Texas Department Jay R. Nelson, P.E. TxDOT District

121’

PROPOSED 145’ROW

EXISTING ROW VARIES FROM 90’TO 125’

6" MONO CURB6" MONO CURB6" MONO CURB

6" MONO CURB

CL ROADWAY

LT PGL

RT PGL

FUTURE LEFT

TURN LANE

FUTURE

THRU LANE

FUTURE

THRU LANE

SCALE: 1"=10’

TYPICAL SECTION - DUAL LEFT TURN W/RIGHT TURN LANE

12’12’12’12’12’7’

2’ 12’12’12’ 2’ 2’12’ 12’ 10’

PROPOSED 132’ ROW

TYPICAL SECTION - 1 LEFT TURN W/ RIGHT TURN LANE

6" MONO CURB RT PGL

FUTURE LEFT

TURN LANE

FUTURE

THRU LANE

12’12’6’

6" MONO CURB

12’12’

FUTURE

THRU LANE

6" MONO CURB

CL ROADWAY

LT PGL

SCALE: 1"=10’

108’

12’12’12’ 2’ 2’12’ 12’ 10’

PROPOSED 120’ MINIMUM ROW - 130’MAXIMUM ROW

6" MONO CURB

6" MONO CURB6" MONO CURB

6" MONO CURB

CL ROADWAY

LT PGL

FUTURE

THRU LANE

RT PGL

FUTURE LEFT

TURN LANE

FUTURE

THRU LANE

SCALE: 1"=10’

TYPICAL SECTION - 1 LEFT TURN

12’12’6’

2’ 12’12’12’ 2’ 2’12’ 12’ 10’

3’ 96’ 3’

2’ 12’ 12’ 2’ 10’ 2’ 16’ 2’ 10’ 2’ 12’ 12’ 2’ 12’12’

FUTURE

THRU LANE

FUTURE

THRU LANE

PROPOSED 120’ MINIMUM ROW - 130’MAXIMUM ROW

6" MONO CURB6" MONO CURB

CL ROADWAY

RT PGLLT PGL

SCALE: 1"=10’

TYPICAL SECTION

2.00%2.00%

SCALE: 1"=10’

TYPICAL SECTION - BRIDGE

1.00’

5.00’

2.00’ 2.00’ 2.00’ 3 - 12.00’ LANES = 36.00’

1.00’

PR2 RAIL

T203 RAIL

CONST. JOINT

5’-4"

AASHTO TYPE IV

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BEAMS

2.00’

5.00’

18.75’

1.00’

40.00’ ROADWAY8.00’

MEDIAN

8.00’

MEDIAN

C CUSTER ROAD

1.00’

T203 RAILPGL

3 - 12.00’ LANES = 36.00’

40.00’ ROADWAY

110’ OVERALL

by Texas Department of Transportation:

PROJECT MANAGERSENGINEERS PLANNERS

C 2002

Texas Department of Transportation

2033 - 29,100

2003 - 14,900

TO: STONEBRIDGE DRIVE

FROM: U.S. 380

PROJECT LENGTH: 3.42 MILES

FEBRUARY 2003

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: URBAN COLLECTOR

ROLL OF 3

Design Speed = 45 mph

Vert. Scale 1:10

Horiz. Scale 1:100

CSJ: 2351-01-013

Collin County

F.M. 2478 (CUSTER ROAD)

Design Schematic

Jay R. Nelson, P.E.

TxDOT District Engineer

Texas Department

of Transportation

by Texas Department of Transportation:

PROJECT MANAGERSENGINEERS PLANNERS

C 2002

Texas Department of Transportation

Paul A. Tucker DatePaul A. Tucker Date

2033 - 29,100

2003 - 14,900

TO: STONEBRIDGE DRIVE

FROM: U.S. 380

PROJECT LENGTH: 3.42 MILES

FEBRUARY 2003

BEGINPROJECT

ENDPROJECT

McKINNEY

VIRGINIA PKWY

STONEBRIDGE DR

LOCATION MAPN.T.S.

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION: URBAN COLLECTOR

ROLL OF 3

Design Speed = 45 mph

Vert. Scale 1:10

Horiz. Scale 1:100

CSJ: 2351-01-013

Collin County

F.M. 2478 (CUSTER ROAD)

Design Schematic

Jay R. Nelson, P.E.

TxDOT District Engineer

Texas Department

of Transportation

BEGINPROJECT

ENDPROJECT

McKINNEY

VIRGINIA PKWY

STONEBRIDGE DR

THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE

PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW ONLY.

UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF PAUL A. TUCKER,

P.E. 77234. IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR

CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, OR PERMIT PURPOSES.

THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE

PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW ONLY.

UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF PAUL A. TUCKER,

P.E. 77234. IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR

CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, OR PERMIT PURPOSES.

LOCATION MAP

fp01\p

inney\C

c_2003\A

pproved S

=3^8’18.92"

R=5000’

L=273.89’

T=136.98’

LC=N1^20’43"W

273.86’

=3^8’18.92"

R=5000’

L=273.89’

T=136.98’

LC=N1^20’43"W

273.86’

=3^8’18.92"

R=5000’

L=273.89’

T=136.98’

LC=N1^47’36"E

273.86’

=3^8’18.92"

R=5000’

L=273.89’

T=136.98’

LC=N1^47’36"E

273.86’

=1^19’46.34"

R=8618.48’

L=199.99’

T=100.02’

LC=N0^26’39"W

199.98’

=0^46’29.02"

R=16000’

L=216.35’

T=108.17’

LC=N0^45’35"W

216.34’

N00^13’25"E

19.83’

N0^13’26"E 378.18’

PI= 186+83.82

PI= 196+37.24

PI= 199+11.14

PI = 203+13.15

CURVE DATA

PT= 200+48.08

PRC= 197+74.18

CURVE DATAPC= 195+00.28

PI= 184+09.94

CURVE DATA

PT= 188+20.78

PRC= 185+46.88

PC= 182+72.99

PC=176+94.81

PROPOSED DRAINAGE

EASEMENT

PROPOSED DRAINAGE

EASEMENT

PROPOSED DRAINAGE

EASEMENT

PROPOSED DRAINAGE

EASEMENT

PROPOSED DRAINAGE

EASEMENTBinary

CURVE DATA

PT= 178+94.82

PT= 167+10.60

PC= 164+94.25

STA. 217+05.61

STA. 192+23.56

STA. 179+20.74

Binary

PI = 165+94.25= 01^14’00" LT

PT = 205+58.46

CURVE DATA

=2^27’10"

R=11459.16’

L=490.55’

T=245.31’

LC=N01^00’10"W

490.52’

PC= 200+67.90

PI = 177+94.81

PI = 165+94.25

CITY OF MCKINNEY 15’ SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT

CITY OF MCKINNEY 10’ SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT

STONEBRIDGE - FOUNTAINVIEW

NEW CONSTRUCTION

N00^13’26"E 679.51’

S00^20’50"E 2304.45’

N01^06’50"W 984.21’

N02^13’45"W

2610.89’

FOUNTAINVIEW PHASE ONE

CABINET N, PAGE 123

P.R.C.C.T.

0.460 AND 0.165 ACRE

CHANNEL EASEMENT

VOLUME 553, PAGE 216

D.R.C.C.T.

0.184 ACRE

CHANNEL EASEMENT

D.R.C.C.T.

Proposed Residential

ExistingHouse

Stock P

FM 2478

PROPOSED LANE DIRECTIONAL INDICATOR

VEGETATIVE FILTER STRIPS WILL BE USED AS THE TOTAL

SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONTROL MEASURES ON THIS PROJECT.

VEGETATIVE FILTER STRIPS WILL BE USED AS THE TOTAL

SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONTROL MEASURES ON THIS PROJECT.

PROPOSED GRADE AT PGL

STA. 176+38 TO STA. 178+48

STA. 179+97 TO STA. 182+07

BEGIN RETAINING WALL

STA. 185+00

STA. 182+00

STA. 195+00

END RETAINING WALL

STA. 193+50

STA. 192+83 TO STA. 195+02STA. 165+23 TO STA. 172+87

STA. 185+47 TO STA. 189+70

STA. 190+72 TO STA. 192+83

STA. 196+43 TO STA. 217+58

CULVERT 2

STA. 218+17

CULVERT 1

STA. 199+49

120’

140’ TAPER

140’ DECEL140’ TAPER

80’ STORAGE

210’ TAPER140’ STORAGE 70’ DECEL

140’ TAPER

140’ DECEL280’ STORAGE

140’ TAPER 140’ DECEL280’ STORAGE

140’ STORAGE70’ DECEL

210’ TAPER

140’ DECEL280’ STORAGE 140’ TAPER

PROPOSED SLOPE PROTECTION

STA. 159+24 TO STA. 164+00

STA. 217+58 TO STA. 218+98

AREA WHERE PAVESTONE WALL REQ’D FOR GRADING

INTERSECTIONFUTURE SIGNALIZED

140’ STORAGE

SCALE: 1"=10’

EXIST.

R.O.W.

EXIST.

R.O.W.

TYPICAL SECTION EXISTING ROADWAY

10’10’

90’ MIN.

TWO COURSE SURFACE

TREATMENT

10" FOUNDATION COURSE

5/16 IN/FT 5/16 IN/FT

2’2’

PROPOSED R.O.W.

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

120’

Q = 4317 cfs

V = 9.19 ft/s

WSE = 705.05 ft

Q = 3605 cfs

V = 8.65 ft/s

WSE = 704.18 ft

ROWLETT CREEK

HYDRAULIC DATA

EXISTING BRIDGE

FROM STA. 189+81.59

TO STA. 190+57.55

END RETAINING WALL

STA. 205+63.98

STA. 204+07.48

DATA FURNISHED BY TxDOT

XXXX 2033 ADT

XXXX 2023 ADT

XXXX 2003 ADT

STA. 189+70 TO STA. 190+72

TRAFFIC DATA

120’

END BRIDGE

ABUTMENT 2

STA. 190+72.00

BEGIN BRIDGE

ABUTMENT 1

STA. 189+70.00

keerC ttelwo

C ttelwo

PROPOSED PAVEMENT

FOUNTAINVIEW PHASE ONE

CABINET N, PAGE 123

P.R.C.C.T.

PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT

BEGIN PROJECT

CSJ # 2351-01-013

STA. 159+23.65

BEGIN PROJECT

CSJ # 2351-01-013

220+00215+00210+00205+00200+00195+00190+00185+00180+00175+00170+00165+00160+00155+00

PROPOSED

MULTIPLE

BOX CULVERT

3 - 5’ X 5’

0.1964 ACRE ROW TAKE

D.R.C.C.T.

0.7183 ACRE ROW TAKEVOLUME 3005, PAGE 322

D.R.C.C.T.

PROPERTY BOUNDARIES

0.041 ACRE

CHANNEL EASEMENT

D.R.C.C.T.

BOOKER LIVING TRUST

39.18 ACRE TRACT

CLERK’S FILE NO. 95-0020521 L.R.C.C.T.

WESTERRA STONEBRIDGE, L.P.

15.2919 ACRE TRACT

CLERK’S FILE NO. 96-0106740

L.R.C.C.T.

WENTWOOD PARTNERS, LTD

67.67 ACRE TRACT

KILLIS MELTON

95 ACRE TRACT

VOLUME 729, PAGE 47

D.R.C.C.T.

67.67 ACRE TRACT

STONEBRIDGE - FOUNTAINVIEW

NEW CONSTRUCTION

CHANNEL EASEMENT

67.67 ACRE TRACT

0.184 ACRE

CHANNEL EASEMENT

D.R.C.C.T.

0.460 AND 0.165 ACRE

CHANNEL EASEMENT

D.R.C.C.T.

CLIFF C. HENDERSON

15.86 ACRE TRACT

L109 MCKINNEY INVESTMENTS, LTD

PARCEL 808

50.483 ACRE TRACT

CLERK’S FILE NO. 96-0106740

L.R.C.C.T.

I-20/SOUTH COLLINS, LTD.

14.980 ACRE TRACT

AMBROSE & ELINOR SECOR

1.96 ACRE TRACT

D.R.D.C.T.

SWISHER PARTNERS L.P.

12.401 ACRE TRACT

C.C.F.NO. 00-0051512

D.R.C.C.T.

196.9216 ACRE TRACT

SHADDOCK DEVELOPERS, LTD

57.575 ACRE TRACT

VOLUME 4670, PAGE 1919 D.R.C.C.T.

THE 2478 JOINT VENTURE 57.685 ACRE TRACT

PROPOSED MEDIAN NOSE PAVEMENT

PROPOSED BRIDGE

PI = 165+94.25= 01^14’00" LT

PROPOSED MULTIPLE

BOX CULVERT

4 - 6’ X 6’

. 722.9

. 725.4

. 724.9

. 724.4

. 723.9

. 723.4

110’ V.C.

K = 90

E = 0.17’

-0.50%

230’ V.C.

K = 121

E = -0.55’

. 716.2

. 718.6

. 202+

-0.74%

195’ V.C.

K = 91

E = 0.52’

210’ V.C.

K = 123

E = -0.45’

. 197+

. 198+

155’ V.C.

K = 90

E = 0.33’

. 195+

. 194+

. 711.2

-0.75%0.50%

150’ V.C.

K = 120

E = -0.23’

. 192+

ROWLETT CREEK

-0.73%

120’ V.C.

K = 90

E = 0.20’

. 707.3

210’ V.C.

K = 121

E = -0.45’

-0.50%1.01%

140’ V.C.

K = 93

E = 0.26’

120’ V.C.

K = 120

E = -0.15’

. 172+

100’ V.C.

K = 100

E = 0.13’

-0.50%

170’ V.C.

K = 122

E = -0.29’

A. 159+

EXISTING R.O.W.

C OF CUSTER ROAD (FM 2478)

N00^20’50"W

EXISTING GRADE 60’ RIGHT OF C

EXISTING GRADE 60’ LEFT OF C

EXISTING GRADE AT C

PROPOSED ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION

EXISTING ROADWAY

PROFILE LEGEND

PLAN LEGEND

Texas Department Jay R. Nelson, P.E. TxDOT District

Documents

Accelerated Bridge Construction Design...2019 Transportation Short Course October 15, 2019 Accelerated Bridge Construction Design Robert D. Owens, P.E. – TxDOT Bridge Division 2019

July 2010 TxDOT Website Analysis and Evaluation Projectlibrary.ctr.utexas.edu/hostedpdfs/txdot/txdot-websiteanalysis-2010.pdf · H1 H2 Body TxDOT Website and Analysis Evaluation Project

Opportunities in TXDOT’s Design-Build Program - Houston · PDF fileKatherine Holtz, P.E. CDA Program Director Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Opportunities in TXDOT’s

Pile Driving Best Practice - TxDOT · PDF filePILE DRIVING BEST PRACTICE . TxDOT Bridge Presentations Webinar . Sean Yoon, P.E. ... GRLWEAP . 15 . Bridge Division Presentations Webinar

ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DELIVERYacechouston.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Varuna-Singh...Varuna Singh, P.E. TxDOT Houston District Director for Alternative Project Delivery (713) 866-7040

· TXDOT. On a motion by Steve Vanek, seconded by Jay Gerik to change the wording on our sign ordinance application regarding TXDOT approval for billboards. All in favor, motion

INCREASING THE VALUE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AT TxDOT · INCREASING THE VALUE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AT TxDOT Melba Schaus, P.E. October 11, 2017. 2 Increasing the Value of Project Management

Jay Vose, P.E. Civil Platform Update ATHENS and Beyond

TxDOT COMBINED AGGREGATE GRADING: TECHNOLOGY ... · 1 TxDOT COMBINED AGGREGATE GRADING: TECHNOLOGY, APPPLICATIONS, AND RESULTS FOR PAVING AND STRUCTURES James M. Shilstone, Sr. P.E

THE TEXAS EXPERIENCE - British Lime · THE TEXAS EXPERIENCE Darren Hazlett P.E. ... Superpave and TxDOT Traditional ... Troxler. Balanced Mix Design Approach

Scour: Evaluation and Riprapftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/brg/webinars/2017-0727/delphia.pdf2017 BRIDGE WEBINAR JULY 2017 SCOUR: EVALUATION AND RIPRAP John G. Delphia, P.E. TxDOT

Demolition Plans - ftp.dot.state.tx.usftp.dot.state.tx.us › pub › txdot-info › brg › webinars › ... · Demolition Plans: When to include? When is a P.E. required to sign

From a Manufacturer’s Viewpoint Jay Garbarino, P.E. U.S. Western Regional Sales Manager

MARY A. HALE, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. VICTOR DE LA GARZA, P.E. Texas Department of Transportation 1 The TXDOT El Paso A CASE STUDY Highway

Utility Corridor Structures and Other Utility … CORRIDOR STRUCTURES AND OTHER UTILITY ACCOMMODATION ALTERNATIVES IN TXDOT RIGHT OF WAY by Beverly Kuhn, Ph.D., P.E. Division Head

TARGET SETTING TEXAS STYLE TEXAS STYLE Mary Meyland, P.E. Director, SPPM Office, TxDOT Performance Management Peer Exchange Chicago July 26, 2010 Session

2014 REVISION Needs more cleanup Check N arrowftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/sh249/schematics.pdf · APPROVED: USTN DISTRICT NOT A BIDDING DOCUMENT P.E. TEXAS REGISTRATION

Structural Steel Design, Fabrication, and Construction · PDF fileStructural Steel Design, Fabrication, and Construction Jamie F. Farris, P.E. TxDOT Bridge Division . October 11, 2011

For More Detailslibrary.ctr.utexas.edu/hostedpdfs/txdot/psr/4940-s.pdf · Authors: Mark D. Wooldridge, P.E., Melisa D. Finley, John Denholm, and Douglas Mace Project Summary Report

MASH Test 3-11 of the TxDOT Single Slope Bridge Rail … · MASH TEST 3-11 OF THE TXDOT SINGLE SLOPE BRIDGE RAIL (TYPE SSTR) ON PAN-FORMED BRIDGE DECK by William F. Williams, P.E