The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1975 Grimes County Transportation PlanPopulation Projections r' r f . ERF"a : ___A Grimes County ,.Nl ri ON 7 ^ r Transportation Plan 1975 - 1995 Physical Features About 1766, European explorers crossed Grimes County searching for the Mississippi River. During the colonial period, two roads crossed the county -- the Coushatta Trail, a part of the Contraband Trace which received its name from the smuggling of goods from Louisiana into Spanish Texas; and the La Bahia Road, which reached from Goliad to Washington -on- the - Brazos and crossed the Brazos River at the mouth of the Navasota River. The first permanent settlers were members of Stephen F. Austin's colony and came to the areain 1821. Jared Groce planted the first cotton in the county on his plantation on Wallace Prairie and established the first gin in Texas at that site in 1828. Jesse Grimes settled at Grimes' Prairie in 1827 and began raising livestock. By 1833, planters with slaves settled in the river bottoms. Indian raids ceased by 1841. Grimes County was created and organized in 1846, probably named for Jesse Grimes, a signer of the Texas Declaration of Independence. The building of the Houston and Texas Central Railroad reached the county in 1860 and brought an increase in population. The only urban area in Grimes County is Navasota. It is located on a bend of the Navasota River and was first called Hollandale for Francis Holland who came from Louisiana in 1822. In 1856, a post office was granted and named Navasota for the river. A scene of Civil War disturbance, Navasota was partially destroyed by fire in 1865. Other small population centers are Iola, Bedias, Shiro, .Plantersville, Richards, and the county seat of Anderson. Grimes County covers an 801 square mile area. Altitude ranges from 200 -400 feet, and temperatures average 42 in January and 95 in July. The county is located in southeast Texas, approximately 25 miles south of Bryan - College Station. The topography is hilly with rich bottomlands. Approximately 38% of Grimes County is forested. Grimes County is located in the Post Oak Savannah of the East Texas Timberlands, with a small area of Blackland Prairies in the central part of the county. Prin- cipal soil types are the sandy and sandy loams of the Falba - Arol - Elmina Association and vegetation is mainly hardwood such as post oak, blackjack, pecan, and hickory with some elm, yaupon, mesquite and huisache. The Brazos River forms the western boundary of the county, and rich bottomland soils are of the Ships - Norwood - Yahola association. Outcroppings of the Yegua, Jackson, Catahoula, and Fleming aquifers occur in the county. Wildlife species such as deer and squirrel are abundant in the creek and river bottomlands and dove and quail abound in the uplands. Natural resources in the county include oil, gas, stone, and lignite coal. Land Use Agriculture is the dominant land use in the county and accounts for over 70% of the total land area. The major trend in agricultural land use is from cropland to improved pasture and grassland, and this trend is expected to continue. In several areas of the county, particularly near Montgomery County, large areas of land are being subdivided into rural homesites. A tabulation of acreage by land use category was developed in 1973 by consultant for the Brazos Valley Develop- ment Council's planning region and is shown below: Urban or Rural Settlements Industrial Woodland Agricultural Total Acreage 10,957 113 140,812 360,822 512,704 Economic Potential A major sector of the county's economy is its diversified agricultural industry. Agriculture accounts for over $15 million in annual income, with approximately 90% from livestock production, primarily beef and dairy cattle and hogs. Field crop production includes grains, vegetables, pecans, and corn. Grimes County's Industrial Foundation has located five new industries in Navasota since 1970, adding approximately 146 jobs to the labor market. These are pri- marily steel or steel - related industries. Plans are being formulated at the present time by several energy- related companies to extract lignite coal from the area. Plans include construction of a 400 - megawatt power plant. Estimates are that the payroll impact of the project will initially be felt in early 1977 with the bulk of the financial input beginning in 1978. Navasota, the largest town in the county, is the local shopping center. The pri- mary market centers for the county are Bryan - College Station and the Houston area. A labor force estimate from the Texas Employment Commission for 1974 indicated a labor supply of 5,360 persons within Grimes County. One unknown factor in the economic forecast for Grimes County is the effect of the proposed Millican Reservoir. The reservoir is urgently needed for flood control and water supply and is also needed for a source of water supply for cooling pur- poses for electrical power generating plants expected to be built to use the rich lignite deposits. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is looking at the possibility of changing the proposed site, due to the presence of the lignite at the present site. A study is underway at present to recommend a site for the reservoir. Public Transportation Grimes County depends on its excellent highway system as the predominant means of transportation for people goods. State Highway 6 is the arterial route which links the county with major markets of Texas. State Highways 30, 90 and 105 offer east -west access into the Brenham, Huntsville, and Conroe areas. The well - developed highway network of State, FM, and local roads provides access into all parts of the county. Navasota has access to rail freight service, and the Amtrak passenger line can be boarded in Brenham, Washington County, a short distance west on SH 105. Motor freight service is available at Navasota, as is north -south commercial bus lines. A commercial bus line has made application to operate on SH 30 between Bryan - College Station and Huntsville. This routing would be of significant benefit to Grimes County. Commercial airline service is not now available in the county although there are facilities for private aircraft at the Navasota Municipal Air- field. There is no true public transportation operating in Grimes County at this time. Emergency medical transportation including ambulance service and the MAST plan of operation (Military Assistance to Safety and Traffic) is available. Taxi service is available in Navasota. The Brazos Valley Community Action Program serves Grimes County providing trans- portation for the elderly. A 12- passenger van is dispatched through the Informa- tion and Referral Office in Anderson. It transports persons within and outside the county for medical attention, trips to social security and welfare offices, grocery store, shopping excursions, and recreational trips. The CAP agency has also contracted with Department of Public Welfare to provide Title XIX assistance to SSI recipients. This service is for non - emergency medical transportation only. In a typical month the van served 115 individuals. Present information indicates that there is a growing need for additional public transportation, both for the segments of population now being served and for the general public. County Road No. Limits of Project Milea 323 & 324 From SH 6 near Courtney to FM 2 5.9 304 From FM 362 to Loop 234 at Stoneham 9.4 302 From CR 304 to FM 1774 5.2 405 & 412 From SH 105 to SH 90 at Anderson 10.1 215 From FM 1774 to FM 2819 2.8 146 From FM 2620 to Walker County Line 4.0 As in most rural Texas counties, Grimes County's population has shown a downtrend in recent years. In 1900, the county's population peaked at just over 26,000. In the 1900's, a steady decline began. In the decade between 1960 and 1970, the pop- ulation declined 6.7% or 854 persons. A provisional estimate for July 1, 1974 by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, indicates a population of 12,500, which represents a slight increase since 1970. In making population projections, certain variables are normally used to indicate future growth or decline. Based on these variables, a population of 11,652 for 1990 has been projected by the University of Texas, Population Research Center. This represents a slight decline from existing population. However, several fac- tors exist in the county which could measurably increase the expected population. These factors are discussed in following paragraphs in this study, and they are reflected in the 13,000 population projection made by the Grimes County Chamber of Commerce. Both the high and low range projections are shown in the graph be- low. It is a realistic assumption that the most probable population for 1990 will be approximately mid -point of the two projections. 30,000 20p00 10,000 POPULATION GRAPH 1930 1950 1970 1980 Based on the 1970 Census, the socio- economic characteristics shown in the following chart existed in Grimes County. A slight in- crease in population has occurred; however, these characteristics should still apply. 1470 CENSUS FACTS - (;RJMI -;S COUNIA TERM 19 1960 1970 1. Population 15,135 12,709 11,855 335 7, Population aged 65+ ...................... 18.8% M edian Age . ............................... 35.6 Years Total Number Families ...................... 3,110 Median Family Income ....................... $ 8,310 7. Families Below Poverty Level ............. 13.2% T otal Housing Units ................. I..... 4,966 Units without plumbing ..................... 1,661 Median Value Owner - Occupied Units .......... $ 6,900 Median Monthly Rent ........................ $ 38 7. Owner - Occupied Units ..................... 56.27 In charts below, current population and economic indicators are listed: PUBLIC SCHOO ATTENDANCE (1975 -76 TERM Navasota ISU ................... 1. Anderson -Shiro ISD ............. 335 Iola ISD ....................... 193 Richards ISD ................... 175 PROVISIONAL ESTIMATES OF POPULATION .July 1, 1973 Classification GRIMES COUNTY ................. 12,100 and early residences. Navasota ...................... 5,225 Iola .......................... 331 Anderson ...................... 320 Bedias ........................ 301 Richards ...................... 296 Plantersville ................. 21.2 Shiro ......................... 205 GRTI*,'S COUN'T'Y VEHICLE REGISTRATION Collector Total Licensed River. Several historic old homes __- Vehicles _ Year Ending; 32.5% 7,540 Aug. 3.1, 1970 4 -- 8,205 Aug. 31, 1972 Places of historic interest include 8,077 Apr. 30, 1975 8,419 Apr. 30, 1976 Local City Streets ETHNIC GROUPS Environmental & Cultural Resources I Throughout Grimes County, history intrudes on the present. The county is rich in historic sites, many of which are listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Historic Preservation List. While it is not possible to list all of the sites, some of the more important are described briefly in the follow- ing chart and their locations are noted in green on the map at left. l -- Anderson Historic I1.Is1:riet. ......... SILe lhaod in the NaLion:ll Rogis- Average tar of 111stor.le. Places. IA includes many historic buildings such it-, lug Daily % cabins, courthouse, FanLhorp lun, Classification Miles and early residences. 2 -- Navasota ........................... Numerous historic sites, including P.A. Smith Ilotel which is listed in the National Register of Historic Arterial 68.6 Places. 3 -- Courtney Bridge .................... Iron truss bridge spanning Brazos Collector 240.2- River. Several historic old homes 377 32.5% are located nearby. 4 -- Plantersville ...................... Places of historic interest include 36 the Isaac Baker house and Planters- Local City Streets 42.5 ville Baptift Church. 5 -- Piedmont Springs ................... A stop on the Old Bahia Road. Site Total System 738.0 of famous health resort about 1850. 361 Used by Confederate Army during the %;Includes 37.4 miles of unpaved Civil War. 6 -- KuJlum Springs ..................... Health and pleatturo resort of the 1850's. 7 -- Gibbons Springs .................... The Coushatta Indians had a village here with well- constructed houses and gardens. Later the spring was a stage stop on the La Bahia Road. 8 -- Munitions Factory .................. Located near Anderson. 9 -- Grave of Sarah Dotson .............. Sarah Dotson made first Texas flag. DATA SOURCES: 1 -- University of Texas Population Research Center 2 -- Crimus County Chamber of Crnmne ree .3 - G011RU I L:nat 4 -- Navasota Comprehensive flan G d es Q C° • I Navasota 0 The effects of the transportation network on the environment of the area must be carefully studied, so that any potential adverse impacts can be eliminated or at least minimized. Two areas which are especially affected by transportation cor- ridors are the noise environment and air quality. In Grimes County, prelimi- nary studies indicate that no adverse impact can be expected to occur as a result of improvements to the highway system. A brief summary of noise conditions and air quality in Grimes County is included below: AIR QUALITY Grimes County is located in Air Quality Con- trol Region 3. Air quality is good and should not decrease as long as regulations are enforced. Major industries are widely dispersed, and prob- lems arising from industrial concentrations are few. Vehicular emissions should decline as the pollution control devices become prevalant. The county has no history of air stagnation adviso- ries. Grimes County is not now and is not ex- pected to be designated as an air quality main- tenance area. All highway projects now under construction are consistent with the State Imple- mentation Plan. All future projects should be evaluated to determine impact of construction on air quality, in accordance with current guide- lines, regulations, and directives. NOISE LEVELS As in most areas, parts of Grimes County ex- perience intermittent noise levels in excess of national standards. Construction, manufacturing and industrial sites, urban areas, and transpor- tation corridors are examples of noise generators. Traffic-generated noise levels within transporta- tion corridors often exceed recommended standards at the right of way line because of high traffic volumes and /or heavy duty vehicles. For most existing situations, sound attenuation measures such as barrier walls and open space are not fea- sible because of space limitations, cost, and the necessity for access. However, for future devel- opment, attention should be directed to locating sensitive receptors far enough from the highway facility to avoid severe noise impacts. Based on average traffic projections, it is recommended that all sensitive receptors be located a minimum of 50 feet from right of way of collector roads and 150 feet from right of way of arterials. Road System The map on the reverse of this Plan shows the highway system for Grimes County by functional classification. Federal standards have been established outlining the recommended percentages of roads for each functional category. The highway system in Grimes County appears to be fairly well balanced within the func- tional categories; although the collector system exceeds the recommended limits by seven percent. Grimes County's highway network includes 738 miles of roadway serving a population of 12,100 and a land area of 801 square miles. This ratio provides 322 feet of roadway per capita and an average of 0.92 mile of road for each square mile of land area. The average daily traffic volumes range from 2,072 vehicles on the arterial system to 36 vehicles on the rural local road system. The categories of classification and the mileage within each category in Grimes County are shown in the chart below: In Grimes County, as in most rural Texas counties, the responsibility for main- tenance of the local road system is vested in the county, under supervision of a County Commissioners Court. A total of the rural local road mileage by precinct is shown in the chart below. Local road condition by type of surface treatment is also shown in a chart below. LOCAL ROAD CONDITION % Rural Surface Type Local Roads Primitive or Unimproved 6% Graded & Drained 63% Gravel or Stone Surface 31% Paved 1% LOCAL ROADS BY PRECINCT County Precinct Road Mileage 1 209 2 132 3 70 4 59 Introduction Preparation of this Grimes County Transportation Plan was authorized by State Commission Minute Number 65741, dated January 31, 1972. The Plan was developed by the State Department of Highways arLd Public Transportation, cooperating with the local governmental agencies and the regional planning council, Brazos Valley Development Council. This County Plan is based on limited population, economic, and transportation studies. Effects of the proposed transportation plan on the social, economic, and environmental characteristics of Grimes County have been considered. This multi -modal transportation plan is intended to be a base document for organ- ized and methodic improvements to the existing highway network. The purpose of this document is to make available to all planning agencies an inventory of all existing transportation facilities and to set forth a basic plan for priority im- provements. It is recommended that all agencies involved utilize this Plan as a guide for future development of the transportation system in Grimes County. FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTACT JOE G. HANOVER DISTRICT ENGINEER STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 3249 BRYAN, TEXAS 77801 713 -822 - 0151 BEN F. SWANK, JR. County Judge Commissioners W. J. GRESSETT ALBIN FINKS Precinct 1 Precinct 3 WALTER BORSKI FRED VOELTER Precinct 2 Precinct 4 County Priorities Environmentally Sensitive Areas f - w= pit eo 0 LEGEND _ o� The Plan does not constitute an offi- COUNTY ROAD PRIORITIES cial endorsement of any route, nor does it commit the State Department O ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVr of Highways and Public Transportation AREAS nor the cities and counties to the development of any particular project. Local officials, together with the State Department of Highways and Pub- lic Transportation, will coordinate their efforts toward the proposed proj- ects as the traffic volumes warrant and as funds become available. Since State and Federal funding is litlited at the present time, all construction dollars will be expended primarily to upgrade and improve the existing highways. Little new construction is envisioned at the present time. Recognizing this limi- tation in funding, the county has established the following list of priorities. County roads which were selected for improvement are important collector routes in their precincts and the county. The priorities have been listed randomly, and without order of preference. The priorities are shown in red on the map above. COUNTY ROAD PRIORITIES U " 0 .. J T V r� Average Federal Average Daily Daily % Recommended Classification Miles Vehicle Miles Volume System % System Arterial 68.6 142,141 2,072 9.3% 6 - 12% Collector 240.2- 90,500 377 32.5% 20- 25% Local Rural Roads 386.7 13,921 36 Local City Streets 42.5 19,734 464 58.2% 65 - 75% Total System 738.0 266,296 361 %;Includes 37.4 miles of unpaved county road In Grimes County, as in most rural Texas counties, the responsibility for main- tenance of the local road system is vested in the county, under supervision of a County Commissioners Court. A total of the rural local road mileage by precinct is shown in the chart below. Local road condition by type of surface treatment is also shown in a chart below. LOCAL ROAD CONDITION % Rural Surface Type Local Roads Primitive or Unimproved 6% Graded & Drained 63% Gravel or Stone Surface 31% Paved 1% LOCAL ROADS BY PRECINCT County Precinct Road Mileage 1 209 2 132 3 70 4 59 Introduction Preparation of this Grimes County Transportation Plan was authorized by State Commission Minute Number 65741, dated January 31, 1972. The Plan was developed by the State Department of Highways arLd Public Transportation, cooperating with the local governmental agencies and the regional planning council, Brazos Valley Development Council. This County Plan is based on limited population, economic, and transportation studies. Effects of the proposed transportation plan on the social, economic, and environmental characteristics of Grimes County have been considered. This multi -modal transportation plan is intended to be a base document for organ- ized and methodic improvements to the existing highway network. The purpose of this document is to make available to all planning agencies an inventory of all existing transportation facilities and to set forth a basic plan for priority im- provements. It is recommended that all agencies involved utilize this Plan as a guide for future development of the transportation system in Grimes County. FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTACT JOE G. HANOVER DISTRICT ENGINEER STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 3249 BRYAN, TEXAS 77801 713 -822 - 0151 BEN F. SWANK, JR. County Judge Commissioners W. J. GRESSETT ALBIN FINKS Precinct 1 Precinct 3 WALTER BORSKI FRED VOELTER Precinct 2 Precinct 4 County Priorities Environmentally Sensitive Areas f - w= pit eo 0 LEGEND _ o� The Plan does not constitute an offi- COUNTY ROAD PRIORITIES cial endorsement of any route, nor does it commit the State Department O ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVr of Highways and Public Transportation AREAS nor the cities and counties to the development of any particular project. Local officials, together with the State Department of Highways and Pub- lic Transportation, will coordinate their efforts toward the proposed proj- ects as the traffic volumes warrant and as funds become available. Since State and Federal funding is litlited at the present time, all construction dollars will be expended primarily to upgrade and improve the existing highways. Little new construction is envisioned at the present time. Recognizing this limi- tation in funding, the county has established the following list of priorities. County roads which were selected for improvement are important collector routes in their precincts and the county. The priorities have been listed randomly, and without order of preference. The priorities are shown in red on the map above. COUNTY ROAD PRIORITIES U " 0 .. J T V r�