FHWA-TX-EIS-02-02-DS

TxDOT CSJ 0918-45-121

LIMITED SCOPE SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FROM IH-35E/SH-183 TO US-175/SH-310 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

Executive Order 13274 Project

On August 18, 2004, the Trinity Parkway was designated as a Priority Project for expedited agency environmental review under EO 13274.

Limited Scope Supplemental to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Trinity Parkway From IH-35E/SH-183 To US-175/SH-310, Dallas County, Texas

FOREWORD
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) establishes a process that requires the preparation of detailed environmental documentation when federal actions are proposed with potentially significant environmental impacts. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) identifies the probable

environmental consequences (beneficial and/or adverse) of each alternative, including ways to mitigate unavoidable impacts.

This Limited Scope Supplemental (LSS) to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) is consistent with the regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportations (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 771). These regulations prescribe the policies for implementing NEPA and the regulations of the federal Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). This document is also consistent with the FHWA regulations governing metropolitan transportation planning (23 CFR Section () 450.318).

This LSS for the proposed Trinity Parkway project from Interstate Highway (IH)-35E/State Highway (SH)183 to U.S. Highway (US)-175/SH-310 in the City of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas provides an update on important events affecting the proposed project that have occurred since the FHWA approved the SDEIS for circulation to government agencies and the general public on February 19, 2009. The LSS also contains supplemental information intended to enhance the analysis of alternatives presented in the SDEIS. The LSS has been prepared by the FHWA, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT),

and the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to provide new or additional information and analyses, which the decision makers and general public need prior to determining what, if any, federal action may be undertaken. Specifically, the following major items are included in the LSS:

Update on the project development process; Results of further studies related to Dallas Floodway system deficiencies identified by the USACE on April 1, 2009, including any impacts of Trinity Parkway alternatives on levee remediation;

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

FOREWORD-1

Information for the Trinity Parkway alternatives under consideration related to practicable criteria applied under Executive Order (EO) 11990 (wetlands) and EO 11988 (floodplains); and Update on activities performed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

This document was prepared in close coordination with the USACE, as it addresses resources that are within the USACEs jurisdiction as defined by federal law. The following discussion provides additional background and reasoning for preparation of the LSS.

BACKGROUND AND REASONING FOR PREPARATION OF THE LSS

The CEQ has promulgated regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Part 1500). These regulations specify the requirements for preparing environmental impact statements by Lead Federal Agencies, as well as the roles and duties of Cooperating Agencies. Under 40 CFR Section 1501.6, a Federal Agency which has jurisdiction by law, shall be a Cooperating Agency upon request of the Lead Agency. The USACE has jurisdiction by law because the alternatives developed to implement the proposed project could affect land and/or water resources within or immediately adjacent to the Dallas Floodway - an existing federal flood control project. Potentially, each of these alternatives would require the USACE to issue permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (for discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands) and the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899 (for work in or affecting navigable waters). The USACE Trinity Regional Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (ROD) criteria and the Trinity River Corridor Development Certificate (CDC) process would also apply to the proposed project. The USACE would have authority under 33 U.S.C. 408 to ensure that the proposed project would not be injurious to the public interest and would not impact the flood control benefits provided by the Dallas Floodway.

The CEQ and USACE regulations pertaining to cooperating agencies with jurisdiction by law were established to ensure that NEPA documents prepared by a Lead Federal Agency, such as the FHWA, would also satisfy the NEPA requirements for the jurisdictional actions to be taken by the Cooperating Agency (in this case, the USACE). Consequently, these regulations emphasize close coordination

between Lead and Cooperating Agencies throughout the development of an EIS, and require the Cooperating Agency to provide detailed input to ensure that the dual purpose of the NEPA documentation is met (40 CFR 1501.6b and 33 CFR 325.1b).

A Supplemental Draft EIS is required when new information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS, and in some cases, may be required to address issues of limited scope

FOREWORD-2

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

(23 CFR 771.130). Throughout the project development process, there has been coordination with the USACE in an effort to clarify and address the USACE environmental and technical issues of concern. On April 1, 2009, following the publication of the SDEIS, the USACE released the Periodic Inspection Report, Dallas Floodway, Trinity River, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas (Report No. 9). The USACE inspection report cited deficiencies in the Dallas Floodway levee system, including segments adjacent to Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives. Because the SDEIS was released prior to the USACE inspection report, it did not include a discussion of the reported deficiencies and any impacts these may have on the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives. The inspection report was acknowledged during the May 5, 2009 Public Hearing presentation for the SDEIS. The FHWA, TxDOT, and NTTA stated their intent to further evaluate the levee deficiencies and a future levee remediation plan being developed by the City of Dallas and USACE as they may relate to Trinity Parkway, and present further information to the public prior to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). In addition, prior to identifying a preferred alternative and releasing the FEIS, the FHWA sought an enhanced evaluation and another opportunity for public comment on the practicability of the Trinity Parkway alternatives in accordance with EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) and EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). While the issues of compatibility with levee remediation plans and practicability of the Trinity Parkway alternatives in light of potential impacts to floodplains and wetlands are the primary focal points of this LSS, supplemental information also includes a discussion of feasible design refinements implemented to avoid potential adverse impacts to historic properties and an update on Section 106 consultation. The FHWA has exercised its discretion under the CEQ and FHWA regulations and decided to supplement the SDEIS after determining that the purposes of NEPA would be furthered by doing so (40 CFR 1502.9[c][(2]). This LSS, therefore, represents a collaborative effort with the USACE to develop NEPA documentation that would support the decisions and/or permitting action(s) that each agency would be required to make regarding the proposed project.

ORGANIZATION OF THE LSS AND NEXT STEPS

The organization, format, and content of this document were developed collaboratively among the FHWA, TxDOT, NTTA, and the USACE to provide sufficient information to briefly describe the proposed action, the reasons why a supplement has been prepared, and to address new information not presented in the SDEIS (23 CFR 771.130(a)). The structure of this document is as follows:

Executive Summary: The summary briefly discusses important project issues. Commonly Used Acronyms/Abbreviations Chapter 1 Need and Purpose for Proposed Action: This chapter discusses the project justification and provides an update on the project development process. Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered: This chapter describes the alternatives under

consideration and those alternatives that have been withdrawn from consideration.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

FOREWORD-3

Chapter 3 Evaluation of the USACE Dallas Floodway Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 and Levee Remediation Plan: This chapter describes the levee deficiencies identified by the USACE and provides an evaluation of Trinity Parkway compatibility with the levee remediation plan.

Chapter 4 Enhanced Analysis of Practicability of the Reasonable Alternatives: This chapter provides information on the practicability of the alternatives, considering pertinent factors identified in agency regulations and guidance documents.

Chapter 5 Update on Consideration of Historic Properties and Compliance with Section 106 and Section 4(f): This chapter describes additional historic resources survey efforts and Section 106 consultation that have occurred since the SDEIS.

Chapter 6 List of Preparers Chapter 7 Bibliography

In accordance with the CEQ and FHWA regulations, this LSS will be circulated and processed in the same manner as the SDEIS (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4) and 23 CFR 771.130(d)). After publishing a notice of availability (NOA) of the LSS, a public hearing will be held. Comments received from the public and government agencies during the SDEIS and LSS comment periods will be included in the FEIS, along with the responses to comments received (40 CFR 1503.1(a)). Comments received from agencies and the public in connection with the initial public comment period for the DEIS (March-April 2005) were published in the SDEIS. To date, the FHWA has not recommended a preferred alternative. The FHWA will make a recommendation in the FEIS after evaluating the

potential impacts resulting from the proposed project and considering the comments from all sources. Following publication of the FEIS, it is anticipated that a ROD would be issued by the FHWA in accordance with 23 USC Section 109(h), which directs that final project decisions be made in the best overall public interest.

(END OF CHAPTER)

FOREWORD-4

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S-1 INTRODUCTION

The Trinity Parkway is a proposed new toll road located in the City of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. The Trinity Parkway would provide a reliever route generally to the west of downtown Dallas, connecting from the IH-35E/SH-183 interchange in the north to the US-175/SH-310 interchange in the south, a distance of approximately 9 miles. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, lead federal agency), Texas

Department of Transportation (TxDOT), North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA), and the City of Dallas are project sponsors. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) are cooperating agencies.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Trinity Parkway is being prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and in compliance with NEPA regulations issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508) and the FHWA (23 CFR Part 771). The NEPA regulations are a mandate for federal agencies to examine the potential environmental consequences of their proposals, consult with other agencies, document the analysis, and make the information available to the public prior to making a decision. An EIS presents detailed socioeconomic, environmental, and engineering information about a project so that the general public and federal, state, and local agencies can appropriately review and comment. Completion of the EIS process for the proposed Trinity Parkway, culminating with an anticipated Record of Decision (ROD) by the FHWA, would allow the proposed action to proceed to the final design phase unless the No-Build Alternative is selected.

S-2

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE TRINITY PARKWAY SDEIS AND LSS

A Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) for the proposed Trinity Parkway project was circulated in 2009 (FHWA, 2009). A Public Hearing for the SDEIS was conducted on May 5, 2009 and public comments were received during the time period from March 20 through June 30, 2009. The current document, called a Limited Scope Supplemental (LSS), is a supplement to the SDEIS.

The FHWAs decision to prepare a LSS for the proposed Trinity Parkway was made in May 2009 in consultation with the other sponsoring agencies and the cooperating agencies, following the SDEIS Public Hearing (see LSS Appendix A, Pages 8-11). Several factors led to the development of this LSS. New information was released from the USACE, after the publication of the SDEIS, which triggered a need for further evaluation and public comment with respect to possible impacts of proposed Trinity Parkway alternatives to levee remediation associated with the Dallas Floodway levee system. In addition,

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

S-1

prior to recommending a preferred alternative and releasing a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the FHWA sought an enhanced evaluation and another opportunity for public comment on the practicability of the Trinity Parkway alternatives in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management, 1977) and EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands, 1977). In accordance with 23 CFR 774 (Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites [Section 4(f)]) and prior to the FEIS, the FHWA also sought additional analysis in the LSS to assess whether or not there were feasible and prudent design refinements that could be made for the proposed Trinity Parkway alternatives to avoid the taking or use of resources protected under Section 4(f). In July 2010, federal legislation (Public Law No. 111-212) was passed exempting the FHWA from Section 4(f) requirements "for any highway project to be constructed in the vicinity of the Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas." The FHWA determined the above Section 4(f) exemption applied to the proposed Trinity Parkway project (see LSS Appendix A). However, supplemental information regarding historic-age resource surveys, a

discussion of feasible design refinements to avoid potential adverse impacts to historic properties, and an update on Section 106 consultation efforts are provided in this LSS.

The analyses conducted for the SDEIS were based on data and methodologies associated with the longrange metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) Mobility 2030. The Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment was adopted by the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) of the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) on April 9, 2009, after the SDEIS was approved by the FHWA in February 2009. On February 1, 2011, the Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), FY 2011-2014 TIP, were found to conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) (TCEQ, 2011). On March 10, 2011, a new MTP, Mobility 2035, was adopted by the RTC. On July 14, 2011, this new plan and the associated TIP (2011-2014 TIP, as amended) were found to conform to the SIP. Analyses for the subsequent FEIS will be conducted based on the current MTP at that time. During the FEIS preparation process and prior to issuance of a ROD by the FHWA, appropriate measures would be taken to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the conforming MTP and the TIP/Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

The LSS is organized into chapters that describe the proposed action and its need and purpose, the alternatives under consideration, the levee remediation actions developed by the City of Dallas and the compatibility of Trinity Parkway floodway alternatives with such remediation actions, the practicability of the Trinity Parkway alternatives, and the ongoing Section 106 consultation efforts.

The FHWA has decided to supplement the SDEIS in order to fully comply with the CEQ and the FHWA regulations implementing NEPA and to develop documentation to support the decisions that both the FHWA and USACE would be required to make regarding the proposed project. presented in this Executive Summary is discussed in more detail in the body of the LSS. The information

S-2

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

S-3

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The NTTA proposes to design, construct, operate, and maintain a limited-access toll facility in the City of Dallas extending from the IH-35E/SH-183 interchange in the north to the US-175/SH-310 interchange in the south, a distance of approximately 9 miles. The proposed project would provide a needed reliever route and would be located generally west of the existing freeway loop that encircles downtown Dallas. The proposed facility would ultimately consist of six mixed-flow tolled mainlanes, local street interchanges, and interchanges between the tollway and freeways at the northern terminus, southern terminus, Woodall Rodgers Freeway, and IH-45 (see LSS Chapter 2). The number and configuration of interchanges vary among the Build Alternatives considered.

No recommendation of a preferred alternative is made in this LSS. During the public comment period, the regulatory agencies, the public, and other interested parties are invited to provide comments on the technical analyses presented in the LSS. All additional information and relevant comments will be

evaluated and considered prior to recommending a preferred alternative in the FEIS.

S-4

NEED AND PURPOSE FOR ACTION

The proposed project is needed to address current and projected congestion problems and transportation system demands and deficiencies in the area. There is severe congestion in the Canyon/Mixmaster road system on the south and west sides of downtown Dallas comprising segments of IH-30, IH-35E and the IH-30/IH-35E interchange. Population and employment growth within the Dallas-Fort Worth

metropolitan area during the last several decades, combined with other traffic generating factors, have led to the current levels of congestion in the vicinity of the Dallas Central Business District (CBD). The effects of this congestion - increased traffic accidents and rising costs due to travel delays - suggest the need to take action. Transportation problems in the study area also stem from a roadway network that is

constrained in its ability to meet the mobility and access needs of the study areas population, local commuters, through traffic, and major employment and public facilities. Regional population and

employment growth projections, public and private development initiatives, local land use plans and policies, and an anticipated increase in trade-related trucking activity indicate that study area congestion problems would continue to worsen unless action is taken (see SDEIS Section 1.7).

The primary purpose of the Trinity Parkway project is to provide a safe and efficient transportation solution to manage traffic congestion and improve safety in the area of the Dallas CBD.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

S-3

S-5

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The current planning for the Trinity Parkway has been developed from TxDOTs Trinity Parkway Corridor Major Transportation Investment Study (MTIS) published in March 1998 (TxDOT, 1998). The MTIS focused on transportation needs in the vicinity of the Dallas CBD and developed a seven point plan of action as follows:

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).

The Trinity Parkway EIS focuses only on Item 7, the reliever route. Alternatives considered in this LSS for the Trinity Parkway include a No-Build and four Build Alternatives:

Alternative 1 - No-Build Alternative 2A - Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard - Elevated Alternative 2B - Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard - At-Grade Alternative 3C - Combined Parkway - Riverside (Further Modified) Alternative 4B - Split Parkway - Riverside (Modified)

The other Build Alternatives (Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A, and 5) evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (FHWA, 2005a) and SDEIS have been eliminated from further consideration (see LSS Section 2.2) as they would not be feasible because of impacts to the Dallas Floodway levees and their potential to interrupt flood control operations. Correspondence among the FHWA, TxDOT, and the

USACE documenting the process and the reasons these alternatives are not being advanced for further analysis in this LSS or the FEIS is presented in LSS Appendix A.

S-4

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

S-6

UPDATE ON THE STRATEGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING OF THE TRINITY

PARKWAY AND DALLAS FLOODWAY PROJECTS

On June 16, 1999, the FHWA, in cooperation with TxDOT, NTTA, and the City of Dallas, issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the Trinity Parkway DEIS. The proposed Trinity Parkway alternatives are located in or around the Dallas Floodway, most notably Alternatives 3C and 4B that are located riverside of the floodway levees for some distance. On October 9, 2009, the USACE issued a NOI to prepare a DEIS seeking analysis of the potential environmental consequences of comprehensive proposed improvements for the Dallas Floodway system. The proposed Dallas Floodway project sponsored by the USACE in partnership with the City of Dallas consists of levee remediation, flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation enhancement. There are therefore two major federal actions

potentially affecting the Dallas Floodway, the FHWA-sponsored EIS for the proposed Trinity Parkway and the USACE-sponsored EIS for proposed improvements to the Dallas Floodway.

The FHWA, USACE, TxDOT, NTTA and other involved agencies have defined a coordinated strategy for environmental processing of the Trinity Parkway project and other federal projects in the Dallas Floodway. The proposed strategy is intended to allow the Trinity Parkway and Dallas Floodway projects to be closely coordinated between the federal proponents to ensure that the spirit of NEPA is upheld and all impacts are fully considered before any federal action is determined.

In May 2009, leading up to the FHWA decision to require an LSS, representatives of the FHWA, USACE, EPA, TxDOT, NTTA, NCTCOG, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and City of Dallas met to discuss projects proposed along the Trinity River corridor, how they relate to the Dallas Floodway, and required activities and standards to be met to conclude the projects. These and subsequent

discussions among the partner agencies resulted in a revised strategy for environmental processing of the Trinity Parkway project and other projects in the Dallas Floodway. The revised strategy recognizes the primacy of flood protection in the Trinity River corridor and the geographic proximity of the proposed Trinity Parkway and Dallas Floodway projects, and re-affirms the commitment of the FHWA and the USACE to coordinate their efforts. This recognition and commitment does not alter the independent utility of these projects. The revised procedures (see LSS Chapter 1) replace those outlined in the SDEIS. The strategy is intended to facilitate timely development of the required environmental documents and allow the FHWA and USACE to make informed decisions in the context of the various regulations and requisite analyses applicable to each agency.

Technical committees and a partner agency executive team were established and convened on a monthly basis to facilitate close coordination and maintain compatibility of the federal agency processes. Critical future checkpoints established by the revised strategy in the event a Trinity Parkway riverside alternative

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

S-5

is recommended following publication of the LSS are that 1) the USACE Comprehensive System Analysis must provide reasonable assurance that a Trinity Parkway riverside alternative is technically sound and environmentally acceptable prior to Trinity Parkway FEIS completion, with the understanding that final USACE approval would be determined by the Chief of Engineers in accordance with 33 United States Code (USC) 408; and 2) before the USACE DEIS for the Dallas Floodway project can proceed to public hearing, the Trinity Parkway FEIS must recommend the FHWAs preferred alternative for incorporation in the USACE plan.

Subsequent to the circulation of the LSS and public and agency review and comment, the next expected steps for the proposed Trinity Parkway project are the publication of a FEIS. The FEIS will include responses to comments received on the SDEIS and the LSS. Following approval of the FEIS and publication of the notice of availability of the FEIS, it is anticipated that a ROD would be signed. A ROD would describe the selected alternative, explain the reasons and rationale for the decision, and summarize any mitigation measures and monitoring that would be incorporated into the project, assuming a build alternative is selected.

S-7

CITY OF DALLAS LEVEE REMEDIATION PLAN

LSS Chapter 3 discusses the USACE Dallas Floodway Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 (USACE, 2007), which identified levee system deficiencies adjacent to Trinity Parkway Alternatives 3C and 4B. This chapter of the LSS discusses the development of levee remediation actions by the City of Dallas in response to Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 and also assesses compatibility of Alternatives 3C and 4B with such remediation actions. Based on the available information provided by the City, Alternatives 3C and 4B in the Dallas Floodway would be compatible with the City of Dallas proposed Levee Remediation Plan (both for the 100-Year and the Standard Project Flood Remediation Plans).

S-8

ANALYSIS OF PRACTICABILITY OF THE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES

LSS Chapter 4 separately examines the Build Alternatives in light of a variety of factors used by federal agencies to evaluate the practicability of each alternative pursuant to EO 11990 regarding protection of wetlands and EO 11988 regarding floodplain management. Table S-1 provides a summary of data relevant to evaluating practicability and facilitates making comparative distinctions among the Build Alternatives as to the listed factors. The recommendation of a preferred alternative will be based on the information discussed in LSS Chapter 4 and summarized in Table S-1 in combination with an evaluation of comments on the LSS and from a Public Hearing. The recommendation will be made after all pertinent factors have been weighed to determine the practicability of each alternative within the meaning of EO

S-6

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

11988 and EO 11990 and implementing regulations and guidance of the FHWA and the USACE, as further discussed in LSS Chapter 4. TABLE S-1. SUMMARY OF PRACTICABILITY OF THE TRINITY PARKWAY BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Practicability Factors Economic Impacts Estimated Total Tax Value 1 Lost from Land Conversion Estimated Annual Tax Revenue Lost from Land 2 Conversion Estimated Businesses 3 Displaced Estimated Jobs Impacted Due 3 to Business Displacements Project Costs Estimated Construction Costs (Including Design and Agency 4 Costs) Estimated ROW and Utility Relocation Costs Estimated Environmental 5 Mitigation Costs Estimated Costs to Mitigate Levee Impacts Estimated Routine O&M Costs 6 Total / Annualized Estimated Flood Damage Restoration Costs for >100-yr. Flood Total / Annualized Estimated Revenue Loss from Downtime due to >100-yr. Flood Total / Annualized $ Billions 1.76 1.35 1.27 1.35 $ Millions 379.0 306.4 54.0 36.2 Unit of Measure Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives 2A 2B 3C 4B

$ Millions

10.3

8.3

1.5

1.0

Number Number

285 to 304 6,437 to 6,640

220 to 289 6,182 to 6,655

15 to 20 72 to 203

13 to 16 62 to 187

$ Millions $ Millions $ Millions $ Millions

601.0 48.2 --78.1 / 1.5

520.3 45.2 --233.0 / 4.5

142.1 16.3 30.0 232.6 / 4.5 4.8 Million / 48,000 (cleanup and damage repair)

103.2 15.8 50.0 227.2 / 4.4 7.2 Million /72,000 (cleanup and damage repair)

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

3.6 Million / 36,000

3.6 Million / 36,000

Technology Major Technological 15 Constraints Logistics Estimated Time to Complete Construction After Anticipated ROD High Risk HazMat Sites
7

Yes/No

No

No

No

No

Years Number

10 34 Yes (relocate 52,000 linear ft. of water/sewer and 2 mi. of Oncor 345 kV line)

9 35 Yes (relocate 52,000 linear ft. of water/sewer, 2 mi. of Oncor 345 kV line, and the West Network Substation)

6.25 17

6.5 16

Major Utility Constraints

Yes/No

No

No

Estimated Net Borrow Material (cut/fill) Including Shrinkage

Cubic Yards

0.3 Million

0.9 Million

4.3 Million

6.7 Million

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

S-7

TABLE S-1. SUMMARY OF PRACTICABILITY OF THE TRINITY PARKWAY BUILD ALTERNATIVES

Practicability Factors Locational Advantages Consistent with Local Plans Yes/No No No Yes No Unit of Measure Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives 2A 2B 3C 4B

Impacts on Natural and Beneficial Values Served by Floodplains Woodlands Impacted Maintained Grass Areas 8 Impacted Acres Acres 4.6 11.8 6.4 31.1 33.3 468.1 29.3 573.1

Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands, and Water Quality Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands Impacted Water Quality Impacts Storm Water Runoff Abatement Needed Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values Threatened and Endangered Species Conservation Expected reduction in energy and fuel consumption Needs and Welfare of the People Residential Relocations Commercial Displacements (Buildings) Community and Public Building Displacements Consistent with EJ Order and Title VI Consistent with Location Favored by Majority of Stakeholders and General Public Air Quality Projected CO Concentrations Below the NAAQS MSATs Expected Change Traffic Noise Noise Receivers Impacted Number 209 202 128 166
9

Acres Yes/No Yes/No

4.3 Yes Yes

9.1 Yes Yes

90.9 Yes Yes

110.6 Yes Yes

Yes/No

No

No

No

No

Yes/No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Number Number Number Yes/No

8 272 5 Yes

6 228 11 Yes

6 29 0 Yes

11 24 0 Yes

Yes/No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes/No Decrease/ Increase

Yes Decrease

Yes Decrease

Yes Decrease

Yes Decrease

Impacts of Floods on Human Safety Tollway Area within 100-yr. (Base) Floodplain Tollway Protected from 100-yr. Flood Interferes with Floodway 10 O&M Proposed Condition Meets USACE Criteria for Valley Storage (100-yr. and SPF) Acres Yes/No Yes/No 55 Yes TBD 76 Yes TBD 297 Yes TBD 418 Yes TBD

Yes/No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

S-8

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

TABLE S-1. SUMMARY OF PRACTICABILITY OF THE TRINITY PARKWAY BUILD ALTERNATIVES

Practicability Factors Unit of Measure Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives 2A 2B 3C 4B

Proposed Condition Meets USACE Criteria Concerning Increase in Flood Elevation 11 (100-yr. and SPF) Proposed Condition Meets USACE Criteria Concerning Erosive Water Velocity

Yes/No

Yes

Yes

No - 100-year No (max. rise of 0.41 ft.) (max. rise of 1.2 ft. Yes SPF for the 100-yr. and 0.71 ft. for the (max. rise of 0.03 11 SPF) ft.) Yes Yes

Yes/No

Yes

Yes

Risks Associated with Implementation of the Action Adverse Impacts to Levee Yes/No 16 Integrity Incompatible Development Induced Development in Yes/No Floodplains or Wetlands Aesthetics Visual Impacts
12

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

No

No

No

No

Low/Medium/ High

High

Medium

Medium

Medium

Historic Values Archeological Historic 13 Properties Impacted Non-Archeological Historic Properties with Adverse 14 Effects Section 4(f) Involvement
17

Number

Number Yes/No

0 N/A

0 N/A

1 N/A

0 N/A

Notes: CO = Carbon Monoxide; EJ = Environmental Justice; MSAT = Mobile Source Air Toxics; N/A = Not applicable; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; O&M = Operations and Maintenance; ROW = right-of-way; SPF = Standard Project Flood; TBD = To be determined. Based on 2011 Dallas Central Appraisal District base property values for property needed for ROW. Based on 2011 tax rates for Dallas County, the City of Dallas, and Dallas Independent School District. Based on data from business records obtained from Dun & Bradstreet by the City of Dallas, Office of Economic Development, Research & Information Division (January 2010). It should be noted that some jobs and businesses could be permanently lost if displaced businesses are unable to relocate successfully and employees are unable to find similar work. These numbers do not factor in jobs that would be created by construction and operation of the tollway. 4. The construction costs do not include the ROW and utility relocation costs, but do include the environmental mitigation costs shown separately. The construction costs for Alternatives 3C and 4B include costs for anticipated structural levee remediation features proposed to address pier penetrations of the Dallas Floodway levees that are also shown separately in the above table (see LSS Appendix D). 5. The environmental mitigation costs include estimated asbestos abatement for displaced buildings, investigation/remediation for hazardous material sites, noise walls, and restoration costs for impacts to woodlands and waters of the U.S., including wetlands (see LSS Appendix D). 6. These costs are estimated over a feasibility study 52-year period (2013 2065) based on standard practices for NTTA O&M. The estimates were developed based on best available information using conceptual schematics for each alternative and may vary from final O&M costs. 7. Hazardous waste/material sites considered to have a high probability for contamination located within or adjacent to proposed ROW (see SDEIS Section 4.17). 8. The figures for impacts to maintained grass areas for Alternatives 3C and 4B include an estimated 258 acres from proposed excavation sites for borrow material to be used for tollway embankment. 9. The EPA predicts substantial future MSAT reductions as the agencys new on-road fuel and vehicle rules come into effect (Tier II, lightduty vehicle standard, Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle standards and low sulfur diesel fuel, and the EPAs proposed Off-Road Diesel Engine and Fuel Standard). These projected air emission reductions will be realized even with the predicted continued growth in vehicle miles traveled (EPA, 2001; EPA, 1999). 10. Although the Build Alternatives have been designed to avoid interference with the USACE's and City's ability to operate and maintain the Dallas Floodway, the preferred alternative would be subject to further review in accordance with 33 USC 408 (Section 408). The final determination regarding whether the preferred alternative would interfere with floodway O&M would be made during the Section 408 process. 1. 2. 3.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

S-9

TABLE S-1. SUMMARY OF PRACTICABILITY OF THE TRINITY PARKWAY BUILD ALTERNATIVES

Practicability Factors Unit of Measure Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives 2A 2B 3C 4B

11. The 1988 USACE ROD Hydrologic and Hydraulic criteria states that the following maximum allowable hydraulic impacts will be satisfied: No rise in the 100-year and the SPF water surface elevations. The criteria further states that this evaluation will be developed using reasonable judgment based on the degree of accuracy of the evaluation. The H&H analysis performed for Alternative 3C has revealed a maximum localized rise in the SPF water surface of 0.03 feet upstream of the Houston Street Bridge (see LSS Plate 4-25). With consideration for the small magnitude of the SPF rise, the location, and the very limited extent of the rise, it has been determined that for the SPF flood event, the 1988 ROD criteria has effectively been met. In the event that Alternative 3C or 4B is selected for further development, additional measures or project modifications to the preliminary design may be used to reduce or eliminate these water surface rises. However, the water surface rises determined in the preliminary design evaluations are not sufficient to eliminate these alternatives from further consideration. A Section 404/10 permit decision on the project cannot be made until the 1988 ROD criteria evaluation is complete. 12. For the purpose of summarizing the visual impacts discussed in LSS Sections 4.1.4.16, 4.1.5.16, 4.1.6.16, and 4.1.7.16, the Build Alternatives were assigned an overall impact rating of low, medium or high. A low rating would represent a minimal visual change where the Build Alternative is somewhat visible, but consistent with the existing landscape. A medium rating represents a moderate visual change where the Build Alternative is considerably visible, but does not obscure the view of the landscape. A high rating represents a strong visual change where the Build Alternative would be highly visible, obscure views, and greatly alter the character of the landscape. 13. TxDOT determined with concurrence from the SHPO that the proposed undertaking would not affect archeological historic properties as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l) (see LSS Appendix B). 14. See LSS Chapter 5, Section 5.5.25. 15. For the purpose of this analysis, a major technological constraint was considered to be any insurmountable technological issue that would influence the constructability, operations, or maintenance of a particular Build Alternative. 16. If a Build Alternative is recommended as the preferred alternative, the USACE is expected to exercise its design review authority under the Section 408 permit process to assure no adverse impacts to Dallas Floodway levees. See also LSS Sections 4.1.6.14 and 4.1.7.14 for potential benefits to levee stability from Alternatives 3C and 4B in segments with the roadway embankment alongside. 17. Section 4(f) is shaded to denote for the reader that Section 4(f) is not applicable for this project pursuant to Section 405 of Public Law No. 111-212 (see LSS Section 5.1).

The information set forth in the above table enables comparison of the relative performance of each Build Alternative with respect to the federal criteria applicable to a determination regarding practicability. For example, Alternatives 2A and 2B have severe constraints relating to project costs, logistics, locational disadvantages, needs and welfare of the people, and aesthetics. Specifically, each of these two

alternatives would cause hundreds of business displacements and, as a result, over 6,000 jobs would be expected to be impacted. In contrast, Alternatives 3C and 4B would have far fewer impacts regarding such factors but would require floodplain modifications and unavoidable wetland impacts within the Dallas Floodway, which are factors relevant in the evaluation of alternatives under both EO 11988 and EO 11990, as well as the federal regulations and guidance discussed in LSS Chapter 4. As mentioned above, findings regarding the practicability of the Build Alternatives will be included in the FEIS after considering public comments on the LSS and after applying all regulatory requirements for evaluating practicability. S-9 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON IMPACTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES

LSS Chapter 5 provides an update on efforts regarding historic properties since the publication of the SDEIS. An assessment has been conducted to identify historic properties potentially affected by the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives. Pursuant to the 2005 Programmatic Agreement for Transportation Undertakings (PA-TU) among the FHWA, the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and TxDOT (FHWA, 2005b), TxDOT determined in

S-10

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

January 2010, with concurrence from the SHPO, that the Area of Potential Effects (APE) does not contain archeological historic properties (36 CFR 800.16(l)), and thus the proposed undertaking would not affect archeological historic properties (see LSS Appendix B). In October 2009, a non-archeological historic-age resource survey of the APE for Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3C, and 4B was completed (Ecological Communications Corporation, 2009). The survey consisted of

identifying all pre-1966 buildings, structures, and objects located within the APE and examining associated groupings of buildings, structures, objects, and sites for potential historic districts. The survey did not resurvey the ROW area covered by the 2001 survey of potential building displacements (Norman Alston Architects, 2001) that was discussed in the DEIS and SDEIS. Based on the 2001 and 2009 surveys, and subsequent Section 106 consultation with the SHPO, a total of 24 properties (buildings, structures, objects, or districts) within the project APE are currently listed in or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (see LSS Appendix B). The LSS involved the development and evaluation of design refinements for the four Build Alternatives currently under consideration to seek ways to avoid or minimize harm to non-archeological historic properties where these alternatives, as presented in the SDEIS, would likely cause adverse effects. The evaluation of the design refinements involved extensive coordination among technical staff representing the FHWA, TxDOT, NTTA, and the Texas Historical Commission (THC). The design refinements that received concurrence for implementation were the basis of the discussion of effects on historic properties included in this LSS and will be reflected in the FEIS. TxDOT has determined, with concurrence from the SHPO, that Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 4B would have No Adverse Effect on non-archeological historic properties. Alternative 3C would have No Adverse Effect on 23 of the 24 non-archeological historic properties located in the project APE but would impact integrity of design, materials, and workmanship of the Continental Avenue Viaduct, resulting in an Adverse Effect. In the event Alternative 3C is recommended as the preferred alternative, mitigation measures for impacts to the Continental Avenue Viaduct would be developed by the FHWA and TxDOT, in consultation with the SHPO, and presented in the FEIS (see LSS Appendix B). In a letter dated November 29, 2011, the FHWA and TxDOT determined that the Dallas Floodway is not eligible for listing in the NRHP and continued formal Section 106 consultation for this resource. However, the THC issued a letter to the FHWA on December 30, 2011 stating the SHPO did not concur with this assessment and providing comments to support a conclusion that the Dallas Floodway is eligible for listing in the NRHP at the local level of significance in the areas of Engineering and Community Planning and Development, under Criterion A (see LSS Appendix B). Coordination with the SHPO will continue for this resource and an update on consultation efforts will be reflected in the FEIS.

[END OF CHAPTER]

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

S-11

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

S-12

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD .......................................................................................................................... FOREWORD-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................S-1 S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................S-1 THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE TRINITY PARKWAY SDEIS AND LSS .....................................S-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................S-3 NEED AND PURPOSE FOR ACTION .........................................................................................S-3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .................................................................................................S-4 UPDATE ON THE STRATEGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING OF THE TRINITY PARKWAY AND DALLAS FLOODWAY PROJECTS .................................................S-5 S-7 S-8 S-9 CITY OF DALLAS LEVEE REMEDIATION PLAN ......................................................................S-6 ANALYSIS OF PRACTICABILITY OF THE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES .........................S-6 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ON IMPACTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES ....................S-10

COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. i

CHAPTER 1 - NEED AND PURPOSE FOR PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................... 1-1 1.1 1.2 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................... 1-1 NEED AND PURPOSE ................................................................................................................. 1-4 TRINITY PARKWAY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ................................................... 1-6 1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 1.3.4 Planning Context .............................................................................................................. 1-6 Overview of the Relationship of the Trinity Parkway MTIS, DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS .... 1-10 Trinity Parkway Development Strategy Prior to 2009 SDEIS Publication ..................... 1-11 Update on Trinity Parkway Development Process following the 2009 SDEIS Publication and Public Hearing ...................................................................................... 1-12 1.3.5 Discussion of the Section 404 Permit Process and the 33 USC 408 Approval Process .......................................................................................................................... 1-16

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

TOC-1

CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ....................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 MAJOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STUDY SUMMARY ............................................. 2-1 SUMMARY OF DEIS/SDEIS ALTERNATIVES NOT ADVANCED ............................................. 2-5 SUMMARY OF THE NO-BUILD AND REASONABLE BUILD ALTERNATIVES....................... 2-8 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 No-Build Alternative 1 ................................................................................................... 2-9 Alternative 2A Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard Elevated.............................. 2-10 Alternative 2B Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard At-Grade ............................. 2-12 Alternative 3C (Combined Parkway Further Modified) ............................................... 2-15 Alternative 4B (Split Parkway Riverside Modified)...................................................... 2-20 Design Refinements Under Consideration .................................................................... 2-24

CHAPTER 3 - EVALUATION OF THE USACE DALLAS FLOODWAY PERIODIC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 9 AND LEVEE REMEDIATION PLAN ............................................................................... 3-1 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANCE TO TRINITY PARKWAY.................................................. 3-1 LEVEE SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES ADJACENT TO TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVES ...... 3-3 LEVEE REMEDIATION PLAN O&M ITEMS ............................................................................. 3-4 LEVEE REMEDIATION PLAN MAJOR LEVEE DEFICIENCIES ............................................. 3-6 LEVEE REMEDIATION PLAN SEEPAGE CONTROL ............................................................. 3-7 LEVEE REMEDIATION PLAN FUTURE LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS ..................................... 3-10 SUMMARY DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 3-12

CHAPTER 4 - ENHANCED ANALYSIS OF PRACTICABILITY OF THE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 EVALUATION OF PRACTICABILITY UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDERS 11990 AND 11988 ....... 4-1 4.1.1 4.1.2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 Legislative/Regulatory Context ........................................................................................ 4-2 4.1.2.1 4.1.2.2 4.1.2.3 4.1.3 4.1.4 Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands .......................................... 4-2 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ............................................................... 4-3 Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management ....................................... 4-3

Methodology..................................................................................................................... 4-5 Practicability of Alternative 2A - Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard Elevated .......... 4-7 4.1.4.1 4.1.4.2 4.1.4.3 4.1.4.4 4.1.4.5 Economic Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-7 Project Costs .................................................................................................. 4-9 Consideration of Existing Technology.......................................................... 4-10 Consideration of Logistics ............................................................................ 4-10 Locational Advantages (including any functional need for locating in the floodplain) ..................................................................................................... 4-13

TOC-2

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4.1.4.6 4.1.4.7 4.1.4.8 4.1.4.9 4.1.4.10 4.1.4.11 4.1.4.12 4.1.4.13 4.1.4.14 4.1.4.15 4.1.4.16 4.1.4.17 4.1.4.18 4.1.5

Natural and Beneficial Values Served by Floodplains ................................. 4-14 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands and Water Quality ......................... 4-16 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values .................................................................. 4-18 Conservation ................................................................................................ 4-18 Needs and Welfare of the People ................................................................ 4-18 Air Quality Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-22 Traffic Noise Impacts ................................................................................... 4-22 Impact of Floods on Human Safety .............................................................. 4-23 Risks Associated with Implementation of the Action ................................... 4-24 Incompatible Development........................................................................... 4-25 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................... 4-25 Historic Values ............................................................................................. 4-28 Summary of Practicability Assessment for Alternative 2A ........................... 4-28

Practicability of Alternative 2B - Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard At-Grade ....... 4-30 4.1.5.1 4.1.5.2 4.1.5.3 4.1.5.4 4.1.5.5 4.1.5.6 4.1.5.7 4.1.5.8 4.1.5.9 4.1.5.10 4.1.5.11 4.1.5.12 4.1.5.13 4.1.5.14 4.1.5.15 4.1.5.16 4.1.5.17 4.1.5.18 Economic Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-30 Project Costs ................................................................................................ 4-32 Consideration of Existing Technology.......................................................... 4-33 Consideration of Logistics ............................................................................ 4-33 Locational Advantages ................................................................................. 4-36 Natural and Beneficial Values Served by Floodplains ................................. 4-37 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands and Water Quality ......................... 4-38 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values .................................................................. 4-40 Conservation ................................................................................................ 4-41 Needs and Welfare of the People ................................................................ 4-41 Air Quality Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-44 Traffic Noise Impacts ................................................................................... 4-45 Impact of Floods on Human Safety .............................................................. 4-46 Risks Associated with Implementation of the Action ................................... 4-47 Incompatible Development........................................................................... 4-47 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................... 4-48 Historic Values ............................................................................................. 4-49 Summary of Practicability Assessment for Alternative 2B ........................... 4-50

4.1.6

Practicability of Alternative 3C Combined Parkway Further Modified ........................ 4-51 4.1.6.1 4.1.6.2 4.1.6.3 4.1.6.4 Economic Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-52 Project Costs ................................................................................................ 4-54 Consideration of Existing Technology.......................................................... 4-56 Consideration of Logistics ............................................................................ 4-56

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

TOC-3

4.1.6.5 4.1.6.6 4.1.6.7 4.1.6.8 4.1.6.9 4.1.6.10 4.1.6.11 4.1.6.12 4.1.6.13 4.1.6.14 4.1.6.15 4.1.6.16 4.1.6.17 4.1.6.18 4.1.7

Locational Advantages ................................................................................. 4-60 Natural and Beneficial Values Served by Floodplains ................................. 4-61 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands and Water Quality ......................... 4-62 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values .................................................................. 4-65 Conservation ................................................................................................ 4-66 Needs and Welfare of the People ................................................................ 4-66 Air Quality Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-69 Traffic Noise Impacts ................................................................................... 4-69 Impact of Floods on Human Safety .............................................................. 4-70 Risks Associated with Implementation of the Action ................................... 4-73 Incompatible Development........................................................................... 4-74 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................... 4-76 Historic Values ............................................................................................. 4-78 Summary of Practicability Assessment for Alternative 3C ........................... 4-79

Practicability of Alternative 4B Split Parkway Riverside ............................................. 4-79 4.1.7.1 4.1.7.2 4.1.7.3 4.1.7.4 4.1.7.5 4.1.7.6 4.1.7.7 4.1.7.8 4.1.7.9 4.1.7.10 4.1.7.11 4.1.7.12 4.1.7.13 4.1.7.14 4.1.7.15 4.1.7.16 4.1.7.17 4.1.7.18 Economic Impacts ........................................................................................ 4-79 Project Costs ................................................................................................ 4-81 Consideration of Existing Technology.......................................................... 4-83 Consideration of Logistics ............................................................................ 4-83 Locational Advantages ................................................................................. 4-86 Natural and Beneficial Values Served by Floodplains ................................. 4-87 Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands and Water Quality ......................... 4-88 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values .................................................................. 4-91 Conservation ................................................................................................ 4-92 Needs and Welfare of the People ................................................................ 4-92 Air Quality Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-95 Traffic Noise Impacts ................................................................................... 4-95 Impact of Floods on Human Safety .............................................................. 4-96 Risks Associated with Implementation of the Action ................................... 4-99 Incompatible Development......................................................................... 4-100 Aesthetics ................................................................................................... 4-101 Historic Values ........................................................................................... 4-103 Summary of Practicability Assessment for Alternative 4B ......................... 4-103

4.1.8

Summary Comparison of Practicability ........................................................................ 4-104

TOC-4

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

CHAPTER 5 UPDATE ON CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 106 AND SECTION 4(f) ................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 5.2 5.3 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY CONTEXT .................................................................................. 5-1 HISTORIC-AGE RESOURCE SURVEY METHODOLOGY ......................................................... 5-4 DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES ............................................................................. 5-5 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.3.6 5.3.7 5.3.8 5.3.9 Corinth Street Overpass .................................................................................................. 5-9 Dealey Plaza Historic District ......................................................................................... 5-10 West End Historic District .............................................................................................. 5-11 Lake Cliff Historic District ............................................................................................... 5-12 7138 Envoy Court .......................................................................................................... 5-13 207 South Houston Street .............................................................................................. 5-14 818 Singleton Boulevard (Atlas Metal Works) ............................................................... 5-15 959 Dragon Street .......................................................................................................... 5-16 1000 Forest Avenue ....................................................................................................... 5-17

5.3.10 911 North Lancaster Avenue ......................................................................................... 5-18 5.3.11 613 Canada Drive at the Dallas Floodway West Levee (Pavaho Pump Station) .......... 5-19 5.4 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES TO AVOID HISTORIC PROPERTIES ...................... 5-20 5.4.1 5.4.2 5.4.3 5.4.4 5.4.5 5.4.6 5.4.7 5.4.8 5.4.9 Colonial Hill Historic District ........................................................................................... 5-21 Houston Street Viaduct .................................................................................................. 5-21 Corinth Street Viaduct .................................................................................................... 5-22 AT&SF Railroad Bridge .................................................................................................. 5-23 Continental Avenue Viaduct........................................................................................... 5-23 3701 South Lamar Street ............................................................................................... 5-24 1715 Market Center Boulevard ...................................................................................... 5-25 1202 North Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard ................................................................. 5-25 1212 South Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard ................................................................. 5-26

5.4.10 Summary of Design Refinements Implemented for Avoidance of Historic Properties .. 5-26 5.5 DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES...................................................... 5-27 5.5.1 5.5.2 5.5.3 5.5.4 5.5.5 5.5.6 5.5.7 5.5.8 5.5.9 Colonial Hill Historic District ........................................................................................... 5-28 Houston Street Viaduct .................................................................................................. 5-28 UP Railroad Bridge ........................................................................................................ 5-29 Corinth Street Viaduct .................................................................................................... 5-30 AT&SF Railroad Bridge .................................................................................................. 5-31 MKT Railroad Bridge ...................................................................................................... 5-32 Continental Avenue Viaduct........................................................................................... 5-32 Commerce Street Viaduct .............................................................................................. 5-33 2255 Irving Boulevard .................................................................................................... 5-34

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

TOC-5

5.5.10 3701 South Lamar Street ............................................................................................... 5-35 5.5.11 1715 Market Center Boulevard ...................................................................................... 5-35 5.5.12 1202 North Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard ................................................................. 5-36 5.5.13 1212 South Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard ................................................................. 5-36 5.5.14 Corinth Street Overpass ................................................................................................ 5-37 5.5.15 Dealey Plaza Historic District ......................................................................................... 5-37 5.5.16 West End Historic District .............................................................................................. 5-37 5.5.17 Lake Cliff Historic District ............................................................................................... 5-38 5.5.18 7138 Envoy Court .......................................................................................................... 5-38 5.5.19 207 South Houston Street .............................................................................................. 5-38 5.5.20 818 Singleton Boulevard - Atlas Metal Works ............................................................... 5-38 5.5.21 959 Dragon Street .......................................................................................................... 5-38 5.5.22 1000 Forest Avenue ....................................................................................................... 5-39 5.5.23 911 North Lancaster Avenue ......................................................................................... 5-39 5.5.24 613 Canada Drive at the Dallas Floodway West Levee (Pavaho Pump Station) .......... 5-40 5.5.25 Summary of Effects ........................................................................................................ 5-40 5.6 DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION FOR EFFECTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES....................... 5-42

CHAPTER 6 - LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................... 6-1

CHAPTER 7 - BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................ 7-1

TOC-6

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

APPENDICES

A Project Development Process B Cultural Resources Consultation C Tabulation of Dallas Floodway System Deficiencies (City of Dallas MDCP Plan) D Cost Estimates and Construction Schedules E Design Refinements Considered for Avoidance of Historic Properties F Additional Technical Discussion of Hydrologic/Hydraulic Attributes of Alternatives 3C and 4B

TABLES

S-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 4-10 4-11 4-12 4-13 4-14 4-15 4-16 4-17 4-18 4-19

Summary of Practicability of the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives .............................................S-7 IH-35E (Stemmons Freeway) Corridor Alignments ...................................................................... 2-3 Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard Corridor Alignments ........................................................ 2-3 Trinity River Levee Alignments ..................................................................................................... 2-4 Southern Terminus........................................................................................................................ 2-4 City of Dallas Categorized O&M Repairs ...................................................................................... 3-4 EO 11990 and EO 11988 Practicability Factors ........................................................................... 4-6 Alternative 2A Estimated Number and Description of Displacements .......................................... 4-8 Alternative 2A Estimated Tax Value Lost...................................................................................... 4-8 Alternative 2A Logical Sequence of Activities after Anticipated Record of Decision (ROD) ...... 4-11 Alternative 2A Potential Impacts to Major Utilities ......................................................................4-12 Alternative 2A Interchange Access ............................................................................................. 4-14 Alternative 2A Potential Impacts to Vegetation ...........................................................................4-15 Alternative 2A Potential Impacts to Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands .............................. 4-16 Alternative 2A Potential Impacts to Floodplains from FEMA Flood Mapping ............................. 4-24 Alternative 2B Estimated Number and Description of Displacements ........................................ 4-31 Alternative 2B Estimated Tax Value Lost.................................................................................... 4-31 Alternative 2B Logical Sequence of Activities after Anticipated ROD ........................................ 4-34 Alternative 2B Potential Impacts to Major Utilities ......................................................................4-35 Alternative 2B Interchange Access ............................................................................................. 4-37 Alternative 2B Potential Impacts to Vegetation ...........................................................................4-38 Alternative 2B Potential Impacts to Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands .............................. 4-39 Alternative 2B Potential Impacts to Floodplain from FEMA Flood Mapping ............................... 4-46 Alternative 3C Estimated Number and Description of Displacements ........................................ 4-52 Alternative 3C Estimated Tax Value Lost ................................................................................... 4-53

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

TOC-7

Tables - Continued

4-20 4-21 4-22 4-23 4-24 4-25 4-26 4-27 4-28 4-29 4-30 4-31 4-32 5-1 5-2 5-3

Alternative 3C Logical Sequence of Activities after Anticipated ROD ........................................ 4-57 Alternative 3C Comparison of Volume Needs and Suitable Soil Borrow Volumes..................... 4-60 Alternative 3C Interchange Access ............................................................................................. 4-61 Alternative 3C Potential Impacts to Vegetation ..........................................................................4-62 Alternative 3C Potential Impacts to Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands.............................. 4-63 Alternative 4B Estimated Number and Description of Displacements ........................................ 4-80 Alternative 4B Estimated Tax Value Lost.................................................................................... 4-80 Alternative 4B Logical Sequence of Activities after Anticipated ROD ........................................ 4-84 Alternative 4B Comparison of Volume Needs and Suitable Soil Borrow Volumes ..................... 4-85 Alternative 4B Interchange Access ............................................................................................. 4-86 Alternative 4B Acres of Vegetation Cover Types Directly Affected ............................................ 4-88 Alternative 4B Potential Impacts to Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands .............................. 4-89 Summary of Practicability of the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives ......................................... 4-105 NRHP-Listed and -Eligible Properties in the APE ......................................................................... 5-7 Summary of Design Refinements for Avoidance of Historic Properties ..................................... 5-27 Summary of Effects ..................................................................................................................... 5-41

FIGURES

1-1 1-2 1-3 2-1 2-2

Regional Study Area Map ............................................................................................................. 1-2 Project Study Area Map ................................................................................................................ 1-3 Agency Coordination Flowchart .................................................................................................. 1-15 Layout Map, Trinity Parkway Alternative 2A ............................................................................... 2-11 Computer Rendering, Trinity Parkway Alternative 2A Irving / Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard Elevated .................................................................................................................. 2-11

2-3 2-4

Layout Map, Trinity Parkway Alternative 2B ............................................................................... 2-14 Computer Rendering, Trinity Parkway Alternative 2B Irving / Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard At-Grade ................................................................................................................. 2-14

2-5 2-6

Layout Map, Trinity Parkway Alternative 3C Presented in the SDEIS........................................ 2-18 Computer Rendering, Trinity Parkway Alternative 3C Combined Parkway Further Modified .......................................................................................................................... 2-18

2-7 2-8

Layout Map, Trinity Parkway Alternative 4B ............................................................................... 2-22 Computer Rendering, Trinity Parkway Alternative 4B Split Parkway Riverside (Only Northbound Lanes are Shown) ......................................................................................... 2-22

TOC-8

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

Figures - Continued

3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8

Dallas Levees Included in USACE Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 .......................................... 3-1 City-Proposed Cut-Off Trench and Proposed Embankments for Alternatives 3C and 4B ........... 3-8 Alternative 3C Combined Parkway (Further Modified) Typical Section ................................ 3-10 Alternative 4B Split Parkway Riverside Modified Typical Section ........................................ 3-11 View Along Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard from Under Alternative 2A ................................... 4-26 Summer 2009 Billboard Advertising by Trinity Trust Foundation ............................................... 4-27 View Along Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard Adjacent to Alternative 2B ................................... 4-48 Trinity Earthwork Summary ......................................................................................................... 4-59 Conceptual Typical Section Alternative 3C Adjacent to Existing Dallas Floodway Levee ...... 4-74 View on Top of the East Levee Alongside Alternative 3C .......................................................... 4-77 Conceptual Typical Section Alternative 4B Adjacent to Existing Dallas Floodway Levee....... 4-99 View on Top of the East Levee Alongside Alternative 4B......................................................... 4-102

PLATES

2-1 2-2a 2-2b 2-3a 2-3b 2-4a 2-4b 2-4c 2-5a 2-5b 2-5c 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-6 4-7 4-8

Aerial Photograph ....................................................................................................................... 2-25 Alternative 2A Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Elevated (North) ................................................... 2-26 Alternative 2A Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Elevated (South) .................................................. 2-27 Alternative 2B Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) At-Grade (North) .................................................. 2-28 Alternative 2B Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) At-Grade (South).................................................. 2-29 Alternative 3C Combined Parkway East Levee Further Modified (North) .................................. 2-30 Alternative 3C Combined Parkway East Levee Further Modified (South) .................................. 2-31 Floodway Section for Alternative 3C Combined Parkway Further Modified ............................ 2-32 Alternative 4B Split Parkway Riverside Modified (North) ......................................................... 2-33 Alternative 4B Split Parkway Riverside Modified (South) ........................................................ 2-34 Floodway Section for Alternative 4B Split Parkway Modified Riverside .................................. 2-35 Alternative 2A Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Elevated, View 1 near Hampton Road .............. 4-109 Alternative 2A Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Elevated, View 2 near Sylvan Avenue ............... 4-110 Alternative 2A Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Elevated, View 3 near Continental Street .......... 4-111 Alternative 2A Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Elevated, View 4 near Houston Street ............... 4-112 Alternative 2A Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Elevated, View 5 near DART Bridge.................. 4-113 Alternative 2B Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) At-Grade, View 1 near Hampton Road .............. 4-114 Alternative 2B Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) At-Grade, View 2 near Sylvan Avenue .............. 4-115 Alternative 2B Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) At-Grade, View 3 near Continental Street ......... 4-116

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

TOC-9

Plates - Continued

4-9 4-10 4-11 4-12 4-13 4-14 4-15 4-16 4-17 4-18 4-19 4-20

Alternative 2B Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Elevated, View 4 near Houston Street ............... 4-117 Alternative 2B Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Elevated, View 5 near DART Bridge.................. 4-118 Alternative 3C Combined Parkway Further Modified, View 1 near Hampton Road .............. 4-119 Alternative 3C Combined Parkway Further Modified, View 2 near Sylvan Avenue .............. 4-120 Alternative 3C Combined Parkway Further Modified, View 3 near Continental Street.......... 4-121 Alternative 3C Combined Parkway Further Modified, View 4 near Houston Street .............. 4-122 Alternative 3C Combined Parkway Further Modified, View 5 near DART Bridge ................. 4-123 Alternative 4B Split Parkway Modified, View 1 near Hampton Road..................................... 4-124 Alternative 4B Split Parkway Modified, View 2 near Sylvan Avenue ..................................... 4-125 Alternative 4B Split Parkway Modified, View 3 near Continental Street ................................ 4-126 Alternative 4B Split Parkway Modified, View 4 near Houston Street ..................................... 4-127 Alternative 4B Split Parkway Modified, View 5 near DART Bridge ........................................ 4-128

4-21A Waters of the U.S. Alternative 2A .......................................................................................... 4-129 4-21B Waters of the U.S. Alternative 2A .......................................................................................... 4-130 4-22A Waters of the U.S. Alternative 2B .......................................................................................... 4-131 4-22B Waters of the U.S. Alternative 2B .......................................................................................... 4-132 4-23A Waters of the U.S. Alternative 3C .......................................................................................... 4-133 4-23B Waters of the U.S. Alternative 3C .......................................................................................... 4-134 4-24A Waters of the U.S. Alternative 4B .......................................................................................... 4-135 4-24B Waters of the U.S. Alternative 4B .......................................................................................... 4-136 4-25 4-26 5-1 Flood Profiles for Existing and Build Alternative 3C ................................................................. 4-137 Flood Profiles for Existing and Build Alternative 4B.................................................................. 4-138 Proposed Trinity Parkway NRHP-Listed/-Eligible Properties within APE ................................... 5-43

END OF TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOC-10

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

AAA ACHP APE AT&SF BVP CAA CBD CDC CEQ CFR CO CSJ CWA CWWTP DART dB dBA DEIS DFE DFW DISD DNT DOI DOT e.g., EA EIS EO EPA ER ERCOT ESA et al. ETC Etc. FEIS American Automobile Association Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Area of Potential Effects Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Balanced Vision Plan Clean Air Act Central Business District Corridor Development Certificate Council on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulations Carbon Monoxide Control-Section-Job Clean Water Act Central Wastewater Treatment Plant Dallas Area Rapid Transit Decibel Decibel (A-Weighed Scale) Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dallas Floodway Extension Dallas-Fort Worth Dallas Independent School District Dallas North Tollway Department of Interior Department of Transportation exempli grantia (for example) Environmental Assessment Environmental Impact Statement Executive Order Environmental Protection Agency Engineering Regulation Electric Reliability Council of Texas Endangered Species Act et alia (and others) Electronic Toll Collection et cetera (and so forth) Final Environmental Impact Statement i

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

FEMA FHWA FM FR HOT HOV i.e., IH IH-20 IH-30 IH-35 E IH-45 IH-635 ITS LPA LPP LSS MDCP MHH MIP MKT MLK MPH MSAT MTIS MTP NAAQS NAC NCTCOG ND NDD NEPA NHPA NOI NRHP NTTA O&M PA ii

Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Highway Administration Farm-to-Market Federal Register High-Occupancy Toll High-Occupancy Vehicle or High-Occupant Vehicle id est (that is) Interstate Highway Interstate Highway 20 Interstate Highway 30 Interstate Highway 35 East Interstate Highway 45 Interstate Highway 635 Intelligent Transportation Systems Locally Preferred Alternative Locally Preferred Plan Limited Scope Supplemental Maintenance Deficiency Correction Period Margaret Hunt Hill Master Implementation Plan Missouri Kansas and Topeka Railroad Martin Luther King, Jr. Miles Per Hour Mobile Source Air Toxics Major Transportation Investment Study Metropolitan Transportation Plan National Ambient Air Quality Standards Noise Abatement Criteria North Central Texas Council of Governments Neighborhood District Texas Natural Diversity Database National Environmental Policy Act National Historic Preservation Act Notice of Intent National Register of Historic Places North Texas Tollway Authority Operations and Maintenance Programmatic Agreement TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

PA-TU PL RHA ROD ROW RTC SDEIS SH SH-183 SH-310 SHPO SIP SPF TCEQ TDM THC TIF TIP TPDES TPWD TSM TTA TxDOT TxDOT-ENV U.S. UP US-175 US-75 USACE USC USDOT USFWS WRDA

Programmatic Agreement for Transportation Undertakings Public Law Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Record of Decision Right-of-Way Regional Transportation Council Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement State Highway State Highway 183 State Highway 310 State Historic Preservation Officer State Implementation Plan Standard Project Flood Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Travel Demand Management Texas Historical Commission Tax Increment Financing Transportation Improvement Program Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Transportation System Management Texas Turnpike Authority Texas Department of Transportation Texas Department of Transportation Environmental Affairs Division United States Union Pacific United States Highway 175 United States Highway 75 United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Code United States Department of Transportation United States Fish and Wildlife Service Water Resource Development Act Section Registered Trademark Degree

[END OF COMMONLY USED ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS] TRINITY PARKWAY LSS iii

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

iv

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

CHAPTER 1 Need and Purpose for Proposed Action

CHAPTER 1 NEED AND PURPOSE FOR PROPOSED ACTION

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), and the North Texas Tollway Authority (NTTA) have prepared this Limited Scope Supplemental (LSS) to the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) as joint lead agencies for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance for the proposed Trinity Parkway project. The FHWA is the lead federal agency for the study. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have agreed to be cooperating agencies in the preparation of the Trinity Parkway Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), including this LSS. This chapter describes the proposed project, the need and purpose for transportation improvements in the study area, and provides an overview of the planning context. The chapter also provides an update regarding the project development process that has been coordinated among the partner agencies since the publication of the SDEIS in February 2009. Certain sections of the SDEIS are incorporated by reference.

1.1

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed project is located in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Metroplex of north central Texas. The study area is located on the west side of the Dallas Central Business District (CBD) in central Dallas County (see Figure 1-1). The study area includes the Dallas Floodway, a federal flood conveyance and levee system carrying the main stem drainage flows of the Trinity River. Figure 1-2 shows the project study area and provides a reference for place names used throughout this LSS to the SDEIS.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

1-1

1-2

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

Places of Interest 1 - Canyon (IH-30) 2 - Mixmaster (IH-35E/IH-30) 3 - Lower Stemmons (IH-35E) 4 - West End and Dealey Plaza 5 - Methodist Medical Center The proposed project is the

6 - Dallas Zoo 7 - American Airlines Center 8 - Rochester Park 9 - Fair Park 10 - Parkland Hospital new construction of a

11 - Dallas Market Center 12 - Dallas Floodway 13 - White Rock Lake 14 - Woodall Rodgers Freeway 15 - DART Rail River Crossing limited-access toll facility from the

IH-35E/SH-183 interchange (northern terminus) to the US-175/SH-310 interchange (southern terminus), a distance of approximately 9 miles, in the City of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. The proposed project would provide a needed reliever route around the existing freeway loop which encircles downtown Dallas. The proposed project would ultimately consist of six mixed-flow mainlanes; local street interchanges; and interchanges between the tollway and freeways at the northern terminus, southern terminus, Woodall Rodgers Freeway, and IH-45. Additional interchange connections are included, but vary between each of the Build Alternatives under consideration (see SDEIS Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered, Table 2-6 Interchange Access Comparison). The facility is expected to have a posted speed of 55 miles per hour (mph), and access/service roads would be provided for areas affected by the discontinuation of an

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

1-3

existing street, or where property access must be restored. Electronic toll collection (ETC) facilities would be utilized, comprised of mainlane gantries, ramp gantries, and ancillary facilities (see SDEIS Section 2.5.2 Toll Collection Facilities). The ultimate configuration of the Trinity Parkway would be six mainlanes throughout for each alternative considered. Actual construction of the project may be accomplished in sections, meaning that specific tollway segments may be completed and opened to traffic prior to the completion and opening of the entire length of the facility. Funding for the proposed project is anticipated to be provided by local, state, and federal sources, and through the collection of tolls. Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered of this LSS describes the alternatives considered throughout the planning process. As presented in the SDEIS, the logical termini for the proposed project are the junctions at IH-35E/SH-183 and US-175/SH-310. The proposed action has independent utility and would not preclude other foreseeable transportation improvements. The analyses conducted for the approved SDEIS were based on data and methodologies associated with the long-range metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) Mobility 2030. The Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment was adopted by the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) of the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) on April 9, 2009, after the SDEIS was approved by the FHWA in February 2009. On February 1, 2011, the Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), FY 2011-2014 TIP, were found to conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). On March 10, 2011, a new MTP, Mobility 2035, was adopted by the RTC. On July 14, 2011, this new plan and the associated TIP (2011-2014 TIP, as amended) were found to conform to the SIP. In addition, the NCTCOG verified that the difference between the estimated average daily traffic (ADT) for the proposed project corridor based on the travel network in the Mobility 2030 - 2009 Amendment and the Mobility 2035 plans would not be more than 15 percent. Analyses for the subsequent Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be conducted based on the current MTP at that time. During the FEIS preparation process and prior to issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) by the FHWA, appropriate measures would be taken to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the conforming MTP and the TIP/Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

1.2

NEED AND PURPOSE

Transportation improvements are necessary in the Trinity Parkway corridor to address current and projected transportation needs and facility deficiencies. The proposed project particularly focuses on managing congestion in the IH-30/IH-35E (Mixmaster) interchange on the west edge of downtown Dallas; the depressed segment of IH-30 (Canyon) south of the CBD; and the segment of IH-35E from the

1-4

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

Mixmaster north to the Dallas North Tollway (Lower Stemmons). The transportation needs in the Trinity Parkway study area, simply stated, are: There is insufficient transportation capacity (freeway lanes, city streets, transit, etc.) in the Canyon/Mixmaster area near downtown Dallas to carry needed trips flowing north-south (generally along IH-35E) and east-west (generally along IH-30). This is most evident in the morning and evening rush hours on weekdays, with the heaviest traffic flows northbound and westbound in the morning hours, and southbound and eastbound in the evening hours. On an average weekday, there is traffic congestion for more than 6 hours in the Canyon/Mixmaster, with average speeds as low as 20 mph during the peak hour.
th

On a typical weekday morning,

northbound traffic on IH-35E queues from the Dallas Zoo (12 Street) to the Dallas North Tollway exit, a distance of approximately 4.3 miles. Eastbound traffic begins to queue west of the Trinity River Bridge (Wycliff/Sylvan Avenue), with the queue continuing through the entire Canyon area on IH-30, a distance of approximately 3.3 miles. Similar queuing problems occur during the evening rush hours on IH-35E and IH-30 in the opposite directions. The traffic problems in the Canyon and Mixmaster are intensified by the layout of mainlanes, service roads, ramps, and surface streets in the area, which fail to properly provide for the routes and destinations of the traveling public. The types of secondary problems include forced lane changes, abrupt and unexpected merges, weaves, and exits, missing connections for direct freeway-to-freeway movements, high accident rates, and poor access for emergency response. The need for action in the Trinity Parkway corridor is further described in the February 2009 SDEIS Chapter 1, Section 1.7 (Need for Action). The problems in the corridor are the result of various urban influences, including high population growth, increased suburbanization, changing employment patterns, trade-related transportation, lack of alternative routes, and high use of single-occupant vehicles. These problems result in many effects, including slow travel speeds, extended hours of congestion, accidents, reduced air quality due to congestion, and poor attraction of businesses to adjacent areas. Population and economic growth projections for the region indicate that corridor congestion problems would continue to worsen unless action is taken. Congestion in the Trinity Parkway corridor also slows travel for many miles along freeways feeding into the City center, such as IH-35E (Stemmons and South R.L. Thornton Freeways), IH-30 (Tom Landry Freeway and East R.L. Thornton Freeway), SH-183 (Airport Freeway), SH-114, and IH-45. Proposals for improving outlying segments of these freeways would not be entirely effective until traffic capacity is increased in and around the downtown area.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

1-5

As discussed in the SDEIS, the proposed project alternatives, including the No-Build Alternative, are under consideration based on how well they meet the following project purposes: Improve mobility, manage congestion, increase safety, and accommodate future travel demands Minimize the physical, biological, and socioeconomic effects on the human environment Provide compatibility with local development plans Provide enhancement of modal interrelationships The primary purpose of the Trinity Parkway project is to provide a safe and efficient transportation solution to manage traffic congestion and improve safety in the area of the Dallas CBD. An expanded discussion regarding the bulleted items above is presented in the February 2009 SDEIS Chapter 1, Section 1.8 (Purposes of the Proposed Action). The proposed project is included as part of a regional freeway/tollway plan in Mobility 2035: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan for North Central Texas (MTP), which is the regional transportation plan covering all modes of transportation and transportation system improvements. The proposed action is consistent with regional planning and congestion management strategies. The inclusion of the Trinity Parkway in the MTP indicates regional governmental support. Various municipalities and agencies such as the NCTCOG, TxDOT, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), Dallas County, and the City of Dallas have demonstrated long-term support for the project.

1.3

TRINITY PARKWAY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

This section provides a description of past and future planning steps for the proposed action. It includes a brief overview of the planning context, starting with a description of other relevant agency actions in the Trinity Corridor that have an impact on the project development process for the Trinity Parkway, followed by the role of the Trinity Parkway Corridor Major Transportation Investment Study (MTIS) (TxDOT, 1998), Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), the SDEIS, and this LSS in project development. A discussion of activities related to the evolution of the project development strategy to date is also included in this section. An updated flowchart showing the coordinated process that would be followed by the partner agencies for evaluation of the proposed action and final decisions on the separate undertakings in the Trinity River corridor is presented in LSS Section 1.3.4. 1.3.1 Planning Context

As described in the Trinity Parkway SDEIS, several local, regional, state, and federal government agencies are in the process of planning, implementing, or constructing various projects within the Trinity Parkway study area. Representative agencies include the City of Dallas, Dallas County, TxDOT, the

1-6

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

NTTA, the NCTCOG, and the USACE. These projects include flood control, transportation, recreation, utilities, land use planning, and environmental restoration. A full list of projects within the project study area was provided in SDEIS Section 4.24.2.7 Step 5 Identify Other Reasonable Foreseeable Actions that May Affect Resources (see Tables 4-57 and 4-58). Many of the proposed projects located within the Trinity River corridor have parallel planning processes, overlapping objectives, and a design and project approval process that require close coordination with the Trinity Parkway. The City of Dallas Trinity River Corridor project is the overall name for a series of proposed projects along the Elm Fork and main stem of the Trinity River, supported by the City as part of an initiative to improve flood control, downtown access, aesthetic value, and the economic potential of the Trinity River Corridor and surrounding communities. This Trinity River Corridor project is widely publicized and is being managed by a consolidated interagency office at Dallas City Hall. described in detail on the City of Dallas website: www.trinityrivercorridor.org. The Dallas Floodway and proposed improvements by the City of Dallas and the USACE are given substantial emphasis in this LSS because the proposed Trinity Parkway alternatives and the City/USACE Floodway initiatives are subject to cooperative environmental documentation and processing due to geographic proximity as further described in LSS Section 1.3.4. Selection of a Trinity Parkway Build Alternative could potentially modify or alter an existing federal flood control project and would be subject to review and approval by the USACE in accordance with 33 U.S. Code (USC) 408 prior to construction. 33 USC 408 requires a determination by the Secretary of the Army (delegated to the Chief of Engineers, USACE) that the proposed alteration, permanent occupation, or use of a federal flood control project is not injurious to the public interest and will not impair its usefulness. Extensive coordination among the project partners has occurred especially in recent years to ensure the proposed Trinity Parkway project would not interrupt flood control operations or impact the existing Dallas Floodway levees. In the event a Trinity Parkway riverside alternative (Alternatives 3C and 4B) is selected, areas of continued coordination with the proposed City/USACE floodway improvements would include: 1) coordination of construction phasing to ensure protection of the levee system, 2) usage of borrow material from the floodway for tollway embankment, and 3) provision of uninterrupted access for floodway operations and maintenance, flood fighting, and surveillance. If one of the Trinity Parkway alternatives located on the landside of the Dallas Floodway levees (Alternatives 2A and 2B) is selected, coordination with the USACE is expected to include coordination involved with meeting regulatory requirements for sump crossings and avoiding construction conflicts in the area of the USACE Dallas Floodway Extension (DFE) project. The major City of Dallas/USACE undertakings planned for the Dallas Floodway are summarized below. The project elements are

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

1-7

Dallas Floodway Extension Project The USACE DFE project provides for an extension of flood protection improvements downstream of the existing south end of the Dallas Floodway levee system. Major components of the project include construction of a chain of wetlands to supplement overbank flow capacity and extension of the levee system to provide flood protection for developed areas. The levee extension would involve construction of levees along the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) parallel to Lamar Street from the area of the DART Bridge downstream to Rochester Park, and on the western edge of the floodplain around the Cadillac Heights neighborhood. Other elements of the project include recreation features, such as trails and access areas, as well as ecosystem restoration and environmental mitigation features. The DFE project has been separately processed through an EIS and a ROD for the project was signed on December 1, 1999 (USACE, 1999). The USACE produced a Final Supplement No. 1 to the EIS for the DFE project in 2003 and concluded that nothing in the analysis indicated the recommended plan should be changed from the plan identified in the 1999 ROD. The DFE project has independent purpose and utility, focused primarily on flood control and environmental restoration. It is intended to be separately funded by the City and the USACE, and would not require Trinity Parkway to be in place to be effective. Dallas Floodway Project The proposed Dallas Floodway project is a multipurpose project sponsored by the USACE in partnership with the City of Dallas, and consists of levee remediation, flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and recreation enhancement within and adjacent to the Dallas Floodway. The City of Dallas has developed a conceptual master plan for extensive development of recreational, transportation, and environmental restoration elements for the Dallas Floodway known as A Balanced Vision Plan (BVP) for the Trinity River Corridor (City of Dallas, 2003). Section 5141 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 authorized the implementation of the City of Dallas BVP and Interior Drainage Plan components if the USACE determines they are technically sound and environmentally acceptable. On October 9, 2009, the USACE issued a Notice of Intent to prepare a DEIS in response to a U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Resolution, dated April 22, 1988, and Section 5141 of the WRDA of 2007 seeking analysis of the potential comprehensive environmental consequences of the proposed improvements for the Dallas Floodway system (Federal Register [FR] Vol. 74, No. 195, Oct., 2009). Proposed BVP alternatives for ecosystem restoration and recreation enhancement will be developed and evaluated based on ongoing fieldwork and data collection and past studies conducted by the Corps of Engineers, the City of Dallas, and regulatory agencies. Ecosystem restoration actions that will be evaluated in the DEIS include creating meanders within the Trinity River, restoring, protecting and

1-8

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

expanding the riparian corridor, improving aquatic habitat, creating riffle-pool complexes, and constructing wetlands. Recreation measures that will be evaluated include the West, Natural, and Urban lakes, terraced playing fields, multipurpose trails, whitewater facilities, pedestrian bridges, utilities, parking facilities, amphitheaters, promenade, concession pads, boat/canoe access points, and passive recreation features, such as interpretive guidance, media, and picnic areas. Proposed USACE and City of Dallas alternatives to address existing Dallas Floodway flood risk management and interior drainage concerns will be evaluated from both a non-structural and structural perspective. Non-structural measures that will be evaluated include acquisition and removal of structures or flood proofing of structures for protection from potential future flood damage. Structural measures that will be evaluated include levee height modification by fill or addition of flood walls, changes in interior drainage by enlarging storage areas or increasing widths and depths, removal of the existing Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Bridge, and/or a combination of these measures (FR Vol. 74, No. 195, Oct., 2009). In regards to the USACE/City Dallas Floodway Project, it should be noted that a Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program (STEP) project utilizing a portion of the AT&SF Bridge as part of a bicycle and pedestrian trail (Santa Fe Trestle Trail) located within the Dallas Floodway is currently under construction with the legal requirement that the bridge must be open to the public for a period of 10 years. Removing the steel truss that spans the Trinity River and other bridge elements that are functional components of the trail would violate the agreement between the City of Dallas and TxDOT. The bridge has also been determined by TxDOT, with concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It is expected that the steel truss and sections of wooden trestle that are part of the trail project will remain. As stated above, in conjunction with the BVP components, the Dallas Floodway project includes levee remediation, which is planned to address floodway system deficiencies identified during the periodic inspection performed by the USACE in 2007. The USACE DEIS for the Dallas Floodway project will include an assessment of the Levee Remediation Plan (and potential impacts) proposed to address deficiencies preventing the levees from accommodating the Standard Project Flood (SPF). It should be noted that the City of Dallas initiated a levee remediation study in 2009 to address floodway system deficiencies only to the extent of the levee's integrity with respect to the 100-year flood, and corrective plans developed with a purpose of regaining 100-year levee accreditation were evaluated in an Environmental Assessment processed separately from the USACE DEIS. Discussion concerning how the Trinity Parkway alternatives may relate to the levee remediation is presented in LSS Section 3.2. In addition to the BVP elements and proposed USACE and City of Dallas alternatives to address existing flood risk management and interior drainage concerns, the ongoing USACE DEIS will evaluate several potential Section 408 projects proposed by other agencies for the Dallas Floodway. The Dallas Floodway

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

1-9

project development process as it relates to the Trinity Parkway project development process has evolved since the publication of the Trinity Parkway SDEIS, but retains its independent purpose and utility, and could proceed with or without the Trinity Parkway. LSS Sections 1.3.3 and 1.3.4 provide additional information regarding the changes that occurred.

1.3.2

Overview of the Relationship of the Trinity Parkway MTIS, DEIS, SDEIS, and LSS

The decision-making process concerning the proposed Trinity Parkway project began with the Trinity Parkway Corridor MTIS (TxDOT, 1998). As described more fully in LSS Section 2.1, the recommendations from this study were adopted in March 1999 into the regional MTP (Mobility 2020 and subsequent plans). The MTIS concluded with a recommended plan of action, which included the Trinity Parkway reliever route, Canyon-Mixmaster improvements, the Woodall Rodgers Extension, and several other elements. The proposed reliever route is being processed independently from, but in coordination with, the remaining elements of the MTIS recommended plan of action. These remaining elements are being addressed in separate NEPA documents prepared by others. As project sponsor for the Trinity Parkway, the NTTA is assisting the FHWA with the NEPA process, which includes compliance with regulations and guidelines promulgated by the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the FHWA. These regulations and guidelines require a process ensuring that reasonable and feasible alternatives are evaluated and their related environmental impacts are thoroughly assessed. In June 1999, the NEPA project development process for the proposed action began with the public scoping and preparation of the DEIS. The documentation presented in the DEIS was prepared in accordance with the CEQ and FHWA regulations. The sponsoring agencies, consisting of the FHWA, TxDOT, and NTTA, approved the Trinity Parkway DEIS for circulation on January 28, 2005. A public hearing was conducted on March 29, 2005, and the public comment period ran from February 11 through April 8, 2005. In late 2005, the FHWA in consultation with the sponsoring agencies and the cooperating agencies decided to prepare an SDEIS for the Trinity Parkway based on public and agency comments after determining the purposes of NEPA would be furthered by doing so. The contents of the DEIS were reproduced in their entirety in the SDEIS, along with new and revised material. The SDEIS currently serves as the primary document to facilitate review of the proposed action by federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the general public. The SDEIS details the need and purpose for the project, includes a discussion of the alternatives considered, and describes the anticipated social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the proposed action along with potential mitigation measures. In addition, the SDEIS analyzed public and agency comments on the DEIS, and included public hearing transcripts and a summary and analysis of views (see SDEIS Appendix G). The sponsor agencies approved the SDEIS on February 19, 2009. A public

1-10

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

hearing on the SDEIS was held on May 5, 2009 and the extended comment period ran from March 20 through June 30, 2009. Three factors led to the development of this LSS to the SDEIS. First, new information was released from the USACE after the publication of the SDEIS, which triggered a need for further evaluation and public comment on some of the proposed Trinity Parkway alternatives with respect to possible impacts to levee remediation and overall flood risk associated with the Dallas Floodway levees (see LSS Chapter 3). Second, prior to recommending a preferred alternative and releasing a FEIS, the FHWA sought an enhanced evaluation and another opportunity for public comment on the practicability of the Trinity Parkway alternatives in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management, 1977) and EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands, 1977). This analysis is contained in LSS Section 4.1. Third, in accordance with 23 CFR 774 (Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites [Section 4(f)]) and prior to publishing the FEIS, the FHWA sought additional analysis of feasibility and prudence to assess whether Trinity Parkway alternatives could avoid or would require the taking or use of resources protected under Section 4(f). Although additional analysis under Section 4(f) was one of the deciding factors in the FHWA's reasoning for the need to prepare this LSS, federal legislation was passed during the development of the LSS that had implications for the proposed Trinity Parkway project in regards to Section 4(f) (Public Law No. 111-212). The legislation regarding Section 4(f) and an expanded description of the development of this LSS document is provided in LSS Section 1.3.4.

1.3.3

Trinity Parkway Development Strategy Prior to 2009 SDEIS Publication

This section outlines the previous strategy for development of the Trinity Parkway EIS, which has since been amended following the publication of the SDEIS. The FHWA originally recognized that there may be integration and coordination issues with foreseeable flood control and lake improvements proposed by the USACE and City of Dallas within the Dallas Floodway. However, the Trinity Parkway DEIS included alternative routes located within and outside the Dallas Floodway, and it was not possible to determine the degree of integration required with other proposed Dallas Floodway improvements, as they were less fully developed at the time. The original strategy involved a public hearing and comment period following the release of the Trinity Parkway DEIS, after which the FHWA, TxDOT, and the NTTA Board of Directors would recommend a preferred alternative. Dependent on the selection of alternatives, one of the following development strategies was expected:

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

1-11

1. If a Build Alternative was recommended within the Dallas Floodway, subsequent NEPA documentation would be developed, which would further address the lakes, flood control, environmental restoration, and recreational improvements proposed in the Dallas Floodway. 2. If a Build Alternative was recommended outside the Dallas Floodway, the FHWA/TxDOT/NTTA would proceed to finalization of the Trinity Parkway FEIS (i.e., an FEIS would be prepared) independent of the proposals by the USACE and the City of Dallas in the Dallas Floodway. 3. If the No-Build Alternative was recommended as the preferred alternative, the FHWA/TxDOT/NTTA would stop work on the Trinity Parkway EIS and pertinent study materials would be forwarded to the City of Dallas. The proposals by the USACE and City of Dallas in the Dallas Floodway would not be directly affected by this alternative, and would be processed independently. The specific development strategies (Options 1, 2, and 3) were further described in a letter to the FHWA prepared and signed by representatives of the NTTA, the USACE, and the City of Dallas, dated January 29, 2003 (see SDEIS Appendix A-1, Page 48). The involved agencies consulted extensively after publication and public comment on the 2005 DEIS. A decision was made to prepare the SDEIS, followed by another public hearing, postponing recommendation of a preferred Trinity Parkway alternative by the FHWA until after publication of the SDEIS and consideration of further public comment. To maintain a high degree of coordination between the Trinity Parkway EIS and the USACEs EIS for Dallas Floodway improvements, the FHWA agreed to become a Cooperating Agency with the USACE on the Dallas Floodway EIS, and the USACE agreed to become a Cooperating Agency with the FHWA on the Trinity Parkway EIS. By acting as cooperating agencies on each project and implementing, to the extent necessary or desirable, cooperative efforts to meet applicable regulatory requirements, the USACE and FHWA seek to assure a hard look under NEPA, as each agency proceeds toward final action.

1.3.4

Update on Trinity Parkway Development Process following the 2009 SDEIS Publication

and Public Hearing In 2009, after publication of the Trinity Parkway SDEIS, the USACE Fort Worth District and the City of Dallas released the Periodic Inspection Report (Report No. 9), Dallas Floodway, Trinity River, Dallas, Dallas County, Texas (USACE, 2007), which prompted a revision of the coordination process for the Trinity Parkway and the flood risk management initiatives, interior drainage plans, and other proposed development within the Dallas Floodway. The USACE Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 documented substantial deficiencies with the Dallas Floodway system which resulted in unacceptable ratings and subsequent de-certification of the Dallas Floodway levees (see LSS Appendix A, Pages 1-2). In addition

1-12

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

to numerous unacceptable ratings, the results of the inspection identified negative impacts during base flood (100-year event) conditions, which would jeopardize performance of flood protections to function as authorized (FR Vol. 74, No. 195, Friday, October 9, 2009). The levee de-certification resulted in an urgent need for the City of Dallas to recertify the levees in a timely manner in order to avoid the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood mapping of the areas containing homes and businesses protected by the levees. As the non-federal sponsor responsible for operation and maintenance of the Dallas Floodway system, the Citys eligibility for rehabilitation assistance under Public Law (PL) 84-99 was also at risk. PL 84-99 provides funding assistance for repair of eligible flood control systems that are damaged during a flood. A levee system with an unacceptable rating is not eligible for future rehabilitation assistance until unacceptable maintenance deficiencies have been corrected. As a result, the City of Dallas, in partnership with the USACE, developed a Maintenance Deficiency Correction Period (MDCP) Plan and a Levee Remediation Plan for system-wide improvements to address the levee deficiencies and other issues within the Dallas Floodway. The USACE Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 cited deficiencies in four levee systems in Dallas, including segments of the Dallas Floodway east and west levees adjacent to proposed Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives 3C and 4B. The Report was acknowledged at the May 5, 2009 Trinity Parkway SDEIS public hearing with the stated intent to further study the reported levee deficiencies as they relate to the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives, coordinate any effects to the Levee Remediation Plan, and present further information to the public regarding the Trinity Parkway and the levees prior to the FEIS. In a June 24, 2009 letter to the TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division, the FHWA stated that the SDEIS, which was released prior to the USACE Periodic Inspection Report, did not include a discussion of the reported deficiencies and any impacts these might have on the Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives. Due to these and other issues requiring further evaluation, the FHWA decided on the LSS to supplement the current SDEIS (see LSS Appendix A, Page 3). The FHWA stated it would not recommend a preferred alternative in the LSS, so that the additional analyses from the LSS and subsequent public input could be evaluated prior to the official FHWA recommendation. The LSS, along with the SDEIS and other record documents, would be used to prepare an FEIS and ultimate decision document by the FHWA. In addition to the FHWA requirement for further studies directly related to the USACE Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 and compatibility of Trinity Parkway Build Alternatives with the Levee Remediation Plan, the FHWA determined it was necessary to enhance certain information contained in the SDEIS before proceeding to the FEIS. In light of the potential impact from Trinity Parkway alternatives to floodplains, wetlands, and Section 4(f) resources, the FHWA determined the LSS should address whether each alternative could practicably be achieved and whether there are any feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives to the use of Section 4(f) resources. During the development of this LSS, events occurred that had implications for the proposed Trinity Parkway project in regards to Section 4(f). On July 29, 2010,

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

1-13

the President of the United States signed the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 into law (Public Law No. 111-212). This federal legislation contained the following language, which was pertinent for the Dallas Floodway and Trinity Parkway:

SEC. 405. (a) The Secretary of the Army shall not be required to make a determination under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.) for the project for flood control, Trinity River and tributaries, Texas, authorized by section 2 of the Act entitled An Act authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes, approved March 2, 1945 [59 Stat. 18], as modified by section 5141 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 [121 Stat. 1253]. (b) The Federal Highway Administration is exempt from the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 for any highway project to be constructed in the vicinity of the Dallas Floodway, Dallas, Texas. Because of the above exemption, the FHWA determined that Section 4(f) requirements are not applicable to the proposed Trinity Parkway project, and as such, no further Section 4(f) evaluation for any public parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or historic sites of national, state or local significance is required for this project (see LSS Appendix A, Page 64). Nevertheless, supplemental historic-age resource surveys and a more comprehensive evaluation of the historic context of the study area were provided for this LSS (see Chapter 5) in order to advance coordination under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) [16 USC 470(f)] prior to the FEIS. Leading up to the FHWA decision to require an LSS document, representatives of the FHWA, USACE, EPA, NTTA, TxDOT, NCTCOG, FEMA, and City of Dallas met on May 18 and 19, 2009 to discuss local and federal projects proposed along the Trinity River corridor and how they relate to the Dallas Floodway. The various federal agencies shared information with the NTTA, TxDOT, and City of Dallas regarding their approval processes for the proposed improvements and provided direction on required activities and standards to be met to conclude the projects. These and other subsequent discussions among local, state, and federal agencies resulted in a revised strategy for environmental processing of the Trinity Parkway project and other projects in or adjacent, parallel and near the Dallas Floodway. The revised strategy is depicted in Figure1-3. The flowchart illustrated in Figure 1-3 gives a general overview of key tasks and project development relationships among the various tasks.

1-14

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

FIGURE 1-3. AGENCY COORDINATION FLOWCHART

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

1-15

The revised strategy recognizes the primacy of flood protection in the Trinity River Corridor and the geographic proximity of the Trinity Parkway and Dallas Floodway projects, and re-affirms the commitment of the FHWA and the USACE to coordinate their efforts on these projects. This recognition and commitment does not alter the independent utility of these projects. The revised procedures replace those outlined in the January 29, 2003 interagency letter and are intended to better facilitate timely development of the required environmental documents for these actions, while enabling the public and agencies to better understand the proposed projects and their impacts. The strategy is intended to ultimately allow the FHWA and USACE to make an informed decision regarding these projects in the context of various regulations and requisite analyses applicable to the processes of each agency. Technical committees and a partner agency executive team were established and monthly meetings held to facilitate dialogue, assure tasks were being completed in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, and maintain consistency and compatibility of the federal agency processes. During the development of the LSS, the partner agencies participated in numerous meetings and workshops to discuss geotechnical, floodway, transportation, and historic resource issues, as well as progress on the NEPA documentation. Critical future checkpoints established by the revised agency coordination strategy are that 1) the USACE Comprehensive System Analysis for the Dallas Floodway project (see LSS Section 1.3.1) must provide reasonable assurance that a Trinity Parkway riverside alternative is technically sound and environmentally acceptable prior to Trinity Parkway FEIS completion; and 2) before the USACE DEIS for the Dallas Floodway project can proceed to public hearing, the Trinity Parkway FEIS must recommend the FHWAs preferred alternative for incorporation as the desired alternative in the USACE plan. These checkpoints are shown as dashed lines in Figure 1-3.

1.3.5

Discussion of the Section 404 Permit Process and the 33 USC 408 Approval Process

Part of the function of the projects NEPA process, including this LSS document, is to assist the USACE in meeting its regulatory decision-making responsibilities. As stated in the SDEIS, the USACE Fort Worth District intends to use the Trinity Parkway EIS, to the extent possible, to support its obligations under NEPA with respect to decisions related to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC Section 1344) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899 (33 USC Section 403) as they may apply to Trinity Parkway. An important aspect of the CWA Section 404 permit process and the RHA Section 10 permit process is the public interest review requirements of the USACE regulations governing regulatory evaluations of permits (see 33 CFR Section 320.4). This evaluation includes consideration of the need for the proposed project, whether there are reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the project, and the extent to which the project would have beneficial and detrimental effects on the uses to which the area is suited. The evaluation of the probable impact which the proposed project may have on the public interest requires careful weighing of all those factors which

1-16

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

may be relevant, such as conservation, economics, aesthetics, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, water quality, energy needs, safety, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. The specific weight the USACE gives to each factor is determined by its importance and relevance to the proposed action. The USACE must also consider the standards in the Section 404(b)(1) regulations issued by the EPA, 40 CFR Part 230. 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, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences" (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 purpose (40 CFR Section 230.3(q)). Since the publication of the SDEIS, a Regional General Permit (RGP) 12 - Modifications and Alterations of Corps of Engineers Projects was developed and implemented. Activities authorized by RGP 12 are limited to the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and work in, or affecting navigable waters of the U.S., associated with modification and alterations of Corps of Engineers projects that receive USACE approval under 33 USC 408 (Section 408) and meet the conditions of the RGP (USACE, 2010). RGP 12 could potentially be utilized as the Section 404/10 authorization for the proposed Trinity Parkway project. Because the project would disturb more than 0.5 acre of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA would be obtained during the Section 408 review process. In addition to its obligations under Section 404, 33 USC 408 requires a determination by the Secretary of the Army that any proposed alteration, permanent occupation, or use of a federal flood control project is not injurious to the public interest and would not impair the usefulness of the federal works (USACE, 2006). In the event a Build Alternative is selected as the preferred alternative and that alternative could potentially modify or alter an existing federal flood control project, then the project will be evaluated in accordance with 33 USC 408 prior to construction. The Trinity Parkway NEPA documents, including this LSS, contain information to assist the USACE in its regulatory actions and decision making related to its flood control mission.

[END OF CHAPTER 1]

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

1-17

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

1-18

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

CHAPTER 2 Alternatives Considered

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 the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A (FHWA, 1987), a reasonable number of alternatives within the reasonable range of alternatives have been evaluated. Because the alternatives were evaluated in a series of documents, this chapter summarizes the alternative development process.

2.1

MAJOR TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STUDY SUMMARY

A Trinity Parkway reliever route has been part of the long-range transportation plan in the Dallas area since the mid-1960s, and remains an integral component of current transportation plans and programs. A discussion of the history of the project and its predecessor proposals and proponents is presented in the February 2009 SDEIS (see SDEIS Chapter 1, Section 1.3 Project History). In 1996, TxDOT initiated the Trinity Parkway Corridor MTIS, and the findings of the study were published in March 1998 (TxDOT, 1998) [TxDOT Dallas District, Control-Section-Job (CSJ) No. 0918-45-121,122]. MTIS procedures stress the integration of social, economic, and environmental considerations early in planning analyses and transportation decision making. The Trinity Parkway Corridor MTIS was completed in order to develop a locally preferred plan (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 extended beyond downtown to cover a reasonable area of influence of the Canyon, Mixmaster, and Lower Stemmons segments on area transportation facilities. 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 alternatives identified for further study from the first-stage. 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.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-1

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: 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 High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) system through the Canyon, Mixmaster, and Lower Stemmons corridors; and 7. A Trinity Parkway reliever route (proposed action in this LSS). 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 is being advanced by TxDOT and the City of Dallas as the Margaret Hunt Hill signature bridge over the Trinity River and 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 (Note: 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 awaiting funding). Item 7 from the plan, the proposed Trinity Parkway reliever route, is the subject of this LSS to the SDEIS. During the MTIS process, four potential corridors for this reliever route were considered in detail: 1. IH-35E; 2. Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard; All of the corridors were considered between identical termini locations (IH-35E/SH-183 and US-175/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: 3. The east Trinity River levee; and 4. The west Trinity River levee.

2-2

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

1. Providing all HOV/High-Occupancy Toll (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.

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

Alignment I35-1a I35-1b I35-2A I35-2b I35-3 I35-4 I35-5a I35-5b I35-5c Description Four-lane elevated freeway with two at-grade HOV/HOT lanes and two additional 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 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 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 no compensatory widening. Requires rebuilding existing IH-35E within project limits. Four-lane at-grade HOV/HOT lanes (four additional lanes total) with compensatory 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 from IH-35E with no compensatory widening. Two-lane HOV/HOT lanes on elevated structure (two additional lanes total) with no 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 general-purpose lanes from IH-35E with no compensatory widening. Two-lane at-grade HOV/HOT lanes on IH-35E (two additional lanes total) with compensatory widening. Requires rebuilding IH-35E within project limits.

TABLE 2-2. IRVING/RIVERFRONT (INDUSTRIAL) BOULEVARD CORRIDOR ALIGNMENTS

Alignment IND-1 IND-2 IND-3 IND-4 IND-5 Description Eight-lane elevated freeway with two elevated HOV/HOT lanes (10 additional lanes total) with compensatory widening (47 feet on each side). Existing Irving/Riverfront (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). Existing Irving/Riverfront (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 20 feet on each side. Requires rebuilding existing Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard within project limits. Four-lane elevated HOV/HOT lanes (four additional lanes total). Requires ROW widening of 12.5 feet on each side of the existing roadways. Existing Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard remains in place. Two-lane elevated HOV/HOT lanes (two additional lanes total) on a T bridge within the existing median of Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard. Requires no additional ROW. Existing Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard remains in place.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-3

TABLE 2-3. TRINITY RIVER LEVEE ALIGNMENTS

Alignments TL-1a, TL-1b, and TL-1c TL-2A, TL-2b, and TL-2c TL-3a, TL-3b, and TL-3c TL-4a, TL-4b, and TL-4c TL-5a, TL-5b, and TL-5c TL-7a, TL-7b, and TL-7c TL-6a, TL-6b, and TL-6c TL-8a, TL-8b, and TL-8c Description Directional parkway along both levees (five lanes on each side with three reversible lanes). Requires reconstruction of 12 and 16 cross-street bridges, respectively. Conventional thoroughfare along the east or west levee (six lanes with median). Asymmetrical thoroughfare along both levees (six lanes on each side - four lanes in one direction and two in the opposite direction). Requires reconstruction of eight and 16 crossstreet bridges respectively. Split freeway along both levees with southbound lanes on the west levee and 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 six and eight cross-street bridges, respectively. Divided parkway along both levees (four lanes on each side). Requires reconstruction of eight and 16 cross-street bridges, respectively. HOV/HOT lanes along the east levee (two lanes). Requires reconstruction of six crossstreet bridges each. Full freeway section along the east or west levee with two-lane HOV/HOT lanes (eight lanes total). Requires reconstruction of six and eight cross-street bridges, respectively.

TABLE 2-4. SOUTHERN TERMINUS

Alignment 1 - Lamar Street 2 - Railroad 3 - East Levee 4- Split West-East Levee 5 - Combined East Levee/Railroad 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 UPRR. 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 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard (MLK), then following the east side of the UPRR.

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. Based on the evaluation of social, economic, and environmental effects; construction and ROW costs; engineering considerations; and extensive agency/public involvement, a reliever route alternative located primarily within the Dallas Floodway was identified as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) in the MTIS. However, the MTIS recognized that the selection of a reliever route would require subsequent studies. As anticipated, additional route alternatives along Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard were included in the DEIS and SDEIS, and are carried forward in this LSS for more detailed consideration. Some modifications have been made to the MTIS reliever road concept since 1998. The MTIS

recognized the possibility of implementing the Trinity Parkway as a toll facility. Following completion of the MTIS in 1998, in view of substantial regional shortfalls and delays in funding of needed highway projects, local transportation funding agencies agreed to pursue the proposed project as a toll facility.

2-4

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

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. In addition, 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 level of service analyses, public input, concerns regarding environmental impacts and costs due to the scale of an eightlane facility (as presented in the MTIS), and also for compatibility with local plans.

2.2

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 and analyzed six Build Alternatives as well as the No-Build Alternative. The SDEIS republished the DEIS along with additional information, and further modified certain alternatives for consideration, thus evaluating the No-Build and eight Build Alternatives. The following section describes the alternatives evaluated in the DEIS and SDEIS that are not being advanced for further consideration. Based on correspondence with the USACE and further evaluation following the release of the SDEIS and subsequent public hearing (see LSS Appendix A), the alternatives described below would not be feasible due to their potential to interrupt flood control operations and because of proposed design features impacting the existing or planned expansion of the floodway levees. 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 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. The alternative is called Original to 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 light rail bridge. extension (Lamar Levee) to IH-45. The route then turned east to the US-175/SH-310 interchange. The alignment then crossed the levee and followed the landside of the future USACE DFE east levee

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-5

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. 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 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 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. 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

2-6

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

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. 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. 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. 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 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 (O&M) requirements within the Dallas Floodway. The USACE concerns are summarized as follows: The project must not interfere with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 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, floodwalls, 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

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-7

Alternative 5 were not considered approvable due to the concerns outlined above. For these reasons, the alternatives have been eliminated from further analysis and consideration. The feasibility of realigning or modifying Alternative 5 to address the USACE concerns was evaluated during the development of this LSS (see LSS Appendix A, Pages 12-18, 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 a substantial increase in residential displacements in minority and low-income neighborhoods and substantially greater costs associated with ROW acquisition and relocation assistance. Consequently, the FHWA determined Alternative 5 could not be practicably modified to avoid adverse impacts to the levees as identified by the USACE (see LSS Appendix A, Pages 50-51).

2.3

SUMMARY OF THE NO-BUILD AND REASONABLE BUILD ALTERNATIVES

Four Build Alternatives presented in the SDEIS have been identified as reasonable for meeting the need and purpose of the Trinity Parkway. These are identified as Alternatives 2A, 2B, 3C, and 4B. Plate 2-1 at the end of this chapter shows the alternatives on an aerial photograph. Plates 2-2 through 2-5 show the schematic plans and typical cross sections for these alternatives. In accordance with the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A (FHWA, 1987), a reasonable number of alternatives within the reasonable range of alternatives are presented and evaluated in an EIS. This serves to simplify and focus the consideration of social, economic, and environmental impacts. To meet the FHWA requirements and in response to comments received from the public and agency officials during the DEIS and SDEIS process, the No-Build Alternative and the four Build Alternatives identified above are advanced for further consideration and analysis in this LSS. Alternatives 2A and 2B were developed early in the study period. 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 (IH-35E) interchange with John W. Carpenter Freeway (SH-183). The southern terminus would be at the US-175 interchange with SH-310. All of the proposed Build Alternatives would be designated as controlled-access toll roads (see SDEIS Section 2.5 Tollroad Implementation Issues), with grade separations at crossings of existing highways and local arterial streets. ETC would be implemented for 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.

2-8

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

All alternatives advanced in this LSS are under equal consideration, and the recommendation of a preferred alternative will not be made until the results of the LSS circulation and the public involvement process have been fully evaluated. Summaries of the No-Build Alternative and the reasonable Build Alternatives are presented in LSS Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.5.

2.3.1

No-Build - Alternative 1

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. However, the MTP 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, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), 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 discussed above, the MTIS concluded that, without construction of a reliever route, local transportation needs could not be met. This conclusion is supported by the DEIS and SDEIS as well. 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 would have more long-term adverse impacts than the short-term construction impacts. The costs of the NoBuild 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

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-9

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.

2.3.2

Alternative 2A - Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) 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 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. As presented in the DEIS and SDEIS, Alternative 2A would travel south-west from the IH-35E/SH-183 interchange, passing over Commonwealth Drive, and turning to the south-east to follow Irving Boulevard. The route would follow Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards 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 (Industrial) Boulevards would be almost totally reconstructed with this alternative to resolve conflicts with the supporting structures for the tollway above. The roadways would nevertheless 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. From this point, the route would travel south-east 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. Figure 2-1 shows a layout map of the alignment. Figure 2-2 shows a computer-generated rendering of Alternative 2A, with the bridgework graphically cut away to show the local street underneath. Plate 2-2 at the end of this chapter provides the schematic plan and typical cross sections.

2-10

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

FIGURE 2-1. LAYOUT MAP, TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 2A

Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard Elevated Irving

IH-30
Singleton
Westmoreland Hampton

CBD Lamar
Beckley

IH-30

US-175
Corinth

Jefferson = Full Interchange = Partial Interchange = Main Toll Gantry

FIGURE 2-2. COMPUTER RENDERING, TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 2A IRVING / RIVERFRONT (INDUSTRIAL) BOULEVARD ELEVATED

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-11

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 double-deck 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 (Industrial) Boulevards 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 (Industrial) Boulevards 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. 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. associated with Alternative 2A would include: Direct connections at IH-35E/SH-183 (northern terminus), US-175/SH-310 (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 interchange at the Houston/Jefferson Street Viaducts. Major interchanges

2.3.3

Alternative 2B - Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) 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 (Industrial) Boulevards and Lamar Street would be replaced as access (frontage) roads. Alternative 2A. Alternative 2B would travel southwest from the IH-35E/SH-183 interchange, passing over Commonwealth Drive and turning to the south-east to follow Irving Boulevard. Similar to Alternative 2A, the route would The location of this alignment would be similar to

2-12

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

follow Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards 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. 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. Figure 2-3 shows a route map of the alignment. Figure 2-4 shows a computer-generated rendering of Alternative 2B. sections. Plate 2-3 at the end of this chapter provides the schematic plan and typical cross

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-13

FIGURE 2-3. LAYOUT MAP, TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 2B

Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard At-Grade Irving

IH-30
Singleton

Westmoreland

CBD
Lamar

IH-30

Hampton

Beckley

US-175
Corinth

Jefferson

= Full Interchange = Partial Interchange = Main Toll Gantry

FIGURE 2-4. COMPUTER RENDERING, TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 2B IRVING / RIVERFRONT (INDUSTRIAL) BOULEVARD - AT-GRADE

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

2-14

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

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. The existing ROW on Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) 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 (Industrial) Boulevards 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. 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. associated with Alternative 2B would include: Direct connections at IH-35E/SH-183 (northern terminus), US-175/SH-310 (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 interchange at the Houston/Jefferson Street Viaducts. Major interchanges

2.3.4

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 is 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. Agency consultation was necessary following the February 2005 publication of the DEIS to address design concerns regarding the original versions of the Trinity Parkway riverside alternatives. The NTTA, TxDOT, and the FHWA entered into consultation with the USACE and City of Dallas representatives to attempt to resolve these concerns. The SDEIS reflected these consultations, including discussions regarding construction and operations in the Dallas Floodway (see Sections 2.4.6 Trinity Parkway Construction in the Dallas Floodway through 2.4.8 Facility Operations and Maintenance in the Dallas Floodway of the SDEIS). The following summarizes the changes made for the development of Alternative 3C:

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-15

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. Ramps were deleted to Westmoreland Road to avoid possible adverse impacts to access and circulation for O&M, flood fighting and surveillance. The Trinity Parkway lanes are elevated at (i) the North Dallas Floodway Entry, (ii) the Woodall Rodgers Freeway connection (ramps), (iii) the Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard connection (ramps), (iv) the South Dallas Floodway Exit, and (v) the IH-45 connection (ramps) to provide adequate vertical clearance over the levee top to allow City service vehicles to underpass the structures. Reinforced concrete diaphragm walls were added at crossing points (i) thru (v) listed above to offset any potential negative effects of levee penetrations. These 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 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. Gates and bridges were provided on the NB-WB ramp at IH-35E to facilitate access across/under the ramp by City maintenance personnel and vehicles. Longitudinal maintenance roads were replaced and reconnected in segments affected by the Trinity Parkway embankments. 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 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.

2-16

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

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) could be constructed without the need for retaining walls. South of the DART light rail 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. 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 2-5 shows a route map of the alignment, and Figure 2-6 shows a computer-generated rendering of Alternative 3C. Plate 2-4 at the end of this chapter provides the schematic plan and typical cross sections as presented in the public hearing for the SDEIS. Note the typical sections show a proposed 4:1 embankment slope on the riverside of the proposed roadway. 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. The USACE-proposed improvements to the Dallas Floodway levees also include 4:1 slopes on the riverside (see LSS Chapter 3).

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-17

FIGURE 2-5. LAYOUT MAP, TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 3C PRESENTED IN THE SDEIS

Combined Parkway - Further Modified

Irving

IH-30
Singleton
Westmoreland

CBD
Lamar
Beckley

IH-30

Hampton

US-175
Corinth

Jefferson = Full Interchange = Partial Interchange = Main Toll Gantry

FIGURE 2-6. COMPUTER RENDERING, TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 3C COMBINED PARKWAY - FURTHER MODIFIED

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 an 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 sections on Plate 2-4). In the Dallas Floodway segment, the tollway

2-18

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

operations area is proposed to be established by an agreement with the City of Dallas, rather than fee simple acquisition. barrier. Paved shoulders would be provided adjacent to the inside and outside of the mainlanes. The center median would typically be protected on both sides by a standard concrete traffic 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 historic bridges Continental Avenue, Commerce Street, Corinth Street, and Houston Street. 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 Plates 2-4A, 24B). 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. 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. associated with Alternative 3C would include: Direct connections at IH-35E/SH-183 (northern terminus), US-175/SH-310 (southern terminus), Woodall Rodgers Freeway Extension, (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 (Industrial) Boulevard intersection via a braided ramp pair originating in the area of MLK. Major interchanges

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-19

2.3.5

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. The features discussed above for Alternative 3C that were developed in consultation with the USACE beginning in Fall 2006 to address concerns regarding potential impacts to flood control operations and the floodway levees were also incorporated into the proposed design for Alternative 4B. Dallas Floodway levees presented in the DEIS (Alternative 4A). 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. These design elements distinguish Alternative 4B from the original version of the split parkway on the riverside of the

2-20

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

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 2-7 shows a route map of the alignment. Figure 2-8 shows a computer-generated rendering of the northbound lanes of Alternative 4B. Plate 2-5 at the end of this chapter provides the schematic plan and typical cross sections. Note the typical sections show a proposed 4:1 embankment slope on the riverside of the proposed roadway (adjacent to both northbound and southbound lanes). 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. The USACEproposed improvements to the Dallas Floodway levees also include 4:1 slopes on the riverside.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-21

FIGURE 2-7. LAYOUT MAP, TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 4B

Split Parkway Riverside - Modified

Irving

IH-30
Singleton
Westmoreland

CBD

IH-30

Hampton

Beckley

US-175
Corinth

Jefferson

= Full Interchange = Partial Interchange = Main Toll Gantry

FIGURE 2-8. COMPUTER RENDERING, TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 4B SPLIT PARKWAY - RIVERSIDE (ONLY NORTHBOUND LANES ARE SHOWN)

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

2-22

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

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 single-direction tollway. A standard concrete traffic barrier would separate northbound and southbound traffic in areas of opposing traffic. Paved shoulders would be 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 20-foot 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 Plates 2-5A, 2-5B). 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. 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. associated with Alternative 4B include: Direct connections at IH-35E/SH-183 (northern terminus), US-175/SH-310 (southern terminus), Woodall Rodgers Freeway Extension, and IH-45; Full diamond interchanges at Hampton/Inwood Road, Sylvan/Wycliff Avenue, Houston/Jefferson Streets, Corinth Street, MLK, and Lamar Street/SH-310; and Half diamond interchanges at Commonwealth Drive, Continental Avenue, and Commerce Street. Major interchanges

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-23

2.3.6

Design Refinements Under Consideration

The four Build Alternatives considered for further analysis in this LSS have undergone additional design refinements since the SDEIS to avoid/minimize impacts to historical resources in accordance with Section 106 guidelines. A series of design refinements were developed for each alternative in the immediate area of historic resources that are listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and where one or more Trinity Parkway alternatives, as presented in the SDEIS, would likely cause adverse effects. A summary of the design refinements and discussion of the impacts to each resource is provided in Chapter 5 of this LSS.

[END OF CHAPTER 2 EXCEPT FOR PLATES]

2-24

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

PLATE 2 - 1

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

Westmoreland Rd. / Mockingbird Ln

Irving

C om

Blvd.

STUDY BOUNDARY
oo d R

on

ea l

th

Legend
T ri

d.

Hamp to

Flo
nit yR iv e

od

wa

yL

ev

ee (

Ea st)
ve Ri

American Airlines Center

y.
o rfr

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

n/Inw

Ca n

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

ge rs Fw

ad

aD

r.

Flo

od

oo

da

ee (

We

Wycliff/Sylvan Ave.

n Co

lA nt a ine

. ve

st)

ll

od

wa

yL

ev

Alternative 3C - Combined Parkway Riverside (Further Modified)

Dallas Central Business District

nt Bl vd nd . (I t ri us al Bl vd .)

Alternative 4B - Split Parkway Riverside (Modified)

Singleton

e St . merc Com

U.P

.R.R

Reunion Arena

Convention Center

nS Ho u
Beckley Ave

t. Je ff er so n sto St .

MK

TR

DA R AT T R.R &S F

nth

Co ri

the rK

ing

SCALE IN FEET 0 900 1,800 2,700

Aerial Photograph Date: April, 2009.

Blv d

Lu

La m
R.R MK T

rt in

ar

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

Bexar

SCALE IN METERS

Tri

nit

Ma

yR

iv e

Ha t

3,000

6,000

9,000

S t.

Note: Locations are approximate.

ch

er

2-25

P P

0 42

ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS

410

400
ELM FORK

ENGINEERS . ARCHITECTS . SCIENTISTS . PLANNERS . SURVEYORS

TRIN ITY

41

P
RIVE R (OLD CHA NNE L)

400

420

430 420

N
The HNTB Companies
P

P P

P P

410

41

ALTERNATIVE 2A
42 0
420 410
P

410

400

PLATE 2-2 A
420
41 0

P P

410

P P P

0 40

IRVING / RIVERFRONT
P

40 0

OUN

0 42

YGR

PLA P

40

410

410

45 44 0 43 42 0 0 0

L LD P IC FIE BAS P P P KET LET ATH BAL P

410
P

410
CH

P
BRAN

P P P

40

410
P

P
KNIG

HTS

40 0

410
P P A U/C ARE P

(INDUSTRIAL) BLVD.
41 0
D OUN YGR PLA

0 0 4243

43

460 450 440

41

430
P P P

40 0
P P P P P P P P P P P P P

A ARE

U/C P

40

410
P

410
P

39

P P P P P P P TEN P

P P P RT

410

40 0

P P

P P

ELEVATED (NORTH)
P P P P P P P P P P P P P

39 0

NNE L)

NIS

40 0

COU

CHA

410 420
410 420

P P P P

ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS

41

P P

(OLD

41

0
P

41
400

0
RTS P TEN COU NIS P P P P

500

1000

1700

2500

3000

ER Y NIT RIV
D (OL ER Y NIT K FOR ELM TRI RIV
ION UN PAC

EL) NN CHA
AD LRO RAI IFIC

TRI
ELM FORK

400

410

P P P

40

390

40 0

SCALE IN FEET
P P P

410

P P P P P

KNIGHTS BRANCH

LA

NNE D CHA
P

P P

TURT

41 0

2L
42 0

400

P P P P P

P P P P

The HNTB Companies

NE
P

AN

L)

LE

CREE

IRV
IL TRA

400

ING

BLV

D.
CRE TLE TUR

400

400

P P

410
P

EK

P P

E
ELM
P P

(OL ER Y NIT K FOR TRI RIV

400
P

41
P

0
41
P

0
P

L)

TRI NIT Y

NNEL )

400 390

CHA

S" GASU CT PE Y.) "PROJE ONS FW TEMM TS I-35E (S EMEN IMPROV PMENT DEVELO UNDER T BY TxDO

PAC

P
ER

(OL

IFIC ION

40

P P
RIV

P P COU NIS P P P P TEN RTS

400

390

ROW VARIES (100 TYPICAL) 40 40

ROW

SH 183

RIV ER

(OLD RIVER TRINITY

CHANN

P P P

P COU NIS P P P TEN

400

42 0 41 0

0 42 0 41

D OA ILR RA P

CH

40

(OLD

FORK

UN

40 0

0 39 0 40

410

0 40 0 39

40

420
410

41

0
0
P P

39

42

0 40

2 LANE
P P P

ELM

39

400
0

40

41 0 42 0

400

D OUN YGR PLA

ST

TR INI TY

390

390 0 39 400

M EM
39 0
400

400

AN

F NS
P

0 15

390
P

EL)

390

3 LA

P P

P P RTS

39 0 400

TRAIL

40 0 39 0

Y.

P P

NE
P P P P

IL
TRAIL

P P P P P P P P

400

41

I-3

5E

P P

3 LA
P P

TRA

IL TRA

400
P

P P

NE

P P

P P P P

P P P P P P P P P P P P P

ST IEM 35 NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY E M O N S FW Y .

P P

TRA

IL

400

40

41

41 42 0 43 0 0

40 0

NE

0 40 0 39

CREE K

0 40
0 40 0 39 0 39 0 40 0 41
0 42 0 42 0 41 0 40 0 40

40

42 0

43

40 0
P P

0 42

P P P P P P P POND P P P P P

P P P

410

JOHN W
P

0 39 0 40

0 40 0 39

Y.

CHA
P

19 5+ 11 .8 5

. CARPEN

TER FW

2 LANE
P

420

400 390
TRIN ITY RIVE
P

410

420
41 0

MAIN LANE TOLL GANTRY

39 0

P P P P P P

41 0 0
K TAN P P P

41 0

P P P

P P P P P P

40

TURT LE

TRA IL

P P P P P P P P P P P P

40

410

42

41

PT Sta 203+9 2.17

P P P P P P P P P P

400

0 40

420

PC Sta 214+5 6.10

410

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

400

P P P P P P P P P P P

Sta

P P P P P

EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD

P P P

PT

0 42 0 41

TRI

P P

()OLD CHAN NEL)

P P P P P P

P P RA IFIC PAC P ION UN ILR

D OA

P P P P

P P P P P P P

TRINITY PARKWAY EIS

400

200
P P

IL

400

P D OA ILR RA IFIC PAC ION P P P P

200
P P

390

DALLAS , TEXAS

P P

40 0

ROW VARIES (162 TYPICAL)

ROW
P P P P P

3 LANE
P P P P P

40

UN

P P P

40

P P P P P
L) NE

P P

40

40

41

400

3
AN CH D (OL

IR

G VIN
0+

BLV
P

TRA

D.

400

NIT

TRAIL

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2A

41

100

3
P

PC

TRINITY

RIVER

22

LA

Sta

NE
P

39

390
P P P

P P

.2 48 5+

390

R (OLD

390
P

NNEL )
P

400
P P P

250
P P P P

400

250
P P P P P P

3 LANE
P 5 9-1

0
P P

P P P P P P P

C WY

P P

400

P P

P P P P

P P

P P

LA

NE

L) NNE CHA
ELM FORK

(OLD

P P

P P P P

390 400

P P

3
P

3 LANE
P P

400
P P P

3
P P P P P

420

PT Sta 247+13.67

F\ LIF

PC Sta 262+70.57

PC

RIV ER

400 390

0 41

Sta

N\ TO MP HA
P

0 40

P P

41 0

P P

24

41

L SY

0 40

400

40

P P P P P P

10 .69

P P

RI
P

40

41

P P P P P P P P

410

40

0
0

39

39

0
P

TRINITY RIVER
P P P

P P P P P

VE

VA

RF
P

42

P P

3 LANE
P P P P P

RO
P

41 0

P P P

P P P P

NT
P

P P P

NA

P P P P P

P P

15 10 TRINITY PARKWAY

66 36 10 10

66 36 10

15
P P P

400

390

390

P P

400

41

0
0
P

P P P P P P

TH

42
P D OA ILR RA IFIC PAC ION UN

41

0
P P

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

P P P P P P P P P

410

400
400

400

MO NW EAL

400
400

TRIN ITY

P P

400
410

TRAIL

TRAIL

410

WEST

P P

TRAIL

-9 ED1

0 41
P P

POND

CER SOC

VE

COM

410

390

400

WE

400

16.5
P

TRAIL

400
400

400

TA

0 ED 43 0 43 0 42 0 41

1-1

400

400

IN APPENDIX E
P

LA

.5

40

0 41 0 42

400

40

40

40

IR

VI

400

TRAIL

400
410

40

40 0 40 0 41

410

FIE

P P

420
P

TRAI

LD

40

NG

V BL

D.
P P

410

42

D OA ILR RA

410

420
I-13 ED

FORK

420

IFIC PAC ION UN

430
430

430 430 420

420
430-12
ED1

3
TRAIL
TRAIL

SEE PROPOSED
P P

3
P P P P P P P P P P

BL

400
P P P

VD
P

DR OO INW

VE .

.
P P P P P

RIVE R

400

P P P

TRAIL

410

420
-11 ED1

410
420

410
420

30
P

410

430 420

430 430
420

0
P

430 430
420

420
410
TRAIL
TRAIL

410

410

9-2

400

40

0
L

DESIGN REFINEMENT
410

420

410

0 40 400
41
40 0
P

D.

0 40

400

420

P P P P

39

IL
P P P P P
D PON

TRA

42
TRA

TRA

MATCH LINE
P

EN

IL

WE
P P P D OA ILR P P PAC ION UN P IFIC RA

IN

41

0
0 42
0 42 0 41
P P

40

0 40
-8 ED1

39

0
P

TRAIL

400

410
TRAIL

400

400 400

NT

400

INDUSTRIAL/IRVING BOULEVARD

P P P

400
POND

400
TRAIL

400
TRINITY RIVER

P P P P P P

IL TRA

40
UPPER TRINIT Y RIVER

40
0

CO

TRAIL

400

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2A PROPOSED ELEVATED TOLLROAD

P

P P

40

0 39

TRINITY RIVER

40

40

40

400

TRAIL

40

41
42 0

OA

P
ILR

39

400

TRAIL
ER RIV

40
RA IFIC

0
0

Y NIT TRI

400

ION

P
UN

41

400

0 42 0 43

PAC

ED

1-1

5A

41

41

400
IL TRA IL TRA

42
41 0

42 41 0 0

P P

41

400

0 40

400

.W FW OO Y. DA EX LL TE RO NS D IO GE R N

P P

400

VARIES (232 TYPICAL)

P P P P

40 0
P

40

TRAIL

0
0

TRAIL

40

NO.

400

40

66 15 25 10 36 10 10

66 25 36 10 15
P

IL TRA

TRAIL

39
P P D OA ILR RA IFIC PAC ION UN

0
TRAIL

TRAIL

TRAIL

410
TRA IL

39

0
0
400

400
TRAIL

410
TRAIL

420

40

430
430
DW6

410

420
DW7

42

0
0

420

43
P

43

0
0

410 420
430
DW9

DW8

430 430
420 410

410

IL

430 430 420

420

420

41

POND

410
P

42

410

CANA DA DR

WE .4 397

420

400
4 9-1

410
ER NIT TRI

410

FILE

400

400
TRAIL

.5

WE .5

397

IF

40

420
40 0
IL TRA

P P

PR

400
0 40

PA

41

IL TRA

410
P

400
P

POND

400

39

42

40

P P

RT L COU BAL KET BAS

NOTES

17826

40

42

OUN YGR

LD L BAL K FIE

43

410
0 42 0 43 0 43
42
IL TRA IL TRA TIO N STA

PLA

400

410

41

PUM

KET BAS PLA

YGR

H: 1"=600

V: 1"=60

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

SCALE

410

41

INDUSTRIAL/IRVING BOULEVARD

TR
40 0

42

IC LET ATH

FIE

IN

41

42

IT

41

BLV N ETO GL SIN

41

41

BAL

OUN

D.

41

41

0
P

410

V RI

41

40

0
P

41
0

410

40
41

BAL

410

420

40

420

40

410

41

0 40 0 41

41

41

P WE 39 7.9

420
41
RT

PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION

P P

COU D

410
P

TR

SF

-12

0 43 0 42 0 41

S KER BIC

PAR LD L FIE

ER

PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS)

400

41

DW1

400

41

PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD

40 0

410

390 390

RAMP

39

ER

41

40

IO

16.5

41

40

40

40

40

0
400
P

41
P

400
WE .6 395

40 40 0 0

42

ST

41

410

400 410

410

397

42

OP

430

POND

41

40

RIV

420 430

POND

WE

400

IC

CANADA DR.

390

400 410

390 400 410

390

41

TRAIL

430

400

400

400

40

40

DW5

42

400

UP

40

40

0
0
0 40
P IL TRA LD

PE

WE .5 397 WE .6 401

40

P P

410

43

410

PROPOSED ELEVATED TOLLROAD WITH RAMPS

2009 MAY DATE

41

P P

0 42 0 43

410
LD

41

TRAIL

41

0
0

40
L TRAI

40
410

ER Y NIT TRI RIV

YGR

PLA

RT L BAL KET BAS COU

P L BAL KET

41

0 40 0 41

LD IC LET FIE

40

ATH

T. LE

41 42 0 43 0 43 0 42 0 0

OUN YGR PLA BAL KET BAS L COU P RT

YGR PLA

BAS BAL KET BAS P

PA

TYPICAL SECTIONS
I-35E TO U.S. 175

DRAWN

40

OUN

KET L COU

RT

COU

410

WE .5 394

BAL

YGR

PLA

RT

PLA

42

COU

OUN

YGR

P P

EL
RT

LD

40

OUN YGR PLA

D OUN

FIE

OUN

41

BAL

YGR PLA

NIS TEN RT COU

IF

R LE RY TA EN EM
41

41
P P RT COU

41

41

IL

41

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

41 0
P

SI

NG

P P

41

41

42

BAL

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL

41

FIE

T LE
P

ON
P

410

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2A

BL

VD
P

.
P P P

TR

0 43

P P

DW4

IN

IT

RI

0 41
TRS 0 F-1

VE

POND

40

WE .7 395

420

TRAIL

410

420

420

SI

NG

.9 397 WE .4

396 WE .4 397

420

410

POND

LE
400

ON

BL

. VD
WE .2 397 POND POND WE .2 397

TRA IL

40

LEW STERRETT JUSTICE CENTER

0
-7

42

ROW

TRINITY PARKWAY

40

ROW

400

40

40

400

41

39

400

400

40

400

TRAIL

400

40

41

OUN

ATH P P

RT

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

41

COU D OUN

IO

YGR

M HA
P P P D OUN YGR

NO PA ON PT
BAL KET BAS

H RT
LD IC FIE LET

BAS

NIC PIC

L BAL

FIE

41

EL
LD

RT L D OUN BAS KET BAL COU

YGR PLA

410

VA RY ZA A DE ENT M LE E
P P P

IC

40

41

410

M OC KI
P

40

PON

410
TRAIL

TRAI

400

40

0
P

WY

40 0

TRAI L
P

40

CL

400
P

NG BI RD LN .

400
P P

400

41

.5

CANADA DR.

IFF

394

400

SHEET 2 OF 41
39

WE

7.9

IL

40

0
P

40

42
41

HA MP TO N\ INW
TRINITY RIVER

P P

40

\ SY LV AN AV

TRINITY RIVER
TRINITY RIVER

0 41 0 42

WS .0 395

TR AIL

E.

41

43

0
0

40

0 40

42

42

40

0
400 410
TRA IL
POND WE .9 399

M OC
P

OO

400

KI NG BI RD LN /W ES TM OR EL AN D M OC KI NG BI RD LN /W ES TM OR EL AN

DR D.

43

ED1

42

41

POND

400
POND WE

400

40

42 0
0 41

RD .

41 0

PO

40

POND

0 41

40

40 0
P

0
40 0
TR INI TY RIV ER

410

41 0
42 0

TY
D

41

0
P

41 0

RK

RR RY CA TA EN EM

P P

0 42

400

42 0
41 0
P

DIAPHRAGM WALL

LA

P P

41

0 42 0 41
P

BE

41 0

400
40
P

0 42 0 41 0 41

40

41 42 0 0

I-

CK LE
0
42 41 0 40 0 0

P P P

40

AD RO

P P P

IL RA FIC
P P

P RT

CI

AV

410
TEN P PLA D OUN YGR PLA P KET BAS P BAL P LET ATH P IC FIE L COU LD RT P P

COU NIS

PA N IO UN
P

DESIGN

HALFF

D OUN YGR PLA

39 40 0 0
DW3 P

41

P P

IL TRA

RT

40
P

0
41

0
BAS P

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

41

P P P

P P

41

COU

PROFILE LEGEND:
0

P P

PLAN LEGEND:
P

E.

41

D RD .
P

410

P P P

40
41 42 0 0

P P

P P

410

40 0
P P

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

0 40 0 40
0 41 0 42 0 43
0 43 0 42
) NEL AN

PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES PROPOSED RAMP

P

0 42

39 0
42 41 0 0
0 42 0 41

39 0

BAS

P P

P P

40 0

RT L
CH

COU

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

P P

BAL KET BAS

(OL

TRI

N
40

ER

40

41

P
RIV

0 42

P L BAL
FOR K

RT COU P

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD

400

NIT

41

FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY 5, 2009 DATE:

F-11 TRS

P
ST

P P BAS

KET D OUN YGR PLA P

P
WE

P P

410
P

410
P P L BAL KET BAS P COU RT

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES

P

0 41

0 41
P P

41
P

0
L BAL KET BAS

L BAL KET BAS

100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL

P

P P

400

400

41

PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS)

P

P P

L BAL KET BAS

410

P P

400

SPF WATER LEVEL EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING

PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
42
41 0
0 43 0

40
40

P P

410

41

420

150

300

600

900

1200

1800

NOTE: ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.

41

P P P

0 42 0 43 0 44 0 45

460

SCALE IN FEET
P

410

SCALE: 1" = 600

410
P P P P

P P P

FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT 600 MAY 5, 2009

DIAPHRAGM WALL NUMBER OF GENERAL PURPOSE LANES ALONG INDICATED MAIN LANE DIRECTION

PROFILE LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT

550

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES
Elev 466.92 PVI 192+00.00 PVI 319+00.00

500
PVI 140+00.00 PVI 114+00.00 Elev 439.88 Elev 436.88 PVI 100+00.00 L =320.00

PVI 250+00.00

Elev 445.82

Elev 447.00

Elev 432.88

L =310.00

L =310.00

L =310.00

100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL

L =1016.49

450

-1.89%

0.50%

-0.50%

0.50%

-0.52%

0.51%

-0.48%

1.36%
0.49%
-0.49%

3.23

PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

400

COMMONWEALTH PVI 220+00.00 WYCLIFF AVE. Elev 432.28 PVI 130+00.00 OAK LAWN

WOODALL RODGERS PVI 157+00.00 HAMPTON / Elev 431.88 L =200.00 INWOOD ROAD PVI 290+00.00 BRIDGE CONTINENTAL Elev 427.43 L =360.00 AVE

U P RAILROAD BRIDGE PVI 336+00.00 COMMERCE STREET

Elev 428.00

Elev 434.77

L =160.00

350

441.95

442.11

441.05

431.66

437.12

461.29

446.12

437.16

439.71

437.19

L =820.00

L =180.00

444.80

446.62

436.47

444.37

434.77

447.86

434.70

439.64

439.66

454.66

437.88

444.55

429.04

442.09

444.55

436.88

434.62

432.07

442.26

434.73

434.27

432.47

429.88

434.24

434.38

434.38

432.88

429.53

439.33

435.38

439.53

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

428.26

285

290

295

300

305

310

315

320

462.36

325

455.57

330

335

1/4/2012

3:41:22 PM

ah2003

TXDOT

i:\17000s\17826\CADD\CADD - TP SDEIS Alternatives\LSS Plates\826-LSS-PP2A-N.dgn

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-26

439.66

447.69

432.13

V7

826-PP2A-S.DGN

PROFILE LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT
410

PLAN LEGEND:
PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES PROPOSED RAMP
ENGINEERS . ARCHITECTS . SCIENTISTS . PLANNERS . SURVEYORS
1800

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

IM O
P

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD

35

E
41 0

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES 100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL

41 42 0 43 0 0

FW

PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL

FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY 5, 2009 DATE:

42

43 0 42

41 0 0
K TAN

SPF WATER LEVEL

P P P

INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD - ELEVATED ALTERNATIVE 2A IRVING / RIVERFRONT N ALTERNATIVE 2A (INDUSTRIAL) BLVD.

FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY 5, 2009 DATE:

PLATE 2-2 B

41 0

40

430

EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING

P P P

NOTES: 1. ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA. NOTES: 2. IH 45 MAY BE WIDENED TO APPROVAL BY FHWA. 1. ALIGNMENT SUBJECT FROM 6 LANES TO 8 LANES FROM TRINITY PARKWAY RAMPS TO US 175 RAMPS THROUGH INSIDE WIDENING; SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT UPON DETAILED TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS AND SCHEMATIC DESIGN.

ELEVATED (SOUTH)
N

420

P P P P

430
P P

43

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

43 0
P P

0 41

40

400

41 0

41 0
0 40

WEST END
P P P

40

P P P

RO
P

3
P P P P

DIAPHRAGM WALL NUMBER OF GENERAL PURPOSE LANES ALONG INDICATED MAIN LANE DIRECTION

40 0

41 0

40 0

42 0

41 0

NT
P

P P P

500

1000

1700

2500

3000

BL

400
P P P P

VD
P

43 0

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

SCALE IN FEET

P P P P P P

43

.
400
P

P K PAR P P

150

300

600

900

1200

40

0 40 400
41
40 0
P

43

K PAR

VE

P P P P PAR K

43

PAR

DALLAS

PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT

P K P

SCALE IN FEET SCALE: 1" = 600

P P P

40

420
P P K PAR

TA

420

0 41 0 42
P

9-6 P P

44

CONVENTION CENTER
0
P

LA

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

400
P P

EN

420 410

P P P YGR PLA P P D OUN

P P

43

LVD .

40

43 0

SEE PROPOSED DESIGN REFINEMENTS

P

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES 100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL

TIN

43

MATCH LINE

0 42
0 42 0 41

JU

JR. B

CO N

410

410

420

LI
IC LET ATH

420
P P P P P

US
LD

I-4 SC
430

CE

0 42

NT

41

US RA
P

-75 XP
P

D P PLA OUN YGR

5
.

LE

P D OUN YGR PLA P P P

FW

17

41 0 42
410

I-30

FIE

42 41 0 0

0 40

HE

440

Y.
43 0
P P

420
P

0 42 0 43

KING

P P

42

400

P P

41
0

41

420

P P P

42
41 0

U/C

420

440
P P P P P P P P P

400 410

430

P P P

PLA P

400 410

U/C

P P

LUTHER

410

P P P P P P P P P P P P

43 0

C. F

400 410

41
0 41

0
P

430

OUN YGR

.H

430

44

Y.
P

IN APPENDIX E
P

U S

PP

440

P P

440

FW

0 43 0 42

43

0
P

44

POND

40

39 0

400

42 0

41

SHEET 5 OF 41
P P P P P P P P P P P

P P

40

44 0

OOL
P

SCH

410

TRA

P P P P

410
P

41 0

42

40

41

420

P P

410

P P

P P

41 0 40
0

RTI

R ST.
420

D P P YGR OUN PLA

42

42

SEE PROPOSED
P P P P

LAMA
41 0
P

LAM

420

420

P P P P P P P

FW

17

IL

LEW STERRETT JUSTICE CENTER

0
-7

430

HIG ON
P

40

ED1

P P OUN P P YGR PLA

430

43

430

MPS THO
OUN YGR P PLA RTS P BAL KET BAS P P P P P P L COU P P D P P

440

P P

43

0
P P P

AR

BAL KET BAS RT COU

ST

P P LD IC LET ATH FIE P P

420
440

410

P A ARE U/C

A E 3L N
P P P P

41 0

41

410
P

43

0
P

MA

ALTERNATIVE 2A - INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD - ELEVATED

410

P P

P P

41
P

40

40

0
0 41

P P

410
400
P P P PLA

43

K N P P REU NIO PAR

P D OUN YGR P P P P

ST

P P

3L
P P P

40

0
P

AE 3L N
420
P P P P

42

41

41

400

400

POND

ER

40

410

410
400

410

3L
-6

AN

410
410

39 0

420

400

ED1

40

AN

E
400

400

400 0 41

IN APPENDIX E
410

410

410

LAMA

40 40 0 0

410

E
0 40

35
P

410
9-4

400

410 410

410 410

39
TR AIL

0
40 0

410
P P P

430 420 410

0
P P P

400 400

410 400

410

390
390

400

400

P P

410

410

41
42 0
42 41 0 40 0 0

410

SHEET 9 OF 41
400

410
41 0

400

R ST.
P P

410

P P P P

410

0 40 0 41

420

430

500

0 41 0 40

430

55

DESIGN REFINEMENTS

43

410

41

C.

ROW VARIES (100 TYPICAL) 40 40

ROW

42

410

400

P P P P P

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2A

EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD
P
IL TRA

410

39

420

400

39

40
UP PE R TR IN IT Y RI VE R
POND

.0

380

400

390

410

DW4 P

WE .8 395

390 410

42 41 0 40 0 0
POND

P F-9 TRS P P P P P P

F-1

41

TRS

WE .7 395

BAL

40

40

40

400

410 400

410

400

400

390

40 0

390

410 420

410

390

410 400

400
P P

RIVERFRONT BLVD.
P P P P P

390

WS 380

400

41

.0

400
LD L FIE

P P

42

0
400
P

40 40 0 0

P P

410

410

42

400

420 410

40

0
41 0

400
390

MAIN LANE TOLL GANTRY

P

410

WS

3
420

410

39
0

410

41

390

420

39

41 40 0 40 0 0

41

ROW VARIES (162 TYPICAL)

ROW

POND

400

400

390

390
400

400

400

390

40

40

400 410 410

40 0

400

IL TRA

0 41

41 0 42 0

410

400

390
P

40

.3

41

TY RIV ER

395

41 0
42 0

ED1

395 -4

06.68

-5

WS

420
0

.1

IL

395

40 0

TR INI

400

420

410

WS

.9

400

40

410

390

WE

42 0 41 0

400

400

400
-1 ED1

400

410

41 0 40 0

450
WS 395 .2

41

15
0

66 10 36 10 10

66 36 10

15

40

400

400

400
400

TRA

400

400

400

40 0

420

400

0
P

39

PT Sta 516+

DART

400

41 0
P WS 395 .3

400

400

39
WS

.8

394

410

.1

40
41 0

394

27.72

WS 380

P .0 P P

.4

WS

.0

400
40
P

400

0 40 0 41
-3 EDI

TRIN ITY RIVE R

WE 4.3 39 POND

400

PC Sta 532+

400

JEFFERSON ST.

40

HOUSTON ST.

41 42 0 0

I-

40

395

420

WS 395

.4

410

39

0 42 0 41

410

40

400

400

39

42
WS 380 .0

40

390
390

0
0

392

POND

40

42

0 40
390
400

WE

.6

PIT VEL GRA

41

400
400
41

40

POND

.9

400

400

40

WE WE 391 .1 389

380

.0 POND

AIL

40
39 40 0 0
DW3 P

TRINITY RIVER

WE POND WE 393 .5 393

.5

390

39
400

400

420

410
420

-2 ED1

.4

390

TRINIT

390

390

400

400

420
410
420
410

400

400

390
TRINITY RIVER

Y RIVER
400
390
39
TRINIT Y RIVER

400 410

400

40

400

POND

390

WS 393

39
WE 391

390

390

400

400

.6

.6

400

40
P

400

P P

400
WS 395 .8

394

393

41 42 0 0

400

ta

R VE RI Y IT IN TR

400
40
400

WS

WS .9

.3

PC Sta 449+25.2 2

IH-35 N.B.

41

B.

0 42

.8

400

P P

40 0
400

400
WS 396 .7

390
TRINITY RIVER

40
P P P P

TRI

395

NIT

390
400

WE

.3 POND

RIV

0 42 0 41

39

390

41

42
0 42
P

400

42
400

400

400
0

40

400
K PAR FF K CLI WS WS .4 393 WS 393 .2 WS 393 .5 OA

390

390

IN APPENDIX E
WE 394 WS .5 394 WE 5.4 39 POND

400

ER

39

IH-35 S.

390 400

39

K PAR POND WE 389 TER .0 ROC HES

POND

.9

0 400

41

40

390

400

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2A

390

TH ST.

400
400

40

0
POND WE

410
P

40

DW2

400

400

410 420

450
390

39

410
P

0 41

420

WS WS 393 .4 WS 393 .0 392

.8

0 41
P P

400 390
390

420

CORIN

410 420

420 410

410

420
400

400

39

420 410

420

DW1

410 420

39

410

400

393 .2

SHEET 12 OF 41
400
390

390

400

.3

393

PROPOSED ELEVATED TOLLROAD

0 40

390 400

TRAIL

410

400
400

400
390

400

390

390

WE 393 POND

.3

400
P P

394

40
P P P

0
WS 395

WS 392

.8

410

410
40 0

POND POND WE 394 393 392 .9 POND WE .9 WE .6 POND

WE

420
.8 WS 395 .7

.8

393

TRA

390 400 410

390 400 410

P

390
WS .0

WS 393

ROW
POND WE 391 .5

.3

400

41

394 WS 392 .7

400

400
WE .9

TRINITY PARKWAY

ROW VARIES (232 TYPICAL) 66 66 25 10 36 10 10 36 10 15

POND

WS 393

.1

400

POND

P P

42

A ARE

U/C

40
42
41
41 0

0
400

400
400

WE 391

41

42
41 0

0 43 0

41

40

WS

.1

420
400

393

400
WS 392 .3

400

TRA

400

410

41

IL

390

40

410

P P

420

FORMER BURNETT FIELD

43

.7

0 42

400
0

410

410

410

41
42 0

0
410
COU NIS TEN RT

410 420
400

400
P

15
POND

WE .8 392

0 42 0 43 0 44 0 45

410

410
D OUN YGR

400

410

43

410 420 430 440

430

420

390
410
POND 7

400
410 410
POND WE 390 .9

43

0
PLA

25

410
K

CREEK

410

460
450

440
P

420
430

430
ARE

U/C

420
PAR

400

400

400

440

16TRAIL

TRAIL

420410 400

CEDAR

OAK

440

K PAR

420

460

420

K PAR RE MOO

42 0
44
P P

400

420
410

POND WE 396 .7

400
9-7

410
0
420

POND

0
P

41

400

41

43
0
P

WE 406

.2

430

45

400
400

44

440

420 410
LL EBA BAS

RT COU NIS TEN P P

42

45

44

44
P

420

420

TRAIL

CLIF

420

420 410

410

400

400

40 16.5 RAMP
410

40

460

450

46
0 43

440

P P P

41

430

0
LL

P 45

45

43
0
45
P

400

420

44

ETBA BASK

43 0

0
420
44

46

46
0 46
P

420

440

430 440
450
460
430

410

41

45

420

F S OAK PAR RS NDE FOU CLIF K

P P

470

410

410

44
440
P P

0
P

430
420

45 0
P P

450
46 0

440
450

450

470

41

440

43

0
0 44
P

P P

43

41

46

0 44

470

420

NT PLA ENT ATM TRE

460

450

450

46
P P P

47
P

0
P

42 0

0
P

420
P

45
48 0

0
44
47 0
P

460

INDUSTRIAL/IRVING BOULEVARD

430

450
440

440

470

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2A PROPOSED ELEVATED TOLLROAD WITH RAMPS

TYPICAL SECTIONS
I-35E TO U.S. 175

600

550
PVI 370+00.00 PVI 500+00.00 END PROJECT CSJ# 0918-45-121 Elev 478.00 TRINITY PARKWAY ALT. 2A, STA. 574+70 L =810.00 MATCH EX. US 175 PAVEMENT

PVI 347+00.00

Elev 481.78

PVI 319+00.00

L =600.00

PVI 467+00.00

Elev 466.92

Elev 470.28

L =1016.49

L =800.00

Elev 461.50

L =400.00

PVI 538+00.00

500
Elev 442.62 L =650.00

0.50%

0.50%

%
-0.72%

PVI 560+00.00

-2.08

-1.89%

3.23

%
IH 30 RAMPS HOUSTON STREET BRIDGE JEFFERSON STREET BRIDGE SB IH 35E RAMP BRIDGE SB IH 35E BRIDGE NB IH 35E BRIDGE

-1.49%

Elev 420.64

450

1.78%
-0.50%

DART

IH 45 SP RR BRIDGE

-4.0

US 75
0%

BRIDGE
1.29%

-0.87%

BRIDGE

MKT RR PVI 404+00.00 PVI 420+00.00 CORINTH L =200.00 STREET MLK BLVD Elev 408.13

PVI 336+00.00

PVI 437+00.00

BLVD. Elev 434.77 L =820.00

PVI 547+53.00

L =260.00

Elev 431.00

Elev 423.00

Elev 404.50

COMMERCE STREET

Elev 465.50

REUNION

PVI 506+00.56

400

MATCH EXISTING L =1000.00 US 175 GRADE

L =370.00

L =430.00

350

471.61

451.91

446.12

418.63

440.15

474.31

413.47

463.14

414.25

447.69

476.78

444.44

431.26

451.92

466.84

409.89

449.05

468.00

467.62

457.94

474.28

479.28

436.97

470.50

439.66

462.64

459.07

444.75

416.24

414.17

473.00

463.00

480.28

428.00

459.38

430.50

425.50

465.50

448.34

422.83

434.23

422.36

409.39

475.39

455.49

420.64

475.50

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

1/4/2012

3:41:48 PM

ah2003

TXDOT

i:\17000s\17826\CADD\CADD - TP SDEIS Alternatives\LSS Plates\826-LSS-PP2A-S.dgn

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-27

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

42 41 0 0

TRINITY
WS

392

RIVER

400

.6 393

390

40

40

WS

TRAIL

0 400

390

40

39 40 00

400

DESIGN REFINEMENTS
6 2 .9 9
40 0

400

POND

400

390

WS

.0

SEE PROPOSED
P C S ta 4 7 4 +

400

40

400

42 41 0 40 0 0

POND WE 392

WE 389

.3

TR

POND

IL

30

383

400

42

420

400

410

ta

0 40 0 41

54

WS

WE

400

420 410

390

500
PR C St a

POND

40

395 POND

400

POND WE 5.0 39

6+

42

.0

55

400

400

POND

WE

73

420

400

400

2+

91

.9

TRINITY PARKWAY
41

410

400

.6

410

410

390

420

400
P

39

WE 392

ED1

410

.2

ta

400

A ARE

U/C

55

POND

WE 394

.0

400
D
POND WE 395 395

PON
.4 WE .4

0 41
41

40 16.5

40

410
400

400

INDUSTRIAL/IRVING BOULEVARD

ALTERNATIVE 2A - INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD - ELEVATED

430

30

PROFILE LEGEND:

DOWNTOWN

0 42

42 0

0 41
400

420

5
F.
42 0

42 0

0 41

3
41

3L AN

0 41

3L E AN

E
40 0

44

41 0

41 0
41 0

41

42 0
0 41

40 0

40 0

40

BE CK LE Y AV E.
39 0

0
TR AIL

494+ 85.5 4

42

43 0

43 0

42 0

41 0

46 0

41 0

826-PP2B-N.DGN
P

P P

0 42

ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS

410

400
ELM FORK

ENGINEERS . ARCHITECTS . SCIENTISTS . PLANNERS . SURVEYORS

41 0

TRIN ITY

P
RIVE R (OLD CHA NNE L)

400

420

430 420

N
The HNTB Companies
P

P P

P P

410

41

ALTERNATIVE 2B
42 0
420 410
P

410

400

PLATE 2-3 A
420
41 0

P P

410

P P P

40

IRVING / RIVERFRONT
0
P

40 0

OUN

0 42

YGR

PLA P

40 0

410

410

45 44 0 43 42 0 0 0

L LD P IC FIE BAS P P P KET LET ATH BAL P

410
P

410
CH

P
BRAN

P P P

40

410
P

P
KNIG

HTS

40 0

410
P P A U/C ARE P

(INDUSTRIAL) BLVD.
41 0
D OUN YGR PLA

0 0 4243

43

460 450 440

41

430
P RRY QUA P P P

40 0
P P P P P P P P P P P P P

A ARE

U/C P

40

410
P

410
P

39 0

P P P P P P P TEN P

P P P RT

410

40 0

39

P P

P P

AT-GRADE (NORTH)
P P P P P P P P P P P P P

NNE L)

NIS

40 0

COU

CHA

410 420
410 420

P P P P

41 0

P P

(OLD

41

0
P

41
400

0
RTS P TEN COU NIS P P P P

500

1000

1700

2500

3000

ER Y NIT RIV
D (OL ER Y NIT K FOR ELM TRI RIV
ION UN PAC

EL) NN CHA
AD LRO RAI IFIC

TRI
ELM FORK

400

410

P P P

40

390

40 0

SCALE IN FEET
P P

410

P P P P P P P P

400

400

410
P

EK CRE TLE
P P P P P P P P P P P P P
KNIGHTS BRANCH

TUR
K
P

400

400

41 0
P P

P P

NNE D (OL ER Y NIT RIV CHA

TURT

L)

LE

CREE

P P

K FOR
P P P

TRI

ELM

400
P

IL

41
P

L)

TRI NIT Y

SH 183

D OA ILR RA IFIC PAC ION P

NE

LA
400

RIV ER

(OLD RIVER TRINITY

CHANN

P P P

P COU NIS P P P TEN

400

42 0 41 0

0 42 0 41

390
P P P P P RTS

EL)

39 0 400

0 41
P

CHA

S" GASU CT PE Y.) "PROJE ONS FW TEMM TS I-35E (S EMEN IMPROV PMENT DEVELO UNDER T BY TxDO

NE
40 0

NNEL )

400 390

CH

(OLD

FORK

UN

40 0

0 39 0 40

410

0 40 0 39

40

420
410

41

0
0
P P

39

42

0 40

2 LANE
P P P

41 0 42 0

400

D OUN YGR PLA

ST

390

400

NE

TR INI TY

39

RIV

ELM

39

390 0 39 400

3 LA
P P P P P P P POND P P P P

P
ER

(OL

40

P P

P P COU NIS P P P P TEN RTS

400

390

40

M EM

15
P

400

AN

F NS
P

TRAIL

40 0 39 0

AN

P P

E
40 0

Y.

P P

3 LA
P P

P P

TRAIL

P P P

400

41

2L

I-3

5E

IL TRA

P P

TRA

400
P

NE
P P P

P P P

IL TRA

390
P

P P

P P P P

P P P P P P P P P P P P P

ST IEM 35 NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY E M O N S FW Y .

P P

TRA

IL

400

0 40 0 39

CREE K

42 0

40

41

41 42 0 43 0 0

0 40
0 40 0 39 0 39 0 40 0 41
0 42 0 42 0 41 0 40 0 40

40

42 0

43

40 0
P P

0 42

P P P P P P

41 0 0
K TAN P P P

41 0

P P P P

39

410

JOHN W
P

P P P P P P

40
400 390
TRIN ITY RIVE R (OLD CHA
P P

0 39 0 40

. CARPEN
P

0 40 0 39

TER FW

2 LANE

420

TURT LE

TRA IL

P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

410

420
41 0

40 0
P

.0

Y.

410
P P P P P P P P P P P P

42

390
P

NNEL )
P

400
P P P

41

4+ 23

400

.93

PT Sta 203+6 6.79

19

410

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

P P P P P P

PC Sta 214+3 0.72

PC

P P P

22

P P P P

0 42 0 41

TRI

NIT

P P

RIV ER

P P P

()OLD CHAN

NEL)

IL

PT

P P P P P P P P P P P P

P P P P IFIC PAC P ION UN OA ILR RA D RA ILR D OA

P P P P

390

TRINITY PARKWAY EIS

P P

40

DALLAS , TEXAS

PAC ION P UN

P P P P P P P P

40 0

IFIC

3
410
P P P P P

P P P

200
P P P

40

0
0
P

200
P P

3 LANE
P P P

IR
P P P P

400

G VIN

TRA

E AN
39

400

BLV
P

D.

400

3
400
390
390

Sta

400 390

P P

P P

3 LANE
P

TRAIL

41

100

400

CHA
ELM FORK

P P P P

82 5+

TRINITY
P

RIVER

Sta

3
P
L) NE AN CH D (OL

N LA

400

0 40

P P P

L) NNE (OLD

400
P P P P P

P P P P

390 400

P P P

3
P P P P P P P

420

420

390
P P P

MAIN LANE TOLL GANTRY

P P

3 LANE
5 9-1 P

P P P P P P P P

P P P P P P

250

250
PC Sta 262+54.65

39

390

400

P P

PT Sta 246+97.75

0 41

PC Sta

40 0

41 0

41 0
0 40

P P P

400

40

24 45 0+

P P P P P

P P

RI
P

40

41

P P P

P P

VE

P P P P

39

0
P

P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

RF
P

42

40

40
P

400

RO
P

.37

41 0

P P P

40

41

P P P

P P P P P P P P

P P P P P

NT
P

P P P

41
P P D OA ILR RA P PAC P ION UN IFIC

0
0
P

P P P P P P P P

400

BL

400
P P P

P P P P P P

TH

42

41

0
P P

EAL

TRIN ITY

P P

3
410

410

400
400
P

3 LANE
400
400
TRAIL

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

P P P P P P P P P P

400
P

400
410

TRAIL

3
P P P P P P P P P P

VD
P

.
P P P P P

RIVE R

400

NW

WEST

P P

TRAIL
ED1

-9

MO

0 41
P P

POND

CER SOC

VE

COM

410

40

IR

VI

400
P

TRAIL

400
410

40

40 0 40 0 41

40 0

NG
P

V BL

D.
P

0 42

410

410

P P

TRAIL

D OA ILR RA

410

420
I-13 ED

FORK

420

IFIC PAC ION UN

430
430

430 430 420

420
430-12
ED1

410

410

430 420

420
P

410
TRAIL
TRAIL

TRAIL
TRAIL

410

9-2

3
40 0

420
-11 ED1

410
420

410
420

430 430
420

430 430
420

30
P

0
P

P P

410

420

410

410
0 40 400
41
40
P

400

0 40

40

0
L TRAI
FIE LD

400

420

420
P

.
P P P P

390

39

400

WE

400

ROW VARIES (100 TYPICAL)

ROW

TRAIL

400
400

400

TA

0 ED 43 0 43 0 42 0 41

1-1

400

400

LA
P

.5

40

0 41 0 42

400

M OC KI
P

40

PON

410
TRAIL

TRAI

400

40

0
P

WY CL
P

TRAI L
P

40

400
P

NG

400
P P

P P

400
IL TRA

41

IFF

P P P P P
D PON

TRA

MATCH LINE
P

40

40

IL

42
TRA

EN

WE 39

7.9

0 40

IL

40

0
P

WE
P P P D OA ILR P P PAC ION UN P IFIC RA

IN

41
42

0
0
0 42 0 41

40

0
TRAIL

39

0
P

400

40

NT

P P P

400
POND

400
TRAIL

400
TRINITY RIVER

CO

BI

42
41

HA

P P

.5

394

40

RD

400

\ SY

MP

410
TRAIL

400

400 400

-8 ED1

LN .

LV

TO

IL TRA
P P P

40
UPPER TRINIT Y RIVER

40
0

400

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2B

P

TRINITY RIVER

TRINITY RIVER
TRINITY RIVER
TRAIL

0 41 0 42
42 41 0 0

AN

WS .0 395

N\

EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD

0
P P P P

400

40

0 39
0

TRINITY RIVER

40

40

40

400

TRAIL

40

41
42 0

400

AV

OA

P
ILR

39

TRAIL
ER RIV

40
RA IFIC

0
0

Y NIT TRI

INW

400

ION

P
UN

41

400

0 42 0 43

PAC

ED

1-1

5A

41

41

400
IL TRA IL TRA

42
41 0

TR AIL

E.

41

43

0
0

40

0 40
400

42

ROW VARIES (300 TYPICAL)

ROW
P P

42
P

40

0
400 410

41

OO

0
P

400

TRA IL
POND WE

40

400

40

400
400
0 40

.9 399

39

.W FW OO Y. DA EX LL TE RO NS D IO GE R N

400

P P

40

400

65 15 36 40 10 10 18 10

65 36 10 40 15
P P P P P

400

TRA IL

40 0

40

TRAIL

40
WE .2

0
0

TRAIL

40

397

POND

LEW STERRETT JUSTICE CENTER

0
-7

42

40

400

41

DR D.

43

ED1

42

NO.

TRAIL

400

400
POND

40

POND

WE .2 397

40

41

400
POND WE .9

IL TRA

TRAIL

400
397

39
P P P OA ILR P IFIC PAC ION UN RA D

0
TRAIL

TRAIL

TRAIL

410
TRA IL

WE

39

0
0
400

400
TRAIL

410
TRAIL

420

410

.4 396 WE .4 397 POND

420

410

420
DW7

40

430
430
DW6

400
40

41

42

0
0

420

43
P

43

0
0

410 420
430
DW9

DW8

430 430
420 410

430 430 420

410

420

420
POND

410
P

WE

FILE

NIT TRI

400

400
TRAIL

.5

WE .5

397

40

420
40 0
IL TRA

PR

41

40

IL TRA

410
P

400
P

POND

0 41

40

400

39

42
390 390

40

RT L COU BAL KET BAS

NOTES

17826

40

42

OUN

43

YGR

LD L BAL K FIE

410
0 42 0 43 0 43
42
IL TRA IL TRA TIO N

PLA

400

VARIES (335 TYPICAL) 65 65 18 10 10 36 10 25 40 15

410

41

PUM

KET BAS PLA

YGR

H: 1"=600

V: 1"=60

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

15 40 25 10

SCALE

TR
40 0

42

410

41

IC LET ATH

FIE

IN

41

41

0
P

410

36

41

42

IT

41

41

41

BAL

OUN

V RI

41

40

0
P

41
0

410

40
41

STA

BAL

410

420

40

420

40

410

41

0 40 0 41

41

41

P WE 39 7.9

420
41
RT

COU D

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

P P P P P

410

TR

SF

-12

0 43 0 42 0 41

S KER BIC

PAR LD L FIE

ER

400

ROW

ROW

41

DW1

400

41

410

39

P P

PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES

42

ER

41

40

PROPOSED AT GRADE TOLLROAD

40

0
400
P

41
P

400
WE .6 395

40 40 0 0

42

ST

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2B

410

400 410
P P

410

397

42

400

41

OP

430

POND

41

40

RIV

POND

WE

DRAINAGE SWALE

42

410

.4 397

41

TRAIL

430
420

400
4 9-1

400
390

400
390 400 410

400

40

390
40
DW5

P ER

410
420 430

410

CANADA DR.
400

400 410

400

UP

40

40

0
0
0 40
P P P P IL TRA LD

PE

WE .5 397 WE .6 401

40

410

41

P P

43

410

0 42 0 43

410
LD

41

2009

MAY

TRAIL

41

0
0

41

41

42

BAL

FIE

DATE

DRAINAGE SWALE

40
L TRAI

40
410

ER Y NIT TRI RIV

YGR

PLA

RT L BAL KET BAS COU

P L BAL KET

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2B

PROPOSED AT GRADE TOLLROAD WITH RAMPS
DRAWN T. LE

41

0 40 0 41

LD IC LET FIE

40

ATH

40

41 42 0 43 0 43 0 42 0 0

OUN YGR PLA BAL KET BAS L COU P RT

YGR PLA

BAS BAL KET BAS P

PA

OUN

KET L COU

RT

COU

410

WE .5 394

BAL

YGR

PLA

RT

PLA

42

COU

OUN

YGR

EL
RT

LD

40

OUN YGR PLA

D OUN

FIE

OUN

41

BAL

YGR PLA

NIS TEN RT COU

IF

R LE RY TA EN EM
41

41
P

0
41

41

41

. PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS VD BL PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD ON ET L NG PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) SI
0 43

TR

P P

DW4

IN

IT

RI

VE

41

0 F-1 TRS

POND

40

WE .7 395

420
42 0
41 0

TRAIL

410

420

420

40 0

41 0

41

410

IL

41

41

OUN

RT COU

ATH P P

PLA P P P P

TYPICAL SECTIONS
DESIGN HALFF

RT

L BAL KET BAS PLA D OUN YGR

41

COU D OUN

IO

YGR

M HA
P P P D OUN YGR

NO PA ON PT
BAL KET BAS

H RT
LD IC FIE LET

BAS

NIC PIC

L BAL

FIE

41

EL
LD

RT L D OUN BAS KET BAL COU

YGR PLA

410

P RT

41

410
TEN P PLA D OUN YGR PLA P KET BAS P BAL P LET ATH P IC FIE L COU LD RT P P

COU NIS

410

PLAN LEGEND:
41 0

VA RY ZA A DE ENT M LE E
P P P

IC

40

41

M OC KI NG BI RD LN /W ES TM OR EL AN

PO

40

POND

0 41

40

40 0
P

0
40 0
TR INI TY RIV ER

410

41 0
42 0

TY

PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION

41 0
P P P

41 0

0 42

400

RK

RR RY CA TA EN EM

42 0
41 0
P

LA

P P

41

0 42 0 41
P

BE

(LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

P

41 0

400
40
P

0 42 0 41 0 41

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL

AD
P

40

41 42 0 0

I-

CK LE
0
42 41 0 40 0 0

P P P

40

RO

IL RA FIC
P P

CI

AV

PA N IO
P

D OUN YGR PLA P P

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

P

UN

39 40 0 0
DW3 P

P P

E.

40
P

0
41

0
BAS P

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

P P

41

I-35E TO U.S. 175

IL TRA

0 40 0 40
0 41 0 42 0 43
0 43 0 42
) NEL AN

PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD
P

41

TRI

N
40

41

0
0

CH

(OL

ER

RIV

NIT

FOR

D
L COU

RT

PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES

P P

P P

410

P P P

DIAPHRAGM WALL
410

40

P P P

41 42 0 0

RD .
40
0
F-11 TRS

40 0
P P

0 42

39 0
42 41 0 0
0 42 0 41

39 0
40 0

BAS

P P

P P

RT L BAL KET BAS P COU

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

P P

0 42

400

P L BAL P
ST

RT COU P

41

FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY 5, 2009 DATE:

P P BAS

KET D OUN YGR PLA

P
WE

P P

PROFILE LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

410
P

410
P P L BAL KET BAS P COU RT

0 41

41
P

0
L BAL KET BAS

PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION

0 41
P P

P P

400

400

41

L BAL KET BAS

P P

L BAL KET BAS

410

P P

P P

41

PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL DIAPHRAGM WALL

400

40
40
0 43 0

42
41 0

410

420

150

300

600

900

1200

1800

NOTE: ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES 100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL SPF WATER LEVEL EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING

41

P P P

0 42 0 43 0 44 0 45

460

SCALE IN FEET
P

410

SCALE: 1" = 600

410
P P P P

P P P

3
600

NUMBER OF GENERAL PURPOSE LANES ALONG INDICATED MAIN LANE DIRECTION

PROFILE LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES
550

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES 100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL
PVI 227+50.00 PVI 154+00.00 PVI 320+00.00

PVI 114+00.00

PVI 163+50.00

Elev 439.88

PVI 100+03.36

PVI 263+30.00

Elev 435.00

Elev 440.50

L =652.75

L =655.00

Elev 429.50

L =1175.00

SPF WATER LEVEL EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING

Elev 432.88

Elev 432.50

450

0.50%

L =865.00

L =12.63

-0.58%
-1.99 %

1.18%
-0.95%

L =1115.00

500

Elev 460.38

2.09%

U P RAILROAD BRIDGE WOODALL RODGERS PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

-2.5

-0.61%

1.81%

-1.97%

81%

0.54%

1.54%

400
PVI 130+00.00 PVI 144+90.00 COMMONWEALTH PVI 281+70.00 OAK LAWN Elev 405.00

Elev 408.00

PVI 206+75.00

Elev 416.00

Elev 415.00

L =405.00

L =250.00

HAMPTON / INWOOD ROAD

WYCLIFF AVE. Elev 403.00 L =387.37

PVI 245+50.00

BRIDGE CONTINENTAL L =375.00 AVE

COMMERCE STREET

350

417.91

L =560.00

417.96

407.14

411.95

410.68

416.62

419.68

416.63

418.91

436.91

419.39

410.20

434.15

415.85

425.71

426.13

416.33

413.37

431.53

413.26

421.37

408.87

407.65

455.13

421.66

404.08

437.88

430.76

437.00

429.89

427.92

409.28

426.65

426.95

436.68

442.60

454.40

447.42

433.37

300

425.52

422.45

424.83

428.58

427.25

448.53

433.74

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

434.57

335

1/4/2012

3:42:13 PM

ah2003

TXDOT

i:\17000s\17826\CADD\CADD - TP SDEIS Alternatives\LSS Plates\826-LSS-PP2B-N.dgn

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-28

408.76

V7

826-PP2B-S.DGN

PLAN LEGEND:

PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

IM O
P

ALTERNATIVE 2B
FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT MAY 5, 2009 DATE:

35

PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD

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:

IRVING / RIVERFRONT (INDUSTRIAL) BLVD. AT-GRADE (SOUTH)

N

FW

PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS)

.
P K TAN P P

PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
P P P P P P

P P

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL

P

NOTES: 1. ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.

P P P

P P P

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL DIAPHRAGM WALL

WEST END
P P P P P

P P

RO
P

P P

NT
P

P P P

BL

P P

VD
P

P P P P

3
P P P

NUMBER OF GENERAL PURPOSE LANES ALONG INDICATED MAIN LANE DIRECTION

500

1000

1700

2500

3000

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

SCALE IN FEET

.
P P P P P P P

PROFILE LEGEND:
0 150 300 600 900 1200 1800

30
P

P P

0
P

P K PAR P P

DOWNTOWN
K PAR

DALLAS

PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT

SCALE IN FEET
K PAR P

SCALE: 1" = 600

VE

P P P P PAR K

P P P

P P P P P P P K PAR 9-6

TA

CONVENTION CENTER
P P

LA

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES 100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL
P

P P P

EN

LVD .

P P P YGR PLA P P D OUN

P P

TIN

JU

JR. B

CO N

LI
IC LET ATH

MATCH LINE

US
LD

I-4 SC HE PP

CE

NT

US RA
P

-75 XP
P

D P PLA OUN YGR

5
5

LE

P D OUN YGR PLA P P P

P P P

I-30

FIE

P P

FW

17

SPF WATER LEVEL

P P P

Y.
P P

KING

P P P

P U/C

P P P

P P P P P P P P P P PLA P P P P
U/C

D OUN YGR

P P P P P P P

.H

Y.
P P

EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING

P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

FW

U S

LUTHER

C. F

POND

OOL
P

H HIG ON
P

SCH

TRA

P P P P

U S

P P

P P P

P P

LAMA
P

LAM

P P P P P P P

17

FW

IL

LEW STERRETT JUSTICE CENTER

-7 ED1

MPS THO
OUN YGR P PLA RTS P BAL KET BAS P P P P P P L COU P P D P P

P P

YGR PLA

P P

AR

BAL KET BAS RT COU

P P P

RTI

P P P

P P P A P P ARE U/C

R ST.
MA
P P

D P P YGR PLA OUN

ST

P P OUN

P P LD IC LET ATH FIE P P

P P

P P

C.

A E 3L N
P

F.

P P P

55

P P P K N P P REU P P P P P NIO PAR P D P PLA P P P OUN YGR P P P P

500
P

3
P P P P P

P P

ST

AE 3L N
P

POND

LAMA
P

P P

R ST.
P P P P P P

ER

P -6 ED1 9-4

TR AIL

3
P

P P P

3
LD L FIE BAL

P P P P P P

0
P

3L
P

WS 380

.0 P P

UP PE R TR IN IT Y RI VE R
POND
F-9

DW4 P

WE .8 395
POND

TRS

3L

F-1

TRS

WE .7 395

AN

P P P P

3 LANE
P P

RIVERFRONT BLVD.
P P P

WS 380

.0

P P

P P P P

P TRA P P P

IL

58.4

POND

400

WE .3 395
TR INI TY RIV ER
-4 ED1 ED1 -5 WS 395 .9

-1 ED1 P P WS P P 395 P WS 395 .2 .1

505+

14.84

3 LANE

450

ALTERNATIVE 2B - INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD - AT GRADE

TRA IL

.2

WE 392

TRA

AN
P

P
IL

Sta

ta 55 2+ 62
P

A ARE

U/C

POND

WE 395

DART

WS 395 P

.8

.1

394

394

.3

.0 P P

.4

WS 395
WS 395 .4

.0

TRIN ITY RIVE

WE 4.3 39 POND WE 392

PC Sta 531+

IP P

JEFFERSON ST.

-3 EDI

.6 POND PIT VEL GRA

HOUSTON ST.

WS 380

.0

WS 380

.0

TRINITY RIVER

DW3 P

TRINITY RIVER

P P

.9

WS 394

WS 393

DESIGN REFINEMENTS
WS .6

TRINIT
.8

Y RIVER
TRINIT Y RIVER

MAIN LANE TOLL GANTRY

-2 ED1

SEE PROPOSED
8 .0 5
393

POND POND WE 392 .9

WE 389

.3

WE WE 391 POND .1 389

TR

.0 POND

AIL

POND POND WE 393 .5

WE

.5

393

WE 391

.6

ta

POND

R VE RI Y IT IN TR

.3

IH-35 N.B.

WS 395

PC Sta 451+55.35

B.

PC Sta 425+2 6.48

WS 392

.8

RIVER

PT Sta 431+82.76

TRINITY
WS 393 .6

TRAIL

P P WS 396 P P .7

WE 395

NIT

.3 POND

TRI

TRINITY RIVER

K PAR POND WE 389 TER .0 ROC HES

P P P P

POND

WE 394

.9

TH ST.

400
K PAR FF K OA CLI WS WS 393 WS 393 WS WS 393 .4 WS 393 .0 392 .8 .2 .4 393 .2 WS 393 .5

DW2 P

450

SHEET 18 OF 41
WS .5 394 WE 5.4 39 POND WE 393 POND .3 WE 394 POND POND WE 394 393 392 POND .9 POND WE .9 WE .6 .9

ROW VARIES (300 TYPICAL) 65 15 40 10 36 10 18 10 65 36 10 40

ROW

POND WE 393 .3

P DW1 P P

TRAIL

15

P P

WS WS 394 .0 393

.3

POND WE 391 .5

P P P

WS 392 WS 392 WS 395 .8

.7

P P P

POND

WE .8 393
POND

.8 WS 395 .7

WS 393

.1

P P
ARE A

U/C

WE 391

P P P

P P P P

FORMER BURNETT FIELD

RT COU NIS TEN D OUN YGR PLA
K

.7

WS 393

.1

TRA

WS 392

.3 P POND

WE .8
P

392

DRAINAGE SWALE

P P POND WE 390 POND .9

CREEK

7 16TRAIL

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2B

PROPOSED AT GRADE TOLLROAD

A ARE

U/C

TRAIL

CEDAR

PAR

OAK

K PAR

K PAR RE

MOO

POND WE .7

396

POND
P P P P NIS TEN P P LL P P P P P
LL

9-7 WE RT COU P P P 406 .2

TRAIL

CLIF

EBA P BAS

ROW VARIES (335 TYPICAL)

P
ETBA BASK

ROW

P P

P P

P P

65
P

65 18 10 10 36 10 25 40 15

P
F S OAK PAR RS NDE FOU CLIF K

P P 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 P ATM TRE PLA ENT NT

DRAINAGE SWALE

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2B

PROPOSED AT GRADE TOLLROAD WITH RAMPS

TYPICAL SECTIONS
I-35E TO U.S. 175

600

550
PVI 501+00.00 END PROJECT CSJ# 0918-45-121 Elev 478.00 TRINITY PARKWAY ALT. 2B, STA. 574+40 L =800.00 MATCH EX. US 175 PAVEMENT PVI 538+00.00

PVI 320+00.00

PVI 468+00.00

PVI 348+88.00

PVI 360+74.00

PVI 374+25.00

Elev 460.38

Elev 461.50

L =565.00

PVI 420+10.00

Elev 385.84

Elev 402.36

L =1115.00

Elev 379.92

500
Elev 445.54 L =650.00

Elev 437.00

L =1520.00

L =868.00

L =768.00

L =766.00

PVI 392+50.00

PVI 438+00.00

0.50%

Elev 409.12

Elev 392.00

L =1034.00

Elev 419.69

IH 45 BRIDGE

-0.60%

PVI 560+00.00

-2.07

L =800.00

JEFFERSON IH 30 STREET HOUSTON STREET BRIDGE BRIDGE SB IH 35E RAMP BRIDGE NB IH 35E SB IH 35E BRIDGE

450

DART BRIDGE

-2.5

81%

RAMPS

2.32

-4.0

0%

US 75 BRIDGE
1.29%

SP RR

% 2.40
-0.55%
BRIDGE PVI 405+50.00

-2.51

400
MKT RR PVI 508+00.00 PVI 548+26.00

1.393%
COMMERCE STREET REUNION BLVD.

-1.661%

1.600%

L =250.00

CORINTH STREET Elev 402.00 L =610.00 MLK BLVD

Elev 463.50

Elev 404.50

MATCH EXISTING L =1000.00 US 175 GRADE

350

412.11

407.01

397.12

421.66

405.01

419.80

412.79

389.31

383.14

431.39

459.31

437.13

418.34

476.06

442.97

470.00

467.50

475.00

469.72

408.76

427.67

397.84

399.84

465.00

386.98

404.38

399.05

403.85

423.76

395.85

408.22

454.55

394.36

395.28

462.39

462.30

456.32

453.32

450.33

423.50

447.32

434.57

472.50

409.56

426.8

413.22

389.12

419.69

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

1/4/2012

4:10:43 PM

ah2003

TXDOT

i:\17000s\17826\CADD\CADD - TP SDEIS Alternatives\LSS Plates\826-LSS-PP2B-S.dgn

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

2-29

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

IH-35 S.

IN APPENDIX E
6 7 .1 3

ER

CORIN

RIV

IL

TRA

IL

30

380

383

98.04

WS

WS

ta

54

WS

500
PT

WE

PC

POND

POND

POND WE 5.0 39

6+

.0

43

55

PT Sta 513+

.2

POND

WE 394

.0

ROW
D
POND WE 395 395

ROW VARIES (100 TYPICAL)

PON
.4 WE .4

40

40

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 2B

EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD

ENGINEERS . ARCHITECTS . SCIENTISTS . PLANNERS . SURVEYORS

PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES

PLATE 2-3 B

3L E

3L AN

E AN

.9

BE CK LE Y AV E.

TR AIL

Sta 499+ 82.3 4

S ta 4 7 2 +

PT Sta 388+1 6.73

43
P
KNIG HTS

0
P P

460 450 440

40 0

410
P A U/C P ARE

41

430
P P P

40 0
P P P P P P P P P P P P P

P A ARE U/C P P

40

410
P

410
P

39

39 0

P P P P P P P TEN P

P P P RT

410

40 0

P P P P P

PROPOSED R.O.W.
NNE L)

NIS

40 0

COU

VARIES
410 420

CHA

410 420

PROPOSED R.O.W.
P P RTS COU NIS

P P P P P

I-3
ENGINEERS . ARCHITECTS . SCIENTISTS . PLANNERS . SURVEYORS

41

P P

(OLD

41

0
P

41
P

0
P

ER NIT

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 0

390

40 0

5E
P

400

Y
P

RIV
D (OL ER Y NIT TRI RIV CHA

EL) NN
AD LRO RAI IFIC PAC ION UN

C.L. EXISTING LEVEE 112 12 20 VARIES (91 USUAL) 20 10

C.L. ROADWAY 36
P

TRI
ELM FORK

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

K

400

41 0
P

NNE D (OL ER Y NIT K FOR TRI

P

P P

CHA

RIV

3
KNIGHTS BRANCH

TURT

L)

4 1
P P P

P P

LE

CREE

IL TRA

P P

ELM

400
P

P P P P P

41
P

TRAIL

40 0 39 0

0
41
P

0
P

32
P

1
P P P P

TRAIL

2.%
P P

4:1 M AX
P P

IL

400

41

3.5
400
390

3.5

PROPOSED EMBANKMENT
P IL TRA

P P

ALTERNATIVE 3C-COMBINED
P P P

TRA

IL

400
P P P P

TRI NIT CHA Y NNEL )

D OA ILR RA IFIC PAC ION UN P P

CH AN NE

400 390

S" GASU CT PE Y.) "PROJE ONS FW TEMM I-35E (S EMENTS IMPROV ENT PM DEVELO UNDER T BY TxDO

P P P P

ELM

39

TR

400
0

0 39 0 40

410

0 40 0 39

40

420
410

41

0
0
P P

39

42

0 40

40

41 0 42 0

400

D OUN YGR PLA

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
41 0

ST
0

P P

TURT LE

EM

MO

390
400

390 0 39 400

W SF

P
ER

(OL

40

400

390

SH 183

RIV ER

0 40

(OLD

FORK

39

RIV

I-3

5E

(OLD
P

CHANN

RIVER TRINITY

Y.

L)

390

400

20
40 0
INI TY

EXISTING LEVEE
P P P P

NORTHBOUND BASE LINE

P P P P P

400

42 0 41 0

0 42 0 41

P P

P P P NIS RTS

EL)

39 0 400

P P

120
P P

120

CREE K

42 0
40 0

40
P

TRA

8
P

2.%
SOUTHBOUND BASE LINE
TEN RTS COU NIS TEN P COU

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

0
P

FLOODWAY BOTTOM
P P P P P P P P P P

P P

P P P P P P

P P

39

40

FURTHER MODIFIED (NORTH)

P P

40

42 0

43

40

0 42

41 0 0

41 0

K TAN

P P P P

P P

400 390
TRIN
P P

POND P P

P P

0 40 0 39

TER FW

Y.
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

NOTES:
P P P P P

ITY RIVE R (OLD CHA

P

410
6450

390
P

NNEL )
P

42

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 P P P P P P

40 0

P P P 5 9-1 P P P P P

41

390

P P

410

P P P

L) NNE CHA
ELM FORK

400

500

1000

1700

2500

3000
P P

0 42 0 41

P P P

TRI NIT Y RIV ER

()OLD CHAN NEL)

TRAIL

41

1000
P P

(OLD
TRINITY RIVER

RIVER SIDE OF EAST LEVEE

P P P P P P P P P

P P P P P

ALONG FLOODWAY
P P P

400

40

400
P P P

IL

P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

P P P P IFIC PAC P ION UN OA ILR RA IFIC PAC ION P UN P D RA ILR D OA

P P P

390

TRA

40

P P P P

P P P P

1L
P P

40 0

P P P

IRV
P P P

ING
P

400

BLV
P

400

SCALE IN FEET

P P

400

2. MODIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING LEVEES TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS.

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

0 39

390

HAMPTON - INWOOD TO CONTINENTAL

400

P P

400 390

0 41

P P P P P

0 40

D.
P P

41 0

P P

41 0
0 40

P P P P

400
P P P P P P P

0 40 0 41

40
P 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

39

40

P P P P P P

40
P

400

39

0
P

P P

40

41

P P
L) NE

P P P

400

390

390

AN

P P P P P P P P

400

CH

41
P P D OA ILR RA P PAC P ION UN IFIC

0
0

TH

(OL

42

1L
P P

P P P

41

0
P

AN

P P P

410

E
6451

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

P P

EAL

TRIN ITY

P P

410

42

MAIN LANE TOLL GANTRY

400
400
P

400
P

RIVE R

400
400
P

3
P

P P

P P

P P

RI VE NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY RF 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

400

400
410

TRAIL

TRAIL

410

TRAIL

D OA ILR RA

410

420
I-13 ED

FORK

L
P P P

420

IFIC PAC ION UN

COM MO NW

430
430

WEST

430 430 420

420
430-12
ED1 -11 ED1

410

420

410

410
420

-9 ED1

0 41

390

400

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

48 AUX.

48

400
400

400
P P

400

EN

TRAIL

10

10

10

10
P

IR
P P

VI

ED 43 0 43 0 42 0 41

1-1

400

1 LANE

400

TA

21

68

68

21

NG

400

0 41 0 42

400

TRAI L

WE

.5

40 0

13

13

BL

0 39

40

3L

410

AN

POND
D

40

PON

3 LANE
TRAIL

FIE CER SOC

420

LA

81

81

P P

VD

.
P

TRAI

LD

40

3L

400

TRAIL

400
410

VE

TRAIL

40

9-2

PROPOSED R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W.

40 0 40 0 41

420
P

410

AN

410

40

0
L

3
TRAIL

410

3 LANE
TRAIL

430 420

410

TRAIL

1 LANE

430 430
420

1 LANE

420

430 430
420

410

1100

TRAIL

410

3 LANE
3 LANE

420

P P P

410

400

1150
400

0 40 400
41
40 0
P

P P P P

0 40

420

P P

TRA IL

IL
P P P P
D PON

42

2.0%

2.0%

AUX.

1050

TRA

TIN

CO N

D OA ILR P P PAC ION UN P IFIC RA

41

0
0 42
0 42 0 41
P P

M OC KI NG BI
P

410

P P

NE 1 LA

1 LANE

400

40

0
P

C WY

40 0

TRAI L
P

40

1 LANE
WE 394 .5

400
P

400

41

F\ LIF

WE 39

7.9

TRINITY PARKWAY EIS

40

39

0
P

DALLAS , TEXAS

HEIGHT VARIES

HEIGHT VARIES

P P P

1 LANE
IL TRA

3
410
TRAIL

400

3
400
400 400
TRINITY RIVER

TRA

0 40

IL

40

0
P

42
41 0

40

0 40
-8 ED1

TRAIL

400

400
POND

1L

E AN

RD
P

N\ TO MP HA

400

0
P P P P

TRAIL

400

40

0 39
0

TRINITY RIVER

40

TRAIL

40

D OA ILR RA

39

TRAIL
ER Y NIT TRI RIV

40
IFIC PAC

0
0

E
42
41 0

41
42 0

400

41 0

41
400

41

P P

400

ION UN

0 42 0 43

ED

1-1

5A

400
IL TRA IL TRA

MATCH LINE
400
UP

40

400

AN

0 40

42 41 0 0

LN .

L SY

400
TRAIL

400
TRINITY RIVER

P P P P P

TRINITY RIVER

TRINITY RIVER

40
UPPER TRINIT Y RIVER

40
0

3L
WS .0 395

AN

3L

0 41 0 42

V VA A NA

TR AIL

0 41

VE

P P

41

400

TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

ELEVATED COMBINED PARKWAY
P P

43

0
0

40

0 40

42

42

40

0
400 410

R OD WO INW

0
P

400

. .

TRA IL
POND WE

40

400

40

400
400
0 40

.9 399

42 0

40

400

41

400

P P

40

0
-7 ED1

400

400

43

TRA IL

40 0
P P

40

TRAIL

40
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

LEW STERRETT JUSTICE CENTER

P P

39

42

41

40

.2

400
POND WE .9 397

IL TRA

TRAIL

400

D.

39
P P P OA ILR P RA IFIC PAC ION UN D

0
0
0

TRAIL TRAIL

TRAIL

410
TRA IL

WE

400
TRAIL

39

410
TRAIL

420

410

.4 396 WE .4 397 POND

420

410

420
DW7

400

40

430
430
DW6

400
40

41

68 10 48 10

42

0
0

43
P

PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES

0
0

420
DW8

43

410 420
430

430 430
420 410

430 430 420

410

420

420
POND WE .4 397

42

DW9

41

TRAIL

430
420

400
4 9-1

400
390

P ER NIT TRI

410
400
Y RIV

410

400
TRAIL

.5

WE .5

397

2.0%

AUX.

40
P

420
40 0

41

40

40

0
400
410
P

41
P

400
WE .6 395
POND

40

400

42

0
0
0 43 0 42 0 41

41

41

43

PLA BAL

400

410

41

IL TRA

420

40

410

41

41

TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

ELEVATED SEPARATED ROADWAY
NO.
WE .5 397 WE .6 401

41

41

40

0
0
0 40
IL TRA

PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION

410
40
IC LET ATH FIE P P P P

KET

YGR

41

BAS

PLA

41

OUN

410

41

BAL

0 40 0 41

41

39

41
P

RT

42

SHEET 22B OF 41
L COU D P

410
P

PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS)

42
PUM

41

40

0
P

41

410

40
41

BAL

410

420

40

41

P WE 7.9

420

ER

STA

TR

SF

-12

0 42 0 43 0 43

K IL TRA TIO N BIC KER S PAR

P LD L FIE

400

PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD

0 DW1

D OUN YGR L FIE LD

410

IN APPENDIX E
41 0
0
LD

P RT L BAL KET BAS COU P

42

40

ST

410

39

390 390

HEIGHT VARIES

0 41

40

400

39

PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS

IL TRA

400
P

P P P

41

40

42

40 40 0 0

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

TRA

IL

410

400 410
P P

410

430

POND

41

397

42

400

41

DESIGN REFINEMENTS

42

40

420 430

CANADA DR.
400

POND

WE

400 410

40
DW5

PR

SEE PROPOSED
410
P

410

400

400

40

390 400 410

390

40

PE

P P

41

40

41

TYPICAL SECTIONS
FILE

40

ATH

ATH

LD

40

OUN

40

41 42 0 43 0 43 0 42 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

BAL

YGR

PLA

RT

PLA

BAL

NIC

BAL

KET

PIC

KET

BAS

BAS

D OUN

LD

YGR

PLAN LEGEND:
410

42

COU

OUN

YGR

PLA

41

RT

YGR

FIE

OUN

BAL

YGR PLA

RT L BAL KET BAS COU

FIE

PLA

RT

41

41

COU

BAL

40

BAL

KET

IO

BAS

OUN

YGR

PLA

D OUN YGR PLA P P P P

EL
D OUN YGR PLA P P

VA RY ZA A DE ENT EM
D OUN NIS TEN RT COU P P

IC

I.H. 35E TO FLOOD WAY

40
410

ER

YGR

41

Y NIT TRI

RIV

PLA

RT

41

KET

BAS

TR

IN

IL

0 40 0 41

41

IT

41

41

41

41

E IV

TRAIL

41

0
0

40
L TRAI

LD IC LET FIE

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL R Y LE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL TY TAR H RR Y EN RT A K CA AR EM DIAPHRAGM WALLR NO P NT EL ON ME PT LE E M HA
0
P P OUN RT L COU L COU BAL BAL KET BAS LD P IC FIE LET P P RT

P P

41

43

410

0 42 0 43

(LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE)

410
LD

P P

41

G IN

41

42

BAL

FIE

T LE
P

ON
P

410

BL

VD
P

41

.
P P

TR

P P

DW4

IN

IT

42

43

RI

0 41
TRS 0 F-1

VE

POND

40

WE .7 395

420
42 0
41 0

13

21

TRAIL

410

420

420

40 0

410

41

IF

41

410

M OC KI NG BI RD LN /W ES TM

PO

40

POND

0 41

40 0
40 0
TR INI TY RIV ER

40 0
P

410

41 0
42 0

41

0
P

410
TEN D P YGR PLA D OUN YGR PLA P KET BAS BAL L COU LD P P LET ATH P IC FIE RT P OUN P

COU NIS

NOTES

17826

PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES

41 0

41 0

P P

0 42

400

42 0
41 0
P

BE

LA

P P

41

0 42 0 41
P

C CK
P

41 0

LE

400

0 42 0 41 0 41

40
P

40

41 42 0 0

Y A AV

P P P

40

AD RO

P P

IL RA FIC
P P

42 41 0 40 0 0

CI

E.

PA N IO UN
P

39 40 0 0
DW3 P

P P

410

40
P

0
41

BAL

P P

P P

41

O OR E EL

41

P P P

P P

IL TRA

PROFILE LEGEND:
RT L COU 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

PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS

P P P P

40

N
NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

D OUN YGR PLA

P P

P P

41 42 0 0

AN

410

ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.

H: 1"=500

V: 1"=50

SCALE

0 40 0 40
0 41 0 42 0 43
0 43 0 42
) NEL AN

PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT

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

NUMBER OF GENERAL PURPOSE LANES ALONG INDICATED MAIN LANE DIRECTION

P

40

41

0
P P P

0 42

39 0
42 41 0 0
0 42 0 41

41

0
0

CH

(OL

ER

RIV

NIT

TRI

FOR

ST

D RD . .
F-11 TRS

39 0
40 0

P P

P P

P RT L BAL KET BAS P COU P

P P

40

40

P L BAL P P
WE

RT COU

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

P D OUN

PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS)

0 42

400

P P BAS

KET

AUGUST

YGR P P PLA

PARK ACCESS ROUTES:

41

DATE

2008

410
P

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
P

41
P

0
L BAL KET BAS

L BAL KET BAS

DRAWN

T. LE

100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL

410
P

BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BRIDGE (BY NTTA)

P P

P P

400

400

41

L BAL KET BAS

P P

SPF WATER LEVEL EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING

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.

PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT

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.

50%

-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

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES

+0.50% -0.94%

-0.50%

-0.50% +2.50

+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 -0.94% +1.22% LEVEL

-0.50% +0.50%

-0.50% +0.50%

-0.50% +0.50%

-0.50% +0.50% +0.50%

-0.83% -0.83%

-2.11

% +0.50%

PI STA. 1032+00.00

PI STA. 1080+00.00

DRAFT 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. 1139+50.00

PI STA. 1149+50.00

PI STA. 1159+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

150 155 155 155 160 140 145 145 150 155 150 130 130135140145 130135140145 150 130135140 130135140 145 150 155 135

1205 AVE..1205LEY AVE.. 1210 1195 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1200 AVE.. 1095LEY 1205LEY AVE..1210LE AVE.. AVE.. 1180 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1185 AVE.. 1185LEY1185LEY1190LEY1190LEY AVE.. 1195LEY1195LEY1095LEY 1095LEY AVE..1205LEY AV 1190 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1165 AVE.. AVE.. 1170 AVE.. AVE.. 1170LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1150 1145LEY 1145LEY AVE.. 1155LEY AVE.. 1160LEY1160LEY1165LEY1165LEY AVE..1170LEY 1170LEY AVE.. 1175LEY1175LEY1180LEY1180LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1160 AVE.. AVE.. 1145LEY 1150LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1120LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1125LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1130LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1135LEY AVE.. 1140LEY AVE.. 1145LEY1150LEY 1145LEY 1145LEY AVE.. 1105LEY AVE.. 1110LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1115LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1100 1100LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE.. 1080LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE..1090LEY AVE..AVE.. 1090 1095 1075 1080 1050LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1060LEY AVE.. 1055LEY 1055LEY 1060LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1060LEY 1065LEY AVE.. 1070LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE..AVE.. 1080LEY 1085LEY 1085LEY AVE.. AVE..1030LEY 1030LEY AVE.. 1100LEY1105 1105LEY 1105LEY AVE.. 1110LEY1115 1115LEY 1115LEY AVE.. 1120LEY1125 1125LEY 1125LEY AVE.. 1130LEY1135 1135LEY 1135LEY AVE.. 1140LEY 1145 AVE.. 1150LEY AVE..AVE.. 1155 1155LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1160LEY AVE.. 1065LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE..1075LEY 1080LEY AVE.. 1045 1050 AVE..1050LEY 1045LEY 1055 1030 AVE.. AVE.. 1035 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1040 AVE.. 1040LEY AVE.. 1045LEY AVE.. 1020 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1025 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1000LEY 1000LEY 1005LEY 1005LEY AVE.. 1010LEY1015 1015LEY 1015LEY AVE.. 1020LEY 1020LEY 1025LEY 1025LEY AVE.. 1030LEY1030LEY1035LEY1035LEY AVE.. 1040LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE..1050LEY AVE.. AVE..1055LEY AVE.. AVE..1065 1065LEY1070 AVE..1070LEY 1075LEY 1075LEY 1080LEY AVE.. 1085LEY AVE..1090LEY AVE.. AVE..AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1005 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1010 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1010LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1000 1000LEY 1000LEY AVE.. 1005LEY 1005LEY 1010LEY 1010LEY AVE.. 1015LEY 1015LEY 1020LEY 1020LEY AVE.. 1025LEY 1025LEY 1030LEY1030LEY AVE.. 1035LEY1035LEY1040LEY AVE..1040LEY1045LEY 1045LEY AVE..1050LEY AVE..1055LEY 1060 AVE.. 1060LEY AVE.. 1065LEY 1070LEY 1070LEY 1075LEY AVE..AVE..1085 AVE.. 1085LEY 1090LEY 1090LEY 1030LEY 1030LEY 1100LEY 1100LEY AVE.. 1105LEY1110 . 1110LEY 1110LEY AVE.. 1115LEY1120 1120LEY 1120LEY AVE.. 1125LEY1130 1130LEY 1130LEY AVE.. 1135LEY1140 1140LEY AVE..1140LEY1145LEY AVE.. 1145LEY AVE..AVE.. AVE..AVE.. AVE..1155LEY1155LEY AVE.. 1160LEY AVE.. 1165LEY1165LEY AVE..1170LEY1175 1175LEY1175LEY AVE.. 1180LEY1180LEY 1185LEY1185LEY AVE.. 1190LEY1190LEY1195LEY1195LEY AVE.. 1095LEY AVE..1205LEY AVE..1211
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. 426.50 160.00 V.C.

EL. 425.50 160.00 V.C.

EL. 426.50 160.00 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.

+2.

EL. 425.50 160.00 V.C.

EL. 426.50 160.00 V.C.

50%

0%

EL. 426.50 360.00 V.C.

-2.8

412.50

414.00

+0.00% -3.2

CONTINENTAL BRIDGE

UPRR BRIDGE

450

5% -3.2

HAMPTON BRIDGE

5%

-2.8

0%

-0.50% -0.50% +2.50

-0.50%
+0.50% -0.50% +0.50% -0.50% -0.50% +0.50% +0.50%

SYLVAN BRIDGE

-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

433.50

432.50

478.23

426.28

423.75

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

150 155 155 160 135 140 140 145 145 150 130 130 130 135 140 140 145 150 150 155 130 135 135 140 145 145 150 155 155 130 135

1205 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1205LEY AVE.. A AVE.. 1190LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1200 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1170LEY AVE.. 1180 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1180LEY AVE.. 1185LEY1185LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1160 AVE.. AVE.. 1165 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1170 1170LEY 1170LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1175LEY1175LEY AVE.. 1180LEY1185 1185LEY 1185LEY AVE.. 1190LEY1195 1195LEY1195LEY AVE.. 1095LEY 1095LEY 1205LEY 1205LEY AVE.. 1210L 1145LEY AVE.. 1145LEY AVE.. 1155LEY1155LEY1160LEY1160LEY AVE.. 1165LEY1165LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1140LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1120LEY1125 AVE.. 1125LEY1130 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1130LEY AVE.. 1135LEY AVE.. 1140LEY1145 1145LEY 1145LEY AVE.. 1145LEY 1145LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1105LEY 1110LEY 1110LEY AVE.. 1115LEY 1120 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1095 AVE.. AVE.. 1030LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1100LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1080 1085 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1090 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1070 1075 1050LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE..1060LEY AVE..1065LEY AVE..1070LEY AVE..1075LEY AVE.. 1060 1065 1045 1045LEY 1050LEY AVE..1055LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE..1065LEY AVE..1070LEY AVE..1075LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1030 AVE.. 1030LEY 1035LEY 1035LEY 1040LEY AVE.. AVE..AVE.. 1050LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1030LEY 1035LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE..1045LEY AVE.. 1020 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1025 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1000LEY1005 1005LEY AVE..AVE..AVE.. 1010LEY AVE... 1010LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1000LEY 1000LEY 1005LEY 1005LEY 1010LEY AVE.. 1015LEY 1015LEY 1020LEY 1020LEY AVE.. 1025LEY 1025LEY 1030LEY1035 AVE.. 1035LEY AVE..1040LEY 1045LEY1050 AVE.. 1050LEY AVE..1055LEY 1060LEY 1060LEY AVE..1065LEY AVE..1070LEY AVE..1075LEY 1080LEY 1080LEY AVE.. 1085LEY 1085LEY 1090LEY 1090LEY AVE.. 1030LEY1100 1100LEY 1100LEY AVE.. 1105LEY1110 AVE.. AVE..1110LEY AVE.. 1115LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1120LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1125LEY AVE.. 1130LEY1135 1135LEY AVE..1135LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1000 1000LEY AVE..AVE..AVE..AVE.. 1005LEY 1010 AVE.. 1010LEY AVE.1015 1015LEY 1015LEY AVE.. 1020LEY 1020LEY 1025LEY 1025LEY AVE.. 1030LEY AVE.. AVE..1040 1040LEY 1040LEY 1045LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1055 1055LEY 1055LEY 1060LEY AVE..1065LEY AVE..1070LEY AVE..1075LEY AVE.. 1080LEY 1080LEY 1085LEY 1085LEY AVE.. 1090LEY 1090LEY 1030LEY 1030LEY AVE.. 1100LEY1105 1105LEY 1105LEY AVE.. 1110LEY1115 1115LEY AVE..1115LEY 1120LEY AVE..1120LEY1125LEY AVE..1125LEY 1130LEY1130LEY AVE.. 1135LEY1140 1140LEY1140LEY AVE.. 1145LEY1150 1145LEY AVE..1155 1155LEY1155LEY AVE.. 1160LEY1160LEY1165LEY1165LEY AVE.. 1170LEY 1175 AVE..1175LEY1175LEY1180LEY1180LEY AVE..AVE.. AVE..1190 1190LEY1190LEY AVE.. 1195LEY1195LEY1095LEY 1095LEY AVE.. 1205LEY1210 1210LEY 1

471.11

1/4/2012

3:39:07 PM

ah2003

TXDOT

i:\17000s\17826\CADD\V7 to V8 UPGRADE\826-LSS-PP3C-N.dgn

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

411.96

408.85

408.92

2-30

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:

VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RAMP (BY NTTA) BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BRIDGE (BY NTTA) POSSIBLE VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**) POSSIBLE BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**)
NOTES:
(**) - SUBJECT TO PARK PLANNING & FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

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.%

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

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 3B

RIVER SIDE OF EAST LEVEE CONTINENTAL TO DART RAIL
0 41
41 0
P

(**) 2 MAIN LANES EACH WAY (INITIAL PHASE) (*) 3 MAIN LANES EACH WAY (FINAL PHASE)
P P

430

43

3
VARIES C.L. ROADWAY

43

0
P

WEST END
P P P

40

NUMBER OF GENERAL PURPOSE LANES ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY USFHWA. CE ALONG INDICATED MAIN LANE DIRECTION 75 NT RA LE XP Y.

SCALE IN FEET

P P P

P P P
(I) 35

CO

NT

IN

P K PAR

430

EN

TA

L
P

STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD ELEV. +3

P

11

P P
? ?

DOWNTOWN
K PAR

4 1

DRAINAGE SWALE 3.5

1
3

STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD ELEV. +3

3 MIN. 1 4 1 1 16.5 MIN.

C. F

40

VE

40

43

PAR

LA

0 42

TA

44

P
?

40

420

EN

P P K PAR

420

TIN

43 0

CO N

43

PLA P

I-30

41

0 42

410

420

L A N E

410

42 41 0 0

0 40

ATH

430

41
42

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
42
41 0

41

420

0
?

420

JR. BLVD.

400 410

P P

PLA P

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
400 410

400 410

41
? ?

P P P

P
? ?

U/C

P P P

? ?

410

43 0

40

P P P P P

POND

400

42 0

41

33

MATCH LINE

410

36

40

44

41

U S

FW

E*

40

41 42 43

00

41
42

P P
?

? ?

410
0
?

38 39

IL

12

440
P P P

P P

YGR PLA

P
? ? ?

17 5 14 50

3L

34 35

40

0
-7 ED1

43

AN

400

37 TRA

LEW STERRETT JUSTICE CENTER

P

? ?

40

P
?

LI

430

OUN YGR

39

IS
?

430

420

? ?

KIN

420
? ?

P
? ? ? ? ? ?

420

ER UTH

P
?

F.

STA
?

? ?

C.

410

P
? ?

0 41 0 40

41

40

41

PAR

41

R
40 40 0 0

40

0
0 41

P P

410
P
? ?

? ?

P
?

P
?

43

? ?

0 40 0 41

400

TIN

40

410

? ? ?

410

ST

400

420

390
390

41

MAR

430 420 410

410

400

AIL

400

40

410

400

410

410

ER

410

410

DW4

400

IN IT Y RI VE R
POND

P P F-9 TRS P P P
? ?

WE .8 395

390 410

42 41 0 40 0 0

41

390
WS 380 .0

F-1

420

410 400

400

410 400

410

400

400

40 0

A N E

400

390
400

POND

0 41

41 0 42 0

N A E 1L
390
390
400
410

STA SUB

390

390

410 420

410

390

N TIO

P
? ? ?

400

? ?

40

? ?

2 LANE
? ?

0
?

40

390

1L

400 410 410

400

40

400

400

40

395

P P P P
? ?

400

IL TRA

3
P

.7

POND

41

TRS

WE

BAL

40

40

RIVERFRONT BLVD.

LD

42

AN

FIE

NE

400

1400

? ?

40 40 0 0

2 LAN
410

1 LA
0

NE

P P
? ?

410

TR

410

E*

42

400

PE

390

420 410

UP

400

40

? ? ?

DART

E*

40 0
41 0

0
400

.0

410

WS 380

390

3 LA

NE*

TRA

IL

LA

LA

P
?

39

420

41

42 41 0 40 0 0

400
N TIO

410

39

390

420

40
WE .3

RIV ER

-5 ED1

420
420
-4

41 0
0 42

400

40 0

400

400

420
420 410

400

42 0
0
WS 395 .3

400

41

1250
40 0

WS P P P

WE 394

400

390
400

400

410

400
40
?

1 LAN

WS 395

.0

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 42 0 41

400

420

MAIN LANE TOLL GANTRY

WS .0 380 -3 EDI

39
WS

.8

P P

.4

0 40 0 41

383

42

400

0 40 0 41
42

N LA

E*

394

410

40
41 0

1L

400
POND POND .1

40

WE 395

.0 POND POND WE 5.0 39

410

I-

39

1 LANE
400

410

420

ED1

.1

395

400

0
P

WS 395

400

400

400
P

39

.2

41

TY

395

WS

IL

395

40 0

TR INI

30

420

410

WS

.9

400

40

390

42 0 41 0 400

400

400

2 LANE

-1 ED1

1 LANE
40

400

400

TRA

410

410

390

1350
1 LANE
0
0

AN

E
?

WE 392

.2

E N A 2L
400

P
?

410

41 0 40 0

400

40

400

400

400

42
WS 380 .0

40

390

0
0

392

POND

400

40

400

400

JEFFERSON ST.

POND

.9

400

400

40

WE WE 391 .1 389

380

.0 POND

AIL
POND WE 393 .5

400

390
39 0

WS

390

400

390

400 410
420

400

40

DW3 P

400

410
420

-2 ED1

400

IH-35 N.B.

400

420
410

B.

390

TRINITY RIVER

400
400

IH-35 S.

P P

395

400

P P

400

0 42

42
400

400

400
0

40

IN APPENDIX E
40 0

400
WS 396 .7

400

40
0

TRI

395

NIT

390

41

42

0 400

41

TH ST.

OAK CLIFF LEVEE ROAD (BY OTHERS)

DW2

400

390

DESIGN REFINEMENTS
390
TRINITY RIVER

WE

.3 POND

RIV

0 42 0 41

39

390

400

ER

TRINITY RIVER
?

39

390 400

39

36

36

K PAR POND WE 389 TER .0 ROC HES

390

POND

WE 394

.9

40

390
400
WS
?

2
390

.5

400
400

394

WE 5.4 39 POND

40

0
POND WE

0 41

420

WS WS 393 .4 WS 393 .0 392

39

420 410

420

DW1

410 420

393 .8

39

SHEET 26 OF 41
40 0
P P

K PAR FF K CLI WS WS .4 393 WS .2 WS 393 .5

400

400

410 420

OA

410
410

400

393 .2

IN APPENDIX E
39 0
? ?

390
.3

400

393

0 40
390 400
?

0 41
P

400 390
390

420

CORIN

410 420

420 410

410

420
400
?

410

400
390

400
P P

400

394

40

WS 392 WS 395

.8

410

410
? ?

POND POND WE 394 393 392 .9 POND WE .9 WE .6 POND

WE .8 393
POND

P P P N TIO P P P SUB STA

?

420

.8 WS 395 .7

40
?

TRA

390 400 410

390 400 410

?

390
400

WS WS 394 .0 393

.3

41

WS 392

.7

SHEET 29 OF 41
390
? ?

400

390

390

42

U/C

ARE

41

42
41 0

0 43 0

400

? ?

P P

WS 392

.3 P
?

41

40

WS

.1

420

393

400

400

TRA

400

410

41

IL

390

40

41

P P

POSSIBLE OAK CLIFF LEVEE ROAD / IH 35E INTERCHANGE (BY OTHERS)

40 0
41 0 42
0

400

400

390
400
?

TRAIL

2.0%
POND WE 391 .5

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

WE 393 POND

.3

400

400
?

IL

WE

.9

TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

AT-GRADE WITH SERVICE ROADS LAMAR BLVD. TO U.S. 175

WS 393

.1

400
?

POND

400
400

WE 391

42

.7

400

400

410

420

410

410

43

0 42 0 43 0 44 0 45
?

410

NIS TEN

410
?

410

43

410 420 430 440

400

440
420
P

410

460
?

440

430

420410 400

CEDAR

430

OAK

440

K PAR

420

TRAIL

CLIF

450

420

POSSIBLE S.B. JEFFERSON (BY OTHERS)

A U/C ARE

410

41
42 0

0
?

410 420

400
P

POND

WE .8 392

410
COU

400
RT

430

420
400
D
? ?

390
?

400
410 410
POND WE 390 .9

TYPICAL SECTIONS
FLOODWAY TO U.S. 175
BEGIN PROPOSED BRIDGE END PROPOSED BRIDGE

43
?

0
PLA

OUN YGR

410
POND
?

410
?

CREEK

420
PAR

400

400
400

7 16TRAIL

TRAIL

420 410
P

410

400
K PAR RE MOO

? ?

460
? ?

420

400

42 0
44
?

420
410

POND
?

WE 396

.7

400
9-7

410
420

POND

0
P

41

400

41

43
0
P

WE 406

.2

430

45

400
400

44

440

420 410
LL EBA BAS

RT COU NIS TEN P P

42

45

44

44
P

460

450

46
0 43

440

P P P

41

430

0
LL

P 45

45

43

0
45

420
44

46

46
0 46
P

410

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
P

420

420

420

440

430 440
450
460
430

F S OAK PAR RS NDE FOU CLIF K

470

PI STA. 1370+00.00

410

44
440
P P

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

N TIO STA SUB

END 3C2S STA. 1400+00.00, EL = 403.30 MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT

410

410
P

550

430
420

45 0
P P

450
46 0

440
450

450

PI STA. 1354+00

470

420

470

41

EL.457.30 550.00 V.C.

ENT ATM TRE

STA 1505+00

PI (1538+50)

SB I-35E PI STA. 1276+00.00

47
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

PI (1582+55)

450

DART BRIDGE
460

P P

46

PI STA. 1389+00

440

EL. 457.80 320.00 V.C.

43

43

41

46

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

PROPOSED NORTHBOUND MAIN LANE

I-30 BRIDGE

+1.38% 38% +0.50% +1.

(-) 2.0 0%

8%

+2

.97

4.0

0%

+0.90% -0.50%

-0.83% +0.90%

+1.50 +0.50% -0.50% (-) 0.501% -0.50% +1.50% -0.50% +0.50%

% -1.58%
-1.58 % +0.50%

+0.50% -1.15%

(+) 0.54%
(-) 1.00%

(+) 0.60% +0.50% -0.50%

-1.15%
-0.50% +0.50% 0% (+) 2.2

% +0.50% +1.85 (-) 0.50% +1.85 %

% (+) 1.50

(-) 0.50%

2.90 (+)
-2.4 8%
PI STA. 1309+20.00

(+) 0.50% -0.56% +1.31%

0% +2.0

+0.53%

+0.53%

-0.56%

+2.0

0%

+1.50
-3.0 0%

% -0.50%
(+) 1.00%
-0.50%

2.63 (+)

2%
-4

(-)

4.0

0%

PI STA. 1344+00.00

+1.31%
PI (1325+00) PI STA. 1329+00 431.38 EL. 413.58 350.00 V.C. PI (1315+00)

+1.50

+3

(-) 0.50% % .00

.0

0%

+1.51%

428.95

-2.4

CORINTH BRIDGE

+2

.9

-0.50% 7% -0.50% +0.50% 0% (+) 1.6

+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

PI STA. 1249+00.00

MARTIN LUTHER KING BRIDGE EL.427.60 350.00 V.C.

PI STA. 1220+00

PI STA. 1415+00

PI (1568+00)

PI (1286+00)

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

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

PI STA. 1361+50.00

UNION

LAMAR PI STA. 1399+00 PI STA. 1440+00 PI (1550+00) STREET El 410.00

400

PI STA. 1210+00

PI (1227+60) PI STA. 1228+85

EL. 424.58 130.00 V.C. 406.80 PI (1290+50) 424.72

PI (1254+00)

PI (1299+00)

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

PI STA. 1269+50

EL. 411.75 300.00 V.C. 405.50 412.37

EXISTING GROUND

EL. 410.33 320.00 V.C. 407.89 411.13

EL. 410.30 500.00 V.C.

600 V.C.

EL. 406.30 650.00 V.C.

EL. 404.80 750.00 V.C.

EL. 410.33 150.00 V.C.

350

439.60 454.30

413.43 403.33

422.63

411.50 425.30

431.60 455.83

340 1185 1190 1195 180 I-45 I-45 I-45 0 I-45 45 1340 1340 1340 5 1185 1190 0 I-45 I-45 1340 1185 1340 1340 1190 1340 1340 I-45 I-45 I-45 1195 I-45120512101215 1185 1190 1340 1325132513251325I-45 1195 1340 1340 I-45 I-45 I-45120512101215 1220 1190 1195 1325132513251325I-45 I-45 1200 1195 1325132513251325I-45 I-45 I-45 1340 I-45 I-45120512101215 1220 1225 1205 I-45I-45I-45 132513251215 I-45120513251215 1220 1225 1230 I-45I-45I-45 I-45I-45I-45 1225 1210 I-451210I-45 I-451325 1220 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1220 1225 1230 1235 1230 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1225 1230 1235 1240 1235 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1230 1235 1240 1245 1240 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1235 1240 1245 1250 1245 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1240 1245 1250 1255 1250 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1245 1250 1255 1260 1255 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1250 1255 1260 1265 1260 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1255 1260 1265 1270 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1285 I-45 1200 I-45 1280 I-45 I-45 I-45 1200 13001300 1305 1310 1275 1280 1285 I-45 I-45 I-45 1265 1260 1265 1270 1275 1270 1265 1270 1275 1280 1275 1270 1275 1280 1285 1280 1280 1275 I-45 1280 1285 1280 1285 1290 1340 1280 1285 1290 1290 1340 1300 1305 I-45 1285 1290 I-45 1290 1285 1290 1285 1290 I-45 I-45 1290 1340 1300 1295 1290 I-45 I-45 I-45 1200 1300 1305 1300 1340 1300 1305 1310 I-45 I-45 1305 I-45 1200 1300 I-45 1310 1305 1300 I-45 I-45 I-45 1310 I-45 I-45 1305 1310 1310 1310 1315

1320

1325

1330 1330 13301570 15701330 1330 1570 1330 1330 1570 1330 1335 1330

1340

1345

1350

1500 I-45 1500 I-45 I-451515 I-45 1515 I-451525 1500 I-45 I-45 1510 1500 1500 I-451510 1510 I-45 I-45 1520 I-45 1505 1500 1505 I-45 I-45 15151515 1520I-451530 1530 1500 1505 I-45 1505 1500 1505 1500 1505 1510 1515 I-45 152015201520-45 1535 1535 1505 1510 1505 I-45 1515 I-45 1525 1525 1525 1530 1535 15401540 I-45 I-45I-45I-45 1560 1505 1510 1510 1510 I-45 1520 15201525 I 1530 I-451540 I-45I-45I-45 1550 1510 1515 I-45 1515 1520 1520 1515 I-451525 I-45 1525 I-45 1525 1530 I-45I-45 I-45 1525 I-45 I-45 1530 1530 1530 I-45 I-45 1545 1530 1535 I-45 I-45I-451550 1535 1540 1545 1545 1540 1545 1550 1555I-451560 1565 I-45 I-45 1545 I-45I-451555 I-4515651565 1570 1575 1580 1550 1555 I-45 1560 1565 1570 1575 1555 1550 1555 I-45 I-45 1560 1560 1565 1570 1565 I-45 1565 1565 1570 1565 1575 1570 1575 1590 1585 1580 1590 1585 1590 1595 1575 1580 1585 1585 1595 1590 1585 1580 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

.97

% -0.50%
-0.50% 1.60% (+) +0.50%

+0.50% -1.50%

+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%
2.92 %

(+) 0.50%

-1.50
+0.53%
+2 .97 %

-0.50%

-0.97%

-0.55% +0.71%
PI STA. 1210+00.00

+1.35%

-1.60

% +0.50% (+) 0.615%

(-) 1.005%
-0.97%

0% (+) 2.2
PI (1254+00)
+0.50%

+0.50%

-0.51% -0.51%
PI STA. 1268+40.00

+1.81 +1.81 %

+0.50%

+1.30%

-0.55% -0.55%

+2.0 +2.0

0% +0.52%

% (+) 1.50
PI (1299+00)

(-) 0.80%

(+)

+1.50
-3.0 0%

-0.50% -0.50%

0%

PI STA. 1329+00.00 431.38 EL. 413.63 400.00 V.C.

PI STA. 1344+00.00

-2.1

7%
PI STA. 1309+20.00

PI STA. 1361+50.00

+1.30%
PI (1325+00) PI (1316+00) EL. 403.80 530.00 PI (1310+00) V.C. 409.78

+1.50

+3

.00

-4

.0

428.95

-0.50% -3 .0

END 3C2S STA. 1400+00.00, EL = 403.30 MATCH EX. PVMT. 0%

I-45 BRIDGE

+3

.00

-4

.0

U.S. 75
0%

450

BRIDGE

0%

+1.51%

400

PI STA. 1249+00.00

EL. 404.17 PI (1269+00) 370.00 V.C.

EL. 400.45 (1249+00) PI 230.00 V.C. 404.82 400.96

PI (1285+00)

EL. 420.58 130.00 V.C. 405.72 PI (1290+50) 420.72

PI STA. 1382+00

PI STA. 1220+00

PI STA. 1230+00

PI STA. 1399+00

PI STA. 1290+00

KING BRIDGE EL. 427.60 350.00 V.C.

EL. 411.27 300.00 V.C.

EL. 406.30 650.00 V.C.

EL. 410.22 200.00 V.C.

EL. 410.03 320.00 V.C.

EL. 453.55 150.00 V.C.

RAILROAD

EL. 404.80 750.00 V.C.

EL. 439.80 150.00 V.C.

EXISTING GROUND

PACIFIC

EL. 410.30 500.00 V.C.

RAILROAD

SOUTHERN

PI STA. 1415+00

PACIFIC

STREET

PI STA. 1440+00

MARTIN LUTHER

UNION

LAMAR

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

E5 E - -I-45 E - I-45 I-45 I-45 - I-45 E E 1325 4 I-45 5 E I-45I-45 E I-45 I-45 E - - - E 1325 1205 - E- E E I-45 I-45 I-45 E I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1200 E 1325 1205 1210 I-45 1205 1325 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1325 1205 1210 1215 1325 1325 1325 1325 1325 1210 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1205 1210 1215 1220 1325 1325 1325 1325 1215 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1210 1215 1220 1225 1325 1325 1325 1325 1220 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1215 1220 1225 1230 1325 1325 1325 1325 1225 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1220 1225 1230 1235 1325 1325 1325 1230 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1225 1230 1235 1240 1325 1325 1235 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1230 1235 1240 1245 1325 1240 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1235 1240 1245I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1245 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1240 1245 1250 1255 1245 1250 1250 1245 1250 1255 1260 1255 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1250 1255 1260 1265 1260 I-45 I-45 1265 1270 1255 1260 I-45 I-45 1265 I-45 1265 I-45 I-4512751280 12851285 1290I-45 I-45 I-45 1310 1260 I-45 1270 1275 1265 1265 1270 I-45 1270 1275 I-451280 I-45 I-45 12001200 I-45 I-45 1310 1320 1265 I-45 I-45 1280I-45I-45 1290I-451200 1300 1265 1270 1275 1275I-45I-45 I-45 1270 1275 1270 I-45 I-45 1280 1275 I-45 1285 I-45 1280 1285 1290 1285 1285 1280 1285 1290 E 1300 1305 I-45 1285 1290 I-45 I-45 I-45 1300 1305 1310 1295 1290 1200 I-45 I-45 1310 1290E 1300 1305 1310 I-45 1300 1305 I-45 E 1300 1305 1310 1300 I-45 1305 E I-45 1310 1300 1305 I-45 1300 I-45 1315 1305 1305

1325

1330 1330 1330 I-45 1330 I-45 1330 1330 1340 1330 I-45 1335 1330 1330 I-45

1345

1350

1500 1500 I-45 I-45 1505 1500 I-45 I-45 1505 I-45 1500 I-45 1510 1505 I-45 I-45 1510 1515 1500 1505 I-45 I-45 1510 I-45 1510 1515 1520 1505 I-45 I-45 1515 I-45 1510 1515 1520 1525 1520 1515 1520 1525 1530 1525 1520 1525 1530 1535 1530 1525 1530 1535 1540 1535 1530 1535 1540 1545 1540 1535 1540 1545 1550 1545 1540 1545 1550 15551555 1560 1565 1550 1545 1550 1555 1560 1555 1550 1555 1560 1560 1565 1570 1565 1560 1565 1570 15751575 15801585 1570 1565 1570 1575 1580 1585 21 1575 1570 1575 1585 158521 1580 1585 1585 1585 1585 1585 1585 1585 1580550 15851590 1600 1595 1600 1605 1610 2 1595 21 21 15851595 21 1585 1600 21 2 1585 2 1585 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

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

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

2-31

FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGE-

415.53 439.03

413.84 422.08

425.26

416.50 405.83

416.40 426.83

448.20 432.99

408.92

424.80

445.42

409.55

404.82 400.86

El 450.00

EL. 436.30 400.00 V.C.

EL. 415.30 320.00 V.C.

427.45

419.50 407.80

430.77

405.90 404.94

409.97

412.35

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

419.90

415.79

426.95 417.64

411.15 431.18

410.32 410.71

429.71 415.81

414.15 414.41

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

42 41 0 0

TRINITY
WS

392

RIVER

400

.6 393

1 LANE

390

40

40

42

.8

WS

TRAIL

DESIGN REFINEMENTS
41

40

400

400

42 0 0

R VE RI Y IT IN TR

400

WS 394

WS

400

390
39
TRINIT Y RIVER

.9

.3

393

40

39 40 00

1300
390

400

1 LANE
420
410

.6

400

40

41

IN

DU

ST

RIA

P P P P P

400

PROFILE LEGEND:
3.5
P

16

20

4 1

4 1

20

0 40 400
?

0 41

43

0
? ?

32
K PAR

DALLAS

10 PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT 8 8 1

2 MIN. 1 2 MIN. 1

.H

VD
P

112

VARIES (95 USUAL)

TOE OF PROPOSED EMBANKMENT

43 0

16

BL

P P

12

20

10

24 (**)

12(*)

22

12(*)

24 (**)

10

DRAINAGE SWALE

NT

400
P

P P

C.L. EXISTING LEVEE

112

12

20

VARIES

20

RO

PROPOSED R.O.W.
43 0

PROPOSED R.O.W.
10

C.L. ROADWAY 24 (**) 12(*)

U S

PROPOSED R.O.W.

FW

VARIES

PROP. R.O.W. 24 (**) 10 VARIES

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

COMBINED PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 3C-COMBINED PARKWAY EAST LEVEEEAST LEVEE (MODIFIED)

PLATE 2-4 B

420

41 0

17

0 40
0 40 0 41

42 0

41 0

12(*)

3 MIN. 2

1
P

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) NORTHBOUND BASE LINE

2.%
EXISTING LEVEE

2.% 2.%

0 41 0 42
P

9-6 P

400

LA

NE
40

420 410

0
P P P YGR D OUN

NOTES:
P

CONVENTION 120 CENTER

P

FLOODWAY BOTTOM SOUTHBOUND BASE LINE

125

250

500

750

1000

1500

PROPOSED FLOOD 120 SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES

P

120

120 NORTHBOUND BASE LINE SOUTHBOUND BASE LINE FLOOD SEPERATION WALL
? ? ? ? ? ? ?

SCALE IN FEET SCALE: 1" = 500

0 42
0 42 0 41
P P

1. FLOOD ELEVATIONS, LEVEE HEIGHTS AND SLOPES VARY. THOSE USED IN THIS SECTION ARE TYPICAL.
P
?

43
P

100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL

? ? ?

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 3C

CONTINENTAL TO DART RAIL RIVER SIDE OF EAST LEVEE

410

? ?

2. MODIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING LEVEES TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS.

P P P
? ?

TYPICAL SECTIONS
ALONG FLOODWAY HAMPTON - INWOOD RD TO DART RAIL
P

OUN YGR PLA

?

P
?

NOTES:
?

? ? ? ? ? ? ?
?

? ? ?

420

P
?

??

(**) 2 MAIN LANES EACH WAY (INITIAL PHASE) (*) 3 MAIN LANES EACH WAY (FINAL PHASE)
440
LD IC LET FIE P

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 3C

?

P
? ? ?

D OUN YGR PLA P

? ? ?

? ? ? ?

CONTINENTAL TO DART RAIL RIVER SIDE OF EAST LEVEE @ EXISTING BRIDGE

P
?

? ? ?

? ?

P
? ?

P
? ? ?

? ? ?

P
?

0 41 0 42

P P

SPF WATER LEVEL

?

420
?

P
? ? ? ? ? ?

? ?

(**) 2 MAIN LANES EACH WAY (INITIAL PHASE) (*) 3 MAIN LANES EACH WAY (FINAL PHASE)
? ?

0 42 0 43

? ?

43
? ? ?

0
P
?

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ?

440

? ?

P
? ? ?

P P

440
? ?

?
?

? ?

400

2
0 41

U/C
?

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

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 P
? ? ? ? ? ?

0 43 0 42

P
?

P P
? ?

P P

440
P P P P P

430

44

JU
?

44

0
? ?

CE
? ? ? ?

43

44 0

45
? ? ? ?

NT

US
?

? ? ?

RA

-75
?

? ? ? ? ?

42 0

P
? ? ? ? ? ?

P
? ?

42 0
0 41

0 41

? ? ?

? ?

LE

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

PROPOSED R.O.W.
P P

PROPOSED R.O.W.

P P

P P P P

430

430
430
? ? ?

P P

D
?

OUN

SC
P
?

XP
?

? ?

Y.
?

OOL H SCH
? ?

41 0

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

HIG ON MPS THO

OUN YGR P PLA RTS P P D P P

P
? ?

LAM
?

420

420

P P

H
P
?

78 24 4 12 10 10 12 4 24

78 10 21

41 0

AN

E*
42 0
0 41

EU

IO

B
?

LV

.
41 0
41 0

42 0

AR

BAL KET BAS RT COU

EP

P
? ? ? ?

43

0
? ?

P
?

L BAL KET BAS P

COU

21
P P

42

0
P

ST

? ?

P
? ?

P
?

PS

P P

10
P P

? ?

? ?

? ?

44

41 0

? ?

? ?

P P

420

P
?

410

FW

P
? ?

? ?

40 0

D OUN YGR PLA

? ? ? ? ?

P
?

P P LD
?

41 0

41 0 40
0 41

??

410
P P

440
? ? ?

Y
P

P P

IC
? ?

FIE P P

LET ATH

"PROJECT PEGASU S" AND "HORSESHOE PRO JECT" CANYON -MIXMASTER IMPROVEMENTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT BY TxDOT
?

P A ARE U/C

410
P

.
?

? ? ?

P
?

P
? ? ? ? ?

P
?

2.0%

2.0%

41 0

? ? ?

43

0
P P

P P
? ? ?

? ?

P
?

41 0

410

41

0
?

43

? ? ? ? ? ?

P
? ?

42

P N TIO SUB

0
?

40 0

430

P
? ? ?

P
?

420

430

? ? ?

HEIGHT VARIES

P P

P D OUN
?

42
? ? ? ?

P
? ?

0
? ? ? ?

P P

NIO

REU

40

YGR PLA

420
P P P

P
?

410
? ? ? ?

P P P

400

? ?

410
? ? ?

400

POND

410

400

400 0 41

410
? ? ? ? ?

? ?

410

3
?

? ? ? ? ?

42

P P P
? ?

410
P
?

? ? ?

? ?

P
? ?

400

-6

39 0

410

410
9-4

400

ED1

400

410 410

410 410

LAMA
P
?

40

400 400

410 400

410

410

400
400

0
?

R ST.
410

P
?

P
?

410

P
?

TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

P
? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ?

P P

P
? ?

3
39

? ? ?

39
TR

0
40 0
0
0

410
?

P P

P P

41
42

39

410

41 40 0 40 0 0

3L

* ANE
?

1 LANE

P P
? ? ?

? ? ? ?

ELEVATED COMBINED ROADWAY MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. TO I.H. 45

?

P P

? ?

? ? ? ?

? ? ?

STA SUB

PROPOSED RAMPS BY OTHERS

41

0
? ? ?

PROPOSED R.O.W.
? ?

PROPOSED R.O.W.
L

? ? ?

P
?

? ? ?

1 LA

80 10
? ?

80 24 12 4 1 10 10 12 4 1 24 10 23

? ?

P
?

? ? ?

23
?

? ?

? ? ?

? ?

1L

E AN
400

41 0
?

A ARE

U/C

BE
P

400

P
?

0 41

2.%

2.%

CK

40 0

410
40 0
TR AIL

POND

WE 394

.0

LE
P

400
TRIN ITY RIVE R

40

SEE PROPOSED
40
39 40 0 0

42 41 0 40 0 0

NE*
390

390

41

.0

3L

A
40

* NE

WE 4.3 39 POND

400

400
D

400
WE .6

POND

WE 395

PON
.4 WE 395 .4

0 41
?

40

390

400
400
41

TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

AT GRADE WITHOUT SERVICE ROADS I.H. 45 TO LAMAR BLVD. PROPOSED R.O.W.

41 0

AV

POND WE 392

WE 389

410
400
TR
POND WE 393 .5

.3

400
?

E.

390

400

POND

390

39
WS 393 WE 391 .6

390

390

400

400

400

400

400

WS

.8

0 400

SEE PROPOSED
40 0

PROPOSED R.O.W.

POND

VARIES (138 TYPICAL) C.L. ROADWAY VARIES 10 10 10

VARIES (153 TYPICAL)

39 0

21

40

10

VARIES

40

21

BU

ER LD RM FIE FO TT E RN
43 0

42

43 0

42 0

41 0

46 0

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
NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

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

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

1/4/2012

3:40:29 PM

ah2003 TXDOT

i:\17000s\17826\CADD\V7 to V8 UPGRADE\826-LSS-LTSEC-3C.dgn

2-32

43
P
KNIG HTS

0
P P

460 450 440

40 0

410
P A U/C P ARE

41

430
P P P

40 0
P P P P P P P P P P P P P

P A ARE U/C P P

40

410
P

410
P

39

39 0

P P P P P P P TEN P

P P P RT

410

40 0

P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

NIS

40 0

COU

CHA

I-3
ENGINEERS . ARCHITECTS . SCIENTISTS . PLANNERS . SURVEYORS

41

P P

(OLD

41

0
P

410 420

PROPOSED R.O.W. PROPOSED R.O.W.

41
P

0
P

ER NIT

400

FOR ELM

410

N
41
P P P P P P P

410

P P P

112

400

112
P

400

4 12 16
P

20
P P P P

56
P

10
P

36
P

10

400

10

36

10
P

VARIES
10

10
P

VARIES
TLE TUR

CRE

TOE OF PROPOSED TOE OF PROPOSED EMBANKMENT EMBANKMENT

P

40 0

390

12

20

91

40 0

5E

400

Y
P

RIV
D (OL ER Y NIT TRI RIV CHA

EL) NN
AD LRO RAI IFIC PAC ION UN

TRI
ELM FORK

C.L. EXISTING LEVEE C.L. EXISTING LEVEE

20 DRAINAGE 20 SWALE DRAINAGE SWALE VARIES VARIES

410 420

PROPOSED R.O.W. PROPOSED R.O.W.

RTS COU NIS TEN P

PROPOSED R.O.W.

NNE L)

PLATE 2-5 A
P P

C.L. EXISTING LEVEE 112

P P

12
410

20

P P P

EK

NNE D (OL ER Y NIT K FOR ELM

P

P P

CHA

RIV

4
P P

KNIGHTS BRANCH

TRI

400
P

1 3.5
P

4 1 3.5 1

10

TURT

L)

LE

STANDARD PROJECT STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD ELEV. +3 FLOOD ELEV. +2 3

P P

P P P

10

CREE

PROPOSED EMBANKMENT
IL

P P P

TRA

ALTERNATIVE 4BSTANDARD PROJECT FLOOD ELEV. +2

400
P P P P P P

400

4
P

TRA

4 1

IL

42 0

IL
TRAIL

P P

P P P

41 0

TRI NIT CHA Y NNEL )

S" GASU CT PE Y.) "PROJE ONS FW TEMM I-35E (S EMENTS IMPROV PMENT DEVELO UNDER T BY TxDO

(OLD

FORK

UN

40 0

P P P

INI TY

39

RIV

NE
40 0

D OA ILR RA IFIC PAC ION P

CH AN NE

400 390

ELM

39

TR

400
41 0 42 0
40
410
OUN YGR PLA

0 39 0 40

410

0 40 0 39

420

41

0
0
P P

39

42

0 40

2 LANE
420

400

0 40 0 39

410

JOHN W
P

0 40 0 39 0 39 0 40 0 41

0 39 0 40

. CARPEN
P P

0 40 0 39

TER FW

Y.
P P P

2 LANE
P

410

420
41 0

0 42 0 42 0 41 0 40 0 40

TRA IL

ST
0

P P POND P P P P P

TURT LE

EM

MO

390
400

390 0 39 400

W SF

P P

(OL

40

P P

400

0
P

EXISTING LEVEE LEVEE EXISTING

P

21

P P

PROPOSED EMBANKMENT
P P

390

SH 183

RIV ER

0 40

I-3

5E

(OLD RIVER TRINITY

CHANN

P P
L)

P P NIS P COU P TEN

400

LA

42 0 41 0

0 42 0 41

390
P

32

P P

P P RTS

39 0 400

E
0 40

0 41
P

400

32

8
P

8
P

2.0%

TRAIL

40 0 39 0

AN

3
40 0
EL)

3.5
P P

400

41

40

2L

TRA

3.5

2.0%

P P P

100 YR FLOOD ELEV.

P

IL TRA

100 YR FLOOD ELEV.

P

ER

Y.

390

400

20

BASE LINE BASE LINE

P P

4
RTS

1
P

SPLIT PARKWAY-RIVERSIDE
3
41
P P

3.5 8 1

32

3.5

41 42 0 43 0 0

COU NIS TEN

P P P P

FLOODWAY BOTTOM FLOODWAY BOTTOM

P P P P P P P P P

P P

P P
CREE K

P P

P P P P

P P P

39

P P

40

MODIFIED (NORTH)
P P P P P

40

EXISTING LEVEE
42

43
P

40

0 42

41 0 0
K TAN

41 0

P P

120
P P

120

400 390
TRIN ITY RIVE R (OLD CHA
P

P P P P P P P

120
NNEL )
P P

120
P

P P

410
6450

42

0
P

NOTES: NOTES:
P P

390
400
P

41

P P P P P P P P

400

420

410

400

500

1000

1700

2500

3000
P P

P P P P P P P P

L) NNE CHA
ELM FORK

0 42 0 41

TRI NIT Y RIV ER

()OLD CHAN NEL)

TRAIL

41

1000
P P

(OLD
TRINITY RIVER

IL

P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

P P P P IFIC PAC P ION UN OA ILR RA IFIC PAC ION P UN P D RA ILR D OA

P P P

P P

P P P P

1L
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

39

40

P P P P P P P P P

40
P

40

41

P P
L) NE

400

390

390

AN

P P P P P P P P

400

CH

41
P P D OA ILR RA P PAC P ION UN IFIC

0
0

TH

(OL

42

1L
P

41

0
P P

AN

P P P

TYPICAL SECTIONS
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

400

39

0
P

P P

BL ALONG FLOODWAY ING IRV HAMPTON - INWOOD RD TO DART RAIL

390
P

TRA

400

SCALE IN FEET

P P

400

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.
400

TYPICAL SECTIONS
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

120
P P P

40 0

120

P P 5 9-1

NOTES:
P P P

P P P

39

390

390

400
P

P P

P P

RD
P

390 400

TYPICAL SECTIONS
P

ALONG FLOODWAY
P P P P P P P P

P P

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.
P P P

400

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 4

P

RIVER SIDE OF LEVEE @ EXISTING BRIDGE

P P P

400 390

P P

40

VD
P

41 0

P P

P P P P

400

40
P P P P P P P P P

420

40

0 41

0 40

41 0

0 40

400

0 40 0 41

P P

410

RIVE R

E
6451

EAL

TRIN ITY

P P

410

42

3
POND
D PON

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

400

400

400

400
410

D OA ILR RA

410

420
I-13 ED

MAIN LANE TOLL GANTRY

TRAIL
TRAIL

400

FORK

420

IFIC PAC ION UN

PROPOSED R.O.W.
PROPOSED R.O.W.

PROPOSED R.O.W. 81
L

COM MO NW

430
430

WEST

P P

430 430 420

NORTHBOUND MAIN LANES

400
TRAIL

410

420
ED1

430-12

410

430 420

-9 ED1

400

TRAIL

400
410

VE

TRAIL

40

40 0 40 0 41
0 41

420
P

410
TRAIL

TRAIL

410

9-2

P P

FIE CER SOC

420
P

LA

400

90

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

21 48

56 36 10

13

13 10

P P P P P P P

TRA IL

36

IL

42
TRA

D PON

CO N

AUX.

2.0%
2.0%

2.0%
2.0%

AUX.

WE
P P P D OA ILR P P PAC ION UN P IFIC RA

.5

1050

TRA

TIN

10

48 56

21

10

1 LANE
394

3L

ANE

400
400

400
P P

400

EN

10

10

10

10

IR

TRAIL

VI

AN

ED 43 0 43 0 42 0 41

1-1

400

400

TA

21

68

68 90

21

NG

3L

400

0 41 0 42

400

13

13

BL

0 39

40

390

TRAI L

WE

.5

40 0

VD

TRAI

LD

40

81

400

1100

TRAIL

3 ALONG FLOODWAY 1 LANE 1 LANE HAMPTON - INWOOD RD TO3 LANE DART RAIL
P P P P P P

VE RF NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAYRO AUTHORITY 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

RI

42 0

41 0

400

400

TRAIL

410

420

410

410

-11

420

ED1

430 430

420

420

430 430

410

420

420

410

410

PROPOSED R.O.W.

.
P

410

40

0
L

400

1150

0 40 400
41
40 0
P

P P P P

0 40

420

41

0
0 42
0 42 0 41
P P

M OC KI NG BI RD

410

40

410
TRAIL

P P

NE 1 LA

400

40

0
P

3L E AN

C WY

40 0
400

TRAI L
P

40

400
P

400

41

F\ LIF

WE 39

7.9

0 40

IL

40

0
P

42
41 0

40

TRINITY PARKWAY EIS

40

0
TRAIL

39

0
P

400

40

410
TRAIL

400

400 400

-8 ED1

P P P

400
POND

1L

E AN

N\ TO MP HA

LN

L SY

DALLAS , TEXAS

400
TRAIL

400
TRINITY RIVER

.
P

IL TRA
P P P

HEIGHT VARIES

HEIGHT HEIGHT VARIES VARIES

TRINITY RIVER

P P

TRINITY RIVER

TRINITY RIVER
TRAIL

40
UPPER TRINIT Y RIVER

40
0

WS .0 395

0
P P P P

400

40

0 39
0

TRINITY RIVER

40

40

400

TRAIL

40

40

41
42 0

400

D OA ILR RA

39

TRAIL
ER Y NIT TRI RIV

40
IFIC PAC

0
0

41 0

41
400

41

P P

400

ION UN

0 42 0 43

ED

1-1

5A

400
IL TRA IL TRA

42
41 0

0
0 41

43

0
0

40

0 40
400

0
42

42
P

40

0
400 410
TRA IL

42 41 0 0

3L

400

0 41 0 42

V VA A NA

AN

TR AIL

VE

R OD WO INW

41

0
P P P

40

400

40

400
400
0 40

MATCH LINE
400
UP

TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

ELEVATED COMBINED ROADWAY

400

P P

40

400

TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

40 0

40

TRAIL

P P P P

0
0

RO OP. DG WO EX ER OD A TE S NS FW LL IO Y. N

TRAIL

400

40

IL TRA

39
P P P OA ILR P IFIC PAC ION UN RA D

0
0
0

3
400

400
POND

WE POND 397

40

ELEVATED COMBINED PARKWAY

TRAIL

40

MAIN LANE TOLL GANTRY

TRAIL

SOUTHBOUND MAIN LANES

400

42 0

40

400

1L
0
TRA IL

400

39

. .

POND WE

AN

.9 399

41

0
-7 ED1

43

40

LEW STERRETT JUSTICE CENTER

P P

50 10

3 LANE
TRAIL

WE 397

.2 POND

.2

12

1150
TRAIL TRAIL
TRAIL

400
POND WE .9 397

00

42

41

400

D.

410
TRA IL

WE

39

40

41

42

0
0

420

43

PROPOSED R.O.W.
PROPOSED R.O.W. PROPOSED R.O.W. 98 56 36
P P P

43

0
0

410 420
430
DW9

DW8

430 430
420 410

1 LANE
4 9-1

430 430 420

410

DW7

420

420

410
P

42

410

41

TRAIL

430
420

400

400
390

400
390 400 410

400

390

410
ER

410

102 68

NIT TRI

40

420

40

IL TRA

410

400 410

410

PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES

TRAIL

400

400

.5

WE .5

397

430

POND

41

397

42

P P

41

40

40

400

10

21

390 390

40

400

42

0
0
0 43 0 42 0 41

41

41

400

410

41

42

PUM

41

40

0
P

41
0

410

40
41

IL TRA

420

40

410

41

KET BAS PLA

YGR

41

41

OUN

41

41

HEIGHT

0
P

410

41

BAL

0 40 0 41

41

39

PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS)

P P P

41
P

RT

COU D

410
P

1L

BAL

410

420

40

41

P WE 7.9

420

ER

STA

TR

SF

-12

IL

TRA

S KER BIC

PAR LD L FIE

TIO

1 LA

400

2.0%

43

PLA BAL

AUX. 2.0%

PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS NE

0 42 0 43 0 43

NE

AN

P RT L BAL KET BAS COU P

42

40

0 DW1 OUN YGR D LD L FIE

410

ST

410

48 10

10
10

21

0 41

40

39

39

3L

3L

E PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES AN

P

A 1L

NE
TRA

41
P

400

400
410
P

IL

P P P

1L
41 0

NE
40 0

WE .6 395
POND

400

42

AN

40 40 0 0

13

21

400

41

42

123 0LA 0

40

RIV

420 430

CANADA DR.
400

POND

WE

400 410

40
DW5

PR

POND WE .4 397

40

40

HEIGHT VARIES VARIES

NO.

40

0
0
0 40
IL TRA

PE

42

410

41

WE .5 397 WE .6 401

IC LET ATH

FIE

40

LD

P P

41

PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION

P

41

40

P P

41

TRI

KET

BAS

TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

FILE

40
410

ER

YGR

41

Y NIT

RIV

PLA

RT

ELEVATED SEPARATED ROADWAY

41

TR

IN

TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

IL

IT

41

41

41

E IV

TRAIL

41

0
0

P P

41

43

410

0 42 0 43

410
LD

41

40
L TRAI

0 40 0 41

LD IC LET FIE

LD

40

OUN

40

41 42 0 43 0 43 0 42 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

BAL

YGR

PLA

RT

PLA

42

COU

OUN

YGR

P P

PLA

41

RT

YGR

FIE

OUN

OUN

BAL

YGR PLA

NIS TEN RT COU

IF

ELEVATED SEPARATED ROADWAY

40

ATH

IO

TYPICAL SECTIONS
NOTES

D OUN YGR PLA P P P P

(LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) R LE RY TA NPROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL H RR Y RK RT ME CA AR LE PROPOSED NO N PA RETAINING WALL NT E O ME PT LE E M DIAPHRAGM WALL HA
0
P

G IN

41

42

BAL

FIE

T LE
P

ON
P

410

BL

VD
P

.
P P

41

42

TR

0 43

P P

DW4

IN

IT

RI

0 41
TRS 0 F-1

VE

POND

40

WE .7 395

420

1100

400
TRAIL

410

TRAIL

410

420

1 LANE

410

420

410

.4 396 WE .4 397 POND

420

420

430
430
DW6

400
40

420

42 0
0 41

40 0

41 0

410

41

41

OUN

RT

ATH

BAL

NIC

BAL

KET

PIC

RT L D OUN COU

KET

BAS

BAS

LD

YGR

FIE

PLA

RT

41

41

COU

BAL

PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES

410

BAL KET BAS

40

BAL

KET

BAS

OUN

YGR

PLA

EL
D OUN YGR PLA P

VA RY ZA A DE ENT EM
P P

IC

M OC KI NG BI RD LN /W ES TM

PO

40

POND

410

SHIFT LEVEE WEST

41 0

0 41

40 0
40 0
TR INI TY RIV ER

40 0
P

41 0
42 0

TY
D

41 0

LA

COU

COU

BAL

P P

0 42

400

BAL

KET

42 0
41 0
P

BE

BAS

LD

IC

FIE

LET

PLAN LEGEND:

LA

P P

41

0 42 0 41
P

C CK
P

41 0

LE

0 42 0 41 0 41

AD RO

P P

IL RA FIC
P

BAS

IC LET ATH

410

TYPICAL SECTIONS I-35E TO FLOODWAY

N I.H.

P P RT

41

410
TEN D P YGR PLA D OUN YGR PLA KET BAL P FIE L COU LD RT P OUN P

COU NIS

410

17826

PROPOSED RAMP
P

CI

PA N IO UN

41

P P P

IL TRA

BECKLEY AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY CITY OF DALLAS

P P P P P P P P

400

40

40

41 42 0 0

Y A AV

40

42 41 0 40 0 0

E.

39 40 0 0

40
P

0
41

0
BAS P

BAL KET P P P PLA D OUN YGR PLA P P RT OUN YGR D

41

P P

41

O OR E EL

P P P

DW3

RT L COU

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS

H: 1"=500

35E TO FLOOD WAY

NOTE: ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.

P L

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

V: 1"=50

SCALE

0 40 0 40
0 41 0 42 0 43
0 43 0 42
) NEL AN

PROFILE LEGEND:
BAL D KET OUN BAS YGR PLA RT L COU BAL KET P BAS BAL KET P RT L
CH

COU

3
P

41

NUMBER OF GENERAL PURPOSE LANES ALONG INDICATED MAIN LANE DIRECTION

P

P P

40
41 42 0 0

P P P

(OL

ER

RIV

NIT

TRI

FOR

ST

AN D RD . .
F-11 TRS

410

40 0

0
P P P

0 42

39 0
42 41 0 0
0 42 0 41

P P

39 0

RT L COU

BAS

PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION

P P P

P P

40 0

COU

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

BAL KET BAS P

41

0
0

40

40

P L BAL P P
WE

RT COU

PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT

P

0 42

400

P P BAS

KET D OUN YGR PLA

AUGUST

DATE

2008

P P

PARK ACCESS ROUTES:

41

410
P

410
P P L BAL KET BAS P COU P RT

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

P

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:

41
P

0
L BAL KET BAS

400

400

41

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
P

L BAL KET BAS

BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BRIDGE (BY NTTA)

P P

P P

T. LE

DRAWN

L BAL KET BAS

410

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES

P

P P

P P

100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL

P P

POSSIBLE VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**)

42
0 43 0

400

40
40

410

41

420

41

0
0 42 0 43 0 44 0 45

41

SPF WATER LEVEL EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING

POSSIBLE BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**)

460

P P

410

P P P P P

(**) - SUBJECT TO PARK PLANNING & FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

410

P P P

STA. 1000+42.91, EL = 456.00 MATCH EXIST BRIDGE

END 4BN STA. 1047+16.49, EL = 462.92 MATCH 4BNB, STA. 1047+16.49 OFFSET 24.50 LT

BEGIN 4BNB STA. 1047+16.49, EL = 461.82 MATCH 4BN, STA. 1047+16.49 OFFSET 24.50 RT

550
PI STA. 1003.00

PI STA. 1056+65.00

NORTHBOUND MAIN LANE PROFILE

500

BEGIN 3C2N

PROFILE LEGEND:
800.00 V.C. EL. 485.53

PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT

PROPOSED PI STA. 1086+50.00 PI STA. 1096+50.00 PI STA. 1134+50.00 PI STA. 1154+50.00 PI STA. 1106+50.00 PI STA. 1144+50.00 PI STA. 1164+50.00 PI STA. 1116+50.00 PI STA. 1174+50.00 WOODALL RODGERS FREEWAY BRIDGES

500.00 V.C.

EL. 456.00

PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

EL. 428.50 230.00 V.C. EL. 428.50 160.00 V.C.

461.82

EL. 431.00 160.00 V.C.

MAIN LANE

+2.

100 YR FLOOD WATER LEVEL

220.00 V.C.

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES

SYLVAN BRIDGE

EL. 431.00

PROPOSED NORTHBOUND

50%

8%

EL. 431.00 160.00 V.C.

EL. 431.00 160.00 V.C.

ALT. PROFILE

PI STA. 1192.00

EL. 428.50 160.00 V.C.

-2.5

420.00 V.C.

EL. 431.00 270.00 V.C.

160.00 V.C.

EL. 428.50

+0.00%

-3.2

EL. 415.00

CONTINENTAL BRIDGE

UPRR BRIDGE

450

5% -3.2

100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL

+0.50% -0.94% -0.50% +0.50%

5%

HAMPTON

-0.50% -0.50% +2.50

BRIDGE

-2.5

+0.50%

-0.50%

+0.50% -0.50%

+0.50% -0.50%

8%

+0.50%

-0.50% +0.50%

-0.50% +0.50%

SPF WATER LEVEL

426.75 PI STA. 1111+50.00

+1.22%

-0.50%

+0.50% -0.50% -0.50%

+0.50% -0.50% +0.50%

+0.50% -0.50%

+0.50% -2.11%

-0.50% +0.50%

-0.50% +0.50%

-0.50% +0.50%

-0.94% +1.22%

+0.50% -0.83%

-2.11
PI STA. 1139+50.00 PI STA. 1149+50.00 PI STA. 1159+50.00

DRAFT 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

400
426.75 PI STA. 1091+50.00 PI STA. 1009.00 PI STA. 1032.00 PI STA. 1080.00

+0.50%

-0.83%

PI STA. 1125+50.00

PI STA. 1169+50.00

PI STA. 1184.00

ELE. 436.50

420.00 V.C.

450.00 V.C.

EL. 426.00 160.00 V.C.

500.00 V.C.

EL. 426.00 160.00 V.C.

EL. 420.00 340.00 V.C.

160.00 V.C.

EL. 428.50 160.00 V.C.

160.00 V.C.

EL. 428.50

350
449.42

433.50

432.50

430.52

425.50

426.03

420.93

428.50

430.72

430.72

430.72

436.40

463.98

445.00

420.00 V.C.

EL. 425.00

160.00 V.C.

EL. 426.00

EL. 428.50 160.00 V.C.

EL. 425.25

EL. 428.50

EL. 411.00

100

105

110

115

120

125

130 130135140145 130135140145 150 130135140 130135140 145 150 155 135 140 145 145 150 155 150 150 155 155 155 160

1000 1000LEY1000LEY AVE.. 1005LEY 1005LEY 1010LEY1010LEY AVE.. 1015LEY 1015LEY 1020LEY1020LEY AVE.. 1025LEY 1025LEY 1030LEY1030LEY AVE.. 1035LEY AVE.. 1040LEY AVE..1040LEY1045LEY1045LEY AVE..1050LEY AVE..1055LEY 1060 AVE.. 1060LEY AVE.. 1065LEY1070LEY1070LEY 1075LEY AVE..AVE..1085 AVE.. 1085LEY 1090LEY1090LEY 1030LEY 1030LEY 1100LEY1100LEY AVE.. 1105LEY1110 . 1110LEY1110LEY AVE.. 1115LEY1120 1120LEY1120LEY AVE.. 1125LEY1130 1130LEY1130LEY AVE.. 1135LEY1140 1140LEY AVE..AVE.AVE.1145LEY AVE.. 1145LEY AVE..AVE.AVE.. 1155 AVE..1155LEY1155LEY AVE.. 1160LEY AVE.. 1165LEY1165LEY AVE..1170LEY1170LEY1175LEY1175LEY AVE.. 1180LEY1180LEY1185LEY1185LEY AVE.. 1190LEY1190LEY1195LEY1195LEY AVE.. 1095LEY AVE..1205LEY AVE..1211 1000LEY 1000LEY AVE. 1005LEY1005LEY1010LEY 1010LEY AVE. 1015LEY1015LEY1020LEY 1020LEY AVE. 1025LEY1025LEY1030LEY1030LEY AVE. 1035LEY1035LEY AVE.. AVE.1040LEY1045LEY 1045LEY AVE.1050LEY AVE.1055LEY AVE.. AVE. 1060LEY 1065LEY AVE.. 1070LEY 1070LEY1075LEY AVE.1080LEY AVE.. 1085LEY AVE..1090LEY AVE..1030LEY1030LEY1100LEY 1100LEY AVE. 1105LEY1105LEYAVE.. 1110LEY1115 1115LEY1115LEY AVE.. 1120LEY1125 1125LEY1125LEY AVE.. 1130LEY1135 1135LEY1135LEY AVE.. 1140LEY1145 AVE.. 1150LEYAVE..1145LEYAVE.. AVE.1155LEY AVE.. 1160LEY1160LEY AVE. 1165LEY AVE.. AVE.1170LEY1175 1175LEY1175LEY AVE. 1180LEY1185 1185LEY1185LEY AVE. 1190LEY1190LEY1195LEY1195LEY AVE. 1095LEY AVE.1205LEY AVE.121 1000LEY 1000LEY 1005LEY1005LEY AVE.. 1010LEY1015 1015LEY1015LEY AVE.. 1020LEY 1020LEY 1025LEY1025LEY AVE.. 1030LEY1030LEY1035LEY1035LEY AVE.. 1040LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE..1050LEY AVE.. AVE..1055LEY AVE.. AVE..1065 1065LEY1070 AVE..1070LEY 1075LEY1075LEY 1080LEY AVE. 1085LEY AVE.1090LEY AVE. AVE..AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1000LEY1000LEY1005LEY 1005LEY AVE. 1010LEY1010LEY 1015LEY 1015LEY AVE. 1020LEY1020LEY1025LEY 1025LEY AVE. 1030LEY1030LEY1035LEY1035LEY AVE. 1040LEY AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE.1050LEY AVE. AVE.1055LEY AVE. 1060LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1065LEY 1070LEY AVE.. AVE..1075LEY AVE. AVE.. 1085LEY1085LEY AVE..1090LEY AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE.. AVE. 1005 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1010 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1010LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1020 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1025 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1030 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1035 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1040 AVE. 1040LEY AVE.. 1045LEY 1035LEY AVE. 1045 AVE. 1045LEY 1050 AVE..1050LEY 1045LEY AVE.1050LEY 1045LEY 1055 1050LEY AVE. 1055LEY 1060LEY AVE. 1065LEY AVE.. 1070LEY AVE. AVE. AVE.1080LEY 1080LEY AVE.. AVE..1090LEY AVE.1030LEY 1030LEY AVE. 1100LEY1100LEY 1105LEY 1105LEY AVE. 1110LEY 1110LEY AVE. 1115LEY1115LEY 1120LEY 1120LEY AVE. 1125LEY1125LEY 1130LEY 1130LEY AVE. 1135LEY1135LEY AVE.. AVE.1140LEY AVE. 1150LEY AVE.. AVE..1145LEY 1155LEY AVE.. AVE. 1160LEY AVE.. 1050LEY AVE.. AVE. 1060LEY AVE.. AVE. 1065LEY AVE.1070LEY1075LEY AVE..AVE.. 1080LEY 1085LEY 1085LEY AVE. AVE..1030LEY1030LEY AVE.. 1100LEY1105 1105LEY1105LEY AVE. 1110LEY1110LEY 1115LEY 1115LEY AVE. 1120LEY1120LEY 1125LEY 1125LEY AVE. 1130LEY1130LEY 1135LEY 1135LEY AVE. 1055LEY 1060LEY 1060LEY 1065LEY AVE. AVE.. AVE.. AVE..1075LEY 1080LEY 1080LEY AVE. AVE. AVE..1090LEY AVE..AVE.. 1055LEY 1055LEY AVE. 1060LEY AVE. 1065LEY AVE. AVE. AVE.1075LEY AVE. 1080LEY AVE. 1085LEY AVE.1090LEY AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1075 1080 AVE. 1090 1095 1100 1100LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE. 1110LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1115LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1120LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1125LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1130LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1135LEY AVE. 1140LEY AVE.. 1145LEY AVE.. 1145LEY AVE.AVE..AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE.. 1140LEY 1145LEY1150LEY 1145LEY AVE. 1150 1150LEY AVE. 1145LEY 1150LEY 1150LEY AVE. AVE. AVE. 1145LEY AVE.. AVE. 1145LEY AVE. AVE.. 1160LEY1160LEY1165LEY1165LEY AVE..1170LEY1170LEY AVE.. 1175LEY1175LEY1180LEY1180LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE..AVE. 1190LEY1190LEY AVE.. 1195LEY AVE.. 1095LEY1095LEY AVE..1205LEY AV 1155LEY AVE. 1160LEY1160LEY1165LEY AVE.. AVE.1170LEY 1170LEY AVE. 1175LEY1175LEY1180LEY AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1155LEY AVE. AVE. 1160 1165 AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE. 1170 AVE. AVE.. AVE. 1170LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1180 AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE. 1180LEY 1185LEY AVE.. 1190LEY1190LEY AVE. 1195LEY1195LEY1095LEY 1095LEY AVE.1205LEY AV AVE.. AVE. 1185LEY1185LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1190 AVE. AVE. 1185LEY 1195 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1200 AVE.. 1095LEY 1205LEY AVE..1210LE 1195LEY AVE. 1095LEY1205LEY1210 1210LE AVE. 1205 AVE..1205LEY AVE..1 AVE.. AVE.1205LEY AVE. AVE. AVE.

SOUTHBOUND MAIN LANE PROFILE

PI STA. 1003.00 PI STA. 1044+50.00

550

PI STA. 1073.00

EL. 461.83 450.00 V.C.

PI STA. 1088.00

PI STA. 1128.00

PI STA. 1098.00

PI STA. 1138.00

PI STA. 1148.00

PI STA. 1158.00

PI STA. 1118.00

500
456.00

PI STA. 1108.00

PI STA. 1168.00

PI STA. 1182+50.00

EL. 456.00 500.00 V.C.

EL. 444.43 220.00 V.C.

EL. 428.93 200.00 V.C.

EL. 428.93 160.00 V.C.

EL. 428.93 160.00 V.C.

EL. 428.93 160.00 V.C.

MAIN LANE

EL. 428.93 160.00 V.C.

EL. 428.93 160.00 V.C.

EL. 428.93 160.00 V.C.

EL. 428.93 160.00 V.C.

PROPOSED SOUTHBOUND

EL. 428.93 200.00 V.C.

EL. 431.18 370.00 V.C.

PROPOSED WOODALL RODGERS FREEWAY BRIDGES CONTINENTAL BRIDGE

100 YR FLOOD

+0.00% -3.2

428.15

450

5% -3.2

+2.1

2%

-0.61%

WATER LEVEL

HAMPTON BRIDGE

SYLVAN BRIDGE

-0.61% -2.0

0%

5%

-0.50%

-0.50% +2.12%

-2.0

+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%

+0.50% +0.50%

-0.50%

0%

+0.50%

-0.50% +0.50%

+0.50% -0.50% -0.50% +0.50% -0.50%

+0.50% -0.75% +0.50%

+0.50% +0.75% -0.50% -0.50% +0.50% -0.75% +0.75%

-0.50% -0.50% +0.50%

+0.50%

-1.81

+0.50%

PI STA. 1082+20.00

400
PI STA. 1009.00 PI STA. 1028.00

-1.81

% +0.50%

350
449.42

430.43

455.42

452.37

449.32

429.93

452.27

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

436.40

440.43

PI STA. 1195+50.00 EL. 407.68 370.00 V.C.

PI STA. 1093.00

PI STA. 1123.00

PI STA. 1103.00

PI STA. 1113.00 EL. 426.43 160.00 V.C.

PI STA. 1133.00

PI STA. 1143.00

PI STA. 1153.00

EL. 425.18 240.00 V.C.

PI STA. 1163.00

EL. 426.79 400.00 V.C.

EL. 426.43 160.00 V.C.

PI STA. 1173.00

EL. 436.51 420.00 V.C.

EL. 426.03 350.00 V.C.

EL. 426.43 160.00 V.C.

EL. 426.43 160.00 V.C.

EL. 426.43 160.00 V.C.

EL. 426.43 160.00 V.C.

EL. 426.43 160.00 V.C.

EL. 426.43 160.00 V.C.

100

105

110

115

120

125

130 130 130 135 140 140 145 150 150 155 130 135 135 140 145 145 150 155 155 130 135 135 140 140 145 145 150 150 155 155 160

1000 1000LEY AVE..AVE..AVE..AVE.. 1005LEY 1010 AVE.. 1010LEY AVE.1015 1015LEY1015LEY AVE.. 1020LEY 1020LEY 1025LEY1025LEY AVE.. 1030LEY AVE.. AVE..1040 1040LEY1040LEY1045LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1055 1055LEY1055LEY1060LEY AVE..1065LEY AVE..1070LEY AVE..1075LEYAVE.. 1080LEY 1080LEY 1085LEY1085LEY AVE.. 1090LEY 1090LEY 1030LEY1030LEY AVE.. 1100LEY1105 1105LEY1105LEY AVE.. 1110LEY1115 1115LEY AVE..AVE.AVE.1120LEY AVE..1120LEY1125LEY AVE..1125LEY 1130LEY1130LEY AVE.. 1135LEY1135LEY1140LEY1140LEY AVE.. 1145LEY1150 1145LEY AVE..1155 1155LEY1155LEY AVE.. 1160LEY1160LEY1165LEY1165LEY AVE.. 1170LEY1175 AVE..1175LEY1175LEY1180LEY1180LEY AVE..AVE.. AVE..1190 1190LEY1190LEY AVE.. 1195LEY AVE.. 1095LEY1095LEY AVE.. 1205LEY1210 1210LEY 1 1000LEY1005 AVE. AVE..AVE..AVE..AVE. AVE... 1010LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE.AVE.AVE. 1005LEY AVE.AVE.AVE. 1010LEY AVE. AVE.. 1015LEY 1015LEY 1020LEY1020LEY AVE.. 1025LEY 1025LEY 1030LEY1035 AVE.. 1035LEY1040LEY 1040LEY 1045LEY AVE. 1050LEY AVE..1055LEY AVE..1060LEY AVE.1065LEY AVE.1070LEY AVE.1075LEY AVE.. 1080LEY AVE.. 1085LEY 1085LEY 1090LEY1090LEY AVE.. 1030LEY1100 1100LEY1100LEY AVE.. 1105LEY1110 AVE..1110LEY 1110LEY AVE.. AVE.AVE..AVE.. AVE.. AVE.1120LEY AVE.. 1125LEY AVE.. 1130LEY1130LEY 1135LEY AVE.. AVE.. 1140LEY1140LEY AVE. 1145LEY1145LEY AVE.. AVE. 1145LEY 1155LEY1155LEY AVE. 1160LEY1160LEY1165LEY1165LEY AVE. 1000LEY 1000LEY 1005LEY 1005LEY 1010LEY AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1025 AVE.. AVE.. AVE. 1030LEY AVE. 1035LEY AVE..1040LEY AVE.. AVE..AVE.. AVE.. 1050LEY1055LEY 1055LEY AVE..1060LEY AVE..1065LEY AVE..1070LEY AVE..1075LEY 1080LEY AVE.. AVE. 1020 AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1030 1030LEY AVE.. 1035LEY1035LEY1040LEY AVE. AVE.1045LEY 1050LEY AVE.1055LEY AVE. AVE.1060LEY AVE.1065LEY AVE.1070LEY AVE. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE.. 1030LEY 1035LEY 1035LEY AVE.. AVE..1045LEY 1045LEY AVE. AVE.. AVE..1055LEY1060LEY AVE..1065LEY AVE..1070LEY AVE..1075LEY AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1030LEY AVE. 1035LEY AVE..1040LEY1045LEY1050 1050LEY 1050LEY AVE.. AVE..1060LEY AVE.1065LEY AVE.1070LEY AVE.1075LEY 1030LEY 1035LEY AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE..1045LEY 1050LEY 1050LEY AVE. AVE. AVE..1060LEY AVE..1065LEY AVE..1070LEY AVE..1075LEY AVE. 1030LEY AVE. AVE.. AVE.1040LEY AVE.1045LEY AVE. 1050LEY AVE.1055LEY AVE.1060LEY AVE.1065LEY AVE.1070LEY AVE. 1080 AVE. AVE. 1045 AVE. AVE. 1060 1065 1070 1075 AVE. 1085 AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1090 AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1095 AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1030LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1100LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1105LEY AVE. AVE..1110LEY AVE. 1115LEY AVE.. 1110LEY AVE. AVE..AVE. 1115LEY1120 AVE. 1120LEY AVE.. AVE. 1125LEY AVE. 1130LEY1135 AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. 1110LEY 1110LEY AVE.. AVE. 1115LEY 1120LEY1125 AVE.. AVE. AVE. 1125LEY1125LEY1130LEY1130LEY AVE. 1125LEY1130 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1130LEY AVE. 1135LEY AVE.. 1140LEY1140LEY1145LEY1145LEY AVE.. 1145LEY1145LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. 1140 AVE. AVE. AVE. 1140LEY1145 1145LEY 1145LEY AVE. 1140LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1145LEY AVE. 1145LEY AVE.. 1155LEY1155LEY1160LEY1160LEY AVE.. 1165LEY1165LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1175LEY1175LEY1180LEY AVE.. AVE.1185LEY AVE. 1185LEY1190LEY1190LEY AVE. 1195LEY1195LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE. 1145LEY AVE. 1155LEY1155LEY1160LEY1160LEY AVE. 1165LEY AVE.. 1170LEY 1170LEY AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1160 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1165 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1170 AVE. AVE. AVE. AVE.. AVE. 1175LEY AVE.. 1180LEY1180LEY AVE. 1185LEY AVE.. 1190LEY1190LEY1195LEY1195LEY AVE.. 1095LEY 1095LEY 1205LEY1205LEY AVE.. 1210L AVE. 1175LEY1175LEY AVE. 1180LEY1185 1170LEY 1175LEY AVE.. AVE. 1180 AVE.. AVE. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE.. AVE. 1185LEY1185LEY AVE. AVE. 1185LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. 1185LEY AVE. 1190LEY1195 1195LEY1195LEY AVE. AVE. 1190LEY AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1200 AVE. AVE. 1195LEY AVE. 1205 AVE.. AVE.. AVE.. AVE. AVE. AVE. 1205LEY AVE.. A AVE.. AVE.

1/4/2012

3:38:03 PM

ah2003

TXDOT

i:\17000s\17826\CADD\V7 to V8 UPGRADE\826-LSS-PP4B-N.dgn

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

409.93

426.68

460.59

446.26

426.66

458.47

433.51

428.51

431.04

441.65

417.63

409.16

431.01

408.37

457.50

428.78

428.78

428.78

428.78

427.75

427.75

427.75

427.75

479.65

476.75

431.00

425.19

429.15

438.16

419.42

427.18

414.00

451.07

468.91

412.51

411.88

2-33

PROFILE LEGEND:
PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES
10 3 MIN.

PLAN LEGEND:
PROPOSED TRINITY PARKWAY MAIN LANES PROPOSED RAMP PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES PROPOSED ELEVATED RAMPS PROPOSED ARTERIAL OR SERVICE ROAD

PARK ACCESS ROUTES:

VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS RAMP (BY NTTA) BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS BRIDGE (BY NTTA) POSSIBLE VEHICULAR / BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (*) POSSIBLE BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTE (**)
(**) - SUBJECT TO PARK PLANNING & FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

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
2.0%
4 1 FLOODWAY BOTTOM 21

NOTES: 1. ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA.

PROPOSED ROADWAY PROJECT (BY OTHERS) PROPOSED BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROPOSED RAMP TOLL GANTRY (LOCATION SUBJECT TO CHANGE) PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL

SPF WATER LEVEL

P

120

EXISTING BRIDGE CROSSING

P

BASE LINE
P

NUMBER OF GENERAL PURPOSE LANES ALONG INDICATED MAIN LANE DIRECTION

US CE -75 NT RA LE XP ALIGNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY FHWA. Y.
NOTE:

MODIFIED (SOUTH)

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 4

420

P P P P

43

RIVER SIDE OF LEVEE @ EXISTING BRIDGE

P P

430
P P

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

P

41 0

43

0
P

WEST END
P P P

DIAPHRAGM WALL
PROPOSED R.O.W.
P P

17

40

FW

U S

VARIES
0

PROP. R.O.W. VARIES VARIES 36 0-10 VARIES EXISTING CROSS STREET BRIDGE 20 DRAINAGE SWALE 0-10

P P P
(I) 35

P P P P P

.H

43 0

BL

112
P

VD
P

P P P

400

P P

P K P P P
? ?

PAR

DOWNTOWN
430
K PAR

STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD ELEV. +3

P P

3 MIN. 1 10 1 3.5 3.5 1 EXISTING LEVEE 8 8 1 4 1 16.5 MIN.

TOE OF PROPOSED EMBANKMENT 100 YR FLOOD ELEV.

VE

40

0 40 400
?

0 41

43

? ?

3 32 PROPOSED ELEVATED MAIN LANES

0

P P

P PAR

P P P
?

TA

44

40

420

420

0 41 0 42
P

21

EN

P P K PAR

9-6 P

400
P

TIN

420 410

40

43 0

0
P P P YGR PLA D OUN P

CONVENTION CENTER
P

2.0%
FLOODWAY BOTTOM FLOOD SEPERATION WALL BASE LINE

PROPOSED FLOOD SEPARATION WALL ALONG MAIN LANES

P

43
P

ALONG FLOODWAY HAMPTON - INWOOD RD TO DART RAIL

D P PLA
? ?

125

250

500

750

1000

1500

SCALE IN FEET
? ? ? ?

SCALE: 1" = 500

CO N

I-30

1L

0 42

E AN

43

? ? ? ?

OUN YGR
?

P
?

? ?

0 42
0 42 0 41
P P

100-YEAR FLOOD WATER LEVEL

? ?

120

120

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ?

P
? ? ?

410

410

D OUN YGR PLA P

? ? ?

? ? ? ?

P
? ? ?

P
?

? ? ?

420
? ?

P
?

P
? ?

??

P
?

P P

0 41 0 42
410

P
? ?

? ? ? ?

0 40

41
42 0

400
P

41

42
41 0

U/C

? ?

0
?

? ?

P P

PLA P

400 410

400 410

41
? ?

0
U/C

P P P P P

P
? ?

400

41

? ?

50

42 0

1L
0 40
TRA IL

P P P

? ?

410

43 0

40

P P P P P

POND

MATCH LINE

AN

14

0
-7

43

ED1

17

40

41

U S

FW

12

41

P P
?

? ?

00

42

0
P

420

KIN

ER UTH

41

PAR

41

R
40 40 0 0

41

40

40

0
41

P P

410
P
? ?

? ?

P
?

P
?

43

? ?

0 40 0 41

ALONG FLOODWAY N IO N HAMPTON - INWOOD RD TO DART RAIL U

0

420

B
?

LV
?

420
? ?

P
? ? ? ? ? ?

? ?

.
41
41 0

TYPICAL SECTIONS
P

410

LEW STERRETT JUSTICE CENTER

P

? ?

40

LI

430

? ?

? ?

410

JECT PEG "HOR ASU SESH S" A ND OE P CAN ROJE YON CT" -MIX IMPR MAS OVE TER MEN DEV TS U ELO NDE PME R NT B Y Tx DOT
P P P P P P P P
? ? ? ? ? ?

42 41 0 0

TRINITY PARKWAY - ALTERNATIVE 4B

P P

ATH

430

"PRO

SPF WATER LEVEL

?

NOTES:
440
LD P IC FIE

P
? ? ?

? ? ?

420
?

P
? ? ? ? ? ?

? ?

0 42 0 43

? ?

43

1. FLOOD ELEVATIONS, LEVEE HEIGHTS AND SLOPES VARY. THOSE USED IN THIS SECTION ARE TYPICAL.
420

LET

440

0
P
?

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ?

? ?

P
? ? ? ? ? ?

440
? ?

?
?

? ?

0 43 0 42

P
?

JR. BLVD.

OUN YGR

39

IS
?

430

2. MODIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING LEVEES TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHERS.

CONTINENTAL RD TO DART RAIL

P

P P

? ?

420

440
P P P

400 410

RIVER SIDE OF LEVEE @ EXISTING BRIDGE

P

430

44

JU
?

44

0
? ?

CE
? ? ? ?

43

44 0

45
? ? ? ? ?

NT

US
?

? ? ?

RA

-75
?

? ? ? ? ?

P
? ? ? ? ? ?

P
? ?

? ? ?

? ?

LE

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

P P

P P P P

430

430
430
? ? ?

P P P

P P

D
?

400

OUN YGR PLA

440
P P

P P

SC
P
?

XP
?

? ?

Y.
?

OOL H SCH
? ?

HIG ON MPS THO

D OUN YGR P PLA

? ? ? ? ?

? ?

P
? ?

LAM
?

420

420

P P

H
P
?

PROPOSED R.O.W.
P P RTS P P L COU

PROPOSED R.O.W.

P
? ? ?

? ?

42 0

AR

BAL KET BAS RT COU

EP

P
? ? ? ? ?

43

0
? ?

P
?

BAL KET BAS P P P P P

42

0
P

ST

? ?

P
? ?

P
?

PS

P P

? ?

? ?

78 56 36 10 10 56 36

78 21 10

? ?

? ?

? ?

P P

420

P
?

410

FW

P
? ?

? ?

D OUN YGR PLA

? ? ? ? ?

P
?

41 0 40

??

410
P P

440
? ? ?

Y
P

P P

LD
?

IC
? ?

FIE

21

P P

LET ATH

P A ARE U/C

41

410
P

.
?

? ? ?

10

P
?

P
? ? ? ? ?

P
?

? ? ?

43

0
P P

P P
? ? ?

? ?

P
?

410

41

P
?

F.

0
?

43

? ? ? ? ? ?

P
? ?

42

0
?

2.0%

2.0%

STA

? ?

SUB

? ?

P
? ? ?

P
?

C.

410

420

430

0 41 0 40

TIO

430

? ? ?

400

P P

P D OUN
?

42
? ? ? ?

P
? ?

0
? ? ? ?

P P

NIO

REU

40

YGR PLA

420
P P P

P
?

410
? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ?

P P P

400

? ? ? ?

410
? ? ?

E
40 0
40 0

400

POND

410

400

400 0 41

410
? ? ? ? ?

TIN

410
410

410

400

-6

39 0

410

410
9-4

ST

400

420

400

ED1

400

410 410

410 410

? ? ?

3
? ? ? ?

HEIGHT VARIES
? ?

P P P
? ?

410
P
?

? ? ?

? ?

LAMA
P
?

390
390

41

MAR

400 400

410 400

410

410

400
400

0
?

R ST.
410

P
?

P
?

410

P
?

? ? ? ? ? ?

P
? ?

P P

P
? ?

? ? ? ? ?

39
TR AIL

0
40 0

400

410

410

ER

41
42 0
42 41 0 40 0 0

41

0
P
?

39

420
410

400
N TIO

410

39

390

420

3
39

410
400

430 420 410

410

0 40

P P

P P

39

410

41 40 0 40 0 0

3 LA

NE
?

1 LAN

? ?

? ?

TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

?

400

410

P
? ? ?

? ?

P P

? ?

? ? ? ?

41

0
? ? ?

ELEVATED COMBINED ROADWAY MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. TO I.H. 45 PROPOSED R.O.W. 80 C.L. ROADWAY 10 10 10

? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ?

STA SUB

P
?

P
?

? ? ? ?

DART

IL

40 0
41
42
42 41 0 40 0 0

0
400

.0

410

WS 380

410

DW4

400

IN IT Y RI VE R
POND

P P F-9 TRS P P P
? ?

41

410

TR

0
?

390
WS 380 .0

WE .8 395

390 410

F-1

.7 395

POND

41

TRS

WE

420

400

40

40

42
P
?

400

410 400

410

400

400

STA SUB

390

40 0

390

410 420

410

390

N TIO

P
? ? ?

A N

400

390
POND

390
? ?

400

400

390

? ?

40

40

1L

410 400

0 41

.3

RIV ER

-5 ED1

41 0

39

42 0

420

-4

400

40

400

400

420
420 410

400

400
POND POND WE 394

42 0
0

400

41

WS 395

.3

1250
40

WS P P P

400

390
400
39
WS P P 383

40

WE 395

.0

400

410

WS 380

P .0

3 LANE
0
WS 395 .4

.4

0 40 0 41

WS 395

.0

420

410

400
40
?

39

0 42 0 41

400

420

42

1350

.8

394

410

.1

400

1L
POND

? ?

POND WE 5.0 39

410

3 I-

420
420
ED1

.1

395 WS 395 .2

400

400
P

39

410
400

410

410

390

1350
40
41 0

1L

E AN
?

400
WE 392 .2

400

41

TY

395

WS

IL

395

40 0

TR INI

400

420

410

WS

.9

400

40

410

390

WE

3
0

400

P
?

41 0 42 0

40 0

42 0 41 0

N A E 1L
390
400

400
? ?

IL TRA

P P P

400

400

-1 ED1

400

1 LANE
40 0

400

TRA

410

MAIN LANE TOLL GANTRY

41 0 40 0

400

40

400

400

400

3
WE 4.3 39 POND

400 410 410

40 0

400

AN

BAL

40

RIVERFRONT BLVD.

LD L FIE

1 LA
?

410

400

PE

390

420 410

UP

400

40

390

N 3 LA

? ?

? ?

NE

400

140

PROPOSED R.O.W.
? ? ?

TRA

L
80

40 40 0 0

2 LAN
410

1 LA

NE

P
?

? ?

P
?

? ? ?

? ?

? ? ?

? ? ?

23

10

36

36

23

41

0
?

E 2 LAN

NE
POND WE 394 .0

400

A ARE

U/C

P
?

0 41

400
?

400

400

39

40

400

40

380

400

400

JEFFERSON ST.

400

40

WE WE 391 .1 389

380

.0 POND

AIL
POND WE 393 .5

400

390
TRINITY RIVER

WS

SEE PROPOSED
0
42 41 0 40 0 0

HOUSTON ST.

41 42 0 0

42

40

390
WS .0

392

POND

40

3 LA

NE

-3 EDI

SHIFT LEVEE NORTH

390
.0

0 40 0 41

1 LANE
TRIN ITY RIVE R

410
40 0
TR AIL

400

400

400
D

2.0%
POND WE 395 395
?

2.0%

42

POND

.9

400

1L
?

E AN
0

400
WE .6

PON
.4 WE .4

0 41

0 40
390

41

400
400
41

40

POND WE 392

WE 389

410
400
TR
POND WE 393 .5

.3

400
?

TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

AT GRADE WITHOUT SERVICE ROADS I.H. 45 TO LAMAR BLVD. PROPOSED R.O.W.

40

39 40 0 0
?

390

39

390

390
400

400

400

390

400 410
420

40

DW3 P

400

410

-2 ED1

400

POND

390

IH-35 N.B.

IH-35 S.

P P

DESIGN REFINEMENTS
40
41 42 0 0

400

420
410

400

400

B.

390

TRINITY RIVER

400

1 LANE
420

39
WS 393 .6 WE 391 .6

390

390

400

400

420

400

410

400

400

R VE RI Y IT IN TR

39 40 00

400

400

390
39
?

40

TRINIT Y RIVER

1300
390
TRINITY RIVER

400
WS 394 .9

40

41

400

WS 395

0 42

TRAIL

.8

0 400

.8

392

400

40
0

WS 396

TRI

.7

395

NIT

390

IN APPENDIX E
0 42 0 41

39

400

40

400

400

P
?

41

42
P

0 42

42
400

TH ST.

0 41

420

WS WS

.8

0 41
P

P P

P P

41

41

42
41 0

0 43 0

400

? ?

P P

WS 392

.3 P
?

410

420

410

410

43

0 42 0 43 0 44 0 45
?

410

NIS TEN

410
?

410

43

410 420 430 440

400

440
420
P

410

460
?

440

430

420410 400

CEDAR

430

OAK

440

K PAR

420

TRAIL

CLIF

450

420

POSSIBLE S.B. JEFFERSON (BY OTHERS)

A U/C ARE

410

41
42 0

0
?

410 420

400
P

41

40

WS

.1

420

393

400

400

TRA

400

410

41

IL

POND

WE .8 392

390

40

POSSIBLE ROADWAY EXTENSION (BY OTHERS)

P P

400 390
390

420

CORIN

410 420

420 410

410

400
390

400
390

400

400

394

40

0
WS 395

WS 392

.8

410

410
? ?

POND POND WE 394 393 392 .9 POND WE .9 WE .6 POND

TRA

390 400 410

390 400 410

?

390
400

WS WS .0 393

.3

41

394 WS 392 .7

420

SHEET 38 OF 41
390
? ? ?

400

390

1L A
420
410

400

300

.4 WS 393 .0

392

393

39

420 410

420

DW1

410 420

393

39

NE

400

.2

400

SHEET 35 OF 41
40 0

0 400

41

0 3 LAN
400

125
DW2

390

400

400

40

DESIGN REFINEMENTS
390
TRINITY RIVER

WE

.3 POND

RIV

390

400

ER

1 LANE
400

TRINITY RIVER
?

39

390 400

39

21
K PAR POND WE 389 TER .0 ROC HES

40

VARIES

10

36

10

10

36

10

VARIES

40

21

390

POND

WE 394

.9

E
K PAR FF K OA CLI

1 LA

3L

400

WS WS 393

.5

410 420

WS

.4

393 WS

410
410

400

393 .2

IN APPENDIX E
39 0
?

POND WE

390
.3

400

393

0 40
390 400
?

390

AN

40

0
WS
?

390
.5 394 WE 5.4 39 POND

400

40

400

390
400
?

TRAIL

WE 393 POND

2.0%
.3 POND WE 391 .5

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

400

400
?

IL

WE

.9

WE .8 393
POND

.8 WS 395 .7

40
?

TRINITY PARKWAY - RIVER ALTERNATIVES

WE 391 .7

P N TIO STA SUB

?

WS 393

.1

400
?

POND

42

42

U/C

ARE

40
41 0 42

0
400

400
400

400
0

AT-GRADE WITH SERVICE ROADS LAMAR BLVD. TO U.S. 175

410
COU

400
RT

430

420
400
D
? ?

390
?

400
410 410
POND WE 390 .9

43
?

0
PLA

OUN YGR

410
POND
?

410
?

TYPICAL SECTIONS
FLOODWAY TO U.S. 175
BEGIN PROPOSED BRIDGE

CREEK

420
PAR

400

400
400

7 16TRAIL

TRAIL

420 410
P

410

400
K PAR RE MOO

? ?

460
? ?

420

400

42 0
44
?

420
410

POND
?

WE 396

.7

400
9-7

410
420

POND

0
P

41

400

430

45

400
400

44

440

420 410
LL EBA BAS

RT COU NIS TEN P P

42

45

44

44
P

420

420

41

43

WE

N TIO STA SUB

LL

460

450

46
0 43

440

P P P

41

430

0
400

420
44

410

41

45

420

46

46
0 46
P

420

440

430 440
450
460
430

END 4BNB STA. 1342+24.37, EL = 426.44

P

BEGIN 4BS
41

410

END 3C2S STA. 1400.00, EL = 403.30

P

F S OAK PAR RS NDE FOU CLIF K

470

410

STA. 1342+24.37, EL = 426.67 MATCH 4BNB, STA. 1342+24.37 MATCH 4BSB, STA. 1360+21.14 OFFSET 11.50 LT &

410

END PROPOSED BRIDGE

P 45

45

43

420
0

44

ETBA BASK

43 0

0
45

44
440
P P

430
420

MATCH 4BS, STA. 1342+24.37

P

45 0
P

MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT

P

550

450
P

440
450

46

PI STA. 1264+50.00

470

41

440

43

0
0 44
P

P P

43

41

46

0 44

PI STA. 1354.00

PI STA. 1370.00

470

420

OFFSET 11.50 RT

NT PLA ENT ATM

320.00 V.C.

STA 1582+00

460

OFFSET 11.50 RT
P

TRE

PI STA. 1428+50.00

450

450

42

0
P

P P

P P

EL. 457.80

PI STA. 1320+25.00

PI STA. 1297.00

PI STA. 1389.00

PI STA. 1276.00

EL. 408.08 160.00 V.C.

500.00 V.C.

460

WATER LEVEL PI STA. 1225.00 PI STA. 1236.00

El 448.30

NORTHBOUND ML

EL. 450.80 1,100.00 V.C.

420

EL. 457.30

PI (1558+00)

1,260.00 V.C.

REUNION OVERLOOK

100 YR FLOOD

47

550.00 V.C.

PI (1582+55)

450

46

STA 1584+00

44

EL. 434.27 600.00 V.C.

470

PI STA. 1215.00

440

EL. 417.83 470.00 V.C.

EL. 415.33 260.00 V.C.

HOUSTON BRIDGE JEFFERSON BRIDGE

UPRR BRIDGE

COMMERCE STREET BRIDGE

170.00 V.C.

EL. 412.83

I-30 BRIDGE

SB I-35E OVERPASS

NB I-35E OVERPASS

CORINTH BRIDGE

DART BRIDGE

+2

.97

-0.50% -0.50% +0.50%

+0.50% -1.50%

I-45 BRIDGE

EL. 415.30 320.00 V.C.

MAIN LANE

EL. 418.46 300.00 V.C.

EL. 421.58 230.00 V.C.

430

450

PROPOSED NORTHBOUND

PI STA. 1405.00

EL. 417.58 220.00 V.C.

EL. 436.30 400.00 V.C.

47

PI STA. 1333.00

48

El 415.00

45

500

440

+1.38%
% +1.85
+0.50% -0.50% -0.50% +1.85% +0.50%

-2.4

8%

-1.50
2 +0.53% + .9 7%

% -0.50%

-0.50% -3 .0

+3

.00

-4

.0

0%

U.S. 75
428.95

450

BRIDGE

0%

+0.58% -0.50%

+1

-1.58 % .50% -1.58 %

+0.50%

+0.50% -1.15%

38% +0.50% +1.

-2.4 8%
PI STA. 1309+20.00

+1.31%

-0.56%

+2.0

0%

+0.53%

(+)
(-) 0.500% 0%

2.63

2%

-0.83%

+0.58%

-0.50% +1.50%

-0.56% +2.00%
PI STA. 1361+50.00

+1
-3.0
MARTIN LUTHER

-0.50% .50%

PI STA. 1228+85.00

-1.15%

PI STA. 1269+50.00

+0.50%

+1.31%
PI STA. 1329.00 EL. 413.58 350.00 V.C. KING BRIDGE EL. 427.60 350.00 V.C.

0%

+1.50

-0.50% +3.0

-4

.0

0%

LAMAR PI STA. 1382.00 PI STA. 1399.00 UNION PACIFIC 150.00 V.C. RAILROAD EL. 453.55 600.00 V.C. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD PI (1568+00) STREET PI STA. 1440.00 PI STA. 1415.00 El 410.00

+1.51%

400

PI STA. 1203.00

PI STA. 1220.00

PI STA. 1249.00

PI STA. 1290.00

320.00 V.C.

EL. 406.30 650.00 V.C.

200.00 V.C.

EL. 410.30 500.00 V.C.

150.00 V.C.

EL. 411.75 300.00 V.C.

EL. 405.58 350.00 V.C.

EL. 403.99 520.00 V.C.

EL. 400.33 260.00 V.C.

EL. 424.58 130.00 V.C.

EL. 405.88

EL. 410.33

EL. 404.80 750.00 V.C.

EXISTING GROUND

PI STA. 1344.00

EL. 439.80

350

403.33

422.63

425.30

438.30

455.83

455.30

439.03

422.08

425.26

405.83

426.83

450.30

406.22

454.30

432.99

180 1185 1190 1195 0 1185 1185 1190 1190 1185 1190 1195 1325120512101215 1195 1190 1195 1325120512101215 1220 1200 1195 1325120512101215 1220 1225 1205 1325120512101215 1220 1225 1230 1210 1215 1220 1225 1220 1225 1230 1235 1230 1225 1230 1235 1240 1235 1230 1235 1240 1245 1240 1235 1240 1245 1250 1245 1240 1245 1250 1255 1250 1245 1250 1255 1260 1255 1250 1255 1260 1265 1260 1255 1260 1265 1270 1275 1265 1260 1265 1270 1275 1270 1265 1270 1275 1280 1275 1270 1275 1280 1285 1280 1280 1285 1290 1285 1280 1285 1290 1200 1290 1285 1290 1200 13001300 1305 1310 1295 1290 1200 1300 1305 1300 1200 1300 1305 1310 1305 1310 1305 1310 1315

1320

1325

1330 1330 1330 1330 1335 1330

1340

1345

1350

1500 1500 1500 1505 1500 1505 1510 1505 1500 1505 1510 15151515 1510 1505 1510 1515 1510 1515 152015201520 1530 1535 1520 1520 1515 1525 1525 1525 1530 1525 1530 1525 1530 1535 15401540 1545 1550 15551555 1560 1565 1570 1535 1530 1535 1540 1535 1540 1545 1550 1545 1545 1540 1550 1545 1550 1555 1560 1555 1550 1555 1560 1565 1560 1565 1560 1565 1570 1575 1570 1565 1570 1575 1580 1575 1570 1575 1590 1585 1580 1590 1585 1590 1595 1575 1580 1585 1585 1595 1590 1585 1580 1595 1590

1595

1600

1605

1610

END 4BNB STA. 1342+24.37, EL = 426.44 MATCH 4BS, STA. 1342+24.37 PI STA. 1297+50.00 PI STA. 1307+16.00 REUNION OVERLOOK SOUTHBOUND ML OFFSET 11.50 RT PI STA. 1314+50.00

BEGIN 4BS STA. 1342+24.37, EL = 426.67 OFFSET 11.50 LT & MATCH 4BSB, STA. 1360.15 OFFSET 11.50 RT PI STA. 1428+50.00 MATCH 4BNB, STA. 1342+24.37 PI STA. 1354.00 PI STA. 1370.00

550

PI STA. 1338+35.00

PI STA. 1389.00

PI STA. 1202+50.00

PI STA. 1278+40.00

PI STA. 1351+10.00

STA. 1400.00, EL = 403.30 MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT PI STA. 1405.00 400.00 V.C. EL. 436.30

PI STA. 1222.00

EL. 450.80 1,100.00 V.C.

END 3C2S

EL. 439.93 380.00 V.C.

EL. 444.76 160.00 V.C.

PI STA. 1241+40.00

380.00 V.C.

500

EL. 415.60 200.00 V.C.

EL. 441.10

PROPOSED SOUTHBOUND MAIN LANE

EL. 411.18 180.00 V.C.

160.00 V.C.

EL. 409.23

EL. 414.38 180.00 V.C.

WOODALL RODGERS FREEWAY BRIDGES

COMMERCE STREET BRIDGE UPRR BRIDGE

100 YR FLOOD WATER LEVEL HOUSTON BRIDGE

BRIDGE

OVERPASS NB I-35E OVERPASS

DART BRIDGE

EL. 421.58

EL. 418.46

JEFFERSON

SB I-35E

426.44

I-30 BRIDGE

.0 +3

0%

+0.50%

+0.50% -0.50%

CORINTH BRIDGE

+2

.97

-0.50% -0.50% +0.50%

+0.50% -1.50%

I-45 BRIDGE

-0.50% -3 .00

+3

.00

-4

.0

0%

U.S. 75 BRIDGE

450

-1.50
% .97

-0.50% -0.50%

-3.0

0%

+0.50%

-0.67% -0.67%
+0.79%

+0.79% -0.50%
-0.50%

-0.50% +0.65%

+1.31%
+0.50%
-0.50% -0.50%

-0.56%

+2.0
-0.56% +2.00%

0% +0.55%

2 +0.53% +

% -0.50% +1.50
-3.0
PI STA. 1361+50.00 MARTIN LUTHER UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 150.00 V.C. EL. 453.55 SOUTHERN PI STA. 1382.00 PI STA. 1399.00 RAILROAD PI STA. 1415.00 PACIFIC

+0.65%
-0.50% +0.50%

+3

.00

-3.0

0%

+1.31%
PI STA. 1347+10.00 PI STA. 1344.00 KING BRIDGE 350.00 V.C.

0%

+1.50

-0.50%

+3

.00

%
LAMAR STREET

-4

.0

0%

+1.51%

400

PI STA. 1234.00

PI STA. 1210.00

PI STA. 1286.00

PI STA. 1265.00

PI STA. 1327.00

500.00 V.C.

EL. 406.30 650.00 V.C.

600.00 V.C.

EL. 402.49 160.00 V.C.

EL. 403.60

EL. 404.80 750.00 V.C.

EL. 405.43

150.00 V.C.

EL. 409.60 180.00 V.C.

EL. 427.60

EXISTING GROUND

PI STA. 1440.00

EL. 406.18 230.00 V.C.

350.00 V.C.

EL. 439.80

EL. 413.58

EL. 410.30 500.00 V.C.

350
409.97 412.35 419.90

432.43

425.30

438.30

455.83

455.30

439.03

450.30

443.34

438.95

454.30

432.99

409.52

408.43

442.80

5I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1325 45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 I-45 1325 1205 1200 I-45 1325 1205 1210 1205 1325 1205 1210 1215 1210 1205 1210 1215 1220 1215 1210 1215 1220 1225 1220 1215 1220 1225 1230 1225 1220 1225 1230 1235 1230 1225 1230 1235 1240 1235 1230 1235 1240 1245 1240 1235 1240 1245 1245 1250 1255 1260 1245 1240 1245 1250 1255 1250 1250 1255 1250 1255 1260 1265 1260 1255 1260 1265 1270 1265 1260 1265 1270 1275 1270 1265 1270 1275 12801280 128512901290 12001300 1275 1270 1275 1280 12851285 129012001200 1300 1305 1310 1280 1275 1280 1285 1285 1290 1290 1295 1200 1300 1300 1305 1305 1300 1305 1310 1310 1305 1315 1310

1320

1325

1330 1330 1330 1330 1340 1335 1330

1345

1350

1500 1500 1500 1505 1500 1505 1510 1505 1500 1505 1510 1515 1510 1505 1510 1515 1520 1515 1510 1515 1520 1525 1520 1515 1520 1525 1530 1525 1520 1525 1530 1535 1530 1525 1530 1535 1540 1535 1530 1535 1540 1545 1540 1535 1540 1545 1550 1545 1540 1545 1550 15551555 1560 1565 1550 1545 1550 1555 1560 1555 1550 1555 1560 1560 1565 1570 1565 1560 1565 1570 15751575 15801585 1570 1565 1570 1575 1580 1585 21 1575 1570 1575 1585 158521 1580 1585 1585 1585 1585 1585 1585 1585 1580550 15851590 1600 1595 1600 1605 1610 2 1595 21 21 15851595 21 1585 1600 21 2 1585 2 1585 1585 2 1585

1/4/2012

3:37:24 PM

ah2003

TXDOT

i:\17000s\17826\CADD\V7 to V8 UPGRADE\826-LSS-PP4B-S.dgn

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

424.80

407.53

407.53

445.42

409.55

409.93

407.52

443.68

424.60

402.70

426.44

406.72

457.00

406.60

430.77

409.96

410.25

418.30

412.80

423.71

414.03

413.48

419.38

410.05

405.01

405.01

412.57

414.50

412.49

417.43

439.71

417.54

414.75

414.07

414.10

411.60

441.18

410.11

2-34

FOR NTTA USE ONLYDRAFT DOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGE-

442.80

424.80

445.42

409.55

409.93

424.72

408.37

407.03

400.86

550.00 V.C.

230.00 V.C.

300.00 V.C.

EL. 457.80 320.00 V.C.

EL. 457.30

EL. 415.30 320.00 V.C.

427.45

457.00

407.80

430.77

404.94

407.04

409.97

412.35

418.30

412.80

412.37

412.60

416.02

415.73

414.50

412.49

419.58

414.80

439.71

419.90

415.79

417.64

431.18

415.81

411.58

414.41

410.71

411.13

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

42 41 0 0

WS

400

.6 393

390

40

40

A 1L

NE

SEE PROPOSED
WS .3 393 WS

POND

PROPOSED R.O.W.

L
VARIES (138 TYPICAL) C.L. ROADWAY VARIES (153 TYPICAL)

400

ALTERNATIVE 4 - SPLIT PARKWAY - RIVERSIDE

40

LA

41

0 42

43

PAR

DALLAS

PROPOSED MAIN LANES ON EMBANKMENT

TYPICAL SECTIONS

420

C. F

PROFILE LEGEND:

4 16

RO

C.L. EXISTING LEVEE

0
P

NT

400

12

20

VARIES

500

1000

DRAFT SCALE IN FEET

FOR NTTA USE ONLYDOCUMENT SUBJECT TO CHANGENO THIRD PARTY IS AUTHORIZED TO RELY ON INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT June 20, 2008 DATE:

1700

2500

3000

43

N NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

SPLIT PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE 4BSPLIT PARKWAY-RIVERSIDE (RIVERSIDE)

PLATE 2-5 B

430

0 41

41 0

0 40
0 40 0 41

42

41 0
42 0
0 41

42 0

0 41

42 0
0 41

0 41

41 0

41 0
40 0

44

41

41 0

41

"PROJECT PEG ASUS" AND "HORSESHOE PRO JECT" CANYON-MIXMAS TER IMPROVEMENTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT BY TxDOT

41

40

42 0

3 LA N E

3 LA

BE

N E

CK

40 0

LE

41 0

AV

E.

39 0

40 0

BU

E N
43 0

ER LD RM FIE FO TT E RN

42

43 0

42 0

41 0

46 0

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:
PLATE 2-5 C

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.

FLOODWAY SECTION FOR ALTERNATIVE 4B - SPLIT PARKWAY - MODIFIED RIVERSIDE

25

50

75

100

150

200

300

SPLIT PARKWAY - RIVERSIDE SECTION LOOKING DOWNSTREAM (SOUTH)

SCALE IN FEET
NORTH TEXAS TOLLWAY AUTHORITY

CENTER OF EXISTING TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL

ROADWAY BASE LINE VARIES PROPOSED R.O.W. VARIES VARIES PROPOSED R.O.W. EASTERN LIMIT OF EX. TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL

460 440 420 400 380

EXISTING LEVEE

PROPOSED LEVEE EMBANKMENT (BY OTHERS)

MATCH LINE A
TRINITY RIVER

EAST LEVEE

10

36

10

10

460 440 420 400 380

STANDARD PROJECT FLOOD 100 YR FLOOD FLOODWAY BOTTOM

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

MATCH LINE A

WEST LEVEE
ROADWAY BASE LINE VARIES WESTERN LIMIT OF EX. TRINITY RIVER CHANNEL PROPOSED R.O.W. VARIES 10 10 36 10 PROPOSED LEVEE EMBANKMENT (BY OTHERS) VARIES PROPOSED R.O.W.

460 440 420 400 380

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

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

1/4/2012

3:40:14 PM

ah2003 TXDOT

i:\17000s\17826\CADD\V7 to V8 UPGRADE\826-LSS-LTSEC-4B.dgn

2-35

CHAPTER 3 Evaluation of the USACE Dallas Floodway Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 and Levee Remediation Plan

CHAPTER 3 EVALUATION OF THE USACE DALLAS FLOODWAY PERIODIC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 9 AND LEVEE REMEDIATION PLAN
3.0 INTRODUCTION AND RELEVANCE TO TRINITY PARKWAY

In December 2007, the USACE performed a periodic inspection of the Dallas Floodway system in accordance with its ER 1110-2-100, Periodic Inspection and Continuing Evaluation of Completed Civil Works Structures (dated February 15, 1995), and Policy Guidance Letter, Periodic Inspection Procedures for the Levee Safety Program (dated December 17, 2008). The USACE Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 was released to the public on April 1, 2009. Figure 3-1 shows the levee segments considered in the USACE report, namely the east levee system, west levee system, Rochester Park levee system, and Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (CWWTP) levee system.

FIGURE 3-1.

DALLAS LEVEES INCLUDED IN USACE PERIODIC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 9

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

3-1

Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 was the ninth such inspection of the Dallas levee system, made at approximately 5 year intervals since the 1960's, and the first for the Rochester and CWWTP levees. Concurrent with release of the report, the USACE Fort Worth District issued a March 31, 2009 letter (see LSS Appendix A) advising the City of Dallas Flood Control District that the East, West, Rochester and CWWTP levee systems were all given unacceptable ratings. Further, the USACE stated that its prior (2006) levee certification letter could no longer be used as a record of certification of the levee systems for the purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program for the base flood (100-year) event, and therefore the 2006 certification of the levee systems was officially withdrawn (see LSS Appendix A, Pages 1-2). The USACE report was not addressed in the February 2009 SDEIS for the proposed Trinity Parkway project, because it was released after the SDEIS was published. However, the findings of the USACE Inspection Report could have potentially affected Trinity Parkway Alternatives 3C and 4B located in the Dallas Floodway. This is because improvements needed to bring the levees back into an "acceptable" rating may or may not be compatible with the roadway designs as developed in the SDEIS. To resolve this issue, the FHWA, TxDOT, and NTTA, as lead agencies for the Trinity Parkway proposal, made the following statement of position during the May 2009 Public Hearing for the SDEIS related to the new information in the inspection report: TxDOT, FHWA and NTTA will review the findings of the inspection report as they may relate to Trinity Parkway. The agencies will identify and develop further studies needed with respect to the levee conditions and its impact on the Trinity Parkway Floodway alternatives. The agencies will continue to coordinate with the City of Dallas and the Corps to develop remedial actions if needed. In the event a Floodway alternative is recommended for Trinity Parkway, further studies and initial results regarding the Parkway and the levees would be presented to the public in the future, but prior to the final EIS. These studies will be in addition to further Section 4(f) analysis and compliance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 (with respect to floodplain and wetlands). This chapter of the LSS is intended to discuss the development of levee remediation actions by the City of Dallas in response to Periodic Inspection Report No. 9. The chapter also assesses compatibility of the Trinity Parkway alternatives in the Dallas Floodway (Alternatives 3C and 4B) with such remediation actions, as well as any design changes that may need to be made to these alternatives to resolve compatibility issues. Alternatives 2A and 2B generally follow the alignment of Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards on the landside of the east levee, and issues regarding compatibility with levee remediation actions are not anticipated for these two alternatives. Consequently, this chapter focuses on the levee system deficiencies and remediation as they may relate to Alternatives 3C and 4B.

3-2

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

3.1

LEVEE SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES ADJACENT TO TRINITY PARKWAY ALTERNATIVES

As outlined previously in LSS Section 3.0, the USACE Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 covered four levee systems: East levee system of the Dallas Floodway (about 12 miles in length); West levee system of the Dallas Floodway (about 10 miles in length); Rochester Park levee system (about 3 miles in length); and CWWTP levee system (about 2.5 miles in length). All four of these systems were reported with unacceptable deficiencies in the USACE Report. Trinity Parkway Alternatives 3C and 4B would be adjacent to the east levee for a distance of about 5.3 miles. Additionally, Alternative 4B would be adjacent to the west levee for a distance of about 4.1 miles (adjacent to the split southbound lanes.) The Rochester Park and CWWTP levee systems are not adjacent to any of the Build Alternatives. The 5.3-mile east levee segment and 4.1-mile west levee segment are the focus of this section of the LSS. The USACE Inspection Report was based on field inspections made in December 2007. The inspections resulted in 230 observed field conditions of which 204 were rated either "minimally acceptable" or "unacceptable." Of the 230 items identified, 198 items were classified as operations/maintenance items and the remaining 32 items are considered to be addressed with future implementation of the Dallas Floodway and the Dallas Floodway Extension projects. unacceptable rating included the following: Insufficient crest height rendering the east and west levees incapable of successfully accommodating the Standard Project Flood (SPF) without overtopping; Significant encroachments and penetrations that impact the integrity and performance of the levees, as well as inhibit access for O&M, surveillance and flood fighting purposes; Damaged gate closures; Unstable structures; Severe cracking of the levees (includes cracks in the soil that may appear); Erosion; Vegetation; Siltation; and Channel instability. The major items that resulted in an overall

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

3-3

In addition to unacceptable ratings for the items listed above, it was determined that the Dallas Floodway does not meet current USACE design criteria regarding relevant factors of safety for embankment stability and seepage gradients. In response to the USACE Report, the City of Dallas started an extensive geotechnical and engineering analysis of the four levee systems in 2009. The study team revisited all of the USACE-reported deficiency sites, and developed response plans for immediate needs. Many of the items in the original deficiency list were 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 Maintenance Deficiency Correction Period (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 further in Section 3.2 below. 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. This work is addressed in LSS Section 3.3 Levee Remediation Plan Major Levee Deficiencies. LEVEE REMEDIATION PLAN O&M ITEMS

3.2

City staff have identified 198 of the items in the Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 as "O&M-Related" items. The City's master list of these items, and the status of the individual repairs is shown in LSS Appendix C. The following table categorizes the 198 items by repair types, and provides the number of occurrences for each:

TABLE 3-1. CITY OF DALLAS CATEGORIZED O&M REPAIRS

No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Description Animal Control (system-wide issue) Closure Structures Concrete Surfaces Culverts/Discharge Pipes Depressions/Rutting Encroachments Erosion/ Bank Caving Fencing and Gates Flap Gates/ Flap Valves/ Pinch Valves Foundation of Concrete Structures Intake and Discharge Pipelines Monolith Joints Other Metallic Items (Corrosion) Pumping Plant Building Issues Ponding Areas Revetments other than Riprap Riprap Revetments & Bank Protection Riprap Revetments & Banks Riprap Revetments of Inlet/ Discharge Areas Settlement Shoaling (sediment deposition) Occurrences 1 10 3 5 5 30 13 2 4 10 2 2 15 26 1 3 4 2 3 1 1

3-4

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

TABLE 3-1. CITY OF DALLAS CATEGORIZED O&M REPAIRS

No. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Description Slope Stability Sluice / Slide Gates Sod Cover Structure Sumps / Wet well Tilting, Sliding or Settlement of Concrete and Sheet Pile Structures Trash Racks (non-mechanical) Unwanted Vegetation Growth (trees and brush) Vegetation and Obstructions TOTAL Occurrences 6 2 3 15 5 3 2 10 9 198

The City has completed and the USACE has approved 193 of the 198 items in the MDCP plan. LSS Appendix C includes a copy of a briefing memorandum on this topic given by city staff to the City's Trinity River Corridor Project Committee on May 13, 2011. The City intends to complete all of the necessary repairs in the MDCP plan, but expects the remaining five items will take several months to complete. The City has also instituted more frequent mowing cycles in the Dallas Floodway, and is working with other agencies (such as DART and TxDOT) to fix any identified problems with their facilities in the Dallas Floodway. In regard to the proposed Trinity Parkway alternatives in the Dallas Floodway, 111 of the 198 deficiencies listed in Table 3-1 are located on the east levee, and many of these are adjacent to Alternatives 3C and 4B. An additional 56 deficiencies listed in Table 3-1 are located on the west levee, with several located adjacent to the southbound lanes of Alternative 4B. Based on representations by the City of Dallas, the Trinity Parkway project sponsors have taken the position that all of these items will be repaired by the City or other agencies prior to the FHWA taking final action on the proposed Trinity Parkway. Therefore, these items are not further analyzed in this LSS. It is noted however that many of the listed O&M repair items could be substantially modified in the event one of the Trinity Parkway alternatives in the Dallas Floodway is implemented. For instance, structures repaired under the current City effort may need to be further modified to accommodate the Trinity Parkway embankments; large areas of vegetation may be removed and replaced by new embankments; areas of concrete rip rap may be torn out and rebuilt in new locations because of the proposed Trinity Parkway improvements. These changes are included and anticipated in the plans and cost estimates included in the SDEIS. Further, as described in SDEIS Chapter 2 (Alternatives Considered), all of this Trinity Parkway-related work would be subject to the prior review, approval, permitting and construction phase inspection by the USACE to assure maintenance of the flood control function.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

3-5

3.3

LEVEE REMEDIATION PLAN MAJOR LEVEE DEFICIENCIES

As stated in LSS Section 3.1, major items in the USACE deficiency list, such as improving the levee crest height and addressing under-seepage concerns, have required extensive geotechnical testing and engineering analysis to develop solutions. This work is addressed in this section. The section also assesses compatibility of the proposed Trinity Parkway alternatives with proposed major levee deficiency solutions. The major deficiencies are summarized as follows: Failure to provide sufficient crest height to accommodate the SPF; Existence of significant encroachments and penetrations that may impact levee integrity; Soil properties of the levees are prone to desiccation (cracking) during dry cycles that could weaken the levees; and Control of seepage through the levees. The City of Dallas initiated a levee remediation study in 2009 to address these major deficiencies only to the extent of the levee's integrity with respect to the 100-year flood, as well as to coordinate a response to the O&M issues discussed in LSS Section 3.2. The main purpose of the levee remediation study was to identify and design improvements to the floodway system to result in 100-year levee accreditation. The levee remediation study does not have the purpose of addressing SPF levee deficiencies, which will be addressed by the ongoing Dallas Floodway EIS that is due to be completed in 2014. The City study included an extensive geotechnical boring program along the total 28 mile combined length of the east, west, Rochester Park, and CWWTP levees. Over this length, borings were provided along the levee tops, riverside toes and landside toes, and levee mid-slopes at a longitudinal spacing of no less than 500 feet. Additionally, data was gathered and considered from past levee construction records and studies. Because of City priorities, the near-term plan is to restore the 100-year level of protection for the levee system to achieve FEMA 100-year accreditation. The longer-term plan is to address SPF major deficiencies within the Dallas Floodway system with the ongoing Dallas Floodway EIS and the subsequent USACE/City project for the Dallas Floodway. The 100-year and SPF events are discussed in detail in SDEIS Section 4.13 Floodplain Impacts. A 100-year flood is calculated to be the level of flood water expected to be equaled or exceeded at least once in a 100-year period. The 100-year flood is more accurately referred to as the "1% flood" because it is the event which has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any one-year time period. The SPF is an extreme event, typically used by the USACE in the analysis of levee systems. In the area of the Dallas Floodway, the SPF approximates an 800-year event.

3-6

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

The discussion of compatibility which follows below is arranged around two major themes in the major deficiencies list: (i) seepage control and (ii) future improvement of the levees. SDEIS Section 2.4.6, Trinity Parkway Construction in the Dallas Floodway, includes provisions that the Floodway alternatives (Alternatives 3C and 4B) would provide undiminished access to all levee segments and floodway areas currently maintained by the Dallas Flood Control Division, as well as acknowledgement of the primacy of the flood control function. Therefore, these topics are not discussed further in this LSS.

3.4

LEVEE REMEDIATION PLAN SEEPAGE CONTROL

Based on the best available information at the time of preparation of this LSS, the city plan for control of seepage through the levees incorporates levee cut-off trenches in selected segments of the Dallas Floodway, where the geotechnical testing has identified seepage concerns such as the existence of sand layers. The trenches are expected to be composed of native soils mixed with Bentonite clay and constructed using slurry trench methods. Bentonite is a highly impermeable clay, and its inclusion in the trench is intended to provide a barrier to migration of water under the levee. The trench 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. As stated in SDEIS Chapter 2 Alternatives Considered, Alternatives 3C and 4B are proposed to be constructed on embankments alongside the Dallas Floodway levees, with the embankments offset sufficiently to allow future raising of the levee by the City/USACE. SDEIS Figure 2-29 shows a conceptual cross section of the roadway embankments alongside the levees, showing proposed use of low permeability clay in the zones affected by the levee expansion. Figure 3-2 below is identical to SDEIS Figure 2-29, except the city-proposed levee cut-off trench has been added to the section.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

3-7

FIGURE 3-2. CITY-PROPOSED CUT-OFF TRENCH AND PROPOSED EMBANKMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVES 3C AND 4B

The city-proposed cut-off trench will be located approximately 50 to 80 feet from the levee toe along the east levee and a minimum of 25 feet from the levee toe along the west levee. However, the cityproposed cut-off trenches are expected to be in place prior to construction of the proposed Trinity Parkway. If a Trinity Parkway alternative is selected in the Dallas Floodway, the anticipated slurry trench does not appear to be an impediment to construction of the embankments and levee expansion. Therefore, the proposed Trinity Parkway alternatives would be compatible with the cut-off trenches proposed in the city plan. The citys plan for control of seepage through the Dallas Floodway levees also includes a proposal to address seepage around foundations which penetrate the levees. There are multiple existing bridge crossings along the Dallas Floodway, all of which have pier penetrations through the levee down to the underlying shale formation (at depths ranging from approximately 50 feet to 100 feet below the base of the levee). The USACE Periodic Inspection Report No. 9 listed 18 existing bridges as having "unacceptable" pier encroachments. The deficiency relates to a concern that in-situ clay material might pull away from the surface of a drill shaft because of seasonal moisture variation, creating a void around the shaft which could propagate for some distance down into the levee. This void carries a potential for

3-8

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

creating a flow path, transporting seepage down into the levee and possibly intercepting a sand seam at depth. Alternatives 3C and 4B include diaphragm walls as a seepage control measure at proposed bridge crossings. The diaphragm walls are described in LSS Section 2.3.4 and shown in the plan view in the schematic plans (LSS Chapter 2 Plates 2-4A/B and 2-5A/B). The walls are further described in SDEIS Section 2.3.9, 2006 USACE Consultation Regarding the Dallas Floodway Levees. The proposed walls are 300 feet to 1,400 feet long, depending on the site, and cost on the order of $1 million for each 100 feet length of wall. These walls are 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. There is a possibility a different, less expensive solution to the pier penetration/seepage concerns may be implemented as the USACE further studies the condition (at existing or other proposed bridges) and develops solutions within the framework of the ongoing Feasibility Study and EIS for the Dallas Floodway. The USACE has approved pier penetrations at the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge levee crossings under construction in 2011 and at the proposed Sylvan Avenue Bridge scheduled to begin construction in early 2012. For these projects, bridge columns located immediately landside of the levees included 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. If these kinds of solutions can be applied at the Trinity Parkway levee crossings, it is expected costs would be reduced from the costs for the diaphragm walls assumed in the LSS and SDEIS. The proposed Trinity Parkway alternatives in the Dallas Floodway may affect filter collars at existing bridges because the proposed Trinity Parkway 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 design development, in the event a Trinity Parkway alternative in the Dallas Floodway is chosen, and would be subject to design review, permitting and construction oversight by the USACE. Therefore, the proposed Trinity Parkway would be compatible with the seepage collars if they are a component of the City/USACE final Levee Remediation Plan.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

3-9

3.5

LEVEE REMEDIATION PLAN FUTURE LEVEE GEOMETRY

Trinity Parkway 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 future raising of the levee by the City/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 is assumed to be 16-feet wide, and the riverside slopes are assumed to be 4:1 (horizontal:vertical). The proposed embankment geometry is illustrated in Figure 3-3, which shows the Alternative 3C Typical Section, and Figure 3-4, which shows the Alternative 4B Typical Section. The embankment geometry is also shown on the Alternative 3C and 4B schematic designs in LSS Chapter 2 Plates 2-4A/B and 2-5A/B.

FIGURE 3-3. ALTERNATIVE 3C - COMBINED PARKWAY - (FURTHER MODIFIED) TYPICAL SECTION

Note: 1.

There would typically be three main lanes 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.

3-10

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

FIGURE 3-4. ALTERNATIVE 4B - SPLIT PARKWAY RIVERSIDE - MODIFIED TYPICAL SECTION

Note: 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. Flood elevations, levee heights, and slopes would vary. Those used in the section would be typical.

The city and USACE work for the Levee Remediation Plan and the ongoing Dallas Floodway EIS (as described in Section 3.3 above) included a fresh look at the design of future levee improvements, using the more 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 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 completion of this LSS. The letter (see LSS Appendix A) makes 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

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

3-11

future two-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 one of the Trinity Parkway alternatives in the floodway is recommended as the preferred alternative, additional coordination with the USACE and the City will be required to ensure the roadway design remains compatible with final remediation plans for the levees.

3.6

SUMMARY DISCUSSION

Based on the analysis in Sections 3.2 through 3.5 above using the best available information to date, Trinity Parkway Alternatives 3C and 4B in the Dallas Floodway would be compatible with the City of Dallas proposed Levee Remediation Plan.

[END OF CHAPTER 3]

3-12

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

CHAPTER 4 Enhanced Analysis of Practicability of the Reasonable Alternatives

CHAPTER 4 ENHANCED ANALYSIS OF PRACTICABILITY OF THE REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Evaluation of Practicability Under Executive Orders 11990 and 11988

4.1.1

Introduction

This section discusses the legislative and regulatory obligations of the FHWA and the USACE to conduct a practicable alternatives analysis with regard to floodplains and wetlands and provides the analysis required for the proposed Trinity Parkway project. Build and the following Build Alternatives: Alternative 2A Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard Elevated Alternative 2B Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard At-Grade Alternative 3C Combined Parkway Riverside Further Modified Alternative 4B Split Parkway Riverside Modified 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 involve consideration of EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands. EO 11988 Floodplain Management also applies because Alternatives 3C and 4B are located primarily within the Dallas Floodway, as are minor portions of Alternatives 2A and 2B. Regulations implementing EO 11990 and EO 11988 require that for a selected project alternative, there is a demonstration that there is no practicable alternative to either the taking of wetlands or the occupying of floodplains. LSS Section 4.1.2 provides a discussion of the legislative and regulatory standards, LSS Section 4.1.3 provides the methodology used to evaluate practicability, and LSS Sections 4.1.4 through 4.1.7 provide a practicability evaluation of each of the four Build Alternatives. Based on the FHWA guidance documents, any alternative which does not meet the need for the project is not practicable (FHWA, 1990). In the SDEIS, it was determined that the No-Build Alternative does not meet the need and purpose of the proposed action; therefore, the No-Build Alternative is excluded from the practicability discussion. As described in Chapter 2 (Alternatives Considered), the analysis of alternatives in this LSS to the SDEIS for Trinity Parkway includes the No-

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-1

4.1.2

Legislative/Regulatory Context

4.1.2.1 Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands (42 Federal Register 26961, May 24, 1977) 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. EO 11990 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 a practicability determination: In making this finding the head of the agency may take into account economic, environmental and other pertinent factors. Section 6 of EO 11990 requires agencies to issue or amend their procedures to comply with the Order. Accordingly, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 5660.1A issued its implementing policies, Preservation of the Nations Wetlands (issued on August 24, 1978). The USDOT regulations 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 that economic, environmental and other factors may be taken into account in making a finding of no practicable alternative, and that some additional cost alone will not necessarily render alternatives or minimization measures impractical, since additional cost would normally be recognized as necessary and justified to meet national wetland policy objectives. consulted with for advice and assistance concerning any proposed wetland impacts. The USDOT regulations require that agencies with jurisdiction, the USACE in the case of Trinity Parkway, are to be

In 1987, the FHWA addressed compliance with EO 11990 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.

4-2

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

In 2000, the FHWA issued a final rule that reiterates and further implements EO 11990 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.

4.1.2.2 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act In addition to EO 11990, Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the USACE to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The USACE and the EPA rules address standards for protection of wetlands and permit criteria. Most pertinent here are the Section 404(b)(1) regulations promulgated by EPA that all permit applicants must satisfy. 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, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences" (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 purpose (40 CFR Section 230.3(q)). In addition to the Section 404(b)(1) regulations, the USACE applies its own regulations in consideration of Section 404 permit applications. Known as the "public interest review," the USACE's regulations provide for consideration and balancing of many criteria. As one of its general criteria for evaluating permit applications, the USACE states the following: The following general criteria will be considered in the evaluation of every application: (i) The relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed structure or work; (ii) Where there are unresolved conflicts as to resource use, the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the proposed structure or work; and (iii) The extent and permanence of the beneficial and/or detrimental effects which the proposed structure or work is likely to have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited (33 CFR Section 320.4(a)(2)(i - iii)). Additional regulatory factors, not summarized here, are addressed in both the USACE and EPA Section 404 regulations. 4.1.2.3 Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management EO 11988 Floodplain Management (42 Federal Regulation 26951, May 24, 1977) 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. EO 11988 states if an agency has determined

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-3

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, consistent with regulations issued in accord with Section 2(d) of this Order, and (ii) prepare and circulate a notice containing an explanation of why the action is proposed to be located in 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 substantially affects the base floodplain, an Only Practicable Alternative Finding would be required in the FEIS. 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 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. The FHWA also discussed compliance with EO 11988 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, 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. The USACE policy regarding floodplains is included in its Public Interest Review section of 33 CFR Section 320.4 General Policies for Evaluating Permit Applications, which includes the following provision regarding floodplain management, In accordance with Executive Order 11988, the district engineer should avoid authorizing floodplain developments whenever practicable alternatives exist outside the floodplain. If there are no such practicable alternatives, the district engineer shall consider, as a means of mitigation, alternatives within the floodplain which will lessen any significant adverse impact to the floodplain. (33 CFR Section 320.4(a)(l)(3)).

4-4

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

The USACE Engineering Regulation (ER) 1165-2-26 Implementation of Executive Order 11988 on Flood Plain Management, provides more information on EO 11988 as it relates to the USACE projects. 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 people. In order to develop a framework of reasonable factors for the Trinity Parkway practicability analysis, the studies and information from the SDEIS were used as a basis for identifying issues discussed in this practicability analysis.

4.1.3

Methodology

Several aspects of EO 11990 and EO 11988 suggest they were intended for joint application (i.e., subject matter overlap, common terms, and the identical date of issuance). A 1978 CEQ Memorandum (CEQ, 1978) resolved this point by instructing federal agencies to jointly apply these Orders where wetland impacts occur within floodplains. Similarly, where two agencies such as the FHWA and USACE are cooperatively involved in a project with wetland and floodplain impacts, it also follows that both agencies policies implementing these Orders need to be addressed, as each agency must comply with its own regulations. Moreover, the FHWAs wetlands policy adopted a definition of practicable that it intended to be consistent with the USACE wetlands regulations and the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. The discussion in the following sections therefore combines the practicability discussions under both Orders as well as Section 404 of the CWA. In order to facilitate consistent analyses between the agencies, the practicable Build Alternatives analysis for the Trinity Parkway is intended to encompass all of the Orders and agency regulations discussed in LSS Section 4.1.2. In addition, both the FHWA and USACE staffs have presented position papers outlining certain NEPA requirements as they apply to the Trinity Parkway. These documents are included in LSS Appendix A: (1) "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 10, 2009, and (2) white paper provided by the FHWA on

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-5

May 19, 2009 titled "Trinity Parkway - FHWA Criteria for Project Approval." These guidance documents have helped inform the substance of the analysis. Table 4-1 shows a master list of factors that have been considered in the Trinity Parkway practicability discussion. Central to each of the guidance documents is that while they identify factors, they do not prioritize factors. The practicability determination is made upon a weighing of the pertinent factors.

TABLE 4-1. EO 11990 AND EO 11988 PRACTICABILITY FACTORS

Cost Constraints 1) 2) Economic impacts (short and long term) Project costs (construction cost, ROW cost, operations and maintenance, environmental mitigation)

Functional Constraints 3) 4) 5) Consideration of existing technology Consideration of logistics Locational advantages (including any functional need for locating in the floodplain)

Natural Constraints 6) 7) 8) 9) Natural and beneficial values served by floodplains (including measures to restore and preserve any natural and beneficial floodplain values impacted) Waters of the U.S., including wetlands and water quality Fish and wildlife habitat values (including threatened and endangered species) Conservation

Social Constraints 10) Needs and welfare of the people (social impacts, transportation, relocations and displacements) 11) Air quality impacts 12) Traffic noise impacts 13) Impact of floods on human safety 14) Risks associated with implementation of the action 15) Incompatible development 16) Aesthetics 17) Historic values

The 17 factors listed in Table 4-1 are discussed individually for each of the four Build Alternatives in the following LSS Sections 4.1.4 (Alternative 2A) through 4.1.7 (Alternative 4B). Each section concludes with a brief discussion summarizing the factors that may be constraints affecting the practicability of each of the Build Alternatives.

4-6

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4.1.4

Practicability of Alternative 2A - Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard Elevated

As described in Chapter 2, Alternative 2A is distinguished from the other Build Alternatives by a proposed double-deck structure along Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards and Lamar Street. The proposed tollway would be elevated above the existing streets, and the local streets would be reconstructed along the existing alignment at-grade. Alternative 2A would be approximately 8.83 miles in length, would occupy approximately 264 acres of ROW, and would cost approximately $2.36 billion (2011 dollars) to construct. Major interchanges associated with Alternative 2A include: Direct connections at Stemmons Freeway (IH-35E)/SH-183 (northern terminus), US-175/SH-310 (southern terminus), Woodall Rodgers Freeway, and IH-45; Full diamond interchanges at Hampton/Inwood Road, Sylvan/Wycliff Avenue, Corinth Street, Martin Luther King Boulevard (MLK), and Lamar Street/SH-310; and Half diamond interchange at the Houston/Jefferson Street Viaducts. See LSS Section 2.3.2 for a detailed description, typical sections, layout map, and a computer generated rendering graphic of Alternative 2A.

4.1.4.1 Economic Impacts Changes in existing land use to transportation use would have a negative impact on the local economy both in the short and long term if Alternative 2A is implemented. SDEIS Section 4.6.2.2 (Local Economic Impacts) provides an analysis of potential effects on the economy within the City of Dallas and Dallas County. In the short-term, Alternative 2A would have direct impacts during construction, particularly on remaining commercial buildings adjacent to the roadway. The impacts would primarily involve access and traffic circulation challenges over the construction period, which could negatively affect business activity. In the long-term, direct impacts would occur where land and improvements are removed from the tax rolls. Alternative 2A would require the acquisition of land from 402 parcels, including 127 acres of privately owned land, and would displace 285 buildings. Table 4-2 below provides a summary of the buildings displaced by type. SDEIS Appendix C (Relocation Assistance Information) provides a more detailed tabulation of the affected properties and buildings.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-7

TABLE 4-2. ALTERNATIVE 2A ESTIMATED NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION OF DISPLACEMENTS

Type of Displacements Residential Buildings Commercial/ Industrial Buildings Community / Recreation Centers Pump Stations/ Levee Operations Office Buildings Police and Fire Station Buildings Public Health Care Facilities Schools DISD Facility Buildings Places of Worship Cemeteries Total Number of Displacements 8 272 --1 2 ----2 ----285

The estimates of tax base value loss and tax revenue loss due to ROW acquisition have been updated from the estimates provided in SDEIS Section 4.6.2.2 (Local Economic Impacts). The information for Alternative 2A is presented below as Table 4-3. The total taxable value loss due to displacements and acquisition for Alternative 2A is estimated to be approximately $379 million (2011 dollars), affecting tax collections for Dallas County, City of Dallas, and Dallas Independent School District (DISD).

TABLE 4-3. ALTERNATIVE 2A ESTIMATED TAX VALUE LOST

Entity Percent Tax Rate (%) Annual Tax Revenue Loss (2011 $) $2,364,092 $3,020,635 $4,890,423 Total Tax Base ($) $155,514,580,710 $77,295,235,801 $74,661,069,947 Percent Loss from Tax Base (%) 0.2437% 0.4903% 0.5076%

Dallas County 0.62377 City of Dallas 0.797 DISD 1.290347 Total Tax Value Lost: $379,000,635

Sources: Insight Research Corporation, 2011. 2011 tax rates and base property values, Dallas Central Appraisal District.

Losses to the City tax base would accumulate for some time until redevelopment occurs. The property acquisitions tend to be of irregular shapes and sizes, resulting in surplus properties of similar irregular shapes and sizes scattered alongside the roadways. Due to the sizes and shapes, the process of assembly and reuse of the surplus parcels may take some time. The density or value of new buildings would have to be increased from current conditions in order to offset the net loss of 127 acres of mostly developed land that is privately owned. According to information obtained from Dun & Bradstreet by the City of Dallas, Office of Economic Development, Research & Information Division (January 2010), the estimated number of businesses displaced by Alternative 2A as a result of the displacement of the commercial and industrial buildings shown in Table 4-2 above would be expected to range from approximately 285 to 304 businesses. The number of businesses differs from the number of building displacements as some buildings are occupied by multiple businesses and some businesses occupy a complex comprised of multiple buildings. The approximate number of jobs affected by the business displacements would be expected to range from

4-8

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

6,437 to 6,640 jobs.

Many of these jobs and businesses could be permanently lost if displaced

businesses can not relocate within the same geographic area or decide for other reasons to cease operations and employees are unable to find similar work. In the short-term, there would be some local jobs created by construction and operation of the tollway.

Cost estimates for Alternative 2A are provided in LSS Appendix D, and include roadway construction, engineering, utility relocations, contingencies, ROW acquisition, environmental remediation and mitigation. The total estimated cost of Alternative 2A is $2.36 billion (2011 dollars). The total cost negatively affects the practicability of this Build Alternative. Construction Cost: Construction costs are high ($1.76 billion of the $2.36 billion total) because of the double-deck elevated structure proposed for this Build Alternative. The construction cost includes miscellaneous expenses such as traffic control (approximately $109 million). Traffic control is substantial because construction occurs within a highly urbanized corridor. The construction cost also includes the costs for environmental mitigation, which is discussed separately below. Environmental Mitigation Cost: The estimated cost for environmental mitigation is $48.2 million. The cost includes vegetation enhancements ($59,800), noise wall construction ($2.8 million), mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. ($58,800), and investigation and remediation for hazardous material sites ($7.0 million). The highest portion of the cost is attributed to asbestos abatement ($31.4 million) and demolition ($6.8 million) of the numerous residential and commercial properties. Substantial property acquisition would be needed for

Right-of-Way and Utility Relocation Costs:

Alternative 2A because the proposed tollway is wider than the existing road and because the alignment deviates from the existing centerlines of Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards due to the 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. The estimated cost for ROW is approximately $510.8 million. associated with Alternative 2A. See Table 4-2 for a list of the number and type of displacements Utility relocation costs are approximately $90.2 million. Notably,

Alternative 2A requires relocation of approximately 2 miles of the new Oncor 345 kilovolts (kV) transmission line in the median of Irving Boulevard from Regal Row to Sylvan Avenue. See also LSS Section 4.1.4.4 Consideration of Logistics. Operations and Maintenance Cost: O&M costs are not included in total project costs discussed above. These are separately reported in LSS Appendix D. The costs are estimated over a feasibility study 52-

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-9

year1 period (2013 2065) based on standard NTTA O&M practices. The estimated O&M cost for Alternative 2A is $78 million (2008 dollars). LSS Appendix D also reports the O&M costs escalated over a feasibility study 52-year period (2013 2065) based on standard practices for NTTA O&M. The escalated O&M costs are estimated at $199 million assuming a 2.75 percent escalation rate over the 52year period. These estimated O&M costs will be updated in the FEIS using current NTTA parameters.

4.1.4.3 Consideration of Existing Technology In a practicability analysis, the purpose of evaluating existing technology is to identify any limitation that would influence the constructability, operations, or maintenance of a particular Build Alternative. Alternative 2A could utilize current engineering technology for roadway and related construction, and there appears to be no unusual or insurmountable technological issues with this Build Alternative. 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 for Alternative 2A is built into the cost estimates reported in LSS Section 4.1.4.2 above.

This section identifies logistics issues related to the implementation of Alternative 2A, including impacts to project schedule and construction phasing. Information used in the discussion of logistics is taken from the SDEIS Environmental Consequences Sections 4.5 (Relocation and Displacement Impacts), 4.17 (Hazardous/Regulated Materials), 4.18 (Utilities), and 4.20 (Temporary Impacts During Construction). In addition, implementation schedules have been developed for each Build Alternative in the LSS to assess time to completion. The estimated schedule for Alternative 2A is summarized below, with additional details provided in LSS Appendix D.

A major constraint influencing the practicability of Alternative 2A 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 unusually long (10 years) because of the large-scale, sequential tasks required for the construction process. The sequence of activities is depicted in Table 4-4, assuming a start date of January 1, 2013.

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.

4-10

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

TABLE 4-4. ALTERNATIVE 2A LOGICAL SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES AFTER ANTICIPATED RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
Activity Preliminary Engineering1 Select Consultant Team and Award2 Traffic and Revenue Studies3 Local, State and Federal Permitting4 Surveys and Preliminary Environmental Work ROW Acquisition and Relocations Municipal Setting Designation Application /Approval Property Cleanup, Asbestos Abatement and Demolition Utility Relocations
6 7 5

Begin Date First Quarter 2013 First Quarter 2013 First Quarter 2013 First Quarter 2013 Second Quarter 2013 First Quarter 2014 Second Quarter, 2015 Third Quarter 2015 Second Quarter 2015 Third Quarter 2016 Second Quarter 2018 Third Quarter 2018

Completion Date Third Quarter 2013 Second Quarter 2013 Third Quarter 2013 First Quarter 2014 Fourth Quarter 2015 Fourth Quarter 2016 Second Quarter, 2018 Second Quarter 2018 Third Quarter 2018 First Quarter 2018 Third Quarter 2018 First Quarter 2023

Final Tollway Design

Construction Bid and Award Construction

Notes: 1. 95 percent Schematic Update and Review by TxDOT and the FHWA, Prepare O&M Costs, Develop Market Valuation, Final Schematic Design Preparation and Approval, Interstate Access Study, Major Project Study, Design Criteria Manual 2. Includes ROW Surveyors and Acquisition Support, Environmental Phases I and II, Section Design and Review Engineers, Corridor Managers, Contract Administration, and Geotech 3. Includes Value Engineering Study 4. Includes Section 404 Permit 5. Includes Set/Recover Controls, Deed Research, Parcel Map Preparation 6. Includes design of utility relocations, bid, award and construct 7. Includes select and award consultant contracts

As shown in Table 4-4, the Alternative 2A estimated time to completion is approximately 10 years, yielding an open-to-traffic date of First Quarter 2023. Alternative 2A would be constructed almost entirely on elevated structure and would only require approximately 0.3 million cubic yards (CY) of fill material to be furnished by the construction contractor. Activities that most influence the schedule for Alternative 2A include ROW acquisition and relocations, environmental investigations and demolition, utility relocations, and traffic and safety issues. These are discussed briefly below: Right-of-way Acquisition and Relocations; Environmental Investigations and Demolition: As described in LSS Section 4.1.4.1 Economic Impacts, there would be numerous displacements and relocations associated with Alternative 2A. The number of impacted properties (approximately 402 total parcels affected and 285 building displacements) would affect the project schedule because of the time needed to survey the affected parcels and appraise/negotiate each acquisition. It is anticipated that some property owners in the ROW of Alternative 2A would oppose acquisition, leading to lengthy eminent domain

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-11

proceedings. The 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, including 34 high risk hazardous material sites), remediation, demolition, and utility relocations. Utility Relocations: As listed in Table 4-5, the Alternative 2A corridor has extensive water lines, sanitary sewer lines, and high voltage electrical overhead transmission lines, which would need to be coordinated and cleared from the Alternative 2A ROW. TABLE 4-5. ALTERNATIVE 2A POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MAJOR UTILITIES
SDEIS Plate ID SDEIS Plate 3-11 Water Lines
Key to Symbols: R = Relocation (estimated linear feet)

Description of Major Utilities

Type of Impact

W-1 W-2 W-6 W-7 W-8 W-9

48-inch concrete water line 36-inch water line 24-inch concrete water line 20-inch cast-iron water line 24-inch concrete water line 66-inch concrete water line

R (1,600) R (500) R (14,000) R (9,100) R (9,100) R (6,000)

SDEIS Plate 3-12 Sanitary Sewer Lines

Key to Symbols: R = Relocation (estimated linear feet)

SS-3 SS-4 SS-5 SS-6

60-inch sludge force main 12-inch concrete sanitary sewer 10-inch concrete sanitary sewer 12-inch sanitary sewer

R (6,000) R (2,500) R (2,000) R (1,200)

SDEIS Plate 3-13 Electrical - Overhead Transmission Lines

Key to Symbols: R = Relocation (estimated number of towers); A = Adjustment (estimated number of towers); kV = kilovolts (of electricity)

E-3 E-5 E-7 E-8 E-9 -

Oncor 138 kV trans. line Oncor 138 kV trans. line Oncor trans. line Oncor 138 kV trans. line Oncor trans. Lines (4) Oncor 345 kV (Irving Boulevard)

A (2) R (1) R (1) A (2) R (2); A (6) R(20) 2 miles

As shown in Table 4-5, relocations total approximately 40,300 feet of major water lines, as well as 11,700 feet of sanitary sewers. No major natural gas lines, electrical substations, storm drainage pump stations, storm water outfalls, or storage sumps would be impacted by Alternative 2A. 345 kV line listed in Table 4-5. 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 either street ROW line) 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 The major impact on logistics and schedule is believed to be the electric transmission lines in the corridor, particularly the

4-12

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

associated foundations) and possibly relocated as part of the Alternative 2A construction. The 345 kV line is particularly important because it provides an electrical 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 logistics challenges of Alternative 2A 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 prerequisites. 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. Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards are highly utilized roadways. Construction would also

Traffic and Safety:

Construction activities would result in traffic disruption in the project area.

temporarily affect local streets providing access to businesses and residents in the project area. In addition to temporary traffic disruptions (closures and detours), construction activity could contribute to periods of localized congestion. Safety and security issues may include temporary disruption of access for emergency and law enforcement vehicles. Heavy vehicle movements, possible hazardous waste excavation and transport, and construction site activity would also create potential safety concerns.

4.1.4.5 Locational Advantages (including any functional need for locating in the floodplain) 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 the transportation network in the area, this is also a disadvantage. Alternative 2A does not fully meet the projects need and purpose because it does not provide compatibility with local land use plans. As stated in LSS Section 1.2, one of the purposes of the proposed project is to provide compatibility with local development plans, and 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 (see LSS Section 4.1.4.10 Needs and Welfare of the People). The location of Alternative 2A (primarily outside the floodway) may also 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 other creating a

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-13

highway corridor almost 1,000 feet wide for a distance of nearly one mile between the Dallas CBD and the east levee. Another disadvantage of the proposed location of 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 4-6, 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 and negatively affects the practicability of this alternative.

TABLE 4-6. ALTERNATIVE 2A INTERCHANGE ACCESS

Interchange Location Stemmons Freeway (IH-35E)/SH-183 Commonwealth Drive Hampton/Inwood Road Wycliff/Sylvan Avenue Continental Avenue Woodall Rodgers Freeway Commerce Street Houston/Jefferson Street South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E) Corinth Street MLK IH-45 Lamar Street SH-310 US-175 Type of Interchange Direct Connection via Ramps None Full Diamond Interchange Full Diamond Interchange None Direct Conns SB-EB, WB-NB, NB-EB, and WB-SB None Half Diamond Interchange None Full Diamond Interchange Full Diamond Interchange Direct Connection via ramps None Half Diamond Interchange Direct Mainlane Connection

SDEIS Section 2.3.12 (Access to IH-35E, US 175, and Corinth Street) lists various Dallas Council and community actions dating back to 1997 calling for provision of access from South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E) to Trinity Parkway. This access cannot be provided by Alternative 2A. The South RL Thornton Freeway interchange poses design and operational challenges, and it was determined that connecting ramps were not feasible for Alternatives 2A because of geometric constraints.

4.1.4.6 Natural and Beneficial Values Served by Floodplains Natural and beneficial floodplain values include fish, wildlife, plants, open space, natural beauty, scientific study, outdoor recreation, agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge (23 CFR 650, Subpart A). The Dallas Floodway is not utilized for forestry and agriculture, and Alternative 2A would have no impact on these types of values that are

4-14

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

sometimes associated with floodplains. values are discussed below.

Potential impacts of Alternative 2A on remaining floodplain

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 potential impacts to fish and wildlife. SDEIS Section 3.4.3 (Vegetation within the Study Area) provides a breakdown of land cover types in the Trinity Parkway Study Area. The total study area is 7,036 acres, of which urban areas comprise 56 percent (3,907 acres), maintained grass areas comprise 31 percent (2,198 acres), bottomland and riparian forests comprise 4 percent (290 acres), and water features or aquatic habitats comprise 9 percent of the area (641 acres). The maintained grass acreage primarily comprises the Dallas Floodway, a facility which has been almost entirely re-graded and realigned from its former natural floodplain condition, and which is subject to periodic mowing by the City of Dallas. Table 4-7 below shows a summary of vegetation impacts for Alternative 2A extracted from SDEIS Section 4.9.2.2 (Vegetation Impacts). TABLE 4-7. ALTERNATIVE 2A POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO VEGETATION
Type of Vegetation Woodland (Non-Wetland): Bottomland Hardwoods Riparian Forest Aquatic Habitats*: Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands (acres) Other (acres) Maintained Grass Areas (acres) Total Undeveloped Areas Impacts (acres) Impacts (acres) 4.6 ---

4.3 --11.8 20.7

Notes: 1. All quantities are shown in acres. 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, most would be spanned by bridges.

Alternative 2A avoids the Dallas Floodway area except for a small segment in the southern part of the corridor downstream of Corinth Street. In this segment, there would be some impacts to the floodplain, including removal of habitat in the areas of hardwood forest (4.6 acres) and removal of maintained grass areas (11.8 acres). For the most part, Alternative 2A occupies developed land, with crossings of grassed and open water areas at manmade sumps in the corridor. Alternative 2A 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. Flooding conditions are expected to be unaffected because of the use of bridge crossings. See SDEIS Section 4.13 (Floodplain Impacts).

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-15

4.1.4.7 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands and Water Quality An overview of the wetlands and other jurisdictional waters (e.g., rivers, creeks, and sumps) within the Study Area is presented in the SDEIS Section 3.4.6 (Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands). The effect of Alternative 2A on wetlands is presented in SDEIS Section 4.8 (Impacts to Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands). The SDEIS included a jurisdictional determination of waters of the U.S., including wetlands within the Dallas Floodway, which was approved by the USACE on June 19, 2006. In March 2011, a supplemental jurisdictional determination was submitted to the USACE requesting a reverification and time extension of the approval (Note: the delineated area for the Historic River Channel, which is currently utilized as sumps for storm water collection, increased slightly because the 2011 jurisdictional determination included drainage culverts connecting the sumps that were not included in the 2006 jurisdictional determination, resulting in a minor increase in the impacted acreage from the SDEIS). The USACE determined that there has not been a significant change in the location of waters of the U.S. from the date of the original approval and that an extension of the approved jurisdictional determination is in the public interest (see LSS Appendix A). As such, the approved jurisdictional determination is valid until March 24, 2016. The jurisdictional determination for the Dallas Floodway (USACE approved 2006 and 2011) was intended to provide a baseline for potential impacts to waters of the U.S. for the numerous Trinity River Corridor projects and was not limited to the scope of the proposed Trinity Parkway project. It should be noted that areas outside the geographic scope of the approved jurisdictional determination near the northern and southern termini of the Trinity Parkway project and along Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards are occupied by urban development with low opportunity for the presence of aquatic features. However, aquatic features beyond the geographic scope of the approved jurisdictional determination were mapped in a manner consistent with USACE procedures for conducting jurisdictional determinations during the initial field investigations for the Trinity Parkway project. Table 4-8 shows impact data for Alternative 2A. TABLE 4-8. ALTERNATIVE 2A POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING WETLANDS
Emergent Wetlands Forested Wetlands Open Water Intermittent* Historic Trinity River Channel* Intermittent Stream Trinity River* Total

--

1.38

--

2.83

0.13

--

4.34

Notes: 1. All quantities shown in acres. Calculated areas are estimates only. Impacts are expected from fill due to roadway construction. 2. Expected impacts are based on the jurisdictional determination approved by the USACE on March 24, 2011 (File # SWF2011-00049). 3. -- = No impact anticipated for this alternative. 4. The Historic Trinity River Channel refers to old meanders of the Elm Fork and West Fork Trinity River located outside the Dallas Floodway that consist of open channels with scattered tree growth surrounded by urban development. These old meanders are currently utilized as sumps to collect local storm water runoff that eventually drains into the Dallas Floodway. * Potential impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, may occur from bridge column construction and can be addressed, minimized or possibly eliminated during final design.

4-16

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

As shown in Table 4-8, Alternative 2A would impact 4.34 acres of waters of the U.S. SDEIS Section 7.4 (Measures to Minimize Impacts to Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands) provides further discussion of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such impacts. A preliminary Section 404 mitigation plan is presented in SDEIS Appendix J. A more detailed review of impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and a refined mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts will be provided in the FEIS once a preferred alternative has been recommended. The NCTCOG entered into an agreement with the USACE in October 2008 to fund a position to expedite Section 404 permitting for regional projects, with a priority focus on regionally significant transportation projects (NCTCOG, 2009b). This agreement allowed the USACE to assign a dedicated staff person to expedite Section 404 permits, and the USACE legislative authority to enter into these agreements was recently extended through 2016. 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. Alternative 2A requires the crossing of several water bodies within the study area, mostly comprised of drainage sumps and tributaries leading to the Trinity River (see LSS Plate 4-21). The potential erosion and sedimentation are dependent upon local conditions (i.e., soil type, slope, and vegetation) and construction practices (see SDEIS Sections 3.4.3 Vegetation within the Study Area; 3.5.3.3 Soils; 4.11 Topography, Geology, and Soils; 4.12 Water Quality Impacts; and 4.20 Temporary Impacts During Construction). 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 4.12 (Water Quality Impacts) and Section 7.2 (Measures to Minimize Impacts to Water Quality). Additional discussions in the SDEIS regarding regulatory controls of water quality impacts are included in SDEIS Section 4.13.1 (CDC Process Trinity River Main Stem), Section 7.4 (Measures to Minimize Impacts to Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands), Section 7.5 (Measures to Minimize Impacts to Floodplains), Appendix H (Preliminary Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation), and Appendix I (TCEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification Questionnaire).

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-17

4.1.4.8 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values SDEIS Section 4.9 (Water Body Modification; Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts) presents a quantitative assessment of impacts to woodlands, aquatics, and grasslands, as well as 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. As shown in Table 4-7 in LSS Section 4.1.4.6, 20.7 acres of undeveloped areas, consisting mostly of maintained grass areas, would be impacted by Alternative 2A. expected from Alternative 2A. As reported in SDEIS Section 4.9.2.4 (Threatened and Endangered Species), no recent occurrences of federally or state listed threatened or endangered species have been identified in the project study area during field surveys. This was also confirmed through informal coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), a search of the Natural Diversity Database (NDD) maintained by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD, 2007), and correspondence with other organizations considered to have special expertise related to wildlife and their habitat. In March 2009, the USFWS concurred that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed species. No impacts on fish, agriculture, aquaculture, or forestry resources are

4.1.4.9 Conservation SDEIS Section 4.19 (Energy Requirements) and Section 4.22 (Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources) include general discussions regarding transportation-related energy use and the commitment of resources. For the implementation of Alternative 2A, 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 (Transportation Impacts) to energy use, managing congestion delay and vehicle hours traveled means lower fuel and energy use. The energy requirements associated with Alternative 2A are not considered functional constraints to practicability.

4.1.4.10

Needs and Welfare of the People

The Trinity Parkway is a high profile project that, for about the past 15 years, has involved numerous stakeholders and individuals along the corridor in the project development process. Chapter 1 of this LSS summarizes this long process of project planning and evaluation. Effects of the proposed project on

4-18

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

the local community could be a major factor in determining practicability of Alternative 2A. Information used in the analysis of the impact of Alternative 2A on the needs and welfare of the people is presented in SDEIS Section 4.1 (Land Use Impacts), Section 4.2 (Coordinated Planning and Design), Section 4.3 (Social Impacts), Section 4.4 (Transportation Impacts), Section 4.5 (Relocations and Displacement Impacts), Section 4.17 (Hazardous/Regulated Materials), and Section 4.20 (Temporary Impacts During Construction). Public comments on the SDEIS are also relevant to this discussion. Social Impacts: Table 4-2 in LSS Section 4.1.4.1 provides a summary of the residences, commercial buildings, and public facilities that would be relocated under Alternative 2A (a total of 285), and SDEIS Appendix C (Relocation Assistance Information) provides a detailed listing of the same. The numerous relocations have direct impacts to the neighborhoods and neighborhood districts in the project corridor. Of the 285 relocations, there would be 68 buildings in the Lower Stemmons Neighborhood District, 60 in the Design District, 41 in the Market/Technology Center area, 25 in the Trinity Industrial District, 25 in The Cedars, 18 in the Brookhollow Industrial Park, and 48 in the South Dallas Neighborhood District. 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). Nevertheless, 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 may be impacted substantially. According to information obtained from Dun & Bradstreet by the City of Dallas, Office of Economic Development, Research & Information Division (January 2010), the total number of businesses displaced by Alternative 2A would range from approximately 285 to 304. unable to relocate successfully. Minority and low-income populations exist in the project area, and Alternative 2A has been evaluated for compliance with the EO 12898, FHWA Order 6640.23, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (see SDEIS Section 4.3.3 Environmental Justice Considerations). Beneficial and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations have been identified, along with potential mitigation strategies, and there appear to be no disproportionately high or adverse impacts; therefore, Alternative 2A is considered to be consistent with the EO 12898 and FHWA Order 6640.23. Alternative 2A is similarly consistent with Title VI in that there is no evidence of discriminatory intent or effect. These businesses provide employment for approximately 6,437 to 6,640 people who could lose their jobs permanently if displaced businesses are

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-19

General Public Opinion: Acceptance of a Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard route by the City is not assured. SDEIS Section 1.3 (Project History) describes two well-publicized citywide elections in which Dallas citizens 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, 1998), 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. Alternative 2A, located primarily along Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard and Irving Boulevard, is inconsistent with the majority of voters opinions expressed in these elections that supported a Trinity Parkway location within the Dallas Floodway. Strong opposition to Alternative 2A was communicated during the official

Stakeholder Opinions:

comment period for the SDEIS from March 20, 2009 to June 30, 2009. There were 165 statements submitted by the general public expressing concern that Alternative 2A would have "devastating impacts" (or similar) to the established businesses and residential communities in the area. Four council members and the Mayor submitted public comments opposed to Alternative 2A. Eight business associations, which represent hundreds of local businesses, also submitted comments in opposition to Alternative 2A. 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. Comments received from agencies and the public during the public comment period for the SDEIS will be included in the FEIS, along with responses to the comments received. Key issues cited by the public as adverse impacts include: a high number of displacements and relocations, disruption of established businesses along Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards, adverse impacts to community resources, and increased traffic on adjacent streets. The Dallas City Council approved the renaming of Industrial Boulevard to

Future Land Use Plans:

"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 (Industrial) 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

4-20

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

corridor (although the pace may have slowed due to national economic conditions.) As reported in SDEIS Section 3.1.1.1 (Local Land Use Plans/Policies), 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 needed acquisitions for Alternative 2A over time. 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 Forks 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, 2003). 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, the earthworks plan, etc. While it is acknowledged that the City's BVP must still be evaluated by the USACE and found to be environmentally acceptable and technically sound before the plan can be implemented, Alternative 2A would be inconsistent with current plans and therefore would not achieve one of the purposes of the project, which is to provide compatibility with local development plans. 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, 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. community intentions. Alternative 2A is not consistent with these historic and ongoing

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-21

4.1.4.11

Air Quality Impacts

A traffic air quality analysis was performed for the proposed project to measure projected carbon monoxide (CO) levels as an indicator to determine whether local air quality would be adversely affected. As discussed in the SDEIS Section 4.14 (Air Quality Impacts), for Alternative 2A the percentages of projected 2025 and 2030 concentrations for 1-hour and 8-hour CO would be below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) threshold. Local concentrations of CO are not expected to exceed national standards at any time. A quantitative Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) analysis was also performed for the proposed project (see SDEIS Section 4.14.5 Mobile Source Air Toxics). MSATs are expected to decrease over time due to the EPAs vehicle and fuel regulations. Based upon this assessment, air quality impacts do not appear to be a major practicability constraint for Alternative 2A. This project is located within Dallas County, which is part of the EPAs designated nine-county serious2 nonattainment area for the 2007 eight-hour ozone standard; therefore, the transportation conformity rule applies. The proposed project is included in the area's financially constrained long-range MTP (Mobility 2035) and the 2011-2014 TIP, as amended. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) (FHWA/Federal Transit Administration [FTA]) found the MTP and the TIP to conform to the SIP on July 14, 2011. Analyses for the subsequent FEIS will be conducted based on the current MTP at that time. During the FEIS preparation process and prior to issuance of a ROD by the FHWA, appropriate measures would be taken to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the conforming MTP and the TIP/STIP.

4.1.4.12

Traffic Noise Impacts

As discussed in the SDEIS Section 4.15 (Noise Impacts), existing and predicted traffic noise levels were modeled at receiver locations that represent the land use activity areas adjacent to Alternative 2A that may be impacted by traffic noise and may potentially benefit from feasible and reasonable noise abatement. The following paragraphs describe the impacts: The southern terminus is an existing heavy traffic area with south US-75 connecting with US-175. Land use is single-family residential with a few retail/commercial facilities. Alternative 2A begins dropping from an elevated structure near the Lamar Street and Starks Avenue intersection to go under the US-175 bridge,

On August 9, 2010, the EPA proposed to determine that the nine-county moderate eight-hour ozone non-attainment area for DFW did not attain the 1997 eight-hour ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2010 attainment deadline set forth in the CAA and CFR for moderate non-attainment areas (75 FR 152, August 9, 2010) under Title 40 CFR Part 81. On January 19, 2011, the EPA reclassified the nine-county DFW non-attainment area from moderate to serious non-attainment for the 2007 eight-hour ozone standard.

4-22

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

merging with US-175 at the southern end of the project. In this area, 106 residences would have noise levels that exceed Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) criteria in the design year (2030). The northern terminus is an existing heavy traffic area at the IH-35E and SH-183 split. Land use is

retail/commercial with a residential neighborhood known as Arlington Park located approximately 300 feet east of the existing freeways. In this area, Alternative 2A provides connecting ramps to the existing freeway system. Nineteen residences and one small playground/park (Sleepy Hollow Park) near the northern terminus would have noise levels that exceed NAC criteria in the design year. In the central corridor from the Lamar Street and Starks Avenue intersection, Alternative 2A follows Lamar Street, Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard, and Irving Boulevard toward the northern terminus. Land use is primarily retail/commercial/industrial along the corridor with the exception of a residential neighborhood located adjacent to Lamar Street between MLK and Starks Avenue. There are no predicted noise impacts to the retail/commercial/industrial areas adjacent to Alternatives 2A. A portion of the residential neighborhood (between IH-45 and Hatcher Street) is designated as the Colonial Hill Historic District. In this area, 83 residences would have noise levels that exceed NAC criteria in the design year. These impacts primarily occur along Lamar Street between MLK and Starks Avenue. A noise wall analysis was performed for the impacted areas. Based on the analysis, noise walls were determined to be both feasible and reasonable only at the residential neighborhoods located at the southern terminus of the project. Noise walls in this area would reduce noise levels by at least 5 decibels (dBA) at impacted receivers. Noise walls to mitigate impacts to the areas further north along Lamar Street between MLK and Starks Avenue and at the northern terminus would not be reasonable and feasible. SDEIS Plate 4-33 shows the noise impacted areas. The noise analysis and discussion regarding noise impacts and feasible and reasonable abatement measures will be updated in the FEIS in accordance with TxDOT's (FHWA approved) April 2011 Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement of Roadway Traffic Noise.

4.1.4.13

Impact of Floods on Human Safety

The subject of flooding is addressed in SDEIS Section 4.13 (Floodplain Impacts). Alternative 2A would be located generally landside of the Dallas Floodway levees on land protected from river flooding by the levees, and protected from localized flooding by a system of sumps and pump stations which are part of the Dallas Flood Control District. The floodplain in the project area includes the floodway zone within the levees, as well as designated floodplain or floodway acreage not within the levees. summarizes the floodplain impacts of Alternative 2A. Table 4-9

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-23

TABLE 4-9. ALTERNATIVE 2A POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO FLOODPLAINS FROM FEMA FLOOD MAPPING
FEMA Flood Zone Zone X (Levee Protected) Zone AE (Floodway) Trinity River Main Stem Zone AE (Floodway) Developed Areas Zone AE (100-year) Developed Areas Floodplain Impact (Acres) 196 27 9 19

Note: Calculated areas are estimates only. Source: FEMA, 2007 a-i, Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map - Dallas County, Texas and Incorporated Areas.

For Alternative 2A, the Zone X acreage reported in the table consists of lands protected from Trinity River floodwaters by the Dallas Floodway levees. In this case, FEMA defines Zone X (shaded) as "areas protected by levees from 100-year flood" (FEMA, 2007a-i). Such areas are not Special Flood Hazard Areas (inundated by 100-year flood). The various Zone AE acreages (55 total acres) reported in the table are sump and watercourse crossings, and a portion of the Dallas Floodway land crossed in the southern segment of the study area. These areas are designated by FEMA as Special Flood Hazard Areas. All of these crossings are elevated bridge crossings, and will be designed for no loss of floodwater conveyance or storage. The effective Corridor Development Certificate (CDC) hydraulic models for the Main Stem of the Trinity River, which are used to evaluate project impacts for compliance with the 1988 USACE ROD criteria (USACE, 1988) and CDC requirements (NCTCOG, 2009a), reflect the federally authorized DFE project (Cadillac Heights and Lamar Levees) in the reach of the Trinity River downstream of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railroad bridge. Alternative 2A 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, it has been determined that Alternative 2A meets the 1988 ROD hydrologic and hydraulic criteria.

4.1.4.14

Risks Associated with Implementation of the Action

As an introductory comment, the risks discussed in this section are distinct from flooding risks discussed in the previous section. Rather this section focuses on levee stability issues in relation to the alternative under consideration. In this context, there is an inherent geotechnical risk of a levee failure, based on the physical layout of the levee, the materials and care used in its construction, the degree of maintenance, the underlying soil strata, the consequences of overtopping, etc. A risk analysis for the levees should answer whether these conditions would be unchanged, made worse, or made better in segments where a proposed Build Alternative comes in contact with a levee. Alternative 2A, as presented in the SDEIS, would cross the very south end of the Dallas Floodway east levee while crossing over the DART and AT&SF bridges. However, a design refinement developed since the publication of the

4-24

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

SDEIS for avoidance of historic resources (see LSS Chapters 2 and 5), which has received concurrence for implementation from the partner agencies, also provides a benefit of avoiding contact with the levee at this location. As a result, there is no discussion of risk associated with this Build Alternative.

4.1.4.15

Incompatible Development

The potential for induced development resulting from Trinity Parkway is presented in SDEIS Section 4.24.1 (Indirect Impacts). The analysis identifies areas where natural, governmental, or other constraints would make future change in land use unlikely. SDEIS Plate 4-38 is a constraints map depicting areas that would be unsuitable or unlikely for future development or redevelopment activities. The constraints map identifies the Dallas Floodway in its entirety and the related landside sump areas as being unsuitable or unlikely for development. The Indirect Impacts analysis is based on the presumption that any 100-year floodplain areas in the study 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. 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 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 will be no induced incompatible development in floodplains or wetlands in the project area due to the implementation of Alternative 2A.

4.1.4.16

Aesthetics

LSS Chapter 2 (Alternatives Considered) describes the routes and configurations of Alternative 2A, and LSS Plates 2-2A and 2-2B present engineering plans, roadway profiles and typical sections of Alternative 2A. SDEIS Section 4.16 (Visual Impact Analysis) provides a visual analysis for Alternative 2A following the FHWA visual impact assessment protocol (FHWA, 1988). Additionally, visualizations of Alternative 2A were displayed (as videos) at the Public Hearing for the Trinity Parkway DEIS in Dallas on March 29, 2005, and at the public hearing for the Trinity Parkway SDEIS in Dallas on May 5, 2009. The projects northern terminus is located at the Stemmons Freeway (IH-35E)/SH-183 interchange. Alternative 2A in this area would be primarily on elevated structure. Though not relevant to visual impacts as experienced by existing viewer groups, views from the northern terminus by motorists would include

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-25

vistas of the surrounding landscape. Views of Alternative 2A in this location would be largely from motorists traveling area roadways. Few existing nearby businesses and residents near the northern terminus would be visually impacted as views already include the existing freeways. An at-grade section proposed for the southern terminus would link to the US-175/SH-310 interchange. Views from Alternative 2A by future motorists would provide limited vistas of the adjacent residential and commercial developments. The southern terminus would be a dominant visual feature for adjacent residential and commercial viewers. For many of the adjacent residents, Alternative 2A and/or noise walls associated with this alternative would serve as a visual and physical barrier running through their neighborhood. Alternative 2A would be elevated above Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards in the northern portion of the study area, where it would appear as a double-deck over the existing at-grade arterial roads. The roadway would be approximately 25 feet above the ground, and the underside of the bridgework would be visible to adjacent viewers, as shown in Figure 4-1.

FIGURE 4-1. VIEW ALONG RIVERFRONT (INDUSTRIAL) BOULEVARD FROM UNDER ALTERNATIVE 2A

Note: Looking northwest toward the Market Center Boulevard intersection.

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 IH-35E. LSS Plates 4-1 through 4-5 at the end of this chapter provide birds eye views of Alternative 2A in the

4-26

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

areas of (i) Hampton Road, (ii) Sylvan Avenue, (iii) Continental Street, (iv) Houston Street and (v) the DART bridge. (These plates are freeze-frames taken from the 3-D visualizations used in the May 2009 Public Hearing.) As shown in LSS Plates 4-3 and 4-4, the elevation of the Alternative 2A mainlanes in the vicinity of downtown Dallas may affect sightlines to and from downtown and the Dallas Floodway landscape. Avoidance of elevated mainlanes at Woodall Rodgers Freeway by setting the road at-grade and modifying obstructions is impractical, because existing Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard, the UPRR Main Line, the Woodall Rodgers Freeway and the proposed Trinity Parkway all intersect in close proximity requiring four-levels of interchanging movements. As shown on LSS Plate 4-3, Alternative 2A requires 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, 2003). The MHH Bridge, which began construction in 2009, was designed by internationally-known architect Santiago Calatrava, and is generally perceived as a signature piece and possibly a tourist attraction. For instance, a 2009 billboard and bus graphics advertising campaign by the Trinity Trust Foundation prominently features the bridge under the title Suspense is Building (see Figure 4-2).

FIGURE 4-2. SUMMER 2009 BILLBOARD ADVERTISING BY TRINITY TRUST FOUNDATION

Note: Image taken from the September 2009 Newsletter My Trinity News published by the City of Dallas, with billboard reported to be located on Dallas North Tollway in Dallas.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-27

4.1.4.17 Historic Values SDEIS Section 4.7 Cultural Resources and Parklands and SDEIS Chapter 5 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation provide an evaluation of potential impacts to cultural resources with historic significance. LSS Chapter 5 provides additional discussion of historic values. The discussion is not repeated here. Numerous historic-age resources are located within the Trinity Parkway project area, including properties, bridges, and districts that are listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Alternative 2A, as presented in the SDEIS, would involve potential adverse impacts to such resources. As part of the Section 106 process discussed further in LSS Chapter 5, an analysis of measures to avoid and minimize impacts to these resources was performed, which involved the development of design refinements to either completely avoid the resources or minimize impacts such that they are not considered to be adverse.

4.1.4.18 Summary of Practicability Assessment for Alternative 2A Based on the individual assessments in LSS Sections 4.1.4.1 through 4.1.4.17 above, the performance of Alternative 2A with respect to five factors summarized below may substantially affect its practicability. It is noted the alternative would be located outside the Dallas Floodway, and therefore would have the benefit of reduced impacts to floodplains and wetlands. Nevertheless, there are several disadvantages that could be impediments (either individually or collectively) for Alternative 2A to be considered a practicable alternative. Project Costs: The total estimated cost of Alternative 2A is $2.36 billion (2011 dollars). To illustrate the magnitude of this cost, by comparison, the total annual contract letting volume for the TxDOT is typically in the $3 to $6 billion range annually, representing hundreds of projects statewide. NTTA has not stated an amount that can be funded by toll-based revenue bonds on the Trinity Parkway. However, a very preliminary estimate in the $0.5 to 1.0 billion range could be made, assuming 100,000 vehicles per day at a $0.15 per mile toll rate at start-up, and escalating traffic, tolls and O&M costs over a 30 year period. Project costs that exceed the amount that can be financed through toll-based revenue bonds would have to be funded from other sources. Logistics: A constraint influencing the practicability of Alternative 2A is the length of time from startup of engineering/construction activities until the Trinity Parkway could be fully open to traffic. This estimate is unusually long (10 years) because of the large-scale, sequential tasks which comprise the schedule. The time to completion is a critical element of the financing of a toll project because of the impact on the "interest clock" on construction bonds (i.e., increased interest paid to investors who purchase bonds to finance construction of the project), which would accumulate until toll collections begin. The major component of the project affecting logistics and schedule is the relocation of electric transmission lines in 4-28 TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

the corridor, particularly the Oncor 345 kV line. While the project schedule would be refined during final design, it is not anticipated that such refinement would result in a significantly shorter schedule or affect the opening of the tollway. Locational Disadvantages: The physical location of Alternative 2A in close proximity to the mainlanes of the Mixmaster causes restrictions on ramp access at the connections to South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E) and the Houston-Jefferson couplet. Alternative 2A would have only a half diamond connection to Houston-Jefferson, and no connection to South RL Thornton Freeway. The lack of connection to South RL Thornton Freeway 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. The lack of connection also conflicts with certain Dallas Council actions and community desires dating back to 1997 calling for provision of access from South RL Thornton Freeway to Trinity Parkway. Alternative 2A would not provide compatibility with local

Needs and Welfare of the People:

development plans. Acceptance of Alternative 2A by the City is not assured, and would be contrary to citywide votes held May 2, 1998 and November 6, 2007 in which Dallas citizens supported a Trinity Parkway location within the Dallas Floodway. Alternative 2A is inconsistent with the majority of voters opinions expressed in these elections. Alternative 2A would require the acquisition of 127 acres of privately owned land and 285 buildings. Opposition to Alternative 2A was communicated during the official comment period for the SDEIS from March 20, 2009 to June 30, 2009. There were 165 statements submitted by the general public expressing concern that Alternative 2A would have "devastating impacts" (or similar) to the established businesses and residential communities in the area. Four council members and the Mayor submitted public comments opposed to Alternative 2A. Eight business associations also submitted comments in opposition to Alternative 2A. Aesthetics: 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 HoustonJefferson and South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E). The Alternative 2A mainlanes in the vicinity of downtown Dallas may affect sightlines to and from the downtown and the proposed recreational areas in the Dallas Floodway. Additionally, proposed loop ramps to Woodall Rodgers Freeway introduce possible visual impacts to the MHH Bridge. The MHH Bridge, which began construction in 2009, was designed by internationally-known architect Santiago Calatrava, and is generally perceived as a signature piece and possibly a tourist attraction.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-29

4.1.5

Practicability of Alternative 2B - Irving/Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard At-Grade

As described in Chapter 2, Alternative 2B would be at-grade along Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards. The existing street would be reconstructed into frontage roads for local access. The alignment would also follow Lamar Street in the southern segment. In this location, the proposed tollway would be elevated above Lamar Street, which would be reconstructed along the existing alignment atgrade. Alternative 2B would be approximately 8.83 miles in length, would occupy approximately 350 acres of ROW, and would cost approximately $1.87 billion (2011 dollars) to construct. interchanges associated with Alternative 2B include: Direct connections at Stemmons Freeway (IH-35E)/SH-183 (northern terminus), US-175/SH-310 (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 interchange at the Houston/Jefferson Street Viaducts. See LSS Section 2.3.3 for a detailed description, typical sections, layout map, and a computer generated rendering graphic of Alternative 2B. Major

4.1.5.1 Economic Impacts Changes in existing land use to transportation use would negatively affect the local economy both in the short and long term if Alternative 2B is implemented. SDEIS Section 4.6.2.2 (Local Economic Impacts) provides an analysis of potential effects on the economy within the City of Dallas and Dallas County. In the short-term, Alternative 2B would have direct impacts during construction, particularly on remaining commercial buildings adjacent to the roadway. The impacts would primarily involve access and traffic circulation challenges over the construction period, which could negatively affect business activity. In the long-term, direct impacts would occur where land and improvements are removed from the tax rolls. Alternative 2B would require the acquisition of land from 380 parcels, including 206 acres of privately owned land, and would displace 245 buildings. Table 4-10 below provides a summary of the buildings displaced by type. SDEIS Appendix C (Relocation Assistance Information) provides a more detailed tabulation of the affected properties and buildings.

4-30

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

TABLE 4-10. ALTERNATIVE 2B ESTIMATED NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION OF DISPLACEMENTS

Type of Displacements Residential Buildings Commercial/ Industrial Buildings Community / Recreation Centers Pump Stations/ Levee Operations Office Buildings Police and Fire Station Buildings Public Health Care Facilities Schools DISD Facility Buildings Places of Worship Cemeteries Total Number of Displacements 6 228 --5 2 ----4 ----245

The estimates of tax base value loss and tax revenue loss due to ROW acquisition have been updated from the estimates provided in SDEIS Section 4.6.2.2 (Local Economic Impacts). The information for Alternative 2B is presented below as Table 4-11. The total taxable value loss due to displacements and acquisition for Alternative 2B is estimated to be approximately $306 million (2011 dollars), affecting tax collections for Dallas County, City of Dallas, and DISD.

TABLE 4-11. ALTERNATIVE 2B ESTIMATED TAX VALUE LOST

Entity Percent Tax Rate (%) Annual Tax Revenue Loss (2011 $) $1,911,239 $2,442,018 $3,953,639 Total Tax Base ($) $155,514,580,710 $77,295,235,801 $74,661,069,947 Percent Loss from Tax Base (%) 0.1970% 0.3964% 0.4104%

Dallas County 0.62377 City of Dallas 0.797 DISD 1.290347 Total Tax Value Lost: $306,401,240

Sources: Insight Research Corporation, 2011. 2011 tax rates and base property values, Dallas Central Appraisal District.

Losses to the City tax base would accrue for some time until redevelopment occurs. shapes and sizes scattered alongside the roadways.

The property

acquisitions tend to be of irregular shapes and sizes, resulting in surplus properties of similar irregular Due to the sizes and shapes, the process of assembly and reuse of the surplus parcels may take some time. Finally, the density or value of buildings would have to be increased from current conditions in order to offset the net loss of 206 acres of developed land that is privately owned. According to information obtained from Dun & Bradstreet by the City of Dallas, Office of Economic Development, Research & Information Division (January 2010), the estimated number of businesses displaced by Alternative 2B as a result of the displacement of the commercial and industrial buildings shown in Table 4-11 above would range from approximately 220 to 289 businesses. The number of businesses differs from the number of building displacements as some buildings are occupied by multiple businesses and some businesses occupy a complex comprised of multiple buildings. The approximate

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-31

number of jobs affected by the business displacements would range from 6,182 to 6,655 jobs. In the short-term, there would be some local jobs created by construction and operation of the tollway.

4.1.5.2 Project Costs Cost estimates for Alternative 2B are provided in LSS Appendix D, and include roadway construction, engineering, utility relocations, contingencies, ROW acquisition, environmental remediation and mitigation. The total estimated cost of Alternative 2B is $1.87 billion (2011 dollars). Construction Cost: Construction costs are $1.35 billion of the $1.87 billion total. The construction cost includes miscellaneous expenses such as traffic control (approximately $109 million). Traffic control is substantial because construction occurs within a highly urbanized corridor. The construction cost also includes the costs for environmental mitigation, which is discussed separately below. Environmental Mitigation Cost: The estimated cost for environmental mitigation is $45.2 million. The cost includes vegetation enhancements ($83,200), noise wall construction ($2.8 million), mitigation for impacts to waters of the U.S. ($127,400), and remediation for hazardous material sites ($7.3 million). The highest portion of the cost is attributed to asbestos abatement ($29.2 million) and demolition ($5.7 million) of the numerous commercial and residential properties impacted by this Build Alternative. Substantial property acquisition would be needed for

Right-of-Way and Utility Relocation Costs:

Alternative 2B because the proposed tollway is wider than the existing road and because the alignment deviates from the existing centerlines of Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards due to the 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. The estimated cost for ROW is over $437.8 million. See Table 4-10 for a list of the number and type of displacements associated with Alternative 2B. Utility relocation costs are approximately $82.5 million. Notably, Alternative 2B requires a relocation of approximately 2 miles of the new Oncor 345 kV transmission line in the median of Irving Boulevard from Regal Row to Sylvan Avenue, as well as relocation of the West Network Substation. See also LSS Section 4.1.5.4 (Consideration of Logistics). Operations and Maintenance Cost: O&M costs are not included in total project costs discussed above. These are separately reported in LSS Appendix D. The costs are estimated over a feasibility study 52year period (2013 2065) based on standard NTTA O&M practices. The estimated O&M cost for Alternative 2B is $233 million (2008 dollars). LSS Appendix D also reports the O&M costs escalated over a feasibility study 52-year period (2013 2065) based on standard practices for NTTA O&M. The

4-32

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

escalated O&M costs are estimated at $594 million, assuming a 2.75 percent escalation rate over the 52year period. These estimated O&M costs will be updated in the FEIS using current NTTA parameters.

4.1.5.3 Consideration of Existing Technology Alternative 2B could utilize current engineering technology for roadway and related construction, and there appear to be no unusual or insurmountable technological issues with this Build Alternative (see LSS Section 4.1.4.3). 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 for Alternative 2B is built into the cost estimates reported in LSS Section 4.1.5.2 (Project Costs) above.

4.1.5.4 Consideration of Logistics This section identifies logistics issues related to the implementation of Alternative 2B, including impacts to project schedule and construction phasing. Information used in the discussion of logistics is taken from the SDEIS Environmental Consequences Sections 4.5 (Relocation and Displacement Impacts), 4.17 (Hazardous/Regulated Materials), 4.18 (Utilities), and 4.20 (Temporary Impacts During Construction). In addition, implementation schedules have been developed for each LSS Build Alternative to assess time to completion. The estimated schedule for Alternative 2B is summarized below, with additional details provided in LSS Appendix D.

A major constraint influencing the practicability of Alternative 2B is the length of time from startup of engineering/construction activities until the Trinity Parkway could be fully open to traffic. The length of time is estimated to be unusually long (9 years) because of the large-scale, sequential tasks required for the construction process. The sequence of activities is depicted in Table 4-12, assuming a start date of January 1, 2013.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-33

TABLE 4-12. ALTERNATIVE 2B LOGICAL SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES AFTER ANTICIPATED ROD

Activity Preliminary Engineering
1 2

Begin Date First Quarter 2013 First Quarter 2013 First Quarter 2013
4 5

Completion Date Third Quarter 2013 Second Quarter 2013 Third Quarter 2013 First Quarter 2013 Fourth Quarter 2015 Fourth Quarter 2016 Second Quarter 2018 Second Quarter 2018 Third Quarter 2018 First Quarter 2018 Third Quarter 2018 First Quarter 2022

Select Consultant Team and Award Traffic and Revenue Studies3 Local, State and Federal Permitting ROW Acquisition and Relocations

First Quarter 2013 Second Quarter 2013 First Quarter 2014 Second Quarter 2015 Third Quarter 2015 Second Quarter 2015 Third Quarter 2016 Second Quarter 2018 Third Quarter 2018

Surveys and Preliminary Environmental Work

Municipal Setting Designation Application/Approval Property Cleanup, Asbestos Abatement and Demolition Utility Relocations
6

Final Tollway Design7 Construction Bid and Award Construction

Notes:

1. 95 percent Schematic Update and Review by TxDOT and the FHWA, Prepare O&M Costs, Develop Market Valuation, Final Schematic Design Preparation and Approval, Interstate Access Study, Major Project Study, Design Criteria Manual 2. Includes ROW Surveyors and Acquisition Support, Environmental Phases I and II, Section Design and Review Engineers, Corridor Managers, Contract Administration, and Geotech 3. Includes Value Engineering Study 4. Includes Section 404 Permit 5. Includes Set/Recover Controls, Deed Research, Parcel Map Preparation 6. Includes design of utility relocations, bid, award and construct 7. Includes select and award consultant contracts

As shown in Table 4-12, the Alternative 2B estimated time to completion is approximately 9 years, yielding an open-to-traffic date of First Quarter 2022. combination of embankment and elevated structure. Alternative 2B would be constructed on a Contractor furnished fill would be used for

embankment needs and would require approximately 0.9 million CY of material. This volume of borrow material is considered typical for a project of this magnitude and would not be considered a logistical constraint. Activities that most influence the schedule for Alternative 2B include ROW acquisition and relocations, environmental investigations and demolition, utility relocations, and traffic and safety issues. These are discussed briefly below: Right-of-way Acquisition and Relocations; Environmental Investigations and Demolition: As described in LSS Section 4.1.5.1 (Economic Impacts), there would be numerous displacements and relocations associated with Alternative 2B. The number of impacted properties (approximately 380 total parcels affected and 245 building displacements) would affect the project schedule because of the time needed to survey the affected parcels and appraise/negotiate each acquisition. It is anticipated that some property owners in the ROW of Alternative 2B would oppose acquisition, leading to lengthy eminent domain proceedings. The acquisitions also affect the schedule indirectly because there are several tasks, which must follow sequentially, such as ESAs (Phase 1 and Phase 2 ESAs as appropriate, including 35 high risk hazardous material sites), remediation, demolition, and utility relocations.

4-34

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

Utility Relocations: As listed in Table 4-13, the Alternative 2B corridor has extensive water lines, sanitary sewer lines, high voltage electrical overhead transmission lines, and an electrical substation, which would need to be cleared from the Alternative 2B ROW.

TABLE 4-13. ALTERNATIVE 2B POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO MAJOR UTILITIES

SDEIS Plate ID SDEIS Plate 3-11 Water Lines
Key to Symbols: R = Relocation (estimated number of linear feet)

Description of Major Utilities

Type of Impact

W-1 48-inch concrete water line W-2 36-inch water line W-6 24-inch concrete water line W-7 20-inch cast-iron water line W-8 24-inch concrete water line W-9 66-inch concrete water line SDEIS Plate 3-12 Sanitary Sewer Lines
Key to Symbols: R = Relocation (estimated number of linear feet)

R (1,600) R (700) R (14,000) R (9,100) R (9,100) R (6,000) R (6,000) R (2,500) R (2,000) R (1,200)

SS-3 60-inch sludge force main SS-4 12-inch concrete sanitary sewer SS-5 10-inch concrete sanitary sewer SS-6 12-inch sanitary sewer SDEIS Plate 3-13 Electrical - Overhead Transmission Lines E-3 Oncor 138 kV trans. line E-5 Oncor 138 kV trans. line E-7 Oncor trans. line E-8 Oncor 138 kV trans. line E-9 Oncor trans. lines (4) Oncor 345kV (Irving Boulevard) SDEIS Plate 3-13 Electrical Substations
Key to Symbols: R = Relocation

Key to Symbols: R = Relocation (estimated number of towers); A = Adjustment (estimated number of towers); kV = kilovolts (of electricity)

R (1); A (1) R (1) R (1) R (1); A (1) R (2); A (6) R(20) 2 miles R

West Network Substation (Oncor)

As shown in Table 4-13, relocations total approximately 40,500 feet of major water lines and 11,700 feet of sanitary sewers. No major natural gas lines, storm drainage pump stations, storm water outfalls, or storage sumps would be impacted by Alternative 2B. The major impact on logistics and schedule is believed to be the electric transmission lines in the corridor, particularly the 345kV line listed in Table 4-13. 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 either street ROW line) 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 Alternative 2B construction. The 345 kV line is particularly important because it provides an electrical source to two major switching stations

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-35

serving the Dallas 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 logistics challenges of Alternative 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 prerequisites. 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 ERCOT has final authority over outage scheduling. Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards are highly utilized roadways. Construction would also

Traffic and Safety:

Construction activities would result in traffic disruption in the project area.

temporarily affect local streets providing access to businesses and residents in the project area. In addition to temporary traffic disruptions (closures and detours), construction activity could contribute to periods of localized congestion. Safety and security issues may include temporary disruption of access for emergency and law enforcement vehicles. Heavy vehicle movements, possible hazardous waste excavation and transport, and construction site activity would also create potential safety concerns.

4.1.5.5 Locational Advantages The obvious locational advantage for Alternative 2B is that it would avoid significant encroachment in the Dallas Floodway and would utilize existing transportation corridors. However, due to the density of the transportation network in the area, this is also a disadvantage. Alternative 2B does not meet part of the project need and purpose because it does not provide compatibility with local land use plans. One of the purposes of the proposed project is to provide compatibility with local development plans, and the location of Alternative 2B is inconsistent with these plans and the Citys vision of the Trinity River Corridor to be the front door to the Dallas CBD (see LSS Section 4.1.5.10). The location of Alternative 2B (primarily outside the floodway) may also restrict For instance, parts of the northern segment would have Stemmons development in some areas of the corridor because of its influence on the size and depth of developable land remaining in the corridor. 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 the Interstate and the Trinity Parkway located directly adjacent to each other creating a highway corridor almost 1,000 feet wide between the Dallas CBD and the east levee. The Alternative 2B ROW would occupy nearly all available developable land between Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard and the east levee from Reunion Boulevard almost to Corinth Street, a distance in excess of 2 miles (see LSS Plate 2-3B).

4-36

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

Another disadvantage of the proposed location of 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 4-14, Alternative 2B would have no connections to Houston-Jefferson Street or South RL Thornton Freeway. The lack of connection to South RL Thornton Freeway would be a substantial This lack of a connection would be shortcoming, meaning that commuters on South RL Thornton Freeway could not connect to Trinity Parkway and bypass the downtown Mixmaster interchange. of this alternative. TABLE 4-14. ALTERNATIVE 2B INTERCHANGE ACCESS
Interchange Location Stemmons Freeway (IH-35E)/SH-183 Commonwealth Drive Hampton/Inwood Road Wycliff/Sylvan Avenue Continental Avenue Woodall Rodgers Freeway Commerce Street Houston/Jefferson Street South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E) Corinth Street MLK IH-45 Lamar Street SH-310 US-175 Type of Interchange Direct Connection via Ramps None Full Diamond Interchange Full Diamond Interchange None Direct Conns SB-EB, WB-NB, NB-EB, and WB-SB None None None Full Diamond Interchange Full Diamond Interchange Direct Connection via ramps None Half Diamond Interchange Direct Mainlane Connection

particularly critical in the event of traffic incidents in the Mixmaster and negatively affects the practicability

SDEIS Section 2.3.12 (Access to IH-35E, US 175, and Corinth Street) lists various Dallas Council and community actions dating back to 1997 calling for provision of access from South RL Thornton Freeway (IH-35E) to Trinity Parkway. This access cannot be provided by Alternative 2B. The South RL Thornton Freeway interchange poses design and operational challenges, and it was determined that connecting ramps were not feasible for Alternatives 2B because of geometric constraints.

4.1.5.6 Natural and Beneficial Values Served by Floodplains Natural and beneficial floodplain values include fish, wildlife, plants, open space, natural beauty, scientific study, outdoor recreation, agriculture, aquaculture, forestry, natural moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge (23 CFR 650, Subpart A). Potential impacts of Alternative 2B on floodplain values are discussed below. Fish and wildlife populations within floodplains correlate with available habitat and are influenced by outside disturbances. Therefore, impacts to aquatic habitat and vegetation are used as an indicator of

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-37

potential impacts to fish and wildlife. SDEIS Section 3.4.3 (Vegetation within the Study Area) provides a breakdown of land cover types in the Trinity Parkway Study Area. The total study area is 7,036 acres, of which urban areas comprise 56 percent (3,907 acres), maintained grass areas comprise 31 percent (2,198 acres), bottomland and riparian forests comprise 4 percent (290 acres), and water features or aquatic habitats comprise 9 percent of the area (641 acres). The maintained grass acreage primarily comprises the Dallas Floodway, a facility which has been almost entirely re-graded and realigned from its former natural floodplain condition, and which is subject to periodic mowing by the City of Dallas. Table 4-15 below shows a summary of vegetation impacts for Alternative 2B extracted from SDEIS Section 4.9.2.2 (Vegetation Impacts).

TABLE 4-15. ALTERNATIVE 2B POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO VEGETATION

Type of Vegetation Woodland (Non-Wetland): Bottomland Hardwoods Riparian Forest Aquatic Habitats*: Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands (acres) Other (acres) Maintained Grass Areas (acres) Total Undeveloped Areas Impacts (acres) Impacts (acres) 6.4 --9.1 --31.1 46.6

Notes: 1. All quantities are shown in acres. 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, most would be spanned by bridges.

Alternative 2B avoids the Dallas Floodway area except for a small segment in the southern part of the corridor downstream of Corinth Street. In this segment, there would be some impacts to the floodplain, including removal of habitat in the areas of hardwood forest (6.4 acres) and removal of maintained grass areas (31.1 acres). For the most part, Alternative 2B occupies developed land, with crossings of grassed and open water areas at manmade sumps in the corridor. Flooding conditions are expected to be unaffected because of the use of bridge crossings. See SDEIS Section 4.13 (Floodplain Impacts).

4.1.5.7 Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands and Water Quality An overview of the wetlands and other jurisdictional waters (e.g., rivers, creeks, and sumps) within the Study Area is presented in the SDEIS Section 3.4.6 (Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands). The effect of Alternative 2B on wetlands is presented in SDEIS Section 4.8 (Impacts to Waters of the U.S., including Wetlands). The SDEIS included a jurisdictional determination of waters of the U.S., including wetlands within the Dallas Floodway, which was approved by the USACE on June 19, 2006. In March 2011, a supplemental jurisdictional determination was submitted to the USACE requesting a reverification

4-38

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

and time extension of the approval (Note: the delineated area for the Historic River Channel, which is currently utilized as sumps for storm water collection, increased slightly because the 2011 jurisdictional determination included drainage culverts connecting the sumps that were not included in the 2006 jurisdictional determination, resulting in a minor increase in the impacted acreage from the SDEIS). The USACE determined that there has not been a significant change in the location of waters of the U.S. from the date of the original approval and that an extension of the approved jurisdictional determination is in the public interest (see LSS Appendix A). As such, the approved jurisdictional determination is valid until March 24, 2016. The jurisdictional determination for the Dallas Floodway (USACE approved 2006 and 2011) was intended to provide a baseline for potential impacts to waters of the U.S. for the numerous Trinity River Corridor projects and was not limited to the scope of the proposed Trinity Parkway project. It should be noted that areas outside the geographic scope of the approved jurisdictional determination near the northern and southern termini of the Trinity Parkway project and along Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards are occupied by urban development with low opportunity for the presence of aquatic features. However, aquatic features beyond the geographic scope of the approved jurisdictional determination were mapped in a manner consistent with USACE procedures for conducting jurisdictional determinations during the initial field investigations for the Trinity Parkway project. Table 4-16 below shows impact data for Alternative 2B.

TABLE 4-16. ALTERNATIVE 2B POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING WETLANDS
Emergent Wetlands -Forested Wetlands 2.52 Open Water Intermittent* -Historic Trinity River Channel* 6.40 Intermittent Stream 0.20 Trinity River* -Total 9.12

Notes: 1. All quantities shown in acres. Calculated areas are estimates only. Impacts are expected from fill due to roadway construction. 2. Expected impacts are based on the jurisdictional determination approved by the USACE on March 24, 2011 (File # SWF2011-00049). 3. -- = No impact anticipated for this alternative. 4. The Historic Trinity River Channel refers to old meanders of the Elm Fork and West Fork Trinity River located outside the Dallas Floodway levees that consist of open channels with scattered tree growth. These old meanders serve as sumps to collect local storm water runoff that eventually drains into the Dallas Floodway. * Potential impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, may occur from bridge column construction and can be addressed, minimized or possibly eliminated during final design.

As shown in Table 4-16, Alternative 2B would impact 9.12 acres of waters of the U.S.

SDEIS

Section 7.4 (Measures to Minimize Impacts to Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands) provides further discussion of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such impacts. A preliminary Section 404 mitigation plan is presented in SDEIS Appendix J. A more detailed review of impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and a refined mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts will be provided in the FEIS once a preferred alternative has been recommended. The NCTCOG entered into an agreement with the USACE in October 2008 to fund a position to expedite Section 404 permitting for regional projects, with a priority focus on regionally significant transportation projects (NCTCOG, 2009b). This

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-39

agreement allowed the USACE to assign a dedicated staff person to expedite Section 404 permits, and the USACE legislative authority to enter into these agreements was recently extended through 2016. 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. Alternative 2B requires the crossing of several water bodies within the study area, mostly comprised of drainage sumps and tributaries associated with the Trinity River (see LSS Plate 4-22). The potential erosion and sedimentation are dependent upon local conditions (i.e., soil type, slope, and vegetation) and construction practices (see SDEIS Sections 3.4.3 Vegetation within the Study Area; 3.5.3.3 Soils; 4.11 Topography, Geology, and Soils; 4.12 Water Quality Impacts; and 4.20 Temporary Impacts During Construction). 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 4.12 (Water Quality Impacts) and Section 7.2 (Measures to Minimize Impacts to Water Quality). Additional discussions in the SDEIS regarding regulatory controls of water quality impacts are included in SDEIS Section 4.13.1 (CDC Process Trinity River Main Stem), Section 7.4 (Measures to Minimize Impacts to Waters of the U.S., Including Wetlands), Section 7.5 (Measures to Minimize Impacts to Floodplains), Appendix H (Preliminary Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation), and Appendix I (TCEQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification Questionnaire).

4.1.5.8 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values SDEIS Section 4.9 (Water Body Modification; Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts) presents a quantitative assessment of impacts to woodlands, aquatics, and grasslands, as well as 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. As shown in Table 4-15 in LSS Section 4.1.5.6, 46.6 acres of undeveloped areas, comprised mostly of maintained grass areas, would be impacted by Alternative 2B. expected from Alternative 2B. No impacts on fish, agriculture, aquaculture, or forestry resources are

4-40

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

As reported in SDEIS Section 4.9.2.4 (Threatened and Endangered Species), no recent occurrences of federally or state listed threatened or endangered species have been identified in the project study area during field surveys. This was also confirmed through informal coordination with the USFWS, a search of the TPWDs NDD (TPWD, 2007), and correspondence with other organizations considered to have special expertise related to wildlife and their habitat. In March 2009, the USFWS concurred that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed species.

4.1.5.9 Conservation SDEIS Section 4.19 (Energy Requirements) and Section 4.22 (Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources) include general discussions regarding transportation-related energy use and the commitment of resources. For the implementation of Alternative 2B, 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 (Transportation Impacts) to energy use, managing congestion delay and vehicle hours traveled means lower fuel and energy use. The energy requirements associated with Alternative 2B are not considered functional constraints to practicability.

4.1.5.10 Needs and Welfare of the People The Trinity Parkway is a high profile project that, for about the past 15 years, has involved numerous stakeholders and individuals along the corridor in the project development process. The long process of project planning and evaluation is summarized in Chapter 1 of this LSS. Effects of the proposed project on the local community could be a major factor in determining practicability of the Alternative 2B. Information used in the analysis of the impact of Alternative 2B on the needs and welfare of the people is presented in SDEIS Section 4.1 (Land Use Impacts), Section 4.2 (Coordinated Planning and Design), Section 4.3 (Social Impacts), Section 4.4 (Transportation Impacts), Section 4.5 (Relocation and Displacement Impacts), Section 4.17 (Hazardous/Regulated Materials), and Section 4.20 (Temporary Impacts During Construction). Public comments on the SDEIS Public are also relevant to this discussion.

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-41

Social Impacts: Table 4-10 in LSS Section 4.1.5.1 provides a summary of the residences, commercial buildings, and public facilities that would be relocated under Alternative 2B (a total of 245), and SDEIS Appendix C (Relocation Assistance Information) provides a detailed listing of the same. The numerous relocations have direct impacts to the neighborhoods and neighborhood districts in the project corridor. Of the 245 relocations, there would be 50 buildings in the Lower Stemmons Neighborhood District, 43 in the Design District, 17 in the Market/Technology Center area, 31 in the Trinity Industrial District, 49 in The Cedars, 14 in the Brookhollow Industrial Park, and 41 in the South Dallas Neighborhood District. 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). Nevertheless, 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 may be impacted substantially. According to information obtained from Dun & Bradstreet by the City of Dallas, Office of Economic Development, Research & Information Division (January 2010), the total number of businesses displaced by Alternative 2B would range from approximately 220 to 289. unable to relocate successfully. Minority and low-income populations exist in the project area, and Alternative 2B has been evaluated for compliance with the EO 12898, FHWA Order 6640.23, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (see SDEIS Section 4.3.3 Environmental Justice Considerations). Beneficial and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations have been identified, along with potential mitigation strategies, and there appear to be no disproportionately high or adverse impacts; therefore, Alternative 2B is considered to be consistent with the EO 12898 and FHWA Order 6640.23. Alternative 2B is similarly consistent with Title VI in that there is no evidence of discriminatory intent or effect. These businesses provide employment for approximately 6,182 to 6,655 people who could lose their jobs permanently if displaced businesses are

General Public Opinion: Acceptance of a Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard route by the City is not assured. SDEIS Section 1.3 (Project History) describes two well publicized citywide elections in which Dallas citizens 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, 1998), and

4-42

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

(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.

Alternative 2B, located primarily along Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevard and Irving Boulevard, is inconsistent with the majority of voters opinions expressed in these elections that supported a Trinity Parkway location within the Dallas Floodway. Strong opposition to Alternative 2B was communicated during the official

Stakeholder Opinions:

comment period for the SDEIS from March 20, 2009 to June 30, 2009. There were 165 statements submitted by the general public expressing concern that Alternative 2B (also 2A) would have "devastating impacts" (or similar) to the established businesses and residential communities in the area. Four council members and the Mayor submitted public comments opposed to Alternative 2B. Eight business associations, which represent hundreds of local businesses, also submitted comments in opposition to Alternative 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. Comments received from agencies and the public during the public comment period for the SDEIS will be included in the FEIS, along with responses to the comments received. Key issues that are important to the public that are viewed as adverse impacts include: a high number of displacements and relocations, disruption of established businesses along Irving and Riverfront (Industrial) Boulevards, adverse impacts to community resources, and increased traffic on adjacent streets. Future Land Use Plans: Alternative 2B could not achieve one of the purposes of the project, which is to provide compatibility with local development 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 (Industrial) Boulevard from Cadiz Street to Continental Avenue 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 (Local Land Use Plans/Policies), TIF districts have been created for the Cedars and Design Districts to promote mixed-use redevelopment. This includes infill development of the Design

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS

4-43

District, and the infill of residential lofts and similar development along the corridor.

These new

developments may increase the cost and complexity of needed acquisitions for Alternative 2B over time. 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 Forks 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 BVP. 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, the earthworks plan, etc. While it is acknowledged that the City's BVP must still be evaluated by the USACE and found to be environmentally acceptable and technically sound before the plan can be implemented, Alternative 2B would be inconsistent with current plans. 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, the 1972 donation of 930 acres of the 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. ongoing community intentions. Alternative 2B is not consistent with these historic and

4.1.5.11

Air Quality Impacts

A traffic air quality analysis was performed for the proposed project to measure projected CO levels as an indicator to determine whether local air quality would be adversely affected. As discussed in the SDEIS Section 4.14 (Air Quality Impacts), for Alternative 2B the percentages of projected 2025 and 2030 concentrations for 1-hour and 8-hour CO would be below the NAAQS threshold. Local concentrations of CO are not expected to exceed national standards at any time. A quantitative MSATs analysis was also performed for the proposed project (see SDEIS Section 4.14.5 Mobile Source Air Toxics). MSATs are

4-44

TRINITY PARKWAY LSS