Just the facts, please! Opponents of the Trinity Parkway Spout Some Amazing Statements as Fact.

It just ain't so...

Q: Didn't most voters in 1998 believe the Trinity Parkway to be a low speed access road for the park?

A: No. The 1996 Trinity River Corridor Citizens Committee's report included a reliever route and said that making it a Tollway should be considered. The City's official explanation of the 1998 bond program included a description of the Parkway as a "6 to 8 lane" reliever route. The bond program's opponents published ads in The Dallas Morning News and the Dallas Observer stating that the "Proposed eight-lane tollway inside the levee would increase pollution."

Q: The Ballot language in 1998 said The Trinity Parkway. Weren't voters misled that it was a tollroad?

A: The media referenced the toll road many times. So, not only did many people know about the toll road, it was publicized.

Q: With new plans for The Trinity Parkway, will it extend more than 500 feet into the park?

A: Preliminary cross-sections of the roadway show that, from the toe of the levee, the roadway rarely extends more than 200 feet into the park, with a maximum of 300 ft. at a few locations where there are ramps leading to bridges crossing the Trinity River. In addition to the space between the roadway and the levee there will be a landscaped grassy area from the side of the road down to the floodway. The riverbed is 1800 feet wide from one toe of the levee to the other toe.

Q: Wasn't the original size of the entire tollroad 70 feet? And now is it more than 120 feet?

A: Never. None of the alignments has grown in width. Alignments 3A and 3B, the Combined Riverside Parkway alignments with all lanes on the east levee, have a lane width of approximately 114 feet.

Q: Won't The Trinity Parkway significantly reduce the parkland and the size of our lakes? And won't it be noisy and cause noxious odors?

A: From the confluence of the West and Elm Forks of the Trinity River down to the DART Bridge at the southern end of the levees, there are a total of approximately 2,300 acres in the floodplain. The roadway pavement takes up an estimated 113.5 acres inside the floodway. There is an additional 41 acres attributed to moving the roadway to accommodate the U.S. Corps of Engineers, or approximately 154.5 acres. This is 6.7 percent of that area in the floodway. A 100-foot strip of green space will keep park goers from seeing the Parkway and shield noise. Documented extensively in the Environmental Impact Study, putting a roadway inside the levees would be less obtrusive with regard to noise and odors than putting it outside the levees.

Q: The original estimated cost for the toll road was $690 million in the 2005 DEIS. In November 2006, NTTA published an estimated cost of $930 million on their web site. Isn't the cost increase because of engineering problems associated with putting the road in the floodway?

A: The increase in cost between the 2003 figure and the 2006 figure is based upon inflation, construction materials increases and labor cost increases. It is not a result of any engineering problems associated with putting the road in the floodway.

The $690 million figure comes from attachment E, which is the Combined - Modified alignment (without moving the roadway away from the levees) in 2003 dollars.

Q: Isn't this parkway location more expensive than the other alternatives?

A: Nope. Putting the parkway inside the levees is STILL much less expensive than putting it outside the levees. The following is a summary of costs (including construction, right-of-way and contingencies, and does not include work/costs that may be borne by others) from NTTA in 2005:

Alignments	2003 Estimated Costs*	Estimated Increase to Date**
2A - Industrial Elevated	$1.3 billion	32%
2B - Industrial At-Grade	$952 million	34%
3A - Combined Riverside	$709 million	28%
3B - Combined Modified	$731 million	28%
3C - Combined Modified moved away from the levee	Not included in Draft EIS	N/A
4 - Split Riverside	$777 million	28%
5 - Split Landside	$974 million	28%

*From 2005 Draft EIS
**From NTTA

According to NTTA, the estimated cost of ALL alignments has increased due to inflation, construction materials increases and labor cost increases. They will be releasing the new figures in their Draft Supplemental EIS, scheduled in summer 2007.

Putting the Parkway outside the levees will always be the most expensive alignment, due to the numerous property acquisitions (many through eminent domain) that would be needed, as well as the environmental mitigation and demolition required. It is estimated that there are approximately 250-300 structures that would have to be torn down, and over 800 parcels to be acquired. This would add several years to the construction schedule.

Other locations and solutions to the traffic congestion were studied in the 1998 TxDOT Trinity Parkway Corridor Major Transportation Investment Study. One of the solutions that were explored was double-decking Stemmons Freeway. That cost was estimated at $1.54 billion in 1997 dollars.

Q: Why shouldn't we look at putting the roadway outside the levees?

A: Been there. Done that. Two of the main objectives of the Balanced Vision Plan were to a) see if we actually needed the roadway and b) see if there was another place to put it besides inside the floodway. The design team of Alex Krieger (Urban Designer and Planner) and Bill Eager (Transportation Expert) looked at traffic volumes and locations in an effort to thoroughly examine all options. They were unable to justify any other location but in their endeavors, they were able to reduce the road width and conceptually design a more context sensitive roadway.

Q: Won't the Parkway flood if put inside the levees? The Corps of Engineers has admitted to it.

A: Any engineer will tell you that, eventually, all roads will flood. The question is, at what frequency? The Trinity Parkway is planned to withstand a 100-year flood. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Design Standards look at two flood conditions for roadway designs:

The design flood is that condition under which the roadway can provide uninterrupted service. The design flood must not overtop the roadway. For highways, it is the 50-year flood event.

The check flood is the event that must be applied to the highway design to determine if it causes any upstream or downstream impacts to other structures or property.

The Trinity Parkway is being designed for the 100-year flood event (actually the floodwall is being designed to the 100-year event plus 2 feet, per the Corps requirement), which is a more stringent design standard than TxDOT's design standard. This means the Parkway has a less than 1 percent chance of flooding in any given year. Since the levees were built in the 1920's, there has not been a flood event that would have inundated the Parkway.

Q: I've heard the roadway is being designed to the Corps' pre-Katrina design standards, and NTTA wants to get a waiver to avoid the post-Katrina design standards. Don't we risk damaging the integrity of our levees?

A: The only "rules" that are in place now are pre-Katrina rules. There are no post-Katrina guidelines in place. NTTA is not lobbying the federal government for a waiver. They are working with the Corps as they revisit their levee guidelines nationwide. As those guidelines are developed and if they are pertinent to our levee situation, NTTA will incorporate them into their design.

By placing additional fill against the levee, and providing the 100-year plus two feet floodwall protection, the Parkway construction will actually provide greater protection for our levees.

Q: Isn't the Trinity project stalled due to environmental and engineering problems? Isn't the toll road now more than twice as expensive and the construction process will take much longer, due to these problems?

A: The project is not stalled at all. NTTA is actively working on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In general, EIS documents take a long time to complete. For example, the Dallas Floodway Extension EIS began in 1990 and wasn't completed until 1999, with an additional two-year period in 2002-2003 to provide even more information in their EIS. Again, the increase in cost of the Parkway is largely due to inflation, materials and labor costs.

The construction process for the Parkway inside the levees would be significantly less than a Parkway outside the levees. Land assembly could take an additional four ?five years or more. No construction could begin in any given area until all parcels in that area were acquired and mitigated. A traffic control plan would have to be implemented to manage the vehicular access during the construction period. Congestion on Industrial Blvd. would be a major problem during the construction period. Furthermore, the utilities relocation effort down Industrial Blvd. would be massive.

A Combined-Modified Parkway inside the levees could begin construction in the floodway while the north and south properties are being acquired concurrently. The only disruption to businesses and traffic would be during the period when the north and south ends of the Parkway are being constructed, which amounts to less than one quarter of the Parkway.

Q: Wouldn't putting the toll road outside the levees allow us to add more capacity to the roadway?

A: No. All of the roadway alignments in the EIS are being studied using similar capacities - around 100,000 vehicles per day. The Industrial alignments could only handle more traffic if they had additional lanes. This is not feasible due to the constraints of the railroad bridge, the Law Sterrett Justice Center and its parking facilities.

Q: Weren't voters were promised access to the park from the Parkway? Is there funding for access to the park?

A: The NTTA has committed to provide access to the park, not from the Parkway itself, but from ramps constructed from the bridges crossing the Trinity River. These ramps were not included in the City bond program. If the Parkway is built inside the levees, NTTA pays for these ramps. If it is built outside the levees, or is not built at all, the City would have to find funding for park access.

Q: Can't the city can use the Corps' federal funds to dig out the lakes, even if we don't have a toll road in the park.

A: There is no documentation to support this statement. NTTA has committed to making excavation of the lakes a part of their project. This is an important part of Dallas' commitment to the Flood Extension Project.

About excavation and funding:

The Balanced Vision Plan requires the excavation of all these amenities (Urban Lake, Natural Lake, West Dallas Lake, river meanders) to create a beautiful park. The excavation of all of these amenities will provide twice as much dirt as the Corps needs to raise the levees. We do not know what the Corps' federal interest (cost sharing) will be in the projects above and beyond what they need to raise their levees.

The Corps does not simply provide flood control money without a local sponsor sharing the costs. The City still has to provide some portion of the costs of the Dallas Floodway lakes and amenities construction. Until the Corps' EIS is complete, we don't know what the City's cost sharing amount will be.

With the NTTA committed to providing the excavation for our lakes, this cost avoidance allows the City/Corps money to extend further to pay for more amenities from the Balanced Vision Plan.