

39. Page 53 - Third Paragraph.  Why did you assume 14.5 cent toll for 2030?  Doesn't the Cintra contract state that toll rates will increase each year with inflation?  Are no toll rates assumed by TxDOT or Cintra until 2030?  Isn't the amount $60.75 unlikely given this fact? If normal inflation factors were used, that would this amount be in 2030?  Please quantify this amount.

 

40. Page 53 - Fourth Paragraph.  While SH 121 is only one of many proposed new toll roads, you note that 30 percent of the proposed transportation network will be toll roads in the metroplex.  How will this large percentage of toll roads affect the low income population and environmental justice cumulative?  This is a significant shift in transportation availability to the low income and poverty percentage in the metroplex.  How will this affect their ability to obtain jobs and get to and from work?  Please quantify this impact.

1. Page 54 - Origin/Designation analysis were performed by TxDOT as part of the CDA process.  The city of Frisco participated in allowing TxDOT consultants perform surveys as part of these studies.  Why were these studies now not included in the EA? 

 

2. What other studies were done to assist the CDA processes that are not included in this EA that would benefit the Environmental Assessment analysis and conclusions?

 

3. Page 55 - You to not discuss the net affect of tolling versus non-tolling on the adjacent city roadways and their LOS. Please provide this information.  Please quantify the LOS impact to local arterials.

 

4. Page 55 - Second paragraph.  Please verify you numbers in this paragraph.  They seem to be off from my calculations.

 

5. Page 55 - Fifth Paragraph.  The LOS is F for the frontage roads which are unacceptable.  The right of way is fixed and can not be expanded.  What solutions do you propose as solutions to this congestion and air quality issue?

 

6. Page 55 - Fifth Paragraph.  You state that LOS F is for the main lanes of SH 121.  What solutions do you propose for this congestion and air quality issue?

 

7. Page 55 - Modify the "Near neighbor/Near Timeframe" to "Excess Toll Revenue".  It is unknown whether these projects will be in the immediate area as stated in the EA.  Selection of these projects will not be determined until summer 2007 unlike the Denton County projects which were selected during the EA process.  They may or may not be added capacity according to NCTCOG CDA Task Force meetings held recently.

 

8. Page 56 - First Paragraph.  Modify the "Near neighbor/Near Timeframe" to "Excess Toll Revenue". 

 

9. Page 56 - Second Paragraph.  The EA states that "those who do not use the mainlanes would experience some decline in LOS."  Define "some decline".  Little factual analysis appears to have been performed as part of this EA.   Please quantify this information.  From reviewing NCTCOG's recent 2030 Unmet Peak Hour Demand and looking at some Highway Capacity Manual calculations, it is apparent that this is not "some" but "significant". 

 

10. Page 59 - Why is the heading "From FM 423 to US 75" if this project is "DNT to US 75"?  This is part of the Denton County Project (FM 423 - DNT)

 

11. Page 62 - Why is the heading "From FM 423 to US 75" if this project is "DNT to US 75"?  This is part of the Denton County Project (FM 423 - DNT)

 

12. Page 66 - No information is provided which answers the environmental justice, noise, air quality, congestion and other quantifiable issues that are created by tolling SH 121.

 

13. Appendix A - Why is the map labeled "SH 121 Toll Re-Evaluation from FM 423 to DNT?  It was my understanding this Environmental Reassessment was from the DNT to US 75.  Only a small portion of the EA discusses anything west of the DNT.

 

14. Appendix A - Figure 4.  What established the boundaries of the MSAT Buffer Study Areas?

 

15. Appendix B - The first FONSI included is from 1991 - Please state the relevance this FONSI in the Appendix for ease of the reader. I don't believe it is for the construction of the six lane freeway and six lane frontage road projects.

 

16. Appendix B - The second FONSI included is from 1999 - isn't this from when the asphalt service roads were constructed in the same vicinity as the main lanes?  It would be helpful to identify why these documents are pertinent to the Environmental Re-assessment that is being considered today.  Please state the relevance of this FONSI in the Appendix for the ease of the reader.

 

17. Appendix B - The third FONSI included is from 2002 - This appears to be a re-assessment from when the asphalt service roads were constructed in the same vicinity as the main lanes?  Please state the relevance of this FONSI in the Appendix for the ease of the reader.

 

18. Appendix B - The fourth FONSI.  Please state the relevance of this FONSI in the Appendix for the ease of the reader.

 

19. Appendix B - Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan Excess Toll Revenue Sharing Policy - Does the Policy Item #4 agree with state law regarding how revenue will be split between the Eastern and Western subregions?

 

20. Appendix B - Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan Excess Toll Revenue Sharing Policy - Policy Item #5 - Shouldn't projects go to fund the reduce the congestion created by the toll road?  For example the up front funding (75%) may not fund projects in the immediate vicinity of the SH 121 toll road.  However, from reviewing the EA, the LOS is F for both the main lanes and the frontage roads.  Shouldn't the funding be spent on the roads where the traffic is diverted?  See NCTCOG "Unmet 2030 Peak Hour Demand" information attached.

 

21. Appendix B - Where are the trees identified as part of the woodland mitigation planned to be planted?  Where were they removed from the main lanes of the project?

 

 

22. Appendix C - what is the purpose of including only selected pages of the Mobility 2030 Plan in this Appendix?  Pages 9, 13, 14 are the only pages included.

 

23. Appendix C - What is the purpose of including only selected pages of the Mobility 2025 Plan in this Appendix? Pages XVI-78; XVI-85 and XVI-81 are the only pages included.

 

24. Appendix C - Gantry Locations.  The *future ramp and toll gantry was proposed to be built as part of this construction project in order to serve the Stonebriar Mall.  Why is it now not part of this project?

 

25. Appendix C - the volumes are based on 2025 NCTCOG financially constrained traffic model but the roadway can't be built under this scenario due to air quality conformity.  Shouldn't the volumes have been based on the 2030?

 

26. Appendix C - The total daily volumes on proposed SH 121 main lanes for various locations comparing non-toll 2025 versus toll 205 there are significant differences in traffic volumes. It is evident from this analysis that traffic is diverting from the toll road to alternative routes, yet no analysis of the impact to the local street systems and the needs of those communities is provided in this Environmental Assessment.  The diverted volume ranges from approximately 25,000-45,000 vehicles per day depending on the section of SH 121.  This is the basic need for another 4-6 lane parallel arterial route.

 

 

Location (Main Lanes)	2025 Non-Toll	2025 Toll	2025 Delta
DNT to Parkwood	128,515	113,391	15,124
Parkwood to SH 289	152,818	136,034	16,784
SH 289 to Ohio	132,208	107,330	24,878
Ohio to Hillcrest	157,790	129,793	27,997
Hillcrest to Coit	133,046	99,654	33,392
Coit to Independence	132,815	101,022	31,793
Independence to Ramp	150,183	117,771	32,412
Ramp to Custer	118,917	91,282	27,635
Custer to Ramp	133,174	101,827	31,347
Ramp to Alma	113,470	69,444	44,026
Alma to Ramp	123,866	78,478	45,388
Ramp to Stacy	99,435	53,976	45,459
Stacy to Ramp	105,381	76,137	29,244
Ramp to Ramp	85,964	47,754	38,210
Ramp to Lake Forest	91,982	60,220	31,762
Lake Forest to Hardin	80,091	40,445	39,646
Hardin to Ramp	82,086	51,249	30,837
Ramp to US 75	88,760	61,946	26,814

 

27. Appendix C - The total daily volumes on proposed SH 121 frontage roads for various locations comparing toll versus non-toll from the 2025 NCTCOG Financially Constrained Traffic Model provided in Appendix C, it is evident from that traffic is diverting from the toll road to the frontage roads as well as other alternative routes as stated in the Environmental Assessment document and during the Public Hearing.  However, no traffic analysis of the delay caused by this diversion to the frontage road traffic and the air quality issues which will be created is analyzed is the EA.  No parallel routes that are listed in the Environmental Assessment are studied for their effect for the congestion, air quality, increased delays and travel times, as well as cost to the motorist due to this travel time delay if the road would have remained as a freeway versus a toll road.  The lack of analysis of these parallel routes creates a burden of additional traffic on local city streets and the frontage road which may cause the streets to be reconstructed earlier than anticipated and higher congestion on these facilities than otherwise anticipated. The diverted volume ranges from approximately 25,000-45,000 vehicles per day depending on the section of SH 121.  This is the basic need for another 4-6 lane parallel arterial route.

 

From comparing the volume differentials of toll versus non-toll only some of the traffic is diverted to the service roads.  Therefore the remainder of the traffic has chosen an alternate route as suggested in your Environmental Analysis.  Some of the volumes between non-toll and toll are significant and the order of magnitude of another parallel arterial need.  Since the majority of Plano is already built out as shown in the NCTCOG 2030 model and few other cities in the surrounding area can accommodate this additional traffic on their parallel system, what is TxDOT's proposed solution to this diversion of traffic?

 

Location (Service Roads)	2025 Non-Toll	2025 Toll	2025 Delta
DNT to Parkwood ramp	38,308	39,672	1,364
Parkwood Ramp to Parkwood	51,637	57,710	6,073
Parkwood to Ramp	59,503	65,694	6,191
Ramp to SH 289	35,200	43,043	7,843
SH 289 to Ramp	17,869	32,849	14,980
Ramp to Ohio	38,479	61,563	23,084
Ohio to Ramp	42,559	50,560	8,001
Ramp to Hillcrest	16,977	28,097	11,120
Hillcrest to Ramp	19,137	27,973	8,836
Ramp to Ramp	44,080	58,111	14,031
Ramp to Coit	26,741	33,701	6,960
Coit to Ramp	19,901	23,900	3,999
Ramp to Ramp	37,473	46,941	9,468
Ramp to Independence	20,104	30,192	10,086
Independence to Ramp	20,071	27,678	7,607
Ramp to Ramp	51,337	54,167	2,830
Ramp to Custer	37,080	43,623	6,543
Custer to Ramp	11,626	19,069	7,443
Ramp to Alma	12,341	34,325	21,984
Alma to Ramp	6,847	17,791	10,944
Ramp to Ramp	31,278	41,572	10,294
Ramp to Stacy	25,332	20,131	5,201
Stacy to Ramp	8,712	12,167	3,455
Ramp to Ramp	28,129	40,551	12,422
Ramp to Lake Forest	22,112	28,085	5,973
Lake Forest to Ramp	2,847	8,597	5,750
Ramp to Ramp	14,738	28,373	13,635
Ramp to Hardin	12,743	17,568	4,825
Hardin to Ramp	8,448	16,656	8,208
Ramp to US 75	1,727	5,960	4,233

 

 

28. Appendix C - There is a number of traffic volumes that are incorrect by comparison from today's traffic volumes to proposed traffic volumes and/or ultimate capacity. It appears that no validation was done on some of the arterial streets and other roadways from today's traffic volumes.  The basis of my conclusions is from the City of Frisco traffic counts which are available to the public and are attached for your review.  The Ohio traffic volume is almost 50% less from the non-toll to toll scenario.  Why is this volume so much lower?  Is the Preston Overpass coded correctly as a 4 lane overpass?  Why is the Parkwood volume so low?  Today's counts are significantly higher and all of the development and roadway system has not been completed yet so the traffic will continue to grow over time.  I did not verify the other cities traffic counts and volumes for the future but would recommend that these also be validated to insure that there are not miscoding of links for speed or number of lanes that could be affecting the assignment of trips in the vicinity.



 

 

Street	EA Toll Volume (2025)	City Traffic Count (Year)
Parkwood	7,111	19,935 (06)
Preston (4 lane Overpass)	48,354	NA
Ohio	6,688	16,927 (05)
Hillcrest	7,395	9,841 (05)

 

29. Appendix C - the ramp configurations for some of the Denton County 2025 modeling for the EA Re-Evaluation between Spring Creek Parkway and Plano Parkway was incorrect.  Please see the attached Exhibit obtained from the "Keep it Moving" TxDOT Website regarding the schematic for this project. The model in Denton County EA indicated for westbound traffic an entrance ramp, then an exit ramp.  However, the schematic shows an exit ramp then two entrance ramps between Spring Creek Parkway and Plano Parkway.  If this mistake was also used in the Collin County EA Re-Assessment, the traffic volumes should change in the western end of the Collin County portion of this EA.   

 

30. Appendix C - The unmet demand during the peak hour was not analyzed as part of the Environmental Assessment but during the CDA Excess Revenue Task Force meetings NCTCOG held during the weeks of February 19^th and 26^th, NCTCOG provided the attached "Unmet peak hour 2030 demands in the SH 121 corridor".  This analysis indicates that the diversion from the freeway to toll road has a detrimental effect on the adjacent roadway system that was not studied as part of the EA and will result in delay, congestion and air quality issues.  For example during the peak hour on SH 121 in 2030 (I'm not sure what toll rate was assumed to get these volumes by NCTCOG) the unmet demand on SH 121 near Parkwood is 5091 vehicles in the Eastbound direction and 5131 vehicles in the Westbound direction which is equivalent to needing 3 additional lanes in the eastbound direction and 3 additional lanes in the westbound direction for the peak hour traffic for a total of 12 lanes of traffic if you assume a lane capacity is 2100 during the peak hour for a toll road.  I don't believe you can add the necessary capacity to the toll road to meet this demand and therefore additional vehicles will divert to the local arterial roadways to avoid the gridlock of SH 121.

I hope that I have addressed the majority of the points in the Environmental Assessment document you have provided.  Given the short time period after the public hearing to provide this information to you, I hope that my comments are helpful in insuring that the process meets all the federal and state requirements.  If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me.  Please add me to your direct mailing list for all future public hearing so that I can be notified directly of these events in the future.  Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Cissy Sylo, P.E.

Director of Engineering Services

cc:        George Purefoy, City Manager