On This Page
Project Information
FM 1960 Texas Department of Transportation 1/12/2015 5:10:16 PMProject Narrative
The existing segment of FM 1960 being considered goes from two 12 ft. travel lanes (one in each direction), a 14 ft. continuous left turn lane and two 3 ft. shoulders to two 12 ft. travel lanes (one each direction), one 10 ft. shoulder (westbound side), one 4 ft. shoulder (eastbound side), and two 12 ft. turn lanes (right and left turn lane) going eastbound on FM 1960 at the intersection of SH 321. The existing problem being addressed is the congestion that occurs on SH 321, US 90, SH 146, and FM 1960. Vehicles heading westbound generate flow restrictions by attempting to turn into the shopping center on FM 1960 where other vehicles are forced to stop since there is currently only one travel lane going westbound. The congestion then propagates onto US 90 and SH 146 because FM 1960 has high volumes of traffic. In addition the intersection with SH 321 is not obstructed by rail traffic which makes vehicle users prefer the route. Adding to the congestion problem, the northbound side of SH 321 has vehicles coming from Dayton High School, Dayton Independent School District, ER Richter Elementary, and other localities which are hindered by the intersection congestion produced at the intersection in question. Higher amounts of ADT are foreseeable in the future which promotes the need for improvement of the existing segment. The outcomes that will be achieved are the mobility and congestion improvements which will lead to safety improvements on all the roadways affected by the current existing configuration. The proposed improvement on FM 1960 consist of widening the roadway while piping the ditch to carry two westbound travel lanes, and adding dual left turn lanes and a free flow right turn at the intersection toward north and southbound SH 321 respectively. It is also proposed to extend the existing continuous left turn lane past the western entrance of the shopping center. The overall proposed project length is 0.17 miles from approximately Ross St. to SH 321. The first alternative considered was to only extend the existing continuous left turn lane past the western entrance of the shopping center and to make the western driveway the only entrance while the eastern driveway would be the only way out of the shopping center. This alternative was considered extremely short term because it did not add capacity and travel would still be hindered by vehicles turning into the gas station located north of the shopping center. The second alternative was to widen the underpass at SH 321 under the railroad in order to improve the FM 1960 eastbound traffic. This alternative was viewed to improve the am traffic while the congestion of the pm traffic would still remain and vehicles going to SH 321 northbound would see minimal improvements. As a result of the alternative not providing all the desired results it is not the most desired alternative. The third alternative was to leave the intersection as it currently exists but the increased future traffic predictions suggest that improvements to the intersection would be inevitable since SH 146 has much growth in Chambers County. The proposed project being submitted was the preferred project because not only does it add capacity it also relieves the congestion and promotes mobility in the other roadways. This project is a standalone proposal and its importance should not be overlooked because it will not require staged construction.Project Narrative
No Categorical Exclusion (CE) (c)(26) Modernization of a highway which meets constraints in paragraph (e) No 01/01/2017 No No Beaumont’s utility coordinator does an investigation whether any utilities will be affected and if so he will coordinate with the utility companies in the relocation or remove options for those utilities. Any documentation will be addressed as the need arises. No The city of Dayton has seen the problems on FM 1960 near and at the intersection and has asked for improvements. The proposed project addresses the cities requests for improvement of the roadway. Please see attached.Map/Location
Evalutation Questions - Major Investments
Benefit/Cost Methodology
Please attach the completed BCA Excel worksheet and narrative explanation of analyses used