The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3 Rock Prairie Rd. SH5 to Town LakeI. Desc~ pPopo~ 2.~~ 3. ~tn"~-t ~~ . . 'BOG 5"':'! ..... G~ bi lLt ... Am-c.... ~ ~l&...e...~ t ~ I 0'°J M.A tu-~t \ 2.. .,.. i c~~~~, ~~~'~ (S~M ""'-~) ~~~k~--1~. r~~ ~ olcJ..c.w<:f~f1'-) ' ~~~-( ~ ~ ~ l1V'-n-<)~) t:=:l i f-~~ -s~~1+ ~ ~ !>~£~ /-11'-k.t- t <hr ~ ~u... ~I p~po~~ ~~&~o~~s: 1($$.?? ~oolL~ u,t~ -''C-lM_.~ I c... \ -r+-.s ""b t-A-bi 1 LL r 1vfk a·~ A~~cR. !;, l LL. { ll"'1--L. I v. ~ .$~ct. ~~ ~ -Gf1.A-°tL . I Vw.,,~ W~~v1~C~ m-L -/:'~~ -'t:zo1.. bi I 0 frt.-<_ I .... -I ~~t1Wt~" I --.... fJo r.>~(., l/\ ~-·"k: ""'-~ l . ::fl l-\JA~ ~~~~~~ (fte_,b(G A-~ 0rL&/trN-o ~- I ., \)OIL@_ c.,o5"f( · . -nu tJo ~ W>vd0 -~ I 0(5'='2v ~ - ~ Ne.(,~, _w /CJfVLD - ~ . &~o . totO 6Pb -'5>il<L-/~ ~~tdLVl~'-1· vqi. 12{+ ~ OYl <;~~~;k. --- --VVl""lllf-Z-Ot ~ -r?>Pb dA ~ . ~~~ (2~~ Ph f 02-. lo{iz.,{z.o1g . ---~~~-pt>~~ toff-v;d-L.p4J,.., e ~ ~Prz~_:Rol -------~ e · ~-·~~-------~~~~~~t~~A"'\~$~~~---- ----~-.P-~ iv ~1-------\----11--...----ht\~ ,s. ~ bill<-/~. ~ i I - I~ II! l ~ ' Iii : . ·~ , - li ~I =· ll .. •., • ' 5 II I! I I . l j . .,. -·-----~~ -~~ - 11 t 2iG ~ II I /\f'\11 - -~ I ---·~PoL l$)U ~ ... "' ·~ ... ~?-wp?-P "'(J7N ------------~-~?P . ~~ ~st" -------------------~ ~ w/ ~ ·& Pltt ~ fVV\.·. ttr-tJ-:f00trV1 3o rJj 0 wJl~ . ~ -~4<_. VVAI ---~__.,.(~LS~~~ v.>ro~S. ~ ~ ............. ,. ..... "'~""------- .___ __ --'h--l6'MA_ LJr1u...-DP1v<.-!1 .. .___ ----------- Stfiq {0 1lv-M-wlv . ---------------~ ----::------~------------~ ~~~~ --~~~~~~~~~~~ 3~ ()00 t ~- -----++---~ ----------------~t~ -S+;ll ~ ~ he..-tVJ~L -- f -~ ~-&~1stvw /h-J.,.{~~- - ~~1LNf ~st+~ -fu1'Z-b11k. /f'n-{.. -4 ~ JL c>f. prz.-oJ f' cA-· · I - $eG '2.o'ZA I 'Rut;\~ <ao~. Ptfr'.A > I '&llLL~~ ~(..... I Loolc.B ~ LL.u~ ~ ~~ ~5~ Sec~~ II . ~l~i-t'-"'V\t--1 \ c c..i,O"'A t I 5 t1-ft iilufl r.v, ~ . .. I ~ II I r ll .... Ill i 1: 11· i II 11 I II -5VUclfc\ o~ b-'Z"l~ \Ct f 'S . ,.. I )~~ <Qltvnl " ~'A( ( ~~ ( ~1?'d --Z'LO't Jct\\\ I n~rA v~ ........._ Rock Prairie Road 60% Comments • We'd like to discuss the cross section that is proposed vs . the last schematic that was discussed . The goal with separated bike lanes is to create a space designed for all ages and abilities that feels safe and comfortable and encourages more bicyclists to use the space . Rock Prairie Road is also proposed to be a 45 -mph road with 11.5' wide lanes. The proposed configuration would be simil ar to biking on Texas Ave sidewalks between Holleman and FM 2818 though Texas Ave has wider outside lanes of 15' so it has additional 'buffer' between the two as opposed to what is being proposed. Either way it is not a space that most adults much less a child would feel comfortable using given the speed and volume of the roadway . To minimize the number of edges that need to be maintained, which we think was the intent of the change that was made to back of cur l> bike lanes, we'd like to propose the following for consideration: ~BoC direction given by CMO I a. In general, for sections with limited ROW and where the proposed section is 12' back of Per meeting with EF 12/21/21 we will not be curb, please make it 12' (6' of operating space for each for the bicyclist and the pedestrian) nfr~rn"'llft'ftlffiiMn!r+-f1mir'litTnmm~thlil!Wl~~~~tamp ef:ProloFe&€onerete-Of"bAGK paver-s. triprng=amtmar kmgs-('dir-ectienak!rf ews-anc:Hlikeofane symbols}>W iff als<:Hleed to ~dd . between·t he-bik.e..f anerand"Sidewalk. eas e=ref.er -t o t he4=tithe Street est Gross-s~e tio att hoaghrstH ·efin'ing'th desigff)1fe an-~ampf e"O he-stripingob etween4ne>t wo-uses. tie z' widthr{-0r ide.-..where=possi bf e}--£oufd be4he-sf>a Ge4'o f signage4 hat ·s eededrasxlongoca: he sigrK.l oe.s , "nteffce r~tth tfle=oper:-atil'lg"'5pa €e-Ae ede<M-0 iking e m€ally..an -----------f:l1nrtrontatty~ there is a second path behind the conflicts to i. For the first portion of the westbound section between Rock Prairie Road and the accommodate peds . commercial driveway, the existing sidewalk that is proposed to become the bike e r o OR an raffi lane is only 6' and is not wide enough adjacent to a 11.5' travel lane. here is also a engineer fo r requirements drainage inlet at Station 2.5 that narrows it down to 4' which is not functional as a and min dimensions for bike lane based on the width and the pedestrian railing that exists . fh1S>Se€t~o n bike path. Also consider hott l ~revised using4he=G r-0s~e etionod eser ibed abov . ending west bound bike path at driveway STA : ii. In locations where there are conflicts with existing poles, the operating width could 3+50 and leaving sidewalk go down to 5' each (bike lane and sidewalk)-w hi~e4rl a1ntainin ~ oc-hrbt.t.ffe s to Hwy 6 intersection-po.ssibte.betw.@@f'l ihe=troavel~afle=af'ld t.fte.ooombine~ik ~an e JsidewaJk seeti on.. An discuss at meeting example of this conflict is at Station 6.5 . discuss inlet location with EOR Station 9.5 lias a drainage inlet and a power pole whi ch restricts the opera t ing space needed for both the bike lane and sidewalk. Please move the drainage inlet to maintain the operating space of 6' each for the bicyclist and pedestrian . Per meeting with EF 12/21/21 we will not be striping at this time b. In general , for sections with additional ROW, pfease-m ov~th e-cc..embine&bik~anef-stdewaff< fortheF awa '("fFOA'l"the wr~srpossible . This still creates only/at most 3 edges to maintain vs. 5 edges with the previous schematic and achieves the goal described above to create a safer and more comfortable space for users. i. For the back of curb bike lane section between Bird Pond to Town Lake -either dd e-Ou ffe r~twee l'l>th bik ane.and.tr:av.el lanes or 11Q.teotiall se.t~e.exi s ttng ' share--u~a th>Witfl.str~pin g-and mar.k~n g.s "'5 epa r at . bike=a1ut.pedxuser ii. For section that has an existing sidewalk on the eastbound side -perhaps use brick pavers between the existing sidewalk and the proposed bike lane to help creat e a j~ transition between the existing and proposed concrete . space varies 5'-13'; plan to ' sod )(-.~· '----~~~~~~~----' .\\\~ So ~et-i, p t~o)?O~~ ~ .. rBD; testing this at _uther, discuss at neeting iii. For sections where a retaining wall is proposed, potentially provide a grade change between the curb and the combined bike lane/sidewalk section. If the retaining wall is still needed, place it on the sidewalk side . ~will defer to EoR I We would also like to see the addition of green crosswalk lines for the bicyclist's portion at driveways and intersections in addition to the white crosswalk lines that would be used for pedestrians . Moving bicyclists off the road and into an adjacent space creates a safety concern when there are turning vehicles who aren't expecting bicyclists especially if bicyclists are going the wrong way. This is the highest cause of crashes between bicyclists and motorists. ~KH will correct this I • Ramps -It appears the ramp widths 4fa ry across the corridor. (For example, ramps across Scott & White Drive are 8' wide, 7.5' wide at Stonebrook and ramps at Town Lake are 5' and 7.5') Please make them a consistent width of 10' wide to accommodate both biking and walking. ook at alts with EoR, traffic; discuss at meeting a. Station 3.5 Detectable warnings/ramps are needed at this commercial driveway. b. Stonebrook Drive intersection will need to be discussed and reconfigured . Ramps need to be 10' wide and the existing sidewalks along each Stonebrook approach are located on the west side while the pedestrian crossing is being proposed only on the east side. I .. t .th E R ~-Please look at the design of the ramp on the northeast corner at Dublin Pkwy . The Dublin .rev1s1 w1 o ~ . . . . sidewalk t1e -m with a flare on the ramp seems unusual. dwill follow-up with streets/traffic I • We would like to discuss the location of the light poles . The current locations at back of curb probably aren't feasible based on 11.5' travel lanes and the desire to not have poles as it relates to safety for vehicles as well as to the possibility that they are within the operating space of the bicyclists and pedestrians . We could consider placing the poles between the bike lane and sidewalk. / We would also like to discuss the bike/ped crossing at Town Lake Drive and if we want ...; ramps/crossings at this time without proposing stop moveme . . . . · Pond alignment also needs to be a factor in the design. we w1_11 not add cros.smg at th1~ time -ramps rossm to future aird Pond will b removed . • Label the existing PUEs and PAEs from the Scott & White plat · • • • • Scott & White Drive, Stonebrook Drive and Medical Avenue . Relocate the light pole at the intersection of Town Lake Drive that is in the a roach on the north side for the future Bird Pond Rd realignment. will evaluate pole location and spacing Stop bars on Bird Pond Rd, Town Lake Dr, and Dublin Pkwy do not appear to be the minimum of 4' back from crosswalk. ~verify with EoR I Provide an eastbound right turn lane for Medical Avenue to continue turn lane pattern done at Scott & White Drive and Stonebrook Drive. Yverifying requirement with Kimley Horn Revise the design at Town Lake ·veto better accommodate a future eastbound right turn lane to Town Lake. design to remain, revisions will occur with next phase . Traffic responses and guidance are in red . We'd like to discuss the cross section that is proposed vs. the last schematic that was discussed . The goal with separated bike lanes is to create a space designed for all ages and abilities that feels safe and comfortable and encourages more bicyclists to use the space . Rock Prairie Road is also proposed to be a 45 -mph road with 11.5' wide lanes . The proposed configuration would be similar to biking on Texas Ave sidewalks between Holleman and FM 2818 though Texas Ave has wider outside lanes of 15' so it has additional 'buffer' between the two as opposed to what is being proposed . Either way it is not a space that most adults much less a child would feel comfortable using given the speed and volume of the roadway . To minimize the number of edges that need to be maintained, which we think was the intent of the change that was made to back of curb bike lanes, we'd like to propose the following for consideration : In general, for sections with limited ROW and where the proposed section is 12' back of curb, please make it 12' (6' of operating space for each for the bicyclist and the pedestrian) ~-.traffic response : According to the AASHTO guide for bicycle facilities the minimum operating space for a ~e.,., ~ ~€'bi cycle is 48 inches (4 feet) and the preferred is 60 inches (5 feet). For pedestrians we should consider cP J ~"' wheelchairs to be the minimum width for peds. According to the Texas accessibility standards (TAS) the ~ tf°t,~ minimum width shall be 32 inches at a point, 36 inches continually. The minimum width for two wheelchairs to pass is 60 inches . In sections with limited ROW we have more wiggle room than what was said in the comment. Fo r the first portion of the westbound section between Rock Prairie Road and the commercial driveway, the ex isting sidewalk that is proposed to become the bike lane is only 6' and is not wide enough adjacent to a 11.5' travel lane. There is also a drainage inlet at Station 2.5 that narrows it down to 4' which is not functional as a bike lane based on the width and the pedestrian railing that exists. • According to the BCS unified design guidelines, a sidewalk along streets classified as minor collector and larger shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width (located 4 feet from the back of curb) or 8 feet in width when located adjacent to the back of curb. In all circumstances, a minimum clear pedestrian width of 4 feet shall be provided • Looking at the AASHTO guide for bicycle facilities, it says that a share used path can have a width ~ of 8 feet if: ~ y---. J_,ef o Bicycle traffic is expected to be low \"" ~~ o Peds use of the SUP is not expected to be more than occasional \><' S ~ o Passing and resting opportunities along the SUP are provided 'f o The SUP will not be subject to frequent maintenance vehicle loading conditions In locations where there are conflicts with existing poles, the operating width could go down to 5' each (bike lane and sidewalk) while maintaining as much buffer as possible between the travel lane and the comb i ned bike lane/sidewalk section . An example ofthis conflict is at Stat ion 6.5. Traffic response: Traffic addressed this in our 65% comments Station 9.5 has a drainage inlet and a power pole which restricts the operating space needed for both the bike lane and sidewalk. Please move the drainage inlet to maintain the operating space of 6' each for the bicyclist and pedestrian. No comment. CIP and the project manager will know how to best resolve this. In general, for sections with additional ROW, please move the combined bike lane/sidewalk further away from the curb as possible . This still creates only/at most 3 edges to maintain vs. 5 edges with the previous schematic and achieves the goal described above to create a safer and more comfortable space for users. For the back of curb bike lane section between Bird Pond to Town Lake -either add a buffer between the bike lane and travel lanes or potentially use the existing 10' share-use path with striping and markings to separate bike and ped users. Please , no striping. We allowed striping at Lincoln and luther west as a test case only. For section that has an existing sidewalk on the eastbound side -perhaps use brick pavers between the existing sidewalk and the proposed bike lane to help create a transition between the existing and proposed concrete. \~ No comment. Provided picks of SUP on College (SH 308) as an example for possible solution . Se~ f For sections where a retaining wall is proposed, potentially provide a grade change between the curb and the combined bike lane/sidewalk section . If the retaining wall is still needed, place it on the sidewalk side. No comment We would also like to see the addition of green crosswalk lines for the bicyclist's portion at driveways and intersections in addition to the white crosswalk lines that would be used for pedestrians . Moving bicyclists off the road and into an adjacent space creates a safety concern when there are turning vehicles who aren't expecting bicyclists especially if bicyclists are going the wrong way. This is the highest cause of crashes between bicyclists and motorists. If bicyclists are going the wrong way then their bad behavior should not be rewarded. I understand the concern; however, we do not paint crosswalks at driveways, in particular private driveways . The green paint was allowed on luther as a test case, and even then we would not paint across driveways. If this is of great concern, then planning should embark in an educational campaign to educate bikers on the dangers of going the wrong-way while approaching driveways and intersections . 'r-o+ k~ Ramps -It appears the ramp widths vary across the corridor. (For example, ramps across Scott & White Drive are 8' wide, 7.5' wide at Stonebrook and ramps at Town Lake are 5' and 7.5') Please make them a consistent width of 10' wide to accommodate both biking and walking. agree Station 3.5 Detectable warnings/ramps are needed at this commercial driveway. Stonebrook Drive intersection will need to be discussed and reconfigured . Ramps need to be 10' wide and the existing sidewalks along each Stonebrook approach are located on the west side while the pedestrian crossing is being proposed only on the east side. Do what is best for the project. I believe that it might be hard to fit 10' -wide ramps and the signal poles . The 7' meets the BCS unified guidelines minimum. Please look at the design of the ramp on the northeast corner at Dublin Pkwy. The Dublin sidewalk tie-in with a flare on the ramp seems unusual. We would like to discuss the location of the light poles . The current locations at back of curb probably aren't feasible based on 11.5' travel lanes and the desire to not have poles as it relates to safety for vehicles as well as to the possibility that they are within the operating space of the bicyclists and pedestrians . We could consider placing the poles between the bike lane and sidewalk. We would also like to discuss the bike/ped crossing at Town Lake Drive and if we want ramps/crossings at this time without proposing stop movements and cross walks. The future Bird Pond alignment also needs to be a factor in the design . Label the existing PU Es and PAEs from the Scott & White plat that pertain to the intersections of Scott & White Drive, Stonebrook Drive and Medical Avenue . Relocate the light pole at the intersection of Town Lake Drive that is in the approach on the north side for the future Bird Pond Rd realignment. Stop bars on Bird Pond Rd, Town Lake Dr, and Dublin Pkwy do not appear to be the minimum of 4' back from crosswalk. Provide an eastbound right turn lane for Medical Avenue to continue turn lane pattern done at Scott & White Drive and Stonebrook Drive. According to the full -built out, 2030 projections of the TIA, 14% of AM peak traffic will make a right turn, and 20% of traffic will make a right turn. This projection warrants a right turn lane . However, it is a projection . A wide shoulder could be provided for vehicles to pull mostly out of the driving lane. Also, it is a two-lane road, so other vehicles can just bypass the turning vehicle. Looking at the TxDOT Access management guidance it states that "Right-turn movements increase conflicts, delays , and crashes, particularly where a speed differential of 10 mph or more exists between the speed of through traffic and the vehicles that are turning right." The TxDOT access management also provides thresholds for considering a right turn lane . If the speed on the major roadway is > 45 mph where right-turn volume is > 50 vph, then a right-turn lane should be considered . Question is, how is the project impacted by this? Can the SUP fit? Revise the design at Town Lake Drive to better accommodate a future eastbound right turn lane to Town Lake. owe want to From: Sent: To: Subject: Harris, Chris <Chris.Harris@kimley-horn.com> Monday, December 28, 2020 8 :16 AM Raquel Gonzales If JI l.bt • Attachments: Rock Prairie Schematic \AV\-'" Attachments.html *****This is an email from an EXTERNAL source . DO NOT click links or open attachments witho ut positi ve sender verification of purpose. Never enter USERNAME, PASSWORD or sensitive informatio n o n l i nke d p ages from this email.***** Lincoln is a minor arterial -section cut -current section does not meet new UDO guidelines -what type of section would GIP/PW/Planning like to see? .. ~ Raquel, Attached are the files for the Rock Prairie Schematic. Let's have a call and we can run through them in more detail together. A few notes while your looking at these : 1. These look a little different from our typical schematic since we are updating the plans we previously created . cate what was done 1edians on the West of RP? or do the 2. On the existing median from Station 3+50 to 11 +SO . We're p lanning to remove the ex. stamped concrete and add tr~ 2' boarder to the landscape area . Do you want to remove the landscaping and add the raised bed in this island also? We're currently not carrying adding the curb wall and backfilling that landscape bed . Only adding the 2' band to make it match better. 1p concrete to match ' 3. We've included the signal layout at Stonebrook per the warrant analysis memo . 4. We're showing a ditch line on the north side from Station 28+00 to 36+50. The road section in this area is filled above the north existing ground elevation in order to have cover over the storm system . To minimize the size on the storm, we're proposing that tract will drain directly to the S'x3' culvert at 36+50. Let me know if you are ok with that,........u..u&M-uu..u..u,,,_..LL..J.J'-¥-'........_lULU.LI.Jo, to take that into the storm system to convey it to the outfa . considered in determining ditch 5 . We have picked the road up from station 31 +00 to 36+50 above existing. 1s 1s a mg t e 1 to the project, but is required to have enough cover to get the storm out of the subgrade. 6. We need to confirm with Water Services the outfall/ crossing at 36+50. Currently the headwall is shown sitting on the 18" water main. We have not verified t,...,..,~~~~~~~~~~------- locat·on If ·t rema·ns · place e'll d t f' th t s. consider maintaining s· separation per water require ments-discu I . I I In I w nee 0 con 1rm a lowenng water line under headwalls 7 . We a re getting addition a I to po at Bi rd Pond and at the end of nnrnrrn·rrr1........,'fttcrrh'.rt1'1"'-t-tlrn-r'TTTTtirn..----- e no ugh to get the full transition. Mostly that will be striping at the end, and a bit of asphalt transition at Bird Pond for grade tie in . 8. We need the plans for the Town Lake Drive subdivision . We need to confirm our drainage assumptions against their design.~7. check trakit-check with Anthony I 9. We still need to have a meeting with CSU on the electrical layout. Click here to download attachments. ~set up meeting with Weldon Have a Happy Holidays. I'll be working the first part of next week, and back on the 4th. Feel free to give me a call any time if you need anything. Chris Chris Harris, P.E., C.F.M. (TX) I Vice President Kimley-Ho rn 12800 South Texas Avenue, Suite 201, Bryan, TX, 77802 Direct: 979-307-5040 I Main: 979-775-9595 f 1 I p a g e I Kimley •»Horn DATE: TO: FROM: RE: TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DECEMBER 2020 RAQUEL GONZALES , P .E., CFM CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ALLISON ADAMS , P.E. KIM LEY-HORN ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD & STONEBROOK DRIVE SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Kimley-Horn has been retained by the City of College Station (CoCS) to perform a s ignal warra nt analysis for the intersection of Rock Prairie Road & Stonebrook Drive . The analysis is a part of the design process for the Rock Pra irie Road E:ast widening project. The results of the analysis will inform the decision on whether to construct a traffic s ignal at the study intersection . INTERSECTION CHARACTERISTICS The intersection of Rock Prai rie Road & Stonebrook Drive is located approximately 2 , 140 feet east of the signalized frontage road intersections at SH 6 & Rock Prairie Road . For the analysis , Stonebrook Drive is considered to run north-south , and Rock Prairie Road is considered to run east-west. The southbound approach of the intersection is Stonebrook Drive , which has an assumed speed of 30 miles per hour (mph). The roadway is designated as a two-lane minor collector according to the City of College Station Thoroughfare Plan . The southbound approach includes one lane serving the left-through-right movements . The northbound approach of the intersection is a pr ivate driveway connect ion that serves the Baylor Scott & White Medical Center. The driveway approach includes one northbound lane serving the left-through-right movemenb. Rock Prairie Road is designated as a four -lane major arterial on the CoCS Thoroughfare Plan and has a posted speed lim it of 45 mph in the vicinity of the study intersection . The eastbound approach of the intersection with Stonebrook Drive includes one through -right lane and a dedicated left-turn lane with approx im ately 280 feet of sto rage . The westbound approach includes one lane serving the left-through- right movements. DATA COLLECTION Due to th e circumstances around the COVID -19 pandemic at the time of this intersect ion analys is , historical data was utilized to form the basis of the traffic volumes needed to perform a signal warrant analysis . Historical 24-hou r tube count data was available for Rock Pra iri e Road west of Bird Pond Road . The data was collected on April 12 , 20 18 as a part of a traffic impact analys is (TIA) that was performed for the College Station Midtown Development -a mixed use development located on the south side of Rock Prairie Road , east of Medical Avenue . Historical 24-hour traffic volumes for Stonebrook Drive were available within the t 2 I p a g e I Kimley >»Horn TxDOT Traffic Count Database System (TCDS). The TxDOT historical data was collected north of Rock Prairie Road on October 10 , 2018 . Both northbound and southbound hou rly volumes were available . All historical data is provided as hourly totals with 15-minute intervals. The hourly totals were used to determine the daily percentage distribution for each travel direction . The northbound hourly distribution based on volumes collected on Stonebrook Drive (north of Rock Prairie Road) were assumed to imitate the hourly distribution percentages for the hospital driveway (the northbound approach of the intersection) as the peak hour directional movements would most closely reflect the peak hour trends of the hospital driveway . For instance , the driveway would experience a higher outbound peak in the PM peak hour, which is similar to the higher northbound PM peak on the north side of Rock Prairie Road. Peak hour turning movement volumes were also available from the Midtown Development TIA The historical data, collected April 12 , 2018 , was used to project peak hour trips in the existing condition (2020) as well as the future condition in the roadway build out year (2022). The peak hour trips were used for estimating hourly volumes for the study intersection by applying the hourly distribution assumptions to the peak hour volumes for each intersection approach. Raw traffic data is prov ided as Appendix A . TRAFFIC VOLUME GROWTH AND DISTRIBUTION Historical counts over four years near the study area were compared to find expected growth trends that could be used to estimate future traffic projections . Based on data from the TxDOT TCDS , traffic volumes can be assumed to increase at a growth rate of 5% per year . The data supporting the growth rate is summarized in Table 2 . Table 2 -Historical Data Growth Rate Rock Prairie Rd -Rock Prairie Rd -Stonebrook Dr -Rock Prairie Rd -Average Year West of North of East of Total Annual East of SH6 SBF R Stonebrook Dr Rock Prairie Rd Bird Pond Rd Growth 2018 10,285 8,214 2,172 3,854 24,525 -17 .12% 2017 15,357 8,178 2,161 3,896 29,592 27.66% 2016 11,489 6,400 1,958 3,334 23,181 5.57% 2015 11,095 6,275 1,920 2,667 21,957 ------------- Average 5.37% Assumed 5.00% The 2018 peak hour volumes at the study intersection were adjusted using the assumed growth rate for each ana lysis scena rio , described in the following section . Peak hour volumes were then distributed throughout the rest of the day using the percentage hourly distributions determined by the historical 24- hour volumes . The calculat8d hourly volumes were then used in the signal warrant analysis . The hourly distributions for both Rock Pra irie Road & Stonebrook Drive are provided in Appendix A. 3 I p a g e I Kimley »>Horn SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Analysis Scenarios Two scenarios were analyzed to determine the potential for the study intersection to meet the thresholds for a traffic signal warrant. The assumptions included in each scenario are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 -Analysis Scenarios Scenario Analysis Assumptions Ex istin g 2020 Traffic volumes based on 2018 volumes grown by an annual growth rate of 5% for 2 years . Analysis provided as a baseline comparison . Roadway Build Traffic volumes based 2018 volumes grown by an annual growth rate of 5% for Out 2022 4 years. The roadway widening project completion year is expected to be 2022. Analys is Results The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) defines nine traffic signal warrants to determine the need for a traffic signal. Due to the availability of historical data , two warrants pertaining to vehicular volumes (Warrants 1 -2) were considered for the study intersection . Table 2 summarizes the results for the vehicular volume traffic signal warrants , including the number of hours that are satisfied for each one , for each analysis scenario. Table 2 -Traffic Signal Warrant Summary Existing -2020 Roadway Build - 2022 Traffic Signal Warrant Condition Hours Condition Hours Met Satisfied Met Satisfied 8-Hour Vehicular 1A Volume Condition A No 4 hours No 6 hours (Minor Street Volumes) 8-Hour Vehicular 1B Volume Condition B No 1 hours No 2 hours (Major Street Volumes) Combination of 1A&B ConJition A and No 3 hours No 7 hours Condition B 2 4-Hour Vehicular Yes 4 hours Yes 5 hours Volume Based on the traffic signal warrants 1 and 2, the intersection of Rock Prairie Road & Stonebrook Drive satisfies the criteria for Warrant 2 in both the existing condition (2020) as well as the roadway build out year (2022). The signal warrant analysis reports for each scenario are provided in Appendix B. • • • 4 I p a g e I Kimley >»Horn SUMMARY Based on the signal warrant analysis performed, a traffic signal at the intersection of Rock Prairie Road & Stonebrook Drive is warranl3d in both the existing condition (2020) and the roadway reconstruction build out year (2 022), based on Warrant 2 -Four-Hour Vehicular Volume . Based on the growth of the surrounding area , the number of hours satisfying conditions of the vehicular volume warrants can be expected to increase . Particularly , the intersection is likely to satisfy the requirements of Warrant 1 -Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume with slight increases in vehicular volumes on Stonebrook Drive or the hospital driveway , most notably in the afternoon hours . ( ' Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Cllent: City of College Station Job #ST 1304 Project: Rock Prelr1e Road East Widening p , :>Ject KHA No.: 64295015 llTltl•: 30% Opinion of Probable Cost II Item No . It em Descriotion llA GENERAL CONSTRUCTION IT EMS (6%) Traffic Control ros ion and Sedimentat ion Con trol ROW Hydromu lch Tren ch Safety and TV inspection ROW Preoaration B . ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION ITEM S 6 Pavement Removal 7 Unclassified Roadway Excavation 8 Un classified Roadway Embankment 9 Sawcut Existi ng Pavement 10 Subgrade Preparat ion and Compaction 11 8" Lime Stabilized Subgrade 12 Lime , 8%, 55 lb/sy 13 8" Aggregate Base 14 HMAC 2" Type D Surface 15 ( 8!!-CQncrete Pavement with Integral Curb 16 4" Concr,,te Si-<ou•alk 17 Sidewalk Accessibil ity Curb Ramp 18 Landscape Curb Wall 19 Landscape Area Top Soil (12" depth ) 20 4" Co lored Stamped Concrete Median 21 24" Thermoplastic Striping Solid White Line w / sealant 22 8" Thermoplastic Striping Solid White Line w / Type 1-C Reflect ive Markers 23 4" Thermoplastic Striping Solid White Line w / sea lant 24 4" Thermoplastic Strip ing Solid Yellow Line w/ sealant 25 Type II-A-A Reflective Markers 26 Type 11-C-R Reflective Markers 27 Type I Solid White Pavement Marking w/ sealant -Word -"ONLY" 28 Type I Soli d White Pavement Marking w / sealant-Turn Arrow 29 Type I Solid White Pavement Marking w/ sealant-Bicycle Lane Symbol and Arrow 30 Spe ed Limit Sign (R2 -1) 31 Right Tum Only Sign (R3-5R) 32 Keep Right Sign (R4-7) 33 Divided Highway Sign (W6-1) 34 Two Way Traffic Sign (W6-3) 35 Beg in right turn lane -Yield to Bikes (R4-4) 36 Bike Lane Ends Sign (R3-17 b) 37 Thru Traffic Merge Left (W4-7) 38 Bike May Use Full Lan e (R4-11) 39 One Way Sign 40 Relocate Ex istino Sian C. STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION ITEMS 41 18" RCP , C76 Class Ill , w/ ASTM C443 Rubber Gasket & Full Depth Cement Stabil ized Sand Backfill 42 24" RCP , C76 Class Ill , w/ A STM C443 Rubber Gasket & Full Depth Cement Stabilized Sand Backfill 43 30 " RCP , C76 Class Ill w/ ASTM C443 Rubber Gasket & Full Depth Cement Stabili zed Sand Backfill 44 36" RCP , C76 Class Ill w / A STM C443 Rubber Gasket & Full Depth Cement Stabi li zed Sand Ba ckfill 45 5'X 3' RCB , C76 Class Ill w/ ASTM C443 Rubber Gasket & Full Depth Cement Stabilized Sand Backfill 45 Junction Box w/ Full Depth Cement Stabilized Sand Backfill 46 Jun ction Box Top 47 1 o· Curb Inlet Top 48 1 O' Curb Inlet w / Full Depth Cement S•3bilized Sand Backfill 49 15' Curb Inl et w/ Full Depth Cement Stab ilized Sand Backfill 50 Connect to Existing Storm Sewer 51 24 " RCP Safety End Treatment 52 3'x5' Safety End Treatment 53 Flared Wing Hdwl 17'x5' 54 Concrete Flume at Curb Inlet l~DUIT II Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Date: Prepared By: Checked Quantitv Unit Unit Pri ce It 1 LS $281 ,200 $281 ,200 1 LS $75,000 $75 ,000 1 LS $5 0,000 $50 ,000 2.5 AC $2,000 $5 ,000 2,677 LF $5 .50 $14 ,724 54 STA $1 000 $54 .00C 13 ,152 SY $8 $105 ,216 2,7 00 CY $8 $21,600 8 ,100 CY $10 $81 ,000 1,525 LF $25 $38 , 125 35 ,900 SY $5 $179 ,500 35 ,900 SY $7 $251 ,300 988 TON $180 $177 ,840 220 SY $16 $3 ,520 220 SY $18 $3 ,960 30 ,625 SY $55 ~1 ~R4 "175 C'V ) $50 \ $22 ,25 0 I ,, L "' EA ) $2 ,500 /$52 ,500 J 3,.>UU ._, $40 ~l.>L ,000 1, 1,975 SY $5 $9,875 3,102 SY $86 $266 ,772 230 LF $2 0 $4 ,600 1,267 LF $5 $6 ,335 12 ,300 LF $2 $2 4 ,600 1,030 LF $2 $2 ,060 35 EA $8 $280 157 EA $8 $1 ,256 19 EA $425 $8 ,075 19 EA $3 00 $5 ,700 20 EA $3 00 $6 ,000 2 EA $6 50 $1 ,300 3 EA $650 $1 ,950 5 EA $650 $3 ,250 1 EA $650 $650 1 EA $650 $650 3 EA $650 $1 ,950 2 EA $650 $1,300 1 EA $650 $650 1 EA $65 0 $650 6 EA $650 $3 ,900 7 EA $750 $5 ,250 Sub-total I $3 ,022 .1231 35 LF $7 5 $2,625 925 LF $8 0 $74 ,000 345 LF $113 $38 ,985 1407 LF $156 $219,492 60 LF $32 0 $19 ,200 8 EA $5 ,500 $44 ,000 4 EA $3 ,500 $14 ,000 7 EA $3,500 $24 ,500 10 EA $5,500 $55 ,000 2 EA $6 ,500 $13 ,000 2 EA $2,500 $5 ,000 1 EA $3 ,500 $3 ,500 1 EA $8 ,000 $8 ,000 1 EA $15 ,000 $15 ,000 23 SF $6 $138 Sub-total $510,hll ll 11 55 $11 00011 $605 ,UOl Sub-totalll $605 ,00C Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. City of College Statlon Job #ST 1304 ro)ect: Rock P111lr1e Road EHt Widening Project HA No.: 64295015 30% 0 Inion of Probable Cost mNo. Stonebrook Basis for Cost Projecti on : • Schematic Design 8 90 %Design Fina l Des ign Ite m Descri tion This total does not reflect eng inee r i ng or techn ical services. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Date: Prepared By: Checked B : Quanti t Un it Unit Price It +/-15 % The Engmeer has no control over the cost of labor, materials. equipment, or over the Contractor's methods of deterrrumng prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the 1nformation known to Engintter at this time and represent only the Engineer's )Udgmem as a design professional fam9ar with the construct10111ndustry The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs wil not VBty from i s OpUl/OnS of probable COSIS