Loading...
ST9304-SY 860108ALIGNMENT STUDY OF BELTLINE ROAD FROM COPPELL CITY LIMITS TO IH-35E PROJECT #490-402 DALLAS COUNTY ~i ....... January 1986 ALIGNMENI STUDY OF BELILINE ROAD FROM COPPELL CIIY LIMIIS TO IE-35E PROJECT #490-402 DALLAS COU~;TY Albert H. Halff Associaces, Inc. Engineers and Scienrists January 1986 DAVID G. FOX, COUNTY JUDGE JIM JACKSON, COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT NO. i _. NANCY E. JUDY, COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT NO. 2 JO[t~ ~ILEY PRICE, COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT NO. 3 CHRIS V. SEMOS, COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT NO. 4 J. W. BRYA~, P.E., DIRECTOR OF PEBLIC WORKS ii ALBERT H. IL LFF ,s ;SOCIATES. INC. ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS P~lic Works Department Dallas County -- 161 Com~rce Street Dallas, TX 75207 __ Att: Mr. J.W. B~an, P.E., Director of Public Works Re: Beltline Road, Paving and Draioage Improvements from Coppell City -- Limits to IH-35E, Project 490402 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is an Alimnment Study for Beltline Road Coeoell City Lim{ts to IH 35~, authorized by the Commissioners Court in Court Order #85-1914, dated December 9, 1985. We trust that this report will be of assistance to the County in evaluating the engineering and design features of the two alternative -- alig~ents. Of the two routes analyzed, the southern route is clearly superior, safer, less costly, and could be completed in one year less than the existing route. The southern route will accrue greater benefits to ._ the citizens of Carrollton, Coppell and Dallas County. Please contact us if further info~ation is needed. We are proceed with the surveying of the existing right-or.ay, We are ready to proceed -- with the design as soon as we are advised of the route selected. Respectfully submitted, -~ERT R. ~LFF ASSOCIATES, INC. Io ~ovoa~ P.E., -- ~resident /fw Attachment TABLE OP CONTENTS I, DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Iio INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Existing Right-of-way B. Street Crossings and Intersections C. Access Points D. Railroad Crossings E. River and Channel Crossings F. Existing Utilities G. Traffic H. Environmental Considera=ions and Role of Regulatory Agencies IIi. DESIG~ CRiIERIA A. Iypical Cross Section B. Design Speed C. Relation tc 100 Year Flood IV. ALTERNATIVE ALiGNf~NTS A. Present Location 1. Right-of-way Requirements 2. Embankment Required 3. Road Crossings 4. Bridges and Drainage Structures 5. Utilities 6. ~ortb Access Points 7. Construction Phasing and Detouring Required 8. Construction Timing 9. Construction Cost iv B. SOUTHERN ROUTE (West of Hutton Drive) 1. Right-of-way Requirements 2. Embankment Required 3. Road Crossings 4. Bridges and Drainage Structures 5. Utilities 6. Worth Access Points 7. Construction Phasing ar~ Detouring Required 8, Construction Timing 9. Construction Cost V. EV~UATION A~D RECOMMENDATIONS A. Safety B. DraRnage Consideration C. Construction Timing D. Cost E. Legal Aspects F. Recommendations VI. FIGURES VII. APPENDICES 1. Design Data 2. Hydraulic Data - Existing Alignment 3. Cost Estimate - Existing Alignment 4. Hydraulic Data - Southern Route 5. Cost Estimate - Southern Route 6. List of Attendees, November 12, 1985 Meeting 7. Geotechnieal Letters LIST OF T~kBLES Table No. Description Page No. I Bridges Alcng the Elm Fork oi the Trinity River 6 2 Standard Roadway Design Griteria 11 3 Elm Fork Water Surface Elevations - Sicgle Model Analysis 18 4 Elm Fork Water Surface Elevations - Split Flow Analysis 19 5 Construction Timing - Existing Alignment 24 6 Estimated Construction Costs - Existing Alignment 25 7 Construction Timing - Southerm Route 34 8 Estimated Construction Costs - Southern Route 35 9 Summary of Estimated Costa - Both Alternative Alignments 36 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. I Prcper~y Ownership Map 2 Access Points for North Property Owners 3 Proposed Roadway Cross Section 4 MacArthur Boulevard Profile 5 Prcposed Bridge Profiles - Existing Alignment 6 Sequence of Construction Diagram 7 Layout of Proposed Southern Route 8 Luna Road Profile 9 Proposed Bridge Profile - Soutbero Route !0 Southern Rcute- Bridge Layout Il Year 2000 Iraffic Projection 12 Typical Beltline Road/St. Louis & Southwestern Railroad vii DESCRIPTION I, DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Proposition Two of the Dallas County, Texas 1985 Bond Program provided funding to improve Beltline Road from Denton Tap Road in Coppell to Interstate Highway 35E in Carrollton. The County staff bas divided the preparation of plans, specifications and construction documents for this project into two design contracts. For the easterly porticn, Dallas County contracted with Albert H. Halff Associates, Inc. to perform an alignment study and Cc provide the preliminary amd final design plans, specifications and contract documents. The Halff Associates contract covers the segment between the Coppell City limits on the west and IH-35E on the east. The proposed improvements include the raising of Beltline Road out of the 100- year flood plain, construction of a 4-lane-divided major thoroughfare with provision for adding two additional lames at some future date, and construc- tion of new 6-lane divided bridges over Hutton Branch and the Elm Pork of the Trimity River. At this time, the County has not yet selected an en- gineering consultant for the preliminary and final design of the Beltline Road improvements from the city limits of Coppell west to Denton Tap Road. This report is a summary of the information gathered in the analysis of slternative alignments of Beltline Road. The Report discusses the existing conditions in the roadway corridor, and the feasibility of constructing the improved Beltline Road within the existing right-of-way or along an alterca- tire route approximately 600 feet south of the existing roadway. The report includes discussion of design issues ~est of the Coppell city limit because the southerly route is proposed to rejoi, n the existing Beltline Road align- ment at a point west o£ Moore Road within the city limits of Coppell. 2 INVENTORY Ii. INVENTORY CF EXISTING CONDITIONS The Beltline Road right-of-way, from IR-35E to the Coppell City limit line, varies in width from 90 feet to 120 feet. The right-of-way is south of and adjoins the right-of-way of the St. Louis and Southwestern Railroad (S.L.&S.W.R.R.) The railroad right-of-way varies from 100 to 150 feet in width. At this time detailed property surveys have not Been completed and therefore, the exact dimensions of the Beltline right-of-way have not yet been determined. A property ownership map has been prepared and is included on Figure 1. As ~bown on Figure 1, the only property owner adjacent to Beltline Road on the north side is the S.L.&$.W.R.R. Based on present planning, there will be two major street intersections on Beltline Road within the City of Carrollton and three major street inter- sections within the City of Coppell. In the City of Carrollton, Hutton Drive and Luna Road will intersect Beltline Road. Hutton Drive has been designated by the City of Carrollton as a 4-lane divided major thoroughfare, which will intersect Beltline Road and end at that poimt. Luna Road ~s designated on the City of Carrollton's Master Thoroughfare Plan as a 6-lane divided thoroughfare. The Thoroughfare Plan shows Luna Road crossing ~he S.L.&S.W.R.R. at grade and continuing north to IH-35E. At IR-35E Luna Road will connect with an existing segment of Luna Road on the east side of IH-35E. In the unimcorporated area, Ledbetter Road, a small county road, within the floodway of the river, connects to Beltline Road just west of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. In the City of Coppell, MacArtbur Boulevard is planned as a 6-lane divided major thoroughfare. MacArtbur is planned to extend north of Beltline Road, crnssing the S.L.~S.W.R.R. at grade and continuing to Sandy Lake Road. Moore Street presently crosses the S.L.&S.W.R.R. and ties to Beltllne Road. Mockingbird Lane presently stops north of the S.L.&S.~.R.R. The S.L.&S.W,R.R. is 5 to 7 feet higher than the proposed grade of Beltline Road, and therefore, the Luna Road amd MacArthur Bonlevard cros- sings are critical issues in the design of the Beltline Road improvements. There are four private points of access from Beltline Road for property owners north of the S.L.&S.W.R.R. These include: (1) access to a concrete batch plant; (2) acces~ to a wrecking yard; (3) access to a gun club, and (4) an access point used to bring fill into an area north oi the railroad. The points of access are shown on Figure 2. All four access points cross under the railroad tracks at existing drainage structures and are subject to flcoding. We have discussed the crossings with Mr, Dave Andrews, Area Engineer, of the S.L.&S.W.R.R. Company. Mr. Andrews stated that only two owners have obtained permits for private crossing of the railroad namely 4 Mr. Ihompson, the owner of the Wrecking Yard immediately west of the Elm Fork, and the Gun Club i.m~d~ately east of the east overflow swale. Beltline Road crosses a S.L.&S.W.R.R. spur track immediately west of Hutton Drive. This spur track will require modification in the reconstruc- tion of Beltline Road. The track will be raised and a new railroad crossing with signals installed to meet safety standards will be required. There are two major dra~naseways which cross Beltline Road east of the Coppell city lizit. Ihese are the Elm Fork of the Trinity River, and Hutton Branch. The Elm Fork of the Trinity River is a major stre~ with a peek !G0-year fully developed flow rate, as determimed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, of 55,800 cubic feeg per second (cfs). Major bridge structures w~ll be required to cross the Elm Fork Floodway. Table I sum- mar{zee the bridges and drainage areas at other crossings near the Beltline Road project. Hutton Branch is a major stream within gke City of Carrollton with a peak 100-year fully developed flow ra~e of approximately 12,000 cfs. Again, a bridge structure will be required at Rutton Branch. DuriDg floods both streams spread over the flo~ plain and an analysis must be u:ade tc assure tha~ the improved Beitlime Road is se~ above ~he flood levels. Long stretches of ~he existing Beltline Road have been peri- odically over topped by flood waters. ~he most recent flood event that TABLE 1 BRIDGES ALONG ~HE ELM FORK OF THE IRi~IIY RIVER I LOCATION ! I Valle)' View I 710.50 I 140 I 1,400 i 13,361 I I 7ii .50 I I i I J ___i ............ J l ......... { Existin§ { 909.00 { 108 I 410 ~ 4,755 { Beltli~e Road { 909.30 { { { (2) ] !'~e ~__t t" ........ l ........... 1 ............ i ........... 1 ......... { St. Louis & : 910.30 i 108 [ 1,680 i 12,158 ~ Soutbwes tern : 910.60 J_Rail~a~ ....... ~ ......... I .......... i ........... 1 ........ (1) Flow Area based on fully developed 100-year discharge, 55,800 cfs. (2) Road is overtopped. overtopped the road occurred in November 1981. This flood has been es- timated to be apprcximately a 25-year flood. Beltline Road improvements should avoid flooding of the roadway from the 100 year flood amd should have no sdverse affect on upstream properties with regard to flooding. F. ~xis ~i~g_~ili~a Several utilities are in place within the existing Be~tline Road right-of-way. ~he following are included: 1) a Lone Star Gas Pipelime, 2) an Americam Petrofina Pipeline, 3} an Explorer (Dorchester) Pipeline, 4) a 12-inch Sanitary Sewer Line, 5) a ~exas Power and Light Company overhead electric line, and 6) a City of Carroilton 12" water line. Beltline Road is a major ~horou~hfare witbi~ the Citl of Coppell and the City of Carrollton. ~he ultimate crcss-sectio~ for ~eltline Roed is a 6-l&ne divided thornughfare. ~s stated previcusl¥, MacArthur BouleYard and Luna Road will cross ~eltline Road in the f~ture. ?hess roadways are also projected to be 6-lane di~i~ed thoroughfares. ~he projected tr~£fic counts fer these roadways are shown on ~igure 11. Projected traffic counts indic- ate that Luna Road and ~acArthur Blvd. will each handle almost as much ~r~ffic as Beltline Road. ~be projected traffic volt.es show that proper ~esigs of these two road i~tersectio~s is e~tre~el~ important. I~pr~vements to Beltline Road should not preclude either one of the other roads from being properly imprcved. Beltline Road crosses the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. The U.S. Ar~;y Corps of Engineers has determined that the Elm Fork is a major waterway within the United States. Therefore, the Corps of Engineers will review any project that is to be constructed within the Elm Fork Floodplain to confirm that there are no negative £mpact~ to the hydrology, hydraulics, or environ- ment along the river. In addition, the Irving Flood Control District, Section II! and the Farmers Branch Carrollton Flood Control District have rec!ai~ed portions of the flood plain of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River South of Belrliz:e Road. The ~orthwest Dallas County Flood Control District lies tc the north of the Railroad and west of the river and is currently reclaiming flood plain land. These agencies must also confirm that the Beltline Road improvements will not adversely affect their reclamation projects. The Federal Emergency Management Agency must review and approve the project to confirm that the proposed improvements do not adversely affect any property adjacent to, or upstream of the project, wirb regard to flooding. In addition to these agencies, the proposed imprcvememts must be reviewed and approved by the Cities of Coppell, Irving, and Dallas; and Dallas County, to assure compliance with all applicable standards and speclficaticns. DESIGN CRITERIA III. DESIGN CRI%ERIA ~he City of Carrollton's Master Thoroughfare Plan has established Beltline Road as a 6-lane divided minor arterial roadway (M6D). The City of Carrollton's Standard design criteria for this type of roadway is included in Appendix 1. %he Carrollton Standard allows tbe improved Beltlinm Road to be constructed within a 100-foot wide right-of-way. The roadway will be designed based on the full 6-lane cross-section with the initial phase of construction being a 4-!ane roadway with a widened median. When traffic counts reach a point where additional lanes are required, Beltline Road can be widemed toward the median tc its ultimate cross-section. The recommep~ed typical sections for the imitial and final construction plans are shown on Figure 3. The City of Carroilton Standard design spee~ for z six-lane divided arterial is 45 mph. This design speed appears reasonable based on its use for similar facilities of this type in the Dallas area and on tha 1984 "Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" published by the American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials (A~S~TO). It is recommended that a design speed of 45 mph be adopted for tbe improved Beltline Road. Three items must be considered with regard to the design speed to assure a safe, smooth riding roadway. %hese include vertical alignment, horizontal alignment and stopping sight distance. The criteria established by the City of Garrollton and AASH~O for these parameters have been reviewed and are summarized in Table 2 belcw. In addition, City of Dallas criteria are shown for comparison purposes. Consultation with Mr. Ed Powell, Coppell's City Engineer, indicated that Coppell's standards are not let written although an amalysis o~ the plans for MacArthur Boulevard morth o~ Beltline Road suggests that the Coppell standards may be lower than those used by the cther agencies. AASHTO design criteria are based on ongoing transportation research and are used as baseline data for the criteria of other agencies. It is recommemded that the AASHTO standards be adopted for Beltline Road. l0 TABLE 2 STANDARD ROADWAY DESIGN CRIIERIA [ ] Minimum ] Mi~i=uu ] Minixum ~ [ [K* Factor ~ Horizontal ~ Horizontal IMinim~ ~ Maximum ~Crest/Sag I Curve :Curve l/4"/Foot ;Stoppingl ~ Grade ! ~ W/O Super I W/Super : Sight .[___~a:~___i ....... i ......... l_~lc~i~___!__~!c~a~i~ .... i~i~an~ci Carrollton 6% 84/85 840 -- ] 400 City of Dallas 6% 69/44 1080 -- 310 AAS[{~0 6% 120/~ { ± 9000 845 400 City of ] Coppell** -- 42/? I 850 -- 2~ K-L~, where L Length o~ vertical curve in feet A = Algebraic difference of intersecting grades in percent. **Based on MacArthur Boulevard plans north of Beltline Road. 1! A large portion of the property with Beltline Road frontage from just west of MacArthur Boulevard in Coppell to Hutton Branch in Carrolitoa has been reclaim.ed from the Elm Fork flood plain by filling. In general, these areas have been filled to a level of approximately two feet above the 100- year fully developed water surface elevation. Because of the flat adjacent land, Beltline Road will need to be constructed on a relatively flat surface. The design will utilize minimum grades and a sequemce of alter- nating crests and sags to create adequate drainage of the street. For the at-grade segment it is recommended that the minimum sag elevation be set at the 100-year fully developed flood water surface elevation and the maximum crest elevation be set at the 100-year flood water surface elevation plus one foot. Ihis will allow the areas immediately adjacent to the roadway to drain to Beltline Road while still allowing the roadway to be at or above the 100-year fully developed water surface. At bridge lccations, it is recommended that the lcw chord of the bridge beams be set a minimum of 2-feet aoove the 100-year fully developed water surface. This will allow the 100-year flood to pass belcw the bridge structure without significant head loss and will provide adequate freeboard as a safety factor against floating debris and floods of greater magnitude. 12 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS ALTerNAtIVE ALIGN[~NTS If Beltline Road ks improved along the existing alignment, the proposed improvements can not be accomplished within the existing right-of- way at the ma~or street intersections. At these intersections, Beltline Road amd the north-sooth intersecting streets must be raised to meet the grade of the adjacent S.L.&S.W.R.R. This imcrease in elevation will cause embankment slopes to extend beyond the available right-of-way and purchase of either slope easements or additional right-of-way will be required. A secondary impact of the raising of Beltline Road at these locations restrict access to the properties adjacent to the imtersections. Alternative solutions to the lack of the right-of-way at major intersections include use of retaining walls adjacent to the roadways or lowering the railroad rather than raising the streets and purchase of mddi- tional right-of-way. Retaiming walls may prove economical at some locations. However, lowering the railroad grade is considered to be too expensive and time consuming and has not been further analyzed. Additionally, over the entire length of the project, wherever the Beltline Road embankment extends into the adjacent railroad right-of- way, slope easements will be required and e~isting railroad drainage facilities may need to be reconstructed. Other minor acquisitions of right- of-wal or slope easements will be required at locations where the existing 13 right-of-way is less than 100 feet wide and at tlutton Drive where the inter- section will have to be raised to meet flood criteria. 2. As previously discussed, Beltline Road should be raised above the fully developed 100-year flood water surface elevation of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River add Hutton Branch. To accomplish this, Beltline Road must be raised from 2 to 9 feet. Approximately 300,000 C.Y. of borrow material will be required. At an estimated cost of $4.00/C.Y., the timated fill cost is $1,200,000. Two ma~or ~ngersectioms, MacArtbur Boulevard amd Luna Road, botk 6-lane major ghoroughfares are included in the easterly portion of the [~roposed Beltline Road Improvements. If Beltline Road is ~mproved in its present location, it must be raised at the Luna Road amd MacArthur Blvd. ingersection, so thai crossing of ~he S.L. & S.W.R.R. can be accomplished. In order to cross MacArthur and Luna, Beltline Road must be raised ap- proximately 5 to 7 feet higher than what would be required to ,~eet 100 year flood criteria. Luna Road will have to be reconstructed for approximately 525 feet sou~h of Beltline Road. Furthermore, a Lone Star Gas Company metering station is located in~:ediately East of the Luna Road intersection. This raising of Beltline Road will require either a relocation of the meter- ing station or construcgion of retaining walls to protect the station. The 14 estimated cost fcr retaining walls at this location is ~50,000. If retain- ing walls are constructed, access must be provided from Luna Road to the metering station. Construction plans for tbs proposed MacArthur Blvd. crossing of the railroad have bean prepared by tbs firm, Nathan D. Maier Associates (~DMA) on behalf of a landowner north of the railroad. The segment of these plans at the railroad is shown on Figure 4. The ~DMA plans show MacArthur Boulevard with a crest over the railroad tracks. The crest vertical curve proposed gives a stopping sight distance on MacArthur Boulevard of only 280 feet. This distmnce is below the AASHTO recommendations and corresponds to a design speed of approximately 35 mpb, which is 10 mph below the desired design speed. Signalization of the Beltline-~acArthur intersection only provides for control of traffic movements and will not ~ake the intersection safer with regard to the stopping sight distance. Bringing the intersection tc standard will require raising of MacArthur Boulevard for a longer dis- tance north and south of Bel~line Road than is shown on the 5DMA plans. If the Luna Road and MacArthur Blvd. intersections occur at the present location on Beltline Road, the left turn lanes on both streets will lie in the S.L. & S.~.R.R. railroad crossings. From a safety standpoints this is a very undesirable condition because vehicles will be stopped on the railroad crossing for extended periods of time during normal ~raffic movements. Secondly, the intersection configuratien may have a detris;ental effect on Beltline Road traffic because vehicles turning north from Beltline to MacArthur will be backed up onto Beltline Road during train operations (there will be no room to store vehicles on HacArthur Blvd. between Beltline 15 and the railroad gates). To offset this effect, the right (westbound to northbound) and left (eastbound to northbouod) storage lanes would have to be long enough to store sufficient ve~icles without affecting the through Beltline traffic. PuCton Drive will also require some minor improvements when Beltline Road is improved. The Hutton Drive improvements will require raising the roadway to meet the proposed Beltline Road grades. Bridges across the Elm Fork of the ~rinity River and Hu£ton Branch are signifi~ane concerms because the length of these bridges will greatly impa¢: the total cost of the pro0ect. Table I lists the length of the existing bridges in this reach of the river. The hydraulic effect of the bridges on Beltline Road has been modeled with the U.S. Arn~ Corps of Engimeer's Computer Model F~C-2 using a single model and a tri~le split flow analysis. T~e model shows that all cf the existing bridge structures, except the main channel bridge, are belcw the 100-year water surface eleva- tion and must be removed and replaceC with the new structures regardless of the alignment of Beltline Road. ~he main channel bridge has only 0.5 feet of freeboard above the 1C0-year water surface, and it lies in the center of the existing right-of-way. ~herefore, this bridge must also be removed and replaced tc provide adequate freeboard to match the full roadway section alignment. ~he center[ine of ~eltline Read is approximately 100 feet downstream of the centerline of the S.L.&S.W. Railroad. Therefore, to 16 provide efficient flow ckrough the railroad and roadway bridge, the lengtk of bridges on the proposed improved Beltline Road should approximately equal the length of the existing railroad bridges. This assumption was made amd tested with the t~C-2 model. It was found that this is a reasonable assump- tion at each crossing, with the exception of the overflow bridge on tke west side of the Elm Fork main channel. The existing railroad bridge at this location is 1000 feet long, but it carries only apprnxi~mtely IG percent of the total 100-year flow in the Elm Fork. The development north of the railroad and west of the bridge has encroached +_250 feet on the west side of the bridge, thereby reducirg its effective length to ?~0 feet. It was fnund tkat the proposed Beltline Road bridge at this location length could be reduced to 600-feet long by funneling the water into a smaller opening and improvin~ the ckannel sownstream cf Beltline Road. This reduction will retain the present flow distribution between the main channel and tke two overflow bridges. Thus, the bridges required on the Elm For~ for ge[tlire Road in its present lecatien irclude a 600-foot long ~ridge at the overflow bridge west of the main channel, a 260-foot bridge on cee main channel, and a 400-foot bridge on the overflow bridge east of the main channel for a total length of 1,260 feet. Figure 5 shows a preliminary profile at each of tke proposed bridges. The hydraulic effects of these bridges are summarized in Tab~es 3 and 4 belcw: l? TABLE OF WATER SURFACE DALLAS CO:J~ITY EL~ FO~K HYDRAULICS SINGLE MODEL ANAL~SiS JANUARY : FENA MO~EL PROPOSE5 LOCATION ~STATiON FEMA MODEL UFSATE~ ~ELTL2ME PROPOSED E:~ISTiH5 AT IMPROVE. FILL EXISTIHG AT SOUTH. PROJECTS LOCATIO~ ROUTE (ELMBLTR) CBELTS~ (BELT4) CBELT~> ~EO.CO 459.~ 459.88 457.~ 459.91 8~5.~C q40.11 440.i0 440.10 440.00 701.55 - - 440.17 440.01 ~.'S PFC? S~ ~02.~5 - 440.1~ 440.00 U/S P~CF ~R ~05.45 - 44C.2! 440.06 ~95.30 ~40.24 440.2C 440.20 440.21 ~O~.CO 440.18 440.15 440.15 45~.~4 ~08.70 - D.'S E"IST CR~ ~0~.50 45~.25 45~.27 : ~0~.5C 442° 10 442.07 441.?0 441.53 ~ D!J.O0 442.4~ 442.45 442.24 441.5B D/S ~AILFOAD: ~i3.JO 442.4~ 442.48 442.27 44i.~1 U/~ RAILROAD: ~!0.5J 442.55 442.~2 44~.5! 441.~ : 9ii.50 442.85 442.8~ ~42.~7 442.~5 : ~2G.~7 445.~ 445.90 445.75 44~.54 ! ~5J.97 444.58 444.60 - ~SEL REFLECT IO0-YEAR FLOOD WITH FULLY DEVELOPED CONDITIONS~ 0=55800 CFS !8 TgOLE 3F OATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS :ALLAS C5URTY ELR FORK HYSRAU..~ - SPLIT r.~g ~qALYSIS 3ANUARY 19S6 : I~ EXIOTIR6 CONDITION NOUEL ,." P£OFOSEU C~NDZTIGN NOCEL 11 PROPOSED CONOITION NOOEL LOCATION :STATZON .," :I EX~STiNU AL:GNRENT ,," 3CUTHERR ROUTE .," ~l LE?T C~ANREL I RZGHT .," LEFT CHANNEL RIGHT ~." LEFT : CNANREL RI6HT ,." :l ~VER~ANg .'O~ER3ANK l; OVERSHNR - OVER3ANK ,," OVERSANR ; OVER3AN~ ,." ,, !SELT~L! :3ELT~C I (~ELTZR] ,,"(SELT4L! iBELT4C) (SELT4R) ,," iDELTPLI : (3ELT~C) (EELTPR! ,," .'~78.~0 .," 4~?,$~ 4~9.85 I 439.85 ,." 439.35 4~9.~5 4~9.$~ .," 437.G5 : 439.S5 439,80 I H95.9~ .." 440. Z& 440.2~ ' 440.!1 .." 440.26 440,19 440.!! .." 440.0~ ~ 44~.0! 440.02,," ~/5 PROP ER : ~02.~5 'l I; .." 44~.07 : 440.05 439.E7 " UfO PROP £~ I ~0~.45 :l ~: .~" 440.09 : 440.12 439.98 ,," ; ~03,4~ I ..... ,, ,, 440.!0 I 440.!~ 440.02 ,," I ~5. Z~ :: 440.~0 440.~4 440.!3 ~ 440.~5 440.42 440.:4 I: 440.15 : 440.2? 4a0.33 :l · .o. 0 440.~7 441.35 II .' ~09.aG :: :43.:~ ~40.09 442.~C.." 4~2.4] 440.~ 442.96 ,," 442.:? ] A40,:6 442.4: 1: . : n ~3 ': ~43.~0 441.C0 4~2.90 ~I ~42.49 ~41.35 443.20" 442.24 ] 440.:0 442.51 I: 315 EAILg:Gg~ 71:.30 :: 443.29 441.]0 443.G3.," 442.89 ~....9"4~ · 443.24,," 443.3! I 44Q.4G 442.50 .." UI~ PA:L~CAO: 9!0.~0 :: 4~3.20 441.I0 443.0~ I: 442.96 441,4~ 44~.25 I: 442.33 ; 440.40 4~2.57 :I As shown in the Tables, the water surface upstream of the rail- road was lowered approximately 0.2 feet by the proposed bridge improvememts. Computer output, water surface profiles, cross sections, and cross-eection locations for this model are included in Appendix 2. The Hutton Branch crossing will require a bridge approximately 260-feet long, giving a total length of bridge opening for the project of 1,520 feet. The total estimated cost of these bridges is $3,600,000. 5 · ~il i~ifla As previously stated, there are several utilities which lie along the existing Beltline Road right-of-way. These include: 1) a Lone Star Gas Pipeline, 2) an American Petrofima Pipeline, 3) an Ex~icrer (Dorchester) Pipeline, 4) a 12-inch Sanita~' Sewer Line, 5) a Texas Power and Light Company overhead electric line, and 6) a City of Carrolltom 12" water line. The exact location of these utilities has not yet been determined, however, approvals must be acquired from each utility company prior to construction. In addition, provisions must be made so that these utilities are not damaged during construction. Since fill will be placed on top of the existing utility lines, they must be checked to assure that additional overburden will not damage these lines. 2O Fill will be placed under the existing Iexas Power and Light Company overhead power line. Ibis line may have to be raised tc maintain proper vertical clearance. 6. As shown on Figure 2, there are four existing access points for property owners north of the S.L.&S.W.R.R. gacb of these access roads cross under the existing railroad bridge. If existing Beltlina Road is raised 2 re 9 feet to meet flood criteria, the vertical drop from the new roadway to the area under the bridges would be increased significantly. The access roads would have cc be reconstructed parallel to Bel~line Road, for some distance withim railroad right-of-way to allow an adequate grade between Belrline Road elevation and the elevation beicw each bridge. Access roads parallel to Beltline Road would be an undesirable and unsafe condition. an alternative, the access roads could be realigned so that they intersect Beltlime Road at right angles and cross the S.L.&S.W.R.R. at grade. This alternative may be more costly; but it would provide a more acceptable design fcr private access. Figure 12 shows that access to the north is limited along Beltline Road since a crossing of the railroad would be needed. In addi- tion, Figure 12 shows that visibility of the property north of Beltline is blccked by the railroad embankment. Beltline Road is a heavily traveled thoroughfare and an impor- tant link to :brough traffic. It must therefore remain open at all times during construction. This will require detouring traffic during 21 constructicn. The first phase of construction will require utility adjust- merits including raising and relocating TP&L's overhead power line. In the second phase of construction, the embankment, drainage system and pavement for two eastbound lanes of Beltline Road will be constructed. In this phase, only two of the tkree prcposed eastbound lanes at the bridges over the main channel of the Elm Fork and Hutton Branch cam be constructed be- cause of insufficient lateral clearance to tke existimg roadway. During this time, traffic can remain on the existing roadway surface amd an in.- proved shoulder on the north. (See Figure 6.) After the eastbound lanes of the roadway and bridges are completed, traffic will be routed onto these lanes. In the third phase of construction, the existing roadway will be r~moved, and the embankment, drainage system and pavement for the westbound lanes, including the westbound bridge lanes, will be constructed. In the fourth and final ~hase of construction, the third eastbounC lane will be constructed at the Elm Fork and Hutton Branch bridges. At this time, the City of Carrollton is evaluating an option to build six lanes of pavement in the roadway secticns of Beltline Road rather than four lanes. If tbis option is chosen, three roadway lanes will be built in Phase III instead of two. In Phase IV, the third lane of roadway and bridges will be built on the scuth section after re-routing westbound traffic onto tbe north lanes. Traffic control will be a key activity during all p~ases of the Beltline Road reconstruction because high speed traffic will be moving imraediately adjacent to the construction area. Barrier rails and other 22 protective devices will have co be erected by the Contractor and construc- tion equipment will be restricted from use of the existing roadway. The estimated Contract time fcr construction of the project is approximately 24 months exclusive of utility adjustments, which, depending on the time of year could take between 3 and 4 months. This is based on other Dallas County and City of Dallas Projects which were constructed under similar traffic ccx~itlons. These projects are summarized i.m Table 5 belcw: 23 TABLE 5 CONSIRUCTION TIMING EXISIING ALIGNME~ { [Approximate i Construction { Equivalent Past i Length of { Contract Time !Construction Hillcrest ]IH-635 ~o Spring Valley 1 mile 306 15 Greenville Ave. ~Royal Lane to IH-635 ~1.5 miles 235 12 Seagoville Road ~Acres to Picneer Road 2 miles 310 C~p Wisdom Road ~IH-355 to Houston School I mile 600 30 ~ Road Frankford Road ~East of Davenport to 1 mile 400 20 ; Preston Road *Abr~s Road ~Skillman t~ ;;almut m~ll i mile 60C 24 *Abr~:s Read was c~sed to ~raffic for approximately 12 months during construction. 24 Some of the listed projects do not include amy bridge construction. Although construction of the bridges will occur simultaneously witb the paving and drainage work, we estimate that the bridge portion of the projec~ will require 400 working days, although cee roadway portion could be tom- ple[ed in 300 working days. 9. The construction cost for tbe Beltline Road Improvements im the present location have neen estimated and are shown in Table 6 below: TABLE 6 ESII}~TED CONSTRUCTION COSTS EXISTING ALIGNMENT a. Sitework: $ 1,500,000 b. Paving: 1,52G,000 c. Drainage: 750,000 d. Bridges: ~.~L0J/.~Q Total $ 7,370,000 Plus 15% Contingencies __1.~.~0 $ 8,500,000 These estimates are based on Unit Prices which have been estab- lished by Dallas County Public Works and are based upon recent Dallas County projects. The limits of the estimare are from tha west end of the 25 west Elm Fork overflow bridge to !H-35E. Detailed back-up for these cost estimates are i~cluded in Appendix 3. 1. Ihe proposed southern route for Beltline Road is shown in Figure 7. To construct Beltline Road in this location, new right-of-way must be acquired from each of the property owners along the route. On ~oven:ber 12~ 1985 a meetfng was held between representatives of Dallas Coucty, the City of Coppeil's consulting engineer~ the City o~ Carrollton, and property owners in Coppell and Carrollton to discuss gbe proposed relccaticn. A list of the people that a~teeded this meeting is included in Appendix 6. It was stated that if the proper~y owners woulc dedicate the needed right-of-way for this alignmemt, then gke County woul~ release par- cels of the existing right-of-way of ~eltline Road to compensate the abutting property owner. This was agreed to conceptually by the affected land owners at the meeting. However, each part}' stated tba~ mo firm commit- ment could be made until the actual property descriptions were prepared and the alignment was approved by both c~ty councils. There is a portion of Beltline Road which crosses a lake owned by the Fart, ers Branch-Carrollton Flood Control District. ~his lake is not used for flood storage and, from an engineering standpoint, it could be filied~ ii a drainage culvert is constructed under Bel[line Road. ~he District has stated no opposition to the Southern alignment, however mo firm commitment will be made by the District until a formal request is submitted. 26 As discussed under section A.I, "Right-of-way Requirements" Rutcon Drive must be r~ised at the Beltline intersection, if the road is reconstructed along the existing alignment. This will require acquisition of slope easements at the southeast and southwest corners of the Belt[ine Road/Hutton Drive imtersection. The Southern Route will also require ac- quisition of slope easements, as well as some additional right-of-way. A portion of Eeltline Road west of MacArthur Boulevard to Moore Road will be within Dallas Power & Light Company property. A copy of the conceptual alignment has beem given to representatives of Dallas Power & Light Company. No comme~:cs have been received as of this writimg. Approxic.ately 80 percent of the area along the Southern Route has been filled abcve ~he l~0-)'ear flood level by the Far, ers Branch-Carrollcon Flood Control Distr~ct on the east, by Di~mnsion Development in thc mig~le and by the Irving Flood Control District on the west. The areas recizinmd by the flood control ~istr~cts were filled under the supervision of the geotecbnical soil laboratories, Maxis. Engineers on c~e east, and Rone Engineers on tke west. The fills were placed under densit} and moisture control to 95 percent Standard Proctor Density at or above optimum n.oistore. The existing f]lis are suitable fcr construction of roads. Letters from Maxim Engineers and Rone Engineers are attached in Appendix 7, Iherefore, very little borrow or erbankr:ent is required to construct Beltline Road aicng tkis alignment. The only embankmen~ required to be constructed is at the existing Farmers Branc~-Carrolito~ Flcod Control District lake and at 27 each bridge approach. Apprcximately 175,000 cubic yards of fill will be required for this work. Approxi=ately 20,000 cubic yards of excavation will be obtained from street excavation. Tbe additional 155,000 cubic yards can be obtained from improvements to the existing Irving Flood Control District Section Iii Elm Fork overflow swale and the Dimension Swale west of the Elm Fork main channel. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.B.d, Bridges and Drainage Structures. Ihe Southern Route will greatly improve the Luna Road ~ntersec- tion and =be Luna Road Crossing of the S.L.&S.W.R.R. If Beltline Road is built ±§G0 ~ee= south of the existing alignment, it will allow Luna Road to ri~e and safely cross the railroad at grade. Furthermore, thi~ revised ~!ignmen~ wii~ allow Luna Road to be ink,roved to overpass the rmiiroad if ti;e Luna Road ann/or the railroae traffic increases to the degree ti~at a grade separation becomes necessary. The profiles of these alternative crossings are shown in Figure 8. Some slope easement~ will be required along Luna Road to accomplish the railroad crossing at grade, but no slope easemenZs are needed for Beltline Road. This alternative will also require improvements to Luna Road. Luna Road between Hutton Branch and Beltline Road is below the lO0-}ear flood water surface elevation and was flooded in November 1981 by an es- ~i~:ated 25-year flood. It appears that the City of Garrollton shoule be receptive to shar~ in tee cost of reconstructing Luna Road for two reasons. 2~ One, it will bring Luna Road above the IO0-year flood water surface eleva- tion and two, it will allow Luma Road to safely cross the S.L.&S.~.R.R. Hutton Drive will also require s~e improvements when Beltline Road is raised. This improveu;en£ will require raising and revising the Hutton Drive alig.-m:e~t at Beltline Road to provide a safe intersection. Again, this will require the acquisition of slope easementa and/or additional right-of-way on beth sides of existing Hutton Drive. In the City of Coppeil, there are three street comnections to Beltline Road, MacArtbur Boulevard, Mockingbird, and Moore Road. With the Southern Route, the proposed MacArthur Boulevard crossing oi the railroad can be made safer. The left turn lane on MacArtbur Boulevard will not be on the railroad crossing. Also, the stopping sight distance on the crest at the railroad crcssimg can be imcraased by adjusting the grades and increas- ing the length of the vertical curve. This soutberm route will also allow a grade separation at the railroad crnssimg if future traffic conditions necessitated it. At the MacArthur - Beltline Road intersection, the bridge rai- lings et the gacArthur bridge over Grapevine Creek would cause a sight obstruction only if a vehicle attempts to cross MacArthur with a red light. The worst case stopping sight distance is 400 feet, which is withir the AA~IITO standard. Although the intersection will be only approximately 200 feet north of the Grapevine Creek bridge, there is adequate room to provide a t;imimum 200 feet of left turn storage. The MacArthur Boulevard median is 29 24 feet wide, which will allow the installation of two ll-fcot wide, 100- foot long left turn lanes. The Moore Road intersection can be accomplished without sig- nificant problems if the S.L.&S.W.R.R. will approve a railroad crossing. ~he Mockingbird intersection can be accomplished without significant en- gineering problems. The S.L.&S.W.R.R. must however grant approval for another street crossing. An additional 200 foot long, 50-fnot wide bridge must be constructed for Mockingbird to cross over Grapevine Creek. At $32 per square foot (based on Dallas County unit prices), the estimated cost for the additional Crapevine Creek bridge is $320,000. With tke proposed Southerm Route, Beltline Road will still cross the Elm Fork of the Trinity River and Hutton Branch. The hydraulic effects of Be!tline Road i~ this location have been evaluated with a simgle model and a split flow analysis utilizing tke U. S. Army Corps of engineers com- puter model HEC-2. The 100-year fully developed flcwrate of 55,800 cubic feet ~er second was established as the design criteria to be met. The detailed analysis has shown that with a total brid~e opening of 1260 linear feet within the Elm Fork floodplai~ the water surface elevation upstream cf the S.L.&S.W.R.R. is lowered approximately 0.6 feet. The results of this analysis are shown in %abies 3 and 4. This table compares the water surface in ~he left overbank, the channel, and the right overbar& for the existing condition with eke water surfaces due tc the proposed Beltline Road 3O improvements. Computer output, water surface profiles, cross sections, and cross-section locations are included i~ Appendix 4. The proposed Beltline Road southern alignment will require that the existing Irving Flood Control Distr~ct Section Ill overflow swale be extended upstrea~ of the proposed Beltline Road location. In addition, the channel on tko east side of the main channel which was excavated for reclamation of the property east of the main channel should also be extended upstream of the proposed bridge. Approximately 155,000 cubic yards of material will be generated from these improvements. This material will be used to construct embankments at bridge approaches and to fill part of the Farmers Branch-Carrollton Flood Control District lake as discussed in Section 4.B.b, Embankment Requirements. To provide efficient flow, the existing Beltline Road bridges will be removed. A schamatic plan view of the proposed brJdse and channel improvements is shown in Figure 10. The lengtk of the proposed Hutton Branch bridge is 360 linear feet. As shown in Figure 10, this is an adequate length to completely cross the existing channel without encroachment. The existing Hutton Branch bridge will be removed once traffic is routed over the new bridge. From MacArthur Boulevard in Coppell to Hutton Drive in Carrollton, there are no existing utilities within the proposed alignment. The only utilities near the Southern Route are a City of Copgell water line and a sanitary sewer line which lie within the MacArthur Boulevard r~ght-of- way amd a multiple duct under&round telephone conduit within the Luna Road 31 right-of-way. If the Southern Routa is selected, both the City of Coppell and the City of Carrollton should be contacted to determine what utilities these cities may wish to install along or across the street prior to construction. West of MacArthur Boulevard the southern route will cross an existing Dallas Power & Light Company overhead electrical transmission line. The southern route west of MacArthur will require close coordination with and approval by Dallas Power & Light Company and the City of Dallas. As previously stated there are four property owners north of the ~.L.&S.W.R.R. who presently gain access to their property from existing ~eltline Road. Ibis is shown in Figure 2. If Beltline Road is constructed along the Southern Reute, access easememts should be provided from proposed Beltline Road to these points. The two access poimts west of the Elm Fork main channel and the access point at the East Elm Fork overflow bridge are within the floodway of the Elm Fork o~ the Trinity River. The feurth point of access lies approximately 350 feet east of Luna Road. Access could be provided to this point f~om Luna Road along the south right-of-way line of t~e S.L.&S.~.R.R. The acquisition of these proposed access easements must be resolved tc relecate Beltline Road in the Southern Route. ?. Cons One of the major advantsges to using the southern al~gns;ent is that it will allow all of Beltline Road, from Moore Road in Coppell to 32 Hutton Drive in Carrollton, to be constructed off-line without any traffic. This means that all of the major bridges can be constructed without having to contend with traffic and detouring. Since the ~a~or portions of the Beltline improvemeots will be constructed off-line, the ti~m for construction will be greatly reduced. We estiu, ate that construction of the paving aod drainage for this project can be completed in 180 wcrkimg days, or an equivalent total length of time of 9 months. This is based on similar paving and drainage projects which have been recently completed. Some of these projects are summarized in Table be!cw. These projeccs did not include any bridge construction. Construction cf the bridges could occur simultaneously with the paviEg and dr&inage construction, however we do estimate that an additional 60 working day, or 3 months, will be needed to complete the bridge work. Therefore, the total estimated contract time to complete the Beltline Road imprcvememcs is 220 working days for a total time of 12 months to complete the project. 33 TABLE ? £ORSTRUCTION TIML~G SOUiHER~ ROUTE APPROXIFAIE CONSTRUCTION EQUiV,~EKT LENGTH OF CONTRACT CONSIRUCTION PAST PROJECT TIME PERIOD MacArthur Irvin§ 4,500 140 C.D. 5 Freeport Parkway Coppell 1,780 90 C.D. 3 Valwood Park Famers Br. 11,100 155 W.D. 8 Fossil Creek Fort Worth ?,000 150 8 34 9. The estimated construction costs for the Beltline Road improve- merits are Shown in Table 8 belcw: TABLE 8 ESTIF~'~TED CO~STRDCTION COSTS SOUTHERN ROUTE Sitework $ 740,000 Paving 1,220,000 Draimage 636,000 Bridges Subtotal $6,310,000 i~% Contingencies Iotal $7,300,000 These estim:ates are based on unit prices from other comparable projects which have been completed with no existing traffic or existing utilities to deal wi~h. Limits for the estimate are from, tke west end of the existing west Elm Fork cverflcw swale to iE-35£. Detailed back-up fcr these cost estiuates are included in Appendix 5. EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS V. EVALUAIION A~;D RECOM}:ENDATIONS A. ~f~r~Y l~provements tc Beltline Road in its existing alignment can be rated as a safe adequate design when considering only Beltline Road. However, when one also considers the Luna Road and the MacArtbur Boulevard intersections with Beltline Rcad and the S.L.&S.W.R.R. crossings, the safety of the existing alignment becomes questionable regarding stopping sight distance and the traffic movements at railroad crossings. Moving these intersections approximately 600 feet south of the railroad and eliminating the need for vehicles to be stopped ir the left turn lanes and at traffic signals on top of tko railroad is a definite safety advantage. The stopping sight distance for the MacArtbur - Beltline intersection as it is designed tcday is only 280 feet, which is below ~ke minimum AASHIC standard. The minimum 400-foot stopping sight distance recommended by AASHTO can be achieved by moving Beltline Road about 600 feet to the south. The Froposed Southern Route utilizes reverse horizontal curves to accomplish the rslocation of Beltline Road and these are aa safe as the straight existimg alignment by designing these curves with radii and super- elevetion which far exceed the City ef Carrollton, City of Dallas, and AASHIO standards, this proposed alignment is as safe, if not safer than any other major thoroughfare in tkis area. Ihe greatest drainage consideration is the length of bridge re- quired at the 51~ Fork and Hutton Branch. Our preliminary hydraulic 36 analysis indicates that with Beltline Road improved i~ the existing align- ment, approximately 1,260 linear feet of bridge will be required at the Elm Fork and 200 linear feet is needed to cross Hutton Branch. ~he total bridge length needed will be about 1,460 linear feet. If Beltline Road is relo- cated along the proposed Southern Route, the lengths nf bridge required will be 1,260 linear feet at the Elm Fork and 380 limear feet at Hutton Branch for a total of 1,640 linear feet of bridge. If Mockingbird in the £ity of Coppell is to tie to Beltlime Road, an additional bridge will be required to cross Grapevine Creek. ~he es- timated cost of this bridge, based on Dallas County unit prices is $320,000. As previously discussed, the estimated total time for construction of the Belcline Road improvements in the existing right-of-way is 24 z,onths. During this time traffic movement on Beltline Road, Luna Road, and MacArthur ~oulevard will be himderad due to construction and degonring. If Beltlioe Road is built in the proposed Southern Route, the estimated total construc- tion time is 12 months. Traffic movement will not be affected on Beltline Road, MaeArtbur ~oulevard, nor on Luna Road since all construction will take place off-line away from the existing roadways. D. ~ost The total cost fcr constructicn cf Beltline Read fro~ the west eod of £be cverflow bridge west of the Elm Fork nain channel to 19-35£ are summarized ic ~able 9. 37 TABLE 9 SUN}~RY Of ESTI}~TED COSTS BOTH ALTERNATIVE ALIGNEENTS Item Existing Alignment So~tb ! Cost Sitewcrk $ 1,500,000 ~ 740,000 i <$ 760,000> I Paving I ,520,000 I ,220,000 ~ <300,000 > I Drainage 750,000 630,000 ~ <120,000> i [ Sub~otal $ 7,370,000 : $6,310,000 : <$1,060,000> i~li~i~ ........ I~I~Q.Q~_ _i .... ~QQQ .... i ...... ~: ....... [ Total $ 8,500,000 , $7,300,000 ~ <S1,200,000> 38 As ahow~ in this table, the s{tework is leas costly for the Southern Route. Thia is due to the fact that 60 ?ercent of the propoaed route baa already beet filled and therefore very little borrow fur embank- ments is required. The coat for paving and drainage is slightly leaa for the Southern Route alan. Although tko total length of the roadway in- creasea, there are more bridgea in the Southerr. Route so the actual amount of paving and drainage decreasea. Also, the unit prices for the Southern Route are less due to construction without traffic considerations. Since there are more bridges in the Southern Route, the bridge cost for thia alignment is greater than tbe bridge cost in the existing alignment. As shown i~ the cost summary taole, the costs for bridges in the Southern Route ia greater than the cost for bridges in the existing alignment. However, this additional cost is off-set by the raduced cost borrow material required and tke reduced cost of construction due to the ability to construct the improvements off-line without traffic. In fact, tkere ia still au est~:mted cost savings of $ 8~),000 wi:em tko cost of the additional Mockingbird bridge over Grapevine Creek is considered. This estimate was performed for tke section of Beltline Road from tko west end of the overflew bridge west of the Elm Fork main channel to IH-35E. If a cost analysis is performed for the section from tko west end of the overflow bridge west of the Elm Fork to Moore Road in Coppell, an even greater cost savings will be realized for construction in the Southern Route alignment since again the roadway can be constructed without traffic. We recommend tkat the Dallas County legal staff analyze in detail all legal aspects of the alignments regarding right-of-way acquisitlcn, 39 access easement requirements, and legal ability to construct the roadway along the proposed Southern Route instead of the existing alignment. ~. Reco~p~.~a~ig_R Wi~en analyzing the two alternatives, ghe Southern Route is far superior than the present alignment. The southern alignment will provide the safest. most cost effective solution which can be constructed im the shortest time frame. Therefore, from an engineering standpoint, we recommenC that Dallas County pursue the realignment of Beltline Road along the proposed Southern Rcute from Moore Road in Coppell to IH-35E in Carrollton. 4O FIGURES AREA OWNERSHE) I J.B. WOOD 2 TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY 3 BETA PRODUCTS 4 W.L. GORDON COMPANY 5 F.B.C. - F.C.D. 6 BROSSEAU COMPANY ? THOMAS W. BLA_K. E JR. 8 D~MENSION  9 TRILAND/NORTHSTED JOINT VENTURE - ' '~-~- ~ 10 TRILA N D/NORTHSTE-~I~/T VENTURE 11 DUNNING DEVELOPMENT 12 DUNNING DEVELOPMENT 13 CROW/BILMNGSLEY 14 DALLAS POWER & LIGHT CO. ........ STL- & sOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD-- ,, I, ~ . '~: ... :.-~ .-. I ~ ~ .... ---,- ,. s I! / ~ - .- -' ~' .. ~.''- ..... [. ~ .-..'-~ :- / / /~ , ~ ., ~ . {~) ........ ,. ,., ~ ....... . / -~---, l*-- -,[ ~ // i~.- ~ ~ v ' , Xx.~' ~" ......... ~ ~ .-- / L'~ ' :~ /~ 7 ~ / . ~ , . - ........ _~. , , 1~'~ _ , _ -., ,~--- ,-- ~:~ ... PROPERTY OWNERSHIP /" : ; -~ .15 ~'~'~. ~'~ & ,'~/ BELT LINE ROAD -- .................. ~ ~ Y T d~--- :~/~ '~.r.~ DA~S COU~ - PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. .~' J I ~ SCALE I :2~ (A~ROX.) ~, 1986 TYPICAL SECTION INITIAL CONSTRUCTION t40T~/ DIM~N~IOIV~ SHC~VN (N.T.S) ,,~E ~o ~c~ ~_____o' ~. s' ~4' . I~' ~o' I FIGURE , P--,'""''"" I ~'~ ~ PROPOSED ~ADWAY ~ i CROSS SECTIONS BELT LINE ROAD ALIGNME~ STUDY ~PICAL SECTION *~""~ "'"~"" ~ssoo~s,~.~. FIN flL CONSTRUCTION (N~S) . . - ........ ~.~ ~ ', : .............. ~. ~ "-~ I .. ........................... ., .......... ;.. __ ~'~'~ ~ ~ : ..... ~. .............. -: ......... ~ ~.-~ .... ~ ...... t ....... ~ ...... ~ ..... -: ::--_ .... · . -: - . _ . - } -- .: · ....::.~: . - ..- . ~..,~ .... . .... . -.. ~ ' ._. ~ ' ' . . ' ' : .' .... ~ ~ -~ , ~ : ' ' I - - ~'~ ' ..... I~ ....... ~ : ..... ~ : - - - ~ - - ~ -- ~- - - ~.~ ..... -'"}. i~ : ...., ~. ~.' - . ~ ~. . ~: ~ ~ ....... ~: -~ - · .q. - . ~: . , ~:~ ? ~:~ ,~:"~ :~ ? ' ,~, ~. -' "~ t . :i~ . . ~1~ :... ,,e ........ I H ~ ~';- ...... , --': .... '. --: ...... ~ ......... ' .... t ....... :'-" ~' "'~ ~ '~'r~' . - :.. .~!. . · ~'"'-":-"-~'-'~-~- ~ - - ' : ' - - ~- ......~ ; . _ ............ !. . . . ,~, ~; : : z-'~ . -.. : ...... -.;[: . . . - : - :-,- · ..... ~ :- .... ~ - . , . -- - : ............ ~ .... ~ ........ ... -... ................................... . . .:.," . . ,~:,. . ] - · ! - : .... ; .... .7%' - -:' L . - '.' - ' . . ' -' '. ........ i: - .! ~'~ '~' ' '': - '! ........ ..................... ~ ~ - . . ,~.- i 7-z ;' . . ~ . ............... . ,. .~,~ ............. ~ .,;.~. , - · ..... ', ~ ~' z. . ..-~.. - ...... - _..~.~L ...................... ~,~ ..... ~ ............................... - ................ .... , ~ ~ - - I ; ....... ~--7- ..... '~- ..~ -;2~' -- .. ........ . . ~ - . . ~ ,~..~,~-~ ........ ~ · ~ , .. ~ .... - .............. [ - , . . . ~ · . . ' . ,'- - ..' ...... · ..... . - ~ - ,~"'~----~ ~ ' '-.,.- ' /' ' :~z'~ - : - : - :: ..... ' ' ~-"_ - [ . ' Z L- ' : .... :. ~ "' - - · . . - · ......: ...... ~ ........... · t:' ! -l- ' t I' ' . . ,_- ..... ~ . :. . .... ~ ...... .t-. : ...... , .; ....... -': ~-t'-_z ZZ___- ' '' : _L~ __L_-_'~' :__-.LL_-.~:_' ' ' : .... !_~_" ' .:~.----__~.._: ..... - ....... -_;-- _. :_~:~_~Z_ ~_'__-'.-.l~ ...... ~ ............. ~- ~ ...... ,~ ........~ ................ ; ......... -'~ .................. z ..... - : ~ - - - : .......... . ..... . ' ~ i..- - --~ ...... ~] . ~ ~ . q l'. ~ ~ ' - , ~- . · '- - '-i~ .-: '.-, . - --: ..... ' - · ' .... ; ......... . ..... ~ ' - -' i.?-,, ' '~. ' ' ~.1 ' : '-'~:~ _: Z_ ~ f _- , ~., ' ;.' '~,! . ."7;.. ~ '~'iI~ · -~'[:' .... ~-.'l- ~1 . . ~, .. ' ..... ..... ~ ~ ...... ~ "· ....... k~ ' ' ' ~' i:~ ¢-..' ' ''~i~ ~r,'_ '~'~-_. ~-'-.2._~___~_'-,. ..... t.__-~Z ~-~.._--' .......... ."Z_,.~._~Z~. ........,j,-- ~-~1~ ...... ~ .......... ~- ............... : .................. 'R~_.~"--Z'T-F' . : ...... ':-7%--7 .............. -'~' ~"~ '".~i~'--- ~_~. - -~1[ - --~;~ -- - ~.l? - i - ,"',.S ~ : ' · .~.* ' : - ~-~: ~i- - - ~.t*,' ' ",i~.- ~ ..... ~ ' ~l~' 4.' ' , ' . ; ..... ~ ~1.................. ·.... ...... ~ ........ . ~I= u ..... ..- _ ,.-- ALLEYS 12 RES. 26 C2UA 36 C2UB 40 C4U 44 M4U 44 W4D 24 -24 M6D 33-33 P6D 36-36 NOTES : USE COLUWN I FOR ORDINARY TERRAIN HAVR~G AVERAGE GRADES FROM 0-8% . USE COLUI,ff~ 2 FOR ROLLING TERRAIN HAVING AVERAGE GRADES OVER 8% THE MAXIhlUM PERCENT GRADE WITIDN 30 FEET OF A I,IAJOR THOROUGDFARE IS 3% . Tile 30 FEET OF THE INTERSECTION OF A RESIDENTIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET IS 5% . A: THE ALGEBRAIC DIFFERENCE IN GRADES IN PERCENT. CARROLLTON , TEXAS THOPOIJGHFARSS