Trinity Parkway FEIS: The Alternate Routes

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
2.0
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents and describes the alternatives considered for meeting the need and purpose for the Trinity Parkway, including those eliminated from further analysis. In accordance with guidelines provided in FHWAs Technical Advisory T 6640.8A (1987), all reasonable alternatives have been evaluated. Because the alternatives were evaluated in a series of
documents, this chapter summarizes the alternatives development process through the MTIS, DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS (see FEIS Section 1.6.2 for discussion relating to these documents). Five Alternatives are discussed in this chapter: the No-Build Alternative (see FEIS Section 2.2) and four Build Alternatives (see FEIS Section 2.3.2). These are identified as Alternative 1, which is the No-Build Alternative, Build Alternatives 2A and 2B along Irving/Riverfront Boulevard, and Build Alternatives 3C and 4B within the Dallas Floodway. Information about the engineering and access considerations used in evaluating the four Build Alternatives is included in FEIS Sections 2.4 and 2.5, respectively. In addition, other considerations that influenced the evaluation of the Build Alternatives for the Trinity Parkway are context-specific issues related to cost and financing that apply to the construction and operation of a toll road facility that would not apply to a nontolled roadway (FEIS Section 2.6). Similarly, considerations that are unique to Build Alternatives proposed for construction largely within the Dallas Floodway are discussed in FEIS Section 2.7.
Much of this chapter (FEIS Section 2.8) describes the process leading up to the FHWAs decision to recommend Build Alternative 3C for further design refinement and updated impacts analysis. That is, subsequent to the development of design and impacts information in the
SDEIS, as supplemented or updated for some topics in the LSS, the FHWA then sought agency and public comments on the SDEIS and LSS in public hearings held in 2009 and 2012, respectively. The collective information contained in these two NEPA documents, combined with input from agencies and the public, was used to facilitate a comparative evaluation of all four of the Build Alternatives under consideration. This evaluation of alternatives considered the aspects discussed in FEIS Sections 2.4 through 2.7, as well as other relevant considerations previously discussed in the SDEIS and LSS, to weigh the bank of information developed to that point in time (i.e., 2012). This weighing of information was conducted jointly with the consideration of myriad factors required to evaluate the practicability of alternatives pursuant to federal regulations implementing Executive policy on floodplains and wetlands. This section provides the rationale
TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS
2-1
for recommending Alternative 3C for further development to a higher level of detail in this FEIS. However, after completing the environmental review of the FEIS and the consideration of comments from all sources, the FHWA will select one of the five alternatives in the anticipated ROD. The final section of this chapter (FEIS Section 2.9) discusses design refinements for FHWA-recommended Alternative 3C resulting from changed conditions affecting planned transportation projects to the north and south of the Trinity Parkway. This section also discusses whether such design refinements would affect the engineering or access considerations relating to the earlier design of Alternative 3C covered in FEIS Sections 2.4 and 2.5.
2.1
TRINITY PARKWAY CORRIDOR MTIS
This section provides an overview of the federal MIS process and includes a summary of the published Trinity Parkway Corridor MTIS (TxDOT, 1998a).
2.1.1
Overview of the Federal MIS Process
MISs were called for in the ISTEA of 1991, and MIS requirements were initially implemented by joint FHWA/FTA planning regulations issued in 1993 (23 CFR Section 450.318). A major
metropolitan transportation investment is officially described as a highway or transit improvement of substantial cost that is expected to have a significant effect on capacity, traffic flow, level of service, or mode share at the transportation corridor or subarea scale (23 CFR Section 450.104). The ISTEA and the 1993 implementing regulations required the USDOT to consider a broad range of evaluation criteria during the preparation of corridor or subarea studies. In 1998, a provision of TEA-21 (Section 1308) instructed the USDOT to discontinue the earlier requirement for preparing stand-alone MIS documents. The TEA-21 law also instructed the USDOT to promulgate regulations requiring the integration of analyses under the planning provisions of TEA-21 and NEPA for federally-funded highway and transit projects. Joint FHWA/FTA regulations implementing the joint NEPA and transportation planning requirements of TEA-21 were promulgated in 2007 (72 Federal Register 7261, February 14, 2007; 23 CFR Parts 450 and 500, and 49 CFR Part 613).
The corridor or subarea planning approach provides broader involvement of the local community in developing the design concept and scope of proposed major transportation investments. The planning and decision making process is coordinated with the MPO and other affected agencies, such as the state departments of transportation. In addition, integrated environmental analysis must be conducted, as well as modal trade-off analyses. Effective collaboration with diverse
2-2
interest groups is extremely important during evaluation of alternatives and development of a consensus plan.
MIS procedures stress the integration of social, economic, and environmental considerations early in planning analyses and transportation decision making. For instance, the MIS must
include provisions for achieving compliance with clean air goals by conforming to the SIP. In addition, the principles and specific requirements of the NEPA philosophy and policy mandates are stressed throughout the planning regulation. The MIS is not a separate requirement, but a more targeted sub-element of the planning process that draws on the general integration of planning within the broader NEPA principles.
2.1.2
Summary of the Trinity Parkway Corridor MTIS
TxDOT conducted the Trinity Parkway Corridor MTIS in 1996 and 1997, and the findings of the study were published in Study Report, Trinity Parkway Corridor in March 1998 (TxDOT, 1998b) (TxDOT Dallas District, CSJ Numbers 0918-45-121 and -122).
The MTIS was completed in order to develop a LPP to address transportation problems within the Trinity Parkway Corridor, and to integrate with community plans and goals for the Dallas Floodway. The MTIS focused on transportation needs in the area of the Dallas CBD. The MTIS study area, shown in Figure 2-1, extended beyond the downtown area to cover a reasonable area of influence of the Canyon, Mixmaster, and Lower Stemmons segments on area transportation facilities.
2-3
FIGURE 2-1. TRINITY PARKWAY CORRIDOR MTIS STUDY AREA
The MTIS involved extensive public input, technical study and evaluation, and used a three-stage process to develop a recommended plan of action. The first stage identified the transportation demand on the roadway and rail transit system within the study area and analyzed conceptual improvements that might serve this demand. The second stage developed preliminary
alignments of alternatives identified for further study from the first-stage process. The third stage developed layouts of alternatives identified for further study from the second stage. Third stage alternatives were screened and combined to form a recommended plan of action. The criteria for screening alternatives included engineering constraints, ability to meet the project need, safety and operations, cost, stakeholder goals, impacts to natural resources, and social constraints.
The MTIS recommended plan of action was composed of seven elements, which included improvements to existing facilities, promoting alternative transportation modes, and new facility construction, as identified below:
2-4
1. Enhanced work trip reduction measures; 2. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities; 3. Enhanced transportation facility management; 4. Improvements to the Canyon, Mixmaster, and Lower Stemmons Freeway Corridors; 5. Extension of Woodall Rodgers Freeway westward across the Dallas Floodway to connect to Singleton Boulevard and Beckley Avenue; 6. A continuous HOV system through the Canyon, Mixmaster, and Lower Stemmons Corridors; and 7. A Trinity Parkway reliever route (proposed action).
Figure 2-2, obtained from the MTIS report, shows the plan of action represented as a pie chart, with sizes of individual slices shown in proportion to the approximate amount of transportation improvement provided. The chart is based on an overall goal from the MTIS of providing an additional 250,000 daily person trips of capacity added or demand reduced in the Canyon, Mixmaster, and Lower Stemmons Corridors. The pie chart is somewhat simplified because the various action items have slightly different proportionate shares in different segments of the corridor. The chart emphasizes the importance of Items 4 (Canyon/Mixmaster/Lower Stemmons) and 7 (proposed action) to the overall transportation solution.
FIGURE 2-2. TRINITY PARKWAY CORRIDOR MTIS PLAN OF ACTION

Canyon/Mixmaster Improvements (40%)
New Reliever Route (49%)
Employee Trip Reduction Bicycle/Ped (2%) Facilities (2%)
Freeway Management (1%)
DART Line to Carrollton (2%)
Woodall-Rodgers to Beckley Connection (4%)
2-5
The MTIS concluded that all seven components of the recommended plan were needed and that no single measure, or combination of less than all seven measures, would meet the transportation demand and address the transportation problems. Various agencies, including the NTTA, TxDOT, DART, and the City of Dallas, have taken responsibility for implementation of portions of the plan. For instance, Item 5 was advanced by TxDOT and the City of Dallas as the Margaret Hunt Hill (Signature) Bridge over the Trinity River, which opened on March 29, 2012. Additionally, part of Item 4 is being advanced by TxDOT as the Dallas Horseshoe Project to improve the Mixmaster and replace the IH-30 and IH-35E Bridges over the Dallas Floodway. The Dallas Horseshoe Project is a break-out project that was originally part of Project Pegasus, which included improvements to sections of the depressed portion of IH-30 known as the Canyon and the portion of IH-35E from the Mixmaster to SH-183 known as Lower Stemmons. Project
Pegasus remains part of the regional transportation plans, but has been deferred in Mobility 2035 2013 Update awaiting funding (see FEIS Section 2.9.1.1 for additional discussion on Project Pegasus). In addition, the DART Orange Line has been expanded to Belt Line Road, which opened on December 3, 2012, and the last segment to DFW Airport Terminal A is scheduled to be completed in late 2014. Item 7 from the plan, the proposed Trinity Parkway reliever route, is the subject of this FEIS.
The MTIS developed specific roadway alternatives on corridors under consideration throughout the Trinity Parkway EIS process. The roadway proposals were developed with varied operational assumptions such as freeway, parkway, tollway, reversible lanes, and HOV/High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes (note that High Occupancy Toll lanes, also referred to as Managed lanes, refer to various operational and design strategies that increase roadway efficiency to better match regional goals. Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) users are charged the full toll rate and HOV users are charged the full rate or a reduced rate). The four corridors considered in the MTIS were: 1. IH-35E; 2. Irving/Industrial (subsequently renamed Riverfront) Boulevard; 3. The east Trinity River levee; and 4. The west Trinity River levee.
All of the corridors were considered between identical termini locations (IH-35E/SH-183 and US175/SH-310). Several alternative cross sections and operational scenarios were developed for each of these four corridors. Alignments for the alternative cross sections and corridor
components were selected based on three different, general strategies for providing needed capacity improvements:
2-6
1. Providing all HOV/HOT and general-use lane reliever capacity; 2. Providing only HOV/HOT capacity; and 3. Providing only general-use lane reliever capacity.
Tables 2-1 through 2-4 provide an abbreviated record of the range of alternatives considered. Additional information regarding these alternatives can be obtained from the MTIS published report (TxDOT, 1998a).
TABLE 2-1. IH-35E (STEMMONS FREEWAY) CORRIDOR ALIGNMENTS

Description Four-lane elevated freeway with two at-grade HOV/HOT lanes and two additional I35-1a general-purpose lanes (eight additional lanes total) with compensatory widening [55 feet on each side]. Requires rebuilding IH-35E within project limits. Eight-lane elevated freeway with two at-grade HOV/HOT lanes (10 additional lanes I35-1b total) with minimal compensatory widening [12 feet on each side]. Requires rebuilding IH-35E within project limits. Two-lane elevated HOV/HOT lanes with two at-grade HOV/HOT lanes on IH-35E (four additional lanes total) with minimal compensatory widening [12 feet on each I35-2a side]. This alignment requires totally rebuilding existing IH-35E within the project limits. Two-lane elevated HOV/HOT lanes with two at-grade HOV/HOT lanes (two additional lanes total). Takes two existing general-purpose lanes from IH-35E with I35-2b no compensatory widening. Requires rebuilding existing IH-35E within project limits. Four-lane at-grade HOV/HOT lanes (four additional lanes total) with compensatory I35-3 widening [36 feet on each side]. This alignment requires totally rebuilding existing IH-35E within the project limits. Four-lane at-grade HOV/HOT lanes. Requires four existing general-purpose lanes I35-4 from IH-35E with no compensatory widening. Two-lane HOV/HOT lanes on elevated structure (two additional lanes total) with no I35-5a widening required. Provides HOV/HOT capacity without taking or rebuilding any existing general-purpose lanes on IH-35E. Two-lane at-grade HOV/HOT lanes on IH-35E. Takes two existing generalI35-5b purpose lanes from IH-35E with no compensatory widening. Two-lane at-grade HOV/HOT lanes on IH-35E (two additional lanes total) with I35-5c compensatory widening. Requires rebuilding IH-35E within project limits. Abbreviations used in Table: HOV/HOT = High-Occupancy Vehicle/High-Occupancy Toll. Alignment
2-7
TABLE 2-2. IRVING/INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR ALIGNMENTS

Description Eight-lane elevated freeway with two elevated HOV/HOT lanes (10 additional lanes total) with compensatory widening [47 feet on each side]. Existing IND-1 Irving/Industrial Boulevard remains in place. Requires reconstruction or double decking of lanes to connect back to the Mixmaster area. Four-lane at-grade freeway with four-lane at-grade HOV/HOT lanes and access roads (eight additional lanes total) with ROW widening [247 feet on one side]. IND-2 Existing Irving/Industrial Boulevard replaced with access roads. Requires reconstruction or double decking of lanes at Mixmaster area. Eight-lane at-grade super thoroughfare with grade separation at major intersections (eight lanes replaced existing six lanes). Requires ROW widening of IND-3 20 feet on each side. Requires rebuilding existing Irving/Industrial Boulevard within project limits. Four-lane elevated HOV/HOT lanes (four additional lanes total). Requires ROW IND-4 widening of 12.5 feet on each side of the existing roadways. Existing Irving/Industrial Boulevard remains in place. Two-lane elevated HOV/HOT lanes (two additional lanes total) on a T bridge IND-5 within the existing median of Irving/Industrial Boulevard. Requires no additional ROW. Existing Irving/Industrial Boulevard remains in place. Abbreviations used in Table: HOV/HOT = High-Occupancy Vehicle/High-Occupancy Toll; ROW = rightof-way. Alignment
TABLE 2-3. TRINITY PARKWAY CORRIDOR ALIGNMENTS

Description Directional parkway along both levees (five lanes on each side with three TL-1a, TL-1b, TL-1c reversible lanes). Requires reconstruction of 12 and 16 cross- street bridges, respectively. TL-2a, TL-2b, TL-2c Conventional thoroughfare along the east or west levee (six lanes with median). Asymmetrical thoroughfare along both levees (six lanes on each side - four lanes TL-3a, TL-3b, TL-3c in one direction and two in the opposite direction). Requires reconstruction of eight and 16 cross-street bridges respectively. Split freeway along both levees with southbound lanes on the west levee and TL-4a, TL-4b, TL-4c northbound lanes on the east levee (four lanes on each side). Requires reconstruction of eight and 16 cross-street bridges, respectively. Full freeway section along the east levee (eight lanes). Requires reconstruction of TL-5a, TL-5b, TL-5c six and eight cross-street bridges, respectively. Divided parkway along both levees (four lanes on each side). Requires TL-7a, TL-7b, TL-7c reconstruction of eight and 16 cross-street bridges, respectively. HOV/HOT lanes along the east levee (two lanes). Requires reconstruction of six TL-6a, TL-6b, TL-6c cross-street bridges each. Full freeway section along the east or west levee with two-lane HOV/HOT lanes TL-8a, TL-8b, TL-8c (eight lanes total). Requires reconstruction of six and eight cross-street bridges, respectively. Abbreviations used in Table: HOV/HOT = High-Occupancy Vehicle/High-Occupancy Toll. Alignments
2-8
TABLE 2-4. TRINITY PARKWAY CORRIDOR - SOUTHERN TERMINUS

Alignment Description Full eight-lane parkway following the alignment of Lamar Street, with access roads replacing Lamar Street. Full eight-lane parkway generally following the east side of the UP Railroad. Full eight-lane parkway generally following the proposed east Lamar Levee extension. Split eight-lane parkway generally following the proposed Dallas Floodway levee extensions. Full eight-lane parkway following the proposed east Lamar Levee extension down to MLK, Jr. Boulevard, then following the east side of the UP Railroad.
1 - Lamar Street 2 - Railroad 3 - East Levee 4- Split West-East Levee 5 - Combined East Levee/Railroad
The MTIS roadway analysis concluded that an expansion of capacity on IH-35E to meet the reliever routes full travel demand was not practical, primarily due to excessive cost, extreme difficulties in carrying additional lanes through the Mixmaster, and adverse impacts on adjacent properties. The preferred approach was to place HOV/HOT lanes along IH-35E, to expand and improve the Canyon and Mixmaster to the extent practical due to physical constraints, and to seek additional capacity through a reliever along another route. The MTIS included
developmental work on route alternatives along the Trinity River Corridor, specifically TL-5a (a combined parkway with eight general-purpose lanes along the riverside of the east levee), TL-7a (a split parkway with four general-purpose lanes along the riverside of both levees), and TL-7c (a split parkway with four general-purpose lanes along the landside of both levees).
A reliever route alternative located primarily within the Dallas Floodway was identified as the locally-preferred alternative (LPA) based on the MTIS evaluation that included the following considerations: social, economic, and environmental effects; construction and ROW costs;
engineering considerations; and extensive agency/public involvement. The concept adopted for this alternative was an eight-lane split parkway (reducing to six lanes in the southern segment) with controlled access and a design speed of 50 mph with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The general location of the LPA reliever route is shown on Figure 2-3.
2-9
FIGURE 2-3. TRINITY PARKWAY RELIEVER ROUTE (MTIS LPA)
The MTIS recognized, however, that the selection of a reliever route would require subsequent studies. As anticipated, additional route alternatives along Irving/Riverfront Boulevard were
included in the DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS, and are carried forward in this FEIS.
The possibility of implementing the Trinity Parkway reliever route as a toll facility was outlined in the MTIS. However, as noted in FEIS Section 1.1.2, the agreements to pursue the toll facility implementation did not occur until after completion of the original study. The toll proposal is being pursued due to regional transportation funding shortfalls; the expectation that substantial delays in implementation of the roadway would occur if non-toll funding is used; and the obligation that toll facilities be pursued according to the RTCs policy of evaluating toll feasibility on all new freeway facilities in new ROW. As a result, NTTA has been designated to take the lead on Trinity Parkway as it is being pursued as a toll facility. NTTA is the Regional Tollway Authority,
organized under Chapter 366 of the Texas Transportation Code, for the area of Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties in north central Texas. Toll facility implementation would involve jointly developing and financing the Trinity Parkway with a combination of tollway revenue bonds, city bonds, and federal and/or state transportation funds.
2-10
The decision to toll the facility has caused some modifications to the original MTIS reliever road concept. Aside from the obvious changes (i.e., toll gantries) needed for the operation of a toll facility, the operating speed of the facility has been increased from 45 mph to 55 mph. The speed increase is required to allow a more attractive travel time advantage on the toll road compared to other available toll-free (tax supported) roads. The increase in speed has affected the control of access on the roadway, preventing previously proposed left side exits from the roadway mainlanes to the adjacent park areas. This issue is further discussed in Section 2.7.3 of this FEIS. Additionally, during the development of the DEIS, the proposed Trinity Parkway was
reduced to six mainlanes based on refined traffic volume projections and associated traffic capacity LOS analyses, public input, concerns regarding environmental impacts and costs due to the scale of an eight-lane facility (as presented in the MTIS), and also for compatibility with local plans.
2.2
NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build Alternative (Alternative 1) represents the case in which the Trinity Parkway is not constructed. The No-Build Alternative has the advantage of avoiding any adverse impacts
associated with new construction, such as relocation, land use changes, and environmental disruption. projects. The No-Build Alternative would allow construction funds to be allocated to other
The MTP, however, includes a Trinity Parkway reliever route, which is a key element to the functioning of the plan. Other transportation improvements identified in the MTP, including
planned roadway and transit system improvements, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, ITS technology, and Transportation System Management (TSM)/Travel Demand Management (TDM) measures, may or may not be constructed depending on project development and funding availability issues. Implementation of the No-Build Alternative would jeopardize the balance and efficiency of the entire transportation system by not addressing any of the stated project needs.
Although the No-Build Alternative avoids construction impacts, the problems associated with the lack of a northwest-southeast reliever route around downtown Dallas would remain. As
previously discussed in FEIS Section 2.1.2, the MTIS concluded that without the construction of a reliever route, local transportation needs could not be met. This conclusion is also supported by the DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS documents. The costs associated with the No-Build Alternative, along with the adverse impacts related to traffic congestion such as air pollution, noise, and decreased pedestrian and vehicular safety, could create an undesirable urban environment that
2-11
would have more long-term adverse impacts than the short-term construction impacts. The costs of the No-Build Alternative include the following:
Maintenance of the existing system - the longer improvements and/or reconstruction are postponed, the higher this figure becomes; Increased vehicle operating costs on under-designed, inadequate facilities; Increased tangible and intangible costs due to higher rates of accidents and incidents on existing facilities; The monetary value of time lost by motorists due to lower operating speeds, congested roadway conditions, and restricted maneuverability on area roadways; The intangible costs associated with the inconvenience for emergency services and annoyance for average motorists caused by the above deficiencies; and Increased costs of other planned improvements to the Canyon/Mixmaster/Lower Stemmons Corridors due to lack of the proposed action (Trinity Parkway) which could otherwise provide a detour route during construction.
The No-Build Alternative is expected to result in travelers experiencing worsened traffic congestion in the future. Growth in employment and population would be expected to increase daily travel volumes within the Dallas CBD to the point that transportation improvements similar to the Trinity Parkway or otherwise would be implemented. That delay in implementation may
reasonably be expected to result in higher construction costs and greater disruption to the community, due in part from ROW acquisition in newly-developed or redeveloped areas of the corridor
2.3
2.3.1
BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Summary of DEIS/SDEIS Alternatives Not Advanced
Building on the MTIS and the NEPA scoping process, the DEIS used the same corridors as the MTIS. Throughout the NEPA planning process, project sponsors have endeavored to identify and evaluate a reasonable number of representative alternatives, as required by the longstanding NEPA guidance in FHWAs Technical Advisory T6640.8A (FHWA, 1987). The DEIS analyzed six Build Alternatives (Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 4A, and 5) as well as the No-Build Alternative. The SDEIS republished the DEIS along with evaluating two additional Build
Alternatives (Alternatives 3C and 4B) based on agency consultation after the February 2005 publication of the DEIS. A total of eight Build Alternatives and the No-Build Alternative were evaluated as part of the SDEIS. However, based on correspondence with the USACE and further
2-12
evaluation following the release of the SDEIS and subsequent public hearing, the alternatives described below were considered unworkable due to concerns relating to the potential of each alternative to interrupt flood control operations and adversely impact the existing or planned expansion of the floodway levees.
2.3.1.1 Alternative 3A (Combined Parkway Original)
The original Combined Parkway (Alternative 3A) was presented in concept in the July 1999 scoping meeting for the Trinity Parkway DEIS and was developed during the early stages of preparation of the DEIS. Alternative 3A was formed by combining the MTIS preliminary The alternative is called original to alignments TL-5a (north segment) and 5 (south segment) (see Tables 2-3 and 2-4), except that the mainlanes were modified to six lanes throughout.
differentiate it from the modified versions of the Combined Parkway (Alternatives 3B and 3C) which were generated in 2003 and 2007, respectively. As originally proposed, Alternative 3A was approximately 8.67 miles in length and would have required approximately 371 acres of ROW.
Alternative 3A was proposed to travel south from the IH-35E/SH-183 interchange, passing over Commonwealth Drive and Irving Boulevard, and reaching the Dallas Floodway in the area west of Hampton/Inwood Road. The alignment then turned southeast along the riverside of the Dallas Floodway east levee, following the riverside edge of the levee southeast to the DART Bridge. The alignment then crossed the levee and followed the landside of the future USACE DFE east levee extension (Lamar Levee) to IH-45. The route then turned east to the US-175/SH-310 interchange.
In the Dallas Floodway segment, the proposal for Alternative 3A was to place the tollway on an earthen embankment, typically set above the 100-year flood level. However, at existing bridge crossings of the floodway, the tollway profile was depressed to pass under the existing structures. At these locations, a flood separation wall was proposed to prevent inundation during a 100-year flood event. Alternative 3A would have required retaining walls to be placed on the levee-side of the tollway at depressed locations to accommodate a levee raise under consideration by the City of Dallas and USACE.
2.3.1.2 Alternative 3B (Combined Parkway Modified)
Alternative 3B was added in the Trinity Parkway DEIS at the request of the City of Dallas in 2003. The alternative was developed as part of a planning study of the Trinity River Corridor initiated by the city in 2002. The study was published in the BVP report. Alternative 3B was a variant of the
2-13
original Combined Parkway (Alternative 3A) described above, distinguished by geometric changes that primarily consisted of deletion and modification of ramps in the general area of downtown Dallas and proposed City of Dallas floodway lakes. The City of Dallas requested that Alternative 3B be included due to its reduced ramp intrusion in the Dallas Floodway area compared to Alternative 3A, and its revision of the tolling plan to exclude any mainlane toll gantries from the Dallas Floodway. As originally proposed, Alternative 3B was approximately 8.67 miles in length and would have required approximately 372 acres of ROW.
2.3.1.3 Alternative 4A (Split Parkway Riverside Original)
Alternative 4A was formed by combining preliminary alignments TL-7a (north segment) and 5 (south segment) (see Tables 2-3 and 2-4), with the mainlanes modified to six lanes throughout. From the IH-35E/SH-183 interchange, this alternative was proposed to travel southwest, passing over Commonwealth Drive and Irving Boulevard, reaching the Dallas Floodway in the area west of Hampton/Inwood Road. Alternative 4A split at this point, with the southbound lanes bridging across the Trinity River to the riverside face of the west levee and the northbound lanes remaining on the riverside face of the east levee. The alignment remained in a split configuration along the Dallas Floodway to a point just east of IH-35E, where the tollway would have transitioned back to a combined configuration with the southbound lanes crossing from the west levee to the east on a bridge structure. The joining of the southbound and northbound lanes occurred on the east levee near Corinth Street. East of Corinth Street, Alternative 4A followed the identical route to the US-175/SH-310 interchange as described for Alternatives 3A and 3B. As proposed, Alternative 4A was approximately 8.84 miles in length and would have required approximately 462 acres of ROW.
In the Dallas Floodway segment, the tollway would have been placed on earthen embankments, typically set above the 100-year flood level to provide appropriate protection against inundation. However, similar to Alternatives 3A and 3B, sections of the tollway would be depressed to underpass the existing bridge structures crossing the floodway. At these locations, a flood
separation wall along the riverside of the tollway would be provided for 100-year flood protection. Alternative 4A would have required retaining walls to be placed on the levee-side of the tollway at depressed locations to accommodate the future levee raise under consideration.
2.3.1.4 Alternative 5 (Split Parkway Landside)
Alternative 5 was formed by the combination of preliminary alignments TL-7c (north segment) and 5 (south segment) (see Tables 2-3 and 2-4), with the mainlanes modified to six lanes throughout.
2-14
This alternative was a split configuration, with its route very similar to Alternative 4A with the exception of being located on the landside of the river levees. The landside location had two notable effects on the tollway installation:
1. The embankment set against the landside of the east and west Dallas Floodway levees would have been installed with retaining walls along much of its landside edge to avoid spillover of fill material into adjacent drainage sumps and private property; and 2. The effects on local arterial streets would have been more pronounced, requiring rebuilding and raising of substantial lengths of these streets at points of crossing.
Alternative 5 was approximately 8.90 miles in length and required approximately 372 acres of ROW.
2.3.1.5 Reasons for Elimination of Alternatives
Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A, and 5 were presented in the February 2005 DEIS as reasonable alternatives. In October 2006, the USACE Fort Worth District provided comments on a draft version of the SDEIS provided to the District in July 2006. In the comments, the USACE raised several concerns about the Trinity Parkway, specifically focusing on the Build Alternatives located in the Dallas Floodway as detailed in the February 2005 DEIS. The USACE expressed concern that these alternatives, as proposed, appeared to adversely impact operations and maintenance requirements within the Dallas Floodway. The USACE concerns are summarized as follows:
The project must not interfere with the USACEs or City of Dallas ability to operate and maintain the Dallas Floodway, conduct flood fighting activities, or restore or improve the flood damage reduction capability of the federal project.
No cuts, flood separation walls, or retaining walls will be allowed that impact the existing or planned expansion of the Dallas Floodway or Dallas Floodway Extension levees.
The February 2009 SDEIS noted that the USACE considered Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 4A unapprovable. The USACE confirmed in subsequent correspondence that Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 4A, as well as Alternative 5, were not considered approvable due to the concerns outlined above (see Appendix A-2, Pages 12-15). For the reasons outlined above, these alternatives have been eliminated from further analysis and consideration, as authorized under CEQ and FHWA NEPA regulations (40 CFR Section 1502.14(a) and 23 CFR Section 771.123(c)).
2-15
The FHWA pursued further efforts to explore the feasibility of realigning or modifying Alternative 5 to address the USACE concerns in the course of developing the LSS (see FEIS Appendix A-2, Pages 16-18, 25-26, and 34-40). The evaluation involved shifting the mainlanes away from the levees and a limited analysis of potential impacts to provide the FHWA with quantitative data to support a decision regarding the viability of a modified version of Alternative 5. The analysis found that a shift away from the levees would result in impacts of extraordinary magnitude to minority and low-income neighborhoods and to existing bridges and buildings within the corridor, thereby preventing the project from achieving key elements of its purpose. Consequently, the FHWA determined that Alternative 5 could not be modified to avoid adverse impacts to the levees as identified by the USACE without causing an unreasonable level of collateral impacts (see FEIS Appendix A-2, Pages 50-51). Coordination with the USACE occurred throughout the decision making process that ultimately led to the FHWAs decision to withdraw Alternative 5 from further consideration.
2.3.2
Build Alternatives Under Consideration
Four Build Alternatives presented in the SDEIS and further evaluated in the LSS have been identified as candidates for addressing the basic need and purpose of the Trinity Parkway, which is to manage traffic congestion within the Trinity River Corridor. These are identified as
Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3C, and 4B, and FEIS Plate 2-1 at the end of this chapter shows the ROW footprint for the alternatives on an aerial photograph. As noted in FEIS Section 2.0 and further discussed in FEIS Section 2.8, the FHWA recommends Alternative 3C for development to a higher level of detail both in terms of design refinement as well as impacts analysis. In
accordance with 22 USC Section 139(f)(4)(D), this has been done to facilitate the development of mitigation measures and ensure compliance with applicable environmental laws such as Section 404 of the CWA. However, the FHWA has determined that developing Alternative 3C to a higher level of detail will not prevent an impartial decision with regard to all four Build Alternatives and the No-Build Alternative, and these alternatives remain under consideration within this FEIS. Accordingly, subsequent to the environmental review of this FEIS and consideration of comments from all sources, the FHWA will select one of the five alternatives under consideration in the anticipated ROD. FEIS Plates 2-2 through 2-5 show the schematic plans and typical cross sections for these alternatives.
The level of design and other descriptive information presented in this chapter about the four Build Alternatives reflect the information that was developed as of the public hearing for the LSS in May 2012. Further details about the design characteristics and potential impacts of the Build Alternatives that the FHWA considered prior to designating a recommended alternative are found
2-16
in the SDEIS and LSS. The presentation of the alternatives, relative to the information available as of the time that the FHWA recommended Alternative 3C for further development, allows the evaluation of alternatives based on information developed at the same time and to an equivalent level of detail. This approach also facilitates the explanation of the analytical process and
rationale behind Alternative 3Cs recommendation that was made subsequent to the LSS public hearing.
Alternatives 2A and 2B were developed early in the study period and these alignments have remained unchanged in the absence of levee safety concerns from the USACE or other agencies; such as has been the case with alternatives located primarily within or adjacent to the Dallas Floodway. Alternatives 3C and 4B were added to the SDEIS based on agency consultation after the February 2005 publication of the DEIS. All of the Build Alternatives share common northern and southern termini. The northern terminus would be located at the Stemmons Freeway (IH35E) interchange with John W. Carpenter Freeway (SH-183). The southern terminus would be at the US-175 interchange with SH-310. Alternatives 2A and 2B alignments generally run along Irving/Industrial Boulevard, whereas Alternatives 3C and 4B alignments generally run within the Dallas Floodway. All of the proposed Build Alternatives would be designated as controlled-
access tollroads, with grade separations at crossings of existing highways and local arterial streets. Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) would be implemented for the Trinity Parkway to
promote operational safety and efficiency. The facilities for toll collection would have a similar basic layout in each alternative, with mainlane toll gantries and ramp toll gantries in similar locations for each. These and other toll implementation issues are discussed in FEIS Section 2.9.
FEIS Sections 2.3.2.1 through 2.3.2.5 present descriptions of each Build Alternative under consideration, discussing the location of each with respect to key features of the natural and human environment. The overall length, estimated ROW, and estimated costs (in 2011 dollars) for each Build Alternative are summarized in FEIS Section 2.4.
2.3.2.1 Alternative 2A (Irving/Riverfront Boulevard - Elevated)
Alternative 2A was formed by the combination of Trinity Parkway Corridor MTIS alignments IND-1 (north segment) and 1 (south segment) (see Tables 2-2 and 2-4). Alignment IND-1 was modified to exclude two elevated HOV/HOT lanes shown in the MTIS. These lanes are now planned along the IH-35E Corridor. IND-1 was also narrowed (from eight lanes) in the northern segment to provide six mainlanes throughout. Alignment 1 (south segment) was modified from an at-grade
2-17
version in the MTIS to an elevated version. The concept represented by Alternative 2A was double-deck lanes comprised of tollway mainlanes elevated above an existing arterial street.
Alternative 2A would travel southwest from the IH-35E/SH-183 interchange, passing over Commonwealth Drive, and turning to the southeast to follow Irving Boulevard. The route would follow Irving/Riverfront Boulevard for approximately 5.6 miles, passing south of downtown to Corinth Street. In this segment, the tollway would be installed as a double-deck structure, above the existing city streets. Irving/Riverfront Boulevard would be almost totally reconstructed with this alternative to resolve conflicts with the supporting structures for the tollway above. The roadways would remain in service to serve local access and through traffic movement. South of Corinth Street, the route would follow a new alignment for approximately 1.2 miles, bending in an easterly direction to reach Lamar Street east of MLK, Jr. Boulevard. From this point, the route would travel southeast along Lamar Street as a double-deck structure, including an overpass of IH-45. The route then would turn east at Starks Street and follow it to the US-175/SH-310
interchange.
It should be noted Alternatives 2A and 2B would follow Lamar Street (MTIS Southern Alignment 1 Lamar Street, see Table 2-4) south of Corinth Street, whereas Alternatives 3C and 4B would follow the levee of the proposed DFE (USACE, 1999) and the UP Railroad (MTIS Southern Alignment 5 Combined East Levee/Railroad, see Table 2-4). MTIS Southern Alignment 1 was chosen in this area because it continues the same concept as used in the northern part of the corridor along Irving/Riverfront Boulevard (double-deck above an arterial street). As a practical matter, the southern ends of Alternatives 2A and 2B could follow the same southern segment route as used for Alternatives 3C and 4B.
Figure 2-4 shows a route map of the Alternative 2A alignment, Figure 2-5 shows a computergenerated rendering of Alternative 2A, and Figure 2-6 shows the typical design cross-section. FEIS Plates 2-2 A and 2-2 B at the end of this chapter provides the schematic plan.
2-18
FIGURE 2-4. LAYOUT MAP OF TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 2A
FIGURE 2-5. COMPUTER RENDERING OF ALTERNATIVE 2A
2-19
FIGURE 2-6. ALTERNATIVE 2A TYPICAL SECTIONS
Note: There would typically be three mainlanes of travel in each direction (six lanes total). Auxiliary lanes may be added in some segments, where required to properly accommodate merging areas between ramps.
2-20
There would typically be three lanes in each direction of travel (six lanes total) with the proposed tollway mainlanes, each 12 feet in width. The proposed ROW would vary depending on the need for ramps, the locations of ancillary buildings, and other geometric considerations. The width would typically be 162 feet in segments with mainlanes, but no ramps. The width would typically be 232 feet in segments where entry or exit ramps are present. In segments built as a doubledeck over city streets, the tollway structure would be elevated to provide 16.5 feet of clearance above the pavement surface. A standard concrete traffic barrier would separate northbound and southbound traffic on the tollway mainlanes, and paved shoulders would be provided adjacent to the inside and outside lanes.
The existing ROW on Irving/Riverfront Boulevard is typically 100 feet in width.
Substantial
property acquisition would be needed because the proposed tollway is wider than the existing road, and because the tollway cannot precisely follow the existing centerlines of Irving/Riverfront Boulevard due to differences in design speed and curvature. Additional property acquisition
would also be needed at specific locations due to the influence of ramps and ancillary buildings.
As discussed in the LSS, Alternative 2A would be approximately 8.83 miles in length, would require approximately 264 acres of ROW, and would cost approximately $2.36 billion (2011 dollars) to construct. Major interchanges associated with Alternative 2A would include:
Direct connections at the IH-35E (Lower Stemmons)/SH-183 interchange (northern terminus), the US-175/SH-310 interchange (southern terminus), Woodall Rodgers Freeway, and IH-45;
Full diamond interchanges at Hampton/Inwood Road, Sylvan/Wycliff Avenue, Corinth Street, MLK, and Lamar Street/SH-310; and Half diamond interchanges at the Houston/Jefferson Street Viaducts.
2.3.2.2 Alternative 2B (Irving/Riverfront Boulevard - At-Grade)
Alternative 2B was formed by the combination of the Trinity Parkway Corridor MTIS preliminary alignments IND-1 (north segment) and 1 (south segment) (see Tables 2-2 and 2-4). Alignment IND-1 was modified to be an at-grade facility and excludes two elevated HOV/HOT lanes, which are now planned along the IH-35E Corridor. Similar to Alternative 2A, the proposed facility was modified to six mainlanes throughout. The existing lanes on Irving/Riverfront Boulevard and Lamar Street would be replaced as access (frontage) roads. The location of this alignment would be similar to Alternative 2A.
2-21
Alternative 2B would travel southwest from the IH-35E/SH-183 interchange, passing over Commonwealth Drive, and turning to the southeast to follow Irving Boulevard. Similar to
Alternative 2A, the route would follow Irving/Riverfront Boulevard for approximately 5.6 miles to Corinth Street. However, in this segment, the tollway would be installed predominantly at-grade, with service roads provided to make up for the loss of the arterial streets. One-way service roads on each side of the tollway would serve local access and through traffic. South of Corinth Street, the route would follow a new alignment for approximately 1.2 miles, bending in an easterly direction to reach Lamar Street east of MLK, Jr. Boulevard. From this point, the route would travel southeast along Lamar Street as a double-deck structure, identical to that proposed for Alternative 2A. The southern terminus of Alternative 2B would be the same as Alternative 2A, with the route following Starks Street to the US-175/SH-310 interchange. The same comment made above for Alternative 2A regarding use of the MTIS Southern Alignment 5 applies to Alternative 2B.
Figure 2-7 shows a route map of the Alternative 2B alignment, Figure 2-8 shows a computergenerated rendering of Alternative 2B, and Figure 2-9 shows the typical design cross-section. FEIS Plates 2-3 A and 2-3 B at the end of this chapter provides the schematic plan.
2-22
FIGURE 2-7. LAYOUT MAP OF TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 2B
FIGURE 2-8. COMPUTER RENDERING OF ALTERNATIVE 2B
2-23
FIGURE 2-9. ALTERNATIVE 2B TYPICAL SECTIONS
Note:
There would typically be three mainlanes of travel in each direction (six lanes total). Auxiliary lanes may be added in some segments, where required to properly accommodate merging areas between ramps.
There would typically be three lanes in each direction of travel (six lanes total) with the proposed tollway mainlanes, each 12 feet in width. The proposed ROW would vary depending on the need for ramps, the locations of ancillary buildings, and other geometric considerations. The width would typically be 300 feet in segments with mainlanes, but no ramps. The width would typically be 335 feet in segments where entry or exit ramps are present. The tollway would overpass city arterial streets along this segment with the structures elevated to provide 16.5 feet clearance above the pavement surface. A standard concrete traffic barrier would separate northbound and southbound traffic, and paved shoulders would be provided adjacent to the inside and outside lanes.
2-24
The existing ROW on Irving/Riverfront Boulevard is typically 100 feet in width.
Substantial
property acquisition would be needed because the proposed tollway would be wider than the existing road and because the tollway cannot precisely follow the existing centerlines of Irving/Riverfront Boulevard due to differences in design speed and curvature. Additional property acquisition would also be needed at specific locations due to the influence of ramps and ancillary buildings.
As discussed in the LSS, Alternative 2B would be approximately 8.83 miles in length, would require approximately 350 acres of ROW, and would cost approximately $1.87 billion (2011 dollars) to construct. Major interchanges associated with Alternative 2B would include:
Full diamond interchanges at Hampton/Inwood Road, Sylvan/Wycliff Avenue, Corinth Street, MLK, and Lamar Street/SH-310; and A half diamond interchange at the Houston/Jefferson Street Viaducts.
2.3.2.3 Development History of Dallas Floodway Alternatives 3C and 4B
As previously discussed in FEIS Section 2.3.1.5, Dallas Floodway Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A, and 5 were not considered approvable by the USACE Fort Worth District due to concerns about the effects of these alternatives on operations and maintenance requirements within the Dallas Floodway. The NTTA and the FHWA entered into consultation with the USACE and City of Dallas representatives through the fourth quarter of 2006 and first and second quarters of 2007 in attempts to resolve these concerns. However, the most substantial change made in response to the USACE consultation was the addition of two new Build Alternatives to the SDEIS, Alternative 3C (Combined Parkway - Further Modified) and Alternative 4B (Split Parkway - Riverside Modified). These alternatives were added because changes in the roadway layouts were
required to address several of the USACE comments discussed in FEIS Section 2.3.1.5. The following summarizes the general roadway layout changes shared by both Alternatives 3C and 4B that were made to address USACE concerns regarding predecessor alternatives:
Relocation of the tollway mainlanes in the area of downtown Dallas.
Generally the
tollway would be moved to the next available span under the cross street bridges, resulting in a shift of approximately 60 to 100 feet towards the river, to avoid the need for levee-side retaining walls.
2-25
Ramps were deleted to Westmoreland Road to avoid possible adverse impacts to access and circulation for operation and maintenance (O&M), flood fighting, and surveillance. The Trinity Parkway lanes are elevated at the North Dallas Floodway Entry, the Woodall Rodgers Freeway connection (ramps), the Riverfront (formerly Industrial) Boulevard connection (ramps), the South Dallas Floodway Exit, and the IH-45 connection (ramps) to provide adequate vertical clearance over the levee top to allow City of Dallas service vehicles to underpass the structures.
Given the number of pier penetrations in close proximity and parallel to the land side toe of the levee(s) at the Continental and Margaret Hunt Hill (MHH) Bridge connections, a reinforced concrete diaphragm wall was added (along the east levee for Alternative 3C, and along the east and west levees for Alternative 4B) to offset any potential negative effects of levee penetrations at this location. Diaphragm walls would be subject to design review and concurrence by the USACE, but conceptually they would be located on the riverside edge of the levee top using reinforced slurry wall techniques and would extend down to rock or unweathered shale to cut off possible under-seepage. The walls would reinforce the levee but would be considered secondary to the levee itself in the flood protection system. Similar to the wall design, construction phase details would be subject to the USACE concurrence.
The levee-side ramps at diamond interchanges to existing cross-street bridges, such as Hampton and Sylvan Avenue, were reconfigured to move the ramps closer to the mainlanes so that they do not overlay the levee top. The ramps are now elevated using retaining walls and fill, in lieu of bridges, to avoid drill shaft penetrations of the levee.
Longitudinal maintenance roads were replaced and reconnected in segments affected by the Trinity Parkway embankments.
2.3.2.4 Alternative 3C (Combined Parkway - Further Modified)
Alternative 3C was formed by combining the MTIS preliminary alignments TL-5a (north segment) and 5 (south segment) (see Tables 2-3 and 2-4), except that the mainlanes were modified to six lanes throughout. Alternative 3C, as described in the LSS, was also distinguished from earlier versions of a combined parkway riverside alternative (Alternatives 3A and 3B) by changes made in response to the USACE consultation beginning in Fall 2006 (see FEIS Section 2.3.2.3).
From the IH-35E/SH-183 interchange, Alternative 3C would travel southwest, passing over Commonwealth Drive and Irving Boulevard, reaching the Dallas Floodway in the area west of Hampton/Inwood Road. The Alternative 3C alignment would turn south along the riverside of the east Dallas Floodway levee, with the mainlanes placed on an earthen embankment typically set
2-26
above the 100-year flood level to provide appropriate protection against inundation. However, at points where the alignment would meet existing bridge crossings of the Dallas Floodway, the tollway would be depressed to pass under the existing structures. At these locations, a flood separation wall along the riverside of the tollway would be provided to protect the tollway from inundation during a 100-year flood event. Additionally, pump stations would be provided to drain the low points of the tollway at times that the Trinity River is in flood stage.
The median of the tollway in the northern floodway segment, north of Sylvan Avenue, would be of sufficient width to allow up to 5 feet of vertical difference in grades between the northbound and southbound lanes without the use of retaining walls. This feature would allow the northbound lanes to be elevated above the grade of the southbound lanes in some areas, allowing northbound vehicle occupants to see the Dallas Floodway area more readily. At a point roughly midway between Sylvan Avenue and Continental Avenue, the alignment along the east levee would turn slightly towards the river so that at Continental Avenue, the mainlanes would be approximately 100 feet further away from the levee. The increased offset from the levee would be maintained for approximately 3 miles down to the DART rail crossing, with the offset varying from 60 to 100 feet based on the actual locations of columns under the existing cross street bridges. Due to the increased offset, the proposed mainlanes would be moved sufficiently away from the face of the existing levee so that a proposed raising of the levee tops (under consideration by the City of Dallas and USACE as part of the Dallas Floodway Project, see FEIS Section 1.6.1.2) could be constructed without the need for retaining walls.
South of the DART Bridge, Alternative 3C would be built on structure and offset approximately 50 feet from the riverside edge of the future USACE DFE east levee extension (Lamar Levee) up to a location approximately 1,500 feet downstream of MLK, Jr. Boulevard. At this point, the Trinity Parkway would cross to the landside of the levee, with the mainlanes elevated sufficiently to allow 15-feet clearance over the levee top for maintenance/emergency vehicle access. The alignment would follow the landside of the future DFE east levee to IH-45, where it would pass under the mainlanes of the Interstate. The route would then turn east, pass over Lamar Street, and follow Starks Street to the US-175/SH-310 interchange.
Figure 2-10 shows a route map of the Alternative 3C alignment, Figure 2-11 shows a computergenerated rendering of Alternative 3C, and Figure 2-12 shows a typical design cross-section in the increased offset segment south of Sylvan Avenue. FEIS Plates 2-4 A and 2-4 B at the end of this chapter provide an overview schematic plan of Alternative 3C as developed at the time of the LSS public hearing. Note that the typical section in Figure 2-12 shows an existing 3.5:1
embankment slope on the riverside of the proposed roadway. The proposed Alternative 3C is
2-27
designed to accommodate the USACE-planned future 2-foot levee raise with a 4:1 levee slope. Embankments with 4:1 slopes are usual practice in highway and road installations in the North Texas region, including river crossings, which might be subject to periodic inundation. These relatively mild slopes have a high rate of success against failure in the soils of this region, even against surficial slides. Moreover, the USACE Fort Worth District, in a September 30, 2011 letter to the FHWA, acknowledged that the Trinity Parkway Projects assumption for future levee remediation by the USACE/City of Dallas (as part of the Dallas Floodway Project) of a two-foot levee raise with 4:1 riverside slopes appeared to be a reasonable assumption, based on the best available information (see FEIS Section 2.7.1.1).
FIGURE 2-10. LAYOUT MAP OF TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 3C
2-28
FIGURE 2-11. COMPUTER RENDERING OF ALTERNATIVE 3C
FIGURE 2-12. ALTERNATIVE 3C TYPICAL SECTION
Notes: 1. There would typically be three mainlanes of travel in each direction (six lanes total). Auxiliary lanes may be added in some segments, where required to properly accommodate merging areas between ramps. Flood elevations, levee heights, and slopes would vary. Those used in the section would be typical. 2. Modifications and improvements to existing levees would be performed by others.
The proposed tollway mainlanes would each be 12 feet in width. There would typically be three lanes in each direction of travel (six lanes total). Outside the Dallas Floodway, the tollway is proposed to be constructed on acquired ROW. The ROW width would vary depending on the extent of bridge structures, the need for ramps and service roads, the locations of ancillary buildings, and other geometric considerations (see the typical road cross sections on FEIS Plate 2-4 A and 2-4 B, and typical floodway section in FEIS Plate 2-4 C). In the Dallas Floodway segment, the tollway operations area is proposed to be established by an agreement with the City of Dallas, rather than fee simple acquisition (see FEIS Section 2.8.3). Paved shoulders would be provided adjacent to the inside and outside of the mainlanes. The center median would typically
2-29
be protected on both sides by a standard concrete traffic barrier. In the segment near downtown Dallas, the inside shoulders would be reduced below the standard width of 10 feet in order to clear existing columns where the mainlanes would underpass the following historic bridges: Continental Avenue, Commerce Street, Corinth Street, and Houston Street (see FEIS Section 3.3.1.4 regarding historic bridges).
Regarding roadway drainage, the northbound lanes of Alternative 3C would typically have flush shoulders with sheet flow drainage onto the adjacent grassed swales (see the typical sections on FEIS Plates 2-4 A, 2-4 B, and 2-4 C). Stormwater in these swales would be collected in inlets as needed and piped under the roadway out to discharge points at/near the riverside toe of the road embankments. The southbound lanes are expected to be partly drained by sheet flow over the shoulders and partly drained by inlet and pipe systems. In the normal (un-depressed)
southbound lane segments on embankments, the water would sheet flow over the shoulders to the grassed embankment slopes. It is anticipated that a concrete flume would be built along the riverside toe of the embankment slopes to collect the stormwater to discharge points. In
depressed segments under existing bridges, the flood separation wall (described above) would act as a curb and would contain the stormwater. In these segments, drainage inlets and pipes would be added as needed to control spread of stormwater onto the shoulders. As previously stated, pump stations are proposed at the sag points to collect and discharge stormwater from these depressed segments. All of the drainage discharge points for the northbound and
southbound lanes would be coordinated with existing channels in the Dallas Floodway overbank.
As discussed in the LSS, Alternative 3C would be approximately 8.67 miles in length, would require approximately 379 acres of ROW and would cost approximately $1.42 billion (2011 dollars) to construct. Major interchanges associated with Alternative 3C would include:
Direct connections at the IH-35E (Lower Stemmons)/SH-183 interchange (northern terminus), the US-175/SH-310 interchange (southern terminus), Woodall Rodgers Freeway (north side only), and IH-45;
Full
diamond
interchanges
at
Hampton/Inwood
Road,
Sylvan/Wycliff
Avenue,
Houston/Jefferson Streets, MLK, and Lamar Street/SH-310; Half diamond interchanges at Commonwealth Drive, Continental Avenue, and Corinth Street; and Direct connection to the Corinth Street/Riverfront Boulevard intersection via a braided ramp pair originating in the area of MLK.
2-30
2.3.2.5 Alternative 4B (Split Parkway Riverside - Modified)
Alternative 4B was formed by the combination of preliminary alignments TL-7a (north segment) and 5 (south segment) (see Tables 2-3 and 2-4), with the mainlanes modified to six lanes throughout. Alternative 4B is distinguished from earlier versions of the split parkway on the riverside of the Dallas Floodway (Alternatives 4A) by changes made in response to the USACE consultation beginning in Fall 2006 (see FEIS Section 2.3.2.3).
From the IH-35E/SH-183 interchange, Alternative 4B would travel southwest, passing over Commonwealth Drive and Irving Boulevard, and reaching the Dallas Floodway in the area west of Hampton/Inwood Road. The mainlanes would be elevated at the crossing point of the Dallas Floodway levees to allow 15 feet vertical clearance between the low chord of the bridge structure and the top of future improved levee. This would result in the northbound mainlanes being elevated over the Hampton Road Bridge. Around the east levee crossing, Alternative 4B would split, with the southbound lanes bridging across the Trinity River to the riverside face of the west levee, and the northbound lanes remaining on the riverside face of the east levee. The alignment would remain in a split configuration along the Dallas Floodway to a point just east of IH-35E for a total split distance of approximately 5.4 miles.
In the Dallas Floodway segment, the tollway would be placed on earthen embankments, typically set above the 100-year flood level to provide appropriate protection against inundation. However, at points where the alignment would meet existing bridge crossings of the Dallas Floodway, the tollway would be depressed to underpass the existing structures. At these locations, a flood separation wall along the riverside of the tollway would be provided to protect the tollway from inundation during a 100-year flood event. Additionally, pump stations would be provided to drain the low points of the tollway at times that the Trinity River is in flood stage.
At a point roughly midway between Sylvan Avenue and Continental Avenue, the alignments of both the northbound and southbound lanes would turn slightly towards the river so that at Continental Avenue, the mainlanes would be approximately 100 feet further away from the levee. The increased offset from the levee would be maintained for approximately 3 miles down to the DART rail crossing, with the offset varying from 60 to 100 feet based on the actual locations of columns under the existing cross street bridges. Similar to Alternative 3C, the offset from the face of the existing levee would accommodate a future raising and flattening of levees under consideration by the City of Dallas and USACE (as part of the Dallas Floodway Project, see FEIS Section 1.6.1.2).
2-31
As stated above, the split configuration would end at a point east of IH-35E. The tollway would then transition back to a combined configuration with the southbound lanes crossing from the west levee to the east on a bridge structure. The joining of the southbound and northbound lanes would occur on the east levee near Corinth Street. East of Corinth Street, Alternative 4B would follow the identical route to the US-175/SH-310 interchange as described for Alternative 3C.
Figure 2-13 shows a route map of the Alternative 4B alignment, Figure 2-14 shows a computer generated rendering of Alternative 4B, and Figure 2-15 shows a typical design cross-section within the Dallas Floodway. FEIS Plates 2-5 A and 2-5 B at the end of this chapter provides the overview schematic plan. Note that the typical section in Figure 2-15 shows an existing 3.5:1 embankment slope on the riverside of the proposed roadway (adjacent to both northbound and southbound lanes). The proposed Alternative 4B is designed to accommodate the USACE-
planned future 2-foot levee raise with a 4:1 levee slope. Embankments with 4:1 slopes are usual practice in highway and road installations in the North Texas region, including river crossings, which might be subject to periodic inundation. These relatively mild slopes have a high rate of success against failure in the soils of this region, even against surficial slides. Moreover, the USACE Fort Worth District, in a September 30, 2011 letter to FHWA, acknowledged that the Trinity Parkway Projects assumption for future levee remediation by the USACE/City of Dallas (as part of the Dallas Floodway Project) of a two-foot levee raise with 4:1 riverside slopes appeared to be a reasonable assumption, based on the best available information (see FEIS Section 2.7.1.1).
2-32
FIGURE 2-13. LAYOUT MAP OF TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 4B
FIGURE 2-14. COMPUTER RENDERING OF ALTERNATIVE 4B (NORTHBOUND LANES)
2-33
FIGURE 2-15. ALTERNATIVE 4B TYPICAL SECTION
Notes: 1. There would typically be three lanes of travel in each direction (six lanes total) with the northbound lanes adjacent to the east levee and the southbound lanes adjacent to the west levee. Auxiliary lanes may be added in some segments, where required to properly accommodate merging areas between ramps. The west levee section would be similar to the east levee section. 2. 3. Flood elevations, levee heights, and slopes would vary. Those used in the section would be typical. Modifications and improvements to existing levees would be performed by others.
The proposed tollway mainlanes would each be 12 feet in width. There would typically be three lanes in each direction of travel (six lanes total). The proposed ROW would vary depending on the need for ramps, the locations of ancillary buildings, and other geometric considerations. In the Dallas Floodway segment, the width would typically be 246 feet for each direction of travel (492 feet total), measured from the crest of each levee to the toe of the tollway embankment (note that the width includes some levee slopes, which may ultimately be the responsibility of the City of Dallas or USACE, rather than NTTA). In the downtown segment, the width would expand to approximately 300 feet per side, 600 feet total. In long segments on structure, the ROW width would typically be 180 feet for a dual-direction tollway and 100 feet (per direction) for a singledirection tollway (see the typical road cross sections on FEIS Plates 2-5 A and 2-5 B, and typical
2-34
floodway section in FEIS Plate 2-5 C).
A standard concrete traffic barrier would separate Paved shoulders would be
northbound and southbound traffic in areas of opposing traffic.
provided adjacent to the inside and outside lanes. In split segments, the center median area would be protected by a standard concrete traffic barrier. Additionally, in split segments, a 20foot drainage swale would be located on the levee side of the tollway.
Regarding roadway drainage, the northbound and southbound lanes of Alternative 4B would typically have flush shoulders, adjacent to the Dallas Floodway levees, with sheet flow drainage onto grassed swales (see the typical sections on FEIS Plates 2-5 A, 2-5 B, and 2-5 C). Stormwater in these swales would be collected in inlets as needed and piped under the roadway out to discharge points at/near the riverside toe of the road embankments. In super-elevated sections, the lanes would cross-fall towards the riverside edge rather than towards the levee. These segments are expected to be partly drained by sheet flow over the shoulders and partly drained by inlet and pipe systems. In the normal (un-depressed) segments on embankments, the stormwater would sheet flow over the shoulders to the grassed embankment slopes. It is
anticipated that a concrete flume would be built along the riverside toe of the embankment slopes to collect the stormwater to discharge points. In depressed segments under existing bridges, the flood separation wall (described above) would act as a curb and would contain the stormwater. In these segments, drainage inlets and pipes would be added as needed to control spread of stormwater onto the shoulders. Pump stations are proposed at the sag points to collect and discharge stormwater from these depressed segments. All of the drainage discharge points for the northbound and southbound lanes would be coordinated with existing channels in the Dallas Floodway overbank.
As discussed in the LSS, Alternative 4B would be approximately 8.84 miles in length, would require approximately 490 acres of ROW, and would cost approximately $1.45 billion (2011 dollars) to construct. Major interchanges associated with Alternative 4B include:
Full
diamond
interchanges
at
Hampton/Inwood
Road,
Sylvan/Wycliff
Avenue,
Houston/Jefferson Streets, Corinth Street, MLK, and Lamar Street/SH-310; Half diamond interchanges at Commonwealth Drive, Continental Avenue, and Commerce Street.
2-35
2.4
2.4.1
SUMMARY OF ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS

Comparison of Alternatives
A summary of the total length, ROW requirement, and cost estimates (2011 dollars) for each of the Build Alternatives is provided in Table 2-5, based on the description of the alternatives in the LSS. Estimates are based on full build-out of each alternative. The proposed tollway costs include ROW acquisition, utility relocations, construction (e.g., roadway, drainage, toll gantries, maintenance facilities, 20 percent contingencies, environmental mitigation), and agency-related costs.
1,2
TABLE 2-5. TOTAL LENGTH, ROW, AND ESTIMATED COSTS

Trinity Parkway Alternative Length (Miles) Estimated 3 ROW (Acres)
Estimated ROW and Utility Cost (Million $) --601 M 520 M 142 M 103 M Estimated Construction Cost 4,5 (Billion $) --1.393 B 1.066 B 1.007 B 1.067 B
Estimated Agency Cost 6 (Million $)
Estimated Total Cost 7 (Billion $)
1 (No-Build) --------2A 8.83 264 355 M 2.360 B 2B 8.83 350 272 M 1.868 B 3C 8.67 379 257 M 1.416 B 4B 8.84 490 272 M 1.452 B Notes: 1. Costs shown in 2011 dollars for all Build Alternatives. 2. All project costs rounded to millions (M) or billions (B). Project costs are expected to increase in future years due to inflation. 3. See discussion in FEIS Section 2.4.2 regarding ROW considerations. 4. Includes 20 percent contingencies 5. Includes costs associated with environmental mitigation. 6. Agency Cost includes the costs associated with design, planning, and administration of construction activities such as program management, final design, surveying, ROW acquisition consultant, and construction support services (see LSS Appendix D). 7. Includes approximately $10 million for ITS costs and contingencies for each Build Alternative
In addition to cost estimates presented in Table 2-5, exploratory level cost estimates for annual O&M expenditures were included in the SDEIS for the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives. O&M costs were estimated over a feasibility study 52-year period based on standard NTTA O&M practices. The 52-year time frame is tied to the statutory limit of concession projects in Texas State law of 55 years, including project development; for cost estimating purposes, a three-year development/construction period was assumed, thus leaving 52 years for the O&M phase. The estimated O&M cost for Alternative 2A is $78 million (2008 dollars), for Alternative 2B is $233 million (2008 dollars), for Alternative 3C is $233 million (2008 dollars), and for Alternative 4B is $227 million (2008 dollars) (see SDEIS Section 6.5).
2-36
2.4.2
ROW Considerations
As indicated in Table 2-5, the estimated ROW requirements for the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives range from 264 acres for Alternative 2A to 490 acres for Alternative 4B. The majority of new ROW required for Alternatives 2A and 2B would be acquired from commercial/lightindustrial properties and residential properties. Similarly, segments of Alternatives 3C and 4B outside of the Dallas Floodway would be on acquired ROW. However, segments of Alternatives 3C and 4B within the Dallas Floodway would be on land owned and maintained by the City of Dallas. In these segments, the roadway is expected to be covered by an operating agreement with the city rather than fee-simple acquisition. In concept, the agreement would provide NTTA suitable access rights to construct and maintain the toll road, while at the same time maintaining the primacy of the citys flood control function (see also FEIS Section 2.8.3). In accordance with 23 CFR 710.201(e), the agreement regarding access rights (in whatever form it takes) would establish a real property interest for the roadway project adequate for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the resulting facility and for the protection of both the facility and the traveling public. Depending on the alternative selected by the FHWA in the anticipated ROD, the City of Dallas may allow use of Dallas Floodway land necessary for Trinity Parkway at no cost. However, for planning purposes, the ROW costs developed for the Build Alternatives include the estimated value, based on Dallas Central Appraisal District property values, of any Dallas Floodway land needed for the roadway.
2.5
ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS
The following sections provide a summary of other design considerations that apply to some or all of the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives as discussed in SDEIS Chapter 2. These
considerations generally apply to the project objective of providing compatibility with local development plans stated in FEIS Section 1.5.
2.5.1
Access to IH-35E (South R.L. Thornton Freeway)
A design option involving access to IH-35E (South R.L. Thornton Freeway) was considered for each of the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives and discussed in SDEIS Section 2.3.12. As part of their 1997 resolution of endorsement for the Trinity Parkway Corridor MTIS, the Dallas City Council requested that access to IH-35E be considered during the DEIS (Dallas City Council Resolution No. 972918, dated September 10, 1997) (City of Dallas, 1997a). This request was also made during the scoping phase for the DEIS, notably by representatives of the Oak Cliff (West Dallas) community and towns/cities in the south-west portion of Dallas County, such as
2-37
Duncanville and Cedar Hill. This issue had been partially addressed during the MTIS, in which design options were developed to fully connect IH-30 and IH-35E via the Trinity Parkway. The consensus at the time was that direct connections should be provided in the Mixmaster area and via the Trinity Parkway. Full multi-directional connections could not practically be provided at both proposed signature structures at IH-30 and IH-35E because of geometric and cost considerations as well as potential adverse visual, socioeconomic, and environmental impacts.
The IH-35E interchange poses design and operational challenges for all of the Build Alternatives. As part of the IH-35E access studies for the DEIS, it was determined that direct connecting ramps were not feasible for Alternatives 2A and 2B because of geometric constraints. For Alternatives 3C and 4B, eastbound Trinity Parkway to southbound IH-35E and northbound IH-35E to westbound Trinity Parkway connections were evaluated and several different ramp options were considered for these connections. Due to geometric constraints and concerns about visual
impacts in the Dallas Floodway area, the ramp layouts at IH-35E were of lower capacity than directional flyovers, which might otherwise be expected for freeway-to-freeway movements. In summary, a direct connection was feasible for the northbound-to-westbound movement, which was comprised of a loop ramp or U-turn located at the north end of the IH-35E Bridge across the Dallas Floodway. This ramp crossed the East Dallas Floodway levee at grade in the area of Houston Street and would have required gates and an elevated bridge section to assure access for City of Dallas operations staff and vehicles. The eastbound-to-southbound movement was provided at the Houston/Jefferson Street Bridges (signalized interchanges were necessary, depending on the option), with a southbound ramp connecting to the IH-35E frontage road at Colorado Boulevard (see SDEIS Section 2.3.12 for details on the various options explored).
2.5.2
Other Interchange Access Locations
In addition to the proposed interchange connection at IH-35E discussed in FEIS Section 2.5.1, each of the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives includes proposed interchange connections with other major freeways and arterials in the project area. Interchanges were provided at strategic locations along the mainlanes of each Build Alternative. Criteria for location selection of
interchanges includes characteristics such as functional classification of the intersecting roadway; traffic volumes along the intersecting roadway; and linkage with communities, recreational areas, employment areas, and potential economic development areas. Table 2-6 provides a
comparison of interchange access points proposed for each of the alternatives considered, as set out in SDEIS Section 2.3.12.
2-38
TABLE 2-6. INTERCHANGE ACCESS COMPARISON Trinity Parkway Alternatives Interchange Location
1 (NoBuild)
2A
Direct Connection via Ramps
2B
Direct Connection via Ramps
3C
4B
At IH-35E/SH-183 At Commonwealth At Hampton/Inwood
-------
At Wycliff/Sylvan At Continental At Woodall Rodgers

At Commerce At Houston/Jefferson
---------
-----
At IH-35E
At Corinth
---
At MLK
---
At IH-45 At Lamar At SH-310
-------
At US-175
---
Direct Connection Direct Connection via Ramps via Ramps Half Diamond Half Diamond None None Interchange Interchange Full Full Full Full Diamond Diamond Diamond Diamond Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Full Full Full Full Diamond Diamond Diamond Diamond Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Half Diamond None None None Interchange Direct Connections Direct Connections Direct Direct SB-EB, WB-NB, SB-EB, WB-NB, Connections Connections NB-EB, and WB-SB NB-EB, and WB-SB SB-EB and WB-EB SB-EB and WB-EB None None None None Half Diamond Half Diamond Full Diamond Full Diamond Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Connection via Connection via None None Ramps NB-WB and Ramps NB-WB and EB-SB EB-SB Full Full Half Diamond Full Diamond Diamond Diamond Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Full Full Full Full Diamond Diamond Diamond Diamond Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Direct Direct Direct Direct Connection Connection Connection Connection via Ramps via Ramps via Ramps via Ramps Half Diamond Half Diamond None None Interchange Interchange Half Half Half Half Diamond Diamond Diamond Diamond Interchange Interchange Interchange Interchange Direct Direct Direct Direct Mainlane Mainlane Mainlane Mainlane Connection Connection Connection Connection
Source: SDEIS Table 2-6. Notes: NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; WB = Westbound; EB = Eastbound.
2-39
2.5.3
Design Speed and Vehicular Park Access
The design concept adopted in the Trinity Parkway Corridor MTIS (based on a tax-supported road) was a low-speed parkway, with a design speed of 50 mph and a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The toll-supported version of the road considered in the DEIS, SDEIS, LSS, and this FEIS is proposed to have a design speed of 60 mph and a posted speed limit of 55 mph (see SDEIS Section 2.4.2). The speeds are proposed to be raised to generate more attractive timesaving on the tollway versus the other available thoroughfares and freeways in the corridor. Timesaving is a value-added benefit of a toll facility and is a major consideration in a drivers decision to pay for a trip on a toll road. The change in speed is considered a prerequisite to consideration of this facility as a toll road.
An impact of the increase in speed on the tollway would be the removal of left exits, which were previously discussed in the MTIS as possible access routes to the Trinity Park (the MTIS discussed these exits only in relation to alternative TL-7a, which was the original version of the Split Parkway Riverside). Permanent left exits are not appropriate on a high-speed facility, and therefore they have been replaced with access points from adjacent arterial streets at several cross-street bridges in the Dallas Floodway. Typical park access point locations as presented in the Trinity River Corridor MIP are shown on FEIS Plate 2-6.
As described in FEIS Section 1.6.1.2 (see also SDEIS Section 2.4.1), the City of Dallas has proposed an extensive development of recreational facilities and lakes (i.e., Trinity Park) in the Dallas Floodway. Future park access roads originally planned by the City of Dallas could be affected by implementation of either Alternatives 3C or 4B in the Dallas Floodway. In order to ensure that access is provided to Trinity Park if Alternative 3C or 4B is constructed, structured ramps from the Trinity Parkway alignment into the floodplain at five access locations have been proposed. These five access locations include Hampton Road, Sylvan Avenue, the proposed Jefferson Memorial Bridge, Corinth Street/Riverfront Boulevard, and Cedar Crest/MLK, Jr. Boulevard; these access locations are shown in FEIS Plates 2-4 and 2-5. Ramps of this kind would mitigate any cost impact to the City of Dallas for park access.
In an additional effort to facilitate park enjoyment, a pedestrian platform overlooking the lakes and park at Reunion Boulevard is planned as part of the Trinity River Corridor. This overlook platform can be seen in the schematic designs for all of the Build Alternatives (see FEIS Plates 2-2 B, 2-3 B, 2-4 B, and 2-5 B). The locations of the aforementioned five park access locations and
pedestrian platform generally correspond to the recommendations for park access locations as presented in the Trinity River Corridor MIP (see FEIS Plate 2-6) (City of Dallas, 1997a).
2-40
2.5.4
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities and Park Access
The Trinity River Corridor contains a number of proposed bicycle/pedestrian trails, most of which are located off-road on locations such as the Dallas Floodway levees, drainage sumps, and existing rail ROW. The proposed tollroad would make allowance for suitable crossings for these bicycle facilities (listed in SDEIS Section 3.3.2.3) under or over the roadway at appropriate crossing points. In the event that a bicycle facility is in place prior to the construction of the tollroad, the bicycle facility would be suitably reconstructed in the area of the tollroad to maintain its continuity and function.
Future bicycle/pedestrian access points to the planned Trinity Park from adjacent neighborhoods that were originally planned by the City of Dallas as part of the BVP could be affected by implementation of either Alternative 3C or 4B in the Dallas Floodway. Accordingly,
bicycle/pedestrian access would be provided by Alternatives 3C and 4B using underpasses (using existing drainage channels) and overpasses of the Trinity Parkway mainlanes.
2.5.5
Federal Approval for Access to Interstate System
Approval from the FHWA is required for any new access points to the Interstate system (23 U.S.C. Section 111) as Interstate Highways are intended to provide uninterrupted flow and access is limited to approved ramp locations. All of the Build Alternatives would require the NTTA to submit appropriate documentation for the FHWA to request access points for interchange locations. However, such action would not be taken until after the FHWA has recommended an alternative for development to a higher level of detail. Prior to selecting a Build Alternative in its ROD for the Trinity Parkway, the FHWA would either need to approve Interstate access or would need to ascertain that there is reasonable assurance that such approval may be obtained.
2.5.6
Access Roads
In most areas, the Trinity Parkway would be constructed as mainlanes only without access roads. Access to the mainlanes would be controlled, meaning that vehicles may enter and exit the roadway only at designated on- and off-ramps. However, in certain areas the location of the roadway ROW may sever access to particular parcels of land, leaving no other means of property access. In these instances, access roads may be constructed to restore property access, or, otherwise, the affected property may be acquired or the affected property owner compensated. As discussed in SDEIS Section 2.4.4, the locations of access roads for the Build Alternatives are
2-41
included on the schematic plans at the end of this chapter (see FEIS Plates 2-2 [A-B] through 25 [A-B]). Access (frontage) roads would be used extensively in Alternative 2B to restore access from Irving/Riverfront Boulevard. Use of access roads on the other alternatives would be limited.
2.6
TOLL ROAD IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
The following sections describe issues associated with the proposal to fund the proposed Trinity Parkway as a toll road, as discussed in SDEIS Section 2.5. It should be noted that the financial plan for the facility has not been developed in final detail at this time. The exact contribution of revenue bonds to the total cost of the project would be developed at a future date after an anticipated ROD is issued by the FHWA. The bond contribution would also be based on an Investment Grade Traffic Study, as well as the advice of bond counsel and other professionals retained by the NTTA in regards to raising funds by a public offering.
2.6.1
Toll Road Justification
The proposed action is being planned for implementation as a limited-access toll facility with NTTA as the local sponsor. The toll road designation for the Trinity Parkway is made for funding purposes. Developing a highway as a toll road can typically save both time and money. The use of toll-financed revenue bonds, which are sold to private investors at competitive interest rates, would allow a project to be funded much more quickly than one that has to compete for limited tax dollars. Substantial cost savings can also be achieved by avoiding the inflationary effect resulting from years of deferred completion.
In light of TxDOT funding constraints, implementing the proposed action as a toll road would provide a needed funding mechanism and would accelerate the project schedule. This would allow the project to satisfy the need and purpose (see FEIS Chapter 1) sooner than if implemented as a TxDOT project. Further, a portion of the revenues from tolls would be used to provide full maintenance and operation of the roadway, freeing TxDOT from this on-going funding obligation.
Experience in the DFW region demonstrates the advantages of a toll road financing approach versus conventional funding. An example is the conversion of SH-190 in suburban north Dallas to the President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT). By 1995, TxDOT had estimated that 31 years and a total of $317 million had been invested in the development of SH-190. TxDOT estimated it would still need an additional $397 million to complete the project and that it would likely be the year 2015 before SH-190 could be completed using conventional funding methods. By turning
2-42
the project over to the TTA (predecessor to NTTA), TxDOT estimated that the full highway would be built by 2003 at a cost savings to the state of $292 million. This decision was taken in the context of funding shortfalls, which are still affecting the ability of TxDOT to proceed with needed projects and to operate and maintain existing facilities. For instance, at the time of the SH-190 decision, the TxDOT Dallas District Office was facing a $9.4 billion revenue deficiency for transportation projects included in their Mobility 2010 program (NCTCOG, 1990).
The RTC, City of Dallas, Dallas County, and Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition (DRMC) have endorsed the development of the Trinity Parkway as a toll road. This decision is intended to fulfill the projects need and purpose within the shortest possible time, and to provide an income stream to help fund initial construction and long-term O&M costs. The imposition of tolls may result in less daily traffic on the Trinity Parkway compared to a toll-free (tax-supported) highway. As a result, other corridor roadways may experience slightly higher daily traffic volumes than if the project were to be non-tolled. However, toll roads in urban areas are expected to perform well in peak traffic periods, when they can provide a faster and more cost-effective route for congested commuter traffic. This would tend to make the peak period traffic volumes on the Trinity Parkway more comparable to a non-toll alternative. Since the peak periods are the most critical times for performance of the regional transportation system and since congestion in these periods is a major factor in air quality issues, the overall performance of the toll road option is judged to be comparable to a non-toll option, and the toll option therefore meets the stated need and purpose of the project. To evaluate the effects of proposed expansion of the regional priced facility system in the Dallas-Fort Worth region based on the improvements included in Mobility 2035 2013 Update, which includes the Trinity Parkway, NCTCOG performed a regional tolling analysis reported in a technical memorandum that can be viewed at
www.nctcog.org/mobility2035. A summary of the regional tolling analysis is presented in FEIS Section 4.27.
2.6.2
Electronic Toll Collection
2.6.2.1 Toll Collection Facilities
Another aspect of the toll road designation is the requirement to incorporate toll collection facilities into the ROW. The purpose of these facilities is to provide a means of collecting tolls to financially support the construction, operation, and maintenance of the toll road. methods of toll collection have been considered for the Trinity Parkway. Various
The NTTA Board
directed (August 2007) that future facilities, including the proposed Trinity Parkway, implement ETC to promote operational safety and efficiency. This means that cash would not be accepted
2-43
while driving on the Trinity Parkway. ETC gantries are designed to be safe and convenient for the motorist and consist of little more than a structural frame over the roadway lanes.
The ETC system relies primarily on automatic vehicle identification (AVI) technology. In Texas, most of the AVI applications to date are based on installation of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags inside vehicles, such as the TollTag used by NTTA, TxTag used by TxDOT, and EZ TAG used by the Harris County Toll Road Authority (HCTRA). All of the Texas tags are interoperable, meaning a Texas driver need only maintain one tag to use all of the Texas agency toll roads. With an ETC system, motorists pass through electronic readers, without stopping, and are automatically assessed a toll charge. Recent advances have allowed AVI systems to
accommodate non-tagged vehicles, through use of Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR). For ALPR applications, license plates are photographed and scanned by computers. This video billing program, also known as ZipCash with the NTTA, allows motorists to travel the tolled lanes without needing a transponder and without needing to stop and pay (NTTA, 2013c). When the toll fee associated with the license plate has reached a designated level, NTTA would send a ZipCash invoice to the address associated with that license plate. The ZipCash method of payment is discussed in more detail in FEIS Section 2.6.2.2.
In December 2010, the NTTA completed its conversion to all ETC technology. This conversion has been followed by continued construction work necessary for existing toll roads to operate ETC technology (e.g., toll booth removal and installation of new pavement markings and signage). NTTA has installed this ETC system on its existing roadways, including the DNT, Sam Rayburn Tollway (SRT), President George Bush Turnpike (PGBT), Addison Airport Toll Tunnel, and Mountain Creek Lake Bridge. TxDOT and HCTRA have used RFID tags supplemented with ALPR to create ETC tollroads where there are no change booths. Westpark Tollway in Houston and SH-130 in Austin are also examples of ETC tollroads (NTTA, 2013a).
Figures 2-16 (plan view) and 2-17 (side view) present drawings of an ETC multiple-lane main toll gantry. This is typically unattended. The drawings and typical layouts are shown for conceptual purposes only. The actual design of the toll collection facilities may differ from that depicted and would be subject to engineering and other considerations at the actual site.
2-44
FIGURE 2-16. TYPICAL PLAN VIEW - ETC MULTIPLE-LANE TOLL GANTRY
Source: NTTA, 2012. Drawings are conceptual only and subject to change during final design.
FIGURE 2-17. TYPICAL SIDE VIEW ETC MULTIPLE-LANE TOLL GANTRY
2-45
Figure 2-18 is a plan-view drawing of an ETC ramp toll gantry. This is also typically unattended.
FIGURE 2-18. TYPICAL PLAN VIEW - ETC RAMP TOLL GANTRY
The NTTA has identified tentative locations of proposed toll gantries for the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives. These locations, shown on FEIS Plates 2-2 (A-B) through 2-5 (A-B) at the end of this chapter, are preliminary and subject to change during final design. It is notable that the most southern mainlane toll gantry for all of the Build Alternatives occurs northwest of IH-45. This allows non-tolled movements between IH-45 and the US-175/SH-310 intersection at the south project terminus. Vehicles on the mainlanes would be assessed a toll at this gantry located northwest of IH-45.
In addition, it should be noted that NTTA strives to incorporate the principles of context-sensitive solutions (CSS) in their toll facilities (FEIS Chapter 5 provides additional details concerning CSS). Using this approach, architectural treatments for toll facilities are varied (within budgetary constraints) to provide designs appropriate to the physical setting and neighboring features. NTTA also published in 2009 the Trinity Parkway Design Criteria Manual (DCM), showing enhanced architectural, signage, and landscaping standards to be incorporated, when applicable, to the proposed project. See FEIS Plates 4-3 (A-C) for examples of design and landscaping enhancements proposed for the Trinity Parkway (note that such enhancements are subject to change in final design Plans, Specifications and Estimates [PS&E]).
2-46
2.6.2.2 Methods of Toll Collection and Payment
NTTA would offer two methods to obtain an active toll tag account (NTTA TollTag credit user and cash user accounts) and a method that would allow motorists without an active toll account to accrue electronic toll charges in the form of mailed monthly statements (NTTAs ZipCash). For those who maintain an active toll account, the Dallas area TollTag, TxTag stickers, and the Houston area EZ TAG would be accepted on the proposed Trinity Parkway facility. As further described below, cash payment options would be available for each payment method; however, users who maintain prepaid accounts would benefit from reduced toll rates. Toll rates would be approximately 50 percent higher for drivers who do not have an electronic toll transponder to offset administrative costs related to processing the license plate information associated with ZipCash and payment collection.
With a TollTag prepaid credit user account, the driver would pay an installment fee through a credit or debit card. The account would then be established with a credit, which would be reduced each time the transponder passes through an operating toll gantry. When the drivers account reaches a minimum required balance, the credit users credit or debit card would again be charged a standard fee to automatically increase the available balance. Should the credit user lose or fail to surrender the TollTag when the account is closed, the credit or debit card would be charged $25 to cover the cost of the transponder. Note that although some NTTA customers still utilize TollTag transponders, NTTA began transitioning in 2008 to the use of TollTag stickers. For those who choose to maintain a prepaid cash user account, a minimum payment would be required to establish the account. The prepaid cash user account would require the driver to maintain sufficient funds in the account to cover incurred toll charges. Toll rates would be the same as credit user account toll rates.
The TollTag may only be displayed in the vehicle specifically assigned to that TollTag. Regardless of the user type, TollTag accounts may be monitored free of charge via the internet. Should the user request a monthly invoice, a $1.50 charge would be incurred each month. TollTag account payments may be made by cash, check, money order, or credit card. TollTag cash user accounts may be established and payments may be submitted in person at the NTTA Customer Service Center (5900 West Plano Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, TX 75093) or at various retail locations partnered with NTTA such as ACE Cash Express (TollTag distribution locations available at www.NTTA.org). In addition, the NTTA would also offer the convenience of making a payment by phone with a credit card (NTTA, 2013d).
2-47
ZipCash is a drive through now, pay later initiative provided by the NTTA for those without a TollTag account, and is similar to TxDOTs Pay By Mail process. Customers without a toll transponder account who travel through the gantry would have a photograph taken of their license plate. When the toll fee associated with the license plate has reached a designated level, NTTA would send a ZipCash invoice to the address associated with that license plate. Effective September 1, 2011 (under Senate Bill 469), the ZipCash billing cycle is as follows (NTTA, 2011b):
1. ZipCash Invoice: The customer would have 30 days to pay the invoice. As previously mentioned, the toll rate reflected on the ZipCash invoice would be the normal cash rate, which is approximately 50 percent more than the rate for TollTag users, reflecting the higher cost of processing (Note: Pay by Mail toll rates are one-third more than TxTag rates on Central Texas toll roads operated and maintained by TxDOT, and a $1.15 fee is also applied to each monthly bill for non-tag customers). 2. First Notice of Nonpayment: Failure to pay the ZipCash invoice results in the
issuance of a First Notice of Nonpayment by NTTA. The customer would have a 30 days to pay all tolls plus a $10 administrative fee per invoice (Note: a $5.00
administrative fee is added to each transaction on a TxDOT Pay By Mail account receiving a Notice of Toll Violation for unpaid tolls). 3. Second Notice of Nonpayment: Failure to pay the First Notice of Nonpayment results in the issuance of a Second Notice of Nonpayment. The customer would have 30 days to pay all tolls, the previous $10 administrative fee per invoice, and an additional administrative fee of $25 (Note: non-payment within 30 days of a Notice of Toll
Violation on a TxDOT Pay By Mail account results in removal of the $5.00 administrative fee and the transaction is sent to a collection agency). 4. Collections Service/Third Notice of Nonpayment Continued failure to pay results in the debts escalation to a Collections Service where the customer would be responsible for paying all tolls and administrative fees accrued to this point, plus all collection service fees. 5. Citation/Court In addition to all previous tolls, fees, and collection service fees, a customer would be responsible for all court costs and fines as provided by law.
Bilingual (English and Spanish) information on payment methods is available on the NTTA (www.ntta.org) and TxDOT (www.TxTag.org) websites and over the phone (Customer Service Centers).
2-48
Comparisons of the above described payment methods and toll pricing are presented in FEIS Section 4.3.2.2.
2.6.3
Traffic Modeling - Toll Based
This section presents toll based traffic modeling provided by the NCTCOG in 2007, which allows a comparison of anticipated traffic volume for the four Build Alternatives under consideration. The estimated 2030 average daily weekday volumes for the Build Alternatives are modeled in accordance with Mobility 2030, which was the current MTP at the time of the original toll based traffic modeling. The results of the NCTCOG traffic modeling are shown in Figure 2-19
(Alternatives 2A/2B), Figure 2-20 (Alternative 3C), and Figure 2-21 (Alternative 4B). Each of these figures contains small rectangles across each Build Alternatives mainlanes and ramps indicating the tentative locations of toll gantries as of the time that traffic modeling was performed.
2-49
FIGURE 2-19. ESTIMATED 2030 AVERAGE WEEKDAY VOLUMES - ALTERNATIVES 2A/2B
FIGURE 2-20. ESTIMATED 2030 AVERAGE WEEKDAY VOLUMES ALTERNATIVE 3C
2-50
FIGURE 2-21. ESTIMATED 2030 AVERAGE WEEKDAY VOLUMES - ALTERNATIVE 4B
Figures 2-19 through 2-21 (2030 traffic volumes for all Build Alternatives) show some differences in traffic volumes between the roadway alternatives, but these differences do not appear substantial enough to draw trends. There appear to be some localized effects due to access points and tolls, but overall, the traffic numbers are fairly consistent between alternatives.
2.6.4
Tolling Requirements
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. Section 129(a)(3) and the MAP-21, federal-aid highway funds can be used for the construction of, or improvements to, new highways, new lanes added to existing highways (so long as the number of existing toll-free lanes is not reduced), reconstruction of highways (non-Interstate only), reconstruction or replacement of bridges or tunnels, and capital improvements to existing toll facilities (FHWA, 2013b). There are also tolling requirements for federal tolling programs, including restrictions on the use of toll revenues.
The tolling requirements entail that all toll revenues are first used for any of the following: debt service; reasonable return on private investment; O&M, including reconstructing, resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating work; and payments between public and private partners involved in a public-private partnership. If the public authority of the toll facility confirms that the facility is
2-51
being adequately maintained, then toll revenues could be used for other purposes eligible under Title 23. Decisions regarding the amount of tolls charged are made by the toll authority under state law. Toll facilities are required to undergo annual audits to verify adequate maintenance and compliance with the limitations on the use of toll revenues. The results of these audits must be transmitted to the FHWA (FHWA, 2013b).
2.7
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION IN THE DALLAS FLOODWAY
This section examines regulatory and practical requirements affecting any Build Alternatives that would be located within the Dallas Floodway. Such considerations are part of the overall
evaluation of potential alternatives to both meet the need and purpose of the Trinity Parkway without incurring unnecessary expense or adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts..
2.7.1
Trinity Parkway Construction in the Dallas Floodway
In addition to the authority regarding use or impairment of federal projects under Section 408, the USACE has the authority, under 33 U.S.C. Section 709, to prescribe regulations addressing the use of storage allocated for flood control projects. The USACE Fort Worth District, in accordance with the regulations in 33 CFR Part 208, retains the right to review and approve all proposed improvements and/or modifications that are passed over, under, or through the walls, levees, improved channels, interior drainage areas, or floodways of an existing federal flood protection project constructed by the USACE, and for which local project sponsors and/or local governmental agencies have the responsibilities for O&M (33 CFR Section 208.10). The Dallas Floodway is a federal flood protection project, and is therefore subject to these provisions. USACE Pamphlet No. 1150-2-1, Criteria for Construction within the Limits of Existing Federal Flood Protection Projects (USACE, 2003b), is the most current document providing guidance to individuals, developers, architect-engineering firms, local project sponsors, and local
governmental agencies for the construction of new facilities or the modification of existing facilities within the limits of such projects. This pamphlet is included in full in FEIS Appendix E. Additional USACE regulatory responsibilities under Section 408 for proposed modifications to federal flood control projects are discussed in FEIS Section 1.6.5.
Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives 3C and 4B would be located adjacent to existing Dallas Floodway levees, and would require special treatment of embankments to maintain the integrity of the levee systems. All of the construction immediately adjacent to the levee could have an effect on the stability and function of the levees, both during construction and long term. For this reason, Alternatives 3C and 4B have been designed to address the USACE guidance noted
2-52
above (see Appendix E) as well as project-specific guidance received from the USACE Fort Worth District throughout the development of the proposed project. The subsections that follow discuss the effect of the Trinity Parkway on the proposed levee remediation plan, earthworks balance, and compatibility with floodway system operations and maintenance.
2.7.1.1 Levee Remediation Plan and the Trinity Parkway
As previously discussed in FEIS Section 1.6.4, the USACE Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 identified deficiencies to the east (adjacent to Alternative 3C and 4B) and west (adjacent to Alternative 4B) Dallas Floodway levees (USACE, 2009b). In response to the USACE Report, the City of Dallas started an extensive geotechnical and engineering analysis of the levee systems in 2009. The study team revisited all of the USACE-reported deficiency sites, and developed Many of the items in the original deficiency list were
response plans for immediate needs.
characterized as routine O&M issues, and the City of Dallas Flood Control District mobilized to repair and restore these in consultation with the USACE. The District prepared a MDCP plan covering these items, and the USACE approved the MDCP plan on June 30, 2009. The O&M items and MDCP plan are discussed in the 2012 Trinity Parkway LSS (see LSS Section 3.2 for additional details). Other items in the deficiency list, such as improving the levee crest height and addressing seepage, were more complicated problems and have required extensive geotechnical testing and engineering analysis to develop solutions. These issues are discussed further below.
Seepage Control The City of Dallas began work on a near-term LRP to address under-seepage problems and restore the 100-year level of protection for the levee system to achieve FEMA 100-year accreditation. In summary, these near-term improvements included construction of approximately 18,300 linear feet of riverside cutoff walls along selected portions of the east and west levees of the Dallas Floodway and concrete riprap scour protection at the Hampton Pump Station outfall channels (City of Dallas, 2012k). Construction began in June 2010. The cutoff walls are
composed of native soils mixed with Bentonite clay and constructed using slurry trench methods. Bentonite is a highly impermeable clay, and is intended to provide a barrier to migration of water under the levee. The wall is intended to intercept and cut off any sand seams or permeable strata under the levee, thereby preventing seepage, which might otherwise threaten levee performance during floods. These newly constructed city cut-off walls are on the riverside of the levee(s) (beginning between Sylvan Avenue/Hampton Road and heading north), located approximately 50 to 100 feet from the levee toe. Should a Trinity Parkway Dallas Floodway Alternative (Alternative 3C or 4B) be selected in the anticipated ROD, the cut-off walls would not be an impediment to construction of the roadway embankments or any potential levee expansion
2-53
(see discussion of USACE Dallas Floodway Project below). Therefore, Alternatives 3C and 4B would be compatible with the LRP cut-off walls.
Additionally, should a Dallas Floodway Alternative be selected, in-depth analyses would be required during final design to ensure that any negative impacts are addressed appropriately. For instance, areas of sandy material in the Dallas Floodway floor may be exposed by the borrow operation for the Trinity Parkway embankments (see FEIS Section 2.7.1.2). Where such
conditions exist, appropriate methods of cutting off under-seepage would be required to protect the integrity of the levee. Depending on the nature of the encountered conditions, appropriate methods may include cutoff walls (as discussed above) and impervious membranes or liners in the potential borrow areas. As a conservative estimate, cost estimates (2011 dollars) developed for Alternatives 3C and 4B include costs to construct cut-off walls along the entire length of the alignment within the floodway.
The citys plan to control seepage through the Dallas Floodway levees also includes a proposal to address seepage around foundations, which penetrate the levees. Filter collars were approved by the USACE and constructed at the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge levee crossing, and are planned to be implemented as part of the Sylvan Avenue Bridge Project (currently under construction). For these projects, bridge columns located immediately landside of the levees include sand and concrete filter collars as redundant treatments to mitigate potential under-seepage along the interface between the concrete drilled shaft and adjacent clay soils. These levee crossings have also been reinforced with landside berms and French drains at the landside toe. The proposed Trinity Parkway Dallas Floodway alternatives may affect filter collars at existing bridges because the proposed tollroad embankments would raise the ground elevations around individual piers. This can be resolved through appropriate design measures; the city-proposed collars could be left in place, they could be demolished and rebuilt closer to the new ground surface, or they could be extended with additional collar material up to the new ground surface. Such measures would be made at the time of final design development, in the event that a Trinity Parkway Dallas Floodway Build Alternative is selected in the anticipated ROD, and would be subject to design review, permitting, and construction oversight by the USACE. Therefore, the proposed Trinity Parkway would be compatible with filter collars.
Due to the number of pier penetrations in close proximity and parallel to the land side toe of the levee(s), Alternatives 3C and 4B would include a diaphragm wall as a seepage control measure at the proposed Continental Avenue and Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge connections. For Alternative 3C, a diaphragm wall would only be required along the east levee; for Alternative 4B, a diaphragm wall would be required along the east and west levees. Diaphragm walls are
2-54
considered a worst-case solution to the pier penetration issue. The walls would be expected to cut off seepage down to bedrock in the affected areas and would be designed to withstand floodwater loads in the unlikely event large parts of the levee were washed away. These walls are more expensive than the filter collar method discussed above and cost on the order of $1 million for each 100 feet length of wall.
Levee Remediation Plan The longer-term portion of the LRP is to address SPF major deficiencies with the ongoing Dallas Floodway Project by the USACE and City of Dallas. As previously described in FEIS Section 1.6.1.2, the WRDA of 2007 authorized the USACE to participate in investigations and analyses regarding remediation of the Dallas Floodway System. Such investigations by the USACE have led to the development of a Flood Risk Management Plan for the Dallas Floodway System. Based on the best available information at the time of preparation of this FEIS, the Flood Risk Management Plan (as part of the Dallas Floodway Project) includes two primary actions. First, the plan includes raising low points at various locations along the east and west levees of the Dallas Floodway System to contain the SPF, which is estimated to produce flow of 277,000 cubic feet per second with an annual probability of occurrence of 0.04 percent (i.e., about a 1/2,500 chance per year event). Second, the plan includes modification to the AT&SF Bridge (i.e.,
removal of bridge sections not integrated into the Santa Fe Trestle Trail design) to prevent the build-up of storm debris in its piers which cause floodwaters to back up into the system. Additionally, cut-off walls could be considered as part of the Dallas Floodway Project for their benefits to the BVP for river relocation features. It should be noted that plans for the Dallas Floodway Project are still under development and subject to change. Trinity Parkway Build
Alternatives 3C and 4B are proposed to be constructed on embankments alongside the Dallas Floodway levees, with the embankments offset sufficiently from the existing levee face to allow for future raising of the levees by the City of Dallas/USACE. The Trinity Parkway schematic designs to date have assumed raising the levee to a height equivalent to SPF flood elevation plus 2 feet. The crown of the improved levee to date has been assumed to be 16-feet wide, and the riverside slopes have been assumed to be 4:1 (horizontal:vertical).
The City of Dallas and USACE work for the LRP and the USACE Dallas Floodway Project EIS include a fresh look at the design of future levee improvements, using the extensive soil borings and geotechnical analysis done in 2009 - 2011. This new evaluation opened the possibility that the future levee height and slopes assumed for the Trinity Parkway Dallas Floodway Alternatives might change, possibly affecting the position of the roadway relative to the existing levees. On September 30, 2011, the Fort Worth District of the USACE issued a letter to the FHWA Texas Division to provide an update on the levee remediation analyses done to date and to facilitate
2-55
completion of this LSS. The letter (see FEIS Appendix A-2, Pages 62-63) made the following statement:
Based on the analysis done to date, no riverside slope stability problems have been identified for the existing Dallas Floodway levees. Given that the current riverside slopes are no flatter than 4:1 (horizontal:vertical), the levee improvement template currently being utilized in the Trinity Parkway alternative evaluation process, which assumes a future 2-foot levee raise with 4:1 riverside slopes, appears to be a reasonable assumption for use in the Limited Scope Supplement document, based on the best available information.
Based on the USACE letter, the proposed Trinity Parkway remains compatible with the anticipated future levee geometry. In the event that one of the Trinity Parkway alternatives in the floodway is selected in the anticipated ROD, additional coordination with the USACE and the City of Dallas would be required to ensure that the roadway design remains compatible with final remediation plans for the levees.
2.7.1.2 Earthworks Balance
Based on available geotechnical information from the USACE and NTTA, it is understood that the existing Dallas Floodway levees are comprised largely of impervious clay materials. As
previously discussed in FEIS Section 2.7.1.1, within the scope of the Dallas Floodway Project by the USACE and City of Dallas, consideration is being given to increasing the height of the Dallas Floodway levees. Inside the Dallas Floodway, Alternatives 3C and 4B are proposed to be
constructed on embankments built using material borrowed from the floodway. As discussed in the SDEIS and LSS, contractor furnished fill could be used for any embankment needs for Alternatives 3C and 4B segments located outside the Dallas Floodway. Coordination with the USACE and the City of Dallas on construction phasing and usage of borrow material from the floodway would continue in the event that a Dallas Floodway Build Alternative is selected in the anticipated ROD. It is anticipated that usage of borrow material would depend on the timing of projects in the floodway and that agreements regarding borrow material would be made at a later date.
Since the completion of the SDEIS and in response to the USACE inquiries, further studies have been conducted to characterize the geotechnical suitability of soil materials from five proposed borrow areas identified for the Dallas Floodway Alternatives. The soil data and analyses are documented in a 2009 Terracon geotechnical engineering report Borrow Soil Suitability and
2-56
Shrinkage Factor.
The purpose of this analysis was to provide a characterization of soil
materials in the borrow sites and to demonstrate an initial earthworks balance between the Trinity Parkway, the anticipated Dallas Floodway levee improvements adjacent to Trinity Parkway, and the proposed borrow excavations. The five proposed borrow areas, which correlate with the proposed location of BVP features (City of Dallas, 2003a) that will be evaluated for environmental acceptability and technical soundness by the USACE prior to implementation (as part of their feasibility report discussed in FEIS Section 1.6.1.2), were identified as:
1. Hampton Swales 2. West Dallas Lake 3. Urban Lake 4. Natural Lake 5. Corinth Swale (Oxbow Lake)
Figure 2-22 shows the basic cross section (only east levee is shown) and soil type needs for the embankments of the Dallas Floodway Alternatives, including the potential adjacent levee improvements planned as part of the City of Dallas/USACE Dallas Floodway Project that would need to be coordinated with construction of either Alternative 3C or 4B. As noted in FEIS
Section 2.7.1.1, future levee height raises and slope (symbolized by A1 and A2 in Figure 2-22) would be based on the levee remediation plans finalized as part of the Dallas Floodway Project. Levee fill sections A1, A2, B, and C (shaded) require low permeability fill to maintain a water-tight levee. The roadway embankment (section D) can incorporate higher permeability fill. Soil in the identified borrow areas was therefore classified into two applicable categories: (i) levee useable (i.e., suitable for levee construction and, although less desirable than some other soil types, could also be used for roadway embankment); and (ii) roadway embankment useable (i.e., only suitable for roadway embankment and could not be used to raise the levees).
FIGURE 2-22. TRINITY EARTHWORK SUMMARY
Notes: CH clay = expanding clay, high plasticity, and common to the area; CL clay = non-expanding clay, low plasticity, less common in the area. Potential levee raises (A1 and A2) are based on future levee remediation plans to be finalized as part of the City of Dallas/USACE Dallas Floodway Project.
2-57
A summary of the earthworks analysis included in LSS Sections 4.1.6.4 and 4.1.7.4 is provided in Table 2-7 for Build Alternatives 3C and 4B, respectively. According to the data for Alternative 3C, the required volume of levee-usable soil was determined to be 1.32 million cubic yards (CY) (Shapes A2, B, and C as shown in Figure 2-22 from Hampton to the DART Bridge). The
roadway embankment-usable soil needs were determined to be 3.06 million CY (Shape D). The levee raise above the existing levee top (Shape A1) within the proposed construction limits for Alternative 3C may be done by the City of Dallas after the Trinity Parkway is built (as part of the Dallas Floodway Project). The analysis of the five borrow sites shows that there is enough levee-usable material to fill the Alternative 3C need shown above, plus a 3.15 million CY surplus. While a shortfall of 1.76 million CY of roadway embankment-usable soil was identified, the surplus levee-usable soil can be utilized in the embankment for Alternative 3C although some soil conditioning (e.g., lime stabilization) may be necessary (Section D in Figure 2-22). TABLE 2-7. COMPARISON OF SOIL NEEDS AND BORROW VOLUMES
Dallas Floodway Alternative
Soil Suitability Type Levee Roadway Embankment Total Levee Roadway Embankment Total
Volume Needs (CY) 1.32 Million 3.06 Million 4.38 Million 2.6 Million 4.1 Million 6.7 Million
Usable Excavation Volumes (CY) 4.47 Million 1.30 Million 5.77 Million 4.5 Million 1.3 Million 5.8 Million
Remainder (CY) + 3.15 Million - 1.76 Million

+1.39 Million (surplus) + 1.9 Million
Alternative 3C
Alternative 4B
- 2.8 Million
-0.9 Million (shortfall)
Notes: 1. Includes 10% shrinkage for roadway (shapes C & D in Figure 2-22) and 25% shrinkage for levee raise (shapes A2 and B)
The required volume of levee-usable soil for Alternative 4B was determined to be 2.6 million CY (Shapes A2, B, and C as shown in Figure 2-22 from Hampton to the DART Bridge). The
roadway embankment-usable soil needs were determined to be 4.1 million CY (Shape D). The levee raise above the existing levee top (Shape A1) within the proposed construction limits for Alternative 4B may be done by the City of Dallas after the Trinity Parkway is built (as part of the USACE Dallas Floodway Improvement Project). The excavation shapes as proposed for
Alternative 4B would be somewhat short (-0.9 million shortfall) of achieving an earthworks balance with the east and west roadway embankments of Alternative 4B. The needed material is expected to be available by reshaping or deepening the proposed borrow sites.
2-58
As indicated above, geotechnical sampling within the Dallas Floodway demonstrates that current design for excavation areas would result in sufficient borrow material that would be suitable for constructing Alternative 3C. Previous sampling has shown that a small portion of material within designated excavation areas would be unsuitable for either levee or road fill, such as construction debris, metal-containing fill, or miscellaneous trash. If areas of unsuitable material are detected from pre-construction geotechnical testing, such areas may be avoided or relocated within the Dallas Floodway, as appropriate. If unsuitable material is encountered during or after excavation, such material may be relocated to an over-excavated hole in the same excavation area, or removed to one of the other excavation areas where it may be used to backfill the excavation of usable material. In all circumstances where unsuitable material is encountered, it would remain within the Dallas Floodway and placed in over-excavated areas to reduce surface area impacts and to avoid impacts to the hydraulic characteristics of flood protection features.
2.7.1.3 Compatibility with Floodway System Operations and Maintenance
Regarding operations and maintenance, flood fighting, and surveillance, NTTA has consulted with the City of Dallas Trinity Watershed Management (formerly Street Services Department), Flood Control Division (Dallas Floodway Manager) in developing an agreed overall concept for the Trinity Parkway operations and maintenance within the Dallas Floodway. In the Dallas Floodway, the Flood Control Division uses various access points from bridge crossings and other local streets to access the levee top gravel roads for O&M, flood fighting, and surveillance. Access to the levee tops is currently somewhat restricted because of the 13 existing bridges, which cross the levee tops, mostly at grade. These bridges break up the levee top roads into segments, most of which are connected by gravel roads down the landside faces of the levees. A segment of the east levee between Continental and UP Railroad is believed to be inaccessible during high floods because the connecting roads are located only on the riverside of the levee.
In the design of the Dallas Floodway Alternatives (Alternatives 3C and 4B), NTTA would provide undiminished access through O&M roads to all levee segments and floodway areas currently maintained by the Dallas Flood Control Division. The same considerations for undiminished Dallas Flood Control Division access would also apply to the construction phase of either Alternative 3C or 4B. The roadway construction documents would acknowledge the primacy of the flood control function, and provide the City of Dallas Flood Control Division unhindered access at all times to the NTTA construction areas for operations and maintenance of the flood control function. Such unhindered access would include the right to shut down construction, in part or whole, for such period of time that the Division reasonably declares necessary to perform required operations, maintenance and repairs, and flood fighting activities. The sequence of the
2-59
construction would also need to demonstrate no short-term or long-term negative impacts to the Flood Control Division activities, including provision of temporary roadways and similar features as needed, to provide continuity of Flood Control Division access through the construction areas.
O&M roads discussed above would provide access for mowing and maintenance of the Dallas Floodway floor. Additional floodway floor access is provided by existing gravel access roads over the levees connecting to longitudinal maintenance roads along the riverside toes of the levees. NTTA plans for the Dallas Floodway Alternatives 3C and 4B to include programmed ramps into the Dallas Floodway floor from several cross-street bridges (see FEIS Section 2.7.3). These ramps could be used to provide access to the Dallas Floodway floor for the Flood Control Division in areas that would otherwise be cut off by the Trinity Parkway. Additionally, NTTA would replace and reconnect the longitudinal maintenance roads in segments affected by the Trinity Parkway embankments.
2.7.2
Pump Stations in the Dallas Floodway
Alternatives 3C and 4B are proposed to be located within the Dallas Floodway on a raised embankment, riverside of the existing levees. As described in FEIS Sections 2.3.2.4 and
2.3.2.5, these roads would be depressed under existing bridges. In several of the depressed segments, the road surface must be lowered below the Trinity River 100-year flood level. To prevent inundation of the road, flood separation walls and pump stations are proposed to be added to maintain 100-year flood protection.
The locations of the proposed flood separation walls are shown in FEIS Plates 2-4 (A-B) and 2-5 (A-B). The flood separation walls appear as brown shading on the profiles of Alternatives 3C and 4B. The flood separation walls would be set with their top elevations 2 feet above the computed 100-year water surface, providing a level of flood protection commensurate with NTTA and TxDOT standards for highway/tollway mainlanes. In the event of overtopping by a flood in excess of a 100-year event, the walls would be designed to allow a managed inflow of water, suitably protected from erosion and other hazards of the inflow. Appropriate design measures to mitigate the effects of overtopping of the wall sections would be coordinated with USACE Fort Worth District and designed using USACE design standards in order to minimize impacts on the flood control project. The design of the flood separation walls would be guided by USACE publications EM 1110-22502, Engineering and Design - Retaining and Flood Walls, (1989) and EM 1110-2-2102, Engineering and Design - Waterstops and Other Preformed Joint Materials for Civil Works
2-60
Structures (1995a). See also FEIS Section 2.7.4 regarding the emergency response plan in the event of overtopping of flood separation walls within the Dallas Floodway.
In the general area of the sag points of the depressed segments, pump stations would be provided to drain out the sags. These pump stations would be sized to discharge stormwater under all normal operating conditions on the roadway. Additionally, the pumps would be
submersible and their motor control centers suitably protected so that the pumps would remain operable, even in the event the 100-year flood was exceeded and the depressed segments flooded. After such an event, once the river has suitably receded, the pumps could be restarted to completely drain the depressed segments. FEIS Plate 2-7 at the end of this chapter provides a conceptual layout of a pump station. It is expected that pump stations would be installed in recesses along the shoulder of the roadway, so maintenance vehicles could park over the tops of pump stations without interfering with traffic on the mainlanes.
2.7.3
Facility Operations and Maintenance in the Dallas Floodway
Alternatives 3C and 4B each would have approximately 6.2 miles or approximately 70 percent of their total lengths located within the Dallas Floodway or on land owned by the City of Dallas. On a typical tollroad, NTTA acquires or otherwise takes control of the ROW needed for the facility, and thereafter takes sole responsibility for operations and maintenance. Within the Dallas
Floodway, NTTA would not acquire ownership but would require access rights. Additionally, there would need to be a division of responsibilities for operations and maintenance between the NTTA and the City of Dallas, meeting the needs of the roadway and the ongoing need for flood protection.
In the event of the FHWAs selection of one of the Trinity Parkway alternatives within the Dallas Floodway in the anticipated ROD, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NTTA and the City of Dallas is proposed to be drafted to establish the rights and responsibilities of NTTA in its use of City of Dallas Floodway land. It is proposed that the NTTA would be given day-to-day responsibility for a strip of land along the roadway corridor, encompassing the pavement, the shoulders, traffic barriers, drainage facilities, and other facilities needed to support the operation of the road. In general, this would cover the area from approximately 30 feet off the edge of the outer lanes on the levee side of Alternatives 3C or 4B, to the traffic barriers on the river side of Alternatives 3C or 4B. Conceptually, NTTA would take day-to-day responsibility for operations and maintenance within this area, and the City of Dallas would take responsibility outside of this area. Notwithstanding this arrangement, the MOU would acknowledge the primacy of the flood control function, and, therefore, it would provide the City of Dallas Flood Control Division
2-61
unhindered access at all times to the NTTA-maintained land for operations and maintenance of the flood control function. Further, the MOU would include a provision that the Flood Control Division has the right to shut the road down, in part or whole, for such period of time that the Flood Control Division reasonably declares necessary, to allow unhindered access for performing required operations, maintenance and repairs, as well as flood fighting activities.
The City of Dallas currently mows the Dallas Floodway several times per year to maintain flood conveyance. The MOU would establish NTTA responsibility for at least equal mowing along the roadway corridor.
As discussed in FEIS Sections 1.6.1.2 and 2.7.1, it is assumed that proposed City of Dallas BVP lakes within the Dallas Floodway could be used as borrow sites to produce needed material to build roadway embankments for the various Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives. The volume of excavation would vary between alternatives, with the Irving/Riverfront Boulevard Alternatives (2A and 2B) requiring relatively little borrow compared to the Dallas Floodway Alternatives (3C and 4B). To the extent that proposed BVP sites are used to produce borrow material for the Trinity Parkway, these are assumed to be left as "dry" excavations at the conclusion of the Trinity Parkway construction. The excavated features would be graded to drain towards the Trinity River pilot channel. Thus, the features would appear as benches in the riverbanks. River floods would inundate the excavated areas from time to time, but the water would rise and recede and the areas would dry out. The excavated features included in the Trinity Parkway would include suitable grading, revegetation with grass, and other features designed to allow them to function indefinitely as conveyance basins. Indeed, such features would be vital to the functioning of the Dallas Floodway as a hydraulic offset to the toll road embankment and other facilities, and would continue to serve that long-term purpose even if the independent BVP project is postponed or cancelled by the City of Dallas.
In the time period between the end of Trinity Parkway construction and start-up of BVP lake construction, there would be a maintenance responsibility for the excavated areas in the Dallas Floodway. Since these areas are already under city maintenance responsibility, the city would continue to maintain and mow the excavated features upon completion of Trinity Parkway construction. In the event that intermittent flooding causes substantial sedimentation of these features, it is anticipated that the Flood Control Division would remove such sediment and reestablish grass cover as necessary.
2-62
2.7.4
Emergency Action Plan in the Dallas Floodway
As previously stated, Alternatives 3C and 4B would each have approximately 6.2 miles or approximately 70 percent of their total lengths located on a raised embankment riverside of the levees within the Dallas Floodway. Within the Dallas Floodway, the road surface would typically be set above the 100-year water surface elevation. As described in FEIS Section 2.7.2, in
segments where the road would be depressed below the 100-year level, flood separation walls and pump stations would be added to maintain 100-year flood protection. The 100-year flood protection standard is commensurate with the designs of other roadways on the NTTA system and meets or exceeds the FHWA design standards. However, due to the flood risk within the Dallas Floodway, a specific Emergency Action Plan for the period during construction as well as during normal operations of the constructed parkway would be needed for the Trinity Parkway, if Alternative 3C or 4B is selected by the FHWA in the anticipated ROD. This Emergency Action Plan must be reviewed and approved by the City of Dallas, NTTA, TxDOT, the FHWA, and USACE prior to final approval of construction by the USACE.
The Emergency Action Plan would establish procedures to evaluate and react to hazardous flooding events, both as the event is being forecast and as the event occurs. The Plan would be implemented based on river flood stage data. The NTTA Director of Maintenance would be responsible for management and implementation of the Plan with respect to the roadway. However, the Division Manager of the City of Dallas Trinity Watershed Management, Flood Control Division would be consulted before and during any implementation, and would be given primary authority with respect to actions during flood events. Further, as stated in FEIS Section 2.7.3, the MOU would include a provision that the Flood Control Division has the right to shut the road down, in part or whole, for such period of time that the Flood Control Division reasonably declares necessary to allow unhindered access for flood fighting activities.
The Trinity Parkway Emergency Action Plan would identify a sequence of actions to be taken prior to, during, and after a major flood event. The role of the NTTA would be defined, along with the roles of federal, state, and local agencies. It would be anticipated that NTTA staff and on-site Texas Department of Public Safety staff would take roles in implementing the Plan. Public safety and protection of property would be the primary goal of the Emergency Action Plan, and accordingly, the Plan would include steps for closure and evacuation of the roadway in the event of expected inundation. The Plan would include a detailed schedule for implementation, annual reviews, and updates, and would include maintenance and repair actions in the event of overtopping of the depressed segments of the roadway or other damage to the roads. FEIS Appendix H-3 provides a draft Emergency Action Plan outlining alarms, notification, and roadway
2-63
closure procedures in the unlikely event that a flood in excess of the 100-year event in the Dallas Floodway occurs. The Emergency Action Plan would be developed further during final design if Alternative 3C or 4B is selected in the anticipated ROD.
2.8
2.8.1
EVALUATION OF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVES

Introduction
This section sets out the evaluation of the Build Alternatives leading to the FHWAs recommendation of a Build Alternative for further design development and impacts/mitigation analysis. This evaluation of the four Build Alternatives is based on information developed to a comparable level of detail as of the publication of the SDEIS in February 2009, as supplemented by the LSS in March 2012. In addition, the FHWA considered feedback from government
agencies and members of the public in connection with the public hearings on the SDEIS and LSS held in 2009 and 2012, respectively (see FEIS Appendices L and M). Although this
evaluation concentrates on the information developed during the past 5 years, the discussion below draws upon the collective information and agency/public feedback acquired throughout the entire NEPA process dating back to the MTIS in 1997. Given the vast amount and diverse types of information included in FHWAs evaluation of alternatives, the purpose of the following discussion is to summarize key elements of anticipated environmental and socioeconomic impacts, and then analyze those impacts according to the process and decision criteria required by federal policy and regulations relating to projects affecting wetlands and/or floodplains.
The approach to evaluating the Build Alternatives has been molded entirely by Executive policies and the FHWAs regulations that prescribe an analytical model for federal projects with potentially significant impacts to wetlands and encroachment into floodplains. This analytical model has similarities to traditional alternatives analysis that would apply in the absence of significant wetland/floodplain impacts, but is different in its approach. The traditional NEPA analysis collects information about the design and expected impacts of various alternatives and then compares and contrasts the pros and cons of each alternative with the others in an effort to select the best overall alternative. However, federal policies do not allow this approach to alternatives analysis in situations involving potentially significant impacts to wetlands or floodplains. Instead, the policies designed to protect wetlands and floodplains require federal agencies to first determine that there are no practicable alternatives that would avoid impacts to wetlands/floodplains before considering practicable alternatives with potentially significant impacts to wetlands/floodplains. Moreover, if there is more than one practicable alternative with impacts to wetlands/floodplains is available, then the agency must recommend the practicable alternative with the least degree of
2-64
impacts to wetlands and the least amount of encroachment into floodplains.
The particular
definition of practicable and agency policies regarding its analysis is discussed below in some detail, but this introduction to practicability is important at this point to explain why the particular approach to alternatives analysis was taken in this FEIS.
The evaluation of expected environmental impacts in the Trinity Parkway SDEIS indicated that all four Build Alternatives are expected to have effects on waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and therefore, would require a permit under Section 404 of the CWA and require compliance with EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) (42 Federal Register 26961, May 24, 1977). In addition, EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) (42 Federal Register 26951, May 24, 1977) also applies because Alternatives 3C and 4B are located primarily within the Dallas Floodway, resulting in significant and longitudinal floodplain encroachments, as are smaller portions of Alternatives 2A and 2B. Regulations implementing these EOs require federal agencies, prior to selecting an alternative with impacts to wetlands or significant encroachment into floodplains, to first demonstrate that there is no practicable alternative to placing any portion of the project within wetlands or floodplains. The above-mentioned EOs and implementing federal regulations
further require that if there are multiple practicable build alternatives would result in impacts to wetlands or floodplains, then federal agencies must select the alternative that would result in the least amount of harm to wetlands and floodplains. Throughout the remainder of this FEIS, the above-described practicability analysis pursuant to EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) is referred to as the EO practicability analysis. This has been done in this FEIS to distinguish it from the 404 practicability analysis described below.
The 404 practicability analysis is separate and distinct from the EO practicability analysis as it relates only to Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the USACE to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material (i.e., suitable from a geotechnical and environmental standpoint) into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The USACE and USEPA rules implementing Section 404 address standards for protection of wetlands and permit criteria, including the selection of sites for the deposition of fill material. Most pertinent here are the Section 404(b)(1) regulations promulgated by USEPA that all permit applicants must satisfy (40 CFR Part 230, Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material; hereinafter Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines). Under these regulations, the applicant must
demonstrate that there is no "practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR Section 230.10(a)). These regulations further provide: The term practicable means available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes (40 CFR Section 230.3(q)).
2-65
There are two important distinctions relating to discussions of EO practicability and 404 practicability in this FEIS. First, the decision-making agency is different for each analysis; the FHWA determines EO practicability in accordance with its policies and guidance, and the USACE makes the determination of 404 practicability according to its policies and guidance. Second, the scopes and analytical models for the two practicability evaluations are distinctly different. In making its determination of 404 practicability, the USACE analysis is limited to the three factors of cost, technology, and logistics. Also, the USACE does not evaluate these three factors
collectively in assessing practicability, but separately examines each alternative in light of each factor to determine whether an alternative is practicable as to that factor. In contrast, the FHWA assesses EO practicability for an alternative by considering cost, technology, and logistics, in addition to myriad other factors including natural or physical environment constraints (e.g., habitat values, conservation, water features) and socioeconomic constraints (i.e., quality of life factors such as the needs and welfare of the community, air quality, aesthetics). Additionally, the FHWA makes its determination of EO practicability for each alternative based on an individual and comprehensive/collective analysis of information relating to all evaluation factors.
The respective roles of the FHWA and the USACE in determining EO practicability and 404 practicability, have influenced the placement of the discussions of each analysis in this FEIS. As 404 practicability is relevant to whether the alternatives would be capable of receiving a Section 404 permit from the USACE, the FHWA-recommended 404 practicability discussion and supporting materials are included in FEIS Appendix G-1. These materials were prepared in cooperation with the USACE as a stand-alone collection of information to assist the USACE in carrying out its regulatory role under Section 404; it is expected that the USACE would utilize and adapt the materials in FEIS Appendix G-1 in preparing its Section 404 regulatory analysis and decision documents. As the EO and 404 practicability analyses share the consideration of cost, existing technology, and logistics as evaluation criteria, the same methodology has been applied to each of these factors and the conclusions regarding these factors is the same for both analyses.
The EO practicability analysis is presented in this section and is organized as follows: FEIS Section 2.8.2 provides a summary of the EO policies and regulatory standards; FEIS Section 2.8.3 describes the methodology used to evaluate EO practicability; FEIS Section 2.8.4 provides a summary of pertinent data regarding each alternative, organized by EO practicability factor; this is followed in FEIS Section 2.8.5 by a discussion of each alternative as to whether it is practicable as to each EO factor individually and collectively; FEIS Section 2.8.6 evaluates and determines the alternative that minimizes impacts to wetlands and floodplains under EO
2-66
practicability criteria; and FEIS Section 2.8.7 states the conclusions of the EO practicability analysis and recommends an alternative for further design development.
2.8.2
Regulatory Context for EO Practicability Analysis
2.8.2.1 Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands
EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) establishes a national policy "to avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands, and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative." Each federal agency must minimize the destruction, loss, or
degradation of wetlands, and preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities. The EO requires each federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, to avoid undertaking or providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds, (1) that there is no practicable alternative to such construction, and (2) that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use. The EO does not define practicable, but provides the following explanation as to the relevant criteria for making an EO practicability determination: In making this finding the head of the agency may take into account economic, environmental and other pertinent factors.
Section 6 of the EO requires agencies to issue or amend their procedures to comply with the Order. Accordingly, the USDOT Order 5660.1A issued its implementing policies, Preservation of the Nations Wetlands on August 24, 1978. The USDOT requirements are intended to assure the protection, preservation, and enhancement of the nation's wetlands to the fullest extent practicable during the planning, construction, and operation of transportation facilities and projects. The USDOT policy states economic, environmental and other factors may be taken into account in making a finding of no practicable alternative. The USDOT policy requires that agencies with jurisdiction, the USACE in the case of Trinity Parkway, should be consulted for advice and assistance concerning any proposed wetland impacts.
In 1987, the FHWA addressed compliance with EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) in the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents (October 30, 1987). This FHWA guidance states that if the preferred alternative is located in wetlands then the final EIS needs to contain the finding required by [EO] 11990 that there are no practicable alternatives to construction in wetlands.
2-67
In 2000, the FHWA issued a final rule that reiterates and further implements the EO and USDOT Order 5660.1A (23 CFR Part 777 Mitigation of Impacts to Wetlands and Natural Habitat). This rule contains the following definition (23 CFR Section 777.2), Practicable means available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics, in light of overall project purposes. The EO and FHWA regulations further require that, if there is no practicable alternative to new construction in wetlands, then project planners must include all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands (23 CFR Section 777.3(a)(2)).
2.8.2.2 Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management
EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) establishes a national policy to avoid to the extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. The EO states if an agency has determined to, or proposes to,
conduct, support, or allow an action to be located in a floodplain, the agency shall consider alternatives to avoid adverse impacts and incompatible development in the floodplains. If the head of the agency finds that the only practicable alternative consistent with the law and with the policy set forth in this Order requires siting in a floodplain, the agency shall, prior to taking action, (i) design or modify its action in order to minimize potential harm to or within the floodplain, . . .
In 1979, the FHWA promulgated regulations in 23 CFR Part 650 Bridges, Structures, and Hydraulics, Subpart ALocation and Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Flood Plains. These regulations require that if a Build Alternative is recommended that includes a significant encroachment into a floodplain, an Only Practicable Alternative Finding would be required in the FEIS. Specifically, the FHWA regulation includes the policy to avoid longitudinal
encroachments as well as significant encroachments where practicable (23 CFR Section 650.103(b) and (c)). These regulations contain the following definition, Practicable shall mean capable of being done within reasonable natural, social, or economic constraints (23 CFR Section 650.105(k)). The FHWA regulations cite five factors to be considered in location studies in floodplains, namely (i) risks associated with implementation of the action, (ii) impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values, (iii) support of incompatible development, (iv) measures to minimize floodplain impacts, and (v) measures to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial floodplain values impacted by the action (23 CFR Section 650.111(c)(1-5)). Further, the FHWA regulations require a discussion of the practicability of alternatives to any significant and/or longitudinal encroachments to floodplains (meaning non-floodplain sites must be discussed), and a summary of the findings for both the floodplain and non-floodplain alternatives in the environmental documents.
2-68
The FHWA also discussed compliance with EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) in the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents (October 30, 1987). This FHWA guidance states that the DEIS needs to include an evaluation and discussion of practicable alternatives to the floodplain encroachment. Similar to the FHWAs policy on complying with EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), this Technical Advisory states that if the preferred alternative includes a floodplain encroachment having significant impacts, then the FEIS must include a finding that there are no practicable alternatives as required by 23 CFR [Part] 650, Subpart A.
2.8.2.3 USACE Position Paper and Policy
The USACE-Fort Worth District has presented a position paper outlining certain NEPA requirements that apply to the Trinity Parkway. This document is included in FEIS Appendix A2, Pages 19-24: "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Position Paper on Implementation of Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management and Practicable Alternatives Analysis for the Trinity Parkway Project" dated December 18, 2009. This guidance document, which further discuss the points and authorities cited above, has helped inform the substance of the practicability analysis.
The USACE Engineering Regulation (ER) 1165-2-26 Implementation of Executive Order 11988 on Flood Plain Management, provides more information on EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) as it relates to USACE projects and provides helpful guidance for the overall EO practicability analysis. The regulation states, practicable is capable of being done within existing constraints. The test of what is practicable depends upon the situation and includes consideration of the pertinent factors, such as environment, cost or technology. This ER also states, The decision on whether a practicable alternative exists will be based on weighing the advantages and disadvantages of flood plain sites and non-flood plain sites. The USACE guidance specifies that all reasonable factors should be taken into consideration when determining practicability. These factors include: conservation, economics, aesthetics, natural and beneficial values served by floodplains, impact of floods on human safety, locational advantage, the functional need for locating in the floodplain, historic values, various wildlife and habitat impacts, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the community and the people associated with it.
2-69
2.8.3
Methodology for EO Practicability Analysis
Several aspects of EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) suggest they were intended for joint application (i.e., subject matter overlap, common terms, and the identical date of issuance). A 1978 CEQ Memorandum resolved this point by instructing federal agencies to jointly apply these Orders where wetland impacts occur within floodplains. The criteria for determining whether an alternative is practicable, based on the points and authorities discussed thus far, may be summed up in the all reasonable factors approach articulated in FHWA and USACE regulations (e.g., 23 CFR Section 650.105(k) and ER 1165-226). Although cost, technology, and logistics are central to the EO practicability analysis, it is clear that it is FHWA policy to consider a broader range of factors that address topics such as impacts to natural/physical environments and community socioeconomics. In essence, those considerations relevant for making a finding of EO practicability are essentially the same factors the FHWA uses determining whether to recommend an alternative for development to a higher level of detail. Moreover, this broader approach avoids the possibility of finding an alternative practicable solely in terms of cost, technology, and logistics, but could be extremely difficult to build because of significant impacts to natural resources or community interests.
The central theme of the EO practicability guidance is to first determine whether there are practicable alternatives to locating any portion of a proposed project in a wetland or floodplain. EO practicability is not a comparison of alternatives for the purpose of finding the most desirable alternative, but independently evaluates for each alternative this ultimate question: Can the
alternative be built within existing constraints? Central to each of the guidance documents is that while they identify factors, they do not prioritize factors. Moreover, unlike the selection of a preferred alternative, which invites the comparison of relative differences between alternatives to make a selection, the determination as to whether a given alternative is practicable is the result of weighing of pertinent factors by the decision maker and reaching a finding that the alternative could be built if selected (i.e., is capable of being done). Thus, the focus of the analysis is whether each alternative would realistically be able to be constructed even if it were the only Build Alternative. This approach underscores the fundamental difference between the comparison of alternatives in SDEIS Chapter 4 for the purpose of evaluating the most desirable alternative, and an analysis of EO practicability that necessarily focuses on factors that individually or collectively would realistically preclude an alternative from being constructed.
Based on the federal regulations and guidance discussed in FEIS Section 2.8.2., the 16 factors that have been considered in the EO practicability analysis are listed in Table 2-8. For each of the factors evaluated, consideration was given to the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for
2-70
each alternative as such information was presented in the SDEIS and LSS. It should be noted that the list of EO practicability factors differs slightly from that presented in the LSS. The three factors comprising the 404 practicability factors (i.e., cost, technology, and logistics) have been grouped together as EO/404 Practicability Shared Factors, for consistency with the 404 practicability analysis in FEIS Appendix G-1. In so doing, it was determined that economic costs should be grouped with Socioeconomic Factors because federal regulatory policy regarding 404 practicability precludes the consideration of economic impacts as part of the project cost. In addition, it was determined that the locational advantages factor considered in the LSS actually addresses elements that are redundant with other factors that are part of both Natural Environment Factors and Socioeconomic Factors in Table 2-8, and was therefore absorbed into other factors considered and removed as a topic in the list of EO practicability factors.
TABLE 2-8. EO PRACTICABILITY FACTORS

EO/404 Practicability Shared Factors 1. Project cost (primarily construction cost, ROW cost, utilities relocation cost) 2. Existing technology 3. Logistics Natural Environment Factors 4. Natural and beneficial values served by floodplains (including measures to restore and preserve any natural and beneficial floodplain values affected by the proposed project) 5. Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and water quality 6. Fish and wildlife habitat values (including threatened and endangered species) 7. Conservation Socioeconomic Factors 8. Needs and welfare of the community (social impacts, transportation, relocations and displacements) 9. Economic impacts (short and long term) 10. Air quality impacts 11. Traffic noise impacts 12. Impact of floods on human safety 13. Risks associated with implementation of the action 14. Incompatible development 15. Aesthetics 16. Historic values
The methodology outlined above has been applied to the four Build Alternatives under consideration, and adapted to minimize repetition in the presentation of information. Accordingly, the information presented in FEIS Section 2.8.5 has been grouped by topic to avoid repetition of relevant facts relating to impact analyses or the environmental setting that are common to more than one of the alternatives. It is emphasized that the purpose of this approach is to improve readability but not for the purpose of comparing the grouped alternatives, as the determination of EO practicability is based on the evaluation of factors as applied individually to each alternative. The by-alternative assessment of EO practicability factors is provided in FEIS Section 2.8.6.
As appropriate, the presentation of information regarding the 13 factors comprising Natural Environment Factors and Socioeconomic Factors in FEIS Table 2-8 has been grouped within a
2-71
topic according to whether the alternative is outside the Dallas Floodway or located primarily within its floodplain areas. The degree of similarity between floodplain Alternatives 3C and 4B and non-floodplain Alternatives 2A and 2B based on distinct underlying differences in environmental settings is sufficiently great as to substantially reduce the needless repetition of information that would otherwise occur if information relevant to two or more of the four alternatives were to be discussed separately.
2.8.4
Summary of Impact Assessments by EO Practicability Factor
The presentation of information regarding EO practicability factors that are shared by the 404 practicability analysis (FEIS Appendix G-1) is in FEIS Section 2.8.4.1. This section is followed by a summary of information about impacts expected by the four alternatives to the four Natural Environment Factors and the nine Socioeconomic Factors in FEIS Sections 2.8.4.2 and 2.8.4.3, respectively. As the EO practicability analysis generally summarizes the detailed evaluation of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for the Build Alternatives as presented in the SDEIS and/or LSS, references to the original NEPA document are included in the discussion of each EO practicability factor (including the SDEIS or LSS section number and page number where the source information for impact evaluations may be found).
2.8.4.1 EO/404 Practicability Shared Factors
Project Cost As the FHWA has not developed detailed guidance as to how to assess project cost in an EO practicability analysis, the approach developed by the USEPA and USACE over several decades has been applied to be consistent with the 404 practicability analysis in FEIS Appendix G-1. This analytical approach is summarized in joint guidance issued by the USEPA/USACE on 404 practicability, which provides the following test for determining whether an alternative is practicable based on the cost standard:
The determination of what constitutes an unreasonable expense should generally consider whether the projected cost is substantially greater than the costs normally associated with the particular type of project. (USEPA/USACE, 1993) (emphasis added)
The assessment of whether the cost for a project alternative is practicable therefore depends on establishing a cost screen or threshold based on reasonably comparable projects. This approach seeks to define the range of the principal costs for a proposed project that may be readily compared to the costs incurred or estimated to construct a similar project.
2-72
Comparable tollway projects have been examined to form a basis for establishing the upper limit of the range of normal costs associated with new location tollways in urban areas. The projects considered all have the following aspects in common with the Trinity Parkway: each is a tollway at least 5 miles in overall length with four to six mainlanes; each is located within an urbanized area in Texas; each required substantial construction of project elements on bridge structures; and each is either a project that was completed within the past 10 years, or is in the advanced planning stage of development. Several projects meeting the foregoing criteria include three portions of the North Texas Tollway Authoritys PGBT that were constructed in proximity to the Trinity Parkway, as follows (with year of completion shown): PGBT Segment IV from IH-35E to IH-635 (2005); PGBT Eastern Extension Sections 28-32 from SH-78 to IH-30 (2011); and Phase 4 of the PGBT Western Extension from N. Carrier Parkway to IH-20 (2012). In addition to the PGBT projects, the costs associated with the planned Cesar Chavez Border Highway West (CCBHW) in the City of El Paso have been considered in this analysis. The CCBHW is a fourlane tollway on new location that is currently under development by TxDOT. Although removed from the DFW Region, this project is comparable to the Trinity Parkway in terms of construction in an urban setting with numerous bridges and other structures. The CCBHW recently completed the NEPA process and is proceeding toward construction procurement. Cost component data used in this analysis were provided by NTTA for the PGBT projects and by TxDOT for the CCBHW.
The approach taken to evaluate the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives follows USACE guidance and decision precedents that elaborate on what cost entails. First, cost does not include
anticipated expenses relating to mitigation for natural resource impacts; such costs have been removed from the cost estimates for all of the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives. Other
environmental mitigation costs, such as estimates for hazardous materials abatement for building demolition or construction of noise reduction barriers, are included in construction costs. Second, only costs associated with the Trinity Parkways basic project purpose are relevant. Although the FEIS includes several purposes of the project, the basic purpose used in the Section 404(b)(1) analysis of costs is as follows: To construct a new controlled-access roadway to help manage congestion from IH-35E, IH-30, and other existing transportation facilities in the project area to improve mobility and safety without incurring unreasonable costs. Costs associated with objectives related to project purposes (e.g., mitigating impacts to natural resources) were excluded in keeping with USACE practice. Third, USACE case precedents indicate that the analysis typically focuses on construction costs and ROW costs (which include costs of utility relocations); accordingly, other costs included in project cost estimates such as engineering design (which are typically a fractional estimate of construction costs) are not included for the
2-73
limited purpose of assessing practicability based on project costs. For example, construction and ROW/utility relocation costs for Trinity Parkway alternatives represents an average of 84 percent of the total estimated project costs. Again, the purpose is to establish a cost standard by which to judge whether a proposed alternative is practicable as measured against that cost standard; in this regard it is not important to capture all potential costs of a project, but identifying the principal costs (i.e., construction cost and ROW/utility relocation cost) facilitates the establishing a cost screen/standard. That is, all methods of estimating costs for transportation projects include
construction and ROW/utility relocation costs, whereas other cost estimates or reports do not always include a breakdown of all other project-related costs. In this regard, consideration was given to including the costs of facility O&M after construction, but this cost element was excluded because it is not available for the comparable projects used to develop a cost screen. In addition, the annual cost for O&M for the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives varies from $1.5M to $4.5M per year (see LSS Table 4-32 and LSS Appendix D), indicating this would not be considered a major cost factor for purposes of developing a cost screen even if such data were available for comparable projects. Finally, costs to relocate 20 Oncor power transmission line towers recently constructed along Irving/Riverfront Boulevard were removed from the utility relocation estimates for Alternatives 2A and 2B, as it is USACE policy/practice to exclude the cost of undoing major actions that have been taken after identifying an alternative.
Applying the approach outlined above, Table 2-9 shows the estimates (2011 dollars) for principal cost components based on the number of mainlane miles per project for the four Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives. Principal cost components based on either actual or estimated costs (CCBHW only) for comparable toll road projects are shown in Table 2-10. All cost estimates in Table 2-10 have been adjusted to reflect 2011 dollars from the original year of the cost estimate (shown in the bottom row of the table). All costs have been rounded to the nearest million dollars.
TABLE 2-9. SUMMARY OF TRINITY PARKWAY PROJECT COST COMPONENTS

Project Feature (all costs in 2011 dollars) Project Length (mainlane miles) Construction Cost Total in $ millions (M) ($M/mainlane mile) ROW/Utility Relocation Cost Total in $M ($M/mainlane mile) Combined Above Costs in $M ($M/mainlane mile)
2A 52.8 1,394 (26.4) 593 (11.2) 1,987 (37.6) Trinity Parkway Alternatives 2B 3C 52.8 52.8 1,068 1,014 (20.2) (19.2) 512 142 (9.7) (2.7) 1,581 1,156 (29.9) (21.9) 4B 53.0 1,074 (20.2) 103 (1.9) 1,177 (22.2)
2-74
TABLE 2-10. SUMMARY OF COST COMPONENTS FOR COMPARABLE TOLL ROADS

Project Feature (all costs in 2011 dollars) Project Length (mainlane miles) Construction Cost Total in $ millions (M) ($M/mainlane mile) ROW/Utility Relocation Cost Total in $M ($M/mainlane mile) Combined Above Costs in $M ($M/mainlane mile) Year of Original Cost Report or Estimate
President George Bush Turnpike Eastern Western Segment Extension Extension IV Sec. 28-32 Phase 4 31.8 59.4 39.0 256 564 404 (8.1) (9.5) (10.4) 46 125 2 (1.4) (2.1) (0.04) 302 689 406 (9.5) (11.6) (10.4) 2005 2013 2013
Cesar Chavez Border Hwy West 33.1 464 (14.0) 148 (4.5) 612 (18.5) 2012
As indicated in Table 2-10, the cost ranges appreciably among comparable toll road projects from $10 to $20M per mainlane mile. Although these projects are comparable to the Trinity Parkway in terms of the selection criteria, cost differences between major transportation projects will always occur because no two projects are identical. However, a qualitative examination of these projects has been made to provide insights into the variability in the observed construction and ROW/utility relocation costs. Most notably, the ROW/utility cost component for the PGBT projects is relatively small as compared to most Trinity Parkway alternatives and the CCBHW. This cost difference can be attributed to most of the ROW for the project was acquired or donated to TxDOT during the 1970s and 1980s. Decades later when the project was built, the ROW costs were unusually low because this already expended cost was not included in the project ROW cost reporting. For example, the extremely low ROW cost for the PGBT Western Extension Phase 4 is a result of acquisition of nearly all ROW prior to NTTA assuming responsibility for the project. Available reports indicate the NTTA made a lump sum payment of $458M to TxDOT for its previous work on all four phases of the Western Extension. However, a breakdown showing how much of this payment to TxDOT was for previously acquired ROW is not available. This suggests that the ROW component, which generally represents the bulk of the ROW/utility relocation cost, is under-represented in Table 2-10 the Western Extension as well as possibly other segments of the PGBT.
Another major cost difference between the PGBT projects and the Trinity Parkway alternatives is that the cost of construction per mainlane mile for the Trinity Parkway is generally double the cost of the PGBT. Again, this difference is at least partially attributable to the early acquisition of land for the PGBT as this prevented development of much of the corridor in the decades between the time of ROW acquisition and construction. Thus, although the PGBT was constructed in an urban area, much of the corridor was undeveloped due to early acquisition of ROW. In contrast, a substantial component of the construction cost for the Trinity Parkway alternatives would be demolition of existing pavement and structures, as well as cost associated with the abatement of associated hazardous materials such as asbestos. However, the primary aspects that influence
2-75
construction cost for the Trinity Parkway alternatives are the numerous bridges, ramps, walls, embankments, and other structures that are relatively expensive contributors to overall cost. In comparison, a relatively greater amount of the PGBT was built as an at-grade facility in areas not as urbanized as downtown Dallas. In this regard, the CCBHW is quite comparable to the Trinity Parkway because of its predominance of structures in its design and its highly urbanized setting.
The foregoing evaluation of comparable toll roads suggests that the relatively low construction and ROW/utility relocation costs for the PGBT projects may be attributed to historical and design differences as compared to the Trinity Parkway. Thus, the comparatively lower cost per mainlane mile of $10M to $12M for the PGBT may be explained by referencing those differences as discussed above. The cost estimate for the CCBHW would have construction and ROW/utility relocation costs of $19M per mainlane mile, which is taken to approximate the higher end of the spectrum of the costs normally associated with the particular type of project (USEPA/USACE, 1993). Accordingly, it has been concluded that the effective cost screen in this FEIS is $20M per mainlane mile for combined construction and ROW/utility relocation costs, and that Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives with comparable costs that are substantially greater than this threshold are not considered to be practicable.
The difference between the Trinity Parkway alternatives and this cost screen, expressed in 2011 dollars and as a percentage increase above the cost screen, are shown in Table 2-11.
TABLE 2-11. APPLICATION OF COST SCREEN TO TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVES

Project Cost Estimate (all costs in 2011 dollars) Construction and ROW/Utility Relocation Costs in $M/mainlane mile Cost Screen for Construction and ROW/Utility Relocation Costs in $M/mainlane mile Difference Between Alternative Cost Estimate and Cost Screen in $M/mainlane mile Percent Difference Between Alternative Cost Estimate and Cost Screen
2A Trinity Parkway Alternatives 2B 3C 4B
37.6 20.0 17.6 88%
29.9 20.0 9.9 50%
21.9 20.0 1.9 10%
22.2 20.0 2.2 11%
Existing Technology All of the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives could utilize current engineering technology for roadway and related construction, and there appears to be no unusual or insurmountable technological issues with any of the Build Alternatives. There is expected to be gradual adoption of new or improved technologies in the road building and toll collection fields over time. In general, any special technology (e.g., ITS) for the Build Alternatives is built into the cost estimates discussed above.
2-76
Logistics A constraint influencing the EO practicability of the Build Alternatives involves several logistical elements related to construction, and the effects of such elements on level of difficulty to complete construction. An indicator of the collective effects of these logistical elements is the length of time from startup of engineering/construction activities until the Trinity Parkway could be fully open to traffic. This length of time is estimated to be 10 years for Alternative 2A, 9 years for Alternative 2B, and 6 years for Alternatives 3C and 4B. Substantial time to construct the Trinity Parkway would be required due to the large-scale, sequential tasks required for the construction process. Activities that most influence project schedule include ROW acquisition and relocations of displaced businesses and residences, environmental investigations and demolition of buildings, utility relocations, and traffic and safety issues. These elements are discussed further below.
ROW Acquisition and Relocations. As described in SDEIS Section 4.5.1.2 (SDEIS page 4-58) and summarized in Table 2-12, the number of displacements and relocations varies widely among the Build Alternatives. It is estimated to take approximately 2 years to acquire ROW and relocate the 35 displaced commercial and residential buildings for Alternatives 3C or 4B. The time necessary to acquire ROW and arrange for relocation of displaced business and residents would be substantially longer for Alternatives 2A and 2B due the numerous displacements and relocations associated with these alternatives. This would lengthen project completion time because of the time needed to survey the affected parcels, appraise/negotiate each acquisition, complete eminent domain proceedings, as necessary, and provide relocation assistance in connection with displaced buildings.
TABLE 2-12. ESTIMATED NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION OF DISPLACEMENTS

Build Alternative Residential Buildings Commercial/ Pump Stations/ Police and Industrial Levee Operations Fire Station Buildings Buildings* Office Buildings DISD Facility Buildings Total
2A 8 272 1 2 2 285 2B 6 228 5 2 4 245 3C 6 29 ------35 4B 11 24 ------35 Notes: --- = no impact * The number of displaced buildings/structures is shown in this table; however, the number of individual businesses displaced may be higher due to multiple tenants in some buildings.
Environmental Investigations and Demolition. The number and types of property acquisitions also affect the schedule indirectly because there are several tasks that must follow sequentially, such as Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs; Phase 1 and Phase 2 ESAs as appropriate), remediation, and demolition. Accordingly, the larger the number of sites considered high risk for
2-77
hazardous materials, the longer it may be expected to take before construction may begin. Based on the assessment of hazardous materials sites in SDEIS Section 4.17.2 (SDEIS page 4190), the following number of high risk hazardous material sites are associated with each of the Build Alternatives: Alternative 2A, 34 sites; Alternative 2B, 35 sites; Alternative 3C, 17 sites; and Alternative 4B, 16 sites.
Utility Relocations. Alternatives 2A and 2B have extensive water lines, sanitary sewer lines, fiber optic cables, and high voltage electrical overhead transmission lines, which would need to be coordinated and removed from the ROW . As discussed in SDEIS Section 4.18.2 (SDEIS page 4-194), the alternatives would require major water line relocations of varying lengths, as indicated in the following estimates: Alternative 2A, 40,300 linear feet; Alternative 2B, 40,500 linear feet; Alternative 3C, 1,600 linear feet; and Alternative 4B, 2,900 linear feet. Impacts in terms of linear feet of relocated sanitary sewer lines among the alternatives would be as follows: Alternatives 2A and 2B, 11,700 linear feet each; and Alternatives 3C and 4B, 2,000 linear feet each.
The anticipated relocation of electrical utilities for all Build Alternatives is described in SDEIS Table 4-48 (SDEIS pages 4-192 and 4-193). Alternative 4B would affect seven major electrical lines, Alternative 3C would affect six electrical lines, and Alternatives 2A and 2B would affect five electrical lines each. In addition, Alternative 2B would be the only alternative that would require the relocation of an electrical substation. As reported in the SDEIS, electrical utility relocations are considered typical for a project of this magnitude and are not considered logistical constraints, nor would they be expected to negatively impact the project schedule. However, as described
below, the construction of an Oncor transmission line subsequent to the SDEIS would affect logistical constraints for Alternatives 2A and 2B, but would not be affected by Alternatives 3C or 4B.
The major impact on logistics and schedule for both Alternatives 2A and 2B affects the electric transmission lines in the corridor, particularly the 345 kilovolt (kV) line listed in LSS Sections 4.1.4.4 and 4.1.5.4 (LSS pages 4-12/4-13 and 4-35/4-36). The Oncor 345 kV transmission line (completed in 2010) is located in the median of Irving Boulevard from Regal Row to Sylvan Avenue, and includes provision for a 138 kV line hung below the 345 kV conductors on the same poles. The pole line is positioned in the median of Irving Boulevard (rather than along the ROW edge of either street) to provide sufficient horizontal clearance to properties and buildings located along both sides of the street. Both 138 kV and 345 kV lines would have to be rebuilt (new taller structures and associated foundations) and possibly relocated as part of the construction for Alternatives 2A and 2B. The 345 kV line is particularly important because it provides an electrical
2-78
source to two major switching stations serving the CBD and adjacent neighborhoods, portions of Oak Cliff, West Dallas, and the Stemmons Corridor, and also provides bulk power flow for the Texas electrical transmission grid.
The 345 kV electric transmission line adds to the logistical challenge of constructing Alternatives 2A and 2B because an alternative alignment analysis may be necessary and a replacement line must be fully installed in the new position, requiring acquisitions, demolitions, utility relocations, and partial road construction as pre-requisites. Also, once fully installed, the switch-over from the old line to the new line must be scheduled during periods of low electrical demand. For example, it is usual practice that no outages will be allowed during peak load season (April 1 - October 15). The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) has final authority over outage scheduling.
Traffic and Safety.
As discussed in SDEIS Section 4.20.1 (SDEIS pages 4-197/4-198),
construction activity for all of the Build Alternatives would result in temporary traffic disruptions (closures and detours) on major freeways and arterials in the project area. This interference with normal traffic patterns would be particularly acute during rush hour and other periods of localized congestion. Safety and security issues may include temporary disruption of access for
emergency and law enforcement vehicles. Within the project area, Irving/Riverfront Boulevard is a highly utilized roadway and construction activities associated with Alternative 2A or 2B would result in an unusually high level of traffic disruption to the urban area served by this roadway. Heavy vehicle movements, possible hazardous waste excavation and transport, and construction site activity would also create potential safety concerns that contribute to the differences in the length of the estimated period of construction among the Build Alternatives.
Influence of Construction Site Location. Alternatives 3C and 4B would have scheduling risks, which are inherent with construction in areas subject to flooding. The potential effects of construction within the Dallas Floodway were considered in terms of affecting logistical aspects of the project; however, based on construction of other projects in recent years, periodic flooding has not been a serious impediment to work in the Dallas Floodway. There are many examples of successfully completed projects in the Trinity River floodplains including channel widening in the Dallas Floodway by the City of Dallas in the early 2000s and the reconstruction of the Westmoreland and Hampton Road Bridge Crossings. Additionally, various components of the USACE DFE Project have been completed downstream of the Dallas Floodway. The Dallas Floodway is typically subject to intermittent rains and possible flooding in the spring and fall, but there are long periods of low flows and dry conditions, particularly in summer. It is expected the grading contractor could beneficially use low flow periods in the Dallas Floodway to complete the required excavation and embankment included in Alternatives 3C and 4B. Considering an 18-
2-79
month grading period, accumulated delays due to wet conditions would not be expected to exceed 6 months in the worst case. Further, once the Trinity Parkway embankments have been established, the work area would be expected to be adequately protected from flooding events.
2.8.4.2 Natural Environment Factors
Natural and Beneficial Values Served by Floodplains Fish and wildlife diversity and density within floodplains strongly correlate with aquatic habitat and vegetation diversity considered along with the type, degree, and frequency of disturbances. Therefore, aquatic habitat and vegetation impacts are used as an indicator of the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. Alternatives 2A and 2B avoid the Dallas Floodway area except for a small segment in the southern part of the corridor downstream of Corinth Street. The total amount of area within the 100-year floodplain affected by these alternatives would be 55 acres for Alternative 2A and 76 acres for Alternative 2B. Neither of these alternatives would result in longitudinal encroachment within the Dallas Floodway. These alternatives would have the vegetation and aquatic habitat impacts shown in Table 2-13 (see SDEIS Section 4.9.2.2, SDEIS page 4-114). For the most part, Alternatives 2A and 2B occupy developed land, with crossings of grass and open water areas at man-made sumps in the corridor. Alternatives 2A and 2B would not be expected to cause substantial impacts on floodplain values related to fish, wildlife movement, available open space, opportunities for scientific study, outdoor recreation potential, or groundwater recharge. Floodplain areas outside of the Dallas Floodway are expected to be unaffected because such areas would be crossed by bridges (see SDEIS Section 4.13.5, SDEIS page 4-141).
2-80
TABLE 2-13. ACREAGE OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO VEGETATION/HABITAT

Woodland (nonwetland)
Aquatic Habitats*
Waters of the U.S., Incl. Wetlands
Build Alternatives Riparian Forest 2A 2B 3C** 4B** ----6.7 5.9
Man-Made Linear Sumps ----0.01 0.1
Maintained Grass Areas
Total Undeveloped Area Impacts
4.2 9.1 27.4 47.1
11.9 31.1 209.8 314.8
20.7 46.6 256.7 377.5
Potential Borrow 13.8 63.5 --258.3 335.6 Areas** Notes: 1. All quantities are shown in acres and reflect impacts as reported in the SDEIS (2009), as supplemented by the LSS (2012). Calculated areas are estimates only. 2. Potential impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, may occur from bridge column construction and can be addressed during final design. 3. --- = No impact anticipated for this alternative. * = Includes impacts associated with drainage sumps, open water, and river channel, some of which would be spanned by bridges. ** = Build Alternatives that would also require excavation from the potential borrow areas shown at the bottom of the column.
The ROW footprint for Alternatives 3C and 4B would be expected to have floodplain encroachments of 297 acres and 418 acres, respectively. Excavation areas necessary for
embankment fill and other construction purposes would affect an additional 336 acres for both of these alternatives. As described in SDEIS Section 4.9.2.3 (SDEIS page 4-115), there would be impacts from Alternatives 3C and 4B on floodplain values related to wildlife movement, open space loss, and outdoor recreation potential due to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the new ROW (see Table 2-13). However, many of the natural values of the floodplain in the project area have already been altered by the creation of the Dallas Floodway levee system and the regular O&M of that system. The Dallas Floodway is not utilized for forestry or agriculture, and Alternatives 3C and 4B would have no impact on these types of values that are sometimes associated with floodplains.
In addition to significant area encroachments, Alternatives 3C and 4B result in substantial longitudinal encroachments within the Dallas Floodway. Alternative 3C is located along the inside of the levee to the north of the Trinity River, and extends approximately 5.2 miles parallel with the levee. Alternative 4B is located along the inside of both levees that flank the Trinity River and has a combined (i.e., both sides of the river) longitudinal encroachment of approximately 9.9 miles. These longitudinal encroachments extend from approximately 500 feet upstream of the Hampton/Inwood Bridge to 500 feet south of the MLK Bridge. Although these longitudinal
encroachments are lengthy, the physical features of the Dallas Floodway and the design of these
2-81
alternatives effectively alleviate any substantial interference with the ability of the Dallas Floodway to convey floodwaters. Both of these Build Alternatives would be built upon
embankments that would elevate the roadways above the 100-year floodplain; both alternatives would be designed to afford approximately 2 feet of freeboard above this level of flooding. The roadway embankments would be constructed on material excavated within the Dallas Floodway to effectively result in a hydraulically neutral design in terms of floodwater surface elevations and valley storage. The construction of either of these alternatives would also be compatible with flood events that are expected to occur with less frequency than the 100-year flood. The straight river channel and nearly level and very broad floodplain within the Dallas Floodway allow floodwaters from extreme runoff events to move between the levees at low velocity. Such
extreme events would inundate Build Alternatives 3C and 4B, resulting in road closure during high water periods and after water recedes to allow clean up of debris. These alternatives would be protected by a security wall held in place by large concrete blocks (i.e., gravity wall that would not be secured in place by adjacent embankment) to ensure its integrity during extreme flooding events. Consequently, the design of these alternatives anticipates inundation on rare occasions without substantial impacts to the facility. Waters of the United States, including Wetlands, and Water Quality LSS Sections 4.1.4.7 (LSS page 4-16) and 4.1.5.7 (LSS page 4-38) describe the assessment of the waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are found within the project area for Alternatives 2A and 2B, respectively. LSS Section 4.1.6.7 (LSS page 4-62) and 4.1.7.7 (LSS page 4-88) describes the assessment of the waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are found within the project area for Alternatives 3C and 4B, respectfully. This discussion includes the results of the jurisdictional determination approved by the USACE on March 24, 2011.
Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3C, and 4B would impact waters of the U.S., including wetlands, due to filling and/or excavation, and a summary of these impacts is in Table 2-14, and reflect a summary of the detailed impacts assessment included in SDEIS Section 4.8 (SDEIS pages 4-107 to 4-111). All of these alternatives would comply with applicable water quality and water quantity regulatory requirements as outlined in SDEIS Section 4.12.1 (SDEIS page 4-123). Losses associated with Alternatives 3C and 4B are predominately associated with a number of periodically inundated wetland depressions that are dry during portions of the year. SDEIS Section 7.4 (SDEIS page 714) provides discussion of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such impacts. SDEIS
Appendix J contains materials relating to mitigation that would be required under CWA Section 404.
2-82
TABLE 2-14. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING WETLANDS
Build Alt.
2A 2B 3C 4B
Emergent Wetlands
Fill --17.01 35.77 Ex. --20.63 20.63
Forested Wetlands
Fill 1.38 2.53 1.28 1.28 Ex. -----
Open Water Intermittent*

Fill --4.45 5.79 Ex. --2.53 2.53
Old Trinity River Channel Fill Ex. 2.72 -6.34 -1.51 -1.21 --
Intermittent Stream
Fill 0.13 0.20 0.15 0.10 Ex. -----
Trinity River*
Fill --2.98 2.98 Ex. --40.35 40.35
Total
Fill 4.23 9.07 27.38 47.13 Ex. --63.51 63.51
Notes: 1. All quantities shown in acres and reflect impacts as reported in the SDEIS (2009), as supplemented by the LSS (2012). Calculated areas are estimates only. Fill impacts are expected from roadway construction; excavation (Ex.) impacts are expected from potential borrow areas (see SDEIS Plate 4-26 for borrow area locations). 2. Expected impacts are based on the jurisdictional determination approved by USACE on June 19, 2006 (File # SWF-2000-00308). 3. -- = No impact anticipated for this alternative. * Potential impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, may occur from bridge column construction and can be addressed or eliminated during final design.
A functional analysis was performed for waters of the U.S., including wetlands, in the project area using a hydrogeomorphic approach consistent with that described in the USACEs Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-11, A Guidebook for Application of
Hydrogeomorphic Assessments to Riverine Wetlands. As noted in SDEIS Section 3.4.6 (SDEIS page 3-77), the waters of the U.S., including wetlands, in the project area provide a range of functions with each level of function dependent on a range of variables. One function that would be affected is that of long-term surface water storage. This function is dependent on the ability of the waters of the U.S., including wetlands, to receive and retain water for an extended period during the growing season, of which all waters of the U.S., including wetlands in the study area are highly capable.
The Dallas Floodway is regularly mowed which is necessary to maintain flood conveyance capabilities. In doing so, the required maintenance mowing of the Dallas Floodway prohibits the development of riverine emergent wetlands into forested riverine wetlands, limiting the ability of the wetlands to function in general. The existing level of aquatic function associated with
vegetation characteristics (e.g., vegetative communities, interspersion, and connectivity) is relatively low.
The typical water quality concerns associated with construction activities are erosion and sedimentation. The potential for erosion and sedimentation is accelerated when vegetation is cleared in preparation for the construction of the roadway, as exposed ground is susceptible to erosion. Alternatives 3C and 4B require the crossing of several water bodies within the project area, including the Trinity River and its network of drainage sumps and tributaries. In the area of the Dallas Floodway, Alternative 3C and 4B construction areas would be subject to possible
2-83
inundation by periodic river flooding, in addition to direct effects of rainfall and runoff. Bridge construction also has the potential to create soil erosion, which could affect sedimentation and turbidity of water. Eroded sediment may then redeposit downstream, resulting in the disruption of the aquatic ecosystem and water quality degradation. In addition, increased pavement area and vehicular traffic over the life of the project have the potential to discharge storm water pollutants to the water bodies and wetlands that could negatively impact the quality of surface water.
Water quality impacts of construction would be reduced to acceptable levels by compliance with the regulatory standards of applicable construction stormwater management permits, and water quality related impacts of the paved roadway would also be managed in accordance with appropriate permit terms specified by regulatory agencies. Detailed discussions of federal and state permits related to the abatement of water quality impacts are found in SDEIS Section 7.2 (SDEIS page 7-10). Additional discussions regarding regulatory controls of water quality impacts are included in SDEIS Appendix H (Preliminary Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation), and SDEIS Appendix I (TCEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification Questionnaire).
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values SDEIS Section 4.9 (SDEIS pages 4-112 to 4-120) presents a quantitative assessment of impacts to habitat, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species. Much of the discussion centers on impacts to vegetation with riparian woodlands and aquatic habitat identified as highest quality wildlife habitat. The acreage figures in Tables 2-13 and 2-14 reflect the greatest amount of potential impacts to undeveloped land cover types in the project area, which includes both temporary and permanent impacts to existing vegetation cover and aquatic habitat.
The level of impacts at a specific site would vary widely. potential to impact undeveloped areas.
Alternatives 2A and 2B have the
Wildlife habitat would also be impacted by habitat
fragmentation in relation to the amount of cleared vegetation for each of the non-floodplain alternatives. For Alternatives 3C and 4B, the level of impacts would vary because approximately half of the areas of undeveloped area impacts are not associated with the construction of paved surfaces. That is, an estimated 335.6 acres of excavated areas for borrow material to construct tollway embankments would be revegetated with native grasses, and none of these areas would be paved. In addition, approximately half of the ROW areas for both Dallas Floodway alternatives would be needed for at-grade and bridge paved surfaces, leaving the remainder of ROW areas to be generally revegetated with native grass vegetation. Although an additional fraction of the ROW would be used to create a gravel surface service road for facility maintenance, the bulk of unpaved ROW would be maintained as grass cover after construction of the proposed project. The precise mix of paved/hardened surface and vegetated areas within the ROW would not be
2-84
determined with precision until final design; however, a substantial portion of land within the ROW for these alternatives would be restored to vegetation cover that is either similar to or improved from the existing condition.
Mitigation for impacts to these habitats during and after construction would include efforts to avoid and minimize impacts as well compensatory mitigation such as wetland restoration or purchase of credits from an USACE-approved mitigation bank. A detailed discussion of mitigation relating to these resources is included in SDEIS Section 3.3 (SDEIS page 7-12). A preliminary mitigation plan is included in SDEIS Appendix J, which discusses protective measures to be followed during construction to avoid/minimize impacts and a mitigation planting plan, which addresses the planting of riparian trees and native grass areas for long-term compensation for habitat impacts.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred on March 2, 2009 with the may affect, but not likely to adversely affect determination regarding the interior least tern, a federally- and statelisted endangered species. Ongoing coordination with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) would occur during the FEIS process regarding potential impacts to state-listed species. Adverse impacts to protected species are not anticipated for any of the four Build Alternatives.
Conservation SDEIS Sections 4.19 (SDEIS page 4-195) and 4.22 (SDEIS page 4-204) include general discussions regarding transportation-related energy use and the commitment of resources. For the implementation of all Build Alternatives, energy, fuel, and materials consumption would occur during construction and operation. The highway construction materials that would be expended are not in short supply and therein construction would not adversely affect continued availability of similar resources. This alternative would operate as an all-electronic toll collection facility, which provides operational efficiencies to reduce stop and go traffic conditions. This would result in lower fuel/energy consumption. When correlating the measures of effectiveness in SDEIS Section 4.4.1.3 (SDEIS page 4-53) to energy use, managing congestion delay and vehicle hours traveled means lower fuel and energy use. The energy requirements associated with Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3C and 4B are not considered functional constraints to practicability.
2.8.4.3 Socioeconomic Factors
Needs and Welfare of the Community The Trinity Parkway is a high profile project that, for about the past 45 years, has involved numerous stakeholders and individuals along the corridor in the project development process. FEIS Section 1.1.2 summarizes this long process of project planning and evaluation. Effects of
2-85
the proposed project on the local community are major factors in determining practicability of Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3C, and 4B.
Social Impacts: The numerous displacements that are anticipated with Alternatives 2A and 2B would have direct and indirect impacts on neighborhoods and commercial districts within the project corridor. In accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, relocation assistance would be provided to any person, business, farm, or non-profit organization displaced as a result of the acquisition of real property for public use (see SDEIS Appendix C). The acquisition of these properties could have adverse social consequences in the local community beyond a typical urban roadway project. For instance, the Dallas Design District is a collection of home interior businesses, which collectively advertise their goods and services as a destination shopping experience. Although the displaced businesses would receive appropriate relocation compensation, the remaining district would be substantially impacted by the community dividing impacts of a controlled access facility.
Alternatives 3C and 4B generally avoid impacts to neighborhoods and commercial districts within the project corridor, since much of the alignment is within the Dallas Floodway. FEIS Table 2-12 provides a summary of the residences, commercial buildings, and public facilities that would potentially be displaced under each of the Alternatives. SDEIS Appendix C provides a detailed listing of the same relocations.
General Public Opinion: FEIS Section 1.1.2 describes two well-publicized citywide elections in which Dallas residents expressed support for a Trinity Parkway location within the Dallas Floodway. (i) May 2, 1998 - Dallas voters approved the issuance of General Obligation Bonds including $84 million for the Trinity Parkway, a reliever route within the Dallas Floodway levee system (City of Dallas, 1998a), and (ii) November 6, 2007 - Dallas voters rejected a petition calling for prohibition of construction, maintenance, or improvement of certain roadways (i.e. Trinity Parkway) within the Trinity River levees from Westmoreland Road to IH-45.
Alternatives 2A and 2B are inconsistent with the majority of voters opinions, and Alternatives 3C and 4B are consistent with the views of the electorate expressed in these elections that supported a Trinity Parkway location within the Dallas Floodway.
2-86
Stakeholder Opinions: Strong opposition to non-floodplain alternatives and strong support for a floodplain alternative, specifically Alternative 3C, were communicated during the official comment periods for the DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS; very few comments were received regarding Alternative 4B. In addition, many comments were received without any regard to a specific alternative that communicated concerns regarding habitat loss, impacts to wildlife, and impacts on water and air quality. The statements received during the DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS public hearing comment periods are included in FEIS Appendices K, L, and M, respectively. FEIS Appendices L-2 and M-2 contain summarized comments from the SDEIS and LSS public hearings that have been extracted from original statements and organized by topic and subtopic, and include references to resource agency statements where applicable.
Key issues cited by the public as adverse impacts of Alternatives 2A and 2B include: a high number of displacements and relocations, disruption of established businesses along Irving/Riverfront Boulevard, adverse impacts to community resources, and increased traffic on adjacent streets. Statements submitted by the general public expressed concern that
Alternatives 2A and 2B would have "destructive impacts" (or similar) to the established businesses and residential communities in the area. City of Dallas Council members and the Mayor submitted public comments opposing Alternatives 2A and 2B. Business associations, which represent hundreds of local businesses, also submitted comments in opposition to Alternatives 2A and 2B. These local groups included Dallas Regional Chamber Transportation Council, Dallas Black Chamber of Commerce, DOWNTOWNDALLAS, Stemmons Corridor Business Association, The Real Estate Council, Trinity Improvement Association, Mixmaster Business Association, and the West Dallas Chamber of Commerce.
There were numerous statements submitted by the general public expressing support for Alternative 3C. Alternative 3C. Council members and the Mayor submitted public comments in support of Business associations, which represent hundreds of local businesses, also These groups included Dallas Regional
submitted comments in support of Alternative 3C.
Chamber Transportation Council, Dallas Black Chamber of Commerce, DOWNTOWNDALLAS, Stemmons Corridor Business Association, The Real Estate Council, Trinity Improvement Association, Mixmaster Business Association, and the West Dallas Chamber of Commerce. Stated reasons for support of Alternative 3C included: (i) it is the lowest cost alternative, (ii) the design is compatible with the BVP, and (iii) the alternative would cause only minor impacts to the local businesses.
Numerous statements submitted by the general public, as well as agencies such as USEPA and TPWD, communicated concerns for habitat loss, impacts to wildlife, and impacts to water and air
2-87
quality from the construction of the Trinity Parkway, regardless of which alternative. Statements regarding impacts to habitat and wildlife expressed concerns ranging from the opposition to the destruction of habitat, with many commenters voicing the following: support for the No-Build Alternative; the necessity of implementing adequate mitigation measures for habitat loss; and requests for additional biological surveys to more thoroughly address impacts to species that would be affected by habitat loss. Statements regarding impacts to water and air quality included questions as to whether the Trinity Parkways effects on water runoff from the tollway and increased vehicle emissions would exacerbate water and air pollution within the region.
Future Land Use Plans: The Dallas City Council approved the renaming of Industrial Boulevard to "Riverfront Boulevard" in November 2008 and local business owners consider this a positive influence to support mixed-use redevelopment in the area. A section of Riverfront Boulevard from Cadiz Street to Continental Avenue (approximately 1.5 miles) is already under design by Dallas County, in cooperation with the City of Dallas, for reconstruction as a landscaped, bicycle and pedestrian-friendly parkway that will accommodate future streetcars. There is also on-going private development in the corridor (although the pace may have slowed due to national economic conditions). As reported in SDEIS Section 3.1.1.1 (SDEIS pages 3-5 through 3-7), tax-increment financing (TIF) districts have been created for the Cedars and Design Districts to promote mixed-use redevelopment. Development includes commercial infill development in the Design District, as well as infill of residential lofts and similar development along the corridor. These new developments may increase the cost and complexity of acquiring properties for Alternatives 2A and 2B over time. Alternatives 3C and 4B would not conflict with these
development plans and would enhance mobility to developed areas.
The City of Dallas has widely publicized its Trinity River Corridor Project, which is actually the name for a series of proposed projects that are along the main stem and Elm Fork of the Trinity River in Dallas. Since 2003, the city has planned for Trinity Parkway to have a combined
parkway riverside layout, balancing the Trinity Parkway embankments with proposed excavation of lakes in the Dallas Floodway as part of the citys Trinity River Corridor BVP (City of Dallas, 2003a). Since 2007, the design work of the citys Trinity Lakes Consultant Team has been based on this plan, impacting multiple design decisions such as physical layout of the lakes, trails, public spaces and access points, the hydraulic modeling, and the earthworks plan. The city's BVP must be evaluated and found to be environmentally acceptable and technically sound by the USACE before the plan can be implemented. Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 4B are inconsistent with current plans for the BVP and fail to achieve the project objective f achieving compatibility with local development plans. Alternative 3C is consistent with the BVP.
2-88
At the regional level, all of the Build Alternatives would meet the criteria for regional plans such as the 2014-2016 TIP and Mobility 2035 2013 Update. That is, regional planning documents generally factor in the conceptual aspects of the proposed Trinity Parkway, rather than the individual alternatives under consideration.
Impacts on the Stemmons Deed Precedent: There has been a longstanding intent in Dallas to include a major roadway in the Dallas Floodway, most notably derived from the Stemmons Deed Precedent. The 1972 donation of 930 acres of Dallas Floodway land to the city by Industrial Properties included the following language in the escrow agreement: It is the desire of Industrial [Properties] and of the City that all such lands situated within the floodway as above described be made available for parks, open space, recreational, and transportation facilities as set out below, All of said lands so acquired shall be used for parks, open space, recreational, transportation facilities, including roadways on and adjacent to the levees, and such uses as are necessarily incident to the navigation channel, and all of which uses shall be generally consistent with the concept of the Coordinated Plan for Open Space Development of the Trinity River System of the Dallas Park Board dated December 9, 1969 and adopted by the Park Board and approved by the City Council on March 9, 1970. (City of Dallas Park Board Resolution 72-0126, dated January 10, 1972). Further, the 1974 purchase of remaining lands in the Dallas Floodway by the city included this same provision regarding transportation facilities. Alternatives 2A and 2B are not consistent with these historic and ongoing community intentions. Alternatives 3C and 4B are consistent with the intended use as outlined in the deed.
Economic Impacts LSS Sections 4.1.4.1, 4.1.5.1, 4.1.6.1, and 4.1.7.1 (LSS pages 4-7, 4-30, 4-52, and 4-79) provide data regarding the impacts that Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3C and 4B would have on displacements and the local economy. FEIS Table 2-15 provides a summary of the estimated number of businesses and jobs that would potentially be displaced under each of the alternatives.
TABLE 2-15. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF BUSINESS AND JOB DISPLACEMENTS

Build Alternative Businesses Jobs 2A 285 to 304 6,437 to 6,640 2B 220 to 289 6,182 to 6,655 3C 15 to 20 72 to 203 4B 13 to 16 62 to 187 Notes: Information was obtained from Dun & Bradstreet by the City of Dallas, Office of Economic Development, Research & Information Division (January 2010).
Although various positive economic impacts would be expected to benefit the City of Dallas economy during the construction phase of the project, displacements within the Design District
2-89
due to Alternatives 2A and 2B would have a significant negative impact on economic aspects of this area both immediately and over the long-term. Alternatives 3C and 4B would also have adverse impacts on businesses and jobs.
The location and particular nature of adverse effects of Alternatives 2A and 2B warrants separate consideration. These impacts would be due to the acquisition of existing buildings, primarily active commercial and industrial businesses, and conversion of this land to transportation use that is essential to the long-term vision and economic vitality of the Design District as well as the transit-oriented development (TOD) farther east. Indirect impacts to the local economy would derive from the dividing effects of a controlled access tollway along the Irving/Riverfront Boulevard to these areas that have experienced dramatic economic growth in recent years. Such growth may be attributed to decades of planning by the City of Dallas to attract investors to redevelop aging buildings in the Design District. The City of Dallas has long been invested in the long-term economic viability of such areas by offering tax incentives, as the creation of TIF Districts stimulates private development/redevelopment within and near the project corridor (see SDEIS Section 3.1.1.1, SDEIS (pages 3-5 through 3-8).
The availability of vacant land for new business development and/or relocation is relatively limited within the project area. In order to redevelop within the Design District, the density of existing development would have to increase from current conditions in order to offset the net loss of 127 acres (Alternative 2A) to 206 acres (Alternative 2B) of mostly developed land that is privately owned (see LSS Section 4.1.4.1 and 4.1.5.1). Loss of businesses in the area is expected to lead to the loss of over 6,000 jobs as a result of the construction of Alternatives 2A and Alternative 2B (see FEIS Table 2-15). Many of these jobs and businesses could be permanently lost if displaced businesses cannot relocate within the same geographic area, or decide for other reasons to cease operations and employees are unable to find similar work. The construction of Alternatives 2A and 2B would also impact the remaining commercial buildings adjacent to the roadway. The impacts would primarily involve access and traffic circulation challenges over the construction period, which would affect business activity throughout the corridor (see SDEIS Section 4.20.1). The construction of the Trinity Parkway primarily within the floodplain (i.e., Alternatives 3C and 4B) would generally avoid these significant commercial and residential displacements, and loss to the City of Dallas tax base and annual tax revenue for the combined taxing entities (Dallas County, City of Dallas, and DISD). A summary of tax value losses due to displacements and acquisition for each of the alternatives is shown in Table 2-16.
2-90
TABLE 2-16. TAXABLE VALUE LOSSES DUE TO DISPLACEMENTS AND ACQUISITIONS

Build Alternative
1
Total Taxable Value Loss
Combined Tax Revenue Loss Per Year
2A $379 million $10.3 million 2 2B $306 million $8.3 million 3 3C $54 million $1.5 million 4 4B $36 million $1.0 million Notes: Total taxable value losses due to displacements and acquisitions for each of the alternatives are estimated in 2011 dollars. 1. See LSS Table 4-3 (LSS page 4-8) for additional information. 2. See LSS Table 4-11 (LSS page 4-31) for additional information. 3. See LSS Table 4-19 (LSS page 4-53) for additional information. 4. See LSS Table 4-26 (LSS page 4-80) for additional information.
Alternatives 3C and 4b would result in the net loss of 157 acres (Alternative 3C) to 167 acres (Alternative 4B) of mostly developed land that is privately owned (see LSS Section 4.1.6.1 and 4.1.7.1). Loss of businesses in the area is expected to lead to the loss of over 60 jobs as a result of the construction of Alternatives 3C and 4B.
Air Quality Impacts NCTCOG serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for transportation in the DFW area. Since the early 1970s, MPOs have had the responsibility of developing and maintaining a MTP. The MTP is federally-mandated; it serves to identify transportation needs, and guides federal, state, and local transportation expenditures. The MTP at the time of the LSS was titled Mobility 2030: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Dallas-Fort Worth Area. The MTP must conform to the SIP for air quality as required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).
Six pollutants are of primary concern with regards to air quality in urban areas. These include: ozone (O3), CO, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and lead. where potential threats to human health may occur. The USEPA
establishes NAAQS for these identified air pollutants. These standards represent exposure levels The health risk from air pollutants is
generally determined on a regional basis, with the USEPA designating areas where the potential for threat to human health exists as a non-attainment area for specific air pollutants. The
USEPA-designated ten-county DFW area (including Dallas County) is in non-attainment only for ozone. The Trinity Parkway is one of many congestion management measures regional planners are pursuing to reduce levels of ozone. Unlike ozone, concentrations for carbon monoxide are readily modeled for highway projects and are required by federal regulations. A carbon monoxide analysis for the proposed project determined that local concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected to exceed federal standards at any time (see SDEIS Section 4.14.3.1).
In addition to the criteria air pollutants discussed above for which there are NAAQS, the USEPA also regulates air toxics. An analysis of MSAT within the Trinity Parkway study area considered
2-91
the on-road sources for the several priority MSAT. The quantitative MSAT analysis showed a substantial decrease in daily MSAT emissions for the Trinity Parkway Build and No-Build scenarios in 2030 compared to the base year of the analysis (2007). In fact, if emissions are plotted over time, a substantially decreasing level of MSAT emissions can be seen even though overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) will continue to rise (see Figure 4-2C of the SDEIS). This is due in large part to the implementation of USEPAs motor vehicle emission control standards, described in Section 4.14.5.1 of the SDEIS.
Based on assessments in SDEIS Section 4.14 (SDEIS page 4-145) and SDEIS Section 4.15.5 (SDEIS page 4-170), no adverse air quality impacts are anticipated from any of the alternatives.
Traffic Noise Impacts The FHWAs traffic noise modeling software was used to calculate existing and predicted traffic noise levels at receiver locations that represent the land use activity areas adjacent to the proposed project. These areas might be impacted by traffic noise and could potentially benefit from feasible and reasonable noise abatement. All of the Build Alternatives merge together at both the north and south termini of the project area. As a result, traffic noise impacts to 126 noise receivers (125 residences and one park [Sleepy Hollow Park]) are common to each Build Alternative. For a summary of anticipated traffic noise impacts to receivers, refer to FEIS Table 2-17 below (SDEIS Section 4.15.5 (SDEIS page 4-170)). Potential noise mitigation is described in SDEIS Chapter 7 (SDEIS page 7-6).
TABLE 2-17. SUMMARY OF NOISE IMPACTS

Build Alt. 2A 2B 3C 4B SingleFamily 208 201 127 164 MultiFamily 0 0 0 0
School 0 0 0 0
Park 1 1 1 2
Community Center 0 0 0 0
Church 0 0 0 0
Total
209 202 128 166
Impact of Floods on Human Safety

Alternatives 2A and 2B would be located within the levee protected area on the landside of the existing Dallas Floodway East Levee and the proposed Lamar Levee, except for elevated bridge crossings in the southern segment that would be designed to avoid increases in flood elevations and loss of valley storage. Therefore, Alternative 2A (see LSS Section 4.1.4.13, LSS page 4-24) and Alternative 2B (see LSS Section 4.1.5.13, LSS page 4-47) meet the 1988 ROD hydrologic and hydraulic criteria.
Alternatives 3C and 4B would be located within the Dallas Floodway for approximately 70 percent of its length. Within the Dallas Floodway, the mainlanes are proposed to be protected from
2-92
inundation by the 100-year (one percent annual chance) flood event. This level of protection is commensurate with similar roads in the Dallas area and around the state and meets or exceeds NTTA and TxDOT standards for design of highway mainlane facilities. Approximately 297 acres of Alternative 3C would be located in the 100-year (base) floodplain. Approximately 418 acres of Alternative 4B would be located in the 100-year (base) floodplain.
Regarding Alternative 3C and 4B, the approach is to provide a hydraulically neutral design with respect to the Dallas Floodway function by balancing the Trinity Parkway embankments with corresponding excavations in the Dallas Floodway. As shown in FEIS Section 4.14, Alternatives 3C and 4B would meet the USACE criteria pertaining to valley storage and changes in floodwater velocities for both the 100-year flood and the SPF.
With regard to changes in flood elevation, the USACE criteria state there should be no rise in the 100-year or SPF elevation for the proposed condition (USACE, 1988). As shown in SDEIS
Section 4.13.4 (SDEIS pages 4-137 and 4-138) Alternative 3C would result in a maximum rise of 0.41 feet for the 100-year elevation and 0.03 feet for the SPF elevation. Alternative 4B would result in a maximum rise of 1.2 feet for the 100-year elevation and 0.71 feet for the SPF elevation, which would not meet the USACE criteria stating that there should be no rise in the flood elevation. These rises in 100-year and SPF elevations would be evaluated and fine-tuned during the detailed design phase if Alternative 3C or 4B is identified as the FHWA-recommended alternative. Specific measures or refinements to the preliminary design that would be expected to further reduce or eliminate the rises in flood elevations have not been identified at the current level of design development, but would be determined as part of final project design. The
associated civil engineering work would be subject to review and approval by the USACE throughout design and construction to assure compliance with the requirement for hydraulic neutrality (and other design and functional requirements). However, if a modeled surface water elevation cannot be reduced to meet the 1988 ROD criteria, it would be necessary for a floodway alternative to receive variance authorization from the USACE Fort Worth District Commander before the project could be constructed. Alternatives 3C and 4B have been designed not to interfere with the USACEs or the citys ability to operate and maintain the Dallas Floodway, conduct flood fighting activities, or restore or improve the flood damage reduction capability of the federal project.
Future on-going maintenance within the Dallas Floodway is addressed in SDEIS Section 2.4.8 (SDEIS page 2-63) and LSS Chapter 3 (LSS page 3-1). As described in SDEIS Section 2.4.8, mowing and other maintenance operations in the Trinity Parkway operations areas would be at least as frequent as the mowing and maintenance cycles of the City of Dallas Flood Control
2-93
District.
Further, the city would be given unencumbered rights to operate within the Trinity
Parkway project area, including the ability to shut the road down to traffic operations if judged necessary for purposes of the flood control function. Because of the hydraulically neutral design approach and the requirements for no interference with floodway operations and maintenance, neither Alternative 3C or 4B is expected to adversely impact human safety with respect to the Dallas Floodways ability to carry floods.
Another issue related to human safety during floods is the possible danger to motorists of flooding over the proposed roadway. As described in SDEIS Sections 2.4.6 through 2.4.9 (SDEIS
pages 2-59 through 2-65), Alternatives 3C and 4B are proposed to be protected from inundation from the 100-year (one percent annual chance) storm, a level of protection commensurate with other roadways in the NTTA system. Alternatives 3C and 4B would be primarily protected by the physical elevation of the roadway above the computed 100-year event in the Dallas Floodway. Additionally, as described in SDEIS Section 2.4.7 (SDEIS page 2-62), the roadway would be protected by walls and pump stations at low points under existing bridges. In the event of a pump failure, the sags would fill with water after continual rainfall; however, this would be a gradually deepening condition and not a flash flood. In the event of a wall overtopping from the river levels (which would result in rapid inundation of the road), the Trinity Parkway would be closed well in advance of any anticipated overtopping under the directives of the Emergency Action Plan (see SDEIS Appendix K-3 for additional details regarding the Emergency Action Plan). Because of the design features of the proposed road and emergency measures, safety to motorists during floods is not expected to be a differentiating feature between floodplain and non-floodplain alternatives. All proposed flood protection features are reflected in the estimated costs for
Alternatives 3C and 4B.
Risks Associated with Implementation of the Action The risks discussed in this section are distinct from flooding risks discussed in the previous section. Rather this section focuses on levee stability issues. As noted in LSS Section 4.1.4.14 (LSS page 4-24) for Alternative 2A and LSS Section 4.1.5.14 (LSS page 4-47) for Alternative 2B, this levee stability issues are not applicable to the non-floodplain alternatives. However, levee stability risks are an aspect of the Dallas Floodway that has been taken into consideration in the design development of Alternatives 3C and 4B. In this context, there is an inherent
geotechnical risk of a levee failure, based on factors such as the physical layout of the levee, the materials and care used in its construction, the degree of maintenance, the underlying soil strata, and the consequences of overtopping.. This risk analysis for the levees should answer whether these conditions would be unchanged, worsened, or improved in segments where a Build Alternative comes in contact with a levee.
2-94
The geotechnical design conditions related to Alternatives 3C and 4B are discussed in LSS Chapter 3 (LSS pages 3-1 through 3-12). Generally, the roadway design includes features at critical crossing and adjacency points to at least maintain the current strength and stability of the levees. The Trinity Parkway designs are also coordinated with the USACE conceptual designs for raising and thickening the levees so that the levee construction could occur before or after with no effect on constructability. Additionally, in areas where roadway embankments are
adjacent, the roadway embankment would be designed to incorporate the levee widening up to at least the level of the top of the embankment.
Generally the geotechnical work in the Levee Remediation Plan (see LSS Chapter 3) helps to demonstrate that the citys plan will address all levee deficiencies cited by the USACE Periodic Inspection Report, and supports the conclusion that the Trinity Parkway embankment would do no harm to the adjacent levee segments. Moreover, an incremental benefit to levee stability is expected to occur in segments with adjacent roadway embankments. The benefit would accrue for several reasons: (i) for events up to the 100-year level, the flow path distance for seepage under the levee would be increased substantially due to the addition of the roadway embankment, resulting in lower seepage flows and more gradual transitions of pore pressure; (ii) due to the buttressing effect of the embankment (see FEIS Figure 2-22 above) the effective height of the levee slope would be reduced, reducing the potential severity of surface slides, and (iii) in the worst case scenario of an overtopping of the levee, the roadway embankment and paving would likely act to stop any erosion failure of the levee structure, leaving a 100-year level embankment to hold back at least some of the floodwater from entering the city. The final point demonstrates the concept of resilience as a tool for mitigating the effects of natural and manmade disasters. The beneficial buttressing effect for the levees would be realized along the East Levee for Alternative 3C, and along both the East Levee and the West Levee for Alternative 4B.
Incompatible Development
The potential for induced development resulting from Trinity Parkway is presented in SDEIS Section 4.24.1 (SDEIS page 4-205). The indirect impacts analysis is based on the presumption that any 100-year floodplain areas in the project area (including areas in the Dallas Floodway and the surrounding levee-protected lands) would be unavailable for development. Generally, the majority of the wetlands in the project area are within the Dallas Floodway and would unlikely be developed due to flood risk and regulation of development in floodplains, as well as the municipal ownership of the land.
2-95
The protection of the Dallas Floodway and the related sump areas from development would be expected to be stringent because of the regulatory interest in the federal flood protection project. In the Dallas Floodway, the city ownership generally extends at least to the landside levee toes on both sides of the Dallas Floodway, and the regulatory interest extends at least to the landside levee toes on both sides of the Dallas Floodway, and may extend further landside based on actual public ownership or other development constraints, including building setbacks to assure levee stability. In the sump areas, the citys land ownership extends at least from top of bank to top of bank. Accordingly, there would be no induced incompatible development in floodplains or wetlands in the Dallas Floodway or sump areas due to the implementation of Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3C or 4B.
Future development in the Dallas Floodway is expected to be controlled closely by the USACE and the City of Dallas as the Dallas Floodway owner. Such development may include lakes, parks, trails and similar recreational features as presented in the citys BVP if the proposed features are found to be technically sound and environmentally acceptable upon evaluation by the USACE. SDEIS Section 3.1.1.4 (SDEIS page 3-11) provides a description of the BVP and SDEIS Plate 3-7 provides a master plan view of the proposal. Future floodplain development in the Dallas
Floodway would be conducted in accordance with EO 11988 (Floodplain Management), as determined by the USACE. The proposed BVP improvements are intended to be flood resistant in response to the Dallas Floodway setting, and of the type (e.g., parks, lakes, trails) which are generally recognized as being appropriate and compatible in floodplains. In addition, the BVP improvements are not induced by the Trinity Parkway.
The obvious locational advantage for Alternative 2A is that it would avoid significant encroachment in the Dallas Floodway and would utilize existing transportation corridors. However, due to the density of development and transportation network in the area, this is also a disadvantage.
One of the objectives of the proposed project is to provide compatibility with local development plans. Alternatives 2A and 2B do not fully meet this project objective because they do not provide compatibility with local land use plans. The location of Alternative 2A is inconsistent with these plans and the citys vision of the Trinity River Corridor to be the front door to the Dallas CBD. The location of Alternatives 2A and 2B would restrict development in some areas of the corridor because of its influence on the size and depth of developable land remaining in the corridor. For instance, parts of the northern segment would have Stemmons Freeway (IH-35E) and the Trinity Parkway running in close proximity for some distance. The influence in the Mixmaster area would be more pronounced, with IH-35E/IH-30 and the Trinity Parkway located directly adjacent to each
2-96
other creating a highway corridor almost 1,000 feet wide for a distance of nearly 1 mile between the Dallas CBD and the East Levee. The Alternative 2B ROW would occupy nearly all available developable land between Riverfront Boulevard and the East Levee from Reunion Boulevard almost to Corinth Street, a distance in excess of 2 miles (see FEIS Plate 2-3 B). The location of Alternatives 3C and 4B (inside the floodplain) would not restrict development on the landside of the Dallas Floodway. Alternatives 3C and 4B would generally avoid disruption of the business district situated between the Dallas CBD and the East Levee, which would be consistent with the citys vision for this area. Alternative 3C is consistent with the City of Dallas land use planning to date, including the citys BVP for the Trinity River Corridor. However, the location of Alternative 4B along both the east and west levees within the Dallas Floodway is inconsistent with the citys BVP.
Another major aspect of incompatibility for Alternatives 2A and 2B occurs in the area south of the Dallas CBD at the connections to South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E) and the HoustonJefferson couplet. As shown in Table 2-6 of FEIS Section 2.5.2, Alternatives 2A would have only a half diamond connection to Houston-Jefferson Street and no direct connection to South RL Thornton Freeway. The lack of connectivity to South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E) would be a shortcoming, meaning that commuters on South RL Thornton Freeway could not connect to Trinity Parkway and bypass the downtown Mixmaster interchange. This lack of a connection would be particularly critical in the event of traffic incidents in the Mixmaster. Also shown in Table 2-6 of FEIS Section 2.5.2, Alternative 2B would have no connections to Houston-Jefferson Street or South RL Thornton Freeway, resulting in the same connectivity issues outlined above for Alternative 2A.
Aesthetics LSS Sections 4.1.4.16 (LSS page 4-25), 4.1.5.16 (LSS page 4-48), 4.1.6.16 (LSS page 4-76) and 4.1.5.16 (LSS page 4-101) each contain a detailed analysis of the visual impacts of Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3C, and 4B respectively. Considerable visual impacts resulting from
Alternatives 2A and 2B would change the community setting in the areas along Irving/Riverfront Boulevard. Residents, business employees, business patrons, and motorists would experience strong visual changes due to the highly visible roadway that would obscure views and greatly alter the character of the neighborhoods, particularly the Design District.
Alternatives 2A and 2B require elevated loop ramps to connect to Woodall Rodgers Freeway. These ramps introduce possible visual impacts to the Margaret Hunt Hill (MHH) Bridge by limiting or blocking views of the bridge from certain vantage points. The issue of visual intrusion was one of the concerns for the proposed design during development of the citys BVP (City of Dallas,
2-97
2003a). The MHH Bridge was designed by internationally known architect Santiago Calatrava, and is generally perceived as a signature piece and possibly a tourist attraction. Alternatives 2A and 2B would have an effect on the viewshed to the MHH Bridge, which is not consistent with the citys BVP. Alternatives 3C and 4B would not restrict views of the MHH Bridge.
Within the Dallas Floodway, Alternatives 3C and 4B would be visible to recreational users between the levees; in some cases, the roadway and access ramps would be visible, while in other cases, the roadway would be hidden from view behind the Trinity Parkways flood separation wall. The flood separation wall itself would be visible in some locations, but in most places, an earthen embankment would be built against the riverside face of the flood separation wall. In these locations, the combined flood separation wall/embankment would visually resemble the levees. The screening provided by the East Levee would restrict the Trinity Parkways
visibility from adjacent landside properties and buildings in the Dallas CBD. Alternatives 3C and 4B would not substantially limit the views of most commercial businesses and residential neighborhoods beyond the immediate corridor.
The most common view for future motorists from Alternative 3C would be of the East Levee and the flood separation wall along the western edge of the roadway. Similarly, the view from either side of the floodway for Alternative 4B would be a flood separation wall on one side and either the East Levee (northbound) or West Levee (southbound) on the other. The East Levee would limit the views from Alternatives 3C and 4B (northbound) toward many of the commercial businesses and residential neighborhoods on the other side of the levee and toward the Dallas CBD. However, it is expected that motorists would be able to see the skyline of the CBD from the southbound lanes of Alternative 4B on the west side of the floodway.
Historic Values SDEIS Section 4.7.2.2 (page 4-87) provides an evaluation of potential impacts to cultural resources with historic significance. No significant adverse effects to archeological resources or non-archeological historic sites would occur due to any of the alternatives, except for an adverse effect to the Continental Viaduct by Alternative 3C. Alternative 3C mainlanes are proposed to go under the viaduct with ramp connections to the viaduct on top of and outside of the levee.
2.8.5
EO PRACTICABILITY ANALYSIS
This section is an alternative-by-alternative analysis of the information and predictive estimates of impacts presented in the foregoing section. For each of the Build Alternatives, each of the EO practicability factors is evaluated to determine whether the facts/estimates presented above
2-98
(based on the source material contained in the SDEIS/LSS) render the alternative practicable based on that factor alone. This is followed by a discussion addressing whether each alternative would be practicable if all of the EO practicability factors were considered in combination.
2.8.5.1 EO Practicability of Build Alternative 2A
2A: Project Cost The practicability of Alternative 2A on the basis of cost was evaluated after first developing a cost screen from the combined construction costs and ROW/utilities relocation costs of comparable toll road projects constructed or planned in urban areas of Texas. Applying that cost screen to Alternative 2A indicates that its costs would be 88 percent greater per mainlane mile than the cost screen that was established at $20 million per mainlane mile. Accordingly, and allowing for the vagaries of estimating costs for major transportation projects, it is clear that the comparative cost of Alternative 2A is substantially greater than the costs normally associated with this type of project. In light of this information, Alternative 2A is not practicable based on project cost.
2A: Existing Technology As Alternative 2A would utilize current engineering technology for roadway and related construction, there is no basis to expect any unusual or insurmountable technological issues that would affect constructability. Alternative 2A, therefore, is considered practicable with regard to existing technology.
2A: Logistics Several logistical elements related to construction have been examined, as evidenced by the combined influence that these elements would have on the time necessary to construct Alternative 2A. Logistical elements affect the level of difficulty to complete construction, and therefore the time needed to complete construction as well as the level of inconvenience to the surrounding community such as road/lane closures and detours. The estimated length of time from startup of engineering/construction activities until the Trinity Parkway could be fully open to traffic is estimated to be 10 years for Alternative 2A. This lengthy time-to-construct is attributable to the need to acquire the ROW and displace buildings on approximately 285 properties, which would involve substantial demolition activity and associated hazardous material abatement. Additional time would be required to address site contamination on 34 high-risk hazardous materials sites and the relocation of overhead and subsurface utilities that saturate a highlyurbanized corridor. A most important aspect affecting the logistics of construction, thereby adding to the length of time to construct, would be the difficulties of constructing a roadway along a busy commercial roadway corridor, and the unavoidable inconvenience that would be caused from the
2-99
many and changing road and lane closures and the detours that would be required. A 10-year construction period for Alternative 2A would not preclude further consideration of this alternative as it would be capable of being done according to the definition of practicable in 23 CFR Section 650.105(k).
2A: Natural and Beneficial Values Served by Floodplains Alternative 2A would have a floodplain encroachment footprint of 55 acres, and would result in 20.7 acres of impacts to undeveloped areas, including impacts to the following habitats: riparian forest, 4.6 acres; waters of the U.S., including wetlands, 4.2 acres; and maintained non-native grassland, 11.9 acres. These and other anticipated impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values would not prevent Alternative 2A from being considered practicable, particularly in light of potential compensatory mitigation that may be employed to address these and other impacts.
2A: Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands, and Water Quality Alternative 2A would adversely affect 4.2 acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, as the result of fill from the construction of road surfaces and bridges. These impacts would affect approximately 1.4 acres of forested wetlands, 2.7 acres of the old Trinity River channel, and 0.1 acre of intermittent stream channel. These expected impacts, which reflect a combination of temporary and permanent impacts, would be subject to the conditions and mitigation requirements of an individual permit under Section 404. Similarly, potential construction-related erosion from construction sites would be subject to the requirement of a SWPPP and the employment of appropriate BMPs to minimize migration of eroded soil offsite into surface waters. Considering the level of impacts to aquatic features and water quality, the regulatory requirements designed to minimize and mitigate for impacts, and the functions, values, and quality of aquatic resources that would be affected, the proposed Alternative 2A would be a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2A: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values The level of impact of Alternative 2A on wildlife was assessed primarily in terms of anticipated impacts to high quality habitat such as riparian forests and some aquatic habitats, as summarized above for habitat-related factors. The construction of Alternative 2A would result in limited habitat fragmentation from the clearing of riparian forest areas near the southern end of the project alignment. Mitigation for impacts to riparian forest and aquatic habitats would include efforts to avoid and minimize impacts and mitigate for long-term compensation of habitat impacts. This alternative is not expected to result in an adverse effect/impact to any federally- or state-listed threatened or endangered species, or state species of concern. Accordingly, Alternative 2A is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2-100
2A: Conservation Energy, fuel, and materials consumption would occur during construction and operation of Alternative 2A. As this alternative would operate as an all-electronic toll collection facility, which provides operational efficiencies to reduce stop and go traffic conditions, lower fuel/energy consumption is expected. In addition, the highway construction materials that would be
expended are not in short supply and therein would not adversely affect continued availability of similar resources. Alternative 2A is therefore considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2A: Needs and Welfare of the Community Alternative 2A would result in significant economic impacts to the business community in the Design District, the TOD District, as well other areas within the community. The direct economic effects would result in an estimated displacement of 285 to 304 businesses and loss of over 6,000 jobs. Although the city would benefit economically from construction-related spending, such benefits would not adequately offset impacts to local businesses, many of which have invested in development/redevelopment in response to city TIF district and other incentives.
Acceptance of Alternative 2A by the City of Dallas officials and community is highly unlikely because it would be contrary to the citywide bond approval from May 2, 1998 in which Dallas residents supported a Trinity Parkway location within the Dallas Floodway. Alternative 2A would also be inconsistent with a citywide special election held on November 6, 2007, which determined that the city should continue to consider alternatives in the Dallas Floodway for the Trinity Parkway. The City of Dallas would not support the construction of Alternative 2A as doing so would require implementing a completely new urban planning strategy in contravention of foundational city plans and policies, as well as promises made to the private sector. Alternative 2A is generally incompatible with local development plans and is inconsistent with the BVP.
Alternative 2A would be contrary to long-standing urban planning by the City of Dallas to revitalize areas characterized by aging industrial areas into vibrant urban centers. For over two decades the city has sought to attract businesses and real estate developers to areas such as the Design District as part of its long term plans. The city has created TIF districts for the Design District and the TOD district, thereby foregoing tax revenues in the short term as a means of attracting investors to these areas to achieve the citys and communitys vision of a pedestrian-friendly mixed use urban environment. Constructing a tollway in place of Irving/Riverfront Boulevard would greatly magnify an existing barrier within the Design District and the TOD District, thereby upsetting city plans for the area. Lastly, there has been a longstanding intent in Dallas to include
2-101
a major roadway in the Dallas Floodway, most notably derived from the Stemmons Deed Precedent.
A tollway along the Alternative 2A alignment would obstruct collective city/community planning efforts to transform existing industrial areas into thriving urban environments planned to enhance community cohesion and foster further development of undeveloped land and redevelopment of aging properties. For instance, this alternative would occupy nearly all available developable land between Riverfront Boulevard and the East Levee from Reunion Boulevard almost to Corinth Street, a distance in excess of 2 miles. The road barrier would hinder the success of the
business community by becoming a disincentive for future investment while causing economic harm to existing investments. This is a particular concern to merchants within the Design District, based on statements made during public comment periods for the DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS, as it would stifle the existing pattern of influx of developers, retailers, and shoppers to the Design Districts restaurants, retail stores, art galleries, and apartment complexes.
As articulated by numerous members of the affected business community in comments received from the DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS, Alternative 2A is generally passionately opposed by the Dallas business community and others as being contrary to the needs and welfare of the people in project area communities. Key issues cited by the public as adverse impacts of Alternative 2A includes the following: a high number of displacements and relocations, disruption of established businesses along Irving/Riverfront Boulevard, adverse impacts to community resources, and increased traffic on adjacent streets. Statements submitted by members of the community during public comment periods expressed concern that Alternative 2A would have "destructive impacts" to the established businesses and residential communities in the area. City of Dallas Council members and the Mayor have submitted public comments opposing Alternative 2A, and business associations, which represent hundreds of local businesses also submitted comments in opposition to Alternative 2A.
The incompatibility of Alternative 2A with city plans and programs, widespread objections to it by merchants, developers, and residents, and the significant adverse effects to investments in recent years to revitalize aging urban areas, make it clear that there is a lack of community support for this alternative. Moreover, the strong opposition to this alternative by both public officials as well as community members strongly indicates that constructing Alternative 2A would require a wholesale setting aside of public sentiment against it. These and other impacts on the needs and welfare of the community indicate that Alternative 2A is virtually not capable of being done in Dallas, and is therefore not practicable with regard to this evaluation factor.
2-102
2A: Economic Impacts Displacements within the Design District due to Alternative 2A would have a significant negative impact on economic aspects of this area both immediately and over the long-term. This would be due to the acquisition of existing buildings, primarily active commercial and industrial businesses, and conversion of this land to transportation use that is essential to the long-term vision and economic vitality of the Design District as well as the TOD District farther east. Alternative 2A is estimated to lead to the displacement of 285 to 304 businesses and 6,437 to 6,640 jobs, making it incompatible with ongoing economic investments of the City of Dallas and the business community in the Design and TOD Districts. Many of these jobs and businesses could be
permanently lost if displaced businesses cannot relocate within the same geographic area or decide for other reasons to cease operations and employees are unable to find similar work. The construction of Alternative 2A would also impact the remaining commercial buildings adjacent to the roadway. The impacts would primarily involve access and traffic circulation challenges over the construction period, which would affect business activity throughout the corridor (see SDEIS Section 4.20.1). The conversion of business properties to ROW would remove an estimated $379 million from the City of Dallas tax base and annual tax revenue for the combined taxing entities (Dallas County, City of Dallas, and DISD), and the annual combined loss of revenue for these three taxing entities would be an estimated $10.3 million. Although the overall direct and indirect economic impacts to the Dallas CBD of Alternative 2A are expected to be significant and adverse, this alternative is still considered practicable as to this factor. This is in part because the compensation required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act would partially mitigate economic losses to property owners.
2A: Air Quality Impacts Although the USEPA-designated ten-county DFW area is in non-attainment for ozone, regional planners are pursuing congestion management measures to reduce levels of ozone. Local
concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected to exceed federal standards at any time, and daily MSAT emissions are expected to substantially decrease due in large part to the implementation of USEPAs motor vehicle emission control standards. Consequently, no adverse air quality impacts are anticipated from Alternative 2A, which indicates that it is a practicable alternative in terms of air quality.
2A: Traffic Noise Impacts The construction of Alternative 2A would result in traffic noise impacts to 208 noise receivers and one park. Mitigation for impacts to noise receivers would include efforts to avoid and minimize traffic noise impacts. Accordingly, Alternative 2A is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2-103
2A: Impact of Floods on Human Safety Alternative 2A would be located within the levee-protected area on the landside of the Dallas Floodway East Levee and the proposed Lamar Levee, except for elevated bridge crossings in the southern segment that would be designed to avoid increases in flood elevations and loss of valley storage. Therefore, Alternative 2A (see LSS Section 4.1.4.13, LSS page 4-24) meets the 1988 ROD hydrologic and hydraulic criteria and is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2A: Risks Associated with Implementation of the Action The risks associated with this section focus on levee stability issues. As Alternative 2A is not located within the Dallas Floodway, levee stability issues are not applicable and Alternative 2A is practicable as to this factor.
2A: Incompatible Development Generally, the majority of the wetlands in the project area are within the Dallas Floodway and would unlikely be developed due to flood risk and regulation of development in floodplains, as well as the municipal ownership of the land. The protection of the Dallas Floodway and the related sump areas from development is also expected to be stringent because of the regulatory interest in the federal flood protection project. Accordingly, there would be no induced
incompatible development in floodplains or wetlands in the Dallas Floodway or sump areas due to the implementation of Alternative 2A.
Future development in the Dallas Floodway is expected to be controlled closely by the USACE and the City of Dallas as the Dallas Floodway owner. Proposed BVP improvements are intended to be flood resistant in keeping with the Dallas Floodway setting, and are of the type (e.g., parks, lakes, trails) which are generally recognized as being appropriate and compatible in floodplains.
The obvious locational advantage for Alternative 2A is that it would avoid significant encroachment in the Dallas Floodway and would utilize existing transportation corridors. However, due to the density of development and transportation network in the area along Irving/Riverfront Boulevard, this is also a disadvantage.
One of the objectives of the proposed project is to provide compatibility with local development plans. Alternative 2A does not fully meet this objective because it does not provide compatibility with local land use plans. The location of Alternative 2A is inconsistent with these plans and the citys vision of the Trinity River Corridor to be the front door to the Dallas CBD. The location of
2-104
Alternative 2A would restrict development in some areas of the corridor because of its influence on the size and depth of developable land remaining in the corridor. For instance, parts of the northern segment would have Stemmons Freeway (IH-35E) and the Trinity Parkway running in close proximity for some distance. The influence in the Mixmaster area would be more
pronounced with IH-35E/IH-30 and the Alternative 2A located directly adjacent to each other creating a highway corridor almost 1,000 feet wide for a distance of nearly 1 mile between the Dallas CBD and the East Levee.
Another major aspect of incompatibility for Alternative 2A occurs in the area south of the Dallas CBD at the connections to South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E) and the Houston-Jefferson couplet. As shown in Table 2-6 of FEIS Section 2.5.2, Alternative 2A would have only a half diamond connection to Houston-Jefferson Street and no direct connection to South RL Thornton Freeway. The lack of connectivity to South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E) would be a
shortcoming, meaning that commuters on South RL Thornton Freeway could not connect to Trinity Parkway and bypass the downtown Mixmaster interchange. This lack of a connection would be particularly critical in the event of traffic incidents in the Mixmaster. Although Alternative 2A would not provide compatibility with local development plans, this alternative would still be considered practicable as to this factor. Given sufficient municipal and community support for this alternative, it could be possible for city plans to be adapted to be consistent with the alternative. Accordingly, the practicability of this alternative is not precluded due to incompatibility with local plans, although this fact will be considered further as practicability is determined based on all EO practicability factors.
2A: Aesthetics The issue of visual intrusion was one of the concerns for the proposed design during development of the citys BVP (City of Dallas, 2003a). As it approaches downtown Dallas,
Alternative 2A elevates to more than 50 feet above grade to clear Woodall Rodgers Freeway, and to more than 75 feet above grade to clear Houston-Jefferson and South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E). Considerable visual impacts resulting from Alternative 2A would change the community setting in the areas along Irving/Riverfront Boulevard. Residents, business employees, business patrons, and motorists would experience strong visual changes due to the highly visible roadway that would obscure views and greatly alter the character of the neighborhoods, particularly the Design District.
Alternative 2A also requires elevated loop ramps to connect to Woodall Rodgers Freeway. These ramps introduce possible visual impacts to the MHH Bridge by limiting or blocking views of the bridge from certain vantage points, which is not consistent with the citys BVP. The MHH Bridge
2-105
is generally perceived as a signature piece and a possible tourist attraction.
Although
Alternative 2A would negatively affect the viewshed to the MHH Bridge, this impact and other adverse aesthetic impacts would not be sufficient to preclude Alternative 2A from being considered practicable as to this factor.
2A: Historic Values No significant adverse effects to archeological resources or non-archeological historic sites would occur due to Alternative 2A. Accordingly, Alternative 2A is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2A: EO Practicability Based on All Factors Combined Alternative 2A could not be built within existing natural, social, and economic constraints applicable to the project area and is, therefore, not a practicable alternative. This finding is based primarily to the excessive cost of this alternative as compared to other comparable toll projects. Equally compelling is the incompatibility of Alternative 2A with the needs and welfare of the community, which goes far beyond inconsistency with city plans and programs. The
incompatibility of Alternative 2A with local plans does not require a finding of practicability, because such plans could be modified to adapt to the alternative. However, such plans are a reflection of the needs of the community as reflected in a complex process involving the election of city council, professional staff sometimes aided by the input of consultants with specialized expertise. Feedback from the city and the community have made it clear that there is not only a lack of support for this alternative, but strong opposition to it from various elements within the community. The level of harm associated with this alternative to the community, and the
destructive influence it would have on the nationally recognized Design District and other community elements weigh heavily against its practicability. The level of economic impacts and harm to community cohesion would not likely be amenable to effective mitigation in light of City of Dallas plans, policies, and investments. Finally, substantial adverse impacts to Dallas CBD
economics and aesthetics further contribute to the undesirability of this alternative as a viable means to meet the need and purpose of the Trinity Parkway. For the foregoing reasons,
Alternative 2A is not a practicable alternative under the policies set out in EO 11988 (Floodplain Management), EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), and implementing regulations.
2.8.5.2 EO Practicability of Build Alternative 2B
2B: Project Cost The practicability of Alternative 2B on the basis of cost was evaluated after first developing a cost screen from the combined construction costs and ROW/utilities relocation costs of comparable
2-106
toll road projects constructed or planned in urban areas of Texas. Applying that cost screen to Alternative 2B indicates that its costs would be 50 percent greater per mainlane mile than the cost screen that was established at $20 million per mainlane mile. Accordingly, and allowing for the vagaries of estimating costs for major transportation projects, it is clear that the comparative cost of Alternative 2B is substantially greater than the costs normally associated with this type of project. In light of this information, Alternative 2B is not practicable based on project cost.
2B: Existing Technology As Alternative 2B would utilize current engineering technology for roadway and related construction, there is no basis to expect any unusual or insurmountable technological issues that would affect constructability. Alternative 2B, therefore, is considered practicable with regard to existing technology.
2B: Logistics Several logistical elements related to construction have been examined, as evidenced by the combined influence these elements would have on the time necessary to construct Alternative 2B. Logistical elements affect the level of difficulty to complete construction, and therefore the time needed to complete construction as well as the level of inconvenience to the surrounding community such as road/lane closures and detours. The estimated length of time from startup of engineering/construction activities until the Trinity Parkway could be fully open to traffic is estimated to be nine years for Alternative 2B. This lengthy time-to-construct is attributable to the need to acquire the ROW and displace buildings on approximately 245 properties, which would involve substantial demolition activity and associated hazardous material abatement. Additional time would be required to address site contamination on 35 high-risk hazardous materials sites and the relocation of overhead and subsurface utilities that saturate a highly-urbanized corridor. A most important aspect affecting the logistics of construction, thereby adding to the length of time to construct, would be the difficulties of constructing a roadway along a busy commercial roadway corridor, and the unavoidable inconvenience that would be caused from the many road and lane closures and the detours that would be required. A 9-year construction period for Alternative 2B would not preclude further consideration of this alternative as it would be capable of being done according to the definition of practicable in 23 CFR Section 650.105(k).
2B: Natural and Beneficial Values Served by Floodplains Alternative 2B would have a floodplain encroachment footprint of 76 acres, and would result in 46.6 acres of impacts to undeveloped areas, including impacts to the following habitats: riparian forest, 6.4 acres; waters of the U.S., including wetlands, 9.1 acres; and maintained non-native grassland, 31.1 acres. These and other anticipated impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain
2-107
values would not prevent Alternative 2B from being considered practicable, particularly in light of potential compensatory mitigation that may be employed to address these impacts.
2B: Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands, and Water Quality Alternative 2B would adversely affect 9.1 acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, as the result of fill from the construction of road surfaces and bridges. These impacts would affect approximately 2.5 acres of forested wetlands, 6.3 acres of the old Trinity River channel, and 0.2 acre of intermittent stream channel. These expected impacts, which reflect a combination of temporary and permanent impacts, would be subject to the conditions and mitigation requirements of an individual permit under Section 404. Similarly, potential construction-related erosion from construction sites would be subject to the requirement of a SWPPP and the employment of appropriate BMPs to minimize migration of eroded soil offsite into surface waters. Considering the level of impacts to aquatic features and water quality, the regulatory requirements designed to minimize and mitigate for impacts, and the functions, values, and quality of aquatic resources that would be affected, the proposed Alternative 2B would be a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2B: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values The level of impact of Alternative 2B on wildlife was assessed primarily in terms of anticipated impacts to high quality habitat such as riparian forests and some aquatic habitats, as summarized above for habitat-related factors. The construction of Alternative 2B would result in limited habitat fragmentation from the clearing of riparian forest areas near the southern end of the project alignment. Mitigation for impacts to riparian forest and aquatic habitats would include efforts to avoid and minimize impacts as well mitigate for long-term compensation of habitat impacts. This alternative is not expected to result in an adverse effect/impact to any federally- or state-listed threatened or endangered species, or state species of concern. Accordingly, Alternative 2B is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2B: Conservation Energy, fuel, and materials consumption would occur during construction and operation of Alternative 2B. As this alternative would operate as an all-electronic toll collection facility, which provides operational efficiencies to reduce stop and go traffic conditions, lower fuel/energy consumption is expected. In addition, the highway construction materials that would be
expended are not in short supply and therein would not adversely affect continued availability of similar resources. Alternative 2B, therefore, is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2-108
2B: Needs and Welfare of the Community Alternative 2B would result in overwhelming economic impacts to the business community in the Design District, the TOD District, as well other areas within the community. The direct economic effects would result in an estimated displacement of 220 to 289 businesses and loss of over 6,000 jobs. Although the city would benefit economically from construction-related spending, such benefits would not adequately offset impacts to local businesses, many of which have invested in development/redevelopment in response to city TIF district and other incentives.
Acceptance of Alternative 2B by the City of Dallas officials and community is highly unlikely because it would be contrary to the citywide bond approval from May 2, 1998 in which Dallas residents supported a Trinity Parkway location within the Dallas Floodway. Alternative 2B would also be inconsistent with a citywide special election held on November 6, 2007, which determined that the city should continue to consider alternatives in the Dallas Floodway for the Trinity Parkway. The City of Dallas would not support the construction of Alternative 2B as doing so would require implementing a completely new urban planning strategy in contravention of foundational city plans and policies, as well as promises made to the private sector. Alternative 2B is generally incompatible with local development plans and is inconsistent with the BVP.
Alternative 2B would be contrary to long-standing urban planning by the City of Dallas to revitalize areas characterized by aging industrial areas into vibrant urban centers. For over two decades the city has sought to attract businesses and real estate developers to areas such as the Design District as part of its long term plans. The city has created TIF districts for the Design District and the TOD district, thereby foregoing tax revenues in the short term as a means of attracting investors to these areas to achieve the citys and communitys vision of a pedestrian-friendly mixed use urban environment. Constructing a tollway in place of Irving/Riverfront Boulevard would greatly magnify an existing barrier within the Design District and the TOD District, thereby upsetting city plans for the area. Lastly, there has been a longstanding intent in Dallas to include a major roadway in the Dallas Floodway, most notably derived from the Stemmons Deed Precedent.
A tollway along the Alternative 2B alignment would obstruct collective city/community planning efforts to transform existing industrial areas into thriving urban environments planned to enhance community cohesion and foster further development of undeveloped land and redevelopment of aging properties. For instance, this alternative would occupy nearly all available developable land between Riverfront Boulevard and the East Levee from Reunion Boulevard almost to Corinth Street, a distance in excess of 2 miles. The road barrier would hinder the success of the
business community by becoming a disincentive for future investment while causing economic
2-109
harm to existing investments. This is a particular concern to merchants within the Design District, based on statements made during public comment periods for the DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS, as it would stifle the existing pattern of influx of developers, retailers, and shoppers to the Design Districts restaurants, retail stores, art galleries, and apartment complexes.
As articulated by numerous members of the affected business community in comments received from the DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS, Alternative 2B is generally passionately opposed by the Dallas business community and others as being contrary to the needs and welfare of the people in project area communities. Key issues cited by the public as adverse impacts of Alternative 2B includes the following: a high number of displacements and relocations, disruption of established businesses along Irving/Riverfront Boulevard, adverse impacts to community resources, and increased traffic on adjacent streets. Statements submitted by members of the community during public comment periods expressed concern that Alternative 2B would have "destructive impacts" to the established businesses and residential communities in the area. City of Dallas Council members and the Mayor have submitted public comments opposing Alternative 2B, and business associations, which represent hundreds of local businesses, also submitted comments in opposition to Alternative 2B.
The incompatibility of Alternative 2B with city plans and programs, widespread objections to it by merchants, developers, and residents, and the significant adverse effects to investments in recent years to revitalize aging urban areas, make it clear that there is a lack of community support for this alternative. Moreover, the strong opposition to this alternative by both public officials as well as community members strongly indicates that constructing Alternative 2B would require a wholesale setting aside of public sentiment against it. These and other impacts on the needs and welfare of the community indicate that Alternative 2B is virtually not capable of being done in Dallas, and is therefore not practicable with regard to this evaluation factor.
2B: Economic Impacts Displacements within the Design District due to Alternative 2B would have a significant negative impact on economic aspects of this area both immediately and over the long-term. This would be due to the acquisition of existing buildings, primarily active commercial and industrial businesses, and conversion of this land to transportation use that is essential to the long-term vision and economic vitality of the Design District as well as the TOD farther east. Alternative 2B is
estimated to lead to the displacement of 220 to 289 businesses and 6,182 to 6,655 jobs, making it incompatible with ongoing economic investments of the City of Dallas and the business community in the Design District and the TOD District. Many of these jobs and businesses could be permanently lost if displaced businesses cannot relocate within the same geographic area, or
2-110
decide for other reasons to cease operations and employees are unable to find similar work. The construction of Alternative 2B would also impact the remaining commercial buildings adjacent to the roadway. The impacts would primarily involve access and traffic circulation challenges over the construction period, which would affect business activity throughout the corridor (see SDEIS Section 4.20.1). The conversion of business properties to ROW would remove an estimated $306 million from the City of Dallas tax base and annual tax revenue for the combined taxing entities (Dallas County, City of Dallas, and DISD), and the annual combined loss of revenue for these three taxing entities would be an estimated $8.3 million. Although the overall direct and indirect economic impacts to the Dallas CBD of Alternative 2B are expected to be significant and adverse, this alternative is still considered practicable as to this factor. This is in part because the compensation required by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act would partially mitigate economic losses to property owners.
2B: Air Quality Impacts Although the USEPA-designated ten-county DFW area is in non-attainment for ozone, regional planners are pursuing congestion management measures to reduce levels of ozone. Local
concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected to exceed federal standards at any time, and daily MSAT emissions are expected to substantially decrease due in large part to the implementation of USEPAs motor vehicle emission control standards. Consequently, no substantial adverse air quality impacts are anticipated from Alternative 2B, which indicates that it is a practicable alternative in terms of air quality.
2B: Traffic Noise Impacts The construction of Alternative 2B would result in traffic noise impacts to 201 noise receivers and one park. Mitigation for impacts to noise receivers would include efforts to avoid and minimize traffic noise impacts. Accordingly, Alternative 2B is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2B: Impact of Floods on Human Safety Alternative 2B would be located within the levee-protected area on the landside of the Dallas Floodway East Levee and the proposed Lamar Levee, except for elevated bridge crossings in the southern segment that would be designed to avoid increases in flood elevations and loss of valley storage. Therefore, Alternative 2B (see LSS Section 4.1.5.13, LSS page 4-47) meets the 1988 ROD hydrologic and hydraulic criteria and is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2-111
2B: Risks Associated with Implementation of the Action The risks associated with this section focus on levee stability issues. As Alternative 2B is not located within the Dallas Floodway, levee stability issues are not applicable and Alternative 2B is practicable as to this factor.
2B: Incompatible Development Generally, the majority of the wetlands in the project area are within the Dallas Floodway and would unlikely be developed due to flood risk and regulation of development in floodplains, as well as the municipal ownership of the land. The protection of the Dallas Floodway and the related sump areas from development is also expected to be stringent because of the regulatory interest in the federal flood protection project. Accordingly, there would be no induced
incompatible development in floodplains or wetlands in the Dallas Floodway or sump areas due to the implementation of Alternative 2B.
Future development in the Dallas Floodway is expected to be controlled closely by the USACE and the City of Dallas as the Dallas Floodway owner. Proposed BVP improvements are intended to be flood resistant in keeping with the Dallas Floodway setting, and are of the type (e.g. parks, lakes, trails) which are generally recognized as being appropriate and compatible in floodplains.
One of the objectives of the proposed project is to provide compatibility with local development plans. Alternative 2B does not fully meet this objective because the location of Alternative 2B would restrict development in some areas of the corridor due to its influence on the size and depth of developable land remaining in the corridor. For instance, parts of the northern segment would have Stemmons Freeway (IH-35E) and the Trinity Parkway running in close proximity for some distance. The influence in the Mixmaster area would be more pronounced, with IH-35E/IH30 and the Trinity Parkway located directly adjacent to each other creating a highway corridor almost 1,000 feet wide for a distance of nearly 1 mile between the Dallas CBD and the East Levee. Alternative 2B ROW would also occupy nearly all available developable land between Riverfront Boulevard and the East Levee from Reunion Boulevard almost to Corinth Street, a distance in excess of 2 miles (see FEIS Plate 2-3 B).
Another major aspect of incompatibility for Alternative 2B occurs in the area south of the Dallas CBD at the connections to South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E) and the Houston-Jefferson couplet. As shown in Table 2-6 of FEIS Section 2.5.2, Alternative 2B would have no connections to Houston-Jefferson Street or South RL Thornton Freeway. The lack of connectivity to South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E) would be a shortcoming, meaning that commuters on South RL Thornton Freeway could not connect to Trinity Parkway and bypass the downtown Mixmaster
2-112
interchange. This lack of a connection would be particularly critical in the event of traffic incidents in the Mixmaster. Although Alternative 2B would not provide compatibility with local development plans, this alternative would still be considered practicable as to this factor. Given sufficient municipal and community support for this alternative, it could be possible for city plans to be adapted to be consistent with the alternative. Accordingly, the practicability of this alternative is not precluded due to incompatibility with local plans, although this fact will be considered further as practicability is determined based on all EO practicability factors.
2B: Aesthetics The issue of visual intrusion was one of the concerns for the proposed design during development of the citys BVP (City of Dallas, 2003a). As it approaches downtown Dallas,
Alternative 2B elevates to more than 50 feet above grade to clear Woodall Rodgers Freeway. The Alternative 2B mainlanes in the vicinity of downtown Dallas may affect the visual character around the northwestern corner of the CBD. In this area, Alternative 2B would not promote visibility from the new road to the proposed Trinity River Floodway Park, which is important to the City of Dallas. Considerable visual impacts resulting from Alternative 2B would change the Residents, business
community setting in the areas along Irving/Riverfront Boulevard.
employees, business patrons, and motorists would experience strong visual changes due to the highly visible roadway that would obscure views and greatly alter the character of the neighborhoods, particularly the Design District.
Alternative 2B also requires elevated loop ramps to connect to Woodall Rodgers Freeway. These ramps introduce possible visual impacts to the MHH Bridge by limiting or blocking views of the bridge from certain vantage points, which is not consistent with the citys BVP. The MHH Bridge is generally perceived as a signature piece and a possible tourist attraction. Although
Alternative 2B would negatively affect the viewshed to the MHH Bridge, this impact and other adverse aesthetic impacts would not be sufficient to preclude Alternative 2B from being considered practicable as to this factor.
2B: Historic Values No significant adverse effects to archeological resources or non-archeological historic sites would occur due to Alternative 2B. Accordingly, Alternative 2B is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2B: EO Practicability Based on All Factors Combined Alternative 2B could not be built within existing natural, social, and economic constraints applicable to the project area and is, therefore, not a practicable alternative. This finding is based
2-113
primarily to the excessive cost of this alternative as compared to other comparable toll projects. Equally compelling is the incompatibility of Alternative 2B with the needs and welfare of the community, which goes far beyond inconsistency with city plans and programs. The
incompatibility of Alternative 2B with local plans does not require a finding of practicability, because such plans could be modified to adapt to the alternative. However, such plans are a reflection of the needs of the community as reflected in a complex process involving the election of city council, professional staff sometimes aided by the input of consultants with specialized expertise. Feedback from the city and the community have made it clear that there is not only a lack of support for this alternative, but strong opposition to it from various elements within the community. The level of harm associated with this alternative to the community, and the
destructive influence it would have on the nationally recognized Design District and other community elements weigh heavily against its practicability. The level of economic impacts and harm to community cohesion would not likely be amenable to effective mitigation in light of City of Dallas plans, policies, and investments. Finally, substantial adverse impacts to Dallas CBD
economics and aesthetics further contribute to the undesirability of this alternative as a viable means to meet the need and purpose of the Trinity Parkway. For the foregoing reasons,
Alternative 2B is not a practicable alternative under the policies set out in EO 11988 (Floodplain Management), EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), and implementing regulations.
2.8.5.3 EO Practicability of Build Alternative 3C
3C: Project Cost The practicability of Alternative 3C on the basis of cost was evaluated after first developing a cost screen from the combined construction costs and ROW/utilities relocation costs of comparable toll road projects constructed or planned in urban areas of Texas. Applying that cost screen to Alternative 3C indicates that its costs would be 10 percent greater per mainlane mile than the cost screen that was established at $20 million per mainlane mile. Accordingly, and allowing for the vagaries of estimating costs for major transportation projects, it appears that Build Alternative 3C is reasonably within range of the cost screen based on the costs normally associated with this type of project. In light of this information, Alternative 3C is practicable based on project cost.
3C: Existing Technology As Alternative 3C would utilize current engineering technology for roadway and related construction, there is no basis to expect any unusual or insurmountable technological issues that would affect constructability. Alternative 3C, therefore, is considered practicable with regard to existing technology.
2-114
3C: Logistics Several logistical elements related to construction have been examined, as evidenced by the combined influence that these elements would have on the time necessary to construct Alternative 3C. Logistical elements affect the level of difficulty to complete construction, and therefore the time needed to complete construction as well as the level of inconvenience to the surrounding community such as road/lane closures and detours. The estimated length of time from startup of engineering/construction activities until the Trinity Parkway could be fully open to traffic is estimated to be approximately 6 years for Alternative 3C. This lengthy time-to-construct is attributable to the need to acquire the ROW and displace buildings on approximately 35 properties, which would involve demolition activity and associated hazardous material abatement. Additional time would be required to address site contamination on 17 high-risk hazardous materials sites and the relocation of overhead and subsurface utilities found particularly within the northern and southern ends of the proposed project. Also, construction of those portions of this alternative occurring outside the Dallas Floodway would be within a busy urban area, and would unavoidably result in many and changing road and lane closures and the detours that would be required. Construction of Alternative 3C primarily within the Dallas Floodway would isolate much of the construction activity from the surrounding urban areas, thereby minimizing some logistical challenges. A 6-year construction period for Alternative 3C would not preclude further
consideration of this alternative as it would be capable of being done according to the definition of practicable in 23 CFR Section 650.105(k).
3C: Natural and Beneficial Values Served by Floodplains The significant and longitudinal encroachments of Alternative 3C (and its predecessors) have been the subject of great scrutiny since the outset of the Trinity Parkway development process. The SDEIS and LSS provide detailed hydrologic, hydraulic, and other engineering analyses and design focused on addressing the potential risks associated with construction of a roadway within the particular floodplain environment of the Dallas Floodway, several aspects of which are highlighted here. The ROW footprint for Alternative 3C would have a floodplain encroachment footprint of 297 acres, and would disturb an additional 335.6 acres of floodplain areas for the excavation of material needed to construct roadway embankment and for other construction purposes. The combined effects of these aspects of construction would result in 592.3 acres of impacts to undeveloped areas within the Trinity River floodplain, including impacts to the following habitats: riparian forest, 33.3 acres; waters of the U.S., including wetlands, 90.9 acres; and maintained non-native grassland, 468.1 acres. All of the expected impacts to excavation areas would be temporary, as would approximately half of the impacts to areas within the roadway ROW footprint, and these areas would be revegetated with native grasses. All impacts to
forested areas would be permanent, and these areas along with other areas of high quality
2-115
habitat would be addressed with compensatory mitigation. As evaluated in the SDEIS and LSS, Alternative 3C would adversely affect floodplain values related to wildlife movement, open space loss, and outdoor recreation potential due to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the new ROW. However, consideration has also been given to the history of human alteration of these same floodplain values as a result of the creation of the Dallas Floodway, the predominance of non-native grasslands throughout non-forested floodplain areas, and the active regimen of mowing and other operations and maintenance activities related to levees and the floodplain floor. As discussed in FEIS Section 2.8.4.2, the areal and longitudinal encroachments of this alternative within the Dallas Floodway would not substantially impair the ability of the floodplain to convey floodwaters from extreme storm events, and the facility would be designed to be withstand inundation by such events without substantial damage. Additionally, the long history of municipal planning and public support for a longitudinal roadway within the Dallas Floodway (e.g., 1998 Dallas bond election, and Stemmons deed; see FEIS Sections 1.1.2 and 2.8.4.3) indicate continued support for a floodway alternative after decades of public scrutiny. In light of the foregoing considerations, as well as other information assessed as part of the SDEIS and LSS regarding natural and beneficial values of floodplains, the expected impacts of Alternative 3C would not prevent it from being considered practicable as to this factor.
3C: Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands, and Water Quality The ROW footprint of Alternative 3C (as reported in the SDEIS, as supplemented by the LSS) would adversely affect 27.4 acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, as the result of fill from the construction of road surfaces and bridges. An additional 63.5 acres of excavation
impacts would occur. The combined ROW and excavation impacts (90.9 acres) would result in a combination of temporary and permanent impacts to approximately 37.6 acres of emergent wetlands, 1.3 acres of forested wetlands, 7.0 acres of intermittent open water, 1.5 acres of old Trinity River channel, 0.2 acre of intermittent stream, and 43.3 acres of the Trinity River main stem channel. These expected impacts would be subject to the conditions and mitigation
requirements of the Section 404 and Section 10 permit process. Similarly, potential constructionrelated erosion from construction sites would be subject to the requirement of a SWPPP and the employment of appropriate BMPs to minimize migration of eroded soil offsite into surface waters. The impacts to habitat within the Trinity River floodplain have been minimized and efforts to further minimize impacts would continue through final project design. The functions and values of aquatic resources adversely affected by Alternative 3C are part of the USACE Section 404 permit review process, which includes a review under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, water quality certification under Section 401, and provisions addressing mitigation. Drafts of these elements of the Section 404 permit process are included in SDEIS Appendices H and J to ensure that aspect of potential harm to natural resources is addressed prior to issuance of a ROD. Considering the
2-116
level of impacts to aquatic features and water quality, the regulatory requirements designed to minimize and mitigate for impacts, and the functions, values, and quality of aquatic resources that would be affected, Alternative 3C would be a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor despite the anticipated impacts to aquatic resources.
3C: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values The level of impact of Alternative 3C on wildlife was assessed primarily in terms of anticipated impacts to high quality habitat such as riparian forests and some aquatic habitats, as summarized above for habitat-related factors. The construction of Alternative 3C would result in limited habitat fragmentation from the clearing of riparian forest areas near the southern end of the project alignment. Mitigation for impacts to riparian forest and aquatic habitats would include efforts to avoid and minimize impacts as well mitigation for long-term compensation of habitat impacts. This alternative is not expected to result in an adverse effect/impact to any federally- or statelisted threatened or endangered species, or state species of concern. Accordingly, Alternative 3C is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
3C: Conservation Energy, fuel, and materials consumption would occur during construction and operation of Alternative 3C. As this alternative would operate as an all-electronic toll collection facility, which provides operational efficiencies to reduce stop and go traffic conditions, lower fuel/energy consumption is expected. In addition, the highway construction materials that would be
expended are not in short supply and therein would not adversely affect continued availability of similar resources. Alternative 3C, therefore, is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
3C: Needs and Welfare of the Community Alternative 3C generally avoids impacts to neighborhoods and commercial districts within the project corridor because much of the alignment is within the Dallas Floodway. Alternative 3C would result in an estimated displacement of 15 to 20 businesses and 72 to 203 jobs.
Acceptance of Alternative 3C by the City of Dallas is reasonably assured, as it is consistent with the citywide bond approval from May 2, 1998 in which Dallas residents supported a Trinity Parkway location within the Dallas Floodway. This alternative would also be consistent with a citywide special election held on November 6, 2007, which determined that the city should continue to consider alternatives in the Dallas Floodway for the Trinity Parkway. Support of
Alternative 3C was communicated during the official comment period for the DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS public hearings. Several Dallas City Council members and the Mayor submitted public
2-117
comments in support of Alternative 3C, and business associations, which represent hundreds of local businesses, also submitted comments in support of Alternative 3C. Stated reasons for support of Alternative 3C included: (i) it is the lowest cost alternative; (ii) the design is compatible with the BVP; and (iii) the alternative would cause only minor impacts to the local businesses.
Regarding future land use plans, the Dallas City Council approved the renaming of Industrial Boulevard to "Riverfront Boulevard" in November 2008 and local business owners consider this a positive influence to support mixed-use redevelopment in the area. As reported in SDEIS
Section 3.1.1.1 (SDEIS pages 3-5 through 3-7), tax-increment financing (TIF) districts have also been created for the Cedars and Design Districts to promote mixed-use redevelopment. Development includes commercial infill development in the Design District, as well as infill of residential lofts and similar development along the corridor. Alternative 3C would not conflict with these development plans, and would enhance mobility to developed areas away from the CBD and would not interfere with traffic circulation with the downtown area.
In addition, the City of Dallas has widely publicized its Trinity River Corridor Project, which is actually the name for a series of proposed projects that are along the main stem and Elm Fork of the Trinity River in Dallas. Since 2003, the city has planned for Trinity Parkway to have a
combined parkway riverside layout, balancing the Trinity Parkway embankments with proposed excavation of lakes in the Dallas Floodway as part of the citys Trinity River Corridor BVP (City of Dallas, 2003a). Alternative 3C would be consistent with the BVP and these development plans, and would enhance mobility to developed areas.
Lastly, there has been a longstanding intent in Dallas to include a major roadway in the Dallas Floodway, most notably derived from the Stemmons Deed Precedent. Therefore, the
compatibility of Alternative 3C with the needs and welfare of the community, along with local development plans, makes it a practicable alternative with respect to this factor.
3C: Economic Impacts Alternative 3C is estimated to lead to the displacement of 15 to 20 businesses and 72 to 203 jobs. Alternative 3C would also result in the net loss of 157 acres of mostly developed land that is privately owned (see LSS Section 4.1.6.1 and 4.1.7.1). The conversion of business properties to ROW would remove an estimated $54 million from the City of Dallas tax base and annual tax revenue for the combined taxing entities (Dallas County, City of Dallas, and DISD). The annual combined loss of revenue for these three taxing entities would be an estimated $1.5 million. Although the overall direct and long term indirect economic impacts to the Dallas CBD of Alternative 3C would be adverse, this alternative is considered practicable as to this factor.
2-118
3C: Air Quality Impacts Although the USEPA-designated ten-county DFW area is in non-attainment for ozone, regional planners are pursuing congestion management measures to reduce levels of ozone. Local
concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected to exceed federal standards at any time, and daily MSAT emissions are expected to substantially decrease due in large part to the implementation of USEPAs motor vehicle emission control standards. Consequently, no adverse air quality impacts are anticipated from Alternative 3C, making it a practicable alternative in terms of air quality.
3C: Traffic Noise Impacts The construction of Alternative 3C would result in traffic noise impacts to 127 noise receivers and one park. Mitigation for impacts to noise receivers would include efforts to avoid and minimize traffic noise impacts. Accordingly, Alternative 3C is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
3C: Impact of Floods on Human Safety Alternative 3C would be located within the Dallas Floodway for approximately 70 percent of its length. Approximately 297 acres of Alternative 3C would be located in the 100-year (base) floodplain. Regarding Alternative 3C, the approach is to provide a hydraulically neutral design with respect to the Dallas Floodway function by balancing the Trinity Parkway embankments with corresponding excavations in the Dallas Floodway. As modeled in the SDEIS, Alternative 3C would meet the USACE criteria pertaining to valley storage and changes in floodwater velocities, and has been designed not to interfere with the USACEs or the citys ability to operate and maintain the Dallas Floodway, conduct flood fighting activities, or restore or improve the flood damage reduction capability of the federal project.
With regard to changes in floodwater surface elevation, the USACE criteria state there should be no rise in the 100-year or SPF elevation for the proposed condition (USACE, 1988). Alternative 3C would result in a maximum rise of 0.41 feet for the 100-year elevation and 0.03 feet for the SPF elevation. These rises in 100-year and SPF elevations would be evaluated and fine-tuned during the detailed design phase if Alternative 3C is identified as the FHWA-recommended alternative. Hydraulic neutrality required for ultimate approval of this alternative may be obtained due to changes in results generated by continued hydraulic modeling of final design refinements. However, if a modeled surface water elevation cannot be reduced to meet the 1988 ROD criteria, it would be necessary for Alternative 3C to receive variance authorization from the USACE Fort Worth District Commander before the project could be constructed.
2-119
Another issue related to human safety during floods is the possible danger to motorists of flooding over the proposed roadway. Alternative 3C would primarily be protected by the physical elevation of the roadway above the computed 100-year event in the Dallas Floodway. Additionally, as described in SDEIS Section 2.4.7 (SDEIS page 2-62), the roadway would be protected by walls and pump stations at low points under existing bridges. In the event of a pump failure, the sags would fill with water after continual rainfall; however, this would be a gradually deepening condition and not a flash flood. In the event of a wall overtopping from the river levels (which would result in rapid inundation of the road), the Trinity Parkway would be closed well in advance of any anticipated overtopping under the directives of the Emergency Action Plan (see SDEIS Appendix K-3 for additional details regarding the Emergency Action Plan).
Because of the hydraulically neutral design approach, the requirements for no interference with floodway operations and maintenance, and the development of the Emergency Action Plan, Alternative 3C is not expected to adversely impact human safety with respect to the Dallas Floodways ability to convey floods. To date, feedback from the USACE has indicated that the proposed Trinity Parkway is feasible from the Corps perspective and the USACE has not pointed out any unresolvable deficiency in the design of Alternative 3C that would prevent it from receiving a favorable review under 33 U.S.C. Section 408 (see FEIS Appendix A-2, Pages 6768). Therefore, Alternative 3C is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this
evaluation factor.
3C: Risks Associated with Implementation of the Action The risks associated with this section focus on levee stability issues. Levee stability risks are an aspect of the Dallas Floodway that have been taken into consideration in the design development of Alternative 3C. As Alternative 3C has undergone changes in design features related to
embankment and levee stability, it is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
3C: Incompatible Development Generally, the majority of the wetlands in the project area are within the Dallas Floodway and would unlikely be developed due to flood risk and regulation of development in floodplains, as well as the municipal ownership of the land. The protection of the Dallas Floodway and the related sump areas from development is also expected to be stringent because of the regulatory interest in the federal flood protection project. Accordingly, there would be no induced
incompatible development in floodplains or wetlands in the Dallas Floodway or sump areas due to the implementation of Alternative 3C
2-120
Future development in the Dallas Floodway is expected to be controlled closely by the USACE and the City of Dallas as the Dallas Floodway owner. Proposed BVP improvements are intended to be flood resistant in keeping with the Dallas Floodway setting, and are of the type (e.g., parks, lakes, trails) which are generally recognized as being appropriate and compatible in floodplains. One of the objectives of the proposed project is to provide compatibility with local development plans. The location of Alternative 3C inside the floodplain would not restrict development on the landside of the Dallas Floodway. Alternative 3C would generally avoid disruption of the business district situated between the Dallas CBD and the East Levee, which would be consistent with the citys vision for this area. Alternative 3C is consistent with the City of Dallas land use planning to date, including the citys BVP for the Trinity River Corridor. As Alternative 3C would be
compatible with local development and comprehensive land use plans, it is clearly a practicable alternative as to this factor.
3C: Aesthetics The issue of visual intrusion was one of the concerns for the proposed design during development of the citys BVP (City of Dallas, 2003a). Within the Dallas Floodway, Alternative 3C would be visible to recreational users between the levees. In some cases, the roadway and access ramps would be visible outside the levees, while in other cases the roadway would be hidden from view behind the Trinity Parkways flood separation wall. The flood separation wall itself would be visible in some locations, but in most places, an earthen embankment would be built against the riverside face of the flood separation wall. In these locations, the combined flood separation wall/embankment would visually resemble the levees. The screening provided by the East Levee would restrict the Trinity Parkways visibility from adjacent landside properties and buildings in the Dallas CBD. Alternative 3C would not substantially limit the views of most commercial businesses and residential neighborhoods beyond the immediate corridor.
The most common view for future motorists driving along Alternative 3C would be of the East Levee and the flood separation wall along the western edge of the roadway. The East Levee would limit the view from Alternative 3C (northbound) toward many of the commercial businesses and residential neighborhoods on the other side of the levee and toward the Dallas CBD. Alternative 3C is considered practicable with respect to this evaluation factor.
2-121
3C: Historic Values No significant adverse effects to archeological resources or non-archeological historic sites would occur due to Alternative 3C. Accordingly, Alternative 3C is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
3C: EO Practicability Based on All Factors Combined Alternative 3C could be built within existing natural, social, and economic constraints applicable to the project area and is, therefore, a practicable alternative. Alternative 3C is practicable as to cost, as well as all other factors considered. The principal disadvantages of Alternative 3C
include the requirement for floodplain modifications and unavoidable wetland impacts within the Dallas Floodway. Due to community and agency interest in the integrity of the flood conveyance ability of the floodway, this summary emphasizes related impacts. It is possible that Alternative 3C might not meet criteria specified in the 1988 TREIS ROD, which includes no rise in the 100year or SPF elevation. As reported in the SDEIS, Alternative 3C would result in a maximum rise of 0.41 feet for the 100-year elevation and 0.03 feet for the SPF elevation. The water surface rises for Alternative 3C, however, may be regarded as manageable considering the magnitude and locations where the rises occur. Additionally, minimal or no change to existing drainage patterns would be expected within or down gradient from the project area as a result of Alternative 3C. This alternative has been designed to avoid interference with O&M of the Dallas Floodway. Although there would be lost tollway revenue and flood damage restoration costs associated with greater than 100-year flood events, such attendant costs would be included in the funding plan for O&M for the tollway.
Alternative 3C is consistent with City of Dallas plans and policies, and actively supported by both the city, the Dallas business community, and by a majority of voters. Although adverse impacts would occur such as displacements and disruption of urban areas during construction, these impacts appear to be sufficiently offset by the benefits of the alternative as to retain city and community support. Evaluation of the 16 factors considered has not identified any serious
impediment to the constructability of this alternative, which is found to be practicable under the policies set out in EO 11988 (Floodplain Management), EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), and implementing regulations.
2.8.5.4 EO Practicability of Build Alternative 4B
4B: Project Cost The practicability of Alternative 4B on the basis of cost was evaluated after first developing a cost screen from the combined construction costs and ROW/utilities relocation costs of comparable
2-122
toll road projects constructed or planned in urban areas of Texas. Applying that cost screen to Alternative 4B indicates that its costs would be 11 percent greater per mainlane mile than the cost screen that was established at $20 million per mainlane mile. Accordingly, and allowing for the vagaries of estimating costs for major transportation projects, it appears that Build Alternative 4B is reasonably within range of the cost screen based on the costs normally associated with this type of project. In light of this information, Alternative 4B is practicable based on project cost.
4B: Existing Technology As Alternative 4B would utilize current engineering technology for roadway and related construction, there is no basis to expect any unusual or insurmountable technological issues that would affect constructability. Alternative 4B, therefore, is considered practicable with regard to existing technology.
4B: Logistics Several logistical elements related to construction have been examined, as evidenced by the combined influence these elements would have on the time necessary to construct Alternative 4B. Logistical elements affect the level of difficulty to complete construction, and therefore the time needed to complete construction as well as the level of inconvenience to the surrounding community such as road/lane closures and detours. The estimated length of time from startup of engineering/construction activities until the Trinity Parkway could be fully open to traffic is estimated to be approximately 6 years for Alternative 4B. This lengthy time-to-construct is
attributable to the need to acquire the ROW and displace buildings on approximately 35 properties, which would involve demolition activity and associated hazardous material abatement. Additional time would be required to address site contamination on 17 high-risk hazardous materials sites and the relocation of overhead and subsurface utilities found particularly within the northern and southern ends of the proposed project. Also, construction of those portions of this alternative occurring outside the Dallas Floodway would be within a busy urban area, and would unavoidably result in many road and lane closures and detours that would be required. Construction of Alternative 4B primarily within the Dallas Floodway would isolate much of the construction activity from the surrounding urban areas, thereby minimizing some logistical challenges. A 6-year construction period for Alternative 4B would not preclude further
consideration of this alternative as it would be capable of being done according to the definition of practicable in 23 CFR Section 650.105(k).
4B: Natural and Beneficial Values Served by Floodplains The significant and longitudinal encroachments of Alternative 4B (and its predecessor) have been the subject of great scrutiny since the outset of the Trinity Parkway development process. The
2-123
SDEIS and LSS provide detailed hydrologic, hydraulic, and other engineering analyses and design focused on addressing the potential risks associated with construction of a roadway within the particular floodplain environment of the Dallas Floodway, several aspects of which are highlighted here. The ROW footprint for Alternative 4B would have a floodplain encroachment footprint of 418 acres, and would disturb an additional 335.6 acres of floodplain areas for the excavation of material needed to construct roadway embankment and for other construction purposes. The combined effects of these aspects of construction would result in 753.6 acres of impacts to undeveloped areas within the Trinity River floodplain, including impacts to the following habitats: riparian forest, 29.3 acres; waters of the U.S., including wetlands, 110.6 acres; and maintained non-native grassland, 573.1 acres. All of the expected impacts to excavation areas would be temporary, as would approximately half of the impacts to areas within the roadway ROW footprint, and these areas would be revegetated with native grasses. All impacts to
forested areas would be permanent, and these areas along with other areas of high quality habitat would be addressed with compensatory mitigation. As evaluated in the SDEIS and LSS, Alternative 4B would adversely affect floodplain values related to wildlife movement, open space loss, and outdoor recreation potential due to the construction, operation, and maintenance of the new ROW. However, consideration has also been given to the history of human alteration of these same floodplain values as a result of the creation of the Dallas Floodway, the predominance of non-native grasslands throughout non-forested floodplain areas, and the active regimen of mowing and other operations and maintenance activities related to levees and the floodplain floor. As discussed in FEIS Section 2.8.4.2, the longitudinal encroachment of this alternative within the Dallas Floodway would not substantially impair the ability of the floodplain to convey floodwaters from extreme storm events, and the facility would be designed to be withstand inundation by such events without substantial damage. Additionally, the long history of municipal planning and public support for a longitudinal roadway within the Dallas Floodway (e.g., 1998 Dallas bond election, and Stemmons deed; see FEIS Sections 1.1.2 and 2.8.4.3) indicate continued support for a floodway alternative after decades of public scrutiny. In light of the
foregoing considerations, as well as other information assessed as part of the SDEIS and LSS regarding natural and beneficial values of floodplains, the expected impacts of Alternative 4B would not prevent it from being considered practicable as to this factor.
4B: Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands, and Water Quality The ROW footprint of Alternative 4B would adversely affect 47.1 acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, as the result of fill from the construction of road surfaces and bridges. An additional 63.5 acres of excavation impacts would occur. The combined ROW and excavation impacts (110.6 acres) would result in a combination of temporary and permanent impacts to approximately 56.4 acres of emergent wetlands, 1.3 acres of forested wetlands, 8.3 acres of
2-124
intermittent open water, 1.2 acres of old Trinity River channel, 0.1 acre of intermittent stream, and 43.3 acres of the Trinity River main stem channel. These expected impacts would be subject to the conditions and mitigation requirements of an individual permit under Section 404. Similarly, potential construction-related erosion from construction sites would be subject to the requirement of a SWPPP and the employment of appropriate BMPs to minimize migration of eroded soil offsite into surface waters. The impacts to habitat within the Trinity River floodplain have been minimized and efforts to further minimize impacts would continue through final project design. The functions and values of aquatic resources adversely affected by Alternative 4B are part of the USACE Section 404 permit review process, which includes a review under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, water quality certification under Section 401, and provisions addressing mitigation. Drafts of these elements of the Section 404 permit process are included in SDEIS Appendices H and J to ensure that aspect of potential harm to natural resources is addressed prior to issuance of a ROD. Considering the level of impacts to aquatic features and water quality, the regulatory requirements designed to minimize and mitigate for impacts, and the functions, values, and quality of aquatic resources that would be affected, proposed Alternative 4B would be a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor despite the anticipated impacts to aquatic resources.
4B: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values The level of impact of Alternative 4B on wildlife was assessed primarily in terms of anticipated impacts to high quality habitat such as riparian forests and some aquatic habitats, as summarized above for habitat-related factors. The construction of Alternative 4B would result in limited habitat fragmentation from the clearing of riparian forest areas near the southern end of the project alignment. Mitigation for impacts to riparian forest and aquatic habitats would include efforts to avoid and minimize impacts as well mitigation for long-term compensation of habitat impacts. This alternative is not expected to result in an adverse effect/impact to any federally- or statelisted threatened or endangered species, or state species of concern. Accordingly, Alternative 4B is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
4B: Conservation Energy, fuel, and materials consumption would occur during construction and operation of Alternative 4B. As this alternative would operate as an all-electronic toll collection facility, which provides operational efficiencies to reduce stop and go traffic conditions, lower fuel/energy consumption is expected. In addition, the highway construction materials that would be
expended are not in short supply and therein would not adversely affect continued availability of similar resources. Alternative 4B, therefore, is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
2-125
4B: Needs and Welfare of the Community Alternative 4B generally avoids impacts to neighborhoods and commercial districts within the project corridor because much of the alignment is within the Dallas Floodway. Alternative 4B would result in an estimated displacement of 13 to 16 businesses and 62 to 187 jobs.
Acceptance of Alternative 4B by the city is reasonably assured, as it is consistent with the citywide bond approval from May 2, 1998 in which Dallas residents supported a Trinity Parkway location within the Dallas Floodway. This alternative would also be consistent with a citywide special election held on November 6, 2007, which determined that the city should continue to consider alternatives in the Dallas Floodway for the Trinity Parkway. Support of Alternative 4B was generally communicated during the official comment period for the DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS public hearings. Business associations, which represent hundreds of local businesses, also
submitted comments in support of a floodway alternative.
Regarding future land use plans, the Dallas City Council approved the renaming of Industrial Boulevard to "Riverfront Boulevard" in November 2008 and local business owners consider this a positive influence to support mixed-use redevelopment in the area. As reported in SDEIS
Section 3.1.1.1 (SDEIS pages 3-5 through 3-7), tax-increment financing (TIF) districts have also been created for the Cedars and Design Districts to promote mixed-use redevelopment. Development includes commercial infill development in the Design District, as well as infill of residential lofts and similar development along the corridor. Alternative 4B would not conflict with these development plans, and would enhance mobility to developed areas away from the CBD and would not interfere with traffic circulation with the downtown area. Lastly, here has been a longstanding intent in Dallas to include a major roadway in the Dallas Floodway, most notably derived from the Stemmons Deed Precedent.
In addition, the City of Dallas has widely publicized its Trinity River Corridor Project, which is actually the name for a series of proposed projects that are along the main stem and Elm Fork of the Trinity River in Dallas. Since 2003, the city has planned for Trinity Parkway to have a
combined parkway riverside layout, balancing the Trinity Parkway embankments with proposed excavation of lakes in the Dallas Floodway as part of the citys Trinity River Corridor BVP (City of Dallas, 2003a). Alternative 4B is be consistent with many of the citys development plans and would enhance mobility to developed areas, but is inconsistent with the BVP.
In summary, Alternative 4B is consistent with many City of Dallas plans and policies, although it has not been endorsed by the city as the locally-preferred alternative for the Trinity Parkway.
2-126
However, this alternative is inconsistent with the BVP, which currently envisions the Trinity Parkway along the East Levee only. This inconsistency is a substantial matter weighing against the practicability of this alternative. However, it is not considered to be of such magnitude to prevent the FHWA from concluding that Alternative 4B is practicable. Although adverse impacts would occur such as displacements and disruption of urban areas during construction, these impacts appear to be sufficiently offset by the benefits of the alternative so as to retain city and community support. Overall, Alternative 4B is considered practicable as to this factor.
4B: Economic Impacts Alternative 4B is estimated to lead to the displacement of 13 to 16 businesses and 62 to 187 jobs. Alternative 4B would also result in the net loss of 167 acres of mostly developed land that is privately owned (see LSS Sections 4.1.6.1 page 4-52 and 4.1.7.1 page 4-80). The conversion of business properties to ROW would remove an estimated $36 million from the City of Dallas tax base and annual tax revenue for the combined taxing entities (Dallas County, City of Dallas, and DISD), and the annual combined loss of revenue for these three taxing entities would be an estimated $1 million. Although the overall direct and long term indirect economic impacts to the Dallas CBD of Alternative 4B would be adverse, this alternative is considered practicable as to this factor.
4B: Air Quality Impacts Although the USEPA-designated ten-county DFW area is in non-attainment for ozone, regional planners are pursuing congestion management measures to reduce levels of ozone. Local
concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected to exceed federal standards at any time, and daily MSAT emissions are expected to substantially decrease due in large part to the implementation of USEPAs motor vehicle emission control standards. Consequently, no adverse air quality impacts are anticipated from Alternative 4B, making it a considered practicable alternative.
4B: Traffic Noise Impacts The construction of Alternative 4B would result in traffic noise impacts to 164 noise receivers and two parks. Mitigation for impacts to noise receivers would include efforts to avoid and minimize traffic noise impacts. Accordingly, Alternative 4B is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
4B: Impact of Floods on Human Safety Alternative 4B would be located within the Dallas Floodway for approximately 70 percent of its length. Approximately 418 acres of Alternative 4B would be located in the 100-year (base)
2-127
floodplain. Regarding Alternative 4B, the approach is to provide a hydraulically neutral design with respect to the Dallas Floodway function by balancing the Trinity Parkway embankments with corresponding excavations in the Dallas Floodway. As modeled in the SDEIS, Alternative 4B would meet the USACE criteria pertaining to valley storage and changes in floodwater velocities, and has been designed not to interfere with the USACEs or the citys ability to operate and maintain the Dallas Floodway, conduct flood fighting activities, or restore or improve the flood damage reduction capability of the federal project.
With regard to changes in flood elevation, the USACE criteria state there should be no rise in the 100-year or SPF elevation for the proposed condition (USACE, 1988). Alternative 4B would result in a maximum rise of 1.2 feet for the 100-year elevation and 0.71 feet for the SPF elevation. These rises in 100-year and SPF elevations would be evaluated and fine-tuned during the detailed design phase if Alternative 4B is identified as the FHWA-recommended alternative. Hydraulic neutrality required for ultimate approval of this alternative may be obtained due to chance results generated by continued hydraulic modeling of final design refinements. However, if a modeled surface water elevation cannot be reduced to meet the 1988 ROD criteria, it would be necessary for a floodway alternative to receive variance authorization from the USACE Fort Worth District Commander before the project could be constructed.
Another issue related to human safety during floods is the possible danger to motorists of flooding over the proposed roadway. Alternative 4B would primarily be protected by the physical elevation of the roadway above the computed 100-year event in the Dallas Floodway. Additionally, as described in SDEIS Section 2.4.7 (page 2-62), the roadway would be protected by walls and pump stations at low points under existing bridges. In the event of a pump failure, the sags would fill with water after continual rainfall; however, this would be a gradually deepening condition and not a flash flood. In the event of a wall overtopping from the river levels (which would result in rapid inundation of the road), the Trinity Parkway would be closed well in advance of any anticipated overtopping under the directives of the Emergency Action Plan (see SDEIS Appendix K-3 for additional details regarding the Emergency Action Plan).
Because of the hydraulically neutral design approach, the requirements for no interference with floodway operations and maintenance, and the development of the Emergency Action Plan, Alternative 4B is not expected to adversely impact human safety with respect to the Dallas Floodways ability to convey floods. To date, feedback from the USACE has indicated that the proposed Trinity Parkway is feasible from the Corps perspective and the USACE has not pointed out any unresolvable deficiency in the design of Alternative 4B that would prevent it from receiving a favorable review under 33 U.S.C. Section 408 (see FEIS Appendix A-2 page 67).
2-128
Therefore, Alternative 4B is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
4B: Risks Associated with Implementation of the Action The risks associated with this section focus on levee stability issues. Levee stability risks are an aspect of the Dallas Floodway that has been taken into consideration in the design development of Alternative 4B. As Alternative 4B has undergone changes in design features related to
embankment and levee stability, it is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
4B: Incompatible Development Generally, the majority of the wetlands in the project area are within the Dallas Floodway and would unlikely be developed due to flood risk and regulation of development in floodplains, as well as the municipal ownership of the land. The protection of the Dallas Floodway and the related sump areas from development is also expected to be stringent because of the regulatory interest in the federal flood protection project. Accordingly, there would be no induced
incompatible development in floodplains or wetlands in the Dallas Floodway or sump areas due to the implementation of Alternative 4B.
Future development in the Dallas Floodway is expected to be controlled closely by the USACE and the City of Dallas as the Dallas Floodway owner. Proposed BVP improvements are intended to be flood resistant in keeping with the Dallas Floodway setting, and are of the type (e.g., parks, lakes, trails) which are generally recognized as being appropriate and compatible in floodplains.
One of the objectives of the proposed project is to provide compatibility with local development plans. The location of Alternative 4B inside the floodplain would not restrict development on the landside of the Dallas Floodway. Alternative 4B would generally avoid disruption of the business district situated between the Dallas CBD and the East Levee, which would be consistent with the citys vision for this area. However, the location of Alternative 4B along both the East Levee and West Levee within the Dallas Floodway is inconsistent with the citys BVP. Although this
inconsistency is an important aspect affecting the suitability of this alternative, it is considered of insufficient magnitude to prevent the FHWA from concluding that Alternative 4B is practicable.
4B: Aesthetics The issue of visual intrusion was one of the concerns for the proposed design during development of the citys BVP (City of Dallas, 2003a). Within the Dallas Floodway, Alternative 4B would be visible to recreational users between the levees; in some cases, the roadway itself and
2-129
access ramps would be visible, while in other cases, the roadway would be hidden from view behind the Trinity Parkways flood separation wall. The flood separation wall would be visible in some locations, but in most places, an earthen embankment would be built against the riverside face of the flood separation wall. In these locations, the combined flood separation
wall/embankment would visually resemble the levees. The screening provided by the East Levee would restrict the Trinity Parkways visibility from adjacent landside properties and buildings in the Dallas CBD. Alternative 4B would not substantially limit the views of most commercial
businesses and residential neighborhoods beyond the immediate corridor.
The most common view for future motorists from Alternative 4B would be of a flood separation wall on one side and either the East Levee (northbound) or west levee (southbound) on the other. The East Levee would limit the view from Alternative 4B (northbound) toward many of the commercial businesses and residential neighborhoods on the other side of the levee and toward the Dallas CBD. However, it is expected that motorists would be able to see the skyline of the CBD from the southbound lanes of Alternative 4B on the west side of the floodway. As
Alternative 4B is compatible with local development plans, it is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
4B: Historic Values No significant adverse effects to archeological resources or non-archeological historic sites would occur due to Alternative 4B. Accordingly, Alternative 4B is considered a practicable alternative with respect to this evaluation factor.
4B: EO Practicability Based on All Factors Combined Alternative 4B could be built within existing natural, social, and economic constraints applicable to the project area and is, therefore, a practicable alternative. Alternative 4B is practicable as to cost, as well as all other factors considered. The principal disadvantages of Alternative 4B
include the requirement for floodplain modifications and unavoidable wetland impacts within the Dallas Floodway. Due to community and agency interest in the integrity of the flood conveyance ability of the floodway, this summary emphasizes related impacts. It is possible that Alternative 4B might not meet criteria specified in the 1988 TREIS ROD, which includes no rise in the 100year or SPF elevation. As reported in the SDEIS, Alternative 4B would result in a maximum rise of 1.2 feet for the 100-year elevation and 0.71 feet for the SPF elevation. The water surface rises for Alternative 4B, however, may be regarded as manageable considering the magnitude and locations where the rises occur. Additionally, minimal or no change to existing drainage patterns would be expected within or down gradient from the project area as a result of Alternative 4B. This alternative has been designed to avoid interference with O&M of the Dallas Floodway,
2-130
although there would be lost tollway revenue and flood damage restoration costs associated with greater than 100-year flood events. However, such attendant costs would be included in the funding plan for O&M for the tollway.
2.8.6
FHWA Only Practicable Alternative Findings
In accordance with FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A (1987), this section reports the FHWAs findings as to practicability for the four Build Alternatives as required by EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and EO 11988 (Floodplain Management). In the discussion of each finding below, an explanation is provided as to why there are no practicable avoidance alternatives to the proposed action. Additionally, each finding includes an explanation as to why the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands or floodplains, respectively. Additional information relative to compliance with federal and local floodplain protection standards is provided with regard to the floodplain finding.
2.8.6.1 Only Practicable Alternative Finding Regarding Impacts to Wetlands
There are no practicable alternatives to the proposed action that would wholly avoid impacts to wetlands. As discussed in FEIS Section 2.1.2 (see also Appendix G-1, Section 2.3.1), the MTIS considered improvements to the IH-35E corridor (which would likely have avoided impacts to wetlands), but such alternatives were determined to be impractical in the MTIS due to excessive cost, physical constraints of adding traffic lanes in the Mixmaster, and impacts to adjacent properties (TxDOT, 1998b). Among the four Build Alternatives considered in this FEIS, Alternatives 2A and 2B would result in relatively minor impacts to wetlands as compared to Alternatives 3C and 4B (see Table 2-14). However, the FHWA finds that both Alternatives 2A and 2B would result in excessive costs as compared to other comparable toll projects, and are not practicable alternatives primarily based on the project cost, but also based on the needs and welfare of the community, economic impacts, and aesthetics.
The ROW impacts of Alternative 4B to emergent wetlands (35.77 acres) are slightly more than double the amount of impacts from Alternative 3C (17.01 acres) (see Table 2-14). Borrow area impacts for both Alternatives 3C and 4B to emergent wetlands are estimated at 20.63 acres. The combined ROW and borrow area impacts to emergent wetlands for Alternative 3C (37.64 acres) are 18.74 acres less than impacts expected for Alternative 4B (56.40 acres). The impacts of both floodway alternatives to forested wetlands are similar (i.e., approximately 1.28 acres). Based on relative impacts anticipated by these alternatives to wetland resources in the project area, the FHWA finds Alternative 3C to have substantially fewer impacts to wetlands than Alternative 4B.
2-131
Accordingly, Alternative 3C is found be the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative pursuant to EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and implementing regulations.
Avoiding and minimizing impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, have been a major area of emphasis throughout the Trinity Parkway project development process. However,
designing a major roadway within the Dallas Floodway presents unique challenges that arise from competing constraints. As the floodways primary objective is to safely convey floodwaters, the placement of a major roadway must be done to ensure that the facility remains hydraulically neutral in terms of the 1988 TREIS ROD. That decision document adopted performance criteria that must be met before a project that would alter the cross section geometry of the floodway may be approved by the USACE. Most notably, constraints regarding maximum water surface
elevation and valley storage for the 100-year flood and the SPF require iterative hydraulic modeling to achieve results that are at or near the 1988 ROD criteria. To maintain hydraulic balance within the floodway, the roadway embankment material must be excavated within the floodway. With a floodplain peppered with emergent wetland areas, it is a daunting challenge to excavate from one area within the floodway so that the fill material may be used to build the road embankment elsewhere.
Another major constraint in planning the Trinity Parkway relates to the placement of the roadway relative to the East Levee. Engineering concerns about levee safety have led to the requirement to modify floodway Build Alternatives to ensure a prescribed offset is kept, thus moving the roadway farther into the floodplain where aquatic features are more abundant. Thus, the
evolution of project design has been a process of balancing the design of roadway and excavation areas to achieve hydraulic neutrality, levee safety, and avoidance of aquatic features. Accordingly, the history of efforts to avoid aquatic features in the design of the Trinity Parkway has been balanced by the need to ensure the safe operation of the Dallas Floodway as it conveys floodwaters.
The following list highlights some of the measures taken to avoid and minimize impacts to water features while balancing the need for hydraulic neutrality and levee safety.
Roadway design modifications made to minimize impacts involved shortening the extent of the embankment in the floodway through the use of a gravity wall at the base of the embankment. In addition, the roadway design was modified to remove embankment previously planned to be placed on the river side of proposed flood separation walls that protect the roadway from flood events in the areas where the roadway profile would be lower to pass under the existing bridges crossing the floodway. These two design
2-132
refinements narrowed the overall footprint of the proposed roadway and thereby helped to offset the encroachment further into the floodway and associated wetlands that resulted from the shift away from the east levee at the direction of the USACE to avoid levee-side retaining walls (see FEIS Section 2.3.2.3). These changes avoided an
increase in impacts from fill that would have occurred otherwise. During the development of the excavation plan for roadway embankment material, thoughtful consideration was given to minimizing impacts to jurisdictional waters, while balancing the needs for suitable material, the need to excavate large contiguous areas in proximity to the roadway in the interest of having a plan that makes sense in terms of construction logistics, as well as a desire to be compatible with local plans for the floodway (i.e., the City of Dallas BVP and the USACEs flood damage reduction plan). The borrow locations upstream of the IH-35E bridges have been placed in areas of the floodway overbank where emergent wetlands are less prominent. For example,
excavation was completely avoided within the east overbank upstream of Westmoreland Road and within the entire floodway overbank on both sides of the channel between Continental Avenue and the Hampton Road bridges, with the exception of a small area of excavation proposed just on the upstream side of the Continental Avenue viaduct. In addition, with the exception of a small amount (less than 3 acres) of excavation within the Trinity River, all of the waters of the U.S., including wetlands that were identified as high quality features were avoided by the proposed borrow plan. Unfortunately, in the area between the IH-35E bridges and the DART bridge at the south end of the floodway, large areas of emergent wetlands are present and excavations in this area are needed for hydraulic reasons. The Dallas Floodway narrows in the area of the Houston Street and Jefferson Boulevard bridges, creating a need for excavation downstream to keep water surface elevations in check. As such, the impacts to
jurisdictional waters in this area could not be completely avoided.
Iterative hydraulic modeling has been conducted in coordination with the USACE during the project development process to ensure that proposed embankments are offset by excavations and other design aspects so that the project will either meet the 1988 ROD criteria or be sufficiently close to those criteria to warrant consideration of a variance. As demonstrated above, ongoing coordination has been occurring with the USACE and the City of Dallas to ensure that the schematic design of Alternative 3C minimizes impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and would also be compatible with the flood conveyance mission of the Dallas Floodway. While minimizing impacts to jurisdictional water features, the hydraulic results for the proposed project have also been improved to achieve the best possible results to date. The proposed project has included planning to avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S.,
2-133
including wetlands, but complete avoidance is not possible. In particular, the impacts resulting from the proposed excavation areas for borrow material cannot be avoided as the current locations and geometry of these areas are a function of the requirement to meet the 1988 ROD criteria.
Pursuant to 33 CFR Section 332.3, a compensatory mitigation plan has been developed to compensate for unavoidable adverse effects to waters of the U.S. including wetlands. As a result, through the purchase of mitigation banking credits, the proposed project would not result in a net loss of aquatic function.
Based upon the above considerations in light of the requirements of EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and implementing FHWA regulations (23 CFR Part 777), the FHWA has determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
2.8.6.2 Only Practicable Alternative Finding Regarding Impacts to Floodplains
There are no practicable alternatives to the proposed action that would wholly avoid impacts to floodplains. As discussed in FEIS Section 2.1.2 (see also Appendix G-1, Section 2.3.1), the MTIS considered improvements to the IH-35E corridor that would have had minor but unavoidable floodplain encroachments, and such alternatives were determined to be impractical in the MTIS. Among the four Build Alternatives considered in this FEIS, Alternatives 2A and 2B would result in relatively minor impacts to floodplains as compared to Alternatives 3C and 4B, and would not result in any longitudinal encroachment of floodplains. However, the FHWA finds that both Alternatives 2A and 2B would result in excessive costs as compared to other comparable toll projects, and are not practicable alternatives based primarily on the project cost, but also based on the needs and welfare of the community, economic impacts, and aesthetics.
The level of floodplain encroachment by Alternative 4B ROW (418 acres) is 121 acres (or 41 percent) greater than encroachment from Alternative 3C ROW (297 acres) (see FEIS Section 4.14.2). Similarly, the length of longitudinal encroachment within the floodplain of the Dallas Floodway is substantially greater for Alternative 4B (9.9 miles) than Alternative 3C (5.2 miles). The anticipated level of impacts for planned excavation areas would be the same for both alternatives (336 acres). Based on the substantially greater level of encroachment by Alternative 4B, it is clear that Alternative 3C is the least environmentally damaging alternative with respect to overall floodplain encroachment.
2-134
The relative impacts of Alternatives 3C and 4B to the natural and beneficial floodplain values listed in 23 CFR Section 650.105(i) also contribute to this explanation of all practicable measures to minimize harm to floodplains. The listing below of such floodplain values considered most relevant to the Trinity Parkway are not ranked in any order of priority but appear in the order presented in 23 CFR Section 650.105(i):
Fish and Wildlife: The two alternatives are expected to be comparable in terms of direct impacts to wildlife populations. The effects of habitat fragmentation would be greater for Alternative 4B because it would create roadways on both sides of the Trinity River, and would therefore be more environmentally damaging than Alternative 3C. Neither
alternative is expected to have an adverse impact on any threatened or endangered species. Vegetation and Wildlife Habitat (see Table 2-13, and SDEIS Sections 4.8.2.1 page 4111 and 4.9.2.2 page 4-114): Alternative 3C would impact 468 acres of grassland, 21 acres of riparian forest, and 91 acres of aquatic habitat (i.e., wetlands and open water). Alternative 4B would impact 573 acres of grassland, 20 acres of riparian forest, and 111 acres of aquatic habitat. Alternative 4B would generally result in greater impacts to
wildlife habitat, including 105 acres of additional grassland impacts and 20 acres more impacts to aquatic features than Alternative 3C; Alternative 4B would have one acre less impacts to riparian forest than Alternative 3C. These results indicate that Alternative 3C would clearly have fewer impacts to vegetation and habitat than Alternative 4B. Open Space and Natural Beauty (see SDEIS Section 4.16 page 4-176): Visual impact assessment determined that Alternative 4B would have a somewhat greater visual impact to the viewshed within the Dallas Floodway than Alternative 3C. The levees would
partially restrict or obscure views of the surrounding areas outside of the levees, with the exception of the tall buildings in the Dallas CBD. Outdoor Recreation (see SDEIS Table 4-65 page 4-309): The impacts of Alternative 4B in terms of ROW within the Trinity River Greenbelt Park would be 93 acres greater than Alternative 3C. Natural Moderation of Floods (see SDEIS Section 4.13.4 page 4-135): Both alternatives have been designed to approximate the 1988 ROD criteria for Dallas Floodway hydraulic characteristics. However, as designed as of the SDEIS/LSS, Alternative 3C more closely meets the 1988 ROD criteria. Although not all of the 1988 ROD criteria are met,
additional coordination would continue with the USACE and the City of Dallas to ensure that the design supports the flood conveyance mission of the Dallas Floodway, if a Build Alternative is selected. Iterative hydraulic modeling has been conducted to ensure that
2-135
proposed embankments are offset by excavations and other design aspects so that the project would either meet the 1988 ROD criteria or be sufficiently close to those criteria to warrant consideration of a variance. The siting of both alternatives has been modified twice over the years of project development to increase compatibility with floodway levees, and project design elements have been added to enhance the security of the floodway (e.g., addition of diaphragm walls). Where applicable, the placements of new bridge piers are aligned with existing bridge piers within floodplain areas (e.g., ramps connecting to IH-45). However, as developed as of the SDEIS/LSS, Alternative 3C
performed better in terms of meeting the 1988 ROD criteria than Alternative 4B, and achieves a greater degree of hydraulic neutrality. Water Quality Maintenance (see SDEIS Section 4.12, page 2-123): Both alternatives would be subject to TPDES permit requirement and construction design to minimize construction site erosion and sedimentation. Erosion and sedimentation rates from both alternatives would be comparable, but overall erosion and sedimentation would be somewhat greater for Alternative 4B due to a construction footprint that is 126 acres larger than Alternative 3C. Accordingly, Alternative 3C is less environmentally damaging than Alternative 4B in this regard. Groundwater Recharge (see FEIS Section 4.13.3.5): Neither alternative would be expected to have appreciable impacts on groundwater recharge.
In view of the foregoing summary of impacts to floodplain natural and beneficial values, Alternative 3C would result in less adverse impacts to such values than Alternative 4B. The remainder of this section addresses measures to avoid and minimize the impacts to floodplains expected from the construction of Alternative 3C, and to comply with federal and local standards for construction within a regulatory floodway. Central to the development of alternatives for the Trinity Parkway have been design efforts to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to the flood conveyance mission of the Dallas Floodway. The importance of flood control in the downtown Dallas area is discussed in SDEIS Section 3.5.6, and the design of potential floodway alternatives has focused on neutralizing hydrologic and hydraulic impacts (SDEIS Section 4.13). At the forefront of ensuring hydraulic neutrality for any proposed construction in the Dallas Floodway are the 1988 TREIS ROD criteria and the local government CDC process that implements those criteria. Accordingly, project design has
emphasized iterative hydrologic and hydraulic modeling to minimize impacts to maximum water surface elevation and valley storage for the 100-year flood and the SPF. Most notably, the design approach includes constructing Alternative 3C above the 100-year flood elevation on embankment material that would be excavated from within the floodway to minimize hydraulic impacts. As summarized in the discussion of flood safety above (FEIS Section 2.8.4.3),
2-136
Alternative 3C would have minimal hydraulic impacts for both the 100-year flood and the SPF, and would not interfere with management of the floodway by either the USACE or the City of Dallas.
As discussed in FEIS Section 1.6.5, the construction of an alternative within a federal floodway would require authorization from the USACE under Section 408. Extensive coordination among the project partners has occurred especially in recent years to ensure that the proposed Trinity Parkway would not interrupt flood control operations or impact the existing Dallas Floodway levees. As a cooperating agency for this FEIS, this ongoing coordination has addressed
anticipated construction phasing to ensure protection of the levee system, use of borrow material from the floodway for tollway embankment, and uninterrupted access for floodway operations and maintenance, flood fighting, and surveillance. The participation of the USACE in project
development as evidenced in the SDEIS and LSS provide assurances that the Trinity Parkway is consistent with USACE interests relating to the Dallas Floodway.
As Alternative 3C involves modification of floodplains, the project would need to be further coordinated with FEMA prior to construction, if this alternative is selected in the anticipated ROD. This would involve receiving FEMA approval for a conditional revision to existing floodplain maps prior to construction, followed by a final revision to such maps based on as-built conditions of completed work. Coordination with FEMA has been occurring throughout the development of the proposed Trinity Parkway. The FEMA Region 6 Office participated in initial project scoping in 1999 with a request to coordinate with the local government (City of Dallas) floodplain administrator regarding a floodplain development permit (Appendix A-1, page 18). FEMA
received copies of the DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS for review, and informal coordination with the FHWA has been ongoing. For example, on July 22, 2008, FEMA Region 6 received a preliminary draft SDEIS when representatives were briefed on the Trinity Parkway, and FEMA expressed the expectation that it would authorize conditional floodplain map revisions if a floodway alternative is selected in the anticipated ROD. Based on these and other indications from FEMA, it is expected that necessary authorization from FEMA would be received if a floodplain alternative is selected. Based upon the above considerations in light of the requirements of EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) and implementing FHWA regulations (23 CFR Part 650, Subpart A), the FHWA has determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in floodplains and that the proposed action conforms to applicable federal and local floodplain protection standards. In addition, as the proposed project would encroach on a regulatory floodway, the FHWA finds that the proposed action is consistent with the functioning of the Dallas Floodway and that there is sufficient evidence indicating that revisions to the floodway would be acceptable to FEMA and the City of Dallas Floodplain Administrator.
2-137
2.8.7
Conclusion
Based upon the considerations discussed above, the FHWA has determined that there is no practicable Build Alternative that would avoid all impacts to wetlands and floodplains, and that Build Alternatives 2A and 2B are not practicable alternatives under the EO practicability factors for EO 11988 (Protection of Wetlands) and EO 11990 (Floodplain Management). The FHWA has further determined that Alternatives 3C and 4B are both practicable, but that Alternative 3C would result in less adverse impacts than Alternative 4B to both wetlands and the natural and beneficial values of floodplains. The FHWA finds that the proposed Build Alternative 3C includes all
practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands and floodplains appropriate for the schematic level of project design.
The FHWAs decision to recommend Alternative 3C for further evaluation is based on a unique set of factors that warrant favoring an alternative with significant and longitudinal encroachments of the Dallas Floodway, even though general FHWA policy (i.e., 23 CFR Part 650) would not favor such an alternative. These factors relate to the risks of constructing a roadway
longitudinally within a floodplain and community support for such roadway, discussed in the SDEIS and further developed in the LSS, which have been referenced in the discussion above and are summarized in the list below:
First, the proposed project has been designed to avoid any substantial impacts to the ability of the Dallas Floodway to perform its fundamental mission of safely conveying floodwaters from extreme storm events past the Dallas CBD. The design approach has been to construct the embankment for the Trinity Parkway from material excavated in the floodplain, thereby resulting in a hydraulically neutral facility. The excavation areas within the Dallas Floodway have been selected based on iterative hydraulic modeling in coordination with the USACE of future conditions affecting the movement of water across the broad, nearly level floodplain that is flanked by levees. Also, the nature of this
alternatives longitudinal encroachment actually facilitates hydraulic neutrality by its location near the base of a floodway levee and parallel with it. Although preliminary modeling reported in the SDEIS does not report perfect solutions, the designed facility is expected to closely approximate the existing ability of the Dallas Floodway to convey floodwaters. At this point in project development, it is clear that the design is sufficiently close to meeting the TREIS 1988 ROD criteria to warrant consideration of a variance from the USACE Fort Worth District Commander.
2-138
Second, Alternative 3C is designed to protect the roadway from any substantial harm from floodwaters passing through the Dallas Floodway. Most importantly, the planned roadway would be elevated on embankment with security walls or protected by flood separation walls that would remove it from the 100-year floodplain with approximately 2 feet of freeboard. Thus, the proposed project would only be inundated by floods with a frequency of occurrence substantially more rare than one percent per year. Floodwaters move through the Dallas Floodway at relatively slow velocities, and the rare flood event that would overtop the embankment would inundate the roadway but would not be expected to cause substantial damage to it (see FEIS Appendix F-2). Such rare events would result in the closure of the facility prior to its inundation and throughout a flooding event, and thereafter while debris is removed. Such anticipated closures and
maintenance of the roadway are considered acceptable risks to project sponsors in light of the benefits of creating a roadway that would substantially assist in managing the severe traffic congestion in and near the Dallas CBD. Third, the concept of placing a longitudinal roadway in the Dallas Floodway has been a prominent aspect of City of Dallas planning for over four decades. Support from
municipal leaders and the community in general has endured the scrutiny this alternative has received over a long period of time. Noteworthy in the history of project development are milestones such as the Stemmons deed in 1972, various city planning documents in the 1960s and 1970s, voter approval of bonds in 1998 for a Trinity Parkway reliever route, and the special election in 2007 that affirmed the continued consideration of floodway alternatives for the Trinity Parkway (see FEIS Section 1.1.2). The combination of the need for a reliever route to manage local traffic congestion, the absence of practicable alternatives outside the floodplain, and the general affirmation of longitudinal encroachment by elected leaders and the community in general are important considerations in FHWAs recommendation of a floodway alternative. With regard to authorizing an exception to policy regarding significant and/or longitudinal encroachments of floodplains (i.e., 23 CFR Part 650A), the FHWA has delegated this decision to the Division Administrator of FHWA field offices. Under 23 CFR Section 1.32(b), the FHWA authorizes a delegated representative of the FHWA Administrator to issue directives relating agency policy or procedures. The specific delegation of authority relating to floodplain policy was issued under FHWA Order M1100.1A (Change 45, November 25, 2005). This document includes the following relevant provision: Division Administrators are delegated the authority to make findings that highway encroachments on a flood plain are the only practicable alternative location, as outlined in 23 CFR Part 650A (FHWA Delegations and Organization Manual: Part 1 Delegations of Authority, Chapter 5Federal-Aid, Paragraph 20Authorizations to Proceed, Subparagraph 20(l)).
2-139
2.9
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
After taking into consideration all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts as presented in the SDEIS and/or LSS, and as additionally communicated in the EO practicability analysis presented in FEIS Section 2.8 above, Alternative 3C has been identified as the FHWA-recommended alternative. Accordingly, the remaining sections of FEIS Chapter 2 focus solely on the design characteristics of Alternative 3C, which is the only Build Alternative carried forward for analysis throughout the remaining chapters of this FEIS.
2.9.1
Alternative 3C Design Refinements
Since the FHWA designated Alternative 3C its recommended alternative, the design of Alternative 3C has been further refined as to ensure engineering functionality with adjacent major interchanges at the proposed projects northern and southern project termini. These design
refinements have been necessitated because of interim developments affecting other transportation projects that would alter these interchanges. FEIS Sections 2.9.1.1 and 2.9.1.2 present details relating to the transition of the Trinity Parkway with these adjacent major interchanges. The design refinements necessitated expansion of the northern portion of the project area due to the deferral of Project Pegasus, as discussed in FEIS Section 1.1.1. Additionally, portions of the original Trinity Parkway engineering design at the southern end of the project area have been incorporated into the independent SM Wright project (see FEIS Section 1.1.2), thereby necessitating adjustments to the design of Alternative 3C and minor alterations to the project area. The same general refinements to the design for Alternative 3C to accommodate transition requirements at both project termini would also be required for Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 4B; therefore, this modification to project design would not be a basis for distinguishing among the alternatives under consideration.
The information provided in FEIS Chapter 3 reflects the project area as modified to accommodate the Project Pegasus and SM Wright planning developments noted above. Also, the updated discussion of all aspects of Alternative 3C throughout the remainder of this FEIS is based on the new ROW footprint and redesigned schematic for Alternative 3C, which are shown in FEIS Plates 2-8 and 2-9. Engineering refinements to the design of Alternative 3C in general and within the Dallas Floodway are described in FEIS Section 2.9.1.3, and a discussion of updated access considerations regarding Alternative 3C is in FEIS Section 2.9.1.4. In light of the importance of project cost estimates for the EO practicability analysis (see FEIS Section 2.8.4.1), FEIS Section 2.9.1.5 includes an updated examination of the expected construction and
2-140
ROW/utility relocation costs for Alternative 3C. Such costs have been adjusted to 2011 dollars to determine whether Alternative 3C, as redesigned, would alter the EO practicability conclusion in FEIS Section 2.8.7; similar updating of the 404 practicability analysis in FEIS Appendix G-1 was also completed.
2.9.1.1 Northern Terminus Transition Area
The Trinity Parkways northern terminus is the IH-35E (Stemmons Freeway)/SH-183 interchange. As previously discussed in FEIS Section 2.1.2, the footprint of Project Pegasus originally adjoined the Trinity Parkways northern terminus. However, this project was deferred in Mobility 2035 2013 Update, due to lack of funding. As shown in Figure 2-23, Project Pegasus was not only adjacent to the Trinity Parkway (at the IH-35E/SH-183 interchange), but it was also adjacent to the proposed SH-183 improvements (on SH-183 at Empire Central).
FIGURE 2-23. TRINITY PARKWAY AND PROJECT PEGASUS
The deferral of Project Pegasus creates a non-tolled gap between the SH-183 improvements (by others), which include concurrent flow managed HOV lanes, and the proposed Trinity Parkway tollroad. Additionally, without Project Pegasus, the Trinity Parkway alignment must transition onto existing IH-35E (Stemmons Freeway). In response, the engineering design of the FHWA-
2-141
recommended alternative (Alternative 3C) was necessarily modified to accommodate the transition of the Trinity Parkway onto IH-35E (Stemmons Freeway) and SH-183. The modified roadway design of the proposed project through this transition area is shown in FEIS Plates 2-8A and 2-9 (see Sheets 1 - 4) and is described further below.
IH-35E (Stemmons Freeway) In order to make room for the two direct connecting ramps connecting northbound Trinity Parkway to northbound IH-35E and southbound IH-35E to southbound Trinity Parkway, while also maintaining reasonable existing access, the proposed project would reconstruct IH-35E from south of Mockingbird Lane to north of Empire Central Drive. This mainlane reconstruction would include the reconstruction of the Mockingbird Lane and Empire Central Drive overpasses to better facilitate local street access through this heavily congested area. Likewise, the proposed project would also include intersection improvements at Commonwealth Drive and IH-35E to better facilitate local access and congestion. The proposed mainlane configuration of IH-35E consists of three lanes in each direction, with an additional auxiliary lane located between Empire Central Drive and Regal Row. The reconstruction of a portion of the northbound IH-35E frontage road between Mockingbird Lane and Empire Central Drive would also be required.
In addition to the aforementioned reconstruction, the proposed project would also construct six ramps along IH-35E: three in the northbound direction and three in the southbound direction. These six ramps consist of the following: 1) a northbound entrance ramp from Mockingbird Lane, 2) a northbound exit ramp to Empire Central Drive, 3) a northbound entrance ramp from Empire Central Drive, 4) a southbound exit ramp to Empire Central Drive, 5) a southbound exit ramp to Mockingbird Lane, and 6) a southbound entrance ramp from Mockingbird Lane. The proposed ramps in the Trinity Parkway design refinements for this transition area are consistent with the previously approved Project Pegasus schematics.
SH-183 Similar to IH-35E, to make room for the four direct connecting ramps connecting Trinity Parkway and the SH-183 general purpose lanes and managed lanes, the SH-183 mainlanes and frontage roads would be reconstructed from IH-35E to Empire Central Drive. This design change is also necessary to bridge the gap left by the deferral of Project Pegasus from the Mobility 2035 2013 Update. At Empire Central Drive, the proposed project would match the ultimate build out of the SH-183 project by TxDOT (CSJ: 0094-03-065). Mockingbird Lane at SH-183 would be widened to accommodate improved local access between SH-183 and IH-35E.
2-142
The SH-183 general purpose lanes would consist of three lanes in each direction with two auxiliary lanes in each direction west of the Trinity Parkway direct connections. To the east of the Trinity Parkway direct connections, SH-183 merges with IH-35E and would be reconstructed to improve existing merging movements. Additionally, the proposed project would construct a
westbound exit ramp to Mockingbird Lane, a westbound exit ramp to Empire Central Drive, and an eastbound entrance ramp from Empire Central Drive.
2.9.1.2 Southern Terminus Transition Area
The southern terminus for the proposed Trinity Parkway is the US-175/SH-310 interchange. Between IH-45 and US-175/SH-310, the proposed Trinity Parkway overlaps with the proposed SM Wright Project (TxDOT CSJs: 0092-01-052, 0197-02-108 and 0092-14-081) that is being processed separately by TxDOT. In 2009, subsequent to the publication of the SDEIS, the
southbound IH-45 to southbound US-175 DC ramp and the northbound US-175 to northbound IH45 DC ramp, which were originally proposed to be constructed as part of the Trinity Parkway, were instead incorporated into the Phase I portion of the SM Wright Project. The SM Wright Project is proposed to be constructed in two phases: Phase I includes the construction of the DC ramps discussed above and associated improvements along IH-45, along with
construction/extension of the CF Hawn Freeway portion of US-175 from Bexar Street to IH-45; Phase II includes the downsizing of the SM Wright Freeway.
Because construction of the SM Wright Project is planned to occur before construction of the proposed Trinity Parkway, design plans for the recommended alternative (Alternative 3C) have been refined to accommodate the Trinity Parkways transition with improvements to IH-45 and US-175 that are proposed as part of the SM Wright Project. As shown in FEIS Plates 2-8B and 2-9 (see Sheets 17 - 19), these design refinements to the Trinity Parkway include the re-striping of the US-175 mainlanes beginning at Lamar Street and extending just east of Bexar Street, as well as the re-striping of IH-45 mainlanes, as to best facilitate compatible lane transitions between the two proposed projects.
2.9.1.3 Engineering Considerations An overview of the design refinements (i.e., schematics and typical cross sections) to the FHWArecommended Build Alternative 3C is provided in FEIS Plate 2-8 (Sheets A-D). A detailed plan view of the paving outline, bridges, ROW limits, and other design features overlain on an aerial photograph is shown in FEIS Plate 2-9 (Sheets 1 19). Alternative 3C would be approximately 8.79 miles in length, would require approximately 559 acres of ROW (reflects additional ROW needed for the transition with IH-35E and SH-183 at the northern terminus as discussed in FEIS
2-143
Section 2.9.1), and would cost approximately $1.31 billion (2013 dollars) to construct.
The
construction and ROW cost estimates for Build Alternative 3C and cost participation by involved agencies are discussed in FEIS Chapter 6 and the updated cost estimate for Alternative 3C is in FEIS Appendix D. Major interchanges associated with design refinements for Alternative 3C
would include the following:
Direct connections at the IH-35E(Lower Stemmons)/SH-183 interchange (northern terminus), the US-175/SH-310 interchange (southern terminus), Woodall Rodgers Freeway (north side only), and IH-45;
Full diamond interchanges at Hampton/Inwood Road, Sylvan/Wycliff Avenue, the proposed Jefferson Memorial Bridge (project by others) (see FEIS Section 2.7.1 for details), Corinth Street, and MLK;
Half diamond interchanges at Commonwealth Drive, Continental Avenue, and Lamar Street, and SH-310; and Connection to IH-35E (South R.L. Thornton Freeway) via the proposed Jefferson Memorial Bridge (project by others).
Design refinements for Build Alternative 3C include the development of greater design details for the portion of the toll road within the Dallas Floodway. As discussed further in FEIS Section 2.9.1.5, design refinements have resulted in a substantial reduction in the cost of constructing the project.
Information regarding forecasted for the 2035 average weekday volumes for Alternative 3C were updated in accordance with the Mobility 2035 2013 Update. The estimated traffic volumes shown in Figure 2-24 assumed a use rate commensurate with other toll roads in the NTTA system (see FEIS Section 1.3.4.1 for other modeling assumptions).
2-144
FIGURE 2-24. ESTIMATED 2035 AVERAGE WEEKDAY VOLUMES ALTERNATIVE 3C
2.9.1.4 Access Considerations
Access to IH-35E (South R.L. Thornton Freeway) This section supplements information provided above in FEIS Section 2.5.1 about access to IH35E (South R.L. Thornton Freeway). Subsequent to the publication of the SDEIS in 2009, plans have been advanced by TxDOT Dallas District for a proposed Jefferson Memorial Bridge (CSJ: 0918-47-018). The schematic plans for Alternative 3C have been updated accordingly to
accommodate the proposed Jefferson Memorial Bridge. This new bridge would be located just south and parallel to the existing Jefferson Street Bridge, which would be removed upon completion of the new bridge. The new bridge would provide for two-way traffic and would
connect to IH-35E (South R.L. Thornton Freeway). Since the existing Jefferson Street Bridge will be removed, and to avoid impacts to the Houston Street Bridge, the Alternative 3C alignment was modified to pass under the existing Houston Street Bridge and connect with the proposed Jefferson Memorial Bridge (via a full diamond interchange). This connection of the Trinity
Parkway to the proposed Jefferson Memorial Bridge would provide motorists connections to and from IH-35E (South R.L. Thornton Freeway).
2-145
Other Interchange Access Locations Design refinements to Alternative 3C would alter several of the interchange access connections described above in FEIS Section 2.5.2. The interchanges affected are shown in Table 2-18, which reflects the interchange access information from Table 2-6 and the changed access information for the current design of Alternative 3C. Another modification of Table 2-6 is with reference to the half-diamond interchange at SH-310, which is now part of the design for the SM Wright project (by TxDOT); this design refinement has been incorporated into the updated Alternative 3C schematic plans.
TABLE 2-18. INTERCHANGE ACCESS CHANGES FOR ALTERNATIVE 3C

Trinity Parkway Alternative 3C Interchange Location At Woodall Rodgers (WR) / Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge
Access Configuration from SDEIS (see SDEIS Table 2-6 or FEIS Table 2-6) Direct Connections SB-EB and WB-EB
Changed Access Configuration
Direct Connections via Ramps EB TP NB WR; SB WR WB TP Full Diamond Interchange at At Houston/Jefferson Street Full Diamond Interchange 1 Proposed Jefferson Memorial Bridge At IH-35E (South R.L. Connection via Ramps Connection via the 1 Thornton Freeway) NB-WB and EB-SB Proposed Jefferson Memorial Bridge T-Intersection with At Corinth Street Half Diamond Interchange 2 Full Diamond Interchange Notes: NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; WB = Westbound; EB = Eastbound; TP = Trinity Parkway; WR = Woodall Rodgers 1. Connection to IH-35E (South R.L. Thornton Freeway) via the proposed Jefferson Memorial Bridge (project by others) is a design refinement that resulted from the updating/further refining of the Alternative 3C schematic plans. 2. The T-Intersection design involves extending Riverfront Boulevard to the southeast approximately 1,000 feet from the Riverfront/Corinth intersection and terminating at a T-Intersection with diamond ramps at the Trinity River East Levee. This design would avoid any ramp connections to the Corinth Street Viaduct, and therefore, potentially allow better traffic channelization on a new structure.
Design Speed and Vehicular Park Access This section supplements information provided above in FEIS Section 2.5.3 about access to park and recreation facilities. Subsequent to the publication of the SDEIS, the City of Dallas continued to move forward with improvements to both the Cedar Crest/MLK, Jr. Bridge and at the Sylvan Avenue Dallas Floodway crossing. For the Cedar Crest/MLK, Jr. Bridge, the City of Dallas has proposed to construct parking and trail elements that would provide park access over the West Levee of the Trinity River, which would eliminate the need for a structural ramp. These
improvements would be constructed to have connectivity to the planned bike/pedestrian and gateway improvements planned by the City of Dallas to the Cedar Crest Bridge. NTTA and the City of Dallas agreed that once the Trinity Parkway bond funds allotted for the City of Dallas
2-146
proposed parking and trail elements were expended, the programmed access ramp improvements for the Trinity Parkway at Cedar Crest/MLK, Jr. Bridge (East Levee) will have been met and that no other park access improvements will be required at this location (see FEIS Appendix A-2, Pages 64-65).
Similarly, park access at Sylvan Avenue is being completed by others (TxDOT and City of Dallas) as part of the Sylvan Avenue Bridge Project. This project, which is currently under construction, will construct a new elevated bridge over the Trinity River and provide roadway access to Trammell Crow Park in the Dallas Floodway. As agreed upon by project sponsors, Trinity
Parkway funds have been applied to the construction cost of this park access ramp, thereby meeting the need for the programmed access ramp improvements for the Trinity Parkway at Sylvan Avenue. The three park access locations to be constructed as part of the Trinity Parkway are shown in relation to Alternative 3C on FEIS Plate 2-9. After construction, these park access facilities would be maintained by the City of Dallas (Hampton Road, proposed Jefferson Memorial Bridge, and Corinth Street/Riverfront Boulevard), as well as the Sylvan Avenue Bridge park access location (by others). The Cedar Crest/MLK Bridge improvements (by others) are still under design.
Federal Approval for Access to Interstate System As noted above in FEIS Section 2.5.5, approval from the FHWA would be required for Trinity Parkway to have access to the federal Interstate Highway System. The NTTA has developed appropriate documentation for the FHWA-recommended alternative (Alternative 3C) and is in the process of coordinating with TxDOT and the FHWA to request access for interchange locations at IH-35E (Lower Stemmons Freeway) at the northern project terminus, as well as IH-45 in the southern segment. In addition to these two access points, it should be noted that the proposed Trinity Parkway would provide access to IH-35E (South R.L. Thornton Freeway) via a connection with the future Jefferson Memorial Bridge being advanced as an independent project by TxDOT. The request for Interstate access to IH-35E (South R.L. Thornton Freeway) would be handled separately by others as part of the schematic design development phase for the Jefferson Memorial Bridge.
2.9.1.5 Design Refinements and EO Practicability
As Build Alternative 3C is the only practicable alternative based on the EO practicability screening analysis above, all references to project characteristics and impacts throughout the remainder of this analysis apply only to Build Alternative 3C. Moreover, the NTTA has developed the design of Build Alternative 3C to a higher level of detail since the LSS and has generally updated the
2-147
information regarding the expected environmental impacts of this alternative.
The updated
impacts for the refined design of Build Alternative 3C are likewise reflected throughout the remainder of this analysis pursuant to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
In light of the importance of project cost estimates for the 404 practicability analysis, the revised cost estimate based on design refinements for Alternative 3C led to an update of the cost factor. This look back to the 404 practicability analysis was done to determine how Alternative 3C, as redesigned, would compare to the 2011 cost estimate. Project costs from 2013 were adjusted to 2011 dollars and are shown in Table 2-19 to facilitate comparison with cost data from Tables 2-9 and 2-11. These data indicate that the updated design for Alternative 3C results in construction costs and ROW/utility relocation costs that are less than the cost screen discussed above. Further analysis was completed to ascertain the major elements of costs considered that would account for the large reduction in overall cost (i.e., approximately $146M). The greatest cost reduction for Alternative 3C is the result of a greatly reduced volume of earth excavation and embankment fill, which produced a $67M reduction in cost. This design change is linked to the decision to not have the Trinity Parkway place fill on the East Levee sideslope adjacent the roadway embankment, as this step is no longer needed to facilitate the raising of the levee. Construction cost reductions related to various structures resulted in a net saving of approximately $19M. Although the cost estimates for various types of wall structures (i.e.,
security, flood separation, diaphragm, slurry, and retaining walls) would add $90M above the 2011 estimate, cost reductions in redesigned mainlane, ramp, and other bridges amounting to $108M would more than offset that increase. Other design changes that produced substantial reductions in construction cost components included costs for drainage (-$9M), traffic barriers (-$6M), and traffic control (-$19M).
TABLE 2-19. COST SCREEN APPLIED TO ALTERNATIVE 3C DESIGN CHANGES

Project Cost Estimate (all costs in 2011 dollars) Project Length (mainlane miles) Construction Cost Total in $ millions (M) ($M/mainlane mile) ROW/Utility Relocation Cost Total in $M ($M/mainlane mile) Combined Above Costs in $M ($M/mainlane mile) Cost Screen for Construction and ROW/Utility Relocation Costs in $M/mainlane mile Difference Between Alternative Cost Estimate and Cost Screen in $M/mainlane mile Percent Difference Between Alternative Cost Estimate and Cost Screen Trinity Parkway Alternatives 3C-LSS (old) 3C-FEIS (new) 52.8 52.8 1,014 867 (19.2) (16.4) 142 146 (2.7) (2.8) 1,156 1,013 (21.9) (19.2)
20.0 1.9 10%
20.0 -0.8 -4%
[END OF CHAPTER EXCEPT FOR PLATES]
2-148
PLATE 2 - 1
Ro w
SDEIS/LSS BUILD ALTERNATIVES ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

Ce ir e ntr al Dr .
Re ga l
?
Em p
( c & %
we al th
bird Ln
Co m
n Irvi
lvd. gB
PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY
Legend
Alternative 2A - Irving/Riverfront Boulevard (Elevated) Alternative 2B - Irving/Riverfront Boulevard (At-Grade)
on
( c & %
d Rd.
Mocking
d. / reland R Westmo
Hampton/Inwoo
Flo
Tr i n
o dw ay
rs F
ity R
ast )
o rfr ve Ri
wy .
Lev
n America Airlines Center

ee (E
Alternative 3C - Combined Parkway Riverside (Further Modified) Alternative 4B - Split Parkway Riverside (Modified)
All ROW footprints for the Trinity Parkway build alternatives reflect the schematic design considered during the preparation of the SDEIS (2009) and LSS (2012).
ge da ll R
ive
( c & %
.( r fo er m d In tri us
od
nt vd Bl
Dr.
Flo
o dw ay L
eve e
(We
st)
n Ave.
Singleton
. e ve i dg l A ll B r ta i n H e nt in nt t Hu Co are g r R Ma .R. U.P St . rce me m Co
W oo
Can ada
Dallas Central s Busines District tio Conven Center n
. vd Bl al
ylva Wycliff/S
$ c " ! $ h " !
DAR T AT & R.R SF
t.
0 3,000 6,000 9,000 SCALE IN FEET
$ c " !
Beckley Ave
$ c " !
Hou sto nS t. Jef fers on St .
( c & %
th S
gB lv d
Ha tc he r
MK TR
x K
R
900
1,800
2,700
Note: Locations are approximate. Alignments are shown adjacent to one another for graphic clarity. Detailed alignments for each alternative have been presented earlier as part of Chapter 2. Year of Aerial Photograph Date: 2012. Reference Section 2.3.2
Cor in
K in
Trin
R.R
Lu t he r
ity R
iv e r
La ma r
Bexar
x K
Mar tin
MKT
( c & %
$ h " ! t ?
2-149
SCALE IN METERS
ARCH I TECTS EN GI N EERS PLAN N ERS
SURVEYORS
0 42
4 1 0
4 0 0
E L M
41 0
F O R K
PLATE 2-2 A
P
4 0 0
T R I N I T Y
R I V E R
PL ANNERS .
( O L D
0 41
N
The HNTB Companies
P
C H A N N E L )
P
P P
P
P
ALTERNATIVE 2A
P
P P
SCI ENTI STS .
IRVING / RIVERFRONT BOULEVARD ELEVATED (NORTH)

P P P
0 2 4
40 0
4 1 0
ARCHI TECTS .
4 1 0
D EL I F P
L L A B T E K S A B
0 1 4
P
C I LET H T A
BRA NCH
P P P P P
0 1 4
0 40
P
KNI GHT S
0 1 4
P
4 0 0
P
0 1 4
P P A E R A P C / U
0 1 4
P P P
0 0 4
ENGI NEERS .
P
C / U A E R A
P P
39 0
40 0
0 1 4
P
0 1 4
P
P P P
ARCH I TECTS EN GI N EERS PLAN N ERS
P P P P P P P P P S I N N E T P P
P
P
CH ANNE L)
40 0
T P R U O C P
4 1 0
P
P
(O LD
0 1 4
P
0 1 4 0 2 4
0 1 4 0 2 4
S T R U O C
40 0
P
0 1 4
Y T I N I R T
K R O M F L E
Y T I N I R T
D L O (
R E V I R
400
500
1000
1700
2500
3000
R E V I R
) L E N N A H C
D A O R L I A R C I F I C A P N O I N U
0 1 4
P S I N N E T
39 0
400
P P
M L E
K R O F
390
0 1 4
SCALE IN FEET
410
400
P
P
SH 1 8 3 P ROJ E CT BY OT HE RS
P
P P
400
P
P
P P P P
S" GASU E ) CT P E W Y. ROJ P " NS F MMO E ST ( S E T 5 N 3 I ME VE RO P M I RS HE T BY O
40 0 39 0
4 1 0
P
C H A N NE L )
TR INIT CHAN Y NE L)
S H 1 8 3
RIV ER
(O LD
P P
RI V ER
0 40
P P S I NN TE
FORK (OLD
N O I UN
4 39 00 0
T RI N I TY
0 9 3
S T R OU C
400
C I F I C A P
39 0
4 0 0
400 39 0
0 0 4
AD O R L I A R
3 9 0
3L A N E
P P P
P
P P
P S I N N TE
S T R OU C
400
42 0 4 10
0 40
0 41 0 2 4 0 1 4
0 5 1
P
P P
) L E N N A H D C L O R ( E V I Y R T I N I R T
3 9 0
P P
39 0 40 0
0 39 0 40
410
390
4 1 0
400 390
4 2 0
0 40
0 0 4
42 0 4 1 0
P
P P
0 39 0 40
2L A N E
P
P
ELM
400
0 40
4 1 0 42
ND U O R G Y A L P
0 9 3
0 39 0 39 400
4 0 0
S ON M M E T S
0 0 4
P
W F
P P
TRAIL
L A N E
P P
KNIGHTS
L A N E
P
R E V I R Y T I N I R T K R O F
E RTL TU
41 0
2
0 42
400
P
P
P P P
EK CRE
E L T R U T
K E E R C
P
) L E N N A H C D L O (
P P
P P
P
M L E
0 0 4
P
4 1 0
E 5 3 I
BRANCH
P P
L AI R T
P P
. Y
3L A N E
P P
T R A I L
P
L I A R T
L I A R T
4 0 0
P
P
P P
P
P
P P
P P
P P
TURT LE
0 0 0 4 9 0 3 9 0 3 0 4 0 1 4
P
P P
P P P
P P
CR EEK
MAIN LANE
0 39 0 40
P P P P
P P
P P P P P
S T I E 3 AUTHORITY NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY M 5 E M O N S F W Y .

P
L AI R T
4 1 0 4 2 4 0 3 0
0 1 4
0 0 4
4 0 0
4 0 0
4 3 0 4 2 4 0 1 0
NORT H T E XAS T OL L W AY AUT HORI T Y
410
ROW
ROW VARIES (100 TYPICAL) 40 40

P
A N E J O H N W. C A R P E N T E RF WY .
P
0 39 0 40
2L
410
4 2 0
D N O P
P P
P P P
TR AIL
4 2 0
41 0
0 2 4 0 2 4 0 1 4 0 40 0 0 4
0 0 4 390
T R I N I T Y
P
TOLL GANTRY
P P P P P
P P P P P P P P P P P P P
0 2 4 0 41
0 40 0 39
4 1 0
390
P
P P P P P
0 2 4 0 1 4
400
0 40
3
P P P P P P P
R I V E R
( O L D
P P
P P P
T RI NI T Y P ARKW AY E I S
TRAIL
P P P
0 1 4
0 2 4 0 1 4
1 0 0
P
3
P P
E L M
F O R K
D L O (
P P
P P P P
400
E N A L
P
3 9 0 4 0 0
C H A N N E L )
0 39
400
250
P
3L A N E
P 5 1 9
40 0
P
P
P P P
P
P
390
P P
P
P
P P P
P P
) L E N N A H C
P
P
400
P
E N A L 3
P
P P
P P
P
TRINITY
RIVER
0 9 3 0 0 4
P
P P P
P P
P P P P P P P P P P P
400
3
P P P P
P P
3L A N E
P
P
4 0 0
P
P P
3
P P P P
TRI NI TY
RI V ER
400 390
( ) O L D C H A N N E L )
400
DAL L AS , T E XAS
P
P P D A O R L I A R C I F I C A P P N O I UN C I F I C A P D A O R L I A R P P
P
P P P
P P
P P
P
P
P
400
P P
P
P
2 0 0
P P P P P P
0 9 3
3L A N E
P P
0 0 4
G N I V R I
P P
TR AIL
. D V L B
P P
P
P P
0 40
P P
400
P
P P P
P
410
TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2A

P
N O I UN
P
P
P
P
NW EA L T H
P P P P
C H A N N E L)
P
P P P
4 0 0
EXISTING RIVERFRONT BOULEVARD

P
0 0 4
0 0 4
P P P P
0 1 4
P P
P
P
3L A N E
P
P P
400
3
( O L D
P
P
P
P P P
P
P
0 40 0 9 3
P
P P P P P P
P
P P P
0 9 3
P
P
P
P P
P P
P
P P
P
P
400
390
390
R I V E R F R O N T
P
40 0
P
4 0 0
P P
0 1 4 0 2 4
D OA R L I A R
C I F I C A P N O I N U P P
P P
P P P P P P
P P P P
410
RIV ER
ROW VARIES (162 TYPICAL)
ROW
P P
0 1 4
P P
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
P
P
400
400
P P
0 0 4
P
0 0 4
TRAIL
0 42 0 41
410
D A O R L I A R C I F I C A P
N O I N U
TRAIL
410
P
TRAIL
P
P
P
FORK
0 1 4 0 2 4
420
13 I D E
WEST
P P
P
P
AV E.
0 3 4 0 3 4
0 2 4 0 1 4
TRAIL
430 430 420
420
1 430 D E
410
1 1 1 D E
12
420
410
420
410
420
P P P
410
L I A R T
430 420
430 430
420
430 430
P P
TRAIL
0 41
4 0 0
0 41
4 0 0
P
TRAIL
9 1 D E
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
P P
P P
0 0 4
4 0 0
D L E I F
4 0 0
0 40
40 0
15 10 TRINITY PARKWAY
66 36 10 10
66 36 10
15
0 0 4 0 0 4
MO
410
L I A R T
L I A R T
410
420
420
P P P
0 1 4
P P
CO M
410
0 40
0 39
TRAIL
4 1 1 0 D 3 E 4 0 3 4 0 2 4 0 1 4
5 . 00 4
400
0 1 4 0 42
400
T R A I L
WE
T R A I L
0 0 4
P
T R A I L
CO NT I NE NT AL
400 0 39
400
G N I V R I
410
1 2 9
410
0 40
P
L I A R T
D N O P R E C C O S
0 40
ND O P
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
0 0 4
00 4
4 0 0
4 0 0
4 0 0
P
4 0 0
P P
P
400
L AI R T
P
TR AI L
4 0 0
T R A I L
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
P
P P
D ON P
E W
9 . 7 9 3
0 0 4
40 16.5
40
WE
P P D OA R L I A R P C I F I C A P ON I UN
5 4. 39
4 0 0
P P
0 40 0 39
P
L I A R T
4 0 0
410
TRAIL
4 0 0
0 0 4 400
400
0 0 4
8 1 D E
P P P
D N O P
L I A R T
0 0 4
4 0 0
T R I N I T Y R I V E R
P P P P P P P P AD LRO RAI P P
L I A R T
R E V I Y R T I N I R T
R E V I YR T I N I R T
L I A R T
4 0 0
U P P E R
40 0
S W 0 . 5 9 3
T R I N I T Y
R I V E R
0 0 4 0 9 3
0 0 4
R E V I R
0 0 4
4 0 0
4 0 0
00 4
L I A R T
C IFI PAC
41 0
0 39 0 0 4 0 41
4 0 0
TRAIL
4 1 0 4 2 0
400
400
0 40
P P
400
400
40 0
TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2A PROPOSED ELEVATED TOLLROAD
A R H GA I L L RET B R H I D U G N E T
40 0
0 0 4
400
0 40
4 0 0
4 0 0
39 0
0 0 4
400
INDUSTRIAL/IRVING BOULEVARD
P P
400
ON UNI
L I A R T
41 0
0 42 0 3 4
400
P P
A 5 1 1 D E 0 43 0 42 0 1 4
Y T I N I R T
0 0 4
L I A R T
4 2 0
4 1 0
40 0
0 0 4
40 0
400 410
T R A I L
D N O E P W 9 . 9 9 3
4 0 0
TRAIL
4 0 0
P P P P
TR AI L
0 40
40 0
0 40
L I A R T
TRAIL
E W 2 . 7 9 3
4 0 0
D N O P
TRA IL
400
400
D N O P
D N O P
E W 2 . 7 9 3
4 0 0
D N O P E W 9 . 7 9 3 E W 4 . 6 9 D 3 N O P
TRAIL
4 0 0
0 1 4
ROW
TRINITY PARKWAY
0 9 3
P P P D A O R L I A R
TRAIL TRAIL
L I A R T
C I F I C A P ON I UN
0 39 0 0 4 0 41 20 4 0 3 4 0 43 0 42 0 41
4 0 0
L I A R T
0 1 4
TRAIL
TRAIL
T R A I L
420
4 1 0 4 2 0
420
410
420
7 W D
400
430
430
6 W D
E W 4 . 7 9 3
4 0 0
410
420
8 W D
420
430 430 420
410
0 40
420
4 2 0
D N O P
410 420
430 430
420 410
0 3 4
430
9 W D
TRAIL
410
P
0 2 4
400
14 9
400
390
400
390 400 410
410 0 0 4
E W 4 . 7 9 3
40 0
390
5 W D
15 25
0 40
0 0 4
0 0 4
L I A R T
WE
P
.6 395
D N O P
0 1 4
P
400
0 1 4
0 40 0
4 0 0
P P P
39
410
0 40
T R OU C L L A B T E K S A B
400
410
410
A U T H O R IT Y
0 41
40
H:1 " =600 V:1 " =60
40 16.5
41 0
0 2 4
0 41
2 1 F S R T
0 43 0 42 0 41
L I A R T
K R A P
0 40
ON I T A T S P
S R E K C I B
D L E I F
LL A B
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
P M U P
0 0 4
41 0
P
0 1 4
420
400
0 41
4 2 0
RAMP
Y T I N I R T
0 41
410
0 1 4
L I A R T
0 0 4
0 41
P E W
9 . 7 9 3 P
0 41
0 41
0 1 4
0 40
0 41
410
E 5 W . 7 9 3 6 E . W 1 0 4
4 2 0
0 40
L I A R T
D EL I F C I T LE H T A
0 40
P
P P
0 41
410
0 0 4
. D V L B
P
410
4 1 0
0 40 0 1 4
41 0
T R OU C L L ND A U B O T R E G K Y S A A L B P
0 3 4
P
P
4 W D
0 1 4
10 F S R T
C O
43
R E V I R
0 1 4 0 2 4 0 3 4 30 4
ND U O R G Y A L P
D EL I F LL A B
0 1 4 0 42 0
42 0
P
41 0
0 1 W D
400
4 0 0
390 390
0 39
41 0 42 0
40 0
T O L L W A Y
2009
LL A B
0 1 4
41 0
0 41
41 0
L I A R T
0 41
410
D EL I F
R A I L R O
0 41 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 2 4 0 1 4
410
P P
0 41
0 1 4
0 1 4
L I A R T
0 0 4
T E X A S
P T R OU C T R OU C
0 1 4
PROPOSED ELEVATED TOLLROAD WITH RAMPS
Y T I N I R T
D EL I F C I T LE H T A
LL A B T E K S A B
D EL I F
0 0 4
C I LET H T A
P D N U O R AYG L P P
4 0 0
4 1 4 0 4 20 3 4 0 4 30 4 20 1 4 0 0 0
5 E . W 94 3
ND U O R G Y A L P
410
T R OU C L L A B ET K S A B
L L A B T E K S A B
P C I N C I P
P P P
T R OU C
L L A B ET K S A B P T R OU C L L A B ET UND K O S R A G B Y A L P
T R U O C LL A B ET K S A B
4 2 0
T R U O C
UND O R T G R U AY O L C P L L A B T E K S A B
UND O R G AY L P
0 41
UND O R G Y A L P
U N I O
P
P
D A O R L AI R
41 0
LL A B
0 1 4
R R Y R A A C T N E M E L E
L L A B ET K S A B D EL I F P L L A B D EL I F UND O R G Y A L P
P A C I F I C
0 0 4
4 10
R E V I R
0 0 4 0 41
ND OU R AYG L P
0 41
410
P P P ND OU R YG A L P P T R OU C P P ND OU R G AY L P T R U O C LL A B ET K S A B P
0 1 4
S I NN E T
41 0
D OUN R YG A L P
K H R T A P OR N ON T P M A H
P P
N O R T H
UND O R YG A L P
A L A Y V R A A Z T E N D E M E L E
P S I N N T R TE U O C P P
4 1 0
R Y E R L A Y T T N E M E L E
N O T E L G N I S
P P
A D
0 1 4
410
4 1 0
4 1 0
P
P
P P P
0 2 4
0 2 4 10 4
P P
4 1 0
4 0 0
0 2 4 10 0 4 1 4
P P
T R OU C
C I F I C PA
ON NI U
TYPICAL SECTIONS
I-35E TO U.S. 175
N
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY 5, 2009 DATE:
41 0
L I A R T
D EL I F P P C I LET H T A
0 0 4
P
0 1 4
P
LL A B ET K S A B
PROFILE LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES
PLAN LEGEND:
PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD
P P P UND O R G AY L P
UND O R AYG L P P L L A B T E K S A B
P T R OU C ND OU R G T Y R A L OU P C L L A B T E K S A B
0 0 4 0 0 4
0 41 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 43 0 42 0 41 0 0 4
P P
T R OU C L L A B ET K S A B
L) NNE CHA
T R OU C L L A B ET K S A B P Y NIT TRI D (OL
P P P T R OU C P
R VE RI
D UN O R YG A L P
LL A B ET K S A B
1 1 F S R T
K FOR
0 40
P LL A B T E K S A B
T R U O C
P
P T WES P P
P P
ND OU R G AY L P
4 1 0
P P L L A B ET K S A B P T R U O C
100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL

P
0 41
P
P LL A B ET K S A B P
400
400
41 0
SPF WATER LEVEL EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING
LL A B ET K S A B
PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
L L A B T E K S A B
410
P P
0 41
150
300
600
900
1200
1800
NOTE: ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.
41 0
P P
SCALE IN FEET
P
SCALE: 1" = 600

41 0
P
P P
410
400
NUMBER OF GENERAL PURPOSE LANES ALONG INDICATED MAIN LANE DIRECTION
600
550
PVI 31 9+ 00. 00
PVI 1 40+ 00. 00
PVI 1 92+ 00. 00
PVI 250+ 00. 00
PVI 1 1 4+ 00. 00
PVI 1 00+ 00. 00
El e v 432. 88
El e v 439. 88 L = 31 0. 00
El e v 436. 88 L = 320. 00
500
El e v 445. 82 L = 31 0. 00
El e v 447 . 00 L = 31 0. 00
El e v 466. 92 L = 1 01 6. 49
450
% 0 5 . 0
0 . 5 0 %
% 0 5 . 0
0 . 5 2 %
% 1 5 . 0
0 . 4 8 %
% 9 4 . 0
% 6 3 . 1
0 . 4 9 %
BRIDGE
1 . 8 9 %
PEDESTRIAN
PVI 1 30+ 00. 00
COMMONWEALTH
PVI 220+ 00. 00
400
WOODALL
U P RAILROAD BRIDGE COMMERCE STREET
428. 26 PVI 290+ 00. 00
PVI 1 57 + 00. 00
RODGERS
El e v 432. 28 L = 1 60. 00
El e v 428. 00 L = 1 80. 00
HAMPTON / INWOOD ROAD
El e v 427 . 43 L = 360. 00
El e v 431 . 88 L = 200. 00
WYCLIFF AVE.
OAK LAWN
BRIDGE CONTINENTAL AVE
350
439. 7 1
444. 37
442. 1 1
436. 47
434. 27
432. 07
432. 47
434. 7 7
434. 38
434. 38
432. 88
435. 38
462. 36
442. 26
434. 24
436. 88
429. 88
455. 57
447 . 86
437 . 1 6
437 . 1 9
429. 04
442. 09
431 . 66
439. 64
439. 66
437 . 88
434. 7 0
444. 55
444. 55
454. 66
444. 80
461 . 29
441 . 05
441 . 95
434. 62
446. 62
437 . 1 2
437 . 22
300
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
432. 32
439. 33
429. 53
439. 53
434. 7 3
432. 1 3
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
9/26/2013
2:56:03 PM
ah1933 TXDOT
I:\17000s\17826\CADD\CADD - TP SDEIS Alternatives\LSS Plates\826-LSS-PP2A-N.dgn

FOR NTTA USE ONLY-
446. 1 2
E R C E
E W
0 41
4 1 0
10
36
10
10
36
10
15
00 4
L I A R T
400 0 1 4
P P
0 1 4
410
25
Y T I N I R T
40 0
L I A R T
400
0 40
4 1 0 4 2 0
E W 5 . 7 9 3
E W 5 . 7 9 D3 N O P
4 2 0
4 0 0
4 00
400
D N O P
7 .
395
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
2-150
S T .
E. AV
R E V I R
66
66
0 1 4 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 2 4 0 1 4 0 0 4
410
. R A D D A N A C
400 4 1 0
4 0 0
4 00
LEW STERRETT JUSTICE CENTER

7 1 D E
M AT CH L I NE
. D V L B
TRIN IT Y
400
400
3
0 0 4
P P P
3
P
B L V D . 3 0 0
P
400
400
M O RD BI G N I CK . N L
M O
F F I CL WY
ON T MP HA
N VA YL \S
L AI TR
O NW \I
E. AV
OD . RD
0 40
0 1 4
RD BI NG I CK N L W / TM ES O D AN L RE . RD
0 41
EY L CK BE
0 1 4
V7
826-PP2A-S.DGN
PROFILE LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES 100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL SPF WATER LEVEL
4 2 0
PLAN LEGEND:
PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING

P
P P
P
P
ELEVATED (SOUTH)
R
42 0
4 3 0
430
P
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

P
P
NOTES: 1. ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.
4 1 0
0 43 P
WEST END
P P
P P P P
3
P P P
0
4 3 0
500
1000
1700
2500
3000
0 0 4
NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

P
SCALE IN FEET
0 0 4
P P
4 3 0
P P
I NE CH L M AT
K R A P
0 40400
0 1 4
4 3 0
K R A P
0 43
K R A P
K R A P
0 42
R KI HE UT L NG J R. BL VD.
0 1 0 4 2 4
P
420
4 2 0
P
P K R A P
4 4 0
CONVENTION CENTER
WR I G H T ) 1 7 5
S T RI NI T Y P ARKW AY E I
ROW ROW VARIES (100 TYPICAL) 40 40 ROW VARIES (162 TYPICAL)
4 1 0
6 9 P P
420 410
U S
0 40
P
P P D N U O R G Y A L P P
0 43
P
0 2 4
41 0 42 0
0 2 4 10 4
0 1 4
4 2 0
J U L I U S
D L E I F C I T E L H T A
4 1 0
( S M
P
I 4 5 S C H E P P S
430
P P P
WR I G H T )
D N U O R G Y A L P
D N U O R G Y A L P
P
P P
I 3 0
0 1 4 0 42
410
4 4 0
4 3 0
P
4 2 0
P
0 42 0 43
42 4 0 1 0
4 4 0
P P
P P
4 4 0
P P
0 3 4 0 2 4
420
P P
P
C / U
420
400 410
P P P P P P P
4 4 0
P
430
4 3 0
400 41 0
0 1 4
P
P P P P P P
P P
400
C / U
P
P P
4 2 0
0 1 4
4 1 0 40 0
P
P P P P
43 0
Y .
P P
430
4 4 0
D N U O R G Y A L P
F W
4 3 0
4 4 0
4 4 0
P P P P P P
P P P
L OO H C S
1 7 5
H HIG
N SO P M
400
410
4 4 0
P P P P
P P
N )
LEW STERRETT
7 1 D E
0 3 4
4 3 0
0 3 4
P P
P P
D N U O R G Y A L P
4 3 0
THO
P P
D N U O R G Y A L P
S T R U O C
P P
U S
JUSTICE CENTER
42
4 0 10
P
410
P
P
P P
4 1 0
H A W
N I RT MA
P P
420
4 2 0
4 2 0
P P
L A MA R
4 2 0
4 2 0
L L A B T E K S T A R B U O C
P
P P P P P P
0 43
P P P
L L A B T E K S A B
P
P P
S T
P
P D N U O R G Y A L P P P
P P
P D L E I F C I T E L H T A
4 1 0
4 2 0
4 1 0
P P
P A E R A
420
C / U
( C F
4 1 0 4 0 0
0 1 4
4 2 0
4 4 0
4 3 0
P P
A 3L N E
P P P
4 1 0
0 1 4
4 1 0
P
4 1 0
3
P P P P P
4 1 0
P
4 3 0
410 0 40
410
4 3 0
4 2 0
P
P
P P
P P
S T .
41 0
P K R A P P P N O I N U E R
4 0 0
4 1 0
4 3 0
P P
4 1 0
P
P
P P
4 0 40 0 0
E R C E
P P
3
P P P
0 40
P
D N U O R G Y A L P
P P
0 1 4
A 3L N E
420
P P
40 0
4 1 0
4 3 0 4 2 0
3
4 0 0
6 1 D E
4 0 0
0 0 4 400
0 1 4 0 0 4 0 9 3
410
4 0 0
420
3 9 0
430 420 410
C O
410
400
T R A I L
0 0 4
410
P
0 41 0 40
3 9 0
L A N E
3 9 0
41 0
L A N E
0 0 4 0 1 4
410
400
0 0 4 0 1 4
410
0 1 4
4 1 0
P
0 1 4 0 0 4
400
410
410
4 9
410 410
410 410
4 1 0
0 9 3
0 0 4
410
P P
10 4
L A MA RS T .
P P P
0 1 4
P P P P
4 1 0
P P
0 40 0 41
0 1 4
0 2 4
P P P

P
4 2 4 0 1 4 0 0 0
P P
3 90
3 9 0
41 0
3 9 0
P
41 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
P
P
4 0 0
4 1 0
4 4 10 0 4 0 0 0
4 1 0
S W
400
390
TR IN IT Y
P P 9 F S R T P P P P P P
390 41 0
WE .7 395
4 0 0
4 0 0
D N O P
0 41
D N O P
R IV ER
WE .8 395
4 4 20 4 10 0 0
420
400
410 400
400
410
410
400
410 420
400
D N O P
3 9 0
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 2 0
40 0
TR IN IT Y
P P P P
4 0 0
L I A R T
400
390
400
4 0 0 3 9 0
40 0
40 0
0 9 3
39 0
3 9 0
410 400
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
40 0
400
4 0 0
R I V E R F R O N TB L V D .
P
TOLL GANTRY
S W 0 0. 8 3
3 9 0
400
4 2 0
0 9 3
400
UP PE R
40 0
420 410
4 0 0
0 . 0 8 3
0 0 4
MAIN LANE
410
3 9 0
3
4 2 0
1 1 D E
P P
0 1 4
ROW
D L E I F L L A B
4 0 0
4 0 0 4 0 0
P P
4 1 0
0 0 4
15
P
66 10 36 10 10
66 36 10
15
390
400 0 1 4
5 1 D E
400
395
4 2 0
420
S W
420
39 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
40 0
410
400
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 1 D E
4 0 0 4 1 0
400
R IV ER
4 0 0
390
0 9 3
P
S W 2 . 5 9 3
1 . 5 9 3
4 0 0 4 0 0
E W 2 2. 9 3
T R A I L
4 0 0
4 1 0
4 0 0
.3
4 0 0
410
S W
9 5. 9 3
400
WE
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
390
4 0 0
0 0 4
4 1 0 4 0 0
4 0 0
4 0 0
0 0 4
400
4 0 0
4 0 0
DART
. RSON ST E F F E J
S W 3 . 5 9 3
HOUST ON ST .
4 0 0
400
400
40 0
3 9 0
0 9 3
0 0 4
0 . 380
WE WE 391.1 389.0
3 9 4 0 0 0
3 W D P
400
0 0 4
0 0 4
390
4 0 0
3 9 0
4 0 0
0 9 3
4 0 0
I H3 5 N. B.
B. 5 S. 3 HI
400
0 0 4
0 0 4
40 0
S W
400
S W 8 . 5 9 3
390
9 . 4 9 3
S W 3 . 3 9 3
4 1 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
39 0
0 0 4
S W
6 . 3 9 3
8 . 2 9 3
390
0 40
0 40
0 40
0 2 4
3 9 0
S W
IL TRA
4 0 0
3 9 0 4 0 0
T R I N I T Y
R I V E R
Y T NI I TR
0 39
40 0
0 2 4 0 1 4
390 4 0 0
390
. H ST NT CORI
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
400
0 2 4
P
S W
7 . 6 9 3
390
Y NIT TRI
400
40 0
0 0 4
4 0 0
E W D N O 3 P 5. 9 3
390
400
3 9 0
TRINITY RIVER
ER RIV
3 9 0
K R A P D N O P E W 0 9. 8 3 R E T S E H C O R
390
40 0
D N O P
0 0 4
0 0 4
4 0 0
3 9 0
S W
400
400
39 0
4 0 0
P
2 W D F F I L C
K R A P S W 5 . 3 9 3
D N O P E W
390
5 4. 9 3
4 E . D W 5 N 9 O 3 P
0 0 4
0 9 3
400
3 . 3 9 3
PROPOSED ELEVATED TOLLROAD
410 420
420 410
4 1 0
400
3 9 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 0 0
4 0 0
0 9 3
400
40 0
E W D N O P
L I A R T
3 9 0 4 0 0
P P
400
390
390 400 410
390
390
S W 0 . 4 9 3 S W 3 . 3 9 3 S W 7 . 2 9 3
4 0 0
3 3. 9 3
D N O P E W
IL
3 9 0 400 410
P
ROW
400
0 1 4
0 0 4
0 9 3
400
400
E W 9 . 4 9 3 D N O P D N O P E W 9 . 4 9 3
5 . 1 9 3
S W
420
S W P
C / U
8 . 2 9 3
4 1 0
4 1 0
S W
7 . 5 9 3
S W
P P
420
4 2 0
P
A E R A
S W
4 1 0
4 1 0
P P
4 2 0
BURNETT FIELD
43 0
4 3 0
4 2 0
4 1 0
4 1 0
0 42
1 . 3 9 3 S W 3 . 2 9 3
4 0 0
4 0 0
410
0 0 4 0 0 4
0 0 4
390
TRA IL
41 0
4 1 0
FORMER
0 1 4 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 4 4
P
4 1 0 4 2 0
0 41
4 0 0
400
400
40 0
1 . 3 9 3
4 0 0
D N O P
400
E W
7 1. 9 3
66 15 10 25 36 10 10
66 25 36 10 15
400
410
0 2 4 0 3 4 0 4 4 0 5 4
P
4 1 0
410
0 3 4
4 1 0
S I N N E T
T R U O C
400
4 3 0
4 4 0
P
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 0 0
390
D UN O R G Y A L P
41 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
400
D N O P
E W 8 . 2 9 3
4 0 0
4 0 0
0 1 4
D N O P
K PAR
460
420
0 3 4
430
0 2 4
400 410 420
A E R A
4 0 0
41 0
C / U
4 1 0 4 2 0
FF CLI
CR EEK
440
4 1 0 4 1 0
T R A I L
D N O P
E W
9 . 0 9 3
4 0 0
0 0 4
7 6 1
CE DAR
0 5 4
4 6 0
4 2 0
K OA
0 4 4
K R A P
4 2 0 4 1 0
P
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 0 0
K R PA
RE O O M
42 0
4 0 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 4 0
P P P
4 5 0
43 0
P
0 1 4
41 0
7 9
D N O P
E W
D N O P E W 7 . 6 9 3
400
4 0 0
430
44 0
42 0
440
4 2 0 4 1 0
T R U O C
2 . 6 0 4
S I N N E T
L L A B E S A B
P
P
420
4 4 0
0 5 4
4 4 0
P
400
P
0 2 4
TRAIL
T R A I L
40 16.5 RAMP
P
40
460
440
43 0
400
0 6 4
4 5 0
P P
4 1 0
0 3 4
0 4 4
L L A B T E K S A B
45 0
4 1 0
0 P 5 4
46 0
45 0
50 4
4 3 0
4 2 0
420
4 3 0
P
4 40
4 3 0 4 4 0 4 5 0 4 6 0
410
4 2 0
440
0 46
420
4 6 0
P
0 1 4
F F I L C
KS A O S R E D UN O F K R A P
4 7 0
4 3 0
4 4 0
4 1 0
0 1 4
0 4 4
0 2 4
0 3 4
0 4 4
P
P P
470
420
450
4 5 0
4 5 0 4 6 0
4 5 0
470
43 0
P P
46 0
4 4 0
0 5 4
P
0 3 4
0 4 4
P
0 4 4
0 6 4
P
10 4
4 1 0
T N A L P T N E M T A E R T
450
P P
4 2 0
4 7 0
P P
46 0
P
P
P
4 2 0
P
4 7 0
P
430
4 5 0 4 4 0
440
470
48 0
4 5 0 4 4 0
460
TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2A PROPOSED ELEVATED TOLLROAD WITH RAMPS
TYPICAL SECTIONS
I-35E TO U.S. 175
600
PVI 37 0+ 00. 00
PVI 347 + 00. 00
PVI 500+ 00. 00
550
El e v 481 . 7 8 00 L = 600.
El e v 47 8. 00 81 0. 00 L =
END PROJECT CSJ# 0918-45-121 TRINITY PARKWAY ALT. 2A, STA. 574+70 MATCH EX. US 175 PAVEMENT
PVI 467 + 00. 00
El e v 47 0. 28 L = 800. 00
El e v 461 . 50 L = 400. 00
PVI 538+ 00. 00
El e v 442. 62 L = 650. 00
500
% 0 5 . 0
% 0 5 . 0
% 3 2 . 3
IH 30 RAMPS HOUSTON STREET BRIDGE JEFFERSON STREET REUNION BRIDGE SB IH 35E RAMP BRIDGE SB IH 35E BRIDGE NB IH 35E BRIDGE
1 . 4 9 %
0 . 7 2 %
El e v 420. 64
2 . 0 8 %
PVI 560+ 00. 00
450
% 8 7 . 1
0 . 5 0 %
DART
IH 45 SP RR BRIDGE
0 . 8 7 %
BRIDGE
4 . 0 0 %
US 75 BRIDGE
% 9 2 . 1
PVI 506+ 00. 56
PVI 404+ 00. 00
El e v 465. 50 L = 260. 00
PVI 336+ 00. 00
422. 83 PVI 420+ 00. 00
MKT RR P VI 43 7+ 00. 00
+ 53. 00 PVI 547
400
v 431 . 00 El e L = 200. 00
7 7 El e v 434. L = 820. 00
El e v 408. 1 3 00 L = 430.
BLVD.
CORINTH STREET
El e v 423. 00 L = 37 0. 00
COMMERCE STREET
MLK BLVD
El e v 404. 50 L = 1 000. 00
MATCH EXISTING US 175 GRADE
350
47 1 . 61
47 4. 31
451 . 91
436. 97
41 3. 47
409. 89
459. 07
466. 84
444. 44
447 . 69
41 4. 1 7
448. 34
422. 36
480. 28
459. 38
00 428.
463. 00
430. 50
465. 50
425. 50
434. 23
409. 39
39 47 5.
455. 49
473 . 00
420. 64
439. 66
462. 64
457 . 94
463. 1 4
47 6. 7 8
47 4. 28
47 9. 28
431 . 26
468. 00
47 0. 50
47 5. 50
449. 05
467 . 62
444. 7 5
41 4. 25
451 . 92
41 8. 63
41 6. 24
446. 1 2
440. 1 5
300
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
390
395
400
405
410
415
420
425
430
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
490
495
500
505
510
515
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
555
560
9/26/2013
2:57:20 PM
ah1933 TXDOT
I:\17000s\17826\CADD\CADD - TP SDEIS Alternatives\LSS Plates\826-LSS-PP2A-S.dgn
2-151
N O R T H
8 . 5 9 3
0 0 4
D N O P E W
D N O P E W 6 2. 9 3
9 3. 9 3
E W 8 . 3 9 3
D N O P
TRA
TRINITY PARKWAY
T E X A S
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0 3 9 0
4 1 0
4 2 0
420
1 W D
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 2 0
S W 2 . 3 9 3 S W 8 . 2 9 3
3 9 0 3 9 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
400
S W
410
4 . 3 9 3
S W 2 . 3 9 3
400
K A O
0 0 4
0 9 3 0 0 4
0 2 4
S W
4 . 3 9 3
S W
0 . 3 9 3
T O L L W A Y
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
4 0 0
4 0 0
E W
9 . 4 9 3
A U T H O R IT Y
4 0 4 0 1 4 0 2 0
TRINITY RIVER
T R I N I T YR I V E R
400
0 40
3 9 0 4 0 0 4 1 0 4 2 0
0 9 3
0 0 4
D N O P
T RA I L
D N O P
5 . 3 9 3
D N O P
E W
5 . 3 9 3
0 1 4
0 2 4
2 1 D E
3 9 0
400
4 2 0
4 1 0 4 0 0
0 2 4
S W
6 . 3 9 3
400
0 39
E W 6 . 1 9 3 D N O P
3 9 0
400
400
3 9 0 4 0 0
439 0 0 0
0 1 4 0 0 4
R VE I R
0 40
4 2 4 0 1 0 4 0 0
400
400
0 40 0 0 4
4 1 4 0 2 0
0 9 3
3 9 0
4 00
390
S W 0 . 0 8 3
0 2 4 0 41
4 0 0
392.6
T I P L E V A R G
4 0 0
4 0 0
0 3 I
P P
400
0 2 4
VD. ST BL DAR CRE CE
S W
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0
0 9 3
S W
4 . 3 8 3
410
S W
0 . 0 8 3
0 0 4 0 41
4 0 0
4 1 0
400
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 0 0
400
4 2 0
P P
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
3 9 0
4 0 0
0 . 5 9 3
S W
4 . 5 9 3
4 1 0 4 0 0
3 I D E
0 9 3
0 40 0 1 4
0 42 0 1 4
4 0 0
400
D N O P
S W 8 . 4 9 3 E W 1 4. 9 3
D N O P
0 40
WE 395.0
4 0 0
D N O P
D N O P E 0 W . 5 9 3
TRINITY PARKWAY
4 0 0
4 1 0
L AI TR
D N O P
E W
0 0 4
T R I N I T Y
0 40
E W 3 . 4 D 9 N 3 O P
0 . 4 9 3
4 0 0
WE
4 0 0
4 0 0
D N O P E W 4 . 5 9 3
D N PO E W
0 42
0 0 4
R I V E R
D N O P
4 5. 9 3
0 9 3
4 0 0
D N O P
0 0 4
4 0 0
40
4 1 0
4 0 0
40 16.5
WE 389.3
392.9
400
D N O P
WE
S W
D N O P E W
4 1 0 4 0 0
HORI T Y NORT H T E XAS T OL L W AY AUT
D O WN T O WN D A L L A S
430
U S
1 7 5
1800
( S M
43 0
4 3 0
41 0
0 42
ENGI NEERS .
K N A T
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT
43 0
TECTS . A RCHI
INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD - ELEVATED ALTERNATIVE 2A IRVING / RIVERFRONT N ALTERNATIVE 2A BOULEVARD
PLATE 2-2 B
SCI ENTI STS .
PL ANNERS .
SURVEYORS
0 41
0 1 4
0 1 4 0 0 4
0 2 4 0 1 4
0 40 10 4
0 2 4
0 1 4
0 2 4
0 41
0 1 4
3
0 1 4
0 41
3 E AN L
E AN L
0 1 4
0 4 4
0 41
0 0 0 4 1 4
0 41
0 2 4 10 4
0 0 4
0 2 4
0 0 4
0 1 4
SH 0 1 3
0 0 4
0 0 4
EY L CK BE
E. AV
0 9 3
0 42
0 43
0 43 20 4
0 41
0 6 4
0 1 4
826-PP2B-N.DGN
N EERS PLAN N ERS ARCH I TECTS EN GI
SURVEYORS
P
P
0 42
4 1 0
4 0 0
E L M
41 0
F O R K
PLATE 2-3 A
P
R I V E R
4 0 0
T R I N I T Y
ANNERS . PL
( O L D
0 1 4
N
Companies
P
C H A N N E L )
P P
P P
ALTERNATIVE 2B
P
P P
SCI ENTI STS .
HNTB
IRVING / RIVERFRONT BOULEVARD AT-GRADE (NORTH)

P P P
20 4
40 0
4 1 0
TECTS . ARCHI
4 1 0
D L E I F P L L A B T E K S A B
The
0 1 4
P
BRA NCH
C I T E L H T A
P P P P P P
0 1 4
0 40
KNI GH TS
0 1 4
P
4 0 0
P
0 1 4
P P A E R A P
C / U
0 1 4
P P P P
0 0 4
ENGI NEERS .
C / U
P P
39 0
40 0
0 1 4
P
A E R A
P P
0 1 4
P
P P P
P P
P P P P P P P S I N N E T
P
P
P P
CHA NNE L)
40 0
T P R U O C P
4 1 0
P
P P
(OL D
0 1 4
P
0 1 4 0 2 4
0 1 4 0 2 4
S T R U O C
400
P
0 1 4
P
K R O M F L E
Y T I N I R T
D L O ( R E V I R Y T I N I R T
400
500
1000
1700
2500
3000
R E V I R
) L E N N A H C
0 1 4
P S I N N E T
39 0
400
P P
K R O F M L E
390
0 1 4
SCALE IN FEET
P
P
410
P P
400
P
E L T R U T
K E E R C
400
400
P P
) L E N N A H C
D L O ( R E V I R Y T I N I R T
P P P
K EE CR
P P P P
P
P P P P
E RTL TU
4 10
P
M L E
K R O F
P P P
0 0 4
P
S" GASU E ) CT P E W Y. ROJ P " NS F MMO E ST S E ( 5 NT 3 I ME E V RO MP I RS E H T BY O
C H A N NE L)
TR INIT CHAN Y NEL)
S H 1 8 3
P P P P P P
4 39 00 0
T R IN IT Y
L A N E
P P
S T R U O C S I N N E T
P
400
42 0 4 1 0
RIV ER
( O L D
FORK
(OLD
N O I N U
0 9 3
0 9 3 0 40
410
0 40 0 39
0 0 4
4 1 0
0 40 0 39
4 2 0
42 0 4 1 0
P
P P
P P P P
0 39 0 40
2L A N E
P P P
ELM
0 40
4 1 0 4 20
D N U O R G Y A L P
0 40
0 9 3
0 39 0 39 400
4 0 0
0 0 4
3L A N E
P P P
P P
R IV ER
0 40
P P S I N N E T
S T R U O C
400
C I F I C A P
39 0
4 0 0
400 390
0 0 4
D A O R L I A R
3 9 0
390 400
4 1 0
L A N E
0 0 4
P
P
P P P P
40 0 39 0
0 1 4 0 2 4 0 1 4
S ON M M E T S
P
W F
P P
P
TRAI L
4 1 0
2
0 0 4
E 5 3 I
KNIGHTS BRANCH
P P
IL A TR
P
P
. Y
4 0 0
P
P
3L A N E
P
T R A I L
L I A R T
L I A R T
0 5 1
P
3 9 0
P
P P P
P P
P P P P P P P
TUR TLE
0 0 0 4 9 0 3 9 0 3 0 4 0 1 4
P
CRE EK
P P
P
P P
P P P P
0 39 0 40
P P P
P P P
S T I E 3 AUTHORITY NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY M 5 E M O N S F W Y .

P
L AI TR
0 42
4 1 0 4 2 4 0 3 0
0 1 4
4 0 0
4 00
4 3 0 4 2 4 0 1 0
P P
HORI T Y E XAS T OL L W AY AUT NORT H T
0 2 4 0 41
0 40 0 39
J O H N W. C A R P E N T E RF WY .
P P P
0 39 0 40
2L A N E
P
410
410
4 2 0
D N O P P P
P P
R I V E R
TR AIL
4 2 0
41 0
0 2 4 0 42 0 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 4
P P
0 0 4 390
P
T R I N I T Y
P
P P
P
P
P
P P P P P P P P
4 0 0
P P
P
( O L D
4 1 0
3 9 0 4 0 0
C H A N N E L )
390
P P P
P
P P
0 2 4 0 1 4
400
P P P P P P P
P
P P P
ARKW AY E I S T RI NI T Y P
TRAIL
0 1 4
0 2 4 0 1 4
1 0 0
P P
E L M
F O R K
D L O (
P P P P P P P
P P
P P
400
E N A L 3
P P
0 9 3
400
390
P P P
) L E N N A H C
MAIN LANE TOLL GANTRY

P
P P P P P P P P P
3L A N E
5 1 9 P P
P
P P
P
P
P P
P P
P
P
P P
0 40
250
P P
400
P
P P P
P P
4 0 0
P
TRINITY
RIVER
0 9 3 0 0 4
P P
T E XAS DAL L AS ,
P P P P P P P P P P
P
P
P P
C I F I C A P P
D A O R L I A R
P
P
0 9 3
0 0 4
P
P P
N O I N U
C I F I C A P N O I N U
D A O R L I A R
P P
P
P
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
P
P
4 0 0
3
P
410
NDUST RI AL BOUL E VARD - AT GRADE I VE 2 B -I AL T E RNAT
P P P P
0 40 0 9 3
2 0 0
P
P P
3L A N E
P
G N I V R I
P
TRA IL
400
3
P
P
TRI NI TY RI VER
400
E N A L
0 9 3
0 0 4
P
P
( ) O L D
C H A N N E L )
3
P
400
400 390
. D V L B
P P
P P
P P
3L A N E
P
3
P P P P P P P P
P P
0 0 4
P P P
400
P
P
P
P
P
P P P
P
P P
P
P
400
P P
NW EA L T H
4 0 0
0 0 4
P
P P P
0 1 4
P P P P P
P
P
P
P P
P P
CH AN NE L )
400
390
390
R I V E R F R O N T
P
P P P
40 0
P
P
P P
( OL D
P
P D A O R L I A R
0 1 4 0 2 4
0 1 4
P P
P P
P P
P
RIVE R
410
P N O I N U
C I F I C A P
P P
0 0 4
TRAIL
420 410
410
D A O R L I A R
TRAIL
410
P
TRAIL
P P
P P
P
FORK
C I F I C A P
0 1 4 0 2 4
420
3 -1 I D E
WEST
P P
N O I N U
P
P
AV E.
0 3 4 0 3 4
430 430 420
420
1 430 D E 2 1
410
TRAIL
0 41
40 0
0 41
P P
4 0 0
P
TRAIL
9 1 D E
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
P P
0 0 4
4 0 0
D L E I F
40 0
0 0 4 0 0 4
MO
0 1 4
CO M
410
0 40
0 39
ROW
ROW
TRAIL
VARIES (100 TYPICAL)

P
4 1 1 0 D 3 E 4 30 4 0 2 4 0 1 4
.5 0 40
400
0 41 0 42
400
T R A I L
P P
WE
T R A I L
0 0 4
T R A I L
CO NT I NE NT AL
400 0 39
40 0
G N I V R I
0 2 4 0 1 4
TRAIL
410
L I A R T
430 420
410
L I A R T
L I A R T
1 2 9
3
0 0 4
1 1 1 D E
420
410
420
410
420
P P P
430 430
420
430 430
410
420
420
P P
3 0 0
0 40
P
410
410
P
4 0 0
00 4
P
L I A R T
D N O P R E C C O S
P P
0 40
ND O P
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
P P
0 0 4
00 4
4 0 0
4 0 0
P P
4 0 0
4 0 0
P
400
40
40
P
P
L I A TR
TRA IL
4 0 0
T R A I L
4 1 0 4 2 0
P
P
P
D N O P
E W
9 . 7 9 3
0 0 4
P
WE 5 4. 39
P P D A O R L I A R P
4 0 0
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
P P
C I F I C A P
N O I N U
0 40 0 39
P
L I A R T
4 0 0
410
TRAIL
4 0 0
0 0 4 400
0 0 4
8 1 D E
P P P
400
4 0 0
D N O P
L I A R T
0 0 4
P P P P P P P P AD LRO RAI P P
L I A R T
400
TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2B

L I A R T
4 0 0
U P P E R T R I N I T Y
4 00
R I V E R
S W 0 . 5 9 3
0 0 4 0 9 3
0 0 4
R E V I R Y T I N I R T
0 0 4
4 0 0
4 0 0
0 0 4
L I A R T
0 39
4 0 0
C IFI PAC
4 10
0 40 0 41
TRAIL
4 1 0 4 2 0
400
400
P P
400
ON UNI
L I A R T
41 0
0 42 0 3 4
400
ROW
P P
P P
A 5 1 1 D E 0 43 0 42 0 1 4
0 0 4
0 0 4
0 0 4
L I A R T
4 2 0
4 1 0
0 0 4
40 0
400
4 0 0
400 410
T R A I L
0 40
400
P P
400
400
40 0
65 15 40 10 36 18 10 10
65 36 10 40 15
P P P P P
40 0
0 40
4 0 0
4 0 0
39 0
D N O E P W 9 . 9 9 3
4 0 0
TRAIL
4 0 0
4 0 0
T R AI L
0 40
TRAIL
2 . 7 9 3
E W
4 0 0
D N O P
TRA IL
400
0 40
L I A R T
400
D N O P
D N O P
E W 2 . 7 9 3 D N O P E W 9 . 7 9 3
4 0 0
TRAIL
4 0 0
0 1 4
0 9 3
TRAIL TRAIL
L I A R T
0 39 0 0 4 0 41 0 42 0 3 4 0 43 0
42
0 41
4 0 0
L I A R T
0 1 4
TRAIL
T R A I L
420
4 1 0 4 2 0
420
410
420
7 W D
400
430
430
420
6 W D
E W 4 . 7 9 3
E W 4 . 6 9 D 3 N O P
4 0 0
TRAIL
410
420
8 W D
420
430 430 420
410
0 40
4 2 0
D N O P
410 420
430 430
420 410
Y T I N I R T
400
L I A R T
400
0 40
41 0

PROPOSED AT GRADE TOLLROAD
0 1 4
0 0 4
L I A R T
400 0 1 4
P
P
0 0 4
0 0 4
L I A R T
E W 6 . 5 9 3
0 1 4
P
400
0 40 0
4 0 0
P P
D N O P
39
0 39
P P P P
4 1 0 4 2 0
40 0
390 390
410
0 40
0 1 4 0 42 0
43
0 1 W D
T R U O C L L A B T E K S A B
P P
42 0
400
4 1 0
4 0 0

A U T H O R IT Y
ROW
400
410
0 41
410
2 1 F S R T
0 43 0 42 0 41
H:1 " =600
420
0 40
V:1 " =60
15 40 25 10
36
18 10 10
36 10 25 40
15
Y T I N I R T
0 41
0 0 4
0 41
0 1 4
4 1 0
65
65
R E V I R
41 0
0 1 4
0 42 0 3 4 0 43 0 2 4
L I A R T L I A R T N O I T A T S P
D N U O R G Y A L P
D L E I F L L A B S R E K C I B K R A P
P D L E I F L L A B
0 40
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
P M U P
10 4
0 0 4
P
0 1 4
0 0 4
0 41
P E W
9 . 7 9 3 P
0 41
0 41
4 2 0
0 41 0 0 4
E 5 W . 7 9 3
0 1 4
410
0 41
4 2 0
0 0 4
L I A R T
6 E . W 1 0 4
0 0 4
P
P P
. D V L B
P P
410
4 1 0
0 40 0 1 4
41 0
T R U O C L D L N A U B O T R E G K Y S A A L B P
0 3 4
P P
4 W D
0 1 4
0 1 F S R T
C O
T O L L W A Y
2009
L L A B
L I A R T
10 4
41 0
D L E I F
R A I L R O
0 41 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 2 4 0 1 4
0 0 4
410
P
P
0 41
0 1 4
0 1 4
4 1 0
T E X A S
0 41
DRAINAGE SWALE
L I A R T
0 1 4
Y T I N I R T
PROPOSED AT GRADE TOLLROAD WITH RAMPS
L L A B T E K S A B
D L E I F
0 0 4
C I T E L H T A
N O R T H
P D N U O R G Y A L P
4 0 0
4 1 4 0 4 20 3 4 0 4 30 4 20 1 4 0 0 0
5 E . W 4 9 3
D N U O R G Y A L P
410
L L A B T E K S A B
P C I N C I P
P P
T R U O C
P
P T R U O C L L A B D T N E U K O S R A G B Y A L P
L L A B T E K S A B
4 2 0
T R U O C
D N U O R T G R Y U A O L C P L L A B T E K S A B
0 41
D N U O R G Y A L P
D N U O R G Y A L P
U N I O
410
TYPICAL SECTIONS
I-35E TO U.S. 175
D N U O R G Y A L P
P P
P
P P P P
0 1 4
D N U O R G Y A L P
P
T R U O C S I N N E T
PLAN LEGEND:
PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES
P P
D OA LR AI R
41 0
L L A B
R R Y R A A C T N E M E L E
L L A B T E K S A B D L E I F P L L A B D L E I F D N U O R G Y A L P
P A C I F I C
4 1 0
0 0 4
R E V I R
0 0 4 0 1 4
R Y E R L A Y T T N E M E L E
D N U O R G Y A L P
0 1 4
10 4
4 1 0
N O T E L G N I S
P
0 41
410
A D
0 1 4
4 1 0
P P T R U O C T R U O C
0 41
4 1 0
P
K H R T A P OR N ON T P M A H
P
D N U O R G Y A L P
P S I N N T E R T U O C P
P P P P
4 1 0
0 2 4
0 2 4 10 4
P P
4 1 0
4 0 0
0 2 4 10 0 4 1 4
P
P
C I IF AC P
ON I UN
41 0
L I A R T
D N U O R G Y A L P
P T R U O C
P D L E I F
P P
C I T E L H T A
P P
410
P P
4 1 0
0 0 4
P
0 1 4
P
L L A B T E K S A B
P P
P P
P P P D N U O R G Y A L P P P P P
0 1 4
D N U O R G Y A L P P L L A B T E K S A B
P T R U O C D N U O R G T Y R A U L O P C L L A B T E K S A B P
0 0 4 0 0 4
0 41 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 43 0 42 0 41 0 0 4
P P
PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD
P
P P
P T R U O C L L A B T E K S A B
L) NNE CHA
P
P
P P
T R U O C L L A B T E K S A B P D (OL
P P P
P P
Y INIT TR
N
R RIVE
T R U O C
D N U O R G Y A L P L L A B T E K S A B T R U O C
1 1 F S R T
K FOR
0 40
P P
L L A B T E K S A B
T WES
P
P P
D N U O R G Y A L P
PROFILE LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES 100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL
4 1 0
P P L L A B T E K S A B P T R U O C
0 41
P
P L L A B T E K S A B P
PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION
400
400
410
L L A B T E K S A B
L L A B T E K S A B
410
P P
4 1 0
PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
0 41
150
300
600
900
1200
1800
P P
SCALE IN FEET
P
410
40 0
SCALE: 1" = 600

41 0
P
P P P
SPF WATER LEVEL
600
550
00. 00 PVI 320+
5 0. 00 P VI 2 2 7+
El e v 460. 38
54+ 00. 00 PVI 1
PVI 1 1 4+ 00. 00
88 El e v 439. L = 652. 7 5
PVI 1 00+ 03. 36
PVI 263+ 30. 00
00 El e v 435. L = 655. 00
50 El e v 440.
50 El e v 429.
L = 1 1 7 5. 00
500
PVI 1 63+ 50. 00
El e v 432. 88
El e v 432. 50
450
L = 865. 00
L = 1 2. 63
% 0 5 . 0
0 . 5 8 %
% 8 1 . 1
0 . 9 5 %
1 . 9 9 %
% 9 0 . 2
U P RAILROAD BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
% 4 5 . 0
0 . 6 1 %
% 1 8 . 1
1 . 9 7 %
% 4 5 . 1
00. 00 PVI 1 30+
44+ 90. 00 PVI 1
PVI 281 + 7 0. 00
400
COMMONWEALTH
WOODALL
PVI 206+ 7 5. 00
PVI 245+ 50. 00
RODGERS
El e v 408. 00
00 5. L = 1 1 1
El e v 41 6. 00 L = 250. 00
00 El e v 41 5. L = 37 5. 00
L = 405. 00
INWOOD ROAD
L = 387 . 37
WYCLIFF AVE.
L = 560. 00
HAMPTON /
El e v 403. 00
El e v 405. 00
OAK LAWN
BRIDGE CONTINENTAL AVE
COMMERCE STREET
350
436. 91
408. 87
425. 7 1
37 41 3.
421 . 37
41 8. 91
41 7 . 91
433. 37
433. 7 4
409. 28
429. 89
58 428.
436. 68
442. 60
437 . 00
426. 65
426. 95
422. 45
427 . 25
427 . 92
52 425.
424. 83
448. 53
300
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
220
225
230
235
240
245
250
255
260
265
270
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
320
325
330
9/26/2013
2:58:33 PM
ah1933 TXDOT
I:\17000s\17826\CADD\CADD - TP SDEIS Alternatives\LSS Plates\826-LSS-PP2B-N.dgn
2-152
434. 57
41 7 . 96
41 9. 39
407 . 1 4
437 . 88
6 430. 7
26 41 3.
404. 08
68 41 0.
41 0. 20
41 9. 68
454. 40
407 . 65
85 41 5.
41 6. 62
95 41 1 .
447 . 42
431 . 53
41 6. 33
426. 1 3
41 6. 63
455. 1 3
1 5 43 4.
E R C E
WE 7 . 95 3
0 1 4 0 1 4
410
0 40
4 1 0 4 2 0
E W 5 . 7 9 3
E W 5 . 7 9 D3 N O P
4 2 0
4 0 0
4 00
400
D N O P
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
S T .
E. AV
R E V I R
DRAINAGE SWALE
0 3 4
430
0 2 4
9 W D
TRAIL
410
P
400
4 1 9
400
390
400
390 400 410
410 0 0 4
E W 4 . 7 9 3
40 0
390
5 W D
0 1 4 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 2 4 0 1 4 0 0 4
410
. R A D D A N A C
400 4 1 0
4 0 0
4 0 0

7 1 D E
I NE CH L M AT
. D V L B
TRI NITY
400
0 0 4
P
400
3L A N E
P
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P P P
400
400
B L V D .
P
400
M O
F F I CL WY
ON T MP HA
N VA YL \S
L AI TR
O NW \I
E. AV
OD . RD
0 40
0 1 4
RD BI NG I CK N L W / TM ES O D AN L RE . RD
0 41
EY L CK BE
0 1 4
V7
826-PP2B-S.DGN
PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION
P K N A T P P
ALTERNATIVE 2B
IRVING / RIVERFRONT BOULEVARD AT-GRADE (SOUTH)

R
P P
PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

P P P
P P
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

P
P
NOTES: 1. ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT
WEST END
P
P
P P P
3
P
P P P P P P
0
P
500
1000
1700
2500
3000

P
PROFILE LEGEND:
U PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT S 1 7 5 ( S M
SCALE IN FEET
P
P
P K R A P
I NE CH L M AT
K R A P
K R A P
PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES CONVENTION

P 6 9 P P
K R A P
P P P
WR I G H T )
R KI HE UT L NG J R. BL VD.
P
P
P P P
D N U O R G Y A L P
P P P
SPF WATER LEVEL

P
1 7 5

I 3 0
P
J U L I U S
( S M
P
I 4 5 S C H E P P S
P
P
P P
WR I G H T )
D N U O R G Y A L P
D N U O R G Y A L P
P
P
P
P P
P P
P P P
P C / U
P P P
P P P P P P
P
P P P
C / U
D N U O R G Y A L P
P P P P P
F W
P
P
P P P P P P P P P P
P
P
Y .
L O O H SC
P
P P P P
P P P
U S

7 1 D E
P
1 7 5
H IG H N O PS M O H T
P P P P
P P
P P P
P P
N )
D N U O R G Y A L P
P P
D N U O R G Y A L P S T R U O C L L A B T E K S A B
P
P P
P
P
H A W
N I RT MA
L A MA R
P
P P P P P P
P
P
P P
P P
P
P
S T
P P
P
D N U O R G Y A L P P P P
P P
D L E I F
C I T E L H T A
P A E R A
C / U
( C F
P P
N A E 3L
P P
P
P
S T .
P P P K R A P P P P P P P P P P P P P D N U O R G Y A L P P
5 0 0
P
P P
P P
N O I N U E R
E R C E
N E A 3L
P
P P P
L A MA RS T .
P P P P P P P P P P P P P
6 1 D E
4 9
T RA I L
3 5 0
3
P
C O
P P P P P
3
D L E I F L L A B
UP PE R TR IN IT Y RI VE R
L A N E
P P P
E W
D N O P
.8 395
D N O P
9 F S R T
E W
95. 3
L A N E
P P P P
3L A N E
P P
3
P P P P P
P S W 0 . 0 8 3 P
P P
S W
0 . 0 8 3
P P
P
P P
D N O P
4 0 0
P P P P
L I A R T
WE 5.3 39
TR IN IT Y RI VE R
S W 5 1 D E 4 1 D E
9 . 5 9 3
3L A N E
P 1 1 D E P P
0 5 4
P S W S W 1 . 5 9 3 E W
T R A I L
2 . 5 9 3
2 . 2 9 3
. RSON ST E F F E J
S W 3 . 5 9 3
HOUST ON ST .
0 3 I
P P
P P
S W
3
-3 I D E
DART
D N O P D N O P S W 8 . 4 9 3 E W 1 . 4 9 3
WE 395.0
D N O P D N O P E 0 W . 5 9 3
S W
0 . 0 8 3
S W
4 . 3 8 3
0 . 5 9 3
D N O P
E W
S W
0 . 4 9 3
ROW
D N O P E W 4 . 5 9 3
ROW
4 . 5 9 3
E W 3 . 4 D 9 N 3 O P
WE 392.6
D N O P L E V A R G D N O P
D ON P E W
VARIES (100 TYPICAL) 40 40
4 . 5 9 3
T I P
S W
0 . 0 8 3
MAIN LANE
2 1 D E
WE 389.3 WE
T R A IL
D N O P
WE 392.9
S W
0 0. 8 3
WE 391.1
D N O P
389.0
3 W D P
TRINITY RIVER
B. 5 S. 3 HI
I H3 5 N. B.
S W
TOLL GANTRY
S W 6 . 3 9 3
D N O P
D N O P E W 5 . 3 9 3
D N O P E W
5 . 3 9 3
E W
6 . 1 9 3 D N O P
S W
9 . 4 9 3
S W 3 . 3 9 3
8 . 5 9 3
S W
6 3. 9 3
8 . 2 9 3
IL TRA
S W
TY NI RI T

. H ST NT CORI
S W
TY INI TR
E W
7 . 6 9 3
D N O 3 P . 5 9 3
TRINITY RIVER
K R A P D N O P E W 0 . 9 8 3 R E T S E H C O R
D N O P
E W
ROW
D N O P E W
S W
5 . 4 9 3
4 E . D W 5 N 9 O 3 P
VARIES (300 TYPICAL) 65

L I A R T
2 W D F F I L C K A O P
K R A P S W 5 . 3 9 3
3 . 3 9 3
S W
4 . 3 9 3
S W 2 . 3 9 3
65 18 10 10 36 10 40 15
1 W D P P S W P 4 . 3 9 3
S W 2 . 3 9 3 S W S W 8 . 2 9 3
E W D N O P
3 . 3 9 3
S W P P P
0 . 4 9 3
S W 3 . 3 9 3 S W 7 . 2 9 3
D N O P E W
T RA I L
5 . 1 9 3
40
10
E W
S W P S W P
C / U
8 . 2 9 3
9 . 4 9 3 D N O P D N O P E W 9 . 4 9 3
D N O P E W
D N O P
S W
7 . 5 9 3
S W
P P
A E R A
1 . 3 9 3
D N O P
E W
P P P
S W
1 . 3 9 3 S W 3 . 2 9 3
TR AI L
FORMER
P P P
7 . 1 9 3
BURNETT FIELD
T R U O C S I N N E T D N U O R G Y A L P
K PAR
D N O P
P P
E W 8 . 2 9 3
DRAINAGE SWALE
D N O P E W
9 . 0 9 3
CREE K
C / U A E R A
7 6 1
D N O P
T R A I L

PROPOSED AT GRADE TOLLROAD
CE DAR
FF CLI
OAK
K R A P
RK A P E R MOO
P 7 9 P P P S I N N E T L L A B E S A B T R U O C P P P
D N O P
D N O P E W 7 . 6 9 3
E W
2 . 6 0 4
P P P P P P P P P P
TRAIL
T R A I L
ROW
L L TBA SKE A B
P P
P P P
65
P
65 18 10 10 36 10 25 40 15
P
F F I L C KS A O S R E D N U O F
P P P
K R A P
15 40 25 10
36
P P
P P P P
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P T N E M T A E R T T N A L P
DRAINAGE SWALE

PROPOSED AT GRADE TOLLROAD WITH RAMPS
TYPICAL SECTIONS
I-35E TO U.S. 175
600
550
PVI 501 + 00. 00
v 47 8. 00 El e
00. 00 PVI 468+
L = 800. 00
END PROJECT CSJ# 0918-45-121 TRINITY PARKWAY ALT. 2B, STA. 574+40
PVI 348+ 88. 00
PVI 360+ 7 4. 00
PVI 37 4+ 25. 00
El e v 461 . 50
L = 565. 00
PVI 420+ 1 0. 00
El e v 437 . 00 L = 1 520. 00
00. 00 PVI 538+
MATCH EX. US 175 PAVEMENT
El e v 385. 84
El e v 402. 36
L = 868. 00
L = 7 68. 00
El e v 37 9. 92
L = 7 66. 00
El e v 445. 54 L = 650. 00
500
PVI 392+ 50. 00
PVI 438+ 00. 00
El e v 409. 1 2
L = 1 034. 00
IH 45 BRIDGE
0 . 6 0 %
9. 69 El e v 41
% 0 5 . 0
2 . 0 7 %
PVI 560+ 00. 00
El ev 3 92 . 00
L = 800. 00
JEFFERSON IH 30
2 . 5 8 1 %
450
DART BRIDGE
STREET HOUSTON STREET BRIDGE

% 3 9 3 . 1
RAMPS
BRIDGE SB IH 35E RAMP BRIDGE
SB IH 35E BRIDGE
% 2 3 . 2
4 . 0 0 %
SP RR
US 75 BRIDGE
% 9 2 . 1
% 0 4 . 2
PVI 508+ 00. 00
0 . 5 5 %
2 . 5 1 %
NB IH 35E
400
50. 00 PVI 405+
COMMERCE STREET
REUNION BLVD.
BRIDGE
% 0 0 6 . 1
MKT RR
PVI 548+ 26. 00
1 . 6 6 1 %
El e v 463. 50 L = 250. 00
00 El e v 402. 61 0. 00 L =
CORINTH STREET MLK BLVD
El e v 404. 50 L = 1 000. 00
MATCH EXISTING US 175 GRADE
350
389. 31
407 . 01
405. 01
434. 57
442. 97
427 . 67
31 459.
41 2. 1 1
47 6. 06
383. 1 4
41 8. 34
41 2. 7 9
399. 84
84 397 .
394. 36
395. 28
462. 39
404. 38
423. 7 6
386. 98
465. 00
423. 50
395. 85
462. 30
403. 85
399. 05
454. 55
47 2. 50
408. 22
456. 32
447 . 32
409. 56
408. 7 6
. 66 421
431 . 39
47 0. 00
41 9. 80
47 5. 00
469. 7 2
397 . 1 2
453. 32
450. 33
467. 50
426. 8
41 3. 22
389. 1 2
437 . 1 3
41 9. 69
300
330
335
340
345
350
355
360
365
370
375
380
385
390
395
400
405
410
415
420
425
430
435
440
445
450
455
460
465
470
475
480
485
490
495
500
505
510
515
520
525
530
535
540
545
550
555
560
9/26/2013
3:01:32 PM
ah1933 TXDOT
I:\17000s\17826\CADD\CADD - TP SDEIS Alternatives\LSS Plates\826-LSS-PP2B-S.dgn
2-153
N O R T H
8 . 5 9 3
9 . 3 9 3
E W
6 . 2 9 3
E W 8 . 3 9 3
D N O P
T E X A S
0 . 3 9 3
15
36
T O L L W A Y
9 . 4 9 3
ROW
A U T H O R IT Y
ER V I R
VER RI
ARKW AY E I S T RI NI T Y P
K R A P
CENTER
U S
T Y HORI NORT H T E XAS T OL L W AY AUT
1800
ENGI NEERS .
TECTS . A RCHI
SCI ENTI STS .
PL ANNERS .
PLATE 2-3 B
SURVEYORS
PLAN LEGEND:
3 3 E AN L
E AN L
SH 0 1 3
EY L CK BE
L AI TR
E. AV
P P
410
P P
P P P
0 40
P
40
D OUN YGR PLA P
42 0
400
410
410
45 44 0 43 42 0 0 0
L LD P IC FIE BAS P P P KET LET ATH BAL P
41 0
D OUN YGR PLA
410
P
410
CH
0 0 4243
400
P P P
BRAN
410
P
KNIG
HTS
43
P
460 450 440
40 0
410
P P A U/C ARE P
0 41
P P P P
430
P P P P A U/C P P P
40 0
P P P
ARE
40 0
410
P
P P P P
410
P
39 0
P P P P P P P P
P P P RT COU NIS TEN
410
400
39
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
PROPOSED R.O.W.
NEL)
40
VARIES
410 420
CHAN
410 420
PROPOSED R.O.W.
P RTS COU NIS
ENGINEERS . ARCHITECTS . SCIENTISTS . PLANNERS . SURVEYORS
410
400
N
P P
400
FOR ELM
410
P P P
4 STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD ELEV. +3

P P P
16
P P P P
DRAINAGE SWALE 10
P P P
400
VARIES 1 1
P
10
P
40
390
40 0
I-3 5E
P
41
P P
(OLD
410
P
41
P
0
P
TRI
ELM FORK
D (OL ER Y NIT TRI RIV
CHA
400
Y NIT
ER RIV
L) NNE
AD LRO RAI IFIC PAC ON UNI
C.L. EXISTING LEVEE 112 12 20 VARIES (91 USUAL) 20 10
C.L. ROADWAY 36
P
10 0-11 0-11
10
36
10
VARIES
TEN
P P
PLATE 2-4 A
P P P P P P P
TOE OF PROPOSED EMBANKMENT

P P
410
P
EK
400
CRE TLE TUR
400
41 0
P
TURTL
L) NNE D (OL ER Y NIT K FOR TRI

P P P
CHA
4 1
P P P
P P
E CREEK
RIV
3
KNIGHTS BRANCH
IL TRA
P P
ELM
400
P
P P P P P
41 0
41
P
TRAIL
40 0 39 0
0
P
32
P
1
P P P P
TRAIL
2.%
P P
400
390
8
P
8
P P P
4:1 M AX.
P P
400
41
3.5
3.5
PROPOSED EMBANKMENT
P IL TRA
P P
ALTERNATIVE 3C-COMBINED
P P P
TRA IL
400
P P P P
TRI NIT Y NEL)
CH AN NE
400 390
SH 183
P P P
RIV ER
0 40
AD LRO RAI IFIC PAC ION UN P P
(OLD
FORK
S" GASU CT PE Y.) "PROJE ONS FW TEMM TS I-35E (S EN EM T IMPROV EN PM DEVELO UNDER T BY TxDO
39
RIV
I-3
CHAN
(OL
40
400
390
5E
(OLD
P
CHANN
RIVER TRINITY
ELM
39
TR
400
0
40 0
41 0 42 0
D OUN YGR PLA
400
40
410
0 40 0 39
420
410
42 41 0 0
P P
P P P
40
0 40 0 39
410
JOHN W
P
0 40 0 39 0 39 0 40 0 41
0 42 0 42 0 41 0 40 0 40
0 39 0 40
. CARPEN
P P
420
TRA IL
410
420
N MO EM ST
390
Y. W SF
L)
390
400
P P P
20
ER
EXISTING LEVEE
P P P P
NORTHBOUND BASE LINE

P P P P P
400
42 0 41 0
0 42 0 41
390
P P P NIS TEN RTS COU
EL)
400
40 0
INI TY
390
400
390 400
0 39 0 40
39
P P P P
LE
120
P P
120
0 40
CREE K
TURT
0 42
0 40
40
P
TRAI
2.%
SOUTHBOUND BASE LINE
RTS COU NIS TEN P
4 1
100 YR FLOOD ELEV.

P
VARIES 0-5
P
P P
PARKWAY EAST LEVEEP P P P P P P P P P
41 0
41 42 0 43 0 0
0 40
P P
FLOODWAY BOTTOM
P P P P P P P P P P
P P
P P P P P
P P
39
FURTHER MODIFIED (NORTH)

P P
40
43
42 0
40
0 42
41 0 0
41 0
P P P
400 390
TRIN ITY RIVE R (OLD CHAN
P P
POND P P
P P
0 40 0 39
TER FW Y.
P P P
41
NOTES:
P P P P P
410
6450
390
P
NEL)
42
0
0
P
400
TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 3C

P P P P
TYPICAL SECTIONS
P P P P P P P P P P P P
P P P
41
P P P P P P P P P
410
P P P
400
500
1000
1700
2500
3000
P P
P P P P P P P P
L) NNE CHA
ELM FORK
TRINITY
P
0 42 0 41
P P P
TRI NIT Y RIV ER

()OLD CHAN NEL)
TRAIL
41
1000
P P
(OLD
RIVER
RIVER SIDE OF EAST LEVEE

P P P P P P P P P
ALONG FLOODWAY
P P P
400
0 40
400
P P P
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
TRAI
P P P P P IFIC PAC P ION UN AD LRO RAI IFIC PAC P ION UN P P LRO RAI AD P P P
P P
400
SCALE IN FEET
P P
400
2. MODIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING LEVEES TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS.

P P P P P
390 400
P P
420
420
1. FLOOD ELEVATIONS, LEVEE HEIGHTS AND SLOPES VARY. THOSE USED IN THIS SECTION ARE TYPICAL.
P
400
390
390
HAMPTON - INWOOD TO CONTINENTAL
[AS PRESENTED IN THE TRINITY PARKWAY LSS, 2012]

P P P P P P P P P
TANK
40
9-15
39
400
400 390
P P P P P P P P P P P P
41 0
40 0
390
400
P P P P
P P P P
1L
P P
40 0
P P P
B ING IRV
P P P P
. LVD
P P
41 0
41
P P P P
WEST END
P
0
0 40
400
0 40 0 41
400
P P P P P P P
40 0
P
P P
410
AN
40
P
0
0
P
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P P P P
39
P P P P P P
40 0
40
P
400
39
0
P
P P
0 40
0 41
P P
P P P
400
390
390
NE
AN
P P P P P P P P
400
CH
0 41
TH
(OL
42
P AD LRO RAI P IFIC PAC ION UN
1L
P P
P P P
0 41
P
AN
P P P
410
E
6451
P P
MO NW EAL
TRIN ITY
P P
410
0 42
400
400
P
RIVE R
400
P
400
400
P
3
P
P P
P P
P P
RI VE NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY RF AUTHORITY RO NT BL VD .

P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
42 0
41 0
400
L)
400
400
410
AD LRO RAI
P
TRAIL
TRAIL
410
TRAIL
410
420
-13 EDI
FORK
L
P P P
420
IFIC PAC ON UNI
430
430
WEST
430 430 420
420
430-12
ED1 -11 ED1
410
420
410
410
TRAIL
-9 ED1
0 41
81 21 10 68 48 AUX. 10 13 13 10
81
P
P P
COM
68 48 10
21
WE
NG VI IR
P P P
400
.5
40
0 41 0 42
TRAIL
0 ED1-1 43 0 43 0 42 0 41
NE 1 LA
400
390
400
400
TRAIL
TRAIL
IN EN TA L
. VD BL
P P
TRAI
40
3L
0 40
400
TRAIL
400
410
40
41
9-2
AV E.
PROPOSED R.O.W.
PROPOSED R.O.W.
40 0 40
420
P
410
0 39
3L
AN
410
40
0
L
3
TRAIL
410
3 LANE
TRAIL
430 420
410
TRAIL
1 LANE
430 430
420
1 LANE
420
420
430 430
420
410
1100
TRAIL
410
3 LANE
3 LANE
420
P P P
410
400
1150
400
0 40 400
0
P
P P P P P
0 41
43
0 40
420
40
410
AN E
POND
0 40
POND
3 LANE
FIEL CER SOC
420
P
IL
P P P P
POND
TRAI
M OC B NG KI
P
410
P P
1 LANE
1 LANE
400
400
WY
0 40
400
TRAI L
40
0 41 0 42
P
400
400
400
P P
400
1 LANE
IFF CL
400
P
400
41
WE
P
.5
394
P AD
P P
P IFIC PAC ION UN
LRO RAI
TRINITY PARKWAY EIS
0 40
39
0
P
DALLAS , TEXAS
HEIGHT VARIES
HEIGHT VARIES
P P P
1 LANE
L TRAI
3
410
TRAIL
40
41
CO NT
2.0%
2.0%
AUX.
1050
TRA
42 0
420 410
WE 397
.9
41
0
0 42
400
3
400
400 400
TRINITY RIVER
TRAI
40
0
P
42
IR
P
40 0
0 40
-8 ED1
TRAIL
400
400
POND
E AN 1L
400
0
P P P P
TRAIL
400
40
0 39
0
TRINITY RIVER
400
TRAIL
40
AD
P
LRO
39
TRAIL
ER Y NIT TRI RIV
IFIC
400
P P
400
41 0
ION
P
UN
0 42 0 43
0 43
PAC
ED
1-1
5A
41
0 41
RAI
400
IL TRA IL TRA
42
U/C
41 0
40
0 40
P P
41
400
TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

ELEVATED COMBINED PARKWAY
P P
42
40
0
400 410
400
0
P
TRA IL
POND WE
40
400
39 0
40 0
400
400
.9 399
42
40
40
400
41
P P
400
400
400
-7 ED1
TRA IL
0 43
40 0
P P
40
TRAIL
40 0
WE 397 .2
0
0
RO OP. DG WO EX ER OD A TE S NS FW LL IO Y. N
TRAIL
40
POND
12
TRAIL
400
PROPOSED R.O.W. 102
400
POND
WE POND 397
40
00

P P
40 0
41
42 0
40
.2
400
POND WE .9 397
IL TRA
TRAIL
400
39
P P P AD P LRO RAI IFIC PAC ION UN
TRAIL TRAIL
TRAIL
410
TRA IL
WE
39
0
0
400
TRAIL
410
TRAIL
420
410
.4 396 WE .4 397 POND
420
410
420
DW7
400
40
430
430
DW6
400
40
68 10 48 10
42
0 43

0
410 420
430
420
DW8
430 430
420 410
430 430 420

410
420
420
POND WE .4 397
420
13
21
P
0 41
TRAIL
410
420
420
43
42
0
0
DW9
TRAIL
420
P ER
400
9-14
410
410
400
Y NIT TRI
400
TRAIL
.5
40
RIV
420 430
CANADA DR.
400
P
POND WE .5
WE
400 410
400
DW5
PR
390
390 400 410
390
410
41
430
400
SEE PROPOSED
410
P
410
400
400
40
397
2.0%
AUX.
40
P
420
40 0
41
40
40
0
400
410
P
41
P
400
WE .6 395
POND
40 40 0 0
PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

TRA
IL
410
400 410
P
410
430
POND
41
397
42
N EU
IO
LV
. D
41
40
41
42 0
400
MATCH LINE
40
400
AN
0 40
42 41 0 0
395
410
D . LN
0 42 0 41
\ SY
N\ TO MP HA
400
TRAIL
400
TRINITY RIVER
P P P P P
TRINITY RIVER
TRINITY RIVER
40
UPPER TRINIT Y RIVER
40
0
3L
WS .0
A LV . VE NA
AN E
3L
0 41 0 42
TR AIL
41 0
42 0
0 41
390 390
410
40
400
42
0
0
41
41
43
PLA BAL
PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD

0 DW1
D OUN YGR L D FIEL
410
400
410
IL TRA
420
0 40
410
41
410
0 41

ELEVATED SEPARATED ROADWAY
NO.
WE .5 397 WE .6 401
41
41
40
0
0
IL TRA
PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION

410
KET
BAS
PLA
41
41
BAL
OUN YGR
0 40 0 41
41
397
41
P
RT
42
SHEET 22B OF 41
L COU D
410
P
M M
PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS)

42
410
41
40
0 41
P PUM
BAL
410
ER
STA
0 41
SF TR
-12
IL TRA TIO N BIC KER
0 43 0 42
0 42 0 43 0 43
K S PAR
IN APPENDIX E
41
P
42
P
RT L BAL KET BAS COU
40 0
ST
HEIGHT VARIES
0 41
40
400
39
PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS

IL TRA
O INW OD . RD
0 41
0 41
41 0
P
42 0
40
41 0
P P
400
41
DESIGN REFINEMENTS
P P P D L FIEL
42
P P
400
41
P P
40
42
0 39
P P
OF THE LSS
P
-6 ED1
39 0
400
39
TRA IL
0
40
0 40
400
41
0 40
420
42 0
40 0
39 0
41 0
41
40
41
P WE .9
420
42 41 0 40 0 0
39
410
40 0
0 41
42
42 41 0 40 0 0
POND
UP
40
PE
IC LET ATH
42
FIE
0 41
40
LD
0 40
P P P
41
0 40
410
41
TYPICAL SECTIONS
FILE
40
ATH
ATH
IC
I.H. 35E TO FLOOD WAY
40
410
ER
YGR
Y NIT TRI
41 0
RIV
PLA
RT
41
KET
BAS
TR
IT IN
41
0 40 0 41
LD IC LET FIE
41 42 0 43 0 43 0 42 0 41 0 0
OUN YGR PLA BAL KET BAS L COU P RT
YGR PLA
BAS
PA
OUN
KET
RT
COU
COU
410
WE .5 394
IO
D OUN YGR PLA P P P P
R RETAINING WALL LE PROPOSED RY TA H EN WALL RT ARK EM DIAPHRAGM NO P EL N TO MP A H

P
41
41 0
ER IV
43
410
0 42 0 43
(LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

410
P P
41
TRAIL
41
0
0
40
TRAIL
PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL

0
41
41
42
BAL
FIEL
O ET GL IN
P P P P
N
P
BL
. VD
P
TR
0 43
P
P P
DW4
IN
ITY
RIV
0 41
F-10 TRS
ER
F-9 TRS
410
IL
41
41
OUN
RT L BAL KET COU
40
40
COU
BAL
OUN YGR
YGR PLA
PLA
RT
BAL
BAL
KET
NIC PIC
KET
BAS
BAS
L BAL
FIEL
RT
41
COU
E
D
D OUN
YGR
PLAN LEGEND:
410
42 0
PLA
41
RT
OUN YGR
D OUN
FIEL
OUN
BAL
YGR PLA
NIS TEN RT COU
IF
40
41
410
M K OC GB IN IR D LN /W ES TM
POND
WE .7 395
40
40
POND
0 41
40 0
40 0
P
40 0
TR INI TY RIV ER
41
410
41 0 42 0
40 0
TY
41 0
P
COU
BAL
BAS
LD
IC
FIE
LET
RR Y CA AR NT ME E L
PLA
0 42
400
30 I40 0
41 0
42 0
41 0
P
BE
RT L BAL KET BAS COU
BAL
KET
BAS
OUN YGR
PLA
LA VA RY ZA A DE ENT EM L E
P P P P
P P
41
0 42 0 41
P
CK
P
41 0
LE
400
0 42 0 41 0 41
40
P
40
41 42 0 0
Y E. AV
40
P P P
D OA
40
P P P
ILR RA IC
P P
P RT
42 41 0 40 0 0
40 0
410
TEN D P PLA D OUN YGR PLA P KET BAS BAL RT L COU LD P P LET ATH P IC FIE P OUN YGR P
COU NIS
NOTES
17826

OUN YGR PLA P P
CIF
PA N IO UN
P
39 40 0 0
DW3 P
41 0
E OR ND LA
41
P P
IL TRA
0 40
P
N
H: 1"=500
41
PROFILE LEGEND:
RT L COU BAL KET BAS P P P P D OUN YGR PLA P P RT L COU D OUN YGR PLA L COU BAL KET RT BAL KET BAS BAS
41
D OUN YGR PLA
PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS
P P P P
410
P P P
40
P P P
P P
41
P P
P P
42 0 0
400
410
ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.
V: 1"=50
SCALE
0 40 400
0 41 0 42 0 43
0 43 0 42
L) NNE
PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT

P RT L BAL KET COU BAS P P RT D OUN YGR PLA BAS KET L BAL COU

P
40
41
0
P P P
0 42
39 0
42 41 0 0
0 42 0 41
P
39 0
40 0
CHA
ER
40
(OL
RIV
NIT
TRI
FOR
ST
RD .
F-11 TRS
P P
400
P P P P
P RT L BAL KET BAS P COU P
0 41
0 420
0 42
P
41
40
P L BAL P P
WE
RT COU

P D OUN
PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS)
400
P P BAS
KET
AUGUST
YGR P P PLA
PARK ACCESS ROUTES:
41
42 0 41 0 400
DATE
2008
410
P
40 0
DW2
410
P P L BAL KET BAS P COU RT
125
250
500
750
1000
1500
SCALE IN FEET SCALE: 1" = 500
DESIGN
HALFF
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT June 20, 2008 DATE:
PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES

P
PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL DIAPHRAGM WALL
VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RAMP (BY NTTA)

P
0 41
0 41
41
P
0
L BAL KET BAS
L BAL KET BAS
DRAWN
T. LE

410
P
BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BRIDGE (BY NTTA)

P P
P P
400
400
41 0
L BAL KET BAS
P P
POSSIBLE VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**)

42
0 43 0
400
40
40
P P
410
41
420
41
0
0 42 0 43 0 44 0 45
41
P P P
POSSIBLE BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**)

460
410
P P P P P
(**) - SUBJECT TO PARK PLANNING & FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
410
P P P
EL. 485.53 800.00 V.C.
NORTHBOUND MAIN LANE PROFILE

550
PI STA. 1056+65.00
BEGIN 3C2N STA. 1000+42.91, EL = 456.00 MATCH EXIST BRIDGE
PI STA. 1003+00.00
END 3C2N STA. 1047+16.49, EL = 462.92 MATCH 3C2NB, STA. 1047+16.49 OFFSET 24.50 LT MATCH 3C2SB, STA. 1047+16.49 OFFSET 24.50 RT
BEGIN 3C2NB STA. 1047+16.49, EL = 461.82 MATCH 3C2N, STA. 1047+16.49 OFFSET 24.50 RT
PROFILE LEGEND:
PI STA. 1086+50.00 PI STA. 1174+50.00 PI STA. 1096+50.00 PI STA. 1106+50.00 PI STA. 1144+50.00 PI STA. 1116+50.00
PROPOSED PI STA. 1134+50.00 PI STA. 1164+50.00 WOODALL RODGERS FREEWAY BRIDGES PI STA. 1192+00.00
EL.456.00 500.00 V.C.

EL. 428.50 230.00 V.C. EL. 428.50 160.00 V.C.
PI STA. 1154+50
PROPOSED NORTHBOUND MAIN LANE
EL. 431.00 270.00 V.C.
EL. 428.50 160.00 V.C.
EL. 428.50 160.00 V.C.
+2.5
0%
-2.5
8%
100 YR FLOOD ALTERNATIVE PROFILE WATER LEVEL
HAMPTON BRIDGE
EL. 415.00 220.00 V.C.
PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES SYLVAN

BRIDGE
EL. 431.00 160.00 V.C.
500
EL. 431.00 160.00 V.C.
EL. 431.00 160.00 V.C.
EL. 431.00 420.00 V.C.
461.82
UPRR BRIDGE
-3.2
+0.00%
CONTINENTAL BRIDGE
5% -3.2 5%
450

+0.50% -0.94%
-0.50%
0% -0.50% +2.5
+0.50% -0.50%
-2.5
+0.50% -0.50% +0.50%
+0.50% -0.50%
+1.22%
-0.50%
+0.50% -0.50%
+0.50% -0.50%
+0.50%
-0.50%
+0.50%
-2.11
8%
+0.50%
-0.50%
-0.50% +0.50%
PI STA. 1009+00.00
-0.50% +0.50% 100-YEAR FLOOD WATER -0.9 LEVEL 4% +1.22%
-0.50% +0.50%
-0.50% +0.50%
-0.50% +0.50%
-0.50% +0.50% +0.50%
-0.83% -0.83%
-2.11 %
PI STA. 1139+50.00 PI STA. 1149+50.00 PI STA. 1159+50.00
+0.50%
PI STA. 1032+00.00
PI STA. 1080+00.00
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT JUNE 20, 2008 DATE:
426.75 PI STA. 1101+50.00
PI STA. 1091+50.00
PI STA. 1169+50.00
426.75 PI STA. 1111+50.00
PI STA. 1184+00.00
400
PI STA. 1125+50.00
SPF WATER LEVEL

EL. 426.00 160.00 V.C.
EL.436.50 436.40 420.00 V.C.
EXISTING GROUND EL.425.00 450.00 V.C.
PI STA. 1200+00
EL. 425.25 500.00 V.C.
EL. 420.00 340.00 V.C.
EL. 428.50 160.00 V.C.
350
449.42
433.50
432.50
428.50
426.03
425.50
420.93
430.52
430.72
430.72
430.72
EL. 428.50 160.00 V.C.
EL. 411.00 420.00 V.C.
EL. 428.50 160.00 V.C.
EL. 428.50 160.00 V.C.
EL. 408.33 270.00 V.C. EL. 408.33 250.00 V.C.
EL. 426.00 160.00 V.C.
EL. 426.00 160.00 V.C.
445.00
463.98
428.78
457.50
426.75
427.75
479.65
476.75
427.75
427.75
427.75
428.78
428.78
428.78
431.00
438.16
425.19
429.15
419.42
468.91
427.18
451.07
100
105
110
115
120
125
150 150 150 155 155 155 155 155 160 140 140 140 140 140 145 145 145 145 145 150 150 130 130 130 130 130 135 135 135 135 135
1220 1220LEY 1220LEY 1220LEY AVE.. 122 1220 AV 1200 1205 1205LEY 1205LEY 1205LEY 1210 1205LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1210LEY AVE.. 1210LEY AVE.. 1210LEY 1215 1210LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1215LEY AVE.. 1215LEY AVE.. 1215LEY AVE.. 1215LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1190 1190LEY 1190LEY 1190LEY AVE.. 1195 1190LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1195LEY AVE.. 1195LEY 1195LEY AVE.. 1195LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1095LEY AVE.. 1095LEY 1095LEY 1095LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1175 1175LEY 1175LEY 1175LEY AVE.. 1180 1175LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1180LEY AVE.. 1180LEY 1180LEY AVE.. 1185 1180LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1185LEY AVE.. 1185LEY 1185LEY AVE.. 1185LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1165 1160LEY 1165LEY AVE.. 1165LEY 1165LEY AVE.. 1170 1165LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1170LEY 1170LEY 1170LEY AVE.. 1170LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1150 1145LEY 1145LEY 1155 1145LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1155LEY 1155LEY AVE.. 1155LEY 1160 1155LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1160LEY 1160LEY 1160LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1135 1140 1140LEY 1140LEY AVE.. 1140LEY 1145 AVE.. 1140LEY AVE..1145LEY AVE.. 1145LEY AVE.. 1150LEY 1145LEY 1145LEY 1150LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1145LEY 1150LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1120 1120LEY 1120LEY 1120LEY AVE.. 1125 1120LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1125LEY AVE.. 1125LEY 1125LEY AVE.. 1130 1125LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1130LEY AVE.. 1130LEY 1130LEY AVE.. 1130LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1135LEY AVE.. 1135LEY 1135LEY AVE.. 1135LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1110 1105LEY AVE.. 1110LEY 1110LEY 1110LEY AVE.. 1115 1110LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1115LEY AVE.. 1115LEY 1115LEY AVE.. 1115LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1095 1030LEY 1030LEY 1030LEY AVE.. 1100 1030LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1100LEY AVE.. 1100LEY 1100LEY AVE.. 1105 1100LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1105LEY AVE.. 1105LEY 1105LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1070 1070LEY 1070LEY 1070LEY 1075 1070LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1075LEY AVE.. 1075LEY AVE.. 1075LEY 1080 1075LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1080LEY AVE.. 1080LEY 1080LEY 1085 AVE.. 1080LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1085LEY 1085LEY AVE.. 1085LEY 1090 1085LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1090LEY AVE.. 1090LEY AVE.. 1090LEY 1090LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1055 1050LEY 1055LEY AVE.. 1055LEY 1055LEY 1060 AVE.. 1055LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1060LEY AVE.. 1060LEY 1060LEY 1065 AVE.. 1060LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1065LEY AVE.. 1065LEY 1065LEY AVE.. 1065LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1030 1040LEY 1040LEY 1045 1040LEY AVE.. AVE..1045LEY AVE.. 1045LEY 1045LEY AVE.. 1050 1045LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1050LEY AVE.. 1050LEY 1050LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1030LEY 1030LEY 1030LEY AVE.. 1035 1030LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1035LEY AVE.. 1035LEY 1035LEY AVE.. 1040 1035LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1040LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1015LEY 1015LEY 1015LEY AVE.. 1020 1015LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1020LEY AVE.. 1020LEY 1020LEY AVE.. 1025 1020LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1025LEY AVE.. 1025LEY 1025LEY AVE.. 1025LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1000LEY 1000LEY AVE.. 1005 1000LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1005LEY AVE.. 1005LEY 1005LEY AVE.. 1010 1005LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1010LEY AVE.. 1010LEY 1010LEY AVE.. 1015 1010LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1000 1000LEY
BEGIN 3C2N STA. 1000+42.91, EL = 456.00 MATCH EXIST BRIDGE END 3C2N STA. 1047+16.49, EL = 462.92 MATCH 3C2NB, STA. 1047+16.49 OFFSET 24.50 LT MATCH 3C2SB, STA. 1047+16.49 OFFSET 24.50 RT BEGIN 3C2SB STA. 1047+16.49, EL = 464.02 MATCH 3C2N, STA. 1045+00.00 OFFSET 24.50 LT
SOUTHBOUND MAIN LANE PROFILE

550
PI STA. 1056+65.00
PI STA. 1003+00.00
EL. 487.73 792.74 V.C.
411.88
PROPOSED PI STA. 1144+50.00 PI STA. 1154+50.00 PI STA. 1164+50.00 PI STA. 1106+50.00 PI STA. 1134+50.00 PI STA. 1174+50.00 PI STA. 1116+50.00 PROPOSED SOUTHBOUND MAIN LANE PI STA. 1096+50.00 WOODALL RODGERS FREEWAY BRIDGES PI STA. 1192+00.00
464.02
500
EL. 456.00 500.00 V.C.
461.82
EL. 425.50 160.00 V.C.
EL. 426.50 160.00 V.C.
EL. 425.50 160.00 V.C.
EL. 414.14 200.00 V.C.
ALTERNATIVE PROFILE
EL. 425.50 160.00 V.C.
EL. 426.50 180.00 V.C.
EL. 426.50 160.00 V.C.
+2.5
EL. 426.50 160.00 V.C.
0%
0%
EL. 426.50 360.00 V.C.
-2.8
412.50
414.00
450
+0.00% -3.2 5%
CONTINENTAL BRIDGE
UPRR BRIDGE
HAMPTON
-3.2 5%
BRIDGE
-2.8
0%
-0.50%
SYLVAN BRIDGE
-0.50% -0.50% +2.50%
+0.50%
-0.50%
+0.50% -0.50% -0.50%
+0.50% +0.50%
-0.50% -0.50%
+0.61% -0.50% +0.61%
+0.50% -0.50%
+0.50% -0.50%
+0.50% -0.50%
+0.50% -1.72%
-0.50% +0.50%
-0.50% +0.50%
-0.50% +0.50%
-0.50% +0.50%
-0.50% +0.50%
-0.50% +0.50%
+0.50% -0.73%
PI STA. 1032+00.00
PI STA. 1009+00.00
PI STA. 1077+20.00
400
-1.72
PI STA. 1149+50.00 423.76 PI STA. 1091+50.00 423.75 PI STA. 1101+50.00 423.75 PI STA. 1111+50.00 PI STA. 1159+50.00 PI STA. 1169+50.00 PI STA. 1184+00.00 PI STA. 1139+50.00
+0.50%
-0.73% +0.93%
PI STA. 1200+00.00
EL. 436.50 420.00 V.C.
EL. 425.00 450.00 V.C.
EL. 430.22 350.00 V.C.
EXISTING GROUND
PI STA. 1125+50
EL. 424.00 160.00 V.C.
350
449.42
EL. 424.00 160.00 V.C.
436.38
426.22
426.20
426.22
426.22
424.28
423.75
433.50
432.50
478.23
426.28
423.75
424.28
424.28
424.28
EL. 410.14 360.00 V.C.
EL. 423.00 160.00 V.C.
EL. 423.00 160.00 V.C.
EL. 421.00 180.00 V.C.
EL. 423.00 160.00 V.C.
EL. 424.00 160.00 V.C.
EL. 424.00 160.00 V.C.
426.03
428.50
464.36
450.37
424.75
436.40
445.00
457.50
424.75
424.75
421.30
425.12
481.82
428.81
431.00
410.83
417.03
413.14
100
105
110
115
120
125
150 150 150 155 155 155 155 155 160 135 135 135 140 140 140 140 140 145 145 145 145 145 150 150 130 130 130 130 130 135 135
1215LEY 1215LEY 1215LEY AVE.. 1220 1215LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1200 1095LEY 1095LEY 1095LEY AVE.. 1205 1095LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1205LEY AVE.. 1205LEY 1205LEY AVE.. 1210 1205LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1210LEY AVE.. 1210LEY 1210LEY AVE.. 1215 1210LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1185 1185LEY 1190 1185LEY AVE.. 1190LEY AVE.. 1190LEY 1190LEY AVE.. 1195 1190LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1195LEY AVE.. 1195LEY 1195LEY AVE.. 1195LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1175 1170LEY AVE.. 1175LEY 1175LEY 1175LEY AVE.. 1180 1175LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1180LEY AVE.. 1180LEY 1180LEY AVE.. 1180LEY AVE.. AVE..AVE.. 1185LEY 1185LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1160 1155LEY 1160LEY AVE.. 1160LEY 1160LEY AVE.. 1165 1160LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1165LEY AVE.. 1165LEY 1165LEY AVE.. 1170 1165LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1170LEY 1170LEY AVE.. 1170LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1145 1145LEY 1150 1145LEY AVE.. 1145LEY AVE.. 1145LEY AVE.. 1145LEY 1155 1145LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1155LEY AVE.. 1155LEY 1155LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1135 1135LEY 1135LEY AVE.. 1135LEY 1140 1135LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1140LEY AVE.. 1140LEY 1140LEY AVE.. 1140LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1145LEY AVE.. 1145LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1120 1120LEY AVE.. 1120LEY 1125 1120LEY AVE.. AVE..1125LEY AVE.. 1125LEY AVE.. 1125LEY 1130 1125LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1130LEY AVE.. 1130LEY 1130LEY AVE.. 1130LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1095 1030LEY 1030LEY 1030LEY AVE.. 1100 1030LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1100LEY AVE.. 1100LEY 1100LEY AVE.. 1105 1100LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1105LEY AVE.. 1105LEY 1105LEY AVE.. 1110 1105LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1110LEY 1110LEY AVE.. 1110LEY 1115 1110LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1115LEY AVE.. 1115LEY AVE.. 1115LEY AVE.. 1115LEY AVE..1120LEY AVE.. 1080 1080LEY 1080LEY 1080LEY AVE.. 1085 1080LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1085LEY AVE.. 1085LEY 1085LEY AVE.. 1090 1085LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1090LEY AVE.. 1090LEY 1090LEY AVE.. 1090LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1070 1070LEY 1070LEY 1070LEY 1075 1070LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1075LEY AVE.. 1075LEY AVE.. 1075LEY 1075LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1050LEY 1050LEY 1055 1050LEY AVE.. 1055LEY AVE.. 1055LEY AVE.. 1055LEY 1060 1055LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1060LEY AVE.. 1060LEY AVE.. 1060LEY 1065 1060LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1065LEY AVE.. 1065LEY AVE.. 1065LEY 1065LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1030 1040LEY 1040LEY 1040LEY 1045 1040LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1045LEY AVE.. 1045LEY AVE.. 1045LEY 1050 AVE.. 1045LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1050LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1025LEY 1025LEY 1025LEY AVE.. 1025LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1030LEY AVE.. 1030LEY 1030LEY 1035 AVE.. 1030LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1035LEY AVE.. 1035LEY 1035LEY 1040 1035LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1015LEY 1015LEY 1015LEY AVE.. 1020 1015LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1020LEY AVE.. 1020LEY 1020LEY AVE.. 1025 1020LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1000LEY AVE.. 1000LEY 1005 AVE.. 1000LEY AVE..AVE.. 1005LEY 1005LEY AVE.. 1005LEY 1010 AVE.. 1005LEY AVE..AVE.. 1010LEY 1010LEY AVE.. 1010LEY AVE.1015 . 1010LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1000 1000LEY
471.11
1/4/2012
3:39:07 PM
ah2003
TXDOT
i:\17000s\17826\CADD\V7 to V8 UPGRADE\826-LSS-PP3C-N.dgn
COMBINED PARKWAY - EAST LEVEE
411.96
408.85
408.92
2-154
PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL DIAPHRAGM WALL
PROFILE LEGEND:
10 VARIES PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT 10
PLAN LEGEND: PROPOSED R.O.W.

PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES PROPOSED RAMP
PARK ACCESS ROUTES:

ENGINEERS . ARCHITECTS . SCIENTISTS . PLANNERS . SURVEYORS
VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RAMP (BY NTTA) BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BRIDGE (BY NTTA) POSSIBLE VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**) POSSIBLE BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**)
PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD
4 1 FLOODWAY BOTTOM
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT June 20, 2008 DATE:
PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES 100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL SPF WATER LEVEL
NOTES:
P
2.%
NOTES:
PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL DIAPHRAGM WALL
1. ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA. * - 2 LANES EACH WAY INITIAL CONSTRUCTION WITH SPACE FOR ULTIMATE EXPANSION TO 3 LANES EACH WAY.
430
EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING THOSE USED IN THIS SECTION ARE TYPICAL.

P
1. FLOOD ELEVATIONS, LEVEE HEIGHTS AND SLOPES VARY. 2. MODIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING LEVEES TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS.
P P P P
FURTHER MODIFIED (SOUTH)

0 500 1000 1700 2500 3000

RIVER SIDE OF EAST LEVEE CONTINENTAL TO DART RAIL
41 0
41 0
P
(**) 2 MAIN LANES EACH WAY (INITIAL PHASE) (*) 3 MAIN LANES EACH WAY (FINAL PHASE)
P P
43 0
430
3
VARIES C.L. ROADWAY
43
0
P
WEST END
P P P
40 0
P
NUMBER OF GENERAL PURPOSE LANES ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL FHWA. CE BY U S-7 ALONG INDICATED MAIN LANE DIRECTION NT 5 RA LE XP Y.
SCALE IN FEET
P P P
43 0
VE RF
FW Y
400
P P P P
P P
IN NT CO
40 0
P PARK
3
P
? ?
430
40
CO NT IN EN TA LA VE
40
P
PARK
0 43
400
P
40 0
42
P
?
44 0
SUB P
40
420
P P PARK
420
STA
0 41 0 42
P
400
P
9-6 P
43 0
41 0 42 0
TION STA
42
41 0
43
PLA P
1 LA
1 2
SUB
I-30
420
ED1
L A N E
POND
3 4
5 6 7 8
? ?

P P P
? ?
? ?
OUN YGR PLA P

? ? ?
420
P
?
CONTINENTAL TO DART RAIL

?
? ? ? ?
??
P
?
9 10 11 12
40 0
0 41 0 42
410
P P
SPF WATER LEVEL

P P P P
CONTINENTAL TO DART RAIL

440
P
?
? ? ?
? ?
P
? ?
P
? ? ?
? ? ?
42 41 0 0
13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
42 0
0 40
P
? ?
41
42 0
P P
400
16
420
2
0 41
41
U/C
?
? ?
420
JR. BLVD.
41 0
400 410
P P
PLA P
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
400 410
400 410
410
? ?
P P P
P
? ?
U/C
P P P
? ?
410
43 0
40
P P P P P
POND
400
42 0
0 41
33
MATCH LINE
40
FW
41 42 43
40
44
41
00
41
42 0
P P
?
? ?
0
?
L BAL KET BAS RT COU
43
0
? ?
? ? ?
14
410
40 0
E*
38 39
IL
12
17 5
410
36
440
P P P
P P
YGR PLA
P
? ? ?
50
3L
34 35
-7 ED1
0 43
AN
400
37 TRA

P
? ?
40 0
40 0
P
?
LI
430
OUN YGR
39
IS
?
430
40 0
? ?
? ?
? ?
420
G KIN
? ?
3L
"PRO JECT AND PEG "HO CAN ASU RSE YON S" SHO -MIX E PR MAS UND OJEC TER ER D T" IMPR EVE OVE LOP MEN MEN TS T BY TxDO T
P P P P
? ? ? ? ?
ALONG FLOODWAY HAMPTON - INWOOD RD TO DART RAIL

P P P P P

? ?
420
?
P
? ? ? ?
? ?
LD IC LET ATH FIE P
@ EXISTING BRIDGE
430
0 42 0 43
? ?
43 0
P
? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ?
440
? ?
P
?
440
? ?
? ?
?
?
0 43 0 42
P
? ?
440
P P P P P
430
44
JU
?
44
0
? ?
44 0
45
? ? ? ?
? ?
P P
P P P P
40 0
430
430
430
? ? ?
P P
D
?
OUN
SC
P
?
US CE -75 NT RA LE XP Y.
? ? ?
? ?
43 0
? ? ? ? ?
P
? ? ? ? ? ?
P
? ?
? ? ?
? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
PROPOSED R.O.W.
P P
PROPOSED R.O.W.
? ?
? ?
OOL H SCH
? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
HIG ON MPS THO

OUN YGR P PLA RTS P P D P P
P
? ?
? ?
420
? ?
P
? ? ? ? ? ?
AN
POND
400
40
E*
420
F. H
HER
POND
40
? ?
C.
410
P
? ?
0 41 400
400
POND POND
LUT
400
41
41
41
42
41
EU R
IO
B
?
LV
.
41 0
41 0
42 0
420
P
? ?
? ?
P
?
420
P
?
410
FW
P
? ?
LAM AR
420
420
P P
H EP
P P
?
78 24 4 12 10 10 12 4 24
78 10 21
P
?
P
?
L BAL KET BAS P
COU
21
P P
ST
? ?
P
?
PS
P P
?
10
P P
? ?
? ?
? ?
D OUN YGR PLA

? ? ? ? ?
P
?
P P LD
?
41 0 40
0 41
??
410
P P
440
? ? ?
P A ARE U/C
410
P
Y .
P P P
P P
IC
? ?
FIE P P
LET ATH
? ? ?
P
?
P
? ? ? ? ?
P
?
2.0%
2.0%
? ? ?
430
P P
?
P P
? ? ?
? ?
P
?
410
41
0
?
43
? ?
? ?
P
? ?
42
P TION STA
?
0
?
430
SUB
P
? ? ?
P
?
40 0
41
40
0
0
P P
410
P
? ?
? ?
P
?
P
?
43
? ?
0 40 0 41
420
430
? ? ?
HEIGHT VARIES
K PAR
P P
P D
?
42
? ? ? ?
P
? ?
0
? ? ? ?
P P
NIO
REU
40
OUN YGR PLA
420
P P P
P
?
410
? ? ? ?
40 40 0 0
42
400
P P P
400
? ?
410
? ? ?
400
41 0 42 0
POND
410
400
400 410
410
? ? ? ? ?
? ?
TIN MAR
410
410
40
3
?
? ? ? ? ?
P P P
? ?
410
P
?
? ? ?
? ?
P
? ?
410
400
ST .
-6
39 0
410
410
9-4
42
P
400
420
400
ED1
400
410 410
410 410
? ? ?
40
400 400
410 400
410
410
390
400
0 41
? ?
LAMA R ST.
410
P
P
?
P
?
410
P
?

P
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
P P
P
? ?
390
400
? ? ? ?
39
TRA IL
0
0 40
410
400
410
0 40
P P
400
P P
410
410
ER
41
M M
TION STA
410
41 0
SUB
390
410
42
42
0 43
P P
DW4
400
IN ITY RIV ER
P P F-9 TRS P P P P P P
? ?
WE .8 395
390 410
0 41
42 41 0 40 0 0
390
WS 380 .0
F-10
TRS
WE .7 395
BAL
410
POND
40
POND
40
40 0
420
400
410 400
410
400
400
40 0
A N E
400
390
400
POND
0 41
410 42 0
41
E N A 1L
390
390
400
STA SUB
390
390
410 420
410
390
410 400
TION
P
? ? ?
400
390
400
? ? ?
? ?
P
?
400
? ?
IL TRA
410
P P P
400
40
WE .3
RIV ER
-5 ED1
420
420
41 0
IL
39
42 0
400
42 0
0
WS 395 .3
1 LANE
400
410
420
-4 ED1
400
40
400
420
420 410
400
400
41
1250
40 0
WS P P P
WE 394
400
390
400
400
WS
P P P
400
40
?
1 LAN
WS
.0 395
WS 395
.4
3 LA
?
400
39
HOUSTON ST.
40
41 42 0 0
1 LANE
3 LA
TRINITY RIVER
NE*
420
410
39
0
0
42 0 41
400
420
.0 380
WS
.4 383
42
0
?
400
?
410
POND
WE 394
.0
400
40 0 41
-3 EDI
42
WS .0 380
40
390
392
POND
40
0 42
0
400
40
400
400
JEFFERSON ST.
400
40
WE WE 391 .1 389
380
.0 POND
AIL
POND WE 393 .5
400
390
390
WS
390
NOTES
400
390
DW3 P
400
420
410
420
-2 ED1
390
39 0
390
390
400
400
IH-35 N.B.
400
420
410
B. IH-35 S.
390
TRINITY RIVER
400
400
400
P P
400
P P
400
0 42
400
P
42 0 41 0 400
400
400
0 40
40
IN APPENDIX E
40 0
400
WS 396 .7
400
400
395
NIT
390
41 0 420
H ST.
OAK CLIFF LEVEE ROAD (BY OTHERS)

DW2
TRI
400
390
DESIGN REFINEMENTS
390
TRINITY RIVER
WE
.3 POND
RIV
0 42 0 41
39
390
400
ER
TRINITY RIVER
?
39
OF THE LSS
410 420
410
390 400
36
36
K PAR POND WE 389 .0 ROC TER HES
390
POND
WE 394
.9
400
?
400
.2
400
OAK WS .4
WS 393
.5 393
410
420 410
420
DW1
400
393 WS 393 WS WS .4 393 .8 392 .2
40
41
P
0 41
P
400 390
390
420
420 410
CORINT
420
410
39 0
410 420
39
390 400
WS 393
420
400
?
410 420
410
400
390
400
P P
400
394
P P P
?
420
POND
? ?
WE 394
.9
POND WE 393 392 .9 WE .6
WS
.8 395
40
?
.8 393
POND
WS 395
.7
TION P P P SUB STA
WS 393
.1
400
?
POND
420
U/C
ARE
42
40 0
400
400
WE
41
41
42
0 43 0
400
? ?
P P
WS 392
.3 P
?
41
40
WS
.1
420
393
400
400
TRA
400
410
IL
390
41 0
40
420
400
410
400
.7 391
AT-GRADE WITH SERVICE ROADS LAMAR BLVD. TO U.S. 175
410
420
410
41
0
0 42 0 43 0 44 0 45
?
410
P
410
NIS TEN
410
?
400
D OUN YGR PLA
?
43 0
43 0
43
?
0
42
410
POND
?
410 410
POND WE 390 .9
410
?
CREEK
410
460
?
440
P
420
430
440
430
U/C
PAR
ARE
420
400
400
400
440
16-7
TRAIL
TRAIL
420410 400
CEDAR
OAK
460
? ?
420
PARK
420
TRAIL
CLIF
450
420
420 410
P
410
400
400
PARK RE MOO
? ?
400
42 0
44
?
420
410
POND
?
WE 396
.7
FLOODWAY TO U.S. 175

BEGIN PROPOSED BRIDGE END PROPOSED BRIDGE
400
9-7
410
420
POND
410
P
400
41
43 0
WE 406
.2
45 0
430
400
400
44
440
420 410
LL EBA BAS
RT COU NIS TEN P P
42
45
44
P P
44 0
460
450
46
0 43
440
P P P
41
430
0
LL
P 45
45
43
0
45
420
410
46
46
460
P
44 0
41
45
420
BEGIN PROPOSED BRIDGE
400
420
44
ETBA BASK
END 3C2NB STA. 1341+85, EL = 426.44 MATCH 3C2S, STA. 1341+85.00 OFFSET 11.50 RT
43 0
P
420
420
420
440
430 440
450
F S OAK PARK RS NDE FOU CLIF
470
460
440
PI STA. 1370+00.00
430
410
44
BEGIN 3C2S STA. 1341+85.00, EL = 426.67 MATCH 3C2NB, STA. 1341+85.00 OFFSET 11.50 LT & MATCH 3C2SB, STA. 1342+21.78 OFFSET 11.50 RT
41 0
TION STA SUB
END 3C2S STA. 1400+00.00, EL = 403.30 MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT
410
410
P
550
430
420
P P
45 0
P P
450
460
440
450
450
PI STA. 1354+00
470
420
41 0
470
43 0
EL.457.30 550.00 V.C.
ENT ATM TRE
STA 1505+00
PI (1538+50)
SB I-35E PI STA. 1276+00.00

P
0 44
450
PI (1511+50)
EL. 450.80 1,100.00 V.C.
STA 1582+00
PI STA. 1236+00.00
AH 1223+21.16 PI STA. 1225+00.00
PI (1558+00)
PI STA. 1215+00.00
PI STA. 1264+50
PI STA. 1320+25
EL. 434.27 600.00 V.C.
700 V.C.
460
COMMERCE STREET PI STA. 1205+00 BRIDGE
1,200 V.C.
EL. 436.30 400.00 V.C.
El 448.30
PI STA. 1333+00
El 453.00
420
El 450.00
1,260 V.C.
PI STA. 1405+00.00
OVERPASS NB I-35E EL. 408.08 160.00 V.C. OVERPASS
42
STA 1584+00
47 0
PI (1582+55)
450
DART BRIDGE
460
P P
46
PI STA. 1389+00
440
EL. 457.80 320.00 V.C.
43
41
46 0
0 44
NT PLA
PI STA. 1428+50
PI STA. 1297+00.00
45 0
BK 1222+98.32=
PI (1240+00)
EL. 417.58 220.00 V.C.
EL. 415.32 260.00 V.C.
EL. 417.83 470.00 V.C.
EL. 412.83 220.00 V.C.
BRIDGE EL. 412.83 160.00 V.C. EQUATION:
440
UPRR BRIDGE
JEFFERSON BRIDGE
I-30 BRIDGE
+1.38% 38% +0.50% +1.

(-) 2.0 0%
8%
+2.
% +2.00
97%
4.0
0%
+0.90% -0.50%
-0.83% +0.90%
+0.50% -0.50% (-) 0.501% -0.50% +1.50% -0.50% +0.50%
-1.58 % +1.50% -1.58 % +0.50%
+0.50% -1.15%
(+) 0.54%
(-) 1.00%
-1.15%
(+) 0.60% +0.50% -0.50%

-0.50%
% +0.50% +1.85 (-) 0.50% % +1.85
% (+) 1.50
(-) 0.50%
(+)
2.90
(+) 0.50% -0.56% +1.31%
+0.53%
+0.53%
-2.4
-0.56%
% +2.00
PI STA. 1344+00.00 PI (1527+50) PI STA. 1382+00.00 El 442.00 EL. 439.80 300 V.C. 150.00 V.C. 444.50 438.30 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD EL. 453.55 150.00 V.C. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD 447.00 455.30 445.75 450.30 443.25 442.80 448.25 457.00
+1.50%
-3.0
MARTIN LUTHER KING BRIDGE PI STA. 1361+50.00
-0.50%
2.63 (+)
-0.50% (-) 0.50% 00% +3.
2%
(-) -4 .0 0%
LAMAR
4.0
0%
8%
PI STA. 1309+20.00
0% +0.50% (+) 2.2

PI (1254+00) PI STA. 1269+50
400
PI STA. 1329+00 431.38 EL. 413.58 350.00 V.C.
PI STA. 1220+00
PI (1315+00)
PI STA. 1415+00
PI (1568+00)
PI (1286+00)
EL. 424.58 130.00 V.C. 406.80 PI (1290+50) 424.72
EL. 403.99 520.00 V.C. 413.01 PI (1310+50) 406.22
EL. 400.33 PI (1249+00) 260.00 V.C.
EL. 405.58 PI (1269+00) 350.00 V.C. 421.26 407.03
PI STA. 1290+00
EL. 411.75 300.00 V.C. 405.50 412.37
EL.427.60 350.00 V.C.
El 410.00
EXISTING GROUND
PI STA. 1399+00
EL. 410.33 320.00 V.C. 407.89 411.13
PI STA. 1440+00
PI STA. 1210+00
PI (1550+00)
PI (1299+00)
STREET
350
427.45 409.97 412.35 419.90
550 50 45 0 5 4 0 -45 340 I-45 1340 550 0 I-45 550 1340 I-45 1340 550 I-45 1340 550 1180 I-45 550 1340 1180 I-45 1340 1340 1180 I-45 1180 I-45 1340 1185 I-45 1340 1180 I-45 1340 1185 1185 I-45 1340 1185 I-45 1340 1190 1185 I-45 1340 1190 I-45 1340 1190 I-45 1340 1190 I-45 1340 1195 1190 I-45 1340 1195 I-45 1340 1340 1195 I-45 1195 I-45 1340 1200 1195 I-45 1340 1325 I-45 1325 I-45 1325 I-45 1205 1325 I-45 1325 1205 I-45 1325 1205 I-45 1325 1205 I-45 1210 1325 1205 I-45 1325 1210 I-45 1325 1210 I-45 1325 1210 I-45 1215 1325 1210 I-45 1325 1215 I-45 1325 1215 I-45 1325 1215 I-45 1220 1215 I-45 1325 I-45 1220 I-45 1220 I-45 1220 1225 I-45 1220 I-45 1225 I-45 1225 I-45 1225 1230 I-45 1225 I-45 1230 I-45 1230 I-45 1230 1235 I-45 1230 I-45 1235 I-45 1235 I-45 1235 1240 I-45 1235 I-45 1240 I-45 1240 I-45 1240 1245 I-45 1240 I-45 1245 I-45 1245 I-45 1245 1250 I-45 1245 I-45 I-45 1250 I-45 1250 I-45 1250 I-45 I-45 1255 I-45 1255 I-45 1255 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1275 I-45 I-45 1285 1250 1255 1255 1260 1260 1260 1260 1265 1260 1265 1265 1265 1270 1265 1270 1270 1270 1275 1270 1275 1275 1275 1280 1275 1280 1280 1280 1280 1280 I-45 1280 1280 I-45 1280 I 1285 1285 -45 I-45 1285 1285 1285 I-45 1285 1290 1285 I-45 1285 I 1290 1290 -45 I-45 1290 1290 I-45 1290 1290 1295 I-45 1290 1290 1200 I-45 1340 1200 I-45 1340 1340 I-45 1200 1300 1200 I-45 1340 1300 I-45 1300 1300 I-45 1300 1300 I-45 1300 1305 1300 I-45 1300 1305 I-45 1305 I-45 1305 1305 I-45 1305 1310 I-45 1305 1310 I-45 1310 1310 I-45 1310 I-45 1310 1310 1315
1320
1325
1330 1330 1330 1570 1330 1570 1330 1330 1570 1330 1335 1330 1570 1330
1340
1345
1350
1500 I-45 1500 1500 1500 I-45 1500 1500 I-45 1500 1505 1500 I-45 1500 I 1505 1505 -45 I-45 1505 1505 I-45 1505 1505 1510 I-45 1505 1505 I 1510 1510 -45 I-45 1510 1510 I-45 1510 1510 1515 I-45 1510 1510 I 15151515 1515 -45 I-45 1515 I-45 1515 1515 1520 1515 I-45 1515 1520 I-45 1520 152015201520 I-45 1520 I-45 1520 1525 1520 I-45 1525 I-45 1525 1525 1525 I-45 1525 1525 I-45 1530 1525 I-45 1525 1530 I 1530 -45 1530 I-45 1530 1530 I-45 1530 1535 I-45 1530 1530 1535 I-45 1535 I-45 I-45 1535 1540 I-45 1535 15401540 I-45 I-45 I-45 1540 1545 I-45 1540 1545 I-45 I-45 1545 I-45 1545 1550 1545 I-45 I-45 1550 1550 I-45 I-45 1550 1555 I-45 1550 1555 I-45 I-45 1555 1555 I-45 1560 I-45 1555 1560 I-45 1560 I-45 I-45 1560 1565 1560 I-45 1565 1565 1565 1565 1565 1565 1570 1565 1565 1570 1570 1570 1575 1570 1575 1575 1575 1580 1575 1585 1580 1590 1590 1580 1590 1585 1590 1580 1585 1595 1585 1595 1585 1595 1590
1595
1600
1605
1610
BEGIN PROPOSED BRIDGE
PI STA. 1354+00
PI STA. 1297+00.00
EL. 457.30 550.00 V.C.
EL. 457.80 320.00 V.C.
SB I-35E PI STA. 1225+00.00 PI STA. 1236+00.00 BK 1243+23.58= OVERPASS BK 1255+77.08 AH 1243+27.54 AH 1255+79.10 PI STA. 1262+50.00 NB I-35E PI STA. 1272+67.97 OVERPASS HOUSTON BRIDGE PI STA. 1205+00.00 PI STA. 1215+00.00
PI STA. 1389+00
PI STA. 1405+00.00
PI STA. 1428+50 EL. 450.80 1,100.00 V.C.
STA 1505+00
PI (1511+50)
END 3C2SB STA. 1342+21.78, EL = 426.44 MATCH 3C2S, STA. 1341+85.00 OFFSET 11.50 LT BK 1316+59.17 AH 1316+63.39 PI STA. 1320+40 PI STA. 1333+00
PI STA. 1370+00.00
END 3C2NB STA. 1341+85, EL = 426.44 MATCH 3C2S, STA. 1341+85.00 OFFSET 11.50 RT
BEGIN 3C2S STA. 1341+85.00, EL = 426.67 MATCH 3C2NB, STA. 1341+85.00 OFFSET 11.50 LT & MATCH 3C2SB, STA. 1342+21.78 OFFSET 11.50 RT
550
PARK ACCESS BRIDGE
PI (1240+00)
700 V.C.
500
EQUATION:
EL. 430.27 580.00 V.C.
EQUATION:
EQUATION:
EL. 418.04 450.00 V.C.
EL. 413.77 200.00 V.C.
EL. 413.03 240.00 V.C.
EL. 418.35 280.00 V.C.
EL. 421.63 230.00 V.C.
CORINTH BRIDGE
EL. 412.97 230.00 V.C.
EL. 407.20 160.00 V.C.
UPRR BRIDGE
COMMERCE STREET BRIDGE
I-30 BRIDGE
100 YR FLOOD WATER LEVEL
EL. 411.92 200.00 V.C.
JEFFERSON BRIDGE
PROPOSED SOUTHBOUND MAIN LANE
DART BRIDGE
+2.
-0.50% 97%
+0.50% -1.50%
% -0.50% +0.50% (+) 1.60
+0.93% +0.93%
-0.55%
+0.71%
-0.50% -0.50%
-1.60 % +1.35%
(+) 0.601%
+0.50%
(-) 0.50% +0.50% (-) 1.8 91%
+1.38% +1.38%
-2.1 7%
(+) 0.50%
-1.50%
+0.53%
97 +2. %
-0.50%
0%
-0.97%
-0.55% +0.71%
PI STA. 1210+00.00
+1.35%
-1.60
% +0.50% (+) 0.615%
(-) 1.005%
PI STA. 1329+00.00 431.38 EL. 413.63 400.00 V.C.
PI STA. 1344+00.00
PI STA. 1268+40.00
PI STA. 1249+00.00
PI (1254+00)
EL. 404.17 PI (1269+00) 370.00 V.C.
PI (1325+00)
PI (1299+00)
PI (1285+00)
EL. 400.45 PI (1249+00) 230.00 V.C. 404.82 400.96
EL. 420.58 130.00 V.C. 405.72 PI (1290+50) 420.72
PI (1316+00)
+0.50%
PI STA. 1309+20.00
PI STA. 1361+50.00
-0.97%
0% (+) 2.2
+0.50%
-0.51% -0.51%
+1.81% +1.81%
+0.50%
% (+) 1.50
(-) 0.80%
-2.1 7%
(+)
% 2.92
+1.30%
-0.55% -0.55%
+2 +2.00
+0.52% .00%
+1.50%
-3.0
MARTIN LUTHER KING BRIDGE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD EL. 453.55 150.00 V.C. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
-0.50% -0.50%
+1.30%
EL. 403.80 PI (1310+00) 530.00 V.C. 409.78
0%
+1.50%
+3.
00%
LAMAR
-4
.0
428.95
-0.50% -3 .0
END 3C2S STA. 1400+00.00, EL = 403.30 MATCH EX. PVMT.
I-45 BRIDGE
+3.
00%
-4 .0 0%
U.S. 75 BRIDGE
450
0%
+1.51%
400
PI STA. 1382+00
PI STA. 1220+00
PI STA. 1230+00
PI STA. 1399+00
PI STA. 1290+00
PI STA. 1415+00
STREET EL. 410.30 500.00 V.C.
EL. 411.27 300.00 V.C.
EL. 406.30 650.00 V.C.
EL. 410.03 320.00 V.C.
EL. 410.22 200.00 V.C.
EL. 427.60 350.00 V.C.
EL. 404.80 750.00 V.C.
EL. 439.80 150.00 V.C.
EXISTING GROUND
PI STA. 1440+00
350
427.45 409.97 412.35 419.90
425.28
405.92 404.32
413.43 403.45
410.25 427.25
425.30
438.30
408.85
416.49 405.95
415.16 423.76
455.83
455.30
439.03
422.67
450.30
405.96
454.30
432.99
442.80
E E E 5 45 -45 I-45 E I E -45 I-45 E I-45 E I-45 E I-45 E I-45 E I-45 E I-45 E I-45 E I-45 E E I-45 I-45 E I-45 E I-45 E I-45 E I-45 E I-45 E E I-45 E I-45 1200 E I-45 I-45 1325 I-45 1325 I-45 1325 1205 I-45 1325 I-45 1205 1325 I-45 1205 1325 I-45 1205 1325 1210 I-45 1205 1325 I-45 1210 1325 I-45 1210 1325 I-45 1210 1325 1215 I-45 1210 1325 I-45 1215 1325 I-45 1215 1325 I-45 1215 1325 1220 I-45 1215 1325 I-45 1220 1325 I-45 1220 1325 I-45 1220 1325 1225 I-45 1220 1325 I-45 1225 1325 I-45 1225 1325 I-45 1225 1325 1230 I-45 1225 1325 I-45 1230 1325 I-45 1230 1325 I-45 1230 1325 1235 I-45 1230 1325 I-45 1235 I-45 1235 I-45 1235 1240 I-45 1235 I-45 1240 I-45 1240 I-45 1240 1245 I-45 1240 I-45 1245 I-45 1245 1245 I-45 1245 1250 I-45 1245 I-45 1250 I-45 1250 I-45 1250 1255 I-45 1250 I-45 1255 I-45 1255 I-45 1255 1260 I-45 1255 I-45 1260 I-45 1260 I-45 1260 1265 I-45 1260 I-45 1265 1265 I-45 1265 1265 I-45 1265 1270 I-45 1265 1265 I-45 1270 I-45 1270 1270 I-45 1270 1275 1270 I-45 1270 I-45 1275 1275 1275 I-45 1275 I-45 1280 1275 I-45 1275 I-45 1280 I-45 1280 I-45 1280 1285 1280 I-45 1280 1285 I-45 1285 I-45 1285 1285 I-45 1285 1285 1290 I-45 1285 1290 I-45 1290 I-45 1290 I-45 1290 1295 I-45 1290 1290 I-45 E 1200 1200 I-45 E 1200 I-45 E 1300 1200 I-45 E I-45 1300 1300 1300 I-45 1300 I-45 1300 1300 1305 I-45 1300 1300 I-45 1305 1305 I-45 1305 1305 I-45 1305 1305 1310 I-45 1305 1305 1310 I-45 1310 1310 1310 I-45 1310 1310 I-45 1315 1320
1325
1330 1330 1330 I-45 1330 I-45 1330 1330 1330 I-45 1335 1330 1330 I-45 1340
1345
1350
1500 I-45 1500 I-45 1500 I-45 1500 1505 I-45 1500 1505 I-45 1505 I-45 I-45 1505 1510 I-45 1505 I-45 1510 1510 I-45 1510 I-45 1515 1510 I-45 1515 I-45 1515 I-45 1515 1520 1515 1520 1520 1520 1525 1520 1525 1525 1525 1530 1525 1530 1530 1530 1535 1530 1535 1535 1535 1540 1535 1540 1540 1540 1545 1540 1545 1545 1545 1550 1545 1550 1550 1550 1555 1550 1555 1555 1555 1560 1555 1560 1560 1560 1565 1560 1565 1565 1565 1570 1565 1570 1570 1570 1575 1570 1575 1575 1575 1580 1575 1585 1580 1585 1585 1580 1585 1585 1580 1585 1585 1585 1585 1585 1585 550 1595 1590 1595 1600 1605 1610 1595 1585 21 21 21 21 1585 1600 21 1585 1600 21 21 1585 2 1585 2 1585 2 1585
1/4/2012
3:38:33 PM
ah2003
TXDOT
i:\17000s\17826\CADD\V7 to V8 UPGRADE\826-LSS-PP3C-S.dgn
424.80
421.26 407.08
445.42
409.55
457.00
430.77
407.82 412.52
429.71 415.82
418.90 413.08
412.54
416.40 415.58
416.38
415.95
410.54
419.50 405.91
413.38 418.08
418.30
413.47
412.80
426.95 417.50
410.29 409.16
410.87
414.50
412.49
439.71
421.75 411.33
411.45 412.91
411.97
2-155
+1.31%
PI (1325+00)
0%
+1.50%
(+) 1.00%
+1.51%
PI STA. 1249+00.00
PI (1227+60) PI STA. 1228+85
EL. 410.30 500.00 V.C.
600 V.C.
439.60 454.30
413.43 403.33
422.63
EL. 406.30 650.00 V.C.
411.50 425.30
431.60 455.83
415.53 439.03
413.84 422.08
425.26
416.50 405.83
416.40 426.83
448.20 432.99
408.92
El 450.00
EL. 436.30 400.00 V.C.
EL. 415.30 320.00 V.C.
424.80
445.42
409.55
404.82 400.86
419.50 407.80
430.77
405.90 404.94
410.39 412.63
410.52
442.78 418.30
423.25 411.58
412.80
405.50 416.02
418.90 415.73
412.44
414.50
412.49
416.40 419.58
408.20 414.80
439.71
415.79
426.95 417.64
411.15 431.18
410.32 410.71
429.71 415.81
414.15 414.41
EL. 404.80 750.00 V.C.
EL. 410.33 150.00 V.C.
428.95
-2.4
CORINTH BRIDGE
+2.
-0.50% 97% -0.50% +0.50% % (+) 1.60
+0.50% -1.50% (-) 0.50%
I-45 BRIDGE
EL. 415.30 320.00 V.C.
430
450
EL. 418.46 300.00 V.C.
BRIDGE
EL. 421.58 230.00 V.C.
440
PARK ACCESS
0
P
470
47
500 V.C.
HOUSTON
44
El 415.00
48
500
-1.50% -0.50%
(+) 1.00% -0.50% -3 .00
(-)
+3.
00%
-4
.0
0%
U.S. 75 BRIDGE
450
HALFF
COU
DESIGN
410
410 420 430 440
POSSIBLE S.B. JEFFERSON (BY OTHERS)
410
41 0
?
410 420
400
P
POND
WE .8 392
410
400
RT
430
420
390
400
TYPICAL SECTIONS
DRAWN
392
POND
WE
T. LE
40
WS
.8
410
410
POND
TRA
390 400 410
390 400 410

?
390
WS WS 394 .0 393
.3
400
41
WS 392
.7
SHEET 29 OF 41
390
?
400
390
390
POSSIBLE OAK CLIFF LEVEE ROAD / IH 35E INTERCHANGE (BY OTHERS)
400
.0
400
390
TRAIL
2.0%
POND WE 391 .5
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
400
?
WE 393 POND
.3
400
400
?
IL
WE
.9
DATE
CLI
WS
2008
FF
400
.3
393
AUGUST
SHEET 26 OF 41
40
K PAR
400
IN APPENDIX E
39
POND WE
390
390
400
OF THE LSS
WS .5 394 WE .4 395 POND
390
400
SCALE
1 LANE
39 0
42 41 0 0
TRINITY
WS
392
RIVER
400
.6 393
390
40
40
42
.8
WS
TRAIL
DESIGN REFINEMENTS
41 42 0 0
40
R VE RI ITY IN TR
400
400
WS
WS
400
390
39
TRINIT Y RIVER
.9 394
.3
393
40
39 40 00
1300
390
400
1 LANE
420
410
.6
400
400
WS 393
WE 391
.6
400
40
41
400
WS
.8 395
0 400
SEE PROPOSED
40 0
PROPOSED R.O.W.
POND
VARIES (138 TYPICAL) C.L. ROADWAY VARIES 10 10 10
VARIES (153 TYPICAL)
PROPOSED R.O.W.
21
40
10
VARIES
40
21
17826
400 410
400
40
400
SEE PROPOSED
40
POND
.9
400
42 41 0 40 0 0
NE*
390
390
41
.0
3L
* NE
1 LANE
0 40
40
0
TRA IL
400
TRINI TY RIVER
WE .3 394 POND
400
400
400
POND
WE 395
POND
.4 WE 395 .4
0 41
?
WE
.6
390
400

AT GRADE WITHOUT SERVICE ROADS I.H. 45 TO LAMAR BLVD.
400
41
410
400
TR
POND WE 393 .5 POND WE 392 WE 389 .3
400
400
?
39 40 0 0
390
400
POND
FILE
410
39
.8
0 40 0 41
* NE LA
394
410
40
41
1L
400
POND POND .1
40
WE 395
.0 POND POND WE .0 395
410
I-
.1 395
400
410
0
P
WS
400
400
400
P
39
.2 395
41
WS
395
40 0
TR INI TY
30
420
410
WS
.9 395
400
40
410
390
420 41 0 400
400
400
2 LANE
-1 ED1
1 LANE
40
400
400
TRAI
410
390
1350
E AN
WE
.2 392
E N A 2L
P
?
410
41 0 400
40
400
400
400
AN 1L
E
400
4 1
4 1
41 0
?
A ARE
U/C
400
P
?
0 41
2.%
2.%
? ?
40
NO.
2 LANE
40 0
1L
400 410 410
40
400
400
RIVERFRONT BLVD.
420
AN
FIEL
NE
400
1400
? ?
40 40 0 0
2 LANE
1 LA
0
NE
P P
? ?
410
TR
0 41
410
E*
42
400
420 410
UP PE
400
40
? ? ?
DART
E*
40 0
0 41
.0 380
410
WS
400
390
3 LA
NE*
TRAI
LA
LA
P
?
39
420
42 41 0 40 0 0
400
TION
410
39
390
41 0
420
42 0
39
410
41 40 0 40 0 0
N 3 LA
400
410
E*
?
1 LANE
P P
? ? ?
? ? ? ?
ELEVATED COMBINED ROADWAY MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. TO I.H. 45

?
430 420 410
P P
? ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ?
STA SUB
39
PROPOSED RAMPS BY OTHERS
41
0
? ? ?
PROPOSED R.O.W.
? ?
PROPOSED R.O.W.
L
? ? ?
P
?
? ? ?
1 LA
80 10
? ?
80 24 12 10 10 12 24 10 23
? ?
P
?
? ? ?
23
?
DALLAS , TEXAS
1 LA
42
NE
-8
410
0 42 0 41
0 42

? ?
410
TYPICAL SECTIONS
41 0
OUN YGR PLA

?
P
?
NOTES:
?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
?
?
P
?
TRINITY PARKWAY EIS
40
NE
NE LA
400
420 410
40
0
P P P YGR D OUN
NOTES:
P
CONVENTION 120 CENTER

P
PROPOSED FLOOD 120 SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES

P
125
250
500
750
1000
1500
120
120 NORTHBOUND BASE LINE SOUTHBOUND BASE LINE FLOOD SEPERATION WALL
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
SCALE IN FEET SCALE: 1" = 500
P
0 43
P
TION
IN
DU
ST
RIA
D.
L
112
VARIES (95 USUAL) 20 4 1 DRAINAGE SWALE 3.5
P P P P P
400
EN
TA
L
P
STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD ELEV. +3

P
PROFILE LEGEND:
3.5
P
16
4 1
11
4 1 1
TOE OF PROPOSED EMBANKMENT 20

STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD ELEV. +3 3
43
16
3 MIN. 1 4 1 1 16.5 MIN.
DOWNTOW
PARK
C. F. H A
TB
C.L. EXISTING LEVEE

P
112
12
20
VARIES
20 DRAINAGE SWALE
W N
RO N
PROPOSED R.O.W.
35 )
PROPOSED R.O.W.
10
C.L. ROADWAY 24 (**) 12(*)
U S
RI
PROPOSED R.O.W.
VARIES
PROP. R.O.W. 24 (**) 10 VARIES
COMBINED PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 3C-COMBINED PARKWAY EAST LEVEEEAST LEVEE (MODIFIED)
PLATE 2-4 B
420
41 0
0 40
40 0
0 42 0 41
(I-
17 5
0 41
12(*)
LV
12
20
10
24 (**)
12(*)
22
12(*)
24 (**)
10
N
1
P
0 40 400
?
0 41
? ?
43
32
PARK
DALLAS
10 PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT 8 8 1
2 MIN. 1 2 MIN. 1
3 MIN. 2
100 YR FLOOD ELEV.

32
3.5 3.5 1 8 8
10
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGETOE OF NO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY PROPOSED EMBANKMENT ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT 100 YR FLOOD ELEV. June 20, 2008 DATE:
21 FLOODWAY BOTTOM
2.%
P P P P P
FLOOD WALL
EXISTING LEVEE
VARIES PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES (10 USUAL)
2.%
EXISTING LEVEE
2.% 2.%
FLOODWAY BOTTOM
0 42
42 0
41 0
41 0
0 41
41 0
44
41 0
40 0
0 41
"PROJECT PEGA SUS" AND "HORSESH OE PROJ ECT" CANYON-MIXMA STER IMPROVEMENTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT BY TxDOT
41 0
41 0
42 0
40
41 0
42 0
BE
CK
40 0
LE
41 0
E. AV
0 39
RN BU
ER LD RM FIE FO TT E
43 0
0 42
42 0
0 43
41 0
0 46
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT AUGUST 17, 2007 DATE:
NOTE: THE FLOODWAY CROSS SECTION IS TYPICAL OF THE AREA BETWEEN THE HAMPTON ROAD AND CONTINENTAL AVENUE TRINITY RIVER CROSSINGS, LOOKING DOWNSTREAM. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT RAMPS, AUXILIARY LANES, OR MAIN LANE SUPER ELEVATION.
PLATE 2-4 C
FLOODWAY SECTION FOR ALTERNATIVE 3C - COMBINED PARKWAY - FURTHER MODIFIED

25
50
75
100
150
200
300
COMBINED PARKWAY - MODIFIED SECTION LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (SOUTH)
SCALE IN FEET
CENTER OF EXISTING TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL
ROADWAY C L VARIES VARIES PROPOSED R.O.W. VARIES VARIES EASTERN LIMIT OF EX. TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL
PROPOSED R.O.W. PROPOSED LEVEE EMBANKMENT (BY OTHERS)
460 440 420
MATCH LINE A
TRINITY RIVER
EAST LEVEE
10
36
10 10 36 10 10
460 440 420 400 380
STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD 100 YR FLOOD 5 (VARIES) FLOODWAY BOTTOM
400 380
EXISTING LEVEE
13+00
12+00
11+00
10+00
9+00
8+00
7+00
6+00
5+00
4+00
3+00
2+00
1+00
0+00
CENTER OF EXISTING TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL WEST LEVEE MATCH LINE A
WESTERN LIMIT OF EX. TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL
460 440 420 400 380
PROPOSED LEVEE EMBANKMENT (BY OTHERS)
460 440 420
STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD 100 YR FLOOD FLOODWAY BOTTOM EXISTING LEVEE
TRINITY RIVER
400 380
0+00
1+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
5+00
6+00
7+00
8+00
9+00
10+00
11+00
12+00
1/4/2012
3:40:29 PM
ah2003 TXDOT
i:\17000s\17826\CADD\V7 to V8 UPGRADE\826-LSS-LTSEC-3C.dgn
2-156
P P P P P P P P P S I N N E T
P
P
CHAN NE L)
P P
400
N
P
I 3 5 E
P
4 1 0
P P P
(OL D
4 00
T P R U O C P
PROPOSED R.O.W.
D A O R L I A R
20 DRAINAGE SWALE VARIES
PROPOSED R.O.W.
Y T I N I R T
D L O ( R E V I R Y T I N I R T K R O F M L E
400
R E V I R
) L E N N A H C
C.L. EXISTING LEVEE 12 20 4 16 STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD ELEV. +3 3 10 4 1 3.5 3.5 8 8 1 91 10
K R O M F L E
C I F I C A P
N O I N U
PLATE 2-5 A
10 10 1 PROPOSED EMBANKMENT VARIES TOE OF PROPOSED EMBANKMENT
390
400
410
112
P
36
4 1 0
P
) L E N N A H C D L O ( R E V I R Y T I N I R T K R O F M L E
ALTERNATIVE 4B100 YR FLOOD ELEV. 4 1 FLOODWAY BOTTOM
400
400
P P
0 0 4
P
0 42
4 1 0
2
4 1 0
P P
S" GASU E ) CT P E W Y. ROJ P " NS F MMO E ST S E ( 5 NT 3 I ME VE RO MP I RS E H T BY O
TRI NIT CHAN Y NEL)
S H 1 8 3
P
P P
42 41 0 0
410
2L A N E
4 2 0
0 40
4 1 0 42
42 0 4 1 0
0 0 4
D N U O R G Y A L P
ELM
4 0 0
L A N E
L A N E
0 0 4
2.0%
RI VE R
0 41 0 2 4 0 1 4
D A O R L I A R C I F I C A P P
0 0 4
FORK
(OLD
N O I N U P
4 1 0
J O H N W. 2L C A A R N P E E N T E RF WY .
4 2 0
410
P
P P P P P P
0 0 0 4 9 0 3 9 0 3 0 4 0 1 4
410
4 2 0
41 0
0 2 4 0 42 0 1 4 0 0 4 0 0 4
S ON M M E T S
E 5 3 I
W F
. Y
0 40
32
P
20 EXISTING LEVEE
0 0 4
BASE LINE
SPLIT PARKWAY-RIVERSIDE MODIFIED (NORTH)

1. FLOOD ELEVATIONS, LEVEE HEIGHTS AND SLOPES VARY. THOSE USED IN THIS SECTION ARE TYPICAL. 2. MODIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING LEVEES TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS. RIVER SIDE OF LEVEE @ EXISTING BRIDGE
0 0 4
0 9 3
0 9 3
120 NOTES:
120
4 1 0
0 2 4 0 41
P
P P P P P P
0 2 4 0 1 4
500
1000
1700
2500
3000
P P
P P P P P P P P
0 1 4
0 2 4 0 1 4
1 0 0 0
P P
SCALE IN FEET
P P P
P P
1. FLOOD ELEVATIONS, LEVEE HEIGHTS AND SLOPES VARY. TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 4B 1. FLOOD ELEVATIONS, LEVEE HEIGHTS AND SLOPES VARY. THOSE USED IN THIS SECTION ARE TYPICAL. TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 4 THOSE USED IN THIS SECTION ARE TYPICAL. 2. MODIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING LEVEES HAMPTON - INWOOD RD TO CONTINENTAL RIVER SIDE OF LEVEEE TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS. 2. MODIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING LEVEES TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS.
P
TYPICAL SECTIONS
RD
TYPICAL SECTIONS .
G N I V R I D V L B
P P P
ALONG FLOODWAY
P P C I F I C A P P N O I N U
D A O R L I A R
P
P P P P P P P
P P P
P
P P
D A O R L I A R C I F I C A P
N O I N U P P
P P P P
410
P P P P
NW EA L T H
0 0 4
P
0 1 4
1 L A N E
P P
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
0 40 0 9 3
P
P P
0 9 3
0 0 4
P P
P P
P P
C H A N N E L )
P P
( O L D
0 1 4 0 2 4
AD O R L I A R C I F I C A P N O I N U P P
410
0 1 4
P P
1 L A N E
P P P P
P
P P P P P P P P P
400
390
390
400
400

P P P P P P P
P P
TRI NIT Y
0 42 0 41
410
TRAIL
410
TRAIL
FORK
0 1 4 0 2 4
420
3 1 I D E
40 0
0 0 4
P P
L I A R T
D N O P R E C C O S
D L E I F
P P
CO NT I NE NT AL
81 21 10 68 48 AUX.
2.0%
81 13 10 13 10 68 48
2.0%
0 41
10 4
CO M
410
0 40
0 39
400 0 39
21 10
G N I V R I
P P P P P
TRAIL
L A N E
ND PO
0 41 0 4 1 42 1 0 D 3 E 4 0
400
T R A I L
P P
.5
400
E W
T R A I L
400
. D V L B
TRAIL
4 0 0
TRAIL
4 0 0
4 0 0
1 5 0
9 1 D E
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
P P
0 0 4
40 0
0 0 4 0 0 4
MO
PROPOSED R.O.W.
PROPOSED R.O.W.
WEST
P P
0 3 4 0 3 4
0 2 4 0 1 4
TRAIL
430 430 420
420
E
410
1 1 1 D E
P P
1 430 D
2 1
410
L I A R T
430 420
410
L I A R T
E N A L 1
430 430
420
420
1 L A N E
410
420
430 430
410
420
P P P
AV E.
3
0 0 4
0 0 4
ND PO
RI VER
400
400

TRAIL
400
NORTHBOUND MAIN LANES

400
3
420
P
P
P P
R I V E R NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY F R O N T B L V D .

P
P P
410
420
0 1 4
1 2 9
1 1 0 0
0 0 4
L I A R T
410
410
3L A N E 1
P P P P
0 40
P
P P P
AUX.
WE
5 . 4 9 3
0 5 0 1
L I A R T
TR AI L
P
P
N O I N U
0 40 0 39
P
L I A R T
4 0 0
410
TRAIL
4 0 0
0 0 4 400
400
8 1 D E
P P P
D N O P
L I A R T
0 0 4
4 0 0
P P P P
400
HEIGHT VARIES
HEIGHT VARIES
L I A R T
P
P P P AD LRO RAI P
L I A R T
L I A R T
4 0 0
U P P E R
40 0
S W 0 . 5 9 3
T R I N I T Y
R I V E R
0 0 4 0 9 3
0 0 4
R E V I R Y T I N I R T L I A R T L I A R T
0 0 4
4 0 0
4 0 0
0 39
C IFI PAC
41 0
0 40 0 41
TRAIL
L A N E
4 0 0
4 1 0
0 0 4
4 1 0 4 2 0
400
400
P
P
ON UNI
400
41 0
0 42 0 3 4
40 0
P P
A 5 1 1 D E 0 43 0 42 0 1 4
0 0 4
0 0 4
4 2 0
40 0
0 0 4
40 0
400
400 410
T R A I L
0 40
P P
40 0
0 0 4
400
0 40
4 0 0
4 0 0
390

P P P P P
TRAIL
4 0 0
0 40
4 0 0
0 40
L I A R T
0 9 3
0 9 3 0 0 4 0 41 20 4 0 3 4
3
400
0 1 4 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 2 4
L I A R T
L I A R T

L I A R T
TRAIL
TRAI L
400
400
D N O P
E W
0 5 1 1
TRAIL
L I A R T
2 7. 9 3 D N O P E W 9 . 7 9 3 E W 4 . 6 9 D 3 N O P
D N O P
4 0 0
TRAIL
4 0 0
TRAIL
0 1 4
T R A I L
0 0 1 1
4 0 0
TRAIL
410
TRAIL
410
420
8 W D
420
PROPOSED R.O.W.
P
30 4 0 42 0 41
410 420
430 430
420 410
1 LANE
410
400
4 1 9
430 430 420
7 W D
E N A L 1
0 1 4
420
420
4 1 0 4 2 0
420
430
430
6 W D
E W 4 7. 9 3
4 0 0
0 40
420
4 2 0
D N O P E W 4 . 97 3
0 3 4
9 W D
TRAIL
410
P
430
400
390
400
390 400 410
410 0 0 4
0 2 4
410
0 40
13 10
0 40
395
400
0 1 4 0 42 0
41 0
0 1 W D
400
400
410
410
2.0%
43
AUX.
410
2 1 F S R T
0 43 0 2 4 0 1 4
41 0
0 40
420
0 40
410
0 1 4
4 1 0
L I A R T
0 0 4
0 40 0 1 4
0 41
P E W
9 . 97 3 P
0 41
0 41
0 1 4
410
E 5 W . 7 9 3
0 41
4 2 0
HEIGHT VARIES
6 E . W 1 0 4
0 41
4 2 0
0 40
0 40
L I A R T D L E I F
0 0 4
P
C I T E L H T A
P P
0 41
410
0 0 4
. D V L B
P P P P P P
410
4 1 0
0 3 4
P P
0 1 4
C O
4 W D
0 41
4 1 0
T R U O C L D L N A U B O T E GR K Y S A A L B P
4 2 0 4 1 0
E N A L 1
0 1 4 20 4 0 3 4 0 43 0 2 4
D N U O R G Y A L P
L L A B T E K S A B
L I A R T
N O I T A T S P
D L E I F
L L A B
P M U P
0 41
0 0 4
0 1 4
E N A L 1
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
0 1 F S R T
E R C E
0 40
L A N E
410
390 390
48
10
0 1 4
0 40 0
39
0 39
E N A L
L I A R T
0 1 4
P
P P P
T R U O C
E 1 L A N E
41 0 42 0
4 0 0
D N O P
40 0
42 0
4 0 0
L L A B
L I A R T

4 1 0
0 1 4
Y T I N I R T
D L E I F C TI E L H T A
L L A B T E K S A B
D L E I F
L L A B T E K S A B
P A C I F I C
0 0 4
Y T I N I R T
R E V I R
L I A R T
0 0 4
0 0 4 10 4
0 0 4
P
D N U O GR Y A L P P
4 1 4 0 4 20 3 4 0 4 30 4 20 1 4 0 0 0
5 E . W 4 9 3
D N U O GR Y A L P
410
L L A B T E K S A B
U N I O
TYPICAL SECTIONS
ND U O GR Y A L P P P P D N U O GR Y A L P P P
PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY R (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) Y E R L A Y T T K R R Y N H PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL R R E T A A R A M P C T O E N L N RETAINING PROPOSED WALL E E ON M T E P L E M DIAPHRAGM WALL A H
0 1 4
0 41
P D N U O GR Y A L P P
0 41
41 0
D L E I F
R A I L R O
R E V I R
0 41 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 2 4 0 1 4
P P
410
0 41
0 1 4
0 1 4
41 0
N O T E L G N I S
P P P P P
A D
0 1 4
41 0
0 41
4 1 0
T R U O C
C TI E L H T A
4 0 0
4 0 0
P P P
T R U O C
L L A B T E K S A B
C I N C I P
T R U O C
4 2 0
T R U O C
ND U O GR Y A L P
D UN O T GR R Y U A O L C P L L A B T E K S A B
D N U O R G Y A L P
D L E I F
PLAN LEGEND:
PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION
L L A B T E K S A B
L L A B
D N U O GR Y A L P
T R U O C L L A B D T N E U K O S A GR B Y A L P
P P
AD RO IL RA
41 0
L L A B
D L E I F
D N U O GR Y A L P
P S I N N T E R T U O C P P
4 1 0
T R U O C
4 1 0
P
0 2 4
0 2 4 10 4
P
4 1 0
0 2 4 10 0 4 1 4
P P
P P
0 1 4
D N U O GR Y A L P P
C FI CI PA
N IO UN
41 0
L I A R T
P P
D L E I F P P C TI E L H T A
P T R U O C
0 0 4
P
0 1 4
L L A B T E K S A B
0 0 4 0 0 4
0 41 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 42 0 41 0 0 4
PROFILE LEGEND:
L) NNE CHA D (OL ER RIV TY NI TRI
4 1 0
P P
P P P
P P
P P
P P
P P
1 1 F S R T
K FOR
0 40

T WES
PARK ACCESS ROUTES:
4 1 0
4 1 0

0 41
P L L A B T E K S A B
400
400
41 0
PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL DIAPHRAGM WALL
POSSIBLE VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**) POSSIBLE BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**)
L L A B T E K S A B
L L A B T E K S A B
400
PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES 100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL
P
P
41 0
410
0 41
P P
P P P
41 0
P P
NORTHBOUND MAIN LANE PROFILE

550 500
PI STA. 1 056+ 65. 00 EL .485. 53 800. 00 V. C.
BEGIN 3C2N STA. 1000+42.91, EL = 456.00 MATCH EXIST BRIDGE END 4BN STA. 1047+16.49, EL = 462.92 OFFSET 24.50 LT BEGIN 4BNB STA. 1047+16.49, EL = 461.82 OFFSET 24.50 RT
410
PROFILE LEGEND:
PI STA. 1 086+ 50. 00 EL .428. 50 1 60. 00 V. C. PI STA. 1 096+ 50. 00 EL .428. 50 1 60. 00 V. C. PI STA. 1 1 34+ 50. 00 EL .431 . 00 27 0. 00 V. C. PI STA. 1 1 7 4+ 50. 00 EL .431 . 00 420. 00 V. C. PI STA. 1 1 54+ 50. 00 PI STA. 1 1 64+ 50. 00 EL .431 . 00 1 60. 00 V. C. PI STA. 1 1 06+ 50. 00 EL .428. 50 1 60. 00 V. C. PI STA. 1 1 44+ 50. 00 EL .431 . 00 1 60. 00 V. C. PI STA. 1 1 1 6+ 50. 00 EL .428. 50 230. 00 V. C.
WOODALL RODGERS FREEWAY BRIDGES
MATCH 4BNB, STA. 1047+16.49 MATCH 4BN, STA. 1047+16.49
PI STA. 1 003. 00 EL .456. 00 500. 00 V. C.
461 . 82
EL .431 . 00 1 60. 00 V. C.
2 %. 5 0 8 5 . % 2 +
ALT. PROFILE
100 YR FLOOD WATER LEVEL
+0.00%
450
3 . 2 5 %
3 . 2 5 %0 . 5 0 %
% 0 5 . 0 . 5 0 %+ 2
PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES SYLVAN BRIDGE
PI STA. 1 1 92. 00 EL .41 5. 00 220. 00 V. C.
CONTINENTAL BRIDGE
HAMPTON BRIDGE
2 . 5 8 % + % 0 5 . 0
0 . 5 0 % % 0 5 . 0 +
0 %. 0 5 5 0 . % 0 +
0 . 5 0 % %0 5 . 0 +
0 %0 . 9 5 . 0 4 + % % 0 2 . 9 4 2 . %+ 1
0 % . 5 0 0 5 . %+ 0
% 0 0 . 5 5 . 0 0 %+
0 . % 5 0 0 5 %+ . 0
0 %. 5 0 0 2 0 0 . 5 0 5 . %%% . %5 . 0 0 0 0 5 0 + 0 % 5 5 0 %. . 5 % . % 0 . 0 0 + + + 1 2 1 2 . % 1 + 0 0 % 0 0 . % 5 . 0 . % . 0 5 5 5 0 5 0 % 5 0 . 0 0 %+ . 5 0 %+ 0 %+ . %+ 0 5 0 . 0
2 . 1 1 % + % 0 5 . 0
0 . %8 0 3 5 . 0 % +
426. 7 5 PI STA. 1 1 01 + 50. 00 EL .426. 00 1 60. 00 V. C.
426. 7 5 PI STA. 1 091 + 50. 00 EL .426. 00 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 39+ 50. 00 EL .428. 50 1 60. 00 V. C.
426. 7 5 PI STA. 1 1 1 1 + 50. 00 EL .426. 00 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 25+ 50. 00 EL .420. 00 340. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 49+ 50. 00 EL .428. 50 1 60. 00 V. C.
400
PI STA. 1 1 59+ 50. 00 EL .428. 50 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 009. 00 EL E.436. 50 420. 00 V. C. 436. 40
PI STA. 1 1 69+ 50. 00 EL .428. 50 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 032. 00 EL .425. 00 450. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 080. 00 EL .425. 25 500. 00 V. C.
350
433. 50
432. 50
425. 50
430. 52
428. 50
426. 03
420. 93
463. 98
430. 7 2
430. 7 2
430. 7 2
445. 00
428. 7 8
428. 7 8
428. 7 8
428. 7 8
457 . 50
468. 91
449. 42
427 . 7 5
427 . 7 5
427 . 7 5
427 . 7 5
47 9. 65
47 6. 7 5
425. 1 9
PI STA. 1 1 84. 00 EL .41 1 . 00 420. 00 V. C.
1000
1005
1010
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
1060
1065
1070
1075
1080
1085
1090
1095
1100
1105
1110
1115
1120
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
1160
1165
1170
1175
1180
1185
1190
1195
41 2. 51
438. 1 6
431 . 00
429. 1 5
451 . 07
427 . 1 8
41 4. 00
41 9. 42
41 1 . 88
1200
SOUTHBOUND MAIN LANE PROFILE

550
PI STA. 1 003. 00 EL .456. 00 500. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 044+ 50. 00 EL .461 . 83 450. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 07 3. 00 EL .444. 43 220. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 088. 00 EL .428. 93 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 28. 00 EL .428. 93 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 098. 00 EL .428. 93 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 38. 00 EL .428. 93 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 08. 00 EL .428. 93 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 48. 00 EL .428. 93 200. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 1 8. 00 EL .428. 93 1 60. 00 V. C.
500
PI STA. 1 1 58. 00 EL .428. 93 200. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 68. 00 EL .428. 93 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 82+ 50. 00 EL .431 . 1 8 37 0. 00 V. C.
456. 00
100 YR FLOOD
450
428. 1 5
+0.00% 3 . 2 5 %
0 . 6 1 % %2 1 . 2 +
WATER LEVEL
HAMPTON BRIDGE
SYLVAN BRIDGE
WOODALL RODGERS FREEWAY BRIDGES CONTINENTAL BRIDGE
3 . 2 5 % 0 . 5 0 %
0 . 6 1 %2 . 0 0 %
% 2 1 . 0 . 5 2 0 %+
0 . 5 0 0 . 5 % 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 % . . . 5 0 7 5 0 %%%%%%. %5 % 0 %0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 % 0 . % %5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 . . . . . . 5 % % 5 . . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 + + + + + + 0 % + + 7 . 0 + 2 . 0 0 0 % 0 0 . % % 5 0 0 % . . 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 . % 0 . % 0 % . 5 0 %+ 5 5 0 0 5 0 %+ . % . 0 5 0 0 . 0 . . 0 . 5 %+ %+ 0 5 . % 7 0 0 % 0 5 5 5 5 %+ . 0 . 0 . %+ 0 0 5 0 5 . 0 5 0 %+ 0 %+ 5 % + . 0 %+ 7 0 . 0
% 0 1 5 . . 0 + 8 1 %
PI STA. 1 082+ 20. 00 EL .426. 03 350. 00 V. C.
400
1 . 8 1 %+ % 0 5 . 0
350
433. 51
452. 37
452. 27
428. 51
430. 43
455. 42
449. 32
436. 40
446. 26
460. 59
458. 47
426. 68
429. 93
426. 66
427 . 43
427 . 93
427 . 43
427 . 93
427 . 43
427 . 93
427 . 43
427 . 93
427 . 43
427 . 93
427 . 43
427 . 93
427 . 43
427 . 43
427 . 93
427 . 43
427 . 93
427 . 43
440. 43
449. 42
431 . 01
431 . 04
PI STA. 1 1 95+ 50. 00 EL .407 . 68 37 0. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 009. 00 EL .436. 51 420. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 028. 00 EL .426. 7 9 400. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 093. 00 EL .426. 43 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 23. 00 EL .426. 43 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 03. 00 EL .426. 43 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 1 3. 00 EL .426. 43 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 33. 00 EL .426. 43 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 43. 00 EL .426. 43 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 53. 00 EL .425. 1 8 240. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 63. 00 EL .426. 43 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 1 7 3. 00 EL .426. 43 1 60. 00 V. C.
1000
1005
1010
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
1060
1065
1070
1075
1080
1085
1090
1095
1100
1105
1110
1115
1120
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
1160
1165
1170
1175
1180
1185
1190
1195
409. 1 6
441 . 65
41 7 . 63
1200
9/26/2013
2:44:14 PM
I:\17000s\17826\CADD\V7 to V8 UPGRADE\826-LSS-PP4B-N.dgn
S T .
E W 7 95. 3
68
21
0 0 4
E N A L 1
4 1 0
0 1 4 0 0 4
400 0 1 4
P P
410
0 40
4 1 0 4 2 0
0 1 4 0 1 4
P
4 2 0
0 0 4
1 3 2 L 0 A 0 N
4 0 0
102
Y T I N I R T
40 0
400
E W 5 . 7 9 3
E W 5 . 7 9 D3 N O P
E W
.6
40 0
R E V I R
. R A D D A N A C
400
390
400 4 1 0
40 0
5 W D
4 0 0
D N O P
4 0 0
D N U O B H T U O S S E N A N L I A M
4 0 0
TR A IL
1 L A N E
D N O E P W 9 9. 9 3
7 1 D E
3L A N E
E W
2 7. 9 3
4 0 0
D N O P
1 2 0 0
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
UPRR BRIDGE
0 . 8 3 %
% 0 5 . 0 +
2-157
M AT CH L I NE
40 0
400
40 0
P
0 40
P
P
43 0 2 4 0 1 4
E N A L 1
400
0 0 4
F F I CL WY
0 0 4
T R A I L
0 40
E N A L
E N A L 1
D A O R L I A R
E N A 3L
4 0 0
4 0 0
4 0 0
P
4 0 0
400
4 0 0
T R A I L
4 1 0 4 2 0
E W
9 . 7 9 3
0 0 4
4 0 0
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
C I F I C A P
0 0 4
E N A L 1
ON T MP HA
N VA YL \S
L AI TR
O NW \I
E. AV
10 50
OD . RD
0 40
0 1 4
M O RD BI NG I CK N L W / TM ES O D AN L RE . RD
EY L CK BE
0 1 4
E. AV
HAMPTON - INWOOD RD TO DART RAIL
PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES 100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL SPF WATER LEVEL EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING
TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 4
RIVER SIDE OF LEVEE @ EXISTING BRIDGE
P
PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
1. ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.
U S
1 7 5
( S M
4 1 0
0 3 4 P
WEST END
P P
P P P
DIAPHRAGM WALL
PROPOSED R.O.W.
P
WR I G H T )
VARIES
P
PROP. R.O.W. VARIES VARIES 36 0-10 VARIES EXISTING CROSS STREET BRIDGE
0 500 1000 1700 2500 3000
C.L. EXISTING LEVEE

4 3 0
P P
0 0 4
112
P
12
20 4 16
VARIES
20 DRAINAGE SWALE
0-10
NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY AL T E RNAT I VE 4 - SP L I T P ARKW AY - RI VE RSI DE
0 0 4
P P
PROFILE LEGEND:
STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD ELEV. +3
P K R A P P
DRAFT DOCUMENT SCALE IN FEET

3 MIN. 1 TOE OF PROPOSED EMBANKMENT 100 YR FLOOD ELEV.
P P
P K R A P
P
? ?
0 0 0 4 40
?
0 41
? ?
4 3 0
10
0 3 4
K R A P
3 32 PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES 1 3.5

4 4 0
3.5 8 8 1 4 1
16.5 MIN.
K R A P
TYPICAL SECTIONS
21
P P
?
0 42
0 1 0 4 2 4
P
420
4 2 0
P
P
?
420 410
43 0
0 0 4
P P P D N U O R G AY L P P
FLOODWAY BOTTOM FLOOD SEPARATION WALL BASE LINE
0 43
? ?
? ?
I 3 0
4 3 0
S C A L E :1 " =5 0 0
? ?
4 1 0
? ?
P
? ?
0 2 4
0 2 4 10 4
P P
P
?
D UN O R YG A L P
? ?
P
? ?
M AT CH L I NE
0 42
120
?
120
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?
41 0 420
0 1 4
? ? ?
D N U O R G Y A L P
? ?
? ?
P
? ? ? ? ?
P
?
? ? ?
? ?
4 2 0
P
?
P
? ?
? ?
P
?
P
?
NOTES:
4 4 0
D L E I F P
P
? ? ?
? ? ?
? ?
0 1 4 0 42
P
? ?
4 2 0
? ?
? ?
? ? ? ?
J R. BL VD.
P
P
C / U
? ?
? ?
400 410
400 41 0
0 1 4
? ? ?
P
P
D N U O R YG A L P
1 7 5
410
4 4 0
P P P P P
P P
?
? ? ? ? ?
? ?
? ?
NG KI
P
? ?
? ?
? ?
P
?
? ?
P P
? ?
420
4 2 0
4 2 0
P
S T
P
P
? ?
? ?
? ?
P
?
? ?
4 1 0
4 2 0
4 2 0
P
?
D UN O R G Y A L P
?
H A W
1 2 0 0
42
410
P
41 0 0
. D V L B
?
U S
4 1 0
P P
?
L A MA R
4 2 0
4 2 0
?
P P
?
P
? ? ? ? ?
N )
1 L A N E
40 0
4 2 0
0 1 4
4 5
LEW STERRETT
0 3 4
P
? ?
4 1 0 40 0
C / U
400
7 1 D E
JUSTICE CENTER
" P R O J E C TP " H E O G R A S S E U S S H " O C A EP A N N D Y R O O N J E I MP MI C T X R " MA O V E S D ME T E E V R N E T L SU O P ME N D N E TB R YT x D O T

P P P P P P P P P P
P
? ? ? ?
? ?
0 42 0 3 4
? ?
410
42 41 0 0
1. FLOOD ELEVATIONS, LEVEE HEIGHTS AND SLOPES VARY. THOSE USED IN THIS SECTION ARE TYPICAL. 2. MODIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING LEVEES TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS.
430

P
C I T E L H T A
4 4 0
4 3 0
? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ?
P
? ? ?
4 4 0
?
U S
?
P
?
? ?
? ?
41 0
P P P P
P
? ?
CONTINENTAL RD TO DART RAIL RIVER SIDE OF LEVEE @ EXISTING BRIDGE

P
420
430
430
P P
ND U O R G Y A L P P
4 30
? ?
4 3 0
0 3 4
J U L I U S
P
?
4 4 0
1 7 5
? ?
0 3 4 0 2 4
? ? ? ?
4 4 0
I 4 5
?
? ?
( S M
4 3 0
? ? ? ? ?
P
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
P
? ?
? ?
4 3 0
P
P
LL A B ET K S T A R B U O C
P P
?
S C H E P P S
P P
? ? ? ?
WR I G H T )
? ? ? ? ? ?
? ?
? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
L O O CH S
?
H G I H
? ? ? ? ?
? ?
N O S MP O TH
PROPOSED R.O.W.
PROPOSED R.O.W.
0 43
P
?
78
?
78 56 56 10 10 36
2.0%
P P
21 10
21 10
P
? ? ? ?
??
4 1 0
0 1 4
R HE UT L
41 0
P P
4 10
N O I N U E R
4 1 0
P P
P
? ? ? ? ?
P
A E R A
420
C / U
0 1 4
?
? ?
4 1 0
P
4 3 0
P
?
P P
4 1 0
4 1 0
?
4 30
410
N O I T A T S B U S
4 3 0
Y .
P
P
? ? ?
? ?
P
? ? ? ?
( C F
4 1 0 4 0 0
? ?
4 4 0
F W
P
? ? ? ? ?
36
2.0%
4 2 0
P
P
? ?
? ?
P
? ? ?
P
?
0 1 4
0 2 4
4 0 0
P
?
? ?
4 3 0
4 1 0
P
? ?
? ?
41 0
P
?
P
?
K R A P
40 0
S T .
410
400
0 0 4 0 1 4
N I T M AR
E R C E
4 0 0
4 0 0
0 0 4 400
0 1 4 0 0 4 0 9 3
410
420
6 1 D E
3 9 0
REUNION OVERLOOK PLATFORM

P P P P P
ON I N U E R
0 40
D UN O R YG A L P
P
? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?
4 3 0 4 2 0
? ?
420
P
P
?
0 1 4
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
4 0 40 0 0
0 0 4 0 1 4
?
? ?
0 7. 0 4
? ? ?
410
? ? ? ? ?
0 1 4
41 0
0 1 4 0 0 4
400
410
410
4 9
410 410
410 410
? ? ?
3
? ? ? ?
HEIGHT VARIES
P P P
? ?
4 1 0
P
?
? ? ?
P
?
4 0 0
0 9 3
0 41 0 40
0 0 4
410
?
0 41
? ?
4 1 0
L A MA RS T .
4 1 0
P
P
?
P
?
0 1 4
P
?
? ? ?
P P
P
? ?
? ? ?
410
400
T RA I L
3 9 0
430 420 410
0 0 4
P
P
P P
410
4 2 4 0 1 4 0 0 0
P
?
4 0 0
ON I T A T S B U S
DART
39 0
3 9 0
410
3 9 0
41 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
39 0
4 1 0
4 4 10 0 4 0 0 0
E N A 3L
?
1 L A N E
?

?
P
?
P
P
4 1 0
? ?
ELEVATED COMBINED ROADWAY
MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. TO I.H. 45 PROPOSED R.O.W. 80 C.L. ROADWAY 23 10 36 10 10 36 10 23 PROPOSED R.O.W. 80
? ? ? ? ? ?
S W
C O
400
390
400
UP PE R
40 0
TR IN IT Y RI VE R
420 410
4 0 0
400
4 2 0
?
E W
390 41 0
420
410 400
410
410
400
410 420
400
? ? ? ?
D N O P
3 9 0
395
4 1 0 4 2 0
390
40 0
420
410
400
4 2 0 4 1 0
400
4 1 D E
4 0 0 4 1 0
4 2 0
400
RI VE R
5 1 D E
4 2 0
420
S W
S W
4 0 0
390
0 9 3
1 . 5 9 3
2 . 95 3
4 0 0 4 0 0
E W 2 . 2 9 3
T R A I L
4 0 0
4 1 0
4 0 0
3 .
4 0 0
TR I N IT Y
S W 3 . 5 9 3
4 0 0
3 LANE
S W 4 . 5 9 3
P P
400
S W
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 2 0
S W
0 . 0 8 3
S W
4 . 3 8 3
0 5. 9 3
4 2 0
4 0 0
?
4 1 0 4 0 0
0 9 3
0 9 3 0 0 4 0 41 0 2 4 20 4 0 1 4
410
400
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 0 0
0 3 I
400
E W
4 0 0
P
?
400
390
390
40 0
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
400 0 1 4
4 0 0
410
S W
9 . 5 9 3
0 0 4
P P
1 1 D E
4 1 0 4 0 0
0 0 4
4 0 0
4 0 0
0 0 4
E N A L 1
0 0 4
400
4 1 0 4 2 0
E N A L 1
4 0 0
? ?
L I A R T
P P P
4 1 0
40 0
390
400
4 0 0 3 9 0
40 0
40 0
0 9 3
390
3 9 0
410 400
N O I T A T S B U S
400
? ? ?
3
E W
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
2L A N E
40 0
P P
4 0 0
1250
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
3 9 0
0 5 3 1
400
1 3 5 0
4 0 0
S W
8 4. 9 3
E N A L 1
?
E N A 2L
4 0 0
E N A L 1
4 0 0
D N O P D N O P E 0 W . 5 9 3
400
400
4 0 0
4 2 0
4 0 0
WE .7 5 9 3
40 0
D N O P
LL A B
0 41
D N O P
8 .
395
4 4 20 4 10 0 0
3
9 F S R T
0 . 80 3
410
3 9 0
0 0 4
0 9 3
0 1 4
3 9 0
S W
0 . 80 3
E N A L 1
E N A 3L
D EL I F
1 L A N E
?
4 0 0
1 4 0 0
4 0 0 4 0 0
E N A L 1
P
?
4 1 0
2
?
D N O P D N O P 1 . 4 9 3
0 40
4 0 0
WE 395.0
4 1 0
4 0 0
4 1 0
L I A R T
RSONE F F E J DGE AL BRI M ORI ME RS) HE BY OT (
. RSON ST E F F E J
400
389.3 WE
400
4 0 0
40 0
4 0 0
D N O P
WE 392.9
D N O P
400
0 40 0 0 4
4 0 0 4 1 4 0 2 0
4 2 4 0 1 0 4 0 0
0 9 3
3 9 0
40 0
3L A N E
390
S W 0 . 80 3
0 2 4 0 41
392.6
4 0 0
3 I D E
E N A L 1
0 2 4
400
0 0 4 0 1 4
E N A L 1
0 0 4
D N O P
E W
0 0 4
E W 3 . D 94 N 3 O P
0 40
0 . 4 9 3
4 0 0
WE
D N O P
4 0 0
4 0 0
D N O P E W
4 . 95 3
2.0%
ND PO E W
4 . 5 9 3
2.0%
0 9 3
0 0 4
4 0 0
WE
400
HOUST ON ST .
I H3 5 N. B.
3 9 0
S W
0 . 0 8 3
WE 391.1
389.0
B. 5 S. 3 HI
3 9 4 0 0 0
400
0 0 4
3 9 0
4 0 0
3 W D P
4 0 0
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 2 0
0 0 4
0 40
390
4 0 0
0 9 3
3 9 0
0 9 3
0 0 4
D N O P
T RA IL
D N O P E W 5 3. 9 3
D N O P E W
4 1 0 4 0 0
4 0 0

5 . 3 9 3
D N O P
400
4 2 0
4 1 0 4 0 0
0 9 3
400
0 0 4
S W
400
390
9 4. 9 3
S W 3 3. 9 3
4 1 0
0 0 4
40 0
4 0 0
0 9 3
S W
42 0 4 1 0
3 9 0
0 0 4
S W
6 . 3 9 3
8 . 2 9 3
390
390 4 0 0
0 40
40 0
0 2 4 0 1 4
. H ST NT CORI
4 0 0
?
S W
7 . 6 9 3
390
400
TRINITY RIVER
40 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
0 0 4
0 0 4
4 0 0
S W
400
400
5 4. 9 3
4 E . D W N 95 O 3 P
0 0 4
D N O P E W
2
0 9 3
400
3 . 3 9 3
4 0 0
P
2 W D
K R A P F F I L C K A O
1 L A N E
4 1 0 4 2 0
400
S W
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 1 0
4 0 0
1 W D
420
4 2 0
0 2 4
4 1 0 4 2 0
S W 2 . 3 9 3 S W 8 . 2 9 3
3 9 0 39 0
410
4 . 3 9 3
S W 2 . 3 9 3
400
3
4 0 0
S W
39 0
5 . 93 3
0 0 4
0 9 3 0 0 4
410 420
420 410
4 1 0
400
?
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 0 0
4 0 0
0 9 3
400
?
L I A R T
3 9 0 4 0 0
P P
400
400
390
3 9 0
390
390
E W D N O P
2.0%
D N O P E W
T R AI L
5 . 1 9 3
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
3 . 3 9 3
390 400 410
3 9 0 400 410
?
S W S W 0 . 4 9 3
3 . 93 3 S W 7 . 2 9 3
400
0 1 4
0 9 3
?
400
400
?
E W
0 0 4
S W 8 . 5 9 3
S W
420
8 2. 9 3
4 1 0
4 1 0
? ?
9 . 94 3 D N O P D N O P E W 9 . 4 9 3
P ON I T A T S B U S
?
S W
7 5. 9 3
S W
P P
42 0
4 2 0
P
C / U
A E R A
P
?
S W
4 2 0
400
? ?
P P
S W
4 1 0
4 2 0
410
P
4 1 0
41 0
?
3 . 92 3
4 1 0
1 3. 9 3
4 0 0
4 0 0
410
0 0 4 0 0 4
0 0 4
P
?
TRAI L
41 0
4 1 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
0 41
4 0 0
?
400
400
40 0
1 . 3 9 3
4 0 0
?
D N O P
400
E W
7 . 91 3
AT-GRADE WITH SERVICE ROADS LAMAR BLVD. TO U.S. 175
430
400
0 2 4 0 3 4 0 44 0 5 4
?
4 1 0
410
4 3 0
0 1 4 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 4 4
P
0 3 4
4 1 0
S I N N E T
T R U O C
4 2 0 4 1 0
?
4 0 0
?
41 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
400
D N O P
E W 8 . 2 9 3
390
P
?
CEDA R
FF CLI
0 5 4
OAK
0 4 4
0 2 4
4 6 0
? ?
4 2 0
K R A P
4 2 0 4 1 0
P
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 0 0
RK PA
RE MOO
?
TRAIL
0 3 4
400 410 420
4 4 0
K PAR
460
420
430
A E R A
4 0 0
41 0
C / U
4 1 0 4 2 0
CRE EK
440
4 3 0
ND U O R G Y A L P
4 0 0
?
0 1 4
D N O P
?
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 1 0
T R A I L
D N O P
TYPICAL SECTIONS
4 0 0
0 0 4
7 61
T R A I L
? ?
42 0
?
4 0 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 4 0
4 3 0
0 1 4
41 0
7 9
D N O P
E W
D N O P E W 7 . 6 9 3
400
2 . 06 4
END 4BNB STA. 1342+24.37, EL = 426.44 MATCH 4BS, STA. 1342+24.37
BEGIN 4BS STA. 1342+24.37, EL = 426.67 MATCH 4BNB, STA. 1342+24.37 MATCH 4BSB, STA. 1360+21.14 OFFSET 11.50 RT OFFSET 11.50 LT &
END 3C2S STA. 1400.00, EL = 403.30 MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT
550
PI STA. 1 264+ 50. 00
PI STA. 1 320+ 25. 00 EL .41 8. 46 300. 00 V. C.
REUNION OVERLOOK NORTHBOUND ML
PI STA. 1 27 6. 00 EL .41 7 . 58 220. 00 V. C.
WATER LEVEL
PI STA. 1 389. 00 EL .436. 30 400. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 297 . 00 EL .434. 27 600. 00 V. C.
100 YR FLOOD
EL .408. 08 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 354. 00 EL .457 . 30 550. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 37 0. 00 EL .457 . 80 320. 00 V. C.
OFFSET 11.50 RT
PI STA. 1 428+ 50. 00 EL .450. 80 1 , 1 00. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 225. 00 EL .41 7 . 83 47 0. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 236. 00 EL .41 5. 33 260. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 333. 00 EL .421 . 58 230. 00 V. C.
500
PI STA. 1 21 5. 00 EL .41 2. 83 1 7 0. 00 V. C.
HOUSTON BRIDGE JEFFERSON BRIDGE
PI STA. 1 405. 00 EL .41 5. 30 320. 00 V. C.
UPRR BRIDGE
COMMERCE STREET BRIDGE
I-30 BRIDGE
SB I-35E OVERPASS
NB I-35E OVERPASS
CORINTH BRIDGE
DART BRIDGE
0 . 5 0 % %7 9 . 2 +
1 % . 0 5 5 . 0 + 0 %
0 . 5 % 0 0 %+ 5 . 0
I-45 BRIDGE
2 %. 4 8 3 . 8 1 + %
%0 8 . 5 5 . 0 0 % +
1 . 5 %8 0 % 5 . 1 + 1 . 5 8 % + % 0 5 . 0
%0 5 . 1 0 . + 1 5 % % 0 0 . 5 5 . 0 0 % +
% 0 5 . 0 %+ 5 8 . 1 +
% 8 3 . 1 %+ 0 5 . 0 +
2 . 4 8 % 1 % + 3 . 1
0 . 5 %6 1 % 3 . 1 +
PI STA. 1 228+ 85. 00 EL .41 1 . 7 5 300. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 309+ 20. 00 EL .403. 99 520. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 361 + 50. 00 EL .453. 55 1 50. 00 V. C.
0 . 8 3 % 8 % + 5 . 0
% 0 0 5 . 5 . 0 1 %+
PI STA. 1 269+ 50. 00 EL .405. 58 350. 00 V. C.
1 . 1 5 % + % 0 5 . 0
% 5 8 0 . . 5 1 0 %+
% 3 5 . 0 % + 0 0 . 2 + % 0 0 0 . 5 . 6 %+ 2
% 7 9 . 2 %+ 3 5 . 0 +
1 . 5 0 %0 . 5 0 %
0 . 5 0 %3 . 0 0 %
4 %. 0 0 0 0 . % 3 +
U.S. 75
428. 95
450
BRIDGE
0 . 5 0 % %0 5 . 1 +
3 . 0 0 % 0 %+ 5 . 1
% 0 0 . 0 . 5 3 0 %+
LAMAR
4 . 0 0 %
STREET
% 1 5 . 1 +
400
PI STA. 1 382. 00 EL .439. 80 1 50. 00 V. C.
MARTIN LUTHER
PI STA. 1 220. 00 EL .41 0. 33 320. 00 V. C. 41 1 . 1 3
PI STA. 1 203. 00 EL .405. 88 200. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 329. 00 EL .41 3. 58 350. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 344. 00 EL .427 . 60 350. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 249. 00 EL .400. 33 260. 00 V. C.
PACIFIC RAILROAD
PACIFIC RAILROAD
EXISTING GROUND
PI STA. 1 41 5. 00 EL .41 0. 30 500. 00 V. C. 41 2. 49
PI STA. 1 290. 00 EL .424. 58 1 30. 00 V. C.
KING BRIDGE
PI STA. 1 440. 00 EL .404. 80 7 50. 00 V. C.
UNION
PI STA. 1 399. 00 EL .406. 30 650. 00 V. C.
SOUTHERN
350
1200
1205
1210
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1280
1285
1290
1295
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
1335
1340
1345
1350
1500
1505
1510
1515
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
1560
1565
1570
1575
1580
1585
1590
1595
1600
1605
1610
END 4BNB STA. 1342+24.37, EL = 426.44 MATCH 4BS, STA. 1342+24.37 OFFSET 11.50 RT
BEGIN 4BS STA. 1342+24.37, EL = 426.67 OFFSET 11.50 LT & MATCH 4BSB, STA. 1360.15 OFFSET 11.50 RT
550
PI STA. 1 297 + 50. 00 EL .439. 93 380. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 307 + 1 6. 00
EL .457 . 80 320. 00 V. C.
SOUTHBOUND ML
PI STA. 1 31 4+ 50. 00 EL .441 . 1 0 380. 00 V. C.
REUNION OVERLOOK
PI STA. 1 338+ 35. 00 EL .41 8. 46 300. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 351 + 1 0. 00 EL .421 . 58 230. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 389. 00 EL .436. 30 400. 00 V. C.
END 3C2S STA. 1400.00, EL = 403.30
PI STA. 1 202+ 50. 00 EL .41 1 . 1 8 1 80. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 27 8+ 40. 00 EL .409. 23 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 222. 00 EL .41 5. 60 200. 00 V. C.
EL .444. 7 6 1 60. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 428+ 50. 00 EL .450. 80 1 , 1 00. 00 V. C.
MATCH 4BNB, STA. 1342+24.37
PI STA. 1 241 + 40. 00 EL .41 4. 38 1 80. 00 V. C.
MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT
500
WOODALL RODGERS FREEWAY BRIDGES
JEFFERSON 100 YR FLOOD WATER LEVEL HOUSTON BRIDGE BRIDGE
SB I-35E OVERPASS NB I-35E OVERPASS
COMMERCE STREET BRIDGE UPRR BRIDGE
DART BRIDGE
426. 44
I-30 BRIDGE
% 0 5 . 0 %+ 0 0 . 3 +
0 %. 5 0 0 5 . % 0 +
CORINTH BRIDGE
0 . 5 0 % %7 9 . 2 +
%1 0 5 . . 5 0 + 0 % 0 . 5 % 0 0 % + 5 . 0
I-45 BRIDGE
0 . 5 0 %3 . 0 0 %
% 0 0 . 3 +
4 . 0 0 %
U.S. 75 BRIDGE
450
1 . 5 0 % 0 . 5 0 %
0 . 5 0 % 3 . 0 0 %
0 %. 0 6 5 . 7 0 % + 0 % . 6 9 7 7 %+ . 0
0 . 5 %0 9 % 7 . 0 +
% 0 5 . 5 6 0 . % + 0
0 . 5 0 % %5 6 . 0 + 0 . 5 % 0 0 %+ 5 . 0
0 . 5 6 % %1 3 . 1 +
0 . 5 0 %% 0 5 . 0 +
PI STA. 1 361 + 50. 00 EL .453. 55 1 50. 00 V. C.
% 0 0 . 0 3 . 5 0 %+
PI STA. 1 347 + 1 0. 00 EL .41 3. 58 350. 00 V. C.
3 . 0 0 % 1 % + 3 . 1
% 5 5 . 0 + % 0 0 . 2 + % 0 0 . 0 . 5 6 2 %+
% 7 9 . 2 %+ 3 5 . 0 +
3 . 0 0 %
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD SOUTHERN
0 . 5 % 0 % 0 5 . 1 +
% 0 5 . 1 +
% 0 0 . 0 . 5 3 0 %+
LAMAR STREET
4 . 0 0 %
% 1 5 . 1 +
400
PI STA. 1 21 0. 00 EL .406. 1 8 230. 00 V. C. 406. 60
PI STA. 1 234. 00 EL .409. 60 1 80. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 344. 00 EL .427 . 60 350. 00 V. C.
MARTIN LUTHER KING BRIDGE
PI STA. 1 399. 00 EL .406. 30 650. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 265. 00 EL .402. 49 1 60. 00 V. C. 402. 7 0
PI STA. 1 327 . 00 EL .403. 60 600. 00 V. C.
RAILROAD
EXISTING GROUND
PI STA. 1 440. 00 EL .404. 80 7 50. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 286. 00 EL .405. 43 500. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 41 5. 00 EL .41 0. 30 500. 00 V. C.
PACIFIC
PI STA. 1 382. 00 EL .439. 80 1 50. 00 V. C.
350
425. 30
438. 30
455. 30
443. 34
432. 43
432. 99
450. 30
454. 30
423. 7 1
455. 83
438. 95
439. 03
405. 01
405. 01
442. 80
424. 80
443. 68
424. 60
426. 44
430. 7 7
409. 52
409. 55
408. 43
445. 42
439. 7 1
407 . 53
407 . 52
407 . 53
457 . 00
409. 93
409. 96
409. 97
406. 7 2
1200
1205
1210
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1280
1285
1290
1295
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
1335
1340
1345
1350
1500
1505
1510
1515
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
1560
1565
1570
1575
1580
1585
1590
1595
1600
1605
1610
9/26/2013
2:45:59 PM
I:\17000s\17826\CADD\V7 to V8 UPGRADE\826-LSS-PP4B-S.dgn
2-158
41 2. 35
41 2. 57
41 8. 30
41 0. 25
41 2. 80
41 3. 48
41 9. 38
41 2. 49
41 0. 05
41 4. 50
41 4. 03
41 4. 07
41 7 . 54
41 7 . 43
41 4. 7 5
41 0. 1 1
41 1 . 60
41 4. 1 0
441 . 1 8
FOR NTTA US E ONLYDRAFT DOCUM ENT S UBJ ECT TO CHANGENO THI RD P ARTY I S AUTHORI ZED TO RELY ON I NFORM ATI ON CONTAI NED I N THI S DOCUM ENT
425. 30
403. 33
438. 30
425. 26
455. 30
422. 08
432. 99
450. 30
422. 63
408. 37
454. 30
455. 83
439. 03
406. 22
405. 83
426. 83
442. 80
424. 80
400. 86
430. 7 7
409. 55
445. 42
439. 7 1
PI STA. 1 354. 00 EL .457 . 30 550. 00 V. C.
PI STA. 1 37 0. 00
PI STA. 1 405. 00 EL .41 5. 30 320. 00 V. C.
427 . 45
424. 7 2
457 . 00
409. 93
404. 94
409. 97
407 . 04
407 . 80
407 . 03
41 2. 37
41 2. 35
41 8. 30
41 2. 80
41 2. 60
41 5. 81
41 9. 58
41 4. 50
41 6. 02
41 4. 80
41 5. 7 3
41 5. 7 9
41 4. 41
41 9. 90
41 0. 7 1
41 7 . 64
431 . 1 8
41 1 . 58
N O R T H
0 0 4
D N O P E W
D N O P E W 6 2. 9 3
9 3. 9 3
E W 8 . 3 9 3
D N O P
T E X A S
4 0 0 3 9 0
1L A
0 0 3 1
S W
4 . 3 9 3
S W
0 3. 9 3
T O L L W A Y
0 2 4
1 2 5 3 0 L A N E
4 0 0
3 9 0
390
D N O P
400
E N A L
4 0 0
E W
9 . 4 9 3
ITY TRIN
400
40 0
0 0 4
E N A L 1
0 40
0 2 4
8 . 5 9 3
3 9 0 4 0 0
T R I N I T Y
R I V E R
Y IT N I TR
3 9 0
S W
C.L. ROADWAY 21 40 VARIES 10 36 10 10 36 10 VARIES 40 21
390
4 0 0
E W
390
D N O 3 P . 5 9 3
A U T H O R IT Y
4 0 4 0 1 4 0 2 0
TRINITY RIVER
E N A L 1
0 2 4
0 2 4
0 1 4
2 1 D E
3 9 0
S W
6 3. 9 3
400
0 39
E W 6 1. 9 3 D N O P
3 9 0
400
400
1 3 0 0
400
0 40
439 0 0 0
0 1 4 0 0 4
E N A L 1
R VE RI
PROPOSED R.O.W.
L
VARIES (138 TYPICAL) VARIES (153 TYPICAL)
PROPOSED R.O.W.
0 39
VER RI
T RI NI T Y P ARKW AY E I S
K R A P
6 9
CONVENTION CENTER PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES
EXISTING LEVEE
2.0%
NORT H T E XAS T OL L W AY AUT HORI T Y
FOR NTTA USE ONLYSUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT
43 0
430
ENGI NEERS .
MODIFIED (SOUTH)
ARCHI TECTS .
NOTES:
SCI ENTI STS .
POSSIBLE BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**)
PL ANNERS .
POSSIBLE VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**)
SPLIT PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 4BSPLIT PARKWAY-RIVERSIDE (RIVERSIDE)
PLATE 2-5 B
SURVEYORS
PROFILE LEGEND:
PLAN LEGEND:
PARK ACCESS ROUTES:
0 1 4
0 1 4 0 0 4 0 40
10 4
0 2 4 0 1 4
) 35 I (
0 2 4
0 1 4
0 2 4
0 1 4
0 41
0 1 4
0 41
0 4 4
0 41
0 0 0 4 1 4
0 1 4
0 41
" P ROJ E CT P E GASUS" AND " HORSE SHOE P ROJ E CT " CANYONMI XM AST E R I MP ROVE ME NT S UNDE R DE VE L OP ME NT BY T x DOT
0 2 4 10 4
0 0 4
0 2 4
0 0 4
SH
E N A L
0 1 4
0 1 3
3 E N A L
EY L CK BE
0 40
E. AV
0 40
D ER I EL M F R O TT F E N R U B
E N
0 43 20 4
0 42
0 42
0 43
0 41
2-159
P a r k A c c e s s F o r T r i n i t y R i v e r C o r r i d o r Ma s t e r I mp l e me n t a t i o nP l a n
P l a t e2 6
P o t e n t i a l P a r k A c c e s s L o c a t i o n s
N o t e : A c c e s s p o i n t s s h o w nc o r r e s p o n dt or e c o mme n d a t i o n s o f t h eT r i n i t y R i v e r C o r r i d o r Ma s t e r I mp l e me n t a t i o nP l a nf o r a c c e s s t oD a l l a s F l o o d w a y p a r k s . A c c e s s p o i n t s s h o w nc o u l da p p l y t ot h eS p l i t P a r k w a y A l t e r n a t i v e( A l t 4 B ) .T h eE a s t l e v e ea c c e s s p o i n t s s h o w nc o u l da p p l y t ot h eC o mb i n e dP a r k w a y A l t e r n a t i v e( A l t 3 C ) .N o A c c e s s p o i n t s w o u l da p p l y t ot h eI r v i n g / R i v e r f r o n t B l v d . A l t e r n a t i v e s ( A l t s . 2 Aa n d2 B ) , o r t h e i . e . T h ea c c e s s p o i n t s w o u l db ei n d e p e n d e n t a c t i o n s ) N o B u i l d A l t e r n a t i v e( A l t . 1 ) .(
F O RN T T AU S EO N L YD R A F TD O C U ME N TS U B J E C TT OC H A N G EN OT H I R DP A R T YI SA U T H O R I Z E DT OR E L YO N I N F O R MA T I O NC O N T A I N E DI NT H I SD O C U ME N T
2-160
1 3
MOTOR CONTROL CENTER
SHOULDER
TOP OF LEVEE
CONCRETE PAD
TRANSFORMER
FLAP GATES
NORTH TEXAS TOLL AUTHORITY

NO. SCALE DATE OCT. HALFF TNL 1"=20 17826 826-PUMP DRAWN
RIPRAP
CONCEPTUAL PUMP STATION
TRINITY PARKWAY EIS
ENGINEERS .
PLATE 2-7 CONCEPTUAL PUMP STATION
PLATE 2-7
ARCHITECTS . SCIENTISTS . PLANNERS . SURVEYORS
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGE - NO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT March 2, 2007 DATE:
SUMP PUMP TO DRAIN WET WELL AFTER RAIN EVENT
3
SHOULDER
NORTH BOUND
$$$HAEMP$$$
SOUTH BOUND
PLAN
$$$TIME$$$
MOTOR CONTROL CENTER
FLOOD SEPARATION WALL VACUUM BREAKER
$$$DATE$$$
100 YR FLOOD VARIES 4

$$PROJECT$$
10 5 FLAP GATE
i:\17000s\17826\dgn\EIS_EXHIBITS\826-PUMP.dgn
Project:
EXIST LEVEE
OCTOBER 16, 2007
2 - SUBMERSIBLE PROPELLER TYPE PUMPS
VARIES
NOTES
FILE
PROFILE
1-6"
DESIGN
VARIES
OUTFALL CONFIGURATION TO BE DETERMINED, AND MAY VARY AT EACH OUTFALL LOCATION
2-161
2007
DALLAS , TEXAS
PROPOSED R.O.W.
VARIES
PROPOSED R.O.W.
C.L. EXISTING LEVEE

8 8 112 VARIES DRAINAGE 8 MIN 3.5 1 SWALE
2.0% TYP
P P
C.L. ROADWAY
VARIES 10 36 10 VARIES
10
36
10 10 1
VARIES
PLATE 2-8 A
TOE OF PROPOSED EMBANKMENT
PROPOSED EMBANKMENT
1 : 4 X A M
ALTERNATIVE 3C-COMBINED
100 YR FLOOD ELEV.
N
41 0
P
3.5
P
2.%
1
0 2 4
4 : 1 M A X .
1 : 4 X A M
2.%
4 1
4 1 0
4 0 0
E L M
F O R K
EXISTING LEVEE
P
NORTHBOUND BASE LINE ACCOMMODATE POTENTIAL FUTURE LEVEE
PARKWAY RIVERSIDEFURTHER MODIFIED (NORTH)
FLOODWAY BOTTOM
4 0 0
T R I N I T Y
R I V E R
( O L D
0 41
C H A N N E L )
P
RAISE BY USACE / CITY OF DALLAS

P
120
P P
120
NOTES:
P P

P
HAMPTON - INWOOD TO CONTINENTAL RIVER SIDE OF EAST LEVEE
20 4
40 0
4 1 0
4 1 0
TYPICAL SECTIONS
ALONG FLOODWAY
40 0
0 1 4
P
4 0 0
500
1000
1700
2500
3000
P P
0 0 4
P P

P
P P P P P P P
SCALE IN FEET
P
P P P
P
P
CHA NN EL)
P
P P
S I N N E T
40 0
T P R U O C P
400
P P
40 0
I 3 5 E
P
4 1 0
P P P
Y T I N I R T
(OL D
0 1 4
P
0 1 4 0 2 4
0 1 4 0 2 4
S T R U O C
D L O ( R E V I R Y T I N I R T K R O F M L E
400
R E V I R
) L E N N A H C
D A O R L I A R
0 1 4
P S I N N E T
K R O M F L E
P P P P P
390
40 0
0 1 4
P P
400
410
P P P P P P P
400
P
P P
E L T R U T K E E R C
4 1 0
P
400
400
P P P P
P P P
P P P P P P
P P
LE RT TU
41 0
P P
) L E N N A H C D L O ( R E V I R
P
P
EK CRE
Y T I N I R T
K R O F
P P
KNIGHTS BRANCH
P P
L AI R T
P P
P P P P P
L I A R T
P P P P P P P P P P
TRAIL
4 1 0
400
T R A I L
4 0 0
P L I A R T
40 0 39 0
4 1 0
P
L I A R T
TRI NI TY CHAN NEL)
(O L D
P P
R IV E R
0 40
P
P
P
S I N N E T
FORK (OLD
N O I N U P
4 39 00 0
T RI N I T Y
P
P
ELM
0 39 400
410
0 40 0 39
0 0 4
4 1 0
0 40 0 39
4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
P
P
P P P P
0 39 0 40
0 40
4 1 0 42 0
D N U O R G Y A L P
0 40
0 9 3
0 0 4
0 39 0 39 400
4 0 0
0 9 3
J O H N W. C A R P E N T E RF WY .
410
P P
TU RTL E
0 0 0 4 9 0 3 9 0 3 0 4 0 1 4
410
4 2 0
P P P
D N O P P P
P P P P
P
P
R I V E R
TRAI L
4 2 0
4 1 0
0 39 0 40
0 2 4 0 2 4 0 1 4 0 40 0 0 4
S ON M M E T S
0 9 3
P P P
S T R U O C
400
C I F I C A P
390
4 0 0
400 390
S H 1 8 3
P P
P
C HA NN E L )
P P P P
S T R U O C
400
42 0 4 1 0
RIV ER
0 41 0 2 4 0 1 4
D A O R L I A R
0 0 4
E 5 3 I
W F
. Y
P P
3 9 0
P P
39 0 40 0
4 0 0
P P
3 9 0
P
S I N N E T
P
4 1 0 4 2 4 0 3 0
P P
P P
P P
P P P P P P P P P P
4 0 0
P P
P P
40 0
P P
P
CRE EK
P P P
4 3 0 4 2 4 0 1 0
P P P
P P P
0 39 0 0 4
P P P
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5 1 9 P P P P P P P P P P P
P
P
0 0 4 390
P
T R I N I T Y
4 0 0
P
( O L D
0 2 4 0 41
0 40 0 39
4 1 0
3 9 0 4 0 0
C H A N N E L )
400
P P P P P P P P P
390
P P P P P P P
390
P P P
0 2 4 0 1 4
400
0 40
P
P
400
P
P P
P P
P P
P
P P
P
P P P P P
E L M
P
P
F O R K
D L O (
TRINITY RIVER
P
P P P P P P
P P P
400
) L E N N A H C
P P P P
4 0 0
P P P
P P
P P P
TRAIL
0 1 4
0 2 4 0 1 4
0 9 3 0 0 4
P P P
P P P P P P P
P P
P P P
TR IN IT Y RI VE R
( ) O L D
P P
P P P P P P D A O R L I A R C I F I C A P P P P P P
400
400 390
C H A N N E L )
P
P P P
P P
P
P P
P P P P
0 9 3
P
P P
0 0 4
P P P P P P
N O I N U C I F I C A P N O I N U
D A O R L I A R
P P
410
P
P P P
NW EA L T H
4 0 0
0 0 4
P
0 1 4
1 L A N E
P
P
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
P P
4 0 0
0 40 0 9 3
G N I V R I
P P
. D V L B
P
P
P
P P
TRA IL
400
P P
P
P P
P
P
P P P P
P
P
0 9 3
0 0 4
P
P P
P
P
P
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P
P P
R I V E R F R O N T
P
40 0
P
P P
P P
P P
( O L D
P
P D A O R L I A R C I F I C A P N O I N U
0 1 4 0 2 4
410
0 1 4
P P
1 L A N E
P P P
400
390
390
P P
RIVE R
400
0 0 4
P
400
P
TRIN IT Y
400
400
P
3
P
P
P
P P
P
P P P P P P
B L V D .
P P
CH A N N EL )
P
P P
P
P P P P
P
P
P P
0 42 0 41
410
TRAIL
410
P
TRAIL
L
P P P
FOR K
0 1 4 0 2 4
420
3 -1 I D E
WES T
0 3 4 0 3 4
0 2 4 0 1 4
430 430 420
420
1 430 D E 2 1
410
1 1 1 D E
410
81 21 10 68 48 AUX. 10 13 13 10
81
P
P P
CO M
410
68 48 10
21
G N I V R I
P P P P P P
L A N E
0 39
0 40
3
P
400 0 39
400
TRAIL
4 1 1 0 D 3 E 4 0 43 0 2 4 0 1 4
5 0. 40
400
0 41 0 42
T R A I L
WE
T R A I L
E N A L 1
3L A N E
TRA IL
P P
40 0
L A N E
40 0
0 0 4
L I A R T
D N O P
D L E I F
P P
CO NT I NE NT AL
0 41
. D V L B
TRAIL
TRAIL
9 1 D E
4 0 0
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
P P
4 0 0
4 0 0
0 40
40 0
PROPOSED R.O.W.
PROPOSED R.O.W.
0 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 4
MO
1 2 9
3
TRAIL
410
L I A R T
3L A N E
410
L I A R T
430 420
L I A R T
E N A L 1
430 430
420
420
410
410
420
1 L A N E
420
430 430
P
P
AV E.
0 0 4
TRAIL
410
420
410
3L A N E
420
P P P
P
P
410
0 0 4
P
0 40
D N PO
E N A L 1
4 0 0
4 0 0
3L A N E
R E C C O S
P P
E N A L 1
0 0 4
0 0 4
P
T R A I L
00 4
P P
2.0%
2.0%
AUX.
L I A TR
ND PO
E N A L 1
4 0 0
4 0 0
P
400
4 0 0
T R A I L
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
P P P
E W
9 . 7 9 3
WE
5 4. 39
D A O R L I A R P C I F I C A P
P P
N O I N U
0 40 0 39
P
HEIGHT VARIES
HEIGHT VARIES
P P P
E N A L 1
L I A R T
3
410
TRAIL
4 0 0
3
4 0 0
0 0 4 400
0 0 4
L I A R T
0 0 4
4 0 0
400
3
D N O P
8 1 D E
L I A R T
0 0 4
4 0 0
P P P P P P P P D LROA P P
U P P E R
T R I N I T Y
R I V E R
0 0 4 0 9 3
0 39
L I A R T
S W 0 . 5 9 3
0 0 4
R E V I R
0 0 4
4 0 0
4 0 0
L I A R T
L A N E
0 0 4
4 0 0
RAI
C IFI PAC
41 0
0 40 0 41
TRAIL
400
P P
400
ON UNI
40 0

P P
L I A R T
41 0
0 42 0 3 4
P P
A 5 1 1 D E 0 3 4 0 42 0 1 4
Y T I N I R T L I A R T
0 0 4
4 2 0
4 1 0
40 0
0 0 4
4 00
4 1 0 4 2 0
400
L A N E
4 0 0
4 00
400
L A N E
E N A L 1
0 40
40 0
0 0 4
400
0 40
4 0 0
4 0 0
39 0
0 0 4
400
400 410
T R A I L
D N O E P W 9 . 9 9 3
400
P P
400
40 0
4 0 0
7 1 D E
T R AI L
TRAIL
4 0 0
P P
0 40
E W
4 0 0
0 40
L I A R T
TRAIL
2 . 7 9 3
4 0 0
D N O P
TRAIL
400
PROPOSED R.O.W. 102
400
D N O P
D N O P
E W
2 . 7 9 3
D N O P
4 0 0
TRAIL
4 0 0
0 1 4
0 9 3
E W 9 . 7 9 3
E W 4 . 6 9 D 3 N O P
TRAIL
L I A R T
TRAIL
4 0 0
L I A R T
13 10
68 48 10
21
P
C I F I C A P
N O I N U
90 3 0 0 4 0 41 0 42 0 3 4
0 1 4
TRAIL
T R A I L
420
4 1 0 4 2 0
420
410
420
7 W D
400
430
430
420
6 W D
E W 4 . 7 9 3
4 0 0
TRAIL
410
420
8 W D
420
430 430 420
410
0 40
4 2 0
D N O P
30 4 0 42 10 4
410 420
430 430
420 410
0 3 4
9 W D
TRAIL
410
P
430
0 2 4
0 1 4 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 2 4 0 1 4 0 0 4
400
4 1 9
400
390
400
390 400 410
410 0 0 4
E W 4 . 7 9 3
40 0
2.0%
AUX.
0 0 4
L I A R T
400 0 1 4
P
P
0 0 4
0 0 4
0 1 4 10 4
P
4 10
410
0 40
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0
4 0 0
WE 6 5. 39
0 0 4
L I A R T
Y T I N I R T
40 0
L I A R T
400
E W 5 . 7 9 3
E W 5 . 7 9 D3 N O P
0 1 4
P
400
HEIGHT VARIES
0 1 4
0 40 0
4 0 0
P
P
D N O P
39
0 39
P P P
41 0 4 20
40 0
390 390
0 40
410
T R U O C
P
P
0 1 4 0 42 0
43
400
0 1 4
0 42 0 3 4 0 43 0 2 4
L I A R T L I A R T N O I T A T S P
D N U O R G Y A L P
410
0 41
410
2 1 F S R T
0 43 0 42 0 41
41 0
10 4
41 0
0 1 W D
400
L L A B T E K S A B
4 2 0
4 0 0
P D L E I F L L A B
00 4
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
P M U P
0 0 4
4 1 0
P
0 1 4
420
0 40
410
0 1 4
0 0 4
0 0 4 0 1 4
0 41
P E W
9 . 7 9 3 P
0 41
4 1 0
0 41
4 1 0
410
0 41

E 5 W . 7 9 3 6 E . W 1 0 4
0 41
0 1 4
4 2 0
0 40
410
0 41
4 2 0
00 4
L I A R T
P P
E R C E
0 0 4
0 41
410
0 0 4
L L A B
0 1 4
41 0
0 41
41 0
C O
TYPICAL SECTIONS
L I A R T
41 0
0 1 4
Y T I N I R T
L L A B T E K S A B
D L E I F
L L A B T E K S A B
P A C I F I C
0 0 4
Y T I N I R T
R E V I R
L I A R T
0 0 4
0 0 4 10 4
0 0 4
P D N U O R G Y A L P P
4 1 4 0 4 20 3 4 0 4 30 4 20 1 4 0 0 0
5 E . W 4 9 3
D N U O R G Y A L P
410
L L A B T E K S A B
U N I O
D N U O R G Y A L P P P
PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL R Y E R L PROPOSED RETAINING WALL A Y T T K R R Y N H R R E T A A A M DIAPHRAGM P C T OR WALL E N L N E E ON M T E P L E M A H

P
D N U O R G Y A L P
0 41
41 0
D L E I F
R A I L R O
R E V I R
0 41 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 3 4 0 2 4 0 1 4
410
P
P
0 41
0 1 4
0 1 4
A D
PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

P
. D V L B
P P
0 3 4
P P
0 1 4
S T .
T R U O C L D L N A U B O T R E G K Y S A A L B P
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 W D
0 1 F S R T
40 0
R E V I R
410
. R A D D A N A C
400
390
5 W D
400 4 1 0
4 0 0
D N O P
4 0 0
N O T E L G N I S
P P P
WE 7 5. 39
0 1 4
4 0 0
410
4 1 0
T R U O C
C I T E L H T A
4 0 0
P
P P
T R U O C
L L A B T E K S A B
C I N C I P
T R U O C L L A B D T N E U K O S R A G B Y A L P
P P
D A RO L I RA
4 1 0
L L A B
D L E I F
D N U O R G Y A L P
PLAN LEGEND:
PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES
4 2 0
T R U O C
D N U O R G Y A L P
4 0 0
D N U O R T G R Y U A O L C P L L A B T E K S A B
D N U O R G Y A L P
D L E I F
L L A B
D N U O R G Y A L P
P
S I N N T E R T U O C P P
4 1 0
T R U O C
0 41
4 1 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
P
P P
P
0 2 4
0 2 4 10 4
P
4 1 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
P
0 2 4 10 0 4 1 4
P P
P
P
410
0 1 4
C FI CI A P
P
P P
N IO N U
L I A R T
ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.
0 0 4
P
PROFILE LEGEND:
P
0 0 4 0 0 4
VER RI
0 1 4 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 43 0 42 0 41 0 0 4

) NEL CHAN D (OL
PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS)
TY INI TR
1 1 F S R T
RK FO
0 0 4

WEST
PARK ACCESS ROUTES:

POSSIBLE VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**) POSSIBLE BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**)
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT DATE: MAY 31, 2013
4 1 0
0 41
P
L L A B T E K S A B

L L A B T E K S A B
PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL DIAPHRAGM WALL
400
400
41 0

410
L L A B T E K S A B
SPF WATER LEVEL

P P
4 10
0 41
P P
P P P
410
P P
BEGIN PTPN PGL, END PDNTPW183 & PDE183STP PGL B L PTPN STA 1000+00.00, EL=460.00 37.00 RT B L PDNTPW183 STA 59+40.26, EL=460.92 35.00 LT B L PDE183STP STA 56+95.74, EL=459.12 STA = 1071+00.00 STA = 1045+50.00 EL = 466.18 L = 900.00 EL = 429.63 L = 200.00 STA = 1085+00.00 EL = 429.23 L = 200.00 STA = 1096+50.00 EL = 428.48 L = 200.00
410
550
PROFILE LEGEND:
STA = 1133+50.00 EL = 429.98 L = 200.00
STA = 1144+50.00 EL = 429.48 L = 200.00
STA = 1152+50.00 EL = 430.38 L = 300.00
STA = 1164+50.00 EL = 429.38 L = 200.00
STA = 1184+50.00 EL = 410.88 L = 300.00
STA = 1192+00.00 EL = 414.63 L = 400.00

STA = 1004+32.00 STA = 1015+00.00 EL = 436.36 L = 200.00 STA = 1032+55.00 EL = 427.33 L = 500.00 STA = 1060+00.00 EL = 424.13 STA = 1079+00.00 EL = 425.63 L = 200.00 STA = 1091+50.00 EL = 425.98 L = 200.00 STA = 1101+50.00 EL = 425.98 L = 200.00 STA = 1119+50.00 EL = 434.98 L = 300.00 STA = 1126+00.00 EL = 426.23 L = 300.00 STA = 1139+50.00 EL = 426.98 L = 200.00 STA = 1149+00.00 EL = 427.23 L = 200.00 STA = 1159+50.00 EL = 426.88 L = 200.00 STA = 1176+00.00 EL = 423.63 STA = 1200+00.00 EL = 402.63 L = 500.00
500
EL = 447.04 L = 300.00
HAMPTON
( ) 3 . 0 0 %
L = 500.00
WOODALL RODGERS DC
L = 200.00
SYLVAN
CONTINENTAL
SH 366
450
( ) 1 . 0 0 %
( ) 0 . 5 0 % ( ) 0 . 5 0 % ( ) 0 . 5 0 %
% 0 0 . 3 ) + ( % 0 0 . 3 ) + (
( ) 2 . 9 0 % ( ) 2 . 9 1 %
% 0 5 . 0 ) + ( % 0 5 . 0 ) + (
( ) 0 . 5 0 % ( ) 0 . 5 0 %
( ) 0 . 5 0 %
% 0 5 . 0 ) + ( % 0 5 . 0 ) + (
( ) 0 . 5 0 % ( ) 0 . 5 0 %
% 0 5 . 0 ) + ( % 0 5 . 0 ) + (
PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES % 0 ( 5 . 0 ) + ) ( 1 . 3 ( ) 5

%
% 0 5 . 0 ) + ( 0 . 5 0 % % 0 5 . 0 ) + (
% 0 5 . 0 ) + ( % 0 5 . 0 ) + (
( ) 0 . 5 0 % ( ) 0 . 5 0 %
% 0 9 . 0 ) + (
( ) 0 . 5 0 % ( ) 0 . 5 0 %
% 0 5 . 0 ) + ( % 0 5 . 0 ) + (
% 0 6 . 0 ) + (
( ) 0 . 5 0 %
( ) 1 . 3 5 %
( ) 0 . 5 0 % ( ) 0 . 5 0 %
( ) 1 . 5 0 % ( ) 1 . 5 5 %
% 0 5 . 0 ) + (
( ) 0 . 5 0 %
% 0 0 . 1 ) + (
EXIST GROUND @ PROP PGL
% 0 5 . 0 ) + ( % 0 5 . 0 ) + (
( ) 1 . 5 0 % ( ) 1 . 5 0 %
400
COMMONWEALTH
STA = 1032+50.00 EL = 427.34 L = 500.00 STA = 1045+50.00 EL = 466.34 L = 900.00 STA = 1060+00.00 EL = 424.13 L = 500.00 STA = 1074+35.00 EL = 431.31 L = 200.00 STA = 1091+50.00 STA = 1096+50.00 EL = 422.73 L = 200.00 EL = 425.23 L = 200.00 STA = 1101+50.00 STA = 1119+50.00 EL = 422.73 L = 200.00 EL = 431.73 L = 300.00 STA = 1126+00.00 STA = 1133+50.00 EL = 422.98 L = 300.00 EL = 426.73 L = 200.00 STA = 1139+50.00 STA = 1144+50.00 EL = 423.73 L = 200.00 EL = 426.23 L = 200.00 STA = 1149+00.00 STA = 1152+50.00 EL = 423.98 L = 300.00 EL = 427.48 L = 300.00 STA = 1159+50.00 STA = 1164+50.00 EL = 423.98 L = 200.00 EL = 426.48 L = 200.00 STA = 1178+00.00 STA = 1184+00.00 EL = 419.73 L = 200.00 EL = 410.43 L = 300.00 STA = 1192+00.00 EL = 414.43 L = 400.00
350
460. 00 426. 63 426. 63 423. 73 426. 63 430. 95 427. 63 426. 98 430. 23 430. 75 434. 00 409. 93 41 0. 1 3 404. 49 404. 88 424. 04 427. 29 425. 04 428. 1 3 426. 1 7 429. 07 434. 84 434. 68 449. 84 449. 68 438. 69 438. 63 424. 40 427. 65 446. 58 436. 48 426. 26 426. 26 428. 48 426. 23 423. 48 426. 73 423. 48 426. 73 426. 23 429. 1 3 433. 86 428. 86 459. 59 459. 44 453. 24 453. 1 3 425. 98 428. 95 424. 48 427. 73 424. 48 427. 73 429. 48 432. 73 424. 98 428. 23 425. 98 429. 23 425. 92 429. 1 7 424. 29 427. 1 9 41 6. 63 41 7. 63 41 3. 43 41 3. 63 441 . 36 431 . 36 421 . 23 424. 1 3 429. 1 3 429. 1 3 41 1 . 02 41 1 . 46
1000
1005
1010
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
1060
1065
1070
1075
1080
1085
1090
1095
1100
1105
1110
1115
1120
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
1160
1165
1170
1175
1180
1185
1190
1195
1200
2-162
I NE CH L M AT
3 9 0
M L E
0 0 4
4 0 0
400
400
400
0 2 4
0 1 4
0 0 4
0 0 4
0 40
400
F F I CL WY
0 0 4
ON T MP HA
N VA YL \S
L AI TR
O NW \I OD . RD
E. AV
0 40
0 1 4
M O RD BI NG I CK N L W / TM ES O D AN L RE . RD
EY L CK BE
0 41
0 1 4
E. AV
PROFILE LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES 100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL SPF WATER LEVEL EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING
PLAN LEGEND:
PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL
PARK ACCESS ROUTES:

POSSIBLE VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE BY OTHERS (**) POSSIBLE BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE BY OTHERS (**)
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT DATE: MAY 31, 2013
PLATE 2-8 B
ALTERNATIVE 3C-COMBINED PARKWAY RIVERSIDEFURTHER MODIFIED (SOUTH)
NOTES: NUMBER OF GENERAL PURPOSE LANES ALONG INDICATED MAIN LANE DIRECTION 1. ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.
500
1000
1700
2500
3000
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL DIAPHRAGM WALL

SCALE IN FEET
R

P
43 0
0 0 4
P P
PROFILE LEGEND:
P
P P
K R A P
P
? ?
0 0 4040
?
0 1 4
? ?
430
4 3 0
P
K R A P
K R A P
0 3 4
K R A P
P P
?
0 42
0 1 0 4 2 4
P
4 2 0
P
P K R A P
420
6 9 P
4 4 0
PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
420 410
43 0
0 40
P P
P
P
0 43
? ?
? ?
4 3 0
? ? ? ?
P
? ?
4 1 0
? ?
0 2 4
0 2 4 10 4
P P
M AT CH L I NE
0 42
41 0 420
0 1 4
? ? ?
D N U O R G Y A L P
? ?
? ? ? ?
P
P
? ?
P P
?
4 2 0
P
? ? ?
P
? ?
P
?? ? ? ?
? ? ?
P
?
P
? ?
0 1 4 20 4
P
? ?
P
P D L E I F
?
4 4 0
? ?
4 2 0
? ?
? ?
P
? ?
? ?
0 42 30 4
? ?
410
42 4 0 1 0
P
P
430
? ? ?
C I T E L H T A
4 4 0
4 3 0
? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ?
P
? ? ?
P P
P
?
4 4 0
?
P
P P
U S
?
P
?
? ?
? ?
41 0
420
P P P
P
P
? ?
C / U
? ?
? ?
420
400 410
P P P P P P
? ?
4 4 0
P
430
4 3 0
430
P
P
?
4 4 0
P
P P
D N U O R G Y A L P P
400 41 0
0 1 4
P P P P P P
? ?
40 0
C / U
? ?
4 2 0
0 1 4
? ? ?
P
?
1 7 5
LEW STERRETT
0 3 4
P
? ?
4 1 0 40 0
P P P
? ?
P P
43 0
P
P
P P
P
?
? ?
P P P
4 3 0
?
J U L I U S
P
?
4 4 0
1 7 5
? ?
0 3 4 0 2 4
? ? ? ?
4 4 0
I 4 5
? ? ?
? ?
( S M
?
4 3 0
? ? ? ? ?
0 2 4
P
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
0 1 4
0 2 4
P
? ?
0 41
? ?
400
7 1 D E
4 4 0
P
P
P P
? ? ? ? ?
? ?
N )
JUSTICE CENTER
?
P
P
0 3 4
4 3 0
410
P P P
P
?
410
P
NG KI
42
? ? ?
? ? ?
H A W
41 0 0
P
. D V L B
?
U S
4 1 0
?
? ?
P P
? ?
420
4 2 0
4 2 0
P
L A MA R
?
4 2 0
4 2 0
?
P
?
P P
?
? ? ?
P
?
S T
P
? ?
4 1 0
4 2 0
4 2 0
P
?
S C H E P P S
P
P
?
WR I G H T )
? ? ? ? ? ?
? ?
? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
0 1 4
? ?
? ?
OL O CH S
?
P
?
GH I H
0 1 4
0 1 4
? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
ON S P OM H T
P P
? ? ? ?
D N U O R G Y A L P
S T R U O C
L L A B T E K S A B
0 43
P
?
P
?
P
? ? ?
P
? ?
P
?
0 4 4
10 4
P
? ?
? ?
P
?
? ?
D N U O R G Y A L P
?
0 0 0 4 1 4
0 1 4
? ?
P P
D L E I F
?
P
? ? ? ?
? ?
??
4 1 0
R HE UT L
4 1 0
P P
41 0
N O I N U E R
4 1 0
P
P
? ? ? ? ? ? ?
420
C / U
( C F
4 1 0 4 0 0
0 1 4
?
? ?
4 4 0
? ? ?
A E R A
4 1 0
P
4 3 0
P
?
F W
P
?
C I T E L H T A
? ? ? ? ?
P P
4 1 0
N O I T A T S B U S
4 1 0
?
4 30
0 41 0 40
410
4 3 0
Y .
P
42 0
RE-STRIPING ON IH - 45 MAINLANES
? ? ?
0 41
P
?
P
? ? ?
? ?
P
?
0 1 4
P
? ? ?
? ?
P
? ?
41 0
4 0 0
4 3 0
? ?
P P
4 1 0
P
? ?
? ?
P
?
P
?
40 0
410
400
0 0 4 0 1 4
N I T M AR
410

P P P P P P
K R A P N O I N U E R
0 40
?
D N U O R G Y A L P
P
? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?
4 3 0 4 2 0
? ?
? ?
0 40 10 4
0 2 4 10 4
0 0 4
P
? ?
? ?
? ?
P
? ? ?
P
?
0 1 4
0 2 4
? ? ?
? ? ?
420
P P P
0 1 4
? ? ? ?
4 0 40 0 0
0 0 4 0 1 4
?
? ?
? ? ? ? ?
410
? ? ? ? ?
0 1 4
3
?
? ?
? ? ? ? ?
0 2 4
P P P
? ?
4 1 0
P
?
? ? ?
? ?
P
? ?
4 0 0
4 0 0
?
0 0 4 400
0 1 4 0 0 4 0 9 3
420
6 1 D E
3 9 0
0 1 4 0 0 4
400
410
410
410
4 9
410 410
410 410
0 41
? ? ?
4 0 0
4 1 0
0 9 3
0 41 0 40
0 0 4
L A MA RS T .
4 1 0
P
P
?
P
?
0 1 4
P
?
? ? ? ? ? ?
P
? ?
P P
P
? ?
410
400
T RA I L
3 9 0
410
0 0 4
P P
P P
410
3
UP PE R
39 0 400
410
41 0
TR IN IT Y RI VE R
WE 8 5. 39
D N O P
P P 9 F S R T P
?
400
4 2 0
390 410
0 41
D N O P
4 4 20 4 10 0 0
0 1 4
3 9 0
S W
0 0. 8 3
4 0 0
WE .7 5 39
40 0
P P P P P
?
420
400
410
410
400
410 420
400
400
? ? ? ?
400
D N O P
3 9 0
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 2 0
390
4 0 0 3 9 0
?
40 0
40 0
0 9 3
390
3 9 0
410 400
N O I T A T S B U S
400
? ? ?
E N A 2L
?
P P P P
?
4 0 0
L I A R T
3
P
410 400
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
4 0 0
400
4 0 0
P
4 2 0
E N A L 1
D L E I F
L L A B
1 L A N E
?
4 0 0
4 0 0 4 0 0
E N A L 1
4 1 0
410
40 0
L A N E *
? ? ? ?
? ?
S W
400
420 410
4 0 0
0 . 0 8 3
410
3 9 0
0 0 4
P
0 9 3
IL TRA
4 2 4 0 1 4 0 0 0
P P
?
4 0 0
N O I T A T S B U S
DART
L A N E *
39 0
3 9 0
3 9 0
41 0
410
4 1 0 4 2 0
3 9 0
4 1 0
4 4 10 0 4 0 0 0
* E N A 3L
?
? ? ? ? ? ?
430 420 410
2L A N E
?
P P
? ? ?
? ? ? ?
0 0 4
P P
? ?
? ? ? ?
? ?
3
0 1 4
P
?
* E N A 3L
S.M. WRIGHT PROJECT BY OTHERS
4 1 0
? ? ?
? ? ? ?
? ?
P P
? ? ?
? ?
P
?
? ? ? ?
400
4 1 0
4 0 0
4 0 0
TR I N IT Y
0 1 4
5 1 D E
400
WE 3 5. 39
390
4 0 0
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
40 0
400
4 2 0
420
4 0 0
0 0 4
S W 9 . 5 9 3 P
?
1 1 D E
410
420
400
S W 3 5. 9 3
400
S W
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 2 0
0 9 3
S W 4 . 3 8 3
S W
0 . 0 8 3
P P P
0 0 4 0 41
0 2 4
3L A N E *
410
400
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 0 0
400
4 2 0
P P
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
3 9 0
4 0 0
0 5. 9 3
S W
4 . 5 9 3
4 0 0
?
RSONE F F E J DGE AL BRI M ORI ME RS) HE BY OT (
400
. RSON ST E F F E J
400
40 0
I H3 5 N. B.
HOUST ON ST .
B. 5 S. 3 HI
3 9 0
0 . 0 8 3
WE WE 391.1 389.0
D N O P
3 9 4 0 0 0
400
0 0 4
0 0 4
0 40
390
4 0 0
0 9 3
T R AI L
400
4 2 4 0 1 0 4 0 0
400
400
0 0 4 0 0 4
4 1 4 0 2 0
3 9 0
4 00
0 9 3
390
?
3L A N E *
3 9 0
S W
0 2 4 0 41
392.6
4 0 0
4 0 0
1 L A N E
E N A L 1
3L A N E *
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
0 9 3
0 42 0 1 4
E N A L 1
4 0 0
? ?
D N O P D N O P E W 1 . 4 9 3
4 0 0
400
0 40
WE
395.0
S W
8 . 4 9 3
4 0 0
D N O P
D N O P E 0 W . 5 9 3
410
4 1 0 4 2 0
400
39 0
R IV E R
0 3 I
E N A L 1
410
1 L A N E
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 1 D E
4 0 0 4 1 0
4 0 0
390
0 9 3
3L A N E *
S W 1 5. 9 3 2 5. 9 3
S W
E N A L 1
0 0 4
4 0 0
0 0 4
4 0 0
E N A L 1
?
4 0 0 4 0 0
E W 2 2. 9 3
T R A I L
4 0 0
E N A L 1
4 0 0
4 1 0
D N O P E W 0 . 4 9 3
RE-STRIPING ON 175 MAINLANES

P
410
390
2L A N E
4 1 0 4 0 0
0 0 4
4 0 0
400
400
3
?
? ?
? ? ?
? ? ?
4 1 0
C / U A E R A
4 0 0
P
?
0 1 4
4 1 0
0 40
0 40 0 1 4
3 I D E
E N A L 1
0 0 4
4 0 0
0 0 4
0 40
L AI TR
E W 3 . 4 D 9 N 3 O P
4 0 0
WE
D N O P
4 0 0
4 0 0
D N O P E W
0 . 0 8 3
S W
E N A L 1
2 1 D E
420
4 5. 9 3
D N PO E W
4 5. 9 3
?
0 1 4
0 1 4
0 9 3
0 0 4
4 0 0
3 9 0 4 0 0 4 1 0
4 2 0
0 9 3
E N A L 1
S W 6 . 3 9 3
4 0 0
D N O P
WE 392.9
D N O P
WE 389.3
0 0 4
D N O P
E W 5 . 3 9 3
D N O P E W
4 1 0 4 0 0
4 1 0
4 0 0
5 . 3 9 3
D N O P
3 W D P
4 0 0
0 1 4
0 2 4
0 2 4
3 9 0
400
4 0 0
4 2 0
4 1 0 4 0 0
0 9 3
400
4 0 4 0 1 4 0 2 0
TRINITY RIVER
4 1 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
0 0 4
S W
6 . 3 9 3
8 2. 9 3
390
0 40
0 40
0 2 4
8 5. 9 3
3 9 0
S W
0 39
40 0
0 2 4 0 1 4
390 4 0 0
. H ST NT CORI
4 0 0
?
S W
7 . 6 9 3
390
NITY TRI
400
4 00
0 0 4
4 0 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
0 2 4
0 0 4
4 2 0 4 1 0 4 0 0
OAK CLIFF LEVEE ROAD (BY OTHERS)

4 0 0
2 W D
400

K R A P F F I L C K A O S W S W 2 . 3 9 3 S W 5 . 3 9 3
400
?
390
4 0 0
E W D N O 3 P . 5 9 3
390
TRINITY RIVER
VER RI
3 90
3 9 0
K R A P D N O P E W 0 . 9 8 3 R E T S E H C O R
IL TRA
0 0 4
40 0
4 0 0
PROPOSED "HORSESHOE PROJECT" BY OTHERS

0 0 4
400
0 40
S W
400
390
9 4. 9 3
S W 3 . 3 9 3
S W
3 9 0 4 0 0
T R I N I T Y
R I V E R
Y T I N I R T
439 0 0 0
0 1 4 0 0 4
E N A L 1
40 0
0 39
E W 6 . 1 9 3 D N O P
3 9 0
400
3 9 0 4 0 0
400
R VE I R
400
4 0 0
P
400
39 0
D N O P E W
0 9 3
400
0 0 4
3 . 3 9 3
390
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 1 0
420
1 W D
4 2 0
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
S W 2 . 3 9 3 S W 8 . 2 9 3
3 9 0 39 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
400
410
4 . 93 3
400
410 420
3 9 0 4 0 0
P P
40 0
? ?
0 0 4
S W
420
8 2. 9 3
4 1 0
4 1 0
? ?
9 . 4 9 3 D N O P D N O P E W 9 . 4 9 3
S W
P P
42 0
N O I T A T S B U S
P
?
8 . 5 9 3
0 0 4
4 0 0
?
D N O P E W
D N O P E W
9 . 3 9 3 D N O P
S W
6 2. 9 3
E W 8 . 3 9 3
D N O P
7 . 5 9 3
S W
4 2 0
P
C / U
A E R A
400
400
P
?
S W
410
4 2 0
400
4 1 0 4 2 0
? ?
P P
4 1 0
4 2 0
410
P
4 1 0
41 0
0 42
?
S W 3 2. 9 3
4 1 0
0 0 4 0 0 4
390
TR AI L
41 0
4 1 0
4 1 0 4 2 0
40 0
1 . 3 9 3
400
T R AIL
0 41
43 0
400
0 2 4 0 3 4 0 4 4 0 5 4
?
4 1 0
410
4 3 0
0 1 4 0 2 4 0 3 4 0 4 4
P
0 3 4
4 1 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
?
4 0 0
?
41 0
CED AR
FF CLI
0 5 4
OAK
0 4 4
0 2 4
4 6 0
?
P P P
4 30
4 5 0
0 1 4
41 0
PROPOSED "HORSESHOE PROJECT" BY OTHERS

P
? ?
4 2 0
42 0
K R A P
4 2 0 4 1 0
P
4 1 0 4 2 0
4 2 0 4 1 0
4 0 0
RK PA RE MOO
?
TRAIL
0 3 4
41 400 420 0
4 4 0
RK PA
460
420
430
A E R A
4 0 0
0 0 4
410
C / U
4 1 0 4 2 0
CRE EK
NOTES:
0 9 3
0 40
3 9 0
390
D N O P
PROPOSED R.O.W. VARIES 21 10 36 10
PROPOSED R.O.W. VARIES 10 36 10 21
4 0 0
0 0 4
E W
9 4. 9 3
4 0 0
3 9 0
4 E D W 5. N 9 O 3 P
S W
5 . 4 9 3
0 0 4
0 9 3 0 0 4
4 0 0 3 9 0
0 2 4
S W
4 . 3 9 3
S W
420 410
400
390
4 1 0
400
?
3 9 0
390
390 400 410
3 9 0 400 410
390
400
0 1 4
POSSIBLE OAK CLIFF LEVEE ROAD / IH 35E INTERCHANGE (BY OTHERS)
4 0 0
0 . 3 9 3
4 0 0
0 9 3
L I A R T
D ER I EL M F R O TT F E N R U B
4 3 0
400
?
E W D N O P
S W
0 . 4 9 3
S W 3 . 3 9 3 S W 7 2. 9 3
4 0 0
3 . 3 9 3 D N O P E W
0 9 3
400
400
E W
5 1. 9 3
2.5%
2.5%
E W
4 0 0
?
7 1. 9 3
HEIGHT VARIES
1 . 93 3
4 0 0
4 0 0
0 0 4
P
?
400
D N O P
E W 8 . 2 9 3
390
P
?
440
D N U O GR Y A L P
4 0 0
?
0 1 4
D N O P
?
4 0 0 4 1 0 4 1 0
T R A I L
D N O P
E W
9 . 0 9 3
0 2 4
4 0 0
7 6 1
0 43
T R A I L
0 43 0 42
? ?

?
4 0 0
D N O P E W
0 41
44 0
4 0 0
7 9
400
4 1 0 4 2 0
D N O P
E W
7 6. 9 3
ELEVATED COMBINED ROADWAY MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. TO I.H. 45
4 0 0
4 2 0
2 . 6 0 4
PROPOSED R.O.W. VARIES

PROPOSED R.O.W.
PROPOSED R.O.W.
L
VARIES 10 36 10 23
PROPOSED R.O.W. C.L. EXISTING LEVEE 112 12 20 VARIES 10
VARIES C.L. ROADWAY 36 10 VARIES 10
PROPOSED R.O.W.
112 12 20 VARIES 20 DRAINAGE SWALE 10
VARIES C.L. ROADWAY 36 36 10 VARIES
PROP. R.O.W.
23
10
36
10
36
10 10
1 1
3 MIN.
VARIES DRAINAGE SWALE

2.0%
8 MIN
1 1
1 VARIES 100 YR FLOOD ELEV.

3.5 3.5 1 8 8 1
8 MIN
1 16.5
2 MIN. 1 2 MIN. 1
3 MIN. 2 100 YR FLOOD ELEV.
3.5 1 8 8
3.5 1
DRAINAGE SWALE
2.0% TYP
MIN.
2.5%
2.5%
EXISTING LEVEE
TYP
1 : 4 X A M
2.5% 2.5%
FLOOD SEPARATION WALL FLOODWAY BOTTOM
EXISTING LEVEE
1 : 4 X A M
2.5% 2.5%
21 FLOODWAY BOTTOM
ACCOMMODATE POTENTIAL FUTURE LEVEE RAISE BY USACE / CITY OF DALLAS 120 120

120
ACCOMMODATE POTENTIAL FUTURE LEVEE RAISE BY USACE / CITY OF DALLAS 120

NORTHBOUND BASE LINE SOUTHBOUND BASE LINE FLOOD SEPARATION WALL

CONTINENTAL TO DART RAIL RIVER SIDE OF EAST LEVEE
TYPICAL SECTIONS

CONTINENTAL TO DART RAIL RIVER SIDE OF EAST LEVEE @ EXISTING BRIDGE
TYPICAL SECTIONS
550
END TRINITY PARKWAY CONSTRUCTION BEGIN STRIPING TRANSITION END TRINITY PARKWAY PROJECT END STRIPING TRANSITION B L PTP STA 1463+46.94
500
STA = 1205+00.00 EL = 413.13 L = 500.00 STA = 1210+00.00 EL = 408.13 L = 300.00 STA = 1221+00.00 EL = 413.63 L = 200.00 STA = 1248+00.00 EL = 400.13 L = 300.00 STA = 1261+50.00 EL = 414.45 L = 300.00 STA = 1267+00.00 EL = 411.43 L = 200.00 STA = 1296+50.00 EL = 427.66 L = 400.00 STA = 1310+00.00 EL = 403.58 L = 500.00 STA = 1321+50.00 EL = 419.29 L = 450.00 STA = 1328+50.00 EL = 409.23 L = 500.00 STA = 1355+00.00 EL = 457.99 L = 1,800.00 STA = 1388+00.00 EL = 441.49 L = 400.00 STA = 1398+50.00 EL = 409.99 L = 500.00 STA = 1411+20.00 EL = 416.34 L = 200.00
B L PTP STA 1431+29.37, EL = 439.16 MATCH PROPOSED BRIDGE (BY OTHERS)
JEFFERSON MEMORIAL UPRR COMMERCE REUNION OVERLOOK
CORINTH IH 35
INDUSTRIAL
DART
( ) 0 . 5 0 %
IH 45
450
IH 30
HOUSTON
JEFFERSON
% 4 8 . 1 ) + (
% 3 6 . 1 ) + (
( ) 0 . 5 0 %
% 0 5 . 0 ) + (
% 5 5 . 0 ) + (
400
% 0 1 . 2 ) + ( % 0 8 . 1 ) + (
( ) 1 . 0 0 %
% 0 5 . 0 ) + ( % 0 5 . 0 ) + ( ( ) 0 . 5 0 % ( ) 0 . 5 0 %
( ) 0 . 5 5 %
% 6 0 . 1 ) + ( % 6 0 . 1 ) + (
% 5 5 . 0 ) + (
( ) 0 . 6 0 %
( ) 0 . 5 5 %
( ) 1 . 7 8 % ( ) 1 . 7 8 %
% 7 3 . 1 ) + ( % 4 5 . 1 ) + (
( ) 1 . 4 4 %
( ) 1 . 0 5 %
( ) 3 . 0 0 % ( ) 3 . 0 0 %
% 0 0 . 1 ) + (
% 0 0 . 1 ) + (
% 0 5 . 1 ) + (
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BNSF UPRR
% 0 5 . 0 ) + ( % 0 5 . 0 ) + (
% 0 0 . 1 ) + (
LAMAR
STA = 1419+00.00 EL = 425.02 STA = 1427+00.00 EL = 437.02 L = 200.00
SM WRIGHT
BEXAR
STA = 1205+00.00 EL = 411.43
STA = 1209+50.00 EL = 408.73 L = 200.00
STA = 1219+00.00 EL = 413.48 L = 200.00
STA = 1247+50.00 EL = 399.23 L = 300.00
STA = 1261+50.00 EL = 414.05 L = 300.00
STA = 1267+00.00 EL = 411.03 L = 200.00
STA = 1297+00.00 EL = 427.53 L = 400.00
STA = 1311+00.00 EL = 402.60 L = 500.00
STA = 1322+00.00 EL = 419.55 L = 400.00
STA = 1328+50.00 EL = 412.73 L = 400.00
STA = 1356+00.00 EL = 457.47 L = 1,600.00
STA = 1388+00.00 EL = 441.47 L = 400.00
STA = 1398+50.00 EL = 409.97 L = 500.00
STA = 1407+65.00 EL = 414.55 L = 200.00
L = 200.00
350
L = 400.00
405. 48 406. 63
400. 48 401 . 63
409. 05 408. 69
407. 98 409. 1 3
402. 98 404. 1 3
401 . 88 402. 25
407. 1 7 407. 56
420. 93 421 . 33
405. 1 3 405. 55
408. 77 41 0. 41
431 . 44 430. 39
450. 47 450. 49
420. 47 420. 49
423. 68 424. 08
434. 02
426. 43 426. 76
426. 52
423. 31 421 . 1 9
439. 57 439. 59
447. 44 447. 75
452. 59 452. 72
454. 41 454. 45
452. 97 452. 99
447. 97 447. 99
445. 47 445. 49
442. 97 442. 99
435. 47 435. 49
1200
1205
1210
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1260
1265
1270
1275
1280
1285
1290
1295
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
1335
1340
1345
1350
1500
1505
1510
1515
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
1550
1555
1560
438. 52
41 1 . 48 41 0. 63
41 0. 23 41 1 . 1 9
41 0. 48 41 1 . 63
421 . 90 420. 1 4
41 2. 68 41 3. 08
41 6. 47 41 7. 07
41 6. 40 41 4. 26
41 6. 90 41 5. 74
41 2. 98 41 3. 1 3
41 2. 47 41 2. 86
41 2. 1 3 41 2. 53
41 5. 43 41 5. 83
41 8. 1 8 41 8. 58
422. 1 9 421 . 41
41 3. 29 41 2. 50
41 5. 25 41 2. 31
41 3. 22 41 3. 24
41 1 . 07 41 1 . 09
2-163
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT AUGUST18, 17,2013 2007 DATE: OCTOBER
NOTE: THE FLOODWAY CROSS SECTION IS TYPICAL OF THE AREA BETWEEN THE HAMPTON ROAD AND CONTINENTAL AVENUE TRINITY RIVER CROSSINGS, LOOKING DOWNSTREAM. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT RAMPS, AUXILIARY LANES, OR MAIN LANE SUPER ELEVATION.
PLATE 2-8 C
FLOODWAY SECTION FOR ALTERNATIVE 3C - COMBINED PARKWAY RIVERSIDE (FURTHER MODIFIED)
25
50
75
100
150
200
300
R
COMBINED PARKWAY - MODIFIED SECTION LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (SOUTH)
SCALE IN FEET
CENTER OF EXISTING TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL
ROADWAY C L VARIES VARIES PROPOSED R.O.W. VARIES VARIES EASTERN LIMIT OF EX. TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL
PROPOSED R.O.W. PROPOSED LEVEE EMBANKMENT (BY OTHERS)
460 440 420
MATCH LINE A
TRINITY RIVER
EAST LEVEE
10
36
10 10 36 10 5
460 440 420 400 380
STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD 100 YR FLOOD 5 (VARIES) FLOODWAY BOTTOM
400 380
EXISTING LEVEE 6 SECURITY WALL
13+00
12+00
11+00
10+00
9+00
8+00
7+00
6+00
5+00
4+00
3+00
2+00
1+00
0+00
CENTER OF EXISTING TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL WEST LEVEE MATCH LINE A
WESTERN LIMIT OF EX. TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL
460 440 420 400 380
PROPOSED LEVEE EMBANKMENT (BY OTHERS)
460 440 420
STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD 100 YR FLOOD FLOODWAY BOTTOM EXISTING LEVEE
TRINITY RIVER
400 380
0+00
1+00
2+00
3+00
4+00
5+00
6+00
7+00
8+00
9+00
10+00
11+00
12+00
10/14/2013
11:54:34 AM
ah2003 TXDOT
i:\17000s\17826\CADD\V7 to V8 UPGRADE\826-LSS-LTSEC-3C.dgn
2-164
826-PP3C-Median.DGN
PLATE 2-8 D
ALTERNATIVE 3C MEDIAN WIDTH

P
CB CB CB CB CB CB
TRANSITIONS
CB
CB CB
CB
CB CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
CB CB
CB
CB
CB CB
CB CB
CB ?
0 3 I
SCALE IN FEET
CB CB CB ?
W
CB CB
T S E
500
1000
1500
2000
3000
D N E
CB
CB
CB
CB
N O I T N E R V E N T O N C E C
?
R
CB
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB ?
? CB CB CB
? CB
P A RK
CB
CB ? ? CB CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB ?
CB
P A R K
CB
CB
CB
CB
? CB
PA RK
WN O T N W S O A L D L A D
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
T AN K
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
PA RK
CB ? CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
CB
CB
CB CB CB CB CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
? CB
CB
CB ?
CB
CB
CB
P AR K
CB CB CB
CB
CB
CB CB CB
CB
CB ? CB
?? CB
" S U S A G E R E TP T C S E J A O M R X I P " M S N T O N Y N ME A T E C N V O R ME P O MP I L E V E RD T E O D D N x U YT B
CB CB CB ? ? ? ? ?
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
? CB
? ? ? ? CB ?
CB
? CB
TA NK
CB
CB
RU IN
CB
CB
CB
P LA YG RO UN D
CB
CB CB CB CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB CB CB CB CB
CB
CB CB
CB
CB CB ? CB CB
RU IN
CB
? ? CB ? ?
SU BS TA TI ON
CB CB CB CB CB ? ?
CB
CB ?
CB CB CB CB
CB
? ? ? ? ? ?
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
? ?
CB CB ? ? CB CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB ? CB CB CB ? ? CB CB ? ?
CB
? CB ? CB ? ?
CB
CB
CB
CB
? CB ? CB
CB
CB
? CB CB CB
? ? CB
CONT I NE NT AL AVE .
? ? ? ?
P P P P P P
? CB ? CB ? CB ? ? ? ? ? CB CB CB CB
CB
? ? ? ? CB CB CB ? CB CB ? CB CB CB ?
? ?
CB
TA NK
? ? ? ?
CB CB
?? CB
CB CB
CB CB
CB CB CB CB CB CB CB ?
CB ?
CB CB CB
? CB
CB
CB ?
CB CB CB ? ? ?
CB
CB
CB
T N O R F R E V I R
?
CB
CB
SU BS TA T IO N
CB
. D V L B
CB
CB
? ?
U/ C
CB
? CB CB
CB ?
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
? ? ? CB CB CB ? ? ? CB CB CB CB
TRAIL
TA NK
? ?
CB
CB
? ?
CB ?
CB ?
TA N K
TA NK
? ?
CB
CB CB CB
? ?
? ?
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
? CB
CB ?
CB ?
? ? ?
CB
CB CB CB
? CB ?
CB CB
? ? ?
? CB CB CB CB CB CB CB
Y T I N I R T
U /C
. ST
? ?
CB
CB CB
BL VD .
CB CB CB
PA RK
CB
? CB
CB ?
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
CB
CB ? ?
RE U N I ON
CB
? ?
CB
TA N K
CB CB CB
? CB ?
? ?
? CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB ? ?
CB
CB ?
CB
CB ?
CB
CB
CB
CB
RE UN I ON
CB
? ?
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
? ?
CB
CB
? ? CB
? ? CB
T T E R R R E E T T N S E C W E E C L I T S U J
CB ? ?
CB
CB
CB
CB
0 0 3 1
SU BS TA TI ON
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
SU BS TA TI O N
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
? CB
CB
CB
P ON D
CB
CB CB
N A I D E H M R T D I ES D L EW L U B O A H I S R A E V D I S N I 0 1
? ?
L I A R T
TRAIL
CB
T R A I L
1 2 0 0
? CB ?
CB
T R A N S I T I O N
T R A N S I T I O N
T RAN SI T I ON
M AR GAR E T HU HI NT L L BR I DGE
T R A I L
PO ND
. ST
. ST
VAR. MED. WIDTH 10 INSIDE SHOULDERS

PO N D
V A R I A B 1 L 0 E I N WI S I D T E D H S ME H O D U I L A D N E R S
T R A I L
? ?
5 3 HI
5 3 H I
OA K
CL IF F
N A I D E H M T D E WI L B A I S R R A E V D L U O H ES D I S N I 0 1
P A RK
0 5 2 1
B. S.
B. N.
PO ND
CO
U/ C
TH N RI
SU BS TA TI ON
N O I T I S N A R T
IL A TR
PO ND PO ND PO ND
N SO ER F EF J
N TO US HO
PO ND
L AI TR
PO ND
PO ND
CB CB
? CB
CB
I 3 0
CB
CB
CB
PO ND
CB
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? CB ? ? ? ? ? ? CB ? ? ? ? CB ? ? ? ? ? CB ? ? CB ? ? CB ? ? ? CB ? ? ? ? CB ? CB ? ? ? CB CB CB CB ? ? ? ? ? ? CB ?
F O R M E R B U R N E T TF I E L D
CB
CB
L AI TR
CB
? CB
AR EA
U/ C
CB
? CB
CB
TA NK
? ? ? ?
SU BS T A T IO N
CB ? ? ? ?
? CB
L I A R T
CB CB ?
CB
? ? ? ? ? CB ? ? ? CB
R UI N
T AN K
? CB ? CB
ST .
CB
? CB ?
TA NK
T R A I L
? CB
CB
? ?
? CB
RA I L RO AD
? CB CB ?
??
CB
TA NK
CB
? CB ? CB
? CB
? ?
? ? CB
ME RC E
CB
? ? ? ?
CB
FI EL D
? ?
CB
BA SK ET BA LL
CB
CB
T AN K
BA LL
CB
CB ? CB
? ?
CB
? ? ? ? ?
CB
CB
A V E .
CB CB CB
CO UR T
B E C K L E Y
P
CB
T AN K
CB
? ?
? ?
? CB CB CB CB
U / C
A R EA
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
CB
? CB ? ? ? ?
CB
CB
CB
SU B S TA TI ON
CB
CO M
CB CB
CO PL UR AY T GR OU ND
CB
CB
CB
BA SK ET BA LL
PA CI F I C
CB
U/ C
CB
CB CB
CB CB CB
CB
CB ? CB ?
CB CB
CB
CB CB
CB ? ? ?
CB
CB CB
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB ?
CB ?
? CB CB ?
O A KS F C O LI U ND F F E RS
? ?
CB CB
CB ? CB
? ?
CB ? ? ? ?
CB
RA ILR OA D
CB
CB
? CB CB CB
CB
CB
CB
PA CI FIC
CB
CB
CB
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB CB CB
? ?
CB
CB CB CB
CB
CB
? ?
CB
CB
CB CB CB
? ? CB
CB CB ? ? CB ? CB CB CB
? ? CB CB CB CB
CB
? CB
CB
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT DATE: JANUARY 28, 2013
UN I ON
UN IO N
CB
? CB ? CB ?
? ?
CB ? ? CB CB
CB
RU IN
P A RK
(*) - THIS MEDIAN CONFIGURATION CONTINUES THROUGH THE MAIN LANE TOLL PLAZA UNDER THE DART RAIL BRIDGE, THEN WIDENS TO 22 WITH 10 SHOULDERS TO THE END OF
O AK
CL IF F
P A R K
JEFFERSON / MEMORIAL BRIDGE (BY OTHERS)

?
PL AY G R OU ND
PO ND
P ON D
CB
CO U R T
CB
PO ND
CB
TE NN IS
CB
? ? ?
CB
CB CB ?
CB
2-165
P
PA R K
V A RI A 1 0 B I N L S E W I D E I D S TH H O U ME L D DI ER A S N
R E V I R
TA N K
S" SU ER GA PE AST T S XM EC M I ENT OJ NT PR " ON ME EM NY OP OV EL R CA T M P DEV I DO R Tx DE BY UN
PLATE 2 - 9: Sheet 1 of 19
ALTERNATIVE 3C PLAN VIEW
Legend
Operation & Maintenance Road for Levee Control Proposed Pavement (by Others) Existing Bridge Proposed Cross Street at Grade Proposed Cross Street Bridge Proposed Bridge/Pavement Removal Proposed Frontage Road at Grade Proposed Mainlane at Grade Proposed Mainlane Bridge Proposed Park Access Proposed Pedstrian Over Bridge Proposed Ramp at Grade Proposed Ramp Bridge Existing ROW Proposed ROW Proposed Abutment Proposed Bent
Governors Row
Empire Central Dr.
Proposed Column Proposed Diaphragm Wall Proposed Flood Wall Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Security Wall Proposed Culvert Proposed Rail Proposed Center Barrier Proposed Edge of Concrete Pavement Proposed Type 2 Curb Proposed Sidewalk Edge Project by Others Proposed Toll Gantry
Regal Row
Profit Dr.
?
0 300 600 SCALE IN FEET 0 90 180 SCALE IN METERS Reference section: 2.9.1.3 Year of Aerial Photograph: 2011.
900
270
Dividend Dr.
( c & % ?
1 3 4 5 6 7
DNT
KEY MAP
i I
8
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al o
e dg
F rs
wy
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
Ambassador Row
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
x K
19
( c & %
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-166
Legend
Operation & Maintenance Road for Levee Control Proposed Abutment Proposed Bent Proposed Column Proposed Diaphragm Wall Proposed Flood Wall Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Security Wall Proposed Culvert Proposed Rail Proposed Center Barrier Proposed Edge of Concrete Pavement Proposed Type 2 Curb Proposed Sidewalk Edge Project by Others Proposed Toll Gantry Proposed Pavement (by Others) Existing Bridge Proposed Cross Street at Grade Proposed Cross Street Bridge Proposed Bridge/Pavement Removal Proposed Frontage Road at Grade Proposed Mainlane at Grade Proposed Mainlane Bridge Proposed Park Access Proposed Pedstrian Over Bridge Proposed Ramp at Grade Proposed Ramp Bridge Existing ROW Proposed ROW
( c & %
300
600
SCALE IN FEET 0 90 180 270
SCALE IN METERS Reference section: 2.9.1.3 Year of Aerial Photograph: 2011.
( c & % ?
1 3
Empire Central Dr.
DNT
i I
7 8
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
Express Row
e dg
F rs
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
( c & %
900
Re
ga
lR
ow
KEY MAP
wy
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
x K
19
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-167
Bro
o kr iver
Dr.
Legend
Operation & Maintenance Road for Levee Control Proposed Abutment Proposed Pavement (by Others) Existing Bridge Proposed Cross Street at Grade Proposed Cross Street Bridge Proposed Bridge/Pavement Removal Proposed Frontage Road at Grade Proposed Mainlane at Grade Proposed Mainlane Bridge Proposed Park Access Proposed Pedstrian Over Bridge Proposed Ramp at Grade Proposed Ramp Bridge Existing ROW Proposed ROW
Dr.
Proposed Bent Proposed Column Proposed Diaphragm Wall Proposed Flood Wall
pire
C en
tral
( c & %
Proposed Retaining Wall
Mockingbird Ln.
Em
Proposed Security Wall Proposed Culvert Proposed Rail Proposed Center Barrier Proposed Edge of Concrete Pavement Proposed Type 2 Curb Proposed Sidewalk Edge Project by Others Proposed Toll Gantry
300
SCALE IN FEET 0 90
( c & %
180
r.
lD Centra e r i p m E
( c & % ?
? ?
4 5 6 7
DNT
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
( c & %
600 900 270
KEY MAP
i I
o e dg F rs wy
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
$ c " !
15
x K
19
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-168
rd L n.
Moc
king bi
Legend
Operation & Maintenance Road for Levee Control Proposed Abutment Proposed Bent Proposed Column Proposed Diaphragm Wall Proposed Flood Wall Proposed Pavement (by Others) Existing Bridge Proposed Cross Street at Grade Proposed Cross Street Bridge Proposed Bridge/Pavement Removal Proposed Frontage Road at Grade Proposed Mainlane at Grade Proposed Mainlane Bridge Proposed Park Access Proposed Pedstrian Over Bridge Proposed Ramp at Grade Proposed Ramp Bridge Existing ROW Proposed ROW
( c & %
Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Security Wall Proposed Culvert
( c & %
?
( c & %
0
Proposed Rail Proposed Center Barrier Proposed Edge of Concrete Pavement Proposed Type 2 Curb Proposed Sidewalk Edge Project by Others Proposed Toll Gantry
300
600
900
( c & % ?
1 3 4 5 6 7
DNT
KEY
i I
8
wy
v Ir MAP
g in
Bl
. vd
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
F rs
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
alth D r.
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
x K
19
Comm
o nw e
( c & %
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-169
Ha
ton mp
( c & %
dR oo nw /I
Operation & Maintenance Road for Levee Control Proposed Abutment
d.
Legend
Proposed Pavement (by Others) Existing Bridge Proposed Cross Street at Grade Proposed Cross Street Bridge Proposed Bridge/Pavement Removal Proposed Frontage Road at Grade Proposed Mainlane at Grade Proposed Mainlane Bridge Proposed Park Access Proposed Pedstrian Over Bridge Proposed Ramp at Grade Proposed Ramp Bridge Existing ROW Proposed ROW
( c & %
Blv
d.
Proposed Bent Proposed Column Proposed Diaphragm Wall Proposed Flood Wall Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Security Wall Proposed Culvert Proposed Rail Proposed Center Barrier Proposed Edge of Concrete Pavement Proposed Type 2 Curb Proposed Sidewalk Edge Project by Others Proposed Toll Gantry
I rv
ing
300
600
Commonwealth Dr.
( c & % ?
1 3 4 5 6 7
DNT
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
lv d
gB
vin
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
Ir
( c & %
900
KEY MAP
i I
o e dg F rs wy
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
$ c " !
15
x K
19
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-170
Legend
300
600
900
SCALE IN FEET
Rd.
90
180
270
nwood
Hamp to n / I
( c & % ?
1 3 4 5 6 7
DNT
KEY MAP
i I
8
wy
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
F rs
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
x K
19
( c & %
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-171
Hampton / Inw ood Rd.

0 0
1
Legend
300
600
900
SCALE IN FEET 90 180 270
( c & % ?
3 4 5 6 7
DNT
KEY MAP
i I
8
wy
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
F rs
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
x K
19
( c & %
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-172
Legend
Operation & Maintenance Road for Levee Control Proposed Abutment Proposed Pavement (by Others) Existing Bridge Proposed Cross Street at Grade Proposed Cross Street Bridge Proposed Bridge/Pavement Removal Proposed Frontage Road at Grade Proposed Mainlane at Grade Proposed Mainlane Bridge Proposed Park Access Proposed Pedstrian Over Bridge Proposed Ramp at Grade Proposed Ramp Bridge Existing ROW Proposed ROW
Irving Blvd.
Proposed Bent Proposed Column Proposed Diaphragm Wall Proposed Flood Wall Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Security Wall Proposed Culvert Proposed Rail Proposed Center Barrier Proposed Edge of Concrete Pavement Proposed Type 2 Curb Proposed Sidewalk Edge Project by Others Proposed Toll Gantry
300
600
900
( c & % ?
1 3 4 5 6 7
DNT
KEY MAP
i I
8
wy
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
F rs
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
x K
19
( c & %
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-173
ng B Irvi
lvd.
Legend
300
600
900
( c & % ?
1 3 4
DNT
KEY MAP
5 6
Trammell Crow Lake
i I
7 8
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
F rs
wy
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
liff Wyc lv a n / Sy . Ave
x K
19
( c & %
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-174
Operation & Maintenance Road for Levee Control Proposed Abutment Proposed Bent Proposed Column Proposed Diaphragm Wall
Levee St
Proposed Flood Wall Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Security Wall Proposed Culvert Proposed Rail Proposed Center Barrier Proposed Edge of Concrete Pavement Proposed Type 2 Curb Proposed Sidewalk Edge Project by Others Proposed Toll Gantry
300
600
900
10 11 12
d oo W
Co
nt
Legend
in e
nt al
$ c " !
ntal Ave .
ke
$ c " !
13 14
$ c " !
15
? $ h " !
16 17 18
Proposed Alignment
Contine
x K
19
( c & %
$ h " !
t ?
2-175
M ar
( c & %
9
lR al
e dg
F rs
g a re
wy
t Hu
DNT
i I
x K
nt H
ill B
( c & % ?
KEY MAP
rid g
Av e
( c & %
Riverfro n
e.
t Blvd. (
former
Industr ia
l Blvd.)
Legend
Con ti
nen ta
l Av
River
front B
Comme rce St.
R.
U.P.R.
300
600
( c & % ?
Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge
1 3 4 5 6 7
DNT
i I
8
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
( c & %
nental Ave
900
KEY MAP
wy
F rs
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
x K
19
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-176
d.)
( c & %
( c & %

on fr r ve Ri d. lv B t
fer Jef so n
er m r (fo
In
v Bl l a tri s du
us t Ho on
Rive rfron
t. Com merc eS
t Blv
Legend
St .
St.
d. (fo
rm e r
Indust
Operation & Maintenance Road for Levee Control
rial Blvd.
Proposed Abutment Proposed Bent Proposed Column Proposed Diaphragm Wall Proposed Flood Wall Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Security Wall Proposed Culvert Proposed Rail Proposed Center Barrier Proposed Edge of Concrete Pavement Proposed Type 2 Curb Proposed Sidewalk Edge Project by Others Proposed Toll Gantry
300
600
( c & % ?
$ c " !
4 5 6 7
DNT
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
( c & %
900
KEY MAP
i I
F rs wy
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
x K
19
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-177
( c & %
Legend
i al ustr Bl vd.)
Houston St.
Jefferson St.
on erfr v i R
( vd. t Bl
I nd r e form
300
600
900
( c & % ?
1 3 4
DNT
KEY MAP
5 6
( c & %
( c & %
i I
7 8
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
F rs
wy
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
x K
19
( c & %
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-178
Legend
Operation & Maintenance Road for Levee Control Proposed Pavement (by Others) Existing Bridge Proposed Cross Street at Grade Proposed Cross Street Bridge Proposed Bridge/Pavement Removal Proposed Frontage Road at Grade Proposed Mainlane at Grade Proposed Mainlane Bridge Proposed Park Access Proposed Pedstrian Over Bridge Proposed Ramp at Grade Proposed Ramp Bridge Existing ROW Proposed ROW
Riverfront Blvd. (former Industrial Blvd.)
Proposed Abutment Proposed Bent Proposed Column Proposed Diaphragm Wall Proposed Flood Wall Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Security Wall Proposed Culvert Proposed Rail Proposed Center Barrier Proposed Edge of Concrete Pavement Proposed Type 2 Curb Proposed Sidewalk Edge
( c & % ?
1 3 4 5 6 7
DNT
Corin
0 0
2
Project by Others Proposed Toll Gantry
300
600
Reference section: 2.9.1.3 Year of Aerial Photograph: 2011.
th St.
900
SCALE IN METERS
KEY MAP
i I
8
wy
( c & %
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
F rs
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
x K
19
( c & %
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-179
Legend
300
600
900
S nth Cori t.
D AR
SF AT & . T R.R
( c & % ?
1 3 4 5 6 7
DNT
KEY MAP
i I
8
wy
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
F rs
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
x K
19
( c & %
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-180
Legend
Operation & Maintenance Road for Levee Control Proposed Abutment Proposed Bent Proposed Column Proposed Diaphragm Wall Proposed Flood Wall Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Security Wall Proposed Culvert Proposed Rail Proposed Center Barrier Proposed Edge of Concrete Pavement Proposed Type 2 Curb Proposed Sidewalk Edge Proposed Pavement (by Others) Existing Bridge Proposed Cross Street at Grade Proposed Cross Street Bridge Proposed Bridge/Pavement Removal Proposed Frontage Road at Grade Proposed Mainlane at Grade Proposed Mainlane Bridge Proposed Park Access Proposed Pedstrian Over Bridge Proposed Ramp at Grade Proposed Ramp Bridge Existing ROW Proposed ROW
Project by Others Proposed Toll Gantry
300
600
MKT R.R.
900
( c & % ?
1 3 4 5 6 7
DNT
KEY MAP
i I
8
wy
vd.
ing Bl
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
F rs
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
h er K
Ma rt i n Lut
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
x K
19
( c & %
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-181
$ h " !
Lamar St
Proposed Abutment Proposed Bent Proposed Column
Legend
Operation & Maintenance Road for Levee Control Proposed Pavement (by Others) Existing Bridge Proposed Cross Street at Grade Proposed Cross Street Bridge Proposed Bridge/Pavement Removal Proposed Frontage Road at Grade Proposed Mainlane at Grade Proposed Mainlane Bridge Proposed Park Access Proposed Pedstrian Over Bridge Proposed Ramp at Grade Proposed Ramp Bridge Existing ROW Proposed ROW
Proposed Diaphragm Wall Proposed Flood Wall Proposed Retaining Wall Proposed Security Wall Proposed Culvert Proposed Rail Proposed Center Barrier Proposed Edge of Concrete Pavement Proposed Type 2 Curb Proposed Sidewalk Edge Project by Others Proposed Toll Gantry
300
600
900
( c & % ?
1 3 4 5 6 7
DNT
KEY MAP
i I
8
wy
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
F rs
T MK
. R.R
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
x K
19
( c & %
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-182
La
ma
t rS
Legend
300
600
$ h " !
( c & % ?
1 3 4 5 6 7
DNT
i I
8
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
e dg
F rs
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
( c & %
900
KEY MAP
wy
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
x K
19
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-183
x K
ar S L am
Legend
x K
Bex ar S t.
300
600
900
( c & % ?
1 3 4 5 6 7
DNT
KEY MAP
i I
8
wy
( c & %
9 10 11 12
d oo W lR al
t ?
e dg
F rs
$ c " ! ? $ h " !
16 17 18
$ c " !
Proposed Alignment
13 14
$ c " !
15
x K
19
( c & %
x K
$ h " !
t ?
2-184
PLATE 2-10 TYPICAL SECTION IN FLOODWAY FOR ALTERNATIVE 3C
CITY HAS UNHINDERED ACCESS AND CONTROL FOR FLOOD SYSTEM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, FLOOD FIGHTING, AND SURVEILLANCE
ENGINEERS .
ARCHITECTS . SCIENTISTS . PLANNERS . SURVEYORS
CITY SLOPE AND LEVEE MAINTENANCE AREA (VARIES)
NTTA OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AREA (VARIES)
(3) (VARIES)
TRINITY PARKWAY TYPICAL SECTION OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AREA
NTTA MOWING C.L. EXISTING LEVEE C.L. ROADWAY

NO. DATE SCALE DRAWN HALFF 17826
TRINITY PARKWAY EIS
112 STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD ELEV. +3
12
16
VARIES (56 USUAL)
+/-20 DRAINAGE SWALE
10
36
10 0-11
0-11
10
36
10 5
VARIES
VARIES 1 1
4 4 10 1 3.5 1 8 8 3.5 1 TYP.
~3
2.%
4:1 M
AX.
~32
2.%
100 YR FLOOD ELEV. (1) 4 1 5
EXISTING LEVEE PROPOSED LEVEE EXPANSION (2) 120 NOTES: 1. FLOOD ELEVATIONS, LEVEE HEIGHTS AND SLOPES VARY. THOSE USED IN THIS SECTION ARE TYPICAL. 2. MODIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING LEVEES TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS.
$$PROJECT$$
VARIES 0-5
FLOODWAY BOTTOM 6 SECURITY WALL EMBANKMENT, LOCATIONS WITH NO FLOOD SEPARATION WALL
120
FLOOD SEPARATION WALL
i:\17000s\17826\CADD\V7 to V8 UPGRADE\826-NTTA SECT-131014.dgn
3. ADDITIONAL NTTA MAINTENANCE AREA FOR LOCATIONS OF SECURITY WALL. NTTA WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORATION OF SLOPE FAILURES OR OTHER PROBLEMS THREATENING THE ROAD STRUCTURE. 4. A FUTURE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND NTTA WILL FURTHER DETAIL AND DEFINE THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES, TIMING AND OVERSIGHT.
TRINITY PKWY ALTERNATIVE 3C COMBINED PKWY - RIVERSIDE (MODIFIED) TYPICAL SECTION ALONG FLOODWAY
NOTE: THIS DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATES THE ROW AND LIMITS OF AREAS FOR ANTICIPATED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TRINITY PARKWAY, LEVEES, AND FLOODPLAIN. DESIGN DETAILS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
R
NOTES
DESIGN
2-185
OCT. 2013
826-NTTA SECT-131014
FILE
DALLAS , TEXAS

Trinity Parkway FEIS: The Alternate Routes

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Trinity Parkway FEIS: The Alternate Routes

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

TRINITY PARKWAY CORRIDOR MTIS

Overview of the Federal MIS Process

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

Summary of the Trinity Parkway Corridor MTIS

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

FIGURE 2-1. TRINITY PARKWAY CORRIDOR MTIS STUDY AREA

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

FIGURE 2-2. TRINITY PARKWAY CORRIDOR MTIS PLAN OF ACTION

New Reliever Route (49%)

Employee Trip Reduction Bicycle/Ped (2%) Facilities (2%)

Freeway Management (1%)

DART Line to Carrollton (2%)

Woodall-Rodgers to Beckley Connection (4%)

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

TABLE 2-1. IH-35E (STEMMONS FREEWAY) CORRIDOR ALIGNMENTS

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

TABLE 2-2. IRVING/INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR ALIGNMENTS

TABLE 2-3. TRINITY PARKWAY CORRIDOR ALIGNMENTS

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

TABLE 2-4. TRINITY PARKWAY CORRIDOR - SOUTHERN TERMINUS

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

FIGURE 2-3. TRINITY PARKWAY RELIEVER ROUTE (MTIS LPA)

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

2.3.1.1 Alternative 3A (Combined Parkway Original)

2.3.1.2 Alternative 3B (Combined Parkway Modified)

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

2.3.1.3 Alternative 4A (Split Parkway Riverside Original)

2.3.1.4 Alternative 5 (Split Parkway Landside)

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

2.3.1.5 Reasons for Elimination of Alternatives

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

Build Alternatives Under Consideration

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

2.3.2.1 Alternative 2A (Irving/Riverfront Boulevard - Elevated)

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

FIGURE 2-4. LAYOUT MAP OF TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 2A

FIGURE 2-5. COMPUTER RENDERING OF ALTERNATIVE 2A

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

FIGURE 2-6. ALTERNATIVE 2A TYPICAL SECTIONS

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

The existing ROW on Irving/Riverfront Boulevard is typically 100 feet in width.

2.3.2.2 Alternative 2B (Irving/Riverfront Boulevard - At-Grade)

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

FIGURE 2-7. LAYOUT MAP OF TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 2B

FIGURE 2-8. COMPUTER RENDERING OF ALTERNATIVE 2B

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

FIGURE 2-9. ALTERNATIVE 2B TYPICAL SECTIONS

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

The existing ROW on Irving/Riverfront Boulevard is typically 100 feet in width.

2.3.2.3 Development History of Dallas Floodway Alternatives 3C and 4B

Relocation of the tollway mainlanes in the area of downtown Dallas.

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

2.3.2.4 Alternative 3C (Combined Parkway - Further Modified)

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS

TRINITY PARKWAY FEIS