Michael R. Veale 1717 Arts Plaza, Suite 2207 Dallas, TX 75201 22-Jun-15 The Honorable Michael Rawlings, Mayor City of Dallas City Hall 1500 Marilla, Dallas, TX 75201 RE: Trinity Parkway "Dream Team" Report Comments Mayor, Following are my comments re the 20 Dream Team Recommendations being submitted as part of your Public ForI Preface 1. I have been and continue to be an opponent of the Trinity Tollway as described by 3C plan. I applaud Larry Beasley/Dream Team recommendations; however with limitations and considerations described later. 2. The Balanced Vision Plan described an exciting and state for the Trinity floodway - something Dallas could enjoy and benefit from. However, after pulling the following thoughts together, I have concluded the City vastly underestimated the costs for the bond program to realize it. This resulted in a "deal with the devil" to prepose a road that did not consider or reflect the park as observed by the Dream Team. I am seriously concerned that the City Manager's Study Team will not be able to pull a "rabbit out of the hat? where incremental (non City) funds can be found to build a parkway to the Dream Team's full recommendation. I expect the compromises that will have to be made to achieve the funding level to build anything will continue to exacerbate the debate. I hope I am wrong. Time will tell. Introductory Comments: 1. The width of the 3C bench as drawn on the Trinity Parkway Design Summary rendering (handed out at your meetings) seems out of scale to number of lanes the original 3C proposal was to accommodate and the EIS diagrams reviewed. I sincerely hope that the rendering is to scale since this is a critical element for public review and comment. Given there was no scale on the rendering is difficult to judge. I did however pull an image from Google Maps of a portion of the floodway and superimposed segments from Riverfront and Lowest Stemmons approximately where the roadway appears in the City?s rendering. As you can see, it seems as if the width of the bench would be more significant. May suggest that the furthest extent of the bench from the levee into the floodway is appropriately represented so that the public understanding where the roadway/bench end and the land available for the park begins. "x Haggai-am; {Pa . j" ?La?ifgst Stemm?ns??wy - 2. A great deal of money will be required to build whatever design is approved. have no idea where the funds will come from I doubt anyone does at this point. However: a. I do not believe this road is as or more important than other planned efforts l-635 East). b. I do not support any allocation of any additional city funds incremental to what has previously been approved by the voters. Any funds advanced for other purposes should not be rededicated to the parkway. The next bond program (notionally 2017) should NOT include any funds for building the parkway. With our $10 billion needs inventory wanting and a maximum of about $1 billion plausible for the next bond program we cannot afford directing any capital or other specific funding schemes for the parkway. If you care about GrowSouth, Neighborhood Plus, etc. as well as the residents expressed priorities (Annual Survey) then we cannot afford investing in the parkway. c. Reviewed the Oct 10, 2014 briefing to the Trinity/Transportation Committee about Trinity Lake Amenities - $76 million forjust a piece of the park elements of the Balanced Vision Plan. It?s my understanding the vast majority of the bond funds for the parks have been spent therefore additional capital funding and/or Trinity Trust fundraising will be required. What?s real? 3. The recent floods should cause us to step back and consider what it is we really want to spend/built and whether it is viable or not. I have read dueling claims about whether the planned Tollway (3C) would be flooded or not. Regardless, we have now been reminded that its certainly more possible that people with short memories believed. Does flooding and extended closure change the engineering requirements and NTTA expectations that render the Dream Team proposal not viable if NTTA funds are required? 4. The 20 proposals we were given to comment on did not touch on speed limit. It should not exceed 45 MPH and the parkway should not be engineered for greater than 55 MPH. This is a critical design assumption for the City Manager?s study. It affects engineering roadway angles, etc). It probably raises funding issues NTTA) as well. 5. No doubt a complex tradeoff analysis will be required to figure out if any proposal is feasible. Funding being the biggest constraint - particularly plausible sources and what design minimums they require. lam finding it difficult to anticipate what might come out of the City Manager?s assessment. I expect lots of tradeoffs so it is imperative that whatever is recommended goes through a full and complete public review and comment period with adequate time allocated for this review. 6. The report to the City Council and the public should minimally include the following: a. The study?s goals and objectives b. Design objectives the team was asked to consider and balance; including weighting c. Design scenarios considered, described with maps/drawings, and evaluation results of each. Results would include if/how the 20 recommendation where achieved, associated issues/ implications, timelines and associated costs. d. To the extent that engineering/construction work over and above achieving the "base proposal? are being proposed they should be itemized with cost along with purpose/intent. By "base proposal? I mean to build to just the design objective. This means costs to position to enable future expansion should be quantified. Comments Regal-dig Each of the 20 Dream Team Recommendations: Smaller Parkway for Ibis Generation Only build a 4 lane roadway now fit those 4 ianes of baf?e (narrow ianes grass shoulders) meandering within the approved road corridor. :Four ianes oniy. The road shouid conceptuaity meander from edge to edge of the bench {see exhibit ieaving room only for traiis- The road shouid be banked per Beasley presentation. Meandering from edgeto edge does NOT mean out of proportion straight distances to meanders The George Washington Parkway is a good reference model- Build fewer ramps, oniy build two sets of ramps. accessing the inner city for the foreseeable future: 1 onloff pair at the north end near the Medical District and 1 onfoff pair at the south end near Cedar Crest. A maximum of WC seems reasonabie. The interchanges shouid be of'simpie diamond design as shown on the rendering. That means Cloverleaf or fiyovers. Roadway and iand bench elevations, roadway corridor and end connections to highways generally as eariier proposed The recent ?oods clearly raises the question of the viability of any road- There is an incremental cost for both a iarger and higher bench. See General comment 3. 11 Ban trucks except for emergencies Absolutely 14 Add a U-Tern option within the parkway corridor at mid-point Absolutely: Questi on is if the toilway is for park access as wdi then the. number and placement of the U-turn is important. 1) Outer 'nes are bench boundaries undressing, Parking Cereals. Elissa and parki n; landscaping, Parking 01:91:55., Landscaping, Parking ?mo?s. Vista and parking Diagram is to scale Access to Park Meander the parkway within the approved road corridor so that future road section can 3 be finished now as pull-off parking areas on See comments for point 1 and exhibit A above. both sides of the Parkway for access to the park and to the scenic overlook Pedestrian links across the parkway gene/rallyr 5 as earlier proposed 15 links under and over Reasonable requirement. No speci?c comments on links the parkway at about ?Awmile intervals 9 Top-ohlevee bikeways and pedestrian paths A5501 mew generally,f as earlier proposed 12 Al low oral-street parking aiong the parkway on Yes as there wili not be enough parking in pail-off weekend slow periods and special occasions parking areas. 13 Allow toll free park u5e from the parloiirinir Absolutely Yes on bikeways and pedestrian paths. As an avid cyclist, Service roads/bikewavslpedestrian paths I know there are lots of'details for functional trails. '15 around the parlerr genenailyr as earlier Iherefore, it's important to have the necessary experts' proposed part of the team. Unclear on the landispace requirements for the service roads to have a judgement. Locate transit stops so as to enhance tra nsit- user access to the park over the parkway for '16 example, provide a Houston Bridge streetr 600d idea stop and a Riverfront Boulevard bus stop. ian?scape 8: Park Experience Uesign re?nement of the lands pe configuration to add a consistent linear tree A parkway must betree lined (edges and medians} 4 pattern at about 20-4811centers along the thoughtfully designed, with density and with some parkway - making it a ?tree lined parkway" variability. for character and beauty ?esign re?nement of the landscape con?guration to add character, interest, and 5 a strong ecological strategyr aiong the Ves, absolutely. parkway, especialiy along the land bench idges and at stream outfall areas Design re?nement of ?ood protection barriers with landscape, art, wali treatments and hillocks or bermsto eliminate biank walis and secure more pervasive views of the park and to add character, interest, and a strong ecological strategy ail along the parkway. Unclear how at eliminating the ?ood protective barrier 1nil?! secure more pervasive views of the park. Hiding it as described (while visually more appeaiing) does not make it a parkway- A barrier wail of the height shown on original proposai submissions 605 me; meet the recommendations of the Dream Team as I understand them and is thae?fore not desired. 1? Design re?nement to exploit five major ?wow? views the parkway and city Unclear of details but good idea. Building Connections to Economic Development 10 For the ?Rear nionfComrnerce" and ?Mix Master District? cataiwe development to happen earlier than expected by aliowing development to locate as dose to the park as possible. Zhis requires more definition for me to better evaluate the recommendation. if location permitting is the only issuelconsh'aint and safety of the ievees is guaranteed then ok. If City incentives are required then no there are so many other ars of investment required {ref Neighborhood Plus} 18 For the ?Design District?, facilitate the current incremental development tend with regular and attractive pedestrian connections across the parkway to the park. Acceptable. 19 For the ?Southside District?, the current development inclination by enhancing the 'sump' water bodies as the primary amenities in this district the park and parkway are less important. My interpretation is th at this is in reference to the design work between the City Design Studio and Matthews Southwest for the meanders behind the ievees. No issue, in tact applaud the design thinking, however, we need more balance of incentives to further this thinking and needs of Neighborhood Plus. For the districts atthe far north and south ends of the parkway, just before it joins the existing highways, build under or over the roadway elevation within the aiign ment so that the parkway deveioprnent spurs private development that augments the eighborhoods. Not sure I understand this but accept with a road there needs to be transition to the regular landspe and fostering private deveiOpment outside the levees is a positive objective. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Michael Veale J. Paris Note that full 11x17, original plans are available upon request. 1m 25. 21315 The (in of Dallas O?h of the Mayor 15m DSEN Dalth 75101 REF Foams on the' may NM "Drum Tom" Report Comm Mean consider um our can-moms concerning an Trinity Parkway 11mm Tm m" Report I Item 01.- ?The 1mm, Lakes Connectorwnh 1W. Also ?lm I: the grown-Id railway with Wood: sti?e]. The Man'l?nn?splm on; however. Icon-Ian. "hum m: be mm the rim-ohm]. 1h- aclual mm lakes Connector (elevated) is not nmm?mohardn?stouumuml?dmm B?manmhammedumdn lawns-frail as shown [Mum as. a Imam hand 1mm hemmed Putt-nun Trellme Tollway. If the Com Pedestrian Bridge needed be ?unamlad' In main- way for the Wood." antigenic?) 0:3. than 1 Marion of tho Rail Modifian?nns In ham and radium hall. could be used as a bypass an Indiana the Waterman. Amr [he Eddy rucnrutmdiun. the Pythons: Trail and due. a name: Concerns: - Hummus Driveth MotCueSlmenas dammit-em 33;. male: Pedestrian ?Tavm uke'oter?m. Mm?aCanmms: w: he: Ml safety (not Item u: Shows the commons mule Partner. We We that long-term some type ofan mlnad connection between the Continental we: and the MT Vlcuw Station would greatly benefit the area. It ls shown on them H. We believe cm shun-um! this cant! be accomplished by extendlr? the existing D-Llnk (Home 122? In the West End own: the hummus a! me Cowl-lama! Federal-Ian mega. With this we open up the possibility (we mthamrld mull the Vitame Airport oman "are James C. Fara mo Parkman Dallas, 1: 75207 unis-122} J. Paris 99.2?: ITEM #2 (13 112mm LAKES CONNECTOR km .. ?a I?ll BM I - hf?. Ml nu I 1 'l Krau- Ibn-n'. II ?um . . mum 11%? ?y ?y Flanr' J. Paris mam-b M1?de D-La?nk elm-Gian man lad." I'mlb?ln ?DIE-mill nun-H I. nan-nun ?cannula I fldl??l?ll?. unnu- urn-tunn- . . Ur T.K?ehn 1? 11?. H23. 1.25M . 3 (Inf? 1'3 TULL rum, Gui?? :yjmp?r; .31 H-?flu, Fifi M..- W412 amnMp FM namr new. :19. - .. ind fur-i, r?mwm 8L5 the. Li! 19W - f?'LLl qr; WW .mcr mare; 4mm? .Mb?m mar Via-{Mm Miwzr?? +367, dim?: 3'51?; .r'dr? Elma flaw area Hw?m Ml? Hazlitt-Vi? 11441 1:15 mun: fir?""663"? i" ""y'iih? ?ght-1F "w f?mtml. rHM1+rM1?v ram: quailm. ma . . 33211411? ,er Imam rum :5 :t'rq WITH. .. .13 run,? Jim .lm mum :1de . . :5ucvm At mm. with"? gig?1:0 1m?b25r??21?yJ Wm mum}! 5w?w (am-1 'rmtiamumu nm?? rm 4.155..-. . . . Tawmwj mad. PW MW Kim #1413. {nu-tin Gaming. mat-55 F??m 71-th CONNIHEUE tin-radium; :744'1?6?41i- m??u LY chamvu 1.2M 651? gman-na 1mm.? m: tut? ,1 Law: 931,515. rut!? 59.9 awn 351 SL25- ROUTES. ?rm ?mm?"?w?hwqh ERIE - H'?qung 15? 33?? 1&1} . gamma. ram ?yr?mm Mum :uv Emma, 1.3L 4315*? -131?: Tm Ulwma. WFFIL, mar Fun r1? . . see page 2 T. Kriehn I u? If? ?v .- ??{atr't 4.4.113.3mm my: -. ?may will]! ?ll; -ut a . wwl?mwmi?grtih m1" Fa?iti?gq M- 1, gram?w?? ?m rmrm- . -: Mm mar-in- 4.1113 tum.F?m?tg'w r7??3?1ffwc1?' 3?3 1; {315+ (us-3 wad. 3 ?Ln-cf, mi a '55: W- r?i Fl E'Mfi a. a 1 ?rl; 1 ma Mag? 3 Hum?j 1' r} m?-ngf-i?ww' a: 3 ?ri?i5:53:95?) (It. ?1134?! r953. Eli-n 1 ?3 n. 'Ul rag-3;; 9-H: L. f1. VIEWS: (lam usual. 3&1? In rain! W51 5.444%] Man t?f?i 6-1131 .. Elm-4!? Hr} $35 cur-1'16 ex- '2 'a A. in? I'm? at": murmu- r'i- U391 I a-?sm rug-5:15 {$155 [Eevgiu?iff? my? EL 01 ?w 5 1-2.3 pm"; 113m wit-1 3' 1"?th 31mm ?x?r?fi r'a'r' gun-1.- 'f ski-wry g?rmi?a? 3532-5; Len-1'7! mam- I r3331 5 w; 3.1 11an sums .: ?Why .-- 31' ?Id-5?3? h? f? I r: Phi-1314.9: 5? ?f4. 4 TH - ?1,5 322 JimQ?j? 5 I. Jim..- g; It?- 4, 11.. t? ?w dugw-Jm in Gr; 1.1.1 sin-am) u? $1 1519' Vii-3 ETI- P. Murphy Kill the road and fix the potholes. The plan is so inconsistent with reality. and so few questions were answered at the meetin . that I cannot retend to present it to you, dear readers, as any sort of option for the future of Dallas. The Trinity toll road plan 5 ould die, and ere are eight reasons why. i. The ?dream team" plan isn?t actually the plan at all. Urban planner Larry Beasley said. via a speech for the Trinity Trust Foundation presented to neighbors by video. that the toll road would be built in a 10-year floodplain. In that case. the road would be underwater sometimes (including now. since we?ve just experienced a 10- ear flood). But assistant city manager Mark McDa niel said the road actually would be built in a 25*. 50- or tilti- year floodplain. at would that look like. and where are the plans for that? No one could answer. Beasley?s plan for the Trinity River park and surrounding development also calls for Ballas County to ?move the jails.? which would be great? Who wouldn't lilre to move the Lew Sterrett Justice Center from the front of the trinity River? However, Dallas County inst opened a ?ll-million hospital inside the jail. Seems unlikely they're just going to ?move the jails.?r 2. The dreamers' new plan is, politely Put. nothing more than an attempt at better public relations. City Councilman Scott Griggs is fond of pointing out that ?we were all sold on a bunch of pretty water colors? to buy into the first toll- road plan. That trend continues with this Beasley plan. The overall scheme still is to build a ?-to?B-lane tolled road between the levees; it's just that Beasley?s plan calls for doing it in phases. Phase one would create the four-lane ?meandering? tollway. leaving opportunities to build it out to double its size in a ?future generation.? But the city doesn't want us to think about that now. They want us to think about a ?cute little road.?r as Griggs calls it, and the love surrounding rk. But the city still has a contract with the Earth Texas Tollway Authority for the proposed road. ?They build toll roa s: they don't Edild cute little roads that are compatible with parks." Griggs said. ?This is just going to creep and become bigger and bigger." 3. No one who benefits from building the road would be paying the tolls. The Trinity toll road supposedly would serve to move worliers in southern Dallas to jobs in northern Dallas.??he Federal Highway Administration estimated that the road actually would cause more traffic. It is insultin that the city is asking workers in southern Dallas to get in their cars and drive to jobs 30 or 40 miles away in northern Dallas an pay a toll to the NTTA lor the privilege. Instead of building a toll road. we should be creating incentives to draw high-paying jobs to southern Dallas. That way, people in those neighborhoods would have good jobs and shorter commutes and therefore higher quality of life. 4.1t basically would tax people to use a public park. Beasley said the locus of the Trinity toll road should be the proposed park between the levees and access to that pa rli. But since it is a toll road, accessing the park would require payment to the HTTA. Beasley said the NTTA could enact ?toll forgiveness? lor park users. How would that work, exactly? No one could answer. 5. We don?t need it, from either an economic or traffic?reducing standpoint. We are in a huge economic upswing. Why are the moneyhags behind this unpopular and unnecessary road still so zealous about it when there are oodles of development opportunities out there? We don?t need to build a road for economic development. Economic development is happening, and the city freely hands out tax incentives for it. Right now in Oak Cliff. there are efforts to reduce the sizes of our roadways so that our neighborhood won't be a fly-through between the suburbs and northern Dallas. Tyler! Sylvan has been reduced from six lanes to four. and there is a plan to turn Tyler and Polk into two-way streets. The overall scheme for the toll road still calls for tearing down and rebuilding the Jefferson viaduct to massive proportions. which would destroy the neighborhood surrounding Burnett Field and Lake Cliff Park. 6. We can have parks and nice things without a road. The dreamiest part of the Beasley plan is that it calls for live overlook points that would build connections to economic development. Consider the relationship between the Continental Bridge Fork and ?l'rinity Groves. It's an area that draws the well- heeled of Highland Part: to fancy restaurants, and it also serves lamilia from La Bajada nei hborhoocl with the bridge park. for example. The Beasley plan calls for four more similar parlrfoyerlook areas complementing evelopment - near the Santa Fe Trestle trail. at the Reunion Tower areaa at Turtle Creek and at Inwood. Why do we need a toll road to do that? Or. if you want to build a road someday. let?s start with those projects first and then decide if we really need a road. I. The Army Corps of Engineers hasn't approved it. The Beasley plan offers photos of a beautiful, palm~tree lined roadway in Australia to show us what our first- phase, four-lane road could tool: like. Lots of big trees on both sides of the road. Lots of big trees and tiered landscaping throughout the park in a floodplain. The Army Corps of Engineers approved the city?s plan for the original scheme of a six-toneight-Iane highway. But it has not approved the cute little meandering road with all those trees in the Beasley plan. 8. global climate Ella age is real. Even though clandestine donors spend millions of dollars to fund climate?change deniers, it is science that our planet is getting warmer. The 1908 flood. which was the worst in Dallas history, was extremely devastating because the levees had not been built. But Dallas actually had more rain in Aprille 2015 than in Aprilfl?iay 1908. Why would we invest our money to build an unnecessary road in a ?oodplain, amid global climate change? P. 6055 The Frinity Parkway shouldn?t be built. 38 shooldn't be built. A "meandering" road shouldn?t be built. The floodan should be iett as is perhaps add ore trails. The Trinity to-li road plan should die, and here are eight reasons. why: 1. Yhe ?dream team?r pi an isn?t actualiy the plan at all. Urban planner i.an Beasievsaid, via a speech for the "Erinity Trust Foundation presented to neighbors by video, that the toil road would be built in a 10year ?oodp?ain. in that case, the road would! be underwater sometimes (including now, since we?ve just experienced a IOyear?oodle. But assistant city manager Mari: McDaniei said the road actually wouid be built in a 25, 100?year?oodpiain- What would that look like, and where are the plans for that? No one oouid answer. Beasle pian for the Trinityr River park and surrounding also calls for?allas ?ounw to ?move the jails,? which would? be great! Who wooith like to move the few Stenett Justice Center from the front :otthe Trinity River? However, Dal ias County just opened a SSDmi?lion hospital inside thejail- Seems unlikely- they?re just going to ?more the jails? 2. The d-reamers' new an is, politely put, nothing more than an attempt at better public relations- City Councilman Scott (Briggs is form of pointing out that ?we were ail solo on a bunch of pretty water- co lots? to buy into the ?rst toliroad plan- That trend continues with this Beasley plan- overall scheme still is to build a Eto8lane tolled roaci between the levees; it's just that Beasiey?s plan calis for doing it in phases. Phase one wou. create the four?la rte ?meandering,? toiiwa?y?, {eating opportunities to build itout to double its size in a ?future generations? But the city dloesn?t want us to think about that now. may? want us to think about: a ?cute liittle road," as Griggs calls it, and the Bowen- surrounding part. But the city stiil has a contract with the North "Texas Tolhvav Authority :I?or the proposed roadl. build toll don?t build. cute little roads that are com patible with parks,? Griggs said. ?This is just goi'ng'to creep-and become bigger and bigger.? 3. No one who bene?ts from building the road wo-uio be pavingt'he tolls. The Triruit-g toil road supposedly woold some to move workers southern Da?las to. jobs in northern Belles. The Feda'al Highway Administration estimated that the road actua It! would cause more traf?c. It is iosuitirug that the city is asking workers in southern Balias to get in theircars and drive to jobs 30 or 49 miles away- in northern- iDaiias and pay a toll to the RITA for the privilege. Instead of buildings: toil road, we should be creating incemti-ves to draw high-payingjohs to southern Da- Ias. That way, people in those neighborhoods mu (1 have good jobs and shorter utes and therefore higher (we ity of life. 4. it built; would tax people to use .a pwblic park. leey said the focus of the Trinity tol. road should be the proposed park between the levees and .accessto that part. But since it is a tol road, accessing the park would require payment to the MTTA. easlep said"; the couid enact ?to'l forgivmeW' for park users- How wouici that work, exactiv? No one could answer- 5. 'We don?t need it, from either art economic or tra?c reducing standpoint We are in a huge economic upswing. Why are the moneybags behind this ompopuiar and unnecessary roadi still so zealous about it when there are ood es of development opportunities out there? We doh?t need to build a road for economic development. Economic development is happening, and the cit,- freeiv hands out tax incentives for it. Right now in Gal: Cliff, there are efforts to reduce the sizes of our road ways so that our neighborhood won?t be a ?vtihroug?h between the suburbs and northern Dallas. Tyler/Sylvan has been reduced farom six ones to four, and there is a plan to turn Twas and f?oik into two-an streets. The owes-ail scheme for the toll road stiil oal ls tor tearing down and rebu?iidling the Je?erson t'iaciuct to massive proportio whish would destroy the neighborhood surrounding Burnett Field and take Cliff Park. see page 2 P. 6055 5- we ca have pa a no nice things without a road The orea m'iest pa rt of the Beasley pl a is that it calls for ?ve overlook points. that would build connections to economic development. Eons ioer the relationship between the Continental Bridge Park and Tri nityG roses. Ifs an area that draws the well~ reeled of Highlanu Pa to fa resta ura nts, a no it also serves fa milies from La We neighborhood with the bridge park, for example. The calls for four more similar pa rkloverloolcareas complementing development nee the So nta Fe Trestle at the Reunion Tower area, at Turtle Creek ann at lnwood. Why do we need a toll road to do thatbuild a- road someday. let's sta rt with those projects ff a no then decide if we rea I Iv needa road. If. The Army! Corps of Engineers. hasn?t a pproved it. The Beasley plan offers photos of a bee utiful, palm- tree lined roadw or; in ?ustral'ia to show us hat our ?rst?phase, four-iane road could look likeagony-m The Army- Corps of Engi hears. a pproved the city?s pla for the original schem of a six to eight lane highwaythe cute little m-ea noeri ng' road with a ll those trees in the Beasley plan. 5. Global climate cha nge is. real. Even though clanoestine donors spend millions. of dollars to fund climate?cha nge deniers, it is science that our pla net is getting warmer. The 1906 flood, which was the worst in Dallas history, we as. extremely-devastating beta use the lmees had not been buiit- But Dallas actually had more rain i Apri l/Mav 2915 tha in Aprilfhtay 1993. Why wouch we invest our money to buildan unnecessa n; road in a floodplain, amid global climate change? In conclusion please stop conning the. citizens of Dallas. and let us have our park. Kill the tollroad. R. Prejean This parkway, it it is to be parkway. should be connecting neighborhoods atong either side of the river oorridor. not connecting freeways at either end or arry'freeweye in between. (in the southeast end. let the parkway be expended to de?ne the periphery of the tower White Rock Creek basin. the edge of Joppa wettenos. and the hmectwood river bottoms from $outh Loop 12 to areas. south of Interstate 20. On the northwest end. let the parkway oontinue to meander and define the Elm Fork corridor and the West Fork corridor. Do array with Anew-attire 33. The Trinity should not be a reliever road for the prettier-he of the region. but a parkway tor Deltas and its residents to enjoyi and benefit. Instead. connect US t75 and 1-45 to the Mbenaeter and iooate this freeway oonnection between Lerner Street and the north or east levee extension. SMALLER PARKWAY FOR FUTURE oenmmuo (Clever wording; to fool peqpie. but this has been done too many times in the poet and have weaned it) 1. Who's kidding who this is not a road by hooking at the map or considering the reeds tare drive. Meandering means a path is taking some hold turns because of hills. vegetation, water bodies. or eome other obstruction. A mendean road steroid provide oome surprises for the traveler. mirror in vehlcte. riding a bike. on horseback. orwalking. Even: for a road designed for a 35 speed limit the meander wit! have to be pretty signi?cant. This road is being planned for a larger roadway in the future and will never meander. so quit rote-hing to this term- After all the pretty pictures produced and stories we've been told through the years, it is another'siap in the face. 2. Yes to no interchanges from freeways and tollroede to the parkway. Just two ramps to thoroughfares (lnwood ?Weshhoreland Road MLKn?eoar Crest Blvd} a you can and other ramps to thoroughfares (Coth Street, Commerce Street. Oak Lawn Avenue}. Also. since Oak Lawn Avenue is being noted. an attractive bridge (not like the blah Syhran Street bridge) should he built connecting Oak Lawn Avenue to Beckie; Avenue. 8. No parkway connection to freeways at either end or any in between. 11. Agree. 14. Agree. but at all points. ACCESS TO PARK 3. Do away with Alternative 36 and let the parkway really meander and not be oonfined to the Attema?ve 3o right-ohm? footprint. Otherwise, agree to for pullvo? parking. 6. The more de?ned oaths into the park. the better. Ail bridges over and under the parkway should be arohitecturatly signi?cant (not low~brd structures}- This should he a parkway that people can cross met anywhere along its route, and for that to happen it needs to he designed for a slower speed 9. Agree. 12. As tong as it is not a toil road, agree with the. need tor err-veneer panting- 13. This shoutd not be 3 tot! road. 15. Agree. 18. Agree. LANDSCAPE 8r PARK EXPERIBNCE 4. Maybe a tree-lined paritWay' in the dooran urban care. but a mite or so beyond (tme (on: either end of domrtown) let the tree-line parkway fade away for something more hangar. such as groves of trees you are driving through with openings. meadows. and wetlands in between. A real metropolitan perimy should he a deiightfui experience that one passes through. playing to the senses and providing occasional surprises. A linear tree pattern as described in the text should he used to add emphasis to an urban core. but it should be used sparinly. Too much and it can be pretty boring after awhile- (see page 2) R. Prejean 5. Agree. Use the land benches or maybe "fem: hills? to hide the levee sides when possiblal lt should add breaks and character to what is now a featureless floodway. Agree. as noted in :ltom #5 above, Agree. Use ?I?aux hills? and amhiteotura?y signi?cant overlooks ma! can some as landmarks formir surrounding areas plus some as a type of ?way?nding? for people along the river corridor. BUILDING TO ECONOMIC Agree 18. Pedestrian access to the park anywhere along the river corridor should not be lunitad because of a high-speed roadway. This should be a slower speed parkway that people can cross most anywhere along its route. 19. :l don't agree that in this diam the park and parkway are any less imporlam. How we treat this area on both elders of the levee is important and one side should complement the other. 20. no not connect the parkway In the freeways at either end Let the parkway be integrator! mm the surrounding nesghhorhoods to foster community matador, gth. and investment. The parkway and part should be designed to celebrate our region?s seasons - seasonal oolor rn trees and wetlands, Blacldand Prairie grasslands, native flowers. flooding and dry spells. plus taking in the full sky We live in an amazing place and we need to appreciate what it offers. Darby As a professional urban architect and a citizen of Dallas. I wish to offer my opposition to a few hey points in the generally positive Trinity Parkway Report by the ?Dream Team." I offer the following insight and opinions in hope for what could be a sensible outcome for all of the citizens who live in Dallas, Dallas County, and surrounding communities within the DFW Hetroplex along with those who work in downtown Dallas and the visitors who come to Dallas for business or pleasure. In general. the maiority of the Dream Team concepts and recommendations as presented by Larry Beasley are in line with the previous Trini River Farll goals through discussions. studies and proposals that were presented to and voted upon by the Dallas citizens. It is at Dallasites are looking for a quality and sustainable waterfront park with recreation and functional amenities that will truly be utilize. They are also looking for multiple access points with the Trinity River Perl: from many of the adjoining unique ngighborhoods. These goals were clearly reflected in the Balanced Vision Plan which served as a baseline for the Dream Team's arrette. I wish to offer the following series of statements and offer a different opinion for consideration: 1. A high-speed roadway, whether a freeway or toll road and a roadway that supports speeds over 45 is not desirable for Dallas and surrounding communities nor a sensible and sustainable solution for the future of Dallas. The Dream Team Report Indicates clearly on page 6 under Initial Review Considerations "We all agreed that some form at vehicle access over the levees to the parlt was essential." It added full limited-access highway is not needed and would have too many impacts. A typical conventional city street with intersections and lights is not practical because of the barrier of the levees from the city street networks. Therefore. we felt an elegant. meandering parkway with a modest scale and profile has the best chance of balancing all interest and meeting the capacity needs." While I would prefer a slower limited-access roadway, i agree with the team?s assessment that a meandering parkway is a good solution. Any notion for a highway or any alternatives similar to Alternate should not be considered. 2. The Dream Team continues to state on page 9 of the report ?that a parkway was the best solution for this setting. The parameters of a parkway. to differentiate it from the other road formats [highway, conventional city street. nothing}. is essentially that it has a minimum cross?section to carry the targeted capacity. may have pull-offs and parking associated with it, has limited ramps. may have less stringent design standards than a freeway or other highway. includes extensive landscaping. but also has limited access and does not include conventional intersection with other streets or intersection traffic management." I generally agree with most of this outcome but would like to see a few more limited access points added for the citizens of Dallas to be able to utilize the road. particularly near the Design ?istrict. South Side. West Dallas and Oak Cliff. 3. The majority of the Dream Team also felt the speed was less relevant but. it was clear in the Charratte Outcomes statement that this was not a uniform agreement. There were several participants who felt strongly and advocated for a 35-miles-per-hour design speed. I agree with the slower 35mph speed and the team should revisit this again and reconsider a mid'speed parkway. Many parkways in other major cities promote slower speed limits along their parkways and enforce it heavily. Dallas should celebrate and experience the parkway and the Trinity River basin. not speed through it. to their faraway destination. Adding a few more interchange will help with the local activation at the parkway, particularly during weekend and off-hours- 4. I understand the need for regional connectivity. particularly between the South and Southeast sides of Dallas and the North and Northwest sides. I also understand the need to alleviate the congestion along the north-to~soutl1 highways and plan for expanded roadway capacity for future population growth. These capacity needs can be achieved by addition and augmentation of other means of transportation modes in parallel with sensible planning and management of existing traffic patterns along with an attempt to brin economic development to the southern half of the city that currently depends on commuting by automobiles to jobs in the northern half of the Metroplex. Technology will be a large factor in the future of transportation and may offer yet-to-bewealized transportation solutions to managing current traffic situations and future capacity needs. 5. Dallas does not have a large public central purl: that many other successful urban centers cherish Chicago Lakefront Millennium Park. Washington Mall! Potomac aiver Waterfront. New York City Central Park, San Francisco Gateway Part: many which are bounded by low to mid-speed roadways. These are cities that also offer a higher degree of transit options. better bike ways and walkable streets. its as result. these cities have a higher de ree of density by having or providing solid multi-modal transit 9 tion to support sensible and sustainable urban development. The gesign should ensure that we provide a balance of local roads modal transit options throughout the Trinity River liark 6. Dallas completed a beautiful and successful Klyde Warren Park that connected two separated sections of the city in 2013. We can do the some by not building another visible. roadway barrier that divides and interferes with access from: Downtown, Victory and Design District areas to the waterfront. Yes. there is bicycle and pedestrian access via a series of bridges and tunnels but they do not really provide a true connectivity. A slower road with signaled grade pedestrian and bike crossing would foster a more integrated. Trinity Parlc - not a parl: that is intersected by a barrier-like parkway or highway. 7. 3f Dallas wish to be ready for the future and anticipated growth, it needs to recognize that the Trinity River parkway is not the one-stop solution as a high-speed highway and other transportation solution need to be considered A mid-speed. meandering park roads that allow users to truly experience the planned Trinity Park and interact positively and cohesively with the pedestrians and bikers is the best solution. Even an above 100 year flood stage street car link from north to south within with the Trinity River ?arl: would provide another mode of transportation to allow dynamic activity within the part: and connect to intermodal stations with parking facilities. I doubt New Yorkers or Washingtonian would allow a highway through their respective beautiful Central Dari: and Was ington Mall. 8. San Francisco. New York and other cities have reversed past urban highway trends and removed these barriers for a successful. livable and desirable waterfront experience. Our neighboring city. Fort Worth. have already invested in a beautiful and active waterfront along the Trinity River with quality bike ways. center of activities and other recreational amenities that have allowed Fort Worthians to enioy and without a parallel roadway other than for accessing the various points within the park. 9. it is clear there is not a high percentage of support or consensus for the roadway decision but there is a positive and supporting consensus for creating the park and recreational amenities at the Trinity River Park. Daliasites would clearly support the necessary bonds tor the Park by itself and we can build this now and create more jobs locally. The Beasley plan does have a good solution for the right-of-way alignment for a slow road along this alignment with traffic circles and stop lights allowing for bicyclist and pedestrian crossing. This could be better enhanced to create a non-direct connection and install a rotary that remotes traffic calming from 65mph to 35-40mph at both ends and at various nodeslintersections along the right-of-way. a so believe more local interaction connections by cars to the slow parirway would benefit the adjoining neighborhoods on both sides of the Trinity River. The Trinity Paris should be about bringing people together in a great park. not providing a high-speed monolithic traffic solution that only aids the congestion relief for a limited number of Dallasites and more outsiders that are using the Trinity River right-of?way Let's build our Trinity Park with amenities and recreational facilities and allow for sensible integrated and sustainable development occur along the riverfront. These can be served through a localized series of streets that eventually connect to the parkway through limited access points. not a massive high-speed roadway that only serves those outside of Dallas. A beautiful example? of this is Rock Creel: Parkway in Washington, 00. Let's Stop Planning and Let's Build our Park. Let?s stop worrying about funding the roadway that we cannot afford and start building the great Trinity River Fail: that we can afford. Let's stop potting years ol time and resources toward a project with controversies and start buildin a paid! and other amenities that Dallasites and surrounding citiaens want and support. tet's not put money towards a high'speed hi away we do not want. let's put the money toward needed repairs and maintenance of our existing urban infrastructure that is aging and better new infrastructure projects like shared bilre roadways and better sidewalks. Let's stop talking and let's together build and beautify Dallas! We can do this! 807 Garment Avenue . - . Dams. Texas 75223 a .me 7, 293.5 Mt. thiia-m Velasco Chairman transit Oriented Dcmiopmeat Cammittee Dalia; M45) Rapid Tran-ism 1-?301 Pacific Baum. 75202 TRINITY RWER Tail. ROAD The. pumose of this letter i$ ti: express mv' {Ohi?f?- at. to the fu?tUN!? at me frinitv Tali Road ninja-ct. A a: Maple. ancl udlng myseli. are apprised to mas use-yet: bemuse it a merely gains a: mow people through duwntown. Seminal-p. it's so 20?? cemth a ma ssive freway in a ?oodplain that wili dim-dis the city much as, our existing haw: ?che. Maw an.- Bite-trauma for your consitmration that wavkud very well to: Partland on. a EIW noted for Its 9'01}? 9555?: than sit. nations. 831*. in the Ga ri-v 19813?!- successfuin kiln-t1 the Mount Hood Freewav protect, a freeway ample-sad to cut thraugh the city to move through downtown. may usett the. mower; {team that pruiect to fund development of their light :33! $Y$l0m. Getting back to Danes. whitI nattanccl the Irtninoll React and um that maney bu?d that mil alimmem through Dailas It titan? is any money left (we: then Wu tan connect the Green Line directly to Love Field: or start be?tting thr- Cotton 8th line through Addasan fur a much needed east-west alignment. These are 21? centur-r options that. connect: and unite a city while giving commuters options for getting am: of our vehidcs. tank at what it has dome far Partm nd and It ran dc the ?arnt- lar Dallas, A63 ?55/ Guanine! ?argm Transact: ration Committee Haifa; City {author 1560 Manna Dalias. TX T5101 it I ?le! 3