i ./
fiiiiiiiiinii117440 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 204 DAlLAS, TEXAS 75287 972'248·3006 FAX 972·248·3855 IinGlnii=llnG October 12, 2000 Mr, Ttm C. Pierce, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Town of
Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road Alignment! Access Study Review Dear Mr. Pierce: Per your request, Lee Engineering has performed a review of the
Alignment Study Report for Proposed Arapaho Road Extension prepared by HNTB. The recommended configuration ofArapaho Road from the HNTB report includes an overpass over Midway Road with
no connection provided for traffic to interchange between Arapaho Road and Midway Road. The primary purpose of this review was to identifY connection alternatives and determine ifa connection
between Arapaho Road and Midway Road would be practical and would allow the Arapaho extension to be more fully utilized. Based on our review, a connection would increase the utilization
ofthe Arapaho extension. The connection would also impact local properties and could negatively impact traffic operations along Midway Road in the area. STUDY APPROACH In reviewing the
Alignment Study and the recommended configuration for Arapaho Road the following key steps were taken: I. Reviewed study reports, 2. Reviewed background data, 3. Collected additional
data as needed, 4. Identified and assigned potential diverted trips, 5. Analyzed operations with connections, 6, Eliminated connection alternatives that would negatively impact traffic
operations, 7. Estimated total diversions of acceptable movements, and 8. Evaluated alternative connection configurations, 
This approach was somewhat iterative as total diversions were first estimated and then individual movements were eliminated as connection alternatives were determined to be impractical.
PREVIOUS REPORTS As a part of the previous study conducted for this interchange, traffic projections for the Arapaho Road extension were made based on travel demand model runs completed
by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). These projections indicate that without any connection between Arapaho Road and Midway Road the Arapaho extension is expected
to carry 13,000 vehicles per day. With the various connection alternatives considered the NCTCOG projection ranged from 6,000 to 28,000 vehicles per day. It was assumed in conducting
the analysis that the projected volume of 13,000 vehicles per day on the Arapaho extension developed by NCTCOG with no connection to Midway Road is reliable. The underlying data provided
by NCICOGfor the various connection alternative was reviewed. We determined that a better estimate offuture traffic volumes on the Arapaho Road extension with some form of connection
in place could be made by reviewing existing count data at area intersections. This review would focus on turning movement volumes that would potentially use the connections provided.
DATA COLLECTION A data collection plan was devised in an effort to better estimate the number oftrips that would be diverted to the Arapaho extension. The area roadway network and area
intersections were reviewed to determine the paths from which traffic could be expected to utilize a connection at Midway to divert to the new Arapaho extension. Peak period turning
movement counts were collected at the intersections of Beltline at Midway and Beltline at Marsh. These counts and the area roadway network are presented in Figures IA, IB, and 1 C. This
sampling of area intersections served as a basis for estimating diverted traffic volumes. POTENTIAL DIVERTED TRIPS Estimates were made ofthe percentages of existing turning movements
from adjacent intersections that could be diverted to the new Arapaho Road extension if all possible movements were accommodated in the connection. These percentages, summarized in Table
1, were reviewed with Town stafffor concurrence. The percentages were then applied to the existing volumes to generate estimates oftrips that could potentially be diverted ifa connection
were provided at Arapaho Road and Midway Road. These estimates and the resulting total intersection volumes for the potential interchange ofArapaho Road and Midway Road are shown on
the schematic drawing ofthe interchange in Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C. 
lJ.I <i u (j) o I-I-o Z u o o Ct:r---'-r-----. c '" 􀁾􀀠/----. m '" aUDl 􀁾􀁓􀁊􀁄􀁖􀀧􀁉􀀠Beltline at Midway and Intersection Volumes (AM Marsh Peak Hour) Figure lA 
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠w <f. u r.n o l-Io Z -0 o o 0:: 􀁦􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁾􀀠<l> c 􀁾􀀠1---...., , <l> m <: I pootJ ADMPIV'j LlS)oV'jeUDl Figure
IB Beltline at Midway and Marsh Intersection Volumes (Noon Peak Hour) 
-0 o o il: f-----... '"s :;::; 1--. '" LO <lUOl LjSJOV1 w -' « u Vl o l-Io Z " " Figure BeItlIne at Midway and Marsh Intersection Volumes (PM Peak Hour) 
NOT TO SCALE tI') '"lO'L tI') W' 66 (A) J +I.r 23 (F) t '" 0 N '<t to W Ara aha In Road 0 <Xl g􀁾􀀠""' + l. (F) 60 j t i (8) 53. 0 '" co " '" xx -Estimated Volumes (Al -Level of Service
Figure 2A Arapaho/Midway Intersection with Ramps (AM Peak Hour) 
NOT TO SCALE I":;; ;-;; L 66 CAl J 1r 26 CFl Ara aha Rood (Fl 64--' t i CAl 68-., :g v 0 a xx -Estimated Volumes Ii CAl -Level af Service , Figure 28 Arapaho/Midway Intersection ' _____with
Ramps (Noon Peak HOu_r_)__ 􀁾􀀠
.. 􀀭􀀭􀁾.....---... ---------NOT TO SCALE co " "., L 77 (8)<D 􀁾􀀠J +:.21 (F) ! 0 0 '!l'" § Aro aho Rood"0 o co N 0-* 􀁾􀀠L,. (F) 55.--i' t r (A) 38-., "., '" !Q " '" xx -Estimated
Volumes (Al -Levelof Service Figure 2C Arapaho/Midway Intersection with Ramps (PM Peak Hour) 
Table 1• Turulng M ovementn"Iverslons Existing Movement Movement Diverted To Percentage Diverted Southbound Right tum at MidwayIBeltiine Southbound Right tum at Midway/Arapaho 40 , Southbound
Left tum at MidwayIBeltiine Southbound Left tum at Midway/Arapaho : 40 Eastbound Left tum at MidwayIBeltiine and Northbound Right tum at MarshfBeltiine Eastbound Left tum at Midway/Arapaho
25 Northbound Left tum at MidwayIBe\tline Northbound Left tum at Midway/Arapaho : 40 Northbound Right tum at MidwayIBeltline Northbound Right tum at Midway! Arapaho 40 Westbound Left
tum at MidwayIBe1tline Westbound Left tum at Midway! Arapaho 10 Eastbound Right tum at MidwayIBeltline and Southbound Left tum at MarshfBe\tline Eastbound Right tum at Midway/Arapaho
25 Westbound Right tum at MidwayIBeltiine Westbound Right tum at Midway/Arapaho 25 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Two primary alternative configurations were tested. One alternative included
an at-grade intersection between Arapaho Road and Midway Road. The other alternative included a grade separation and ramps extending from Arapaho Road to intersect with Midway Road.
At-grade intersection The first alternative tested was an at-grade intersection connection between Arapaho Road and Midway Road. This intersection was assumed to be signalized and coordinated
with the existing signal at Be\tline Road at Midway Road. Analyses were conducted for existing conditions, conditions with the currently proposed grade separation, and for an at-grade
intersection between Arapaho and Midway. The results ofthese analyses are summarized in Table 2. 
Table 2. At-2rade Intersection o'peratlOns IntersectionIPeak Hour Existing Conditions With Grade Separation With At-grade Connection Beltline at Midway Level of Service (Total Vehicle
Delay) AM D (66 veh-hrs) D (55 veh-hrs) C (42 veh-hrs) Noon D (60 veh-hrs) D (55 veh-hrs) D (47 veh-hrs) PM E (120 veh-hrs) D (70 veh-hrs) D (67 veh-hrs) Arapaho at Midway AM N/A N/A
C (32 veh-hrs) Noon N/A N/A C (30 veh-hrs) PM N/A N/A C (45 veh-hrs) After reviewing these analyses it was determined that while the intersections would operate at acceptable levels
of service, providing an at-grade intersection with a traffic signal at this location would have a significant impact on total system delay and travel times on Midway Road and on the
Arapaho Road extension. As can be seen, delays at the BeltlinelMidway intersection will be reduced under either alternative. This is due to the reduction in through traffic on Beltline
Road. As can also be seen, the total system delay would increase significantly with the addition of the signalized intersection of Arapaho at Midway. Total system delays obtained by
adding the total delays at each intersection would increase from 55 vehicle-hours per hour to 74 vehicle-hours per hour in the AM peak, from 55 to 77 in the noon peak, and from 70 to
112 in the PM peak A review of delays to individual movements showed that during the time periods analyzed, the atgrade connection with a signal would have minimal impacts on travel
times for southbound Midway; however, northbound Midway travel times would be increased by as much as 21 seconds per vehicle. Further review revealed that travel times on eastbound Arapaho
for vehicles traveling from Marsh Lane to Addison Road during the hours analyzed would increase from approximately 130 seconds to between 146 and 162 seconds. This represents an increase
of between 19 and 24 percent. Westbound travel times would increase by between 22 and 38 seconds. Asummary ofthe measures ofeffectiveness calculated in this analysis is presented in
a table attached to this letter. These measures of effectiveness include total stops, fuel consumption, and vehicle emissions. As can be seen, all ofthese measures for the grade separation
alternative are significantly better than the at-grade intersection alternative. 
Another complication that would effect a signalized intersection of Arapaho and Midway is the proximity ofthe rail road tracks. Any time a train crosses Midway, the signal at Arapaho
would be preempted and coordination along Midway between Arapaho and BeltIine would be interrupted. Grade Separation with Signalized Ramp Connections The grade separated alternative
was first tested with the ramp intersections with Midway controlled by traffic signals. Projected traffic volumes at these intersections shown in figures 2A, 2B, and 2C were used in
this analysis. Signal timing plans were developed for the two intersections to provide coordinated operations with the existing signal at Beltline at Midway. The results ofthese analyses
are summarized in Table 3. Again these results were compared to existing conditions and conditions with a grade separation and no connections to Midway. As can be seen, operations at
each of the intersection will be at acceptable levels of service. The additional total system delay (the sum of the total delay at each intersection) introduced by the addition ofthe
signalized ramp connections is 16, 13, and 24 vehicle hours in the AM, Noon and PM peak hours respectively. The signal control will significantly delay the ramp movements. To maintain
some level ofprogression on Midway, the phase time for the ramp connections was limited to 20 seconds out ofthe 120 second cycle. This will adequately serve the ramp volumes, but will
also require some ramp traffic to stop and wait up to 100 seconds for a green indication. T bl 3 S· r d Ramp onnectlOn IperatlOnsa e • ')gna lZe c o IntersectionlPeak Hour Existing Conditions
With Grade Separation With Signalized Ramp Connections Beltline at Midway Level of Service (Total Vehicle Delay) AM D (66 veh-hrs) D (55 veh-hrs) C (43 veh-hrs) Noon D (60 veh-hrs) D
(55 veh-hrs) C (46 veh-hrs) PM E (120 veh-hrs) D (70 veh-hrs) D (66 veh-hrs) Eastbound Arapaho at Midway AM N/A N/A B (11 veh-hrs) Noon N/A N/A B (9 veh-hrs) PM N/A N/A B (10 veh-hrs)
Westbound Arapaho at Midway AM N/A N/A C (17 veh-hrs) Noon N/A N/A C (13 veh-hrs) PM N/A N/A C (18 veh-hrs) 
Queue lengths were also reviewed under the signalized ramp connection scenario. Tbis review revealed that the southbound queue in the AM peak hour was found to be the most criticaL Southhound
queues in the AM peak hour average over 450 feet in length with peak queue lengths of over 500 feet. The eastbound ramps will intersect Midway approximately 650 feet north of Beltline
Road. While the queue does not exceed the storage available, this level of queuing from the Beltline intersection may interfere with operations at the ramp connections. Continuing traffic
volume growth in the future may also result in longer queues. A summary of the measures of effectiveness calculated in this analysis is also presented in a table attached to this letter.
Again, these measures of effectiveness include total stops, fuel consumption, and vehicle emissions. These measures for the grade separation alternative without connections are better
than the signalized connection alternative. Another complication that would effect the signalized connections between Arapaho and Midway is the proximity of the rail road tracks. Any
time a train crosses Midway, the signals at the Arapaho connections would be preempted and coordination would be interrupted. Grade Separation with Unsignalized Ramp Connections The
other grade separation alternative tested utilized unsignalized ramp connections to Midway. Capacity analyses were conducted for each intersection using the Highway Capacity Software.
The results ofthese analyses are presented in Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C and are summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Capacity Analvsis Results Level of Service Intersection Movement AM Peak
Noon Peak PM peak Westbound Right A A B Midway at Westbound Left F F FWestbound Ramps ! Northbound Left E D D i Eastbound Right B A A Midway at !Eastbound Left F F FEastbound Ramps Southbound
Left B C F ! As can be seen, several movements would operate at unacceptable levels of service (E or F). In an effort to ensure efficient traffic operations on Midway, those movements
that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service were assumed to be prohibited. Intersection volumes were then adjusted to reflect the prohibition of these movements.
The intersections were analyzed with the adjusted volumes to ensure that all movements would operate at acceptable levels ofservice. These analyses confirmed that the movements that
would be allowed would operate at levels ofservice D of better. 
TOTAL DIVERSIONS After determining which movements could and could not be accommodated at an interchange of Arapaho Road and Midway Road, total daily diverted traffic volumes were estimated.
This was accomplished by averaging the peak hour diverted volumes and assuming that this average peak hour represented an industry average oflO percent ofthe daily volume on the roadway.
With the signalized alternatives, either at-grade or with the grade separation, all movements were assumed to be allowed, and the total potential additional traffic on the Arapaho Road
extension west ofMidway Road would be 2,500 vehicles per day and 3,160 vehicles per day east ofMidway Road. These numbers represent increases of 19 and 24 percent over the projected
traffic volumes on Arapaho Road without an interchange. With an unsignalized connection several movements would be prohibited and the results of these calculations showed total potential
additional traffic on the Arapaho Road extension west ofMidway Road would be 1,130 vehicles per day and 1,870 vehicles per day east of Midway Road. These numbers represent increases
of nine and 14 percent over the projected traffic volumes on Arapaho Road without an interchange. IMPACT OF CONNECTIONS The ramps required to complete the connections between the Arapaho
Extension and Midway Road will have a significant impact on adjacent properties. Based on our preliminary review, these ramps would require the taking of the Charter Furniture building
in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. The ramps would also take more parking area from the property on the southeast comer and eliminate the potential for providing parking
for the property under the overpass structure. Preliminary schematic plans for these ramps have been prepared by HNTB. Due to the impact ofthese ramps, alternative connections were explored.
One potential connection would utilize an open piece of property west ofMidway to provide a connection between Centurion and the Arapaho extension. Upon further examination, it was discovered
that this connection would only provide for eastbound and westbound to southbound and southbound to eastbound and westbound connections efficiently. This alternate connection would result
in only 1,130 diverted vehicles per day west ofMidway and 1,290 vehicles per day east ofMidway. It was also discovered that Arapaho Road would still be on a retaining wall structure
at this location, thus making this connection more difficult to provide. 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A connection could be made between the Arapaho Road extension and Midway Road and would result in an increased utilization of Arapaho Road ofbetween 15
and 25 percent. This represents a diversion off ofBeltiine Road ofbetween 4 and 6 percent. The following general observations are also made: • An at-grade connection would significantly
impact traffic operations on Midway and on Arapaho, • Signalized connections with the grade separation would allow full utilization of the interchange, but would increase system wide
delays and would significantly delay ramp traffic, • With the grade separation, unsignaJized connections would have the least impact on traffic along Midway, but would also not allow
as much traffic to utilize the interchange as compared to the signalized alternatives, Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (972) 248-3006, We appreciate the opportunity to
provide these services, 
AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF 'rHE CITY COUNCIL November 13, 2000 6:30 P.M. ADDISON CONFERENCE CENTRE (STONE COTTAGE) 15650 ADDISON ROAD REGULAR SESSION Item #R1 -Consideration of a Resolution
reaffirming the approval of the technically preferred alignment for the Arapaho Road Extension. Attachments: 1. Memo from Mike Murphy, Director of Public Works 2. Arapaho Road AlignmenUAccess
Study Review, Jody Short, Lee Engineering 3. HTNB report Administrative Recommendation: City Council Agenda 11-13-00 
Administration recommends approval. City Council Agenda 11-13-00 
WORK SESSION Item #WS1 -Discussion of the Addison Road widening project. Item #WS2 -Discussion of the Building Code to be considered for adoption at the November 14, 2000, Regular Meeting
of the Addison City Council. Item #WS3 -Discussion regarding the completion of the residential structure at 14832 Winnwood Road. Item #WS4 -Discussion of the Fire Code to be considered
for adoption at the November 14,2000, Regular Meeting of the Addison City Council. Item #WS5 -Discussion of valet parking, delivery vehicle parking, and the valet ordinance to be considered
for adoption at the November 14, 2000, Regular Meeting of the Addison City Council. Item #WS6 -Discussion of an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Article XXI, Landscaping
Regulations, as to the replacement of existing trees and pruning guidelines, said amendment to be considered for adoption at the November 14, 2000, Regular Meeting of the Addison City
Council. Item #WS7 -Discussion of Town financial pOlicies. Item #WS8 -Discussion of the electronic agenda. Item #WS9 -Discussion of E-Government. City Council Agenda 11-13-00 
.' PUBIJC WORKS DEPARTMENT POSI Offi... Box 9010 Addison, T....·75001-9010 16801 We:stgrove . MEMORANDUM To: Chris T eny /Asst. City Manager From: Michael E. Murphy, PE I Director of
Public Works Re: Engineering Design for Arapaho Road Extension from Addison Road to Surveyor Blvd. Date: November 8, 2000 The over all design and construction of the extension of Arapaho
from Dallas North Tollway to Marsh Lane is planned to be performed in 3 phases. Construction of Phase I of this project from the Tollway to Addison Road has recently been completed.
HNTB Engineering was contracted by the Town of Addison to layout and design Phases . II and III of the Arapaho Road Extension. The preliminary design for Phase II and IIi . has been
completed and final design for Phase II is currently underway. . .. . Phase III, the extension of Arapaho Road 􀁦􀁲􀁯􀁾􀀠Addison Road to Surveyor Boulevard' includes a section that is
designed to ''fly over" Midway Road by way of a grade-. separated overpass with no on/off ramps or signalized intersection. Because of the location and lack of access to Midway Road
from the proposed overpass, Town of Addison staff was instructed to contract an outside engineering firm to perform an independent traffic engineering study of the ililpact and usage
that would result by . modifying the original design to include on/off ramps and a Signalized intersection at Midway and Arapaho. e Town of Addison contrected the servicesof Lee Engineering
to perform the referenCed traffic engineering study with the 􀁦􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁯􀁷􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠conclusions: )-Ramps increase diversion of Belt UneRoad traffic to Arapaho Road by 4 -6 percent. )-An
at grade connection would significantly impact traffic operations on Midway/Belt Une and on Midway/Arapaho. 
, . );;> Signalized connections with the grade separation would allow full utilization of the interchange, but would increase system wide delays and would significantly delay ramp traffic.
);;> With the grade separation, unsignalized connections would have the least impact on traffic along Midway, but would also not allow as much traffic to utilize the interchange as compared
to the signalized altematives. );;> Increased adverse affects to adjacent properties as a result of construction of the onfoff ramps. HNTB was asked to prepare a plan view of the intersection,
with ramps, to show the impact on adjacent properties, and to prepare an estimate of the increase in construction costs due to the ramps. As a result of onfoff ramp construction it is
estimated that project costs would increase by $5 million to $8 million due to ramp construction and additional property acquisition. Therefore, after reviewing the traffic engineering
study prepared by Lee Engineering and increased costs, including the impact to the affected properties, it is staff's recommendation to stay with the Original HNTB plan of a bridge over
Midway Road with no connection to Midway Road. 
􀁦􀁾􀀮􀀠17440 OA1.l.AS P_A'f SUJTE204 OA1.l.AS. TEXAS 75287 972·248.3006 FAX 972·248'3855 October 12, 2000 Mr. Inn C. Pierce, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Town ofAddison 16801 Westgrove
Drive Addison, Texas 75001·9010 Re: Arapaho Road Alignment! Access Study Review Dear Mr. Pierce: Per your request, Lee Engineering has performed a review of the Alignment Study Report
for Proposed Arapaho Road Extension prepared by HNTB. The fllCommended configuration ofArapaho Road from the HNTB report includes an overpass over Midway Road with no connection provided
fOf traffic to interchange between Arapaho Road and Midway Road. The primary purpose ofthis review was to identifY connection alternatives and detertnine ifa connection between Arapaho
Road .and Midway Road would be practical and wouid allow the Arap;lho extension to be more fully utilized.' . Based on our review, a connection would increaSe the utilization ofthe Arapaho
extension. The connection would also impa.ct 10caJ propertieS and could negatively impact tqdIicoperations along MIdway Road in the area. .,' . . . -. -'. .... t· STUDY APPROACH In reviewing
the Alignment Study and the recommended configuration for Arapaho Road the following key steps were taken:' . 1. Reviewed study reports, 2, Reviewed background data, .: . 3. Collected
additional data as needed, 4. Identified and. assigned pot,ential diverted trips, 5. Analyzed operations wit.h connections, '. _ 6. Eliminated connection aliernatives that would negatively
impact traffic operations, .. 7. . Estimated total diversions ofacceptable movements, and '. 8. -Evaluated alternative corulectibn configurations, . . , ." .""i !• _ ".",' __._.____
• ______._. __________.'.'M•• 
-',. 􀁾􀀠. " c This approach was somewhat iterative as total diversions were first estimated and then individual movements were eliminated as connection alternatives were determined
to be impractical. PREVIOUS REPORTS As a part ofthe 􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁶􀁩􀁯􀁾􀁳􀀠􀁳􀁾􀁤􀁹conducted for this interchange, traffic projections for the Arapaho Road extension were madebased on travel
demand model runs completed by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). These projections indicate that without any connection betweep Arapaho Road and Midway Road the
Arapaho extension is expected to carry 13,000 vehicles per day. With the various connection alternatives considered the NCTCOG projection ranged from 6,000 to 28,000 vehicles per day.
It was assumed in conducting the analysis that the projected volume of 13,000 vehicles per day on the Arapaho extension developed by NCTCOGwith no connection to Midway Road is reliable.
The underlying data provided by NCTCOG for the various connection alternative was reviewed. We determined that a better estimate offuture traffic volumes on the Arapaho Road extension
with some form of connection in place could be made by reviewing existing count data at area intersections. .. This review wQuld focus on turning movement volumes that would potentially
use the connections provided. .. DATA COLLECTION A data collection plan was devised in an effort to better estimate the number oftrips that would be diverted to the Arapaho !;lXtension.
The area roadway network and area intersections were reviewed to determine the paths from which traffic could be expected to utilize a connection at Midway to divert to the new Arapaho
extension. Peak period turning movement counts. were collected at the intersections of Beltline at Midway and Beltline at Marsh. These counts and the area roadway network are presented
in figures IA, lB, and IC. This sampling ofarea intersections served as a basis for estimating diverted traffic volumes. ' . . f . . '.POTENTIAL DIVERTED TRIPS Estimates were made ofthe
percentages percentages ofexisting turning movements from adjacent intersections that could be diverted· to the riew Arapaho Road eXtension':if all possible movements were accommodated
in the connection. These percentages, summarized in Table 1, were reviewed with Town stafffor concurrence. . The percentages were then applicid to the existing volumes to generate estimates
oftrips that could potentially be diverted ifa connection were provided at Arapaho Road and Midway Road. These estimates and the resulting total intersection volumes for the potential
interchange ofArapaho Road and Midway Road are shoW]] on the schematic draWing ofthe interChange in Figures 2A, lB, and 2C. . 1 , . ' .., 
( AOMJlOl 1.!l.J0N SOliDO w <i. () UJ a f-fa z . 􀁾􀀮􀀠, 􀀮􀁾􀀠Figure lA 8e'ltline at Midway and Marsh Intersection Volumes. (AM Peak Hour> 
w -' « 0 III -IS1!I 0 f-f0 Z auo1 .l!SJOIi'j .,, . ·' Figure 18 Beltline at Midway and Marsh Intersection Volumes (Noon .Peak Hour) 
w 􀁾􀀠U til o l-Io Z , ' , I ' -0 o o OCj---""-r-_---..., .!;; "" 􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾0; ID · ' ' Figur e Ie· Beltline at Midway and Marsh Intersection Volumes (PM Peak Hour) 
NOT TO SCALE '" '" :g L 66 (AlJ 􀁾..23 (Fl Arc aho Rood .' ; (Fl 60J t r (BJ 53,... t<) l􀁾􀁾􀀠". .. XX -Estimated· Volumes' CAl -Level6f Service; 'Figure 2A Arapaho/Midway Intersection
with Ramps (AM Peak Hour) 
NOT TO SCALE r", 􀁾􀀠L 66 (AlJ "1 r 26 (Fl t <{) n <{) 0'1 0'1 '9 + L... . ". Arc ·aho Rood· < ", ," : " .• XX: -Estimoted Volumes ;, tAl "1 Levelof Service Figure 28 Arapaho/Midway
Intersection with Ramps (Noon Peak H9ur) 
•• ...'--------........􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭NOT TO SCALE ..... ::J 􀁾􀀠L 77 (8) ..J 1r 2HF) Ara aha Road .. ; , '. 􀁾􀀠;, , .XX Estimated Volumes CAl'-Levelof Service Figure
2C 􀁁􀁾􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁨􀁯􀀯􀁍􀁩􀁤􀁷􀁯􀁹􀀠Intersection with Romps (PM ;Peok Hour> . . 
.. Table 1. Tuminl!: Movement Diversions Existing Movement Movement Diverted To Percentage Diverted Southbound Right turn at MidwaylBeltline Southbound Right tum at Midway!Arapaho 40
I Southbound Left turn at MidwaylBeltline Southbound Left turn at Midway!Arapaho 40 Eastbound Left turn at MidwaylBeltline and Northbound Right turn at •MarshlBelt1ine Eastbound Left
turn at • Midway! Arap8.hoI . 25 Northbound Left turn at MidwaylBeltline Northbound Left turn at Midway!Arapaho 40 Northbound Right turn at MidwaylBelt1ine Northbound Right turn at Midway!Arapaho
40 Westbound Left turn at MidwaylBeltline Westbound Left turn at Midway!Arapaho 10 Eastbound Right turn at . MidwaylBeltline and Southbound Left tum at MarshlBeltline Eastbound Right
tum at Midway! Arapaho. , 25 Westbound Right turn at . MidwavlBeltline Westbound Right t)Jrn at Midwav!Araoaho ; • ;25:.: " 􀁾􀀺􀀻:; . i . i . 􀁾􀀠,INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Two prirriary
alternative configurations were tested. One alternativeincluded an at-grade intersection. betwe(jn Arapaho Road and Midway Road. The o$er alternative included a grade separation and ramps extending from Arapaho Road to intersect with Midway Road. At-grade intersection ...
{.; The first alternative tested was an at-grade intersection connection between Arapaho Road and Midway Road. This intersection was assumed to.be signalized and coordinated ;..nth the
existing signli! at Beltline Road atMidway Road. Analyseswere conducted for existing conditions, conditions with:the currently proposed grade separation, and for an at-grade intersection
between Arapaho and Midway.; The results ofthese analyses are summanted in Table 2. :.. . . : .. .:' 
,.. Table 2. At-I!rade Intersection ODerations Beltline at Midway .-:I AM Noon PM IArapaho at Midway j' AM I Noon ! PM IntersectionlPeak Hour With At-gradeExisting WithGTade Conditions·
ConnectionSeparation Level of Service (Total Vehicle Delay) D (66 􀁾􀁥􀁨􀁾􀁨􀁲􀁳􀀩􀀠D (60 veh-hrs) E (120 veh-hrs) N/A N/A N/A C (42 veh-hrs)D (55 veh-hrs) D (47veh-hrs) D (55 veh-hrs)
D (67 veh-hrs) D (70 veh-hrs) C (32 veh-hrs) N/A C (30 veh-hrs) N/A C (45 veh-hrs)N/A After reviewing these analyses it was detennined that while the intersections would operate at acceptable
levels of service, providing an at-grade intersection with a traffic signal at this location would have a significant impact on total system delay and travel times on Midway Road and
on the Arapaho Road extension. As can be seen, delays at the Beltline!.M:idway intersection will be reduced under either alternative. This is due to the reduction in through traffic
on Beltline Road. As can ;Uso be seen, the total system delay would increase significantly with: the addition of the signalized intersection of Arapaho at Midway. Total system delays
obtamed by adding the total delays at each intersection would increase from 55 vehicle-hours per hour to 74 vehicle-hOurs per hour in the 'AM peak, from 55 to 77 in the 􀁾􀁯􀁯􀁮􀀠peak,
and from 70 to 112 in "\he PM peak i , . . • • • 􀁾􀀻􀀠¥ -,} A 􀁲􀁥􀁶􀁩􀁾􀀠of delays to individual mbVeh1ents showed that during the time periods analyzed, 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀀠atgrade connection
with a sipwould have minimal impacts ontravel times for southbound Midway; however, northbound Midway travel times would be increased by as much as 21 seconds per vehicle. Further review
revealed thai travel times on eastbound Arapaho for vehicles traveling from Marsh Lane to Addison Road during the hours analyzed would increase fron) approximately 130 seconds to between
146 and 162 seconds. This represents an increase ofbetween i9 and 24 percent. Westbound .travel times would 􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁲􀁾􀁳􀁥􀀠by between 22 and 38 seconds. ; A summary ofthe measures ofeffectivenesscal
culated in this analysis is presented in a table attached to this letter. These measures of 􀁥􀁦􀁦􀁾􀁶􀁥􀁮􀁥􀁳􀁳􀀠itidude total stops, fuel consumption, and vehicle emissions. As can
be seen, all oftheseimeasures for the grade seplltatio/l alternative are significantly better than the at-grade intersection alternative. . '. ' ; 
•• Another complication that would effect a signalized intersection of Arapaho and Midway is the proximity ofthe rail road tracks. Any time a train crosses Midway, the signal at Arapaho
would be preempted and coordination along Midway between Arapaho and Beltline would be interrupted. Grade Separation with SignalizedRamp Connections . . . The grade separated alternative
was first tested with the ranip intersections with Midway controlled by traffic signals. Projected traffic volumes at these intersections shown in figures 2A, 2B, and 2C were used in
this analysis. Signal timing plans were developed for the two intersections to provide coordinated operations with the existing signal at Beltline at Midway. The results ofthese analyses
are summarized in Table 3. Again these results were compared to existing conditions and conditions with a grade separation and no connections to Midway. As can be seen, operations at
each ofthe intersection will be at acceptable levels of service. The additional total system delay (the sum of the total delay at each intersection) introduced by the addition ofthe
signalized ramp connections is 16, 13, and 24 vehicle hours in the AM, Noon and PM peak hours respectively. The signal control will significantly delay the ramp movements. To maintain
some level ofprogression on Midway, the phase time for the ramp connections was limited to 20 seconds out ofthe 120 second cycle. This will adequately serve the ramp volumes, but will
also require some ramp traffic to stop and wait up to 100 seconds for a green indication. Tahie3. Signabzed Ramp ConnectlOn oJperations I IntersectionlPeak Hour Existing With Signa1izedWith
Grade i • Conditions . Separation Ramp Connections · Beltline at Midway . Level of Service (Total Vehicle Delay) . :; D(66 vehchrs): AM D (55 veh-hrs) I C (43 veh-hrsY . C (46 veh-hrs)Ip
(60 􀁶􀁥􀁨􀁾􀁨􀁲􀁳􀀩􀀠'.. . N:oon D (55 veh-hrs) ,":; $ PM . D (70 veh-hrs) D (66 veh-hrs)E (120 veli-hrs) Eastbound Arapaho at Midway B (11 veh-hrs)N/A NlA'AM Noon . N/A B (9 veh-hrs)
. I·.N/A ··PM B (10 veh-hrs) . Westbound Arapaho at Midway AM N/A· N/A" . N/A ,C (17 veh-hrs)' N/A . "Noon N/A C (13 veh-hrs);. N/A • It PM C (I8 veh-hrs) N/A N/A 
􀀮􀁾􀀧􀀠." . Queue lengths were also reviewed under the signalized ramp connection scenario. This review revealed that the southbound queue in the AM peak hour was found to be the most
critical. Southbound queues in the AM peak hour average over 450 feet in length with peak queue lengths of over 500 feet. The eastboundramps will intersect Midway approximately 650 feet
north of Beltline Road. While the queue does not exceed the storage available, 􀁴􀁨􀁩􀁾􀁬􀁥􀁹􀁥􀁬􀀠ofqueuing from the Beltlineintersection may interfere with operations at the ramp connections..
Continuing trafficvolume growth in the future may also result in longer queues. ., .' A summary ofthe measures of effectiveness calculated in this analysis is also presented in a table
attached to this letter. ,Again, these measures ofetrectiveness include total stops, fuel consumption, and vehicle emissions. These measures for the grade separation alternative without
connections are better than the signalized connection alternative. Another complication that would effect the signalized connections between Arapaho and Midway is the proximity ofthe
rail road tracks. Any time a train crosses Midway, the signals at the Arapaho connections would be preempted and coordination would be interrupted. Grade Separation with Unsignalized
Ramp Connections The other grade separation alternative tested utilized unsigna!ized ramp connections to Midway. Capacity analyses were conducted for each intersection using the Highway
Capacity Software. The results ofthese analyses are presented in Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C and are summarized in Table 4. Table 4. Capacity Analysis Results Intersection \: .. Movement
AM Peak Level of Service Noon Peak PM peak : :1Vndwayat i W􀁤􀁾􀁴􀁢􀁯􀁾􀁮􀁤􀀠Rani:ps . . : Westbound Right Westbound Left Northbound Left A F E A:· F D B F D . i . Eastbound Right B
A. A : Midway at , Eastbound Ramps . ., , • Eastbound Left .Southbound Left F B F C F F As can be seen, several movements would operate at unacceptable le\telspfservice (E or F). In
an .effOrt effOrt to ensure efficient traffic operation's on Midway, those movements that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service were assumed to be prohibited. 􀁉􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁥􀁣􀁴�
�􀁯􀁮􀀠volumes Were then adjusted􀀢􀁴􀁯􀀬􀀻􀁲􀁥􀁦􀁬􀁾􀁣􀁴􀀠the prohibition of these movements. The intersections were analyzed with the' adjust¢<! volumes to enSure that all movements
would operate at acceptable levels ofservice, These analyses CQnfinned that the movements that would be allowed would.operate atievels ofservice D 􀁾􀀢􀀧􀁟􀀠·i· ofbetter. '; . , j' 􀁾..

· ".. J', . TOTAL DIVERSIONS After determining which movements could and could not be accommodated at an interchange of Arapaho Road and Midway Road, total daily diverted traffic volumes
were estimated. This was accomplished by averaging the peak hour diverted volumes,andassuining that this average peak.hour represented an industry average of 10 percent ofthe daily volume
on the roadway. , With the signalized alternatives, either at-grade or with the grade separation, all movements were assumed to be allowed, and the total potential additional traffic
on the Arapaho Road extension west ofMidway Road would be 2,500 vehicles per day and 3,160 vehicles per day east ofMidway Road. These numbers represent increaseS of 19 and 24 percent
over the projected traffic volumes on Arapaho Road without an interchange. ' With an unsignalized connection several movements would be prohibited and the results ofthese calculations
showed total potential additional traffic on the Arapaho Road extension west ofMidway Road would be 1,130 vehicles per day and 1,870 vehicles per day east ofMidway Road. These, numbers
represent increases ofnine and 14 percent over the projected traffic volumes on Arapaho Road without ,an interchange. IMPACT OF CONNECTIONS The ramps required to complete the connections
between the Arapaho Extension and Midway Road will have a significant impact on adjacent properties. Based on our preliminary review, these ramps would require the taking of the Charter
Furniture building in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. The ramps would also take more parking area from the propertY on the southeast comer and eliminate the potential for
providing parking for the property under the overpass structure. : : Preliminary schematic plans for these. ramps have been prepared by HNTB. ',' f.' ,: Due tq the unpact oftliese ramps,
altbmative connections were explored. OnrPotential co,nnection 􀀧􀀬􀁾􀀺􀀠. wbuld,utilize an open piece ofproperty west ofMidway to provide a connection between Centuijon , • and the
Arapaho extension. Upon further examination, it was discovered that this connection would only provide for eastbound and westbound to southbound and southbound to eastbound and westbound
connections efficiently. This alternate connection would result in only 1,130 diverted vehicles perday west ofMidway and 1,290 vehicles per day east ofM1dway. It was also discovered
that Arapaho Road would still be on a retaining wall structure at this location, thus making this 􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁮􀁾􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠more difficult to provide. ' " , c, 
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A connection could be made between the Arapaho Road extension and Midway Road and would J 􀁲􀁾􀁳􀁵􀁬􀁴􀀠􀁾an 􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁳􀁾􀀠utilization ofArapaho Road
ofbetween 15 and 25 percent. This represents a -+ diverSIon off ofBelt1ine Road ofbetween 4.and 6percent. . ,: ..' . . . 􀁾􀀠. -,' ", The following general observations are also 􀁾􀁤􀁥􀀺􀀠.
• .An at-grade connection would significantly impact traffic operations on Midway and on Arapaho. • Signalized connections with the grade separation would allow full utilization of the
interchange, but would increase systemwide delays and would significantly delay ramp traffic. • With the grade separation, lffiSignalized connections would have the least impact on traffic
along Midway, but would also not allow as much traffic to utilize the interchange as Compared to the signalized alternatives. Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (972) 248-3006.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Sincerely, 􀁾􀀠.//<}􀁊􀁯􀁫􀁾T. Short; P.E, Office: Manager '" " 
MEMO October 16, 2000 To: Jim Pierce, Assistant Director of Public Works From: Steve Chutchian, Assistant City Engineer Re: Arapaho Road Property Appraissls A "Sales Comparison" Approach
was utilized for determining fair market value of two "full" property acquisitions that are located adjacent to the proposed Arapaho Road extension improvements. Data was obtained from
an equivalent appraisal ofan office/flex/warehouse property on Surveyor Blvd., performed in April, 2000. A land to building ratio for this property was 2.73. The following is a generation
of land to building ratio for the Charter Furniture and MBNA tracts, respectively: Charter Furniture MBNA Scaled Land Size (s.f.) 149,000 110,260 Scaled Building Size (s.f.) 54,380 40,837
Land to Building Ratio 2.74 2.70 The adjusted acquisition price for the Surveyor Blvd. Site was $60.00 per square fOot. The Charter Furniture and MBNA tracts have ratios that are very
similar to the Surveyor Blvd. site. Therefore, a unit price of$60.00 per square foot was used to determine each estimated market value: Charter Furniture: 54,380 s.f. @$60.00/s.f. =
$3,262,800 MBNA: 40,837 s.f. @$60.00/s.f. = $2,450,220 Steve Chutchian Assistant City Engineer 
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀽􀁾􀂭----::::::::-] --􀁲􀁾􀀢􀀭􀀭􀁾􀂭.•.. .... ..• ........ ... ... .. . .-􀁾􀁲􀀭􀁾􀀭􀁤􀀽􀂭-' . . · -Ii . II 11 
MEMO October 16, 2000 To: Jim Pierce, Assistant Director ofPublic Works From: Steve Chutchian, Assistant City Engineer Re: Arapaho Road Property Appraisals A "Sales Comparison" Approach
was utilized for detennining fair market value oftwo "full" property acquisitions that are located adjacent to the proposed Arapaho Road extension improvements. Data was obtained from
an equivalent appraisal of an office/flex/warehouse property on Surveyor Blvd., perfonned in April, 2000. A land to building ratio for this property was 2.73. The following is a generation
of land to building ratio for the Charter Furniture and MBNA tracts, respectively: Charter Furniture MBNA Scaled Land Size (s.f.) 149,000 110,260 Scaled Building Size (s.f.) 54,380 40,837
Land to Building Ratio 2.74 2.70 The adjusted acquisition price for the Surveyor Blvd. Site was $60.00 per square foot. The Charter Furniture and MBNA tracts have ratios that are very
similar to the Surveyor Blvd. site. Therefore, a unit price of$60.00 per square foot was used to detennine each estimated market value: Charter Furniture: 54,380 s.f. @$60.00/s.f. =
$3,262,800 MBNA: 40,837 s.f. @$60.00/s.f. = $2,450,220 Steve Chutchian Assistant City Engineer 
r4INDa(fmI : I􀁾.. i =JARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS October 9, 2000 􀁬􀀧􀀨􀀡􀁲􀁫􀁬􀁮􀁱􀁾􀀠Slli/1! (dfi Duff(/;', '1,'X{;S 7S.:.I11-13M! ('nJ) 66;-<;6)6 ":4X (97:!) (,(,j·56/-1 C.L Town
of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Attn: Mr. James C. Pierce, Jr., P.E., DEE ARAPAHO ROAD EXTENSION Cost Estimate for Arapaho Ramps at Midway Dear
Mr. Pierce: Per our meeting on Wednesday, October 4, 2000, you asked HNTB to prepare a cost estimate for the Arapaho ramps at Midway. Attached is a sketch of the ramps and a cost estimate
spreadsheet. The estimated construction cost for the ramps is $1,369,744. Should you have any questions or need any further information, please call our office. Very truly yours, HNTB
CORPORATION Daniel F. Becker Enclosures DBF/AMS/tlf flit, !I.V1'}1 COIII/l(lllies onlLL' \1.1':,\\',1",1\ \',\ ,I,UL',"L\ (:.' .\1'-.'1:>; '.'); uxro:, 􀁊􀀱􀀰􀁾􀀰􀁦􀀮􀀠C\, ::l,)!'.lUi\._
,,\.\ 􀁕􀁉􀁁􀁬􀀡􀁾􀀡􀀢􀁔􀁃􀁜􀀭􀁟􀀠􀁾􀁃􀀬􀀠,-;r,\Rtf.jTn;.;, n', 01:(>\(.0, It <LeLL.');D, Oll C,C,JLDD1', 011. Il\U 􀀬􀁜􀁾􀀮􀀠:\: 'li \\be cu. ,)1.1 hOi I. :>!L 􀁅􀁌􀁨􀀡􀀺􀀧􀁾􀀮􀀠\\\,
LUH'Jre,_:>1. n \1;(J!\.fH IX l!AIITI'O\!ll CL lin!,,!'\);. 1'\ l;<fJIAXWD(.h 1.'1, m\'lXl:.," \ 􀁩􀁫􀁜􀀢􀀧􀀻􀀧􀁜􀁾􀀠UiY 􀁾􀀡􀀬􀀩...""'\y!nr. [c.;, 11\'1\.<, \11 (1)" 􀀴􀁜􀀼􀀬􀁉􀀧􀁌􀁌􀁾􀀠(,\
1(H"I'.\\lLI', "Y. \l\yfj·:o. >;<; ,\lltMI fL :.mSC\!i!.:ErL Wt \11;';XfAI'qLb \1', 􀀧􀁩􀁜􀁾􀁉􀁬􀁜􀁉􀁕􀁌􀀠'1:"_ ).C\\ ,!O!(j.., :-;'L 􀀨􀀩􀀬􀁜􀁉􀀧􀀻􀀧􀁾􀁜􀀧􀀡􀀩􀀬􀀠G, c:r:,t"lIQV/" ny
0).._ <>1'.,\',1>' " ,,\flH\XIJ j'\H;';, 􀀻􀀮􀀻􀁾􀀮􀀠H.\\l,W-r,; Hl'fT!N(, 1',\, rOl!fL\C\lf "IE, ldlUC,1I ),,' ,",\1.\ ''''bY un 1 r ">.\'\' ,\,,1'0';'" ;X ;.,," 􀀡􀀱􀁦􀀻􀁩􀀧􀁁􀁉􀁉􀁊􀀩􀀡􀁾􀀧􀀩􀀬􀀠c·
\ "LA ,'Cd, W.\ __ ( 1·,:'1\,\1<) ':\\1:-, 1'1 fObJ'lI).')!/TlL'>A,O",\\'IC!WfAX;; 
Arapaho Road Extension Midway Ramps Cost Estimate 6-0ct-OO 132 Embankment 260 Lime Treated Subgrade (6") 260 Lime 360 Flex Rein Concrete Pvmt (10") 423 Retaining Wall 450 Rail (Ty 501)
666 Ton SY SF LF LF 
JIM PIERCE, P.E.· {IW.. I Assistant Public Works Director (972) 45(1.2879 (972) 45(1.2837 FAX jpierce@ci.addison.tx.ns Town o(Addison 16801 Westgrove Dr. P.O. Box 9010, Addison, Texas
75001-9010 Jo-} 7-Ob 􀁗􀁁􀁾􀁾􀀠 • 􀁮􀁾􀀨􀁾􀀩􀀠 II 􀁾􀁾􀁲􀂭f/AJT8 􀁾􀁾􀂭.. 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁴􀁾􀀠• 􀁾􀁦􀁢􀀠c.,¢ 􀀨􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁦􀁮􀁬􀀱􀁁􀀯􀁉􀀿􀀭􀁾􀂷􀀠􀀨􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁦􀁫􀀿􀀭􀁾􀀿􀀠􀁾􀀠
t Iott.. JIM PIERCE, P.E. Assistant Public Works Director (972) 450-2879 (972) 450-2837 FAX jpieree@ci.addison.tx.us Town ofAddison 16801 Westll1'ove Dr. P.O. Box 9010, Addison, Texas
75001·9010 
HNTB 9726615614 10/10 '00 08:54 NO.185 01/03 \.JI:I􀁾i i-I Faxthe HIITD 􀁃􀀨􀀩􀁭􀁰􀁬􀀱􀁬􀀧􀁊􀀯􀁾􀀱􀀠Transm ittal To JamesC. PimceJr.P.E. Date October 9, 2000 Finn Fax# Town ofAddison
;t8'S? 􀀹􀀷􀀲􀀴􀀵􀀰􀁾􀀠Toter Pages Job Number 3 (Indudlng this col'llr) 25768 From Dan Becker/Angie Stoddard rgJ High Resolution rgJ Urgent Please notify sender at 972-661·5626 ifpages
are missing or ift.heJ:e is any transmission difficulty. Message Attached is an estimated cost for the addition ofthe diamond interchange ramps at Midway Road to the Arapaho Rd. Extension
Project. 14114 DaHas Parkway, Suite 630' Dollas, Texas 75240 Voice (972) 66I·5(j26· Fax (972) 661·5614 
HNTB 9726615614 10/10 '00 08:54 NO.185 02/03 October 9. 2000 Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive P.O. Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 Attn: Mr. James C. Pierce,lr., P.E., DEE ARAPAHO
ROAD EXTENSION Cost Estimate for Arapaho Ramps at Midway Dear Mr. Pierce: Per our meeting on Wednesday, October 4, 2000, you asked HNTB to prepare a cost estimate for the Arapaho ramps
at Midway. Attached is a sketch of the ramps and II 􀁣􀁯􀁳􀁾􀀠 estimate spreadsheet. The estimated construction cost for the ramps is $1,369,744. Should you have any questions or need
any further information, please call our office. Very truly yours, HNTB CORPORATION Daniel F. Becker Enclosures DBF/AMS/tlf 
HNTB 9726615614 10/10 '00 08:54 NO.185 03/03 Arapaho Road Extension Midway Ramps Cost Estimate 6·Oct-oO 132 Embankment 260 Ume Treated Subgrade (6') 260 360 Flex Rein Concrete pvmt (10*)
423 Retaining Wall 450 Rail 501) 666 
t:.L '. September 20, 2000 Mr. Jim C, Pierce, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Town ofAddison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road Alignment! Access Study Review
Dear Mr. Pierce: Per your request, Lee Engineering has performed a review of the Alignment Study Report for Proposed Arapaho Road Extension prepared by HN1B. The recommended configuration
ofArapaho Road from the HN1B report includes an overpass over Midway Road with no connection provided for traffic to interchange between Arapaho Road and Midway Road. The primary purpose
of this review was to identifY connection alternatives and determine ifa connection between Arapaho Road and Midway Road would be practical and would allow the Arapaho extension to be
more fully utilized. Based on our review, a connection would increase the utilization of the Arapaho extension, However, the increased utilization would not be enough to warrant the
additional cost and right of way impacts ofmaking the connection, STUDY APPROACH In reviewing the Alignment Study and the recommended configuration for Arapaho Road the following key
steps were taken: 1. Reviewed study reports, 2, Reviewed background data, 3, Collected additional data as needed, 4, Identified and assigned potential diverted trips, 5. Analyzed operations
with connections, 6. Eliminated connection alternatives that would negatively impact traffic operations, 7. Estimated total diversions of acceptable movements, and 8, Evaluated alternative
connection configurations, This approach was somewhat iterative as total diversions were f'rrst estimated and then individual 
movements were eliminated as connection alternatives were detennined to be impractical. " PREVIOUS REPORTS AB a part ofthe previous study conducted for this interchange, traffic projections
for the Arapaho Road extension were made based on travel demand model runs completed by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). These projections indicate that without
any connection between Arapaho Road and Midway Road the Arapaho extension is expected to carry 13,000 vehicles per day. With the various connection alternatives considered the NCTCOG
projection ranged from 6,000 to 28,000 vehicles per day. Itwas assumed in conducting the analysis that the projected volume oftraffic on the Arapaho extension developed by NCTCOG with
no connection to Midway Road is reliable. Upon further review of the underlying data provided by NCTCOG, we detennined that a better estimate offuture traffic volumes on the Arapaho
Road extension with some form ofconnection in place could be made by reviewing existing count data data at area intersections, This review would focus on turning movement volumes that
would potentially use the connections provided. DATA COLLECTION In an effort to better estimate the number oftrips that would be diverted to the Arapaho extension a data collection plan
was devised. The area roadway network and area intersections were reviewed to detennine the paths from which traffic could be expected to utilize a connection at Midway to divert to
the new Arapaho extension. Peak period turning movement counts were collected at the intersections of Beltline at Midway and Beltline at Marsh. These counts and the area roadway network
are presented in Figures IA, IB, and IC. This sampling ofarea intersections served as a basis for estimating diverted traffic volumes. POTENTIAL DIVERTED TRIPS Estimates were made ofthe
percentages ofexisting turning movements from adjacent intersections that could be diverted to the new Arapaho Road extension if all possible movements were accommodated in the connection.
These percentages, summarized in Table 1, were reviewed with Town stafffor concurrence. The percentages were then applied to the existing volumes to generate estimates oftrips that could
potentially be diverted ifa connection were provided at Arapaho Road and Midway Roa<:\. These estimates and the resulting total intersection volumes for the potential interchange ofArapaho
Road and Midway Road are shown on the schematic drawing ofthe interchange in Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C. 
'. -0 o o0::1----....,.._----. .. UJ -' <t U (!) ::M 0 I-I-0 Z '" 􀁾􀀠Cri N !!:! 0 a a N :;(j ci. 􀁾􀀠U> c en "! on "'ro e, " 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠--'" "" . Figure lA CO Beltline at Midway and
Marsh .;!;'" Intersection Volumes (AM Peak Hour) '" n '" 
'0 o o ct: 1-----....---. ".S; :;:; 􀁉􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠'" (II " w <t. u (f) o l-Io Z <lUOl ljSJ0!'"4 Figure 18 8eltline at Midway and Marsh Intersection Volumes (Noon Peak Hour) 
W -1 « 0 (IJ hl 0 l-I0 Z :::: '" '" auol 4SJoV'l '" ill 􀁾􀀠= ""! a 􀁾􀀠mE, -􀁾􀀠.5 􀁾-.. Figure lC .c 􀁾􀀠Q '" Belthne at Midway and Marsh 􀀮􀁾􀀠mIntersection Volumes (PM Peak Hour)
0 0 
'. NOT TO SCALE "0 o o 0:: Ni <1') <1') 􀁾􀁌66 (A) ..J ••23 (f) /I t /o '" '" V <0 \W Arapaho en Road0 00 <1') " <1') S2􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠L.. (F) 60 J t i ...,(8) 53"i0 "00 0'> > XX -Estimated
Volumes 􀁾􀀠(A) -Level af Service ';;; 􀁾􀀠􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠Arapah
o/Midway Intersection 􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁬􀁅􀁮􀁇􀁬􀁮􀁩􀁩􀀢􀁬􀁬􀁮􀁇􀀠with Romps (AM Peak Hour) 􀁾􀀠Ir􀀬􀀢􀁾􀀬􀁉􀀠ngure 2A ii 
" NOT TO SCALE '" 􀁾􀀠L 66 (A)'" /'" '\ .J .j. + 26 (F) i t If} If}'" '" 8 AraDaho Q Road to If} 􀁾􀀠:2 .j. l..'\ r /(F) 64J t (A) 68 • ... ato a> Q <=> <=><=> '" d '" p ro '" 􀁾􀀠xx
-Estimated Volumes (A) -Levelof Service 􀁾􀀠􀁉􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾
r.d 􀁾 F;gure 28. -=== .=§ 􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁰􀁡􀁨􀁯􀀯􀁍􀁩􀁤􀁷􀁡􀁹􀀠Intersection 􀁾􀀠§lffilifllGlftllllll'lIIniG with Ramps (Noon Peak Hour) 􀁾􀀠'----__" __________________1: i 
". NOT TO SCALE ,.... oo'L:2 􀁾􀁩􀀠77 (6) ..J +..-21 IF) Aro aha Rood m xx -Estimated Volumes ! (Al -Level of Service" o s= m 0􀀱􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁆􀁾􀁩􀁧􀁾􀁵􀁾􀁲􀁥􀀻􀀺􀀲􀁾􀁣􀀱􀁾􀀠Arapaho/Midway Intersection .::l with Ramps (PM Peak Hour) $ 
T bl a e 1• TumlDl/: M ovement D'lVerslOns ExistingMovement Movement Diverted To Percentage Diverted Southbound Right tum at MidwaylBeltline Southbound Right tum at Midway!Arapaho 40
Southbound Left tum at MidwaylBeltline Southbound Left tum at Midway!Arapaho 40 Eastbound Left tum at MidwaylBeltline and Northbound Right tum at MarshlBeltline Eastbound Left tum at
Midway!Arapaho 25 Northbound Left tum at MidwaylBeItline Northbound Left tum at Midway!Arapaho 40 Northbound Right tum at MidwaylBeltiine Northbound Right tum at Midway!Arapaho 40 Westbound
Left tum at MidwaylBeltline Westbound Left tum at Midway!Arapaho 10 Eastbound Right tum at MidwaylBeltiine and Southbound Left tum at MarshlBeltline Eastbound Right tum at Midway!Arapaho
25 Westbound Right tum at MidwaylBeltline Westbound Right tum at MidwaylArapaho 25 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Two primary alternative configurations were tested. One with an at grade intersection
between Arapaho Road and Midway Road and the other with a grade separation and ramps extending from Arapaho Road to intersection with Midway Road. At-grade intersection The first alternative
tested was an at grade intersection connection between Arapaho Road and Midway Road. This intersection was assumed to be signalized and coordinated with the existing signal at Beltline
Road at Midway Road. Analyses were conducted for existing conditions, conditions with the currently proposed grade separation, and for an at grade intersection between Arapaho and Midway.
The results ofthese analyses are summarized in Table 2. 
T bi 2 A ea e . t-llradintersectIon o'peratlOns InlersectionlPeak Hour Existing Conditions With Grade Separation With At-grade Connection ! Beltline at Midway Level of Service (Total
Vehicle Delay) AM D (66 veh-hrs) D (55 veh-hrs) C (42 veh-hrs) Noon D (60 veh-hrs) D(55 veh-hrs) D (47 veh-hrs) PM E (120 veh-hrs) D (70 veh-hrs) D (67 veh-hrs) Arapaho at Midway AM
N/A N/A C (32 veh-hrs) Noon N/A N/A C (30 veh-hrs) PM N/A N/A C (45 veh-hrs) , ! After reviewing these analyses it was detennined that providing an at grade intersection with a traffic
signal at this location would have a significant impact on traffic operations on Midway Road and on the Arapaho Road extension, As can be seen, delays at the BeltlinelMidway intersection
will be reduced under either alternative, This is due to the reduction in through traffic on Beltline Road, As can also be seen, the total system delay would increase significantly with
the addition of the signalized intersection of Arapaho at Midway, Total system delays would increase from 55 vehicle-hours per hour to 74 vehicle-hours per hour in the AM peak, from
55 to 77 in the noon peak, and from 70 to 112 in the PM peak A review ofdelays to individual movements showed that during the time periods analyzed, the atgrade connection with a signal
would have minimal impacts on travel times for southbound Midway, however northbound Midway travel times would be increased by as much as 21 seconds per vehicle, Further review revealed
that travel times on eastbound Arapaho for vehicles traveling from Marsh Lane to Addison Road during the hours analyzed would increase from approximately 130 seconds to between 146 and
162 seconds, This represents an increase of between 19 and 24 percent, Westbound travel times would increase by between 22 and 38 seconds, A summary of the measures of effectiveness
calculated in this analysis are presented in a table attached to this letter. These measures of effectiveness include total stops, fuel consumption, and vehicle emissions, As can be
seen, all of these measures for the grade separation alternative are significantly better than the at-grade intersection alternative, Another complication that would effect a signalized
intersection of Arapaho and Midway is the proximity ofthe rail road tracks, Any time a train crosses Midway, the signal at Arapaho would be preempted and coordination between Arapaho
would be interrupted, 
Grade Separation with Ramp Connections " The next alternative tested was a grade separation with ramps connection to Midway. Under existing conditions, the southbound queue during the
AM peak averages over 400 feet in length with peak queue lengths of over 500 feet. Based on these results, it was assumed that the intersections on Midway Road with the ramps from Arapaho
Road would operate as unsignalized intersections. This is because the southern intersection with the eastbound ramps would be within 500 feet of the Beltlineintersection. Capacity analyses were conducted for each intersection using the Highway Capacity Software. The results ofthese analyses are presented in Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C and are
summarized in Table 3. Table 3, Capacity Analvsis Results Intersection Movement Level of Service AM Peak Noon Peak PM peak Midway at Westbound Westbound Right A A B Ramps Westbound Left
F F F Northbound Left E D D Midway at Eastbound Right B A A Eastbound Ramps Eastbound Left F F F Southbound Left B C F As can be seen, several movements would operate at unacceptable
levels ofservice(E orF). Because signalization is not an acceptable option, those movements that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service were assumed to be prohibited.
Intersection volumes were then adjusted to reflect the prohibition of these movements. The intersections were analyzed with the adjusted volumes to ensure that all movements would operate
at acceptahle levels ofservice. These analyses confirmed that the movements that would be allowed would operate at levels of service D ofbetter. TOTAL DIVERSIONS After determining which
movements could and could not be accommodated at an unsignalized interchange ofArapaho Road and Midway Road, total daily diverted traffic volumes were estimated. This was accomplished
by averaging the peak hour diverted volumes and assuming that this average peak hour represented an industry average of 10 percent ofthe daily volume on the roadway. The results ofthese
calculations showed total potential additional traffic on the Arapaho Road extension west ofMidway Road would be 1,130 vehicles per day and 1,870 vehicles per day east ofMidway Road.
These numbers represent increases ofnine and 14 percent over the projected traffic volumes on Arapaho Road without an interchange. 
IMPACT OF CONNECTIONS '. The ramps required to complete the connections between the Arapaho Extension and Midway Road will have a significant impact on adjacent properties. Based on
our preliminary review, these ramps would require the taking of the Charter Furniture building in the southwest quadrant of the . intersection. The ramps would also take more parking
area from the property on the southeast corner and eliminate the potential for providing parking for the property under the overpass structure. Due to the impact ofthese ramps, alternative
connections were explored. One potential connection would utilize an open piece ofproperty west ofMidway to provide a connection between Centurion and the Arapaho extension. Upon further
examination, it was discovered that this connection would only provide for eastbound and westbound to southbound and southbound to eastbound and westbound connections efficiently, This
alternate connection would result in only 1,130 diverted vehicles per day west ofMidway and 1,290 vehicles per day east ofMidway. Itwas also discovered that Arapaho Road would still
be on a retaining wall structure at this location. Thus, the cost of providing this connection with the retaining waH structure would be significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While a connection could be made between the Arapaho Road extension and Midway Road, the resulting benefit ofincreasing the utilization of Arapaho Road would be less than 15 percent.
This represents a diversion off of Beltline Road of less that 4 percent. The cost of making these connections was not estimated. However, it is apparent that the taking of additional
property and the additional construction cost would be significant. For these reasons we do not believe that benefits justifY the cost ofproviding a connection between the Arapaho Road
extension and Midway Road. Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (972) 248-3006. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Sincerely, Joseph T. Short, P.E. Office
Manager 
i 􀁔􀁾􀀣􀀭􀀫􀁐􀁩􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠 • Summary of Network Measures of Effectiveness (MOE) -_._.Measures of Effectiveness ... 􀁾􀁾􀀠Existing Conditions At-grade Alternative Grade Separated Alternative
AM Noon PM AM Noon PM AM Noon PM Delay (veh-hrlhr) 66 60 120 74 77 109 55 55 70 Stops 5,342 . 5,061 7,239 6,893 6,565 8,204 4,668 4,584 5,665 Fuel Consumption (gal) 181 173 252 191 189
243 159 157 192 CO (kg) 12.64 12.09 17.62 13.35 13.21 16.97 11,09 10.97 13.39 Nox(kg) 2.46 2.35 3.43 2.60 2.57 3.30 2.16 2.14 2.60 VOC (kg) 2.93 2.80 4.08 3.09 3.06 3.93 2.57 2.54 3.10
-• 
August 16,2000 Mr. Jim C. Pierce, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Town ofAddison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road Alignment/Access Study Review Dear Mr.
Pierce: Per your request, Lee Engineering has perfonned a review of the Alignment Study Report for Proposed Arapaho Road Extension prepared by HNTB. Therecornrnended configuration ofArapaho
Road from the HNTB report includes an overpass over Midway Road with no connection provided for traffic to interchange between Arapaho Road and Midway Road. The primary purpose ofthis
review was to determine if a connection between Arapaho Road and Midway Road would be practical and would allow the Arapaho extension to be more fully utilized. Based on our review,
a connection would increase the utilization of the Arapaho extension. However, the increased utilization would not be enough to warrant the additional cost and right of way impacts ofmaking
the connection. STUDY APPROACH In reviewing the Alignment Study and the recommended configuration for Arapaho Road the following key steps were taken: 1. Reviewed study reports, 2. Reviewed
background data, 3. Collected additional data as needed, 4. Identified and assigned potential diverted trips, 5. Analyzed operations with connections, 6. Eliminated connections that
would negatively impact traffic operations, 7. Estimated total diversions ofacceptable movements, and 8. Evaluated alternative connection configurations, This approach was somewhat iterative
as total diversions were first estimated and then individual movements were eliminated as connection alternatives were determined to be impractical. 
STUDY ASSUMPTIONS Several key assumptions were made in conducting the analysis, These assumptions include: I. The projected volume of traffic on the Arapaho extension with 110 connection
to Midway Road is reliable. 2. Any alternative will not include the installation ofa traffic signal on Midway Road to serve a connection to Arapaho. 3. Arapaho Road will pass over Midway
Road, and any direct connection will be achieved by extending a ramp parallel to Arapaho Road to intersect Midway Road. Of these assumptions, the second regarding the addition ofa signal
on Midway Road to serve the connection is probably the most important. The existing signalized intersection ofMidway Road at Beltline Road is at or over capacity during several hours
every day. Introducing a signal on Midway Road between this intersection and the railroad tracks would create additional operational problems. While the signals could be coordinated
to provide for the flow oftraflic, any signal installation would introduce more stops and delay to an already congested area. PREVIOUS REPORTS As a part ofthe previous study conducted
for this interchange, traffic projections for the Arapaho Road extension were made based on travel demand model runs completed by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG),
These projections indicate that without any connection between Arapaho Road and Midway Road the Arapaho extension is expected to carry 13,000 vehicles per day, With the various connection
alternatives considered the NCTCOG projection ranged from 6,000 to 28,000 vehicles per day. Upon further review ofthe underlying data provided by NCTCOG, we determined a better estimate
offuture traffic volumes on the Arapaho Road extension with some form ofconnection in place could be made by reviewing existing count data at area intersections. This review would focus
on turning movement volumes that would potentially use the connections provided. DATA COLLECTION In an effort to better estimate the number oftrips that would be diverted to the Arapaho
extension a data collection plan was devised. The area roadway network and area intersections were reviewed to determine the paths from which traffic could be expected to utilize a connection
at Midway to divert to the new Arapaho extension. Peak period turning movement counts were collected at the intersections of Beltline at Midway and Beltline at Marsh, These counts and
the area roadway network are presented in Figures 1 A, lB, and 1 C. This sampling ofarea intersections served as a basis for estimating diverted traffic volumes. 
------􀀧􀀺􀀱􀂧􀂧􀂧􀂧􀁦􀁾􀁾􀁾􀂧􀂧􀁾􀁾􀁁􀁾􀁏􀁾􀁍􀁉􀁉􀁏1 lH .JoN SOliDO O >6 '6 :<t u o o 􀁾􀀠(J) s t£w ---' « u (f) -M 0 l-I0 Z 􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠on '" --'" '" '" '" <:5
<' =g 􀁾􀀠m 􀁾􀀠r"J 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠= Figure lA co c 􀁾􀀠Beltline at Midway and Marsh " '" r-Intersection Volumes (AM Peak Hour) '" 
w ..J <{ U Vl fiS 0 l-I0 Z :;;: U5 M -"" "" 􀁾􀀠<Xi <' '" e. '"' '" '" '" 􀁾􀀠-0 o o 0::: .S;'" :;::; m '" t-----..,---, f---, 􀁐􀁄􀁏􀁾􀀠ADMP!1"l '" "'" Figure 1B -Beltline at Midway
and Marsh "C '" '" "0Intersection Volumes (Noon Peak Hour) -'" c c 
OJ m I I I I w <l o (f) o l-Io Z -= = = 􀁾-. <' 􀁾􀀮􀀠;. "'" 􀁾􀀠'" I􀁉􀀭􀀺􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾
􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠F' 1C ::::: I: B Itl" IgureI. e Ine at Midway and Marsh I 􀁩􀁬􀁮􀁇􀁬􀁮􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀮􀁮􀁇􀀠Intersection Volumes (PM Peak Hour) .? 
POTENTIAL DIVERTED TRIPS Estimates were made ofthe percentages ofexisting turning movements from adjacent intersections that could be diverted to the new Arapaho Road extension if all
possible movements were accommodated in the connection. These percentages were reviev..:ed with Town staff for concurrence. The percentages were then applied to the existing volumes
to generate estimates of trips that could potentially be diverted ifa connection were provided at Arapaho Road and Midway Road. These estimates and the resulting total intersection volumes
for the potential interchange of Arapaho Road and Midway Road are shown on the schematic drawing ofthe interchange in Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C. INTERSECTION OPERATIONS As stated in the
study assumptions, after reviewing the existing conditions and the potential interchange configuration, it was determined that providing a traffic signal at this location would have
a significant negative impact on traffic operations on Midway Road. Therefore, the intersections on Midway Road with the ramps from Arapaho Road were assumed to operate as unsignalized
intersections. Capacity analyses were conducted for each intersection using the Highway Capacity Software. The results ofthese analyses are presented in Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C and are
summarized in Table 1. As can be seen, several movements would operate at unacceptable levels ofservice(E or F). Because signalization is not an acceptable option, those movements that
are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service were assumed to be prohibited. Intersection volumes were then adjusted to reflect the prohibition ofthese movements. The intersections
were analyzed with the adjusted volumes to ensure that all movements would operate at acceptable levels ofservice. These analyses confirmed that the movements that would be allowed would
operate at levels of service D ofbetter. Table 1. Capacity Analysis Results Intersection Movement Level of Service AM Peak Noon Peak PM peak : Midway at Westbound Ramps Westbound Right
Westbound Left A F A F B F , Northbound Left E D D Midway at Eastbound Ramps Eastbound Right Eastbound Left B F A F A F Southbound Left B C F 
NOT TO SCALE u o o 0:: >o ;: u ::;; N 􀁾􀀠L 66 (A)"' /0 "' \ J .j. .. 23 (F) 1 ...,t o N \ V 00 UJ Arapaho CD Road 00 􀁾􀀠"' se .j. L. (F) 60 ---.1' t r (8) 53 • ..., 0 "00 (j) 􀁾􀀠XX
-Estimated Volumes j; CAl -Level of Service .Figure 2A 􀁾􀀠Arapaho/Midway Intersection with Ramps (AM Peak Hour) 
--NOT TO SCALE i '"I 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠L 66 (A) I J 1+26 (F)I ! e Arapaho Rood IF) 64 J (Al 68 t i co co co xx -Estimated Volumes 􀀱􀁲􀀮􀁩􀁾􀁾􀁾______________________________________________(A_)__􀀭􀁟􀁌􀁟􀁥􀁟�
�􀁟􀁥􀁟􀁉􀁏􀁟􀁦􀁾􀁳􀁾􀁥􀁾􀁲􀁾􀁶􀁾􀁩􀁣􀁾􀁥􀁾􀁾􀁟􀀮􀁩􀀠Figure 28 1 Arapaho/Midway Intersection = with Ramps (Noon Peak Hour) 5 
/'\ NOT TO SCALE "0 o o !Y "to 1§ L 77 (B)'" J .j. r 21 (F) 1 ! o '" 52 􀁾􀀠0 u. 0 0 <Xl 􀁾􀀠52 .j. l. (F) 55 ---.t t i (A) 38. of) '" ... 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠'\ Arapaho /Road c c c 􀁾xx -Estimated
Volumes (Al -Level of Service ] Figure 2C 􀁾􀀭􀀭--== -=1 Arapaho/Midway Intersectionrid􀁾􀀽􀂧􀀽􀁾􀀽􀁟􀀽􀀽􀀺􀁾􀁾􀀬􀁉􀁟􀁲􀀮􀁟􀀮􀁇􀁬􀁮􀁾􀁉􀀽􀁉􀁾􀁾􀀽􀁉􀁾􀁮􀁾􀁇􀁾______ __ __ __ __ /__ w_·_lt_h_R
􀁡􀁟􀁭􀁾􀁰􀁟􀁳􀀠(_P_M P_e_a_k H_O_U_r_)_____________ 
TOTAL DIVERSIONS After determining which movements could and could not be accommodated at an unsignalized interchange ofArapaho Road and Midway Road, total daily diverted traffic volumes
were estimated. This was accomplished by averaging the peak hour diverted volumes and flSsuming that this average peak hour represented an industry average of 10 percent ofthe daily
volume on the roadway. The results ofthese calculations showed total potential additional traffic on the Arapaho Road extension west ofMidway Road would be 1,130 vehicles per day and
1,870 vehicles per day east ofMidway Road. These numbers represent increases ofnine and 14 percent over the projected traffic volumes on Arapaho Road without an interchange. IMPACT OF
CONNECTIONS The ramps required to complete the connections between the Arapaho Extension and Midway Road will have a significant impact on adjacent properties. Based on our preliminary
review, these ramps would require the taking of the Charter Furniture building in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. The ramps would also take more parking area from the property
on the southeast corner and eliminate the potential for providing parking for the property under the overpass structure. Due to the impact ofthese ramps, alternative connections were
explored. One potential connection would utilize an open piece ofproperty west ofMidway to provide a connection between Centurion and the Arapaho extension. Upon further examination,
it was discovered that this connection would only provide for eastbound and westbound to southbound and southbound to eastbound and westbound connections efficiently. This alternate
connection would result in only 1,130 diverted vehicles per day west ofMidway and 1,290 vehicles per day east ofMidway. It was also discovered that Arapaho Road would still be on a retaining
wall structure at this location. Thus, the cost of providing this connection with the retaining wall structure would be significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS While a connection
could be made made between the Arapaho Road extension and Midway Road, the resulting benefit ofincreasing the utilization of Arapaho Road would be less than 15 percent. This represents
a diversion off of Beltline Road of less that 4 percent. The cost of making these connections was not estimated. However, it is apparent that the taking ofadditional property and the
additional construction cost would be significant. For these reasons we do not believe that benefits justifY the cost ofproviding a connection between the Arapaho Road extension and
Midway Road. Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (972) 248-3006. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services. Sincerely, Joseph T. Short, P.E. Office Manager 
Jim Pierce From: Charles Mitchell Sent: Wednesday, September 13,20007:40 AM To: 'jshort@lee-eng,com' Cc: Jim Pierce Subject: Belt Line Road Cycle Lengths, Mr. Short, Here are the cycle
lengths used in our signal system on 􀁂􀁾􀀠AM. Peak 120 Seconds from 7:00 AM. to 9:30 AM. Noon Peak 120 Seconds from 11 :00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. P.M. Peak 120 Seconds from 4:00 P.M. to
7:00 P.M. Special Friday P.M. Peak -130 Seconds from 3:30 P.M. to 7:00 P Off Peak 104 Seconds Please note: Belt Une-Midway & Belt line-Quorum are running in 'lree-op" due to construction
and intersection up If you have any other question please call me. Charles M. Mitchell, Signal Tech. Town of Addison Street Department 
Jim Pierce From: Bill Shipp Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 3:30 PM To: Jim Pierce Subject: Arapaho/Midway Study Jim, thanks for allowing me to comment on the Arapaho/Midway study. My
comments are in two areas --study assumptions and methodology. I was not involved in the details of framing the study, but I expected the study to consider some options that were taken
as assumptions. Specifically, I thought the study would address signalization on Midway and different crossing options --at grade and below grade. It may be that you were able to narrow
Bob Barrett's question to what is possible above grade and no signalization, but I didn't understand that he accepted those assumptions. As to the methodology, the lay person has to
take an awfyl lot on faith. It presents numbers, talks about diversions, and "grades" diversions, but I have no idea how valid the model is or how these numbers were derived. I don't
know whether Bob will accept these numbers on faith or not; I probably would not. Ifyou do except the numbers, then the conclusions are probably solid, but I have no level of confidence.
This is to imply nothing about Mr. Short, just that I simply do not know. Viewed critically, this study provides no more compelling argument for me than the intuition I already had.
Bill 1 
-AOOISON CONIl'£AENC • THEAIRE CENTftE-􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁃􀁊􀁦􀁦􀁾􀀮􀁟􀀴􀀿􀀯􀁨􀀤􀀧􀁴􀀧􀁴􀁦􀁉􀀭􀁾􀁾__ ....... -_.._----------------_.._ ............. 
HP LaserJet 3100 SEND CONFIRMATION REPORT for Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner Town of Addison 9724502834 Jul-10·00 11:36AM Job Start Time Usage Phone Number or 10 Type Pages Mode Status 151
7110 11:29AM 0'00" 99722483855 .................. Send .......... 0 .......... Remote Fax was Busy.. .. ....... 961 151 7110 11:33AM 3'35 U 9722483855 Send ......... .... 3/3 EC 96 Completed
...................... ....... .. ....... Total 3'35" Pages Sent: 3 Pages 􀁐􀁲􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀺􀀠0 TOWN OIl' ADDISON PUBLIC WORKS Fr(ltll! Jim Pierce, P.E. TO:cJ4$k.t Msislant City Engl...,
Company: k t'TPhone: 972t450-2819 F,\X: 9721450-2834 FAX#: 91J--'2,'fk-:3f'SS' 􀁊􀁰􀀱􀁾􀁡􀀮􀀮􀁤􀁤􀁬􀁳􀁯􀁄􀀮􀁴􀁌􀁵􀀬􀀠Dal<: 7 10-00 16801 Weslgrove P.O.Box 9010 # of pages (Ioclodlng
􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀬􀀩􀀺􀁾􀀠Addison, TX 􀀷􀀵􀀰􀀰􀀱􀁾􀀹􀀰􀀱􀀰􀀠Re: T(J,.ff'L ("','..r1k=__________ o Original in na11 0 Puyourrtillle'lt 0 FYI 0 Call me Comme:Du: 􀁾4N <tU.A. 􀁾􀀠􀁊􀀺􀁊􀀱􀁍􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀡􀀻􀀻􀀯􀀡􀀺􀀡�
�􀁺􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀠1
_ _ Town ofAddison 1999 Dally Traffic Volume Summary 09J22/99 08124199 08124199 08124199 08124199 08127199 08131199 08126199 08126/99 09l22!!l9 Mil Mn. tJ. t'\r\U""!lhla MQ t...,...t
CQl"nrliarl 􀁾􀀠
Town of AddIson . 1999 Dally Traffic Volume Summary . '..,",0 U, I DO'" I ,,"" I 􀀮􀁴􀀮􀁁􀁾􀀠AI!t>4 1636 1453 2766 2452 5492 7321 7973 5328 6531 5725 5564 4360 4158 3640 5021 3554 1702
2098 41159 51074 47459 42853 . 48266 45312 63669Uj"""--15540 -------159-A-':-14.6E17 122 1'lo"0!1 fl.1 520! 1281 13301 9271 8739 11390 13301 1911 17% 08ll!6/99 12256 8182 10261 10143
12266 2113 21% 08ll!6/99 9644 NR NR NR 9644 9944 NlA 09101199 7685 4769 6262 4274 7698 3424 80% O9IOl/l19 8585 4625 5646 4510 8585 4075 90% 09/o1/l19 3800 2708 3516 3056 3600 744 09/02/lI9
09102/ll9 NA .. Not AoDllcable NR .. Not Recorded PaQe 2 24VOLAA1.Wl<4 11 
_________________________ _ II!􀀧􀁬􀁾􀁟􀀠GENTLEMAN: WE ARE SENDING YOU 􀁾􀁣􀁨􀁥􀁤􀀠o Under separate cover via ______the following items: o Shop Drawings 0 Prints o Plans 0 Samples 0
Specifications 0 __________________________o Copy of letter 0 Change order ........􀁾􀀠ADDisoN Public Works I Engineering 16801 Westgrove· P,O, Box 144 Addison, Texas 75001 Telephone:
(2141450·2871 • Fox: (214]931-6643 DATE /,; -:20 -oD I JOBNa. ATTENTION /RE; J(.Jm I'hJ ..-14/1 /IIIdll.JtUt , r I J.. L':;' I If ')..vw.. £)' 1/i PIt'}ItiY1 I I I COPtES DATE NO, DESCRIPTION
I r II V(j I ../THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: o For approval 0 Approved as submitted o Resubmit _____ copies for approval 􀁾your use 0 Approved as noted o Submit copies for
distribution o As requested 0 Retumed for corrections o Retum corrected prints o For review and comment 0 o FOR BIDS DUE ______________ 19·____ o PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US 􀁒􀁅􀁍􀁁􀁒􀁋􀁓􀀭􀁩􀀽
􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀢􀂷􀁾􀀽􀁊􀁆􀀽􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭COPYTO _________________________ SIGNED: 􀁡􀁾􀁜􀀠If enclosures are not as noted, please na;once, I 
__ ______________ _ HP LaserJet 3100 SEND CONFIRMATION REPORT for Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner Town of Addison 9724502834 Jun-20·00 10:08AM Job Start Time Usage Phone Number or ID Type
Pages Mode Status 960 6/20 10:06AM 1 '47" 9722483855 Send, " ...... "" " 4/4 EC 96 Completed , ____ ........"". '"""" ............... Total 1 '47" Pages Sent: 4 Pages Prlnted: 0 "'"
('-UJ-co 􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀠􀀬􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠J fi-:L¥ -" 􀁾􀀭.............. 0Wf: AM $IHDIHG YOU IJCop;>oflet!tt 􀁏􀁬􀁊􀁴􀁬􀁤􀁡􀁲􀁾􀁣􀁯􀁷􀁲􀁜􀀧􀁬􀁡􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀭􀁟􀀱􀁴􀁈􀀻􀁾􀁵􀁥􀁭􀁲􀀮􀀠OPIrW 􀁵􀁾􀀠􀁏􀁾􀀠a
, 1'ttBI! AM TflAN,UIITTID •• 􀁣􀁍􀁾beI..w; OFor...JPPl'O'ld (lAppIlMlllUGlJbmll lod o Rosllbmll ___􀂢􀀰􀀹􀁉􀁾􀀱􀀡􀀠fOt nwl'O'Ytll 􀁾yau. (jill'! a ApprtMld as mod DSubmll ___OOJllolllocdiltlllKJllon
flAIl 􀁭􀀺􀀺􀁜􀀱􀁾􀀠OAlJ1umed /orCQtl'O(tl0l14 a Ralurn ___OOt'fIIIt)IOO pdnb 􀁮􀁆􀁏􀀨􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁤􀀨􀁱􀁉􀁬􀁬􀀮􀀧􀁍􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀠n o FOR atOS oue 19__ a PFllNl'S fU::TtJA.NEO AFTER I.J)PJ.I TO
ti9 ........ 
__________________________ _ Public Works I Engineering 16801 Westgrove· P.O. Box4M-'fo/O Addison, Texos 75001-<lOID 􀁔􀁥􀁬􀁥􀁰􀁨􀁯􀁮􀁥􀀺􀁾􀀠450-2871 • Fox: l'l1419<!1 6643 􀁱􀁾􀀱TO
( )()rf1 /;&n:/-: Lee f3fy1l7tP-Rr/f1 7 DATE 􀁢􀁾􀁊􀀮􀁏􀀭􀁢􀁏􀀠IJOB NO. ATTENTION RE 􀁁􀀧􀁍􀁾􀀨􀀬􀁴􀀡􀁴􀀮􀁲􀀠//fJ(J.I'}A. 􀀻􀁥􀁾􀀠In1. 􀁾􀀭􀀬􀀮􀀮􀀠". './1..#"h I , I{ ::z..I:¥! ()01
;, I .rn 't , GENTLEMAN: WE ARE SENDING YOU 􀁾􀁨􀁥􀁤􀀠D Under separate cover via ______the following items: D Shop Drawings D Prints D Plans D Samples 0 Specifications D ________________________D
Copy of letter D Change order COPIES DATE NO. A DESCRIPTION /􀁾􀁾􀁨􀁲􀀠/f'?{ffic J5A41 n'lr. ....., 1"'19 .$irt/la".s f /, ! , i THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: D For approval
D Approved as submitted D Resubmit ____copies for approval 􀁾your use D Approved as noted D Submit copies for distribution D As requested D Retumed for corrections D Return corrected
prints D For review and comment D o FOR BIDS DUE __________ 19,___ D PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN LOAN TO US 􀁃􀁏􀁐􀁙􀁔􀁏􀁟􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀫􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭SIGNED: _____________________
If enclosures are not as noted, please notify us at once. 
P.2 FROM LEE ENGINE:ERING 9722483855 17440 OAllAs P..AIlKWAY 204 "TEXAS 75287 FAX 9?2*248-3855 June 13, 2000 Mr. Jim C. Pierce, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Town of Addison J6801 Westgrove
Drive Addison, Texas 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road AlignmentiAccess Study Review Dear Mr. Pierce: Lee Engineering (LEE) is pleased to submit this letter ofagreement to perform traffic
engineering services for the Town of Addison. The anticipated product of the effort will be a letter report documenting the results ofa review ofthe Alignment Study Report for Proposed
Arapaho Road Extension and apresentation to the Town Council. SCOPE OF SERVICES The Scope ofService outlined below illustrates our approach to this project: Task 1 Data CoUec:tion -LEE
'Will gather available studies, reports and graphics prepared by HNIB and others that relate to the alignment and configuration ofArapaho Road between the Addison Road and Marsh Lane.
We will review the contents ofthese materials. Task 1 Analysis -LEE will closely examine the assumptions and conclusions related to access to Midway Road. We will validate analyses conducted
and conduct additiollllt analyses required. These analyses will be limited to the development ofprojected turning movement and link traffic volumes and analysis of intersection operations
and may utilize the CORSlM simulation model. Alternatives that will be examined include an at grade intersection, grade separation with no connection, and grade separation 'With full
or partial connections of Arapaho Road at Midway. Additional analyses may be desirable based on the results obtained. 
P.3 FROM LEE ENGINEERING 9722<183855 Task 3 Documentation· LEE will prepare a brief report summarizing our findings and recommendations as they relate to the Arapaho at Midway crossing.
This report will be submitted to the City stafffor review and comment. A final report will be prepared based on these comments. We will also prepare the necessary graphics to present
the results ofour review at a meeting ofthe Town Council. SCHEDULE AND FEE We will be prepared to present our results at a council meeting in August. The fee for our services willbe
billed on an hourly basis according to the attached terms and conditions and will not exceed $12,000 without your approval. Ifyou have any questions, please contact me at (972) 248·3006.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services and look forward to working with you on this project. Please sign and return a copy ofthis letter as a notice to proceed. Accepted
􀁟􀀮􀁦􀁩􀁌􀁾/U><X>Jose h T. Short, P.E. Office Manager Date 
P.4 6-14-200 1(,h54AM FROM LEE ENGINEERING 9722483855 Lee Engineering Terms and Conditions March 20, 2000 Additional services as authorized by you will be performed at the following
rates: Principal $16S.00/per hour Project Manager $130.00/per hour Project Engineer $IOO.OO/per hour Sr. Engineering Designer $ 9O.oo/per hour Engineering Designer $ 7S.00/per hour Technician
$ 4S.00/per hour Administrative Assistant $ 6O.oo/per hour Secretarial $ 50.oo/per hour Highway travel $0. 325/mile Meals, lodging, air fares, out-of-pocket costs Reproduction $O.IO/copy
TERMS AND CONDITIONS: 1. Invoices will be submitted monthly. 2. Invoices are due and payable when received. 3. Interest at the rate of 1.5 %per month will be applied to invoices not
paid within 30 days of initial billing date. 4. We reserve the right to cease work on delinquent accounts. 5. Contracting party is responsible for paying all fees and expenses associated
with all activities related to an engagement. Credit will be given for payments received directly from clients of the contracting party or from others. 6. The retainer fee will be credited
against fee. 7. In addition to invoices rendered and interest thereon, contracting party agrees to pay any and all legal fees and costs incurred in collecting overdue accounts. 8. Rates
are subject to change annually. Work performed in subsequent years will be charged at the adjusted rates. 9. Extra copies of reports will be billed at $10.00 per copy. C:110DYIOFFlCEISTANDARD.WP/)

Meeting with Jody Short, Lee Engineering Project Background Previous Studies Alternatives Examined Approved Alignment Second Opinion on the Intersection ofArapaho and Midway Road Provide
Preliminary Cost Estimate, Including ROW, for: Bridge Over Midway Road, WitbIWithout Ramps Underpass Under Midway Road, WitblWithout Ramps Surface Intersection With Midway Road Investigate
the Impact of a Surface Intersection on: Traffic Flow on Midway Road Traffic Flow on Belt Line Road Traffic Flow on Lindberg Drive Can the Signals at the Above Intersections be Tuned
Such That Level Of Service Is Not Diminished? f􀁊􀁖􀀭􀁦􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀭1-fk{ 􀁾Y'<f -0.tuo:f /.-ct.J 􀁾􀀨􀀦􀀭􀀯􀁾( 2.'J-""-) 􀁾􀀠􀁴􀁌􀁾􀀱􀁢􀀠
Meeting with Jody Short, Lee Engineering Project Background Previous Studies Alternatives Examined Approved Alignment Second Opinion on the Intersection of Arapaho and Midway Road Provide
Preliminary Cost Estimate, Including ROW, for: Bridge Over Midway Road, WithlWithout Ramps Underpass Under Midway Road, WithlWithout Ramps Surface Intersection With Midway Road Investigate
the Impact ofa Surface Intersection on: Traffic Flow on Midway Road Traffic Flow on Belt Line Road Traffic Flow on Lindberg Drive Can the Signals at the Above Intersections be Timed
Such That Level Of Service Is Not Diminished?I fr ..Ir" 􀁾􀀠2 􀁃􀁡􀀺􀀾􀁾􀁣􀀮􀁜􀀠\ 
I . I 
'iiiiiiiiiiiiiniiil17440 DALLAS PARKWAY SUITE 204 DALLAS. TEXAS 75287 972-248·3006 FAX 972-248·3855 i:nGlni:i:=tlnG March 9, 2001 Mr. Jim C. Pierce, P.E. Assistant City Engineer Town
of Addison 1680 I Westgrove Drive Addison, Texas 75001-9010 Re: Arapaho Road Alignment/Access Study Review Dear Mr. Pierce: This letter is a follow up to our telephone conversation regarding
the budget ofthe project referenced above. I have enclosed our final invoice for this project. This invoice reflect our total costs on this project to $13,780 which is $1,780 in excess
ofour original contract amount. The additional costs wereincurred due to the services we provided that were beyond our original scope ofservices. These services included the evaluation additional alternative intersection configurations and
control identified in meetings with Town staff and council representatives and additional meetings with town staff. Ifyou have any questions or need more details, please contact me at
(972) 248-3006. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services and have enjoyed working with you and your staff on this project. Jos h T. Short, P.E. o ceManager 
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO Claim #,:..-____DATE: 3-1'1-6/Check $ ijtf-'10. Do Vendor No. Vendor Name Address Address .(lu)ell{X. Address t1-R Zip Code IrSDIEY TOTAL 11
't 1./40. DO Finance 
14610 I ,3033 N. 44TH STREET SUITE 375 PHOENIX, ARIZO'IA 85018 i 􀀶􀀰􀀲􀀯􀀹􀀶􀀵􀁾􀀷􀀲􀀰􀀶􀀠FAX 602/955-7349 February 28, 2001 Invoice Number: Town of Addison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison.
TX 75001-9010 Attn: Mr. Jim Pierce Re: Job Tl145.01 Arapaho Road Alignment! Access Study Review Consulting Services from September 22, 2000 through February 28, 2001 Billing Group: 00
J Contract Maximum: $13.780.00 Previous Billings Against Maximum: $9.290.00 Current Billings Against Maximum: $4.490.00 Balance After This Invoice: $0.00 Project Manager 29.00 hrs.@$
130.00 Ihr, $3,770.00 Sr. Engineering Designer g,OO hrs, @$90.00 !hr. $720.00 TOTAL LABOR $4.490.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $4,490,00 Aged Receivables: CURRENT 31-60 DAYS 61-90 DAYS 91-120
DAYS +120 DAYS $ 4.490.00 $ 0,00 $ 0,00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 All invoices are due upon receipt. A late charge of 15% will be added to any unpaid balance after 30 days. 􀁁􀁰􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁤􀀺􀁟􀀭􀀬􀀬􀁌􀀮􀀡􀀽􀁾􀀶
􀀺􀀺􀀢􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀽􀀭
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO -', DATE: Claim # Check$ ____'-----Vendor No. Vendor Name Address Address Address Zip Code Lee... EnJIfJeerlrJq Ph oel/IX f/-R 􀁧􀀺􀀵􀁄􀀯􀁾􀀠TOTAL
Authorized Signature Finance 
-----TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO DATE: Claim # Check$ ____ Vendor No. Vendor Name Address Address Address Zip Code PhDenlX ttR 8:5DIg-: TOTAL Authorized Signature Finance

TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO DATE: 10-·f::. -en:::> Claim #=--____ Check $ 1.290.OCJ, Vendor No. Vendor Name Address Address Ph Den I X Address Zip Code 􀁳􀁲􀁓􀁄􀀯􀁾􀀠AMOUNT
TOTAL 􀁾􀀠I, alfle). aJ Finance 
3033 N. 44TH STREET SUITE 375 PI-IOENrX. ARIZONA 85018 602/955-7206 FAX 602/955-7349 September 26, 2000 Invoice Number: 14404 Town of Addison 1680 I Westgrove Drive Addison. TX 75001-9010
Attn: Mr. Jim Pierce Re: Job T1145.01 Arapaho Road Alignment/Acct'SS Study Review Consulting Services from August 19,2000 through September 15,2000 Billing Group: 001 Contract Maximum:
$12.000.00 Previous Billings Against Maximum: $8.000.00 Current Billings Against Maximum: $1.290.00 Balance After This Invoice: $2.710.00 Project Manager 8.00 hrs. @$130.00 !hr. $1,040.00
TOTAL LABOR $1.040.00 Outside Services Outside Service/Subconsu Itants $250.00 TOTAL OUTSIDE SERVICES $250.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $1,290.00 Aged Receivables: CU RRENT 31-60 DAYS 61-90 DAYS
91-120 DAYS +120 DAYS $ 1.290.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 All invoices are due upon receipt. A late charge of 1.5% will be added to any unpaid balance after 30 days. 
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO .<", . . "";"; . . DATE: Claim #,=---____ Check$ . Vendor No. ' Vendor Name Address Address Address Zip Code ·Phoenlx f/-R fCSDIg-Finance 
􀀶􀀰􀀲􀀱􀀹􀀵􀀵􀁾􀀷􀀲􀀰􀀶􀀠FAX 602/955-7349 August 31, 20aO Invoice Number: 14370 Town ofAddison 16801 Westgrove Drive Addison. TX 75001·9010 Attn: Mr. Jim Pierce Re: Job T1145.01 Arapaho
Road AlignmentlAccess Study Review Consulting Services from July 22, 2000 througb August 18,2000 Billing Group: 001 Contract Maximum: $12.000.00 Previous Billings Against Maximum: $1.560.00
Current Billings Agsinst Maximum: $6.440.00 Balance After This Invoice: $4.000.00 Engineering Designer 6.00 hrs.@$75.00 /hr. $450.00 Project Manager 44.00 hrs.@$130.00 /hr. $5,720.00
Sr. Engineering Designer 3.00 hrs.@$90.00 /hr. $270.00 TOTAL LABOR $6.440.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $6,440.00 Aged Receivables: CURRENT 31-60 DAYS 61-90 DAYS 91-120 DAYS +120 DAYS $ 6.440.00
$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 All invoices are due upon receipt. A late charge of 1.5% will be added to any unpaid balance af1er 30 days. 
TOWN OF ADDISON PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION MEMO $' DATE: 2:3-60 Claim # CheckS I, 5"60,00 > Vendor No. Vendor Name Address Address f?6Denlx, Address ItR Zip Code TOTAL Ii I, 5"66 c..tc Finance

14306 N. 44TH STREET 375 PH<lENlX" ARIZONA 85018 FAX 602/955-7349 July 28. 2000 Invoice Number: Town of Addison 1680 I Westgrove Drive Addison, TX 75001-9010 Attn: Mr. Jim Pierce Re:
Job T1145.01 Arapaho Road Alignmenti Access Study Review Consulting Services from June 21, 2000 through Jul,,,-Y-,,2C!.1,,,,,􀀲􀀬􀀭􀀬􀀰􀁾􀀰􀀮􀀡􀀡􀀮􀁏______􀁾_______ Billing Group: 001
Contract Max imum: $12.000,00 Previous Billings Against Maximum: $0.00 Current Billings Against Maximum: $1.560,00 Balance After This Invoice: $10.440.00 Project Manager 12.00 hrs, @$130,00
Ihr, $1,560,00 TOTAL LABOR $1.560,00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $1560,00 Aged Receivables: CURRENT 31-60 DAYS 61-90 DAYS 91-120 DAYS +120 DAYS $ 156000 $ 0,00 $ 0,00 $ 0,00 $ 0,00 All invoices
are due upon receipt. A late charge of 1.5% will be added to any unpaid balance after 30 days. Approved:__􀀩􀀭􀀴􀀡􀀺􀀺􀁚􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁪􀀬􀀮􀁟􀁾___ r?-3-6b