Trinity Parkway Technical Review 2016-03

Trinity Parkway Technical Proposal
(Conceptual Development of the Design Charrette Report)
Transportation and Trinity River Project Committee

March 21, 2016
1
Introduction
City Council Direction:
The City Manager was directed by Council Resolution 150732 to form a team,
including partners and appropriate expertise from a variety of disciplines, to
determine actions that would be necessary to implement the findings of the Charrette
Report within the current project federal approvals or Records of Decision (ROD)
The Purpose of This Report or Technical Proposal:
To serve as a summary of findings by the Trinity Parkway Technical Team regarding:

Evaluation of the ideas within the Trinity Parkway Design Charrette Report
How those ideas may be implemented within the context of current federal
regulatory approvals
2
Technical Review
Local, regional and private partners and the City of Dallas funded a Technical
Team of consultants and provided in-kind support through staff and resources.
This Technical Team included national and local expertise, as well as staff from
the local, state and federal project partner agencies.
Several members of the Design Charrette Team also actively participated in
Technical Team work sessions.
The Technical Team has been working throughout the fall of 2015 and winter of
2016 to bring forward its assessment of feasibility regarding the ideas presented.
The Technical Team proceeded with interactive design investigations and
development of detailed conceptual designs from hand-drawn ideas in the
Charrette Report.
They focused their work on the ideas recommended in the Charrette Report
and then assessed their potential consistency with the existing ROD.
3
Design Charrette Team

Larry Beasley Planner/Urban Designer, Chairman*
Brent Brown Urban Planning & Design*
Alex Krieger Architect/Urban Designer*
Jeff Tumlin Transportation Planner*
Zabe Bent Transportation Planner*
Ignacio Bunster-Ossa Landscape Architect/Urban Designer
Timothy Dekker Hydrology Specialist*
Elizabeth Macdonald Urban Designer
Allan Jacobs Planner/Urban Designer
Elissa Hoagland Izmailyan Economic Development Specialist*
John Alschuler Economic Development Specialist*
Alan Mountjoy Architect/Urban Designer*
Mark Simmons Landscape Architect/Ecology Specialist
* Also participated in Technical Team work sessions
Technical Team
Larry Beasley, Co-Facilitator
Brent Brown, Co-Facilitator
bcWORKSHOP Urban Planning and Design

City of Dallas Staff Multiple Technical Disciplines
Larry Good Urban Planning/Design and Economic Development
Gresham, Smith and Partners Stormwater Management and Design
Keith Manoy Transportation Planning
Halff Associates Transportation Planning/Road Design
HNTB Corporation Geotechnical and Levee Integrity
Salcedo Group Civil Engineering
Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates Environmental Design and Landscape
Architecture
5
Local, State and Federal Project Partners:
City of Dallas
North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA)
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Public Forums
During the months of May and June, 2015, several local public forums were conducted
around the city to gather input on the 20 ideas featured in the Charrette Report.
Citizens and others were also afforded an opportunity to provide public input via an open
online opportunity.
Several hundred comments were received. This input was shared with the Technical
Team and later with Trinity Parkway Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee)
members.
Summary of Findings
The Technical Teams conceptual design proposal (Technical Proposal)
significantly performs or is largely consistent with the Charrette Report in the
Technical Proposal as follows.
Of the 20 key features of the charrette scheme:
Nine (9) are clearly consistent.
Three (3) offer only minor variations that are not incompatible.
One (1) offers potential significant variation and requires Council choices.
Three (3) are policy decisions, not matters of technical design, and the
detailed design accommodates them.
Four (4) are still subject to more detailed design which normally will not
happen until later in the process and therefore cannot now be fully judged,
though nothing incompatible is anticipated.
In addition, other matters have emerged through the technical design process
that will require Council consideration as discussed herein.
8
Technical Team Findings
Confirmation #1
Idea #1
Roadway and land bench elevations, roadway corridor and end connection to
highways generally as earlier proposed.
Technical Team Findings: The Technical Proposal reviewed these confirmations for
conformity with Design Charrette Team drawings and determined that they are
consistent with the ROD.
10
Confirmations #2, #3 & #4
Ideas #2, #3, & #4
Pedestrian links across the Parkway generally as earlier proposed 15 links under and
over the Parkway at about -mile intervals; Top-of-levee bikeways and pedestrian
paths generally as earlier proposed; Service roads/bikeways/pedestrian paths around
the Parkway generally as earlier proposed.
11
Variation #1
Idea #5
Only build a 4 lane roadway now fit those 4 lanes of traffic (narrower lanes + grass
shoulders) meandering within the approved road corridor.
Technical Team Findings: The Technical Proposal is generally
consistent with the Design Charrette Team vision and several

elements further reinforce that vision. Regarding the ROD,
the Technical Team understood that design exceptions would
be required from the approved scheme and these would be
suggested as part of a staged approach. Lane widths were
meant to be those of a standard arterial roadway. This is
likely acceptable for a first phase as a meander within
existing road alignment. Reduced lane width and minimized
shoulders may require design exceptions.
12
Variation #2
Idea #6
Build fewer ramps. Only build two set of ramps within the park accessing the inner city
for the foreseeable future: 1 on/off pair at the north end near the Medical District and
1 on/off pair at the south end near Cedar Crest.
Technical Team Findings: The Technical Proposal, even with its variations, generally
meets the intent of the Design Charrette Team vision, provided that one intrusive
ramp at Riverfront is relocated if shifted from Cedar Crest. Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) projections were generated for each proposed intersection in the ROD, as
well as the recommended interchanges by the Design Charrette Team. Design
exceptions would likely be required from the approved design for fewer ramps, and to
shift and reconfigure ramps. The initial two sets of ramps or interchanges are
recommended as part of a first phase.
13
Variation #3 & #4
Ideas #7 & #8
Ban trucks except for emergencies; Add a U-turn option within the Parkway corridor at
mid-point.
Technical Team Findings: There is nothing in the Technical Proposal that would
forestall adoption of a policy to ban trucks, but this decision will require further
assessment with project partners to determine potential financial implications.
Regarding U-turns, Corps guidance would be required from the approved scheme
and these would be included as part of a phased approach.
14
Variation #5
Idea #9
Allow on-street parking along the Parkway on weekend slow periods and special
occasions.
forestall adoption of this policy decision, as the outside lane has been designed to be
slightly wider than minimal standards to accommodate extra width needed for
occasional parking. This will require a decision among project partners related to
operation of the roadway, with the need to address potential financial implications
and liability/safety concerns.
15
Design Refinement #1
Idea #10
Meander the Parkway within the approved road corridor so that future road sections
can be finished now as pull-off parking areas on both sides of the Parkway for park
access and scenic overlook.
Technical Team Findings: Design exceptions may be required from the approved
scheme to achieve the pull-offs and parking for park access. These would be
suggested as integral to the staged or phased approach because these pulloff/parking paved areas are all located within areas that may ultimately be paved as
part of a full build out as currently approved in 3C.
16
Design refinement of the landscape configuration to add a consistent linear tree

pattern at about 20 40-centers along the Parkway making it a Tree-Lined
Parkway for character and beauty.
Technical Team Findings: The Technical Proposal is generally consistent with the
Idea #11
Design Charrette Team vision to achieve the experience of a roadway lined with trees.
This potential configuration of a tree-lined Parkway remains contingent upon the
65%-level landscape design development when the full detailed landscape plan is
further refined. This will include additional hydrologic review that is consistent with
the Corps technical parameters.
17
Idea #12
Design refinement of the landscape configuration to add character, interest, and a

strong ecological strategy all along the Parkway, especially along the land bench
edges and at stream outfall areas.
Technical Team Findings: It appears that an acceptable landscape concept is possible
within the current technical design. A more detailed landscape design would include
further hydrologic review that is consistent with the Corps technical requirements.
18
Idea #13
Design refinement of flood protection barriers with landscape, art, wall treatments
and hillocks or berms to eliminate blank walls and secure more pervasive views of the
park and to add character, interest, and a strong ecological strategy all along the
Parkway.
19
Technical Team Findings: Design exceptions will be required from the approved
scheme to achieve berming on the Parkway side for the 100-year flood standard.
Further detailing of this concept with landscape elements may be pursued during the
65%-level landscape design development. Resolution of berming on the park side of
the wall cannot be determined until the full park review is undertaken because more
solutions may be necessary to meet Corps hydrologic requirements. Pursuing a flood
standard of less than the 100-year protection will almost certainly challenge the ROD,
representing a high risk in moving the project forward. The Technical Teams
recommendation is to uphold the use of the 100-year flood standard for the Parkway.
20
Idea #14
Design refinement to exploit five major WOW views over the Parkway.
Technical Team Findings: This idea is consistent with the ROD, although design
exceptions may be required to achieve pull-off parking areas as part of a phased or

staged approach.
21
Design Refinements #6 & #7
Ideas #15 & 16
Allow toll free park use from the Parkway; Locate transit stops so as to enhance
transit-user access to the park over the Parkway for example, provide a Houston
Bridge streetcar stop and a Riverfront Boulevard bus stop.
forestall adoption of this policy decision to allow toll free use of the park. This will
require a policy decision among project partners related to operation of the roadway,
with the need to confirm financial implications. With regard to transit user access,
this opportunity is not ruled out by the current Technical Proposal. This should be
resolved with further design.
22
Development Strategy #1
Idea #17
For the Reunion/Commerce and Mix Master District, catalyze development to

happen earlier than expected by allowing development to locate as close to the park
as possible.
Technical Team Findings: The Technical Proposal confirms the Design Charrette Team
vision for this development strategy. This will be further explored as part of the park
review process now underway.
23
Idea #18
For the Design District, facilitate the current incremental development trend with
regular and attractive pedestrian connections across the Parkway to the park.
24
Idea #19
For the Southside District, facilitate the current development inclinations by

enhancing the sump water bodies as the primary amenities in this district the park
and Parkway are less important.
25
Idea #20
For the districts at the far north and south ends of the Parkway, just before it joins the
existing highways, build under or over the roadway elevation within the alignment so
that the Parkway development spurs private development that augments the
neighborhoods.
26
Additional Consideration #1
No design speed specified in Charrette Report resulting design speed in Technical Proposal is
45 MPH.
Technical Team Findings: Evaluation suggests that the 45 MPH effective design speed,
with the 4-lane cross-section, will cut the vehicle miles traveled in the regional model
by about 40% from the ROD maximum estimate however it still accommodates the
projected demand in the near term as part of a phased plan.
Also, a lower speed would reduce the number of vehicles using the roadway, which
would reduce toll revenue. This would have a financial implication on project funding
and would need to be considered in developing the project financing plan with
project partners. Posted speed may be established by agreement with NTTA.
Finally, TxDOT/FHWA will examine the ability of the Parkway to meet ROD need and
purpose as a reliever route given ultimate build-out of all phases currently
approved.
27
Parkway and Levee Alignment
Technical Team Findings: In the interest of avoiding some costs and achieving less impact
on the Forest, the Technical Team discussed the potential to share right of way along the
future Lamar Levee. However, sharing right of way between two federal agencies
(FHWA and the Corps) is not preferred and would require waivers to federal policies
regarding primacy of the infrastructure. These approvals would be through the
headquarters levels and are not likely to be approved, and therefore not recommended
by the team. Additionally, this segment represents a fairly small portion of the Parkway
and cost reductions and avoidance of the Forest would likely be nominal given
construction requirements related to alignment with the future levee.
28
Economic Development of IH-35/SH-183 Connections.

Technical Team Findings: This consideration is in addition to the economic
development concepts proposed as a part of the Design Charrette, but may present
an opportunity to expand economic development along the corridor.
Further preliminary exploration of this additional consideration may be performed
internally by City staff.
29
Bridge Deck Treatment over Outfalls.
Technical Team Findings: Bridge treatment concepts can be explored as part of the
design development process, but may increase overall project costs for these
facilities, both for initial implementation and ongoing operations and maintenance.
30
Conclusions and Recommendations

Using informed expertise based upon professional experience, the Technical Team
held firmly to the principles of bringing the Charrette to a more detailed level of
conceptual design to better assess the compatibility of the proposal with current
federal approvals.
While compatibility with existing federal approvals has been tested via dialogue
with local, state, and federal partners, official federal approvals have not been
sought due to the need to advance the detailed conceptual designs further to
accommodate formal consideration.
31
Recommended Next Steps

The Parkway needs to be advanced to a detailed schematic of the current Technical
Proposal and the landscape design needs to be advanced up to 65% to provide a
deliverable to partner agencies for interim design schematic review and hydraulic
coordination for determination of compatibility with current federal approvals.
This work could be completed through the existing contracts with current authority
but will require funding from the project partners. Very preliminary cost estimates
range from $2-3 million to take design to this stage. This work may take 12-15
months, assuming federal partners are able to complete expeditious reviews.
Should the City Council desire to move forward with detailed schematic design and
65% design of landscape components, the project partners will formalize
deliverables and schedules, and then submit deliverables for formal approval from
federal/state partners.
32
Summary of Specific Recommendations

1. Develop necessary documentation to allow design exception to implement U-Turns,
meandering and pull-off parking as a part of a staged approach to Parkway
implementation.
2. Complete analysis and develop recommendations for shifting the ramps and
reconfiguring Riverfront ramps.
3. Explore appropriate policy concerning operation of the roadway with respect to
restricting non-emergency truck traffic, allowing occasional on-street parking and
accommodating toll-free use of the park.
4. Continue design exploration of the tree-lined Parkway concept and the landscape
configuration to add character, interest and strong ecological strategy along parkway.
5. Continue exploration of aesthetic design refinements of the flood protection barriers
and bridge deck crossings over outfalls.
6. Continue design and transit agency coordination as necessary concerning possible
transit stop locations and/or access.
33
Summary of Specific Recommendations

7. Continue exploration of development strategies near Reunion, Commerce, Design
District, and Mix-Master District as part of design and Park review process.
8. Continue exploration of sump options and ramp design in and near Southside District
to support and enhance adjacent development opportunity.
9. Continue design exploration for strategies to build over/under the roadway at the far
north/south ends of the Parkway to spur private development and enhance
neighborhoods.
10. Explore how the use of a lower design speed as a part of a staged implementation
will impact existing ROD.
11. Further investigate economic development considerations in areas near the IH-35/SH183 corridor.
12. Investigate the IH-35/SH-183 connection to the Parkway scaled as appropriate as a
Phase 1 Parkway using traffic modeling provided by North Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG).
13. Investigate future connections, amenities and access for adjacent neighborhoods as
part of the park planning efforts.
34
Overview of Detailed Conceptual Designs
35
Overall Project Map
IRVING
36
37
Roadway Section
38
Hampton/Inwood Area
39
Northern Park Access Area
40
Sylvan/Wycliff Area
Continental/Commerce Area
41
42
Horseshoe Area
43
Southern Park Access Area
Project Animation
Driver View @ 45 m.p.h.
Birds Eye Park View
44
Oversight & Advise
45
Parkway Oversight
City Council Transportation & Trinity River Project Committee
Briefings:
09/15/15
10/26/15
03/21/16
Update
Update
Findings and Recommendations
46
Advisory Committee Review

On January 15, 2016, Mayor Michael Rawlings notified the Dallas City Council of
the appointment of the aforementioned Advisory Committee members by
Council members Sandy Greyson and Jere Thompson, Jr. The purpose of the
Advisory Committee was to:
Review the work of the Trinity Parkway Technical Committee and to opine on
whether the final design of the road was true to the 20 ideas presented to
the City Council by Larry Beasley and the Design Charrette Team.
Share these opinions with the City Council through commentary provided to
the City Council Transportation & Trinity River Project Committee.
The full Advisory Committee met twice to review and provide information on the
technical work prepared during the Technical Committee process.
Additional meetings and discussion were also held among various Advisory
Committee members, and their report is provided as part of this document.
47
Parkway Advisors
Advisors:
Councilmember Sandy Greyson
Jere Thompson
Advisory Committee:
Councilwoman Sandy Greyson, Co-Chair
Jere Thompson, Co-Chair
Ambassador Ron Kirk, Former U.S. Trade Representative & Dallas Mayor
Representative Rafael Anchia, Texas House
Angela Hunt, Former Councilwoman
Chancellor Lee Jackson, University of North Texas and Former County Judge
Mary Ceverha, Founder & Former Trinity Commons Foundation President
Robert (Bob) Meckfessel, Former American Institute of Architects Dallas President
48
Advisory Committee Commentary
49
Appendix
50
Background
The first river freeway was identified in the 1967 DFW Regional Transportation Plan
and was also included in the Consolidated Plan for Open Space Development of the
Trinity River System adopted by the Dallas City Council in 1970.
In the summer of 1994, The Trinity River Corridor Citizens Committee (TRCCC) began
looking at the Trinity Parkway as part of their vision for the Trinity River Corridor, within
the City limits. Their report was approved in May 1995 by the Dallas City Council and
recommended a levee couplet to accommodate major traffic movements to different
directions while providing access to recreational areas.
The Trinity Parkway Corridor Major Transportation Investment Study (MTIS) was
occurring parallel to the TRCCC work and ultimately recommended a 8-lane, 45 MPH
split parkway, inside the levees, from SH-183 & IH-35 to US-175 with some or all of the
road being tolled (The Trinity Parkway). The MTIS was approved by the Dallas City
Council in September 1997.
51
Background (continued)
The 1998 Bond Proposition 11 was approved by the citizens and included $84M for the
Trinity Parkway. In January 1999, the City entered into an interlocal agreement with
the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) and Texas Department of Transportation
which set the stage for advancing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Trinity Parkway.
During the early 2000s, the Balanced Vision Plan (BVP) initiative began and the
Trinity Parkway vision ultimately changed from a split parkway to a combined parkway
along the east levee. The Dallas City Council approved the BVP in December 2003 and
amended in March 2004, which included the Trinity Parkway.
The Trinity Parkway Environmental Impact Statement was completed and a federal
Record of Decision (ROD) was made in April 2015, selecting Alternative 3C as the only
practicable alternative for construction.
52
Background (continued)
In April 2015, the Dallas City Council was presented with the Trinity Parkway Design
Charrette Report (Charrette Report) which was prepared by a team of external
experts in urban, transportation, landscape, and environmental design (Design
Charrette Team). This report primarily focused on the proposed Trinity Parkway where
it converges with the Dallas Floodway north of Hampton/Inwood and exits the Dallas
Floodway south of MLK/Cedar Crest. The Charrette Report was prepared prior to the
ROD.
53
Trinity Parkway Design Charrette

The Design Charrette Teams vision was for a scaled down, park-accessible Trinity
Parkway rather than a limited access highway. This has effectively been envisioned
as a first phase of a staged ROD-approved ultimate scheme. The Charrette Report
reflects 20 key ideas in four categories as follows:
Confirmations: Four (4) ideas confirming solutions from the proposed Trinity
Parkway Scheme 3C, as proposed in the ROD;
Variations: Five (5) ideas recommending variations from the ROD for immediate
implementation;
Design Refinements: Seven (7) ideas representing further refinements of the ROD
representing detailed design for immediate implementation;
Development Strategies: Four (4) ideas representing an economic development
strategy, maximizing the park and Parkway, defining four major urban districts and
compatible development at both the north and south ends, before the Parkway
joins the existing highway system.
54
Dates and Locations of Public Forums
5/26/15 El Centro College, West Campus, 3330 N. Hampton

5/28/15 Parkhill Junior High, 16500 Shadybank
6/2/15 Dallas Regional Chamber, 500 N. Akard #2600
6/8/15 Fair Park, Womens Museum, 3800 Parry
6/9/15 Wilshire Bank Community Center, 2237 Royal
6/10/15 University of North Texas at Dallas, 7300 University Hills
6/11/15 El Centro College Bill J. Priest Institute for Economic Development, 1402
Corinth
6/11/15 Cedar Crest Golf Course, 1800 Southerland
6/15/15 Knights of Columbus, 10110 Shoreview
6/16/15 Walnut Hill Recreation Center Ballroom, 10011 Midway
6/22/15 Methodist Dallas Medical Center Hitt Auditorium, 1441 N. Beckley
6/23/15 Dallas City Performance Hall, 2520 Flora
6/24/15 6th Floor Museum, 411 Elm
55
57
400
DESIGN CHARRETTE CONCEPT - REFINEMENT #5
IR D
TEXAS
440
1205+00
1210+00
1215+00
1220+00
1225+00
1230+00
1235+00
1240+00
1245+00
1250+00
1255+00
1260+00
1265+00
1270+00
1275+00
1310+00
1315+00
40
5
0
40
39
5
5
40
40
5
40
5
0
405
PRELIMINARY SCHEMATIC DATED 05-30-2014, THE 35% PRELIMINARY BALANCED

410
405
410
405
415
415
41
420
425
5
41
430
430
5
40
410
425
405
40
0
405
39
420
395
410
440
410
415
5
41
410
410
430
425
435
415
415
0
42
435
415
415
5
42
424.
88
394.
6
426.
55
423.
04
395.
2
424.
93
395.
0
421.
20
423.
30
395.
5
419.
35
421.
67
417.
51
396.
8
420.
05
415.
67
396.
5
418.
42
397.
0
413.
83
416.
80
389.
9
412.
32
415.
25
411.
46
399.
0
414.
30
411.
26
398.
9
414.
01
399.
8
411.
71
414.
39
399.
7
412.
82
415.
35
414.
26
400.
1
416.
40
415.
70
400.
6
417.
45
398.
8
416.
96
418.
18
399.
6
417.
62
418.
26
417.
65
399.
5
417.
69
417.
07
399.
2
416.
47
39
5
380
400
30
410
570', ~44 PARKING SPACES
385
415
395
380
385
400
400
390
395
390
390
395
395
400
400
395
38
385
400
385
385
390
395
395
400
390
400
395
400
430
400
400
430
400
400
INTERSTATE
420
395
400
395
400
395
400
390
395
TEXAS
390
385
395
385
400
395
400
395
395
390
405
400
395
395
390
400
385
400
400
425
35E
395
40
400
40
395
395
395
395
385
395
390
390
395
395
385
400
400
400
385
415
0
41
395
400
390
410
395
395
5
41
405
43
390
385
40
400
39
390
410
405
400
415
405
410
400
405
415
415
400
405
420
400
405
410
400
415
420
410
405
405
400
420
420
400
390
395
400
400
395
400
400
395
395
395
395
395
385
400
400
400
395
385
390
400
REFINED CHARRETTE CONCEPT

TYPICAL SECTION, 24' MAX. MEDIAN
405
40
390
395
390
2.5% TYP
425
415
405
400
410
395
400
385
425
395
400
395
400
385
410
410
405
390
385
420
410
405
395
400
400
385
40
405
405
400
395
405
395
390
385
395
410
400
385
390
405
385
395
395
INTERSTATE
415
5
39
400
400
385
390
390
410
400
400
400
400
380
385
400
400
380
380
380
395
400
390
390
395
395
385
380
400
410
410
400
405
395
395
390
385
TEXAS
5
39
38
410
395
390
395
385
395
390
395
385
390
390
5
39
ST
CRE
400
395
390
385
380
380
385
385
425
5
40
40
0
40
0
38
390
5
39
400
395
395
390
5
40
405
410
390
390
395
385
385
390
385
405
400
39
2.5% TYP
410
415
400
420
5
39
395
395
395
390
415
410
405
395
42
400
410
430
425
420
415
420
410
395
395
395
400
420
415
400
410
410
415
395
400
410
405
400
390
395
410
395
395
405
420
39
410
405
420
395
410
390
425
400
430
415
425
390
395
420
425
395
425
405
400
425
410
SH
390
400
400
415
415
440
395
395
420
395
390
420
LN
,S
ry
na
i
m
i
l
e
Pr
395
100
200
300
400
5
0
39
38
SCALE: 1"=200'
38
0
39
390
380
425
430
400
385
LN
385
395
400
420
415
420
395
415
380
390 395
415
420
415
410
400
410
430
380
395
380
385
395
395
410
410
385
420
0
41
390
445
420
390
395
395
405
405
425
400
420
425
MEDIAN
LN
385
385
400
400
405
400
430
41
400
405
395
440
430
415
400
405
410
415
395
395
425
410
405
420
425
400
405
LN
390
390
390
390
420
415
410
415
0
38
395
395
5
415
420
415
405
395
430
395
40
415
415
8'
400
12'
400
40
0
44
420
0
42
5
43
400
400
405
410
415
420
405
415
39
5
395
410
410
410
420
425
430
420
440
425
420
410
400
405
410
415
39
5
400
39
5
395
395
39
0
400
385
400
400
400
405
41
400
400
40
400
405
400
420
405
410
405
415
425
400
405
400
400
M
420
410
400
400
385
390
385
395
390
425
C
E
R
M
5
42
400
400
395
400
395
410
415
405
420
410
R
P
430
U
430
425
400
395
385
390
390
385
395
400
400
390
385
390
410
385
400
420
410
11'
400
405
410
42
5
41
0
41
415
42
0
42
5
43
0
ON
H O U ST
40
410
425
425
405
410
40
5
38
395
e
ng
a
Ch
FT
to
A
ct
e
DRubj
385
425
415
400
395
400
415
425
42
415 0
410
405
400
400
405
405
390
400
420
395
16'-24'
410
395
395
390
385
395
425
425
395
405
415
APRIL 2015. ALL INFORMATION IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
42
400
390
420
395
390
11'
410
410
405
405
0
40
385
415
400
405
40
39
405
5
40
405
400
0
39
385
410
415
420
12'
405
405
38
430
425
410
415
405
405
415
410
400
VISION PLAN DATED 12-10-2010 AND THE DESIGN CHARRETTE REPORT FROM
410
400
425
420
410
415
415
395
395
400
395
405
410
415
41
400
0
40
405
410
410
0
41
420
405
400
415
410
39
43
0
41
395
395
420
T
H
)
G 25
LI LT
(
400
425
415
410
400
41
395
420
395
405
425
425
405
410
410
410
425
0
42
395
390
380
385
390
415
430
395
42
400
405
5
40
395
0
390
0
40
5
41
410
415
385
.
YP
T
LE,
PO
5
39
0
41
40
420
425
385
405
5
40
395
390
400
0
40
39
395
THIS EXHIBIT PRESENTS INFORMATION FROM THE APROVED TRINITY PARKWAY

395
420
9
40
L-
5
39
385
425
405
400
395
380
385
390
0
39
42
415
395
430
430
415
400
405
410
405
410
5
38
42
385
39
395
385
385
410
415
415
5
39
425
405
39
410
0
40
410
40
405
410
405
390
395
405
39
41
5
41
405
400
395
400
390
415
420
405
410
390
395
395
415
425
415
410
410
390
395
SH
390
395
380
395
415
420
410
410
415
410
420
410
415
400
0
40
415
400
5
40
425
9
40
L-
410
0
40
5
40
405
395
395
395
AR
C ED
5
0
40
400
395
5
39
395
41
40
40
395
395
385
390
385
390
395
400
0
42
390
400
5
38
395
5
42
41
415
40
39
405
390
395
400
395 39
6
42
410
405
5
40
5
41
0
41
390
405
430
410
395
0
42
405
0
41
390
390
410
430
420
5
41
395
415
425
0
41
420
42
410
400
420
420
5
40
395
42
410
390
405
425
415
400
0
43
410
430
410
405
395
395
400
5
40
415
430
405
400
400
5
39
395
395
395
395
0
38
390
395
5
39
42
43
395
420
425
400
400
405
P.
Y
,T
LE
O
P
T
H
)
G 23
LI LT
(
405
400
395
2'
390
395
410
385
385
390
385
38
405
420
405
405
395
405
400
400
CO M
41
42
405
400
400
395
385
40
0
40
40
400
405
395
400
400
395
395
395
390
395
400
395
390
405
400
400
1'
395
400
395
400
395
395
0
39
41
385
400
400
400
40
400
5
40
8'
395
405
405
410
400
390
400
40
39
0
40
415
405
395
400
410
410
405
405
5
0
39 39
395
40
39
5
39
405
0
39
410
405
415
425
5
38
5
40
405
420
430
415
400
5
38
400
425
430
410
400
410
395
39
1'
395
400
415
385
38
395
410
400
395
405
395
FRONT
R
E
V
I
R
390
400
405
415
420
425
5
39
390
410
430
395
400
405
415
395
415
2'
400
400
395
385
400
5
395
395
420
41
395
38
39
405
0
41
390
390 385
415
395
430
425
405
400
400
40
0
42
395
420
395
430
410
415
420
400
400
400
415
0
39
410
425
405
400
400
400
405
400
400
39
395
400
395
390
380
405
395
400
405
395
435
425
400
400
395
385
420
390
400
400
400
405
400
435
405
40
430
395
395
39
410
400
400
430
410
405
400
400
395
405
435
395
390
395
425
415
39
420
400
0
40
395
430
385
425
405
395
400
430
38
400
425
405
390
410
390
420
410
400
400
40
440
385
395
415
420
415
415
395
39
415
395
385
395
425
410
405
400
405
395
39
445
405
395
390
390
430
415
405
415
5
40
415
400
0
40
415
395
5
39
405
410
400
41
390
0
39
400
415
405
0
40
410
395
405
420
410
405
40
5
41
390
405
410
425
40
405
395
415
430
420
400
400
395
400
395
400
410
400
405
395
390
0
40
405
5
40
5
40
0
41
395
41
0
42
40
5
5
42
400
0
43
39
405
0
43
40
5
42
420
420
425
430
405
415
405
400
405
390
400
400
400
385
395
395
405
405
395
395
84'-92'
400
410
405
400
395
395
430
410
415
39
0
42
405
0
41
400
415
400
400
405
400
410
420
425
42
400
405
5
40
400
400
405
41
0
40
400
405
425
405
405
415
415
400
400
400
395
395
420
410
395
405
395
400
405
410
400
400
410
400
405
420
400
390
405
405
405
435
430
425
385
425
400
410
395
395
385
380
420
405
405
400
395
5
39
395
430
410
405
410
425
395
5
0
39
38
41
405
40
38
405
390
390
410
5
39
390
400
400
405
0
40
395
0
39
39
390
41
400
0
42
41
405
390
430
405
395
5
42
400
43
400
5
42
405
410
5
38
395
390
405
385
0
42
395
425
400
405
400
43
400
400
420
405
39
40
40
39
385
0
39
5
40
405
385
41
39
395
405
410
405
410
395
390
38
430
430
410
420
415
415
425
39
400
390
425
400
400
410
425
420
430
415
405
430
400
410
425
385
425
430
395
40
0
405
400
390
410
430
405
410
415
420
5
40
425
400
400
410
415
0
40
400
405
415
405
405
395
400
390
400
400
400
405
415
405
395
420
425
400
405
390
395
5
39
400
405
400
405
390
385
400
425
405
410
415
420
400
0
40
385
420
395
400
405
400
395
400
400
405
5
40
410
405
405
405
405
390
425
420
405
405
40
405
405
410
410
410

420
410
430
2.5% TYP
2.5% TYP
430
400
400
CO
5
40
415
430
405
400
400
420
415
425
400
415
405
405
405
400
5
41
410
405
405
410
425
405
405
405
405
405
400
390
415
410
400
390
395
410
415
420
400
40
395
390
405
415
410
400
400
385
400
405
405
395
390
410
415
38
430
420
415
405
430
0
41
405
400
41
40
41
420
410
405
405
405
405
430 5 0
42 42
405
390
395
400
0
42
400
5
42
0
40
410
410
405
425
405
405
405
0
43
410
40
400
405
405
420
380
42
43
415
395
385
400
5
40
415
405
410
410
400
425
415
415
UPRR
410
410
400
415
5
41
405
445
400
400
405
405
410
390
415
405
410
395
420
0
42
415
405
390
41
385
400
400
420
415
390
390
SH
395
415
420
420
395
425
420
400
R SO N
JEFFE
425
430
40
420
425
425
430
400
400
405
410
415
420
390
0
40
40
410
415
405
405
40
405
40
405
400
42
405
405
390
405
425
40
395
395
LN

TYPICAL SECTION, 16' MEDIAN
390
395
400
430
410
390
42
405
420
420
400
395
390
385
430
425
425
385
415
40
425
425
430
420
40
410
400
390
40
5
5
40
385
425
415
410
405
40
415
41
420
420
410
400
40
400
400
395
415
415
405
400
400
405
395
385
395
395
410
405
395
420
385
425
405
400
390
390
43
0
395
0
40
410
405
405
0
41
400
410
390
405
390 395
400
405
395
425
400
400
410
405
410
405
395
405
425
40
390
400
40
420
405
395
400
415
400
0
40
400
395
430
430
400
400
410
390
395
400
5
40
405
410
405
405
5
40
TBPE FIRM #F-312
405
400
400
0
40
HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC.
400
41
DATE
400
40
40
M ON
2-03-2016
390
405
410
40
410
DATE
405
405
405
405
395
2-03-2016
405
0
41
405
410
400
400
415
430
OR CONSTRUCTION
415
385
385
430
420
400
LN
435
425
DE
I
OUTS
WALL
DGE
OF BRI
INTENDED
390
390
395
400
400
430
430
0
40
400
395
P.E. NO.
390
395
400
400
400
NAME
103650
395
400
405
405
JEREMY W. MCGAHAN
P.E. NO.
405
/
N
O
PT
D
O
O
NAME
69910
5
40
0
41
5
40
PURPOSES. THEY WERE PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:
MATTHEW G. CRAIG
41
42
42
BIDDING
405
PERMIT,
405
IN
APPROVAL,
405
405
HA
REGULATORY
41
0
43
395
400
FOR
NOT
5
42
405
EXISTING CONTOUR LINES
AND
385
410
0
42
405
EXISTING ROW
REVIEW
395
405
5
41
DESIGN CHARRETTE REFINED ALIGNMENT
THESE DOCUMENTS ARE FOR INTERIM
400
400
405
400
405
405
0
41
43
LEGEND:
FOR INTERIM REVIEW ONLY
405
400
400
41
0
41
PRELIMINARY
405
390
395
405
390
41
PAVEMENT (FROM SCHEMATIC)
405
405
40
BRIDGE (FROM SCHEMATIC)
40
405
FUTURE LAMAR LEVEE (DRAFT, BY OTHERS)
385
405
41
0
40
ry
na
i
m
i
l
e
r
P
400
395
390
39
39
40
5
405
40
405
405
410
42
41
405
405
0
40
40
405
405
415
405
0
41
39
40
410
405
405
410
400
MEDIAN
430
385
5
39
390
395
LN
405
400
0
40
385
38
5
40
395
390
405
41
5
40
400
405
405
W EA
LTH
405
405
41
5
39
405
405
405
LN
415
400
405
5
39
405
405
400
400
405
e
ng
T o Cha
F
A ect t
j
ub
DR
,S
400
0
41
405
40
400
390
5
41
395
395
405
405
0
42
40
400
400
405
390

410
410
405
400
400
5
40
5
42
405
405
385
390
395
405
400
405
385
405
405
410
400
395
390
385
405
390
390
0
43
400
395
415
S
O PU
D
A R
LL 3
6
R 6/
O
D
G
ER
385
395
43
405
385
390
400
400
390
400
390
395
400
405
405
405
395
5
42
420
385
400
0
40
385
400
425
390
395
400
395
390
395
400
405
395
405
390
405
405
405
5
42
430
405
400
400
385
400
405
400
0
42
410
400
390
NT
IN
EN
TA
L
410
405
405
400
405
400
5
41
400
385
2.5% TYP
2.5% TYP
SH
405
425
415
385
390
395
390
385
385
0
40
400
5
40
410
420
420
420
390
385
2.5% TYP
2.5% TYP
415
425
395
5
40
390
395
5
40
390
405
0
40
405
430
400
405
395
390
420
415
410
40
400
40
39
5
40
400
405
390
390
395
395
395
400
405
5
40
40
40
0
40
395
400
385
395
390
390
390
405
42
400
405
405
0
40
415
420
425
430
400
385
400
395
405
385
385
415
420
410
410
400
395
390
400
390
395
400
395
400
410
405
400
405
405
390
410
405
400
42
405
410
395
0
40
400
390
/
N
A
F
LV LIF
SY
YC
400
400
405
390
385
405
405
400
400
400
395
405
5
39
405
405
400
405
405
405
385
390
410
420
410
40
40
400
395
390
425
400
405
395
390
415
410
410
400
395
400
400
400
405
42
405
410
400
400
405
415
415
40
400
395
400
410
430
425
420
410
405
420
415
415
430
405
400
425
400
420
425
400
41
400
400
425
420
395
5
40
405
41
395
430
415
40
400
395
410
395
415
40
390
400
405
400
0
39
420
400
38
415
405
410
415 0
42
400
385
410
425
40
400
390
385
395
400
405
400
385
395
400
425
415
430
41
405
400
405
400
395
390
385
390
420
425
410
415
420
400
X
A
IF
L
A
405
400
420
405
385
410
39
385
405
400
395
400
385
400
400
405
425
390
405
400
410
430
395
38
410
405
39
415
431
410
415
40
405
420
425
420
415
425
405
395
420
405
415
410
425
430
420
400
395
430
405
420
425
430
430
410
400
405
425
415
400
19
395
405
405
400
Pier
415
395
400
390
430
405
390
405
400
425
405
395
400
410
420
405
390
395
430
42
400
385
405
40
410
400
395
390
5
40
405
405
420
405
395
IR
405
405
425
420
395
400
405
40
0
40
430
425
420
400
405
420
425
425
415
5
40
405
405
5
40
405
405
5
40
410
405
405
40
0
41
40
SH
410
415
410
410
400
5
40
LN
415
415
410
8'
405
41
LN
400
415
0
41
420
12'
410
0
41
5
41
42
410
415
410
430
415
405
5
40
415
410
415
395
405
MEDIAN
415
0
41
410
11'
410
405
41
LN
2'
16'-116'
405
405
405
40
LN
420
405
420
405
405
405
405
410
435
405
40
410
410
410
405
410
405
405
SH
40
405
425
400
400
405
410
410
40
SH
400
395
395
390
405
405
410
405
40
LN
410
405
430
395
IN
420
405
LN
405
425
430
405
415
MEDIAN
LN
415
400
400
400
420
405
410
405
420
395
395
405
405
410
415
405
LN
400
415
390
405
405
SH
400
40
420
420
405
5
40
40
5
410
41
0
40
0
425
400
400
410
425
405
400
0
41
405
41
420
410
420
405
415
415
405
405
8'
425
430
420
405
40
405
41
415
42
425
12'
425
410
41
2'
11'
410
22
430
410
425
8'-16'
415
430
Pier
425
405
385
400
40
42
1'
11'
1'
11'
40
0
400
405
390
415
425
420
420
405
385
39
1'
12'
425
415
400
395
405
395
405
410
405
410
395
0
40
405
40
35E
400
415
410
405
420
410
385
5
40
410
405
8'
1'
12'
40
5
40
395
405
0
40
405
425
410
405
395
390
400
0
41
425
0
5
39 40
410
410
400
400
415
405
400
400
400
39
390
405
40
40
405
400
400
39
395
5
41
420
410
410
400
425
420
420
390
415
400
415
410
405
415
400
390
420
0
40
420
425
410
405
415
8'
TEXAS
420
405
395
395
405
39
0
42
390
410
2'
12'
415
410
11'
2'
410
410
8'
400
420
390
400
390
410
16'-150'
420
415
395
425
395
39
405
11'
415
405
415
400
425
400
405
425
395
395
420
12'
405
410
400
40
420
INTERSTATE
400
395
395
425
405
410
405
405
40
415
400
400
390
410
415
405
405
420
420
425
400
400
415
400
405
8'
415
420
405
40
405
405
2'
400
405
410
420
425
405
405
410
400
400
400
400
405
400
405
1'
430
430
415
415
410
420
C O R IN TH
400
400
405
405
425
425
405
1'
400
425
420
405
410
40
420
0
40
420
415
395
405
395
420
398.
5
400
385
39
400
415
410
400
400
415
2'
405
410
405
405
410
395
415
405
430
425
405
400
390
405
40
5
5
39
405
400
400
405
5
40
405
390
395
395
390
400
39
395
76'-84'
400
40
405
30
405
405
395
42
405
410
405
400
L
AMAR
415
420
425
425
420
40
410
41
430
415
40
400
5
39
410
410
430
415
41
5
39
390
410
0
39
5
40
39
0
40
5
40
410
400
390
400
405
410
430
435
415
420
420
39
425
415
84'-218'
40
425
400
40
405
395
40
425
430
400
405
400
40
405
425
420
TEXAS
400
400
405
40
405
425
INTERSTATE
405
395
430
1335+00
405
390
40
400
1330+00
415
390
395
405
1325+00
84'-184'
385
40
400
395
415
415.
88
1320+00
400
400
40
420
425
425
1305+00
415
395
405
43
0
435
1300+00
420
385
405
400
414.
93
399.
0
414.
51
413.
39
413.
14
411.
85
399.
8
411.
78
400.
1
410.
31
399.
3
410.
41
408.
77
398.
9
409.
04
407.
23
407.
68
405.
77
398.
8
406.
39
398.
7
404.
89
398.
2
405.
65
404.
68
398.
8
405.
55
405.
13
406.
07
406.
25
398.
1
407.
23
397.
3
407.
95
397.
6
408.
93
409.
73
397.
7
410.
71
411.
51
412.
50
413.
29
398.
2
414.
28
397.
2
415.
07
395.
8
416.
06
416.
85
395.
3
417.
85
418.
63
419.
63
420.
41
395.
4
421.
41
397.
0
422.
19
397.
5
423.
20
423.
97
397.
9
424.
91
425.
46
426.
11
426.
36
398.
4
1295+00
435
405
405
425
435
1290+00
430
430
1285+00
40
410
5
40
B
36,EL=420.
05
L PSBTP STA 1333+03.
430
PROP SB PGL ELEV
EXI
ST GRND ELEV
426.
72
398.
7
426.
69
398.
3
426.
76
426.
43
398.
5
426.
28
425.
88
425.
73
425.
33
398.
5
425.
18
397.
5
424.
78
424.
63
379.
6
424.
23
390.
5
424.
08
423.
68
423.
53
423.
13
394.
2
422.
98
393.
1
422.
58
422.
43
380.
9
422.
03
386.
5
421.
88
421.
48
421.
33
420.
93
393.
8
420.
78
395.
2
1280+00
410
1200+00
425
1195+00
435
1190+00
415
420
5
0
41 41
END FLOOD SEPARATI

ON WALL
64.
0'RT B
00
BEGI
N FLOOD SEPARATI
ON WALL
B
00
420.
38
420.
23
395.
5
419.
83
419.
68
419.
28
419.
13
418.
73
395.
4
418.
58
396.
1
418.
18
418.
03
396.
6
417.
63
396.
6
417.
48
417.
08
416.
93
416.
53
396.
4
416.
38
396.
0
415.
98
415.
83
395.
5
415.
43
395.
2
415.
28
414.
88
414.
73
414.
33
395.
0
414.
18
395.
6
413.
78
413.
63
395.
9
413.
23
396.
5
413.
08
412.
68
412.
53
412.
13
395.
8
411.
98
395.
8
411.
58
411.
70
394.
6
411.
30
394.
7
411.
98
411.
58
412.
53
412.
13
393.
9
413.
08
394.
4
412.
68
413.
63
395.
2
413.
23
394.
3
413.
91
413.
51
395.
3
413.
66
413.
26
412.
86
395.
4
412.
47
411.
80
395.
3
411.
41
395.
4
410.
74
410.
35
396.
3
409.
68
409.
29
408.
62
397.
6
408.
23
407.
56
398.
4
407.
17
399.
3
406.
50
406.
11
397.
5
405.
44
405.
05
404.
37
379.
7
397.
7
402.
25
401.
88
399.
0
401.
26
400.
82
400.
72
397.
8
400.
02
400.
70
396.
5
399.
74
394.
7
401.
13
399.
98
395.
2
401.
63
400.
48
402.
13
400.
98
394.
5
402.
63
396.
7
401.
48
397.
9
403.
13
401.
98
398.
4
403.
63
402.
48
404.
13
402.
98
399.
3
404.
63
399.
5
403.
48
399.
4
405.
13
403.
98
398.
9
405.
63
404.
48
406.
13
404.
98
399.
3
406.
63
399.
5
405.
48
400.
1
407.
13
405.
98
399.
7
407.
63
406.
48
408.
13
406.
98
398.
2
408.
63
397.
1
407.
48
397.
3
409.
13
407.
98
395.
9
409.
63
408.
48
410.
13
408.
98
396.
0
410.
63
394.
6
409.
48
397.
3
411.
13
409.
98
397.
7
411.
63
410.
48
412.
13
410.
98
397.
7
412.
63
398.
1
411.
48
398.
3
413.
13
411.
98
398.
7
413.
38
412.
48
413.
13
412.
98
399.
3
412.
63
400.
4
413.
23
400.
5
412.
13
412.
98
401.
0
411.
63
412.
48
411.
13
411.
98
401.
2
410.
63
401.
1
411.
48
410.
13
401.
2
410.
98
401.
2
409.
63
410.
48
409.
13
409.
98
401.
5
408.
69
402.
2
409.
48
408.
69
402.
4
409.
05
401.
7
409.
19
409.
10
410.
13
409.
63
401.
4
401.
1
411.
05
410.
23
411.
43
401.
6
410.
53
402.
2
411.
19
410.
23
410.
33
409.
33
401.
9
408.
85
401.
2
407.
83
406.
92
401.
0
406.
11
400.
8
405.
54
404.
97
404.
88
404.
49
400.
1
404.
94
399.
8
404.
67
405.
72
400.
2
405.
51
400.
5
407.
13
406.
93
408.
63
408.
43
399.
9
387.
1
410.
13
409.
93
411.
63
394.
1
411.
43
400.
3
412.
88
412.
68
413.
63
413.
43
400.
5
413.
88
400.
4
413.
68
413.
63
400.
9
413.
43
401.
3
413.
13
412.
93
412.
63
412.
43
383.
9
412.
13
401.
1
411.
93
411.
63
400.
9
411.
43
400.
0
411.
46
411.
02
400.
3
411.
96
411.
20
413.
13
400.
0
412.
07
414.
63
400.
5
413.
53
401.
0
416.
13
401.
5
417.
63
416.
63
419.
13
400.
9
418.
18
420.
63
400.
9
419.
47
400.
1
422.
13
420.
23
399.
6
423.
38
420.
73
424.
13
398.
4
421.
23
424.
63
397.
0
421.
73
397.
2
425.
13
422.
23
396.
0
425.
63
422.
73
426.
13
397.
6
423.
23
426.
63
398.
2
423.
73
397.
6
427.
13
424.
23
397.
9
427.
63
424.
73
428.
13
425.
23
398.
7
428.
63
398.
7
425.
73
398.
7
429.
07
426.
17
399.
2
429.
07
426.
17
428.
63
425.
73
400.
7
428.
13
401.
3
425.
23
401.
9
427.
63
424.
73
402.
2
427.
19
424.
29
427.
19
424.
29
402.
3
427.
63
415.
08
1185+00
39
40
415
41
1180+00
40
0
39
410
PROPOSED TOLL GANTRY
1175+00
405
0
39
420
445
5
405
410
PROPOSED DIAPHRAGM WALL
1170+00
0
42
5
39
395
410
425
435
40
410
PROPOSED FLOOD WALL
1165+00
40
400
405
400
405
415
PROPOSED SECURITY WALL
401.
9
424.
73
393.
8
428.
13
425.
23
382.
5
428.
63
429.
13
425.
73
1160+00
405
5
41
420
5
41
425
405
0
41
405
415
415
410
425
415
425
440
39
0
5
40
410
405
405
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
420
430
430
370
425
1155+00
400
405
420
405
PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT
380
400
405
420
415
430
400
40
40
425
415
395
395
5
40
410
405
PROPOSED ROW (BY OTHERS)
410
43

TYPICAL SECTION, 16' MEDIAN
405
415
415
425
410
435
405
410
405
405
405
PROPOSED ROW
420
440
40
39
40
440
440
430
425
405
SCALE: 1"=200'
430
440
390
IN
R
T
41
415
400
40
Y
IT
415
435
435
405
5
40
40
41
440
425
5
40
405
440
410
DISCHARGE (BY OTHERS)
405
40
405
0
42
41
5
42
(-)1.4
54%
(+)1.
400
PROPOSED ABLE PUMP STATION
370
2.5% TYP
END FLOOD SEPARATI

ON WALL
PROP SB PGL ELEV
380
40
400
(-)0.50%
PROP SB PGL
35E
300
(+)1.06
EXIST GROUND
AT PROP PGL
7%
(+)1.3
4%
PROP NB PGL
(-)0.50%
PROP BVP EL
400
390
(
)
1
.
78%
(
)
1
.
78%
395.
6
SH
420
63%
.
1
+)
(
84%
.
1
+)
(
(-)1.05
PROP BVP EL
(+)1.06
404.
00
LN
PROP NB PGL ELEV
LN
44
PROP 10 YR WSEL
(-)0.55%
(-)0.50%
(+)0.50%
EXI
ST GRND ELEV
MEDIAN
TEXAS
405
42
420
200
80%
.
1
+)
(
0%
LN
440
420
410
100
0%
(-)0.55%
(-)0.60%
0%
1
2.
+)
(
(-)1.5
(-)1.5
LN
2.5% TYP
405
0%
0%
(-)0.50%
(+)0.50%
(-)1.00%
(-)1.5
(-)1.5
PROP 25 YR WSEL
(+)0.55%
PROP BVP EL
(+)0.50%
(+)0.50%
430
PROP 50 YR WSEL
(+)0.55%
PROP 10 YR WSEL
PROP 10 YR WSEL
0%
5%
410
435
PROP 100 YR WSEL
PROP NB PGL ELEV
(-)1.5
(-)1.5
BEGIN FLOOD SEPARATION WALL
410
440
PROP 25 YR WSEL
PROP 25 YR WSEL
420
8'
403.
31
12'
379.
7
11'
(+)0.55%
440
440
440
(+)0.55%
402.
94
16'
52.00' RT B
LPSBTP STA 1173+00.00
SH
41
41
405
400
TEXAS
11'
410
40
5
0
405
405
183
12'
400
405
405
405
410
(+)0.50%
(-)0.50%
8'
395
5
40
405
405
405
410
PROP 50 YR WSEL
390
405
410
PROP 100 YR WSEL
PROP 50 YR WSEL
440
450
405
PROP 100 YR WSEL
0
44
460
395
41
(-)0.50%
405
5
41
(+)0.50%
DART
420
0
42
(-)0.50%
(-)0.50%
RIVERFRONT
410
415
405
41
L = 200.00
430
INTERSTATE
W
IL
A
R
405
2'
CORINTH
435
41
410
405
1'
426.
23
405
405
1'
401.
8
MO
405
405
405
2'
K = 200
405
405
Y
A
JEFFERSON MEMORIAL
COMMERCE
UPRR
ex = -0.25'
400
405
410
405
405
JEFFERSON
HOUSTON
REUNION OVERLOOK
395
410
IH 35E
IH 30
EL = 423.63
390
405
415
410
385
405
420
WOODALL RODGERS
STA = 1176+00.00
440
400
410
SPUR 366 /
CONTINENTAL
450
385
415
405
420
460
395
420
84'
405
EM PIRE CEN TR AL
415
S
S
E
R
P
X
E
40
40
5
410
410
470
440
5
40
420
410
440
440
410
40
410
415
440
PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY (60 MPH)
415
410
0
40
405
410
TEXAS
45
470
C KI
NGB
410
41
390
410
410
410
410
410
410
40
410
35E
INTERSTATE
440
INTERSTATE
395
410
410
390
410
405
410
410
LEGEND:
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN CHARRETTE REFINED ALIGNMENT

EXISTING ROW
FOR INTERIM REVIEW ONLY
EXISTING CONTOUR LINES

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE FOR INTERIM
FOR
REGULATORY
APPROVAL,
REVIEW
PERMIT,
AND
BIDDING
NOT
INTENDED
OR CONSTRUCTION
PURPOSES. THEY WERE PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:
MATTHEW G. CRAIG
69910
NAME
P.E. NO.
JEREMY W. MCGAHAN
103650
NAME
P.E. NO.
2-03-2016
DATE
2-03-2016
FUTURE LAMAR LEVEE (DRAFT, BY OTHERS)

BRIDGE (FROM SCHEMATIC)
PAVEMENT (FROM SCHEMATIC)
PROPOSED ROW
PROPOSED EDGE OF PAVEMENT
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
DATE
PROPOSED SECURITY WALL
HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC.
PROPOSED FLOOD WALL
TBPE FIRM #F-312
PROPOSED DIAPHRAGM WALL
58
Trinity Parkway Technical Team Proposal

(Conceptual Development of the Design
Charrette Report)
March 2016
Page 1 of 57
59
Technical Team
Larry Beasley Co-Facilitator
Brent Brown Co-Facilitator
bcWORKSHOP Urban Planning and Design
City Design Studio Urban Planning and Design
Larry Good Urban Planning/Design and Economic Development
Gresham, Smith and Partners Stormwater Management and
Design/Environmental Planning
Keith Manoy Transportation Planning
Halff Associates Transportation Planning/Road Design
HNTB Corporation Geotechnical and Levee Integrity
Salcedo Group Civil Engineering
Michael Van Valkenburgh and Associates Environmental Design and Landscape
Architecture
Local, state and federal project partners:

City of Dallas
North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA)
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Page 2 of 57
60
Design Charrette Team

Larry Beasley Planner/Urban Designer Chairman*
John Alschuler Economic Development Specialist*
Zabe Bent Transportation Planner*
Brent Brown Urban Planning and Design*
Ignacio Bunster-Ossa Landscape Architect/Urban Designer
Timothy Dekker Hydrology Specialist*
Elissa Hoagland Izmailyan Economic Development Specialist*
Allan Jacobs Planner/Urban Designer
Alex Krieger Architect/Urban Designer*
Elizabeth Macdonald Urban Designer
Alan Mountjoy Architect/Urban Designer*
Mark Simmons Landscape Architect/Ecology Specialist
Jeff Tumlin Transportation Planner*
* Also participated in Technical Team work sessions
Advisors
Councilwoman Sandy Greyson
Jere Thompson
Advisory Committee:
Councilwoman Sandy Greyson, Co-Chair
Jere Thompson, Co-Chair
Ambassador Ron Kirk, Former U.S. Trade Representative & Dallas Mayor
Representative Rafael Anchia, Texas House
Angela Hunt, Former Councilwoman
Chancellor Lee Jackson, University of North Texas and Former County Judge
Mary Ceverha, Founder & Former Trinity Commons Foundation President
Robert (Bob) Meckfessel, Former American Institute of Architects Dallas President
Parkway Oversight Committee:

City Council Transportation & Trinity River Project Committee
Page 3 of 57
61
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to serve as a summary of findings by the Trinity
Parkway Technical Team (Technical Team), regarding evaluation of the ideas
within the Trinity Parkway Design Charrette Report (Report) and how those ideas
may be implemented within the context of current federal regulatory approvals.
Background
The first river freeway was identified in the 1967 DFW Regional Transportation
Plan and was also included in the Consolidated Plan for Open Space Development
of the Trinity River System adopted by the Dallas City Council in 1970. In the
summer of 1994, The Trinity River Corridor Citizens Committee (TRCCC) began
looking at the Trinity Parkway as part of their vision for the Trinity River Corridor,
within the City limits. Their report was approved in May 1995 by the Dallas City
Council and recommended a levee couplet to accommodate major traffic
movements to different directions while providing access to recreational areas.
The Trinity Parkway Corridor Major Transportation Investment Study (MTIS) was
occurring parallel to the TRCCC work and ultimately recommended a 8-lane, 45
MPH split parkway, inside the levees, from SH-183 & IH-35 to US-175 with some or
all of the road being tolled (The Trinity Parkway). The MTIS was approved by the
Dallas City Council in September 1997.
The 1998 Bond Proposition 11 was approved by the citizens and included $84M for
the Trinity Parkway. In January 1999, the City entered into an interlocal agreement
with the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) and Texas Department of
Transportation which set the stage for advancing the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Trinity Parkway. During the early 2000s, the Balanced
Vision Plan (BVP) initiative began and the Trinity Parkway vision ultimately
changed from a split parkway to a combined parkway along the east levee. The
Page 4 of 57
62
Dallas City Council approved the BVP in December 2003 and amended in March
2004, which included the Trinity Parkway.
The Trinity Parkway Environmental Impact Statement was completed and a federal
Record of Decision (ROD) was made in April 2015, selecting Alternative 3C as the
only practicable alternative for construction.
Trinity Parkway Design Charrette

In April 2015, the Dallas City Council was presented with the Trinity Parkway Design
Charrette Report (Charrette Report) which was prepared by a team of external
experts in urban, transportation, landscape, and environmental design (Design
Charrette Team). This report primarily focused on the proposed Trinity Parkway
where it converges with the Dallas Floodway north of Hampton/Inwood and exits
the Dallas Floodway south of MLK/Cedar Crest. The Charrette Report was prepared
prior to the ROD. The Design Charrette Teams vision was for a scaled down, parkaccessible Trinity Parkway rather than a limited access highway. This has effectively
been envisioned as a first phase of a staged ROD-approved ultimate scheme. The
Charrette Report reflects 20 key ideas in four categories as follows:
Confirmations: Four (4) ideas confirming solutions from the proposed Trinity
Parkway Scheme 3C, as proposed in the ROD;
Variations: Five (5) ideas recommending variations from the ROD for immediate
implementation;
Design Refinements: Seven (7) ideas representing further refinements of the ROD
representing detailed design for immediate implementation;
Development Strategies: Four (4) ideas representing an economic development
strategy, maximizing the park and Parkway, defining four major urban districts and
compatible development at both the north and south ends, before the Parkway
joins the existing highway system.
Page 5 of 57
63
City Council Direction

The City Manager was directed by Council Resolution 150732 to form a team,
including partners and appropriate expertise from a variety of disciplines, to
determine actions that would be necessary to implement the findings of the
Charrette Report within the ROD. The initial team formed included local, state and
federal agencies. As a first step, this group discussed the 20 ideas and categorized
them based on those which could be implemented easily, those elements which
could be staged (consistent with a road for this generation as described in the
Charrette Report), those which would require more discussion to better
understand what the Design Charrette Team intended and those ideas which would
be more difficult and require detailed design efforts. This formed the basis for
types of expertise that would be necessary to begin technical evaluation and
possible implementation of the Charrette Report.
Public Forums
During the months of May and June, 2015, several local public forums were
conducted around the city to gather input on the 20 ideas featured in the Charrette
Report. Citizens and others were also afforded an opportunity to provide public
input via an open online opportunity. Several hundred comments were received.
This input was shared with the Technical Team and later with Trinity Parkway
Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) members. Dates and locations of
forums are noted below.
5/26/15 El Centro College, West Campus, 3330 N. Hampton

5/28/15 Parkhill Junior High, 16500 Shadybank
6/2/15 Dallas Regional Chamber, 500 N. Akard #2600
6/8/15 Fair Park, Womens Museum, 3800 Parry
6/9/15 Wilshire Bank Community Center, 2237 Royal
6/10/15 University of North Texas at Dallas, 7300 University Hills
6/11/15 El Centro College Bill J. Priest Institute for Economic
Development, 1402 Corinth
6/11/15 Cedar Crest Golf Course, 1800 Southerland
6/15/15 Knights of Columbus, 10110 Shoreview
Page 6 of 57
64
6/16/15 Walnut Hill Recreation Center Ballroom, 10011 Midway

6/22/15 Methodist Dallas Medical Center Hitt Auditorium, 1441 N.
Beckley
6/23/15 Dallas City Performance Hall, 2520 Flora
6/24/15 6th Floor Museum, 411 Elm
Technical Review
Local, regional and private partners and the City of Dallas funded a Technical Team
of consultants and provided in-kind support through staff and resources. This
Technical Team included national and local expertise, as well as staff from the local,
state and federal project partner agencies. Several members of the Design
Charrette Team also actively participated in Technical Team work sessions.
The Technical Team has been working throughout the fall of 2015 and winter of
2016 to bring forward its assessment of feasibility regarding the ideas
presented. The Technical Team proceeded with interactive design investigations
and development of detailed conceptual designs from hand-drawn ideas in the
Charrette Report. They focused their work on the ideas recommended in the
Charrette Report and then assessed their potential consistency with the existing
ROD.
Summary of Findings
In summary, the Technical Teams conceptual design proposal (Technical Proposal)
significantly performs or is largely consistent with the Charrette Report in the
Technical Proposal as follows.
Of the 20 key features of the charrette scheme:
Nine (9) are clearly consistent.

Three (3) offer only minor variations that are not incompatible.
One (1) offers potential significant variation and requires Council choices.
Three (3) are policy decisions, not matters of technical design, and the
detailed design accommodates them.
Page 7 of 57
65
Four (4) are still subject to more detailed design which normally will not
happen until later in the process and therefore cannot now be fully judged,
though nothing incompatible is anticipated.
In addition, other matters have emerged through the technical design
process that will require Council consideration as discussed herein.
Advisory Committee Review

On January 15, 2016, Mayor Michael Rawlings notified the Dallas City Council of the
appointment of the aforementioned Advisory Committee members by Council
members Sandy Greyson and Jere Thompson, Jr. The purpose of the Advisory
Committee was to review the work of the Trinity Parkway Technical Committee and
to opine on whether the final design of the road was true to the 20 ideas presented
to the City Council by Larry Beasley and the Design Charrette Team. In addition, the
Advisory Committee was asked to share their opinions with the City Council
through commentary provided to the City Council Transportation & Trinity River
Project Committee.
The full Advisory Committee met twice to review and provide information on the
technical work prepared during the Technical Committee process. Additional
meetings and discussion were also held among various Advisory Committee
members, and their report is provided as part of this document.
Page 8 of 57
66
Idea #1
Confirmation #1
Roadway and land bench elevations, roadway corridor
and end connection to highways generally as earlier
proposed.
Discussion: The Technical Team received clarification that the Design Charrette
Teams intention was to connect the park and levees to the federal highway system
with access to enter and exit the Trinity Parkway at SH-183/IH-35 and IH-45/US175. The Design Charrette Team also clarified that they supported the overall
bench elevation along the proposed Trinity Parkway and the alignment of the
corridor.
Page 9 of 57
67
Ideas: #2; #3; #4
Confirmation #2; Confirmation #3;

Confirmation #4
Pedestrian links across the Parkway generally as earlier
proposed 15 links under and over the Parkway at about
-mile intervals; Top-of-levee bikeways and pedestrian
paths generally as earlier proposed; Service
roads/bikeways/pedestrian paths around the Parkway
generally as earlier proposed.
Discussion: The Technical Team clarified that the Design Charrette Teams
intention was to provide as many pedestrian and bicycle linkages over and under
the Parkway as feasible, in addition to top-of-levee bikeways and pedestrian paths,
and service roads. These linkages were discussed in the context of regional trail
systems, economic development, and transportation planning, as well as
maintaining existing drainage features and park access requirements. The linkages
were also coordinated and discussed with the desired additional landscape
configurations discussed under Design Refinement #3.
Page 10 of 57
68
Idea #5
Variation #1
Only build a 4 lane roadway now fit those 4 lanes of
traffic (narrower lanes + grass shoulders) meandering
within the approved road corridor.
Page 11 of 57
69
Idea #5
Discussion: The Design Charrette Team further clarified that the meanders would
be sufficient within the proposed road corridor without the need to extend beyond
the corridor to a footprint encompassing other parts of the bench areas. It was
affirmed that the Design Charrette Team wanted to avoid neutralizing more areas
on the bench which would be useable for park activities or ecological landscape.
Thirteen (13) meanders were confirmed. The decision was made to pursue the
most purposeful meanders to exploit key views and offer a more aesthetically
pleasing driving experience. It was also explained that meanders were not expected
where bridge structures are currently clustered.
The Technical Team also spent time discussing the desired lane widths, shoulder
treatment, and the median width variables. Regarding the potential for 4 lanes,
the Technical Team determined this configuration was likely acceptable for an
initial stage. However, staging must not preclude construction of ultimate design
approved in ROD. The potential for a median was discussed and the Design
Page 12 of 57
70
Idea #5
Charrette Team confirmed that a landscaped median would reinforce their vision
to soften the impact of pavement. The outside lanes were made slightly wider than
the inside lanes to accommodate transit and occasional on-street parking as
suggested by the Design Charrette Team, who was comfortable with 11-foot wide
inside lanes and 12-foot wide outside lanes. While the Design Charrette Team
originally envisioned grass shoulders, they clarified that gravel or some other nonimpervious shoulders were consistent with their vision because they may facilitate
curb-side parking during special events.
Design Charrette Team vision and several elements as noted further reinforce that
vision. Regarding the ROD, the Technical Team understood that design exceptions
would be required from the approved scheme and these would be suggested as
part of a staged approach. Lane widths were meant to be those of a standard
arterial roadway. This is likely acceptable for a first phase as a meander within
existing road alignment. Reduced lane width and minimized shoulders may require
design exceptions.
Page 13 of 57
71
Idea #6
Variation #2
Build fewer ramps. Only build two set of ramps within the
park accessing the inner city for the foreseeable future: 1
on/off pair at the north end near the Medical District and
1 on/off pair at the south end near Cedar Crest.
Page 14 of 57
72
Idea #6
Discussion: The Technical Team received additional input from the Design
Charrette Team regarding the flexibility of proposals for variations to the two
locations for interchanges identified. The principle of only two sets of ramps
within the park is reflected in the Technical Proposal. At the north section, at
Hampton, one set of on/off ramps on the north side was recommended, but this
was where the Design Charrette Team preferred ramps to be located and the
Design Charrette Team was not absolutely definitive on how many would be
needed. The Design Charrette Team vision was to keep such ramps at the edge of
the park in order to minimize impacts of ramp structures on the park.
The south ramps are identified at Lamar, outside the primary study area and the
park, close to the freeway connection consistent with the ROD. This has not been
explored further by the Design Charrette Team, but it is not contrary to the
Design Charrette Team vision. The Design Charrette Teams preferred set of
ramps at Cedar Crest may be moved to an adjacent location at Riverfront. This is
not inconsistent with the Design Charrette Team vision, except that one of the
ramps crosses over one of the sumps and may present challenges to sump
function and operation for flood control purposes. One benefit of the shift, in
general, is to take ramp construction away from forested areas within the park.
Further design development is needed to reconfigure the one intrusive ramp to
move it away from the sump, and further review of traffic projections is under
way to confirm the preference for any needed shift of location for
ramps/interchanges.
Technical Team Findings: The Technical Proposal, even with its variations,
generally meets the intent of the Design Charrette Team vision, provided the one
intrusive ramp at Riverfront is relocated if shifted from Cedar Crest. Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) projections were generated for each proposed intersection in
the ROD, as well as the recommended interchanges by the Design Charrette
Team. Design exceptions would likely be required from the approved design for
fewer ramps, and to shift and reconfigure ramps. The initial two sets of ramps or
interchanges are recommended as part of a first phase.
Page 15 of 57
73
Idea #7
Variation #3
Ban trucks except for emergencies.
Discussion: The Technical Team discussed the typical approach to toll revenues,
limited projected use by trucks, the possibility for providing higher tolls to reduce
truck traffic, and an outright ban for non-emergency situations.
There is very little demand from trucks on tolled/managed lanes and trucks have
alternative routes. The Design Charrette Team confirmed that a full ban is
recommended. Ultimately, this is a management policy decision that does not
appear to have a large impact on toll revenue. This can be achieved through an
agreement between project partners.
forestall adoption of this policy decision. This policy decision will require further
assessment with project partners to determine potential financial implications.
Page 16 of 57
74
Idea #8
Variation #4
Add a U-turn option within the Parkway corridor at midpoint.
Discussion: The Design Charrette Team outlined their desire that a user of the
park would not have to travel the entire length of the Trinity Parkway if the only
purpose of the trip was to view and/or visit particular park amenities.
Understanding this desire, the Technical Team sought to make provisions for Uturns at the midpoint and further recommended that there be two U-turn options
connected to the access points for the park. This is included in the Technical
Proposal. The Design Charrette Team felt that this was an even better resolution
of their intentions.
Page 17 of 57
75
Idea #8
Technical Team Findings: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) guidance would be
required from the approved scheme and these would be part of a phased approach.
Page 18 of 57
76
Idea #9
Variation #5
Allow on-street parking along the Parkway on weekend
slow periods and special occasions.
Discussion: All options for modifying toll customer payment based on using the
Parkway as an access to the park and/or offering some special event parking can
be provided by somehow offsetting lost toll revenue and appropriate special event
permits, if applicable. This is a management policy decision with financial impacts
and potential liability/safety concerns, but the outside lane has been designed to
be slightly wider than minimal standards to accommodate extra width needed for
occasional parking. This may be achieved through agreements with project
partners.
forestall adoption of this policy decision. This will require a policy decision among
project partners related to operation of the roadway, with the need to address
potential financial implications and liability/safety concerns.
Page 19 of 57
77
Idea #10
Meander the Parkway within the approved road corridor
so that future road sections can be finished now as pulloff parking areas on both sides of the Parkway for park
access and scenic overlook.
Discussion: The Design Charrette Team confirmed that the Technical Proposal of
five pull-off/parking opportunities is consistent with the Design Charrette Team
vision. The Design Charrette Team was also comfortable with the length of onand-off-driveways because they are mindful of the safety considerations and they
allow the pull-off experience to be more attractively landscaped and comfortable
to maneuver for the driver. The Design Charrette Team did not base their vision
of the length of pull-off driveways on the acceleration or deceleration speeds of
the Parkway. The Design Charrette Team confirmed that landscaped steps down
into the lower park areas are desirable as well. These are detailed design matters
Page 20 of 57
78
Idea #10
that need to be confirmed as part of the 65%-level landscape design
development.
Technical Team Findings: Design exceptions may be required from the approved
scheme to achieve the pull-offs and parking for park access. These will be
suggested as integral to the staged or phased approach because these pulloff/parking paved areas are all located within areas that may ultimately be paved
as part of a full build out as currently approved in 3C.
Page 21 of 57
79
Idea #11
Design refinement of the landscape configuration to add
a consistent linear tree pattern at about 20 40-centers
along the Parkway making it a Tree-Lined Parkway for
character and beauty.
Discussion: The Technical Team brought definition to the desire to use regularly
spaced trees and other native vegetation along the Parkway to soften the
appearance of the road. The Technical Team is sensitive to the need to maintain
integrity of the flood control system; hence, technical guidance criteria from the
Corps was utilized to support development of this concept. The Technical Team
developed several alternative approaches for working within the Corps technical
guidance. Most of the proposed tree planting areas from the Design Charrette
Team have been retained, but the viability of all tree-lined areas will require
additional Corps review during more detailed design, with the goal of maximizing
the number of tree-lined areas along the Parkway. Some short distances do not
have a line of trees where trees are impractical over the toe of the levee but this
was expected by the Design Charrette Team. The Design Charrette Team felt that
Page 22 of 57
80
Idea #11
slight variations offer variety for the driving experience along the roadway. The final
pattern of trees will be confirmed through the detailed landscape design, which is
still to come up to 65%-level landscape design development and will include
alignments and hydrologic modeling.
Design Charrette Team vision to achieve the experience of a roadway lined with
trees. This configuration of the tree-lined Parkway remains contingent, which could
be up to 65%-level landscape design development when the full detailed landscape
plan is further refined. This will include additional hydrologic review that is
consistent with the Corps technical parameters.
Page 23 of 57
81
Idea #12
Design refinement of the landscape configuration to add
character, interest, and a strong ecological strategy all
along the Parkway, especially along the land bench edges
and at stream outfall areas.
Discussion: The Technical Team discussed using a strong ecological strategy to

transition from the urban landscape of the Central Business District and Design
District to the natural landscape along the Trinity River corridor, including
augmenting the existing wetlands and other habitat along the river as a part of this
effort. The Technical Team developed conceptual landscape configurations and
hydrologic modeling to allow analyses of any potential design impacts and/or
refinements. Guidelines have been prepared, but up to 65%-level landscape design
development would be the next step.
Technical Team Findings: It appears that an acceptable landscape concept is

possible within the current technical design. A more detailed landscape design
would include further hydrologic review that is consistent with the Corps technical
requirements.
Page 24 of 57
82
Idea #13
Design refinement of flood protection barriers with
landscape, art, wall treatments and hillocks or berms to
eliminate blank walls and secure more pervasive views of
the park and to add character, interest, and a strong
ecological strategy all along the Parkway.
Page 25 of 57
83
Idea #13
Discussion: The Technical Proposal respects the 100-year flood standard whereby
the flood-barrier wall is maintained and camouflaged berms are achieved on the
Parkway side with only minor walls exposed that may be landscaped. The
experience on the Parkway side is as the Design Charrette Team envisioned.
However, up to 23-foot walls remain in a 2.25 mile stretch from Turtle Creek Outfall
to the DART bridge on the park side, which cannot be confirmed for adjusted
landscape or berm camouflage treatments until detailed park design is completed.
The current federally approved BVP does include floodwall treatment with some
levels of landscaping or other aesthetic features. It may be difficult to camouflage
these park-side walls with berms in addition to or in lieu of landscaping. Design to
a lesser flood standard was reviewed, which would open up views and make
camouflaged berms easier on both sides of the wall, but this configuration opens
the Parkway to more frequent flooding and lowering down to as low as 10-year
flood protection only reduces the wall height by seven feet.
Page 26 of 57
84
Idea #13
Technical Team Findings: Design exceptions will be required from the approved
scheme to achieve berming on the Parkway side for the 100-year flood standard.
Further detailing of this concept with landscape elements may be pursued during
the 65%-level landscape design development. This will include further testing and
review of the exact configuration of berms and hydrology to be consistent with the
Corps technical guidance.
Resolution of berming on the park side of the wall cannot be determined until the
full park review is undertaken because more solutions may be necessary to meet
Corps hydrologic requirements. Pursuing a flood standard of less than the 100-year
protection will almost certainly challenge the ROD, representing a high risk in
moving the project forward. The Technical Teams recommendation is to uphold
the use of the 100-year flood standard for the Parkway.
Page 27 of 57
85
Idea #14
Design refinement to exploit five major WOW views
over the Parkway.
Discussion: Only one WOW view does not have an opportunity to stop for a
vehicle, but the other views offer several options to stop nearby. The Design
Charrette Team confirmed that this slight change does not conflict with the Design
Charrette Team vision because the key views are preserved, especially since the
meanders are purposely oriented to exploit them.
Technical Team Findings: This idea is consistent with the ROD, although design
exceptions may be required to achieve pull-off parking areas as part of a phased or
staged approach.
Page 28 of 57
86
Idea #15
Allow toll free park use from the Parkway.
Discussion: All options for modifying toll customer payment based on using the
Parkway as an access to the park and/or offering special event parking can be
provided by offsetting lost toll revenue. This opportunity would only apply to
intended use of the park and not every day bypass users of the Parkway. The Design
Charrette Team confirmed that is an important part of their vision for the Parkway
to serve the park. This is a policy decision and can be achieved through agreements
with the project partners.
forestall adoption of this policy decision. This will require a policy decision among
project partners related to operation of the roadway, with the need to confirm
financial implications.
Page 29 of 57
87
Idea #16
Locate transit stops so as to enhance transit-user access
to the park over the Parkway for example, provide a
Houston Bridge streetcar stop and a Riverfront Boulevard
bus stop.
Discussion: This idea requires more inquiry with the transit agencies, but it is not
seen as a major problem to achieve either on the roadway bench in parking areas
or in the floodway on a park road system.
Technical Team Findings: This opportunity is not ruled out by the current Technical
Proposal. This should be resolved with further design.
Page 30 of 57
88
Idea #17
For the Reunion/Commerce and Mix Master District,
catalyze development to happen earlier than expected by
allowing development to locate as close to the park as
possible.
Discussion: Because ramps are deferred at this location and the boardwalk or
similar pedestrian cover of the Parkway is retained, the close association of new
development to the amenity of the park is secured.
Technical Team Findings: The Technical Proposal confirms the Design Charrette
Team vision for this development strategy. This will be further explored as part of
the park review process now underway.
Page 31 of 57
89
Idea #18
For the Design District, facilitate the current incremental
development trend with regular and attractive pedestrian
connections across the Parkway to the park.
Discussion: All existing pedestrian/bike links have been retained and the Technical
Proposal can accommodate more pedestrian/bike links over time as determined in
the further design review of the park or through private proposals. As many links
as possible are desirable.
Technical Team Findings: The Technical Proposal confirms the Design Charrette
Team vision for this development strategy. This will be further explored as part of
the park review process now underway.
Page 32 of 57
90
Idea #19
For the Southside District, facilitate the current
development inclinations by enhancing the sump water
bodies as the primary amenities in this district the park
and Parkway are less important.
Discussion: One possible ramp option, at Riverfront, would significantly diminish

the economic development opportunity in the Southside District by crossing
directly over the center of one of the sumps, potentially impacting flood
management function and neutralizing its amenity potential to draw development.
Further design development is underway to determine if the ramp can be
reconfigured to move it away from the sump and resolve the problem.
Technical Team Findings: This development strategy requires further planning and
design as noted above.
Page 33 of 57
91
Idea #20
For the districts at the far north and south ends of the
Parkway, just before it joins the existing highways, build
under or over the roadway elevation within the alignment
so that the Parkway development spurs private
development that augments the neighborhoods.
Discussion: This strategy will be explored as part of the ongoing park planning to
review economic development opportunities.
Technical Team Findings: This development strategy requires further planning and
design as noted above.
Page 34 of 57
92
No design speed specified resulting design speed in
Technical Proposal at 45 MPH.
Discussion: The Design Charrette Team envisioned that the roadway design should
not be targeted to a specific speed, but rather meet all quality expectations or 20
ideas of the Design Charrette Team vision. The Technical Proposal stays true to this
principle, and in the end resulting in a design speed of 45 MPH for this initial phase.
Increasing design speed to 55 MPH or 60 MPH would result in removal or
smoothing out of most of the meanders and loss of over half of the pull-off parking
opportunities, so it would be significantly incompatible with the Design Charrette
Team vision.
Technical Team Findings: Evaluation suggests that the 45 MPH effective design
speed, with the 4-lane cross-section, will cut the vehicle miles traveled in the
regional model by about 40% from the ROD maximum estimate however it still
accommodates the projected demand in the near term as part of a phased plan.
Also, a lower speed would reduce the number of vehicles using the roadway, which
would reduce toll revenue. This would have a financial implication on project
funding and would need to be considered in developing the project financing plan
with project partners.
Finally, TxDOT/FHWA will examine the ability of the Parkway to meet ROD need
and purpose as a reliever route given ultimate build-out of all phases currently
approved.
Page 35 of 57
93
Parkway and Levee Alignment.
Discussion: The Parkway and levee alignments were further explored as part of the
Technical Team efforts to explore additional opportunities to maximize
opportunities for federal project development within the Dallas Floodway
Extension, Dallas Floodway and Trinity Parkway projects. These alignments include
consideration of the Parkway "co-habitating" with the levee envelope, particularly
along the proposed Lamar Levee. This concept is not consistent with the partnering
regulatory agency policies concerning road and levee implementation and
maintenance.
Technical Team Findings: The Technical Team discussed the potential to share right
of way along the future Lamar Levee and the Trinity Parkway. Sharing right of way
between two federal agencies is not preferred and would require waivers to federal
policies regarding primacy of the infrastructure. These approvals would be through
the headquarters levels and are not likely to be approved and therefore not
recommended by the team.
Page 36 of 57
94
Economic Development of IH-35/SH-183 Connections.
Discussion: As noted earlier, the Design Charrette Team examined economic

development ideas in the areas that immediately abut the Parkway alignment
between the IH-35 and IH-45 ramps. During the forum following the Design
Charrette, several respondents raised questions concerning the potential for
economic development in the area near the IH-35/SH-183 connections, in addition
to the Southside/Lamar, Design District, and Reunion areas. While the economic
activity within this area is currently industrial-based facilities, other types of
economic development could be considered that would require appropriate
planning and zoning.
Page 37 of 57
95
Technical Team Findings: This consideration is in addition to the economic

development concepts proposed as a part of the Design Charrette, but may present
an opportunity to expand economic development along the corridor. Further
preliminary exploration of this additional consideration may be performed
internally by City staff.
Page 38 of 57
96
Bridge Deck Treatment over Outfalls.
Discussion: The Design Charrette Team proposed several roadway treatments to

"soften" the appearance of the Parkway, and to visually connect the roadway with
the natural environment along the Dallas Floodway; however, most of the Design
Charrette Team's efforts were focused on the floodway walls and
road section. There are several large existing drainage outfalls that the Parkway
alignment crosses using traditional bridge decks. The Technical Team took the
concepts for "greening" the road section to extending a planted median and/or
planter boxes along the Parkway across the bridge decks. In addition, treatment of
the bridge infrastructure from a park perspective could benefit from a more
aesthetically pleasing design.
Technical Team Findings: These concepts can be explored as part of the design
development process, but may increase overall project costs for these facilities,
both for initial implementation and ongoing operations and maintenance.
Page 39 of 57
97
Conclusions and Recommendations

Using informed expertise based upon professional experience, the Technical Team
held firmly to the principles of bringing the Charrette to a more detailed level of
conceptual design to better assess the compatibility of the proposal with current
federal approvals. While compatibility with existing federal approvals has been
tested via dialogue with local, state, and federal partners, official federal approvals
have not been sought due to the need to advance the detailed conceptual designs
further to accommodate formal consideration.
Recommended Next Steps

The Parkway needs to be advanced to a detailed schematic of the current Technical
Proposal and the landscape design needs to be advanced up to 65% to provide a
deliverable to partner agencies for final review and determination of compatibility
with current federal approvals.
This work could be completed through the existing contracts with current authority
but will require funding from the project partners. Very preliminary cost estimates
range from $2-3 million to take design to this stage. This work may take 12-15
months, assuming federal partners are able to complete expeditious reviews.
Should the City Council desire to move forward with detailed schematic design and
up to 65% design of landscape components, the project partners will formalize
deliverables and schedules, and then submit deliverables for formal approval from
federal/state partners.
Page 40 of 57
98
Summary of Specific Recommendations:

1. Develop necessary documentation to allow design exception to implement
U-Turns, meandering and pull-off parking as a part of a staged approach to
Parkway implementation.
2. Complete analysis and develop recommendations for shifting the ramps and
reconfiguring Riverfront ramps.
3. Explore appropriate policy concerning operation of the roadway with respect
to restricting non-emergency truck traffic, allowing occasional on-street
parking and accommodating toll-free use of the park.
4. Continue design exploration of the tree-lined Parkway concept and the
landscape configuration to add character, interest and strong ecological
strategy along parkway.
5. Continue exploration of aesthetic design refinements of the flood protection
barriers and bridge deck crossings over outfalls.
6. Continue design and transit agency coordination as necessary concerning
possible transit stop locations.
7. Continue exploration of development strategies near Reunion, Commerce,
Design District, and Mix-Master District as part of design and Park review
process.
8. Continue exploration of sump options and ramp design in and near
Southside District to support and enhance adjacent development
opportunity.
9. Continue design exploration for strategies to build over/under the roadway
at the far north/south ends of the Parkway to spur private development and
enhance neighborhoods.
10. Explore how the use of a lower design speed as a part of a staged
implementation will impact existing ROD.
11.Further investigate economic development considerations in areas near the
IH-35/SH-183 corridor.
12. Investigate the IH-35/SH-183 connection to the Parkway scaled as
appropriate as a Phase 1 Parkway using traffic modeling provided by North
Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG).
13. Investigate future connections, amenities and access for adjacent
neighborhoods as part of the park planning efforts.
Page 41 of 57
99
Page 42 of 57
100
Appendix
- Common Terminology
- Trinity River Corridor Citizens Committee (TRCCC)
Recommendations (CR# 951704)
- Major Transportation Investment Study (MTIS)
(CR# 051210)
- Trinity Parkway Advisory Committee Appointment
- 1998 Capital Bond Program
- Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and
Record of Decision (ROD) for Trinity Parkway
- Trinity Design Charrette (CR# 150732)
- Advisory Committee Commentary
Page 43 of 57
101
Common Terminology
Alternative 3C: One of four Build Alternatives (2A, 2B, 3C, and 4B) that were
considered for evaluation in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). It is
the recommended alternative in the FEIS for further development to a higher level
of detail.
Charrette Report: A summary of recommendations by the Dream Team tasked
with evaluating alternatives to Alternative 3C as described in the FEIS.
Design Exception: The process and associated documentation that enable
designers to deviate from design standards for a specific highway feature in order
to achieve a design that best suits the needs of the project. The process to evaluate
and justify design exceptions must be based on an evaluation of the context of the
facility (e.g., community values), needs of all the various project users, safety,
mobility, human and environment impacts, project costs, and other impacts.
Design Speed: In general, it is the selected speed used to determine the various
geometric design features of the roadway. For purposes of this report and its
approach, the design speed was derived from a set of design features agreed to by
the Technical Team as most suited for the Trinity Parkway.
Record of Decision (ROD): A Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA) document
describing its selection of Alternative 3C for the Trinity Parkway Project.
100-year Flood Event: It is the flood event that has a 1% probability of occurring at
any given year.
United States Corps of Engineers (USACE/ Corps): A federal agency in charge of
regulating and permitting activities inside the Dallas Floodway. USACE/ Corps is
responsible for Section 408 approval which addresses proposed modifications to
the Dallas Floodway. USACE/ Corps is responsible for Section 404 Permit which
addresses impacts to the waters of the United States including wetlands
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): A federal agency responsible for
reviewing the Projects FEIS and selecting one of several alignment alternatives via
the ROD.
Page 44 of 57
102
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT): A state agency responsible for

reviewing Project details to ensure compliance with state and federal standards,
procedures and policies.
Page 45 of 57
103
TRCCC Recommendations (CR# 951704)
Page 46 of 57
104
MTIS (CR#972918)
Page 47 of 57
105
1998 Capital Bond Program
Page 48 of 57
106
Balanced Vision Plan (CR# 033391)
Page 49 of 57
107
Balanced Vision Plan (CR# 033391),

Continued
Page 50 of 57
108
Combined Parkway (CR# 051210)
Page 51 of 57
109
Combined Parkway (CR# 051210),

Continued
Page 52 of 57
110
Combined Parkway (CR# 051210),

Continued
Page 53 of 57
111
Trinity Parkway Advisory Committee

Appointment (January 15, 2016)
Page 54 of 57
112
Final Environmental Impact Statement

and Record of Decision for Trinity
Parkway
Page 55 of 57
113
Trinity Design Charrette (CR# 150732)
Page 56 of 57
114
Advisory Committee Commentary
Page 57 of 57
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142

Trinity Parkway Technical Review 2016-03

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Trinity Parkway Technical Review 2016-03

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Trinity Parkway Technical Proposal

(Conceptual Development of the Design Charrette Report)

Transportation and Trinity River Project Committee

To serve as a summary of findings by the Trinity Parkway Technical Team regarding:

Design Charrette Team

bcWORKSHOP Urban Planning and Design

Local, State and Federal Project Partners:

Technical Team Findings

Confirmations #2, #3 & #4

Ideas #2, #3, & #4

Technical Team Findings: The Technical Proposal is generally

consistent with the Design Charrette Team vision and several

Design refinement of the landscape configuration to add a consistent linear tree

Design refinement of the landscape configuration to add character, interest, and a

Technical Team Findings: It appears that an acceptable landscape concept is possible

exceptions may be required to achieve pull-off parking areas as part of a phased or

Design Refinements #6 & #7

Ideas #15 & 16

For the Reunion/Commerce and Mix Master District, catalyze development to

For the Southside District, facilitate the current development inclinations by

Economic Development of IH-35/SH-183 Connections.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Recommended Next Steps

Summary of Specific Recommendations

Summary of Specific Recommendations

Overview of Detailed Conceptual Designs

Overall Project Map

Northern Park Access Area

Southern Park Access Area

Birds Eye Park View

Oversight & Advise

Advisory Committee Review

Advisory Committee Commentary

Trinity Parkway Design Charrette

Dates and Locations of Public Forums

5/26/15 El Centro College, West Campus, 3330 N. Hampton

DESIGN CHARRETTE CONCEPT - REFINEMENT #5

PRELIMINARY SCHEMATIC DATED 05-30-2014, THE 35% PRELIMINARY BALANCED

570', ~44 PARKING SPACES

REFINED CHARRETTE CONCEPT

APRIL 2015. ALL INFORMATION IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

280', ~22 PARKING SPACES

THIS EXHIBIT PRESENTS INFORMATION FROM THE APROVED TRINITY PARKWAY

220', ~17 PARKING SPACES

REFINED CHARRETTE CONCEPT

REFINED CHARRETTE CONCEPT

TBPE FIRM #F-312

HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC.

PURPOSES. THEY WERE PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:

EXISTING CONTOUR LINES

DESIGN CHARRETTE REFINED ALIGNMENT

THESE DOCUMENTS ARE FOR INTERIM

FOR INTERIM REVIEW ONLY

PAVEMENT (FROM SCHEMATIC)

BRIDGE (FROM SCHEMATIC)

FUTURE LAMAR LEVEE (DRAFT, BY OTHERS)

REFINED CHARRETTE CONCEPT

494', ~38 PARKING SPACES

400', ~31 PARKING SPACES

370', ~29 PARKING SPACES

PROP SB PGL ELEV

END FLOOD SEPARATI

PROPOSED TOLL GANTRY

PROPOSED DIAPHRAGM WALL