The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/01/2015 - Regular Agenda Packet - Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND GREENWAYS ADVISORY BOARD October 5, 2015 3:00 P.M. City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas AGENDA BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND GREENWAYS ADVISORY BOARD Monday, October 5, 2015, 3:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas, 77840 1. Call to Order 2. Hear Visitors - At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to address the Board on issues not already scheduled on today's agenda. The citizen presentations will be limited to three minutes in order to accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Board and to allow adequate time for completion of the agenda items. The Board will receive the information, ask city staff to look into the matter, or will place the matter on a future agenda for discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.) 3. Consideration, possible action , and discussion to approve meeting Absences: • James Batenhorst ~ September 3, 2015 • Scott Shafer ~ October 5, 2015 • Robert Lightfoot ~ October 5, 2015 • Brandon Boatcallie ~ October 5, 2015 4. Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting Minutes. • September 8, 2015 5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion, regarding a recommendation on a cost mitigation option related to a change order for the Lick Creek Hike and Bike Trail Project. 6. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6 – Thoroughfare Plan and the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan. 7. Presentation and discussion regarding education and encouragement opportunities. 8. Presentation and discussion regarding BPG Subcommittee Updates. 9. Presentation and discussion regarding the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board calendar of upcoming meetings. • October 15, 2015 ~ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ~ City Hall, Council Chambers ~ 6:00 p.m. • November 2, 2015 ~ Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board ~ City Hall, Council Chambers ~ 3:00 p.m. 10. Possible action and discussion on future agenda items – A Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 11. Adjourn. Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board of the City of College Station, Texas will be held on Monday October 5, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda 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. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov. Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name Brandon Boatcallie Request Submitted on September 21, 2015 I will not be in attendance at the meeting of October 5, 2015 for the reason(s) specified: (Date) Amber, I will be out of town on October 5th so I won’t be able to attend the meeting. Thanks, Brandon Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name Robert Lightfoot Request Submitted on September 21, 2015 I will not be in attendance at the meeting of October 5, 2015 for the reason(s) specified: (Date) I will be out of town for work oct 5th. Please excuse my absence. Robert Lightfoot. Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name Scott Shafer Request Submitted on September 17, 2015 I will not be in attendance at the meeting of October 5, 2015 for the reason(s) specified: (Date) Kristen and Vanessa, I will not be in town on Monday October 5 and will have to miss the scheduled BPG meeting. Scott Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name James Batenhorst Request Submitted on I will not be in attendance at the meeting of September 8, 2015 for the reason(s) specified: (Date) James Batenhorst MINUTES BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND GREENWAYS ADVISORY BOARD Tuesday September 8, 2015 3:00 PM College Station City Hall Council Chambers 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas, 77840 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Blanche Brick, Brandon Boatcallie, Phillip Lasley, Jon Denton, Robert Lightfoot & Scott Shaffer MEMBERS ABSENT: James Batenhorst STAFF PRESENT: Greenways Program Manager Venessa Garza, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Molly Hitchcock and Board Secretary Kristen Hejny AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Call to Order. Chairman Brick called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Hear Visitors There were no visitors present to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve meeting Absences: • Robert Lightfoot ~ June 1, 2015 Board Member Shafer motioned to approve the absence request from June 1, 2015. The motion was seconded by Board Member Lasley and was approved (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting Minutes. Board Member Denton motioned to approve the meeting Minutes, from June 1, 2015. The motion was seconded by Board Member Shafer and was approved (5-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding appointing a member of the BPG Board to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Alternative Transportation Advisory Panel (ATAP). Greenways Program Manager Garza presented updates to the Board. A College Station citizen and alternate serve on the ATAP and staff asked if any board members were interested in filling one of the vacant spots. No interest was expressed so staff will be seeking representation outside of the BPG Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Presentation and discussion regarding the 2015 Bond Election. Chairman Brick was available to present updates about the 2015 Bond Election to the Board. There will not be a Bond Election this year and instead Certificates of Obligation will be issued for top priority projects. Board Member Shafer asked for an update on the Lick Creek Hike & Bike Trail from a previous Bond Election. Greenways Manager Garza responded that the Lick Creek Hike & Bike Trail has been bid and construction will begin by the end of the year. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Presentation and discussion regarding the BPG Master Plan Update. Greenways Manager Garza presented updates on this item. The Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan, adopted in 2010 is ready for an update. Staff is working on existing conditions and will bring back to the board more information on what the update will entail. Board Member Boatcallie asked for the time frame for funding from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Greenways Manager Garza stated the South College Corridor trail has been identified for funding for fiscal year 2017. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Presentation and discussion regarding BPG Subcommittee Updates. Greenways Manager Garza presented updates on this item. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Audits Subcommittee has decided to focus on biking and look at existing conditions of bike lanes and bike routes along with locations where the committee often bikes. The committee members were tasked with biking their respective routes and identifying criteria to evaluate all of the bike corridors in the City. They would then use that criteria to evaluate the rest of the areas. Criteria such as whether or not there is debris on the roadway, pavement quality, marking quality, presence of markings and signage were discussed. Comfort level on a bike facility would also be evaluated to potentially change the way the City’s bike maps explain where to bike. The committee will also evaluate intersections and decide what/if anything could be done at intersections for bicyclists. Board Member Shafer asked if “connectivity” could be added as an evaluation item for intersections. Board Member Denton asked for additional explanation on “comfort level”. Greenways Manager Garza explained that comfort level could be how people feel on the road, traffic volume or bike lane availability. A comfort level system may need to be discussed further. The Performance Measures Subcommittee has begun researching what other communities such as Seattle use for their performance measures. Some of the criteria discussed included the number of bike lanes, the number of sidewalks, the number of bicycle pedestrian crashes, the number of bike maps distributed and the number of bike classes offered. The subcommittee asked staff to explore what information the City does have in regards to data to determine what other performance measures are possible. Board Member Lasley asked if pedestrian crash data is available/collected. Greenways Manager Garza stated that this information is collected. Chairman Brick asked if bicycle parking around Kyle Field is being evaluated. Board Member Lightfoot stated that several places on campus contain an abundance of parking. AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Presentation and discussion regarding the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board calendar of upcoming meetings. • September 17, 2015 ~ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ~ City Hall, Council Chambers ~ 6:00 p.m. • October 1, 2015 ~ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ~ City Hall, Council Chambers ~ 6:00 p.m. • October 5, 2015 ~ Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board ~ City Hall, Council Chambers ~ 3:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Possible action and discussion on future agenda items – A Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. Board Member Lightfoot requested a discussion on Board members attending the Texas Trails and Active Transportation Conference again. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ Blanche Brick, Chairman Kristen Hejny, Board Secretary 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 23, 2015 TO: Members of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board FROM: Danielle Singh, P.E., Transportation Planning Coordinator dsingh@cstx.gov SUBJECT: Chapter 6 Update to the Comprehensive Plan Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan Chapter 6- Transportation and the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan. The Five-Year Comprehensive Plan Evaluation, completed in 2014, recommended an update to Chapter 6- Transportation and associated changes to the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan. At this time, a recommendation to the Planning & Zoning Commission on the proposed changes is needed. Background: The City of College Station’s Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 2009, followed by the Five-Year Evaluation in 2014. As part of the evaluation process, several items in Chapter 6- Transportation were identified to be updated. In October 2014, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. were hired by the City of College Station to complete these updates. The updates to Chapter 6- Transportation include: - Updated Thoroughfare Plan and Context Zones - Complete Streets and Context Sensitive Solutions Process - Updated Context-Sensitive Cross-Sections - Updates to Chapter 6- Transportation Maps: Volumes, Level of Service and Programmed Projects The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is tentatively scheduled for public hearing and recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission at their November 5, 2015 meeting, followed by City Council’s final action at their November 23, 2015 Council meeting. Attachments: 1. College Station Flexible Thoroughfare Design Packet 2. Chapter 6- Transportation Map Updates 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Amendments kimley-horn.com 12750 Merit Drive, Suite 1000, Dallas, TX 75251 972-770-1300 College Station Flexible Thoroughfare Design SEPTEMBER 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) Updated Thoroughfare Plan and Context Zones The updated Thoroughfare Plan identifies each segment of major arterial, minor arterial, major collector, and minor collector corridors in the City. Each thoroughfare corridor coincides with a context zone based on existing development character and the anticipated future land use pattern. These zones are divided into Urban Core, General Urban, Suburban, and Rural. An additional Thoroughfare Plan map has been provided identifying the 2015 modifications to the thoroughfare network. 2) Complete Streets and CSS Process A summary of the Complete Streets concept and an overview of the Context Sensitive Solutions process provides guidance on how select an appropriate roadway cross section using the preferred cross section guide or the flexible design criteria. Guidance for the dedication of additional right-of- way for intersections and utilities has also been provided. Guidance for the concept of target speed has been provided. 3) Context-Sensitive Cross Sections A recommended set of context-sensitive cross sections has been provided to guide the process of selecting an appropriate thoroughfare design based on surrounding development character and modal priority. A set of typical cross sections illustrates the basic recommended thoroughfare design by functional classification. Additional cross sections by context class illustrate how certain street design elements and multi-modal priorities can be customized to create a more appropriate Complete Street. 4) Flexible Design Criteria for New Construction Preferred cross sections may be difficult to achieve during retrofit projects and due to constrained conditions. The matrix of flexible design criteria provides guidance and minimum dimensions to further customize street design during the CSS process. F & BDOMINIKLAKEWAY VICTORIA RIOGRANDE DECATUR ANDERSON UNIVERSITYOAKSWELSH LONG MIRE FOSTER GLADE FAIRVIEW BRENTWOODGRAHAMDEACONARRINGTONM A R I O N P U G H LUTHERLINCOLNWILLIAMDFITCHHARVEYMITCHELLWELLBORN BIRD PONDU N IV ERSITYHOLLEMA N GEORGE BUSHTEXAS SOUTHWESTDAR T M OUTHHARVEY GREENS PRAIRIEROCKPRAIRIE BARRONFM158 Thoroughfare Plan Functional Classification Grade Seperation Freeway/Expressway 6 Lane Major Arterial 4 Lane Major Arterial 4 Lane Minor Arterial 2 Lane Major Collector 2 Lane Minor Collector Roads Thoroughfare Plan Edits Functional Class Update College Station City Limits College Station ETJ02.5 5 Miles Thoroughfare Plan - 2015 Update City of College Station "T" of Appomatox and Krenek Tap Removed Thoroughfare Plan Updates Roadway Location Update Major Collector West of Luther St & Harvey Mitchell New Major Collector West of Holleman Dr New Minor Collectors West of Wellborn Rd & North of Deacon Dr New Rock Prairie Rd Stonebrook Dr to Future Barron Rd Updated to 4 Lane Major Arterial Holleman Dr Jones‐Butler Rd to South of Dowling Rd Upgraded to 4 Lane Minor Arterial W.S. Phillips Parkway Barron Rd to East of SH 6 Upgraded to 4 Lane Minor Arterial Greens Prairie Rd Wellborn Rd to Holleman Dr New 4 Lane Minor Arterial Extension 4 Lane Major Collectors Thoroughfare Plan Update (Removed Classification) Updated All to 4 Lane Minor Arterial Krenek Tap Rd & Appomatox Dr East of US 6 and South of Raintree Dr Removed extensions resulting in “T” intersection Minor Collectors North of Peach Creek Cutoff and West of Pipeline Rd Realigned to Texas World Speedway Property F & BDOMINIKLAKEWAY VICTORIA RIOGRANDE GLENHAVEN DECATURUNIVERSITYOAKSWELSH LO N G MIRE FOSTER GLADE FAIRVIEW BRENTWOODGRAHAMDEACONARRINGTONMA R I O N P U GH LUTHERLINCOLNWILLIAM D FITCHHARVEYMITCHELLWELLBORN BIRD PONDU N IV E R SITYHOLLEMA N GEORGE BUSHTEXAS SOUTHWESTDA R T M OUTHHARVEY BARRONGREENS PRAIRIEROCKPRAIRIE FM158 Context Zones Context Urban Core General Urban Suburban Rural Thoroughfare Plan Functional Classification Grade Seperation Freeway/Expressway 6 Lane Major Arterial 4 Lane Major Arterial 4 Lane Minor Arterial 2 Lane Major Collector 2 Lane Minor Collector College Station City Limits 0 2 4 Miles Thoroughfare Plan - Context Class City of College Station Complete Streets and CSS Complete Streets Definition Complete Streets is a relatively new term for an idea from decades past. Long before extensive regulations and requirements that favor rapid automobile movement began dictating street design, streets were built and developed to serve the destinations surrounding them. Some of the greatest streets in America still maintain this centuries‐old character. Complete Streets are streets designed for everyone – with safe access for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities. There is no single design for a Complete Street. Each one is unique and should relate to its surrounding community context. This is in contrast to incomplete streets, which are designed with only cars in mind and makes alternative transportation choices difficult, inconvenient, and often dangerous. Complete Streets typically offer many of the benefits that is sought through traditional roadway design: increased road capacity, decreased travel times, and enhanced safety. But it often arrives at these benefits in innovative ways. Typically, road‐builders targeted increased roadway performance through the addition of vehicle travel lanes. But with Complete Streets, roadway design might consider enhancing sidewalks or pedestrian crossings, repurposing on‐street parking for another mode of travel, or adding a bike lane. Every person who then chooses these other modes of travel is one less driver on city streets, which reduces congestion and extends the service life of the roadway. Context‐Sensitive Solutions Definition Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) is taking the goal of Complete Streets and applying it to the process of determining the most appropriate roadway cross sections during construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation projects. CSS considers many characteristics of a roadway beyond desired functional class to create a realistic and compatible design for the area. These considerations include the context and character of development in an area, future goals for a corridor, and the existing or future need for different modes of transportation. While an acceptable Complete Street may be achieved through the construction of a typical roadway section design, the CSS process should be used to determine if and to what degree the design may need to be changed to achieve the most appropriate section for a corridor. Context‐Sensitive Solutions Process Complete Streets projects arise is two basic ways. Many opportunities to implement Complete Street design may occur as part of the construction of new or widened roadways, either as planned capital improvement projects or private development projects. Other opportunities may arise to retrofit existing roads during a utility‐related project or a minor maintenance project. While there are similarities in how these projects are conducted, the planning processes are different. Capital projects are roadway and reconstruction projects that are typically placed on the City’s capital improvement plan. The scope of these projects is usually large enough to allow for the planning and potential implementation of extensive Complete Streets elements. However, a utility‐related project initiated to replace water, sewer, or utility lines may be considered as an opportunity to introduce Complete Streets elements only if the project length is significant. Minor maintenance projects, such as restriping or resurfacing roadways should be evaluated as opportunities to introduce certain Complete Streets elements. Since these maintenance plans can be intermittent based on roadway conditions, they may not be appropriate for full Complete Streets projects, but can still be instances to introduce planned bike facilities or new multimodal features. After determining the type of project, all necessary information should be assembled to best guide the street design process. This information should include both traditional thoroughfare functionality as well as conditions of the surrounding environment. The College Station Thoroughfare Plan should be referenced to identify the roadway functional class and the surrounding context class. The identified context classes include Urban Core, General Urban, Suburban, and Rural. Some judgment may need to be used to determine the appropriate context class in redeveloping and transition areas. College Station has numerous tools to select an appropriate Complete Street design – a set of typical cross sections, a set of recommended context‐sensitive cross sections, and a flexible design guide. During new construction, reconstruction, or widening projects, it should be determined if the typical cross section is most appropriate to achieve the corridor’s planned transportation goals. If other travel modes or design elements should be prioritized, then the most appropriate alternative context‐sensitive cross sections should be selected. In some cases, constrained right‐of‐way or reduced pavement width may limit the use of the standard cross section options. In particular, retrofit projects, where multi‐modal design elements are being introduced within existing developed areas, may necessitate the development of unique design options. In these scenarios, the flexible design criteria in the design standards toolbox should be referenced to select the essential elements and determine if a design can be adjusted to reduce or eliminate non‐vital elements. Ideal cross sections may be difficult to achieve due to constrained conditions. In which case, preferred alternative cross sections would contain as many essential and desired elements as possible. Target Speed Target speed is the highest speed at which vehicles should operate on a thoroughfare in a specific context, consistent with the level of multimodal activity generated by adjacent land uses to provide both mobility for motor vehicles and a safe environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Historically design decisions are made based on a design speed which is often the posted speed plus 5 mph. The target speed is not set arbitrarily but rather is achieved through a combination of measures that include the following: • Setting signal timing for moderate progressive speeds from intersection to intersection; • Using narrower travel lanes that cause motorists to naturally slow their speeds; • Using physical measures such as curb extensions and medians to narrow the traveled way; • Using design elements such as on‐street parking to create side friction; • Minimal or no horizontal offset between the inside travel lane and median curbs; • Eliminating superelevation; • Eliminating shoulders in urban applications, except for bicycle lanes; • Smaller curb‐return radii at intersections and elimination or reconfiguration of high‐speed channelized right turns; • Paving materials with texture (e.g., crosswalks, intersection operating areas) detectable by drivers as a notification of the possible presence of pedestrians; • Proper use of speed limit, warning, advisory signs and other appropriate devices to gradually transition speeds when approaching and traveling through a walkable area. Source: Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach (2010) Minimum Length and Additional Right‐of‐Way for Turn Lanes at Intersections Figure 1 illustrates the minimum length for right and left‐turn lanes and required right‐of‐way and at intersections. Table 1 indicates the total length required for turn lane taper, deceleration, and storage by roadway functional class. This is an increase to the current Bryan / College Station Unified Design Standards and is based on NCHRP 780 – Design Guidance For Intersection Auxiliary Lanes. Right‐turn lanes area anticipated to be required at all major intersections. Roadway intersections with minor collectors and local streets require a traffic study to determine if a right‐turn lane is required. If it is determined that there are greater than 40 right turns per hour, an additional 14 feet of right‐of‐way will be required, as indicated in Table 2. Figure 1 Table 2 Table 1 Right‐of‐Way for Utilities Additional right‐of‐way may be dedicated to provide a location for the installation of water, sewer, gas, electric power, telecommunications and other similar services and utilities. An additional 10’ beyond each streetside area may be dedicated to allow for such utility installation. If ROW is available, build from the Cross Section Guide Select Appropriate Cross Section from the Available Options Identify Surrounding Context Zone Some judgment may need to be used in transition areas Identify Thoroughfare Functional Class on the Plan Is ROW or pavement width constrained? Is an alternative cross section not appropriate? Reference minimum flexible design criteria, design guide toolbox, and follow CSS process 12.5’12.5’12’12.5’12’6’21’ Sidewalk Median Shared-Use PathTravel LaneTravel Lane 12.5’ Travel LaneTravel Lane 12’ Travel LaneTravel Lane 130’ 37’37’ Thoroughfare Cross Sections Typical Sections City of College Station Major Arterial Minor Arterial Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe. 12.5’12.5’12’12’6.5’6.5’2’2’6’6’17’ Sidewalk Median SidewalkTravel Lane Bike LaneBike Lane Travel LaneTravel LaneTravel Lane 105’ 33’33’ Thoroughfare Cross Sections Typical Sections City of College Station 12’12’6’2’2’6’6’6’14’ Sidewalk TWLTL SidewalkBike LaneBike Lane Travel LaneTravel Lane 80’ 54’ Major Collector 12’12’7’7’6’6’ Sidewalk SidewalkBike LaneBike Lane Travel LaneTravel Lane 60’ 38’ Minor Collector Thoroughfare Cross Sections Major Arterial City of College Station Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe. 1) Sidewalk width to vary depending on available right-of-way. Typical Section 11.5’11.5’11’2’6.5’2’15’15’17’ Sidewalk1 Median Sidewalk1Travel LaneTravel Lane 6.5’ Bike LaneTravel Lane 11’ Travel LaneBike Lane 120’1 31’31’ Urban Core Bike Lanes, Wide Sidewalks 12.5’12.5’12’12.5’12’6’21’ Sidewalk Median Shared-Use PathTravel LaneTravel Lane 12.5’ Travel LaneTravel Lane 12’ Travel LaneTravel Lane 130’ 37’37’ 11.5’11.5’11’11.5’12’6’17’ Sidewalk Median Shared-Use PathTravel LaneTravel Lane 11.5’ Travel LaneTravel Lane 11’ Travel LaneTravel Lane 130’ 34’34’ General Urban Shared Use Path 11.5’11.5’11’11.5’10’10’17’ Wide Sidewalk Median Wide SidewalkTravel LaneTravel Lane 11.5’ Travel LaneTravel Lane 11’ Travel LaneTravel Lane 130’ 34’34’ Thoroughfare Cross Sections Major Arterial City of College Station Suburban Wide Sidewalks 10.5’6.5’2’6.5’2’16.5’16.5’12’ Sidewalk Median or TWLTL SidewalkBike LaneBike Lane Travel Lane 11’ Travel Lane 11’ Travel Lane 10.5’ Travel Lane 105’ 30’30’ 11’6’2’6’2’6’6’12’ Sidewalk Turn Lane SidewalkBike LaneBike Lane Travel Lane 11’ Travel Lane 11’ Travel Lane 11’ Travel Lane 105’ 72’ Context-Sensitive Cross Sections Minor Arterial City of College Station Typical Section Urban Core Bike Lanes, Wide Sidewalks General Urban Bike Lanes Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe. 12.5’12.5’12’12’6.5’6.5’2’2’6’6’17’ Sidewalk Median SidewalkTravel Lane Bike LaneBike Lane Travel LaneTravel LaneTravel Lane 105’ 33’33’ 11.5’11.5’11’11’5.5’2’5.5’2’6’6’17’ Sidewalk Median SidewalkTravel Lane Bike LaneBike Lane Travel LaneTravel LaneTravel Lane 105’ 30’30’ Context-Sensitive Cross Sections Minor Arterial City of College Station General Urban/Suburban Shared-Use Sidepath Suburban Bike Lanes 11.5’11.5’11.5’11.5’12’6’17’ Sidewalk Median Shared-Use PathTravel LaneTravel LaneTravel LaneTravel Lane 105’ 23’23’ 11’11’6.5’6.5’6’6’14’ Sidewalk TWLTL SidewalkBike LaneBike Lane Travel LaneTravel Lane 80’ 49’ 10.5’10.5’7’14’14’ Sidewalk SidewalkParkingTravel LaneTravel Lane 7’ Parking 5.5’3’ Bike Lane 5.5’3’ Bike Lane 80’ 52’ Context-Sensitive Cross Sections Major Collector City of College Station Typical Section Urban Core Bike Lanes, Parking General Urban Bike Lanes Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe. 12’12’6’2’2’6’6’6’14’ Sidewalk TWLTL SidewalkBike LaneBike Lane Travel LaneTravel Lane 80’ 54’ 11.5’11.5’5.5’5.5’8’6’2’2’16’ Sidewalk Median SidewalkBike LaneBike Lane Travel LaneTravel Lane 80’ 19’19’ 10.5’10.5’7’6’6’ Sidewalk SidewalkParkingTravel LaneTravel Lane 7’ Parking 5.5’3’ Bike Lane 5.5’3’ Bike Lane 80’ 52’ Context-Sensitive Cross Sections Major Collector City of College Station General Urban/Suburban Bike Lanes, Median *Parking may be located on either side of bike lane Suburban Bike Lanes, Parking* Context-Sensitive Cross Sections Minor Collector City of College Station Typical Section Urban Core Bike Lanes General Urban Bike Lanes 12’12’7’7’6’6’ Sidewalk SidewalkBike LaneBike Lane Travel LaneTravel Lane 60’ 38’ 10’12’6’6’8’8’ Sidewalk SidewalkBike LaneBike Lane Turn LaneTravel Lane 10’ Travel Lane 60’ 44’ 10.5’10.5’5.5’2’5.5’2’12’12’ Sidewalk SidewalkBike LaneBike Lane Travel LaneTravel Lane 60’ 36’ Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe. Context-Sensitive Cross Sections Minor Collector City of College Station Suburban Bike Lanes 12’12’7’7’6’6’ Sidewalk SidewalkBike LaneBike Lane Travel LaneTravel Lane 60’ 38’ !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!!!! !! ! !!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!S H 6 S GREENS PRAIRIE RD WLUTHER ST WSEBESTA RDDEACON DRUV6 ")2818 FM 2154HARVEY RDWILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYTEXAS AVE S W E L L B O R N R D HARVEY MITCHELL PKWY STEXAS AVE UNIVERSITY DR EROCK PRAIRIE RDS H 40 / WILLIAM D FITCH PKWYUNIVERSITY DRGEORGE BUSH DRGEORGE BUSH DR WRAYMOND STOTZER PKWYS H 6 S U N IV E R S IT Y D R E SH 30 BARRON RDFINFEATHERROCK PRAIRIE RDGROESBECKHOLLEMAN DRC AVITT AVE BIRD POND RDW ELLBO RN RD E 29TH STE VI LLA MARIAS COLLEGE AVE S C O LLE G E AVE C AVITT AVE College Station Comprehensive PlanMap 6.1Existing TrafficVolumes City Limits ETJ Railroad!!!! !!"Bryan Avg. Daily Traffic 0 - 5,000 5,001 - 15,000 15,001 - 25,000 25,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 65,000 65,001 - 109,195 January 2015Source: Kimley-Horn 0 0.5 10.25 Miles !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!! !!!!! !! !! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! S H 6 SHARVEY MITCHELL PKWY SWILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYWILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYGREENS PRAIRIE RD WS H 40 / WILLIAM D FITCH PKWYGEORGE BUSH DRHARVEY MITCHELL PKWY SLUTHER ST WSOUTHW EST PKW YSEBESTA RDDEACON DRUV6 ")2818 FM 2154HARVEY RDTEXAS AVE SWE L L B O R N R D UNIVERSITY DR EUNIVERSITY DRSH 30 BARRON RDFINFEATHER ROCK PRAIRIE RDGROESBECKCAVITT AVE BIRD POND RDE VI LLA MARI AS C O LL E G E A V E C AVITT AVE College Station Comprehensive PlanMap 6.22015 Level of Service City Limits ETJ Railroad!!!! !!" 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Bryan Acceptable Tolerable Unacceptable January 2015Source: Kimley-Horn !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!!!! !! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! S H 6 SHARVEY MITCHELL PKWY SGREENS PRAIRIE RD WSEBESTA RDUV6 ")2818 FM 2154HARVEY RDGREENS PRAIRIE RDTEXAS AVE S WE L L B O R N R D TEXAS AVE UNIVERSITY DR EROCK PRAIRIE RDSH 40 /WILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYUNIVERSITY DRGEORGE BUSH DRGEORGE BUSH DR WRAYMOND STOTZER PKWYSH 6 S U N IV E R S IT Y D R E SH 30 BARRON RDFINFEATHERROCK PRAIRIE RDGROESBECKHOLLEMAN DRCAVITT AV E BIRD POND RDW ELLBOR N RD E 29TH STE VILLA MARI AS COLLEGE AVE S C OLLE G E AV E C AVITT AV E College Station Comprehensive PlanMap 6.42035 Laneswith ProgrammedProjects City Limits ETJ Railroad!!!! !!" 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Bryan Lanes in 2035 2 4 6 September 2015Source: Kimley-Horn !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!! !! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! BIRD POND RDROCK PRAIRIE RD TEXAS AVE S S H 6 SHARVEY MITCHELL PKWY SWILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYWILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYGREENS PRAIRIE RD WGEORGE BUSH DRHARVEY RDUNIVERSITY DRHARVEY MITCHELL PKWY SLUTHER ST WSOUTHW EST PKWYSEBESTA RDDEACON DRUV6 ")2818 College Station Comprehensive PlanMap 6.52035 Traffic Volumeswith ProgrammedProjects City Limits ETJ Railroad!!!! !!" 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Bryan Avg. Daily Traffic 0 - 5,000 5,001 - 15,000 15,001 - 25,000 25,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 65,000 65,001 - 114,000 September 2015Source: Kimley-Horn !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!! !! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! !!!!! ! !!! !!! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! !BIRD POND RDS H 6 S GREENS PRAIRIE RD WLUTHER ST WSEBESTA RDUV6 ")2818 College Station Comprehensive PlanMap 6.9Future Level of Service City Limits ETJ Railroad!!!! !!" 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Bryan Acceptable Tolerable Unacceptable September 2015Source: Kimley-Horn UNIVERSITY DRDEACON DRROCK PRAIRIE RD WILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYWILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYGEORGE BUSH DRHARVEY RDTEXAS AVE S SOUTHWEST PKWYHARVEY MITCHELL PKWY SHARVEY MITCHELL PKWY S !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !!! !!! !!!!! !! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! !!!!!!!!! ! ! BIRD POND RDROCK PRAIRIE RD TEXAS AVE S S H 6 SHARVEY MITCHELL PKWY SWILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYWILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYGREENS PRAIRIE RD WGEORGE BUSH DRHARVEY RDUNIVERSITY DRHARVEY MITCHELL PKWY SLUTHER ST WSOUTHW EST PKWYSEBESTA RDDEACON DRUV6 ")2818 College Station Comprehensive PlanMap 6.10 UpdatedThoroughfare PlanLevel of Service City Limits ETJ Railroad!!!! !!" 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Bryan Acceptable Tolerable Unacceptable September 2015Source: Kimley-Horn Luther St. extented to Dowling Rd. Replacement for Cain Road Realigned Feather Run FM 2818 updated to 6 lanes Rock Prairie updated to Minor Arterial (4 Lanes) Upgraded from a 4-lane major collector to a 4-lane minor arterial All 4-lane major collectors wererevised to either 4-lane minor arterials or 2-lane major collectors