Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kernals12]

TxDOT will be holding a public meeting about *widening* US 380 In Collin County on May 10. It just so happens I'll be in the area on that day. Should I go? 

http://www.ntxe-news.com/artman/publish/article_128846.shtml

Do it. Prosper and Frisco will benefit greatly.

I'm not planning on making any comments because I don't want to make a spectacle of myself, but I've never been to this type of meeting

[kernals12]

http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380Farmersville

Public Meeting was held tonight about the portion between CR 560 and CR 699 at the Hunt County Border, bypassing Farmersville.

[MaxConcrete]

Public meeting materials including schematics are posted. The section covered by this meeting is from 2 miles west of the DNT to 4 miles east of DNT. The alignment is along the existing 380 for this section, and nearly all right-of-way acquisition is along the south side of the existing road.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380ProsperFriscoWidening

Observations:

• Freeway is only 3x3 on this section. But there is a 32-foot-wide median to add the fourth lane in the future.
• Frontage roads are continuous. However, some frontage road sections have only two lanes.
• 5-level interchange planned at DNT
• 3-level interchange planned at Preston Road, with Preston main lanes on the second level.
• The presentation says "proposed right-of-way width of 245 to 522 feet". Scaling from the schematic, the right-of-way looks like it is typically 380 feet wide where the schematic has a full freeway (as opposed to the transition zones at the ends). The right-of way around the DNT and between the DNT and Preston is in the range of 450 to 500 feet.
• It will be ready for construction to start in 2026

[kernals12]

Public meeting materials including schematics are posted. The section covered by this meeting is from 2 miles west of the DNT to 4 miles east of DNT. The alignment is along the existing 380 for this section, and nearly all right-of-way acquisition is along the south side of the existing road.
http://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380ProsperFriscoWidening

Observations:

• Freeway is only 3x3 on this section. But there is a 32-foot-wide median to add the fourth lane in the future.
• Frontage roads are continuous. However, some frontage road sections have only two lanes.
• 5-level interchange planned at DNT
• 3-level interchange planned at Preston Road, with Preston main lanes on the second level.
• The presentation says "proposed right-of-way width of 245 to 522 feet". Scaling from the schematic, the right-of-way looks like it is typically 380 feet wide where the schematic has a full freeway (as opposed to the transition zones at the ends). The right-of way around the DNT and between the DNT and Preston is in the range of 450 to 500 feet.
• It will be ready for construction to start in 2026

As I said in the "DFW Projects" thread, I almost went to this meeting but I was worried people would get the wrong idea about a grown man travelling alone in a car with Illinois plates at a school building.

[Bobby5280]

Yeah, it's too bad the upgrade to US-380 won't initially be built as a 4x4 configuration. At least the highway design allows room for a fourth lane to be added on the inner left in the future. They'll be forced to add that extra lane too in short order. Then they might have to add some elevated express lanes after that.

I don't mind the volleyball interchange at Preston Road since Preston Road isn't a real freeway. Preston Road has a traffic signal just North of its existing interchange with US-380.

If TX DOT can get things going soon on ROW acquisition this project will secure a pretty big chunk of the overall US-380 upgrade between Denton and McKinney. And it may help give the bypass projects for Denton and McKinney some extra momentum.

[-- US 175 --]

Local media coverage leading up to the public hearing:

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/traffic/txdot-holds-public-hearing-in-prosper-on-u-s-380-plan/2963823/
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/txdot-public-meetings-on-proposed-changes-to-hwy-380-in-collin-denton-counties/287-16beb11f-dc8c-49d4-a75f-10a497dc7e0b

[MaxConcrete]

TxDOT has scheduled a meeting for Spur 399.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/dallas/spur-399-extension.html

The announcement doesn't explicitly say that the orange alternative was selected. However, matching the right-of-way requirement (366.1 acres) and the number of displacements, it is clear the the orange alternative is selected.

The orange alternative goes around the south and east sides of the airport. This is the expected result, based on McKinney's opposition to the purple alternative on the west side of the airport.

https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/Spur399PublicMeeting

This document (posted today, page 49) lists 2032 as the start date for construction. I was hoping it would start sooner.
https://www.nctcog.org/getmedia/0ca9a7b1-d838-48ec-aab1-a22c25c2ac6f/agendapacketrtc10132022.pdf?ext=.pdf

Page 46 of that document lists 2028 as the construction start of the US 380 McKinney bypass. Cost for the bypass is listed at $844 million, including $417 million for right-of-way. The ROW cost seems high, especially since the main point of the long bypass was to find the path of least resistance (and presumably least ROW cost).

[thisdj78]

Public hearings to be held for US 380 bypass alignment, study results in McKinney

https://communityimpact.com/dallas-fort-worth/mckinney/transportation/2023/01/16/public-hearings-to-be-held-for-us-380-bypass-alignment-study-results-in-mckinney/

[Road Hog]

TxDOT has scheduled a meeting for Spur 399.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/dallas/spur-399-extension.html

The announcement doesn't explicitly say that the orange alternative was selected. However, matching the right-of-way requirement (366.1 acres) and the number of displacements, it is clear the the orange alternative is selected.

The orange alternative goes around the south and east sides of the airport. This is the expected result, based on McKinney's opposition to the purple alternative on the west side of the airport.

https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/Spur399PublicMeeting

This document (posted today, page 49) lists 2032 as the start date for construction. I was hoping it would start sooner.
https://www.nctcog.org/getmedia/0ca9a7b1-d838-48ec-aab1-a22c25c2ac6f/agendapacketrtc10132022.pdf?ext=.pdf

Page 46 of that document lists 2028 as the construction start of the US 380 McKinney bypass. Cost for the bypass is listed at $844 million, including $417 million for right-of-way. The ROW cost seems high, especially since the main point of the long bypass was to find the path of least resistance (and presumably least ROW cost).

The Spur 399 project around the south runway of McKinney Intergalactic Airport is a placeholder for a future Sam Rayburn Tollway extension to Princeton.

Little surprise on the routing just based on the obstacles present (several salvage yards as well as the airport). That map is almost identical on the west end to one I dummied up years ago. I expected the SRT to be extended a lot farther east than just from Airport Road in Mickeytown.

[MaxConcrete]

Alignment A-E-C is the recommended alternative. It's a surprise for A to be chosen over B, since it seemed like B had more support and was added as an option due to public and government input. But this is Texas, and TxDOT often likes to choose the most winding and indirect alignments, and option A qualifies since it has the two sharp curves and is longer.

Option C (over option D) was expected since D is in the flood plain and would have required long elevated structures, and the selection of the preferred alignment for Spur 399 is on the east side of the airport.



https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2023/01/24/txdot-to-hold-public-hearings-for-controversial-collin-county-us-380-bypass-alignment/

TxDOT is recommending its Blue Alternative plan, which is composed of Segments A, E and C of the proposed bypass ...

Draft EIS.
https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/US380EIS
Here is the rationale for selecting Segment A, on page 2-38

Segment A was a component of the Recommended Alignment in the Feasibility Study. Segment A would
displace fewer homes in comparison to Segment B and would avoid displacing numerous proposed residences
under construction west of N. Custer Road within the Town of Prosper. Segment A also had greater support
from the public than Segment B.

[Bobby5280]

Alignment A-E-C is the recommended alternative. It's a surprise for A to be chosen over B, since it seemed like B had more support and was added as an option due to public and government input.

Well that sucks. I was hoping for the B-E-C option.

But this is Texas, and TxDOT often likes to choose the most winding and indirect alignments, and option A qualifies since it has the two sharp curves and is longer.

A longer route might mean being able to add more toll gates along the route length. Cha-ching!

[MaxConcrete]

A longer route might mean being able to add more toll gates along the route length. Cha-ching!

The project is planned to be a freeway with no tolls.

But on page 2.39, the estimated cost is stated to be $3.022 Billion. It may take a long time to get conventional funding. Historically, toll roads (Bush, Sam Rayburn, Chisholm Trail, SH 360 South) have been built because the wait for conventional funding would have been too long.

[Anthony_JK]

Alignment A-E-C is the recommended alternative. It's a surprise for A to be chosen over B, since it seemed like B had more support and was added as an option due to public and government input.

Well that sucks. I was hoping for the B-E-C option.

Sounds like the folks in Prosper raised enough hell over Alignment B passing through their school property to flip TXDOT over.

But this is Texas, and TxDOT often likes to choose the most winding and indirect alignments, and option A qualifies since it has the two sharp curves and is longer.

A longer route might mean being able to add more toll gates along the route length. Cha-ching!

No tolls on this proposed freeway, also, isn't it too close to the proposed Colin County tollway?

[Bobby5280]

$3 billion? For a half loop around a mid-size suburb? Yeesh!

I imagine a good chunk of that cost would be a future stack interchange with US-75 (as well as "Y" interchanges at either end of the half loop). Still, that cost amount is pretty shocking.

[Road Hog]

Option E basically supplants Laud Howell Parkway, which was to be the northern connector between Prosper/Celina and northern McKinney.

If that's the case, if I were a traffic planner, I just meet the Collin County Outer Loop in the middle and share a common interchange with 75 to save money. The separation at that point is maybe 2 miles.

[DNAguy]

Stupid question, but is 380 to US287 slated on any list or plan to upgrade the entire stretch to freeway / interstate standards.

I know 287 is more important from Dallas to Amarillo. And I thought I read somewhere that that road is a hypothetical I 32.

But a US 380 as I34 or or I230 and US287 as I 32 to Amarillo would seem to make sense.

[kernals12]

Option E basically supplants Laud Howell Parkway, which was to be the northern connector between Prosper/Celina and northern McKinney.

If that's the case, if I were a traffic planner, I just meet the Collin County Outer Loop in the middle and share a common interchange with 75 to save money. The separation at that point is maybe 2 miles.

By 2050, Collin and Denton Counties are forecast to have as many people as Dallas and Tarrant Counties did just a few decades ago. There are 3 east west freeways connecting Dallas and Fort Worth, so at least 2 freeways connecting Collin and Denton seems reasonable.

[kernals12]

A longer route might mean being able to add more toll gates along the route length. Cha-ching!

The project is planned to be a freeway with no tolls.

But on page 2.39, the estimated cost is stated to be $3.022 Billion. It may take a long time to get conventional funding. Historically, toll roads (Bush, Sam Rayburn, Chisholm Trail, SH 360 South) have been built because the wait for conventional funding would have been too long.

Collin County could levy a sales tax to pay for highway improvements.

[bwana39]

A longer route might mean being able to add more toll gates along the route length. Cha-ching!

The project is planned to be a freeway with no tolls.

But on page 2.39, the estimated cost is stated to be $3.022 Billion. It may take a long time to get conventional funding. Historically, toll roads (Bush, Sam Rayburn, Chisholm Trail, SH 360 South) have been built because the wait for conventional funding would have been too long.

Collin County could levy a sales tax to pay for highway improvements.

No the only thing you can pay for with the transportation sales tax surcharge is public transit. This one doesn't quite do it. They COULD sell bonds and pay for it with ad valorem taxes on property. Property taxes are already "too high" according to the people in Collin. county.

[Bobby5280]

Property taxes are high all across Texas thanks to the state having no state income tax. They make up for it by goosing property tax rates.

IMHO, the roads need to be paid for via gasoline taxes -at least while the vast majority of vehicles on the highways are powered by gasoline.

[DJStephens]

Property taxes are high all across Texas thanks to the state having no state income tax. They make up for it by goosing property tax rates.

IMHO, the roads need to be paid for via gasoline taxes -at least while the vast majority of vehicles on the highways are powered by gasoline.

Has there ever been an inkling of a beginning of a property tax revolt in Texas?  Something similar to California's Proposition 13 (1978)?   Lived in El Paso briefly in mid nineties, was going to buy a home, but decided to move N slightly across the border to Las Cruces, in part, due to the excessive property tax rate.   With the Tex-Dot waste I've observed, there really needs to be belt-tightening.   

[Bobby5280]

I don't know if there has been any real organized push in recent years to change property tax laws in Texas. In one respect I wonder if quite a few Texans actually prefer the setup (as opposed to a state income tax). Some school districts appear to do very well by that system, judging by some of the football stadiums and campus-like environments I see in some locales. The only factor I can see competing with it is the conservative push to privatize public education and/or divert a lot of education funding into charter & private schools. Texas is increasingly shifting from red to "purple," so I don't know what kinds of chances those efforts may have in the long term.

[bwana39]

I don't know if there has been any real organized push in recent years to change property tax laws in Texas. In one respect I wonder if quite a few Texans actually prefer the setup (as opposed to a state income tax). Some school districts appear to do very well by that system, judging by some of the football stadiums and campus-like environments I see in some locales. The only factor I can see competing with it is the conservative push to privatize public education and/or divert a lot of education funding into charter & private schools. Texas is increasingly shifting from red to "purple," so I don't know what kinds of chances those efforts may have in the long term.

It is ironic why SOME school districts seem to do so well.

Several years ago Texas passed a plan called Robinhood. There was an equation that cash flush districts sent money to TEA and TEA then distributed it to poorer school districts.  Texas school budgets contain two elements. Operations & Maintenance and then there is Capital Improvements. Operations and maintenance is exactly what it sounds like. It pays for staff, operational expense, and ongoing maintenance.   Capital Improvements is what it sounds like. Building buildings and FOOTBALL Fields.

Here is where the rub comes in. There are limits for the O&M expenditures. So a percentage of the ad valorem taxes that exceeds the allowable O&M budget has to go to TEA. There is a MINIMUM tax rate districts have to collect. They cannot just collect less. Someone figured out that you could defeat Robinhood by using up the balance in bonded indebtedness. So the richer school districts went to town spending capital improvement money.... ( I think it took litigation to allow the districts to keep the money "so they could pay their bills.")

[kernals12]

I don't know if there has been any real organized push in recent years to change property tax laws in Texas. In one respect I wonder if quite a few Texans actually prefer the setup (as opposed to a state income tax). Some school districts appear to do very well by that system, judging by some of the football stadiums and campus-like environments I see in some locales. The only factor I can see competing with it is the conservative push to privatize public education and/or divert a lot of education funding into charter & private schools. Texas is increasingly shifting from red to "purple," so I don't know what kinds of chances those efforts may have in the long term.

It is ironic why SOME school districts seem to do so well.

Several years ago Texas passed a plan called Robinhood. There was an equation that cash flush districts sent money to TEA and TEA then distributed it to poorer school districts.  Texas school budgets contain two elements. Operations & Maintenance and then there is Capital Improvements. Operations and maintenance is exactly what it sounds like. It pays for staff, operational expense, and ongoing maintenance.   Capital Improvements is what it sounds like. Building buildings and FOOTBALL Fields.

Here is where the rub comes in. There are limits for the O&M expenditures. So a percentage of the ad valorem taxes that exceeds the allowable O&M budget has to go to TEA. There is a MINIMUM tax rate districts have to collect. They cannot just collect less. Someone figured out that you could defeat Robinhood by using up the balance in bonded indebtedness. So the richer school districts went to town spending capital improvement money.... ( I think it took litigation to allow the districts to keep the money "so they could pay their bills.")

I don't know if there has been any real organized push in recent years to change property tax laws in Texas. In one respect I wonder if quite a few Texans actually prefer the setup (as opposed to a state income tax). Some school districts appear to do very well by that system, judging by some of the football stadiums and campus-like environments I see in some locales. The only factor I can see competing with it is the conservative push to privatize public education and/or divert a lot of education funding into charter & private schools. Texas is increasingly shifting from red to "purple," so I don't know what kinds of chances those efforts may have in the long term.

Guys, this is definitely getting into off-topic politics

[Road Hog]

I don't know if there has been any real organized push in recent years to change property tax laws in Texas. In one respect I wonder if quite a few Texans actually prefer the setup (as opposed to a state income tax). Some school districts appear to do very well by that system, judging by some of the football stadiums and campus-like environments I see in some locales. The only factor I can see competing with it is the conservative push to privatize public education and/or divert a lot of education funding into charter & private schools. Texas is increasingly shifting from red to "purple," so I don't know what kinds of chances those efforts may have in the long term.

It is ironic why SOME school districts seem to do so well.

Several years ago Texas passed a plan called Robinhood. There was an equation that cash flush districts sent money to TEA and TEA then distributed it to poorer school districts.  Texas school budgets contain two elements. Operations & Maintenance and then there is Capital Improvements. Operations and maintenance is exactly what it sounds like. It pays for staff, operational expense, and ongoing maintenance.   Capital Improvements is what it sounds like. Building buildings and FOOTBALL Fields.

Here is where the rub comes in. There are limits for the O&M expenditures. So a percentage of the ad valorem taxes that exceeds the allowable O&M budget has to go to TEA. There is a MINIMUM tax rate districts have to collect. They cannot just collect less. Someone figured out that you could defeat Robinhood by using up the balance in bonded indebtedness. So the richer school districts went to town spending capital improvement money.... ( I think it took litigation to allow the districts to keep the money "so they could pay their bills.")

I don't know if there has been any real organized push in recent years to change property tax laws in Texas. In one respect I wonder if quite a few Texans actually prefer the setup (as opposed to a state income tax). Some school districts appear to do very well by that system, judging by some of the football stadiums and campus-like environments I see in some locales. The only factor I can see competing with it is the conservative push to privatize public education and/or divert a lot of education funding into charter & private schools. Texas is increasingly shifting from red to "purple," so I don't know what kinds of chances those efforts may have in the long term.

Guys, this is definitely getting into off-topic politics

Roads are at the end of the day political.

But I agree property tax discussions are not germane here.