The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBike District Plan TAMUBikS~ M~VJJ~. I} '2 /'lA> I<., I ' B\~~ -150, ... ~ \7 Bic.vs~ ~s<>P..n~ ~0 ~~e.r +. cJ.. ·A·-:.~ A S\,f~~ ~ I ~\,($ ~""-* srie ~ ... J? ill••A UV -"l1'\ ~ ~(L, ,} c..s+-e@.d.re... -~ ~~~ ~~ I . ~ v C\ tuph.1 c... +o 12.-tn-. u l. Ko Id us 2. MSC North Side 3. Bus 4. Southside Dorms 5. Northpoint Crossing 6. Century Square 7. Rise, Stack, ACC 8. Northside Dorms 9. West Housing 10. West Campus Garage 11. Off Campus Housing 12. Passageway Bicycle District Plan RFP Meeting January 23, 2014 l. General overview of department and services a. Using website so they also have a feel for navigating the site for more information b. Alt trans programs including transit c. Specific bike programs i. Privately owned bikes ii. Bike registration iii. Bike share iv. Borrow a bike v. Bike regulation page l. Bike parking expectations 2. Abandonment 3. Enforcement a. UPD b. TS 2. Campus map and google maps of campus layout and future developments. a. Discuss campus use (west vs. main) b. Parking lot use c. Bus routes d. Bike lanes e. Passageways f. Bike parking g. Discuss items in #3 on maps before tour 3. Campus tour a. West campus housing area b. Dorm areas c. High use bike parking areas i. Pet Engr ii. Blocker iii. MSC iv. Psych v. Wehner vi. Zachery vii. Lanford viii. WCG ix. Others d. Development areas surrounding campus i. Wellborn ii. University Drive iii. George Bush Drive iv. Marion Pugh v. College Main ·o &' Base data Base data ~ Base data Base data fgiS~fil'Use\data, inetat:llflg pobtiely ewR&d laf'lds !:*istiAg zoning-tleta Parks G;~-~~!{9Z~IJ4~ Tax lots Pathway& -\"-t~+--~5e-1~a:-------...JTLLreJee~s>,., -GO<ppeienA-Ss~ace, areas-ef-vege~an-( . @( Base data -0 2? J ase data g " ind1.1din9 width, if a¥ailabk --~i Base data Existing sidewalks ~ Base data 'f;. STru.d--<!Af<1.?Right-of-way PlA-0Uc V\JlJ'l%-S 4 ~~-Er ---e( Base data Base data Base data Base data Attractor I Generator Attractor I Generator Attractor I Generator '· Bike I Ped Infrastructure Bike I Ped Infrastructure Bike I Ped Infrastructure Bike I Ped Infrastructure ~ 'ke I Ped Infrastructure bJ" Bike I Ped Infrastructure Existing easements ~ Bicycle involved collisions (for previous 5 years) Pedestrian involved collisions (for previous 5 years) Existing end-of-trip bicycling facilities (bicycle racks and lockers) as well as any use information Vtot C°'f91 fu P'-'ll fn-~ I -CleATI 0'7· $~1 ~e"1. ~ ·\-t--~ . e>.clcL ~ Bicycle and pedestrian count data (if available in GIS) Future land use t...building co~efl-l'tan~ 7 . . n.kc)v Future population. foJ:ecast from regional transportation / r . · I .nht k~.J'--llt'V'-m~d~l by~AZ · . ·. L.ooi<--JO£. -A'Sk!:_A l°O ..,,,~-~\~· Ex1stmg r~\bus transit routesland stops+~ [ lk--i~ ~ ~' -· assocta-Hffljidersl;ii13 ~~t<t ~~ _Dts fx-,~~ ~ Existing bicycle facilities including on:street facilities a ~ +-'f ~. multi-use trails . surface t e width etc p-[I C-0)-ICA-Lkt ~ · Planned I Programmed bicycle/pedestrian projects including on-street facilities and multi-use trails Street lighting Curb ramRs · Locations of marked crosswalks \!!.!:~1.UJ.J.5-ll.w·1.1.:-~b:l!:lo~c~k 1lJ Dtcl ~.)v...,t ~1 , I ~rossjp~) fft I -1·"'~ • f?_J~(ti:1~ j Intersection traffic controls } ? l ll • g Bike I Ped Infrastructure Bike I Ped Infrastructure Roadway Traffic calming devices Previously considered roadway designs for bike I ped facilities (if available in GIS) Street centerline data (e.g., median refuge islands, roadway diverters, speed humps) ------1~ Roadway ADT for collector I arterial roadways Tied to street centerline data ~--IR~e~a~d~n~av9--~--~~~Po~srrte~d:t-5]sp~e~e~d------~~~-~......;;.._ ___ Ji1w·e~d~t~o~st~r=ee~t~c~e=Q~te~r~li~Re~d~at~a ~ Roadway Functional classification Tied to street centerline data Roadway Curb-to-curb width ID,c,,-t S-iti5· ~I ~J,v.;6.-tYt Tied to street centerline data ? ?\) Roadway Tied to street centerline data Tied to street centerline data Venessa Garza From: James Robertson Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 2:54 PM Venessa Garza To: Cc: Troy Rother Subject: RE: New Main/Texas Improvements Venessa, I apologize for the delay in my response. Below are my comments and some additional thoughts. We probably need to do an in person meeting to discuss any changes at this intersection. It would be good for the University's Engineer to be at this meeting. Additional Thoughts: First, traffic systems would like to do a partial reconstruction of the intersection of Walton @Texas Avenue for the purpose of lengthening the traffic signal poles across University Drive and replacing some of the equipment in use at this intersection, it might be best for these changes to occur when that reconstruction happens (not sure on a time frame yet). In the meantime, perhaps we should consider adding bicycle boxes and other changes to a different intersection; for example, Timber/Bizzell at George Bush Drive. At the moment, Timber/Bizzell at George Bush has a similar issue coming from the university across George Bush Drive. Comments on the schematic: • Th is drawing does not match the text written within the Alta Bicycle plan that has been provided to Traffic Engineering • Dotted lane line extensions through the intersection of New Main/Walton and Texas Avenue are not appropriate. These extensions are intended for use in directing traffic when there are matching lanes on each side of the intersection. Including these lines in the manner shown will create cor:ifusion for people driving and people bicycling. For this same reason dotted lane line extensions are not appropriate as shown at the intersection of the channelizing lanes and New Main Drive. • The yield to bicycles sign with blue bicycle lane markings is not an MUTCD compliant sign. Additionally, I am not aware of any signs like this with interim approval. Therefore, any sign of this type would r~quire approval from FHWA for experimentation. Prior to getting permission for experimental use of a sign of this type in the field there would need to be a human factors evaluation of the sign for user comprehension. • The shown SHARE THE ROAD sign is not MUTCO compliant. Additionally, there is re search that shows this message is not well understood by the public. T~e appropriate sign in this case is the Black Text on White Sign R4-11 BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE sign. • To my knowledge, there is no interim approval for the use of green paint behind sharrows. Additionally, it seems as though FHWA cancelled the experimental locations. This means the use of green paint behind sharrows would need to be submitted to FHWA as a request for experimentation. • It is not appropriate to stencil WAIT HERE in front of a stop bar. Additionally, the stop bar should be place 4 feet in advance of the Bicycle Box not as part of the leading line for the bicycle box. • If bicycle boxes are used, City Council will need to approve a NO RIGHT TURN on Red Ordinance for the approaches with bicycle boxes. • The symbol used within a bicycle box should not be a Shared Lane Marking. The appropriate symbol is the bicycle symbol or a helmeted bicyclist symbol. • The MUTCD prohibits the use of Shared Lane Markings within designated bicycle lanes. It sends conflicting messages. 1 • In my engineering judgement, it is not appropriate to use shared lane markings within an intersection. The first marking at the beginning of the shared use lane is sufficient. Additionally, as sho wn within this drawing, the shared lane use markings are being used to direct bicycles from a dedicated bicycle lane into a lane (which is the purpose of the bike box in the first place ) or into a dedicated bicycl e lane (which is a conflicting message). o If bicycle lanes existed on both side of the intersection, it would be appropriate to carry the bicycle lane through the intersection; however, that is not the case with this intersection. Additionally, the bicycle lane symbol or helmeted bicyclist symbol would be used in this instance. • Whi le I understand the value of using bicycle boxes to aid people using bicycles when moving into a shared lane use condition (the condition for the Southwest Bound approach of Walton Drive), it is not clear to me that there is value in including bicycle boxes in locations where there is no bicycle lane. Additionally, from a public perception perspective, I feel doing so will make it more difficult for the City an d University to implement Bicycle Boxes at other intersections. Therefore, my recommendation wou ld be to not include a bicycle box for the No rtheast bou nd appro ach of New Main Drive. • If we are going to change the pedestrian crossing ma rking on the Texas A&M University crossing to Continental Markings, my recommendation w ould be to change the markings for all four approaches. Best Regards, James Robertson, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Traffic Engineer (979) 764-3862 From: Venessa Garza Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 10:40 AM To: James Robertson <jrobertson@cstx.gov> Subject: New Main/Texas Improvements Hey-Can you give me written comments on some of your concerns with this design? I shared some with Ron to convey to Kimley Horn but want to make sure I expressed your concerns properly and didn't miss anything. Ron will give Kimley Horn and Alta comments from us and then provide a second design for review and comment. Depending on how that goes then I'll schedule a meeting. Venessa Garza, AICP Greenways Program Manager Planning and Development Services Department Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 9960, College Station, Texas 77842 Physical Address: 1101 Texas Avenue Office 979-764-3674 I Fax 979-764-3496 CrrY oF Co1..1H>E Srxno:-.; Jf•1Jtt" •f1hu1 Ac}M URirJt"nil) • 2