-. -.' I • 
:..., SWV3B-n 􀁓􀁖􀁘􀀳􀁾􀀠 
URS Corporation Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Design Development and Contract Documents Change Order No. 03 to Work Order No. 001 ATTACHMENT M Revised Estimated S.nedule ITASK '''UN
􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁐􀁬􀀠􀁾􀁐􀁆􀁏􀁾􀁳􀀠􀁩􀁾􀀠• Review • ••• -.1& NTP REQ'D INFORMATION FROM TOWN'S CONSULTANT SUBMITTAL 
URS Corporation Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Design Development and Contract Documents Change Order No. 03 to Work Order No. 001 ATTACHMENT M Revised Estimated Schedule TASK "Yo.
2 􀁏􀁾􀁬􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀠2 􀁾􀁉􀁏􀀠I (NTP) • Issues INTP For Prelim. DeSign 'Desiign I al Arch , Bridge 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁐􀁬􀁡􀁮􀁳􀁬􀀠• Review , Town Council IRevise 􀁾􀀠• 10 Town Council , DeSign IFinal
I Report IFinal I Plans 'inal Desion , Desion 􀁾􀁡􀁬(60% Plans) • Review •10 Town Council Bridge I Final Desig n & ' Final Desio n I (95% Plans) , • Review Signed and 􀁓􀁥􀁡􀁬􀁥􀁤􀁾􀀠2
002 • 2 002 1 2 􀁊􀁾􀁮􀁵􀁾􀁲􀁹3 2 0 0"3 12 􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁾􀁨􀀠3 􀁾􀀠2 􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁧􀀠3 12 􀁾􀁡􀁾􀀠3 12 􀁾􀁵􀁮􀁾􀀠3 2 􀁩􀁕􀁉􀁾􀀠3 12 􀁁􀁾􀀹􀁾􀁓􀁉􀀠3 2 '0 0 3 1 2 􀁏􀁾􀁬􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁲3 2 0 0 3 12 0 0 3
􀀯􀁡􀁾􀁵􀁾􀁲􀁹􀀠4 2 0 0"4 12 􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁾􀁨􀀠4 2 􀁾􀁰􀁾􀀠4 2 􀁾􀁡􀁹􀁯􀀠􀁾􀀠•􀁾􀀠• .. • • 􀁾􀀠-"I • 􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀠• NTP • REQ'D INFORMATION FROM TOWN'S CONSULTANT • SUBMITTAL ", 
.Jk '1) 􀁾􀀠URS Cerperatien IS 􀁾􀀠Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road 􀁾􀀠"Design lDevelopment and Contract Documents 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠Change IIrder No, 03 to Work Order No, 001 .'C! '-l ATTACHMENT
M 􀁾􀀠J-Revised Estimated Schedule 􀁾􀀠TASK "v.. 2 􀁯􀁾􀁴􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁲2 12 0 () 2 2()()2 12 􀁊􀁾􀁮􀁵􀁾􀁲􀁹􀀠3 12 () 0"'3 2 􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁾􀁨􀀠3 2 􀁾􀁰􀁾􀀠3 2 􀁾􀁡􀁾􀀠3 2 􀁾􀁵􀁮􀁾􀀠3 2 􀁾􀁕􀁉􀁾􀀠3
2 􀁁􀁾􀀹􀁾􀁴􀀠3 120()3 12 􀁯􀁾􀁴􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁲3 2 0 () 3 12 () 3 􀀲􀁊􀁡􀁾􀁵􀁾􀁲􀁹􀀠41200"'4 12 􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁾􀁨􀀠4 2 􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁾􀀠4 2 􀁾􀁡􀁹􀀨􀀩􀀠4 ii;eto I I 􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀾􀁥􀁳􀀠􀁾􀀠,For Prelim, Desion
•rv Desion \, •1at Arch I. 0 , Bridge 􀀮􀀮􀁬􀁾􀀠IExpert ' , .j" IFin.1 , (-30% Plans) • I,v , Revlev ,'U Town • 'I {evise' ,10 Town • \ Revise , Design 􀁾Design 􀁾􀁥􀁰􀁯􀁲􀁴􀀠•• Design
I 160% Plans) •, Review -,loTown , 􀁾􀁄􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁡􀁯􀁥􀀠•I Desion&' 􀁾Final Desion •,Review -,( ,Final PS&E -land Sealed PS&E (100%) • • NTP • REQ'D INFORMATION FROM TOWN'S CONSULTANT
• SUBMITTAL AI [/£S 
620 : : ---!-----,-----,----1-: : ---,-----1 ,, j' : : i :l :L: :;:.--,.------+--+.--<,------>__+__ 1;_____ ------I--·-I---+---!,---+------I ,---􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀬􀀭􀀭􀂷􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀮􀂷􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀱􀀭
􀀭􀂷􀀫􀀭􀀭􀁩􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀂷􀀭􀁌􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀻􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁊􀁌___,,---+---------! i l: : : :: : : : --+: : I', " " :, : : :,+---+--..,----+--.+-.-.---,---r--+---1---+ --1---+--,,-----,.
--+----􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭"-----."------;---,--.-;---,􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁦􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀱􀀠: 􀁾􀀠i : 􀁾􀀠: i :-r----1----1--· --+---+---,--. ---':"---__
+_+___ .: ___.__ <: ____1___., ___ ---1----11----'--"" 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀡􀀾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁩􀀺􀀠:i i-! :'-----+--!--i : ' ; ; " ::: : : :---:---􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀂭---1--'
,---'--'-: ___ +__ _ ;:, : : ; , ii' : ' f----<' __._c_ -,---,. --.-_L__ --.; -__L_ ,-.,' -----+-+----i. --+---, -􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠--+---1----., ---1--.-.----il---•.--1--.!---,-1----11--------r--+·--r':'---
---+----1--·+----11---L--,----..'.--1---;'--1-----i---""--';.---.,..--t--L-iiii I I ! i -:,., __ ."; ___,.__ 1.:-+---+--+---i---+ __ .__ ; ; ! ! Ii ---..'.---t---,..---'---___ , --i----,
___ :___ 1__ . : __ _,i-.-!c---i----I----+--+---+--+--,e--+---i-!---/-'--'!---i---i----------I------tT----'--+--'----tT----r-: ... , ,-,_c,-c I I I I I I I I I I 􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁦􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁦􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀂭: ---.,--. ---,------+--+--i-:--cl---i-, -----+-----+-----+--.------'----􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀂭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀂭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀂭,-------1---'---·,------1
----;.--,·----;.---1---I I I I r II I I Ii,:: I J : : _+:__: : _L i _L :: : 􀁦􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀻􀁟􀀭􀀭􀁟􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀬􀀭􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁔􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀂷􀀭􀀭􀀭􀂷􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀁔􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀻􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀫􀂭-----+------1-------I i', 􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀠􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭-----'1-'-+'---1---1'----1------+--,+-,+--1'---' I
: I I I I! ! I I t I I !: I : I I I I I I I I ; ---:-,􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀺􀀬􀀺􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀻􀀧􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁌􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀁣􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭-+--:.--___;:___
.J___;. ___ 􀁾___ ;i___ +______ 1 ___ : __ ,; ______1---------1---+--1----11----------,.---,1---:------1---1------·1---1----,------1--' :--: ; , ---r ! ' : ! !! ! ::: : : : : : I I I
I :, : : j ,I Iii : : : ; , -.'-----f---' , , 􀀫􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀭􀁦􀀭􀁾􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀢􀁾􀀢􀀧􀀫􀁾􀁾􀀩􀁉􀀧􀁾􀁮􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀭􀀴__􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾__􀁾􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀠, !, -, i-------·i'-------;--
----, T", , , , , --'1---------, ': ': I I I I ! I I ,I I I I I I I:: : I ! I I I I I I I I I I l ! 1 1 􀁟􀁾􀁟􀀬􀀠i I : I! ! : : 1! 􀁾􀁉􀁊􀀽􀀠: --'-.',---1-, " "--+--", ----,,-,II ---,---[--:--I---t-
--I---, ---1----·,--1---.-----------1-------:---;--1--+-1--+-----:---1---1'--11+1I I I I : I I I Ii: : : : : 􀁾􀀠__ C. -: 􀁷􀁾􀀭􀀧''''_ 11 '1t. 'mr II : , : I' 􀁾􀀠N : : : I;: :---I
un" 􀀫􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀻􀀮􀀧􀁾􀁾􀀼􀀫􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀷􀀧􀀮􀀬􀀮􀁉􀀯􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀻􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀻􀂭-+,-l,!lr'2cr,l+5-=""b-----r-----i----'----r--I--f 􀁾􀀠Upl ---r-----r-----,:----I---,:--..􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀻􀀭􀀭�
�-r--+---'---620 􀀶􀀠􀀧􀁾I;) 
--.---+--r-+----:--l=rn------,--I I i I I __1_____1___1___ 1_____1___ I I I I I I I I I I I I , 'l! 􀀱􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀱􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀠􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭􀁟􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀬􀀠I I I I i'-'I I i
--I I ! I I I I-1---:--􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀡􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀁾􀀭I I : I I I 􀁾􀀠I ;: j I I 􀀮􀁾.. 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭--i---I---1-'--t---'t---I---i---I---'t-----t--l
I I I I I : I, :j; I􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀠4--+---,--+--+--+--+I I I I I I I :!i -c--!! : 􀁾􀀠: ----+--!---􀀭􀀭􀀭􀂷􀀡􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠-----!--I ,􀁾􀀠:: 􀁾􀀠: 􀀭􀀭􀀬􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀡􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀭􀂷􀂷􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭:
I I I-----r--'---I , , I1-----.L--r--1---r--l-----1---HI I I I I. I :: 􀁾􀀠I ---i---􀁦􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀻􀀭􀀭􀀭--.--+--'t--+I 􀁾􀀠I I I [r I : : : ! I I1--------1 t----1---􀀭􀀭􀁔􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁔􀀭􀀭􀀭--1-----r---
+I "1I I I I I I------,--+--i-----t----T---i-TI I I .______ ____ J. iLl 1 J I I I I J I I I -------j-"----i-----i-----t----1-----1-----i--·-----+----1l ·---+----t--; ------􀀭􀂷􀀭􀀭􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁦􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀱�
�􀀭􀁾􀀠􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭I I I I I I I I . ________.L_ . _______1____ I I! I I I I I ----􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁦􀁟􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀱􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭I
I! 1 ! I Ii! I 􀁟􀁌􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁟􀁟􀀠I I I I I I I I I ! I !! I I I I I J------;---1--;'------;-----,------;-----,-----'1"--, "" ! I I ; 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀡􀀠I I II I I!------r:􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭.. --·i---􀀭􀀭􀁩􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀂷􀂷􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀂷􀁲􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠--i--, I I I;I 'I I I i 􀁟􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠I I I I I I I I I I I I--l------i-----1-----1---' '--'r-----1---" --r-I ! I I I -T-----. I! I : : :
t l .,---....._--'1-----.,.,---􀀭􀀭􀀢􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀂷􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠: ; : :: , I j I I I ! I I--i---L---i __ ---i-----i---r-I I ! I 1 II I, I' 1 I 1 -----1---,--, : I I I I I I II J--.---I---t-----,-----r
---,--I i I I J I ! I 1 I I -: I I II I I I I --i---''---t-----i-----i---􀀭􀁾􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭I I;! I I! I , 1 : I ,I 1 .i I I 􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭--i----i-----f--j 1 I I 1 ; I J ---􀀫􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠i
r---T-i----+----'------+---'"I J--r----r-----,--I I I I LO C\J \.0 􀁾􀀠\.0 \.0 D"􀁾\.0 I ,I 1-+-+-1--++ j 1±l __1_____1___L__1_____I__ ___􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭. I I 1 I Ii: 1 : : ,, ---+-,,,
, I'---.j.-I I, I 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭I ,: I!'--T 􀁾􀀠___ l---__ l______ l_____1_____1_____ l__ I I I I I I I J I I II I I I I "i I I I I --,----:-------;--1--------;--I I I I I I I I I I -:
I I \ 1 I I I I--t------t----t-----t-----tIj I I I I I I I I 1 ,, -•. f. __ ,, f---1I----;,,___ .J. __ ,, I il'I'.:; I--"-m-----,----,--------+----..+ -..--1-----19 I I! I I I I.j...
I I :: "1' .,.: -{I I _ I I :,'" II I I 1--+---!---i---!--+--+--+--+-----+-----+------+--+----+-I I I ! f 1 :: i I I I -I I I I I I I . I I ,-----+---t----+--j-----+-----+--,--r-'r--t'
t I I I I I 1 I I I \ I I I I I \ II;: j-------t:: + +I j I I 1 I '"" -!-----􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀡􀀭􀀭---􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭---\--1-----I I 1 I [ I 1 I I I f I \ i J1-----1--' ,---1'----1-----L-􀁊�
�􀁾􀀠-----! ' '/. 1 I! J ::::: : 􀁾􀀺􀀠I I I In -<;"$ 􀁾􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭----t------t------t-P' 1'--1 f I I ' :. I I I I...L J j 􀁾􀀠: :: :: j I I I I Ir------T------r--l---r-----r-----r-, ---1-1
I I I I IIt:: I ILl I 􀀾􀀾􀁾􀀠I I I [IT------T-------t-----t-----T------t1------.0 􀁊􀁾􀀠I I I I! r--.. ru I I I [ i I '--J : I!J 􀁾􀀠Ii!I •. ),---T_l ---r-----t-􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭---\TIl
::: 1 [ t--' 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾..􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭---+-􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭t= i I I I I' I I I I I _ __ AJ 1·I I I I I III r-l' -----1·--l---f-----1'-----.I I ! ' I' ; I I 􀁾􀀠.! I : --J---􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀭􀁊􀀭􀀭􀀭--1
---􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀭􀁾􀀭--1-----1--.+--1---􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀢􀀢􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭---t--􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁩􀀭􀀭I ! I ! I I 11 ; I ! . __ 1 I I I I: I I 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀠': I II Ic:
I J -i I I I-T-r------T--·l ---T--􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀬􀀠! '! "if!' \\􀁾􀀠I I.. i L. I 􀁾􀀠V( \ \ I It! : I I I I I 􀁾􀀠')I I I I ! I.-+ 􀀮􀁾􀀬􀀠---i-----t··-----+-􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭__ 􀁌􀁾__
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁬􀀻􀀻􀀻􀁁􀁟􀁾iii I I I \ t IV) F'""I!L I I I I ! 􀀡􀁾􀀠I I I I I I I I 15IAYM 0 mEW:! I I I I I I I Ivr vu I I -r-Ir--􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁊􀀠I I I I I' !::.t I I I I II Il.\j""::ji::
l: :: 􀀺􀁾􀁾.--T-----T----T----r--' ---"---jr-􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁯􀁊􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠:: :: 􀀺􀁾􀁾.... I I I I ! " ,'" I I I! :" III--i---􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭--,
--t+-___ 􀁾􀁣􀀺􀁩􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠I I I I I 􀁉􀀡􀁾􀀠I, I I! I I rilS f..;;; I I I I i I '-t II i I---T-----,---r--,------T--,-,------T-J I I I'; I I . I I:---r-I: i---}---<----I I ; I
I J I'I I j I I I +------+-----}------+--'-._-r--' ---}-􀀭􀀭􀀷􀁻􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀼􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭I! I! I I I I I I " I' I I I I I---+----}----t}--􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭I I I I : I I I I I I
I I I I I 'j"I I I I--T------T---I-----r,--,---,-----I-T----r-I I I I I ! 1 I I 􀁾􀀠LO tr) I.D L()! f;5􀁾􀀠l() D--\.0 \.0 􀁾􀀠__lI I __I ! ___􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁴􀁴􀀭I I i I ------,--,: I I I I
I I I I I I I -----1 I :I I I --+I I I __ -i-I I I I : i I! I: --+--: I I I I I I L____:...-......t I" I I I. I I I ---t------t-j I ' ..__ .H : : j I I I --+---t----\' I I l I --!: --i-----+
I! I I I _ __ L I I I --+----1---+'" I I I I I I I I I I 1 jI 1 ! I I I I I I I I :' 􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠 : I I r--: ' I I I I I --r-I ! I : ' --+I I 1 I I I I I 
I, I I ' --I---r--l--I . I ,,__.1 __ _ ,, I ,, __ ..l. __ _ I,, 0 1 L[J IYj C\J ,0 \..0 fg 1..0􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀢􀁔􀀠I , II I I f----"----"----+---r--' .-+-􀁾􀀠I I lr)-<,£) _ __ 4. __ ,i :: :
􀀫􀂷􀂷􀂷􀂷􀂷􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀴􀁉􀀭􀀭􀁾􀂷􀂷􀂷􀂷􀀭􀀫􀂷􀂷􀂷􀂷􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀂷.. 􀂷􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁔􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀠I I ---1--I I I I f I J I I I --_.!-􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁦:-
__1___ --+-------+------: 􀂷􀀭􀀭􀂷􀂷􀁾􀀻􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀠􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭---t-I I I I I 1I I :.....t--cr--1.....+-....t---+I---r....􀀭􀀧􀁲􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀠,
I'I o--. 1..0 --11--I I @L--l---;------􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭,IIi I I I I 1.1 I I ii I!! I I I I I-----i---1------ii--􀁴􀁾􀀭􀀭􀂷􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭---i---i--l --t-----j---􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁬􀀭􀀺􀀠􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀱􀀧􀁾􀀭'___L_ I I I 1 I I I I __+ -I I J I I --I----+I I I I I I I i i I I I I j I I I--1----i--+--l--+--t--+-t--+--·--+--t------t------t--· ---t--1---,.-.---t
-I I:: : i: 1: : I I 􀁟􀁾____ I___ 􀁾􀀠__ -__􀁾___􀁾___ 􀁾􀀠_____􀁾􀀠___ --*---r--".--__ +___ 􀁾􀀺􀀠___+___:_._+_ 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀠:1, .L I I I I I I I I I I---t:,. I! I
I I I I I ...-+'---t---tr-------!I I I I I I I ; I 1 ' 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭... -J----1---􀁾􀀭􀀡􀀭􀀭􀀭__1___ -i------l------l------l􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭---l-----L_\.. 􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭J I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I: : : :: ::::::::J I I :: I -: ---r----:􀁦􀁾􀀠I: -----i I I I I I 1 I I =. I ,I I I ; j I I---l-----l---f--1----_·t-----+---._-... ---+---,---+------+------+---+-----i------+--i-
-"c'-I I I I J I.. I I I I I 1 I \ I 􀁾􀀠I I I J;C I I I J ! I I :; ::-:: --1 --􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁾􀀠I I : ------t􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠---J--􀀭􀀭􀁊􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁦􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭--1--.1..----1---􀁾􀀠.. _l___
-1-----1------1-----}􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭---1-----L--i-\-.. c'-I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I \ l: : I : I 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠:t I 􀁾􀀠I :: 1 f I -: : 􀁾􀀠: : : : : \ 1 I I j I I 1 I I I I I I--i----;--..
􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀡􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁩􀀭􀀧􀁾􀀭--t-----1---I---t---t------r------t-----·.,:·---t--··_-t-----t--i "-'-'1: I IJ I I I I I 􀁾􀀠I I \ I I I 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭+ I I i ----+·--1---1----/---1-'1:
:: : c :: i: \--1----1---1---1-----1---1---t----t-t---t--------r------t--:--.-'I I I I I I I E 􀁾􀀠! I I I I I I I I . J I:: i: IiiI--1----1---f---"----..,-----1----,t ----1'£1 􀁾􀁴􀀠---...----r-f
; I i I Ei 􀁾􀀠I 1 II I I I I 􀁾􀀠l I I -j I { I I I ! 1 I I +I I I I-+-􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭-+---+ _+_..1' -+ I---t---1--'-+---+---+ji"--"I j I I! I L__ I I I I : : 􀁾􀀠:: :: ::::j
􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭--1-----1-----1---􀀭􀀭􀀱􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀠--1---t--l---T !: --+ r-----t-----+1 -: ---Q I I I I I J 􀁾􀀠Ll !! I '--J I : I J I I !! ....t---t,t,-t---t,--+----+-C\jI
I I I j I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I II'􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀱􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠---;---r--t--T----1---1---j-r-----r :---. ---r----r------eo I I I ell 1 I I 1 -, .... ___. .L ttt--+--t---I--r-1 1---1---+---, 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁴􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾�
�.. 􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭--1----1 1 L-􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀠􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀠---1--􀀭􀀭􀁪􀁲􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁩􀀭􀀭1 I I : I 1 I I II 1 􀁉􀁾􀁾􀀭1-----+-: ----+ 1 I I I I I I : 'iJ---Ir--􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁾􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭--t--"--1-----1---r--t---t---i---T------t------t----t-,I }-----}-J I I I I I I l I I I I! I I I 'I l -I-----t-; --I I J ! ,1;,..__-+____ : l: :: i I I d:':i /1 ::r--i-----1---·--·:------
't--·, ---1-----1---T---􀀭􀀭􀁔􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁔􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀂷􀀭􀁦􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀠L--T -r-r----r-1__-+!---f--_i I _____L I 1 I I 􀁾􀀠I i I_ : :: l: :: I : : 􀁬􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭
--i----+-----i----·--+------+------i----r------i--􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁬􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭I I I 1 I ! I I J I !+__+____t I I 1 I L,,__ 􀁾􀁟􀁟􀀠I I 􀁾I I --1-----J-----J-----J .. 􀀬􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭--1--􀁩􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀡􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀬􀀠--1-..----1 ! ! L}__ 􀁾􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀻􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭I I I j I I > I i I I; "I I I I I J I I I i I I I I I 􀁬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠I It---: ' J I I I I I I I I 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁬�
�􀀭􀀭--i---􀂷􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁴􀀧􀁾􀀭􀀭--f-----i--t: f--i--,·---i I􀁴􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠---f-_____ J", I I ___ __;_ __J! -I I IJ 1: ::: 6 1:: I 􀁾􀀠i J I I I I 􀁾􀀠I I I I I I I--1------r---􀀭􀀭􀀱􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾
􀀭􀀭􀀱􀀭􀀭􀀭--i------· 􀀭􀁔􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁔􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁔􀀭􀀭--'-y-----y-----r--' --tr------r-I 1__ 1 __ J I I l I I J Ii r : : -L :.::: : ':: I--1-----i---r--'! "-1---1-----1------t---t----1M"-􀁯􀀭�
�􀀤􀁩􀁾---+-----t-t}-_· 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁽􀀭􀀭􀁩􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀮􀀠I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I j 1 I 11 --4-----i----{-----i-----+---. --+------+------i-r--'---}-----}--1--, I : I I I I I I; r,,!􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀠,,,._-,--,, _!_ I I I j I I I _J[ I I 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭--J--􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁊􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀡􀀠--t------+-·..---t-----t--􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭I
I I 1 -t--I I I I I \ ! I J I I I I f I I I ! I : ! j: ;: : I:,---c--,-----4---.--,-----{------}--+--f--+--+-----t--r--,--1---,-----+ 1---,--. --tt--I---ti_•. +__..__ I ! I I I I I 􀁾􀀠I
I I I I I J 􀁾􀀠J I I I! I j 1 I I J I I I I I I I! I j 1 ------i---r---·;----i---I---{-----+---r'--+------+------+------+􀀭􀁾􀁻􀀮􀀭􀀭---i--I I j I, I I I I 1 ___ +_J___ 􀁾􀀠r I 􀁟􀁾􀀠!
I 1__ I 􀁟􀁾􀀠I I 1 􀁾􀀠<,£) lC) t2 􀁾􀀠l[J C\J <,£) 􀁾􀀠L[J-<,£) o--. <,£) @
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES I"Agreement") This Agreement between the Town of Addison, Texas ,C'CUen!") and URS Corporation (,URS,,). a Nevada corporation; Gravstone Centre, 3010
LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 75234; 972.406,6950 C'URS"), is effective as of September 11.2002 . The parties agree as follows: It is tile expre®see iRleRt af the parties that Ihis I'<ijreemeRl
shall be FAaea availaele Ie the sUBsieiaries aRe affilialee oompanies af UR$. Fer the pUFfleses ef this A!!fBeFAeRl, as it aflplies te eaell'Alerk Oreer, tile tefFA oURS' shall FAeaR
either, URI Cemera'iell , er the affilialea OOFApallY ieeAtifies ill tile Werk Oreer. TIle allPlisallle 'Alerk Oreer shall (llearly iseRlify the lellal AaFAe 9f the affiliate 9r sutlsisiary
aSGellliflll Ihe Werk Orear. ARTICLE I -Work Orders, The Scope of Services ("Services"), Ihe time schedule ("Time Schedule:J, and lhe Charges for the Seryices ('Charges:J, are to be
set forth in a wriIIen Work. Order which is supplemenlary to this Agreement. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall apply to each Work. Order, except to the extent expressly
modified by the Work. Order. Where Charaesshartles are "not to exceed" a specified sum, all Services shall be provided by URS for Charges which do not exceed the specified sumURS shall
fI!ltil)' ClieAI eefere sush sum is aKGeaaea aAd shall lIal seAIiRue Ie pre'iiaa the SeNises Ileytlfle sush SUFA uAless ClieAI autharizes aA iAsrease iA the SUFA. If a "nollo exceed'
sum Is broken down inlo budgets for specific tasks, the task budget may be exceeded without Client authorization as long as the total sum is not exceeded. Changes in condHions which
directly affect the Services, including, without limitation, changes in laws or regulations occurring after the budget is established or other circumstances beyond URS control shall
be a basis for equitable adjustments in the budget and Time Scheduiessheslile. ARTICLE II • Payment. A, Unless otherwise stated in gaR Work. Order, payment shall be on a time and materials
baSis under under the Schedule of Fees and Charges set forth in the Work. Order Which are in effect when the Services are performed. Client shall pay undisputed portions of each progress
invoice within thirty (30) days of the date of the Client's receipt of an invoice from URS. If payment is not maintained on a 􀁾􀁨􀁩􀁲􀁴􀁹􀀠(aG) say SUtfeRl basis, URS may suspend further
performance until payments are current. Client shall notify URS of any disputed amount within fifteen (15) days from date of the Client's receipt of the invoice, give reasons for the
objection, and preFAlllly pay the undisputed amount in accordance herewith. Client shall pay interest on any overdue payment at the rateaR aaailiaRal SRaF'{l8 of one am:! aAe half percent
(H4%) per month or the maximum percentage allowed by law, whichever is the lesser, fer aAY past elle ameuRl. In the event of a legal action for invoice amounts not paid in accordance
with this Agreement and the Work Order, attomeys' fees, court costs, and other related expenses shall be paid to Ihe prevailing party. B. URS shall submit to Client an invoice or billing
statement for all work. performed hereunder in form and substance satisfactory to Client. All invoices or billing statements shall include a statement of Services rendered and the amount
owed in connection therewith, an itemized statement of reimbursable costs and expenses incurred, and the sum of all prior payments for the Services set forth in the letter agreement
dated February 21, 2002 (Exhibit A). The cumulative amounts of progress payments for the Services shall not exceed the Charoes. URS shall not be entitled to any comoensation for any
services or work. not actually performed or for any lost prafits as a result of any abandonment or susoension of work. by the Client. URS shall perform all work. hereunder in a manner
satisfactory and acceptable to the Client in accordance with the standard of care set forth in this Agreement. C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement or the Work. Order.
Client shall not be obligated to make payment to URS hereunder if: 1. URS is in default of any of its obligations under this Agreement the Work Order. or any other documents in connection
with the Services (and payment may be withheld to the extent of any such default); PSA-l.DOC 19-Mar-02 -1 
2. Any part of such payment is attributable to any services of URS which are not perfonned in accordance with this Agreement; 3. URShllo:;; failed to make payment promptly to consultants
or other third parties used by URS in connection with URS' services hereunder for which the Client has made payment to URS; or 4. If the Client. in 􀁾􀁳􀀠good faith judgment and after
consultation with URS. detennines that the aortion of the compensation then remaining unpaid will npt be sufficient to complete the Services hereunder. no additional payments will be
dl!e ...!J.RS hereunder unless and until URS perfonns a sufficient portion of the Services so that such POrtiorLOf the compensation remaining unpaid is detennined by Client to be sufficient
to complete the Services. ARTICLE III -Professional Responsibility. URS is obligated to comply with applicable standards of professional care in the perfonnance of the Services. Client
recognizes that opinions relating to environmental, geologic, and geotechnical conditions are are based on Ilmited data and that actual conditions may vary from those encountered at
the times and locations where the data are obtained, despite the use of due professional care. URS represents and wamants that it is authorized to practice engineering in the State of
Texas and that any necessarv licenses, oennits or other authorization to practice engineering and to provide the Services set forth herein have been heretofore acquired as reguired by
law, rule or regulation. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrarv. URS and Client agree and acknowledge that Client is entering into this Agreement in reliance on URS' professional
abilities with respect to perfonning the services set forth herein. URS agrees to use its professional skill. judgment and abilities in the perfonnance of its Services hereunder, and
shall render Services under this Agreement and in connection with the project in accordance with the professional standards of engineering prevailing in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex
area and shall use the skill and care commensurate with the requirements of the engineering profession. URS shall perfonn its Services in accordance with all laws. regulations. and rules
in accordance with the standard of care set forth herein. Without in any way limiting the foregoing or any other provision of this Agreement. URS shall be liable to the Client for any
and all damages, injuries, liability. or other hann of whatever nature Joine extent caused by or resulting from any negligent. grossly negligent. or intentionally wrongful elIor:;;,
acts or omissions of URS, or URS' directOr:;;, partners, officers, employees, agents. contractors, subcontractors. or any person or entity for whom URS is legally liable, in the provision
of its Services under this Agreement, and for other breaches by URS to the extent URS was negligent. grossly negligent. or intentionally wrongful in its perfonnance of professional services
under this Agreement. ARTICLE IV • Responsibility for others. URS shall be responsible to Client for URS Services and the services of URS directors. partners, officers. employees. agents.
contractors. subcontractors. or any person or entity for whom URS is legally liable, URS shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of other parties engaged by Client nor for
their construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or their health and safety precautions and programs. ARTICbE '\! Risk AlieGatien. The liability ef URS, ils empleyees,
alleRts aRG subooRlraGters (refeff8e ta selieGlively iR this Aflisle as ·URS,,), fer GneRt's claims at less, iRjYf}', GeatR, Gamalle, eF 8l!J)eRse, iRslYGiRIl, withellt limitatieR, GlieRt's
claims ef ceRtliblitiell aAe iAeemAifisatieR, el<f*6ss er impliee, witll respeGite thim !lefty slaims ralaliAIl Ie 68lvisBs raAGerae er ebli!!atieRs impsseG IIRGer tllis A!!reSmeAI,
iAsllleill1l all \l!,.'erk QmeFS, SRaIl Rei 8l!Seee iA Ille allllrellate: (1) The tetal sum ef '251l,IlQllfeF slaims arisiA!! elll at prafessieRal ABIl"!!9AC9, illslueiA!l Bff8FS, smissisAs,
smissisAs, SF etller prefessisAal aGls, am:! iASllleill!! IlllillteRtisllal breash sf ooAlras!; aile aAY astllal sr !lGteAtial eR'lirenmeRtal IJ9l1utieR SF ssRtamiAatiell, iASlueill!!,
'Nilllellt IimitatieA, allY astual er threatene€l release af talEi!!, irritant, IJ9l1utaAt, er waste Ilases, Ii!jlli€ls, eF saliG materials, er failllre ta €letes! er preJl!!Fly e\'aluate
the preSeAS!! et SUSR sllllstaRGBS, 8l!sept ta tRe meRt sush release, tRrealelle€l release, eF failure Ie eetes! er e'laluate is salJsee by the willml misooA€lust at URS; er (2) TAe
talal sum ef $1,QQQ,Qgg fer slaims arisiJlg Gut Gf JlegligeJlGB, bre3sh at seRtrast, er ether S8uses fer wlliGA URS has aAY le!lalliaJ:lility, etllerlhaR as limitee by (1) a9G'I9. PSA-1.DOC
19-Mar-02 -2 
ARTICLE VI -Insurance: Indemnity. A. In connection with this Agreement. URS shall provide and maintain in full force and effect the following insurance: lil Workers' compensation and
employer's liability insurance for the protection of URS' employees. to the extent required by Ihe law oflhe state of Texas: (iI) Commercial general liability insurance with limits not
less th!ln One Million and No/100 Dollars $1.000.000.00 each occurrence combined Single limit bodily injury and property damage. including contractual liability (covering. but not limited
to, the liability assumed under the indemnification provisions of this Agreement). personal injury. broadform prooerty damage. products and completed operations c(Jverage (and if such
commercial general liability insurance contains a general aggregate limit. it shall apply separately to the Services under this Agreement); (iii) ComprehensiVe automobile liability insurance
with limits not less than One Million and No/100 Dollars ($1,000.000.00) each occurrence COmbined single limit bodily injury I;I.ndproperty dam!lge including owned, non-owned and hired
auto coverage, as <lpplicable: and (iv) Professional Liabilitv Insurance to protect from liability arising out of the performance of professional services under this Agreement. Such
coverage shall be in the sum ornot less than Two Million and No/100 Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per claim and aggregate. This CQverage must be maintained for at least two (2) vears after
the project contemplated herein is completed. If coverage is written on a claims-made baSis, the retroactive date must not be later than the inception date of this Agreement. All such
policies of insurance shall (a) be issued bv insurance companies reasonably acceptable to Client. (b) ej(cept for professional liability insurance. shall name (by endorsement) the Town
of Addison. Texas. its officials, officers. employees and agents as an additional insured or loss payee. as the case may be. (c) in all liability policies, provide that such pOlicies
are primarY insurance 10 any other insurance available 10 the addijjonal insureds, with respect to any claims ariSing out of activities conducted hereunder. (dl contain a waiver of subrooation
endorsement in favor of the Town of Addison. Texas. and (e) provide for at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Town of Addison. Texas prior to cancellation, non-renewal or material
modification which affects this Agreement. Certificates of insurance (together with the declaration page of such policies, along with the endorsement naming the Town of Addison. Texas
as an additional insured or loss cayee. as the case may be), satisfactorY to Client. evidencing all coverage above, shall be promptly delivered to Town and updated as may be appropriate,
with complete copies of such policies furnished to the Client upon request. The Client reserves the right to review the inSUrance requirements contained herein and to reasonably adjust
coverages and limits when deemed necessary and prudent by the Client. URS a!)rees te maiAtaiA GYRn!) tile IIeFferRIaAG9 af tile SeFViG9s: (1) statlJle!y \lIferkeFS' C9mlleAsati9A S9'19Fa!)e;
(2) iOmllleyer'g liability; (3j General liability; aAG (4) AYIemebile liability iASIlFaAG9 Ge'leFa!)e eash iR the gym at $1 ,ggg,ggg. B. In connection with this Agreement (tooether with
the Work Order) and the provision of Services. URS agrees to and shall indemnify the Town of Addison. Texas, its officials. officers. agents and employees (tooelher. for purooses of
this paragraph. the "Indemnified Persons) against, and hold the Indemnified Persons harmle!>!; from. any and all claims, actions. causes of action. demands. losses. harm. damages. liability.
expenses, lawsuits. judgments, costs. and fees (including reasonable attorney fees and court costs). for any injury to or the death of any person. or any damage to or destruction of
any property, or any other harm for which damages or any other form of recovery is sought (whether at law or in equity), resulting from, based upon.or ariSing out of any negligent. grossly negligent reckless, or intentionally wrongful act, error. or omission of URS. its Officer,;. employees, agents. engineers, consultants, contractors,
subcontractors. or any person or entity for whom URS is leqa"y liable, under, in connection with, or in the performance of. this Agreement. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive
Ihe expiration or termination of this Agreement. ARTICY; VII Consequential &Iamaqes. Neitller Pally shall be liaille te tile atller far G9ASe'lYeAtial damages. iAGllldiAg. witlleut limitatien,
less af lise ar less af Ilfefils. iRGIlFFEld by aRe amltller SF their PSA-l.DOC 19-Mar.Q2 -3
􀁳􀁾􀁢􀁳􀁩􀁤􀁩􀁡􀁲􀁩􀁥􀁳􀀠SF 􀀵􀁾􀁓􀀶􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁳􀁆􀁓􀀬􀀠regarsles5 sf whether 􀁳􀁾􀁇􀁨􀀠damages are Gauged by breas" sf soRlrasl, 'A'illful mi5seRdllsl, RegligeRl asl or amissioF!, ar ether
wroRgful asl sf either of them. ARTICLE VIII-Client Responsibility. Client shall: (1) provide URS, in writing, all information relating to Client's requirements for the project; (2)
correctly identify to URS, the location of subsurface structures whiCh have been placed by Client, such as pipes, tanks, cables and utilities; (3) notify URS of any potential hazardous
substances or other health and safety hazard or condition known to Client existing on or near the project site; (4) give URS prompt written notice of any suspected deficiency in the
Services; and (5) with reasonable promptness, provide required approvals and decisions. In the event that URS is requested by Client or is required by subpoena to produce documents or
give testimony in any action or proceeding to which Client is a party and URS is not a party, Client shall pay URS for any time and expenses required in connection therewith, including
reasonable attomey's fees. ClieRl shall reimburse URa fer all falEeS, aGlies aRd le',ies S\lsh as Sales, Use, 'Jal\le MGeS Taxes, geeme9 F'rafiIs Taxes, aAIl ether Similar falEes whish
are Bdllee la ar eeauGleS from the '..alue sf URal Servises. FaF the p\llf*lSe of this Artisle s\lsh taxes GRail Ret iRGluee falEes imposes OR URS Ret iRGeme, aRd empleyer aF employee
payrell falEes levieS lily aRY UARed Slates taxiRIl aslharily, aF the taxiR!j aiJIMrities sf the seuR\ries aF BAY ageASY ar SU9ai'/isieR tReresf iF! '/Ihish URS sllllsiaiaFies, affiliates,
aF ei'lisieAs are pofJAaReRtly aemiGileS. It is allreea aRd IlRaaFSteed IRat tRese Ret iRoome, _playar aF empleyee payroll falEes are iRsluaee iR the IlRit pAGes er lump S\lm te be paid
URal IlAdsrthe respeGli'IB 'A'erk GRIer. ARTICLE VIIIX -Force Majeure. An event of "Force Majeure" occurs when an event beyond the control of the Party claiming Force Majeure prevents
such Party from fulfilling its obligations. An event of Force Majeure includes, without limitation, acts of God (including floods, hunicanes and other adverse weather), war, riot, civil
disorder, acts of terrorism, disease, epidemic, strikes and labor diSputes, actions or inactions of government or other authorities, law enforcement actions, curfews, closure of transportation
systems or other unusual travel difficuHies, or Inability to provide a safe working environment for employees. In the event of Force Majeure, the obligations of URS to perform the Services
and the obligations of the Client hereunder shall be suspended for the duration of the event of Force Majeure. In such event, URS 511ail be eEjuitably esmpensated IllF time e*pendea
and Bl<llsnses insurrea dllriRIl the event sf FaFGe Majellre aRe the Time SchedulesGReallle shall be extended by a like number of days as the event of Force Majeure. If Services are
suspended for niru!:!YIhirtY (lL03Q) consecutive days or more by such Force Majeure, either URS or the Client may, iR its sale aisGFetian, upon at least 5 days prior written notice,
terminate this Agreement andGf the affected Work Order, ar beth. In the case of such termination, in aeaitieA Ie the Gampsnsetien ane time elllensien set ferth abG'Je, URS shall be compensated
in accordance herewith for all work property performed to .the date of terminationreaSllAable lefJAiRaliaA 8l<pens8s. In the event of such termination of this Agreement and the lll/Ork
Order, no amount shall be due for lost or anticipated profits. ARTICLE VIIIX -Right of Entrv. If Client is the owner of the project site, URS shall have access to the project site at
all reasonable times for the purpose of providing the Services. If Client is not the owner of the project site. Client shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to obtain permission
for URS to have access to the project site for such purposeGlienl graAts Ie URS, 􀁡􀁒􀁦􀁾􀀬􀀠if the pffijem site is Rat awned lily Clienl, v}8rranlS that lIefJAissian has been granted
IllF, a rillAt af eRlF), fFGm time Ie time lily URS, its emll'eyees, afjenls ana slIbsentraslsFS, IIpen Ihe prejesl site Illr tRe pYrpese sf IlFe'"ieiAIl the Servises. Client reeegRizes
tllat tile !lse sf iR'lBsti!lati'JS elluipmeRl ana premises may IlRallQiaably alter the s*istinll site oonailiaAS ana affesl Ihe sA'JiroRmeRl iA the area beiAIl studies, despite nle
lise sf reasaRable sare. ARTICLE IXXI • Documents, Upon payment to URS for work properly performed, drawings. designs. plans, speCifications, reports. infonnation. and other documents
or materials in whatever form or format (together, "Drawings") prepared by or for URS in connection herewith belong to. and remain the property of, the Client for its exclusive reuse
at any time without further compensation and without any restrictions. and all intellectual property rights in connection with the same (whether copyright or otherwise) are hereby assigned
by URS toClien!: provided. however, that URS shall retain property rights 􀁷􀁾􀁨􀀠respect to any patentable concepts ariSing from the Services.F're'.'idea that URS has eeen PSA-l.DOC
lS-Mar-02 -4 • 
paiG fer Ihe ServiGes, Client sl1all RB'/S tRe Rill! ta WSB IRe GaSllmBnts, mails, pllataiFapRS, GFa'lliR!!5 aRa spesifisalieRs resllltiRi fFem IJRS effefls an tRe pmjeGl. Reuse of any
such materials by Client on any extension of this project or any other project without the written authorization of URS shall be at Client's sole risk, URS shall have the right to retain
copies of all such materials. URS retains tile rilll1! af awnBFSAi!, with res!,eGl ta aAY patentable s!msepls aF saflyrighlal:lle materials arisiR!! tram its ServiGBs. prawings shall
be submitted to the Client for the Client's approval, and the same shall comply with all applicable laws. statutes. ordinances. codes and reoulations, Notwithstanding Client's approval
of any of the Drawings, URS warrants and represents that the Drawings. as the same may be amended or supplemented by lJRS. shall. to the best of URS' knowledge. information and belief
as engineers performing the practice of engineering in accordance with the standards, duties. and obligations set forth in this Agreement and the Work, Order. be sufficient and adequate
for construction oUhe, project for which the Services are provided. shall be free from material error, and shall be satisfactorv to the Client. In accordance with the standard of care.
URS agrees that if it shall recommend unsuitable materials in connection ,with the project and this Agreement and Work Order. or if the design of the project should be defective in any
V{ay, URS will assume sole re.l1ponsibility for any damag!Jhloss, claims or expenses to the extent caused by URS' recommendation of unsuitable materials or defective design. In the event
it is determined that anv Drawings are defective, URS shall promptlv correct any defectivll Drawings at no cost to the Client. The Client's approval, aCC!lptance, use of or payment for
all or any part of the Services under this Agreement or the Work Order shall in no way aller URS' oqligations oOhe Client's rights hereunder. Approval by the Client of anv of URS' Drawings
or work, or the use of or payment for all or any part of lhe Services, shall not constitute nor be deemed a release of the responsibility and liability of URS. its employees. contractors,
subcontractors. agents and consultants for the accuracy and competency of the same. nor shall such approval be deemed to be an assumption of or an indemnification for such responsibility
or liability bv the Client for any defect. error or omission in such Drawings or work. it being understood that the Client at all times is ultimately relying on URS' skill and knowledge
in preparing the prawings. ARTICLE XII-Tennination. A. Client may at any time terminate all or any porlion of the Services, or abandon or defer the 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁪􀁾􀀠(or any part thereof)
for which the Services are being provided. for convenience, at its option and in its sole discretion, by sending a written noticeNeliGB of such termination, abandonment or deferral to
URS. If the project (or portion thert:)of) for which the Services are being provided is abandoned or or deferred by Client. Client shall have the right to restore and reinstate the project
and the Services hereunder within one (1) year of such abandonment or deferral: provided. however, that if the abandonment or deferral is for more th<!n 90 consecutive days. such restoration
and reinstatement shall be subject to renegotiation of URS' compensation. S. Either party can terminate this Agreement andGHl Work Order for cause if the other party: ill commits a material,
􀁾􀁒􀁇􀁬􀁬􀁲􀁥􀁡􀀠breach of this Agreement, and (a) such breach remains uncured for a Deriod of 7 davs after notice thereof (which notice shall specifically identify the breach) is received
by the breaching party. or 􀁾􀁾.. (bl if the breach cannot with diligence be cured within said 7 day period, if within such 7 day period the breaching party provides the non-breaching
party written notice of the curative measures which it proposes to undertake, and proceeds promptly to initiate such measures to cure such failure. and thereafter prosecutes the curing
of such failure with diligence and continuity, the time within which such failure may be cured shall be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of such failure
with diligence and continuity, not to exceed 30 davs following the occurrence of the breach, or 􀁾􀀨􀁩􀁬􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀧􀀩􀁾􀁟􀁢􀁥􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁥􀁳insolvent. PSA-1.DOC 19-Mar-ll2 -5
Termination for cause shall be effective ten (IOllweRly (20) days after receipt of a Notice of Termination, unless a later date is specified in the Notice. TM Nelic8 Gf T8rmiAalieA fer
􀁣􀁡􀁾􀁓􀀸􀀠sRall ceAlaiA sllecific reaseRS fer lermiRalieR aRlo! beth Ilarties shall ceeflerate iR !jeml failh Ie 􀁣􀁾􀁲􀁥􀀠Ihe 􀁣􀁡􀁾􀁳􀁥􀁳􀀠fer lermiRalieR stalea iR Ihe Nelice. TermiRalieR
shall Rei be effective it reaseRable actieR Ie 􀁣􀁾􀁲􀁥􀀠Ihe breach has beeR lakeR befere Ihe effective aate et Ihe lermiRalieR. C. URS shall cease all work and labor being performed
under this Agreement immediately upon receipt of the notice of termination (whether for convenience or for cause). D. In the event this Agreement is terminated for any reason (whether
for convenience or for cause), URS shall invoice Client for all work properly completed and shall be compensated in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for all such work accomplished
prior to the receipt of the notice of termination. In the event of termination of this this Agreement for any reason (whether for convenience or for cause), no amount shall be due for
lost or anticipated profits. In the event of any termination and upon payment to URS for the work property performed by URS, URS shall deliver to the Client all finished or unfinished
documents. data, studies, surveys. drawings. maps. models. reports. photographs or other items prepared by or for URS in connection with this Agreement. its Services, and the project.GlieRI
sllall flay 􀁢􀁮􀁾􀁓􀀠􀁾􀁦􀁬􀁥􀁒􀀠iR'/eice fer Services flerfermea aRa chaFfjes 􀁩􀁒􀁣􀁾􀁲􀁲􀁥􀁡􀀠flrier Ie lermiRatieR, 􀁦􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁳􀀠reaseRaele termiRalieR chaFfjes. E. In the event
of termination for cause, the parties shall have their remedies at law as to any other rights and obligations between them, subject to the other terms and conditions of this Agreement.
ARTICLE XIII -No Third Party Rights. This Agreement shall not create any rights or benefrts to parties other than Client and URS. No third party shall have the right to rely on URS opinions
rendered in connection with the Services without the written consent of URS and the third party's agreement to be bound to the same conditions and limitations as Clierrt. ARTICLE XlIV
-Assignments. URS shall have no power to and shall not assign, transfer, or otherwise convey its interest, rights, duties, or responsibilities in this Agreement or any part thereof without
the prior written consent of Client. and any such assignment. subletting, transfer or other conveyance shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement (without an opportunity to
cure) and the Client shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately and without further notice: provided. however. that nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent
URS from employing such independent professional associates. sub-consultants, and suppliers as URS may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of the Services. Unless specifically
stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment or transfer, no assignment or or transfer will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under
this Agreement.Neilller flarty Ie Illis A!jreemeRI shall assi!jR its 􀁡􀁾􀁴􀁩􀁥􀁳􀀠aRa ebli!jatieRs 􀁨􀁥􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁒􀁡􀁥􀁲􀀠􀁷􀁩􀁬􀁨􀁥􀁾􀀱􀀠Ihe flrier \'IritteR ceRseRI et Ille etller flarty.
PSA-1.DOC 􀀱􀀹􀀮􀁍􀁡􀁲􀁾􀀲􀀠-6
ARTICLE XIIIV -H'mrdous Substances. All nonhazardous samples and by-products from sampling processes in connection with the Services shall be disposed of by URS in accordance with applicable
law; provided, however, that any and all such materials, including wastes, that cannot be introduced back into the environment under existing law without additional treatment, and all
hazardous wastes, radioactive wastes, or hazardous substances (eg, pollutants and contaminants regulated by law) i'Hazardous Substances,,) from the sampling processes in connection withrelates
Ie the Services, shall be packaged in accordance with the applicable law by URS and turned over to Client for appropriate disposal (provided, however. that URS shall first gjve notice
to Client of the existence. of such Hazardous Substances). URS shall not arrange for or otherwise dispose of Hazardous Substances under this Agreement. URS, at Client's request, may
assist Client in identifying appropriate alternatives for off-site treatment, storage or or disposal of the Hazardous Substances, but URS shall not make any independent determination
relating to the selection of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility nor subcontract such activities through transporters or others. Client shall sign all necessary manifests for
the disposal of Hazardous Substances if Client is reqyired by law to sign such manifests. If Client requires: (1) URS agents or employees to sign such manifests; or (2) URS to hire,
for Client, the Hazardous Substances transportation, treatment, or disposal contractor, then for these two purposes, URS shall be considered to act as Client's agent so that URS will
not be considered to be a generator, transporter, or disposer of such substances or considered to be the arranger for disposal of Hazardous Substances, and Client shall indemnify URS
against any claim or loss resulting from such signing. ARTICLE X!VI-::: Venue; Dispute Resolution. A. ...In the event of any actiQ" under this Agreement, venue for all cayses of action
shall be instituted and maintQi!1ed in DaUas County. Texas (state court) or in the northern district of Texas (federal court), as the case may be. The parties agree that the laws of
the State of Texas.shall apply to the interoretation, validity and enforcement of this Agreement. and, with respect to any conflict of law provl1;ljans, the parties agrellJhat such conflict
of law provisions shall nat affect the application ofthe law of Texas (wjthout reference to its co.nfJict of law provisions) to the interpretation, validity and enforcement of this Agreement.lA
the e\'ent af anll sis!Jllte eetween the !JaFliea ta this Agreement, tile '/enlle for IRe Et,slll;te reseMi9A sRall Ile any state er feseral GauFl iR the URited Stales lIa'liA€! jurissistiaA
aver IRe !JaFlies. TAe fore!j9in€! Aetv:itllstaRsing, ,ftRe !JF9jest is leGateS alltside tRe Unites Stales, tile laws afiRe Stale 9f Califomia shall gavern ans in suell 9'/eAt. aAY siS!J1l1e
UREter tile /\!jreemeRl Rat resel'led amisaely BRatllle resel'les uAser tile lliAding Fides afthe p,meris3R ,h,FIlitraliaR .A.s69siati9R. B. In an effort to resolve claims, disputes
or other matters in question arising out of or relating to this Agreement or breach thereof, the parties agree that all claims, disputes, or othermatters in question shall be submitted
to nonbinding mediation as a first step in seeking a resolution of the same. The dispute shall bII ..mediated bv a mutually acceptable third-party to be chosen by the disputing parties
within thirty (30) days after written notice by one of them reguesting mediation, The disputing parties shall share the costs of the mediation equally. By mutual agreement the parties
may postpone mediation until each has completed some specified but limited discoverv about the dispute. By mutual agreement. the parties may use a nonbinding form of dispute resolution
other than mediation. Any nonbinding dispute resolution process conducted under this Aqreement shall be confidential within the meaning of Sections 154.053 <lnd 154.073 of the Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended. and any successor statute thereto. If neither a negotiated settlement or mediated resolution is obtained within the time periods provided
by this Article, the parties may pursue any available legal or egujlable remedy, Any request for mediation or another form of nonbinding dispute resolution shall be filed in writing
with the other party within a reasonabl!;l time after the claim, dispute or other matter in guestion has arisen. In no event shall the demand for mediation or other form of nonbinding
dispute resolution be made after the date when institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in qyestion would be barred by the applicable
statutes of limitations, ARTICLE XVII -Integrated Writing and Enfon:eability. This Agreement (together with the Work Order) constitutes the final and complete repository of the agreements
between Client and URS relating to the Services and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications, representations, or agreements, whether oral or written. Modifications of
this Agreement shall not be binding unless made in PSA-l.DOC 19-Mar.Q2 -7 
wliting and signed by an Authorized Representative of each party. The provisions of this Agreement shall be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. If any provision of this
Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the provision shall be construed and applied in a way that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the parties with
regard to the provisions and that saves the validity and enforceability of the provision. ARTICLE XVI Miscellaneous. A. The undersigned officers andtor agents of the parties hereto are
the properly authorized officials and have the necessarv autholity to execute this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto. and each 􀁾􀁥􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀱􀁎􀀠certifies to the other that any
necessary resolutions or other ae! extending such authority have been duly Passed and are now in full force and effect. B. Any provision of this Agreement later held to be unenforceable
for any reason shall be deemed void and all remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. All obligations arising prior to the termil!1lIion of this Agreement and all
provisions of this Agreement allocating responsibility or liability between URS and Client shall survive the cancellation, expiration or termination of this Agreement. Any rights and
remegies either party may have with respect to the other arising out of the performance of services during the term of this agreement shall survive the cancellation, expiration or termination
of this Agreement. C. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and the Work Order. D. The rights and. remedies provided by this Agreement are cumulative and the use of anyone right or
remedy by either party shall not preclude or waive its right to yse any or all other remedies. Said rigMs and remedies are given in addition to any other rights the parties may have
by law statute. ordinance, or otherwise. E. URS acknowledges that the project for which the Services are being provided is a public project of the Town of Addison, Texas and is for a
public pyrpose. and that the property on which the project is to be constructed. the improvements to be constructed thereon. and the JYI!<:is used by Client in connection with the property
acquiSition and the design and construction of the project are exempt from the filing and enforcement of any liens thereon or with respect thereto and from forced sale. For the consideration
set forth herein, URS waives and releases any lien. or claim or right of such lien, which URS has or may have in connection with the Services on or in connection with such property,
improvements, and funds. this Agreement and the Work Order. E.,..... All notices, demands. or reouests from one party to another shall be personally delivered or sent by United states
mail certified. or registered. return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the addresses stated below: To Client: ToURS: Addison Service Center Gravstone Centre, 16801 Westgrove Drive
3010 tLBJ Freewav. Sujte 1300 Addison, Texas 75001-5190 Dallas. Texas 75234 Attn: Mike Murphy. Director of PubliC Works Attn: All ootices or communications reguired to be given in writing
IN one party or the other shall be considered as havinq been given to the addressee (j) if by hand delivery, at the time of delivery, or (ii) if 􀁭􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀬􀀠seventy-two 02) hours after
the deposit of same in any United States mail POst office box. The adtl[e§Ses and addressees for the purpose hereof may be changed by giving notice of such Change in the manner herein
provided for giving notice. Unless and until such written notice Is received the last addresses and addressee stated by written notice. or provided herein if no written notice of change
has bell.rl.sent or received. shall be deemed to continue in effect for all purposes hereunder. PSA·1.DOC 19-Mar,* -8
THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE that there has been an opportunity to negotiate the terms and conditions of this Agreement and agree to be bound accordingly. CLIENT Signature Signature Ron Whitehead
I City Manager Emily Taylor, P.E.I Vice President Typed NameiTrtte Typed NamelT.le Date of Signature JJaIe of Signature PSA-1 <DOC 19-Mar-<J2 -9
NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNTbUlMP SUM WORK ORDER NO. ""00...,1'-___ In accordance with the Agreement for Professional Services between Town of Addison ("Client''). and URS Corporation} ('URS").
a Nevada corporation, dated September 11.2002 ,this Work Order describes the Services. Schedule, and Payment Conditions for URS Services on the Project known as: ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE
AT MIDWAY ROAD DESIGN PEVELOPMENT & CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Client Authorized Representative: Address: Public Works Department. P.O. Box 9010 Addison. TX 75001·9010 Telephone No.: 972.450.2871
URS Authorized Represerdative: Address: Emily Taylor. P.E. GravSlone Centre. 3010 LBJ Freeway. Suite 1300 Dallas. TX 75234 Telephone No.: 972.406.6950 SERVICES. The Services shall be
described in Attachment --A-to this Work Order. SCHEDULE. The Estimated Schedule shall be set forth in Attachment B to this Work Order. Because of the uncertainties inherent in the Services,
Schedules are estimated and are subject to revision unless otherwise specifically described herein. Time is of the essence oUh's Work Order. PAYMENT. The Services described in Attachment
A will be perfonned for ana "lump slim" amount not to exceedef $550,965.00: in no event snail the payment by Client for the Services,exceed the said amount. A breakdown of this amount"lump
slim" GIlst is included in Attachment L URS charges shall be on a percent complete basiS and payment shall be made monthly based upon statements submitted to the Client for the work
perfonned. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. The tenns and conditions of the Agreement referenced above shall apply to this Work Order, except as expressly modified herein. ACCEPTANCE of the tenns
of this Work Order is acknowledged by the following signatures of the Authorized Representatives. CUENT SignalUre Ron Whitehead I City Manager TyPed Namerrrtle Dale or SIgnatUre Signature
Emily Taylor, P.E.I Vice President Typed Namerrrtle Dale of Signature PSA-l.DOC 19-Mar-<J2 -1 
RESOLUTION NO. R02..QS2 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ADDISON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $550,965.00 WITH
URS CORPORATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF THE ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE AT MIDWAY ROAD CONTINGENT UPON FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATIORNEY. WHEREAS, URS Corporation was selected
by the Town's Bridge Selection Committee and approved by Council to perform the design of the Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road; and, WHEREAS, the third phase of the proposed Arapaho
Road extension project extends from Surveyor Boulevard to Addison Road which will relieve traffic congestion on Belt Line Road; and, WHEREAS, the proposed bridge over Midway Road is
an integral component of the roadway section in this third phase; and, WHEREAS, URS Corporation has submitted a Professional Services Agreement for deSign services related to the construction
of the proposed Midway Road Bridge; and, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ADDISON, , !TEXAS: THAT, the City Council does hereby authorize the City Manager to enter into
a contract in an amount not to exceed $550,965.00 with URS Corporation for professional services for the design of the Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road, contingent upon final approval
by the City Attorney. OFFICE OF THE CITY SECRETARY R02-082 
I< DULY PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ADDISON, TEXAS, this the 10TH day of September 2002. Mayor ATTEST: 􀁃􀁩􀁴􀁹􀁓􀁥􀁣􀁾􀀠 OFFICE OF THE CITY SECRETARY R02-082 
URS August 30, 2002 Mr. Steven Z. Chutchian., PE Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001·9010 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase II -Design
Development & Contract Documents Agreement for Professional Services Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please find one unexecuted copy of the Agreement for Professional Services for the Arapaho
Road Bridge at Midway Road for your review. This Agreement includes Work Order Number 00 I for the Design Development and Contract Document services with Attachment A . Scope ofServices,
Attachment B . Estimated Schedule, and Attachment C . Lump Sum Fee Breakdown. Please note that we have made a slight revision on the first page ofthe Scope ofServices to clarifY the
submittal ofthe electronic drawing files and specifications. As we discussed on the telephone, a separate time and materials work order will need to be approved to cover any construction
administration services (e.g. shop drawing review, RFls, construction meetings, etc.) that the Town of Addison will require from URS We will provide two executed copies of the Agreement
and Work Order No. 001 before the Town Council meeting on September 10, 2002 for final signatures. We look forward to working with you on this exciting project. Sincerely, URS Corporation
􀁾􀀡􀀬􀁻􀀮􀀣􀀠Project Manager Enclosure URS Corporation Graystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1320 Dallas. IX 75234 Tel: 972.406.6950 Fax; 972.406.6951 
􀀮􀀢􀀭􀀢􀀮􀁾􀀠-.: TOWN OF ADDISON PUBLIC WORKS To: From: Company:__U____R--=.5____ FAX#: 972 4-o£-6'1S/Phone: 972/450-2.%&'& Fax: 972/450-2837 Date: g /27/tJ2 No. of pages (including
cover): ff!l= 3 16801 Westgrove P.O. Box 9010 cL I FFRE(Jve..ry-EIJ -' C􀁴􀀿􀀯􀀧􀁾􀀠{PE"E" pee .At r-f/ft:h-.-E lre-"1S Fae' 􀁾􀀻􀀿􀁉􀀿􀁦􀀯􀁊􀀭􀁣􀀮􀀮􀀠-/ts, "'1 8 J,4 tie . . s.-k4f:>
L. Addison, TX 75001-9010 -.-.-.' " "". .... ." .. ' .. '::.' 
ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE AT MIDWAY ROAD WORK ORDER NO. 001 ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF SERVICES DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Al"ID CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR THE ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE DRS will provide the
engineering. architecturaJ, lighting design and noise studyservices including plans, specifications and estimates as it relates to Arapaho Road from approximate Station 40+67 to approximate Station 70+28 and as provided in the itemized scope.
The construction will consist of an elevated four-lane roadway with sidewalk located within the proposed Arapaho Road right-of-way (ROW) on a tangent alignment. URS shall prepare plans,
details and compute quantities for a steel arch bridge, the "blue-bridge concept", over Midway Road, with prestressed concrete beam approaches. Design and details will include all bridge
details including any soundwalls located on the bridge. DRS will also provide all bridge drainage details to accommodate the drainage in accordance with the Town's Consultant's drainage
requirements. URS will also prepare plans, details and compute quantities for any lighting & illumination, and traffic control for the areas under and immediately adjacent to the bridge
and retained wall portion of Arapaho Road with the exception of those portions to be prepared by the Town of Addison's Consultant. URS will also prepare architectural details for the
bridge, the mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls and the sound walls. Additionally, URS will prepare a noise study including ambient noise measurements, modeling and noise
analyses. URS will prepare and submit technical memorandums, preliminary plans and preliminary construction cost estimates at the end of the Design Development phase for the Town's review.
After resolution of one set of comments, URS will provide all fmal detail plans, specifications, and estimates as previously described, to be included into one fmal construction package
prepared by the Town's Consultant. DRS will submit four sets of plans for review to the Town for 65% review and 95% review and will incorporate the Town's comments (one set per submittal)
in the next submittals. URS will also provide signed and sealed mylar plans at the 100% fmal submittal. DRS will coordinate with the Town of Addison andlor the Town's Consultant for
all interface design issues as well as coordinate the format and consolidation of construction plans, specification and estimate into one final construction package. URS will coordinate
with the Town andlor the Town's Consultant for revising the horizontal alignment and vertical' profIle of Arapaho Road to accommodate the proposed bridge structure. URS will coordinate
with the Town andlor the Town's Consultant for the revised alignment of the proposed box-culvert under Arapaho Road as well as bridge drainage and bridge drain tie-ins. URS will coordinate
with the Town andlor the Town's Consultant for all geotechnical information required for the foundation design for the bridge and retaining walls. 􀁾􀁬􀀭􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁲􀀠\ , .' The Town
of Addison will provide to URS all available Arapaho Road geometries, including but not l @"<, MfY. limited to electronic files for horizontal alignment, vertical profIle, typical sections,
topography ;r:ufo!> 11' survey, field survey, and utility information. The Town will also provide boring logs, soil parameters I'"'\f', 􀁾􀀮􀀠and foundation design recommendations (allowable
bearing capacities, lateral load analysis, etc.) 􀁾􀀠, 􀀩􀁡􀁾􀀱􀀩􀀬􀀠required for the bridge foundation designs. The Town of Addison will provide to URS a field location \&M;I .' survey
of the existing 60-in. diameter water main, locating the water main precisely, both vertically and horizontally, along the project limits and specifically in the vicinity of the arch-bridge's
main foundations. Additionally the Town will provide any applicable noise regulations or ordinance 
information, obtain right of entry, and provide all traffic data including but not limited to, peak hourly volumes, average daily traffic, percentages of trucks, and design and posted
speeds that may be required for the noise study. The Town will provide all landscape ordinances and guidelines as well as provide a copy ofthe Town's Consultant's schematic landscape
masterplan and the streetscape design development package. All ROW documentation and plans, Arapaho Road geometries and roadway design, drainage, parking lot layout and design, retaining
wall layout and design, survey, geotechnical engineering, design and details for sOWldwails on retaining walls or at grade, landscaping, hardscaping and irrigation for landscaping, permitting.
and construction administration, inspection and record drawings are' outside the scope ofthis agreement and will be performed by others. 
URS August 7, 2002 Mr, Steven Z. Chutchian, PE Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive P,O, Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase II -Design
Development, Contract Documeuts, and Construction Administration Conceptual Constructiou Cost Estimate -"TxDOT" Bridge Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please find a copy ofthe Conceptual
Construction Cost Estimate for a standard "TxDOT" bridge for the referenced project for your review as you requested. This estimate in addition to a standard bridge includes minimal
urban design & landscaping, roadway deck and parking lot lighting, lighting along the traffic rails, a rail to separate pedestrians from the roadway and some soundwalls, The conceptual
cost is -$4.1 million. We trust that this will help in moving the process forward so we may proceed with finalizing Our scope and fee proposa\. Sincerely, URS Corporation 􀁾􀀯􀀿􀁤􀁦􀀠CliffR.
Hall, PE Project Manager Enclosure URS Corporation Prestonwood Tower 5151 8eftline Road, Suite Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Tel: 972,980,4961 Fax: 972.991.7665 
ARAPAHO BRIDGE MEETING, 9125/02 OPENING COMMENTS RON WIDTEHEAD/CITY MANAGER PBASE DI STATUS REPORT HNTB BRIDGE DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION PROCESS DRS GENERAL DISCUSSION 
URS May 5, 2003 Mr. Steven Z. Chutchian, PE Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase II -Design
Development & Contract Documents Draft Noise Report Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please fmd three copies ofthe Draft Report for the Arapaho Road Bridge Noise and Vibration Analysis for
your review. Please provide any comments at your earliest convenience. Upon receipt ofyour comments we will issue the final report. Sincerely, C;;;d/CliffR. Hall, PE Project Manager
Enclosure URS Corporation Gtaystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas. TX 15234 Tel: 972.406.6950 Fax: 972.406.6951 
FW: Arapaho Road Borings Page 1 of2 Steve Chutchian To: Elizabeth Matting Subject: RE: Arapaho Road Borings Liz -Please accept this correspondence as your approval to pelform the additonal
borings. Thanks. Steve C. -----Original Message----From: Elizabeth Metting [mailto:EMETTING@HNTB.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 1:30 PM To: schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us Subject: FW:
Arapaho Road Borings Steve, This is the estimate 10 get the additional two borings done. I would like to get the Town's approval 10 get this work underway ASAP. Please call me on my
mobile 8t972-849-8023 Liz -----Original Message---From: Roger Southworth To: Elizabeth Melting Sent: 4fI412003 9: 11 AM Subject: Re: Arapaho Road Borings Good morning Liz, The additional
oost for the bridge borings is $1,600.00. This includes re-clearing the utilities, re-mobilization of drilling equipment, rock coring (assumed boring depths of 40 feet), laboratory testing,
and additional CAD. A large part ofthis budget is for re-clearing utilities since we will have to start from the beginning with the utility locates. Feel free to give me a call ifyou
need more information. Roger »> "Elizabeth Melting" <EMETTlNG®HNTB.com> 04f09f03 01:30PM »> Here is a spreadsheet listing the borings that I show have been done, ." along with the ones
that remain to be done. <<BoringStatus.xls» Our original scope allowed for 7 Bridge borings, however URS bas requested a total of 9 Bridge borings. Please let me know ASAP what the additional
cost will be so that we can have the Town approve that and get the worle underway. I am checking with URS 10 veritY the exact locations that want the borings, but this spreadsheet is
close. 4/14/2003 
FW: Arapaho Road Borings Page 2 of2 Liz Metting Direct 972-628-3109 Mobile 972-849-8023 ********************************************************************** This e-mail and any files
transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use ofthe individual or entity to whom they are addressed, Ifyou are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible
for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this
e-mail is strictly prohibited, **•••**•••*******••••••••*.*** ••••••••••• * •• **••****••**************** 4/14/2003 
Steve Chutchian From: ClifCHall@URSCorp.com Sent: Tuesday, March 18,200311:51 AM To: Jenny Nicewander Cc: Jerry Holder; Ijalbert@cLaddison.tx.us; schulchian@cLaddison.tx.us Subject:
RE: Bridge footing Jenny, The sidewalk is outside of the 7-ft zone where the 22 ft is needed. We only need l5-ft clearance in the zone from 7-ft to 12-ft. This is where the sidewalk
will end up. If we have 16'-6" clearance to the beams and diaphragm, we will have more than the IS-ft required. See attached file. For looking at vertical clearance I would assume the
full structure depth to a point under the main arch members. Please provide the 'roadway geometry files when they are finished and checked. Thanks. (See attached file: bdecarap05_a.dgn)
Cliff R. Hall, PE Bridge Group Manager URS Corporation Greystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 Office Tel: 972.406.6950 Direct: 972.406.6976 Fax: 972.406.6951
"Jenny Nicewander" To: <Cliff Hall@urscorp.com> <JNicewander@hntb cc: <schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us>, ItJerry Holder" . com> <JHolder@hntb.com>, <ljalbert@ci.addison.tx.us> SUbject: RE:
Bridge footing 03/18/03 10:19 AM Cliff, I'm working on finishing up the pavement file now and can have that to you pretty soon. I haven't finalized the profile yet but I am hoping to
have that done in the next day or so. Since the sidewalk is with in l2-ft of the edge of pipe, I will need 22-ft of clearance under the sidewalk. I will verify that you have the 16'
6" 1 
under the bridge, but I think the sidewalk might control the vertical over Midway. I am working in SelectCad not GeoPak but can give you all the files you will need to the 4th decimal
place. Would you want these files as I finish them or all together? I can get them all to you by the end of the week. Jenny Nicewander, P.E. HNTB Corp. 5910 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 200
Plano, TX 75093 main -972-661-5626 direct line -972-628-3164 fax -972-661-5614 -----Original Message----From: Cliff_Hall@URSCorp.com [mailto:Cliff_Hall@URSCorp.comJ Sent: Tuesday, March
18, 2003 9:07 AM To: Jenny Nicewander Cc: schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us; Jerry Holder Subject: Re: Bridge footing Jenny, I have just received a phone call from Luke Jalbert of the Town
of Addison giving us notice-to-proceed with Option A for the Arapaho Road Bridge. In order to begin our work on the bridge, we will need the final alignment and profile of Arapaho Road
bridge as soon as possible. In addition to any MicroStation files, we would appreciate a copy of the GeoPak files with all information (Sta, Elev, Grade, etc.) to four decimal places.
To ensure that a minimum vertical clearance of 16 1 -6" over Midway Road is maintained to the bottom of the prestressed beam and diaphragm at the arch section, a superstructure depth
of a minimum of 5'-6" is required. When verifying the vertical clearance, the cross slope of the deck must be taken into account. Please call if you have any questions. Cliff R. Hall,
PE Bridge Group Manager URS Corporation Greystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 Office Tel: 972.406.6950 Direct: 972.406.6976 Fax: 972.406.6951 ********************************
************************************** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error
and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. ********************************************************************** 2 
3 
Steve Chutchian From: Jenny Nicewander [JNicewander@HNTB.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:19 AM To: Cliff_Hall@URSCorp.com Cc: schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us; Jerry Holder; Ijalbert@ci.addison.tx.u
5 Subject: RE: Bridge footing Cliff, I'm working on finishing up the pavement file now and can have that to you pretty soon. I haven't finalized the profile yet but I am hoping to have
that done in the next day or so. Since the sidewalk is with in 12-ft of the edge of pipe, I will need 22-ft of clearance under the sidewalk. I will verify that you have the 16'6" under
the bridge, but I think the sidewalk might control the vertical over Midway. I am working in SelectCad not GeoPak but can give you all the files you will need to the 4th decimal place.
Would you want these files as I finish them or all together? I can get them all to you by the end of the week. Jenny Nicewander, P.E. HNTB Corp. 5910 W. Plano Parkway, Suite 200 Plano,
TX 75093 main -972-661-5626 direct line -972-628-3164 fax -972-661-5614 -----Original Message----From: Cliff Hall@URSCorp.com [mailto:Cliff Hall@URSCorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18,
2003 9:07 AM To: Jenny Nicewander Cc: schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us; Jerry Holder Subject: Re: Bridge footing Jenny, I have just received a phone call from Luke Jalbert of the Town of
Addison glvlng us notice-to-proceed with Option A for the Arapaho Road Bridge. In order to begin our work on the bridge, we will need the final alignment and profile of Arapaho Road
bridge as soon as possible. In addition to any MicroStation files, we would appreciate a copy of the GeoPak files with all information (Sta, Elev, Grade, etc.) to four decimal places.
To ensure that a minimum vertical clearance of 16'-6" over 􀁾􀁤􀁷􀁡􀁹􀀠Road is maintained to the bottom of the prestressed beam and diaphragm at the arch section, a superstructure depth
of a minimum of Sf-6ft is required. When verifying the vertical clearance, the cross slope of the deck must be taken into account. Please call if you have any questions. Cliff R. Hall,
PE Bridge Group Manager URS Corporation Greystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 Office Tel: 972.406.6950 Direct: 972.406.6976 ! 
Fax: 972.406.6951 ********************************************************************** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised
that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. **************************************************
******************** 2 
I Steve Chutchian From: ClifCHall@URSCorp.com Sent: Tuesday. March 18. 2003 9:07 AM To: Jenny Nicewander Cc: schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us; jholder@hntb.com Subject: Re: Bridge footing
Jenny, have just received a phone call from Luke Jalbert of the Town of Addison glvlng us notice-to-proceed with Option A for the Arapaho Road Bridge. In order to begin our work on the
bridge, we will need the final alignment and profile of Arapaho Road bridge as soon as possible. In addition to any MicroStation files, we would appreciate a copy of the GeoPak files
with all information (Sta, Elev, Grade, etc.) to four decimal places. To ensure that a minimum vertical clearance of 16' -6" over Midway Road is maintained to the bottom of the prestressed
beam and diaphragm at the arch section, a superstructure depth of a minimum of 5'-6" is required. When verifying the vertical clearance, the cross slope of the deck must be taken into
account. Please call if you have any questions. Cliff R. Hall, FE Bridge Group Manager URS Corporation Greystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 Office Tel: 972.406.6950
Direct: 972.406.6976 Fax: 972.406.6951 1 
Ret: 1 Fax: 'i·iMI"u IjjJ00201/29/2003 14:36 FAX URS Memorandum Date; January 28, 2003 To: ShW'on Bell. From: CliffR. Hall. P.E. 6t{li Subject: Arapaho Road Bridge -Concept Vrdeo FileJi
A$ requested we have enclosed II copy ofthe computer animated video files ofthe Arapaho Road Bridge concept, developed for the design competition presentation last April. To view these
files you will need to download the files onto a computer with a DVD player software. The DVD player software should be opened and from the DVD player open the file. Please feel free
to call me ifyou have any problems. c,c, Steve Chutchian, PE 
Rece ax : 􀁁􀁾􀁊􀀠00 3:2 Fax St l' • a ISO 1 01/29/2003 14:36 FAX @OOl URS Facsimile To! Firm: -,;;,...., N '" F 􀀦􀁾􀀬...'" 􀁎􀁾__ Fi!a;;mile: '4,2 .YS;"O, "2.6 􀁾􀀷􀀠From! c....'FF
r-h1-..... Date: \ /.. q 1t:P-=-';._...... Page 1 of: 􀁾􀀠Message: Subject: cc: .. URS Corporation . COl'FJI)ENrI!.J.,IT'II NOTICE ,3010 LBJ freeway, 􀁓􀁵􀁩􀁴􀁾􀀠1320 ! The information
In ibis. (acJimile Irwmimon is. intended solely rortMDBfla.&. l'X 7$234 meed Teciplenl of Ihls: tlllJU'mlnion. If you have: rcqblcd IIlII !Q:': in error, Tal: 972.406.6950 􀁰􀁬􀁣􀁾􀁊􀁃􀀠notify
the. 􀀮􀀡􀁾􀁾􀁴􀀠immediiitl)' b)' ItJephont". rr ),OLl &II!: nOllhcFall; 􀁮􀀺􀀲􀀢􀀬􀀴􀀰􀁇􀀮􀀶􀁾1 inttndcd redpient, plc&$c be 􀁾􀁖􀁩􀁬􀁃􀁤􀀠ths.1 diucminarion. diairibUliOll•.orWiNI.umeorpc.com
copying of Ihl: infoonlltion contained in mil ru il sUi.:::tly prohibited. 
Steve Chutchian To: Jerry Holder Subject: RE: Data for Noise Study thanks. -----Original Message----From: Jerry Holder [mailto:JHolder@HNTB.com] Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 11:06
AM To: schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us ec: jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us SUbject: RE: Data for Noise Study Actually Steve, I checked with Liz on #3 and it turns out that we spent a lot of time
getting the COG photo's projected into the correct coordinate plane so that it lines up with our CAD drawings* So we're giving what we did to Cliff to save them the time and effort.
He'll only need your CD's if for some reason he needs coverage outside of the roadway corridor. Jerry -----Original Message----From: schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us [mailto:schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 11:04 AM To: Jerry Holder Subject: RE: Data for Noise Study Jerry -thanks for the help. I will check with Jim today. Steve C. -----Original Message----From:
Jerry Holder [mailto:JHolder@HNTB.comj Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 6:28 PM To: Cliff Hall@URSCorp.com; schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us Cc: Elizabeth Metting; Jenny Nicewander; Angela
Stoddard Subject: RE: Data for Noise Study Steve, I think we can help with the following: Item #1: I believe Bruce Grantham has a contract on Midway Road, I will check to see if it covers
this area. (Liz, I think you know the answer to this one, please let me know) Item #2: We can e-mail this to Cliff. {Jenny, please take care of this} Item #3: The Town has coverage through
COG. Jim Pierce has the CD's from COG that have the aerial files on it. (Steve can you check with Jim on this?) Item #4a, b, and c: I will discuss this with Angela Stoddard. I know this
data is limited and assumptions were made for the engineering report. We will provide what we have. (Angie, please get the engineering report and let's discuss what we can provide to
Cliff} 1 
Item #4d: Angela and I will send the design criteria to Cliff. Item 5: Jenny and I will send this to Cliff. Let's set a deadline of Monday to get this to Cliff. Thanks everyone. Jerry
-----Original Message----From: Cliff Hall@URSCorp.com [mailto:Cliff Hall@URSCorp.comj Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 4:21 PM To: schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us Cc: Jerry Holder; Elizabeth
Metting Subject: Data for Noise Study Steve, In order to develop our model for the noise study, we will need the following information. We understand that some of this information (e.g.
traffic data) may not be available to the extent that we are requesting; however, we would ask that you please provide as much information as is available. 1. Midway Road vertical profile
and horizontal alignment in the vicinity of Arapaho Road. 2. Arapaho Road final vertical profile and horizontal alignment (when available). 3. Aerial map showing extent of project ROW
plus 500' to cover all adjacent receptors. (It would be helpful if the aerial showed the proposed Arapaho Road). 4. Traffic Data: a. ADT: Future design year with project alternative
b. Directional Peak hour traffic volumes (total, not turning movements) for level-of-service (LOS) C and DIE (link capacity data, not intersection capacity data) for the future design
year with project alternative. c. Vehicle Mix: 5 types -automobiles, motorcycles, busses, medium trucks and heavy trucks (3 axles or greater) for peak-noise-hour, LOS C or DIE. d. Traffic
speeds, design and posted. 5. Railroad: type and frequency of rail traffic. Cliff R. Hall, PE Bridge Group Manager URS Corporation Greystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas,
TX 75234 Office Tel: 972.406.6950 Direct: 972.406.6976 Fax: 972.406.6951 ********************************************************************** This e-mail and any files transmitted
with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited. ********************************************************************** 2 
See answers below Page 1 of3 Steve Chutchian From: Jerty Holder [JHolder@HNTB.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:26 AM To: clifChali@urscorp.com; schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us; Jenny
Nicewander; Angela Stoddard; Elizabeth Metting; Rob Kouba; Katura Curry , Subject: See answers below Please see our responses to Cliff's requests, shown in red below. Thanks, Jerry steve,
I think we can help with the following: Item #1: I believe Bruce Grantham has a contract on Midway Road, I will check to see if it covers this area. {Liz, I think you know the answer
to this one, please let me know} Liz has sent an e-mail to Katura (Grantham & Associates) to send this information to Cliff. Item #2: We can e-mail this to Cliff. {Jenny, please take
care of this} Jenny will e-mail the latest to Cliff by Friday. Item #3: The Town has coverage through COG. Jim Pierce has the CD's from COG that have the aerial files on it. {steve can
you check with Jim on this?} Item #4a, b, and c: I will discuss this with Angela Stoddard. I know this data is limited and assumptions were made for the engineering report. We will provide
what we have. (Angie, please get the engineering report and let's discuss what we can provide to Cliff) #4a: I will fax Cliff the traffic data from the engineering report and also the
geotechnical report showing the percentage of trucks. will do this today. #4b: This is not available since this road is on a new alignment. You might be able to get some information
from the traffic study the Town recently did on Beltline. #4c: See geotech report I will fax to you·. Item #4d: Angela and I will send the design criteria to Cliff. Design Speed = 40
mph and Posted Speed = 40 mph. Item 5: Jenny and I will send this to Cliff. There are four (4) freight trains per day that use the track. They are not on a set I 12/16/2002 
See answers below Page 2 of3 schedule. Let's set a deadline of Monday to get this to Cliff. Thanks everyone. Jerry -----Original 􀁍􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁡􀁧􀁥􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾From: Cliff_Hall@URSCorp.com [mailto:Cliff
Hall@URSC0J:'p.com] Sent: Wednesday, December II, 2002 4:21 PM To: schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us Cc: Jerry Holder; Elizabeth Metting Subject: Data for Noise Study Steve, In order to develop
our model for the noise study, we will need the following information. We understand that some of this information (e.g. traffic data) may not be available to the extent that we are
requesting; however, we would ask that you please provide as much information as is available. 1. Midway Road vertical profile and horizontal alignment in the vicinity of Arapaho Road.
2. Arapaho Road final vertical profile and horizontal alignment (when available). 3. Aerial map showing extent of project ROW plus 500' to cover all adjacent receptors. (It would be
helpful if the aerial showed the proposed Arapaho Road). 4. Traffic Data: a. ADT: Future design year with project alternative b. Directional Peak hour traffic volumes (total, not turning
movements) for level-of-service (LOS) C and DIE (link capacity data, not intersection capacity data) for the future design year with project alternative. c. Vehicle Mix: 5 types -automobiles,
motorcycles, busses, medium trucks and heavy trucks (3 axles or greater) for peak-noise-hour, LOS C or DIE. d. Traffic speeds, design and posted. 5. Railroad: type and frequency of rail
traffic. Cliff R. Hall, PE Bridge Group Manager URS Corporation Greystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 12116/2002 
I Steve Chutchian From: Elizabeth Metting [EMETTING@HNTB.comJ Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 8:37 PM To: schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us; ClifCHall@URSCorp.com Cc: Jenny Nicewander; Jerry
Holder; Mike Preston; David Boles Subject: RE: Arapaho Road Bridge Steve, understood that Slade would not be available this week. Whenever he is available, we would like to meet with
him, you, Jim Pierce, Luke, and Cliff. Wednesday morning should be possible (as early as 8:30) or right after lunch. If he is out, then let both Cliff and me know several possible times
early next week and we will find a time to meet. We have developed some sketches trying to fit a sidewalk/trail within the typical section while still accomodating DWU's desire to remain
a minimum distance from the 6011 line. We would like to get everyone together to develop the concepts into a working plan. Liz -----Original Message----From: schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us
[mailto:schutchian@ci.addison.tx.usl Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:00 PM To: Cliff Hall@URSCorp.com Cc: Elizabeth Metting Subject: RE: Arapaho Road Bridge Cliff/Liz: we probably
can meet on Wednesday or Thursday afternoon this week, or anytime on Monday or Tuesday of next week. Thanks. Steve C. -----Original Message----From: Cliff Hall@URSCorp.com [mailto:Cliff
Hall@URSCorp.com] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 3:31 PM To: emetting@hntb.com Ce: sehutchian@ci.addison.tx.us Subject: Arapaho Road Bridge Liz, As we discussed the week before last,
you were going to arrange a meeting with the Town of Addison to discuss the bridge and roadway typical sections that will provide the required clearance to the 60" water main. Please
advise the time and location for this meeting if it has been arranged. This issue must be resolved before we can progress with the preliminary bridge design. Cliff R. Hall, PE Bridge
Group Manager URS Corporation Greystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 Office Tel: 972.406.6950 Direct: 972.406.6976 Fax: 972.4Q6.6951 I 
********************************************************************** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received
this e-mail in error and that any usel dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. **********************************************************************
2 
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (972) 450.Z871 FAX (972) 45{)·2837 ® Post Offiee Box 9016 Addison, Texas 75001-9010 16801 Westgrove November 18, 2002 Mr. CliffR. Hall. P.E. URS Corporation Graystone
Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1320 Dallas, Texas 75234 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase II Design Development & Contract Documents Agreement for Professional Services Dear
Mr. Hall: Enclosed is a copy ofan executed original ofthe Agreement for Professional Services for the Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road. An original ofthis document was previously forwarded
to your office by separatetransmittal. Please accept this correspondence as your authorization to proceed with the Arapaho Road bridge design, as outlined in the Scope ofServices portion ofthe Agreement. Should
you have any questions, please call me at 972-450-2878. Thank you. Sincerely, /t/t-(' 􀁾􀀠Michaelh{urphy,P.E. Director ofPublic Works Enclosure 
Steve Chutchian From: HILL, JOHN [jhill@cowlesthompson.coml Sent: Friday, November 01 , 2002 8:36 AM To: 'Nancy_Cole@URSCorp.com' Cc: 'mmurphy@ci.addison.tx.us'; 1pierce@ci.addison.tx.us';
'schutchian@ci.addison.tx.us'; DIPPEL,KEN Subject: RE: Town of Addison-Revision!! Nancy--No problem with striking that 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁾􀁳􀁾􀁯􀁮􀀠(that provision (with a modification) was included
with the changes proposed by URS). I would appreciate it if you would please have URS execute two originals of the agreement and have the URS representative forward the signed originals
to Jim Pierce at Addison. Thanks. John Hill Cowles « Thompson 901 Main St. 4000 Bank of America Tower Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 672-2170 -----Original Message----From: Nancy Cole@URSCorp.com
[rnailto:Nancy Cole@URScorp.com] sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:34 PM To: HILL, JOHN Cc: 'jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us'; DIPPEL, KEN Subject: Re: Town of Addison-Revision!! John-Sorry
to do this, but as per my phone message, we need to discuss Article XVI, 1tG" -!lIn the event Client and URS are unable to agree on an appropriate equitable adjustment in Estimated Costs
and Schedule prior to the time the changes in the Services need to be performed, then Client shall authorize URS to proceed with the changes and URS will do so...• " • URS doesn't want
to have the obligation to perform if we cannot reach an agreement prior to our starting work. We would like to strike that language. Regards, Nancy C. Cole Contracts Manager, Gulf Coast
Region URS Corporation, Legal Department 8181 E. Tufts Avenue Denver, CO 80237 (303) 740-2737 (303) 930-6044 fax nancy_cole@urscorp.com ttHILL, JOHN" <jhill@cowlestho To: n'nancy_cole@urscorp.com'"
<nancy_cole@urscorp.com> mpson.com> cc: 1 
U1jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us flf <jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us>, "DIPPEL, KEN" <kdippel@cowlesthompson.com> 10/30/2002 08:44 Subject: Town of Addison AM <<Addison -Agreement for Professional
Services (URS -Bridge).DOC» Nancy-Attached for your review is a revised red-lined copy of the Agreement for Professional Services between the URS and the Town of Addison. A couple of
connnents: 1. With respect to the force majeure provision (Article VII), I have not included a provision that URS will be compensated if a force majeure event should occur. The purpose
of the clause is to allow the parties to suspend performance during a force majeure event, and there should be no compensation due if the parties' duties to perfoDm are suspended. 2.
Under Article IX, the word 'ltdefective" has been left in, but it is tied to the standard of care. After your review, please let me know if you would like to discuss any of the items.
John Hill Cowles & Thompson 901 Main St. 4000 Bank of America Tower Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 672-2170 2170 {See attached file: Addison -Agreement for Professional Services (URS Bridge)
.DOC) 2 
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SEBCRA fl ("Agreement") 1"1\ This Agreement between the Town of Addison, Texas ,("Client') and URS Corporation ('URS") , a Nevada corporation; Gravstone Centre,
3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 75234; 972.406,6950 ("URS"), is effective as of September ", 2002 , The parties agrae as follows: It is tile elll1fllS5sd iRtsRt ef the parties tllat lllis
AlIr:eement sllall tie made !wailatlle la IRB silesidiaries aAiI affiliated sempaRies af URS. Fer tile flllfllsses 9f this Alir:eemeRt, as it applies Ie eaG!! 􀀧􀁩􀀧􀀭􀀧􀁾􀁆􀁫􀀠Order,
the teFfR OURS" shall meaR either, URI CeFPeFalieR , 9r the affiliate£! s9mpallY ideRlifietl in the 􀁜􀁁􀀧􀁾􀁆􀁫􀀠OrdeF. TAe applisaele 'Nark Order shall sleaFIy ideAlify lile le!jal
Rame af the affiliate SF sllesiaiary asseflliRi! Ule 'PJerk Oraer. ARTICLE I -Work Orders, The Scope of Services ('Services"), the time schedule ('Time Schedule:) and the charges for
the Services ("Charges:) are to be set forth in a written Wort Order which is supplementarv to this this Agreement. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall apply to each Wort
Order, except to the extent expressly modified by the Wort Order. Where Chargesshaflilss are 'not to exceed" a specified sum, all Services shall be provided by URS for Charoes which
do not exceed the specified sumURS sf.1all Rstif;' ClieRt ee€sr:e SliGh sum is Bllsee£!etl and shall nst ooRtiRIl8 te j:lr:evide the SefViGss tleysRd SlIsll sum IInless Client autheFil!es
all illGr:ease in tf.1e SIIlR. If a "not to exceed" sum is broken down into budgets for specifiC tasks, the task budget may be exceeded without Client authorization as long as the total
sum is not exceeded. Changes in conditions which directly affect the Services, including, without limitation, changes in laws or regulations occurring after the budget is established
or other circumstances beyond URS control shall be a basis for equitable adjustments in the budget and Time 􀁓􀁣􀁨􀁥􀁤􀁵􀁬􀁥􀁳􀁳􀁾􀁥􀀡􀁬􀁵􀁬􀁥􀀮􀀠ARTICLE II -Payment. A. Unless otherwise
stated in 􀁾􀀸􀁦􀁉􀀠Wort Order, payment shall be on a time and materials basis under the Schedule of Fees and Charges set forth in the Wort Order which are in effect when the Services
are perfonmed. Client shall pay undisputed portions of each progress invoice within thirty (30) days of the date of the Client's receipt of an invoice from URS. If payment is not maintained
on a !imruvthirty (3Q) day SUFFeRt basis, URS may suspend further perfonmance until payments are current. Client shall notify URS of any disputed amount within fifteen (15) days from
date of the Client's recejpt of 􀀡􀀮􀁉􀁬􀁾..Jnvoice. give reasons for the objection, and llF9mfltly pay the undisputed amount in accordance herewith. Client shall pay interest on any
overdue payment at the rateaR a!l£!itiGRal sIlaflil9 of one and eAe Ralf percent 􀀨􀀱􀁾􀀥􀀩􀀠per month or the maximum percentage allowed by law, whichever is the lesser, €sF allY fl8st
due ameYRt. In the event of a legal action for invoice amounts not paid in accordance with this Agreement and the Work Order, attorneys' fees, court costs, and other related expenses
shall be paid to the prevailing party. B, URS shall submit to Client an invoice or bjlling statement for all wort perfonT!ed hereunder jn fOnT! and substance satisfactory to Client.
All invoices or billing statements shall include a statement of Services rendered and the amount owed in connection therewith, an itemized statement of reimbursable costs and expenses
Incurred. and the sum of all prior payments for the Services set forth in the letter agreement dated February 21. 2002 <Exhibit A). The cumulative amounts of progress payments for the
Services shall not exceed the Charges. URS shall not be entitled to any compensation for any services or wort not actually perfonT!ed or for any lost profits as a result of any abandonment
or suspenSion of work by the Client. URS shall perfonT! all work hereunder in a manner satisfactorv and acceotable to the Client in accordance with the standard of care set forth in
this Agreement. C, Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement or the Wort Order. Client shall not be obligated to make payment to URS hereunder if: 1. URS is in default of
any of its obligations under this Agreement. the Work Order, or any other documents in connection with the Services (and payment may be withheld to the extent of any such default); PSA·1.DQC
19-Mar..()2 -1
2. Any part of such payment is attributable to any services of URS which are not performed in accordance with thjs Agreement: 3. URS has failed to make oayment promptly to consultants
or other third parties used by URS in connection with URS' services hereunder for which the Client has made oayment to URS: or 4. If the Client. in its good faith judgment and after
consultation with URS. determines that the portion of the compensation then remaining unpaid will not be sufficient to complete the Services hereunder. no additional payments will be
due URS hereunder unless and until URS performs a sufficient portion of the Services so that such portion of the compensation remaining unpaid Is determined by Client to be syfficient
to complete the Services. ARTICLE III • Professional Responsibility. URS is obligated to comply with applicable standards of professional care in the performance of the Services. Client
recognizes that opinions relating to environmental, geologic, and geotechnical conditions are based on limited data and that actual conditions may vary from those encountered at the
times and locations where the data are obtained, despite the use of due professional care. URS represents and warrants that it is authOrized 10 practice engineering in Ihe State of Texas
and that any necessarv licenses. permits or other authorization to practice engineering and to provide the Services set forth herein have been heretofore acouired as reguired by law.
rule or regulation. Notwithstanding anvthing herein to the contrary. URS and Client agree and acknowledge thai Client is entering into this Agreement in reliance on URS' professional
abilities With respect to performing the Services set forth herein. URS agrees to use its professional skill, judgment and abilities in the performance of its Services hereunder. and
shall render Services under this Agreement and in connection with the project in accordance with the professional standards of engineering prevailing in the Dallas·Fort Worth metroplex
area and shall use the skill and care commensurate with the reguirements of the engineering profession. URS shall perform its Services in accordance with all laws. regulations, and rules
in accordance with the standard of care set forth herein, Without in any way limiting the foregoing or any other provision of this Agreement. URS shall be liable to the Client for any
and all damages, injuries, liabililv, or other harm of whatever nature to the extent caused by or resulting from any negligent. grossly negligent. or intentionally wrongful errors. acts
or omissions of URS, or URS' directors. partners, officers, employees, agents, contractors. subcontractors. or any person or entity for whom URS is legally liable, In the proviSion of
its Services under this Agreement. and for other breaches by UR.S to the extent URS was negligent. grosslv negligent. or intentionally wrongful in its performance of professional services
under this Agreement. ARTICLE IV • Responsibility for others. URS shall be responsible to Client for URS Services and and the services of URS directors, partners, officers, employees.
agents, contractors, subcontractors. or any person or entilv for whom URS is legally liable, URS shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of other parties engaged by Client
nor for their construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or their heaHh and safety precautions and programs, .ORTICI.& '.' Risk AlloGatioR. rile liaeility sf
URS, its emplayees, s!!ems aAlI 􀁳􀁾􀁥􀁇􀁇􀁭􀁲􀁡􀁇􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁳􀀠(refeFfes la GGlieGli\'ely iR tIlis ArtiGle as 'URS,,), fer CHem's Glaims af less, iRjlUY, seath, eama!!e, I'll' 9Xf)9RSe,
􀁩􀁁􀁇􀁉􀁾􀁡􀁩􀁁􀁧􀀬􀀠􀀧􀁬􀁊􀁩􀁴􀁉􀁬􀁇􀁾􀀱􀀠limilatieA, elleRl's slaims sf saRlrieyliaR eAs iRsemRilisatieR, e*press aF imf)liee, 'lAIR resl'lssI IG third party Glaims relaiiRg IG ssF\'iGSS
reAseraa Ell' aell!!atiaAs impasss URSaI' this ,"<fjreemaAt, iRslllaiRg all 'Nefk Orders, shall Aet exsees ill the B€J!!re!!ale: (1) The tetal 􀁳􀁾􀁭􀀠ef $250,000 far Glalms aFisiA!!
ellt Gf !lFGfessieRal Regll!!SASe, iAGluSI"g emlrs, emlssleAs, I'll' ether !lFGfessieAal aGls, aAs iAGlIISiAg IlAimemieAal IlreaGh af StlAtraGl; aAS aAY aGlllal ar !leteRtial eR'IiFGAfl'IeRtal
PGllllthlR aF GamamiAaiiaA, iAslllaiAg, witllellt Iifl'litatiaA, aAY aGlual I'll' IllreateRee release 9f twas, irritaAt, !ltlilutant, SF waste gases, liqllitls, ar seliEl materials,
SF faililre Ie sslsEll sr IlfGllerly 8\<alllate the !lreseAse at SliGh sllestaRsss, 9lwept Ie tile exteRt SliGh release, lilreatenes release, er failllre Ie seteGl tlr e'faillate is
Gallses By Ihe willful miSGGAsllEll af URS; aF (2) rAe leta I slim sf $1 ,Ogg,OOO far Glaims 􀁡􀁲􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁁􀁾􀀠alit af negli!!9ASe, ereaGIl af ssAtr:ast, eF ether sallses fer wllisR URS
has aAY legalliallilily, ether tllan as limiles By (1) aea'.<a, PSA·l.DOC 19-Mar-lJ2 ·2· 
ARTICLE VI -= Insurance; Indemnity. A. In connection wITh thjs Agreement. URS shall provide and maintain in full force and effect the following insurance: m Workers' compensation and
employer's liability insurance for the protection of URS' employees. to the extent required by the law of the State of Texas: (jj) Commercial general liability insurance with limits
not less than One Million and No/100 Dollars $1,000,000,00 each occurrence combined single limit bodily injurv and property damage, including contractual liability (covering, but not
limited 10. the liability assumed under the Indemnification provisions of this Agreement). personal injurv, broadform property damage. products and completed operations coverage (and
if such commercial general liability insurance contains a general aooreoate limit. it shall apply separately to the Services under this Agreement): liii) Comprehensive automobile liability
insurance with limits not less than One Million and No/100 Dollars ($1.000,000,00) each occurrence combined single limit bodily injury and property damage, including owned. non-owned
and hired auto coverage, as applicable: and (iv) Professional Liability Insurance to protect from liability arising out of the performance of professional services under this Agreement.
Such coverage shall be In the sum of not less than Two Million and No/100 Dollars ($2,000.000.00) per claim and aggregate. This coverage must be maintained for at least two (2) years
after the project contemplated herein is completed, If coverage is written on a claims-made baSiS, the retroactive date must not be later than the inception date of this Agreement. All
such policies of insurance shall (a) be issued by insurance companies reasonably acceptable to Client. (b) except for professional liability insurance. shall name (by endorsement) the
Town of Addison. Texas, its officials, officers, employees and agents as an additional insured or loss payee, as the case may be. (c) in all liability poliCies. provide that such policies
are primary insurance to any other insurance available to the additional insureds, with respect to any claims arlsino out of activities conducted hereunder. (d) contain a waiver of subrogation
endorsement in favor of the Town of Addison, Texas, and (e) provide for at least thirty (30l days written notice to the Town of Addison Texas prior to cancellation, non-renewal or material
modification which affects this Agreement. Certificates of insurance (together with the declaration page of such policies. along with the endorsement naming the Town of Addison, Texas
as an additional insured or loss payee, as the case may be). satisfactory to Client. evidencing all coverage above. shall be promptly delivered to Town and updated as may be appropriate.
with complete copies of such policies furnished to the Client upon reouest. The Client reserves the right to review the insurance requirements contained herein and to reasonably adjust
coverages and limits when deemed necessary and prudent by the Client. lJRS a!jFees 19 maima!R during tile perfeoosRGe sf tile SeNiees: (1) steMsI)' 11VeFkefS' Cemp8RsatisA \l9'.rerage;
􀁾limpleyer's liability; (3) GeReral biability; aAd (4) AutGms9i1e bia9i1i1y 􀁩􀁒􀁓􀁾􀁆􀁡􀁒􀁇􀁥􀀠ss.reFage easl! In the 􀁳􀁾􀁭􀀠ef $1 ,ggg,ggg. B. In connection with this Agreement (together
with the Work Order) and the provision of Services, URS agrees to and shall indemnify the Town of Addison. Texas. its officials. officers, agents and employees (together, for purposes
of this paragraph. the "Indemnified Persons, against. and hold the Indemnified Persons harmless from any and all claims. actions. causes of action, demands. losses. harm, damages. liability,
expenses, lawsuit!>. ludgments, costs. and fees "ncluding reasonable attorney fees and court costs), for any injury to or the death of any person. or any damage to or destruction of
any property, or any other harm for which damages or any other form of recovery is SQught (whether at law or in equity). resulting from. based upon. or arising out of any negligent.
grossly negligent. reckless, or intentionally wrongful act, error, or omiSSion of URS, its Officers. employees. agents, engineera, consultants. contractors. subcontractors. or any person
or entity for whom URS is legally liable. under, in connection with. or in the performance of. this Agreement. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the expiration or termination
of this Agreement. ARTICbli '.'11 ConsegueRtial [)amages. 􀁾􀁬􀁥􀁩􀁴􀁒􀁥􀁲􀀠FlaFly sllall I;)e liable te Ille ather for 􀁇􀁓􀁁􀁳􀁥􀁅􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁁􀁬􀁩􀁡􀁬􀀠damages, iASIIll:IiRg, wilRawt IimltatieA,
less af use eF less sf prefits, iASllrred Ily eRe aRetner aF tneir PSM.DOC 19-Mar'()2 -3 
syllsi"'ial'ies er SysseSS9rs. 􀁲􀁡􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁤􀁬􀁥􀁳􀁳􀀠9f whether slleh 􀀢􀀧􀁡􀁭􀁡􀁾􀁥􀁳􀀠are eatlse'" By breach af CGR!raat. willflll mise9R"'tlat, 􀁒􀁥􀁾􀁬􀁩􀁾􀁥􀁒􀁬􀀠aat sr smissisFl,
sr stJ:ler WFsA8f1l1 aat sf either ef them. ARTICLE VI" -Client Responsibility, Client shall: (1) provide URS. in W1iting, all information relating to Client's requirements for the project;
(2) correctly identify to URS, the location of subsurface structures which have been placed by Client, such as pipes, tanks, cables and utilities; (3) notify URS of any potential hazardous
substances or other health and safety hazard or condition known to Client existing on or near the project site; (4) give URS prompt W1itten notice of any suspected deficiency in the
Services; and (5) with reasonable promptness, provide required approvals and deCisions. In the event that URS is requested by Client or is required by subpoena to produce documents or
give testimony in any action or proceeding to whiCh Client is a party and URS is not a party. Client shall pay URS for any time and expenses required in connection therewith, including
reasonable attorney's fees. GlieRl sllall raimsllrse 􀁕􀁾fer ailiaxes, "'uties an'" levies StlGA as Sales, Use. VallAe ,<\l:kIee Taxes, Oeemee pFGfits Taxes. aAe GIller similar \axes
wilieR ara a£l£led la ar "'eduate!! from Ihe value at URS SeP,'ises. FeF the fltlfll9se af this I',FliGie SlAsh t_ shall Rsl iRGIude \axes imflese'" on URS nGl iAGOme. ane empleyer eF
emllleyee 􀁰􀁾􀀧􀁲􀁥􀁬􀁬􀀠taJ(8S l&Vie'" 11)' aAY !JRiIed States laxiR!! authelity, eF the 􀁴􀁡􀁸􀁩􀁾􀀠autherilies elf the seuRlries elF any B!leRGY eF 􀁳􀁷􀁾􀁍􀁳􀁩􀁥􀁒􀀠theraaf iR '",hish
!JRS subsidiaries. affiliates, or "'i"isioRS are permaReRlly !!omisile!!. It is B!lreed ane tlA"'eFSteoo that these Ret iASElme, emllleysr Elr emflloY88 payrell taxes are illsltldes
iA tile tlAit PAGOS or lump Sllm Ie ge flSie URS Ynear the F8SflSsti'l1l 'NeFk OFEklF. ARTICLE VIIgc; -Force Majeure. An event of "Force Majeure' occurs when an event beyond the control
of the the Party claiming Force Majeure prevents such Party from fulfilling its obligations. An event of Force Majeure includes, without limitation, acts of God (including floods, hunicanes
and other adverse weather). war, riot, civil disorder, acts of terrorism, disease. epidemic. strikes and labor disputes, actions or inactions of govemment or other authOrities, law enforcement
actions. curfews, closure of transportation systems or other unusual travel difficulties, or inability to provide a safe working environment for employees. In the event of Force Majeure,
the obligations of URS to perform the Services and the obllgatjons of the Client hereunder shall be suspended for the duration of the event of Force Majeure. In such event, YRS sllall
I:)e 8€111ilallly seml'l8nsatell fer lime eXl'leAdell all!! 9J(l'lsnsss iRBllrre'" StlRA8 tile 􀁥􀁾􀀧􀁥􀁒􀁬􀀠ef Feree Majewre aAd the Time SchedulesBlle!!Y[e shall be extended by a like
number of days as the event of Force Majeure. If Services are suspended for 􀁾(lL03Q) consecutive days or more bv such Force Majeure, either URS or the Client may, iA its sole "'isereli911.
upon at least 5 days prior Wlitten notice, terminate this Agreement ander the affected WorX Order. sr !lGlh. In the case of such termination. iR aeditieR 10 Ille seFApeRsatisR ana time
elElaAsisA sGl feFlIl alleva, URS shall be compensated in accordance herewith for all worX properly performed to the date of terminationreasolla!lle IormillatillR eXflenses. In the event
of such termination of this Agreement and the WorX Order, no amount shan be due for lost or anticipated profits. ARTICLE VIIgc; -Riaht of Entry. If Client is the owner of the project
site, URS shall have access to the project sjte at all reaSQnable times for the puroose of providing the Services. If Client is not the owner of the project site, Client shall use its
commercially reasonable efforts to obtain permission for URS to have access to the project site for such purooseGlieRl graRlS t9 URS. all"', if the prejeGl site is IIG1 9.....lIea Ily
Ily GlieRl, '.'.<errants tllat permissieR Ras geen !!raRled fer, a 􀁒􀁾􀁨􀀡􀀠et eAtry from time te time By URi. its employees. a8em!; aRe susGORlraGlers. upen the prejeGl site fer the
)llllfll8Se af I'lF9'AdiR8 tile 8eP,'ises. GlieR! reGogRIi!es that Ille use at iRves!i!!ati'le e€luipmeRl aA'" praGlises may llRa'lai"'a!lly alter the 􀁥􀁸􀁩􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁁􀁾􀀠silo seRllitions
aRs affeat the eR'liroRFAeRl in the area SelA!! stll"'ieEl, !!esflite tll8 lAse of r8asaAailie sare. ARTICLE IXXI -Documents. Upon payment to URS for work properly performed, drawings,
designs, plans, specifications, reports, information. and other documents or materials In whatever form or format (together, "Drawings,) prepared by or for URS in connection herewith
belong to. and remain the property of, the Client for its exclusive reuse at any time without further compensation and without any restrictions, and all intellectual property rights
in connection with the same (whether COPYright or otherwise) are hereby assigned by URS to Client; provided, however, that URS shall retain property rights with respect to any patentable
concepts arising from the Services.Provieed tllat blRS has !leeR PSA-l.DOC 19-Mar.()2 -4," 
Ilaie fer the SeFViGe8. elieA! 8Rall have tRe RgRllo 􀁾􀀸􀁥􀀠Ihe 􀁇􀁏􀁇􀁾􀁭􀁂􀁁􀁉􀁓􀀬􀀠maIlS, IlRot9grallR8. el'lIWiR€lS aRG SileeifiGati9Rs raslllliR€I tram URS efferts SA the IlrajeGl,
Reuse of any such materials by Client on any extension of this project or any other project without the written authorization of URS shall be at Client's sole risk. URS shall have the
right to retain copies of all such materials. URS rataiR5 tAB light Gf eWflBfsAill wilA fB51leGt 19 aAY lla!eAlaele GORGefl\S or Gellylil'lRtaele matelials aFisiR!! tram its SeFVisBs.
Drawings shall be submitted to the Client for the Client's approval. and the same shall comply with all applicable laws. statutes. ordinances, codes and regulations. Notwithstanding
Client's approval of any of the Drawings. URS warrants and represents that the Drawings. as the same may be amended or supplemented by URS. shall. to the best of URS' knowledge, information
and belief as engineers performing the practice of engineering in accordance with the standards, duties. and obligations set forth in this Agreement and the Work Order, be suffiCient
and adeguate for construction of the project for which the Services are provided, shall be free from material error, and shall be satisfactory to the Client. In accordance with the standard
of care, URS agrees that if it shall recommend unsuitable materials in connection with the project and this Agreement and Work Order, or if the design of the project should be defective
in any way. URS will assume sole responsibilitv for any damages, loss, claims, or expenses to the extent caused bv URS' recommendation of unsuitable materials or defective design. In
the event it is determined that any Drawings are defective. URS shall promptly correct any defective Drawjngs at no cost to the Client. The Client's approval, acceptance, use of or payment
for aU or any part of the Services under this Agreement or the Work Order shall in no way alter URS' obligations or the Client's rights hereunder. Approval by the Client of any of URS'
Drawings or work, or the use of or payment for all or any part of the Services, shall not constitute nor be deemed a release of the responsibilitv and liabilHy of URS. its employees,
contractors, subcontractors, agents and consultants for the accuracy and competency of the same, nor shall such approval be deemed to be an assumption of or an indemnification for such
responsibility or liability by the Client for any defect, error or omission in sych Drawings or work, it being understood that the Client at all times is ultimately relying on URS' skill
and knowledge in preparing the Drawings. ARTICLE XII-Termination. A. Client may at any time terminate all or any portion of the Services. or abandon or defer the project (or any part
thereof) for which the Services are being provided, for convenience, at its option and in its sole discretion, by sending a written noticeNGlise of such termination, abandonment or deferral
to URS. If the project (or portion thereof) for which the Services are being provided is abandoned or deferred by Client, Client shall have the right to restore and reinstate the project
and the Services hereunder within one (1) year of such abandonment or deferral; provided, however, that if the abandonment or deferral is for more than 90 consecutive days. such restoration
and reinstatement shall be subject to renegotiation of URS' compensation. B. Either party can terminate this Agreement andaF-a Work Order for cause if the other.Pl!!1Y;, (i) commits
a material, 􀁴􀀱􀁒􀁥􀁾􀁦􀁂􀀡􀁬􀀠breach of this Agreement, and (a) such breach remains uncured for a period of 7 days alter notice thereof (which notice shall speCifically identify the
breach) is received by the breaching partv, or (b) if the breach cannot wjth diligence be cured within said 7 day period, if within such 7 day period the breaching party provides the
non-breaching party written notice of the curative measures which it proposes to undertake, and proceeds promptly to initiate such measures to cure such failure, and thereafter prosecutes
the curing of such failure with diligence and continuity, the time within which such failure may be cured shall be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing
of such failure with diligence and continuity. not to exceed 30 days following the occurrence of the breach, or (ii) becomes insolvent. PSA-1.DOC 19-Mar-02 -5
Termination for cause shall be effective ten (10)t.vemy 􀁜􀀲􀁾􀀠days after receipt of a Notice of Termination, unless a later date is specified in the Notice. The Nelise ef TeFlllillatiGIl
fer Gause sAall s9RtaiR speGlfis reaS(lAS fer teFflliRatieA aAe aetA paFlies sAall seepera!e iA geee faith Ie sure IRe sallses far teFflliAatieR slated iA tile Netise. TeFflliRatieR
5Aall Ret ae 􀁥􀁦􀁦􀁥􀀨􀁬􀁴􀁪􀀾􀀬􀁻􀁾􀀠if reaseAa!lle aalieR te G\lre tRe !lreaGA has aeeR takeR !lefera the effesti\'e eate ef tRe teFflliRatieA. C. URS shall cease all work and labor
being performed under thjs Agreement immediately upon receipt of the notice of termination (whether for convenience or for cayse). D. In the event this Agreement is terminated for any
reason (whether for convenience or for cause), URS shall invoice Clie!)t for all work properlv completed and shall be compensated in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for all
such work accomplished prior to the receipt of the notice of termination. In the event oftermination of this Agreement for any reason (whether for convenience or for cause). no amount
shall be due for lost or anticipated profits. In the event of any termination and upon payment to URS for the work prooerly performed by URS. URS shall deliver to the Client all finished
or unfinished documents. data. stygies. surveys. drawings. maps. models. reports. photographs or other items prepared bv or for URS in connection with this Agreement. its Services. and
the project.CUeR! sRall pay YRS Up9R iFI'l9ise fer SeFvis9S perfmmed aRc:! shaf!les iRGIlFfec:! priOF Ie teFflliRatieR, pillS reasGRable leFflliRatioR sharges. E. In the event of termination
for cause, the parties shall have their remedies at law as to any other rights and obligationsbetween them, subject to the other terms and conditions of this Agreement. ARTICLE XIB • No Third Party Rights. This Agreement shall not create any rights or benefrts to parties other
than Client and URS. No third party shall have the right to rely on URS opinions rendered in connection with the Services without the written consent of URS and the third party's agreement
to be bound to the same conditions and limitations as Client. ARTICLE XlpJ • Assignments. URS shall have no power to and shall not assign, transfer, or otherwise convey its interest,
rights. duties, or responsibilities in this Agreement or any part thereof without the prior written consent of Client and any such assignment. subletting, transfer or other conveyance
shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement (without an opportunity to cure) and the Client shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately and without furlher notice:
proviged, however, that nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent URS from employing such independent professional associates, sub-consultants, and suppliers as URS may deem
appropriate to assist in the performance of the Services. Unless specifically stated to the contrarv in any written consent to an assignment or transfer, no assignment or transfer will
release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement.Neither fJaFly Ie tllis A!JraeFRGR! shall assi!JR its euties aRe ollligatioRS hereuAc:!er without
the prior 'NiitteR seRseR! of the ether paFly. PSA·1.DOC 19-Mar-02 -6· 
ARTICLE xmv: -Hazardous Substances. All nonhazardous samples and by-products from sampling processes in connection with the Services shall be disposed of by URS in accordance with appliceble
law; provided, however, that any and all such materials, including wastes, that cannot be introduced back into the environment under existing law without additional treatment, and all
hazardous wastes, radioactive wastes, or hazardous substances (ea, pollutants and contaminants regulated by law) ('Hazardous Substances") from the sampling processes in connection wjthrelates
te the Services, shall be packaged in accordance with the applicable law by URS and tumed over to Client for appropriate disposal (provided. however. that URS shall first give notice
to Client of the existence of such Hazardous Substances). URS shall not arrange for or otherwise dispose of Hazardous Substances under this Agreement. URS, at Client's request, may assist
Client in identifying appropriate altematives for off-site treatment, storage or disposal of the Hazardous Substances, but URS shall not make any independent determination relating to
the selection of a treatment. storage, or disposal facility nor subcontract such activities through transporters or others. Client shall sign all necessary manifests for the disposal
of Hazardous Substances if Client is reguired by law to sign such manifests. If Client requires: (1) URS agents or employees to sign such manifests; or (2) URS to hire, for Client, the
Hazardous Substances transportation, treatment, or disposal contractor, then for these two purposes, URS shall be considered to act as Client's agent so that URS will not be considered
to be a generator, transporter, or disposer of such substances or considered to be the arranger for disposal of Hazardous Substances, and Client shall indemnify URS against any claim
or loss resulting from such Signing. ARTICLE X!.VI-= Venue; Dispute Resolution. A. In the event of any action under this Agreement. venue for all causes of action shall be instituted
and maintained in Dallas County, Texas (state court) or in the northem district of Texas (federal court). as the case may be. The parties agree that the laws of the State of Texas shall
apply to the interpretation, validity and enforcement of this Agreement and, with reseect to any conflict of law provisions, the parties agree that such conflict of law provisions shall
not affect the application of the law of Texas (without reference to lts conflict of law provisions) to the interoretation, validity and enforcement of this Aareement.IR tile eveRt 9f
aAY sisllldte bet\','eeA tile llaFlies to tllis i'<!IreemeRt, tile veRue fer tile sisllllte reselldtiaR sllall Be aAY state er feseral sellFi iA the URitee States lla'tiR!Cj jurisaistiaR
ever Ille IlSrlies. The fere!CjeiRIi AatwitAstaRsiAll, if tile Ilrojest is leGatee eulsiee the URlted States, the 1a'.'\<5 9f Ille Slate af Galifemia shall lleveFR aAe iA susll 􀁥􀁾􀀼􀁥􀁒􀁴􀀬􀀠aAY
c:lisllllt9 uRc:ler tAe AgreemeRt Rei reselvec:l amisably shall be 􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁥􀁬􀁾􀀼􀁥􀁳􀀠uAser the BiAc:liRIi FIlles of tile !'.merieaR AFbltrati9R ASs9siatieR, B. In an effort to resolve
claims, disputes or other matters in guestion arisjng out of or relating to this Agreement or breach thereof, the parties agree that all claims, disputes, or other matters in guestion
shall be submitted to nonbinding mediation as a first step in seeking a resolution of the same, Any reguest for mediation or another fonn of nonbinding dispute 􀁲􀁥􀁳􀁯􀁬􀁵􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁾􀀠shall
be filed jn writing with the other party within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall the demand for medistion or other
form of nonbinding dispute resolution be made after the date when institution of leoal or eouitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in guestion would be barred
by the applicable statutes of limitations. ARTICLE XVD • Integrated Writing and Enforceability. This Agreement (together with the Work Order) constitutes the final and complete repository
of the agreements between Client and URS relating to the Services and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous communications, representations. or agreements, whether oral or written.
Modifications of this Agreement shall not be binding unless made in PSA-1.DOC 􀀱􀁾􀀮􀁲􀀭􀀰􀀲􀀠-7
writing and signed by an Authorized Representative of each party, The provisions of this Agreement shall be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. If any provision of this
Agreement is found to be invalid or unenforceable, the provision shall be construed and applied in a way that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the parties with
regard to the provisions and that saves the validity and enforceability of the provision, ARTICLE XV! Miscellaneous. A. The undersigned officers and/or agents of the parties hereto are
the properly authorized offiCials and have the necessary authOrity to execute this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto, and each party herebv certifies to the other that any necessary
resolutions or other act extending such authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. B. Any provision of this Agreement later held to be unenforceable for any
reason shall be deemed void and all remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions
of this Agreement allocating responsibility or liabilitv between URS and Client shall survive the cancellation. expiration or termination of this Agreement. Any rights and remedies either
party may have with respect to the other ariSing out of the performance of services during the term of this agreement shall survive the cancellation, expiration or termination of this
Agreement. C. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and the Wol1\ Order. D. The rights and remedies provided by this Aareement are cumulative and the use of anyone right or remedy
by either party shall not preclude or waive its right to use any or all other remedies. Said rights and remedies are given in addition to any other rights the parties may have by law
statute. ordinance. or otherwise. E. URS acknowledges that the project for which the Services are being provided is a public project of the Town of Addison. Texas and is for a public
puroose. and that the property on which the project is to be constructed. the improvements to be constructed thereon. and the funds used by Client in connection with the property acquisition
and the design and construction of the project are exempt from the filing and enforcement of any liens thereon or with respect thereto and from forced sale. For the consideration set
forth herein, URS waives and releases any lien. or claim or right of such lien, which URS has or may have in connection with the Services on or in connection with such property, improvements.
and funds. this Agreement and the Work Order, F. All notices, demands, or requests from one party to another shall be personally delivered or sent by United States mail certified, or
registered. return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the addresses stated below: To Client: ToURS: Addison Service Center Graystone Centre. 16801 Westgrove DOve 301 0 /LBJ Freeway.
Suite 1300 Addison, Texas 75001-5190 Dallas. Texas 75234 Attn: Mike Myrphy, Director of Public Works Attn: All notices or communications reguired to be given in writing by one party
or the other shall be considered as haYing been given to the addressee mif by hand delivery. at the time of deliyery. or (iI) if mailed, seventy-two (72) hours after the deposit of same
in any United States mail post office box. The addresses and addressees for the purpose hereof maY be changed by giving notice of such change in the manner herein provided for giving
notice. Unless and until such written notice is received the last addresses and addressee stated by written nctice. or provided herein if no written notice of change has been sent or
received. shall be deemed to continue in effect for all purposes hereunder. PSA·l.DOC 19-Ma,-02 -8
THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE that there has been an opportunity to negotiate the terms and conditions of this Agreement and agree to be bound accordingly. CLIENT Signature Signature Ron Whitehead
I City Manager Emily Taylor, P.E.I Vice President Typed Name/TUle Typed NameITUle Oat. of Signalure Date of Signature PSA·1.DOC 19-Mar.Q2 
NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNTbUIMP SUM WORK ORDER NO. -"'00...,1'--___ In accordance with the Agreement for Professional Services between Town of Addison ("Client',), and URS Corporationl rURSj.
a Nevada corporation, dated September 11. 2002 ,this Work Order describes the Services, Schedule, and Payment Conditions for URS Services on the Project known as: ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE
AT MIDWAY ROAD DESIGN DEVELOPMENT & CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Client AuthOrized Represen1ative: Address: Public Works Department. P.O. Box 9010 Addison. TX 75001-9010 Telephone No.: 972.450.2871
URS Authorized Representative: EmjlyTavlor. P.E. Address: Graystone Centre. 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 Telephone No.: 972.406.6950 SERVICES. The Services shall be
desClibed in Attachment ...A..-to this Work Order. SCHEDULE. The Estimated Schedule shall be set forth in Attachment B to this Work Order. Because of the uncertainties inherent in the
Services, Schedules are estimated and are subject to revision unless otherwise specifically described herein. Time is of the essence of this Work Order. PAYMENT. The Services described
in Attachment A will be performed for ana "1IIfflIl5IlFll' amount not to exceed9f: $550,965.00: in no event shall the payment by Client for the Services exceed the said amount. A breakdown
of this amount"llIfflll 􀁓􀁾􀁦􀁦􀁬􀀧􀀠Gest is included in Attachment C • URS charges shall be on a percent complete basis and payment shall be made monthly based upon statements submitted
to the Client for the work performed. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. The terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced above shall apply to this Work Order, except as expressly modified herein.
ACCEPTANCE of the terms of this Work Order Is acknowledged by the following signatures of the AuthOrized Representatives. CLIENT Signature Ron Whitehead I City Manager Typed N.melrrtle
Date of Signature Signature Emily Taylor, P.E. I Vice President Typed NamelT'rtJe Date of Slgna!ure PSA-1.DOC 19-Mar-<l2 -1 
DRAFT REPORT ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE NOISE AND VIBRATION ANALYSIS Prepared/or , Town ofAddison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas May 5, 2003 URS 
Affected Environment TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARy...................................................................................................................
ES·1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1·1 2.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS ..................................
..................................................................... 2·1 3.0 LAND USE ................................................................................................................
.......... 3·1 4.0 NOISE REGULATIONS .......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Existing Noise Environment ....................
....................................................................... 4-2 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................... 5·1 5.1 Thresholds
of Significance .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Impacts Analysis and Mitigation Measures .......................................
............................. 5-1 5.2.1 Traffic Noise Modeling ............................................................................................. 5-1 5.2.2 Operational Noise
Impacts ........................................................................................ 5-5 5.2.3 Construction Noise Impacts .................................................................
...................... 5-5 5.2.4 Vibration .................................................................................................................... 5-5 5.2.5 Good Practices
for Construction Noise Reduction .................................................... 5-7 5.2.6 Good Practices for Operational Noise and Vibration Reduction ...............................
5-7 6.0 liMITATIONS...................................................................................................................... 6·1 7.0 REFERENCES ..........................................
........................................................................... 7·1 List of Tables Table 1. Sound Levels OfTypical Noise Sources And Noise Environments (A-Weighted Sound
Levels) ......................................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2. FHW A /TxDOT Noise Abatement Criteria ..................................
............................................. 4-1 Table 3. Short-Term Noise Measurements ................................................................................................
4-5 Table 4. Long-Term Noise Measurements ................................................................................................ 4-6 Table 5 Exterior Noise Impacts .........................
....................................................................................... 5-3 Table 6. Interior Noise Impacts ...........................................................................
...................................... 5-4 Table 7-Criteria for Impact for Human Annoyance and Interference to Use of Vibration-Sensitive Equipment* ..................................................
............................................................................... 5-6 List of Figure Figure l. Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations .................................................
.......................... 4-3 Figure 2. Long-Term Hourly Noise Measurement Data ........................................................................... 4-7 URS P:\Arapaho Road Bridge\Docs\Noise
& Vibration\Draft Noise Report\Draft Noise Report r1.docl project No 5/512003 i 
Affected Environment EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A noise analysis was conducted to determine the effects of the construction of a roadway extension of Arapaho Road. Noise and vibration effects
at adjacent commercial and transient lodging land uses were investigated as part of this project. The analysis indicates that the noise and vibration resulting from construction and
subsequent operation of the proposed roadway would be below State and federal noise and vibration impact standards. No significant noise or vibration impacts are anticipated from this
project. .,". 1JRS P:\Arapaho Road Bridge\Dot:s\NoJse &Vibration\Oraft Noise Report\Oraft Noise RePOrt r1 ,doc! project No 51512003 ES-l 
Affected Environment 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the analysis of potential noise and vibration effects from construction and operation of the proposed project. The project
would extend Arapaho Road from Surveyor Boulevard to Addison Road, in the Town of Addison, Texas. The roadway extension will consist of a 4-lane roadway and includes a bridgelelevated
roadway, spanning over Midway Road. The extension will be approximately 5,400 feet in length. The noise analysis consisted of the following: measuring the existing noise environment
at representative noise-sensitive locations in the area; modeling the future traffic noise from the project; comparing projectrelated noise effects to applicable standards to determine
if the difference would be a significant change; and determining if noise mitigation should be considered. Additionally, vibration from project construction and operations (i.e., from
traffic using the new roadway) was analyzed. DRS P:\ArapahO Road Bridge\Docs\NOise & Vibra!ion\Draft Noise Report\Draft Nolse Report r1.docJ project No 51512003 1-1 
Affected Environment 2.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS Noise is generally defined as loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound that is typically associated with human activity and which
interferes with or disrupts nonnal activities. Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause hearing loss, the principal human response to environmental noise
is annoyance. The response of individuals to similar noise events is diverse and influenced by the type of noise, perceived importance and suitability of the noise in a setting, time
of day and type of activity during which the noise occurs, and sensitivity ofthe individual. Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations, which travel through a medium
such as air and are sensed by the human ear. Sound is generally characterized by a number of variables including frequency and intensity. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is
measured in Hertz (Hz), while intensity describes the sound's loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). dB). Decibels are measured using a logarithmic scale. A sound level of 0 dB is
approximately the threshold of human hearing and is barely audible under extremely quiet listening conditions. Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dB. Sound levels above
approximately 120 dB begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and eventually pain at still higher levels. The minimum change in the sound level of individual events that an
average human ear can detect in a community environment is approximately 3 dB. A change in sound level of 10 dB is perceived by the average person as a doubling (or halving) ofthe sound's
loudness; this relation holds true for loud sounds and for quieter sounds. Sound levels of typical noise sources and environments are provided in Table I to provide a frame of reference.
Because of the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted directly and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically. However, some simple
rules of thumb are useful in dealing with sound levels. For example, if a sound's intensity is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 dB, regardless of the initial sound level. Thus,
for example: 60 dB plus 60 dB equals 63 dB, and 80 dB plus 80 dB equals 83 dB. Sound frequency is a measure of how many times each second the crest ofa sound pressure wave passes a fixed
point. For example, when a drummer beats a drum, the skin ofthe drum vibrates at a certain number of times per second. A particular tone that makes the drum skin vibrate 100 times per
second generates a sound pressure wave that is oscillating at 100 Hz, and this pressure oscillation is perceived as a tonal pitch of 100 Hz. Sound frequencies between 20 Hz and 20,000
Hz are within the range of sensitivity of the best human ear. Sound from a tuning fork (a pure tone) contains one single frequency; however, most sounds heard in the environment do not
consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies differing in sound level. The method commonly commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating
all of the frequencies of a sound according to a weighting system that reflects that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extremely high frequencies than at the mid-range
frequencies. This is called A-weighting, and the decibel level measured is called the A-weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a noise source is conveniently measured
using a sound level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the dBA curve. DRS P:'Arapaho Road Brldge\Oocs\NolS6 &. Vibratfon\Oraft Noise Report\Dtaft NoiSe RepOrt r1.docl project
No 5/512003 2-1 
Affected Environment Although the A-weighted sound level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most
environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources that create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. A single descriptor
called the L,q (equivalent sound level) is used. L,q is the energy-mean A-weighted sound level during a measured time intervaL It is the "equivalent" constant sound level that a given
source would need to produce to equal the fluctuating level measured. In addition, it is often desirable to know the acoustic range of the noise source being measured. This is accomplished
through the Lm3, and 1m;n noise descriptors. They represent the root-mean-square maximum and minimum obtainable noise levels during the monitoring intervaL The Lnun value obtained for
a particular monitoring location is often called the "acoustic floor" for that location. location. Other descriptors of noise are commonly used to predict noise/land use compatibility,
as well as community reaction to daytime and nighttime environmental noise. These descriptors include the DayNight Average Sound Level (abbreviated Lon or DNL). The L.m represents a
24-hour period, and applies a penalty to noise events that occur during nighttime hours when relaxation and sleep distnrbance is usually of more concern. Noise occurring from 10:00 p,m,
to 7:00 a,m, (nighttime) is penalized by adding 10 dB to the measured level. Ldn is the predominant metric used by local governments to describe noise environments within their jurisdictions
and for land use compatibility planning purposes, The U,S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) recommends the use ofLon' lJRS P:\Arapaho Road Bridge\OocsWoise & VibraUon\Draft Noise
Report\Ondt Noise Report r1.docl project No 51512003 z...2 
Affected Environment Table 1. Sound Levels Of Typical Noise Sources And Noise Environments (A-Weighted Sound Levels) Noise Source (at a Given Distance) Scale of A-Weighted Sound Level
in Decibels Noise Environment Human Judgment of Noise Loudness (Relative to a Reference Loudness of 70 Decibels·) Military Jet Take-off with Alter·burner (50 It) 140 Civil Defense Siren
(100 It) 130 Carrier Flight Deck Commercial Jet Take·off (200 It) 120 Threshold of Pain '32 times as loud Pile Driver (50 It) 110 Rock Music Concert '16 times as loud Ambulance Siren
(100 It) 100 Very Loud Newspaper Press (5 It) '8 times as loud Power Lawn Mower (3 It) Motorcycle (25 tt) 90 Boiler Room '4 times as loud Propeller Plane Flyover (1 ,000 It) Printing
Press Plant Diesel Truck, 40 mph (50 It) Garbage Disposal (3 It) 80 High Uriban Ambient Sound '2 times as loud Passenger Car, 65 mph (25 It) Moderately loud Vacuum Cleaner (10 It) 70
'70 decibels I (Reference Loudness) Normal Conversation (5 II) 60 Data Processing Center '1/2 as loud Nor Conditioning Unit (100 It) Department Store UghtTraffic (100 tt) 50 Private
Business Office '114 as loud Bird Calls (distant) 40 Lower Limit of Urban Quiet Ambient Sound '1/8 as loud Soft Whisper (5 It) 30 Quiet Bedroom 20 Recording Studio Just Audible 10 0
Threshold of Hearing Source. Compiled by URS Corporation DRS P:'!Arapaho Road Brldge\Oocs\Noise & Vibration\Draft Noise Report\Draft Noise Report r1.docl project No 51512003 2-3 
Affected Environment 3.0 lAND USE The project is located within the Town of Addison, Texas and consists of the extension of Arapaho Road from Surveyor Boulevard on the west to Addison
Road on the east. The extension would be elevated above the existing grade to accommodate a bridge over Midway Road. The current land uSes adjacent to the project alignment consist of
commercial,light industrial and transient residential (i,e., motels), UBS P:\Arapaho Road Bridge\Docs\Noise & Vibration\Oraft Noise Report\Oraft Noise Report r1 ,doc! project No 51512003
3-1 
Affected Environment 4.0 NOISE REGULATIONS Federal, State and local agencies have established policies and regulations concerning the generation and control of noise tbat could adversely
affect citizens and associated noise-sensitive land uses. The various policies and laws established to control adverse noise recognize both the desirability of peace and quiet and the
necessity and inevitability ofnoise associated with an urbanized technological society. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration
(FHW A) has established specific sound levels, or Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), which should not be approached or exceeded. TxDOT defines "approach" as being within I decibel of tbe
NAC in Table 2. Thus, a peak-noise-hour sound level of71 dBA L.., for an Activity Category C land use type would be considered as approaching the TxDOTIFHW A Noise Abatement Criteria.
Although this project is not subject to TxDOT or FHW A review, these standards will be used in the absence ofloeal noise standards for transportation noise. The NAC are stated in terms
of one-hour average sound levels (i.e., I-hour L.q's) for various land uses (Table I). The appropriate NAC for the land uses pertaining to this project are 71 dBA L.q exterior for commercial
and light industrial uses and 66 dBA L,q exterior transient residential uses (i.e., hotel/motel). The interior NAC for residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches,
libraries, hospitals and auditoriums is 51 dBA L,q' Additionally, TxDOT's Noise Policy defines increases in noise levels as "substantial" and therefore an impact when the predicted traffic
noise levels exceed the existing noise levels by ten (10) dBA or more. Table 2. FHWA I TxDOT Noise Abatement Criteria Activity Category Leq(") Description of Activity Category A 57 (Exterior)
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualiUes is essential if tile area is to continue
to serve its intended purpose. B 67 (Extenor) Parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitats. C 72 (Exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities
not included in Categories Aor B above. ! D -Undeveloped lands. II E 52 (Interior) Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools Churches, libraries, 􀁨􀁯􀁳􀁰􀁩􀁴􀁡􀁬􀁳􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁤􀀠auditoriu
ms. Houny A·Welghted Sound Level-Decibels (dBA) Federal·Aid Highway Program Manual Vol.7, Chapter 7 Transmittal 348, August 9, 1982 Sec. 3. Attachment The Town of Addison has noise control
restrictions on construction noise. Section 70-140 (Noise, Dust and Debris) of the Town's Code of Ordinances (adopted April 9, 2002) specifies that " ...The permitee shall take appropriate
measureS to reduce to the fullest extent practicable in the performance of the excavation work, noise, dust and unsightly debris and during the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. shall
not use, except with the pennission of the city manager, or or in case of an emergency as herein otherwise URS P:\Arapaho Road Blidge\Oocs\Noise & Vibration\Draft Noise Repor1\Oraft
Noise Report r1.docl project No 5I5l2003 4-1 
Affected Environment provided, any tool, appliance or equipment producing noise of sufficient volume to disturbtne sleep or repose of occupants of tne neighboring property." 4.1 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT Baseline noise measurements were conducted within the project study area from January 29
to January 30, 2003. The noise measurement locations are shown in Figure I. The purpose of these measurements was to assess the existing noise levels and for comparison with the results
ofpredicted future-with-project traffic noise modeling. The ambient noise was measured at 9 locations in the vicinity of the proposed project. Short-term (15 minutes to 1 hour in duration)
noise measurements were conducted at six locations, and long-term (over 24 hours in duration) noise measurements were conducted at three locations. Table 3 presents the results of the
short-term noise measurements. Table 4 presents the results of the long-term noise measurements. Long-term noise measurements are used to assess the noise levels in the the project area
throughout a typical day-night cycle. URS ?:\Arapaho Road Btidge\Docs\Noise & Vibfatlon\Oraft Noise Report\Draft Noise Report r1 ,docl project No 5/512003 4-2 
N PROJECT ALIGNMENT NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS .M.l MODELING LOCATIONS LT·' LONG TERM MONITORING "ST·l SHORT TERM MONITORING o 125 250 375 500 e;; URS May 2003 25334401 Arapaho Road
Bridge Noise Analysis Noise Measurement & Modeling Locations Figure 1 
Affected Environment The short-tenn noise measurements were conducted using a tripod-mounted Type 1 (Precision grade) Larson Davis Model 820 Sound Level Meter (SLM) with statistical
analyzer. Long-tenn noise monitoring was conducted using three Metrosonics db-308 community noise analyzers (CNAs). The SLM and the CNAs were set on Slow time response mode, and used
the "A" weighting filter network that most closely approximates the hearing characteristics of the human ear. To ensure accuracy, the laboratory calibration ofthe noise instruments was
field checked before and after each measurement period using an acoustical calibrator. The accuracy of the acoustical calibrator is maintained through a program established by the manufacturer,
and is traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The sound measurement instruments meet the requirements of the American National Standard S 1.41983 and the International
Electrotechnical Commission Publications 804 and 651. In all cases, the microphone heights were five feet above the ground and the microphones were equipped with windscreens. Meteorological
conditions were conducive to reliable and accurate noise measurements, with clear to partly cloudy skies (no precipitation), calm to light winds (0 -6 miles per hour), temperatures between
45 and 54 degrees Fahrenheit and relative humidity ranging from 53 to 70 percent. As shown in Table 3, noise levels in the project area during the short-term noise measurements varied
from 51 dBA L.q (at ST-5, adjacent to the residential area northwest of the project alignment) to 66 dBA L"'l (at ST -4, near The Rink). Predominant noise sources in the project area
were traffic along Midway Road and other roadways such as Beltline Road and Addison Road, aircraft operations from the nearby Addison Airport, nearby and distant industrial noises, birds
and distant trains. Long-tenn noise data, as summarized in Table 4, indicates that 24 hour average noise levels vary from approximately 59 dBA L,q to approximately 66 dBA L"'l' In terms
of the Lan, the noise levels vary from approximately 65 dBA Ldn to 70 dBA Ldn• The hourly L,q noise levels are presented graphically in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows that all three of the
long-term noise measurements display similar diurnal noise patterns, although maximum and minimum levels and times of day vary somewhat. Hourly noise levels for LT-I ranged from approximately
43 dBA L"'l (during the 3:00 a.m. hour) to approximately 67 dBA 􀁾􀀠(during the 6:00 a.m. hour). Hourly noise levels for LT-2 ranged from approximately 46 dBA L,q (during the 2:00 a.m.
to 3:00 a.m. hours) to approximately 77 dBA L,q (during the I :00 p.m. hour). Hourly noise levels for LT-3 ranged from approximately 48 dBA L"'l (during the 1:00 a.m hour) to approximately
72 dBA L"'l (during the 7:00 p.m. hour). URS P:\Arapaho Road Bridge\Oocs\Noise & Vibratioo\Draft Noise Report\Draft Noise Report r1.dtxJ project No 5!5l2003 4-4 
----------------------------------Table 3 -Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) 􀁾􀀬􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁾􀀠􀁍􀁥􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁭􀀮􀀧􀀻􀁴􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠Measurement Duration Primary NoiseDescription LM,uL",
LM1nocatlon D St T'ate art Jme (Hr:Min) Sources 􀁾􀀠5T-1 1129/03 16:50 Behind Mapsco (Next to Charter 1:00 58.8 􀀷􀀶􀁾􀀹􀀠Traffic (Midway Fumj[ure) near picnic table 51.1 Road), aircraft.
(employee break area). occasional ex.haust valve (distant industrial) ST-2 1130/03 Comfort Suites NE corner10:00 1:00 56.7 80.9 44.1 Aireraft, birds, distant traffic, distant industrial
exhaust ST-3 1:00 Homewood Suites, Beldine Road 1/30103 11:10 58.8 79.6 48.2 Aircraft. birds, distant behind hedge at rear of building. traffic, hotel HV AC system 8T-4 1/30103 12:40
0:30 The Rink, 15100 Midway Rd., 100' 65.6 8004 Traffic (Midway from Midway c.1. 51.5 Road), aircraft, 􀁢􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁟􀁾􀀠__ ST-5 1130103 14:25 0:15 Behind 3228 San Sebastion Dr. 50.2 60.9
46.8 Industrial (Generator, (residential area near the northwest BV AC at nearby side of project). industrial buildings), birds, distant aircraft ST-6 1/30/03 15:05 0:40 Intervest Companies,
4131 57.9 44 Aircraft, birdsl distant Centurion Wy 78.1 traffic. distant 􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁾􀁾__ 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠
Affected Environment Table 4.-Long-Term Noise Measurements Site ID Measurement Date Location 24 hr Le. (dBA) 24 hr Ldn (dBA) 24 hr Average LSD (dBA) 24 hr Average L9D (dBA) LT-1 1/29/03-1/30/03
4125 Centurion Way 58.5 64.5 49.5 47.5 LT-2 1/29/03-1/30/03 Behind Motel 6 Property, on fence of tennis courts 66.4 69.6 53.5 50.5 LT-3 1/29/03-1/30/03 Behind Absolute Systems Property,
on fence post 63.3 67.3 54.2 51.3 URS P:\Arapaho Road Bridge\Docs\Noise & Vibralion\Draft Noise Report\Draft Noise Report r1.dod project No 5/5/2003 4-6 
IU.... IU 0 .... c ill E I!! ::I I/) IU ill :i ill M 1/)0 .-0ONz . _M... >-0.:::JO')ON J: C 􀁅􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠•C) c ..J ° N I!! :::J C)u: ' .. 0 to 0 to 0 ID 0 ID ID 0,... ,... <0 <0 ID to ....'"
'" '" b·'V8P 􀁏􀁏􀀺􀁓􀁾􀀠OO:vk 􀁏􀁏􀀺􀂣􀁾􀀠􀀰􀀰􀀺􀀱􀀺􀁾􀀠􀁏􀁏􀀺􀁾􀀾􀀠OO:Ok 00:6 OO:g OO:L 00:9 ,OO:g '" I-'OO:v N, 00:£ 'r!-I .50> l -' ' 00:(: I􀁾,OO:k I-'00:0 + 00:£1: 00:(:(: 00:
k1: 00:01: 00:6> OO:gk OO:H 00:9k OO:Sk OO:vk 
Affected Environment 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project would be considered to produce a noise impact if FHWNrxDOT
NAC are approached or exceeded. Specifically, if the noise from the project equals or exceeds the NAC for Activity Category B or C of 66 dBA L", and 71 dBA L", respectively, or ifpredicted
traffic noise levels exceed existing noise levels by more than 10 dBA,the project would be considered to have a significant noise effect and mitigation should be considered. 5.2 IMPACTS
ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 5.2.1 Traffic Noise Modeling After ambient noise data were collected, the potential noise impacts to representative noise-sensitive receivers were modeled
using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM®), TNM® is FHWA's most recent computer-based noise model for highway traffic noise prediction and analysis. TxDOT has approved the noise model
for use in the analysis of their highway projects. TNM® incorporates features that make it a very good choice for accurate assessment of noise from the proposed project; specifically,
the model allows the analyst to very accurately input and model the geometry of the proposed roadway, surrounding structures and receivers in three dimensions. Site-specific data used
to model future noise impacts included: • Design year traffic data (traffic volumes, mix, direction, and speed) • Roadway design data (plan and profile) • Topographic data + Aerial photographs
The site-specific data were used to create a digital model of the proposed project alternative in TNM@The TNM® runs used the same locations as those where measurements were conducted.
Additionally, supplemental mode1locations were used in the TNM® model to more fully represent potential changes to the local noise environment. The model receiver locations are shown
in Figure 1 and listed in Table 5. Year 2020 traffic volumes for the grade-separated alternative (13,000 ADT) were utilized for the noise modeling, as supplied by traffic and design
information supplied by HNTB and Terra Mar, Inc. Modeled speed for the project was 40 miles per hour. Traffic mix (!be percentages of autos, light, medium and heavy trucks) was used
as supplied by the traffic study. As shown in Table 5 (exterior noise impacts), the TNM® results were combined with the existing, ambient noise levels to obtain predicted future-with-project
peak-noise-hour levels. The future-withproject noise levels were then compared with thc FHWNrxDOT NAC to identifY any representative ,' URS P:lArapahQ Road Bridge\Ooes\Noise & VlbratiOJ1\Oad't
Noise Report\Oraft NOise rieport r1.docJ project No 51512003 5..1 
Affected Environment noise-sensitive receivers that would have a noise impact from the proposed project. Interior noise levels were also predicted, using the results for the exterior
noise modeling and then subtracting a 25 decibel exterior/interior noise reduction factor for shielding provided by the building structure. The 25 dB reduction factor is based upon guidance
provided by TxDOT, as well as other agencies. This factor aSsumes a masoury structure of modern construction, with single glazing, with doors and windows closed. Most modern commercial
structures would provide well over 25 dB of noise reduction with doors and windows closed; thus, the 25 dB assumption is conservative. The predicted interior noise levels were then compared
to the FHW AlTxDOT NAC for noise-sensitive interior spaces, as shown in Table 6. URS P:lArapaho Road 8ridge\Oocs\Noise & Vibratlon\Oraft Noise Report\Oraft Noise Report r1.docf project
No 51512003 5-2 
I Table 5 -Predicted Exterior Noise Levels Receptor # Receptor Loeation Existing Ambient Level (based upon Noise Measurements) (dBA Lcq) Estimated' Futu re Noise Level (from Arapaho
Bridge) (dBA Lcq) Combined Future Noise Level (Ambient plus Project) (dBA Leq) Estimated Increase Over Existing Noise Level (dBA Leq) Criterion Noise Levell (dBA Leq) Future Noise Level
Exceeds Criterion Noise Level? Substantial Increase Criterion (Greater than 10 dBA) Exceeded? 1 WofCroueh Property -10' fin bridge 58 57 61 3 71 No No 2 W "fCrouch Property -35' fin
bridge 58 58 61 3 71 No No 3 W of Crouch Property -60' fin bridge 58 57 61 3 71 No No 4 W of Crouch Property -85' fin bridge 58 56 60 2 71 No No 5 W of Crouch Property -110' fin bridge
58 54 59 I 71 No No 6 E "fCroueh Property -I0' fin bridge 58 55 60 2 71 No No 7 E of Crouch Property -35' fin bridge 58 56 60 2 71 No No g E of Crouch Property -60' fin bridge 58 56
60 2 71 No No 9 E of Crouch Property -85' fin bridge 58 56 60 2 71 No No 10 E of Crouch Properly -110' fin brid.. 58 55 60 2 71 No No II Outdoor Break Area 􀁾􀀠Furniture Stare 59 54
60 I 66 No No 12 Ice Rink in Parking Lot 66 56 66 0 71 No No 13 Adj to Motel 6 63 58 64 I 66 No No 14 Adi to Homewood Suite.q 59 57 61 2 66 No No 15 Mi to Comfort Suites 57 65 65 8 66
No No 16 Adj to E sideofFumiture Store 66 54 66 0 71 No No 17 Adj to Int.rvest 58 60 62 4 71 No No 18 Adi to Satorirrhc Harbor Group 58 62 63 5 11 No No 19 Adj. to Building near W sidcofProicct
58 62 63 5 71 No No Future noise level fu>m proposed project, derived from the FHWA's TNM® noise model. Activity Category B (which includes hotel/motell.nd uses). 
j Table 6 -Predicted Interior Noise Levels Rcceptor # Receptor Location Estimated Future Exterior Nobe Level (Ambient plus Project) (dBA L..) Estimated Future Interior Noise Levell (Ambient
plus Projeet) (dBAL..) Criterion lntcriof Noise Level2 (dBA Loq) Future Noise Level Exceeds Criterion Noise Level? 1·10 Crouch Property 61 36 51 No 12 Icc Rink 66 41 51 No 13 Motel 6
64 39 51 NQ 14 Homewood Suites 61 36 51 No 15 Comfort Suites 65 40 51 No 16 Furniture Store 66 41 51 No 17 intervest 62 37 51 No 18 Satoriffho Harbor Group 63 38 51 No 19 􀂥􀀳􀀺􀁾􀁩􀁊􀀴􀁴􀁾􀁧􀁾􀁾􀁟􀁲
􀁗􀀠Side of Project 63 38 51 No I 􀁾􀀠Assuming a conservative interior/exterior noise reductlon factor of25 dBA, basoo upon TXDOT guidance, as well as eorroborating guidanee from other
state and federal agencies. Assumes it masonry strueture with single-glazing, doors and windows closed, 2-Criterian noise levels based upon TxDOT I FHWA interior Noise Abatement Criteria
for residences, motels, hotels, publie meeting rooms, sehools. churches. librarie.o;, hospitals and auditoriums. 
Affected Environment 5.2.2 Operational Noise Impacts As shown in Table 5, none of the 19 modeled representative receivers would have exterior noise impacts from the proposed project.
Similarly, Table 6 shows that none of the modeled receivers would have interior noise impacts from the proposed project. 5.2.3 Construction Noise Impacts Construction phase noise would
result from the use of motorized construction equipment. Other shortterm impacts from construction noise could result from construction traffic including materials delivery. Noise levels
would vary depending on the type of equipment used, how it is operated, how well it is maintained, and its proximity to noise-sensitive uses. Standard excavation and installation equipment,
such as graders, backhoes, loaders, tractors, drill rigs, welders, and heavy trucks would be used for construction of project facilities. Although construction would increase local noise
levels, construction noise at anyone location would be of brief duration because of the linear nature of the project and because of the cyclical nature of construction activities. With
implementation of recommended good practice measures (listed below), project construction noise would not result in significant noise effects. 5.2.4 Vibration Groundborne vibration from
heavy equipment operations during project construction and from traffic using the proposed bridge was evaluated and compared with relevant vibration impact criteria. The Federal Transit
Authority's (FTA's) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (1995) provides vibration impact criteria and recommended methodologies and guidance for assessment of vibration
effects. Ground-borne vibration is a small, rapidly fluctuating motion transmitted through the ground. Groundborne vibration diminishes (or "attenuates") fairly rapidly over distance.
Some soil types transmit vibration quite efficiently; other types (primarily "sandy" soils) do not. There are several basic measurement units commonly used to describe the intensity
of ground vibration. The descriptor used by FT A is the velocity decibel, abbreviated V dB. The velocity parameter best correlates with human perception of vibration. Thus, the response
of humans, buildings and sensitive equipment to vibration is described in this section in terms of the root-mean square (RMS) velocity level in V dB units. As a point of reference, the
average person can just barely perceive vibration velocity levels below 70 VdB (typically in the vertical direction). For this project, FTA's more detailed, second-tier General Vibration
Assessment was performed. In this analysis, adjustments to the impact criteria (level vs. distance) are used to account for vehicle speed, soil type, building/foundation type and roadway
structural characteristics (i.e., roadway on bridge structure). For the General Vibration Assessment, the land-use-dependent criteria listed in Table 7 would apply. The most stringent
vibration criteria is 65 VdB for land use Category I receptors. Project-specific variables included vehicle speed, soil type and building/foundation type. Vehicle speed used for the
analysis was 40 miles per hour. The limestone sub-soil underlying the project site was accounted for by assuming URS P;\Arapaho Road Bridge\Docs\Noise & Vibration\Draft Noise Report\Oraft
Noise Report r1.doc:l project No 51512003 5-5 
Affected Environment highly efficient vibration propagation. The elevated roadway structure would act to diminish direct vehicle vibration. In contrast, potential amplification of vibration
within the nearby buildings due to sympathetic resonance was assumed, as a conservative measure. Two cases were analyzed for this project: Case I was for the nearest building (The Crouch
Property) which would be as near as 27 feet from the bridge piers following project construction; Case 2 was for the Motel 6 building which would be located approximately 100 feet from
the roadway following project construction. For Case I, the predicted vibration level within the building would be approximately 59 VdB. For Case 2, the predicted vibration level would
be approximately 55.5 VdB. Both vibration levels would be below the most stringent of the FTA vibration criteria for land uses in which low vibration levels are "essential". Both levels
would also be below the human threshold ofperceptibility. Table 7-Criteria for Impact for for Human Annoyance and Interference to Use of Vibration-Sensitive Equipment' Ground-borne Vibration
(VdB re 1 micro in/secl Events' Land Use Category Category Comment Frequent Infrequent 1 Low interior ambient is essential 65 65 2 Residential &sleep 72 80 3 Institutional &daytime 75
83 4 Concert hall, TV/Recording Studio H 65 65 5 Auditorium .. 72 80 6 Theatre H 72 80 • Frequent is defined as greater than or equal to 70 events per day 􀁾See section 12.2.2 of FTAManual
re potential for structural damage to (rogUe structures if operational during transit events Source: FTA, 1995 Potential vibration effects from construction operations were also assessed
using the FTA methodology contained in the Transit Noise and Vibration Innpact Assessment Manual. For Case I (the Crouch Property), in which project construction operations would take
place within 25 feet of the building, drilling and other activities would be well below FTA criteria levels for potential damage to structures, even using the most stringent "extremely
fragile historic buildings" category. The damage criterion for such structures is 0.12 inches per second, whereas the worst-case vibration level is predicted to be 0.09 inches per second.
For Case 2 (the Motel 6 building), the construction vibration level would be substantially reduced by the additional distance between the project site and the building. The vibration
level at the motel would be approximately 0.01 inches per second. Vibration from construction activities would be clearly perceptible at the Crouch Property when construction is underway
near the building, but would not be damaging. Vibration from construction activities at the Motel 6 building is expected to be barely perceptible when construction is underway adjacent
to the property. In summary, no significant impact would result from operational or construction activities associated with the proposed project. DRS p:\ArapahO Road Bridge\Oocs\Noise:
&, Vibration\Draft Noise Report\Oraft Noise Report r1.doel project No 51512003 5-6 
Affected Environment 5.2.5 Good Practices for Construction Noise Reduction Implementation of the following recommended practices prior to project construction would ensure that potential
construction noise effects are less-than-significant: + The hours ofconstruction including noisy maintenance activities and all spoils and material transport shall be restricted to the
periods and days peIIDitted by the local noise or other applicable ordinance. Noise-producing project activity shall comply with local noise control regulations affecting construction
activity or obtain exemptions therefrom. + All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, and air-inlet silencers
where appropriate, in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arcwelders, air compressors) shall be equipped
with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. + All mobile or fixed noise-producing equipment used on the project, which is regulated
for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency, shall comply with such regulation while conducting project-related activities. + Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging,
parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors. + The use ofnoise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alaIIDs, and bells
shall be for safety warning purposes only. + No project-related public address loudspeaker, two-way radio, or music system shall be audible at any adjacent noise-sensitive receptor.
+ The on-site construction supervisor shall have the responsibility and authority to receive and resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process to the appropriate Town ofAddison staff
shall be established prior to construction commencement that will allow for resolution of noise problems that cannot be immediately solved by the site supervisor. 5.2.6 Good Practices
for Operational Noise and Vibration Reduction To assure that vibration and noise is not created by vehicles traversing gaps and/or unnecesary breaks in vertical or horizontal alignment,
the bridge shall be designed and constructed with particular care to avoid any such unnecessary gaps or breaks, to the extent allowable under the current state of the practice. Expansion
joints and changes in grade shall be designed to mlnjmize gaps or sudden vertical "steps" in the roadway surface. URS P;\Afapaho Road Bridge\OocS\Noise & Vibralion\Orafl Noise Report\Oraft
Noise Report ,1.docJ project No 5/5/2003 5-7 
Affected Environment 6.0 LIMITATIONS The opinions and recommendations presented herein are based in part upon field measurements and observations of what is believed to be typical and
representative conditions of normal motor vehicle and community activity and URS's understanding of the project as presented in this report. The noise and vibration measurements and
analyses were conducted using the professional standard of care as practiced in the industry and are representative of the activity being measured during the environmental conditions
existing during the measurement periods. Because of the variability of factors not within the control of the investigators, no warranty can be made that the exact noise, vibration, traffic,
or activity levels would be obtained by subsequent field measurements. However, for similar climatic and seasonal conditions, and intensity of community activity, the noise, vibration,
and traffic levels measured would be similar to those reported herein. DRS P;\Arapaho Road Bridge\Oocs\Noise & Vibtation\Orafi Noise Repol1\Oraft Noise Report r1.docl project No 5/5/2003
6-1 
Affected Environment 7.0 REFERENCES Barry, T.M. and Reagan, J.A, December, 1978, FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, Report number FHW A-RD-77 -108, by Federal Highway Administration.
Washington, D.C. Beranek, Leo L., ed. 1971. Noise and Vibration Control. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. Beranek, L.L. and I.L. Ver, cds. 1992. Noise and Vibration Control Engineering.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. Beranek. Leo, (Ed.), 1988, Noise and Vibration Control. Institute of Noise Control Engineering. New York. Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. 1973.
Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. U.S. Department of Transportation Contract Number DOT -FH-Il-7976, Office of Environmental Policy, Federal Highway Administration.
Diehl, George M. 1973. Machinery Acoustics. Jon Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. Harris, Cyril M., ed. 1979. Handbook ofNoise Control. Second Edition. McGraw-Hili, Inc., New York, NY.
Harris, Cyril, M., ed. 1991. Handbook ofAcoustical Measurements and Noise Control. Third Edition. McGraw-Hili, Inc. New York, NY. Hassall, J.R. and K. Zaveri. 1988. Acoustic Noise Measurements.
Fifth Edition. Briiel and Kjrer Instruments, Inc. Copenhagen, Denmark. Peterson, AP.G. and E. Gross, Jr. 1972. Handbook ofNoise Measurement. Seventh Edition. General Radio Company. Concord,
MA Texas Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Division. 1996 (rev. 1997). Guidelines for Analysis and Abatement ofHighway Traffic Noise. Austin, TX. Town ofAddison. 2002.
Code ofOrdinances (Noise, Dust and Debris), Section 70-140. Addison, Texas U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, April, 1995. DOT-T-95-16. Transit Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment. (Prepared under contract by Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson). Burlington, MA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office
of Environmental Policy, Noise and Air Analysis Division, June, 1995. Highway Traffic Noise Guidance and Policies. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. Noise
from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building EqUipment and Home Appliances, Prepared under contract by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc., Boston,MA. tJRS F':'lAmpahO Road Bridge\Oocs\Noise
& Vibration\Oraft NOise Report\Draft NOise Report r1.docJ project No 51512003 7-1 
9T29911m T-762 P.002/00l F-779A.i-07-02 11:14am 􀁆􀁦􀁯􀁭􀀭􀁕􀁾􀁓􀀠Corpor,tion URS August 7, 2002 Mr. Steven Z. Chutchian, FE Assistant City Engineer J 680 1 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box
9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re; Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase 11 -Design Development, Contract Documents, and Constructioll Administration Conceptual Construetion Cost EsIIlI1ate
-"TxDOT" Bridge Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please find a COPy ofthe Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate [or a standard "TillOr" bridge for the referenced project for your review
as you n:qucsted. This estimate in addition to a stand,rd bridge includes minimal urban design & landscaping. roadway deck and parking lot lighting, lighting along the traffic rails,
a rail to separate.pedesTrians from the roadway and some soundwalls. The conceprual cost is -$4.1 million. We trust that this will help in moving the process forward so we may proceed
with finalizing our scope and fee proposal. Sincerely, URS Corporation 􀁾􀀻􀀷􀀻􀀺􀀯􀁦􀀠Cliff R. Han, FE Project Managcr Enclosure URS Corporation Pr$$tonwDod 􀁔􀁯􀁷􀁾􀁲􀀠 51S1 BGl'Jtllne
Roed, S1.O'It& 700 Oallas, TX 75Z54 Tel! 􀁾􀁩􀀲􀀮􀁧􀁂􀁏􀁟􀀴􀀹􀁓􀀱􀀠 Fa);: 972,991.7665 
A'a-D1-02 11 :14am From-URI Corporation 1-162 P.003/003 F-119 Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase 2 • Conceptual Estimate of Construction Costs Description Urban Design Elements
Trees & shrubs @thrust blocks Trees & shrubs @retaining walls Railing around parking lot Civil Works (subtotal) Traffic Control & Temp works Bridge Structure Steel Arch SOLlndwalls PedestrianiTraffic
Rail separation Lighting Bridge Stinger Lights Arch and Hanger Liaghls Marker light -Arch top Marker Light -Hanger side Bridge Railing Lights Approach Bridge Deck Lighting Under-Deck
Lighting Electrical Services Subtotal Contigency Overhead Utility Reloeation Total E,.limaled Cost Range TxDOT Bridge Comments wI landscaping, & lighting $50,000 minimallstic $50,000
minimalistic $160,000 1600 ft@$100/lf $10,000 $3,100,000 abulment to abutment ($35181) $260,000 1400 ft cone. wall $80,000 1600 ft @$501lf $0 $0 $0 $0 $107,000400 fl of rail each side
$170.000 45 light assemblies $65,000 77 light ftxtures $55,000 $4,127,000 "I?'? 
Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase 2 -Conceptual Estimate of Construction Costs Oe9crlptlon Urban Design Elements Trees 8. shrubs@thrust blocks Trees 8. shrubs@retaining walls
Railing around parking lot Civil Works (subtotal) TraffJC Control 8. Temp worts Bridge Structure Lighting aridge Stinger Lights Arch and Hanger UaghlS Marker LIght. Atch top Marker lI9ht
• Hangor side Bridge Railing Ughts Appmach 6ridge Deck Lighting Under-Oeclt Lighting Eleclfical Services $ub1otal Contlgency Estimated Cost Range Low End $50,000 $50,000 $180,000 $50,000
steel A,ch ()lVe 51 pe 􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀱􀀠$3,980,000 So1,lndwalls --¢r􀁾􀁹(r-"'--$260.000 PedcstrianITraffic RaJl seperaHon 􀁴􀀮􀀮􀁥􀁴􀁖􀀴􀁙􀁾􀀠$80.000 $128,000 Overhead UtUlty Relocation !-I
CiH7> Total I'" 124lL.l>o-f 􀀨􀀻􀀧􀀩􀁾􀁴􀀮􀀭􀁹􀀠4l4e ,.." ( P 4..-.A-! Comments minimallstrc minimalisttc 1600 􀁾􀁀$100111 abutment to abutment 1400 tt cone. wall 1600 ft@$5om $90,{)00
while light $18,000 $18,000 $107,000 400 ft of rail each side $170,000 45 light assemblies $85,000 85,000 77 light fixtures $80,000 $5,306,000 17? Estimated Cost Range Estlmatru1 Cost
Rang' Estimated Cost Range No stlngors or landscaping & reduced !ightlngComments No stingers or landscapIng & arch lights only Comments No stingers or landscapIng & road/park lights only Comments $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $3,800,000 abuUo abut. No stingers $280,000
1400 ft cOJ\C. 􀁗􀁡􀁾􀀧􀀠$80,000 1600 ft @$50m SA-<, 􀁾􀀠fls IS, 􀀶􀁔􀀱􀁾􀀠$0 $SO,OOO white light $IB,OOO $18,000 $107,000 400 It of rail each side $100,000 26 light assemblies $46,000
42 light fixtures $55,000 $4,824,000 F.f '""''''' L r IitiE'-I Iff qrHe ?17 11Ir'r13"I<5IT\( 10 4'eT rFlf'V( <-->'tCe"""" (t.. ':'''''''1I"..-A7701/$0 $0 SO $50,000 $3,800,000 abut,to
abut. No stingel'$ $O? Af) ,!iQf/MJ 1#1Ii:-'f $0 '> dt<:' PI! f) '/. I'Vtt '-f""'''' $0 0"-' i""S, Pe: $90,000 white Ughl $IB,OOO $18,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $4,001,000 LI/(tI''i5 "'" .A-/fCA
0"," y?71 ,/WT """. t24(CS OR .􀁴􀀢􀀧􀁾􀁋􀁉􀀧􀁖􀀢􀀬􀀠A/Z(/! tJ;f ALc,-..t; €'/.f' t.-:rl te.J) "e'oA,p "--At $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $3,800,000 abuUo abut. No stingers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$100.000 26 light assemblies $48,000 42 light fixtures $25,000 $4,021,000 M ,A;eC(-f 1-( 'fI1J 17.fW.( (.s FV"Cp.......k 17? £.( c􀁉􀀫􀁔􀁉􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀠o.<-&y _ ,At:. "''''" 4 '-e
􀁾􀀬􀀺􀀻􀀠m Pr 1i!J4?<c;'ie t .s<'Ae I"A /I!'j::'(􀁾􀀧􀁩􀀠£.,f ffJ tv! Hr (((-It€; , 1.....􀁾􀀷􀁽􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠ge{'Klr-t; 
. j j j j j j j l l 
August 7, 2002 Mr. Steven Z. Chutchian, PE Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase n -Design Development,
Contract Documents, and Construction Administration Conceptual Coustruction Cost Estimate Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please find a copy ofthe Conceptual Construction Cost Estimate
for Phase II ofthe referenced project for your review. As you requested, we have separated the estimate into three estimates as follows: Estimate No. I: -$5.3 million The "low-end" estimate
as presented in our meeting on August 6, 2002 of all items including urban design, landscaping, lighting, architectural details and bridge structure. Estimate No.2: -$4.6 million A reduced
estimate removing the urban design, landscaping and the architectural "stinger" elements as well as a reduction in surface and parking lighting. Estimate NO.3 (two estimates): -$4.0
million a) Bridge structure plus arch lighting b) Bridge structure plus elevated roadway and parking lighting We look forward to discussing these options with you so we may proceed with
finalizing our scope and fee proposal. Sincerely, URS Corporation &(;?/iP CliffR. Hall, PE Project Manager Enclosure URS Corporation Prestonwood Tower 5151 Beltline Road. Suite 700 Dallas,
TX 75254 Tel: 972.980.4961 Fax: 972.991.7665 
Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase 2 • Conceptual Estimate of Construction Costs Description Urban Design Elements Trees & shrubs @thrust blocks Trees & shrubs @retaining walls
Railing around parking lot Civil Works (subtotal) Traffic Control & Temp works Bridge Structure Steel Arch Soundwalls Pedestrianrrraffic Rail seperation Lighting Bridge Stinger Lights
Arch and Hanger Liaghts Marker Light -Arch top Marker Light -Hanger side Bridge Railing Lights Approach Bridge Deck Lighting Under-Deck Lighting Electrical Services Subtotal Contigency
Overhead Utility Relocation Total Estimated Cost Range Low End Comments $50,000 minimalistic $50,000 minimalistic $160,000 1600 ft@$100llf $50,000 $3,960,000 abutment to abutment $260,000
1400 ft conc. wall $80,000 1600 ft @$501lf $128,000 $90,000 white light $18,000 $18,000 $107,000 400 ft of rail each side $170,000 45 light assemblies $85,000 77 light fixtures $80.000
$5,306,000 ?11 
Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase 2 -Conceptual Estimate of Construction Costs Description Urban Design Elements Trees & shrubs @thrust blocks Trees & shrubs @retaining walls
Railing around parking lot Civil Works (subtotal) Traffic Control & Temp works Bridge Structure Steel Arch Soundwalls PedestrianiTraffic Rail seperation Lighting Bridge Stinger Ughts
Arch and Hanger Liaghts Marker Light Arch top Marker Light -Hanger side Bridge Railing Lights Approach Bridge Deck Lighting Under-Deck Lighting Electrical Services Subtotal Contigency
OVerhead Utility Relocation Total Estimated Cost Range No stingers or Comments landscaping & reduced lighting $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $3.800,000 abut.to abut. No stingers $260,000 1400 ft conc.
wall $80,000 1600 ft @$5011f $0 $90,000 white light $18,000 $18,000 $107,000 400 It of rail each side $100,000 26 light assemblies $46,000 42 light fixtures $55,000 $4,624,000 ??? 
Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase 2 -Conceptual Estimate of Construction Costs Description Urban Design Elements Trees & shrubs @thrust blocks Trees & shrubs @retaining walls
Railing around parking lot Civil Works (subtotal) Traffic Control & Temp works Bridge Structure Steel Arch Soundwalls PedestrianlTraffic Rail seperation Lighting Bridge Stinger Lights
Arch and Hanger Liaghts Marker Light -Arch top Marker Light -Hanger side Bridge Railing Lights Approach Bridge Deck Lighting Under-Deck Lighting Electrical Services Subtotal Contigency
Overhead Utility Relocation Total Estimated Cost Range No stingers or Comments landscaping & arch lights only $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $3,800,000 abuUo abut. No stingers $0 $0 $0 $90,000 white
light $18,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $4,001,000 ??? 
Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase 2 -Conceptual Estimate of Construction Costs Description Urban Design Elements Trees & shrubs @thrust blocks Trees & shrubs @retaining walls
Railing around parking lot Civil Works (subtotal) Traffic Control & Temp wcrks Bridge Structure Steel Arch Soundwalls PedestrianlTraffic Rail seperation Lighting Bridge Stinger Lights
Arch and Hanger Liaghts Marker Ught -Arch top Marker Light -Hanger side Bridge Railing Lights Approach Bridge Deck Lighting Under-Deck Lighting Electrical Services Subtotal Contigency
Overhead Utility Relocation Total Estimated Cost Range No stingers or Comments landscaping & road/park lights only $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $3,800,000 abuUo abut. No stingers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $100,000 26 light assemblies $46,000 42 light fixtures $25,000 $4,021,000 ?11 
Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase 2 • Conceptual Estimate of Construction Costs Description Urban Design Elements Trees 8. shrubs @thrust blocks Trees 8. shrubs@retaining wells
Railing around parking lot Civil Works (subtotal) Traffic Control 8. Temp worns Bridge Structura Steel Arch Soundwalls PedestrianfTraffic Rail seperation LllJhtlng Bridge Stinger Lights
Arch and Hanger Llaghts 􀁍􀁡􀁾􀁥􀁲􀀠Light· Arch top Marker Light· Hanger sicle Bridge Railing Lights Approach Bridge Deck Lighting 􀁕􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁏􀁥􀁣􀁫􀀠Ligh1ing Electrical Services
Subtotal Contigency Overhead UtJltty Relocation Total Estimated Cost Range Low End Comments $50.000 minimalisliC $50.000 minlmallsnc S160,000 1600 It@S100!! $50,000 $3,960,000 abutment
10 abutmenl $260,000 1400 Hcone. wall $80,000 1600 ff@S5OI1( $128,000 $90.000 whlle light $16,000 $16,000 $107,000 400 ft of rail each side S170,000 45 Ught assemblies S65,000 77 light
foour•• S60,000 S6,306,000 711 Estimated Cost Ranoe No stingers or Comments landscaping & reduced lighting $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $3,000.000 abuUo abut No stingers $260,000 14QO It cone. wall
$50,000 1600 ft@$50nr $0 $90,000 while light $18,000 $18,000 $107,000 400 ftol fail each side $100,000 2Blight assemblies $46,000 42 light fooures $55,000 $4.624,QOO ??? Estimated Cost
Range estimated Cost Ringe No stingers or landscaping & arch lIghts only Comments No stingers or landscaping & roadlpark lights only Comments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 SSO,ooo $3.800,000
abut.to abut. No $lingers S3,800,000 abuUo abut. No stingers $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $90,000 white light SO $18,000 $0 $18,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 26 light assemblies $0 $46,000 42 light
fIXtures $2$,000 $25,000 $4,001,000 $4,021,000 ??? 111 
Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase 2 • Conceptual Estimate of Construction Costs Deserlption Urban Design Elements Trees & shrubs@thrust blocks Trees & shrubs@retaining walls Railing
around parking lot . Civil Works (subtotal) Traffic Control & Temp works Bridge Structure Steel Arch Soundwalls PedestrianfTralfic Rail separation Lighting Bridge Stinger Lights Arch
and Hanger Liaghts Marker Light -Arch top Marker Light -Hanger side Bridge Railing Lights Approach Bridge Deck lighting Under-Deck lighting Electrical Services Contigency Overhead Utility
Relocation Estimated Cost Range Low End CommEmis High End Comments $50,000 minimalistic $150,000 $50,000 mlnlmalistic $150,000 $160,000 16001!@$100nf $240,000 1600 fI@$150/lf $50,000
$100,000 $3,960,000 abuLto abut. $3,960,000 abut.tO abut. $260,000 1400 fI conC. wall $600,000 2800 I! special wall $80,000 1600 fI@$50/lf $160,000 1600 I! @$100/If $128,000 $150,000
$90,000 white light $230,000 colored lights $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18;000 $107,000400 flof rail each side $428,000 1660 fI of rail each side $170,000 45 light assemblies $227,000 60
light assemblies $85,000 77 light fixtures . $170,000 154 light fixtures $80,000 : $100,000 111 111 
URS August 23, 2002 Mr. Steven Z. Chutchian., PE Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-90 I 0 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase IT
-Design Development & Contract Documents Scope of Services Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please fmd a copy ofthe Scope ofServices and fee proposal for Work Order No. 001 -Arapaho Road
Bridge Desigu Development and Construction Documents for your review. We have revised this scope after discussions with you to provide for a total project construction cost of approximately
$4.6 million. As we discussed the main changes in scope are: I. Eliminate the Urban Design service 2. Design for a reduced number of light assemblies and eliminate changing light colors
3. Remove the "stingers" from the bridge 4. Develop only one design concept for the various architectural and lighting elements 5. Eliminate the computer animation task 6. Reduce the
number of meetings in Addison 7. Reduce the Project Management effort We have also reduced our rates and explored ways to provide for a more efficient design in an effort to reduce the
design fee as low as possible. We trust that you will find our proposal acceptable and look forward to providing you the fmal written contract for approval by the Town Council. Sincerely,
7i;iii-t(CliffR. Hall, PE Project Manager Enclosure c.c. Michael Murphy, PE Director of Public Works URS Corporation Graystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1320 Danas. TX 75234 Tel;
972.406.6950 Fax: 972.406.6951 
􀁾􀁁􀁈􀁏􀁒􀁏􀁁􀁄􀁂􀁒􀁉􀁄􀁇􀁅􀁁􀁔􀁎􀁕􀁄􀁗􀁁􀁙􀁒􀁏􀁁􀁄􀀠WORK ORDER NO. 001 ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF SERVICES DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR THE 􀁾􀁁􀁈􀁏ROAD BRIDGE DRS
will provide the engineering, architectural, lighting design and noise study services including plans, specifications and estimates as it relates to Arapaho Road from approximate Station
40+67 to approximate Station 70+28 and as provided in the itemized scope. The construction will consist of an elevated four-lane roadway with sidewalk located within the proposed Arapaho
Road right-of-way (ROW) on a tangent alignment DRS shall prepare plans, details and compute quantities for a steel arch bridge, the "blue-bridge concept", over Midway Road, with prestressed
concrete beam approaches. Design and details will include all bridge details including any soundwalls located on the bridge. DRS will also provide all bridge drainage details to accommodate
the drainage in accordance with the Town's Consultant's drainage requirements. DRS will also prepare plans, details and compute quantities for any lighting & illumination, and traffic
control for the areas under and immediately adjacent to the bridge and retained wall portion of Arapaho Road with the exception of those portions to be prepared by the Town of Addison's
Consultant. DRS will also prepare architectural details for the bridge, the mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls and the sound walls. Additionally, DRS will prepare a
noise study including ambient noise measurements, modeling and noise analyses. DRS will prepare and submit technical memorandums, preliminary plans and preliminary construction cost
estimates at the end of the Design Development phase for the Town's review. After resolution of one set of comments, DRS will provide all rillal detail plans, specifications, and estimates
as previously described, to be included into one final construction package prepared by the Town's Consuhant. DRS will submit four sets of plans for review to the Town for 65% review
and and 95% review and will incorporate the Town's comments (one set per submittal) in the next submittals. DRS will also provide signed and sealed mylar plans at the 100"10 rmal submittal.
DRS will coordinate with the Town of Addison and/or the Town's Consultant for all interface design issues as well as coordinate the format and consolidation of construction plans, specification
and estimate into one final construction package. DRS will coordinate with the Town and/or the Town's Consultant for revising the horizontal alignment and vertical profile of Arapaho
Road to accommodate the proposed bridge structure. DRS will coordinate with the Town and/or the Town's Consultant for the revised alignment of the proposed box-culvert under Arapaho
Road as well as bridge drainage and bridge drain tie-ins. DRS will coordinate with the Town and/or the Town's Consultant for all geotechnical information required for the foundation
design for the bridge and retaining walls. The Town of Addison will provide to DRS all available Arapaho Road geometries, including but not limited to electronic files for horizontal
alignment, vertical profile, typical sections, topography survey, field survey, and utility infunnation. The Town will also provide boring logs, soil parameters and foundation design
recommendations (allowable bearing capacities, lateral load analysis, etc.) required for the bridge foundation designs. The Town ofAddison will provide to DRS a field location survey
of the existing 60-in. diameter water main, locating the water main precisely, both vertically and horizontally, along the project limits and specifically in the vicinity of the arch-bridge's
main foundations. Additionally the Town will provide any applicable noise regulations or ordinance 
information, obtain right of entry, and provide all traffic data including but not limited to, peak hourly volumes, average daily traffic, percentages of trucks, and design and posted
speeds that may be required for the noise study. The Town will provide all landscape ordinances and guidelines as well as provide a copy of the Town's Consultant's schematic landscape
masterplan and the streetscape design development package. All ROW documentation and plans, Arapaho Road geometries and roadway design, drainage, parking lot layout and design, retaining
wall layout and design, survey, geotechnical engineering, design and details for soundwalls on retaining walls or at grade, landscaping, hardscaping and irrigation for landscaping, pennitting,
and construction administration, inspection and record drawings are outside the seope of this agreement and will be performed by others. 
Itemized Scope of Services Provided by URS for the Arapaho Road Bridge TASK I • ENGINEERING A. Civil Site Works I. Final Civil Design & PS&E (65%, 95%,100% submittal) • Midway Road Traffic
Control Plan • Coordinate Relocation of Overhead Utilities (Along Midway Road) • Retaining Wall Architectural Details o Soundwall Architectural Details o QNQC o Cost Estimate o Special
Provisions & Specifications o Coordination with Town's Consultants R Bridges L Preliminary Bridge Design (-30% SUbmittal) o Develop Design Criteria o Preliminary Bridge Layout (Finalize
Bridge Location) o Preliminary Typical Section o Refine Arch Shape o Size Thrust Block & Refine Sbape • Size Foundation • Size Diaphragms o Size Traffic Railing Members o Develop Soundwall
o Coordinate Culvert Layout o Quantities and Cost Estimate • QNQC 2. Final Bridge Design, & PS&E (65%,95%, 100% submittals) • Final Bridge Layout • Final Typical Section • General Notes
• Quantities and Bearing Seats • Foundation Layout • Drilled Shaft Details • Abutment Plan & Elevation • Abutment Details o Bent Plan & Elevation • Bent Details • Thrust Block Plan &
Elevation • Thrust Block Details • Prestressed Concrete Beam Unit -Deck Plan • Prestressed Concrete Beam Unit -Deck Sections • Bridge Soundwall Details • Miscellaneous Superstructure
Details (drains, lighting) • Diaphragm Details • Closure Pour Details • Suspension Hanger Details • Steel Arch Design and Details • Steel Arch Camber Details • Bearing Details • Drainage
Details • Railing Details • Architectural Details 
• Erection Sequencing • Prestressed Beam Tables • Compile, Verify & Modify TxDOT Standard Drawings • QAlQC • Coordination with Town's Consultants • Bridge Total Quantities & Cost Estimate
• Bridge Special Provisions & Specifications C. Electrical Engineering I. Design Development • Prepare a preliminary cost estimate 2. Final Electrical Design & PS&E (65%,95%, 100010
submittals) • Develop and finalize a load study for each electrical service source. • Prepare Lighting Calculations for under-deck lighting above the parking lot. • Illumination Layout
(2961', 1200'/sht + I sheet under the bridge) • Electric Service /Pole Summary • Conduit Runs /Contents Summary • Insert Lighting Consultant Special Details • Insert Latest Town or TxDOT
Standards • Quantity Summary • Develop Final Cost Estimate (Using Estimatur) • QA ON 95% PLANS • Update Drawings per City Review TASK II -ARCHITECTURAL A. Design Development I. Architectural
Studies & Details • Develop one rail option addressing the issues of hiker/biker separation from the vehicular traffic and the architectural options tu realize the proposed triangular
pattern in the rail. • Coordinate with the engineering team to refine the curvature and size ofthe steel. Produce drawings representing a viable option • Develop option for the final
material and form of the thrust block. Provide CADD drawings ofpreferred scheme. • Develop a panel scheme for precast concrete retaining walls at approaches. • Develop center pier support
shape. • Develop bridge mounted soundwalls • Attend Team Meetings and Conference Calls to coordinate the architectural aspects of the design with structural and lighting Consultants.
B. Final Design 1. Coordination 2. Review 3. Specifications TASK ill-LIGHTING DESIGN A. Design Development (includes two meetings in Addison) 1. Develop one alternative for lighting
of elevated roadway. 2. Develop mounting concepts for bridge structure lighting. 3. Develop one alternative for lighting of outboard railings. 4. Develop one alternative for lighting
of underside of bridge, roadway under bridge and any adjacent parking areas under bridge. B. Final Design (includes one meeting in Addison) I. Final details of fixtures and mounting
for bridge structure illumination. 2. Final details offixtures and mounting for elevated roadway lighting. 3. Final details of fixtures and mounting for outboard railing illumination.

4. Final details offixtures and mounting for lighting ofunderside ofbridge, roadway under bridge and any adjacent parking areas under bridge. 5. Provide control concept diagrams and
other information suitable for use by electrical engineer describing control intent. TASK IV -NOISE STUDY A. Noise Measurements J. Review existing noise ordinance and criteria documents
2. Coordinate with the Town of Addison to discuss noise issues and objectives 3. Perform noise measurement survey. Take initial noise readings, both long term (24 hours. or longer) and
short term (less than one hour) noise readings, at adjacent properties. 4. Observe adjacent building construction type to aid in estimating the potential noise effects inside the buildings
B. Noise Modeling and Analyses J. Create a noise model to predict future noise emissions from the proposed roadway and bridge 2. Evaluate noise levels at areas ofconcern for compliance
with applicable noise regulations and standards 3. Develop a range ofsound wall heights and noise levels where noise impacts require mitigation. 4. Prepare report and respond to one
round of comments. TASK V -PROJECT MANAGEMENT A. Reports and Invoices 1. Prepare Project Management Plan 2. Prepare Progress Reports 3. Prepare Invoices and Billings B. Coordination
1. Coordinate! Administer the Project 2. Manage Subconsultants 3. Implement Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program 4. Prepare for and Attend Town Council or other Town Meetings (l
totai) 5. Prepare for and run internal project coordination meetings (8 total) 6. Prepare for and attend project meetings with Addison Public Works (3 total) L: 
ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE AT MIDWAY ROAD WORK ORDER NO. 001 -ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE ATTACHMENT C FEE PROPOSAL URS CORPORATION TASK 1-ENGINEERING A, Civil Site Works B. Bridges C. Electrical Engineering
TASK II -ARCHITECTURAL (Corgan) A. Design Development B, Final Design TASK 111-LIGHTING DESIGN (Brandston) A. Design Development B. Final Design TASK IV -NOISE STUDY A. Noise Measurements
B, Noise Modeling and Analyses TASK V -PROJECT MANAGEMENT A. Reports and Invoices B. Coordination Printing &Copying Expenses Total Cost $ 434,400.00 $ 19,370.00 $ 384,680.00 $ 30,350.00
$ 39,220.00 $ 33,920.00 $ 5,300.00 $ 39,580.00 $ 20,620.00 $ 18,960.00 $ 14,045.00 $ 5,540.00 $ 8,505.00 $ 20,920.00 $ 8,080.00 $ 12,840.00 $ 2800.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 550,965.00 
URS August 23, 2002 Mr. Steven Z. Chutchlan., PE Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase n -Design
Development & Contract Documents Scope of Services Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please find a copy ofthe Scope ofServices and fee proposal for Work Order No. 001 -Arapaho Road Bridge
Desigu Development and Construction DGcuments for your review. We have revised this scope after discussions with you to provide for a total project construction cost of approximately
$4.6 million. As we discussed the main changes in scope are: I. Eliminate the Urban Design service 2. Design for a reduced number of light assemblies and eliminate changing light colors
3. Remove the "stingers" from the bridge 4. Develop only one design concept for the various architectural and lighting elements 5. Eliminate the computer animation task 6. Reduce the
number ofmeetings in Addison 7. Reduce the Project Management effort We have also reduced our rates and explored ways to provide for a more efficient design in an effort to reduce the
design fee as low as possible. We trust that you will find our proposal acceptable and look forward to providing you the fmal written contract for approval by the Town Council. Sincerely,
􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁩􀁪􀁬CliffR. Hall, PE Project Manager Enclosure c.c. Michael Murpby, PE Director of Public Works URS CorporatIon Graystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1320 0.1",5. TX 75234
lei: 972.408.6950 Fax: 972.406.6951 
ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE AT MIDWAY ROAD WORK ORDER NO. 001 ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF SERVICES DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR THE ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE URS will provide the engineering,
architectural, lighting design and noise study services including plans, specifications and estimates as it relates to Arapaho Road from approximate Station 40+67 to approximate Station
70+28 and as provided in the itemized scope. The construction will consist of an elevated four-lane roadway with sidewalk located within the proposed Arapaho Road right-of-way (ROW)
on a tangent alignment. URS shall prepare plans, details and compute quantities for a steel arch bridge, the "blue-bridge concept", over Midway Road, with prestressed concrete beam approaches.
Design and details will include all bridge details including any soundwal1s located on the bridge. URS will also provide all bridge drainage details to accommodate the drainage in accordance
with the Town's Consultant's drainage requirements. URS will also prepare plans, details and compute quantities for any lighting & illumination, and traffic control for the areas under
and immediately adjacent to the bridge and retained wall portion of Arapaho Road with the exception of those portions to be prepared by the Town of Addison's Consultant. URS will also
prepare architectural details for the bridge, the mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls and the sound walls. Additionally, URS will prepare a noise study including ambient
noise measurements, modeling and noise analyses. URS will prepare and submit technical memorandums, preliminary plans and preliminary construction cost estimates at the end of the Design
Development phase for the Town's review. After resolution of one set of commeuts, URS will provide all f"mal detail plans, specifications, and estimates as previously described, to be
included into one f"mal construction package prepared by the Town's Consultant. URS will submit four sets of plans for review to the Town for 65% review and 95% review and will incorporate
the Town's comments (one set per submittal) in the next submittals. URS will also provide signed and sealed mylar plans at the 100% f"mal submittal. URS will coordinate with the Town
of Addison andlor the Town's Consultant for all interface design issues as well as coordinate the format and consolidation of construction plans, specification and estimate into one
final construction package. URS will coordinate with the Town andlor the Town's Consultant for revising the horizontal alignment and vertical profile of Arapaho Road to accommodate the
proposed bridge structure. URS will coordinate with the Town andlor the Town's Consultant for the revised alignment ofthe proposed box-culvert under Arapaho Road as well as bridge drainage
and bridge drain tie-ins. URS will coordinate with the Town andlor the Town's Consultant for all geotechnical information required for the foundation design for the bridge and retaining
walls. The Town of Addison will provide to URS all available Arapaho Road geometrics, including but not limited to electronic files for horizontal alignment, vertical profile, typical
sections, topography survey, field survey, and utility information. The Town will also provide boring logs, soil parameters and foundation design recommendations (allowable bearing capacities,
lateral load analysis, etc.) required for the bridge foundation designs. The Town ofAddison will provide to URS a field location survey of the existing 60-in. diameter water main, locating
the water main precisely, both vertically and horizontally, along the project limits and specifically in the vicinity of the arch-bridge's main foundations. Additionally the Town will
provide any applicable noise regulations or ordinance 
infonnation, obtain right of entry, and provide all traffic data including but not limited to, peak hourly volumes, average daily traffic, percentages of trucks, and design and posted
speeds that may be required for the noise study. The Town will provide all landscape ordinances and guidelines as well as provide a copy ofthe Town's Consultant's schematic landscape
masterplan and the streetscape design development package. All ROW documentation and plans, Arapaho Road geometries and roadway design, drainage, parking lot layout and design, retaining
wall layout and design, survey, geotechnical engineering, design and details for soundwalls on retaining walls or at grade, landscaping, hardscaping and irrigation for landscaping, pennitting,
and construction administration, inspection and record drawings are outside the scope ofthis agreement and will be perfonned by others. 
Itemized Scope ofServices Provided by URS for the Arapaho Road Bridge TASK!· ENGINEERING A. Civil Site Works I. Final Civil Design & PS&E (65%, 95%,100% submittal) • Midway Road Traffic
Control Plan • Coordinate Relocation of Overhead Utilities (Along Midway Road) • Retaining Wall Architectoral Details • SoundwaU Architectural Details • QAlQC • Cost Estimate • Special
Provisions & Specifications • Coordination with Town's Consultants B. Bridges I. Preliminary Bridge Design (-30% submittal) • Develop Design Criteria • Preliminary Bridge Layout (Finalize
Bridge Location) • Preliminary Typical Section • Refine Arch Shape • Size Thrust Block & Refine Shape • Size Foundation • Size Diaphragms • Size Traffic Railing Members • Develop Soundwall
• Coordinate Culvert Layout • Quantities and Cost Estimate • QAlQC 2. Final Bridge Design, & PS&E (65%, 950/., 1 00% submittals) • Final Bridge Layout • Final Typical Section • General
Notes • Quantities and Bearing Seats • Foundation Layout • Drilled Shaft Details • AbutmentPlan & Elevation • Abutment Details • Bent Plan & Elevation • Bent Details • Thrust Block Plan & Elevation • Thrust Block Details • Ptestressed Concrete Beam Unit-Deck Plan • Ptestressed
Concrete Beam Unit-Deck Sections • Bridge SoundwaU Details • Miscellaneous Superstroctore Details (drains, lighting) • Diaphragm Details • Closure Pour Details • Suspension Hanger Details
• Steel Arch Design and Details • Steel Arch Camber Details • Bearing Details • Drainage Details • Railing Details • Architectnral Details 
• Erection Sequencing • Prestressed Beam Tables • Compile, VerifY & Modify TxDOT Standard Drawings • QAlQC • Coordination with Town's Consultants • Bridge Total Quantities & Cost Estimate
• Bridge Special Provisions & Specifications C. Electrical Engineering 1. Design Development • Prepare a preliminary cost estimate 2. Final Electrical Design & PS&E (65%, 95%, 100% submittals)
• Develop and finalize a load study for each electrical service source. • Prepare Lighting Calculations for under-deck lighting above the parking lot. • Illumination Layout (2961', 1200'/sht
+ 1 sheet under the bridge) • Electric Service I Pole Summary • Conduit Runs I Contents Summary • Insert Lighting Consultant Special Details • Insert Latest Town or TxDOT Standards •
Quantity Suromary • Develop Final Cost Estimate (Using Estimator) • QA ON 95% PLANS • Update Drawings per City Review TASK n -ARCHITECTURAL A. Design Development I. Architectural Studies
& Details • Develop one rail option addressing the issues ofhikerlbiker separation from the vehicular traffic and the architectural options to realize the proposed triangular pattam
in the rail. • Coordinate with the engineering team to refine the curvature and size ofthe steel. Produce drawings representing a viable option • Develop option for the final material
and fmm ofthe tInust block. Provide CADD drawings ofpreferred scheme. • Develop a panel scheme for precast concrete retaining walls at approaches. • Develop center pier support shape.
• Develop bridge mountad soundwalls • Attend Team Meetings and Conference Calls to coordinate the architectural aspects ofthe design with structural and lighting Consultants. B. Final
Design L Coordination 2. Review 3. Specifications TASK ill-LIGHTING DESIGN A. Design Development (includes two meetings in Addison) 1. Develop one alternative for lighting ofelevated
roadway. 2. Develop mounting concepts for bridge structure lighting. 3. Develop one alternative for lighting ofoutboard railings. 4. Develop one alternative for lighting ofunderside
ofbridge, roadway under bridge and any adjacent parking areas under bridge. B. Final Design (includes one meeting in Addison) I. Final details offixtures and mounting for bridge structure
illumination. 2. Final details offixtures and mounting for elevatad roadway lighting. 3. Final details offJXtures and mounting for outboard ralling illumination. 
4. Final details offixtures and mounting for lighting of underside of bridge, roadway under bridge and any adjacent parking areas under bridge. 5. Provide control concept diagrams and
other information suitable for use by electrical engineer describing control intent. TASK IV-NOISE STUDY A. Noise Measurements I. Review existing noise ordinance and criteria documents
2. Coordinate with the Town of Addison to discuss noise issues and objectives 3. Perform noise measurement survey. Take initial noise readings, both long term (24 hours or longer) and
short term (less than one hour) noise readings, at adjacent properties. 4. Observe adjacent building construction type to aid in estimating the potential noise effects inside the buildings
B. Noise Modeling and Analyses I. Create a noise model to predict future noise emissions from the proposed roadway and bridge 2. Evaluate noise levels at areas ofconcern for compliance
with applicable noise regulations and standards 3. Develop a range of sound wall heights and noise levels where noise impacts require mitigation. 4. Prepare report and respond to one
round ofcomments. TASK V -PROJECT MANAGEMENT A. Reports and Invoices I. Prepare Project Management Plan 2. Prepare Progress Reports 3. Prepare Invoices and Billings B. Coordination 1.
CoordinatelAdministerthe Project 2. Manage SubconSultants 3. Implement Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program 4. Prepare for and Attend Town Council or other Town Meetings (1 total)
5. Prepare for and run internal project coordination meetings (8 total) 6. Prepare for and attend project meetings with Addison Public Works (3 total) 
ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE AT MIDWAY ROAD WORK ORDER NO. 001 -ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE ATTACHMENT C FEE PROPOSAL URS CORPORATION TASK 1-ENGINEERING A. Civil Site Works B. Bridges C. Electrical Engineering
TASK 11-ARCHITECTURAL (Corgan) A. Design Development B. Final Design TASK 111-LIGHTING DESIGN (Brandston) A. DeSign Development B. Final Design TASK IV -NOISE STUDY A. Noise Measurements
B. Noise Modeling and Analyses TASK V -PROJECT MANAGEMENT A. Reports and Invoices B. Coordination Printing & Copying Expenses Total Cost $ 434,400.00 $ 19,370.00 $ 384,680.00 $ 30,350.00
$ 39,220.00 $ 33,920.00 $ 5,300.00 $ 39,580.00 $ 20,620.00 $ 18,960.00 $ 14,045.00 $ 5,540.00 $ 8,505.00 $ 20,920.00 $ 8,080.00 $ 12,840.00 $ 2800.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 550,965.00 
DRS August 23,2002 Mr. Steven Z. Chutchian., PE Assistant City Engineer 1680 I Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase n -Design
Development & Contract Documents Scope ofServices Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please find a copy ofthe Scope ofServices and fee propcsal for Work Order No. 001 -Arapaho Road Bridge
Design Development and Construction Documents for your review. We have revised this scope after discussions with you to provide for a total project construction cost of approximately
$4.6 million. As we discussed the main changes in scope are: 1. Eliminate the Urban Design service 2. Design for a reduced number of light assemblies and eliminate changing light colors
3. Remove the "stingers" from the bridge 4. Develop only one design concept for the various architectural and lighting elements 5. Eliminate the computer animation task 6. Reduce the
number of meetings in Addison 7. Reduce the Project Management effort We have also reduced our rates and explored ways to provide for a more efficient design in an effort to reduce the
design fee as low as pcssible. We trust that you will find our proposal acceptable and look forward to providing you the final written contract for approval by the Town Council. Sincerely,
titr;;;:t(CliffR. Hall, PE Project Manager Enclosure c.c. Michael Murphy, PE Director of Public Works URS Corporation Graystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite .1320 Dallas, TX 75234
Tel; 972.406.6950 Fax; 972.406.6951 
ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE AT MIDWAY ROAD WORK ORDER NO. 001 ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF SERVICES DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR THE ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE URS will provide the engineering,
architectural, lighting design and noise study services including plans, specifications and estimates as it relates to Arapaho Road from approximate Station 40+67 to approximate Station
70+28 and as provided in the itemized scope. The construction will consist of an elevated four-lane roadway with sidewalk located within the proposed Arapaho Road right-of-way (ROW)
on a tangent alignment. URS shall prepare plans, details and compute quantities for a steel arch bridge, the "blue-bridge concept", over Midway Road, with prestressed concrete beam approaches.
Design and details will include all bridge details including any soundwalls located on the bridge. URS will also provide all bridge drainage details to accommodate the drainage in accordance
with the Town's Consultant's drainage requirements. URS will also prepare plans, details and compute quantities for any lighting & illumination, and traffic control for the areas under
and immediately adjacent to the bridge and retained wall portion of Arapaho Road with the exception of those portions to be prepared by the Town of Addison's Consultant. URS will also
prepare architectural details for the bridge, the mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls and the sound walls. Additionally, URS will prepare a noise study including ambient
noise measurements, modeling and noise analyses. URS will prepare and submit technical memorandums, preliminary plans and preliminary construction cost estimates at the end of the Design
Development phase for the Town's review. After resolution of One set of comments, URS will provide all fmal detail plans, specifications, and estimates as previously described, to be
included into one fmal construction package prepared by the Town's Consultant. URS will submit four sets of plans for review to the Town for 65% review and 95% review and will will incorporate
the Town's comments (one set per submittal) in the next submittals. URS will also provide signed and sealed mylar plans at the 100% final submittal. URS will coordinate with the Town
of Addison and/or the Town's Consultant for all interface design issues as well as coordinate the format and consolidation of construction plans, specification and estimate into one
final construction package. URS will coordinate with the Town and/or the Town's Consultant for revising the horizontal alignment and vertical profile ofArapaho Road to accommodate the
proposed bridge structure. URS will coordinate with the Town and/or the Town's Consultant for the revised alignment of the proposed box-culvert under Arapaho Road as well as bridge drainage
and bridge drain tie-ins. URS will coordinate with the Town and/or the Town's Consultant for all geotechnical information required for the foundation design for the bridge and retaining
walls. The Town of Addison will provide to URS all available Arapaho Road geometrics, including but not limited to electronic files for horizontal alignment, vertical profile, typical
sections, topography survey, field survey, and utility information. The Town will also provide boring logs, soil parameters and foundation design recommendations (allowable bearing capacities,
lateral load analysis, etc.) required for the bridge foundation designs. The Town of Addison will provide to URS a field location survey of the existing 60-in. diameter water main, locating
the water main precisely, both vertically and horizontally, along the project limits and specifically in the vicinity of the arch-bridge's main foundations. Additionally the Town will
provide any applicable noise regulations or ordinance 
information, obtain right of entry, and provide all traffic data including but not limited to, peak hourly volumes, average daily traffic, percentages of trucks, and design and posted
speeds that may be required for the noise stady. The Town will provide all landscape ordinances and guidelines as well as provide a copy ofthe Town's Consultant's schematic landscape
masterplan and the streetscape design development package. All ROW documentation and plans, Arapaho Road geometries and roadway design, drainage, parking lot layout and design, retaining
wall layout and design, survey, geotechnical engineering, design and details for soundwalls on retaining walls or at grade, landscaping, hardscaping and irrigation for landscaping, pennitting,
and construction administration, inspection and record drawings are outside the scope of this agreement and will be performed by others. 
Itemized Scope of Services Provided by URS for the Arapaho Road Bridge TASK I -ENGINEERING A. Civil Site Works I. Final Civil Design & PS&E (65%, 95%,100% submittal) • Midway Road Traffic
Control Plan • Coordinate Relocation ofOverhead Utilities (Along Midway Road) • Retaining Wall Architectural Details • Soundwall Architectural Details • QAlQC • Cost Estimate • Special
Provisions & Specifications • Coordination with Town's Consultants B. Bridges I. Preliminary Bridge Design (-30% submittal) • Develop Design Criteria • Preliminary Bridge Layout (Finalize
Bridge Location) • Preliminary Typical Section • Refme Arch Shape • Size Thrust Block & Refine Shape • Size Foundation • Size Diaphragms • Size Traffic Railing Members • Develop Soundwall
• Coordinate Culvert Layout • Quantities and Cost Estimate • QAlQC 2. Final Bridge Design, & PS&E (65%, 95%,100% submittals) • Final Bridge Layout • Final Typical Section • General Notes
• Quantities and Bearing Seats • Foundation Layout • Drilled Shaft Details • Abutment Plan & Elevation • Abutment Details • Bent Plan & Elevation • Bent Details • Thrust Block Plan &
Elevation • Thrust Block Details • Prestressed Concrete Beam Unit -Deck Plan • Prestressed Concrete Beam Unit -Deck Sections • Bridge Soundwall Details • Miscellaneous Superstructure
Details (drains, lighting) • Diaphragm Details • Closure Pour Details • Suspension Hanger Details • Steel Arch Design and Details • Steel Arch Camber Details • Bearing Details • Drainage
Details • Railing Details • Architectural Details 
• Erection Sequencing • Prestressed Beam Tables • Compile, VerilY & ModilY TxDOT Standard Drawings • QAlQC • Coordination with Town's Consultants • Bridge Total Quantities & Cost Estimate
• Bridge Special Provisions & Specifications C. Electrical Engineering I. Design Development • Prepare a preliminary cost estimate 2. Final Electrical Design & PS&E (65%, 95%, 100% submittals)
• Develop and fmalize a load study for each electrical service source. • Prepare Lighting Calculations for under-deck lighting above the parking lot. • Illumination Layout (2961', 1200'/sht
+ I sheet under the bridge) • Electric Service I Pole Summary • Conduit Runs I Contents Summary • Insert Lighting Consultant Special Details • Insert Latest Town or TxDOT Standards •
Quantity Summary • Develop Final Cost Estimate (Using Estimator) • QA ON 95% PLANS • Update Drawings per City Review TASKII-ARCfDTECTURAL A. Design Development I. Architectural Studies
& Details • Develop one rail option addressing the issues ofhikerlbiker separation from the vehicular traffic and the architecloral options to realize the proposed triangular pattern
in the rail. • Coordinate with the engineering team to refme the curvature and size ofthe steel. Produce drawings representing a viable option • Develop option for the final material
and fonn ofthe thrust block. Provide CADD drawings ofpreferred scheme. • Develop a panel scheme for precast concrete retaining walls at approacbes. • Develop center pier support shape.
• Develop bridge mounted soundwalls • Attend Team Meetings and Conference Calls to coordinate the architectural aspects ofthe design with structural and lighting Consultants. B_ Final
Design I. Coordination 2. Review 3. Specifications TASK III -LIGHTING DESIGN A. Design DeVelopment (includes two meetings in Addison) I. Develop one alternative for lighting ofelevated
roadway. 2. Develop mounting concepts for bridge structore lighting. 3-. Develop one alternative for lighting ofoutboard railings. 4. Develop one alternative for lighting ofunderside
ofbridge, roadway under bridge and any adjacent parking areas uoder bridge. B. Final Design (includes one meeting in Addison) I. Final details of fIXtures and mounting for bridge structure
illumination. 2. Final details offIXtures and mounting for elevated roadway lighting. 3. Final details of fIXtures and mounting for outboard railing illumination. 
4. Final details of fixtures and mOWlting for lighting of Wlderside of bridge, roadway Wlder bridge and any adjacent parking areas Wlder bridge. 5. Provide control concept diagrams and
other information suitable for use by electrical engineer describing control intent. TASK IV -NOISE STUDY A. Noise Measurements 1. Review existing noise ordinance and criteria documents
2. Coordinate with the Town of Addison to discuss noise Issues and objectives 3. Perform noise measurement survey. Take initial noise readings, both long term (24 hours or longer) and
short term (less than one hour) noise readings, at adjacent properties. 4. Observe adjacent building construction type to aid in estimating the potential noise effects inside the buildings
B. Noise Modeling and Analyses I. Create a noise model to predict future noise emissions from the proposed roadway and bridge 2. Evaluate noise levels at areas ofconcern for compliance
with applicable noise regulations and standards 3. Develop a range ofsound wall heights and noise levels where noise impacts require mitigation. 4. Prepare report and respond to one
roWld ofcomments. TASK V -PROJECT MANAGEMENT A. Reports and Invoices 1. Prepare Project Management Plan 2. Prepare Progress Reports 3. Prepare Invoices and Billings B. Coordination 1.
Coordinate/Administer the Project 2. Manage SubconSultants 3. Implement Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program 4. Prepare for and Attend Town COWlcil or other Town Meetings (I total)
5. Prepare for and run internal project coordination meetings (8 total) 6. Prepare for and attend project meetings with Addison Public Works (3 total) 
ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE AT MIDWAY ROAD WORK ORDER NO. 001 -ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE ATTACHMENT C FEE PROPOSAL URS CORPORATION TASK 1-ENGINEERING A. Civil Site Works B. Bridges C. Electrical Engineering
TASK 11-ARCHITECTURAL (Corgan) A. Design Development B. Final Design TASK 111-LIGHTING DESIGN (Brandston) A. Design Development B. Final Design TASK IV -NOISE STUDY A. Noise Measurements
B. Noise Modeling and Analyses TASK V -PROJEC'r MANAGEMENT A. Reports and Invoices B. Coordination Printing &Copying Expenses Total Cost $ 434,400.00 $ 19,370.00 $ 384,680.00 $ 30,350.00
$ 39,220.00 $ 33,920.00 $ 5,300.00 $ 39,580.00 $ 20,620.00 $ 18,960.00 $ 14,045.00 $ 5,540.00 $ 8,505.00 $ 20,920.00 $ 8,080.00 $ 12,840.00 $ 2800.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 550,965.00 
Arapabo Road Bridge Scoping Meeting 6126102 Attendees: Jim Pierce Town ofAddison Steve Chutchian Town ofAddison Jerry Holder HNTB Liz Metting HNTB Jennifer Nicewander HNTB David Boles
HNTB CIiffR Hall URS Paulette Vander Kamp URS 1. HNTB's scope covers all drainage, utility relocation, and parking lot design (paving grading, striping & marking). 2. HNTB's scope does
not cover the retaining walls. URS scope should cover everything from start ofwall at one end to end ofwall at the other end, with the exception ofthe drainage, utilities and parking
lots. (E-mail from Jerry Holder dated July 8, 2002 advised that HNTB's fee did cover retaining wall layouts. URS to provide architectural details.) 3. HNTB's David Boles is an Urban
Planner on this project. He has been working with Slade Strickland, the Town ofAddison's Parks Director. They have developed standard paving and lighting for the Arapaho corridor. URS
will need to tie-in to this and coordinate the urban design efforts with HNTB and Slade. 4. The Town ofAddison has a "Trails Plan". 5. URS should include Construction Phase Services.
This should include attending prebid and pre-construction meetings, shop drawings, RFI's, addendums, review the bridge bid tabs, etc. 6. The bridge and roadway will be bid as one construction
document. 7. HNTB will provide URS a copy ofHNTB's scope ofservices. 8. URS will prepare noise study and design any soundwall required on the bridge or the retaining walls; HNTB will
design any at grade. 9. Irrigation for landscaping will be prepared by HNTB's subconsuItant. 
10. URS will provide a 60% design submittal. II. Addison wants to go out for bid in AprillMay of2oo3. 12. HNTB will provide their drawing border to URS as well as the latest pro:lile,
alignment and topo :IiIes. 13. URS will prepare traffic control for the bridge. 
Steve Chutchian From: ClifCHall@URSCorp,com Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 3:00 PM To: Liz Metting Cc: jpierce@ci.addison.\x.us; Jerry Holder; Steve Chutchian Subject: Arapaho Bridge
Borings Liz, Please hold off on having Terra Mar drill the borings per our e-mail to Luke Jalbert of the Town of Addison. From the information we received from Luke, we had assumed that
the borings located in the vicinity of the bridge would be sufficient for the bridge foundations. However, after briefly reviewing the copy of HNTB's scope that we received yesterday,
we now realize that these borings are probably not deep enough for the bridge foundations. If this is the case, we would need to provide revised locations for the seven bridge borings
and may need to request additional borings as well. Before we proceed, we would like to know exactly which borings have been drilled and to get a copy of the logs for these borings.
Thanks. Cliff R. Hall, PE Bridge Group Manager URS Corporation 5151 Beltline Road, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75240 Tel: 972-980-4961 Fax: 972-991-7665 1 
URS April 28, 2004 Mr. Steven Z. Chutchian, P.E. Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, TX 75001 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Coordination Comments on 100%
Plans Dear Mr. Chutchian: We have performed a coordination review ofyour consultant's roadway, utility, landscape, etc. plans forthe subject project to check ifcertain coordination issues
that have been previously discussed were included in the 100% plans. We have noted several items that we had requested to be included into the plans, and that impact the bridge or are
required by the noise study, that were not included. We have included a partial copy of some ofthe plan sheets outlining these items, as well as listed them below. I. All overhead electrical
(OHE) lines that cross the bridge or interfere with the bridge deck need to be relocated. 2. The finished ground elevation at bents 9 & 10 (triangular thrust blocks) needs be at EL 616
or above. 3. A 3-ft high barrier is required by the noise study between Arapaho Road and the the adjacent hotel beginning at approximate station 72+07 and ending at approximate station
73+50. Sincerely, URS Corporation CliffR Hall, P.E. Project Manager Enclosures c.c. Jerry Holder (HNTB) URS Corporation Graystone Centre 3010 LB) Freeway. Suite 1300 Dallas. TX 75234
Tel: 972.406.6950 Fax: 972.406.6951 
o 20 40 iO ; SCAlE IN FEET N LEGEND --CH--OVERHEAD LINES .CO SANITAAY SEWER CLEANCUT -<;>Flf FIRE HYORAIIT ..'ttN WATER vAlVE """ WATER Io£TER 0"" GAS Io£TER N ! FOR INTERIM REVIEW ONLY
!Iv .ERR'\' (I, HQ.OER, "', .1'. E. • ann HNT8 CORPORATION ARAPAHO ROAD· PHASE IIIWITHIN }J>.IQ ADJACENT TO THE \TTEt-PT HAS BEEN MALlE TO LOCATE 􀁓􀁕􀁾􀁅􀁲􀁏􀁒􀀠8CXJl£VNl[) TO /ll)[}lSON
ffl))I) IS• .ALL EXISTING UTILITIES MAY NOT BE EXISTING UTILITY PUW£ LOCATI()-( Cf' THE UTLITIES SHOWN 􀁾􀀠N ON THE PLANS. PF?lffi TO THE STA 50«! TO 6(H)()XCAVATION. THE CONTRACTOO
SHAlL VEO AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS U.. ITY ON THE GROONO. THE TOWN OF ADDISON. TEXAS THE UTILITY LOCATIOO t-tAAKII'iGS I([CESSARY. 
-----------------1iiJrJ1W􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠I􀁾􀀠􀁭􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁲􀁭􀁭􀀱􀁴􀀱􀁉􀀱􀁬􀀱􀁴􀁭􀀱􀁴􀀱􀀱􀁾􀁭􀁭􀁵􀁾􀁵􀁾II 􀁾􀀠111111111111111I 1111 II i􀁉􀁬􀁬􀁭􀀱􀁉􀀱􀁴􀁬􀁨􀁾􀁬􀁭􀁭􀁬􀁴􀁊􀁪􀁩􀁊􀁾􀁭
􀁬􀁪􀁭􀁬􀁬􀁬􀀱􀁬􀀱􀁬􀁬􀀱􀁬􀁲􀁵􀁴􀀱􀁭-----_.. ........... . ..........-... ..----'K\ J l-Oeo.􀁾􀀠 􀁏􀁦􀁁􀁾􀀠 􀁾.. -7 ......... .. CIS-OO..􀀭􀀮􀁾/-;7 􀀶􀀰􀀢􀀬􀀢􀀬􀁁􀁔􀁅􀁾􀀠SO"WATE:R SQVAT(RISII-W'-'
R &0""''' 1'101 􀁾IL. 􀀭􀁆􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀭􀀷􀀠j If-;' ·/·';'1 I /I . f 􀁾􀁴􀀺􀀺􀁦􀀠IF/II􀀭􀁾􀀠􀀻􀀭􀁾..':-:: , , , /. . -/-1 􀁾􀁦􀀮􀀮􀀻􀀠,. /...c.c.-...{.:::s, r=} ;,j."o::ss '/if "'''', I I
J '" S , . I􀁾􀀠. .. .. . .. . .. -. . -. . ... . 􀁾... -I I -7)l't • .. . 􀁾􀀭􀀱􀀧􀀠:-yd 􀀭􀁊􀁪􀁾􀁴􀀧􀁬􀁹􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀠ij[; SAHITMY HNfoK1.£' . . _. . '--I _. Fl 4'; S .. 60<1.58.i fl 6"
W .. 50t..ge .. -... .... -. -. --. j -: -=.,...OsNi-Hi' .•H j. r􀁾􀁛􀁉􀁃􀁬􀀠. L;; .. ....... _... L :J 􀀭􀁾􀀬􀀠.-. =. -_ .... ..-􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭..1'-· v ----\;u Z STOOr BRICK 1-1_ , •
..􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀠..... 􀁾􀀠I \\ ,,-------------Re. 􀀡􀁯􀁾􀁂􀀠-._. /" ------....--;-.-_._-.. /--........_---_.. ----_.._..-._-.7",. I -:7 tiO"1tlATER 􀀶􀁏􀁾􀁗􀁁􀁔􀂣􀁒􀀠􀁥􀁏􀀢􀁗􀁁􀁾􀀠60......"T£R
􀁾􀀠_..􀀭􀀮􀁾.. -I-------i1-CoG rl if-,-1"-:-􀁾􀀮􀀠.. . ... . -. ... .... . .... ... . -. -.. .. _. ..--l..:' 􀁩􀀧􀁾􀁏􀁃􀀠oStOO􀀵􀀶􀁾􀁃􀀡􀁊􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠.-.. .. ---.-􀁔􀁾􀁁􀁕􀁌􀀠t c 􀁔􀁴􀁾􀀠TOI'«'.lCf:"
ENTRY STf.:PSn c,.CO ENTRY ST£PSI c;[ NOm Ji"" IL 3􀀱􀁒􀁁􀁴􀀮􀁪􀁾􀀠UNOERGROO UT1UTfES IS;WiTHIN Nt) ftC'''' . l: STORY CONCRETE liMns cj:' C<l'lSTRUCTION. AN ATTEf4lT HAS Sf THESE UTILITIES
ctt THE PLANS • .aLL EXISTING SHO\tm ON THE PLANS. AND THE LOCATION G" MAY VAAY fRa-i THE LOCATIOO ON THE PLAi't BEGINNING Cf' ANY TYPE Cf' EXCAVATlON. THE CONTACT THE UTILITIES INV<X..VED
AND MAKE . 􀁦􀁾􀀠THE LOCAT1OO (F THE UTILITY (y,j THE G 􀁃􀁏􀁏􀁔􀁒􀁁􀁃􀁔􀁾􀀠SHALL MAIHTAIN THE UTILITY LOI ____________􀁾__􀁾􀁾__________________􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾________________􀁾􀁕􀁎􀁾􀁔􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁔􀁾􀁈
􀀽􀁅􀁙􀁾􀁁􀁁􀁾􀁅􀁾􀁎􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁬􀁾􀁏􀁎􀁾􀁇􀁾􀁅􀁒􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁃􀁾􀁅􀁓􀀽􀁓􀁾􀁁􀁁􀁾􀁙􀁾􀀮___ -
II I I II o I I 10 I o o o 1 i 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠I • ---1-􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠-.--t-I o ummII 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠I􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠II􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠I􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠I􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠I􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠I􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠III􀁾􀀠I􀁾􀀠UIi II ij ij
1111 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀱􀀱􀁉􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀁉􀀱􀀡􀁬􀁉􀁕􀁾􀀮􀁉􀁬􀁉􀁬􀁉􀁬􀁉􀁉􀁜􀁉􀁉􀁈􀁉􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀠1111 \I '.1 '.1 􀁾II "" ".m"" .' . :. --􀀶􀀰􀁾􀀢􀀧􀀧􀀧􀁔􀁅􀁒􀀠􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭..-:W'''''ATER􀁫􀁾􀁾􀂷􀀭􀀽􀀭􀀽􀀽􀂷􀂷􀂷􀁾􀂷􀁾􀂷􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭
􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀂷􀀻􀀧􀀻􀁉􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾 􀁾􀀠------..--_..._. '-"-' _._ .. 􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀻􀂷􀁾􀂷􀁾􀂷􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁆􀀠; I... 􀁾􀀠; 􀁯􀁾__ 􀁾􀀠__ 􀁾... 􀀭􀁾􀀡􀁩􀁣􀀭*.---__ .. __
..--_-.--:-"'+.;O_l:O.++_-._ 􀀽􀁾􀁲􀀮􀀢􀀠􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁢􀀽􀀽􀀡􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀮􀀭􀁾._--__ ..􀀺􀀭􀀽􀁢􀀺􀀻􀀽􀁾􀀭􀁓􀀽􀀭I ROlEL 􀁾􀀱􀁎􀁬􀀺􀁁􀁦􀁬􀁃􀁗􀁁􀁌􀀠:; (t. \ -_,:;::.: 􀁾􀁣_ME.A =. c==---=='=:'=:::.:===-.:=:=
==='==1=I='::=====-'1=1'>11=.􀁾􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀽􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭.;;",;--= ---".... ---._0'. -... ----􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭-.---.. -... 􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁉􀀭􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀂷􀀭􀂷􀀭􀂷􀂷􀂷􀀭􀂷􀀭􀁪􀁦􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀱. ====
...... --==-􀀮􀀺􀀭􀀽􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀽...-_w--__. tI . NOm t)1t1Gt tJtJ· I UNDERGROUND UTILITIES EXIST WITHIN AND ADJACENT TO THE j LIMiTS d:' C(NSTRUCTICN, AN ATTEI'-PT HAS
BEEN f.W)E TO LOCATE I lHESE UTILITIES ON THE PLHlS. N.l EXISTING UTILITIES MAY NOT BE SHOWN ON THe: PlANS, AND THE LOCATION OF THE UTlITIES SHOWN􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀭..-.---..MAY
VAAY FROM THE LOCATION 00 THe: PLANS. PRIOO TO THE BEGINNING 􀁾􀀠ANY TYPE OF EXCAVATION. THE CCNTRACTOO SHM..L CONTACT THE UTILITIES lNvctVEO AND MftKE PRRANGE}£NTS feR THE LOCATIOO
OF THE UTILITY 00 THE GROOM). THE: ca-lTRACTOR SH/lLl MAINTAIN THE UTILITY LOCATlC« WRKINGSIrlTlllTrrr 􀁉􀁾􀀠umlL THEY PRE NO LONGER NECESSARY. 
o 20 40 60 80 i : I ' ! : .' I I i I I, : ., ., '" ,. , DRAINAGE AWAY FROM EXISTING BUILDING LEGEND --·61 ,'--EXISTING COOTOUR 􀁾PROPOS£D COOTOUR )(612.42 PRCPOSED SPOT GRADE NOTE: GR.ADING
ooT51o£ PARKING LAYOOT ON THESE PlI«S IS FOR RruGH GR.ADING. Ct»iTRACTCR TO REFERENCE LAlIDSC.... E PLPJ<S FOR FINM. GRADES AND ELEVATIONS FOR TRAIL LAYOUT #10 LANOSC....ING SCHEf.£.
, :.. I' I , ..., L !i: LI' I ' I -... , , N "I', HNTH CORPORATION 􀀰􀀰􀀱􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀠GRADING PLAN CHARTER FURNITURE 
N • 20 4. "52.92 119.17 􀁾􀁴􀀳􀀱􀀮􀀱􀀰􀀠11'11.11 )12':t81 11)6.44 ,---, @"" -----, SCAlE IN FeET GENERAL NOTES: 1.} WRJTfEN OIMEHSJOKS »IV 􀁃􀁏􀁏􀁦􀀼􀀡􀀮􀀩􀁉􀁾􀁔􀁅􀀠DATA SHAU. GQI,,1,;RH
OVetSCAUOOIMENSlOWS, 2.) SEE THE SlIA:VI.'i.Y CCM'ROI. f"I.AN SHEETS \MTHIN THISSE1' FOR COORDINATE CCflTROl. f>O£HT IHFOIW.'IllOH. 3J 􀁁􀁕􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁡􀁥􀁓􀁔􀁎􀁃􀁅􀁄􀁉􀁎􀁔􀁬􀁴􀁥􀁆􀁬􀁅􀁬􀁏􀀠ff(1"H!
CON'l'RAClOR AHO Al"PRO'.IED ff(1'HE tANOSCAPE ARCHfl'ECT AND ONNER'S RS>.I"RIORTO COHSl'RUC'I'lON OR IHSTAU.ATIOtt ••1 TH£ cotnRACTORSHIU.VERlF'I' AU EASEM£HT UNeS IN THE Fl£U) pRJOA
TO I'IEGlNNIHG WORK. $J 􀁾l.IWJ.L VERIfY Al..J. tmurn;;s SHCl'MoI ON TH£Se I'lAHs AS WEU. AS ANY OTHERS IN FIELO PRIOR 10STAAT QF C<>NSTRU"""" ALl C¢NS1RI..ICTlON WIll COHFOfW TO 11£1'(MIN
OfAOOISOH STAHtWWS IWD SPEClF!CA.11ONS, AS WEl.l. M. /W'( GOVERNING 1XDOT OR R.A.Il.RCW> STAAOAADS N4D Sf>ECiflCA.TlONS RELATED TO THIS I'ROJECT. 9,) THE CON'T'RACTORWIlLCOORDIHATE InsTAllATION
OF AU. SIGNS, PAV'EMEHT IoWOONGS AND OllifR TAAFl'lC COHl'ROl 0E\IlCES ByTtE CfTY O\IAJNG CONSTRUCTlOH LEGEND: ---(il'XI--ElOST1HO co,,,,•••• --tlOO--,. ;5'''' I lATA ING ::i1" W _--'_::::::"'-_
ARAPAHO ROAD EXTENSION SURVEYOR BOULEVARD TO ADDISON ROAD STA 55+00 TO 60+00 LAYOUT & DIMENSIONING PLAN TOWN OF ADDISON , TEXAS 
__ I 'f T i i ,'1-1-1 􀁊􀁾􀀪􀀽􀀺􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀻􀁅􀁾􀁈􀀽􀀪􀀭􀀴􀁾􀁩􀀺􀀻􀁙􀀻􀀺􀀮􀁔􀂷􀀠-;-r; _n.. . 􀁾􀀭􀀽........11ct-c. t-_. i i I I 1 LAYOUT COORDINATE TABLE (@H 10063.G4 E 921S,94 􀁬􀀡􀀡􀁊􀀺􀁾􀀠[@􀁾
􀁾􀁵􀀺􀀠􀁬􀁲􀁵􀁾􀁾􀀠[i] N 1008J,04 􀁾N 10112.0& 􀁾H 1Q13M'lI.D E 9309.54 E 9328.52 􀁾􀀠􀀺􀀺􀀬􀁾􀀠1 • """"" [EJ 􀁾􀁾􀀱􀁕􀁾􀀠 (!!] : 􀁾􀀺􀁲􀁮􀀵􀀹􀀠(!!J : 􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀱􀀠􀁾N 10137.1(1 !!!)
N 10150.01 '.􀁾􀀺􀀽􀁾􀀠..,.,... E 93$)4.69 􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀠 (E] 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁦􀀠􀀮􀀭􀁟􀁾􀁟􀁃􀁟􀁏􀁟􀁎􀁔AlNERI MOW CURB CENTERLINE CURVE DATA:....,.-:-::=:-. BEARING CHORD 
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾..􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠ARAPAHO ROAD ---'. !$§IN eRICK PAVERS PAVING ST1\. 1tMG 􀁾􀁐􀁁􀁖􀁉􀁎􀁇􀀠WI1l1MEQlUM BROOM FlNISH{lYP,j ,/􀁒􀁁􀁍􀁾􀀠'" EXPANSION(TYP,)@JOINTS l,w.t!t<?43J l'·iY.52:i,eo/l . FlEIJ) AOJUsr exmfN</CtWN UHKf'ENCE 􀁔􀁏􀁁􀁂􀁬􀁊􀁔􀁾􀁅􀁈􀁔􀁁􀁬􀀠CONlRcx. JOl!mI(M'., FENCe
(NO 􀁇􀁁􀁐􀁓􀁾􀀻􀀠i I ff {g!I N 1ci200:11 E 102S6.56 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀠􀁛􀁀􀁾􀀡􀀽􀀺􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀽􀀺􀀠[ffil 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀽􀁾􀀠liE 􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁺􀁡􀀺􀀠II!!] 􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁛􀁀􀀺􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀠@ID =􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀠􀁉􀀡􀁀􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀺�
�􀀺􀀺􀁴􀀺􀀠@!1 􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀺􀀡􀀽􀀺􀀠I!ID 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀠i@􀁾􀀠􀁊􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀠E!iJ: 􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀠@1J 􀁾􀀠􀁊􀀽􀁾􀀺􀀠!lID 􀁾􀁩􀀽􀀺􀀠􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀠􀁾􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠ff@:i:: 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀠ImJ: !::: I1!!l
: 􀀺􀀽􀀺􀁾􀀠􀂧􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀠@!I 􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁊􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀽􀁾􀀠Imi 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀽􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠@!1: 􀀺􀀽􀁾􀀻􀀠I@:=: 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁲􀁾􀀠§J 􀀺􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀠􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀠ffiID 􀁾􀀠::;: 􀁾􀁾􀁩􀀽􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀺􀀡􀀽􀀠i!@::=:
􀁬􀀡􀁗􀀽􀁾􀁾􀀠ffi!:!:: @!l 􀀺􀁾􀀽􀁾􀀠
97Z98SZ042 T-661 POOZ/OOI F-OZ3r-Z8-04 03:18pm from-URS Corporation URS April 28, 2004 Mr. Steven Z. ChUlChian, P.E. Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, TX 7500 I
Re: Arapabo Road Bridge at Midway Road Cooroination Comments on 100% Plans Dear Mr. Chutchian: We have perfonnad a coordination review ofyour consultant's roadway, utility, landsc.pe,
etc. plans for the subject project to check ifcertain coordioation issues that have been previously discussed were included in the 100% plans. We have noted several items that we had
requested to be included into the plans, iUld that impact the bridge or are required by the noise study, that were not included. We have included a partial copy of some of the plan sbeets
outlining these items, as well as listed them below. I. All overhead electrical (OHE) lines thaI CrosS the bridge or interfere with the bridge deck nead to be relocated. 2. The finished
ground elevation at bents 9 & 10 (triangular thrust blocks) needs be at EL 616 or above. 3. A 3·ft hi£h barrier is required by the noise .tudy between Arapaho Road and the adjacent hotel
beginning at approximate station 72+07 and ending at approximate station 73+50. Sincerely, URS Corpora!;c", CliffR. Han, P.E. Project Man .... "'r EllClosures c.c. Jerry Holder (HNTB)
URS CorporatlM 􀁇􀁲􀀬􀀻􀁙􀁇􀁜􀁏􀁉􀁈􀁾􀀠Cer'llfe gOlD lBJ freeway, Suite 130D Dallas. T.X 7523.1. Tel: 972.406,6950 FiIIX: 􀁾􀀷􀀲􀀮􀁤􀁏􀁓􀀮􀁇􀁧􀁓􀀮􀁬􀀠:". 
Apr-28-04 03:18pm Fr ••-URS C.rporation o I 60 eo ! SCALE IN Fur N LEGEND 􀁓􀁾􀁪􀀱􀁁􀁁􀁙􀀧􀀠S£wE,fl CLEAN'out."" FIRE HYDRANT.....'" MW WATER VALVE ..... 􀁜􀀯􀁁􀁔􀀧􀁾􀀠""_ CAS!£TER"..
mw······· N )' ·1t.. I··· WITHIN ANt) ADJACEfiT TO THE .YTEI-f'T HAS 8EEN >WlE TO LOC,TE i . ..ol..1.. EXiSTING UTILITIES MA'f NOT ee: 􀁾􀀠Ltx;;A110l'{ CF THE UTLITIU 5110."".. i ON
THE' PLANS. PRIOR 10 THE <CAVATlOrt. Tl1f: CONTR.ACrCR SH.N...L (£0 ANO MAKE 􀁁􀁒􀁒􀁁􀁈􀁃􀁾􀁎􀁔􀁓􀀠;LITY ON THE eRamo. THf! 'HE UflUTv t..ocATlON MARKINGS 1\ ..... I I fOR INTERIM REVIEW
ONLY HNT$ CORPORATION 􀁄􀀴􀁔􀀮􀁾􀀱􀀭JJOt ItJl. 􀁃􀁃􀁬􀀼􀀧􀀡􀁬􀀢􀁬􀁊􀀨􀁲􀁕􀁾􀀢􀁾􀀠••GAllC. 􀁾􀀠􀀡􀀧􀁾􀀮􀀢􀀧􀀠'IM'''$U (8 ARAPAHO ROAD • PHASE III !iVIf(EYO!l /3f)/)1Ji.Yi'fIO TO /It)()/St)//RON)
EXISfING UTIUTY PUN srA 50-00 TO $(rOO TOWN OF ADDISON, TEXAS 
----1729982041 T-SS 1 poo4iOD9 P-023Apr-29-04 03:19pm Prom-URS Corporation 􀀱􀁀􀁭􀁭􀁭􀁴􀁬􀀱􀁕􀁉􀁉􀁕􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁭􀁮􀁲􀁵􀁴􀁴􀁴􀁬􀁾􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁮􀁵􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀀮􀁉􀁉􀀱􀁗􀁬􀁬􀁭􀁭􀁴􀁬􀁴􀁩􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁬􀀮
􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁕􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁾􀀠􀁉􀁉􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁾􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭--__-----------/T(, \0c:c:-􀁾􀀠\\ /--," '."../...-􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀭􀀮􀀠a", 7 :7 &O"VAl'Ul eo,'"WAT£1\ to·WArm
ilO"'WAlIR 􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀧􀀬_.-. __ .., ... , .•... -􀁾􀀮􀁾...-.... 􀁾􀀠.. 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠.. I J! 􀁔􀁾􀀧􀁦􀁆􀀢􀀧---..... ---􀀧􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀧􀀭-.it .􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀠. ... .. -T' i 􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀢􀁾􀀮􀀠􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀮􀀠'.
..... to':"$$;tF$'1i 􀁾􀀭.., . IJ-."$S" .... ·IO:"SS . -. -... -----.. ... i 􀁾􀀠--. . -.. -_. ." d 􀁾􀀼􀁬􀁪􀁖􀁯􀀠ri !o7-0J 531-00,..1;-I· I -•. --.. 􀁾􀀠.. --.. ·--ill-'·... .. -..
.. -;;;;;;;,-·bL -. ! I leu:, vlIUI. .. . .. ,. .1.....-..,,,----';';. 􀁾􀀮􀀧􀀠.. ",-;::_""" ,......,,::..--. .•. 􀀬􀀮􀁾􀀠.. ..'.'-􀁾􀀠-,c TCPi 1'0 RaY ft,ITRT 􀁾􀀧􀁙􀂣􀁦􀁉􀀻􀁾􀁲􀀽􀀱􀀠.-"
-_.', ... -::. ""co fNfh smfl t<OT£. 32"" 􀀱􀁬􀀻􀀺􀀱􀁾􀀠MUUMlERGI!CIJ UTILlTltS 2 SlOAT eONt'ltttc I..fMITS d:' 􀁃􀀺􀁾􀁔􀁒􀀧􀁕􀁃􀁔􀁉􀁏􀁎􀀮􀀠RI I\TTE>f>T IllS • THeSE UTJLITIES Ok( THE
PI.ANS. ALL ExIST INC SHOWN ON' TI-lE PL.ANS:. AN!) THE: lOCATla'i <:f" .....Y VARY FROM THE LOCATlCfl (JII THE PlJ'I" BEGiNNING OF "NPE OF fV(CAYATION. 1l1E CONT,ICT TliE VT!L1l'IES
IriVCt.VED N<b M.<J<E Fa< THE LOCATION fF TH! UTILITY Q< mE , CCNTliAC1CA SHALL MAltHAIH TH£ uTlltT'f LC .,,, ....... -
T-SSI ?OOS/009 F-02S9721992042 03:19pm From-URS Corporation • o o /--I 10 fo o IIInmm m I 􀁾􀀠WJlttMlJl:ltWftWtlU 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁭􀁵􀁭􀁮􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀠\I i111111 II II,I{II II "" II IlIflHH!lHIW·tlHHWn",,"'
un' •• 6O""W,&.T£ft I ,......􀁾􀁅􀀺􀁾.. 􀀬􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾.. VNOERGROOND UTILrfl£.s EXIST \llntl" NfO Al)JN;fKT TO THE llHfT$ (i: CctfSTRUCTlON. 􀁾􀀠Al1'EtoPT HAS SEEN M.AOt TQ 􀁌􀁏􀁃􀁾􀁦􀁅􀀠'THEsE
UTILITIES ON THt PlMS. H...L CXlSTIHQ UTILITIES MAY NOT BE SHOW» ON THE PLN'45. 􀁾􀁏􀀠THE LOCATION W THE UTLfTIES St«»oIN HAY VMY f'ROH THE LOCA.TION CN il£ PLAN£. PilIOR' to TM£ OEGINNII'«)
CF 􀁾􀀧􀀨􀀠TYPE: OF !XCAVATION. THE CONTRACTOO SH}U COIiTACT THE UTluTIES iP'NQ.VEO NiD MAKe NilRMlC£H::NTS roo THE 􀁌􀁏􀁃􀁁􀁔􀁉􀁾􀀠OF' THE UTILITY 􀁾􀀠􀁬􀁈􀁾􀀠GROJNO. 􀀱􀁾􀀠CONTRf.CTCft
SHAll KIotHTAIN THE UTILITY lOCATION 􀁍􀁐􀁒􀁋􀁾􀁎􀁇􀀤􀀠UNTll TI-lE'l' Ar<E t.IO LONGER NtC£SSAAY. 
-----60 Apr-lH4 03:19pm From-URS Corporation T-SSl P.OOS/009 F-OI3 o zo .0 SULE IN FEET ' .. -.' i N ,, '\., "'" ..... . -'"'-.. ".􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀠LEGEND --15'[ 4-___ E'XI$TINC CCHTWR
", 61:Z.42 PRtPosro SPOT Gftn)E NOTE: GRl4.ltNG: OJTSIOE PJiRKII'iG I..AYOOT ON THt:SE PL.N>G IS fCR RruCH GRAI)!NO_ 􀁃􀁏􀁦􀁭􀁴􀁁􀁃􀁔􀁾􀀠TO REFERENCE 􀁴􀀮􀀱􀁊􀁉􀀩􀁾􀀠PLANS FOR FiNPl.
!lRiD£S NID ELEVATIONS ftR TRAIL !..AYaJT AND 􀁬􀁁􀁎􀁏􀁓􀁃􀁁􀁐􀁉􀁎􀁾􀀠SCHEt-E. CHARrER FURNIrURE. = GR,6()ING PLAN ---_.-..._--------,----
Apr-2e-D4 03:1 gpm From-URS Corpor.lion 9728982042 H,I P.D07/001 F-DZ3 N • A' ..'" GO I 􀂷􀁾􀀧􀁾􀀱􀂷􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁾􀀺􀀠.;., I H I GENERAL NOTES: I t.} II'YRIf'TtiolOIIolGNt::>JQH$.NJ/;JC(')()ROIN.4llM
r.-..SHAlLOOVERN 􀁃􀁙􀁅􀁒􀁉􀁃􀁯􀁜􀁉􀀮􀀮􀂣􀁄􀁉􀁘􀁍􀁾􀀠2.1 􀀸􀁅􀀱􀁩􀁔􀁴􀀴􀁅􀀤􀁾􀁥􀁴􀀺􀁬􀁗􀀢􀁬􀀧􀁊􀁴􀁏􀁬􀁒􀀮􀁁􀁗􀁾􀁉􀁎􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁦􀁉􀁎􀀠nNi &E'T FOR OXIRDlMn: CONm.o. POINT 􀁗􀁾􀁮􀁏􀁎􀀮􀀠l.j
A.U..IUPAOII'ehlEHB&1W.t ilESTNIfD!lillE FIEI.O 􀀸􀁙􀀱􀀩􀁦􀁅􀁾􀁁􀁈􀁄􀁎􀀧􀁐􀁒􀁏􀁙􀁴􀀡􀀩􀁴􀁦􀀨􀁗􀁕􀁯􀁎􀁴􀁊􀁂􀁏􀁖􀀢􀁅􀀠􀁾􀁎􀁉􀁬􀀩􀁏􀁗􀁎􀀺􀁅􀁒􀀢􀀺􀁩􀁒􀁡􀀾􀀮􀁐􀁒􀁬􀁾􀁔􀁏􀁾􀁏􀁈􀀠OR1N$TlII...LAtlOH.
•.} 􀁮􀁴􀂣􀁾􀀮􀀸􀁋􀀶􀁕􀀮􀀧􀁖􀁓􀁜􀁉􀁎􀀮􀀮􀁵􀁾􀁵􀁊􀁬􀂣􀁓􀁉􀀢􀀧􀁩􀀧􀁈􀂣􀀠'FIEI..O 􀁾􀁁􀁁􀀺􀁁10 BeDIHN!J«l wot\ll B., eOlfffIUCTOR 􀁾VERlI'YJroU. U'fIU'TlEsSl:fO'l'Wf¢ti JHESS f'V.H,$AS:
WEl.1.AS AAY 􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀬F1aO PRIOR 10tlfAAT OF t:ON$.1la\l¢TiOW. w,; Al.L 􀁾􀁏􀁾WlU.COHf'IORIITOntllC/'J'MOf'AOOISOH 􀀤􀁔􀁾􀁎􀁃􀁴􀁳􀁐􀂫􀁉􀁦􀀱􀁃􀁊􀁜􀁮􀁏􀁈􀁬􀁬􀀮􀁁􀀮􀀸􀁗􀁅􀁬􀁊􀀮􀀮􀁍􀀮􀁦􀁊􀁬􀀧􀁦􀁾􀁎􀁇􀀠T)l
:IOTOR 􀁾􀁳􀁴􀁎􀁬􀁾􀁓NOIPEiCIFlCAfiON1-RE1.AlEiD TO l'fiL9. PFtOJECT. 7.) AU DlIWiI5I1':'lN::> Ml! TO 􀁾OF ct.RII 0" 􀁬􀀼􀁾OF PJI.'tI'EMENT 􀁕􀁎􀁕􀁩􀀺􀁡􀀮􀁕􀁾􀁴􀀮􀀱􀀰􀀱􀀢􀁦􀀳􀁩􀀮􀀠I.)
PUiilNFDI'lC:E.MEI'Ir 'HOUID'BE t:CImftUOU$ THA.OOOtI 􀀨􀀻􀁴􀀮􀀱􀁉􀀧􀁦􀀱􀀧􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠,.."... LEGEND: .. ___ IiilO __ _ ..,.'.,,,.,,""""""" "....,'10.-0 t1)7JO110.17 ,,,""'".. lATA INa CHORD
..... ARAPAHO ROAD EXTENSION SVJM:YlJR BOlJL!YAJiO ro ADf>iSON /ICW) STA 55+00 TO 60+00 LAYOUT &: DIMENSIONING PLAN TOWN OF ADDISON , TEXAS 
-----------------------------------0) :l9pm Fro.-URS Corpor.tion T-SS! P 009/009 I,:; T 􀁾􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭..􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀢..---. , 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀨􀀧􀀭... ,.. . .,'
􀁾􀀮􀀠' . .----.--..􀁾.., 􀁦􀂷􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀭􀀧􀂷􀀠LAYOVT COORDINATE TAfiLE @J W 1da.5ll(i]:=: 􀀱􀁬􀁦􀁊􀀺􀁾􀀠I!.Y 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀬􀁾􀀠E !!SM.':I::I D4 Ii[J 􀁾=r.4􀁾􀀺􀀽􀀻􀀺􀀠[§] : 􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁦􀀠􀀸􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀠[!!)
􀁾􀀺􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁾:=r.J' iii lot 'IDistAl E !)111M Ii) H 􀁾􀀱􀁩􀁉􀁇􀀱􀀱􀁃􀁬􀁑􀀠[!1 H 101:"'.11) 􀁾􀁎􀀱􀁑􀀧􀁉􀁭􀁾􀀱􀀠£" It.Pt.''. eml,W £ &aN.1i1 􀁉􀁩􀁬􀀺􀀽􀁾􀀠ffiJ =􀀺􀁫􀁇􀁩􀁴􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁭􀀭􀁲􀀠CONTAINER
/MOW CURl! 􀁃􀁅􀁎􀁾􀁌􀁉􀁎􀁅CURVE DATA OEtTA RADIUS TANCIENT '
97ZBB8Z04Z From-URS Co,por.tion03:19pm ' ...-. ,'" 􀂷􀁾􀂷􀁬􀁾􀂷􀀭􀁾􀁾􀂷􀀠' ... 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀀬􀁾􀀭􀀭",r􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀧􀂭􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀠. -""-, --"-,-􀀮􀁾􀀠-... ) -._---'-􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀂭,-' -,:",,-,--􀀺􀀣􀁩􀂷􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠f4
SW>Nir:1RONJ 􀁾H fOzoo.77 􀁅􀀱􀁾􀀡􀁩􀀤􀀠fiiJ 􀁾􀀠;gr,:,: ffi'iJ::: I!!J 􀁾􀁩􀀽􀀠fi!l] 􀁾􀀠::: mt::=: 1m) 􀁾􀀺􀀽􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀽􀀽􀀠Iffi) ,. 􀀧􀁡􀁬􀀧􀁉􀀧􀁾􀀱􀀧􀀠li2J N tOtClM􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀽􀀺􀀠I f
HUIO.n ffiIl =j=: IEi1 􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀠t§J 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀠􀁉􀁀􀀽􀁩􀀺􀁾􀀠1:10..1.111 􀁾􀀺􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀠lim 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀽􀁾􀀺􀁫􀁾􀀠I§l 􀀺􀀺􀁲􀁾􀀠IiiJ ::=: 􀁕􀁓􀁬􀁾􀀡􀀽􀀠􀁾􀀺􀀺
􀀺􀁩􀀮􀀢􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀽􀀮􀀺􀀠f2!J 􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀠fi3 􀀨􀀺􀀽􀁾􀀠lliJ 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀡􀀡􀀠􀁾􀀺􀀽􀀡􀁾􀀠BID 􀁾􀀠:::: ff!!) : 􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀻􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀠t'!!il H 􀀱􀁴􀂻􀀱􀀨􀁩􀀮􀁾fiE 􀀺􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀠1m) 􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀽􀀠(ffil
: 􀁾􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀠􀁾:i::.: e 10t.U",1I Iiil 􀁾􀀺􀀽􀀠􀁦􀁩􀁗􀁾􀁾􀀽fi!l 􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀠 m1l 􀀺􀁾􀀽􀁾􀀠 CONTAINER I MOW C\lR!! CENTERLINE CURVE DATA , CURvJ;: CElT A RADIUS 1 ARC TANGENT l:5f.AAING ei.
14·5.2'&0" 150,00' , ,...,' 10$> SQ"OS13"'W <>11 :we U":l4" 1$0,00' 53M ",as s. GQ',2&"38" w en "I0"5S'07" ,_"", 1$9,86' 95,7% NtW31'5re C!3 2nS'2:>' iSO.CO' .,." 3$..,. 􀁎􀀷􀀷􀀧􀁾􀁥􀀻􀀠c1<
""''23'' 1$0.04' 53.£1' Z1.11' N7Sl<J8't9"E CiS 􀀮􀁾􀀠151/,t10' 4SJr> 2),1.' N7,,'OV411'E' 016 ""I1m' ,....., ....... 11,11" N7'2""1'1" E Cit ,ra:m,.... 4S.!il2' zt14' /II 􀁔􀀱􀁾􀀧􀁴􀀢􀀴􀀡􀀢􀀧􀁅􀀠""
"'."..... '200.00' 71.&6' 35,,,' H71"3S'1S"E. =1 ""50"" 1S,TJlfl' "'.... .U."9' N8r,,'W"E; "'" I tn",i ...... «---"" CHORD ...... 􀁾􀀬􀁥􀁬􀁲􀀠""ST....,. .,... 4$."".",w4.5.14" 􀁾􀁾"',..

􀁁􀁰􀁲􀀭􀁚􀀷􀁾􀀰􀀴􀀠03:39pm From-URS Corporation 9729992042 T-858 P,OOZ/OOZ F-020 URS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: 4/23104 TO; HNT6 Corp FROM: Cliff R. Hall 5910 W. Plano Parkway URSCorp
Plano, TX 75093 3010 L6J Freeway Attention: Jenny Nicewander Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 JOB No.: 25334401 RE: ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE The following items are being sent [gJAttached o Underseparate
cover byo Shop Drawings 0 Prints [gJ Plans osamples !8J Specifications oCopy of leiter [gJ Other Item Copies Date Description 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 4123f04 4123/04 100% Bridge Plans Technical
Specifications Sections: Be, SSH, IB, BELF Transmittals for reasons checked: o For Your Approval oNo Exceptioll$ Taken o Resubmil copies for approval [gJFor Your Use oMake Corrections
Noted o Submit copies for distribution o As Requested DAmend and Resubmit o Retum corrected prints o For ReView and Comment o Remarks: Bid Tab Items and sheet list were sent via electronic
mail Copies: Steve Chutchian • Town of Addison (""("'..., ....... ' il,., tJ.4-.. d" ''J ) Ifenclosures are not as noted, kindly notlly us at once. URS Corporation lClla-IIfTI'MJmilUl
􀁾􀀬􀂫􀁉􀀬􀀠6fJ)1\l2 
􀁭􀁳􀁭􀁄􀁾􀁚􀀠T-.58 POOI/CCZ F-OIO03:38pm From-URS Corporation URS Facsimile To: Firm: Facsimile: From: Date: Page 10f: Subject: Message: ce: URS Corporation 3010 LBJ Freeway. Su!IC
1300 􀁏􀁡􀀢􀁾􀁳􀀮􀀠TX 75234 Tel: 972A06.G!l$O Fax; 972.406.6951 \4NNI_urscorp,cotn CONFtIlENTIALITY NOnc£ The in(Oml;lIior) in thi' 􀁾􀁩􀁭􀁩􀁬􀁾transmission is intmdtd sotdy fill Ihe
􀁾􀀨􀀶􀁴􀁾􀀠tc;:fph::nt orlhi$ tmUrnluion.. If you 1u1le ft:ctlved 􀁾􀁨􀁪􀁳􀀠Cu in elTOr. pk:a$4 nOtilY Ihe sender 􀁊􀁦􀁴􀁉􀁾􀁩􀀴􀁬􀁣􀁬􀁹by tclephCIilc. tr)")u are flQl tht: 􀁩􀁁􀀡􀁾􀁤􀁦􀁬􀁦􀀬􀁬􀀠􀁾�
�􀁰􀁩􀁣􀁮􀁴􀀮􀀠􀁰􀁬􀁥􀁵􀁾􀀠be ;JIjviS¢d fhat dibemil'1ii11Cion. disnibulicn. Of 􀁾􀁮􀁧of,he informalion tonlained in Ibb. 􀁾􀁬􀁉􀀠is 􀁾􀁴􀁔􀁩􀁣􀁤􀁹􀁰􀁲􀁣􀁨􀁩􀁢􀁪􀀡􀁥􀁤􀀮􀀠 
DRS April 21, 2004 Mr. Steven Z, Chutchian, PE Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase II -Design
Development & Contract Documents Invoice for Professional Services Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please find our invoice for Professional Services for the Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway
Road for the period between February 28, 2004 and March 26, 2004. Also included is our Progress Report for this period outlining the services provided. Sincerely, DRS Corporation CliffR.
Han, PE Project Manager Enclosure URS Corporation Graystone Center 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 Tel: 972,406,6950 Fax: 972,406,6951 
L Monthly Progress Report Design of the Arapaho Road Bridge Over Midway Road URS Project No. 25334400 Period: February 27,2004 to March 26, 2004 General Accomplishments 1.1 Continued
final design and plan preparation 2. Progress This Period 2.1 Continued final design and drawing production 2.2 Met with the Town to discuss progress. 2.3 Meet with Town's consultant
to coordinate drainage, parking and other issues. 2.4 Continued finalizing lighting, including incorporating new street lighting standards. 3. Anticipated Next Period 3.1 Submit 95%
review plans. 3.2 Incorporate or resolve Town's comments on 95% plans. 3.3 Finish final design and drawing production. 3.4 Perform quality control checks. 4. Schedule Status 4.1 95%
submittal will be made on April 2, 2004. 4.2 100% review plans are expected to be submitted April 23, 2004. 5. Issues I Impacts 5.1 The final grading plan was received to fmalize the
elevations ofthe drilled shafts for the bridge bents. The elevations ofthe shafts for the thrust blocks are set. Ground elevations at the thrust blocks need to be revised to provided
adequate cover on the shafts. 5.2 The Town's roadway consultant has not provided any bridge drainage inlets. The Town was to decide if bridge drainage inlets were needed. If bridge drains
are needed, receipt ofthis information will delay the completion of the bridge plans. 
Arapaho Road Bridge Town ofAddison MEETING NOTES Addison Service Center April 22, 2004 ATTENDEES: Town ofAddison URS Mike Murphy Cliff Hall Jim Pierce Steve Chutchian Luke Jalbert The
meeting was held to resolve four issues outlined in an e-mail by URS to the Town of Addison (attached) and the conflicting responses received from Mike Murphy and Steve Chutchian (attached).
Issue 1: Should a physical barrier be added to the bridge deck around the stingers to meet ADA requirements as interpreted by URS. The Town ofAddison (Addison) requested URS to detail
a warning strip in the deck pavement in lieu ofa physical barrier. Issue 2: Should a retaining wall be added near the thrust blocks to raise the finished grade to cover the top ofdrilled
shafts. Addison advised that a two to three foot high retaining wall should be used to raise the grade. URS was asked to advise Addison's landscape consuhant to include the wall in their
plans and the elevation offinished grade required. Issue 3: Should the bent and retaining retaining wall plans detail the "Addison" logo or the"A" as a relief pattern in the concrete.
Addison requested that URS show the logo on the bents and retaining walls with a note on the plans for the Contractor to coordinate with the Town. URS was also asked to provide a separate
bid item for the form liner fur the logo. Issue 4: How should the monument plaque be detailed and where should it be located. Addison requested that URS provide notes and a bid item
requiring two 24"x24" brass monument plaques in the plan set. The Contractor will need to coordinate with the Town on wording, location and mounting requirements. 
TOWN OF ADDISON PUBLIC WORKS To:_---'C::..:L.=-..:....!.,F.-!F_--L!tf.£.ALL=__ Company:,_--..::./'/-.:.::12'-'5::::-.____ FAX#: '!72 -ftJG -6'1Sf No. of pages (including cover): 2TffBE
/tEe-/I1(KE fo1 vR-fl-lr'-> W"'1 "'t e'"'V7S . Phone: 972/450-28'<fG Fax: 972/450-2837 16801 Westgrove P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 , .: ";.. , :. 
Mike Murphy From: Cliff_Hall@URSCorp.com Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 2:40 PM To: Steve Chutchian; Luke Jalbert; JIm Pierce; Mike Murphy Subject: Arapaho Road Bridge Issues As always
there are a few last minute issues that we need to get cleaned up before the final submittal. I received the Town's comments on our 95% plans and have some follow up questions as well
as a few other issues. 1. ADA requirements for overhead obstructions require that a physical :t. 􀀱􀁜􀁫􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁬􀁉􀁾􀀠barrier be placed where the obstruction height is equal to or less
than 􀀶􀀧􀁏􀁉􀁬􀁯􀁜􀁬􀁷􀁴􀁶􀁬􀁾􀀠\y 􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀁜􀁾􀀠-8". This is an issue for both the stinger and the arch. Previously we 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀂭recommended that a steel strand railing type barrier
be used around the\f 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀡􀁐􀁄􀁾􀀠stinger and arch, but the Town suggested to keep this area open. A t::..-..-.,•.t (1 0 suggestion to use a raised/textured pavement was made by the
Town. We 􀁨􀁡􀁶􀁾􀀢􀁾􀁜􀀢􀁜􀀧􀀢􀀠 reviewed this with the ADA requirements and believe that a physical barrier WI2 c,t./-l 00 􀁌􀁢􀀱􀁥􀁾􀀠 is necessary to fulfill ADA requirements. Please
advise if we should proceed with the use of this barrier. 2. We have received some grading plans from HNTB in the vicinity of Bent 9 (western triangular thrust block). Due to the low
point elevation of the Charter Furniture parking lot, it appears that the bottom of the southwestern most thrustblock as detailed would be one foot above the ground line. Normally it
is preferable to have one to two feet of cover over the drilled shafts, We have discussed this with HNTB and they have 􀁉􀁾􀁊􀀠 agreed to raise the ground around the thrust block as
much as possible, but 􀁾􀁜􀀺􀀧􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠 do not expect that this could be raised by more than one foot. It appears 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠 that we have two options to address this situation: 1) we
could deepen the 􀁾􀁜􀁜􀁉􀁟􀀠 bottom of the thrust block by two feet to which would leave a 5'-4" wall of 􀁜􀁾􀀠:7 concrete exposed above grade at this thrust block; Or 2) we could install
a short 2' to 3' high block wall around the edge of parking lot to raise the grade. We were advised by HNTB that the Town would prefer not to use a short wall; however, we still feel
that this would provide the desired aesthetic look for the bridge. Please advise how we should proceed. 3. Comments on our 95% plans have requested us to use the "Addison" script logo.
We have received a ".jpg" file from Luke with the logo. The best we ..l..will be able to do is show the logo on the plans and recommend that the 􀁾􀀠 contractor coordinate with the Town
when creating the concrete fODm liner for the logo. 4. We have been requested to provide a monument plaque for the bridge. Is 􀁾􀀠􀁌􀁜􀁾􀀠􀀭􀁲􀁾􀀠 there a location on the bridge (thrust
block perhaps) that you would prefer__ to see this plaque? Do we need to provide a detail for this plaque in the I 􀁾􀁕􀁾􀀭􀁲􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁜􀁴􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀠 plans, or should this be called out
and noted that the contractor 􀁳􀁨􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠 coordinate wHh the TO,,"?? '" J;. L\􀁾􀀧􀀢􀁾􀀢􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠/. 􀁾• Cliff R. R. Hall, PE \ Engineering Unit Manager URS Corporation Graystone
Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 Office Tel: 972.406.6950 Direct: 972.406.6976 Fax: 972.406.6951 I 
Steve Chutchian From: Cliff_Hall@URSCorp.com Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:55 PM To: Jenny Nicewander Cc: Steve Chutchian Subject: Retaining Walls Jenny, I received a copy of your
95% plans. Please note that your retaining wall layouts need to show the wall in front of the abutment. Also, the retaining wall should end 5-ft from the begin/end of bridge. Begin bridge
is 50+95, end retaining wall at 51+00. End bridge at 66+70, begin wall at 66+65. Also, I have glanced at the specifications. We will need to add the bridge items into the bid document.
How do you propose we do this -do you want to send a copy of the bid sheets and we can fill out the descriptions or will you do this when we send our quantity plan sheets? Also, for
the bridge items, the TXDOT Standard Spec1fications 1993, will be the controlling specifications. This needs to be documented somewhere in the specs. We will also have some bridge lighting
specs and cut sheets that should be included as well. Thanks. Cliff R. Hall, PE Engineering Unit Manager URB Corporation Graystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234
Office Tel: 972.406.6950 Direct: 972.406.6976 Fax: 972.406.6951 1 
􀁰􀀯􀀲􀀱􀀯􀁾􀀧􀁦􀀠(}-f 􀁾􀀦􀁶􀁶􀀭􀁺􀀴􀀼􀁾􀁕􀀧􀁊􀁻􀀡􀁾􀀠 CL-L/.Jkt'-. /YlA Y'/::. "', &,tBs:Lt of' 􀁾􀀱􀀱􀀧􀁦􀀠Y\ 
j I ( \ .L,, f-c D'i ;;?-/@􀁾􀀭􀀧􀁣􀁊􀁯􀀠Y L.-! l-( @i/?r;oo 􀁲􀁾􀀠c@'Hq;. -r 􀂢􀀭􀁾􀀠@􀁊􀁾􀀠lO 1dO . j j j j j j j j . j ) j tj ij . . j j j -j j j 
645 640 635 630 625 620 615 610 605 600 595 t::::= === E 􀁾􀀠E 􀁾􀀠E -􀁾􀀠1= -􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀬􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠--=.-------=== i======= 􀀢􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀱􀁲􀀠II e r-_--=== c::::::::= n-􀁾􀀠c::::::::= 􀁾􀀠c::::::::=
􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁉􀀠I I I I I I I I I I I I .. L _ L I I I I I I I I I I I I 􀁾􀀠III g 645 640 635 630 625 620 615 610 605 600 595 -100 -75 -50 -25 o 25 50 75 100 71 +00 
645 640 635 630 625 620 615 610 605 600 595 E E E E=F----, 􀀧􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀱􀁲􀀠􀁾􀀠:::::::: E § III I I I I 100 -75 -50 􀁾􀀻􀁲􀀠-􀁾􀀮􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀧􀀠I f---. -II \. ..,.,,.,,.,, 1.5'n ,<J)DITlpt'l1'l
"'-' COL'-I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -􀁾􀀠, I I I I E E E E == == E E 􀁾􀀠Illg 645 640 635 630 625 620 615 610 605 600 595 -25 o 25 50 75 100 70+50 
645 640 635 630 625 620 615 610 605 600 595 E E E == = -E "'-/11 == E 􀁾􀀠1.0' MIN § III I I I I 5.9' ., ... _!it ....·:.r·· I ---1------II i"----APPROX .0' -A ADDITION IlL "" V I I
I I I I I I I I I "1 ---I I I I I I I I E E E == I == ...... -J E E E 􀁾􀀠Illg 645 640 635 630 625 620 615 610 605 600 595 -100 -75 -50 -25 o 25 50 75 100 70+00 
E :::::::::: :::::::::: 􀁾􀀠-􀁾􀀠== 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠III -100 􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀠0= ""i .,A ..... ,. ."" 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠....J. .--. --􀀬􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀁲􀀠"--APPROX 1.5' II 11 􀁾􀀠􀀻􀁲􀀨􀁾􀀠""""'-1 JI "IJ I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I T .,. 0; _L--_ , ----I I I I I I I I :::::::::: :::::::::: :::::::::: :::::::::: :::::::::: == 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠III E 645 645 640 640 635 635 630 630 625 625 620 620
615 615 610 610 605 605 600 600 595 595 -75 -50 -25 o 25 50 75 100 59+00 
DESIGNMEMO Shiloh Rd .• Suite Date: March 29, 2004 G&ANo. 320 To: Mike Murphy, P.E. Jim Pierce, P .E. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Luke Jalbert, P.E. PRELIMINARY -FOR REVIEW ONLY CC: Cliff
HaU, P.E. These 􀁤􀁯􀁣􀁵􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠are for Design Review Jerry Holder, P.E. and not 􀁩􀁲􀀬􀁴􀁥􀁬􀀱􀀧􀁾􀁦􀀮􀁬􀁤􀀠for Construction, Bidding or Permit Purposes. They were preparedby, or
under 􀁴􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀬􀀠􀀺􀀻􀁵􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁶􀁩􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀻􀁩􀁬􀀠of:From: Katura Curry, P.E. A. KATURA CURRY 87679 ?lz1/tARe: Arapaho Road Phase 3Bridge Drainage Type or Print Name P. E.# Dati In order
to meet the request ofthe Town of Addison to minimize the spread of stormwater on the bridge travel lanes, we have prepared the necessary supporting drainage calculations for bridge
drainage grates. Without the grates, our drainage calculations indicate that the stormwater spread on the bridge would not exceed the Town standards for roadway design, consequently,
the grates intercept more stormwater than the standards require. Based upon our discussion with Cliff Hall Hall at URS, it is recommended that a grate inlet such as Neenah R-395 I ,
or one with equal hydraulic characteristics, be placed at Bent Numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 14. This grate has been selected based on grate capacity and capacity ofthe discharge
pipe. If a grate with hydraulic characteristics different from that specified is to be used, the drainage should be re-analyzed. Once the drainage is offth:l bridge structure and on
the roadway embankment, curb inlets will be placed as necessary to adhere to the Town ofAddison drainage criteria. The supporting calculations are attached to this memo. The calculations
include numbers for the 2-year, IO-year, 25-year and IOO-year storm events in order to show the impacts during more frequent storm events. Cliff Hall and others have pointed out that
the placement of these grates may increase the need for maintenance along the bridge. Although it is not anticipated that the surface ofthe bridge will be a high debris collection area,
trash and other debris may periodically need to be cleaned from the roadway in order to lower the potential ofthe grate or subsurface pipes getting clogged. Since the subsurface pipes
on the bridge will be encased in the concrete bridge supports, the cleaning ofthe pipes may be a difficult task requiring special equipment. The restrictive space beneath the bridge
will also contribute to the difficulty ofcleaning the pipes. Tel,: (972) 864-2333 /FAX: (972) 864-2334 /E-mail: lnfo@gra-ce,net 
ARAPAHO ROAD PHASE 3 BRIDGE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS SCENARIO: NO BRIDGE DRAINS, COLLECT DRAINAGE AT INLETS ON EMBANKMENT Intensltv Flow Area No. Area C Tc 12 110 125 1100 02 010 Q25 (acres)
(mIn) (in/hr) (Inlhr) (in/hr) (in/hr) (ets) (ets) (cts) 61 0.49 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 8.74 2.17 2.80 3.21 62 0.49 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 8.74 2.17 2.80 3.21 63 0.34 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29
8.74 1.50 1.95 2.23 84 0.34 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 8.74 1.50 1.95 2.23 65 0.09 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 8.74 0.40 0.52 0.59 66 0.06 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 8.74 0.27 0.34 0.39 0100 Area Description
(cfs) 3.85 50+95 -60+30. north side (2@11' lanes 3.85 50+95 -60+30. south side 2 11' lanes 2.67 60+30 -66+70, north side 􀀲􀁾􀀠11'lanes 2.67 60+30 -66+70. south side 2 􀁾􀀱􀀱􀀧􀁬􀁡􀁮􀁥􀁳􀀠0.71
50+95 -60+30, north side 4' sidewalk 0.47 60+30 -66+70, north side 4' sidewalk Gulter Depth (Y) from Figure 3-1, Town of Addison Drainage Criteria Manual Area No. 0 Cross Slope Long.
Slope Z=1/S Zln Gutter Depth, Y Gulter Depth, Y Gutter Spread Travel Lane Max. Travel Impact' Lane Depth lets) I Iftlft,S) 1%) 1ft) /In) 1ft) (ft) (In) 2-year Storm B1! B2 I 2.17 0.0208
I 3 I 48 I 3698 I 0.15 I 1.80 I 7.2 I 6.2 I 1.55 B31 B4 I 1.50 I 0.0208 I 2.2 I 48 I 3698 I 0.14 I 1.62 I 6.5 I 5.5 I 1.37 to-year Storm Bl ! B2 I 2.80 I 0.0208 I 3 I 48 3698 I 0.17
I 1.98 I 7.9 I 6.9 I 1.73 B31 B4 I 1.95 I 0.0208 I 2.2 I 48 I 3698 I 0.15 I 1.80 I 7.2 I 6.2 I 1.55 25-year Storm Bl/B2 I 3.21 I 0.0208 3 I 48 I 3698 I 0.18 I 2.10 I 8.4 I 7.4 I 1.85
B3/B4 I 2.23 I 0.0208 I 2.2 I 4B I 3698 I 0.16 I 1.92 I 7.7 I 6.7 I 1.61 1GO-year Storm Bl! B2 I 3.85 I 0.0208 I 3 I 48 I 3698 I 0.19 I 2.22 I 8.9 I 7.9 I 1.97 B3184 I 2.67 I 0.0208
I . 2.2 I 48 I 35981 0.17 I 2.04 I 8.2 I 7.2 I 1.79 Notes 1. Travel Lane Impact takes into account the one foot shoulder. bridge drainage cales.xls, NO BRIDGE DRAINS 
ARAPAHO ROAD PHASE 3 BRIDGE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS SCENARIO: BRIDGE DRAINS AT BENTS, NO BY·PASS DURING 100·YEAR STORM Are. No. I Area' I CiTe 12 110 I 125 I 1100 I Q2 Flow Q10 I Q25 I
Q100 Area (acresj(mhij(in/hr) -Tln/hi'[ Unlhr) (in/hr) (cts) letS) retS) retS) I BENT8 0.10 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 8.74 0.44 0.57 0.66 0.79 60+30-58+44.Bent8drains.north&soulh I BENT
6 0.11 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 8.74 0.49 0.63 0.72 0.87 58+44 -56+30. Bent 6 drains. north & south I BENT 5 0.06 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 8.74 0.27 0.34 0.39 0.47 56+30 -55+23. Bent 5 drains.
north & south 55+23 -53+09. Ben! 3 drains. north & south BENT 11 0.66 62+14 -60+30. Bent 11 drains, north & south BENT 13 0.79 64+42 -62+14, Bent 13 drains. north & south BENT 14 1 0.06
1 0.9 1 10 4.91 6.36 I 7.29 8.74 0.27 0.34 0.39 0.47 165+56 -64+42, Bent 14 drains. north 8. south Notes 1. Area represents that to one grate Inlet or on one side of the bridge. The
travel lane section Is symmetrical and so applies to both sides. bridge drainage cales.xls, WITH BRIDGE DRAINS Page 1 of2 
ARAPAHO ROAD PHASE 3 BRIDGE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Gutter Depth (Y) from Figure 3-1. Town of Addison Drainage Criteria Manual Area No. Q Cross Slope Long. Slope Z=1/S Zln Gutter Depth,
Y Gutter Depth. Y Gutter Spread Travel Lane Impact' Max. Travel Lane Depth Grate I Capacity" refs) I (ftIft S) (%) e!l) fln\ !II fft) (In\ letsl 2-year Stonn BENT 6 OM 0.0206 3.0 48
3698 . 0.085 1.02 4.1 3.1 0.77 0.74 BENT 6 0.49 0.0208 3.0 48 3696 0.065 1.02 4.1 3.1 0.77 0.74 BENTS 0.27 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.070 0.84 3.4 2.4 0.59 0.84 BENTS 0.49 0.0208 3.0 48 3698
0.085 1.02 4.1 3.1 0.77 0.74 BENT 2 0.27 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.070 0.84 3.4 2.4 0.59 0.54 BENT 11 0.44 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.090 1.08 4.3 3.3 0.83 0.76 BENT 13 0.53 0.0208 2.2 48 3696
0.091 1.09 4.4 3A 0.84 0.77 BENT 14 0.27 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.075 0.90 3.6 2.6 0.65 0.56 10-year Storm BENT 8 0.57 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.090 1.08 4.3 3.3 0.83 0.81 BENTS 0.63 0.0208 3.0
48 3698 0.092 1.10 4.4 3.4 0.85 0.84 BENTS 0.34 0.0208 3.0 48 3898 0.075 0.90 3.6 2.6 0.65 0.60 BENTS 0.63 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.093 1.12 4.5 3.5 0.87 0.84 BENT 2 0.34 0.0208 3.0 48 3698
0.075 0.90 3.6 2.6 0.65 0.60 BENT 11 0.57 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.096 1.15 4.6 3.6 0.90 0.85 BENT 13 0.69 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.103 1.24 5.0 4.0 0.99 0.95 BENT 14 0.34 0.0208 2.2 48 3698
0.083 1.00 4.0 3.0 0.75 0.66 25-ye8r Stann BENTS BENT 6 BENTS BENTS BENT 2 BENT 11 BENT 13 BENT 14 0.66 0.72 0.39 0.72 0.39 0.66 0.79 0.39 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208
0.0208 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 3698 3898 3698 3698 3698 3898 3698 3698 0.096 0.100 0.080 0.100 0.080 0.102 0.109 0.084 1.15 1.20 0.96 1.20 0.96 1.22 1.31
1.01 4.6 4.8 3.8 4.8 3.8 4.9 5.2 4.0 3.6 3.8 2.8 3.82.8 3.9 4.2 3.0 0.90 0.95 0.71 0.95 0.71 0.97 1.08 0.76 0.91 0.97 0.67 0.97 0.67 0.94 1.05 0.68 tOO-year Stonn BENT8 0.79 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.101 1.21 4.9 3.9 0.96 0.99 BENTS 0.87 0.0208
3.0 48 3698 0.106 1.27 5.1 4.1 1.02 1.07 BENTS 0.47 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.085 1.02 4.1 3.1 0.77 0.74 BENTS 0.87 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.106 1.27 5.1 4.1 1.02 0.99 BENT2 0.47 0.0208 3.0 48
3698 0.085 1.02 4.1 3.1 0.77 0.74 BENT 11 0.79 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.109 1.31 5.2 4.2 1.06 1.05 BENT 13 0.84 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.118 1.42 5.7 4.7 1.17 1.19 BENT 14 0.47 0.0208 2.2 48
3698 0.093 1.12 4.5 3.5 0.87 0.80 Notes 1. Travel Lane Impact lakes into account the one foot shoulder. 2. Grate capacities calculated based on Neenah R-3951 Scupper using the Neenah
Grate Capacity calculator, K=45 for 3% slope and K=42 for 2.2% slope. bridge drainage calcs.xls. WITH BRIDGE DRAINS Page 2 of2 
I ,I DESIGNMEMO Date: March 29, 2004 G&ANo. 320 To: Mike Murphy, P.E. Jim Pierce, P.E. Steve Chutchian, P.E. Luke Jalbert, P.E. PRELIMINARY -FOR REVIEW ONLY CC: Cliff Hall, P.K These
documents ;:!re for Design Review Jerry Holder, P.E. and not intended for Construction. Bidding or Permit Purposes. They were preparedby, or under 􀁴􀁾􀀬􀀬􀀻􀀻􀀠􀁾􀁵􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁶􀀡􀀻􀀻􀀧:.il
of:From: Katura Curry, P.E. A. KATURA CURRY 87679 2i 1-Q/o4Re: Arapaho Road Phase 3 Bridge Drainage Type or Print Name P.E.# Date In order to meet the request ofthe Town of Addison to
minimize the spread of stormwater on the bridge travel lanes, we have prepared the necessary supporting drainage calculations for bridge drainage grates. Without the grates, our drainage
calculations indicate that the stormwater spread on the bridge would not exceed the Town standards for roadway design, consequently, the grates intercept more stormwater than the standards
require. Based upon our discussion with Cliff Hall at URS, it is recommended that a grate inlet such as Neenah R-3951, or one with equal hydraulic characteristics, be placed at Bent
Numbers 2, 3, 5,6, 8, II, 13, and 14. This grate has been selected based on grate capacity and capacity ofthe discharge pipe. If a grate with hydraulic characteristics different from
that specified is to be used, the drainage should be re-analyzed. Once the drainage is off 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀀠bridge structure and on the roadway embankment, curb inlets will be placed as necessary
to adhere to the Town ofAddison drainage criteria. The supporting calculations are attached to this memo. The calculations include numbers for the 2-year, IO-year, 25-year and IOO-year
storm events in order to show the impacts during more frequent storm events. CliffHall and others have pointed out that the placement ofthese grates may increase the need for maintenance
along the bridge. Although it is not anticipated that the surface ofthe bridge will be a high debris collection area, trash and other debris may periodically need to be cleaned from
the roadway in order to lower the potential ofthe grate or subsurface pipes getting clogged. Since the subsurface pipes on the bridge will be encased in the concrete bridge supports,
the cleaning ofthe pipes may be a difficult task requiring special equipment. The restrictive space beneath the bridge will also contribute to the difficulty ofcleaning the pipes. Tel.:
(972) 864·23331 FAX: (972) 864·23341 E-mail: lnfo@gra-ce.nel 
􀀢􀁾􀀠ARAPAHO ROAD PHASE 3 BRIDGE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS SCENARIO: NO BRIDGE DRAINS, COLLECT DRAINAGE AT INLETS ON EMBANKMENT I Area No. B1 B2 Area (acres) 0.49 0.49 C 0.9 0.9 To (min)
10 10 Intensity Flow Area Description 50+95 -60+30, north side 􀀲􀁾􀀠11' lanes' 50+95 -60+30, south side 2 11'Ianes 12 (Inlhr) 4.91 4.91 110 (Inlhr) 6.36 6.36 125 (Inlhr) 7.29 7.29 1100
(inlhr) 8.74 8.74 Q2 (cis) 2.17 2.17 Q 10 (cis) 2.80 2.80 Q25 (cis) 3.21 3.21 Q100 (cis) 3.85 3.85 63 64 B5 B6 0.34 0.34 0.09 0.06 0.9 0.9 0,9 0.9 10 10 10 10 4.91 4.91 4.91 4.91 6.36
6,36 6.36 6.36 7.29 7.29 7.29 7.29 8.74 8.74 8.74 8.74 1.50 1.50 0.40 0.27 1.95 1.95 0.52 0.34 2.23 2.23 0.59 0.39 2.67 2.67 0.71 0.47 60+30 -66+70 north side 2 60+30 -66+70, south side
2 50+95 -60+30, north side 4' 60+30 -66+70. north side 4' 11'lanes' 11'Ianes sidewalk sidewalk Gutter Depth (YJ from Figure 3.1, Town of Addison Dl1Ilnage Criteria Manual Area No. Q
Cross Slope Long. Slope Z= liS 2'Jn Gutter Depth, Y Gutter Depth, Y Gutter Spread Travel Lane Max. Travel Impact' Lane Depth (cIs) (ftIft,S) (%) (ft) (In) (ft) (ft) (In) 2-year Storm
B11B2 1 2.17 1 0.02081 3 1 48 1 3698 1 0.15 1 1.80 1 7.2 1 6.2 1 1.55 B3184 1 1.50 I 0.0208 1 2.2 1 48 I 3698 0.14 1 1.62 1 6.5 1 5.5 1 1.37 10-year storm Bll B2 J 2.80 J 0.0208 3 J
48 I 3698 0.17 1 1.98 I 7.9 1 6.9 I 1.73 B3/B4 1 1.95 1 0.0208 1 2.2 1 48 1 3698 1 0.15 1 1.80 1 7.2 1 6.2 1 1.55 25-year Storm Bll B2 I 3.21 1 0.0208 3 1 48 3698 1 0.18 1 2.10 1 8.4
1 7.4 1 1.85 B31 B4 1 2.23 1 0.0208 1 2.2 1 48 1 3698 1 0.16 1 1.92 1 7.7 1 6.7 1 1.67 100-year Storm 811B2 3.85 I 0.0208 I 3 I 48 3698 1 • 0.19 1 2.22 1 e.9 1 7.9 1 1.97 B3184 I 2.67
1 0.0208 1 2.2 1 48 1 3698 1 Q-1L.J.2.04 􀀮􀁌􀁾􀀠􀁌􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀱􀀮􀀷􀁾􀀠Netas 1. Travel Lane Impact takas into account the one foot shoulder. bfidge drainage calcs.xls, NO BRIDGE
DRAINS 
ARAPAHO ROAD PHASE 3 BRIDGE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS SCENARIO: BRIDGE DRAINS AT BENTS, NO BY·PASS DURING 100·YEAR STORM IntenSity FlOW Area No. Area1 C Tc 12 110 125 1100 Q2 Ql0 (acres)
(min) .(inlhrl {Inlhr {lnlhrl {lnlhrl {cfsl .(cfs) BENTS 0.10 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 1.29 8.74 0.44 0.57 BENT 6 0.11 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 8.74 0.49 0.63 BENTS 0.06 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 8.74
0.27 0.34 BENT 3 0.11 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 8.74 0,49 0.63 BENT 2 0.06 0.9 10 4.91 6.38 7.29 6.74 0.27 0.34 BENT 11 0.10 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 8.74 0.44 0.57 BENT 13 0.12 0.9 10 4.91
6.36 7.29 8.74 0.53 0.69 BENT 14 0.06 0.9 10 4.91 6.36 7.29 S.74 0.27 0.34 Q25 Ql00 (cfs) {cfsl 0.66 0.79 0.72 0.87 0.39 0.47 0.72 0.87 0.39 0,47 0.66 0.79 0.79 0.94 0.39 0,47 ! Area
Description I 60+30 -5S+44, Bent 8 drains, north & south I 56+44 -56+30, Bent 6 drains north & soulh 56+30·55+23, Benl5 drains, north & south 55+23 -53+09, Bent 3 drains north & south
53+09·52+02. Bent 2 drains, north & south 62+14 • 60+30, Bent 11 drains, north & south 64+42 • 62+14 Bent 13 drains, north & south 65+56·64+42. Bent 14 drains, north & south Notes 1.
Area represents that to one grate inlet or on one side of the bridge. The travel lane section is symmetrical and so applies to both sides. bridge drainage cales.xls, WITH BRIDGE DRAINS
Page 1 of2 " 
ARAPAHO ROAD PHASE 3 BRIDGE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Gutter Depth (Y) from Figure 3-1, Town of Addison Drainage Criteria Manua! Area No. Q Cross Slope Long. Slope Z= liS Zln Gutter Depth
Y Gutter Depth, Y Gutter Spread Travel Lane Impact' Max. Travel Lane Depth Grate Capacity' (ets) I (ftlft S) (%) (ft) (in) (ft) (ft) (In) lefs) 2-vear Stonn BENTS 0.44 0.020S 3.0 48
3698 0.085 1.02 4.1 3.1 0.77 0.74 BENT6 0.49 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.085 1.02 4.1 3.1 0.77 0.74 BENTS 0.27 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.070 0.84 3.4 2.4 0.59 0.54 BENT3 0.49 0.0208 3.0 48 3698
0.085 1.02 4.1 3.1 0.77 0.74 BENT 2 0.27 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.070 0.84 3.4 2.4 0.59 0.54 BENT 11 0.44 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.090 1.08 4.3 3.3 0.83 0.76 BENT 13 0.53 0.0208 2.2 48 3698
0.091 1.09 4.4 3.4 0.84 0.77 BENT 14 0.27 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.075 0.90 3.6 2.6 0.65 0.56 10'Y6ar Storm BENT 8 0.57 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.090 1.08 4.3 3.3 0.83 0.81 BENT6 0.63 0.0208
3.0 48 3698 0.092 1.10 4.4 3.4 0.85 0.84 BENTS 0.34 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.075 0.90 3.6 2.6 0.65 0.60 BENT 3 0.63 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.083 1.12 4.5 3.5 0.87 0.84 BENTZ 0.34 0.0208 3.0
48 3698 0.D75 0.90 3.6 2.6 0.65 0,60 BENT 11 0.57 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.096 1.15 4.6 3.6 0.90 0.85 BENT 13 0.69 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.103 1.24 5.0 4.0 0.99 0.95 BENT 14 0.34 0.0208 2.2
48 3698 0.083 1.00 4.0 3.0 0.75 0.66 25-Y6ar Storm BENT 8 0.66 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.096 1.15 4.6 3.6 0.90 0.91 BENT 6 0.72 0.0208 3,0 48 3698 0.100 1.20 4.8 3.S 0.95 0.97 BENT 5 0.39
0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.080 0.96 3.8 2,6 0,71 0.67 BENT3 0.72 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.100 1.20 4.8 3.8 0.95 0.97 BENT 2 0.39 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.080 0.96 3.6 2.8 0.71 0.67 BENT 11 0.66 0.0208
2.2 48 3698 0.102 1.22 4.9 3.9 0.97 0.94 BENT 13 0.79 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.109 1.31 5.2 4.2 1.06 1.05 BENT14 0.39 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.084 1.01 4.0 3.0 0.76 0.66 􀀱􀀰􀀰􀁾􀁥􀁡􀁲Stann
BENTS 0.79 0,0208 3.0 48 3698 0.101 1.21 4.9 3.9 0.96 0.99 BENTS 0.87 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.106 1.27 5.1 4.1 1.02 1.07 BENT 5 0.47 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.085 1.02 4.1 3.1 0.77 0.74 BENT3
0.S7 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.106 1.27 5.1 4.1 1.02 0.99 BENT 2 0.47 0.0208 3.0 48 3698 0.085 1.02 4.1 3.1 0.77 0.74 BENT 11 0.79 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.109 1.31 5.2 4,2 1.06 1.05 BENT 13
0.94 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.118 1.42 5.7 4.7 1.17 1.19 BENT 14 0.47 0.0208 2.2 48 3698 0.093 1,12 4.5 3.5 0.87 0,80 Notes 1. Travel Lane Impact takes into account the one foot shoulder.
2. Grate capacHies calculated based on Neenah R-3951 Scupper using the Neenah Grate Capacity calculator, K=45 for 3% slope and K=42 for 2.2% slope. bridge drainage cales.xls, WITH BRIDGE
DRAINS Page2of2 
NOTE: When specifying/ordering grates, refer to "CHOOSING THE PROPER INLET GRATE" on pages 108-109, For FREE OPEN AREAS of Neenah Grates, refer to pages 326-330, R-3948-V Bridge Scupper
with 5 1/2" Outlet, Bolted Grate HeavyDuty ,,"". ,,. a1{2' ::I ""r---1e-'-R. 1$ WI 􀁓􀀳􀀱􀀴􀀺􀁾􀀠" ---f 1·01", HOLES , (TV"" "'" ::I 111" "..,.' ,¥ -,R-3951 􀁾􀁲􀁩􀁤􀁧􀁥􀀠Scupper with
8" Outlet, Bolted Grates -'" Heavy Duty 50' ----ti 􀁾􀀠• r----"-'􀀢􀀧􀁦􀀲􀀧􀁾􀀠 Sv S( ?//Ol r'v k. =-t6 
NOTE: When specifying/ordering grates, refer to "CHOOSING THE PROPER INLET GRATE" ion pages 108-109. For FREE OPEN AREAS of Neenah Grates, refer to pages 326-330. -----' R-3922-A Heavy
Duly Same as R·3922 except with bolting flange. Downspout furnished by others. Type 􀁾􀀧􀁖􀀢􀀠ductile iron grate (shown) is considered bicycle safe only when installed with vanes perpendicular
to the curb. 2-.3> f'i'1.-openR-3924 Bridge Drain Frame and Bolted Grate 􀂧􀀮􀀴􀁾􀀮􀀠VJ?}\A'iVV\/iiDA, Heavy Duly , fl ..A • 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀠Considered bicycle safe only when
installed with slots perpendicular to the curb (JG..l.¥ \...UAJI V .. A 􀁾􀀠􀀳􀀷􀀠516' rrr=17 1/2" 35 114" 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀬I ,.' --+-j r-2' r-516' t-!:-r12716'! 12' 241 
NOTE: When specifying/ordering grates, refer to "CHOOSING THE PROPER INLET GRATE" on pages 108-109. For FREE OPEN AREAS of Neenah Grates, rafer to pages 326-330. R-3948-V Bridge Scupper
with 5 1/2" Outlet, Bolted Grate Heavy Duty 􀁾􀀧􀀬􀁒􀀭􀀳􀀹􀀵􀀱􀀠􀂥􀁾􀀠!3ridge Scupper with 8" Outlet, Bolted Grates -> Heavy Duty Sv Sr ?//o, r(" 7· 7.'1. ? ·f" k. =-t6 
==--;-;-;;----::-:-...-....􀀻􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁣􀀻􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀻􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀁣􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀮􀁾􀀺􀀽􀀭􀀻􀀺􀀽􀀽􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬NOTE: When specifying/ordering grates, refer to "CHOOSING THE PROPER
INLET GRATE" on pages 108-109. For FREE OPEN AREAS of Neenah Grates, referto pages 326-330. R-3922-A Heavy DUly Same as R-3922 except with bolting flaIlge. Downspout fumished by others.
Type "V"' ductile iron grate (shown) is considered bicycle safe only when Installed with vanes perpendicular to the curb. 2.3 ff-z.. openR-3924 Bridge Drain Frame and Bolted Grate 􀁾􀀮􀀴􀀠􀁾􀀢􀀠flIJl
A"JVY\t\r,; A, Heavy Duty r-􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀠Considered bicycle safe only when installed with slots perpendicular to the curb 􀁾U -12' 
DRS March 12,2004 Mr. Steven Z. Chutchian, PE Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase n -Design
Development & Contract Documents Invoice for Professional Services Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please fmd our invoice for Professional Services for the Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway
Road for the period between January 30,2004 and February 27, 2004. Also included is our Progress Report for this period outlining the services provided. Pleasebe advised that timely
completion ofthe project is dependant on immediate receipt ofinformation relative to the final grading under the bridge and the drainage inlets on the bridge. Your roadway consultant
should provide this information. Sincerely, DRS Corporation CliffR. Hall, PE Project Manager Enclosure " I" URS Corporation Graystone Center 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234
Tel: 972.406,6950 Fax: 972,406,6951 
Monthly Progress Report Design of the Arapaho Road Bridge Over Midway Road URS Project No. 25334400 Period: January 30,2004 to February 27,2004 I. General Accomplishments 1.1 Continued
final design and plan preparation 1.2 Received Town Council Decision on lighting and arch color. 2. Progress This Period 2.1 Performed lighting mock-up on Addison Circle sculpture. 2.2
Made presentation to Town Council relative to lighting and received a decision to use the blue paint on the arch and white lights. 2.3 Continued fmal design and drawing production 2.4
Met with the Town to discuss progress. 2.5 Began finalizing lighting, including incorporating new street lighting standards. 3. Anticipated Next Period 3.1 Continue final design and
drawing production. 3.2 Meet with Town to discuss progress. 3.3 Meet with Town's consultant to coordinate drainage, parking and other issues. 3.4 Review DWU comments on 60% plans and
meet with Town to discuss. 3.5 Perform quality control checks. 4. -Schedule Status 4.1 60% submittal was made on schedule. 4.2 100% review plans are expected to be submitted April 2,
2004. 4.3 Delay to the schedule could occur if information from Town's roadway consultant is not received by March 12,2004. 5. Issues /Impacts 5.1 Decision by Town Council made February
24,2004 on lighting could delay project completion. 5.2 URS was provided a new lighting fixture for use on the bridge. This fixture is being evaluated-to see how it can be incorporated.
This fixture could have impacts to the design. 5.3 The final grading plan is needed to finalize the elevations of the thrust blocks and the elevations of the drilled shafts for the bridge
bents. Receipt of this information from the Town's roadway consultant is needed by March 12,2004 to complete the bent design on schedule. 5.4 The Town's roadway consultant has not yet
provided the bridge drainage inlets. Receipt of this information is needed by March 12, 2004 to complete the design on schedule. 
Arapaho Road Bridge Town ofAddison MEETING NOTES URSOffice March 2, 2004 ATTENDEES: Town ofAddison :!.lR.S Mike Murphy Cliff Hall Jim Pierce Gregg Durham Steve Chutchian Luke Jalbert
1) The Town ofAddison (Addison) requested DRS to prepare a letter to Addison describing DRS' QAlQC policies and procedures for the bridge design and plans. 2) DRS advised that there
are clearance issues between the parking lot and the bridge bents. Addison will discuss with Grantham and Associates the possibility ofrevising the culvert at Surveyor to lower the parking
lot grades. 3) DRS advised that they still had not received information relative to the bridge inlet drains. Addison to follow up with Grantham. 4) Addison advised that the transformer
boxes shown on the new lighting standards would not be used. 5) Addison advised that the contractor is to install the roadway light poles. Some form of specification needs to be in the
planlbid set ofdrawings. 6) Addison advised that DRS may use TxDOT specifications for the bridge. The TxDOT specs will need to be referenced with the COG specs. DRSIHNTB will add notes
to the bridge plans and notes in the specifications referencing the TxDOT specs. 7) Addison asked DRS to add additional power outlets on the bridge (probably 6 total on each side). Conduit
can be run through the concrete portion ofthe T4 (S) rail. These power outlets are to handle 120 volts. 8) DRS proposed a cable-fence type barrier to separate the sidewalk from the stingers,
cables, and arch. Addison preferred the use ofa textured warning strip in the sidewalk around the stingers, cables, and arch to conform to ADA requirements and not a physical barrier.
9) DRS advised that the colunms at the ends ofthe bridge would be extremely short (one to two feet). Addison concurred this would not be an issue ofconcem. 
Arapaho Road Bridge Town ofAddison 10) URS advised that they would likely have the review plans complete by April 2, 2004. Completion ofthe lighting and electrical work is the critical
tasks due to changes in the lighting standards and Town Council's recent decision on the lighting. Quick resolution ofthe clearances and bridge drainage are also critical. 11)Addison
provided URS with a copy ofDWU's comments on the plans. There were no comments from DWU on URS' plans. Addison had no comments on URS' 60% plan submittal. 
rDRS February 25,2004 Mr. Steven Z. Chutchian, PE Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge.at Midway Road Phase IT -Design
Deveiopment & Contract Documents Invoice for Professional Services Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please fmd our invoice for Professional Services for the Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway
Road for the period between December 26, 2003 and January 30, 2004. Also included is our Progress Report for this period outlining the services provided. The total contract amount has
been updated to include Change Order No.3. Sincerely, DRS Corporation CliffR. Hall, PE Project Manager Enclosure URS Corporation Grayslone Cenler 3010 LBJ Freeway. Suite 1300 Dallas,
TX 75234 Tel: 972.406.6950 Fax: 972.406.6951 
Monthly Progress Report Design of the Arapaho Road Bridge Over Midway Road URS Project No. 25334400 Period: December 26, 2003 to January 30, 2004 I. General Accomplishments l.l Submitted
60% plans 2. Progress This Period 2.1 Submitted 60% Plans. 2.2 Continued the final design. 2.3 Completed approach span superstructure drawings. 2.4 Met with the Town to discuss progress.
2.5 Set-up lighting mock-up demonstration. 2.6 Met with Town and Town's consultant to discuss bridge drainage. 3. Anticipated Next Period 3.1 Perform lighting mock-up on Addison Circle
sculpture. 3.2 Make presentation to Town Council relative to lighting 3.3 Continue final design and drawing production. 4. Schedule Status 4.1 60% submittal was made on schedule. 5.
Issues I Impacts 5.1 Decision by Town Council on lighting is needed immediately to provide direction to designer on lighting method. This could delay project completion. 5.2 URS was
provided a new lighting fixture for use on the bridge. This fixture is being evaluated to see how it can be incorporated. This fixture could have impacts to the design. 5.3 Need the
final grading plan to finalize the elevations of the thrust blocks. 
Steve Chutchian From: Cliff_Hall@URSCorp.com Sent: Thursday. February 12. 2004 5:37 PM To: Luke Jalbert; Mike Murphy Cc: Steve Chutchian Subject: Arapaho Road Lighting Standards This
e-mail is to confirm the discussions we had on Tuesday evening, February 10, 2004 during the lighting mock-up demonstration. During our talks 􀁾􀁥􀀠􀁾􀁥􀁲􀁥􀀠instructed by you to incorporate
the Lighting Standards as developed by Gensler onto the bridge structure with the exception of the recommended spacing. Cliff R. Hall, PE Engineering Unit Manager URS Corporation Graystone
Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 Office Tel: 972.406.6950 Direct: 972.406.6976 Fax: 972.406.6951 1 
DATE SUBMITTED: February 16, 2004 FOR COUNCIL MEETING: February 24, 2004 Council Agenda Item SUMMARY: This is an informational item regarding the proposed bridge lighting package, as
presented by URS Corporation. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND: The firm ofURS Corporation is cnrrently underway on the design ofthe bridge that will span Midway Rd., in conjunction
with the Arapaho Road, Phase ill project. The cost for providing a revised lighting package, as a component ofthe overall design, is presented for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: N/A
􀁾􀁾􀀠\ 􀀱􀀬􀀭􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁇􀁾􀀠\ 􀁾MA-J 􀁴􀀺􀀧􀁁􀁾􀀠SJ:Mt::-􀁣􀁾􀁾􀀠A.:pT.Jc.f-􀁾􀁽􀀮􀀼􀁴􀀢􀁆􀀠
, , URS January 30, 2004 Mr. Steven z. Chutchian, PE Assistant Ci1y Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 90 I 0 Addiscn, TX 75001-9010 Re: Addendum 1 to the Final Report for the Arapaho
Road Bridge Noise and Vibration Analysis Phase II -Design Development & Contract Documents Arapaho Road Bridge over Midway Road Dear Mr. Chutchian: Submitted herein are the results ofthe
additional noise analyses that were undertaken after the "Final Report" was submitted. These studies were conducted to evaluate the fully open rail option requested by the Town Council
in June 2003 and to confirm the use of the 1.5-foot concrete rail recommended to the Council in August. These results had been discussed previously with the Town of Addison and have
been incorporated in URS' bridge design and have been discussed with the Town's consultsnt to be included in their roadway design. The conclusions from these studies are: I. The selected
T4 (S) bridge rail adequately reduces the noise to meet the criterion levels. 2. The T4 (S) rail should be extended to the western edge ofthe BullougblLykos Building. 3. A 3-foot high
earthen berm should be used along Arapaho Road adjacent to the Heritage Inn property. • Included in this report is a Design Memorandum dated July 29, 2003 relative to the noise analysis
for the open rail option. The Predicted Exterior Noise Levels determined in this study would exceed the Criterion Noise Level if open rail was used for two properties, Motel 6 and the
Comfort Suites (Heritage Inn property), and approaches the levels considered as Substsntial Increase in noise at two properties at the western edge ofthe project as shown in the excerpt
ofTahle 2 below. Table 2 -Predicted Exterior Noise Levels without Concrete Rail Receptor Location Combined Future Noise Level (Ambient plus Projeet) (dBAL,q) Estimated Future Noise Sub,tantialIncreas
e Over Criterion Level Exceeds Increase Criterion Existing Noise Noise '-;,;Ie"ion" Noise (Greater than 10 Level (dBA L..l Level? dBA) Exceeded? (dBA L ..) No 71 URS Corporation Graystone
Centre 3010 LB) Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TIi 75234 Tel: 972.406.6950 Fax: 972.406.695i 
# Receptor Location L""el (Ambient plus Project) (dBAL,q) XIS mg OISe eve C 0t . Level (dBA L \ . rI erlOn .., L..,.I?(dBA L,q) (Greater than 10 dBA) Exceeded? Addendum 1 Noise Report
January 30, 2004 URS Page 2 • Based on these results, we recommended that some fonn ofconcrete barrier rail be used to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. We choose to modify a TxDOTType
T4 (S) bridge rail, which consists ofan IS-inch high solid concrete barrier with a steel rail mounted above. This rail was presented to the Town Council in August and approved. • To
verify that the selected rail would adequately reduce the noise levels, a revised analysis was perfonned using a I-foot high solid concrete barrier. The full results are show in the
attached table. Although these results were sufficient for the properties adjacent to the bridge, the Heritage Inn property (Comfort Suites) still showed predicted noise levels that
exceeded the criterion as highlighted in the excerpt ofthe table shown below. We also recommended that that the limits of the concrete barrier be extended from the beginning of retaining
wall at grade to the western edge ofthe BulloughlLykos Building to reduce the increase in noise from 10 dBA, which approaches the Criterion Level, to below 8 dBA. Predicted Exterior
Noise Levels with l' Higb Concrete Barrier, Rest Decorative and Pipes Combined Estimated SubstantialIncrease Over Criterion Future Noise Future Noise Increase Criterion E . t· N· L I'
Level Exceeds • Because the noise levels at the Heritage Inn property (Comfort Suites) still exceeded the Criterion Noise Levels, we ran a further refined analysis to study this property
specifically. The results ofthis analysis are summarized in the attached Design Memorandum dated August 8, 2003. Based on these results we recommended that an approximately 3-foot solid
barrier, which could consist ofan earthen berm, be used for the limits shown in this memorandum. Future noise level for the proposed project used in this Addendum to the Final Noise
Report as well as as in the Final Noise Report, are derived from the FHWA's TNM® noise model. Criterion noise levels are based upon TxDOT I FHWA exterior "approach or exceed" Noise Abatement
Criteria for Activity Category C (which includes commercial land uses) and Activity Category B (which includes hotellmotelland uses). This Addendum to the Final Noise Report should be
taken with the Final Noise Report, dated May 13, 2003, forthe complete noise study ofPhase m ofthe Arapaho Road Project. Sincerely, DRS Corporation aII/zdY( CliffR. Hall, PE Project
Manager ..; " Enclosures 
URS Corporation 2020 East First Street, 􀁓􀁵􀁾􀁥400 URS Santa Ana, Caftfomia 92705 Tel: 714 835 6886 Fax:: 714 667 7147 To: Cliff Hall, P.E. From: Mike Greene, INCE Bd. Cert As requested,
I have modified the noise model for the project to determine the predicred change in noise levels for a "no concrete rail" design. Under this scenario, the approximately three-foot high
concrete "k-rail" or 'Jersey barrier" would not be constructed along the edge of the bridge deck as initially planned. Instead, an open rail design would be used in which two to three
horizontal steel pipes (oriented one above the other) would serve as the safety barrier. This open rail design would provide negligible noise "shielding" from passing vehicles at nearby
land uses. The Traffic Noise Model 􀁾version 2.1 was used to predict the resultant change in noise levels at adjacent land uses from this design modification. The model (constructed
previously) was modified by effilctively removing the low barrier at the edge of the bridge deck. Table I presents a summary of the modeled data for the ''with concrete rail" scenario
as originally modeled, while Table 2 presents the data summary fur the ''without concrete rail" case. As Table 2 shows, the ''without concrete rail" case is expected to result in several
FHWA and TXDOT noise abatement criterion (NAC) exceedances. Specifically, noise levels would exceed FHWA and TXDOT NAC at two modeled locations. The two locations where noise levels
are predicted to be exceeded are at adjacent hotel/motel establishments (Motel 6 and Comfort Suites). The criterion noise level of 66 dBA L,q fur residential uses (including transient
residential) would be equaled or exceeded at these 
January 30, 2004 locations. These exceedances are not predicted to occur in the original "with concrete rail" case. Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in this project. Ifyou
have any questions or ifI can be offurther assistance, please call or e-mail me. Best Regards, Mike Greene, lNeE Bd. Cert. Senior Project Scientist DRS Corpomtion 2020 East First Street,
Suite 400 Santa Ana, CA 92705 • Page2 
Table 1 -Predicted Exterior Noise Levels with Concrete Rail ReuptorN Receptor Location Existing Ambient Level (based upon Noise Measurements) (dBAL",) Estimatedl Future Noise L..el «(rom
Arapaho Bridge) (dBA L",) Combined Future Noise Level (Ambient piUS Project) (dBA L,.) Estimated Increase Over Existing Noise L.vel (dBA L,.) Criterion Noise Levee (dBA L",) Future Noise
Level Exceeds Criterion Noise Level? Substantial Increase Criterion (Greater than 10 dBA) Ex.eeded ? 1 W ofCrouch Properly. 10' fin bridge 58 57 61 3 71 No No 2 W orCrouch Property -3S'
fin brid"" 58 58 61 3 71 No No 3 W of Crouch Property -60' fin brid"" 58 57 61 3 71 No No 4 W of Crouch Property -85' fin bridge 58 56 60 2 71 No No 5 W of Crouch Property -110 ' fin
bridge 58 54 S9 1 71 No No 6 E ofCrouch Property -10' fin brid"" 58 SS 60 2 71 No No 7 E or Crouch Property -35' fin brid"" 58 56 60 2 71 No No 8 E of Crouch Property· 60' fin bridge
58 56 60 2 71 No No 9 E ofCrouch Property· 85' fin bridge 58 56 60 2 71 No No 10 E of Crouch Property -110' fin bridJre 58 55 60 2 71 No No 11 Outdoor Break Area· Furniture Store 59
S4 60 I 66 No No 12 Ice Rink in Parking Lot 66 56 66 0 71 No No 13 Adj to Motel 6 63 58 64 1 66 No No 14 Ad; to Homewood Suites 59 57 61 2 66 No No IS Ad; to Comfort Suites 57 65 65
8 66 No No 16 Adj to E side ofFurniture Store 66 54 66 0 71 No No 17 Adj to Intervest 58 60 62 4 71 No No 18 Adi to S.torilThe Harbor GrouD 58 62 63 5 71 No No 19 Adj. to Building near
W side ofPro;ect 58 62 63 5 71 No No I -Future noise level from proposed 􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁩􀁥􀁣􀁾􀀠derived from the FHWA's TNM® noise model. 2· Criterion noise levels 􀁾􀁡􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠upon TxDOT I
FHWA exterior "approach or exceed" Noise Abatement Criteria fur Activity Category C (which includes commercial land uses) and Activity Category B (which includes hoteVmotelland uses).
. 
Table 2 -Predicted Exterior Noise Levels without Concrete Rail Re"ptor# Receptor Location Existing Ambient Level(based upon Noise Measurements) (dBA L"Il Estimatedl Future Noise Level (from Arapaho Bridge) (dBAL",) Combined Future Noise Level (Ambient plu. Project) (dBAL..) Estimated Increase
Over Existing Noise Level (dBA L,.) Criterion Noise Level' (dBAL..) Future Noise Level Exceeds Criterion Noise Level? Substantial Increase Criterion (Greater tban 10 dBA) Exeeeded ?
1 W ofCrouch Property -10' fm bridge 58 63 64 6 11 Nn No 2 W nfCrouch Property -35' fin bridge 58 63 64 6 11 Nn No 3 W nfCroucn Prnnerty -60' fin bridee 58 63 64 6 71 No No 4 W ofCrooch
Property -85' fin bride" 58 61 62 4 71 Nn No 5 W ofCrouch Property -110' fin bridge 58 59 61 3 71 No No 6 E ofCrouch Property -10' fin bridge 58 61 62 4 71 No No 7 E of Crouch Property
-35' fin bridge 58 61 63 5 71 No No 8 E ofCrouch Property -60' fin bridge 58 61 62 4 71 No No 9 E of Crouch Pronertv -85' fm brid£e 58 60 62 4 71 No No 10 E ofCrouch Pronerty Pronerty
-110' fin bridge 58 59 62 4 71 No No Il Ouldoor Break Area -Furniture Store 59 58 62 3 66 No No 12 Ice Rink in Parking Lot 66 60 67 1 71 No No 13 Ad; to Motel 6 63 62 66 3 66 Yes No
14 Adi to Homewood SuileS 59 60 62 3 66 No No IS A<li to Comfort Suites 57 67 67 10 66 Yes No 16 Adj to E side ofFurniture Store 66 57 66 0 71 No No 17 Ad; 10 Interves! 58 65 65 7 71
No No 18 Ad; 10 SatorifThe Harbor GrouP 58 67 67 9 71 No No 19 Adi. to 􀁂􀁵􀁩􀁬􀁤􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠near W side of Proiect 58 68 68 10 71 No No I -Future noise level from proposed projC<ll; derived
finm the FHWA's TNM"' noise model. 2· Criterion noise levels based upon TxDOT I FHWA exterior "approach or exceed" Noise Abatement Criteria for Activity Category C (which includes commercial
land uses) and Activity Category B (which includes hoteVmotelland uses). 
",., " " !lI l'redlcted ExterIor NoIse Levels with l' High Cooerete Barrier, Res! Decollltlve and l'1pe. I 􀁾􀁉􀀠 􀁾􀀠 el ., 􀁾􀀠J '" ;/􀁾􀁉􀀠 -;;' E>Jsting EsHlllalEd' Combln<d Jlnllllllcll
Sull.la.llalAllIblentLevel Future 1'101•• Puture Noise rn....mOv.r Crlterlo. Noise FulureNoIs. IIIUt... 􀁒􀀮􀁣􀁥􀁰􀁬􀁯􀁲􀁾􀀠a .. eplllr Lo""tI," (based "poll Level (frnm L",eI (Amhl••t
Exlnlng Noise Level' Level Exce,ds CriterionNoIse Crlteri." Noh. M_uremllllfl> Arapaho Bridge) pillS ProJed) Level (dBALq) Level? (Grealerlhan 10 (dBAL.'Il (dBALq) (dBAL"l1 (dBAL,q)
dBA) Elceelled t I WofCmuch Property -10' fm 􀁢􀁲􀁩􀁤􀁾􀀠58 61 63 $ 71 No N<> 2 \V or Cmuch P",peny· 35' fin 􀁢􀁲􀁩􀁤􀁾􀀠58 61 63 5 71 No No 3 W .fC",,,,,b Pmpmty 60' fin bridliO S8
60 62 4 11 N<> No 4 W of Crouch Property -85' em bridp sg 59 61 3 7J No No S Wo[Crouchl.'ropert)l-110 'fin briru.c 58 57 60 2 71 No No 6 II of C!OUch property -10' fin bridge 58 59 61
3 71 No N<> 7 IE ofCmuch l'rImertv. 35' em brldgo sa 59 62 4 71 N. No 8 BofCrouch P"",crt\' -60' fin bridllO 58 􀁓􀁾􀀠61 3 71 No N<> 9 BofCrouch P"",.,tY -85' fm bddge 58 5& 61 3 71
No No 10 II ofCrouchProperty -110' fin bridge 58 58 61 3 11 N. No II Outdoor Brcek Area -Fumirur. St.", 59 S6 61 2 66 No No 12 roo RInk in PIIlkins J.ol 66 S9 66 0 1J No N<> 13 Adj t.
MoIoI 6 63 61 65 2 65 No No 14 Ad; 􀁾Hot1lllW!llld S.i(e. 59 S9 62 3 66 N. No IS Adj to Comfort Sniles S7 65 66 9 66 Yes N<> 16 Ad' 10 Eaid.ofFumilo", Store 66 S6 66 11 11 No No 11 Ad
!olntm...t sa 63 64 6 71 N<> No IS Ad 􀁾SalorifI'hclliuOOr Groll!> S8 65 6S 1 71 No No 19 __ f,<!h10 Buildingnea' W sideofProject S8 66 66 8 1J No No 1 -PoI1In:llol.. llovclll""'l""posed
project, derived fmrrt !he JlHWA's TNM'"mjse model. 2. Cri!ei:io. noise 1"",,1. hued upon TxDOT I JlHWA exterior "'pproach or ....ed" Noise Aba!emOll! O:lleria ror Activity Colegoty
C (wllichlneludes ••mmerclallnnd u .... ) .od ActivityCatcgmy B(which includ..holel!mol.11nnd lIlIes), 􀁾􀁉 ... ... '" .., o o " 􀁾􀀧􀁉􀀠 ,.\ 
___ __ 08/08/03 17:24 FAX 714 433 7701 URS SECOND FLR Ij!J 002 􀀮􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀠I URS Corporation 2020 East Arst 􀁓􀁉􀁲􀁥􀁥􀁾􀀠SUite 400 URS Santa Ana, CaRfomIa 92705 Tel: 714 635 6886 Fax::
714 667 7147 To: Cliff Hall, P.E. From: Mike Greel1e, .NCE Btl. CerL 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭RIll: AmpahoRialBriclgeNaise 􀀭􀁎􀁥􀁡􀁲􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁾􀁃􀁯􀁲􀁲􀀦􀁉􀁩􀁸􀁴SUilesPt_opei
I..c:.......;f¥,--___􀁾____ CC= As requested, I have modified the noise model for the project to determine the extent ofnoise control near the Comfort Suites property. Using the 65%
design infurmation.tbllt you supplied, I revised the Traffic Noise Model 􀁾to predict the resultant change in noise levels at locations on the property under a variely ofnoise baIrier
design scenarios. As shown in the attacbed :figure, the recommended noise baIrier configuration would shield the no:r;1hem side ofthe Comfort Suites site, and would ensure tbllt noise
levels at and within the property are below TxDOT and FHWA noise abatement criteria. The height of the noise haIrier should be a minimum of 2.8 feet in height The baIrier should be solid
from top to boltom. without gaps, holes or cutouts, to the extent feasible. Thanks again for the opportunity to participate inthis project Ifyou have any questions or ifI canbe offurther
assistance, please call or e-mail me. Best Regards, 􀁾􀀠Mike Greene, !NCE Bd. Cert. Senior Project Scientist URS Corporation 2020 East First Street, Suite 400 Santa Ana, CA 92705 
__!l8_I_C8/0a 17: 24 FAX 714 433 77."O"'1___--'UR"""S'-"SECOND FLR Ii!] OU:! 10500 10450 10400 10350 10300 10250 10200 10150 10100 10050 10000 9950 \ El Arapaho Road Bridge Sheet 1 of
1 B All 2003 Town of Addison, Texas Plan View ProJect/Contract No. 25334401.4000 Run name, tnm Model Rev.4 TNM Verslog 2.1.0. Feb 200==30'-'-'="'-----1 Scale: I I 50 feet Ana sis : M
Greene Roadway: Ground Zone: polygon ReceIver: !J Tree Zone: dashed polygon BarrIer: I ) Contour Zone: polygon Building Row: Parallel Ban1er: Terrain Une: Skew Seotlon: --7 10350 10400
10450 10500 10550 10600 10e50 10700 10750 
SHEET LIST FOR ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE 60% SUBMITTAL URSSHEETS Bridge Layout -Sheets 1 -4 Typical Sections DWU Clearance Envelope at Arch Span DWU Clearance Envelope at Approach Spans Bearing
Seat Elevations -Sheet 1 -2 Bearing Pad Taper Report Foundation Layout -Sheets 1 -2 Abutment 1 Abutment 1 Details Abutment 15 Abutment 15 Details Bent 2-8, 10-14 Bent 2-8, 10-14 Details
Geometry Pier 9 Geometry Pier 10 Framing Plan -Sheet I -6 Geometry Main Span Diaphragm Reinforcement 1 of2 Mainspan Main Span Erection Sequence -Sheet I -2 Slab Plan -Sheet 1 -6 Slab
details -Sheet I -3 Pedestrian Rail Details Prestressed Concrete V-Beams (Design Data) VBNS Traffic Rail (Steel) Type T4(S) (MOD) Sheet I -2 TxDOT STANDARD DRAWINGS Sealed Expansion
Joint Details Without Overlay (SEJ-A) Prestressed Concrete V-Beam Details (UBA) -Sheet I -2 English Beam End and Bearing Details (UBB) -Sheet I -2 Miscellaneous Slab Details (UBMS) -Sheet
I -3 Miscellaneous Slab Details (For Prestr Conc V-Beams at Inverted Tee Bents) (UBMST) Pennanent Metal Deck Fonns (PMDF(U)) Prestressed Concrete Panel Details (pCP(U)) -Sheet I -3 
TOWN OF ADDISON . PAYMENT AUTHORiZATION MEMO DATE: Claim #.'-----Vendor No, Vendor Name Address oepT'. /02!? Address 7S3/2-/02g'Address Zip Code EXPLANATION 􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀠Authorized Signature
Finance 
1 Remittance Page Invoice Date 01/27/04 Invoice 880383URS Project 25334400 Page For: Design of the Arapaho Road Bridge over Midway Road Professional Services for Period Ending 12126103
Town Of Addison Attn: Steven Z. Chutchain, PE 16801 Westgrove Dr Addison TX 75001-5190 Total Due: $43,821.40 Terms: Due upon Receipt • Make checks payable to: URS Corporation * Please
indicate invoice number andlor project number on check • Please include this stub with payment Regular Mall (USPS): URS Corporation Dept. 1028 P.O. Box 121028 Dallas TX 75312-1028 US
Overnight Courier: URS Corporation Lock Box No. 891028 888 South Greenville Ave., Suite 200 Richardson, TX 75081 Attn: Wholesale Lock Box Processing (972) 680-1900 Electronic Funds Transfer:
Account: URS Corporation Bank: Wells Fargo Bank Account No.: 4520-086471 ABA Routing No.: 121-000-248 Swift Code: WFBIUS6S Remittance Information can be sent to: Email: RemitTo@URSCorp.com
Fax: (512) 419-6937 Attn: Cash Applications Please contact Emilio S Ramirez at512 419-6786 6786 or via email atEmilio_Ramirez@urscorp.com if you have any questions regarding this invoice.

2 Invoice Date 01/27104 Invoice 880383URS Project 25334400 Page Town Of Addison Attn: Steven Z. Chutchain, PE 16801 Westgrove Dr Addison TX 75001-5190 For: Design of the Arapaho Road
Bridge over Midway Road Prof",ssional Services for Period Encjing 12126103 This is a Firm Fixed Price Project Total Project Budget is $593,090.00 PHASE FEE PERCENT COMPLETE FEE EARNED
PREVIOUS BILLING CURRENT BILLING 10010-ENG-Civil Site Work 19,370.00 35.00% 6,779.50 3,874.00 2,905.50 10021-ENG-Prelim Bridge Design 71,350.00 95.00% 67,782.50 57,080.00 10,702.50 10022-ENG-Final
Bridge Design 313,330.00 10.00% 31,333.00 6,266.60 25,066.40 10030-ENG-Electrical Eng. 30,350.00 2.00% 607.00 607.00 0.00 20000 ARCHITECTURE 40,200.00 65.00% 26,130.00 26,130.00 0.00
30000 LIGHTING DESIGN 39,580.00 50.00% 19,790.00 17,811.00 1,979.00 40000 NOISE STUDY 32,760.00 95.00% 31,122.00 31,122.00 0.00 50000 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 31,680.00 65.00% 20,592.00 17,424.00
3,168.00 10040-ENG-Conceptual Plan Mod. 14,470.00 100,00% 14,470.00 14,470.00 0.00 TOTALS 593,090.00 218,606.00 174,784.60 43,821,40 $43,821.40TOTAL THIS INVOICE Please contact Emilio
S Ramirez at 512 419-6786 or via email atEmilio_Ramirez@urscorp.com if you have any questions regarding this invoice. F5447426 
URS January 27, 2004 Mr. Steven z. Churehian, PE Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 7500 1-901 0 Re: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase II
-Design Development & Contract Documents Invoice for Professional Services Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please find our invoice for Professional Services for the Arapaho Road Bridge
at Midway Road for the period between November 28, 2003 and December 26, 2003. Also included is our Progress Report for this period outlining the services provided. The total contract
amount included on the invoice does not include Change Order No.3, as we had yet to receive the signed copy from your office during this period. We will adjust the values to reflect
Change Order No.3 with our January invoice. Sincerely, URS Corporation Cliff R. Hall, PE Project Manager Enclosure URS Corporation Graysfnne Center 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas,
TX 75234 Tel: 972.406.6950 Fax: 972.406.6951 
Monthly Progress Report Design of the Arapaho Road Bridge Over Midway Road URS Project No. 25334400 Period: November 29,2003 to December 26,2003 1. General Accomplishments 1.1 Completed
the Preliminary Design 1.2 Began the Final Design 2. Progress This Period 2.1 Finalized the preliminary design. 2.2 Set the arch geometry. 2.3 Set the thrust block geometry. 2.4 Met
with the Town to discuss progress. 2.5 Began final design and drawings. 3. Anticipated Next Period 3.1 Approach span design and drawing details 3.2 Submit 65% drawings 3.3 Arrange the
colored lighting mock-up on the Addison circle statue. 3.4 Meet with Town and Town's consultant to discuss bridge drainage. 4. Schedule Status 4.1 The Town Council approved Change Order
No.3 including a new scheduled completion date oflate March. 4,2 65% submittal is expected on January 30, 2004. 5. Issues I Impacts 5.1 Need the final grading plan to finalize the elevations
ofthe thrust blocks. 5.2 Need parking layout to begin the under deck lighting design. 
Steve Chutchian From: ClifCHall@URSCorp.com Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1 :39 PM To: Jenny Nicewander Cc: David Boles; Steve Chutchian Subject: RE: Bridge barrier Jenny, The noise
study showed that the noise level will increase by 10 dBA at the Bullough/Lykos Building on the west end of the project without any kind of barrier. Although this doesn't exceed the
criteria to mitigate noise (increase > 10dEAl it is right on the threshold. Therefore we recommend that the traffic rail be carried to the end of this building, approximate station 45+00.
As a reminder we need a 3-ft high noise barrier in front of the Heritage Inn property (including along the east side of the driveway). We discussed accomplishing this with an earthen
berm. Cliff R. Hall, PE Engineering Unit Manager URS Corporation Graystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 Office Tel: 972.406.6950 Direct: 972.406.6976 Fax: 972.406.6951
"Jenny Nicewanderlt To: <Cliff Hall@urscorp.com> <JNicewander@hntb cc: "David-Boles" <DBoles@DBoles@hntb.com> . com> Subject: RE: Bridge barrier 01/24/2004 10:30 AM You mentioned extending
the rail on the southwest retaining wall, let me know how far you need that extended and I will include that on the plans. 􀁾􀀠. ; . ; 􀀬􀁾Jenny -----Original Message----From: Cliff
Hall@URSCorp.com [mailto:Cliff Hall@URSCorp.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:12 AM To: Jenny Nicewander Subject: Re: Bridge barrier 1 
We are using a "T4 (5) (mod)'f. The modification is to increase the thickness by 1" (1/2" to each side} and use a recessed triangle 􀁰􀁡􀁴􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁾􀀠Cliff R. Hall, PE Engineering Unit
Manager URS Corporation Graystone Centre 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 Office Tel: 972.406.6950 Direct: 972.406.6976 Fax: 972.406.6951 "Jenny Nicewander" To: <Cliff Hall@urscorp.com>
-<JNicewander@hntb cc: . com> Subject: Bridge barrier 01/20/2004 07:50 Cliff, Could you let me know what type of barrier you are uSing on the bridge? I was wanting to be sure I callout
the right one on the retaining wall. Thanks, Jenny Nicewander liNTB Corp. 972-628-3164 This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail totheintendedrecipient.be advised
that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this a-mail is 2 
strictly prohibited. : ." 3 
URS Corporation Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Design Development and Contract Documents Change Order No, 03 to Work Order No, 001 ATTACHMENT M Revised Estimated Schedule TASK 1
1 ..v .. 12 􀁏􀁾􀁬􀁯􀁾􀁥􀁲2 =10' IINTPI ,Issues INTP For Prelim. Design Desion 1 i at Arch 1Ft,:I g 'I!:."" Plansl ,Review 􀁉􀀧􀁾􀁾􀁯􀁥􀁳􀁬􀁧􀁮􀀠Final I ".port Final , Plans Final Desion
􀁾􀀠, Desig n 1(60% Plansl • Review .to 􀁾IBridgel IFinal Design &. IFinal Desion 1195% Plansl • Review 􀁾􀀮􀁮􀁾􀁾􀀠12 0 0 2 ." 2 0 0 2 2 􀁊􀁾􀁮􀁾􀁲􀁹3 2 0 0"3 12 􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁾􀁨􀀠3 • 12
􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁩􀁲􀁩􀀠3 12 :a'b 3 2 􀁾􀁕􀀢􀁾􀀠3 2 􀁾􀀢􀁾􀀠3 2 􀁁􀁾􀁧􀀺􀀠3 12 '0 0 3 2 􀁵􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀧3 •• • • • 12 0 0 3 200 3 2 Jagui 4 1 2 0 0"4 􀀱􀀲􀁾􀁲􀁾􀁨􀀴􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠... 􀁾􀀠--<II 2
􀁾􀁐􀁲􀁩􀁲􀁩􀀠4 2 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀠4 • NTP • REQ'D INFORMATION FROM TOWN'S CONSULTANT • SUBMITTAL ;,-.-: . 􀁾􀀠'.. -:L'O(7. 0 
.'.--
ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE AT MIDWAY ROAD CHANGE ORDER NO. 03 to WORK ORDER NO. 001 ATTACHMENT K ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES ADDITIONAL DESIGN DEVELOPMENT AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE ARAPAHO
ROAD BRIDGE In addition to the design services provided for in the original Scope of Services and Change Orders No. I & 2, URS will provide conceptual design development, preliminruy
and final engineering and modifications to the plans, as it relates to Arapaho Road from approximate Station 40+61 to approximate Station 10+28 to incorporate the following changes and
as listed below in the Additional Itemized Scope of Services. These changes as presented to the Town Council on August 26, 2003 include developing a colored lighting concept for the
arch, adding the "stingers" on to the structure and revising the rail to a more open traffic rail. URS shall modifY the preliminary bridge design, bridge layouts and typical sections
as necessruy, attend additional meetings with the Town of Addison, prepare an additional presentation presentation to the Town Council and prepare a lighting mock-up for the Town to
see the colored lighting on the blue structure. Changes to Itemized Scope of Services Provided by URS For the Arapaho Road Bridge TASK I -ENGINEERING B.Bridges 1. Preliminary Bridge
Design (-30% submittal) • Revise Preliminary Bridge Layout (Finalize Bridge Location) • Revise Preliminary Typical Section • Refine Arch Shape • Re-size Diaphragms • Revise Traffic Railing
Members • Develop Stingers • Revise Quantities and Cost Estimate 2. Final Bridge Design, & PS&E (65%, 95%, 100% submittals) • Prestressed Concrete Beam Unit -Add Deck Plan for Widened
Deck • Bridge Stinger Details • Additional coordination with Town TASK n -ARCIDTECTURAL A. Design Development 1. Architectural Studies & Details • Develop revised rail option and the
architectural options to realize the triangular pattern in the rail. • Develop bridge mounted "stingers» • Attend AdditionalMeetiogs with the Town and the Town Council. TASK ill-LIGHTING
DESIGN A. Design Development (includes one meeting in Addison) I. Develop color alternative for lighting ofarch. 2. Develop mounting concepts for bridge structure lighting and stingers.
3. Prepare a mock-up of potential color changing effects on existing Addison Circle sculpture. 3. Present fmallighting design development to the Town Council. TASK V -PROJECT MANAGEMENT
B. Coordination 1. Prepare for and Attend Town Councilor other Town Meetings (I total). 2. Prepare for and attend project meetings with Addison Public Works (2 total) Altachmenl A Scope
a/Services Work Order No. 00] DRS 
ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE AT MIDWAY ROAD CHANGE ORDER NO. 03 TO WORK ORDER NO. 001 ATTACHMENT L ADDITIONAL FIXED PRICE FEE BREAKDOWN URS CORPORATION TASK I -Engineering B.Bridges 1. Preliminary
Bridge Design 2. Final Bridge Design, PS&E TASK II -Architecture (Corgan) A. Design Development TASK III -Lighting Design (Brandston) A. Design Development TASK V -Project Management
B. Preparation & Attendance of Meetings WI Addison Total Cost $ 23,830.00 $ 10,280.00 $14,280.00 $ 1,080.00 TOTAL $ 49,470.00 
•• ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE AT MIDWAY ROAD ATTACHMENT L CHANGE ORDER NO. 03 -ARAPAHO ROAD BRIDGE MAN·HOUR & I!J(PENSE COST ESTIMATE CONSULTANT: URS Corporation J URS CORPORATION No. of Sheels
I.....􀁾􀀠.... 1. 􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠I 􀁔􀁁􀀤􀁋􀀧􀁩􀀺􀀢􀁍􀁉􀁎􀁅􀁩􀁪􀁵􀁾􀀧􀀬􀀺􀁾􀀧􀀠.' M 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀠B.Bridges o u 􀁾􀀠U•• •.'• M 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠·,.G. '--• 2 4 2 4 2 .18. 6 12 ••• 4 􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀠􀁾􀀠•
4 4 4 4• 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠a•• 1. Re:Vlse Prefll'l'ina!y Bridge De.s1gn (-30% 5tJbrrifIaI) Rm6 Preffrrinary Bttdge Layrut (FftIa1iza Brfdgel.ooaUon) Rovtse Pl'eIImnary 􀁔􀁾$5c1.Ion -""""'Re-Sile
rxaph'agms Re-dOV$p Ti'etI\e Raliing Merrbers 00veI0p $\irlger& CoortiiMte omit 􀁾􀀠 Ravtse Quan.U\lf)$ end Cost Edrnale 2. Final Ekkfge [)Q.$Ign, PS&E (65%, 95%, 100% JUbn'tttals) 􀁐􀁮􀁵􀁉􀁲􀁯􀁾􀁃􀁯
􀁯􀁯􀀧􀁥􀁴􀁯􀀠Beam Unit· Add Dec\( ptan torlMdeoed Deck Bridge SUnger OetalIs MdiL!onel CoQn:Iinalion YIflh Tgym CORGAN 􀀮􀁾􀁲􀀺􀁅􀁳􀀮􀀱􀀠"::',"1> ·1 :t.-$140.00: t $125.00 TASK·iI 􀁾􀀬􀀠Ai\Cl!iTecnf
fW.:'· y "0' .;'0, .0 􀀧􀀭􀀧􀀬􀁾􀀺􀀧􀀠,'. 􀁾􀁟􀀠.. A. Design'o.wloJ;;.g;" 1. ArchItecIir.iI Studies & 􀁏􀁥􀁴􀁡􀁩􀁬􀁾􀀠 De1Ielop milled In!Iflic rail 􀁾and \he AJtMedura! option to realim
the :, : :'1 :1-: ,1)i'· 18 12; 4 4 4 :.1!. 6 •o· .. • ..S. h .• 4• J!., ! .!!. 4 o I,24.1· ... B.12 4 ,. $60.00 'J :;,1 $35.oo::k' "36""'" 0 􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀠0: "8 238 12 • 20 22 24 14 " 2.
I.• ". '" 66 22 . -124 : 124:' I': 1:1 :1 '" lJoveiop Sl'Idge Mounted "SVngarG"􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀠76D 􀁛􀁾􀁝i2\-_C:EJ 36 AltendAd<it.lOr'!al MeoIlnglllO 􀁾􀁴􀁥the an:hItecMaI: espe<:U of Ihe
dMiIgn. 12 eRANOSTON RATES I', 1'$175.00 I $1:40,00 1 $105.00: I' I ·$90;00 I T--:=J TASK 􀁬􀁩􀁦􀁾􀀠􀁕􀁇􀁾􀁩􀁈􀁇􀀧􀁄􀁩􀁓􀀧􀁉􀁇􀁎􀀢􀀠0: '4G (I ,I' "16' 0 -Z2 0" 0i 􀁾􀁧􀁾􀀧􀁯􀁥􀁾􀁾􀁮􀁴􀀢􀂷􀀬􀀠.
, S'.. . o 40 a 1£ 0 22 0 0 1. OaveIopCOlOl' ai!al'l'laiivas fotllghling of etCh. 2. OIweiop troun\ing 􀁾fct bridge 6\tUC11..n and tUtlger ig\'IUog a. AttMd AtWMat M&eUtlg wilt! Town
and petftlrm !1gtItlng 􀁾􀀠• ;0' , o 􀁾__ .􀀬􀁩􀁾􀁫􀀻􀀭􀁾􀁱􀀿􀀬􀁅􀀿􀁦􀁾􀁾􀁥􀁴􀁴􀀺􀀮􀂷􀀠'<: s. .,0,-•• .0 • S.:•. 1.DiI.P.-\IP .$ 1.....􀁾'. •B. Coonifnalk'm 00 a a 00000 (> • 4. Ccuncll
orolhe(' TQWn MOOIiogs (1) 4 6, Prqoct Mealing$ v.iU'I Addison. F\lbllc WOrks (2) 4 I J I: I I I I I Grand Total 116 ., 54 22 4 ...• '" '" " 
CHANGE ORDER NO. 03 In accordance with the Agreement between the Town ofAddison ("Clienf'j, and URS Corporation rURS"j, a Nevada _corporation dated November 11, 2002 (for Work Order
No. 001 ) this Change Order describes the agreed upon changes to the SelVices, Schedule, and Payment for the SelVices. Project: Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road URS Project NO.25334401
Date:___ REFERENCE: Drawing No. NIA Specification No. Other uN!!..IA-'--___________ The Agreement is hereby changed as follows: See Attachment K, "ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES" Justification
for Change: The need for additional unforeseen coordination with the Addison Town Council and subsequent requested modifications to the bridge renderings, lighting, traffic rail and
layout plans. CHANGE TO ESTIMATED CONTRACT PRICE (See Attachment !) Original Estimated Contract Price: Current estimated contract price, including previous change orders: The estimated
Contract Price due to this Change Order will be increased by: The new estimated Contract Price due to this Change Order will be: $ 550.965.00 $ 593,090.00 $ 49,470,00 $ 642.560.00 CHANGE
TO THE ESTIMATED SCHEDULE (See AttachmentMJ The Contract lime will be increased by .1§.L calendar days. The date for completion of all work under the contract will be: -"J"'u""ne"-3"'0""...=2""OO""4L
-______________. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS CHANGE ORDER, ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT REMAIN UNCHANGED Acceptance of the tenns of this Change Order is acknowledged by the
following signatures of the Authorized Representatives, CLIENT .-!, _'S =\" 􀀩􀁾􀀠/$. EmilY Taylor, RE.I Vice President Typed NameITrtle Typed NameITrtle ,.II/e:> 􀁧􀁬􀁯􀁾􀀠Date of Signature
Date/of Signature cc: Accounting SIgnature CHANGE'()RD1.DOC 4.J1UG-OO 
· ,I'f: ••i: « · 􀁾􀀮􀀠;1. I·• f: .1 ••I",'.􀀬􀀭􀁾:fois: I: i: •• •lieS: 􀁪􀁾􀀠" •f: « " •b·'0 N " 􀁾􀀺􀀠• « M f: " 􀁾􀀠M 􀁾􀀺􀀠•• :si 􀁾􀀺􀀠• 􀀡􀀮􀀻􀁾􀀠• 􀁾􀀺w·:el i:􀁾􀁩􀀠i 􀁾􀁉􀀠,:
􀁾􀀢􀀠• 􀁊􀁾􀀠N • " • • • • 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠i•0 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠• i 0 0 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠§ J! Ii': « 􀁾•J: •••N 
URS December 26, 2003 Mr. Steven z. Chutchian, PE Assistant City Engineer 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: Arapabo Road Bridge at Midway Road Phase n -Design
Development & Contract Documents Invoice for Professional Services Dear Mr. Chutchian: Enclosed please fmd our invoice for Professional Services for the Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway
Road for the period between September 20, 2003 and November 28, 2003. Also included is our Progress Report for this period outlining the services provided. The total contract amount
included on the invoice does not include Change Order No.3, as we have yet to receive the signed copy from your office. Sincerely, URS Corporation CliffR. Hall, PE Project Manager Enclosure
URS Corporation Graysfone Center 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75234 Tel: 972.4tl6.6950 Fax: 972.406.6951 
Monthly Progress Report Design of the Arapaho Road Bridge Over Midway Road URS Project No. 25334400 Period: September 20, 2003 to November 28, 2003 I. General Accomplishments 1.1 Progressed
the Preliminary Design 2. Progress This Period 2.1 Progressed the preliminary design. 2.2 Began setting the arch geometry. 2.3 Began setting the thrust block geometry. 2.4 Met with the
Town Council at the Council Meeting for Change Order No.3. 2.5 Coordinated abutment configuration with storm and sewer pipes. 2.6 Received the Geotechnical Report from Town's consultant.
3. Anticipated Next Period 3.1 Continue the preliminary arch design, arch size and shape. 3.2 Finalize the thrust block shape and location. 3.3 Begin approach span design and details.
3.4 Begin arranging for the lighting mock-up. 4. Schedule Statns 4.1 The Town Council approved Change Order No.3 including a new scheduled completion date oflate March. 5. Issues I Impacts
5.1 Need the final grading plan to finalize the elevations of the thrust blocks. 5.2 Placing sidewalk exterior to the arch is creating a more difficult structure to design, construct
and light. This may increase the cost ofthe bridge. 5.3 Town Council has requested changes to the bridge rail type, added the "stingers" back onto the bridge, and requested colored lighting
for the bridge. These changes have impacted the schedule and cost ofthe project. , . 
',' 􀁃􀀾􀀭􀁾􀀠HANCER ROPE_____ I I I I I I r-1','I SHLOR. -4 LANES S' 􀀱􀀱􀁾􀀠= «14' -0" .. It DlAfR:=,I 50;-0" 1􀁾􀀠-6" SHLOR." .. • • <1 ,r 'i I if' "\ ".--e>< 􀁾􀀵􀀴􀀢􀀠U-BEAM (TYP)
TYPICAL SECTION IN.T.S.) SOUTHNORTH ROWROW 14' ,, I 􀁾􀁜􀀠(,\JJ 6 O.D. WATER PIPE 
•• • $\ • :e • • • =• :8 :8 •• :8 • • ::8 =• • ::8 ., ::8 :tJ • • ., .. • • HANGER ROPE 􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀮􀁊􀀠1'-6" 8'-0" SIDEV/AlJ( .. .. .. , I, S'i -, 58' (js 4 U>HES fJ II' = 44'-0· 􀁉􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀡􀀮􀀠-TYPI
CAL SECTION " "-6" SHLDR. .. 54" U-BEAM ITYP) ..------.--t--r-7' -o"/b DRillED SHAFT ,􀀸􀀰􀀭􀁾__________________________􀁾􀁾􀀠
AP..ot <.. I,jof.1 \Z-0uJ CJ g.<1> 9. '"a '" ::>􀁟􀁬􀁟􀁾􀀠:L Cl ,";: . 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠09\J '"' '" \."\ \i\ C) C) ." 0r-o .9. 􀁾􀀠:I jli'"'" c::Ii '" ;z􀁾􀀠9!.if tT '< ......-: .I I a a I I

DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT 60" WATER RAIlROAD I 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭---------lifARAPAHOROAD----------r-_= PLAN OVERALL BRIDGE LENGTH = 1600'-0" DIRECTIONIOF STATIONING'i':"=, ,• 62 a
------------r-----.,-,,,..'-: !o, , I io3 SPANS Ii? 105'-6" -316'-6"-f74'-0" 105'-6" q; PIER II MATCH LINE 2􀁾􀀠'7' 􀁾􀁾􀀠III III 􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀱􀁾􀀠I, . .." 􀀶􀀵􀀰􀁾640 630 
•• •• *• 􀁾􀀠HANGER 􀁒􀁏􀁐􀁅􀁾􀁟􀁉􀀠=, I, 5'1 -(.=• 58' Q' 1'-6" =SHLOR. 4 LANES @/I' 44'-0'8'-0" SID[WAIJ( •• =... ---... .. ==54' U-BEAt.I (rrp)DlAFRAM ==* =:.t) * :I) 􀁾􀀠7'-()"!b
ORILLED SHAFT •:f) • I 0' p. • TYPICAL SECTION I "•., $0-0 -, -,. -" --> 􀁾􀀠---􀁾􀁾􀀠., 􀁬􀁉􀁲􀀾􀀮􀀺􀀮􀁊􀀮􀀢􀁾􀁲􀀢􀀬􀀬􀀭􀀢􀀧􀀺􀀢􀀧􀀬􀁪􀁯􀀮􀀻􀀠, ••• ARAPAHO BRiDGE 􀁾􀀠. . .. . . TOWN
OF,ADDISON, TEXAS . ..:.J ;:' 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀩􀀠=.:-_.' 
•• • • 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠:;e •:t RAllflOAD =:a •••• :a ,. ,. ,. ::t PROPOSED R/w PROPOSED H/W'-WATER .., .. MIt:JNAY ROAO CT11.10-100.00 1; --, ji,,) , ::t PLAN =::to .________________􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀁾􀀬􀀧􀁟􀀧􀁅􀀽􀁒�
�􀁁􀁌􀁌BRlfXjE LENGTH =1600'-0' :t J SPANS t!! IOS'-6' 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠:a , 650 -If: PieR 6 MATCH LINe 1-, I 3[6'-6' ,, II , I-------------,----II I lei. U. J. 7' " DRILLED SHAFT (TYP) ._.._.--105'-6"
If: PIER /I --MATCH LINE 2-􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠. fP' , 650 640 640 , :t 630 62.0 􀀯􀀡􀁾􀀠􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠___ i 630 ' .J ___ I --62.0 , 610 610 600 600--]-U iU . Li U i , '
'.. .' 590 590I 􀁾􀀠I... ...580 580 eXISTING GROIIND .. • ElEVATION -. , ARAPAHO BRIDGE TOWN OF-ADDISON TEXAS ...:' , 􀀧􀁾􀀧􀀮􀀠􀁛􀀽􀁾􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀠 
•• •• •• HANCER ROPE_____ n NORTH ROW 14' 3' MJNG' 0.0. WATER PIPE "-6 I. SHLOR. 4 LANES ell' = 􀀴􀁾􀁦􀁟􀁏􀁈􀀠. \ '-6"" n ,1'';;" .. .. l' .....," SHLOR., 􀁾􀁉􀀠SOUTH ROW I••I••I I I
,• I,, :::::>.•, I TYPICAL SECTION tN.r.s.) 
DRS Page __ of 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠Project No, _______ Sheet of Description _____________ Computedby ______ Date ________________ Checkedby _______ Date Reference -r .:} d /-;t /..-----... "-----"---..
􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠I , I I I \ ! i \ I i \ /,....I =< I '>{, 􀁾 i 􀁾􀁟􀀯􀀩􀀠 Ll\ .... <C r' 􀁁􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀠... , <J ,<::)""1. .J \J 􀁜􀁓􀁾􀀠(!), <t:: r 􀁾􀁾􀀠
DRS Page __ of __ Project No. _______ Sheet of Description _____________ Computed by ______ Date Checked by _______ Date Reference I I ---1 I r-----...L---+-I 
Jim Pierce From: Jim Pierce Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:05 PM To: David Johnston (E-mail); Michael Preston (E-mail); Alan Greer (E-mail) Cc: Michael Murphy; Chris Terry Subject:
Bridge Competition Presentation Schedule Gentlemen: We have established the following presentation Schedule: All presentations will be on Thursday, April 11 , 2002 at the Conference
and Theatre Center 8:00AM -10:00AM URS Greiner Stone Cottage 10:30AM -12:30PM Freese and Nichols Board Room 1 :30PM -3:30PM HNTB Stone Cottage Please allow at least 30 minutes for questions
and answers. Please call me if you have any questions about the arrangements. Jim Pierce, P.E. Assistant Public Works Director PO Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 972-450-2879 1 
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (912) 450-2871 Post Office Box 9010 Addison, Texas: 􀀷􀀵􀀰􀀰􀀱􀁾􀀹􀀰􀀱􀀰􀀠16801 Westgrove 12 March 2002 Mr. Bill Crepeau 1510 1 Midway Addison, TX 75001 Dear
Committee Member: Please accept my apology for not including a list ofthe Arapaho Bridge Committee Members in the recent package which was sent to each Member. The Committee Members
are: Art Lomenick Bill Crepeau Diane Mallory Scott Wheeler Ron Whitehead Chris Terry Mike Murphy I look forward to working with you. Very truly yours, ,d;1Uf 􀀯􀁦􀀿􀁾􀀬􀀠MikeMurphy, P.E. Director of Public 􀁗􀁯􀁲􀁾􀀠 ! ,.'cc: Jim Pierce /Steve Chutchian Luke Jalbert 
_8_ (972) 450-2871.ADDIsoN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PM i.... tW? M'JWdw FM9Bfff-4@Post Office Box 9010 Addison. Texas 􀀷􀀵􀀰􀀰􀀱􀁾􀀹􀀰􀀱􀀰􀀠 16801 Weslgrove March 7, 2002 Mr. Jim Pierce
P. O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001 Dear Committee Member: First of all, I would like to express my appreciation on behalf ofthe Town ofAddison. This is an exciting infrastructure project
for the Town and I am pleased you have agreed to participate in our evaluation and recommendation process for the Bridge Competition. As you are aware, the competition is scheduled for
April 11th from 7:30am 5:00pm at the Addison Conference Centre (see schedule below). I would also request that all committee members meet in the Board Room at 7:30 am to go over the
upcoming days events. There will be breakfast refreshments available. Just a very brief update on what events took place to get us to the point at which we are today. In February 2000,
the Town of Addison conducted a bond election in which the town of Addison voters approved $20.5 million to go toward the design and construction of the extension of Arapaho Road from
Addison Road to Marsh Lane. A key and crucial element to the overall project is the design and construction ofa bridge to cross over Midway Road. In November of 200 I, we initiated the
process by requesting Statements of Qualifications from engineering and architectural firms. The Town received 12 proposals from a wide variety of firms with connections around the nation.
These 12 proposals were evaluated by a selection committee and reduced to the three finalists for the competition (HNTB, DRS-Griener and Freese & Nichols). The Town of Addison City Council,
prior to Request for Qualifications, approved a $10,000 stipend to be paid to each of the three finalists to assist in the costs associated with preparation oftheir proposed bridge designs.
The evaluation process will be conducted as follows: }> Eachfirm wiD be given two hours to make their presentations and answer questionsfrom the panel, with at least 30 minutes dedicated
to question and answer. }> Panel will use evaluation criteria stated in information below, with each item having equal value to assist in ranking each firm. }> Each member willthen individually
grade each firm, in a similar manner, giving eacll item a grade from 1-10, wit" 10 being best. 
» Each member based on the total score given will rank thefirms in order of grade 1s', 2nd, or yd. » Allpanel members will submit their rankings to establish initial order. » Group will
have open discussions about individual concerns and opinions. » Allpanel members will review tlteir initial rankings andre-submitforFma/order. » Each firm will be given an overall grade
based on rank submitted by eac1, member. 1st place will be awarded one point, 2nd place will be awarded 2 points and Jrd place will be awarded J points. Thefirm with tlte fewest total
points will be the competition winner. Please note that I have included a copy of each firm's original Statement of Qualifications submittal. Thank you, and I look forward to seeing
all of you on April 11th, Should you have any questions prior to April 11th, feel free to contact my office at 972-450-2871 and speak with me or the Assistant Director ofPublic Works,
Jim Pierce. Sincerely, Michael E. MurphylDirector of Public Works 
Arapaho Road Bridge Pre-Competition Meeting Agenda February 14, 2002 I. Welcome and introductions: Ron Whitehead,. City Manqer II. Directions to Consultant: Milee llllurphy. Director
ofPublic WOIIc$ A. Announce tentative day and time ofpresentations 1. First Presentation 8:ooam-10am 2. Second Presentation 10:30am-12: 30pm 3. Third Presentation 1:30'pm-3: 30pm B.
No more than two desi.ns III_ Gradin.. will be based on the following criteria A. Aesthetics -appearance day and night, should include IIghtin. desi.n plan B. Landscaping C. Acoustics
(how will noise affect adjacent buildings) D. Vibrations (how will motion affect adjacent buildings) E. Estimated cost of construction of the bridge design F. FunctionalityI build ability
(parking,pedestrian and bike users.. safety. ADA etc.) G_ How does the bridge minimize obstruction to adjacent buildings from roadway H. Overall quality and creativity of presentation
(vision, team plan I effortJ 
Presentation Schedule: Time (April 11th) Firm 7:30am -"8:00am Committee Members 8:00am-lO:OOam VRS Griener H):30am -12:3Opm Freese & Nichols l2:3Opm-I:30pm Lunch 1:30pm 3:30pm HNTB 3:30pm
-5:00pm Panel Discussion/Selection Conference Centre Location BoaraROom Stone Cottage BoardRoom BoardRoom Stone Cottage BoardRoom 
EXAMPLE SCORE SHEET 1. Aesthetics -appearance day and night, should include lighting design plan (1-10) 􀁾10 POINTS 2. Landscaping (1-10) _-'7L-----!POINTS 3. Acoustics (how will noise
affect adjacent buildings) (1-10) 5 POINTS 4. Vibrations (how will motion impact adjacent buildings) (1-10) 8 POINTS 5. Estimated cost of construction of the bridge design (1-10) 6 POINTS
6. FunctionalityI build ability (parking, pedestrian and bike users, safety, ADA etc.) (1-10) 4 POINTS 7. How does the bridge minimize obstruction to adjacent buildings from roadway
(1-10) 10 POINTS 8. Overall quality and creativity of presentation (vision, team plan I effort) (1-10) 9 POINTS TOTAL SCORE 59 POINTS COMMITfEE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL SCORE FIRMfll 3 I
3 2 I 3 3 16 #3 FIRMf12 2 2 2 I 2 1 2 12 111 FIRM#3 I 3 1 3 3 2 1 14 #2 
F<tfV 􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁏􀁾􀀨􀁪􀁾􀁾􀀶􀁊􀀮􀀨􀀱􀁉􀀱􀀠 􀁾􀀴􀀠􀀯􀀶􀀧􀁾􀁦􀁩􀀱􀀠 􀁾r3 ;".7 frl I ;; I 􀁾􀀠 
Ur2.c;NAMEOFHRM SCORE SI;EET 1. Aestbetics-appeal'ance da, and night,. sbould-include • lighting desisn'plan (1.1Q) POINTS 􀁾􀀡􀀳􀀠􀁰􀁊􀁾2. Landsc::aping ('MO) POINTS bG j 3. Ac::oustic::s{bow
will noise affect adjacent building.) (1.10) POINTS 4. Vibl'ations(how will motion 􀁩􀁾􀁰􀁡􀁣􀁴a-.jacent buildil'!gs.) (1.10) POINTS 5. Estimated cost of construction of the bridge design
(1.10) POINTS 6. FunctionallvI build abiliwJparldllg,pedestrianand bike users,-safety, ADA etc.) (140) POINTS 7. How does the bri«l.ge minimize obstruction to afljacent buildings f..om
..oadway (t.10) POllltTS 8. Overall Quality and cl'8ativiW of'presentation (vision. teampia,," I effort) (1-tO) POINTS 􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀠s+,VVjJrS ? 􀁦􀀴􀁾􀀭􀁲
SCORESH,EET 1. Aesthetics -appearance day and 􀁮􀁬􀁧􀁨􀁴􀁾􀀠should include lighting deS!!gnplan (1-10j POINTS 2. LandscapinIJ (1-10) ___POINTS 3. Acoustics {how will noise affect 􀁾􀁣􀁊􀁪􀁡􀁣􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠
􀁢􀁵􀁩􀁬􀁤􀁩􀁮􀀮􀁧􀁾􀀩􀀠• (1-10) POINTS 􀁵􀁶􀁊􀀺􀁾􀀠4. Vibndions (how will motionimpact adjacent buiklil;l9S) 􀁾􀀠.: (1-10) . I POINTS jJ./􀁾􀁾5. Estimated cost of construction of the
bridge d-.fgn . r "" (1-10) POINTSf!.6. FunctionalityI build ability(parking,pedestrian and--,ike􀁾􀀻􀁲􀀠users, safety, ADA etc.) .(1.10) POINTS 7. How does the bridge minimize obstructiOB
to adjacent buildings from roadway (1-10) POINTS 8. Overall quality and creativity of presentation (vlsfon, team plan I effort) (1-10) POINTS TOTALSCORE ___􀀬􀁐􀁏􀁾􀀠
-AOOISON CONFERENCE • THEATRE CENTRE -􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁌􀀭􀀭􀀭__.._._...__ 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀭􀁟􀁟􀁴􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀧􀀵􀁌􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁕􀁾􀁗􀀭􀁢􀁾____.._ ..___ 2-t--􀁾􀁾(11 􀁾􀀢􀁳􀀮􀁉...<.LbJ:=t-'1􀀭􀀢􀀬􀀽􀁬􀁥􀀮􀁾􀁓􀀵�
�􀀭􀀬􀀭􀀮____ 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭............=-.-----------tb --...􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁌􀁾􀀠.._ .._._-----------_..__.. _.._.. ..-..-...-.. --.-•... --_.._-_.._ .. __.-.. 
Arapabo Road Bridge COJDpetitioDAgenda April 11, 2002 I. Welcome and introductions: Ron Whitehead. City I/IIanager 11. Virections to CommlfteelIlfembers: MJlie fr/(urpliy, Director􀁯􀁾􀀠Public
Works A. Announce presentation schedule: 􀀬􀁾􀀠First¥resentatron URI3:O"Oam·-roam 2. Second Presentation Freese & Nichols 􀀱􀀱􀁊􀀺􀀳􀀰􀁡􀁭􀁾􀀱􀀲􀀺􀁾􀀳􀀰􀁰􀁮􀁴􀀠3. Third Presentation
HNTB 1:30pm-3: 30pm III. Grading will be based on the following criteria A. AesthetiCS'-appearancllr1lay-end-nigilt;should include lighting design plan 􀁦􀁉􀁾􀀠i.aldscaping C. Acoustics
(how will noise affect adjacent buildings) 8; Vibrations (howwilllllotion1dfect adjacent buildings) E. Estimated cost ofconstruction of the bridge design -F. -FunctionalityfbuildabilityiParking,l'ede
sbianandbike users, safety, ADA etc.) G. How1Ioesthe bridge 1IIinlmlzeobstructionto -adjaCent buildings from roadway -fl. iJverall 􀁱􀁵􀁡􀁬􀁩􀁴􀁹􀁾􀁮􀁤􀀠creativityofpresentation"(vision,
team plan I effort) 
Presentation Schedule: TIme (April 11"') Firm 7:30am-8:00am Committee Members 8:00am -!0:00am DRS Griener !0:30am -12:3Opm Freese & Nichols 12:3Opm 1:30pm Lunch 1:30pm-3:30pm HNTB 3:30pm-5:00pm
Panel Discussion/Se1ection Conference Centre Location BoardRoom Stone Cottage BoardRoom BoardRoom Stone Cottage BoardRoom 
Evliluanon Guide Lines: }> Each firm will be given two hours to make their presentations and answer questionsfromtheJ1anel... with at least. 3fJ minutes dedicated to lJ1lesI.io11 and
answer. }> Group will have open discussions about individual concerns and opinions. » P.anel wm lISe evaluation criteria statedin injor.madD11. below, with each item having equal value
to assist in ranking each firm. }> Each member wm then individually grDd.e each firm, in a similar mnnner, giving each item a gradefrom 1-10, with 10 being best }> Each member bDSed
011. the JOIalscore given wJllrank thejirms in order 0/grade 1", 2"4, orr. }> AltpanefmemJ;ers wiltsulimit their ranltings to establish i'nitiiltunler. }> Each firm will be given an
overall grade bflSed on rank submitted by each member. 1"place will be awarded one poiat, 2"4place will be awOl'ded 2 points mul3'"place will be awarded 3 points. Thefirm with the/_est
Mol pomu willbe the competitiiln winner. 
NAMEOFFJRM'----------------SCORESHEET 1. Aeilflhetics -appearance day and night, should include 11ghtlng design plan tt-t(t} POINTS 2. Landscaping (1-10) ___POINTS 3. Acoustics (how
will noise affect adjacent buildings) tt-10) POINTS 4. Vibrations (how will motion impact adjacent buildings) (1-10) POINTS 5. Estimated cost of construction of the bridge design {'t-10)
POINTS 6. FunctionalityJbuild ability (parking,pedestrianand bike users, safety, ADA etc.) (1-10) POINTS 7. How does the bridge minimize obstruction to adjacent buildingsfrom roadway'
(1-10) POiNTS 8. Overall quality and creativity of presentation (vision, team plan Jeffort) (1-10) POINTS TOTAL SCORE ___nHNTS, .' 
0 .;.:/'::I{' .;,-;,'; f:'-,l ," 1'·;'1 ,;(. ...'J !';'. heavier cables to supportthe extra weight offloor framing. With a lightweight box., girder, a'design team th'tt includes OPAC
Consulting Engineers, ,San Francisco, held down the Caxquinez 'Bridge's suspension cables to a diameter of512 nun. Ina:first for a U,s. suspension 'bridge; Spow says, the design makes
specific allowances for the loss ofanyone ofthe vertical 'ropes that support the superstructure from the main cables, MARYLAND HIGHWAY OFFICIALS ARE scr.unbling to figure a "Plan B"
after the sole bid for the main oontract for a new WOodrow WIlson bridge,near Washington, D.C., came in nearly $360 million, or 72%, above their estimate. If they can't find a way to
cut 'the bid price, Maryland mces a big shortfull for its part ofthe $2.4-billion overall project , Au:he Dec. 13 opening, a team of KiewitConstruction Co., Tidewater Con,struction Corp.
and Clark Construction Group InC. filed the only bid for two, sixlane bascule spans across the Potomac River and demolition ofthe existing 4{). year-old drawbridge. BaSed on prooid 􀁳􀁣􀁵􀁴􀁴􀁬􀁥􀁢􀁵
􀁴􀁾􀀠Slate Highway Adruinistrator Parker F. Williams wasn't surprised that he gotjust one offer. The price was the shocker: $859.95 million, or some $360 million above the state's estimate.
"Nobody could have expected...that the . bid was going to be this rngh,' he says. According to Spoth. using largediameter drilled Shaft foundations for the towers instead ofconcrete
caissons is also rarely seen in D.,s. bridges. In a quake, massive caissoris'-tend to rock. The 3-m-<tiaconcrete shaftS, with steel shells about 45 rn lqng.:are'socketed as much as an
additional 35 m into rock Because rock un'del: the south tower lacked the anticipated strength, a $l(}' million change oraer' and a 355-day Williams says the agency can "reject all bids
and rebid' or can try to negotiate a lower price in a role-bid scenario. Meeting the $2.f:billion target hinges on bringing in' the superstructure at around $500 Funds The $1.5 01ll10n,
Maryland=􀁭􀁬􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀺􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀢will cover aI costs incurred in each state." Maryland handles the bridge and two interchanges on its side of the Potomac and Virginia has two interchanges
on its side ofthe river. The bridge also has been the center of a fierce labor fight Maryland Cov. Parris N. Glendening (D) ,and construction extension of the original 1,200-day schedule
was needed, says Curtis Weltz, project manager fur the FCI-Cleveland Bridge joint venture in Crockett, Calif. The team started work in February 2000 and intends to avoid paying liquidated
damages of$50,OOO per dayafter the first 1,000 days, '50 all ,the 􀁤􀁥􀁣􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠are 'schedule driven," Weltz says (ENR 1/31/00 p. 24), By David B. Rosenbaum unions sought to have
a project labor agreement on the projecL But President Bush and the Associated Builders and Contractors were opposed. On Dec. 7, the Federal Highway Administration rejected the state
PIA plan. On Dec. 12, Maryland bowed to FHWAand pulled the PtA on the contract Complicating the matter, a federal judge ruled a BuSh ban on PLAs on all federally funded work went too
fur. The Justice Dept. has appealed. ' Several contractors bought docu. ments but didn't bid. "Resource-wise, We didn't feel the timing was right for us to tackle a project of that magnitude,"
says Doug Sickle, Balfour Beatty Construction Inc.·s eastern division manager. In three or four months from now, "we would be in better position to bid, but not now," he ,says. 􀁾􀀠Pittsburgh-based
Dick Corp, cites more than $200 million in other highwayjobs to bid in December. "Ifthe projectwould have advertised in October for a January or February bid. we might have followed
up on 􀁩􀁾􀀢􀀠says Bob Spekis, vice president ofDick's bridge and highway division, He says the Wilson job would have tied up Dick's estimating department for weeks. But a possible PtA
caused Cianbro Corp., Pittsfield, Maine, to hold off. President and CEO Pete Vigue says his openshop firm doesn't sign PLAs. FHWA's rulcame too close to the opening for Clanbro to set
up a tea!l\ and prepare a bid. Several days "is not enough [for] a project ofthat size." Vigue says. If the projectis rebidwithout a PLA, "we're very interested," he says. Vigne says
the firm is interested in the possibility of dividing thejob into smaller contracts. Maryland hoped to begin the superstructure in early 2002. But "at this point in time, we're not sure
ilS to when we'II be starting,' Williams says. 0 By ThmIchniuwski DECEMBER 24, 2001/ENR 13 
Signfficance of the Bridge The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is of crucial importance to the WashinglDn metropolitan region and the nation. As the southernmost point of the Capital Beltway,
the fucility plays a major role in the quality oIlife ofhundreds of thousands ofloeal commuters and thousands of businesses. As the midpoint ofinterstate 95, the bridge is critically
important to the movement of individuals and freight from Maine to Florida. The Problem The existing six-lane bridge is vastly overloaded with traffic, causing daily congestion headaches
for commuters and shippers alike. What's more, the physical outlook fur the facility is bleak, given its rapidly deteriorating condition. Nearly 200,000 vehicles now drive across the
six-lane bridge every day -approaching three times its design capacity of75,000. The Automobile Association ofAmerica has called the WooClrow Wilson Bridge one ofthe ten worst highway
bottlenecks in America. With 300,000 daily vehicles anticipated by 2020, lbe inadequacy ofthe existing bridge grows more apparent every day. In addition, extensive wear and tear has
taken a heavy toll on the stroctore, which was first opened in 1961. Best estimates indicate the bridge win require replacement by about 2004. If a new bridge is not ready by then, either
heavy • trucks wiU need to be banned from the fucility or a substantial and costly rehabilitation will be . required. Neither option is acceptable to the region nor to the four agencies
responsible fur the facility: ' the Federal Highway Administration, the Maryland State Highway Administration, the Virginia Department ofTransportation and the District ofColumbia Department
of Public Works. Project History In 1988, the Federal Highway Administration initiated the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Improvement Study in cooperation with Maryland, Virginia, and the District
to identi/)' . potential remedies for the congestion problem. A one-year concept competion was held in 1989 to solicit innovative solutions to the complex reconstroction projcct. This
was followed by I subsequent environmental studies. .I I ,iThe Woodrow Wilson Bridge Concept Competition was designed to generate innovative, environmentally sensitive concepts and approaches
to improving the traffic capacity of the bridge. The competition preceded the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process i required by the National Environmental Policy Act, and provided
a unique opportunity to develop and evaluate preliminary concepts and ideas for consideration in greater detail in the EIS. ..􀁾􀁾.. 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀠􀀮􀀮􀀭􀀭􀁾..----􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭------: 
Because the function ofadjacent interchanges is integral to the function ofthe bridge, four interchanges were included in the five-mile long Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project for consideration
in the EIS. These nearby interchanges include Maryland Route 210, 1-295, U.S. Route I, and Telegraph Road. Additional aspects included various enhancements to adjacent parklands and
affected communities. A Draft EIS was released in August of 1991 for publie comment This step caused the Federal Highway Administration to conclude that the public outreach and consensus
building were going to be vital in reaching a final decision. As a result, a multi-jurisdictional Coordination Committee comprised of 14 area transportation and elected officials was
formed in 1992 to guide I\le study. The Committee's mission was "to identify a solution that Heavy !1UCk traffic crosses this vital Un!< of1-95. replacement option. Major improvements
to each of the four adjacent interchanges were also selected. It was also decided to remove the existing bridge in its entirety once construction is completed. This decision represented
the culmination ofmore than four years ofprogressive decision making and analysis. A fIDal EIS was published in September of 1997 and a corresponding Record of Decision and Memorandum
of Agreement was signed on November 25, 1997. The project then 􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁾􀀠a . design phase. One of the first steps in this design phase was to select a General Engineering Consultant.
General Engineering Consultant Role Polomac Crossing Consultants, a joint venture of Parsons Brinckerhoff, DRS Greiner Woodward Clyde, and Rummel, Klepper & Kahl, LLP, was selected to
enhances mobility in the corridor, while assuring that community and environmental concerns were addressed." As seen in the graphic to the right, candidate alternatives were developed
by matching . landside approaches with river crossing types and alignment options. In 1996 the Coordination Committee selected a 12-lane drawbridge alternative located immediately south
ofthe existing bridge as the best possible The candidate a/fematives were deva/oped by matching lands/de approaches wlill river clOSSing types and alignment opffons. assist the sponsoring
agencies in the management offIDal design and construction. This assistance includes management offive section designers during the fIDal design pbase and coordination with multiple
jurisdictions and agencies. One of the first steps for the General Engineering Consultant was assistance in managing a design competition for the new bridge across the Potomac River.
• 
-----------Compefillon Intent The intent of the design competition was to stimulate the creative abilities of the bridge design community to produce a structure which will be seen as
a landmark bridge, sensitively designed to respect its 􀁥􀁮􀁶􀁩􀁲􀁯􀁮􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁾􀀠and able to unite itte community in support of the project. The entries were expected to combine the best
. thinking about aesthetics, technology. economy and environmental sensitivity. Description of Desired Bridge The following key points are summarized from the Record of Decision issued
on November 25,1997: The replacement bridge is to be approximately 6,300 feet long. It will extend from Rosalie Island on the Maryland shore to a point east of Washington Street in Alexandria,
Virginia. The replacement bridlle is to be located just downstream of the existing bridge. The replacement bridge will have a movable span. The navigational channel will be at least
175 feet wide centered along the existing navigational channeL The movable span shall provide a minimum 0[70 feet of verncal clearance above mean high water over the entire navigational
channel in the closed position and at least 135 feet in the • open position. A major challenge in this project will be to incorporate a durable and reliable movable span into the overall
structure in a manner which is structurally efficient, aesthetically pleasing, and logical and consistent with the approach spans. The replacement bridge will be designed to carry twelve
lanes of traffic in an express/local confignration, plus shoulders and a pedestrian/bikeway facility. The appearance and aesthetics of the replacement bridge and the visual impact on
the adjacent communities, as well as up-river and down-river are items of major concern. • The arrangement of the spans across the river, and, in particular, over land on the ends of
the bridge are extremely important. • This project also includes the design of a bridge/deck structure to span over 1-95/495 connecting the north and south ends of Rosalie Island in
Maryland. Maryland. This strucrure will facilitate use of Rosalie Island and Queen Anne's Park as a public recreational area and will serve as a gateway entrance to the State of Maryland.
lIS design must be both aesthetic and functional. The strucrure type and detailing must be closely coordinated with the design of the bridge replacement structure to provide a consistent
theme and visual appearance. 
Design Goals from Memorandum of Agreement The Memorandum ofAgreement further stipulated the following design goals related to the bridge: 1. The Bridge (Potomac River Crossing) shall
he a structure designed with high aesthetic values. deriving itsform in relation to the monumental core ofWashington. D.C., and shall he an asset to the Nation scapital and the surrounding
region. 2. The concepts for the Bridge shall he based on arches in the tradition ofnotable Potomac River bridges (e.g .• Key Bridge. Memorial Bridge). 3. The Bridge design shall employ
span lengths which minimize the number ofpiers occurring in the viewshed ofthe Alexandria Historic District and other historic properties. Every effort will be made to minimize the footprint
ofthe Project without adversely a/focting safety and operations. 4. The Bridge design shall also include pier placement which maintains the park use areas in Jones Point Park andRosalie
Island Park, preserves views southward along Royal, Fairfax, and Lee Streets,'and avoids avoids terrestrial and underwater archaeological areas to the maximum extent passihle. S. The
Bridge design should encourage the use oflands under the bridge in Jones Point Park. For example, the structure could MemOtfa/Bridge reflecting light into Ihe area under the bridge.
6. The Bridge design should preserve or enhance views along the Potomac River toward the National Capital and the Alexandria Historic District. 7. The design ofthe Bridge and other Pmject
elements sha/1 take into account the City of Alexandrias Design Guidelines ofthe Old andAlexandria Historic District and the Parker-Gray District (1993). The Bridge design shall also
respect the distinguishing historic characteristics ofthe Alexandria Historic District, as defined in the report prepared under Section I ofthis Memorandum ofAgreement. 8. The Bridge
design shall include features appropriate to its status as a memorial/a President Woodrow Wilson. 9. Allpracticable measures shall be token to minimize the construction period ofthe
Project. 10. The design ofthe Bridge and other Project elements shall take intc account the historic planfor the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway. the National ParkService General Management
Planfor the facility, the agreement between the National Park Service and the City ofAlexandriafor the management ofJones Point Park and resources therein by the City, the agreement
with the Daughters ofthe American Revolution for Ihe management ofJones approach this goal by introducing andlor Point Lighthouse, and e/focts on archaeological resources. • 
Purpose For seven concentrated weeks, starting in September 1998, the concepts were considered by four advisory .committees. It was critical that the advisory committees not rank the
entries, but instead focus on providing a list of advantages and disadvantages to the Selection Panel. Through a consensus-building process, the Advisory Committee members prepared concise
reports that were presented to the Selection Panel at the design competition retreat in November 1998. These efforts significantly streamlined the decision-making process of the Selection
Panel. The Citizen AdviSOry CommiHee The Citizen Advisory Committee members concentrated on the aesthetic design goals as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record
of Decision, the placement Citizen AdviSOry Committee Presentotion • of the design in the context of the capital region, and the relationship of the bridge to the scale of . the surrounding
community. Members included Mr. W. Kent Cooper, Architect; Ms. Karen Gourdine, Environmental' Engineer; Mr. Bob Grow, Planner; Mr. Ray Lewis, Architect/Planner; Mr. Mike Little, CEO,
Human Resources Firm; Mr. Lee Schoenecker, Planner; and Mr. Charles Trozzo, Economist. The following criteria were used to evaluate each entrant: Aesthetic Quality • Virginia Land Use
Impact • Maryland Land Use Impact • Visual Impact • Control Tower Placement • Navigation Channel View • Off-Bridge Aesthetic View • Pedestrian/Bicycle/User Perspective. The Historic
AdviSOry CommiHee The Historic Advisory Committee members 􀁾􀀮evaluated each entry for their impact on cultural and historic resources in the surrounding communities, including the Old
Town Alexandria Historic District. Their membership included Ms. Mary Ann Naber, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; Ms. Anne Bruder, Maryland 
Historical Trust; Mr. David Dutton, Vrrginia Jenkins, PE, URS Greiner Woodward Clyde; Mr. Department ofHistoric Resources; Mr. Jeff James M. Phillips, III, PE, URS Greiner Kneodler,
National Park Woodward Clyde; Mr. Service; Mr. Steve Stanley Gordon, PE, Calcott, DC State Independent Consultant; Historic Preservation and Mr. Michael J. Office; Mr. Robert Abrahams,
PE, Parsons Martin, Prince Geprge's Brinckerhoff, Quade & County Executive's Douglas. Specifically, Office; Ms. Marilynn their major evaluation Lewis, Marylandcriteria included: National
Capital Park • Structural Concepts and Planning • Reliability!Commission; and Mr. MaintainabilityPeter Smith, City of Historic Advisory Committee Presentation Alexandria Department ofPlanning
and Zoning. This committee focused on the following items in their evaluation ofthe entrants: • Aesthetic Value • Reflects the Arch Tradition • Minimizes Piers • Encourages Park Usage
• Preserves Streetscape Views " Preserves or Enhances Views ofAlexandria and the Capital • Serves as a Memorial to President Wilson. The Technical Advisory CommiHee The 􀁔􀁥􀁣􀁨􀁮􀁩􀁾􀁩􀀡􀁬􀀠Advisory
Conuniltee examined the technical merit and fuasibility of each entry and evaluated the entries for conformance to the design criteria and other technical elements established for the
project They were cbarged with reviewing the size ofmajor structurel elements, including foundations, aDd evaluating . the proposed movable span operation. They also evaluated the long
term inspectability and maintainability ofeach entry. The members included Mr. GlelUl Vaughan, PE, Maryland State H;ighway Administration; Mr. Fawaz Kandi Saraf, PE, Vrrginia Department
of Transportation; Mr. Claude Napier, PE, Federal Highway Administration; Mr. Thomas D. • Geometric Impacts The ConstructibllllyAdvisory . CommlHee The Construetibility Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed construction methods, procedures, and costs ofeach entry, including the proposed construction sequencing.
They also reviewed the cost estimates prepared by the entrants for completeness, accuracy, consistency, and conformance to established project budget. This group included Mr. William
H. Schwarz, Maryland State Highway Administration; Mr. William McDowall, PE, Virginia Department of Transportation; Mr. Joseph Policelli, Federal HighwayAdministration; Mr. Thomas O.
Lovett, PE, URS Greiner Woodward Clyde; Mr. John H. Macrae, PE, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas; Mr. J. Paul Silvestri, Jr., The National Construclilrs Group; and Mr. Bradford
R. Hollingsworth, Morrison Knudsen. The points used to rate each entry included: • Foundation Construction • Structure Erection • Details and Tolerances • DeCk Replacement • Bascule
Span • Schedule • Cost Construclibllli)l Advisory Committee Presentation • 
From lop lefl: Ms. Fern Pire!, PhD: Mr. Alan M. Hanlman. AlA; Ms. SellyHagerFrancis: Mr. Nelson J. Caslellanos; Mr. l. Donald Cooney. PE: Mr. Earle S. "Jock" Freedman. PE: Mr. Frank
D. SealS-PE: Mr. Malcolm T. Kerley. PE: Mr. John Parsons. FSAIA: Mr. Harry G. Robinson. III, FAIA. AICP: Mr. KerryJ. Donley.' The Honoroble HatryR. Hughes: Mr. Reginald W. Gliffilh:
Dr. David P. SiUinglon. PE Nol PIctured: Anlhony H. Griffin Purpose The competition culminated in November 1998 by convening ofan eminent selection panel. Chaired by former Maryland
Governor Harry R. Hughes, the IS-member panel included leading public officials; distinguished technical, aesthetic, and urban planning experts; and top bridge engineers from federal
and state transportation departments. The Members The members and their backgrounds include: The Honorable Harry R. Hugbes served as Governor ofth. State ofMaryland from 1979 to 1987.
Prior to being elected Governor, he served as a Maryland State Senator for 12 years. He also served as the Secretary ofthe Maryland Department ofTrnnsportation, the first in the State
of Maryland, and held this position for six years. Mr. Frank D. Sears, PE served as the Chief ofthe Review and Analysis Branch of the Bridge Division ofFHWAfrom 1969 to 1987. He has
also assisted in both the Woodrow Wilson Concept Competition and the Severn River Bridge Design Competition. • Mr. Malcolm T. Kerley, PE is the State Structure and Bridge Engineer for
the Virginia Department ofTransportation (VDOT). A registered Professional Engineer in Vuginia, Mr. Kerley has been associated with the Commonwealth's Structure and Bridge Program since
1971. Mr, Nelson J. Castellanos is currently serving as the Division Administrator for the FHWA Maryland Division in Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Earle S. "Jock" Freedman, PE is currently
serving as the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Office of Bridge Development for the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA). Mr. Freedmanjoined the SHAin 1950 and has been head of the
bridge department since 1977. Mr. Harry G. Robinson, III, FAIA,AICP is a presidentially appointed Commissioner and elected Vice Chairman ofthe U oited States Commission ofFine Arts,
which is the authority that approves fedeml desigu activities in the Nation's Capital. In addition, he is Vice President for University Administration at Howard University where he also
served as the Dean of 
Urban Design for the School ofArchitecture and Planning. Mr. Alan M. Hantman, AlA is the tenth Architect ofthe Capitol, appointed by President Clinton on January 6, 1997 and confirmed
by the Senate on January 30, 1997. As Architect ofthe Capitol. Mr. Hantman is responsible for maintenance of the Capitol and is charged with upkeep of the Congressional office buildings
and many other federal facilities in DC. Mr. Reginald W. Griffith is the Executive Director of the National Capital Planning Commission and has served in this role since 1979. As Executive
Director, Mr. Griffith manages the Commission's dayto·day operations. formulating and recommending policies and programs. and implementing those policies approved by the Commission.
Mr. John Parsons, FSALA has served as a Landscape Architect with the National Park Service for 30 years. As Associate Superintendent for Professional Services. he manages the planning,
development, land acquisition, legislation, congressional liaison, and cultural and natural resource programs for the 60,000 acre Park System in and . around Washington, DC. Dr. David
P. Billington, PE, Honorary Member, ASCE, is the Gordon Y. S. Wu Professor ofEngineering at Princeton University and has served on the Princeton faculty since 1960 where he teaches both
graduate and undergraduate courses in structural engineering and is well noted for his writing on bridge design including aesthetics. Anthony H. Griffin is the Deputy County Executive
for Fairfax County, Virginia. and has served in this position since August 1997. He was the Acting County Executive from October 1996 to AUgust 1997 and also served as Deputy County
Executive for Planning and Development for Fairfax County from September 1989 to October 1996. Chairman Hughes and Mayor Danley at elected official briefing Ms. Betty Hager Francis,
JD, was appointed Director ofthe Prince George's County Department of Public Works and Transportation in March 1995 by County Executive Wayne Curry. Ms. Francis has served as the Director
ofPublic Works in Washington, D.C. and as an Associate Commissioner ofthe Massachusetts Highway Department. Ms. Fern Piret, Ph.D. is currently Director of the Prince Gecrge's County
Planning Department, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. The Department's mission' includes Countywide and community planning, revitalization, development review
and research. Mr. Kerry J. Donley was elected Mayor of the City of Alexandria in February 1996. He also has served the City as Vice . Mayorfrom 1994 to 1996. Mr. Donley was elected to
the Alexandria City Council in 1988 after many years ofservice in community activities such as homelessness, substance abuse, and mental health. Mr. L. Donald Cooney, PE is a Stroctural
Engineer and Project Manager with the District of Columbia Department of Public Works (DCDPW). He has 32 years of experience, all with the Design and Engineering division of DCDPW. Charter
The Selection Panel's charter was to choose the winning design. This was accomplished through careful evaluation ofthe seven entries. weighing the advantages and disadvantages developed
and presented by the advisory committees, through the panel's own review of the submitted materials, and through mutual discussion and deliberation. A list of notable and attractive
features, as well as any negative features or attributes was developed to document the Panel's evaluation of each entry. The panel was also able to recommend refmements to the winning
design for consideration by the Sponsoring Agencies. • 
Why a Design Competition The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is a symbol of local, regional, national and even international pride. The bridge's function and appearance are important not only
tn the local community but also for the impression they impart on visitors from across the nation and around the world. To produce a fittingly world-class design, the sponsoring agencies
embarked on a Bridge Design Competition. Previous Experience (Severn River Bridge Design Competition) This was not the first time such a competition had been conducted. Because of the
historic and scenic quality of the Severn River site near the U.S. Naval Academy, the MaryJand State Highway Administration and the Governor's WInning Entry. Severn River Bridge Design
Compehtlon• Office on An and Culture cosponsored an international competition for the design of a new bridge to replace the existing, deteriorating Severn River Bridge. This competition
stressed technical, economic and aesthetic consideratioljs. The successful final design received numerous awards and encouraged the Woodrow Wilson Design Competition. Mission: A Landmark
Structure In cooperation with the other federal and state agencies, the Maryland State Highway Administration launched a novel Bridge Design Competition for the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge
to spur the creation ofa landmark bridge. The challenge to the engineering world: craft a bridge design that will be llsed and celebrated for generations to come. Design Competition
Activities The year-long Bridge Design Competition was especially notable for its breadth and depth of effort. To ensure that the design submittals were vetted from every key perspective,
a diverse range of reviews were brought into the process. The Competition kicked off in January 1998 with a can for Expressions of Interest from leading bridge design finns. Seven teams
responded. The field of competitors was then narrowed to four finalists, based on evaluations of qualifications. During the summer of 1998, the four finalist teams applied lop-flight
expertise
 and creativity in producing a total ofseven concepts. Impartial evaluation was ensured by identifying the design concepts only by designated code letters. The Design Competition activities
kicked off in November 1998 in Alexandria. The Design Competition activities were organized around the objective ofmaking the jury members as relaxed and comfortable as possible so that
they could concentrate their full efforts on the task at hand. The activities commenced on Sunday, November 15, 1998 with an informal Welcome Reception where the jury members could view
the exhibits ofthe seven entrants for the fIrst time, as well as meet each other. Day 1, Monday, November 16, 1998: The morning began with a Breakfast Orientation and welcome from the
Maryland Department of Transportation Project Manager, Robert Healy. The group was then taken on a two-hour bus tour ofthe project area, including many key Maryland and Virginia sites.
After lunch and an opportunity for additional review ofthe exhibits, Technical and Citizen Advisory Committees each presented fIndings of their studies. That evening, the group enjoyed
dinner at the Governor Harry Hughes presented the fIndings of the jury and answered questions from the audience. Following the briefIng, a press conference was held and the images of
the winning entry were unveiled to the public. Design Competition Chronology • January 1998: Competition kicks off with requests for proposals. Initially, seven engineering teams answer
the call. • April 1998: After a review ofqUalifIcations, four fInalists are selected, each permitted to submit up to two concepts. • August 1998: Finalist design teams submit a total
of seven design concepts. To ensure anonymity and impartial evaluation, the submittals are assigned code letters. • September to November 1998: Four advisory panels -Citizen, Historic,
Technical, and Constructibility -consider the positive and negative points of the submitted designs from their respective vantage points. • November 1998: A distinguished Selection Panel
with representatives from surrounding jurisdictions, bridge engineers, and design! aesthetic experts convene to consider the concepts and hear from the committees. • November 18, 1998:
The jury unanimously Seleclion panel on bus tour viewing rendenngs in selects Entrant B by historic Gadsby's Tavern comparison to the existing bridgein OldTown. Parsons Transportation
Day 2, Tuesday, November 17, 1998: The facilitators started off with a preview of the day's activities which began with the Constructibility and Historic Advisory Committees' presentations.
After lunch, the jury members began deliberations and voted to reduce the number offmalists to two, Entrants A and B. 1n the early afternoon, the group boarded the Cherry Blossom River
Boat for a view of the project from the river. During further deliberations, the committee voted unaniroously to select Entry B as the winning entry. Day 3, Wednesday, November 18, 1998:
With the fInal entry selected by the jury, an elected officials' briefmg was held to announce the the winner ofthe Design Competition. Former Group (formerly the joint venture team ofSteinman/DeLeuw)
of Baltiroore, Maryland. The design is publicly unveiled and embraced by the region. The committee observed a bridge opening during the bus tour • 
The Parsons Transportation Group's design is a graceful, seamless concept. The box-girder bridge is characterized by V-shaped piers that offer the look of arches but enable a more open
appearance with smaller foundations than would be conveyed by a true arched design. The draw span is particularly well conceived in that in the closed position it appears almost identical
to the non-moving spans. The machinery ofthe bascule is well concealed within the structure, creating an attractive, open appearance. The number and placement ofpiers played a key role
in the decision. Thc chosen design features long spans requiring only 18 piers, as contrasted with the 57 piers that support the existing bridge. Further, as the bridge takes off to
its apex just off the Virginia shore, it passes through Jones Point Park in Alexandria; the design's light, airy quality in this sensitive area was also judged very desirable. Since
its unveiling, the design has received positive reviews. Jury member Harry Robinson of the Commission on Fine Arts pbetically noted that a V-shaped pier appeared like Neptune's hand
reaching from the water to support the deck ofthe bridge. A citizen at an open house commented that the graceful, swooping lines of the repeated "faux arches" had the appearance of several
seagulls taking flight from the river. • VIew from Torpedo Factory. Alexandria. Virginia 
Jurors' Comments "Piers appear to spring from the water, like Neptune's hand holding the bridge." "The tower location for Entrant B is too far from the movable span and intrudes into
Jones Point Park" "Steel represents a 'maritime' metaphor." "Visual span is long while the structural span is shorter." "Thin superstructure appearance." "Number ofpiers reduced from
57 to 18." "Minimum risk to schedule and cost." "It would be better to have a more pure V support and to expose the top horizontal ties." "Best opportunity to be completed on time and
within budget." "Structure is multiple transverse layers." "Structure is frnely detailed which provides visual interestn "Efficient movable span operations.". "Structure represents a
relatively new, novel idea: a contemporary intetpretation ofthe arch concept." "Respects tradition ofMemorial and I<ey bridges but in a new, contemponuy way for a longl 􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁷􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁲viaduct"
lOOking south af mainspan from upriver VieW from soccer fields, Alexandria Virginia • 
This enlIy was very highly thought ofby the jmy and was considered by many to be a close second. EntrantA's three-hioged arches echoed the elegance and simplicity of upriver Memorial
and Key bridges and complemented Washington, DC's monumental core. A high priority was transparency through the strucnrre, both between and through the piers, providing excellent views
10 Washington and to both Virginia and Maryland shores, A sense ofopenness was also achieved by long spans afforded by a' total ofonly 16 piers, the second fewest number of piers in
the competition. A prominent walkwayfbikepath located between the twin spans rose up from the roadway to join the deckovers on the Maryland and Virginia sides. However, the graceful
flow ofrepeating arches was interrupted al the draw span by rather substantial bascule lowers. While possibly 'affording unsurpassed views both north and south oflhe bridges, the elevated
walkway was deemed highly undesirable by the advisory committees and the jury. Contrary to the desire for Ihe narrowest'bridge poSSible, Entrant A added 44 feet 10 the selected allernative
by further separating the eastbound and westbound bridges. Jurors' Comments "This entrant represents a new arch fonn for the United States; it was pioneered by MaiUart in Switzerland,"
• "Entrant A .., provided an elevated walkway ten feet above the roadway level, located within a 60-foot opening between the bridges, supported on a truss system, which does not appear
10 be a desirable situation for pedestrians and cyclists." "Entrant Ns movable span is a sound design with tower well placed and well designed."-"The tower localion breaks up the arch
design," "The elevated trusswork of Entrant A's pedestrian way seems out of character as it raises high above the bridge on the Maryland side." "Entrant A has few piers in the water
and few piers in Jones Point park." "Entrant A is strong, both as a monument and aesthetically." 
Entrant C's graceful cadence of recurring arches offered a sense of flow and motion that was interrupted only partially at the hascule span. A, distinctive aspect ofEntrant C was its
slender supporting arches that curved outward from narrower supporting thrust blocks to the wider deck above, creating a smaller Htouchdownu impact at the f01mdations. However, Entrant
C's high number ofpiers controverted its sense of openness, both for viewsheds of the river tinough the bridge and as it ascended tinough Jones Point Park in Alexandria. With 26 piers,
Entrant C possessed a high number ofpiers relative to the other submissions, though fewer than half the current bridge's 57 piers. In addition, given poor soil conditions in the river,
the higher number of piers, and the thrust from their arch fonn likely would have presented additional foundation challenges and more environmental impact. Jurors' Comments "The outward
slope of the arches visually accentuates the arch fonn of Entrant C." "The control tower desigo of of Entrant C mimics the Jones Point Lighthouse giving a false sense ofplace." "Entrant
C's movable span is partially integrated into the arch form." "False structure; arches are not needed structurally... • 
With regard to arches, Entrant D, took the opposite approach to Entrant C, opting to flare out the arches at the hase rather than at the deck. This treatment emphasized the underlying
arch shape by making the substructure very prominent relative to the superstructure. The unusual bascule span was smoothly integrated with the adjacent spens, creating a clean and graceful
appearance. Compared with the other designs, Entrant D had a high number of piers -22, which detracted from its open appearance. Clearly the most ornately embellished design, Entrant
D was considered overly adorned by some jury members. Entrant D expanded the width of the project by 54 feet above the selected alternative, the most of any submission. The entrant also
proposed shifting the alignment slightly down river. The overall length of the movable span in the open position -850 feet -seemed somewhat excessive to the jury • Jurors' Comments "The
bascule span was smoothly integrated with the adjacent spans, creating a clean and graceful appearance." "Entrant D's arches slope inward as they rise, attractively catching light on
their exterior faces;" "The extensive decoration seems to be ... extraneous with Entrant D 's design." "The unusual movable span design, partially integrated into the arch form, will
be difficult to build." "The overall length of the movable span in the open position of Entrant D appears to be somewhat excessive, ., • 
Viewed through the prism of the design goals, the approach of Entrant Q was somewhat controversial in its conventionality. The functional, economical fonn -box girders supported b1 hammerhead
piers -is a widely used, successful technique. While a measure of the aesthetic appeal ofarches is suggested through slightly hauncbed box girders, Entrant Q was at its essence a more
traditional, vertically oriented strucnue. By eliminating the width ofarches, the hammerhead piers offered minimal visual obstruction, creating an uncluttered appearance under the deck.
Wide pier placement was achieved by only 18 piers. Entrant Q suggested moving the alignment 20 feet further to the south, potentially causing additional environmental impacts. 􀀬􀁾􀀠.
Juror's Comments "This conventional design is the most straightforward for design and construction. but its aesthetic merit is not consistent with the requirements for this project."
"It is an example of an efficient and economical design with only a minor sense ofelegance." •
 Entrant T focused more closely than the other designs in echoing the classic lines ofthe Memorial Bridge, widely regarded as the Washington's most attractive river crossing. Entrant
Twas also notable for its extremely long span length, offering very long open space underneath the strueture. With only ten piers, Entrant T had the fewest number ofpiers in the competition.
Relative to the other designs, Entrant T's piers were also the most substantial in dimension. EntrantT's walkwaylhikepath prominently ascended from highway level to join the deckover
at the Virginia and Maryland shores. Entrant T also suggested moving the alignment to the north, closer to Old Town Alexandria and SI. Mary's Cemetery. A distinctive feature was the
location of the bascule span and lift machinery in the middle ofan 880-footlong span. However, while the piers were few in number -10 -they were massive in dimension, which detracted
from the open quality afforded by the long spans. In addition, the large pier mass as.it passed through Jones Point Park 􀁡􀁰􀁰􀁥􀁡􀁲􀁾􀀠to several jurors and advisery committee members
to be out ofscale and character with the surrounding area. Inaddition, Entrant T featured the same unconventional bikepath! walkway as EntrantA, which was similarly panned by jurors.
While sweepingly graceful, the bascule span was also unconventional in that it • would be located in the middle of a would-be world-record span of 880 feet, a reature that gave pause
to a number ofevaluators. Jurors' Comments "...Has great visual appeal over water when seen from a distance." "Such long spans have appeared in a few bridges but always on relatively
high column supports where they give a striking and sometimes elegant appearance." "The bascule design is novel and has a visual appeal but would be very difficult to design and build."
"Entrant T makes a powerful statement: it needs to be bold because Washington, DC is not like any other city." u ...Is a monument, not a bridge." "...Its massive appearance through the
park is highly und
esimble." With soaring towers supporting a cablestayed movable span, Entrant X broke most ambitiously from the specified design goals. The rc:maining spans, supported by slender V-shaped
piers, conveyed a crisp, contemporary look. An aspeet of the arch appearance was offered by the combination of the V -shaped piers and the slightly haunched girders. Modemity was further
emphasized by the stainless steel cladding of the girders. Entrant X had the second fewest number of piers, 15, and their Jight and open form provided an airy, attractive flavor to the
structure. Similar to Entrant B, the delta piers offer certain structUral benefits relative to true arches. The V -supports are light and simple; the horizontal tie at the top of the
V is clearly expressed. The hascule is highly unusual, consisting ofa cable-stayed drawbridge where the cables are reeled in to Jift the bridge leaves. This bascule form clearly identifies
the channel and reflects a sailing motif, but it also creates serious challenges in design, design, construction, and operation. Jurors' Comments "The channel span of Entrant X is in
sharp contrast to the arch concept." "This V-form has great merit and, with a different bascule, could make a spectacular impression." "Liked its clean lines." "Clearly identified the
navigation channeL" "Transparent and elegant with a nice substructure." "There is no attempt to mimic an arch fOrm." • 
selection panel Ilndlngs Satisfaction of Minimum Requirements Upon review ofeaeh ofthe entries, the selection panel determined that each entry met the minimum requirements ofthe design
competition. Although certain entries were obviously more risk seeking, each was judged to have met the challenge and all entrants submitted an entry on time. Subsequently, each finn
was awarded the $100,000 stipend that was identified for the competition. Additional Design Criteria Through coordination efforts with various interested public agencies, the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority expressed an interest in the bridge to not preelude heavy rail transit in addition to light rail. The Authority indicated that ongoing studies in
the corridor have not yet narrowed alternatives to a specific type ofrail transit and it would be prudent to leave various options open. As a result, the Authority's heavy rail provisions
were added to the design eriteria ofthe bridge. Suggested Refinements During deliberations, the seleetion panel discussed a few refinements that they believed would further enhance the
appearance and operation ofthe bridge. An Ad-Hoc Panel was established to work with the sponsoring agencies, GEC and Parsons Transportation Group in the evaluation ofvarious refinements.
The first such refinement involved the location of the operator's house. The selection panel believed that the location, appearance and function ofthe operator's house could be improved
from what was submitted in the Entry B. Parsons Tfll1lsportation Group undertook a detailed studito explore various locations, configurations and appearances. Through work, with the
Sponsoring Agencies, GEC and the Ad: Hoc Panel, a location between the inner and outer loop bridges at the tip ofthe VA bascule pier was eventually selected as the most desired location.
Advantages to this location included: Better view of activities on the bridge deck and vessels in the channel Less obtrusive strueture since the tower only extends from the top of the
pier upward rather than the full height ofthe bridge An operator would be closer to the machinery in the event ofa malfunction. • Proposed locations of operator's house and important
viewsheds 
The function of the operator's house was further refined to include only those functions associated with operating and maintaining the bridge. The concept of using the operator's house
as an element ofJones Point Park was viewed as inconsistent with the uses in the park. The appearance of the operator's house will be refmed further to reflect input from various stakeholders.
Another major refinement for the bridge focused on the type of traffic barriers and pedestrian railing to be used on the bridge. Subsequent to the competition, the Federal Highway Administration
recommended that the traffic barriers be designed for Test Level 5 (11..5) rather than a Test Level 4 (TL-4), citing safety reasons. This then limited the number of options associated
with the traffic barriers. A combination of "Texas lIT" and ''P-shape'' barriers were selected as options that best meet both safety and aesthetic desires. The pedestrian barrier was
modified to reflect a vertical post, presenting a more classic look to the bridge. bridge. The individual horizontal railings were also replaced with vertical pickets for appearance
and safety reasons. Pedestrian Barrier Another recommendation of the selection panel was to consider eight leaves in the bascule span rather than the four included in Entrant B. This
revised arrangement gives a two-fold benefit ofrequiring smaller, more conventional machinery that is more easily maintained, and the ability to keep more lanes open to traffic in the
event ofone leaf malfunctioning. As a result of seeking input from various stakeholders, it was suggested to explore eliminating the hammerhead piers near the Virginia abutment and replacing
them with a Vpier. Various studies resulted in replacing these last two piers with one pier that was partially depressed below ground. This revision creates a more consistent image to
the entire bridge. Vpiers now rise out of the ground as you experience the bridge walking from the VA abutment to river's edge. Other recommendations included lowering the prome at Rosalie
Island without adversely affecting the appearance ofthe V -piers to minimize impacts to the island. Through this study, the height of the bridge was lowered by about two feet at the
MD abutment. In addition. the panel recommeuded eliminating the fiberglass grating from the underside of the bridge. This not only eliminates a potential maintenance headache but also
creates a more natural effect with the girders. Next Steps Parsons Transportation Group will be working closely with the sponsoring agencies. GEC, Selection Panel Ad-Hoc Committee and
other interested groups in further refining certain elements of the bridge duringdesign. The current schedule anticipates construction of the bridge in the fan of2000, traffic to be transferred to onehalf ofthe bridge in 2004 and the entire bridge to be completed
in 2006, 
1.-11-01 Questions for staff: v1. 2. v3. V4. 􀁦􀁦􀁾􀀠Directions to Consultants: 1. Announce day and time of presentations 2. No more than 3 designs 3. Grading will be based on the following
criteria a. Aesthetics -day and night, should include lighting design/plan b. Landscaping c. Acoustics (how will noise affect adjacent buildings) d. Vibrations (how will motion affect
adjacent buildings) , e. Estimated.cost of design.t 􀁾􀁾􀀠f. Functionality (parking, pedestrian and bike users, safety, ADA etc.) 􀁾􀀠g. How does the bridge miRillli•• obstruction to
adjacent buildings from roadway ..let;P 2. tie· t?sh1c;, 􀁾􀀠"" 4. Lottery drawing for presentation times 5. Bridge tech .. 􀁯􀀺􀀮􀁾􀀡􀀱􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀡􀀮􀀩􀁾􀀺􀀻􀀭s.;ti;􀁾􀁴􀁎􀁦􀁳􀀠...􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠
.... , .... "-'''c; '\". How and when will consultants be paid their $10k Establish a meeting date for competition Approval of selection committee Ron will make opening comments etc
etc 􀁾􀀠......•.•......'...􀁾􀀮􀀠
􀁴􀀦􀁆􀁾􀀺􀁊􀀠'1-5 .f1t7 . 􀁾􀁦t ),/6t' 􀀣􀀡􀁾􀀮􀁫􀁾􀁺􀀮􀀬􀀠 2, wJ;:t;. 􀁾􀀴􀀠
Jim Pierce From: Jerry Holder [JHolder@HNTB.com) Sent: Monday, February 11,200212:57 PM To: 􀁾􀁰􀁩􀁥􀁲􀁣􀁥􀁀􀁣􀁩􀀮addison.Ix.us' Cc: Mike Preston; Ben Biller; Doug Mann Subject: RE:
Bridge Competition Jim, we're flexible to the Town's preferences and will be happy to adapt to your decision. In answer to your question, we would like to submit more than one. Our preference
would be three. If we go to more than one design, we would need more time. For three designs, we could do it in sixty days. Thanks, Jerry Holder -----Original Message----From: jpierce@ci.addison.tx.l
l5 [mailto:jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 10:56 AM To: adg@freese.com; jholder@hntb.comi david johnston@urscorp.com Cc: cterry@ci.addison.tx.us; mmurphy@ci.addIson,tx.us
Subject: Bridge Competition Gentlemen: We would like to have your ideas on the following: Would your team like to submit one bridge design, or more than one? If more than one, how many?
Would 45 days be sufficient time for submittals? If not, how much time would you need? Your answers are needed by 1 PM Monday for staff consideration. Thanks, Jim Pierce, P.E. Assistant
Public Works Director PO Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 972-450-2879 This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received
this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. 1 
Jim Pierce From: ClifCHall@urscorp.com Sent: Monday, February 11,200212:20 PM To: jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us Cc: cterry@ci.addison.tx.us; mmurphy@ci.addison.tx.us; David_Johnsfon@URSCorp.com
Subject: RE: Arapaho Road Bridge Jim, The URS team would prefer to submit one bridge design and 45 days would be a sufficient amount of time We presume that the meeting on Thursday will
better define items such as the selection criteria, presentation format, limits of the project, and construction cost criteria, We look forward to seeing you on 􀁔􀁨􀁵􀁲􀁳􀁤􀁡􀁹􀁾􀀠Cliff
R. Hall, PE Project Manager URS Corporation 5151 Beltline Road, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75240 Tel: 972-980-4961 Fax: 972-991-7665 ---Forwarded by David Johnston/Dallas/URSCorp on 02/08/02
11:09 AM jpierce@ci.add ison.tx.us To: adg@freese.com, jholder@hntb.com, david_johnston@urscorp.com 02/08/02 10:56 cc: cterry@ci.addison.tx.us, AM mmurphy@ci.addison.tx.us Subject: Bridge
Competition Gentlemen: We would like to have your ideas on the following: or more than one? If more Would your team like to submit than one, how many? one bridge design, If not, Would
45 days be sufficient time for submittals? how much time would you need? Your answers are needed by 1 PM Monday for staff consideration. Thanks, 1 
Jim Pierce From: Michael Murphy Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 2:32 PM To: Steve Chutchian Cc: Luke Jalbert; Jim Pierce; Sue Ellen Fairley; Chris Terry Subject: FW: BRIDGE SELECTION
COMMITTEE -DRAFT Steve, Below is the list of People who will set on the Bridge design competition committee. (ifpossible I wouldlike to have the precompetion meeting next week) I want
you and Luke to set up the meetings as we discussed. We need to check schedules and confirm everyone's availability approximately 60 days from the precompetion meeting. Since Luke is
out of Town use Sue Ellen to Assist Also, once you have verified schedules we can set up a pre completion meeting. I want all of the meetings to be first class and have them at either
the stone cottage or the town hall council chambers. preferably the Stone Cottage .... Lets make it happen. See me With any questions Mike Mi.c.haeL l;. MI<'1'h!j, P.l;. J)'t'eotot'
of Publlo Wor><:s Tow"-of Addlso.... \:lr::1)450-::1l?j'lS' -----Onginal Message----From: Chris Teny Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 10:06 AM To: Michael Murphy Subject: BRIDGE SELECTION
COMMITTEE -DRAFT Mike, Here is the compOSition of the committee as Ron and the Mayor discussed it. This is not absolutely final, but close. I Will keep you posted as this is still in
flux. Committee Members: Mayor Wheeler ....-Councilmember Diane Mallory ..... Ron Whitehead .r' Art Lomoneck, developer /' Bill Crepeau, property owner along bridge ROW -Charter Fum.
I spoke with Bill Crepeau and he said he is 99% sure he will be the new owner. Mike Murphy .,/Chris Terry tI' 1 
TOWN OF ADDIsoN PUBLIC WORKS To: 6;H e.e+re.11i. From: Jim Pierce, P.E. Asst. Public Wks. Dir. Company: f-e..tve \Lt. k ' Phone: 972/450-2879 FAX: 972/450-2837 FAX#: 􀀱􀁾􀀸􀀱􀀷􀀭&33
-1,507 j pierce@ci.addison.tx.us Date: :J -S -0')... 16801 Westgrove P.O.Box 9010 # of pages (including cover):--,-I_ Addison, TX 75001-9010 Re: AY'tlra..ho tet Br'wl,fL o Original in
mail pi Per your request 0 FYI o CaUme Comments: 5 Y1t{ 1/sf-s 'Rt:t YY1 :5 ; 
---!I!\!!!---...., PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (972) 45G-2871 16801 W,,'grove ® PoalOffice Bt»: 9010 Addison, TexHs 75001M 9010 23 January 2002 Freese-Nichols 1701 N. Market Street #500,
LB 51 Dallas, TX 75202 ATTENTION Mr. Alan D. Greer, P. E. SUBJECT Arapaho Road Bridge Finalist Dear Mr. Greer: Congratulations! This is to advise you that Freese-Nichols, along with
URS Corporation and HNTB Architects, has been selected as a Finalist for the design competition for the Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road. We will be in contact with you in the near
future to schedule a pre-competition meeting to discuss the next steps. Please call me at 972-450-2879, if you have any questions. Sincerely, es C. Pierce, Jr., P.E. 􀀭􀀴􀁌􀀭􀁾􀀠ssistant
Director of Public Works JP:sef cc: Chris Terry Mike Murphy 
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (972) 450-2871 Post OfJi<e Box 9010 Addison, Texas 75001·9010 16801 Westgrove 23 January 2002 HNTB Architects, Engineers and Planners 5910 W. Plano Parkway, #200
Plano, TX 75093 ATTENTION Mr. Jerry Holder SUBJECT Arapaho Road Bridge Finalist Dear Mr. Holder: Congratulations! This is to advise you that HNTB, along with Freese-Nichols and URS Corporation,
has been selected as a Finalist for the design competition for the Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road. We will be in contact with you in the near future to schedule a pre-competition
meeting to discuss the next steps. Please call me at 972-450-2879, ifyou have any questions. Sincerely, 􀁾􀁐􀀭􀀱􀁾􀁾 􀁕􀀺􀀺􀁩􀀺􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁴Director ofPublic Works JP:sef cc: Chris Terry
Mike Murphy 
(972) 45{).2871PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 16801 Weetgr.ovePostOf!i•• Box9010 Addison. Tex.. 75001-9010 􀁾#{JJ'f:t 23 January 2002 $ 􀁾-'􀁲􀀻􀀺􀀻􀀻􀁜􀁴􀁾􀀠\P.'P URS Corporation 5151 Belt
Line Road, #700 (\1\}" "'Dallas, TX 75254 ATTENTION Mr. David Johnston SUBJECT Arapallo Road Bridge Finalist Dear Mr_ Johnston: Congratulations! This is to advise you that URS Corporation,
along with Freese-NicholJ and HNTB, has been selected as a Finalist for the design competition for the Arapallo 􀁾􀁯􀁡􀁤􀀠Bridge at Midway Road. We will be in contact with you in the
near future to schedule a 􀁰􀁲􀁥􀀭􀁣􀁯􀁾􀁰􀁥􀁴􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠meeting to discuss the next steps. I Please call me at 972-450-2879, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ....."lHleltsl-1c&?r
ssistant Director ofPublic Works , JP:sef cc: Chris Terry Mike Murphy 
􀁾 r-hrw-t--ti.frct 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁲􀀲􀀢􀁌􀀭IF04-b Pf4J Cc. 
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (972) 450-2871 Post Office Box 9010 Addison. Texas 􀀷􀁓􀀰􀀰􀀱􀁾􀀹􀀰􀀱􀀰􀀠 1680] Westgrove 23 January 2002 Mr. Robin H. McCaffrey MESA Design Group 3100 McKinnon
St., #905 Dallas, TX 75201 SUBJECT Arapaho Road Bridge at Midway Road Dear Mr. McCaffrey: The Town of Addison received twelve responses for our Request for Statements of Qualifications
for the subject project. The selection committee has chosen the following firms to enter the design competition: URS Corporation HNTB Architects, Engineers & Planners Freese·Nichols,
Inc. While your firm was not selected, we thank you for your response to the request for qualifications. We appreciate the time and effort you took to respond and hope that you will
continue to seek work with the Town of Addison in the future. Sincerely, 􀀽􀁾􀁣􀀻􀂣􀁾􀁣􀁰􀂷Assistant Director of Public Works JP:sef cc: Chris Terry Mike Murphy 
1123/02 -LIST OF CONDOLENCE LETTERS FOR ARAPAHO BRIDGE PROJECT: Mr. 1. Richard Perkins, P.E. Teague, Nail & Perkins 2001 W. Irving Blvd. Irving, TX 75061 Mr. David T. Retzsch Carter
& Burgess, Inc. 7950 Elmbrook Drive Dallas, TX 75247-4951 Mr. 1. Frank Polrna R-Delta Engineers, Inc. 618 Main Street Garland, TX 75040 Mr. Michael 1. Moran HDR Engineering, Inc. 1711
Preston Road, #200 Dallas, TX 75248-1229 Mr. Abraham Abugattas Brown & Root Services 1444 Oak Lawn Ave., #100 Dallas, TX 75207 Mr. J. W. Petrelli, Jr. Petrelli Associates, Inc, 2225
E. Randol Mill Rd., #400 Arlington, TX 76011 Mr. Robin H. McCaffrey MESA Design Group 3100 McKinnon St., #905 Dallas, TX 75201 Mr. Paris Rutherford, IV RTKL Associates, Inc. 1717 Pacific
Avenue Dallas, TX 75201-4688 Mr. Jim Manskey TBG Partners 5710 LBJ Freeway, #370 Dallas, TX 75240 
JdI4 V 􀁾􀀴&rI; 􀁃􀁶􀁤􀁾􀀠+􀁾􀀮􀀭􀀾/tP 􀁢􀁴􀀭􀁾􀀯􀀠lfoJe T,v-!p) RTKL; J11E.5/f-/rk--frell..i /T..E6.
-.-6" CENTER RECESS ---FORM LINER ----6" CENTER RECESS FORM LINER rIrI NORTH/SOUTH ELEVA TlON @PIEREAST/WEST ELEVA TlON @PIER o 1ft. o 1 ft. ARAPAHO BRIDGE CORGAN22 MAY 2003 
-::,-.,.:::.---,......;::....:--___-􀁾􀀭___-_:-:_:-::__􀁾􀁌􀀭􀁣􀀢􀀧􀀭􀀺􀁟􀀠---COLUMN CAP ABOVE -----. ------------FORM LINER 6" CENTER RECESS FORM LINER 7'-0" DIAMETER _ _ _ _ _. _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i " PLAN SECTION @PIER I I o 1 ft. ARAPAHO BRIDGE 22 MAY 2003 CORGAN 
3 H X1" TUBE STEEL END POST 3 H DIAMETER STEEL PIPE GUARDRAIL •• •• • •• • • • • • • •• • • • •• I • • I I'• • • • • ..• • • • • "• • • • .,• t • >I• I • 1/_&_ • .1--1 SECTION ••• ••
•• •• 1/2" BAR STEEL RAILS @6" O.C. WIDTH I I 0 1 ft. y," TRIANGULAR 1n X2" CENTER POST STEEL PLATE ELEVATION @PEDESTRIAN ELEVA TlON @TRAFFIC RAIL STEEL RAILSI iRAIL @6" O.C.SECTION
o 1 ft. Yon 􀁔􀁒􀁉􀁁􀁎􀁾􀀮􀀠􀁾􀀠STEEL PLATE 1"X2" TUBE STEEL FORM-___ 1 }'2 11 1'-2Y." 7)6" 7" •o " (') SECTlON@PEDESTRIAN I I 0 1 ft. RAIL 3" DIA. STEEL PIPE \ GUARDRAIL 􀁾􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀭........
1"X2 " TUBE STEEL CENTER POST 1"X2/f TUBE STEEL 3"X1 H -......,.. TUBE STEEL END POST LINER•«), 1/2" BAR (') SECTlON@􀁾􀀺􀀠,TRAFFIC 􀁾􀀠.:RAIL ARAPAHO BRIDGE URS22 MAY 2003 CaRGAN 
METAL PEDESTRIAN RAIL REVEALS IN RETAINING WALL IN SAME PROPORTION AS RAILING. RETAINING WALL SET IN SLiGHTL Y FROM EDGE OF ROADWA Y I I o 1 ft. 􀁾􀁒􀁅􀁃􀁅􀁓􀁓􀁅􀁄AREA & RAILINGS 􀁾􀀠TERMINA
TE TOGETHER I iii I o 4 ft. PRELIMINARY RETAINING WALL STUDIES -NORTH ELEVA TION -FLA T RECESSED OPTION ARAPAHO BRIDGE CORGAN22 MAY 2003 
AS ROADWA Y AND GRADE GET CLOSER CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAIL METAL PEDESTRIAN RAIL FORMLINER IMPRINTED ON RETAINING WALL :.,..---BRIDGE STRUCTURE I I o 1 ft. --.--FORMLINER PATTERN STEPS
DOWN Ii' , I o 4 ft. PRELIMINARY RETAINING WALL STUDIES -NORTH ELEVA TlON -STEPPED OPTION ARAPAHO BRIDGE 22 MAY 2003 -CORGAN