\ i I II , /" ,/􀁾􀀮􀀠 􀁾..•. M:( \.Ht 
DALLAS COUNTY Public Works MCIP P ARTNERING WORKSHOP January 31, 2003 
Table ofContents Page No. Introduction ............................ 'II •••••••••••••••••••••• 'II ........................ 3 Director's Statement Program Description ................................
................................................... 4 Overall Process MCIP Timeline Call-For-Projects ....... 'II ................ 'II •••••• 'II •• 'II •••• 4 'II ......................
2003 Call-for-Projects MCIP Application & Project Submittal. Project Cost Estimate Methodology Appendices..............................................................................................
............................ 7 A: Strategic Plan Objective B: MCIP Application & Instructions c: Evaluation Methodology D: Five-Phase Project Delivery System 2 
Introduction Director's Statement January 10, 2003 Dear Dallas County Partner: In 2002, Dallas County Public Works undertook a strategic plan objective (see Appendix A) to revise the
methodology for estimating the cost of Capital Improvement Projects. As team efforts began on this objective, it became apparent that such a revision would require changes to the overall
program to reflect vital lessons learned in the first two years ofits execution. You will see these changes reflected in the new draft MCIP application form, the program timeline, as
well as the draft cost estimate methodology. The final step in our update is to discuss the draft documents with you, our city partners, to complete getting your input, and incorporate
your suggestions. I am confident that you will agree with me upon reviewing these draft changes that they lend themselves to a higher quality program, one that eliminates the guesswork
necessary when complete information is unavailable about a proposed project and when our processes are not fully communicated to each other. This package contains draft information and
materials needed for submitting a project(s) to Dallas County for MCIP funding. On page 4, is a full description of the program and process. It covers what happens from the time a project
is submitted under each "call-for-projects", to the time a final decision is made about funding. Next are the instructions for MCIP application and submittal. You will find the new draft
application form and instructions in Appendix B. The' draft methodology for project cost estimation can be found on page 6. The cost ofall projects submitted will be reviewed by Dallas
County staff using this cost estimate methodology as guideline. Dallas County Public Works will host an MCIP Partnering Workshop to explain these changes, present complete program information,
and obtain your feedback on the 31st of January, 2003, at 9am, at the Dallas County Health and Human Services Building on 2377 Stemmons Freeway, Dallas. I hope you can attend this very
very important meeting. Ifyou are unable to, please be sure to send a representative. In the mean time, ifyou have any questions while you review the attached draft materials, please
do not hesitate to contact any ofthe persons listed. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. I look forward to seeing you at the January 31't MCIP Partnering Workshop. Sincerely,
􀁾􀁑􀀲􀁊􀀴􀁨􀁬􀀠Donald Holzwarth, P.E. Public Works Director 3 
Program Description Overall Process Dallas County will issue an MCIP call-for-projects in February ofevery odd year. Thus, there will be a call-for-projects in February ofthis year and
the next in February of2005. The deadline for submitting projects is May 30th at 4pm. Once projects are submitted, Dallas County will form teams made up of a Designer, Planner, Engineer,
and ROW Appraiser to field-inspect each project and review the city's project cost estimate. Once the project cost is confirmed! determined, projects will be evaluated based on the ten
criteria outlined in the evaluation methodology in Appendix B ofthis manual. Subsequent to this preliminary evaluation, projects will be ranked within each city and the results ofthe
preliminary evaluation and ranking will be submitted to the cities for their review. Based on the cities' feedback, revisions will be made to the preliminary evaluation results and a
final evaluation result issued. Dallas County Staffwill then make project selection recommendations recommendations to the Commissioners based on these final evaluations result and an
"executability" drill (project affordability, urgency, local support, etc.). Commissioners will make their selections based on staff recommendation in addition to other factors not reflected
by the technical evaluation results. Projects will be selected in January of every even year. Project selections will be approved by Commissioners Court and the cities will be notified
oftheir selection by mail. Projects will be implemented following Dallas County Public Works's "5 Phase Project Delivery System" described in Appendix D ofthis package. Call-For-Projects
2003 Call-for-Projects This year, the call-for-projects will take the form ofa workshop to which all Dallas County partners will be invited to participate. The program, process and evaluation
methodology will be fully explained at this workshop and changes implemented since the last call-for-projects will be reviewed with city partners. Please refer below for this year's
MCIP call-for-projects deadlines. Task 2003 Deadline MCIP Partnering Workshop January 31st MCIP Submission Application Workshop (optional) 􀁆􀁥􀁢􀁲􀁵􀁾􀀲􀀸􀁴􀁨􀀠Project Submittal Deadline
May 30t Preliminary Evaluation Complete September 15th Cities Deadline to Respond to Preliminary Evaluation September 30th Final Evaluation Complete October 7th StaffRecommendation to
Commissioners November 7th Commissioners Court Selection and Project Approval January 15th Cities' Notification January 31st 4 
2003 Call-for-Projects MCIP Application and Project Submittal Attached in Appendix B is the MCIP Draft Application form and form instructions. The application was created in Microsoft
Access. Please fill out the electronic copy ofthe application in the diskette and send together with all requested and supporting application materials (e.g. preexisting design plans,
ROW documents, City Council resolutions supporting project, other city plans, etc.) to the following address: Attn: Edith B. Ngwa, Ph.D Dallas County Public Works Department 411 Elm
Street, Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75202. Ifyou do not have Microsoft Access, please fill out the hard copy ofthe form and fax to the Public Works Department at (214) 653-6445. The firm
deadline for all project application submittal is May 30, 2003 at 4pm. Ifyou encounter problems filling out the application, do not hesitate to contact Ms. Isela Rodriguez via e-mail
(irodrigueZ@dallascounty.org) or telephone (214-653-7151). Project Cost Estimate Methodology Find below, the draft methodology for estimating project costs. Please review the methodology
carefully and use as a guideline for determining the cost ofthe project(s) you submit for MCIP funding. The cost ofall projects submitted for MCIP funding will be reviewed by Dallas
County staff: It is important that you state the design standards by which the project will be constructed. Based on the information you provide on the project applic!,-tion, the application
supporting materials, and a project field visit, staffwill determine the cost ofyour p'roject. For those projects whose submitted project cost vary more than 20"10 from the County-derived
cost, the city submitting the project will be contacted and additional information explaining this difference requested. It is important that you provide Dallas County staff with as
much proposed project details as possible to make an accurate estimate ofyour project cost. Ifadditional information on the project is known that is not specifically requested on the
application, please provide this in the "Supporting Comment Regarding Cost" section in Part 9 ofthe application form. Ifyou have any questions about engineering cost estimate, please
contact our Civil Design Engineer, Jack Hedge, P.E. at (214) 653-6420. For questions on ROW cost estimates, please contact Selas Camarillo, P.E. at (214) 653-6400. 
2003 MCIP Cost Estimation Methodology Total Cost for each Project = Paving and Drainage Cost (includes paving, drainage, sidewalks, bike lanes & handicap ramps) + Bridge Cost (typically
$60/Sq. ft) [No frills] + Lighting Cost (typically $3,800Ilight based on one light per 200 feet) + Signal Cost + Railroad Cost (typically $200,000 for 4 lanes or $300,000 for 6 lanes)
=Subtotall1 + Inflation (3%/year x 6 years') " (Subtotal I) + Material Testing (2% x Subtotal I) =Construction Total + Design Cost ( 11% x Construction Total ifConstruction Total is
$1 million or less) or (9.5% x Construction Total ifConstruction Total is between $1 million and $5 million) or (7%" Construction Total ifConstruction Total is between $5 million and
$25 million) + ROW Cost + SUE Cost ( SUE = 0 to 1.5%)( Construction Total depending on the utility involved). + Utility Cost (utility cost will be mostly borne by the city) =Subtotal2
+ Project Delivery Cost (10% x Subtotal 2) =Total Project Cost I Subtotal I items include a 10% contingency to the cost 2 Assuming Constructionbegins in 2007 6 
APPENDICES 7 
Appendix A: Strategic Plan Objective 
GOAL 4, PREPAREFQR THE FUTURE Objective 4.8: Develop and document a process alld methodology for accurately estimating the cost ofMajor Capital Improvemellts Projects.' Description:
The purpose ofthis objective is to'develop a set ofguidelines for Dallas County cities and Public, Works staff to accuratelyestimate and verify,the cost of projects submitted for Major
Capital Improvement Program (MCn» funding and improvement. This set ofguidelines should include but not be limited to'the" following developable elements: ' 1, A cost estimation methodology
for total project cost that includes a breakdown of ROW, construction, project delivery and other pertinent costs necessary for the suceessful oompletion of ali MCIP project. 2, A spreadsheet
/application that itemizes the above costs for easy input and oost' calculation, 3, A matrix team made up of a planner, designer, and ROW agent and headed by a staff engineer/project
manager, to cross-check cost estimates for all projects submitted under each call-forprojects, 4, A set ofrecommended changes to the MClP project application to solicit adequate information
on each project to enable more accurate estimates of project costs. 5, A Dallas County Project Cost Estimation Manual that describes the above elements and processes as well as Dallas
County design standards and the linear foot cost estimates ofan exhaustible set of, proposed improvements, to be distributed to all Dallas County Public Works partners, Lead Persgn andlor
Team: Jack Hedge and Edith Ngwa with the support of a cost estimation matrix team made-up ofLaura Stuart, Kyle Jackson, Kasem Elkahlid, David 􀁍􀁣􀁓􀁷􀁡􀁩􀁮􀀮􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁬􀁡􀀠Rodriguez, Sid
Horner, and LaVaughn Fisher, Coordinating 􀁏􀁲􀁧􀁡􀁮􀁩􀁺􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁾􀀠The 32 jurisdictions within Dallas County, Milestones, (initial set to be expanded) 1, Brief Commissioners Quarterly
Update on the benefits of a Dallas County Cost Estimation methodology and manual 2, Develop a cost estimation methodology to include the items described above 3, Develop a cost estimation
spreadsheet to include itemized costs and lookup values 4. Develop a Dallas County Transportation Cost Estimate and Design Manual How to Measure Success: 1. Did we achieve the milestones?
2. Have we developed a process to serve as a guideline for accurate estimation of transportation project costs. 3. Has this process reduced the number of project shortfalls resulting
from low project cost estimates? 103 
Appendix B: MCIP Application & Instructions 
Part 1. Project Identification DRAFT MCIPNumber: EI District 10 ! City: I"D-a"'lIa-s-----......, Project Name/Location: IExamPle Lane Beginning: Iintersecting Road 1 I Ending: Iintersecting
Road 2 MAPSCO: 1:14;:.::6",S'----1 Project Length: 11.273 !Miles Functional Class: IRegional Arterial! Ave Num of Accidents for last 3 years: 0 Condensed Widen from 2 to 4 lanes, with
storm sewer improvements. Add 6' wide sidewalks Description of Proposed to both sides. Improvements: Part 2. Pavement and Centerline Alignment Proposed Pavement Section: 1413ne divided,
I Current Pavement Conditions: IFair I Pavement Design Criteria: ICity of Dalias, TxDOT I 􀁮􀁾􀁥􀁾􀀲􀀮􀀱􀀲􀀧􀁬􀁡􀁮􀁥􀁳􀀠􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁾􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Pavement Width: 12 ,11' lanes, 3' <h";"I, 14.
12' lanes with C&G I Pavement Surface Type _Thickness: ,2' I 'pCCp,10' I Pavement Base Type Thickness: 􀁾􀀸􀀧􀀠I lAC, 4' I Pavement Subgrade Type Thickness: I 􀁾􀀶􀀧􀀠1 IcsS,8' I Parkway
Width: 0 I 112' 1 Sidewalks Width: 0 I 12,6' I Through Lanes Width: 12.11' I 14,12' I Left Tum lanes .Width: 6 I 11,10' I Left Tum Storage Length: 10 I 1100' I Right Turn Lanes: 10 I
10 I Median Width: 0 I 133 ' :Bicycle Lanes Width: [0 : 2,5' Grade Requirements: For Projects with Repairs: Average Expected Cut: 13' I Type of Repair: c: Average Expected Fill: 10 I
Actual repair size: 1 J r !;!lIs Centerline aligned with Center of ROW? include sq ft and linearft of edge ,if not, how much is it offset from the center and to which side? I I Part
3. Traffic Design Speed: 145 I mph Average j35 i mphPosted Speed: Average Operating 125 I mphSpeed: 20 1I mph" Traffic Volume: 20001I Traffic Volume Source: Icos I Presence of Sus and/or
Heavy Truck Traffic? !;!I -" Part 4, Drainage Storm Sewer Design Criteria: 125 Year Fr!:'9uen<;l I Existing Proposed Number of Culverts and 12 barrels, ll'X5' I 12 barrels, ll'XS' I
their dimensions: (barrels, SxHxL) Bridge length and width: @,4Q' I 1200',100' Is any section 01 the road under the 100 yearftood plain? !;!I i I i 
Part 5. Utilities 􀁾􀀠Water Lines o Railroad Unes Document known \duct bank I Risks for Utility I'􀁾􀀠Gas Lines o TRA Lines Partners: . 􀁾􀀠Storm Sewer o Transmission Lines o Utilities
are on Existing Street ROW0 Sanitary Sewer 􀁾􀀠Underground Vaults Ii!J Utilities Own their ROW or have Previous Easements Other Underground Utiliti􀁾􀀠Cable 􀁾SUE (Subsurface Utility
Engineering) will be needed 􀁾􀀠Electricity Lines lfiber optics I Any Special Considerations? I Part 6. ROW Acquisition c. Right of WayA. Safety D. General Acquisition Costs ROW Contact
Person 􀁛􀁾􀁲􀀮􀀠Rowmano Transit (DART lines) I Estimated Cost of Land Onlyl$75.000.00 ]Phone Number: ,(214)753.6859 I􀁾􀀠School Cost of Improvement in ROWI$125.000,OO 􀁾􀀠Church Existing
ROW Width: ,60' I I Number of Parcels with Damages: 15o Municipal Buildings IProposed ROW Width: 1115' I Cost of Damages: 1$100.00000 other 11------'I Number of ROW Parcels: 125 I i
Number of Bisected Improvements: 11 IB. Environmental Area of ROW required: Cost of Bisections: l$l5O,ooO,00sq, ft, I􀁾􀀠Aoodplain Fee Acquisition: 1150,000 o Lake sq, ft,Permanent Easement
􀁾􀁏􀁏􀁏􀀠ROW Subtotal: $450.000,00o Historical Designation sq, ItTemporary Easement: ),000􀁾􀀠Cemetery Number of Bisected: Inll.lion factor (6 years) I$81,00000 I 􀁾􀀠Junkyard Houses:
L I Other I I 􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀻􀀺􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀠 I I􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁃􀁯􀁾􀁭􀁾􀁭􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀺􀁣􀁩􀁾􀁡􀁬􀁾􀁂􀁾􀁵􀁾􀁩􀁉􀁾􀁤􀁩􀀺􀁮􀁧􀁾􀁳􀀺􀀺􀀱􀀱􀀱􀁾􀀱􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁔􀁾􀁯􀁾􀁴􀀺􀁡􀁾􀁉􀀺􀁒􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁗􀁾􀁃􀁾􀁯�
�􀁳􀁾􀁴􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀤􀀺􀀵􀀺􀀳􀀻􀀱􀀻􀀬􀀰􀀺􀁏􀀺􀁏􀀬􀀺􀀰􀀺􀁏􀁾􀀠Comments on Bisected improvement is a school, !List and Explain Junkyard on South Side of the project does ROW ' Any Non not comply
with zoning. 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀠􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁷􀁡􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁬􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠has 20' dedication for : 􀀻􀀻􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁮􀁩􀁴􀁹􀀠I Part 7. Other Amenities to the Project ***These items may not be covered
under MelP contract. o Sanitary Sewer Relocation** 􀁾Traffic Signals 􀁾Landscaping""* o Retaining Walls 􀁾Pavement Markings o Exposed Aggregate 􀁾Sod, Seeding. TopsoilDriveways. Sidewalks.....
o DART Bus Turnout 􀁾Drainage Improvementso Stamped/Colored Concret_ o Bus Stops or Shelters o RR Crossing ImprovementsO Irrigation-o Water Utility Improvements' 􀁾Grade Separationso
Brick Paver_ o Water Utility Relocation-o Ramps or Connectors to􀁾Street Lighting 􀁾Sanitary Sewer Improvements-TxDOT Facilities Part 8. PubliC Involvement Comments on Currently in negotiations
due to related project. I ! Opposition: Expected to reach agreement late Summer 2003. , 􀁾Has your City Council Approved the Project? ' o Has Any Opposition been encountered? Other General
Related project is an apartment complex housing 1 Comments: 100 families. I 
Part 9. Project Cost Paving and Drai nage: 1 Design: 1$225,150.00 Bridge: 1$000 Right Of Way Cost:I$531,OOO.OO Lighting: Signal: 􀁾􀀠SUE: 1$35,550.00 Ulility/Amenities:1$15,OOO.00 Railroad:
1$0.00 . 1 Subtolal2= $3,311,700.00 I I Total Project Cost: 1$3,642,870,00 I I _ Utility/Amenities:*"$15,OOO.OO I Shared Cost= 1$3,492,870.00 I Percent of Local Contribution rn:§J %
Subtotal 1= $1,975,000.00 Project Delivery: $331.170.00 Jnflation: $355,500.00 City's Share: 1$1,746,435.00 I Materials Testing: $39,500.00 Supporting Comments I Construction TOlal $2,370,000.00
Regarding Cosl: -Utilltly/Amenitles costs typically borne by City I 10. Please submit maps and supporting documents depicting the project and needs. Sketches are also welcome and appreciated.

􀁾􀀠 Instructions for the Dallas County Major Capital Improvement Program (MCIP) Application Part 1. Project Identification This field will be populated automatically and requires no
input on the part of the City. Dallas County Comrulssioners' District in which project is located The City submitting the application Street on which project is located For linear projects,
enter the point ofbeginulng; for intersections, enter the cross-street 􀁩􀁾􀀠mm For intersections, enter N/A Give the project location in the MAPSCO Length in miles. For intersections,
enter 0.25 miles Select 2001 Regional Thoroughfare Plan classification of project street from the drop down menu: F (Freeway); R (Regional Anerial); 0 (Other Anerial); N (Not on Regional
Thoroughfare Plan) Based on police accident records, state the average munber of accidents that have occurred in the proposed project location in the last 3 years. Fully describe the
proposed project Part 2. Pavement and Centerline Ali nmen Number and width of lanes. Ifknown, indicate ifthe road is to be diVided (D) or undivided (U). List the condition of the roadway
-excellent (E), good(G), .tair(F) or poor(F). List the order of precedence ofdesign standards. Some ofthe standards are TxDOT, NTCOG, City and AASIITO standards. An example would be
City ofDallas, NTCOG and TxDOT. This example says that the City ofDallas standards are over NTCOG which is over TxDOT. If a city standard is not used the county will assume to use the
City of Dallas standards. 
􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠, .. , . .. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠For existing roadway -list the width ofpavement Examples are 2· 11 ft, lanes or 3· lOft, Janes or 24 ft, For proposed roadway -list the number and width
the lanes, The width should he in feet. For the existing roadway -list what type of pavement is on the road, Examples are asphalt, asphalt over concrete or concrete pavement. For the
proposed roadway -Tell us what type ofpavement is desired, In inches, For the existing roadway, state how thick is the base pavement. Ifunknown current pavement thickness, state unknown,
For proposed roadway state the minimum pavement thickness, For the existing roadway state in inches the pavement subgrade thickness, Ifthe current pavement subgmde thickness is unknown
state unknown, For proposed roadway state in inches the minimum thickness of pavement subgrade, Infect, state the width of Right ofWay from the back of the curb to the Right of way line,
Ifno curbs, state the distance from the edge of the pavement to the Right of Way line along with no curbs, The parkway usually contains the sidewalk and the utilities such as elceltic,
gas, water meters and cleanouts, Ifthe parkway width is not the same on each side of the road state such, An example is !O ft E and 14 ft, W which means !O feet on the East side and
14 feet on the West side of the road, IfnO sidewalks, enter "0"; ifsidewalks on one side, indicate which side (L,R,N,S,E, W)and width in feet; ifsidewalks on both sides, enter "Y" and
width ofeach in feet For corridors, use the minimum number of through lanes in both directions anywhere within the project limits, For example, a roadway that at its narrowest provides
for one lane of through tIaffic in each direction would be encoded as "2", Note that dual left tum lanes or auxiliary lanes are not included, For intersections, use the maximum numher
of lanes available for through tIaffic for the direction with the minimum number of lanes, including shared lanes, For example, an intersection that provides for 3 through or shared
/through lanes lanes in one direction but only two in the other would be enooded as "2", Note that exclusive tum lanes are not included in this count. For corridors: reflects the presence
of continuous left tum lanes or bays at every intersection. For intersections: this value is the maximum number of exclusive or shared left lanes on the approach with the minimum number
of left tum lanes, (See comment for through lanes) What is the length of the left tum storage in feet? For corridors: reflects the presence ofauxiliary accelldceel and right tum lanes.
For intersections: enter the maximum number ofright tum lanes (exclusive and shared) on the approach with the minimum number ofsuch lanes, 
For existing roadway state the width in feet of the median from the inside edge of the pavement to the other inside edge of the pavement If there is not a median then state O. For proposed
roadway state what the desired width of the median is to be in feet If no bicycle lanes, enter "0"; ifbicycle lanes on one side, indicate which side (L,R,N,S,E,W); ifblcyc!e lanes on
both sides, enter "Y" 􀁾􀁕􀀱􀀱􀁭􀁦􀁩􀀮􀁬􀁾􀁭􀁩􀁩􀁪􀀻􀀬􀂢􀁬􀁭􀀠Ifknown state the average amount of material to be removed in feet. 􀁾􀀢􀀡􀁩􀁜􀁾􀁟􀀠Ifknown state the average amount of
material to be added in fuet. Part 3. Traffic 􀀮􀁾􀀠_.􀀢􀁾􀀠.􀀢􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁩􀁬􀀲􀁡􀁾􀀢􀁗􀀧􀁾􀀬',.""􀁾􀀬􀁪􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀂣􀁾􀀧􀁬􀀶􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀡􀀻􀀠....􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮...."? ,.􀁾.""" """"'. If repair of
existing surface Is required, describe the type of repair State the size of the area requiring repair Yes INo. Ifno, state in feet the distance from the road centerline to the midpoint
of the Rigbt of Way? Speed the roadway was designed for. For corridors with more than one speed limit, the average posted speed (in miles per hours) is the weighted average of the posted
speeds. For intersections, enter the higbest posted speed of the intersecting roads. Operating speed at period ofpeak demand, in miles per hours, calculated by dividing the length of
the project by the time required (in hours) to traverse the projects. The average daily traffic (adt) ofthe facility to be improved. For new roadway facilities, enter ''NIA'' • The source
of traffic volume information. For eatimates, enter "Eatimate"; for real world data., enter "Count" and the month and year of the count Check "Yes" ifthe project is on a roadway that
experienoes bus or heavy traffic and "No" ifit is not 
Part 4. Drainage State what storm sewer or drainage manual are proposed. Is no storm sewer is needed then state NIA If a storm sewer is to be installed and the city does not have their
own manual then use the City ofDallas Manual. State number and dimension ofexisting and proposed culverts. Ifnone exists andlor is being proposed, enter "N/A" 􀁂􀁾􀁾􀁄􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀡􀀦􀀢􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁬􀁥length
and width ofexisting and proposed bridge. Ifnone exists andlor is being proposed, enter "NIA" Check "Yes" f'No" Part 5. Utilities For each ofthe following utilities, please check if
it exists in the proposed project. 􀁓􀁴􀁾􀀮􀁟􀀠:;,ri'liii'iSly􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁓􀀧􀀨􀁬􀁗􀀢􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀬􀁾􀁷􀁾􀁾􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀧􀁗􀀡􀁩􀁩􀀡􀀬􀀠􀁾􀁷􀀮􀀽􀁾􀀠􀀡􀁩􀁩􀁬􀁩􀀧􀁁􀁗􀁾􀁉􀁬􀁉􀁬􀁬􀀧􀀮􀁩􀁴􀀬􀁾􀁗􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁊􀀧􀁭�
�􀀬􀁾􀁩􀀺􀀠􀁾􀁩􀁭􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠Please state any other utilities not listed above that exist in the proposed project location State any known risks for utility partners Check "Yes" if utilities
exist on street ROWand 􀀧􀀢􀁎􀁯􀀧􀁾􀀠if not Cheek "Yes" ifutilities are located on their own ROW or bave an existing easement and "No" ifutilities are located on street ROW Check "Yes"
if SUE will be needed and "No" ifnot 
Please state any other concerns or special considerations for utility relocation from the project ROW Part 6. ROW Acquisition I ASafety Check ifthe following exist /are proposed as part
ofthe project. . IiR 􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀠State any other safety issue that might exist in the proposed project location IB. Environmental Check ifthe following exist /apply in the proposed
project. 􀀢􀀢􀁬􀁬􀀧􀁾􀁲􀁩􀀻􀀻􀀧􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠Please indicate the FIRM Panel number -Ifpresent, indicate proximity (in fect) ofa lake to the project. Ifproject crosses lake, please
say so. Please indicate location and organization that bestowed the deSignation. Please indicate name ofcemetery and contact person ifknown. Please indicate ifjunkyard is present State
any other envirorunental issue that might exist in the proposed project location IC. Rlght;;;ofc..:Wc:.:a""y_.________________􀁾________...J Who is the person to contact for ROW questions?
What is the ROW contact's phone number? This is the width of the road right ofway before the project. Ifthe width is variable please include a map to indicate the varicd widths. This
is thc amount of right ofway that it will require to complete the project 
Number ofProperties that will be impacted by the project. Please include easements in this number. What is the acquisition fee? Slate ifthere is a permanent easement Slate ifthere is
a temporary easement 􀀢􀁾􀁐􀁬􀁩􀁟􀀠1mt""S 􀁾􀁾􀀠Please indicate any properties that may be a dedicaion possibility or that are known to be against the project being completed. D. General
Acquisition Costs 􀁾􀁪􀀡􀁉􀁾􀁴􀀧􀁂􀁊􀀧􀀱􀁊􀁴􀀮􀀠 An estimate of the consideration due the land owners for the land to be acquired without reguard to improvements or damages 􀁾􀁾 The
compensation due to the land owners for the improvements with in the acquisition area. This will include Landscaping. driveways and other fiatwork, fencing. and all other improvements
in the acquisition area. State cost of damages 􀁾􀁾􀁌􀁩􀁳􀁴􀁮􀁵􀁭􀁢􀁥􀁲􀁯􀁦􀁢􀁩􀁳􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁥􀁤improvements State cost ofbisection 
Subtotal of all above costs Cost of inflation over 6 years Total costs of all ROW items above, plus inflation Ex. Contaminated Soil, service stations, fuel tanks, landfills, noise walls,
trailer parks, tree ordinances, etc. Part 7. Other Amenities to the Project Please check if the following amenities are proposed as part of the project. The cost of items with asterisks
may not be covered by Dallas County. 􀁾􀁷􀀮􀁾􀀧􀀼􀀭􀀺􀁭􀀠􀁾􀀻􀀢􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀡􀀠&iffjl.Ili1!<!'ltI>_,....􀀬􀂷􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁷􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁍􀀬􀁗􀁪􀁬􀁽􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁅􀀧􀁾􀀮􀀱􀁪􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁭􀁾􀁴􀁾􀀮􀁴􀁗􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁜􀁜􀀢􀁩􀁭􀁩􀀠_
_""__􀁩􀀾􀁭􀁬􀁜􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀁾􀀠 
Part 8. Public Involvemen 􀁾􀁾􀁬􀀱􀁬􀀡􀀱􀀱􀀱􀁾􀀺􀀻􀁴􀀻􀁧􀀴􀁬􀁾􀀮􀀡􀁩􀁩􀁦􀁊􀁬􀀠Check ifYes. 􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀬􀀡􀀡􀁬􀀺􀁾􀀮􀁦􀁻􀀠Check ifYes. 􀁾􀁾􀀡􀁟􀀠State the nature of the opposition encountered,
ifany 􀁭􀁾􀁾􀀠 State any additional comments you may have on public involvement Part 9. Total Project Cos 􀁉􀁦􀁡􀁾􀂷􀁾􀀠-􀁭􀁾􀀠l.'c'WiIi!iM1:11_111 􀀧􀀠'-""." :' 􀀢􀁾􀀺􀀠:􀁒􀁾'" ..."
􀁾' ...........:mR 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠Includes paving, drainage, sidewalks, bike lanes, and handicap ramps . Cost ofbridge (Typically $60fSq. Ft._ Cost oflighting (Typically $3800 flight hased
on one light per 200 feet) Cost of signals Railroad cost (Typically $200,000 for 4 lanes or $300,000 for 6 lanes) Cost of paving and drainage +Bridge Cost + Lighting Cost + Signal Cost
+ Railroad Cost (ifany). 3% f year X 6 years X Subtotal I 2% X Subtotal I Subtotall + Inflation + Material Testing Cost of design (II% X Construction Total ifConstruction Total is $1
million or less 9.5% X Construction Total ifConstruction Total is between $l million and $5 million 7% X Construction Total ifConstruction Total is between $5 million and $25 million)
Total cost ofROW Cost of Sub-surface Utility Engineering (Typically 0 to 1.50/0, depending on utilities involved in the project, X Construction Total.) Cost of utility will be added
to only city share of total project cost 
Subtotal 1 +Construction Total 􀁾􀀱􀁉􀀠10% X Subtotal 2 􀁾􀁾􀁜􀁭􀀱􀀠-'ffl£_ 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠Total ofall project costs above Total project cost less cost ofUtilityIAmenities The percent of
the total project cost your city is willing to contribute Thesbare of total cost borne by the city, based on percent of local contribution State any other supporting comments regarding project cost. For example, ifcity hasalready paid for design
cost and plans exist, or city will pay for the entire cost of utility relocation, etc. 
Appendix C: Evaluation Methodology , :
FY 2001 MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DALLAS COUNTY Prepared Jointly by the Dallas County Department of Public Works and the North Central Texas Council of Governments Proposed Evaluation
Methodology to Score and Rank Candidate Thoroughfare System Improvements INTRODUCTION In Fiscal Year 2000, the Dallas County Commissioners Court replaced its traditional bondfinancing
approach to funding infrastructure improvements with a programmed Major Capital Improvement Program. The underlying theory of this new approach is that a project will take five years
from approval of funding to final construction, and that every year projects will be authorized for funding and projects will be completed. Thus, in any given calendar year, there will
always be projects in each of the various phases of implementation . (i.e. design, right-of-way acquisition, construction), thereby allowing for the more efficient use of personnel and
resources. In contrast, under the bond-financing method, all projects are authorized at the same time and are constructed at the same time. This approach creates a project "wave"-initially,
there is a flurry of design activity, and the necessity of design resources; then, the wave passes to right-of-way acquisition, and the design resources become underutilized while right-of-way
is bulked to handle the "wave"; finally, the projects pass to construction, creating the need to invest in construction-related resources, while the design and right-ofway resources
are underutilized. With the new financing and programming approach, the "project wave" is eliminated, and all project activities are occurring simultaneously (although not necessarily
on the same project) and, more importantly, continuously. Thus, valuable resources are always being utilized and the funds that previously would have needed to be expended on additional
resources (as a result of the "wave" effect) can instead be devoted to infrastructure. This Program will be implemented by issuing an annual county-wide call for projects to identify
and fund needed roadway improvements within the county, with local governments submitting candidate projects for potential selection and funding under this program. An annual "Call-for-projects"
is an improvement over the traditional method of calling for projects every five years. The advantages of an annual call are twofold. First, with fewer submittals per Call, the quality
of submittals, both of the projects submitted and the submittals themselves, will improve, as staff will be able to devote more time per submittal. Second, an annual Call provides more
flexibility for cities to determine infrastructure needs 
2 based on changes that may have recently occurred or will soon be occurring, such as a new development or infrastructure, instead of trying to determine needs based on a conjecture
of what might occur five years into the future. EVALUATION CRITERIA In order to evaluate candidate projects in an equitable and consistent manner, ten evaluation criteria have been developed
which will be applied to each project submittal to establish a basis for scoring and ranking projects. This ranking will identify which projects provide the greatest benefit to the county
based on factors such as mobility, costeffectiveness, safety, and air quality. The proposed evaluation methodology is presented below. Each of the ten evaluation criteria will initially
be assigned a maximum value of 10 points, with 100 pOints being the total maximum aggregate score possible for a given project. In addition to the "equal weight" scenariO, other weighting
scenarios can also be evaluated to determine which scenario most appropriately addresses the needs of Dallas County. TECHNICAL METHODOLOGY FOR MODEUNG PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: Travel Model
Forecast Procedures The Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Travel Model (DFWRTM) is the planning tool used to help estimate current and future travel demand needs and allows detailed project
evaluation to occur. The Major Capital Improvement Program must have a way of testing and evaluating the mobility benefits of a wide range of potential roadway projects, including the
addition of new thoroughfare streets, the extension of existing thoroughfares, and the rehabilitation of existing thoroughfares. The DFWRTM is the tool used to accomplish this analysis.
In order to assess and quantify the benefits of the projects submitted under this Call-forProjects, it is necessary to develop four different roadway network analyses. These four different
network analyses simUlate both baseline (year 1999 nO-build) and future year conditions with and without the effects of the proposed projects. The four network analyses that will be
be used to evaluate the benefits of the projects submitted for the Major Capital Improvement Program are as follows: • Analysis 1: The first analysis replicates conditions as they existed
in 1999, the year the model was validated for, using the roadway network that existed in 1999 and 1999 demographic data for population, employment, and number of households. • 􀁁􀁄􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁹􀁳􀁩􀁳􀀠2:
The second analysis predicts year 2025 conditions assuming a nobuild, or "do-nothing" scenario. In this analysis, the 1999 existing-conditions roadway network used in the first analysis
is modeled using year 2025 demogrephics. This analysis shows the performance of the transportation system in the year 2025 if no improvements are made 10 it. • Analysis 3: The third
analysis predicts year 2025 conditions assuming that ali the projects submitted for funding are implemented and constructed. This is accomplished by coding into the 1999 no-build roadway
network all the projects submitted under this Call for Projects, creating a year year 2025 build network. This 
3 year 2025 build network will be modeled using year 2025 demographic assumptions. • Analysis 4: The fourth analysis predicts year 2025 conditions assuming an "ailor-nothing" scenario.
This scenario uses the year 2025 build network and year 2025 demographic assumptions, but doesn't use the typical "capacityconstrained" technique to model traffic in which only a finite
number of trips can be assigned toa particular roadway segment. With an "all-or-nothing" assignment, an infinite number of trips can be assigned to a particular segment, and where several
different routing options are available, all trips are assigned to the most desirable route (based on criteria specified). For this analysis, trips are assigned to the route with the
best travel time, based on speed and distance only. This analysis is used to score projects under the Travel Desire Rating. EVALUA TION CRITERIA AND TECHNICAL METHODOLOGY FOR SCORING
PROJECTS Evaluation Criteria Functional Classification Rating -(10 Points) This evaluator assigns assigns pOints based on functional classification as designated in the 2000 Regional
Thoroughfare Plan. For any given project, the functional class assigned to the project will be the classification of the highest classified facility which can reasonably be assumed to
be either directly or indirectly positively impacted by the proposed project Example Arterials A and 8 are parallel arterials one-mile apart. Freeway X runs perpendicular to both A and
B and has interchanges at both. Approximately one-quarter mile from and parallel to Freeway X the City is proposing to build a four-lane roadway that will intersect both A and B. Scenario
1: Freeway X is the only existing roadway that connects with both Arterials A and B. Thus, a motorist on A wanting to use 8 must use Freeway X. Under this scenario, the City's new roadway
would be scored as a freeway, as it is reasonable to assume that it will reduce congestion on Freeway X by eliminating the necessity of all local traffic going from A to B to use Freeway
X. In In other words, there is a certain percentage of local traffic that is only using Freeway X by default that would divert to an alternate route. By eliminating this local traffic
from Freeway X, its congestion is reduced and its reserve capacity is increased. Scenario 2: Freeway X is one of several roadways that connect with both Arterials A and B. Thus, a motorist
on A wanting to use B does not necessarily need to use Freeway X. Under this scenario, the City's new roadway would be scored by its own functional classification, as it is reasonable
to assume that it will not reduce congestion on Freeway X because other routes for local traffic to travel from A to B already exist. In other words, local traffic diversion from the
Freeway is already occurring, and the addition of another alternate route will not have an impact on the operation of the Freeway. 
4 Each project will receive a score based on the classifications shown in Table 1. Table 1 Functional Classification Rating Functional Classification Designation Score 􀁾􀁥􀀹􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁡􀁬􀀠Arterial
. 10 Points Freewav (existing and proposed) 7 Points Other Arterial 3 Points Not on Regional Thoroughfare Plan oPoints Speed Delay-Rating -(10 Points) Each candidate project submitted
for funding will be aSSigned a speed-delay rating· based on the anticipated improvement to travel times and speeds that will result from the roadway improvement. This will be calculated
by taking the difference between the posted roadway speed limit (maximum free-flow speed) and a current observed speed on the facility (current operating speed), divided by the length
of the project. For intersection projects, an estimated length of 0.25 miles should be used to calculate the speed delay rating. Each city submitting a project for funding will be asked
to collect and provide recent peak-hour speeds which will be used in calculating this rating. Using speed delay as an evaluation criterion takes into account both the traffic congestion
on and the physical condition of the roadway, both of which affect the operating speed. The delay rate is defined as the difference between the time it takes to travel a set distance
at the posted speed limit without stopping (free-flOWing) and the actual time (observed) it takes to travel that same distance (accounting for traffic control delay and congestion),
divided by the distance traveled, expressed in minutes per mile. A 1996 report by Metroplan, the Council of Governments for Central Arkansas, established a delay rate congestion threshold
of 0.41 minutes per mile, based on criteria established in the Highway Capacity Manual, vehicle limitations, and driver perceptions. In other words, a facility is considered congested
when its delay rate is equal to or greater than 0.41 minutes per mile. This number corresponds to the difference in time it takes to travel one mile at 55 miles per hour versus traveling
one mile at 40 miles per hour. From this delay rate, a numeric value for congestion, the "degree of congestion" or DOC, has been defined as follows: DOC =Delay Rate -0.410 Thus, a facility
at the congestion threshold, that is, with a delay rate of 0.41, has a DOC of 0.000. A facility operating at its maximum free flow speed has a delay rate of 0.00 and a corresponding
DOC of -0.410. In order to provide insight into the magnitude of congestion, eight congestion categories were defined --five for congested facilities and three for non-congested facilities.
The DOC threshold for each of the eight categories is shown in Table 2, along with the pOints assigned for each category. 
5 Table 2 Speed-Delay Rating Criteria Category "Degree of Congestion" Score Extreme Greater than 4.499 10 Points Severe Between 1.499 and 4.498 8 Points Serious Between 0.499 and 1.498
6 Points Moderate Between 0.213 and 0.498 5 Points Mild Between 0.001 and 0.212 4 Points Borderline Between -0.168 and 0.000 2 Points Acceptable Between -0.410 and -0.167 1 Point None
Less than -0.411 oPoints Traffic Volume Rating -(10 Points) This rating evaluates the project according to the magnitude of traffic-flow improvement that can be expected to result by
making the proposed improvement to the facility. The Traffic Volume Rating is calculated by taking the difference between a "build" and a "no-build" condition, which yields the additional
traffic resulting from making the improvement. Specifically, year 2025 traffic projections will be generated with and without the improvements in place in order to model the anticipated
change. Projects showing the greatest amount of traffic improvement will receive a higher score for this criterion. Specifically, this criterion is calculated by taking the difference
between two year 2025 travel model runs, the "build" condition (Analysis 3) and the "no-build" condition (Analysis 2). The difference between these two analyses is the expected change
in traffic volumes resulting from making the proposed improvement to the faCility. In general, projects showing the largest amount of traffic improvement will receive a higher score
for this criterion. The maximum score available for this criterion will be ten pOints. The range of possible scores will be determined after the analyses are complete and the data is
available to determine minimum and maximum values. Traffic Volume Growth Rating -(10 Points) The Traffic Volume Growth Rating is derived from the growth in traffic volumes expected to
occur on each candidate segment of roadway between the current condition (year 1999) and the future travel model projection (year 2025). This rating assumes that the project is not in
operation in the current year and that it will be operational by the future forecast year. Points will be assigned to each project based on the percentage of growth estimated to occur
during this time period. Specifically. the percent change between traffic volumes in the year 2025 "build" network (Analysis 3) and the 1999 "existing condition" network (Analysis 1)
will be calculated.. Projects showing the largest amount of change will receive the higher scores. The maximum score available for this evaluator is ten points. The range of possible
scores for 
6 this criterion will not be determined until after the model runs are complete and the minimum and maximum values are derived. Trave! Desire Rating -(10 POints) This rating will score
each candidate project based on its inherent attractiveness and desirability assuming there is no congestion at all on the facility. When congestion is factored into the equation, roadways
that may be more direct and desirable to travel on are sometimes avoided because of high levels of congestion, even though they are the preferred routes. This evaluation criteria is
derived by looking at the difference between a year 2025 capacity-constrained model run (Analysis 3), which takes into account the congestion on the roadway, and an "all-or-nothing"
model run (Analysis 4), which assumes that there is no congestion on any roadway. The "all-or-nothing" model run allows vehicle trips to choose the preferred route (based on shortest
distance and fastest speeds) regardless of any effects due to congestion. The percent difference between the two model runs shows whether the facility is being used because it is the
most direct and preferred path ("all-or-nothing") or whether traffic is being diverted to the facility due to congestion on other routes (capacity-constrained). The maximum score available
for this criterion is ten points. The range of possible scores will be determined after the travel model runs are complete and the maximum and minimum values are identified. Benefit-Cost
Ratio Rating -(10 Points) This rating is calculated based on the ratio of benefits resulting from the proposed improvement to the cost of the improvement. The benefits for each project
are determined from the reduction in travel-time delay experienced on the roadway segment with and without the candidate roadway improvement. Local govemment and Dallas County staff
will estimate the costs for each project. Benefits used in the BIC ratio are calculated from the delay savings gained from an increase in capacity or speeds on the segment (if, in fact,
a gain is induced). The reduction in delay is calculated from the increase in average daily loaded speeds, which are derived from the travel model runs. This analysis compares the modeled
speeds before an improvement (Analysis 2) and the speeds after the improvement (Analysis 3). After average daily loaded speeds and 24-hour projected traffic volumes are determined for
both Analysis 2 and Analysis 3, a benefit-cost ratio is calculated based on the following equation: TAB -TAO ( TOTALGOST X OAF) 
7 Where: TAB = Total Annualized Benefit ($) TAC = Total Annualized Cost ($) VOlA = 24-Hour Volume from Run 2 (no-build scenario) VolB 24-Hour Volume from Run 3 (build scenario) '" VOLFAC
= 0.6, volume factor (peakloff-peakldirectional dist.) Length Length of Project (miles) '" SpeedA = Link Speed from Run 2 (no-build scenario) SpeedB = Link Speed from Run 3 (build scenario)
DAO = 1.29 persons per vehicle, Daily Auto Occupancy VOT = $9.70 per hour, Value of Time NOD = 260 per year, Number of Days for annual benefit Total Cost = Total Project Cost ($) CRF
= 0.06646, Capital Recovery Factor (40 yrs @6%) Points are assigned to each project based on the ratio of the total annualized benefits divided by the total annualized cost. Table 3
provides the scaring ranges with their corresponding benefit-cost ratios. Table 3 Benefit-Cost Ratio Rating a/c Ratio Score 0-0.50 oPoints 0.51-0.75 1 Points 0.76-1.00 2 Points 1.01
-1.25 4 Points 1.26-1.50 5 Points 1.51-2.00 6 Points 2.01-3.00 7 Points 3.01-5.00 8 Points 5.01 -10.00 9 Points 10.01 or greater 10 Points Accident Rate Rating -(10 POints) Each candidate
project will receive an accident rating based on the raw accident rate per million vehicle miles. Each city will be asked to provide three years worth of actual accident data for each
roadway segment submitted for review. Projects with a higlJer accident rate over this threeyear period will receive a higher rating. After all the accident data has been analyzed, a
range of scores will be developed between zero and ten points, based on the magnitude of accidents reported: 
8 Air Quality I Energy Conservation Rating -(10 Points) Each project submittal will be evaluated based on its overall impact toward improving the quality of the region's air. The Dallas-Fort
Worth region is currently designated as a nonattainment area by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency based on past exceedances of the national ambient ozone standard. In order to
promote regional air quality goals and objectives, each project will be quantified in terms of air quality reductions. SpeCifically, the dollars per pound of nitrous oxide (NOx) emission
reductions will be calculated and each project will receive a score based on its reduction potential. Emission reductions will be calculated by estimating emissions before and after
the improvement is in place, and taking the difference. Projects contribute positively toward air quality reductions, in general, when speeds approach 50 miles per hour and operating
performance is improved. The following formula provides the methodology for calculating emission emission reductions on a project-by-project basis. $ (TOTAL COST x CRF) x c. ] Lb. [
[(VOL.X EF. x LENGTH) -(VOl.x EF,. x LENGTH)] x 2600AYS/YEAR Where: VOLB = 24-hour modeled volume before improvement (Analysis 2) EFB == Emission factor based on speeds from AnalYSis
2 grams/mile) Length = Project Length (miles) VOLA = 24-hour modeled volume after improvement (Analysis 3) EFA Emission factor based on speeds from Analysis 3(grams/mile) == Total Cost
== Total project cost ($) CRF 0.06646, Capital Recovery Factor ( 40 yrs@6%) == 454 grams per pound (conversion factor, grams to pounds)C1 == $JIb. = Dollars per pound of NOx emissions
reductions Points will be aSSigned to each project based on the ratio of the annualized cost to the annualized NOx emissions reductions. Table 4 provides the scoring ranges for this
evaluation criterion. 
9 Table 4 Air Quality I Energy Conservation Rating $1 Lb. Of Nox Reductions Scoring Range > 100.0 oPoints 50.0 -99.99 3 Points 10.00 -49.99 5 Points 5.00 -9.99 7 Points '" 4.99 10 Points
Sustainable Development! Redevelopment! "Smart Growth" Rating (10 Points) Each project submittal will be evaluated with respect to encouraging regional sustainable development or "smart
growth" patterns (i.e. densification of the urban core counties) or redevelopment of distressed areas. There will not be a sliding scale of points available for this criterion. Each
project will either receive the full 10 points or will receive a zero. A project located within a census block classified as "Distressed" or 'Under-Utilized" as defined in the Dallas
County Tax Abatement Policy (see attached maps) will receive the full 10 points; all other projects will receive a zero. The aforementioned policy defines a "Distressed" area as a census
block whose median family income is less than or equal to 150% of the poverty level for a Dallas area family of four or a census block contained within a federally or state-designated
enterprise zone. An "under-utilized" area is a census block that meets three of following five criteria: 1) Low population growth (percentage change in population that is less than the
Counly average for 1980-1995) 2) Low employment growth (percentage change in employment that is less than the County average for 1990-1995) 3) Low traffic congestion (roadways where,
in 1995, no more than 30% of lane. miles exceeded free-flow traffic levels during peak hours) 4) Low properly values (median value of owner-occupied structure is no greater than 50%
of the County median) 5) Predominantly low/moderate income population (at least 51 % of population earns less than 80% of the Dallas area median household income) For census blocks that
are at least two-thirds (2/3) undeveloped, only one of the five criteria listed above need to be met to qualify as ·under-utilitized." Intermodall Multimodall Social Mobility Rating
-(10 Points) Each project submitted for funding will receive a score based either on its ability to involve more than a Single mode of travel or its long-term economic development potential
that could benefit the community. There will be a sliding scale of points available for this 
10 criterion. There are three separate elements that comprise this scoring criteria. These three elements are: • Infrastructure Investment Project -A capital project with a likelihood
of producing long-term economic benefits as opposed to an operational project which only provides direct benefits for a given short time period. (10 points) • Social Mobility Project
-A social mobility project is one that provides transportation services to individuals or groups who need some form of transportation due to an inability to utilize existing forms of
transportation. This can include services to the elderly and disabled or economically disadvantaged individuals. (10 points) • Multi-Modal linter-modal Projects -Projects that facilitate
non-SOV (single occupant vehicle) modes or provide for the interaction of two or more transportation modes in a given area. Transit (bus/rail) -(10 points) School Bus -(7 points) Bicycle
Paths -(5 points) Pedestrian Paths -(3 points) Projects that incorporate any combination of the above 4 modes of transportation will receive the full 10 points. Special Case Rating Methodology
Special Case #1 -If all or part of a roadway consisted of a new roadway, then it was not possible to calculate a 'Speed Delay Rating, a Benefit-Cost Ratio Rating, or an Air Quality Rating.
In these cases, the Speed Delay Rating, the Benefit-Cost Ratio Rating, and the Air Quality Rating are all given zero paints, and the maximum paints for the Traffic Volume Rating are
increased to 40. This is accomplished by multiplying the Traffic Volume Rating 􀁾􀁾􀀠 . Special Case #2 -In certain situations, the Benefit-Cost Ratio may be misleading because the traffic
induced by the capacity improvement was so great that the resulting congestion was higher than without the improvement. This signifies that the project is highly warranted. Projects
falling under the Special Case #2 category will receive zero points for the BenefitCost Ratio Rating, and the maximum allowable paints for the Traffic Volume Rating will be increased
to 20. This is accomplished by multiplying the paints assigned to the Traffic Volume Rating by two. Special Case #3 -The criteria which use percent change as a basis for scoring, Traffic
Volume Growth Rating and Travel Desire Rating, could be misleading if the absolute value of the traffic volumes is less than 5,000 in the year 2025. To avoid overrating these projects,
the maximum points available for the. Traffic Volume Growth Rating Criteria and the Travel Desire Rating will be reduced to five for each rating element. This is accomplished by dividing
the score for these two criteria by two. 
11 LOCAL COST PARTiclPATlON MULTIPLIER In order to aide in the successful implementation of the Dallas County MCIP, it is imp\?rative to accept only those projects for funding that have
a strong commitment from all' the' stakeholders. One strong indicator of this commitment is' the value of resources being, contributed. In order t6 reward those projects with strong
commitments, a multiplier based on the value of the local commitment (as a percentage of the total project value) will be applied to the aggregate scores. This multiplier will be equal
to 1 plus the percent of local match, expressed as a decimal. Thus, if a City commits to a match of 50 percent of 'a project's value, that project's aggregate score will be multiplied
by 1.50 in determining the final score. For a match of 20%, the multiplier is 1.2Q. As the financial resources of all possible stakeholders are not equal, said multiplier may be considered
to be inherently biased against those possible stakeholders with limited resources, Therefore, in order to mitigate this perception of inherent bias, bonus paints. will be aSSigned to
those cities where 60% of the land area falls in census blocks defined as "Distressed" or 51 % Low/Moderate Income. This bonus consists of adding 0.3 to the multiplier for any project
submitted by a city qualifying for the bonus. For example, tlie multiplier for a project submitted by a qualifying city contributing 20% of the total cost of the project will be 1.50
(1.20 plus 0.30), the same multiplier applied to a project for a nonqualifying city contributing 50%. Example 1. Projects for Cities A, B, C, and D all finish with aggregate scores of
80. Cities A, B, C, and D agree to contribute 50%, 20%, 0%, and 20%, respectively. of the cost of the project. City D qualifies for the 60% local match multiplier bonus. The multiplier
for the four projects are as follows: City A -t.50 ' City B-1.20 City C-1.00 City D-1.5O The final point totals for the four projects, computed by multiplying the aggregate total by
the multiplier, are as follows: City A -120.0 CityB-96.0 CityC-80.0 CityD-120.0 Example 2. City 0 is a qualifying city and contributes 20% of the project cost. O's project finishes with
an aggregate score of 70 and a total score 105.0. City R's project finishes with' an aggregate score of 100, but since R is not willing to commit local resources (and is 􀁮􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀬􀀠qualifying),
the project finishes with a total score of 100.0, below O's. So does City s;s project with a total score of 102.0, which finished with a higher aggregate score of 85 but was supported
with a 20% local commitment (S is a non-qualifying city) resulting in a multiplier of 1.20 compared to O's 1.50. 
Location of Distressed Areas and Census Block Groups that are at Least L d rate 1990 BLOCK GROUPS DiSTRESSED AREAS 
Location of Distressed Areas and Under-Utilized Areas Under Dallas County Tax Abatement Policy. 1990 CENSUS TRACTS DISTRESSED AREAS SCALE: 1" ::: 4 MILES UNDER·UTIUZED AREAS s 
Appendix D: Five-Phase Project Delivery System 
DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 5 PHASE PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM Developed under Public Work's Strategic Plan Goal #4, Prepare for the Future Objective 4.3
-"Reengineer our design, ROWand construction program and PM processes for MCIP projects" 
PHASE 1 --PLANNING & PRELIMINARY DESIGN STEP ONE, PROJECT DEFINITION • A start with analysis that precedes selection of projects nominated by cities for County's MCIPfor a given Program Year (year in which the project funding is available for constroction). Analysis will include risk assessments from various perspectives --political, Right ofWay,
utilities, technical, funding, safety, environmental, and traffic factors. • MCIP project selections are approved by Commissioners Court in a total slate, and each project is assigned
to a specific Program Year. An initial "kick-off' meeting will be scheduled with each city, to go over the projects in their city that have approved funding. An initial decision will
be made on which entity (County, city or other entity) is the Lead Agency for project delivery. To launch the entire MCIP program, an initial MCIP Master Agreement) will be developed,
using a partnering session with all cities to secure input and buy-in. After development, the Master is coordinated and signed between Cities, County and any other financial stakeholders.
The goal will be to include city partners who are totally committed to the projects they submit, and are willing and able to be cost sharing partners in all phases, to include design,
whenever feasible. Partnering and Project Management principles will be embedded in the document, which will focus primarily on project delivery and not legal jargon. We will also explore
roles for each stakeholder all focused on assuring timely project delivery. STEP TWO, PRELIMINARY DESIGN • Decision on use ofSubsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) will be made after the
Charrette, before initiating design. SUE determination should take funding sources into account. Hopefully our partners, including utilities, will be willing to participate. This information
will be critical for designers to use as they launch the design. A decision will be made to use the consultants S.U .E. capability or to use the County's Indefinite Delivery Quantity
(lDQ) consultant. • County, city, orjoint team of in-house designers begins initial design. Objective is to resolve all alignment issues,Jn close partnership with all stakeholders. Preliminary
surveying requires estimating centerline and ascertaining existing ROW, County PM and Inspectors will assure an effective Constroctibilitv Review is completed at the appropriate time.
In most projects a consultant will be brought in for Phase I with an option to renew or extend the consultants contract after concept design is complete. City partners will be invited
to participate in the design consultant selection process. The decision to extend the contract will be made after an interim evaluation is completed using the County's consultant evaluation
sYStem. 
• A Pre-Design Charrette may be planned and executed with aU stakeholders including both political and technical decision makers (cities, utilities, County, any private parties or other
decisionmakers). The purpose of the meeting is to provide preliminary design infonnation, receive input on issues, resolve issues and then forge consensus on the preferred alternative.
This allows the design to proceed unhindered by controversy or late stakeholder input. The meeting will be from 1.5 to 3 hours depending upon the complexity and the number ofissues to
resolve. This will include an orientation walk-thrn of the project site, when this is beneficial. We will highlight specific City transportation standards, including amenities, landscape
architecture, zoning and other ROW requirements. • Phase I ends with approved preliminary alignment and profile and preliminary sizing of bridges and drainage structures along with SUE
detennination, as well as any required enviromnental analyses. A Preliminary Design Report will will be included as a deliverable for the design consultant. Preliminary enviromnental
or pennitting investigations will have begun. Infonnation on road elevations will be included. The design will be in the range of50% to 60% complete. 
PHASE 2 PRIMARY DESIGN • Negotiation offinal contract with consultant is the initial task, with Scope ofWork now well defined by all Phase 1 effort and includes geo tech, utility analysis
or SUE early in the process. Part ofnegotiations includes definite delivery dates for various phases and reviews. • Consultant works closely with all stakeholders --under the guidance
and direction of the County PM, in a partnering mode. This means we plan to expedite design reviews and consolidate and resolve any conflicting guidance from the various entities (cities,
county and others) to build a win-win situation. We prefer 'design review conferences' instead ofsimply passing out design documents and collecting input from each partner separately.
Allow reasonable time for review and then gather all the partners and conclude the review in one sitting is our preferred mode • Constructibility reviews will be incorporated at key
points during design, around the 70-80% completion stage. • • Environmental analyses and neighborhood public workshops are to be concluded during this phase. • Traffic and Utilities
data will be considered in design, with data from partner city, County, NCTCOG, or consultant. • Federal projects will involve environmental impact analysis and Public Meetings. We will
push for Categorical Exclusions, when this would appear to be a common sense solution (total urban environment with no discemable environmental impacts). • Early involvement on ROW issues
will be important, and early provision of ROW documents will be a part ofthe design contract 
PHASE 3 -DESIGN COMPLETION & RIGHT-OF-WAY INITIATION • Formally begins with the delivery of the R-O-W documents to the County by the consultant. Standards and scheduling will be clearly
spelled out in writing within Consultant's contract. • County Project Manager monitors and tracks progress. Key is that the PM does not "hand-off' the project to the ROW division, but
stays actively involved in project management. PM will use the matrix project team concept to track and keep the project on schedule. PM resolves issues as they develop, keeping all
stakeholders in the net, using e-tools and partnering principles. • ROW acquisition begins, using in-house or ROW consultant on IDQ acquisition services contract. • County decides, in
consultation with other stakeholders, the packaging of the construction contract (early enough to preclude re-work by consultant). • Consultant to make minor changes resulting from property
owner requests. • Design consultant completes work on provided schedule, however, in rare instances may be asked for expert testimony at Eminent Domain hearings. • County and Partners
evaluate Consultant using standard evaluation system. Consultant i., is given opportunity to evaluate Countys project management process, also. 
PHASE 4 -ROW & Utility Adjustment • ROW acquisition is carried to completion; again under the active project management and leadership ofthe PM, with proactive activity ofthe ROW acquisition
team. Ifthe city or another partner such as TxDOT is the ROW acquisition agency, the PM will still track carefully the progress and proactively lead efforts to remove obstacles, etc.
to keep progress on schedule. • The PM will use partnering principles as well as results of S.u.E. to assure utility adjustments are accomplished in time to keep scheduled project advertisement
and contract award dates. Based on successful partnering efforts for 2 years with major utility providers (including the UPRR), the PM will assure the attached Essential Elements ofUtility
Partnering and GUIDELINES FOR ASSURING SMOOTH RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND UPRR are adhered to by all matrix team members • County project manager tracks and resolves
issues and work and schedules. • The PM completes all work on Plans, Specs, and Estimates (PSE to prepare project for advertising for bids. • Consultant may be kept on call for unique
projects or ifrequired to complete requested Engineering During Construction (EDe) services, such as shop drawing submittal review and consultation on design intent, assumptions, etc.
The intent is to capture the best part ofthe effort and focus that the consultant or in-house design team has just expended in designing the project. 
PHASE 5 --CONSTRUCTION • PM does all work to advertise project and works with Purchasing Dept for bid opening. • PM assures an additional supplement to the Master is completed with each
Partner giving approval of final funding, based on bid amounts, on a timely basis. • PM completes all work for construction contract award. PM works with all partners to assure a logical
and timely notice to proceed is given. This order to begin work and the contract time period will be based on status of utility relocations, any city requirements,. etc. • PM schedules
and prepares for Partnering & pre-construction meeting, assuring the meeting is on the Director and Assistant Director's calendars. PM also assures all the right stakeholders are at
the meeting and prepared to launch the construction phase successfully • Construction proceeds on schedule with Construction Management services provided by County or city partner. PM
and project Team assure Partnering principles and spirit (Trust, Commitment, and Shared Vision) are maintained throughout the project construction phase. • PM assures constant communication
with customers and other project stakeholders. This may include a construction oriented Public Information Neighborhood Meeting, as well as periodic project newsletters, notices of key
construction events or phasing, meeting with neighborhood interests (property owners, schools, churches, businesses, etc). We are interested in not only achieving a high quality end-product,
but also in delivering the project in a user-friendly manner. • PM assures ultimate owner is provided As-builts made from marked-up construction plans. • PM plans and conducts an After
Action Review (AAR) to assess what happened and brainstorm any lesson-learned. If appropriate, this will also be a "partnering success celebration." • PM conducts one year follow up
inspection in conjunction with all applicable stakeholders 
Dallas County Project Delivery Team's Essential Elements ofUtilityPartnerinq 2002 1. Know the utilities' customers and remember tbat we bave tbe same customers. 2. Make utilities move
only if absolutely necessary to acbieve tbe project purpose. 3. Move only once if the move is, in fact, essentiaL 4. Get involved with actual field reconnaissance early. Include and
engage Project Representatives or Constructibility personnel very early. 5. Get the acquiring agency's Right of Way personnel involved early. 6. Schedule initial Utility Partnering Conference
early. Make partnering the theme and the first topic. Do it on the jobsile to increase the effectiveness .. 7. Involve and Invite Utility representatives 10 Neighborhood or Public Meetings.
8. Distribute roadway plans early to get started with the utility planning. 9. Coordinate with all utilities to ensure that one has no negative impact on anuther. Coordination should
ensure that enough right of way is acquired to acconunodate all ofthe facilities. 10. When plans are changed, get them to utility companies promptly. Provide a list of changes for our
partners. II. Communicate with utilities frequently to ensure knowledge of changing personnel and appropriate contact person. 12. Review utility company's plans, conunent on the plans
and implement the coordination long before fieldwork needs to begin. 13. Do not begin implementing a project schedule without total feedback from aU companies. 14. Identify the precise
sequence of relocations lhat need 10 occur. Many companies are predecessors of other companies' relocations. Communicate tbis sequence to aU utilities and other stakeholders. Ensure
that the sequence is streamlined as much as possible. 15. One way of ensuring the streamlining of the sequence is web-based notification when each company is complete or is scheduled
to be complete. Scheduling is as important as the sequence. 16. Consider that seasonal shutdown restrictions will have significant and adverse schedule impacts, sometimes up to one year.
Also consider that certain times of day are restricted from utility relocation. In addition, develop procedures for emergency sitoations and learn the appropriate "windows of opportunity"
for change-overs, etc. 17. Share accurate information with aU companies and see that they share information with each other. Share resources ifpossible. 18. Communicate the need to follow
City Ordinances, partiCUlarly those relating to traffic control, backfill and pavement restoration. Traffic control plan must be filed and approved. 19. Insure that the companies have
measures for handling complaints about their work and that they do not inconvenience our mutual customers more than is absolutely essentiaL Remember. 0 R R !! Prepared by Janel Norman
and kv Griffin uom input from many stakebolden during numerous partnering sessions in 200I and 2002. Revised Augusl22, 2002. 
GUIDELINES FOR ASSURING SMOOTH RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND RAILROADS • Start Early Coordination -Set up a meeting to share project selection lists, to ascertain projects
with RR impacts. Then on impacted projects, share preliminary designs, invite RR to early meetings, such as stakeholder predesign charrettes, public workshops, etc. • Work out precisely
the location of railroad project impacts, before contacting RR. This speeds the coordination process greatly. Use MAPSCO location, subdivision, and RR Mile Post where ever possible •
Use the RR website for a wealth of information, maps, etc. This can save time in answering questions and can provide much information about RR, including points ofcontact, e-mail and
telephone information, instroctions, applications, specifications, DOT crossing information, permit requirements, ROW agreements, etc. Our in-house or consultant designers need to explore
this web-site before launching road design whenever there is going to be a RR crossing. Procedures and responsibilities are clearly laid out, as are design gnidelines and specifications.
Avoid nasty surprises that can impact project costs ifnot budgeted. • Expect the RR owned ROW to contain many other utilities (telecommunications, power, pipelines, etc), that you will
have to pay to relocate. These are private easements the utilities have paid for and the project will have to bear the costs ofrelocation. RR is a good source of information on the potential
conflicts that you will encounter. Budgeting accurately for these costs will avoid nasty surprises later. • Avoid adversarial actions and relationships, instead try the partnering approach.
RR will respond in-kind. They desire to maintain integrity in relations with all their communities. Do not presume upon them (e.g., impossible responses on coordination that you failed
to start timely, making demands they cannot meet, presuming the worst). . • Look for ways to forge win-wins, for RR and the local community. Understand that USDOT has a policy since
since 1992 to reduce at-grade RR crossings by 25%. This puts tremendous pressure on RR's to accomplish this goal. Does your community have a number of little-used crossings? Explore
ways to eliminate them and RR can do much to meet the needs ofyour current project. • When appropriate, have our attorneys communicate directly with RR attorneys. The key is to have
worked out all the coordination we can before that, using the information, contacts and principles described in these guidelines. Then, the Project Manager should stay involved to assure
that going down "legal rabbit trails" is avoided whenever possible. Ifwe follow the spirit ofwin-win, then both sides will have better results, even ifour attorneys are involved, as
they have to be. • FOR UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD: A. When you're in doubt and have searched all the readily available information, call Steve Martchenke, Ken Rouse, or Doug Feagan. Even
though they have large territories to cover, they are never too busy to help you proactively solve a problem and forge a winwin. If you have a "folder number," this will save them much
time in looking up the project file information. Steve Martchenke 817-878-4596 Ken Rouse 281-350-7609 Doug Feagan 402-997-3619 
B. Do not even think about changing Exhibit B of the standard agreement. RR has agreements to work out in 23 states, and their lawyers are very vigilant to watch for precedents that
might bind UP elsewhere. Work on win-wins in the body ofthe agreement. )0> FOR BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD A. Contact person is Tim Huya, Manager ofPublic Projects for Louisiana
and Texas B. C/oBNSF 5800 North Market St Fort Worth, TX 76179 C. email: tim.huva@hnsf.com D. phone: 817-352-2902 E. FAX: 817-352-2912 F. Corporate Headquarters located in Fort Worth
(phone 817-333-2000) 2650 Lou Menk Dr, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 961057 Fort Worth, TX 76161-0057 
.. Jim Pierce From: Jim Pierce Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 9:31 AM To: Don Holzwarth (E-mail) Subject: Belt Line Road Video Detection Don: As per our discussion yesterday, the Town
of Addison is planning a 2" asphalt overlay of Belt Line Road from Dallas Parkway to Marsh Lane this fall, with an upgrade to our crosswalks in the spring. We will be milling the gutter
lane along Belt Line, and that, along with upgrading the crosswalks will destroy all of our signal loops along the corridor. Instead of replacing 139 loops (which are a headache to maintain
anyway) we feel this is an ideal time to switch to video detection at our 10 signalized intersections along Belt Line Road. We have 4 intersections that are now controlled by video detection
(and one under construction) with excellent results and low maintenance. We estimate this project will cost about $200,000. This is to request an amendment to our Midway -Spring Valley
to Dooley signalization project to include video detection along Belt Line Road from Dallas Parkway to Marsh Lane. We also request our grant be increased by $100,000 with our local match
to be $100,000. Thank you for your conSideration. Jim Pierce, P.E. Assistant Public Worns Director P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 972-450-2879 1 
􀁊􀁡􀁮􀀭􀁾􀁚􀀭􀀰􀀴􀀠05:Z1P P.OZ TO Dallas County Cities FROM: Edith B. Ngwa. Ph.D SUBJECT: Major Capilallmpl'{lvemem. Program (MCTP) Call-{or-Pmj.,cts: Preliminary J:::valu<llion Results
DATR: January 12,2004 Find attached the prt:liminary 􀁥􀁶􀁾􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁮􀁴􀁩􀀨􀀩􀁮􀀠􀁲􀀬􀀬􀁾􀁵􀁬􀁴􀁳􀀠ofthc 3rd Call for Projects. All projects submitted for this Call were rated based on
1 0 evaluation 􀁾􀁲􀁩lenu worth a maxinlllln of 10 poil1\.s each, The score IbT euch criterion as wel1 􀁡􀁾􀀠the overall project scores MC displayed on the attached 􀁾􀁣􀁯􀁲􀁥􀀠sheet(s).
Nole thallhe project cost estimate on the scme shet!l may be different fram thai originally submitted by your city. All pm.jeet cost estimates were rcvit!wed by Dallas C.ounly Public
Works far accuracy. Where a 10% or abow difference existed between tile projecl cost submitted by the City and Ihat derived by Dallas County, the cost was ruvised to retlect ali. lIl;\reed-upon
figure. Plea,e review the 􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁵􀁬􀁴􀁳􀀠carefully and c(>ntnct Jack Hedge, P.E. (214-653-6420) for 􀁱􀁵􀁣􀁳􀁬􀁩􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠regarding revised cost 􀁣􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁭􀁡􀁬􀁥􀁾􀀠and Dr. Edith Ngwa
(214-653-6522) Ibr questions On the evaluatiun results, by Janmlry 22, 20114. If you do 110t respond by lhe Jalluary 22, 2004 􀁤􀁃􀁩􀁬􀁤􀁬􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀬􀀠we will assume that you ugree with
OUT preliminRry evaluation re!iults and therefore proceed with OUf fiMI evaluation and selection process. 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠cc: Sum Wilson. P,E AU.achment 
I'l o II. ,",t. 􀀺􀀺􀀬􀁾􀀠.; :" 􀀾􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀻􀀠, ',.;;:J ,.;>" ..;!:.: :::"" 􀀧􀁾􀁪􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀬􀀠:',:+ 􀁾􀀻􀀿􀀻􀀻􀀺􀀬􀀮􀁴􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀻􀀻􀁦􀁾􀀢􀀮􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀠:.i:( 􀀮􀀺􀂷􀂷􀀺􀀮􀁩􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀧􀁩􀁦􀀧􀀠}}.:
j':e' 􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀠Major Capital Improvement Project Ranking by District and by City 􀀮􀀧􀀨􀀻􀁾􀀠􀁾.... .J!' t. ...':';" .;:;" ,,'.: 􀁾􀀢􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀢􀀠"' " 􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀬•• ,..'.' c.;..•􀁾􀀧􀀮􀀠.,1·,'
,','(''''-""., '" .; I, 􀀬􀁾􀀬􀀧􀀠"" : ",:, .::'. ':'-,', . >:W: .•' ...... ".'-"'" '.,. ,"', ... ,-",,', .;>:. 􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀠'::,:.: ...,'," ),', 􀁾􀀠..., "1'_,' .-',􀀮􀂷􀁉􀁾􀀧􀀠",....
"1,» • ',1' ...., ; ," ,: ID DiSI Project Locatio" Length Project City Percent Project (Miles) Cost Funding l\.'Latch DHtriplion City 􀁂􀁾􀁧􀁩􀁮􀁮􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠Ending TroffieF"Jl(ti4ltal Spt:,.d
TtlfJ1ic rN>'rJ 􀁂􀁾􀁍􀁦􀁴􀀮􀁦􀀠A.(.(kH", "', $1)1( ,4/fJUIpiierType ,"bm Jklny V(!W_ loar_1\" />dlrr QIYf "or, QNo.tit;r ,M.-':.'" Telal ,tcfsc2 lC.r em"'/i 10 Addiso<! Reconstruction
01 geJUine Road Dsflas Parl<way MarshLtme 2 $13,150.060 $7.495.534 0.57 Com..tc I?r:on,tM::11on Df BellW RoaO:. !ram Da.'la<$ PiII'flWlIy!O Marsh LOtI&. in<:lJJding water and sewerV/i}#f
mplloement relOCillOOM at o\lCrlJead utl1i6es. and 􀁾􀀯􀀵􀁃􀁡􀀮􀁯􀁥impt'tl1,oenH!1.I/$ REC Pr(lject SC"Jfe: 1() 8 2 10 0 () 8 0 10 I) 1.57 75 " II. .... N 10 􀀢􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀬􀀭􀁾􀀬􀀠-.>.-.......
, •• 􀁾􀀬􀀧􀀬􀁾􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀠....... , ",. 􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀮􀀧􀀠, ••• , •••,., o ," . "'. -'---􀀮􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀠.-'-" ..,"" ....,' .'IIondtr):. JanufJl'}' 11,20114V o I N .... I ;:: III "'l 
P,Olan-12-04 05,21P , . _. ,FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET , DATE: January 12,2004 , SENT BY: lsela Rodril;l:uez. Trans(1ortation Planner DALLAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT· 411
ELM STREET, 41'11 F1.00R DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 Phone: 214·653·6417 Fax: 214·653-6416 TO: Steve Chutchian, Assistant City En2ineer COMPANY: Addison FAX NUMBER: 972-450-2837 PHONE NO.: 972-450-2886
NO. OF PAGES (Inc. Cover Sheet): 3 COMMENTS: Please call 214-653-6417 ifthere are any 􀁤􀁩􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁣􀁵􀁬􀁴􀁪􀁥􀁾􀀠or problems in (he transmission of this fax. .. 
(G: 􀁾􀁪􀀠w . 'u #ir@/Y 50 YEARS OF FUNI (972) 450·1000' FAX (972) 450·1043 5300 Belt Line Road OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER June 29,2004 Mr. Jim Jackson Commissioner, Precinct Number
1 Dallas County 2311 Joe Field Road Dallas, TX 75229 Re: Reallocation of Funds for Arapaho Road Dallas County Major Capital Improvement Program Dear Cormnissioner Jackson: This is to
tbank you for the action you took to reallocate tbe $1,432,812 for our Arapaho Road project tbat was originally scheduled for receipt in FY 2007, and moving it forward to FY 2005. This
helps our budget tremendously as we have now received bids and awarded a $16.5 million contract for construction oftbe project. This project includes a signature bridge over Midway Road
and will complete our extension ofArapaho Road from Dallas Nortb Tollway to Marsh Lane, and will provide some relief for the traffic on Belt Line Road. I also want to mention that Don
Holzwarth and his staff have been most cooperative and helpful throughout tbis process. As always we appreciate your public service. Please come see us when you can. Very truly yours,
􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁏􀀠Ron Whitehead City Manager cc: Chris Terry, Assistant City Manager Michael E. Murphy, P.E., Director ofPublic Works 
(972) 4SO-2B71PUBue WORKS DEPARTMENT 16801 Westgrove 􀁾􀁾􀀠® Post Office Box 9010 Addison, Texas 􀀷􀀵􀀰􀀰􀀱􀁾􀀹􀀰􀀱􀀰􀀠June 28, 2004 Mr. Donald L Holzwarth, P.E. Dallas County Director
ofPublic Works 411 Elm Street, 41h Floor Dallas, TX 75202 Re: Reallocation ofFunds for Arapaho Road Dallas County Major Capital Improvement Program Dear Mr. Holzwarth: This is to thank
you for your recommendation to Jim Jackson to reallocate the $1,432,812 for our Arapaho Road project that was originally scheduled for receipt in FY 2007, and moving receipt forward
to FY 2005. This helps our budget tremendously as we have now received bids and awarded a $16.5 million contract for construction ofthe project. This project includes a signature bridge
over Midway Road and will complete our extension of Arapaho Road from Dallas North Tollway to Marsh Lane, and will provide some relief for the traffic on Belt Line Road. We always appreciate
the cooperation and helpfulness we have received from you and your staffthroughout this process. Please come see us when you can. Very truly yours, Michael E. urphy, P.E. Director of
Public Works Cc: Chris Terry, Assistant City Manager Jim Pierce, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director 
I-jt) --D3 IMaior' ,#3 ,MCIP ,Fundina. i I Prolect Costs D2 J from 1991 Bond Maior Imo.ct I Tota' 1 2 , 3 Total Total Total . 1 2003 c I I .... 2004 ,,' 0' 􀁰􀁔􀁾􀁯􀁭􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀬􀁾􀁾�
�􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀬􀁰􀀮􀁲􀁾􀀧􀁙􀁾􀁈􀁲􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁊􀁴􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁩􀀫􀀭􀁟..􀁾􀀱􀁾􀀲􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀱􀁾􀀱􀀧􀀷􀁾􀁏__􀁾􀀠::Ountv , Proleet Deliverv Costs (See Below) 1. I •minus Project
􀁃􀁏􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠minus County "'1.0=001-___"-"7, i.8S; 2005 .75= 1 Julv9.2002 ,lnHed· 31.20031 I I ...IuI-Ol Year· i OnlY 2006' 2007 20081 o o o o 500.00 2009, .. 1. 5.000.00 2010 o 01 o
o o Totals 7.227.161 7.?27.161 25. 􀁾􀀷􀀲􀀮􀀸􀀳􀀹􀀠, ! Byl Total .. Cost Share I 􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠o o o o o o i o 29.547.9761 ,.6%
􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁉􀀭􀀧􀁾􀀢􀀢􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁯􀀧􀂥􀁬􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀻􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀺􀁧􀁾􀁩􀀺􀀠:1 g 􀁾􀁌􀁾􀀧􀀵􀁾􀀹􀀶􀀽􀁊􀀱􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀹􀀵􀀰􀀺II􀀽􀁾􀁩􀁬􀀺􀁬􀁩􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀴􀀯􀀭􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁀􀂷􀀮􀀲􀁭􀀥􀀠'.445 25.
2.439.110 28.427.735 'I-__􀀵􀀺􀀡􀀡􀁾􀀮􀀱􀀷􀀶􀀠􀀱􀀮􀀽􀀱􀀭􀀭􀀰􀀰􀀰􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀧􀀭􀀶􀁾􀁊􀁟􀀮----,,£3., 􀀩􀁾􀀲􀀡•• 4:rrT77l='􀀽􀀺􀀽􀁌􀁾􀂢􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀦􀀲􀁾􀁴􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀽􀁘􀁾􀀽􀁩􀀭􀁟􀀽􀀳􀀳􀁾􀀮􀀳􀀲􀀴􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁐􀁾􀁲�
�􀁪􀀮􀁾􀁣􀁬􀁩􀁾􀀧􀁾Cost!!]."􀁆􀁾􀁲􀁯􀁭􀁾􀀺􀁍􀁩􀁣􀀮􀀭􀀮􀁮􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀧􀁐􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀡􀀭􀀭􀁃􀀱􀀻􀀭􀀻􀀬..􀀴􀀱􀀽􀀭􀀱􀀲􀁾􀀠1, '-,--II􀁟􀀽􀀲􀁾􀀮􀁩􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀽􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀲􀀽􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀴􀀺􀀠,,,-,-,,+-.110_=􀀲􀁾􀀮�
�􀀰􀀱􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀢􀀮􀀯􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁊􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀠􀁾􀀠: From Proiect , (to be based on .ctu.' oosts) ! 675.000 1.082.118 1. , 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽
􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀧􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀽􀁾􀁾I County I ,Proiect I Cost '3.419.110, I I 
U IMalor 􀁾􀀠I 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀁣􀁴􀀠rtllion )n J INO. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠...l'1'!!!l ..1£!!l 􀁾􀀠􀁔􀁾􀀠'fi I g, .iOi:l 􀁾􀁾􀁬􀀡􀀠i II!!!!! Lanes L .I.􀁾􀁥􀁡􀁲􀀠rl I. ..\. ..\. 􀁾􀀠i , I ?pq2 I ,/􀁾􀀠'"
􀁾􀀠..I..L L • g' I I , 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀠. 􀁾􀀠I fl -"" 􀁾􀁾􀀠-.2l, ,00( i 􀁾􀀮􀀢􀀠r.242i 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠!! 􀁾􀀴􀀴􀀧􀀠:( 7 !:l'!Q, 2002· 􀁾􀀠􀁊􀁵􀁬􀁶􀀹􀁾􀀠L ',130 I I 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀬􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁯􀁯􀁯􀀠1, ...L
J -" -" 152, 􀁾􀀠)14 
t2 !!!L' Julv G :t',Shown In Red ! .tn r.-;;;;;:tOrdAr No. 􀁾􀀠Paae 3 l 1 ft. 􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁔􀂷􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀴􀁾􀂷􀂷􀂷􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠2003 353.134 2004 , 􀀲􀀮􀀲􀀲􀁾􀁾􀀠a 􀀱􀀮􀀵􀀲􀁴􀁦􀁯􀁾􀁾􀀠o I ,Vear·' ,F 􀁩􀀢􀁾􀀠􀀷􀀮􀀹􀀱􀁾􀀠􀁉􀁾􀀠2009 2010 Totals i • Bv
"I Co..I' _Share Me ,Rd. 􀁾􀁒􀁤􀀠. , Brda Vear 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠2002 200 200 200C 2002' 􀁾􀀻􀀠􀁾􀀠364,321 i22.50C o l􀁲􀁾􀁾􀁭􀁬􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁑􀁣􀁃􀁾􀁾􀁭􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁴􀀽􀀽􀀽�
�􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁴􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁴􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀂢􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁤􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀁾􀀠1.139 I Pralect I ,Costs (2f% 407.242i 737.506 􀀷􀁾􀀮􀀶􀀳􀀱􀀠,Annual I o ·912 7, 66.9291 .ooc 5.1147.930
1n <i{liM 4.654A56 10.1 5 27.3% 65.1% Icitv iNo. IM(;IP • rEA· 21 'un,'lno Maiorl 'IH 635 I , Rd, • Klna"av to I IIH 635 Corridor Video: ... Winters , Creek p., " = p., i,iLake B.' Transit
I ,w 􀁾􀁉􀁐􀀻IrH63S· 􀁾􀀯􀁐􀂷􀀺􀀠!1 ,to.􀁾􀀺􀁖􀀬􀀠Dallas 2C 
MCIP TEA· 21 Fundlna iI , Fum'!1Il i IMalor Imoact Fundino Total I Profect Costs !#3 ICIlY Seckle. t!i! , & ; Gr 221 Dallas r ® Seven. Dallas leamo VI am @.Jiouston School & Polk (Gr
5) g::::: 􀁾􀀠lunaer Dallas 􀁾􀁀􀀮􀀠I & Polk fGR 6) 􀁾􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀠􀁾􀀠I-MunQerlo':arroll 􀁾􀀮􀀢􀀮􀀾􀀠Inwood Rd· !Dallas Loop •-lake I 175 Dallas Hines· 􀁍􀁯􀁴􀁯􀁲􀁾􀁬􀁡􀁷􀁮􀀠Dallas "ak
Lawn t!i! 􀁉􀁈􀁾􀀠Dallas 􀁏􀁬􀁬􀁶􀁥􀁾􀀠Dallas IPeari 􀁾􀀠Dallas iHiliRd i,ia I Run DeSoto ,Rd@.1 iRd i Schaal Rd ! 􀁉􀁾􀀮Belt Line IH 􀀶􀀳􀀵􀁾􀁩RI lake June to Quail Rd IRd.IoIH30 IFair
'ark Link , to Hall inti. Id • SH 31010 illinois loul • Ross 10 1JS 75 SB Service Rd......•• Eiam 10 Loop 12 ....... ""l'.QQ I . Haskell 10 II'! :l() 􀁾􀀭􀁓􀀢􀁦􀁬􀁦􀁦􀀳􀀰􀁴􀁯􀀬􀀠Martin
Liiiii9TKina. Jr· N of Live Oak -, I Peak 􀁾􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁴􀁯􀁅􀁯􀁾􀀠'l!!!l.Bg;..j I Run 10 FM 1382 . Iff 3SE to ISChool Total I Costs IGlenn Heiahts IBalch Springs Dallas Dallas Dallas
Dallas Dailas Dallas Dallas Dallas Dallas Daffas DeSolo DaHas '''\'rol••1 Costs (25 >of' NllfBsc EA.2, 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁬􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁾􀀧..... " orolects. rfromFY 􀁾􀀠. :No. IMQ!E:J21 IMQ!E:Jhor 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠H
I 30207 􀁾􀁔􀀲􀀱􀀠30208 MQII":.T21 I Service Rd 30209 30210 30211 􀁾􀀠30214 31201 32501 31301 31BOl 30215 :l0216 30217 30218 􀁾􀀠3J1222 30223 30224 31202 31302 30225 hor MCfP-lhor IMCfP
Thor I I I Year ' I to Court Order No. Julv 9. 2002 I ()Illy 2003 I 2004 2005 2006 2007, 2008 : 353.134 I.2m _ 59.4891 1999 _ 31.6511 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 1000 20001 2000
Ii2002 2002 2002 120,000 1'16,000 500.000 7.916.500 2.857.140 􀀧􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀲􀀬􀀽􀁾􀀧􀁏􀁏􀁏􀁉􀀠􀀦􀀮􀀳􀀷􀀱􀁾􀁴􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀽􀁊􀀺􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁉•• oi§ill:3. 1.830737.596 Paae4 1in Redl 2009 o 759,631 􀀡􀀮􀁾􀀹􀀰􀀴􀀴􀀽􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀽􀁽1..;!7: 1.164' 7. 􀁾􀀽􀀸􀀶􀀹􀀧􀁴􀀭􀁟􀀲􀀠100,000 944.021 1,166.925 I 2010 o , o !,420 r.857 ( Totals 7.227.161 59.4B9
31.651 59.4B9 43.265 2.737. By Total Cost Share: 237,951 20.0% 211.81 243, 13.0% 􀁾􀁾􀁊􀀺􀀠􀀺􀁈􀀱􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀡􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀡􀀻􀀧􀁾􀀢􀀺􀂷􀁾􀀴􀀼􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁌􀀺􀁾􀀮􀁏􀁏􀀥􀀥􀁾􀀠2.737.50C 243.
270 1.4: f> 3.. 628.333 􀁾􀀽􀀽􀂧􀀺􀁾􀀷􀀹􀀶􀀶􀀻􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀧􀀶􀀶􀀶􀁾􀀧􀀽􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀠1. 1, 711 1,051 32.504.1 􀀻􀀻􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀻􀀻􀁾􀀭􀁣􀀻􀀮􀀱􀀻􀀬􀀪􀀬􀀮􀀰􀀰􀀧􀀪􀁬􀀭􀁟􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁏􀁏􀀠􀁾􀀠716.00
2.857.140 , 5.282•• 0411.2 !,208 5.714.280 1.617,21 4.747.24 􀀵􀀱􀀱􀀮􀁾􀀠51.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% m 􀁾􀁾􀀠!l£+-----",,="J 42]!; 65.1% 
t4 I Maior MCIP rEA· 21 Fundlno • Fundln" ,Fundi"" , Total I Prolect,:.,t. , @l ana Bid. 􀁾􀁒􀁤􀀢􀀠,IH3D 11 Cr.ek Pkwv· IH 20 to . 􀁾􀀠Ii I Blvd· C<ll tell 10 I.aka , 􀀻􀁾􀁲􀁏􀁬􀁶􀁮􀀠I
Sypa., , Uno 10 0. lion Tao Rd .ake nlon ao 10 I I 12 Clar ·5, I "'rt Clar .• S 0 ,10 ' :oue "'rt ;100 .•So.10 , :ouch i 'art IH3"WB I·'···· IHI 'EBI ,Rd·1 lao, Belt !!!t:Fire Station
to I 'liMl ,MI. 􀁾􀁭􀁥􀁫􀀠rotall ·SI SH183 rRd I Costs I CIIV Dalla. (Nina Coooell 'alias I I.dar II irand .Irie lrand Prairie Costs 125% 01 T otall Annual I 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀬I􀁾􀁉􀁉􀀺􀀡􀀡􀁙􀀮􀀡􀀮􀁕􀀠[IIi
!to Court Or5!ll!:..!':!!!: Paoli 5 I I .10,1" 􀁑􀁾􀀠Shown In Red\ !hIol-4)2 INa. 433()1=it=1 47" , 401 4()1 =40805 0'· 'hor 110r her hor hor ,R ewFaelll1v f<denin 'orvlea , ervlce I
Year ,_1 􀁾􀀠2002 ?OMI 20001 :i= 2003 i 2004 2.227.180 353.134 ..􀁾􀀠i 􀁾􀀫􀀭􀁩􀁟􀀭􀀴􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠2005 48.673; 300.000 14 .--I----!----2002 o .17.747 1 I Year· 2006 20071 .69.768 16.500 16.Q25
;136.531 I I Only By Total 2008 2009 2010 Totals Others Cost Share I 􀁾􀁑􀁑􀁯􀁊􀀠1 '7. 7. 48.671 􀀲􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀲􀁾􀀺􀀠􀀻􀀬􀀷􀁾􀀧􀀻􀀻􀁥􀁆􀀮􀁬􀁊􀁦􀁬􀁥􀀽􀁤􀀻􀂷􀁮􀀽􀀭􀁉􀀱􀁟􀀭􀀫􀀭___􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀁾􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀢􀁾􀀺�
�􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀱􀀧􀀽􀀧􀀺􀀽􀁴􀀽􀀽􀁴􀀭􀀲􀀡􀁾􀀮􀁦􀁪􀁾􀀺􀀽􀁩􀀺􀁾􀀽􀀭􀀮􀀬􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁉􀁉􀀡􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠1. o o 759.631 􀁲􀂢􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁰􀀷􀁩􀁬􀁬􀀮􀀧􀀠.5221 I SOO.()()(} 25.0% O.B'''; 􀁊􀀡􀀡􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀧􀁩􀁬􀁬􀀶􀀻..􀁉􀁏􀁾􀀥􀀠65
.1% 
•Countvwlde Summa!:l( 2!TEA-21 Particigation -Defederalize Attachment to Court Order H2. 2002-1261 , Page 6 Major Cagltallmerovemflnt Program Aeerov!jld Jul1l9, 2002 !Known 􀁃􀁨􀁡􀁾􀁥􀁳􀀠Shown
in Red} FundingfCost Forecast --Revision #3 Project Funding Project Year Original Funding Defederallzed Funding Project City No. Source Type Selected District County City Slate/Fed Total
County City Slate/Fed Intersection Group 1 Dallas 10201 MCIP-T21 Intersection 1999 1 51,917 51,917 155,750 259.584 129,792 129,792 0 Belt Line Rd -SH 2891Preston to Dallas Pkwy Dallas
10202 MCIP-T21 Widening 1999 1 547,448 547,448 1,642,341 2,737,237 0 547,448 2,189.789 Inwood Rd @Lovers Lane Dallas 10203 MCIP-T21 Intersection 1999 1 75,713 75,713 227,136 378.562
189,281 189,281 0 Beckley @Commerce & Colorado (COG Gr 22) Dallas 30201 MCIP-T21 InterslSignal 1999 3 59,489 59,489 178,464 297,442 148,721 148,721 0 Buckner @Seyene Dallas 30202 MCIP-T21
Intersection 1999 3 31,651 31,651 131,473 194,775 0 0 194,775 Camp Wisdom @Houston School & Polk (Gr 5) Dallas 30203 MCIP-T21 􀁉􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁳􀁥􀁣􀁾􀁯􀁮􀀠1999 3 59,489 59,489 178,464 297,442
148,721 146,721 0 COlorado@Jefferson Dallas 30204 MCIP-T21 Interseclion 1999 3 43,265 43,265 129,792 216,322 106,161 106,161 0 Gaston @Munger Dailas 30205 MCIP-T21 􀁉􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁾􀁮􀀠1999
3 48,673 48,673 146,016 243,362 121,681 121,681 0 Gaston @Washington Dailas 30206 MCtP-T21 Intersection 1999 3 54,061 54,061 162,240 270.402 135,201 135,201 0 Red Bird @Hampton & Polk
(GR 6) Dailas 30207 MCIP-T21 Intersection 1999 3 58,407 58,407 175,220 292,034 146,017 146,017 0 IH 301 RL Thornton -Munger to Carroll Dallas 30206 MCIP-T21 Service Rd 1999 3 263,804
263,804 1.501.549 2,029,257 0 0 2,029,257 Inwood Rd -Lemmon to Hines Dallas 30209 MCIP-T21 Widening 1999 3 1,321,648 1,321,648 3,964,943 6,608,239 1,397,844 182,593 5,027,802 Loop 121Buckner
-Lake June to US 175 Dallas 30210 MCIP-T21 Widening 1999 3 268,293 268,293 1,527,204 2,063,790 a a 2,063,790 Hines -Motor to Oak Lawn Dallas 30211 MCIP-T21 Intersection 1999 3 132,237
132,237 132,237 396,709 661,183 528,946 132,237 0 Oak Lawn @IH 35E Dallas 30212 MCIP-T21 Intersection 1999 3 40,953 40,953 233,112 315,018 0 0 315,018 Olive @Woodall Rodgers Dallas 30213
MCIP-T21 Intersection 1999 3 28,122 28,122 160,077 216,321 0 0 216,321 Pearl @Woodall Rodgers Dallas 30214 MCIP-T21 Intersection 1999 3 42,153 42,153 240,115 324,481 0 0 324,481 Yanmouth
@lang Bid. Dallas 40201 MCIP-T21 Intersection 1999 4 􀁾􀀠48,673 48,673 146,016 243,362 121,681 121,681 0 Bishop Area Improvements Dallas 30226 MCIP-T21 Rehab 􀁾􀀽􀀠􀁾􀀠0 157,481 629,924
787,405 0 787,405 0 Tenth Street Historic District Dallas 30227 MCIP-T21 Rehab 0 187,178 748,709 935,887 0 935,887 0 Dallas Tolals 􀀼􀀺􀀾􀁾􀀠3,176,046 3,520,705 12,675,354 19,372,105
3,176,046 3,834,826 12.361,233 IH 635 Frontage Rds -Kingsley to LaPrada Garland 22001 MCIP-T21 Frontage Rds 1999 2 1,181,857 1,536,592 3,191,135 5,909,584 0 0 5,909,584 􀁾􀁉􀁈􀀠635 Corridor
Video Surveiilance Garland 22006 MCIP·T21 ITS 1999 2 220,000 165,000 715,000 1,100,000 550,000 550,000 0 Winters Park/Spring Creek Greenbelt Garland 22007 MCIP-T21 Trail 1999 2 a 653,944
799,288 1,453,210 364,321 354,322 0 Lake Ray Hubbaro Transit Center Garland 22008 MCIP-T21 Transit 1999 2 0 544,024 1,928,810 2,472,834 487,536 1,985,298 0 Garland Tolals 1,401,857 2,899,560
6,634,211 10,935,628 1,401,857 2,899,620 5,809,584 Valley View Ln -Nicholson to IH 635 Fanmers Branci 10501 MCIP-T21 Widening 1999 1 520,001 619,839 1,460,160 2,600,000 No Change Campbell
Rd -Jay Ell Rd to US 75 Richaroson 12101 MCIP-T21 GradeSep. 1999 1 3,519,700 8,400,799 11,544,164 23,464,663 No Change IH 30 Service Rds -MacArthur to TRA RR Spur Grand Prairie 40801
MCIP-T21 Service Rd. 1999 4 494,000 206,000 6,600,000 7,300,000 No Change Total s -No Changes 4,533,701 9,226,636 19,604,324 33,364,663 4,533,701 9,226,638 19,604,324 Grand Total All
TEA-21 9,111,604 15,646,903 38,913,889 63,672,396 9,111,604 15,961,084 37,875,141 City of Dallas from 20 projects with federal funding to 8 projects with federal funding. Twelve projects
become 100% city andlor county funded, City of Garland from 4 projects with federal funding to 1 project with federal funding. Three projects become 100% city and/or county funded• •
County funding of $220,000 is from 1991 Bond Funds for IDR. Not MCIP funded. 􀁐􀁵􀁢􀁕􀁥􀁗􀁯􀁤􀁾􀁳􀀠9-Jul.02 Tolal 259.584 2,737,237 378,562 297,442 194,775 297,442 216,322 243,362 270,402
292,034 2,029,257 6,608,239 2,063,790 661,183 315,018 216,321 324,481 243,362 787,405 936,887 19,372,105 5,909,584 1,100,000 728,643 2,472,834 10,211,061 33,364,663 62,947,829 
Part 1. Project Identification DRAFT MCIP Number: [L] District: 13 City: 􀁉􀁲􀀺􀁄􀀺􀀺􀁡􀀺􀀭􀁬􀁉􀁡􀀺􀀧􀀺􀁳􀀺􀀭􀀺􀁃􀀺􀀺􀁯􀁾􀁵􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁾􀁹􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀠􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀠Project Name/location:
IExamPle Lane Widening Beginning: Iintersecting Road 1 : Ending: Iintersecting Road 2 MAPSCO:, 1",4",6",B_.....J Project Length' 11875 IMiles Functional Class' INot on Regional I Ave
Num of Accidents for last 3 years' D Condensed Widen from 2 to 4 lanes. with storm sewer improvements. Add 6' wide sidewalks Description of to both sides, ,Proposed Improvements: Part
2. Pavement and Centerline Alignment Proposed Pavement Section: 14 lane divided. I Current Pavement Conditions: IFair I Pavement Design Criteria: ICily of Dallas, TxDOT I ExistinJ( eg,
2·12' lanes Pavement Width: 12 .11' lanes, 3' shoulders I 14 . 12' lanes with C&G Pavement Surface Type .Thickness: IAsE!haltlc Surface. 2I IPCCP,10' I Pavement Base Type Thickness:
IAexible Base, 8' I 􀁾􀁾􀀬Pavement Subgrade Type Thickness: 'Stabilized Subgrade, 6' I Parkway Width: 10 I 112' I Sidewalks Width: m: I 12,6' I Through Lanes Width: 12,11' I 14,12' I
Left Turn Lanes .Width: 10 I 11,10' I Left Turn Storage Length: 10 I 1100' I Right T urn Lanes: 10 I 10 Median Width: 10 I 133' Bicycle Lanes Width: 10 I 12,5' Grade Requirements: For
Projects with Repairs: Average Expected Cut: 13' I Type of Repai r: I Average Expected Fill: 10 I Actual repair size: 1 I I 􀁾Is Centertine aligned with Center of ROW? include sq It
and linear It of edge : If not, how much is It offset from the center and to which side? I I Part 3. Traffic Design Speed: 145 mphI Average 35 mphIPosted Speed: 1 Average Operating 125
I mphSpeed: Traffic Volume: 12000 I Traffic Volume Scurce: INCTCOG Presence of Bus andlor Heavy Truck Traffic? Ii2I ...Part 4, Drainage Storm Sewer Design Criteria: 125 Year Frequencl
Existing I Proposed Number of Culverts and their dimensions: (barrels, SxHxL) Bridge length and width: 12 barrels, ll'X5'I 1200' , 40' I 12 barrels, ll'XS'! 1200',100' I Is any section
otthe road under the 1QO year flood plain? 􀁾􀀠 i 
I 0 Water Lines 0 Gas Lines 0 storm Sewer 0 Senitaty Sewer 0 Cable 0 Electricity Lines Any Special Considerations? Part 5. Utilities 0 RaUroad Lines 0 TRA Unes 0 Transmission Lines 0
Underground Vaults Other Underground Utiliti lfiber optics I Document known Iduct bank Risks for Utility Partners: 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠o Utilities are on Existing street
ROW o Utilities Own their ROW or have Previous Easements o SUE (Subsurface Utility Engineering) will be needed Part 6. ROW Acquisition A. Safety c. Right of Way D. General AcquiSition
Costs ROW Contact Person 􀁉􀁍􀁲􀁾􀀮o Transit (DART lines) Phone Number: 1(214)7: I Estimated Cost of Land OnlY!$75.000.00 Io School Existing ROW Width: 1 Cost of Improvement in ROWj$125.000.00
1o Church o Municipal Buildings , 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠I Number of Parcels with Damages: 15 1Proposed ROW Width: 11uo . Other I I "'" -'I Cost of Damages: 1$100.000.00 INumber 01 ROW Parcels: 􀁉􀁇􀁾􀀠,
Number of Bisected Improvements: 11 1B. Environmenta I Area of ROW required: Cost of Bisections: o Floodplain Fee Aoquisition: ,.;,1""5"'"0.-00-0--""1 sq. II 1$150.00000 I o Lake Permanent
Easement: 􀁾􀀱􀀳􀁧􀀰􀁾􀀮􀀰􀁾􀁯􀁾􀁯􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁦􀀱􀀠sq ft. ROW Subtotal: $450.000.00o Historical Designation Temporaty Easement: 150.000 1sq. ft.o Cemetety Number of Bisected: Inflation Factor
(6 years) 1$81.00000 Io Junkyard Houses: ..10-------.1 Other I I Commercial Buildings: fi I Total ROW Cost: 1$531.00000 I Comments on Bisected improvement is a school. List and Explain
ROW Any Non Availabilityl 􀁉􀁾􀁡􀁤􀁤􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠has 20' dedication for Conformity Easements: 􀁾􀀠 Issues: Junkyard on South Side of the project does not comply with zoning. Part 7. other
Amenities to the Project -These items may not be covered under MCIP contract o Sanitary Sewer Relocation-o Landscaping"'* 0 Traffic Signals Retaining Walls o Exposed Aggregate 0 Pavement
Markings o Sad. Seeding. Topsoil Driveways. Sidewalk.-0 DART Bus Turnout o Drainage Improvements i 0 Stamped/Colored Concret_ 0 Bus stops or Shelters ORR Crossing Improvements o o Irrigation-0
Water Utility Improvements" o Grade Separations o Brick Pavers-0 Water Utility Relocation-o Ramps or Connectors to o Street lighting 0 Sanitaty Sewer Improvements'" TxDOT Facilities
I Part 8. Public Involvement Comments on Currently in negotiations due to related project. Opposition: Expected to reach agreement late SUmmer 2003. i 0 Has your City Council Approved
the Project? o Has Any Opposition been encountered? Other General Related project is an apartment complex housing Comments: 100 families. 
􀁾􀁏􀀠1$1: 1 1$0,00 I Part 9. Project Cost Paving and Drainage: Design: 11225,15000 1 Total Project 1$3.494.370.00 I Cost:Right OtWay Cost:[ $531,000.00 Bridge: I _ Utility/Amenities:*"$15,000,00Ligh
ting: SUE: 1$35,550.00 1 Utility/Amenities:1$15,OOO,QO ! Shared Cost= 1$3,479,370,00 I Signal: Subtotal 2= $3,176,700,00 Percent of Local Contribution 􀁾%Railroad: Subtotal 1= $1,975,000,00
Project Delivery: $317,670,00 Inflation: $355,500.00 City's Share: 1$1,739,685.00 I Maten.ls Testing: $39,500,00 SUpporting Comments I Construction Total $2,370,000.00 Regarding Cost:
-Utlhtly/Amenities costs typically borne by CIty I . . .10. Please submit maps and supportmg documents deplctmg the project and needs. Sketches are also welcome and appreciated. 
Dallas County Major Capital Improvement Program (MCIP) Application Instructions The fullowing instructions provide a detailed description ofthe information requested for each field within
the MS ACcess 971'M-based Project Application, The application was designed to solicit sufficient information to convey a thorough understanding ofeach proposed project. Itis recommended
that a team composed ofPlanners, Engineers, and Right OfWay agents be assembled to completely fill-out the application for each proposed project. Additionally, cities are strongly encouraged
to submit all available documents on the proposed project such as design plans, ROW parcel acquisition/donations, and preliminary engineering specifications, in order to assist the County
in the project cost estimation, evaluation, and selection process. Table ofContents : , : Application Process Steps Page Number: Step 1: Accessing the Application 2 Step 2: Entering
Contact Information and Navigating MS Access 971'M 2 Step 3: Entering Project Information 3 Step 4: Submitting your Applications to Dallas County 4 , 1 Paper Submittal ofall Applications
and Cover Sheet 4 , i 2 Electronic Submittal ofDatabase 5 Individual Field Identification , Part 1. Traffic 7 Part 2. Pavement 8 Part 3. Drainage 9 Part 4. Utilities 10 Part 5. ROW Acquisition
10 Part 6. Amenities to the Project 11 Part 7. Other Amenities to the Project 13 Part 8. Public Involvement 14 Part 9. Total Project Cost 14 I i 
Step 1: Accessing the Application Because this application is being distributed on a CD, you will need to save a copy' ofthe application to your hard drive in order to save any entries
you make to the form. It is also recommended that you save these instructions in the same folder for quick reference. Step 2: Entering Contact Information and Navigating MS Access 97™
After you copy the contents ofthe CD to your hard drive, you are ready to launch the '2003 MCIP Application' Database. Open it up and find the Forms tab (Pink circle). Click on the Forms
tab. In the Forms tab you will see a form called "City Information". Point the cursor to this form and double click on it to open it. Once you open the "City Information" form, you will
see a space to enter your city's name, the project contact person's name, email.mailing address, and phone numbers. You can advance along the form by using your keyboard "Tab" key or
the point-and-click method. Upon completion ofthis form, you may close the 'City Information' form by clicking on the "X" in the upper right comer ofthe form window. The data you entered
will automatically be saved. Be sure to click on the lower "X" as clicking on the upper "X" will close the MS Access application. 2 
Step 3: Entering Project Infonnation You are now ready to begin filling out the project information. Once again, looking at the Forms tab, you want to open up the 'Application' form
Upon double clicking on 'Application', the following should appear: Beolrirv Urmseding Road 1 i 􀁅􀁾􀀠Ilnietsedi\g Ro.!Id 2 MAPSCO; 􀁾􀀠Pmfecl:Le:rdh: 11..B?5 IMieI 􀁆􀁾􀁃􀁬􀁡􀁳􀀺􀁳􀀺􀀠􀁉􀁎􀁯􀁴􀁯􀁮􀁒
􀁥􀀦􀁩􀁯􀁍􀁾􀀠AYeNtIIl'OfAociderbforIM13yea1ti: Widen from 2to 􀀴􀁬􀁡􀁮􀁥􀁳􀁾with storm sewer improvements. Add 6' wide sidewafks to both lili Part 2. Pavement and Centerline Alignment
I(lane dfmed. fI 􀁰􀁾􀁯􀁾􀁾􀀠Existing", Z·lZ_ sidesl PrGp(lS2d P.wemeri Sectlcn IFar Part 1. Projeclldenlilioation MQPN'-: rr::::J _ 􀁾􀀠QI)c lo_CMIy _N""""-"""""" lEl<ample Lane Notice
that the first record has been filled out. This has been provided as an example only ofthe kinds of responses requested for each question. Whenever you are unsure ofwhat to enter into
a field, you can press the button on the bottom left corner ofthe screen that has a green circle around it above. It is a bar line with a left arrow next to it. This button brings you
back to the. fITst record, which in this case is the example record. Once you have looked at the field in question, press the right arrow bar line (yellow circle) and it will take you
to the last record in the database, which in a sequential order ofinput would be the one you were just working on. Additionally, the button with the left and right arrows alone allow
you to go through your applications in order of input either backwards or forwards respectively The scroll bar on the right side ofthe form allows you to go up and down on the application
form Take a moment to scroll down to the end ofthe example application noticing the number ofparts (sections) in this application and the types ofquestions requested in each. Upon becoming
familiar with the application you are now ready to enter the information for your first application. Press the Right Arrow Star button that is located to the right ofthe yellow circle
above. This button means a new record will now be entered. At this point the number between the arrows we have been looking at will change to 2. This number will change sequentially
as more projects are added. The screen at this point should show the following: 3 
Part 1. Project Identification MOP "umbo< 􀁾􀀠D.1ri<± rn==J Ci)< I Projtct.Nme/l..oc.aWrr I I 􀁂􀁾􀀠Pro""l.o""" L=.J"'''' Part 2. Point yom cUTSOrto the District field and begin entering
your project-specific information. After entering the nmnber ofthe Dallas COIll1ty district in which the project is located, you can move ahead by pressing the 'Tab' key. Once you have
tabbed your way to the bottom ofthe application and filled in all ofyour project information, pressing tab again will automatically start a new record for you. At that point you will
see that the nmnber in the bottom ofthe screen between the arrow boxes (purple circle) increased by one. Continue filling in all project information. You can leave offand come back to
any and all applications as time permits. Ifthe example alone (record 1) does not provide a clear enough explanation ofthe desired input, you can also access explanations to each field
in the "Individual Field Identification" instructions provided below. Step 4: Submitting your Applications to Dallas County Congratulations! You have now entered all ofyour project information
and saved it to your hard drive, or network computer. The task at hand now is to get the information back to Dallas County in time for the submission deadline. The following two things
should be provided to Dallas County: 1) Paper Submittal ofall Applications and Cover Sheet: Go to the "Reports" Tab in the Access Application. You will see two reports labeled '2003
MCIP Application' and'Application Cover Page'. Open each up one at a time and print both out. Be sme to Preview each report to en5me the margins are set correctly on your computer so
that you do not end up with wasted paper. Each application should print out on three sheets ofpaper. Some ofthe fields may not print out the inputted text in its entirety. Do not worry
about those fields, part two ofthe submittal will provide us with the hidden information is for. 4 
The 'Application Cover Page' will show your main contact information and should display the correct number ofapplications you are submitting. Upon verification ofthose items, preview
the report and print it out. Ifthere are any errors in the data, they can be corrected in the Forms tab where you originally entered your city's contact information. Ifthe number being
represented as number ofsubmittals is incorrect, simply cross it out on your paper copy and write the correct number in. You will be mailing in this packet ofinformation, together with
any supporting data such as maps, titles, etc. to Dallas County Public Works, care ofDr. Edith Ngwa. The i\ddress should have printed out with your 'Application Cover Page' as a separate
sheet. 2) Electronic Submittal ofDatabase Dallas County also needs to receive the database in an electronic format along with the paper copy. Since the application file will be too large
to email, you will have to burn it onto a CD. Those cities with CD burners will be able to burn burn their completed copy ofthe 2003 MCIP Application back onto the original CD for submittal
to Dallas County (preferred Method) and include it in the same package as the paper copies. Ifyou do not have a CD burner, you can try zipping the file onto a diskette or emailing it
in its zipped state. Ifneither ofthese work, the next option would be to convert the individual tables into an Excel spreadsheet and email them to Dallas County. You can convert the
tables into Excel by doing the following: Go to the Tables Tab. You will see two tables in this tab called 'City Intbrmation' and 'Data'. Highlight the 'City Information' tab as shown
below. Right click on 'City Information' once. Next, select "Save As/Export". Make sure the "To an External File or Database" button is selected and click OK. Change the file name to
"City of[Your City Name] Information" and the file type to Excel as shown below: 5 
Click Export and repeat for the 'Data' Table as well, renaming it 'Data for the City of [Your City Name l'. The Excel spreadsheets created should be substantially smaller and fit into
a diskette or email format. If again, they are not, call me (IseIaRodriguez) at (214) 653-7151. 6 
Individual Field Identification Part 1. Project Identification This field will be populated automatieally and requires no input on the part of the City. Dallas County Commissioners'
District in which project is located (1-4) CitY; The City submitting the application Street on which project is located and one word explanation (Widening, Repaving, etc.) For linear
projects, enter the point ofbeginning; fur intersections, enter the cross-strect Endiitgl For intersections, entIY NtA Give the project location in the MAPSCO 􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁪􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁾􀁮􀁧􀁴􀁬􀁬􀀮􀁩􀀠
Length in miles. For intIYsections, enter 0.25 miles 􀁆􀁄􀁮􀁣􀁩􀁩􀁯􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁩􀀨􀁃􀁉􀁾􀁩􀀠 Select 2001 Regional Thoroughfare Plan classification According to NCTCOG ofproject strect from
the drop down menu: Freeway, Regional Arterial; OthIY Arterial; Not on Regional Thoroughfare Plan Based on police accident records, state the average number of accidents that have oceurred
in the proposed project location in the last 3 years. CondenseilDesCrlptlOio'f Prop9Sed 􀁉􀀡􀁮􀁰􀁾􀀡􀀡􀀮􀁖􀀡􀁬􀁭􀁪􀁬􀁬􀀡􀁴􀁳􀀠i Fully describe the proposed project concisely. Part 2.
Pavement and Centerline Alignment Number and width oflanes. Iflmown, indicate ifthe road is to be divided (0) or undivided (U). Select the condition of the roadway from the drop down
list -Exeellent, Good, Fair, Or Poor. List the order ofprecedence ofdesign standards, Some ofthe standards are TxDOT. NTCOG, City and AASHTO standards. An example would be City of Dallas,
NTCOG and TxDOT, This example says that the City ofDallas standards are over NCTCOG which is over TxDOT. Ifa specifie city standard is not used the county will assume to use the City
ofDallas standards. 7 
For existing roadway -list the width ofpavement. Examples are 2-11 ft. lanes or 3-lOft. lanes or 24 ft. For proposed roadway -list the nwnber and width of the lanes. The width should
be in feet. 􀀡􀀬􀀮􀁾􀁶􀁥􀀧􀁩􀀡􀁴􀁾􀀨􀀤􀁩􀁩􀀡􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁩􀀮􀁩􀀩􀁰􀁥􀀠& Thickness! For the existing roadway -list the surface type ofthe road and its thickness in inches. Examples are asphalt,
asphalt over concrete or concrete pavement. For the proposed roadway -Enter the type ofpavement surface desired and its thickness. 􀀡􀀬􀁡􀁩􀁾􀀡􀀾􀀡􀀧􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁾􀁪􀁪􀁪􀁓􀁩􀁴􀁙􀁐􀁥􀀧􀁾1liidmess:
For the existing roadway, enter the thickness in inches of the base pavement and its type. Ifthe current pavement thickness is unknown. state unknown. For the proposed roadway enter
the minimwn pavement thickness and type. 􀀡􀀬􀁩􀀡􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁧􀁲􀁩􀁤􀁾􀁾& Thidmessi For the existing roadway, enter the thickness in inches ofthe pavement subgrade and its type. Ifthe
current pavement thickness and material are unknown, state unknown. For the proposed roadway enler the minimwn subgrade pavement thickness and type. In feet, state the width ofRighi
ofWay from the back ofthe curb to the Right of way line. If no curbs, state the distance from the edge ofthe pavement to the RighI ofWay line along with no curbs. The parkwayusuaUy conlains
the sidewalk and the utilities such as electric, gas, water meters and cleanoulS. If the parkway width is not the same on each side ofthe road state such. An example is lOft E and 14
ft. W which means 10 feet on the East side and 14 feet on the west side ofthe road. Ifno sidewalks, enter "0"; ifsidewalks on one side, indicate whicb side (L,R,N,S,E,W)and width in
reet; ifsidewalks on both sides, enter "2"and width ofeach in teet. Eg.: 2, 6' means there are 6 foot sidewalks on both sides. For corridors, use the minimwn nwnber ofthrough lanes in
both directions anywhere within the project limits. For example. a roadway that at its narrowest provides for one lane ofthrough traffic in each direction would be encoded as "2". Note
that dual left turn lanes or auxiliary lanes are not included. For intersections, use the maximwn number oflanes available fur through traffic fur the direction with the minimum nwnber
oflanes, induding shared lanes. For example. an intersection thai provides for 3 through or shared /through lanes in one direction but owytwo in the other would be encoded as "2". Notethat
exclusive tum lanes are not included in this count For corridors: rel!ects the presence ofcontinuous left turn lanes or bays at every intersection. For intersections: this value is the
maximum number ofexclusive or shared left lanes on the approach with the minimum number ofleft tum lanes. (See comment for through lanes) What is the length ofthe lei! tum storage bay
in feet? For corridors: rel!ects the presence ofauxiliary acceJ/decel and right turn lanes. For intersections: enter the maximwn number ofright tum 8 
􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁤􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁩􀁮􀁥􀁩􀀡􀁾􀀠J.\.􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁧􀁥􀂷􀁅􀀬􀁾􀁩􀁃􀁩􀀮􀁥􀁾􀁾􀁃􀀮􀀢􀁩􀁩􀀠􀁁􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁡􀁧􀁬􀁩􀀮􀁾􀁩􀁪􀁩􀁾􀁾􀀡􀁾􀁩􀀠Is centerline 􀁡􀁩􀁩􀁧􀁬􀁩􀁥􀁤􀁩􀁄􀁩􀀻􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁾􀀠of ROW? Ifnot,
how niuch iii it offset from 􀁴􀁢􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁮􀁾􀁲and, 􀁾􀀠whicb side?: Part 3. Traffic DeSign Speed; 􀀺􀀴􀀮􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁧􀀢􀁰􀁯􀁓􀁴􀀧􀀻􀁾􀀮􀁳􀀮􀁐􀁩􀁾􀀻􀀠lanes (exclnsive and shared) on the approach
with the minimum number ofsuch lanes. For the existing roadway, stale the width in feet ofthe median ftom the inside edge ofthe pavement to the other inside edge ofthe pavement. Ifthere
is no! a median then state O. Por the proposed roadway state the desired width ofthe median in fuel. Ifno bicycle laoes, enter "0"; ifbicycle lanes on one side, indieate which side (L,R,N,S,E,W);
ifbicycle Iaoes on both sides, enter "2". After determining side, enter width oflaoes in feet. Eg.: 1 N, 12' (Bicycle facility on the north that is 12' wide.) If known state the average
amount ofmaterial to be removed in feet Ifknown state the average amount ofmaterial to be added in fuel. IdentifY the type ofrepair to be done by selecting ftom the drop down list, If
your repair type does not 1iill into any ofthe drop down list categories, type it in. State the size ofthe area to be repaired in sqnare fuel and linear feet ofedge. Yes t No. Check
the box fur yes. Ifit is not aligned, state in feet the distance ftom the roadway centerline to the midpoint ofthe Right ofWay, . Speed the roadway was designed for, Por corridors with
more than one speed limit, the average posted speed (in miles per hours) is the weighted average ofthe posted speeds. Por intersectiow;, enter the highest posted speed ofthe intersecting
roads. Operating speed at period ofpeak demand, in miles per hours, ea!cnlated by dividing the length ofthe project by the timereqnired (in hours) to traverse the projects, The average
daily Iraffie (adt) ofthe fucility to be improved. For new roadway fucilities, enter "NtA" The source oftraffic volume infurmation. For estimates, enter "Estimate"; fur real world data,
enter "Conn!" and the month and year ofthecounl 9 
Presence 􀁏􀁦􀁂􀁵􀁳􀀺􀁡􀁮􀁤􀁌􀁾􀁩􀀧􀀱􀀡􀁾􀀠􀁔􀁲􀁵􀁤􀀼􀀮􀁔􀁲􀁾􀁩􀀠Oieck the box ifthe project is on a roadway that experiences bus or heavy traffic. Leave box unchecked ifit does not
have heavy vehicles on it Pal"t 4. Drainage State what stonn sewer or drainage mannal are proposed. Is no stonn sewer is needed then state N/A Ifa stonn sewer is to he installed and
the city does not have their own manual then use the City ofDallas Manual. State number and dimension ofexisting and proposed culverts. If none exists and/or is being proposed, enter
"NIl\:' Bridge 􀁬􀁥􀁮􀁩􀁩􀁴􀀱􀀡􀀳􀁩􀀱􀁾􀁷􀁉􀁪􀁪􀁴􀀮􀁨􀀮􀁬􀁓􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁥􀀠length and width ofexisting and proposed bridge. Ifnone exists andlor is heing proposed, enter "NIAU Part 5. 1. itilities
For eachofthe following utilities, please check ifit exists in the proposed project. Water Lines: 􀀺􀁩􀁩􀀡􀁩􀁩􀀡􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁊􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀠Gas Lines: 􀁾􀁊􀁪􀁩􀁜􀁥􀁳􀁩􀀠Storm Sewer: 􀁔􀀺􀀢􀀻􀁩􀁩􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁩􀁬􀁩􀁩􀁘􀁪�
�􀁩􀁾􀀻􀀠Sanitary SilWeri .. ·..·ir·..􀂷􀂷􀂷􀂷􀁾􀂷􀂷􀂷􀀭􀂷􀂷􀀠_ ....,y.!!. 􀁥􀁥􀁲􀁧􀁊􀀻􀀡􀁜􀁉􀁬􀀱􀀱􀁾􀀠Y!l)1lts:, c::alile: 􀁅􀁬􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁲􀁩􀁣􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁳􀁩􀀠Other Unde!g;.Oinid.Jri:i!i!i.liSi
Please state any other utilities not listed above that exist in the proposed project location State any known risks for utility partners Oieck ifutilities exist on street ROWand leave
blank ifthey do'not Utilities 􀁯􀁷􀁩􀁪􀁪􀁨􀁲􀁩􀁲􀀺􀀻􀁩􀁩􀀺􀁛􀀧􀁴􀁩􀁩􀀡􀁊􀁩􀀻􀁩􀁩􀀡􀁩􀁪􀀻􀁦􀁾􀁩􀀡􀁾􀀡􀁾􀀮􀀱􀀮􀁊􀁊􀁩􀁾􀁴􀀡􀁩􀀠Oieck the box ifutilities are located on their own ROW or
have an existing easement and "No" ifutilities are located on street ROW 10 
relocation from lhe project ROW Check lhe box ifSUE will be needed Please state any olher concerns or special consider:ations for utility Part 6. RO\V Acquisition IA Safety Check if1he
fullowing exist or are proposed as part oflhe project. 􀁔􀁲􀁡􀁾􀀧􀀮􀁬􀁈􀁪􀁩􀁁􀀡􀁴􀁪􀀧􀀡􀁾􀁳􀀩􀁩􀀠Scll(iol; 􀁏􀁬􀀱􀁩􀁾􀁣􀁨􀁬􀀠State any other safety issue lhat might exist io the proposed
project location IB. Enviroomental Check iflhe fullowing exist I apply io lhe proposed project. Please iodicate the FIRM Panel number io lhe "Comments ofROW AvailabilnyfEasemenUf'Ekr.<
Lake! ifpreseot, iodieate proximity (io feet) ofa lake to the project io the "Comments ofROW AvailabilityfEasements" Box. Ifproject crosses lake, please say so. Please iodicate location
and organjzation that bestowed lhe designation io the "Comments ofROW AvailabilityfEasements" Box Please iodicate name ofcemetery and contact person ifknown io lhe "Comments ofROW AvailabilityfEaseme
nts" Box Please iodicate ifjunkyard is present and any contact iofurmation known known io lhe "Comments ofROW AvailabilityfEasements" Box 􀁏􀁴􀁬􀁩􀁾􀁩􀁩􀀠 State any other environmental
issue lhat might exist io lhe proposed project location and contacts ifknown IC. Right of Way Who is lhe person to contact for ROW questions io your organization? What is the ROW contact's
phone number? 11 
This is the width ofthe road right ofway before the project. lethe width is variable please include a map to indieate the varied widths with your project submittal. This is the amount
ofright ofway that it will required to complete the project Number ofProper1ies that will be impacted by the project. Please include easements in this number. What is the acquisition
fee? Permanent 􀁅􀁾􀁮􀀮􀁾􀁴􀀺􀀠State ifthere is a permanent easement Temporary Ea"se;m!irt; State ifthere is a temporary easement Number 􀁯􀁦􀁂􀁬􀁓􀁥􀁉􀀺􀀡􀁾􀁩􀀠HODS..; Enter the number
ofhouses being bisected. Commerciai Bulldlngsi Enter the number ofcommercial buildings being bisected. Comments oft ROW AyailabiJityiPlease indicate anyproper1ies that may be a dedicaiOll
possibility or that are known to be against the project being completed. D. General Acquisition Costs Estiinatid 􀁃􀁏􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁩􀁴􀀭􀀧􀀭􀁌􀁩􀁩􀀮􀁩􀁩􀁾􀀮􀀹􀁩􀀡􀀡􀁙􀀻􀀠 An estimate ofthe
consideration due the land owners fur the land to be acquired without reguard to improvements or damages .. . . ......... __•...._.,.,•., J Cost. of Imp .. 􀀨􀀩􀁶􀁥􀀮􀁭􀀡􀁮􀁈􀁮􀀮􀁬􀀡􀀬􀀨􀀩􀁗􀁾􀀠The
compensation due to the land owners for the improvements with in the acquisition area. This will include Landscaping, driveways and olller flatwork, fencing, and all olller improvements
in Ille acquisitioll area. 12 
State cost ofdamages State cost ofbisection Subtotal ofall above costs (Automatieally added up. Ifnothing is shown, be sure $0 are entered where no costs will accrue above. Cost ofinflation
over 6 years. Total costs ofall ROW items above, plus inflation List and 􀁥􀁩􀁪􀁩􀁩􀀳􀁩􀁩􀀡􀁩􀀡􀁊􀁩􀁹􀁾􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁾􀁃􀀱􀀩􀀽􀁮􀁦􀁯􀁾􀀡􀁹􀁩􀁓􀁓􀀡􀁩􀁾􀁳􀀻􀀠Ex. Contaminated Soil, serviee
stations, fuel tanks, landfills, noise walls, trailer parks, tree ordinances, etc. Part 7. Other Amenities to the Pro.iect Please checl<: ifthe following amenities are proposed as part
ofthe project. The cost of items with asterisks may not be covered by Dallas County. Landscapiitii ExPosed 􀁁􀁧􀁧􀁩􀁭􀁾􀁊􀁬􀀩􀀡􀁩􀁩􀁶􀁥􀁩􀀺􀁩􀁹􀁳􀀬􀁓􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁩􀁶􀀳􀁩􀁫􀁳􀀻􀀠 􀁓􀁴􀁡􀁭􀁰􀁥􀁤􀀡􀀨􀀺􀁯􀁩􀁯�
�􀀺􀁥􀁦􀁛􀁾􀁯􀁩􀁩􀀮􀁣􀁾􀁾􀁥􀀻􀀠 Irrigation: Brick 􀁐􀁡􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀻􀀠Street Ligb.iI!ig: 􀀱􀀺􀁲􀁡􀁭􀁩􀁾􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁡􀁩􀁩􀁬􀀠.......... 􀀬􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀻􀁊􀀠 Pavement 􀁾􀁬􀁤􀀮􀀡􀁴􀁧􀁳􀁾􀀠􀁪􀁪􀁾􀁔􀁂􀀮􀀡􀀡􀁳�
�􀀧􀁩􀂷􀀡􀁩􀁩􀁬􀀡􀀡􀁬􀁾􀁬􀁬􀀠BUs 􀁓􀁴􀁯􀁩􀁾􀀻􀁩􀀡􀀺􀂧􀀱􀁩􀁝􀁩􀂧􀁩􀀮􀀢􀂧􀁬􀀠􀁗􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁕􀁴􀀡􀀡􀁩􀁴􀁙􀀡􀁉􀀡􀁬􀁰􀀡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁊􀁬􀁉􀁬􀀱􀁾􀁩􀁩􀁪􀁓􀁬􀀠 13 
􀁒􀁥􀁴􀁡􀁢􀁩􀁩􀀢􀁧􀁽􀀡􀁾􀀻􀀠Sod,Se¢ii!i:Xops.91!.i 􀁄􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁄􀁾􀁾􀁰􀁲􀀹􀀡􀁥􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁥􀁬􀀺􀁩􀁾􀁩􀀠􀁒􀁒􀁃􀁲􀁰􀁓􀁳􀁪􀀺􀁮􀁧􀀡􀁊􀁩􀁗􀀺􀀬􀀺􀀺􀁯􀁹􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁬􀁬􀀻􀁾􀁴􀁳􀀺􀀠Grade 8eliarijioJ\S;
Ramps 􀁯􀁾􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁮􀁩􀁩􀁩􀀺􀁴􀁩􀁩􀁲􀁳􀁪􀁯􀀧􀁴􀁸􀀺􀁄􀀮􀁯􀁴􀁾􀁾􀀹􀂻􀁴􀁩􀁥􀁩􀀻􀀧􀀠Part 8. Public Involvement Bas 􀁹􀁏􀁏􀁲􀁾􀁃􀀡􀀮􀁴􀁙􀀵􀀬􀀺􀀺􀁯􀁮􀁮􀁾􀁦􀀺􀁁􀁐􀁰􀁲􀁩􀁩􀁖􀁥􀀡􀁩􀁪􀁾􀁥􀁾􀀡􀀺􀁯􀁪􀁥􀀮􀁾􀁦􀁴􀀻􀀠
Check ifYes. Bas..any(JppiiSit!on J:i!!lill 􀁥􀁩􀁩􀁃􀁏􀀡􀁩􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁥􀁩􀁩􀁦􀁩􀀠Check ifYes. Commentf(ii:l􀁑􀁐􀁰􀁏􀀺􀁳􀁬􀁴􀁩􀁾􀁬􀁉􀀺􀀠State the nature ofthe opposition encountered, ifany
Other 􀁾􀁩􀁩􀁥􀁲􀁬􀁩􀁬􀀮Comments, State any additional comments you may have on public involvement Part 9. Total Project Cost Paving and Drairuige cOst i Includes paving, drainage, sidewalks,
bike lanes, and handicap ramps Bridge: Cost ofbridge (Typically $60/Sq. Pt._ Lighting: Cost oflighting (Typically $3800 I light based on one light per 200 fuet) Signal' Cost ofsignals
R.a.ikood; Railroad cost (Typically $200,000 fur 4 lanes or $300,000 for 6 lanes) SnbtOiall; Cost ofpaving and drainage +Bridge Cost + Lighting Cost + Signal Cost + Railroad Cost (if
any). InfIatioiii 3% I year X 6 years X Subtotal I Mater!Iili)'e,;tiiig: 2% X Subtotal I 􀁃􀁯􀁮􀁩􀁩􀁩􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁮􀀺􀁩􀁾􀁩􀀠 Subtotal I +Inflation +Material Testing Design i Cost ofdesign
(11% X Construction Total ifConstruction Total is $1 million or less 9.5% X Construction Total ifConstruction Total is between $1 million and $5 million 7% X Construction Total ifConstruction
Total is between $5 milliou and $25 million) 14 
Total cost ofROW, carried over from ROW section automatically Cost ofSub-surfuce Utility Engineering (Typically 0 to 1.5%, depending on utilities involved in the project, X ConsIrnction
Total.) 􀀡􀁛􀁴􀁩􀁬􀁩􀁦􀁙􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀡􀁉􀁉􀁾􀀠 Cost ofutility will be added to only city share oftotal project cost 􀁾􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀭􀀢􀀧􀀱􀀠Subtotal 1 +Construction Total Pr-··ectDelive "'ciiSf,
10% X Subtotal 2 􀁾􀀮􀀡􀀧􀀡􀀺􀀡􀁾..􀀺􀁴􀁾􀀠-...gj-.-----ry"...... 􀁾􀀠􀁦􀁾􀁪􀀡􀁾􀀮􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁩􀀡􀁓􀁦􀀮􀁩􀀠 Total ofall project costs above Total project cost less cost ofUtilityi Amenities
􀁾􀁊􀀡􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁩􀀠􀁴􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁩􀀮􀁄􀁦􀀮􀁯􀁲􀁾􀁴􀀡􀁩􀁩􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁲􀁴􀁲􀁩􀀡􀁩􀁾􀁏􀀧􀁬􀁉􀀺􀀮􀀠Tbepercent ofthe total project cost your city is willing to contribute Tbe share oftotal cost
bome by the city, based on percent ofloeal contribution 􀁾􀁵􀁰􀁰􀀹􀁩􀁪􀀨􀁲􀁬􀁧􀁾􀁩....􀁩􀁮􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁩􀁩􀀡􀁴􀁾􀁧􀁭􀀺􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁩􀀡􀁩􀀨􀀺􀁾􀀠State any other supporting comments regarding project
cost. For example, ifcity has already paid for design cost and plans exist, or city will will pay for the entire cost ofutilityrcloeation, etc. Please do not forget to mail your supporting
documents! 􀁾􀀻􀀠 15