􀁾􀁐􀁾􀁾􀀰􀀲􀀺 33 PM 􀁐􀁕􀁂􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁃 WORKS 􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀭 ..) Jack D. Hedge, P.E. Senior Civil Design Engineer reI: 214.653.6420 Fax; 214.653.6445 Cell: 214.435.3883 Email: jhedge@dallascounty.org
Fax To: JIM PIERCE, City of Addison Fax: 972.450.7001 Tel: 214 653 6445 From: Jack D. Hedge 􀁾􀁾 Pages: S, incl. cover Date: 09 Apri12002 cc: P.01 Urgent XFor Review Please Comment XPlease
Reply Please Recyc)e • Comments: JIM : We are taking a last look at the various cities' candidate projects for the MCIP program. We have used your cost estimates to this point. We will
appreciate it ifyou will examine the 4 attached Project Recap. sheets and fill in the missing values; for SUE, Inflation. Materials Testing, etc.. The values shown came from your submission.
We are trying to wrap up in the next few days so we can proceed with the entire program. Your help is appreciated. Please call ifthere are questions. -􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀴􀀮􀁾􀀱 1-1tlu-􀁾􀁾 􀁾 􀀧􀀺􀁤􀁾􀁫􀀳
􀁾
APR-09-02 02:34 PM PUBLIC WORKS '.j ',.,} 214 653 6445 P.02 I12.. itICk D. HedR.. P.E. PR. /Of /PtlRII I DatI" /Z ../O rO MCIP Project #: 􀁾 ; Street:,.i:"EL.L.eR 􀁓􀀬􀁯􀀢􀀬􀀮􀁉􀀯􀀢􀀭􀁯􀀢􀀧􀁊􀁥􀁊􀁾
RD /NrE= RECAP: , RR Crossing: $ Grading & Paving: $ Drainage: S Bridges s): $ Sianals: $ Lighting: $ -. .. Sub-Total: $ Contingencie.s.: ( %) $, Sub-Total: $ 􀀯􀀷􀀳􀁾 (JdO.-SUE@% .
S Design l@%ev"". 􀁾􀀧􀁊􀀬􀁾􀀬􀀮􀁲􀀯􀀻 $ 􀁴􀀱􀁐􀁄􀁁􀀬􀀮􀁾􀀮􀂷􀁡􀀮 d () (J.-Prelim. 1%) +Constr. Materials TestsCl%} $=: == Sub-Total: $ Inflation-yr. @30/0/yr. $ ROW $ 􀀧􀀱􀁾 O(J(),
-:= Sub-Total: S Project Delivery Expense: 10% $ -= Grand Total: S 􀀿􀀭􀀴􀁾 OOCJ,.-• 􀁾 .D 􀁾 􀁾 t. t4 Y"F! 1f'9(j I . MCIP prelim at ncap.wdl
APR-09-02 02:34 PM PUBLIC WORKS 214 653 6445 P.03 . , .. Jack D. H.dIIe P.E. P.. /Of /PaRIS Dol.: 􀁊􀁾􀀮 I(). 0 J MCIP Project #: t 􀁾 Street: BEL r 􀁴􀀬􀁬􀁖􀁾 Rn SKn..cJ 􀁾􀁽􀁌􀁊􀁊􀁥􀀮􀁊􀀨􀁁􀁉􀁊􀁾
RECAP: RR Crossing: $ Gradin2 & Pavina: $ Draina2e: $ Bridges(s): $ Sianals: $ Li2htina: $ -.. Sub-Total: $ Contin2encie.s.: ( %) $ , 􀁓􀁵􀁢􀁾􀁔􀁯􀁴􀁡􀁬􀀺 S /110 0CJc).-SUE@% . $ Design
I􀁾 % $ 􀀿􀀺􀁽􀁾􀀮 􀁾􀁏􀀭 Prelim. 1%)+CODstr. Materials Tests{l%) $ --, : t Sub-Total: $ Inflation.. yr. (cil3o/olyr. $ ROW $ Sub-Total: $ project Delivery Exnense: 10% $ : : :::==;
==: Grand Total: S 7(")t''), tJao.-E :sr, 8 y 􀁐􀀬􀁬􀁦􀀢􀀧􀁓􀁤􀁾 J f' /£.,fIJ-N r t5:'P, . MeIP",llm .,,.cap.wdJ
APR-09-02 02:35 PM PUBLIC WORKS 􀀮􀁾 :) 214 653 6445 . \ P.04 Jack D. H,b., P.E. Pll. "I Of /PaRIS DOli: /Z./O..O I MCIP PrOlect#: s--s ; Street: 􀁬􀀩􀁁􀀺􀁌􀀧􀁁􀁾 n 'vi 􀁾􀁊􀀳 􀀢􀁾􀁎􀁡
()..rVR....1/RECAP: C. d r A 0 􀁾􀁁􀁲􀁣􀁊􀁁􀀮􀀯 RR CrossinJt: S Grading & Paving: $ Drainage: $ Bridges(s): $ Simals: $ Li2hting: $. . = .. Sub-Total: S 􀁃􀁯􀁮􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁧􀁥􀁮􀁣􀁩􀁾􀁳􀀺
-( %) s , --1':: Sub-Total: $ 􀀢􀁾􀁏􀀬 000.-SUE.@. % . $ Design@% S ClO 000, -Prelim. (l%) + Constr. Materials TestsO%) $ -Sub-Total: S Inflation-yr.@3%/yr. $ ROW $ ....= Sub-Total:
S Project Delivery 􀁂􀁾􀁄􀁥􀁮􀁳􀁥􀀺 10% $ .,. Grand Total: S 750. (lelO -􀁅􀁾􀁔 􀁾􀁹 􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀮􀁶􀁳 72m.1s 􀁾􀀯􀁊􀀮 . MeIP,.l1m .." NCdp.wdJ
APR-09-02 02:35 PM PUBLIC WORKS l 214 653 6445 , .'\ P.05 Jack D. H,dIlf. P.E. Pll. /or J PaRIS I Dati: /2 -/(). et,) MCIPProject#: 57 ; Street: 􀀶􀁾􀁔􀁴􀀬􀀧􀀭􀀯􀁣􀀯􀁄􀁁􀁩􀀮􀁇􀁁􀁲 􀁾􀀮􀁣􀁗􀁙
􀁊􀁁􀁩􀀱􀁩􀁾􀁬􀀺􀁾 RECAP: ' C.r:'-A'JIJIJtJ-I RR Crossina: $ Grading & PavinR;: $ Drainaae: $ Brid28s(S): $ Sianals: $ Llihtina: S . , . Sub..Total: $ Continaencies: ( %) $ , . == ,
= Sub..Total: $ 2 , ·()61J. lJdO 􀀮􀁾 SUE@% . $ Oesi2n(􀁾 % $ Z. ItO. 0(/0 -Prelim. I 1%) +Canstr. Materials Tests(l%) $ :: u Sub..Total: $ Inflation.. yr.@3%/yr. $ ROW $ /ij0 􀀨􀀩􀁣􀁊􀁯􀁾􀀭
Sub..Total: $ Project Delivery Expense: 10% $ i:C Grand Total: S z..500 0d::"J .-􀁅􀁾􀁲 􀁾 y qA,A 􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁁􀁡􀁶􀁬􀀯􀀱􀀧􀁾 . MClP",11", lSI '"fIJI.wl
Jim Pierce From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: HelP ProJect Cost E,dmadon M... Edith Ngwa [ENgwa@dallascounty.org] Friday, November 02, 2001 3:36 PM jcosby@airmail.net; Jim.sparks@cedarhilltx.com;
Jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us; Kbolton@ci.desoto.tx.us; Dschwartz@ci.duncanville.tx.us; Rwunderlich@ci.garland.tx.us; rlarkins@ci.grand-prairie.tx.us; Mdadgostar@ci.highland-park.tx.us; Jcline@ci.irving.t
x.us; rberry@ci.mesquite.tx.us; Jspeer@ci.university-park.tx.us; Randy.walhood@cityofcarrollton.com; batkinson@cityofsachse.com; cityadministrator@cockrell-hill.tx.us; Walter_ragsdale@cor.gov;
Ahendrix@pbw.ci.dallas.tx.us; cityofhutchins@prodigy.net IRodriguez@dallascounty.org; JHedge@dallascounty.org MCIP Project Cost Estimates Good Day All! During our 2001 MCIP kick-off
meeting earlier this year, we projected that the final selection of projects will take place on or around October 31st. However, due to some discrepancies between the project cost estimates
you submitted and those that our staff came up with, we have decided decided to move that date to December 30th while we attempt to resolve these discrepancies. please find attached
our project cost estimate methodology. We will be faxing out to you detailed cost estimate break-downs for each individual project by the end of the work day today. Please contact our
Senior Design Engineer, Jack Hedge (214-653-6420), as soon as possible if you wish to set up a meeting to discuss these new estimates. If we do not hear from you by November 15, 2001,
we'll proceed to use the new estimates in our final project evaluation and selection. Thanks in advance for cooperation! Edith B. Ngwa, Ph.D Senior Transportation Planner Dallas County
Public Works 411 Elm Street, Suite # 400 Dallas, TX 75202 􀀳􀀭􀁢􀀭􀀧􀀺􀀧􀁏􀁾􀁳􀁊􀀬􀁊􀀭􀁾􀁾 􀁾 􀁾􀁾􀁾VLe.. 􀁾􀁾 􀀫􀁾 􀁫􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮 􀀻􀁴􀁉􀁯􀀮􀀨􀁦􀁨􀀭􀁴􀀮􀁾 tL.-P) 􀁦􀁢􀁾􀀧 1
􀁎􀁯􀁶􀁾􀀰􀀲􀀭􀀰􀀱 03:43P -\J P.01 ............. " .. . ,.... . , , ". . " . FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: SENT BY: TO: COMPANY: November 2. 2001 Iscla Rodriguez DALLAS COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 411 ELM STREET, 4TH FLOOR DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 Phone: 214-653-6417 Fax: 214-653-6416 Jim Pierce P.E.) Assistant Director -Public Works City of Addison FAX NUMBER:
972-450-2834 PHONE NO.: 972-450-2879 NO. OF PAGES (Inc. Cover Sheet): _.. _ COMMENTS: -_.._-----Please Review Attached documents and contact Jack Hedge if you __..nhave any questions
about the cost estimate. (214) 653 -6420 Also. check your email for a message from Edith Ngwa, our Senior Transportation Planner for more information. Please call 214-653-6417 if there
are any difficulties or problems in the transmission ofthis fax. <􀁾 .. ... .... ,
No. D. ========-=-=--_.:' -􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀮􀀮 -.... ._-...-Dallas County MCIP Project Cost Estimates /--:-,. D. V V.. Mor-I oIN oI. )o z 􀁃􀁩􀁴􀁾􀂷 Il·OI-02 Addison MCIP # Project Location 1
Belt Line Road Signal Up-grade 58 Dallas parkw3}' SB to NB U-tum 2 Keller Springs/Addison Road Intersection 57 Belt LineIDalJas Parkway Single Point Urban Interchange District 1II City's
Estimated ToeaJ Project Cost $700,000.00 $750,000.00 $248,000.00 $2,500,000.00 County's Eslimated Total Projed Cost $1)128,204.00 $945,649.10 $477,219.60 $4,167,143.20
\ . I DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS II% of COllSlruclion cost 9.5% of construction cost 7% of COllStnlction cost EO"d Dallas County MCIP Project Cost Estimation Methodology Pavement and
Drainagel + Bridge2 + Traffic SignalsJ + Street Lighting4 + RR CrossingS ;;;;; Subtotal (SII) + Inflation (3o/olyr STI for 6yrs) + Materials (2% ST1) ;;;;; Construction Cost Total +
Design cost6 + ROW cost + SUE and Utility costs' =Subtotal (SI2) + Project Delivery cost{lO% 8T2) = Total Project Cost I Includes pavement, subgradc, and stonn drainage improvements.
Bike lanes (two 5ft lanes), sidewalks, i.nd handicap ramps are added ifreqllested on applicaLion. 2 Bridge cost estimate is S50/sq.ft. 3 Traffic Signal roadway reconfigunttion is $110,000
for a 6x6lane inlcrscction; $99,OUU for a 6x4 hrne intersection; $SR,OOO for a 6x2 lane intersection. Estimates are for NEW IT..ffic signals. 􀁾 Street Lighting is $3,520 per light per
200ft. S Railroad crossing is $161,100 for a 4lsnc divided roadway (ISfi median); and $24li,300 for a a 6lanc divided roadway (50ft median) (0 Design COSI: $ 0 -1 million ::: $ 1 -Smillion
= $ 5 -2Smi1lion = 7 SUE is (qi U-2% of constnlction cost, depending on Ute number of utililies. Utility cost 3!\ SlaLed on application is added dvv:EO 􀁾􀁏􀀭􀁚􀁏􀀭􀁁􀁏􀁎
Nov-02-01 03:44P '\I P.04 City Estimate: $0.00 􀁾 􀀬􀁾 < OOCe<,'««<<<cc*'-.:..,..••••••••••••••••••••••••• Design Cost 􀁆􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁾 ROW Cost Utility Cost County Estimate(DC):
Paving and Drainage 􀁟􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁟􀁾􀁟􀀧􀀧 $Q.:.QSU Bridge Cost DC _««•..••..w •.••.••, ••««!2:,9.9... · Lighting Cost DC: ._« w 122.2.. [ Sf Signal Cost DC: "" 􀀤􀀷􀀷􀀰􀀮􀀺􀀬􀀮􀁾􀀲􀁾 Rail
Road Cost DC: L ,!9.,;,99.J SubtotaI: [ .."" ,..w."v 􀁊􀀮􀀿􀀷􀀮􀀮􀀲􀀮􀁾􀀹􀀹􀀮􀁈􀀺..9.g.J Innation (3% for 6 yetlrs) L..􀀭􀀽􀁬􀁌􀁾􀁑􀀮􀁑􀁑...q9J Materials (2%) C __􀁩􀀱􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀮􀁑􀁑􀀦􀁴􀁑􀁝
Construction Totall... ".., , ,..« ..􀁾􀁾􀀴􀀱􀀮􀀹􀀮􀀮􀁑􀀮􀁑􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀡􀀿􀀮􀁑􀁝 Design Cost DC: _$1.Q.L&1:2.;.Q.0 j ROW Cost DC: _ _ 􀁾 f.9.:..q9..J SUE and Utility Costs D( L_x ...........
􀁟􀁊􀁧􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁧􀀮􀁊 Sub Total: C::.,." 􀀭􀀮􀁊􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾..􀀺􀁾􀁾..􀀿􀀻􀂣􀀮􀁾􀁊 Lf'Project Delivery Cost DC; L __..􀁟􀀮􀀮􀁵􀀮􀁑􀁦􀁊􀀬􀀮􀀹􀂧􀁾􀀮􀁬􀁴􀁃􀁌􀁴 , Total Proje,t t_. 􀀺􀀢􀁾􀁾􀁭􀁟􀁅􀁑􀀮􀁾􀁑􀀮􀁑
􀀮􀁑􀀻􀀮􀁑􀁑􀀮􀁾 Total Proje,t Cost Dc:[:.. 􀀮􀁎􀁾􀀧.....􀁩􀁢􀀬􀀡􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀬􀁾􀁑􀁑􀁊 J' l.£ost to City J_ ,􀀬􀀮􀁾􀀿􀂧􀀲􀀬􀀱􀀹􀁟􀀹􀀮􀁱􀀺􀂣􀁑􀀮􀁾􀀱 . . . .. . __. Comments Regarding Cost
by City: Comments Regarding Cost by County: This cost estimate was prepared by 􀁾 Traffic signal upgrades. SUE is 0% and design is 11% f; Parsons Transportation Group in 􀁾 of const'uction
cost. , January 2000. f 􀁾 􀁾 f l. 􀁾 1 f -_ _ 􀀧􀀡􀀢􀀢􀁏􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀬􀁟􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀻􀂫􀁾 􀁾 ••􀁾􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁬􀁃􀁣􀂫􀂫􀁃􀁾􀀧􀁾􀁾􀂷􀀮􀁾􀀢􀀺􀀢􀀺􀁾􀁉􀁬􀁉􀁁􀁏􀀺􀁦􀁉􀁬􀁬􀁃􀁟􀁕􀁏
􀁃􀁯􀁎􀁃􀀮􀀺 ••• ••• ·.<:,·.':':tICO':C<CUCCC.IOIC. 􀁾􀀮􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮􀂷 ·An.1I: • IMCIP# .I Project , Location Beginning
Nov-02-01 03:44P ) P.os 13.'-" -'il􀁾 ......􀁲􀁟􀀧􀀮􀀩􀀧􀁬􀁃􀁯􀀺􀀼􀀼􀀢􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀬 ': v"¥,,l City Estimate: Construction["""'., 􀁾􀀮􀀬..􀀼􀁾􀀲􀁚􀁾􀀼􀁾􀀻􀀼􀀹􀀬􀁱 I Cost Design Cost , ....
􀁟􀁊􀀮􀁾􀀬􀀨􀁏􀁏􀁏􀀻􀁏􀁏 􀁾 ROW Cost $72,000.00 ! ...................-••;; ":•••• 􀀡􀁾..R1iiifa"c.c""c,n/; Utility Cost L"",,« :: .::..::::: ::: __􀁾􀂧􀀮􀂷􀁧􀀹􀁟􀁊 MCIP# Project Location
Beginning County Estimate(DC): Paving and Drainage 􀀤􀀡􀁧􀀮􀁑􀀮􀁾􀁏􀀮􀁏􀁟􀁏 f Bridge Cost DC $0.00 : ... ' 􀁏􀁃􀀧􀁏􀁃􀀨􀁏􀀨􀁃􀁏􀁃􀁾􀀼􀁉􀁟􀀧􀀺􀂷􀂷􀂷􀀢􀂷􀀧􀂷􀂷􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮􀂷􀂷􀂷􀂷􀂷􀀧􀀢
t Lighting Cost DC: $0.00 Signal Cost DC: C:::i.Ji::S]ID Rail Road Cost DC: L,,, , ,.,,..,J29..QJ Subtota r: [_'__..m ....-...,-•••, ••,. 􀁧􀀲􀁚􀀮􀀺􀁚􀀬􀁾􀁾􀂷􀀮􀁑􀀮􀁾..J 􀁉􀁮􀁦􀁬􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀨􀀳􀀥􀁦􀁯�
�􀀶􀁹􀁣􀀺􀁬􀁲􀁾􀀩 􀁃􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀴􀁃􀀱􀀰􀀮􀀴􀀰 1 Materials (2%) L.,,,....l1d.?.[.§.QJ Construction Total [«< ««w, 􀁾􀀮􀁦􀀱􀀲􀀱􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀼􀀼􀀼􀁑􀁑􀁊 Design Cost DC: __ 􀁟􀁟􀁟􀀤􀁾􀁾􀁑􀀺􀀡􀀲􀀹
ROW Cost DC: $181 500.00 : SUE and Utility Costs 􀁄􀀴􀀽􀁾􀁾􀀺􀂷􀀬􀂷􀀺􀂷􀀺􀀺􀂷􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀂷􀀺􀂷􀀺􀂷􀀺􀀺􀂷􀀺􀀺􀂷􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁩􀁅􀁯􀁾􀁪 Sub Total: [,,,=-,::::,, :􀀤􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀬􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁊 , Project
Delivery Cost DC: L. :__􀁾􀀹􀀱􀁾􀁾􀁊􀁾􀀮􀀻􀁧􀀻􀀮􀁐 J I Totll Project􀁌􀁾 ITol.1 Project Coo, wi.... ...-::.:.... l477'l!.?o§Q] Cost to City .t ,,􀀢􀀧􀀮􀀪􀁾􀁾􀁾..􀀡􀀡􀁛􀀱􀂣􀁱􀀺􀂣􀁑􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮
.. Comments Regarding Cost by City: Comments Regarding Cost by County: This project was bid in late 1999 but No SUE and design i5 a flat $3000 to rebid the was never awarded because
of lack of project. Contigency is 5% that is added to the right·of·way. The total amount bid construction items. The paVing and drainage is based was $147,560. The bid price has on Addison's
bid that were received in 1999 with 2 been adjusted upward by 6% for years of inflation. inflation, and 5% has been added to that for contingencies. Engineering costs are for re-bidding
the project and bid phase services. Right·of-way cost figured at $8.00/square foot for , 􀁾􀂣􀀲􀁾􀀹􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀡􀀡􀁕􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀡􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀮􀀬....􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀧􀀧 ..._,_,,y...•..•.•.,,.,,j
Nov-02-01 03:45P ) P.06 MCIP "# Project Location 􀁾􀁥􀁧􀁬􀁮􀁮􀁬􀁮􀁧 􀁌􀀢􀂥􀀬􀁷􀀬􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀮􀀲􀀲􀁩 City 􀀱􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁴􀀿􀁟􀁾􀀢__,,__.,,_..,,,,:: Length ["........9J miles Proposed Belt
Line/Dallas Parkway Single Point i 􀁲􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁧􀁨 UrbM.ln.t!irgH!!J.W!_....__..,.,•.••􀁾....A_". .J 􀁲􀁾􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁾..􀁾􀁄􀀮􀁾􀂫􀁾􀁥􀀬􀁾􀁾 􀁾􀁾􀁣􀀮􀀺􀁉􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀻􀀡􀁩􀀮􀁲􀁾􀁾􀁬􀀧􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀭􀁟􀀮􀀬
__ .1 Belt Line ·3, Dallas Pkwy· 3 A project cost estimate was prepared by Barton Aschman, based upon schematic design, in October 1997. The cost estimate was revised to present day
as shown above. City Estimate: Design Cost ._ _,",,__􀁾􀀲􀀱􀀰􀀬􀀰􀀰􀀰􀀻􀀮􀁑􀁑􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁊 ROW Cost $170 000.00 􀁾 «<,..•....•••.... 􀂷􀂷􀂷􀀢􀀺􀀮􀁈􀁷􀂷􀁩􀁜􀀢􀁦􀁗􀁦􀀧􀂧􀁩􀁊􀁭􀀮􀀨􀁾􀂫􀁾 Utility
Cost L 􀁾􀀮􀁑􀀡􀀮􀁑􀀹􀀮􀀹􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀹􀁧􀀮􀁊 Total Project L__...􀀬􀁟􀀮􀀢􀀮􀁟􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁑􀀮􀁑􀀮􀁑􀀮􀀺􀁑􀀹􀁊 Cost to City L....'.'."I"l__􀀢􀁟􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁧􀁾􀀮􀀹􀀮􀀡􀀮􀁑􀀮􀁑􀁾􀁌􀀹􀀮􀀬􀀲􀀮􀀮􀁪
Comments Regarding Cost by City: ,1iIl!II , 􀀮􀀬􀁾􀁣􀀭􀀺􀁣􀂫􀀧􀀪􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀮􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀼􀀧􀁣􀀭􀀧􀀧􀀺􀀭􀀢􀀽􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀧􀀧􀀨􀁬􀁯􀀬􀁾􀀬􀀬􀁟􀀮􀀬􀀬.••••􀀧􀀧􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀺􀁾..􀁾􀁊 County Estimate(DC):
Paving and Drainage __􀀬􀁅􀀮􀀩􀁰􀀶􀀲􀀮􀀱􀀮􀁾􀀶􀀰􀀻􀀰􀀰 1 Bridge Cost DC $1,062,160.00 . OIl.....•••••..•••••• 0««+•••••• Light ing Cost DC: .,.._«,......􀀬􀀡􀁾􀀮􀁾...􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁧􀀬􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁟􀀮
Signal Cost DC: L__􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀮􀀬􀀬􀁊􀁽􀀩􀁾􀀬􀁯􀁯􀁯􀀮􀁏􀁊􀁬􀀮􀁊􀀮 Rail Road Cost DC: L"w. _", 􀁾􀁑􀀮􀁒􀀹􀀮􀀬􀁊 Subtota I: L..........«,.._" , 􀁦􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁊􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀲􀀲􀀹􀂫􀀹􀀢􀀹􀀮􀁊 Inflation
(3% for 6 years) 􀁃􀀺􀀺􀁩􀀮􀀴􀀮􀁱􀀮􀀿􀀺􀁾􀂧􀀮􀂧􀀺􀁰􀀮􀁯 􀁾 Materials (2%) L:::: 􀀱􀀴􀁱􀀢􀀬􀀽􀀡􀁾􀀹􀁊 Construction Total L.w .....' .."m.._ ..􀁩􀁾􀁚􀁴􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁦􀁧􀁧..\,QQJ Design Cost DC:
_ 􀀤􀀲􀀵􀁓􀀡􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀰􀀰 J ROW Cost DC: ,.._ J740J.,.q,Q.9.;QQ.J SUE and Utility Costs DC : pO,788.00 f ,'«: ..c ,,_.. •••• • Sub Total: I,,,,, , ........􀀬􀀬􀀢􀁾.....􀀬􀀬􀀺􀀡􀁾 􀀷􀀬􀁾􀀸􀀮􀀧􀀻􀀬􀁾􀀮􀁾�
�􀁾􀁊 . Project Delivery Cost DC: I.A__, 􀁪􀁾􀁚􀂧􀀮􀀬􀂧􀁬􀁌􀀿􀀮􀁑􀂥􀀮􀀱 Total Project Cost DC:[ : :::: __...􀁟􀁾􀀮􀁪􀀻􀀴􀀬􀀱􀁾􀀷􀀡􀀱􀀮􀀮􀀱􀀮􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀿􀀮􀁾􀀺􀀡 Comments Regarding Cost by
County; SUE is 1.5% and design is 11% of construction cost. 􀁬􀁾 Assumed that consutlanl's construction cost is correct 􀁾 without contigency cost. New sidewalks and bridge widening.
i E _·":":":·...􀂷􀀮􀀢􀀺􀁾􀁮􀀺􀁉􀀡..«__􀀮􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀬􀀮􀂫􀀢􀀺􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀮􀁾.􀂷.c= OC04 ,eeoc 􀁾••••':":...'.o:«<:_,_c􀀺􀁟􀀭􀀬􀁾...w."',...J
􀁎􀁯􀁶􀁾􀀰􀀲􀀭􀀰􀀱 03:45P P.07 1:... MCIP# Project Location Beginning [" ,,, 58! City 􀁉􀁦􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁴􀁾􀀢􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀧__"_NJ Length L",,_£l miles Proposed 􀁾.....􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀬􀀺􀀽􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀬􀀽􀀢􀀬􀀺􀀬􀁾􀀭􀀭�
�􀁾􀀮 Through Dallas parkway SB to NB U·turn f Lanes ....... 􀁾•.".v,y,.._".,--"..__..􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀢􀀮􀀬􀀭􀁟..􀁟􀀭􀁾 􀁛􀂧􀀱􀁌􀁾􀁾..􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀡􀁙..􀁾􀁴Ar 􀁾􀁉􀀿􀁡􀁨􀁯􀀮 􀁾􀁥􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀬􀀺􀀽􀁾
.􀁾􀁊 A·3. Dp·3 􀁾,􀁾lI,. 101 ( C"I'.< City Estimate: County Estimate(DC): $2§6,800.00 ........«_.. $3<'\8.00000 Paving and Drainage Bridge Cost DC Lighting Cost DC; Signal Cost DC;
Rai I Road Cost DC: Subtotal: L_.,,"_..« ......_ ...􀁾􀁾􀀹􀁝􀂧􀁊 Inflation (3% for 6 years) I: :::::,i 􀀱􀀱􀀴􀀧􀀪􀁾􀀿􀀺􀀱􀁅􀂧􀁑􀁊 Materials (2%) 􀁌􀁟􀁕􀀢􀀿􀀧􀀲􀁾􀀹􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁑􀀮􀁑􀁊 COnstruction
Tatal t ,, , 􀁩􀀮􀁺􀀮􀁾􀀱􀁾􀀮􀁾..􀁾􀀹􀀬􀀺􀀮􀁑􀀮􀁑􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁊 Design Cost DC; $84 05§.OO ROW Cost DC: lQ:Q9. . SUE and Utility Costs DC 􀁾 􀁾􀀮􀀡􀀮􀀡􀁊􀀱􀀮􀂧􀀮􀀲􀁊􀀿􀀲􀁟L.:,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,
...,"" $87,9,68􀁾􀀬􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁝 Iw 􀀬􀀬􀀧􀁟􀀮􀀱􀁛􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀬􀁾􀁩􀀡􀁑􀁝 Sub Total: Project Project Delivery Cost DC: Design Cost ....." _· $90t00_0.0.._0 􀁾.. ROW Cost Utility Cost TotaI Project
L,'.N....NN.•........􀁾􀁚􀀲􀀮􀀹􀁶􀁬􀀮􀁱􀁑􀁑􀀬􀀺􀀮􀁑􀁑􀁪 Cost to 􀁾􀁴􀀮􀀡􀀧 􀁃􀁾􀀮􀁭􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀤􀁾􀁑􀁑􀀯􀁏􀁑􀂣􀀰􀁏􀀢􀀧􀁊 Comments Regarding Cost by City: A cost estimate, based
upon 􀁾 schematic design, was prepared by ; parsons Transportation Group in April l 􀀱􀁾􀀹􀀮 ii i J..., • •.• • J Total Project Cost DC:C::,. :::. ,.... ,:,::: .. , ,.. 􀁬􀁾􀀧􀁬􀀬􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀱􀀲􀁪􀁰􀁝
I " ..... -.. -' Comments Regarding Cost by County: SUE:1.5% Design is 11% Added inflation and other cost to Parson's estimate. Traffic signal is upgraded.
HP LaserJet 3100 Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner 0END CONFIRMATION REPORT for Town of Addison 972 450 2810 Aug-21-01 3:58PM Job start Time Usage Phone Number or ID Type Pages Mode Status
950 8/21 3:58PM 0'35" 92146536416 .................. Send .............. 2/2 EC 96 Completed ........................................ Total 0'35" Pages Sent: 2 Pages Printed: 0 HP LaserJet
3200S8 TllIl.I\SERJCT 3200 97245OZ837 AUIH3-2001 17:39 Fax Call Report Job Date TillIE! Type 533 811312001 17:38:21 Send ldent1ficat1on Durat10n Pages Result 92146536416 0:51 1 0< ........
ADDI$ON l't1BLlC WORKS T>' ·f.M!. UjW4. 􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀢􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀧􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀮 """'"" pul.s "om!y .􀁾􀀽 I'll." ;I'f-'S'-,,'fl(, 􀁾 􀁾 t .. ,}-O! ••1W......... roO"''''''. 􀀬􀁬􀁬􀁴􀁰􀁡􀁰􀁩􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁉􀀧􀀩􀀭􀁌
.u.Iboa,"nC75OIIl-tOlO ... s:6' Icy· 8 ":fUm A!\ ],,11.. fk,j€ 􀁾􀁁􀁪􀁬􀀡􀁬􀀮􀀭 PJ1 . COlltpul.... c ..,..,........ em eCIII_
􀀮􀁾 HP LaserJet TOALASERJET 3200 9724502837 AUG-13-2001 17:39 3200se ) invent Fax Call Report Job Date 533 8/13/2001 Time Type 17:38:21 Send Identification 92146536416 Duration 0:51
Pages 1 Result OK TOWN OF From: Jim Pierce, P.E. Asst. PubUe Wks. Dir. Phone: 972/450-2879 FAX: 972/450-2837 jpierce@cL.ddi.OD.a.U. PUBLIC WORKS 16801 Westgrove P.O.Box 9010 # of pages
(including eover):--L Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: S.B. k-tJ· 5, 0:[\,rt"l on 'Dql/a) 􀁥􀁫􀁾 e 􀁁􀁾 􀁾 ADDIsoN To: t:J(,.y" U3'deL Company: 􀀺􀁐􀁾􀀯􀁫􀀼􀁳 Ut.lrde; FAX#: t.tLf-"7'3-􀁾􀀧􀁦􀁬􀁾
Date: 􀀸􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀧􀁾􀀭􀁄􀁉 o Originll1 in moil D Per your request D FYI D e.u me
HP LaserJet 3200se TOALASERJET 3200 9724502837 AUG-10-2001 08:21 invent Fax Call Report Job Date 496 8/10/2001 Time Type 08:20:30 Send Identifi cati on 92146536416 Duration 0:50 Pages
1 Result OK TOWNOF From: Jim Pierce, P.E. Asst. Public Wks. Dir. Phone: 972/450-2879 FAX: 972/450·2837 jpic.ce@ci••ddilon.b,u. PUBLIC WO,RKS .'! 16801 Westgrove P.O.Box 9010 # of pages
(including eover):_I_ Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: O""Ila.5 UJ. trttll" 'Bell L"r1f '(? D.iI"s IJrkr.Jry ADDIsoN' TO:' £Jilt '&414, .company: Vii/IllS ucm't ' FAX;': 􀀢􀁬􀀮􀀨􀀴􀀭􀀻􀀧􀁾􀀳􀀭􀀶􀁩􀀭􀀱􀁬􀁰
Date: fi'-/O-O/o Original iD mllil o Per you. request DFVI DCaUme , 􀁃􀁯􀁭􀁭􀁥􀁄􀁕􀀺􀀧􀀭􀀻􀀺􀀻􀀭􀁟􀁾 _ /tJ*,£ S,geJ =.
Jim Pierce From: Sent: To: SUbject: Edith Ngwa [ENgwa@dallascounty.org] Thursday. August 09, 2001 3:06 PM Jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us Speed rating for intersection projects Jim: Last year
to correct the problem of intersection projects scoring no points under the Speed Delay Rating, we had agreed to use the posted and operational speeds for the intersecting road with
the higher speed. After talking to you, I went back to our MCIP application and realized that we had not edited the data entry space for operational and posted speeds as we were supposed
to, to reflect this change. Which explains why you didn't provide this information. I'll appreciate it if you'll submit the posted and operational speeds for both the Beltline@Dallas
Pkwy and the Dallas Pkwy@Arapaho projects so we can determine the Speed Delay Rating for these projects. Thanks! Edith Ngwa Senior Transportation Planner Dallas County Public Works 1
DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS July 31, 2001 TO: FROM: RE: Dallas County Cities Don Cranford Assistant Director, Dallas County Public Works Department Major Capital Improvement Program:
Preliminary Evaluation Results The Dallas County Public Works Department has completed a preliminary evaluation of all projects submitted under the 2001 Major Capital Improvement Program
(MCIP). Please find attached, the evaluation results for the projects submitted by your city. As the results indicate, projects were scored on 10 technical criteria, a local cost participation
multiplier, and 3 special case scenarios as outlined in our evaluation methodology paper: "Evaluation Methodology to Score and Rank Candidate Thoroughfare System Improvements." This
paper was presented during our 2001 MCIP Kick-Off meeting held at the Dallas County Commissioners Courtroom on January 31,2001, and is available, upon request, for your review. For quick
reference, the evaluation criteria as abbreviated on the attached table are as follows: FC: FC: SD: TV: TVG: TD: BC: AR: AQ: IMSM: SDR: MULT: ScI: Sc2: Sc3: Functional Classification
Rating Speed Delay Rating Traffic Volume Rating Traffic Volume Growth Rating Travel Desire Rating Benefit Cost Ratio Rating Accident Rating Air Quality/Energy Conservation Rating Intermodal
/Multimodal /Social Mobility Rating Sustainable Development /Redevelopment /Smart Growth Rating Local Cost Participation Multiplier Special Case # 1 Special Case # 2 Special Case # 3
All ten criteria carried equal weight (lOpts) in our evaluation. Please note that if a project scored no points for a given criteria, one ofthe following three scenarios is possible:
1) the project did not qualify for points (for example, proposed new roads do not qualify for accident rating points); or 411 Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7151
2) the data necessary for determining a score was not made available to us (for example, projects for which we received no accident, posted and operational speed data, scored zero points
for accident and speed delay ratings as appropriate): or, 3) the project simply recorded no benefit for the criteria in question. We strongly encourage you to review these results carefully
and contact Edith Ngwa, Ph.D, Senior Transportation Planner, if you would like further clarification on the scoring and evaluation methodology, or would like to provide data you omitted
in the original project application. The deadline for responding to this request is August 16,2001. Ifwe do not hear from you by this deadline, we will assume you agree with our assessment
of your project(s) and proceed to use this information for our final evaluation and ranking of all projects by August 30,2001. These final evaluation results would be presented in a
similar format as the preliminary results with the exception of the addition of adjusted adjusted (for inflation and contingencies) project cost estimates. Thank You. Sincerely, Don
Cranford 􀁾􀁾􀁄􀁩􀁲􀀺􀁯􀁲 􀁾 Dallas County P blic Works Department 411 Elm Street, Ste 400 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7151 CC: Donald Holzwarth Edith Ngwa MCIP files
Jul-3l-0l Ol:50P P.Ol LE ·COYE ." . . .., . .' '. , .-", . ,'1 FROM: ' , 'f\b TO: . .)' (JC OF:.__􀁾(}p AddJ.'...􀁓...􀁾􀁾􀁏􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀢􀁏􀁾__ FAX#: (91ri) 'tf-5D -9$.3q PHONE #:__-􀁾
􀁾 _ 􀀢􀁾􀀮􀀯 DATEfflME: '\{ l3//1) r r I FAX # 1.214) 653-6416 PHONE # (214) 653-6176 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING 􀁃􀁏􀁖􀁅􀁒􀁾􀁟􀁾 􀁃􀁏􀁍􀁍􀁅􀁎􀁔􀁓􀀺􀁾__􀁾 -,o:----:---__􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁾
f .' '0'0 CI (-) . ct.,f71 rJ ". _.{/}lA.l±s'7 , "-****lFYOU DO NOTRECEIVE ALLOF'THE PAGES" PLEASE CALL'I'BE NUMBERBELOW. . . 4n,ELM StREET DALLAS;TBXAS 75i02 (214)553-7151
Jul-31-01 01:50P .) P.02 DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS July 31, 2001 TO: FROM: RR: Dallas County Cities Don Cranford Assistant Director, Dallas County Puhlic Works Department Major Capital
Improvement Program: Preliminary Evaluation Results The Dallas County Public Works Department has completed a preliminary evaluation of aU projects submitted under the 2001 Major Capital
Improvement Program (MeIP). Please find ana.ched, the evaluation results for the projects submilled by your city. As the results indicate, projecls were scored on 10 technicaicriteria,
a local coSl participation multiplier, and 3 special case scenarios as outlined in our evaluation methodology paper: "Evaluation Methodology to Score and Rank Candidale Thoroughfare
System Improvements." This paper was presented during our 2001 MOP Kick-OlTmeeting held at the Dallas County Commissioners Courtroom on January 31, 2001, and is available, upon requcst,
for your review. For quick refercnce, the evaluation criteria as abbreviated on the attached table are as fbJlows: FC: SD: TV: TVG: TI): BC: AR: AQ: IMSM: SOR: MULT: Set: Sc2: Sc3: functional
Classitication Rating Speed Delay Rating Traffic Volume Rating Traffic Volume Growth Rating Travel Desire Rating Benefit Cost Ratio Rating Accident Rating Air Quality! Energy Conservation
Rating lntermodal /Multimodal! Social Mobility Rating Sustainable Development! Redevelopment j Smart Growth Rating Local 􀁃􀁯􀁾􀁴 Participation MUltiplier Special Case # I Special Case
tt 2 Special Case tt 3 All ten criteria carried equal weight (1 Opts) in our evaluation. Please note that if a project scored no points for a given criteria, one of the following three
scenarios is possible: 1) the project did not qualify for points (for example, proposed new roads do nol qualify for accident rating points); or 411 Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas, Texas
75202 (214) 653-7151
Jul-31-01 Ol:50P ., :i ") P.03 2) the data 􀁮􀁥􀁣􀁥􀁾􀁳􀁡􀁲􀁹 for determining a score was not made available to tiS (for example, projects for which we received no accident, posted and
operational speed data, scored zero points for accident and speed delay ratings as appropriate); or, 3) the project simply recorded no benefit tor the criteria in question.. We strongly
encourage you to review these results carefully and contact Edith Ngwa, Ph.D, Senior Transp01tation Planner, if you would like further clarification on the scoring and evaluation methodology,
or would like to provide data you omitted in the original project application. The deadline for responding to this request is August 16,2001, Tfwe do not hear from you by this deadline,
we will assume you agree with our asses!\ment of your project(s) and proceed to use this information for our linal evaluation and ranking of all projects by August 30, 200t. These final
evaluation results would be presented in a similar t()rnlat as the preliminary results with the exception ofthc addition of adjusted (for inflation and contingencies) project cost estimates.
Thank You. Sincerely, Don Cranford 􀁾 􀁾􀀯􀁶􀁾􀁙􀁬􀁚􀁾 􀁾􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁴 Director Dallas County P blic Works Department 411 Him Street, Stc 400 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 653-7151 CC: Donald
Holzwarth Edith Ngwa MCIP files
'd' o. ll. 􀀺􀁾􀁦􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀡􀀮􀀻􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁴􀁾􀁴􀀮􀀿􀀺􀁴􀀮􀁦􀀮􀁾􀁾􀂷􀁾􀀥􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁦􀀮􀂷􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁈􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁬􀀱􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀱􀀮􀀱􀁾􀁾􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀂧􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀿􀁾􀁲􀀤􀀮􀁾􀁩􀁾
􀀺􀁴􀁩􀀻􀁲􀀺􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾..􀀿􀀭􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁲􀁴􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁴􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀮􀀿􀀡􀀿􀀺􀀢􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁲􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀪􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁴􀁩􀀺􀀪􀁾􀁴􀁬􀁩􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁴􀁈􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀿􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀪􀁾􀁾�
�􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀡􀁾􀀬􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁳􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀪􀀮􀁲􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁴􀁾􀁴􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁕􀁾􀁴􀀮􀀺􀀱􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀮􀁾 ..􀁾􀀪􀀮􀁴􀀮􀁾􀀪􀀮􀁾􀁾 Major Capita/Improvement Project Ranking by District
and by City 􀀭􀀩􀀧􀀺􀁣􀀭􀁾􀀬􀀻􀀢􀀺􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁪􀁾􀁹􀀧􀁾􀀮􀀺􀂷􀀻􀀻􀀮􀀺􀂷􀀻􀀮􀁲􀀻􀀧􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁾􀂷􀁾􀁯􀁪􀀮􀁾􀁘􀁾􀀭􀁩􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀢􀀱􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀧􀁙􀁾􀀪􀀧􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁖􀀻􀀻􀀧􀀺􀁖􀀭􀁁􀀧􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀺􀂷􀀿􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀷􀀮􀀮􀀧􀁴􀁯􀀩􀀱􀀭�
�􀀺􀀢􀀬􀀻􀀻􀀧􀀺􀁩􀁬􀀡􀀺􀀧􀁙􀀮􀀢􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀱􀀺􀀧􀀻􀀢􀀧􀁙􀁁􀁹􀀭􀀢􀀻􀀺􀂷􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀻􀀬􀀪􀁶􀀮􀀻􀀺􀂷􀁹􀁴􀀾􀁹􀀧􀁬􀀩􀀪􀀺􀀢􀀪􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀻􀀢􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀁎􀁯􀀮􀁾􀂷􀁁􀁖􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀻􀀻􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀧􀁁􀀭􀀻􀀬􀀻􀀬􀁵􀀮􀀮􀁸􀀭􀀺􀀨􀀧􀀨􀁯􀀲􀀺􀀮
􀀮􀀺􀁤􀀧􀀱􀀮􀁴􀀭􀁬􀁴􀀮 ..􀂷􀀧􀁬􀁴􀀮􀁲􀁴􀁴􀀭􀁙􀀧􀀻􀀮􀀮􀁸􀀫􀀩􀁾􀀺􀁏􀀧􀀱􀁬􀀺􀀺􀁬􀁲􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁁􀀻􀀮 ...'"W;-;:.......-.. 􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀂷􀀻􀁩􀁻􀁾􀀲􀀺􀂫􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁬􀀺􀁾􀁬􀁴􀀮􀂷􀀺􀁲􀀨􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀷􀁁􀀺􀁬􀂻􀁾􀀺􀁬
􀀻􀀺􀁩􀀡􀀧􀂫􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁹􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀮􀁣􀀮􀁣􀁙􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁁􀀢􀀧􀀻􀀻􀀧􀀺􀀺􀀢􀀧􀁙􀀻􀀧􀀺􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁙􀀻􀀢􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀢􀁁􀀺􀀨􀂷􀀺􀀺􀁉􀀺􀀮􀀻􀀮􀁾􀂷􀀱􀀮􀁬􀁊􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀂷􀁲􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀬􀀮..􀀺'􀀺t􀀭..􀁊􀁾.􀁴􀁘􀁾􀀨􀀮􀀢􀀪􀁬
􀀩􀁩􀀺􀀮􀀬􀀺􀀱􀁊􀀮􀀪􀀢􀀻􀀺􀀢􀀻􀀻􀀢􀀺􀀺􀀢􀀪􀂫􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀱􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁘􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀮􀁹􀀻􀀮􀀺 ...􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭..􀁹􀀺􀀻􀀬􀀺􀀮􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀺􀁾...,:..:.:-;: ID Dist Project Location Length Percent Project (Miles)
Match Description Ci(.' Beginning Ending FlAlfetiJud 􀀮􀀧􀂥􀁵􀁾􀀴 r·tVJic Trllfjic r.""tI Borrfil AccUlw .·lir /MS..., (!3J .lfulJipljRr Type Clau Debt.J· Vobr..... 􀁖􀁯􀁾 Dair. Con
Rizt. Qu4lli.(). Total scI :le2 lid Gro..1h Belt Une Road Signal Up-grade 1.7 80 RefJming ltIe eX/Sling 17 YIJiIr old coordinated Signal S)lstem aJong Belt Line Road frCm Marsh Lane
10 Adil¥son Manih Lane Dallas Parkway Quorcm Drlllfl. SIG Projec:t Score: 10 10 4 10 0 0 4 0 €) 0 1.8 68 0 ::J L 57 1 Ben Line @Dallas Parkway 0 80 Th9 project Wi" alloW the simultaneous
􀁾􀁬􀁬􀁯􀁮 OfIe1I tum lanes lor easlllNesl lralflC anaIbr IIOJ1/lIsoulh lTarrlC. Addison Belf Line Road At Dallas Ben Line Road AtDallas ParKway ParkWay 􀁾 .... , /\ (NT Project Score:
10 ( 0 ! 4 8 4 0 0 0 1.0 0 1.Ir 65 ::J :::J 􀁾 l /_/40 ::J :::J Add 111I111 lane 10 relief IJaIl'il: bar;k-up COIId/fions for lIJose vehIcles trsYellng easlboiNJd IbI'OO[lh 11I9Addison
AiJpat Tunnel. 1.8 BO 3 o 4 10 o 4 o o o Keller Springs @Addison!ROad 0.17 Keller Springs Road at Addrr>0n 900 Feet East of AddiS(J1l Road Road II I /1 II J 􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀬􀁾􀁟􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁁􀀱􀀮􀀱􀀮􀁴􀁾􀁾.."=
,,...g0...􀁾 􀀹􀁜􀂷􀂷􀂷􀁾􀁾􀀱 WID Project Score: 2Addison I'"l oll. I'"l 10 I'"l oI I'"l MI r::::J '1
ltl o. Q. ID Dist Project LocatiDn Length Percent Project (Miles) Match Description Ci(v Beginning Ending r....<:lina/Spe,,4 'fraffic 􀁔􀁲􀁯􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁾 TNlvd Bml.[u ..lcri<1IM' 􀀮􀀭􀁉􀁾
I/tfSM SDR Mu/lipliN' Type CI..... DrlJrj' I-Qlunre V"lu_ Dain eM Rstr Q"rditl' Telal scJ $c2 M:J G"".w. 58 Addis.on Dallas Pkw. SB to NB U-tlJm Dallas Parkway at Arapaho Road Same (intersection)
o 80 me project conslsfs ofthe reroova( of a pottion of eJliS/l'nQ concrellHllOllD (;4J/f} along inside cum lIlies 01 southboundandnorItJboufldDaNas PiNkway. /--Q. r-! ltl INT Project
Score: 7 o o 4 o o o o o o 1.8 20 o c r-! or-! oI r-! MI r::I '") 􀀺􀀼􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀮􀁸􀀢􀁩􀀭􀀢􀀱􀀭􀀩􀀨􀀿􀀬􀀪􀀬􀁾􀁹􀀢􀀬􀀭􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀢􀀮􀀧􀁴􀁶􀀻􀀺􀀧􀁾􀀺􀁽􀀵􀁣􀀮􀀬􀀮􀀢􀁓􀀺􀂫􀁾􀀺􀀨􀁹 .......􀀢􀀬􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀻􀀺􀀭􀀺�
�􀀭􀀻􀁷􀀺􀁯􀁴􀀭􀁾􀁮􀀭􀀮􀀧􀁥􀀺􀀢􀀧􀀬􀁾􀀺􀀮􀁬􀀺􀀨􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀺􀀺􀂫􀀧􀀻􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀷􀀮􀀭􀀩􀁉􀀧􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀪􀀺􀁬􀀩􀀺􀀺􀁣􀀿􀀺􀁴 .._y:.;....􀁩􀁴􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀭􀀮􀁬􀁴􀁾􀂷􀀱􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀩􀁬􀀺􀀮􀀮􀁬􀀧􀀺􀀺􀁬􀁊􀀮
􀂻􀁬􀁣􀀺􀁬􀁊􀀮􀁾􀁹􀀻􀀻􀀭􀀺􀀮􀁣􀁾 ..􀀭􀁫􀁪􀀻􀁶􀀮􀀺􀁑􀀺􀁾􀁴􀀭􀀷􀀮􀀻􀁾􀀮􀁾􀂷􀁗􀁾􀀪􀀧􀁔􀀧􀀾􀀩􀀢􀁾􀁴􀀮􀁾􀀢􀁍􀂷􀀬􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁬􀀭􀁾􀂷􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀭􀁾􀂷􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀧􀁩􀀭􀁙􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀮􀁾􀁶􀁾􀀭􀁴􀀮􀂷􀁾􀁾􀀨􀀬􀀭􀀻􀀻􀂷􀁭􀂷􀀮
􀀧􀀱􀀭􀁟􀂷􀁮􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁙􀀧􀀺􀀮􀂷􀁉􀀺􀀮􀀭 􀀱􀀧􀀮􀂷􀀮􀂷􀁾􀂷􀀮􀂷􀀺􀀺􀀮􀂷􀁟􀀧􀁇􀀧􀁟...􀀻􀀭􀀮􀀿􀀮􀀭􀁮􀂷􀀮􀀧􀁬􀀧􀁟􀀧􀀺􀀧􀀺􀀮􀀧􀀫􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾 ....,....􀀢􀀧􀁬􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀢􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁖􀀧􀁾􀁷􀀮􀀭􀀺􀁬􀀧􀀮􀀮􀂷 ..;-...-I'.·I'.·.·
:.::.w_·/""·:-·?:M'h_?:•.,.·?:::Y?L......9-,,.,.,V),.......􀀧􀁁􀁾 ......􀁟􀀢􀁾.......􀂷􀀬􀀬􀂷􀀬􀀬􀁾􀁟􀀦􀀧􀀦􀀭􀀢􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀧􀀺 •. Tuel$Ja_v, Jul}' 31, ZODJ
.. ... ) PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT (972) 450-2871 􀀱􀀡􀁩􀀡􀀱􀁬􀀡􀁉􀁩􀁉􀀡􀁩􀁬􀀸􀀦􀁩􀁜􀀡􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀲􀁩􀁬􀀧􀀶􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁩􀁾􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁩􀁾􀁾􀀢􀀬􀀬􀀡􀀱􀀡􀁩􀁩􀁱􀁩􀀡􀀡􀁬􀀡􀁗􀁾􀁍􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀧􀀡􀀱􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁾􀁊􀁊􀁩􀁾􀂮
Post Office Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001-9010 April 25,2001 Mr. Donald L Holzwarth, P.E. Dallas County Director of Public Works 411 Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas, TX 75202 Re: 2001 Call
For Projects Dear Mr. Holzwarth: 16801 Westgrove The Town ofAddison is pleased to submit the following Application Information for five projects, in response to your 2001 Call For Projects.
Belt Line RoadlDallas Parkway Single Point Urban Interchange Southbound to Northbound U-turn on Dallas Parkway at Arapaho Road Keller Springs!Addison Road Intersection Signals Upgrade
and Re-timing, Belt Line Rd. from Quorum Dr. to Marsh Lane The Town Council passed a resolution authorizing filing the applications at their meeting on April 25, 2001. A copy of the
resolution will be forwarded as soon as it is signed by the Mayor. We appreciate the opportunity to submit these applications. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Pierce, P.E.,
Assistant City Engineer at 972-450-2879. Very truly yours, Michael E. Murphy, P.E. Acting Director ofPublic Works Cc: Chris Terry, Assistant City Manager 􀂷􀁾􀁊􀁩􀁭 Pierce, P.E., Assistant
City Engineer Attachments
Item #R3-Item #R4-\J Presentation and discussion of the Addison Public Safety Radio Evaluation Report. Attachments: 1. Memo from Don Franklin, Chief of Police 2. Radio System Evaluation
Report Consideration of a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement for professional services in the amount $251,864.00 with DAL-TECH Engineering for surveying
services relating to the Addison Airport Boundary Survey. Attachments: 1. Memo from Steve Chutchian, Assistant City Engineer 2. Agreement for Professional Services Administrative Recommendation:
Administration recommends approval. Adjourn Meeting Posted 5:00 p.m. April 18, 2001 Carmen Moran City Secretary THE TOWN OF ADDISON IS ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. PLEASE
CALL (972) 450-2819 AT LEAST 48 HOLIRS IN ADVANCE IF YOLI NEED ASSISTANCE. City Council Agenda 04-24-01
0.47 (E=Expwy/Pkwy, P=Prin. Arterial, M=Minor Arterial, C=Coliector) 8000 vehicles per day [vpd] 800 vehicles per hour [vph] 41 Capacity Analysis Worksheet Corridor Identification Information
Facility name= University Avenue COffidor limits= 12th COffidor length (Miles) Type of facility= p Capacity per lane= {unadjusted} # of thru lanes= # of signals (in COff.) Adjustment
Factors (per lane) to Roadway 19th Created by: Michael H. Schrader, P.E. Created for: Metroplan, Little Rock, Ark Typical Lane Width (9'-12?= Lat. dist. to nearest obstruction= One Way
Street? (YES or NO) Raised Median? (YES or NO) Left Tum Bays? (YES or NO) avg.# of signals per mile = ITotal adjustments (per lane) 10.5 feet o feet no yes yes 2.13 -600 vpd -802 vpd
a vpd a vpd a vpd -1440 vpd -2842 vpd ...........................................................................................................u n •• .􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀡􀀮􀁅􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁾􀀮􀀹􀀮􀁾􀁰􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀡
􀁾􀀮􀁍􀁪􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾 :J..􀁾􀀮􀀡􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀿􀁾..􀁹􀀮􀁊􀀿􀀮􀁾 . IAdjusted Facility Design Capacity (all lanes) RESERVE CAPACITY COMPUTATION Existing traffic volume (vpd) == 36,166
20,632 vpd 2,063 vph 􀀱􀀽􀁉􀁒􀁥􀀽􀁳􀁥􀀽􀁲􀁶􀁥􀀽􀁣􀀽􀁡􀁰􀀽􀁡􀁣􀀽􀁩􀁴􀁹􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀡􀁛􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁝􀀱􀀡􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀱 =====-1==:55:=34=v=p:::::d==11 VOLUME/CAPACITY
Ratio and Rating ACCIDENT Rate and Rating Iv/c Ratio= VIC Quality Rating VIC Quality Index Total Quality Rating = Total Quality Index= 1.753 I 100F 110C # ofAccidents = IAccident Rate
Acc. Quality Rating Acc. Quality Index TQI Legend 59.66667 Year = avg 9.610 Accidents per MVM 10 A TQRating TQlndex 2-39 A 40 -79 B 80 -119 120 -159 C 0 160 -199 E 200+ F Capacity Spreadsheet,
copyright 1998 by M.H.Schrader Page 1 3/19/01
April 12,2001 MEMORANDUM To: Through: From: Subject: Chris Terry, Assistant City Manager Michael Murphy, P.E., Acting Director ofPublic Works Jim Pierce, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
2001 Dallas County Call For Projects Dallas County Public Works is soliciting nominations from cities for projects to be funded through the Dallas County Major Capital Improvement Fund
Thoroughfare Program. In lieu of a traditional bond program, Dallas County has created the Major Capital Improvement Fund, a "pay-as-you-go" funding mechanism for financing infrastructure
improvements. The County anticipates an annual call for projects. Under this new funding mechanism, approximately $15 million dollars will be available in both FY 2004 and 2005, with
$20 million being available annually in FY 2006 and beyond. The County is currently seeking nominations for projects to be funded for construction in FY 2005. $3.75 million will be available
for funding in our District in 2005. Applications are due at Dallas County for this call on on April 27, 2001. Each project's score is multiplied by a factor that gives credit to local
cost participation. For example, if an applicant pledges a local match of 50%, the multiplier is 1.50. An 80% local match gives the project the highest multiplier possible. The Town
was successful in receiving grants for two projects last year -Belt Line RoadlDallas Parkway Single Point Urban Interchange (SPill), and Signals Upgrade and Re-Timing, Midway Road from
Spring Valley to Dooley Road. Staff has selected four projects to be submitted to the County under this program this year. Three of the four projects were submitted last year and are
being resubmitted this year. The new project being submitted this year is the Keller Springs/Addison Road Intersection. All projects are being submitted with an 80% local share as follows:
Belt Line RoadIDallas Parkway Single Point Urban Interchange Town Share -$2,000,000 County Share -$500,000 Southbound to Northbound U-turn on Dallas Parkway at Arapaho Road Town Share
-$600,000 County Share -$150,000 Signals Upgrade and Re-timing, Belt Line Rd. from Quorum Dr. to Marsh Lane Town Share -$560,000 County Share -$140,000 Keller Springs/Addison Road Intersection
Town Share -$198,400 County Share -$49,600 Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to submit applications for the projects listed above to Dallas County for their 2001 Call
for Projects.
.. PROJECT COSTINFORMAnON Total Project Cost: ttb 􀀧􀀩􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀬 DDO Right-of-way Cost: t) 72 ()OD Engineering/Design Cost: 41'􀁾 scSO Utility Cost: . • CP " Construction Cost: g ll?>,DOD
Local Cost Contribution: 􀁾 in percent of total cost: 80/0 Supporting Comments Regarding Cost: r;;q LfD tt' -TY'Ifc-t::A· I ?J eJ i,) '2-. 11f"L. --p.AJ 2.... 894-i. 􀁦􀁴􀀭􀁾 ..􀁾􀀨
'1J 􀁾-8'/PI-(rV.) qODO \( 8.ro Ift1..: 􀁲􀁴􀀯􀁾􀁥􀁏􀁄 EV1t', /2-e b/d. /2 􀁾 = 􀁰􀁾􀁂􀀬􀁊􀁾 3 II 􀁾􀀼􀀡􀀡􀁉􀁮􀀱􀁊 􀀶􀀬􀁤􀁾 LI-􀁑􀀢􀀢􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀢􀁾􀁊􀁬􀁾 S
· J Jim Pierce To: Subject: Edith Ngwa RE: 2001 Dallas Co. Call for Projects Edith: Thank you. Yes, we are going to re-submit that project. Jim. -----Original Message-----From: Edith
Ngwa [mailto:ENgwa@dallascounty.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 9:44 AM To: jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us Subject: 2001 Dallas Co. Call for Projects Mr Pierce: Is the Town of Addison planning
to resubmit the BeltLine Road/Dallas Parkway Intersection project for this year's MCIP program. I wanted to remind you that projects not selected in a previous year can be resubmitted
for funding. I read the article about the project on the March 30th issue of the Dallas Morning news and wanted to remind you of this possibility. Thanks. Edith B. Ngwa, Ph.D Senior
Transportation Planner Dallas County Public Works Department 411 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75202 (214) 653-6522 »> <jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us> 03/30 9:03 AM »> Edith: Can you send me an electronic
copy of the Project Risk Analysis/Assessment Sheet and the Application/Project/Cost Information Form? Thanks, Jim Pierce, P.E. Assistant Public Works Director PO Box 9010 Addison, TX
75001-9010 972-450-2879 1
..I Jim Pierce From: Sent: To: Subject: Edith Ngwa [ENgwa@dallascounty.org] Friday, April 06, 2001 2:33 PM jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us Re: Dallas County 2001 Call for Projects Mr. Pierce:
The County is looking at a total of $20 Million. Although this amount is a significant increase from last year's $15million, it is still considerably small when divied up equally ($5million
each) amongst all 4 districts. The funds will be available as the project progresses through the phases starting from 2002/03 when funding for the design phase becomes available. I hope
I adequately answered your questions. If you have additional questions, do not hesitate to call me. Thanks! Edith B. Ngwa, Ph.D Senior Transportation Planner Dallas County Public Works
411 Elm Street, Ste 400 Dallas, TX 75202 (214) 653-6522 »> <jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us> 04/06 1:19 PM »> Edith: Several questions: 1. When will funds be available for the projects approved
in this call? 2. What amount will be available county wide? 3. How much money will be available in District I? Thanks, Jim Pierce, P.E. Assistant Public Works Director PO Box 9010 Addison,
TX 75001-9010 972-450-2879 1
12 .-􀁾 fir 􀀮􀁾􀁏 1'1 -1.¥ . /􀁦􀁾􀁾􀂷􀂷􀁾
\-. , ., L SCALE: 1". 40' ARAPAHO ROAD -------......, [> r· 0,-' PROPOSED ARAPAHO U-lURN LPRr:vtOUS U-lURN a.OSED DUE TO ARAPAHO ROAD 1lI0000NG \ \\ 0 : F ---' \ 􀁾 II "' \\ -0 > i!:
:;0 \ ; " l5 I -0 \ ::E \ 􀁾 d z 􀁾 }-NO ADDInONAI. R.O.W. NEEDED \ F::E 􀁾 􀁵􀀯􀁾 U-lURN BRIDGE SOUlHBOUND TO NORlHBOUND DALLAS PARKWAY AT ARAPAHO ROAD ADDISON, lEXAS􀁾 -::-I"l,,-I
:: A PARSONS TRANSPORTAllON GROUP. INC. ....􀁾..􀁾 .. O&tlIW.CoIhClI. Sft_"" ioAI'5.:&.'Ll'CfIOIO.U1I1" • 􀁄􀁾􀁉􀁴􀁕􀁓 􀁾􀀢􀀢 (tnl"I-11CIO • '&1; ,17JJ.IO-o'''' 􀁾􀀮􀁣􀁬􀀺 􀁾 CheCII..,:
0;;;:;-;-0[/D 􀁾􀀴 􀁾 􀁾􀁇 􀁾 . 􀁾
L. 􀁾􀀧-􀀩 ---------, COWH COUNTY -"1 _ ••• _. I I _.,. -"' .';=;_;=;'.􀁾.. 􀁉􀀽􀁔􀁒􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁉􀁎􀁬􀁔􀁙􀁆􀁆􀀮􀀺􀁩􀀽􀁾􀀭__􀁾􀁬􀁟􀁾􀀧I I 􀁄􀁗􀀸􀁾􀁷􀁮􀀧􀀢 _ ... _ '" _ ... _ .I • -LEGEND I!C:'1
SIGNAL TIMING AND \J HARDWARE UPGRADE LOCATION BELT LINE ROAD SIGNAL TIMING AND HARDWARE 'UPGRADE.
"! '"• AM I NOON I PIl SPECTRUM CENTER PEDESTRIAN COUNlS (lHURS. -OCT. :z. 1887) !.l..J:!L1. ..-I ':' 􀁾􀁾􀀮 IIt1RIC SCAU:: ,: 1000 §z SINGLE POINT URBAN INTERCHANGE " BELT UNE ROAD
AT DAlLAS PARKWAY 􀁾 􀁐􀁁􀁊􀁬􀁍􀁾􀀡􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁓􀁐􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾 􀀮􀁇􀁒􀁾􀁦􀀺􀁟􀁉􀁾􀀻􀁃􀀮 ..... .:I.' V'C 1IOIiD. ""'II '" • o.t&4&l. 'IuS 'U.... • l.tt,.,.·ltQO • ' ..... 1.'11.1000.,.. .• Dn.qot<l:
1':.-:-1 .... I -..---􀁾 '::" c;;;;;;;-; -& -.An N Ora_ : •• 􀁬􀁯􀀮􀁬􀀢􀁻􀁬􀁾 '" W'( SAKOWITZ VILLAGE CP. R.O.W. '\ \ \BANK OF AMERICA QI .-/rt (l /MOBIL MART l l I..I lI..I I8 ..i8"
COST ESTIMATE ADDISON -SPUI :BELT LINE ROAD AND DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY October 15,1997 ITEM-NBR DESCRIPTION UNITS UNIT COST OUANTITY COST 100-5002 PREPR.O.W. KM $50,000.00 0.5 $25,000.00
104-5001 REMOV CONC (PAV) M2 $11.43 1000 $11,430.00 104-5005 REMOV CONC (MEDIAN) M2 $20.00 750 $15,000.00 104-5009 REMOV CONC (SDWLK) M2 $12.00 100 $1,200.00 104-5011 REMOV CONC (DRIVEWAY)
M2 $11.00 200 $2,200.00 104-5013 REMOV CONC (CURB&GUTTER) M $4.72 1500 $7,080.00 260-5010 LIME TREAT SUBGR (DC) (200 MM) M2 $1.65 2500 $4,125.00 360-5011 CONC CURB (TY II) (MONO) M $6.56
1500 $9,840.00 360-5017 CONC PAY (CPCD) (200MM) M2 $27.81 2000 $55,620.00 416-0506 DRILL SHAFT (36 IN) LF $77.49 400 $30,996.00 420-0551 CL C CONC (PARAPET WALL) CY $882.86 105 $92,700.30
420-5014 CL C CONC BENT M3 $395.00 150 $59,250.00 422-5001 REINF CONC SLAB M2 $71.79 1000 $71,790.00 423-5007 RET WALL M2 $375.00 200 $75,000.00 450-0695 RAIL (TY C411) M $209.98 200
$41,996.00 464-5005 RC PIPE (CL III) (600MM) M $124.32 30 $3,729.60 465-0741 INLET (COMPL) COMPL) (TY II) (10') EA $2,400.00 3 $7,200.00 496-0502 REMOVINLET EA $572.00 3 $1,716.00 5004-5001
TEMPSEDFNC M $1.00 2000 $2,000.00 5004-5003 TEMP SED FNC (REMOV) M $1.00 2000 $2,000.00 500-5001 MOBILIZATION LS $75,000.00 1 $75,000.00 502-5001 BARRICADE, SIGNS, TRAFF MO $4,000.00
12 $48,000.00 530-5001 DRVWY'S (Conc)(150mm) M2 $30.08 200 $6,016.00 531·5002 CONCRETE SIDEWALK M2 $19.27 150 $2,890.50 531·5004 SIDEWALK RAMP (TY 4) EA $463.00 16 $7,408.00 536·5002
CONCMEDIAN M2 $40.00 800 $32,000.00 610 RDWY ILL ASSEM EA $2,120.00 6 $12,720.00 649-5003 FND LG RDSD SIGN SUPPORT EA $292.35 20 $5,847.00 650 OVERHEAD SIGN SUPPORT EA $28,200.00 1 $28,200.00
662-0542 WZPM(CLB) EA $2.30 500 $1,150.00 662-0543 WZPM(CLB) EA $2.33 200 $466.00 662-0581 WZPM(TAB) EA $6.83 1500 $10,245.00 662-0582 WZPM(TAB) EA $1.00 750 $750.00 666-0517 REFL EA
$99.48 24 $2,387.52
) ITEM-NBR DESCRIPTION UNITS UNIT COST QUANTITY COST 666-0549 REFL EA $35.45 24 $850.80 666-5012 REFL M $12.50 75 $937.50 666-5013 REFL RA $89.02 24 $2,136.48 666-5036 REFL M $1.24 150
$186.00 666-5041 REFL M $2.50 250 $625.00 666-5044 REFL M $8.63 75 $647.25 666-5045 REFL EA $36.32 24 $871.68 666-5201 REFL M $0.67 150 $100.50 666-5209 REFL M $7.76 250 $1,940.00 672-0504
RPM (CLA) EA $6.43 160 $1,028.80 672-0507 RPM (CLB) EA $2.43 360 $874.80 672-5016 RPMBTN EA $2.88 370 $1,065.60 678-5001 PAY SURV & PREP M $0.13 150 $19.50 678-5004 PAY SURV & PREP M
$2.72 250 $680.00 678-5006 PAY SURV & PREP M $5.73 75 $429.75 678-5007 PAY SURV & PREP EA $31.70 24 $760.80 678-5008 PAY SURV & PREP EA $40.00 24 $960.00 686 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS $125,000.00
1 $125,000.00 LANDSCAPE LS $75,000.00 1 $75,000.00 UTILRELOC LS $175,000.00 1 $175,000.00 SUBTOTAL $1,142,067.38 CONTINGENCY AND ENGINEERING $342,620.21 RIGHT-OF-WAY $540,000.00 TOTAL
$2.024.687.59 '
,., February 15,2000 MEMORANDUM To: Through: From: Subject: Chris Terry, Assistant City Manager Michael Murphy, P.E., Acting Director ofPublic Works Jim Pierce, P.E., Assistant City
Engineer 2000 Dallas County Call For Projects Dallas County Public Works is soliciting nominations from cities for projects to be funded through the Dallas County Major Capital Improvement
Fund Thoroughfare Program. In lieu of a traditional bond program, Dallas County has created the Major Capital Improvement Fund, a "pay-as-you-go" funding mechanism for financing infrastructure
improvements. The County anticipates an annual call for projects. Under this new funding mechanism, approximately $15 million dollars will be available in both FY 2004 and 2005, with
$20 million being available annually in FY 2006 and beyond. The County is currently seeking nominations for projects to be funded for construction in FY 2004. $3.75 million will be available
for funding in our District in 2004. Applications are due at Dallas County for this calIon March 13, 2000. The County will evaluate the projects submitted using complicated formulas
to assign points in the following categories: Roadway Functional Classification Rating (1 0 points) Speed Delay Rating (10 points) Traffic Volume Rating (10 points) Traffic Volume Growth
Rating (10 points) Travel Desire Rating (1 0 points) Benefit-Cost Ratio (10 points) Accident Rate Rating (10 points) Air QualitylEnergy Conservation Rating (10 points) Sustainable DevelopmentlRedevel
opment/"Smart Growth" Rating (1 0 points) IntermodallMultimodallSocial Mobility Rating (10 points)
Each project's score is multiplied by a factor that gives credit to local cost participation. For example, if an applicant pledges a local match of50%, the multiplier is 1.50. Staff
has selected five projects to be submitted to the County under this program (with % local share and cost distribution shown): Belt Line Road/Dallas Parkway Single Point Urban Interchange
(75%) Town Share -$1, 875,000 County Share -$625,000 Southbound to Northbound U-turn on Dallas Parkway at Arapaho Road (75%) Town Share -$562,500 County Share -$187,500 Arapaho Road,
Phase III, Surveyor Boulevard to Addison Road (90%) Town Share -$12,895,300 County Share -$1,432,800 Signals Upgrade and Re-timing, Belt Line Rd. from Quorum Dr. to Marsh Lane (50%)
Town Share -$350,000 County Share -$350,000 Signals Upgrade and Re-timing, Midway Rd. from Spring Valley to Dooley Rd (50%) Town Share -$196,000 County Share -$196,000 Draft copies of
the 2000 Dallas County Call For Projects Applications are attached. They will be finalized once accident accident data is received from the City Of Dallas Police Department for the Belt
Line Road and Arapaho Road intersections with Dallas Parkway. (These intersections are in the City OfDallas). Staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to submit applications
for the projects listed above to Dallas County for their 2000 Call for Projects.
) A QUICK GUIDE TO THE CAPACITYANALYSIS WORKSHEET, VERSIONS 3.2 AND 4.0 WHAT'S NEW IN VERSION 3.2 1. New signal penalty equation. The signal penalty equation used in all versions including
3.1 was a simple linear approximation of the signal tables used in a 1988 Florida DOT methodology for determining Level of Service, as well as other studies pertaining to signals and
capacity. In Version 3.2, the linear equation is abandoned for a series a ranges the same as the ranges of each of the Florida DOT tables. Thus, the new methodology is a much closer
approximation of the Florida tables. It should be noted that the linear penalty, 4.5% of capacity per signal per mile, tended to underpenalize low signal frequency facilities and overpenalize
high signal frequency facilities. The methodology employed in Version 4.0 corrects this deficiency. 2. All other aspects of Version 3.2 are fundamentally the same as Version 3.1. WHAT'S
NEW IN VERSION 4.0 1. New signal penalty equation. The signal penalty equation used in all all versions including 3.1 was a simple linear approximation of the signal tables used in a
1988 Florida DOT methodology for determining Level of Service, as well as other studies pertaining to signals and capacity. In Version 4.0, the linear equation is abandoned for a series
a ranges the same as the ranges of each of the Florida DOT tables. Thus, the new methodology is a much closer approximation of the Florida tables. It should be noted that the linear
penalty, 4.5% of capacity per signal per mile, tended to underpenalize low signal frequency facilities and overpenalize high signal frequency facilities. The methodology employed in
Version 4.0 corrects this deficiency. 2. Elimination of inverse ratings. In all versions prior to 4.0, the ratings provided for VIe, Accidents, and Total Quality, were inverse ratings,
that is, the lower the rating, the better. In 4.0, ratings are direct, meaning that the higher the rating, the better the performance. 3. Elimination of ratings indexes. In 4.0, the
ratings index index letters for all three ratings have been eliminated. 4. Change of Total Quality Rating scale. In 4.0, the Total Quality Rating scale has been changed to 0-100.
') Quick guide, page 􀁾􀀬􀀧􀁊􀁹 M.H. Schrader, Jan. 2000 SYNOPSIS OF SPREADSHEET METHODOLOGY This spreadsheet is an amalgamation of several different methodologies to evaluate capacity
on a non-freeway facility. Users familiar with the Highway Capacity Manual know that for a particular facility, there are several different ways to evaluate Level of Service, yielding
different, but correct results. For example, a multilane facility with signals could be evaluated under the signalized intersection method, the arterial method, or the multilane facility
method, depending on the preference of the evaluator, with each method yielding a different value. In some cases, a facility that yields a low LOS using one method may yield a high LOS
using a different method. The dilemma, then, is which value to use, as both are "correct." The purpose of this spreadsheet, then, is to attempt to take into account all of the various
methods of evaluation in one simple method. It should be noted, however, that, for the sake of simplicity, not every single factor affecting capacity, such as the percentage of heavy
vehicles or grades, has been included. However, those that will provide a quick snapshot of the operation of the facility --signal frequency, presence of medians and left-turn bays,
one-way operation, lane width, accident rate, and lateral distance to the nearest obstruction--have. DATA ENTRY REQUIREMENTS 1. Basic identification. This consists of the facility name
and limits, including the length of the corridor in miles. 2. Facility type. As this spreadsheet was intended for non-freeway facilities, the user is given the choice of four types of
functionally classified non-freeway facilities. NOTE: As capacity on local streets should not be of concern, evaluation of a local street is not given as an option. The values given
for each facility type are very general "rule-of-thumb" values assigned to the TRANPLAN models for Springfield, Illinois, and Little Rock, Arkansas. 3. Number of lanes. The number of
through lanes. Does not include auxiliary lanes such as turn lanes or accel/decellanes 4. Number of signals. The number of signals in the corridor, including signals at the termini if
the facility being analyzed would have the rightof-way if the terminal intersection were unsignalized. 5. Typical lane width As the narrowest lane will dictate the capacity of the facility,
if the lanes are of varying width, the narrowest width should be used.
) Qtil.ekg'udl e, page ,'),b')y M.H. Schrader, Jan. 2000 6. Lateral distance to nearest obstnlction. The minimum distance to any obstruction in the corridor, either in the median or
on the side, should be used. Note that curbed inlets and non-mountable barrier curbs are obstructions. 7. One-way operation. One-way facilities are assigned a 20% bonus. 8. Raised median.
A YES should be encoded if the facility has a raised median of any width, or a flush median, either paved or turf, at least 10' in width. Note that if the raised median has a non-mountable
curb, and that curb is less than 6 feet from the marked driving surface, then the lateral distance penalty applies. 9. Left Tum Bay. A marked or delineated left turn storage area. NOTE:
Flush paved medians do not, in and of themselves, constitute a left turn bay. SPREADSHEET COMPUTATIONS 1. Unadjusted capacity. Derived from TRANPLAN models. Expressway/Parkway = 8000
vehicles per day per lane (vpdpl) Principal Arterial = 7000 vpdpl Minor Arterial = 6000 vpdpl Collector = 5000 vpdpl 2. Peak Hour Volume = 10% of unadjusted capacity. This value is a
general "rule of thumb" used by traffic engineers for calculating peak hour volumes. 3. Lane width penalty = 5% per foot below 12 feet. This value is a linear approximation of the values
given in the Highway Capacity Manual. 4. Lateral clearance penalty = 1.67% per foot less than 6 feet. This value is a linear approximation of the values given in the Highway Capacity
Manual. 5. One-Way Operation. A 20% bonus is given for one-way streets. 6. Raised Medians. A 5% penalty is given for facilities without medians. 7. Left-tum Bays. a 15% penalty is given
for facilities without left turn bays. 8. Signal penalty. For Version 3.1 or earlier, a 4.5% penalty is assigned for each signal per mile. For Version 4.0, the penalty is either 0%,
18%, 37%, or 39%, depending on signal frequency.
0.47 (E=Expwy/Pkwy, P=Prin. Arterial, M=Minor Arterial, C=Coliector) 8000 vehicles per day [vpd] <---(from TRANPLAN models) 800 vehicles per hour [vph <---(Rule of Thumb-lO% of ADT)
41 J Corridor Identification Information Facility name= University Avenue Corridor limits= 12th Corridor length (Miles) Type offacility= p Capacity per lane= {unadjusted} # of thru lanes=
# of signals (in corr.) to OJ Quick guide, page Lt-, by M.H. Schrader, Jan. 2000 19th Adjustment Factors (per lane) Typical Lane Width (9'-127= 10.5 feet -600 vpd <--(from HCM) Lat.
dist. to nearest obstruction= 0 feet -802 vpd <---(from HCM) One Way Street? (YES or NO) no 0 vpd <---(from FDOT study) Raised Median? (YES or NO) yes 0 vpd <---(from FDOTstudy) Left
Turn Bays? (YES or NO) yes 0 vpd <---(from FDOT study) avg.# of signals per mile = 2.13 -1440 vpd <---(from FDOTstudy) I'-T:-o';-ta---;I-a---;d""""ju-"'s'-:-t-m-e--'-n-:-ts-(-=-p-e-r7Ia-n-e7)􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀲􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀸􀁾􀀴􀀲􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀭􀀭􀁶􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀁰􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀻􀁤􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀱 􀀺􀁴􀁾􀀡􀁾􀁉􀀺􀀺􀁦􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁰􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁩􀁾􀁙􀀮􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁪􀁾􀀺􀀣􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀡􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺
􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁮􀀻􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁹􀀮􀁰􀀮􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺 djusted Facility
Design Capacity (all lanes) RESERVE CAPACITY COMPUTATION Existing traffic volume (vpd) == 36,166 20,632 vpd 2,063 vph 􀁢􀁉􀁒􀀽􀁥􀁳􀀽􀁥􀀽􀁲􀁶􀀽􀁥􀀽􀁣􀀽􀁡􀁰􀀽􀁡􀀽􀁣􀁩􀁴􀁹􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁛􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾�
�􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁝 -15534 vpd VOLUMEICAPACITY Ratio and Rating ACCIDENT Rate and Rating 􀁉􀀬􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀺􀁖􀁾􀀯􀁃􀁾􀁒􀀭􀀽􀀬􀁡􀀻􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀻􀁴􀀢􀀬􀀢􀀽􀁩􀁯􀁾􀀽􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀺􀀭 1.;..;.􀀮􀀻􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀷􀀵􀀬􀀬
􀀬􀀭􀀺􀀳􀁾􀀱 # of Accidents = 59.66667 Year = av VIC Quality Rating 100 (VIC "'100 Accident Rate 9.610 Accidents per MVM VIC Quality Index F Acc. Quality Rating 10 <---(INT (Ace. Rate»
Acc. Quality Index A (VIC and Accident Quality Ratings range from 1 to 100, with 1 being the best) Total Quality Rating -110 <---(Sum of ViC and Accident Quality Ratings) Total Quality
Index: C (Ranges of index letters reflect the quintiles ofthe range of rating values) TQI Legend TQ Rating TQ Index 2-39 A 40-79 B 80-119 C 120 -159 D 160 -199 E 200+ F VERSION 3.2 SPREADSHEET.
QUl'ek gU'lde, page t>;b)Y M.H. Schrader, Jan. 2000 Corridor Identification Information Facility name= COffidor Iimits= COffidor length (Miles) Type of facility= Capacity per lane= {unadjusted}
# of thru lanes= # of signals (in corr.) W Markham Street Woodrow to Jackson 1.288 m (E=Expwy/Pkwy, P=Prin. Arterial, M=Minor Arterial, C=Collector) 6000 vehicles per day [vpd] <--(from
TRANPLAN models) 600 vehicles per hour [v ph <--(Rule of Thumb-lO% ofADT) 45 Adjustment Factors (per lane) Typical Lane Width (9'-121= 11.5 feet -150 vpd <--(from HCM) Lat. dist. to
nearest obstruction= 6 feet 0 vpd <--(from HCM) One Way Street? (YES or NO) no Ovpd <---(fromFDOTstudy) Raised Median? (YES or NO) no -300 vpd <---(from FDOTstudy) Left Turn Bays? (YES
or NO) no -900 vpd <---(from FDOTstudy) avg.# of signals per mile = 3.88 -2220 vpd <---(from FDOTstudy) '-I T=-'ot7a---=-l-ad--=-j=-u"'"tsm7-e-'n'-ots----:-(p--e-r--=-la-n-e-:-)􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀁾􀀳􀀵􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀷􀀻􀀻􀀺􀀻􀀻􀀰􀀺􀀭􀁖􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀁰􀀭􀁤􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀱 􀀺􀁴􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁦􀁦􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁛􀁛􀁛􀁾􀀺􀀹􀀮􀁾􀁰􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁻􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺
􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁉􀀴􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁧􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀺􀁰􀀧􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺 djusted Facility Design Capacity (all lanes)
== 9,720 vpd 972 vph RESERVE CAPACITY COMPUTATION Existing traffic volume (vpd) 14,000 VOLUMEICAPACITY Ratio and Rating ACCIDENT Rate and Rating # of Accidents = 59.66667 Year = Accident
Rate 9.059 Accidents IV/C Ratio= 1.440 I VIC Quality Rating 0 (V.Q.R. = 100 -(VI C "100), to zero sig figs) Ace. Quality Rating 91 (A. Q.R. = 100 -Ace Rate, rounded to zero sig figs)
(Both the V.Q.R. and A.Q.R. have a range from 0 to 100, with 0 the worst rating) ITotal Quality Rating = 451(T.Q.R.= Avg. of the V.Q.R. and A.Q.R., to zero sigfigs) (The T.Q.R. has a range from 0 to 100, with 0 being the worst rating) VERSION 4.0 SPREADSHEET
DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS Dear Dallas County Partner: Welcome to the Dallas County Major Capital Improvement Program (MCIP) Application Process. In this diskette /package, you will
find four documents and/or forms that will be of use to you as you go through the process of selecting and submitting potential thoroughfare projects for Dallas County Major Capital
Improvement funding. The documents /forms contained in this application file /package are as follows: I. Capacity Spreadsheet II. Quickcap III. RISK ANALYSIS sheet IV. MCIP Application
You are NOT required to turn in (I) and (II) above, however, you do need to turn in (III) and (IV). FORM(S) YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TURN IN TO DALLAS COUNTY: I) The Capacity Spreadsheet
(I.): This spreadsheet is provided as a tool to assistyou in determining the overall operational quality of potential projects to be submitted for MCIP . funding. It requires that you
input raw data (existing traffic volume, project length, number ofaccidents, etc. etc.) in the appropriate cells ofthe spreadsheet and the spreadsheet automatically calculates the current
operational capacity ofthe roadway. The operational capacity (Total Quality Rating) is rated on a scale ofO-lOO. The lower the score (closer to zero), the lower the operational quality
of the roadway, and therefore the greater the need for the proposed improvement. We recommend that you use this spreadsheet program as a preliminary evaluation tool to narrow down the
potential number of projects you submit for Dallas County funding. II) Quickcap (II.) is your instruction guide on how to use the Capacity Spreadsheet (I.). It is up to you whether you
choose to use item (I) above. It is a scientific roadway operational analysis tool that mayor may not be needed by your city in deciding which projects are of greater need for improvement
and therefore should be submitted for improvement. We will not be collecting any information from (I). FORMS TO BE TURNED IN TO DALLAS COUNTY: ill) The RISK ANALYSIS sheet (ill) and
. IV) The MCIP MCIP Application (IV) are the two forms that are required for submittal. The MCIP application (IV) is the actual application form for proposed improvement funding while
the risk analysis sheet is a supplement to the application form and a new addition to this year's application process. The latter is a written request for your overall physical assessment
(ROW, utilities, and other structural issues) ofthe project being submitted. These two forms (paper or electronic copy), should be completed and mailed to: 411 Elm Street, 4th Floor
Dallas, 􀁔􀁾􀁸􀁡􀁳 75202 (214) 653-715"
) Edith Ngwa, Ph.D Senior Transportation Planner Dallas County 411 Elm Street, 4th Floor Dallas, TX 75202 You may also email the application forms to engwa@dallascounty.org or fax to
214-653-6416. The deadline for application submittal is April 27, 2001 at 4pm. Ifyou have any questions on the application process, you may contact Edith Ngwa at 214-6536522 or !sela
Rodriguez at 214-653-6417. We look forward to working with you on Dallas County 2001 MCIP Call for Projects!
2000 Dallas County Call For Projects APPLICATIONINFORMATION Submitting Agency: Contact Person: Address: Telephone: e-mail address: Town of Addison Jim Pierce, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
P.O. Box 9010 Addison 972/450-2879 jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us PROJECTINFORMATION TX Facsimile: 75001-9010 972/450-2834 Functional Classification: F # of Correctable Accidents: -22 (over
past 3 years) Existing Through lanes -Belt Line -3, DulJas Pkwy -3 Left tum lanes -Belt Line -1, Dallas Pkwy -1 Right tum lanes -Belt Line -1, Dallas Pkwy -1 Sidewalks -Belt Line -S,
Dallas Pkwy -0 Bicycle lanes -Belt Line -0, Dallas Pkwy -0 Location: Beginning: Ending: Belt Line Road Dallas Parkway (Dallas North Tollway) N/A (Intersection) MAPSCO: 14D Project Length:
0.00 Avg. Posted Speed: N/A Avg. Operating Speed: N/A Traffic Volume: 58,103 -Belt Line Rd. 31,804 -Dallas Pkwy. Traffic Volume Source: Count 8/99 Proposed Belt Line -3, Dallas Pkwy
-3 Belt Line -2, Dallas Pkwy -2 Belt Line -1, Dallas Pkwy -1 Belt Line -Y, Dallas Pkwy -Y Belt Line -0, Dallas Pkwy -0 Description of Proposed Improvement(s): The project will allow
the simultaneous operation of left tum lanes for east/west traffic and for north/south traffic. Efficiency of the intersection will be improved by 15 to 20%. The project consists of
the removal of existing pavement, medians and bridge parapet walls, installation of concrete drill shafts and cantilever bridge bents, reconstruction of existing retaining walls, construction
of additional bridge deck and parapet walls, construction of right-tum lanes, construction of dual left-turn lanes and installation of new traffic signals. Traffic signals will be timed
with other signals on Belt Line Road which are covered by another project. Associated work includes traffic control during construction, pavement markings and signing. Even though this
project is located in the City of Dallas, Addison is willing to fund the project as it will improve traffic flow on Belt Line Road within the Town. It will also benefit the Dallas North
Tollway by improving traffic flow on Dallas Parkway. DART busses will benefit from this project as well. This project is an example of regional cooperation where one Town is willing
to fund a project of regional significance (see attached drawing). The two projects that were approved for funding under TEA-21, on Belt Line Road west of Dallas Parkway, underscore
the need for this project. For this intersection, we have had 112 accidents over the past 3 years. We estimate with this project, accidents will be reduced by 20%. This is our number
1 priority pro.iect for this 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁭􀀮 Total Project Cost: Right-of-way Cost: EngineeringlDesign Cost: Utility Cost: Construction Cost: PROJECT COSTINFORMATION $2,500,000 $ 170,000
$ 240,000 $ 30,000 $2,060,000 Local Cost Contribution: $ in percent of total cost 75 %
. ,t 􀁐􀁾􀀯􀀲􀀳􀀯􀀹􀀹 15'.17 '0"9724909􀀺2􀀬􀁾6􀀻1􀁽􀁾 ItJ 0011015 PAR_SO.NS• •TRAN_S.. PO:R_ FAX TRANSMISS'I -' ..------NO. OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGEl 15" 􀁾􀀬􀀯􀀮􀁩 ON -􀁾􀀱􀀷􀀹􀀱􀀧􀀯􀁬􀁡􀁲􀀷
/7""Hl/7 j?£'" 􀀯􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀯􀁆􀁑􀁉􀀯􀀧􀀼􀀭􀀯p,􀁾􀁾􀀭 8 􀀲􀁾􀀭 (7C/D _ ( vnr4' ,; rt6'&, 􀁾 􀁾 f hap< 􀁾 # //􀁾 /7 q 􀁾􀁌􀀮􀀴 c;e£ ft..-tI-7Pr "'-.-J 􀁾 .f'tP4£. J-«.1-//􀁾 L -J􀁲􀁾 M",?-
'lt9724909261 PARSONS TRANSPOR 􀁾􀀰􀀱􀀲􀀯􀀰􀀱􀀵 \ 04123/99 15:23 '.,of \ COST ESTIMAIE , ADDISON -SPUI :BELTLINE ROAD AND DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY Apri114.1999 mM-NBR QESCRlPTION UNITS UNIT
COST QUANTITY COST --.-r--' 100-5002 PREPR.O.W. KM 􀀤􀀵􀀰􀀮􀁾􀁏􀁏􀀮􀀰􀀰 1 $50,000.00 1--. -104-5001 􀁒􀁅􀁍􀀺􀁾􀀩􀁖 CONC (pAV) M2 $20.00 1500 . $30,000.00 􀁾􀁾􀀵􀀰􀀰􀀵 REMOV CONC (MEDIAN)
M2 $20.00 600 SI2,OOO.00 104·5009 REMOV CONC (SDWLK) M2 $12.00 200 􀀤􀀲􀀮􀁾􀁏􀁏􀀮􀁏􀁏 .0 104-5011 REMOV CONC 􀀨􀁄􀁾􀁅􀁗􀁁􀁙􀀩 M2 511.00 300 53.300.00 104-5013 􀁾􀁍􀁏􀁖 CONC (CURB&GUTIER)
_ M $4.72 1500 57,080.00 '--.-260-5010 􀁾􀁉􀁍􀁅 TREAT SUBGR (DC) (200 MM) M2 $2.60 2500 16.500.00 1-. .' 360-5011 CONC CURB (ITm(MONO) M SIO.OO 1500 􀁓􀁉􀀵􀀬􀀰􀀰􀀰􀀮􀁾􀀰 r---. o o· 360-5017
CONC PAY (CPCD) (200MM) M2 $41.00 2500 S102,500.00 416·0506 DRILLSHAFT (36 IN) -LF $83.00 600 $49800.00 . 420-0551 CL C CONe (pARAPET WALL) cy $882.86 125 S110,357.50 420-5014 CL C CONCBENT
M3 $880.00 225 SI98,000.00 ...., _. 422-5001 REINF CONC SLAB M2 $95.00 1200 $114,000.00 .. 423·5007 RET WALL M2 537S.00 300 S112,500.00 .' 450-0695 􀁒􀁁􀁾􀀨􀁔􀁙􀁃􀀴􀀱􀁕 M $209.98 200
$41,996.00 .. 464-5005 RC PIPE (CL lIJ) (600MM) M $124.32 60 $7,459.20 .-46S..()741 INLET (COMPL) (TVm(JO') EA $2,400.00 4 59.600.00 496-0502 REMOVINLET =W.200.00 3 53,600.00 5004-5001
TEMPSEDFNC M $6.00 4000 524,000.00 .. ' 5004-5003 TEMP SED FNC (REMOV) .. M $5.00 4000 520,000.00 ---500-5001 MOBILIZATION L5 $150.000.00 I 5150,000.00 .. .0 .-S02-5001 BARRICADE. S!GNS,
TRAFF MO $5,000.00 12 560,000.00 530-5001 􀁄􀁒􀁾􀀧􀁓(Copc)(ISOmm) .-M2 536.00 200 S7!200.00 _5.31-5002 CONCRETE.SIDEWA-LK .. M2 528.00 300 $8,400.00 531-5004 SlDEWALJ< RAMP (TY 4) EA
$463.00 16 $7.408.00 536-5002 CONCMEDlAN M2 $40.00 1000 $40,000.00 r-'0 610 RDWY ILL ASSEM EA $2,120.00 6 $12,720.00._ f-649-5003 FND LG RDSD SIGN SUPPORT EA 5350.00 20 $7,000.00 I-...
650 O_. VERHEAD SIGN SUPPORT EA $30,200.00 1 $30,200.00 662-0542 WZPM(CLB) .. EA $4.00 500 $2,000.00 662-0543 􀁗􀁚􀁐􀁍􀀨􀁃􀁌􀁾􀀩 EA $4.00 200 $800.00 1---. 662-0581 \l,'ZPM (TAB) EA
S6.83 1500 $10,245.00 662-0582 WZPM(TAB) EA S1.00 750 $750.00 ·0 666-0517 REFL EA $115.00 I 24 $2,760.00
OJ/23/99 15:23 U9724909261 'I PARSONS TRANSPOR III 013/015 ; .I lTEM-NBR D.ESCRlPTION UNITS UNIT COST 􀁑􀁕􀁾􀁎􀁔􀁬􀁔􀁙 COST ,. 666-0549 REFL EA $40.00 24 5960.00 '" 666-5012 REFL M $17.00
1S 51,275.00._ laEFL .' 666-5013 RA $150.00 24 53,600.00 .-666-5036 REFL M $1.24 150 .' S186.00 666-5041 REFL M $6.00 250 SI,500.00 666-5044 REFL M $10.00 75 $750.00 -"666-5045 REFL
.. EA S60.00 24 Sl,440.00 -"---666-5201 REFL M 51.50 150 5225.00 " . 666·5209 REFL M $7.76 250 S1,940.00 " _672-0504 􀁒􀁐􀁍􀀨􀁃􀁌􀁾􀀩 EA $8.60 160 $1,376.00 .. " -,67'2-0507 RPM (CLB)
EA $4.00 360 51,440.00 672-5016 RPMBTN -EA 53.20 370 $1,184.00 678-5001 PAY SURY & PREP .' M S1.00 ISO $150.00 678-5004 PAY SURY& PREP M $2.72 250 $680.00 678-5006 PAY 􀁾􀁕􀁒􀁖 & 􀁰􀁾􀁰
M $S.73 75 . $429.15 678-5007 PAY SURY􀁾 PREP ... EA $31.70 24 $760.80 678-5008 PAY SURY & PREP EA $40.00 24 $960.00 ',-686 SIGNAL SYSTEM LS SI7S,000.00 I $175,000.00 '--LANDSCAPE LS
$75,000.00 1 $75,000.00 UTILRELOC LS 5250,000.00 1 5175,000.00 0' -SUBTOTAL Sl,703,432.25 CONTINGENCY 5356,698.7] ENGINEERING/SURVEY/GEOTECH 5240,000.00 RIGHT-OP-WAY 5135,000.00 TOTAL
52.435.130.96
COST ESTlMATE .! ADDISON -ARAPAHO ROAD U-TURN April 14.1999 ITEM-NBR 􀁄􀁅􀁓􀁃􀁾􀁏􀁎 UNITS UNITCOSr QUANTITY COST .' .. .. . ' -PAVEl\1ENT RBM./PREP ., LS SSO,OOO.OO 1 $SO.OOO.OO _ ..
MOBILIZAnON LS S50,000.00 1 $50,000.00 BARRICADE. SIGN. TRAfFIC CONT LS SSO,OOO.OO J S50,000.00 1-' CONC PAV (CPCD) Sy .S3S.00 200 $7.,000.00 CONC ClJRB (lY 􀁊􀁉􀀩􀁾􀁏􀁎􀁏􀀩 LF $2.00
200 $400.00 1-. .-.. -TY IV qJNC BEAM LF S65.00 440 $28,600.00 _ CONCABVT CY $460.00 82 $37,720.00 .. 􀁄􀁾􀁾 SHAFT (30") LF $81.00 350 $28,350.00 RET WALL SF $40.00 1200 $48.000.00 􀁾􀁏􀁎􀁃
(PARAPET) .' CY $460.00 25 Sl1,500.00 '--., RAIL -.LF $40.00 300 512.000.0D RESJRIPING LS $30.000.00 I $30,000.00 . _ .. CONe SLAB (eL S) Cy S300.00 11S $34,500.00 .. -' SO.OO SO.OO
..--$0.00 ' .. SO.OO C--" --. .. SO.OO SO.oo ;----.. -SO.DO .---.-SO.OO ... r---$0.00 $0.00 r----. ..• $0.00 .. . $0.00 r--.. . .. SO.OO o' SO.OO ..-$0.00 SO.OO _. SUBTOTAL .. .' $388.070.00
,..--., CONTING£NClES $201.796.40 o· f-ENGINEERlNG/SURVEY/GEOTECH $85.000.00 RIGHT-Of-WAY 􀁅􀁾 $0.00 ITOTAL . 5674.866.40 􀀰􀁾􀀯􀀲􀀳􀀯􀀹􀀹 15:24 "6'9724909261 '\ PARSONS TRANSPOR flJ014/015