HomeMy WebLinkAboutVenessa Garza 17 (2)Meeting Notes
Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan
Overview with TxDOT
May 1, 2009
City Attendees: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager (P&DS); Joe Guerra, Transportation
Planner (P&DS); and Beth Boerboom, Staff Assistant (P&DS)
TxDOT Attendee: Chad Bohne, P.E., Bryan District Advanced Planning Engineer; Bob Appleton, P.E.,
Director of Transportation Planning and Development; Maury Jacob, L.A., Bryan District
Landscape Architect
After a brief overview given by Venessa Garza and Joe Guerra, the following notes were collected based
on feedback from Mr. Bohne, Mr. Appleton, and Mr. Jacob .
• General TxDOT Information
o TxDOT is committed to multi-modal usage
o TxDOT is committed to context sensitive solutions
o TxDOT design guidelines are not as regimented as city plans and allow for varying widths of
ROW, sidewalks, etc.
• General Bike Lane Concerns
o Safety with right turns
o TxDOT ROW is usually not the safest for bicycle and pedestrian facilities
o Safety at intersections if parallel routes are used but then require crossing TxDOT ROW
• Genera l Miscellaneous Information
o Trails on railroad ROW are often seen as large liabilities by the railroad companies
o Bike friendly direct routes parallel to TxDOT ROW are often taken over by motor vehicles
• TxDOT ROW
o Texas Ave.
• Existing-wider outer lane is for advanced bicycle commuters
• The outer lane is too narrow to be striped as a bike lane
• TxDOT would consider a "Share the Road" pavement markings
o One option could include requesting Texas Ave to be a test road for
TxDOT research on "Share the Road" pavement markings
• Existing wider sidewalks are fo~ less experienced bicyclists
• City has not yet repealed ordinance prohibiting bicyclists on Texas Ave
• TxDOT would support the repeal of this ordinance
o Wellborn
• From University to FM 2818 no pedestrian or bicycle fadlity changes are currently
planned
• TxDOT ROW (Continued)
o William D Fitch
• City's new master plan may propose a multi-use path
• Mr. Bohne suggested proposing a trail in the grass median beginning at the
Arrington intersection
o South College Ave.
• TxDOT is unaware of any Bryan future improvements
• ROW width exists for multi-use paths
• However, when city staff asked if TxDOT's would support multi-use paths
on South College Ave., Mr. Jordan suggested marking an alternate route
such as Culpepper as a bike route instead
o University Dr.
• TxDOT w,ill be widening University .east of Hwy 6
• The widening of the two bridges is currently being discussed with a consultant
• TxDot was asked to provide clearance for a bicycle/pedestrian underpass
• Mr. Bohne suggested utilizing the drainage facility under one of the bridges
for the proposed multi-use path along the Gulf States Utility Easement
o George Bush Dr.
o The bridge closest to Hwy 6 has more clearance than the other
bridge
o Mr. Appleton recommended we propose an agreement to share the
expense of preparing the bridge for a future multi-use path while
the current widening improvements are made
• TxDOT will be paving and re striping soon
• City staff would like to discuss intersection improvements at that stage
o Highway 6 Frontage Roads
• City staff mention there may be ·enough ROW for sidewalks on certain sections
2009
JANUARY
M T w T F
1 2
l 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 12 13 14 J5 16 17
8 19 20 21 22 23 24
:5 26 27 28 29 30 3J
FEBRUARY
S M T W T F S
1234 567
8 9 JO 11 12 J3 J4
.5 J6 J7 18 19 20 2J
:2 23 24 25 26 27 28
M ARCH
SMTWTFS
2 3 4 5 6 7
9 10 11 J2 13 J4
l5 J6 17 J8 J9 20 2J
12 23 24 25 26 27 28
19 30 3J
APRIL
s M T w T F s
J 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 JO 11
J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 17 J8
J9 20 2J 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
MAY
s M T w T F s
J 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
JO 11 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6
J7 J8 J9 20 2J 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
J UNE
s M T w T F s
J 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 JO 11 J2 J3
J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
JULY
s M T w T F s
J 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 JO 11
12 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 18
19 20 2J 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
AUGUST
S M T W T F S
2 3 4 5 6 7
9 JO 11 J2 J3 J4 J5
J6 J7 J8 J9 20 2J 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 3J
S EPTEMBER
s M T w T F s
J 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 JO 11 J2
J3 14 J5 16 J7 J8 19
20 2J 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
OCTOBER
s M T w T F s
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 JO
11 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7
J8 J9 20 2J 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 3J
NOVEMBER
s M T w T F s
J 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 JO 11 J2 J3 J4
15 J6 J7 J8 19 20 2J
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
D ECEMBER
s M T w T F s
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 JO 11 J2
13 14 J5 J6 J7 18 J9
20 2J 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 3J
~ \ru#n~ -
ecJ . ~ .A.eel oyrhrn.--{> ~ -R c( ~ell h Al'\ (.L --1;7 • welb.)1~
Newman Printing Company, Inc.
Al~~4 . ~ITTr::
..C~l .
.Pv12...0 0SL I Go~.
ho ~ _; 14-1 WA c or-cit h ~ -k pJA~~~ leveJ IUO,~M~trr\.'-
V'lo Ne..-e&s.J A4S-e..t;<;~ I ~~ AiricJ.~S1S ~
'1/bv'1\ds oH b~ P~evt IM.(, PIAAS . ev~lfV'·
.:;-hA~ru~
v
·~
Ch'? VJ~{A,+ \f..t{. plA-nnllf.~1<.? w~~t M_ d1~ + ~j hf -ttkudot o '1 ~I
'6i1LL)·l ~~s ~s
Ped --~iMvv~~
G(LeJM~ v~~ T>tl..~~
\
1 u1 l l ~5
-t-~
+o\Zhk\r) Do T nluP-~ l-x.p1A1r.. I dt~~ -+~ -£r~lt~es 7
('_M lo -~~n.c...v
-
So~
~-,
et-,f)ec tl<._-h~s -~~ ·\Vlv~Jl.-v--ift..-. • Wt> '">t-~~c.
J
~le5-+
PW -+
vv---
~v\ 1'-wvd.. ~ u {vvC1'lfc s .
• IV\ C-t tio .. , "' .; 0 0 . ~ ~ h_
n11~
Newman Printing Company, Inc.
2009
JANUARY
s M T w T F s
1 2 3
4 s 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 f:'f..1~'1 -r~
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
!5 26 27 28 29 30 31
FEBRUARY
bilt€.. l~S 13 1 -( ) Cb 1e ci-1..D 5 lt?J,..ru; ... ·-y -~
~ ....,
s M T w T F s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 5 ~~
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 33 -77g ~~U....· -~
MARCH ~ ( 1~0)
s M T w T F s
2 3 4 5 6 7
9 10 11 12 13 14 !?JO -15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ' 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 l u I j?tt:l ~,.~ -
APRIL
s M T w T F s ~1crt£ ~4 ~ '*'·~· -
2 3 4
5 6 7 9 10 11 ~s
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
M AY
s M T w T F s
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
JUNE
s M T w T F s
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 P.51 J<-c. {_,~ ~ArvZ..,
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 .:S~c-
JULY
s M T w T F s
, .J
.$1Z~ ~ !~~
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 )( 2.--12 13 14 15 16 17 18 -19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 44 x 2-Lf C. tw 1 lL A-"" ...,._::h_)
AUGUST
s M T w T F s
1 ~ I o ~~. fr IV\ (le.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
/ { rU-;i-ht ·~:--' -c) ~ t "-j ~5 . (
~ -<i4~lC~f ~ p.V.~e_)
S EPTEMBER
s M T w T F s x 2..
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
-l&'?o /:7/J 1~s.
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
O CTOBER \ I 2-4'1 / 4 <t VfYl-JPk.-r.r-: le .
s M T w T F s
2 3 + f 05~
4 5 6 7 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 r z 9 7
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
NOVEMBER I I 306 I
' s M T w T F s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
D ECEMBER
s M T w T F s
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 IS 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
01-Z .j-
·2-z. s; :: 'Zl/'-~.p
<;~>
7J'v-.J ~ 1d acn ~ ~~~\.fG~~
-s 21ko1 ~ -r-, J,,fJ
()') ~w ~-g~I\~
~' '. , .~1.... . . ~~ -• -...~ · ... ..., ~ • 'I ••
Bicycle, Pedestrian,~~rid Gree~ways~ M~~ter Plan·.-~· ;~~DRAFT -
:»January 20 I 0
presence of a proposed multi-use path; however, the analysis and results w ere not performed as
part of this Plan but will in implementation.
Once each proposed facility type was prioritized, they were placed into one of the following
categories: Short-term (0-I 0 years), Near-term (I 1-20 years), and Long-term (Build-out) based on
the analysis described in Appendix K. Proposed facilities were fu rther prioritized by likelihood of
the facility being built in conjunction with a street project; and finally by the location of the
proposed facility (College Station City limits, potential annexation areas, and the five-mile
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction). Although all of the proposed facilities are needed, the factors
identified above influence the need of one project over the other. Maps 7.1: Priorities for
Proposed Bike Lanes, 7.2: Priorities for Proposed Bike Routes, 7.3: Priorities for Proposed Sidewalks,
and 7.4 : Priorities for Proposed Multi-use Paths provide a depiction of these priorities.
COSTS
Costs were estimated for design and construction; maintenance; and programming of the
bicycle, pedestrian and greenway system. These estimates should only be used as a preli minary
guide and further study should be given to arrive a t more concrete cost projections.
Figure 7.2 provides costs for design and construction of facilities as well as maintenance of
facilities. Costs associated with each facility are provided based on short-term and build-out
priorities. Short-term priorities include inflation while build-out only includes 2010 cost estimates.
They do not, for the most part, consider any land acquisition that may be required or unforeseen
design and construction issues. Estimated costs for bike lanes and sidewalks are only included if
they are not already included with street construction to widen or construct a new street.
Maintenance for greenway property is estimated to be $2,500 per year per mile.
Short-term (10 years) Build-out I b-tz-Q___
Proposed *2010 cost
Miles estimates ;ticrr-o-A!
v-) ,.;_, y.-V ,
N/ A rJcl'f"'<::.1 ~ 130
Facility Proposed Design and Maintenance Miles Construction
'---< **$ l ioo per year per Bike Lanes ~ mile($~0~
Bike $70,000 **$69d per year per mile
Routes "1 J ($~)/
f~ I $5,000 per yea er )
Paths $14 million mile ($320 ,000)
Replacement as 34.4 $55 million
Sidewalks 19 $3.9 million $2.5 million
*The 20 l 0 cost estimates do not include infla
**This cost is programmed into regular street maintenance.
FIGURE 7.2: COSTS
Chapter 7: Implementation e
DRAFT
January 2010 -~--~ ------~ .. .,----.. -
Chapter 7: Implementation
•········································································································································································•
The long term success of the system requires the City's commitment to creating a bikeable and
walkable community and the preservation of open space. This can only be accomplished
through an understanding of what is required to implement and achieve all of the goals,
strategies, and action items outlined in this Plan. This chapter sets the course for how to turn
recommendations drawn from Chapter Five: System Development and Chapter Six: System
Management into reality to generate change over the next 10 years. It outlines priorities and
costs; implementation methods; administration of the system; and evaluation procedures for the
system as the Plan progresses.
PRIORITIES /1'1.~3.
A proposed 129 miles of bicycle lanes, 80 miles of bike routes, 41 miles of trails and 113 miles of
sidewalks were identified in Chapter 5: System Development, in addition to what exists as shown
in Figure 7.1: Miles. This section provides recommendations on priorities and phasing as well as
the criteria and methodology used in reaching those recommendations. The proposed priorities
will be reviewed and may be modified over time as a result of changes in land use,
development, and transportation patterns as well as other opportunities or constraints.
Miles
Total Facility Build-out
Bike Lanes 84.4 ~~"'l
Bike Routes 62 ~o 118*
Paths 6.4 34.4 4o-<t/4' 5~
Sidewalks 130 19 94 \ \ '3 2A8" '1-S""D
*There are currently 59 miles of bike routes, however, once build-out of proposed bike route facilities occurs
many of the current bike routes will become bike lanes reducing the number of 20 l 0 existing bike routes to
32 miles.
FIGURE 7.1: MILES
Criteria and Methodology
Factors considered in prioritizing each facility type were compiled based on the goals
established in this Plan; input from the general public ; and input from the Technical Task Force
and the Staff Resource Team. Some factors included connectivity to key destinations,
population density, safety, and public requests. All facility types (bike lanes, bike routes, multi-use
paths, and sid ewalks) were analyzed. Other factors used included connectivity gaps; important
east/west and north/south corridors; and the likelihood of a street being built or w idened .
Appendix K provides additional information on how priorities were established. Factors to
determine land acquisition priorities include likelihood of development, zoning, and the
-Bicycle, Pedestrian , and Greenways Master Plan
l (al:,
(1/8/2010 Venessa Garza -Re: Update on the BicJ'.cle, Pedestrian, and
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Hello Ms.-Garza,
<jcastig@sudden link. net>
Venessa Garza <Vgarza@cstx.gov>
12/30/200.9 10:47 PM
Re : Update on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan
Thank you for sending me 1he map of proposed B<P and G Master plan
I wish to offer a couple of comments. My specific concern is that there be a SAFE bicycle route/pathway
between the area east of Hwy 6 (Carter Lake region) and the Southwood valley region.
The underpass ( now betF!g constructed) under Hwy 6 at Barron Road will be a good link in such a rout-e.
However, the plan indicates that there is a proposed bicycle path betWeen the Barron road underpass and
Rock Prairie near its intersection with Bradley Road . I strongly urge that this pathway be constructed.
Without it, there remain no safe route from this residential area east of Hwy 6 and Rock Prairie into the
central portion of College Station.
Currently, and by my reading of the master plan, the only bicycle route for that trip is on Rock Prairie
Road , which is EXTREMELY dangerous
for cyclists-as you know, Rock Prairie is a narrow two lane road that has no shoulders, and has deep bar
ditches on both sides. The auto mobile traffic speed limit is 50 MPH. It is on a rolling hill, so that bicyclists
can be hidden from auto drivers vision in certain places due to dips in the road, etc .. There is no place for
a bicyclist to escape pote_n~al collisions on this roadway.
The proposed pathway from Bradley to Barron Road could be a good alternative route, if the underpass is
built with provisions for bicycle traffic.
Thank you very much for your hard work on this master plan, and for keeping the cycling community
involved at each stage of its progress.
Joseph Castiglioni
2011 Post Oak Circle
CS, TX
----Venessa Garza <Vgarza@cstx.gov> wrote:
>
> The complete draft version of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways
> Master Plan will be available at www.cstx.gov/hikeandbikefor review and
> comments until January 8th by the end of today. The Plan will be
>presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 21st
> (Regular/Public Hearing) and to City Council on January 28th
> (Regular/Public Heating). Please feel free to contact Venessa Garza,
> Greenways Program Manager, with questions or comments by phone at
> 979-764-3674 or by email at vgarza@cstx.gov.
>
>
> Venessa Garza
> Greenways Program Manager
> Planning & ~velopment Services
> City of College S_f<MiOn
> P.O.Box 9960
> 1101 Texas Avenue
> College Station, TX 77845
P~ge 1
(1/8/2010 enessa Garza -Re: Update on the Bicy-cle, Pedestrian, and
>
> Phone: (979) 764-3674
> Fax: (979) 764-3496
> Website: www.cstx.gov
>
>
> City of College Station
> Home of Texas A&M University®
Joseph Castiglioni
www.quickwaterphoto.com
Page 2
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan DRAFT
January 201 O
presence of a proposed multi-use path; however, the analysis a nd results w ere not performed as
part of this Plan but will in implementation.
Once each proposed facility type was prioritized, they were placed into one of the following
categories: Short-term (0-10 years), Near-term ( 11-20 years), and Long-term (21 +years) based on
the analysis described in Appendix K. Proposed facilities were further prioritized by likelihood of
the facility being built in conjunction with a street project; and finally by the location of the
proposed facility (College Station City limits, potential annexation areas, and the five-mile
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction). Although all of the proposed facilities are needed, the factors
identified above influence the need of one project over the other. Maps 7.1 : Priorities for
Proposed Bike Lanes, 7.2: Priorities for Proposed Bike Routes, 7.3: Priorities for Proposed Sidewalks,
and 7.4: Priorities for Proposed Multi-use Paths provide a depiction of these priorities.
COSTS
Costs were estimated for design and construction; maintenance; and programming of the
bicycle, pedestrian and greenway system. These estimates should only be used as a preliminary
guide and further study should be given to arrive at more concrete cost projections.
Figure 7.2 provides costs for design and construction of facilities as well as maintenance of
facilities. Costs associated with each facility are provided based on short-term and near-term
and long-term priorities. Short-term priorities include inflation while near-term and long-term only
include 20 l 0 estimates. They do not, for the most part, consider any land acquisition that may
be required or unforeseen design and construction issues. Estimated costs for bike lanes and
sidewalks are only included if they are not a lready included with street construction to widen or
construct a new street. Maintenance for greenway property is estimated to be $2.500 per mile
per year.
Facility Proposed
Miles
Bike Lanes 44
Bike
Routes 18
Paths
Sidewalks 19
Short-term (10 years)
Design and
Construction
$14 million
$3.9 million
\
Maintenance
**$1300 per year per mile
($572,000)
**$635 per year per mile
($1 14,000) ---$5,000 per year per
mile($320,000)
Replacement as needed
($750,000) Replacement
of 5 miles per year
*The 20 l 0 cost estimates do not include inflation.
**This cost is programmed into regular street maintenance.
FIGURE 7.2: COSTS
Near-term and Long-term
Proposed
Miles
86
62
34.4
95
*2010 cost
estimates
$190.000
·-·~-"
II
Chapter 7: Implementation e
. ··Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan DRAFT ·
January 20 l 0
Chapter 7: Implementation
•········································································································································································•
The long term success of the system requires the City's commitment to creati ng a bikeable and
walkable community and the preservation of open space. This can only be accomplished
through an understanding of what is required to implement and achieve all of the goals,
strategies, and action items outlined in this Plan. This chapter sets the course for how to turn
recommendations drawn from Chapter Five : System Development and Chapter Six: System
Management into reality to generate change over the next l 0 years. It outlines priorities and
costs; implementation methods; administration of the system; and evaluation procedures for the
system as the Plan progresses.
PRIORITIES
A proposed 130 miles of bicycle lanes, 80 miles of bike routes, 41 miles of trails and l 14 miles of
sidewalks were identified in Chapter 5: System Development, in addition to what exists as shown
in Figure 7. l: Facility Miles. This section provides recommendations on priorities and phasing as
well as the criteria and methodology used in reaching those recommendations. The proposed
priorities will be reviewed and may be modified over time as a result of changes in land use,
development, and transportation patterns as well as other opportunities or constraints.
Facility Existing
Total
Existing, Funded, and
Proposed
Bike Lanes 167 /<;'2-
Bike Routes 59 118* 11 S
Paths 8 55 4'7
t. ~
Sidewalks 130 7 19 9 5 ""(( s Ci 'f 25 l 1.50.
*There are currently 59 miles of bike routes, however, once build-out of proposed bike route facilities occurs many of the
current bike routes will become bike lanes reducing the number of 20 l 0 existing bike routes to 3'.2 miles.
FIGURE 7.1 : MILES
Criteria and Methodology
Factors considered in prioritizing each facility type were compiled based on the goals
established in this Plan; input from the general public; and input from the Technical Task Force
and the Staff Resource T earn. Some factors included connectivity to key destinations.
population density, safety. and public requests. All facility types [bike lanes, bike routes, multi-use
paths, and sidewalks) were analyzed. Other factors used included connectivity gaps; important
east/west and north/south corridors; and the likelihood of a street being built or widened.
Appendix K provides additional information on how priorities were established. Factors to
determine land acquisition priorities include likelihood of development, zoning, and the
-Bicycle. Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan
OVUN"ltw
Over the past year .. .4 updates ... planning process
*Parks and Recreation Advisory Board January 12 for comments
*Planning and Zo ning Commission January 21 Presentation, public hearing
recommendation .. unanimous support
-Changes since receiving document including some grammatical errors which I won't mention;
data sources on all maps, addition of proposed sidewalks on Decatur and Southern Plantation ... and
changes to costs based on additions, etc.
Executive summary will be created
Pldnning Purpose
To create an interconnected system ... combined following master plans ... this Plan builds upon
projects and recommendations from these plans ...
This includes bike lan es , bike routes, sidewalks and multi-use paths ..
The 'Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan consists of recommendations on system
development and management .. projects, programs, policies, maintenance, and implementation
Planning Process
Helped develop and refine ..
Citizen Engagement - 3 Community Meetings; Focus Group Meetings, Online Survey, Master Plan
comments
Other Govt. Input-City of Bryan , CSISD, TxDOT, etc.
Techniccil Task Force
Recogni~e memb ers of the TTF who served over the las t year .. meeting month ly .. input .. expertise ..
Jaime Rae Walker
Map -Existing Facilities
Planning efforts have spanned a number of decades ..
As home of Texas A&M University .. students, faculty and staff have been walking and biking to
campus since its inception
First Bike Plan .. l 98Q's. Greenways Master Plan 1999 .. implementation of these plans is from the
Continued commitment and ongoing effort by residents of College Station, City Council, the Public
Works Department, Parks and Recreation Department and Capital Projects Department to provide a
bicycle, pedestrian and greenway system for transportation and recreation
Accomplishments
. Biking and Walking in College Station
Biking and walking continue to be a mode of transportation for residents of College Station ..
MAP -Key Destinations
51 parks
over 12 schools ..
Shopping centers, grocery stores,
Northgate, Wolf Pen Creek
Hospitality Corridor
As we grown south .. need for mixed use developments to meet the needs of the community and spur
biking and walking
Goals
These are goals that have surfaced from the comprehensive plan, focus groups, the online survey
and previous community meetings
1. Improving connectivity between origins and destinations -neighborhoods, schools,
employment, parks
2. Making biking and walking safer
3. Creating transportation choices
Improving the environment and ecosystem ... becoming less dependent on the automobile and
conserving the natural environment
System Development Recommendations
Bike lanes -preferred bicycle facility -most miles proposed - prevents over correction by drivers,
lower crash rates; less stressful for bicyclists
Bike routes -needed corridors, not enough right of way; preferred on lower volume roads; use of
sh arrows
Sidewalks -designated location to walk vs. using the street to reach a destination
Multi-use paths -separated from road way ; fewer intersections crossings
MAP -Bike Facilities
Over 130 miles of bike lanes .. in City .. as City grows ..
Bike routes -80 miles - a number of bike routes within the City were converted into proposed bike
lanes
Rural areas -bike routes or constrained right of way within the City
MAP -Sidewalks and Multi-use Paths
Over 114 miles of sidewalks -many of which will be constructed with development. ..
41 miles of multi-use paths throughout the City .. including the Gulf States Utility Easement, path
adjacent to SH 40,
MAP -Gre enways
Protection of all streams .. different standards of maintenance and care based on location .. rural,
suburban and urban greenways .. different levels of service and protection
System Management Recommendations
Establish a Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Advisory Board
For guidance
Advocacy
Implementation
Continued acquisition to protect greenways
Educational classes
Encouragement of use through events, promotional materials , and maps, volunteer opportunities
Continued/increased maintenance by PW and PARD
ldentify procedures that will reduce risk and liability and increase safety
Policy Recommendations -examples
Implementation
This Master Plan recommends over 364 miles of facilities, over 28 program initiatives, over 20 policies,
creation of a new Board, the need to further explore safety and maintenance and continued land
acquisition ...
If these recommendations are to satisfy and achieve the goals to continue to create a City that is ·
bikeable, walkable and stewards of the environment th en ...
Implementation would involve ...
Volu~teers , partnerships with outside agencies, private development, a Board, additional staff, the
revising and adopting new ordinances and guidelines and funding
HOW????
In order to accomplish what's proposed in the next l 0 years ..
Facilities were prioritized, costs were estimated. Tasks were identified ..
Implementation -Cost Estimates
If the City wants to provide
Proposed short-term projects were determined by feasibility of identified design and construction
funding
Bike lanes -you'll see no costs for Near-term and Long-term b/c all existing roads with proposed bike
1anes are slotted for short-term implementation
Implementation -Facilities
Projects broken up into short-term, near-term, and long-term ..
prioritized accordingly ...
Cost of new roads are included an upcoming Council agenda item by Mark Smiths on future road
costs
Over next 10 years ...
MAP -Bike Lanes
44 miles .... estimated roll out of new construction by the City Public Works Department
$680,000 retrofitting XX miles
Maintenance -$1300 annually per mile
street sweeping 2X a month
replacing signage
restriping
MAP -Bike Routes
18 miles
$70,000 signage and striping
Maintenance -$635 annually per mile
Replacing signage
Repainting pavement markings
MAP -Multi-use Paths
6.4 miles
$14 million
Maintenance -$5,000 a year per miles
mowing, edging, trimming, blowing, herbicide spraying, and litter pick-up. If there are trees or shrubs that
need trimming for safety reasons
MAP -Sidewalks
19 miles new and retrofitting roads
$3. 9 mill ion ( 10 miles retrofitted)
Maintenance -replacement $750,000 currently programmed
Implementation -Funding
Implementation of facilities, programs and maintenance tied to ability to secure funding ...
Implementation -Evaluation .. success of system
\
tH~~s~.u-......-.
Presentation by: Venessa Garza, ~s Program Manager ~;,
--Ii>-.
~· I b{+ M·1n'•~ vv4J~ 5'/lL~ P · -. : P· -
'>\c.ltz.u..A'l( (.5 .
-S ~~ \Ol ln-\flAjU)'\.\,. • cf: le•~ le-S
• -e;,t..t-~
fit~ s~J.LvaJ..#=.A.
~-~ ""~-''"'·
S>
\D'-{L l~ 3.no~ 10: 3o lo
I 10-t'I C\._ -tHJh I . I ~!)
~
----
1 ~ '
I I ~ ~I ~~
I
I I
~<Ji\-~1 /'°3. -./...~~
I I
clJ. t-:S ~ r\J
-... -
•
..
...
•
~
••
• ..
.
-.
, . .
..
·-\-~ °--+ Q'VO'VJvd
·S'd\1.~ .
.
-.
Ts-:>\ !W' .• ""'onA;J h-f"\.f.S -'-.
"'} /
.,
.
1'
t . ·-
-' .~ .. :.1l
Nlt~((~I~ }&st -tl --· ·· ·j ~· .
11n..trt1~ ~off t>~S
@Pr,1~'/. llA.~ ?
(i) ~~~~ I p1-<.-~
/".::'\ . 1 A'~ -l,:? Stn• • · ·--. ... ----·-· ·
VA\ '· -I . I I -. ./ . • • ~ -"-'\. ll v )If-p~• "" ~ \ ~ f-bl "'\ .
-~~h,..J-~o~il.J'1 I'~ A-,. --t .
I \ --'I I U"'" •
'® s t;\A.-tk. ~ ~«.,{!~---thtt ... ,,,....,"'-~-
I ._,
l Ob Jl "':t PtnZ-K .
[G:) &~ ueeAt:. ptzcpoSec.t. f'4-~ I
;--~ .I A \~\I le..-~ -L}\1~·
~
.
-
-
-------
---
--------
~
Mo.in ~fll'\ c..e..., -..
0 I .rJ A r 0 _ 'Stc{Y\Cl~
I ...,,
fll-E;-fti.Lh.L--~
I strud--b~
' J SlelLUJ~ ~ COl-l~
011.rl si~w&. ,. ~
'
-
•
., VV~A.,.,. f sid...A..v-.l~ ~ v i..ts -~~~~~~~~-~~c___o_ _______ ~_
---~-·~ --------~fl.idcd2.. ~s~-t oo ~~
=-/b+zis.~
St~wd,/c '-.
\-.,,;<--------=--------
-----
(GW
-hz.a,ilS
~o • • • lie-----------1----------U-___;
2.0IO Z.Oll 2-012.. Z.013 2..oJ4 2.DIS. 2-olf, 2..011 20/f 2.01
*\b""" ~IS I-~) ~
---------
~ (,10ll0
~ ~,ot>O
I
S ,ooo
£? ovo
'
'
I
i.
11
· ... .,
..
.• ..
~
t, Zci l (
\ \ 51 ooe ;Ls,<.)()() <(oo, ooo ' .
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ ~
' . .
..
-
-~ ---
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan DRAFT
January 2010
-------
presence of a proposed multi-use path; however, the analysis and results w ere not performed as
part of this Plan but will in implementation.
Once each proposed facility type was prioritized, they were placed into one of the following
categories: Short-term (0-10 years), Near-term ( 11-20 years), and Long-term (21 +years) based on
the analysis described in Appendix K. Proposed facilities were further prioritized by likelihood of
the facility being built in conjunction with a street project; and finally by the location of the
proposed facility (College Station City limits, potential annexation areas, and the five-mile
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction). Although all of the proposed facilities are needed, the factors
identified above influence the need of one project over the other. Maps 7.1: Priorities for
Proposed Bike Lanes, 7.2: Priorities for Proposed Bike Routes, 7.3: Priorities for Proposed Sidewalks,
and 7.4: Priorities for Proposed Multi-use Paths provide a depiction of these priorities.
COS TS
Costs were estimated for design and construction; maintenance; and p rogramming of the
bicycle, pedestrian and greenway system. These estimates should only be used as a preliminary
guide and furth er study should be given to arrive at more concrete cost projections.
Figure 7.2 provides costs for design and construction of facilities as well as maintenance of
facilities . Costs associated with each facility are provided based on short-term and near-term
and long-term priorities. Short-term priorities include inflation while near-term and long-term only
include 2010 estimates. They do not. for the most part. consider any land acquisition that may
be required or unforeseen design and construction issues. Estimated costs for bike lanes and
sidewalks are only included if they are not already induded with street construction to widen or
construct a new street. Maintenance for greenway property is estimated to be $2.500 per mile
per year.
Short-term (10 years)
Facility
Bike Lanes
Bike
Routes
Paths
Sidewalks
Proposed Design and
Miles Construction
44 $680,000
18 $70,000
6.4 $1 4 million
19 $3.9 million
Maintenance
*"$1300 per year per mile
($572,000)
**$635 per year per mile
($11 4,000)
$5,000 per year per
mile ($320,000)
Replacement as needed
($750,000) Replacement
of 5 miles per year
*The 20 1 O cost estimates do not in ude infl ation.
**This cost is programmed into reg lar street maintenance.
FIGURE 7.2: Com ~ ,(.pS
Near-term and Long-term
Proposed
Miles
86
62
34.4
95
*2010 cost
estimates
N/A
$190,000
$61 milli on
$2.8 million
_;;:::----
Chapter 7: Implementation e
Bicycle~ Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan DRAFT
January 20 I 0
~
Chapter 7: Implementation
•········································································································································································•
The long term success of the sys tem requires the City's commitment to creating a bikeable and
walkable community and the preservation of open space. This can only be accomplished
through an understanding of what is required to implement and achieve all of the goals,
strategies, and action items outlined in this Plan. This chapter sets the course for how to turn
recommendations drawn from Chapter Five : System Development and Chapter Six: System
Management into reality to generate change over the next l 0 years. It outlines priorities and
costs; implementation methods; administration of the system ; and evaluation procedures for the
system as the Plan progresses.
PRIORITIES
A proposed 130 miles of bicycle lanes, 80 miles of bike routes, 41 miles of trails and l 14 miles of
sidewalks were identified in Chapter 5: System Development, in addition to what exists ·as shown
in Figure 7.1: Facility Miles. This section provides recommendations on priorities and phasing as
well as the criteria and methodology used in reaching those recommendations. The proposed
priorities will be reviewed and may be modified over time as a result of changes in land use,
development, and transportation patterns as well as other opportunities or constraints.
Facility Miles
Proposed Total
Near-term Existing, Funded, and Facility Existing Funded Proposed Short-term (10 years) and
Long-term
Bike Lanes 33 44 86 167
Bike Routes 59 18 62 118*
Paths 8 6.4 34.4 55
Sidewalks 130 7 19 95 251
*There ore currently 59 miles of bike routes, however, once build-out of proposed bike route facilities occurs many of the
current bike routes will become bike lanes reducing the number of 2010 existing bike routes to 32 miles.
FIGURE 7.1: MILES
Criteria and Methodology
Factors considered in prioritizing each facility type were compiled based on the goals
established in this Plan; input from the general public; and input from the Technical Task Force
and the Staff Resource Team. Some factors included connectivity to key destinations,
population density, safety, and public requests. All facility types (bike lanes, bike routes, multi-use
paths, and sidewalks) were analyzed. Other factors used included connectivity gaps; important
east/west and north/south corridors; and the likelihood of a street being built or widened.
Appendix K provides additional information on how priorities were established. Factors to
-!ermine land acquisition priorities include likelihood ot development, zoning, and the
W Bicycle. Pedestrian. and Greenways Master Plan ,
System Development Recommendations
o Bike lanes -preferred bicycle facility -most miles proposed -prevents over correcti on by drivers,
has lower crash rates; re duce stress for bicyclists
o Bike routes -identified on needed corridors, not enough right of way still a key corridor;
preferred on lower volume roads; introduced the use of sh arrows -pavement markings ... make
motorists aware to share the road
o Sidewalks -designated location to walk vs. using the street to reach a destinati9n ---o Multi-use paths -usually separate from road w9y ; typically fewer intersections crossings
MAP -Bike Facilities
Over 130 miles of bike lanes .. in City .. as City grows ..
Bike routes -80 miles -a number of bike routes within the City were converted into proposed bike
lanes
Rural areas -bike routes or constrained right of way within th e City
MAP -Sidewalks and Multi-use Paths .. r, ~ • ti-'" -
Over 114 miles of sidewalks -many of which will be constructed with evelopment... ~D ·
41 miles of multi-use paths throughout the City .. including the Gulf States Utility Easement, some path
adjacent to state ROW,
MAP -Greenways
Protection of all streams .. different classifications ... help define .. standards of maintenance and care
based on location .. rural, suburban and urban greenways .. different levels of service and protection
System Management Recommendations
SOME EXAMPLES
o Establish a Bicycle, Ped estrian and Greenways Advisory Board
For guidance
Advocacy
Implementation of Plan
o Continued acquisition to protect greenways
o Educational classes
o Enc ouragement of use through events, promotional materials, and maps, volunteer opportunities
o Continued/increased maintenance by PW and PARD
. o Identify procedures that will reduce risk and liability and incre as e safety
Policy Recommendations -
SOME
EXAMPLES·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'·
fAKP
M ap -Existing Facilities C,-0 ~ c:;:
o Planning efforts and development of facilities have spanned a number of decades .. as you can
see
o s ho\Je f Te as A&M Universjty .. students, faculty and staff have been \Yalking and biking to ~Jpo inoe its inception
o First Bike Plan .. 1980's. Greenways Master Plan 1999 ..
o implementation of these plans is from the
The continued commitment and ongoing effor y. esidents of College Station, City Council, Boards
and Commissions, the Public Works Department, Parks and Recreation Department and Capital
')
Projects Department Has provided the bicycle, pedestrian and greenway systEtm that we have
today
Accomplishments
Over the past decade
Biking and Walking in College Station -£fl.. ~'Sp{)?~·.
Biking and walking continue to be a mode ~ trORS f3G rt ation for resideAts of College; Station ...
MAP.:.. Key Destinations _
Recognized ... 'l!>l-t~~ A:n.~l"~o5~ ·
51 parks
over 12 schools ..
Shopping centers, grocery stores,
Northgate, Wolf Pen Creek
\t-f-."Plf"-1ie G F
~ ~ o JZt ..12. e~ iiO"k.. ·
s w.e grown south .. need for mixed use developments to meet the needs of the community an spur
b ~ng a d walking
Goals ~Uc.t~ ~-tw&,\1 ~ ~
Through the f>lanning pr.ee@c~ .. citizen engagement1 the Comprehensive Plan, and Council's Strategic
Plan ..
1 . Improving connectivity between origins and destinations -neighborhoods, schools,
employment, parks
2. Making biking and walking safer
3. Creating transportation choices
Improving the environment and ecosystem ... becoming less dependent on the automobile and
conserving the natural environment
• Tonight staff will provide an overview of the BPG Plan, you received 2 weeks ago \
planning effort that began over a year ago with updates to Council, P&Z and Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board
~ January 12 staff received comments fr om the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
• January 21 staff provided a presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission included
public hearing and a recommendation with unanimous su pport for the Pldn .
• Changes since receiving the Draft Plan include
o Some grammatical erro rs
o data sources added to maps
o addition of about 1 mile of proposed sidewalks on Decatur and Southern Plantation
o changes to costs based on additions, etc.·
• Executive summary will be created
Planning Purpose
o Amendment to Comp Plan "'"'d. ~~ 4''1'>~ .
o To create an interconnected s~ ... combined following master plans ... this Plan builds upon
projects and recommendations from these plans ...
o This includes bike lanes, bike routes, sidewalks and multi-use paths ..
o The Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Pla n consists of recommendations on system
development and management ... projects, programs, policies, maintenance, and
implementation
o Planning Horizon
Plan ning Process
o · tudy Area
.o bifferenf grou ps helped develop and refine ..
Citizen Engagement 3 Community Meetings; Focus Group Meetings, Online Survey, Master Plan
comments
Other Govt. Input -City of Bryan, CSISD, TxDOT, etc.
Technical Task Force
, Recognize members of the TIF who served over the last year .. meeting monthly .. in put .. expertise . .to
help create this Plan
Jaime Rae Walker
!h~s W0od..{~.
Sc otf Sk&tfle.
MAP2
Bike Lanes Bike Routes
Street Name Rank Your Ranking Road Name Rank Your Ranking
Holleman Dr 1 CHERRY ST 1
Munson Ave 2 SCARLETI OHARA DR 2
Holleman Dr E 3 PARK PLACE 3
University Oaks Blvd 4 SOUTHWEST PKWY 1 4
Brentwood Drive 5 RHETI BUTLER DR 5
Nagle St 6 SOUTHWEST PKWY 6
Navarro Dr 7 FOSTER AVE 7
Dominik Dr 8 EISENHOWER ST 8
Brothers Bl 9 CROSS ST 9
Stallings Dr 10 AK Road 10
Spring Loop 11 HARVEY RD 11
Luther St W 12 SHADWOCREST DR 12
Jones Butler Rd N 13 ARRINGTON RD 13
Glade St 14 PEBBLE CREEK PKWY 14
Tarrow St 15 Kappa Rd 15
George Bush Dr W 16 FOXFIRE DR 16
Holleman Dr W 17 Lota Rd 17
P Road 18 RAINTREE DR 18
Lincoln Ave 19 FROST DR 19
Dartmouth St 20 SOAKS DR 20
Arnold Rd 21 Gamma Rd 21
Barron Rd 22 AL Road 22
Rock Prairie Rd 23 Beta Rd 23
Parkview Dr 24 LINDA LN 24
Colgate Dr 25 Nu Rd 25
. -L ~ 'J ~fl-fLlrJ~. (~l
e_clM.C°'--1i~p1lu:.
MAPl
Sidewalks Multi-use Paths
Street Name Rank Your Ranking Creek or Street Name Rank Your Ranking
SCARLETT OHARA DR 1 College Avenue 1
BROTHERS BLVD 2 WPC Connector G 2
MUNSON AVE 3 Wolf Pen Creek 3 ~
SOUTHWEST PKWY 4 Harvey Rd 4 '
UNIVERSITY OAKS BLVD E 5 Wolf Pen Creek Trib A 5
TEXAS AVES 6 Connector F 6
PEDERNALES DR 7 John Crompton Park 7
GEORGE BUSH DR 8 Bee Creek Trib B East 8
CROSS ST 9 Bee Creek Trib B West 9
WELLBORN RD 10 SC Connector B 10
HARVEY RD 11 Bee Creek West 11
ELEANOR ST 12 BC Connector 0 12
DOMINIK DR W 13 Connector A 13
BRENTWOOD DR 14. Lick Creek 14
HOLLEMAN DR N 15, Harvey Mitchel Parkway N 15
FAIRVIEW AVE 16 Connector D 16
UNIVERSITY OAKS BLVD W 17 WPC Connector I 17
CHURCH AV 18 BC Connector N 18 p '+
OLD JERSEY ST 19 Connector E 19
DOMINIK DRE 20 BC Connector P 20 --/{ 2-
ANDERSON ST 21 Harvey Mitchell Pkwy S 21
PARK PLACE E 2t Frontage 6 Rd W 22 -k 3
LUTHER ST 23 Bee Creek East 23
NAGLE ST 24 Bee Creek 24 -·* I
RHETT BUTLER DR 25 AC Connector M 25
lmplem"ntt:Jtion Lt
This Master Plan recommends over 364 miles of facilities, over 28 program initiatives, over 20 policies,
creation of a new Board, the need lo fu b.e explo~ safety and maintenance and continued land
acquisition ...
If these recommendations are to satisfy and achieve the goals to continue to create a City that is
bikeable, walkable and stewards of the environment then
Then implementation methods outlined in this Plan should be utilized ...
Tbey inc 5~ -l.V..~ fU. ~ i ~ .
Implementation -Cost Estimates
Cost of new roads are included an upcoming Council agenda item by Mark Smiths on future road
costs
If the City wants to provide ...
Proposed short-term projects were determined by feasibility of identified design and construction
funding
Bike lanes -you'll see no costs for Near-term and Long-term b/c all existing roads with proposed b ike
lanes are slotted for short-term implementation
Implementation -~acilities
Projects broken up into sho rt-term, near-term, and long-term ..
prioritized accordin gly ...
Over next 10 years ...
MAP -Bike Lanes
44 ~ .... estimated roll out of new construction by the City Public Works Department
$680,000 retrofitting XX miles ...
Maintenance -$1300 annually per mile
street, sweeping 2X a month
I ·.·
reploping signage
restriping
MAP -Bike Rgutes
18 miles ...
$70,~ signage and striping
Maintenance -$635 annually per mile
Replacin g signage
Repainting pavement markings
MAP -Multi-use Paths
6.4 miles
$14 million
Maintenance -$5,000 a year per miles
mowing, edging, trimming, blowing, herbicide spraying, and litter pick-up. If there are trees or shrubs that
need trimming for safety reasons
MAP -Sidewalks
19 miles new and retrofitting roads
$3. 9 million ( 10 miles retrofitted)
Maintenance -replacement $7 50,000 currently programmed
lmplementbtion -Funding
Implementation of facilities, programs and maintenance tied to ability to secure funding ...
Implementation -Evaluation .. success of system
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Cost Estimates
Description Units Estimated Cost , Comments Actual Cost Used Additional Costs
Bike Route Mile $2,750 rounded cost $3,000
(10 signs; 10 pavement markings)
Bike Lane Mile $7,400 rounded cost $8,000
(20 signs; 20 pavement markings; 2 strips)
Additional Pavement for bike lanes Mile $316,800 didn't use in $320,000
(2 lanes; dirtwork, limestabilization, materials) estimates (apart of
new street
construction)
Restriping (4" white solid line) bicycle lane via road diet Mile $37,380 rounded cost $40,000
(Remove 6 lanes; Stripe 6 lanes)
.Concrete path (10' width)-all costs included
increase for land $200,000 per bridge; acquisition, low Mile $667,286 $1,000,000 $500,000 per grade impact creek separated crossing cha nalization
additional cost for
6 'sidewalk (4" thick) -dirtwork and materials included ~o,ooo' j
intersections
Mile $142,560 depending on level of (No ramps, curbs, etc. included) upgrade: 5,000,
25,000 and 820,000
•
Bicycle and Pedestrian ANNUAL Maintenance Cost Estimates
VI OJ
OJ :-e ...:.::
a:l ·a
!ti LL
Description
Bike Route (Street sweeping $44 per mile once a
month -$525; Remarking $75 every 2 miles every year -
•• . . 200 ever 3 miles
•
Bike Lane
(Street sweeping $44 per~ mile twice a month;
Restriping every 7 years~ per lane R'l"ife) 1""lc>'/, ; s / foq 0 . 2. ... 0.
c::=----~=1
.Concrete path (10' width)
1 6' sidewalk
•
Greenway trash pickup and drainage and creek channel
clean up
~ ·i
~ ~
Units
Mile
Estimated Cost
$635
Mile $1,200
Mile $750,000
Mile $1,200
Comments Actual Cost Used Additional Costs
replacement only