Sherman – Denison Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) TECHNICAL ADSVISORY COMMITTEE

AGENDA Wednesday, February 21, 2018 @ 9:00 am

Texas Department of Transportation 3904 US 75, Sherman, Texas

I. Call to order II. Acknowledgment of Quorum by Chairman

Action Items: III. Consider approval of the minutes of the MPO TAC meeting of February 7, 2018

Information/Presentation Items: IV. Update on the Grayson County Thoroughfare Plan V. Announcements

(Informal Announcements, Future Agenda Items, and Next Meeting Date) MPO Policy Board Next meeting March 7, 2018 at 8:00 a.m. TAC Next meeting March 21, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

VI. Public Comment Period VII. Adjournment

All meetings of the Sherman-Denison Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Technical Advisory Committee are open to the public. The MPO is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Reasonable accommodations and equal opportunity for effective communications will be provided upon request. Please contact Julie Lollar at the County Judge’s Office at 903.813.4228 at least 24 hours in advance if accommodation is needed. The above notice was posted at the Grayson County Courthouse in a place readily accessible to the public and made available to the Grayson County Clerk on or before February 16, 2018. NOTE: The TAC agenda/packet is only distributed digitally, no paper copies will be sent. If you need a printed copy please contact MPO staff.

Clay Barnett, P.E.

Please visit our MPO website www.sdmpo.org for background materials under the “Committees/Meetings” link or under “News and Announcements” at our home page.

1

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1

SHERMAN-DENISON MPO 2

Conference Room 3

Texas Department of Transportation 4

3904 US 75 5

Sherman, TX 75090 6

February 7, 2018 9:00 a.m. 7

8 Committee Members Present: 9 Clay Barnett, P.E., Chairman Sherman-Denison MPO 10 Clint Philpott, P.E. City of Sherman 11 Kevin Farley Small Cities Representative (Pottsboro) 12 Aaron Bloom, P.E. TxDOT Sherman Area Engineer 13 Bill Benton Grayson County 14 15 Committee Members Absent: 16 Judson Rex, AICP City of Denison 17 18 Non-Voting Members Present: 19 Josh Walker Texoma Area Paratransit System (TAPS) 20 21 Non-Voting Members Absent: 22 Barbara Maley Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 23 Nick Page TxDOT TPP Division 24 25 Guests Present: 26 Len McManus, P.E. McManus & Johnson 27 Michael Hutchins Herald Democrat 28 John Ho Huitt-Zollars, Inc. 29 Ken Hughes Huitt-Zollars, Inc. 30 Mike McAnelly CoPlan 31 Steve Spillette CDS 32 Ty Jacobsen CDS 33 Alberto Merrado Flores Lockwood, Andrews & Newman 34 Lee Lawrence City of Gunter 35 Carley Banks KTEN 36 37 I. Call to Order 38 39 Mr. Barnett called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 40 41 II. Acknowledgement of Quorum by Chairman 42 43 Mr. Barnett declared a quorum of the Technical Advisory Committee present. 44

2

1 III. Review and Approval of Meeting Notes for January 17, 2018 meeting 2 3 Motion to approve was made by Mr. Benton, seconded by Mr. Bloom. Motion carried 4 unanimously. 5 6 VIII. Presentation and Discussion on Demographic Data for the Grayson County 7 Thoroughfare Plan 8 9 Mr. Barnett stated that the SDMPO has been working on the Thoroughfare Plan since summer 10 last year and that one of the deliverables was a demographics study. He stated that the 11 demographics are utilized by the state to allocate state transportation funding. At this point Mr. 12 Barnett turned the meeting over to Mr. Steve Spillette with CDS for the presentation on the 13 demographic information. The presentation is attached hereto and incorporated herein. 14 15 Mr. Spillette stated that the demographic distribution was still in the preliminary stage and would 16 be adjusted based upon feedback. Mr. Barnett requested that we discuss the presentation in two 17 parts: 1) total growth rates, and 2) distributions across the county. 18 19 Mr. Barnett gave some background on the different models utilized by TxDOT and our deviation 20 from the models may spark some discussion by TxDOT. Mr. Barnett stated that the model 21 prepared by CDS was aggressive, but not unreasonable. Mr. McAnelly stated that the 2016 22 American Community Survey showed a significant uptick in Grayson County population and 23 these projections carry this forward. He stated that this is in line with what we have seen in 24 Collin and Denton counties and that these are defensible numbers. Mr. Farley asked if the future 25 tollway had been taken into account when allocating the populations. Mr. McAnelly confirmed 26 that it was and stated that he analyzed the TAZs along the tollway and confirmed that the traffic 27 was distributed to the toll road. Mr. Jacobson said that even extending the toll road to the 28 southern county line would impact growth in that region. 29 30 Mr. Barnett stated that CDS was also interested in any feedback on growth in the region. He 31 continued that the county was witnessing growth in the Van Alstyne and Pottsboro areas. Mr. 32 Barnett explained that if population increased in one area, it would need to decrease in another. 33 Mr. McManus stated that there are 780 lots in and around Van Alstyne and that this lines up with 34 the figure in the first slide. Mr. Philpott stated that there have been 200 building permits in 35 Sherman last year alone which is double what it traditionally was. Mr. McManus stated that Van 36 Alstyne had 110 building permits pulled last year. Mr. Bloom expressed concern the population 37 distributed to RAZ 14 may be short considering the Austin Landing Subdivision. Mr. Philpott 38 confirmed that there were 200 lots under development in that RAZ and that the distribution 39 appears to be low. Mr. Bloom also mentioned that there was also a lot of development at US 75 40 and FM 691. Mr. Farley asked about the Gunter area. Mr. Barnett stated from a county 41 perspective that there were not a lot of permits issued for this area. Mr. Barnett solicited 42 feedback from Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence stated that Gunter is looking at a development on 43 the edge of town that has 800 lots and that the bridges development is still growing. They are 44 looking at a 200 lot senior living center. Mr. Lawrence stated that the extension of toll road 45 would greatly affect this region and that RAZ 5 needed to have more population distributed to it. 46

3

Mr. Barnett clarified that RAZ 17 was the same color as RAZ 16 and 8. Mr. McAnelly stated 1 that this is when the toll way would be constructed. Mr. Philpott mentioned that the new 2 Sherman Highschool would be built in the RAZ 2 and that it may impact growth in RAZ 2 and 3 16, but that it may be limited to around the high school. Mr. Spillette stated that the pace of 4 growth ramps up in 2030 – 2040. Mr. Barnett mentioned that RAZ 9 was still too aggressive. 5 Mr. Farley mentioned that the Schuler Development may impact RAZ 17. Mr. Barnett 6 mentioned that the Schuler Development was a large development with 2,000 lots and that it was 7 moving slower, but it could come to fruition in this time frame. Mr. Benton mentioned that RAZ 8 5 would be more aggressive then shown. Mr. Barnett mentioned that RAZ 7 may be a little 9 aggressive if the population was needed to shift to RAZ 5. Mr. Benton mentioned that the 10 Gunter area looked low. Mr. Lawrence mentioned that the job growth in the Collin County area 11 would drive population growth in this area. Mr. Barnett mentioned that RAZs 7, 8 and 9 was 12 still aggressive and that RAZ 17 may be a little low. He also mentioned that RAZs 1, 2 10, and 13 14 all looked a little low. Mr. Benton and Mr. Bloom mentioned that the growth in RAZs 5 & 6 14 needed to be reversed. Mr. Lawrence mentioned that developers have bought large parcels of 15 land in RAZ 5 making it easier to develop. Mr. Barnett mentioned that RAZs 5 and 6 did need to 16 be switched and that RAZ 10 needed to show more population growth. 17 18 Mr. Benton mentioned that if you blended the growth between McKinney and Sherman over the 19 last several years that it would give a pretty good indication of future growth in Grayson County. 20 21 IV. Recommend Adopting Project Ranking Criteria to the Policy Board 22 23 Mr. Barnett explained that the TAC and Policy Board went through this exercise roughly five 24 years ago for the 2040 MTP. Mr. Barnett mentioned with the upcoming 2045 MTP and the 25 release of Decision Lens, he recommended taking another look at the project ranking criteria 26 utilizing this new program. Mr. Barnett mentioned the different criteria that Decision Lens uses 27 to rank the projects. Mr. Barnett mentioned that the FAST Act requires that we look at 28 Transportation Choices and Environment as criteria. He explained that Community Support was 29 developed as part of the US 75 study and the City of Sherman requested that there be a criteria 30 for local match. Mr. Barnett covered the results from the efforts five years ago along with the 31 results from the states. Mr. Barnett stated that he sent this out in December and gave the TAC a 32 month to complete. He reviewed the submissions from the TAC, noted that they were all within 33 a few percentage points, and presented the averaged results. Mr. Barnett stated that although we 34 only have four data points, they are fairly consistent. He then covered the results that are 35 included as an attachment to the minutes and are incorporated herein. Mr. Benton voiced a 36 concern on the community support and financial piece in that it puts the smaller cities in the 37 county at a disadvantage and that a local match could be a financial burden to a local community. 38 Mr. Benton also mentioned that there needs to be an emphasis on regional projects where the 39 traffic is more regional to the county and that the project needed to be viewed differently than a 40 project that met a local need. Mr. Barnett mentioned that the Community Support was one 41 component that was ranked at roughly seven percent and that we needed to take into account the 42 community’s views. He also stated that the City of Sherman’s request to add criteria for local 43 match should be taken into consideration if they were willing to being funding to the table. Mr. 44 Barnett continued that after the projects were ranked, the projects would be considered by both 45 the TAC and the Policy Board and that the items mentioned by Mr. Benton could certainly be 46

4

taken into consideration at that point. Mr. Philpott asked if this was the final version of what 1 would be used to rank projects. Mr. Barnett confirmed that it was the final version of what 2 would be used to rank projects, but that it was only one component of the decision and that 3 regional considerations would be taken into account at both the TAC and Policy Board levels. 4 5 Motion to recommend the blended ranking criteria to the Policy Board was made by Mr. Farley, 6 seconded by Mr. Philpott. Motion carried unanimously. 7 8 V, VI. Recess to Executive Session and Review, Discuss, and Rank Proposals Received for 9 the Grayson County Freight Mobility Plan 10 11 The TAC recessed into Executive Session at 10:24 am. 12 13 VII. Reconvene Regular Session of TAC Meeting and Motion to Recommend Entering 14 into a Contract with the Highest Ranked Consulting Team to the Policy Board 15 16 The TAC reconvened into Regular Session at 11:16 am. 17 18 Motion to recommend entering into a contract with Cambridge Systematics for the Grayson 19 County Freight Mobility Plan to the Policy Board made by Mr. Benton, seconded by Mr. Bloom. 20 Motion carried unanimously. 21 22 VI. Announcements 23 24 Mr. Barnett stated that the next meeting of the TAC will be February 21, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. and 25 the next meeting of the Policy Board is on March 7, 2018 at 8:00 a.m. 26 27 VII. Public Comment Period 28 29 No citizens appeared before the Technical Advisory Committee. 30 31 VIII. Adjournment 32 33 Having no further business, Mr. Barnett adjourned the meeting at 11:19 am. 34 35 36 _______________________ 37 Clay Barnett, P.E., Chairman, SDMPO Technical Advisory Committee 38

Demographic Forecast Overview

Variables to prepare: Population Households Household size Jobs (with categories) Household income Non-standard generators

Two-part process: County-level Small-area level

Demographic Forecast Overview

County-level Gather historical data (complete) Obtain 2013 baseline estimates (complete) Forecast “control totals” (draft complete)

Small-area level Define geography (RAZ/TAZ) (complete) Develop 2013 baseline estimates (complete) Develop RAZ/TAZ forecast (in process)

Forecast Geographies - RAZ

Forecast Geographies – RAZ and TAZ

County-Level Process Detail

Collect historical data Population / households / income – Census and ACS Employment – QCEW

Gather and compare other projections TxSDC (3 scenarios) TxWDB Woods and Poole

Gather / analyze comparable counties historical data DFW area Other TX metro suburbanizing counties

Comparable Suburbanizing Counties

DFW area Collin Denton

Other metros Houston – Brazoria, Fort

Bend, Montgomery, Waller Austin – Bastrop, Hays,

Williamson San Antonio - Comal

Comparable Suburbanizing Counties

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

Year 1-10 Year 10-20 Year 20-30 Year 30-40

Ann. Growth Rate

Collin Denton Fort Bend Montgomery Brazoria

Williamson Hays Comal Bastrop Waller

County-Level Process Approach

Population-driven Analysis of historical growth and growth rates in

comparable suburbanizing counties Assessment of timing for large-scale suburban

development Examination of other Grayson County projections Examination of TxSDC 1.0 DFW-area county

projections

Grayson C0unty Draft Forecast

Grayson Co. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Total 120,877 125,467 135,200 148,044 168,770 198,474 237,176 282,477 334,876

5 Yr. Growth 4,590 9,733 12,844 20,726 29,704 38,702 45,301 52,399

Grayson Co. 2010-15 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2035-40 2040-45 2045-50

CAGR 0.7% 1.5% 1.8% 2.7% 3.3% 3.6% 3.6% 3.5%

Historical and Projected Population

Historical and Projected Compound Annual Growth Rates

Projected Grayson Annual Growth Rates

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

2010-15 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2035-40 2040-45 2045-50

CDS Grayson TxSDC 1.0 TWDB Woods & Poole

Other DFW-Area County Projections

DFW Area Counties Forecast Growth Rates

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

2010-15 2015-20 2020-25 2025-30 2030-35 2035-40 2040-45 2045-50

CDS Grayson TxSDC Grayson TxSDC Collin TxSDC Denton

TxSDC Cooke TxSDC Hood TxSDC Hunt

Household and Employment Forecasts

Generated via ratios to population

Grayson Co. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Total 46,905 47,538 50,448 55,866 64,416 76,631 93,376 112,541 135,577

5 Yr. Growth 2,910 2,910 5,418 8,550 12,215 16,746 19,164 23,037

Historical and Projected Households

Grayson Co. 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Total 41,606 44,755 49,222 54,935 63,917 76,941 94,483 116,032 142,203

5 Yr. Growth 3,149 4,467 5,713 8,982 13,023 17,542 21,549 26,171

Historical and Projected Employment

Next Steps: Small-Area Growth Forecast

RAZ level Analyze and “score” growth factors Allocate county growth to RAZs (shift-share) per scoring Primary research to make adjustments to growth shares

Infrastructure improvements Floodplains / environmental conditions Other large-scale factors

Next Steps: Small-Area Growth Forecast

RAZ-to-TAZ growth allocation (shift-share) Research to determine growth shares and adjustments

Planned developments Ownership characteristics Local planning policies

Draft RAZ-Level Forecast – 2013-2050

Draft RAZ-Level Forecast – 2010-2020

Draft RAZ-Level Forecast – 2020-2030

Draft RAZ-Level Forecast – 2030-2040

Draft RAZ-Level Forecast – 2040-2050

Numbers you fill inMust add up to 100%

Main Performance Measure Submeasure 1 Submeasure 2

Main Performance

Measure WeightSubmeasure 1

WeightSubmeasure 2

Weight Data Source DescriptionSafety 30.75%

Crash Count 32.50%Estimated Impact on Fatal and Incapacitating Injury Crashes 65.00% Decision LensEstimated Impact on Total Crashes 35.00% Decision Lens

100%Crash Rate 46.25%

Estimated Impact on Fatal and Incapacitating Injury Crash Rate 65.00% Decision LensEstimated Impact on Total Crash Rate 35.00% Decision Lens

100%Safety Project Classification (DCIS P1) 10.00% Decision Lens Whether or not the project is marked as a safety project in DCIS. Most all of our projects are capacity projects, not safety projects.Societal Cost Savings 11.25% Decision Lens Reference Decision Lens Literature

100%Preservation 21.25%

Bridge Condition 45.00%Reduction in Structurally Deficient Deck Area 60.00% Decision LensDeck Area Receiving Preventative Maintenance 40.00% Decision Lens

100%Pavement Condition 55.00%

Reduction in Poor Lane Miles (by Ride Score) 32.50% Decision LensLane Miles Receiving Preventative Maintenance (by Ride Score) 18.75% Decision LensReduction in Poor Lane Miles (by Distress Score) 30.00% Decision LensLane Miles Receiving Preventative Maintenance (by Distress Score) 18.75% Decision Lens

100% 100%Congestion Reduction (MPO) 20.25%

Benefit Congestion Index - Auto 22.00% Decision LensBenefit Congestion Index - Truck 19.50% Decision LensNormalized Congestion Index - Auto 18.25% Decision LensNormalized Congestion Index - Truck 15.75% Decision LensIntermodal Connector (MPO) 9.75% Decision Lens Roadways that lead to locations where freight can change modes of tranportation such as the intermodal facility in Denison.Miles of New Connectivity (MPO) 14.75% Decision Lens New roadways.

100%Effect on Economic Development 10.88%

Economic Importance 41.25%National Highway System (NHS) Route 58.75% Decision Lens The National Highway System includes all roadways classified as a principal arterial or above.National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) 41.25% Decision Lens National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) includes US 75 from the Collin County Line to SH 91 and SH 91 from US 75 to Spur 503.

100%System Usage 58.75%

Base ADT 62.50% Decision LensBase Percent Trucks 37.50% Decision Lens

100% 100%Effects on the Environment 3.38%

Right-of-way Requirements 66.25% Manual Entry The amount of right-of-way that will be required.Floodplain Impacts 33.75% Manual Entry The degree to which the project will impact the floodplain.

100%Transportation Choices 6.38%

Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations 57.50%Accesses schools, parks, large employer, multifamily or mixed-use residential, or shopping 35.00% Manual EntryPopulation densities in surrounding area 26.25% Manual EntryAccess to transit stops 16.25% Manual EntryServes both bicyclists and pedestrians 22.50% Manual Entry

100%Project Included in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (BPP) 42.50%

Bike Lanes 41.25% Manual EntryBike Route 32.50% Manual EntryFuture Transportation Alternative Candidate 26.25% Manual Entry

100% 100%Community Support 7.13%

Survey Results 47.50% Manual EntryTen Percent (10%) Local Match Commitment 52.50% Manual Entry

100.00% 100%

Performance Measures

SHERMAN-DENISON METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

AGENDA ITEM IV INFORMATION/PRESENTATION ITEM

February 21, 2018 Update on the Grayson County Thoroughfare Plan

STAFF CONTACT: Clay Barnett, P.E., 903.813.5275, barnettc@co.grayson.tx.us

BACKGROUND: Mr. Clay Barnett, P.E., Executive Director of the Sherman-Denison MPO, will lead a presentation and discussion on the Grayson County Thoroughfare Plan, which includes a map, cost estimates, design criteria and funding options. ACTION REQUESTED: None ATTACHMENTS: click underlined items for attachment None