Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-3712 - Ordinance - 10/22/2015 ORDINANCE NO. 2015-3712 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT SELF- EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND CONTAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That the "Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan" be adopted as set out in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PART 2: That if any provisions of any section of this ordinance shall be held to be void or unconstitutional, such holding shall in no way effect the validity of the remaining provisions or sections of this ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect. PART 3: That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage. PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 22"d day of October, 2015. ATTEST: APPROVED: City ecretary MAYOR APPROVED: roJoLil Igo-, ' - City Attorney Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 2 of 316 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ADA SELF-EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN (kr..114 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home of TexasAdrM University" OCTOBER 2015 Prepared By: Kimley >> Horn In association with: $11IHCCESSOOGY Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 3 of 316 Contents 1.0 Purpose 1 2.0 Introduction 3 2.1 Legislative Mandate 3 2.2 Definitions 3 2.3 ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Development Requirements 6 2.4 Programmatic/physical Accessibility6 3.0 Public Outreach 11 3.1 Public Focus Group Meeting 11 3.2 Public Workshop 11 3.3 ADA Coordinator 12 3.4 Grievance Procedure and Grievance Form Process 12 4.0 Self-Evaluation and Summary of Findings 13 4.1 Departmental Surveys 13 4.2 Boards, Commissions, and Committees 15 4.3 Public Meetings 15 4.4 Printed Information 17 4.5 Programs 17 4.6 Procedures 19 4.7 Policies 20 4.8 Planning Documents 20 4.9 City Ordinances 21 4.10 Design Standards 21 4.11 Facilities 23 4.12 Prioritization 30 4.13 Conclusion/Action Log 36 5.0 Phase one Facility proposed costs and schedule 37 5.1 Facilities Cost Projection Overview 37 5.2 Implementation Schedule 37 5.3 Funding Opportunities 38 5.4 Updates to Plan and Future Phases 40 Appendicies (provided on CD) 41 APPENDIX A: Meeting Notes 41 APPENDIX B: Grievance Process 41 APPENDIX C: U.S. Department of Justice Effective Communication Guidance 41 APPENDIX D: Self-Evaluation Reports 41 !"11_1_11! 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 4 of 316 This page intentionally left blank. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 5 of 316 1 .0 PURPOSE The purpose of this Plan is to outline how the City of College Station will work to improve accessibility and equal access by fulfilling the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). The City makes a commitment to this effort by implementing this living, ongoing ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan. This includes all associated efforts including such actions as evaluating, planning, responding, and improving with regard to public services, programs, or activities, and related physical barriers. Accommodating people with disabilities is essential for effective governance and excellent customer service and to sustain the quality of life for which the City of College Station is known. This document includes an overview of ADA, provides recommendations for the City of College Station based on a self-evaluation,and presents a Transition Plan for the removal of barriers in and along facilities (buildings and right-of-way) to improve accessibility in services, programs, and activities offered to the public. The Transition Plan is the first phase for evaluating physical barriers. Additional phases will be needed to evaluate the remaining facilities that exist in the City. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 6 of 316 This page intentionally left blank. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan 2 October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 7 of 316 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 LEGISLATIVE MANDATE The Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)is a civil rights law that mandates equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities. The ADA prohibits discrimination in access to jobs, government services, public transportation,public accommodations,and telecommunications. There are five titles of the ADA including: • Title I: Employment • Title II: State and Local Government • Title III: Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities • Title IV: Telecommunications Relay Services • Title V: Miscellaneous Provisions The City of College Station is obligated to observe all requirements of Title I in its employment practices; Title II in its policies practices, services, programs, and activities; and any parts of Titles IV and V that may apply to the City. Title III only covers businesses and nonprofit service providers and is not applicable to the City of College Station. Title IV of the ADA requires that telephone companies provide telecommunication relay services that allow individuals with hearing or speech impairments to communicate using a teletypewriter(TTY)or other non- voice device. It also requires that all television public service announcements produced or funded in whole or in part by the Federal government include closed captioning. Title IV would not apply to the City of College Station unless they are receiving funds from the Federal government for television service announcements. Title V is a miscellaneous section. It includes provisions that do not allow the ADA to invalidate or override other laws (federal, state, and local) to provide equal or greater protections or remedies for people with disabilities. It includes exclusions of conditions from the definition of accessibility. Title V also includes protection of individuals from retaliation, intimidation, coercion, threats, or interference with people who seek to exercise their rights, or who encourage or aid others to do so, is prohibited. This document addresses the requirements of Title II of the ADA. 2.2 DEFINITIONS The following is a summary of many definitions found in the ADA. Please refer to the Americans with Disabilities Act for the full text of definitions and explanations. Disability The term disability means, with respect to an individual: • A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; 8 A record of such impairment;or • Being regarded as having such impairment. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 8 of 316 Qualified Individual with a Disability A qualified individual with a disability means an individual with a disability who,with or without reasonable modification to rules, policies, or practices; the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers; or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by the City. Discrimination on the Basis of Disability Discrimination on the basis of disability means to • Limit, segregate, or classify a citizen in a way that may adversely affect opportunities or status because of the person's disability; • Limit,segregate, or classify a participant in a program or activity offered to the public in a way that may adversely affect opportunities or status because of the participant's disability; • Participate in a contract that could subject a qualified citizen with a disability to discrimination; • Use any standards, criteria, or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability; • Deny equal benefits because of a disability; • Fail to make reasonable accommodations to known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual unless it can be shown that the accommodation would impose an undue burden on the City's operations; • Use selection criteria that exclude otherwise qualified people with disabilities from participating in the programs or activities offered to the public; and • Fail to use tests, including eligibility tests, in a manner that ensures that the test results accurately reflect the qualified applicant's skills or aptitude to participate in a program or activity. Complaint A complaint also referred to as a grievance is a claimed violation of the ADA. Substantial Limitation of Major Life Activities An individual is disabled if she or he has a physical or mental impairment that(a)renders her or him unable to perform a major life activity,or(b)substantially limits the condition,manner,or duration under which she or he can perform a particular major life activity in comparison to other people. Major life activities are functions such as walking,seeing,hearing,speaking,breathing,learning,performing manual tasks, or caring for oneself. In determining whether physical or mental impairment substantially limits the condition, manner,or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity in comparison to other people, the following factors shall be considered: • The nature and severity of the impairment; • The duration or expected duration of the impairment; and • The permanent or long term impact(or expected impact)of or resulting from the impairment. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 9 of 316 Having a Record of Impairment An individual is disabled if he or she has a history of having an impairment that substantially limits the performance of a major life activity;or has been diagnosed, correctly or incorrectly, as having such impairment. Regarded as Having a Disability An individual is disabled if she or he is treated or perceived as having an impairment that substantially limits major life activities, although no such impairment exists. Reasonable Program Modifications If the individuals'disabilities prevent them from performing the essential functions of the program or activity, it is necessary to determine whether reasonable program modifications would enable these individuals to perform the essential functions of the program or activity. Reasonable program modification is any change in program or activity or in the way things are customarily done that enables an individual with a disability to enjoy equal program opportunities. Accommodation means modifications or adjustments: To a registration or application process to enable an individual with a disability to be considered for the program or activity; To the program or activity environment in which the duties of a position are performed so that a person with a disability can perform the essential functions of the program or activity; and That enables individuals with disabilities to enjoy equally the benefits of the program or activity as other similarly situated individuals without disabilities enjoy. Modification includes making existing facilities and equipment used by individuals readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities. Modification applies to known disabilities only. Modification is not required if it changes the essential nature of a program or activity of the person with a disability, it creates a hazardous situation, adjustments or modifications requested are primarily for the personal benefit of the individual with a disability, or it poses an undue burden on the City. Auxiliary Aids and Services The term auxiliary aids and services include: • Qualified interpreters or other effective methods of making orally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments; • Qualified readers, taped texts, or other effective methods of making visually delivered materials available to individuals with visual impairments; • Acquisition or modification of equipment or devices; and • Other similar services and actions. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 10 of 316 2.3 ADA SELF-EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS Title II requires the operation of each service, program or activity so that, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.1 It is firmly stated that no qualified individual with a disability may be excluded from participating in, or denied the benefits of,the services, programs,or activities provided by a public entity because of a disability2. Included in Title II are administrative requirements for all government entities employing more than 50 people.These administrative requirements are; 1. to notify applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested people of their rights and the public entity's obligations under Title 113 2. to designate a responsible employee(ADA Coordinator)to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out the public entity's ADA responsibilities4 3. to establish a grievance procedure for resolving complaints related to Title 115 4. to conduct a self-evaluations • A self-evaluation is an assessment of the public entity's services, programs, and activities and the policies and practices that govern the administration of them. This can include laws, ordinances, regulations, and manuals. The goal is to determine if the policies and practices adversely affect full participation of individuals with disabilities. 5. to develop a transition plan' • In the event that structural changes to facilities will be undertaken to achieve program accessibility,a Transition Plan setting forth the steps necessary to complete such changes must be developed. The plan shall, at a minimum-- a) Identify physical obstacles in the public entity's facilities that limit the accessibility of its programs or activities to individuals with disabilities b) Describe in detail the methods that will be used to make the facilities accessible c) Specify the schedule for taking the steps necessary to achieve compliance with this section and, if the time period of the transition plan is longer than one year, Identify steps that will be taken during each year of the transition period 2.4 PROGRAMMATIC / PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY Program accessibility means that, when viewed in its entirety, each program is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Program accessibility is necessary not only for individuals with mobility needs, but also to individuals with sensory and cognitive disabilities. 1 28 C.F.R. §§35.149-150 2 42 U.S.C. § 12132;42 U.S.0§ 12102(2)(6) & (C) 3 28 C.F.R.§35.106 4 28 C.F.R. §35.107(a) 5 28 C.F.R.§ 35.107(b) 6 28 C.F.R. §35.105 7 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan 6. October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 11 of 316 Accessibility applies to all aspects of a program or service, including but not limited to physical access, advertisement, orientation, eligibility, participation, testing or evaluation, provision of auxiliary aids, transportation, policies, and communication. The following are examples of elements that should be evaluated for barriers to accessibility: F2.4.1 EXAMPLE BARRIERS • Building signage • Customer communication and interaction • Sidewalks or curb ramps • Emergency notifications, alarms, and visible signals Participation opportunities for City-sponsored events • Parking • Path of travel to,throughout, and between buildings and amenities • Doors • Service counters • Restrooms • Drinking fountains • Path of travel along sidewalk corridors within the public right-of-way • Access to pedestrian equipment at signalized intersections 12.4.2 EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS The City must reasonably modify its policies, practices, services, programs, or activities to avoid discrimination. Delivery of services, programs, or activities can be provided in alternate ways, including, redesign of equipment, reassignment of services, assignment of aides, or other methods of compliance and/or by making physical changes to buildings and right-of-way. When required to modify an existing program, the City should endeavor to give priority to the alternative solution (i.e., physical changes or program relocation, etc.) that results in the most integrated setting appropriate to encourage interaction among all users, including individuals with disabilities.In compliance with the requirements of the ADA,the City provides equality of opportunity but does not guarantee equality of results. If the City can demonstrate, however, that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of what is affected, it is not required to make the modification. The City is also not required to take any action that would create for the public entity any undue financial and administrative burden, create a hazardous condition for other people, or threaten or destroy the historic significance of a historic property. The City is not necessarily required to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. In the event the City determines a proposed action would fundamentally alter a service, program or activity or generate undue financial or administrative burden, the City has a responsibility to communicate and document the decision and the methodology used to reach it. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, the City shall take any other actions that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the City. In determining whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on a covered entity, factors to be considered include: (i)the nature and cost of the accommodation needed under this chapter; (ii)the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 12 of 316 accommodation; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the facility; (iii)the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and (iv) the type of operation or operations of the covered entity,including the composition,structure,and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity. There are some situations where it is not possible to integrate people with disabilities without fundamentally altering the nature of a program, service, or activity. For example, moving a beach volleyball program into a gymnasium, so a player who uses a wheelchair can participate on a flat surface without sand, would "fundamentally alter"the nature of the game.The ADA does not require changes of this nature. 2.4.3 NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATIONS Physical changes to buildings must be made in accordance with the Department of Justice's Title II regulation and the 1991 ADA Standards for Accessible Design or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards and the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. If the start date for construction is on or after March 15, 2012, all newly constructed or altered State and local government facilities must comply with the 2010 ADA Standards. Before that date, the 1991 Standards(without the elevator exemption),the Uniform Federal Accessibility Guidelines,or the 2010 ADA Standards may be used for such projects when the start of construction commences on or after September 15,2010. An alteration that affects or could affect the usability of or access to an area of a facility that contains a primary function shall be made so as to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and the restrooms,telephones,and drinking fountains serving the altered area are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, unless the cost and scope of such alterations is disproportionate to the cost of the overall alteration. Alterations made to provide an accessible path of travel to the altered area will be deemed disproportionate to the overall alteration when the cost exceeds 20%of the cost of the alteration to the primary function area. When the cost of alterations necessary to make the path of travel to the altered area fully accessible is disproportionate to the cost of the overall alteration,the path of travel shall be made accessible to the extent that it can be made accessible without incurring disproportionate costs. In choosing which accessible elements to provide, priority should be given to those elements that will provide the greatest access,in the following order: (1) An accessible entrance; (2) An accessible route to the altered area; (3)At least one accessible restroom for each sex or a single unisex restroom; (4) Accessible telephones; (5) Accessible drinking fountains; and (6) When possible, additional accessible elements such as parking, storage, and alarms. The City of College Station has a policy to use the most recent guidelines and standards.The most recent standard is the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design,which sets the minimum requirements—both scoping and technical—for newly designed and constructed or altered State and local government facilities, public accommodations,and commercial facilities to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. It is effectuated from 28 CFR 35.151 and the 2004 Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 I Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 13 of 316 Maintenance versus Alterations The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued a briefing memorandum on clarification of maintenance versus projects. Information contained in the briefing memorandum is below. We recommend this clarification with regard to curb ramp installation projects. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA)is a civil rights statute prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities in all aspects of life,including transportation, based on regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ's regulations require accessible planning, design, and construction to integrate people with disabilities into mainstream society. Further, these laws require that public entities responsible for operating and maintaining the public right-of-way do not discriminate in their programs and activities against persons with disabilities. FHWA's ADA program implements the DOJ regulations through delegated authority to ensure that pedestrians with disabilities have the opportunity to use the transportation system's pedestrian facilities in an accessible and safe manner. FHWA and DOJ met in March 2012 and March 2013 to clarify guidance on the ADA's requirements for constructing curb ramps on resurfacing projects. Projects deemed to be alterations must include curb ramps within the scope of the project. This clarification provides a single Federal policy that identifies specific asphalt and concrete- pavement repair treatments that are considered to be alterations — requiring installation of curb ramps within the scope of the project—and those that are considered to be maintenance, which do not require curb ramps at the time of the improvement. Figure 5 provides a summary of the types of projects that fall within maintenance versus alterations. This approach clearly identifies the types of structural treatments that both DOJ and FHWA agree require curb ramps (when there is a pedestrian walkway with a prepared surface for pedestrian use and a curb, elevation, or other barrier between the street and the walkway)and furthers the goal of the ADA to provide increased accessibility to the public right-of-way for persons with disabilities. This single Federal policy will provide for increased consistency and improved enforcement. !PM 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 14 of 316 of § CD 2 / ƒ 16.3 0 > > ate * / 0o co— }\ ) 3 k � - _ § t Crack Filling and Sealing 9._ � \\ \ 3 / \ - 3 CD ci) > Sealing o Chip Seals 0 ( ƒ (k } _ o \ \ > Slurry Seals / ` E E Fog ( \ } k cp- \ 2' 5' Scrub ng \ � I —CD' # Joint Crack Seals D. ID co } 3g/ •\ 2 4r Pi [a = § E o 0 j B R Dowel BarAlr! S. ( 2 2D§ •D CD \ § m AdHU&Fr e�Treatments E t ) \§ \ /\ - ( Diamond Grinding s Pavement Patching % g = [ Er 7 ( / (A- f CD ( 7 %\ ( 5 § \ . - ( _ §co A § 3 | ® A E} m \ /} } o—} Open-graded Surface Course k > Cape Seals CD co > mm&mIMm&mk# 0 co /ƒ gi } Alin In-Place Recycling • — A U6emUm�mU Overlay Irt C13 �5 (94 - ® E �AedUwLayeeAsRk 7 \ . ! 'm Asphalt and Concrete � i \\ ® Rehabilitation and » / } § Reconstruction \ \ m � � New Construction Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 15 of 316 3.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH The City of College Station provided opportunities to receive input from the public concerning its Self- Evaluation and Transition Plan.The following segments detail these opportunities. 3.1 PUBLIC FOCUS GROUP MEETING The City invited local organizations representing people with disabilities to attend a focus group meeting on January 21,2015,to comment on the City's accessibility efforts,ask questions,and share concerns related to ADA needs in the community. Focus group meeting notes are provided in Appendix A. Based on comments,the City will be following up on the following items: • Evaluating the need for more Accessible Pedestrian Signals(APS), especially around Texas A&M University. • Prioritizing the following locations for new sidewalks requested: o Tarrow Street/E.29th Street o Gaps along Southwest Parkway near Wellborn Road o Gaps on Munson Avenue 3.2 PUBLIC WORKSHOP The City hosted a public workshop on May 5,2015,to introduce the Plan, solicit feedback on the planning process and any concerns related to accessibility in general. The Public Meeting notes are provided in Appendix A. Based upon comments,the City will be following up on the following items: • Evaluating the following sidewalk locations identified for ADA compliance in the next phase of the plan: o Harvey Mitchell Parkway near Welsh Avenue o Anderson Street from George Bush Drive to Southwest Parkway o Wellborn Road • Educating staff on interpretive services the City should provide for programs and services offered such as Parks and Recreation programs and police and fire interactions in the field. • Evaluating the use of video phones in public locations such as the library. The City hosted a second public workshop on September 28,2015,to solicit feedback on the plan that was made available online,as well as any concerns related to accessibility in general.The Public Meeting notes are provided in Appendix A. Based on comments,the City will be following up on the following items: • Evaluating the sidewalks on Holik Street in front of A&M Consolidated Middle School for ADA compliance in the next phase of the plan. • Evaluating the City's traffic control plan guidelines and practices related to temporary pedestrian accommodations during construction. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 16 of 316 3.3 ADA COORDINATOR A public entity is required to designate at least one responsible employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with ADA, implement this plan and handle any grievances or concerns. The City of College Station has set up a system with includes a citywide ADA Coordinator and representatives from each department to better cover the needs of individuals with disabilities. Department representatives will work with the ADA Coordinator to ensure their department's compliance with Title II. As referenced in Section 2.4.3,the City is not required by the ADA to modify a policy, program, service or activity if the change would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program or activity, would create a hazardous condition for other people, or would represent an undue financial and administrative burden. The ADA Coordinator will document the City's response to grievances and requests for accommodation, including the resources considered and the methodology used to determine how the accommodation or modification would impact programs or resources. 3.4 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND GRIEVANCE FORM PROCESS Public entities with 50 or more employees are required to adopt and publish grievance procedures for Title II complaints. The Department of Justice does not require a grievance form, but a form can be an effective tool for collecting information to address a complaint. Title II does not specify what must be included in a grievance procedure, but the Department of Justice has developed a model grievance procedure that can be used as a starting point. The City established a formal grievance procedure as part of this project, based on the Department of Justice's recommended language. Subsequently, the City created a standard grievance form to capture relevant information from the individual filing the grievance. This document will provide the City with a method of tracking and documenting all grievances filed with the City and their respective outcomes. The grievance procedure and a sample grievance form are included in Appendix B. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 17 of 316 4.0 SELF-EVALUATION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 4.1 DEPARTMENTAL SURVEYS The self-evaluation of policies and practices as well as services, programs, and activities offered involved the participation of City departments through an electronic survey and follow-up questions by email. The following City departments completed the survey: City Departments City Manager's Office/Economic Development* Information Technology City Secretary Legal Department College Station Utilities Parks and Recreation Community Services Planning&Development Services Emergency Management/Fire Department* Police Department Fiscal Services/Municipal Court* Public Communications Human Resources Public Works Department Both departments completed a combined survey. Departmental surveys were designed to collect information on how a person with a disability would participate in each department's services, programs, or activities. The surveys gathered the following information (as relevant to each department): • Program or service description for each program/service offered by each department • Characterization of program or service participants, along with a description of any participation requirements, and any adaptations made to assist persons with disabilities • List of facilities where program or service takes place • Training provided or available to employees who manage the programs • Transportation procedures and methods for persons with disabilities • Communication procedures for presentations,telephone conversations,program notifications,print materials, including modifications or equipment to accommodate people with disabilities • 9-1-1 services for people with sensory impairments • Emergency evacuation procedures for people with disabilities • Information regarding automated electronic equipment used in a program or service accessible to all participants. • Methods used to ensure that all public meeting policies and procedures are designed to accommodate persons with disabilities. Self-Evaluation Findings: Upon review of the responses, most departments were aware of some forms of communication modification,such as paper and pencil or a reader, but are unaware of all of the additional options that can be offered or where to get them if needed. It was clear that training for staff in contact with the public is needed. Recommended Actions: A formal process for requesting modifications should be developed as well as a process for accommodating these modifications. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 18 of 316 Staff training should be provided to City Staff;to address some of the issues identified in the departmental surveys and interviews. Additional training is also recommended for any new employees in customer service, emergency service personnel and maintenance. This additional training should be on an annual basis or as needed as determined by the City. The following training sessions were provided by the consultant: • March 30,2015—Disability Awareness for Staff in Contact with the Public(Class Option#1) • March 20,2015—Orientation Training for ADA Liaison Committee • April 1, 2015—Joint Public Right-of-Way Training with the City of Bryan • May 5, 2015—Disability Awareness for Staff in Contact with the Public(Class Option#2) Descriptions of each training provided are provided below: Disability Awareness for Staff in Contact with the Public(2 hours) The training provided an overview of the access criteria and requirements mandated for State and local government staff interacting with the public. Best practices for sensitive and respectful interactions were explained. Communication topics included correct language and etiquette, appropriate use of terminology, and dealing with service animals in public places. The training concluded with a brief overview of maintaining accessibility for people with disabilities. Orientation for ADA Liaison Committee (2 hours) This training provided instruction on how to review and evaluate City department's existing policies and procedures for the Self-Evaluation process required under Title II of the ADA. This training described how to use the findings from the departmental survey responses and staff interviews to develop a work plan for improving access for persons with disabilities. The training was specific to policies and practices to ensure non-discrimination from department to department. Public Right-of-Way(4 hours) This training explained the PROWAG requirements as well as the "spirit"of the ADA law. Topics covered included the difference between maintenance versus alterations, how to achieve compliance with difficult site constraints, how to make good decisions in the field, and how to know when additional help is needed.This class was very technical in the design and installation of curb ramps and sidewalks in the public rights-of-way. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 19 of 316 4.2 BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES City Boards,Commissions,and Committees were reviewed for barriers to participation regarding the Citizen Committee Application. The following Boards, Commissions, and Committees were reviewed: City Boards,Commissionsand Committees 2015 C IP Bond Citizen Advisory Board Committee Joint Relief Funding Review Committee B/CS Library Committee Landmark Commission Bicycle,Pedestrian&Greenways Advisory Board Parks&Recreation Board Construction Board of Adjustments Planning&Zoning Commission Design Review Board Zoning Board of Adjustments Historic Preservation Committee Self-Evaluation Findings: All appointed boards, commissions, and committees have a one-page membership application form that requests basic personal information, such as name and address. Review of the application process found no barriers of concern. Recommended Actions No changes are needed. 4.3 PUBLIC MEETINGS Many City departments conduct public meetings such as those related to projects or plans, City Council meetings,and regular meetings of the Boards, Commissions, and Committees. The procedures for conducting these meetings were reviewed to determine how a person with a disability is able to participate,ensure meetings are in accessible locations, and ensure people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in civic life. To obtain this information, the Consultant distributed electronic surveys to appropriate staff and included the following questions: • How are meeting notices distributed? • Do meeting notices include information on how to request accommodations? • Where are the meetings held? • To your knowledge,is the facility accessible by people with disabilities? 11141111P 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 20 of 316 Self-Evaluation Findings: The boards,commissions and committees surveyed indicated that the public meetings are held in locations that are reasonably accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. However,the facilities at which most of the public meetings are held(College Station City Hall, Carnegie History Center, Larry Ringer Library,Wolf Pen Creek)were not evaluated for compliance in this phase of the project. The notices and agendas did not include or included inconsistent language indicating the availability of accessibility modifications. The information currently appears as follows: "This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3541 or TDD 1-800-735-2989." Recommended Actions: • Evaluate for compliance, all buildings and facilities where public meetings are held (College Station City Hall, Larry Ringer Library, Carnegie History Center,Wolf Pen Creek) • Publicize the availability of auxiliary aids or services in all public notices and agendas for public meetings. Example: "Auxiliary aids or services for individuals with communication disabilities can be provided upon request. Please make your request at least two business days before the meeting by contacting adaassistance@cstx.gov or(979) 764-3541." • Schedule public meetings in accessible locations whenever possible. At minimum,the following should be accessible when choosing a location to hold a meeting: parking, a route connected to the entrance of the building, hallways and corridors to the meeting room, and restrooms. • Prepare a list of accessible meeting spaces to facilitate the scheduling of meetings. o When a fully accessible site is not available, make reasonable modifications so that an individual with a disability can participate (e.g. make structural changes to the site to make accessible or relocate meeting to another location that is accessible). Priority should be given to the choices that offer the most integrated setting possible. o Develop a checklist for creating accessible meetings and selecting accessible meeting spaces, and make the list available to all City departments and programs. • Train and provide information to City staff on the types of auxiliary aids or services persons with disabilities may request. o Ensure staff handle requests consistently. o Ensure staff have access to a directory of available resources including a list of interpreters for providing effective communication. o For more in depth guidance on how to communicate effectively with people who have vision, hearing or speech disabilities, refer to Appendix C. • During meetings, provide flexibility in the time limit on speaking for individuals with communication difficulties. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan ow October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 21 of 316 4.4 PRINTED INFORMATION When reasonable requests are made, City departments must provide information in alternative formats, such as Braille, large-print format, audiotape, or in an electronic format. i Self-Evaluation Findings: Most City departments and offices produce and distribute printed information including forms, permits and waivers. While some City departments distribute information on how to obtain print information in alternate formats, other departments do not. Many departments routinely produce printed information in alternate formats upon request. Most forms, permits, and waivers are only available in written form. There is inconsistency across the organization as to the availability of alternative formats of documents. Recommended Actions: • Include the following notice on all materials printed by the City that are made available to the public: "This publication can be made available in alternative formats such as Braille or large print upon request, by contacting adaassistance@cstx.gov or (979) 764-3509. Please allow at least two business days for your request to be processed." If required, ensure the uniformity of charges for a publication, for all formats of that publication. If publications are free,then a surcharge may not be imposed for alternative formats. • Train City staff on how to make print information available in alternative formats to persons with disabilities when requested. o Ensure employees handle requests consistently. o Ensure employees have access to a directory of available resources for providing print materials in alternate formats. 4.5 PROGRAMS Several unique community wide programs were reviewed as part of the Self-Evaluation to determine how a person with a disability would participate and alternative measures the City could take if any area of the program cannot be made accessible. • Adopt-A-Greenway Program • Adopt-A-Street Program • Citizens Fire Academy • Citizens Police Academy • Citizens University • Fire Public Education • Housing Assistance Programs !111111111F 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 22 of 316 • Home Buyer Education Programs o Down Payment Assistance Program o Housing Reconstruction Program o Housing Rehabilitation and Minor Repair Program o Leveraged Housing Development Program o PY 2014 (FY 2015) Fair Housing Action Plan o Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program o Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program • Parks and Recreation Spring Guide(January—April 2015) • Utility Education Programs Self-Evaluation Findings and Recommended Actions None of the programs reviewed had specific physical eligibility requirements, so these programs were determined to be accessible with a few exceptions. A lack of contact information for auxiliary aids and accommodations,which is required to be provided,was the most common issue identified in the programs. Specific issues for each program are provided in Table 1. Table 1. Summar of Pro ram Review Name of Program Self-Evaluation Findings Recommended Actions Contact information for auxiliary aides or Provide contact Information for auxiliary aides Adopt A Greenway accommodations not provided or accommodation Contact information for auxiliary aides or Provide contact information for auxiliary aides Adopt-A-Street accommodations not provided or accommodation Contact information for auxiliary aides or Provide contact information for auxiliary aides Citizens Fire Academy accommodations not provided or accommodation Citizens Police Contact information for auxiliary aides or Provide contact information for auxiliary aides Academy accommodations not provided or accommodation Contact Information for auxiliary aides or Provide contact information for auxiliary aides Citizens University accommodations not provided or accommodation The Code of Ordinances does not make specific reference to the ADA and the Code Enforcement reporting system does not reference anything related to accessibility. Any accessibility-related Provide a direct link to the City's ADA Code Enforcement issues should go through the grievance Grievance Procedure and Grievance Form on process and should be submitted on the the Code Enforcement webpage grievance form.Citizens could use the online code violation reporting system to report accessibility issues but it would get lumped into the"Other category. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan 11111111 October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 23 of 316 Table 1. Summa of Pro•ram Review cont. Name of Program Self-Evaluation Findings Recommended Actions Contact Information for auxiliary aides or Provide contact Information for auxiliary aides Fire Public Education accommodations not provided or accommodation Housing Assistance None None Programs Home Buyer None None Education Programs "Notice Under the Americans with Provide ADA notice within the activity guide Parks and Recreation Disabilities Act"not provided Activity Guide No contact information for auxiliary Provide contact information for auxiliary aides aides or accommodations or accommodation Utility Education Contact information for auxiliary aides or Provide contact information for auxiliary aides Programs accommodations not provided or accommodation 4.6 PROCEDURES The Emergency Management Plan and the Community Development Citizen Participation Plan were reviewed as part of this plan. The Emergency Management Plan includes all of Brazos County. Emergency management procedures often have only a brief mention of serving people with special needs; however, details need to be provided on how people with disabilities will be accommodated. The Emergency Management Plan was reviewed to determine who will help accommodate people with disabilities, how much training is needed, how medications will be stored, how service animals will be handled, and other relevant items. The Community Development Citizen Participation Plan was reviewed to ensure all citizens have equal opportunity for participation in their community and how that will occur. Code enforcement is particularly important to people with disabilities because often the accessible features of a community are blocked by unaware citizens. Therefore, the policies and procedures in place were reviewed to ensure all citizens have equal access to the amenities offered by the City. Self-Evaluation Findings The Brazos County Emergency Management Plan Annex C (Shelter & Mass Care) and Annex E (Evacuation) generally include persons with disabilities but do not provide detailed information regarding accessible shelters or the evacuation procedures relating specifically to persons with disabilities. During the review of the plans, it was determined that most of the designated shelters are selected and evaluated by the American Red Cross. The Red Cross has a checklist to ensure that shelters are accessible.At this time,the City does not operate any shelters. No issues were identified with the Community Development Citizen Participation Plan. 19 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan • October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 24 of 316 Recommended Actions: Should the City designate and operate emergency evacuation shelters,the City must develop a process to evaluate potential shelters for accessibility to people with disabilities and to ensure compliance with applicable laws. 4.7 POLICIES The City has several facilities available for rent through the Park and Recreation and Fire Departments. The policies regarding use of City owned facilities and land were reviewed including the Parks and Recreation Facility Use Agreement. This document was reviewed to ensure participants with disabilities have full participation in events hosted on land owned by the City by putting the responsibility for accessibility on the vendor or group leasing the property from the City. Self-Evaluation Findings The Parks and Recreation Facility Use Agreement does not provide contact information for auxiliary aids or accommodations. Recommended Actions: The Parks and Recreation Facility Use Agreement should be modified or amended to include a special event application that provides ADA Title III awareness information to the private entity hosting any events on the public property as well as a checklist of basic elements that must be accessible if they are to be provided. This application should then be submitted to the City as proof that the private entity has been made aware of their requirements under Title III of the ADA. The Parks and Recreation Facility Use Agreement should provide contact information for auxiliary aids or accommodations. 4.8 PLANNING DOCUMENTS Planning documents were reviewed to ensure accessibility is an essential part of the plans and incorporated from the beginning of the planning process. The documents were evaluated for consideration of accessibility relating to providing accessible connections where needed, constructing new sidewalks, or reconstructing sidewalks to meet accessibility requirements. The following planning documents were reviewed as part of this project: • Comprehensive Plan • Neighborhood, District and Corridor Plans o South Knoll Area Neighborhood Plan o Wellborn Community Plan o Medical District Master Plan o Southside Area Neighborhood Plan o Eastgate Neighborhood Plan o Central College Station Neighborhood Plan • Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan i October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 25 of 316 Self-Evaluation Findings No issues were found upon review of these documents. 4.9 CITY ORDINANCES City Ordinances were reviewed to ensure there is no discriminatory language and ensure there are no ordinances that could be interpreted to be discriminatory. The following chapters of the City's Municipal Code received a full evaluation during this process due to their relevance to Title II: • Chapter 1, Section 29—City Cemeteries Rules and Regulations • Chapter 3—Right-of-Way Maintenance • Chapter 10—Traffic Code • Chapter 12—Unified Development Ordinance Self-Evaluation Findings No issues were found upon review of the language contained in these chapters. 4.10 DESIGN STANDARDS The 2012 Bryan/College Station Unified Design Guidelines, Technical Specifications, and Standard Construction Details were reviewed for consistency with the current 2010 ADA Standards, Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG), and the 2010 Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS). Self-Evaluation Findings No issues were identified within the Design Guidelines or Technical Specifications; however, some issues were found within the Standard Street Construction Details. The sidewalk details refer to an outdated section of the Texas Accessibility Standards. All references to the Texas Accessibility Standards should reflect the 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards. Neither the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible design nor do the 2012 Texas Accessibility Standards provide any requirements for curb ramps within the public right-of-way. Recommended Actions: It is recommended that the Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines be adopted and utilized for curb ramp designs within the public right-of-way, specifically detectable warning location.Table 2 summarizes the Design Standard issues and associated recommendations. 7111111111P— 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 26 of 316 Table 2. Summa of Design Standard Issues Design Page Issue Recommendation Standard Sidewalk Detectable Warnings General Note 1 refers to Revise to refer to the 2012 Texas Details SW2 section 4.29 of the Texas Accessibility Accessibility Standards Standards. Revise detail so that detectable Detail SW2-01 -The detectable warning must warning extends the full width of the extend the full width of the ramp surface. The curb ramp. Current TAS and ADAAG 4"maximum and usual side border is not do not provide any requirements permitted. regarding acceptable detectable Sidewalk The 6"min/10"max dimension from the front warning borders. It is recommended Details SW2 of curb is not permitted. 16 TAC 68.102 does to use PROWAG R305.2,which state not permit a 6"-10"setback. 16 TAC 68.102 "Some detectable warning products only permits the setback at diagonal curb require a concrete border for proper ramps where the detectable warning following installation.The concrete border the curve of the corner. should not exceed 51 mm(2 in)." The detectable warning must begin at back of curb. SW2-03-The detectable paver detail must Sidewalk fully comply with section 705 of the 2012 Verify that the pavers used fully Details SW2 Texas Accessibility Standards. Full compliance comply with section 705 regarding could not be determined based on the dome shape,height and spacing. dimensions shown here. SW3-00 to SW3-05-Where the ends of the bottom grade break are behind the back of curb and the distance from either end of the bottom grade brake to the back of curb is 1.5 The three details must be revised to m(5.0 ft)or less,detectable warning surfaces shall be placed on the ramp run within one indicate the grade break dome spacing of the bottom grade break. requirements. Sidewalk Current TAS and ADAAG do not Details SW3 Where the ends of the bottom grade break are address this type of condition. It is behind the back of curb and the distance from recommended that the requirements either end of the bottom grade brake to theof PROWAR305.2.1that regarding back of curb is more than 1.5 m(5.0 ft), detectable warning surfaces shall be placed on perpendicular curb ramps be used. the lower landing at the back of curb. The detectable warning must extend the full width of the curb ramp. Traffic No design standard is provided for 30"x 48" Provide a standard detail showing I Signal 3 level clear floor that is required to serve the the required level clear floor space Details pedestrian push buttons. adjacent to the pedestrian push button. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 27 of 316 4.11 FACILITIES A variety of City-owned facilities were evaluated in this first phase of the Plan to identify any physical barriers to City programs, services, and activities people with disabilities might encounter. Field crews equipped with measuring devices and Global Position System (GPS)-based data collection forms performed the infrastructure evaluation process. The evaluations identified physical barriers in City facilities based on the 2010 ADA Standards and the Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way(PROWAG). The crews recorded detailed measurements of existing conditions,planning-level recommendations for removing physical barriers,and photos of each facility.The self-evaluation reports included these details and information such as if a specific facility was near a significant pedestrian attractor (e.g., government office, medical facility, school, etc.). This information guided the Consultant team and City staff in prioritizing accessibility modifications. The following facility types were evaluated: • Buildings(3) • Parks (2) • Signalized intersections(20) • Sidewalk corridors(3 miles) Summary reports were developed for each facility type.The reports identify the compliance status of each facility with regard to federal standards and include the following elements: • List of facilities that comply with current ADA standards • List of facilities that do not comply with current ADA standards • Recommended actions to achieve compliance for each facility • Prioritized list of modifications using criteria the Consultant and City staff developed • "Cost report"that assigns conceptual budget estimates to each recommended action • Photolog summary for signalized and unsignalized intersections as well as Issues along sidewalk corridors (sidewalk photos provided in the GIS database only). Self-evaluation summary reports are provided in Appendix D. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 28 of 316 4.11.1 BUILDINGS Field crews evaluated three buildings,including parking lots,in the project's first phase.The buildings were: • Northgate Garage(309 College Main) • Municipal Court(300 Krenek Tap Road) • Utility Customer Service(310 Krenek Tap Road) A map of all evaluated buildings is included as Figure 1, Crews evaluated the path of travel from parking lots to buildings, access into each building, signage, drinking fountains, telephones, restrooms, and counter heights. The self-evaluation reports for these buildings can be found in Appendix D. Self-Evaluation Findings The three buildings included in this study were constructed after 1990. Each building has elements that require modifications to reach full compliance with current accessibility standards. Recommended Actions: Self-evaluation reports include recommendations for modifications that will address accessibility and architectural barriers Figure 1.Self-Evaluation Facilities Map—Buildings A.. fir- — /I e'p -, +F Buildings I .><4aa`+f !- l 1 1 Nortl gate Garage yl, 9 b l 2 MunEcrpal Court J t q."-"\V4',. 3 Utility Wstome r Service l t Q \ `' / x/ i' ? � / "� City of Collage Station - ` `} 1 / c`!'-, \ Qy�•, .' �Y��{ ADA Transition Plan '��,t; '- \•- -.--;'``~\ -� sin..r�'..sun.Buildings s k\ 0'T 9" "11 `' f `',\s -,- 'si - // G ` April 201ti ,'.., \. �S� fw-\„' \ ` \ „v.. _.. !'tedr ''.\. s_ a\ - ,.j' 4_;a: a Buildings Kimley*Horn nurnn, \\X�l •4. \ ...... ..:-..,..N. / � \ Slreels 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 29 of 316 4.11.2 PARKS Crews evaluated two municipal parks in the first phase of this project. • Brian Bachmann Community Park (1600 Rock Prairie Road) • Stephen C. Beachy Central Park(1000 Krenek Tap Road) A map of all evaluated parks is included as Figure 2. The evaluation included parking lots, paths of travel from the parking lots to park amenities, access into facilities, signage, drinking fountains and restrooms. The self-evaluation reports for these parks are in Appendix D. Self-Evaluation Findings Common issues at these parks include: • Insufficient accessible parking • Paths from parking areas to park amenities have excessive cross slopes and level changes • Park amenities such as picnic areas are not accessible or located along accessible paths • Soccer fields do not have accessible wheelchair seating space at bleachers Recommended Actions The self-evaluation reports include detailed recommendations for modifications to address accessibility and architectural barriers. Figure 2. Self-Evaluation Facilities Map—Parks r ,� ,\ ti z - '\ ,,,,,,.,,\, " / J f.. 11 Fi 8a[hmannC Community Park'. " , _. ! '�..‹,./:' ,��f,/,�/" \a. !`� " \ �+ ,3_ TtePM1ent BcadeY[anlr�Psrk 1/ \\ a°4 tilt 1 acs r / i1 'r4"!•� .�..� ' \/5, A 0, , 1 ir<'2.:=- --(7",. ",( 'Z'''' yi ' \N", 'I' t,) \01V'r ''''\.„,, '''''),,O.' \,<:., :'. \ ''''' \\,,,..• V-' 'Slc.,_.,_,,,:7 S\b,:t".,'—"--‘),...... ' ,,...7/,S'V 11'.\,.\ 1 \ 1:. N,,,,<\::‘ ,,,/I / I:- 'jf ;% )- (.'t-, "`,, ,i'\.\l}. \ C)- ) / ,J�-� Clly of Coll•f!e Sfatlon L `�-' 44, -:- i'i-.�-' 1k --'t` ,/ ADA ransaIon Plan •6..rx S' S'I'q /{rm..L... 1,...,,Parka T 'L f - LP - . 1 f Apd14878 'v: off¢.. ` \ 1 - 54 Pants Kimley*Horn '''5v i ti 'i';'-'11V<- A`5 :Y' ,s� shoals x t _ 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 30 of 316 [ 4.11.3 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Crews identified and evaluated twenty signalized intersections, cataloging conditions and measurements along the pedestrian path of travel, including street crossings, curb ramps and adjacent sidewalks, pedestrian signal equipment and adjacent clear spaces. A map of signalized intersections is included as Figure 3. Self-Evaluation Findings Common curb ramp issues included the absence of color contrast on curb ramps, excessive flare cross slopes, ponding at the base of curb ramps or in ramp landings or flares, permanent obstructions in the ramps such as utilities and other vertical discontinuities, and temporary obstructions in the ramps such as overgrown vegetation.Table 3 provides a summary of the curb ramp issues. More than a third of the valid pedestrian crossings at the inventoried signalized intersections did not have pedestrian push buttons,and a subset of those pedestrian crossings did not have pedestrian signal heads. Recommendations include pedestrian push buttons and signal heads at all valid signalized intersection pedestrian crossings. Common issues associated with the existing pedestrian push buttons included the absence of clear floor space, excessive clear floor space running slopes and cross slopes, and excessive push button offset from the crosswalk. Table 4 provides a summary of the push button issues. Recommended Actions: Detailed recommendations for each intersection are provided in the self-evaluation reports. Figure 3. Self-Evaluation Facilities Map—Signalized Intersections\\)4, 1 s a a t sr.wf Hoar s} i C9099 and e .De tore St/\ ) [9.,119 9udl AwP ) `vS,I'6.:,::;Z lk,/?J 1 l'"`0 A ./,,,79.4 vd W/LrouN 51 — — �'�\ /�?.. / f r., /! 0 I S 1. Pd MW AvlFar c' 4:C9._ I f '1'?-7 / 'Yti /,/ i.e,;;.\." '6' F/s.-' \ S. W Y W N/NY-_�.� �, S, ti y Iy /?'�' ,/ 3'r�< ' 7 Iw tyldWPo�inaklae{SYSSAGn[el \ ✓Xt..),} 1 e //ry / \ . `Vl\� e t..[rid:eda I o.ila[n nr�..trl 9 Intl brand And.92/392 \ .'3 , `;/ }/'. , / V. \`\`` w eoue Pr 1379 299731 • 1$ /�L 6,}F / 9,-..-'‘ �$-°i //S ._ \'�� 1— WA P27917 daM.ekiL de aA'd �/� S\ "9 . -'44 0 \ T lf." / 4, 13 bAP de Ad vd41~Me9. \ '‘‘,..-9.';-/N'''' .' ,\ 8 /'�;� • 11 WJP triAd and Wahl'.Are +" ;+ _ Y, V.', N 'd7`' _]L- 9"$ I '9.an.� 2914'._.,----_. `) v , `. I 16 19 114ny Mil1/eelrnovtnst • ! \ j� �FiI '`t/ `l„ id /...'1 'S 11 fowh 11nyeM4lW St 1e' ('`,9,!' ]9 P n N7mn \+ r 1- a J /. e/ �— _)- 'N.'rx // ., 's ` IQ SwId tPlw 99211;112/9,:4 ,s1,,,,, '1/4 A ..z.- .:;..' ',,N ,->,-;.. \I it/ — -k' ,` / / i„,.--'\L, ) ),,,<,, I4.-„?' \ A v\\. %,,,. ,...1,,,:>, i,-<:‘,/,<:-...</) , i ,., N 1 , . -- ..- \_k,,,,,-- A ':" ''>:- I I - / �� Cify or College Station .,=. "--L�. { , fes, 7� ADATrensllionPlan �,,/�'��,� � � �'�\y -'r t,....,Signalized Intersecilons "���.',�c,f_ `-' -._�` ; -!\'l'\- y- April2016 \ 't ���3, ../. '6 �; /\'y,gs'.›,'N ' // /•R\, `y •\ "• 0 Signalized InlorseUlons Kimley�l)Horn - ii1n111111 /' f+'p. _ 1'4 \; h - shoots jg 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan 26 October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 31 of 316 Table 3. Summar of Curb Ram. Issues at SI.nalized Intersections Curb Ramp Issue Number Evaluated Number Percent Non-Compliant I Non-Compliant No color contrast 77 53 68.8% Flare cross slope>10% 46 29 63.0% Ponding in ramp,landing,or flares 77 45 58.4% Obstruction in ramp,landing,or flares 77 44 57.1% Ramp cross slope>2% 77 33 42.9% No texture contrast 77 30 39.0% No flush transition to roadway 77 1 29 37.7% Ramp running slope>8.3% 77 28 36.4% Landing running slope >2% 54 19 35.2% Ramp counter slope>5% 77 27 35.1% Landing cross slope>2% 54 16 29.6% Ramp width<48" 77 22 28.6% Curbed sides<90° 31 8 25.8% No landing 77 19 24.7% No ramp where ramp Is needed 98 17 17.3% Ramp does not land in crosswalk 77 7 9.1% No 48"crosswalk extension 61 , 5 8.2% Traversable sides 31 2 6.5% Table 4. Summa of Push Button Issues Push Button Issue Number Evaluated Number Percent Non-Compliant Non-Compliant No clear floor space or no access 57 35 61.4% Clear floor space running slope>2% 22 13 59.1% Clear floor space cross slope>2% 22 12 54.5% Missing push button where push 138 53 38.4% button Is needed Push button offset from crosswalk>5' 57 17 29.8% Missing pedestrian head where 138 28 20.3% pedestrian head is needed Push button orientation not parallel 57 10 17.5% Push button height>48" 57 8 14.0% Push button offset from curb>10' 57 7 12.3% Push button diameter not 2" 57 7 12.3% 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 32 of 316 4.11.4 SIDEWALK CORRIDORS Crews evaluated approximately three miles of sidewalk in this project phase, including the south side of George Bush Dr.from Holik Street to Texas Avenue, and the north and south sides of Southwest Parkway from Welsh Avenue to Texas Avenue. Sidewalk corridors were selected based on pedestrian activity and proximity to pedestrian traffic generators. The City expects future ADA Transition Plan phases to include additional evaluations of sidewalks, with arterial roadways with sidewalks evaluated first and followed by collector and local roads with sidewalks.A map of the sidewalk corridors evaluated is included as Figure 4. Self-Evaluation Findings The sidewalk corridor evaluations included conditions and measurements along the pedestrian path of travel,which includes the sidewalk,curb ramps,pedestrian crossings at driveway openings,and pedestrian crossings at unsignalized intersections with cross streets.Common issues along the sidewalk corridor were excessive sidewalk cross slopes, vertical discontinuities that caused excessive level changes, excessive driveway and cross street cross slopes, permanent obstructions in the sidewalk such as power poles or utilities, and temporary obstructions in the sidewalk or path of travel such as weeds and low hanging branches. Where excessive vegetation was present, field crews attempted to assess the condition of the underlying sidewalk.Where possible,the condition of the underlying sidewalk was recorded; however, the City of College Station may find additional issues with the sidewalk once the temporary obstruction is removed. Common curb ramps issues at unsignalized intersections along the sidewalk corridors included excessive landing area cross slopes, excessive ramp cross slopes, non-compliant curbed sides, ramps having no presence of color contrast, and ramps that are too narrow at their most constrained point of access.A summary these issues is provided in Table 5. Non-compliant curb ramps, sidewalk, and pedestrian paths of travel along driveways and street crossings at unsignalized interactions were recommended to be removed and replaced.Where sidewalks lead up to the curb at an intersection, both parallel and perpendicular to the project corridor, curb ramps were recommended to be installed.Where sidewalks parallel to the project corridor lead up to the curb at a driveway, curbs ramps were recommended to be installed. The ADA of 1990, Section 35.150, Existing Facilities, requires that the Transition Plan include a schedule for providing curb ramps or other sloped area at existing pedestrian walkways,which applies to all facilities constructed prior to 1992. For any sidewalk installations constructed from 1992 to March 15, 2012, the curb ramps should have been installed as part of the sidewalk construction project per the 1991 Standards for Accessible Design, Section 4.7 Curb Ramp, which states, "curb ramps complying with 4.7 shall be provided wherever an accessible route crosses a curb." For sidewalk installations constructed on or after March 15,2012 similar guidance is provided in the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design, Section 35.151 of 28 CFR Part 35, New construction and alterations, which states, "newly constructed or altered street level pedestrian walkways must contain curb ramps or other sloped area at any intersection having curb or other sloped area at intersections to streets, roads, or highways." Recommended Actions: Detailed recommendations for each sidewalk corridor and unsignalized intersection are provided in the self- evaluation reports in Appendix D. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan 28 October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 33 of 316 Figure 4. Self-Evaluation Facilities Map—Sidewalk Corridors F I f ,r. `, - fi o -- ..\I v f f *.'4,...<:.\\/':-.A/' .1` r+ Caetidar _Tnttl iMI J .r ' F ,r•'` 7 .,.. S. . .` �.Gmarke°uih dr O2:,,-, , - f` V\ > {ori �f..�(: ,R' P \'',"/ o� sa�onwnst rr wy z 4? ,..,`" \-<, ''',.:-.: '''-\:::,,,/‘, '-',],:,1‘.\ '...›),, \''Zi'likeol.;-':-Xittl:-(p;'N'S'.;::,'''-' -/'\----' ',,c,\ /-::-.''''\,:s/1 •' 'Q . \ \‘<<''' 4, l \ �1 f Y •. Off", . / 1 - � i', " � \� 1 -,� „ \ t,,\\ \ate f 1��. ;.'S , }�w r �^. r' '$r \\,/ lig '�1 4- t : 1 V \ N4A • \ ''''-'''' --------/ '\--21,',F.---\ Vc-li '\\,, \\c, --"N — \-, Clly or College 8lallon " cv. / _ 2' l l y\ \.,..>::<,,:.\` . ADewalk slllon Plan �'• t `'' '5,/4`:° ' `:°�, ,,� 1 �\j �re.0 mxt Fs,s,••:�Sidewalks , 1��1s � � i� y ,\�� �� 1 �y /� '�F 1 v April 2015 / x, 'Ii•4H 04/. P r.- 1 'r ;t r Slde•Nakc nuuem ',---- i� ..0 r r, KimleysH°rn � ... t . 511001S1 - f a a,, Table 5. Summa of Curb Ram' Issues at tins',nallzed Intersections Curb Ramp Issue Number Evaluated Number Percent Non-Compliant Non-Compliant Landing cross slope>2% 82 44 53.7% Ramp cross slope>2% 84 45 53.6% Curbed sides<90' 66 34 51.5% No color contrast 84 38 45.2% __ Ramp width<48" 84 38 45.2% Flare cross slope>10% 18 8 44.4% No flush transition to roadway 84 30 35.7% Landing running slope >2% 82 20 24.4% No texture contrast 84 19 22.6% Obstruction in ramp,landing,or flares 84 15 17.9% _Ponding in ramp,landing,or flares 84 15 17.9% Ramp running slope>8.3% 84 15 17.9% Ramp counter slope>5% 84 12 14.3% No ramp where ramp is needed 115 5 4.3% Ramp does not land In crosswalk 84 3 3.6% , No landing 84 2 2.4% Traversable sides 66 1 1.5% No 48"crosswalk extension 82 0 0.0% 241 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 34 of 316 4.12 PRIORITIZATION The following sections outline the prioritization factors and results of the prioritization for buildings, parks, signalized intersections, sidewalks, and unsignalized intersections. Each facility type has a different set of parameters to establish the prioritization for improvements. These prioritization factors were taken into consideration when developing the implementation plan for the proposed improvements. 14.12.1 PRIORITIZATION FACTORS FOR FACILITIES Evaluated buildings were prioritized on a 12-point scale, which is defined in Table 6. This prioritization methodology has been developed by the consultant team to aid the City in determining how the buildings should be prioritized for improvements based on the severity of non-compliance with ADA. Parks were prioritized on a 12-point scale,which is defined in Table 7. Signalized intersections were prioritized on a 1 3-point scale.The 13-point scale,which is used to prioritize both signalized and unsignalized intersections, is defined in Table 8. This prioritization methodology has been developed by the consultant team to aid the City in determining which signalized intersections should be prioritized for improvements over other signalized intersections based on the severity of non-compliance with ADA. Sidewalk corridors were prioritized on a 3-point scale and were given a priority of either"High", "Medium", "Low"based on the severity of non-compliance,which is defined in Table 9. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 35 of 316 Table 6. Prioritization Factors for Bulldin+s _ Priority Criteria 1 (high) • Safety Issues(dangerously steep slopes,protruding objects,etc.) • Citizen grievances • New construction • Older construction severely out of compliance(see Accessible Route list for 2(high) sidewalks,curb ramps/ramps) • Alterations that did not bring required elements into compliance(adding a break room or restroom that isn't compliant) • No accessible parking 3(high) • No accessible route from parking to building entrances • No accessible route to adjacent sidewalk system,when provided • Severely non-compliant parking(bad slopes,gravel surface,etc.) • No accessible route to covered areas inside buildings on site(no elevator to upper areas,steps only,narrow doors,etc.) • No accessible counter heights(reception counters, utilities counters,etc.) 4(high) • No access to public areas(coffee bars,break rooms,conference rooms,etc.) • No access to City Council chambers • No access to court amenities • Non-compliant parking(structural solution) • Non-compliant public access spaces(coffee bars,break rooms,conference 6(medium) rooms,etc.) • Non-compliant interior door clearances • Non-compliant restroom amenities(water closet,urinal.lavatory) 6(medium) Non-compliant showers/changing areas 7(medium) Accessible route with moderate access issues(level changes that can be ground down or fitted with device) 8(medium) • No accessible drinking fountains • No accessible telephones 9(low) Non-compliant parking(striping.signage) 10(low) Minor level changes,gaps or cracks in accessible route 11 (low) Non-compliant drinking fountains 12(low) Non-compliant public phones 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 36 of 316 Table 7. Prioritization Factors for Parks Priority Criteria • Grievance and Safety Issues(dangerously steep slopes,protruding objects,etc.) 1 (high) • Citizen grievances _ • New construction • Older construction severely out of compliance(see Accessible Route list for 2(high) sidewalks,curb ramps/ramps) • Alterations that did not bring required elements into compliance(replacing playground surfacing with non-compliant material) • No accessible parking • No accessible route from parking to park entrance,sports complex or amenity served 3(high) • No accessible entrance or sidewalk system to and around each amenity provided • Severely non-compliant parking(bad slopes,gravel surface,etc.) • There is a sidewalk system around the park, but it does not connect to each amenity.(picnic tables,fishing piers,park benches,baseball,softball,disc golf, tennis,basketball,soccer, horseshoe,splash pads,skate parks,etc.) • No accessible route to each amenity,inside buildings on site(no elevator to upper areas,steps only, narrow doors,etc.) 4(high) • No accessible counter heights(concession stands,ticket booths,pool admittance,etc.) • No access to public areas(coffee bars,break rooms,conference rooms,etc.) • No access to dug outs. • No accessible showers,benches,changing areas • Seating provided,but none accessible • Non-compliant parking(structural solution) • Non-compliant playground surface • Non-compliant playground equipment 6(medium) • Non-compliant public access spaces(coffee bars,break rooms,conference rooms,etc.) • Non-compliant interior door clearances _ • Non-compliant restroom amenities(water closet,urinal,lavatory) • • Non-compliant dug outs at ball fields 6(medium) • Non-compliant showers/changing areas 7(medium) Accessible seating not integrated or on sloped area 8(medium) • No accessible drinking fountains • No accessible telephones _ 9(low) Non-compliant parking(striping,signage) 10(low) Minor level changes,gaps or cracks in accessible route 11 (low) Non-compliant drinking fountains 12(low) Non-compliant public phones 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 37 of 316 Table 8. Prioritization Factors for Si•nallzed and Unsi•nalized Intersections Priority Criteria 1 (high) Complaint filed on curb ramp or intersection or known crash at site Existing curb ramp with any of the following conditions: • Running slope> 12% • Cross slope >7% • Obstruction to or in the ramp or landing 2(high) • Level change >1/4 inch at the bottom of the curb ramp • No detectable warnings AND within a couple of blocks of a hospital, retirement facility, medical facility, parking garage, major employer, disability service provider, event facility, bus/transit stop, school, government facility,public facility,park,library,or church,based on field observations. • No curb ramp where sidewalk or pedestrian path exists 3(high) AND within a couple of blocks of a hospital, retirement facility, medical facility, parking garage, major employer, disability service provider, event facility, bus/transit stop, school, govemment facility,public facility,park,library,or church,based on field observations. 4(high) No curb ramps but striped crosswalk exists Existing curb ramp with any of the following conditions: • Running slope>12% • Cross slope >7% • Obstruction to or in the ramp or landing 6(medium) • Level change >'/inch at the bottom of the curb ramp • No detectable warnings AND NOT within a couple of blocks of a hospital,retirement facility,medical facility,parking garage, major employer, disability service provider, event facility, bus/transit stop, school, government facility,public facility,park,library,or church,based on field observations. • No curb ramp where sidewalk or pedestrian path exists 6(medium) AND NOT within a couple of blocks of a hospital,retirement facility,medical facility,parking garage, major employer, disability service provider, event facility, bus/transit stop, school, government facility,public Facility,park,library,or church,based on field observations. 7(medium) One curb ramp per corner and another is needed to serve the other crossing direction Existing curb ramp with any of the following conditions: 8(medium) • Cross slope >5% • Width<36 inches • Median/island crossings that are inaccessible 9(low) Existing curb ramp with either running slope between 8.3%and 11.9%or insufficient landing 10(low) Existing diagonal curb ramp without a 48 inch extension in the crosswalk 11 (low) Existing pedestrian push button is not accessible from the sidewalk and/or ramp 12(low) Existing curb ramp with returned curbs where pedestrian travel across the curb is not protected _ 13(low) All other intersections not prioritized above rump 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 38 of 316 Table 9. Prioritization Factors for Sidewalk Corridors Priority Criteria — I 1 (high) 2(medium) 3(low) Cross slope of sidewalk is greater Value>3.5 3.5 z Value>2.0 than 2% _ Width of sidewalk is less than 48 Value s 36.0 36.0<Value<42.0 42.0<Value<48.0 inches Obstruction present along Obstruction-Permanent Obstruction-Temporary sidewalk Heaving Heaving,Sinking,or Cracking Sinking present on sidewalk Cracking Ponding on sidewalk Ponding Missing Sidewalk Missing Sidewalk Cross street cross slope is greater Value>6.0 6.0 Z Value z 4.0 4.0>Value>2.0 than 2% Cross street running slope is Value>7.0 7.0 z Value z 6.0 6.0>Value>5.0 greater than 5% -_ Driveway sidewalk width is less Value 5 36.0 36.0<Value<42.0 42.0<Value<48.0 than 48 inches Driveway(or sidewalk if applicable)cross slope Is greater Value>6.0 6.0 a Value a 4.0 4.0>Value>2.0 than 2% Poor Driveway(or sidewalk if Poor-Dangerous (elevation change applicable)condition is poor or (elevation change between'/inch and 1/2 poor dangerous greater than 1/2 inch inch or gaps between 1/2 gaps greater than 1 inch) inch and 1 inch) —rillin 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 39 of 316 Self-Evaluation Findings Table 10, Table 11, and Table 12 provide summaries of the prioritization classifications for signalized intersections, sidewalks, and unsignalized intersections, respectively. Table 10. Prioritization Summar for Si:nalized Intersections Priority Number of Intersections 1 (high) . 2(high) 11 3(high) 4(high) 1 6(medium) 6 6(medium) - 7(medium) - 8(medium) 9(low) - 10(low) 11 (low) 1 12(low) 13(low) 1 Total 20 Table 11. Prioritization Summa for Sidewalk Corridors Length(miles)by Priority Line type 1 (high) 2(medium) 3(low) Compliant Total Sidewalk Line 0,56 0.78 0.09 0.75 2.18 Sidewalk issues (including missing 0.26 0.04 - 0.30 sidewalk) Driveways 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.22 Cross Streets - 0.02 0.09 0.21 0.31 Total 0.92 0.89 0.23 0.98 3.01 Fmk 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 40 of 316 Table 12. Prioritization Summa for Unsi•nalized Intersections Priority Number of Intersections 1 (high) (high) 18 3(high) 4(high) 5(medium) 11 6(medium) - - 7(medium) r - 8(medium) - 9(low) 7 10(low) 11 (low) - 12(low) 13(low) 1 Total 37 4.13 CONCLUSION/ACTION LOG The City is taking the actions referenced above and will continue to look for and remedy barriers to access in an effort to ensure that the citizens of the City of College Station with disabilities are given access to the City's services, programs, and activities. To confirm follow-up on corrective actions required under the Transition Plan,the City will institute an ADA Action Log, documenting its efforts of compliance with the ADA.At a minimum, the Action Log will identify items that are not ADA compliant and will include anticipated completion dates. The ADA Action Log will be updated on an annual basis and will be available upon request. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plana 9 October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 41 of 316 5.0 PHASE ONE FACILITY PROPOSED COSTS AND SCHEDULE 5.1 FACILITIES COST PROJECTION OVERVIEW In order to identify funding sources and develop a reasonable implementation schedule, cost projection summaries for the initial phase were developed for each barrier type.To develop these summaries, recent bid tabulations from Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) construction projects, along with consultants experience with similar types of projects, were the basis for the unit prices used to calculate the improvement costs. A contingency percentage (20%) was added to the subtotal to account for increases in unit prices in the future in addition to an Engineering design percentage (15%). Table 13 provides a summary of the estimated costs to bring each facility type into compliance. Table 13. Summar of Facrllt Costs Facility Type Total 3 Buildings $81,989 2 Parks $722,095 20 Signalized Intersections $1,437,000 3 miles of Sidewalk $1,115,000 City Totals $3,366,084 5.2 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE An implementation schedule no longer than 15 years is recommended for this phase of the Transition Plan. The City of College Station reserves the right to change the barrier removal priorities on an ongoing basis in order to allow flexibility in accommodating community requests, requests for reasonable modifications from persons with disabilities, and changes in City programs. It is the intent of the City to have its ADA Coordinator work together with department heads and budget staff to determine the funding sources for barrier removal projects. Once funding is identified, the ADA Coordinator will coordinate the placement of the projects in the Capital Improvement Program to be addressed on a fiscal year basis. 7111111 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 42 of 316 5.3 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Several alternative funding sources are available to the City to address the issues identified in this Transition Plan, including federal and state funding, local funding, and private funding. The following sections detail some different funding source options. 5.3.1 FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING Table 14 depicts the various types of federal and state funding available for the City to apply for funding for various improvement. The following agencies and funding options are represented in the chart. • NHS—National Highway System • STP—Surface Transportation Program • HSIP—Highway Safety Improvement Program • RHC—Railway-Highway Crossing Program • TAP—Transportation Alternatives Program • CMAQ—Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Program • RTP—Recreational Trails Program • FTA—Federal Transit Capital, Urban&Rural Funds • TrE—Transit Enhancements • BRI—Bridge-Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation(HBRRP) • 402—State and Community Traffic Safety Program • PLA—State/Metropolitan Planning Funds • TCSP—Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program • FLH—Federal Lands Highways Program • BYW—Scenic Byways • SRTS—Safe Routes to School (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 SI Century Act(MAP-21) now under TAP) The majority of these programs are competitive type grants; therefore, the City of College Station is not guaranteed to receive these funds. It will be important for the City to track these programs in order to apply for the funds. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 43 of 316 r: 4., Table 14. Funding Opportunities �q r ±r '7IC.WTA► .:. ,s , 1Rp_.I Of)1_ r AO':'C ,XM ' _ t Ira Pedestrian plan X X X ..�.- I X X - Paved shoulders X X X X X X X X X X Shared-use path/trail X X X X X X X X X X X a; Recreational trail X X r. Spot Improvement o program % % X X X X — Maps X X X 1, X X e.9 Treil/hlghwaylntersection X X X X X X X X X x .2 o Sidewalks,new or retrofit X X X X X X X X X X X X X Crosswalks,new or ac ' retrofit X X X X X X X X X X X X m U Signal Improvements X X X X X X X X s. Curb cuts and ramps X X X X X X X x DTraffic calming X X X -- X - - X m Safety brochure/wok X X X X X X in Training X X X X X X X X. X m - c m 0 5) m k c O m N O_. T Q N O O .y f!1= Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 44 of 316 5.3.2 LOCAL FUNDING There are several local funding options for the City to consider, including: • General fund (sales tax and bond issue) —Allocation of annual departmental budgets —requests for larger share to address needs in a more timely fashion • Maintenance funds • Special taxing districts • Tax Increment Financing District(TIF)—A TIF allows cities to create special districts and to make public improvements within those districts that will generate private-sector development. During the development period, the tax base is frozen at the predevelopment level. Property taxes continue to be paid, but taxes derived from increases in assessed values (the tax increment) resulting from new development either go into a special fund created to retire bonds issued to originate the development, or leverage future growth in the district. • Community Improvement District (CID) — A geographically defined district in which commercial property owners vote to impose a self-tax. Funds are then collected by the taxing authority and given to a board of directors elected by the property owners. • Tax Allocation District (TAD) — A defined area where real estate property tax monies gathered above a certain threshold for a certain period of time (typically 25 years) to be used a specified improvement. The funds raised from a TAD are placed in a tax-free bond (finance) where the money can continue to grow. These improvements are typically for revitalization and especially to complete redevelopment efforts. • Sidewalk or Access Improvement Fee • Transportation User Fee • Scheduled/Funded CIP projects that are funded through bonds and sales tax • Community Development Block Grants(CDBG) 15.3.3 PRIVATE FUNDING Private funding may include local and national foundations, endowments,private development, and private individuals. While obtaining private funding to provide improvements along entire corridors might be difficult, it is important for the City to require private developers to improve pedestrian facilities to current ADA requirements,whether by new development or redevelopment of an existing property. 5.4 UPDATES TO PLAN AND FUTURE PHASES As a living,ongoing document,the City of College Station's policies,practices,services,programs,activities and facilities will continue to be evaluated beyond the completion of this document. The Plan should be revised to account for any changes.As referenced at the beginning of the document,this Plan only includes the first phase of identifying and removing physical barriers.Additional phases will be needed. Input from the community will help prioritize the evaluation of additional facilities (buildings and right-of-way). The identification of additional barriers with additional phases will also change the prioritization of projects. 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan . . 40 October 2015 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 45 of 316 APPENDICIES (PROVIDED ON CD) APPENDIX A: MEETING NOTES • Focus Group Meeting • Public Meeting APPENDIX B: GRIEVANCE PROCESS • ADA Notice • Grievance Procedure • Grievance Form APPENDIX C: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE APPENDIX D: SELF-EVALUATION REPORTS • Buildings • Parks • Signalized Intersections • Sidewalk Corridors PRIP 061271408 I City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan October 2015 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 46 of 316 Appendices Appendix A: Meeting Notes Appendix B: Grievance Process • ADA Notice • Grievance Procedure • Grievance Form Appendix C: U.S. Department of Justice Effective Communication Guidance Appendix D: Self-Evaluation Reports • Buildings • Parks • Signalized Intersections • Sidewalk Corridors i(. LYS' _ • 1. ;.1' • • f Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 47 of 316 Appendix A: Meeting Notes Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 48 of 316 Kimley >> Horn * - 01111 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan FOCUS GROUP MEETING NOTES January 21,2015—2:00 PM Project: Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Location: City of College Station City Hall Council Chambers Attendees: • Venessa Garza, City of College Station • Brian Shamburger,Kimley-Horn • City of College Station Department • Erin Eurek,Kimley-Horn Representatives • Kristi Avalos,Accessology • Local Disability Organization • Steven Lewandowski,Accessology Representatives Discussion Items(Comments and Questions from Attendees with Answers from staff): • Q: There is a requirement for the City to a retain copy of the Transition Plan for 3 years and for the Plan to be available for public inspection. When does the 3-year window start and stop? Is there an existing Transition Plan that is just being updated? A: College Station does not currently have a Transition Plan. A Transition Plan is a living document and must be maintained until all barriers are removed. Each time the Plan is updated,the 3-year window would start over. • In both Bryan and College Station,when the Brazos Valley Center for Independent Living makes recommendations,the issues are usually remedied and does not need to be escalated. • Q: What is the timeline for the Transition Plan adoption? Public input needs to be solicited early on, especially for what facilities to evaluate. Will the public be able to comment on the draft Transition Plan? A: The public comment period starts at today's meeting. • Q: Is the City website being reviewed for compliance? Are you looking at 508 compliance? A: Website compliance is not being reviewed under the scope of this project. The City may conduct a review separately. • Would like to see more accessible pedestrian signals(APS) installed,particularly near Texas A&M University. These are great for people with visual impairments. • Q: Brand new sidewalks are being constructed out of compliance or curb ramps are not being installed at newly constructed intersections. Where is the disconnect? A: Incorporating ADA design requirements needs to start in the planning and scoping phases and not in the construction phase. \\FT W FPO I\D a ta\P roj ect\FI W_TPTO\061271408- CollegeStation_ADA_Transition Plan\TECH\MeetingsTocus_Group_Meeting_20150121\College Station Focus Group Meeting_Notes_2015012 I_FINAL doc 1 of 3 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 49 of 316 Kimley >}>Horn PGa,fS pllhl! CITY OF COLLEGE STATION City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan • Q: How quickly does the City respond to citizens requests related to ADA? A citizen with a visual impairment does not have an accessible route and is currently traveling in the vehicle travel lanes. A: The timeframe to address citizen requests is dependent on available City funds. If the request is to repair an existing facility,maintenance funds are generally available. However, new construction may not receive funding immediately but ADA requests are considered a high priority when funding becomes available. It is important to educate the disability community on how to communicate with the City on needed changes. • Q: Are sidewalks typically included in development plans? Does the City require developers to fill in gaps and provide sidewalk connections when their facilities are constructed? For example,near the hospital on Rock Prairie Road. A: The missing sidewalks may be part of a future phase of work for the developer. The City would need to know the exact locations in question in order to provide an accurate answer. • Texas A&M Transportation Services has a good website for on-going construction. • Q: There is a non-accessible stage in City Council Chambers. Why was this building not evaluated? A: The City is discussing the future of the building.Until that is determined,a portable ramp could be provided if needed. • Q: Is there a Mayor's Committee for Persons with Disabilities? A: The Mayor's Committee for Bryan or College Station is not active. • Q: Will someone from existing staff be the City's ADA Coordinator or is the City hiring for that position? A: City management will be making this decision. • Q: How do we determine what the City owns so we can submit requests to the appropriate entity? A: The City of College Station has an interactive map online. Also, if a request is made and the City does not own the facility in question,they City will try to provide contact information for the correct agency. • The City of College Station Twitter manager is really good at responding. • Current Issue(discussed at meeting and provided via email by Michael Douglas after the meeting): Along 29th Street/Tarrow Street(the street changes names at the Bryan/College Station city limits)just north of Autumn Circle,there is a Valero Corner Store. 29th Street/Tarrow Street is a very busy and the only way to get to the Valero Corner Store is to travel in the street. Michael Douglas(meeting attendee)lives in this area and pedestrians, including himself,have almost been hit by vehicles while traveling to the store. \\FLWFP01\Data\Project\FTW_TPTO\061271408- Col 61271408- Col lege_Station_ADA_Transition Plan\TECHVvteetings\Focus_Group_Meeting_20150121\Col lege_Station Focus_Group_Meeting_Notes_20150121 FINAL.doc 2 of 3 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 50 of 316 Kimley >> Horn CITY OF COLLEGE STATION City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan • Current Issue: Along Southwest Parkway,east of Wellborn Road near The Woodlands of College Station apartment complex,there is a Texas A&M bus stop on the Elephant Walk Route(Route 31)that you have to travel in grass to get to. Bus Stop Names: The Woodlands #1 and The Woodlands#2. • Current Issue: Century Square is missing a sidewalk,which creates accessibility issues for residents and students without vehicles. • Current Issue: When a sidewalk is closed for construction,no information is provided to pedestrians until they reach the closed sidewalk. Detour route information should be provided in advance of the sidewalk closure. • Current Issue(provided via email by Michael Douglas after the meeting): The sidewalk on Munson Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to University Oaks Boulevard is extremely uneven because of all the driveways and curb cuts that hold water or mud. Continuing south along Munson Avenue to Harvey Road,there are no sidewalks so travel in the street is the only option. Michael Douglas (meeting attendee)knows this route well and uses it to get to work in his wheelchair when he has vehicle issues. • The Brazos Transit District was unable to attend the focus group meeting on 1/21/15 but plans to be involved in any future public meetings for this project. The District will review the handouts that were provided at the meeting and provide the City with feedback. \\FIWFPOI\Data\Project\FPW_TPTO\061271408- College_Station_ADA_Transition_Plan\TECHNeetings\Focus_Group_Meeting_20150121\College_Station_Focus_Group_Meeting_Notes_2015012 I_FINAL.doc 3 of 3 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 51 of 316 Kimley )) Horn flCCESSOE0G9 ( r,4 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan PUBLIC MEETING NOTES May 5,2015—6:30 PM Project: Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Location: College Station Utilities Training Facility Attendees: • Venessa Garza,City of College Station • Erin Eurek,Kimley-Horn • Public Meeting Attendees • Kristi Avalos,Accessology • Brian Shamburger,Kimley-Horn • Steven Lewandowski,Accessology Discussion Items(Comments and Questions from Attendees with Answers from staff): • Current Issue: Roadway leading into College Station Utilities Training Facility has speed bumps across the entire roadway before you reach the accessible route into the building. Meeting attendee had difficulty in a power wheelchair traversing the speed bumps. • Current Issue: Door at entrance to College Station Utility Training Facility was too heavy for a meeting attendee with dexterity issues to open. • Q: How did the City choose the 3 miles of sidewalk? The sidewalk selected for this project are the same corridors that a group of citizens requested the City make more accessible about 20 years ago. Several sidewalks were rehabbed and curb ramps were installed as a result. Anderson St. from George Bush Dr.to Southwest Pkwy. and Wellborn Rd. are all bad corridors. Meeting attendee suggested that these corridors would have been more appropriate to evaluate. A: The City selected the corridors based on the highest vehicle traffic volumes and frequently used pedestrian routes. The City had to start somewhere and the remainder of the sidewalks will be evaluated in future phases. • Q: What sidewalks are the City responsible for maintaining(repairing/replacing)? A: The City is responsible for sidewalks along public right-of-way(City and TxDOT)within the City limits. • Q: Is the 3 miles of sidewalk selected for this project already set in stone? Was any public input considered for these sidewalk evaluation limits? A: Yes,the sidewalk corridors are already set for this phase of the project. There are over 120 miles of sidewalk in the City and City Staff is looking for input now for future phases. • Q: Are you going to look at improving sidewalk along Harvey Mitchell Pkwy.near Welsh Ave., specifically in the Southwood Valley area? A: The City will note this area for consideration in future phases. \\FP WFPO1\Data\Project\FI W_TPTO\061271408- College_Station_ADA_Transition Plan\TECH\Meetings\Public_Meedng_20150505\CS Public_Meeting_Notes_20150505.doc 1 of 5 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 52 of 316 Kimley-r>>Horn _ tilI,I IuIII)7 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan • Q: In all the training that was provided to City Staff as part of this project,how much pertained to the deaf community? A: Two 2-hour Customer Contact training classes were provided on how to communicate with people who have visual or auditory impairments. The City would like citizen input on how to improve City-offered services and customer service. • Q: City services that pertain to activities for children's sports, camps,and swimming lessons do not provide interpreting services. A meeting attendee is a parent of a child with a hearing impairment and has had to pay for interpreting services out of pocket to participate in City programs. A: The City will be reviewing its programs,policies,and procedures to improve our services. • Current Issue: A meeting attendee is deaf and frustrated with communication and interaction with police. A police officer refused to call for interpreting services and told the attendee to write on a piece of paper. The police officer misunderstood much of what was said without an interpreter,and the City needs to remove this communication barrier. • Current Issue: The library and airport do not have video phones or TTY on public phones. Also,if there is a City-hosted event,there is no information about how to make accommodations ahead of time, and the meeting attendee has missed events because of it. Note: The airport is a separate state entity and would need to be contacted with this request separately. • Q: Non-compliant push buttons are being changed out with 2"push buttons but there are also Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS). Will all push buttons be upgraded to APS units? There are new signals on FM 2818,but APS units are not installed. A: The City's intent is to upgrade all push buttons to APS units as the buttons need replacement. TxDOT may be responsible for the new FM 2818 signals. City Staff will speak to the City Public Works Department about this. • Q: A meeting attendee is concerned that,regardless of the program, if there is not enforcement, compliance will not be met. How does ADA affect the private sector? There are ADA issues on private developments but issues either do not get fixed or are only partially fixed. The Consultant team said the Department of Justice(DOJ) enforces the ADA, but how does this enforcement happen? The meeting attendee lived in an apartment complex for 7 years and it took the apartment complex 7 years to realize there was not enough accessible parking. There does not seem to be a single entity responsible for enforcement. A: If there are$50,000 or more in construction costs,then an ADA review is required in the State of Texas. The engineering plans are required to be reviewed before and after construction by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation(TDLR). Citizens can issue tickets when they see accessible parking space violations. Apartment complexes do not have a lot of enforcement because they are not covered under the ADA—only the leasing office. However, other private buildings and shopping centers that are reviewed by a TDLR Registered Accessibility Specialist(RAS)and are found to have deficiencies have 270 days to bring the deficiencies into compliance. After 270 days,TDLR reviews the file and issues \\FTWFPOI\Data\Project\FTW_TPTO\061271408- College_Station_ADA_Transilion_Plan\TECI-I\Meetings\Public_Meeting_20150505\CS_Public_Meeting_Notes_20150505.doc 2 of 5 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 53 of 316 Kimley >> Horn CITY OF COLLEGE STATION City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan penalties to the owner until the violations are fixed. For City reviews and permitting,there are three(3)major categories: public rights-of-way(PROW),private sites and parking,and vertical buildings. Each of these categories are handled differently through the City. For PROW,the City is more involved in construction plans because the City will ultimately be responsible for maintaining those facilities. Newly constructed buildings are required to meet ADA standards;however,older buildings may have been built under different standards or ground settling has caused issues. Civil plans are reviewed by the City for private developments using the current ADA Standards. For vertical buildings,the buildings plans are reviewed from an architectural standpoint. ADA elements inside the building are also looked at during the review process. If an issue is overlooked during the review process, please let the City know. TDLR looks at issues on a project-by-project basis. The DOJ looks at the entire city. • Q: There are some issues with the route from the public sidewalk to Palmetto Bank. A: New construction is required to meet current standards,but older buildings were built to different standards. When requirements have changed for an element between the old standards and the current standards,these elements are not required to be brought into compliance with the current standards unless that element is being modified. • Q: What is the point of ADA and this meeting? Are we only talking about wheelchairs? A: We are taking questions from the public during this meeting and will answer any questions that are asked. We are not limiting the discussion to wheelchairs only. We want to receive feedback from everyone in attendance and receive comments on all types of issues. • Q: What is the purpose of the ADA Liaison Committee? Also,the meeting attendee is with the Center for Independent Living and stated that it would have been nice to involve people that know more about what's going on the community. A: The Liaison Committee is an internal committee composed of representatives from all City departments and was created to collect information to better understand all programs offered by the City, since the ADA Coordinator may not be aware of all the current programs, procedures,and policies in each department. The City tried to reach out to various disability organizations in the area. The Center for Independent Living was among the attendees at a Focus Group Meeting that consisted of both City Staff and representatives from several local disability organizations. • Q: What were the results of the evaluations,specifically at Bachman Park? There were no results provided in the presentation. A: The evaluations results are still being finalized,but the ADA Transition Plan will be available for public review and comment once the draft Plan is complete. • Q: Meeting attendee has previously contacted the City's Chief of Police about communication training for the Police Department. There are still people with hearing impairments in the area being questioned by police without an interpreter. A: There are several options for first responder training and it is up to each community to provide this training to their staff. UFT W FPO I\Da ta\P roj e c t\FT W_TPTO\06127140 8- College_Station_ADA_Transilion_Plan\TECH\Meetings\Public_Meeting_20150505\CS Public_Meeting_Notes_20150505.doc 3 of 5 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 54 of 316 Kimley >>Horn ,iiP(1�1uxIV+,, CITY OF COLLEGE STATION City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan • Q: Who holds people accountable to make sure the issues identified in the Transition Plan get addressed? A: In College Station,the Plan will be brought to the City Council and the ADA Coordinator will be responsible for implementing the Plan,but each City runs their government differently. An architect or engineer can lose their license if they do not submit a project to TDLR for review in the State of Texas. The oversight system is not perfect,but Texas is the only state that has the additional review process through the State. • Q: In emergency situations,a deaf meeting attendee has to rely on hearing the alarm and is not always aware of the emergency. Is there a light-based alert system? A: The City is reviewing the Emergency Evaluation Management Plan as part of this project. • Q: Meeting attendee hopes a public feedback forum continues beyond this meeting. Not sure how this meeting was advertised. Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitation Services (DARS)should be included in the discussions. The attendee also hopes the City is trying to make College Station a better place and not just doing this project because it's a requirement. A: Please provide feedback with suggestions on comment cards with what you think the City should be doing. • Meeting attendee had broken their wheelchair wheel on an issue at the intersection of Rio Grande Blvd. and Rock Prairie Rd.within 3 weeks City had new ramps in place. The City is responsive if you call them. • Q: A meeting attendee has a concern about fire alarms flashing instead beeping.Are these set up in public places so deaf people be alerted as well? That small beep does not help deaf people. Can the Fire Department come to my house? A: Yes,the Fire Department has visual fire alarms and can come to your house to install them for you. Alarms with audible and visual alerts are required in City facilities. The attendee should let the City know if they find any locations without visual alarms. • A meeting attendee is a member of a disability organization and said he would pass along information from the public meeting via Facebook and let the City know if they receive additional feedback. • Q: As citizens deal with private business(Title III entities)concerning ADA issues, is the City willing to be a resource for citizens? Not to fund private projects to address ADA issues on private property,but to serve as advocates for citizens. As citizens,we are trying to educate these businesses,but they just say it is not their problem and it is a"goose chase"to get someone to take responsibility. A: The City only has a responsibility for City-owned facilities and cannot be expected to be responsible for private entities. The public can file complaints on TDLR's website. • Current Issue: At night,many areas throughout the City have poor lighting.Parks are dark and need better lighting. Not safe for people with disabilities to travel at night. The attendee will write down locations and send to the City. \\FPWFPO1\Data\Project\FTW_TPTO\061271408- College_Station_ADA_Transdion_Plan\TECH\Mecongs\Public_Meeting_20150505\CS_Public_Meeting_Notes_20150505.doc 4 of 5 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 55 of 316 Kimley. Horn F" RCCESSULU6y — ' CITY OF COLLEGE STATION City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan • Q: Will there be a follow up meeting? A: The next meeting for this project will be a City Council meeting. An ADA webpage will be created on the City website and the draft Transition Plan document will be posted for public review. • Q: Does the City use video phones? No one uses TTY anymore,so it is not really accessible. A: Texas Relay(TTY)is used by the City in accordance with federal statutes and will need to look into offering this additional service. \\FIWFPOI\Data\Project\Ff W_TPTO\061271408- College_Station_ADA_Transition_Plan\TECH]Meetings\Publie_Meeting_20150505\CS Public_Meeting_Motes_20150505.doc 5 of 5 Ordinance No.2015-3712 ,t56f 316 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan PUBLIC MEETING NOTES September 28,2015—6:30 PM Project: Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Location: City of College Station City Hall Council Chambers Attendees: • Venessa Garza, City of College Station • City of College Department Representatives • Public Meeting Attendees Discussion Items(Comments and Questions form Attendees with Answers from staff): • Q: Will the final document be available online for review with the feedback received from the second public meeting and comments received through October 2,2015? A: Yes,the final document will be updated online with comments from the second public meeting and other comments received through October 2nd • Q:Does the Plan include a prioritization of what will be repaired first? A: Yes,the plan includes priorities for each facility type by issue identified. • Sidewalks on Holik Street in front of A&M Consolidated Middle School are in disrepair and need to be fixed. • Q: What is the responsibility of the City and what is the responsibility of the business or property owner that has a sidewalk to repair? A: Public right of way is the City's responsibility to repair. If it is on private property,it is the property owner's responsibility. • Q:For new development,where in the inspection process is ADA compliance reviewed?There may be a non-compliant area at Northpoint Crossing near Hensel Park. A: It depends. There are different entities that review different things. There is public infrastructure, the site around the building and inside the building. There's also TDLR inspections that's required on projects with pedestrian improvements when the construction value is over$50,000. The specific concern referenced will be looked into further. • Q: What are the plans for future phases? A: That hasn't been determined at this point. • Add a policy that includes the placement of a"sidewalk closed"sign at each point of entry where someone using a mobility device may enter;this prevents the person from making an unnecessary trip down the sidewalk, learn of its closing, and need to go all the way back down the sidewalk to try another path. • The Brazos Valley Center for Independent Living offered their services to assist the City. Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 57 of 316 Appendix B: Grievance Process ADA Notice Grievance Procedure Grievance Form LI Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 58 of 316 NOTICE UNDER THE ADA In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),the City of College Station does not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities. Employment:The City of College Station does not discriminate on the basis of disability in its hiring or employment practices and complies with all regulations promulgated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Title I and Title II of the ADA. Effective Communication: The City of College Station will generally, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities so they can participate equally in the City's programs,services, and activities, including qualified sign language interpreters, documents in Braille, and other ways of making information and communications accessible to people who have speech, hearing, or vision impairments. Modifications to Policies and Procedures:The City of College Station will endeavor to make all reasonable modifications to policies and programs to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to enjoy all of City programs, services, and activities. For example, individuals and their service animals are welcomed in City offices, even where pets are generally prohibited. Anyone who requires an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or a modification of policies or procedures to participate in a program,service, or activity of the City of College Station,should contact (979)764-3541 as far in advance as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event. The ADA does not require the City of College Station to take any action that would fundamentally alter the nature of its programs or services, or impose an undue financial or administrative burden. Complaints that a program, service,or activity of the City of College Station is not accessible to persons with disabilities should be directed to the Accessibility Services Office by phone (979) 764-3674 or by email at adaassistance@cstx.gov The City of College Station will not impose a surcharge on an individual with a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to cover the cost of providing auxiliary aids/services or reasonable modifications of policy, such as retrieving items from locations that are open to the public but are not accessible to persons who use wheelchairs. Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 59 of 316 ADA GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE This Grievance Procedure is established to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). It may be used by anyone who wishes to file a grievance alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of services, activities, programs, or benefits by the City.The City's Personnel Policy governs employment-related complaints of disability discrimination. The grievance should be in writing and contain information about the alleged discrimination such as name, address, phone number of complainant and location, date, and description of the problem. Alternative means of filing grievances, such as personal interviews or a tape recording of the grievance, will be made available for persons with disabilities upon request. The grievance should be submitted by the individual and/or his/her designee as soon as possible but no later than 60 calendar days after the alleged violation to: Accessibility Services Office P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station,Texas 77845 Phone-(979) 764-3674 Email—adaassistance@ycstx.gov Within 15 calendar days after receipt of the grievance,the Accessibility Services Office or an appropriate designated department official will respond to the grievance to discuss the concern and possible resolution.Within 15 calendar days of the City's discussion with individual,the Accessibility Office or a designee will respond in writing, and where appropriate, in a format accessible to the individual, such as large print, Braille, or audio tape.The response will explain the position of the City and offer options for substantive resolution of the grievance. If the response by the Accessibility Services Office or an appropriate designated department official does not satisfactorily resolve the issue,the individual and/or his/her designee may appeal the decision within 15 calendar days after receipt of the response to the City Manager or designee. Within 15 calendar days after receipt of the appeal,the City Manager or designee will meet with the individual to discuss the complaint and possible resolution. Within 15 calendar days after the meeting, the City Manager or designee will respond in writing, and,where appropriate, in a format accessible to the individual,with a final resolution of the grievance. All written grievances received by the Accessibility Services Office or designee, appeals to the City Manager or designee, and responses from these two offices will be retained by the City of College Station for at least three years. Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 60 of 316 ADA GRIEVANCE FORM FOR PUBLIC SERVICES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Title ll of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Home of Texas Ad-Al University' Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act Please complete, sign and submit this form within 60 calendar days of any grievance to the address at the bottom of the page. Full name of person submitting report: Address: City: State: Zip Code: Phone: _Alternate phone: Email: If you are reporting this grievance on someone else's behalf, please provide their full name: Please provide a detailed description of your grievance. If applicable, include the date, time, location, city department(s) involved, and the desired remedy you are seeking.Add additional pages if necessary: Has this grievance been reported to anyone else? If so, to whom? Signature: ..___ Date: If you need assistance, require an accessible format, or have questions about this form, please contact the City of College Station ADA Coordinator at adaassistance@cstx.gov or 979.764.3509. ADA COORDINATOR Mailing Address: Physical Address: P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Ave. College Station, TX 77842 College Station,TX 77845 cstx . gov/ada Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 61 of 316 Appendix C: U.S. Department of Justice Effective Communication Guidance Revised ADA Requirements: Effective Communication Page 1 of 5 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 62 of 316 U.S.Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section 41.1.47,..;r, ADAEffective Communication Requirements The Department of Justice published revised final regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)for title II (State and local government services)and title Ill(public accommodations and commercial facilities)on September 15,2010, in the Federal Register.These requirements,or rules,clarify and refine issues that have arisen over the past 20 years and contain new,and updated, requirements, including the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design(2010 Standards). Overview People who have vision,hearing,or speech disabilities("communication disabilities")use different ways to communicate.For example,people who are blind may give and receive information audibly rather than in writing and people who are deaf may give and receive information through writing or sign language rather than through speech. The ADA requires that title II entities(State and local governments)and title Ill entities(businesses and nonprofit organizations that serve the public)communicate effectively with people who have communication disabilities.The goal is to ensure that communication with people with these disabilities is equally effective as communication with people without disabilities. This publication is designed to help title II and title III entities("covered entities")understand how the rules for effective communication, including rules that went into effect on March 15,2011,apply to them. • The purpose of the effective communication rules is to ensure that the person with a vision,hearing,or speech disability can communicate with, receive information from,and convey information to,the covered entity. • Covered entities must provide auxiliary aids and services when needed to communicate effectively with people who have communication disabilities. • The key to communicating effectively is to consider the nature, length,complexity,and context of the communication and the person's normal method(s)of communication. • The rules apply to communicating with the person who is receiving the covered entity's goods or services as well as with that person's parent,spouse,or companion in appropriate circumstances. Auxiliary Aids and Services The ADA uses the term"auxiliary aids and services"("aids and services")to refer to the ways to communicate with people who have communication disabilities. • For people who are blind,have vision loss,or are deaf-blind,this includes providing a qualified reader;information in large print, Braille,or electronically for use with a computer screen-reading program;or an audio recording of printed information.A"qualified"reader means someone who is able to read effectively,accurately,and impartially, using any necessary specialized vocabulary. • For people who are deaf,have hearing loss,or are deaf-blind,this includes providing a qualified notetaker;a qualified sign language interpreter,oral interpreter,cued-speech interpreter,or tactile interpreter;real-time captioning;written materials;or a printed script of a stock speech(such as given on a museum or historic house tour).A"qualified" interpreter means someone who is able to interpret effectively,accurately,and impartially,both receptively(i.e., http://www.ada.gov/effective-comm.htm 8/17/2015 Revised ADA Requirements: Effective Communication Page 2 of 5 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 63 of 316 understanding what the person with the disability is saying)and expressively(i.e., having the skill needed to convey information back to that person)using any necessary specialized vocabulary. • For people who have speech disabilities,this may include providing a qualified speech-to-speech transliterator(a person trained to recognize unclear speech and repeat it clearly) ,especially if the person will be speaking at length,such as giving testimony in court,or just taking more time to communicate with someone who uses a communication board. In some situations,keeping paper and pencil on hand so the person can write out words that staff cannot understand or simply allowing more time to communicate with someone who uses a communication board or device may provide effective communication.Staff should always listen attentively and not be afraid or embarrassed to ask the person to repeat a word or phrase they do not understand. In addition,aids and services include a wide variety of technologies including 1)assistive listening systems and devices;2) open captioning,closed captioning,real-time captioning,and closed caption decoders and devices;3)telephone handset amplifiers, hearing-aid compatible telephones,text telephones(TTYs),videophones,captioned telephones,and other voice, text,and video-based telecommunications products;4)videotext displays;5)screen reader software,magnification software, and optical readers;6)video description and secondary auditory programming(SAP)devices that pick up video-described audio feeds for television programs;7)accessibility features in electronic documents and other electronic and information technology that is accessible(either independently or through assistive technology such as screen readers). Real-time captioning(also known as computer-assisted real-time transcription,or CART)is a service similar to court reporting in which a transcriber types what is being said at a meeting or event into a computer that projects the words onto a screen. This service,which can be provided on-site or remotely, is particularly useful for people who are deaf or have hearing loss but do not use sign language. The free nationwide telecommunications relay service(TRS), reached by calling 7-1-1, uses communications assistants (also called CAs or relay operators)who serve as intermediaries between people who have hearing or speech disabilities who use a text telephone(TTY)or text messaging and people who use standard voice telephones.The communications assistant tells the telephone user what the other party is typing and types to tell the other party what the telephone user is saying.TRS also provides speech-to-speech transliteration for callers who have speech disabilities. Video relay service(VRS)is a free,subscriber-based service for people who use sign language and have videophones,smart phones,or computers with video communication capabilities. For outgoing calls,the subscriber contacts the VRS interpreter, who places the call and serves as an intermediary between the subscriber and a person who uses a standard voice telephone. The interpreter tells the telephone user what the subscriber is signing and signs to the subscriber what the telephone user is saying. Video remote interpreting(VRI)is a fee-based service that uses video conferencing technology to access an off-site interpreter to provide real-time sign language or oral interpreting services for conversations between hearing people and people who are deaf or have hearing loss.The new regulations give covered entities the choice of using VRI or on-site interpreters in situations where either would be effective.VRI can be especially useful in rural areas where on-site interpreters may be difficult to obtain.Additionally,there may be some cost advantages in using VRI in certain circumstances.However, VRI will not be effective in all circumstances.For example, it will not be effective if the person who needs the interpreter has difficulty seeing the screen(either because of vision loss or because he or she cannot be properly positioned to see the screen, because of an injury or other condition).In these circumstances,an on-site interpreter may be required. If VRI is chosen,all of the following specific performance standards must be met: • real-time,full-motion video and audio over a dedicated high-speed,wide-bandwidth video connection or wireless connection that delivers high-quality video images that do not produce lags,choppy,blurry,or grainy images,or irregular pauses in communication; • a sharply delineated image that is large enough to display the interpreter's face,arms, hands,and fingers,and the face, arms, hands,and fingers of the person using sign language, regardless of his or her body position; • a clear,audible transmission of voices;and • adequate staff training to ensure quick set-up and proper operation. http://www.ada.gov/effective-comm.htm 8/17/2015 Revised ADA Requirements: Effective Communication Page 3 of 5 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 64 of 316 Many deaf-blind individuals use support service providers(SSPs)to assist them in accessing the world around them.SSPs are not"aids and services"under the ADA.However,they provide mobility,orientation, and informal communication services for deaf-blind individuals and are a critically important link enabling them to independently access the community at large. Effective Communication Provisions Covered entities must provide aids and services when needed to communicate effectively with people who have communication disabilities. The key to deciding what aid or service is needed to communicate effectively is to consider the nature, length,complexity,and context of the communication as well as the person's normal method(s)of communication. Some easy solutions work in relatively simple and straightforward situations.For example: • In a lunchroom or restaurant,reading the menu to a person who is blind allows that person to decide what dish to order. • In a retail setting, pointing to product information or writing notes back and forth to answer simple questions about a product may allow a person who is deaf to decide whether to purchase the product. Other solutions may be needed where the information being communicated is more extensive or complex.For example: • In a law firm,providing an accessible electronic copy of a legal document that is being drafted for a client who is blind allows the client to read the draft at home using a computer screen-reading program. • In a doctor's office,an interpreter generally will be needed for taking the medical history of a patient who uses sign language or for discussing a serious diagnosis and its treatment options. A person's method(s)of communication are also key.For example,sign language interpreters are effective only for people who use sign language.Other methods of communication,such as those described above,are needed for people who may have lost their hearing later in life and do not use sign language.Similarly, Braille is effective only for people who read Braille.Other methods are needed for people with vision disabilities who do not read Braille,such as providing accessible electronic text documents,forms,etc.,that can be accessed by the person's screen reader program. Covered entities are also required to accept telephone calls placed through TRS and VRS,and staff who answer the telephone must treat relay calls just like other calls.The communications assistant will explain how the system works if necessary. Remember,the purpose of the effective communication rules is to ensure that the person with a communication disability can receive information from,and convey information to,the covered entity. Companions In many situations,covered entities communicate with someone other than the person who is receiving their goods or services. For example,school staff usually talk to a parent about a child's progress; hospital staff often talk to a patient's spouse,other relative,or friend about the patient's condition or prognosis.The rules refer to such people as"companions"and require covered entities to provide effective communication for companions who have communication disabilities. The term"companion"includes any family member,friend,or associate of a person seeking or receiving an entity's goods or services who is an appropriate person with whom the entity should communicate. Use of Accompanying Adults or Children as Interpreters Historically,many covered entities have expected a person who uses sign language to bring a family member or friend to interpret for him or her.These people often lacked the impartiality and specialized vocabulary needed to interpret effectively and accurately.It was particularly problematic to use people's children as interpreters. http://www.ada.gov/effective-comm.htm 8/17/2015 Revised ADA Requirements: Effective Communication Page 4 of 5 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 65 of 316 The ADA places responsibility for providing effective communication, including the use of interpreters,directly on covered entities.They cannot require a person to bring someone to interpret for him or her.A covered entity can rely on a companion to interpret in only two situations. (1)In an emergency involving an imminent threat to the safety or welfare of an individual or the public,an adult or minor child accompanying a person who uses sign language may be relied upon to interpret or facilitate communication only when a qualified interpreter is not available. (2)In situations not involving an imminent threat,an adult accompanying someone who uses sign language may be relied upon to interpret or facilitate communication when a)the individual requests this,b)the accompanying adult agrees,and c)reliance on the accompanying adult is appropriate under the circumstances.This exception does not apply to minor children. Even under exception(2),covered entities may not rely on an accompanying adult to interpret when there is reason to doubt the person's impartiality or effectiveness. For example: • It would be inappropriate to rely on a companion to interpret who feels conflicted about communicating bad news to the person or has a personal stake in the outcome of a situation. • When responding to a call alleging spousal abuse, police should never rely on one spouse to interpret for the other spouse. Who Decides Which Aid or Service Is Needed? When choosing an aid or service,title II entities are required to give primary consideration to the choice of aid or service requested by the person who has a communication disability.The state or local government must honor the person's choice, unless it can demonstrate that another equally effective means of communication is available,or that the use of the means chosen would result in a fundamental alteration or in an undue burden(see limitations below). If the choice expressed by the person with a disability would result in an undue burden or a fundamental alteration,the public entity still has an obligation to provide an alternative aid or service that provides effective communication if one is available. Title III entities are encouraged to consult with the person with a disability to discuss what aid or service is appropriate.The goal is to provide an aid or service that will be effective,given the nature of what is being communicated and the person's method of communicating. Covered entities may require reasonable advance notice from people requesting aids or services,based on the length of time needed to acquire the aid or service,but may not impose excessive advance notice requirements."Walk-in"requests for aids and services must also be honored to the extent possible. Limitations Covered entities are required to provide aids and services unless doing so would result in an"undue burden,"which is defined as significant difficulty or expense.If a particular aid or service would result in an undue burden,the entity must provide another effective aid or service, if possible,that would not result in an undue burden.Determining what constitutes an undue burden will vary from entity to entity and sometimes from one year to the next.The impact of changing economic conditions on the resources available to an entity may also be taken into consideration in making this determination. State and local governments:in determining whether a particular aid or service would result in undue financial and administrative burdens,a title II entity should take into consideration the cost of the particular aid or service in light of all resources available to fund the program,service,or activity and the effect on other expenses or operations.The decision that a particular aid or service would result in an undue burden must be made by a high level official, no lower than a Department head,and must include a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. Businesses and nonprofits:in determining whether a particular aid or service would result in an undue burden,a title III entity should take into consideration the nature and cost of the aid or service relative to their size,overall financial resources,and http://www.ada.gov/effective-comm.htm 8/17/2015 Revised ADA Requirements: Effective Communication Page 5 of 5 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 66 of 316 overall expenses. In general,a business or nonprofit with greater resources is expected to do more to ensure effective communication than one with fewer resources. If the entity has a parent company,the administrative and financial relationship, as well as the size,resources,and expenses of the parent company,would also be considered. In addition,covered entities are not required to provide any particular aid or service in those rare circumstances where it would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods or services they provide to the public.In the performing arts,for example,slowing down the action on stage in order to describe the action for patrons who are blind or have vision loss may fundamentally alter the nature of a play or dance performance. Staff Training A critical and often overlooked component of ensuring success is comprehensive and ongoing staff training.Covered entities may have established good policies,but if front line staff are not aware of them or do not know how to implement them, problems can arise.Covered entities should teach staff about the ADA's requirements for communicating effectively with people who have communication disabilities.Many local disability organizations,including Centers for Independent Living, conduct ADA trainings in their communities.The Department's ADA Information Line can provide local contact information for these organizations. For more information about the ADA,please visit our website or call our toll-free number. ADA Website www.ADA.gov To receive e-mail notifications when new ADA information is available, visit the ADA Website's home page and click the link near the top of the middle column. ADA Information Line 800-514-0301 fir,(Voice)and 800-514-0383 t (TTY) 24 hours a day to order publications by mail. M-W, F 9:30 a.m.—5:30 p.m. ,Th 12:30 p.m.—5:30 p.m.(Eastern Time)to speak with an ADA Specialist. All calls are confidential. For persons with disabilities,this publication is available in alternate formats. Duplication of this document is encouraged.January 2014 PDF Version of this Document Januar)31 2014 http://www.ada.gov/effective-comm.htm 8/17/2015 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 67 of 316 Appendix D: Self-Evaluation Reports Buildings Parks Signalized Intersections Sidewalk Corridors { i t .i aM ,. r,.:ir.� f/_.T r Iri,61 to.14 it.l 'L (,, ;.1 j— f :1 it it�I_V-e, ,- t Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 68 of 316 City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Update Building Cost Projection Summary 6/24/2015 GPS ID Project Name Cost Projection 1 Northgate Garage $ 16,057.00 2 Municipal Court $ 32,130.00 3 Utility Customer Service $ 33,802.00 TOTAL $ 81,989.00 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 69 of 316 Parking flCCfSSOLOGy City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Northgate Garage Facili Contact: Debbie Eller Contact Phone: 979-764-3771 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Monday,November 03,2014 Email: Steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°37'09.9"N Longitude: 96°20'50.2"W Address: 306 College Main Ci : College Station Conn : Brazos General Parking Notes: This parking garage was constructed in 2001/2002 and was subject to 1991 ADAAG and 1994 TAS and only required one van accessible parking space for every eight accessible spaces provided. Two van accessible parking spaces are provided as required. There are mounting height issues with the accessible parking signs on level 4 and the vertical clearance at one of the van accessible spaces on level 1. General Parking Notes: _ There are 706 parking spaces provided. 15 accessible parking spaces are require and 16 are provided. Two accessible parking spaces are designated as van accessible as required. Total Parking Spaces: 720 Total Accessible Parking Spaces: 16 Number of van accessible spaces: 2 Is the accessible parking substantially compliant? No Level 4-The four accessible parking signs are 23" above the parking surface to Violation#1: the symbol of accessibility. A mounting height of 60" minimum is required. Page 1 of 11 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 70 of 316 Parking College Station-Northgate Garage-Parking Page 2 Standard: 2010 ADAAG 502.6 Parking Spaces Identification. Parking space identification signs shall include the International Symbol of Accessibility complying with(703.7.2.1 International Symbol of Text: Accessibility). Signs identifying van parking spaces shall contain the designation"van accessible." Signs shall be 60 inches minimum above the finish floor or ground surface measured to the bottom of the sign. The four parking signs will need to be relocated so that the bottom of the Recommendation: sign is 60" minimum above the parking surface. Violation#1 Cost: $248 Priority Level 1 -The vertical clearance at the van accessible parking space is reduced to Violation#2: 84" due to overhead duct. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 502.5 Vertical Clearance. Parking spaces for vans and access aisles and vehicular routes serving Text: them shall provide a vertical clearance of 98 inches minimum. The duct will need to be modified to achieve the 98" minimum vertical Recommendation: clearance within the level 1 van accessible parking space. Violation #2 Cost: $1,898 Priority High Priority Parking Violations Total $2,146 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 2of11 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 71 ofnatessible Route City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Northgate Garage Facili Contact: Debbie Eller Contact Phone: 979-764-3771 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Monday,November 03,2014 Email: Steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°37'09.9"N Longitude: 96°20'50.2"W Address: 306 College Main Cit : College Station Coun : Brazos General Accessible Route Notes: The garage elevators are substantially compliant. The curb ramps serving the accessible parking spaces on level 1 are not substantially compliant due to excessive flare slopes. Is the path of travel from accessible parking to building entrance compliant? Yes Does the path of travel serve all exterior amenities offered by the facility? Yes Is the path of travel from building entrances to all amenities served by the No entrance substantially compliant? The curb ramp that provide access across the College Main garage entrance has a Violation#1: 3.9%cross slope on the south curb ramp segment. A cross slope of 1:48(2%) maximum is required. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 405.3 Ramps Cross Slope. Text: Cross slope of ramp runs shall not be steeper than 1:48. • The curb ramp segment will need to be replaced to achieve the 1:48 Recommendation: maximum cross slope. Violation#1 Cost: L $1,504 Priority Level 1 -The curb ramps serving the accessible parking have flares with slopes of Violation #2: 16.4%and 21.2%where 1:10 (10%)maximum is required. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 406.3 Sides of Curb Ramps. Text: Where provided, curb ramp flares shall not be steeper than 1:10. Page 3 of 11 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 72 oV 1t6ssible Route College Station-Northgate Garage Accessible Route-Page 2 The ramp flares will need to be modified to achieve the 1:10 maximum Recommendation: slope. Violation#2 Cost: $2,645 Priority High Priority r Accessible Route Total $4,149 Medium Priority I Low Priority Page 4 of 11 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 73 of 316 Entrance City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Northgate Garage Facility Contact: Debbie Eller Contact Phone: 979-764-3771 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Monday,November 03,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°37'09.9"N Longitude: 96°20'50.2"W Address: 306 College Main Ci : College Station Count : Brazos General Entrance Notes: The pedestrian entrances into the garage are substantially compliant.There are no entrance doors into the garage. Is the main entry door accessible? N/A Is there an alternate door that is accessible? N/A If so,does the inaccessible door have signage indicating the location N/A of the nearest accessible door? High Priority Entrance Total $0 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 5 of 11 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 74 of 316 Restrooms City of College Station BUILDING REPORT I Facility Information: Facility Name: Northgate Garage Facility Contact: Debbie Eller Contact Phone: 979-764-3771 Accessology Inspector Information: 9 Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Monday,November 03,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°37'09.9"N Longitude: 96°20'50.2"W Address: 306 College Main Ci : College Station Count : Brazos General Restroom Notes: Two restrooms are provided near the garage office and are intended to be staff use only and are kept locked. The water closet seats in both restrooms are too high and one lavatory is missing the required pipe insulation. The floor drains in both restrooms create slopes in excess of 1:48 (2%)and the wall mounted fans are above accessible reach range. Is the door to the restroom substantially compliant? Yes Does the room have the required turning radius? Yes Is the water closet substantially compliant? No Does the water closet have the required clear floor space? Yes Is the lavatory substantially compliant? No Is the urinal substantially compliant? N/A Is the mirror substantially compliant? Yes Restrooms- The exposed water lines and drain pipes under one of the lavatories Violation#1: are not protected against contact. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 606.5 Exposed Pipes and Surfaces. Water supply and drain pipes under lavatories and sinks shall be insulated Text: or otherwise configured to protect against contact. There shall be no sharp or abrasive surfaces under lavatories and sinks. Recommendation: The exposed water and drain pipe must be protected against contact. Violation #1 Cost: $61 Priority Restrooms-The water closets are 19-3/4" and 20-1/4"to the top of the seat where Violation#2: 17"-19" is required. Page 6 of 11 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 75 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Northgate Garage Restrooms- Page 2 Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.4 Water Closets Seats. The seat height of a water closet above the finish floor shall be 17 inches Text: minimum and 19 inches maximum measured to the top of the seat. Seats shall not be sprung to return to a lifted position. Recommendation: The water closets must be lowered to achieve the 17"-19" seat height. Violation#2 Cost: $4,697 Priority Restrooms-The slope to the floor drains in the restrooms is approximately 7.6% Violation#3: where 1:48 (2%)maximum must be provided within the required clearances for the fixtures. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 305.2 Floor or Ground Surfaces. Floor or ground surfaces of a clear floor or ground space shall comply with Text: 302. Changes in level are not permitted. EXCEPTION: Slopes not steeper than 1:48 shall be permitted. Recommendation: The drains must be modified to achieve a 1:48 (2%)maximum slope. Violation#3 Cost: $3,807 Priority Restrooms-The controls for the fan units within the restrooms are located at 63" Violation#4: high and are out of accessible reach range. A maximum height of 48" is required. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 308.3.1 Side Reach Unobstructed. Where a forward reach is unobstructed,the high forward reach shall be 48 Text: inches maximum and the low forward reach shall be 15 inches minimum above the finish floor or ground. Recommendation: The controls for the units must be relocated to 48" high maximum. Violation#4 Cost: $623 j Priority Page 7 of 11 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 76 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Northgate Garage Restrooms-Page 23 High Priority Restrooms Total $9,187 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 8 of 11 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 77 of 316 Misc City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Northgate Garage Facility Contact: Debbie Eller Contact Phone: 979-764-3771 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Monday,November 03,2014 Email: Steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°37'09.9"N Longitude: 96°20'50.2"W Address: 306 College Main Ci : College Station Conn : Brazos General Misc Notes: There is a high/low drinking fountain unit between the restrooms. This unit is substantially compliant except for the high side as it is a protruding object. The garage office has a service counter and provides an accessible portion of counter. Are there exterior drinking fountains? Yes Are there any other miscellaneous items not previously covered? No Violation#1: The high drinking fountain located between the restrooms is a protruding object. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 307.2 Protruding Objects Protrusion Limits. Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches and not more than 80 Text: inches above the finish floor or ground shall protrude 4 inches maximum horizontally into the circulation path. Recommendation: Install an apron Violation#1 Cost: $575 Priority Level 6 High Priority Miscellaneous Total $575 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 9 of 11 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Northgate Parking Garage Page 78 of 316 1 µ IA DA\ Al . $ --/ 7 - flCCfSSOIOGy1:111i4 _: .14 gl_ l I 1 111 Parking Violation 1 - Level 4-The four accessible parking signs are 23" above the parking surface to the symbol of accessibility. A mounting height of 60" minimum is required. 1it-, `j • ~ • i IW tag 1 14 � =r 1 �,►li I Pi �ii'il EI l an■ii MI®�■ !]■ ill , . 144,11.1 _.,„_:s, #: _ „ ,....,,.. „„. ...., _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ -_,::.. _ . , _.;__ ______ ___ _ P ' Parking Violation 2 - Level 1 -The AR Violation 1 -The curb ramp that AR Violation 2 - Level 1 -The curb ramps vertical clearance at the van accessible provide access across the College Main serving the accessible parking have flares parking space is reduced to 84" due to garage entrance has a 3.9%cross slope. with slopes of 16,4%and 21.2%where overhead duct. 1:10 (10%) maximum is required. unsiabb,, ,...,,_ r r • 14 4,,,,,4 _ _ ____,_ _ ____ ►'. idiftV1 4.1 RR Violation 1 - Restrooms -The RR Violation 2 - Restrooms -The water RR Violation 3 - Restrooms -The exposed water lines and drain pipes closets are 19-3/4" and slope to the floor drains in the under one of the lavatories are not 20-1/4"to the top of the seat where restrooms is approximately 7.6%. protected against contact. 17"-19" is required. Page 10 of 11 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Northgate Parking Garage Page 79 of 316 d' � ttliX RR Violation 4 - Restrooms-The fan Misc Violation 1 -The high drinking controls are above accessible reach fountain located between the restrooms range. is a protruding object. Page 11 of 11 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 80 of 316 Parking flCCESSOLOO City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Municipal Court Building Facili Contact: Dianne Eberhardt Contact Phone: 979-764-3650 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Monday,November 03,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'21.8"N Longitude: 96°18'09.9"W Address: 300 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station Conn : Brazos General Parking Notes: There are two parking areas provided to serve this building, one on the north side and one on the south side. The accessible parking provided in the north parking lot is substantially compliant. The accessible parking provided in the south parking lot is substantially compliant. General Parking Notes: The north parking lot has 62 total parking spaces. Three accessible parking spaces are required with one being van accessible. Six parking spaces are designated as accessible,three of which are designated van accessible. All of the accessible parking spaces are substantially compliant. Total Parking Spaces-North Parking Lot 62 Total Accessible Parking Spaces: 6 Number of van accessible spaces: 3 Is the accessible parking substantially compliant? Yes General Parking'Notes: The south parking lot has 74 total parking spaces. Three accessible parking spaces are required with one being van accessible. Five parking spaces are designated as accessible,three of which are designated van accessible. All of the accessible parking spaces are substantially compliant. Page 1 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 81 of 316 Parking College Station-Municipal Building Parking-Page 2 Total Parking Spaces-South Parking Lot 74 Total Accessible Parking Spaces: 5 Number of van accessible spaces: 3 Is the accessible parking substantially compliant? Yes High Priority [ ,, ;::SII Parking Violations Total $0 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 2 of 22 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 82 oV HI ssible Route City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Municipal Court Building Facili Contact: Dianne Eberhardt Contact Phone: 979-764-3650 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Monday,November 03,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'21.8"N Longitude: 96°18'09.9"W Address: 300 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station Count Brazos General Accessible Route Notes: The accessible connecting route to the sidewalk along Krenek Tap Road is compliant except for vehicle overhangs that may reduce the required clear width. The ramp that provides access to the main entrance has a non-compliant cross slope within the ramp segment and the lower landing is not level. No accessible connecting route is provided to the picnic table at the covered service entrance on the south side of the building. Is the path of travel from accessible parking to building entrance compliant? No Does the path of travel serve all exterior amenities offered by the facility? Yes Is the path of travel from building entrances to all amenities served by the No entrance substantially compliant? The clear width of accessible connecting route from the public sidewalk along Violation#1: Krenek Tap Road to the building may become obstructed due to the vehicle overhang of parked vehicles. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 502.7 Relationship to Accessible Routes. Parking spaces and access aisles shall be designed so that cars and vans, Text: when parked,cannot obstruct the required clear width of adjacent accessible routes. Wheel stops should be installed within the ten parking spaces that adjoin Recommendation: the sidewalk leading to Krenek Tap Road to prevent vehicle overhangs from obstructing the sidewalk. Violation#1 Cost: $943 Priority Page 3 of 22 pagel Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 83 otatessible Route College Station-Municipal Building Accessible Route-Page 2 The exterior ramp that provides access up to the north side main entrance has a running slope of 4%and a cross slope of 2.7%within the landing area at the Violation#2: bottom of the ramp. Ramp landings must have a cross slope of 1:48(2%) maximum in all directions. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 405.7.1 Ramps Landings Slope. 1..Q11U111 ,Slid111,4J111pIy WILIIkJ1J.4 1'1UVl l)1 V1UU11U dUl!d!.X ) I AWQ11*g'GJ III Text: level are not permitted. i vourrrIcThJ• n+r..a r.r...+x.nr. 1.AQ ..II h.-...�......�++..7 The ramp landing must be reconstructed to achieve the 1:48(2%) Recommendation: maximum slope within the lower ramp landing. Violation #2 Cost: $316 Priority The exterior ramp that provides access up to the north side main entrance has a Violation#3: cross slope of 3.8%within the ramp segment. The ramp must have a cross slope not exceeding 1:48 (2%)throughout its length. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 405.3 Ramps Cross Slope. Text: Cross slope of ramp runs shall not be steeper than 1:48(2%). The rampsegment must be modified to achieve a 1:48 cross slope Recommendation: g throughout the full length of the ramp. Violation#3 Cost: $13,800 Priority No accessible connecting route is provided to serve the picnic table provided at Violation#4: the covered service entrance on the south side of the building. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 206.2.2 Accessible Routes Within a Site. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings,accessible Text: facilities,accessible elements,and accessible spaces that are on the same site. Page 4 of 22 page2 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 84 oNt6ssible Route College Station-Municipal Building Accessible Route- Page 3 A curb ramp or ramp could be installed to provide access to the picnic Recommendation: table. Violation#4 Cost: $1,504 1 Priority High Priority MIN Accessible Route Total $16,563 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 5 of 22 page3 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 85 of 316 Entrance City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Municipal Court Building Facility Contact: Dianne Eberhardt Contact Phone: 979-764-3650 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Monday,November 03,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'21.8"N Longitude: 96°18'09.9"W Address: 300 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station Coun : Brazos General Entrance Notes: A II entrances into the facility are substantially compliant. Is the main entry door accessible? Yes Is there an alternate door that is accessible? Yes if so,does the inaccessible door have signage indicating the location N/A of the nearest accessible door? High Priority Entrance Total $0 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 6 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 86 of 316 Hallway City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Municipal Court Building Facility Contact: Dianne Eberhardt Contact Phone: 979-764-3650 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Monday,November 03,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'21.8"N Longitude: 96°18'09.9"W Address: 300 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station Coun : Brazos General Hallway Notes: Hallways within the building are generally compliant except for room signs that are lacking raised tactile characters and are not located on the latch side of the doors they serve. Does this facility have any hallways? Yes Do the doors have compliant hardware? Yes Do the doors have proper maneuvering clearances? Yes Is the hallway width at least 36"clear width? Yes Are visual strobes provided? Yes Are there any protruding objects? No Is the signage substantially compliant? No The room identification at the Fire Administration/Fire Prevention office area is Violation#1: etched into the glass adjacent to the door. Signs designating permanent spaces must be accessible and include raised tactile characters and Braille. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 216.2 Designations. Interior and exterior signs identifying permanent rooms and spaces shall comply with 703.1,703.2, and 703.5. Where pictograms are provided as Text: designations of permanent interior rooms and spaces,the pictograms shall comply with 703.6 and shall have text descriptors complying with 703.2 and 703.5. A compliant room sign must be installed to serve the entrance into the Recommendation: office suite area. Violation#1 Cost: $288 Priority Fr Page Page 7 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 87 of 316 Hallway College Station-Municipal Building Hallway-Page 2 The room signs within the Fire Administration/Fire Prevention office area do not Violation#2: have tactile characters and are installed to 62"to the centerline of the signs. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 216.2 Designations. Interior and exterior signs identifying permanent rooms and spaces shall comply with 703.1,703.2, and 703.5. Where pictograms are provided as Text: designations of permanent interior rooms and spaces,the pictograms shall comply with 703.6 and shall have text descriptors complying with 703.2 and 703.5. The existing room signs must be replaced with signs that include tactile Recommendation: characters,Braille and are installed at the correct height. Violation#2 Cost: $4,313 Priority High Priority 4 Hallway Total $4,600 I Medium Priority Low Priority Page 8 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 88 of 316 Restrooms City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Municipal Court Building Facili Contact: Dianne Eberhardt Contact Phone: 979-764-3650 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Monday,November 03,2014 Email: stcven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'21.8"N Longitude: 96°18'09.9"W Address: 300 Krenek Tap Road Ci College Station Count T: Brazos General Restroom Notes: There are ten restrooms in this building. There are issues with toilet compartment doors not self-closing,toilet compartment door maneuvering clearance,water closet clear floor space,dispenser reach range and protruding objects. Yes Does the room have the required turning radius? Is the water closet substantially compliant? No Does the water closet have the required clear floor space? No Is the lavatory substantially compliant? Yes Is the urinal substantially compliant? Yes Is the mirror substantially compliant? Yes 1st floor lobby Men Restroom-The room sign is located on the door where it is Violation#1: required to be installed on the latch side of the door. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 703.4.2 Installation Height and Location. Where a tactile sign is provided at a door,the sign shall be located alongside the door at the latch side. Where a tactile sign is provided at double doors with one active leaf,the sign shall be located on the inactive leaf.Where a tactile sign is provided at double doors with two active leafs, the sign shall be located to the right of the right hand door. Where there is Text: no wall space at the latch side of a single door or at the right side of double doors, signs shall be located on the nearest adjacent wall. Signs containing tactile characters shall be located so that a clear floor space of 18 inches minimum by 18 inches minimum,centered on the tactile characters,is provided beyond the arc of any door swing between the closed position and 45 degree open position. Page 9 of 22 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 89 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Municipal Building Restrooms-Page 2 Recommendation: The existing restroom signs must be relocated to the latch side of the door. Violation#1 Cost: $288 Priority MEP 1st floor Lobby Men Restroom-The soap dispenser located above the lavatory Violation#2: counter is 50" above the floor. Accessible reach range over an obstruction is 44" maximum. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 308.2.2 Forward Reach Obstructed High Reach. Where a high forward reach is over an obstruction,the clear floor space shall extend beneath the element for a distance not less than the required reach depth over the obstruction. The high forward reach shall be 48 Text' inches maximum where the reach depth is 20 inches maximum.Where the reach depth exceeds 20 inches,the high forward reach shall be 44 inches maximum and the reach depth shall be 25 inches maximum. Recommendation: The soap dispenser must be relocated to 44" above the floor. Violation#2 Cost: $476 Priority 1st floor lobby Men Restroom-The door into the accessible toilet compartment Violation#3: does not self-close. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.8.2.2 Doors. Toilet compartment doors,including door hardware, shall comply with (404 Doors,Doorways, and Gates),except that if the approach is to the latch side of the compartment door, clearance between the door side of the compartment and any obstruction shall be 42 inches minimum. The door Text: shall be self-closing.A door pull complying with(404.2.7 Door and Gate Hardware)shall be placed on both sides of the door near the latch.Toilet compartment doors shall not swing into the minimum required compartment area. Recommendation: The toilet compartment door must be adjusted to self-close. Page 10 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 90 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Municipal Building Restrooms-Page 3 Violation#3 Cost: $154 Priority 1st floor lobby Women Restroom-The door into the accessible toilet Violation#4: compartment does not self-close. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.8.2.2 Doors. Toilet compartment doors, including door hardware, shall comply with (404 Doors,Doorways,and Gates),except that if the approach is to the latch side of the compartment door, clearance between the door side of the compartment and any obstruction shall be 42 inches minimum.The door Text. shall be self-closing.A door pull complying with(404.2.7 Door and Gate Hardware)shall be placed on both sides of the door near the latch. Toilet compartment doors shall not swing into the minimum required compartment area. Recommendation: The toilet compartment door must be adjusted to self-close. Violation#4 Cost: $154 Priority 1st floor lobby Women's Restroom-The room sign is located on the door where i t Violation#5: is required to be installed on the latch side of the door. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 703.4.2 Installation Height and Location. Where a tactile sign is provided at a door,the sign shall be located alongside the door at the latch side. Where a tactile sign is provided at double doors with one active leaf,the sign shall be located on the inactive leaf. Where a tactile sign is provided at double doors with two active leafs, the sign shall be located to the right of the right hand door.Where there is Text: no wall space at the latch side of a single door or at the right side of double doors, signs shall be located on the nearest adjacent wall. Signs containing tactile characters shall be located so that a clear floor space of 18 inches minimum by 18 inches minimum,centered on the tactile characters,is provided beyond the arc of any door swing between the closed position and 45 degree open position. Recommendation: The existing restroom signs must be relocated to the latch side of the door. Page 11 of 22 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 91 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Municipal Building Restrooms-Page 4 Violation#5 Cost: $288 Priority 1st floor Men Restroom(Fire Admin)-The soap dispensers located above the Violation#6: lavatory counter are 49" above the floor. Accessible reach range over an obstruction is 44"maximum. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 308.2.2 Forward Reach Obstructed High Reach. Where a high forward reach is over an obstruction,the clear floor space shall extend beneath the element for a distance not less than the required reach depth over the obstruction. The high forward reach shall be 48 Text: inches maximum where the reach depth is 20 inches maximum.Where the reach depth exceeds 20 inches,the high forward reach shall be 44 inches maximum and the reach depth shall be 25 inches maximum. Recommendation: The soap dispenser must be relocated to 44" above the floor. Violation#6 Cost: $476 Priority 1st floor Men's Restroom(Fire Admin)-The door into the accessible toilet Violation#7: compartment does not self-close. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.8.2.2 Doors. Toilet compartment doors, including door hardware,shall comply with (404 Doors,Doorways,and Gates), except that if the approach is to the latch side of the compartment door,clearance between the door side of the compartment and any obstruction shall be 42 inches minimum.The door Text: shall be self-closing.A door pull complying with(404.2.7 Door and Gate Hardware)shall be placed on both sides of the door near the latch. Toilet compartment doors shall not swing into the minimum required compartment area. Recommendation: [The toilet compartment door must be adjusted to self-close. Violation #7 Cost: ( $154 Priority Page 12 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 92 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Municipal Building Restrooms-Page 5 1st floor Women's Restroom(Fire Admin)-The soap dispensers located above Violation#8: the lavatory counter are 49" above the floor. Accessible reach range over an obstruction is 44"maximum. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 308.2.2 Forward Reach Obstructed High Reach. Where a high forward reach is over an obstruction,the clear floor space shall extend beneath the element for a distance not less than the required reach depth over the obstruction. The high forward reach shall be 48 Text: inches maximum where the reach depth is 20 inches maximum. Where the reach depth exceeds 20 inches,the high forward reach shall be 44 inches maximum and the reach depth shall be 25 inches maximum. Recommendation: The soap dispenser must be relocated to 44" above the floor. Violation#8 Cost: $476 Priority 1st floor Women's Restroom(Fire Admin)-The door into the accessible toilet Violation#9: compartment does not self-close. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.8.2.2 Doors. Toilet compartment doors, including door hardware,shall comply with ' (404 Doors,Doorways,and Gates), except that if the approach is to the latch side of the compartment door, clearance between the door side of the compartment and any obstruction shall be 42 inches minimum. The door Text: shall be self-closing.A door pull complying with(404.2.7 Door and Gate Hardware)shall be placed on both sides of the door near the latch.Toilet compartment doors shall not swing into the minimum required compartment area. Recommendation: The toilet compartment door must be adjusted to self-close. Violation#9 Cost: $154 Priority Page 13 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 93 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Municipal Building Restrooms-Page 6 Women's Restroom 241 -The wall mounted storage cabinet and the wall mounted Violation#10: paper towel dispenser are protruding objects as they extend up to 15" from the wall into the circulation path within the restroom. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 307.2 Protruding Objects Protrusion Limits. Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches and not more than 80 Text: inches above the finish floor or ground shall protrude 4 inches maximum horizontally into the circulation path. The paper towel dispenser and cabinet must be relocated so that it is not Recommendation: within a circulation path. Violation#10 Cost: $952 Priority Women Restroom 241 -The door into the accessible toilet compartment swings Violation#11: outward and has 6" of maneuvering clearance on the pull side of the door where 18"minimum is required. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 404.2.4 Door and Gate Maneuvering Clearances. Minimum maneuvering clearances at doors and gates shall comply with Text: 404.2.4.Maneuvering clearances shall extend the full width of the doorway and the required latch side or hinge side clearance. The toilet compartment door may be reversed to swing into the toilet Recommendation: compartment. Violation#11 Cost: $2,168 Priority Men Restroom 240-The paper towel dispenser is a protruding object as it Violation#12: extends approximately 8" from the wall into the circulation path within the restroom. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 307.2 Protruding Objects Protrusion Limits. Page 14 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 94 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Municipal Building Restrooms-Page 7 Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches and not more than 80 Text: inches above the finish floor or ground shall protrude 4 inches maximum horizontally into the circulation path. The paper towel dispenser must be relocated so that it is not within a Recommendation: circulation path. Violation#12 Cost: $476 Priority Men Restroom 240-The door into the accessible toilet compartment swings Violation#13: outward and has 6" of maneuvering clearance on the pull side of the door where 18" minimum is required. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 404.2.4 Door and Gate Maneuvering Clearances. Minimum maneuvering clearances at doors and gates shall comply with Text: 404.2.4.Maneuvering clearances shall extend the full width of the doorway and the required latch side or hinge side clearance. The toilet compartment door may be reversed to swing into the toilet Recommendation: compartment. Violation#13 Cost: $2,168 Priority Men Restroom 240-The door into the accessible toilet compartment does not self- Violation#14: close. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.8.2.2 Doors. Toilet compartment doors, including door hardware,shall comply with (404 Doors,Doorways,and Gates),except that if the approach is to the Text: latch side of the compartment door, clearance between the door side of the compartment and any obstruction shall be 42 inches minimum. Page 15 of 22 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 95 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Municipal Building Restrooms-Page 8 The door shall be self-closing.A door pull complying with(404.2.7 Door Text: and Gate Hardware)shall be placed on both sides of the door near the PT 2 latch. Toilet compartment doors shall not swing into the minimum required compartment area. Recommendation: The toilet compartment door must be adjusted to self-close. Violation#14 Cost: $154 Priority Women Restroom 255 -The wall mounted hooks next to the shower are installed Violation#15: at 60" above the floor. At least one hook must be provided at 48"high. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 308.3.1 Side Reach Unobstructed. Where a clear floor or ground space allows a parallel approach to an element and the side reach is unobstructed,the high side reach shall be 48 Text: inches maximum and the low side reach shall be 15 inches minimum above the finish floor or ground. Recommendation: At least one of the towel hooks must be relocated to 48" high maximum. Violation#15 Cost: $40 Priority Men Restroom 254-The clearance between the water closet sidewall and the urinal is 50-1/2". The water closet must have a 60" minimum clearance from the Violation#16: sidewall.At the time of construction 2002/2003 the only fixture permitted to be within the 60"minimum clearance was a lavatory. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.3.1 Water Closets Clearance Size. Clearance around a water closet shall be 60 inches minimum measured Text: perpendicular from the side wall and 56 inches minimum measured perpendicular from the rear wall. Page 16 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 96 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Municipal Building Restrooms-Page 9 The urinal must be relocated or removed to provide the required 60" Recommendation: clearance at the water closet. Violation#16 Cost: $2,348 Priority Men Restroom 254-The wall mounted hooks next to the shower are installed at Violation#17: 60" above the floor. At least one hook must be provided at 48"high. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 308.3.1 Side Reach Unobstructed. Where a clear floor or ground space allows a parallel approach to an element and the side reach is unobstructed,the high side reach shall be 48 Text: inches maximum and the low side reach shall be 15 inches minimum above the finish floor or ground. Recommendation: At least one of the towel hooks must be relocated to 48" high maximum. Violation#17 Cost: $40 Priority High Priority Restrooms Total $10,966 Medium Priority 1 Low Priority Page 17 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 97 of 3l6reak Rooms City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Municipal Court Building Facility Contact: Dianne Eberhardt Contact Phone: 979-764-3650 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Monday,November 03,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'21.8"N Longitude: 96°18'09.9"W Address: 300 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station Coun : Brazos General Break Room Notes: There are four break room/coffee bar areas in the building and all are substantially compliant. Does the facility have a break room? Yes Is there a stove or cooktop? No Is there a sink? Yes Is the sink substantially compliant? Yes Are the counters at 34"aft? Yes High Priority Break Rooms Total $0 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 18 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 98 of 316 Misc City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Municipal Court Building Facility Contact: Dianne Eberhardt Contact Phone: 979-764-3650 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Monday,November 03,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'21.8"N Longitude: 96°18'09.9"W Address: 300 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station County: Brazos General Misc Notes: There are high/low drinking fountain units on the 1st and 2nd floors and they are substantially compliant. Are there exterior drinking fountains? No Are there any other miscellaneous items not previously covered? Yes High Priority Miscellaneous Total $0 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 19 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 College Station Municipal Court Pa'a 99 of 316 -''qua l .w , d :a^. ., VICIPAI. co flCCESSOIOOY , ,fir . 1 AR Violation 1 -Vehicle overhangs obstruct the clear width of the accessible route to Krenek Tap Rd. 4 i rr.�ss - 'S - - 1 41 14F 1.#1...A ik. Ili ?? s, TT . - 4:1114. - . \;4. \,,,',, AR Violation 2 -The exterior ramp that AR Violation 3 -The exterior ramp that AR Violation 4 - No accessible connecting provides access up to the north side main provides access up to the north side main route is provided to serve the picnic table entrance has a running slope of 4% and a entrance has a cross slope of 3.8% within provided at the covered service entrance cross slope of 2.7% within the landing the ramp segment. The ramp must have on the south side of the building. area at the bottom of the ramp. Ramp a cross slope not exceeding 1:48 landings must have a cross slope of 1:48 throughout its length. maximum in all directions. / I 0 ii, 1 a' _ __ill . , ii .„ _ 1 , vocApri,-- , _, . , ___ , cof . . _ Hallway Violation 1 -The room RR Violation 1,5 - 1st floor lobby Men RR Violation 2 - 1st floor Lobby Men identification at the the Fire Restroom -The room sign is located on Restroom -The soap dispenser located Administration/Fire Prevention office area the door where it is required to be above the lavatory counter is 50" above is etched into the glass adjacent to the installed on the latch side of the door. the floor. Accessible reach range over an the door. Signs designating permanent obstruction is 44" maximum. spaces must be accessible and include Page 20 of 22 raised tactile characters and Braille. Ordinance No. 2015-3712 College Station Municipal Court Pa'e 100 01'316 - • l v .-_ 4_ Pa RR Violation 3,4 - 1st floor lobby Men/ RR Violation 6 - 1st floor Men Restroom RR Violation 7 - 1st floor Men Women Restrooms -The door into the (Fire Admin) -The soap dispensers Restroom (Fire Admin) -The door into accessible toilet compartment does not located above the lavatory counter are the accessible toilet compartment self-close. 49" above the floor. Accessible reach does not self-close. range over an obstruction is 44" maximum. 1 - a I IL, .- t \\II • ,:..-a it i RR Violation 8 - 1st floor Women RR Violation 9 - 1st floor Women RR Violation 10 - Women Restroom 241 - Restroom (Fire Admin) -The soap Restroom (Fire Admin) -The door into The wall mounted storage cabinet and dispensers located above the lavatory the accessible toilet compartment the wall mounted paper towel dispenser counter are 49" above the floor. does not self-close. are protruding objects as they extend up Accessible reach range over an to 15" from the wall into the circulation obstruction is 44" maximum. path within the restroom. 1 4 I, -1 p I \, ' -� 0111 . RR Violation 11 - Women Restroom 241 RR Violation 12- Men Restroom 240 - RR Violation 13,14 - Men Restroom 240 - -The door into the accessible toilet The paper towel dispenser is a protruding The door into the accessible toilet compartment swings outward and has object as it extends approximately 8" compartment swings outward and has 6" 6" of maneuvering clearance on the pull from the wall into the circulation path of maneuvering clearance on the pull side side of the door where 18" minimum is within the restroom. of the door where 18" minimum is required. Page 21 of 22 required. The door into the accessible toilet compartment does not self-close. Ordinance No. 2015-3712 College Station Municipal Court Page 101 of 316 � 7 .. , PIP' /q . .___I. ageAtaiiiii 77-------c: ' ma Rim RR Violation 15 - Women Restroom 255 RR Violation 16 - Men Restroom 254 - RR Violation 17 - Men Restroom 254- -The wall mounted hooks next to the The clearance between the water closet The wall mounted hooks next to the shower are installed at 60" above the sidewall and the urinal is 50-1/2". The shower are installed at 60" above the floor. At least one hook must be water closet must have a 60" minimum floor. At least one hook must be provided at 48" high. clearance from the sidewall. At the time provided at 48" high. of construction 2002/2003 the only fixture permitted to be within the 60" minimum clearance was a lavatory. Page 22 of 22 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 102 of 316 Parking flCCfSSOIOO City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Utility Customer Service Facili Contact: Brenda Martz Contact Phone: 979-764-3525 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Tuesday,November 04,2014 Email: Steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'24.2"N Longitude: 96°18'07.5"W Address: 310 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station Coun : Brazos General Parking Notes: This facility was constructed in 1998/1999 and was subject to 1991 ADAAG and 1994 TAS. The facility includes the required number of accessible parking in each parking lot as well as the required number of van accessible parking spaces. General Parking Notes: The customer parking area has 23 parking spaces. One accessible parking space is required. Two accessible parking spaces are provided with one van accessible as required. Total Parking Spaces- Customer Parking Lot 23 Total Accessible Parking Spaces: 2 Number of van accessible spaces: 1. Is the accessible parking substantially compliant? No General Parking Notes: The employee parking lot has 70 parking spaces. Three accessible parking spaces are required and four are provided with two van accessible. Total Parking Spaces-Employee Parking Lot 70 Total Accessible Parking Spaces: 4 Number of van accessible spaces: 2 Is the accessible parking substantially compliant? No Page 1 of 15 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 103 of 316 Parking College Station-Utility Customer Service -Parking Page 2 Customer Parking-The right accessible parking space has a longitudinal slope of Violation#1: 2.6%along the length of the parking space where 1:48(2%)maximum is required. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 502.4 Floor or Ground Surfaces. Parking spaces and access aisles serving them shall comply with(302 Floor or Ground Surfaces).Access aisles shall be at the same level as the Text: parking spaces they serve. Changes in level are not permitted. EXCEPTION: Slopes not steeper than 1:48 shall be permitted. The existing accessible parking space will need to be regraded to achieve a Recommendation: 1:48 (2%)slope in all directions. Violation#1 Cost: $2,507 Priority Employee Parking-The four accessible parking spaces have a longitudinal slope Violation#2: of 2.6%to 3.3%along the length of the parking spaces where 1:48(2%) maximum is required. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 502.4 Floor or Ground Surfaces. Parking spaces and access aisles serving them shall comply with(302 Floor or Ground Surfaces).Access aisles shall be at the same level as the Text: parking spaces they serve. Changes in level are not permitted. EXCEPTION: Slopes not steeper than 1:48 shall be permitted. The existing accessible parking spaces will need to be regraded to achieve Recommendation: a 1:48 (2%)slope in all directions. Violation#2 Cost: ( $10,028 Priority High Priority Parking Violations Total $12,535 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 2 of 15 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 104 oVA\I6ssible Route City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Utility Customer Service Facili Contact: Brenda Martz Contact Phone: 979-764-3525 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Tuesday,November 04,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'24.2"N Longitude: 96°18'07.5"W Address: 310 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station Conn : Brazos General Accessible Route Notes: The accessible connecting route from the public sidewalk along Krenek Tap Road and the main entrance has slopes in excess of 1:20(5%)and does not comply with ramp requirements. The route also includes cross slopes in excess of 1:48(2%). The route from the accessible parking to the main entrance has a running slope of 8.2%and does not comply with ramp requirements. Is the path of travel from accessible parking to building entrance compliant? No Does the path of travel serve all exterior amenities offered by the facility? Is the path of travel from building entrances to all amenities served by the No entrance substantially compliant? The sidewalk that connects the sidewalk along Krenek Tap Road to the main entrance includes running slopes of 5.8%to 6.6%and does not comply with ramp Violation#1: requirements. The sidewalk also includes cross slopes of 3.1%. Running slopes in excess of 1:20(5%)must comply with ramp requirements. Cross slopes must not exceed 1:48(2%). Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. The sidewalk providing access to Krenek Tap Road will need to be Recommendation: replaced to either provide a 1:20(5%)maximum running slope or provide a compliant ramp system. Page 3 of 15 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 105 ofAt6ssible Route College Station-Utility Customer Service Accessible Route-Page 2 Violation#1 Cost: $7,843 Priority _ 100312__ I'Ile concrete area leading up to the main entrance has a running slope of 8.2% Violation#2: and does not comply with ramp requirements. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20.The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. The sloped area leading up to the customer entrance must either provide a Recommendation: running slope of 1:20(5%)maximum or comply with ramp requirements. Violation#2 Cost: $2,657 Priority _ High Priority Accessible Route Total $10,500 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 4 of 15 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 106 of 316 Entrance City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Utility Customer Service Facility Contact: Brenda Martz Contact Phone: 979-764-3525 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Tuesday,November 04,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'24.2"N Longitude: 96°18'07.5"W Address: 310 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station County: Brazos General Entrance Notes: The building has a main customer entrance and an employee entrance.Both of the entrance doors are substantially compliant. Is the main entry door accessible? Yes Is there an alternate door that is accessible? Yes If so,does the inaccessible door have signage indicating the location N/A of the nearest accessible door? High Priority Entrance Total $0 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 5 of 15 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 107 of 316 Hallway City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Utility Customer Service Facility Contact: Brenda Martz Contact Phone: 979-764-3525 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Tuesday,November 04,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'24.2"N Longitude: 96°18'07.5"W Address: 310 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station Conn : Brazos General!Hallway Notes: All of the doors within the facility are equipped with lever type hardware. There are two doors that do not have the required door maneuvering clearance. A few of the room signs do not include raised tactile characters or Braille. Does this facility have any hallways? Yes Do the doors have compliant hardware? Yes Do the doors have proper maneuvering clearances? No Is the hallway width at least 36"clear width? Yes Are visual strobes provided? Yes Are there any protruding objects? No Is the signage substantially compliant? No Exit door from office area to drive-thru has a closer and latch and 11" of maneuvering clearance on the push side of the door where 12" minimum is Violation#1: required. There is no accessible connecting to grade level on the exterior of the exit door. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 404.2.4 Door and Gate Maneuvering Clearances. Minimum maneuvering clearances at doors and gates shall comply with Text: 404.2.4.Maneuvering clearances shall extend the full width of the doorway and the required latch side or hinge side clearance.. Either the closer or latch could be removed or an auto door opener could Recommendation: be installed. A curb ramp is required on the exterior side of the exit door in order to provide access to grade level. Violation#1 Cost: $3,650 Priority Page 6 of 15 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 108 of 316 Hallway College Station-Utility Customer Service Hallway-Page 2 Door from Dept. of Information Technology to lobby has is equipped with a Violation#2: closer and a latch. 6-1/2" of maneuvering clearance on the push side of the door is provided where 12" minimum is required. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 404.2.4 Door and Gate Maneuvering Clearances. Minimum maneuvering clearances at doors and gates shall comply with Text: 404.2.4.Maneuvering clearances shall extend the full width of the doorway and the required latch side or hinge side clearance.. Either the closer or latch could be removed or an auto door opener could Recommendation: be installed. Violation#2 Cost: $2,146 I Priority The Print Mail and Employee Lunchroom signs do not include raised tactile Violation#3: characters or Braille. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 216.2 Designations. Interior and exterior signs identifying permanent rooms and spaces shall comply with 703.1, 703.2, and 703.5. Where pictograms are provided as Text: designations of permanent interior rooms and spaces,the pictograms shall comply with 703.6 and shall have text descriptors complying with 703.2 and 703.5. New room signs with raised tactile characters and Braille are required if Recommendation: room signs are to be provided. Violation#3 Cost: $575 Priority High Priority Hallway Total $6,371 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 7 of 15 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 109 of 316 Restrooms City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Utility Customer Service Facility Contact: Brenda Martz Contact Phone: 979-764-3525 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Tuesday,November 04,2014 Email: steven@.accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'24.2"N Longitude: 96°18'07.5"W Address: 310 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station Coun : Brazos General Restroom Notes: Two sets of men and women restrooms are provided. The restrooms are substantially compliant except the doors into the accessible toilet compartments do not self-close. Is the door to the restroom substantially compliant? Yes Does the room have the required turning radius? Yes Is the water closet substantially compliant? Yes Does the water closet have the required clear floor space? Yes Is the lavatory substantially compliant? Yes Is the urinal substantially compliant? Yes Is the mirror substantially compliant? Yes Violation#1: Lobby Men Restroom-Door to accessible toilet compartment does not self-close. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.8.2.2 Doors. Toilet compartment doors, including door hardware, shall comply with (404 Doors,Doorways,and Gates),except that if the approach is to the latch side of the compartment door,clearance between the door side of the compartment and any obstruction shall be 42 inches minimum. The door Text: shall be self-closing. A door pull complying with(404.2.7 Door and Gate Hardware)shall be placed on both sides of the door near the latch.Toilet compartment doors shall not swing into the minimum required compartment area. Recommendation: The toilet compartment door must be adjusted to self-close. Violation#1 Cost: $154 Priority Page 8 of 15 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 110 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Utility Customer Service Restrooms-Page 2 Lobby Women Restroom-Door to accessible toilet compartment does not self- Violation#2: close. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.8.2.2 Doors. Text: The toilet compartment door must be adjusted to self-close. Recommendation: The toilet compartment door must be adjusted to self-close. Violation#2 Cost: I $154 Priority Employee Men Restroom-Door to accessible toilet compartment does not self- Violation#3: close. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.8.2.2 Doors. Toilet compartment doors, including door hardware,shall comply with (404 Doors,Doorways, and Gates), except that if the approach is to the latch side of the compartment door,clearance between the door side of the compartment and any obstruction shall be 42 inches minimum.The door Text: shall be self-closing.A door pull complying with(404.2.7 Door and Gate Hardware)shall be placed on both sides of the door near the latch.Toilet compartment doors shall not swing into the minimum required compartment area. Recommendation: The toilet compartment door must be adjusted to self-close. Violation#3 Cost: $154 Priority Employee Women Restroom-Door to accessible toilet compartment does not self Violation#4: close. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.8.2.2 Doors. Toilet compartment doors, including door hardware,shall comply with (404 Doors,Doorways,and Gates), except that if the approach is to the Text: latch side of the compartment door,clearance between the door side of the compartment and any obstruction shall be 42 inches minimum. Page 9 of 15 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 111 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Utility Customer Service Restrooms-Page 3 The door shall be self-closing.A door pull complying with(404.2.7 Door Text: and Gate Hardware)shall be placed on both sides of the door near the PT 2 latch. Toilet compartment doors shall not swing into the minimum required compartment area. Recommendation: The toilet compartment door must be adjusted to self-close. Violation#4 Cost: $154 Priority Employee Women Restroom-The surface mounted feminine product dispenser is Violation#5: a protruding objects as it extends 8" from the wall into the circulation path to the accessible toilet compartment. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 307.2 Protruding Objects Protrusion Limits. Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches and not more than 80 Text: inches above the finish floor or ground shall protrude 4 inches maximum horizontally into the circulation path. Recommendation: The dispenser must be relocated out of the circulation path. Violation#5 Cost: $476 Priority High Priority Restrooms Total $1,093 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 10 of 15 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 112 of 3lgreak Rooms City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Utility Customer Service Facility Contact: Brenda Martz Contact Phone: 979-764-3525 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Tuesday,November 04,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'24.2"N Longitude: 96°18'07.5"W Address: 310 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station Conn : Brazos General Break Room Notes: One break room is provided. No cooktop is provided. Sink was constructed with a knee clearance for a forward approach;however,the disposal obstructs the required clearances. Does the facility have a break room? Yes Is there a stove or cooktop? No Is there a sink? Yes Is the sink substantially compliant? No Are the counters at 34" aff? Yes Employee Lunchroom-The garbage disposal obstructs the required knee Violation#1: clearance under the sink. At the time of construction of this facility, an knee/toe clearance for a forward approach was required. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 606.2 Lavatories and Sinks Clear Floor Space. A clear floor space complying with(305 Clear Floor or Ground Space), Text: positioned for a forward approach, and knee and toe clearance complying with(306 Knee and Toe Clearance)shall be provided. The disposal will need to be removed or the sink drain/disposal modified Recommendation: to allow for the required knee/toe clearance. Violation#1 Cost: $3,243 Priority Employee Lunchroom-The exposed water lines and drain pipe are not protected Violation#2: against contact. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 606.5 Exposed Pipes and Surfaces. Page 11 of 15 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 113 of 3l6reak Rooms College Station-Utility Customer Service Break Rooms-Page 2 Water supply and drain pipes under lavatories and sinks shall be insulated Text: or otherwise configured to protect against contact. There shall be no sharp or abrasive surfaces under lavatories and sinks. Recommendation: The water lines and drain pipes will need to be protected against contact. Violation#2 Cost: $61 Priority High Priority Break Rooms Total $3,304 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 12 of 15 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 114 of 316 Misc City of College Station BUILDING REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Utility Customer Service Facility Contact: Brenda Martz Contact Phone: 979-764-3525 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Tuesday,November 04,2014 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'24.2"N Longitude: 96°18'07.5"W Address: 310 Krenek Tap Road Ci : College Station County: Brazos General Misc Notes: There are two high/low drinking fountain units in this facility. Both units are substantially compliant. Are there exterior drinking fountains? No Are there any other miscellaneous items not previously covered? Yes High Priority Miscellaneous Total $0 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 13 of 15 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Utility Customer Service Page 115 of 316 0 g. I { - \ µ - RCCfSSOLOGy ,.,. 1141 ave .' e'{ • Parking Violation 1 - Customer Parking - The right accessible parking space has a longitudinal slope of 2.6%along the length of the parking space where 1:48 maximum is required. ,. lid* Parking Violation 2 - Employee Parking AR Violation 1 -The sidewalk that AR Violation 2 -The concrete area -The four accessible parking spaces connects the sidewalk along Krenek Tap leading up to the main entrance has have a longitudinal slope of 2.6%to Road to the main entrance includes a running slope of 8.2%. 3.3%along the length of the parking running slopes of 5.8%to 6.6% and spaces where 1:48 maximum is does not comply with ramp required. requirements. The sidewalk also includes cross slopes of 3.1%. ill . 0 1 d _rte 'i's tai,:, Hallway Violation 1 - Exit door from office Hallway Violation 2 - 6-1/2" clearance on Hallway Violation 3 -The Print Mail and area to exterior does not have 12" on the the push side of the door is provided Employee Lunchroom signs do not push side of the door, where 12" minimum is required. include raised tactile characters or Braille. Page 14 of 15 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Utility Customer Service Page 116 of 316 I a -- it ^ I .i: 41 . i allagii,' I RR Violation 1 - Lobby Men Restroom - RR Violation 2 - Lobby Women Restroom RR Violation 3 - Empoyee Men Restroom Door to accessible toilet compartment - Door to accessible toilet compartment - Door to accessible toilet compartment does not self-close. does not self-close. does not self-close. mom=IF r d Ill 2- ill -1 WIT 1 !— - ` RR Violation 4 - Employee Women RR Violation 5 - Employee Women BR Violation 1,2 - Employee Lunchroom Restroom - Door to accessible toilet Restroom -The surface mounted feminine -The garbage disposal obstructs the compartment does not self-close. product dispenser is a protruding objects required knee clearance under the sink. as it extends 8" from the wall into the At the time of construction of this facility, circulation path to the accessible toilet an knee/toe clearance for a forward compartment. approach was required. The exposed water lines and drain pipe are not protected against contact. Page 15 of 15 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 117 of 316 City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Update Park Cost Projection Summary 6/24/2015 GPS ID Project Name Cost Projection 1 Brian Bachman Community Park $ 276,636.00 2 Stephen C. Beachy Central Park $ 445,459.00 TOTAL $ 722,095.00 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 118 of 316 Parking 0 — - flCCFSSOLOGY City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Brian Bachmann Community Park Facili Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Thursday,January 15,2015 1 Email: Steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'41.4"N Longitude: 96°17'48.2"W Address: 1600 Rock Prairie Road Cit : College Station Count : Brazos General Parking Notes: Overall,the accessible parking is not in substantial compliance. The number of accessible parking provided is insufficient and the distribution does not equally serve the pedestrian entrances into each park element(little league fields, pavilion,etc.). Most of the accessible parking signs are installed too low. Many of the accessible spaces are not striped appropriately to provide the minimum space and aisle dimensions. General Parking Notes: The west parking lot has 194 total parking spaces which requires six accessible parking spaces with one being van accessible. Only two accessible parking spaces are provided and neither is van accessible. Total Parking Spaces-West Parking Lot: 194 Total Accessible Parking Spaces: 2 Number of van accessible spaces: 0 Is the accessible parking substantially compliant? No General Parking Notes: The middle parking lot has 212 total parking spaces which requires seven accessible parking spaces,two of which must be van accessible. Four accessible parking spaces are provided and only one is designated as van accessible. Page 1 of 31 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 119 of 316 Parking College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Parking-Page 2 Total Parking Spaces-Middle Parking Lot: 212 Total Accessible Parking Spaces: 4 Number of van accessible spaces: 1 Is the accessible parking substantially compliant? No General Parking Notes: The east parking lot, serving the pool and Southwood Community Center, has 125 total parking spaces which requires five accessible parking spaces one of which must be van accessible. Eight accessible parking spaces are provided and three arc designated as van accessible. Three of the eight accessible parking spaces are Iacking accessible signs. Total Parking Spaces-East Parking Lot: 125 Total Accessible Parking Spaces: 8 Number of van accessible spaces: Is the accessible parking substantially compliant? No Accessible parking is determined on a per lot basis. Based on the number of parking lots and the number of parking spaces, 18 total accessible parking spaces are required and four of them must be van accessible. Currently,only 14 Violation#1: accessible parking spaces are provided, six of which are designated as van accessible. Four additional accessible parking spaces are required to be created. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 208.2 Minimum Number. Parking spaces complying with 502 shall be provided in accordance with Table 208.2 except as required by 208.2.1,208.2.2,and 208.2.3. Where Text: more than one parking facility is provided on a site,the number of accessible spaces provided on the site shall be calculated according to the number of spaces required for each parking facility. In the west parking area,one van accessible parking space must be designated as none are currently. It is recommended that two accessible Recommendation: parking spaces should be created to serve the access point that leads to the Pil soccer fields. Two accessible parking spaces should be created to serve the southwest curb ramp entrance into the middle little league fields. Page 2 of 31 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 120 of 316 Parking College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Parking-Page 3 In the middle parking lot the van accessible parking space serving the little league fields must be re-striped to meet the minimum dimensions of a van accessible parking space. Both of the accessible parking spaces serving the pavilion must be restriped to meet the minimum dimensions for accessible parking spaces. It is recommended that one of these spaces be striped and signed to become a van accessible space as the only van space is on the other side of the parking lot with no accessible connecting route. Recommendation: The three accessible parking spaces serving the pool entrance should be re- Pt2 striped to meet the minimum dimensions for accessible parking spaces. It is recommended that one of these spaces be striped and signed to become a van accessible parking space as the only van spaces in this area serve the Southwood Community Center. The remaining two spaces will also require signs. The east van space serving the Southwood Community Center should be re. striped to meet the minimum dimensions for a van accessible parking space. Violation#1 Cost: $10,333 Priority The existing parking signs serving the accessible parking spaces in the middle Violation#2: parking lot are too low at 37". Signs must be installed at 60" minimum above the parking surface. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 502.6 Parking Spaces Identification. Parking space identification signs shall include the International Symbol of Accessibility complying with(703.7.2.1 International Symbol of Text: Accessibility). Signs identifying van parking spaces shall contain the designation"van accessible." Signs shall be 60 inches minimum above the finish floor or ground surface measured to the bottom of the sign. Recommendation: The existing signs should be relocated to 60"minimum. Page 3 of 31 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 121 of 316 Parking College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Parking-Page 4 Violation#2 Cost: $1,787 Priority High Priority Min Parking Violations Total $12,120 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 4 of 31 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 122 ofkli6ssible Route City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Brian Bachmann Community Park Facili Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Thursday, January 15,2015 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'41.4"N Longitude: 96°17'48.2"W Address: 1600 Rock Prairie Road Ci : College Station Coun : Brazos General Accessible Route Notes: There is no overall sidewalk system to serve the entire park. The park is arranged such that each area is served by a parking area and only a connection to that parking area is provided. However,there are two areas that do not connect to any accessible parking and those are the ball fields near the Southwood Community Center and the soccer fields on the southwest portion of the park. There is no route to these fields at all. The connecting routes to the existing accessible parking are not compliant. They involve excessive slopes and changes in level. Is the path of travel from accessible parking to building entrance compliant? No Does the path of travel serve all exterior amenities offered by the facility? No Is the path of travel from building entrances to all amenities served by the No entrance substantially compliant? The sloped walk leading up to the west side little league fields is considered a Violation#1: ramp and has a running slope of 7%and does not meet the requirements for a ramp in terms of handrails. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 405.8 Ramps Handrails. Ramp runs with a rise greater than 6 inches shall have handrails complying Text: with(505 Handrails). This sloped walk appears to have been designed similar to a curb ramp; Recommendation: however, it is a ramp and must provide compliant handrails. Violation#1 Cost: $12,351 Priority Level 7 Page 5 of 31 pagel Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 123 of t6ssible Route College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Accessible Route-Page 2 Access into the dugouts at the west side little league fields includes running Violation#2: slopes approximately 7.7%and no accessible ramp is provided. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20.The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. These areas should be replaced to reduce the running slope to 5%or less Recommendation: so that they will not become ramps. Violation #2 Cost: $633 Priority Level 6 No accessible routes are provided to any of the batting cages located between the Violation#3: ball fields. Access into the batting area includes level changes of approximately 3". Standard: 2010 ADAAG 303.4 Changes in Level Ramps Changes in level greater than 1/2 inch high shall be ramped, and shall Text: comply with(405 Ramps&406 Curb Ramps) An accessible connecting route must be provided to and into the batting Recommendation: cages. Violation#3 Cost: $6,210 Priority Access into the umpires are includes a significant change in level at the door Violation#4: threshold and the exterior door maneuvering clearance is not level. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 404.2.4.4 Door and Gate Floor or Ground Surface. Page 6 of 31 page2 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 124 oV t6ssible Route College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Accessible Route-Page 3 Floor or ground surface within required maneuvering clearances shall comply with(302 Floor or Ground Surfaces)changes in level are not permitted. Text: EXCEPTIONS: 1. Slopes not steeper than 1:48 shall be permitted. 2. Changes in level at thresholds complying with 404.2.5 shall be permitted. The door threshold should be modified to eliminate the change in level. Recommendation: The area outside of the door should be replaced to create a level maneuvering clearance. Violation#4 Cost: $665 Priority The curb ramps serving the three accessible parking spaces at the pool are not compliant. Each has a 14%to 17%slope at the transition to the parking surface and the flares exceed the maximum 1:10 slope. Violation#5: The curb ramps serving the two accessible parking spaces at the pavilion have a 23%slope at the transition to the parking surface. The curb ramps serving the accessible parking spaces on the west side of the middle parking lot have flares in excess of 20%. Standard: 12010 ADAAG 406.2 Curb Ramps Counter Slope. Counter slopes of adjoining gutters and road surfaces immediately adjacent to the curb ramp shall not be steeper than 1:20.The adjacent Texts surfaces at transitions at curb ramps to walks,gutters,and streets shall be at the same level. All of these curb ramps must be replaced in order to provide fully Recommendation: compliant curb ramps with the proper counter slope and flare slope. Violation#5 Cost: $9,025 Priority Page 7 of 31 page3 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 125 oNtessibie Route College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Accessible Route-Page 4 The route at the pool from the accessible parking to the pool house entrance includes a 1" change in level. Currently it is painted red to alert of a level change Violation#6: but level changes greater than 1/2"must be ramped or eliminated. There is a 1" change in level onto the pavilion area. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 303.4 Changes in Level Ramps Changes in level greater than 1/2 inch high shall be ramped,and shall Text: comply with(405 Ramps&406 Curb Ramps) The changes in level at these locations must be eliminated either by ramp Recommendation: or grinding down the transition. Violation #6 Cost: $1,380 Priority The ramp at the rear of the pool house is not compliant. The ramp is missing the Violation#7: required edge protection,handrail extensions and the top landing is not level. 2010 ADAAG 405.7 Ramps Landings. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 405.8 Ramps Handrails. 2010 ADAAG 405.9 Ramps Edge Protection. Ramps shall have landings at the top and the bottom of each ramp run. Landings shall comply with 405.7. Ramp runs with a rise greater than 6 inches shall have handrails complying Text: with(505 Handrails). Edge protection complying with 405.9.1 or 405.9.2 shall be provided on each side of ramp runs and at each side of ramp landings. The handrails should be modified to provide the required extensions at the top and bottom of the ramp. Edge protection must be added to each side of Recommendation: the ramp. The upper landing area must be modified to create a level landing. Page 8 of 31 page4 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 126 ofiat ssible Route College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Accessible Route-Page 5 Violation#7 Cost: $8,550 Priority Level 7 There are large gaps of 1" or more in the expansion joints along the route from the Violation#8: pool house to the tennis courts. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 302.3 Floor or Ground Surfaces Openings. Elongated openings shall be placed so that the long dimension is perpendicular to the dominant direction of travel. Openings in floor or Text: ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere more than 1/2 inch diameter except as allowed in (407.4.3 &409.4.3 Platform to Hoist way Clearance)&(410.4 Platform to Runway Clearance). Recommendation: These gaps should be filled to eliminate the large opening. J Violation#8 Cost: $1,035 Priority The route to the brand new men's and women's restrooms near the tennis courts Violation#9: has a running slope of 10.5%. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. The section of sidewalk must be replaced to create an accessible route of Recommendation: 1:20 (5%). If a ramp is needed then it must fully comply. Violation#9 Cost: $5,520 Priority Violation#10: No accessible route is provided to the basketball court light control. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 206.2.2 Accessible Routes Within a Site. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings,accessible Text: facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces that are on the same site. Page 9 of 31 page5 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 127 ofP t6ssible Route College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Accessible Route-Page 6 Provide a small concrete area to connect the light pole to the nearby Recommendation: sidewalk. Violation#10 Cost: $127 Priority The curb ramp landing in front of the Southwood Community Center has a cross slope of 7.1%. The route from the bicycle rack would cross this landing. This Violation#11: landing should be level in all directions. The sidewalk to the bicycle rack has a 3.5%cross slope. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. This segment of sidewalk must be replaced to create a 1:48(2%) Recommendation: maximum cross slope. Violation#11 Cost: $3,273 Priority The sidewalk in front of the pool facility that connects to the sidewalk along Rock Violation#12: Prairie Road has a running slope of 12%and includes significant level changes in excess of 1". Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Recommendation: This segment of sidewalk must be replaced as it is dangerously steep. Violation#12 Cost: $3,163 Priority High Priority Accessible Route Total $51,931 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 10 of 31 page6 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 128 of 316 Entrance City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Brian Bachmann Community Park Facility Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Thursday, January 15,2015 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'41.4"N Longitude: 96°17'48.2"W Address: 1600 Rock Prairie Road Ci : College Station Coun : Brazos General Entrance Notes: The entrance door serving the Southwood Community Center is substantially compliant. The door into the pool house is not accessible as it includes an excessive slope within the exterior maneuvering clearance of the door. Is the main entry door accessible? No Is there an alternate door that is accessible? No If so,does the inaccessible door have signage indicating the location No of the nearest accessible door? The entrance door into the pool house has a 7%slope on the exterior of the door Violation#1: where it is required to be level. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 404.2.4.4 Door and Gate Floor or Ground Surface. Floor or ground surface within required maneuvering clearances shall comply with(302 Floor or Ground Surfaces)changes in level are not permitted. Text: EXCEPTIONS: 1. Slopes not steeper than 1:48 shall be permitted. 2. Changes in level at thresholds complying with 404.2.5 shall be permitted. The area in front of the entrance door should be replaced to create a level Recommendation: door maneuvering clearance. Violation#1 Cost: $316 Priority Page 11 of 31 pagel Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 129 of 316 Entrance College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Entrance-Page 2 High Priority Entrance Total $316 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 12 of 31 page2 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 130 of 316 Hallway City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Brian Bachmann Community Park Facility Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Thursday,January 15,2015 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude:30°36'41.4"N Longitude: 96°17'48.2"W Address: 1600 Rock Prairie Road Cit : College Station Coun : Brazos General Hallway Notes: The restroom hallway doors in the Southwood Community Center do not have the required maneuvering clearance on the pull side of the doors. The restroom room signs are not accessible and are installed on the face of the doors. The doors into the little league concession areas do not provide the required clear width. Does this facility have any hallways? Yes Do the doors have compliant hardware? Do the doors have proper maneuvering clearances? No Is the hallway width at least 36"clear width? Yes Are visual strobes provided? Yes Are there any protruding objects? No Is the signage substantially compliant? No The doors into the concessions areas provide only 27" clear width where 32" Violation#1: minimum is required. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 404.2.3 Door and Gate Clear Width. Door openings shall provide a clear width of 32 inches minimum. Clear openings of doorways with swinging doors shall be measured between the face of the door and the stop,with the door open 90 degrees. Openings more than 24 inches deep shall provide a clear opening of 36 inches Text: minimum. There shall be no projections into the required clear opening width lower than 34 inches above the finish floor or ground. Projections into the clear opening width between 34 inches and 80 inches above the finish floor or ground shall not exceed 4 inches. Page 13 of 31 pa gel Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 131 of 316 Hallway College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Hallway-Page 2 These doors will need to be replaced in order provide the required 32" Recommendation: minimum clear width. Violation#1 Cost: $4,370 Priority The doors within the pavilion concession work area do not have the required 18" clearance on the pull side of the doors. The doors from the two pavilion restrooms do not have the required door maneuvering clearances. Violation#2: Within the Southwood Community Center the doors in the restroom corridor have 16" of clearance on the pull side of the doors. The door form the Men's Restroom has 17" of clearance on the pull side of the door.The door from the staff break room has 17" of clearance on the pull side of the door. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 404.2.4 Door and Gate Maneuvering Clearances. Minimum maneuvering clearances at doors and gates shall comply with Text: 404.2.4.Maneuvering clearances shall extend the full width of the doorway and the required latch side or hinge side clearance. Installation of auto door openers will alleviate the maneuvering clearance Recommendation: requirements. If these doors are part of an egress route then they will need to be attached to back up power. Violation#2 Cost: $4,292 , Priority The room signs within the pool facility and Southwood Community Center are Violation#3: not accessible as they do not have tactile characters or Braille and are located on the face of the doors. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 216.2 Designations. Interior and exterior signs identifying permanent rooms and spaces shall comply with 703.1,703.2,and 703.5. Where pictograms are provided as Text: designations of permanent interior rooms and spaces,the pictograms shall comply with 703.6 and shall have text descriptors complying with 703.2 and 703.5. Page 14 of 31 page2 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 132 of 316 Hallway College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Hallway-Page 3 New compliant room signs should be provided in the required location on Recommendation: the latch side of the doors. Violation#3 Cost: $1,438 Priority Level 6 The wall mounted shelving within the interior of the pool house is a protruding Violation#4: object. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 307.2 Protruding Objects Protrusion Limits. Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches and not more than 80 Text: inches above the finish floor or ground shall protrude 4 inches maximum horizontally into the circulation path. The shelving should be removed and relocated to an area that is not within Recommendation: a circulation path. Currently it is located in an open gathering area. Violation#4 Cost: $478 Priority The width of the route into the Southwood Community Center staff break room is Violation#5: only 29" between the refrigerator and the countertop. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.5.1 Walking Surface Clear Width. Except as provided in 403.5.2 and 403.5.3,the clear width of walking Text: surfaces shall be 36 inches minimum. The refrigerator should be relocated in order to provide a 36" minimum Recommendation: clear width. Violation#5 Cost: Labor ( Priority High Priority Hallway Total $10,578 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 15 of 31 page3 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 133 of 316 Restrooms City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Brian Bachmann Community Park Facility Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Thursday,January 15,2015 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'41.4"N Longitude: 96°17'48.2"W Address: 1600 Rock Prairie Road Ci : College Station Count : Brazos General Restroom Notes: The restrooms serving both little league field complexes,pavilion,and restrooms/locker rooms in the pool house are not substantially compliant. The new restrooms serving the tennis court area are substantially compliant except for the route up to them which is addressed in the accessible route tab of this report. The restrooms within the Southwood Community Center are compliant except that the grab bars are mounted a bit too low. Is the door to the restroom substantially compliant? Does the room have the required turning radius? Yes Is the water closet substantially compliant? No Does the water closet have the required clear floor space? No Is the lavatory substantially compliant? No Is the urinal substantially compliant? No Is the mirror substantially compliant? No The four restrooms serving the little league fields are not substantially compliant. The lavatories are 36" high. The water lines and drain pipes are not protected.The Violation#1: mirrors are located above the required 40" maximum. No accessible toilet compartments are provided. The lowered urinals are not served by the required 'centered clear floor space. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 213.1 General. Where toilet facilities and bathing facilities are provided,they shall comply with 213. Where toilet facilities and bathing facilities are provided in facilities permitted by 206.2.3 Exceptions 1 and 2 not to connect stories Text: by an accessible route,toilet facilities and bathing facilities shall be provided on a story connected by an accessible route to an accessible entrance. Page 16 of 31 pagel Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 134 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Restrooms-Page 2 The restrooms will require significant modification to provide accessible Recommendation: fixtures. Currently there are no accessible restrooms serving any of the little league fields. Violation#1 Cost: $26,165 Priority The two restrooms serving the pavilion are not substantially compliant. The Violation#2: lavatories are 36" high. No accessible toilet compartments are provided. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 213.1 General. Where toilet facilities and bathing facilities are provided,they shall comply with 213. Where toilet facilities and bathing facilities are provided in facilities permitted by 206.2.3 Exceptions 1 and 2 not to connect stories Text: by an accessible route,toilet facilities and bathing facilities shall be provided on a story connected by an accessible route to an accessible entrance. The restrooms will require significant modification to provide accessible Recommendation: fixtures. Currently there are no accessible restrooms serving the pavilion. Violation#2 Cost: $13,082 Priority The pool facility locker rooms are not substantially compliant. The locker hardware requires tight pinching or keys to operate. No accessible dressing bench Violation#3: is provided. All of the storage hooks are well above accessible reach range. No accessible toilet compartments,lavatories or shower stalls are provided. The slope to the shower stall area is approximately 12%. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 213.1 General. Where toilet facilities and bathing facilities are provided,they shall comply with 213. Where toilet facilities and bathing facilities are provided in facilities permitted by 206.2.3 Exceptions 1 and 2 not to connect stories by an accessible route,toilet facilities and bathing facilities shall be provided on a story connected by an accessible route to an accessible entrance. Page 17 of 31 page2 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 135 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Restrooms-Page 3 The restrooms will require significant modification to provide accessible Recommendation: fixtures. Currently there are no accessible restrooms or bathing facilities serving the pool. Violation#3 Cost: $26,712 Priority The grab bars within the Southwood Community Center restrooms are too low at Violation#4: 31-1/2"to the top of the bars. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 609.4 Position of Grab Bars. Grab bars shall be installed in a horizontal position, 33 inches minimum and 36 inches maximum above the finish floor measured to the top of the gripping surface, except that at water closets for children's use complying with(604.9 Position of Grab Bars),grab bars shall be installed in a Text: horizontal position 18 inches minimum and 27 inches maximum above the finish floor measured to the top of the gripping surface. The height of the lower grab bar on the back wall of a bathtub shall comply with(607.4.1.1 Bathtubs With Permanent Seats Back Wall or(607.4.2.1 Bathtubs Without Permanent Seats Back Wall). Recommendation: The grab bars will need to be relocated to 33"-36" above the floor. Violation#4 Cost: $1,904 Priority The hooks in the accessible toilet compartments in the Southwood Community Violation#5: Center are too high at 64". Standard: 2010 ADAAG 308.2.1 Reach Ranges Forward Reach Unobstructed. Where a forward reach is unobstructed,the high forward reach shall be 48 Text: inches maximum and the low forward reach shall be 15 inches minimum above the finish floor or ground. Recommendation: 'The hooks should be relocated to 48" maximum above the floor. Page 18 of 31 page3 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 136 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Restrooms-Page 4 Violation#5 Cost: $81 I Priority Level 8 High Priority Restrooms Total $67,944 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 19 of 31 page4 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 137 of 3lgreak Rooms City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Brian Bachmann Community Park Facility Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Acccssology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Thursday,January 15,2015 Email: stevenaccessology.com Latitude: 30°36'41.4"N Longitude: 96°17'48.2"W Address: 1600 Rock Prairie Road Ci : College Station Coun : Brazos General Break Room Notes: There is a break room provided in the Southwood Community Center and it is substantially compliant. Does the facility have a break room? Yes -, Is there a stove or cooktop? No Is there a sink? Yes Is the sink substantially compliant? Yes Are the counters at 34"aft? Yes High Priority Break Rooms Total $0 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 20 of 31 pagel Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 138 of 316 Misc City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Brian Bachmann Community Park Facility Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Thursday,January 15,2015 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'41.4"N Longitude: 96°17'48.2"W Address: 1600 Rock Prairie Road Ci : College Station Coun : Brazos General Misc Notes: The park includes concessions counters not of which are accessible. There are drinking fountains scattered throughout the park. Many are high/low units; however,there are no fountains for standing persons at the little league fields, pavilion or pool house. The fountains that serve the dugouts are old and require twisting of the wrist to operate. Are there exterior drinking fountains? Yes Are there any other miscellaneous items not previously covered? Yes Concessions counters serving the little league fields are all at 43"high. The concession counters serving the pavilion are 42" high. No accessible concession counters are provided. Violation#1: The pool reception counter is 38" high with no accessible portion of counter. The lowered portion of the reception counter at the Southwood Community Center is only 34" wide where 36" minimum is required. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 904.4 Sales and Service Counters. Sales counters and service counters shall comply with(904.4.1 Parallel Text: Approach or 904.4.2 Forward Approach).The accessible portion of the counter top shall extend the same depth as the sales or service counter top. The counters should be modified to provide a 36" length of counter at 36" Recommendation: high. Violation#1 Cost: $1,150 Priority Page 21 of 31 pagel Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 139 of 316 Misc College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Miscellaneous-Page 2 - - Only one drinking fountain is provided at each little league field complex. The units that are provided only have 24"knee clearance where 27"minimum is required. No drinking fountains for standing persons are provided. Only one drinking fountain is provided to serve the pool facility. The unit is not is not fully accessible as the knee clearance is 26-1/2". No drinking fountain for standing persons is provided. Violation#2: Only one drinking fountain is provided to serve the pavilion. The unit is accessible in terms of knee clearance. No drinking fountain for standing persons is provided. There is a drinking fountain serving each dugout in the middle little league fields. 50%must be accessible and provide knee clearance for a forward approach and 50%must be for standing persons. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 211.2 Minimum Number. No fewer than two drinking fountains shall be provided. One drinking Text: fountain shall comply with 602.1 through 602.6 and one drinking fountain shall comply with 602.7. It is recommended that the existing old drinking fountains be removed and Recommendation: a high/low unit be installed at each little league field,the pavilion and at the pool house. Violation#2 Cost: $35,319 Priority Level 8 High Priority Miscellaneous Total $36,469 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 22 of 31 page2 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 140 of 3t6k Amenities City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Brian Bachmann Community Park Facili Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Aceessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Steven Lewandowski Date: Thursday,January 15,2015 Email: steven@accessology.com Latitude: 30°36'41.4"N Longitude: 96°17'48.2"W Address: 1600 Rock Prairie Road City: College Station County: Brazos General Amenities Notes: The park includes little league fields,soccer fields and a pool. Accessible seating is provided at the little league field bleacher seating;however,it is not fully accessible due to an excessive slope within the seating spaces. There are no accessible seating spaces provided to serve the any of the soccer field bleachers. There are no connecting accessible routes to the southwest soccer fields or to the ball fields adjacent to the Southwood Community Center. Does each amenity have an accessible route leading into it? No Is there a playground? Does it have accessible play elements? Yes Arc they substantially compliant? Yes Are there sports fields? Yes Do the accessible routes extend into the dugout? No Is seating provided? Yes Is accessible seating provided? No Is it compliant? No Are pavilions and/or picnic tables provided? Yes Is an accessible route provided to them? Yes Are accessible picnic tables provided? No Are grills provided? Yes Are they accessible? Yes The accessible wheelchair seating spaces serving the west side little league fields have a slope of 3.5%within the seating spaces. The wheelchair spaces at the middle little league fields have a 5%slope within the seating spaces. Violation#1: No accessible wheelchair seating is provided within any of the soccer field bleacher seating. Page 23 of 31 pagel Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 141 of 316k Amenities College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Park Amenities-Page 2 Standard: 2010 ADAAG 802.1.1 Floor or Ground Surface. The floor or ground surface of wheelchair spaces shall comply with(302 Text: Floor or Ground Surfaces). Changes in level are not permitted. EXCEPTION: Slopes not steeper than 1:48 shall be permitted. The existing wheelchair seating spaces need to be modified so the ground surface is level in all directions within the spaces. Each bleacher seating Recommendation: area at the soccer fields must have accessible wheelchair seating integrated into the seating layout. Violation#1 Cost: $43,487 Priority The dugouts do not include at one wheelchair seating space within the player Violation#2: seating. The seating is on a raised concrete platform. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 221.2.1.4 Team or Player Seating. At least one wheelchair space complying with 802.1 shall be provided in Text: team or player seating areas serving areas of sport activity. Each dugout will require modification so that a compliant wheelchair Recommendation: space may provided within the team seating area. Violation#2 Cost: $1,518 Priority Level 6 Violation#3: No accessible picnic tables are provided at the pavilion. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 902.2 Clear Floor or Ground Space, A clear floor space complying with(305 Clear Floor or Ground Space) Text: positioned for a forward approach shall be provided. Knee and toe clearance complying with(306 Knee Clearance)shall be provided. Provide at least one accessible picnic table that provides an accessible Recommendation: height and knee clearance under the table for a forward approach. Violation#3 Cost: $2,622 Priority Page 24 of 31 page2 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 142 of 36k Amenities College Station-Brian Bachmann Park Park Amenities-Page 3 There is no accessible route serving the horseshoe pits and exercise area at the rear of the pavilion. No accessible connecting route is provided to the ball fields near the Southwood Violation#4: Community Center. These fields do not connect to any accessible parking or other amenities on the site. No accessible connecting route is provided to any of the soccer fields in the southwest area of the park. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 206.2.2 Accessible Routes Within a Site. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings,accessible Text: facilities, accessible elements,and accessible spaces that are on the same site. Recommendation: An accessible route must be provided to connect to these elements. Violation#4 Cost: $49,651 Priority High Priority Park Amenities Total $97,279 Medium Priority Low Priority 111 Page 25 of 31 page3 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Brian Bachmann Community Park Page 143 of 316 47 0 L: _-_,„._.__ .--_--.6.;:._..F.: r.1 RCCfSSOLOB � _ - f Parking Violation 1 - In the middle Parking Violation 1 - Both of the parking lot the van accessible accessible parking spaces serving parking space serving the little the pavilion must be restriped to league fields must be restriped to meet the minimum dimensions for meet the minimum dimensions of a accessible parking spaces. van accessible parking space. J :,..9 _ ,, I I - `�%aRRRt 'JyL1111 IN' , �. may` : 1�Ilil�.'fi�� x� , 1• a > `*w■ l Parking Violation 1 - The three Parking Violation 2 - The parking AR Violation 1 - The sloped walk accessible parking spaces serving signs are too low, leading up to the west side little the pool entrance should be re- league fields has a 7% running slope striped to meet the minimum and is not treated as a ramp. dimensions for accessible parking spaces. 4 k ,w ! t .`? +- ,-,.-7, -Cr_' _ _ :Ai + 1:-� / .amu 1 y AR Violation 2 - Access into the AR Violation 3 - No accessible AR Violation 4 - Access into the dugouts at the west side little league routes are provided to any of the umpires area includes a significant fields includes running slopes batting cages located between the change in level at the door threshold approximately 7.7% and no ball fields. and the exterior door maneuvering accessible ramp is provided, clearance is not level. Page 26 of 31 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Brian Bachmann Community Park Page 144 of 316 \, ' -- - _ — ! ' --, - 4IT''... -;44...g'- -741 04i • IA . .' _A . , - --: . 0 AR Violation 5 - The curb ramps AR Violation 5 - The curb ramps AR Violation 5 -The curb ramp serving the three accessible parking serving the two accessible parking flares exceed 20% slope where spaces at the pool are not compliant. spaces at the pavilion have a 23% 10% maximum is required. Each has a 14% to 17% slope at the slope at the transition to the parking transition to the parking surface and surface. the flares exceed the maximum 1:10 slope. '111111AN 1 t ' .... "".,—,L Y) , �� of ;, .. V 4 '. AR Violation 6 - The route at the AR Violation 7 - The ramp at the AR Violation 8 - There are large gaps pool from the accessible parking to rear of the pool house is not of 1" or more in the expansion joints the pool house entrance includes a compliant. The ramp is missing the along the route from the pool house 1" change in level. required edge protection, handrail to the tennis courts. extensions and the top landing is not level. f flu pr ! j , ' '. i III •. . - lii -t. 1 ir_,...6__ . i I, 1 _.‘. , , ,.... ,,,,,......,,.. _ _ie. e,,,....„„. ,.. ......„. , 4. , , , ,v, . ,, ,..1-:,+.7.. ..' __ AR Violation 9 - The route to the AR Violation 10 - No accessible route AR Violation 11 - The curb ramp brand new men's and women's is provided to the basketball court landing in front of the Southwood restrooms near the tennis courts has light control. Community Center has a cross slope a running slope of 10.5%. of 7,1%. The route from the bicycle rack would cross this landing. This Page 27 of 31 landing should be level in all directions. The sidewalk to the bicycle rack has a 3.5% cross slope. Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Brian Bachmann Community Park Page 145 of 316 411MIL0------- � 1- :rte- _ _ .� a+ _ t� T.! y7r,s ._ _��o- AR Violation 12 -The sidewalk in AR Violation 12 - The sidewalk in Entrance Violation 1 - The entrance front of the pool facility that front of the pool facility that door into the pool house has a 7% connects to the sidewalk along Rock connects to the sidewalk along Rock slope on the exterior of the door Prairie Road has a running slope of Prairie Road has significant level where it is required to be level. 12%. changes. :. . .x iii -tit:---4,,,,-,•••••••••• •• w.. I + v o • M' ..- Hallway Hallway Violation 1 -The doors into Hallway Violation 2 - The doors Hallway Violation 2 - Within the the concessions areas provide only within the pavilion do not have the Southwood Community Center 27" clear width where 32" minimum required 18" clearance on the pull the doors in the restroom corridor is required. side of the doors. have 16" of clearance on the pull side of the doors. I 1 rrn3 , i , 4 i Hallway Violation 3 -The room signs Hallway Violation 4 - The wall Hallway Violation 5 -The width of within the park facilities are not mounted shelving within the interior the route into the Southwood accessible. Many do not include of the pool house is a protruding Community Center staff break room tactile characters or Braille. object. is only 29" between the refrigerator and the countertop. Page 28 of 31 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Brian Bachmann Community Park Page 146 of 316 Ii..... r ii, ip \\--it' t -\41L : . . e --, _ f .. I+ RR Violation 1 - The restrooms RR Violation 2 - The two restrooms RR Violation 3 - The pool facility serving the both baseball field serving the pavilion are not locker rooms are not substantially complexes do not include any substantially compliant, compliant. accessible elements. i A.0 4 .-gr. 2: . q , , , : l - RR Violation 4 - The grab bars within RR Violation 5 -The hooks in the Misc Violation 1 - Concessions the Southwood Community Center accessible toilet compartments in the counters serving the little league restrooms are too low at 31-1/2" to Southwood Community Center are fields are all at 43" high. The the top of the bars. too high at 64". concession counters serving the pavilion are 42" high. No accessible concession counters are provided. -40 ; 11 ;iv1 Misc Violation 1 - The pool Misc Violation 1 - The pavilion Misc Violation 2 - Only one drinking reception counter is 38" high with concession counters are 42" high fountain is provided at each little no accessible portion of counter. with no accessible portion of league field complex. The units that counter. are provided only have 24" knee clearance where 27" minimum is Page 29 of 31 required. No drinking fountains for standing persons are provided. Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Brian Bachmann Community Park Page 147 of 316 -ice .7 i< �fp,ei 1— t��i. •-- E �. -.ate -- _ » .reed" i rololimusgrrinst"e"-- ._ Iiis% ~''Mit 0 r. - -�w go 1_ ' Misc Violation 2 - Only one Misc Violation 2 - Only one drinking Misc Violation 2 -The drinking drinking fountain is provided to fountain is provided to serve the fountains serving the dugouts are serve the pool facility. No pavilion. The unit is accessible in not compliant. drinking fountain for standing terms of knee clearance. No persons is provided. drinking fountain for standing persons is provided. ; _ —f ... „ f i„21,J.. :,;•:. .7.,Tir 4;14'")--- '1 4- "11%4 - ,7--mriti, ' ,`. � 4 I/ - -_____ 411111111111,4$ t ii ray V.r , .`�.y ti Park Violation 1 - The accessible Park Violation 1 - No accessible Park Violation 2 -The dugouts do wheelchair seating spaces serving wheelchair seating is provided not include at one wheelchair the west side little league fields within any of the soccer field seating space within the player have a slope of 3.5% within the bleacher seating. seating. The seating is on a raised seating spaces. The wheelchair concrete platform. spaces at the middle little league fields have a 5% slope within the seating spaces. :_ {e ;) 0 -tet to ' t ,..0.3.40,44ipufir, - -....- - Park Violation 3 - No accessible Park Violation 4 - There is no Park Violation 4 - No accessible picnic tables are provided at the accessible route to the connecting route is provided to the pavilion. horseshoe pits. ball fields near the Southwood Community Center. These fields do not connect to any accessible Page 30 of 31 parking or other amenities on the site. Ordinance No.2015-3712 Brian Bachmann Community Park Page 148 of 316 • Park Violation 4 - No accessible connecting route is provided to any of the soccer fields in the southwest area of the park. Page 31 of 31 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 149 of 316 Parking 0 flCCESSOLOGy City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Stephen C. Beachy Central Park Facili Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Kristi Avalos Date: Monday,January 12,2015 Email: kjavalos@accessology.com Latitude: 30°32'41.3"N Longitude: 96°17'40.5"W Address: 1000 Krenek Tap Rd Ci : College Station Coun : Brazos General Parking Notes: There are three parking areas serving the park. One parking area serves the baseball field complex.Another serves pavilion and basketball court and the third serves the administration building,tennis courts and soccer fields. The accessible parking serving the baseball complex contains the required number of accessible spaces and is generally compliant;however,the parking surfaces are cracking and beginning to retain water, so this will become a maintenance issue for the City. The ground surfaces within the accessible spaces must be maintained in an accessible condition. The parking serving the pavilion is lacking one accessible • parking space and the route from the existing accessible parking space is not compliant. The parking serving the soccer fields do not have access aisles and one space is lacking signage. General Parking Notes: The parking area serving the baseball complex has 161 total parking spaces and requires six accessible parking spaces with one being van accessible. Six accessible parking spaces are provided an all six are van accessible. Total Parking Spaces-Baseball Complex 161 Total Accessible Parking Spaces: 6 Number of van accessible spaces: 6 Is the accessible parking substantially compliant? Yes Page 1 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 150 of 316 Parking College Station-Beachy Park Parking-Page 2 General Parking Notes: The parking area serving the pavilion and basketball court has 31 total parking spaces and requires one accessible parking space which must be van accessible. One accessible parking space is provided. Total Parking Spaces-Pavilion 31 Total Accessible Parking Spaces: 1 Number of van accessible spaces: 0 Is the accessible parking substantially compliant? No General Parking Notes: The parking area serving the Recreation World HDQ,tennis courts and soccer fields has 70 total parking spaces and requires three accessible spaces with one being van accessible. Total Parking Spaces-Recreation World HDQ 70 Total Accessible Parking Spaces: 5 Number of van accessible spaces: 0 Is the accessible parking substantially compliant? No The asphalt ground surface within the six accessible parking spaces is cracking Violation#1: and deteriorating where it meets the concrete surface,creating level changes greater than 1/4". 2010 ADAAG 302.3 Floor or Ground Surfaces Openings Standard: 2010 ADAAG 303.2 Changes in Level Vertical Openings in floor or ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere Text: more than 1/2 inch diameter. Changes in level of 1/4 inch high maximum shall be permitted to be vertical. Because the City has a continuing obligation to maintain accessible features in an accessible condition,we recommend a maintenance process Recommendation: that repairs gaps and level changes along accessible routes.Level changes can often be ground down if they aren't too bad. Gaps can be filled with caulk or other material. Violation#1 Cost: $403 Priority Page 2 of 43 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 151 of 316 Parking College Station-Beachy Park Parking-Page 3 The accessible parking space serving the pavilion is missing the required"van Violation#2: accessible" sign. The van accessible sign must be installed below the International Symbol of Accessibility. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 502.6 Parking Spaces Identification. Parking space identification signs shall include the International Symbol of Accessibility complying with(703.7.2.1 International Symbol of Text: Accessibility). Signs identifying van parking spaces shall contain the designation"van accessible." Signs shall be 60 inches minimum above the finish floor or ground surface measured to the bottom of the sign. Recommendation: Install a van accessible sign below the existing accessible parking sign. 'Violation#2 Cost: $255 Priority The curb ramp serving the pavilion accessible parking space is not compliant as it Violation#3: includes a level change at the bottom of the ramp. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 406.2 Curb Ramps Counter Slope. Counter slopes of adjoining gutters and road surfaces immediately adjacent to the curb ramp shall not be steeper than 1:20.The adjacent Text: surfaces at transitions at curb ramps to walks,gutters,and streets shall be at the same level. The existing curb ramp should be replaced with a compliant curb ramp that includes a flush transition to the parking surface. Be advised that the Recommendation: curb ramp also serves the accessible route to the basketball court,so the ramp must either have a route around the ramp at the top of the ramp or relocated to serve both the pavilion and the basketball court. Violation#3 Cost: L $3,082 Priority Page 3 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 152 of 316 Parking College Station-Beachy Park Parking-Page 4 One additional accessible parking space is required to serve the parking lot at the Violation#4: pavilion and it must also connect to the pavilion and basketball court by an accessible route. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 208.2 Minimum Number. Parking spaces complying with 502 shall be provided in accordance with Table 208.2 except as required by 208.2.1,208.2.2, and 208.2.3. Where Text: more than one parking facility is provided on a site,the number of accessible spaces provided on the site shall be calculated according to the number of spaces required for each parking facility. Create one additional standard accessible parking space and provide an Recommendation: accessible connecting route to the pavilion and basketball court. Violation#4 Cost: $4,117 Priority The non-accessible and accessible parking spaces serving the Recreation World Violation#5: HDQ and the tennis courts that are located at the curb line will overhang the sidewalk and reduce the clear width of the sidewalk. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 502.7 Relationship to Accessible Routes. Parking spaces and access aisles shall be designed so that cars and vans, Text: when parked, cannot obstruct the required clear width of adjacent accessible routes. Install wheel stops at the six parking spaces that are located at the curb Recommendation: line where the sidewalk narrows. Violation#5 Cost: $566 Priority Level 5 An accessible route is not provided around the top of the curb ramp serving the Violation#6: accessible parking spaces near the tennis courts. Users are required to travel across the ramp surface which creates a cross slope greater than 2%. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. Page 4 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 153 of 316 Parking College Station-Beachy Park Parking-Page 5 The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20.The Text' cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Extend the sidewalk to provide a 36" minimum wide path around the curb Recommendation: ramp to connect to the sidewalk leading to the tennis courts. Violation #6 Cost: $949 Priority The two accessible parking spaces serving the soccer field area are not served by Violation#7: access aisles. A Standard: 2010 ADAAG 502.2 Parking Spaces Vehicle Spaces. Car parking spaces shall be 96 inches wide(8')minimum and van parking spaces shall be 132 inches wide(11')minimum, shall be marked to define Text: the width, and shall have an adjacent access aisle complying with(502.3 Access Aisle). An access aisle must be created to serve each of the two accessible spaces. The minimum access aisle width is 60"; however, since these serve the soccer fields and there is no accessible route provided from the existing Recommendation: van accessible space near the tennis courts, it is recommended that one of these two spaces become van accessible and be served by a 96" wide access aisle. Van accessible signage will also need to be provided at this new van space. Violation#7 Cost: $2,507 Priority Level 5 High Priority Parking Violations Total $11,878 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 5 of 43 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 154 orat6ssible Route City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Stephen C. Beachy Central Par Facilit Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Kristi Avalos Date: Monday,January 12,2015 Email: kjavalos@accessology.com Latitude: 30°32'41.3"N Longitude: 96°17'40.5"W Address: 1000 Krenek'lap Rd Cit : College Station Coun : Brazos General Accessible Route Notes: Routes intended to be accessible are provided, however they have not been properly maintained. Gaps, cracks and level changes are found through-out the park, especially directly serving amenities. Individual locations are noted below. Additionally,the route around the water has a cross slope over 2%toward the water with no edge protection into the water. This is potential liability to the City and one of the highest priority items. See violation# 11 below. Is the path of travel from accessible parking to building entrance compliant? No Does the path of travel serve all exterior amenities offered by the facility? Yes Is the path of travel from building entrances to all amenities served by the No entrance substantially compliant? The path of travel from the accessible parking serving the ball fields to the ball Violation#1: fields themselves has gaps and level changes that exceed allowable tolerances. 2010 ADAAG 302.3 Floor or Ground Surfaces Openings Standard: 2010 ADAAG 303.2 Changes in Level Vertical Openings in floor or ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere Text: more than 1/2 inch diameter. Changes in level of 1/4 inch high maximum shall be permitted to be vertical. Because the City has a continuing obligation to maintain accessible Recommendation: features in an accessible condition,we recommend a maintenance process that repairs gaps and level changes along accessible routes. Page 6 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 155 of t6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 2 Recommendation: Level changes can often be ground down if they aren't too bad. Gaps can PT 2 be filled with caulk or other material. Violation#1 Cost: $1,438 Priority The path of travel from the dugout to the ball fields has a level change onto the Violation#2: field. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 303.2 Changes in Level Vertical Changes in level of 1/4 inch high maximum shall be permitted to be Text: vertical. Install compliant accessible routes that lead from the main sidewalk to Recommendation: each ball field. Violation#2 Cost: $863 Priority Level 5 Ball field restrooms -The main path of travel into each restroom has a baby Violation#3: changing station that protrudes into the path of travel to the stalls. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 307.2 Protruding Objects Protrusion Limits. Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches and not more than 80 Text: inches above the finish floor or ground shall protrude 4 inches maximum horizontally into the circulation path. Move the baby changing stations so they are not directly in the accessible Recommendation: route. Violation#3 Cost: $403 Priority Level 7 The concrete area between the ball fields has slopes from compliant to 9.2%.This Violation#4: area,where people will transverse from different directions, should not exceed 2%in any direction. Page 7 of 43 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 156 of t6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 3 Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Level the area where pedestrians coming from several directions meet so it's no more than 2%slope in any direction.Ensure any area where they Recommendation: are traveling in a single direction is below 5%running slope unless it's treated as a ramp. Violation#4 Cost: $1,783 Priority The area around the bleachers has protruding objects very dangerous to a person Violation#5: with little or no vision,or to anyone not paying attention. They protrude out 11" at 59"height. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 307.2 Protruding Objects Protrusion Limits. Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches and not more than 80 Text: inches above the finish floor or ground shall protrude 4 inches maximum horizontally into the circulation path. Install some kind of barrier below the bleachers to enclose the protruding Recommendation: areas. Violation#5 Cost: $2,875 Priority Violation#6: There is no accessible route to the bull pen. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 402.2 Components _ 1 Accessible routes shall consist of one or more of the following components: walking surfaces with a running slope not steeper than 1:20, Text: doorways,ramps, curb ramps excluding the flared sides,elevators, and platform lifts. All components of an accessible route shall comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 4. Recommendation: Ensure each bull pen has an accessible route leading to each end of it. Page 8 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 157 ofANit6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 4 Violation#6 Cost: $995 Priority One of the main paths of travel leading from the ball fields north of Central Park Ln.to the amenities just south of Central Park Ln. is also a drainage ditch. This Violation#7: makes the entire path have a cross slope issue far above reasonable tolerances.In some cases the cross slope is 7.1%. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20.The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Either this existing path needs to be redesigned so the running and cross Recommendation: slopes are compliant, or this needs to be identified as a drainage ditch and a new, compliant, accessible path needs to be installed. Violation#7 Cost: $22,138 Priority The area around the information sign has protruding objects dangerous to a Violation#8: person with little or no vision, or to anyone not paying attention. They protrude out 19" at 79"height. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 307.2 Protruding Objects Protrusion Limits. Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches and not more than 80 Text: inches above the finish floor or ground shall protrude 4 inches maximum horizontally into the circulation path. Install some kind of barrier below the sign, or extend the side panels,to Recommendation: enclose the protruding areas. Violation#8 Cost: $1,725 Priority On the south side of Central Park Ln.the path of travel also has gaps and level Violation#9: changes that exceed allowable tolerances. Page 9 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 158 ofkitessible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 5 2010 ADAAG 302.3 Floor or Ground Surfaces Openings Standard: 2010 ADAAG 303.2 Changes in Level Vertical Openings in floor or ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere Text: more than 1/2 inch diameter. Changes in level of 1/4 inch high maximum shall be permitted to be vertical. Because the City has a continuing obligation to maintain accessible features in an accessible condition,we recommend a maintenance process Recommendation: that repairs gaps and level changes along accessible routes. Level changes can often be ground down if they aren't too bad. Gaps can be filled with caulk or other material. Violation#9 Cost: $2,875 Priority The running slope of the path that goes around the Wayne Bryan Bike Loop exceeds 5%in several areas,especially just before and just after the lake/pond, Violation#10: which makes it a ramp.However, it has not been treated as a ramp and has no handrails, level landing areas,etc. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20.The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Either re-grade to ensure the slope is under 5%or develop the area into a Recommendation: fully compliant ramp by installing handrails and ensuring level landing areas are provided at the top and bottom and every 30'. Violation#10 Cost: $2,875 Priority Level 7 The cross slope of the sidewalk directly in front of the lake/pond is up to 2.6% and just west of the lake/pond is up to 4.7%.Because there is no edge protection Violation#11: between this path and the water,we see this as a liability issue for someone with limited mobility and should be resolved. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. Page 10 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 159 ofA t6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 6 The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20.The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Re-grade to ensure the cross slope is under 2%and we also recommend a Recommendation: rail or edge protection is developed to provide protection between the accessible route and the water. Violation#11 Cost: $3,738 Priority The sidewalk on the south side of the lake, west of the little storage building, is Violation#12: connected by wood path connections that have gaps between the panels. 2010 ADAAG 302.3 Floor or Ground Surfaces Openings Standard: 2010 ADAAG 303.2 Changes in Level Vertical Openings in floor or ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere Text: more than 1/2 inch diameter. Changes in level of 1/4 inch high maximum shall be permitted to be vertical. Because the City has a continuing obligation to maintain accessible features in an accessible condition,we recommend a maintenance process Recommendation: that repairs gaps and level changes along accessible routes. Wood routes will work if the slats of wood are mounted close together without gaps. This should be reinstalled. Violation#12 Cost: $978 Priority WM The connection from the dock area back to the sidewalk has a running slope of Violation#13: 6%. This qualifies as a ramp,but more importantly it ends at the water.Without handrails to hold onto, a person using this route could easily end up in the water. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. Page 11 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 160 ofkit6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route- Page 7 The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Either re-grade to ensure the running slope is under 5%or develop a rail or Recommendation: edge protection between the accessible route and the water. Violation#13 Cost: $3,738 Priority The connection from the dock area back to the sidewalk has broken concrete and Violation#14: a gap at the expansion joint. • 2010 ADAAG 302.3 Floor or Ground Surfaces Openings Standard: 2010 ADAAG 303.2 Changes in Level Vertical Openings in floor or ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere Text: more than 1/2 inch diameter. Changes in level of 1/4 inch high maximum shall be permitted to be vertical. Because the City has a continuing obligation to maintain accessible features in an accessible condition,we recommend a maintenance process Recommendation: that repairs gaps and level changes along accessible routes.All expansion joints should be watched and maintained for compliance. Violation#14 Cost: $747 Priority The cross slope of the sidewalk directly in front of the lake/pond on the west side is up to 3.5%.Again,because there is no edge protection between this path and Violation#15: the water,we see this as a liability issue for someone with limited mobility and should be resolved. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Page 12 of 43 •• t- 4*, •: Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 161 ofll6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 8 Re-grade to ensure the cross slope is under 2%and we also recommend a Recommendation: rail or edge protection is developed to provide protection between the accessible route and the water. Violation#15 Cost: $3,738 - Priority The cross slope of the wood bridge that crosses the lake/pond on the west side is up to 4.2% .Again,because there is no edge protection between this path and the Violation#16: water,we see this as a liability issue for someone with limited mobility and should be resolved. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20.The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Either re-grade to ensure the cross slope is under 2%or develop a rail or Recommendation: edge protection between the accessible route and the water. Violation#16 Cost: $3,738 Priority Violation#17: There is no accessible route to the edge of the sand volleyball court. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 206.2.12 Court Sports. In court sports,at least one accessible route shall directly connect both Text: sides of the court. Install a compliant route connecting the sidewalk system to both end of the Recommendation: sand volleyball court. Violation#17 Cost: $978 Priority The cross slope of the sidewalk between the sand volleyball court and the Violation#18: basketball court is up to 4.6% .The running slope goes up to 7.1%but is not treated as a ramp.Any slope above 5%is,by definition,a ramp. Page 13 of 43 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 162 oV t6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 9 Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Re-grade to ensure the cross slope is under 2%and the running slope is Recommendation: less than 5%or prepare the area as a full compliant ramp meeting all requirements of a ramp. Violation#18 Cost: $1,725 Priority The path of travel from the sand volleyball court to the basketball court ends in a Violation#19: parking lot with no accessible connection. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 206.2.2 Accessible Routes Within a Site At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings,accessible Text: facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces that are on the same site. Install a fully compliant accessible route connecting the sidewalk from the lake/pond/sand volleyball area to the basketball court and pavilion and Rec Recommendation: building. This can be done by installing a sidewalk along the east side of the parking lot and improving the connection to the sidewalk on the south side of the basketball court. Violation#19 Cost: $1,323 Priority There is a sidewalk that leads to the playground. There is no route to get into the Violation#20: playground area. The sidewalk dead ends at the edge of the playground. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 206.2.2 Accessible Routes Within a Site Page 14 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 163 ot? tessible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 10 At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, accessible Text: facilities, accessible elements,and accessible spaces that are on the same site. Install a fully compliant accessible route connecting the sidewalk leading Recommendation: to the playground to the playground itself Violation#20 Cost: $2,645 ( Priority Violation#21: There is no accessible route leading to the picnic table serving the playground. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 206.2.2 Accessible Routes Within a Site At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings,accessible Text: facilities, accessible elements,and accessible spaces that are on the same site. Install a fully compliant accessible route connecting the picnic table to the Recommendation: playground itself, and then to an accessible route. Violation#21 Cost: $2,875 Priority Level 7 The sidewalk from the playground to the Rec building has gaps at the expansion Violation#22: joints that are more than 1/2" wide. Some up to 1.5". 2010 ADAAG 302.3 Floor or Ground Surfaces Openings Standard: 2010 ADAAG 303.2 Changes in Level Vertical Openings in floor or ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere Text: more than 1/2 inch diameter. Changes in level of 1/4 inch high maximum shall be permitted to be vertical. Page 15 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 164 ofAit6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 11 Because the City has a continuing obligation to maintain accessible features in an accessible condition,we recommend a maintenance process Recommendation: that repairs gaps and level changes along accessible routes.Level changes can often be ground down if they aren't too bad. Gaps can be filled with caulk or other material. Violation#22 Cost: $978 Priority Violation#23: No accessible route is provided to the benches by the water. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 206.2.2 Accessible Routes Within a Site At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, accessible Text: facilities, accessible elements,and accessible spaces that are on the same site. Install a fully compliant accessible route connecting the sidewalk to at Recommendation: least one the bench areas by the water. Violation#23 Cost: $4,025 1 Priority Level 7 Violation#24: No accessible route is provided to the picnic areas by the water. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 206.2.2 Accessible Routes Within a Site At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, accessible Text: facilities, accessible elements,and accessible spaces that are on the same site. Install a fully compliant accessible route connecting the sidewalk to at Recommendation: least one of the picnic areas by the water. Violation#24 Cost: $4,140 Priority The running slope of the concrete path that leads to the dock on the south side of Violation#25: the lake/pond is 5.9%but has no handrails or edge protection. Page 16 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 165 otP t6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park r Accessible Route-Page 12 Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Re-grade to ensure the cross slope is under 2%and the running slope is Recommendation: less than 5%or prepare the area as a full compliant ramp meeting all requirements of a ramp. Violation#25 Cost: $3,738 Priority There is a level change in the required clear floor space for the drinking fountain Violation#26: at the south side of the lake/pond. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 303.2 Changes in Level Vertical Changes in level of 1/4 inch high maximum shall be permitted to be Text: vertical. Reinstall the required clear floor space so it meets the size requirements of Recommendation: 30" by 48" but does not include the utility cap that causes the level change, or reinstall the cap so it's flush with the concrete. Violation#26 Cost: $949 Priority The door into the concession area from the pavilion has a knob and a level change Violation#27: to get inside. 2010 ADAAG 404.2.5 Door Thresholds Standard: 2010 ADAAG 404.2.7 Door and Gate Hardware. Thresholds, if provided at doorways,shall be 1/2 inch high maximum. Text: Raised thresholds and changes in level at doorways shall comply with (302 Floor or Ground Surfaces)&(303 Changes in Level) Page 17 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 166 of 3t6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 13 Handles,pulls, latches, locks, and other operable parts on doors and gates shall comply with (309.4 Operation)operable parts of such hardware shall Text. be 34 inches minimum and 48 inches maximum above the finish floor or PT 2 ground. Where sliding doors are in the fully open position,operating hardware shall be exposed and usable from both sides. Recommendation: Fix door threshold and replace door hardware for compliance. Violation#27 Cost: $819 Priority * The bridge between the pavilion and the rec building has level changes,sinking Violation#28: bricks and dangerously steep slopes up to 35.0%. This is the highest priority on the property. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. Replace this bridge and the path of travel to it on both sides to ensure Recommendation: compliance. Violation#28 Cost: $7,475 Priority There is a level change along the accessible route from the pavilion to the rec center. One level change is caused by wood that appears to have been installed to Violation#29: fill a gap in the bricks. The other is where the bricks and concrete meet and there is about a 1"level change. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 303.2 Changes in Level Vertical Changes in level of 1/4 inch high maximum shall be permitted to be Text: vertical. Recommendation: Reinstall the brick pavers for compliance. Page 18 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 167 ot7 t6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 14 Violation#29 Cost: $633 Priority Violation#30: Shelves in the work room in the Tourist Center protrude 11 1/2" at 52" in height. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 307.2 Protruding Objects Protrusion Limits. Objects with leading edges more than 27 inches and not more than 80 Text: inches above the finish floor or ground shall protrude 4 inches maximum horizontally into the circulation path. Install some kind of barrier below the shelving,like permanent cabinets, or Recommendation: extend the side panels to enclose the protruding areas. Violation#30 Cost: $288 Priority Level 5 Violation#31: There is no elevator to the second floor of the Recreation World HDQ. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 206.2.4 Spaces and Elements. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible building or facility entrances with all accessible spaces and elements within the building or Text: facility which are otherwise connected by a circulation path unless exempted by 206.2.3 Exceptions 1 through 7. Recommendation: Install an elevator in the Recreation World HDQ to serve the second floor. Violation#31 Cost: $262,948 Priority Level 5 The stairs to the second floor of the Recreation World HDQ do not have Violation#32: compliant handrails. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 505.6 Gripping Surface. Handrail gripping surfaces shall be continuous along their length and shall Text: not be obstructed along their tops or sides. Page 19 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 168 oNt6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 15 Handrail gripping surfaces shall be continuous along their length and shall not be obstructed along their tops or sides. The bottoms of handrail Text: gripping surfaces shall not be obstructed for more than 20 percent of their length. Where provided,horizontal projections shall occur 11/2(38 mm) minimum below the bottom of the handrail gripping surface. Recommendation: Install new handrails for compliance. Violation#32 Cost: ! $7,475 j Priority The cross slope of the sidewalk between the Recreation World HDQ and the Violation#33: tennis courts has is up to 5.7%. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. Text: The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The Re-grade to ensure the cross slope is under 2%and the running slope is Recommendation: less than 5%or prepare the area as a full compliant ramp meeting all requirements of a ramp. Violation#33 Cost: $7,475 Priority Where the Wayne Bryan Bike Loop cross the street, it has slopes up to 12.9%and Violation#34: is especially steep on both sides of the street. This path also has gaps along the path that exceed the allowable 1/2". Standard: 2010 ADAAG 403.3 Walking Surface Slope. The running slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:20. The Text: cross slope of walking surfaces shall not be steeper than 1:48. • Re-grade to ensure the cross slope is under 2%and the running slope is Recommendation: less than 5%or prepare the area as a full compliant ramp meeting all requirements of a ramp. Page 20 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 169 ofA t6ssible Route College Station-Beachy Park Accessible Route-Page 15 Violation#34 Cost: $2,645 Priority Violation#35: There is a 4 1/2" level change to get into the Tennis Courts. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 303.2 Changes in Level Vertical Changes in level of 1/4 inch high maximum shall be permitted to be Text vertical. Provide a compliant accessible route into the tennis courts that connects Recommendation: both sides of each court. Violation#35 Cost: $3,105 Priority High Priority Accessible Route Total $370,877 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 21 of 43 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 170 of 316 Entrance City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Stephen C. Beachy Central Par Facility Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Kristi Avalos Date: Monday,January 12,2015 Email: kjavalos@accessology.com Latitude: 30°32'41.3"N Longitude: 96°17'40.5"W Address: 1000 Krenek Tap Rd Ci : College Station Count : Brazos General Entrance Notes: This section only refers to the main entrance to the Tourist Information building. Is the main entry door accessible? No Is there an alternate door that is accessible? No If so,does the inaccessible door have signage indicating the location NA of the nearest accessible door? There is a gap in the expansion joint directly in front of the main entrance that is Violation#1: 1"wide.This could catch the front wheel of a wheelchair or trip someone using a walker. 2010 ADAAG 302.3 Floor or Ground Surfaces Openings Standard: AnA .x 301) ciincres in T.ewe] Vertical Openings in floor or ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere Text: more than 1/2 inch diameter. Changes in level of 1/4 inch high maximum shall be permitted to be vertical. Page 22 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 171 of 316 Entrance College Station-Beachy Park Entrance-Page 2 Because the City has a continuing obligation to maintain accessible features in an accessible condition,we recommend a maintenance process Recommendation: that repairs gaps and level changes along accessible routes.All expansion joints should be watched and maintained for compliance. Violation#1 Cost: $94 I Priority High Priority Entrance Total $94 Medium Priority _ Low Priority Page 23 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 172 of 316 Hallway City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Stephen C. Beachy Central Par Facili Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Kristi Avalos Date: Monday,January 12,2015 Email: kjavalos@accessology.com Latitude: 30°32'41.3"N Longitude: 96°17'40.5"W Address: 1000 Krenek Tap Rd Ci : College Station Count : Brazos General Hallway Notes: The hallways in the Recreation World HDQ are the only hallways evaluated for this section. Does this facility have any hallways? Yes Do the doors have compliant hardware? No Do the doors have proper maneuvering clearances? No Is the hallway width at least 36" clear width? Yes Are visual strobes provided? No Are there any protruding objects? Yes Is the signage substantially compliant? Yes Violation#1: Door knobs are used throughout the Tourist information building. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 404.2.7 Door and Gate Hardware. Handles,pulls, latches, locks, and other operable parts on doors and gates shall comply with (309.4 Operation) operable parts of such hardware shall Text: be 34 inches minimum and 48 inches maximum above the finish floor or ground. Where sliding doors are in the fully open position,operating hardware shall be exposed and usable from both sides. Recommendation: Replace all door hardware with lever hardware. Page 24 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 173 of 316 Hallway College Station-Beachy Park Hallway-Page 2 Violation#1 Cost: $6,107 Priority Level 7 High Priority -11 Hallway Total $6,107 Medium Priority I Low Priority Page 25 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 174 of 316 Restrooms City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Stephen C. Beachy Central Par Facility Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Kristi Avalos Date: Monday,January 12,2015 Email: kjavalos@accessology.com Latitude: 30°32'41.3"N Longitude: 96°17'40.5"W Address: 1000 Krenek Tap Rd Ci : College Station Coun : Brazos General Restroom Notes: 'There is a restroom building serving the ball fields. Is the door to the restroom substantially compliant? Yes Does the room have the required turning radius? Yes Is the water closet substantially compliant? Yes Does the water closet have the required clear floor space? Yes Is the lavatory substantially compliant? Yes Is the urinal substantially compliant? Yes Is the mirror substantially compliant? NA LBallfield Restrooms-Both the men's and the women's have the toilet paper Violation#1: mounted about 6" above the grab bar. If above the grab bar it must be at least 12" above it so it doesn't obstruct the use of it. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 609.3 Spacing The space between the wall and the grab bar shall be 1'/2 inches. The space between the grab bar and projecting objects below and at the ends shall be Text: 1'/2 inches minimum. The space between the grab bar and projecting objects above shall be 12 inches minimum. Move the toilet paper dispensers in both men's and women's restrooms so Recommendation: the paper is dispensed at 48" above the finished floor. Violation#1 Cost: $173 Priority Level 7 The women's room inside the Recreation World HDQ has the flush control on the Violation#2: wrong side. a Page 26 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 175 of 316 Restrooms College Station- Beachy Park Restrooms-Page 2 Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.6 Flush Controls. Flush controls shall be hand operated or automatic.Hand operated flush controls shall comply with(309 Operable Parts).Flush controls shall be Text: located on the open side of the water closet except in ambulatory accessible compartments complying with(604.8.2 Ambulatory Accessible Compartments). Recommendation: Replace tank with a right handed flush mechanism. Violation#2 Cost: $233 Priority Level 5 The coat hook in the accessible stall in both the men's and women's restrooms are Violation#3: mounted at 60" above the finished floor. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 308.2.1 Reach Ranges Forward Reach Unobstructed. Where a forward reach is unobstructed,the high forward reach shall be 48 Text: inches maximum and the low forward reach shall be 15 inches minimum above the finish floor or ground. Lower the coat hooks in the accessible stalls so they are no more than 48" Recommendation: aff or add an additional coat hook at accessible heights. Violation#3 Cost: $40 Priority The pipes underneath the lavatories in both the men's and women's restrooms, on Violation#4: both floors,are not wrapped or protected from contact. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 606.5 Exposed Pipes and Surfaces. Water supply and drain pipes under lavatories and sinks shall be insulated Text: or otherwise configured to protect against contact. There shall be no sharp or abrasive surfaces under lavatories and sinks. Recommendation: Install insullation or a panel to protect a user from contact. Violation#4 Cost: $61 Priority [ Level 7 Page 27 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 176 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Beachy Park Restrooms-Page 3 The men's and women's restrooms serving the pavillion do not have compliant Violation#5: stalls,doors,urinals or lavatories. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 213.1 General. Where toilet facilities and bathing facilities are provided,they shall Text: comply with 213. Bring restrooms into compliance with a full 5'wide stall that meets all of Recommendation: the requirements of a compliant toilet compartment, conpliant lavatories, mirrors,urinals and doors. Violation#5 Cost: $8,692 Priority Level 6 The men's and women's restrooms serving the tennis courts do not have compliant Violation #6: maneuvering clearance on the doors but are otherwise substantially compliant. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 404.2.4 Door and Gate Maneuvering Clearances. Minimum maneuvering clearances at doors and gates shall comply with Texi: 404.2.4. Maneuvering clearances shall extend the full width of the doorway and the required latch side or hinge side clearance.. Extend the concrete on the pull side of the door to provide the proper Recommendation: maneuvering clearance and fill in the gaps in front of the door. Violation #6 Cost: $316 Priority Violation#7: The men's room serving the tennis courts has the flush control on the wrong side. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.6 Flush Controls. Flush controls shall be hand operated or automatic. Hand operated flush controls shall comply with(309 Operable Parts). Flush controls shall be Text: located on the open side of the water closet except in ambulatory accessible compartments complying with(604.8.2 Ambulatory Accessible Compartments). Page 28 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 177 of 316 Restrooms College Station-Beachy Park Restrooms-Page 4 Recommendation: Alter flush control so it's on the wide side of the water closet. Violation#7 Cost: $233 Priority Level 5 The mirrors in the men's and women's restrooms serving the tennis courts are Violation#8: mounted above 40"to the bottom of the reflecting surface. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 603.3 Mirrors. Mirrors located above lavatories or countertops shall be installed with the bottom edge of the reflecting surface 40 inches (1015 mm)maximum Text: above the finish floor or ground. Mirrors not located above lavatories or countertops shall be installed with the bottom edge of the reflecting surface 35 inches(890 mm)maximum above the finish floor or ground. Lower mirrors so the bottom of the reflecting surface is at or below 40" Recommendation: aff. Violation#8 Cost: $952 Priority The urinal in the men's restroom serving the tennis courts is located within the 60" Violation#9: wide clear floor space of the water closet. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 604.3.1 Water Closets Clearance Size. Clearance around a water closet shall be 60 inches minimum measured Text: perpendicular from the side wall and 56 inches minimum measured perpendicular from the rear wall. In order to comply the urinal with either need to be relocated so that it is at Recommendation: least 60" from the water closet sidewall or removed completely. Violation#9 Cost: $2,348 Priority High Priority Restrooms Total $13,049 Medium Priority I I Low Priority Page 29 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 178 of 310reak Rooms City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Stephen C. Beachy Central Par Facility Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Kristi Avalos Date: Monday,January 12,2015 Email: kjavalos@accessology.com accessology.com Latitude: 30°32'41.3"N Longitude: 96°17'40.5"W Address: 1000 Krenek Tap Rd Ci College Station Conn : Brazos General Break Room Notes: There is one break room located in the Recreation World HDQ. Does the facility have a break room? Yes Is there a stove or cooktop? No Is there a sink? Yes Is the sink substantially compliant? No Are the counters at 34" aff? No Violation#1: The counter in the break room is mounted at 36" aff. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 606.3 Lavatories and Sinks Height. Lavatories and sinks shall be installed with the front of the higher of the Text: rim or counter surface 34 inches maximum above the finish floor or ground. Recommendation: Lower the break room counter so it is no more than 34" aff. Violation #1 Cost: $2,295 Priority The door maneuvering clearance for the break room door is only 10" on the pull Violation #2: side of the door. 18" is required. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 404.2.4 Door and Gate Maneuvering Clearances. Minimum maneuvering clearances at doors and gates shall comply with Text: 404.2.4.Maneuvering clearances shall extend the full width of the doorway and the required latch side or hinge side clearance.. Page 30 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 179 of 3l6reak Rooms College Station-Beachy Park Break Rooms-Page 2 Remove door,move door or change the door swing so there is at least 18" Recommendation: on the pull side of the door. Violation#2 Cost: $2,146 Priority Level 5 High Priority Break Rooms Total $4,441 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 31 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 180 of 316 Misc City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Stephen C. Beachy Central Par Facility Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Kristi Avalos Date: Monday,January 12,2015 Email: kjavalos@accessology.com Latitude: 30°32'41.3"N Longitude: 96°17'40.5"W Address: 1000 Krenek Tap Rd Ci : College Station Count : Brazos General Misc Notes: Drinking fountains are provided throughout the property. The area North of Central Park Ln.,by the ball fields,the drinking fountains are substantially compliant. Most of the drinking fountains on the south side of Central Park Ln. are not compliant. Wherever a single drinking fountain is provided,there must be two. One for people who have trouble bending or stooping and one for people who use wheelchair. Are there exterior drinking fountains? Yes Are there any other miscellaneous items not previously covered? No The drinking fountains on the south side of Central Park Ln. do not comply. The Violation#1: drinking fountain serving the pavilion by the rec center also does not comply.A lower fountain is installed but there is not a standard height drinking fountain. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 211.2 Minimum Number. No fewer than two drinking fountains shall be provided. One drinking Text: fountain shall comply with 602.1 through 602.6 and one drinking fountain shall comply with 602.7. Install a standard height drinking fountain serving the pavilion area and Recommendation: anywhere only one drinking fountain is provided. Violation#1 Cost: $8,830 Priority Violation#2: The main counter in the lobby has a height of 45"high with no lowered section. Page 32 of 43 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 181 of 316 Misc College Station-Beachy Park Miscellaneous-Page 2 Standard: 2010 ADAAG 904.4 Sales and Service Counters. Sales counters and service counters shall comply with(904.4.1 Parallel Text: Approach or 904.4.2 Forward Approach).The accessible portion of the counter top shall extend the same depth as the sales or service counter top. Lower at least one section of the counter to meet the requirements of Section 904.4. The lowered section must be at 36" aff. That section must Recommendation: be 36"wide if a parallel approach is going to be used or 30"wide for a frontal approach. Violation#2 Cost: $2,295 Priority High Priority Miscellaneous Total $11,125 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 33 of 43 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 182 of 316k Amenities City of College Station PARK REPORT Facility Information: Facility Name: Stephen C. Beachy Central Par Facili Contact: Rusty Warncke Contact Phone: 979-764-3731 Accessology Inspector Information: Inspector: Kristi Avalos Date: Monday,January 12,2015 Email: kjavalos@accessology.com Latitude: 30°32'41.3"N Longitude: 96°17'40.5"W Address: 1000 Krenek Tap Rd City: College Station County: Brazos General Amenities Notes: Beachy Park,AKA'Central Park', is divided into different section.The North part of the park has ball fields and they have their own parking lot. South of Central Park Ln. is the rest of the park with Tennis courts,basketball,playground,sand volley ball and picnic areas throughout the park. Does each amenity have an accessible route leading into it? No Is there a playground? Yes Does it have accessible play elements? Yes Are they substantially compliant? Are there sports fields? Yes Do the accessible routes extend into the dugout? No Is seating provided? Yes Is accessible seating provided? MOM Is it compliant? Yes Are pavilions and/or picnic tables provided? Is an accessible route provided to them? Yes Are accessible picnic tables provided? No Are grills provided? Yes Are they accessible? Yes Violation#1: No accessible picnic tables were noted at any of the pavillions. Standard: 226.1 Dining Surfaces and Work Surfaces Where dining surfaces are provided for the consumption of food or drink, Text: at least 5 percent of the seating spaces and standing spaces at the dining surfaces shall comply with 902. Page 34 of 43 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 183 of 316k Amenities College Station-Beachy Park Park Amenities-Page 2 Text: In addition,where work surfaces are provided for use by other than PT 2 employees, at least 5 percent shall comply with 902. Ensure at least one accessible picnic table is provided at each available Recommendation: pavillion Violation#1 Cost: $5,014 Priority Level 7 The playground equipment is not accessible equipment and the surface under the Violation#2: equipment is also not compliant. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 206.2.17.1 Ground Level and Elevated Play Components. At least one accessible route shall be provided within the play area. The accessible route shall connect ground level play components required to Text: comply with 240.2.1 and elevated play components required to comply with 240.2.2,including entry and exit points of the play components. Recommendation: Both the equipment and the surfacing need to be replaced. 1I Violation#2 Cost: $20,183 Priority Level 5 The concession stand attached to the Rec building has counters that are 42" high Violation#3: with no lowered counter. Standard: 2010 ADAAG 904.4 Sales and Service Counters. Sales counters and service counters shall comply with(904.4.1 Parallel Text: Approach or 904.4.2 Forward Approach).The accessible portion of the counter top shall extend the same depth as the sales or service counter top. Page 35 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 184 of 316k Amenities College Station-Beachy Park Park Amenities-Page 3 Lower at least one counter to meet the requirements of Section 904.4. The Recommendation: lowered section must be at 36" aff.That secion must be 36"wide if a parallel approach is going to be used or 30" wide for a frontal approach. Violation#3 Cost: $2,691 Priority Level S High PrioritMUM y Park Amenities Total $27,888 Medium Priority Low Priority Page 36 of 43 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Stephen C. Beachy Park Page 185 of 316 - .i flCCESSOLOGy Peuitiiil. 1.� 4 f @ Parking Violation 1 - The asphalt ground surface within the six accessible parking spaces is cracking and deteriorating where it meets the concrete surface, creating level changes greater than 1/4". "`‘.‘-x • r iW — _ 1' .1 1 . • vn _ _s_.. _ _ Parking Violation 2 -The accessible Parking Violation 3 -The curb ramp Parking Violation 4 - One additional parking space serving the pavilion is serving the pavilion accessible accessible parking space is required missing the required "van parking space is not compliant as it to serve the parking lot at the accessible" sign. The van accessible includes a level change at the pavilion and it must also connect to sign must be installed below the bottom of the ramp. the pavilion and basketball court by International Symbol of an accessible route. Accessibility. -/ - q 114- SW 7 _ ciiLyA x •* • -yi • . --- ---_d 4.. , . 1011 Parking Violation 5 - The non- Parking Violation 6 - An accessible Parking Violation 7 - The two accessible and accessible parking route is not provided around the top accessible parking spaces serving spaces serving the Recreation World of the curb ramp. the soccer field area are not served HDQ and the tennis courts that are by access aisles. located at the curb line will overhang the sidewalk and reduce the clear Page 37 of 43 width of the sidewalk. Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Stephen C. Beachy Park Page 186 of 316 r- , e , I }4 - . • -.� 11 � 1144,? AR Violation 1 - The path of travel AR Violation 2 -The path of travel AR Violation 3 - Ball field restrooms from the accessible parking serving from the dugout to the ball fields has - The main path of travel into each the ball fields to the ball fields a level change onto the field. restroom has a baby changing themselves has gaps and level station that protrudes into the path changes that exceed allowable of travel to the stalls. tolerances. ar—pi li Eili ' fir.%l Ti':� _ i it i . .r oil 01. gift,=, !*•- Y !try�r " 0 weer -- `fix r«- 1--t I ; w -: AR Violation 4 - The concrete area AR Violation 5 - The area around the AR Violation 6 - There is no between the ball fields has slopes bleachers has protruding objects accessible route to the bull pens. from compliant to 9.2%. This area, very dangerous to a person with where people will transverse from little or no vision, or to anyone not different directions, should not paying attention, They protrude out exceed 11" at 59" height. 2% in any direction. '7:‘,c:',..'1,...,414 1 7: . AR Violation 7 - The entire path AR Violation 8 - The area around the AR Violation 9 - On the south side of have a cross slope issue far above information sign has protruding Central Park Ln. the path of travel reasonable tolerances. In some objects dangerous to a person with also has gaps and level changes that cases the cross slope is 7.1%. little or no vision. exceed allowable tolerances. Page 38 of 43 Park P C Stephen C. Beachy ar , Ordinance No. 2015-3712 rage;e 187 of 316 - • . -v.'-• 1 ' ' i 1, ' :.', • \'t \ J' - 1{I o 4.- ` ,.( may-' 9J`TT - d,� =de.1 t 11\ AR Violation 10 - The running slope AR Violation 11 - The cross slope is AR Violation 12 - The sidewalk on the of the path that goes around the 2.6% - 4.7%where 2% maximum is south side of the lake, west of the Wayne Bryan Bike Loop exceeds 5% required. little storage building, is connected in several areas. by wood path connections that have gaps between the panels. AMU. —CCNlln t gm_ _Wel" to - v 7-- ti� . ,.!,, \----e.4' ., # ',,,, y t'. `„ + AR Violation 13 - The connection AR Violation 14 -The connection Violation 15 - The cross slope of the from the dock area back to the from the dock area back to the sidewalk directly in front of the sidewalk has a running slope of 6%. sidewalk has broken concrete and a lake/pond on the west side is up to This qualifies as a ramp, but more gap at the expansion joint. 3.5%. Again, because there is no importantly it ends at the water. edge protection between this path Without handrails to hold onto, a and the water, we see this as a person using this route could easily liability issue for someone with end up in the water. limited mobility and should be resolved. Fo,p, . — -:.• ___- _____. 1111101111....17"": : ''" Niliniiiiialli1.0._,_ei-4-"All • 1 1 Al AR Violation 16 - The cross slope of AR Violation 17 - There is no AR Violation 18 -The cross slope of the wood bridge that crosses the accessible route to the edge of the the sidewalk between the sand lake/pond on the west side is up to sand volleyball court. volleyball court and the basketball 4.2% . court is up to 4.6%. The running slope goes up to 7.1% but is not Page 39 of 43 treated as a ramp. Any slope above 5% is, by definition, a ramp. Ordinance No.2015-3712 Stephen C. Beachy Park Page 188 of 316 i � pP -....,.---- . . 5 .J + ~ r $ .. L� ,. . .. r te' •6 ; `f AR Violation 19 - The path of travel AR Violation 20 -There is a sidewalk AR Violation 21 -There is no from the sand volleyball court to the that leads to the playground. There accessible route leading to the picnic basketball court ends in a parking lot is no route to get into the table serving the playground. with no accessible connection. playground area. The sidewalk dead ends at the edge of the playground. La:40;f r ,� •mss r'10Vr1G eR A :f- !d, x •_ . rt rt i jet Y�' ` -' > L E. ' by x .- 1 re.' .o. .+ _ • ':2,..).;`,!.., ',,„4,, .4714,.----it: ': AR Violation 22 - The sidewalk from AR Violation 23 - No accessible route AR Violation 24 - No accessible route the playground to the Rec building is provided to the benches by the is provided to the picnic areas by the has gaps at the expansion joints water. water. that are more than 1/2" wide. Some up to 1.5". 1/1111 AR Violation 25 -The running slope AR Violation 26 - There is a level AR Violation 27 -The door into the of the concrete path that leads to change in the required clear floor concession area from the pavilion the dock on the south side of the space for the drinking fountain at has a knob and a level change to get lake/pond is 5.9% but has no the south side of the lake/pond. inside. handrails or edge protection. Page 40 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Stephen C. Beachy Park pa sc 189 of 316 41 , -411111111.1411114 4+ „F� -tib 7,e.;,--„,,, fel• r, r �5. � 'c i, - r ''• r5 } x • AR Violation 28 -The bridge AR Violation 29 - Level changes greater AR Violation 30 - Shelves in the between the pavilion and the rec than 1/4” exist along route between work room in the Tourist Center building has level changes, sinking pavilion and Parks and Rec building. protrude 11 1/2" at 52" in height. bricks and dangerously steep slopes up to 35.0%. This is the highest priority on the property. Ill = T' � r • 4 , 11111 r 1 r • is AR Violation 31/32 - There is no AR Violation 34 - Where the Wayne AR Violation 35 - There is a 4 1/2" elevator to the second floor of the Bryan Bike Loop cross the street, it level change to get into the Tennis Recreation World HDQ. The stairs to has slopes up to 12.9% and is Courts. the second floor of the Recreation especially steep on both sides of the World HDQ do not have compliant street. handrails. L 44'4' - liv . , , , . , ...,...„ 6 ,.' •.t..-1;',4.:, ..----- P, 1 ssrr 1.4 ii N • 4 „' 1 Entrance Violation 1 - There is a gap Hallway Violation 1 - Door knobs are RR Violation 1 - Ballfield Restrooms- in the expansion joint directly in used throughout the Tourist Both the men's and the women's front of the main entrance that is 1” information building. have the toilet paper mounted about wide. This could catch the front 6" above the grab bar. If above the wheel of a wheelchair or trip grab bar it must be at least 12" someone using a walker. Page 41 of43 above it so it doesn't obstruct the use of it. Park Beach C. y , Ordinance No. 2015-3712 StephenPage 1411.1 of 316 it u - rt 54y (' C RR Violation 2 -The women's room RR Violation 3 - The coat hook in the RR Violation 4 - The pipes inside the Recreation World HDQ accessible stall in both the men's and underneath the lavatories in both has the flush control on the wrong women's restrooms are mounted at the men's and women's restrooms, side. 60" above the finished floor. on both floors, are not wrapped or protected from contact. RR Violation 5 - The men's and RR Violation 6 - The men's and RR Violation 7 - The men's room women's restrooms serving the women's restrooms serving the serving the tennis courts has the pavilion do not have compliant tennis courts do not have compliant flush control on the wrong side. stalls, doors, urinals or maneuvering clearance on the doors lavatories. but are otherwise substantially compliant. -c f r. %kl 0 n 7-. : S -_ ,• 1:r 1 L 115-T - : 14 ','1, i d' t RR Violation 8 - The mirrors in the RR Violation 9 - The urinal is not Break Room Violation 1 -The men's and women's restrooms permitted to be located within 60" counter in the break room is serving the tennis courts are of the water closet sidewall. mounted at 36" aff. mounted above 40" to the bottom of the reflecting surface. Page 42 of 43 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Stephen C. Beachy Park Page 191 of 316 1 l l1i —A i. F r Break Room Violation 2 - The door Misc Violation 1 - The drinking Misc Violation 2 - The main counter maneuvering clearance for the break fountains on the south side of in the lobby has a height of 45" high room door is only 10" on the pull Central Park Ln. do not comply. with no lowered section. side of the door. 18" is required. i 0 , rt 1 g C i, A . . _ ...,- .___ .._ _.. a. , 1 __ _ 3_,_.,....__ ...,-,,.____________ ....___.. r __. Aiiiikr ---.-7-lair li �'�g % Park Violation 1 - No accessible Park Violation 2 -The playground Park Violation 3 - The concession picnic tables were noted at any of does not include accessible stand attached to the Rec building the pavilions. playground equipment. has counters that are 42" high with no lowered counter. Page 43 of 43 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 192 of 316 City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Update Signalized Intersection Cost Projection Summary 4/21/2015 GPS ID Project Name TCost Projection Priority 1 1 Intersection of George Bush Dr and Anderson St $ 53,000.002 2 Intersection of George Bush Dr and Houston St $ 54,000.00 .. 2 3 Intersection of George Bush Dr and Texas Ave _ $ 70.000.00 2 4 Intersection of Harvey Rd and Dartmouth St $ 80,000.00 5 5 Intersection of Harvey Rd and George Bush Dr $ 77,000.00 2 6 Intersection of Harvey Rd and Munson Ave $ 51,000.00 13 7 Intersection of Harvey Rd and Post Oak Mall(east entrance) $ 118,000.00 2 8 _ Intersection of Harvey Rd and Post Oak Mall (west entrance) $ 68,000.00 11 9 Intersection of Holleman Dr and Anderson St $ 74,000.00 2 10 Intersection of Holleman Dr and Dartmouth St $ 79,000.00 2 11 Intersection of Holleman Dr and Glade St $ 86,000.00 4 12 Intersection of Rock Prairie Rd and Rio Grande Blvd $ 54,000.00 2 13 Intersection of Rock Prairie Rd and Victoria Ave $ 84,000.00 2 14 Intersection of Rock Prairie Rd and Welsh Ave $ 73,000.00 2 15 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Anderson St $ 81,000.00 5 16 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Dartmouth St $ 59,000.00 5 17 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Glade St $ 69,000.00 5 18 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Southwood Dr $ 63,000.00 5 19 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Wellborn Rd $ 58,000.00 2 90007 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Welsh Ave $ 86,000.00 5 TOTAL $ 1.437.000.00 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 193 of 316 HimleyHum anAoi ssoates,Inc. Priority:2 _- - Proieot Doscriplion for S6gnalisedintersection _ __ _ _ _ Client: City of College Station Date:4121115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE I[HA No.: 06137140® Checked B:SRA Corridorr: Geomo©user Dr GPS ID_1 ' Project Nerve: Intersection of Gantge Bush Dr and And ore St CRy: College Station — -._ tem No. Item Den 3r uanti .1 Lind Price lien Cost I. TxDOT 1108001 EXCAVATION[ROADlNAYJ 0 4W '$ 10.(10 $ - TYDGT 02 CURB ITY 15 0 LF $ 15.00. $ - TxDOT 631-0001 C000 SIDElNALI(S-[A) 32 SY $ 4500 5 1,440,00 TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS[se:nage 2 of P6t1 for de.1 6 EA $ 1,500,00,5 0,000.00 TxDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE.) 0 _ SF $ 50.00 0 - nT 104-0015 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALK51 56 SY $ 0.00,$ 504.8,0_ TxDOT -6042 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE 4 EA $ 1,400,00,5 5,503 95 T%DOT 977_ ELIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS 0 LF $ 2,00 S -war 0w0.70 REFL PA.V MRK PREP,TY I&TY II MI241fSLD) 200 LF $ 0.50 $ 2`533,00_ TrOOT 698-0091 RED DETECT PUSH BUTTON(APS) 2 EA $ 1,390.00 S 2,800,00_ TglOT .¢570 REMOVAL OF PSDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 0 EA $ 125.00 0 -- RELOCATE PEDES7R[AN PUSHBUTTONS 2 FA $ 30000 $ 60000 TIOCT,562.5asa FED SIG SEC±LED)(COUNTDOWN) 2 'EA $ 500.00 0 1,000.00. PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 0 .. EA $ 150,00 $ _ ... REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN p FA $ 5E9005 _ - REPAVE ROADWAY . 1 .... ... LS $ 5,000.00 _5 5,000.00 - FIX PENDING 2 _ LS $ ,5,.0S 0 4.000.00 ---_ FIXCURB RAMP TRANSITION 1 �L9 �$ _ 2300-00 i S 2,000.00 MEDIAN NOSE MOOIF1CATION 0 LS $ 5,600.00 1 5 REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION. 1 LS ,_,$ 50E 00 $,__ 500.00 FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 2 $ _ _$ _. _ 2.000 00 I 0 4.500.00 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: I 36,777.00 N No Design Completed Engineering:(%+I-) 15% $ 6,095.57 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+I-) 20% $ 0,127.43 ❑ Final Design - Estimated eldest Cost_$_ 63,000.00 Pro ect Location /Mf✓ f-�• —ri .. Coll eye i _ 4 �" �4 sun. N ;f r Y I „. 4$: 9 l .... .2. ...,-, e'''' 4- (•••• 0 • 1 4., -^....—e ' ..,” ,.../., .›.0. , ...r IFi0rE Obns servatio - Crosswalk Intersection Issues N c uv Recommendations Palh of travel pavement condition NIA i, c_.�>d Dangerous Good rsawe roadway d in.nll cads I5 wv.me,l n• kir,: P f travel running slope Is greeter than 5% N/A • Poor of hovel cross slope Is greater Thon 5% 111,0 _ _ _____ _— Crosswalk wl[Ab Is less than 6' NIA _ NIA - Crosswalk slrutin91p3ndtlee NM rVsd Good None Install crosswalk pavamen[markings — Curb Ramp ID('a'or'1'in ramp label inaeates no existing camp) I Curb Ramp IssuesRecommendations �1yy 2A, 3A eA Curie ra_nrp_does not exist and is needed SL Install curb ramp Curb rat 1_does not land in crosswalk No 4'x 4'clear ej_rec_e_al base of curb ram .. Cm hodcrside Is not 90'or Iras Iraversahle adlacent surface Flare oss slope Isgreaien than 10% X X Cult,ramp running slope is greater than 8.33% X X_X Blended transition running slope Is greater than 5% , Cal-ihru ramp rurtn slope Is greater than 595 Curb ram_g crosr. op slr;Isgreater than 2% X Remove and replace curb ramp , Cut-thr11_rninp_crn;s sl ape Is greater than 5%. Curb ramp width Is less than 46` Cul-tlrruramp deft is less than 60" Peemanenl obsuuctlon(50.25"191 curb ramplandmgltlares X X lnrrlpor5abstructlon $3r)in curb rampllondinglilerse X Remove temporary obstruction Eel l ers emay No textured surface at base of slab ramp X }C For Intersection ramps and commercial!rivoway ramps, Nu color contrast at base of curb ramp X install cnfee truncated domes L ding area does not exist and is needed 20 Install Io1,)5g_are L di gores Is less than 6'x 6'or slopes greaser then 2% X X Iemnve an rupia lined g area Missing or ngppdesblan push buttons X X lnslali Jfitslr batat pole aisd APS pant,buttons Pedestrian push button is offset more than 5'from the.nearestX X Install push Mitten pole and relocate ped t ian push crosswalk edge bultens, Pedestrian posh Fulton offset more than 10'from curb face ,.. Pocks Slat)push hunch Is not parallel to crosswalk Pedestrian_preJ1hlrnon height is greater than 40" _ _ Prrlcstelan WO button dlemeler is not 2" Pedestrian pushbutton sign does not exist Pedestrian_sh button sign Isnot MUTCD approved _____ Claae floor space does not exist and is needed X X X Irtsiell elcar 0 or space. Clear floor space for pedestrian push button Is less than 30"x 49' X Remove and replace clear floor space or.hus a sigkeEreaterth .2% Mere no,p? ide re re sinal heads X X• Ins ▪ r loll cuu td wrl podesl e g raI head Cu b rampran ts111pe,trte roarMay greater than 0.25" X Mx curb_ramp transition Counter slope gine or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is X X 'Fix curb ramp counter slope rester than 5% Parading eLLYIra at hose of aab ramp X X Fix ponding Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 194 of 316 Kimloy-tiem and Assa5latas,Inc. _ Intersection of George Bash Dr and Anderson Sti Photographs GPS tD;. _ 1 _ . Corner 1 No Ramp(I r a.sainiensrnosstid." -4111111111, Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 6 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor,materials,equipment,or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over compedllvo bidding or market conditions.Opinions of probable costs proridod herein arc based on the Information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar Wardle construction industry,The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction coals will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Eori,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esd China(Hong Kong),Esd(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DlgltalGiobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrlp,IGN,IGP,swlsstopo,and the GIS User Community End of Projeol Description for Project 1 Intersection of George Bush Dr and Anderson SS _ _ Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 195 of 316 Kinn ey-Horn and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Project Description for Signalized Intersection _ Client: City of College Station Date:4/21115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By,EPE KHA No.: 081271408 Chcck,•d Fly:SRA .Corridor: George Bush Dr _... - .._.. DPS ID;2 Pre lot Name: Intersection of George Bush Dr and Houston St _ ••` -. __ City: College Station btri No Item Description Quantity Unit Unll Price Item Cost 1xI3QT 919£401 EXCAVATION fROADWAY3 0 CY $____ moo ; - TKOi1T 5206002 CURBS'{Y I] O LF _ 15.00 - TM!531.5001 CONIC a1DCWAL/1S,(4") - -._.- 28 SY 4500 $ 1,260.00 Tx001 531 CURB!LAMPS(see page 2 of report for details) $G EA -4 110_00 $ 0.000,00 _ToIOT 60036002 REI RUN t DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) G � SF -....$ 50T00 $ TxDOT 1046015 REMOVING CORC(SIDEWALKS) 40 SY $ 9.00 $ 414.00 T4 91 687-8002 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE __. 3 EP. ..__ 1 400,00 $ 4,200.00 TxDOT 677 FLIM EXT PAVE MRK 4 MRKS 0 LF ._--_1 2.80 $ TxDCl666/878 REEL PAV MRK PREP,TY I&TY II(1h)241$1-13) _.__...... v_ .. __ 532. LF $ 8.50 $ 4522.00 Tx[OT 5886001 PED DETECT PUSH SUTTON(AWS) .._ 2 --_EA $ 1300.40 $ 2,600.00 TxDf1T6906030 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 0 EA $ 125.00 $ RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS I EA $ 300.00 4 300,00 TxDOT 6826 10-8 PED SIG SEC(LED)(COUNTDOW _ 2 EA ,J 500.00 $ 1,000.00 — PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON S10N �.. 0 EA $ 150,00 $ — REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSH Bu119(I S$ _-_,- T, 0 _ EA 4 50.00 5 - - REPAVE ROADWAY __ 2 LS $ 5,000,00 5 10,000,00 — FIX PONDING 1 _ LS ,J 2000.00 5 20$,00 — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION1 LS $ 2000,00 $ 20$.00 — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION0 LS $ 5000.00 5 - — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS $ 500.00 $ - - FIX CURB RAM P COON ERIk.: 1 LS 5 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Bests lar Cosi Praj0elioe SuMutat: $ 3$298.00 El No Design Completed Engineering:(%-,/-) 15% $ 6,301.71 ❑ Preliminary Design I Canlingenoy:[%-,/-) 20% $ 8,492.25 ❑ Final Design I Estimated Project Cost: $ 04500.00 bProlact Low[lon _ .0.0"‹....t..„, ... -..„ . cr—NT N 0J1.2 r � L, � ` " / \ j '' . [Field Observations I Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations N E S W Path of travel pavement cgndtion lived Dangerous N/A Denuaow Re roadway and install crosswalk Path of Pavel rennin elope is greater than 556 •�� x NApaver ppavement markings Path of bevel crena slope is greater than 5%° _ ••-T-- NA Crosswalk width le less then 6' NIA N/A -- ------ ---- -- Remove and replace crosswalk pavement markings ,Crosswalk&Minn aondllion yvrnn Hone WA Week Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('Y or'i'In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations - 1A 2A,3z 4A Curb ramp does net mist end Is needed . X Instal curb ramp Curb ramp does not lend In crosswalk _ No 4'x 4'clear space at base of curb failW Curbed side R not 90'ar he 1 ble adf cent surfac 1 Fluecross elope is greater than 10% X X Curb ramp running slope is,greater than 8.33% X X Blended transition reaming slope is greater Man 5% . Cut-lhru ramp running slope is greater than 5% Remove and replace curb ramp Out ramp cross slope is growler than 2% . Out-thru ramp cross slope greater than 5% _ Curb ramp width is less then 48" ._ X Cut-Ono ramp width is less than 60' Permanent obstruction(>0.251in curb ramp/landing/flares X_X Temporary obstruction(00.25")in curb rampil ending/flares No textured surface al base of curb ramp . X X , X For intersection ramps end commercial driveway ramps, No color contrast at base of curb ramp, _.-- X X 71. Install color truncated domes Lending area does not exist and is needed _ X XInstall lending area area ea is less than 5'x 5'or elopes greater than 2% _ X Remove end replace landing area Missing or no pedestrian push buttons X X Install push button pole end APS push buttons Pedestrian push button is offset more than 5'from the nearestX Install push button pole and relocate pedestrian push crosswalk edge buttons Pedestrian push button offset more then 10'from curb face Pedestrian push button is nal parallel to o:newel, Pedestrian push button he_ignt Q is eater than 48" greater -__,.. Pedestrian push button diameter Is not 2' ,.•., Pedeslrianpush button sign does not exist .1 - Pedestrian push button sign is not MUTCD approved Clear floor space does not exist and is needed X X N X ISI clear It space Clear floor space far pedestrian push button is less than 30"x 46" or has a slope greater than 2% Missing or no pedestrian signal heads .-_x X lasts/oouu[dovm pedestrian elgnat head Curb ramp transition onto roadway 15 greater than 0_25" X Fix Garb ramp Transition bounter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is X Fix curb ramp counter slope Greater than 5% P00.0-0.0. e1 baseof cub ramp _ Ti., - .,Fix pondng Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 196 of 316 Kirnlvy-Nom and Associates.,lnc. Intersection of George Bush brand Houston St Photo ra hs GPS4111 ID 21 • • • A I . • Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Comer 3 No Ramp(3z). • • Ramp dA Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 6 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-ihru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channellzing Island Cut-ihru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigilalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community field of Project Description for Project 2 Intersection of George Bush Dr and Houston St _ _ - - _ 1 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 197 of 316 KlmteyHom and Associates,Inc, � Priority:2 PJect Description for Sionaiioed Intersection _ Client: City of College Station Date:4/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.' 061271408 Checked By;ISA Corridor: GPS ID:3 Project Benne; Intersection of 130orge Bush Dr and Texas Ave CO: Celle,.a Station i Item No. Item Dcacrlyi)on Quantity Unit Unit Pricg Itnnl Cyt 7 TxDOT 110-6001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) _ 0 CY 10.00 $, I.DoT 529-6002 CURB(TY II) 0 LF 5 15.00..... - 1 TxLICT 631.8001 CONC SIDEWALKS i4-) --. 34 SY 5 ..1..§,P9..._I_._ _1.50.00 TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS{sen page 2 of report for details) 0 EA $ 14,00.00 $ 9Of1Q.00 TxDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT PET WARN St E_ICAST IN PLACE) 0 SF 5 50,00 $ TOOT 104-6 15 REMOVING CONE(SIDEWALKS). 80 5Y 5 _ SA0 $ 801.00 TOOT 881"8002 PEDESTRIAN PUT!13U1 FON POLL $ 1,400.04$ 1.400.06 TxDOT517 ELIrd EXT PAVE MIRK&MIMS_--__ 0 LF 5 2.80 A - 1 TcDOT 8661$75 REFL PAV MRK PREP 1 Y I&TY Ii t 24"{SLG) 442 LF 5 8_50 $ 3,757.00 Txpol-$8.8.6001,PED DETECT PUSH 0i).LI il(APS) 4 EA $ 1,.300.05$ $,200.00 5DO7 600.6_080 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 4 EA $ .,.._125.00__ 500.00 RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS - 2 EA $ 300.0_x' 60000 a_CtOat2,15.RIA PED SIG SEC{LED)ICOUNTOrA 0 EA $ ..-_ 500.00 $ - PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONSIGN 0 —__... Elk _5__ 150.00 REMOVE PEDESTRIANF^USel BUTTON SIGN 0 - Elk _._$ 50.00 j - REPAVE ROADWAY 3 LS..—.. $ 5,000.00 $ 15,000.00 _.. FIX PONDING 3 _LS $ 2,000.00,$ 6000.00 - FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION ... ... ? LS $ 2.066.00 $ 6.006.00 MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION ..�. 0 —. _ LS._— _ $ 5.00060 0 — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 ...LS $ 500.00._5 - F CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE i ---� - LS 2 000.00 . 2 000.00 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 51,780 00 ® No Design Completed Engineering:(%+1-) 15% 6 7,805.14 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+I-) 20% $ 10,406.86 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost; $ 70,000,00 e Projct Location __ --_ I "ell, - i- ... 2C 'i�. 'Fa +� '�£. it` I // . y _ Field Observations — - - _ --- Intersection Issues N r= Cressxalk G w Recommendations Path of t duel pavement coir11il n popD,_ Hose .. Poor Peer Repave roadway and Instal waawrelkpawment m akings Path oftauolrunrdng dose is greater than 51X+ Path of bevel cross slope is greater than 5% __ Crosswalk width as less than 6' _ Crosswalk 5WOILn condition Good I 1 _.Good Goad Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('z'or'1'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1A 1C 2A 2C 3A 4A Curb ramp does not exist and is needed Curb ramp does not land in crosswalk No k'x 4'clear space at base of curd ramp Curbed side is not 00'or has traversable adjacent sumacs _ Mee cross slope is greater then 10% .. X .-_- X Curb ramp ninplr dome les greater than 8,33% _ X X 13ded transition running ata e�is greater than 5% Ci11-gra ramp running slope is greater then 555 - _ Remove and replace curb ram .1_.._.._.._— P P Cure ram„perass slope is Greater than 2% _ X.1— x Cut-t1Nll ramp arm dope is greater Than 595 Cu:h rarnRxtd1h Is less than 48" _..._.�X — Cul-tttturateseldlh is less than 60' X X Permanent obstruction(cO.25")in curb rampRendinglflarea __. X Temporary abstraction{x0.45")In curb ramplertdingrleree No lectured surface at base of curd ramp X X 7{ X X Far Intersection ramps and aorifinercial driveway ramps, NO color ceotrest at base of curb ramp 1( _X _,)I X X install color truncated domes Laridingsfea does not exist and is needed areaLanding s than 5'x 5`or slopes greater than 2% X X .-.X Remove and replace lancing area falissinap,oultdem push buttons _ Pedestrian push button is offset more than 5'from the.nearest x Install push button pole and relocate pedestrian push crosswalk edge_ ,,. buttons pus . Pedestrian push-button attest more then 1O'from curb{ace Pedestrian push button Is not parallel to crosswalk Pedestrian puh button height is greater than 48" X X Relocate pedestrian push buttons Pedestrian,posh button diameter is not 2" X_, ,X• X _ Remove PBs end replace with APS push buttons Pedestrian push button sign does not exist Pedestrian push button sign Is not MUTCD approved Clear boor space does not exist and is needed X �X Instal clear floor apace Clear floor space for pedestrian push button is less than 30'x 46" X X Remove and replace clear Door space or has a.sllope greater than 2% Missin or Curb amp it pedestrian rho�de�l eater then 0.25" X ..X- X Fix curb ramp transition Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is X Fix curb ramp counter slope eater than 5% Pmrdtrru uczun;:ar Base 0f.CAI?ramp X X s 'Fix.pwr5:6 ___.-- Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 198 of 316 Kirrtla-Ham and Associate Inc. intersection of Geo.e Rush Dr and Texas Ave Photographs — - - - - - GPS ID: 3 r m r .,rT , .� Ramp 1A R:u:i'r.:. 'ism.it, a' 1i. pi , • P 141V . Al Ramp 2C tc .., ,, ..,i. Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 4 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-guu Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 2 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's Judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot end does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esrl,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esd Japan,METI,Esrl China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrlp,IGN,IGP,swisslopo,and the GIS User Community F m d of Project Description 1 P t 3 l 1 ..xl ion I r eq!n Bush Dr and Taxan Ave p Frac .g� Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 199 of 316 Kimley-Hom and Associates,Inc. Priority:5 Project Dencrintion for Signalized Intersection Client: City of Cottage Station Date:4121115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE ORA No.: 001271408 Checked By:SRA C Idor: —r. OPS ID:4 Protect Name: Intersection of Harvey Rd and Betterment St � P Item No. Item DeSerlptlon quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost TxDOT 110-6001 EXCAVATION(R(DADWAY} 0 CY S 10.00 $ - TcDOT 529-5002 CURB(TY II) 0 LF $ 15.00 $ TIIOT 6318001 CONC SIDE0lALK>14J._ 7 6Y 0 45.00 $ 31516_11_ TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS/sae alga o 2 of report for details) 6 EA $ 1 500.00 $ 9,000.00 TxDOT 50035000 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.00 $ __- TxDOT l04'93j REMOVINGGONG Sf IDEWALKS) 60 BY 0 9.00. $ 59.00 ToOOT987-500_3 PEDESTRIAN PUSH SUTTON POLE 4 EA $ 1,40000 9 5,600,0-6 7x001677 ELIM EXT PAVE MRK d MRKS 0 LF 0 2.60 $ T62T 866:'670 REFL PAV MRK PREP TY I&TY II(60 24'tSI D) 274 LF $ 6.54 9 2,329,00 TsVOT5_0:§Oo1 PED DETECT WISH BUTTO(AP5) 2 FA $ 1,300:00 _ 2 BDt 00 TalDOT0906n.rE REMOVAL OF PLDCSTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 0 E-A $ 125-00 $ D _ I RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN_PUSH BUTTONS 2 EA 4 360.00 A 6060000 TOQT6a2601a PED SIG SEC(LLD)(_COUNTDOWN/ 2 EA $ 500.00_$, 1,t9W 00, -- P?EDESTRIAN t UG-I BUTTON SIGN I EA _$ 150.00 00 J _ 150. i—.. ... PEDES._— _ REMOVE PEUE�i IfIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 1 EA_ ¢ �_50-00_A,y"_- .„_ 56�1h0 REPAVE ROADWAY 2 Ls 5000.60 1__IMO:Lk - FIX PONDING_ ,$ �... LS ._ ?...9,9.9.-60 ___ti ogu.ao .-. _ _FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 5 _ LS $..-_,.....16.90-06-,$..- ._10,000.00 __._�..__..... MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0LS $ ._5,000.00 ..$_.._ _.-...A .:......_REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 1 LS $ 500.00 _$,.... .....500.00” - FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 5 r5 $_ _ _2,000,00 0 10,900.00 Basis far Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 56,684.00 El No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 9,135.43 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%*f-) 20% $ 12,180.57 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ _80,000,00 Project Location * 4 .;/d 0Ira " el,• r b i! 0 r r .p _---—_- -- yy� I'll Nd 0bsenratione i Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations N E 5 W ' i tie dem d prcrall crocs,0 Ik P lir ni Sr pvel.pavement condition WA RFA Parr , oapyo,rs Repave roa tan _.a pave v, „u0- P al:of trowel rlflrling slope Is greater than 5% NAA NfA I _ Path ftr:lvel crass Mope Is greater than 5% NA N(A I Crosswalk vaillkI Is less than 6' NIA ,_-lIlA ._ [Crosswalk 31rigIndi-0ITlIpn NiA WA Good Good _ l I Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp TO('z'or V'in ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations IA� an 3r. en as 40 'Curb ramp does not exist and is needed I Curb ramp does not land in crosswalk NO,4'x 4'clear space at Wase of curb ramp Curbed silk le not 90'or has traversable adjacent surface __ Flare moss rtopelapeater then 10% X .._ Curb rarnp rulr_N s slope is greater than 6.33% Blended lrarrslllan running slope le greater Chan 5% ._ Cuhllev retnip running slope Is greater than 596 1111 Remove and replace curb ramp Cob rump cross slope Is greater than 2% X Cut-Ihr0 ramp crass slope is greater than 5% Curb,omp y,ddhls less than 46' X X Cut-the 0 r;rrrrp wish Is less than 69" Perm-wield obsuucilan(0-0.25")in curb rerrtptandinglteroa X _ X X 1 empotartobstmotion(°025)in curb rampllan 5egt0arr. __X Remove temporary obstruction Notroteredsurface at base of cub ramp X X For Intersect on ramps mrd conimencladrly away ramps, No colon contrast at base of arab ramp X X elstall color truncated domes LD g areadoesnotexlst and in needed _ [L g area Is less Chan 5'x 5'or slopes greater than 2% X- XX _ Remove:: 11 u landing r a M g no podeetrlmt push buttons X X Ir doll P:+.,s button pole:Lind APS push'6trlMns —.--- Pedir,irldii posh button is offset more than 5'from the nearest Install push button pole and relocate pedestrian push erossWaLk edge buttons 104PedEs1,01 posh hbutton offset more than 10'frau curb face X X _- PodesIsi an push button Is not parallel to crosswalk X Ile:k c,rtr I4•d,'..trr m(u<1 buttons, Pedestrian NO button heluhl Is greater Than 45" _ _— Pedesbian push button tfemeler is not 2" _ _. —I Pedestrian mall button s Ef cines not exist _ Pedestrian push button sign Is not MUTED approved X M Rnkove arid nplate Pedestrian push button sign ▪c:u flour spate does not exist and Is needed X XXX .___. Install clear Ilcvr'face_ - Clear floor space far pedestrian push button Is less than 30'x 48" X X. Remove and replace clear Door space or has a slope greater than 2Ve beissnuj or no padesinen signal heads X X Install wu i iown poste:arian t, rial bort! Curb ramp transition unto ro1cti Is greater their 0.25" X X X X X Llii crab ramp transition Counter slop f Ihe gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is x XX XX Fix curb ramp counter slope neater than 5 0'o-riding occugs at 1rrt:c of CUM ramp_ X X X FIR ponding Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 200 of 316 IRlmleyHom and Associates,Inc. ktterseclfon of Harvey Rd and Dartmouth St .Photographs _ _ __ GPS ID: 4 ~ _—_ -- -4_ ^fir- ___ i \ it. * ._ Ramp lA Corner 2 No Ramp(2;) Remp't:A iir '..,‘, .,, .- ' • L' .. • ,,, _ _ _.,...„, z-no.sC _ E_____ Ramp 4A Ramp 4B d1; y Ramp 4C Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 4 EA Type 20(Median Ramps v.ilh Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-Ihru Ramp) 2 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor,materials,equipment,or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding ar market conditions.Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the Information known to Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's lodgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs_ Protect Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esrl China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogdp,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,end the GIS User Community End of Pro'ect Descrl lion for P•act 4 Intersection of Howe Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 201 of 316 rKlmley-Ham and Associates,inc. Priority:2 Protect Description for Signalised Intersection Client: City of College Station --- --- --- —- Date:4/21(15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KI-LA Nn_: 061271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor: _- GPS ID:5 pject Narne: Intersection of Harvey Rd and GoorgmBush Dr City; College Station Item No. Ment Description Querl5bi Uo Unit Rice Item Cost T mot to eoul IEXCAVAfl N{ROADWAY) CY $ 10.00 2 • l an'you 600:2'CURE TTY 11) LF $ 15.00 5 • Ixnor 5:11_0001.IC7NC SIDEWALKS(41 3 SY _ $ 45.00 $ 1,075.00 rotor Sat._,CURB RAMPS(See page 2 of repot for details) EA 5 1,595,00 12,000.00 ir1Kl1$.888.-.54,i12 RETROFIT DPI WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) SF $ 50.00 5 • 1'xr)cari-04.6u15_REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) 1 SY $ 9.00 5 369.00 I 000T 4$R8f1R3_PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE EA S 1,400.00 S 8,400,00 TI/QI@73 ELBA EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS LF 2.80 $ - ..5)fJT, 1678 REEL PAM MRK PREP,TY I&TY II(WI 24TSLD) 5 0 LF _ $ 0.50' S 4,845,00 .I QIA88-6001 PPD DETECT PUSH BUTTON LAPS) EA 5 1,302.00 $ 7,800.00 ...I.QQT 660-0030 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS EA -5 125.00 $ - - RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS EA 5 305,00 $ - TxDOT 8820018 FED SIG SLC(LED)ICOIJNTDr7WN1 EA 5 500.00 $ 3,000,90 — PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN EA $ 155,90 $ - - REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN EA $ 50.00 $ - - REPAVE ROADWAY LS $ 5,005,00 i 15,06600. — FIX PONDING _ LS ..._ S 22000.06_$ _..--._ — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION f LS 5 2,000,00 5 2,000,00 _ — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION — 0 5 __.$- 5,000.00 $ .. - - REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS $ 500.00 5 - FIX CURB RAMP COVNTER SLOPE 1 LS -$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Basis for Cost Projection - Subtotal: $ 56,449.00 El No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 8,807.57 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:{%ul-) 20% $ 11,743.45 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cast: $ 77,000.00 Pro-ect Location -— _I ._-_. -.t. - .. ..W.' • a h r N •f �,I ,','.,`',",',1,-, 11' -j2 IA ,r 4 - -, , .. :!' 4 '�= '.- et 'y. 3A!,, 44t °Field Observations n Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations N F S W ?Mile'travd pavement cartiEon 0611.291V4. r)ang,m,.: Good Cangerous Iire;:e c road,ll,aNd inslall cro,walk pavement nrcrkp.cc 1 Pv1h of travel running slope in greater then 5% 1 ... .. Path of travel cross slope le neater than 5% _ :Crosswalk width is less Own S NIA_ N+A NtA ;nswll crosswalk t markings[Crosswalk strinhp condition Hone None Naos Good pavemen gs ICurb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID t'c'or'f'In ramp label indieatea no existing ramp) Recommendations 1A 9. 7A 4A Curb num does not exist and is needed 7 Install curb ramp Curb rrnm rNloes nut land in crosswalk X X. Reitman t/lS'0epl Lox mo.,. Ik poliCinciil lr lill@-,l; No 4'x 4'dear spew el beset of curb ramp Curbed side is not 90°or has treveraable adjacent surface X Flare moss elope in greater then 10% Curb ramp running elope is greater then 8.33% X X_ I/fended transition running daps in greater than 5% Cutdhru ramp running alope Is greater than 5% Curb ramp crena elope le greater than 2% Remove and replace curb ramp Cut-thm ramp nines slope is greater then 5% Curb ramp width is less then 48" -_.. �X_ X Cut_thru romp%fdOh is less than SO" Permanent obstruction{,025"1 in curbramp/landiog/Ilares r, _ _, Terrrporary obstruction 0.0.25")in curb rampllendingtflaress _ No textured outface et base of cub ramp _ X X WXFw intetaneli on ramps and r;i:J ' .v..,y ramps, 140 Color oarplieM at base of curb ramp X X,2c. install color ln,nr.ar"d domes Landing area does not exist and is needed X l i m..ni In rrcrma urea, Landingaren is less than 5'x 5'or slo�grealer than 2% X X Remove and replace Ianding area __ Missing or no pedestrian push buttons X XXX Install push button pole and APS push buttons Pedestrian push button is offset more Than 5'from the nearest crosswalk edge Pedestrian push button offset more then I0'from curb face I Pedestrian push button is net parallel to crosswalk _. Pedestrian push button height is greater then 40' Pedestrian push button diameter is no 2" , 1Pedestrlan push button sign does not exist Pedestrian push button sign is not MUTCP approved Clear floor space does not exist and Is needed X X__XX Ii i'II,It:11 I oa!:.tars el eer floor space for pedestrian push button is less than 30"x 48" or has a slope greater than 2% MissMg or no pedeslrlan signal heads X Xy X_WX Install countdown pedestrian signal head Curb ramp transition onto roadway is greater then 0.25' X Fix curb ramp transition ___ Eounler dope of the gutter or street at the fool of the curb ramp is X Fix curb ramp counter slope her Mau 5% Pondlna ocwre al base of urn ramp Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 202 of 316 Kimlay-Hom and Assoclalesr Inn. _ _ _In teruedion of ilan,ey Rd end George BIM,D.. Photographs _ .91111111Lr, IV Ramp IA Corner 2 No tTarrp(2z) ,:.ml,:V. --"414014tts Romp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 8 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer et this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar wilh the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esrl,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esrl Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DlgitalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community _... -__ _ IlEnd of Project Description for F."4X!S lntarsection of Norway Rd end George Inndi Rr Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 203 of 316 �KkNey.blsm and Associates,Inc. -- Priority:13. eol Description for Signalized Intersection -_-__-__ -- Client: City of College Station Date:4/21116 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.: 061271468 Checked 13:SRA Corridor: GPS ID:S Proleci Name: Intersection of idervey Rd and Munson Ave - ---- CRY: .. ... _...._. ..__ - Item Ne. lions Description Queering 1/n6 Unit Price Item Cost TrGOT 110-6001[EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) _ 0 CY $ 10.00 S TxIDOT529-6002,CURB(TY ll).._- ._.. 0 LP $ 15.50 $ - TuOOT581-0001 CONC SIDEWALKS(4") 7 SY $ 45.00 5 515.00 TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of report for details) _ 4 FA. $ 1500.00 $ 6,000.00 TxDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.50 $ - TODOT 104-6015 REMOVING CONC{SIDEWALKS) 0 BY $ 9:00 5 - LOOT 637-6002 PEDESTRIAN PUSI I BUTTON POLE B EA 5 1,40000 $ 8,400,00 TaDoT 877 EIIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS 0 IF 5 2.60 5 - TxDOT 0061879 REFL PAV MRN PREP,TY I&TY II PW'}24'(SLD) 251 LF 5 6.50 5 2,173.50. TWOT eaa-eo 1 PED DETECT PUSS I BUTTON(APS) B EA 1 1,500.00 5 7.f02;K, MOOT 690-6050 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 0 EA $ 125.00 5 - - RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS _ 0 EA $ 100.00 5 T#]OT 6824018 PED SIG SEC(LED)_[COUNYDOWN_j_.-_ B EA $ $00.00 $ 3 0000 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 0 FA $ 150.00 J - - REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 0 .. EA 0 5100 0 - ---'REPAVE ROADWAY 2 LB $ 5,000.00 $ 111,100-W, __-___.._.1FIX PONDING 0 LS $ 2,000-00 $ .�.�_. —_ [FIX CURB RAMP TRNd51TION 0 LS 2,oW.04 $ .baba__ MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION0 LS $ 5,000.00. 5 - REMOVE TEMPORARY 0551IRUCTIONI 0 LB $ 500.50. $ __....,.. C,IIRB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 0 S - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 37,640.50 El No Design Completed Engineering:(%+1-) 15% $ 5,722.07 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingetncy:[%+1-) 20% $ 7;620.43 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Coat: $ $1,009.00 Praleel Location _ _ ....".F•••"<„,.1.....,....„ r-t\ fr 0 'I e i:',.:iet •, ' - • r/ C3 I�--aField bbssma0ons - - _ ---- - --- __1 lba_. - ___� II Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations N E S IN Path of travel pavement condition Danpemus NFA WA Wngeruus��Repave madwa and.eet l crarswaO pavement makings Pala of trove of running slopeis greater than 5% NPA � WA --___ — Cr lks[dil s lesstlIswcatar Than 5% NPA NPA —NA aba_. Crosswalk vadll an 6' N/A NPA NIA_ NIA Path f t aver at pc s th -cons crosswalk pavement markings e pg No, a WA N/A � f�rre� Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('z or'i'In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1� 2 3z z Curb ramp does not exist and is needed R 2.X Inalall curt ramp _ball Curbramps not land b crosswalk —- -- - - - -- - _._ alba No 4'a 4'cleat space.al baso of ELJf.ramp Curbed side is not 90°w has traversable adbacerd surface Flare cross slope is greater than IO% Curb ramp running slope is greater than.8.33% Blended transition lunnlng Slone Is greater than 5% Cul-ihru ramp mmoin0 sloe Is greater than 5% Curb ramp c-oss sjope,ls tweeter than 2% Cut-thru romp cruor si re Is treater than 5% Curb ramp endlk FS less than 48" Cut-thru ramp width Is less Than 60" Permanent olrstruclion 5.25'3 in curb ramp/landing/flares _ . Temporary oirslnotIanjr_0.2S"k1 curb ramp/Ironing/floras ,_,. No textured surface aI base of cub ramp _ No calor contrast al base of cub ramp _..._.....n not .-�� Land�� �dvesnpl exist and is needed _-_ L�area is less th n5x 5'er slopes treader than 2% _ Miesirippr no.pedestrierrgush buttons X X K t X Gslalf 131.141 button-pale and APS,push kilt., Pedestrian push butters is offsetmore than 5'Nom the nearest crosswalk edge Fedeslrianpush button_offset more than IO'from curb face PedesIdsppusti b 1t nibs notparalicl to crosswalk Pedeslrianpusn button hell*{lsyreater than 48° Pedestrienpush bull=diameter is nor 2" Pededriao tush huller,' does not exist Pedestrian pu?h tertian sign to not MIJ1CD approved Clear fie Doe does not exist and is needed XXXX Install clear Floor space Clear floor space for pedestrian push button is lees than 30"x 48' or has a_ulppe Greater than 2% Misskh Or no edestrian el al heads X, X X X Install countdown pedestrian signal head �_p transition r'Ela.._,..... Curb ramp peosiIse onto ro r scree gaater Won 0.25" _ Counter dope of lion gutter anilines at i `t of lIne coni ramp is greater than 5% . Ponding oowra al base of curb ramp Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 204 of 316 Kimteyatam and A crrdc°:,In,. Inlersecthur fl of Hvey Rd and Munson live ��f'hnrel�hs �. r _-__ GPS ID: 6ll 1.11M1 � Noi +'plip `'!i- fol- ir Comer 1 No Ramp(1z) Corner 2 No Ramp(20 Corner 3 No Ramp(3r) 911p—.. Corner 4 Ho Ramp(dr) Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 4 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-lhru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esd,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,End Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogdp,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community Pnd of pro act Dee.criulnn for Project 6 intersection of Harvey Rd and Munson Ave - I Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 205 of 316 tKimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Protect Descrintlon for Signalized Intersection Client: City of College Station !Yale:4121115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE iKHA No.. 061271405 Checked By:SRA Corridor: OPS ID:7 _.. �..-_,.-.�_..-...�. Palest Name,e: Intersection offHarvey Rd end Post Dek Mallall feast entrance! R City: College Station _ Item No. Item Deserinllan Quanllly Unit Unit Pries Item Cost TXLtOT 110430131'EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) 0 CY. $ 10.00 $ 727 6298002 p. TYII) 0 IF 5 15.00 5 �dO] - 63YbW1 L B CONC SIDEWALKS(4") 7 SY _$ 45.00 5 315,00 TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of report for details) 12 EA _ $ 1,500.00 5 18,000,00, T T 5032EM RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.00 $ - 1 i.2 104_x212_REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) _ 77 SY $ 0.00 $ 093,00 OOT,1H7.45001,PEDESTRIAN P1JS11 BUTTON POLE titin_8 EA 5 ._ ,,1 400.00 $ 5.404.00 TjgO(Jj7__ELIbtEXTPAVEMRK&?ARKS ,._. _._ .._,__...0 LF $ ..._- 2.90_$ j;'gl 9'74,-REFL PAV MRK PREP,TY I&TY II(W)24"(SLD) 406 LF $ 8.50 $ 7,459.04. '_TAITSEPAS291,FED DETECT PUSI IBUTTOM(APS) _.,_,. EA S 1,300.OGA 7,800,00 TpT,QT ey -trSQ REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN_PI1SH BUTTONS_ ___ ____. ___ _ EA. 0 125.014. $ 2 0' 1.00 - RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS _ EA 5 _.700,-,.00 $ T1' - QT figtpta PED SIG SEC tLED) Ourcri2 ) _ __. EA 0 500_!10 $ 2,004.00 _-titin.PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN titin- EA 5 15000 $ - -_Hoon REMOVE PEDESTWANPUSH BUTTON SIGN _-. EA .._ $ 50.00.._$. REPAVE ROADWAY - LS1 5,000.00 .1 15,000.00 .-- FTX PONDINGLS ..__ _ 5 2,000.00. 12040.00 FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION LS 15 2,500 00 .5 ___19,0(10.00. - MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION^ LS 5 5000 00 $ REMOVE TEMPORARY OB TRUC't'ION0 .__.._._ LS _._. 2 500 D4 $ 1,5174.40.. ___ FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal' 5 87,409.00 Id No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 13,539.00 LI Preliminary Design CouSngency:(%v/-) 20% $ 1$,052.00 0 Final Design Estimated Prefect Cost: $ 1.19,000,00 Peered Location _ 5/ ''� 1x1 s. r lA e. 1` f ii ' Q 5 ,, r . 8 fres ..-2 :1 `. r'r 4b 2 31 3C I. �_ lk 4C ll 1.%3Iiiihr_ 1641' ��".., a % $ 13,11/4 Observations _ 1 Intersection Issues N E ross"a S W Recommendations Path of Iranelpavement nonagon Good Dangerous Good Dangerous Pa91 of Ifmrel runnkng'ILI l8 greater than 5% Repave roadway and install crosswalk pavement markings Path of travel Cross slope%.gjreater than 5% X _ Gossum K xldthis le:.s sil_89_§L NPA NIA N/A 5555055111 sldoina fooditiop 11000 Good Row Nava Mleua crosswalk pavement markings Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('Y or'r in ramp label'Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1R aA 3A 3C 3D 31 4A 413 4D 4 Curb ramp does not exist and is needed X X Install curb? !Cuda ramp doss not land In crosswalk - X Remove and replaceecrosswalk pavement markings No 4'x 4'dear space at base of cork ramp 'Curbed side Is not 90•or hes traversable adjacent surface X Flare cross slo,50 s greater than 10% X X X X X X Curb ramp rerunning trope Is seater than 8.37% X X X X Blended transition running slope lsgreater than 5% 6 Cubthru rQrinp running slope is greater than 5% Remove and replace curb ramp Cut])ramp cross staiae Is greater than 2% X X X X Cut-atria raotp crpsu slope Is greater than 5% Curb roup yadlh s less than 48' ICut tilts rlh$0 yA{iga is less than 60" Permanent obstruclian!34.26•)In curt rampllanringtllares X X X , _ _ _ temporary oilstrucan s0.25")In curb renWAandinghleres X X X Remove temp.oravLoh.struchion No realm_ed surface at base of cash remai XX X X, X - X X X: For Ieterseelion ramps and commercral driveway ramps, No solar contrast at base of cork ramp X. X XX X, X X X install color truncated dames._ Landing area does not extol and Is needed X X X - X, Install landing area Landing area itl l=5'x 5'or slopes greater than 2% X X Reprove and re(00e(tiding mea Missing or ros,piedeskla_n push buttons X X X , X Install push tiitluii f tie and APF;push mill Pedestrian push button is offset more than 5'from the nearest X Install push button pole and relocate pedestrian push crosswalk.a^g_ buttons Pedestrian h button offset more bran 14'from crab face X X .Hoonstrieg pus Ppeicslrien push button Is net parallel to uoaswalk _ I P d Iriappki hbutton hal Its greater than 48" P d INan.p h button diameter is not 2" X X Remove PBs and replace n11fi APSpush button Pedestrienpush button sign does not exist PedestnenRush button sign Isnot MUTCD approved Clear Ito.sp r does not exist and Is needed X X _ , X X X Install dear gear space Clear floor space for pedestrian push button is less than 30"x 48" X Remove and replace clear floor space or hos a slope gro,tter t.IJ%12% • Missing oe no pedestrian signal heeds X X X, - X Install counldavnr2edesi•Ian Signal head Curb ramp transit to rp,dgaylsgreeter than 0.25" X X X X X -clxh rnm(1 transTBen _ "—1 Counter slope of the gutter or street at the loot of the curb ramp is X X X X Fix curb ramp counter slope I greater than 5% 'P.m Alen Uic4lis a[base of curb ramp -- - .. ._ X Rlx grinding _ Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 206 of 316 I0 imley-Hom and Associates,Inc. In tarsaction of Hn rvcy Rd and P051 Oak Mall(east entrance} [Photographs __ - _ —__ OPS ID: 7 F 4. -I...�.� •• Ramp IA ... Ramp 2A Ramp 3A I illii. i _ sem.+- iii . _a Nioth MI Fiamp 30 Ramp 3D Island 3 No Ramp(3i) illi ' _ - - � 4'' Ramp 4A Ramp 4C Ramp 4D 'z -__ I ,.: '.a Ramp(4+) Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 12 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing island Cut-thio Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 ere based on the Information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not very from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sari rcns: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Eon Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esrl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GecEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community ['End of Project Description for Project 7 intersection of Harvey Rd and Post Oak Mall(east entrance) I Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 207 of 316 K€Intey-lore and Associates,Inc. Priority:11 P•-not Besarii lion for S".nalized Intersection Client: a City of College Station Date:4/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.: _051271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor: GPS ID:a Project Name: Intersection of Harvey Rd and Post oak Mall{wast entranco) ,.. ,_ _.... _ City: College Station Ilerpi N0. Ileum2escrlp4gn OuantiN Unit Unit Price Ilam Cost TfQOT,StgrOnt EXCAVATII0 ROADLV) 0 CY • 10.00®- Ta®T$?a-9002 CURB jTY I II 0 LF $ 1500. iogrs -scat CONC 51unao.e S(dam_ 7 SY $ 48.00 j,MT 531 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 off port fur details) 8 EA $ 1500.00 TxCgy 5aa3n0 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF 50.00 .SOT 100015 REMOVING CONC)SIOEWALJ(S 9 SY E It TrIDOT 587-6002 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE EA 1 400.00 $ 9500.00 ',COTS,877 R❑ EXT PAVE MRK&KIRKS LF • ',COTS, 78 REEL PAV MRK PREP TY 13 TY it W 24 SLD 32 LF 550, 4 52200 T,DOT 688-6001 PED DETECT PUSH BUTTON S EA TxDOT1340-6030 REMOVAL OF ESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 5'51 EA $ il 13°21)5,:r0 • 6 125:°0G0 — RELOCATE Nr ESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 9 EA 300.00 TuDCT 582-6018 PED SIG SEC LED UTTONOW 2 SIGN t PEDESTRIAN $ 50.00 5 5 000.00 $ 20.,ask la FIX PONDING 5 2000.00 5 _ FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION M4o . $....- 2,1/00,00 $ MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 5 5 090,00 $ _ - REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 500,40 FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 2 000.00 Basls for Cost Projection _ - - _ Subtotal:-$ 50,062.00 N No Design Completed Engineering:(%+I-) 15% $ 7,587.71 U Preliminary Design Contngeney:(%+1-) 20% $ 10,25029 U Final Design Estimated Project Cast: $ 86400,00 Proloct Locatpn I Alefr f { kt. 1�x: 4 fr r. KAN - �` f �r...7 lir ' 0 it .3x, - !y 4x • 5. - jField Observations _____ — _-_ Intersection Issues N P msswalk S W Recommendations Pam of travel pavement aondterr tris oa ,o_ 1).^9..9.. Pppr iso Epi)i 01 travel naming elope is greater than 5% nepaoe roadway and install crosswalk pavement markings Path of travel crass dope le greater than 5% _ X Caosawalk wfdlh is less than 9° NIA N/AN/A Ft/A Install crosswalk pavement markings ,Crosswalk striping wndtjan Nona Nene None fayre Curb Ramp ID('z'or'i'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Curb Ramp Issues Recommendations L 2z 3z 4z Curti ramp does not exist and needed r X X X Install curb ramp Curb ramp does not land in crosswalk ._-.._.._....__.__._._ ..� No 4"x d'clear apace a1 tress et curb ramp Curbed elle is not g0"or has traversable adjacent surface Flare cross elgpe la greater than 10% Curb ramp naming elope is gre-tier then 8.33% Blended transition running dope Is greeter Sian 5% ;Cut-tllm ramp arming dope Is ..... greater then 5% Cub romp cross daps is greater then 2% _ Cut-thm ramp cross slo ears greater than 5% Curb ramp Width is less than 48" - Cot-think ramp width is less khan 80° P -__ Permanent absWcBon--fi?4.25^'}in cwh rampnan3nar8ares .. --. .----_- Tt,ntporary ebalnwion(.-a 25').incurb rempl/arrdinp;nareaNo textured surface et base of curb ramp__ --- p No calor centred;Abase of cub ramp_a _ .._—_..-.__. I andin0 wsa dyes not exist and is needed -_. —_ �.—. ..._. Lorkd.ag.al ea less than Six 5'or slopes greaterihsn 2% , _ !AI slr/g f7 no pedestrian push buttons X X ,X histol/push bailor.polo and APS push buttons Pedestrian push button is offset more than 5'from the nearest crosswalk edge - �,Pedestrian nosh button offset more than 10'from curb face Punicul[lan push button to not parallel to crosswalk --- Pedestrian push button height is greater than 48" Pedestrian push button diameter is not 2" X _ _- Remove Pik nd Iepla.i- with APS puah•Eu ro=a: Pedestrian push button sign does not exist r�. .� •-_ - _. Pedestrian-push button sign is not MUTCD approved Clear floor space does not exist and is needed X X X X Inch'ul deco clow pace Clear floor space for pedestrian push button is less than 30"x 48" or hes aslyte greater than 2% M€ssing or ne pedestrian ellyhal heads X X: Ibs1811 cowitu/c a pedestrian isIgnal hew Curb ramp transition onto roadway Is greater/than 025' Mounter slope of the gutter or street al the foot of the curb ramp is greater than 5% Eiacia04,,0r,e1 Pike:9.rc ramp ..._ - _ — _—...—...-. .. .. ___I Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 208 of 316 rKhnlay-Hom and A ,.,:,:,1 lit,:. Intel-suction of Hooray Rd and Post Oak Fifa (west entrance) Photographs GPS ID; 0 '' ' Corner 1 F.o Ramp r) Corner 2 No Ramp(2z) Corner 3 No Ramp(3z) _ • Corner 4 No Ramp(4z) Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 8 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-llrru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channellzing Island Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor,materials,equipment,or over the Connector'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 Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment es a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community t of fm e t Desori profin or Projcrt B Intersection of Harvey Rd end Ros4 Oak Mall west entrance Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 209 of 316 Kimley-Hom and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Pro Oct Destrfplion for Signalized Intersection Client: C;ty of College Station Date:4121/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No., 051271409 11/ 1.04 Ily:SFW Corridor: GPS ID:9 F7nleot Name, Intersection of Holleman Dr and Anderson 8t CI}r Conte,.a Station _ _ - iem No. Hem Description 4uanlitv Urrt Urn!Price Item Cost TrDOT110-6001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) 0 CY $ 10.00 5 • TeDOT 629-6002 CUISB_(TY_11) —_ 0 LF $ 15.00 $ • TaDOT 531-6001 CANE SIDELVALKS44") _-_ 40 SY 5 45.00 S 1500.00 T6DOT 631 CURB RAMPS fees,page 2 of report for details} 6 FA $ 1,500.00 $ 9,000.00 TxDOT 6003-6002 RETROFIT WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.00 $ - TaDOT 104-0015 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) 68 SY 5 9.00 3 612.00 TA:0T667-6002 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE ... 5 EA $ 1,400:00 5 7,000.00 T1AOT677 EUM EXT PAVE MRKB MOSS 108 LF ,A 2.80 9 302.40 TADOT0001578 REEL PAV PARK PREP:TY I&TY II(VJ}2415 LD} 503 LF 5 8,50 $ 4,275,50 TYDOT588-6701 PED DETECT PUS/I BUTTON(APS} 5 I EA $ 1,300.00 $ 6,500.00 TWOQT680-6030 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PLUSH BUTTONS 1 EA 5 125.00 3 125.00 RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 3 EA $ 300.00 8 900,00 TxGOT 642-072$,EEO SIG SEC(LED)(COL/NTDOWN_L 0 EA 5 500.00 5 - -• PEDESTRIAN PUSH BURTON SIGN 3 - EA $ 150.00 3 450.00 - REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 3 EA $ 50.00 5 150.08 .�—.. .... — REPAVE ROADWAY 3 L8 3 5,000.00 5 15,900.00 FIX PONDING 2 LS 5 2000.00 $ 4,000,00 FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 2 LS 5 2,000.00 $ 4,009,00 MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS $ 5,000,00 $ - ----- RE/LOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 1 LS 5 500.00 3 500.00 FIX Ctl-B RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 0 ---- LS 5 2,000.00 5 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 54,614.90 10 No Design Completed Engineering:(%+4-) 15% $ 8,30790 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+i-] 20% $ 11,077,20 ❑ Final Design Estimated Prefect Cost: $ 74,004.00 Protect Location _ . J N SE 'el' . as ` +.�'' ea, T' T ‘ 3e 4 Y l a Had Observations _ -- -- Crosswalk Intersection IssuesN E S WRecommendations Pati of travel pavement condition Poor Good - Pear near Repave roadway and Install crosswalk pavement markings Pah of travel iunrong slope Is{treater than 5% ... Pali,or travel crass sloe Is,grealer than 5%, Crosstalk/l{AFa IssleSSS$len 6' —_Remove and replace crosswalk pavement markings GI ossvadk slrlofiuisalidllLon Wore goad Wog Gond Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp lb Wog 1n ramp Zabel Indicates no existing ramp} Recommendations IA 2, 3A 38 4A _ Curb arnp dnot exist and is needed 2 Install curb ramp Curb arnp dues nol land in cram...elk X Remesa end replace crosswalk pavement markings Na 4'a 4'clear space atbase of curb ramp X X -e}Tin_nva awl replaces crosswalk pavement markings Cur bed side Is not 90°or has traversable adjacent surface _.._ X J Flare cross r4ops is yrealer jhan 10% X _._. Cu b ramp Rnning slope Is-greater than 8.33% X _ _ X Slcndod transition running slope Is greater Than 5% Cul-thra raamp_running_slcyre Is greater Than 5% Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp cross slope Isjgeater than 2% X X_ X- Cut-lhru[amp Ross suss is greater than 9% Curb ramp vndltr IS less than 48' X X Cubbeu ramnp nidtlr Is less than 60" .._ Pcrmancnt Wasuuctiat/00251 In out rampflandlrrgi-Fares tempo:Dryphstl uclfon 0025)In curb ramp,andinghlsres _ X Remove temy,_o, strucfan No textured spy face at of base ewb ramp X _X X X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, Nu calor contrast at base of curb rams __. X X X install color truncated domes Landmg alea does not exist and Is needed Lano,ng arca I less than 5°0 5'or slopes greater than 2% X j X X Remove and replace landing area Missing or eo p,doshl rpush'huttoen X X: X X Install push button pole and APS push buttons _ .crosswalk button Is offset more than 5'from the nearest X Install push button pole and relocate pedestrian pusii edge, buttons .. _.- -_ Pedestrian pushbutton offset more than 10'from curb face ped c:trian push$,tan Is natp-r Ilcl to,C,SSi alk X XX. X Relocate pedestrian push buttons Fest-jun 00sh n k bunioelgl t is g ref than 46' — --- -- ---- pcdcsid!n push b4tion darnel.Is not 2' X Remove PBs and replace with APS push buttons iF'adeslri-n posh button si does not exist sly 'Pedestrian push butten ton sln is not r4l1TWpprovod X X X ,Remove and replace pedestrian push ounon sign Cl car floor spxrr does gat exist and Is needed X X X X install clear floor scone clUilf flour space for pedestrian push Button is less than 30"x 48" X X X Remove and replace clear floor space i or I Ip greater than2,9 PI ag r no p d s signal he s C b p transition to r dva0is arester than 025' X X f x roll ramp transition C t reiop lth gutter ar street at the fool of the curb rample ,meter then 5% Pond ng occurs at base of curb ramp —'X X , Fix ponding Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 210 of 316 MimFhleydiophms mrd Associates,Inc. n letceclion of H II an Dr and Anderson St 1Po-tograGPS ID: 9 Ramp 1A Corner 2 No Ramp(2z) Ramp 3A • • Ramp 3S I?-::r,p•t Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 6 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-1hm Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Chennellzing Island Cut-thm Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer has no control over the cosi 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's Judgment as a design professional Familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esd,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,!Merman,iPC,NRCAN,Esrl Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitaiGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrlp,IGN,IGP,swAsstopo,and the GIS User Community It ——----— Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 211 of 316 Kimley-liom and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Protect Desoript[on far Sign alined Intersection Client City of College Station Date:4/21/15 •Program: ADA Self•Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared Sy:EPE ORA No.: 081271406Checked B:SRA .Corridor: GPS ID:18 Project blames Intersection of Holleman Da and Dartmouth St (City: College Station ____ _ i — ` Item No. Item tpegcrlptio Quantity Unit Jell Price hem Cost Txl)0T:111 stun/-EXCAVATION{ROADWAY] 0 GY 1 10.0._$ - Ida]I',:'2ti.::a:, CURB{TY 11) 0 IF $ 15.60 $ 101OT`.31 to:11 CONC SIDEWALLKSS4"I 46 SY 4560 Si 070,00 I AK:-1 5:11 CURD RAMPS(see pane 2 et re�ort ler details $ 1,50000 600060 1 [[3 but RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACESE $ 5000 I 00600 I I[i I 14 Lt1S[REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS $ 900 I [i I[51.0002[PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE 1,40000 8 400.00 txr1Uf 677 SLIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS $ 2.80'$ rnDO1 666.1670 REFL PAV MRI(PREf�1 Y I&TY II Aftfl 24"(SLD) _ 8.50 0 5 304.00 t(OUT 660:6001 PED DETECT PUSH BUT fON(A/?S) $ 1.200.00 5 200.00 (SOT 6$0ot030 REMOVAL OF PEDESTfdNN PUSH BUTTONS S $ 125.00 RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH DUTTONS 300.00 ',DDT 602.8018 PED SIG SEC(LED)(COUNTDOWN 500.00 t PEDESTRIAN PUSH our ION SIGN 15000 t REMOVE PLDLSTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN / • 53.00 t — REPAVE ROADWAY 4 LS 5 000.00 0 20640.00 .FIX PONDING $ 2000.00 FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION rr rr —�MEDIANNOSE MODIFICATION $ $ ,00000 S REMOVE— TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION LS 500.00 $ 50000 FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 3 LS $ 2,000:00 I$ 6,000:00 Basis for Coal Projection Subtotal: $ 50.049.00 O No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 8,979.00 ❑ Preliminary Design Conangency:)%+/-) 20% $ 11.972:00 ❑ Final Design Estimated Protect Cost: $ 79,04000 IFa set Location .. ' -4. - - ,,4 { 0 x.'• s r N t" =r ' ...r . . 1l c=.. fin 11114111L '' JI Field Ooservetions I Intersection Issues N E CrosswalkS W Recommendations Path of(rave}-pAvement conr5San Dangerous Pemaewus Dangerous Pon Rona.oroadway anrrnslalfcrosawalk panernet markings Path of travel running elope Is greater Than 5% -- ---...— --- ----- Path of Travel cr000 slope Is greater than 5% Crosswalk nldh is less than 6' _ Cresawatk elrieinn condition Goad Good [Mood dead Curb Ramp Issues 'LA tanip ID('z'or'i'In ramp label[nacelles no existing ramp Recommendations lA 2A 20 3A 4A 48 Curb ramp does not axial end is needed , Curb ramp does not land in eroeawelk _ No4'x 4'clear space at base of curb ramp , Curbed side Is not 90'or has traversable adjacent surface Flare cross slope In greater than 10% X X Curb ramp netting slope IS greater than 8.33% X X X _ ' Blended transition running dope is greater than 5% Cut•thm ramp coming slope is greater Than 5% _ Curb ramp cross slope Is greater than 2% - Remove and replace curb ramp Cut•thru ramp cross elope is greater then 5% Curb ramp Wall tslem than 46" X X C rl(leu ramp width is less then 60" Permanent obstruction 0.5.35"/In curb rampffende grflaree Temporary obstruction Few/landing/flares in curb re /landing/flares X _)_c Remove teuspnrary obstruction Na textured surface at bane of curb ramp )( X K,_.7_[.__`_ For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contrast at base of curb ramp X 7t X Install color truncated domes Landing area dyes net exist and Is needed X Install landing area Landing area is loss than 5'x 5'or sieges greater than 2% X B_X Remove and replace lending area ' Missing or no pedeStrlm 501 buttons X X X X Install push button pole end APS push buttons Pedestrian push button is offset more than 5'from the nearestX - x Install push button pole and relocate pedestrian push crosswalk edge_ buttons i-- Pedestrian_Luh/futon offset more than 10'from curb face .. PP ._ deselen push button Is not parallel to crosswalk X X X Relocate pedestrian push buttons Pedestrian pawls button helot+IIs greater than 48" . ,....__Pedestrian push button dlemeter is not 2' Pedestrian push button sign does not exist Pedestrian push button sign Is not MUTCD approved _ Clear floor space does not exist arta Is needed X XX XX Install dear floor space Clear floor space for pedestrian push button is less than 30"x 40° x X Remove and replace clear floor space • or has a slope premier than 2% . .. Miss rm or no pedestrian signal heads / Curb tamp transition onto roadva jp greater than 0.25" Counter slope of the gutter or street at the spot of the curb ramp is _�� realer Than 5°!_ X X X FIX ourb ramp counter slope Ponding MUM e %:t • •ra ' r X For sonans Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 212 of 316 IKlmifry-Ilom.and Associates,lnc: _ Intersection of Holleman Dr and Dartmouth St {Photographs __ _.. __.__... -_ _ _ _ GPS ID: 10 Ramp 1A. S Ramp 2A Ramp 2B F' ] !figilliiii1111111. !UM! (tamp 3A .., Ramp 4B Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 4 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cul-lhru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor,meteriala,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 Engineer et this lime and represent only the Engineer's Judgment es a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construdlon costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esrl,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Eon Japan,METI,Eon China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigltalGlohe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrlp,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community —.E_ End of Project DescriptionFor r Project t0]n lersecgon of Holleman'Eli and Dartmouth SI Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 213 of 316 Kimley-Hom and Associates,Inc. Priority:4 Project 13escrintlon for Slnnallxed intersection )Client: City of College Station -- - - - -- - Betel 4421016 Program: ADA Self-Evatuallon and Transition Plan Prepared Sy:EPE KHA No,: 061271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor: GPS ID:11 1 Project Herne: Intersection of Holleman Dr and Stieda St C : _Coltlge Stenion . Item No. Item Description Qupglity Unit Dalt Price Item Cost TxDOT 1706001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) D ,_ CY ___$____ 1000,-i_ - TkDOT 6286002 CURB(TY II) 0 LF A-_ 1500 $ - TRDOT 6316001 C91'C SIDEWALKS(4') ..__32SY _ 4500,.S 1,440.00 TxDOT 631 CURB RAMPS lane page 2 of report far detes's) 7 EA 110 _, $ 0,5 .00 S 10,500.00 __ TXVOT 60036002 RETROFIT WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 6090 5 TxDOT 1046015 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) __4.1 SY $ 9.00:5 300.00. TOOT 5676002 PEDESTRIAN PUSti BUTTON POLE _. G.. EA. $ 1400.00 5 6,400,00: T$DOT 677 FLIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS 0 LF 5 2.B0:.5 —.._. _ TOOT 6661678 REEL PAV PARK PREP,TY I&TY II{4V;24-'(SLD) - 466_ - LF $ 6.50, 5 7,951.00 TXDOT 0686001 PED DETECT PUSH 8LTTON(APS1 _. _ 6 EA $ 1 300 00: 5 '1,030.00_ TnP0T 68060 1 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSI I BUTTON 0 Ell .,, $_- 12500 5 - - RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSI1 BUTTONS 0 EA. _i___ 300.00!5 -_ Tx0¢T f 2 R16 PED 8IG SEC(LED)(COUNTDOWN) _ 2 EA ._. —_. _.._500.00 5 1.070. 00_ PEDESTRIAN _PUSI I BUTTON - 0 EA ,__1680015 - REMOVEPEDESTRIANPUSII.BUT TON SIGN 0 EA $ 50.00 5 REPAVE ROADWAY ._.. _.- 4 LS $ 500090! 0 20.000,06_ FIX PONDING 3 LS $ 2,00090 5 609.00 FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION -__ 1 LS A 900_00 i $ -2000.60 . MEDIAN MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS _$_ 5900.00_ 5._ - , REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS _$ 500.00 $ - _ .FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 1 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 0.000.00 Saabs for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 63,497.00 S No Design Completed Engineering:(%*1-) 15% $ 9,644.14 O Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 12,859.86 O Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 86°000.00 Protect Location _ - 1 f"'y'!`''t�',•r! § • °P2 � y� .e r r N ��of rf� s. 171 ` s0 f r" � i "t.., `<..i 1 if Field Observations - - Intersection Issues N E Qesstvelk S. Recommendations Path al s..av:I p:,vcmeari condition neagwwre ° Poor Pam Goad 'Repave roadway and Install crosswalk pavement markings PAM 011...11.1 I curl:0 slope I0OWalet than 0% X. Fell:o 1:uv+.l cross slope 16 greater than 5% C6._.vr:,lk'r ui1 slux:Ihari 6° NIA Rano.and replace crosswalk pavement markings GI tc;walk 01r0pnig cendltISn WOW Hese Ware Goad Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID(7 or"I'In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations fA 2z,3A 4A Currh ramp docs nut exist and is needed X Install curb ramp Curb romp docs nut lard in erossn®llk No 4'z 4'clear space at base of curb rally➢ Curbed side is not 90"or has traeetaehle adiaceail surface X X Marc cross stupe Is prosier than 10% _, X Curb ramp mill Pit atope is greater than 6.33% X Siondcd tiansil'ion running slope Is greater than 5% cut-Ilan ramprgraalnd slope Is greater Ban 445 Remove and replace curb ramp Garb c amp cross dope Is greater than 2% X- X. cart-Rau ramp cross slope Is oreeter NM 6% Curb lamp vcidilr Is less than 48' X X Oct-dull rarnp width_Is less than 510' Pcrrn al cid u¢plrgcticft InO21")In curb raatpgandktgtflares X X Temporaay obsbuclinn(>4.25")In curb rampllandinGlflares No textured:ui Isco at base of data rar11I X X X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contrast at base of curb ramp X X X Install calor lanceted domes Land-mamma does net exist and is netted X Inrlal landing area Landes area is less than 5'x 5`or slopesgreater than 2°IX_ X Remove end replace landing area Missing or no pedesPian push buttons X X r X`X Instal push button pole and APS push buttons 'Pedestrian push button is offset more than 5'from the nearest crosswalk edge Pcdrslrian putt button offset more than 10'from curb face Pedestrian push button Isnot parallel to crosswalk Podrukia:n push button height is greater than 46" Pedestrian push hrrtlun&A imolai'is not 2` Pedestrian push bullon sign does not mist Pedestrian push button sign is not Mldi'CO approved Clear Floor space does not exist and Is heeded X XX_ X Install dear flow space Clear floor space for pedestrian push button is less than 30"x 48" or has a;tope greater than 2% k4is019 or no pedastrfen elgnal heads X X Install counldovat pedestrian signal heed Curb ramp tramition cntp roamslunate..than 5.25" X Fol curb ramp kansilon Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is X FIe curb ramp counter slope ornate..than 5% F' alta occur,atbdsc of curb raam .-R, X 7( Fix naming Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 214 of 316 [it Imlay-Horn and Associates,Inc. _ tntersection of Holleman Dr and Glade St Pholograryhs__ - GhS ID: 11 • Corner 2 No Ramp(2z) Ramp.3A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 7 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cul-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs, Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community fro of Prolect Description for Prelect fi tntaneation of Holleman Pr and Glade St _ Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 215 of 316 Kimsey-4-lo.and Associates,lino. —PrioritTi 2 1 Project Description for Signalized intersection __ ____ _ - _ _ . ,Client: City of College Station Dote:4121/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE 'KHA No.: 061271499 Checked B,:SRA I Corridor: GPS ID:12 Project Name: in Imscctk.rjel Rock Prairie Rd and Ill r r=nuts Hind ,City: College Station ttem.Nv. Item Description °uenlit, Unit 11,11 Pdce _item Cost _ IUnciTljifA001 EXCAVATION(41VADWA� o CY 3 10.00 5 - _KI30.1,N.97L4S_Q-Cl1B_r;TY�_ o LF $ 15,00 $ - Tkt%7T 531-600.1 CONC SIDEWALKS(4") 35 sr $ 45.00 $ 1,575,04 xDOT 531 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of report for details) 6 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 4.000,09 Ts0DT 5053.6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 50..00 - TxDOT194-601GIREMOVINGCONC(SIDEWALKS) 46 BY $ 9,00 $ 414.00 TkDoT_667-6Dp2,fPLDLSTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE 7 EA $ I A00.00 $ 2 900.00_ T%DOT 677 FLIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS 0 LF .$ 2.90 5 T GOY 6,:,078 RLOL PAW MRK PREP,TY I&TY.II)J4]24"l$LD) 366 LF 5 8,59 $ _115104_ ThDO T 606.0001 PLL)DETECT PUSH SUTTON(APS) 2 ES ---__ $ .1 300,06 $ $,600.00 TXOOTG90Iirp0 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 0 ER _ 5 . _f 25.00 5 -_ — RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS _-G ..._ EA _.. 300.00 5 TzDOT 662.0099 PED SIG SEC(LED)(COUNTDOWN) __. 2 EA $ 500.00 $ 1,fl90.00 — PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON 51GN G _- __ EA 150.00 5 - - - REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 0 EA 5 50.00 5 - - REPAVE ROADWAY 2 LS !5 5,000.00 5 10,000.04 — FIX PONDING 1 LS 5 2,000.00 5 2.009.00 — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION .-_ 2 , LS I5 2,000.00 5 4,000.05 — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION G r L5b _....5,000.00 5 _._.... -.,. — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 2 LS ...{,__..._....500.00 5 _ 1.000.00 — FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE .. _.... 1. i. t.`: 7,000,00 .$ - 2,0.00.... Basis for Get Projection Subtotal: 5 34,509,09 N No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 6,21429 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingeacy:(%+/-) 20% $ 8,285,71 ❑ Final Design , Estimated Prosect Cosh $ 54,000.00 Pro oct Lecaran a r-....044• tib Vv ,.-•5 cF •r 1 A �} i '7 " { :) a12 r ..,—.7... * - - __ S jy 4, • • •••1 `yam [Field Observations - --- - .--_ Intersection Issues N E Crosswalk s W Recommendations Path of travel pavement condition I Poor 0 od NIA aa.�_- IR pan ad y U1,1 I .aliak pavemantxnerldege Path of travel runnng opo is,geatar Than 5% i _ - NIA Path of Ireyel cross eloPe is greater than 5% I I NIA Crosswwlk width i leas then 6" A I NfA ---1NIA —Install crosswalk pavement markings ,Cmssvralk striping condition 0j000Nona 1 Nrp v,,,,,, Curb Ramp Issues Curti Ramp ID('i or°i'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations ift 2A 34_40 Curb ramp dies not exist and is needed X Install curb ramp _ Curb ramp does notlend in crosswalk No 4'x 4'clear space al base of curb ram,6__. Garbed elide is not 90 or has traversable adjacent surface Flare[bone slope greater than lint. X greater0 9...3346. ----.._... X _X, curb ramp cin q s[P is� t._ Blended transition h g_s9ep_.,greater than 0% Cul-Ilan ramp running slope is greater than 6% — -- --- Cede ramp cross elope is greater 2% _—_ X X Remove and replace curb ramp GuHhm ramp csose�e is greater than 5% Curb ramp oidlr is less than 48' x. Celdfru ramp width is leas than 60 Permanent o0slruclion 25) curb raw/landing/flares X X 1 X Temporary obstruction(sO.257 in curt ram rdmgrflares X x Remove I mpora�obstr r1 n .. __..._,,.. _.. No lexdrred aur(ace et base f curb ramp_ _ X % X For Intersection ramps and commercial drvcwayramps, Na calor contrast at bees of curbramp_-_ .X X X install color truncated dames Landing area does not exist and Is needed X Instill!mitring rirca Lancing area Is less Than 5'x 5'or slopes greater than 2% Mlssltg or no pedestrian push buttons _-_ X X 1551x0 push',talon p,:ru uro.1 APS push l:tnlone Pedestrian push button Is offeet more then 5'horn Plea nearest crosswalk edge _ ^-- _._ ... Pedestrian lush button offset more than 10y frau curb raga --_ -.T Pedestrian push button In not. psre)lpI In crosswalk _., _ Pedestrian push button height iagreater than 48'- Pedestrian push button,Eameter is nor 2" Pedestrian push button sliE does not exist _._....._._ _ -.�-.- Pedestrian push Mutton sign Is not MUTCD approved_— Clear floor space does not exist and is needed '- XX X X Install clear 8od�r race Clear floor space for pedestrian push button is less than 30'0 48" ...Y X Remove and replace clear floor space or has a Mope greeter than 295. _ v_„ ljpm Missing or no pedestrian signal heads X X _� Tnstall c'mantr$aympeaestrlan sal lreail —,--_.__. Curb ramp e transition onto roe is eater Then 025” X X Fix curGI0Inp Iransiran Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is X Fix curb ramp counter slope greaser than 5% PgtTdinpoccurs e3 base of crab ramp k _ ix pondrg Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 216 of 316 Kim' •Ham and Associates Ins. Intersection of Rock prairie Rd and Rio Grande Dled Photographs ——— GPS ID: 12 L 011 - MINN • • Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Corner 3 No Ramp(3z) ;trI'I,Ugwr r• �. 0 Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details; Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 6 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer al this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esrl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigltalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,!GP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community End of Protect Desoriytion for project 12 Intersection of Rook Prairie Rd end Rio Grande Blvd j Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 217 of 316 K irnley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Proloct Doscrlpllon for Signalized Intersection — Client: City of College Station _ Date:4121015 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE K HA No,: P6127140E1 Checked By:SRA Corridor: UPS ID:13 ' not Name: Intersection of Rock Prairie Rd and Victoria Ave • City: College Station Item No, Item Description Quantity Unit Unit price Item Cost. TxDOT 110-6001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) 0 Cr__ 10.00 2 - _ r.nnT 529-6002 CURB ITT II} • 0 LF _ 5 15 00.$ - Tx00T531-BO01 CONC SIDEVVALKS[4'i i_.. 26 SY 5 45.0 •0 S 1,170.00 TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of report ler de I add ,_•,_ 8 EA 'S 1,500.00 5 120000.00 TxDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURFC[tASST IN PLACE) _- 0 SF 5 50.00,r - TxDOT 104E 1s REMOVING CON.0(SIDEWALK6)__ _.__._ 59 SY 5 0.05:$ 537.00 Txt7QT087_8I,IYk PEDESTRIAN PUSII BUTTON POLE _ - a _ EA. 5 1,400055 11,200.00 TxDOT67z_ ELENAEXT PAVE MRK&MAKS0 ,. LF :5. 2.80=5 xt70 4$7,¢_REFL PAV MRK PREP,TY I&TY II(Wt 247SLD) 576 LF . _4__-,__ 0 a0 S ---7,800.00 ,_4,896-00 7x207.'4 921 UT RED DETECT PuSt I BTON0APS) 6 ... EA _ .L... 1 . .., ,370.03:5 7&00.00 - 1.,,, r,opaa REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 0 EA ; __125,(9. $ _- _ � RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 2 EA $ 300.00__ 50000 _Tzympast1,LPED SIG.SEC-LLED)(COUNTD6WN) 4 EA _i 50100 $ 2,000.00 _= m PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 0 EA j 150.00 _4 — REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 0 EA __j 52.D0 $ - REPAVE ROADWAY 3 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 15,100.00 FIX FORDING 3 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 6.000-00 i — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 0 LS -d_ 2,000.00 j - MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS $ 5 0000___ _4 - REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 2 LS j 50000 $ 1,000.00 I FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 0 LS 4 2,000.00 $ - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 62,197 00 N No Design Completed Engineering:(%+0-) 15% $ 9,344.14 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%.f-) 20% $ 12,458.86 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 84,000.00 Prefect Location _ 1 N i� ;13. i X..., • • R ..1°. ' Vi. 'CO . &I ,'1"#\ Field Ohsoevarions _ _ II _- Intersection Issues r, r Crosswalk nj Recommendations 5 Pa01a!1T%Yelp54P1RelllMRiti10Mi Good , Poor Dangerous Poor Repave roadway and install crosswalk pavement markings Path of travel tprutlt,)g slope is greater then 5% X _ Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5% - . Crosswalk widtll Is less than 6' N/A N/A X X .940=Walk slrioipg condition None None Worn Worn Remove and replace crosswalk pavement markings • Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('T 'r'or In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations IA 2A 3A 3B 4A Curb mi dges not entat and Is needed Cork,eamrp does riot land In crosswalk Na 4'x 4'clear space at been elourb ramp Curbed side Is no190•or has Traversable adjacent surface Nem cross slope is greater than 10% X X X Curb ramp funning slate Is greater than 8.33% X blended transition running slope it greeter than 5% Cnil-llru ramp running slope is greater then 5% _ .—] Cubs ramp cross slope Is greater filen 2% X X XV__ Remove and replace curb ramp Cut-Baru ramp cross slope Is greater than 5% Curb ramp width is less than 48" X- — Cul_gvu ramp width Is less then 60' Permanent obstruction(00.25")In curl:ramp/lancing/flares X X XX_X.- Temporary obstruction(00.251 in curb rempgending'flareS X X Remove temporary obstruction No textured surface at base of curb snap X X- X X X For Intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, N or oontrast at base of curb ram}? X X X X instal color truncated domes Landing/Len does not exist and Is needed X _X install landing area L ndingmroa is fess Then 5'x$'x 5 or slar�..�,s realer then 2% X X X - Remove and replace landing area Missitg_pr no_gadestrlan push buttons X XXX X Install push button pole and APS push buttons Pedestrian push batten is offset more than 5'from the nearest X X Install push button pole and relocate pedestrian push crosswalk edge _ buttons Pedestrian_push button offset more than 10'from curb face P,destrranpush button Is not paretel to crosswalk _ Pesgrj.arypush^button het 11 I__ eater than 45" -�.____ Pedcstrianptish button diameter Is not 2" Pedestrian push button sign roes not exist ; P edestri mush button sign Isnot MUTCD approved Clear lluur space does riot exist and Is needed 7C X X X, X Install dear floor space Clear floor space for pedestrian push button Is less Man 30'x 46" • ea tion a Acme greater Cheat 2% Missing or no pedestrian sinal heads X X X install countdown pes$lan signal heed Curlrump transition Unto roadway is greater than 0.25" _ Counter slope or the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is vreater Man 5% PoIelirisi coatis at base f pirl,ftlee ---- 1 )X X FxpMal' Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 218 of 316 KtmteyHom and Associates,Inc. Intersection of Rock Prairie Rd and Victoria Ave Ph olograptrs --- GPS ID: 13 • bor. 111 • Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Ramp 3A Ramp 3BCurb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 8 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cul-thin Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channellzing Island Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry The Engineer cannot end does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,intermep,IPC,NRCAN,End Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esrl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DlgllalGiobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community -- 1End f Proje lD sno plicn i. Pn+j4•r;1131 !. •.i;I fit ek i'r,n- f01:11111 V4.0.:Avc•_ Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 219 of 316 'Kimley-Flom and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Pr d ct Description for Signalized Intersection Client: City of College Station Date:4121116 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE ERA No.: 061271408 Checked By:SRA Cor kior: _._ __. _.._.. ... -..©PS ID:14 Project Name: Intersection f Rack Prairie Rd and Welsh Ave Cdr College Station Item No. Item Description Quantity, Mall MN Nee hem Cost TkPOT 1Y0-5001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) _0 CY I S 10.00[$ __—. TwOT 529-0002 CURB{TY II] __ _ fl _ - LF ' 5 15.00'S LkGO7 531-5091 CDNC SIDEWALKS(4') r 30 Sr I 5 45.00 _$._ ^1 350_00 RAMPSTxD T 531 CURB RAPS(see page 2 01 report for details] 8 _-. EA i$ 1500 00 _.. 9,00500 T 5e010 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) ---i 0 _ SF i 5 $0 00 _ -_ 7k41,gT 104:$215 RE MOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) 66 SY 15 9.00 _„$. _ 584.00 j2d60,60 ,PEDESTRIAN PUSI I BUTTON POLE _-_ 8 __. EA $ 1 40000,_'_ "8,400.00 7x13cT.6tL FLIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS ._.___.... 0 LP __-...$,. ___ ._ 289 A Tx0OY 554f57.L REFL PAV MRK PREP,Ty I&TY II WM 241SLD) 450 LF L 8.50.A 3,825.00 T7Q0T..655,5,Q0;1 PED DETECT PUSI I BUTTON(APS)._ 4 ___EA90 A 1x0 5 51 200.00 ,TI OT0Jf-5n0REMOVALOFPEDESTRIANPUSHBUTTONS 0 EA... $ 125-00 A^ RELOCATE PEDESTRIANPSH BUTTONS 2 1 El - $ 300.00 A 600.00 Ty g1'r5§X-^d�01$„PEDSIG SEC(LED)(COUNTDOWN) 3 EA $ 50000 $ 1,500.00 - "PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 0 EA $ 150-00 $ REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 0 Fes, $ 50.00 0 -_"--'. REPAVE ROADWAY 3 LS $ 5.000.00 $ 15000.00 -_----- FIX PONDING 1 LS $ 2000.00 $ 2,000.00 - __FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 2 LS $ 2000.00 $ 4,000.00 rt— MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS 5 5,000.00 $ — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 1 L3 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE I LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Basis for Coat Projection Subtotal: $ 53,969.00 B No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 8,156.14 O Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 10,874.86 C7 Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 73,000.00 Pro-act LooaOon -- -- �' 0 ' ' S� ~ ti •fes �t / % tomi) . rent a, ^2 i J' ,I ♦. ~ % may. ''�. r o .4. _ 'Field Obsenaations -- --- Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations N E S W Fath of travel pavement condign Dangerous Dangerous RIA Poor Repave roadway and install crosswalk pavement markings Path of travel running slope In greater than 5% X Nth t_. Path of travel cross elope is greater tion 5% NIA Crcasnalk W dth Is less than 6' FNA MA Remove and replace crosswalk pavement markings Creeawalk aborta condition Worts Nana WA Worn Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID(z'or'i'In ramp label Indicates no existing r:urup) Recommendations 1A 1B 2A 213 5Z 4A Curb 191m toes not ext%t and is needed h' Install curb ramp curb ramp does not land In crosswalk C _ X _ Remove and replace crosswalk pavement markings No 4'x 4'clear space at base of un rh ramp 'Curbed side is not 90'or has lroweraable atiacerrlaurface X Flare cross anile is_greater than 10% X X Curb remgrrulning tigpe Is sreater than 8,33% X X _t__ Bfended lran_lf:vlr running slope Is greater then 5% 001.11ru ralllp rurroing slope Is greater Man 5%. _._ Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp crass slope Is greater than 2% X X X X _�_ Cut•liu ramp cross slope is srealer than 5% Curb 6%fowidfl is less than 48" X - Cuban ramp mirth Is less than 60" Permanent°haimctien(00.251 In curb ralnpilendrnlpferee X Temporary obstruction(x0.25'9 in curb rampdandingrflarea X I Remove lemporary obstruction No textured surface al base of curb ramp X XXX X I For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contres1 al been of out ramp XXX X X Install color truncated domes L vndipg area does not exist and Is needed X Install landing area Landirrgareai_Icss than 5"x 5'or%lopes greater than 2% X X X X Remove and replace landing area Missing ar napedesldan push buttons X X XX Install push button pole and APS push buttons Pedestrian push button is offset more than 5'from the nearest X Install push button pole and relocate pedestrian push crosswalk edge buttons Pedestrian push button offset mare than 40'from curb face _ X Pedestrian push button Is not parallel to crosswalk Pedestrian urs 1 button height Is treater than 48" Pedestrian push button diameter Is not 2' , Pedestrian push button sign does not exist Pedestrian push button sign Is not MUTCD approved clear floor space does not exist and Is needed X X X X XX r 1 clear Door space Clear floor space for pedestrian push button Is less than 30"x 48" or has a slope greater than 2% I Missing or no pedestrian signal(roads X X X Install oauntdoen pedestrian signet head Curb ramp transition onto roadway is greater than 025' X X- Fix curb ramp transition Counter slope at the gutter or street et the foot of the curb ramp Is X Fix curb ramp°minter slope Dater than 5^/ rem t% Fix ponding Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 220 of 316 - rc Iy I fon rind Assoniates.Inc.. _ Intersection of Rock Prairie Rd and Walsh Ave if d. lrh _ __-..— GPS ID: 14 r - _ .Jr= ,f ‘r-!r.,".... 4 • p •- i„.m........r_.i...„,..—...:,...„,—.„ Ramp 1A Ramp 1B N,....„R. Ramp 2A .'*-, r ___I,I__h' _.� ... ^ 1 �'X11 _, _. ...f_. „... _...... _,' ii .._--_-..... ,,.. ,.., ._ t - w .„ tor .a. easitr-lt Ramp 20 Corner 3 No Ramp(3z) Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 6 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar oilh the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisslopo,and the GIS User Community DOnd et Project Desoripticn fox Prolect 14 Intersection of Reck Prairie Rd and Welsh Ave - - - 1 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 221 of 316 . . . Kind ey-1.PPM 4111(6 A,,,1:1,11,,.Inc. Priority:5 Project Description for Signal i*Intersection Client: City of College Station Date:4/21/16 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE (HA Na; 00271408 Checked By:SEA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy OPS 10:15 Project Narno: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Anderson St City: College Station '... . dem Na. Item Deseription .. , ...,p..n.il, L.Ind 1...1i111,ev item Cosi TxDOT I t0-6001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) C CY 5 10.00 $ . TxDOT 520-6002.CURB(TY II) C Lly. .5 15.00 5 • TxDOT 531-6001 CONC SIDEWALKS(41 4.3 SY 1 S 45.00 $ 1,935.00 TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS Nee page 2 of relied for detalkii a EA 5 1.500.00 $ 12.000.00 TxDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF 5 50.00 ; • TxDOT 104-6015 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) . 61 SY 5 0.00 5 545.00 TxDOT.687-6002 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE 4 EA 0 1.400.00 $ 5,600.00 TxDOT 877 RUM EXT PAVE MRK.5 MRKS G LF $ 2.80 $ • TADOT6641,578 REFL PAVMRK PREP,TY l 4 TY tl FA$241S0 484 LP $ 8.50 $ 4,114.00 TAXA-6884001 PED DETECT PUSH EUTTOIAPS) EA $ 5.300.00 $ 5,209.00 TwOOT 500-0030 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 0 EA $ 125.00 $ — RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 1 _i EA $ 90040 $ 300.00 TxDOT582-0015 PED SIG SEC(LED)JnOUNTDOWN1 0 EA 5 50400 8 - — PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIDE_ 0 EA $ 15040 5 . — REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSN BUTTON SIGN 0 EA 8 50,00 $ - — REPAVE ROADWAY 4 LS a 5400.00 $ 20,500.00 — FIX PONDING 2 1.2 0 240040 5 4,090.09 — FIX CURB RAMP_MWSITtpiti 2 1.3 5 2,90040 5 409000 — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS 5 5,000.00 $ — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 9 LS 0 500.00 $ - — FIX CIJR3 VAMP COkITER SLOPE I LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2000.00 Basis for Cost RiCijeCAlan I Subtotal: $ 50,595.00 10 Na Design Completed Engineering:(%0/-) 15% $ 9,129,43 O Preliminary Design Contingancyl%,1-5 20% $ 12,172,57 O Final Design Estimated Prokrt Cost: 5 81,000.00 PProlect Location • . llaf e4•,:(,.""••,...rJ 'AF . ,..,,- , .., t , ,.. . . Alli'- ‘i . ir . „.., .. •I A Q ' „L ..`.. ,„ r4. .,•'') r ,_- . . _, • . . •#. e....o.r., i) ,e :. . _ e •1 r.t.,. - ... ....-„- . , , -....25-....j , . .."-- . . - - - pmz,„„„,...., Intersection issues N E crosswalk Recommendations S W Path of travel pavement pariah. Dangerous Dangerous Dinuarces mpg... Repave rcedway and install ermswalk pavement markings Path of travel rumning_aliope is greater than 5% Patti of travel cross slope la greater Mon 5% Crosawalk milla Is less than 0' Ram..0114 replace crosswalk pavement marldngs Crommalk strioino condition Won) Worn Worn Wont . Curb Ramp ID('x'or'i'Kr ramp label Indicates no Edell%)ramp) Curb Ramp Issues Recommendations IA 2A 3A 4A Curb ramp does not exist and is needed Curblel_en does not land in crossym5k X Remove and replace crosswalk pavement markings No 4'x 4'clear space Cl baso of curb tamp X X Curbed aide is not 90'or has traversable odlccent sLe1cie. X Flare cross relgpata_greater than 10./i X X Curb ramp running slope is great.-than 5.331'o X X Blended transition runnim,i stripe Is Lir cider than 5.1.., u1-111 purinkikisippe is greater gran 5.:',. Remove and replace curb ramp Curb remnass stela Ls..greater than 251i X X Cul-1km rern___E_crs„shirpe is greater grail '36 (kith ram_p_e,dth Is less than 40' X Lut-IlinpLadth is kass than GO" Permanent obstnicUonk0.25")in curb rareckandinoMeres X X Temporary obstruction et,....,in curb ramp/lancing/flares No lexturedsurf-ace at base of GM b ramp ,_LC X X For intereeckai ramps and commeraal driveway ramps, No color contrast at base of LUIL,ramp X X X install color truncated domes Landing area does not exist and is neccfml x 1–nstell landing area Landing area is less than 5'x 5'cL- 3ps Elithan 2./. X Remove and replace landing area Miss/rag or no push button Is offset more than 5'twin tin:nearest crosswalk edge Pedestrian push button offset more than 10'both curb face . 1 Pedestrian push button is not perallei to crosswalk __________._.?L.__________._.?L.X Relocate pedestrian push buttons Pedestrian push button Wahl Is greeter than 4r ir— P edestrian push button diameter is not 2" P edestrian push button sign does cot exist Pedestrian push button sign is not MUTCD approved Clear floor space does not exist and is needed X XX X Install dear flocs space Clear Door space for pedestrian push button is less than 30"x 49" X X XRemove and replace clear floor space or has a dope greater than 2% MiesIELor nn pedestrian signal heads Curb rmag transition onto readwani Is rimier then 0.25" X X Plx curb ramp transition Counter slope ol the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp to x Fix curb ramp counter slope g reater than 5% RIMIA111 occurs ,21.54.0 ramp X X Mx pond* Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 222 of 316 LK i y H rn 2.d R screiotes,ha.. -- Intersecljon of Soulhweal Pkwy d Anderson Et 'Photographs -- -- -- _ _ _ PPS IR: 1S 2- . -II.. . ' ' .r r.' ' 44666 •..,. , • le Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Ramp 3A yi Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) L• EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 9 EA Type 22(Channellzing Island Cut-thm Ramp) 0 EA . Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's Judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esrl Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DlgllalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swlsslopo,and the GIS User Community End of Protect Description for Pro(ectly IrtictNcciiiirt at:1,11thwrr:r Pkwy and Anderson St Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 223 of 316 Kimloy-Ilam and Assoc lates,inc. Priority:6 Project Descdwtkon tar Slenalixod Intorsecllon ___ . —. - Client: City of College Station Date:4/21116 Program: ADA Sett-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.: 061271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor: BPS ID:16 Project Name; Intersection of Southwest Pkwyand Darhnouth St City: College Stat/an _nein No.No. Item besoripton QOagfix Unit Unit Pr.: Iron_;ore T0DOT 1108001 EXCAVATION(ROADOWAY) 0 CY '5 - am_1. 'TxDOT 5288002 CURB(TY I1) -__ 0 LF c 15.013 Tid)OT5318001 CONE 640EWRLt43(41_,-.. --� 22 _ SY '' ..... 45.00 L.___. 940.00 ' TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of repot for natal's) 8 0-' S _ 1,691100 12_000.00 TrdOOT 50038032 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) _ _ 0D __ Cr - 600 00 .T OT 1048015 REMOVING CONC::SIDEWALK(S) _ _57 Ci-f ., 8Aa 513.08 TxDOT687-6002 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE _ 6 EA __102,00 _$ 13,400.00 TxDOt677 ELIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS 267 _.... L" S 2.90_$ 747.60 TxDOT666/676 REFL.PAV MRM PREP,TY I&TY II IW1 24"(SLD) _ 562 L _T _ 0.53 5 __ 5 032.00 TxDOT688-6001 PED DETECT PUSHBUTTON(APS) 4 _- LA --_ .S 1.330 f -5 _ 5 00.06 TM)OT 6808030 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS _ 0 EA S 125 AO_5 - - RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 2 EA 5 _ 300.00 600.06 -_-..... TxDOT 6828016 PED SIC SEC(LED)(COUNTDOWN) - 0 EA :5 500:06 - - - `-PEDESTRIAN PUSI I BUTTON SIGN 0 FA '5 150.00 - -- REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PU51I BUTTON -_ 0 FA 5 95,00 5 - REPAV'E ROADWAY _ 2 LS 5 5,000,00 $ 10;000.00 --- -- ,FI XPONDING 0 LS $ 2,000.00 5 - FIX CURB RAMP TP.RNSI110i: 0 LS 5 2,00000.5 - _ -. [MEDIAN NOSE ODIf=1 tTION .._ 0 LS '- 5000.00 5 - - fREMOVE TEMPORARY OB TIIUCTION -- ._ 0 $ 500,00 t - FIX CURB RAMP 1,0,1,17 F :SI OPE 0 2000-00 t Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: 46,690.3 FA Na Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-)1 15% $$ 6,690 31 ❑ Preliminary Design Cordirgency.(%*/'n 20% 0 8,867-09 ❑ Final Design Estimated P,deot Cost: $ 09,000.00 _ 'Project Loi lion f 110'04 i! ,y, . ,{y sem`'; 11 / 3A 0i i. y. 4'''e + bt'r ' • -IN Field Observations _ - _._ Ilnersertlnn Isn:: N E Crosswalk B W Recommendations Path of travel pavement collate, Goad Deneerpue Poor Good Repave roadway end install crosswalk pavement mertlnas Path of travel running slope tog:cntu:shall 0% Path of travel cross slope is trema:Ihon 0% Crosswalk width Is le,U11151.5' _ C o alk of long -rdiliao Good Good Ware Goad Remover and replace crosswalk pavement markings Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('z orTin ramp label 3ndcates no existing ramp) Recommendations ip,,2A 3A 4A Curb re rnp does not exist and is needed ‘Curb ramp dues not land In crosswalk X Remove and replace crosswalk pavement markings It4od a 4'slcar spaceal pace of curls ramp X :Curbed aide Is not 90 ur his traversable edlacelrtturfaoe flare cross slope is greater than10% X 'Curb ramp running slope is greater than 8.33%. M X Blended har.siliun runrang slap_is greater than 5% Cul-Item ramp rwmin5skpe is greater then 5% Curb ramp cuss slope is growler than 2% X X Remove and replace curb ramp Cut-I/.Iu ramp cross Owe,is greater than 5% Curb ramp or,dth is lass Than dB" Cul-ih:u ramp width is lest than fits' Permanent obstitidiontl,,_2_571,111 curb rampoandirgmares X X Tern=obatructiou >0 25")In curb rnrryhAaedhpgfteras No textured surface at base of curb ramp X X X X_ For Intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contrast al base of curb ramp X_ X install color truncated domes Landing area does not exist and is needed _ X X Install lending area Landing area is less than 50 5_or slues greater than 2./e X X Remove and replace landing area Missing or no pedestrian push buttons X XXX Install push button pole and APS push buttons Pedestrian push button Is offset more than 5'from the nearest X X Install push button pole and relocate pedestrian push crosswalk edge. buttons rieleatilaaRLISh button offp a r h re their 10'from curb face X ILL,adiastrianpushbutton is not p flpl to crosswalk _ peLdeakien push button height is g eater Than 48" - X Relocate pedestrian push buttons • Pedasd 4ie,push Lintondi:::nrlei Is rut 2" Pedestrian push button sign does riot exist - 'Pedestrian push button sign Is riot MUTED approved Clear floor spice does not exist and Is needed X X X X betel dear floor space Clear floor space for pedestrian push button is less than 30"x 48" - or has a slgpe_greater than 2% Missing orno pedestrian A-Jul heads i Curb ramp transition°nisi rcedway_Is"goatar than 0.25" Counter slope of the gutter or street at the fool of the curb ramp is real ter Ihan 5% Ponding occurs at bale of curb la hf r --� Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 224 of 316 KimleyHom and Associates,Inc. - Intersection of Southwest Pkwy a.I F};trlaioulh 1 Pho ra hs -- - - - - - OPS ID: 13 • • -, r r;`• Ramp 3A .1 r ar t t Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) B EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cul-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channellzing Island Cul-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigilalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swissiopo,and the GIS User Community End of Project Description for Prop,:t 16 Ins+x:t,or:o+5nutl:W,",l f'kwy u,,n Dartmouth St Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 225 of 316 KkNey-Hom iInc. Priority:5 Proiecl DescriptiandonAssocfor Signaates,lized Intersection Client: City of College,Station Date:4121116 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KRA No.: 081211408 _.— Checked By,SRA Corridor: Southwest Pitney _ GPS ID:17 Project Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Glade St City: College Station Ili op Item Reserinlio0 Quarr4N 1/nil Lith Price liens Cost TAI T i)0.Oo0L„pcAVA110N IROADWAYI 0 CY $ 10.00 $ - _r 01.. C itg(TY II) 0 LF $ 16.00 $ - 7,IfQOTa52l. 5r.CONC SIDEWALKS 14'y 13 sr 5 45.00 $ 585.00 TxDOT 531 CUR2B RAMPS(sea nape 2 of report for details) 5 EA $ 1,600.00 5 7,500.00 TxDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.00 $ - amiku,q,),REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) 35 sr 5 9.00 $ 315:00 .',3(7ik82442, ,,PEPEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE 6 EA $ 1,400.00 $ 0,400.00 T cli ] ELIM EXT PAVE MRK 6 MEKS 0 LF $ 2.00 $ - _12,297 0661570 REEL PAV MRK PREP.TY I&TY II BVI 24 ISLD1 338 LF 5 6.50 9 2,073.00 MOT,888-6001 PED DETECT PUSH BUTTON(APS) 4 EA $ 1,300.00 $ 5,200.00 Sv?OTfi90.G030 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS o EA 0 125.00 9 - RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 2 EA $ 300.00 5 600.00 1rDOT 662.6OIL PED SIG SEC(LED)(COUNTDOWN) 4 EA 0 500.00 $ 2,000.00 — PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 0 EA $ 150.00 9 - - REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 0 EA 0 50.00 3 - - REPAVE ROADWAY 3 LS 5 5,000.00 $ 15000.00 — FIX PONDING 1 LS $ 2,000.00 5 2,00000 — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 0 LO $ 2,000.00 9 - MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS 5 5,000.00 $ - REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 1 LO $ 000.00 $ 500.00. — FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE _ _ 3_ LS $ 2•1600.00 $ ,9jg,PFrfjl7 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 50,973.00 6.7 No Design Completed Engineering:(%*1-) 15% $ 7,725,06 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency"5/-) 20% $ 10,301.14 0 Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 89,000.00_ �Prolect Location _� 1 r-., �e y� 4' 4(-.ten >r4 � ` _ J f'tr. .� i 141 0 83, Field Ohservatlons _ _ Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations N L S W Path of travel pavement condition - Poor Poor WA Poer Repave roadway end instill crosswalk savemenl merkiegs. Path of travelmrmin0 slope.{ greeter then 5% _._._._ NiA ..._ Path of travel cross slope la greater then 5% NiA Crosswalk Writ Is less Shan 8' NiA NiA .._—Iratsli crosswalk pavement markings Crosswalk strlpino condition Geed sora WA 0asd Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('z'or'i'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1A 2A 3z 4A Curb ramp does not exist and Es needed XInstall curb ramp Curb ramp does not land in crosswalk No 4'x 4'clear xpaoe at base of curb ramp .-- Curbed side is not 9O°or hes traversable adjacent-surface Hare cross slope is greater Then 10% ,__, Curb ramp running elope is greater than 8,33% _ Blended transition running siope ie greater than.5% Cut-Ihru ramp running slope le Greater than 5% _ Curb ramp cross slope ie WOOER than 2% ,X X Remove and replace curb ramp Cutdhru ramp cross slope is{treater than 5% Curb ramp width is less then 40" .14 X Cut-thru ramp width Is less than 60' Permanent obstruction(•0257 in curb rampdendingflares X_ _ Temporary obstruction(•0.25")in curb remplendingr9eree _ —IC temporary obstruction No tenured surfaceel base of curb ramp _—.—_ Na color contrast al base of curb ramp Landing area does not exist and is needed - ---�----- I Landon wee Is less than 5'x 5'ors greater than 2% X X - X Remove and replace Iandln Missing or no pedestrian push buttons X Xy,_X Insiaish lwtton polo d S push buttons Pedestrian push button is offset more Than 6'from the nearest x Inst!!push button pole end relocate pedestrian push crosswalk edge buttons Pedestrian push button offset more than IV from curb face _ X Pedestrian push button is not parallel in crosswolk X rate pedestrian pus5i 6nlhnrs Pedestrian push button height is greater Own 40" Pedestrian push button diameter is not 2" —.— Pc destrien „_,-Pcdeslrien push button sign does not exist _ —..— .— Pedestrian push button sign is not MUTCD approved Clear floor space does not exist and is needed X XX X Install clear Floor space Clear floor space for pedestrian push button is less than 30”x 48" or has a slope greater than 2% Missing or no pedestrian signal heads X X X Install countdown pedeslnnnsjS5l hoed Curb reran transition onto roadway is greater than 0.25" r :Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is X X X Fix curb ramp counter slope L'er- ler than 5% -I.._d .W -I¢W. .....'luT-'_cf curb am• X __.. _ _ Fix•onuLnr Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 226 of 316 Kimlay-Hom :, and Associates a. _ Intersection of ,,:,tl_wK.;l P h•o-y;H:,d c,l:,d,,wai �Photoxm fhs - _ _ _- GPS ID: 17[--jailli' : Ramp IA Ramp 2A Corner 3 Na Ramp(3z) -1.,_.,:„.....77 - Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 5 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esrl Japan,METI,ten China(Hong Kong),Esrl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community — -- End of Project besciti n for Project 17 Interseollet of 1'sauthwost pkwy and Glade St _ - - - Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 227 of 316 IKimlay-Hem and Associales,Inc. Priority:5 Proieot Description for Signalized Intersection Client: City of College Station Date:1721115 Program: ADA Self•Evaluatlon and Transition Plan t Prepared By:EPE KIIA No,: 061271400 Checked Sy:SRA ICortldor:. Southwest Pkwy OPS ID:in Project Name: Intersection of Southeast Pkwy and,Sauthw0od Dr City: College Station Item No. Iters Description 4uetdile Unit OATH Price Ilam Cost T%DOT 110-6001 EXCAVATION[ROADWAY, 0 CY 5 10.00 $ TOOT 5295002 CURS(TY 11) _ 0 LE $ 15.00 $ F>d)OT 531-6001 CONC 51DEWALNS.01 18 8Y $ $5,09 $ _ $10.00 T0DOT 531 CURB RS7dPS[65;,59!2 of ragat ler details} 4 EA $ 1,500.00 5 8,000.00 TOOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF jCAST IN PLACE) : 0 SF $ 50.00 $ - Tx00T 104-5015 REMOV NG CONC)SIDEWALKS)) 46 SY 5 9.00 $ 414.00 T43070675005I PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE 5 EA $ 1,400.00 $ -000.00 ThOOT 077 IELI Al EXT PAVE A1RK&MR10S 0 LF $ 2.80 _. - TxDOT 8001079 REFL PAV MRK PREP'1'15,TY II Nal 24`(SLD) : 356 LF5 6,50_.$ 3,043.00 TxDOT 068&401. RED DETECT PUSH BUTTON(APS) 4 EA $ 1,300,170 _$ 5,200.00 TovOT!.9064,70 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 0 EA J 125,00 3 - - RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 2 EA 5 300,00 5 600.00 S.;7DOT 492-4415.,PEO SIG SEC FLEDULDbUNTDOWNI 4 EA _.. §. 500.00,5 2,00.0.00 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 0 F rV I S 150.02 — REMOVES ._.—_ — REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUT TON SIGN 8 FA 50 r.3 5 , -_ _ -_ — REPAVE ROADWAY 3 I.3 5 5 0:0 02 S 15,000.00 , c._._ - FIX PONDING 0 I.:_ S 2070035 - FIX CURD RAMP TRANSITION 1 L3 5 2 070 C0 5 _. 2000.00 MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS 5 5 070 003 5 _ — REMOVE TEMPOISARY OBSTRUCTION _ 1 LS 5 570 C3 5 500.05 — .C •-COUNTER SLOPE - - ;$ J 1130 05,$ 4 099 00'_ Etasls for Cost Projection Subtotal: 5 45,567,05 O No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 7,042,71 ❑ Preliminary Design Csrdingenrry;(%+/-) 20% $ 9,390,25 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cast: $ 63,009.00 ProjectLocetion __._ __ _ __ p.,,, ,... ..f ,. A . , �' . ... R : , . IV f, 1 sy,i., .co r ,: ", '''°'"14:11 - 47 719 .t �.� a iL+r ! /�. :� Lield Observations 1 Intersection Issues N E Crosswalk S w Recommendations Path ottrayet_pavement condition IIIA _nan3eraus m„,,,,,,,,,,.., ,„,,,r,,,,, ile,o,e rvuJx u r:md s"._II,usswvrk.pevem9vemsridow Pam of travel running slope is greater then 5% NIA ` Path el travel cross slope is greater than 5% MIA _ :��- Crosswalk width is less than 6' PICA h1SA Ina:¢II crosswalk pavement markings Crosswhlk sirloins condition IIIA floes. - road Gvvd Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('z'or'i'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations IA 2A 3A 4A Curb camp does not exist and Is needed , Curb tamp does not land In crosswalk 1 No d'x 4'dear 5ac_c et hese opf curb ram Curbed side is not 90'or hes traversable ad)acent surface X Floc(Tass slope Isgregtnr than 10% X Curb rarpojun tag Slope Is greater than 5.33% Blended transition running slope is greater than 5% CliEthru rams running!tope is greeter than 5% I Remove and replace curb ramp Club ram ovens slope is greater than 2% • Cut-hrmn cross slope is greater than 5% I Cut-thrum r Curb ramp width Is less than 48" X' i X Cut-thru coons width is less than 09' Permanent obstruction 140.25"I in cub rampllanr6nglllares X Temporary obstruction 0.0:25")In curb rampSanding0teea X Remove temporary obstruction tin textured surface at base of curb ramp X For Intersection ramps and commercial rrriveway ramps, No color colgrast a1 bsae of curb ramp X install color Truncated domes L ndl agnea does not exist and is needed Landing,.area is less Than 5'x 5'or slopes greater than 2% X X Remove and replace Tiaing area Missingor.n.pedesbinn push buttons X X X fnsls�p�u fiuutieilyde sad APS!rush Mellen! nsta Pedestrian push button is offset more than 5'from the nearest X IS put—T I..,i polo and relocate pecan peat crosswalk edge buttons Pedestriian ush button offset more than lir from curb face Pedestrianpush button Is not parallel to crosswalk 00 , Relocate pedestrian push buttons- PerlestAagpush button height Is greater than 46" Pedestrian push button diameter Is not 2" .‘PedeetritiriELish button sjgn does not exist Pedesirlen push button sign Is not MUTOO approved — Clear Hoc/Amos dots nal exist and is needed XX� Install clear floor space Clear floor space for pedaoarien push button is less then 30'x 48' X Remove and replace clear floor space or has a.slope greater than 244 Missingof no pedestrian signal heads X X X Install countdown pedestrian signal hexa Curb ramp transition onto roadmap Is greater than 025" X curb ramp transition Courtier dope of the gutter or street at the foot tithe curb ramp.Is X X Fix curb ramp counter slope greater than 5% Pandlnq occurs al base ci&0[b ramp _ Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 228 of 316 • Klmley-Rom and Associates,Inc. "-"_ - - Intersection of Southwest P and Southwood Dr Photo,rahs GPSID: 18 • _ T.y aCt -•.t • Ramp to Ramp 2A Ramp 3A Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 4 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer el this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry"The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esd,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esrl Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esti(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DlgltalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community End of Project Description for Project 1B Intarsectionnlnl sadimes(Pkwy and Southwood Dr Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 229 of 316 Kieeley-Hoa and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Pro'ect Desert.tion for Si.nalized Intersection __ Client: City of College Station Date:4121/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.: 0 51 271 40 8 . Checked 8y - :SRA Corridor: OPS ID:19 St,Nemo: Wellborn Rd City: College Station -u s• ItemDego Ion !clan ii All Unit Pr to Item oat TxDOT 110.6001 EXCAVATION!ROADWAY} 0 CY 5 _ 10.00 $ - TaDOTS2g-0002 CURBITYJ 0 .....LF 3 15.00 ,.$. - TxDOT 531.6001 CONC SIDEWALKS{41 7 SY 3 _-_�..45,0__5 ,_3;].•5,00 MOOT 531 CURB RAMPS.trc page 2 of report for details) 2 EA $ •'j,5f1Q-W_ _,. 3,000,00 Td10T 5003-6002 RETROFIT DIT WARN SURF[CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF 3 __ 50.04 J,_ TxDOT 104-6015 REMOVING CON;$SIDEWALKS) 10 SY $ 9.1X1 5 g0.00,_ Tx60T687-6002 PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON POLE 6 EA $ 1,400.00 $, 8,400.00 TxDOT 577 ELIM EXT PAVE MRK 0 MRKS 0 _ IF $ 2.80 74307668/078 REFL PAV MRK PREP,TY I&TY II(1W 24561-D) 430 _- LF $ 8.50 r$ 3,655.00 Tx-DE/7588-6005 FED ISLYCCT PUSH BUTTON LAPS) __.EA 5 1,300.00 5 7,800.00 TxOOT690-6030 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS EA -_- 5 _.125410,..$. .. - — RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS EA 5 30094. 5_. Tx3078828046 PED SIG SEC{LED)ICOUNTDOWNI EA — PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN EA j 150.00 $ — REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN EA $ ..... — REPAVE ROADWAY LS $ 5,000.00 5 15,000.00 — FIX PONDING LS $ 2.000.00 $ — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSIT10N LS $ 2_„000_g — _MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION LS $ 5400.00 S - — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION LS $ 500.00_$ 1,000.00 — FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE LS $ 2.000.00 $ Basle for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 42,260.00 Ed No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 6,745.71 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%tr-) 20% $ 8,994.29 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cosi: $ 58,000.00 P eat Location _ I -- -.. ., •, 1 �f'" _ R�,r _ r w,4 p 4},, r CO' j s i° 4I) N f ID i1 t y 1111 IFCeld Observations_ _ _ _ _ __ _ Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations N E S W Patti of travel pavement candltwn Poor Dangerous Dangerous NLA. Repave roadway and Ira/tall creeewslk lsa•ru-,,-':'-i..,i to s.- Path of travel running slope le greater than 5% NIA - ... Path of travel cress elope is greater Olen 5% FIA Crosswalk width is Nee Then 6' NIA FIA NIA NIA Install crosswalk pavement markings Crosswalk ebbing condition Nene None None N/A Curb Ramp ID('{or'I'In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Curb Ramp Issues 1 241 341. Recommendations Corp ramp dace not axlet end is needed �_ Curb romp does not lend in crosswalk No 4'X 1'Meer apace at bane of curb ramp, Curbed side le net goy or has traversable ediacent surface Fiera exose slope ie greater than 10% . Curti ramp running atope iegreeter than B.334._ Blended transition running elope la greater than 5°M Cul-Thu ramp mmring elope Is greater Than 5% Curb ramp cross elope Is greater than 2% X Remove and replace curb ramp Cut-Itru ramp cross elope is greater then 5% Curb ramp width in less than 48' ONHtau ramp width Is fess than S9" Permanent obstruction(>0.251 in curb rempllendino0aroa _ X Temporary obstruction(>025')in curb rampllardinghlerea _ -X X Remove lempmary obstruction No lexteuod surface et base of etch rump No color contrast at bone of crab ramp Landing area does not axial and to needed L,�area Is Cess than 5'x 5'or sloygs greater than 2% X Remove and replace landing area Missing or no pedestrian push buttons X_ XXX Install push button pole and APS push butioiis Pedestrian push button is offset more than 5'from the nearest crosswalk edge Pedestrian push button offset more then I0•from curb face - Pedestrian push button is not parallel to crosswalk ___ Pedestrian push button height is greater Than 41" Pedestrian push button diameter is not 2" Pedestrian push button sign does nd exist Pedeslrlan push button sign Is not MUTCD amp,revcd Clear floor space does nal exist and is needed X X X X Install clear floorspace Clear flour space for pedestrian push button Is less than 30"0 41 or hes a.slope greater than 2% Missing or no pedestrian signal heads X XX X Install countdown pedestrian signal head Curb ramp transihan onto roadway Is greater than 0.25' Counter Nope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is greater than 5% Papering oscura eJ base of curb ramp Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 230 of 316 Kirnlu,r�-Ham mel 17ssociales.inc. _ _ lof.Southwest Pkwi Ad 4"J__clibom Rd Photographs _— GPS ID -- 19 r _4111‘ - • • Corner 1 No Ramp(1z) Ramp 2A Ramp 3A MN�M Corner 4 No Ramp(4z) Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry,The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs, Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esrl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigilalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community End of Pra act Descri•tion for Pro'ect 19 Intersection of Southwest Pkw and Wellborn Rd Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 231 of 316 INimlay- ured Associates,Inc. -- - - Priority:6 I ProiNora ect Description for Signalized Intersection `-f -_-_ _ _ Client: City of College Station Date:4121116 i Program: ADA Self•Evatuatlon and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE O RA Na.: 001271409 Checked Ely:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy _. _ Gee ED:50007 __i--__ Protec!Name; Intersection of Southwest Pknr and Welsh Ave Cit: College Station Item No. Item Description quantify Urrt Unit Price Item Cost TxDOT 1108001 TEXCAVATION(ROADWAY) 0 CY $ 10.00 $ - ToDOT 529-6002 CURB(TY II) __- -^_ 0 LF 5 15.00 $ ToDOT 531-6001 CONC SIDEWALKS(4") 26 SY $ 45.00 $ 1,170.05 T0DOT 531 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of report for details) 5 FA $ 1,500.00 $ 7,600.00 T0DOT 50038002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF-(CAST IN PLACE) 10 SF $ 50.00 $ 500.00 TOOT .-6015 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWAIKSI_ 61 SY $ 0.00 $. 459.00 -MOT 0978002 PEDESTRIAN P1151161JITON POLE 6 EA $ 1,400.0D $ 8,400.00 TxDOT077 _ELIM EXT PAVE MRK&MAKS o LF $ 2.80_5 - TxDOT 666107$ REEL PAV MRN MEL TY I&TY II 124YBLD) 496 LF $ 550 $ 4,216 00 ToDOT0656001 PED DETECT PUSH BU.7TON f+lFS) 4 EA 5 1,300.00 5 5,200.00 TtDOT 690-6034 REMOVAL OF PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 0 EA $ 125.0D $ - RELOCATE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTONS 3 EA $ 300.00 $ 900.00 Tx00T662-501R FED SVG SEC(LED)(COUNTDOWN} 0 EA $ 500.00 $ - — ,PE DESTRI AN PUSHBUTTON SIGN 0 EA $ 150.00 $ - - REMOVE PEDESTRIAN PUSH BUTTON SIGN 0 EA .J 50.0D_$ - !REPAVE ROADWAY. 4 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 29000.00 ,FIX PONDING 3 L5 5 2,00000 $ 5,000,00 FIX CURB RAMP I K,ANSITION 3 LS $ 2,000.0fl $ 5,000.00 (MEDIAN NOSL MODII IICATION 0 LS $ 5,000,00 $ ...—.—... O..__._._ .- ;REMOVE fRAMP COFYSTRUCTION 2 L8 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 R COUNTER SLOPE I LS 5 2,000.00 $ 2,050A0, Basis tor C-ost Projection Subtotal $ 03,345.00 la No Design Completed Engineering:(%+I-) 15% $ 9,709 29 ❑ Preliminary Design Contngelwy:(%+l-) 20% $ 12,945.71 O Final Design Estimated Project Cast: 9 0.6,9004.0_ eat Laeation '}, \\''''''' \>". ."'W ,\ -.. J - 11114 l fr 4t keil ,• _ .ill 0 - ✓ a M.. 1IFieid CbsePratians Intersection Issues N F Crosswalk c w Recommendations Path of travel pavement condition Dangerous D,nner.rs I .__n yemue 7 sfeaeae Repave roadway and Install crosswalk poeee or roar k ogs _, P lir el tru ming shape Is greater than 595 �avel - ._.._ ._.._ ..._ Rani I travel crows slope Is greater tan 5% — ---- --._ _.— _.. Ciosswaik yilb is leis fess than G —Remove and replace crosswalk pavement markings I. walk stripb sort tieo Worn loon Were , Coed Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID{'i or','In ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations IA 2A 3A 3B 4A Curb ramp does eel exist and is needed I --- Curb ramp dues not land in crosswalk .- _____. No 4'x 4'clear apaWe at hose of curb ramp _ Curbed side I0 noFt 90`Ur h_.s_{raversable ad cm1 surface - Flat ecross elopelslsgreaier than 10% X X Curb ramp runrdng slope Is ponder than 5.33% Blended transition runnin0 slrpn ingreaterThen 5% Cat-thnnalngs running slope Is greater lhan 6% Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp crapS dope Is greater than 2% X Cut-thru ramp moss slope Is greater'then 5% Curb ra inp width Is less then 48" Cut-!iair ramp xidlh Is less than 69" _ Perrnanentebsruetan('0.25')In curb rempfarwtingftlnrea ,,X 1 crnporary abslnuWd en(08.25}in curb.rempflanng'llecas X X Remove lemporar struction No[coloredd surface al base of cork ramp X X X for intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps,II Ne color contrast at base of sub ramp X X X install color truncated domes Lan[kng,area does not exist and Is needed X Install landing area Land ggrea Is less than rslepes greater then 2% X X Remove and replace lathiFg area Missingpr noyedesalanyush buttons X X X X Install push button pole and APS push buttons Pedestrian push button Is offset more then 5'from the nearestX X Install push button pole and locate pedestrian push crosswalk edge buhnr,r. ,Pedestrian push button otfaet more than 19'1mm curb.lace _ :Podesbian pushn Mitten Is not parallel to crosswalk Pedestrian push button halgtrl is greater than 48' X X X Relocate ped6,trrim pee!:buttons Pedestrian push button ttameter is not 2' . Pedestrian push button sign doss not exist Pedestrian push button sign Is not MIJTCD approved Clear floor space dues not exist and Is needed X X X X Install dearlionr spa co Clear Iloor space for pedestrian push button Is less Than 30`z 46" X X Remove and replace clear floor space er has a Slone greater than 2% __.. kising or no pe ds stri ansignal heads - .. Curbamp_tr -ti_ to roadwa ie grealee than 0.25" X X X Fix curb ramp transitionCounter slope_of the gu0er or street at the foot of the curb ramp is X Fix curb ramp counter slope greater Lhan,5% P andno occurs at base of c llkf9pH1 1 X X- X F^I.x ponding Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 232 of 316 IKlmleyHom and Associates,inc._ intersection of Southwest Plrwy and Walsh Ave ['Photographs _ - _ _ GPS ID: 90007 — S11 ....7...il i. •r 1111111r- 3 Ramp IA Ramp 2 -717 7 ,41111t- .._... Ramp 38 Ramp 4f Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) f3 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing island Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 ere based on the Information known to Engineer at this lime end represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs Project Location Map Sources: Esrl,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esrl Japan,METI,Earl Chine(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigilaiGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community ['End of Project Dascdption for Project 00007 Interaoctl of Saathwost Pkwy and Walsh Ave - - - — --- Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 233 of 316 City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Update Sidewalk Cost Projection Summary 4/21/2015 GPS ID Project Name Cost Projection 1 George Bush Dr $ 32,000.00 2 George Bush Dr $ 56,000.00 3 George Bush Dr $ 31,000.00 4 Southwest Pkwy $ 86,000.00 5 Southwest Pkwy $ 96,000.00 6 Southwest Pkwy $ 74,000.00 7 Southwest Pkwy $ 78,000.00 8 Southwest Pkwy $ 63,000.00 TOTAL $ 516.000.00 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 234 of 316 _~_~ Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. U ��e�o�"npu""x"om°°"mo"mu" U Client: City of College Station Date; 04/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By: EPE KHA : 081271408 Checked By:SRA Corrdior: George Bush Dr GPS ID: 1 Limits: Texas Ave-Rosema�= ���tion��== �_________________--__- City: Colleg i Item Cost Item No. !Item Description Quantity 1 Unit Unit Price 1 Includes Engineering(15%)end 22 REMOVE OBSTRUCTION 9 -"r Ls $ 1,000.00 $ 12,150.00 — :REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION LS -.1.-$ 500.00 1 $ 1,350.00 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 31,735.62 El No Design Completed Estimated Project Cost: $ 32,000.00 The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry,The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable casts, |om°w"xnvmmury `- Priority Length(LF) Cost High 322 $ 24,719.46 ' Handrail Needed I Compliant 1 276 .1 '-Not Prioritized i 0 $ 31.735,62 Subtotal nw Sidewalk Total --1 11C��� ��o"��" ) `� Facility Cost Sidewalk Total ..I$ 32,000.00 End of 1[_ o. 7) p___Ilt(rm for Proiept 1 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 235 of 316 Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Project Description for Sidewalk Corridor Client: City of College Station Date: 04121115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By: EPE KHA No.: 061271408 Checked By: SRA Corrdlor: George Bush Dr GPS ID: 2 Limits: Rosemary_i_nr Redmond E?r__.____._•_.,.__._._..•_._..._._..,__•_•_._,,.__............_.__.__._WW_._.__._...__._._ City: College Station __I I E iItem No. Item Description 1 Quantity [ Cost Unit Unit Price 'fvvivdeo EngineItemedg(15%)and 1 P 1 1 Contingency(20%) . TxDOT 450 ;RAIL HANDRAIL 0 ; LF I $. 89.001 $ . TxDOT 531-6001 CONC SIDEWALKS_�1�._ __.• _._._......_.•.__ ' 350 °.__.___.._.SY.................... ._._._. _._ 45.00i` $.___._._._. 21.:262.03 12 .1 306004 1DRIVEWAYS(CONCH 0 SY $ 6000.I $ J TxDOT 104-6017 REMOVING CONC DRIVEWAYS SY i $ 15 00 $ - 1 0._..._. _... ._. ..__..__. r TxDOT 104-6015_jREMOVING CONC.(SIDEWALKS1 339 iW SY_ 1,.$,. 900 t $ 4,123.78 TxDOT 5003-6002 ;RETROFIT DET WARN SURF CASTJN PLACE 0 SF 1 $ 50.00 $ PRE-FAB RAILROAD PLATES 0 LS _13 36 000 001 $ TxDOT 530-6005 ;DRIVEWAYS ASPHALT CONC PAV F 278 F SY J_.$ 35.00 P $ 13 11818 WELDED STEEL GRATE 0 EA $ 1,300.06 F $ °RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT ,._,.. ,., 0 �_ LS _�_$._ .._ 2.000.00 i $ - 0 LS 1000.00 `ADJUST UTILITY ELEVATION I $ i $ -- ;REMOVE OBSTRUCTION -1 11 LS 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 14,850.00 '-REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION _....__._j_._ .__._•.._._iLS -..j_.$......_....__...__W 500.00_5 675.00 RAILROAD COMPANY FLAGGER1 0 Days) , $ _ 1,000 00",_$_ - TxDOT 105-6008 !REMOVING STAB BASE AND ASPH PAV(6") - -- 278 i SY $ 5.10 1 $ 1,911.51 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 55,940.51 RI No Design Completed Estimated Project Cost: $ 56,000.00 . ❑Preliminary Design Engineering.(%•%) 15% $ 6,215.61 ❑Final Design c:Gl,nyemYi,;.y err $ 5262.Ae The Engineer 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 hereln are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineers judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. MSidewalk Summary- - 1I -. . 1 Priority Length(LF) Cost High 11119 823 $ 51,988.98 Medium 77 $ 3,951.53 Low 24 $ - Handrail Needed 0 Compliant 25..._._..._ _.__.__•__..._.m_•_._..._._,___. Not Prioritized 0 Subtotal 952 _l____,5§,940.51. Sidewalk Total , $ 56,000.00 'Corridor Summary 1. Facility {{i Cost Sidewalk Total ] $ 56,000.00 Unsignalized Intersection Total , $ 18,000.00 1 Corridor Total I $ 74,000.00 End of Project Description for Project 2 George Bush Dr - _ I Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 236 of 316 Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Project Description for Sidewalk Corridor Client: City of College Station Date: 04121/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By: EPE KHA No.: 061271408 Checked By: SRA Corrdlori._.-.-. George Bush Or .•_.-....._._._.-.._._...._._.-._.-._._._..-._..._........._._.-._............................._.........._._. GPS ID_3 Limits: Redmond Dr-Holik St City: College Station 1 F -n r Item No. Iltem Description 1 Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost j [ I Includes Engineering(15%)and i 1 f I Contingency(20%) TxDOT 450 RAIL(HANDRAIL) 1 0 •9 K $ 69,00; $ TxDOT 531 6001 KONG SIDEWALKS 14 1 i 368 1 SY l $ 45,00 1 $ 22 330 04 TxDOT530-6004lDRIVEWAYS(GONG)"`___„,..„_.... ._..._...._.3....___._oi SY-..-._ $._......_.,....__..._60:000T:_.________._._..... TxDOT 104-6017 REMOVING CONCyDRIVEWAYSI i 0 1 $ 15 0 TxDOT 104 6015 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) 351 SY $ 9,00 � $ 4,259.70 $ 50.00 I $ TxDOT 5003-6002 ;RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) I. 0 f SF - PRE-FAB RAILROAD PLATES 0 LS $ 36,000.00 $ TxDOT 530-6005 !DRIVEWAYS(ASPHALT CONIC PAV) i 0 $Y •I••$..•.• •.•-,.•_•,.••35.00 $ - .............._._�._s.__....._ , ....._._...�...___. ... ........ t WELDED STEEL GRATE 1 0 EA $ 1,300 00 f $ RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT f 0 LS $ 2,00000 $ :ADJUST UTILITY ELEVATION 0 LS I $ 1 00000 $ - TREMQVE OBSTRUCTION 1 i LS I $ 1,000.00 $ 1,350.00 --- :REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 4 1 LS $ 500,00 $ 2.700.00 [RAILROAD COMPANY FLAGGER 0 I Dav(s( $ 1,000.00 $ TxDOT 105-6008 !REMOVING STAB BASE AND ASPH PAV(6") i 0 1 SY I $ 5.10 I $ - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 30,639.74 121 No Design Completed Estimated Project Cost: $ 31,000.00 O Preliminary Design Engineering:(%0y 15% $ 3,404.42• ❑Final Design Contingency:I%.y 20% 3 4,02022 The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's Judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs MI not vary from its opinions of probable costs. )Sidewalk Summary Priority Length(LF) Cost High 1 415 i $ 19,436.20 Medium 244i $ 11.203.54 _._._............ ..._......_._._..._.,._......._. .,.._.__._......__._._._®._.__._..._._.__...... Low 0 $ - Handrail Needed 1 0 1 $ Compliant 493 = Not Prioritized 0 Subtotal - , . $ 30,639.74 1,155 1.....:._._._.-.-..- ..-._.-....-.._.-..-..-. Sidewalk Total I $ 31,000.00 • (Corridor Summary Facility Cost l 1 Sidewalk Total I $ 31.000.00 Unsignalized Intersection Total I $ 52,000.00 Corridor Total J $ 83,000,00 End of Project Description for Project 3 George Bush Dr Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 237 of 316 Klmley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Project Description for Sidewalk Corridor - -----....---- --- - - - Client: City of College Station Date: 04/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By: EPE KHA No.: 061271408 Checked By: SRA . ._ Corrdlor: Southwest Rkyify GPS ID: 4 . Limits: Texas Ave-Anderson St City: College Station 1 1 I 1 item No. Item Description i Quantity i Unit Unit Price i :motmos Eitz1Cfrogs(t15%).0 i I 1 i Contingency(20%) TxDOT 450 _.1RAIL(HANDRAIL) 0 ' LF ' $ 89.00 .... . . TxDOT 531-6001 CONC SIDEWALKS(n 677 _.1 SY ....1 $ 45,00[$ 41.156.54 TxDOT 530-6004 IDRIVEWAYSICONa, , 345 1 SY , , $ 60.00 i $ 27,968.57 TxDOT 104-6017 !REMOVING coNgpFilvEwAys)._ ] 345I sy $ 15.00[$ 6,992.14 TxDOT 104-6015 !REMOVING CONCISIDEWALKS1 _ 601 SY $ 9,00 i $ 7.296.80 TxDOT 5003-6002 !RETROFIT DET WARN SURF CAST IN PLACE 0 SF $ 50.00 -- _.JERE-FAB RAILROAD PLATES 0 1LS $ 36000.00 TxDOT 530-6005 [DRIVEWAYS(ASPHALT CONC PAV) 1 0 i SY $$ 35.00 _ !WELDED STEEL GRATE r 0 - EA 1,300.00T$ - [RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT 1 0 i LS 1 $ 2,000.00 1 $ - - [ADJUST UTILITY ELEVATION I 1 LS $ 1 000 00, $ 1,350.00 - -TREMOVE OBSTRUCTION 0 LS $ 1000.00 $ - [REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 1 LS 4 S 500.00 I $ 675.00 IRAILROAD COMPANY FLAGGER 0 "1r-) A..q._ ....1 $ 1 000.00 ..„..._. TxDOT 105-6008 !REMOVING STAB BASE AND ASPH PAV(6") I 0 i SY I $ 5.10 1 $ - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 85,439.05 El No Design Completed Estimated Project Cost: $ 86,000.00 ID Preliminary Design Engineering:(%.A) 15% $ 9,493 23 1:1 Final Design ContingertT(51 V-) 20% $ 12557.14 The Engineer 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 Engineer al this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 'Sidewalk Summary .... Priority Length(LF) Cost High ; 471 I $ 27,375.49 Medium i 815 1 $ 38,931.79 ._ Low ; 246 1 $ 19,131.76 ._.., 0 Handrail Needed 1 ,.._. -V- -1--$ - Compliant 875 I Not Prioritized I 4 1 Subtotal i i 2412 $ 85,439.05 , A I- Sidewalk Total , I $ 86,000.00 . ,... Corridor Summary I ------ - ,---— Facility Cost Sidewalk Total . i $ 86,000.00' .... Unsignalized Intersection Total ,i $ 85, .000 00 _._ [ Corridor Total 1 $ 171,040.00 lEric )f Project DespriptIrwv Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 238 of 316 Kim ley-Horn and Associates,Inc. .�. , Project Description for Sidewalk Corridor Client: City of College Station Date: 04/2,1/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By: EPE KHA No.: 061271408 Checked By: SRA Corrdtor: Southwest Pkwy GPS ID: 6 Limits: Anderson St-Glade St City: College Station Item No. Item Description 1 Quantity 1 Unit 1 Unit Price Cost Includes Engineering(65%)and I I € Contingency(20%) 0 F ANDRAI .._._._._.__.__._._.__._._.__..__._..._._._._.__._._..._._._.-...-.__.._._._._i.___._._......_.__.... _.._E. TxDOT 531-6001 TxDOT 450 [RAIL -.zSIDEWALKS(4" t 987 {1 SY #-$ 45,00 E$ 59,982.95 TxDOT 530-6004 IDIRIVEVVAYSACORICL. 1 95 t SY i $ 60.00 € $ 7,722.99' TxDOT 104-6017 !REMOVING LONG(DRIVEWAYS) r 95 ! SY i $ 15.00 $ 1,930.75 TxDOT 104-6015 iR,EMOVING CONC SIDEWALKSj 796 SY $ 9.00€$ 9,699.86 TxDOT 5003-6002 !RETROFIT DET WARN SURF SCAST IN PLACE) t 0 € SF 1 $ 50.00: $ - PRE-FAB RAILROAD PLATES 0 I LS ii $ _.,._... 36,000.00 i TxDOT 530-6005 LDRIVEWAYS_IASPHALT,CONC,PAVE._._._......_._......m_,__..,.__,_-) 43._._._._._.)..._._ SY,.. 1.$ .__._ 35.00 L_:_._._._._._...._..2.ti3029 - WELDED STEEL GRATE 0 EA $ 1,300 00 C$ RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT _.__,.,_....._ _............_.e..._..._._._.__LSi.. 2,000.00 i ._.__._....__._._....-..-._:_........ ADJUST UTILITY ELEVATION 0 € LS ! $ 1,000001 $_____...._.__ rREMOVE OBSTRUCTION , gLS 1 100000 1 $ 1215000 � - !REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 3 1 LS I $ 500.00 I.$ _._ Z025.00 RAILROAD COMPANY FLAGGER ___m_._. o ! Day(sl ___._ .$' 1,000.00 r$ „______ . , TxDOT 1-056008 (REMOVING STAB BASE AND ASPH PAV(6") 1 43 1 SY $ 5.10) $ 295.84 i Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 95,837.67• 21 No Design Completed Estimated Project Cost: $ 96,000.00 ❑Preliminary Design T Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 10,64063 ❑Final Design eonnnyu'my:f%+I.) 20% $ 14.166.17 The Engineer 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 Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry,The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Sidewalk Summary Priority ! Length(LF) Cost High 1,163._.........3...$_._ ..._._._64134.65.. Medium t 622 1 $ 26 219.62 Low 223 [ $ 5;483.39 Handrail Needed 0 1 $ Com lian! 744 Not Prioritized 9 Subtotal , 2,761 ! $..................95;837;67 ' Sidewalk Total -...t , $ 96.000 00 [1Corridor Summary Facility Cost 1 Sidewalk Total LI 96,000.00 Unsianalized Intersection Total 1 $ 104,000.00 1 Corridor Total ; $ 200,000.00 'End of Project Description for Project 5 Southwest.Pkwy - N Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 239 of 316 Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Project Description for Sidewalk Corridor Client: City of College Station Date: 04/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By: EPE KHA No.: 061271408 Checked By: SRA Corrdlor Southwest Pkwy GPS ID: 6 Limits: Made St-LawyerSt City: Colleae Station F Item Cost Item No. !Item Description i Quantity ! Unit Unit Price Includes Engnaanng(15%)and 3 Confinoancy(20$6) l - - TxDOT 450 !RAIL SHANDRAlq 0 .. LF I $ 89,00 1 $ - T TxDOT 531-6001 GONC SIDEWALKS 4" 945 9 SY $ 45.00 57 416.04 TxDOT 530-6004 DRIVEWAYS CONC 10 TxDOT 104-6017 ;REMOVING CONC(DRIVEWAYS) 0 !796 t SY $ 15.00 $ TxDOT 104-6015 REMOVING CONC SIDEWALKS SY 9.00 9 675,07 TxDOT 5003-6002 !RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACES 0 i SF $ 50.00 I $ CPRE FAB RAILROAD PLATES 0 LS f $ 36,000.00 TxDOT 530-6005 !DRIVEWAYS(ASPHALTCONC PAVE „_•„_____.______. _....__..0 _SY $ 35.00 $ WELDED STEEL GRATE 0 ! EA $ 1,300.00 $ RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT LS 2000.00 $ --- !ADJUST UTILITY ELEVATION I 3 LS__..._-___._ ._.__.__. 1 000.00 $ 4,050.00 -._ !REMOVE OBSTRUCTION 2 ! LS $ 1,000.00 $ 2,700.00 !REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 ! LS I $ 500.00 i $ - ;RAILROAD COMPANY FLAGGER 0 t Da s T $ 1,000.00 $ TxDOT 105-6008 [REMOVING STAB BASE AND ASPH PAV(6") ___.______ 0 SY . $ 5.10; $ - I Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 73,841.10 E No Design Completed Estimated Project Cost: $ 74,000,00 ❑Preliminary Design Engmeadng:(%.i) 15% $ 8204.57 ❑Final Design Conringan y(%.,9 20% $ 10939 02 The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. S idewa.lk Summary Priority Length(LF) I Cost High ! 654 ! $ 32,316.51 Medium I 984 1$ 39 758.51 Low l 238 l $ 1,766.08 Handrail Needed 10 Compliant 1,655 ;..-_•__._•_•.,_._ ._,_,_ _,..•_. Not Prioritized 9 Subtotal i _..,...__......_-_m..._...._.._................._......-.y 3,550 }...$.........__,..73;84110 Sidewalk Total $ 74,000.00 Corridor Summary Facility Cost Sidewalk Total $ 74,000.00 Unsignalized Intersection Total ! $ 103,000.00 Corridor Total 1 $ 177,000.00 kid of Project Description for Project 6 Southwest Pkwy Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 240 of 316 Klmley-Horn and Associates,Inc. l Project Description for Sidewalk Corridor_ Client: City of College Station Date: 04/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By: EPE 'KHA No,: 061271408 Checked By: SRA Corrdior: Southwest Pkwy GPS ID: 7 Limits: Lawyer St-Medina Dr City: _ College Station - 3 -.- r I I I. Item No. item Description f Quantity 1 Unit Unit Price r Item Cost 1 Includes Engineering(15%)and i I i Contingency(20%) TxDOT 450 IRAIL(HANDRAIL) 0 i LF $ 89,00 1 $ TxDOT 531-6001 iCONC SIDEWALKS(4'a)_______m_ 949 SY_.____.__I_$.__..__. __4500 1 $ 57622.51 TxDOT 5306004 !DRIVEWAYS(CONC) [ 0 € SY I $ 60.00 $ TxDOT 104-6017 REMOVING CONC(DRIVEWAYS) 0 SY $ 15.00f $ TxDOT 104-6015 !REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) F 1360 j SYa $ 9 00 1$ 10452 28 TxDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE 0 SF $ 50.00 $ jPRE FAB RAILROAD PLATES 0 LS $ 36.000.00 $ - TxDOT 530-6005 'DRIVEWAYS(ASPHALT CONC PAV) 31 SY I $ 35.00 i $ 1,463.48' -- WELDED STEEL GRATE 0 EA $ .10.90.00 1 $ 1.RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT F 0 LS $ 2 000.00 I $ iADJUST UTILITY ELEVATION 3 LS f $ 1,000.00 $ 4.050.00 . _ (REMOVE OBSTRUCTION 2 LS € $ 1,000.00 $ 2,700,00 (REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION I 1 I LS I $ 500.00 I $ 675,00 !RAILROAD COMPANY FLAGGER fE 0 IDay(s) ( $ 1.000.00 $ - ^ - TxDOT 105-6008 ;REMOVING STAB BASE AND ASPH PAV(6") € 31 i SY 1 $ 5,10 F $ 213.25 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 77,176.52 M No Design Completed Estimated Project Cost: $ 78000,00 ❑Preliminary Design Engineering:(%+y 15% $ 8,575.171 ❑Final Design c wrrgeaey.r%N-1 20% $ 1i,d33.561 The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor,materials,equipment,or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices ar over competitive bidding or market conditions.Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,ar actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs, Sidewalk Summary Priority Length(LF) Cost High 3 441 i $ 24,162.03 Medium 976 , $ 43,150,89 Low __.__._._...._,.'_._...._._..373_._._..._...$...._._.__._._.9863.60 Handrail Needed 0 - Compliant 655 I Not Prioritized { 4 j Subtotal 2448 1 $ 77 176.52 Sidewalk Total I ; $ 781000.00 'Corridor Summary_ II Facility Cost Sidewalk Total I $ 78,000.00 Unsianalized intersection Total $ 126,000.00 Corridor Total i $ 204.000.00 ._ __ _. _ IlEnd of Project Description for Project 7 Southwest Pkwy . -_ ----1 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 241 of 316 Kimley-Horn arid Associates,Inc. Project Description for Sidewalk Corridor Client: City of College Station Date: 04/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By: EPE 1KHA No.: 061271408 Checked By: SRA Corrdioc__._,___.__.......Southwest PkwyGPS ID: 8 Limits: Medina Dr-Welsh Ave ..........__..._.__.___•__...._..........,._._......_......_....,......_._..._........-........__._._._...__.__•_._._._.__...--._..._...__._..._..._._-_._____._..._...____._._..._._._._._..._._..._._.__.__.__._._._-_._W._,•_w•.•_•_..,W__•„,11•.1•.,1 W-.-._._...........1.1.1................1 City: College Station E Item No. Item Description f Quantity Unit [ Unit Price Item Cost Includes Engineering(15%)end , I Contingency Cost) TxDOT450 ;RAIL(HANDRAILI ! 0 r LF f $ 89.00 $ - ..._._.__._-._._..._._._•.._._._._..,---...._a_._..._._...__._......c......_._......_-.._._._.."'--'---'--'-'--"'"-'---•__•_•_•__..._._..._.._._._..._......___..._.. _._....__._..._._._.__._._.-.,.,_._.,.,.-,_._,..,-.-...,,._..,..,._.,......._................_...1.1.1..........1-...._....-.- TxDOT 531-6001 -CONC SIDEWALKS(4") 842 SY $ 45.00 $ 5115957 ._._...•_•...1.11.1..._..._._.__....,_...._...-__ TxDOT 530-6004 ;DRIVEWAYS(CONC) 0 SY ._...___._._.__._._.._._._.... .:1...1.1:1. _.m_.__:_.. :_._...r._r_._-_ ..... .1.1.11. $ 60.00 $ TxDOT 104-6017 }REMOVING CONC(DRIVEWAYSI t 0 SY I $ 15.00 $ - TxDOT 104-6015 "REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) __..._._•_763_._._._l._._._......_... SY....................L..$..._..__._..___.._9:00•...$,_„.._•._._.__.9 274.91 ........._._.1.1.11 TxDOT 5003-6002 ;RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACEI j 0 ri SF $ 50.00 $ LPRE FAB RAILROAD PLATES 0tLS .1111_ .$11.11___.. 36,000 00 $ d_ s__.:_-_ _.___._I._ 1111_. .....___.__.___.__._.___-__._____,_a TxDOT 530-6005ThDRIVEWAYS(ASPHALT CONC PAVI 0 SY $ 35.00 $ ¢WELDED STEEL GRATE 0 EA $ 1,300 00 $ - _- )RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT j 0 LS $ 2 000 00 $ - ADJUST UTILITY ELEVATION_._._._. o 1111.. LS 1,060.00 $ —- REMOVE OBSTRUCTION 0 . LS ... $. ,_ 1,000.00 $ EREMOVETEMPORARYOBSTRUCTION 3 LS 50000 $ 2,025.00 W._.__... ...111. .1_ ;RAILROAD COMPANY FLAGGER 0 Dav(sl I $ 1,000 001 $ - _..__1.5.60_ ._,_.._ ...__...,. .... ..... ., TxDOT 105-6008 REMOVING STAB BASE AND ASPH PAV(6') 0 SY 1 $ 5,16r$ Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 62,459.48 Q No Design Completed Estimated Project Cost: $ 63,000.00 ❑Preliminary Design Engineering:(%./-) 15% $ 6,939.94 ❑Final Design cv;rwwry.(%.I) 20% $ 9,253,26 The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Sidewalk Summary Priority Length(LF) Cost High 548 i $ 22,471,50 Medium 838 _.•.•_. 1..11...1. . i..3...$ .., ,37r925 32 Low 87 1 $ 2,062.66 ........___._._._•__._...1.1.11._-._....__..:..•..•.:•.•_.......-_....._.._._.,.4,_.:......•_._•.._............................ Handrail Needed 0 f $ - Compliant 418 Not Prioritized 0 --•-- Subtotal [ 1,892 $ 62,459,48 _..... Sidewalk Total i$ 63,000,00 ++ Corridorsummary Facility — _1 Cost Sidewalk Total 1 $ 63,000.00 Unsianalized Intersection Total $ 104,000,00 Corridor Total $ 167,000.00 'End of Project Description for Project 8 Southwest Pkwy 1 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 242 of 316 City of College Station ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Update Unsignalized Intersection Cost Projection Summary 4/21/2015 GPS ID Project Name Cost Projection Priority 101 Intersection of George Bush Dr and Holik St $ 13,000.00 2 102 Intersection of George Bush Dr and Redmond Dr $ 29,000.005 103 Intersection of George Bush Dr and Rosemary Ln $ 18,000.00 2 104 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Potomac PI $ 18,000.00 2 105 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Bee Creek Dr $ 21,000.00 5 107 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Leona Dr(West) $ 27,000.00 _ 2 108 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Leona Dr(East) $ 14,000.00 9 110 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Medina Dr $ 13,000.00 9 111 _Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Medina Dr _ $ 14,000.00 9 112 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Hondo Dr $ 15,000.00 5 113 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Shadowwood Dr , $ 16,000.00 5 114 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Trinity PI $ 18,000.00 5 115 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Lawyer St $ 52,000.00 5 116 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Sabine Ct $ 13,000.00 13 117 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Langford St $ 40,000.00 2 118 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Laura Ln $ 37,000.00 2 119 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and N Bardell Ct $ 13,000.00 5 90000 Intersection of George Bush Dr and driveway(Lat. 30.6176; Long. -96.3245) $ 7,000.00 2 90001 Intersection of George Bush Dr and driveway(Lat. 30.6141; Long.,-96.3287) $ 10,000.00 2 90002 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and S Dexter Dr $ 36,000.00 2 90003 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.5975; Long.-96.3195) $ 10,000.00 5 90004 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.5973; Long.-96.3197) $ 5,000.00 5 90005 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.5973; Long.-96.3199) $ 5,000.00 9 90006 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.5971; Long.-96.3203) $ 5,000.00 9 90008 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.6024; Long.-96.3131) $ 5,000.00 2 90009 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.6032; Long. -96.3127) $ 7,000.00 2 90010 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.6043; Long.-96.3122) I $ 16,000.00 2 90011 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and midblock crossing(Lat. 30.6030; Long. - $ 18,000.00 2 • _ 96.3128) 90012 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.6040; Long.-96.3124) $ 9,000.00 2 90013 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.6048; Long.-96.3117) $ 10,000.00 2 90014 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.6052; Long.-96.3114) $ 13,000.00 2 90015 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.6057; Long.-96.3109) $ 10,000.00 2 90016 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.6062; Long.-96.3103) $ 25,000.00 2 90017 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.6069; Long.-96.3096) $ 10,000.00 5 90018 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.6069; Long.-96.3096) $ 7,000.00 5 90019 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.6064; Long.-96.3101) $ 10,000.00 9 90020 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat. 30.6058; Long.-96.3107) $ 10,000.00 9 TOTAL $ 599,000.00 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 243 of 316 K imley-Horb and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Pro eat Descri lion for tins!naked In tcrscctioo --- Clienn KHA Na.: 081271408 City of College Station Date:4/21/15 ADA Self-Evalun n atioand Transition Piano Program; Prepared By:EPE Checked By:SRA Corridor; George think Dr GPS ID:101 P roject Name: Intersection of George Bush Dr and Holik St CalrDc8Lrge Station - r gem No. hein G8880810 Ouentiba Unit Unit Price Sem Cost TaDOT 110-6001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAYi 0 CY 10.00 j - TxDOT 529-6002 CURB(TY II) - 0 LF __A 1 5.00 5 .......---- TaDOT 631-5001'CONC SIDEVVALKS(41 0 . SY ; 45.00 i. - ._aDOT.51,1_,.CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of report for details) I EA $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.017 TxDOT 5003-600ZRETROFIT DET WARN SIJRUCAST IN PLA_CX) 0 SF $ 50.00 $. 'LOOT-104-6015 REMOVING CONCVALKSI 11 Oh—1 9.00. $ 59.00 'NWT 577 SLIM EXT PAVE MRK It MRKS 0 4,f .$ 2.80 $ ' TxDOT 6561678 REFL PAV MRK PREP,,TY I&TY II(1/41241SLD) 9t) LF 5.50 5 53300 — REPAVE ROADWAY 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 — FIX PONDING 0 LS $ 2p00.00.$ _ _ - FIX CORE RAMP TRANSITION 0 LS I , 2 000.00 $ - — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS $ 5,000.00 5 - — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS J 500.00 $ - _ .- FIX COB Iriffl.lP COUNTER SLOPE 1 LS 5 2.000.00 $ 2,000.00 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 9,432.00 El No Design Completed Engineering:(%-,/-) 15% $ 1,529.14 O Preliminary Design Oonlingency:(%4-1-) 20% $ 2,038.86 O Final Design Estimated Pooled Cost; 5 13,009.00 Project Location — _A _ rie"'-'17 College , ti it oti• ,L,,i ., .. - / 4.9" ' • / .. 141 i ,..,,,,R. 4iv iv' • . le . l01 , nff . T. re ,,'"!) a., I' "4 :-. „.., -7, .7 -,,••••‘'N. • '' .. ct ....- . 0 • • ovo3+8, ' ,..._ ...de Field Observations1 - .... _ Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations N E S W Path ethanol pavement condition _WA IWA Dagmpus NIA Repave roadvra(and Install cresswart pavement markings PS'dfrirr9avAjZfolsnisa!Ilci7Ies'g're"L',:rtej,hrtegi:II'Or stop control Approaches N/A NIA X NA Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow approaches N/A N/A N/A N/A ---1.— — Crosswalk width is less than 6 N/A NIA MA 14/A install cras-swalk pavement markgs Crosswalk striping condition a.1 Rea No e Curb Ramp ID)'z'or"I'In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Curb Ramp Issues Recommendations —I i i a 2z 3A Cu/E)rams does not exist and in needed Curb remploas not land in crosswalk =1== N 4 x 4'dear_u_Aoe al base of curb ramp Carhed side is not 90or has traversable adiacent cur/ave_ P/are crass slope Is than 10% NI Curb ra.mq,runOilaslopa Is greater than 8.33% B lended transition ruiriningstamie greater than 6% MEM Cut-thru remrunning slaps is Wee,.Ill.,5% MIM= Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp cress slope is greater than 2% IIIIII CA-Ihru taro o_ ss sic a-is reater than 2% Ct_jja_rarp_pCdth Is leas than 46' ME Cut-thru ramp width is less than 60" PerMenent obstruction 1025")I curb ramarlandinalflares I MIES Te are obstruction'0.25 in curb ram 'encin!Mares No lectured surfaseAt basest ,Ws rampMI=In For Intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, ,Na color contrast al base of curb ramp ==NI Install color truncated domes Landing area dues not eaistsAeeded =.== landing area is less then 5'a 5'or elopes greater than r. EN Remove and Irene:tee randind area Curb ramp transition onto roadway is greater than 0.25" Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is ,reater Plan 5% ,_Mg Fix curb ramp counter slope 1Pondin2 OCCLIrS at bass ol curb!kiLdp_ i Comment Ramp 45 under conslrucnon Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 244 of 316 KI I Hum pnd Associates,Inc. Frrterseclion of Oeorge Bus!!Dr and Npllk S¢; PI t 9 pbs _ ___—_— — GPS1D: 101 • rr,1 11104611 • • Corner 1 No Ramp(1z) Corner2 No Ramp(2z) Ramp 3A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 1 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.TheEngineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs.. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,!GP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community IEnd of Project Descrl+tion for A e act 101 Intersection of Geer,e Bush Dr and Hook St Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 245 of 316 rIKindey-lion+and Asapclates,Inc. - - --- Priority:6 IIPnnjvut D�'u.rp0on for Unaignal¢ezl Irtteeaec0on --- Client: Cgy of College Station Date:4/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.: 061271405 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Goma Bush Dr _., ..... ._. .... PPS ID:102 Project Name:...Intersection of George Bush Dr and Redmond Dr - City: --`-- -- :_--- Item Nn,_ Rem Description Quantity Ualt Unit Price gem Cost r_ TxDDT 1106001..EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) 0 CY ,^$ 10.00 .- TOOT 529-6002 CURB(TY II] LF _lm15.00,,x, • TOOT 531.6001 CONC SIDEWALKS(..C.,1-- ____-_ 0 SY $ 45.00 $ - TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of repeat for details)._ 2 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 3.501_00, TpDO03-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 _ _ SF $ 50.00 $ TOOT 104-60OVING CON, AIDEWALKS) 20 SY .1®, 9.00 $ 180.00 TOOT 677 ELIM EXT RAVE MRK 6 MAKS 0 1.E _- -$ 2.80_.,_$. - TxDOT 666,+676 REFL PAV MRK PREE.,n 18 rY II(99I241SLD) 84 LF $, 6,50_$_______114.„00_ _ - REPAVE ROADWAY 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 —. FIX PONDING 2 LS 5 2,000.00 5 4,000.00 - FIR CURB RAMP TRANSITION 2 LS $ 2,000:00 $ 4,000.00 •- MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 �S _�`�:5a,000.�9,,;t . -.._.�....___... REMOVE TEMPORARYOBSTRUCTION _---_ 0I L3 5 500.00 - - FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 2 LS $ 2,004.00 .$ _ 4,000,00 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: 5 20,594,00 N No Design Completed Engineering:(%,-/-) 15% $ 3,474 00 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 4,63200 ❑ Final Design Estirnaled Project CoSti $ 29 000 00 I Pro'eet Location - -_-- — - �ry ft I it} 14'1 1+•�•u� fltr'r Station / Fel I �yit� - f r LLL CO tyNIO' -- Field Observations - - ---- - Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations S W Pa01 o travel pafomen!condition �= Dar ereus•_T Repave roadway and natal crosswak pavement markings Path of t „jiff n is r than 5%. 11111M11 .. N .-•-_.�—•-•-_.__.._ Path of travel cross slopeis greater than 2%for stop control .a.y,_a h__ N/A. X /A -than _ .... ,Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-Flow ,approaches ..... N/A N/A N/A Crosswalk width Is leas than 6' _ _ NfA__ N/A NIA Crosswalk oltlolna ogrdildan N/A WA WM Remove and replace crosswalk pavement markings Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID Cr or'I In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1z 2, 3A 4A __ _ Curb ramp does net exist and is needed Curb ramp does not land In creeewwlk / -•_� No 4_x 4'dear space at base of curb temp Curbed aide is not 90"or has traversable adlaeenl surface X X Flare cross elope is greeter;}hen,lg% Curb ramp running slope Is greeter than 8.33% _ Blended transition runningslge greater than 5% Cut-Ihru ramp runnngsto__Is greater than 5% Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp cross slope is(treater than 2%,:, -R X Cut•lhru ramp cross alope_isgresier than 2% Curb roma eldth Is less than 48" - X X Cul-Ihru lamp width Is less than 60' Permanents tructIon I?g25")In Curb ranlp/landlnNflares , Temporary obstructionIn curb I-atop/anding/flares No textured surface at base of curb rem X X For Intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, Na color contrast al base of curb ramp XX Install color truncated domes L dl a doesnot exist and is needed Landina area is less than 5'x 5 r slopes greater than 2% X X Remove toldr�ce an, Inn area Curb ramp Eenslu=onto roadway tgreator th n❑25' I X X ,Sic curb ramp transition - Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is X X Fix curb ramp counter slope greater than 5% ,Ponding occurs at base.4f NO,ramp . X ]( Fin ponding Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 246 of 316 1,..1,•Rom and Associates,lin:. Inler6ettiOn of Goorge Bush DL-nd Aadrnand Dr Ph to raphe - GPS ID: __102 ic `Irick ''+{ - .411111111k. - 7. ' IOW .••• ,.. v• iaillak& .. -i --: Corner 1 No Ramp(1z) Corner 2 No Ramp(2z) Ramp 3A • Ramp dA Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cul-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's Judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esrl,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esd(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community p-.--,d of Project Description for Project 102 intersection ofGeotgo Bush Dr and Redmond Dr .-_ ______ _- 0 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 247 of 316 IKimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Project Description for Line lgnalixed Intersection Client: City of College Station Data;4521/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE K RA No.; 051271405 Checked 13y:SRA Corridor: George Buah Dr OPS ID;145 Protect Name: intersection of George Bush Dr and Rosemary Ln.._-_-_., - City: College Statiorv.. --- tteen No. Item Description :].:,':miry iJnL__ Unit Price Item Cost TxDOT 110-6001 EXCAVATION{ROADWAY] 0 _... - -.._CY,�... -...--5.- 10.00.$ TxDOT 529-6002 CURB(TY II) __. ..—.._i__- fl_-... LF 1500D - TpDOT939-59,n CONC 51DEWALKS(41 0 SY $ 45,00 $ - TxDOT 531 CURB AMP,[see gaga 2 of report for details), 2 EA S 1,500.00 S 3,000,00 TeDOT$003-0002 RETROFIT PET WARN SURF(CAS,T IN PLACE,•_. 0 SF $ 50.00 5 TxOOT 1848015 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) ... 20 SY $ 9.00 $ 186.00 TOOT 87 E❑M EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS , - 0;,„_- L.F $_-._,_,.a..2 N_$.�.-_ TxDOT 6B0557$ REFL PAV MRK PREP,TY I&TY'II MI 24"(SLD) 89 LF $ 8,50 $ 680.00, -- REPAVE ROADWAY e--_ 1 LS 5 0,000,60 5 8,00050 --- FIX PONDING ... ... .............. 1 LS 5 2,000,00 $ 2.000.05 FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION _• 0 LS _5 2,000.00 $ • — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LB __5-'000_-O(1- $_,• , — _ REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS 5 500.00 $ — F �URBRBMPCDUNTE[iyj,0TG I LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2.000„00 Basis for Coat Projection Subtotal: 5 12,860,00 M No Design Completed Engineering:(%+l-) 15% $ 2,202 86 . ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+1-) 20% $ 2,937.14 0 Final Design Estimated Protect Cost: 5 18.005.00 ProjectLocation Al , . -I, z 7,/-.,,..,>7.11. 443 f J .9' anon 1 ✓moi �''�`'�'� ,r t 22/ //' 'AtA141/410K" e:. f ; Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations N E S W Path of bevel pavement condition Path of travel running slope is msaler titan 5% Palls of travel cross slope is greater Ihan2%for stop control a,. orhes N/AIsm X N/A Repave roadway and install crosswalk pavement markings Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow • caches N/A NIA NIA NIA Crosswalk width is less then 6" N/A MA NIA N/A Install crosswalk pavement markings Crosswalk etdptnp condition ,._ ..__ Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp.ID('Y or'i'In ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1s ?r 3A 4A Curb re mp daps not exist and is needed Curb ramp does not land in croammik No 4°x 4'clear apace et base of curb ramp Curbed side is not 90"or has traversable adjacent eurfeno X gj_are cross-slpya isgreater Than 10% Cart ramp rarunnln sg rope Isgraa ar then 8.33% transition Blended ansllion running elope is greater than 5% Cul-Ihnu ramp running slope le greater then 595 Cuyb remo crass Awe Is Beater Will 2% _X X Remove and replace curb ramp Cut4hre ramp crone elope is grea(er than 2% Curb ramp width is lege than 48"� X X Cut-thine ramp xirlh In teas than 60" _ __-- Parmanenl obstruction{30,251 In curb ramp/lending/flares_ -• : Temporary obstructionp025")in curb rempSendinglAares r - No texturesurface at base of curb ramp X X Per intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No I contrast et base of curb ramp - X X Install color truncated domes Landing area does nol exist and Is needed- .._. .a�,-..�. L ding.area Is less than 5'x 6'or slopes greater bran 2% X X Remove and tapioca landing area Curb ramp frenal4ononto roadway Is roaer than 0.25" Counter slope orthe gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is x Fix curb ramp counter slope plater than 5% , Pv.rims ocoars at base of curb ramp X Fix ponding _ Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 248 of 316 1.K y 11 nand Associates,Ina. Inlersectbn of Geefsre Bush Dr and Rasefna La Plti Ills -_ --_-- -__ - __ GPS ID: 103 tart"��rwa s: r Corner 1 No Ramp(1z) Corner 2 No Ramp(2z) Ramp 3A 40161111111.046. fiklik- Ramp4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esrl China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community End of Pro et Descri tion for Proect 103 Intersection of Geo a Bush Dr and Rosemary Ln ill Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 249 of 316 KimteyRom and Associates,Inc. Priority;2 Project Description tar Unsignalieed Intersection- Client: City of College Station — Date:4421716 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KNA No,: 061271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy GPO ID 104 .. .....r.__. Protect Name Intersection of southwest Pkwy and Potomac PI City: College Station I Item No. Item Dot Aon _._ it. ',r I1 _ L1n.r Unit P+..e Jigjlk coo' MOOT 110-6001 EXCAVATION�ROADWAY) -._. 0 CY 5 10.00 _._..,, TxDOT 520-6002 CURB{TY II) 0 _ T 53-6001 CONC SIDEWALKS f4") 0 SY $ 45.009 � T TxD4T 53S31,-•_CURB RAMPS(sea pace report for details],_.__. 4 EA 3 1,500.00 $ 8,000,00 ......�OFI__ - TxDbT 5003.6002 RETROFIT DET W W.RN FURf.,_{CAST iN PLACE] ,., ...... 0 SF $� _._54-00 $ - TxDOTIli45015 REMOVING CONC SIDEWALKS 39. --.. SY _ 3. 9.00 $ 35100 ' T D• 877 ELM EXT PAVE MRK A MRKS -2 _ IF 3 2.00 b (5.60) -Tid}(?T, ,ZB REEL PAV MRK PREP,TY]d.TY II AV)24"ESLD) 144 IF $ 8.50 $ 1,224.00 — REPAVE ROADWAY__- 1 LS $ 5,000.00_$ 6,000,00 --- FIX PO •ING __- 0 LS $ 2000.50 $— A FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITIDN... _. ............. 0 LS „�.,2MOW„a0., .��,_ R MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 ��'��_ — -- LS $ 5,000,00 $ - - REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION I LS S 500.00 $ 500.00 _ — „' .• L•< •0,•= 0 LS 200.00 Resin for Coat Projection Subtotal: $ 13,069 40 Id No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 2,113,11 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 2,817.49 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Coag_$. _18,000.00 krolect Location - -- -- _-- 0 f w"vse,. sa f v J IMNy \.........„ Ai 0 a` 1 i Ea ' '1 . 4. 4? i• 7 11t "'T 4 f3A` 4%," ' fir' .� • a `• tea` ~i ■,-1: raVir/ 1 4A- - `� IlField Obeervelions Intersection Issues N E Crosswalk S W Recommendations Path of travel pavement condition . coed _ MID __•-•_.- Good N/A - 'Path of travel mrrnngslaps la greater than 5% , 'Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 2%for stop Repave roadway and install crosswalk pavement markings nrhec N/A X N/A Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 5%for free-flow a,00roaches N/A NIA N/A NIA ..._. Crosswalk width is less than 0'- ._.—_/1/A NIA N/A N!A Install crosswalk pavement markings Crosswalk rIet iso condition None N/A None N/A - - Curb Ramp Issues Crime Ramp ID('z'or'i'In ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1A 2A 3A 4A I Curb ramp does nnl mmist and is needed Cur.ramp does not land in crosswalk X Remora and replace crosswalk pavement markings Ne 4'x 4'clear apace et base of curb tam Curbed side is not 80”or has traversable adjacent surface S X Rare crosaps$s ager than 10% Cub ram,runningslape ig,grealer than 8.33% X X Blended transition runnina,slooe is water than 5% _ T Cul.lflru ram•runnln,store is treater than 5% - Curb rampmWeak!'eas slope IS Weak!' 2% V X X X Remove and replace curb ramp But-lhru ramp cross slope Is greater than 2% ,Curb ramp width is less lhsrt48'--, XXX X IC!-tlhm ramp sodas Is less hen 60" Perrnanentobstlruct an(cS.25°)In curb rempilanditg/ilares _ - X Temporary obstruction(70.25°)In curb ramp/landing:9ares X Remove temporary obstruction No textured stelae°et base of curb ramp X XXX For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contrast at base of curb cams_ _ x X install color truncated domes ILandlnr area(lees not exist and is needed repla _ Landing area Is less than 5'x 5'or slopes wearer than 2% V X XX X Remand ove ce la"namg area _- Curb ramp translgun onto roadway is prealer than 0.2$" Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is realer than 6% ' Pending occurs at base of curb masa 1 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 250 of 316 Kimfey-Hon and Associates,Inc. Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Potomac PI Photographs ----—-- GPS 10: 104 er < Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Ramp 3A • Ramp dA Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 9 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) S EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer hes 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 Engineer et this time end represent only the Engineer's judgment ase design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esrl,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,1PC,NRCAN,Esrl Japan,METI,Eon China(Hong Kong),Esd(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrlp,IGN,IGP,swlsstopo,and the GIS User Community ['Sod of Prolect Description for Project 104 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy snot Potomac Pt _ - J Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 251 of 316 Kid ney-Rm eand Associates,Inc. Priority:5 Project Description for Unsdna1iiaed intersection - _ -__-___ -- Client; Client; City of College Station Date:4121115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE Ht1A No.: 561271404 Chocked 850:SRA Corrider: Southwest Pkwy W4. __- —__— BPS ID:195 Project Marna: Inloreactlon of Southwest fkwy and Boo Crook Do_-_-- City: College Station --__- t5 Unit Price Item Cost. Um N6. 11@m D?xcnlinrlOuagIIMa _TxDOT Ij)4L EXCAVATION(ROADWAY]' _.- -.__,.. © ..._.�_....._....W._.�_ CY_._.. 'j; 10.00. $ - . . �_. TxDOT 529-60D2 CURS�)___--....-. ...__—_ _ 0 LF $ 15.00 5 - TXDOT 531-600t CONC SIDEWALI Qj4 0 SY 5 45.00 TXDOT 531 CURB RAMPS{sec gage 2 of report for details) 2 EA ___LA.00.90 $ 3,000.00 TxDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF4CABT IN PLACE) 0 SF 50.0 _$ - rnOrthe-Hots REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS)_ _ 10 - SY $ 6.66 5 171.00 TXDOT 677 T ELIM EXT PAVE MRK B PARKS 0 LF $ 2.80 5 - TxDOT 0861478 REFL AAV MRK PREP,TY I&TY II{W}24'(SLD) 80 LF $ 6.50 5 660.00 -_ REPAVE ROADWAY 1LS 00 _$ 5000.00n_$_, _----5,9100.00 FIX PONDING _.. 2 LA t� 20.00 1 4,005000 FIX CRB RAMP TRANSITION 18 3 )- $ 2,000.00.5 2,000.06 — MEDIAN NOSEMOPIFICATJON _ 0 LS $ 5,090.06 $ - - ,REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 L8 5 500.00 5 - - .FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 0 j.S $ 2.066.00 $ - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 14,851.00 e No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 2,635.29 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 3,51371 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 21,000.06 Project Location ..- 0 OW r► , / '�1. • �` k - y�4fr. r' � LLhi. I fsy 0 ift 4. .43 gag i ;r». / o L 1 `- � 1 f \ / r'_/ i -'--fir. Fletd Observations _ Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations E $ IN ,Path of travel pavement condition Mtn .,,�. NrA ---__oLpa fou9 WA - Repave roadway end nista w swcic pavement markings Path of gavel rustlingslope Is theater than 5% Path of travel cross slope is greater than 2%for slop control - - approacheS N/A N/A N/A Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow a c es N/A WA N/A N/A Crosswalk width less than 8WA N/A NPA MIA Install crosswalk pavement markings Crosswalk$tr,1f]lig carrditrort __ _ Wa Vt. L_ ,4 PIA -- Curb Ramp Issues CubrRamp ID('Y /'or' In ramp label indicates no existing ramp) - Recommendations 1r 2L 3A 4A Curb ramp done not exist and is needed I Curb ratio does not land in crosswalk , Ne 4'x 4'clear space al base of Wrb ramp _ Curbed side is not 90'm hes trevereable ascent surface_- X._.1..,.( Flare cross slope is greater than 16% __._4 Curb ramp running slope is greater than 0.33% X Blended transition runniaa slope reeler than 5% - Cu-thru ramp running st_cp.sie.gLealer than 5% _ Curb rem g cross slope is etealer then 2% a _ X'X Remove and replace curb ramp Cut-dlru ramp cress slept Is greater than 2% Curb ramp xidlh Is less than 48" X X Cubthru ramp width is leas Than 60".-. — Permanent obstruction L›.0.251 In curb rempllleedjmelareso X _ Temporary cbstrpcticn(r 0.25J in curb rampdendingfgeres . No textured surface at base el curb ramp X, X For Intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contrast at base of curb rearm X. X Install color truncated domes_ Landing,a ,.,does not exist and Is needed _ Landing area Is less than 5's 5 r elopes greater than 2% _ X ._X kcmova anrd replace lancing area ,Curb ramp transition onto roadway is greater than 0.25' X Fix curb ramp transition Counter slope of the gutter or street at the fool of the curb ramp Is greater men 5 .-.. Pondinaoccurs al base of curb ramp_ X. X _ _=r_ ponding Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 252 of 316 Kimtey.Nom and Associates,no intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Hee Creek Dr Photographs - _ _ OPS ID: 105 - .tr „ I h� � - te: - Corner No Ramp(1z) Corner 2 No Ramp(2z) Ramp 3A . J t 5f " r Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channellzing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's Judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Earl China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DlgitaiGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,end the GIS User Community End ofPro¢ct Description far Pro sot ISO1nlerseulian of Southwest Pkw and Ree Creek Dr Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 253 of 316 Kinney-liom and Associates,Inc. A Priority:2 Project Descrliption for Un signalized intersection Client: City of College Station Date:4/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KRA No.: 061271400 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy OPS ID:107 Protect Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Leona Dr(West) City; College Station Isom No. Item Deserlptlon _ _ _ _ Quantity Unit Unit Prion Item Cent TxDOT 11060,01 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) 0 CY 5 10.00 5 - TxOOT 529-6002 CURE(TY II) 0 LF $ 1500 $ TxDOT 531-6001 CONC SIDEWALKS(4") 12 SY I_-. 45.0o $ 540.00 TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS.tsee nage.2 aP mport for details) 6 PA $ 1,500.00 1 9,000.00 TxDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.00 8 TxDOT 104-0015 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) 27 SY _.55 oro r, _ 243.60 TnDOT 677 FLIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS 0 IF 5—_ T7oDC161e1.7e REEL PAV MRK PREP,TY I A TY II(W)24")SLD)__ -,_ 338 LF 5 9.50 $ 2,073.00 — HEAAVE RCIADVy,A'( 1 -- _-T{-.�.A ..�-LS`-- --- 5 5,00000 5 5,000.00 — FIX PONDING 1 LA $ 2,000.00 1 2,000,00 — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION .. 0 LS 5 2,000.00 $ _ — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 _.. LS 5 _._ -_5,000.00-.1 _- REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 -.L8.-.... $ 500.50__ - FIYvCUR@RAMPCOUaTERSLOPE - --- --- 0 _ S 5 2000.00 $ - Basin tar Coat Projection - - --- Subtotal: 3 19,650.00 El No Design Completed Engineering:(%44-) 15% $ 3.,147.43 ❑ Preliminary Design Coptingency;(%+/-) 20% $ 4,196.57 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 27.000.00 Lroiect Location ._ J .. /:.? . . \„-.7 --- • '0% ,?ler\ N i e "+'�+y Vii° • .."--'‘,- e-' ,.n R+...'. f'.^' 1� -"� lei \0 , ` 4. J -- :Field Observations Intersection Issues E Crosswalk S W Recommendations Palh of travel pavement condition - -- Dangerous Good NIA Deed Enpaveroadlivap and nsla olesswat pavernem markkgs Path of Vavel runng eope Isgreer than. Path of travel cross nislopelis greater etthan 2%5%6for stop control approaches X WA N/A N/A Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow approaches - NIA N/A 1 'Crosswalk width is less than 6' NIA WA N/A ,. N/A Install crosswalk pavement markings Crosswalk striping condition None Nope NIA None Curb Ramp ID(-T - In ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Curb Ramp Issues 1q 2A 3z 4z Recommendations Curb ramp does not exist and Is needed X X instajl cur.ram Curti ramp-does not land in crosswalk No . _......- 4'z 4'clear space abase of curb ramp. - Curbed side Is not 90°or has traversable adjacent surface Flare cross slope is greater than 10% ,C.urm ramp lunrursg slope is_meek,than 8.33% BlendedIraaleition running elope isgrealer than 5% Cut-hrn ramp running slope Is greater than 5% Curb rampcross slope Is greater then 2% 3[ X Remove and replace curb ramp Cuidhru ramp cross slop_o_I_greater than 2% Curt ramp_vidth is lana than 48^ Cut-1hru ramp width is less than 60' -- - -- -_ .e..�. Permanent obstruction 00.251 In curb rempllending/fiares 1 Tempore obstruction(4.2511n curb ramp/landing/flares , No lindumed auriace Obese of curb ramp _ R X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contrael et bass of curb.:ramp K X install color truncated domes Landing area does not owlet and Is needed Lending area Is less than 5'of 5'or slopes greater than 2% X_ X Remove and replace landing area Curb ramglransition onto roadway groaler than 0.25" Counter slope of the gutter or street al the fool of the curramp is greater than 5% Ponetno enema al base ofcurb ramp X Fn ponding Comment:Existing sidewalk,curb ramp,and/or striping configurations perms pedestrians to cross the major street.An Engineering study Is needed to confirm crossing should be accomm oda led at this location and the current crossing treatment Is appropriate. Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 254 of 316 Rimes-Rom and Associates,Inc. Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Leona Dr(West) Photographs OPS ID: 107 Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Corner 3 No Ramp(3z) NOW —ia Corner 4 No Ramp(4z) Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 6 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-Ihm Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer al this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Earl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisslopo,and the GIS User Community "End of Project Description for Prelent 107 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Leona Or(West) 11 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 255 of 316 Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Priority:9 Project Description for Unsignalized Intersection Client: City of College Station Date:4121/15 'Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE r KHA No.: 061271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy BPS ID:108 Pfoi®n6 Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and I..eona Dr1£as1,j—_ City: College Station __Item No. Eel /y Du...lption Ousel r Unit UM_Price (tem Coat ToOOT1106001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) 0 CY —1. 10.00 $ ___.-... TxUOT Sg060%,CURB(TY III 0 __.. .. LF ____ -0 Tx1K�T 531,6W1 CCNCSIDEWAL1C5 I4") -- - -- 0 SY $ 45.001$ TaDOT 531 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of report for details) .. 1 EA 0 1.500.00 $ _1,500.00 T%DOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.00 $ .. .. _.._ 1)atu,'j04-8015 REMOVING CONC iSIDE.WALK51 14 SY 3 960 A_ _42500 _..To oT L_.ELM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS _ 0 -_- LF $ 2.60 {___ ThDOT6661676 REF/,PAV MRK PREP.TYI S TY II IW)24YSLD) __ .- 12$ __ -.- LF $ 8.50 $ 1,054.00 -- REPAVE ROADWAY 1 LS 3 5,000.00 $ 5600.00 — FIX PONDING 1 LS $ 2,000.00 J __ 2600,00 — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 0 LS $ 2,000.00 $ - — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS ..� $ __ __5,000.0 - - .._.-MOV 085TRUC -- REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION -. - 0 0-- $ 50000 $ - — FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 0 LS $ 2.00000 $ - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 9,680.00 E No Design Completed Engineering:(%+1-) 15% $ 1,851.43 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 2,468.57 ❑ Final Design Estimated Projowt Cost:_$ 14,000,00 1Pro act Location 0 _, - ,.14.3 — - ..„.....,,,'<:::. '' *.k...„0".1'). ,V.P. "...C.',"'. •i fir'~ � �'� •. / % IlField Observations __ I Intersection Issues N E Crosswalk S W Recommendations puk_o_fltayeAv.poent condition Good N/A Good NIA Path of travel running al ps a is greater than 596 Path of Mud cross slope Is greeter thou 2%for stop control Repave roadway and install crosswalk pavement markings broaches _ X N/A N/A Path of travel cross slope is greeter than 5%for hen-Pow approaches NIA N/A N/A N/A Crosswalk width Is less than 6' N/A N/A _ N/A N/A Install crosswalk pavement markings C oeswalk alrioina rgg t$Ig6 None N/A None - N+A __. .1 Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('i or'i'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1z 2z 3A 4A Curb ramp does not exist and is needed -- -_ Curb ramp does not lend in crosswalk _ No 4'8 4'dear space al base of curb ramp Curbed aide is root 90°or has traversable adlaoentsurface Flare cress slope is ipealef than 10% - l,Curb corn.manta.,sloes lagroater then 8.33% Blended transition runninLs lobe Is greater than 5% c tthi./r tamp funning ufogc.1s-gie Olen than 5% Curb ramp cros slope is greater than 2% _�__-.__,� X Remove and replace curb ramp Cufihru ramp cress lope is greater/ET.ae 2R5_-_Y_--_-. _3Y___ Curb ramp v$dth Is less Man 48" Cut.thru ramp width is less than 65" Permanent obalrelollon(00.251 In curb ramp/tenrl/o 0/lares Temporary obeknnAion..0.25^l in curb ramp74andlnPerea,�- No textured surface at base of curb ramg_ No color contrast at base of curb ramp Landipg area does not exist and Is needed Landjng area is I s than 5'0 66'of slows,a/eater than 2% X X Remove and rep/ace landing area 'Curb ramp transition onto roadway is greater then 0.25" - Counter slope of the gutter or street at the Foot of the curb ramp Is greater than 5 Pondkt/l woven at passe 4T ourb canto � X Fix ponding Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 256 of 316 Kings-Horn and Assoclatas Inc. Intersection of Southwest Pkwy.and Leant Dr iEasj Photographs. GPS[2: 108 1111:x• Corner 1 No Ramp(1 z) Corner 2 No Ramp(2z) Ramp 3A Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 1 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Lending) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-lhru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer el this time end represent only the Engineer's Judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot end does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs wit not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esrl,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esrl Japan,METI,Esti China(Hong Kong),Esrl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DlgltaiGiobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swlsstopo,and the GIS User Community I End of Pro act Descry tion for Pro act 108 Intorseotion of Southwest Pkw and Leona Dr East Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 257 of 316 VIKirrdey-Nom and Associates,lne. Priority:9 Pryject beseriphen for unsilgnalized Intersection _- ._ -. Client: City of College Station Date:4/21/16 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE ,1CNA No.: 061270408 Checked By;SRA .Corridor: Southwest PPkwy —- -- _ - GPS ID:110 Prect Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Medina Dr 'City: College Station -. -. ..... .. —_- Kern.Ns. l in Peaoriatfon On entity T tirsjl._ uyj jpe loan Coat ToD•oyj 10$1101 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) CY 10-00-x. T1UOT 529-6002CCURB(TY f Ir'.,,_.,�...._. ... ... __ A LF _ $ 16.00 $ ..--- -...- ,__. TxO07 631.6001 CONC BIDEWVA❑CBS41 ._..-__ S1" $ 46-P0 $ .-. - 7xDOT 531 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of report for detail.) __ 2 FA $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 TDD-5003-8002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST 1N PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.00 $ ,TWOT 104-0915 REMOVING GONG(SIDEWALKS) /2 SY ..4.____ - 9-00. $ 156.00 , TOOT 677 e T PAVE-„fu1R)C 8 MRKS 0 LF _I 5.80 $ _- TxOOT6061678 REFL PAV MI/K FRU',TYITY &7•Y)<I.m22$an)_-_ 86 LF -$ 6.50 B 7,11,99. — REPAVE ROADWAY 1 LS $ 6,000.00 $ 5,000.00 FIX PONDING 0 LS $ 2,00090 5 - P1X CURB RAMP TRANSITION 0 _ LS $ 2,000-00 $ - MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION ft LB $ 5,000-00 $ - i — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS $ 500.00 $ - I FIX CURB RAMP COU NTLR SLOPE a LS $ 2.000.00 $ - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 8029,00 El No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 1,744,71 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 2,326.29 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 13,009,09 Pre-est Location • $ ot, 41 . Clil, *".•, J . ' irk .c.f' 8,4, a > 1i11i' e Ptafd observations Intersection Issues osswalrk Recommendations N E S W Path of travel pavementcondition fl/A N/A pgor. N/A Repave roadway and Install crasawmltpavemant mart n�s Path of navel running slope is greater Then 5% Path of navel cross slope Is greater than 2%for stop control approaches N/A N/A X N/A Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 5%for free-flow approaches WA N/A _ _ N/A N/A Crosswalk width is less than 6' ,__ N/A NIA N/A N/A Crosswalk'. f l r ..I. WA y A Install crosswalk pavement markings Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('z or','in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1z 2z 3A 4A _ Curb ramp does not axial and is needed_ Cutb rams does not land hi creme* Nn 4'x 4'clear space at base of curb ramp _ Curbed side is esl90°or nos naversahie ad a cent surface ! X Flare cross elope is greeter than 10% Cud]ramp running slope is greater then 8,33% Blended transition running slope is greater than 5% •� Cut-thio ramp mnning,pig5e Is weals,than 5% Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp cross slope jLgreater than 2% __ 1 Cut-Ihru ramp cross slope is greater f$yp 2%_ Curb ramp width Is less than 48" ,_____� _ _ Cut_theu ramp width Is less than 60" Permanent aba[ruption fz6.25°1In curb ramp/landing/flares Ternporery cbstnrclon 00.251 in curb rempllandtmahlares No textured surface at base of stab ramp No color contrast at base of curb ramp _ Leralmateed not exist and Is needed __ Landing area i less than 5'x S or sippas orealer than 2% A X Iemove and rep/ace/erldn5 area Curb ramp transition onto roadway Is greater than 0.26" t _ _ Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is ..alar than 5% ms'lr,, ccurs_t Pondding .scilla at base Of awn ramp . _ _ _ Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 258 of 316 rKimtey-Hem and Associates.Me. __ Intersection_of::oeUtwestPietry snd Medina Dr[ Photographs GPO ID: 7101 If Mk • • • arif • Corner 1 No Ramp(1z) Corner 2 No Ramp(2z) Ramp 3A • tit Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cul-lhru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer al this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.TheEngineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs, Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community !End of Project koscuinlion for Pro-ect 110 intersection of Southwest Pkw and Medina Dr - _ V Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 259 of 316 Kimiey•Hom and Associates,inc. Priority,.9 Project Description for'insignelized Intersection 1Cliont: City of College Station Date:4121115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KNA No.: 061271400 CI________,Legres11.3yLl_RA_ _ - Oorrldor: Southwest Pkwy . GPS ID:111 - — ti.M.91.P-kig..E51 0,...1t1121 Pf.._____............______ _ _ ,.. City: College stmi.n Item Ks. Item Description Chian-lite Unit ..,.9014 Pain Item Coat ' WU51 ID-5001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) 0 CY 1 10.00 $ - o LF $ 1500 5 - TxDOT 531.6001 CONC SIDEWALKS(4") 0. SY 5 4500 $ • TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS(seepage 2 of report for details) 2 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 TxDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 5000 TxDODB-6015 REMOVING COW(sin,.4.,ALI(s), 20 SY 5 9.00 $ 160.00 TXPO.19/Z_EL-A.MIEAVE ktilic.5 MPA<-E. 0 LF 5 2.80 $ TOOT 6801678 REEL PAV MRK PREP,TY I&TY11)(W1241SLD) 100 IF 4 850 $ 850.00 — REPAVE ROADWAY 0 LS 5 5,000.00. — FIX PONDING 1 LS $ 2100.00 $ 2,000.05 — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 0 IS 5 2.000,00 $ — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS 9 5,000.00 $ , ••• REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS 5 500.00 $ • -- FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 2 LS ; 2i°09.P5-5 4,000,00 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 10,030.00 2 No Design Completed Engineering:(%*1-) 15% $ 1,701,43 O Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 2,268.57 O Final Design Estimated Project Cosh $ 14,000.00 !Project Location ,___, .,...-•":2‘ "fir \ . 1.e.h.. .‹.....1. , ,..,, e . ("'N..," ......• ' . 11101411.no'' '% 5 ..) Pal t ei ei . -i 'Au' 'iluiJ ......... „.. _ e,-• 4., et.„ !.-. .„ ..„----. 0. %, . „... ,n, • , „., i. „... . ... „....---..., I --,..c. ,,...1 ao• , \ no,r="-----..,..thot, ----- Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations _1 N E S VV Path of traysigtv_us pant condition Good N/A = -.WA Path of travel runnIn)store is treater than 5% Path of travel cross slope is greater than 2%for stop control approaches N/A NIA Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow encroaches N/A N/A. NIA NIA C1,356vvalk width is less than 6NIA IIIRIIIA hillk N/A Install crosswalk pavement markings Chat4Walk0)& ' 0 condMon J. Nur A 1)1/6 5/IA Curb Ramp ID cz'or'PM ramp bitlaeditno existing ramp) Curb Ramp Issues Recommendafions 1 A 2A 37 47 Cmb ramp does pot exist and Is needed _ Curb ramp does not land in crosswalk No 4'x 4'clear space at base of curb ramp , Curbed side Is net 90°or ham traversable adjacent surface X X Flare cross slope is greater than 10% , -- Cut ramp miming -,iiis rester than 5.32% Blended transition running slope Is greater than 5% CuLthruzatep tralciplio.pgiLagateLthan 5% Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp cross slops is greeter than 2% X Cut.thru ramp cross slope is greeter then 2% Curb ramp width Is less than 46' X X CutAlicu ramp width Is less than 60" Permanent obstr000.251 In curb ramphandingigares Temperer,/obstruction,(0.25")in curb rampflenclin9Maras No textured surface at base of curb ramp Na color contrast at base of curb ramp Lending.area does not exist arid is needed Landing area Is less than 5'x 5'or elep_e_s_prealer than 2% X X ilkell)0V6 encrreplactrlanding area Ciatar pn transition onto roadwayis greeter than 0.25" Counter slope of the goner or street at the foot alike curb ramp Is X X Fix curb ramp counter slope „greater than 5% Ponclam maze et base of cial›.fami) Lx. — EiTendlog Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 260 of 316 Himley-Hom and Associates,Inc. Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Medina Dr Photographs GPS ID: 111 f•' Lr �� ` 'ft jam. 04, :2 k 51 A Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Corner 3 No Ramp(3z) I _ MIMMiiiilffLidr'f 1 Corner 4 No Ramp(4z) Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-Aru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisslopo,and the GIS User Community LEnd of Protect Demi lion for Pro est 111 Intersection of Southwest Pkw and Medina Dr Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 261 of 316 Kb y-Hom and Associates,Inc. ._--_—. _-_....—___. - Priority:e - . P rotect Description for Unsignalized Intersection Client: City of College Station Date:4121115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE RHO No,: 061271406 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy • GPS ID:112 Project Herne: Ineersecthn of Southwest Pkwy_and Hondo Dr Cit: Celle(e Station L ijePi No, Item Description Quantity Una Ung Pries Item Cost T:DCT11G6W3 BXCAVM N(ROADWAYI 0 CY $ — 10.00_ $ Tz0DT52$-600I CURB(TY II) „__„•, 0 LF $ 15.00 $ TxDOT 131.6001 CONC_SIDEWALKS(4') 0 SY $ 45.00 T_ —_ ....._ YxD07599 CURB RAMPS(see page2 ofreport for details) 0 EA- -- $ 1.500.00 TpDOT 5003-5002 RETROFIT UFT WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.00 $ - • TxQ9Tlgj$$15 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) 4 SY 5 9.00 5 36-00_ TOOT 677 ELIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRXS 0 LF $ 2.80 0 TxDOT 0561678 REEL PAV MRK PREP,TY I A TY II 0P1)24"(B1,D1 _ 82 LE 8.50 $ 697.00 -- REPAVE ROADWAY L._ -LS $ .5,000,00 5 _.5,000.00 — FIX PONDING 2 LS $ 2,000.00 5 4,060.00 FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION - . 0 LS 5 2,000.00 5 -__ MEDIAN NOSE MODtjjgATION 0 LS $ 5,000.00 $ --- REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION _ 2 LS _ $ 500.00 I;$ 1,000.00_ — FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 0 S._ _ , 24040 $ _ Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 10,733.00 M No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 1,628.71 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 2,43829 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 10,000.00 Project Location ..__. ._ 1 , ill ;rj PNf�'~•� f1•' sal . rV '03 » _ �. ia r f Field Observations _ _ Intersection Issues N F Lrossr Orli ` w Recommendations EA of buret pavement condtion N/A NPA Damerorr Nth Repave roadway and Install crosswalk pavement markings Path of travel Droning slope is eatethan than f _ - - - ��� Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 2%for stop control Sep hes N/A. _.n 5 l Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 5%For Free-Paw g ^1roc N/A N/A ,N,/A, NIA ,C walk width is less than 6' I N A N/A N/A _NIA, .-..Install crosswalk pavement markings r;Crosswalk strlel[)g collation _ N/A NIA Nene NMA Curb Ramp ID('z'or 1'In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Curb Ramp Issues ')r 2z 3A 4A Recommendations Curb ramp does not exist and is needed I ...... .... Cur bream does not land In crosswalk f Na dTk 4'nicer space at base of curb ramp ICarped aide Is not 90'orhas traversable adtacent surface Flera cross slope is greater then 107. 'Curb ramp running slope is greater than 8.334E Blended transition running slope is male(than 5% Cur-th,ramp runningslo a Is greater than 6% Curb ramp cross slope is greater than 2% Cul4hru ramp cross slope it wester'Plan 240 Curb_rampv_A-dth Is less than 48” Cut-Ihru ramp nAdtt H less than 60' Permanent obstruction 0.0251 In curb rampgandlnctflares Temporary obstruction(.025")In curb rampflandlnrrf0ares X X Remove temporary obstruction No textured surface of bees of surbmrame _ _ __ N I -ntie _r i>_I base o1 curb ramp Lan ding area docs not exist and Is needed Lending area is less than 6'00 5'or elu es malar than 2% X Remora end replace landing area Cuc$tante,Irnnrhiun onto roadway18 greater than 0,25' Counter slope of the goner or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is ,prealer than 5% IPondiJocculs at base of atltSIamn 11 X Fix ponding Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 262 of 316 - KIday-Hom and Associate Ir,c. Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Hondo Dr Photographs - _ __ - __ GPS ID: 1121 awl ' f� Y ' I a. • Corner 1 No Ramp(1z) Corner 2 No Ramp(2z) Ramp 3A • • k ' Ramp 45 Curb Ramp Recommendation Details:. Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 0 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channellzing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer al this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Inlermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esrl Japan,METI,Esrl China(Hong Kong),Esrl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogdp,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community SEnd of Project Description for Project 112 Intersection at Southwest PkW and Hondo Dr ___ Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 263 of 316 Hinge y-liem and Associates,Inc. Priority:6 Projr.LA Dc curl ption for Unsignaiited Intersection _ __ Client:Program: City of College Station Date:4121116 AOR Self-Eva bratlon and Transition Flee Prepared By:EPE RNA No.: n6127ido8 _ Checked By;SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy _ [;iii;If;:113 Project Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Shadowwood Dr T^ Cil.: Collo o Station Item No, Jtem Descrl radon _ .QginJlly Unit Unit Price Item Cosi TxDOT 110-6001 EXCAVATION(ROADU'!AY) _.. - 0 CY $ 19_60__ - TXDOT 529.6002 CURB ITY It) 0 LF $ __ 15.00 $ TxDOT 531-0001 CONC SIDEWALKS(41 0 SY $ 45.00 $ - _,ADOT 531 CURB PANEL/sae paps 2 of report for details) 2 EA 5 1,500,00 5 3,00000 Lirj2 §003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF[CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 60.00 $ TOOT 1044015 REMOVING COCONC(SIDEWALKS) _.. 22 SY $ 0.00 $ _ 196.00 TxDOT 677 ELIM EXT PAVE MRI{&MRKS 0 IF -- _ . 2.80 $ TxDOT 01581376 REEL PAV MRK PREP,TY I&TY ll AM 24'1(SUD( ._ 76 LF _ $ 050 5 64$,00 — REPAVE ROADWAy_____�- -- 1 _ La_ 5 5,000.00 5 5,000.00 FIX PONDING 1 L a $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 -. 931 CURB RAMP TRANSITION. 0 LS $ 2.000.00 $ - 1 — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS ____S.O$,$0 _$ - I — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 1 LS i$ 500,00 $ 500.00 — FIX CURB RAMPCOUNTER SLOPE - 0.- _ r ' -- -�$ 2.000.00 I$ - Basis for Cott Projection Subtotal: $ 11,344.00 Ft No Design Completed Engineering:(%+1-) 15% $ 1,995,43 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+1-) 20% $ 2,660.57 ❑ Final Design Estknated Prolecl Cosi: $ 16,000.00 Protect Location II 513 '-'a�w,_,� / r:.,_ '/ ?moi s t'M 1' - •1:s .... 0 •• , Field Observations Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations N F C W ,Path el travel pavement condition N/A MFA Den5ecu05 MIA Repave roadway cell Install crosswalk pavement markings . Path of travel riinninn claps is greater than 5% _ avel. pe is greater than 2% _for Path al travel cross slope is greater Ihan 2%tar stop control etre etre ennrn_aches NJA. NIA X N/A Petit of travel cross slope Is greater than 5%far tree flew ,approaches NIA NIA _....._.- NIA_-._- NIA. ._._.-.....lava._ 'Creganyalkyildill in lags then 6' _ MIR NIA NIA NIA :Install crosswalk pavement markings ICrosswalk striping condition NIA NIR None NIA - Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('z'or'i'In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1z -- 3A 4A, Curti ramp does riot exist and Is needed -Tv Cwb ra_n Joosnal land In crosswalkT ___ _ _ No 4'x 4'clear4Reee at base of cur6,ramp ,� Curbed side is set 90'or has treveraabie adiacent eurfaoe ' ;Flare cross slope Is greater than 10% .Curb ramp runnlrni a_slape Is,greater than 8.33%_ 'Blended henailion yage 5plepe Is Oreafaf than 6% Cut-;trio ramp running elope is greater then 5% -z. Curb ramp cross slope Is greeter than 2% X X Remove and replace curb ramp Cut-thru rams crross sjope is greater than 2% 'Curb ramp Vddlh is less than 48" __ 'Cut-mrS ramp widOr is less than 60' .Permanent obstruction(u0.25')in curb ramplandinglflares - - - _ . Temporary obstrucgon(4.25"1 In curb ramplendln flares X Remove tat prary_ebslrucllon No textured salami at base of currof t _ No color contrast al baseof curb ramp Landing area does notnol exist end is needed Landing area Is less than 5'x 5'Or slopes greater than 2% X X Remove end replace landing area Curb ramp transition ants roadway Is greater than 0.25" _ -- . Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is greater than 5% Penang occurs at base of curb ramp K Fix pond; _ _ - _ -- . Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 264 of 316 IKimley-Hem and Associates,Inc. -— Intersection of Sw Southwest Pkw and Shadowood Dr 'Photographs _— GPS ID: 113. ra• 4 YI f C — ' Corner 1 No Ramp(1z) Corner 2 No Ramp(2z) Ramp 3A is r Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Derails: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esd,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri Chine(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitaiGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisslopo,and the GIS User Community 'End of P•'oct Descri•tion for Pro'ec1113 Intersection of Southwest Pkw and Shadowwoed Dr Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 265 of 316 and Associates,Inc. Priority:8 Project Description for UnsIgnalized Intersection Project Client City of College Stallon _ Date:4121118 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No,: 001271408 Checked By:SRA west Corridor: BournPovry . -.--- ...- ... CPS ID:114 ProLact Nama:. Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Trm�? C : Cope a Station ..._) jjp„,_ Rena pescripq. --- Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Coat TOOT 110.001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) ❑ CY $ 10.00. $ • ' 7X4OT520-6943 CURB(TY II)_•w, 0 LF $ __ 15.00 $ _ - TxDOT 531.5001 CONC SIDEWALKS(4") ._ -___- 0 SY $ 40:00 $ - MOOT 531 CURB RAMPS(sae pose 2 of report for detaIa). — _. 2 EA $ 1,000.00 1$ 3,000,09 TxDOT 5003-6005 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.00 5 ,Rza-g1 $.„415 mien/LNG CONC(SIDEWALKS) 20 SY $ 9.00 5_ _ 180.00 TxDOT$77 EUI M EXT PAVE MRK 6 i1RKS _ 0 LF .$ 2.80 $ TzDOT 8861878 REFL PAV MR1i PREP,TY 14 TY II(W)24"(SLO) L - 92 E_ J ..._ 8,50,_ .782-0❑ -- REPAVE ROADWAY _ ....._ 1 .. L5 $ 5900.00 5 5,000.00 FIX PONDING 0 LS $ 2,000.00 5 - FIX CURS RAMP TRANSITION 2 1.S $ 2,000.00 5 4,000.00 MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICA11ON 0 ,,.,_ - LS $_ 5,00Q.0g j — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 _ _ LS .$ _ _ 500.00. $ - FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE _ 0 LS $ 2,000.05 $ - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 12,962,00 B No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 2,159.14 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 2,878.86 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: 5 18,0000,00 rip . , u_ I N f f d 0 •k• r i, Field Obse-rvernns - - - 1 Intersection Issues N E Crosswalk Recommendations Recommendations S Path or travel gg.emam oondillon Dangerous f4/A NIA p1/A Repave roadway and Eslaaaasswubu pavement markings Path of travel running slope is❑reeler than 5% _ Path of travel cross stops Is greater than 2%for stop control _.�__.«�•.a� - — --- aPproeches X NIA TN/A Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow ep ro caches N/A N/A N/A N/A Crosswalk width is less than 6' N/A NIA N/A N/A 'Install crosswalk pavement markings Crosaw®Ik sklpino condition None N/A N/A NIA Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('z or'i'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1A 2A 3z 4z Curb ramp does not exist and is needed Curb tamp does not land in crosswalk No 4'x 4'clear space at base of curb ramp Curbed sideI,Is not 900.or has traversable ad scent surface /1 X- Flare cross slope is greater then 10% _ Curb ramp running slope Is greater Ihan 8.33% _ --„,____ m, Blended transition running slope Is greater than 5% Cul-thru mIE,mnnM slope Is greater than 5% _ Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp cross slope la/Feeder than 244.,•_ Cul•Ihru ramp cross elope is greater than 2% _ Curb ramp width is less than 48” -_ Cut•thru ramp vddth Is less than 80' Permanent ebstructionj?025")In curb rampilandlnplflares Temporary obstruction(>0.251 In curb ram fie andinAares Nn textured surface of base of curb ra - X X Forinnfereeclion romps and commercial driveway ramps, Nu color contrast at base of curb ramp X- X- install color truncated domes Landing e doer hot exist and is needed _ La ndirn a is less than 5'x 5x 5 slopes greater than 2% X X Remove and re1rlace landing area_ Out ramp transition onto roadway le greater then 025" X X Fix curb rami usrwltcon-Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is treater than 5% PondirVi occafs al base of corp fame Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 266 of 316 K imley-Horn nod Associotos,]nc. Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Trinity Ell P hotographs -. . - - _. _ OPS ID: 114 • Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Corner 3 No Ramp(3z) 1111111 Corner 4 No Ramp(4z) Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-lhru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor,materiels,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 Engineer at this time end represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry,The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esrl Japan,METI,Esrl China(Hong Kong),Esrl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,end the GIS User Community I End of Pro: t Descri•tion for Prosect 114 Intersection of Southwest Pkw and Trina Pt Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 267 of 316 ..1imley-Hom and Associates,Inn. Priority:5 '_P ect DeeoripNan for Un s'r nalized Intersection Ctient: City of College Station Date:4/21/15 ' Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.: 061271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy OPS ID:116 Project Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy end Lawyer St ,City: College Station Item No. Item Description Ouantit Unit Unit Price Item Coal i TxOOT 110.6001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) _. 0 CY $ 10.00 5 - TxDOT 528-6002 CURB(TY ft) 0 LF $ 15.00 $ - TxDOT531-6001 CONC SIDEWALKS(4"I 6 SY $_ _ 45-00 $ 270-09_ -,TOOT 501 CURB RPJAP5(sse gage.2 of report for derails/ __.. ., 7 - _ EA $ 1,500.00 $ 10,500.00 Tx0OT 5003.6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) .. 0 _ SF .$ 50.00 $ TaDOT 104-6015 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) 30 SO $ 9.00 $ 270.00 _ Tk0OT 677 ELI Al EXT PAVE MRK&PARKS 0 ..$LF _2.80 $ - ..._. _... __. ..-f_ 6 581.578 REFL PAV MRK PREP,TY 18 TY II(W)24"ESLD} 404 .�. LF $ �@.50 5 3.434;00 _ REPA.YE ROADWAr _ ..`. ,..4 LS ,$ 5,000.00.5 20,000.00 -- FIX PONDING 0 LS $ 2,000.00 $ — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 2 LS $ 2000.00 $ 4000,00 — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 _ LS _...__ $ -,�5,00000 _$� �_ , _ REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS $ _5500.00 5 FIXCURB)RAMP COWJ4TER B1, PE 0.. _ LS $ ,000.00 s Basis for Cost Projection r Subtotal: $ 38,474.00 El No Design Completed I Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 5,796.86 ElPreliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 7,729.14 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $. 52,000.00 Prolect Location ,J ��.•'../, r' - • r,, 1"/ L f - 1 At i J tI - 115` N f j��j e .,/-0) ~� , 'r .. I ,.Sr� fes-• - °e4 10 3R ri !Field Observations Intersection Issues N - .,rv_sv;a ik W Recommendations Path of travel pavement condition Dangerous P=-i_.,_.__. I Dangerous Poor Aepave roadway and Inset crosswalk pavement manrnga P ih fi bevel runnlna slope Is graatar Olaf 6% f alb of travel cross slope/ss greater than 2%(or stop control approaches X N/A X N/A _ Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for Tree-flow approaches _ , N/A _ N/A Crosswalk width is less than 6' NaN/A N/A N/A _...._.� . .-.._._. ,_... install crosswalk moment markings Crosswalk sbiping condition Nona None None None _a Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('z'or i'In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations I 1A 2A 3A 4A Curb ramp does not exist and Is needed Cwb ramp does not land in crosswalk _No 4'x 4'plea,epece at base of curb ram„p _ Curbed side Is nal 90°co hoe Traversable adjacent surface Flare cross slope les grealer than 10% X X Curl ramp•runnirralopa Ix Srfoater than 8.33% , K X Blended trenaitio I(_,_runnis,elope is greater/than 5% Cut-Ihm ramp running slope Is greater than 5% Curb ramp cross slope Is greater than 2% X X Remove and replace curb ramp Cut-thru.5000 crass slope Is greater than 2% Curb ramp widrhia•ieea Olen 48`__„--,- Cut-thin ramp vddlh Is hese Ulan E0” _ _ _ , Permanent obstruction(c025")in curd ramp/lending/flares X Temporary nbstruotion(00.251 in curb rempfandlnultares Nn to lures)surface at base of curb ramp X X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contrast al base of curb ramp-- X X install color truncated domes Lending area does not exist and Is needed X X Insall lancing area Landing area Is less than 5.x$'or elopes greater than 2% _ X Remove end replace landing area Curb ramp Venslloe onto roadway is mealier than 0.25' X X Fla curb_ramp 1. _ns_kion • Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is greater than 5% Ponding occurs ethane at curb ramp -. . Comment:Existing sidewalk,curb ramp,and/or striping configurations permit pedestrians to cross the major street.An Engineering study O needed to confirm crossing should be accommodated al this location and the current crossing treatment is appropriate. Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 268 of 316 Khnley{{om and Associates,Inc. _ Intcrsectlartof Southwest Pkwy and Lawyer St Photographs GPS ID: 118 711111,1111117. Ramp lA Ramp 2A Ramp 3A • • Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 7 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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.Opinionsof probahle costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. ProjectLocation Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrlp,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community lEnd of Pro'oct Descri•tion for P•-act 110 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Lawyer SI Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 269 of 316 Kitnlay-fiom and Associates,Inn. ---- - - ---- -Prioritye 13 Protect Description for Unsignalized Intersection Chant: City of College Station - - -- — - Date:4121/10 p Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE V IG-IA.No.: 061271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy TSPS ID:116 Project Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Sabine Ct City: College Station Item No. Item Description QIlant0y Unit Unit Price Item Cost. TxDOT 1106001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) ...... 0 _,. CY $ 10.00 $ - TeDOT52&6002 CURB ff 0 LF $ 15.000 $ - " ,_• Tx9DT 531$D-Q1,SONG SIDEWALKS(41 _ 0 SY ---$ 45.013_,_$_,_ - ToUCT 531 CURB RAMPS(sea"5_ye 2 of report for detaiel- 0 EA $ -.. .-.1,500.0 ,..&_ —7— TxDOT - TbDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) _ 0 SF $ 500¢ $ - 7xPQT1o9-¢¢1 _f2 5EMO - 7T, VING CONC(SIDEWALKS} 0 SY $ 0.00 $ ..-T s,77_ FLIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS 0 LF $ 2.80 $ - TxDOT 646/670 REFL PAV NMI PRFP TY I&TY II�W]24"SLD]- 72 LF ...$— 8.50__$ 61200_ •— REPAVE ROADWAY I __.- --- LB $ 5.004.00,_$___._5,000000_ -- — FIX PONDING _- 1 L8 $ 2,0¢'0.00 $ 2,0U0.00- - CURB RAMP TRANSITfON 0 LS $ 2,000.00 $ - - MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS $ 5,000,00 $ • --- REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 _ LS $ 500.00,e„$ : — FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 1 - - - $ 2,�IO,00 $ 2,000.00 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 9,61200 67 No Design Completed Engineering:(%+l-) 15% $ 1,45200 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 1,936 00 O Final Design Enttmated prnleet Cost• $ 18,000.00 Pro act Location _ N f� t{�fGOr' +� �arctl "a y7 ! r ...ft., r Field Observations Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations _N ,___,F.._ C W Path al travel pavement eonridon N/A N/A Danpere, Repave roadway and meta!crosswalk pavement markings Path of travel rnnninn stone is greater than 5 sie t_._. o trot Path of travel crass slope In greater plan 2%for stop control T__--_t.--------- ' approachea N/A N/A N/A Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 5%for Iroe-Raw approaz.hes NIA N/A N/A N/A CressWalk.width IS lea*than 6' N/A_ _ N/A __ NIA N/A Install crosswalk pavement markings u=s :katri• i co all. N/A N/A None N/A Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('i or'I`ln ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1z F, iA 4A Curb ramp_does not exist and is needed - Curls ramp does not land in creaasva0c 'No4'e 4'dearspace alhese ofcurb ramp _ _-_-- Curbed side Is not 90'or has traversable adlacent surface Flare cross ser6 gr % taut-eater Than 10 !Curb ramp running slope in greater than 8.333% Blended transition running slope Is greater ten 6% Cut-Milt ramp running 6lcDe is.greater than 5% r� Curb ra5(p cross stops is greater than 2% Chru reymp vosa gape iawester than 2%_ Curb-ramo width is less than 48" Cut_Ii or radRpOdDl is less than 60' -- ---- __-T, Perrrrarr_IobslNction 0.0.25'1 in curb ramp/landing/flares T_omporary.obstniura 025')In curb rampAanding/8ares. No IleNklred surface at base of curb ramp No color contrast at base of curb ram Landing area does not exist and is needed Landing area is less than$'x 5'or slopes greater than 2% Curb ramp transition onto roadway Ism at than 025" 'Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is X Fix curb ramp counter slope greater than 5% Ponding occurs al base of curb ramp X Fax pondng 1 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 270 of 316 'Kimley-11orn anal Associates,Inc. Intersection of there;t Pk y and Sabine CI' (Photographs - _- _ -_ _ UPS 1❑ 116 ti i - — I-,ivoi . t „olio-. Corner 1 No Ramp(1z) Corner 2 No Ramp(2z) Ramp 3A Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 0 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thm Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time end represent only the Engineer's Judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intel-map,IPC,NRCAN,Esrl Japan,METI,Esrl China(Hong Kong),Esti(Thailand),TomTom,2013, fDlgitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community tEnd of Project D caption f Pmjeol 116 Inters tion of Southwest Pkwy rmd Sabina Ct _ _ _ _.__. II Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 271 of 316 Kimky-Hom and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Protect Description for Unsignalrced Intersection Client City of College Station Data:4121/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE 1(HA No.: 061271406 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest E —._ ___.. GPS till 117 Project Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Langford St_ _ City: _-_ College Station - Item No. Item Description Chlantity Unit U13(I,Pl)oe Item Cost r 'TxDOT 110-6001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) D CY $ 10.00.�e--, TxDOT 52&fi002 CU ITY II)- 0 _ LF_ —_- - 15.00. $ _T%DOT 539-6 j-_CCOFIC SIDEWALKS(4�,_ _ 6 SY $ 45.013 5 270.50 TxDOT 531 CURE RAMPS(Bee page 2 of report for details) 2 _ EA $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 TtDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) D SF $ 60.00 $ _TxDOL104-6015,REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) 24 .,--SY $ -- ,,,,900 $- 7744.00 _ T,g1pT§,J1. ELIM EXT PAVE(ARK&MRKS . _ 0 LF $ 2.613 A _ T%DOT666f070 REFI,PAV MRK;?L)EP,TY 1.Tyli(Vy1747$LD) 3.Q4 LF _ $ 8.6D $ 1,76600 1 -- REPAVE ROADWAY 2 LS $ 6,000.05 $ 10,000.00 I — FIX PONDING 4 !S $ 2,000.00'$ 6,011).00' —...____- FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION _ ... I __..__-._. LS 2 0,,DOW.t10 , 2,$00.00 -:- -.-MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 4 LS 1 5,600.00 $.-- - REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION - DLS $ 50006 $ FIX CURB RNMF COUNTER SLOPE 2 LS $ 2,000.00 $ 4.000.05 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 29,254.00 M No Design Completed Engineering:(%+l-) 15% $ 4,605.43 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+l-) 20% $ 6,140.57 ❑ Final Design Estimated Pro act Cos[: ; 40,00.0.00 NProlt Location -__ - I. il ""7` y t'7� 540 A, ','1 {Ffd f /-illijililltCs i• -4n04t� i � r Field Observations -- - - - - ii Intersection Issues N E Crosswalk S W Recommendations 1 rRe ave roadva arxf install crosswalk nt markin 1 Path a!h'avelpavamcnC oondl6on Poor NFA G od- Deageroua_ P ,-._r_'I. _ R�� g_1 Path of travel running slope is greeter then 5% ___ Path el travel cross slope is greater than 2%for stop control broaches - __ Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow --s~ approaches 1 N/A N/A NIA � Crosswalk width Is less than 6' X NW ' kr,gyswalketripilrit condition - Worn N/A - Good WornRemove and replace crosswalk pavement markings Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID(Y or'i'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) �� Recommendations 1A 2A 3A 4A 48 Curb ramp does not exist and is needed Curd ramp does not lend in crosswalk _. No 4'x 4'dear space at base of curb ramp Curbed side is not 90.or has traversable adlacent surface - Flare ossa_a[ope is{)reater than 113% X 5 Curd ramp running elope is greeter(hap 8.33 S - Blended transition running slope is greater than 5% Cut-01ru ramp running slope Is greater than 5% Curb ramp cross slaps greater than 2% _ —, X Remove and replace curb ramp Is Cut-lhru ramp moss,opI.ae greeter than 2% Curb ramp width Is less than 48" X Cut-lhru ram width is less then 60' Permanent obstruction(0.25")Is curb rampllarsdinglltares ). Temps obalrucllon>0.25"In curb eamehandbr fltaros --��..._...�....�.._.�..--- Tempo.r__ :�__jpp —- Na textured surface at base o4 curb ramp _ - No color contrast at base of curb ramp , Lending area does not exist and Is needed l .Landing ss than 5'x 5'or slope_ a1er than 235 X X , Remove and replace lain—ark area Curb ramp tranaiiiorl ante Is roagreateerr then 17 25' X_ - Fawrb ramp transition Counter slope Odle gutter or street at the foot of the curb.ramp Is rjreater than 5% X 70 Fix curb ramp counter slope ,Poi,kr•5:.a, t•::...' 5/ _f_u• . Fix•ondln, Comment:Existing sidewalk,curb ramp,and/or striping confguralions permit pedestrians to cross the major street.An Engineering study's needed to confirm crossing should be accommodated al this location and the current crossing Irealmenl is . appropriate, Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 272 of 316 IItireler,Dorn,and Associates, c. intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Langford SI [f'i t J_.fah;— – __ -._.__ _.- GPS ID: 117 [. - �k _ +li - Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Ramp 3A Ramp 4., h., .M1S Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channellzing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's Judgment as a design professional familiar with the construcfion industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costa Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DlgltalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrlp,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community Project.IFITA for P ject 117 I t ection of Southwest Pkwy and Langford St 11 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 273 of 316 Kimley-Hoo and AssO-c imes,Inc. Priority:2 Pro-.ct Descri on for Unsi.nalized Intersection I Client City of College Station Date:4/21/15 'Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KRA No.; 061271408 _ Checked BY:SRA Corridor: Southwest PkwY -- _ - DPI ID:_118 project Name: Intersection of Soothwesl Pkwy and Laura Ln City: ColiSga Station _..... -... — Item No. Isom Dascyllen a entity __ r Unit Unit Price EXCA TxDOT 910£001 g9NC SIDEWALKS (LKADWe 21of ra_rt for data8s 2 EA 1 � TxDOT 529-5002 CURB(TY II) 0 LF 15.00 TOOT 53119,6,1 CDNC SIDEWALKS fd"i 0 SY 45.00 MOOT 531 CURB RAMPS{see„pag..,2 of repo_ r �„k 500.00 11111 TxDOT 5003.6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) _ - 0 _----... SP 50.00 ,_$ 7x(07 504-5015 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) 23 SY $ 9.00 $ 207.08. ,7 0E¢77- RUM EXT PAVE MRK S PARKS 0 LF $ 2,50 $ - 7aD07'813§(578_$EFLPAV MRK PROP,TY 18 TY II(WI24"(SLD). 174 LF 5 8:50 $ 1,479.00 --- REPAVE ROADWAY._ 2 LS $ 5.000.00 $ 10,000.00 — FIX PONOIND _ 4 LS 2 000.00 • 8 000.0 FIR CURB RAMP TRANSITION ... LS 2,0.091,00 `. - 4(100570 MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION LS 5 000.00 $ _ — _REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LB 5 500.00 5 - - FIX CUP _• .k i..• _ _ 0 L5 $ 2,000.00 $ - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 26,686,00 51 No Design Completed Engineering:(%+I-) 15% $ 4,420.29 ❑ Preliminary Design I Contingency:(%+l-) 20% $ 5,893.71 ❑ Final Design , I Estimated Project Cost: 5 37,000.00 Protect Location Al I. O - ''71 r.. 'CLS rte r _ 1 0 ...0 1 ,,, 4,0 ` �6 �O t-...,''^•..a 4".* yrlb.a Field Observations Crosswalk Intersection IssuesN F S w Recommendations Path of travel pavement condition I Poor N/A Poo{ N7A Repave roadway and mslaq crosswalk pavement markings_ Path of travel runnlnn slope is greater than fi% Path of travel cross elope is greeter than 2Wkr slop control roaches X N/A X N/A Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 5%for free-flow approaches __- _-.NIA N/A, N/A N/A Crosswalk width is less than 6' _ NIA N/A Crosswalk strip/no condition r-: _ _ Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID(Y or'I'In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 19 2A 3A 4A Curb r docs not oxisl and is needed - Curb ramp does not land in crosswalk No 4'x 4'dear space al base of curb ramp Curbed side Is not 90`or has Traversable adjacent surface Flare cross alma js(rooter than 10% X X Corti ramp rutin. Ing nL Pe is greater!Fon 8.33% Blended transition mmnieg slaps Is greeter Then 5% Cut-thru ramp running slope to greater than 5% - Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp,cross slope is a ala Bran 2% X *ROB Curb ramp width is less then 48' X X Cul•lhru ramp Milt Is less than SD" Permanent obstruct'orL.0.25'3 in curb rampflandingfBares ._.____.,...._-_.—.. _._......__._,. Tem/loran,obstruction(5025")in curb mnrpflandmg/0ares Na torturedsufiace al base of curb ram X X For Intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contrast al base of curb Lop .� X X Install color truncated domes Landing area does not exist and is needed Lending area ls,loss Than 5'xslopes greater than 2% X X .0ems ave.antes replace lont0ng ruse 6 Curb ramp trarssj$gn onto roadnay 1s-greater Than 0.25" X X Fix curb ramp transition Counter slope of the gutter or street at the fool of the curb ramp is greater than 5% Pelg0Fjg_sccurs at base of crab ramp u X X X 71-xpon3l-ng _______ ___ _ Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 274 of 316 K hley-Flom ,and Associatesinc. _ Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Laura Ln, Phntoyra phs GPO ID: 116' • • • • • r. Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Ramp 3A •y _ • Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps wills Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at tills time and represent only the Engineer's Judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Earl Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esrl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrlp,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community End of Project Description for Prosect lit intersection of Southwest Pkwy and Laura La _ - __ __ `_-_ •-� Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 275 of 316 • Rlmley-Ham and Associates,Inc. — Priority:6 Prefect Description For Unsir(naltYod Intersoctlpn Client: City of College Station Date:4121/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE 14RA No.: 061271408 _ Checked By:SRA - Corridor: Southwest Pkwy __. GPS ID:119 Ct Prefect Name; Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and N Bardenoil Ci City: Coliega StatMn _ i Item No. Item Description Duantity Unit UnIIPlloe Item Ceel_A TxDOT 1156001 EXCAVATION(ROAOW/4Y) 0 CY $ _ 0.00 _l_____ Ts QT,529-6002 CURB(TY 11] 0 LF $ .15.00 $_ - - TD9T 501-6001„,_0011A SIDEWALKS{4y .. ._ — d SY $ 46.00 $ MOOT 531 CURB RAMP9,)see,pape 2 of report for details) -._2... ___EA _ _ $ 1,900.00,$ 3,000.00 TeDOT 5003.6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE)_ 0 sr $ __ 50.00 $ - _ .Jx T 104-6015 REMOVING COM(SIDEWALKS) 20 SY $ &,00$ _ 160.170 T$DQT 677 FLIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKB _.. 0 LF $ 2.80 $ Tow ggfI s_REEL PAV MRK PREP,TY I&TY II(W)24"(SLD) 98 LF $ 8.50 $ 803.09 — REPAVE ROA[OVwAY- _I .. .. LS L _5000.00 $ 6.000.00 -- FIX PDNDI�1G -.-_._... 0 _ - Ls _..$__ _2.000.00 — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 0 L8 $ 2,0.00.00 $ — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION _ 0 LS $ 5,00000 $ j- - 12EVIOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS $ 500.05 5 - — FIX CURE. AMP,PQYNTER SLOPE --- 8 S 2.000,00 $ - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 9,013.00 M No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 1,706,71 O Preliminary Design Conitngency:(%+/-) 20% $ 2,278,29 ❑ Final Design - _ Estimated Project Cost: $ 13,000.00 Piro set Looetlon ____ .__ __— _ _.�I /:r V ' - ,i 1 i ell. N4 I 40 ri -4''''''"1. CO ,..,' ." - i ." e `.i. .., i • A �fay . /ice 1 1Fletd Observations ---..-- - ---- - i Intersection Issues Crasswal — N E S --kV Path of Pavel pavement ccnc0ulen _ Poor NIA NIA N/A ;Repave roadway and Install crosswalk pavement markings Path of travel runnJnq slope ln_Jreater Than 6% Path of travel cross slope is greater than 2%for stop control ..ocher X N/A, N/A N/A. Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 5%for free-flow approaches N/A NIA N/A NIA Crosswalk width la less than 6_- _ PT N/A N/A N/A NIA Install crosswalk pavement markings Crosswalk elrbitg condition Norte NIA NIA NWA Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID Ca'or':'in ramp label indicates no ex song ramp) Recommendations 1A 2A 37 47 Curb ramp Anes not exist and is needed f Curb ramp Ades not land in crosswalk 'No 4'x V dear apace el hese of curb ramp„._�^ Cu nccd skit 1s not sir or has traversal/le adjacent enlace Flare cross slate is greater than-10% X X Curb ramp_runni.no singe ie,preator than 8.33% devoted running elope igaster than 5% Gut-Ihtn ramp running slope is greeter than 5% Remove and replace curb ramp .Curb ramp cross slo ep i, s nearer than 2% - ,_ Cul-l�Ilgrgp croaa,ylepe K/realer than 2% _ Curt ramp wldlh le less than 46' X X Cut lhru rn.mp width is lees than 80" _ , Permanent obstruction 0-0.251 in curb rarrop gnAnp/lleree .__.,.. .T_mora%obsih/ction 150.257 in curb rnmptandn#flarea No textured e.taca at bass of rout,ramp X For intersection ramps end commercial driveway romps,_ No color Contrast al base ofu uramo _ Landln0 area does not exist and iss needed Landing arca is lass Oren Sc' 5 or slopes greater than 2% X X -1 Remove end replace(ending area Curb ramp transition onto roadway Is greater than 0.25" Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is ' cater than 5% Ponding_ocgurs et base of curb ramp w --.-- Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 276 of 316 ISIm Hohn and AisTocialas,�ince_ Intersection of Southwest Pig and N Bardelt C Photorjrraghs -. GPS ID: 118 _itr 11111111:: - II' Wow Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Corner 3 No Ramp(3z) Corner 4 No Ramp(4z) Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Lending) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer el this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry-The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esrl,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DlgltalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community ['End of Pro}ecl C_cscri time for Projecl110 lnlersoctlen of Southwest Pkwy and N Gardeli CI - Q Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 277 of 316 Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Project Description for Unsignalized Intersection Client: City of College Station Date:4/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.: 061271406 Checked By;SRA Corridor: George Bush Dr GPO ID:90000 Project Name: Intersection of George Bush Dr and driveway(LGL 30,6176;Long.-96.32451 City: Collage Station Item No. item Desolation GUMMY 4nijUnit Pira., Item Coal TxDOT 110-5051 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) 0 Cy 5 10,00 $ - TeDOT 529-6002 CURB ITN II) D LF ya 15.0 - TIP97 5'd•1_ ?Q1.CONC SIDEWALKS 14'•1 0 SY $ 45.00 J - Txf1oT 531 CURB RAMPS •ee Page 2 of report for details' 2 —_ EA _, _ .1,5.1.3_0-9.1 A___--__2.DOg;Op- TxDOT 50036002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) ❑ • _. _ _SP _ g. 50,00 $ - TxDOT 104-6015 REMOVING CONIC(SIDEWALKS) 11 SY 5 9.00 $ 99.00 ._ OQQL$77 ELI M EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS D LF $ 2.50 $ - TxDOT Cr$• _;-f?F L PAV MRK PREP,TY I&TY II AN)241SLDI D LF $ 6.60 $ __ - --- REPAVE ROADWAY --..----_ - 0 LS--_-_-- .4 5 NO,00 $ _ - --- FIX PONDING 1 LS I .2000.00 $ 229_,,,o.20 — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION _. _. 0 .... LS ..- $ 2,000.00 0 MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS $ 5,000.00 $ - ._.---.__. REfAaVETEMP©RARY OBSTRUCTION 0 ; LS 5 ...500.00 — FIX Ce6RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 0 5 294000 $ - Feels for Coot Projection Subtotal: $ 5,099.00 M No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 614.71 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 1,086.29 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 7,000.00 Proles ocalion _ _� ,...._.? , t 46 `'L i 4?4:: i N •l r 0 elle_ _ 9DQf30 1 4. , ,////. 41 I f r� r -....ir [Field Observations _ _ _ -- _.. - Intersection Issues N E crosswalk S W Recommendations �. Path oft a el Pavement condition path of travel running looe is greater than 5% Path of travel cross slope is greater than 2%for stop control Path cross �— Path of travel cross slope is greater then 5%for free-flow sense-a,_„-_ches Crosswalk width is less then s' Croa_c.-b. :CO iiia Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp to CZor'/'In ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 30 4z €Curb ramp Jessnot axial and is needed _- x Install curls ramp -- Curb romp does not land In crosswalk — :No 4'04'clear s arl�ce at hese of curb ramp _ iCobol side Is not 90°or has traversable adlacent eurface Flare cross slpgv ls_•graater than ION _ Curb ramp tanning slope Is greater Then 0.33% X Blended transition running slope is greater than 5% Cut-Ihru ram mining slope is greater than 5% Curb tomo-moss siva is greater then 2% % Remove and replace curb ramp Gut-Orta ramp erose elope e,greater than 2% Curb ramp width is less than 45” Cut-lhrn ramp width Is lees than SOP PCrnrtanent obsiructon(00.251 in curb rampllendingr0ares X Temporary obstruction)0.25")to curb fampllendlo fgares No textured surface at base of curb ramp X For intersection ramps and commercial ddveway ramps, No color contrast at hose of curb ramp I X install talar truncaaled domes Landing area does not exist and is needed Lan&n area Is less than 5'x 5'of slopes greater than 2% X Remove and replace lending area ramp transition ramp transition polo roadaai I••grea[gr than .25' Counter slope of the gutter or elreet al the foot of the curb ramp la Baler than 5% •.A.L ,• • -. hose.f curb sem. X Ftx•onrjln, Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 278 of 316 rhnfey Horn and Associates,Inc. Intersection of Geole Buh Dr sand driveway(Lat.30.6116 Long,-56.32451 I t,(r ides _ _ OPS ID: 50000 • Ramp 3A Corner 4 No Ramp(4z) Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-lhru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: • Esrl,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitaiGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community Wnd of Protect Description for Project film Intersection e!Uoozge.Bosh Dr and drivewjzy(LaL 30.-6116T109.-96.3245) Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 279 of 316 rey-Hom and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 cct Description for Unslgnalized intersection .__ _ Chong City of Collage Station 6ata:4(21115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No,: 061271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Gaorga_Bush Dr ._ _ OPS ID:99001_ Project Name: Intersection of 5eorge Bush Dr and tirwcway(Lat.d0.8141s'_Lena,-A6,3S87) COOP: Celle a Station , Item_de- Item Des it On Quantity Unit _ _UnIl Price Rem Coat TxDOT 1166001 EXCAVATION{ROADWAY) 0 CY $ 10.01 5 TxDO519,1103 cum:1 t.Y If'!..__._,...... 0 LF _—$ 15.00_1 __ TxUOT 531=6001 CONC SIOEWPLK�] iF BY 4 45.00 $TOOT 50t CURS RAMPS(see page 2 of report for details) 2 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 Tx130T 0003-0002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF 60,00 $_Ig - PQ7_1¢4-8015 REMOVING CON0(SIDEWALKS) 21 SY , 3,M $ 768-0o, Sr T 67.7 ,ELIM EXT PAVE I[8 MRKs -. _ B LF 1 ...._. 2,80 $ - TxDOT 8581878 REEL PAV SINK PREP,TY I$TY II(141)24"(SLD) ...__ .._fl. -.. -.. ._. -_ LF $ 8.50 $ - — REPAVE ROADWAY 0 LS _$ 5,000.00 $ - - FIX PONDING 2 LS $ 2,900.00 $ 4,000.00 ___ —__ _FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 0 LS $ 2600.!10 3 -_-- - _ _,_. — MED,)(41405E MODIFICATION 0 _ LS $ 5,000,00:$ -- REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS $ 500.00 5 - - FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 0 LS $ 2.000,00 $ - BasisforCostProjection : Subtotal: $ 7,189.00 ® No Design Completed Engineering:(%+1-) 15% $ 1,204,71 O Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+1-) 20% $ 1,60629 ❑ Final Design Estimated Ped ant Cost: I 10,000,00 Pru'•cl Location f�rti { College T"'yrf Station , 1! 0 !':1y1 N f r� [Field Observations — 1 Crosswalk Intersection Issues N E S W Recommendations Path of bevel eavemanl csedl6on_,^, _ _ .. _ l Path of gavel running slope Is greater then 5% Path of travel cross slope is greater than 2%for stop control approaches Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 5%for free-flow a?Q,,.-roach_es___ Crosswalk width Is less than(3' Crusawolk S4l)nl1q cendidop _ Curb Ramp Issues 4A Recommendations Ramp ID('z'or 5'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations Curb ramp does not exist and is needed Curb ramp does not land in crosswalk ,fie 4'x 4'clear spate al base of curb ramp Curbed side local'90'or has Iraversabta adiacent stufaee Flare trues slope isthanto96__,.._-_ Curb ramp running slope in greater than 8,33% ' Blended transition running slope is greater than 5% Cue-lhru letup running slope Is greater than 5% Curd ramp cross slope is greater than 2% X Remove and replace curb ramp Cul-thru ramp cross slope Is greeter then 2% Curb ramp width is less than 40" X X Cut-thru ram vldth Is less Than 60" Permanent obstruction{s uctid 25")M curb rampilandtir ddllares Temporary obstruction(50.25'1 fn curb 2mpldand gfllaree No textured surface at base of curb ramp — X X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps," Na calor contrast at base of oath rump L dN,g area does not exist and Is needed Lsndinq area Is lese than 5_x 5 or elopes eaLnr than 2M X X Remove and replacean Inf'-d-g alga Curb ramp transition onto roadway is greeter than 0,25- _-... . Counter slope of the clutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is Lgreeler than 5% Ponding oecrtra al base al curlk ramp X X Fin ponding Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 280 of 316 ttimle 4.1om and Associetosi Inc_ _ .:,I ::::::i:. r:.Hunt:O I Irivrway(L.el.30.614 1;Long.•96.3267} Pho'tagraphs _ _ - _ __GPS ID: 90001 f! :,.. ' IF . '- ...•' . Ramp 3A Ramp 4A • Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cul-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 arebased on the information known to Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs, Project Location Map Sources: • Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Inlermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopa,and the GIS User Community End of Project Desc fon for Project 90001 Intersection of George Bush Dr and dnitwway(Lat.30.6141;Long.-06.3267] Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 281 of 316 IN it nIcy-I lor 11 and Associates,InC. Priority72-1 Project Di:script lei,for Unsignalized Intersection - Client: City of College Station Date:4121/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE E l-IA No.: 061271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy GPS ID:90002 Project Norse: Intersection of Southjie,111Ikliv Tit S Dexter Dr City: College Station _ Item No, _gem Description Ousnlity 'Ali-- Unit Prke__ _ 111M10.021 .Txt-Jgam-enal EXCAVATION(ROADWAy,1_,, 0 CY 10.00 $ TAIQT 529 6002 _IfIffiaB 0 LF $ 10.00 $ - TADOT 531.6001 COM SIDEWALKS(41 13 SY $ 45.00 $ saccxt TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of report for detais) 6 EA $ 1,690.00 5 0.000.00 TxDOT 5003-61302 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 Sr 5 5L,60 $ - TxDOT 1045015 REMOVg4G CONC(SIDEYVALI<S) 42 SY 4 9.00 j, 378.00 TxDOT 677 ELM EXT PAVE MRK 5 MRKS 0 LF .r. 2.90 J TxDOT 666/578 REFL PAV MRK PREP.TY I&TY II(W)24"(SLD) 000 LF $ 8.50 5 3.085.00 — REPAVE ROADWAY 1 LS $ 5,900200 5 5.001150 — FIX PONDING 0 LS $ .2,golip s _ - — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION / LS $ 2,000200 .5 7,$00.05 — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS $ 5.000.00 $ — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS $ 500.00 $ • — FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 3 LS 5 2,000.00.5 5,000.00 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 26,023.00 St No Design Completed Engineering:(%-,/-) 15% $ 4,275.86 Cl Preliminary Design ContIngency,(%+/-) 20% $ 5,701,14 o Final Design Estimated Project Cost $ 36,000.00 je•at Location c=0 - . . .,..."-•<'., .... 1 .4'1 • „ao .-": . 7'''s 7. e, ';;f , *; . 0''' - . . . . 1 • _ . . OFreld ObserVallclIS 0 Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations N E s 57 • P ath of travel pavement condition e,o°- _ _Good NM Good Repave roadway and Install crosswalk pavement markings Path of Pavel running slope Is greater than 5% Path of travel cross slope is greater than 2%for slop control aPproeches N/A Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-now .oppLoaches hUA NIA pipsswal_kwidth is loss than 6' N/A NiA. Ernii4/A Install crosswalk pavement markings Crosswalk strict...II oanOion _ _ NPne None Ntvg _ Curb Ramp Issues 1 Curb urb rani.does OPt aidat and is needed ramp does riot land in crosswalk No 4'k 4'dear_space al base of curb ramp . Curbed side is not 50"or has traversable epiac ant surface cross slope is greater than 150'. Curb ramp running slope is greater than 8.33% x Curb Ramp ID ci or 7 in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) 1A 1B 2A......3:( 4; x x x Flare - Install curb ramp Recommendations C -- - Remove end replace crosswalk pavement markings B lended transition running slope is greater than 5% Cut-lfint ramp runniqp elopgja,Apater than 5% Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp MSS slope is greater than 2% X X X Cut.thru ramp cross slope Is greater than 2% Curb ramo width is lass than 40' qut-then.ramp widthis loss than 90" 15erinenent obstruction(1251 in curb rampflandirogglarws . I Temporary obstruction(.0.251 in curb rampilancingillaree -- No textured surface at base of curb ramp X , For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contrast at basset curb rt_n_pn X . Install color truncated domes Laming area does not exist and Is needed Lancing area is less than 5x 5'or e lope.Lareater than 2% X X X Minima.,,1 reVaort landing area Curb ramp transition onto roadWay is greater than 0.25' ' X . Fix curb ramp iransilion Counter slope of me gutter or street at the 100101 the curb ramp Is X X X Fix curb ramp counter slope oreeter than 5% PA ria 43 CGIR 5 al base of Oath fallip_ —1 --•- _ _ _ -_ Comment:Existing sidewalk,curb ramp,and/or striping configurations permit pedestrians to cross the major street.An Engineering study is needed to confirm crossing should be accommodated al this location and the current crossing treatment is appropriate Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 282 of 316 Ktmley-Mom and Assooiates,lnc. - - - - - - ----- �- - - - Intersection of Southwest Pkwy end S Dexter or{ Phetaq raPAs - -- _ DPS ID: 55002) •t \VIII '''' I Ramp 1A Ramp 1B Ramp 2A k fir -e : r' II Corner 3 No Ramp(3z) Corner 4 No Ramp(4z) Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 6 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable.Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs, Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,!GP,svnsslopo,and the GIS User Community End of Pro eel resod i tion for Freedt 90002.Intersection of Southwest Pkw and S Dexter Dr Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 283 of 316 Kinn ey-Horn and Associates,Inc. Priority:5 Project Description for Unsignalized Intersection /-Client: City of College Station Date:4121115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE 'KHA No.: 061271456 _ _ Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy,., - -- CPS ID:90003 its ecl Name: lerseclicn of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Let.30.6075,Long.-96.3196( -- - Cit: Coil-r=Station Item.No. )tem Descrkt8on - __ %W6% Unit Unit Price Item Cost 1 TxDOT 110.0001 EXCAVA'TIONLROADWAX),_ -�, ,0 CY $ 10.6a6 . T%DOT 52463O CUR jTY II) - 0 LF $ 15.00 $ - TxDOT 531.6001 CONC SIDEWALKS jg_') 0 SY $ 45,00 $ - __-TOOOT 531 CURB RAMPS{se 0.1,Sle 2 a1 report for details) 2 EA $ 1,550,00 5 3,000.00 rT DOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SU_RF,jCAST IN PLACE],. _,- _ : 0 SF 5 50.00 $ LT%D©T1A_DIS REMOVING CONC(SOMALIA) _ 20SY $ 0:00 $ 160.00 • T0520T 677 FLIM EXT PAVE MRK A PARKS RKS 0 LF _$ 2-60 A - • TxOOT 0601670 REFL PAV MRK PREP.TY I A TY II 5011241SLDI 0 LF -•�u, _$ 6,50 $ __ _ - - REPAVE ROADWAY _ 0 _ . _._-- LS $ 5,000.00 5 FIX PONDING _ 0 L5 $ 2,005.00 5 - FIX Up RAMP TRANSITION 2 LS $ 2,005,00 $ 4.000.40 --• MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS _ $____._1000.00 $ ___•_ _ -- REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 _._. _ LS . -- .540.00.$ - - FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 0 - . $ 2,000.00 $ - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 7,180,00 ® No Design Completed Engineering:9 9:(%+/-) 15% $ 1,205,57 ❑ PreliminaryDesign 9 Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 1,611.43 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 10,000.00 Pro"ect Location - - / + , . .ri 441. A ^2 4 0 ,,� ".t,.' 90003 r'i ; 4''k ti. r1 �., r''y.„; mss* , l Intersection Issues N E Crosswalk S W Recommendations Pelt of travel pn000ga 5 candioinn _ _ Path of travel running slope is greater then S% Path of travel cross slope is greater than 2%for stop control approaches Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow app_roaches Cr —,.-.-_ Crosswalkk width Is lass than 8' — Crosswalkstriving cefhdlt)vn - . Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('z'or','in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1A 2A Curb ramp does not exist and is needed Curb ramp does not rand in crosswalk ,No 4'x 4'clear specs at hate of curb rams Curbed side is not 90°or has traversable adjacent surface -_, X _X Flare cross slope is greater then 10% Curb ramp running slope Is greater than 8,33% !Blended transition running slope Is tweeter than 5% .Cut-thrt ramopEpp_mg slope Is,greater than 5% -- Curb ramp cross elapa is greater then 2% X Remove and replace curb ramp Cut-atru ramp cross slope is greater than 2% Curb rarnp width is less than 46" X cut-Are rarnp widlrIs lestthan 60' Permanent obstruction($25'y in curb ramplland'm j)jeres._ Tempore obstruction >(0,25"I in curb ramp/landing/flares No textured surface t base of curb rampX X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No calor contras[at base of curb rartro X _X install calor truncated domes Landing area does toot exist and is needed Lending area to less than 5'x 5'or elopes greeter than 2% X X Remove end replace landln area Curb ram�h trarrslllan onto roadway Is greater than 0.25` X_ M Flx crab rahhp Cans_on Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is greater than 5% - Poandnin occurs at base of curb lamp - -_ Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 284 of 316 1(imley-Hom and Asaociales,Inc- Intersection of Southwest Pltw.and d i'vew y(Lai.30.5975;Long.•48.3795) i Plrotograplls GPS ID: 90003 iifneaxy c. . _a:-tea. i+•SiY;.nfi -.— ..-. �. • Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's Judgment ase design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: • Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigltaiGiobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community End of Project ileac riptton 1 r P oject 90003 iniersectien of Soulhwes!Pkw and drlvewa Lat 30 5995-Lc� 9&3199] Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 285 of 316 Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc, Priority:5 P roject Description for Unsionelized Intersection Client: City of College Station Date:4/21/18 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No..: 061271400 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy — _ _....._.._..._.._.._.. GPS ID:95004 Pro_Ject Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwsr and driveway(LaL 39.5873;Long,-s6.3191) 'City: College Station_ _ _ _ r Item No. Ile_Description Quantity Unit Upll Price hem Cost TxPOT 110-6001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY} 0 CY 4 10:00 $ • ToDOT 52 ,@02:GURB.(TY I)._._.___ 0 LP _.. _ 15.00 1,$ _ T T%DO9&T 531-6001 C N¢C SIDEWALKS s4") 0 SY 1 45.00 Txf7OT 531 CURS RAMPS(nee page 2 of report for details] ... .. .. EA $ 1,505.00 5 3,000.00 TxDOT 5003-5002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) SF $ 60.00 $ ,T$•DoU04-6015 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) _ 0 _ SY s 9.00 .1 _ 180.00 _—Iy QT7J lEE({,1 F,P.V EXT E MRX& uKS 1,_.,,..._..._....._ LE 203 T%DOT 6661675 RPFL PAM MRK PREP,TY I&TY II 15$24 1SLO)__. Lt° 5 6.80 v$ - — REPAVE ROADWAY LS $ 5,000.00 $ - - FIX PONDING LS S 2,000.00 $ FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION LS $ 2,000.00 $ • -- MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION Ls $ _ 100090._._-,____®._ , ..- REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION _ ._.—._..�... ... _ _ _.. LS S. 5@0A0 5 _. FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE -0 LS $ 2,000.00 $ Souls for Cost Projeulicn Subtotal: 5 3,180,00 M No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 780,00 O Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% 5 1,040.00 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 6,00000 00 Pro,{ect Location__ --___ __ 10 0 0 Ai f \''''''/I.1 ter;�;. M 'V -0 ''-- t _ f .....e. '4, '* i . VI' ! .4,...•••'".•-' es...L4'4.. a, '•-' ..." ill Field Observations ( Intersection Issues CrosswalkRecommendations y N E S_ W Path of Gavel vemsnt Condition Path of travel amnion slope Is greater than 6%. _ - Path of travel cross slope is greater than 2%for stop control approaches _._ .f._ Path of bowel cross slope is greater than 5% %for hes-how approaches .Crosswalk width Is less than 6' _ Crosswalk atrjW4n°cm4flOP Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('z or'1'In ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1A 2A Curb re:mp does not exist and is needed,�_� Curb ramp does not land in crosswalk No 4'x 4'dear space al base of curb ramp Curbed side is not 80°or has traversable adjacent surface X X Flare cross elope is greater than 10% Curb ramp running elope le greeter then s 33% X Blended transition runrdng slope is greater than 5% CUNhru ramp running slope Is Waaler than 5% Curb ramp Dross alapa Is oraatar than 2% X Remove and replace curb ramp Cslt'thnoramp arose slope is greater a02%__..___..____...._ss�,��__._ Curb ramp xddlh is less than 45" Cutdhru ramp WO is less then 60" Permanent obstructlpnit025"}In curb ranlp/1andingl0ares Femporar;abelruc1iosJv0261in curt rgolandinattlares_ -- No textured surface at base of curb ramp X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contrast at base of curb ramp X Install color Truncated domes L anding area docs not exist and is needed _ Landing area is less than 5'x 5'er sl5sgre5ter than 2% X X Remove and replace landing area Curb ramp transition onto roadys jsgreeter hen 025' .... Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is osier than 5% Pouting ottztrs at base of curb rgr rye_ 1 .. Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 286 of 316 IKtmlay-Hom and Associates,Ina. _. inter;+:c hon of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat.30,$973;Long,48.3197) 1900.15995 - — OPS ID: 80004 b• v. • Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channellzing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer hes 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's Judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: • Esrl,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Inlermap,IPC,NRCAN,Earl Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitaiGtobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmepping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community End of Pro not Descri.lion for P•act BOW Intersection of Southwest Pkw and drfwewa Let.30.8970;_Lonth Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 287 of 316 KimfeyI-tom and Associates,Inc. Priority:9 ,Project Description for Bnsignalized Intersection - -_ - - Client: City of College Station Date:4121115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No,: 061271406 Checked Flo;SRA C aider: Southwest Pkwy OPS ID:9090$ Prp�ct Name: €tersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lad.30.5973;Lon{j.,_,1,16:2,11,91___________ .� City: College 5laltot. i Item No. item Dosed.tion t.1 r. t - _ri__ .11 PP*' — Ito1 CoTxxisl O t. r.••• f10.0000021 rr r EXCAVATION(ROADWAY)._ CURB If 10.00 515.00._$ -1e,. e• .r. • •- r - —__ $ 45,09 $ .._ r_. r eT 531 CURB RAMPS Nee pane 2 of meet for details 2 EA I 500.00 5 3 006.90 DOOT 5N)3•6002 RETROFIT VET WARN SU F ST IN PLAC ,,S 50.00 1 - TxDOT 1044015 R • e • SIDEWALKS -- -a 00 18090 TxDOT 877 EL lM EXT PAVE MRN&MRKS 0 -.. •r...TXDOT 666,678 . REFL PAV MRN PREP,TY I&TY If 1W)24'1(SLD) 0 LF 8,50 EPAKROA.DWAY 0 FIX PONDING - -- - - - -- 0 2000-90• FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION _ - 0 _-- __.__ _ 2 000-00 111111.1 . MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 1,5 $ 5,000.00 5 REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS $ 590.90 $ FIX Cu B RA P R$LOPE 0 LS $ 2,900-00 $ Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: 5 3,160,00 M No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 780.00 0 Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% 5 1,040.00 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 5 000.00 1Project Location — - —_ ii 0 ' •+re > • 1p' 1 i''. -4.......-. •_ ••fes'•. }}� •* —e.;41teliell. - - *: — Field Observations 7 Intersection Issues N E Crosswalk S W Recommendations r........,_LL....._ avel pavement condition avel ninnlnp slope is orealer than 5% _ avel cross slope Is greater than 2%for stop control oe ravel cross slope Is greater than 5%for free-flow es-_lk width Is leas then 6'lk striping condlllon , _ Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('i or':'In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1A 2A Curt ramp does ot exist and Is needed I Curb ramp does not land In crosswalk X Tta move and replace crosswalk pavement markings No 4 a 4'clear space at base of curb ramp ,•� _ -_ Curbed side Is not 90°or has traversable adjacent eurfao X X Plena cross slope""Is greater than 19% si Curb ramp mngino shops. r at r than 8.33% Blended tranei ion mraning slope is greater than 5%. Cut.hru ramp earning slope Is greater than 555 Curb ramp areas slope Is greater than 2% Remove and replace curb ramp Gut-thru 2gm cross oIsey is praetor than 2% Curb mmp width is less than 48".... Cut-ihru ram width is less than 60' Permanent obstruction 10025)15 curl rampflandinglflare= — -,-. Ttmparanl obstruction(50:25")In curb rampAandlrxNFlarea Na textured surface at bast al curb ramp No color contrast at base or curb ramp Landing area does not owlet and ie needed Larttft ares Is less than 5'x 5'or slopes orea ter Than 2% X X Remove and replace landing area Curd ra•mplaimition onto roadway Is greater than 0-25' -counter Mope of the gutter or sheet al the not of the curb ramp Is 'greater than 5% Panting occurs at base of curb ramp Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 288 of 316 Hfmley-Ham.and Associates Inc. Intersection of Southwest Pkwv and drivawav(Lot.80.6878;Long.-96.5189) GPS ID: 90006• ' a a i • Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details; Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigilaiGlobe,GecEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community End of Pro oct Dascrl-ion for Pro ect 80056 Intersection of Southwest Pkw,and drivewe Lat.30.6973•Lonof.-86.8199} -__ Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 289 of 316 Kimley-Nom and Associates,Ins. Priority:9 Prolect Description for Unslgnalixed Intersection_ _ Client: City of College Station Date:4121/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KRA No.: 051271408 clout u.rl Ity:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy - GPS ID:90008 Project Name; Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lot,30.5971;Long.-98.3203) City: Cottage Station Item No. Item Description _ Quantity, _ _ _ Vat UPIf Price lien on TxDOT 110-5001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) 0 Cy $ 10.00 1_, ,_. - Tx2123"529-5002 CURB{TY 111 0 LF $ 15.00 $ - TxDOT531•3001 CONCONCSIDEWALK5.11.7, 0 SY 5 45.00 { TxDOT 531 CURB RAMPS(see page 7 of report for details), 2 EA. S 1300.00 $ 3,000.00 TOOT 5003.5002'RETROF IT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) _-. 0SF S 5000 $ '&02134-60(5 REMOVlNGCCNC(SIDEWALKS) _ 20 SY 5 9,00 $ 180.00 - TeDQ'1{7,,,--EIJM EXT PAVE MRK&PARKS 0 LF 5 2.80 $ - TuDOT 550f578 REFL PAVICRITF;EE,TY I$TY tl_{WJ 24"{8LO) 0 IF 5 8.50 5 - - REPAVE ROADWAY 0LS 3 8,000.00 $ ..— FIX PONDING .... 0 - - L8 _ _ 2000.00 5 _ - - FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 0 LS 4 ,,,-2,000 00 $ - - MEDIAbl NOSE ..r • 0 LS 5 5,000.00 5 .. - -.. REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS S 500,00 5 - 0 __ S S 2000.00 $ - 'Basis for C-ost Projection Subtotal: $ 3,180,00 2 No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 780.00 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%-'1-) 20% 5 1,040,00' ❑ Final Design Esti-mated Prnrect Cost: S. 5,000.00 1 Pro-act Location- 1 t"., by IA / 6 Al 4 is $06Q6" -72 t .0 4i' ! 4.-• ".\-1 stn r i,.. I I. o IIF mild Observations Intersection Issues u E Crosswalk w Recommendations •P Ih or travel avement condition Path 5f travel pinning slope is greater than 5% Path of travel cross slope Is greater then 2%for atop control =aches Path Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 5%for free-flow -- a approaches __.,___* Crosswalk%Adth is less Than 5' Crosswalkatrlaing„.ndi/ion Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('T or'i'In ramp abet Indicates no existing ramp Recommendations IA 2A Curb ramp does nol,exisl and is needed Curb ramp does not land In crosswalk No4'0 4'clear space at base of curb romp Curbed side Is not 90'or has traversable adlacent surface X X lFiere cross slope je,gt„eatef than 10% Curb ramp manning slope is greater than 8.33% Blended trensltion running elope Is greater'Scan 83k Cut-thru ramp naming slope Is greater than 5% Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp cross alone Isrg eater than 2% Cut-lhru ramp creen elope is greaterthan 244. urbrm mo width is less than 45" _ -- _ X X Cut-thru ramp vddth le less than 60' Permanent obstruction(00,25")In curb ramp/landing/flares ..... Ter__taor_rinr obstruclon 025"In curb rem_pflandInglflares No textured surface el base or ourh,ramp, No color contrast al base of curb ramp Landinq-afas does not exIst and Is needed Leming area Is Iess than 5'x 5'orslapas greater than 2% X X I flemove re irge Pan-ding area Curb ramp transition Wig roadvea tkgreater than 5.25" ....-.,c.�. --_....—_., Counter slope of the gutter or street at the root of the curb ramp Is nreater than 5% Pondln0 cicers(ribose of curb name Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 290 of 316 K mle-Horn and Associates Inc. IntersectIon of Southwest Pim and drives. Let.30.5971•Lon..-96.3203 Pun trains - - OPS ID: 90006) +k . .. Ramp 2A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cul-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer • cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not.vary from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esti,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Eon China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TemTom,2013, DigilalGlabe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community Erd of Project Description for Project 90096 Intersection of Saagiwest Pkwy and driveway fLal.80.6071;Long.-90.3200) — _ Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 291 of 316 Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc, Priority:2 Project DoseriDllan for Unsignalixed Intersection Client: City of College Station Date:4/21115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE Ill-IA Nn• 081271408 Chucked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy_ OPS ID:50008 Protect Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway ILet,80.6024;gang.-56.813 Chy: College Station _ hem Nn 114,m De2Q019D _ QuenIIv Unit Unit price lien.Goat TxDOT 110.0001 IEXCAVATION RtOADWAYJ _ g CY $ 10.00_, • T%I 647579600/CURB(TY II) 0 IF ., �V4. 15.00 ,_,__, ___. 5..__. T%DOT 5315001 CYI^PC SIDEWALKS(4") _ 7- $ 45.00 ... - TxDOT 531 CURD RAMPS(see page 2 of report tar details) EA $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 IjoOa77 pang RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) SF $ 50.00 $ TX:OT104.641$REMOVINGCONCSSIUEWALK5) I 0 SY $ .0.00 $ 180.00 TuDOT6T1 ELM,'EXT PAV€DARK a MR6S _.__ __ LF $ 2_94. �.a. n0078681878 REF L PAV MRK PREP,TY 18 TY II(W7 241SLD) ... LF $ 5.50 $ - - REPAVE ROADWAY LS $ 0,000.00 5 - - FIX PONDING LS $ 2400,00 $ — MX CURB RAMP TRANSITION LS $_ 2_0�17,0.Og, - i, •- MEDIAN NOSE MODIF CATION _ LS $ 0,000.00 $. _ — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION _Ls $ 590.00 $ - - FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPELS $ 2,000.00 $ - Balls for Cost Prc)ocllon Subtotal: $ 3,180,00 M No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 780,00 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 1,040,00 ❑ Final Design Estimated Prg)o_l Cost: $ 6,000.00 Pro"ett Location --- — -_ -- - - - - i•.r r ;("',err M � 4 ,. kkoi -1' e -- or v ) 0 '1,..,...,, iy , ,nlify ': **. 0 44 4•" r. a - '.,� �F - i . 'Field Okrseryutl rips _ - --_ --- -- .- --J11 Intersection Issues N E Crosswalk 4 w Recommendations Path of travel pavement condition„,_ .. - � 1 Path of travel running slope is grealer than 5% Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 2%for stop control approaches Path of travel cross slope In greater than 5%far free-flew appy; ghes __ [Crosswalk vridlk is less than 5' I Crosswalk sill IN crndit.a -__ Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('Y or'Pin ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 3A 4A Curb ramp does not exist and is needed Curb!amp does nol land in crosswalkNo 4•a 4'clear space at base of curb ramp Curbed side is not 00'or has traversable adjacent surfacer_R Fiore crass slope Is greeter Then 10% Curb ramp running slope Is greater Than 8.73% Blended transition running slope Is treater than 5% Cul-8iru ramp running slope Is grouter then$14 Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp cross slope ie greater Oren 2% X Cul-Ihru ramp cross slope is greater than 2% Curb ramp width Is less than 48" Cul-Ihru ramp Hidth Is less than 60` Permanent obstruction(?025"jun curt rampflandlnahlares X X Temporary obstruction(30.25")in curb rempllandingtierea No textured surface al base of curb ramp X X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contrast al base of curb ramp X X Install color truncated domes Landing 1E-ea dues not exist end is needed Landing area is less then 5'x 5'or slopes gseater than 2% X X Remove and replace landing area Curb ramp transition onto roadway ie greater than 0.25" Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp is motor than 5 Pending _. curb _.. Pendmp occurs al busy of r8mq Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 292 of 316 Khntev-Ham and Associalesrinc. trHur.,.•.liv of sr a w._;t Pkwy. rl driveL 024 30.6Lon 9s,3131 Photographs _ - _ __. _ waLaDPS ID: 90058 • ..t , f• Ramp 3A Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer al this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer • cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,lntermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,MET!,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community Ertel of Projocl Dascriptton for Pro ect 90008 Intersection of Southwest Play and drlvawa. Lat.30.0024'Lan..46.3131) Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 293 of 316 Kimiey-Rom and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Protect DescripHop far is lgnalised Intersection - - _ _ _-_ Client: City of College Stadion Date:4121115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.: 061271408 _. .._ Checked By:SRA p • Crridor: Southwest Pkwy GPS ID:90008 Project Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway{Lat.30.6032;Lang.-96.37271 City: Collage St tion Horn No, •a Is -•n is Unit Unit Priori Item Cost TOOT 1106801 EAVATIDN(ROADWAY} 8 10.00 - . ToDDT 5296002 CURB TY11],`..._......,,.�,.�_ + - $ - Tx❑DT 5316001 CONC SIDEWALKS({'} ' IMIIMIllrgl .$ .. 45"00 TxPo7 531 CURB RAMPS one page 2 of report for delalls). 560.00 _ 0_,_011.00 TxDOT 5003--O+t REYRorrT DET WARN SURF CAST IN PLACE 0 SF 50.00 7x60710677 REMt7I(TP.VGONG SIDEWALKS 9.00 TxD0T 877 FLIM EXT P'Y M`I<8•„IdF7K&--- REFL FAV MRK PREPTY I TY II(yYi_y4iSj ) - REPAVE ROADWAY IMMO 'r- FIX PONDING - FIX RAMP GURB TRANSITION '+ r r - MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION + ' 11 REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION^_ + - 500.00 - IX CU-B LAMP COUNTER SLOPE . + c'+'r _ Basis far Cool Projection —- - - Subtotal: $ 5,160.00 ® No Design Completed Engineering:(%+l-) 15% $ 780.00 ❑. Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+1-) 20% $ 1,040.00 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 7,000.00 1 Pru ect Location _ -7 lol4,17 Al i y 0 F r / • - it, ' '. 4w Field Observations _ Intersection Issues N E osswawk S W Recommendations Path of travel pavement condition Path of travel running slope B greater than 5% ... ... Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 2%for stop control agmoaclres _ - Palh of travel cross slope is greater Than 5%far free-flow appcoecllee _ _ Creea arl•k±Marr is lass then 8' __ • . .. T_.— Crosswalk striping candltlan_ Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp0{'i or':'in ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations IA 2A Curb ramp does not exist end ie needed Curb ramp does not land In crossnelk h - No 4'x 4'clearcpaca at base of curb ramp Curbed side is not 00"or has traversable ad1-acuet surface Flare cross slope Is greater then 10% - Curb rang inning slope Bgreater Om 0.33% Blended transition cunni f_slape Is greater than 5% Cuk-ihru ramp running slope iis_,nraater than 5% Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp cross slope Is greater Ihan 2% X Cut_mru ramp cross slope is greater than 2% CurbremmKidlh is less than 48" __- X X Cut-thru ramp oddth is less than 60' Permanent abalruction ju0.225"t In curb ramptlandlnlllflares Tem.on obstruction 50.25"In curbrmmpAandlnplleres No textured surface at base of curb ramp X X For ntersec ion ramps and oommerclal driveway ramps,. No color contrast at base of curb tamp Landing area does not exist and is needed .._ Landing area is less then 5'x 5'or elopes greater than 2% X X Remove and replace landing area Curb ramp transition onto roadway is greater than 0.25° X F1-x eurI:rer_np transition Counter elope of the gutter or street al the foot arts curb ramp is greater than 5% Ponding occurs at beta of curb ramp Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 294 of 316 [Kimley-Nom and Associates,Inc. bv1Srsection of Southwest Pkw(r any j d driveway Lat.30.6032 Long.-96 31271; (Photograph's + - -- -- ._ GPS ID 900091 ' I 7 = f RamplA Ramp 2A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esd,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esrl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisslopo,end the GIS User Community Encl o#Project Description for Project 90009 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat.30.&0321 Long.-90.3127) Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 295 of 316 Kimley-Hom and Associates,Inc, Priority:2 Prefect Description for Unslynalized Intersection _ Client: City of College Station Date:4121115 II Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE I.KHA No.: 061271448 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy Project Name: Intersectio of Southwest Pk BPS ID:90010 and drivewa Ler,30,6043;Lon 56.3 22 —Ya �L 4�- 1 ) City: College Station ' Item No. Item Description Quantity Uelt unij2gce I{em cspt T5DOT 110-6001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) 0 CY $ 140.00 *_,,,,�, TxDOT 529.6002 CURB(TY 11) 0 LF _$_ 15.00 $ - . ,TeDOT 53),-602]-O0N_G SIDEWALKS(4"1 0 SY $ 45,00 2 . •• (see 2 el report far details) 2 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 MOOT 031_CURB RAMPS{ page 'CxD07 5093-0002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST 1N PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.00 ToDOT 104-8015 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) _ 20 SY _ $ 9.00 $ 1¢0,00 TepOT677 ELIM EXT PAVE MRN 8 MRKS 0 LF _ $ _ 2,80_J T3DOT 666/678 REFL PAV MRK,PREP•TY I it TY III(1ryj2e %1771 - -._S __- _. _ 1,F 2 0.50 $ • l' -- AEPAVE ROADWAY 0 LS $ 5,090.90 $ •-- 19K PONOII4Q 2 LB $ 2.000.00 $.-_ 4,000.00 — — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION LS 2,000 00 S 4.000,00 — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 L5 $ 5,500,02 $ - ,REMO5IETEMPORARYOBSTR11C71ON - 0 _ -__.-. h5 $ 500.09 $ • — FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER.SLOPE. _ Q LS $ 2600.00 5 - BasisforCostProjection Subtotal: $ 11,180.00 M No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 2,065.71 O Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 2,754.29 O Final Design Estknatad Prolact Coati_110,000.00 iLL9ject Location // inl e \--,,i7 0 , , 5...,_,,, A.,.., „, .,,, i ..., ‹. ......„..., / 11)11111rj / / / - .... Field Observations IIntersection Issues N E Crosswalk S W Recommendations ,P5h1_gl h_ivel r aynweant condition !Path of travel running slope is greater Iha.5% — iPalh of travel cross slope is greater than 2%for slop control laPproaches Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow approaches —_.. Crosswalk width isless than 6' Crosswalk ehping condition I _ Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('z'or'i'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 3A 4A Curb ramp does not exist and is needed _ Curb ramp does not land in crosswalk 1__ :No4'x 4'clear once at base of curb ramp— Curbed side is not 90°ar has traversable adjacent surface TX X !Flare cross slope is rg eater than 10% ,Curb ramp running slope is greater Than 8.33% ..__• Blended transition running slope is greater than$% 'Cu Form ramp hunning slope Is greater Than 5% Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramgcress slaps is on ales than 2% X__X C t}iLm._raaga a_N920 is$mater ------- -- -- Curburh ramp wirmh Is tees Than 49" X _ X :Cat-tbru reap width is less then 60" 'Permanent obntruatlon(>0.25")le curb ramp5andingfflares __� 7emporaf 0),tlru0062(x0.251bh curb ramodandinrjttlares � r No textured surface at base o1 curb raja X Foi ._.._ X X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No color contrast al base of curb ramp XX install color truncated domes Lentkr%area does not exist and Is needed Landing area is less Than 5'x 5'or slopes greater than 2% X X Remove and replace landfn9 area Curb r_mp transition onto roadwayris greater than 0.25" X X 111x curb ramp transition Counter slope of the totter Sr street et the loot of the curb ramp le greater than 5% T.. tit u...r:1.•se.:r•It 0m. _ Fic iondlni Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 296 of 316 (H n y Ho.m and Associates,Inc. Intersection.of Southwest Pkwy and driveway I-- 30.6043 Lon-.96.3122 f'h t gr phs" UPS ID: HOW • auk • • w l • • ., Ramp 3A Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cul-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cul-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer • cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,1PC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigltalGlabe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community End of Project Desenplion For Project 90010 Inlersecton of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lot.30.6043:Longi_-06.31229 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 297 of 316 Knile Nom and A ssociates,Inc. Priority:2 Pro-et Deseri lion for Uns iignalized Intersection Client: City of College Station Date:4/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.: 061271405 Checked By:BRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy GPS ID:90011 —__ Project Name: Intersection of Southwest pkwy and mk161oek crossing(tat.00.8000;Long.-96.3128) Cit: College StetIon Item No. item bescriploon 051511tiN -Upl1 Unit Noe ,Item COSI TxOOT110,6001 EXCAVATION{ROADWAY �` 0 - CY $ 10.50. i' TxDOT 529-6002 CURB{TY IIF •0. • LF $ 15.00 $ --- - TxDOT 531-6001.9,,O, CS{4'1 0 SY $ 45.00 5 - TsROTb$1 CURB RAMPSA,s0, ga 2 of,5art for rjetallsl _ 0 EA__— $ „ ,_1,500 sf0 J TxDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT PET WARN SURF{CRST IN PLACE) _-__- ---.20 .... SF $ 50.00 $ 1,000.00 TxDOT 504-6016 REMOVING CONC LSIDLSIDEV/ALKS) 6 SY $ 9,00 $ - TxDOT877 ELlfd EXT PAVE MRK&MRK.S 4 1 LF $ 2.60 $ • 7 T,$6EJ678 REFL PAV MRK PREP,TY 18 TY II{IN)24"{SLO) 112 _ LF $ 8.60 $ 952.00 __ REPAVE ROADWAY_... I L5 ---$.---.-..520-9,0...-.$ _5,04.O.Oo --. FIX PONDING -..--'-- _ - 2 LS _v..� ?..���....� 4.00090 - FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION ... 1.5 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,900.00 - MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION LS $ 5,000.00 $ - REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION L5 $ 500.00 $ • - ,FIX CURB RAMP COUNTSR SLOPE 8 $ _ZOO $ - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 12,952.00 Q No Design Completed Engineering:(%v/-) 15% $ 2,163.43 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%*1-) 20% $ 2,884.57 ❑ Final Design -Estimated Project Cost: $ 10,00o-.00 Prefect Localiu@ _- _ y ....../e11........447 - - •- - .i.• hr.,'rf / . j-V I I i .1" .0.'7. .' , . 0 ' v '440.1. • !Field Observations II Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations N E S W Path atravet pavement condition N/A N/A _ NDA t7annercv5 Repave roadway and install crosswalk pavemeMmarlags Path of Irayet running sto,tt5 la greater than 6% path of travel cross slope is greater than 2%for stop control ennrnenhes N/A N/A N/A N/A Path of ravel cross slope is greater than 5%for Free-flow approaches N/A N/A. N/A _. -••�..�...�•• _ ... Crosswalk width ie less than 6 __-.�.�. _�. MA NIA -. NIR Crosswalk striping condition N/A N/A NIA Gugd Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp i 7z or i n ramp lase Inidicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1A 2> 3z 4A Curb ramp docs not exist and Is needed Curb cramp does-Col land in crosswalk No 4'x 4'clear apace et base of curb ramp t ... ---a--__m_,---....--_•,.---- Curbed side Is not S11°or has traversable ediscent.surface Flare mass slpe.greater than 13% Curb rentE conning elope is orealot than 8,33% Blended d transition nninp slope is greater than 5% Cut-qtm ramp running slope Is greater than 6% . t Curb ramp cross slope Is greaser than 2% Gert-trump cmas slope la greater Ihan 2% Curb rem xsdlh is lees then CE" Cut-stirs ramp width is less Olen 00"�� Permanent obotruoton{°0.25")In curb ramp/lanonofllaree Temper abstruallons?G2E)In curb ramp8anding/flares No textured surface at base of curb ramp X X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps,/ No color contrast at base of curb ramp 'Lending area dyes not exist add Is needed 'Landirrg area Is less than.5'x 6'or slopes greater Mon 2% _ tIC trio ramp iren hon onto roadvrdy,is greater than 0.25" ) ,Jt I Flx curb ramp transition ICounler slope oath gutter or street at the foot or the curb ramp is L0 I Lb 5% Pondina4 cur ash se at curbramp X rx-/. _ - Fix.andln._ Comment:Existing sidewalk.curb ramp,and/or striping configurations perms pedestrians to cross the major street.An Engineering study is needed to confirm crossing should be accommodated al this location and the current crossing treatment is a ppropca le Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 298 of 316 Kirnfey+lom and Associates,lsc, Intersection of Southwest Pkwy end ntldblack crossing.(La_I_.30.6030 I uvig.-95.3120)1 Photographs _ GP ID 900111 n._,, iSt W - n Ramp 1A Corner 2 No Ramp(2z) Corner 3 No Ramp(3z) P. • Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 0 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot end does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from IIs opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Earl,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,'PC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TamTom,2013, DlgllalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogdp,IGN,!GP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community End of Project Description for Project 90011 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and midblock crossing ILat.80.6080;Long.46.3128 _ 1] Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 299 of 316 Kimley-Ham and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Project Description for Unsignalized Intersection Client: City of College Station Date:4/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.: 08/271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy GPO ID:90012 Pict Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwrand drivewpp L(03.30.6040;Long.56.2124). _ �_,.._.. G- Golle:e Station ....- t , Ile Description quenlity unit LnritPf5 - /e S�at T3007 41_0-6001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) 0 CY $ _ 1000 ,L - T%1DOT 529-502CURB[TY II),.. ��. 0 IF $ 15.0.0 _ _�. - TeDOT531-6001 GONGSIPEWALKSA43 0 _- SY $ 45.04 $ - TxdOT 631 CURB RAMPS(ase page 2 of report for details) 1 EA $ 1,500.00 S 1,500.00 :TxDOT 5003-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF{CAST IN PLACE}, 0 SF $ _50.00 $_ TxGOT 1414-e,Q15 REMOV1NG CONC,rSIDEWALKSL__ _ __ _ - 12 SY $ 9.00 108.00, ' TADOT 077 ELI,[4 EXT PAVE MRK&DARKS 0 IF $ 250 $ , TxDOT 6661679 REFL PAV PARK PREP.TY I b TY II(W}241SLP) 0 IF $ 8.50 S - - REPAVE ROADWAY 0 LS $ 0,000.00 $ - FIX PONDING 0 LS $ 2,000.00 $ - FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 2 LS $ 2,000.00 _ 4,0p.00. --- MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 --_ LS �,$ 5,000.00 $ I R__.R._ -- REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION y -..._LS.. FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 0 _ LS _ 2,000.00_ $ � 500.00 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 6,10500 M No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 1239.43 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 1,652.57 ❑ Final Design Estimated Pro .: $ 9,000.00 rP Jed Location j a ins,.,yr ff r3r � If/�r w ii 1 0 !! r��Y Ai'� I B r t '' - 4. ~ f f4 _ r 3A �, „•#—..)M 1'7 I4Arm ii FIotdObservatlons - - - - - .. - -- -I Intersection Issues N E Crosswalk _8 W Recommendations 1Palh of travel pavement condition Path of travel running slope is greater than 5% Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 2%for stop control approaches Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow ' approaches Crosswalk width Is less than 6' CresswALE striping condition - Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID(i or'i'In ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 3A 4A Curb ramp does not exist and Is needed. Curb ramp does not land in crosswalk _,__ -� Na 4°x 4'dear space al base of curb ramp Curbed side is rept 99°or has traversable Adjacent surface tX Flare croon slope is greater than 10% Curb ramp:wiling slope is greater then 8.33% I _ Blended transition running slope is greater than 5% Cut-Ihru ramp running slope Isseeatcr than 5% Curb ramp cross dope/s,greeler tan 2/k �w X Remove and replace curb ramp Cut.lhnl ramp cross slope in greeter Irian?% iCud,ramp width Is less than 49"Cut-thru ramp widO Is less than 60" P rmnsnt obsruction(o0.25(In curb rampllandlnrygares Temporary ohdmdonj0252n curbrampAandingBarae X Remove temporary obstruction No textured surface al base of curb ramp _ X X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, ids color contrast at base of curb ramp X X Install color truncated domes L d,}t ereadoos nal exist and Is needed Landing area..is less LI 5'x 5r or alopes,gfeatpL then 2% X, X Remove and replace landing area Garb ramp nen in n colo mad0y is�gWate r Than 025" X r X Fix. curb ramp transition Counter slope of tl a gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is - - - greater than 5: Porrd ig,,te wrs at base of club TORSO Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 300 of 316 n I,.,•,,,r„a.nti F- ciid,;:,I,. Intersection of SoulhwestPkwy and driveway(LaL 30.0040i Lung.-95.3124)1 PI t plrs GPS ID: 900121 .:�", _ -4 /- iii . :10111.°1 Ramp 3A Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Typed-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 1 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cul-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. . Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community lEnd of Project Description for Project 90012 Lntorsaction of Southwest Pkwy and ddrsway(Let.30.8040;Lona.-96.31241 —— ^� Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 301 of 316 Kierley-Hom and Associates,Inc. Priority:2 Project Description for Unsignalized Intersection _ _ _ Client: City of College Station Date:4/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.: 061271408Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest PEa0 _ _- CPS ID:90013 Pro ecl Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Let,30.80481 Long.-98-3117) CGity: College Station - Item No Ilem eecr' on Quantity Unit Link Price 11em Cost .IxDOT 110-43001 EXCAVATION!ROADWAY) 0 CY $ 10.00 $ - A 97 539490 C9�T!'Imo. _ 0 LF 5 19.00 $ - TxOOT 531.6001 C11RONC SIDEWALKS(4)• 0 SY A 46.00 $ _ TxDOT531 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of report fordetaia) 2 EA _.._ _5. 1,500.00 $ _3.04]0.00 TxDOT 5003-0002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.00 5 - S>dIOT 1d 6-6.215 RP.MOVg4G CONC(SIDEWALKS) 20 SY $ 9.00 $ _ 180.00 Tx90T677 ELIM EXT PAVE MRK 8 MR,S 0 IF $ 2.80 $ TxOOT5851676 REFLPAV MRK.PREP,TJ a TY 11(W)14SSLt7} __- 0 LF $ _-_ .8-50 - __- --- REPAVE ROADWAY 0 LS $ 5.000,00 - FIX PONDING 0 LS $ 2,000.00 $ - _ .. — FiX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 2 LS $ 2.000.00 6 4,000.00 MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS $ 6,000.00 $ MOrETE TEMPORARY — REMOVE TEM PORRRy OBSTRUCTION 0 LS --_ �„ -, 500-00 j__ _ - - FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE -�.-v- _ 0 ^^ .LS^.--- $ 2.000.00 $ Basis for Cast Projection Subtotal: $ 7,180.09 B No Design Completed Engineering:(%t-/-) 15% $ 1,208.57 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingancy:(%al-) 20% $ 1,611.43 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: 5 10,000.00 Prefect Location ..—/M,T..."^y rf-i .._\ . A l l 0 N f 0.`� 4f / LJh1�]� r-.+`. i 7. tib `" Flnlrl olworoationa p Crosswalk Intersection Issues N E S — ..W Recommendations Path of travel pavement concilion i Path of travel running elope is greater than 5% Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 2%for slop control Approaches Path of(ravel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow approaches Crosswalk width Is less than 6' Crply nalk strIpIno Condition Curb Ramp ID('z'or'i'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Curb Ramp Issues Recommendations ' 3A 4A Curb ramp does not exist end is needed i ___ Curb rat p does not land in croaswa0c _ Pin 4'0 4'clear space at base of curb ramp Curbed side Is not 50'or has traversable adlacerot surface X X Flare wase slope is greater Then 10% Curb rem running slope is greater than 8,33% Blended transition runn[nn slope Is treater than 5% Cut-thru ramslops lc greater Swat 6% Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp crass siope.ls.grester than 2% X Cu1•thru ramp cross slopes i�reeter than 2,j5-_._-.__.__. Curb rams width Is less than 48" X X Cut-Ihru ramp width Is less than 60" Permanent obst ction(>0.251 In curb rem$llandingrflares X __— Temporary ohstruction e 25")_In curb ramplendlnlil00res _ Na textured surface at base of curb.ream _ X X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No toter 0001rasl at basest curb ramp X_X install color truncated domes Lancing area does not exist and Is needed Lending area is less than 56x 5'or elopes growler than 2% X X Remove and replace landing area Curb ramp transitan onto roadway is greater then 0.25- X X Flx curb rative_nansitlen Counter slope of the gutter or shoe(a1 the foot of the curb ramp Is greater then 5% Pondinttcccurs alb as'of wlrth ramp Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 302 of 316 f(Iml Il n.111d A n .ios,Inc. intersection of Southwest Pkw and drivewa La¢30.8045•Lon---g..96.3117.) Photographs ..— GPS ID 90013 Ramp 3A Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channellzing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer has no control over the coal 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 Engineer et this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs, Project Location Map Sources: Esd,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esti Japan,METI,Esti China(Hong Kong),Earl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrlp,IGN,IGP,swisslopo,end the GIS User Community End of Project Ocseription far Project 90013 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lai.30.6098;Long.-96,3117)_ I Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 303 of 316 1Ki7ley-Horn and Associates,Inc. . Priority:2 Protect Descripbon for kill$4.Pailz.d Intersection - Client: City of College Station Date:4/21/15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE SRA No.: 061271408 Checked KIT SRA - Corridor: Southwest Pkwy BPS ID90014 Project Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway ILat.30.6052:Lona.-96,31141 City: College SiaiMn_ --=-- : .. ..._,,, Item Nn, Item 0 os rriotion Q.10/11115, UM Unit Prise Item Cost _44. T,DOT 1 lG.CCO1 EXCAVNHON rk.0.4UWAY1cy $ 1080 $ . . . TxDOT 529,6002 CURB EY D_ LF $ 15.00 $ - TxDOT 631.6001 CNC SIDEYMALKS14"1 SY $ 45.00 L . Tx001 531 CURB RAMPS(see.w_gl e 2 of report for details) EA $ - 1500.00 1. _1000.00 TxDOT 5003-5002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF SCAST lb/PLACE), SF -$ 50.00 $ TxDOT 10446515 REMOVING CONC{SIDEWALKS), $ BY $ 9.09 $ 180.00 TOOT 677 FLIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS .. LF $ 2.80 5 TxDOT 6681615 REF L PAV MRK PREP,TY I&TY It 5N1.241SLDI LF $ 6.50 $ - — REPAVE ROADWAY LS $ 50.9.0.00 — FIX PONDING LS $ 200.00 $ 4 000 nn — FIX CURB RAMP TRAtIBMON 1 15 ...$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION LB $ 5,000.00 $ —- REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION II LS $ 06049 — FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SI-OPE LS L 2.00800 1 . Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 9,180.00 M No Design Completed Engineering;(%0-/-) 15% $ 1,637,14 O Preliminary Design Contingency:(%0-/-) 20% $ 2,182.86 O Final Design Estimated Project Cost: 5 1.31600.00 [Pro"ect LoGation ._. __ IF - ......../,' , ....... . ( -....1" ' .,... ..,, N.-N. - 4; •-0014 ,, r ?".. NI • fi , ,t• •-,,. e...• td% An e .`..g. ti. %,, . I ..,.... .•••••.._, • • • . +,. '- - , °Field 0 b,31,01111.11IN —. - - 0-- Crosswalk intersection Issues N E w Recommendations S Pis%of travel pavement condition ..—• Path of travel runnMg slope Is greater than 5% Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 2%for stop control Ippreechea Path or travel cross slope is greater than 5%For tree-flow Crosswalk width Is less Ban 6C ' Lts,......,s,, ...yaltattuondition _ __ __ Curb Ramp ID In or'i'In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Curb Ramp Issues Recommendations Clnin does not exist and In needed Curb ra '.,does not land In crosswalk No 4'x 4'etear_apace at base of MI:LAW Curbed side is.not 00.or has traversable adjacent surface Flare crass slope is greater than 10% Curb ramp runninggreater than 8.33% Blended transition Itlflhirlfl 511006 is greater than 0% Cut-thru ramp In.inailsojselinArealer than 5% - Remove and replace curb ramp Crab ramp cross slope is greater than 2% X X Out-tlint ramp crass slope Is greater than 2% Curb,rA_M_E width Is less than 45° X X Cut-thu ramp width ks teAL!hart§cr: Permanen 1 obstructiorattipaalcurnImpllendlnkflitres Temporary obstruction(.2.251 in curb rampAancliaree No textured surface at base of curb ramp X X For Intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, Na color contrast at bass of curb ramp X X install color truncated domes Lanckng area does not exist and is needed Lndng.area is less thna5'x 5P ..retes ilrealer than 2% X X Terriere7r7 relfW-drinci area _o Cuib Rml t transIgolo roadwa Is greater than 0.25" X Fix curb ramp transition Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is fLrealler than 5% Pondino occurs at base of curb ram X 01 .ix p-olT'5ng "--1 Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 304 of 316 rW I y li m a I A intcs;Inc. Intersectiolh n of Souwast Pkwy and driveway(Lot.30.6052 Long 96.31t4{ Ph t yphs ---- _ GPS ID; 900141 1 • • = +LAG • ".. Ramp 3A Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's Judgment asa design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not very from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,IPC,NRCAN,Esti Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community [End of Project DescLiption T r Prat ct 90014 Intersection of Southwest Pkwy end driveway(LaL 30,8052;Long.-98.39143 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 305 of 316 Kknley-l-lom and Associates Inc. Priority:2 Pro act Desori.ion for Unsi.nalieod Intersection Client: City of College Station Date:4121115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA No.: 061271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy _. .. OPS CD:80015 Project Name: Intersection o1 Southwest pkwy and delveway�.30,6267•Lonus,46.311 eft: Coiie.a Station -� — kern Na. item Description •uenli i it Unit Price Item Cost T%DOT 1106001 EXCAVATION)ROAD"WAY) 0 - CY $ - 10.00 $ - 23u130T 5296002 CURS I1Y II) 0 _ LP $ t5 no JgpOT5316001 CONCSIDLVVALtc.L4'�._— 0 SY A 45-00. $ - TT$31 —'CURB RAMPS(neo Ral_121 2 of i puri lor details) 2 EA $ 1500.00 $ 3,000.00 iToDOT 5003.6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF LCAST IN PLACE) 0 SF $ 50.00 $ - TaDOT 1046016 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) 20 SY 9.00 __--._180[)0 ` TIDOT 877 ELIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS 9-. _ - LF —.$ n MeuM,}i_- -. fj1ROT6S5l67a REFL PAU MRK PREP,TY 1 6 TV II(W)24TSL0) 0 LF $ 5.5$ $ - - - REPAVE ROADWAY - - 0 LS $ 5,000.00 $ •— FIX PONDING _ 0 LS $ 2,000.00 5 - -- FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 2 LS $ ._?000.00 5 4,000.00 — MEDIAN NOSE MOOWFI CATION _.. 0 LS ..-.....,5,090-0 ___ - __...REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 6S.. t$ 500.00 $ - _ FIX CUJRAMP COUNTER SLOPE ___ 0 LS $ 2,000.00 $ - Basis for Cost Projection I Subtotal: $ 7,18090 M No Design Completed Engineering:(%+1-) 15% $ 1,208 57 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 1,611.43 O Final Design Estimated Protect Cos!: $ 10,000.00 Protect Location - — — Ar ~ f1 1 f i 0 - 1A 90015 I/ ✓,.r+ i rL, r �4 r S e / - L Field Observations _— __J Intersection Issues N E Crosswalk S W Recommendations th of travel oavarnent condition 1Peth of travel running slope Is r❑realer than 5% Path of travel cross slope is greater(Iran 2%for stop control Papo of teas .gyp-. ath of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-Ilow approaches Crosswalk Nid#t le lees than 6' 6Cmeswelk striping condlllan Curb Ramp Issues Cur.Ramp ID('a or'i'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1A 2A Curb ramp duos trot eels(and Is needed I Ourbnp_cloes not land in crossnalk -- No 4'a 4'clear Sallase of curb ramE Curbed side Is not 80 or has traversable adLcent surface X 1 Flare crass slope Is greater than 10% Crb ramp runnng lop-i rater than 8.30% =MI Blended transition u slope iseater than 5% MI= .t .._.._..��._ _ C t Ih Ipo� [er t_.than 5% Curb.tamp_cross slope Is wester than 2% Remove and replace curb ramp Cut-(taro ramp cross slops.Isypaater than 2% Curb ra p width is less than 48" __-- Gut-0tm ramp widthis less 6 than 80' _. ,Permanent obstruction(>0.25'T In curb ramp/lending/flares X iTempora yr obstruction(>0.25")In oreb remptendtn0fllarea ,._...._ .... .. ._.... ... ,. . Mn teslured ourtace e(base al curb ramp For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, No solar centrest et hese el curb ramp - _ X X Install color truncated domes Laming area does not axle)and Is needed Lance area Is less than 5'x 5'or slopes theater than 2% B� Remove and replace landing area s —� Curb ramp'Ianrhen onto roadurgp lsls greaief than 0.25" ® Fix_curb ramp I ansition Counter slope of Me gutter or street at the foot of the curb ramp Is ■ greater than 5% Ponding occurs,al base of curb ramp Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 306 of 316 Hltrlta Honf miLci fuc: un.rstt I of Southwest Flew and drirewa -.t,30.9057 Lon'.-PR.3100 Phalographs -- __._. GPS ID: 90015. • fit-. • :; Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cul-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esd Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community [lEnd of Project Description for Project 900151ntersection,Of,Southwest Pkwy and drivFwayr 1Lat.S0,01157;Long.-99.3109) d Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 307 of 316 tUentey-Rom and Associates,lac, Priority:2-- ^Praact DascrIptlyn for Uns nallzed Intersection Client. City of College Station Date:4121116 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE 14.HA No.: 063271408 Checked By:SRA Corridor S I Southwest Pkwy [APD:90018 Project Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lar 30.60622L Long-90.310 _ City- Colleation ' Item,i, -a•,. aA s.:•,t - Quantity Una Unit Price Item Cost I_TxD?T110-800 WA,_,_,Y}EXCAVATION(ROAD _._._. 0 CY $ 10.00 5 7xDOT 5296002 CURB(FYI!) 0 ... _ _ IF_ $ _ 58.009 • TxDOT 631-0001 CONIC SIDEWALKS f4') _ 0 SM $ 45 00 Tdk7T 531 'CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of report for details) 4 EA 5 1,50000 5 6,000.00 T1tD0T 5093,6o0R REYROFE7'DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) 0 SF 0 50.00 5 -. ThDOT 104.6015 REMOVING CONC fSIDEWALKS5 . 40 SY 5 9.00 9 360:00 TaOOT 677 EOM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS 0 LF $ 2.80 $ Tc DOT8667676 REFL PAV MRK PREP,TY I&TY II(Wt 24'(SLD) 0 LF__ _ _ __ 8.60 $ - — REPAVE ROADWAY 0 LS S 5000.00 5 - PIX PONDING 2 LS S 2,000.00 5 4,000.00 — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 4 LS 5 2000.00 $ 5,000.00 — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS $ 6.000.00 $ - - REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS 5 -- 50000 $ - - FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE _ 0 _ ___.03. 5 2000,00 $ Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 18,360.00 R No Design Completed Engineering:(%+1-) 15% $ 2,845,71 O Preliminary Design Contingency:(%ul-) 20% $ 3,794.29 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 25,000,00 Project Leoetion j ? • O r, e. yr' 1-v., y'f n4 c' ti e 'y, r' r aj, fir 41111) •e /* a Plaid ObservatIoso _ — - - -- il Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations _ N E S W 'Path of travel pavement condition Path of travel running slope is greater than 5% Path of travel erose slope Is greater than 2%for stop control Approaches Path of travel cross slope is greater Than 5%for free-flow Approaches Crosswadth is less than 6' IClk wirusswalk nstrIPIng can(ktlotl - Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID('r or Til in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 1A 2A 3A 4A Curb ram,does nal octet and ie needed Curb ramp does nal land In orasswalk. No 44'x 4'olear.eacaat base al curb ramp Curbed nide is not 90`or has traversable adlacent surface X X 'Flare cross slope is greater then 10%~. Curb ram.running slope is greater then 8.33% X X— Blended traneltian tunebr9slotrb Ig greater than 5% -Cul4hru ramp mmeing slope ie greater than 6% Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp croon elope in greater Ihn5 b X X X X ;Curb ramp cross slope Is greater Than 2% Curb ramp_wid[h is Ids than 48" _ X Cut-Ihr i ramp width Is less then 60'_ Permanent ebstrucliaaJf025„i in curb rautogandlribtflams _ Tem„ra obstruction 0.25in curb rampdandingljlerea I___—r ®_ .. ;No textured surface al base of curb ramp X X .._�..-- For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps,I ;No odor contrast al base of curb ramp X X I Install color truncated domes linden:area does not exist and Is.Headed Lan dln t area Is less than 5'n 5'of slopes-greater mn 2% X X X X Remove end replace landing area i , Curb ramp trnnsl8an ante raadwav is greater than 0.25" X_ X X X Flx curb ramp transition _ - Counter slope of the gutter or street at the fool of the curb ramp is . greater than 5% _ 'Nowlin,occurs at base of curb MAP -J( X._ Fix ponding Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 308 of 316 IKirivlry-I lo Fri:Ind Assocites,Inc. Interseetron of Southwest Pkwy arld drWeway4.ta1.30.6d�8„2'Long•-91t.81d91' Photographs GPS ID: 90016 (p,„. . . ... iiiiIH- ,,, -,,,• .«.• ;19.- ,meg,. . Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Ramp 3A Of_ Ramp dA Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 4 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Lending) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-lhru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Chennelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's Judgment ase design professional familiar with the construction Industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Earl,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,0°C,NRCAN,Earl Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Eorl(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigllalGlobe,GeoEye,I-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community __ End of Pr]act Description for Project 90096 Intersection or Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lai 30.60,S2;10 96:3103) II Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 309 of 316 IKimley.klom and Associates,Inc. Priority:5 0 Project Description for Unsignalized Intersection Client City of College Station Date:4121(15 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE RNA No,: 081271405 Checked By.....SRA -Corridor: Southwest Pkwy..... GPS ID:90017 Project Name: Intersection of Southwest faLiel driveway. 30A000 .40 City: College Station -11, ... A IA ,i Unit Pvli. !tern Cost .T.K.,,,QL1.19---0,9.04.g.VALalal.4.R OA DAM) 0 CY 5 1(190 5 - TOO 529-0002 CURB(TY II) 0 LF 5 15.00 $ - TOOT 531.6001 CONC SIDEWALKS(4") 0 Si' $ 4 ,,J TxDOT 631 CURB RAMPS(see page 2 of report for details) 2 EA .1 1,50000 $ 3900.00 Tap,_ 5093-6002 RETROFIT DET WARN SUP,F(CAST IN PLACE) 0SF $ 50,00 $ _T,12,211, 60_15,...RIMMING COAC,..CSVEWALIKS1 21 BY $ 9.00 $ 189,00 T07677 ELIM EXT Poi,;„_Vcj,k1.K.$.„MRKS 0 LF 5 2,80 $ 750016000678 REFL PAV MRK PREP.TY18 TY II(VI/1241SW} 0 LF $ — REPAVE ROADWAY 0 . LS ..5. 5i009-00_I _ _ _ _._. — FIX PONDING 0 LS $ 2,000.0n $ — FIX CURS RAMP TRANSITION 2 LB $ 2,009,00 $ 4,099,00 — NIEMAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 LS $ 5,000,00 $ , — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION i 0 LS ,$ 600,00 $ - — FIX CURB RAMP COUNTER SLOPE 0 LS $ 29040 $ - .,. Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal; S 7,189.00 P No Design Completed Engineering:(%0/-) 15% 5 1,204.71 O Preliminary Design Contingency:(%-Fl-) 20% 5 1,606.29 O Final Design Estimated Project Cast $ 1090905 Project Location , . ; --7.t...71r - je- 7-7,-...--, • -i „..,,. . '• . . . . . e•-•,..-rf :: .,,,,, ••., e.,..re' N. i 0 14k.,...,, 47 NI • i 0 4,,,,:./. e.A, + , 13,-,,,) , tirifi ' i -'4."' „..--, , , ries ....e., ,t ,,• .... 41,,..• -a .f.•-• *._.., I 4.--...."'...—r - ... - ' .._... . . ., ....-- --/ ,/ /-) '' / ' 4 "".. / , , _. Flow orl_:,...2ervalions - IntersectionCrosswalk Issues Recommendations N F S W Path ol travApayement concition -- Pat]:of travel running slope Is greater than 5% I -Path ol travel cross slope Is greater than 2%for stop control approaches . Path of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow 9Pflt.Pgba.S...._ closawalk.width Is less than 6' .. - Cr2SSItilk strIgipsi ondprt _ __ _ Curb Ramp ID('z'or','in ramp label indicates no existingremp) Curb Ramp Issues IA Recommendations 2A Curb Mills does not ealet and to needed Curb ramp does not land In crosswalk No 4"it 41'dose costa at base ci curb , Curbed aide Is not 90" traversable allasent surface XX Floracross slope Is greater than 10% Curb ramp runulnii slope oraeter than 8.33% Blended transition running slope Is greater than 6% Cul-Ihru ramp running slepeJaALILater than 5% Remove and replace curb ramp Curb ramp ono.mope le greater then 2% X Cal-tin,romp cress slope is greater than 2% Curb ran] .irldtlt is less than 48" Cut-II-au temp Mat Is less than 60" ' t?nimanent obstruction(>0-261 in curb remPliandiarrilarm k Temporary obstruction(.0_251 in curb ra fin IpitEtingfflares Na textured surface el trace of curb ramp X X For intersection ramps and commercial driveway ramps, tlssp)91401)romp X X install color truncated domes Landing area does not eklat and is needed Landing area is lees than§_E or slopes greater than 2% X X Remove and replace landing area Curb ramp transition Oslo roartomy is greater then 0.25" X X Fix curb ramp transition Counter slope of the gutter or street at the foot a f the curb ramp Is greater than 5% _ Ponding wows at base of curb moor' - _ _ ---z - Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 310 of 316 i{anfey}Inrn and Aasoclatas,Inc. - - - - l itc I: :of Southwest west Pkwy driveway(kat.30.00H;Long-9•Ei.3)9111 Photographs - GPS ID: 900171 • Ramp 1A Ramp 2A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cul-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor,materials,equipment,or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over compelilive bidding or market conditions.Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Eon(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigilalGlabe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Gelmapping,Aerogrip,ION,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community Find cf Protect Description for Project 90017 intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway jLat.30.6069;_,Lonq.-96.3096) �� Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 311 of 316 Kimley-Hom and Associates,Inc. Priority:5 Project Description for Unsignalized Intersection Client: City of College Station Date:4121115 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE MHA No,: 061271405 Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy GPS ID:00615 Project Name_ intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat.30.8089;Long.46.3056} City: College Stenon ,_ item Na. Item Description QurJdlty _ WE_ unit Pricem Cgsl TnDOT 110-5001 EXCAVATION(ROADWAY) —_,-- 0 CY .$�,,,�10 00� E[e $_. Txa00 T52g- 02 CU11iLIY!D 0 .—.._..—iF`�..-.._..$ 15.00 5 .-�---.—. -TaDOT 431-5001 CONC S1DEWAL,SM— .._. 0 SY $ 45.00 $ - TOOT 531 CURBRAMPS(eee page.2of r gorl for Bete la),_ 2 _ EA. $ 1.500.00 S 3,000.00 0 TxDOT 50036002 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACE) —_ SF j 50.00_-.L- -T1 JPDOT 104-0010 REMOVING CONC(SIDEWALKS) 20 SY $ 5,00 $ _ 160.00 Tp(9L57I,-r ELI EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS 0 LF $ 250 $ - TxDOT$66107$ HER.PAVM K PREP,Tl'I&TY 1I(W124"(SLD) 0 LF $ 8.50 $ - -- REPAVE ROADWAY -.- 0 LS $_5.000.00 $ - - FIX PONDING 1 LS_.... $ _.. 2.000.00,E -.. 2000.00 FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION d LS $. 2,000.00 $ MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 0 IS $ 5,000.00 5 REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 LS ,5 500.00_$ - - -- FIX CURB RAMP CQUPITER SLOPk 0 LS $ 2.000.00 5 - Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: 5 5,100.00 Id No Design Completed Engineering:(%+/-) 15% $ 750.00 ❑ Preliminary Design Conlingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 1,040.00 ❑ Final Design Estimated Project Cost: $ 7,000.00 Pro t Lncason_ - _ _. - -.1R * If / 90018 / /I,S i) l tr Field©bservatiens _ Intersection Issues N E rosswalk $ W Recommendations Path of(ravel pavement condition Path of level running slope is than on 595 �. ... Pam of travel cross slope Is greater than 2%for slop control-� ^ a ^h= :Palk of travel cross slope is greater than 5%for free-flow lannrcaches 'Crosswalk width is less than 6' - ,-_J I PA.'i,c.: ir!c.,.iron - Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp ID or h ramp a.e n.vales no ex song ramp - Recommendations 3A 4A Curb ramp does not exist and is rodded Curb romp-does not lend in crosswalkNo 4'x 4'clear space et base of curb ramp Curbed side Is not 40"or has traversable adlacent surface - Flare cross sf pe—'rs"greaier than 10% Curb rams runnina slope is greater than 833% X X Ills Tided transition'wiling slope Is greater than 5%6 Cut-thru ramp running slope is greater than 5% Curb ramp cross to eater than 2% X Remove and replace curb ramp a g®�:..tv Cal-lltru ramp cross slope s greater than 2% Curb ramp width Is less than 48" X X Cut•Ihnl ramp width Is less than 00' ,Permananl obstruction('0.25'1 in ourb ramp/landingltleres In Tmporary obstruction(>0 25'9 in curb ramo/Iandinoffares �.�_ er. No textured surfeace at base of curb ramp No color contrast at base of curb ramp Larding5r0a does eel exist and is needed Landing Lama's lass than 5'lc 5'of slopes greater than 2% X X 'Remove and replace landing area Curb ramp Iranellon onto fofoadeW.ls greater goo 5.25" Counter slope of the gutter or street at the Foot of the curb ramp Is greater than 5% ponrlMltivecgrsgteeseoLrurbromp X _ ._...._ ,IIx pending Ordinance No.2015-3712 Page 312 of 316 1Kimley-Hom and Associates,Inc- __ _ In birs ucfion of Southwest Pkwtami drivewat LLet.30.t St9 1y.-S6.3098 Photp r'aphs _ _ _DES ID: 90018 ..A. ''''.11r- illiglik Ramp 3A Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-lhru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this lime and represent only the Engineer's Judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee That proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable cosls- Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigilalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community _ lend of Pealed Doscriplion for Proleet 90016 intersection of Southwest Pk and dnvew= •t.30.6069^Lon i.-96.3096 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 313 of 316 Kimsey-Hom and Associates,Inc. P sooty.9 J – Pro act Description for Upslgnallxad Intersection Client; City of College Station Date:4.'21715 Program: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KRA No.;__-_ 001271408 t:pccked Lay_SItA Corridor: Southwest Pkwy GPS ID:90019 Project Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat.30,0066;Lang.-90.3101) CIly7 Calings Station _ Item NO. item Detwlp]IOn Iluanlly Unit Unit Price [tern Cost ! (Tx®OT 110-6001 EXCAVATION(ROADW.'A 0 CY 1100.00 $ - - I TOOT 5296002 CURB(TY II) 0 IF $ 1500 $ - TxDOT53F-001 CONC SIDEWALKS(41 -- 0 _ _ $}' $ 45.00 5 - TxDOT 531CURB S,_s HAMPee papa 2 pr repprl for details) 2 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 Tx4OT 5003 _-6 RETROFIT DET WARN SURF(CAST IN PLACED 0 SF _$ 50.00 -... - TxDOT 104.0015 REMOVING;CONC(SIDEWALKS) 20 SY $ 0.00 $ 180,00 TSOOT 077 SLIM EXT PAVE MRK&MRKS 0 LF $ 2.50 -T%DOT 686/676_REFL PAV MRK PREP,TY I S TY II(Vit)24jSLD( 0 _... [.F $ 8.50 $ - - REPAVE ROADWAY_ �• 0 LS 5 5,000.00 $ .. — REPAVE — FIX PONDING - ..- _ 2 LS 5 2,500.00 $ 4,000.00 --- FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 8 IS _I 2,000.00 $ - -- — MEDIAN NOSE MODIFICATION 6 LS $ 5,000.00 $ — REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION __._ -- 0 _ L6 5 500.00 $ • - FIX Ill R8-AI'11E COUNTER_$LOP_E P... 15 $ 2,000D0 $ _ Basis for Cost Projec0an Subtotal: $ 7,180.00 M No Design Completed Engineering: ❑ PreliminaryDesign rr g(%0/-) 15% $ 1,511.43 9 Contingency:(%+/-) 20% $ 1,611,43 O Final Design Estimated Pro ecu cost: $ 10,000.05 Protect Location rf - A' /1' M+`✓ , ' Al 1 sr 119 i 0 IP . '}+ d''s • ,r, as ,,,- .4 • - Field Observations s Intersection Issues Crosswalk Recommendations A Path of travel pavement condilionI I_-__. Path of Irayel rOnninn straps iT nreatar Lhan 5% , .._a of Svve!cr _._ Path of have!crass slope is gr ter Ihah 2%(or stay control j approaches i - Path of travel arose Mope is wearer than 5%for tree-Now approaches 1 Crosswalk width is less than 6' - I. - - ....y..--� I Crosswalk striping condlllon. I Curb Ramp Issues 3A 4ACurb Ramp ID('i or•r'in ramp label indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations Curb ramp does nal exist and Is needed Curb ra mp does hot land In crosswalk T_---_-__=MI lNo4'x4'clear space at base of curb ramp.. == . - - 'Curbed side Is not 90'or has huvereable adjacent surface == - Flare props slope Is greater than p Curbramp running slope Is greater er t iharr 8.33% Blended transition runntno sly i agate!than 5% Cstdhr!ramp un ramp is seater an 5% Remove and replace curb ramp .Cath ram,crass slope Is greater than 2% .Cut-thru ramp cross slope is greater than 2% ,Curb ramp v=dlh is less than 4B" 'dot-thru ramp width is less than 60" 111 IN 'Permanent hsl ucllan 5.25 in curb rem. andira r tares Te nary obslruciian 0.25 In curb ram andkr!glares == ,No textured surtace al base of cub rami r 11.1.1 No colorcontrast at base of curb ramp_ NOM Lands 9 area does not exist and is needed == Landingama is less than 5'x 5'or elopes greater than 2% ®© Remove and replace landing area C ti transition roadwaygreaterthan0.25" == Counterslopeofth gutter or street at the fool of the cur.ramp is 11 111 greater than 5% Ponder occurs at bass of curb ramp X X Fix pending Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 314 of 316 accley-I Min Acwsc.h;;,Inc. Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Let 30,6064;Long-96,3101)' Phomrpraphs -- - OPS ID: 901110 a 4. a• • • ` Ramp 3A Ramp4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-thru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry,The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from Its opinions of probable costs, Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEQ,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTam,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,swisstopo,and the GIS User Community Pd of Project Description for Pro}act 90019 intersection of Southwest Pkwy and dthewayt(Lat.39.90641 Long.-96.3101) 1 Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 315 of 316 ✓ ley-Hom and Associates,Inc. Priority;S Project Eneoriptlon for Unsyl nalized lntersecllpn_ Client: City of College Station Date:4121115 P rogram: ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan Prepared By:EPE KHA Ne.: 061271408 _T __ Checked By:SRA Corridor: Southwest Fin,g, RPS ID:50020 Project Name: Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat.30.6058;Long.-96.3107) City: College Station , _ I (tern No Item De set-Vin, QOenitto Unit Unit Price Item Coat MOOT 110-6001 EXCAVATION{ROADWAY) .,-. ..-__ A Cy 5 10.05 $ 7vD4T 529-6002 CURB(TY II} 0 LF $ 15.00 $ _ TaQOT531.6001 CONC SIDFWALKS f4°1 0 SY $,�_ 45.00_$_W - 0.0 . TxDOT 531 CURD RAMPS(see page 2 of report IM details) 2 E11. 0 1,500,00 $ 3,000 000 TxDOT 5000-6003 RETROFIT DET WARN SUR CAST IN PLACES •• 0 SF $ 50.00 $ - T1mQT 104.50S5REMOVING CONUSIOEWALKS),, 20 SY _$ 9.00 '$ 100.00 TxDOT 677 ELIM EXT PAVE MRK A MRKS 0 LF $ 2.60 $ TxDOT 6681,878.REFLPAVMRK PREP,TYI&TY1I(WS 24"{SLD) 0 LF ---5.-- __.,W,_$$Q,. $ - - REPAVE ROADWAY LS $ 5,000.00 1 - - FIX PONDING 2 LS 1 2,005.00 $ 4,000.00 — FIX CURB RAMP TRANSITION 0 L$ $ 2,000.00 $ -•- MEDIAN NOSE IIOSF C.._.--.. MO�IFICATIOt4 0 LS _1_ 5,000:00 $ �z Fen nn $ ___ __......... -- REMOVE TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTION 0 L5 __ - — FL CURB R• •COLIN R SLOP 0 r$ $. 2,000.00 0 Basis for Cost Projection Subtotal: $ 7,180 00 M No Design Completed Engineering:(%+)-) 15% $ 1,208 57 ❑ Preliminary Design Contingency:(%+l-) 20% $ 1,811.43 ❑ Final Design II Estimated Project Cost: $ 10,$00 nn Pro'-ct Location { 0 , N. pField Observations _ _ -- _ In terseclinn Issues N F rosswa c w mullion Path of travel pavement ndlion _ Path of gavel runne is.orcator than 0% Path of travel cross slope Is greater than 2%for slop control - - Ipnroaesh Path of travel cross slope is greeter Than 9%far free-flow --------- -� - - --- apph _....__ .. .._... ._.__-... _ Crosswalk xgdltr s I than 6' Crosswalk striping condition Curb Ramp Issues Curb Ramp to('i or'1'In ramp label Indicates no existing ramp) Recommendations 3A dA Curb ramp does not exist end le needed ✓urb ramp,does not land In crosswalk No 4'x 4e ear apac.a at base et curb ramp Curbed side is not Be-or llas traversable edjRcerlt surface Flare cross slope Is greater than 10% Curb rano running slope is greater Ihan 8.33% Ble dad tra anion runninp„s,Moa I-Sgreater than 6% Cut-lhru ramp running slope Is greater Nan 596 _ Curb ramp Bross slope Is greater then 2% ]( Remove and replace curb ramp Out-thru ramp Cross slope In greaser than 2% Curb ramp width is less than 48" X X Cat-thru ramp width is less than 60" Permanent obstruction[4 252in curb ramp7landip,glfiares Temporary obstuclion(00.25 1 in curb rempllendingtferes ^_-__ No textured surface at base of curb ramp Mo-.ror congers!el base of curb ramp Landing area dyes not exist and is needed ._--.-___ _ Lan thee 4Fng area Is less than 5'x 5'or slopes greater 2% X X Remove end replace landing area Curb ramp transition onto roadway Is greater then 0.25" Counter slope of the gutter or street at the f oat of the curb ramp is greaser than 5% —._— a) Pandinn occurs at baso of corp rad) X X - F!x pending i Ordinance No. 2015-3712 Page 316 of 316 Kimlcy.liom and Associates,Inc, Intersection of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Lat.30.6069;Long.-96.3107J Photo,ra.hs GIS Mt 5002 ' 11111V • \,„ • • Ramp3A Ramp 4A Curb Ramp Recommendation Details: Types 1-11(Standard Corner Ramp) 2 EA Type 20(Median Ramps with Shared Landing) 0 EA Type 21(Median Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Type 22(Channelizing Island Cut-Ihru Ramp) 0 EA Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Disclaimer: The Engineer 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 or probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry.The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals,bids,or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. Project Location Map Sources: Esri,DeLorme,NAVTEO,USGS,Intermap,iPC,NRCAN,Esri Japan,METI,Esri China(Hong Kong),Esri(Thailand),TomTom,2013, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,i-cubed,USDA,AEX,Getmapping,Aerogrip,IGN,IGP,svnsstopo,and the GIS User Community Lond of Project Description for Prefcot 00020 Intorsectlon of Southwest Pkwy and driveway(Len.00.6060:Long.-9@,81071 _