Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Venessa Garza March 20
CSJ# 2399-01-085 District# 17-BRY Code Chart 64 # 09050 -City of College Station Project Name FM 2818 Shared Use Path ST A TE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF TRAVIS § ADVANCE FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR VOLUNTARY LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WITH NO REQUIRED MATCH ON-SYSTEM THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the State of Texas, acting by and through the Texas Department of Transportation called the "State", and the City of College Station, acting by and through its duly authorized officials, called the "Local Government". The State and Local Government shall be collectively referred to as "the parties" hereinafter. WITNESS ETH WHEREAS, federal law establishes federally funded programs for transportation improvements to implement its public purposes, and WHEREAS, Texas Transportation Code; Chapters 201 and 221 , authorize the State to lay out, construct, maintain, and operate a system of streets, roads, and highways that comprise the State Highway System; and WHEREAS, Texas Government Code, Chapter 791 , and Texas Transportation Code, §201 .209 and Chapter 221 , authorize the State to contract with municipalities and political subdivisions; and WHEREAS, the Texas Transportation Commission passed Minute Order Number 116073 authorizing the State to undertake and complete a highway improvement funded through the Statewide Curb Ramp Program generally described as FM 2818 Shared Use Path (Project). A map showing the Project location appears in Attachment C, Location Map Showing Project; and WHEREAS, the Local Government has requested that the State allow the Local Government to participate in said improvement by contributing a fixed amount of funds towards the Project; and WHEREAS, the governing body of the Local Government has approved entering into this Agreement by resolution or ordinance dated , which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement as Attachment B, Resolution or Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the State hc.s determined that such participation is in the best interest of the citizens of the state; Page 1 of 5 AFA-AFA_Vol Statewide Curb Ramp Program Revised 04/17 /18 A Resolution NO. __ _ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LOCAL PROJECT ADVANCE FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,757,588.00 FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE CENTREPORT TRAIL PROJECT WHEREAS, the Congestion Mitigation and Ai r Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program, administered by the Texas Department of Transportation, provides funding for surface transportation projects and other related efforts that contribute air quality improvements and provide congestion relief.; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Worth applied for, and was awarded funding for the CentrePort Trail Project (the "Project") through the CMAQ Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Fort Worth desires to enter into a Local Project Advance Funding Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for the division of costs and responsibilities associated with the design and construction of the Project; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, THAT: The City Manager is authorized to execute a Local Transportation Project Advance Funding Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation in the amount of $2 ,757,588.00 for the design and construction of the CentrePort Trail Project. Adopted this ______ day of-----------------2017. ATTEST Mary J. Kayser City Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 494-18 February 12, 2018 2E-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, APPROVING AN ADVANCE FUNDING AGREEMENT (AFA) WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TxDOT), RELATING ·,-o A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE (TASA) PROGRAM PROJECT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING BIKE/PEDESTRIAN TRAIL CSJ 0902-90-081; AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Richland Hills, Texas has deemed it necessary and in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Richland Hills to develop the Richland Hills Bike/Pedestrian Trail; and WHEREAS, the Texas Transportation Commission passed Minute Order No. i 115005, dated August 31 , 2017, awarding funding for TASA projects in the 2017 TASA Program Call of the North Central Texas Council of Governments, including the project described herein; and WHE'JiEAS, said project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety areas for .kt . residents between neighborhoods, schools, retail districts and other points of interests; and WHEREAS, the Advance Funding Agreement outlines each party's responsibilities in said project, including costs; and WHEREAS, the estimated total cost to be paid by the City is $419,282.00 with the Federal project share being $1,677, 121 and the State share being $104,956; and WHEREAS, the Richland Hills General Fund will provide $419,282 for use in paying the City of Richland Hills' twenty percent engineering and construction cost share for said project; and WHEREAS, the City of Richland Hills is willing to share in the cost of the Richland Hills Bike/Pedestrian Trail Project, in accordance with the Advance Funding Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". February 12, 2018 2E-4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: Section 1: THAT, the above findings are hereby found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein in their entirety. Section 2: THAT, the City Council of the City of Richland Hills, Texas hereby approves an Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), attached hereto as Exhibit "A", relating to a Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) Program Project, for the purpose of funding Bike/Pedestrian Trail CSJ 0902-90-081; and further authorizes the City Manager to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Richland Hills, Texas. Section 3: THAT, costs associated with the Richlan(l Hills Bike/Pedestrian Trail Project shall be paid from the Richland Hills General Fund and shall not exceed $419,282.00. AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. Passed by a vote of _____ to ____ on this the 12th day of February, 2018. CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS BY: ~---------~ Bill Agan, Mayor ATTEST: Cathy Bourg, City Secretary Approved as to Form and Legality: Betsy Elam, City Attorney A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, SUPPORTING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEES TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR AN APPLICATION TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S 2021 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE (TA) CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THE GEORGE BUSH DRIVE SEP ARA TED BIKE LANES PROJECT WHEREAS, the Texas Department of Transportation issued a call for projects in January 2021 for communities to apply for funding assistance through the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TA) Program; and WHEREAS, the TA funds may be used for construction of pedestrian and/or bicycle infrastructure. The TA funds require a local match, comprised of cash. The City of College Station would be responsible for all non-reimbursable costs and 100% of overruns, if any, for TA funds; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That the City Council of the City of College Station supports funding the project: George Bush Drive (FM 2347) Separated Bike Lanes as described in the 2021 TA Detailed Applications (including the preliminary engineering budget, if any, construction budget, the department's 15% direct state cost for oversight, and the required local match) and is willing to commit to the project's development, implementation, construction, maintenance, management, and financing. The City of College Station is willing and able to enter into an agreement with the department by resolution or ordinance, should the project be selected for funding. PART 2: That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager or his designees as authorized officials to execute documents necessary for the submission of the grant application to the Texas Department of Transportation on behalf of the City of College Station and to act on its behalf with respect to any issues that may arise during processing of said application. PART 3: That the City Council is willing and able to authorize, by resolution or ordinance, the City of College Station to enter into an agreement with TxDOT should the project be selected for fu11ding. PART 4: That this Resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage. ADOPTED this ____ day of __________ , A.D. 2021. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Secretary MAYOR Page I of I RESOLUTION NO. 2013-08 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROCKPORT, TEXAS APPROVING ENTERING INTO AN ADVANCE FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE TEXAS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM CONTRACT 12-282-000-5630; DESIGNATING THE MAYOR AS THE CITY'S CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TO ACT IN ALL MATTERS IN CONNECTION WITH SAID GRANT; DIRECTING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ESTABLISH AN ESCROW FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $58,700; AND FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. WHEREAS, the City has received funding under the Texas CDBG-Disaster Recovery Program; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to enter into an advanced funding agreement with TXDOT for the construction of cross culverts and stormwater collection system within the TXDOT rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, the costs incurred by the City for the advanced funding agreement will be reimbursed through grant funds; and WHEREAS, the City, through the grant funds, is responsible for 100% of the costs of the improvements proposed in the Texas Community Development Block Grants Program Contract 12-282-000-5630. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ROCKPORT, TEXAS: Section 1. That the City Council acknowledges the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) requirement for an Advance Funding Agreement and to establish an escrow fund for the Texas Community Development Block Grants Program Contract 12-282-000-5630 to pay (TXDOT) for the cost incurred to prepare the Advance Funding Agreement, review construction plans for compliance with TXDOT guidelines, and for inspection during construction of said project. Section 2. That the Cit~ Council directs and designates the Mayor as the City's Chief Executive Officer and Authorized Representative to act in all matters in connection with Advance Funding Agreement (AF A) for the Texas Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Grant. Section 3. That the City Council authorizes and directs the Finance Director to place funds into an escrow account eq_ual to 14% of the estimated cost of the construction improvements for use of TXDOT rights-of-way of approximately $58, 700 in compliance with AF A; and, Resolution No. 2013-08 Page 1 Section 4. It is hereby officially found and determined that the meetin~ at which this resolution is passed is open to the public as required by law, and that public notice of the time, place and purpose of said meeting was given as required. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCKPORT, TEXAS, on this the 12'h day of FEBRUARY, 2013. 1 l j ~.' t < Irma G. Parker, City Secretary Resolution No. 2013-08 Page 2 ---------~------- RESOLUTION NO. ______ _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, APPROVING AN ADVANCE FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A TI ON FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SHARED-USE PATH ON HARVEY MITCHELL PARKWAY (FM 2818) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ADVANCE FUNDING AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, FM 2818 is owned and maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, any construction or improvements on Texas Department of Transportation right-of- way must be approved through the permitting process; and WHEREAS, the City of College Station supports the design and construction of a shared use path along FM 2818; and WHEREAS, the City of College Station agrees to the terms and conditions stated in the Texas Department of Transportation's Advance Funding Agreement for the design and construction of the FM 2818 shared use path. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: PART2: PART3: That the City Council hereby approves the Advance Funding Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for the design and construction of the FM 2818 shared_use path improvements. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the Advance Funding Agreement for the design and construction of the FM 2818 shared use path. That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage. ADOPTED this ____ day of ____________ , 2022. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Secretary Mayor APPROVED: City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. ______ _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, APPROVING AN ADVANCE FUNDING ME EXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR T ESIGN AND CONSTRU ON OF SEPARATED BIKE LANES ON GEORGE B AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE ADVANCE FUNDING AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, FM 2347 is owned and maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, any construction or improvements on Texas Department of Transportation right of way must be approved through the Texas Department of Transportation permitting process; and WHEREAS, the City of College Station supports the design and construction of separated bike lanes on FM 2347; and WHEREAS, the City of College Station agrees to the terms and conditions stated in the Texas Department of Transportation's Advance Funding Agreement for the design and construction of separated bike lanes on FM 2347. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: PART2: PART 3: That the City Council hereby approves the Advance Funding Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for the design and construction of separated bike lanes on FM 234 7. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the Advance Funding Agreement. That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage. ADOPTED this ____ day of ___________ ,2022. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Secretary Mayor APPROVED: City Attorney 13 Si'.-~~~''~~~-~~~~;~~-N ACTION FORl\1 BRYAN CITY COUNCIL lleeting Date (?) Slbject Matter* (?) Department of Origin* St.bmitted By* Type of lleeting* Classification* Ordinance * Strategic Initiative* 04/12/2016 Advanced Funding Agreement wth TXDOT for South College Transportation Alternatives Program This rrust rmtch r~~ agerll eitry ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT W. Paul Kaspar r-BCD r-Special r-Public Hearing r-Consent r. None r-First Read 17 Public Sa,·ety r Economic Developrrent Quality of Life (: Regular (: Statutory (" Second Read r Service Infrastructure (" Regular (" First & Oily Read Agenda Item Description* Authorize the Mayor to execute the Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) wth the State of Texas (through the Texas Department of Transportation) for sidewalk improvements on S. College Avenue associated with the Transportation Alternatives Program for IMiich the City of Bryan was a recipient of grant funding. The agreement states the City wll pay for the design of the improvements and v..111 provide a 30% local match for the construction costs. The estimated City of Bryan payment to TXDOT is $922,680. Summary Statement* Staff Analysis & Reconvnendation * Options* Funding Source* Attachments As a reminder, the scope of the project is to provide a 12-foot 'lllide shared use path along the east side of South College Avenue from driveway entrance to Hensel Park to the intersection of Brookside Drive. From there, 6-foot 'lllide sidewalks are proposed along South College Avenue on both sides to the Villa Maria Road intersection. Bicycles w ll use a bike route designated on Cavitt Avenue to the limits of this project at Villa Maria Road. A separate but coordinated City project 'lllill reconstruct South College Avenue from Sulphur Springs Road to Villa Maria Road and coordinate conversion of overhead utilities to underground from Villa Maria Road to the City limits. It is expected that this \\Ork 'lllill need to happen before the TXDOT project. The Transportation Alternatives Program provides federal funds administered by the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) to local communities to make pedestrian and bicycle improvemen'>. Late in 2015 the City was notified that the City's application was approved for the improvements along South College Avenue from Hensel Park to Villa Maria Road. The City Council passed a resolution of support for the application on April 28, 2015. In the resolution the City agreed to commit to the project's development, implementation, construction, maintenance, management, and financing. The City, in its application, agreed to provide the required local match at 30% of the total project cost, including being responsible for all non-federally fundable items and 100 percent of all overruns. The resolution also stated the City of Bryan agrees to execute an Advanced Funding Agreement 'lllith the Texas Department of Transportation for this project, if awarded. Attached is the Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) prepared by TXDOT for the South College Avenue TAP improvements. AFA's are the mechanism by v.Alich TXDOT enters into a contractual relationship 'lllith local governments. The dollar amounts referenced in the AFA match the grant application from the City of Bryan, v.Alich were higher than the original estimates provided 'lllith the previous Council Action Form for the Resolution. The City of Bryan is responsible for all costs associated 'lllith designing the project and 'lllill contribute a 30% local match to TXDOT. The first payment of $36, 105 is due to the State 'lllithin thirty (30) days of execution of the AFA. Tt:Je second payment of ~886,575 is due to the State within sixty (60) days prior to the Construction contract being advertisea for bid~. TXDOT v.111 advertise the project for bids and v.111 manage the construction project. The costs outlined below show that TXDOT assigns an administration fee to the total cost of the project to cover their costs associated 'lllith the project's review and administration of the grant. The total costs outlined in the AFA for the South College Improvements Project are as follows: -Total Project Estimate -$3,246,228 -Federal Participation -$2,152,919 -Indirect State Costs -$170,629 -City of Bryan Participation -$922,680 -City of Bryan Participation breakdown of $922,680 -Construction Local Match -$802,330 -TXDOT Admin Cost-$120,349.50 Construction only breakdown of costs: -Construction Cost -$2,674,434 -Federal Match 70% -$1,872, 104 -Local Match 30% -$802,330 The source for the local match will be from Future Bond Funds -funded today by a reimbursement resolution to General Fund. Staff recommends authorizing the Mayor to execute the Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) 'lllith the State of Texas (through the Texas Department of Transportation) for improvements on South College Avenue associated 'lllith the Transportation Alternatives Program for v.Alich the City of Bryan was a recipient of grant funding. (In ~ted Q-m of S:aff Prefererce) 1. Execute the Advanced Funding Agreement. 2. Do not execute the Advanced Funding Agreement. General Fund -0811 w/ Reimbursement Resolution from Future Bonds -$922,680 Ready Partial Execution AFA_ TAP _Bryan_0917-29-129_SH308.pdf 613.91KB Dept. Head Signature Deputy City Manager Signature City Manager Signature City Attorney Signature Pease retail attadlrents ard rote attcrlmrts availalle fer viel.irg in City Secretary's Office: 1. Advanced Funding Agreement *® February 12, 2018 2E-5 I Texas Department of Transportation 2501 SOUTHWEST LOOP 820 I FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76133-2300 I (817) 37<>-6500 I January 30, 2018 TASA: Bike and Pedestrian Trail CSJ: 0902-90-081 Tarrant County Jason Moore Assistant City Manager City of Richland Hills 3200 Diana Drive Richland Hills, TX 76118 Dear Mr. Moore: Attached are two original..; of the Advance Funding Agreement and the Advance Payment Form between the City of Richland Hills and the State for the above referenced project. Please execute both originals and return them to the Fort Worth District, along with the signed resolution, Advance Payment Form and a check made payable to the Texas Department of Transportation in the amount of $3,102.00, at: Texas Department of Transportation Attn: Rose Rodriguez -Transportation Planning & Development 2501 S. W. Loop 820 Fort Worth, Texas 76133 If needed, please place City stamps or extra signatures on the back of the agreement to preclude legibility issues. If you should have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Rose Rod riguez at (817) 370-6997. -~----------~-j};j:) /I. /I/ //w~(]:_~e ~ Mohammad AAI Hweil, P.E. Advance Transportation Planning Director Fort Worth District Enclosures OUR VALUES: People • Accountabillty • Trust • Honesty OUR MISSION: Through collaboration and leadership, we deliver a safe, rel/able, and Integrated ll'ilnsportatlon system that enables the movement of people and goods. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM 2021 Call for Projects PROGRAM GUIDE Texas epartment Transportation ® .. .... ~ ..... . ... .. TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Summary of Project Opportunity ...................................................................... 1 B. Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TA) Eligibility and Requirements .............. 8 C. Project Evaluation and Selection Criteria ........................................................ 12 D. Allowable Costs ............................................................................................ 15 E. 2021 Project Sponsor Workshop Schedule ..................................................... 17 F. Selection of TA Projects by the Texas Transportation Commission .................... 18 G. Project Elimination ........................................................................................ 18 H. Finding of Ineligibility and Request for Reconsideration ................................... 19 I. Project Implementation ................................................................................. 19 J. TxDOT Dist rict Map ....................................................................................... 28 K. TxDOT Dist rict/Division TA Coordinators ......................................................... 29 L. Bikeway Terminology ..................................................................................... 30 M. Additional Weblinks ...................................................................................... 31 N. Definitions and Terminology .......................................................................... 33 Appendix A: Economically Disadvantaged Counties FY2021 ................................. 36 Appendix B: Cities and CDPs Eligible for TDCs FY 2021 ......................................... 37 A. SUMMARYOFPROJECTOPPORTUNITY On January 15, 2021, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT or the department) announced a statewide Call for Projects for the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TA) program (including available and anticipated future funds) for bicyclist and pedestrian infrastructure. TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects features a two-step application process described in this program guide. Additionally, this program guide outlines the requirements of TA funds and the evaluation and selection processes for this competitive Call for Projects. Important dates to remember are provided in Table 1. What's NewforTxDOTs 2021 TA call for Projects For the TxDOT 2021 TA Call for Projects there are several changes that have been implemented that differ from previous TxDOT TA program calls. 1. Project sponsors are limited to three applications per sponsoring entity. 2. Projects in a community of 50,000 or less in population located outside a designated Transportation Management Area (TMA) may be eligible to use state Transportation Development Credits (TDCs) that allow for 100% federal TA funds to be applied to the project in lieu of a local match. Eligibility for TDCs is outlined in Local Match for TA Projects in Section B. 3. In-kind contributions are no longer allowed as a local match option. See above local match options available to communities of 50,000 or less in population. Communities greater than 50,000 in population may be eligible for an adjustment to the required local match under TxDOT's economically disadvantaged county program (EDCP). See Section B for details. 4. Projects in communities of 50,000 or less in population can request TA funding for preliminary engineering activities, including costs for design and environmental documentation. See Section D for details. 5. Changes to the TxDOT's TA Program evaluation criteria were updated to align with TxDOT's mission, Connecting You With Texas, as well as the department's vision to be a forward- thinking leader delivering mobility, enabling economic opportunity, and enhancing quality of life for all Texans. Additionally, TxDOT hosted a workshop to receive input from MPO and TxDOT stakeholders to establish and weight criteria. See Section C for details. 1 Table 1: TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects Important Dates Miiestones Date TxDOT1s 2021 TA Call for Projects opens January 15, 2021 Virtual Workshops January 21-27, 2021 / Responses to workshop questions posted February 2 , 2021 * ..-! 0.. Preliminary Application (PA) deadline March 1, 2021 <ll ./ ~ CJ) District Coordination before April 9, 2021 TxDOT PA Review complete April 9, 2021 TxDOT notifies sponsors of eligibility April 12, 2021 Detailed Application (DA) deadline June 14, 2021 a ('\I TxDOT DA Review complete August 16, 2021 * 0.. <ll ~ CJ) Final project award (available funds) October 2021 * Conditional Project List (anticipated future October 2021 * funds) * target dates TxDOT Focus Areas For the 2021 TA Call for Projects, the department is particula rly interested in projects that reflect a high degree of collaboration and community consensus while directly contributing to the department's safety, mobility, and connectivity goals. Project sponsors are strongly encouraged to submit projects that: • Improve safety, access, or mobility for people of all ages and abilities , especially on - system improv ements (with in TxDOT right-of-way) in support of TxDOT's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/pedestrian initiatives 2 • Construct segments identified as part of Texas Bicycle Tou rism Trails network * or implement a locally-preferred alternate route • Improve bicycling, wheelchair, and walking access to or between existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, public transportation, or mobility hubs that integrate multiple modes of transportation (such as transit stops, carsha ring, bikesharing, micro mobility, or other shared-mobility services) -· • Enhance bicycle and pedestrian access and s3fety to school-related destinations enabling and encou raging children, including t hose with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school activities Proposed projects may be located on state-maintained rfiadway right-of-way (on-system) or on property owned by the project sponsor (off-system). 2021 call for Projects Through TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects, the department intends to make available approximately $10.5 million in TA funds associated with FY 2021 and FY 2022 appropriations to the department for nonurban areas (population areas of 5,000 or less**). All or some portion of these funds may be awarded as a result of this Call, depending on the actual amount of funding available and the eligible number of TA project nominations received by the department. In addition to currently available federal funding, TxDOT anticipates the TA program or a similar non- motorized infrastructure funding program to be authorized in the next federal transportation funding bill. As part of TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects, the department intends to competitively identify bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects located in population areas under 200,000** to be placed on a prioritized Cond itional Project List for anticipated FY 2023 -FY 2024 TA appropriations. Once funds become available, projects ori the Conditional Projects List will be recommended to the commission for consideration for p(oject award. Although there is not a minimum or maximum amount of funding available for a single project, total program funds are limited. Over the three previous TA program calls , the average non urban federal funding award was around $800,000, while the average small urban federa l funding award was around $1,350,000. Projects identified forthe2019TA/SRTS Call for Projects Conditional Project List should not be resubmitted for the 2021 TA Call for Projects. These prr'jects will be advanced to commission for award when funds are available. Recommendations from the Conditional Project Lists will be prioritized based on initial project ranking, project readir.ess, and funds ava ilable. We are anticipating the first group of conditional projects from TxDOT's 2019 TA Program Call to be recommended to commission for funding in 2021. *For information on the Texas Bicycle Touri sm Trails Study, visit: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/modes-of- trave l(b icycle/pl an-design/tourism-study. html. ** TxDOTadministers TA funds for projects located outside the smoothed boundaries of Census Urbanized Areas of 200,000or greater that have been identified as Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). 3 At the conclusion of the 2021 TA Call for Projects and a competitive project evaluation process, applicants will be: • Awarded available Nonurban TA funding by the Texas Transportation Commission; • Placed on a prioritized Conditional Project List for future federal TA appropriations; or • Eliminated from further consideration in this program call. Project sponsors may resubmit these projects for consideration during future call for projects. Table 2 provides a high-level comparison of TA funding available for non-urban and small urban areas. Table 2: TA Program Funding Areas ··-· ,,_ •V• O·.-.;---;',;..,..... ~ ... ... ->O.' ,_,_~"""-'""'""= ·-·~-,._,_,_=,,~~ ···-~ Local Available prowam funding for Project Location Popu latlon Size1 Match Eligible Activities Winter 2021 Texas Transportation Commission Required2 Award Nonurban areas 5,000 people or Preliminary $10.5 million (5,000 or less in less Engineering & population) Construction Conditional Project List3 5,001 to 20% Preliminary Engineering & Small Urban areas 50,000 people Construction (5,001 to 200,000 Conditional Project List3 in population) 50,001 to Construction Only 200, 000 people ALTERNATIVE FUNDING OPTION: TxDOT's priority with this program call is to fund projects using TA funding. However, TxDOT reserves the right to use other federal and/or state resources to implement a project submitted under this program call that is located within TxDOT right-of-way and advances the department's ADA/pedestrian safety, accessibility, and mobility goals. After consultation with the project sponsor, TxDOT may elect to assume oversight of project development and/or construction using TxDOT resources. Projects developed under this option could be identified during either Step 1 or Step 2 of the program ca ll process. A local match may be required for on-system ADA/pedestrian projects advanced by TxDOT under this alternative funding option. 1 TxDOT administers TA funds for projects located outside the smoothed boundaries of Census Urbanized Areas of 200,000orgreater, identified as Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). 2 Some project sponsors may be eligible for a reduction in local match. See Section B. 3 Conditional Project Lists will be created to assist TxDOT in prioritizing Nonurban and Small Urban projects for anticipated future federal TA appropriations of $13 million fornonurban and $13 million for small urban to the departmentfor FY 2023-2024. Once funds become available, projects on the list will be recommended to the commission for consideration for project award. 4 TwcrStep Application Process TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects involves a two-step application process, as depicted in Figure 1 on the next page. This two-step approach is intended to enhance the quality of project applications and to foster communication between project sponsors and TxDOT District staff. TxDOT's 2021 TA Program Call timeline is illustrated in Figure 2. Project sponsors must complete both steps in order for a project to be considered for funding under t h is program call. Project sponsors are limited to three applications per sponsoring entity. Step 1-Preliminary Application: Project sponsors seeking current TA funds or future TA funding must complete the Preliminary Application (PA)4 and submit it to TxDOT as specified in the PA instructions before close of business on March 1, 2021. Applications received after t he March 1, 2021, deadline wi ll not be eligible to compete for funding in this program call. The PA provides high- level project information that will allow the department to determine funding eligibility and potential project development issues. As part of Step 1, TA project sponsors are recommended to schedule and attend a meeting (via internet conference call) before April 9, 2021, with t he local TxDOT District TA Coordinator and District staff to review the PA and discuss the overall project. TxDOT reserves the right not to advance any project to Step 2 that was not reviewed by the TxDOT District during a coordination meeting with the project sponsor. On or about April 12, 2021, TxDOT staff will advise all project sponsors regarding project eligibility based on project location, population size , eligibility, and initial project readiness. If the project sponsor is eligible and plans to use Transportation Development Credits (TDCs) for local match this must be identified on the PA. A description of TDCs and criteria for eligibility are described in Local Match for TA Projects in Section B of this document. The Detailed Application will be made available to eligible project sponsors at that time. Step 2 -Detailed Application: All eligible projects will move on to Step 2. The Detailed Application (DA) requires a mo re comprehensive overview of the proposed project, including a det ailed construction budget and demonstration of how t he proposed project meets specific TA evaluation criteria. All project sponsors must submit their DA(s) to TxDOT by June 14, 2021, as specified in t he DA instructions. 4 The Preliminary Application is availablefor download on the TxDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Funding Progra ms websit e. https://www.txdot.gov I i nsid e-txdot/d ivisi o n/publ ic-transportation/bicycle-ped estria n .htm I 5 Figure 1: 2021 TA Program Call -Two-Step Process 2021 TA Call for Projects Two-Step Process Step 1 Project Sponsors submit Preliminary Applications (PA) Step2 Project Sponsors submit Detailed Applications (DA} Funding Award ..__--------+----t•Project Evaluation Existing Funding • Constructability/ Feasibility Review Commission action late 2021 Conditional Project List 6 Anticipated Future Funding Nonurban and Small Urban TA List developed in late 2021 Figure 2: 2021 TA Program call Timel ine TA Call for Proiects opens :l,/15/2021 Preliminary Application deadline TxDOT notifies project sponsors of application pool 4/12/2021 -1·~--+-~ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Detailed Application deadline Eligible Project Sponso1s 14/2021 Jun Jul 2021 7 Aug Sept Commission Award FY 21/22 Nonurban TA Projects October 2021 ' Conditional Project Lists FY23/24 • Nonurt10n TA Projects • Small Urban TA l'!OJeclS October 2021 Oct Nov Dec B. TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASID E (TA) ELIGIBILITY AND RE QUIREMENTS The TA Program, as administered by TxDOT, provides funding to construct a variety of alternative transportation projects that improve safety and mobility for non-motorized travelers and mitigate congestion by providing safe alternatives to motor vehicle transport. The Fixing America 's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act established the TA Program as part of the Surface Transportation Block Grant and replaced the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), which was established under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). Like TAP, the TA Program provides funding for a va riety of alternative transportation projects , including Safe Routes to School (SRTS)- type infrastructure projects. The TA program is codified in 23 U.S.C.§133(h). The TA Program provides opportunities to expand transportation choices and enhance bicyc le and pedestrian infrastructure. Each state department of transportation reviews the guidance provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and develops rules to administer their TA Program according to that state's priorities. In Texas , the department's TA Program operates under rules adopted by the Texas Transportation Commission, which may be found in 43 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §§11.400 -11.418 and §§16.153 -16.154.5 Project Location Restrictions for TA Projects TxDOT administers TA funds for projects located outside the smoothed boundary of Census Urbanized Areas greater than 200,000 in population, that have been identified as Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). Please reference the TMA Interactive Map to determine if the project is outside of a TMA. TxDOT's TA funds are further suballocated by population to: communities of 5,000 or less, identified as "nonurban," and communities of 5,001to200,000, identified as "small urban." TA Funding Availability As part of TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects, approximately $10.5 million in anticipated available TA funds apportioned to the state for FY 2021 and FY 2022 for nonurban areas (populations of 5,000 or less located outside a TMA) will be awarded to selected eligible projects. Projects will be selected through a competitive process based on evaluation criteria described in Section D of this program guide. TxDOT has limited the use of its TA funds to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure only. The commission is anticipated to consider recommendations for TA funding in October 2021. In anticipation of the TA Program or a similar non-motorized infrastructure program being continued in future transportation funding bills , TxDOT is identifying projects for inclusion on a prioritized Conditional Project Listthrough t his program call. Candidates for t he Conditional Project List will be evaluated based on the TA criteria described in Section D of the program guide. Based on this evaluation, the department will develop a Conditional Project List for approximately $26 million of 5 In Texas, TA funds for t he Recreationa l Trails Program are administered thro ugh t he Texas Parks and Wildl ife Department. 8 anticipated future federal TA a/locations for FY 2023 and FY 2024. This includes approximately $13M for non urban and $13M for small urban for FY 2023 and FY 2024. Once funds become available, projects on the list will be recommended to the commission for consideration for project award. Recommendations from the Conditional Project List will be prioritized based on initial project ranking, project readiness, and funds available. As with previous authorizations, it is anticipated that TxDOT will continue to use federal TA funds for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure only. Future anticipated TA funds associated with this program call would not be available until FY 2023 at the earliest for non-urban and for small urban areas. The Conditional Project List is anticipated to be generated in October 2021. Local Match forTA Projects TA funding provides 80% federal funds with a 20% minimum local match required. The local funding match may be provided in one of the following ways: • Cash provided by the project sponsor, or • Transportation development credits (TD Cs) for projects located in communities of 50,000 or less in population that meet specific economic critEfria, or • A combination of cash provided by the project spo'nsor and state funds for projects located in communities greater than 50,000 in population within designated economically disadvantaged counties Brief descriptions of TDC and TxDOT's Economically Disadvantaged Counties Program eligibility are provided below. Projects selected by the commission will include the add ition of a 15% TxDOT administrative fee (based on the total estimated project construction cost) for TxDOT's direct state cost associated with the department 's administration and oversight of the project. The department's administrative fee will be 80% federally funded with a 20% local match. The 20% local match for TxDOT's administrative cost can be provided by project sponsors utilizing the local match options outlined above. Funds from other federal programs may be used as local funding match only when specifically authorized by federal law or regulation. Donated services may not be accepted as local funding match , but may help reduce the overall cost of the project to the sponsor and would not be included in the project budget or scope of work. Third party cash donations paid to the project sponsor for use as the local match may be acceptable, if authorized by law. TA is a re imbursement program. After a project is authorized to proceed, allowable expenses are incurred by the project sponsor and reimbursement must be requested from the department. If a project selected by the commission is implemented by the department, the project sponsor must provide the local funding match prior to the commencement of project activities for each phase of work as outlined in the local agreement (i.e., Advance Funding Agreement). 9 ·ect is located in a county that has been certified by the commission as an economically disadvan ged county, the DA may include a request for adjustment to the minimum local funding match req ·rement. If an adjustment is granted, the adjustment percentage in effect for the county at the time t e 2021 program call is initiated will be used. Awarded projects determined to be eligible for an DCP adjustment will require completion of a separate application to the department's E P. EDCP approval must be obtained prior to execution of the local agreement. In addition, the coun must retain EDCP eligibility at the time the local agreement for an awarded project is signed by th the project sponsor and TxDOT in order to be granted the adjustment. unties that may be eligible for the department's EDCP reduction. For EDCP guidance visit: htt : -txdot division trans Trans Toll or transportation developme t credits are a federal transportation funding tool used to meet federal funding matching requ irem nts. States accrue TDCs when capital investments are made in federally approved tolled facilities inc ding toll roads and bridges. For TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects, projects located in a commun . of 50,000 or less in population located outside a designated Transportation Management ea (TMA) may be eligible to use state TDCs that allow for 100% federal TA funds to be applied to the oject in lieu of a local match. Under TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects eligibility for TDCs is as follow · 1. Project must be located in a community o 50,000 or less in population located outside of a designated TMA, and 2. Project is located in an economically disadvan ged county certified by commission at the time TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects opens, Q_ 3. Project is located in a city/ Census designated pla (CDP) that meets all of the following criteria: • Below state average per capita taxable propertyva • Below state average pe r capita income7, and • Above state average unemployment8 Appendix B identifies cities and CDPs that are eligible for TDCs. For a dc06ce2e6 ). For rural projects located outside jurisdictional boundaries or c places not identified on the map, contact TxDOT-PTN for guidance. s Tex as Comptroller of Public Accounts; 2018 City Rates and Levies, Total Property Market Val ueand U.S. Bureau; 2019 5-Yea r American Co mmunity Survey, Table DP0 5, Total Population 7 U.S. Census Bureau; 20195-YearCommun itySurvey, Table DP03, Per Capita Income a U.S. Census Bureau; 20195-YearCommunitySurvey, Tabl e DP03, Civilian Unemployment Rate 10 Eligible TA Project Activities Eligible TA activities for the department's 2021 TA Program Call for Projects include: 1. Bicycle infrastructure improvements 2. Shared use paths 3. Sidewalk improvements 4. Infrastructure-related projects to improve safety for non-motorized transportation Construction and engineering costs are eligible for projects in communities of 50,000 or less in population, while only construction costs are eligible for projects in communities of 50,001 or greater in population. Please refer to Section D Allowable Costs for more details. For additional details about the above eligible project activities, refer to 43 TAC §11.404(a). Whether proposed as an independent project or as an element of a larger transportation project, the project must be limited to a logical unit of work and be constructible as an independent project. Consistent with federal guidance outlined in 23 USC 217, TxDOT-selected TA projects should be principally for transportation rather than purely recreational and must contribute to a safe, contiguous, accessible, integrated walking and bicycling network that provides travelers with a real choice of transportation modes. Projects, or substantially similar projects, previously submitted in a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) administered TA Call for Projects may be submitted for TA funding under this program call as long as the MPO call for projects is not occurring concurrent with the TxDOT TA Call for Projects. In other words, a project that is currently being considered for TA funding by an MPO cannot be submitted to this call for projects; however, if the project is no longer being considered and will not be awarded funding by the MPO, it can be submitted under this call for projects. Additionally, projects under an existing local agreement (i.e., Advance Funding Agreement) may not be resubmitted under this program call. Projects on an existing conditional project list should not be resubmitted under this program call. Eligible TA Project Sponsors Entities eligible to receive TA funds are listed below. • A local government • A regional transportation authority • A transit agency • A natural resource or public land agency • A school district, a local education agency, or school • A tribal government • A nonprofit entity responsible for the administration of local transportation safety programs • Any other local or regional governmental entity with responsibility for, or oversight of, transportation or recreational trails 11 Refer to 23 U.S.C.§133(h) for further details/descriptions of the above entities. According to 23 U.S.C.§133(h)(4)(B), state departments of transportation (DOTs) and MPOs are not eligible project sponsors for TA funds. However, state DOTs and MPOs may partner with an eligible entity to carry out a TA project. Nonprofit organizations are not eligible as direct grant subrecipients for TA funds unless they qualify through one of the eligible entity categories (e.g., where a nonprofit organization is a designated transit agency, school, or entity responsible forthe administration of loca l transportation safety programs). Nonprofit entities are eligible to partner with any eligible entity on an eligible project; however, the eligible entity would serve as the project sponsor and be 100% responsible for the local match and project development. Only one entity is permitted to serve as a project sponsor. The project sponsor may need to provide the department a reference to their enabling legislation for review. Typically, a local government serves as the project sponsor because the majority of the improvements are located on property maintained by the local government. When a third party, such as a school district or nonprofit entity, agrees to provide a portion of the local funding match, it would be the local government/project sponsor's responsibility to execute an agreement with the third party for any funding commitments and secure any right-of-entry for project construction while remaining the sole project sponsor. C. PROJECT EVALUATION AND SELECTION CRITERIA Through collaboration and leadership, TxDOT's mission is Connecting You With Texas. The selection criteria for TxDOT's TA Program we re developed based on the mission of connecting Texans to where they need to go and the department's vision to be a forward-thinking leader delivering mobility, enabling economic opportunity, and enhancing qua lity of life for all Texans. Additionally, TxDOT hosted a workshop to receive input from key MPO and TxDOT stakeholders to establish and we ight criteria. The department will evaluate the potential benefit to the state of each eligible TA project, as well as the project's potential to enhance the surface transportation system. Table 3 outlines the criteria categories that will be used to evaluate all eligible projects. The table includes a brief description of each category. In the Detailed Application, project sponsors will address the criteria categories by responding to questions targeted toward specific evaluation criteria. A Detailed Application form and instructions will be available for download on the TxDOT webpage (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/public-transportation/bicycle- pedestrian.html) on or around Apr il 12, 2021. 12 Table 3: Criteria Evaluation categories Criteria Non-Small No. Category Criteria Description urban Urban Demonstrates need for safety improvement and identifies appropriate safety countermeasures 1 Safety x x Provides safer lower stress accommodations for walking, bicycling, and other non -motorized travel Demonstrates the ability to advance the project to construction immediately, if selected for funding Identifies comprehensive, detailed construction cost I estimate I 2 Project Readiness x x Meets and/or exceeds design criteria established by US Access Board, FHWA, AASHTO, TxDOT, and/or NACTO j ! Past project sponsor performance on previous TxDOT-I I administered projects I 3 Geographic Equity Improves mode choice in under-served communities x x Improves non-motorized routes and access to destinations of interest, includ ing business districts, downtowns, and ! ! employment centers; schools, services, and active i living/health facilities I Connectivity & Supports multi-modal connections and access I I 4 Accessibility x I x Eliminates barriers to pedestrians, bicycles, and wheelchairs Supports investments in local/interregional tourism, especially Texas Bicycle Tourism Trails Public outreach demonstrates positive community support Established community partnerships commit to collaboratively implement project Community Project demonstrates a link to formal transportation I 5 Support & planning efforts (Small Urban only) x I x Planning Consideration of small communities with limited planning resources in the Small Urban funding category (Small Urban only) Demonstrates commitment to provide the local match and maintenance offacility once complete 13 I 6 Demand Improves access to higher density residential and/or x I employment centers (Small Urban only) Evaluation Process A department evaluation committee will oversee a competitive evaluation process that will result in a recommended list of projects submitted during this Call for Projects. Department staff will review, evaluate, and recommend projects submitted during the department's 2021 TA Call for Projects. TxDOT staff will screen each proposed project to determine whether it is eligible for funding under applicable federal and state law and determine whether the proposed project would meet technical standards established by applicable law and acceptable professional practice. This Call for Projects features a two-step application process. The f irst step will culminate in an eligibility determination subject to TA program rules based on responses in the preliminary application. Department staff will verify the eligibility of the project sponsor, the proposed construction activity, and the project location. At the end of Step 1, eligib le project sponsors will be notified of their eligibility to submit a detailed application during Step 2. A detailed application with instructions will be provided to eligible project sponsors to download at that time. If the project sponsor, construction activity, or location is determined to be ineligible at any time during the application process, then the project sponsor will be notified that the project will not be further considered for funding under this program. In Step 2, each eligible project will be scored using the list of criteria provided above in Table 3. Criteria category scores are weighted , and weights wi ll be uniformly applied to eligible projects. Although there is not a minimum or maximum amount of funding available for a single project, total program funds are limited. As a result, the department may find it necessary to contact a project sponsor to split a larger project into smaller segments to be constructed in phases. During project evaluation, TxDOT may identify potential constructability concerns (e.g. drainage issues, limited ROW, substantially inadequate budget, etc.). In this situation, TxDOT may recommend a project be phased and advanced for preliminary engineering (i.e., PS&E and environmental documentation) only. If a project is awarded preliminary engineering funding only, the project must be resubmitted in a future call for projects to be considered for construction funding. A project that does not complete Step 1 successfully will not be evaluated in Step 2. An application package that fails to include items required in the instructions fo r the preliminary and detailed applications will be considered incomplete and may not be considered for funding. The department may request supplemental information, as needed, to conduct project screening and evaluation. The evaluation committee will provide project selection recommendations and supporting documentation to the director of the division responsible for administering the TA program. The 14 director of the responsible division will review the recommendations and supporting documentation and provide a list of recommended projects to the commission for consideration. D. ALLOWABLE COSTS For TxDOT's 2021 TA program call, the department's TA funds are available for: • Project construction • ry engineering and design, including preparation of construction plans, Any project costs incurred prior to selection by the commission, execution of a local agreement, and authorization from the department to proceed will not be eligible fo r reimbursement. The commission will specify an amount of federal TA funds for each project. See Section F for details. Projects funded under 23 U.S.C.§133, including TA projects, shall be treated as projects on a federal-aid highway (23 U.S.C.§133(i)). This subjects all TA projects to various federal-aid requirements (e.g., Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements, Buy America, planning, environmental review, procurement and letting, etc.). Guidance regarding such requirements is found in the TxDOT Local Government Projects Toolkit (LGPToolkit) at https://www.txdot.gov/government/processes-procedures/lgp-toolkit.html. The LGPToolkit provides specific information regarding the applicable laws (see Project Policy Manual), procedures (see Project Management Guide), and best practices (see Best Practices Workbook) that must be adhered to regarding some or all phases of a TA project. Relevant portions of the LGP Toolkit are referenced in this guide. The following costs are not eligible for federal reimbursement under this program call with TxDOT's TA funds: • Planning activities • Preliminary engineering and design, including preparation of construction plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) including planning survey work for design for projects in communities of greaterthan 50,000 in population • Environmental documentation for projects in communities of greater than 50,000 in population . • Environmental mitigation • • Utility adjustments (unless incidental to the p; oject and approved as part of the project scope) • Landscape improvements (unless incidental to the project and approved as part of the project scope) • Acquisition of right-of-way and other property purchases .- 15 The total amount for incidental construction activities (such as minor utility adjustment, minor drainage modification, landscape placement/restoration etc.) and approved amenities may not exceed 30% of the project's construction budget. If any element in a project nomination fails to meet federal and state requirements, the item will not be considered an eligible expense for reimbursement. A project construction budget must have a minimum of 75% of its cost items eligible for reimbursement in order to remain in competition. Ineligible items will not be funded. The project sponsor will need to demonstrate a willingness and ability to pay ineligible costs and/or demonstrate that the TA project is constructible as an independent project without the ineligible items. As a result of recent revisions to the state's TA Program rules , project overruns will be evaluated by the responsible division administering the program on a case -by-case basis to determine if the project will continue and how the additional costs will be covered. The criteria for determining if the project may rece ive additional federal funding to cover overruns established in 43 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §11.411(d) and are outlined below. The responsible division may apply additional TA Set-Aside funds, on a needs basis, for project overruns based on: 1) justification of overruns, 2) timing of request, 3) availability of funds; 4) a reasonable expectation of the ability of the project sponsor to complete the project; and 5) if overrun requests exceed available funds, application of add itional funds will be based on the economic criteria outlined below: a) Project is located in an economically disadvantaged county certified by commission at the time TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects opens, or b) Project is located in a city/Census designated place (CDP) that meets the following criteria: • Below state average per capita taxable propertyvalue9 • Below state average per capita income10, and • Above state average unemployment11 g Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts; 2018 City Rates and Levies, Total Property Market Value and U.S. Census Bureau; 2019 5-Yea r American Community Survey, Table DP0 5, Total Population 10 U.S. Census Bu reau; 20195-YearCommunitySurvey, Table DP03, Per Capita Income 11 U.S. Census Bu reau; 2019 5-YearComm unity Survey, Table DP03, Civilian Unemployment Rate 16 E. 2021 PROJECT SPONSOR WORKSHOP SCHEDULE In accordance with current public health recommendations associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, TxDOT will host project sponsor workshops virtually to provide information and guidance on TxDOT's 2021 TA call for projects. Potential project sponsors, consultants, and others interested in the program are invited to attend any scheduled workshop listed below. Registration is required. If special accommodations are needed, please contact the coordinator identified below at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Recordings of these virtual workshops will be available for review on the TxDOT webpage (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/public- transportation/bicycle-pedestrian.html) in the weeks following the live workshops. Questions submitted during the workshop or received by January 28, 2021 will be reviewed and responses posted on the program webpage on or around February 2, 2021. Meeting Dates: January 21, 2021 (1:00PM -4:00PM) Virtual Meeting January 25, 2021 (1:00PM -4:00PM) Virtual Meeting January 27, 2021 (9:00AM -12:00PM) Virtual Meeting Contact: TA Progra m Coordinator: Noah Heath (361) 876-7184 Noah.Heath@txdot.gov 17 F. SELECTION OFTA PROJECTS BYTHE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The Texas Transportation Commission (commission) will select TA projects through a competitive process administered by the department. The commission , by written order, will select projects for funding under the TA Program based on: 1. Recommendations from the director of the division responsible for administering the TA Program 2. The project's potential benefit to the state 3. The project's potential to enhance the surface transportation system 4. Funding availability The commission is not bound by project recommendations provided by the department. The department will notify the sponsors of selected projects. The commission will specify an amount of federal TA funds for each project selected. Refer to Section E. Allowable Costs for information on project cost overruns. G. PROJECT ELIMINATION A project will be eliminated from participation in the TA Program if, prior to the execution of the local agreement, the governing body of a municipality or county in which project activities are proposed , by resolution, order, or other official action, notifies the department of its opposition to the project. TxDOT's executive director may eliminate a project or a portion of a project from participation in the TA program if: • The project sponsor fails to meet requirements established in the department's rules • Implementation of the project would involve significant deviation from the activities proposed in the application package and approved by the commission • The project sponsor withdraws from participation in the project • A local agreement (i.e., Advance Funding Agreement) is not executed between the local entity and the department within one year after the date t hat the commission selected the project • A construction contract has not been awarded or construction has not been initiated with in three years after the date that the commission selected the project • The executive director determines that federal fund ing may be lost because the project has not been advanced, implemented, or completed in a timely manner 18 H. FINDING OF INELIGIBILITY AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION The department will notify the project sponsor of ine ligible project activities proposed and the reason for the determination by certified mail, return receipt requested. A request for reconsideration may be initiated only by a certified letter from the project sponsor setting forth reasons in support of a finding of eligibility to the department's executive director with a CC: to the director of the division responsible for the TA program (see addresses below). The letter requesting reconsideration MUST be received by the department no later tha n 15 days after the project sponsor received the department's notification of ineligibility, as established by the certified mail return receipt. A request for reconsideration must be mailed to the following parties: To: TxDOT Executive Director 125 E. 11th Street Austin, Texas 78701 Copy: TXDOT -PTN Director 125 E. 11th Street Austin , Texas 78701 The determination of the executive director (following consultation with department and FHWA staff) in response to a project sponsor's request for reconsideration will be final. I. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The project sponsor shall implement or arrange for implementation of each project selected by the commission in accordance with statutory requisites and contracting procedures applicable to the type and character of the project. In accordance with 23 CFR §635.105, TxDOT ensures that a project sponsor "is adequately staffed and suitably equipped to undertake and satisfactorily complete" a project, and therefore, the department, in its sole discretion, may decide to perform certain phases or otherwise complete a project on behalf of a project sponsor. All projects shall be developed to current standards and specifications established or recognized by the federal government, the department, and the TA rules. Local government project requirements All project sponsors awarded funding under the TA programs who propose to manage and perform any work on the project will be required to designate a "Responsible Person in Charge" (RPIC), a "Project Manager" (PM), and a "Qualified" person in accordance with TxDOT's Local Government Project Program (LGPP). Refer to TxDOT Local Government Projects Toolkit for requirements: https://www.txdot.gov/government/processes-procedures/lgp-toolkit.html. Through its LGPP Qualification Program, the department offers a 12-hour course (LGP101) to train and qualify individuals working on state or federally funded projects. Training is complete when at least one individual who is working actively and directly on the project successfully completes and receives a certificate forthe LGP101 course. The individual who completes this training is designated as the project sponsors "Qualified " person. The "Qualified " person may be an employee of the Local Government or an employee of a firm that has been contracted by the Local Government to perform oversight of the project. The department requires all persons "Qualified" through this program to successfully complete the LGPP qualification course at least once every 19 three years. For local government project guidance and training visit the department's LGPP website: http://www.txdot.gov/government/programs/local-government-pro jects.html. It is recommended that the project sponsor's "Qualified " person complete the LGPP training as soon after project selection as possible. In order for the department to authorize a local entity to manage elements of a project with FHWA or state funds, the department MUST perform a Local Government Risk Assessment. This assessment allows the department to evaluate the project sponsor's qualifications to perform one or more elements of the project development process for an FHWA-or state-funded project and set an appropriate level of department oversight. Refer to the department's guidance for Local Government Risk Assessment and Participation/Responsibilities in AFAs at: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/lgp/funding/guidance.pdf. Adding projects to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STI P) TA projects may be grouped in the TIP/STIP unless considered regionally significant or required to be individually listed in accordance with MPO policy. If a project selected by the commission is to be implemented in a metropolitan area , the department will request that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for that area immediately begin the process required to include the selected project in its Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as appropriate; however, it is the project sponsor's responsibility to make sure the project is included in the MPO 's local TIP . Early coo rdination with the MPO is strongly recommended. For projects in population areas outside the boundaries of an MPO, the department will immediately begin the process to include projects in its rural TIP and STIP, as appropriate. Projects that are individually listed must be identified in the MPO's TIP or in the department's rural TIP before the project can be added to the STIP. The STIP is updated quarterly and requires FHWA approval. Execution of local agreement with the department All TA project sponsors must enter into a local agreement (i.e., Advance Funding Agreement [AFA]) with the department and comply with all federal and state procedures applicable to development of federal-aid transportation projects. The local agreement must be executed by the project sponsor within one year of the date of selection by the commission or risk loss of federal funding. Development of the local agreement for TA projects can begin immediately after project selection. As part of the agreement process, a determination will be made as to whether the project's construction letting (advertisement for bids and contract management) will be done by the department or by the project sponsor. At the department's discretion, TA projects may be let for construction by t he department. Alternatively, project sponsors may seek department authorization for a local construction letting of their project(s). In accordance with federal and state rules, the department will perform a Local Government Risk Assessment to determine the project sponsor's qualifications to perform one or more elements of the project development process.. For additional information refer to Local government project requirements, above , and: http://www.txdot.gov/government/progra ms/local-government- 20 projects.html. This determination dictates many subsequent steps in the project development process. A project sponsor requesting a local construction letting will need to demonstrate adequate cash flow to accommodate the payment of 100% of construction costs pending reimbursement of the federal and /or state share of allowable costs for TA projects. The department's local district office will make the final letting determination after consultation with division staff and the project sponsor. Regardless of whether the project is let for construction by the department or by the project sponsor, the department will have oversight responsibility and will incur direct state costs associated with project development, plan review (generally conducted at 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% complete), and construction oversight. The detailed application will automatically apply a 15% fee to the project budget for the department's direct state costs, based on the total estimated cost for construction. The department's direct state costs are eligible for federal reimbursement in accordance with the program rules. Example 1: A TA project with an estimated construction cost of $1,000,000 will have a 15% administration cost of $150,000, which will be added to the total project cost. TA project costs are 80% federally reimbursable with a 20% local match. The 20% local match for a $150,000 administrative cost would be $30,000. As outlined in the local agreement, the project sponsor will be required to advance the local match for preliminary engineering phase activities including the associated direct state costs in cash within 30 days of signing the local agreement. The department will not begin project reviews until the local match is received. Federal Project Authorization and Agreement (FPAA) The department is responsible for securing the federal funding for each phase of work.~ environmental document must be cleared, all property must be acquired, any major utility adjustments must be completed, and the construction plans complete before the department requests an FPM from FHWA to obligate the federal funding for construction. It is critical for project sponsors to accurately estimate the time it will take to have the project ready to let. A project time line is required as part of the Detailed Application. The time line will be used to identify project funding and establish the year for construction letting. TA funding is time-sensitive; TA funds are available for obligation for a period of three years after the last day of the fiscal year for which the funds are apportioned to the state. Due to the limited period of availability of TA funds, approval to adjust the letting date of a TA project must be obtained from the TA Program Manager in the TxDOT division responsible for administering the program. Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (~&E) The project sponsor is responsible for plan preparation, environmental documentation, and other design-related activities including required reviews. All bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure design 21 must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and meet or exceed the minimum design requirements identified in t he latest edition of TxDOT's Roadway Design Manual. Pedestrian facilities must conform to the Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (latest edition) as published by the US Access Board or the 2010 ADA Standards and Texas Accessibility Standards, as applicable. Additionally, proposed bicycle facilities should be consistent with the latest TxDOT's Bicycle Accommodation Design Guidance, which provides additional bikeway design recommendations for urban and rural areas. This guidance is anticipated to be updated in early 2021 and a link to the updated guidance will be posted on the program webpage and provided to eligible project sponsors once available. All design criteria for on-road and off-road bicycle facilities must comply with the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (latest edition) as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (MSHTO). When selecting bicycle infrastructure design elements, it is advisable to refer to FHWA's Bikewav Selection Guide and Small Town and Rural Design Guide. For projects proposing to construct a segment of the Texas Bicycle Tourism Trails network, refer to recommended design guidelines and routes on TxDOT's webpage: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/modes-of-travel/bicycle/plan- esi n tourism-stud .html. Project sponsors may propose a locally preferred alternative route to a route identified on the Texas Bicycle Tourism Trails Example Network. For c sts a ociated with consultant services to be eligible for re im bursement, the project spans 's onsultant selection procedures will need to be approved by TxDOT to ensure they meet reimbu sements for engineering/environmental services are authorized, the project sponsor is ire to submit plans to the department for review at progressive stages of development to that state and federal standards are met (e.g., 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% completion). For all ot e rejects, design reviews occur at agreed-upon stages of development. Contact your local TxD T dis · t office to establish expectations. If t e estimated construction cost of the project is $50,000 or greater, the project must be Cl reviewed by a Registered Accessibility Specialist (RAS) licensed by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR). This may require an additional two months in the review process. As a result, include a minimum of three months for TxDOT's final plan review. Environmental documentation The level of documentation required for TA project activities generally falls under a Categorical Exclusion (CE); however, with any action, impacts may occur whereby more substantial environmental documentation could be required [Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)]. CEs are defined in 40 CFR §1501.4 as projects that d~ot individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect. • 22 A project sponsor is responsible for completing the following tasks: • Review the proposed project activities to determine if they meet the criteria outlined in 23 CFR §771.117 to be classified as a CE; preparation of an EA may be required for projects that don't meet the criteria for a CE • Determine the required environmental compliance tasks • Collaborate with the department representative (typically the department's local district environmental coordinator) to prepare the project scope that outlines the required ... environmental tasks and associated responsibilities • ..Ensure that any required environmental studies, resource agency coordination, and public participation are completed • As agreed to in the scope, prepare all required documentation that supports the environmental determination (CE, EA, or EIS) • Maintain the project file for submittal to the department • Document and implement any environmental permits, issues, or commitments If the project is selected for funding, the department's environmental staff will be responsible for µ .... coordinating the required environmental studies with the appropriate resource specialists, includ i~g relevant specialists at other state and federal agencies, as applicable. For example, impacts to historic properties will be coordinated through the department as part of the project's environmental documentation process. Depending on the nature of the historic property, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) coordination can take several months to complete. For more information on the department's environmental processes please refer to the following resources: • Categorical Exclusions for transportation projects in Texas Administrative Code: Title 43, Part 1, Chapter 2, Subchapter D, Rule §2.81: https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p dir=&p rloc =&p tloc=&p ploc=&pg=1&p tac=&ti=43&pt=1&ch=2&r1=81 • TxDOT's Environmental Compliance Toolkits: http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/environmental/compliance-toolkits.html • TxDOT's LGP Management Guide Chapter 5: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/lgp/procedures/guide.pdf Environmental approval is a required step in the project development process. A Renewed Memorandum of Understanding between FHWA and TxDOT entitled Concerning State Of Texas' Participation in the Project Delivery Program Pursuant To 23 U.S.C. 327 (December 2019) assigned authority to TxDOT to make FHWA project decisions for assigned projects. ~herefore. in most cases , the department (rather than F~WA) will provide the final environmental review and project decision for 2021 TA projects _. - 23 The project sponsor is encouraged to work closely with the department's local district environmental coordinator on project scope and environmental documentation requirements. This will significantly facilitate the development and approval <2_f environmental documentation. Once a project sponsor submits required environmental documentation to TxDOT, the department's review, ... resource agency coordination, and the environmental decision process can take as little as a few days or as long as several months. The length of this process depends on the project location, the complexity of the project, and the completeness and accuracy of information submitted. Completion of TxDOT's NEPA Scope Development Tool is recommended to identify the level of --environmental document ation and any resource assessments/agency coordination needed forthe proposed project. Pub lie/stakeholder involvement An appropriate level of public/stakeholder involvement is required for each project submitted under TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects. Current TxDOT environmental rules require a public hearing be held for a project that "substantially changes the layout or function of a connecting roadway or existing facility." Based on current state environmental rules , the addition of bicycle lanes is included in the definitio.n of a "substantial change in function of a roadway." For purposes of this requirement, "bicycle la ne" means a portion of a roadway that is designated by striping, signing, or pavement markings forthe exclusive use of bicyclists. Shared-use paths and wide shoulders are not considered "bicycle lanes" for purposes of this requirement. Also, none of the following situations regarding bicycle lanes are treated as "substantially changing the layout or function of a connecting roadway or an existing facility or facilities:" • striping bicycle lanes when the pre-existing roadway already accommodated bicycles; • striping one or more non-continuous bicycle lanes approaching or through intersections, driveways, or other conflict areas; or • striping bicycle lanes not along, but across a roadway at an intersection to allow the continuation of planned or existing bicycle lanes on crossing local streets or other bicycle facilities. The public hearing requirement for the addition of bicycle lanes may be satisfied if the project is addressed in a local hearing held under 43 TAC §25.55, "Comment Solicitation on Bicycle Road Use." For any such project, the environment al review project file must contain a statement (e.g., Env ironmental Compliance and Oversight System (ECOS) Journal entry) indicating that the project was addressed in a local hearing held under 43 TAC §25.55 and the date of that local hearing. Not all of the requirements of TxDOT's Environmental Handbook for Public Involvement apply to a local hearing held under 43 TAC §25.55. Work with your District TA Coordinator to understand public involvement requirements related to your project. For more information about TxDOT's public involvement practices, referto http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/env/toolkit/760-01-gui.pdf. <lo 24 SRTS type projects require coordination between the local jurisdictions responsible for the roadways/sidewalks/paths leading to schools and the school districts responsible for affected school campuses. Additional interagency coordination may be necessary. Most agencies request a minimum of 30 days to review a project proposal and provide a letter of support. Contact agencies early to allow sufficient time to acquire any supporting documentation that may be required/desired as part of a proposed project. Right-of-way (ROW) Proposed improvements may be located on state-maintained roadway ROW (on-syst.em) or on property owned by the project sponsor (off-system). Projects may be constructed on private property if the proper easement is obtained. Projects that include state-maintained ROW or have a direct effect on an existing state-maintained roadway must have a recent letter of consent, addressed to the project sponsor, and signed by the current TxDOT District Engineer of the TxDOT district in which the project is located. This consent cannot be delegated. If a project is proposed on state right-of- way, the project sponsor is responsible for securing permission/access from the department prior to construction. A project that will require the acquisition of real property must comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act . The exercise of eminent domain or condemnation is not allowed for the department's 2021 TA Call for Projects. For requirements and information on how to acquire ROW and accommodate utilities, refer to the department's Local Government Project (LGP) Management Guide, Chapter 6 Right of Way and Utilities. Railroad impacts and coordination Advanced railroad coordination is strongly recommended and may be essential for funding consideration. Obtaining railroad approval can take several months and in some instances several years. If the project sponsor has not been in contact with the affected railroad regarding the proposed project, then the project may not be ready for funding consideration. Construction letting by the projectsponsor If the project sponsor is authorized for a local construction letting, the project sponsor will be required to pay 100% of the construction costs as the work is done and request reimbursement of allowable costs incurred up to the percentage applicable. Before the project sponsor can advertise for construction bids, the project must have environmental clearance (in accordance with current department procedures) and the project sponsor MUST have a State Letter of Authority (SLOA) from the department to proceed to the construction phase of work. Construction letting by the department If the project is let for construction by the department, the outstanding local match (if any) and 100% of any estimated cost overages will be due to the department 60 days prior to advertising for construction. 25 Contractor for construction The construction contractor will be chosen through a competitive bidding process approved by the department. The construction contract will be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, in accordance with 23 CFR Part 635. Note: The department has oversight and monitoring responsibilities for transportation projects when project costs are wholly or partially paid using FHWA or state funds. Scope modifications Projects must be developed as described in the 2021 TA detailed application and approved by the commission. Any change to the scope of work specified in the application package and approved by the commission must have the advance written approval. Changes in items of work or project scope that occur without advance departmental approval will not be reimbursed. Payment of costs If the project sponsor is authorized for a local construction letting, the project sponsor will be required to pay 100% of the construction costs as the work is done and request reimbursement of the allowable costs incurred up to the percentage applicable. A project sponsor must use the forms and procedures specified by the department to request reimbursement of allowable costs incurred. The department will submit all requests for reimbursement of allowable costs to FHWA. For locally let projects, the entire project cost is borne by the project sponsor until reimbursement can be obtained from FHWA for eligible activities. Costs incurred prior to the inclusion of the project in the STIP, execution of the local agreement, or prior to federal and state approval and authorization to proceed are not eligible for federal reimbursement. Project inspection and acceptance Upon completion of construction , the project sponsor must have a Professional Engineer registered in Texas certify that the project was constructed in substantial compliance with project specifications and requirements. The department is responsible for the inspection and final acceptance of all TA projects selected by the commission and for certification of project completion. If the project sponsor does not complete the project as originally approved by the commission, the department may seek reimbursement of the expended federal funds from the sponsor. Period of performance end date The period of performance end date must be included in the local agreement, after which time additional costs incurred are not eligible for federal reimbursement. Recipients are required to submit all eligible incurred costs and required performance and financial reports or project records specified in the local agreement or stewardship and oversight procedures within 90 days after the agreement end date. The project should be closed within one year after receipt and acceptance of all required final reports. 26 Maintenance and operation A project selected by the commission shall be maintained and operated by the project sponsor for the purpose for which it was approved and funded, and for a period of time that is commensurate with the amount of federal investment in the project. A project selected by the commission shall be dedicated for public use for the greater of: (1) a period that is commensurate with the amount of federal investment in the project; or (2) • 10 years, if the amount of federal investment in the project is $1 million or less • 20 years, if the amount of federal investment is more than $1 million. If at any time the project sponsor can no longer maintain and operate the project for its intended purpose, the project sponsor shall consult with the department and FHWA as to disposal or alternate uses consistent with the project's original intent. 27 J. TXDOT DISTRICT MAP To locate the TxDOT District Office in your area, visit http://www.txd ot.gov/inside-txdot/district.html. The state map at this website includes hyperlinks to TxDOT's 25 district office websites. Click on the project county and the hyperlink will redirect to the web page of the TxDOT district that includes that county. Take note of the full name of the TxDOT district office that appears at the top of the on line landing page. Use the TxDOT District TA Coordinators list on the following page to identify the local TA Coordinator for that district office. AMA 28 K. TXDOT DISTRICT/DIVISION TA COORDINATORS TxDOT's District TA Coordinator will be your first point-of-contact to d iscuss TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Proj ects and the project nomination process. Cl ick the District Coord inator's name to send an email. Abilene District Office Bil ly Dezern 4250 North Clack Abilene, TX 79601-0150 (325) 676-6826 Amarillo District Office John Wi mbe rley 5715 Canyon Drive Amarillo, TX 79110-7368 (806) 356-3249 Atlanta District Office Lori Huett 701 East Main Atlanta, TX 75551 (903) 799-1301 Austin District Office Michelle Mea ux 7901 North IH 35 Austin, TX 78753 (512) 832-7049 Beaumont District Office Arnold Vowles 8350 Eastex Freeway Bea umont, TX 77708 (409) 898-5773 Brownwood District Office Andrew Chisholm 2495 Hwy. 183 North Brownwood, TX 76802 (325) 643-0442 Bryan District Office Stephen R. Copley. RLA 2591 N. Ea rl Rudder Freeway Brya n, TX 77803-5190 (979) 778-9631 Childress District Office Ch ris Reed 7599 us 287 Ch ildress, TX 79201-9705 (940) 937-7251 Corpus 01 risti District Office Jason Alvarez 1701South Pa dre Island Drive Corpus Christi, TX 78416 (361) 808-2495 Da I las District Office Maher M. Ghanayem. P.E. 4 777 East Highway 80 Mesquite, TX 75150 (214) 320-6691 El Paso District Office Blanca Serrano-Rivera 13301 Gateway Blvd West El Paso , TX 79928 (915) 790-4328 Fort Worth District Office Ph il lip Hays 2501 SW Loop 820 Fort Worth, TX 76133 (817) 370-6591 Houston District Office Ana Ramirez Huerta 7600 Wash ington Avenue Houston, TX 77007 (713) 802-5810 Laredo District Office Janece Marquez 1817 Bob Bullock Loop Laredo, TX 78043 (956) 712-7438 Lubbock District Office Kristi Schwartz 135 Slaton Road Lubbock, TX 79404-5201 (806) 7 48-4435 Lufkin District Office Jimmy Thompson 1805 North Timberland Lufkin, TX 75901 (936) 633-4397 Odessa District Office Kelli Williams 3901 East US Hwy. 80 Odessa, TX 79761 (432)498-4752 Paris District Office Sydney Newma n 1365 North Main Street Paris, TX 75460-2697 (903) 737-9285 29 Pharr District Office Cra ig Wuensche 600 West Interstate 2 Pharr, TX 78577-6535 (956) 702-6306 San Angelo District Office John DeWitt Jr. 4502 Knicke rbocker Road San Ange lo, TX 76904 (325)947-9242 San Antonio District Office Kris Kno ll 4615 N.W . Loop 410 San Antonio, TX 78229 (210) 615-5845 Tyler District Office Carson Hollis 2709 West Front Street Tyler, TX 7570 2 (903) 510-9157 Waco District Office Erika Kunkel Allen Duncan 100 South Loop Drive Waco, TX 76704-2858 (254) 867-2733 (254) 867-2865 Wichita Falls District Office Kyle Poi rot 1601 Southwest Parkway Wichita Falls, TX 76302-4906 (940) 720-7776 Yoakum District Office Barbara Obelgoner 403 Huck Street Yoakum, TX 77995-2973 (361) 293-4371 Public Transportation Division (PTN): Bonnie Sherm an Noah Heath TxDOT -PTN TA Program Manager 125 E. 11th Street Austin, TX 78701 (512) 486-5972 (512) 486-5973 L. BIKEWAYTERMINOLOGY Shared Roadway -2012 AASHTO Definition: "A roadway that is open to both bicycle and motor vehicle travel." 2011 Texas MUTCD Definition: "A roadway that is officially designated and marked as a bicycle route, but which is open to motor vehicle travel and upon which no bicycle lane is designated." A Signed Shared Roadway shall include posted bike route signs & may include pavement markings. Bicycle Lane -2012 AASHTO and 2011 Texas MUTCD Definitions are the same: "A portion of a roadway that has been designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicyclists by pavement markings and, if used, signs. However, AASHTO definition includes: "/tis intended for one-way travel, usually in the same direction as the adjacent traffic lane, unless designated as a contra- flow lane." Shoulder -2012 AASHTO Definition: "The portion of roadway contiguous with the travel way that accommodates stopped vehicles, emergency use, and lateral support for sub base, base, and surface course. Shoulders where paved are often used by bicyclists." A Signed Shoulder Bike Route shall include posted bike route signs and may include pavement markings. Shared Use Path -2012 AASHTO and 2011 Texas MUTCD Definitions are basically the same: "A bikeway outside the traveled way and physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way or within an independent alignment. Shared use paths may a/so be used by pedestrians (including skaters, users of manual and motorized wheelchairs, and joggers) and other authorized motorized and non-motorized users. Most shared use paths are designed for two-way tra vel." Separated Bicycle Lane -2015 FHWA Definition: "A separated bike lane is an exclusive facility for bicyclists that is located within or directly adjacent to the roadway and that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic with a vertical element. Separated bike lanes are differentiated from standard and buffered bike lanes by the vertical element. They are differentiated from shared use paths (and side paths) by their more proximate relationship to the adjacent roadway and the fact that th ey are bike-only facilities. Separated bike lanes are a/so sometimes called 'cycle tracks' or 'protected bike lanes.'" (FHWA 2015) 30 M. ADDITIONAL WEBLINKS Information about TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects, including the Program Rules, Program Guide, Preliminary Application, Preliminary Application Instructions, Detailed Application, Detailed Application Instructions, workshop presentations, and other program related downloads can be found at: http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/public-transportation/bicycle-pedestrian.html TxDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Webpage: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/modes-of-travel/bicycle.html TxDOT Environmental Resources: Environmental Handbook for Public Involvement: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-i nfo/ env /toolkit/760-01-gui. pdf Categorical Exclusions for transportation projects in Texas Administrative Code: Title 43, Part 1, Chapter 2, Subchapter D, Rule §2.81: https://texr eg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p dir=&p rloc=&p tloc= &p ploc=&pg= 1&p tac=&ti=43&pt= 1&ch=2&rl=81 Local Government Projects Office: http://www.txdot.gov/governme nt/programs/local-government-projects.html TxDOT's Local Go vernment Projects Toolkit: https://www.txdot.gov/government/processes-procedures/lgp-toolkit.html Local Government Project Management Guide: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/lgp/procedures/guide.pdf TxDOT's RightofWay Acquisition ManualVol 2: http://onlin emanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/acq/index.htm TxDOT'sAverage Low Bid Unit Prices: http://www.txdot.gov/business/letting-bids/average -low-bid-unit-prices.html TxDOT's Economically Disadvantaged Counties Program (EDCP): http://www.txdot.gov/i nside-txdot/ divisio n/tra nsportation-pla n n ing/ d isadva ntaged-cou nty. htm I TD Cs and TMA Interactive Map: https://t xdot. maps.a rcgis.co ml a pps/we ba ppviewe r /index. htm I? id=O if a 155 2 5e9e4be68a43c06 dc06ce2e6 TxDOT District Office Information: http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/district.html U.S. Census Information: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census issues/urbanized areas and mpo tma/; 31 2010 Decennial Population https:// data .census.gov I cedscj/ Adventure Cycling Association, US Bicycle Route System (USBRS): https://www.adventurecycling.org/routes-and-maps/us-bicycle-route-system/ TxDOT Bicycle Tourism Example Network: https://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html TA Set-Aside Program in Texas Administrative Code: Tit le 43, Part 1, Chapter 11, Subchapter G: https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac view=5&ti=43&pt=1&ch=11&sch =G&rl=Y FHWA TA Set-Aside Guidance: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/transportation alternatives/guidance/guidance 2016.cfm F HWA Safe Routes to Schools Guidance : https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/env iro nment/safe routes to school/guidance/ Safe Routes to School National Partnership https://www .safe ro utespa rtnersh ip.org/ I DESIGN GUIDANCE: AAS HTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Faci lities : https://store.tra nsportation .org/ltem/Collection Detail? ID= 116 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ TxDOT Roadway Design Manual: http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/t xdotmanua ls/rdw/rdw.pdf TxDOT Bicycle Accommodation Design Guidance https://ftp.txdot.gov /pub/txdot-info/env /toolkit/7 70.01.po l. pdf BikeStripe Initiative: Designating Bikeways within the Existing Roadway Footprint https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/ptn/bikestripe/bikestripe.pdf ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Proposed Guideli nes for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG): https://www .access-boa rd .gov /guidelines-a nd-sta nda rds/ streets-sidewalks/public-rights-of- way/pro posed-rights-of-way-guidelines Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (FHWA) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/enviro nment/bicycle pedestrian /publications/separated bikelane pd g/pageOO.cfm Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (FHWA) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle pedestrian/publications/small towns/ Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects (FHWA) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/ 32 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide: http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ FHWA BikewaySelection Guide: https://saf ety. fhwa .dot.gov /ped bike/tools so lve/docs/fhwasa 1807 7. pdf Texas Accessibility Information -TDLR: https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/ ADA Standards for Accessible Design: https://wlMV.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards index.htm N. DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY AFA -Advance FundingAgreement AASHTO -American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Bikewayterminology -See Section M of this guide Bicycle Tourism Trails (BTT) -A network of bicycle tourism routes collaboratively developed to provide safe, non-motorized access to and connectivity between statewide/regional destinations and support economic development across Texas. Census Urbanized Areas -Densely settled core of census tracts and/or census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent territory containing non-residential urban land uses as well as territory with low population density included to link outlying densely settled territory with the densely settled core. Conditional Projects List -Prioritized project list based on rankings as a result of a competitive evaluation using criteria identified in Section D of this guide . The Conditional Project List will be developed for anticipated future federal TA allocations for FY 2021 and FY 2022. Once future funds become available, projects on the list will be recommended to the commission for consideration for project award. Recommendations from the Conditional Project List will be prioritized based on initial project ranking, project readiness, and funds available. Commission -Texas Transportation Commission COG -Council of Governments https://www.txregionalcouncil.org/display.php?page=regions map.php DA -Detailed Application Department -Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Executive director -The executive director of the Texas Department of Transportation or his/her designee 33 EDCP -Economically Disadvantaged County Program FHWA -Federal Highway Adm inistration FPAA -Federal Project Authorization and Agreement Local Agreement -An agreement between the project sponsor and the department which includes a commitment forthe required local funding, describes the total scope and course of project activities, and outlines the responsibilities and duties of the participants. Local Match -A cash match or a combination of cash and in-kind contributions provided by or through the project sponsor. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) -The organization or policy board of an organization created and designated under 23 U.S.C. §134 and 49 U.S.C. §5303 to make transportation planning decisions for the metropolitan planning area and carry out the metropolitan planning process. Non urban area -Areas with a population size of 5,000 or less as determined by the 2010 Census located outside a TMA. PA -Preliminary Application Project -An undertaking to implement or construct an eligible activity at a specific location or locations, or, if the context so implies, the particular activity so implemented or constructed. Project sponsor -An eligible entity as described by 23 U.S.C. §133(h)(4)(b), that nominates a particular project for consideration, exercises jurisdiction over the geographic area in which the project is located, and commits to the project's development, implementation, construction, maintenance, management, and finance. PS&E-Plans, Specifications, and Estimates SLOA -State Letter of Authority Small urban areas -Area with a population size of 5 ,001 to 200,000 as determined by the 2010 Census located outside a TMA. S RTS -Safe Routes to School State -The State of Texas or any of its political subdivisions Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) -A four-year short-range program developed by the department as a compilation of all metropolitan transportation improvement programs, together with rural t ransportation improvement programs, that include recommendations from rural planning organizations and department districts for the areas of the state that are outside of the boundaries of a metropolitan planning organization, including transportation between cities. Surface transportation system -An interconnected surface transportation network for moving people and goods using various transportation modes 34 TDC -Transportation Development Credit TDLR -Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation TA -Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) -A short-range program developed by each metropolitan planning organization in cooperation with the department and public transportation operators. The TIP covers a four-year period and contains a prioritized listing of all projects proposed for federal funding, plus regionally significant projects proposed for state, federal, and local funding in a metropolitan area. Transportation Management Area (TMA) -FHWA defines TMAs as "a ll urbanized areas (UZAs) with populations greater than 200,000 as determined by the 2010 Census" TxDOT -Texas Department of Transportation 35 Appendix A: ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED COUNTIES FY 2021 (EDCP program materials link) Eligible Counties Adjustment % Eligible Counties Adjustment % Angelina County 25 Kleberg County Bailey County 60 Lamb County *Bastrop County 95 Leon County Bee County 59 Liberty County Bell County 25 Limestone County *Bosque County 95 Madison County Bowie County 25 Marion County Brooks County 73 Matagorda County *Brown County 95 Maverick County *Caldwell County 95 Milam County Calhoun County 32 Mitchell County Cameron County 45 Morris County Camp County 27 Nacogdoches County Cass County 41 *Navarro County Cherokee County 41 Newton County Cochran County 71 *Nueces County Coleman County 59 *Orange County Coryell County 38 Panola County Crosby County 47 Polk County Dawson County 58 Presidio County Dickens County 66 Real County Duval County 81 Red River County El Paso County 37 Refugio County Falls County 69 Robertson County Floyd County 47 Rusk County Franklin County 32 Sabine County Freestone County 20 San Augustine County Gray County 34 San Jacinto County Grimes County 36 Shelby County Hale County 47 *Smith County Hall County 59 Starr County *Hardin County 95 Swisher County Harrison County 15 Terry County Hidalgo County 60 Titus County *Houston County 95 Trinity County Hudspeth County 55 Tyler County Hutchinson County 31 Upshur County Jasper County 38 Uvalde County Jim Hogg County 95 Val Verde County Jim Wells County 51 Walker County Jones County 58 Waller County *Wharton County 95 Wood County Wilbarger County 26 Zapata County Willacy County 61 Zavala County *Met the standard criteria within the last six years and has been included in no less than five federally declared disasters within the same time period. 36 53 51 24 39 54 46 34 23 48 53 50 22 38 95 52 95 95 28 44 34 40 49 46 26 39 29 24 49 52 95 67 52 53 38 49 73 39 50 37 51 46 36 62 63 Additional Adjustments for Cities Within an Economically Disadvantaged County FY 2021 Every eligible county receives an adjustment to its local match requirement ranging from 15 (minimum) to 95 (maximum) percent. A city within an economically disadvantaged county receives an adjustment equal to the adjustment fort he county in which it is located, with the possibility of up to 10 additional percentage points based on its population and the existence of an economic development sales tax. The two following tables depict the additional percentage points that cities may be granted. Economic Development Sa/es Tax: ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGE 5% 0% Population: ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGE x < 1,000 5% 1,000 < x < 2,000 4% 2,000 < x < 3,000 3% 3,000 < x < 4,000 2% 4,000 < x < 5,000 1% x > 5,000 0% 37 APPENDIX B: CITIES AND CDPs ELIGIBLE FOR TDCS -FY 2021 The list below identifies cities and Census designated places (CDPs), or portions thereof located outside transportation management a re as (TMAs}, that a re eligible for transportation development credits (TD Cs) during TxDOT's 2021 TA Ca II for Projects. (TDC eligibility map link) Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Abernathy city Barrett CDP Brookshire city Ackerly city Barry city Browndell city Agua Dulce city Bastrop city Brownfield city Agua Dulce CDP Batesville CDP Brownsboro city Airport Heights CDP Bay City city Brownwood city Airport Road Addition CDP Bayside town Bruceville-Eddy city Alba town Bayview town Bryson city Albany city Beasley city Buckholts town Alfred CDP Beckville city Buena Vista CDP Alice city Bedias city Buffalo city Alice Acres CDP Beeville city Bul lard town Alto town Bellevue city Buna CDP Alto Bonito Heights CDP Bellville city Burkburnett city Alvin city Belton city Burke city Amada Acres CDP Benavides city Burton city Amargosa CDP Benjamin city Butterfield CDP Amaya CDP Benjamin Perez CDP Byers city Ames city Berryville town Bynum town Amherst city Bertram city Calvert city Amistad CDP Big Lake city Camargito CDP Anacua CDP Big Sandy town Cameron city Anahuac city Big Spring city Camp Swift CDP Anderson city Big Thi cket Lake Estates CDP Camp Wood city Angus city Big Wells city Campbell city Annona town Bishop city Campo Verde CDP Anson city Bixby CDP Canadian city Anthony town Blanco city Canton city Anton city Blanket town Cantu Addition CDP Appleby city Blessing CDP Cape Royale CDP Aransas Pass city Bloomburg town Carrizo Hill CDP Arp city Blooming Grove town Carrizo Springs city Arroyo Colorado Estates CDP Bloomington CDP Carthage city Arroyo Gardens CDP Blue Berry Hill CDP Casa Blanca CDP Asherton city Bluetown CDP Casas CDP Athens city Bogata city Cedar Point CDP Atlanta city Boling CDP Celeste city Austwell city Borger city Center city Avery town Bowie city Centerville city Avinger town Box Canyon CDP Cha ndler city Band E CDP Boyd town Chaparrito CDP Bai ley city Brazoria city Chapeno CDP Baird city Breckenridge city Cha rlotte city Bangs city Bremond city Chester town Banquete CDP Brenham city Ch ildress city Bardwell city Bridge City city Chilton CDP Barrera CDP Broaddus town Ch ina Spring CDP 38 TDC eligibility map link Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Chireno city Dell City city Emhouse town Chula Vista CDP Delmita CDP Encantada-Ranchito-EI Calaboz CDP Chula Vista CDP Denison city Encinal city Cienegas Terrace CDP Detroit town Encino CDP Circle D-KC Estates CDP Devers city Escobares city Clarksville city Deweyville CDP Estelline town Clarksville City city Diboll city Eugenio Saenz CDP Cleveland city Dickens city Eureka city Clifton city Dilley city Eustace city Clute city Domino town Evadale CDP Clyde city Douglassville town Evant town Coldspring city Driscoll city Evergreen CDP Coleman city Dumas city Fabens CDP Colmesneil city E. Lopez CDP Fabrica CDP Colorado City city Eagle Lake city Fairfield city Combes town Eagle Pass city Falcon Heights CDP Comfort CDP Early city Falcon Lake Estates CDP Commerce city Earth city Falcon Mesa CDP Concepcion CDP East Alto Bonito CDP Falcon Village CDP Cool city East Bernard city Falconaire CDP Coolidge town East Mountain city Falfurrias city Copperas Cove city East Tawakoni city Fernando Salinas CDP Corrigan town Eastland city Flor del Rio CDP Corsicana city Edgewater Estates CDP Floresville city Cottonwood Shores city Edmonson town Flowella CDP Coyote Acres CDP Eidson Road CDP Floydada city Cranfills Gap city El Brazil CDP Follett city Crockett city El Camino Angosto CDP Fort Davis CDP Crosbyton city El Campo city Fort Hancock CDP Crysta I City city El Castillo CDP Fort Hood CDP Cuero city El Cenizo city Franklin city Cuevitas CDP El Cenizo CDP Freeport city Cumby city El Chaparral CDP Freer city Cuney town El Indio CDP Fritch city Cushing city El Mesquite CDP Fronton CDP Cut and Shoot city El Quiote CDP Fronton Ranchettes CDP Daingerfield city El Rancho Vela CDP Frost city Daisetta city El Refugio CDP Fruitvale city Damon CDP El Socio CDP Gainesville city Danbury city Eldorado city Gallatin city Dawson town Electra city Garceno CDP Dayton city Elgin city Garciasville CDP Dayton Lakes city Elias-Fela Solis CDP Garfield CDP De Kalb city Elm Creek CDP Garrison city Del Mar Heights CDP Elmendorf city Gary City town Del Rio city Emerald Bay CDP Garza-Salinas II CDP 39 TDC eligibility map link Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Gatesville city Hillsboro city K-Bar Ranch CDP Gholson city Hilltop CDP Kemp city Gilmer city Hilltop Lak es CDP Kempner city Gladewater city Hitchcock city Kenedy city Goliad city Holiday Beach CDP Kenefick town Golinda city Holiday Lakes town Kennard city Goodlow city Holland town Kerens city Goodrich city Holly Lake Ranch CDP Kilgore city Goree city Homestead Meadows North CDP Kingsland CDP Grand Saline city Homestead Meadows South CDP Kingsville city Granger city Hooks city Kirbyville city Grape Creek CDP Horizon City city Kirvin town Grapeland city Hubbard city Knippa CDP Green Valley Farms CDP Hudson city Kosse town Greenville city Hughes Springs city Kountze city Groesbeck city Hull CDP Kress city Groves city Hungerford CDP La Carla CDP Groveton city Huntington city La Casita CDP Gruver city Huntsville city La Chuparosa CDP Guadalupe Guerra CDP Hutto city La Escondida CDP Guerra CDP Huxley city La Esperanza CDP Gun Barrel City city Iago CDP La Feria city Gutierrez CDP Iglesia Antigua CDP La Feria North CDP H. Cuellar Estates CDP Imperial CDP La Grange city Hale Center city Indian Springs CDP La Grulla city Hallettsville city Indio CDP La Loma de Falcon CDP Hallsburg city Ingram city La Marque city Hallsville city Iola city La Minita CDP Hamlin city Iredell city La Paloma CDP Happy town Ivanhoe city La Paloma Addition CDP Hardin city J.F. Villareal CDP La Paloma Ranchettes CDP Hargill CDP Jacksboro city La Paloma-Lost Creek CDP Hart city Jacksonville city La Pryor CDP Haskell city Jardin de San Julian CDP La Puerta CDP Havana CDP Jasper city La Rosita CDP Hawk Cove city Jefferson city La Tina Ranch CDP Hawkins city Jewett city La Victoria CDP Hawley city Joaquin city La Ward city Hearne city Johnson City city Lacy-Lakeview city Hebbronville CDP Jones Creek vi llage Ladonia town Hemphill city Jourdanton city Lago CDP Hempstead city Juarez CDP Lago Vista CDP Henderson city Junction city Laguna Heights CDP Henrietta city Karnes City city Laguna Park CDP Hideaway city Katy city Laguna Vista town Higgins city Kaufman city Lake Bridgeport city 40 TDC eligibility map link Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Lake Brownwood CDP Lone Star city Maypearl city Lake Cherokee CDP Longoria CDP McCamey city Lake City town Lope f-@fo CDP McDade CDP Lake Colorado City CDP Loraine town Mclean town Lake Dallas city Lorenzo city Meadow town Lake Medina Shores CDP Los Alvarez CDP Medina CDP Lake Meredith Estates CDP Los Angeles CDP Memphis city Lake View CDP Los Arcos CDP Mercedes city Lakeview town Los Arrieros CDP Meridian city Lamesa city Los Barreras CDP Mertzon city Lampasas city Los Ebanos CDP Mesquite CDP Las Lomas CDP Los Ebanos CDP Mexia city Las Lomitas CDP Los Fresnos city Mi Ranchito Estate CDP Las Palmas CDP Los Indios town Midway city Las Pa lmas II CDP Los Lobos CDP Miguel Barrera CDP Las Quintas Fronterizas CDP Los Ybanez city Mikes CDP Lasana CDP Lott city Milam CDP Lasara CDP Louise CDP Milano city Latexo city Lovelady city Mildred town Laughlin AFB CDP Lozano CDP Milford town Leakey city Lueders city Miller's Cove town Leary city Lufkin city Millsap town Lefors town Luling city Mineola city Leming CDP Lumberton city Mineral Wells city Leona city Lyford city Mirando City CDP Levelland city Mabank town Monahans city Liberty city Madisonville city Montague CDP Lindale city Malakoff city Monte Alto CDP Linden city Manor city Moraida CDP Lindsay CDP Manuel Garcia CDP Morales-Sanchez CDP Linn CDP Manuel Garcia II CDP Morgan city Lipan city Marfa city Morgan Farm CDP Little River-Academy city Marietta town Morgan's Point Resort city Littlefield city Markham CDP Morning Glory CDP Liverpool city Marlin city Morton city Livingston town Marquez city Mount Enterprise city Llano city Marshall city Mount Pleasant city Lockhart city Mart city Mount Vernon town Lockney town Martindale city Muleshoe city Log Cabin city Martinez CDP Mullin town Loma Grande CDP Mason city Mustang town Loma Linda East CDP Matador town Nacogdoches city Loma Linda East CDP Matagorda CDP Naples city Loma Linda West CDP Mathis city Narciso Pena CDP Loma Vista CDP Maud city Nash city Lometa city Mauriceville CDP Natalia city 41 TDC eligibility map link Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Navarro town Paducah town Quanah city Navasota city Palacios city Queen City city Nesbitt town Palm Valley city Quemado CDP Netos CDP Palo Blanco CDP Quesada CDP New Boston city Paloma Creek CDP Quinlan city New Chapel Hill city Pampa city Quitman city New Falcon CDP Pattison city Radar Base CDP New London city Pawnee CDP Rafael Pena CDP New Summerfield city Payne Springs town Ralls city New Waverly city Pecan Gap city Ramireno CDP Newcastle city Pecos city Ramirez-Perez CDP Newton city Pena CDP Ramos CDP Nina CDP Perryton city Ranchette Estates CDP Nocona city Petersburg city Ranchitos del Norte CDP Nocona Hills CDP Petronila city Rancho Alegre CDP Noonday city Pettus CDP Rancho Banquete CDP Nordheim city Pilot Point city Rancho Viejo CDP Normangee town Pine Forest city Ranchos Penitas West CDP Normanna CDP Pine Harbor CDP Rangerville village North Cleveland city Pine Island town Rankin city North Escobares CDP Pinehurst city Ratamosa CDP North San Pedro CDP Pinehurst CDP Raymondville city Novice city Pineland city Realitos CDP Oak Ridge town Pinewood Estates CDP Red Lick city Oak Trail Shores CDP Pittsburg city Redfield CDP Oak Valley town Plains town Redford CDP Oakhurst CDP Plainview city Redland CDP Oakwood town Pleak village Redwater city O'Brien city Pleasant Hill CDP Refugio town Odem city Plum Grove city Regino Ramirez CDP Oglesby city Point Blank city Reklaw city Oilton CDP Point Comfort city Relampago CDP Old River-Winfree city Ponder town Reno city Olivia Lopez de Gutierrez CDP Port Aransas city Retreat town Olmito and Olmito CDP Port Isabel city Ricardo CDP Olney city Port Lavaca city Rice city Olton city Port Mansfield CDP Richland town Omaha city Port O'Connor CDP Richland Springs town Onalaska city Poteet city Rio Bravo city Opdyke West town Powell town Rio Grande City city Orange city Poynor town Rio Hondo city Orange Grove city Prairie View city Rising Star town Ore City city Premont city Rivereno CDP Overton city Presidio city Riverside city Owl Ranch CDP Primera town Riviera CDP Pablo Pena CDP Putnam town Roa ring Springs town 42 TDC eligibility map link Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Robert Lee city Seadrift city Sulphur Springs city Robstown city Seagoville city Sunray city Roby city Seagraves city Sunset CDP Rochester town Sebastian CDP Sweetwater city Rockdale city Seco Mines CDP Taft city Rocky Mound town Seth Ward CDP Taft Southwest CDP Rogers town Seven Oaks city Tahoka city Roma city Shadybrook CDP Talco city Roscoe city Shamrock city Tatum city Rose City city Shepherd city Taylor city Rose Hill Acres city Sherwood Shores CDP Teague city Rosebud city Sierra Blanca CDP Tehuacana town Rosita CDP Siesta Acres CDP Tenaha town Ross city Siesta Shores CDP Terrell city Rosser village Silsbee city Texarkana city Runge town Silverton city Tho mpsonville CDP Rusk city Sinton city Tho rnda le city Sabinal city Skidmore CDP Thornton town Salado village Slaton city Thorntonville town Saline H@o CDP Smiley city Thrall city Saline Hfao North CDP Smithville city Throckmorton town Sam Rayburn CDP Socorro city Thunderbird Bay CDP Sammy Martinez CDP Solis CDP Tierra Bonita CDP San Augustine city Somerset city Ti erra Dorada CDP San Benito city Somerville city Tierra Grande CDP San Diego city Sonora city Tierra Verde CDP San Elizario city Sour Lake city Tilden CDP San Fernando CDP South Fork Estates CDP Timpson city San Isidro CDP South La Paloma CDP Tivoli CDP San Juan CDP South Mountain town Todd Mission city San Leon CDP South Padre Island town Tool city San Perlita city South Toledo Bend CDP Tornillo CDP San Ygnacio CDP Southmayd city Trinity city Sandia CDP Spade CDP Troup city Sandoval CDP Splendora city Troy city Sandy Oaks city Spring Gardens CDP Tuleta CDP Sanford town Springlake town Tulia city Santa Anna town Spur city Tulsita CDP Santa Anna CDP St. Jo city Turkey city Santa Cruz CDP St. Paul CDP Tynan CDP Santa Maria CDP Stanton city Uncertain city Santa Monica CDP Stinnett city Union Grove city Santa Rosa town Strawn city Utopia CDP Santa Rosa CDP Streetman town Uvalde city Santel CDP Sudan city Uvalde Estates CDP Scottsville city Sullivan City city Val Verde Park CDP 43 • TDC eligibility map link Eligible City or CDP Eligible City or CDP Valle Hermosa CDP Winona town Val le Vista CD P Wolfe City city Valley Mills city Woodsboro town Van Horn town Woodson town Van Vleck CDP Woodville town Vanderbilt CDP Wortham town Vernon city Wyldwood CDP Victoria Vera CDP Yantis town Vidor city Yoakum city Villa del Sol CDP Yznaga CDP Villarreal CDP Zapata CDP Wake Vil lage city Zapata Ranch CDP Wallis city Zarate CDP Walnut Springs city Zavalla city Warren CDP Waskom city Webberville vi llage Weimar city Weinert city We lch CDP Wellington city Wellman city Wel ls town West Alto Bonito CDP West Columbia city West Livingston CDP West Odessa CDP West Orange city West Tawakoni city Westbrook city Westdale CDP Westwood Shores CDP Wharton city Wheeler city Whiteface town Whitehouse city Wh itewright town Whitney town Wild Peach Vi llage CDP Wi ldwood CDP Willis city Wills Point city Wilson city Winfield city Winnie CDP Winnsboro city 44 ; -. Project CSJ: ____ _,,3C!.13,,_,8,_-.>!.01.c:-_,,_0,,_,38,,__ __ _ LG Name: -----"C-'it_,_v-'-of_C-'--o'-l_le=qe-'---'-S--'ta_ti_on __ _ LG Texas ID No. (TIN):------------ District: ____ __:1...:_7_-_;;;B:.:._R.:...:Y ____ _ Project Name: FM 2347 Separated Bike Lanes Special Approval per TAC §15.52 Part A -LG Qualifications Statement (Local Government Agency management of project development process elements) Local government (LG) agencies may manage elements of the project development process (environmental, right-of- way acquisition, utility relocation, design/bid document preparation, letting and award, and construction/project close- out) with written TxDOT approval. This approval is typically provided by language in the Advance Funding Agreement executed by TxDOT and the local government agency. Part A (pages 1-4) of this form is required to be completed by LG personnel. Upon receipt of completed Part A, the TxDOT district will evaluate the LG's capabilities to manage one or more elements of a project using Part B (pages 5-8) for recommendation to the TxDOT's Deputy Executive Director. Describe the following items for the proposed project or program A. The scope of work for Project consists of the design and construction of on-street separated bike lanes with a vertical barrier on both sides of FM 2347 from FM 2154 to approximately 400 feet east of BS 6R in Project limits, type of College Station, TX. This project will include intersection and driveway improvements which may include work and any 2-stage turning boxes and green conflict striping to create a safer route for biking. significant elements Preliminary estimated $1 ,573,954 project costs Anticipated Funding FHWA 80 % TxDOT % Local 20 % Sources To be performed To be performed by by LG with its own consultant under staff? contract with LG? Environmental Select one .. Select one .. Right-of-way acquisition Select one ... Select one .. Utility relocation Select one ... Select one .. Design and bid document prepuation Select one ... Select one Letting and award Select one ... Select one ... Construction oversight, inspection, documentation and project close-out Select one ... Select one ... Other Select one ... Select one .. Other Select one ... Select one ... Describe LG's approach to performing the proposed management services for this project The City of College Station will perform the steps outlined in the program guide for the environmental documentation April 30, 2018 Special Approval per TAC §15.52 -Part A Page 1of8 ~'J~ cf'~ Project CSJ: 3138-01-038 LG Name: City of Colleqe Station LG Texas ID No. (TIN):----------- District: 17 -BRY Project Name: FM 2347 Separated Bike Lanes In evaluating a LG request to manage elements of the project development process for proj ects on the State Highway System or with TxDOT and/or FHWA funding, 43 TAC §15.52 requires TxDOT to consider six criteria. The LG is to provide information requested in Items 1 and 2 below. TxDOT district personnel will complete information on the remainder of the evaluation criteria in Part B (pages 5-8). 1. Previous experience of the LG in performing the type of work proposed Attach an audited financial statement of Local Government Agency for most recent fiscal year. If TxDOT already has a copy of a Single Aud it report or other audited financial statement for a recent 9ear insert the fiscal year in the box to the right (submittal of an additional audit is not required). Please provide information on up to two similar, completed projects managed or performed by the LG in the past 5 years. PROJECT A Name of previously completed -~ ~ 12!~ '[~ritvr. ~lf~ltir ')~~ project Describ'e type of work Describe any complex items of work Construction cost Estimated: Actual: Letting date Scheduled: Actual: Contract time Scheduled: Actual: . LG management activities performed by LG personnel LG management activities performed by consultants Name of current LG employee Phone# contact who worked on project Email April 30, 2018 Special Approval per TAC §15.52 -Part A Page 2 of 8 Project CSJ: 3138-01-038 LG Name: City of College Station LG Texas ID No. (TIN):----------- District: 17 -BRY Project Name: FM 2347 Separated Bike Lanes PROJECT B Name of previously completed ~ .. -•• .l Dfl-1 \r-l-. project \Y •rt"\ Describe type of work Describe any complex items of work Construction cost Estimated: Actual: Letting date Scheduled: Actual: Contract time Scheduled: Actual: LG management activities performed by LG personnel LG management activities performed by consultants Name of cur!ent LG employee Phone# contact who worked on project Email 2. The capability of the LG to perform the type of work proposed or to award and manage a contract for that work in a timely manner, consistent with federal, state, and Department regulations, standards, and specifications Please describe the LG's proposed personnel. Name of person to serve In Position/ the position of Responsible Person In Charge Title a. Must be full-time employee of LG; b. Must be able to administer project activities (cost, time, scope, adherence to contract requirements, construction quality, etc.); c. Must maintain familiarity with day-to-day project operations (including project safety); d. Must make or participate in decisions about change orders or supplemental agreements; e. Must visit and review the project regularly; f. Must review financial processes, transactions and documentation; and g. Must direct his/her project staff (agency or consultant) at all stages of the project. April 30, 2018 Special Approval per TAC §15.52 -Part A Page 3 of 8 Project CSJ: 3138-01-038 LG Name: City of College Station LG Texas ID No. (TIN):------------ Name df person to serve as Project Manager a. Responsible for daily oversight of the project,· b. Primary point of communication with TxDOT for day-to-day matters; c. May be same person as RPIC; and d. May be local government employee or consultant. Project Manager's previous experience on projects of similar type, complexity and cost Project Manager's previous experience on TxDOT and/or FHWA-funded projects Name of person to serve in the position of Qualified Person District: 17 -BRY Project Name: FM 2347 Separated Bike Lanes Position/ Title Position/ Title a. Must have completed TxDOT-required LGPP training prior to execution of AFA; b. May be same person as RPIC or PM; and c. May be LG employee or consultant. Qualified Person's previous experience on projects of similar type, complexity and cost Qualified Person's previous experience on TxDOT and/or FHWA-funded projects Information submitted by: LG representative signature LG representative printed name April 30, 2018 Special Approval per TAC §15.52 -Part A Date LG representative title Page 4 of 8 DEPARTMENT: AGENDA DATE: CONTACT PERSON/PHONE: DISTRICT(S) AFFECTED: CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS AGENDA ITEM DEPARTMENT HEAD'S SUMMARY FORM Capital Improvement August 18, 2020 Yvette Hernandez, P.E ., CID Director of Grant Funded Programs, 212-1860 Sam Rodriguez, P.E., City Engineer, 212-0065 6 and 7 STRATEGIC GOAL: No. 7: Enhance and Sustain El Paso's Infrastructure Network SUBJECT: That the City Manager be authorized to sign an Advance Funding Agreement by and between the City of El Paso and the State of Texas, acting by and through the Texas Department of Transportation, for the Playa Drain Shared Use Path project, for the construction of a shared use path on the Playa drain from Whitter Dr. to Elvin Way, which has an estimated total project cost of $2,095,847.00 of which the estimated local government participation amount is $403,317 .00. BACKGROUND I DISCUSSION: The Playa Drain Shared Use Path project includes the design and construction of a shared use path on the Playa Drain from Whittier Drive to Elvin Way to include landscaping. This advanced funding agreement with TxDOT allows for federal funding for construction. The City's required match for the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) funding is $403,317.00. COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE BRIEFING: Was a briefing provided? D Yes or [g] Not Applicable (Routine) If yes, select the applicable districts. D District 1 D District 2 D District 3 D District 4 D District 5 D District 6 D District 7 D District 8 D All Districts PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION: NA AMOUNT AND SOURCE OF FUNDING: Federal, State and Local Funding (2020 CO's) PPS FORM 001 , Rev. 3, 8/9/2016 (Discard Previous Versions) BOARD I COMMISSION ACTION: N/A *******************REQUIRED AUTHORIZATION******************** DEPARTMENT HEAD: PPS FORM 001 , Rev. 3, 8/9/2016 (Discard Previous Versions) City Council COUNCIL AGENDA February 10, 2021 CONSENT AGENPA (continued) Office of Procurement Services (continued) 15. 21-64 16. 21-53 Authori:--e an acquisition contract for the purchase and installation of a temporary dome structure for the Fire-Rescue Department -TSG Industries, LLC, only bidder -Not to exceed $145, 196 -Financing: 2020 Certificate of Obligation Fund [21-0327; APPROVED] Authorize the sale of two 2003 John Deere Loaders and one 2002 International 7400 Dump Truck through a public auction ending January 11 , 2021 to Quality Parts Supply, LTD. in the amount of $21 ,000.00, Fabian Trucking in the amount of $27,500.00 and Greg Sullivan in the amount of $24,750 .00, highest bidders - Revenue: Equipment and Fleet Management Fund ($41 ,225.00), Dallas Water Utilities Fund ($21 ,037 .50), and Express Business Center Fund ($10,987 .50) [21-0328; APPROVED] Park & Recreation Department 17. 18. 20-2522 City of Dallas AuthoriL.e (1) an Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for a Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) Program Project (Agreement No. CSJ 0918-47-204, CFDA No. 20.205) for construction of the University Crossing Trail in the amount of approximately $1 ,024,444.00, of which the Federal portion is $687,280.00, State participation is $41,769.00, and the City of Dallas' local match is $295,395.00; (2) a portion of the required local match in the amount of $27,335.00 to be paid by warrant check to the State at the beginning of the project; (3) the establishment of appropriations in the amount of $687 ,280.00 in the University Crossing PIO Trail Fund (in addition to direct State participation in the amount of $41,769.00); (4) the receipt and deposit of TASA Program Funds in the amount of $687,280.00 in the University Crossing PIO Trail Fund ; (5) allocation of $295,395.00 in the University Crossing PIO Trail Fund as the City of Dallas' local match ; and (6) execution of the agreement including all terms, conditions, and documents required by the agreement -Total amount $1 ,024,444.00 -Financing: Transportation Alterna•ives Set-Aside Program Funds ($687,280.00), University Crossing PIO Trail Fund ($295,395.00), and State participation ($41,769.00) [21-0329; APPROVED] Authorize (1) an Advance Funding Agreement with the University Crossing Public Improvement District for matching funds for the 2017 Transportation Alternatives Set- Aside Program for the University Crossing Trail Lighting Project at Glencoe Park located at 3700 Glencoe Street to Skillman Street; the establishment of appropriations in an amount not to exceed $795,395.00 in the University Crossing PIO Trail Fund; (3) the receipt and deposit of University Crossing Trail Funds in an amount not to exceed $795,395.00 in the University Crossing PIO Trail Fund; and (4) execution of the funding agreement including all terms, conditions, and documents required by the funding agreement -Not to exceed $795,395.00 -Financing: University Crossing PIO Trail Fund [21-0330; APPROVED] Pages Printed on 21512021 5171 Agenda Item Details Meeting ategory Subject Type Preferred Date Absolute Date Fiscal Impact Budgeted Budget Source Goals Summary: BoardDocs® Plus Aug 13, 2019 -Bryan City Council Second Regular Meeting 5. Consent (Automatic Approval) Agenda -This agenda consists of ministerial or "housekeeping" items required by law such as routine bids, contracts, purchases, and resolutions. Items may be removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration at the request of two Councilmembers. J. Adoption of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Bryan, Texas, to support the Bonham Elementary School Safe Routes to School project application to the 2019 Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) I Safe Routes to School-Infrastructure (SRTS) call for projects Action (Consent) Aug 13, 2019 Aug 13, 2019 No No FY22 Bond r unds (only in case of cost overruns for SRTS projects) Quality of Life Public Safety Infrastructure The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) issued a call for projects in February 2019. The Safe Routes to School- Infrastructure (SRTS) program funds all design and construction costs for pedestrian and/or bicycle projects within 2 miles of K-8th grade schools. No local match or reimbursement process is required for the SRTS. $8.7 million in funds are available statewide. The Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) program reimburses up to 80% of construction costs for pedestrian and/or bicycle projects. Local governments must design the project and provide a minimum 20% match for construction. Federal funds have not yet been allocated for small urban areas (under 200,000 population). Successful projects will be added to a conditionally approved list for $13 million in anticipated future funding for small urban areas. Any cost overruns for either program will need to be paid for by the City. For TASA projects, the local sponsor must be prepared to fund the entire project and be reimbursed by TxDOT for up to 80% of eligible construction costs (unless TxDOT bids and manages construction). The minimum local match is 20%. In the past, TxDOT elected to manage construction and the City offered a 25% local match to make project applications more appealing. For this round of applications, staff believes the 25% match is unnecessary given the City's history of successful projects. Also, more projects may be selected this round so a reduced percentage is prudent. The City submitted two (2) TASA projects, three (3) SRTS projects, and two (2) projects for either program. No projects were eliminated by TxDOT through the preliminary application process. If all TASA projects are selected, the City may be responsible for $472,000 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 for design and environmental documentation as well as $821,000 in FY2021 and FY2022 for the 20% construction local match. If TxDOT delegates bidding and construction management to the City, then an additional $3,281,000 may need to be spent by the City until reimbursed by TxDOT in FY 2022. The application requires a resolution from the local sponsor and the attached resolution states: "The City Council supports funding the project, as described in the City of Bryan 's 2019 TASA/SRTS Detailed Application (including the construction budget, TxDOT administrative cost, and the required local match, if any) and is willing to commit to the project's development, implementation, onstruction, maintenance, management, and financing . The City Council is willing and able to authorize, by resolution or ordinance, the City of Bryan to enter into an agreement with TxDOT should the project be selected for funding." City of Bryan staff have discussed these projects with staff from the Bryan Independent School District, City of College Station, and Metropolitan Planning Organization. Detailed applications will be submitted for the following projects: 1/2 5171 21 BoardDocs® Plus 1. Bonham Elementary SRTS 2. East 29th Street Shared Use Path and Pedestrian Bridge (TASA) 3. East 25th Street Bike Lanes and Sidewalks (TASA) 4. Fannin Elementary SRTS (TASA or SRTS) 5. FM 1179 (West Villa Maria Road) Shared Use Path and Pedestrian Lighting (TASA or SRTS) 6. Houston Elementary Shared Use Path SRTS 7. Navarro Elementary SRTS For the SRTS projects, TXDOT will fund 100% of the cost to develop the design, clear environmental requirements, and build the project. The City would only be responsible for any cost overruns associated with the SRTS projects. The TASA projects require a local match for construction and require the City to design the project. The source for the local match could come from the FY2022 future bond funds. The grant requires that construction be complete within three (3) years from award of the grant. Additionally, by passing each resolution there is a commitment being made to TxDOT that the City will provide the funding if the project(s) are selected. The official agreement with TxDOT is the Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA), which occurs after TxDOT selects the projects. Staff's understanding is refusal to enter into an AFA for a selected project is viewed negatively by TxDOT and could jeopardize future grant opportunities. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the resolution to support the Bonham Elementary Safe Routes to School project, as described in the detailed application to the 2019 Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) / Safe Routes to School-Infrastructure (SRTS) call for projects, and indicate willingness to enter into agreements with TxDOT should the project be selected for funding. If the City is awarded the grant, the City would be receiving $201,208 investment in public infrastructure. This project is not part of the current Capital Improvement Plan. Options: 1. Approve the Resolution 2. Do not approve the Resolution and provide direction to staff. ttachments: 1. Project Preliminary Application, Cost Estimate, and Location Map 2. Potential Impact to Municipal Budget 3. Resolution Attachment !_Bonham Elementary SRTS Applicaiton_Map_Cost.pdf (5,295 KB) Attachment 2 -TA SRTS Impact to Municipal Budget.pdf (101 KB) Attachment 3_Bonham Elementary SRTS Resolution.pdf (24 KB) This agenda consists of ministerial or "housekeeping" items required by law such as routine bids, contracts, purchases, and resolutions. Items may be removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration at the request of two Councilmembers. 212 February 12, 2018 2E - 1 Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor Bill Agan and members of the Richland Hills City Council From: Jason Moore, Assistant City Manager Date: February 12, 2018 Subject: Consider Resolution 494-18 for the Hike & Bike Trail Project Council Action: Consider Resolution 494-18 authorizing the City Manager to execute an Advance Funding Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation , for the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) Program Project for the Bike and Pedestrian Trail Project CSJ 0902-90-081 Background Information: The Richland Hills Bike/Pedestrian Trail Project is a twelve- foot (12') wide, 1.5 mile long concrete trail connecting Glenview Drive from the northern city limits to the TRE Train Station on the south. The trail will be located under the Oncor Electric Transmission Easement that runs north/south through the city. The total project cost is estimated at $2,201 ,359 with $419,282 of that being the City's local share. The project was awarded through the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) program through the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) 2017 Call for Projects. As part of this program, the project is administered through the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for financial reimbursements. That format is provided for in the attached Advance Funding Agreement (AFA) whereas the City will pay for costs up front and then seek reimbursement from TxDOT each month. Furthermore, the Advance Funding Agreement requ ires signatures from the City and TxDOT along with a Resolution authorizing its execution. The entire agreement and resolution are attached for your review. Upon approval, staff will forward city-signed copies to TxDOT for their signatures. It is anticipated that city staff will begin requesting qualifications for design firms sometime this spring with design beginning as soon as this summer. Construction is not anticipated to begin until the 2019 calendar year with an estimated completion date of 2020. Recommendation: Approve Resolution 494-18 authorizing the City Manager to execute an Advance Funding Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation, for the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) Program Project for the Bike and Pedestrian Trail Project CSJ 0902-90-081 Board/Citizen Input: N/A Financial Impact: $419,282 February 12, 2018 2E-2 Staff Contacts: Jason Moore, Assistant City Manager, jmoore@ri ch landhills.com Attachments: Proposed Resolution; & Exhibit "A" -Advance Funding Agreement TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes STA TE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF TRAVIS § ADVANCE FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE (TASA) PROGRAM PROJECT TxDOT-Selected Off-System This Advance Funding Agreement for a Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) Program Project ("Agreement") is made between the State of Texas (State), acting through the Texas Department of Transportation , and the City of Bryan (Local Government), acting through its duly authorized officials. WIT NESSETH WHEREAS, federal law establishes federally funded programs for transportation improvements to implement its public purposes, and WHEREAS, the Texas Transportation Code, Section 201 .103 establishes that the State shall design, construct and operate a system of highways in cooperation with local governments, and Section 222.052 authorizes the Texas Transportation Commission to accept contributions from political subdivisions for development and construction of public roads and the state highway system within the political subdivision, and WHEREAS, Federal law, 23 USC §134 and 49 USC §5303, requires that State and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of Texas, and WHEREAS, Federal and state laws require local governments to meet certain contract standards relating to the management and administration of State and federal fu nds, and WHEREAS, the rules and procedures for the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program (TASA) are established in 23 USC §133(h), and 43 Texas Administrative Code, Part 1, Chapter 11, Subchapter G, §§11.400 -11.418, and WHEREAS, the Local Government prepared and submitted to the State or Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) a project nomination package for TASA funding consideration , which is briefly described as Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes (Project), and WHEREAS, the Texas Transportation Commission (Commission) passed Minute Order Number 115076 (MO) dated October 26, 2017 awarding funding for TASA projects in the 2017 TASA Program Call of the State, including Project, and Page 1 of 18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ# 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 \ District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes WHEREAS, the governing body of the Local Government has approved entering into this Agreement by resolution or ordinance dated May 16, 2017, which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement as Attachment A, Resolution or Ordinance. A map showing the Project location appears in Attachment B, Project Location Map, which is attached to and made a part of this Ag reement, and NOW, THEREFORE, the State and the Local Government agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Period of Agreement and Performance A. Period of Agreement. This Agreement becomes effective when signed by the last party whose signing makes the Agreement fully executed. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated as provided below. B. Period of Performance. 1. The Performance Period for each phase of work begins on the date specified in the Federal Project Authorization and Agreement (FPAA) for that phase of work. Local Government may not begin work until issued the State Letter of Authority (SLOA) for that phase of work. 2. The Performance Period for each phase of work ends on the date specified in the FPAA for that phase of work. 2. Scope of Work and Use of Project A. The scope of work for Project consists of constructing 6-foot-wide sidewalks and 5- foot-wide bike lanes on both sides of Coulter Drive between South College Avenue and FM 158 (East William J. Bryan Parkway) for approximately 1.4 miles. Additional pedestrian and bicycle improvements include ADA compliant ramps, Accessible Pedestrian Traffic Signal (APS) push button assemblies for two signalized intersections, and appropriate warning signage. These improvements will improve pedestrian access to Stephen F. Austin Middle School, St. Joseph Catholic School, and Sue Haswell Memorial Park, while providing future connectivity to the proposed Briar Creek Trail. To better serve this project, State will provide a construction, engineering, and inspection consultant, while the Local Government will provide a representative to be available for on-site coordination as the need arises. B. Any project changes proposed must be submitted in writing by Local Government to State. Changes may also require an amendment to this Agreement and the approval of the FHWA, State, MPO, or the Commission. Any changes undertaken without written approval and amendment of this Agreement may jeopardize not only the federal funding for the changes, but the federal funding of the entire Project. 3. Project Sources and Uses of Funds The total estimated development cost of the Project is shown in Attachment C, Project Budget Estimate and Source of Funds (Attachment C). A. If Local Government will perform any work under this Agreement for which reimbursement will be provided by or through the State, the Local Government must complete training . If federal funds are being used, the training must be completed before federal spending authority is obligated. Training is complete when at least one Page 2of18 AFA-AFA_ TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ# 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # Project Name 06100 -City of Bryan Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes individual who is working actively and directly on the Project successfully completes and receives a certificate for the course entitled "Local Government Project Procedures and Qualification for the Texas Department of Transportation" and retains qualification in accordance with applicable TxDOT procedures. Upon request, Local Government shall provide the certificate of qualification to State. The individual who receives the training certificate may be an employee of Local Government or an employee of a firm that has been contracted by Local Government to perform oversight of the Project. State in its discretion may deny reimbursement if Local Government has not continuously designated in writing a qualified individual to work actively on or to directly oversee the Project. B. The total estimated project cost as shown in Attachment C incudes the Local Government's estimated itemized cost of real property, utilities, environmental assessments, construction, and other construction related costs. To be eligible for reimbursement or as in-kind contribution, costs must have been included in the nomination form approved by the Texas Transportation Commission or MPO in consultation with State. Local Government must submit to State evidence of payment for eligible in-kind costs at least once per calendar quarter using the State's In-Kind Match Reporting form. C. State and the Federal Government will not reimburse Local Government for any work performed outside the Performance Period. After federal funds have been obligated , State will send to Local Government a copy of the formal documentation showing the obligation of funds including federal award information. Local Government is responsible for 100 percent of the cost of any work performed under its direction or control before the federal spending authority is formally obligated. D. The Project budget and source of funds estimate based on the budget provided in the nomination form is included in Attachment C. Attachment C shows the percentage and estimated dollar amounts to be contributed to Project by state and local sources, as well as the maximum amount in federal TASA funds assigned by the Commission or MPO in consultation with State. This Agreement may be amended from time to time as required to meet the funding commitments based on revisions to the TASA, FPAA, or other federal documents. E. State will be responsible for securing the federal share of funding required for the development and construction of Project, in an amount not to exceed 80 percent of the actual cost of the work up to the amount of funds approved for Project by the Texas Transportation Commission or MPO in consultation with State. Federal funds will be reimbursed on a cost basis. Project costs incurred prior to issuance of the SLOA are not eligible for reimbursement. F. Local Government will be responsible for all non-federal participation costs associated with Project, including any overruns in excess of Project's estimated budget and any operating or maintenance expenses. G. Following execution of this Agreement, but prior to the performance of any plan review work by State, Local Government will pay to State the amount specified in Attachment C for plan review. At least 60 days prior to the date set for receipt of the construction bids, Local Government shall remit its remaining local match as specified in Attachment C for State's estimated construction oversight and construction cost. Page 3of18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes H. In the event State determines that additional funding is required by Local Government at any time during Project, State will notify Local Government in writing . Local Government is responsible for the percentage of the authorized Project cost shown in Attachment C and 100 percent of any overruns above the federally authorized amount. Local Government will make payment to State within 30 days from receipt of State's written notification. I. Whenever funds are paid by Local Government to State under this Agreement, Local Government will remit a warrant made payable to the "Texas Department of Transportation". The warrant will be deposited by State and managed by State. Funds may only be applied by State to Project. J. Upon completion of Project, State will perform a final accounting of Project costs. Any funds due to Local Government, State, or the Federal Government will be promptly paid by the owing party. K. In the event Project is not completed, State may seek reimbursement from Local Government of the expended federal funds. Local Government will remit the required funds to State within 60 days from receipt of State's notification. L. If any existing or future local ordinances, commissioners court orders, rules, policies, or other directives, including but not limited to outdoor advertising billboards and storm water drainage facility requirements, are more restrictive than state or federal regulations, or if any other locally proposed changes, including but not limited to plats or re-plats, result in increased costs, then any increased costs associated with the ordinances or changes will be paid by Local Government. The cost of providing right of way acquired by State shall mean the total expenses in acquiring the property interests through negotiations, including , but not limited to, expenses related to relocation, removal, and adjustment of eligible utilities. M. The state auditor may conduct an audit or investigation of any entity receiving funds from the State di rectly under the Agreement or indirectly through a contract or subcontract under the Agreement. Acceptance of funds directly under the Agreement or indirectly through a contract or subcontract under this Agreement acts as acceptance of the authority of the state auditor, under the direction of the legislative audit committee, to conduct an audit or investigation in connection with those funds. An entity that is the subject of an audit or investigation must provide the state auditor with access to any information the state auditor considers relevant to the investigation or audit. N. State will not pay interest on any funds provided by Local Government. 0 . State will not execute the contract for the construction of Project until the required funding has been made available by Local Government in accordance with this Agreement. P. Local Government is authorized to submit requests for reimbursement by submitting the original of an itemized invoice in a form and containing all items required by State no more frequently than monthly, and no later than 90 days after costs are incurred. If Local Government submits invoices more than 90 days after the costs are incurred, and if federal funding is reduced as a result, State shall have no responsibility to reimburse Local Government for those costs. Page 4of18 AFA-AFA_ T ASA_LF Rev 03/1 6/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes Q. If Local government is an Economically Disadvantaged County (EDC) and if State has approved adjustments to the standard financing arrangement, this agreement reflects those adjustments. 4. Termination of the Agreement A. This Agreement may be terminated by any of the following conditions: 1. By mutual written consent and agreement of all parties; 2. By any party with 90 days written notice; or 3. By either party, upon the failure of the other party to fulfill the obligations as set forth in this Agreement. Any cost incurred due to such breach of contract shall be paid by the breaching party. B. If the potential termination of this Agreement is due to the failure of Local Government to fulfill its contractual obligations, State will notify Local Government that possible breach of contract has occurred. Local Government should make every effort to remedy the breach within a period mutually agreed upon by both parties. C. If Local Government withdraws from Project after this Agreement is executed, Local Government shall be responsible for all direct and indirect Project costs as identified by the State's cost accounting system and with 2 CFR Part 200 recapture requirements. D. A project may be eliminated from the program as outlined below. If Project is eliminated for any of these reasons, this Agreement will be appropriately terminated. A project may be eliminated from the program, and this Agreement terminated , if: 1. Local Government fails to satisfy any requirements of the program rules cited in 43 Texas Administrative Code, Part 1, Chapter 11 , Subchapter G, §§11.400 - 11.418. 2. The implementation of Project would involve significant deviation from the activities proposed in the nomination form and approved by the Texas Transportation Commission or MPO in consultation with State. 3. Local Government withdraws from participation in Project. 4. State determines that federal funding may be lost due to Project not being implemented and completed. 5. Funds are not appropriated, in which case this Agreement shall be terminated immediately with no liability to either party. Payment under this Agreement beyond the current fiscal biennium is subject to availability of appropriated funds. 6. The associated FPAA is not issued by the end of the third federal fiscal year following the federal fiscal year for which the funds are authorized. Federal fiscal years run October 1 through September 30. 7. Local Government fails to attend progress meetings at least twice yearly, as scheduled by State. E. State, at its sole discretion, may terminate this Agreement if State does not receive project invoice from Local Government within 270 days of FPAA. 5. Amendments This Agreement may be amended due to changes in the work, the amount of funding required to complete Project, or the responsibilities of the parties. Such amendment must be made through a mutually agreed upon, written amendment that is executed by the parties. Page 5of18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes 6. Remedies This Agreement shall not be considered as specifying the exclusive remedy for any agreement default, but all remedies existing at law and in equity may be availed of by either party to this Agreement and shall be cumulative. 7. Utilities Local Government shall be responsible for the adjustment, removal, or relocation of utilities or utility facilities in accordance with applicable State laws, regulations, rules, policies, and procedures, including any cost to State of a delay resulting from Local Government's failure to ensure that utilities or utility facilities are adjusted , removed , or relocated before the scheduled beginning of construction. Unless specified in (1) the nomination form approved by State or MPO in consultation with State and (2) this agreement, Local Government will not be reimbursed with federal or state funds for the cost of required utility work. Local Government must obtain advance approval for any variance from established procedures. Before a construction contract is let, Local Government shall provide, at State's request, a certification stating that Local Government has completed the adjustment of all utilities that must be adjusted before construction begins. Additional utility work may be required due to unknown conditions discovered during construction. These costs may be eligible for TASA participation if: ( 1) the activity is required to complete Project; (2) the cost is incidental to Project; and (3) TASA funding is available. Any change orders must be approved by State prior to incurring any cost for which reimbursement is sought. 8. Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Development of Project must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which require environmental clearance of federal- aid projects. A. Local Government is responsible for the identification and assessment of any environmental problems associated with the development of Project. B. Local Government is responsible for the cost of any environmental problem's mitigation and remediation. These costs will not be reimbursed or credited towards Local Government's financial share of Project unless specified in the nomination form and approved by State or MPO in consultation with State. C. Local Government is responsible for providing any public meetings or public hearings required for development of the environmental assessment. D. Before the advertisement for bids, Local Government shall provide to State written documentation from the appropriate regulatory agency or agencies that all environmental clearances have been obtained. 9. Compliance with Accessibility Standards All parties to this Agreement shall ensure that the plans for and the construction of all projects subject to this Agreement are in compliance with standards issued or approved by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) as meeting or consistent with minimum accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (P.L. 101-336) (ADA). Page 6of18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes 10. Architectural and Engineering Services A. Architectural and engineering services for preliminary engineering will be provided by Local Government. In procuring professional services, the parties to this Agreement must comply with federal requirements cited in 23 CFR Part 172 if Project is federally funded and Local Government will be seeking reimbursement for these services; and with Texas Government Code Subchapter 2254.A., in all cases. Professional services contracts for federally funded projects must conform to federal requirements. For State- selected projects, architectural and engineering services are not eligible for TASA reimbursement. B. The architectural contract documents shall be developed in accordance with the standards of the American Institute of Architects, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects, Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, the National Register Bulletin Number 36: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeological Sites and in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, as applicable. The engineering plans shall be developed in accordance with State's applicable Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets and Bridges and the two American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' ("AASHTO") publications, "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets" and "Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities," as applicable. All contract procurement procedures and documents must adhere to the applicable requirements established in the Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets and Bridges. The use of other systems of specifications shall be approved by State in writing in advance. C. When architectural and engineering services are provided by or through Local Government, Local Government shall submit any plans it has completed to State for review and approval. Local Government may also submit the plans to State for review any time prior to completion . Local Government shall make the necessary revisions determined by State. Local Government will not let the construction contract until all required plans have received State approval. D. When architectural and engineering services are provided by or through State, then the State is responsible for the delivery and performance of any required architectural or preliminary engineering work. Local Government may review and comment on the work as required to accomplish Project purposes. State will cooperate with Local Government in accomplishing these Project purposes to the degree permitted by state and federal law. 11. Construction Responsibilities A. State shall advertise for construction bids, issue bid proposals, receive and tabulate the bids, and award and administer the contract for construction of Project. Administration of the contract includes the responsibility for construction engineering and for issuance of any change orders, supplemental agreements, amendments, or additional work orders that may become necessary subsequent to the award of the construction contract. In order to ensure federal funding eligibility, projects must be authorized by State prior to advertising for construction. Page 7of18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes B. All contract letting and award procedures must be approved by State prior to letting and award of the construction contract, whether the construction contract is awarded by State or by Local Government. C. All contract change order review and approval procedures must be approved by State prior to start of construction. D. Upon completion of Project, the party constructing Project will issue and sign a "Notification of Completion" acknowledging Project's construction completion. E. For federally funded contracts, the parties to this Agreement will comply with federal construction requirements provided in 23 CFR Parts 633 and 635, and shall include the latest version of Form "FHWA-1273" in the contract bidding documents. If force account work will be performed, a finding of cost effectiveness shall be made in compliance with 23 CFR Subpart 635.B. F. Any field changes, supplemental agreements, or revisions to the design plans that may occur after the construction contract is awarded will be mutually agreed to by State and Local Government prior to authorizing the contractor to perform the work. Prior to completion of Project, the party responsible for construction will notify the other party to this Agreement of the anticipated completion date. All parties will be afforded the opportunity to assist in the final review of the construction services performed by the contractor. 12. Project Maintenance A. Upon completion of Project, Local Government will be responsible for maintaining the completed facility for public use. The property shall be maintained and operated for the purpose for which it was approved and funded for a period of time commensurate with the federal investment or State rules, whichever is greater. Should Local Government at any time after Project completion decide it can no longer maintain and operate Project for its intended purpose, Local Government shall consult with State and the FHWA as to the disposal or alternate uses, consistent with Project's original intent. State may require Local Government to return the federal funds in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200 federal recapture requirements . Should Local Government consider conveying the property, State and FHWA must be notified prior to the sale, transfer, or disposal of any property that received federal funds. Written concurrence of approval for the transaction, detailing any required recapture, must be obtained from FHWA prior to the transaction. Advance notice from Local Government of their intended action must be submitted to State for an FHWA review a minimum of 90 days prior to any action being taken by Local Government. Local Government shall be held responsible for reimbursement of all federal funds used or a portion of those funds based on a pro- rata amount, considering the original percentage of federal funds provided and the time elapsed from Project completion date. This same percentage of reimbursement also applies to any amount of profit that may be derived from the conveyance of the property, as applicable. B. Any manufacturer warranties extended to Local Government as a result of Project shall remain in the name of Local Government. State shall not be responsible for honoring any warranties under this Agreement. C. Should Local Government derive any income from the development and operation of Project, a portion of the proceeds sufficient for the maintenance and upkeep of the Page 8of18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # Project Name 06100 -City of Bryan Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes property shall be set aside for future maintenance. A project income report shall be submitted to State on a quarterly basis. Monies set aside according to this provision shall be expended using accounting procedures and with the property management standards established in 2 CFR Part 200. D. Should any historic properties be included in or affected by this federally funded Project, the historic integrity of the property and any contributing features must continue to be preserved regardless of any approved changes that may occur throughout the life of Project. 13. Right of Way and Real Property Acquisition A. Right of way and real property acquisition shall be the responsibility of Local Government. Title to right of way and other related real property must be acceptable to State before funds may be expended for the improvement of the right of way or real property. B. If Local Government is the owner of any part of Project site under this Agreement, Local Government shall permit State or its authorized representative access to occupy the site to perform all activities required to execute the work. C. Local Government will comply with and assume the costs for compliance with all the requirements of Title II and Title Ill of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 USC §4601 et seq ., including those provisions relating to incidental expenses incurred by the property owners in conveying the real property to Local Government, and benefits applicable to the relocation of any displaced person as defined in 49 CFR §24.2(g). Documentation to support such compliance must be maintained and made available to State and its representatives for review and inspection. D. Local Government shall assume all costs and perform all work necessary to obtain needed evidence of title or right of use to the real property required for development of Project. Evidence of title or right of use shall be acquired in the name of (1) State, if the real property is to be made part of the State Highway System, and (2) Local Government, otherwise. The evidence of title or rights shall be acceptable to State, and be free and clear of all encroachments. Local Government shall secure and provide easements and any needed rights of entry over any other land needed to develop Project according to the approved Project plans. Local Government shall be responsible for securing any additional real property required for completion of Project. E. Local Government shall prepare real property maps, property descriptions, and other data as needed to properly describe the real property and submit them to State for approval prior to Local Government acquiring the real property. Tracings of the maps shall be retained by Local Government for a permanent record. F. Local Government shall determine property values for each real property parcel to be purchased with federal funds using methods acceptable to State and shall submit to State a tabulation of the values so determined, signed by the appropriate Local Government representative. The tabulations must list the parcel numbers, ownership, acreage, and recommended compensation. The tabulation must be accompanied by an explanation to support the estimated values, together with a copy of the documentation and reports used in calculating each parcel's value. Expenses incurred by Local Government in performing this work may be eligible for reimbursement after Page 9of18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/1 6/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # Project Name 06100 -City of Bryan Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes Local Government has received written authorization by State to proceed with determination of real property values. State will review the data submitted and will base its reimbursement fo r parcel acquisitions on these in determining the fair market values. G. For State-selected TASA projects, Local Government shall not use eminent domain or condemnation to acquire real property for this TASA Project. H. NOT APPLICABLE -Reimbursement for real property costs will be made to Local Government for real property purchased in an amount not to exceed 80 percent of the cost of the real property purchased in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. Reimbursement will be in an amount not to exceed 80 percent of State's predetermined fair market value of each parcel, or the net cost thereof, whichever is less. In addition, reimbursement will be made to Loca l Government for necessary payments to appraisers for expenses incurred in order to assure good title. I. Local Government and current property owner are responsible for any costs associated with the relocation of displaced persons and personal property as well as incidental expenses incurred in acquiring property to implement Project. State will not pay any of these costs. J. If Project requires the use of real property to which Local Government will not hold title, a separate agreement between the owners of the real property and Local Government must be executed prior to execution of this Agreement. The separate agreement between Local Government and the current property owner must establish that Project will be dedicated for public use for a period of time not less than ten years after project completion and commensurate with the federal investment as outlined in 43 Tex. Admin. Code §11 .317. The separate agreement must define the responsibilities of the parties as to the use of the real property and operation and maintenance of Project after completion. The separate agreement must be approved by State prior to its execution and a copy of the executed separate agreement shall be provided to State. K. Local Government shall execute individually or produce a legal document as necessary to provide for Project's continued use from the date of completion , and agrees to cause the same to be recorded in the land records of the appropriate jurisdiction. L. Local governments receiving federal funds must comply with 23 CFR Part 710 and 49 CFR Part 24, and with the procedures provided in Chapter 6 of the State's Local Government Project Policy Manual. Local Government agrees to monitor Project to ensure: (1) continued use of the property for approved activities, and (2) the repayment of the Federal funds, as appropriate. Local Government agrees to the review of their Project accounts and site visits by State during the development of Project at any time. Upon Project completion, State will continue to perform periodic visits to confirm Project's continued use and upkeep. M. Before the advertisement for bids, Local Government shall provide a certification to State that all real property has been acquired. 14. Insurance A. Should this Agreement authorize Local Government or its contractor to perform any work on State right of way, before beginning work, the entity performing the work shall provide State with a fully executed copy of State's Form 1560 Certificate of Insurance verifying the existence of coverage in the amounts and types specified on the Page 10of18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ# 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes Certificate of Insurance for all persons and entities working on State right of way. This coverage shall be maintained until all work on State right of way is complete. If coverage is not maintained, all work on State right of way shall cease immediately, and State may recover damages and all costs of completing the work. B. For projects including buildings, Local Government agrees to insure the building according to Department specifications and further agrees to name the Federal Government as a "Loss Payee" should the building be destroyed. 15. Notices All notices to either party shall be delivered personally or sent by certified or U.S. mail, postage prepaid, addressed to that party at the following address: Local Government: City of Bryan ATTN: City Engineer 300 S. Texas Avenue Bryan, TX 77803 State: Texas Department of Transportation ATTN: Director of Contract Services 125 E. 11th Street Austin, TX 78701 All notices shall be deemed given on the date delivered in person or deposited in the mail, unless otherwise provided by this agreement. Either party may change the above address by sending written notice of the change to the other party. Either party may request in writing that notices shall be delivered personally or by certified U.S. mail, and that request shall be carried out by the other party. 16. Legal Construction In case one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provisions and this Agreement shall be construed as if it did not contain the invalid , illegal, or unenforceable provision. 17. Responsibilities of the Parties Neither party is an agent, servant, or employee of the other party and each party is responsible for its individual acts and deeds as well as the acts and deeds of its contractors, employees, representatives, and agents. 18. Ownership of Documents Upon completion or termination of this Agreement, all documents prepared by State shall remain the property of State. All data prepared under this Agreement shall be made available to State without restriction or limitation on their further use. All documents produced or approved or otherwise created by Local Government shall be transmitted to State in the form of photocopy reproduction on a monthly basis as required by State. The originals shall remain the property of Local Government. Page 11 of 18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes 19. Document and Information Exchange Local Government agrees to electronically deliver to State all general notes, specifications, contract provision requirements, and related documentation in a Microsoft Word or similar format. If requested by State, Local Government will use State's document template. Local Government shall also provide a detailed construction time estimate, including types of activities and month in which the activity will be completed , in the format required by State. This requirement applies whether Local Government creates the documents with its own forces or by hiring a consultant or professional provider. At the request of State, Local Government shall submit any information required by State in the format directed by State. 20. Compliance with Laws The parties shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, and the orders and decrees of any courts or administrative bodies or tribunals in any manner affecting the performance of this agreement. When required , Local Government shall furnish State with satisfactory proof of this compliance. 21. Sole Agreement This Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior understandings or written or oral agreements respecting the Agreement's subject matter. 22. Cost Principles In order to be reimbursed with federal funds, the parties shall comply with the Cost Principles established in 2 CFR Part 200 that specify that all reimbursed costs are allowable, reasonable, and allocable to Project. 23. Procurement and Property Management Standards The parties to this Agreement shall adhere to the procurement standards established in Title 49 CFR §18.36, to the property management standards established in 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, and to the Texas Uniform Grant Management Standards. The State must pre-approve the Local Government's procurement procedures for purchases to be eligible for state or federal funds. 24. Inspection of Books and Records The parties to this Agreement shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other documentation relating to costs incurred under this Agreement and shall make such materials available to the State, the Local Government, and, if federally funded, the FHWA and the U.S. Office of the Inspector General or their duly authorized representatives for review and inspection at its office during the Agreement period and for three (3) years from the date of final reimbursement by FHWA under this Agreement or until any impending litigation or claims are resolved . Additionally, the State, the Local Government, and the FHWA and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to all the governmental records that are directly applicable to this Agreement for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcriptions. Page 12of18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes 25. Civil Rights Compliance The parties to this Agreement are responsible for the following: A. Compliance with Regulations: Both parties will comply with the Acts and the Regulations relative to Nondiscrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as they may be amended from time to time, which are herein incorporated by reference and made part of this Agreement. B. Nondiscrimination: The Local Government, with regard to the work performed by it during the Agreement, will not discriminate on the grounds of race , color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The Local Government will not participate directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by the Acts and the Regulations, including employment practices when the Agreement covers any activity, project, or program set forth in Appendix B of 49 CFR Part 21 . C. Solicitations for Subcontracts. Including Procurement of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by the Local Government for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurement of materials or leases of equipment, each potential subcontractor or supplier will be notified by the Local Government of the Local Government's obligations under this Agreement and the Acts and Regulations relative to Nondiscrimination on the grounds of race , color, or national origin . D. Information and Reports: The Local Government will provide all information and reports required by the Acts, the Regulations, and directives issued pursuant thereto, and will permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and facilities as may be determined by the State or the FHWA to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Acts, Regulations or directives. Where any information required of the Local Government is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, the Local Government will so certify to the State or the FHWA, as appropriate, and will set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. E. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the Local Government's noncompliance with the Nondiscrimination provisions of this Agreement, the State will impose such contract sanctions as it or the FHWA may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to : 1. withholding of payments to the Local Government under the Agreement until the Local Government complies and/or 2. cancelling, terminating, or suspending of the Agreement, in whole or in part. F. Incorporation of Provisions: The Local Government will include the provisions of paragraphs (A) through (F) in every subcontract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Acts, the Regulations and directives issued pursuant thereto. The Local Government will take such action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the State or the FHWA may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, that if the Local Government becomes involved in , or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or supplier because of such direction, the Local Government may Page 13of18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ# 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # Project Name 06100 -City of Bryan Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes request the State to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State. In addition, the Local Government may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. 26. Pertinent Non-Discrimination Authorities During the performance of this Agreement, each party, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest agree to comply with the following nondiscrimination statutes and authorities; including but not limited to : A. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C . § 2000d et seq ., 78 stat. 252), (pro- hibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); and 49 CFR Part 21 . B. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. § 4601 ), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of federal or federal-aid programs and projects). C. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, (23 U.S.C. § 324 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex). D. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.) as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CFR Part 27 . E. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq .), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age). F. Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 U.S.C. Chapter 471 , Section 47123), as amended , (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin , or sex). G. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope , coverage and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms "programs or activities" to include all of the programs or activities of the federal-aid recipients, subrecipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are federally funded or not). H. Titles II and Ill of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 -12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations at 49 C.F.R. Parts 37 and 38. I. The Federal Aviation Administration's Nondiscrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 4 7123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin , and sex). J. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which ensures nondiscrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. K. Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI , the parties must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to the programs (70 Fed. Reg . at 74087 to 74100). Page 14 of 18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20 .205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes L. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits the parties from discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq .). 27. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Requirements A. The parties shall comply with the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise ("DBE") Program requirements established in 49 CFR Part 26. B. Local Government shall adopt, in its totality, State's federally approved DBE program . C. Local Government shall set an appropriate DBE goal consistent with State's DBE guidelines and in consideration of Local market, project size, and nature of the goods or services to be acquired. Local Government shall have final decision-making authority regarding the DBE goal and shall be responsible for documenting its actions. D. Local Government shall follow all other parts of State's DBE program referenced in TxDOT Form 2395, Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Adoption of the Texas Department of Transportation's Federally-Approved Disadvantaged Business Enterprise by Entity, and attachments found at web address: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/bop/dbe/mou/mou attachments.pdf. E. Local Government shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin , or sex in the award and performance of any DOT-assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. Local Government shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure non-discrimination in award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. State's DBE program, as required by 49 CFR Part 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference in this Agreement. Implementation of this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this Agreement. Upon notification to Local Government of its failure to carry out its approved program, State may impose sanctions as provided for under 49 CFR Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 USC 1001 and the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 USC§ 3801 et seq .). F. Each contract Local Government signs with a contractor (and each subcontract the prime contractor signs with a subcontractor) must include the following assurance: 'The contractor, sub-recipient, or sub-contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this agreement, which may result in the termination of this agreement or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate." 28. Debarment Certifications The parties are prohibited from making any award at any tier to any party that is debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal Assistance Programs under Executive Order 12549, "Debarment and Suspension." By executing this Agreement, Local Government certifies that it and its principals are not currently debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal Assistance Programs under Executive Order 12549, and further certifies that it will not do business with Page 15of18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17-Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes any party, to include principals, that is currently debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal Assistance Programs under Executive Order 12549. The parties to this Agreement shall require any party to a contract, subcontract, or purchase order awarded under this Agreement to certify its eligibility to receive federal funds and, when requested by State, to furnish a copy of the certification. If state funds are used, the parties are prohibited from making any award to any party that is debarred under the Texas Administrative Code, Title 34, Part 1, Chapter 20, Subchapter G, Rule §20.585 and the Texas Administrative Code, Title 43, Part 1, Chapter 9, Subchapter G. 29. Lobbying Certification In executing this Agreement, each signatory certifies to the best of that signatory's knowledge and belief, that: A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by or on behalf of the parties to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal , amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. B. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with federal contracts, grants, loans, or cooperative agreements, the signatory for Local Government shall complete and submit the federal Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying ," in accordance with its instructions. C. The parties shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers (including subcontracts, sub-grants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Submission of th is certification is a prerequisite imposed by 31 USC §1352 for making or entering into this transaction. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 30. Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Requirements A. Any recipient of funds under this agreement agrees to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) and implementing regulations at 2 CFR Part 170, including Appendix A. This agreement is subject to the following award terms: http://www.qpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-09-14/pd f/2010-22705.pdf and http://www.qpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-09-14/pdf/2010-22706.pdf. B. Local Government agrees that it shall: 1. Obtain and provide to State a System for Award Management (SAM) number (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 4.11) if this award provides more Page 16of18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ# 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17-Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # Project Name 06100 -City of Bryan Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes than $25,000 in Federal funding . The SAM number may be obtained by visiting the SAM website whose address is https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. 2. Obtain and provide to State a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number, a unique nine-character number that allows the federal government to track the distribution of federal money. The DUNS number may be requested free of charge for all businesses and entities required to do so by visiting the Dun & Bradstreet on-line registration website http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform; and 3. Report the total compensation and names of its top five executives to State if: a. More than 80 percent of annual gross revenues are from the Federal government, and those revenues are greater than $25,000,000; and b. The compensation information is not already available through reporting to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 31. Single Audit Report A. The parties shall comply with the requirements of the Single Audit Act of 1984, P.L. 98- 502, ensuring that the single audit report includes the coverage stipulated in 2 CFR Part 200. B. If threshold expenditures of $750,000 or more are met during the fiscal year, the Local Government must submit a Single Audit Report and Management Letter (if applicable) to TxDOT's Compliance Division , 125 East 11th Street, Austin, TX 78701 or contact TxDOT's Compliance Division at singleaudits@txdot.gov . C. If expenditures are less than the threshold during Local Government's fiscal year, Local Government must submit a statement to TxDOT's Compliance Division as follows: We did not meet the $ expenditure threshold and therefore, are not required to have a single audit performed for FY __ _ D. For each year Project remains open for federal funding expenditures, Local Government will be responsible for filing a report or statement as described above. The required annual filing shall extend throughout the life of the agreement, unless otherwise amended or Project has been formally closed out and no charges have been incurred within the current fiscal year. Page 17of18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes 32. Signatory Warranty Each signatory warrants that the signatory has necessary authority to execute this agreement on behalf of the entity represented. THIS AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED by the State and the Local Government. THE ST A TE OF TEXAS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT Signature Signature Kenneth Stewart Typed or Printed Name Typed or Printed Name Director of Contract Services Typed or Printed Title Typed or Printed Title Date Date Page 18 of 18 AFA-AFA_TASA_LF Rev 03/16/18 TxDOT: CSJ # District# Code Chart 64 # Project Name AFA-AFA_TASA Federal Highway Administration: 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 17-Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction 06100 -City of Bryan Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESOLl.ITION 0 .: 3709 A RESOLl.ITION OF THE CITY COUNC IL OF THE CllY OP BRYAN, TEXAS, TO CERTIFY FUNDING AND SUPPORT FOR THE STATEWIDE 21U7 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROORAM: NOMINATION FORM WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRA.NSPORTATlON TO RECEIVE FUNDING TO JMPLEME.NT THE COULTER DRIVE SIOEWAL.KS AND BIKE LANES PROJECT; AND PROVJOING AN EFFECTlVE D:A TE. WHEREAS, on July 6, 2012 President Barack Obama sigMd the 1oving Ahead for Progress ln the21111 Century Act (lvlPA·2l); and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2017, thi: Tc:xas Dc:partment of Transportation issued a Call for Projects for funding thtough the Transportation Alleroaiives Set-Aside {TA Set·Asidce) Program with a submission dcadl inc of May 22, 2017; and WHE.REAS, all TA Set·Asi<le projects nominated by the City of Bryan mus;t be endorsed by the City Council with a c(lmmitmcnt to fund the pmjec't on a cost reimbursement basis, TA Set~Aside funding will be for C-On tructlon only and at lea!>! 20 crcent of project total c£Jst i~ required a$ the local match if the project is selected; and WHEREAS, the City of Bryan is proJXJSing 25 percent of project total constroction cosi as 1he local match; and WHEREAS. the: project cost will be funded from existing bond funds, ge11eral fond b<1lance, or furure bond funds; and WHEREAS, Ifie Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes project is a high priority, a.5 expressed in the Sidewalk Plan and the Hike & Bike Plan foond in 1ho 2016 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, l)n April 19, 2017, the Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lane:s project was .presented to the pubHc during a joint public he..arin& wilh other members of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Active TranspMation Ad\•isory Panel (ATAP); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 13ryan. ·rcxas that: The marten set forth in the preamble are true arni ~ and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2. The City of Bryan will apply for furu,ling throug.11 the Tex s Oepartn1ent <>fTrnnsportation to implement the Coulter Dri,,·e Sidewalks and Bike Lanes project as the Project Sponsor. The pre_{e&Uptm.wr su.ppm=ts {rmdin11hi.t pmjec.t a.r dl!.scribf!d in tire 1017 TA Set-Aside Namiootf!'!l Form Cincludjl')g the co&trnelfoa bu<fw. the d~pqrtmeU( '.r 15% administrali>'c wt und the required local match! and l wlllfni ca .ctmrmir to the proiec.t'.v devti!lof!mtmt, impleme.nrarion, c.onstrr1~/it;n. mqinti:nwrce. mqrrggemmt, arui finqpcjng. Tlw f}t'.ofC<l srwnsor Is wllifng and"able lo l!nte.r Jn10 an qgrreme11c with the department by resol11tion or qrqjnan'<f. .rhn11Id the nroiec.t IF seleped (or funding. · - 3. The City of Bryan agrees to execute an Advanced Funding Agreement. with the Texas Department of Transportation for this project, if awarded. Page 1 of 2 Attachment A TxDOT: CSJ # District# Code Chart 64 # Project Name AFA-AFA_TASA Federal Highway Administration: 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 17-Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction 06100 -City of Bryan Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes This Resolution shall be effective immediately 11pon its adopi.ion. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Bryan, TeXJl , this 16• day of May, 2017. CITIOF BRYAN: m s_ ·'-Ll~--_ ...... ATIEST: APPROVBD AS TO FORM: Q-k~ iK:Hampt.on, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 Attachment A TxDOT: CSJ # District# Code Chart 64 # Project Name AFA-AFA_TASA Federal Highway Administration: 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 17 -Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction 06100 -City of Bryan Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes ATTACHMENT B PROJECT LOCATION MAP Page 1 of 1 Attachment B TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ # 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17-Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes ATTACHMENT C PROJECT ESTIMATE AND SOURCE OF FUNDS LG Performs PE Work or Hires Consultant I State Lets Project for Construction Work Performed by Local Government ("LG") Description of Total Project Federal Participation State Participation Local Government Project Costs to be Incurred Cost Estimate Includes percentage for TDC Includes authorized Participation apportionment on MPO-selected EDC amounts Includes authorized EDC reduction ro'ects where a Ii cable % Cost % Cost % Cost Planning/Maps/Education/Non-CST $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 Preliminary Engineering $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 Environmental Cost $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 Right of Way $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 Utilities $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 Construction Cost $ Eligible In-Kind $ Contribution Value Total Construction Value sum of construction cost and in-kind value 0% 0% 0% Preliminary Engineering 1 $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 Environmental Cost1 $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 Right of Way3 $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 Utilities2 $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 Construction Cost $1,1 94,040 Eligible In-Kind $0 Contribution Value Total Construction Value sum of construction cost and in-kind value $1 , 194,040.00 75% $895,530.00 0% $0 25% $298,510.00 Work by State Subtotal $1,194,040.00 $895,530.00 $0 $298,510.00 AFA-AFA_TASA Page 1 of 2 Attachment C TxDOT: Federal Highway Administration: CSJ# 0917-29-133 CFDA No. 20.205 District# 17-Bryan CFDA Title Highway Planning and Construction Code Chart 64 # 06100 -City of Bryan Project Name Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike AFA Not Used For Research & Development Lanes Direct and Indirect State Costs Incurred for Review, Inspection, Administration & Oversight Description of Project Costs to be Incurred Preliminary Engineering 1 Environmental Cost1 Right of Way 1 Utilities1 Construction2 Direct State Costs Subtotal Indirect State Cost TOTAL PARTICIPATION In-kind Contribution Credit Applied TOTAL REMAINING PARTICIPATION AFTER IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION Total Project Cost Estimate $26,866 $17,911 $5,373 $3582 $125,374 $179,106.00 $70,925.98 $1,444,072 Federal Participation Includes percentage for TDC apportionment on MPO- selected projects where a licable % Cost 75% $20, 149.43 75% $13,432.95 75% $4,029.89 75% $2,686.59 75% $94,030.65 75% $134,329.50 $0 $1 ,029,860 State Participation Includes authorized EDC amount % Cost 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% $0 100% $70,925 .98 $70,926 • The estimated total participation by Local Government is $343,287, plus 100% of overruns. • Total estimated payment by Local Government to State is $343,287. • 1Local Government's first payment of $13,433 is due to State within 30 days from execution of this contract. Local Government (LG) Participation Includes authorized EDC reduction % Cost 25% $6,716.48 25% $4,477.65 25% $1 ,343.30 25% $895.53 25% $31 ,343.55 25% $44,776.50 $0 $343,287 0% $0 $343,287 • 2 Local Government's second payment of $329.854 is due to State within 60 days prior to the Construction contract being advertised for bids. • 3lf ROW is to be acquired by State, Local Government's share of property cost will be due prior to acquisition . • The local match must be 20% or greater and may include eligible in-kind contributions, EDC adjustments, or TDCs if authorized as part of project selection. • This is an estimate, the final amount of Local Government participation will be based on actual costs. • Maximum federal TASA funds available for Project are $1 ,029,860. AFA-AFA_TASA Page 2 of 2 Attachment C t . 2017 NOMINATION FORM: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM Addltlonal program lnfonnatlon can be found In TxDOT's 2017 Transportation Set-Aside Program Gulde http://www.txdot.gov/inside·txdot/division/public·transportation/bicycle·oedestrian.html NOTE: All attachments must be submitted in letter-sized (8.5" x 11 ")format. 2. Jurisdiction Population 1. Project Sponsor Name (Only one entity can act as project sponsor) I City of Bryan 76,201 /Basedon2010 Small Urban US Census) '--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~___.·J Enabling legislation/ legislative authority for Project Sponsor (if applicable): N/ A ~-----------~ 4. Project Sponsor Contact Information (Authorized representative) Contact Person: W. Paul Kaspar, P.E. Title: City Engineer ::===========::=:==o::=======; Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1000 Physical Address: I 300 S. Texas Avenue City: Bryan City: j Bryan ::=======================::::: Zip Code: 77805 Zip Code: I 77803 ::=======================; Entity's Main Phone: I 979-209-5030 Contact's Phone: 979-209-5040 ~================~-'--~ ~p_k_a_sp_a_r@_b_ry_a_n_tx_.g_o_v ____ ~I Website: j~www __ ._bry_a_n_tx_.g_o_v ______ ~ Email: 5. Project Name City of Bryan Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes 6. Eligible Project Activity (Select the activity from the dropdown list that best describes the project) 14) Sidewalks ~ '--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .... 7. Project Location Information TxDOT District: ~ Bryan l•I Texas County:j Brazos l•1l Project location: DescriQf;. using street name, adiacent waterwa)'., or other identiMng landmark. On or adj. to: I Coulter Drive I From: ls. College Avenue j{ex. 1st Avenue) (ex. Main Street) To:jWilliam J. Bryan Pa rkway (FM 158) j(ex. 3rd Avenue) If project Involves multiple locations, describe primary location below (latitude/longitude) and provide total project length. Create a complete list of all improvement locations using the descriptive limits and beginning and ending latitude/longitude. Label attachment as Project Location Information -Attachment A -No more than 2 pages. Project limits: Enter /fJ.tituQ.eZ/Qngitudf;. in aegrees-minutf;.S-~f;.CQna~ Project dimensions Latitude From:! 30 I 39 I 25.19 IN I ro:I 30 I 40 I 19.18 IN I (example 30 15 22.36 8. Legislative Representatives Texas House of Representatives District#; 14 US House of Representatives 17 96 96 97 Longitude I 22 I 15.25 lw Total length:! 1.37 i l miles I 21 I 21.33 lw Facility width: l 6 I feet 44 41.03) Material depth: I 6 I inches Name; Representative John Raney Senator Cha rles Schwertner Congressman Bill Flores l· Page 1of10 2017 NOMINATION FORM: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM Provide a well-developed narrative about the project for which the project sponsor is seeking funding. Describe the Eligible Project Activity {topic 6 on page 1). Explain the benefits the project will provide to the surface transportation system. Include details about the proposed improvements and summarize the work activities to be performed. Review the Project Evaluation and Selection Criteria topic in the 2017 TA Set-Aside Program Guide and address criteria categories as part of the project description. (Limited to 3,000 characters with spaces. Do not add spaces between lines. Use print preview to verify text fits in the box below.) The Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes project will provide 6' wide sidewalks constructed of 6" reinforced concrete with steel rebar, and 5' wide (minimum) bike lanes on both sides of Coulter Drive between S College Avenue and E William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158). The project qualifies for the TA Set-Aside Program as a SIDEWALK construction activity. It will improve SAFETY by providing continuous separate pedestrian facilities with improved street crossings along Coulter Drive, including new pedestrian push buttons/assemblies at signalized intersections. It will improve MOBILITY by providing alternative non-motorized routes parallel to a collector street. It will improve REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY by connecting major thoroughfares [including S College Avenue, S Texas Avenue (BS 6-R), and E William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158)] with Stephen F Austin Middle School, St Joseph Catholic School, and Sue Haswell Park. In the future, the proposed Briar Creek Trail also may connect to Coulter Drive, which would provide access to Blinn College and a greenway. This project will improve ACCESSIBILITY by constructing ADA compliant sidewalks and curb ramps according to City and TxDOT standards. It will provide ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS by connecting several residential subdivisions with local schools, a city park, and shopping along S Texas Avenue. It will encourage ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT by supporting walkability, an improved bicycle network, and neighborhood revitalization. RFQ #17-014 (Engineering Services Related to Coulter Drive Reconstruction) selected a local engineering design firm on March 31, 2017 and is currently in contract negotiations, which demonstrates PROJECT READINESS. Municipal utility relocations will take place during the City's reconstruction project. LOCAL FUNDING, including design costs and 25% for construction, will be approved by the City Council, as indicated by the attached Resolution. This project addresses two key PLANNING efforts: the City of Bryan Comprehensive Plan and Safe Routes to School (SRTS). The Sidewalk Plan in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan assigned the highest priority to sidewalks along major thoroughfares, including Coulter Drive. The Hike & Bike Plan in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan shows the existing bike lanes on Coulter Drive (between E 29th Street and E William J Bryan Parkway) and the planned bike lanes on S Coulter Drive (between S College Avenue and E 29th Street). Currently, sidewalks exist along S Coulter Drive adjacent to Stephen F Austin Middle and St Joseph Catholic Schools, and this project will greatly improve pedestrian access to both, with the goal of reducing vehicle traffic. This project demonstrates strong PUBLIC SUPPORT, as evidenced by the attached letters from citizens. Page 2of10 . , 2017 NOMINATION FORM: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM 10. Project Details Provide maps, typical sections, charts/diagrams, and photographs to describe the proposed project and improvements in detail. A location map and a project layout map are a minimum requirement A typical section is requested. The project layout map must be at a scale to clearly identify street names, community landmarks and features, as well as the project's beginning and ending. If the project plans are 30% or more complete, include only example sheets as attachments & provide a weblink for plan review. The construction plans for this project are currently: I Not s~~ed l •I j% complete r--~~~~~~~~~=============-_:___!;:=====;;;:d~---..;__~-. Insert plan review link: I :==~~~~~~~~~"r=;---------------------,==~~~~~===t Primary facility type: I Sidewalks I• I Surface type/material: I Concrete • 1 Does the project include lighting adjacent to a roadway within state-maintained right-of-way? l No ................ J~J Does this project include bridge improvements? I No • 1 Total #of proposed bridges:] ~----,/, Note: If more than one bridge is proposed. identify the bridge with the highest value in the nomination form and identify additional bridges in an attachment. Structural Materials (Deck/ Beams): I (select) t • ! Bridge construction: J (select) ~ .... I Bridge length: ft Bridge width: ft Rail !)'pe: I (select) 1• Label attachment(s) as Project Detafls-Attachment B -No more than 15 pages. 11. Project Priority Ranking by Project Sponsor (Example: 1 of 1, 2 of 4, 1 of 3) 1 of 4 12. Official Project Sponsor Funding Resolution or Ordinance The project sponsor's resolution/ordinance MUST include the following written commitment: "The Project Soonsor supports funding this project as described in the 2017 TA Set-Aside Nomination Form (including the construction budget. the deoartment's 15% administrative cost. and the reauired local match ) and is willing to commit to the project's development. implementation. construction, maintenance. management. and financing. The project sponsor is willing and able to enter into an agreement with the department by resolution or ordinance. should the project be selected for funding." Label attachment(s) as Certification of LG Funding -Attachment C -No more than 10 pages. 13. MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Inclusion Letter if a licable) Is this project located within the boundaries of an MPO? Yes If yes, the nomination package must include a letter from the MPO to the project sponsor indicating their willingness to include the project in the local TIP, if funded. Label attachment(s) as MPO TIP Letter-Attachment D -No more than 2 pages. 14. Public Involvement and Support a. Provide a summary of the public engagement activities and support for this project in the text box below. Include dates, event details, and outcomes. (A bulleted list in the box provided or attachment.) (Limited to 600 characters with spaces: do not add spaces between lines. Keep response within box below.) • 3/28/2017 Introduction of projects during City Cou ncil workshop • 4/4/2017 Outreach to Bryan ISD staff to discuss Safe Routes to School projects • 4/19/2017 Emai ls to request Letters of Support from Neighborhood Associations • 4/19/2017 TxDOT Public Hearing with College Station, MPO, and Texas A&M • 4/20/2017 Presentation of projects to MPO Technical Advisory Committee • 5/8/2017 Outreach to Brazos Valley Council of Governments to request letters of support • 5/16/2017 Resolutions of Support approved by City Council b. Attach letters and other documentary evidence that supports the summary above and/or demonstrates public involvement and/or local support for this project. Note : In addition to support from the local jurisdiction, the project sponsor needs to provide documentary evidence of support for the project from the affected/adjacent property owners. Label attachments as Public Involvement/Support -Attachment f -No more than 10 pages. Page 3of10 2017 NOMINATION FORM: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM 15. Environmental Documentation An environmental document is required for all federally funded transportation projects. Is the project sponsor aware of the need to prepare an environmental document and coordinate environmental impacts with resource agencies? No I... For example, projects proposing work on or adjacent to historic properties of known or potential historic significance require coordination with and review by the Texas Historical Commission's State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Include documentary evidence of known environmental impacts or protected resources. Refer to the 2017 TA Set-Aside Program Guide for environmental documentation guidance. Label attachment(s) as Environmental Documentation-Attachment F -No more than 10 pages. 16. Property Ownership and Acquisition Information All proposals must provide documentary evidence of the project sponsor's property rights by title of ownership, lease, or easement for all property within the project limits. Respond to a, b, & c below: ,,__ ___ _ a. Has the property needed for the project already been acquired? Yes I ... If No -How many parcels will be acquired? Describe in the text box below and/or in an attachment how the property will be acquired. Include a commitment letter from current owner(s) demonstrating a willingness to transfer the property to project sponsor in accordance with state and federal laws. (Limited to 200 characters with spaces) b. Are there any known encroachments? (utilities, fences, adjacent property improvements) If Yes, identify known encroachments. (Limited to 200 characters with spaces) No c. Project property acquired after 1971 must have been acquired in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (Uniform Act). Was property acquired after 1971 in accordance with the Uniform Act? N/A ... If No, describe briefly when and how the property was acquired in the text box below. (Limited to 200 characters with spaces: do not add spaces between lines or paragraphs) Label attachments as Property Ownership/Acquisition-Attachment G -No more than 10 pages. 17. Railroad Support/Right of Entry Letter (if applicable) Does the project encroach or cross railroad (RR) right-of-way (ROW)? No h ... If yes, the project sponsor must include documentary evidence from the railroad in support of the project and, where appropriate, a willingness by the railroad to enter into an agreement; contract with the local government for project implementation and provisions for right-of-entry for project construction. Where applicable, a cost for railroad work must be included in the budget. If the project encroaches or crosses RR ROW, has coordination with the RR begun? (select) • Does this project include rail banked right-of-way? (select) ... Label attachment(s) as RR Right-of-Entry/Support Letter-Attachment H -No more than 10 pages. 18. Local Bicycle, Pedestrian, or other Transportation Plan (if applicable) Is the proposed project included in a local transportation plan? Yes ~, If yes, include as an attachment only the cover and pages of the plan referring to this project. Projects not identified in a local transportation plan must provide documentary evidence of support for the project. Label attachment(s) as Local Plan/Support-Attachment I -No more than 10 pages. Insert transportation plan web/ink: I https:j /docs.bryantx.gov/planning_d evelopmentjBryan_Comprehensive%2tj Page 4of10 2017 NOMINATION FORM: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM Is the proposed project included in a SRTS plan? No • If yes, include as an attachment only the cover and pages of the SRTS plan referring to this project. Projects proposed to improve the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school, that are not identified in a SRTS plan, must provide documentary evidence of coordination between the affected school(s) and the local government. Insert SRTS plan web/ink: lstephen F Austin Middle School does not have a SRTS Plan Label attachment(s) as SRTS Plan/Coordination-Attachment J -No more than 10 pages. 20. Transition Plan for ADA Compliance Does the project sponsor have a Transition Plan for ADA compliance in place? Yes • If yes, include as an attachment only the cover and pages from the plan relevant to this project. Label attachment(s) as ADA Transition Plan-Attachment K -No more than 10 pages. 21. Project Timeline Estimate the amount of time it will take to complete this project (from planning through construction). Estimate the time required for each activity listed below. Several activities should be accomplished concurrently {such as environmental documentation, PS&E development, and property acquisition); as a result, the Total Projected Time Estimate in Months will be less than the total of the time estimated for each activity. Refer to the 2017 TA Set-Aside Program Guide for additional guidance. Label attachment(s) as Project Time/lne-Attachment L-No more than 2 pages. Months Activities 6 I Planning Activities (minimum 6 months) (Include the project in the STIP, execute local agreement with the department, complete required local government training, assign local government and department roles and responsibilities, etc.) __ 1_6_1 Project Design and Plan Preparation (minimum 6 months) (Solicit, select, negotiate, and execute contract(s) for engineering and environmental services. Develop construction Plans, Specifications, and Estimates {PS&E) to state and federal standards. Include time for review by TxDOT District and Division staff, a registered accessibility specialist, and other agencies as needed.) 6 I Environmental Clearance {minimum 6 months) (Complete the Project Scoping Tool, environmental documentation, and appropriate resource studies; consider environmental mitigation, permits, and review by resource agencies). All documentation and exhibits must meet state and federal standards. 0 I ROW Acquisition (acquisitions should occur after environmental clearance) (Include time for surveying, appraisals, title transfer, etc. Only incidental utility adjustments may be eligible.) ....--1-5___,j Project Construction/Implementation (Include time for advertising, procurement of construction contractor, contract negotiations, site preparation, construction, inspection, project close-out, etc.) ---,Other-Describe briefly additional .--~~~~--~-------~-~~----~ milestones not addressed. 31 Total Projected Time Estimate in Months 22. Maintenance and Operation Estimate the annual maintenance and operation costs of the project. If applicable, determine the amount of any anticipated annual income that may be derived from the project. Maintenance:! $5,000 I Operation:~----~ Income: Identify below the entity responsible for project maintenance and operation after construction. Provide the proposed use for any income derived from the project. By Ordinance, adjacent property owners must maintain sidewalk with the City of Bryan having rights to maintain and/or charge owners for work. City will maintain pavement markings and signs. No income will be generated. Page 5of10 2017 NOMINATION FORM: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM - LUl:l~'JIY~:ltJ ITT111It1=-r 23. Itemized Construction Cost Estimate Provide a detailed cost estimate of all construction costs -use appropriate units (SY, SF, LF, LS, EA, etc.) Refer to TxDOrs 2017 TA Set-Aside Program Guide for guidance. ' Click here forTxDOT's Average Low Bid Unit Prices (or visit http://www.txdot.gov/business/letting-bids/average-low-bid-unit-prices.html) Work Activities Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount Mobilization 1 LS $41,700.00 $41,700 Clear, Grub, and Dispose of Vegetation 2 AC $7,290.00 $14,580 Erosion and Sedimentation Control 1 LS $16,700.00 $16,700 I Hydromulch Seeding 6,432 SY $0.53 $3,409 I Traffic Control (urban w/ school zones) 12 MO $1,570.00 $18,840 6" Reinf. Cone. Sidewalk (6' Wide) w/ Steel Rebar 9,648 SY $75.50 $728,424 l I I 6' Sidewalk Curb Ramp (B/CS Detail SW3-00) 30 EA $1,080.00 $32,400 I 6' Sidewalk Curb Ramp (B/CS Detail SW3-04) 30 EA $903.00 $27,090 ' 6' Sidewalk Curb Ramp (TxDOT Type 3) 12 EA $1,560.00 $18,720 I I Remove and Replace Existing Mailbox 25 EA $442.00 $11,050 Remove Existing Concrete Sidewalks, Curb Ramps 1,608 SY $22.80 $36,662 36" Stop Sign (Rl-1) incl. post and base (typ.) 36 EA $491.00 $17,676 ' 2-Street Name Signs (D3-1) 24 EA $249.00 $5,976 ' School Crosswalk Signs (Sl-1, SW16-7P) 4 EA $539.00 $2,156 Bike Lane Sign (R3-17) 42 EA $481.00 $20,202 24" Solid White Stop Line (Type I Thermo., Beads) 432 LF $13.50 $5,832 24" Solid White Stripe (8' Continental Crosswalk) 2,448 LF $13.20 $32,314 Double 4" Solid Yellow Lines w/ Type II-A-A RPM 3,280 LF $4.48 $14,694 ' 4" Solid Yellow Line w/ 4" Broken (10' at 30' spa.) 7,912 LF $4.17 $32,993 4" Solid White Line 14,472 LF $2.19 $31,694 Helmeted Bicyclist Symbol w/ Arrow 42 EA $301.00 $12,642 Bike Box w/ Green Pavement & White Markings 1 EA $1,750.00 $1,750 PED SIGN SEC (LED) (COUNTDOWN) 16 EA $616.00 $9,856 i Ped Pole Assembly 8 EA $1,850.00 $14,800 j Ped Detect Push Button (APS) 8 EA $560.00 $4,480 Ped Detector Controller Unit 8 EA $2,800.00 $22,400 • ' $0 I $0 I $0 ' $0 I $0 I $0 I I $0 $0 I I $0 $0 $0 l $0 I t $0 ' $0 I f $0 $0 ' $0 I $0 (Continued on next page) Subtotal: $1,179,040 I --n --~ ----... _·n ---------to-·· .I Page 6of10 '- 2017 NOMINATION FORM: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM ,... ___ -----' Itemized Construction Cost Estimate (continued) ! Work Activities Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount l $0 I $0 I $0 ' $0 $0 ' $0 i! $0 I! $0 Ii $0 $0 I $0 $0 $0 II $0 II I $0 $0 I $0 $0 I $0 $0 I $0 $0 ll $0 $0 II $0 ii $0 $0 ii $0 11 $0 IF $0 i! $0 $0 IL $0 $0 II $0 $0 f $0 it $0 II $0 l! $0 II $0 $0 r $0 $0 $0 $0 :I $0 $0 $0 Total: $1,179,040 'I ----- Page 7 of10 2017 NOMINATION FORM: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM Ir ----~--·-..... -•-·"-'-"' -~-------~·- 1' 24. Additional Construction-Related Costs: I' Work Activities Quantity Unit Unit Price Amount l I< Construction Materials Testing 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000 1: $0 lj $0 ii $0 $0 I' $0 Ii $0 $0 1: $0 11 $0 $0 $0 " $0 I> $0 II' $0 I $0 I $0 ' $0 $0 $0 $0 l $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total: $15,000 25. In-Kind Contributions: Eligible cost(s) proposed to reduce Local Government Cash Match Identify proposed in-kind contribution costs to be incurred by the project sponsor after project selection and after authorization to proceed. In-kind contributions cannot be used as local match for the department's ' administrative costs. Provide documentation of estimated in-kind costs. Note: In-kind contributions must be reviewed and authorized by the department. For details refer to TxDOT's 2017 TA Set-Aside rules and Program l Guide. I • Label attachment(s) as In-Kind Contributions -Attachment M -No more than 2 pages. Eligible Costs: Activity Cost/Value ' ' Project Design and Plan Preparation (no reimbursement) ($90,000) $0 I ! i l j I Total: $0 --ft ·--+--~ Page 8of10 . ' ... 2017 NOMINATION FORM: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM 26. Project Budget Summary (many lines automatically populate) Total Itemized Construction Cost Estimate (topic 23 total from page 7) 1. $1,179,040 Total Additional Construction-Related Costs (top_ic 24 total, from p_age 8) 2. $15,000 Total Construction Cost Estimate (line 1 + line 2 3. . ~ . ~ . TxDOT Administrative Cost (15% of line 3) 4. $179,106 Total Project Cost Estimate {line 3 + line 4 (Unless EDCP or In-kind authorized)] 5. $1,373,146 Federal Funds Requested (80% Maximum) -of line 5 6. $1,029,860 Local Match Required (20% Minimum l 25% I of line 5 7. $343,287 Project sponsors may increase the required Local Match by adjusting the Local Match percentage in the box above. If the Economically Disadvantaged Counties Program (EDCP) reduction is applied (amount shown in number 8 below) and/or an eligible in-kind contribution is identified (amount shown in line 10), then the federal participation and local match will be fixed at 80% federal participation and 20% local match (refer to calculations numbered 8 through 18). Economically Disadvantaged Counties Program fEDCPJ Reduction (Must be authorized by TxDOTl Construction Cost Eligible for In-kind Contribution 9. Eligible In-kind Contributions fMust be authorized by TxDOTl Total In-kind cost(s) from topic 25 on page 8 or a maximum of 25% of line 9, whichever is less. Total Construction Cost Estimate (l ine 3) Eligible in-kind contributions (line 10) TxDOT Administrative Cost (line 4) Total Project Value Estimate line 11 + line 12 + line 13) 10. Total Federal Partici ation (fixed at 80% of line 14 only when EDCP andLor In-kind apl)lied) Total Local Match (fixed at 20% of line 14 only when EDCP and/or In-kind applied) LG Match Adjustment Total EDCP Reduction line 8 Eligible In-kind contributions (line 10 + Total LG Match Adjustment 17. LG Cash Match R~uired line 16 -line 17) ',. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 18. $1,194,040 $179,106 $1,373,146 $1,029,860 $343,287 $343,287 Page 9of10 2017 NOMINATION FORM: TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM Federal Participation $1,029,860 Construction Costs TxDOT Administrative Costs State Participation (Only if an EDCP reduction is authorized) Local Cash Participation (local match TxDOT adm must be in cash) $343,287 Construction Costs TxDOT Administrative Costs Total Project Value/Estimated Cost $1,373,146 27. Did the project sponsor complete the checklist in TxDOT's 2017 Yes Program Guide? Note: Completing the checklist is recommended not required. The project sponsor may include the completed checklist as part of the nomination package. Label attachment as Nomination Checklist-Attachment N. 28. Project Commitment By submitting an application, the project sponsor commits to execute the local agreement and forward to the department its local match for plan review within one year of selection. Additionally, the project sponsor agrees to produce the complete plan set as outlined in topic 21 Project Timeline or an alternative timeline agreed to by the project sponsor and the department. Note: TA Set-Aside funding is time sensitive; each project must advance to construction within three years from the date of selection by the commission or the project will be terminated. Signature W. Paul Kaspar, PE, City Engineer Print Name and Title Date 9/14/17 979-209-5040 Telephone Number This nomination form must be signed by a representative of the local government who has signature authority. TA Set-Aside Project Submittal Deadline for All Documentation is Monday, May 22, 2017, by 5:00 pm CDT See page 42 of TxDOT's 2017 TA Set-Aside Program Guide for delivery instructions. Page 10of10 Project Location Information -Attachment A List of All Improvement Locations 1. Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes a. From: S College Avenue -96°22'15"W, 30°39'25"N b. To: E William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158) -96°21'21"W, 30°40'19"N 2. N Earl Rudder Freeway (SH 6) E Frontage Road Shared Use Path a. From: Boonville Road (FM 158) -96°20'12"W, 30°40'19"N b. To: Old Reliance Road -96°20'56"W, 30°41'18"N 3. W Villa Maria Road (FM 1179) Shared Use Path and Lighting a. From: N Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) -96°22'38"W, 30°37'51"N b. To: Riverside Parkway (SH 47) -96°24'35"W, 30°36'25"N 4. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Sidewalks a. Kemp Elementary (Saunders Street) -0.38 miles i. From: Bruin Trace -96°23'27"W, 30°41'00"N ii. To : San Jacinto Lane (SH 21) -96°23'11"W, 30°40'46"N b. Sul Ross Elementary School (Broadmoor Drive) -0.45 miles i. From : Parkway Terrace -96°20' 42"W, 30°38'37"N ii. To: S Texas Avenue (BS 6-R) -96°20' 46"W, 30°38'14"N c. Johnson Elementary School i. Oak Grove Lane -0.18 miles 1. From: Wind ridge Drive -96°19'38"W, 30°38'55"N 2. To: Oak Ridge Drive -96°19'49"W, 30°38'52"N ii. Oak Ridge Drive -0.39 miles 1. From: Briar Oaks Drive -96°19'48"W, 30°38'47"N 2. To : Barak Lane -96°19'53"W, 30°39'07"N 11 inch= 6,000 feet Cm· or BRYA." Thf'fH'lt -foJl'f\:'M:. Project Detail -Attachment B Location Map Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lane Cm·oF BRYAN ~(--1~ f.·M! <M-. Project Detail -Attachment B Project Layout Map Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Co ulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes ,,,,,,,,. ... == c , ---re---c ~ Ln a.> >-·-~ II ~ a.> ......... :::::s c::> c :> Project Details -Attachment B Typical Sections .><: ..... -;;; ·-"" ~ "C 0 "' c: Co !!! Q) ..>£ as "' • Q) I c: C-. .$ "' > ·;::: . • Cl Q) c: C-.. .$ "' ·~ Cl "' c: "" !!! "' ""' as ...... "" 14 Coulter Drive (with Buffered Bike Lanes) (50' ... s· I 7' 2· 11· ~----Sidewalk 1 Biko lane 1 1 Drive lane .... . ' 11' 2' 7' 5' . Drive lane Bike lane Sidewalk! I n 0 c ;::;:-ro --. 0 --. ;::· ro V1 Cl. ro ~ OJ " Vl OJ :::J Cl. OJ " ro r-OJ :::J ro Vl 0 ro .... OJ Vl -I I ::t§ )> -· .... n ..,. OJ OJ -n V1 ::i-ro 3 ~ ro -· :::J g .... Vl OJ Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes 3:: ~ , ,,., --=:c----c .. ...... 0 cu >-·-Ii.- t a Ii.-cu ~ ::::::s c::) c :> Ill I •• •• Project Details -Attachment B Typica l Sections ~ "' ~ Q) :'!2 (J) :;,,. "' c ex:. .!2 Cl> -""' ii5 .. • Q) I c:; C-. .!2 ~ ·c:; . • C) 11 ......... 16 1 Coulter Drive (with Buffered Bike Lanes) (60' ROW) ••• ' . 6' 4' 7' 2' 11' 11' 2' 7' 4' 6' I ! i Sidewalk · Bike lane Drive lane Drive lane Bike lane Sidewalk ii i II I ii I n 0 c:: ;:+' ro ..., CJ ..., ;::· ro ~ Cl. ro ~ OJ A" V> OJ :::i Cl. co A" ro r OJ :::i ro V> CJ ro rt OJ V> -I I :a )> -· rt ("\ rt OJ OJ -("\ V'I :::i- ro 3 ~ ro -· :::i g rt V> co Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes I •• •• .... -~ c , re--• ~ .... C> --Cl> c: ca I c: ........ ::::::s I • I ,, ·-== ..., ~ Cl> :::::::--·-........ c • ........ G.) ~ ::::::s c:::> c ::> Project Details -Attachment B Typical Sections ~--.><: ~--"iii <o i ·-·-32 en t .... Q) c: ""' ..!J! ~ co Q) c: b ..!JI Q) ·E: C> Q) c: ..!J! ~ E .a ~ Q) C> "' c: b ..!J! "' .f; C> "' c: i:t> ..!J! Jl? m .... -"" ~ "iii <o ~ Q Q) :2 (/) Turn lanes will be necessary near Stephen F Austin Middle School. 18 Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes 31: c • .... ---F -• • -..o C:S> c:: ·-~ ~ ca r-ii • I , ·-== a.> ==---~ , • ~ a.> I , - :::I c:::» c :> I •• •• I •• •• Project Details -Attachment B Typica l Secti ons ~---"" ~--n! <o " .. ---Q) :52 CJ) i .... Q) c: '° ..!!! .2! i:i5 ~: Q) .ffi ~ Q) . ~ I "' I c: ..!!! ~ Q) -~ C> "' c:: I I ..!!! f-O> c: ~ "' Q_ Q) c: '° ..!!! "' -"' i:i5 .... -@ ...... '° 1 :l2 CJ) Parking may be required to address resident concerns. 19 Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Project Details -Attachment B Photographs Jogger and child crossing E 31st Street at Coulter Drive Pedestrian walking along Coulter Drive across from St Joseph Catholic School 20 RESOLUTION NO.: 3709 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS, TO CERTIFY FUNDING AND SUPPORT FOR THE STATEWIDE 2017 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM NOMINATION FORM WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO RECEIVE FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT THE COULTER DRIVE SIDEWALKS AND BIKE LANES PROJECT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on July 6, 2012 President Barack Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MPA-21); and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2017, the Texas Department of Transportation issued a Call for Projects for funding through the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TA Set-Aside) Program with a submission deadline of May 22, 2017; and WHEREAS, all TA Set-Aside projects nominated by the City of Bryan must be endorsed by the City Council with a commitment to fund the project on a cost reimbursement basis, TA Set-Aside funding will be for construction only and at least 20 percent of project total cost is required as the local match if the project is selected; and WHEREAS, the City of Bryan is proposing 25 percent of project total construction cost as the local match; and WHEREAS, the project cost will be funded from existing bond funds, general fund balance, or future bond funds; and WHEREAS, the Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes project is a high priority, as expressed in the Sidewalk Plan and the Hike & Bike Plan found in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 20 I 7, the Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes project was presented to the public during a joint public hearing with other members of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Active Transportation Advisory Panel (ATAP); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Bryan, Texas that: I. The matters set forth in the preamble are true and correct and incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 2. The City of Bryan will apply for funding through the Texas Department of Transportation to implement the Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes project as the Project Sponsor. The project sponsor supports fiinding this project as described in the 2017 TA Set-Aside Nomination Form (including the construction budget. the department's 15% administrative cost. and the required local match) and is willing to commit to the project 's development. implementation. construction. maintenance, management, and financing. The project sponsor is willing and able to enter into an agreement with the department by resolution or ordinance. should the project be selected for funding . ., .). The City of Bryan agrees to execute an Advanced Funding Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for this project, if awarded. 22 Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Project Details -Attachment B Photographs Pedestrians walking along E 30th St (near Stephen F Austin Middle) from S Ennis St to Coulter Dr (left) Pedestrian crossing Coulter Drive at E 29th Street (right) 21 4. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Bryan, Texas, this 16th day of May, 2017. ATIEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: t~ Andrew Nelso ayor Q-)L2= JKOHampton, City Attorney 23 ..A-_______ B_C_Sj~~M_ .. _P_O_· ____ __ BRYAN I COLLEGE STATION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION May 15, 2017 Ms. Teri Kaplan Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Texas Department ofTransportation 3712 Jackson Avenue Building #6, 5ih Floor Austin, TX 78731 Re: 2017 TxDOT Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) Grant-City ofBryan Dear Ms. Kaplan: On behalf of the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Plaiming Organization (BCSMPO) Policy Committee, which took action on June 10, 2017, to formally endorse the above referenced grant application, I am writing to pledge our support for the City of Bryan's proposal in response to the Call for Projects for the FY 2017 Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside grant funds. As the MPO for Bryan/College Station, we are committed to developing an efficient and effective transportation system for all users and believe the projects the City of Bryan has submitted will help us in achieving that commitment. Should the City of Bryan receive these funds we will take action to amend our local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to reflect the awarding of the T ASA grant. The four projects that the City of Bryan have submitted which include two shared use paths, a sidewalk and bicycle lanes for a signed bicycle route, and a safe routes to school project at three elementary scho-0ls, would help the MPO in meeting its safety and mobility goals for the region. As our urban area continues to grow at a rapid pace, the MPO is constantly seeking ways to ensure that transpo1iation issues do not adversely affect the quality-oflife in our communities. We hope that you will look fa orablyon the City of Bryan's application and projects so that collaboratively we can meet the needs of all of the citizens we represent. Thank you for your consideration and it is our hope you will approve these projects for T ASA funding. l:7::J t5ti'i:1 Rudge Executive Director Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization / 3833 SO\l1l< ftuS AV!NIJ(. SIJIT! 290 f» {979} !60.52l5 WEI.Sm:: 24 ® Active Transportation The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) will hold a public hearing to discuss the planning and development of Active Transportation (bicycle and pedestrian facilities) in the ten county Bryan District. The hearing will include presentations by Texas A&M University, the City of College Station, the City of Bryan, and the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization. The public is invited to attend this hearing. Learn Public Hearing 5:30 p.m. Wednesday April 19, 2017 City of Bryan Council Chamber 300 South Texas Avenue Bryan, Texas 77803 about recent local developments and upcoming projects. There will be ample opportunity for public comment at the hearing. Visit www.txdot.gov and Search: Active Transportation to review the presentations and other information. Written comments may also be submitted in writing to Mr. Maurice Jacob, LA., Bryan District Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, TxDOT, 2591 North Earl Rudder Freeway, Bryan, Texas 77803-519 or e-mail comments to: maury.jacob@txdot.gov. Comments recieved before June 1, 2017 will become part of the Hearing record. Any person requiring special accommodations to attend the hearing is encouraged to contact our office at (979) 778-2165. Si desea informad6n en Es aiiol, uede Damar al (979) 778-9615. 25 Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike lanes Proposed Project 1of4 for the 2017 Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-Aside Program The City of Bryan is applying for grant funding from TxDOT for the project named above. The Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes project would construct 6' sidewalks and 5' bike lanes on both sides of Coulter Drive between S College Avenue and E William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158). The sidewalks and bike lanes would connect to bike lanes on S College Avenue, a proposed bike route on Cavitt Avenue, shopping on S Texas Avenue (BS 6-R), residential neighborhoods, Stephen F Austin Middle School, St Joseph Catholic School, and Sue Haswell Park. Please sign below to indicate your support: Name Address 26 *® I Texas Department of Transportation 2591 NORTH EARL RUDDER FREEWAY, BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 I (979) 778-2165 I WWW.TXDOT.GOV April 20. 201 7 Mr. Paul Ka ·par City Engi neer City of Bryan P .0 . Box !000 Bryan. Texas 77 05 Transportation ltcrnatives Set side Program Project Nomination City of Bryan Dear Mr. Ka ·par: The Texas Department of Tran portation (TxDOT) appreciates your in t ·rcsl in the.: Tran ·portation Alternative Set side Program (TAS ). Our office welcomes your ·fforts to impro ve tra vel along our roadways in the ity of Bryan. If succe · ful in receiving TASA fundi ng th rough your pr jcct nomination. TxDOT will work the c.:it 's repre·entati vcs t deli ver a uccc. sful project. Pl ea ·c contact our T S coordinator in the Bryan District. Ms. Al lison Kur\! itz. at 979-778-9788 if you need any t\1rther assi ·tan cc. Sincerely. Lance W. Simm ons, P. E. Bryan District En gineer OUR VALUES: People • Accoumabillty • Trust • Ho11esty OUR MISSIO : Tllrough collaboration and leaaersnip, we deliver a safe, reliaole, a11d integrated transportation system that enables the m011ement of people and gooas. 27 April 24, 2017 Ms. Teri Kaplan CITY OF BRYAN The Good Life, Texas Style . .,.. From the Desk, of Mike Southerland Bryan City Council Member SMD 4 3401 Parkway Ter, Bryan Texas 77802 979 229 7805, msoutherland@bryantx.gov TxDOT-Public Transportation Division T AP/T ASA Program Manager 125 E. 11th Street Austin, TX 78701 Dear MS. Kaplan: The purpose of this letter is to provide support for the City of Bryan's application for grant funding for both the Safe Routes to School projects and the sidewalks and bike lanes project on Coulter, a TXDOT TA Set-Aside Program. I have been a resident in the area of these projects for 32 years and a City Council Member representing this area for over 9 years. My District, in which these projects are planned for construction, is one of the oldest and most stable in town. There is a great number of schools and many children resident in the District. Many students are not serviced by the bus system and by necessity must walk to school. The need for the projects is definitely a priority for me and the residents. The Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes project is an exciting addition to the area. It will provide 6' wide sidewalks and 5' wide (minimum) bike lanes between S College Avenue and E William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158). The proposed improvements will connect thousands of residents with neighborhoods, a local heavily used park, two schools, shopping on Bryan's major thoroughfare, and planned bike routes and lanes on Cavitt Ave. and S College Ave. The areas identified are critical to child and pedestrian safety. I welcome and thank you in advance for any assistance you may provide to make the routes safe and/or safer for the them. Thank for your concern for our children and citizens. Re~s~ Mike Southerland 28 BRAZOS VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS P.O. DRAWER4128 ·BRYAN, TEXAS 77805-4128 May 8, 2017 Ms. Teri Kaplan Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator Texas Department of Transportation 125 E. 11 th Street Austin, TX 78701 Re: 2017 TxDOT Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program-Colter Drive Sidewalks & Bike Lanes Dear Ms. Kaplan: The Brazos Valley Council of Governments supports the City of Bryan's proposal in response to the Texas Department of Transportation 2017 Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program Call for Projects. The City of Bryan will seek to improve bike and pedestrian connectivity along Coulter Drive, a key corridor linking the large areas of the City of Bryan. Development of the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes will improve the safety of the public who currently ride bicycles in the busy street and walk in the grass and dirt along this busy corridor. This project is significant to us and has been discussed for a number of years. It is our understanding that the project is ready to proceed to a rapid completion of the design plans if funding for the construction is made available through this program. We also understand the project supports the goals of the Bryan College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization. We would like to demonstrate our support of the City of Bryan's continuing efforts towards building and maintaining pedestrian-bicycle-transit amenities in our community and look forward to these type of partnerships to see these needs fulfilled. We hope you consider funding the City's proposal. Sincerely, Michael Parks Assistant Executive Director OFFICES AT 3991 EAST 29rn STREET Email: info@bvcog.org ADMINISTRATION PHONE 979/595-2800 FAX 979/595-2810 29 CMETESTI GA GI EERING, INC. 320 C D • 'OLLE ,E TATIO TEXAS 77845 • 79.690 600 May 17, 2017 City of Bryan, Texas City of Bryan Engineering Services P.O. Box 1000 Bryan, TX 77805 Attention: Mr. W. Paul Kaspar, PE, CFM, ME, City Engineer , Re: Letter Report of Limited Environmental Constraints Assessment in Connection with Proposed Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes from South College A venue to East William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158); Bryan, Brazos County, Texas Dear Mr. Kasper: CME Testing and Engineering, Inc. (CME) is pleased to submit to the City of Bryan, Texas (COB) this letter report of a limited environmental constraints assessment preformed for the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes planned along Coulter Drive in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas. The work described in this report was performed in response to a meeting at the COB Public Works Department on March 3 1, 20 I 7. This letter report discusses possible environmental impacts or the lack of such impacts that we believe will be associated with the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes construction project. The letter report also contains descriptions of ecological conditions along the entire route of the proposed project. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Sources of Project Information Initial information concerning the project was provided in the previously referenced meeting and in a follow-up e-mail from Mr. Matthew R. Dawson-Mather, PE, Civil Engineer of the COB. The e-mail communication transmitted one ( 1) electronic .pdf document pertinent to the proposed project. The electronic document was labeled as Project Detail -Attachment B; Proj ect Layout Map; Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes and illustrated an aerial photograph depicting the general vicinity of the project, along with the proposed alignment of the sidewalks and bike lanes. Additional information concerning the project was also provided in a subsequent e-mail communication from Mr. Dawson-Mather, PE, which transmitted the nomination form for the proposed project, along with various supporting electronic document attachments. 320 Graham Road College Station, Texas 77845 Phone (979) 778-2810 Fax (979) 690-3668 30 Mr. W. Paul Kaspar, PE, CRM, ME, City Engineer; City of Bryan, Texas Letter Report of Limited Environmental Constraints Assessment in Connection with Proposed Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes from South College A venue to East William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158) Bryan, Brazos County, Texas Page 2 1.2 Project Description The location of the proposed project is situated within a heavily developed area located within the central portion of the COB as illustrated on Figure 1 -2016 Aerial Photograph of Project Alignments and Surrounding Areas with Photograph Locations and Orientations of this letter report. The project will extend over a distance of approximately 7 ,200 linear feet along Coulter Drive between the intersections with South College A venue to the southwest and East William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158) to the northeast. In general, the project will involve the construction of sidewalks and bike lanes which wi ll parallel Coulter Drive between the aforementioned intersections or project limits. The sidewalks will be approximately 6- feet wide and the bike lanes will be at least 5-feet wide. All of the construction operations planned fo r the project will take place within the existing right-of-way (ROW) of Coulter Drive, and as a result, the project will not require the acquisition of additional ROW. 2.0 ENVIRONEMNT AL ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW 2.1 Scope or Purpose of Assessment The scope of this environmental assessment consisted of reviewing existing documents and performing field observations to evaluate potential project constraints, if any, related to the construction activities associated with the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes along Coulter Drive. In general, the assessment focused on issues and site conditions pertaining to areas that may be considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW A). More specifically, the assessment addresses the following three (3) potential issues: (l) potential impacts to jurisdictional "waters of the United States" (WOUS), including wetlands and floodplains as administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); (2) potential impacts to threatened or endangered species or the "critical " habitat of such species; and (3) potential impacts to historical sites or to archeological or cultural resources located within the project area. A more detailed discussion of each of these items is presented in the following sections of this report. 3.0 FIELD OBSERVATIONS Field observations along the alignment of the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes were made during a site reconnaissance that was perfo rmed by Messrs. Rick Conlin, PE, and Taylor Stinson, EI, M.S., of CME, on May 16, 201 7. As part of the field observations, representative photographs of the project area were taken and are attach for visualization and reference purposes to the end of this letter report. 3.1 Observations Along Proposed Project Alignment, Including Observed Vegetation and Ecological Settings As previously discussed, the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes along both sides of Coulter Drive will initiate at the intersection with South College A venue (Figure 1 and Site Photograph I) and will extend in the northeasterly direction towards the intersection with William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158) where the proj ect will connect with Sue Haswell Park (Figure 1 and Site Photograph 2). Adjacent facilities of CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. 31 Mr. W. Paul Kaspar, PE, CRM, ME, City Engineer; City of Bryan, Texas Letter Report of Limited Environmental Constraints Assessment in Connection with Proposed Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes from South College A venue to East William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158) Bryan, Brazos County, Texas Page 3 particular interest along the project alignment include Stephen F. Austin Middle School (Figure 1 and Site Photograph 3) and St. Joseph Catholic School (Figure 1 ). In general, the existing ROW of Coulter Drive, which will encompasses the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes, is mostly developed and consists of paved surfaces comprised of either Portland cement concrete (PCC) and hot-mix asphalt concrete (Figure 1 and Site Photographs 1 through 4). Undeveloped areas along the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes alignment consist predominantly of short landscape grasses with occasional clusters of trees, including: Post Oaks (Quercus stellata); Water Oaks (Quercus nigra), Elm (Ulmus sp.) and Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana). CME personnel did not observe any water bodies or drainage way crossings along the southerly and central portions of the project alignment; however, two (2) drainage way crossing were observed along the northerly portion of the project alignment. The northerly most drainage way crossing is associated with Briar Creek (Figure I), and the southerly most drainage way is associated with a tributary of Briar Creek known as Briar Creek Tributary 5 (Figure I and Site Photograph 4). 4.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT 4.1 Documents Review Prior to conducting the field study of the project area, various documents were reviewed and included the following, among others: a topographic map of the project area available through the CO B's geographic information system (GIS) website; a National Wetland Inventory Map (NWIM) prepared by the United States Fish and Wildlife; and a floodplain map of the area prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 4.2 WOUS, Drainage, and Floodplains As previously discussed, two (2) drainage way crossings were identified along the northerly portion of the proposed project alignment during the site visit. These drainage ways were also indicated on the previously referenced topographic map available through the COB 's GIS website. It's worth noting that the topographic map available through the COB GIS website also indicated that the project alignment crosses a drainage way known as Burton Creek. The Burton Creek crossing is illustrated near the southerly portion of the project alignment (immediately northeast of the intersection between Coulter Drive and Texas A venue). Based on our field observations, the drainage way of Burton Creek appears to be mapped incorrectly. More specifically, the actually starting point of the Burton Creek drainage way appears to be located approximately 200 feet to the east of the proposed project alignment. The drainage ways of Briar Creek and Briar Creek Tributary 5 are the only locations along the project alignment where impacts to WOUS may occur. However, our field observations indicated that the proposed side walk and bike lane routes will mostly occur over pre-existing structures, i.e. the top of existing culverts, CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. 32 Mr. W. Paul Kaspar, PE, CRM, ME, City Engineer; City of Bryan, Texas Letter Report of Limited Environmental Constraints Assessment in Connection with Proposed Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes from South College A venue to East William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158) Bryan, Brazos County, Texas Page 4 at both of the drainage way crossings. At most, these crossing might require short extensions of the existing cul vert; however, these extensions are not anticipated to exceed 20 feet at each crossing. There are approximately 54 categories ofNWPs that address typical, recurrent activities ranging from boat ramps to mining activities to residential developments, among others. One of the activities addressed by the NWPs is transportation ro utes as di scussed in Nationwide Permit 14 -Linear Transportation Project (NWP 14). NWP 14 is intended to apply to "Activities required for the construction, expansion, modification, or improvement of linear transportation projects (e.g., roads, highways, railways, trails, airport runways, and taxiways) ... " Since the word "trails" is mentioned in the definition of transportation projects in NWP 14, and based upon our understanding of the proposed project, it is our opinion that the activities for the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes construction project may be pursued in accordance with NWP 14, provided that the impacts to the WOTUS associated with the project will be within the limits establi shed by NWP 14. NWP 14 states that a proj ect may be performed under its provisions if the impacts to the WOTUS are less than 0.5-acre. The permit also states that pre-construction notification to the USACE is not required if impacts associated with each single and complete crossing are less than 0.1-acre and less than 300 linear feet. As previously discussed, potential extensions of the existing culverts at each drainage way crossing are expected to be less than 20 linear feet, and as a result, the project will result in impacts to WOUS that are significantly less than a 0.1-acre and 300 linear feet. Therefore, we believe that the project may proceed under the provisions of NWP-14 without any formal notification to the USA CE. 4.3 Wetlands The previously referenced NWIM for the area of the project as published by the USFWS was consulted to determine if presumptive wetlands were present within the boundarie s of the proposed project. The NWIMs indicated that two (2) presumptive wetlands cross the proposed project alignment. The northerly most presumptive wetland appears to correspond with the previously referenced drainage way known as Briar Creek. The southerly most presumptive wetland appears to correspond with the previously referenced drainage way known as Burton Creek. As previously discussed, CME did not observe any drainage ways along the southerly portion of the project alignment, and as a result, we have concluded that Burton Creek is not mapped correctly on several of the desktop review maps searched as part of this limited study. It's worth noting that the presumptive wetland maps did not identify the drainage way associated with Briar Creek Tributary 5; however, the site visit and the previously referenced topographic map did indicate that Briar Creek Tributary 5 does cross the proposed project alignment. 4.4 Floodplains and Drainage Our review of existing floodplain information in the area of the proposed project indicated that a small segment of the project alignment will be located within the 100-year floodplain of Briar Creek. In addition, a very small portion of the southerly portion of the project alignment will be located within the 100-year floodplain of Burton Creek. In general, the floodplain crossing will be constructed on the top of existing or CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. 33 Mr. W. Paul Kaspar, PE, CRM, ME, City Engineer; City of Bryan, Texas Letter Report of Limited Environmental Constraints Assessment in Connection with Proposed Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes from South College Avenue to East William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158) Bryan, Brazos County, Texas Page 5 proposed drainage culverts or will match existing grades. As a result, we do not believe that there will be any permanent impacts from additional flooding or disruption of existing drainage patterns associated with the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes construction. Therefore, the proposed project will not alter the boundaries of the existing floodplains. 5.0 LIMITED ENDANGERED SPECIES ASSESSMENT 5.1 General Threatened or endangered species are protected under Section 7, Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended; 50 CFR 402, and 50 CFR 17, Subpart I. Regulatory authority for Section 7 is governed jointly by the USACE and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Austin, Texas. The objective of the USFWS is to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by federal agencies do not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed endangered or threatened species, or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat of such species. The USFWS can elect to allow a project to proceed even if threatened or endangered plant or animal species are adversely impacted by project activities. However, this taking or "take" of plant or animal species will typically require a permit and may in some cases require mitigation activities or other compensation. The following sections present the methods and findings of our limited assessment as to whether such threatened or endangered species or the critical habitat of such species appeared to be present within the boundaries of the proposed project. 5.2 Review of Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Rare Species and Their Critical Habitat The initial phase of our limited assessment of threatened/endangered species consisted of a review of listed threatened, endangered, and rare plant and animal species in Brazos County, Texas. We reviewed the current information provided from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's (TPWD's) Wildlife Annotated County Lists of Rare Species from the TPWD website. That list included all federally listed threatened and endangered species as well as rare species in the state as determined by the TPWD. The current TPWD list of all threatened, endangered, and rare species can be fo und at the TPWD website (http://www.tpwd.texas.gov/gis/rtest/). At the time of this letter report, the TPWD list was last revised on July 25, 2017. 5.3 Site Visit to Make Observations of Possible Threatened, Endangered and Rare Species and Their Critical Habitat As previously discussed, CME personnel performed a walking survey of the project site to make observations of the presence or absence of threatened, endangered, or rare species. The site visit was also made to determine if critical environmental habitat features necessary for supporting each of the listed TPWD species existed within the boundaries of the proj ect. CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. 34 Mr. W. Paul Kaspar, PE, CRM, ME, City Engineer; City of Bryan, Texas Letter Report of Limited Environmental Constraints Assessment in Connection with Proposed Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes from South College A venue to East William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158) Bryan, Brazos County, Texas Page 6 5.4 Summary of Observations and Conclusions The results of our limited endangered species assessment, which consisted of a review of existing published information and observations made along the alignments of the proposed sidewalks and bike paths, indicated that none of the threatened, endangered, or rare species as listed by the TPWD were found to be present within the limits of the proposed project. In addition, we did not observe critical habitats associated with any of the indicated species within the existing roadway ROW, which defines the project boundaries. Based on our review of available information and the previously described limited field observations, it is our opinion that the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes project wi ll not impact any of the listed threatened, endangered, or rare species or their associated critical habitat. 6.0 ARCHEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT CME reviewed the Texas Historic Sites Atlas database that was created by the Texas Historical Commission (THC). The Texas Historic Sites Atlas is a database that is searchable via the internet (http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/Map). The database contains information on more than 300,000 sites, surveys, and nomination forms for National Register of Historic Places properties. The database was created from TH C's in-house files, private preservation consultants, state agencies, and universities throughout Texas. CME's review of THC database did indicate the presence of historical sites that are located immediately adjacent to the proposed project, i.e. 13 residential sites and one (1) historical maker site; however, all of these site are located outside of the existing roadway ROW. Therefore, the proposed project will not impact any of the previously identified sites. In addition, we note that the proposed project is located within a heavily urbanized area of the City of Bryan. There has been extensive ground disturbance in the area due to the construction of existing roadways, utilities, residences, commercial businesses, and educational/sanctuary facilities. None of the existing construction has reported encountering any evidence of historic or culturally significant sites. Consequently, CME believes that the likelihood that undisturbed cultural resources or sites of historical significance are present within the limits of the project boundaries is quite low. 7.0 CONCLUSIONS In general, the proposed project involves the construction of sidewalks and bike lanes within the existing ROW of Coulter Drive which is located within a heavily urbanized area situated in the central portion of the COB. The proposed sidewalks and bike lanes alignment will cross two (2) drainage ways known as Briar Creek and Briar Creek Tributary 5, which are both be characterized as WOUS. However, CME anticipates that these crossing will mostly be performed across pre-existing box culverts. The box culverts at these crossing may require short extensions; however, maximum extensions at each drainage way crossing are not anticipated to exceed 20 feet. Therefore, there is a potential the WOUS may be impacted CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. 35 Mr. W. Paul Kaspar, PE, CRM, ME, City Engineer; City of Bryan, Texas Letter Report of Limited Environmental Constraints Assessment in Connection with Proposed Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes from South College A venue to East William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158) Bryan, Brazos County, Texas Page 7 by the two (2) drainage way crossings; however, the impacts will be minimal and can be performed under a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 14 -Linear Transportation Projects. NWP 14 indicates that the USACE must be notified ifthe impacts at single and complete crossings exceed 0.1-acre in aerial extent. A regional condition of the USACE Fort Worth District also requires for notification if stream impacts exceed 300 linear feet at a single and complete crossing. It is our opinion that the proposed project will have impacts that are less that 0.1-acre and that stream impacts will not exceed 300 linear feet. Therefore, pre-construction notification will not be required for the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes project along Coulter Drive. Furthermore, we do not believe that there are any threatened, endangered, or rare species or the critical habitat of such species present within the boundaries of the project. Similarly, we believe that it is highly unlikely that any significant historical or cultural resources will be disturbed by the proposed project since the project is located within an already urbanized area and will essential only involve surface construction. 8.0 CLOSING We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to have worked with the City of Bryan on this project and look forward to continuing our working relationship in the future. Please do not hesitate to contact us at (979) 690-3600 if you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter. Sincerely, CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. M. Frederick Conlin, Jr., P.E. Senior Engineer MFC:GTS Enclosure: Letter Report, Figures and Photographs Via e-mail: [Pkaspar@bryantx.gov] a or Stinson, EI, M.S. Project Engineer CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. 36 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. PREPARED FOR: 320 Graham Road College Station, TX 77845 Office: (979) 690-3600 Fax: (979) 690-3668 Website: cmetesdng.com City of Bryan, Texas fi\ Site Photograph ~ Location/Orientation NOTES: l. Drawing Adapted From Aerial Obtained From: Google Earth (20 l 7) 2. Aerial Date: l 1/19/2016 2. Date Obtained: 05/17/2017 2016 Aerial Photograph of Project Alignment and Surrounding Areas with Photograph Locations and Orientations 05/17/2017 DATE PROJECT: GTS DRAWN BY Proposed Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes 57076 1" = 2,000' PROJECT NO. SCALE 37 MFC CHECKED BY 1 FIGURE CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. Limited Environmental Assessment-Site Photographs Coulter Drive Sidewalks & Bike Lanes; Bryan, TX Site Photograph 1. Photograph taken near the intersection between Coulter Drive and South College Avenue looking in the northeasterly direction along Coulter Drive. Note the heavily urbanized surroundings depicted in the photograph. Construction activities would essential occur in previously disturbed areas. (Photograph Date: 5/16/17) Site Photograph 2. Photograph taken near the intersection between Coulter Drive and William J Bryan Parkway (FM 158) looking in the northeasterly direction towards Sue Haswell Park. The photograph was taken from an existing deteriorating sidewalk that will be replaced as part of the proposed project. (Photograph Date: 5116117) Site Photographs -Page I 38 CME TESTING AND ENGINEERING, INC. Limited Environmental Assessment -Site Photographs Coulter Drive Sidewalks & Bike Lanes; Bryan, TX Site Photograph 3. Photograph taken near Stephen F. Austin Middle School looking in the southwesterly direction along Coulter Drive. Once again note how the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes project wi ll mostly consist of paving over previously disturbed areas or grasses medians. (Photograph Date: 5/16/17) Site Photograph 4. Photograph taken just north of the proposed crossing of Briar Creek Tributary 5 looking in the southwesterly direction along Coulter Drive. As can be seen from the photograph, there appears to be plenty of room outside of the existing roadway for the proposed sidewalks and bike lanes to cross pre-existing box culvert structures. The same is true for the Briar Creek crossing located approximately 800 feet to the northeast. (Photograph Date: I 0/24116) Site Photographs -Page 2 39 I SV/!le"!S rHtit!O ALlP/r/CN D,.lf! JI#, p.a· '" -#"'/-.... ~ . • . . f >Y/NT.Ck'S AOOIT/ON .o...e 3" ,,.,.,.,, t:Cr6 11-10 -_,a Q.R. '1"'.I Pill.,.,,. 11 -4 -A# ... :t, SUB£RS S ECOND ..4/LJITIOY o,,e :S" PG . .S-1!1 IZ•/t;;-/S scnlc : /"a 100' 31) 40 I l I \ ·\ l ,,...._ . .!<: ;,ti_ ... r~--·-.. ~- ------· --· __ )__ ___ _ . :~ ---'-'---··------1 _. ~-. ..! _______ ! ________ ---.. L __ _l_:~-- ~ SOUTH l-llGHVVA. y ::.··· ·. --:-·-·----...., .. N06 ... ----.-~----·-·-· '" -'·-··-------"· --------L._._J _____ J _____ J__:__ _____ :_r ___ __; _______ 1_~=~~~f- CA VI T TS Hl611WA Y NO 6 A DD. D .R . B4 P .7 c 83 JVL Y 17, /J33 Sc "'/e . · I "z 100. \· ' . --·-· 1-·-· ---~-------·:---i •U:otl> .•• P ;, ... .... ;-...= ... ~ '; -~ . ··~.~. ~ . .. .· ..... \./'' ,\ ;'l/ '!. .... , ,,,,· lJ.____ __ ·,,.{:>~____J· I !.____ __ ":f' 19 a , ••• fl,. I&> ~ ,.~q I ~ /(J /!j 2 .Z5 ;z.z ":. 2.1 ;zo : ..... 17 14 I 5 ' ~~d.,, ~ " • 8 19 ~ I 4 -I 15 " 12. ~ s ~ . ,,., ~ II fl) " ~ /5 10 7 l.Z q 9 ~ ,. ,d .. lJ ' ! -•• _______ , _ _, ··• . , . .....,-.-·---0.-...... ,. t -----·---- .:IOllTN NALF IWNTER £.srATE Suao1v;s10N Z •"o Rh/ll1P• L•a711• Zf!!J,-0~01 Coun+y , 77r,,,-o,•. , , Vol, P ~~ ~j~.'. .:sea let ,, •• ,oo' " l t· I. ' : /':ol ;,, o.>.R. c..,v :lv -p.-,-1.~r··· in ~~~~.~Js"''-i . ·:, • ~ L .( ''.·· -~-. ·.:_?;.\".:.~~· ' , . \ I Bl -··-------..-.---~----J, __ ,_i _· ____ ... ~L_._ -• ---·---~ --· CAVITTS SOt/TH!vlORE ADO. D..R. /04 ..Sc.o/'1 : /":::::: 100·-o •· ( JuLY, /!MO If'~·' Ao< ... .., . ..., .... 11··-.n;a; tf..,. ·~ ... ~ • ~9 7 6 s-+ 3 .It i ~· 8 .,. ~ 5' + 3 2 ~6 s <I-:I l!: I ,,...... ,,....... ~ . ~ . • c . fn.1 G"Z,/ -r.u .r.u'' 'iTst.' .St~t ~ "" ..... IEJ.Y:t $S:I. -$/!~ k1' ~9 /<J Ii 12. 15 II-l:!r ,, " ~9 '" /J Ill. 13 /<I-, .. -16 .!,7 8 'J fO II II!. ti> ~ .Sl,. IZ..t .n,I Sl/ rt.I .,,,, SY.£ -~ ·• B .., c;( ~s .,. 3 R. I b G .5' "f ' /') ::::====================~==:::::::!.s.r.r J ..... -1--·--·--· -···· _ ... [~-~ ..... ~-r ---.. -·--·~· , ~·-~-... i ______ ...,i,. ...:.. ~ - 43 · ·------~ _____ J ___ :_ L--~---'-:··-~·-------1__~--·~-l ____________ ..:.. ____ .J.....___: ___ : --'------~-· --~~----· ~--L--~~--_ _J__i_ __ i -~---ti.-.t _J .... .rz 13 14-IS 16 17 18 19 zo LAMAR STREET ;;, 1-f. IS-16 17 /8 /9 MONROE STREET l..lo-L"I - 1-1 I I I I i ! I I I I I I L ________ _J •' ' ~ zo I /J /4 IS 16 17 >·1'. 13 /.,. 15 /6 17 "' ~ 18 I 9 2 o /B 19 20 ~ "" 10 12. I ' t H I: 1,1,1+1+1+1! STREET L C/1 ! . .2' _:;1..J.F--Dfi//._;; '!N O~ . Pfl/LL/P 'S A/JDIT!ON (CAVITT'S SU8-0IVJS!ON OR _r-,~/ 1·9F BR YAN HE I G HTS) D .R . E 3 Py -sso /;!-/-1891 Seals : /"~/OO' . I I I . ' ._.;._·.-.. ... --....i:....-.•....... ·~·-·..._,,_, _______ _;_ -• L.:........_ ____ ,_ I 0 I , •, .· r ·' ' .:·. ·:.i.~----.. --_.r_ ___ ·""·-·-····--~- L \, \ \ " \ ~ l .. : .. ( 0 ,.,, ,_ ~-~----·-·----·· j_ ~---: ___ , --~ -~·-·-•••~ --~_.-.!..._. ________ ------~---1--.. --A·-------i----~-~-·-~----L DRIVE .... _. ·--.. . l ... . .. j • - ((t7Jt~~- EASTS/Of RC-SURVEY AOOIT!ON TO Tl-IE CITY or BRYAN Vol. 96 Alye 466 Mo,r 25, 1938 SCALE /":::: /00' '· •-.,,,,j -'/" I/ii \ ~· ·-~ ... -·-----.------~. · .. ,· . '· .. ·' ' . . ._._._,' ' ,:....··_ ... _ .... ...:= .. _-_,_._ ... _. -'· 1:....· _.~...i.r_· ..... r_·_· _· _·1_· -'..:..1_-.;_;, _ _,__, -, i • ... ~ ' ~ • g ... ~ . I r· ,,,, '----....J ..,. '-------' .__ _ __, f" s. OIL..L.ARD ~ t; ~ IA.< I '" 1'." 1----.!----.I \I) ... 2 "~(:[) n.r, .. 4 / t(4 A4; ~ .T /" OJ ,-, ... ,, C\/ " ,, " 7 / ~ ....-:5 .,,,,.,. .. " -~ .s JG 14 rs /2 ~ "" ,__ __ _._ __ --Jl'\j --" II ~ -· 7 /0 STREET 'r6<Jll>' , .. , fit. ¢': ·~ I If I /!. ,, ' j f9 1a 4 II .,.,.. '" ~ " ~ ~· 7 e ~ ,;a.; ,.. [790· , •• JV ~ ~ I 2 tt. u Jr , .• _ -... ~ .. (; ~D 7 8 II (/!. ~ ~t ~ ~f'lo l ..ss~ . .,. 'u ,..1 LI :to 19 /8 17 '"' IS" I#-I /, ,.+; ~ ~ .. L COULTER's EAST 510£ ADDITION salt£: /"<:: /oo' ~ ~ +--~--'I ~-~~~I 46 /!>Z.. .1 1. 1· '· j . l .. .. ~ ~ . CtHTIFtt.'4Tt DI' OWS8!tSUTP A.ND DtDIC..ATfO.V to.·c.u~ """..,."'tNZllf ~;!;W'""~ OI ~~=".;~~~..::i_•:;:: = ~.::~~\lr"t\!k..f'om..~~~.i~~M ol(lllM[l'Vtfli'V:·~ .... :.;\fllfl!!:lol•"W'Jl!H, ,.;.\lt -~·-·-·------- ~ l'Q.t(l'~·ffe'~---------- ~ AL1NDO J;NG!NEERS AND PLANNER ', JNC. ~s:n SOUTH TEXAS A.VE .. SUITE 21.3 BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 979-846-8868 '----------------·-··---------------------------- -l~l"M "''IC~r......lf!.~ a..1111111. .... ~o:».ll(il .... ,.ol) ... ~<1.,,. .... -~ ·~~ c;•W...#t\olilll\. IU$:l~.Ja. : ~Ute. ~""..::".:":...~" .... # .a:>o>l•tlJtU.SM".JltAd) .. " .. -....~.~~u..""" -~~~ .... ~·~"""'~·"""-_..~/,If foiJ)(jt j f(:t.U<-~)JIOOO:-d'*'""'"~ -T.~~ ~IJ.\a~r~ .,..l'-.....:.tllfo/11~.~ .... ,.~.,., u.!:;r~--~"'.-!it '/t'H~~- FI VAL rVOODB/JVE aio;:t..L~ ff-S~~~~~~i..,.~~:$J'~a ~=-~~J.t,.~~..J:t"~ ~W••a.,..1•~ -=--ll•f".'W:~.,.,~,~-~lloOof(lt .... ~-C:'F""""-~~ ~i:z=~!~h.!~~.;t,;;-~lr.,A,:t)t. •ll'tClito..•!!Qlllll.~(l)<A"l'"N!I ~'t_..,..f .... t.~~'°""IQ-W!l(Jt'-~ t::"'l~'f.' ~,qf'.!'f .. ~'<191 ..... &:i~~l:-~~~~~:£l~%~~;-'· ~~...,~~.~l.1'9. ~W6'Jnr(,~N~IW~~dll~~.-....~ ~~~~~~~·-'"'-' ...... war.c.'~~ ~ .......... ~..,.,--""""'~'<)IO~~fll#J"t..1t, ~u·~·~ .. ;f:it"a....,.r-~~~'1-• tt.<IJ!Jo'"'"' -. ....... "*"'°•at..IOll"Y..--..-- ~---=!.+VP~~--~. a11ot».n , ~,_ Q"4t.-i ········1-n.-----;i;---;:;if~I :-~ !!~ t~i~! J ~,.. ~ , .......... "'*~"" ' c.:;;~....;;;.....;;;.·=·~·.;;_~....;;;..;;_~~----l PLAT COURT N O. 47 1 .! '·'·' .. • ~ § j " +:> 'f 00 ! i PARK S T/?cf T I I<)"' w~ ~~ {;j () "' ~ !!?. ~ 0 ~ ~ ..... 6 :f ~ Q: ~ ~ ~ ~ .&" -------~---------] 14;i -i JOHN FETTLE ADDITION NO. 2, BLOCKS l{'E TO CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS DR 98 /j 6 2 7 JAN. 17, 193 9 5cole : /"=:/00' DRAFTNAN's NOTE: 8 /oc.I< I Cop/at/ /"ro1n ,o/ot- re:cortleQ oQ pqye 41/.S: Vo/.89~ De.eel r~cord~ o/" firqzos CounT1; Te.>rc¥.s. D. rq//s of" w/cl~~iv>y o~ Norrl'J ~...s.,. end oF Cou/r~r .01"1Ye nor Qr'-#tl q-~/e. l. I r . v i. 1~ r: I 1; I t f !; I ! . , ~® I Texas Department of Transportation 2.591 N EARL RUDDER FWY I BRY N, TE ' AS 77110'-51901(979) 778-2165 1 WW~ .T DOT.GOV Mr. Paul Kaspar City Engineer City of Bryan P.O. Box 1000 Bryan, Texas 77805 May2, 2017 RE: TxDOT Letter of Consent for a project propos.ed in TxDOT's 2017 Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program Call for Projects that is within or affecting state-maintained right-of-way Dear Mr.Kaspar: The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) offers no objection to the City of Bryan's nomination of the following 4 projects in TxDOT's 2017 Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TA Set-Aside) Program Call for Projects: 1. Coulter Drive Sidewalk and Bike Lanes (FM158 to S. College -crossing BS 6-R) 2. State Highway 6 -North Earl Rudder Freeway E Frontage Road Shared Use Path (Boonville to Old Reliance) 3. FM1179 (W. Villa Maria Road) Shared Use Path and Lighting (FM2818 to SH47) 4. Safe Routes to School -3 elementary campuses -Saunde(s Street (Bruin Trace to SH 21)., Broadmoor Drive (Parkway Terrace to BS 6-R), Oak Grove (Windridge to Oak Ridge) and Oak Ridge (Briar Oaks to Barak Lane) If selected for TA Set-Aside funding, the projects must be developed in accordance with TxDOT procedures and meet state a.nd federal guidance. Final project plans must be reviewed and approved by TxDOT. If selected for funding, the City of Bryan wlll be required to commit to the projects' development. implementation, construction, maintenance, management, and financing by executing an Advance Funding Agreement for a Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Project with TxDOT. The City of Bryan understands that the TA Set-Aside is a cost reimbursement program and that the City of Bryan must commit to fund a minimum 20% local match for eligible construction costs plus 20% of TxDOT s administrative fee and be responsible for any cost overruns. In addition, the City of Bryan will be responsible for maintaining the completed improvements 'for a period of time commensurate with the federal investment as outlined in TxDOT TA Set- Aside rules. It may be necessary to execute or update a Municipal Maintenance Agreement or Advance Funding Agreement for Voluntary Maintenance By a Local Government (On System) with T. DOT. Thank you for coordinating with our office, TxDOT looks forward to working with the City of Bryan. Please continue to coordinate with our staff as this project moves forward. Should you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact Allison Kurwitz, TxDOT Bryan District TA Set-Aside Coordinator at 979-778- 9788. Sincerely, ~~P~.·~~.~·-~~~----........ , District Engineer Bryan District OUR GOALS MAINTAIN A SAFE SYSTEM • ADDRESS CONGESTION • CONNECT TEXAS COMMUNITIES • BEST IN CLASS STATE AGENCY An Equal Opportunity Employer 49 Ill BlUEPRINT 2040 BRYAN* TEXAS 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ---------------------~---------------------! I I . J l f ------------------------------------------! -.....-___,__....,.. -~ I Sidewalk Master Plan A Sidewalk Master Plan was also established with the 2006 Comprehensive Plan with the goal of providing better pedestrian connectivity between older neighborhoods, for citizens that utilize mass transit, and school children that walk to school. Since this time, the City of Bryan has made numerous improvements to accomplish this goal. The updated Sidewalk Master Plan is shown in Figure 23. Shared use paths and trails, in addition to sidewalks, are shown on this plan. Shared use paths can be thought of as wide sidewalks that serve both pedestrians and bicyclists. Tra ils can be thought of as off-street sidewalks located in parks or open spaces. Unpaved trails are not shown on the Sidewalk Plan, but are included with the Hike and Bike Plan. Major changes to the 2006 Sidewalk Master Plan include: • Division of the City into single member districts Highlighting of properties owned by Texas A&M University (maroon), Blinn College (light blue), and CHI St. Joseph Hospital (blue) Update of sidewalks constructed since 2006 • Addition of sidewalks for the Castle Heights and Villa West neighborhoods, based on citizen input Extension of Leonard Road sidewalks for future development • Connection of Thornberry Drive and Boonville Road sidewalks via FM 1179 • Connection of Old Hearne Road and Waco Street via Tabor Road to reflect future realignment of Waco Street Extension of Old Hearne Road from Glacier Drive to Stevens Drive to fill gap Different colors reflect priority for construction, which also correlates to the availability of external funding. The colors were chosen by City Staff in 2006: Dark Blue - Existing sidewalks are shown in blue. These sidewalks vary in width from 3' to 10'. Eventually, 3' and 4' wide sidewalks will need to be widened to the City 5' minimum standard. Red -Proposed sidewalks along major thoroughfares are given the highest priority for construction. Thoroughfares are collectors and arterials judged by City Staff to be vital transportation corridors. Green -Short gaps in the sidewalk network that could be constructed by the City or developers are assigned the second highest priority. Short gaps are subjectively defined, but generally less than 1000 feet in length or two blocks in dense areas. CHAPTER 6: TRANSPORTATION I 179 Light Blue -Sidewalks giving access to schools are given the third highest priority. These routes are based on the general knowledge of City Staff, which in some cases was influenced by citizen input or comments by the Bryan Independent School District. Yellow -Routes to and within parks are given the fourth highest priority. These routes typically provide park access to neighborhoods and schools. Orange -Gaps in the sidewalk network that exceed the length limits for Short Connectivity sidewalks are given the lowest priority. These routes would improve pedestrian connectivity, but may be difficult to fund. 51 l.n N CHAPTER 6: TRANSPORTATION I 180 ( ' ' ... ' """ ,,.~··"" /" I ,_ /-_, I / I \ I i en cJTY oF B RYA J:> DI Goo' Ufe. 'b-SIJlt SIDEWALK PLAN Legend -Ex,.1in~ Sidewalks Pnonly of Proposed Si<lew~ll<• -Thorougllfore Assoelaled -Short Distance Connec:liV.(y -School A»ociated --P111la;Associal<d -Long Otstance Connectrvily • SUNN CAMPUS .PARKS • TAMU PROPERTY BOUNDARY c-·····1 SINGLE MEMEBER DISTRICT 1 LJ SINGLE MEMEBER DISTR!CTZ CJ SIN<llE MO.~EBER DISTRICT 3 • __ 1 SINGlE MEMEBER DISTRICT 4 SlNGlE MEMEBER DISTRICT5 .;; 81$0 SCHOOLS 0 BRYAN CITY UMITS LJ COLLEGE STATION CITY UMITS -S~ETS RAILROADS Figure 23: Sidewalk Master Plan + 0 3.000 6,000 17,000 Feet t---1--+-+--I-+-+-........... Hike and Bike Plan The 2006 Comprehensive Plan states that the City of Bryan has great potential to increase bicycle transportation due to its sizeable bicycling population and active bicycle advocacy groups. A plan for bikeway system development was created as a result. The plan showed potential locations for on-street and off-street bicycle facilities. Figure 24 shows an expanded hike and bike plan that was created by City Staff. The bicycle routes in this plan were determined by several factors, including: • General citizen input • Location of public schools, parks, and points of interest (e.g ., downtown, Blinn College) Connectivity to College Station bicycle facilities Test rides of proposed bicycle facilities by City Staff Figure 24 shows the plan for the entire City; with the City divided into 5 single member districts. City parks are shown in dark green and BISD schools are represented by building symbols with flags. Properties owned by Texas A&M University, Blinn College, and CHI St. Joseph Hospital are highlighted in maroon, light blue, and blue, respectively. Existing bicycle facilities are shown as solid lines. Proposed facilities are shown as dashed lines. Different colors reflect the type of facility: Blue -Bike routes are on-street facilities where the roadway is shared by bicycles and vehicles. Bike routes may be appropriate for low-speed, low-volume, wide roadways. Bike routes are typically designated by bike route signs and sharrow markings. Red -Bike lanes are on-street facilities that include some form of separation from traffic by pavement markings, such as lane lines or a buffer area . Bike lanes are typically 5' or 6' wide and may be appropriate for streets with moderate vehicle speeds and volume. Signage for bike lanes may include directional/guide signs and parking restrictions. Yellow -Future bike routes are located along unconstructed roadways. This designation is used as a placeholder until the roadway can be built and traffic behavior can be determined. Maroon -College Station and Texas A&M University (TAMU) bike facilities are shown to provide connectivity between the two cities. Many Bryan residents are employed by TAMU or are enrolled students. There is CHAPTER 6: TRANSPORTATION I 181 also a large population of students co - enrolled at TAMU and Blinn College. Green -Cycle tracks (bike lanes) include a horizontal or vertical barrier from traffic as well as separation from pedestrians. Vertical separation is typically achieved using elevated bike lanes with a curb. Horizontal separation can be accomplished by delineators, planter boxes, or parked cars. Cycle tracks may be appropriate for st reets with high speeds and volumes or areas with significant pedestrian traffic. Black -Shared use paths can be thought of as wide sidewalks along roadways that are shared by pedestrians and cyclists. They are typically a minimum of 10' wide. In addition to commuting, these may be attractive for recreation. Shared use paths may be appropriate for streets with high speeds and volumes. Brown -Trails are off-street facilities that may be thought of as wide sidewalks; however, some trails consist of crushed granite instead of concrete pavement. They may be shared with pedestrians. Trails are usually constructed in parks or greenways. 53 CHAPTER 6: TRANSPORTATION) 182 en c1TY oF BRYA J:) 11i<GoollJfi, T•tHJSlylt HIKE & BIKE PLAN Legend vuantto -'Bi.l:ela~I -Dit•Aou:.i -GoCS•'TAMIJ _,..,,,$~" -·fi.ol\SWrfoK• -Stl11edUHP.a--:h PRoPOS.ED .. -·&'.UROiltt .ftiQRoiii.(F11""") • -~ t.oCSiTMIU .. -.cyue r,1<-., ·-·~at•dVHP ·-T1..- • SUN~i CA).tPUS 153 ....... • TAMU PROPERTY IOUNt>.utY COB SINOlE MEMBER OISTRICTS [._; $1.'fOl.f MeMteu OtStfUCt I Q Sf~Gl.EMEMfSEROj.Sf!llCT 2 L SitiOLE EMEOE.A OtsTRfel'l r..:.SttiGlEMEtJf.!ER Dts'TIUCT4 .W.Gl! uoreeeA OtSTRICT s i. •lSO SCl<OOlS ~ i.l\YA.t.f CrtY LIMITS W oou.EGE &TAnoo CllY UMJTS $'ilt£l!:TS k41S.ltCAO$ Figure 24: Hike and Bike Plan + Ot-+-3.-+000-<>-G-.000+-+---1_,2.000 Feel CITY OF BRYAN n. c...l lif•. 1b>U S>,H: City of Bryan ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Kimley »>Horn Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Project Timeline -Attachment L Activity 2017 2018 Duration Description (Months} May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Planning 6 Project Selection MPO Coordination 3 TxDOT Coordination 6 Project Design and Plan Preparation 16 Negotiate Contract with Jones & Carter (RFQ 17-014) 4 Survey/Geotech Investigation 2 30% Design and City Review 3 60% Design and Review 2 90% Design and Review 2 Additional RAS and TxDOT Review 3 Bidding Phase 2 Environmental Clearance 6 Preliminary Assessment by CME Environmental Documentation 6 ROW /Easement Acquisition 0 Project Construction/Implementation 15 Page 1 56 Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Project Timeline -Attachment L Activity 2019 Duration Description (Months) Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Planning 6 Project Selection MPO Coordination 3 TxDOT Coordination 6 Project Design and Plan Preparation 16 Negotiate Contract with Jones & Carter {RFQ 17-014) 4 Survey /Geotech Investigation 2 30% Design and City Review 3 60% Design and Review 2 90% Design and Review 2 Additional RAS and TxDOT Review 3 Bidding Phase 2 Environmental Clearance 6 Preliminary Assessment by CME Environmental Documentation 6 ROW /Easement Acquisition 0 Project Construction/Implementation 15 Page 2 57 Project Nomination Checklist J'11.~ r/ Required: A completed 2017 TA Set-Aside Project Nomination Form in Microsoft Windows Excel (.xlsm) format with all text boxes filled-in and dropdown selections completed . Type N/A for not applicable, where appropriate. Req uired: A single color PDF document that includes: M' Completed 2017 TA Set-Aside project nomination form {required) ri Signed copy of signature page (required) rt' Required attachments (refer to page 56) lt' Additiona l attachments that may be necessary (refer to page 56) Attachment A {optional) Refer to 7. Project Location Information Attach a complete list of all improvement locations using descriptive limits and longitude/latitude. Label attachment as Project Location Information -Attachment A-No more than 2 pages. i Attachment B (required) Refer to 10. Project Details Attach the following exh ibits: ri Location map {required) fi Project layout map (required) ti Typica l section(s) (recommended) O Representative construction plan sheets (as applicable) 0 Additiona l bridge details {as applicable) rl Photographs (recommended) D Additiona l maps, charts, diagrams, drawings, et c. (recommended) Label attachment(s) as Project Details-Attachment B -No more than 15 pages. B Attachment C (required) Refer to 12. Official Project Sponsor Funding Resolution or Ordinance Attach the project sponsor's resolution or ordinance. Label attachment(s) as Certification of LG Funding -Attachment C -No more than 10 pages. i Attachment D (as applicable) Refer to 13. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Inclusion Letter. Attach a letter from the MPO if the project is located within the bo undaries of an MPO. Label attachment(s) as MPO TIP Letter -Attachment D -No more than 2 pages. 58 58 ef Attachment E (required) Refer to 14. Public Involvement and Support Attach the following exhibits, as appropriate: O Supplemental public engagement summary (as needed) r/ Evidence of public/stakeholder support (required) ref Evidence of support from affected/adjacent property owners (required) Label attachments as Public lnvolvemenVSupport -Attachment E -No more than ('0ages. Attachment F (optional) Refer to 15. Environmental Documentation Attach the following exhibits, as appropriate: D TxDOT's NEPA Project Scope Development Tool (if completed) D Prior environmental approval documentation (if completed) 0 Prior resource agency coordination letters (if completed) Label attachment(s) as Enviro nmental Documentation-Attachment F -No more than 10 pages. rf Attachment G (required) 0 Refer to 16. Property Ownership and Acquisition Information Attach the following exhibits, as appropriate: ~Evidence of property rights by title of ownership, lease, or easement (required) O Commitment letter(s) from affected property owners demonstrating a willingness to transfer property (as applicable) if Letter from TxDOT District Engineer consenting to project on state ROW (as applicable) Label attachments as Property/Ownership/Acquisition-Attachment G-No more than 10 pages. Attachment H (optional) Q Refer to 17. Railroad Support/Right-of-Entry Letter Attach documentary evidence of coordination with rail road. Label attachment(s) as RR Right of Entry/Support Letter-Attachment H -No more than 10 pages. 59 59 rl Attachment I (optional) Refer to 18. Local Bicycle, Pedestrian, or other Transportation Plan Attach the cover and pages from the plan referring to this project. Label attachment(s) as Local Plan/Support-Attachment 1-No more than 10 pages. 0 AttachmentJ (optional) Refer to 19. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan Attach the cover and pages from the plan referring to this project. Label attachment(s) as SRTS Plan/Coordination-AttachmentJ -No more than 10 pages. fl Attachment K (optional) Refer to 20. Transition Plan for ADA Compliance Attach the cover and pages from the plan that are relevant to this project. Label attachment(s) as ADA Transition Plan-Attachment K -No more than 10 pages. r/ Attachment L (required) Refer to 21. Project Timeline Attach a chart documenting the project development and implementation timeline. Label attachment(s) as Project Timeline-Attachment L -No more than 2 pages. 0 Attachment M (optional) Refer to 25. In-Kind Contributions Attach documentation of estimated in-kind costs. Label attachments In-Kind Contributions -Attachment M -No more than 2 pages. i Attachment N (optional) Refer to 27. Nomination Checklist Attach the completed checklist. Label as: Nomination Checklist-Attachment N. 60 60 Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Response to Comments -Attachment 0 This email is to follow up on email correspondence sent August 11, 2017, to eligible 2017 Transportation Alternative Set-Aside (TASA) Project Sponsors. The Texas Department ofTransportation (TxDOT) is currently conducting detailed reviews of project nominations being considered for funding. As a result of TxDOT's district/division evaluations, we are requesting supplemental project information from Project Sponsors to complete our evaluation process. Because a majority of the proposed projects are in the early stages of project planning/development, supplemental information will be used to determine general feasibility and constructability of a project and does not constitute a comprehensive review of project details and costs. A complete and thorough response to TxDOT's request for clarifications and supplemental information will be necessary for competitive projects to be considered for funding. Please contact me as soon as possible to schedule a brief (15 minute) conference call to discuss TxDOT's request for supplemental information on your project(s). Identified below are the project(s) details requiring clarification. 027 Coulter Dr. Sidewalks & Bike Lanes: • Recommended Increasing pavement depth from 4" concrete to 6". If project sponsor agrees, update Project Description to describe 6" reinforced concrete with steel rebar and identify as 6" REINFORCED CONCRETE in the Itemized Budget and on Typical Section. Response: The project description and budget have been changed to reflect 6" thick concrete sidewalks with steel rebar. • Correct sidewalk width (in feet) and add material depth (in inches) under item 7 of the 2017 TASA Nomination Form. Response: The sidewalk width has been changed to 6 feet and the depth to 6 inches in Item 7. • Update Traffic Control using correct units (month). Response: The Traffic Control item has been updated to 12 months at $1,500 per month (2017 value). The project area is urban residential with school zones that may require at least four (4) phases of traffic control. • Consider potential pedestrian upgrades at signalized intersections Response: The budget has been updated to include pedestrian push buttons/assemblies at signalized intersections. • Identify location of various sidewalk curb ramp (SW3-00, SW3-04, TxDOT Type 3). Response: Attachment 0 includes maps showing the ramp locations as well as Bryan/College Station Standard Details SW3-00 and SW3-04. • Estimated cost for TxDOT Type 3 curb ramps appears low. Response: The TxDOT Type 3 item has been updated to $1,500 per each (2017 value). • Provide clarification on how bike lanes will be addressed at intersections (left/right turn utilizes the full pavement width for motorized vehicles). Consider adding green bike box. Response: E 32nd Street/Carter Creek Parkway is the only signalized intersection along Coulter Drive that crosses a planned bike facility (i.e., a future bike route along Carter Creek Parkway). A 61 Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Response to Comments -Attachment 0 bike box could be designed for a left turn from southbound S Coulter Drive onto eastbound Carter Creek Parkway. Please see the updated cost estimate and the exhibits included with Attachment 0. Please note: this intersection will be considered for conversion to a roundabout during the design process. • Review Itemized Budget Quantities, Units describing work activities, and costs. Response: All bid items have been adjusted for inflation, assuming 2% each year for the next 2 years. Construction is expected to begin around 2019. Mobilization has been reduced to 5% of the total of all non-general construction items. Clearing/grubbing costs have been provided pe r acre . • Confirm timeline to construction. Response: Jones & Carter, Inc is providing design services for the Coulter Drive Reconstruction project (City Job No. DE-1701), which includes the sidewalks and bike lanes under this TA Set- Aside Program application as well as street, drainage, water distribution, and sanitary sewer improvements to be funded solely by the City. After 30% design, the sidewalk plans covered under this application will be split from the rest of the project to be exped ited. Please see the draft proposal/schedule from Jones & Carter in Attachment 0. 62 CnYoP llRYAr-1 nwr-,n• TtMJ ~ Project Detail -Attachment 0 Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes S College Avenue to E 29th Street * SW3-00 ... SW3-04 TxDOTType3 Bike Box Project Detail -Attachment 0 Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes ~~~ .. T;J E 29th Street to E William]. Bryan Parkway u VARIES 3' GREEN SPACE • fl. . ,. • • fl. .... ·."'. 6' • · • SIDEWALK . . · ,.. .. PROPERTY LINE u 23' (1 O' CURB RADIUS) 21 .5' (20' CURB RADIUS) 16.5' (25' CURB RADIUS) -¥-CROSS SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 2% OR BE LESS THAN 1% ON ANY PORTION OF RAMP OR TRANSITION TO STREET ... . . 4' . • . b . ti. ..• · .. . ". "' .... CROSSWALK DIMENSIONS, CROSSWALK MARKINGS, AND STOP LINE LOCATIONS SHALL BE AS SHOWN ELSEWHERE IN THE PLANS. ----+-----DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE ... .•.... . fl. .. ,, • . " ... · . . · ... w (.) <t'. a.. rn z w w 0:: C!) 5' 3' 5/6' SIDEWALK AMBULATORY MP AT STREET INTERSECTIO CITY OF BRYAN 1hefM/Lik.1"e.w.w_,Je.~ DATE AUG. 2012 B/CS UNIFIED STANDARD DETAIL DETAIL NO. On OF Co 1.u:cF. Sr.1T10:-; SWJ-00 65 * CROSS SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 2% OR BE LESS THAN 1% ON ANY PORTION OF RAMP OR TRANSITION TO STREET y-V- y-V- y-y- PROPERTY LINE 6' SIDEWALK 3' DATE BACK OF CURB 6' SIDEWALK AMBULATORY RAMP AT STREET INTERSECTION & DRIVES DETAIL NO. CITY OF 13RYAN )]rf:oodlik. 1;,.,!il/k: AUG. 2012 B/CS UNIFIED STANDARD DETAIL SW3-04 EXPANSION JT. & SMOOTH DOWEL BAR, 1/2" DIA. X 16", WITH CAP~ 12" O.C. (COATED W/HEAVY GREASE) '~ . ~ ~ OTY OF Co1.1.i.:cr. Sl'.1T10 :-: 66 General ATIACHMENT "A" Page 1 of 6 SCOPE OF SERVICES COULTER DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION This project includes the surveying and engineering design for 2 sections of Coulter Drive: South College Avenue to East 29th Street: • Widening and reconstruction of approximately 4,000 LF of existing 38' wide, two-lane pavement section to an approximately 40' wide concrete pavement section with two travel lanes, two bike lanes, sidewalks adjacent to the back of curb on both sides of the road, and new underground storm sewer. • Either signal or roundabout improvements at the Carter Creek Parkway intersection and signal replacement at the 29th Street intersection • Water and Sanitary Sewer improvements East 29th Street to William J Bryan Parkway: • Approximately 3300 LF of new sidewalk adjacent to the back of curb on both sides of the road. Scope of Services 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT (Design Phase) a. Prepare and maintain a project schedule b. Provide monthly invoicing and progress reporting c. Facilitate, attend and provide minutes for on -site meetings i. PER review ii. 60% design review iii. 90% design review d. Correspondence with the City, agencies, etc. e. QA/QC f. Prepare exhibits and attend a public meeting. All coordination, correspondence, and advertising will be provided by the City. 2. SURVEYING a. Notice of Entry i. Provide initial Notice of Entry to all property owners along the route by issuing a letter to the owner based on Brazos Central Appraisal District data. Any entry issues of additional correspondence shall be the responsibility of the City. b. Survey Control i. Establish horizontal and vertical survey control points referencing the City of Bryan monument system (NAO 83 and NAVO 88) and make them available to the contractor for use during construction. c. Topographic Mapping i. Existing drainage system details of roadside ditches, culverts, storm sewers, outfall flow lines. ii. Visible improvements such as fences, driveways, landscape areas, etc. iii. Visible utilities including manholes (with invert information), water valves, water meters, fire hydrants, telephone pedestals, power poles, down conduits, gas line markers, etc. R:\Public Works\ Traffic Operations\ Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Pragrom\2017 Call far Projects\8-2017 Revisians\A-Scape-Cou/terRl.dacx 67 ATIACHMENT "A" Page 2 of6 iv. Underground utilities wh ich are marked in the field by utility locators in and around project locations. v. Obtain field data in and around the project area which includes: vi. Cross-sections of the full right-of-way of Coulter from South College to 29th Street at a 100-foot interval, which includes obtaining additional detail at intersections. vii. Cross-sections from the right-of-way to the back of curb only on both sides of Coulter from 29th Street to William J. Bryan Parkway at a 100-foot interval, which includes obtaining additional detail at intersections. viii. Additional topo data will be obtained for the rehabilitation of offsite waterlines, sewer lines, and drainage facilities. ix. Deliver mapping of the project area suitable for design which includes 1. The field data. 2. Scaling the flood plain from the current FEMA Map. 3. Calculating 1-foot contour lines and creating a Triangulated Irregular Network file (TIN file). d. ROW/Easement Determination i. Obtain and plot the most recent recorded plats and deeds of tracts along the project route and adjacent areas based on Brazos Central Appraisal District data. ii. Easements shown on the recorded plats or described on the recorded deeds will be addressed and shown if applicable (no additional property research or title reports are included in the scope) iii. Locate property corner and fences found in the field. iv. Calculate and show the right-of-ways, back lot boundary (where applicable for utility rehabilitation) on the topographic map for engineering design considerations. v. Existing easement legal interpretation to be provided by the City, as needed. e. ROW Acquisition Exhibits i. Prepare legal descriptions and exhibits for proposed ROW acquisitions. The fee will be invoiced at $3,000 per tract. ii. Easement acquisition and negotiation to be provided by the City. iii. Title reports to be provided by the City. 3. SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEERING (SUE) a. All Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) work shall be in accordance with the quality level definitions found in the ASCE Standard ASCE 38-02 and will be shown on the topographic map stating utility type and quality level. b. SUE Quality Level B: i. Coulter from College to 29th 1. As-Built Drawings from public and franchise utilities 2. 811 utility locates 3. Canvas the project area with subsurface utility locating equipment for any unknown underground utilities ii. Coulter from 29th to William J. Bryan and off-site utilities 1. As-Built Drawings from public and franchise utilities 2. 811 utility locates c. SUE Quality Level A: i. During the final design phase, uncover critical utility crossings in the field and document detailed subsurface utility information sufficient to satisfy Quality Level A and add that information to the topographic map. R:\Public Works\ Traffic Operations\ Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program\2017 Call for Projects\8-2017 Revisions\A-Scope-Cou/terRl.docx 68 ATIACHMENT "A" Page 3 of 6 ii. The fees will be invoiced at $5,500 per each mobilization charge plus $1000 per each pot-hole location in natural ground cover. It is expected that 6 pot-holes can be performed per mobilization. 4. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT (PER) a. Traffic Study i. Perform a traffic study to evaluate existing and future traffic operations at key intersections along South Coulter Drive. Vehicle and pedestrian movements will be observed along South Coulter Drive during the school peak hours at the Stephen F. Austin Middle School and Saint Joseph Catholic School. Movement counts will be collected at the following intersections with South Coulter Drive: South College Avenue, Texas Avenue, Pease/ Woodland Drive, Carter Creek Parkway/ East 32nd Street and East 29th Street. ii. Capacity analysis will be performed with projected level of service at the analysis intersections for the AM, School Afternoon and PM peak hours on a weekday for existing conditions and 2027 Projected Conditions. The need for left-turn lanes, right- turn lanes and access management will be evaluated. iii. A report will be prepared to document the study and include a summary of findings and recommendations. b. Drainage Analysis i. A drainage analysis of South Coulter Drive and the streets adjacent to South Coulter (Texas Avenue, Burnet Street, East Pease Street, Carter Creek Parkway, East 31st Street and East 29th Street) generally depicted on the Exhibit found in RFQ 17-014 will be performed and the findings incorporated into the overall underground storm sewer design. ii. The existing storm drain systems that drain South Coulter Drive will be analyzed on existing conditions to determine hydraulic adequacy and existing hydraulic grade lines to be used as a basis of comparison. Existing drainage issues will be analyzed in the following locations: Intersection of South Coulter Drive and 29th Street, South Coulter Drive West of Burnett and Intersection of South Coulter Drive and East 26th Street. iii. All data, assumptions input, model output, and drainage area map will be provided in report form as well as recommendations of improvement for areas of frequent localized flooding. c. Conceptual Corridor Alignment i. Develop typical roadway sections based on the Traffic Study recommendations and input from the City that will establish the desired roadway section for the Design Phase of this project. JC will incorporate sidewalks, bike lanes, and desired roadway width, as far as practical within the existing ROW and show areas where additional ROW will be necessary. ii. Both Signal and Roundabout options will be presented for the Carter Creek Parkway intersection. iii. Develop a conceptual plan view corridor alignment based on the proposed roadway sections including the intersections. d. Conceptual Utility Alignment i. Develop a conceptual plan view of all Coulter Drive and off-site water and sanitary sewer improvements. e. Report i. Develop conceptual engineer's estimates of probable construction cost for recommended improvements. Estimates will be based on current unit prices from recent experience on other projects. R:\Public Works\ Traffic Operations\ Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Progrom\2017 Call for Projects\8-2017 Revisions\A-Scope-Cou/terRl.docx 69 ATIACHMENT "A" Page 4 of 6 ii. Compile all data and recommendations into a Preliminary Engineering Report. iii. 3 hard copies and 1 digital copy to be provided. 5. ROADWAY & DRAINAGE DESIGN a. Provide 60% Prelimina ry Design review submittal including drawings, estimate of probable cost, and index of technical specifications. 3 hard copies (22x34) and 1 digital pdf to be provided. b. Provide 90% Final Design review submittal including drawings, estimate of probable cost, contract documents and technical specifications. 3 hard copies (22x34) and 1 digital pdf to be provided. c. Provide Final sealed design submittal including 3 hard copies (22x34) of the plans, contract book (using the City of Bryan standard template), and estimate of probable cost; and 1 digital pdf of each . d. Drawings expected to be provided include: cover, sheet index, notes, topographic & existing utility mapping, erosion control plan, project specific t raffic control plan, roadway & drainage plan & profile drawings, intersection & driveway tie-in details, sidewalk design, signal design, striping & signage plan, project specific details, and standard details. 6. SIDEWALK DESIGN a. Provide 60%, 90%, and Final Design submittals. b. Drawings expected to be provided include : plan view drawings, project specific details, and standard details. c. The design of any site-retaining walls is not included in this scope. d. Submit plans to a TDLR Registered Accessibility Specialist for review and approval. The City of Bryan to pay all fees (registration, plan review, and post-construction inspection). 7. SANITARY SEWER DESIGN a. Gravity main replacement on Coulter: Texas Avenue to Pease Street, 32"d to 315t, crossing between 30th and Hoppess, crossing on 291h. b. Gravity main replacement on 29th from manhole Pl0-204 to Gordon Street intersection. c. Gravity main abandonment from manhole Pl0-204 to manhole 010-440 with private service line extensions to existing sewer mains on Gordon or Coulter. Private service line design to be estimated based on site inspection with land owner and aerial mapping. No field surveying or TV inspection included. d. Letter report stating required design elevation for coulter gravity sewer mains based on future gravity sewer re-alignment along Pease street. Manholes to be surveyed include Pl0-088 and Pl0-044 to Pl0-0~0 along the back lots. e. Provide 60%, 90%, and Final Design submittals f. Drawings expected to be provided include: sanitary sewer plan & profile drawings, service line plan drawings, project specific details, and standard details. g. Utility flow analysis, line sizing, etc. is not included in this scope. 8. WATERLINE DESIGN a. Waterline improvements include approximately 3,000 LF of waterline within the South Coulter Drive ROW and approximately 600 LF of offsite waterline generally depicted on the Water Exhibit found in RFQ 17-014. b. Provide 60%, 90%, and Final Design submittals. c. Drawings expected to be provided include: waterline plan & profile drawings, project specific details, and standard details. d. Utility flow analysis, line sizing, etc. is not included in this project scope. R:\Public Works\ Traffic Operations\ Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Progrom\2017 Coll for Projects\8-2017 Revisions\A-Scope-CoulterRl.docx 70 9. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ATIACHMENT "A" Page S of 6 a. East 29th Street Signal Replacement. Prepare traffic signal design plans at the intersection to remove the existing signal and install a new mast arm type signal in accordance with City of Bryan standards and specifications. The design plans will include existing conditions diagram, sidewalk and wheelchair ramp layout, traffic signal design layout, summary of traffic signal quantities, standard details, specifications and notes. b. Carter Creek Parkway/East 32nd Street Intersection Signal Replacement or Roundabout. Prepare traffic signal design plans at the intersection to remove the existing signal and install a new mast arm type signal in accordance with City of Bryan standards and specifications. The design plans will include existing conditions diagram, sidewalk and wheelchair ramp layout, traffic signal design layout, summary of traffic signal quantities, standard details, specifications and notes. -or - Prepare roundabout design plans at the intersection to remove existing signal and construct a roundabout in lieu of traffic signal. The design plans will include sidewalk and wheelchair ramp layout, bicycle lane design layout, standard details, specifications and notes. c. Prepare temporary traffic signal layouts as part of the traffic control plan to modify the existing traffic signals to maintain traffic signal operations during the construction phase of the project. 10. TXDOT PERMITIING/COORDINATION a. Coordinate and provide documents to the City of Bryan to obtain the TxDOT driveway permit for work within the Texas Avenue ROW and make water and sanitary sewer crossings. b. All permit submissions to TxDOT shall be made by the City of Bryan. c. A donation agreement, environmental study, and stormwater detention are not expected to be required by TxDOT and are therefore not included in the project scope. 11. BTU POWERPOLE COORDINATION a. Coordinate with BTU for power pole relocations and points of service for new signals. b. Electrical design is not included in this scope. 12. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION a. Perform geotechnical investigation for the project including up to 9 borings along Coulter between College and 29th Street. No additional bores are proposed from 29th Street to William J. Bryan Parkway or for the offsite utility improvements. b. Provide a Geotechnical Report summarizing the test results of the soil borings, report any ground water findings, and provide project specific recommendations for the roadway stabilization, pavement section, and utility trench excavations. 13. BID/CONSTRUCTION PHASE a. The compensation for all Bid/Construction Phase services is estimated and will be invoiced based on hourly effort for each task. b. Bidding Phase Services i. Issue Addenda as appropriate to clarify, correct, or change the contract documents ii. Attend the Pre-bid meeting c. Construction Phase Engineering Services i. Provide a digital copy of conformed construction drawings and specifications, incorporating applicable addenda if applicable. ii. Attend the Pre-Construction meeting. iii. Perform visits to the project to observe progress and quality of work including a final punch list meeting. iv. Review shop drawings, submittals, RFl 's, and test results. R:\Pub/ic Works\ Traffic Operations\ Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Pragrom\2017 Coll for Prajects\8-2017 Revisions\A-Scope-CoulterR1.docx 71 ATIACHMENT "A" Page 6 of6 v. Construction duration of 10 months is estimated. d. Field Project Representation i. Not included e. Produce Record Drawings based on redline as-built drawings provided by the contractor. Provide 1 hard copy on mylar and 1 digital copy in AutoCAD and PDF format. R:\Pub/ic Works\ Traffic Operations\ Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Pragram\2017 Call far Projects\B-2017 Revisians\A-Scape-CoulterRl.docx 72 SCHEDULE: ATIACHMENT "C" Page 1of1 PROJECT SCHEDULE COULTER DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION We understand that this project is a high priority and we are prepared to commence work immediately. The following is the anticipated schedule: Council Award: Submit PER/ Conceptual Drawings: Submit 60% Plans for Review: Submit 90% Plans for Review: Submit Final Plans & Specs: September 2017 February 2017 June 2018 October 2018 December 2018 R:\Public Works\ Traffic Operalions\Tra11spor1a1io11 A/1erna1ives Sci-Aside Program\2017 Call/or ProjecJs'.8-2017 Revisions\C-Schedule-Cou/JerRJ.doc 73 needs to review MPO staff revisions as requested by the TAC and if th e do cument is ready for the Policy Board. Action Requested. (See attachment.) 7) Brazos County Mobility Issues and Local Responses Jn anticipation of a visit by some Texas Transportation Commissioners Dr. Tim Lomax has been tasked with developing a list of mobility issues in our area and what each of the entities on th e TAC is doing to address these issues. TAC reviewed the list at the last meeting and requested some minor changes. The TAC needs to determine if the changes made are sufficient and if the list should be forwarded to the Policy Board for official action. Potential Action. (See attachment.) 8) Interstate 14 in Brazos County Resolution The Policy Board has asked the TAC to consider the issues associated with the 1-14 corridor in Brazos County and to recommend a preferred alignment. At thf:-last TAC meeting, the TAC members reviewed the issues identified by MPO staff and suggested that in place of a list of issues that staff prepare a resolution for TAC review that can be forwarded to the Policy Board if the TAC determines the resolution is sufficient. Action Requested. (See attachment.) 9) Staff Report • Traffic Model Update • Equity and Access Committee Co-Captaincy for the Texas Innovation Alliance • Regional Bicycle Plan • Brazos County Congestion Survey IO) Agency Reports (Updates from members on transportation related activities) 11) Future Activities -January Meeting for Texas Innovation All iance Data Challenge - Next Policy Board Meeting is on January 10, 2017 (Topic Speaker Needed!) 12) Adjourn ~ _______ B_C_Sf~~-M_P_O ______ _ BRYAN / COLLEGE STATION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGAN IZATION Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Thursday December 21 , 2017 @ 8:30 A.M. Brazos Transit District Conference Room 1759 N. E arl Rudder Freeway, Bryan, TX 77803 AGENDA I) Welcome and Open Meeting 2) Minutes from November I 6, 20 I 7 Technical Advisory Committee meeting. Consider adoption -Action Required. (See attachment.) 3) University Drive Study Final Report . . . Haljf and Associates will present the results of their Phase Two efforts for University Drive between Texas Avenue and Boonville Road. The TAC will then be asked to decide if the study can be accepted as work complete or if further revisions are necessary before the report can be forwarded to the Policy Board. Action Required. (See attachment.) 4) Revisions to the 2040 Metropolita n Transportation Plan (MTP) The City of Bryan received grant awards for two Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) projects. The first is for the Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Project. The second project is the installation of a 12-foot wide shared use path along the State Highway 6 Northbound frontage Road between Old Reliance Road and FM 158 (Boonville Road). Changes shown in the MTP include Table 5.3 Reasonably Anticipated MPO Funding with an additional $1.97 million shown in Category 9 funds for 2020, the addition of the two projects to Table 6.1 Fiscally Constrained Project List and the addition of two project description tables. Action Required. (See attachment.) 5) Revisions to the 2017 -2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) There are three changes being made to the TIP. The first is to move the unspent funds from the FY 2017 Highway Project on SH 308 which is a TAPS project to FY 2018. The other two changes are the addition of the two City of Bryan projects added to the MTP in the Highway Projects section. Staff explored the creation of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects section, however when TxDOT moved to the eSTJP there are only three fields to choose from; Highway Project, Transit Project and Grouped Project. Since TASA and TAPS projects cannot be shown in Grouped Projects, they are shown as Highway Projects. Action Required. (See attachment.) 6) Memorandum of Understanding Between the MPO, TxDOT and BTD The purpose of this memorandum is to make provisions for cooperative mutual responsibilities in carrying out the Metropolitan Planning Process and Peiformance Based Planning and Programming in the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Area and to provide a single agreement between the State of Texas (TxDOT), Bryan/College Station MPO and ETD in accordance with current Federal Legislation and as required by 23 CFR 450.314. The TAC 3833 SOUTH TEXAS AVENUE, SUITE 290 BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 PHONE (979) 260-5298 WEBSITE: WWW.BCSMPO.ORG FAX (979) 260-5225 ~ _______ B_C_Sf~~_M_P_O ____ __ BRYAN I COLLEGE STATION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION City of Bryan projects added to the MTP in the Highway Projects section. Staff explored the creation of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects section, however when TxDOT moved to the eSTIP there are only three.fields to choose from; Highway Project, Transit Project and Grouped Project. Since TASA projects cannot be shown in Grouped Projects, they are shown as Highway Projects. Action Required. (See attachment.) 7) Memorandum of Understanding Between the MPO, TxDOT and BTD -The purpose of this memorandum is to make provisions for cooperative mutual responsibilities in carrying out the Metropolitan Planning Process and Performance Based Planning and Programming in the Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Area and to provide a single agreement between the State of Texas (TxDOT), Bryan/College Station MPO and BTD in accordance with current Federal Legislation and as required by 23 CFR 450.314. Staff worked directly with Brazos Transit District staff, TxDOT Planning and Programming Division in Austin and the Federal Highway Administration in developing this document. Action Requested. (See attachment.) 8) Brazos County Mobility Issues and Local Responses -Jn anticipation of a visit by some Texas Transportation Commissioners Dr. Tim Lomax has been tasked with developing a list of mobility issues in our area and what each of the entities on the TAC is doing to address these issues. In addition, MPO staff was asked to prepare a two page take away docum ent that explores projected growth in Brazos County. This is an information item. No action is required. (See attachment.) 9) Interstate 14 in Brazos County Resolution -MPO staff worked with the TAC to develop a list of issues associated potential alignments for interstate 14 through Brazos County. After reviewing the issues the TAC asked that staff prepare a resolution that states the preferred alignment through Brazos County for Policy Board adoption. Action Requested. (See attachment.) 10) Adjourn 3833 SOUTH TEXAS AVENUE, Sum 290 BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 PHONE (979) 260·5298 FAX (979) 260-5225 WEBSITE: WWW.BCSMPO.ORG ~ _______ B_C_S~~~-M_P_O ______ _ BRYAN I COLLEGE STATION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGAN IZATION Policy Board Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 9:00 A.M. Brazos County Commissioner's Courtroom 200 South Texas Avenue, Bryan, Texas 77803 AGENDA 1) Welcome and Open Meeting -Pledge of allegiance to the United States and Texas Flags and Invocation. 2) Public Comments Regarding Items Not On The Agenda -Individuals who wish to address the Policy Board must fill out a Public Comment Card describing the topic(s) they wish to address. Public Comment Cards may be obtained from Lisa Lyon of the MPO staff prior to the start of the meeting. Pleas e limit your comments to three minutes per topic. Additional time will be allotted if Policy Board members have questions. 3) Minutes from the December 6, 2017 Policy Board meeting. -Consider adoption -Action Required. (See attachment.) 4) Staff Report • University Drive Study • Equity and Access Co-Captaincy for the Texas Innovation Alliance • Regional Human Service Agency Transportation Coordination Workshop • Regional Travel Demand Model Update 5) Revisions to the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) -The City of Bryan received grant awards for two Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TASA) projects. The first is for the Coulter Drive Sidewalks and Bike Lanes Project. The second project is the installation of a 12-foot wide shared use path along the State Highway 6 Northbound frontage Road between Old Reliance Road and FM 158 (Boonville Road). Changes shown in the MTP include Table 5.3 Reasonably Anticipated MPO Funding with an additional $1.97 million shown in Category 9 funds for 2020, the addition of the two projects to Table 6.1 Fiscally Constrained Project List and the addition of two project description tables. Staff has only provided the tables that were changed in the MTP. If a Policy Board member would like to receive afitlly revised and complete 2040 MTP, please advise so that a copy can be sent to you. Action Required. (See attachment.) 6) Revisions to the 2017 -2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) -There are two changes being made to the TIP. The two changes are the addition of the 3833 SOUTH TEXAS AVENUE, Sum 290 BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 PHONE (979) 260·5298 FAX (979) 260·5225 WEBSITE: WWW.BCSMPO.ORG Mamon r-ina 6 Keserve - Keservation Confirmation You may cancel your reservation for no charge before 11:59 PM local hotel time on June 8, 2021 (1 day[s] before arrival). Please note that we will assess a fee of 159.12 USD if you must cancel after this deadline. If you have made a prepayment, we will retain all or part of your prepayment. If not, we will charge your credit card. ~L--'~kP~~::;'tC-~Sl ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ?\-e ~-p~ 4 °l \) + I $1171). • o~w~ ... 4'-! w¥wa-q/:; a 5~ io1~, \'1 ~ f p https://www.marriott.com/reservation/confirmation.mi 6/9/2021 Marriott Find & Reserve -Reservation Confirmation Stay Details STAY DATES Wed Jun 9, 2021 -Thu Jun 10, 2021 Room(s): 1 Adult(s): 2 9 Residence Inn Houston Downtown/Convention Center 904 Dallas St reet Houston Texas 77002 USA Phone: +1 832-366-1000 #86469515 Venessa Garza, thank you fo r your res ervation. Your reservation is guaranteed to your Mastercard card. An email with this information has been se nt to venessa_garza@hotmail.com. We look forward to greeting you soon. Your receipt for hotel stays may be automatically sent to the email address associated with your reservation. If you prefer, you may req uest a paper copy at the front desk when you check in. Learn how to change your email address. No room preferences were selected. Summary of Charges Room Type: Studio, 1 Queen, Sofa bed Member Rate Flexible 1 room(s) for 1 night(s) Prices in USD Wednesday, June 9, 2021 136.00 Total cash rate 136.00 State Cost Recovery Fee 0.84 Estimated government taxes and fees 23.26 Total Stay 160.10 USD Cancellation Policy https://www.marriott.com/reservation/confirmation.mi 1/2 DIVISION OF FINANCE AND OPERATIONS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES May 24, 2021 TO : 2021 Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TA) Program Selection Committee Texas Department of Transportation FROM ;~~;;::~~~~e n Divisio4eNices SUBJECT: Support for College Station, Texas Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program Application I am writing in support for the Texas Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Program application submitted by the city of College Station, Texas. Texas A&M University is surrounded by the city of College Station and is about one half mile from the city of Bryan. Our students, faculty, staff and visitors rely upon the infrastructure and services of both cities and the campus to help them navigate to and from work, school, events, services and shopping. As such, we collaborate and coordinate regularly with staff from both cities and the Texas Department of Transportation to unify our planning, efforts and projects to best compliment the work of the others and to best serve the members of the community. The elements of the application submitted by the city of College Station mirror our priorities of creating a safe and comfortable corridor for students, faculty and staff to bike to campus. The project includes on-street bike lanes with a vertical barrier and intersection improvements to help facilitate safer turning movements. We think this project will attract new riders and in turn reduce traffic congestion around campus as well as create safer driver behavior. The stretch of roadway included in the application is highly traveled and improvements to it would serve many members of the campus and community, thus having a measurable impact to improving safety and reducing congestion. We have consultants on contract now helping us create a Mobility Master Plan for the campus. There could be great synergy if College Station is selected as a grant recipient and we could continue the connectivity as a component of our master plan. Additionally, as parking is reduced in the core of campus in support of the Campus Master Plan, the timing is right for more people to choose to bike to and then around campus. For all of these reasons, as associate vice president of Transportation Services at Texas A&M University, I write in support of the application submitted by College Station. 322 Polo Rd., Suite 350 1250 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-1250 Tel. 979.845.9700 Fax 979.847.8685 transport.tamu.edu DETAILED APPLICATION: 2021 TA CALL FOR PROJECTS ~OST PARTICIPATION SUMMARY - Total Federal Participation I E;IOO;'~ I $1,209,015 I Total State Participation I I -I Total Local Participation I ~ItXtV!.i I $302,254 I -PROJECT COMMITMENT The applicant confirms understanding of the following requirements by checking boxes and signing below. 0 This is a reimbursement program. If the project sponsor implements any stage of the project, then they must finance that phase until reimbursement funds are available. Invoices must be submitted with proper documentation on a regular basis (~ monthly, but no less than quarterly). 0 If TxDOT implements any phase of the project on behalf of the project sponsor, then any local match would be due in full to TxDOT prior to commencement of each phase (i.e. preliminary engineering or construction). Project selection does not guarantee that TxDOT will implement a project on behalf of any recipient. 0 Until authorized by TxDOT with a notice to proceed, the project sponsor should not enter into a contract or incur costs for any aspect of the project for which the project sponsor is seeking federal participation. Otherwise, the project sponsor risks incurring costs that will not be reimbursed or credited. 0 Project sponsors may manage elements of the project development process with written TxDOT approval. To receive approval, the project sponsor acknowledges that they must complete a Special Project Approval form in accordance with 43 TAC §15.52 and undergo a Risk Assessment. 0 The project sponsor understands they are responsible for providing a local match (including cash and/or use of EDCP reduction) to cover 20% of the total project cost (including TxDOT Direct State Costs). Depending on approved local match options, TxDOT will reimburse a portion of the total expenses on each invoice submitted with proper documentation of expenses. For project sponsors eligible for Transportation Development Credits, these credits will be applied as additional federal funds in lieu of local match. 0 The project sponsor understands that eligibility for the Economically Disadvantaged County Program (EDCP) is subject to annual review. If an adjustment is granted, the adjustment percentage in effect for the county at the time the TA program call is initiated will be used. Should the county become ineligible for the EDCP adjustment prior to execution of the Advanced Funding Agreement between TxDOT and the project sponsor, the Project Sponsor would be responsible for the full 20% local match for construction. 0 The project sponsor must be prepared to fund any project costs in excess of the amounts indicated in the budget entered into this detailed application and/or the amount awarded by the commission (i.e., project cost overruns). v~ ~ Signature VeV\e.S~A-~tk.. Print Name and Title (&I 11 [U-Z--1 -C114 7 (o1--3Cc 71 - Date Telephone Number Refer to TxDOT's 2021 TA Detailed Application Instructions for submittal instructions. Page 11of11 DETAILED APPLICATION: 2021 TA CALL FOR PROJECTS COST PARTICIPATION SUMMARY -----' Total Federal Participation I r:mrw., I $504,205 I Total State Participation I I -I Total Local Participation I 91Ulti'I.! I $126,051 I --PROJECT COMMITMENT The applicant confirms understanding of the following requirements by checking boxes and signing below. 0 This is a reimbursement program. If the project sponsor implements any stage of the project, then they must finance that phase until reimbursement funds are available. Invoices must be submitted with proper documentation on a regular basis (~monthly, but no less than quarterly). 0 If TxDOT implements any phase of the project on behalf of the project sponsor, then any local match would be due in full to TxDOT prior to commencement of each phase (i.e. preliminary engineering or construction). Project selection does not guarantee that TxDOT will implement a project on beha lf of any recipient. 0 Until authorized by TxDOT with a notice to proceed, the project sponsor should not enter into a contract or incur costs for any aspect of the project for which the project sponsor is seeking federal participation. Otherwise, the project sponsor risks incurring costs that will not be reimbursed or credited. 0 Project sponsors may manage elements of the project development process with written TxDOT approval. To receive approval, the project sponsor acknowledges that they must complete a Special Project Approval form in accordance with 43 TAC §15.52 and undergo a Risk Assessment. 0 The project sponsor understands they are responsible for providing a local match (including cash and/or use of EDCP reduction) to cover 20% of the total project cost (including TxDOT Direct State Costs). Depending on approved local match options, TxDOT will reimburse a portion of the total expenses on each invoice submitted with proper documentation of expenses. For project sponsors eligible for Transportation Development Credits, these credits will be applied as additional federal funds in lieu of local match. 0 The project sponsor understands that eligibility for the Economically Disadvantaged County Program (EDCP) is subject to annual review. If an adjustment is granted, the adjustment percentage in effect for the county at the time the TA program call is initiated will be used. Should the county become ineligible for the EDCP adjustment prior to execution of the Advanced Funding Agreement between TxDOT and the project sponsor, the Project Sponsor would be responsible for the full 20% local match for construction. 0 The project sponsor must be prepared to fund any project costs in excess of the amounts indicated in the budget entered into this detailed application and/or the amount awarded by the commission (i.e., project cost overruns). ~~ eyv= Signature Ve.-nes5~ G Pr )'Z_ ?ft Print Name and Title "1 I 1 '1 1 z.. 0 l---t ql~ I lo4 3G11 Date Telephone Number Refer to TxDOT's 2021 TA Detailed Application Instructions for submittal instructions. Page 11of11 City total Budget Amendment Jan or Summer FY23 Budget? FM 2347 Total TxDOT City City 80% 20% 100% Construction Cost $ 1,314,147 $ 1,051,318 $ 262,829 TxDOT Ad min Fee {Direct State Costs) 15% $ 197,122 $ 157,698 $ 39,424 $ 1,511,269 $ 1,209,015 Design Fee $ 262,829 ~-262,8~9' Environmental Documentation $ 131,415 $ 131,415 Total $ 1,905,513 $ 302,254 $ 394,244 FY23-FY24 FY22 32-~ ooo 425,000 FM 2818 Total TxDOT City City 80% 20% 100% Construction Cost $ 548,049 $ 438,439 $ 109,610 TxDOT Admin Fee (Direct State Costs) 15% $ 82,207 $ 65, 766 $ 16,441 $ 630,256 Design Fee $ 109,610 $ 109,610 Environmental Documentation $ 54 805 $ 54,805 City total Total $~$ 504,205 $ 126,051 $ 164,415 $ 290,466 TxDOT 2021 TA Call for Projects Workshop On January 15, 2021, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) will open its 2021 Transportation Alternatives {TA) Call for Projects. This Call for Projects provides funding for a variety of alternative transportation projects, including: l. Bicycle infrastructure improvements 2. Shared use paths 3. Sidewalk improvements 4. Infrastructure-related projects to improve safety for non-motorized transportation Please join us for a virtual project sponsor workshop on TxDOT's upcoming 2021 TA Call for Projects. Information will be provided on how eligible local governments can utilize this opportunity to seek funding for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements. Attached is a sample workshop agenda. This Call for Projects features a two-step application process: Step 1 -a preliminary application with high-level proposed project information to determine eligibility and identify potential project development issues and Step 2 -a detailed application with more comprehensive project information. The table below summarizes the funding available. TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects program guide, preliminary application, detailed application, and program rules will be available on TxDOT's website as they become available: http://www.txdot.gov/i nside-txdot/ d ivision/pu bl ic-tra nspo rtatio n/b icycle-ped estri an. htm I Project Location Project Sponsor Local Match Eligible Activities Approximate Population Size1 Required2 Funding Available 5,000 people or Preliminary $10.S million Non urban Engineering & less Construction Conditional Project List3 20% Preliminary 5,001 to 50,000 Engineering & people Construction Conditional Project Small Urban List3 50,001 to 200,000 people Construction only 1 TxDOTadministers TA funds for projects located outside the smoothed 2010 U.S. Census Urbanized Area boundaries 200,000 or greater, identified as Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). 2 Some project sponsors may be eligible for a reduction in local match. See TxDOT 2021 TA Program Guide. 3 Conditional Project Lists will be created to assist TxDOT in prioritizing Nonurban and Small Urban projects for anticipated future federal TA appropriations of $13 million for nonurban and $13 million for small urban to the department for FY 2023 -2024. Once funds become available, projects on the list will be recommended to the commission for consideration for project award. TxDOT 2021 TA Call for Projects Workshop Target Audience Local governments and other project sponsors eligible to apply for funding through TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects. Registration Registration required. Follow the links on the next page to register for the date of your choice. Accessible Persons interested in attending a workshop who have special communication Accommodations or accommodation needs or need an interpreter are encouraged to contact Noah.Heath@txdot.gov. Special communication requests should be made at least 5 business days prior to the meeting. Every reasonable effort will be made to accommodate these needs . Recordings of these virtual workshops will be available for review on the TxDOT webpage (https:LLwww.txdot.govLinside-txdotLdivisionLpublic- transportationLbicycle-pedestrian.html) in the weeks following the live workshops. Questions To submit a question about the funding program or applications, please send an email to: BikePed@txdot.gov by January 28, 2021. Questions may also be submitted during a virtual workshop. A frequently asked questions document will be posted to the TxDOT webpage (https:LLwww.txdot.govLinside-txdotLdivisionLpublic-transportationLbicycle- pedestrian.html) on or around February 2, 2021. Questions about project eligibility or Transportation Development Credit eligibility may be emailed at any time to: BikePed@txdot.gov. Local Contact To discuss project-specific issues, please contact your local TxDOT District TA Coordinator. Virtual Workshop Schedule TxDOT will host three virtual workshops to provide information and guidance on TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects. Potential project sponsors, consultants, and others interested in the program are invited to attend any scheduled workshop listed below. Workshop Dates: January 21, 2021 (1:00PM -4:00PM) Virtual Meeting, Registration link [https:LL2021 ta projspon workshopl.eventbrite.com] January 25, 2021 (l:OOPM -4:00PM) Virtual Meeting, Registration link [https://2021 ta projspon workshoo2.eventbrite.com] January 27, 2021 (9:00AM -12:00PM) Virtual Meeting, Registration link [https:LL2021 ta projspon workshop3.eventbrite.com] Contact: TA Program Coordinator: Noah Heath (361) 876-7184 Noah.Heath@txdot.gov =-==2*='--. ® I Texas Department of Transportation 2021 Transportation Alternatives Call for Projects Workshop 9:00 a.m. -9:15 a.m. 9:15 a.m. -10:00 a.m. SAMPLE Agenda DAY, DATE Microsoft Teams Meeting TIME Introductions to Division and District staff TxDOT TA Gall for Projects Overview • TA funding program description • Eligible project activities and sponsors • Two-step application process (Preliminary and Detailed Applications) • Call for Projects timeline • Project evaluation and selection criteria • Local Match, EDCP, and Transportation Development Credits. 10:00 a.m. -10:10 a.m. Break 10:10 a.m. -10:55 a.m. Local Government Projects • Federal and state requirements • Advanced Funding Agreement -roles and responsibilities • Local government project procedures including Risk Assessment • Professional services procurement and management • Phases of a local government project • Program resources available to local governments TxDOT TxDOT-PTN TxDOT-LGP 10:55 a.m. -11:30 a.m. Best Practices for Project Applications TxDOT-DISTRICT /PTN • Design details • Maps, exhibits, and photographs • Planning and public support • Budget consideraLions • Project readiness 11:30 a.m. -12:00 p.m. Question and Answer TxDOT-PTN Best Practices for Detailed Applications TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects Criteria Evaluation Categories {Program Gulde Table 3) Safety Project Readiness Geographic Equity Connectivity & Accessibility Community Support and Planning Demand Focus of this presentation January 25, 2021 3 Detailed Application: Sample Questions SAFETY 9 . Identified bicycle and/or pedestrian safety hazards and countermeasures Check all of the safety hazards located wit hin the project limits. Next to each checked safety haza rd, state the proposed countermeasure(s) addressing the hazard identified_ Provide additional countermeasures. inform ation about countermeasures. and photos of safety hazards as an attachment: C-Sar..-Yards and Countermeasures. Clearly identify these features on Map 1-Safety and include in attactv--v. -------· D High roadway speed (45 mph or greater) !countermeasure... ! ! .......... ,,,_,, .......... ,.,_ .. , .................... , .. _............ ·····-·········-····················· ········-···············-···············-···············-···! D Hazardous intersection/conflict point D Uncontrolled intersection/ crossing D Lack of bi ke/ped infrastructure r .................................................................. . ! Countermeasi •• .............................................................. , l ........................................ . r······-···················-···· 1 Countem. ure ... ...................................................... 1 ································-····················! !....................................... ················-····-········· r-···············-···················· i i Countermec. '9. . ........................................... .J D High motor vehicle traffic volume D On-street parking D Wide roadway crossing (3 or rv D Lack of light ing D Other .dnes) 10. Bicycle and, pedestria1 . fra~ ~cture elen ....... cs ! ...... . . .,termeasL Cow, -~asure. ~ountermeasure. _ . ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... .i ·ountermeasure ... Which of the fo, ·ing features , part the proposed project? Check all that apply_ Clearly identify these features on Map . 'afety_ New t ·cle/p1. ... strian infrastructure ... D closes a ga p i, 'cycle or • .estrian network D features traffic markings/signage D features new tn. ...11zation-A· D addresses railroad/highway/water crossing D features traffic cei ..• 11ng elements D new bicycle &/or pedestrian infrastructure D separates bicycles &/or pedestrians from D includes a vertical separation element motor vehicle t raffic (e.g. curb. flexibl e delineator. bollard) D facility is offset from road (~5') * must meet warrants January 25, 2021 4 Design details What do design details convey? • A comprehensive picture of the project • How the project meets current standards and state-of-the-practice • Constructability and durability • Safety, accessibility, and project readiness criteria How does the project sponsor address design details? • Project Description (3-4 sentence project description) • Project Details (drop-downs & fill-ins about project design) • Project typical section, layout, location map (attachments) • Itemized Construction Cost Estimate -discussed later January 25, 2021 s Project Description 3-4 sentence written description, which includes: • Facility type (ie. shared use path) • Project location (ie. along to FM 345) • Limits (ie. from Main Street to Birch Street) •Width (ie. 12-foot-wide) • Major construction items (e.g., pedestrian bridge) or elements that affect motor vehicle traffic patterns (ie. new medians, new signals, traffic calming elements, road diets, etc.) Written project descriptions must "fit" in space provided. Ensure all words are visible. January 25, 2021 6 Sample project descriptions "The project would construct a 12-foot-wide shared use path along Brushy Creek from the Sunshine Apartments {public housing) to Comstock Elementary School. The project would include a pedestrian hybrid beacon, ADA-curb ramps, crosswalks, and signage at both termini, as well as a 60-foot-long, 14-foot (clear width) pre-fabricated bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Brushy Creek." "The proposed project would construct new 6-foot-wide, 5-inch reinforced concrete, ADA-compliant sidewalks on both sides of Garner St from Tunica St to James St (1 mile), including replacing damaged, non-compliant sidewalks on the north side of Garner St between John St and James St (0.3 mile of total project length). The project includes curb extensions at Tunica, John, and James Streets and a raised median with pedestrian refuge at John St." January 25, 2021 7 Project Location Information and Project Details Project Information • Project Dimensions •Total length • Facility width • Material depth • Project Location • Google map link •Written description • Latitude/Longitude -' - • I ~ i I roject 1Det~flls • 30% or more plans for review (if available) • Primary (and Secondary) Facility type • Surface type/material • Lighting included? • Bridge details • Construction •Number •Length •Width •Superstructure material January 25. 2021 a I Designs must comply with TxDOT manuals and specifications All manuals are web hyperlinks. Revt ed July 2020 --- and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges ....,...., .... THn~f//fTr-~ ........ 1.IOt4 Revised Janu ry 2020 ·-.. ---------............ _ ® January 25, 2021 g Nationally recognized design guides AASHTO (adopted by TxDOT) NACTO (optional) All manuals are web hyperlinks. January 25, 2021 10 Recent FHWA bikeway design guidance Design criteria -Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ARCttlUCTURAL AN:O TRAHSl'Of'TATIQfll 8AAAlUtl COW'UAHC:l IOARD •CMl'tt1 ltto 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design ~~tor~ F.,.._ In OM "*k fUght.al~W•J, StwedUwP..._ AGl:fief·~--1 1r-~Lm.t<.C~t..:. ...... 2012 @ 1 Texas Acccss1bil1ty Stai Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facllitles In the Public Right-of-Way July 26. 201 1 UN ITED STAT!S ACCESS llOAllD A ffOf.AAL AGfNC't CO .. MIHfD 10 ACLtlll9Lf DfSIGH 36 CFR Part 1190 -Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG) "The proposed guidelines apply to pedestrian facilities in the public right-of- way. The proposed guidelines define the public right-of-way to mean "public land or property, usually in interconnected corridors, that is acquired for or dedicated to transportation purposes" .... " • Sidewalks • Shared use paths • Pedestrian crossings • Pedestrian signals https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/ January 25, 2021 12 Typical sections (DA attachments) • Demonstrate compliance with standards • Show how the project fits into existing footprint as well as the built and natural environments CURBED STREETS: Typical new sidewalk conditions adjacent to existing curbed streets EXISTING POV.UlllGHT POLE EXISTING OAK TREE rns11HG s1Rm PRC»'OSEO SRTS January 25, 2021 13 Typical sections (attachments) EXISTING .... 30' ----~ PROPOSED 5' 10' 10' 5' Sidewalk Bike Travel Travel Bike Lane Lane Lane Lane I •1• minimum re ulred, 2' recommended 30' Free online tool: streetm ix. net January 25, 2021 14 Maps What do maps convey? What should be included? Need and purpose Context Connectivity Accessibility Safety countermeasures Communities/areas served Project limits and location (all maps) Schools, transit, major destinations (Map 2-Connectivity) Important community landmarks and features (Map 2-Connectivity) Identified safety hazards (Map 1-Safety) Proposed countermeasures (Map 1-Safety) Elements of project complexity (ROW, Utilities, RR x-ing, etc.) (Project location map) Existing and/or planned pedestrian/bicycle routes (Map 2-Connectivity) January 25, 2021 1s Project location map -REQUIRED Identifies: -Pr p s~d ide I a d e:rt-bou d bi e la e -Propos d East-bo nd bi e a e e lie Hous g • 11 Co ntrv usS op • Street names • Transit stops • Existing bike/ped network • Parks Prop s .d Trai • Public housing • Government facilities • Retail establishments • Identified safety concerns • Location of proposed improvements January 25, 2021 16 Project layout -REQUIRED ICH POU' Identifies: • Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations • Safety countermeasures • Interactions between auto and non-motorized traffic • Transit connections • Preserved landscape features Includes: • Scale • Context • Street names IRAI .. c UI\ S, V>UOW January 25, 2021 17 Safety Hazard Countermeasures Map: REQUIRED evacuation route Existing Sidewalk/Trail -Proposed 5' ADA-Compliant Sidewalk Proposed 10' ADA-Compliant Shared-Use Path DSISD Hazardous Route 0 Proposed ADA-Compliant Curb Ramps Countermeasure #3: Construction of contiguous 5' sidewalks and 10' shared-use paths Safety Hazard & Countermeasures Map(s) can: Countermeasure #4: Construction of striped crosswalks, ADA-compliant ramps, and pedestrian crossing and advance crossing signage • Identify project improvements in relation to hazards • Gaps filled or safety concerns mitigated by project improvements January 25, 2021 1s Potential Safety Hazards Be sure to feature safety hazards to be mitigated by the proposed project on your Map 1-Safety: • High roadway speeds (45 mph or greater) • Hazardous intersection/conflict point • Uncontrolled intersection/crossing • Lack of bike/ped infrastructure • High motor vehicle traffic volume • On-street parking • Wide roadway crossing (3 or more lanes) • Lack of lighting • Other January 25, 2021 19 Connectivity map: REQUIRED Connectivity Map(s) can: Identify project improvements in relation to destinations, community amenities, and other related projects. • Show connections to bike/ped infrastructure, transit, commerce, residential areas, schools, etc. January 25, 2021 20 Example: Project is on Texas Bicycle Tourism Trails Example Network '"· . TxDOT's Bicycle Tourism Trails Study Example Network . ~ ·~ Live Oak .... ~· ....,, ~ Wlndcrnt Leon Valley ~ §-" • • " Saint Heclv ~ @ , i Example Network Routes by Category I.I 0 -Cross-state Spines -Connecting Spurs Regional Routes January 25, 2021 21 Maps can be made easily! • Google Earth, Google maps, Powerpoint, and other FREE online map creation software . . Sample map made in Google Earth January 25, 2021 22 Photographs What do Context, including built and natural environment photographs convey? Existing conditions Need for project Safety hazards Accessibility issues Environmental considerations January 25, 2021 23 Photographs provide context Adjacent historic buildings along SH 29 facing west (7 /19/16) Historic truss bridge repurposed for bike/ped use on SH 150 facing south (5/14/16) • Historic districts • Environmental features •Separated vs on-street pathways • Repurposed bridges January 25, 2021 24 Photographs demonstrate existing conditions 1. Poor conditions 2. Absent facilities 3. Worn paths January 25, 2021 25 I Photographs identify locations of unsafe conditions Unpaved Surface Forces Pedestrians to Walk Alon Travelin Lanes in Unsafe Conditions Drake St. -4/2/2019 No Existing Sidewalks Safety hazards identified • Kids walking in streets • Unsignalized crossings January 25, 2021 26 Photography: Best Practices • Group well-labeled photographs together for attachments (ie. using Word, PowerPoint, or Publisher) • Photograph labels should identify: location, direction of photograph, date taken, and items of note. January 25, 2021 27 Public and stakeholder support What does public/stakeholder support convey? • Community awareness and interest in the project • Partnerships and coordination • Transparency • Consistency with local planning I How is public and stakeholder support documented? • Public outreach documentation • Local bicycle, pedestrian, safe routes to school, or other transportation plan (attach relevant pages) • Property ownership and acquisition information • TxDOT District letter of concurrence • Collaborative implementation • Local match commitment (Project Sponsor resolution) January 25. 2021 2a Local Support: Best Practice -Public Involvement summary (_Date ) (_Event] ~utcom_;) 12/31/2012 Public Meeting-SRTS Plan Presented proposed Milam ISO SRTS Plan to commun ity; general public support 2/14/2014 Open House - Milam MS Trail Presented trail project to neighborhood; 12 citizens attended; all in support of project 311712014 Website and online survey-50 citizens visited website and took survey; Milam MS Trail oroiect 88% suooorted the oroiect .---~----~--~---~~~--------'"~---------. '--------------l • 6/1/2014 Meeting with adjacent property owner -property owner agreed to relocate fence to accommodate project construction (letter attached) • 7 /15/2014 Presentation to Milam ISO PTA-MISD passed resolution supporting project (resolution attached) • 7 /17 /2014 Presentation to Whispering Oaks Neighborhood Association (WONA) - WONA passed a reso lution in support of project (resolution attached) • 7 /20/2014 Presentation to Milam City Council -ordinance supporting the project (ordinance attached) • 7 /27 /2014 News article -described community presentations and local support (article attached) • 2/14/2017 Letter from Congressman Johnson -expressed support for project (letter attached) • 2/16/2017 Letter from Downtown Business Alliance -supports project (letter attached) • 2/20/2017 Letter from Mr. Bob Jones -indicated a willingness to enter into negotiations for ROW acquisition (letter attached) January 25, 2021 29 Example: Project in Safe Routes to School Plan ·on a' data from var:o.t'S Legend .ft 15 mph Speed Limit l2. 20 mph Speed Limit Ii 25 mph Speed Limit .fi 35 mph Speed Limit ® Adult Crossing Guard ~ Student Safety Patrol School Zone Sign 0 Stop Sign • Traffic Light w/Ped. Signal . t. Ped Crossing w/Beacon -Good Sidewalk .. ....... Crosswalk -------Desire Line -Proposed Safe Route 0 250 500 1,000 Feet ........ I ..... . ... .. I ' ' ' c ro a_ 0 0 .c (.) en 0 ........ en Q) ........ ::::J 0 er ~ ro en ........ c ro L- t9 Q. ca c: :e ·u; 0 c 0 0 ~ .s:; (,J ~ en 0 "C -Cl> I/) ;;= Cl> -..c ::::s I!? 0 m a: ~ Cl> -ca en January 25, 2021 30 Example: Project identified in regional plan ~f\ . . , ... y .... ~ . .. . . . • ·' "· , , I •I••·' . •• >'I . ' . . . . . ' , t . . '. . l I~ . • • • I ' : I .. J .J\pyendix c mentfea ----------------~'BicycCe am£ KUlten.Templt MPO Regional Thoroughfart and Ptdtstrilnl81cyclt Pi.n Rtc0mmtndtd Blcyclt and Pcdettrian Faci~n TJ >I. 'Gostc:Wr~D7tl>:lltH~' ~ "'Jfn1~ AppcndirC Pedestria facifit'es January 25. 2021 31 Example: Project type/location shown in local/regional plan BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN STRATEG 'IES Project listed in regional transit plan Map 5: 2035 Regional Public Transportation System CAMPO Region May 24, 201 0 High Capacity Lanes -c:::H::J-and Managed Lanes -lnteraty Rail .....,...__ Corrmuter Rail lntercity/El(press Bus (Plam ed) o lntermodal Facilities (Planned) • lntermodal Facilities (Existing) January 25, 2021 32 TxDOT letter of consent for projects on/along TxDOT roads I ·-=-'" ""' I Texas Department of Transportation tOO SOUTH LOOP DRIVE •WACO, TEXAS 7810 .. HM • (2M) N 7-2700 November 15, 2012 ~ayor Michael Morgan atyof Troy P.O. Box389 Troy, Texu 76579 Subject: Troy StrMtacmpe Pro)ec:t Dear Mayor Mcrgan: I am writing this letter on bahal of the Texas Department of Transportation to expms our enlhualutlc support of the pedestrian dewlopments proposed along Main Strwt (FM 935). We definitely belltve that thill ~roject w!M serve the community as ii creates a ptdetttian friendly almolphtra around Iha hlatoric downtown diatrtt. Traveler1 along our ayatem wll be invited to atop and anjoy the 11111 and &hopping offered the revilallzed downtown buslne11 dlatrlct. I also underalald from reviewing your nomination Iha! the ICop8 al your projed shaN require the use of TxDOra right-of way. The WtDJ Oiltrict la com~td to support #Iii plOject and will provide the City with adequate ~ of entty neceaaaiy to alow auch d9velopment etong our exiltlng tran1poftation facllltlea. Your efforts to eddreaa safety lmprovementa within TxDOT's and the City's exltti1g IJalllc lacllkiu should dradly lmpad the trawling publlc:'a overall perception of our jo'nl ayatem. Wilt! your comprehenllYe nomfnallon and wide•PIMd community ~. I belie\'e 11111 your propoeal w!U receive careful oonslderalion by the Te11a1 Transpoftatlon Commlaslon. Should you have any queatlona, pie... contact Mr. Jim Reed, Waco Distri:t TE Program Coordnator, at (25") 887·2733. oc: AH Bashl P. E. Kevin Dickey, P.E. Jim Reed Sincerely, ~a,41!-r Albin A. Petter. P.E. Interim District Engineer Wa<XJ Olelrict nc TEXAS PlAH PROPERfY OWNERSHIP AND ACOUISlTION INFORMA'TIOH ATIAOiMENTO PAGE I A(OUCI COllOUTION • lNIWICE W£TY • lXMHD ECONOMIC <J>flOATUNITV • UllC'IE AIR OUAU1Y INCAEAS! THE VAi.OJi! OFOl#l TFIANll'ORl.ll'lCll ASSETS An~~~ January 25, 2021 33 Project Sponsor Resolution • All Detailed Applications must include a resolution from the governing board Declaring support for the project Committing to develop, implement, construct, maintain, manage, and finance the project Committing to provide the local match (if any) Committing to enter into an Advance Funding Agreement with TxDOT if selected for funding Plan ahead! January 25, 2021 34 Proposed budget What does the itemized budget convey? • Project scope and scale • Prevention of potential overruns • Supports activities described elsewhere in detailed application form • Project readiness and local support Where does the project sponsor provide the itemized budget? • Itemized Construction Cost Estimate (fill-in) • Additional Construction-Related Costs (fill-in) WOO\~QS Quanmy unn unn rr100 ·------------ --1- -- -t- I I I -+ ' -- January 25, 2021 35 Average low bid unit prices *' I TE.XAS DEPARTMENT OF TRA~~SPORT ATION AVERAGE LOW BID UNIT PRICE -CONSTRUCTION -STATEWIDE Last Update: Friday, January 27, 2017 ITEMS 100 2001 TO 105 6049 Items Items 0100 -0193 1000 -1133 0204 -0292 2002 -2274 0305 -0368 3000 -3271 0400 -0497 000 -4183 0500 -0560 5000-5969 0610 -0690 6000 -6920 0700 -0788 7001 -7669 0800-0800 8020 -8998 9010 -9063 Bid Code Rilnp 100 200 -105 6049 105 605 -606006 160 6008 -170 6001 170 6002 -93 6036 December U, 2016 Item No Description 100 2001 PREPARING ROW AC. 19.880 50,000.00000 100 2002 PREPARING ROW STA 1,178.540 14,098. 3875 100 2004 PREPARING EA 46.000 1,000.00000 ROW(TREE)(12" TO 24" DIA) 100 2009 PREPARING ROW EA 90.000 765.00000 (TREE) (6" TO 24" DIA) 100 2010 PREPARING ROW EA 45.000 1,200.00000 (TR EE)( 10 TO 48" DIA) 100 6001 PREPARING ROW AC. 143.697 6,958.12731 21 100 6002 PREPARING ROW STA 1,573.380 5,183.53550 34,457.240 2.092.48464 244 100 6003 PREPARING EA 2.000 965. 0000 139.000 393.38705 8 ROW{TREE)(5" TO 12" DIA) *' I TFXAS [)Ft'AF?TME~~T OF TRAl'JSPORT A TION :11i.' · ~ ! ! \: 1·, rn AVERAGE LOW BID UNIT PRICE -CONSTRUCTION -ABILENE DISTRICT Last Update: Friday, January 27, 2017 ITEMS 100 6001 TO 169 6003 0100 -0169 0216 -0251 0305 -0360 0400 -0496 0500 -0560 0610 -0690 0700 -0730 3014 -3014 6001 -6156 ltemNo Description Units 1006001 PREPARING ROW AC. 104 6009 REMOVING CONC (RIPRAP) SY 104 6011 REMOVING CONC SY {MEDIANS) 104 6021 REMOVING CONC (CURB) LF 104 6029 REMOVING CONC (CURB OR LF CURB & GUTIER) 104 6054 REMOVING LF CONCRETE(MOW STRIP} 104 6064 REMOVING CONC (MISC) CY SY Bid Code Range 100 600 -169 6003 December 31, 2016 Twelve-Month-Mo Alll Quantity Bid Qmntlty A"'IBkl Usap .200 150,000.00000 3,835.000 14.22024 6 648.000 7.25000 70.000 10.00000 1 2,375.000 9.00000 600.000 25.00000 1.000 130.00000 17,960.000 4.25000 1 http://www.txdot.gov/business/letting- bids/average-low-bid-unit-prices.html January 25, 2021 36 Budget considerations Small quantities may have higher unit costs Inflation to year of construction Quality construction (e.g., 6-in concrete reinforced with re bar) January 25, 2021 37 Budget items to remember Mobilization Site preparation Erosion control/revegetation Lighting Curb/driveway work Traffic control Demolition Remediation of hazardous conditions January 25, 2021 38 Examples of eligible vs ineligible activities Eligible activities •Preliminary Engineering (for pop areas <50k) • Incidental landscaping, environmental mitigation, utility adjustments • Land survey for ROW demarcation •Construction engineering and inspection • Project administration •Preliminary Engineering (for pop areas >50k) •Major landscaping, environmental mitigation, utility adjustments • ROW activities • Legal services •Application preparation JCl nu<l ry 25. 20 21 39 Proposed safety countermeasures included in Itemized Budget Work Act1vit1es Quantity Unit Unit Pnce Amount Mobilization 1 LS $72,000 $72,000 Barricades , Signs and Traffic Control 1 LS $60,000 $60,000 Remove Concrete Pavement (drive/intersection) 2,489 SY $30 $74,667 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter x 1 500 LF $6 $3,000 Preparing Right of Way 2 AC $6,000 $12,000 Embankment (FINAL), density controlled 5,000 CY $30 $1 50,000 Excavation (special) 1,840 CY $20 $37,545 Relocate Signage 1 LS $50,000 $50,000 Lime Treated Subgrade (6 in) 8,149 SY $7 $58,675 6 ft wide sidewalk -4 in Concrete * 5,256 SY $54 $283,824 12 ft wide shared use path -6in Concrete * 2,893 SY $115 $332,733 Curb ramps -12 ft wide 2 EA $6,000 $1 2 000 Curb ramps - 6 ft wide 30 EA $3,000 $90,000 Cross Walk (Thermo)* 7 EA $3,000 $21 ,000 Conduit for signal (bore) - 4 inch 800 LF $120 $96,000 Pedestrian Signal (head, pole, wiring completel*" 8 EA $24,000 $1 92,000 Concrete Driveway Replacement (6 in thick) 2,489 SY $78 $194, 133 Sod Re-establishment 11 ,440 LF $2 $27,456 Extension of existing Culvert 1 LS $75,000 ~7t:; nnn Bike Route Signage 1 LS $60,000 Proposed safety Pavement Markings and signage (bike/ped) * 1 LS $12,000 Erosion Control 1 LS $16,800 countermeasures not Cobra head light pole -200 ft spc. -wire incl. * 23 EA $12,000 included in the budget Barrier in area where path nears road * 1 LS $150,000 Utility Adjustments (sanitary sewer manholes) 1 LS $4,800 will be removed from Storm Sewer (fill existing ditch) 2,000 LF $90 Retaining Wall <4 ft tall (west side near V.M) 1 LS $65,000 final project evaluation Concrete Curb and Gutter 2,200 LF $24 score. *Safe Countermeasures ty January 25, 2021 40 Project readiness What does project readiness convey? • TA projects must let for construction within 3 years! Readiness is important. • Awareness of potential pitfalls, challenges, and delays • Consideration of all phases of project development • Understanding of TxDOT's project development processes How does the project sponsor demonstrate project readiness? • Project Details • MPO TIP Inclusion Letter (as attachment -grouping is encouraged!) • Environmental Documentation, if available (as attachment) • Property Ownership and Acquisition Information, if nee. (as attachment) • Railroad SupporVRight-of-Entry , if necessary (as attachment) • Project Timeline (fill-in and as attachment) • Itemized Construction Cost Estimate (fill-in) January 25, 2021 41 Advanced coordination may be necessary January 25, 2021 42 Environmental documentation for categorical exclusions :~~•"'\'' , ,. ,/"'~~,,,.~··/', 1 c•, • ~'"" ,,:;-,,,. ":,,, _, : •'';' • 1 , ~""-,~·~ ~~·' .~,.·~ ~ -· ~ ~ ' "'~ ' ' .. ' . -.. . ' .. Archeological resources/cemeteries Water resources Hazardous materials Biological evaluation Public involvement Coordinate with your local TxDOT Environmental Coordinator! January 25, 2021 43 Historical resources Be proactive! • Check the Texas Historical Commission atlas: atlas.thc.state.tx. us • Search for Historic Resources Toolkit on txdot.gov THC coordination occurs prior to environmental approval Historical properties can affect design -and cost Use TxDOT pre-certified professionals Contact your district environmental coordinator to learn more! Summary I Provide good project details Use maps, diagrams, and photos that tell a story Demonstrate good public awareness and support Include a thorough, comprehensive budget Plan ahead and coordinate early Focus on the evaluation criteria Ja nuciry 25. 2021 45 Questions? ?? • • Bonnie Sherman TxDOT -Public Transportation Division Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Manager TA Set-Aside Program Manager (512) 486-5972 Noah Heath TxDOT -Public Transportation Division Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Planner (512) 486-5973 Carl Seifert Jacobs Engineering Transportation Planner Jacobs Appendix Slides Online map requirement • Need: Exact project locations. • Solution: Create digital map, which TxDOT can import easily. •Draw proposed project route (line) •Draw any other elements Instructions for creating simple Google map • Click share • "Enable link sharing" • Copy map link URL Paste map link into PA and DA Onllne map requirement walk-through (slide 1) • Create map name -Click "Untitled Map" and type preferred name in the pop-up. ----r.~ -Name should include Project sponsor and name (e.g. SanAngelo_GreenSt_SUP) Edit map title and description Map title [ SanAngelo_GreenSLSUP Description This is a simple map showing the proposed location of a shared use path along Green St in San Angelo. -Cancel • Select base map ~ ........ B~a~se~m~a~-----~x -Click triangle next to "Base map" on left · side and select a background x January 25, 2021 49 Online map requirement walk-through (slide 2) • Navigate to your project area -Click in search area -Type location name or street name • Add starting and ending points -Click "Add marker" -Place markers on the map End -Label markers "Start" and "End" ____ .,. ~,.e -Click save -cancel 1geltn .. onvem1u11 :>rs Bureau W"1WeA 9 WAveB E AveB 0 "· ,, 3 la al( >hn se1 January 25, 2021 so Onllne map requirement walk-through (slide 3) • Share map -Click "Share" ~ SanAngelo_ G reenSLSUP This is a simple map showing the proposed loca- tion of a shared use path along Green St in San Angelo. 1 view All changes saved in Drive Add layer Share • Preview • • • •• x Quick Sharing • Click slider next to "Enable link 4--------r-sharing" ~ Enable link sharing Copy I ink and paste Pub lic everyone on the internet can md and access into PA and eventually DA ht ps //ww v google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid= 1 tbJ No need to share Google Drive IEl .. January 25, 2021 51 2021 Transportation Alternatlves (TA) Call for Projects Preliminary Application (PA> INSTRUCTIONS TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects involves a two-step application process: Step 1 Preliminary Application (PAl: When completed, the PA will provide high-level project information to determine eligibility. A separate application is required for each project. Project Sponsors will be contacted by their local TxDOT District to schedule a meeting to discuss their proposed project. Project Sponsors will receive notification to advance to step 2. Step 2 Detailed Application (DA): Project sponsors will complete a Detailed Application for each eligible project. When completed, the DA will provide detailed project information, including a written scope of work, location map(s}, project layout and context, photograph(s), typical section(s), a comprehensive cost estimate, project timeline, property information, overview of potential environmental concerns, and a commitment for local government project funding. The Preliminary Application (Step 1) INSTRUCTIONS below provide additional information and guidance for completing the Preliminary Application. The Program Guide describes program requirements and guidelines for TxDOT's 2021 TA Program Call. Detailed Application and instructions will be provided at the conclusion of Step 1. Project Sponsor 1. Contact information (s&;f-explanatory) 2. Identify population area (based on project location) Population size should be based on the 2010 U.S. Census population for the jurisdiction or area in which the proposed project is located. Project sponsor population should be confirmed by searching the US Census website, here: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/. 3. Is the project within the boundaries of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)? If the project is within a MPO boundary, is the project within a Census Urbanized Area greater than 200,000, designated as a Transportation Management Area? • Map of TMA and MPO boundaries • List of Texas M POs Projects located within a transportation management area (TMA) (Census urbanized area with population greater than 200,000) are not eligible for TxDOT's TA funds. Projects, or substantially similar projects, submitted in a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) administered TA Call for Projects can be submitted for TA funding under this program call as long as the MPO TA call for projects is not occurring concurrent with the TxDOT TA Call for Projects AND the project is located outside of a TMA. Project Information 4. Project name It is recommended to include the project location and facility type in the project name (examples: Main Street/US 79 Sidewalks, Delwood Elementary separated bike lanes, and White Oak Bayou SUP); use logical abbreviations where appropriate to reduce the length of the project name, such as "SUP" for Shared Use Path. 5. Eligible project type A project may include multiple project types; select all that apply. It is understood that sidewalks, shared use paths, and bikeways will include appropriate intersection treatments. Eligible project types include: • Bikeway improvements (infrastructure serving primarily bicyclists) TA Preliminary Application Instructions 1 • Shared use paths (i nfrastructure serving bicyclists and pedestrians) • Sidewalk improvements (infrastructure primarily serving pedestrians) • Improvements for non-motorized transportation safety (examples include traffic calming measures, pedestrian or bicycle signals, pedestrian refuge islands, cu rb extensions, bicycle parking, etc. Select this option only when th e project does not include a bikeway, sidewalk, or shared use path . Additional descriptions of ea ch eligible project type are found in 43 TAC .11.404. 6. Project location (Check all that apply) Project location notes: Proj ects or components of projects located entirely within school or park property that are for interna l ci rculation only are not eligible for TxDOT's TA funding. 7. Provide a Google map link Applicants must create a simple Google digital map and provide a map link in the PA. Several Google tutorial web links are provided below for assistance. Minimum requirements include: 1. Map Name must include project sponsor's name and project name. 2. Map settings must be changed to enable link sharing. 3. Map must at least feature a starting and ending point for the proposed project. 4. .Do NOT include existing or future facilities that are not part of the proposed project. -Google Mao. Tutorials· Create a new map htti;is:LLsui;ii;iort.google.com[mymai;isl'answeri'3024454?hl =en&ref toi;iic=3188329 Add places to your map htti;is:LLsui;ii;iort.google.com[mymai;is1'answer1'3024925?hl=en Draw lines and shapes htti;is:LLsu QQOrt. google.com[myma i::isl'a nswer [3433053?h I =en&ref toi;iic=302 4924 Add/save directions htti;is:LLsui;ii;iort.google.com[mymai;is[answeri'3502610?hl=en&ref toi;iic=3024924 Share, download, or print htti;is:LLsui;ii;iort.google.com[mymai;is1'answer1'3109452?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform=DesktoQ map A Map Name should include project sponsor and -f1 ProjectSponsor_ProjectName ...... ; \..:.. project name (e.g. SanAngelo_GreenSt_SUP) All changes saved in Drive -l! Click "Sha re": • Add Jaye~<:;.+ Shar~ Preview 1) Click slider to "Enable link sha ring"; and 2) Copy Google rr,3p link for pasting into PA form . ../ Project Location • . • fJ Individual sty.le<. __ , 3 A minimum of two places/points are ~ l.!J req uired from each applicant: starting 9 Starting Point point and ending point. More complicated e Ending Point projects may necessitate drawing lines and/or shapes. 8. Prelimin ary Scope of work Provide a brief description of the proposed project, which includes the project location, limits, facility type, and width. Major construction items, such as bicycle/pedestrian bridges, or elements that would affect automobile traffic pattern s (new signals, new medians, road diets, traffic calming, etc.) should be included. An example Scope of Work: Proposed project will construct a 10-foot-wide shared use path (SUP) along the north side of US 1 71 from Main St to 4 th Street in Uvalde, TX. The proposed SUP will include a pedestrian island, crosswalks, a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, and signage to traverse a 5-lane highway intersection. Additional signage and crosswalks will be added to cross two other local streets. TA Preliminary Application Instructions 2 -, \ 9. Funding opportunities TxDOT administers TA funds for projects located outside Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). TMAs are identified by the smoothed 2010 U.S. Census Urbanized Area boundaries of population areas greater than 200,000. TXDOT's TA funds are divided into two funding groups based on population: Nonurban -population areas of 5,000 or less; Small Urban -population areas between 5,001 and 200,000. Refer to TxDOT's 2021 TA Program Guide for information about eligible activities, types of work, and allowable costs. Federal TA funds require a 20% local match. Refer to TxDOT's 2021 TA Program Guide for information about opportunities for local match reduction. Conditional Project Lists will be developed to assist TxDOT in prioritizing Nonurban and Small Urban projects for anticipated future federal TA appropriations in FY 2023 -2024. Funding Group Project Sponsor Local Match Type of Work Approxi mate Population Size Required Funding Available 5,000 people or Prelim inary $10.5 million Non urban less Engineering & Conditional Project Construction List 5,001 to 50,000 20% Prel iminary people Engineering & Conditional Project Small Urban Construction List 50,001 to Construction only 200,000 people 10. Project costs Provide a planning-level cost estimate for the total estimated cost for preparation of plans, environmental documentation, and construction. Refer to TxDOT's 2021 TA Program Guide for information about eligible activities, types of work, and allowable costs. Attach details of the cost estimate to the PA email submittal. aoe ttie..cost esti Mtiiotlment n the gge gbt comer. 11. Local match 12 O and meets certain economic criteria, they may 13. Project Complexity These questions allow TxDOT to better understand potential project issues that may lead to project delays. Better understanding of potential issues before the project is scoped and a detailed cost estimate is developed will help the project sponsor prepare a more competitive Detailed Application. Responses will not impact project eligibility or scoring. TA Preliminary Application Instructions 3 Preliminary Application Submission Deadline/Delivery Requirements Preliminary Applications must be submitted in the form prescribed by the department in accordance with the program rules and the program guide. The complete project nomination package must be received by the department no later than 5:00 p.m., CDT, on Monday. March 1. 2021. A separate and complete Preliminary Application, with attachments, is required for each TA project proposed. Supporting documents must be cl early labeled with the Project Name ar,d Project Sponsor in the upper right-hand corner and in 8 1/2" X 11" format. TxDOT's 2021 TA Preliminary Application Form is available at: http://www. txd at.gov Ii nside-txdot/ d ivisi on/pu bl ic-tra nsportation/bicycle-pedestria n. htm I Prellmlnary Appllcatlon Package: 1. The original 2021 TA Preliminary Application completed in PDF and delivered to the department in its original PDF format. 2. A separate PDF of the preliminary project cost estimate (if available). Project Submission to the Department: The completed 2021 TA Preliminary Application package must be submitted to TxDOT using the department's online Dropbox. Access TxDOT's on line Dropbox at: https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/dropbox/?action=mainmenu. If you are prompted for a username and password, look for the following message to the bottom left of the log-in box and follow the link: "If you are not a Texas Department of Transportation user, go here." On the Dropbox landing page (fou r rectangular buttons on the left side) click the Drop-off button and enter the information requested. Information about the Sender Your Name: Your Organ ization: Your email address: a. Within Box 1 at the bottom, be sure a check mark appears in front of the line reading: "Send an email to me when the recipient picks up the file(s)" Information about the Recipient Name: TA Program Manager Email: BikePed@txdot.gov Choose the FileCsl you would like to upload Use the Browse button to locate the files on your computer to open and upload. b. Submit only one application per Dropbox submission. c. You should only upload two files per submission (one PDF Preliminary Application form and one PDF cost estimate, if available). d. Once the two files are attached , click the Drop-off the File(s) button located at the bottom in Box 3. Once you have clicked the Drop-off the File(s) button, you will be directed to a cpmpletion page with confirmation information, including the date and time of your drop-off. The confirmation may take a few minutes to process. Save a copy of the confirmation page for your records. The confirmation page may be requested by the department in the event there are questions concerning project submission(s). Again, submit only one complete TA Preliminary Applicatiun package per Dropbox submission. The drop-off confirmation does not constitute receipt of the files. You will receive an automatic follow- up email when the files are retrieved from Drop box by the department's representative. The follow-up email will be your confirmation that the files were officially received by the department. If you do not TA Preliminary Application Instructions 4 I ' J' ' receive a follow-up confirmation email within a few days, verify the package was submitted to the correct email address and contact the department's TA Program Manager. Refer to TxDOT District TA Coordinators (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ptn/bicycle/ta-srts-coordinators.pdf). The department reserves the right to deem a TA Preliminary Application package ineligible for funding if not received by the department on or before 5:00 p.m. CDT on March 1, 2021. TA Preliminary Application Instructions 5 A. INTRODUCTION Cti1-hc~ Pv..ii. MPJ, evrt11~-e,~'j~' ~<:Al 2021. Transportation Alternatlves Call for Projects Detailed Application (DA) INSTRUCTIONS Deadllne to Submit DA: June 14, 2021 TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects involves a two-step application process: Step 1 Preliminary Application (PA): When completed, the PA provides high-level project information to determine eligibility and funding opportunities. A separate application is required for each project. Project Sponsors meet with local TxDOT District staff to discuss proposed projects. Project Sponsors receive notification to advance to step 2 and complete the Detailed Application for each eligible project. Step 2 Detailed Application (DA): When completed, the DA provides detailed project information, including a written scope of work, location map(s), project layout and context, photograph(s), typical section(s), a comprehensive cost estimate, project timeline, property information, overview of potential environmental concerns, and a commitment for local government project funding. The following Detailed Application Instructions are intended to work in conjunction with TxDOT's 2021 TA Detailed Application and the 2021 TA Program Guide located on the department's website at: http://www. txdot. gov I inside-txdot/ d ivision/pu bl ic-tra nsportation/bicycle-pedestria n. html Each topic in the Detailed Application is presented below with additional guidance and examples, where appropriate. Contact your local TxDOT District TA Coordinator for further clarifications. NOTE: Frequently Asked Questions for Step 2 will be posted on TxDOT's webpage by May 3, 2021. To submit a question, email BikePed@txdot.gov by Aprll 26, 2021. Project Modifications It is anticipated that projects will be refined between the preliminary and detailed applications based on the discussion with the district, further evaluation of site constraints, cost estimation, and · local priorities. However, a project submitted in a detailed application in Step 2 should be substantlallythesame project that was initially submitted in a preliminary application in Step 1. Examples of acceptable project refinements could include: • slightly extending project limits to a more logical endpoint • truncating limits to a logical destination to avoid adverse site conditions 1 Detailed Application Instructions • rerouting a project between the original termini to a parallel street with mo re favorable site conditions • splitting a project into two phases or geographic areas Additionally, smaller project elements submitted in Step 1 may be combined into a single detailed application as long as the project sponsor demonstrates in the detailed application how the project segments work together to support bicycle or pedestrian connectivity in their particular community. Whether proposed as an independent project or as an element of a larger transportation project, a proposed project must be a logical unit of work and be constructible as an independent project. Maps The project sponsor is asked to create several maps to demonstrate the proposed project's benefits to the active transportation system and the community. Project maps can be made simply. Hand-drawn sketches or maps made in PowerPoint, Google Earth, or other free software applications can be just as effective as maps developed using sophisticated software. Maps should be uncrowded, clearly marked, and legibly labeled. Maps should be zoomed in enough to clearly see the location of marked features, such as the locations of safety hazard.§_. co_nnecting facilities, or barriers. Include important street names or landmarks, especially streets along the proposed route and at each endpoint. If a map becomes too busy, then divide the information into two maps. Project Evaluation and Selection TxDOT's 2021 TA Program Guide introduces the project evaluation process and selection criteria for the TA funding program. The detailed application is organized to gather specific project details t o aid in a technical feasibility review and project evaluation to identify projects for potential award by the Texas Transportation Commission. The evaluation process is intended to identify quality projects that will benefit communities across the state by enhancing the pedestrian and bicycling environment. Responses to questions 7 through 19 in the detailed application, including supporting maps and documents, will be used to evaluate projects based on their benefits to the transportation system and the community. Information related to issues of project complexity, the project timeline, and the detailed construction budget (questions 28 through 30) will be used to determine constructability and feasibility, components of project readiness. As stated in the Program Guide, criteria category scores will be weighted and weights uniformly applied to eligible projects. Projects will be evaluated against the criteria outlined in the Program Guide with weights generally distributed equally across the four areas indicated below. 2 Detailed Application Instructions Exhibit 1: Transportation Alternatives Evaluation Criteria Categories •Bike & Pedestrian Crash Count/Rate •Safety Hazards •Countermeasures •Design Elements •Underserved populations •Support & planning •Employment & population density •Modal connectivity •Destinations •Barrier Elimination •Bicycle Tourism Trails •Status of project development •Project time line •Const ructa bility B. DETAILED APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS i'°'~ A j 1. Project Sponsor Name Insert the name of the public entity sponsoring the project in the box provided. } 2. Jurisdiction Population (based on the 2010 U.S. Census) Using information from the 2010 Decennial U.S. Census, type the population of the jurisdiction in the box provided. Select the smallest population area where the project is located (e.g., city, Census Designated Place, village, or unincorporated area). Once the population is entered, the white box below will automatically populate with Non urban (population areas of 5,000 or less located outside a Transportation Management Area (TMA)), Small Urban (population areas of 5,001to200,000 located outside a TMA), or Ineligible (population areas greaterthan 200,000 or inside a TMA). ..1. PEOPLE 2010 Decennial U.S. Census at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts Population /fact/table/US/PST045219 0 Population estimates. July 1. 2019, (V2019J 0 Popullltion estimates base. Apli 1, 2010. (V2019) 0 PopUllltion, percent dlange -April 1, 2010 (estimates base) lo July 1, 2019, (V2019) O PDPUll!tion. Census, April 1, 2010 3 ""/>(,, ~ \~etailed Application Instructions ').: J ti~ 3. Type of Organization/Agency/Authority In the box provided below this topic, click on the down arrow and select the project sponsor's "Type of organization" from the dropdown menu. Project Sponsor Contact Information (Authorized Representative) Insert the project sponsor primary contact person's name, title, mailing address, city, zip code, telephone number, and email address in the boxes provided. In the boxes provided to the right, insert the project sponsor's physical address, main telephone number, and website (if available). The project sponsor's contact person must have the authority to speak on behalf of the project sponsor. This person should have working knowledge of the project and be able to answer questions. Consultants or non-profit representatives should not be listed here. Project Description 5. Project Name /n the box provided next to this topic, provide the same project name that was provided in the J preliminary application. If the project was modified after submitting the preliminary application, then adjust the project name accordingly. 6. Pro'ect Location Information n the box next to TxDOT District: click on the down arrow and select the district where the project is located. Refer to topic J of tl:le' 2021 TA Program Guide to identify the TxDOT District __ __..J1----1~,...e box next to Texas County: click the down arrow and select the county where the project is located. Note: If a project involves more than one county, select the county where a majority of the work will be done. Indicate if the project is located within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) by clicking on the drop-down arrow and select Yes or No. Map of MPO boundaries: https://tinyurl.com/TxDOT2021 TAMPOmap List of Texas MPOs: https://www.texasmpos.org!texas-mpos/ Identify the project location using street name, adjacent waterway, or other identifying landmarks or features -include the project limits in descriptive form (from and to). Google Map Instructions Applicants _must create an updated Google digital map and provide a map link in the DA. The Google map should only include the proposed project. 4 Detailed Application Instructions • DO NOT include other existing or future bicycle/pedestrian facilities in the Google map. as this map will be used to conduct GIS analysis based on the project location. • DO update the Google Map if your project limits changed since Step 1. Minimum requirements for the Google map include: 1. Map Name must include project sponsor's name and project name identified in Item 1 and Item 5 of the detailed application. 2. Map must be made publicly accessible on the web. 3. Map must feature a line showing the project's complete route. Points may not be necessary. The map may also include line(s) and/or points indicating major construction elements, such as proposed bridges or signals. Several Google tutorial web links are provided below for assistance. Google Mao. Tutorials· . Create a new map Add places to your map Draw lines and shapes Add/save directions Share, download, or print map All changes saved in Drive hlt12li!:l'.lli!Yl212Q!'.:t.gQQg!~.QQ!!l£'.mli:!!JS!i;§LS!!:§Werl~Q244~?hl=~n&ref 1QQiQ=31!3:§~29 hl!12s:£'.lsu1212ortgooole.com/mli:!!Jai;;§lanswerl3024925?hl=en h!Yls:asu1212ort.goQ.gle.com/mli:!!Jai;;§lanswerl343305'3?hl=en&ref toi;iic=3024924 hltl2~:£'.lli!Ul212Q!'.:t.gQQg!~.QQ!!l£'.mli:!!JS!i;;§lS!!:§W~rl~~Q2§10?hl=~n~~f 1QQiQ=~Q24224 h!Yls:asu1212ort.gooole.co!!JLmli:!!Jai;;§£answerl3109452?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform=Desktoi;i Map Name should include project sponsor and project name (e.g. SanAnge/o _GreenSt_SUP) Click "Share": 1) Click slider to "Enable link sharing"; and 2) Copy Google map link for pasting into DA form . ../ Project Location f' Individual styles ~~~ l., Bike Lane The map must feature a line shsiwingthe project's complete route and points indicatingthe start and end points. The map may also include line(s) and/or points indicating major construction elements End Point Base map 5 Detailed Application Instructions reject involves multiple location aescribe the primary location in the Detailed Applic ion. As an attachment to th nomination, provide a complete list of all improvement location (including the primary lo ation) using descriptive limits and lengths. Label attach me as A-Project Loca · n Information -No more than 2 pages. No. 1 2 N 5th St SH 223 E Hendr x Dr with multiple locations: From/To Descriptive Limits Length (Mile) From To m N Peach St N 14th St E Ft Davis Ave E Avenue A SH 118 Ante lo Dr 0.56 0.57 0.40 In the box next to Project location in relation to roadways, click on the dropdown menu and select t-1'.Q..m the following: / • On/along a TxDOT maintained roadway • On/along a non-TxDOT roadway • On/along both TxDOT and non-TxDOT roadways • Not within the right-of-way of any roadway Project location notes: Projects or segments of projects located within school or park property that are for 'Internal circulation only are not eligible for funding in this Call for Projects. 1.--~ \ ~ / 7. Project Description --+---·~ Provide a brief description of the proposed project, which includes the project location, limits, ~')\ L"' facility type, and width. Special construction items, such as bicycle/pedestrian bridges, or elements that would affect automobile traffic patterns (new signals, new medians, road diets, traffic calming, etc.) should be included. If the project description does not fit in the box provided, then please shorten. Only the portion of the project description that is visible inthe box provided when the application is printed will be considered during evaluation of the project. An example Project Description: Proposed project will construct a 12-foot-wide shared use path (SUP) along the north side of US 171 from Main St to 4 th Street in Redding, TX. The proposed SUP will include a pedestrian island, crosswalks, a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, and signage to traverse a 5-lane intersection at 4 th Street where the path connects to the Sandy Creek Trail. Additional signage and crosswalks will be added to cross two other local streets. 6 Detailed Application Instructions ~~Funding Opportunities / 8. Funding Opportunities Select the funding opportunity sought based on eligibility determined following the preliminary application. TxDOT reviewed all preliminary applications for eligibility by funding program based on responses provided in the preliminary applications. TxDOT informed all project sponsors of the funding programs for which they are eligible by email during the week of April 12, 2021. Following evaluation and ranking of Detailed Applications, TxDOT may discuss with project sponsors of the highest scoring projects opportunities to be awarded funds for immediate implementation or placed on the Conditional Project List based on initial project ranking, project readiness, and funds available. Project Details 9. Project Details A project layout is required as an attachment. The project layout should be at scale with clearly labeled streets, end points, and construction locations. Additional attachments that are - recommended are typical sections, photographs, and other exhibits that describe and provide details about the project. All supporting exhibits submitted must be legible, clearly labeled, and convey useful information. Exhibits may include maps, diagrams, and drawings. Examples are included in the workshop presentation entitled Best Practices for Detailed Applications located at: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/ d ivision/pu blic-tra nsportat ion/bicycle-pedestrian. html. Label attachment(s) as Project Details-Attachment B -No more than 15 pages. The department strongly recommends providing typical sections. These exhibits do not need to be professionally prepared. Typical sections help convey the location and design of proposed improvements by showing the type, width, and depth of materials proposed and the project's relationship to surrounding elements. This information is needed to evaluate bridges, bike lanes, shared use paths, and sidewalks. See example typical sections on the following pages. 7 Detailed Application Instructions Example Typical Section J. IHOUt..DER 2' Example Typical Section 2 2.J/tAY SHARED-USE PATH (I' FOR BICYQ.ESI 14'FOR PEDESTllANSI I • 12' 12' EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION SHOWING ADDED BIKE LANES 8 12' 14' Detailed Application Instructions Example Typical Section 3 -... ................... · 6' S' Sidewalk Bike Lane EXISTING 30' PROPOSED - 10' 10' ravel ravel Lane Lane 30' 9 S' Bike Lane I Detailed Application Instructions If the project plans are 30% or more complete. include only example sheets as attachments and provide a weblink for plan review here: r--==--===~~::·····-.--··-····~·····-·::···::::.:.:.·.·:.·.·:::.:---·---;============::::;----;====::::::;---- The construction plans for this project are currently: I (select) .,.. I . I% complete In the box titled The construction plans forthis project are currently:, click the down arrow and select the status of plan development (Not started, Under development, or Complete). · In the second box, insert the percentage of completeness for the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E). If the project plans have not been started, enter zero. If the project plans are 30% or more complete, include only example sheets (no more than 10 pages) as attachments and in the box next to we blink for plan review here, provide a web link for plan review (if available). Example sheets could include typical sections, project layout, bridge details, or striping details. A 30% complete plan set should include typical sections, pavement design, a detailed project layout plan, and any special details or designs developed for the project. Primary facility type: I (select) "' I Secondary facility type: I (select) "' I ::__..:::::::::::::;-;:=====:;-~~-1 ~======-;:::=====;~~ Total lengtti:L____~~I (select) .,.. I Total lengtti:L_____J I (select) .,.. I Facility width:! iteet Facility width:i lteet Material deptll:j !inches Material depth: I !inches ~--;:::=-----~ ~=======--~ Surface type/material: I (select) "'I Surface type/material: I (select) "'I In the box next to Primaryfacilitytype, select the facility type that is the primary focus of the project. If the project has more than one facility type, then select from the dropdown menu in the box next to Secondaryfacilitytype. The facility types are the same in both dropdowns. For clarification on bikeway types, see topic L. Bikeway Terminology in the program guide. (Examples of "Other Safety Improvements" may include traffic calming or safety lighting.) Under the primary and secondary facility types, enter numbers or select drop downs to provide facility length, facility width, material depth, and surface type/material. Facility width may vary through the project limits, enter the width of the facility through the majority of the project. An example of "Other Safety Improvements" may include upgrade of existing school zone infrastructure throughout a school district.) Design Guidelines Reminder: Only select "Other Safety Improvements" when the project does not include sidewalk or bikeway improvements. All bicycle/pedestrian facilities should be designed to allow for safe, comfortable, and accessible non-motorized activity, be context-sensitive, and accommodate anticipated future growth in walking and bicycling traffic. Surface material type and depth should be durable and substantial to minimize future maintenance costs to the project sponsor and/or other party responsible for maintenance. 10 Detailed Application Instructions Sidewalks should be wide enough to accommodate the volume and type of pedestrian traffic expected in the area. A minimum 5-foot sidewalk width is required and, where the sidewalk is placed immediately adjacent to the roadway curb, a sidewalk width of 6 feet is recommended (particularly when adjacent to a state-maintained roadway). Refer to TxDOT's Roadway Design Manual for more information on sidewalk details, including instances where sidewalk width may be reduced for short distances. Sidewalks must meet the 2010 ADA standards and should conform to Prooosed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right of Way aatest edition) fPROWAG) as published by the U.S. Access Board. Shared use paths should be wide enough to accommodate the expected traffic. The minimum paved width for a two-directional shared use path is 10 feet; however, 12-foot-wide or wider is recommended where higher demand is anticipated, particularly in urbanized areas, near schools, and near popular bicycle/pedestrian destination red use aths should include a 5-foot offset from the roadway r incorporate a physical barrier or railing. Shared use paths must comply with the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (latest edition) as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (MSHTO) and should conform to PROWAG. All design criteria for on-road bicycle facilities must comply with the latest TxDOT Bicycle Accommodations Guidance and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Bicycle lane widths should be 5 fe~rminimum (in curbed sections). Buffered bike lanes should include a minimum 1.5 foot (2 -3 foot preferred) striped buffer. Separated bike lanes may incorporate vertical elements of various heights/widths or be vertically or horizontally offset from the roadway. In all cases, attention should be paid to offsets, shy distances, gutter pans, curbs, etc., necessary to incorporate these elements and ensure that roadway and ROW widths can accommodate these features. Does the project include lighting adjacent t<fEOo~dway within state-maintained right-of-way? In the dropdown box provided, select Yes o~ Consider appropriate safety lighting needed for the project to accommodate usage during all seasons and times of day. Department policy dictates that lighting on state-maintained right- of-way for adjacent paths must be adequate to illuminate the roadway system. It is essential that the project sponsor consult with the department's district personnel to make sure that the project budget allows for this additional cost and that the proposed lighting meets the department's requirement. In the program guide, refer to section J. TxDOT District Map and section K. TxDOT District/Division TA Coordinators for district contact information. Does the project include lighting adjacent to a roadway within state-maintained right-of-way? I (select) •I Does this project include bridge improvements? IL!<s_e_le-'ct)'--___ ... _,I Total # of proposed bridges: L..=--1 Note: If more than one bridge is proposed identifv the bridge with the longest span length In the detailed application and identifv additional bridges in an attachment structural Materials (Deck/ Beams): I (select) • I Bridge construction: I (select) •I Bridge length:r-··-··-··]tt Bridge width:r---·---]tt Rail type: I (select) •I 11 Detailed Application Instructions Bridge Facilities If the project includes a bridge(s), indicate the number of bridges proposed. If more than one bridge is proposed, identify the bridge with the longest span length and provide design details for that bridge in the application using the fill-in and dropdown boxes. Identify additional bridges and bridge details in an attachment (also include the bridge identified in the nomination form in the attachment). The following chart is included as an example of how to represent additional bridges in an attachment. Additionally, if proposing a prefabricated bridge type, please provide the manufacturer's name to better understand the proposed bridge design. Identify bridge locations on a map and include as an attachment. If available, additional bridge attachments may include bridge elevations or typical sections. Below is an example of a bridge elevation. Map Type/Name Feature Bridge Construction Structiral Length Width* Rail Mamtacturer ID Crossed Work Type Material Type (prefab Orly) 1 Pedestrian Doe On-site Wood/ 40' 10' Pedestrian N/A Bridge Creek new Wood 2 Shared Caney new On-site Concrete/ 65' 16' Traffic N/A Use Path Creek Concrete 3 7th Street Ave . rehab On-site Concrete/ 80' 40' Traffic N/A Bridge A Steel 4 Shared Brays Prefabrication Concrete/ 120' 28' Traffic Acme Co. Use Path Bayou new Steel *Clear distance inside rail to inside rail Example Bridge Bevatlon 1 I•'-• 1 • -• , ,, -. ,---.,--£xi ltlno Tlrtier Ii' 1'-4.~-E I st I no IO+et-'I Sl;rtt t t lt! In luc8---.--...( Note: Pedestrian and bicycle facilities along bridges should incorporate a 1-to 2-foot minimum offset from any rail. Bridge width MUST be designed in conformity with the approaching path. 12 Detailed Application Instructions Also, the bridge length should be adequate to accommodate the existing stream hydraulics, where applicable. Provide any available hydraulic evaluation as an attachment. The project sponsor should consider economic feasibility and aesthetic appeal when selecting bridge construction materials. If a decommissioned highway truss is being repurposed for the project, the Certificate of Eligibility from the State Historic Preservation Office (S HPO) should be included in the nomination package or demonstrate appropriate coordination. For more information about Texas Historic Bridges you can visit: https://www.txdot.gov/inside- txdot/division/environmental/historic-bridge.html Additionally, TxDOT's Historic Bridge Legacy Program makes certain historic bridges available for public use once TxDOT engineers determine the bridges are no longer sufficient to carry vehicular traffic. These increasingly rare bridges may create new legacies forthe community to enjoy along a shared use path. For more information about this program visit: https://www.txdot.gov/inside- txdot/division/environmental/adopt-historic-bridge.html All design criteria for bicycle and pedestrian bridges must comply with TxDOT's Bridge Design Manual and MSHTO's Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Guide Specifications forthe Design of Pedestrian Bridges (latest edition). Safety TxDOT is interested in projects hat respond to documented safet issues TxDOT will analyze crash records to determine the documented bicycle and/or pedestrian crash count and rate in proximity to the proposed project. 10. Identified safety hazards and countermeasures Check all of the safety hazards located within the project limits. In the blank next to each checked safety hazard, state the proposed countermeasure to address the hazard identified. Clearly identify these features on Map 1 (Label attachment as Map 1-Safety and include in Attachment C). TxDOT will review hazards and countermeasures for appropriateness and will score projects accordingly. Countermeasures which are not appropriate for the checked safety hazard may not be eligible for funding. All listed countermeasures must be identified in the Itemized Budget (Item 28). Provide additional information supporting the appropriateness of • countermeasures to mitigate the identified safety hazard, such as photos and/or narrative', in an attachment. Include any additional countermeasures that do not fit in the blanks provided in the attachment. Label attachment as C-Safety Hazards and Countermeasures. No more than 5 • pages J \~D YJh-o-tbS IV'\ ~\tG 13 0 Detailed Application Instructions O High roadway speed (45 mph or greater) 0 Hazardous intersection/conflict point O Uncontrolled Intersection/crossing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lack of blke/ped infrastructure High motor vehicle traffic volume On-street parking Wide roadway crossing (4 or more lanes) Lack of lighting r-·-·-·-··-········-········-·-··--·····-··-··--·····-·····-·-·····-········-·····-·-···"-·-• other i ... ·-·-·-··-·· ................ -... ··-·-·····-··-···-·······--···-·-·····-·"·-··-·-·····-·-·-·-; [~~~~i.~~~~~~~:::.:~-=:::::~_::::::::::::·::::::::::::::::::.::::.:::.~~:::::.::::~::::::] [c~~~!.~~~~~~r.=::.:.=::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~::::::::::::::::::~.::~:.=:J --·-----·-·-··-·-·-······----·-·-·-···-··-····-·· .. ·-·-.. -·-·-·-··-·-····-··-·-·-·····-·-·····-····-··-. i Countermeasure... i ~---·--··-·-·--···-·-·····-·-·----·--·-·--···-···········"·----·····----·-·····-·-·-··-·-····-···--··-··-·-·.; ----·-·-·---·-·-.. ···-.. ----····-----········-·····-·-·····----------------·-·····-·-··-·---···: ! Countermeasure... i -· ---------------------·-·-····-···············-·-··-·-···-···-·····--·····-·-·····--···-_; [~~~~~~~~~~:::~-=~=~::·::.:::::···:·:·:·:·::::.::::::.::::~~:::::··:::·:·::::::.:] r-·---··---···-·-·····--·------·-········-·····-·-·····-·-·····-····· .. ·-·-··-·-· .. ·· .................... ~ L~~'-'~i:~=~-~~~.:.::: ____________ ···-·-·····-·-·-·-···-···--··--·····-·-·····-········J !-·-· .. ··-·-··--·-· .. ··-···· .. ··-········-·····-·-·····-·······-····· .. ··················-·-·····-·····'"········-·····'"···········-·········, [9~~'..'!~.C~.=~-~~r..:::: ........................................... _. ___ ................................. ~ [~~~t-~~!~~~~i.~;::::::~~~:::::.:::::·:.:::::::::.::::::::::::·::::::.:~:::::::::::::::·::::::·::::J [Q;~~t;~;;~~~;~~·:··-·-·---··-···-·-·····-····-·-·····-·-··-·-·-···-··-·-·-·-··-·-··----·1 \.. .. -... ··-·-·····-·-............... _ .................. -·····--·· ........................................................................................ .; One countermeasure may address multiple safety hazards, or more than one countermeasure may address one safety hazard. Please list all proposed countermeasures for each safety hazard identified. Examples of pedestrian countermeasures may include sidewalks, crosswalk visibility markings/signage, raised crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHB), rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFB}, leading pedestrian intervals, road diets, etc. Examples of bicycle countermeasures may include bike lanes, intersection markings, bicycle signals, etc. The Federal Highway Administration has developed a couple of tools for identifying appropriate countermeasures for bicyclist and pedestrian safety concerns. For more information on safety countermeasures, review the following resources and Appendix B: Additional Safety Countermeasures Resources: • FHWA Low Cost Safety Enhancements for Stop Controlled and Signalized Intersections • FHWA Countermeasures for Bike Safety • FHWA Countermeasures for Ped Safety 11. Infrastructure Elements Bicycle and pedestrian facilities that are well designed provide enhanced safety. Check all the new bike/ped infrastructure elements that are part of the proposed project. Clearly identify these features on Map 1-Safety. O closes a gap in bicyc or pe • estrian network D features new traffic signalization* D features traffic calming elements D separates bicycles &jor pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic D facility is offset from road ~5') 0 features traffic markings/signage D D D addresses railroad/highway/water crossing new bicycle &/or pedestrian infrastructure includes a vertical separation element (e.g. curb, flexible delineator, bollard) * must meet warrants Elements checked in Item 11 should be reflected in t ro ·ect details · eluding the itemized budget. Be aware of requ ired offsets and widths necessary to accommodate proposed ""' infrastructure elements. Verify that any proposed safety features will fit within the existing or proposed rights-of-way. Funded projects that cannot be constructed as proposed in the detailed application may be subject to elimination from the TA program. 14 Detailed Application Instructions Traffic control devices such as signs, signals, and markings are designed to regulate, warn, guide, and inform. All pavement markings, signals, and signage must comply with the 2011 Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ITMUTCDl -Revision 2. *For new traffic signalization, beacons, or school zones, provide supporting documentation indicating that the signals, beacons, or school zones meet warrants/conditions in accordance with TMUTCD and TxDOT policy. Connectivtty and Accessibiltty 12. Connectivityto destinations For item 12, check the major destinations to which the proposed bicycle/pedestrian project will provide direct access. The proposed project does not have to directly connect to a destination if the project closes a gap or eliminates a barrier and connects to existing sidewalks or bikeways that provide direct access to the destination. 0 School 0 Community center 0 Fresh foods (grocery stores. farmers mkts) 0 Park 0 Central Buisiness District 0 Health facility (medical center, sports field) 0 Neighboihood 0 Commercial Center 0 Other special trip generator (label on map) 0 Library 0 High density residential 0 Other school facility (label on map) 0 Major employer Support the response to this question by -arly labeling me-destinations checked,in Item !1.2 nd identifying existing non-motorized connections to these destinations on Map 2 - Connectivity and insert as an attachment labeled D -Connectivity. 13. Connectivityto Multimodal Transportation a. Select the appropriate response in the dropdown menu to specify whether the project supports multi-modal transportation by connecting to an existing or planned bus stop, rail station, or streetcar. Support the response to this question by clearly labeling transit stops on Map 2 - Connectivity. b. Select the appropriate response in the dropdown menu to specify whether the project connects to existing or planned bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities. Planned facilities must be included in an adopted local or regional transportation plan or _map. Ideally, the proposed project should connect to existing or planned facilities that serve the same type(s) of non-motorized users. For example, a bike facility should connect to an existing or planned . . dedicated bicycle facility or shared use path. Clearly draw and label existing and/or planned \] bicycle/pedestrian facilities on Map 2 -Connectivity. 14. Barrier Elimination Click up or down arrows next to each barrier type to specify whether the project eliminates an existing barrier to travel and provides safe crossing of that barrier by individuals with 15 Detailed Application Instructions disabilities, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers of all ages and abilities. If the eliminated barrier type is not listed, check other and enter the barrier type. Please clearly label eliminated barriers on Map 2 -Connectivity. Be sure that elements checked under item 14 are addressed in the proposed budget and other ~ areas of the application such as, #25 Railroad Support/Right-of-Entry Letter . .:2)11 i,..)S \15. Long-Distance Bicycle Routes and Tourism Please indicate if the project implements a segment or locally favored alternative on the Texas Bicycle Tourism Trail Example Network, improves non-motorized connections between population centers (e.g., cities), and/or extends or develops other regional non-motorized route for tourism. You can find more information about the Texas Bicycle Tourism Trail Study (BTI) at https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/modes-of-travel/bicycle/plan-design/tourism-study.html. To determine if your project is on the BTI Example Network, please reference TxDOT's Statewide Planning Map at https://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html . Provide a map indicating how the proposed project connects to or complements long-distance tourism routes. Label attachment to support your response as E-Long Distance Bicycle Routes. I Proposed new bike/ped network infrastructure Projects that add new off-street bicycle or pedestrian facilities along independent rights-of-way, such as creeks, railroads, or utility corridors, may have diff erent benefits or impC:Jcts than projects following the alignment of existing roadways. TxDOT will review the response to Question 7 to determine whether the project is proposed on independent right-of-way. T is interested in how the project improves access to everyday destinations for underserved com nities. TxDOT wi ll analyze US Census data to determine if the project may improve access for sen rs, individuals with disabilities, racial or ethnic minorities, people without private vehicles, D all Urban projects, TxDOT is interested in projects that improve access to higher density reside tial and/or employment ce nters. These characteristics have been shown to indirectly relate to high r rates of bicycle and pedestrian users. TxDOT will analyze US Census data to determine whe,Jhe rejects are located in areas with higher residential and employment density. - 16 Detailed Application Instructions Loca I Support 16. Project Sponsor Resolution )4.1 i,.~!~ An adopted resolution from the project sponsor's governing board is a required attachment to ~---'1--__ ..... e detailed application. The resolution should declare support of the project, commit to D Q providing the local match (if any), commit to entering into an Advance Funding Agreement with TxDOT (if selected), and commit to developing, implementing, constructing, maintaining, managing, and financing the project (where applicable). This attachment should be labeled F- Project Sponsor Resolution. A sample resolution is available on TxDOT's TA funding webpage. 17. Public Involvement and Support Public involvement is an important indicator of project demand and eventual project success. Preference is given for public involvement that has occurred in the last 5 years. \I j t ~ a. Provide a brief summary of the public engagement activities for this project with supporting , 1 ---+--documentation in an attachment labeled G-Public Outreach and Support. Tables and lo I ) 0 0 bulleted list examples are provided below. Select Yes or No from the dropdown to indicate lo( I~] that you have attached a summary of public engagement. Ct>/ I~ /2" ~ le )z,,o) I Chart Example: (p/U Date Event Outcome Presented proposed Milam ISD SRTS Plan to 12/31/2017 Public Meeting -SRTS Plan community; general public support; meeting summary attached Open House -Milam MS Presented trail project to neighborhood; 12 2/14/20:1:9 Trail citizens attended; all in support of project; meeting handout attached ---- 3/17/20191.... Website and online survey :.) 50 citizens visited website and took survey; Milam MS Trail project 88% supported the project; survey attached Bullet List Example: • 6/ 1/2019 Meeting with adjacent property owner -property owner agreed to relocate fence to accommodate project construction (letter attached) • 7 /15/2019 Presentation to Milam ISD PTA -MISD passed resolution supporting project (resolution attached) • 7 /17 /2019 Presentation to Whispering Oaks Neighborhood Association (WONA) - WONA passed a resolution in support of project (resolution attached) • 7 /20/2019 Presentation to Milam City Council -ordinance supporting the project (ordinance attached) 17 Detailed Application Instructions • 7 /27 /2019 News article -described community presentations and local support (article attached) • 2/14/2020 Letter from Congressman Johnson -expressed support for project (letter attached) • 2/16/2020 Letter from Downtown Business Alliance -supports project (letter attached) • 2/20/2020 Letter from Mr. Bob Jones -indicated a willingness to enter into negotiations for ROW acquisition (letter attached) b. lnteragency or public/private/nonprofit partnerships indicate a supportive community network working toward a common goal to achieve successful outcomes. In the blank provided, list all collaborating partners and their role in developing/implementing the proposed project. c. Letters of Support. Attach letters of support from stakeholders including elected officials, community leaders, bicycle/pedestrian interest groups, school officials, PTA, adjacent property owners, etc. Label attachment(s) as G-Public Outreach and Support. (max 10 pages) 18. Maintenance and Operation Project sponsors need to understand the on-going costs of the proposed infrastructure. Refer to the department's LGP Management Guide, Chapter 10 Project Closeout and Maintenance . A project selected by the commission shall be maintained and operated by the project sponsor for the purpose for which it was approved and funded. A project selected by the commission shall be dedicated for public use for the greater of: (1) a period that is commensurate with the amount of federal investment in the project; or (2) • 10 years, if the amount of federal in'"'.estment in the project is $1 million or less • 20 years, if the amount of federal investment is more than $1 mill ion. Project sponsors propo"sing bridge improvements should consider long-term inspection, monitoring, and maintenance to ensure safety. If at any time the project sponsor can no longer maintain and operate the project for its intended purpose, the project sponsor shall consult with TxDOT and FHWA as to disposal or alternate uses consistent with the project's original intent. In the box provided, identify the entity responsible for project maintenance and operation after construction. If an entity other than the project sponsor will be responsible for maintaining the ·MPO . ~.e1u ?W~ 1-hrif' Slhcnr.e · .\f\Mv\.. 18 Detailed Application Instructions project after construction, attach a letter from th maintenance and label it H -Maintenance Docu Planning 19. Planning (If applicable) sponsible party committing to long-term tation. f!Dr ~ . a. Indicate whether the proposed project is included in a local transportation plan and include as an attachment only the cover and pages from the plan referring to this project. Examples of local plans may include local or MPO bicycle. pedestrian. safe routes to school. corridor. or traffic safety plan. Projects not identified in a local transportation plan MUST provide documentary evidence of support for the project from the community and local jurisdiction. (refer to question 17) In addition, the project sponsor may include, as an attachment, only the cover and pages from a School District's approved list of Hazardous Routes that identify this project location and provide solutions to the safety issues and/or barriers along the route that prevent students from safely walking to school. ' . In addition, the project sponsor may provide a link to a transportation plan. Label attachment(s) as I-Local Planning-No more than 10 pages. b. Indicate whether the proposed project is included in the project sponsor's Transition Plan for ADA compliance and include as an attachment only the cover and pages from the plan that are relevant to this project. Label attachment(s) as I-Local Planning -No more than 10 pages. 20. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Inclusion Letter The project sponsor indicated on Page 1 if this project is located within the boundaries of an MPO. If this project is located within the boundaries of an MPO, include a letter from tbe Meo to the project SRonsor indicating their willingness to immediately include the project in the MPO's TIP as either a grouped project or individually listed, it funded, Projects that are individually listed in an MPO TIP MUST be added at the earliest opportunity to avoid project development delays that could put TA funds at risk of lapse. Most agencies request a minimum of 30 days to review a project proposal and provide a letter of support. Contact agencies early to allow sufficient time to receive a response. Label attachment as J-MPO TIP Letter-No more than 2 pages. Project Complextty 21. Environmental Documentation Most bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure projects have minimal environmental impacts and, as a result, qualify as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, with any action, impacts may occur whereby more substantial environmental 19 Detailed Application Instructions documentation could be required [Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)]. CEs are defined in 40 CFR 1508.4 as projects that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect. Some project characteristics have the potential to trigger environmental mitigation, coordination, and/or permitting. Examples of site characteristics that may require additional evaluation (and associated costs) for environmental issues include projects located: • In publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges • In publicly/privately owned historicaljarcheological sites • Within or around properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places • Within range and/or potential habitat of state or federally protected species • On land with r tering hazardous materials • In areas requiring placement off in wetlands/waters of the U.S. r 1..-<ifl ¥' • In the Edwards Aquifer Recharge/Contributing Zones • In the Coastal Management Zone • In new right-of-way or previously undisturbed right-of-way Known historic sites are identified in the Texas Historic Sites Atlas t:J (https://atlas.thc.state.tx.usl). Review this resource to identify known historic properties near the proposed project. Historic bridges t hat may ~ot be on the Texas Historic Site Atlas may be found on the National Regi?ter of Historic Places Listed and Eligible Bridges of Texas: ,.., https://txdot. maps.a rcgis.com/apps/weba ppviewer I index. htm I? id =cc9cf 3452a32 4d0bb961a \..--' Oc8b4edd898 A project sponsor is responsible for completing the following task~ • Review the proposed project activities to determine if they meet the criteria outlined in 23 CFR 771.117 to be classifi~d as a CE; preparation of an EA may be required for projects that don't meet the criteria for a C~ • Determine the required environmental com~~asks • Collaborate with the department representative (typically the department's local district environmental coordinator) to prepare the project scope that outlines the required environmental tasks and associated responsibilities • Ensure that any required environmental studies, resource agency coordination, and public participation are completed • As agreed to in t he scope, prepare all required documentation that supports the environmental determination (CE, EA or EIS) • Maintain the project file for submittal to the department ~ I~~ -1~s~ -fi-1\4--~fh lz f.-~tr4~· Detailed Application Instructions • Document and implement any environmental permits, issues, or commitments The department's environmental staff will be responsible for coordinating the required environmental studies with the appropriate resource specialists, including relevant specialists at other state and federal agencies, as applicable. For example, impacts to historic properties will be coordinated through the department as part of the project's environmental documentation process. Depending on the nature of the historic property, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) coordination can take several months to complete. For more information on the department's environmental processes please refer to the following resources: • Federal-Aid Policy Guide -Environmental Impact and Related Procedures: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/ directives/fa pg/ cf r07 71.htm • Environmental Handbook for Environmental Assessments: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/env/toolkit/620-05-gui.pdf • TxDOT's Environmental Compliance Toolkits: http://www.txdot.gov/inside- txdot/division/environmental/compliance-toolkits.html • TxDOT's LGP Management Guide Chapter 5: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/lgp/procedures/guide.pdf Environmental determination approval is a required step in the project development process. A Memorandum of Understanding between FHWA and TxDOT entitled Concerning State of Texas ' Participation in the Project Delivery Program Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 (December 2014) assigned authority to TxDOT to make FHWA project decisions for assigned projects. Therefore, in most cases, the department (rather than FHWA) will provide the final environmental review and clearance for 2021 TA projects. The project sponsor is encouraged to work closely with the department's local distric): environmental coordinator on project scope and environmental documentation requirements. This will significantly facilitate the development and approval of environmental documentation . Once a project sponsor submits required environmental documentation to TxDOT, the department's review, resource agency coordination, and the environmental decision process can take as little as a few weeks or as much as several months. The length of this process depends on the complexity of the project and the completeness and accuracy of submitted information. Completion of I_xDOT's NEPA Scope Development Tooll:!ecommended to identify the level of environmental documentation and any resource assessments/agency coordination needed for the proposed project. Include, as attachments, TxDOT's NEPA Scope Development Tool (if completed) as well as any documentation of prior environmental studies, clearance, or resource agency consultation on the proposed project in Attachment K-Environmental Documentation. 21 Detailed Application Instructions If these items are not available, then (at a minimum) attach a list of anticipated potential environmental issues (with map as appropriate), anticipated coordination, mitigation, and/or permits, and the project sponsor's proposed approach to address known environmental issues in Attachment K-Environmental Documentation -No more than 10 pages. 22. Property Ownership and Acquisition Information All proposals MUST provide supporting documentation of t he project sponsor's property rights by title of ownership, lease, or easement for all property within the project limits. Examples of documentation of right-of-way ownership include ROW maps, deed records, or plats. In the Excel project nomination form, respond to the following questions: a. Has the property needed for the project already been acquired? In the box provide click on the down arrow and select Yes or No. If No , how many parcels will need to be acquired? Within the nomination form in the text box provided, list the number of parcels needed. Include a commitment letter from current owner( s) demonstrating a wi II ingness to transfer the parceVproperty to the project sponsor in accordance with state and federal laws, iffunded. (See the LGP Toolkit, Form 6-4 of the Best Practices Workbook, for a sample full donation letter with the required language.) b. Are there any known encroachments (e.g., utilities, fences, adjacent property improvements)? In the box provided, click on the down arrow and select Yes or No. If Yes , identify known encroachments. c. Note: Project property acquired after 1971 must have been acquired in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real PropertyAcquisitiori Act !Uniform Act) . .. Was property acquired after 1971 in accordance with t he Uniform Act? In the box provided, click on the down arrow and select Yes or No. If No, in the text box provided below this topic, briefly describe when and how the property was acquired. Improvements may be proposed on state-maintained roadway right-of-way (on-system) or on property owned by the project sponsor (off-system). Note: Projects that include state-maintained right-of-way or have a direct effect on an existing state-maintained roadway must have a recent letter of consent, addressed to the project sponsor, and signed by the current TxDOT District Engineer (DE); this consent cannot be delegated down. The DE letter should be included as an attachment under this topic. Note: A project that will require the acquisition of real property through the exercise of eminent domain or condemnation is not eligible for participation in TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects. 22 Detailed Application Instructions Label attachments as L-Property/Ownership/Acquisition -No more than 10 pages For requirements and information on how to acquire right of way and accommodate utilities, refer to the department's LGP Management Guide, Chapter 6 Right of Way and Utilities (https://www.txdot.gov/government/processes-procedures/lgp-toolkit/process.html). 23. Requirements -Signals. Beacons. and School Zones Certain new traffic control devices, such as new traffic signals, flashing beacons (RRFBs and PHBs), and school zones MUST meet warrants and/or conditions prescribed in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) and related TxDOT policies in order to be eligible for reimbursement with federal funds. For additional TxDOT guidance on RRFBs and PHBs, please refer to TxDOT Traffic Safety Division's Memo on the topic [https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trf/pdf /revised-guidelines.pdf]. Projects that propose a new school zone on a TxDOT road should follow the latest " Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones " TxDOT manual, be approved by TxDOT, and passed by either a TxDOT minute order or city ordinance depending on project location. Documentation of school zone approval from TxDOT must be included in the detailed application as an attachment, labeled Attachment M-Signals, Beacons, and School Zones. Include supporting documentation demonstrating that signals, beacons, and school zones meet warrants/conditions in accordance with the TMUTCD and TxDOT policy in Attachment M- Signal, Beacons, and School Zones. Items found to be ineligible will be removed from the project scope prior to award and/or letting. The Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones is available at: http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/szn/szn.pdf For projects that are proposing a road diet or changes to vehicle capacity, a traffic study is recommended and should be included in Attachment M-Signal, Beacons, and School Zones . 24. Railroad Support/Right of Entry Letter Does the project encroach or cross railroad right-of-way? In the box provided, click on the down arrow and select Yes or No. If yes, the project sponsor MUST include documentary evidence from the railroad in support of the project and, where appropriate, a willingness by the affected railroad to enter into an agreement; contract with the local government for project implementation and provisions for right-of-entry for project construction. Where applicable, a cost for railroad work MUST be included in the budget. If the project encroaches or crosses railroad right-of-way, has coordination with the railroad begun? In the box provided, click on the down arrow and select Yes or No. Does the project include railbanked railroad right-of-way? In the box provided, click on the down arrow and select Yes or No. 23 Detailed Application Instructions Railroad crossings of bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure must incorporate appropriate, ADA- compliant pedestrian and bicycle elements, such as planks, crossing arms, etc., to allow for safe crossing of the railroad by non-motorized users. In addition, coordination with a railroad is a requirement for all projects that are within 50 feet of railroad right-of-way (including grade-separated crossings) and/or all projects that begin or end within 500 feet from an at-grade highway-rail crossing to ensure traffic control and construction do not interfere with an active crossing. Obtaining railroad approval can take several months and in some instances several years. For projects that meet the threshold for railroad coordination, documentation of railroad coordination must be included as an attachment to the detailed application. At a minimum, this documentation should demonstrate that coordination with the railroad has been initiated and the railroad is in support of the project. Projects with completed railroad coordination documentation or written agreements in place demonstrate a stronger level of project readiness, and these documents should be attached, if available. If the project sponsor has not already been in contact with the affected railroad and received evidence of support via letter or email, the project may not be ready for funding consideration. All railroad costs MUST be included in the Itemized Budget Section. The estimated cost for railroad improvements may include flaggers, permits, insurance, and oversight by the railroad, or costs for the railroad to construct the work on behalf of the project sponsor. Additionally, the railroad may require a fee to conduct plan reviews in advance of issuing an agreement. Improvements requiring changes to tracks or train activated warning devices MUST be completed by the railroad at a cost to the project sponsor. Note: Some existing/proposed ra ilroad agreements may exceed the 10-page limit; if so; include only the pages needed to demonstrate the status of coordination and responsibilities of the parties. Label attachment(s) as N-RR Right-of-Entry/Support Letter -No more than 10 pages. 25. Project Timeline Estimate the number of months it will take to complete this project (from the current state of project planning/design through construction). Estimate the time required for each activity listed in the application. Several activities may be accomplished concurrently (such as environmental documentation, PS&E development, and property acquisition); as a result, the Total Project Development Time Estimate may be less than the total of the time estimated for each activity. Label attachment(s) a 0-ProjectTimeline -No more than 2 pages. Provided on the following pages are guidelines to help project sponsors develop their timeline chart and enter the estimated time for each activity listed in topic 25. Project Timeline in the 2021 TA Detailed Application. The estimated timeframes below are based on similar federally funded projects and are only intended to serve as guidelines. They are in no way a 24 Detailed Application Instructions representation of the actual timeline for your specific project. Additionally, project sponsors are encouraged to review the Enhanced Cost Estimate and Project Development Procedures for MPOs: Final Report for further project time line guidance. https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/hostedpdfs/tamuk/0-6929-1.pdf Time estimates provided by the project sponsor in the detailed application should be reasonable projections; however, these time estimates may need to be adjusted based on project activities. For selected projects, an appropriate time line will be agreed upon between the department and the project sponsor and made part of the local agreement. • PlanningActivities (minimum 6 months; typical 6-12 months) (Include the project in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), execute local agreement (Advance Funding Agreement (AFA)) between the department and project sponsor, complete required local government training, assign local government and department roles and responsibilities, etc.) Planning activities will vary depending on the project type, current status of project development, project letting (localjdepartment), and whether any pre-construction costs are being proposed for federal reimbursement (only eligible for project sponsors with populations under 50,000). Project sponsors with projects located within the boundaries of an MPO will be required to submit their project to the MPO for inclusion in the local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), a process that can take days (for grouped projects) or several months (for individually listed projects). For projects that are individually listed, the project must be listed in the local TIP before the project can be added to the STIP. For projects located outside the boundaries of an MPO, the local TxDOT District will be responsible for including the project in the department's rural TIP and STIP. During the planning phase and as part of negotiating the AFA, project sponsors will be expected to become qualified in accordance with TxDOT's Local Government Project Program (LGPP), undergo a risk assessment which will be initiated by TxDOT, and provide information to receive a Special Project Approval to oversee elements of the project (as applicable). Additional information on Local Government qualifications, Risk Assessment, and the Special Project Approval is available at the following website: http://www.txdot.gov/government/programs/local-government- projects.html. Refer also to TxDOT's 2021 TA Program Guide. The department will draft the AFA for execution by the project sponsor's governing board (e.g., city council or commissioners court) and the department. Upon full execution of the AFA, the department will provide written authorization to the project sponsor to proceed with project development. These department-led activities (TIP, STIP, and execution of the local agreement) can take 6 to 12 months to complete. • Project Design and Plan Preparation (minimum 6 months; typical 6-24 months) (Solicit, select, negotiate, and execute contract(s) for engineering and environmental services. Develop construction Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) to state 25 Detailed Application Instructions and federal standards. Include time for review by department district and division staff, a Registered Accessibility Specialist (RAS), and other agencies as needed.) Refer to the department's LGP Management Guide, Chapter 2 Project Initiation, Chapter 4 Preliminary Engineering and Design, and Chapter 7 PS&E Development to obtain a better understanding of the required tasks and time to complete this phase. The project sponsor is responsible for plan preparation, environmental documentation, and other design-related activities including required reviews. See Environmental Clea rance discussion below fortimeline information on that process. Federal participation in the project development phase may be granted if costs to develop PS&E and environmental documentation are included in the project award for an eligible project sponsor with population under 50,000. If consultant services are authorized, then the pre-procurement activit ies must be overseen/reviewed and approved by the department for compliance with state and federal requirements in order to be considered eligible. These requirements are outlined in the department's LGP Management Guide. If project development costs are authorized for federal participation, the project sponsor is required to submit plans to the department for review at progressive stages of development to ensure that state and federal standards are met (e.g., 30%, 60%, 90%, and 100% completion). For all other projects (i.e., those without federal participation for preliminary engineering activities), design reviews should occur at agreed-upon stages of development. Contact your local TxDOT district office to establish expectations. If the estimated construction cost of the project is $50,000 or greater, the project must be reviewed by a RAS that is licensed by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR). This may require an additional two months in the review process. As a result, include a minimum of three months for TxDOT's final plan review. • Environmental Clearance (minimum six months; typical 6-18 months) (Tasks include: completing the Work Plan Development Tool, environmental documentation, and appropriate resource studies; consider environmental mitigation, permits, public involvement, and review by resource agencies). All documentation and exhibits must meet state and federal standards. See LGP Management Guide, Chapter 5 Environmental Compliance (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/lgp/procedures/guide.pdf ). For projects with minimal environmental impact, like most bicycle and pedestrian projects, the environmental evaluation can be initiated at the same time as design development. In general, for federally funded projects, the environmental document is approved prior to right-of-way acquisition. Completion of TxDOT's NEPA Scope Development Tool is highly recommended to identify the level of environmental documentation and any resource assessments/agency coordination needed for the proposed project. If the project is located within or adjacent to a potentially eligible National Register historic 26 Detailed Application Instructions site/district or protected species habitat, include additional time (from a few weeks to several months) for review by appropriate resource agencies. For more information on environmental documentation requirements review Item 21. Environmental Documentation in this document. Consult with local TxDOT district environmental staff for clarification. • Right-of-Way (ROW) Acquisition (acquisitions should occur after environmental clearance) • (Include time for surveying, appraisals, title transfer, etc. Only incidental utility adjustments may be eligible for federal participation.) Refer to the department's LGP Management Guide, Chapter 6 Right of Way and Utilities (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/lgp/procedures/guide.pdf ). In general, environmental clearance occurs prior to ROW acquisition for federally funded projects. Once the ROW boundaries are established, preliminary steps toward acquisition, such as surveying and appraisals, can be in . A vironmental clearance is obt · , 9W-ac · · can e completed. However, if a oca gover project sponsor chooses to use its own funds for advance property a uisition (i.e. prior to environmental approval) without seeking federal eimbursement, the local government can do so subject to the guidance in C pter 3, Section 6 of the department's Ri ht of Wa Manual ol. 2 Consult with your local TxDOT TA Coordinator for additional clarification. All project ROW acquisitions must be evaluated in an appropriate environmental document. Additionally, all acquisitions must comply with the 1971 Uniform Act. For additional property acquisition guidance, review topic 22. Property Ownership and Acquisition lnformati9n in these instru~tions and the 2021 TA Program Guide. Only minor, incidental utility adjustments (e.g. relocation of a street light, fire hydrant, or surface drainage inlet) are eligible and may be included as part of the project. Major utility adjustments (e.g. installation of a drainage system, relocation of power lines) should be completed in advance of project construction letting. Allow for sufficient time to conduct utility adjustments prior to letting if minor adjustments cannot be included in the construction contract for the TA project. Project Construction/Implementation (Minimum 12 months; typical 12 to 36 months) (Construction letting, award, construction, project close-out, and maintenance) (Include time for advertising, procurement of construction contractor, contract negotiations, site preparation, construction, inspection, project close-out, etc.) Refer to the department's LGP Management Guide, Chapter 8 Letting and Award, Chapter 9 Construction, and Chapter 10 Project Close -Out and Maintenance http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdotjlgp/procedures/guide.pdf to better understand required tasks and durations. The project sponsor should incorporate a minimum of two months in advance of construction letting to finalize bid documents, advertise, and award the construction project. 27 Detailed Application Instructions • Rai~ad Coo (jination (1 to 2 years)-Railroad coordination is an example of additio al ork t hat may be required for projects located along or crossing railroad rights-of ay. Railroad coordination can take as long as two years to complete. lnitiati n~ ooordination with railroads prior to submitting the detailed application is nee sary t understand the process, permits, costs, and requirements expected by th r~a·1r d c mpany. • Oth'e Describe briefly in the detailed application any additional project milestones not al dy ident ified. • Total Projected Time Estimate in Months Due to an overlap of some project activities, the total projected time estimate will be less than the total of the time estimated for each individual project activity. Below are example timeline charts (A, B, and C) that outline milestone activities from very simple as shown in Chart A to more detailed as seen in Charts Band C. Example ChartA will be available on the department's website at: http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/ division/ public-tra nspo rtatio n/ bicycle- pedestria n. html. In addition to completing item 25. Project Timeline of the Detailed Application, project sponsors must provide a time line chart as an attachment. ChartA below shows the minimum level of detail that should be provided. The detail of the project timeline should be consistent with the status of project development. Development of a timeline chart demonstrates that the project sponsor understands the process and is willing to establ~·sh . . sed construction letting date. J' Label attachment(s) a 0-ProjectTimeline -N more t an 2 pages. 2020 TASK Q2 Q3 Q4 ROW ACQUISITION PROJECrCONSTRUCRON/IMPLEMENTATION ChartA 28 (/) c 2 u :::i .!::; (/) ..s c -r 0 h l '..:; Cll ~ • £ I Q. ~ lilf} Q. <:( !r "O j 1~ lh ~ I lH ~ .1 ir (!) a ,.3] j ':3!:1':3':3~ ':3n ':39 .: ~ illl 1111 ! tU!J ii· Ill uu t ';. .., HH~ Ul dJ en -55 !'l i!' ~l f 11 JI. 1lj '1 § ~1~ ... J CJ'> N Detailed Application Instructions 26. Has this project or a substant ially similar project been submitted under a prior TxDOT TA or SRTS call for projects? For TxDOT evaluators, it is helpful to understand which projects have been submitted before to better evaluate project changes from one program call to the next. If a project was submitted to a previous TxDOT TA or SRTS program call, please select the program call from the dropdown. Reminder: All responses in the Detailed Application MUST be supported by the attachments. Proposed countermeasures and infrastructure elements MUST be specified in the Itemized Budget. Items missing supporting documentation will not be considered during project evaluation. Itemized Budget Section 27. Itemized Construction Cost Estimate Provide a detailed cost estimate of all construction costs using appropriate units (e.g., square yards (SY), square feet (SF), linear feet (LF), lump sum LS), each (EA), etc.). Be as specific as possible and includ TxDOT or local government bid item and codes, if known. Additionally, project sponsors are encouraged to review the Enhanced Cost Estimate and Project Development Procedures for MPOs: Final Report for further cost estimation guidance. https:/llibrary.ctr.utexas.edu/hostedpdfs/tamuk/0-6929-1.pdf Work activities in the itemized construction cost estimate should reflect responses to earlier project detail questions in the detailed applications such as connectivity, safety countermeasures, bridges, railroad, etc. For safety projects, items such as pavement markings (e.g., bike lanes, crosswalks, and painted bicycle symbols), traffic calming measures (e.g., speed humps, traffic circles, pedestrian refuge islands), vertical delineators (e.g., concrete curb, flexible delineators, ceramic buttons), and traffic control devices (e.g., signage, traffic signals, pavement markings, accessible pedestrian signals, pedestrian hybrid beacons) should be itemized. Projects may include ADA compliant curb ramps, detectable warning panels, driveway modifications, etc. to improve accessibility. Barrier crossing infrastructure could include items such as railroad planks, rehabilitation/modification of existing bridges, or new bridges/culverts for non-motorized users. Material type, construction method (e.g., reinforced concrete, steel beam, wood beam, truss), and dimensions (e.g., length, width and thickness) help demonstrate the use of durable, low-maintenance materials. A well-developed budget demonstrates an understanding of the scope of work proposed, as well as material and construction activity costs. This information helps the project sponsor gain a better understanding of the project costs and activities and minimize project overruns. The department maintains a list of average low bid unit prices on its website for highway construction projects. Costs are presented in multiple formats allowing the public to evaluate 30 Detailed Application Instructions regional and seasonal trends in prices. Visit: http://www.txdot.gov/business/letting- bids/average-low-bid-unit-prices.html. Most TA projects will be smaller in scale than typical roadway construction projects; consultation with experienced professionals may provide insight regarding cost differences. Inflation of bid item costs to the year of expenditure should be considered. Consult suppliers, construction contractors, or other professionals as needed to develop a comprehensive estimate. The total amount of TA funds awarded to a project by the commission is fixed, based on the estimated construction budget provided in the detailed application. Therefore, the budget must be comprehensive and consider all phases of construction~ Actual construction activities and quantities are expected to be refined during the design phase of project development. To ensure funding is adequate to construct the project, guidance from a professional experienced in delivering the type and scale of projects similar to the proposed activity in Texas is recommended. ~:For funded projects, the project sponsor is responsible for 100% of the cost overruns above the awarded amount. Recent rule revisions may allow additional federal funds to be applied to a project with overruns, but only if there is available funding. Per 43 TAC § 11.411 (d) The commission will award an amount of TA Set-Aside funds for each project. If program":!!I funds remain or are returned to the program due to cost underruns, the responsible division administering the program may apply those funds to project overruns based on: (1) justification of overruns; (2) timing of request; (3) availability of funds; (4) a reasonable expectation of the ability of the project sponsor to complete the project; and (5) if overrun requests exceed available funds, the criteria applicable to the use of state funds under § 11.406(b) of this subchapter (regarding eligibility for TDCs). The proposed budget should be inclusive of all items of work during construction. Items that should not be overlooked include mobilization, site preparation, erosion control, lighting, and traffic control. For areas where substandard conditions will be upgraded to meet current standards, include costs associated with demolition of deficient elements. Consider incidental environmental mitigation, such as stormwater control or remediation of hazardous conditions (e.g., lead paint removal or stabilization, excavation of contaminated material). Incidental environmental remediation costs not identified in the detailed application and approved as part of a project will not be eligible for federal reimbursement. Incidental items, such as landscape replacement, minor drainage improvements, minor environmental mitigation, and minor utility adjustments may not exceed 30% of the project's total itemized construction budget. Bicycle/pedestrian-related amenities, such as drought- tolerant shade trees, street furniture (e.g., benches, trash receptacles), wayfinding signage, 31 c 0 ~t ( ( fi l-\-1..{L. . Detailed Application Instructions and decorative lighting, should comprise no more than 5 % to 10% of the total itemized construction budget, depending on the size and context of the project. All incidental items and amenities combined may not exceed 30% of the itemized construction cost. In order to be reimbursed by federal funds, incidental items and amenities should be included in the Itemized Construction Cost Estimate in the detailed application. A contingency cost is allowable for projects with less than 60% complete PS&E. The contingency cost may range from 5% to 15% (maximum) depending on the size and complexity of the project. In order for actual costs incurred to be allowable, they must comply with cost principles and other federal and state requirements, be necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of the approved project, and be verifiable from the project sponsor's records. Amounts for major project scope changes, unforeseen risks, or extraordinary events are not considered contingency. 28. Additional Construction-Related Costs Additional construction-related costs may differ depending on whether the project is let for construction by the project sponsor or by the department. For projects let by the project sponsor, construction engineering and inspection, construction-phase project administration, or contract administration may be appropriate; whereas the project sponsor may have fewer responsibilities for projects let for construction by the department. Additional services supporting construction may be necessary, such as land survey for right-of-way demarcation, materials testing, permitting, or geotechnical work. Items ineligible for reimbursement should not be included, such as activit ies associated with right-of-way acquisition (e.g., appraisal, parcel survey, title transfer) or legal services. 29. Preliminary Engineering (PS&E and Environmental) Costs For~ oject sponsors with populations under 50,000, eligible cost(s) to develop PS&E and ental documentation may be requested and included in the project budget. If the use of TA funds for project PS&E and environmental documentation costs, enter an appropriate amount in the space provided. Any costs inc red by the project sponsor before project selection or before authorization to proceed by TxD T are not eligible for reimbursement. An eligible cost may include only actual and documente osts incurred by the project sponsor for the development of project plans, specifications, & e~imates (PS&E) including environmental documentation. If the project sponsor ill be hiring a consultant engineer or architect, the hiring process MUST meet federal procurem nt requirements outlined in the LGP Management Guide, Chapter 4 Preliminary Engineerin and Design. Some of the requirements include TxDOT approval of the procurement process, ocumentation, and contract. State and federal regulations must be followed for costs to be eligi e for consideration for reimbursement. Provide documentation of esti ated PE costs. Label attachments P -Preliminary Engineering (PS&E and Environmental) Co -No more than 2 pages. 32 Detailed Application Instructions Budget Summary 30. Project Budget Summary The project Budget Summary on page 10 will automatically fill-in total construction costs on lines 1-3, based on the itemized construction costs entered on pages 7 through 9 of the detailed application. A 15% cost for TxDOT's Direct State Costs for project oversight will automatically fill-in on line 4 (based on the Total Construction Cost Estimate on line 3). For pr ~ec , loc~? i?fomr)lA.mities with populations under 50,000 (eligible for PS&E cost inclu ion) trt&Prelilwha?yjtfigineering Cost provided on page 9 will appear on line 5. For projects where no Economically Disadvantaged County Program (EDCP) reduction nor Transportation Development Credits (TDCs) are proposed, the project sponsor has the option to increase the local match. To increase the local match, click on the percentage shown in the box next to Optional Local Match Increase and enter an adjustment above 20%. The federal percentage at the bottom of the page will adjust automatically along with the federal and local match participation amounts. You may have to click on another page of the form and return to page 10 before this field updates. For projects eligible for TD Cs, the project sponsor can select the entity name from the dropdown. For more information about TDCs, please refer to the Program Guide, page 10. , in the box Allowable EDa> Adjustment, click on the down arrow and select e county w ere the project is proposed; for projects that include multiple counties, identify the c nty wh re a majority of the work will be done; if the project is identified for potential awar , TxD T will contact the project sponsor to pro-rate the EDCP reduction based e project. Additional EDCP adjustment can be added by clicking on the down arrow and cting the percentage increase. The form will not allow greater than 95% EDCP reduction n lo I match. EDCP reduction is state funding paid on behalf of the project sponsor to su le men the local match. Selecting EDCP will automatically force 80% federal and 20% local/state pa ·cipation. Note: Not I TA pr ject activities qualify for TxDOT's Economically Disadvantaged Counties Program (ED P) duction. Visit TxDOT's EDCP website: http://www.txdot.gov/inside- e of EDCP with the local TxDOT district office. The department reserves the right to deny an EDC reduction when the project activities do not qualify. The Excel nomination form will automatically calculate total project costs, as well as local, state, and federal participation amounts. Review the costs on page 10 in conjunction with the Cost Participation Summary on the top of page 11. 33 Detailed Application Instructions Cost Participation Summary The cost participation summary for federal, state, local cash participation, and total project value/estimated cost will automatically populate on the top of page 11 of the nomination form. TA Project Commitment Recipients of federal funds must comply with numerous state and federal requirements. In this section, the Project Sponsor certifies that they are aware of certain aspects of these procedural requirements. Refer to TxDOT's 20219 TA Program Guide and TxDOT's 2021 TA Detailed Application Instructions appendices for additional information about these requirements. By submitting an application, the project sponsor commits to executing the local agreement (i.e., AFA) and forwarding to the department its local match forthe preliminary engineering phase of work within one year of selection. For awarded projects, the project spor::isor agrees to produce the complete plan set as outlined in topic 26. ProjectTimeline or an appropriate timeline agreed upon between t he department and the project sponsor and made part of the local agreement. Note: TA funding is time-sensitive; each project must advance to construction within three years from the date of selection by the commission or the project may be terminated. The application must be signed by a representative of the local government who has signature O authority. In addition to signing the form, print the signatory's name, title, date, and telephone number. C. DETAILED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DEADLINE/DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS Detailed Applications must be submitted in the form prescribed by the department in accordance with the program rules as detailed below. The complete detailed application package must be received by the department, via TxDOT's Box.com file sharing service, no later than 5:00 p.m., CDT, on Monday, June 14, 2021. A complete application, with attachments, is required for each project proposed. Supporting documents must be in 8 1/2" X 11" formats. Label attachments in the upper right-hand corner as prescribed in the Detailed Application Instructions above and in the Detailed Application. The 2021 TA Detailed Application is available at: http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdoVdivision/public-transportation/bicycle-pedestrian.html Note: The department recommends submitting Detailed Application(s) to TxDOT's Box.com file sharing service early to ensure delivery before the submission deadline. Detailed Application Package: 1. The original 2021 TA Detailed Application completed in Microsoft Windows Excel (.xlsm) and delivered to the department in its original .xlsm format. 34 Detailed Application Instructions Deliverable 1: One Excel file in its original format. 2. The completed 2021 TA Detailed Application (pages 1-11) plus all of the application's supporting documents converted to an Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) and combined into one complete file. The complete PDF file MUST include a copy of the TA funding page (p. 11) signed by an authorized representative of the local government. All original documents must be provided in a color Adobe PDF format 8 112'' X 11".) Deliverable 2: One complete PDF file in color (11-page 2021 TA Detailed Application, signature page, and attachments, with a file size of 50MB or less). Project Submission to the Department: The complete 2021 TA application package (Excel file plus PDF file) must be submitted to TxDOT using the department's Box.com file sharing service. File Name: To allow the Department to match detailed applications to an eligible preliminary application, the PDF and Excel files must be labeled with the Project ID provided to the project sponsor by email from TxDOT on or about April 12, 2021. Example Project ID: • 1_ WAC_Dalton04_Glidden EL Sidewalks.pdf • O_BRY_Henderson01_ East Henderson SUP.xlsm naming convention above will work for the vast majority of projects, if the proje proposed i the detailed application has been refined from that which was proposed in the prelimin ry appli tion, a modification to the file name may be created by the project sponsor. In these sit tio , new file names must include all text and numbers before the abbreviated project n a short file name created by the project sponsor to reflect the modified project as • a1 0 • ndersonOUnew short name].xlsm Box.com Instructions: A/11\/\ i ~ \ -0 \ ' -. ~ ~\~ Submit your project to TxDOT's Box.com by click ing the following file request link: https://txdot.app. box.com/f /036c95fc6c934319abf0c18e17 c9ab24 The above web address is provided as a hyperlink in the PDF version of this program guide. After clicking the above link, follow the instructions to submit the Detailed Application components to TxDOT. 1. Project Sponsor Name and Contact Name Provide the name of the sponsoring entity (e.g. city or county name) and the name of the primary contact person. For example: City of Round Rock, Judith Jones 35 Detailed Application Instructions 2. Project Sponsor email address Enter the project sponsor email address. For example: MayorJones@RoundRock.gov 3. Upload the Detailed Application form in original Excel formatC.xlsml Either (1) use the "Select Files" button to locate the files on your computer to open and load; or (2) Drag and drop files into the upload box. The .xlsm file should be named using the Project ID provided by email from TxDOT on or about April 12, 2021. 4. Upload Combined PDF <Detailed Application form. signed funding page.and attachments> The .pdf file should be named using the Project ID provided by email from TxDOT on or about April 12, 2021. Combine all files into a single, 8 1/2 x 1 1 color PDF (max 50 megabytes). Either (1) use the "Select Files" button to locate the files on your computer to open and load; or (2) Drag and drop files into the upload box . 5. ClickSubmit Once you have clicked the Submit button, file upload progress can be viewed, followed by a confirmation screen similar to the image below. In the 5 business days following the final June 14th deadline, the prqjectsponsor submittal email address will receive a follow-up email confirmation that the files were officially received by the department. Success! Your files have been submitted . • • • + + + + 36 Detailed Application Instructions D. DETAILED APPLICATION CHECKLIST Below is a list of required attachments that MUST be included as part of the TA 2021 detailed application package and additional attachments th-at may be necessary. The need for additional attachments should be determined by the characteristics of the project, its location, and the status of project development. Required attachments: • B -Project Details • C -Safety Hazards and Countermeasures • D -Connectivity • F -Project Sponsor Resolution • G -Public Outreach and Support • L -Property Ownership/Acquisition • 0 -Project Timeline • Map 1: Safety • Map 2: Connectivity Additional attachments that may be necessary: • A -Project Location Information • E -Long Distance Bicycle Routes • H -Maintenance Documentation • I -Local Planning • J -MPO TIP Letter • K -Environmental Documentation • M -Signal, Beacons, and School Zones • N -RR Support/Right-of-Entry Letter • P-Preliminary Engineering (PS&E and Environmental) Costs The department recommends completing the checklist on the following pages to ensure a complete detailed application package is submitted. 37 Detailed Application Instructions Detailed Application Checklist I 0 Required: A completed 2021 TA Detailed Application in Microsoft Windows Excel (.xlsm) format with all text boxes filled-in and dropdown selections completed. Type N/A for not applicable, where appropriate. 0 Required: A single, color PDF document that includes: 0 Completed 2021 TA Detailed Application (required) 0 Signed copy of signature page (p. 11 of the Detailed Application) (required) 0 Required attachments -0 Additional attachments that may be necessary mentA -Project Location Information (as applicable) rto 6. Project location Information. I p ject · olv ttachment as A-Project Location Information -No more than 2 pages. 0 Attachment B -Project Details (required) Refer to 9. Project Details Attach the following exhibits: 0 Typical section(s) (recommended) 0 Representative construction plan sheets (as applicable) 0 Additional bridge details (as applicable) 0 Photographs (recommended) Label attachment(s) as B-Project Details -No more than 15 pages. 0 Attachment C -Safety Hazards and Countermeasures (required) Refer to items 10 and 11. , attach a Attachment C must include Map 1-Safety identifying safety hazards and infrastructure elements. Attachment C may also include: • add itional information supporting the appropriateness of countermeasures to mitigate the identified safety hazard, such as photos and/or narrative. • any additional countermeasures that do not fit in the blanks provided. Label attachment(s) as C-Safety Hazards and Countermeasures. ho"-~ -h-1r'-S-P t<...")h 0 Attachment D -Connectivity (required) Refer to Items 12through15. 38 Detailed Application Instructions Attachment D must include Map 2-Connectivity, which identifies all elements from Items 12, 13, and 14. Label attachment(s) as D-Connectivity-No more than 2 pages. D Attachment E -Long Distance Bicycle Routes (as applicable) Refer to 15. Long distance bicycle route and tourism Attachment E provides supporting documentation for Item 15. Label attachment as E-LongDistanceBicycle Routes -No more than 5 pages. D Attachment F -Project Sponsor Resolution (required) Refer to 16. PrqjectSponsor Resolution. Attach the commitment from the Project Sponsor Label attachment as F-Project Sponsor Resolution -No more than 10 pages. D Attachment G -Public Outreach and Support (required) Refer to 17. Public Involvement and Support. Attachment G may include: • public engagement summary (required) • letters of support from stakeholders elected officials, community leaders, bike/ped stakeholders, school officials, PTA, affected/adjacent property owners, etc. (as needed) • supporting documentation of public outreach (as needed) Labe l attachment as G-Public Outreach and Support-No more than 10 pages. D Attachment H -Maintenance Documentation (as applicable) Refer to 18. Maintenance and operation. Attach the letter of commitment from any third party responsible for maintenance of proposed project. Label attachment as H-Maintenance Documentation -No more than 2 pages. D Attachment I -Local Planning (as applicable) Refer to 19. Planning • Attach the cover and pages from the planning document referring to this project. (as applicable) • Attach the cover and pages from Transition Plan for ADA compliance (as applicable) Label attachment(s) as I-Local Planning-No more than 10 pages. D AttachmentJ -MPO TIP Letter (as applicable) Refer to 20. MPO Transportation Improvement Program {TIP) Inclusion Letter. Attach a letter from the MPO if the project is located within the boundaries of an MPO. Label attachment(s) as J-MPO TIP Letter -No more than 2 pages. 39 Detailed Application Instructions D Attachment K -Environmental Documentation (as applicable) Refer to 21. Environmental Documentation • If Yes is selected for either 21a, 21b, or 22c, then attach a written description of potential coordination, mitigation, and/or permitting actions foreseen for the proposed project. Label attachment(s) as K-Environmental Documentation -No more than 10 pages. D Attachment L -Property Ownership/Acquisition (required) Refer to 22. Property Ownership and Acquisition Information Attach the following exhibits, as appropriate: D Evidence of property rights by title of ownership, lease, or easement (required) D Description of how the property will be acquired (as applicable) D Commitment letter(s) from affected property owners demonstrating a willingness to transfer property (as applicable) D Letter from TxDOT District Engineer consenting to project on state ROW (as applicable) Label attachments as L-Property Ownership/ Acquisition -No more than 10 pages. D Attachment M -Signal, Beacons, and School Zones (as applicable) Refer to 23. Requirements -Signals, Beacons, and School Zones. Attach evidence that any new traffic control devices meet warrants/conditions in accordance with the TMUTCD and TxDOT policy. Label attachment(s) as M-Signal, Beacons, and School Zones -No more than 10 pages. D Attachment N -RR Support/Right-of-Entry Letter (as applicable) Refer to 24. Railroad SupporVRight-of-Entry Letter. Attach documentary evidence of coordination with railroad. Label attachment(s) as N-RR SupporVRight-of-Entry Letter-No more than 10 pages. D Attachment 0 -Project Timeline (required) Refer to 25. PrqjectTimeline. Attach a chart documenting the project development and implementation timeline. Label attachment(s) as 0-ProjectTimeline-No more than 2 pages. D Attachment P-Preliminary Engineering (PS&E and Environmental) Costs (as applicable) Refer to 29. PreliminaryEngineering(PS&E Environmental) Costs. For project sponsors with populations under 50,000, identify proposed preliminary engineering costs to be incurred by the project sponsor after project selection and after authorization to proceed. Attach documentation of estimated costs. 40 Detailed Application Instructions Label attachments P-Preliminary Engineering (PS&E and Environmental) Costs -No morethan2 pages. 41 Detailed Application Instructions APPENDIX A: Additional Safety Countermeasures Resources https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountemieasures/ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/evervdaycounts/edc 4/step.cfm https://saf ety. fhwa .dot.gov /ped bike/tools solve/f hwasa 18041/fhwasa 18041. pdf https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped bike/step/docs/STEP Guide for Improving Ped Safety at U nsig Loe 3-2018 07 17-508compliant.pdf http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/ 42 2021 TA Call for Projects Frequently Asked Questions Below are frequently asked questions received during TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects workshops. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and Texas Administrative Code (TAC) have been cited in response to several questions using only the abbreviations CFR and TAC. General Questions ............................................................................................................................. 1 Eligible Project Sponsors and Bigible Reimbursable Activities ............................................................ 2 Application and Evaluation Processes ................................................................................................ 4 Conditiona I Project List (CPL) ............................................................................................................ 6 MPOs, TMAs, and Jurisdictional Questions ......................................................................................... 7 Transportation Development Credits (TDC) or Economically Disadvantaged Counties Program (EDCP) ................................................................................................................................... 8 Procurement/Hiring consultants ......................................................................................................... 9 Project Design and Environmental Documentation ............................................................................ 11 Project Letting and Construction ...................................................................................................... 13 General Questions 1) Is there a maximum or minimum award amount for TA projects? Answer: There is no maximum/minimum award amount, but program funds are limited. Over the three previous TA program calls, the average Non -urban federal funding award was around $800,000, while the average Small Urban federal funding award was around $1,350,000. For smaller proposed projects, a project may be determined to be ineligible if the estimated cost to administer the funds exceeds the estimated construction costs. For larger proposed projects, wh ile there is no maximum funding award, program funds are limited. The department may find it necessary to contact a project sponsor to split a larger project into smaller segments. 2) Does TxDOT usually recei·:e more TA applications for non-urban projects than they have funding for? Answer: In the 2019 TA call for projects, TxDOT received fewer applications for non -urban area projects than anticipated future funding, resulting is a short Conditional Project List. TxDOT recently modified its TA Program rules with the intent to increase the pool of applicants from smaller communities. 3) Which population numbers should a project sponsor use to determin e which funding area they are eligible for? Answer: All population figures used for TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects should be based on the US Census Bu reau 's 2010 Decennial Census. 4) Existing TxDOT TA fundingfor FY21/22 is only available for communities of 5,000 or less population. If my project in a community of greater the 5,000 is selected for funding, o.Jr project would go on the "Conditional Project List" for future TA FY23/24 funding, correct? Answer: For communities, less than 5,000 (Non-urban areas}, there are available funds to be awarded this year. For communities greater than 5,000 in population (Small Urban areas}, the earliest we expect to have funds available would be 2023. However, some projects on a Conditional Projects List could be advanced sooner iffunds become available earlier due to project underruns or potential increases in federal authorization levels. 5) How many projects will be selected as a result ofTxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects? Answers: The number of project awards will depend on the eligible number and size of TA project applications received by the department. Through the 2021 Call for Projects, TxDOT intends to make about $10.5 million in TA funds associated with FY 2021 -FY 2022 appropriations to the department for non urban areas (population areas of 5,000 or less). Additionally, a conditional project list will be developed from this Call for Projects for future anticipated funding for non urban and small urban areas. Projects from the conditional project list will be recommended once funding becomes available. It is anticipated that approximately $13 million for each population area (non urban and small urban) will be available for FY 2023 -FY 2024. 6) What resources are available to local governments to aid them in complying with federal and state requirements? Answer: TxDOT and FHWA have many resources available to local governments. The resources listed below are some of the most commonly used resources (accessible via the internet): TxDOT • TxDOT Local Government Projects website: https://www.txdot.gov/governmenVprograms/local- govern ment-projects. html • Online Toolkit: https://www.txdot.gov/governmenVprocesses-procedures/lgp-toolkit.html • Training and Qualifications: https://www.txdot.gov/governmenVprograms/local-government- projects/training.html • Forms and Publications: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdoVforms- pu b lications/pu b lications/local-government. html • Local Government Standards and Special Provisions: https://www.txdot.gov/business/resources/txdot-specifications/local-government.html FHWA • FHWA website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ • Federal-aid Essentials for Local Public Agencies: Federal-aid Essentials offers a central on line library of informational videos and resources, designed specifically for local public agencies. Each video addresses a single topic-condensing the complex regulations and requirements of the Federal-aid Highway Program into easy-to-understand concepts with ill ustrated examples. Visit FHWA's website at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federal-aidessentic..§L Ellglble Project Sponsors and Ellglble Reimbursable Activities 7) If a project is awarded, does the project sponsor need to pay for the construction of the project out of pocket and then get reimbursed? Or can the project be initially paid by the grant? 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 2 Frequently Asked Questions Answer: Project sponsors awarded funding as part of TxDOT's TA program are reimbursed for eligible construction and design (if applicable) expenses. After the project sponsor incurs design or construction related expenses, the project sponsor will be reimbursed byTxDOT according to the Advanced Funding Agreement, signed before work begins. TxDOT's TA program is not a grant program, but a federal reimbursement program for eligible activities. 8) Can a nonprofit agency be a project sponsor? Answer: Nonprofit organizations are not eligible as direct grant sub recipients for TA funds unless they qualify through one of the eligible entity categories (e.g., where a nonprofit organization is a designated transit agency, school, or entity r8sponsible for the administration of local transportation safety programs). Nonprofit entities are eligible to partner with any eligible entity on an eligible project; however, the eligible entity wou Id serve as the project sponsor and be 100% responsible for the local match and project development. 9) Is the purchase of property for a bikeway or pedestrian facility eligible for reimbursement under this program? Answer: ROW acquisition is not an eligible expense for TxDOT's TA program. 10) Are traffic signals to stop traffic so bike/peds can cross a street eligible under this call for projects? Answer: Traffic signals may be eligible project components if they meet certain requirements outlined in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Guidelines for two newer types of pedestrian/bicycle traffic control devices are provid~d below. Approval for funding through the TA program does not mean approval to install Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB) or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) on TxDOT or local rights-of-way. Locations on and off TxDOT roads have guidelines and requirements that must be met. See below. The TXDOT RRFB/PHB memo (9/11/2018) referenced below can be found here: https://ftp.d at.state. tx. us/pu b/txdot-i nfo/trf/pdf/revised-gu idelines .pdf. • 0 n ~stem {TxDOT ROW) o Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons: • The TXDOT RRFB/PHB memo (9/11/2018) conditions must be met. • The guidelines and requirements of the 2011 Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD), Chapter 4F "Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons" must also be followed. • Each location must be studied per the memo, referenced above, with plans & studies submitted to their local TXDOT district for approval. Locations that do not meet the require,nents listed in the memo or in the 2011 TMUTCD will not be approved. o Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons: • Off-System • The TXDOT RRFB/PHB memo (9/11/2018) conditions must be met for RRFB installation. As part of the interim approval TxDOT-TRF must be notified of all RRFB installation locations. Email Doug Skowronek (Doug.Skowronek@txdot.gov) and Rafael Riojas (Rafael.Riojas@txdot.gov) a final list of locations they will be installed. o Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons: • The guidelines and requirements of the 2011 Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD), Chapter 4F "Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons" must also be 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 3 Frequently Asked Questions followed. It contains recommendations that the des igner should consider and requirements that must be followed. o Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons: • RRFBs are under FHWA interim approval (IA-21) and detailed rules must be followed for each installation. The requirements for IA-21 are listed on the FHWA website at the following link: https://mutcd. fhwa. dot. gov/resources /interim approval/ia21/i nd ex. htm • As part of the interim approval TxDOT-TRF must be notified of all RRFB installation locations, even if they are not on TxDOT roads. Email Doug Skowronek (Doug.Skowronek@txdot.gov) and Rafael Riojas (Rafael.Riojas@txdot.gov) a final list of locations they will be installed. Appllcatlon and Evaluatlon Processes 11) There is a limit of three applications. Does this limit apply to preliminary applications (Step 1) or can a project sponsor submit more than three preliminary applications and the11 narrow the number of applications to three for the detailed application (Step 2)? Answer: Project sponsors may submit applications for up to th ree unique projects. Only projects found eligible based on the preliminary application can be submitted for Step 2, the detailed application phase. 12) Will applications submitted during TxDOT's 2019 TA/Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Call for Projects that were not awarded funding nor included on a 2019 Cond itional Project List be considered in the FY 21- 22 program without re-application? Answer: No, projects submitted during TxOOT's 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects that were not awarded or identified for funding on a Conditional Project List must be resubmitted using the 2021 preliminary and detailed applications to be cons idered for funding under TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects. 13) If a previously submitted project was not selected for funding or includec on a conditional project list, can the same project be resubmitted? Answer: Yes , projects that were unsuccessful during previous TxDOT calls for projects are welcome to be resubmitted under TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects. Project sponsors must complete the 2021 TA Call for Projects applications. 14) Is there a benefit to/preference for proposing a project in TxDOT ROW? Answer: Projects that are on or adjacent to the TxDOT maintained roadway network will not receive a higher ran k simply because the project is on -system. TxDOT's priority with this program call is to fund quality bicycle and pedestrian projects leveraging as much TA funding as possible. However, TxDOT reserves the right to use other federal and/or state resources to implement a project submitted under t his program call that is located within TxDOT right-of-way and advances the department's ADA/pedestrian safety, accessibility, and mobility goals. Refer to pg. 4 of the Program Guide for nore information about this alternative fundin g source. 15) Does the program have a preference between project types (i.e. sidewalks, multi-use paths, etc.)? Answer: All project types are welcome. Review Section C of the Program Gu ide for information about project evaluation and selection criteria to assist in identifying competitive projects. 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 4 Frequently Asked Questions 16) Do all project elements have to connect? For example, is making sidewalk improvements at different locations considered one project or do the improvements need to connect? Answer: A project that fills in gaps in a non-motorized transportation network may be eligible, as long as the detailed application demonstrates how the proposed elements contribute to a single, interconnected project. Project sponsors may be asked to split a larger project into smaller segments if each element of the project makes more sense as a standalone project. 17) Are projects crossing RR ROW less likely to be recommended for the detailed application? Answer: No, projects that cross RR ROW are not less likely to be recommended for Step 2 (detailed applications). However, it is important to identify project complexities early in the project development process so that these complexities can be addressed to avoid delays in project implementation if the project is awarded funding. Advanced railroad coordination is strongly recommended and may be essential for funding consideration. Obtaining railroad approval can take several months and in some instances several years. The detailed application should document coordination to date with the affected railroad regardingthe proposed project. 18) Does "project readiness" mean you need to have engineering complete and PS&E documents ready to go? Answer: No. Project readiness is dependent on a number of factors listed in Table 3 in the Program Guide and using information provided in the Detailed Application (Step 2). Shovel-ready projects would have excellent project readiness; however, most projects are not shovel ready and are still very competitive in TxDOT's calls for projects for TA funds. 19) Does the cost estimate for the preliminary application have to be stamped by a PE? Answer: No. The preliminary application cost estimate does not need to be stamped by a P.E. The cost estimate in the preliminary application is intended to be a high level, general estimate. It provides TxDOT staff an idea of project scale and scope. 20) If a project is selected for funding by the Texas Transportation Commission as part of TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects, when will project sponsors (with funded projects) be required to pay their local match? Answer: The local funding match for the preliminary engineering phase, including TxDOT's direct state cost for review of project plans and environmental documentation, would be due to TxDOTwithin 30 days of the local government receiving the fully executed Advance Funding Agreement (AFA). The AFA should be executed within one year after the date that the commission selected the project for funding. The remaining local match for administration and construction would be due to TxDOT 60 days prior to TxDOT's construction letting of the project. If the project sponsor is responsible for developing preliminary engineering documents for federal participation and/or a local letting is authorized, the local government would remit the local match for TxDOT's direct state costs at the beginning of each phase of work. The project sponsor would then pay its contractors up front and be reimbursed for 80% of the eligible construction costs, plus any local match adjustment. If TxDOT implements a project on behalf of the project sponsor, then the project sponsor would be responsible for paying its entire local match for each phase of work prior to initiation of that phase. 21) Are local government costs toward preparing the detailed application package eligible for reimbursement? 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 5 Frequently Asked Questions Answer: No. Any costs incurred prior to the project being selected for funding, being identified in the local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Statewide TIP (if individually listed), execution of the Advance FundingAgreement, federal authorization of the project, and authorization from TxDOT to proceed are not eligible for reimbursement. 22) If a proposed project includes a project sponsor overmatch (project sponsor proposes to contribute a cash match greater than 20% of the total construction cost), does this make a project more competitive? Answer: The presence of a project sponsor overmatch is not an evaluation criterion. However, an overmatch is an indication of strong local/community support which is an evaluation criterion. 23) Is a resolution from the project sponsor requ ired for the detailed application? Answer: Yes. As part of Step 2, a resolution of support from the project sponsor w.11 be a required as an attachment to the detailed application. It will be important for project sponsors to begin thinking about the steps required to get the resolution developed and signed before the June 14, 2021 detailed application deadline. 24) If we are proposing a project within the TxDOT ROW, should we have a letter of support from the district office? Answer: Yes. Projects that include state maintained right-of-way or have a direct effect on an existing state- maintained roadway must have a recent letter of consent, addressed to the project sponsor, and signed by the current TxDOT District Engineer (DE); this consent cannot be delegated down. The DE letter should be included as an attachment in the detailed application (Step 2). Project sponsors can begin coordinating with TxDOT District staff at the District Review meeting following Step 1. 25) What type of right-of-way (ROW)/ property ownership documentation is required? Answer: Project sponsors will be requested to attach ROW ownership documentation which may include ROW maps and/or deed records to the detailed application. If ROW acquisition is necessary for the project but has not been completed at the time of the detailed application submittal, please include a commitment letter by the current property owner indicating the property owner's willingness to transfer property in accordance with federal law. 26) Can the cost estimate and scope change between the preliminary appl ication and detailed application? Answer: Yes, the cost estimate and scope of the project can be adjusted between the preliminary application and detailed appl ication. The cost estimate provided for the preliminary application is a high level, general estimate. In the detailed application, the cost estimate determines the amount of federal funds that will be awarded. Condltlonal Project Llst(CPL) 27) Will the entities already in the cond itional project list be given priority to other applications? Answer: To proceed with a project on TxDOT's 2019 TA Program Conditional Project List, project sponsors should not resubmit the project under TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects. Projects on the 2019 Conditional Project List will be recommended to Commission for award based on initial project score, project 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 6 Frequently Asked Questions readiness, and available funds, as funding becomes available. To see which projects are on the 2019 TA Conditional Project List, refer to TxDOT's TA Funding web page: https://www.txdot.gov/inside- txdot/division/public-transportation/bicycle-pedestrian.html. 28) If we have a TA project on the 2019 conditional project list and submit another project during the 2021 TA Call for Projects, will the 2019 project count against the 2021 project application? Answer: No, identification on a conditional project list will not affect project scoring under TxOOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects. However, past project sponsor performance on previous TxDOT-ad ministered projects may be considered as part of Project Readiness criteria during project evaluation. MPOs, TMAs, and Jurlstilctlonal Questions 29) If a TA project was not awarded funding following an MPO Call for Projects, can the project sponsor submit the project to TxDOT? Answer: Yes. The same project already submitted to the MPO's Call for Projects can be submitted to TxDOT's Call for Projects as long as the project is not submitted to MPO and TxDOT calls for projects concurrently. The project sponsor must fill out TxDOT's TA applications. 30) Will a project be eligible for TxDOT's 2021 TA program if it is in a population area that will be designated as a Transportation ManagementArea (TMA) in the next Decennial Census? Answer: Yes. TxDOT's 2021 TA funding eligibility is based on the TMA boundaries and population sizes established by the 2010 Decennial Census. 31) Can a portion of a project oe submitted to TxDOT and another portion submitted to an MPO's Call for Projects? Answer: Yes. If a project sponsor can create independent projects with logical termini and maintain independent utility, then the project sponsor may submit one project to TxDOT and the other to the MPO. 32) If part of our juri sdiction is in a TMA and part is outside, are we eligib le to submit a project located in ou r jurisdiction but outside of the TMA boundary? Answer: Yes , TA funding eligibility is determined by project location. If the project is located outside of the TMA, it is eligible for TxDOT's TA program. 33) Does the local government have to outright own ROW or can an lnterlocal Agreement be reached for indefinite use, for example railroad ROW? Answer: The project sponsor does not have to own the ROW for the project but must have consent from the ROW owner. Proposed improvements may be located on state-maintained roadway ROW ("on-system") or on property owned by the project sponsor or a third party ("off-system"). Projects may be constructed on private property if the proper easement is obtained and the easement allows public access. Projects that include state maintained ROW or have a direct effect on an existing state-maintained roadway must have a recent letter of consent, addressed to the project sponsor, and signed by the current TxDOT District Engineer of the TxDOT district in which the project is located. This consent cannot be delegated. A railroad agreement may be necessary for projects that cross a railroad. Coordination with a railroad is required for all projects thatare within 50 feet of railroad right-of-way (including grade-separated 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 7 Frequently Asked Questions crossings) and/or all projects that begin or end within 500 feet from an a .. -grade highway-rail crossing to ensure traffic control and construction do not interfere with an active crossing. Obtaining railroad approval can take several months and in some instances several yea rs. More information will be provided in the Detailed Application instructions. 34) If a project is in a City which is under 5,000 in population. Can the County be the local sponsor for non- urban TA funds? Answer: Yes, TA funding categories are determined by project location. Funding eligibility will be based on the population of the geographic area surrounding the project location. Whether the project is located in a city, town, village, Census designated place, or is completely rural in nature will determinethefunding category (nonurban or small urban) for that project. Transportation Development Credits (TDC) or Economlcally Disadvantaged Counties Program (EDCP) 35) Which projects are eligible under provisions of the Economically Disadvantaged County Program (EDCP)? Answer: If a project submitted to TxDOT's TA Call for Projects is located in a community of 50,001 or greater in population and in a county that has been certified by the commission as an economically disadvantaged county, the detailed application package may include a request for an EDCP adjustment to the minimum local funding match req uirement. To be eligible for consideration under the Economically Disadvantaged Counties Program, the infrastructure improvements must be located within public roadway right-of-way (ROW), either on -system (state-maintained) or off-system (locally maintained), or be immediately adjacent to roadway ROW. For current EDC program guidance visit TxDOT's website at: http://www.txdot.gov/inside- txd ot/division/transportation-planning/disadvantaged-county.html. Also, refer top. 10 of the Program Guide. 36) Which projects are eligible under provisions of the Transportation Development Credits (TDCs)? Answer: • Project must be located in a population area of 50,000 or less located outside of a designated TMA , and • Project is located in an economically disadvantaged county certified by commission at the time TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects opens, or • Project is located in a city, Census designated place (CDP), or ru ral area that meets all of the following criteria: o Below state average per capita taxable property value o Below state average per capita income, and o Above state average unemployment To determine eligibility please refer to Appendix Bin the 2021 TA Call for Projects program guide, which lists communities that are eligible or access an interactive web map at: https://txdot.maoo.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=01fa15525e9e4be68a43c06dc06ce2e6. For rural projects located outside jurisdictional boundaries or census designated places not identified on the map, contact TxDOT-PTN (Bi kePed@txdot.gov) for guidance. 37) If a project sponsor believes itself to qualify for a TDC or EDCP reduction , should the project sponsor fill- in the detailed application budget assuming that reduction will be received? Answer: 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 8 Frequ ently Asked Questions Eligibility for TDCs and EDCP will be determined based on information provided in the Preliminary Application. Eligibility for a local match reduction will be conveyed to eligible project sponsors at the end of Step 1, around mid-April 2021. Du ring Step 2, when the project sponsor enters the itemized budget in the 2021 TA detailed application, automated fields and formulas will indicate the impact of any eligible match reduction. 38) If a proposed project location extends across the county boundary between two counties where varying EDC reductions are present, how does TxDOTadjust the EDCP percentage reduction for the project budget? Answer: If a project extends into two counties and one county has an EDC reduction and one does not, then TxDOT will prorate the reduction percentage according to the proportion of the project located in the EDCP eligible county. If a project extends into two counties and each county has a different EDC reduction percentage, then TxDOT will prorate each reduction percentage according to the proportion of the project located in each county. NOTE: These are rare situations and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. If a project sponsor believes this situation applies, please notify TxDOT-PTN at BikePed@txdot.gov for assistance in accommodating these reductions on the submitted detailed application. 39) If my community is eligible for TD Cs, is there a limit to the amount of credit or is it automatically no cash match? Answer: TDCs allow for 100% federal TA funds to be applied to the project in lieu of a local match, so eligible projects will require no cash match. P rocurernenVHlrlng consultants 40) Do federal requirements apply to preliminary phases of project development? Answer: Federal and state requirements apply to any costs incurred that will be reimbursed with federal funds. Additionally, all project property acquired (including easements and donations) after 1971 must have been acquired in accordance with the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (Uniform Act). Furthermore, design must comply with federal and state standards; local design specifications may be approved on a case-by-case basis. 41) When hiring a consultant, when is a local government required to meet Federal Procurement Requirements? Answer: Federal Procurement Reqo.iirements must be followed when the Local Government is reimbursed with federal dollars, or when a local government is authorized to local letting for construction. Wheri procuring professional services, the local government must submit federal compliant procurement procedures to TxDOT for review and approval or adopt TxDOT's procurement process. In addition , contracts between the local government and consultants must include applicable federal requirements, and be submitted to TxDOT for review and approval, prior to execution. Federal Procurement Requirements apply regardless of whether the project is letfor construction by TxDOT or by the local government. The Federal Highway Administration's federal-aid essentials for local public agencies video library includes a video entitled Hiring a Consultant using Competitive Negotiation Procedures that provides an 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 9 Frequently Asked Questions overview of the hiring process. Here is the video link: https://www.fhwa.aot.gov/federal- aidessentials/catmod.cfm?id=7. For additional guidance on Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Design Related Services -Questions and Answers visit: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/172qa 01.cfm 42) If the project sponsor is not seeking reimbursement for design and environmental documentation, then does the project sponsor need to follow federal rules? Answer: If the project sponsor does not intend to seek reimbursement for design and environmental documentation , the project sponsor does not need to comply with Federal Procurement Requirements. Project sponsors must still follow other state requirements for project development. The project sponsor will still need to follow state and federal rules if overseeing letting and construction of the project. 43) Does TxDOT need to preapprove the engineering contract itself? Answer: If the project includes federal funding for preliminary engineering, then TxDOT must review and approve the project sponsor's procurement documents to ensure that state and federal requirements are met. 44) Since preliminary engineering is considered a reimbursable cost for projects in communities of 50,000 or less in population , will the grant sponsor procure all engineering services or will TxDOT be responsible for PS&E procurement? Answer: Professional services procurement must follow state and federal requirements if PE will be federally reimbursable. Whether TxDOT District or the Project Sponsor procures that works will be a collaborative decision between TxDOT and the Project Sponsor. 45) Can the project sponsor hire a consultant to help with its application? Answer: Yes. Project sponsors should be aware that any work done prior to the state's letter of authority is not reimbursable with TA funds. 46) If an engineering firm completed the project application and project receives an award , is that engineering firm eligible to complete preliminary engineering and/or environmental documentation the work? Answer: There is nothing in the Local Government program or FHWA guidance that would preclude them from participating. However, the LG and the engineering firm may want to review the Texas Engineering Code (Section 663.4 -Conflicts of Interests) and apply the code on the specifics of the project activities. LGs need to insure however that while a consultant can aid in preparation of the application and still be eligible to prepare the PS&E etc., no consultant involved in preparing any relevant procurement documents is eligible to be considered for that procurement [2 CFR 200. '319(b)]. 47) If the City has a contract inspector, are those allowable/reimbursable expenses? Would an on -staff inspector be a reimbursable expense? Answer: Both a contracted inspector and a LG employee inspector conducting construction inspections are eligible for reimbursement under the program. 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 10 Frequently Asked Questions 48) Can project administration of the construction phase be contracted out? Can project administration for construction be procured at the same time as PS&E? Answer: Yes , administration of the project during construction can be contracted out and can be procured at the same time as the contract for development of the plans, specification & estimate (PS&E) and environmental documentation. The local government would need to ensure thatthe PS&E procurement document includes construction phase administration in the contract's scope of work. If the local government is seeking federal reimbursement then the procurement process must meetfederal procurement requirements. If a local government is not seeking federal reimbursement for construction administration then the local government needs to follow state and local government procurement rules. If a local government contracts administration of construction, the local government will still need to designate a Responsible Person In Charge (RPIC) who is a full time employee of the local government and remains engaged in t:1e project, maintains familiarity with day-to-day project operations, makes or participate in decisions about change orders, reviews financial processes, transactions and documentation, and directs project staff (agency or consultant) at all stages of the project. The local government's RPIC will be TxDOT's main point of contact for the project. 49) Once the project sponsor in cu rs federally reimbursable costs, how long will it take for project sponsors to receive reimbursementfrom TxDOT? Answer: Following district review and acceptance of a complete invoice, TxDOT is required to provide reimbursement to the project sponsor within 30 days. 50) Can you clarify the requirements for turning in documents 20 weeks prior to letting? Is that for 60% PS&E? the Quality Assurance plan?? Answer: The 20-week timeframe is specific to the Plans, Specifications & Estimate. Most likely you're submitting 30% schematics, then 60%, then 90%. That 90% is typically submitted 20 weeks before letting. It may take less time, but that's the general guidance we provide. That's a discussion you can have with your TxDOT Project Manager. They will look at their workload and provide a timeframe. The Quality Assurance plan can be submitted towards the end of the PS&E development. We encourage Local Governments to adopt TxDOT's Quality Assurance plan for these projects. Project Design and Envlronmental Documentation 51) Can a project that is just Design & Environmental be competitive? Answer: Project applications submitted to TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects must include a request for construction funding. During project evaluation, TxDOT may identify potential constructability concerns (e.g. drainage issues, limited ROW, substantially inadequate budget, etc.). In this situation, TxDOT may recommend a project be phased and advanced for preliminary engineering (i.e., PS&E and environmental documentation) only. If a project is awarded preliminary engineering funding only, the project must be resubmitted in a future call for projects to be considered for construction funding. 52) For the reimbursement of preliminary engineering, are all applicants reimbursed or only those that are awarded the grant? Would preliminary engineering to prepare the application be eligible for reimbursement? · Answer: See Section D of the Program Guide. For TxDOT's 2021 TA program call, the department's TA funds are available for: 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 11 Frequently Asked Questions • Project construction • Preliminary engineering and design, including preparation of construction plans, specification, and estimates (PS&E), and associated survey work for projects in communities of 50,000 in population or less • Environmental documentation for projects in communities of 50,000 in population or less Any project costs incurred prior to selection by the commission, execution of a local agreement, and authorization from the department to proceed will not be eligible for reimbursement. Costs to prepare the applications are not eligible for reimbursement. 53) Must trails/sidewalks meet any AASHTO standards such as lighting and/or call boxes? Answer: The need for lighting and call boxes is context dependent and should be considered where appropriate to enhance visibility and user safety. All bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure design must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and meet or exceed the minimum design requirements identified in the latest edition of TxDOT's Roadway Design Manual. Pedestrian facilities must conform to the Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (latest edition) as published by the US Access Board or the 2010 ADA Standards and Texas Accessibility Standards, as applicable. Additionally, proposed bicycle facilities should be consistent with the latest TxDOT's Bicycle Accom modation Design Guidance. All design criteria for on -road and off-road bicycle facilities must comply with the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (latest edition) as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). See Section I of the Program Guide for more information. In addition, further design guidelines will be provided in the Detailed Application instructions, which will be posted on TXDOT's TA funding web page in April 2021. 54) If our sidewalk is connecting to a sidewalk along school property do we need to make sure that sidewalk is brought up standards? Answer: There is no requ irement to upgrade sidewalks that your project connects to. However, the project may be more effective, overall, if improvements are made to the con necting facility, such as improvements to comply with the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). Note that sidewalks within school property for internal circulation only would not be eligible for TxDOT's TA funds. Publicly accessible sidewalks along school property that serve the greater pedestrian or bicycle transportation network would be eligible. 55) Does public involvement have to take place before the detailed application is submitted? Answer: The project sponsor should demonstrate public awareness and support for the project in the detailed application. Additionally, any required public outreach can occur during the environmental phase of the project development process. See page 24 of the 2021 TA/SRTS Program Guide for more information. In 2017, the Texas State Legislature created a new public meeting requirementthatstates a public hearing must be held for a project that "substantially changes the layout or function of a connecting roadway or existing facility" (43 TAC §25.55). The addition of bicycle lanes is considered a substantial change under this legislation. Therefore, projects that include the addition of new bike lanes will require a public hearing. Public hearings held specifically to meetthis requirement may be held any time during project development. Please refer to the Environmental Handbook for Public Involvement, Section 6, for information about the public hearing process. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot- info/env/toolkit/760-01-gui.pdf 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 12 Frequently Asked Questions 56) Does construction of a shared use path trigger the public hearing requirement (43 TAC §25.55)? Answer: Shared-use paths and wide shoulders are not considered "bicycle lanes" for purposes of this requirement. Also, none of the following situations regarding bicycle lanes are treated as "substantially changing the layout or function of a connecting roadway or an existing facility or facilities:" • striping bicycle lanes when the pre-existing roadway already accommodated bicycles. • striping one or more non-continuous bicycle lanes approaching or through intersections, driveways, or other conflict areas; or • striping bicycle lanes not along, but across a roadway at an intersection to allow the continuation of planned or existing bicycle lanes on crossing local streets or other bicycle facilities. 57) How wide should a shared-use path be? Answer: TxDOT recommends shared use paths be 11to12 ft. wide, depending on context, and anticipated future usage. The minimum width of a shared use path is 10 ft. to meet the TxDOT-adopted AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities criteria. 58) Is the project sponsor responsible for environmental mitigation/remediation? Should this cost be included into the estimated construction cost budget? Answer: It depends. Reimbursement of extensive remediation costs associated with mitigating environmental issues won't be eligible under the 2021 TA Program Call. However, incidental (minor) environmental mitigation/remediation may be an eligible activity and must be documented in the itemized budget in the detailed application. Project Letting and Construction 59) Is there a standard amount or percentage TxDOT charges for TXDOTadministration costs to the applicant? Answer: For TxDOT's TA Program, the detailed application will automatically calculate an estimated amount for TxDOT's oversight of project development and construction (known as "direct state costs" or an administrative fee). For purposes of TxDOT's TA Program, direct state costs are calculated at 15% of the total construction cost. The direct state costs are reimbursable with federal funds at the same rate as the rest of the project, including any eligible local match reduction. 60) It was stated that projects have a 3-year letting window or TxDOT risks losing funds. When does the 3- year clock start? Is it when funds are awarded? Answer: The 3-year clock is dependent on when the funds are authorized to the State. TxDOT PTN programs projects based on project '::omplexity, the proposed project timeline in the detailed application, and project readiness, as well as coordination between the local government and the district. To ensure that TA funds are utilized in a timely manner, simpler projects are programmed to let sooner, while more challenging ones are programmed to let later. It is critical that projects are advanced as expeditiously as possible once awarded, so that TxDOT can manage TA fun ding allocations and ensure that statewide TA funds do not lapse. 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 13 Frequently Asked Questions 61) When would a project have to be let for construction? Answer: Projects should be let within three years after a project is awarded funds by the Texas Transportation Commission. Actual let dates will be based on project complexity, the proposed project timeline in the detailed application, project readiness, coordination between the local government and the district, and statewide federal obligation requirements. TxDOT's executive director may eliminate a project or a portion of a project from participation in the TA program if a construction contract has not been awarded or construction has not been initiated within three years after the date that the commission selected the project. See also response to question 60, above. 62) How will it be determined if a project is state let or local let? Answer: This will be determined on a case by case basis in coordination between the local government and the project's district office. Authorization for a local letting is a district decision. The local government would be required to request a local letting through the district office and complete a Risk Assessment evaluation. TxDOT makes the final decision on whether a local letting wou Id be authorized. If you are interested in a state or local letting, you are encouraged to discuss this matter with you r District TA Coordinator during the district review meeting of the preliminary application. 63) If a project sponsor has limited financial and staff resources to oversee a project, will TxDOT take on project administration directly or will the applicant need to create a budget and procure services as part of the award? Answer: The decision as to who will let a project (TxDOT or the local project sponsor) will be determined through coordination between the TxDOT District Office who will manage the project and the local project sponsor. Some small local entities procure a consultant to assist with project management and oversight for a locally let project. If a project sponsor is interested in TxDOT administering a project, then the project sponsor should discuss this request with the District dur.ng the review meeting after completing the preliminary application. 64) Is there a max cost percentage of construction for "Incidental" items? Answer: Incidental items, such as landscape replacement, minor drainage improvements, minor environmental mitigation, and minor utility adjustments may not exceed 30% of the project's total itemized construction budget. Bicycle/pedestrian-related amenities, such as drought-tolerant shade trees, street furniture (e.g., benches, trash receptacles), wayfindingsignage, and decorative lighting, should comprise no more than 5% to 10% of the total itemized construction budget, depending on the size and context of the project. All incidental items and amen ities combined may not exceed 30% of the itemized construction cost. In order to be reimbursed by federal funds, incidental items and amenities should be included in the Itemized Construction Cost Estimate in the detailed application. 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects 14 Frequently Asked Questions ~® ~1;!X:!ent #.1°.;ransportation 2021 TA Call for Projects Frequently Asked Questions Update 5/3/2021 Below are frequently asked questions received du ring TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and Texas Administrative Code (TAC) have been cited in response to several questions using only the abbreviations CFR and TAC. Updated -Project Refinement~ ............................................................................................................ 1 Updated -Itemized Budget (Eligible Activities, Incidental Costs, Amenities, etc.) ................................... 2 General Program Questions .............................. , ................................................................................ 3 Eligible Project Sponsors and 8igible Reimbursable Activities ............................................................ 5 Updated -Application and Evaluation Processes ................................................................................. 6 Updated -Conditional Project List (CPL) ............................................................................................. 9 MPOs, TMAs, and Jurisdictional Questions ......................................................................................... 9 Updated -Transportation Development Credits (TDC) or Economically Disadvantaged Counties Program (EDCP) .................................................................................................................... 10 Procurement/Hring consultants ....................................................................................................... 12 Project Design and Environmental Documentation ............................................................................ 14 Updated -Local Support .................................................................................................................. 16 Project Letting and Construc1ion ...................................................................................................... 17 Updated -Resources and Training .................................................................................................... 18 Project Refinements 1) In the detailed appli · ion, can the project sponsor change from the project sponsor identified in the preliminary appli tion? Answer: Project onsor eligibility was determined in Step 1 of the application process. To maintain consistency and R cess integrity, a change in project sponsor is not allowed at this stage. We encourage project sp sors to partner on applications and project development (and to document those partnerships on_ e dJlliljled a lication . However, only one eligible entity is permitted to serve as a project sponsor and enter into the Advance Funding Agreement with TxDOT. The project sponsor will be 100% responsible for the local match and proje..;t development. 2) In the detailed Application, can a project sponsor make changes to the project budget? Answer: Yes, project sponsors can adjust the project budget from the estimated budget submitted in the preliminary application. The budget~:;u6mitted for the preliminary application was intended to be a planning-level estimate, and it is anticipated that project budgets will be changed in the detailed application based on discussion with TxDOT District staff and a more detailed evaluation of the project costs. For the detailed application, the budget must be comprehensive and consider all phases of PS&E and construction. To ensure funding is adequate to construct the project, guidance from a professional experienced in delivering the type and scale of projects similar to the proposed activity in Texas is recommended. T otaJ a o toHA fund awarded toe,pr ~ect by e co .ission is.fixed, asea on the . imated cigetpr.ovkie 1At edeta'edap ic:a. 3) Can a project sponsor make changes to the proposed project scope and/or location in the detailed application (Step 2) from what was submitted in the preliminary application (Step1)? Answer: It is anticipated that projects will be refined between the preliminary and detailed applications based on discussion with the district, further evaluation of site constraints, cost estimation, and local priorities. However, a project submitted in a detailed application 1n Step 2 should be substantially the same project that was initially submitted in a preliminary application in Step 1. Examples of acceptable project refinements could include: • • truncatil')g limits to a logical destination to avoid adverse site conditions • rerouting a project between the original termini to a parallel route with more favorable site conditions • splitting a project into two phases or geographic areas Additionally, smaller projects submitted in Step 1 may be combined into a single detailed application as long as the project sponsor demonstrates in the detailed application how the project elements function as a single, complete project. Whether proposed as an independent project or as an element of a larger transportation enhancement, a proposed project must be a logical unit of work and be constructible as an independent project. Itemized Budget (Eligible Activities, Incidental Costs, Amenities, etc.) 4) Are project sponsors restricted to TxDOT's average low bid unit prices when preparing the project budget? Project sponsors are not restricted to the TxDOT average low bid unit prices. Projects sponsors can use the average low bid unit prices as a guide, l . "TI aci~ st + OC'1i contlitlMs, seal f roje ·nf~ation o year.of C® U-Otio , et . 5) Are local government costs toward preparing the detailed application package eligible for reimbursement? Answer: No. Any costs incurred prior to the project being selected for funding, being included in the local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as either a grouped or individually listed project, included in the Statewide TIP, execution of the Advance Funding Agreement, and authorization from TxDOTto proceed are not eligible for reimbursement 6) Are utility relocations eligible for reimbursement? Answer: m -0 urfac_e drainag 2021 TA Ca ll for Projects 2 Frequently Asked Questions letting. Allow for sufficient time to conduct utility adjustments prior to letting if minor adjustments cannot be included in the construction contract for the TA project. 7) Are amenities eligible for reimbursement? Answer: Yes,, bicycle/pedestrian-related amenities, such as dro ,pleran ~1'!ftci:ht benC'hes,'"trashreceptacles), wayfinding signage, ahd ecora ·vfrligh •~.a ell · , penses Tbese it~ms should comprise no more than 5% to 10% of the total itemized construction budget, depending th€ size and context of the project. 8) Can an inflation factor line item be included in the budget? Answer: No, inflation to the expect~d year of construction should be considered in bid item cost. 9) "-,added to the budget? Answer: A contingency cost is allowab e f.pr. r:ofects with less than 60% complete PS&E. The contingency cost may range fro r 1, , "' '"· : ":::>x_ • , r"; aepending on the size and complexity of the project. In order for actual costs incurred to be allowable, they must comply with cost principles and other federal and state requirements, be necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment of the approved project, and be verifiable from the project sponsor's records. Amou n, T~r .ajor rqoc scope e anges, u:v.toreseen risks, or extreorctinary everrts are riot considered contingenc 10) Is there a max cost percentage of construction for "Incidental" items? Answer: Incidental items, such as landscape replacement, minor drainage improvements, minor environmental mitigation, and minor utili"y adjustments may not exceed 30% of the project's total itemized construction budget. Bicycle/pedestrian-related amenities, such a t f c[')fl-. "' • r)' I ,. -~ treet furniture (e.g., benches, trash receptacles), wayfinding signage, and decorative lighting, should comprise no more than 5% to 10% of the total itemized construction budget, depending on the size and context of the project. All incidental items and amenities combined may not exceed 30% of the itemized construction cost. In order to be reimbursed by federal funds, incidental items and amenities should be included in the Itemized Construction Cost Estimate in the detailed application. 11) Can a project sponsor include ineligible items in the project if they are funded by project sponsor? A project construction budget must have a minimum of 75% of its cost items eligible for reimbursement in order to remain in competition. Ineligible items will not be funded. The project sponsor will need to demonstrate a willingness and ability to pay ineligible costs and/or demonstrate that the TA project is constructible as an independent project without the ineligible items. This percentage applies to the project construction budget. General Program Questions 12) Is there a maximum or minimum award amount for TA projects? Answer: There is no maximum/minimum award amount, but program funds are limited. Over the three previous TA program calls, the average Non-urban federal funding award was around $800,000, while the average Small Urban federal funding award was around $1,350,000. 2021 TA Call for Projects 3 Frequently Asked Questions For smaller proposed projects, a project may be determined to be ineligible if the estimated cost to administer the funds exceeds the estimated construction costs. For larger proposed projects, while there is no maximum funding award, program funds are limited. The department may find it necessary to contact a project sponsor to split a larger project into smaller segments. 13) Does TxDOT usually receive more TA applications for non-urban projects than they have f unding for? Answer: In the 2019 TA call for projects, TxDOT received fewer applications for non-urban area projects than anticipated future funding, resulting is a short Conditional Project List. TxDOT recently modified its TA Program rules with the intent to increase the pool of applicants from smaller communities. 14) Which population numbers should a project sponsor use to determine which funding area they are eligible for? Answer: All population figures used for TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects should be based on the US Census Bureau's 2010 Decennial Census. 15) Existing TxDOT TA funding for FY21/22 is only available for commun ities of 5,000 or less population. If my project in a community of greater the 5,000 is selected for funding, our project would go on the "Conditional Project List" for future TA FY23/24 funding. correct? Answer: For communities, less than 5,000 (Non -urban areas), there are available funds to be awarded this year. For communities greater than 5,000 in population (Small Urban areas), the earliest we expect to have funds available would be 2023. However, some projects on a Conditional Projects List could be advanced sooner if funds become available earlier due to project u nderr u ns or potential increases in federal authorization levels. 16) How many projects will be selected as a result ofTxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects? Answers: The number of project awards will depend on the eligible number and size ofTA project applications received by the department. Through the 2021 Call for Projects, TxDOT intends to make about $10.5 million in TA funds associated with FY 2021 -FY 2022 appropriations to the department for non urban areas (population areas of 5,000 or less). Additionally, a conditional project list will be developed from this Call for Projects for future anticipated funding for non urban and small urban areas. Projects from the conditional project list will be recommended once funding becomes available. It is anticipated that approximately $13 million for each population area (non urban and small urban) will be available for FY 2023 -FY 2024. 17) What resources are available to local govern men ts to aid them in complying with federal and state requirements? Answer: TxDOT and FHWA have many resources available to local governments. The resources listed below are some of the most commonly used resources (accessible via the internet): TxDOT • TxDOT Local Government Projects website: https://www.txdot.gov/governmenVprograms/local- government-projects.html • Online Toolkit: https://www.txdot.gov/governmenVprocesses-procedures/lgp-toolkit.html • Training and Qualifications: https://www.txdot.gov/governmenVprograms/local-government- projects/training.html • Forms and Publications: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdoVforms- pu blications/pu blications/local-government. html 2021 TA Call for Projects 4 Frequently Asked Questions • Local Government Standards and Special Provisions: https: //www. txd ot. gov/bus in ess /resou rces/txd at-specifications/local-government. html FHWA • FHWA website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ • Federal-aid Essentials for Local Public Agencies: Federal-aid Essentials offers a central on line library of informational videos and resources, designed specifically for local public agencies. Each video addresses a single topic-condensing the complex regulations and requirements of the Federal-aid Highway Program into easy-to-understand concepts with illustrated examples. Visit FHWA's website at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federal-aidessentials/ Eligible Project Sponsors and Eligible Reimbursable Activities 18) fa project is awarded, dc..cs the project sponsor need to pay for the construction of the project out of cket and then get reimbursed? Or can the project be initially paid by the grant? A swer: Pr ·ect sponsors awarded funding as part ofTxDOT's TA program are reimbursed for eligible con ruction and design (if applicable) expenses. After the project sponsor incurs design or construction relate expenses, the project sponsor will be reimbursed by TxDOT according to the Advanced Funding Agree ent, signed before work begins. TxDOT's TA program is not a grant program, but a federal reimbursement program for eligible activities. 19) Can a nonprofi agency be a project sponsor? Answer: Nonprofit gan izations are not eligible as direct grant sub recipients for TA funds unless they qualify through ne of the eligible entity categories (e.g., where a nonprofit organization is a designated transit agenc~ school, or entity responsible for the administration of local transportation safety programs). Non~ ofit entities are eligible to partner with any eligible entity on an eligible project; however, the eli · le entity would serve as the project sponsor and be 100% responsible for the local match and project development. 20) Is the pur hase of property for a bikeway or pedestrian facility eligible for reimbursement under this Ans er: RO acquisition is not an eligible expense for TxDOT's TA program. 21) Are traffic signals to stop traffic so bike/peds can cross a street eligible under th is call for projects? Answer: Traffic signals may be eligible project components if they meet certain requirements outlined in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices . Guidelines for two newer types of pedestrian/bicycle traffic control devices are provided below. Approval for funding through the TA program does not mean approval to install Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB) or Rectargular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) on TxDOT or local rights-of-way. Locations on and offTxDOT roads have guidelines and requirements that must be met. See below. The TXDOT RRFB/PHB memo (9/11/2018) referenced below can be found here: https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trf/pdf/revised-guidelines.pdf. • 0 n-System (TxDOT ROW) o Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons: • The TXDOT RRFB/PHB memo (9/11/2018) conditions must be met. 2021 TA Call for Projects 5 Frequently Asked Questions • The guidelines and requirements of the 2011 Texas Manual on Un iform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD), Chapter 4F "Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons" must also be followed. • Each location must be studied per the memo, referenced above, with plans & studies submitted to their local TXDOT district for approval. Locations that do not meet the requirements listed in the memo or in the 2011 TMUTCD will not be approved. o Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons: • Off-System • The TXDOT RRFB/PHB memo (9/11/2018) conditions must be met for RRFB installation . As part of the interim approval TxDOT-TRF must be notified of all RRFB installation locations. Email Doug Skowronek (Doug.Skowronek@txdot.gov) and Rafael Riojas (Rafael.Riojas@txdot.gov) a final list of locations they will be installed. o Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons: • The guidelines and requirements of the 2011 Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD), Chapter 4F "Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons" must also be followed. It contains recommendations thatthe designer should consider and requirements that must be followed. o Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons: • RRFBs are under FHWA interim approval (IA-21) and detailed rules must be followed for each installation. The requirements for IA-21 are listed on the FHWA website at the following link: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim approval/ia21/index.htm • As part of the interim approval TxDOT-TRF must be notified of all RRFB installation locations, even if they are not on TxDOT roads. Email Doug Skowronek (Doug.Skowron ek@txdot.gov) and Rafael Riojas (Rafael.Riojas@txdot.gov) a final list of locations they will be installed. Appllcation and Evaluation Processes 22) There is a Ii · of three applications. Does this limit apply to preliminary applications (Step 1) or can a project sp sor submit more than three preliminary applications and then narrow the number of applicati s to three for the detailed application (Step 2)? Answ r: Proj ct sponsors may submit applications for up to three unique projects. Only projects found eligible ba ed on the preliminary application can be submitted for Step 2, the detailed application phase. 23) Will applications submitted during TxDOT's 2019 TA/Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Call for Projects that were not awarded funding nor included on a 2019 Conditional Project List be considered in the FY 21-22 program without re-application? Answer: No, projects submitted during TxDOT's 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects that were not awarded or identified for funding on a Conditional Project List must be resubmitted u~ing the 2021 preliminary and d~tailed applications to be considered for funding under TxDOTs 2021 TA Call for Projects. ZI-) If a ;;t.ev1 usly submitted project was not selected for funding or included on a conditional project list, can the ame project be resubmitted? Answe : Yes, p ojects that were unsuccessful during previous TxDOT calls for projects are welcome to be resu mitted under TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects. Project sponsors must complete the 2021 TA Call for P ojects applications. 2021 TA Call for Projects 6 Frequently Asked Questions 25) Is there a benefit to/preference for proposing a project in TxDOT ROW? Answer: Projects that are on or adjacent to the TxDOT maintained roadway network will not receive a higher rank simply because the project is on -system. TxDOT's priority with this program call is to fund quality bicycle and pedestrian projects leveraging as much TA funding as possible. However, TxDOT reserves the right to use other federal and/or state resources to implement a project submitted under this program call that is located within TxDOT right-of-way and advances the department's ADA/pedestrian safety, accessibility, and mobility goals. Refer to pg. 4 of the Program Guide for more information about this alternative funding source. 26) Doe the program have a preference between project types (i.e. sidewalks, multi-use paths, etc.)? Ans r: All proj t types are welcnme. Review Section C of the Program Guide for information about project evaluation and selection criteria to assist in identifying competitive projects. 27) Do all project elements have to connect? For example, is making sidewalk improvements at different locations considered one project or do the improvements need to connect? Answer: A project that fills in gaps in a non-motorized transportation network may be eligible, as long as the detailed application demonstrates how the proposed elements contribute to a single, interconnected project. Project sponsors may be asked to split a larger project into smaller segments if each element of the project makes more sense as a standalone project. 28) Are projects crossing RR ROW less likely to be recommended for the detailed application? Answer: No, projects that cross RR ROW are not less likely to be recommended for Step 2 (detailed applications). However, it is important to identify project complexities early in the project development process so that these complexities can be addressed to avoid delays in project implementation if the project is awarded funding. Advanced railroad coordination is strongly recommended and may be essential for funding consideration. Obtaining railroad approval can take several months and in some instances several years. The detailed application should document coordination to date with the affected railroad regarding the proposed project. 29) Does "project readiness" mean you need to have engineering complete and PS&E documents ready to go? Answer: No. Project read iness is dependent on a number of factors listed in Table 3 in the Program Guide and using information provided in the Detailed Application (Step 2). Shovel-ready projects would have excellent project readiness; however, most projects are not shovel ready and are still very competitive in TxDOT's calls for projects for TA funds. 30) Does the cost estimate for the preliminary application have to be stamped by a PE? Answer: No. The preliminary appli~ation cost estimate does not need to be stamped by a P. E. The cost estimate in the preliminary application is intended to be a high level, general estimate. It provides TxDOT staff an idea of project scale and scope. 31) If a project is selected for funding by the Texas Transportation Commission as part ofTxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects, when will project sponsors (with funded projects) be required to pay their local match? 2021 TA Call for Projects 7 Frequently Asked Questions Answer: The local funding match for the preliminary engineering phase, including TxDOT's direct state cost for review of project plans and environmental documentation, would beduetoTxDOTwithin 30daysofthe local government receiving the fully executed Advance Funding Agreement (AFA). The AFA should be executed with in one year after the date that the commission selected the project for funding. The remaining local match for administration and construction would be due to TxDOT 60 days prior to TxDOT's construction letting of the project. If the project sponsor is responsible for developing preliminary engineering documents for federal participation and/or a local letting is authorized, the local government wou ld remit the local match for TxDOT's direct state costs at the beginning of each phase of work . The project sponsor would then pay its contractors up front and be reimbursed for 80% of the eligible construction costs, plus any local match adjustment. lfTxDOT implements a project on behalf of the project sponsor, then the project sponsor wou Id be responsible for paying its entire local match for each phase of work prior to initiation of that phase. 32) A e local government costs toward preparing the detailed application package eligible for re1 bursement? Ans er: No. A costs incurred prior to the project being selected for funding, being identified in the local Trans rtation Improvement Program (TIP) and Statewide TIP (if individually listed), execution of the Advanc undingAgreement, federal authorization of the project, and authorization from TxDOTto proceed a e not eligible for reimbursement. 33) If a proposed project includes a project sponsor overmatch (project sponsor proposes to contribute a cash match greater than 20% of the total construction cost), does th is make a project more competitive? Answer: The presence of a project sponsor over match is not an eva luation criterior. However, an overmatch is an indication of strong local/community support which is an evaluation criterion. 34) Is a resolution from the project sponsor required for the detailed application? Answer: Yes. As part of Step 2, a resolution of support from the project sponsor will be a required as an attachment to the detailed application. It will be important for project sponsors to begin thinking about the steps required to get the resolution developed and signed before the June 14, 2021 detailed application deadline. 35) If we are proposing a project with in the TxDOT ROW, should we have a letter of support from the district office? Answer: Yes. Projects that include state maintained right-of-way or have a direct effect on an existing state- maintained roadway must have a recent letter of consent, addressed to the project sponsor, and signed by the current TxDOT District Engineer (DE); this consent cannot be deleg2ted down. The DE letter should be included as an attachment in the detailed application (Step 2). Project sponsors can begin coordinating with TxDOT District staff at the District Review meeting following Step 1. 36) What type of right-of-way (ROW)/ property ownership documentation is required? Answer: Project sponsors will be requested to attach ROW ownership documentation which may include ROW maps and/or deed records to the detailed application. If ROW acquisition is necessary for the project but has not been completed at the time of the detailed application submittal, please include a 2021 TA Call for Projects 8 Frequently Asked Questions commitment letter by the current property owner indicating the property owner's willingness to transfer property in accordance with federal law. 37) All proposals must provide documentary evidence of the project sponsor's property rights by title of ownership, lease, or easement for all property within the project limits. -Can we use plats for this? Answer: Yes, plats may be used if they clearly show property ownership in relation to the proposed project's right- of-way. 38) The detailed application requires documentation of the project sponsor's ROW interest. A project sponsor may not have filed a plat or deed in the county real estate records for the street in question. What evidence could be provided in this situation? Answer: Project Sponsors can request assistance from the county clerk to search for the recorded plat. If nothing is found, the project sponsor should obtain a surveyor's written opinion on the existence and general description of a prescriptive easement based on recovered boundary evidence. Condltlonal Project List(CPL) 39) If your project is selected on a conditional project list, what are the chances of the project being awarded funded? Answer: If a project is selected for a conditional project tist, ixDGT PTN intem1sto recommend the project for fund ng to the Texas Transportation Commission as soon as funding is available. AH the projects that were identified for the Conditional Projects Lists during TxDOT's 2019 TA/SRTS Call for Projects have been awarded funding. 40) If we have a TA project on the 2019 conditional project list and submit another project during the 2021 TA Call for Projects, will the 2019 project count against the 2021 project application? Answer: No, identification on a conditional project list will not affect project scoring under TxOOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects. However, past project sponsor performance on previous TxDOT-administered projects may be considered as part of Project Readiness criteria du ring project evaluation. MPOs, TMAs, and Jurisdlctlonal Questions 41) If a TA project was not awarded fund ing following an MPO Call for Projects, can the project sponsor submit the project to TxDOT? Answer: Yes. The same project already submitted to the MPO's Call for Projects can be submitted to TxDOT's Call for Projects as long as the project is not submitted to MPO and TxDOT calls for projects concurrently. The project sponsor must fill out TxDOT's TA applications. 42) Will a project be eligible for TxDOT's 2021 TA program if it is in a population area that will be designated as a Transportation ManagementArea (TMA) in the next Decennial Census? Answer: Yes. TxDOT's 2021 TA funding eligibility is based on the TMA boundaries and population sizes established by the 2010 Decennial Census. 2021 TA C811 for Projects 9 Frequently Asked Questions 43) Can a portion of a project be submitted to TxDOT and another portion submitted to an MPO's Call for Projects? Answer: Yes. If a project sponsor can create independent projects with logical termini and maintain independent utility, then the project sponsor may submit one project to TxDOT and the other to the MPO. 44) If part of our jurisdiction is in a TMA and part is outside, are we eligible to submit a project located in our jurisdiction but outside of the TMA boundary? Answer: Yes, TA funding eligibility is determined by project location. If the project is located outside of the TMA, it is eligible for TxDOT's TA program. 45) Does the local government have to outright own ROW or can an lnterlocal Agreement be reached for indefinite use, for example railroad ROW? Answer: The project sponsor does not have to own the ROW for the project but must have consent from the ROW owner. Proposed improvements may be located on state-maintained roadway ROW ("on-system") or on property owned by the project sponsor or a third party ("off-system"). Projects may be constructed on private property ifthe proper easement is obtained and the easement allows public access. Projects that include state maintained ROW or have ad irect effect on an existing state-maintained roadway must have a recent letter of consent, addressed to the project sponsor, and signed by the current TxDOT District Engineer of the TxDOT district in which the project is located. This consent cannot be delegated. A railroad agreement may be necessary for projects that cross a railroad. Coordination with a railroad is required for all projects that are within 50 feet of railroad right-of-way (including grade-separated crossings) and/or all projects that begin or end within 500 feet from an at-grade highway-rail crossing to ensure traffic control and construction do not interfere with an active crosBing. Obtaining railroad approval can take several months and in some instances several years. More information will be provided in the Detailed Application instructions. 46) If a roject · in a City which is under 5,000 in population. Can the County be the local sponsor for non - urba TA f nds? Answe · Yes, TA nding categories are determined by project location. Funding eligibility will be based on the popula o of the geographic area surrounding the project location. Whether the project is located in a city, t wn, lage, Census designated place, or is completely rural in nature will determine the funding category (non urban or small urban) for that project. Transportation Development Credits (TDC) or Economically Disadvantaged Counties Progra (EDCP) Answer: If a projec su mitted to TxDOT's TA Call for Projects is located in a community of 50,001 or greater in population in a county that has been certified by the commission as an economically disadvantagro county, the tailed application package may include a request for an EDCP adjustment to the minimum I ca u nd ing match requirement. To be eligible for consideration under the Economically Disadva aged unties Program, the infrastructure improvements must be located within public roadwa right-of-y (ROW), either on-system (state-maintained) or off-system (locally maintained), or be immed1 tely adjac t to roadway ROW. 2021 TA Call for Projects 10 Frequently Asked Questions For current EDC program guidance visit TxDOT's website at http://www.txdot.gov/inside- txdoVdivision/transportation-planning/disadvantaged-county.html. Also, refer top. 10 of the Program Guide. 48) Which pr ·ects are 1gible under provisions of the Transportation Development Credits (TDCs)? Answer: • Proje t m st be located in a population area of 50,000 or less located outside of a designated TMA, a • • 49) I project sponsor believes itself to qualify for a TDC or EDCP reduction, should the project sponsor fill - in t detailed application budget assuming that reduction will be received? Answ : ligibili for TDCs and EDCP will be determined based on information provided in the Preliminary A plicati . Eligibility for a local match reduction will be conveyed to eligible project sponsors at the en of Step , around mid-April 2021. During Step 2, when the project sponsor enters the itemized bud et in th 021 TA detailed application, automated fields and formulas will indicate the impact of any e ible ma h reduction. 50) If a prop sed project location extends across the county boundary between two counties where varying EDC redu tions are present, how does TxDOTadjust the EDCP percentage reduction for the project budget? Answer: If a project e tends into two counties and one county has an EDC reduction and one does not, then TxDOT will pr rate the reduction percentage according to the proportion of the project located in the EDCP eligible ounty. If a project exte ds into two counties and each county has a different EDC reduction percentage, then TxDOT will prorat each reduction percentage according to the proportion of the project located in each county. NOTE: These are ra situations and will be handled on a case-by-case basis. If a project sponsor believes this situation pplies, please notify TxDOT-PTN at BikePed@txdot.gov for assistance in accommodating these ductions on the submitted detailed application. 51) If my community is eligibl for TDCs, is there a limit to the amount of credit or is it automatically no cash match? Answer: TDCs allow for 100% federal A funds to be applied to the project in lieu of a local match, so eligible projects will require no cash atch. 2021 TA Call for Projects 11 Frequently Asked Questions community is eligible for TDCs and intends to use TDCs for local match, will this affect my project's es of being awarded funding? Cs will not impact project score. However, if a project sponsor chooses to provide an overmatcf more than 20% local match) it may be considered as an indication of strong localjcomm ity support which is an evaluation criterion. A project sponsor can also demonstrate good public suppo nd score well on this part of the project evaluation without providing a local match of greater than 20 . Other key aspects that will be reviewed are evidence of outreach events and public meetings, demon trating collaborative efforts with community partners that support the project, and providing letters of pport for the project. P rocuremenVHlrlng consultants 53) Do federal requirements apply to preliminary phases of project development? Answer: Federal and state requirements apply to any costs incurred that will be reimbursed with federal funds. Additionally, all project property acquired (including easements and donations) after 1971 must have been acquired in accordance with the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (Uniform Act). Furthermore, design must comply with federal and state standards; local design specifications may be approved on a case-by-case basis. 54) When hiring a consultant, when is a local government required to meet Federal Procurement Requirements? Answer: Federal Procurement Requirements must be followed when the Local Government is reimbursed with federal dollars, or when a local government is authorized to local letting for construction. When procuring professional services, the local government must submit federal compliant procurement procedures to TxDOT for review and approval or adopt TxDOT's procurement process. In addition, contracts between the local government and consultants must include applicable federal requirements, and be submitted to TxDOT for review and approval, prior to execution . Federal Procurement Requirements apply regardless of whether the project is let for construction by TxDOT or by the local government. The Federal Highway Administration 's federal-aid essentials for local public agencies video library includes a video entitled Hiring a Consultant using Competitive Negotiation Procedures that provides an overview of the hiring process. Here is the video link: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federal- aidessentials/catmod .cfm?id=7. For additional guidance on Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Design Related Services -Questions and Answers visit https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/172qa 01.cfm 55) If the project sponsor is not seeking reimbursement for design and enviror'Tiental documentation, then does the project sponsor need to follow federal rules? Answer: "" If the project sponsor does not intend to seek reimbursement for design and environmental documentation, the project sponsor does not need to comply with Federal Procurement Requirements. Project sponsors must still follow other state requirements for project development. The project sponsor will still need to follow state and federal rules if overseeing letting and construction of the project. 56) Does TxDOT need to preapprove the engineering contract itself? 2021 TA Call for Projects 12 Frequently Asked Questions Answer: If the project includes federal funding for preliminary engineering, then TxDOT must review and approve the project sponsor's procurement documents to ensure that state and federal requirements are met. ry engineering is considered a reimbursable cost for projects in communities of 50,000 or les i pop ti on, will the grant sponsor procure all engineering services or will TxDOT be responsible for PS E pro u ement? se vices procurement must follow state and federal requirements if PE will be federally e. ether TxDOT District or the Project Sponsor procures that works will be a collaborative wee TxDOT and the Project Sponsor. 58) Can the project sponsor hire a consultant to help with its application? Answer: Yes. Project sponsors should be aware that any work done prior to the state's letter of authority is not reimbursable with TA fur.js. 59) If an engineering firm completed the project application and project receives an award , is that engineering firm eligible to complete preliminary engineering and/or environmental documentation the work? Answer: There is nothing in the Local Government program or FHWA guidance that wou Id preclude them from participating. However, the LG and the engineering firm may want to review the Texas Engineering Code (Section 663.4 -Conflicts of Interests) and apply the code on the specifics of the project activities. LGs need to insure however that while a consultant can aid in preparation of the application and still be eligible to prepare the PS&E etc., no consultant involved in preparing any relevant procurement documents is eligible to be considered for that procurement [2 CFR 200.319(b)]. 60) If the City has a contract inspector, are those allowable/reimbursable expenses? Would an on-staff inspector be a reimbursable expense? Answer: Both a contracted inspector and a LG employee inspector conducting construction inspections are eligible for reimbursement under the program. 61) Can project administration of the construction phase be contracted out? Can project administration for construction be procured at the same time as PS&E? Answer: Yes, administration of the project during construction can be contracted out and can be procured at the same time as the contract for development of the plans, specification & estimate (PS&E) and environmental documentation. The local government would need to ensure that the PS&E procurement document includes construction phase administration in the contract's scope of work. If the local government is seeking federal reimbursement then the procurement process must meet federal procurement requirements. If a local government is not seeking federal reimbursement for construction administration then the local government needs to follow state and local government procurement rules. If a local government contracts administration of construction , the local government will still need to designate a ResponsiLle Person In Charge (RPIC) who is a full time employee of the local government and remains engaged in the project, maintains familiarity with day-to-day project operations, makes or participate in decisions about change orders, reviews financial processes, transactions and documentation, and directs project staff (agency or consultant) at all stages of the project. The local government's RPIC will be TxDOT's main point of contact for the project. 2021 TA Call for Projects 13 Frequently Asked Questions 62) Once the project sponsor incurs federally reimbursable costs, how long will it take for project sponsors to receive reimbursement from TxDOT? Answe r: Following district review and acceptance of a complete invoice, TxDOT is required to provide reimbursementto the project sponsor within 30 days. 63) Can you clarify the requirements for turning in documents 20 weeks prior to letting? Is that for 60% PS&E? the Quality Assurance plan?? Answer: The 20-week timeframe is specific to the Plans, Specifications & Estimate. Most likely you 're submitting 30% schematics, then 60%, then 90%. That 90% is typically submitted 20 weeks before letting. It may take less time, but that's the general guidance we provide. That's a discussion you can have with your TxDOT Project Manager. They will look at their workload and provide a timeframe. The Quality Assurance plan can be submitted towards the end of the PS&E development. We encourage Local Governments to adopt TxDOT's Quality Assu rance plan for these projects. Project Design and Environmental Documentation 64) Can a projectthat is just Des ign & Environmental be competitive? Answer: Project applications submitted to TxDOT's 2021 TA Call for Projects must include a request for construction funding. During project evaluation, TxDOT may identify potential constructability concerns (e.g. drainage issues, limited ROW, substantially inadequate budget, etc.). In this situation, TxDOT may recommend a project be phased and advanced for preliminary engineering (i.e., PS&E and environmental documentation) only. If a project is awarded preliminary er.gineering funding only, the project must be resubmitted in a future call for projects to be considered for construction funding. 65) For the reimbursement of preliminary engineering, are all applicants reimbursed or only those that are awarded the grant? Would preliminary engineering to prepare the application be eligible for reimbursement? Answer: See Section D of the Program Guide. For TxDOTs 2021 TA program call, the department's TA funds are available for: • Project construction • Preliminary engineering and design , includ ing preparation of construction plans, specification, and estimates (PS&E), and associated survey work for projects in communities of 50,000 in population or less • Environmental documentation for projects in communities of 50,000 in population or less Any project costs incurred prior to selection by the commission, execution of a local agreement, and authorization from the department to proceed will not be eligible for reimbursement. Costs to prepare the applications are not eligible for reimbursement. 66) Must trails/sidewalks meet an y AASHTO standards such as lighting and/or call boxes? Answer: The need for lighting and call boxes is context dependent and should be considered where appropriate to enhance visibility and user safety. All bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure design must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and meet or exceed the minimum design requirements identified in the latest edition of TxDOT's Roadway Design Manual. Pedestrian facilities must conform to the Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (latest edition) as published by the US Access Board or the 2021 TA Call for Projects 14 Frequently Asked Questions 2010 ADA Standards and Texas Accessibility Standards, as applicable. Additionally, proposed bicycle facilities should be consi;:;tent with the latest TxDOT's Bicycle Accommodation Design Guidance. All design criteria for on-road and off-road bicycle facilities must comply with the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (latest edition) as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). See Section I of the Program Guide for more information. In addition, further design guidelines will be provided in the Detailed Application instructions, which will be posted on TXDOT's TA funding webpage in April 2021. 67) If our sidewalk is connecting to a sidewalk along school property do we need to make sure that sidewalk is brought up standards? Answer: There is no requirement to upgrade sidewalks that your project connects to. However, the project may be more effective, overall, if improvements are made to the connecting facility, such as improvements to comply with the American 's with Disabilities Act (ADA). Note that sidewalks within school property for internal circulation only would not be eligible for TxDOT's TA funds. Publicly accessible sidewalks along school property that serve the greater pedestrian or bicycle transportation network would be eligible. 68) Does public involvement have to take place before the detailed application is submitted? Answer: The project sponsor should demonstrate public awareness and support for the project in the detailed application. Additionally, any required public outreach can occur during the environ mental phase of the project development process. See page 24 of the 2021 TA/SRTS Program Guide for more information. In 2017, the Texas State Legislature created a new public meeting requirement that states a public hearing must be held for a project that "substantially changes the layout or function of a connecting roadway or existing facility" (43 TAC §25.55). The addition of bicycle lanes is considered a substantial change under this legislation. Therefore, projects that include the addition of new bike lanes will require a public hearing. Public hearings held specifically to meet this requirement may be held any time during project development. Please refer to the Environ mental Hand book for Public Involvement, Section 6, for information aboutthe public hearing process. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot- info/env/toolkiV760-01-gu i. pdf 69) Does construction of a shared use path trigger the public hearing requirement (43 TAC §25.55)? Answer: Shared-use paths and wide shoulders are not considered "bicycle lanes " for purposes of th is requirement. Also, none of the following situations regarding bicycle lanes aretreated as "substantially changing the layout or function of a connecting roadway or an existing facility or facilities:" • striping bicycle lanes when the pre-existing roadway already accommodated bicycles. • striping one or more non-continuous bicycle lanes approaching or th rough intersections, driveways, or other conflict areas; or • striping bicycle lanes not along, but across a roadway at an intersection to allow the continuation of planned or existing bicycle lanes on crossing local streets or other bicycle facilities. 70) How wide should a shared-use path be? Answer: TxDOT recommends shared use paths be 11to12 ft. wide, depending on context, and anticipated future usage. The minimum width of a shared use path is 10 ft. to meet the TxDOT-adopted AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities criteria. 71) Will the cost of a project impact project score? Should a project sponsor reduce width or use less expensive surfacing in order to reduce costs and increase project competitiveness? 2021 TA Gall for Projects 15 Frequently Asked Questions Answer: The cost of a project will not impact the score. TxDOTwants to use federal dollars to fund high quality projects that provide adequate levels of service with low maintenance costs over the life of the facility. Project sponsors may be asked to reduce the limits of a good project to meet any funding constraints. If a project sponsor feels that project costs are too high, add an explanation and exhibit in Attachment A or B that shows possible phasing of the project. 72) If there is a problematic railroad crossing along my project's route can the pedestrian and/or bicycle facility end at the railroad right of way and then start back up on the other side of the railroad crossing and ROW? Answer: No, for pedestrian and bicyclist safety and ADA compliance it is important to carry a pedestrian and/or bicycle facility through the railroad crossing creating a safe ADA compliant crossing. Otherwise the project may lead pedestrians and bicyclists to a potentially unsafe crossing which is especially problematic for disabled users of the facility. 73) Is the project sponsor responsible for environmental mitigation/remed iation? Should this cost be included into the estimated construction cost budget? Answer: It depends. Reimbursement of extensive remediation costs associated with mitigating environmental issues won 't be eligible under the 2021 TA Program Call. However, incidental (minor) environmental mitigation/remediation may be an eligible activity and must be documented in the itemized budget in the detailed application. Local Support 7 4) Does public involvement have to take place before the detailed application is submitted? Answer: The project sponsor should demonstrate public awareness and support for the project in the detailed application. Additionally, required public outreach can occur during the environmental phase of the project development process. See page 24 of the 2021 TA Program Guide for more information. 75) Do project sponsors need to hold a public hearing before the application deadline if the project will result in substantial changes to the layout or function of the roadway, such as a road diet or adding a new bike lane? Answer: Due to the nature of road diets and the potential impact to the traveling public, it is strongly advised to conduct public outreach and provide documentation of public support in the detailed application. In 2017, the Texas State Legislature created a new public meeting requirement that states a public hearing must be held for a project that "substantially changes the layout or function of a connecting roadway or existing facility" (43 TAC §2.107(b)(3)(C)). The addition of bicycle lanes are considered a substantial change under this legislation. Therefore, projects that include the addition of new bike lanes will require a public hearing. Public hearings held specifically to meet this requirement may be held any time during project development. Please refer to the Environmental Handbook for Public Involvement, pages 14-17, for information aboutthe public hearing process. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot- info/env/toolkiV760-01-gui.pdf A public hearing to comply with this state requirement may occur after the project is awarded funding. Seep. 24 of the Program Guide for more information. 76) Can a project sponsor submit a letter of support in lieu of a resolution by the governing body? 2021 TA Call for Projects 16 Frequently Asked Questions Answer: An adopted resolution from the project sponsor's governing board is a required attachmentto the detailed application as stated in the detailed application instructions. Additionally, p. 14 of the Program Guide, states: "An application package that fails to include items required in the instructions for the preliminary and detailed application will be considered incomplete and may not be considered for funding." An example resolution supporting the detailed application is available on our funding webpage here: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/public-transportation/bicycle-pedestrian.html. 77) If the project sponsor is an ISO and the City will be maintaining the project once complete, shou Id the City also pass a resolution concerning long-term maintenance? Answer: If an entity other than the project sponsor will be responsible for maintaining the project after construction, attach a letter from the responsible party committing to long-term maintenance. If the project is awarded funding, the project sponsor and agency responsible for maintenance may want to enter into an agreement formalizing respective responsibilities. 78) Should letters of support be sent directly to TxDOT from the senders or attached under the Public Outreach attachment thrrugh the on line application? Who should the letters be addressed to? Answer: Letters of support must be attached to the detailed application, so all supporting documentation is compiled in one consolidated electronic file. This ensures that the letters will be taken into consideration during project evaluation. Letters of support should be addressed to the project sponsor. 79) If a proposed project includes a project sponsor overmatch (project sponsor proposes to contribute a cash match greater than 20% of the total construction cost), does th is make a project more competitive? Answer: The presence of a project sponsor overmatch is not an evaluation criterion. However, an overmatch is an indication of strong local/community support which is an evaluation criterion . Project Letting and Construction 80) Is there a standard amount or percentage TxDOT charges for TXDOT administration costs to the applicant? Answer: For TxDOT's TA Program, the detailed application will automatically calculate an estimated amount for TxDOT's oversight of project development and construction (known as "direct state costs" or an administrative fee). For purposes ofTxDOT's TA Program, direct state costs are calculated at 15% of the total construction cost. The direct state costs are reimbursable with federal funds at the same rate as the rest of the project, including any eligible local match reduction . 81) It was stated that projects have a 3-year letting window or TxDOT risks losing funds. When does the 3- year clock start? Is it when funds are awarded? Answer: The 3-year clock is dependent on when the funds are authorized to the State. TxDOT PTN programs projects based on project complexity, the proposed project timeline in the detailed application, and project readiness, as well as coordination between the local government and the district. To ensure that TA funds are utilized in a timely manner, simpler projects are programmed to let sooner, while more challenging ones are programmed to let later. It is critical that projects are advanced as expeditiously as possible once awarded , so that TxDOT can manage TA funding allocations and ensure that statewide TA funds do not lapse. 2021 TA Call for Projects 17 Frequently Asked Questions 82) When would a project have to be let for construction? Answer: Projects should be let within three years after a project is awarded funds by the Texas Transportation Commission. Actual let dates will be based on project complexity, the proposed projecttimeline in the detailed application, project readiness, coordination between the local government and the district, and statewide federal obligation requirements. TxDOTs executive director may eliminate a project or a portion of a project from participation in the TA program if a construction contract has not been awarded or construction has not been initiated within three years after the date that the commission selected the project. See also response to question 60, above. 83) How will it be determined if a project is state let or local let? Answer: This will be determined on a case by case basis in coordination between the local government and the project's district office. Authorization for a local letting is a district decision. The local government would be required to request a local letting through the district office and complete a Risk Assessment evaluation. TxDOT makes the final decision on whether a local letting would be authorized . If you are interested in a state or local lettin g, you are encouraged to discuss this matter with your District TA Coordinator during the district review meeting of the preliminary application. 84) If a project sponsor has limited fi nancial and staff resources to oversee a project, will TxDOT take on project administration directly or will the applicant need to create a budget and procure services as part of the award? Answer: The decision as to who will let a project (TxDOT or the local project sponso.) will be determined th rough coordination between the TxDOT District Office who will manage the project and the local project sponsor. Some small local entities procure a consultant to assist with project management and oversight for a locally let project. If a project sponsor is interested in TxDOT administering a project, then the project sponsor should discuss th is request with the District during the review meeting after completing the preliminary application. Resources and Training 85) What resources are available to local governments to aid them in complying with federal and state requirements? Answer: TxDOT and FHWA have many resources available to local governments. The resources listed below are some of the most commonly used resources (accessible via the internet): TxDOT • TxDOT Local Government Projects website: https://www.txdot.gov/governmenVprograms/local- govern ment-projects. html • TxDOT Local Government Projects Online Toolkit: https://www.txdot.gov/governmenVprocesses- procedures/lgp-toolkit.html • Training and Qualifications: https://www.txdot.gov/governmenVprograms/local-government- projects/train ing. html • Forms and Publications: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdoVforms- pu blications/pu b lications/local-government. html • Local Government Standard Specifications and Special Provisions: https://www.txdot.gov/business/resources/txdot-soecifications/local-government.html FHWA 2021 TA Call for Projects 18 Frequently Asked Questions • FHWA website: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ • Federal-aid Essentials for Local Public Agencies: Federal-aid Essentials offers a central on line library of informational videos and resources, designed specifically for local public agencies. Each video addresses a single topic-condensing the complex regulations and requirements of the Federal-aid Highway Program into easy-to-understand concepts with illustrated examples. Visit FHWA's website at: https:(/www.fhwa.dot.gov/federal-aidessentials/ 86) What training is required to become a "qualified person" if our project is awarded funding? Can you provide additional information regarding how and when a project sponsor shou Id register for a training? Answer: If awarded funding, the project sponsor must have a "qualified person" actively involved in the project. A person becomes "qualified" by successfully completing the training discussed below. Further information is included in the followin~ link to the TxDOTs Local Government Project Procedures Training and Qualification -LGP101 page. Towards the bottom of the training page are links to a description of the training, training calendar, registration form, etc. https://www.txdot.gov/government/programs/local- government-projects/training.html 2021 TA Call for Projects 19 Frequently Asked Questions rJocuSi'"1n Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 MEMO April 2, 2021 To: District Engineers DocuSigned by: From: Wi lliam L. Hale, P.E. Chief Engineer W~L.H~ B9775932E4FB44F ... Subject Bicycle Accommodation Design Guidance TxDOT issued an administrative memo on March 23, 2011 which outlined guidance for emphasizing bicycle and pedestrian accommodations; the substance of this guidance was subsequently incorporated into the Roadway Design Manual. Since that t ime substantial progress has been made with respect to the state of the practice for bicycle facilities. The attached updated Bicycle Accommodation Design Guidance incorporates best practices for the deve lopment of bicycle facilities on TxDOT roadways. Additionally, the Roadway Design Manual (ROM ) is currently in the development and review process of updates that are targeted for publication in the July 2021 timeframe; this updated bicycle guidance will be incorporated into the ROM at that time. The intention for this earlier release of the Bicycle Guidance is to provide Districts with a head start on the planning and development of projects. This guidance applies to all highway and street projects. Due to projects that may be further along in development with current criteria, this guidance will be effective for all projects Let on or after the September 2022 letting date; AND do not have approved 30% plans, or an approved schematic as of November 1st, 2021. The District has the option of using this guidance for project development effectively immediately. By November 1st, 2021 approved By November 1st, 30% plans or schematic 2021 30% plans or schematic not approved Let Prior to Optional Optional September 2022 September 2022 Optional Required Letting or later A copy of this guidance and additional information is located at the Roadway Design Guidance webpage at https://tntoday.dot.state.tx.us/des/Pages/Roadway-Design-Guidance.aspx. Information webinars on this topic wil l also be conducted in the coming weeks. Please distribute this information to the appropriate district staff and area offices, as well as consulting engineers working on TxDOT projects. OUR GOALS MAINTAIN A SAFE SYSTEM • ADDRESS CONGESTION • CONNECT TEXAS COMMUNITIES • BEST IN CLASS STATE AGENCY An Equal Opportunity Employer DocuSign Envelope ID : 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 If you have any questions regard ing this guidance, please contact Kenneth Mora, P.E., Roadway Design Section Director at (512) 416-2678. Attachment: TxDOT Bicycle Accommodation Design Guidance CC: Marc D. Williams, P.E., ADM Qu incy D. Allen , P.E., ADM C. Michael Lee, P.E., ADM Brian R. Barth , P.E., ADM Jeff Graham, GCD District Engineers Marisabel Z. Ramthun, P.E., DES Graham Bettis, P.E., BRG Michael A. Chacon, P.E., TRF Ja mes Stevenson, P.E., MNT Duane S. Milligan, P.E., CST Jessica Butler, P.E., TPP Eric L. Gleason, PTN Bonnie Sherman, PTN TP&D Directors Ujval Patel, FHWA Stephen J. Ratke, FHWA Samantha Pratt, FHWA 2 April 2, 2021 DocuS~n Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 TxDOT BICYCLE ACCOMMODATION DESIGN GUIDANCE (4/02/2021) CONTENTS Pg.2 Pg.2 Pg.5 Pg. 7 Pg.8 Pg. 13 Pg. 13 Pg. 14 Pg. 17 Pg. 31 Pg. 33 Overview and Purpose Supporting Policy and Design Guidance • National and State Statutes • AASHTO vs. FHWA Guidelines • U.S. Department of Transportation • TxDOT Memo with Revision and Clarification • Other Revisions and Considerations Projects that can be Excepted from Bicycle Accommodations Bicycle Planning Principles Context Considerations • Land Use Contexts • Speed and Volumes of Motor Vehicles • Other Factors Target Design User Maintenance of Bicycle Facilities General Bicycle Accommodation Selection Guidance • Requirements for Selection -Urban, Urban Core, Suburban, and Rural Town • Requirements for Selection -Rural Bicycle Facility Types Bicycle Facility Types Urban/Urban Core/Suburban/Rural Town Facility Types • Shared Use Paths Adjacent to Roadways (Sidepaths) • Separated Bike Lanes • Buffered Bike Lanes • Bike lanes • Bike Accessible Shoulders • Shared Lanes (Wide Outside Lanes) -Rural Facility Types • Shared Use Path • Bike Accessible Shoulders • Shared Lanes (Wide Outside Lanes) Considerations for Alternatives and Design Exceptions or Design Waivers References DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 OVERVI EW AND PURPOSE This document provides interim guidance for design practices that accommodate bicycles until such guidance is formally incorporated in TxDOT's Roadway Design Manual (RDM). The RDM does include some guidance in Chapter 6 -Special Facilities Section 4 -Bicycle Facilities and this interim guidance provides more details and clarifications. This guidance is in support of the August 20, 2013 Guidance Memorandum from the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) that expresses: "The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) <supports> taking a flexible approach to bicycle and pedestrian facility design. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) bicycle and pedestrian design guides are the primary national resources for planning, designing, and operating bicycle and pedestrian facilities." r10J Further emphasis was recently provided by FHWA's Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning, Program, and Project Development guidance: "Bicycle and pedestrian needs must be given "due consideration" under Federal surface transportation law (23 U.S.C. 217(g)(1)). This consideration should include, at a minimum, a presumption that bicyclists and pedestrians, including persons with disabilities, will be accommodated in the design of new and improved transportation facilities. In the planning, design, and operation of transportation facilities, bicyclists and pedestrians should be included as a matter of routine, and the decision to not accommodate them should be the exception rather than the ru le." !5J Accordingly, accommodating bicyclists applies to all types of roadways except those that specifically prohibit bicycle travel. Bicycle accommodations should be designed to accommodate the greatest number and type of bicyclists with the safest facility possible within local constraints. This is especially important in urban and suburban settings where a high concentration of destinations may attract a broader range of bicyclists of varying age and ability. Due to the wide range of constraints that engineers may need to consider in their design, this document, and the references at the end of the document, outline the flexibility allowed when selecting the appropriate bicycle accommodation. Important Note: For the purposes of this guidance when a speed criteria is mentioned it will mean the higher of the design or posted speed (speed limit). The veh icular ADT or traffic volumes referenced pertain to existing conditions. The respective sidepath, or bicycle volumes referenced pertain to existing conditions or anticipated beginning conditions. Note that the anticipated growth in usage should also be considered when defining the footprint for the bicycle accommodations. SUPPORTING PO LI CY AND DES IGN GUIDANCE National and State Statutes Title 23 §217(g)(1) of the United States Code states, "Bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways shall be considered, where appropriate, in conjunction with all new construction and reconstruction of transportation facilities, except where bicycle and pedestrian use are not permitted." Title 23 §217(e) of the United States Code states, "In any case where a highway bridge deck being replaced or rehabilitated with Federal financial participation is located on a highway on which bicycles are permitted to operate at each end of such bridge, and the Secretary determines that the safe accommodation of bicycles can be provided at 2 )ocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 easonable cost as part of such replacement or rehabilitation, then such bridge shall be so replaced or rehabilitated as o provide such safe accommodations. Title 23 §109(m) of the United States Code states, "Protection of Non motorized Transportation Traffic. The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for non motorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regu latory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists." Likewise, the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) and the Texas Transportation Code (TIC) provide directives for the design of bicycle facilities in the state of Texas. Title 6 §201.902(c) of the TIC requires TxDOT to adopt rules relating to the use of roads in the state highway system by bicycles. Title 43 of the TAC requires the following: • §25.53 TxDOT must take bicycle accommodation into consideration during the planning and implementation of all construction and rehabilitation projects. • §25.54 TxDOT adopts the latest version of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1l. • The Department wi ll continue to review guidelines for the design, construction, and maintenance of bicycle facilities with the intent to adopt new guidelines as appropriate. • As the previous bu llet indicates, this TxDOT Bicycle Accommodation Design Guidance is based on the review of new national guidelines for the best practices for the design of bicycle facilities and supersede AASHTO's Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012 -4th Edition) <1l. If a specific design criterion or guidance is not provided herein, the AASHTO guidance shall apply. It is anticipated that all guidance herein provides further enhancements to the safety and comfort level of most cyclists compared to the current AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (4th Edition) and is consistent with the draft AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (5th Edition) that is under review. AASHTO vs. FHWA Guidelines The 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities continues to be the governing document for specific design criteria. However, the FHWA's Bikeway Selection Guide <9l (and relevant supplements, Traffic Analysis and Intersection Considerations to Inform Bikeway Selection<16l and On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and the Bikeway Selection Process<17l) should be considered a companion to the 2012 AASHTO guide, and, in instances of contradictions, the FHWA guide shall take precedence because it contains design guidance more current than the 2012 AASHTO Guide. The 2012 AASHTO guide does not cover certain bicycle facility types that are contained in this TxDOT Bicycle Accommodation Design Guidance document. For example, design for separated bike lanes is quickly evolving and, as such, a flexible design approach is encouraged. For further information on FHWA's position on design flexibility, refer to the August 2013 FHWA memo "Bicycle and Pedestrian Faci lity Design Flexibility".c10) 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 U.S. Department of Transportation On March 11, 2010, a federal policy statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations Regulations and Recommendations was signed by U.S. DOT (4l. This policy statement emphasized that, "every transportation agency, including U.S. DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling ... transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient facilities for these modes." The incorporation of "safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities" into transportation projects is important to address health, safety, environmental, transportation, and quality of life goals. This guidance was further emphasized and updated by FHWA's Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning, Program, and Project Development (2019) guidance. TxDOT Memo on Shared Lanes with Revision and Clarification The U.S. DOT released a policy statement in 2010 and shortly after TxDOT issued an administrative memo on March 23, 2011 which outlined guidance for emphasizing bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. This memo was subsequently incorporated into the ROM. The memo allowed the use of 14-foot-wide curb lanes (shared lanes) for all widening and non-widening urban projects with in the existing right-of-wa y (ROW). However, since the issuance of the memo, bicycle accommodation selection guidance has evolved and the previously referenced shared lane should only be considered as a suitable bikeway accommodation when the fol lowing appli cable conditions are met: • In an urban/urban core/suburban/rural town context, the roadway is 35 mph or less and has less than 3,000 vehicles per day, or; • In a rural context, the roadway is 45 mph or less and has less than 1,000 vehicles per day. Other Revisions and Considerations Another key component being modified is the bike lane width. The current ROM allows a 4-foot minimum bike lane width. The following guidance specifies a 5 to 7 foot desirable bike lane width, with a 4-foot minimum bike lane allowed only under specific circumstances. See the Bicycle Facility Types section of this document for the specific gu idelines for each bicycle facility type. It continues to be critical that bicycle accommodations are fully considered and discussed as the need and purpose of a project is defined during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, taking into consideration existing and anticipated bicycle and pedestrian fa ci lity networks and needs. In the NEPA document, the managing office should include in the project description a discussion of proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities and linkages to transit stops and corridors. Public input, when applicable, as well as loca l government and metropolitan planning organization bicycle and pedestrian plans, must be taken into account. If no bicycle or pedestrian facilities are included in the project, the managing office must justify why these facilities are not necessary or cannot be accommodated. Preliminary and final engineering efforts (schematics and PS&E) shall verify that the proposed bicycle accommodations, if included, are designed according to the guidance in this document as well as the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD), and the TxDOT Roadway Design Manual (ROM). Refer to the MSHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities for additional guidance not found within these documents. 4 JocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 FHWA also recognizes that other guides published by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) dnd the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) build upon the flexibilities provided in the MSHTO guide, which can help communities plan and design safe and convenient facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. These documents are helpful in developing non-motorized networks in primarily urban areas. For off-system roadways, these design standards may be substituted for the above design standards upon agreement with the local government and the respective TxDOT District. PROJECTS THAT CAN BE EXCEPTED FROM BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations should be routinely included when planning and designing transportation facilities, addressing the needs of the target design user (as discussed in a later section); consequently all projects must be consistent with the identified needs for bicyclists accomodations as identified in the NEPA process. Exceptions to providing bicycle accommodations are permitted if the project meets one or more of the following numbered criteria. Although an area may fall under one of the exceptions below, it is important to plan for anticipated growth where bicycling activity might become more prevalent in the future during the life of the project. MPO and local planning documents should be reviewed and coordinated with to identify anticipated future growth when selecting bicycle accommodations outside the urbanized boundaries. The documentation for having an exception based on the following criteria wi ll be maintained with the project file with specific documentation as to the nature of the exception, but this is not considered a formal Design Exception or Design Waiver. The circumstances requiring a formal Design Exception or Design Waiver are documented in the DESIGN EXCEPTIONS AND DESIGN WAIVERS section of this guidance. Note, projects located on the Texas Bicycle Tourism Trails Example Network are not excepted from bicycle accommodations regardless of location. The TxDOT Statewide Planning Map provides additio nal information on MPO boundaries, area types, and the Texas Bicycle Tourism Trails Example Network. Additionally, all On-System bridges regardless of location, involving bridge replacement, bridge deck replacement, or bridge reha bilitation will need to meet the bicycle clear space requirements specified in the General Bicycle Accommodation Selection Guidance portion of this document, and are not excepted. Off-system Bridges where this addition may represent an unreasonable increase in cost may be excepted from the bicycle clear space requirement. 1. The project is on a roadway where bicycle travel is specifically prohibited by law or Texas Transportation Commission Minute Order. 2. The project is located outside of a respective Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Boundary; AND is also located outside of any respective city limits with a population of 2,500 or greater. The TxDOT Statewide Planning Map provides additional information on MPO boundaries and area types. Before using this exception, seek out and consider local stakeholder input and community need. 3. The project is in an urbanized setting (defined as a city, town, or Census-designated place with a population of 2,500 or greater) where a locally preferred alternative route has been adopted or implemented and bicycle accommodations are deemed impractical within the scope of the project. The project is in an urbanized setting with li mited roadway improvements, and there is already a future project programmed (e.g., MPO Active Transportation Plan) where the bicycle updates would make more sense in the context of overall transportation improvements. 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 4. The cost to provide features exclusively for bicyclist accommodations is excessively disproportionate to the need or likely uses. While a determination of "excessively disproportionate" should be concluded on a case-by-case basis and well documented, exceeding 20% of the total project cost (including design, construction, ROW, etc.) may be considered as a general guideline. This exception should not be used if the project will help complete a gap in an overall bicycle network. 5. The source of funding specifically precludes improvements other than those for which the funding is intended. Note that although Category 8 funding (which includes HSIP, Statewide systemic widen ing, and Road to Zero) does not currently have funding allocated specifica lly for bicycle accommodations, it is allowable to place money that has been specifically designated for bicycle accommodations into Category 8. Note, the following link from FHWA provides funding opportunities for bicycle facilities. (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle pedestrian/funding/funding opportunities.cfml 6. The type of work is limited in scope such that major roadway elements are not being constructed or reconstructed. For example: safety end treati ng culverts on ly, Metal Beam Guard Fence (MBGF) replacement on ly, sealcoat only, and other types of preventative maintenance projects. Note that resurfacing can provide the opportunity to restripe and/or improve the riding surface for bicycle accommodations in certain instances and, as such, wou ld not necessarily warrant an exemption. Other projects with a narrow scope should be evaluated to determine if negative im pacts to the bicycle accommodations may result. 6 )ocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 !CYCLE PLANNING PRINCIPLES rlaving a clear understanding of good planning and design principles is important as these concepts will ultimately be the foundation for the design intention and potential trade-offs that may occur. Bicycle planning principles that can be used include safety, co mfort, connectivity, and cohesiveness. Descriptions of these principles are provided in Table 1. Table 1. Bicycle Planning Principles Safety Separate bicycles from motorized traffic where the speed differential and traffic vo lumes are higher. Reduce conflicts between bicycles and pedestrian traffic on shared use paths (sidepaths). Minimize speed differential at conflict points where practical to minimize or eliminate injury. Provide sufficient clearances to obstacles to avoid crashes Reduce or eliminate conflicts along the route including intersecting roads and driveways. Comfort Recognize that different bicycle users have varying levels of comfort for various roadway conditions. Minimize exposure to traffic, noise, and emissions. Minimize or avoid conditions that require bicyclists to dismount during a trip. Provide sufficient shy distance to obstacles. Establish geometric criteria that provide a comfortable facility to operate a bicycle. Minimize or avoid conflicts with pedestrian traffic. Connectivity Accommodate local bicycle and transit transportation routes and networks. Connect bicycle accommodations and intersecting streets at a local scale for access to destinations. Allow for user choice of routes by providing a dense and connected network. Provide seamless transitions between different on-road and off-road facility types. Eliminate barriers and provide continuous bicycle accommodations to support network connectivity. Integrate design with local bicycle transportation plans. Carry accommodations through intersections of on-system roads with off-system roads. Cohesiveness Employ a direct and logical structure that minimizes turns and promotes staying on the network. Inform all roadway users clearly of the presence of bicyclists, especially at conflict points. Provide clear and intuitive transitions between different yet connected bicycle facility types. Extend bicycle accommodations to logical and safe termini. 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 CONTEXT CONSIDERATIONS Context and engineering judgment play important roles in selecting the appropriate bicycle accommodations. FHWA identifies four components that are important in identifying what type of bicycle accommodation to use: project limits, land use context, types of bicyclists the bicycle accommodation is expected to serve, and key safety and performance criteria. As part of these overarching themes, the elements outlined below should be documented in the design process and used to determine the selection of an appropriate bicycle facility type, as discussed in the following sub-sections: • Project Identification: Project name, project ID (CSJ), roadway name, limits, county • Roadway Context: Adjacent roadway functional class, speed, average daily traffic volume, project length, intersection frequency and crossing road functional classification, driveway density • Area Context: Land use context (see below) • Intended Bicycle Accommodation Users: Target design user (interested but concerned or all ages and abilities) • Other Roadway Users: Truck percentage and key movements, transit operation (headway) and key stops, curbside lane activity, expected pedestrian demand Land Use Contexts The land use context that surrounds a potential bicycle accommodation may influence the type of users (e.g. target design user), the number of users, and the potential interactions of other roadway users with the facility. Two context groupings have been used when providing guida nce for bicycle facility selection: • Urban and Suburban Contexts (referred to as "urbanized" and includes urban core and rural town wh ich is defined in FHWA's Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide) • Rural Contexts The urban core and rural town are land use contexts that are anticipated to be added to a future version of the Roadway Design Manual that will allow additional flexibility with respect to the roadway, and bicycle facility planning and design . Th e urban core would be contained with in the current definition of an urban area, the rura l town would be contained within the current definition of a rural area. A city with a minimum population of 2500 and less tha n a population of 50,000 is defined as an urbanized cluster by the US Census and for the purposes of this guidance wi ll fall with the Urban and Suburban Contexts. Note that certain towns with populations less than 2500 wil l have characteristics of a rural town as described below and may utilize the rural town bicyc le criteria as deemed applicable. Urban Core Context The urban core context includes areas of the high-density, with mixed land uses among predominantly high-rise structures and with small building setbacks. The urban core context is found predominantly in central business districts and adjoining portions of major metropolitan areas. On-street parking is often more limited and time restricted than in 8 JocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-70896543E289 the urban context. Substantial parking is in multi-level structures attached to or integrated with other structures. The rea is accessible to automobiles, commercial delivery vehicles, and public transit. Sidewalks are present nearly continuously, with pedestrian plazas and multi-level pedestrian bridges connecting commercial parking structures in some locations. Transit corridors, including bus and rail transit, are typically common and major transit terminals may be present. Some government services are availab le, while other commercial uses predominate, including fianancial and legal services. Structures may have multiple uses and setbacks are not as generous as in the surrounding urban area. Residences are often apartments or condominiums. Driver speed expectations are low and pedestrian and bicycle flows are high. See Figure 1 for a depiction of Urban Core. Figure 1. Typical Street in the Urban Core Context Rural Town Context The rural town context applies to roads in rural areas located within developed communities. Rural towns generally have low development densities with diverse land uses, on-street parking, and sidewalks in some locations, and small building setbacks. Rural towns may incude residential neighborhoods, schools, industrial facilities, and commercial main street business districts, each of which present differing design cha llenges and differing levels of pedestrian and bicycle activity. The rural town context recognizes that rural highways change character where they enter a sma ll town, or other rural community, and that design should meet the needs of not only through travelers, but also the residents of the community. See Figure 2 for a depiction of Rural Town. 9 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-70896543E289 Sciur-c_e:: Gresham-Smith Partners Figure 2. Typical Street in the Rural Town Context Speed and Volumes of Motor Vehicles Th ere are many factors to consider when selecting and designing bicycle accommodations, with motor vehicle speed and volume as the initial determinants of suitable bicycle facilities. The influence of speed and volume on the safety and perceived safety or comfort of bicycle riders is an important factor and the respective criteria for appropriate speeds and traffic volumes is contained in the subsequent guidance. Other Factors Other factors that should be co nsidered in the selection of bicycle accommodations are listed in the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide and summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Other Factors to Consider in Selection of a Bicycle Accommodation Factor Description and Design Considerations Unusually high motor vehicle peak hour volumes Traffic vehicle mix On roadways that regularly experience unusually high peak hour volumes, more separation can be beneficial, particularly when the peak hour also coincides with peak volumes of bicyclists. Additional separation between bicyclists and motorists is particularly important on moderate volume to high-volume streets where heavy vehicles are an abnormally high percentage of traffic. Higher percentages of trucks and buses increase risks and discomfort for bicyclists due to vehicle size and weight, and the potential for motorists to not see bicyclists due to blind spots. This is particularly a concern for right turns, where large vehicles may appear to be proceeding straight or even turning left as they position to make a wide right turn movement. Visibility and awareness of bicyclists can be improved by providing: • additional buffer width between a separated bike lane or shared use sidepath to the travel lane, 10 JocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 I Parking turnover and curbside activity Driveways/intersection frequency Direction of operation • providing markings and signs denoting the crossing, • providing raised crossings, or • at signalized locations, phase separating the conflict Parked or temporarily stopped motor vehicles present a risk to bicyclists-high parking turnover and curbside loading (commercial and passenger) may expose bicyclists to being struck by opening vehicle doors or people walking in their travel path. Vehicles stopped within bicycle lanes or travel lanes may require bicyclists to merge into an adjacent travel lane. In locations with high parking turnover or curbside loading needs, wider bike lanes or separated bike lanes in lieu of bike lanes, can help to alleviate conflicts. This issue also encompasses locations where transit vehicles load and unload passengers within a bicycle lane or shared curb lane. The frequency of driveways and intersections also impacts decisions regarding the design of separation between the street and the bicycle accommodation as well as the design of driveways. Motorists need adequate sight distance to enter and exit intersections and driveways and benefit from sufficient space to yield to bicyclists. This is particularly important for sidepaths (the AASHTO Bike Guide enumerates the potential areas of conflict) and two-way separated bike lanes located on one side of two-way streets where contra-flow bicyclist may be unexpected by motorists. High driveway frequency may make a one way bicycle facility type a preferable option. Consideration may be given to consolidating driveways as applicable. Wider buffers and clear sight lines can improve bicyclist safety. Where contra-flow bicycling occurs, additional design features that slow motorists' turning movements and give motorists more time to see oncoming bicyclists may significantly improve safety for all users. Frequent, closely spaced driveways may limit the ability to provide vertical elements necessary to provide separated bike lanes. In these locations, buffered bicycle lanes, bicycle lanes or shoulders may be the only viable bicycle facility unless it is feasible to provide a raised bike lane at sidewalk level to provide greater separation from traffic. For separated bikeways, a determination must be made as to whether the bikeway will be provided as a one-way facility on each side of the road, a two-way facility on one side of the road, or as two-way facilities on both sides of the road. As discussed above, the contra-flow bicyclist may be unexpected by motorists requiring additional design mitigations. This decision requires engineering judgment based on the bikeway's role in the broader bike network, connectivity, safety impacts, the locations of destinations within the corridor, physical 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 constraints within the ROW, and an assessment of Intersection operations and frequency of driveways and intersections. Vulnerable The presence of high concentrations of children and older adults should be populations considered during project planning. These groups may only feel comfortable bicycling on physically separated facilities, even where motor vehicle speeds and volumes are relatively low. Typically, these populations are less confident in their bicycling abilities and, in the case of children, may be less visible to motorists and lack both roadway experience as well as sufficient cognitive or physical maturity to recognize and anticipate potential conflicts. They can also create more conflicts with pedestrians when they are expected to share the same space. Network connectivity It is essential to consider the proposed transportation project in the context of the gaps local bicycle network. Wide, high-volume, or high-speed roadways can create substantial barriers to connectivity. Parallel alternative routes may not exist or may require bicyclists to ride several miles out of the way, adding substantial distance and travel time. Intersections between state and local roadways may feature a high number of conflict points, constrained right-of-way, or high-speed differential. Separated facilities can help close gaps in a low-stress network. Considerations include providing separate bicycle facilities under freeway underpasses, improving visibility of bicyclists, providing on-street connections between two major shared use paths, or routes connected to schools, major employers, parks, or other recreational opportunities. Transit considerations Biking offers a valuable "first-mile" and "last-mile" connection to transit systems, effectively expanding the transit-shed around a station or stop. It is important to ensure accessibility of transit boarding areas, pedestrian crossings, and parking spaces, while also integrating the bicycle network into transit systems. Traffic laws and agency policy often address transit vehicles and bicycles in the rightmost lane or right side of the roadway. Some agencies have designated shared "transit lanes" for bicycle riding, but frequent bus stops or roadway design may create delays or less safe conditions for bicyclists sharing a lane with heavy transit traffic. If the preferred bicycle accommodation for a roadway is a bike lane or separated bike lane, the placement of the bike lane with respect to where pedestrians may wait or travel when boarding or alighting transit vehicles should be considered, as should the extent to which transit operations impact bicyclists' level of comfort and safety. As noted in FHWA's Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, options for minimizi ng conflicts with transit include installing signs, pavement markings, and/or floating bus stops to provide for shared space, placing a separated bike lane on the left side of a one-way street (out of the way of transit stops along the right side), or choosing to install a separated bike lane on a nearby parallel corridor away from transit. 12 JocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 TARGET DESIGN USER Different bicycle riders may have varying tolerances associated with the importance of the individual planning principles outlined above. Figure 3 indicates the array of potential bicycle riders that should be considered when scoping and designing a roadway project. Figure 3. Types of Bicycle Facility Users as a Percentage of Total General Population Interested but Concerned (51 -56%) Somewhat Confident (5 - 9%) Highly Confident (4 - 7%) Research over the last decade has eva luated how to classify the genera l population into different types of bicyclists. This research confirms that only a re latively sma ll percentage of people can be classified as comfortable bicyclists in mixed raffic, and that a large majority of people prefer some level of separation from higher-volume, higher-speed motorized traffic. As such, in many jurisdictions across the United States, the common target design user are those who are interested in riding but concerned about safety ("Interested but Concerned" bicyclists) as this is the largest group of potential bicycle accommodation users among the general population. According to research, these bicyclists would ride more if they felt safer and, thus, are more likely to take short trips, avoiding busier arterial roadways. "Interested but Concerned" bicyclists prefer separation from vehicles and have a lower tolerance for traffic stress than more confident riders. To maximize the potential for bicycling as a viable transportation option, it is important to design facilities to meet the needs of the "Interested but Concerned " bicyclist user profile. Bicycle facilities which meet the needs of the "Interested but Concerned " bicyclist will generally meet the needs of all bicyclists, therefore they are considered "All Ages and Abilities" bicycle facilities because they maximize potential use. One exception to this are situations where bicyclists are operating in large groups, or where individual bicyclist who prefer to operate at higher speeds (typically greater than 20 mph) who may prefer to operate in the travel lane. In general, more separation from motorized traffic is desirable to serve a greater number and type of users more safely. TxDOT endeavors to provid e bicycle facilities to serve bicyclists of "All Ages and Abilities" to maximize the number of people who may use the faci lity. MAINTENA NCE OF BICYCLE FACILITIES The large majority of bicycle crashes are due to falls and collisions due to surface defects and crashes with fixed objects located within bike operating spaces. Maintenance considerations should factor into the design approach for each bikeway and long-term maintenance programs should seek to proactively mitigate these issues to reduce 13 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 crashes. Seal coat projects must be properly swept for cyclists, including on the shoulders. Use grade 5 or similar smaller size aggregate. Designers should also consider how paint markings affect cyclist safety over an interim period after a seal coat prior to placement of more permanent thermoplastic and prefabricated markings for cyclists. GENERAL BICYCLE ACCOMMODATION SELECTION GUIDANCE Figures 4 through 6 provide some general guidance for the bicycle planning principles, target design user, and context discussed in the previous sections. Note, these Figures should be used to provide initial recommendations.The Bicycle Facility Types Section below provides specific criteria and guidance for the possible usage and application of the different types of facilities. In particular, the respective speed criteria in the Bicycle Facility Types Section are more commensurate with the speed applications for TxDOT roadways. As long as the project meets the defined criteria in the Bicycle Facility Types section for a specific facility type, the engineer has the discretion to use the bicycle facility that is best suited to the project needs and constraints. For all urbanized (urban, urban core, suburban, and rural town) contexts, the following guidance is provided for various types of construction (the selection guidance is based primarily on FHWA's Bikeway Selection Guide): 1. For construction projects within the existing right-of-way and the scope of work is limited to within the existing roadway typical section or involves pavement widening, the project should make accommodations for bicyclists by choosing facilities recommended in Figure 4. Where proper bicycle accommodation width(s) are not feasible for the recommended facility types, see "Considerations for Alternatives and Design Exceptions or Design Waivers" section below. Note: Texas Accessibility Standards/Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibilty Guidelines (TAS/ADAAG) requirements for each facility type must be met as well. 2. For full reconstruction projects or new construction projects, either in the existing right-of-way or with additional right-of-way, the project should provide the desired bicycle accommodation as shown in Figure 4 and geometric values should adhere to this guide. For values not provided in this guide, refer to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and, for separated bike lanes, FHWA's Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. Where proper bicycle accommodation width(s) are not feasible for the recommended facility types, see "Considerations for Alternatives and Design Exceptions or Design Waivers" section below. Note: TAS/ADAAG requireme nts for each facility type must be met as well. 3. For projects involving bridge replacement, bridge deck replacement, or bridge rehabilitation, the following guidance is provided: A 5-foot minimum clear space (4-foot shoulder and 1-foot offset measured to the toe of the barrier) shall be provided on the structure and along the adjacent barrier. Off-system Bridges where this addition may represent an unreasonable increase in cost may be excepted from this requirement. Where feasible, desirable shoulder width as shown in Figure 5 should be used . For roadways identified on the Texas Bicycle Tourism Trails Example Network, preferred 10-foot (minimum 8-foot) shoulder width should be provided on bridges. 14 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 Figure 4. Recommended Bicycle Facility Selection for Urban, Urban Core, Suburban, and Rural Town Context Notes: 1. Use the higher of the design speed and the posted speed for the speed. To be conservative when designing for all ages and abilities facilities, designers should attempt to use the higher level facility at the respective boundary limits. Shared Lane or Bike Boulevard 15 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 Requirements for Selection -Rural Context For rural context (not rural towns), the following guidance is provided for various types of construction: 1. For new construction, reconstruction, or widening projects in a rural setting where right-of-way is being acquired, the following guidance is provided: When the scoping process and NEPA documentation indicates a need fo r bicyclist accommodations, the recommended bicycle accommodation is shown in Figure 5, indicating the desirable shoulder widths for various posted speeds and traffic volumes. In some cases, a shared use path or other locally preferred facility type may be identified during stakeholder outreach. See the bicycle facility types guidance below for additional guidance on shoulders and shared lanes. Where proper bicycle accommodation width(s) are not feasible for the recommended facility types, see "Considerations for Alternatives and Design Exceptions or Design Waivers" section below. Note: TAS/ADAAG requirements for each facility type must be met as well. Roadways indicated in TxDOT's Bicycle Tourism Trails Trails Study '13l should be designed with a minimum 8-foot shoulder, a shared use path, or another locally preferred facility type. 2. Where new construction, reconstruction, or widening is accomplished without additional right-of-way, the above should be followed where feasible. If not feasible, see "Considerations for Alternatives and Design Exceptions or Design Waivers" Section below. Note: TAS/ADAAG requirements for each facility type must be met as well. 3. For projects involving bridge replacement, bridge deck replacement, or bridge rehabi litation, the following guidance is provided: A 5-foot minimum bicycle clear space (4-foot shoulder and 1-foot offset measured to the toe of the barrier) sha ll be provided on the structure and along the adjacent barrier. Off-system Bridges where this addition may represent an unreasonable increase in cost may be excepted from this requirement. Where feasible, desirable shoulder width as shown in Figure 5 should be used. For roadways identified on the Texas Bicycle Tourism Trails Example Network, preferred 10-foot (minimum 8-foot) shoulder width should be provided on bridges. 16 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888 F-7DB96543E289 igure 5. Recommended Bicycle Facility Selection for Rural Context Notes: Shared Lanes 45 50 1. A separated shared use path is a suitable alternative to providing paved shoulders solely for the purpose of bicycle accommodations and should be considered on Bicycle Tourism Trail Example Network segments as well as rural roads with ADT above 6000 vehicles per day. 2. Use the higher of the design speed and the posted speed for the speed. 3. If the percentage of heavy vehicles is greater than 5%, consider providing a wider shoulder or a separated path. BICYCLE FACILITY TYPES Below is a description and brief design guidance for the most common bicycle facility types. From left to right, Figure 6 shows decreasing separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles. A detailed description of each facility type can be found in the following section. For additional guidance not stated herein, see additional design resources listed in the appendix which are sourced throughout this document. It should be noted that different facility types may be used within different land use contexts or within the same land use context. Additionally, due to possible project site limitations, different facility types may be used to accommodate the origin and destination routes of bicyclists and pedestrians on each side of the roadway. For Roadways on TxDOT's Texas Bicycle Tourism Trails Study, provide an appropriate Bike facility in coordination with the local community. 17 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 Figure 6. Bicycle Facility Types by Level of Separation Shared-Use Sidepath Separated Bike Lane Buffered Bike Lane Bike Lane Separated Facilities Dedicated Facilities Bike Accessible Shoulder (rural) Urban/Urban Core/Suburban/Rural Town Facility Types Shared Use Paths Adjacent to Roadways (Sidepaths) Description Shared Lane (rural) Shared Facilities Shared Use Paths adjacent to roadways (sid epaths) are located within a roadway corridor following the roadway alignment (hence the term sidepath) and are phys ically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by a landscaped buffer or a barrier. Side paths are ge nera lly designed for two-way travel, because in addition to bi cyclists, users may include inline skaters, skateboarders, and pedestrians. Sidepaths which do not provide adequate width may increase crash risk between people on the path. Conflict points occur between motori sts and path users at intersections and driveways. Of particular challenge is the contra-flow movement of higher speed users such as bicyclists. Conflict points should therefore be minimized and mitigated to the greatest extent practicable to maximize the comfort and safety of use rs operating on the facility. The consolidation of driveways wi ll reduce conflicts within the corridor. Shared use paths may also be constructed with an independent alignment from a roadway which typically limits conflict points to mid-block crossings of Shared-Use Sidepath Sidepath Buffer roadways. The shared use path on an independent alignment allows the vehicular driver to address the conflicts of the bicyclists exclusively, before proceeding to the roadway intersection and then addressing the standard conflicts with other vehicular traffic. The AASHTO Bicycle Design Guide and ROM should be reviewed for additional guidance of shared use paths in independent alignments. The following guid ance is specific to sidepaths. Basic Design Guidelines For roadways with high driveway density, frequent street crossings, or overall high driveway volumes, a one-way bicyc le facility may be a more appropriate option, with an appropriate facility provided on each side of the roadway to provide needed origin and destination points. One-way bicycle facility preferred options in clude a separated or buffered bike lane. As identified in the AASHTO Bicycle Design Guide, for longer distances on urban and suburban streets with a considerable number of driveways and street crossings, two-way sidepaths can create operational con cerns. Additional 18 DocuSig-n Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 onsideration should also be given with respect to parking configurations in the driveway vicinity that may tend to bstruct the sidepath usage or sight lines. • A bicycle design speed of 15 mph is generally appropriate on a shared use sidepath given the fact bicyclist are operating with pedestrians and may encounter driveways and intersections due to the alignment alongside the roadway. • When selecting a sidepath width, designers should consider the anticipated user volumes and mode split (bicycles, pedestrians, runners, etc.). The FHWA Shared Use Path Level of Service -Users Guide (SUPLOS) (14l is a helpful tool to inform a decision regarding the width of a two-way path (the link to the SUPLOS calculator is found in the users guide). The inputs into the SUPLOS calculator include the path width, trail user volume (one direction), trail user mix (mode split), and presence of a centerline stripe; the output is the calculated SUPLOS. A SUPLOS grade of "C" or better is desirable over the life of the facility to ensure it is comfortable an d safe for all users. As a starting point for a new facility (without an SUP), bike and pedestrian counts should be taken during the anticipated peak hour period on the existing roadway, and/or analogous parallel facilities which may provide a component of latent demand for the new SUP. Also, an additional information resource is available at the Texas Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Exchange (https://mobility.tamu.edu/bikepeddata/) wh ich has pedestrian, and bicyclists count data available for various facilities statewide. Note that most proposed TxDOT sidepaths will likely have a greater percentage offoot traffic (if there is not a separate facility for the exclusive use of foot traffic). The SUPLOS degrades when the amount of foot traffic (runners and pedestrians) surpasses 15% of path use. Table 3 provides an example SUPLOS calculation. » The desireable width for a sidepath may range from 11 to 15 feet or more; depending on the SUPLOS calculation. These widths will accommodate higher user volumes while minimizing conflicts between them (based on the SUPLOS output). On a 12-foot sidepath, three "lanes" of users can operate simultaneously, allowing people to operate side-by-side while being passed by a person in the other direction. To maximize service life and to assure a reasonable SUPLOS grade, paved widths should not be less than 10 feet. » As path user volumes increase, designers should consider increasing the width of the sidepath up to 15 feet. As path widths begin to exceed 15 feet in width, it may be desirable to separate pedestrians from bicyclists into sidewalk and separated bike lanes to minimize speed differential between pedestrians and wheeled users. » Standard minimum width is 10 ft. A minimum width of 8 feet may be used in rare circumstances where all of the following conditions are met: Bicycle traffic is expected to be low(< 50 bicyclists/hour) during peak hours on the path. Pedestrian use of the facility is not expected to be more than occasional or less than 30% of total path traffic. Horizontal and vertical alignments provide frequent, well-designed passing and resting opportunities where the width is at least 10 feet. 19 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 The path will not be regularly subjected to maintenance vehicle loading conditions that would cause pavement edge damage. » In constrained conditions, a minimum width of eight feet may be used for short distances to avoid physical constra ints such as bridge abutments, utility structures, and environmental constraints. Table 3. SUPLOS example calculation (higher foot traffic) Segment Path Name Width Centerline Volume (users per hour in 1 direction) and Mode Split One- Way Width (per Adult In-Line Child SUPLOS Name (ft) !=Centerline hour) Bicyclists Peds Runners Skaters Bicyclists orade More Peds 12.0 0 100.0 20.0% 60.0% 15.0% 2.0% 3.0% c The space between the inside edge of the sidepath and the adjacent edge of the outside travel lane (uncurbed), or face-of-curb (curbed) is the street buffer. It is desirable to provide as much distance from the road as is practicable given project conditions. The minimum allowable street buffer is shown in Table 4: TABLE 4. Two-way Sidepath (Minimum Street Buffer) Roadway and speed condition Minimum street buffer Curbed low-speed (45 mph or less) 4 feet from FOC * Curbed high-speed (50 mph or greater) 6 feet from FOC * Uncurbed all speeds 10 feet (* For curb and gutter sections with a shou lder, bike lane or any buffer in addition to the curb offset (excluding turn lanes, accel lanes, or decel lanes), the minimum street buffer measurement begins at the edge of through travel lane. This minimum width is 10 feet. The required minimum street buffer for the sidepath then becomes the lesser of the 10 foot measurement, or the face of curb (FOC) minimum in Table 4.) The desirable street buffer would be the respective desirable clear zone values from ROM Table 2-12. Increasing the buffer width in the vicinity of driveways provides better alignment and visibility and is beneficial to all users. A minimum shy space of 2 feet should be provided to intermittent (e.g. signs, streetlights, utility poles) and continuous (e.g. walls, railings, fences, barriers) vertical objects to minimize crash risks and increase the comfort of path users. Where space is available, wider shy spaces are desirable. In constrained conditions, this shy space may be reduced to 1 foot except to post mounted signs. • Signs installed in the vicinity of sidepaths shall be installed in accordance with the applicable TMUTCD criteria. The TMUTCD requires all signs be located a minimum of 2 feet laterally from the nearest edge of a shared use path. • A graded shoulder with a minimum 2 ft width, 5 ft desirable, with a maximum cross-slope of 1V:6H should be provided on both sides of all shared use paths where natural terrain is present adjacent to the path alignment. » Where a bikeway is adjacent to a hazardous condition such as a parallel body of water or steep downward slope, a shoulder between the bikeway and the top of the slope of 5 ft is desirable. For steep slopes where the shoulder is less than 5 ft, physical barriers or rails are recommended where the bikeway is adjacent to any of these conditions: 20 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 • Slopes 1V:3H or steeper, with a drop of 6 ft or greater • Slopes 1V:3H or steeper, adjacent to a parallel body of water or other substantial obstacle • Slopes 1V:2H or steeper, with a drop of 4 ft or greater • Slopes 1V:1H or steeper, with a drop of 1 ft or greater • Crashworthy barriers, when used on locations with sidepaths, should be located between the roadway and sidepath. A minimum of 1 ft of shy distance is needed between the vehicu lar traffic and the side path traffic. » On roadways which do not have roadside obstacles requiring a barrier, a barrier or railing shou ld be considered to improve path user safety where the facility has all these conditions present: • The road is uncurbed • If shou lders are present, the road has shoulders less than 4 feet in width • and the road is a high speed facility » A barrier that separates vehicular traffic from a sidepath or separated bike lane must be a minimum of 31 inches in height, meet the current barrier standards, and provide an end treatment consistent with current Roadway Design standard practice. Where barriers are used immediately adjacent to a sidepath with minimum width dimensions, there may be a risk a bicyclist co uld fall over the top, in these circumstances a minimum barrier height of 42 inches is recommended. Barriers across bridge structures must meet the respective Bridge Railing Manual Requirements. » Barriers or railings located on the outside of a sidepath used to protect bicyclists and path users from falling into a hazard must be a minimum of 42 inches in height. A higher 48 in. to 54 in. continuous barrier or railing may be considered in locations where: • bicyclist speeds are likely to be high (such as on a downgrade), • high winds are typical (such as on bridges), or • a bicyclist could impact a rai ling at a 25-degree angle or greater (such as on a curve). Shy spaces to rai lings and barriers shall not be included within the width of the SUP (see Figure 7). Figure 7. Example Bridges with Barriers for Sidepaths; high-speed (left), low-speed (right) Shy Sidepath Shy Shy Sidepath Shy Space Space Space Space 21 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 • Where sidepaths or separated bike lanes (SBL) with sidewalks (SW) are provided on a bridge where the roadway cross section must narrow, the narrowing should be prioritized in the fol lowing order: » Minimize shy distances to constrained conditions to vertical barriers (1 foot) » Minimize street buffer to minimum width (4 feet) » Narrow SUP width from desired to constrained minimum, or • narrow SBL width from desired to minimum • narrow SW width to the minimum • To improve the safety of contra-flow bicyclists who may be unexpected by motorists, the following measures should be considered during design: » Provision of 6 to 20-foot street buffers at crossings to create space for motorists to yield path users while turning » Provision of clear sight lines allowing a motorist to see approaching bicycl ists, pedestrians, and motorists » Provision of traffic control signs, and clearly marked bicycle crossings following TMUTCD (Part 9) to alert motorists of bicycle travel » Reduction and consolidation of driveways to the greatest extent practicable to reduce conflict points. » Constructing driveways at sidewalk level to emphasize bicycle use along a side path to motorists entering/exiting driveways to slow turning motorists and improve their likelihood of yielding to crossing path users. » At signalized intersections consider: • Provide a leading interva l or phase separation to minimize conflicts where path volume exceeds 100-150 users/hour and right turning vehicle volume exceeds 100 vehicles/hour • Provide a leading interval or phase separation to minimize conflicts where path volume exceeds 100-150 users/hour and left turning vehicle volume exceeds 50 vehicles/hour or roadway speeds exceed 35mph • prohibit right turns on red where vehicles frequently block the crosswalk. • Each end of a sidepath should directly connect to an on-street bike facility, another trail or path, or to a bicycle- compatible local street. Where no interconnecting bicycle accommodations exist, advanced signage should be installed informing roadway users that the path ends, and bikes may use the full lane. Additional signage in conformity with TMUTCD can be provided that directs bicyclists to interim facilities along alternate routes. 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 Separated Bike Lane Separated Bike Lanes Description A separated bike lane is a bicycle lane that is physically separated from the adjacent motor vehicle traffic by vertical elements in the street buffer. They typically are designed to operate one-way but may also operate two-way. These are sometimes also referred to as protected bike lanes. Separated bike lanes combine the user experience of a shared use sidepath with a designated area for bike use only like a conventional bicycle lane, Bike Buffer Lane separate from pedestrians. They are distinct from the sidewalk but may be at sidewalk level (see Figure 8). Vertical elements separating the bike lane from the travel lane may include continuous raised medians, flexible posts, intermittent concrete curbing (see Austin, TX Figure 8 example), or parked vehicles. Separated bicycle lanes are more appealing to a wider range of bicyclists on higher volume and higher speed roads than striped bike lanes. They avoid the conflict with an opening car door and prevent motor vehicles from driving, stopping, or waiting in the bikeway. They also provide greater comfort to pedestrians by separating them from bicyclists operating at higher speeds and further separating pedestrians from motor vehicles. Full guidance can be found in FHWA's Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (12l and the Massachusetts DOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide(15l. Austin, TX. Street Level with Concrete Curb Separation Basic Design Guidelines Cambridge, MA. Sidewalk Level with Parking Separation Raleigh, NC Street Level with Flexible Post Separation • Raised medians, curbs, or other low-profile, hard separators on separated bicycle lanes should only be used in locations with speeds of 45 mph or less. Seperated bike lanes with flexib le posts or crashworthy barriers are allowable for high-speed roadways. In addition, raised SBLs (at sidewalk leve l) are allowable for all speeds. The desirable width of a separated bike lane depends upon the volume of users and the context of the design as shown in Table 5 for one-way separated bike lanes. Two-way separated bike lane widths should follow the previous guidance for Shared Use Path width. The use of constrained dimensions should only be considered: » for limited distances. » as an interim measure where the larger values will result in the preferred design not being constructible. 23 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 » at locations with low volumes of bicyclists where those volumes are anticipated to remain low(< 50 bicyclists/hour). TABLE 5. One-Way Separated Bike Lane Widths (Minimum to Desirable) Peak Hour Directional Between Vertical Curbs At Sidewalk Level Bicyclist Volume or Flex Posts < 150 6.5 -8.5 feet 5.5 -7.5 feet 150 -750 8.5 -10 feet 7.5 -9 feet > 750 ~ 10 feet ~ 9 feet Constrained Condition* 5 4 *Peak Hour Directional Bicyclist Volume not applicable Separated bicycle lanes that are raised to sidewalk level with a wider buffer from traffic provide a high level of separation from traffic but often require road reconstruction. The street buffer between the bike lane and travel lanes is needed to improve bicyclists' comfort and to create space for vertical elements to reinforce the separation. For one-way separated bike lanes separated from vehicular traffic by a raised median or curb (low-speed), a minimum 2 ft buffer (measured from face of curb to face of curb) is required (see Separated Bike Lane depiction above). For non-curbed separated bike lanes, a minimum of a 2 ft buffer is required for low-speed conditions, and 3 ft for high speed condit ions. Additional buffer area is recommended to improve bicyclists' comfort and to increase the separation between bicyclists and vehicular traffic. See the Shared Use Path (sidepath) guidance for buffers on two-way separated bicycle lanes. Two-way separated bicycle lanes also need to meet the Shared Use Path guidance with respect to intersecting driveways, and conflict points. • Separated bicycle lanes that are protected from traffic by a row of on-street parking offer a greater degree of separation. Additional vertical elem ents may be required to keep parked vehicles within the parking lane. 24 DocuSi!!Jn Envelope ID : 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 Buffered Bike Lanes Description A buffered bike lane is a one-way bike lane that is separated from the adjacent motor vehicle lane or parking lane by a striped buffer area that may include chevrons, diagonal lines, or wide pavement marking stripes. When sufficient roadway width is present, or if t he nu mber of travel lanes is reduced, a buffer may be striped between a bike lane and travel lane to provide additional comfort for both bicyclists and motorists. This provides space for bicyclists to pass one another or ride side by side without encroaching into a motor vehicle travel lane. The buffer adds to the perception of safety and encourages greater Buffered Bike Lane Bike Buffer lane use of the on-street bicycle network. Providing added separation between motorists and bicyclists who may be traveling at substantially different speeds appeals to a wider array of bicycle users. Basic Design Guidelines • The desirable useable width of a buffered bike lane is 5 to 7 feet exclusive of the buffer. The minimum useable width is 4 feet exclusive of the buffer. The usable width of the bike lane is measured from the outside buffer stripe to either the gutter joint or one foot from the nominal face of a monolithic curb. • Buffers should be a minimum of two feet wide for speeds of 45 mph or less, and three feet wide for 50 mph or greater and delineated by two so lid white lines. The stripe near the travel lane should be six inches wide, while the stripe near the bicycle lane can be four inches near the bicycle. If the buffer is three feet wide, diagonal hatching should also be marked. If the buffer is wider than three feet, chevron hatching should also be marked. • Buffers can be striped between travel lanes and bike lanes, between bike lanes and parking lanes, or both. • Bicycle markings and signage should be used and are the same as a conventional bike lane. Bike Lanes Description Bike lanes are one-way facil ities on a roadway that typically carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are provided for the exclusive use of bicyclists and are identified through sign age, striping, or other pavement markings. These lanes allow bicyclists to ride at comfortable speeds and encourage a position within the roadway where they are more likely to be seen by motorists. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the outside travel lane and curb, parking lane, or road edge. While the bike lane distinguishes predictable areas for bicyclist and automobile Bike Lane Bike Lane movement, bicyclists may leave the bikeway to pass other bicyclists or avoid debris and other traffic conflicts. 25 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 Basic Design Guidelines • Bike lanes should only be used in locations with speeds of 45 mph or less. For high speed locations, a buffered bike lane is recommended. • The desirable width of a bike lane is 5 to 7 feet. The minimum width is 4 feet and should only be used when all other cross-sectional elements have been minimized. The usable width of the bike lane which is measured from the outside lane stripe to either the gutter joint or one foot from the nominal face of a monolithic curb. A 6 to 7 foot bike lane is desirable adjacent to parall el parking to allow the bicyclist to avoid riding in the door zone. The minimum bike lane width is 5 feet in t his situation. • A solid white edge line (6-inch wide) should be placed between the bike lane and travel lane. Lane lines between parked cars and the bike lane are optional. • Standard bike lane symbols and arrows, per the TMUTCD, should be used to inform bicyclists and motorists of the restricted nature of the bike lane, and markings should be placed at periodic intervals to remind motorists of the presence of bicyclists. • The effective width of a bike lane should not include rumble strips or standard drainage in lets. • Drainage grates located in the bike lane should be designed to prevent bicycle tires from catching in the grate pattern. Bike Accessible Shoulders Description Bike accessible shoulders are one-way facilities on a roadway that carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic. A bike accessible shoulder is one that is at least as wide or wider than a bike lane to accommodate bicyclists and paved to provide a smooth, solid surface across its width. While the bike accessible shoulder distinguishes predictable areas for bicyclist and automobile movement, bicyclists may leave the shoulder to pass other cyclists or avoid debris and other traffic conflicts. Basic Design Guidelines Bike Accessible Shoulder (urban) Shoulder • For any given roadway, the determination of the appropriate paved shoulder width should be based on the roadway's context and traffic conditions following the guidance in the ROM for shoulders; however, it should be noted that the shoulders in the ROM may consist of graded (soft) and paved (hard) surfaces. To ensure accommodation of bicyclists, it is desirable for paved shoulders to conform to the widths in Figure 5. Some shoulders should be up to 10 feet wide adjacent to higher speed roadways as indicated in Figure 5 to allow bicycl ists to operate with more separation to the high-speed traffic. Roadways indicated in TxDOT's Bicycle Tourism Trails Study13l should be designed with a minimum 8-foot shoulder, a shared use path, or another locally preferred facility type should be available. The minimum widths for a bike accessible shoulder are defined below. A solid white edge line (6-inch-wide) should be placed between the shoulder and travel lane. 26 DocuSign Envelope JD: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 • Bike accessible shoulders typically do not have bike lane markings, but they may include signage indicating the presence of bicyclists. • The width of the bike accessible shoulder does not include rumble strips. A minimum width of 4' is allowable in low speed (45 mph or less) conditions. A minimum width of 5' is allowable for high speed conditions. A minimum width of 5' is required for shoulders adjacent to bridge railings, MBGF, and other vertical elements. • Rumble strips are used to warn the driver that they are leaving the travel way and therefore may have a beneficial effect on the safety of bicycles using the shoulder. If rumble strips are to be used, or are anticipated in the future, allowances should be made in the shoulder to provide an adequate width for bike accommodations beyond the rumble strip. Profi le pavement markings serve a similar function as milled rumble strips and can be considered as an option to avoid a reduction in the width of the accessible shoulder. Where bicycle traffic is expected, rumble strips should be designed as follows to minimize crash risk for bicyclists (see Figures 9 and 10). See latest RS Standards for additional guidance on rumble strips: » Periodic gaps (Figure 10) should be provided to allow bicyclists to safely enter or exit a shoulder as needed (e.g., to avoid debris, pass other bicyclists or disabled vehicles, make left turns, etc.) without having to ride over the rumble strips. • Where bicyclists are operating at 20 mph or less, a minimum 15-foot gap every 40 to 60 feet allows half a second for a bicyclist to cross the rumble strip • Where bicyclists are operating over 20 mph, the gap should be increased to 20 feet or more or the rumble strips should be located on the right side of the shoulder to allow bicyclists to avoid them if they encounter a need to enter the travel lane (e.g. a downhill location) 27 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 Figure 9. Rumble Strip Placement in a Shoulder ideal oplXinal--I placeniet'li on edgeline D D 6" pref • 5' minioom if adjacent to curb, guardrai, vertical efemezit, er obstacle Figure 10. Rumble Strip Design and Gap Placement l lravel lane Rumble strip gap (L) dimensions: 1. Where bicyclists are operating at 20 mph or less, a minimum 15-foot gap every 40 to 60 feet allows half a second for a bicyclist to cross the rumble strip 2. Where bicyclists are operating over 20 mph, the gap should be increased to 20 feet or more or the rumble strips should be located on the right side of the shoulder to allow bicyclists to avoid them if they encounter a need to enter the trave lane (e.g. a downhill location) constrained <4' D D D shoulder 28 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221 -1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 hared La nes (wide outside lane) Shared lanes (wide outside lane) are lanes that allow compatibility of operation for both motorized vehicles and bicycles. Since bicycles may be operated on all roadways except where prohibited by statute or regulations, shared lanes without markings already exist in many different urban, urban core, suburban and rural town settings. Note that although marked shared lanes are allowed in the TMUTCD for certain conditions, TxDOT as a general policy does not recommend marked shared lanes for TxDOT roadways due to the higher speed nature of TxDOT roadways as compared to local jurisdictions. Basic Design Guidelines • Shared wide outside lanes shou ld only be used in locations with low volumes (3,000 ADT or lower) and low speeds (35 mph or less). Shared Lane 14' max • 14 feet is the maxim um and 13 feet is the minimum "usable width" for a shared wide outside lane. The usable width is measured from the lane stripe to either the gutter joint or one foot from the nominal face of a monolithic curb. • If the usable width is greater than 14 feet, a bi ke lane should be provided instead. Use of minimum travel lane widths may be necessary to incorporate the bike lane. Typical supplemental signage may include: BICYCLES MAY USE FULL LANE (R4-11). See TM UTCD for proper signing applications. • Custom signage may include language instructing vehicles to change lanes to pass or use a 3-foot passing distance. 29 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221 -1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 Rural Facility Types Shared Use Path A Shared Use path adjacent to roadway (sidepath) with separation from the roadway is an option on rural facilities. An additional option is a Shared Use Path on an independent alignment. While it is recognized that these types of facilities are not usually feasible on most rural projects, consideration should be given to using them on the Texas Bicycle Tourism Trails Example Network and rural roadways with ADT over 6000. If they are used, see the urban sidepath guidance, and the AASHTO Bike Gu ide for further design guidance. Bike Accessible Shoulders Description Bike accessible shoulders in rural areas function the same as bike accessible shoulders in urban areas with the exception that the roadway will generally not have a curb at the edge. If they are used, see the Urban Bike Accessible Shoulder section, and the AASHTO Bike Guide for furth er design guidance. Shared Lanes (wide outside lane) Description Sha red lanes (wide outside lane) are lanes that allow compatibility of operation for both motorized vehicles and bicyc les. Since bicycles may be operated on all roadways except where prohibited by statute or regulations, shared lanes without markings already exist in many rural settings. Note that although marked shared lanes are allowed in the TMUTCD for certa in conditions, TxDOT as a general policy does not recommend marked shared lanes for TxDOT roadways due to the higher speed nature of TxDOT roadways as compared to loca l jurisdictions. Also, shared lane markings alone do not Bike Accessible Shoulder (rural) Q Shoulder Shared Lane (rural) Shared Lane provide any additional safety for bicyc lists and do not substantiate a dedicated bicycle facility. If they are used, see the urban shared lane guidance and the AASHTO Bike Guide for further design guidance. In rural applications, shared wide outside lanes shou ld only be used in locations with low volumes (1,000 ADT or lower) and speeds of 45 mph or less. 30 DocuSi9n Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVES AND DESIGN EXCEPTIONS OR DESIGN WAIVERS Alternatives Considerations There will be locations, mostly due to ROW not being acquired, where proper bicycle accommodation width(s) are not feasible, even after al l other design criteria were analyzed as minimum values (e.g. lane widths). In these cases, it will be necessary to consider downgrading the bicycle accommodation to the next best facility type and/or to provide a parallel facility. Impacts on ridership, comfort/stress, safety, and overall network connectivity should be considered when evaluating alternative bicycle accommodation designs or parallel routes to ensure the project will still meet the purpose identified at the outset. The tradeoffs shown below need to be considered and documented in the design process. Many of the streets that need bicycle facilities will need to have them installed in a retrofit fashion , rather than new construction. The considerations listed also apply to adding bicycle facilities along an existing corridor: • Reduced or suppressed ridership where the bicycle accommodation does not meet the needs of the target design user • Additional length of trip when bicyclists must use a parallel route. This length should not exceed 30% more than the origina l route. • Failure to provide a bicycle accommodation or critical connections that leave an important gap in the bicycle network • Reduced safety where bicyclists must operate with relatively high motor veh icle speed and/or high-volume traffic in shared lanes • Reduced safety where bicyclists must operate in narrow bicycle accommodation (e.g. narrow bike lanes adjacent to high turnover parking or narrow shared use paths with high volumes of pedestrians or bicyclists) • Reduced safety where bicyclists improperly use facilities (e.g., ride the wrong way on shared lanes, sidewalk riding, etc.) • Increased sidewa lk bicycling where bicyclists are avoiding low-comfort/high-stress conditions In instances where shared use paths or separated bike lanes are recommended by volume, speed, and/or other factors, but proper facility widths cannot be obtained, it may still be preferable to provide separated facilities with minimum or reduced paths and/or buffer widths rather than putting bicyclists in the roadway with high-speed/volume traffic. 31 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 Design Exceptions and Design Waivers As previously discussed, the process for decidin g if projects can be excepted from providing bicycle facilities does not require a design exception or design waiver. However, if a project includes bicycle facilities and the preferred bicycle facility type cannot meet the respective criteria or thresholds, then a design waiver or design exception would apply. Urbanized Context (Urban Core/Urban/Suburban/Rural Town) Design Exceptions Bike Lane: If the minimum width specified in the Basic Design Guidelines is not met. Shared Lane (Wide Outside Lane): If the traffic volume, speed, or width criteria (14-ft ma ximum, 13-ft minimum) specified in the Basic Design Guidelines are not met. Design Waivers Shared Use Path (Independent alignment or Side Path): If the minimum width criteria (minimum 10-ft, 8-ft rare circumstance), buffer width, and other geometric criteria specified in the Basic Design Guidelines, and the associated MSHTO Bike Design criteria are not met. Separated Bike Lane/Buffered Bike lane: If the minimum criteria specified in the Basic Design Guidelines are not met. Bike Accessible Shoulder: For new construction, reconstruction, or widening projects where right-of-way is being acquired, a Design Waiver is required if a minimum width defined in Basic Design Guidelines is not provided. Rural Context Design Exceptions Shared Lane (Wide Outside Lane): If the traffic volume, speed, or width criteria (14-ft maximum, 13-ft minimum) specified in the Basic Design Guidelin es are not met. Design Waivers Shared Use Path (Independent alignment or side path): If the minimum width criteria (minimum 10-ft, 8-ft rare circumstance), buffer width, and other geometric criteria specified in the Basic Design Guidelines, and the associated MSHTO Bike Design criteria are not met. Bike Accessible Shoulder: For new construction, reconstruction, or widening projects where right-of-way is being acquired, a Design Waiver is requ ired if a minimum width defined in Basic Design Guidelines is not provided. 32 DocuSi~n Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 EFERENCES Policy Documents (1) AASHTO'S Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012, 41h Edition) (2) Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Revision 2 (2014) http: //ftp .d ct.state .tx. us/ p u b/txd ot -i nfo/trf /tm utcd / 2011-rev-2/ revision-2. pdf (3) TxDOT Roadway Design Manual (2020) http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/rdw/index.htm (4) USDOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regu lations and Recommendations (2010) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle pedestrian/guidance/policy accom.cfm Guidance Documents (5) FHWA's Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning, Program, and Project Development (2019) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle pedestrian/guidance/guidance 2019.cfm, (6) NACTO'S Urban Bike Design Guide (2014) https://nacto.orgJpublication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ (7) NACTO'S Designing for All Ages and Abilities (2017) https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017 /12/NACTO Designing-for-All-Ages-Abilities.pdf (8) ITE's Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares; A Context Sensitive Approach (2010) https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=E1CFF43C-2354-D714-51D9-D82B39D4DBAD (9) FHWA's Bikeway Selection Guide (2019) https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped bike/tools solve/docs/fhwasa 18077 .pdf. (10) FHWA's Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility (2013 Memorandum) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicvcle pedestrian/guidance/design flexibilitv.cfm (11) FHWA's Small Town and Rural Multi modal Network (2016) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle pedestrian/publications/small towns/ (12) FHWA's Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (2015) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle pedestrian/publications/separated bikelane pdg/separatedbikelane pdg,pdf 33 DocuSign Envelope ID: 60F6E221-1 BAE-455A-888F-7DB96543E289 (13) TxDOT's Bicycle Tourism Trials Study (2018) httos://www.txdot.gov/inside-txtoudot/modes-of-travel/bicycle/plan-design/tourism-study.html (14) FHWA. Shared Use Path Level of Service-A User's Guide. FHWA-HRT-05-138. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 2006. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/ped bike/05138/ (15) Massachusetts DOT Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide (2015) https://www.mass.gov/lists/separated-bike-lane-planninq-desiqn-guide (16) Traffic Analysis and Intersection Considerations to Inform Bikeway Selection (2021) https://safety.fhwa.dot.qov/ped bike/tools solve/docs/FHWA-SA-21-010 Traffic Analysis Intersection Considerations.pdf (17) On-Street Motor Vehicle Parking and Bikeway Selection Process (2021) https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped bike/tools solve/docs/FHWA-SA-21-009 On Street Motor Vehicle Parking.pdf Additional rules, regulations, resources, links, and information for bicyclist accommodations can be found at Public Transportation Division's SharePoint "Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordinator" website: https:l/txdot.sharepoint.com/sites/division-ptn/BikePed-Coordinator 34 '¥'· ' Venessa Garza From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Venessa: Michael Ostrowski Tuesday, February 23, 2021 1 :12 PM Venessa Garza RE: TxDOT Grant Application Thanks for putting this together. Are we able to get a high level estimate for off-street? The one challenge I see is that we would need to have the A&M on board, otherwise, it would not be able to move forward. Has A&M expressed a desire to allow an off-street path in the past? Here is a story that was done about the precast curbs : https://jvi-inc.com/precast-curbs-providing-safety-for-cyclisty- motorists/. It does speak to the benefits of using these for retrofits. Also, these curbs are low enough to eliminate · -vision obstructions from drivways. Thanks, Michael Ostrowski, CEcD, AICP I Director Planning and Development Services City of College Station I cstx.gov P.O. Box 9960 I College Station, TX·, 7842 mostrowski@cstx.gov 979.764.3742 From: Venessa Garza <vga rza@cstx.gov> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 5:01 PM To: Michael Ostrowski <mostrowski@cstx.gov> Subject: TxDOT Grant Appl ication Hey Michael, I have a very rough estimate for the FM 2818 (Harvey Mitchell Parkway Trail on the southside from Jones Crossing (HEB) to the Library - Design: Construction: Staff Time: Total Project Estimate $77,553 $387,764 $29,082 $494,399 1 This doesn't include the TxDOT admin fee and possible environmental review. Our cost would be design, staff time and at least 20% of construction so at least $185,000. I'm not sure which direction to gov. 'th the George Bush Drive separated bike lanes assuming from Texas Avenue to Wellborn Road . I heard Donald prefer off-street but you mentioned on-street. © If we do on-street, we're assuming Council would approve special equipment -renting or purchasing. Using the spreadsheet of options I had shared with the group for on-stre h end cost of $50 a foot on both sides -$702,500 plus design, staff time, etc fi1 s~~ Off-street reconstruction would probably be a lot higher I think. ~b-1 ° l/dl" I'm going to need to move our separated bike lane discussion (since I haven't been able to do the research for the bigger conversation) so I'm going to replace it with an internal grant discussion (assuming Molly is available at that time) if that works for you. As a reminder, the grant is due Monday March l51 so I have a week to pull everything together including getting final approval to submit and will need a day or two between approval and submission to prepare the applications. Venessa 2 Venessa Garza From: Sent: To: Subject: Michael Ostrowski Friday, February 26, 2021 12:21 PM Venessa Garza RE: Projects for TxDOT Grant That is good. I spoke with Jennifer and while CMO does not approve the projects, as this will be a capital request, she does feel that it has a lot of merit to move forward. With that said, and if Don is on board, lets put an application together for them. Thank you, Michael Ostrowski, CEcD, AICP I Director Planning and Development Services City of College Station I cstx.gov P.O. Box 9960 I College Station, TX 77842 mostrowski@cstx.gov 979.764.3742 From: Venessa Garza <vgarza@cstx.gov> Sent: Friday, February 26, 202110:43 AM To: Michael Ostrowski <mostrowski@cstx.gov> Subject: RE : Projects for TxDOT Grant Hey -We do have $450,000 available in that fund. 1 From: Venessa Garza Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 9:36 AM To: Michael Ostrowski <mostrowski@cstx.gov> Subject: RE: Projects for TxDOT Grant Thanks! I have an email into budget but might not hear back by then. I think we have about $450,000 in budget appropriations in our ST1804 Sidewalk, Neighborhood, and Street Modifications CIP Fund that was allocated for FY18-FY23 . Venessa Garza, AICP Planning Administrator Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways Program City of College Station I Planning and Development Services Department 979-764-3674 From: Michael Ostrowski <mostrowski@cstx.gov> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 9:15 AM To: Venessa Garza <vgarza@cstx.gov> Subject: RE: Projects for TxDOT Grant Thanks -Below are the numbers I used. I will be speaking with Jen at lOam today. 2 I Construction Design Staff Tim e Tot al City Share I Cons t ruct ion Design 1 Staff Tim e $ $387,764 $96,941 $38,776 $523,481 $Zl3·,27Qi $843,000 $210,750 $84,300 % of Const n 0.25 0.1 I really appreciate all of your time and effort you put into these projects, especially with the short timeframes. I can understand that it can be frustrating if the City does not end up moving forward with some of the projects, but I think it helps us get a better understanding of the costs associated with these projects so we can better budget in the future for them. Thanks again, Michael Ostrowski, CEcD, AICP I Director Planning and Development Services City of College Station I cstx.gov P.O. Box 9960 I College Station, TX 77842 mostrowski@cstx.gov 979.764.3742 3 From: Venessa Garza <vgarza@cstx.gov> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 3:32 PM To: Michael Ostrowski <mostrowski@cstx.gov> Subject: RE : Projects for TxDOT Grant Hey- Great summary! We will be notified in October 2071 but if awarded we would be placed or a conditional list for FY23/24. Once we received funding, we have about three y~ars - their guide says 'TA funds are available for obligation for a period of three years after the last day of the fiscal year for which funds are apportioned to the state'. A couple of thoughts -if we have someone do the initial design separately, I'm wondering if it might actually be a higher cost with two separate contracts (one for 30% and one for the rest). So maybe we go with to 25-30% for design? I can update those numbers based on your thoughts. In regards to the George Bush number, do we want to bump it up by maybe 20% for construction to maybe cover intersections. If so, I can update all of those numbers as well. For the budget piece, I haven't reached out to Erik Walker in budget but will do that next. Hopefully, I can have that to you before you meet with Jen . Oh and this is minor but the deadline is March g th. Venessa Garza, AICP Planning Administrator Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways Program City of College Station I Planning and Development Services Department 979-764-3674 From: Michael Ostrowski <mostrowski@cstx.gov> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 2:18 PM To: Venessa Garza <vgarza@cstx.gov> Subject: Projects for TxDOT Grant Hi Venessa -Anything to add before I send to Jennifer? When are the grants awarded and when do the projects need to be completed (FY)? Thanks for your help with this! 4 ' . Hi Jennifer: In regards to the Transportation Alternative Grant from TxDOT. Staff has met and found two projects that might score well with the applications. For this grant we can apply up to three projects. The two we are considering are: • FM 2818 -Harvey Mitchell Parkway Trail on the southside from Jones Crossing (HEB) to the Library: o Construction: $387,764 o Design : $77,553 o Staff Time: $29,082 o Total Project Estimate $494,399 o City Share $184,188 (20% of construction and design and staff time costs) • George Bush -either on-street protected bike lanes or off-street separate path from Texas to Wellborn: o On-Street Construction: $702,500 based on $50 per foot on both sides of the road o Design : TBD -Still calculating, but estimate around 20% of construction, or $140,50'"".-...~ o Staff Time: TBD -Still calculating, but estimate around 7.5% of construction, or $52,687} o Total Project Estimate $895,687 o City's Share $333,687 (20% of construction and design and staff time costs) In add ition to the costs for George Bush, we will likely need to purchase a sweeper (online estimates $150,000) that works for the on-street lanes. An off-street option and meeting the grant timeline deadlines is not feasible as it would require significant coordination with A&M. Therefore, we are proposing an on-street option. We are going to have further conversation with Public Works next week. Question for CMO, should staff submit an application for these two projects? Meaning, if we are selected, do we have the financial resources to carry-out these projects? The phase 1 application deadline is March 7, 2021. This will require a project description and a high-level cost estimate. If selected to move on to phase 2, those applications are due in June. Th is will require a more detailed plan and cost estimate. We can discuss more tomorrow, but I wanted to get this to you ahead of time for you to at least start thinking about. Obviously, there are going to be increased maintenance costs with an on-street option with George Bush, but it would significantly improve safety not only for bicyclists, but pedestrians as well. Furthermore, this will be a highly visible and project, and one that could start to address econ estion issues, due to the scope of the improvements. Thank you, Michael Ostrowski, CEcD, AICP I Director Planning and Development Services City of College Station I cstx.gov P.O. Box 9960 I College Station, TX 77842 • I ' mostrowski@cstx.gov 979.764.3742 6 May 27, 2021 Regular Texas Department of Transportation 2021 Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside Grant Resolution for the Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) Shared-use Path Project Agenda Caption: Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a resolution to support and authorize the submission of a grant application to the Texas Department of Transportation to implement the Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) Shared-use Path Project. Relationship to Strategic Goals: •Financially Sustainable City •Core Services and Infrastructure •Neighborhood Integrity •Improving Mobility •Sustainable City Reviewed by: Staff Department: Planning and Development Sponsor: Venessa Garza Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Summary: In January 2021 , the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) issued a call for projects to local communities for funding assistance to help enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety, mobility, and connectivity through infrastructure projects. Eligible projects include: bicycle improvements, shared use paths, sidewalk improvements and other infrastructure related projects to improve safety for non-motorized transportation. The application deadline is June 14, 2021 . Approximately $13 million will be available and if chosen projects will be placed on a prioritized Conditional Project List for anticipated FY2023 -FY2024 appropriations. Project identification and selection of projects was based on criteria set by TxDOT including safety, geographic equity, connectivity, and accessibility. The Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM2818) Shared-use Path Project would extend on the south side of the road from the Jones Crossing commercial development to the College Station library. It would provide connections for students and residents to area parks, schools and The project is approximately .4 miles in length. The grant covers up to 80% of construction costs. The City must provide a minimum local match of 20% for construction aPd 100% of design costs. Cost overruns will need to be paid for by the City. NO FOOTER .. A resolution is needed from City Council to show support for the project, authorize city staff to submit the application and a commitment to fund the project if selected which includes entering into an Advanced Funding Agreement with TxDOT. Budget & Financial Summary: The estimated design and construction cost is $615,038. Staff is currently refining estimates for the detailed application. This includes a 15% TxDOT administrative fee and 10% for environmental documentation. The estimated construction cost with administrative fee is $487,789. The City's portion at 20% would be $97,558. The estimated design fee with 10% environmental documentation is $127,249. If the City manages the construction of the project, the City will be responsible for 100% of the costs and will be reimbursed up to 80% of the construction costs. If TxDOT manages the construction of the project, the City will only rieed to provide the 20% match for construction. The total project cost for the City would be $224,807 and would be funded through the City's Street Capital Improvements Fund. Attachments: 1. Project Location Map 2. Resolution NO FOOTER Thoroughfare Cross Sections Typical Sections City of College Station Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe. Major Arterial • Sidewalk Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Median 6' 12.5' 12' 12.5' 21 ' 1-------37-' -------t Minor Arterial Sidewalk Bike Lane Trave' Lane Travel Lane Median 6' 6.5' 2' 12' 12.5' 17' >--------33'--------< Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane 12.5' 12' 1-------37-' ---------i 12.5' Shared-Use Path 12' Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk 12.5' 12' 2' 6.5' 6' >--------33'--------< ••••••••••••••••••••••••Ximley»>Horn Thoroughfare Cross Sectionsi Typical Sections City of College Station Major Collector Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Lane TWLTL 6' 6' 2' 12' 14' 12' 2' 6' 54' 80' Minor Collector \ \ Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane 6.'... 7' 12' 12' 7' 6' 38' © l1 · 60' Rural Collector --u-w u----c:J t t Open Ditch Open Ditch 4:1 Slope 4:1 Slope Maximum = ~ Maximum => (..) (..) <= <= 0 0 = = = = a: a: Travel Lane Travel Lane 28' 2' 16' 16' 2' 28' 36' 90' Kimley »>Horn Thoroughfare Cross Sections Major Arterial City of Co ll ege Station Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe. Typical Section Sidewa lk Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Median 6' 12.5' 12' 12.5' 21' 1-------37'------~ Travel Lane Trave l Lane Travel Lane 12' t-------37-' ---------< 12.5' 12.5' Shared-Use Path 12' 1-----------------------130'------------------------1 Urban Core Bike Lanes, Wide Sidewalks Sidewalk1 Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel La ne Median Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk1 15' 6.5' 2' 11' 11.5' 17' 11.5' 11' 2' 6.5' 15' t-------31-' --------1 1-------31-' --------1 1-----------------------120'1-----------------------l 1) Sidewalk width to vary depending on available right-of-way. •••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley »>Horn Thoroughfare Cross Sections Major Arterial City of College Station Sidewalk Travel Lane Travel Lane 6' ll.5' ll' 34' • Wide Sidewalk Travel Lane Travel Lane 10' 11.5' 11 ' 34' Travel Lane 11.5' Trave l Lane 11.5' General Urban Shared Use Path Median 17' 130' Suburban Wide Sidewalks Median 17' 130' Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Shared-Use Path 11.5' 11' 11.5' 12' 34' Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Wide Sidewalk 11.5' 11' 11.5' 10' 34' •••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn Context-Sensitive Cross Sections M 1 nor Arteria I City of College Station Note: All dimensions measured from bacr.-of-curb and center of stripe. Sidewalk 6' Sidewalk 16.5' • Sidewa lk 6' Typical Section Bike Lane Trave1 Lane Travel Lane Median Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk 6.5' 2' 12' 12.5' 17' 12.5' 12' 2' 33' 33' 105' Urban Core Bike Lanes, Wide Sidewalks Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane 6.5' 2' 10.5' 11' Median orTWl.Tl 12' Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane 11' 10.5' 2' 6.5' 6.5' 1-------30'-----I 1------30'------t General Urban Bike Lanes Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Turn Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane 6' 2' 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 2' 6' 6' Sidewalk 16.5' Sidewalk 6' t-------------~72'-------------< 1------------------~105'-------------------1 •••••••••••••••••••••••-Kimley>»Horn ' Context-Sensitive Cross Sections M 1 nor Arterial City of College Station Sidewalk 6' • Sidewalk 6' Travel Lane Travel Lane 11.5' 11.5' General Urban/Suburban Shared-Use Sidepath Median Travel Lane Travel Lane 17' 11.5' 11.5' o----23'----< t----23'----f Suburban Bike Lanes Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Median Travel Lane Travel La ne Bike Lane 5.5' 2' 11' 11.5' 17' 11.5' 11' 2' 5.5' Shared-Use Path 12' Sidewalk 6' 1-------30'-------l 1-------30'------< 1-------------------105'--------------------I ••••••••n••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn Context-Sensitive Cross Sections Major Collector City of College Station Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe. Typical Section Sidewa lk Bike Lane Travel Lane TWLTL Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk 6' 6' 2' 12' 14' 12' 2' 6' 6' /,;;I f--------54'----------< ~ i--~~~~~~~~~~~~~80'~~~~~~~~~~~~~--1 Sidewalk 14' • Sidewalk 6' Bike Lane Parking 5.5' 3' 7' Urban Core Bike Lanes, Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane 10.5' 10.5' 52' 80' General Urban Bike Lanes .., - Tl Parking Bike Lane 7' 3' 5.5' ..., r Bike Lane Travel Lane TWLTL Travel La ne Bike Lane 6.5' 11' 14' 11' 6.5' t--~~~~~~-49'~~~~~~~~ Sidewa lk 14' • Sidewalk 6' i--~~~~~~~~~~~~~80'~~~~~~~~~~~~~--1 •••••••••••••••••••••••-Kimley»>Horn Context-Sensitive Cross Sections Maior Collector City of College Station Sidewalk 6' • Sidewalk 6' Bike Lane 5.5' 2' General Urban/Suburban Bike Lanes, Median Travel Lane Median Tra vel Lane Bike Lane 11.5' 16' 11.5' 2' 5.5' 19' 19' 80' Suburban Bike Lanes, Parking* *Parking may be located on either side of bike lane Bike Lane Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Bike Lane 5.5' 3' 7' 10.5' 10.5' 7' 3' 5.5' • Sidewalk 8' Sidewalk 6' l--~~~~~~~-52'~~~~~~~~----l 1--~~~~~~~~~~~~~ao·~~~~~~~~~~~~~----1 •••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn Context-Sensitive Cross Sections Minor Collector 1 City of College Statton Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe. Typical Section Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk 6' 7' 12' 12' 7' 6' 1--------38'-----------< t------------60'-------------t Urban Core Bike Lanes Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewa lk 12' 5.5' 2' 10.5' 10.5' 2' 5.5' 12' 1------~36'----------< 1-----------60'-------------t General Urban Bike Lanes Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Lane Turn Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk 8' 12' 1---------44'---------I 6' 10' 10' 6' 8' >------------60'-------------t •••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn Context-Sensitive Cross Sections Minor Collector City of College Station Sidewalk 6' Suburban Bike Lanes Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane 7' 12' 12' 7' >---~~~~~38'-~~~~~~ Sidewalk 6' >---~~~~~~~~~60'-~~~~~~~~~~ ••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn • Minimum Geometric Design Critcri;i for New Construction Mnu Colleclor MajorCol1ect<r Minc:tNteriat MaorAruvial 60' 60' 60' 60' ea 80 ea ea "" 105' 105 105' 105 130' 120' 130' 130' 38 36 38 " '" 38 " 66 60 I? UnavdM 60 67 68 68 46 Ovooo 17 105 10 17 17 105 115 105 17 105 17 11' 12' 11' 13' " 15.5 13' " 11' 165 16 5 UndMcled " 175' 20.5' 225' 22.S 21 01111ded StandiVO Sfa'1Clar0 Sl:llf\dalO Staoaaro St11ndaro S!m"CaH1 Stancaro St11nd111d St11noaro S!ancl/llCI Stannaio Sfano1110 S!anmwo Sfa,l011H1 Sl:al'1diVO Srnnoaro Sfllf"(l/IJO NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA ""'' -· 17 """' Opt ona 111) ""'' """' 0ot0''11 (17) 17 No<O """' -No~ -None None """' Opt:icm1(7) -Optional (1) None -Optional {7) None Optional (J1 -Optional (TJ -Op11onal (7) """' ----..... ""'~ Nore ""'' 16 N<>·• II 0'111 !17) ()pt()!'ll{l/) " II II II .. 10' 10 6-8' 6' 10' 6' 6' 10' 6' 55 55 65 55 55 65 65 6 1 arc~ 55 """' 65 --Ill 17 Sck>rx1111 NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA Optmnal(2') 2' NIA NIA NIA -None --None None """" """" ---12 --None lQ.12' 10.12· 30 25 25-30 25-35 35 25-30 25-30 25-30 25-30 40 25-35 30-40 31><0 45 30-35 4().45 40--iS 5' NIA NIA NIA 6-10' 6-10 6-10 6-8' 6-8 6-8' 6-10' 6-1' 6-8' PermtTTed NIA NIA NIA Pcrmtted Porm.tted Perm·ned Perm, nod Permtted Pe"mttec:I Permitted Per mined Pefmned Po--m,mld Pa-mined Perrt1ltted Perm·ned April 30, 2021 Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc Attn: Jeff Whitacre, P.E., AICP, PTP 801 Cherry Street, Unit 1300 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 CITY OF Co uJ:GE ST1\TI0 1 Home ofTmu A&M Univmiry• RE: George Bush Drive Separated Bike Lanes Concept -Notice to Proceed Dear Mr. Whitacre: This letter shall serve as your Notice to Proceed with the George Bush Drive Separated Bike Lanes Concept consultant contract. This Notice to Proceed is effective April 30, 2021. The contract between the City of College Station and Kimley Hom and Associates, Inc. calls for completion of work by June 9, 2021. Please reference P.O. #21203184 on all invoices. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (979) 764-3674. Thank you, ~~~ Venessa Garza, AICP Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Planning Administrator Planning & Development Services• 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 •College Station, TX 77840 Office 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 Venessa Garza From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Whitacre, Jeff <jeff.whitacre@kimley-horn.com > Tuesday, May 11, 2021 6:48 AM Venessa Garza; Jason Schubert Ritter, Kullen; Adams, Al lison; Pierce, Nolan RE: George Bush *****This is an email from an EXTERNAL source. DO NOT click links or open attachments without positive sender verification of purpose. Never enter USERNAME, PASSWORD or sensitive information on linked pages from this email. ***** Venessa: The bike box is the only one the "requires" no right turns to function properly. The two-stage would not. No right-turns on red are also a positive thing for bikes but not required. Jeff Whitacre, P.E., AICP, PTP I Vice President Kimley-Horn I 801 Cherry Street, Suite 1300, Fort Worth, TX 76102 Direct 817 339 2254 I Mobile: 817 721 0188 Connect with us: Twitter I Linkedln I Facebook I lnstagram I Kim ley-Horn.co m Celebrating 11 years as one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For From: Venessa Garza <vgarza@cstx.gov> Sent: Monday, May 10, 202111:06 AM To: Whitacre, Jeff <jeff.whitacre@kimley-horn.com>; Jason Schubert <jschubert@cstx.gov> Cc: Ritter, Kullen <Kullen.Ritter@kimley-horn.com>; Adams, Allison <allison.adams@kimley-horn.com>; Pierce, Nolan <nolan.pierce@kimley-horn.com> Subject: RE : George Bush Thanks Jeff! I had the same list of items. Can you remind me of implications for the 2 stage and bike box? Both would require the no turn on ri:!d or just the bike box? Is there anything else I would need to mention for these treatments? Thanks! Venessa Garza, AICP Planning Administrator Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways Program City of College Station I Planning and Development Services Department 1101 Texas Avenue I P.O. BOX 9960, College Station, TX 77842 979-764-3674 1 CITY OF COUEGll. S'I"ATION H""" '/Triw ActM lJaiJJIMil]• From: Whitacre, Jeff <jeff.whitacre@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Monday, May 10, 202110:36 AM To : Venessa Garza <vgarza@cstx.gov>; Jason Schubert <jschubert@cstx.gov> Cc: Ritter, Kullen <Kullen .Ritter@kimley-horn.com >; Adam s, Allison <allison.adams@kimley-horn.com>; Pierce, Nolan <nolan.pierce@kimley-horn.com> Subject: George Bush *****This is an email from an EXTERNAL source. DO NOT click links or open attachments without positive sender verification of purpose. Never enter USERNAME, PASSWORD or sensitive information on linked pages from this email. ***** Venessa: Enjoyed walking the corridor and we have a bunch of ideas. We had our kick-off for design last week but some of those are dependent on the TxDOT questions. Let me know how your meeting goes so we can incorporate those thoughts and comments appropriately. The biggest notes/items I see are: 1) Green Paint Usage 2) Bike Box versus Two-Stage Left-Turn 3) Closing the right-turn islands I coordination with TAMU 4) Assuming a bus for the turning templates S) What TxDOT is open to in the separation device -what three options we will look into based on safety, durability, costs and mainte.iance 6) The SB leg of George Bush reconfiguration 7) The Trash and Recycle bin question 8) The "u-turn" accommodation and going off-street; need an easement from TAMU. That list is not comprehensive but was from the notes I had. Than ks! Jeff Whitacre, P.E .. AICP, PTP I Vice President Kimley-Horn I 801 Cherry Street, Suite 1300, Fort Worth, TX 76102 Direct: 817 339 2254 I Mobile: 817 71.1 0188 Connect with us: Twitter I Linked In I Facebook I lnstagram I Kim ley -Horn.com Celebrating 11 years as one of FORTUN E's 100 Best Companies to Work For 2 Venessa Garza From: Venessa Garza Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 4:1 4 PM \/\tn itacre, Jeff; Jason Schubert To: Cc: Subject: Ritter, Ku llen; Adams, Allison; Pierce, Nolan RE: George Bush Thanks Jeff! Our meeting with TxDOT went well on Monday. They were supportive overall. ( L; _ In regards to... (p)J<. l "~ W\ 1) Green Paint Usage a. TxDOT is open to e interested to know what other districts are doing -they will be reaching out to others. b. I recommend movir g forward with the concept 2) Bike Box versus Two-Stage Left-Turn - a. They had concerns that two stage wouldn't work at T intersections. I assume it just wouldn't be applied on all legs -like anderson. Also had concerns with vehicular capacity if we added no turn on reds but said that was a policy decision for the City. 3) Closing the right-turn islands I coordination with TAMU _~~I,, fl\xl c..~S S\io ~ \~f> __ a. schedulingmeetingwithTAMU ~ i---t V~ ~-€/>· /Ylb7ff1V\fl.. 4) Assuming a~s for the turning templates I \..:.. "5 ~ ~ "fk SI a. Still getting clarification -but assume yes for now for intersections. clrz.<-\o{. !M:nd). b. I assume driveways would have a different turning template? --"'T 5) What TxDOT is open to in the separation device -what three options we will look into based on safety, durability, costs and maintenance a. They didn't have a preference since it's not something they've done yet in this district so let's include a removable and permanent option. They assumed they wouldn't have to worry about maintenance for the bike lane since it wouldn't get a lot of wear and tear from vehicles. They were curious what other districts are doing. 6) The SB leg of George Bush reconfiguration ~ - a. City discussion next week 7) The Trash and Recycle bin question a. Still not sure about best solution here. Defer to y'all for ideas. __BµAe..'..'.u-tum'.'...aCC()mmodation and going off-street; need an easement from TAMU . a. They were curious how many cars were making u-turns. Troy will evaluate. They felt it might not be necessary to go off street based on numbers but I reiterated the need to create a safe and comfortable space for users. I would still like to consider the off-street option. Will discuss with TAMU about additional space needed. 9) We also had a conversation about U-turns in general -TxDOT had concerns with limiting this ability with the vertical barrier locations at intersections and I stressed this would be a safety project for bicycles and may mean not allowing U-turns. This wrll need to be would evaluated further. It might be something the City decides is a policy decision for bicycle safety. -still discussing internally. a. Are u-turns possible? 10) Parking@ University Terrace. TxDOT didn't have any history to share with the parallel parking. I'll reach out to the complex directly. lt ~ },vv I t'(YV - h \ ~tlh. ~ VVlo\ Let me know if I need to clarify anything. 1 ~ l <( 0\-n. s .,,_: Ii>--kw<_ .:.--- \ -e.J-.L ~ w-.1-. Joov-)_, Venessa Garza From: Venessa Garza Sent: Friday, May 14, 2021 4:14 PM Wh itacre, Jeff; Jason Schubert To: Cc: Subject: Ritter, Kullen; Adams, Allison; Pierce, Nolan RE: George Bush Thanks Jeff! Our meeting with TxDOT went well on Monday. They were supportive overall. In regards to ... 1) Green Pa int Usage a. TxDOT is open to idea but are interested to know what other districts are doing -they will be reaching out to others. b. I recommend moving forward with the concept 2) Bike Box versus Two-Stage Left-Turn a. They had concerns that two stage wouldn't work at T intersections. I assume it just wouldn't be applied on all legs -like anderson. Also had concerns with vehicular capacity if we added no turn on reds but said that was a policy decision for the City. f3'i Closing the right-turn islands/ coordination with TAMU \L,: a. scheduling meeting with TAMU 4) Assum ing a bus for the turning templates a. Still getting clarification -but assume yes for now for intersections. b. I assume driveways ·Nould have a different turning template? S) What TxDOT is open to in the separation device -what three options we will look into based on safety, durability, costs and maintenance a. They didn't have a preference since it's not something they've done yet in this district so let's include a removable and permanent option. They assumed they wouldn't have to worry about maintenance for the bike lane since it wouldn't get a lot of wear and tear from vehicles. They were curious what other districts are doing. 6) The SB leg of George Bush reconfiguration a. City discussion next week 7) The Trash and Recycle bin question a. Still not sure about best solution here. Defer to y'all for ideas. 8) The "u-turn" accommodation and going off-street; need an easement from TAMU. a. They were curious how many cars were making u-turns. Troy will evaluate. They felt it might not be necessary to go off ~treet based on numbers but I reiterated the need to create a safe and comfortable space for users. I would still like to consider the off-street option. Will discuss with TAMU about additional space needed. 9) We also had a conversation about U-turns in general -TxDOT had concerns with limiting this ability with the vertical barrier locations at intersections and I stressed this would be a safety project for bicycles and may mean not allowing U-t urns. This will need to be would evaluated further. It might be something the City decides is a policy decision for bicycle safety. -still discussing internally. a. Are u-turns possi~;? ii 10) Parking @ University Ter e. xDOT didn't have any history to share with the parallel parking. I'll reach out to the complex directly. Let me know if I need to clarify anything. 1 Venessa Garza From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Whitacre, Jeff <jeff.whitacre@kimley-horn.com> Monday, May 24, 2021 6:12 PM Venessa Garza ; Jason Schubert Hemingway, Tom; Ritter, Kullen G"orge Bush Protected Bike Lanes 20210524 Meeting Follow-Up 20210524 City Meeting.doc; Coke_ George Bush.pdf; George Bush Protected Bike Lanes.pptx Follow up Flagged *****This is an email from an EXTERNAL source. DO NOT click links or open attachments without positive sender verification of purpose. Never enter USERNAME, PASSWORD or sensitive information on linked pages from this email. ***** All, Please find the materials from today's meeting attached for your record. At your convenience, review the meeting notes, PowerPoint and PDF of project and let us know of any comments or questions you have at this time. Below are the actions for the City: Action Items: • Clarification o Are right lanes (islands) being kept at Coke/GB & Bizzell/GB? • Determines where paths and boxes are drawn o Tie-in to N GB across Texas • Determination of limits, goal, removal and construction abilities o Parallel Parking at Rosemary Lane • Determine if one spot can be removed Jeff Whitacre, P.E., AICP, PTP I Vice President Kimley-Horn I 801 Cherry Street, Suite 1300, Fort Worth, TX 76102 Direct: 817 339 2254 I Mobile: 817 721 0188 Connect with us: Twitter I Linked In I Facebook I lnstagram I Kim ley-Horn.com Celebrating 11 years as one of FORTUN E's 100 Best Companies to Work For 1 Kimley »>Horn Memorandum To: Venessa Garza Planning Administrator City of College Station From: Jeff Whitacre, P.E., AICP , PTP Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: Re: May 28, 2021 s )<J George Bush Dr. -Pro~ Bike Lanes College Station, Texas PURPOSE Kimley-Horn was tasked by the City of College Station, Texas to provide a preliminary design for F>f6tecttm bike lanes along George Bush Drive from Wellborn Road to approximately 400 LF North of ·--Texas Avenue. The purpose of this memo is to provide assistance to the City of College Station and their team as they move forward in their current project to improve and upgrade the existing bicycle facilities along George Bush Drive. CURRENT PROJECT OBJECTIYl;.~.J<,l The current objective of the George Bush PrOt"elt Bike Lane Project is to develop a conceptual design and present options for barrier types that could be used. This project includes conceptual limits of the bike lane buffer and improvements to intersections that better allow for bicycle traffic and safety. BARRIER BIKE LANE OPTIONS It is understood that the current plans for Geoge Bush are preliminary. To provide additional guidance, listed below is a series of descriptions for bike lane barrier options that could be implemented along the corr~orAdustab/e Bike Lane Curb: While being the least expensive option~$15 p near foot, the adjustable bike Jane curb is constructed in sections of precast concr bling pieces to be replaced at a later time if needed. Delineators can also be mounte e top of the curb to help make this option more distinguishable. Kimley»> Horn • Wave Delineator: With a slightly higher cost per linear foot of $20, the wave delineator provides chamfered edged, relective decals, compliance with ADA, and height optimized for drivers and cyclists. Although it is typically used for temporary applications, thickness is optimized for weight and def':ction making it easily transportable because it is lightweight and collapsaible. In addition , there are multiple mounting options and no tools are required for installation or removal. • Engineered Rubber Curb: The most expensive option , $40 per li near foot, can withstand heavy traffic impacts and delineators can be mounted to the top of curb making it more distinguishable. Maintance is fairly easy as it is built in sections meaning the pieces can be replaced individually if needed. Kimley »> Horn • Concrete Curb: A final option is a cast-in-place concrete "median" that would separate the bike lane and vehicle lanes with 6" concrete, approximately 2' wide. This option would cost approximately $35 per LF . This option would have to be doweled into the existing asphalt meaning removal of any partwould be difficult burthis curb will be very durable. ? DRIVEWAY BUFFER OPTIONS • It is understood that the current plans for Geoge Bush are preliminary. The problem at hand is enabling trash trucks access to the edge of the road in the bike lane. To provide additional guidance for this issue, listed below are two buffer options that could be implemented along the corridor. • Buffer an~While this provides more protection to cyclists as lane edges are clearly defined, fu~~dy is required to determine buffer limits for each driveway to allow trash pick up. This could be accomplished by having multiple sections of buffer and RPM where trash trucks would eriter and exit the bike lane through the RPM and then straddle the buffer while going from one driveway to the next. B" RAISED PAVEMENT MARKING 4" BROl<EN WHITE STRIPING • RPM Only: This option does provide a uniform boundary and will not impede driveways for trashpick up. However, because there is no buffer, there is less protection for cyclists in the bike lane as it does not prevent vehicles from entering. Kimley»> Horn SAFETY COMPONENTS • 2-Stage Turning Boxes: The primary purpose of the 2-stage turning box is to provide a safe place for a bicycle to wait out of active vehicle lanes. This area has a striped bike symbol and arrow on a green background, making it easily seen at all times. This adds extra visibility and safety for a cyclist while at an intersection. • Conflict Striping: Conflict striping allows both drivers and cyclists to know they are in an area where conflicts with each other could occur. Bring attention to the area and alerting users will help to provide safer travel for all roadway users. • Bike Lane Barriers: The proposed bike lane barriers are composed of two parts, the striping and the buffer. The striping serves as a visual warning for vehicles to avoid the bike lane and allows cyclists to know the extents of the bike lane. The buffer serves as the physical barrier for bicycle riders . Placing some object between vehicle travel lanes and the bike lane will help to deter or deflect vehicles from entering the bike lane. DECISION LOG Question Utilize bike boxes or 2-stage turning boxes at intersections? Removal of islands and relocation of signals at the intersection of Texas Avenue & George Bush Drive How to handle bicycle left turns onto Houston Street and Anderson Street. Buffer limits for typical driveway/sidestreet Resolution After discussion with the City of College Station it was decided to move forward with the 2-stage turning boxes. In order to connect the bike lanes of George Bush Dr. and E George Bush Dr. The bike lane had to travel through the location of the existing medians. If medians were not removed bicycles would be forced into a vehicle occupied lane. After review of the intersection, it did n<?t seem feasible to utilize a typical 2-stage turning box. The found solution was to add a ramp to allow bicycles on to the sidewalk and have them cross the streets with pedestrians. The sidewalk is also proposed to be widened as necessary for bike travel. complete the turn I ' Kimley »>Horn Buffer limits After discussing with the city, the likely solution is to have between Remand the physical buffer and RPMs continue through this zone as Drive and Rosemary normal without any vertical delineators. This will allow a Lane garbage truck to enter the bike lane with one side of the vehicle and straddle the proposed buffer. How should the bike Conflict striping was placed in the normal path of the bike lane cross the TXDoT lane to show cyclists and drivers the area presents collision U-turn zone risks. A ramp was added between the bike lane and sidew~lk before and after the u-turn area. This gives a cyclist the option of continueing in the road in the bike lane or if safer they can ride on the sidewalk until after the u-turn zone. Additionally, a sign is proposed signaling to drivers that they must yield to bikes in the bike lane. How to end the bike It was decided to terminate the bike lane on to the sidewalk lane heading after Rosemary Lane and before Texas Avenue. One parallel towards Texas parking spot for an existing apartment complex will be Avenue removed to allow for the bike lane to safely be aligned with the existing sidewalk. RPMS will be used as a buffer for the / bike lane in this area to allow vehicles 'to freely park in the remaining parallel parking spots. If you have any questions, please contact me at jeff.whitacre@kim ley-horn.com or by phone at 817-339-2254. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Cllent: Pn>ject: KHANo.: TollllPro City of College Stotlon Georg• Bush Protected Biko Lanes S302'01S l.a : 7'60 LF /1.41 Ml 0110: Prepared By: Checked By: 61712021 TLH JAW Georae Bush Protected Bike Lan•• -ConceDtu.11 BaH Bid I -Minor lnteructlona Orty_...v Croutna1 Non-lnterMCtlon Roactw.v Section Lonalh: SOOO LF / 1.14 Ml Item# TxDOT Bid Item Item Description Total Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 1 01046011 REMOVING CONC !MEDIANS) 10 SY $ 20.00 $ 200 2 05316001 CONC SIDEWALKS (4") 65 SY $ 50.00 $ 3 250 3 06446004 IN SM RD SN SUP&AM TY10BWG(1)SA(T) 1 EA $ 770.00 s 770 4 06666167 REFL P. V MRK TY II fW\ 4" fBRK\ 570 LF $ 2.50 $ 1,430 5 06666170 REFL PAV MRK TY II rwl 4" rSLO\ 480 LF $ 2.00 $ 960 6 06776001 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (4") 3930 LF $ 1.25 s 4920 7 06906057 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS 1 EA $ 220.00 $ 220 8 06906059 INSTALL OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS 1 EA $ 2,800.00 s 2 800 9 9999 BUFFER NOSE VERTICAL DELINEATOR 15 EA $ 450.00 $ 6,750 10 9999 BUFFER NOSE 30 EA s 110.00 $ 3300 11 9999 PRE-CAST CONCRETE BUFFER 8520 LF $ 30.00 s 255,600 12 9999 8" RAISED PVMT MARKERS (TURTLE DOMESl 565 EA $ 50.00 s 28,250 13 9999 BIKE LANE CONFLICT PVMT MARKING 215 EA $ 250.00 $ 53 750 14 9999 BIKE LANE TO SIDEWALK RAMP 5 EA $ 3,300.00 $ 16,500 Base Bid I. General Sub Total s C 56,90Q.D Construction Contingency 15.0°/, $ Base Bid I· Construction Total $ ~00 NOTE ROW Acquis«ion and lnllatJOn not aCCOll!ted for., this v.-...... lloH Bid II • Coke -& Goonio Bush Drive lntoraoctlon section Lene h: 400 LF I o.o• Ml 15 01046001 REMOVING CONC IPAVl 240 SY $ 18.00 $ 4 320 16 01046011 REMOVING CONC !MEDIANSl 385 SY $ 22.00 s 8470 17 01046015 REMOVING CONC ISIDEWALKSl 30 SY $ 22.00 s 660 18 01606003 FURNISHING AND PLACING TOPSOIL (4") 205 SY $ 5.00 s 1,030 19 01626002 BLOCK SODDING 205 SY $ 7.00 $ 1440 20 02476230 FL BS fCMP IN PLACE)(TY A GR 1-2)(8") 220 SY $ 30.00 $ 6600 21 03406011 D-GR H WSQl TY -B PG64-22 5 TON $ 110.00 $ 550 22 30766035 D-GR HMA TY-D PG64-22 1 TON $ 110.00 $ 110 23 03606004 CONC PVMT ICONT REINF • CRCP\ f10"l 180 SY $ 85.00 $ 15,300 24 05296005 CONC CURB rMONO\ rTY II\ 1015 LF $ 8.00 $ 8,120 25 05316001 CONC SIDEWALKS 14"1 235 SY $ 50.00 $ 11,750 26 06666056 REFL PAV MRK TY llWllDBL ARR0Wll090Mlll 1 EA $ 220.00 $ 220 27 06666167 REFL PAV MRK TY II (Wl 4" (BR Kl 158 LF $ 2.50 $ 400 28 06666170 REFL PAV MRK TY 11 IW\ 4" (SLDl 430 LF $ 2.00 $ 860 29 06666182 REFL PAV MRK TY II (W) 24" (SLD) 630 LF $ 14.00 $ 8,820 30 06666184 REFL PAV MRK TY II (W) (ARROW) 3 EA $ 300.00 $ 900 31 06666192 REFL PAV MRK TY II rwi IWORO\ 1 EA $ 250.00 $ 250 32 06776001 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS f4"\ 550 LF $ 1.25 $ 690 33 06776003 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS f8"l 30 LF $ 1.50 $ 50 34 06776005 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (12"1 220 LF $ 2.50 s 550 35 06776007 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (24") 600 LF $ 3.50 $ 2,100 36 06776008 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (ARROW) 1 EA $ 55.00 $ 60 37 06776012 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (WORDl 1 EA s 55.00 s 60 38 06776018 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (18")(YLD TRI) 17 EA $ 30.00 s 510 39 06906059 INSTALL OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS 5 EA s 2 800.00 s 14,000 40 9999 BUFFER NOSE VERTICAL DELINEATOR 2 EA s 450.00 $ 900 41 9999 BUFFER NOSE 4 EA $ 110.00 $ 440 42 9999 PRE-CAST CONCRETE BUFFER 400 LF s 30.00 $ 12,000 43 9999 8" RAISED PVMT MARKERS rTURTLE DOMES) 90 EA $ 50.00 s 4,500 44 9999 BIKE LANE CONFLICT PVMT MARKING 46 EA $ 250.00 $ 11 500 45 9999 2-STAG . BIKE BOX PVMT MARKING r 2 -... EA $ 1,100.00 $ 2,200 ,~:se Bid II · General Sub Total s 119,360 Co n Contingency 15.0% s 18,000 Base Bid II . Construction Total $ 137,360 Nu IE t<OW Acquisition and lnftation not accotrtted fo1 rt tnis vn ...... 33. -C~~- \. II.IN Biel IH -Blmll StNet & a-Bush onve lntel'MCtlon Section Lene h: 450 LF I 0.09 Ml 46 01046001 REMOVING CONG fPAVl 380 SY $ 20.00 $ 7,600 47 01046011 REMOVING CONG fMEDIANSl 260 SY $ 22.00 $ 5 720 48 01046015 REMOVING CONG (SIDEWALKS) 280 SY $ 22.00 s 6160 49 01606003 FURNISHING AND PLACING TOPSOIL f4"l 470 SY $ 5.00 $ 2,350 50 01626002 BLOCK SODDING 470 SY $ 7.00 $ 3 290 51 02476230 FL BS (L MP IN PLACEl<TY A GR 1-2lf8"l 105 SY $ 30.00 $ 3.150 52 03606004 CONG PVMT (CONT REINF -CRCPl (10 .. l 90 SY $ 85.00 $ 7,650 53 05296005 CONG CURB (MONO) <TY Ill 390 LF $ 8.00 $ 3.120 54 05316001 CONG SIDEWALKS (4") 345 SY $ 50.00 s 17 250 55 06446076 REMOVE SM RD SN SUP&AM 4 EA $ 85.00 $ 340 56 06666056 REFL PAV MRK TY l<WHDBL ARR0W1109QMIU 1 EA $ 330.00 $ 330 57 06666167 REFL PAV MRK TY II fWl 4" <BR Kl 89 LF $ 2.50 s 230 58 06666170 REFL PAV MRK TY II (Wl 4" (SLDl 220 LF $ 2.00 $ 440 59 06666182 REFL PAV MRK TY II CW\ 24" <SLD\ 550 LF $ 14.00 $ 7 700 60 06666184 REFL PAV MRK TY II fWl <ARROWl 1 EA $ 290.00 $ 290 61 06776001 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (4"l 270 LF $ 1.25 s 340 62 06776005 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (12") 310 LF $ 2.50 $ 780 63 06776007 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (24") 500 LF $ 3.50 $ 1 750 64 06906059 INSTALL OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS 6 EA s 2 200.00 $ 13200 63 9999 SIGNAL RELOCATIONS 1 LS $ 200 000.00 $ 200 000 64 9999 BUFFER NOSE VERTICAL DELINEATOR 3 EA $ 450.00 s 1,350 65 9999 BUFFER NOSE 6 EA $ 110.00 $ 660 66 9999 PRE-CAST CONCRETE BUFFER 600 LF $ 30.00 $ 18,000 67 9999 8" RAISED PVMT MARKERS (TURTLE DOMESl 40 EA $ 50.00 $ 2,000 68 9999 BIKE LANE CONFLICT PVMT MARKING 39 EA $ 250.00 $ 9 750 69 9999 2-STAGE BIKE BOX PVMT MARKING 2 EA $ 1100.00 $ 2.200 Base Bid Ill -General Sub Total $ 315,650 Construction Contingency 15.0% $ 47.400 Base Bid Ill -Construction Total $ 363,050 NO It ROW AcqulsAlon and W\llaoon not aocouited fol" in this Vt'"'-''-' BaM Bid IV -TUii• Avenue & Georoe Bush Drive lntersectton section Lene h: &50 LF /0.12 Ml 70 01046011 REMOVING CONG (MEDIANS) 30 SY $ 22.00 $ 660 71 05286001 COLORED TEXTURED CONG 14"\ 30 SY $ 110.00 $ 3300 72 05316001 CONG SIDEWALKS (4'0\ 135 SY $ 50.00 $ 6.750 73 05316057 CONG SIDEWALK fSPECIALlfRETAINING WALL\ 450 SF $ 20.00 $ 9.000 74 06666167 REFL PAV MRK TY II fWl 4" <BRKl 70 LF $ 2.50 s 180 75 06666170 REFL PAV MRK TY II (Wl 4" (SLDl 60 LF $ 2.00 $ 120 76 06666182 REFL PAV MRK TY 11 (W) 24" (SLD) 170 LF $ 14.00 $ 2,380 77 06776001 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (4"\ 530 LF $ 1.25 $ 670 78 06776007 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS <24"\ 150 LF $ 3.50 $ 530 79 06876003 RELOCATE PED POLE ASSEMBLY 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 15.000 80 06906059 INSTALL OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS 1 EA $ 2,800.00 s 2 800 81 9999 BIKE LANE TO SIDEWALK RAMP 1 EA s 3,300.00 $ 3300 82 9999 BUFFER NOSE VERTICAL DELINEATOR 1 EA $ 450.00 $ 450 83 9999 BUFFER NOSE 2 EA $ 110.00 s 220 84 9999 PRE-CAST CONCRETE BUFFER 50 LF $ 30.00 s 1.500 85 9999 ff' RAISED PVMT MARKERS <TURTLE DOMES\ 55 EA $ 50.00 $ 2 750 86 9999 BIKE LANE CONFLICT PVMT MARKING 15 EA $ 250.00 $ 3 750 Base Bid IV -General Sub Total $ 53,360 Construction Contingency 15.0't. s 8,100 Base Bid IV -Construction Total $ 61,460 No 1 t.. HOW Acqu&SitJon and lnftat.on no1 acax.nted for in 1tn v,.. ....... _, 8aH Bid: Mlac. ConstNctlon Coats B7 05006001 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $ 50000 $ soooo BB 9999 MISC UTILITY ADJUSTMENT 1 LS $ 1S,OOO $ 1SOOO B9 9999 EROSION CONTROL 1 LS $ 10,000 $ 10000 90 9999 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $ 3S,OOO $ 3S,000 Base Bid: Misc. Costs· General Sub Total $ 110,000 Construction Contingency 15.0% $ 16,SOO Base Bid: Misc. Costs $ 126,500 Base Bid I-IV Sub Total $ 867,070 Base Bid: Misc. Construction Costs $ 110,000 Construction Sub Total $ 977,070 Construction Contingency 15.0% $ 146,721 Construction Total $ 1,123,791 Engineering, Survey, SUE. Environmental 1S.0% s 169,000 City Project Manaqement, Inspections, Material Testinq 6.0% s 68,000 Proiect Total $ 1,360,791 Basis for Cost Projection: NOTE ROW N:QUISlbon and lnftabon not aCCOlllted for 1rt this OPCC No Design Completed x Preliminary Design Final Design The Consultant has no control over the cost of labor, materials. equipment. or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Consultant at this time and represent onty the Consultant's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Consultant cannot and does not guarantee that proposals. bkts, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs . .... ,,,.I• I • Coke SllMI & Cleora• Buah DrtY<I • Tumlna Island Rem1ln A1 01046011 REMOVING CONG !MEDIANS) 20 SY s 22.00 s 440 A2 0104601S REMOVING CONC (SIDEWALKS) 1S SY $ 22.00 $ 330 A3 02476230 FL BS (CMP IN PLACE\ITY A GR 1-2\18"\ 2S SY $ 30.00 $ 7SO AS 03406011 D-GR HMAISQ\ TY -B PG64-22 5 TON $ 110.00 $ sso A6 03606004 CONG PVMT ICONT REINF · CRCP\ 110"! 20 SY $ 8S.OO $ 1,700 A7 OS296005 CONG CURB IMONO\ tTY Ill SS LF s B.00 $ 440 AB 06666167 REFL PAV MRK TY 11 IWl 4" IBRK\ 140 LF $ 2.SO $ 3SO A9 06666170 REFL PAV MRK TY II IWl 4" ISLDl 3S LF $ 2.00 $ 70 A10 066661B2 REFL PAV MRK TY II IWl 24" !SLDl 450 LF $ 14.00 $ 6,300 A1 1 06776001 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS 14") S10 LF $ 1.2S $ 640 A12 06776003 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (8") 30 LF $ 1.SO $ so A13 06776007 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (24") S3S LF $ 3.SO $ 18BO A14 06906059 INSTALL OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS 4 EA $ 2 800.00 $ 11,200 A1S 30766035 D-GR HMA TY-D PG64-22 1 TON $ 100.00 $ 100 A16 9999 BUFFER NOSE VERTICAL DELINEATOR 2 EA $ 4SO.OO s 900 A17 9999 BUFFER NOSE 4 EA s 110.00 s 440 A1 B 9999 PRE-CAST CONCRETE BUFFER 330 LF $ 30.00 $ 9,900 A19 9999 8" RAIS' ·o PVMT MARKERS (TURTLE DCMESl 124 EA s S0.00 $ 6,200 A20 9999 BIKE LANE CONFLICT PVMT MARKING 40 EA $ 2SO.OO s 10,000 A21 9999 2-STAGE BIKE BOX PVMT MARKING 2 EA $ 1,100.00 s 2,200 Alternate I !Replaces Base Bid Item Ill· Coke Street & Georae Bush Drive. Turning Island Remain 54,500 .... mate H • BiznU SllMI & Georae Buah Dffle • Tumlna Island Rem1ln A1 01046011 REMOVING CONG IMEDIANSl 5 SY $ 22.00 s 110 A2 06666167 REFL PAV MRK TY II (W) 4" (BRK) 240 LF $ 2.SO s 600 A3 066661B2 REFL PAV MRK TY II IWl 24" ISLDl 190 LF $ 14.00 s 2660 A4 06776001 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS 14"\ 6SO LF $ 1.SO $ 980 AS 0677600S ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS 112"\ 240 LF $ 4.00 $ 960 A6 06776007 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS 124"\ 1SO LF s S.00 s 7SO A7 06906059 INSTALL OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS 4 EA $ 2,800.00 s 11200 AB 03606004 CONG PVMT !CONT REINF • CRCPl !10"l 2S SY $ BS.00 $ 2,130 A9 9999 BUFFER NOSE VERTICAL DELINEATOR 3 EA $ 4SO.OO $ 1 3SO A10 9999 BUFFER NOSE 6 EA s 110.00 $ 660 A11 9999 PRE-CAST CONCRETE BUFFER 340 LF $ 30.00 $ 10,200 A12 9999 8" RAISED PVMT MARKERS (TURTLE DOMES) 20B EA s S0.00 $ 10,400 A13 9999 BIKE LANE CONFLICT PVMT MARKING 18 EA s 250.00 $ 4 soo A14 9999 2-STAGE BIKE BOX PVMT MARKING 2 EA $ 1100.00 s 2,200 Alternate II (Replaces Base Bid Item Ill). B1uell Street & George Bush Dnve. Turning Island Remain 48,700 Kimley »>Horn Memorandum To: Venessa Garza Planning Administrator City of College Station From: Jeff Whitacre, P.E., AICP, PTP Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: June 7, 2021 Re: George Bush Dr. Protected Bike Lanes College Station, Texas PURPOSE 11}}.+<imley-Horn was tasked by the City of College Station, Texas to provide a preliminary design for ~r "!'retectiKi bike lanes along George Bush Drive from Wellborn Road to approximately 400 LF North of ~ Texas Avenue. The purpose of this memo is to provide assistance to the City of College Station and their team as they move forward in their current project to improve and upgrade the existing bicycle facilities along George Bush Drive. CURRENT PROJECT OBJECTIVES The current objective of the George Bush Protect Bike Lane Project is to develop a conceptual design and present options for barrier types that could be used . This project includes conceptual limits of the bike lane buffer and improvements to intersections that better allow for bicycle traffic and safety. BARRIER BIKE LANE OPTIONS It is understood that the current plans for Geoge Bush are preliminary. To provide additional guidance, listed below is a series of descriptions for bike lane barrier options that could be implemented along the corridor. • Adustable Bike Lane Curb: At $30 per linear foot , the adjustable bike lane curb is constructed in sections of precast concrete curb enabling pieces to be replaced at a later time if needed. Delineators can also be mounted to the top of the curb to help make this option more distinguishable. Kimley»>Horn • Wave Delineator: With a slightly lower cost per linear foot of $20, the wave delineator provides chamfered edged, reflective decals, compliance with ADA, and height optimized for drivers and cyclists. Although it is typically used for temporary applications, thickness is optimized for weight and deflection making it easily transportable because it is lightweight and collapsible. In addition, there are multiple mounting options and no tools are required for installation or removal. • Engineered Rubber Curb: The most expensive option, $40 per linear foot, can withstand heavy traffic impacts and delineators can be mounted to the top of curb making it more distinguishable. Maintance is fairly easy as it is built in sections meaning the pieces can be replaced individually if needed. Kimley »>Horn • Concrete Curb: A final option is a cast-in-place concrete "median" that would separate the bike lane and vehicle lanes with 6" concrete, approximately 2' wide. This option would cost approximately $35 per LF. This option would have to be doweled into the existing asphalt meaning removal of any part would be difficult but this curb will be very durable. DRIVEWAY BUFFER OPTIONS It is understood that the. current plans for Geoge Bush are preliminary. The problem at hand is enabling trash trucks access to the edge of the road in the bike lane. To provide additional guidance for this issue, listed below are two buffer options that could be implemented along the corridor. • Buffer and RPM: While this provides more protection to cyclists as lane edges are clearly defined, further study is required to determine buffer limits for each driveway to allow trash pick up. This could be accomplished by having multiple sections of buffer and RPM where trash trucks would enter and exit the bike lane through the RPM and then straddle the buffer while going from one driveway to the next. 8" RAISED PAVEMENT MARKING 4" BROKEN WHITE STRIPING • RPM Only: This option does provide a uniform boundary and will not impede driveways for trash pick-up. However, because there is no buffer, there is less protection for cyclists in the bike lane as it does not prevent vehicles from entering. Kimley »>Horn SAFETY COMPONENTS • 2-Stage Turning Boxes: The primary purpose of the 2-stage turning box is to provide a safe place for a bicycle to wait out of active vehicle lanes. This area has a striped bike symbol and arrow on a green background, making it easily seen at all times. This adds extra visibility and safety for a cyclist while at an intersection. • Conflict Striping: Conflict striping allows both drivers and cyclists to know they are in an area where conflicts with each other could occur. Bringing attention to the area and alerting users will help to provide safer travel for all roadway users. • Bike Lane Barriers: The proposed bike lane barriers are composed of two parts, the striping and the buffer. The striping serves as a visual warning for vehicles to avoid the bike lane and allows cyclists to know the extents of the bike lane. The buffer serves as the physical barrier for bicycle riders. Placing some object between vehicle travel lanes and the bike lane will help to deter or deflect vehicles from entering the bike lane. DECISION LOG Question Resolution Utilize bike boxes or After discussion with the City of College Station it was 2-stage turning decided to move forward with the 2-stage turning boxes. boxes at intersections? Removal of islands In order to connect the bike lanes of George Bush Dr. and E and re location of George Bush Dr. The bike lane had t o travel through the signals at the location of t he existing medians. If medians were not intersection of Texas removed bicycles would be forced into a vehicle occupied Avenue & George lane. Bush Drive ~ 9· ( It was later decided to not remove the islands or signals t avoid the high costs of doing so. 1 • How to handle After review of the intersection, it did not seem feasible to bicycle left turns utilize a typical 2-stage turning box. The found solution was onto Houston Street to add a ramp to allow bicycles on to the sidewalk and have and An derson them cross t he streets wit h pedestrians. The sidewalk is also Street. proposed to be widened as necessary for bike travel. Buffer limits for After running Auto TURN it was found that ending the buffer typical and starting RPMS about 10'-15' before and after the curb driveway /s id est reet return would allow room for a 40' bus to complete the turn. U-turns were calculated with a passenger car as the design vehicle. l • Kimley »>Horn Buffer limits After discussing with the city, the likely solution is to have between Remond the physical buffer and RPMs continue through this zone as Drive and Rosemary normal without any vertical delineators. This will allow a Lane garbage truck to enter the bike lane with one side of the vehicle and straddle the proposed buffer. How should the bike Conflict striping was placed in the normal path of the bike lane cross the TXDoT lane to show cyclists and drivers the area presents collision U-turn zone risks. A ramp was added between the bike lane and sidewalk before and after the u-turn area. This gives a cyclist the option of continueing in the road in the bike lane or if safer they can ride on the sidewalk until after the u-turn zone. Additionally, a sign is proposed signaling to drivers that they must yield to bikes in the bike lane. How should bikes After evaluating the cost of removing islands and relocating cross South across signals, it was decided to limit removals as much as possible. Texas The islands are only partially removed and replaced with stamped concrete. This allows for bikes and pedestrians to cross together. How to end the bike It was decided to terminate the bike lane on to the sidewalk lane heading after Rosemary Lane and before Texas Avenue. One parallel towards Texas parking spot for an existing apartment complex will be Avenue removed to allow for the bike lane to safely be aligned with the existing sidewalk. RPMS will be used as a buffer for the bike lane in this area to allow vehicles to freely park in the remaining parallel parking spots. Which buffer should After discussions with the city it was decided the best buffer be proposed to propose would be the Precast Concrete Curb. This allows for an affordable option that provides safety for cyclists Removal of islands City met with TAMU and TAMU is open to the idea of at the intersection removing islands. Island removal has been drawn in for with Coke and better cost estimation. Bizzell? If you have any questions, please contact me at jeff.whitacre@kim ley-horn .com or by phone at 81 7-339-2254. Klmley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Item # 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 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Cllr d COllge--..---..._ C111Z7'1GI :7-LftUllll TxDOT Bid Item Item Description 01046001 REMOVING CONC (PAV) 01046011 REMOVING CONC (MEDIANS) 01046015 REMOVING CONC (SIDEWALKS) 01606003 FURNISHING AND PLACING TOPSOIL (4") 01626002 BLOCK SODDING 02476230 FL BS (CMP IN PLACE)(TY A GR 1-2)(8") 03406011 D-GR HMA(SQ) TY-B PG64-22 03606004 CONC PVMT (CONT REINF -CRCP) (10") 05286001 COLORED TEXTURED CONC (4') 05006001 MOBILIZATION 05296005 CONC CURB (MONO) (TY II) 05316001 CONC SIDEWALKS (4') 05316057 CONC SIDEWALK (SPECIAL)(RETAINING WALL) 06446004 IN SM RD SN SUP&AM TY10BWG(1)SA(T) 06446076 REMOVE SM RD SN SUP&AM 06666056 REFL PAV MRK TY l(W)(DBL ARROW)(090MIL) 06666167 REFL PAV MRK TY II (W) 4" (BRK) 06666170 REFL PAV MRK TY 11(W)4" (SLD) 06666182 REFL PAV MRK TY II (W) 24" (SLD) 06666184 REFL PAV MRK TY II (W) (ARROW) 06666192 REFL PAV MRK TY II (W) (WORD) 06776001 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (4") 06776003 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (8") 06776005 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (12') 06776007 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (24') 06776008 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (ARROW) 06776012 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (WORD) 06776018 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (18")(YLD TRI) 06876003 RELOCATE PED POLE ASSEMBLY 06906057 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS 06906059 INSTALL OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS 30766035 D-GR HMA TY-D PG64-22 9999 2-STAGE BIKE BOX PVMT MARKING 9999 8" RAISED PVMT MARKERS (TU~TLE DOMES) 9999 BIKE LANE CONFLICT PVMT MARKING 9999 BIKE LANE TO SIDEWALK RAMP 9999 BUFFER NOSE 9999 BUFFER NOSE VERTICAL DELINEATOR 9999 PRE-CAST CONCRETE BUFFER 9999 SIGNAL RELOCATIONS 9999 MISC UTILITY ADJUSTMENT 9999 EROSION CONTROL 9999 TRAFFIC CONTROL Dote: Prepolwd By: ~By: c-.-Bueh Pf'Otllc:tld 8Hce LMee -~ Total Quantitv Unit 2024 Unit Price 620 SY $ 23.00 685 SY $ 25.00 310 SY $ 25.00 675 SY $ 6.00 675 SY $ 8.00 325 SY $ 34.00 5 TON $ 125.00 270 SY $ 100.00 30 SY $ 125.00 1 LS $ 60,000 1405 LF $ 9.00 780 SY $ 60.00 450 SF $ 23.00 1 EA $ 870.00 4 EA $ 100.00 2 EA $ 375.00 887 LF $ 3.00 1190 LF $ 2.25 1350 LF s 16.00 4 EA $ 340.00 1 EA $ 285.00 5280 LF s 1.50 30 LF $ 2.00 530 LF $ 3.00 1250 LF s 4.00 1 EA $ 65.00 1 EA s 65.00 17 EA $ 34.00 1 LS $ 16,900.00 1 EA s 250.00 13 EA $ 3,200.00 1 TON s 125.00 4 EA $ 1,240.00 750 EA $ 60.00 315 EA $ 285.00 6 EA s 3,720.00 42 EA s 125.00 21 EA $ 510.00 9570 LF $ 34.00 1 LS $ 225,000.00 1 LS $ 17,000 1 LS $ 12,000 1 LS s 40,000 Construction Sub-Total Constn.ietion Contingency 15.0% Total Construction Cost Engineering, Survey, SUE, Environmental 15.0% City Project Management, Inspections. Material Testing 6.0% Total Project Cost 2024 Item Cost $ 3.45 $ 26.45 $ 16,399.00 $ 14,260 $ 3.75 $ 28.75 $ 19,693.75 $ 17,130 $ 3.75 $ 28.75 $ 8,912.50 $ 7,750 $ 0.90 $ 6.90 $ 4,657.50 $ 4,050 $ 1.20 $ 9.20 $ 6,210.00 $ 5,400 $ 5.10 $ 39.10 $ 12,707.50 s 11,050 $ 18.75 $ 143.75 $ 718.75 s 625 $ 15.00 $ 115.00 $ 31 ,050.00 $ 27,000 $ 18.75 $ 143.75 $ 4,312.50 s 3,750 s 9,000.00 $ 69,000.00 $ 69,000.00 s 60,000 $ 1.35 $ 10.35 $ 14,541.75 $ 12,645 s 9.00 s 69.00 s 53,820.00 $ 46,800 s 3.45 $ 26.45 $ 11,902.50 s 10,350 s 130.50 $ 1,000.50 s 1,000.50 s 870 $ 15.00 $ 115.00 $ 460.00 $ 400 $ 56.25 $ 431.25 $ 862.50 $ 750 $ 0.45 $ 3.45 $ 3,060.15 $ 2,665 $ 0.34 $ 2.59 s 3,079.13 $ 2,680 $ 2.40 $ 18.40 $ 24,840.00 $ 21,600 $ 51.00 $ 391.00 s 1,564.00 s 1,360 $ 42.75 $ 327.75 s 327.75 s 285 $ 0.23 $ 1.73 s 9,108.00 s 7,920 $ 0.30 $ 2.30 $ 69.00 $ 60 $ 0.45 $ 3.45 $ 1,828.50 s 1,590 $ 0.60 $ 4.60 s 5,750.00 $ 5,000 $ 9.75 $ 74.75 $ 74.75 s 65 $ 9.75 $ 74.75 s 74.75 s 65 $ 5.10 s 39.10 $ 664.70 $ 580 $ 2,535.00 $ 19,435.00 $ 19,435.00 s 16,900 $ 37.50 $ 287.50 s 287.50 $ 250 s 480.00 $ 3,680.00 $ 47,840.00 $ 41,600 s 18.75 $ 143.75 $ 143.75 $ 125 $ 186.00 s 1,426.00 $ 5,704.00 s 4,960 $ 9.00 $ 69.00 $ 51,750.00 $ 45,000 s 42.75 $ 327.75 s 103,241.25 s 89,780 $ 558.00 $ 4,278.00 $ 25,668.00 $ 22,320 $ 18.75 $ 143.75 $ 6,037.50 $ 5,250 $ 76.50 $ 586.50 $ 12,316.50 s 10,710 $ 5.10 $ 39.10 $ 374, 187.00 $ 325,380 $ 33,750.00 $ 258,750.00 $ 258,750.00 $ 225,000 $ 2,550.00 $ 19,550.00 $ 19,550.00 $ 17,000 $ 1,800.00 $ 13,800.00 $ 13,800.00 s 12,000 s 6,000.00 $ 46,000.00 $ 46,000.00 $ 40,000 $ 57,476.66 $ 440,654,41 $ 1,291,399.98 $ 1, 122,975.00 $ 168,500 s 1,291,475.00 s 193,800 $ 77,500 s 1,562,800 GEORGE BUSH DRIVE -FROM WELLBORN ROAD TO APPROX. 400 LF NORTH OF TEXAS AVENUE - PROTECTED BIKE LANE CONCEPT . . . -. <R> CITY OF COLLEGE STATION LOCATION MAP -...., ~ I I -~ '\. '\. '\. ~ ,, ..... ' ~,, • • • • -------- • ..1 S•I ~2 LEGEND EX TRAVEL LANE PROP BIKE LANE EX SIDEWALK EX SIDESTREET/DRIVEWAY EX MEDIAN/DIVIDER PROP CONSTRUCTION PROP REMOVAL EX RIGHT OF WAY PROP BIKE LANE PROTECTION BARRIER PROP 8" RAISED PAVEMENT MARKINGS PROP BROKEN BIKE LANE STRIPING CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TX-GENERAL AND DETAILS-SHEET 1OF3 SHEET NUMBER: C1 36" : CD : co i-1 ...... : <.O 36" 24" ---' l P2-i-~ 12" ,, 4>~ 4.5" I PROP BUFFER TYPICAL DETAILS I BUFFER WITH NOSE AND VERTICAL DELINEATOR TO BE USED AT INTERSECTIONS AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS ONLY LOW PROFILE BUFFER TO BE USED BETWEEN ALL RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TX -GENERAL AND DETAILS -SHEET 2 OF 3 BUFFER NOTES: 1. PROP BUFFER IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED FROM PRE-CAST CONCRETE 2. BUFFER IS TO BE REPLACED BY RPMS IN FRONT OF EXISTING STORM INLETS 3. BUFFER IS TO HAVE VERTICAL DELINEATOR AFTER EACH INTERSECTION AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY 4. BUFFER IS TO HAVE NOSE ONLY AT INTERSECTIONS AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS SHEET NUMBER: C2 I SAFETY COMPONENT DETAILS I 2-STAGE BIKE BOX STAGING AREA FOR BICYCLES OUT OF TRAFFIC LANES BIKE LANE BARRIERS BIKE CROSSWALK CONFLICT AREA STRIPING 05' 7' STRIPING AND PHYSICAL BARRIER TO SEPARATE VEHICULAR AND BICYCLE TRAFFIC 4" WHITE STRIPE BARRIER \ti 1cl~ • • • .~ ..;,_ ""'----4" BROKEN WHITE STRIPE 8" RAISED PAVEMENT PARKING CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TX-GENERAL AND DETAILS -SHEET 3 OF 3 SHEET NUMBER: C3 PROP BIKE RAMP & END BIKE LANE PROP SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TX-CONCEPTUAL PLAN -SHEET 1OF5 ®! 0 SCALE: 0 1" 2 100· + co co <( I-(/} I (/} :::::> CD w (.!) ~ 0 w (.!) w z ::i I (.) ~ ~ SHEET NUMBER: C4 ::::i Q NOTE: GREEN CONFLICTt STRIPING ACROSS 1-GEORGE~ BUSH DRIVE~ PROVIDED~ IN <( ANTICIP A TlON !OF1 COKE t STREET• RESTRIPING ~ AND1ADDITION OF BIKE FACILITIES. FINAL DESIGN TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TX-CONCEPTUAL PLAN -SHEET 2 OF 5 SCALE: 1· = 100' SHEET NUMBER: CS 0 SCALE: 0 1" = 100' + v N ...... <!. <( 'W ~ en :r. I en en :::> :::> co co uJ w (9 (9 ex: -0::: 0 0 uJ w (9 (9 uJ w z z :J ...J :r. I (,) (,) ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 + + v ('f) N ('f) ...... ...... ~ ~ en en I I en en :::> :::> co co w w (9 (9 0::: 0::: 0 0 w w (9 (9 w w z z :J I (,) ~ ~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TX -CONCEPTUAL PLAN -SHEET 3 OF 5 SHEET NUMBER: C6 ® 0 0 SCALE: 0 0 1· = 100' + + ("") N ("") -.;t" ...--...-- ~ <( I-Cl) Cl) I I Cl) -Cl) :::> :::> CD CD w w (!) (!) 0::: 0::: 0 0 w w (!) (!) w w z z ::i ::i I I (.) (.) I-I-<( <( ~ ::;;:: I DETAIL "A" I CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TX -CONCEPTUAL PLAN -SHEET 4 OF 5 SHEET NUMBER: C7 0 0 + N ~ ....... ~ (J) I (J) :::J al w (!) a:: 0 w (!) w z .....J I () I-<( :2 0 0 + 0 LO ....... W ... -L:'\ r---c:o.i:a..: (!) a:::l!P~ ... --~ o __ _.;;;._ w 1---=:.:;.__ ___ ...., (!) ----=-.;.._--1 ~ ~~~;;;;;--.....J ___ _ I () ~ ~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TX -CONCEPTUAL PLAN -SHEET 5 OF 5 ~ 0 SCALE: 0 1"= 100' + 0 LO ....... ~ (J) I (J) :::J al w (!) a:: 0 w (!) w z .....J I () I-<( ~ SHEET NUMBER: CB Base Bid I -.• lld Totol lndud .. 15" Conti . Minor Intersections, Orivewa . :se Bod II -Coke Street & Geor e Bush D .Crosson s, Non~ntersection Roadwa se Bid Ill • Bizzell Street & Geor e nv~ Intersection Base Bid IV. Texas Avenue & Geor Bush Drive Intersection Base Bid: Misc. Constructio C e Bush Drive Intersection , pect1ons, Material Testin En ineering, Survey, SUE, ~nv~;:~ . BASE IMO mental, City Project Management Ins . lot1~ ~--~~ l;~ t 2021 2022 2023 2024 435,600 545,405 137,360 171,9B3 363,0SO 2025 2026 2027 2028 20Z9 s 626,352 64B,6S2 671,844 s 695,964 s 197,496 204,524 211,834 s 219,436 s S22,03B 540,626 559,956 s 580,060 s 88,355 94,765 s 98,163 s s TABULATION OF BIDS HWY JOB CTY DIV TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AUSTIN 2347 3035 021 48 COUNTY BRAZOS PROJECT STP 2020(954)HES TYPE INSTALL RAISED MEDIAN NUMBER 07203035 TIME 107 WORKING DAYS $50,000 LIMITS FROM:BIZZELL ST MI SCELLANEOUS COST $15,000.00 (BIDDER 1 BIDDER 2 BIDDER 3 BIDDER 4 A L ITEM CODE T !TM DES SP BIDDER 2 1006003 ITEM DESCRIPTION BIDDER 3 PREPARING ROW(TREE)(5" TO 12" DIA) 600.000 1,400.000 CONTROL 3138-01-029 LENGTH 0.851 DATE 07/08/20 TO:BS 6-R $2,515,560.24 *****ESTIMATE ***** 2 417 981.60 LARRY YOUNG PAVING, $2,464,559.22 ANGEL BROTHERS HOLDINGS $2,527,492.26 KNIFE RIVER CORPORATION $3,012,066.82 BIG CREEK CONSTRUCTION, UNIT UNIT QUANTITY ENG EST EA 6.000 561.00 BIDDERS 4 FM CONTRACT CHECK CORP. -SOUTH LTD. BIDDER 1 420.000 1,000.000 1006028 370.000 1046011 40.000 1046017 30.000 1046029 1.000 1106001 15.500 1326021 25.000 PREP ROW (TREE PRUNING) 750.000 REMOVING CONC (MEDIANS) 22.600 REMOVING CONC (DRIVEWAYS) 23.250 REMOVING CONC (CURB OR CURB & GUTTER) 13 .150 EXCAVATION (ROADWAY) 55.000 EMBANKMENT (VEHICLE)(ORD COMP)(TY C) 51. 000 EA 27.000 500.00 380.000 BIDDERS 4 2,500.000 SY 358.000 16.00 7.700 BIDDERS 4 20.000 SY 347.000 16.00 7.700 BIDDERS 4 20.000 J 0 LF 336.000 10.00 9.600 BIDDERS 4 15.000 CY 128.000 12.00 62.500 BIDDERS 4 50.000 CY 47.000 50.00 53.000 BIDDERS 4 75.000 1606005 35.000 1626002 4.500 1686001 30.000 2766181 33.000 2766309 37.000 FURNISHING AND PLACING TOPSOIL 42.000 BLOCK SODDING 4.500 VEGETATIVE WATERING 87.500 CY SY MG CEM TRT(PLNT MX) (CL L)(TYD)(GRl-2)(6") SY 25.500 CEM TRT(PLNT MX)(CL L)(TY D)(GRl-2)(8") SY 42.000 3166026002 ASPH (HFRS-2P) GAL 17.000 13.700 3166403002 AGGR (TY-B GR-5 OR TY-L GR-5) CY 1,800.000 750.000 14.000 50.00 230.000 BIDDERS 4 75.000 736.000 8.00 6.300 BIDDERS 4 8.000 7.400 100.00 62.000 BIDDERS 4 50.000 222 .000 11.00 19.000 BIDDERS 4 50.000 71.000 15.00 32.500 BIDDERS 4 75 .000 82.000 3.20 15.500 BIDDERS 4 20.000 3.000 110.00 110.000 3406106003 D-GR HMA(SQ) TY-D PG64-22 140.000 154.000 3466014003 STONE-MTRX-ASPH SMA-D SAC-A PG76-22 122.000 103.600 3466058003 TACK COAT 2.500 3546021 8.500 3546024 5.000 3546045 1 .900 4.150 PLANE ASPH CONC PAV(0" TO 2") 11.100 PLANE ASPH CONC PAV(2" TO 4") 2.000 PLANE ASPH CONC PAV (2") 1.700 BIDDERS 4 500.000 TON 157.000 100.00 170.000 BIDDERS 4 200.000 TON 6,396.000 110.00 120.000 BIDDERS 4 125.000 GAL 11, 613. 000 3.50 3.800 BIDDERS 4 4 .000 SY 109.000 2.00 2.000 BIDDERS 4 6.000 SY 15,786.000 2.00 2.000 BIDDERS 4 3.500 SY 44,717.000 1.50 1.800 BIDDERS 4 2.000 3546057 6.900 3606054 100.000 4006005 55.000 4006006 80.000 4166030 220.000 4166031 260.000 PLANE ASPH CONC PAV (4") 5.000 SY CONC PVMT (CONT REINF-CRCP) (HES) (9") SY 91. 660 CEM STABIL BKFL 63.650 CUT & RESTORING PAV 480.000 DRILL SHAFT (TRF SIG POLE) (24 IN) 184.200 DRILL SHAFT (TRF SIG POLE) (30 IN) 270 .000 CY SY LF LF 4,413.000 2.80 3.500 BIDDERS 4 7.000 196.000 100.00 130.000 BIDDERS 4 200.000 367.000 116.00 89.000 BIDDERS 4 175.000 28.000 70.00 280.000 BIDDERS 4 250.000 42 .000 160.00 270.000 BIDDERS 4 200.000 11. 000 280.00 320.000 BIDDERS 4 275.000 4166034 360.000 4326001 1,600.000 4506052 150.000 DRILL SHAFT (TRF SIG POLE) (48 IN) 461.000 RIPRAP (CONC)(4 IN) 504.000 RAIL (HANDRAIL)(TY F) 94.700 4656557001 INLET (CURB)(SPL) 3,300.000 2,500 .000 4796005 450.000 ADJUSTING MANHOLES (WATER VALVE BOX) 2,675.000 5006001 MOBILIZATION 211,000.000 146,000.000 LF CY LF EA EA LS 5026001007 BARRICADES, SIGNS AND TRAFFIC HANDLING MO 3,000.000 12,000.000 44.000 415.00 440.000 BIDDERS 4 450.000 2.000 480.00 540.000 BIDDERS 4 750.000 192.000 100.00 90.000 BIDDERS 4 150.000 1.000 3,000.00 6,800.000 BIDDERS 4 2,500.000 1.000 712.00 125.000 BIDDERS 4 750.000 1.000 ~000~ BIDDERS 4 275,000.000 6 .000 8,000.00 10,000.000 5066034002 CONSTRUCTION PERIMETER FENCE 3.200 3.050 5066038002 TEMP SEDMT CONT FENCE (INSTALL) 3.600 3.680 5066039002 TEMP SEDMT CONT FENCE (REMOVE) 1.000 5066040002 3.600 5066043002 1.000 5286008 75.000 1.050 BIODEG EROSN CONT LOGS (INSTL) (8") 3.680 BIODEG EROSN CONT LOGS (REMOVE) 1.050 COLORED TEXTURED CONC (5") 93.200 LF LF LF LF LF SY BIDDERS 4 15,000.000 2,000.000 4.800 BIDDERS 4 3.500 740.000 ~ 5.600 3~ BIDDERS 4 3.000 ~\ 740.000 i--11 .00 1. 900 ~ l . ').,-~O\ \ ~ r{' BIDDERS 4 1.000 --4L\~ 970.000 ~ 5.600 BIDDERS 4 5.000 ~ 'VI>\. o/ 970 .000 1.900 \· ~ BIDDERS 4 1.000 2,591.000 96.00 63.000 BIDDERS 4 75.000 5296005 2.000 5296008 28.000 & 5296033 25.000 5296036 25.000 5306017 60.000 5316003 57.000 CONC CURB (MONO) (TY II ) 6 .310 CONC CURB & GUTTER (TY II) 68.440 (!) CONC CURB (LANDSCAPE) 47.750 CONCRETE CURB (SPECIAL) 16.190 DRIVEWAYS (CONC) (HES) 113 .600 CONC SIDEWALKS ( 6") 71. 500 0 ¥~ LF 241 .000 20.00 6.400 BIDDERS 4 20.000 ~ (S1 LF 96.000 27.500 BIDDERS 4 60.000 t. LF 48.000 30.00 23.000 BIDDERS 4 60.000 LF 7,945.000 30.00 19.000 BIDDERS 4 17.000 SY 347.000 95.00 90.500 BIDDERS 4 90.000 SY 2, 371.000 G ' 47.500 BIDDERS 4 75.000 5316004 1,800.000 5316005 2,700.000 5316010 1,800.000 5316013 2,200.000 5366002 55.000 5366006 55.000 5426001 10.000 CURB RAMPS (TY 1) 2,070.000 CURB RAMPS (TY 2) 2,350 .000 CURB RAMPS (TY 7) 2,143.000 CURB RAMPS (TY 10) 2,143.000 CONC MEDIAN 100.000 CONC MEDIAN(MONO NOSE) 165.300 REMOVE METAL BEAM GUARD FENCE 14.200 EA EA EA EA SY SY LF 3.000 1,700.00 1,500.000 BIDDERS 4 2,700.000 2.000 1,850.00 2,100.000 BIDDERS 4 2,800.000 8.000 1,850.00 1,500.000 BIDDERS 4 2,750.000 8.000 1,800.00 1,400.000 BIDDERS 4 2,750.000 252.000 100.00 60.000 BIDDERS 4 125.000 61. 000 130 .00 96.500 BIDDERS 4 125.000 164.000 3.00 5.900 6186023 7.000 6186037 16.000 6186046 8.500 6186047 10.000 6186058 13.000 6186059 15.500 CONDT (PVC) (SCH 40) (2") 21.050 CONDT (PVC) (SCH 40) ( 6" ) 121 .050 CONDT (PVC) (SCH 80) ( 2") 13. 350 CONDT (PVC) (SCH 80) (2") (BORE) 16.140 CONDT (PVC) (SCH 80) ( 4" ) 17.860 CONDT (PVC) (SCH 80) (4") (BORE) 22.420 LF LF LF LF LF LF BIDDERS 4 10.000 270.000 10.00 8.600 BIDDERS 4 25.000 230.000 18.00 19.500 BIDDERS 4 125.000 870.000 11.00 10.500 BIDDERS 4 15.000 275.000 23.00 12.000 BIDDERS 4 16.000 60.000 20.00 16.000 BIDDERS 4 17.000 655.000 27.00 19.000 BIDDERS 4 22.000 6206004 0.700 6206006 0.800 6206009 0.950 6206012 1.400 6206016 1.900 ELEC CONDR (N0.12) INSULATED 1.050 ELEC CONDR (N0.10) INSULATED 1. 320 ELEC CONDR (N0.6) BARE 1.580 ELEC CONDR (N0.4) INSULATED 2.110 ELEC CONDR (N0.2) INSULATED -4. 740 6246001 GROUND BOX TY A (122311) 530.000 1,366.000 LF LF LF LF LF EA 575.000 1.00 0.800 BIDDERS 4 1. 250 885.000 1. 25 0.900 BIDDERS 4 1.500 1,335.000 3.00 1.200 BIDDERS 4 1. 750 630.000 2.00 1.700 BIDDERS 4 2.250 270.000 2.45 2.300 BIDDERS 4 4.750 2.000 775 .00 660.000 BIDDERS 4 1,500.000 6246009 600.000 GROUND BOX TY D (162922) 1,765.000 6246010 GROUND BOX TY D (162922)W/APRON 850.000 1,030.000 6246028 92.000 REMOVE GROUND BOX 1,578.000 EA EA EA 6286144 4,600.000 ELC SRV TY D 120/240 060(NS)SS(E)PS(U) EA 8,906.000 6366001001 ALUMINUM SIGNS (TY A) SF 15.500 32.610 6366007001 REPLACE EXISTING ALUMINUM SIGNS(TY A) SF 15.500 36.840 6446001 425.000 IN SM RD SN SUP&AM TY10BWG(l)SA(P) 421. 000 EA 4.000 1,000.00 750.000 BIDDERS 4 2,000.000 10.000 1,000.00 1,100.000 BIDDERS 4 1,500.000 7.000 250.00 110.000 BIDDERS 4 2,000.000 1.000 6,000.00 5,700.000 BIDDERS 4 10,000.000 34.750 32.00 34.000 BIDDERS 4 20.000 8.000 25.00 44.000 BIDDERS 4 20.000 49.000 450.00 500.000 6446002 490.000 6446007 600.000 6446076 80.000 6626001 0.300 6626010 0.600 6626012 0.450 IN SM RD SN SUP&AM TY10BWG(l)SA(P -BM) EA 505.000 IN SM RD SN SUP&AM TY10BWG(l)SA(U) 616.000 REMOVE SM RD SN SUP&AM 79.000 WK ZN PAV MRK NON-REMOV (W)4"(BRK) 0.290 WK ZN PAV MRK NON-REMOV (W)8"(DOT) 0.580 WK ZN PAV MRK NON-REMOV (W)8"(SLD) 0.470 EA EA LF LF LF 9.000 2.000 70.000 3,245.000 170.000 15,086.000 BIDDERS 4 450.000 500.00 610.000 BIDDERS 4 500.000 600.00 710.000 BIDDERS 4 600.000 80.00 94.000 BIDDERS 4 95.000 0.36 0.400 BIDDERS 4 0.300 1.00 0.700 BIDDERS 4 0.500 0.69 0.600 BIDDERS 4 0.420 6626060 0.650 6626063 1.050 6626069 1. 550 6626071 1.250 6626080 155.000 6626090 155.000 WK ZN PAV MRK REMOV (W)4"(BRK) 0.840 WK ZN PAV MRK REMOV (W)4"(SLD) 1. 580 WK ZN PAV MRK REMOV (W)8"(DOT) 1. 530 WK ZN PAV MRK REMOV (W)8"(SLD) 1.420 WK ZN PAV MRK REMOV (W)(ARROW) 163.000 WK ZN PAV MRK REMOV (W)(WORD) 163.000 LF LF LF LF EA EA 3,080.000 0.80 1.000 BIDDERS 4 0 .630 700.000 0.80 1.900 BIDDERS 4 1.000 80.000 1.00 1.800 BIDDERS 4 1.500 2,066.000 1.00 1.700 BIDDERS 4 1.200 25.000 180.00 190.000 BIDDERS 4 150.000 25.000 230.00 190.000 BIDDERS 4 150.000 6626095 0.550 6626109 1. 550 WK ZN PAV MRK REMOV (Y)4"(SLD) 0.840 WK ZN PAV MRK SHT TERM (TAB)TY W 1.000 6666005007 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W)4"(DOT)(090MIL) 0.850 0.530 6666035007 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W)8"(SLD)(090MIL) 0.700 1.050 LF EA LF LF 6666041007 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W)12"(SLD)(090MIL) LF 2.500 3.160 6666047007 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W)24"(SLD)(090MIL) LF 5.200 6.050 6666053007 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W)(ARROW)(090MIL) EA 135.000 142.100 12,760.000 0.75 1.000 BIDDERS 4 0.530 1,232.000 1.00 0.600 BIDDERS 4 1.000 477.000 0.70 0.600 BIDDERS 4 0.800 4,518.000 0.80 1.300 BIDDERS 4 0.670 1,340.000 3 . 72 3.800 BIDDERS 4 2.330 2, 211.000 6.50 7.200 BIDDERS 4 5.000 28.000 130.00 170.000 BIDDERS 4 130.000 6666056007 REFL PAV MRK TY I(W)(DBL ARROW)(090MIL) EA 1.000 150.00 220 .000 270.000 185.000 BIDDERS 4 265.000 6666062007 REFL PAV MRK TY I(W)(UTURN ARW)(090MIL) EA 2.000 185 .00 210.000 310.000 175.000 BIDDERS 4 300.000 6666077007 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W)(WORD)(090MIL) EA 29.000 140.00 170.000 145.000 142.100 BIDDERS 4 143 .000 6666092007 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W)(RR XING)(090MIL) EA 2.000 425.00 370.000 560.000 310.500 BIDDERS 4 555.000 6666098007 REF PAV MRK TY I(W)18"(YLD TRI)(090MIL) EA 28.000 40.00 50.000 35.000 42.100 BIDDERS 4 33.000 6666104007 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W)(BIKE ARW)(090MIL) EA 38.000 275.00 94.000 100.000 79.000 BIDDERS 4 97.000 6666110007 REFL PAV MRK TY I(W)(BIKE SYML)(090MIL) EA 250.000 79.000 6666299007 RE PM W/RET REQ TY I (W)4"(BRK)(090MIL) LF 0.400 0.420 6666302007 RE PM W/RET REQ TY I (W)4"(SLD)(090MIL) LF 0.400 0.420 6666314007 RE PM W/RET REQ TY I (Y)4"(SLD)(090MIL) LF 0.500 0.420 6726007 5.100 6726009 5.100 REFL PAV MRKR TY I-C 4.210 REFL PAV MRKR TY II-A-A 4.210 EA EA 38.000 3,395.000 21,724.000 1,076.000 15.000 76.000 275.00 94.000 BIDDERS 4 247.000 0.41 0.500 BIDDERS 4 0.400 0.41 0.500 BIDDERS 4 0.360 0.41 0.500 BIDDERS 4 0. 500 4.00 5.000 BIDDERS 4 5.000 4.00 5.000 BIDDERS 4 5.000 6726010 4 .100 6776001 0.500 6776003 0.850 6776007 10.200 6776008 58 .000 6776012 58.000 6776023 53.000 REFL PAV MRKR TY II -C-R 4.210 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (4") 0.370 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (8") 0.470 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (24") 2.110 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (ARROW) 79.000 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MRKS (WORD) 79.000 EA LF LF LF EA EA ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MARKS (BIKE ARROW) EA 47.370 386.000 4.00 5 .000 BIDDERS 4 4.000 3,340.000 0.41 0.400 BIDDERS 4 0.470 12,840 .000 0.73 0.600 BIDDERS 4 0.800 34.000 2 .00 2.500 BIDDERS 4 10.000 2.000 50.00 94 .000 BIDDERS 4 57.000 2 .000 50.00 94.000 BIDDERS 4 57.000 36 .000 50.00 56.500 6776025 68.000 ELIM EXT PAV MRK & MARKS (BIKE SYMBOL) EA 47 .370 6806003006 INSTALL HWY TRF SIG (SYSTEM) 33,000.000 37,379.000 6806004006 REMOVING TRAFFIC SIGNALS 3,200.000 6826001 160.000 6826002 160.000 6826003 160.000 3,158.000 VEH SIG SEC (12")LED(GRN) 289.470 VEH SIG SEC (12")LED(GRN ARW) 289.470 VEH SIG SEC (12")LED(YEL) 289 .470 EA EA EA EA EA BIDDERS 4 52.000 36 .000 50 .00 56.500 BIDDERS 4 67.000 1.000 40,000.00 40,000.000 BIDDERS 4 40,000.000 1.000 11,200.00 4,000.000 BIDDERS 4 3,500.000 8.000 237.00 190.000 BIDDERS 4 300.000 4.000 250.00 190.000 BIDDERS 4 300.000 8.000 245.00 190.000 BIDDERS 4 300.000 6826004 160.000 6826005 160.000 6826006 160.000 6826018 420.000 6826023 70.000 6826024 80.000 VEH SIG SEC (12")LED(YEL ARW) 289.470 VEH SIG SEC (12")LED(RED) 289.470 VEH SIG SEC (12")LED(RED ARW) 289.470 PED SIG SEC (LED)(COUNTDOWN) 713 .000 BACK PLATE (12")(3 SEC) 110. 520 BACK PLATE ( 12" )( 4 SEC) 131. 580 EA EA EA EA EA EA 4.000 240.00 190.000 BIDDERS 4 300.000 8 .000 250.00 190.000 BIDDERS 4 300.000 2.000 230.00 190.000 BIDDERS 4 300.000 10.000 570.00 520.000 BIDDERS 4 750.000 6.000 110.00 85.500 BIDDERS 4 125.000 4.000 130.00 96.000 BIDDERS 4 150.000 6846031 1 .400 6846033 1 .700 6846049 1.100 6866032 9,000.000 6866056 21,500.000 6866264 25,000.000 6876001 1,900.000 TRF SIG CBL (TY A)(14 AWG)(5 CONDR) 1.870 TRF SIG CBL (TY A)(14 AWG)(7 CONDR) 2 .090 TRF SIG CBL (TY A)(16 AWG)(3 CONDR) 1.560 LF LF LF INS TRF SIG PL AM(S)l ARM(28')LUM&ILSN EA 10,409.000 INS TRF SIG PL AM(S)l ARM(50')LUM&ILSN EA 21,676 .000 IN TRF SG PL AM(S)2ARM(65 -28')LUM&ILSN EA 24,550.000 PED POLE ASSEMBLY 1,367.760 EA 2,510.000 1. 75 1.700 BIDDERS 4 2.000 2, 321.000 3 .00 2.100 BIDDERS 4 2.000 1,005.000 1. 50 1.400 BIDDERS 4 2.000 1.000 7,400.00 10,000.000 BIDDERS 4 10,000.000 1.000 18,000.00 30,000.000 BIDDERS 4 25,000.000 1.000 20,000 .00 30,000.000 BIDDERS 4 25,000.000 7.000 1,940.00 2,300.000 6886001 550.000 6886003 3,350.000 6906021 190.000 10026001 5,500.000 30776043 270.000 60006130 690.000 PED DETECT PUSH BUTTON (APS) 812.610 PED DETECTOR CONTROLLER UNIT 4, 191.000 REMOVAL OF TIMBER POLES 1,842.000 LANDSCAPE AMENITY 13,425 .000 SP MIXES SP-D SAC -B PG64-22 487.300 INSTALL LUMINAIRE 250 W EQ (LED) 623 .140 EA 9.000 EA 2 .000 EA 2.000 EA 2.000 TON 20.000 EA 3.000 BIDDERS 4 1,500.000 1,050.00 670.000 BIDDERS 4 1,000.000 3,500.00 4,000.000 BIDDERS 4 4,000.000 500.00 230.000 BIDDERS 4 2,000.000 6,200.00 20,000.000 BIDDERS 4 30,000.000 100.00 250.000 BIDDERS 4 500 .000 535 .00 860.000 BIDDERS 4 750.000 60016002 1,100.000 60036001 2,600.000 60046031 2.200 60076011 200.000 60106002 5,700.000 60106004 285.000 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 10,160.000 ITS SYSTEM SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 2,933.000 ITS COM CBL (ETHERNET) 3.910 EA LS LF FIBER OPTIC CBL (SNGLE-MODE)(12 FIBER) LF 79.000 CCTV FIELD EQUIPMENT (DIGITAL) 8,215.000 CCTV MOUNT (POLE) 850.000 EA EA 4.000 10,000.00 9,400.000 BIDDERS 4 10,000.000 1.000 4,000.00 3,200.000 BIDDERS 4 3,000.000 75.000 3.00 2.600 BIDDERS 4 4.000 20.000 3.00 240.000 BIDDERS 4 100.000 1.000 8,000.00 7,000.000 BIDDERS 4 10,000.000 1.000 1,200.00 350.000 BIDDERS 4 1,000.000 60586001 7,100.000 60906002 2,550.000 BBU SYSTEM (EXTERNAL BATT CABINET) 7,110.000 ILSN (LED) (8 D) 3,331.480 61856002002 TMA (STATIONARY) 150.000 221.000 61856005002 TMA (MOBILE OPERATION) 150.000 420.000 EA EA DAY DAY 61866002 2,500.000 ITS GND BOX(PCAST) TY 1 (243636)W/APRN EA 3,988 .210 63066001 9,500.000 63066003 1,250.000 VIVDS PROSR SYS 9,236.570 VIVDS CAM ASSY VAR LNS 1,934.150 EA EA 1.000 4.000 96.000 25.000 1.000 1.000 4.000 6,690.00 8,800 .000 BIDDERS 4 7,500.000 3,600.00 3,100.000 BIDDERS 4 3,500.000 200.00 260.000 BIDDERS 4 200.000 200.00 260.000 BIDDERS 4 250.000 3,000.00 3,100.000 BIDDERS 4 4,000.000 8,500.00 10,000.000 BIDDERS 4 1,000.000 1,800.00 1,500.000 63066005 2,800.000 63066007 1.300 VIVDS CNTRL SOFTWARE 4,000.000 VIVDS CABLING 2.680 EA 1 .000 LF 1,125.000 BIDDERS 4 2,500.000 750.00 3,400.000 BIDDERS 4 4,500.000 3.00 1.600 BIDDERS 4 3.000 PHASE CONSTRUCT ION CENERAL <All PHASES! ·THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE All TRAFFIC CONTROL WITH THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACENC(ES. -CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIF"Y THE CITY PROJECT MANAGER 30 DAYS PRIOR TO TRAFFIC SWITCHES OR INTERSECTION CLOSU! • .i. -DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR TO BACKFILL ALL EDGE DROP OFFS ro THAT Of EDGE CONDITION I P£R WORKSHE:H FOR EDGE COOITION TREATMENT TYPES. -UTILITY INSU.LLATIONS THAT Will BE INSTALLED BENEATH PROPOSED PAVEMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO PAVING OPERATIONS. ·LINCOLN, FRANCIS, !. GILCHRIST INTERSECTIONS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC WITHIN XX DAYS OF CLOSURE. CONTRACTOR MAY USE EARLY HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE TO MEET SCHEDULE. EARLY HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE WILL NOT BE PAID SEPARATELY BUT WILL BE SUBSIO[ARY TO CONCRETE PAVEMENL -PLACE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL AS WORK PROGRESSES. PHASE I 1LINC0LN TO FRANCISCTHROUCH INTERSECTION) I STEP I -SET UP PROJECT BARR !CADE, WARN INC SI CNS, CHANNEL! ZINC DEV ICES, ANO SW3P AS REQUIRED. CLOSE MUNSON INTERSECTION AT LINCOLN -INSTALL PROPOSED DRAINAGE IWROVEMENTS -REBUILD INTERSECTION AT LINCOLN AVENUE, STA 10•42 TO STA 11 •20, ANO REOPEN TO TRAFFIC STEP 2 -SET UP PROJECT BARRICADE, WARNING SIGNS, CHANNELIZING DEVICES, ANO SW3P AS REQUIRED. CLOSE ACCESS TO EASTBOUND TRAFF IC FROM LINCOLN TO FRANCIS. ST A l I • 2D TO ST A 24 • 32 -INSTALL 18M WATERLINE FROM LINCOLN TO WOODLAND PKWY -INSTALL SEWER ANO WATER SERVICE CONNECTIONS -REBUILD EASTBOUND LANE FROM LINCOLN TO FRANCIS, STA 11•20 TO STA 2'1•32 -CLOSE ANO BUILD SOUTHWEST SIDE OF FRANCIS INTERSECTION, STA 2'1•32 TO STA 25•16 STEP 3 -SET UP PROJECT BARRICADE, WARNING SIGNS, CHANNEUZINC DEVICES, ANO SW3P AS REQUIRED. CLOSE ACCESS TO WESTBOUND LANE FROM LINCOLN TO FRANCIS, STA 11 •20 TO STA 2'1•32 -REPLACE SEWER UNE IN PLACE -INSTALL SEWER SERV [CE CONNECT IONS -REBUILD WESTBOUND LANE FROM LINCOLN TO FRANCIS, STA 11 •20 TO STA 2'1•32 -CONTRACTOR TO PHASE ROSE CIRCLE CONSTRUCTION TO MAINTAIN ONE INTERSECTION OPEN AT ALL TIMES -CLOSE ANO BUILD NORTHEAST SIDE Of= f=RANCIS INTERSECTION, STA 24•32 TO STA 25•21 -[NSTALL PERMANENT SIGNS ANO FINAL MARKINGS WITHIN PHASE I BOUNDARIES PHASE 2 <FRANCIS TO DOMINIKI STEP 1 -SET UP PROJECT BARRICADE. WARNING SIGNS, CHANNELIZ ING DEVICES, AND SW]P AS REQUIRED. CONSTRUCT TE~ORARY CURB ANO PAVING CLOSE ACCESS TO EASTBOUND LANE FROM FRANCIS TO OOMINrK, STA 25•16 TO STA 4'1•16 -REPLACE SEWER LINE f'ROM FRANCIS TO DOMINIK ·INSTALL SEWER SERVICE CONNECTIONS -REBUILD EASTBOUND LANE FROM FRANCIS TO DOMINIK, STA 25•16 TO STA 44•16 STEP 2 -SET UP PROJECT BARRICADE, WARNING SIGNS, CHANNELIZING DEVICES, ANO SW3P AS REQUIRED. CLOSE ACCESS TO WESTBOUND LANE FROM FRANCIS TO OQ.41NIK, STA 25•2'1 TO STA 44•16 -PLACE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL CONDUIT -REPLACE NORTHEAST SEWER LINE AT CILCHR lST TO Tl[ lNTO NEW LINE ·REBUILD WESTBOUND LANE FROM FRANCIS TO DOMINIK, STA 25•21 TO STA 4'1•16 -INSTALL PERMANENT SIGNS ANO FINAL MARKINGS WITHIN PHASE 2 BOUNDARIES -FINAL CLEANUP OF PROJECT CORRIDOR CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAINTAIN CONTINUOUS ACCESS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION 2. TRAF'F'IC CONTROL DEVICES IN CONSTRUCTION AREA SHALL NOT BE PLACED WITH(N THE VEHICULAR SIGHT TRlANGLES AT INTERSECTIONS OR IN THE PATH Of PEDESTRIANS OR BICYCLISTS, BUT WITHIN THE ROW ]. ALL TCP SIGN SPACING ANO PLACEMENT SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT TMUTCO ANO SIZE:O FOR A "CONVENTIONAL" ROADWAY 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL cur ANO RESTORE PAVEMENT PER ST4-01 WHERE PROPOSED UTILITIES CROSS EXISTING PAVEMENT 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE LEVEL UP AT INTERSECTIONS, DRIVEWAYS, ETC. TO PROVIDE ACCESS WHERE EXISTING PAVEMENT ANO PROPOSED PAVEMENT GRADES 00 NOT MATCH ~1 ~I J_ ,. PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION ~ '---1 -, ~ PROP { MUNSON AVENUE I OLD { MUNSON AVENUE I I SOUTHWEST SIDE CLOSURE NOTE: REDUCE BUFFER TO 2· AND MAlNTAIN 11' TRAVEL WAY FROM STA 36•00 TO STA 42•50 PROP ( MUNSON AVENUE I EX[ST ROW !VARIES '11 ' -59' 50' USUAU 20' CONSTRUCT lON I. '10' TRAVEL WAY ~ w SIDEWALK ~ t I I _J_ I .» USUAL ~ 3% USUAl,.. ---- i~ l @-I NORTHWEST SIDE CLOSURE \ O' 75' 150' 300' LEGEND: PHASE l STEP I ™~ PHASE l STEP 2 rzzJ PHASE 1 STEP 3 1-S>\~SI PHASE 2 STEP I ~ PHASE 2 STEP 2 ~ 0 PORTABLE VERTICAL PANEL ~~~(~~I~~~ MAK REMOV THESE DOCLMENTS .t.RE FOR INTERIM REVIEW ANO NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING OR PERM! T PURPOSES. RESPONSIBLE ENGINEER: BRANDON M. BOATCALLIE, P.E. TEXAS REGISTRATION NO. 97419 1112512015 CnY oF Cou .EGF. STATION ~ Binkley & Barfield, Inc U co1~,~~~2.,~~iF~~ers MUNSON AVENUE REHABILITATION TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN KEY MAP PROJECT NlMBER SHEET NUMBER STl,.02 8 ITEM QTY UNIT I.OJ 1.0 LS 1.02 10 EA I 03 56.0 LF 1.04 10 LS 1.05 14.0 EA 1.06 3 0 EA 1.07 60 0 SF I 08 20 EA 1.09 1.0 LS 1.10 20.0 LF ITEM QTY UNIT 2.01 45 2 SF 2.02 66.4 SF 2.03 1,807.9 SF 2.04 1,367.3 LF ITEM QTY UNIT 3 01 9,612.9 SF 3.02 2,090.2 SF 3.03 2.0 EA 3.04 15.0 EA 3.05 10 LS 3 06 1.503.4 LF 3.07 681.0 SF City of College Station -Purchasing Division Bid Tabulation for #19-094 "Munson Avenue Sidewalk Improvements" Open Date: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 @ 2:00 p.m. PAWMARES CONSTRUCTION, INC. (BRYAN, TX) DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE Mobilization I Demobilization $23,000.00 $23,000.00 Erosion Control Log for stockpiling Refuse (I 00' -Moveable, Re-$1.20000 $1,200 00 Usable) Curb Inlet Run-Off Protection (Sandbags) $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Traffic Control Implementation $8,000 00 $8,000.00 Sign Removal & Replacement (includes galvanized hardware) $300.00 $4,200.00 Water Meter, Water Valve Height Adjustment $200.00 $600.00 Grass Sod Replacement (Bermuda) $5 00 $300.00 Irrigation Relocate $1,200.00 $2,400.00 Crosswalk Pavement Markings $6,500.00 $6,500.00 Pedestrian Guard Rail Detail SW 1-0 I $125.00 $2,500.00 UB-TOTAL I $49,700.00 DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE Demo Existing 4' Ramp (Includes removal & disposal) $23.00 $1,039.60 Saw Cut and Lower Concrete Storm Box Sta 8+55 $37.70 $2,503 28 Driveway Removal (Asphalt/Cone up to 6") includes removal & disposal $2.75 $4,971 73 2' Wide, 6" Curb & Gutter Section Removal (Includes up to 2' wide, 7" $3.50 $4,785 55 deep Asphalt Pavement removal & disposal SUB-TOTAL II $13,300.16 DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 4" Thk Reinforced Concrete Sidewalks (includes grubbing, ground $6.25 $60,080.63 preparation) 6" Thk. Commercial Concrete Driveway -Detail ST2-03 (includes $7.00 $14,63 1.40 subgrade preparation) New 10' A.DA Ramp (Detail SW3.03) $2,000.00 $4,000.00 New 6' A.DA Ramp (Use Detail SW3 04) $1,800.00 $27,000.00 4" Thk. Concrete Channel Crossing Sta 20+ 75 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 2' Wide, 6" Raised Curb & Gutter Section $10.00 SI 5,034 00 6" Wide Asphalt Pavement Repair (Detail ST4-0I) $3.50 $2,383.50 SUB-TOTAL Ill $129,629.53 TOTAL BASE BID (1+11+111) $192,629,68 Page 1of1 PA LASOTA OCC CONSTRUCTION (BRYAN,TX) CORP. (COLLEGE STATION, TX) UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $9,600.00 $9,600.00 $1,000 00 $1,00000 $600.00 $600.00 $10 00 $560 00 $12 00 $672.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3, 120.00 $3,120.00 $500 00 $7,000.00 $420.00 $5,880.00 $800 00 $2,400.00 $600.00 $1,800.00 $10 00 $600 00 $8.40 $504.00 Sl,00000 $2,000 00 $2,400 00 $4,800.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $9,600.00 $9,600.00 $200.00 $4,000 00 $480.00 $9,600.00 $64,560.00 $46,176.00 UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE $10 00 $452.00 $18.24 $824.45 $50 00 $3,320 00 $45.60 $3,027.84 v----$5 00 $9,039.50 $4.20 $7,593.18/ Lf· $40.00 $54,692.00 SS 64 $7,71 1.f tf.51 $67,503.50 $19,157.04 ' r-_. UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE $6.00 $57.677 40 $7.80 $74,980.62 /, $6.00 $12,541.20 $7.80 $16,303.56 $1,000.00 $2,000 00 $456.00 $912.00 $800.00 $12,000.00 $420.00 $6,300.00 $2,000 00 $2,000 00 $21,600 00 $21 ,600.00 $30.00 $45, 102 00 $19.80 $29,767.32 $10.00 $6,810.00 $4.80 $3,268.80 $138,130.60 $153,132.30 $270,194.10 $218,465.34 EB-6026-TOWN OF BELVILLE-BELVILLE ELEMENTARY-MULTI-USE PATH Project Description: The project consists of the construction of a multi-use path of eight feet (8') wide located along NC 133 connecting north and south entrances of Hawks Water Development to Belville Elementary School. Project Status and Next Steps: The agreements have been executed The Town has selected Withers & Ravenel as the engineer An Addendum ha::. been issued for a 6-month extension on the let date. Project design is on hold due to NCDOT budget shortfall. EB-6027-NEW HANOVER COUNTY-MIDDLE SOUND GREENWAY Project Description: Design only of the Middle Sound Greenway connection to Ogden Park Project Status and Next Steps: • Survey complete • 25% drawings submitted to NCDOT in late April 2020 • MPO Board approved a reduction in the scope of the project at their May meeting EB-6028-CITY OF WILMINGTON-215r STREET/MARKET HAWK SIGNAL Project Description: Design and construction of a HAWK signal at the pedestrian crossing at Market Street and 21st St:eet Project Status and Next Steps: • Pre-Design scoping meeting with Davenport Engineering and NCDOT Division Personnel occurred on 2/20. • Scope of design defined, but this scope was much larger than initially anticipated. Adjustment to PE Authorization will be needed. • NCDOT Manday estimate for issuance of task order is currently under NCDOT review. • Once the Manday estimate is approved by NCDOT, the project will be placed on indefinite hold until such time as NCDOT addresses the Cash Balance issue. All projects have been asked to get to a stopping place due to NCDOT's inability to pay for work. • Survey and Design for NCDOT review. EB-6029-TOWN OF CAR"lLINA BEACH -CLARENDON AVENUE MULTI-USE PATH Project Description: Construction of the Clarendon Avenue multi-use path from 4th Street to Dow Road Project Status and Next Steps: • The Town is evaluating the scope for the project. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Project Description/Scope: UNCW is taking the role as lead employer for the Cape Fear region. The WMPO will coordinate with UNCW to work with other major employers in the region to identify opportunities for public outreach, marketing, carpooling, van pooling, alternative/compressed work schedules, Emergency Guaranteed Ride Home, park and ride lots, etc. The MPO adopted "Work Cape Fear: Expanding Commuter Options in the Cape Fear Region" TOM Short Range Plan on January 28, 2015 and also authorized c;taff to apply for a TDM grant through NCDOT that funded a full-time TOM Coordinator pos ition. The Agreement with NCDOT for the full-time TDM Coordinator position was approved on November 4, 2015. The TDM program works to increase active transportation initiatives and increase community knowledge of commuter options. The MPO finalized the Strategic Marketing Plan for the "Go Coast" program. In addition, the WMPO has been working with the City of Wilmington to implement a bike share program. The TDM program has continued to grow and progress and below are project status and next steps. Project Status and Next Steps: Initiatives 1. Bike Share a. Bike Share Selection Committee Reviewing RFP response from Koloni Bike Share b. Developing analysis for bike share programs in the region . Specifically how other municipalities fund bike share programs. 2. Social Media a. Posting at least twice per week on WMPO Facebook, Twitter, and lnstagram and Go Coast lnstagram 3. Watch For Me NC a. Wilmington will partner with NCDOT for 2020 Watch For Me NC bicycle and pedestrian safety program. NCDOT announced partners in April for applications that were submitted in March 2020. b. Partners currently include Go Coast, Wilmington Police, Wilmington Fire, NHRMC, UNC Wilmington, and City of Wilinington Traffic Engineering 4. Applied for Bicycle Friendly Community with the League of American Bicyclists for City of Wilmington a. Wilmington was designated a Bronze Level Community in 2015, waiting on LAB for new designation 5. Short Range TDM Plan a. This plan will outline all TDM strategies that may be implemented in the WMPO region within one to five years. Draft one complete and to be reviewed by the Go Coast Committee. 6. Go Coast Committee approved creation of the Go Coast Bicycle Helmet Program in February 2020 a. This program will provide 100 free helmets to WMPO area residents in spring of 2020 through Watch for Me NC and Go Coast events. Waiting to plan events for WFMNC when COVID 19 restrictions end. 7. Applying for CASSI ,'\utonomic Vehicle three month grant for Carolina Beach and Downtown Wilmington. Application deadline has been extended to July 31, 2020 8. Bike Month a. Go Coast held a virtual Bike Month for the month of May. Over 100 individuals registered to participate and report their bike trips during May. Data is being reported through Survey Monkey surveys and will be gathered after May 31st. WILMINGTON URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGNAIZATION BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE TOWN OF NAVASSA'S APPLICATION TO THE 2020 NCDOT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLANNING GRANT INITIATIVE WHEREAS, the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization provides transportation planning services for the City of Wilmington, Town of Carolina Beach, Town of Kure Beach, Town of Wrightsville Beach, Town of Belville, Town of Leland, Town of Navassa, New Hanover County, Brunswick County, Pender County, Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority and the North Carolina Board of Transportation; and WHEREAS, to encourage the development of comprehensive bicycle plans and pedestrian plans, the North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation has created a matching grant program to fund plan development; and WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation is accepting proposals from communities for the 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Grant Initiative until June 30, 2020; and WHEREAS, the program gives municipalities across the state an opportunity to develop comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans; and WHEREAS, the Town of Navassa desires to submit an application to CDOT for the 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Grant Initiative for the completion of a combined Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee of the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization hereby supports an application by the Town of Navassa to the North Carolina Department of Transportation for the 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Grant Initiative. ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee on June 91\ 2020. Carol Stein, Chair Abby Lorenzo, Secretary ,I Soo ooo -.. - ~I l I - - 6 (tf(V\ 1-n-t~ v.p ·~ Jf-CC-~t• 51~ ~!"L.~ ...... -~ ,;, " - ' ---- scJ!.es h--'l· ~~ 0 - hi~ t~~ol_--~le...~ ..f1iv-A,~ tb't---~~-.S-'· U.p if/Co u -- ~1-~-=-.,./--'°"'"' ~ 1=~~17 II -~~~l ~~ --A-~ --O~U-F~ ------~"6. 2-~C.(l.o~~,,;- ~ I IJ : : II 4 11 I ?>41 {+. o<i 2- ;;L{O 1bD ()\ti. Shutt sW-s _,_4_;:_ ___ _ ----++-' hon 5,cJ.~ +ex~~W -----U.-- - - --------------- lw~ .,.i/D~--_ ----++-_ -Rh.ffv\.c,i_~ fO':!-W -..,:_17 ___________ _ -- ---------- _ \.J~(.Vt. ___________ _ ---!+--C~th-t -~ ~ ...-.i7 ~-----------___, II i--=fJ -~ f::ton<tJ B~h. -----=-----~'' ---ShNteJ..VVJG (!_~ ~ ooo_. ___ ..__.,..... __ _ eitti. . - tM> r -Pr tt(,<v ' , - I, 2-J ~ 1 S r I I z_ 3 --~ [2-'~s-+ ~T -- ----+<\· - -l5· ~ ---------- ---@I ~~~ b~f{ui--I Z----------___.-:;...~1 ----------~.~+~~~------- 0 ~g~&5~~-----~-- II ~------------_ ___,_,,,,., I u :!PJ; 000 v-....,.. i ~-!:l~r 01t- ~c<, ~lL " If ~ .• II o&a>I r----- -1-L/ J, ~;;;;...;>" r---~~-4e~-~~-~-"N\-~--~---- ~ --- r----------', ---------- ~--,.S_b)~~~ ~--___ ,..,.. i-----------~---- ~rr"d - 1-----~~~-C"{;Qj . ~?/ rJo/ -~s _, -I---'--"'"-------------__ ~Jc-t ~~ 4-vrf~'(Yf~J __. . ~ -- -------_Z -·~ t~a .._._ __ ------W,}M'J ~dd I -:.-~~-- · ~s~-so ~.,"f'Jh.A.1 I ~· flt1ot~~t g Ii II ______ a p~tj~Vi ~ -o--, _______________ _ Qto~~ -G~_,ei~s~. ---fw\~<tl&> ----------~~ o ±qt1· r ~ se 01'-~ · _____________ __ s+ 5.10- ------~b -~~~ ~. s~.Mt-~""· ---r Q~ 5/10/1-1 -M+:J-~ J ~t -__ ~~.,~ w /A t.<1V\SlA-l~t_:__t-~. -~z.-.\ic~ -~kufE,i-kzt1c~ + ~--: l/Pe ot s~~1~ , _ _If,., ~ - 8 -~~Ye _. ____ " - ~ ~ 5ru~p~ _;-iS5~CA"'-~ ~IL~~-~ ~ -~ ry-~~c.t./-e>o"ft.-t. dJ<;~d!_J ~ ~d.... ~(.l -- ----------~--- 5/ZA ------ ----<Hf------(067\) ~ ---------1 ~ ,.. e~s_:_ ___ _ ----- --------. \/\./'\,.. --______ yv11cj-/ Dlsws~i~ _~/ ~ t\"ir-~ J"t'-tf 5/01-~/}/0i-,1_ _____ __ -D~o~il.s-> __ ~---------1 --~-------- ~ 51'-k u<f--kx..<-~ D p.J....l riLJ... d-.1.ac..e P"j 1Z--F:' ·~t-tf · --------- -----~~~ ' -~~ tA,t..?od S: I+. ----- ------ ------ --· .......----------- ·. ---- I --~---- r:Aeo ---~ ---------- ____ 12/z,, leltk~~ kwls~------------ ___ _.. 1/l0 /2-0'1, M~ G~. -·12.tN 1S~S fu 2--010 MTP-__ _ --- I~ _____ ...___.__ -----~--- ~J.. -ti-<, ~Lf S' MT P ? ----""'---- -------~--------1 ~~LL ~ CA f> ~,,£_ -~-....-......----- -~-~--- -------+.!--------------~\' -~ v ___ _..,__._~Y'~ -G'\t!Jfai ~y.._ _________ ~ . \,1\.-- C~v>/$~--- _. ___ J -~ ------ ------- _____ _fM'2-~l&~ ho~/ Pc"t-~ ------ _____ --t-t-------kF1\_, ~~ ~ ~ of-~ BtPrW:-h-A:h .... __. ___ _ ?iio ~ r-~ -+c c1.PllJ., p1Vo ~ r-1 ~ · __ -----w-------P-"'° ~~ pllf(t-- ---- lltM~ ~ C,o ~ ~ ~d-.i t-~ 4l1,~U2..._· - S~~K°fLd billfL_J~. -----it---x-c,~e--''~ . . lol.--tfh_ ~ ~ ~t ( ~ ~~c..L . ------- -~ . v--· J.J._ w-..e. l-~ . ------- g;..U._ de,s u~ , -~E=-Q p~ -~ /\..t.fa'l~~S" ~~dJ.pt: . _____ ,,___ -~DVl,_""'()~e,(f., ~~, it(!.,r.../j/°Vl-Ok1~ ~~-- ____ -~run--* ~t e~chd\.~ · II 1P ,<o.• <q<1. -) 12-0~ ti~ . ---- ----------------- -------------- -""71,. Cf n--vYYh.f q; Cl I ~ . -. " . . I -----"'-< ~Slii -~ 1\-~ l~ ________ , -----··· ....___ . -... ~<;~uh-~--~ *~ ~ ~ ~'Ul"Y\A'4-.,, ___ _. ____ -----------~ _____ BP& ~c.l_ Et ~o ~I._· ____ _ ~~l"l -P -,-1-fi.<, ,J,_,. "'" ,r:::-.4,_.., Py [ ~ i 511;, ac 0_14 ,--~- ~'-t (~ -----------------1 __ ____. CtJJ-wJ S~. -Sf i4/i_i. __ _ -----------~-- N~X-t £~. ________________ __. --'-------"-~ ~= S-usf\YI ------+----------- - ------------------- ---------------------'