HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-3729 - Ordinance - 12/10/2015ORDINANCE NO. 2015-3729
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, AMENDING THE
COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY AMENDING CHAPTER 6
"TRANSPORTATION" AND CERTAIN MAPS WITHIN THE "BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN,
AND GREENWAYS MASTER PLAN;" UPDATING AND STREAMLINING
PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION; 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:
PART2:
PART3:
PART 4:
PART 5:
That the "Comprehensive Plan of the City of College Station" is hereby amended
by adding new subsections C.1.b, C.4.i and C.5.b to Exhibit "A" thereto as set out
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes.
That the "Comprehensive Plan of the City of College Station" is hereby amended
by deleting Chapter 6/Transportation thereof and substituting therefor a new
Chapter 6/Transportation as set out in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part
hereof for all purposes.
That the "Comprehensive Plan of the City of College Station" is hereby amended
by amending Map 5.4 "Proposed Bicycle Facilities and Map," and Map 5.5
"Proposed Pedestrian Facilities" of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master
Plan dated January 2010 to maintain the alignment of said facilities shown on said
maps with the changes made to the alignment of streets as shown on the
Thoroughfare Plan Map 6.1 in Chapter 6/Transportation as amended in this
Ordinance.
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.
That any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be
punishable by a fine of not less than Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) nor more than
Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each day such violation shall continue or be
permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense. Said Ordinance, being
a penal ordinance, becomes effective ten (10) days after its date of passage by the
City Council, as provided by Section 35 of the Charter of the City of College
Station.
ORDINANCE NO. 2015-3729 Page 2 of45
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 10th day of December, 2015.
ATTEST:
City Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. 2015-3729 Page 3 of 45
EXHIBIT "A"
That ordinance no. 3186 adopting the "Comprehensive Plan of the City of College Station" as
amended, is hereby amended by adding new subsections C.1.b, C.4.i and C.5.b to Exhibit "A" of
said plan for Exhibit "A" to read in its entirety as follows:
"EXHIBIT 'A'
A. Comprehensive Plan
The College Station Comprehensive Plan (Ordinance 3186) is hereby adopted and consists of the
following:
1. Existing Conditions;
2. Introduction;
3. Community Character;
4. Neighborhood Integrity;
5. Economic Development;
6. Parks, Greenways & the Arts;
7. Transportation;
8. Municipal Services & Community Facilities;
9. Growth Management and Capacity; and
10. Implementation and Administration.
B. Master Plans
The following Master Plans are hereby adopted and made a part of the College Station
Comprehensive Plan:
1. The Northgate Redevelopment Plan dated November 1996;
2. The Revised Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan dated 1998;
3. Northgate Redevelopment Implementation Plan dated July 2003;
4. East College Station Transportation Study dated May 2005;
5. Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan dated May 2005;
6. Park Land Dedication Neighborhood Park Zones Map dated January 2009;
7. Park Land Dedication Community Park Zones map dated April 2009;
8. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan dated January 2010;
9. Central College Station Neighborhood Plan dated June 2010;
10. Water System Master Plan dated August 2010;
11. Wastewater Master Plan dated June 2011;
12. Eastgate Neighborhood Plan dated June 2011;
13. Recreation, Park and Open Space Master Plan dated Jul y 2011;
14. Southside Area Neighborhood Plan dated August 2012;
15. Medical District Master Plan dated October 2012;
16. Wellborn Community Plan dated April 2013;
17. Economic Development Master Plan dated September 2013; and
ORDINANCE NO. 2015-3729 Page 4 of 45
18. South Knoll Area Neighborhood Plan dated September 2013.
C. Miscellaneous Amendments
The following miscellaneous amendments to the College Station Comprehensive Plan are as
follows:
1. Text Amendments:
a. Chapter 2 "Community Character," "Growth Areas" by amending the text regarding
Growth Area IV and Growth Area V -Ordinance 3376, dated October 2011.
b. Chapter 6 "Transportation" by amending the text regarding Complete Streets, Context
Sensitive Solutions, Minimum Length and Additional Right-of-Way for Turn Lanes at
Intersections, and Right-of-Way for Utilities with this ordinance, dated December 10,
2015.
2. Future Land Use and Character Map Amendment:
a. 301 Southwest Parkway-Ordinance 3255, dated July 2010.
b. Richards Subdivision -Ordinance 33 76, dated October 2011.
c. 1600 University Drive East-Ordinance 3535, dated November 14, 2013.
d. 2560 Earl Rudder Freeway S. -Ordinance 3541, dated December 12, 2013.
e. 13913 FM 2154. -Ordinance 3546, dated January 9, 2014.
f. 2021 Harvey Mitchell Parkway-Ordinance 3549, dated January 23, 2014.
g. 1201 Norton Lane -Ordinance 3555, dated February 27, 2014.
h. 3715 Rock Prairie Road West-Ordinance 3596, dated August 25, 2014.
i. 4201 Rock Prairie Road-Ordinance 2015-3670, dated July 9, 2015.
3. Concept Map Amendment:
a. Growth Area IV -Ordinance 3376, dated October 2011.
b. Growth Area V -Ordinance 3376, dated October 2011.
4. Thoroughfare Map Amendment:
a. Raintree Drive -Ordinance 3375, dated October 2011.
b. Birkdale Drive -Ordinance 3375, dated October 2011.
c. Corsair Circle -Ordinance 3375, dated October 2011.
d. Deacon Drive -Ordinance 3375, dated October 2011.
e. Dartmouth Drive -Ordinance 3375, dated October 2011.
f. Farm to Market 60 -Ordinance 3375, dated October 2011.
g. Southwest Parkway-Ordinance 3375, dated October 2011.
h. Cain Road extension -O rdinance 3639, dated February 26, 2015.
i. Updates to Maps within new Chapter 6 of the College Station Comprehensive Plan -
with this ordinance, dated December 10, 2015.
5. Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan Amendment:
D. General
a. Cain Road extension-Ordinance 3639, dated February 26, 2015.
b. Updates to Maps 5.4 and 5.5 -with this ordinance, dated December 10, 2015.
ORDINANCE NO. 2015-3729 Page 5 of 45
I. Conflict. All parts of the College Station Comprehensive Plan and any amendments thereto
shall be harmonized where possible to give effect to all. Only in the event of an irreconcilable
conflict shall the later adopted ordinance prevail and then only to the extent necessary to avoid
such conflict. Ordinances adopted at the same city council meeting without reference to
another such ordinance shall be harmonized, if possible, so that effect may be given to each.
2. Purpose. The Comprehensive Plan is to be used as a guide for growth and development for the
entire City and its extra-territorial jurisdiction ("ETJ"). The College Station Comprehensive
Plan depicts generalized locations of proposed future land-uses, including thoroughfares,
bikeways, pedestrian ways, parks, greenways, and waterlines that are subject to modification
by the City to fit local conditions and budget constraints.
3. General nature of Future Land Use and Character. The College Station Comprehensive Plan,
in particular the Future Land Use and Character Map and any adopted amendments thereto,
shall not be nor considered a zoning map, shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish
zoning boundaries and shall not be site or parcel specific but shall be used to illustrate
generalized locations.
4. General nature of College Station Comprehensive Plan. The College Station Comprehensive
Plan, including the Thoroughfare Plan, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan,
Central College Station Neighborhood Plan, Water System Master Plan and any additions,
amendments, master plans and subcategories thereto depict same in generalized terms
including future locations; and are subject to modifications by the City to fit local conditions,
budget constraints, cost participation, and right-of-way availability that warrant further
refinement as development occurs. Linear routes such as bikeways, greenways, thoroughfares,
pedestrian ways, waterlines and sewer lines that are a part of the College Station
Comprehensive Plan may be relocated by the City 1,000 feet from the locations shown in the
Plan without being considered an amendment thereto.
5. Reference. The term College Station Comprehensive Plan includes all of the above in its
entirety as if presented in full herein, and as same may from time to time be amended."
ORDINANCE NO. 2015-3729 Page 6 of 45
EXHIBIT "B"
That the "Comprehensive Plan of the City of College Station" is hereby amended by deleting Chapter
6/Transportation thereof and substituting therefor a new Chapter 6/Transportation to provide in its
entirety as follows:
Ordinance No. 2015-3729 EXHIBIT B Page 7 of 45
By living in
a growing
university
community,
College Station
residents have
mobility options
beyond the private
automobile,
including
designated bike
routes, an
extensive
sidewalk network,
and local transit
services.
As Amended 12-10-15
Residents have voiced their support for a transportation network that better
manages congestion; offers more travel options and choices; and is sensitive
to the neighborhoods, natural areas, and districts. The challenges facing the
current transportation system demand strategic thought about how College
Station plans land uses, designs projects, and makes the system more bike
friendly and walkable. It is also necessary that significant expenditures be
made to add capacity to our existing roadways and to build new streets.
The City must also keep planning for to ensure adequate right-of-ways exist
to accommodate the needs of future generations, while not compromising
future transportation options. Developing a successful transportation plan
requires a thorough understanding of current conditions, opportunities,
challenges, and preferred outcomes.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this chapter is to ensure orderly and integrated development
of the community's transportation network, considering not only facilities for
automobiles, but also transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. This chapter includes
the Thoroughfare Plan, identifying the network's roadway needs for the next
20 years. It also includes an overview of the planning considerations
associated with the City's transportation needs and a discussion of context
sensitive solutions. It also serves as the foundation for the Bicycle, Pedestrian,
and Greenways Master Plan. Finally, there is the identification of strategies
and action recommendations that will facilitate the development of the
transportation system.
EXISTING MOBILITY
Street Network
The thoroughfare network in College Station and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
consists of more than 200 miles of existing streets. The freeways and a
Transportation I As Amended 12-10-15
majority of the arterial streets are part of the Texas Department of
Transportation system, with the remainder planned, built, and
maintained by the City and Brazos County. Many of the freeway and
arterial streets have seen dramatic increases in traffic volumes over the
past decade, necessitating substantial capacity improvement projects,
such as the widening of Texas Avenue, interchange improvement on
State Highway 6, and improvements on Wellborn Road (FM 2154) and
Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818). Current traffic counts on various
roadways across the community are displayed in Map 6.1, Existing
Traffic Volumes.
Increases in traffic volumes have resulted in peak hour congestion
along certain corridors and at specific intersections. These hotspots are
dispersed throughout the City, but tend to be found most often where
two high-volume roadways intersect. In addition to increases in traffic
volume, intersection design, traffic signal operations, driveway
locations, and adjacent land uses each contribute to the decreased
service levels in these hotspots. The College Station: Existing Conditions
report, prepared to accompany this Plan, provides detailed
information about the current thoroughfare network. The level of
service on area roadways in 2007 is displayed in Map 6.2, 2007 Level of
Service.
Transit
A variety of organizations provide transit service in College Station, with
the primary provider being Texas A&M University. Other providers
include The District and the Brazos Valley Area Agency on Aging.
Additionally, the College Station Independent School District operates
a large fleet of buses used to transport students to and from its schools.
Texas A&M University has operated a transit system for students,
employees, and on-campus visitors since 1982. The system currently
consists of 95 buses operating 13 off-campus routes in the cities of Bryan
and College Station, every day of the week. In addition to these fixed
off-campus routes, the system also includes seven on-campus routes, a
door-to-door shuttle service for disabled students and employees, an
airport shuttle between campus and Easterwood Airport, and charter
services. During home football games, special game day transportation
is provided, shuttling riders between the campus and park-and-ride lots
located at Post Oak Mall. Based on the latest available data, the daily
ridership on the fixed off-campus routes averaged more than
18,000 passengers and on-campus routes averaged nearly
15,000 passengers (2004).
The District, first established as the Brazos Transit System, has operated
transit routes for the general public since 1982. Services extend across
a 16-county area in southeastern Texas. The system currently operates
eight fixed-routes in the cities of Bryan and College Station, Monday
Ordinance No. 2015-3729
As Amended 12-10-15 I Transportation
through Friday. In addition to these fixed-routes, the system also
includes limited door-to-door services for elderly and disabled residents
and demand response (by schedule) door-to-door services, with a
preference to persons with medical appointments. Based on the latest
available data, the annual ridership for the system in the cities of Bryan
and College Station was more than 270,000 passengers (2001 ).
Map 6.3, Existing Transit Routes, displays the existing bus transit routes in
College Station and Bryan.
The Brazos Valley Area Agency on Aging operates a demand response
(by schedule) door-to-door service for elderly residents of College
Station with a preference to persons with medical appointments. This
service is coordinated through the Brazos Valley Council of
Governments.
The College Station Independent School District operates a fleet of
48 buses, including eight buses designed and used for special needs.
Currently, the system consists of 42 routes serving 12 schools and more
than 2,500 of the 9,000 students enrolled in the district.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
College Station currently accommodates bicyclists by on-street bike
lanes, off-street multi-use paths, and signed bicycle routes. Pedestrians
Sryan/Collog• Station
Transit Ravi••
Legend
>-•-·•-Allo�Trt�s.IRwles
Page 10 of 45
Transportation I As Amended 12-10-15
are accommodated by a network of sidewalks and multi-use paths.
Over the past couple of decades, the City has adopted a series of
master plans addressing the bicycle and pedestrian needs of the
community. Each of these plans has initiated actions and funding
approvals by residents, resulting in 32 miles of on-road bike lanes, three
miles of off-road multi-use paths, 50 miles of signed bicycle routes, and
l 06 miles of sidewalks dispersed throughout the City. Texas A&M
University has a similar network, facilitating bicycle and pedestrian
movements on campus.
Aviation
Easterwood Airport connects the City of College Station to other
metropolitan areas of Texas and the Nation. The airport has been
owned and operated by Texas A& M University since 1938 and is served
by two commercial airlines, as well as offering general aviation services.
The airport encompasses nearly 700 acres, including three runways -
one primary and two crosswind runways. The airport includes a
passenger terminal constructed in 1990 and recently remodeled, as
well as a general aviation terminal remodeled in 1994. Recent data
(2005) indicates the airport had total aircraft operations of more than
60,000, with more than 603 of the operations involving general aviation
aircraft. In 2008, the airport served more than 150,000 passengers
through commercial operations, slightly fewer than the numbers served
in the preceding year.
Pending Projects
The City of College Station and other regional transportation providers,
through partnership with the Bryan-College Station Metropolitan
Planning Organization, have identified transportation projects needed
to meet increasing demands. These projects are identified in a number
of plans and studies, but most important are those projects identified in
the City's Capital Improvements Program, the City's most recent bond
approval, the State's Transportation Improvement Program, and the
Metropolitan Planning Organization's Transportation Improvement
Program. These documents identify projects that have funding either
authorized or appropriated for land acquisition, design, and
construction, and are therefore imminent. Projects on these lists include
the following:
• State Highway 6 ramp and interchange improvements;
• Barron Road -State Highway 6 interchange construction;
• Barron Road widening;
• William D. Fitch Parkway widening;
• FM 2154 and FM 2818 grade separation;
• Bee Creek Trail design and construction;
Ordinance No. 2015-3729
As Amended 12-10-15 I Transportation
• Spring Creek Trail design and construction; and,
• Texas A&M University bus system improvements.
For a complete list and project details, consult the documents
previously referenced.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FIGURE 6.1
Activities Analyzed by Travel Demand Model
Future Conditions
With the population projected to increase by
approximately 40,000 persons by 2030, traffic, too,
is expected to increase substantially. With
increased traffic comes the potential for increased
congestion and degradation of levels of service.
However, this growth will also increase the
demand for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facilities.
A travel demand model was prepared for this Plan,
in the manner depicted in Figure 6.1, Activities
Analyzed by Travel Demand Model, using
projected population and employment growth
based on the Future Land Use & Character map.
The model was used to aid in the determination of
Urban
Activity
�
L
Roadway
Route
Choice
�
the transportation network needs, to refine the Future Land Use &
Character map, and for identification and prioritization of the
recommended capital expenditures.
Without significant investments in new and expanded roadways,
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit, the estimated travel
demand will result in increased congestion and a degradation of level
of service in numerous locations. To be successful, transportation
investments must be accompanied by significant increases in transit
ridership and the reduction of vehicle trip and travel distance through
better land use planning, increased use of bicycles, and improved
walkability. Map 6.4, 2030 Lanes with Programmed Projects, displays the
number of lanes required to accommodate the projected traffic
volumes in 2030. Map 6.5, 2030 Traffic Volumes with Programmed
Pr ojects, displays the projected traffic volumes on College Station
roadways in 2030.
Regional Transportation Network
The City of College Station is only one of many entities involved in the
planning, construction, and operation of transportation facilities. The
Bryan-College Station Metropolitan Planning Agency, the Brazos Valley
Council of Governments, and the Texas Department of Transportation
each have their own role in transportation planning, funding,
--Trip
Frequency
l
Destination
choice
l
Mode
Choice
!
aaaa
@: ...... "
i
Transit
Route
Choice
Page 12 of 45
Transportation I As Amended 12-10-1 s
construction, and maintenance. The Metropolitan Planning
Organization serves as the regional partnership that coordinates
regional transportation planning and manages federal transportation
funding that comes to the region. The Organization maintains the
region's Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Transportation
Improvement Program.
The Brazos Valley Council of Governments is a regional partnership
focused on a variety of topics of importance to its members. The
Council is involved in planning for and operating transit services for the
elderly through the Area Agency on Aging. The Council also assists the
City in its involvement with the Texas High Speed Rail Initiative and the
establishment of a regional mobility authority.
The Texas Department of Transportation is responsible for planning,
constructing, and operating most of the City's primary mobility
corridors, including State Highway 6, Harvey Road (State Highway 30),
William D. Fitch (State Highway 40), Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818),
Wellborn Road (FM 2154), and Texas Avenue. The Department also
partners with the City to enhance landscaping within State highway
rights-of-way, bicycle facilities funding, and railroad crossing safety
improvements. It is critical that transportation planning in the City be
coordinated with each of these partners so that the City's
transportation system supports the mobility needs of the region.
Transit
Transit will need to play an increasing role in the City's transportation
system in order to provide travel choices and minimize expenses in
expanding roadway capacity. While providing valuable services and
congestion relief today, the fragmented and limited system of current
transit services will not be sufficient to meet future needs. The City is a
partner in the Texas High Speed Rail Initiative which, if constructed,
would provide high-speed commuter rail services to College Station,
connecting it to the major metropolitan areas of eastern Texas.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Expanded bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as part of an integrated
multi-modal transportation network, needs to offer alternatives to
vehicular travel and aid in reducing the vehicle miles traveled, and
thus the costs associated with extensive roadway expansion.
Aviation
Continued modernization of Easterwood Airport and protection from
incompatible land uses are essential to the long-term viability of airport
operations. The presence of commercial airline service adds a critical
and valuable element to both the City's transportation network and to
its competitive advantage over other areas in the region.
Ordinance No. 2015-3729
As Amended 12-10-15 I Transportation
Connectivity
Poor transportation connectivity can degrade the overall efficiency of
the transportation network as the majority of trips are funneled to a few
corridors. Connectivity in College Station is limited, especially where
constrained by natural features, such as floodplains. Neighborhood
opposition and development oriented around cul-de-sacs has limited
connectivity in the City.
Future transportation system effectiveness necessitates improved
connectivity to facilitate multiple routes to move traffic to and from
destinations. Otherwise, traffic congestion will increase and will
increasingly push additional traffic through neighborhoods. Increased
connectivity must be balanced with resource protection and
neighborhood concerns. Connectivity with and to each of the travel
modes is crucial to future accessibility and mobility. Context sensitive
design and traffic calming measures are essential components of any
effort at increased connectivity.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
This Plan proposes a land use pattern and growth management efforts
that, if successful, will minimize the amount and intensity of
development occurring in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Still, the
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction will continue to see some level of
development. It will also continue to expand in size through
annexation and should therefore be connected to the rest of the
planning jurisdiction. It is essential, though not currently necessary for
capacity, that the Thoroughfare Plan in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
ensure the reservation of adequate rights-of-way in a pattern that is
dense enough to provide connectivity through the area beyond this
planning horizon.
Relationship to Land Use Pattern
A very close relationship exists between the transportation network and
the land use pattern. For example, high-volume six-lane roads,
designed exclusively for the private automobile, tend to attract uses
such as big-box retail and large apartment complexes, while repelling
other land uses such as single-family homes. In a similar manner, land
uses arranged in a mixed-use, dense pattern can reduce the
frequency and length of vehicular trips, and if designed properly, can
promote walking, biking, and transit use, therefore reducing the
demand placed on the street network. The Concept Map and Future
Land Use & Character map define an approach to land use planning
and design that, when combined with the proposed context sensitive
solutions approach, will strengthen the transportation-land use
relationship in a positive manner.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
is a broad tenn given to a
variety of transpo1tation
systems that, through
improvements to
infrastructure, vehicles and
scheduling, attempt to use
buses to provide a service
that is of a higher quality
than an ordinary bus line.
The goal of such systems
is to approach the service
quality of rail transit, in
terms of timeliness and
amenities, while still
enjoying the cost savings
of bus transit relative to
more capital intensive rail
systems.
Context Sensitive
Solutions (CSS) is a
different approach to the
design and planning of
transportation projects.
lt balances the competing
needs of stakeholders early
on in the decision mal<lng
process. its benefit comes
from the flexibility in the
application of projects
based on different standards
and different transportation
modes.
Transportation I As Amended 12-10-15
Build-out Conditions
Though beyond the scope, the framework of this Plan must, consider
the transportation needs of the community as it approaches build-out,
that is, as it approaches the complete development of all developable
land in the City. This is necessary to ensure that actions taken within this
planning time-frame do not preclude future options. Even better, it is to
ensure that actions taken within this planning time-frame actually offer
more opportunities for future decision-makers. An example of this
approach is ensuring that rights-of-way are reserved in the
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction for a future street system, even though this
capacity is not expected to be necessary within this planning
timeframe.
This Plan projects a 2030 population of approximately 134,000. The
Future Land Use & Character map contained in this Plan identifies land
uses capable of accommodating an ultimate population of
approximately 196,000 within the current City limits. Planning for land
uses capable of accommodating a larger population than is projected
for the City provides a margin of error and allows for market flexibility.
The transportation network needed to serve the build-out population
could differ considerably from that proposed to serve the projected
2030 population.
More efficient and higher capacity streets, increased access
management along heavily traveled corridors, increased reliance on
transit, bicycling, and walking, and the emergence of dense mixed-use
development are just a few of the possible needs to serve the build-out
population. This Plan must respond to this possible future by providing a
high level of connectivity with and to each travel mode; ensuring that
rights-of-way are appropriate to accommodate future roadway
expansion; access management is employed where appropriate;
street designs promote multi-modal solutions and allow expansion into
services such as bus rapid transit; and land use designations enable
dense mixed-use development where and when appropriate and
necessary.
CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS
This Plan proposes the use of context sensitive solutions to meet the
City's transportation needs and support its land use and character
objectives. Context sensitive solutions, as promoted by The Federal
Highway Administration and the Institute of Transportation Engineers, is
a way of planning and building a transportation system that balances
the many needs of diverse stakeholders and offers flexibility in the
application of design controls, guidelines, and criteria, resulting in
facilities that are safe and effective for all users regardless of the mode
of travel they choose. The basic principles of context sensitive solutions
include (Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban
Ordinance No. 2015-3729
As Amended 12-10-15 I Transportation
Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities, ITE: 2006):
• Balance safety, mobility, community and environmental goals
in all projects;
• Involve the public and stakeholders early and continuously
throughout the planning and project development process;
• Use an interdisciplinary team tailored to project needs;
• Address all modes of travel;
• Apply flexibility inherent in design standards; and,
• Incorporate aesthetics as an integral part of good design.
The use of context sensitive solutions in transportation planning can
help ensure projects respond to the community's transportation needs,
values, and vision for the future, helping specific projects move from
design to construction faster and with less objection.
This Plan includes the long-range planning of the transportation system,
in which context sensitive solution facilitates the planning of a
transportation network integrated into the long-range land use and
character strategies of the City. This approach allows the City to
define the mobility needs of each of the system users. The
transportation network should ensure reservation of rights-of-way
needed for the ultimate thoroughfare width based on long-term need.
The spacing of thoroughfares should be standardized and support the
strategies of the Plan. For example, arterials spaced as far as one-mile
apart may carry the anticipated traffic but will likely require six lanes,
which may be inappropriate for some contexts. Closer spacing of
arterials could carry the same volume of traffic but reduce the number
of lanes necessary. Likewise, collectors spaced close together
(one-eighth mile) result in lower block lengths and promote greater
pedestrian and bicycling activities. Local streets should connect as
frequently as practical to the collector network to keep block lengths
short and to promote connectivity throughout the system.
In general, context sensitive solutions are focused on streets that play
the most significant roles in the local transportation network and that
offer the greatest multi-modal opportunities -arterials and collectors.
Primary mobility routes or freeways, such as State Highway 6, are
generally intended to move very high volumes of high-speed traffic
through College Station, providing connections to the larger region.
These streets should be the focus of their own unique planning and
design process and are discussed elsewhere in this chapter. Similarly,
local or residential streets are generally not the focus of context
sensitive solutions, while they should be designed to accommodate
bicycles and pedestrians and should be interconnected to one
another and into the larger transportation network.
Page 15 of 45
Ordinance No. 2015-37 9 Page 16 of 45
Transportation I As Amended 12-10-15
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
The Thoroughfare Plan is based on the projected transportation
demand resulting from the anticipated growth in population and
employment and is guided by the proposed Future Land Use &
Character map. In the development of the Thoroughfare Plan, a travel
demand model was used to project the increase in vehicle trips. This
information was used to identify the purpose of the various
transportation corridors -that is what they need to function as, such as
an arterial or collector. This information also aided in identifying the
location of new roads needed either for capacity enhancements or to
provide connectivity, as well as the number of lanes needed for each
of the streets in the network.
Three transportation network scenarios were developed based on
results from the travel demand model. Each of these scenarios were
tested against the community's goals and preferences identified in the
development of this Plan. This testing resulted in the selection of a
preferred scenario adopted as part of this Plan. Each of the scenarios
considered is briefly discussed in the following. The selected scenario is
further described through the accompanying maps and graphics.
Current-Network Option
This scenario would focus future efforts on maintaining the streets and
lanes currently in place, with the additional construction of new streets
to serve private development. This scenario would result in increased
congestion and degradation of levels of service in some of the busiest
areas. Although some locations may experience unacceptable levels
of congestion and delay, much of the network will likely continue to
function at acceptable levels of service. It is also possible that the
scenario would promote a greater reliance on transit or alternative
modes of travel, though without the construction of additional facilities,
the success of even these options is questionable. Though offering
some advantages, such as more efficient use of some of the road
corridors, affordability, and increased use of alternative modes of
travel, this scenario was rejected due to the increase in unacceptable
levels of congestion, which conflicts with the community's desire to
manage and reduce congestion.
Programmed-Project Option
This scenario focuses future efforts on expanding the capacity of
existing streets, adding new streets and increasing multi-modal facilities
and options as currently programmed -that is projects that have
funding authorized or appropriated. This scenario would result in the
construction of more than 130 lane miles in addition to the construction
of local streets necessary to serve private development, several miles of
off-street multi-use paths, and continued maintenance of the existing
Ordinance No. 2015-3729
As Amended 12-10-15 I Transportation
transit system. It is anticipated this scenario would require more than
$200 million (in 2009 dollars) in public funds, as well as expenditures by
development interests on streets serving private development.
This scenario accommodates the projected increase in vehicle miles;
however it also results in a slight increase in congestion and
degradation of levels of service in specific areas along the network.
This scenario is dependent on an increase in the use of alternative
modes of travel, which could be encouraged through multi-modal
design with the new construction. A modified version of this scenario
has been selected as the preferred scenario due to its fiscal
practicality, its ability to support expansion of multi-modal
opportunities, and its response to the community desire to manage
and reduce congestion.
This option necessitates land use planning that promotes alternative
modes of transportation and reduces the frequency and length of
vehicular trips. Additionally, the selected option requires an increased
investment in transit and enhancement of the Thoroughfare Plan in the
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to reserve rights-of-way for future needs and
facilitates connectivity.
Congestion-Reduction Option
This scenario focuses future efforts on substantial expansion of roadway
capacity and the construction of new streets. This scenario would
result in the construction of more than 440 lane miles in addition to the
construction of local streets necessary to serve private development,
several miles of off-street multi-use paths, and continued maintenance
of the existing transit system. It is anticipated this scenario would
require more than $650 million (in 2009 dollars) in public funds, as well
as expenditures by development interests on streets serving private
development.
This scenario accommodates the projected increase in vehicle miles,
with a decrease in congestion and maintenance or improvement in
levels of service throughout the network. This scenario is dependent on
an increase in the use of alternative modes of travel, though the
general lack of congestion and abundance of six-lane streets could
reduce the likelihood of this occurring. Though meeting the
community's desire to reduce congestion, this option was rejected due
to its high-costs and incompatibility with other community goals and
strategies.
Preferred Scenario
A modified version of the Programmed-Project Option is the preferred
scenario based on its multi-modal cost-effective approach to
managing increasing transportation demands balanced with other
community goals and objectives. The preferred scenario includes
Page 18 of 45
Transportation I As Amended 12-10-15
completion of all of the programmed projects. Additionally, the
Thoroughfare Plan in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction must be enhanced
to reserve rights-of-way for future needs and promote connectivity. All
new and expanded streets must meet the multi-modal objectives of
this Plan. Additional funding must be provided for improvements and
expansion to the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems in the City.
Finally it is essential that all streets be designed to enhance their
context.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Functional classification categorizes streets according to the
category's traffic service function they are intended to provide. All
streets are grouped into a class depending on the character of traffic
and the degree of land access they allow. For the purposes of this Plan
streets in College Station are divided into five classes:
freeway/expressway; major arterial; minor arterial; collector; minor
collector; and local or residential street. Freeways/expressways are
intended to carry the highest volumes of traffic for the longest
distances with the least amount of direct access. By contrast, local
residential streets are intended to carry low volumes of traffic at slow
speeds for short distances, offering the highest level of access and
connectivity. Functional classification identifies the necessary right-of
way width, number of lanes, and design speed for the streets. Map 6.6,
Thoroughfare Plan -Functional Classification, displays the functional
classifications for current and future proposed roadways.
COMPLETE STREETS
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
Ordinance No. 2015-3729
As Amended 12-10-15 I Transportation
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 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.
Capitol 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
Page 20 of 45
Transportation I As Amended 12-10-15
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;
Ordinance No. 2015-3729
As Amended 12-10-15 I Transportation
• Eliminating shoulders in urban applications, except for bicycle
lanes;
• Smaller curb-return radii at intersection and elimination or
reconfiguration of hig-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)
The Thoroughfare Cross Sections (located at the end of this chapter)
provide a preliminary set of design criteria for both the roadside and
travelway design. Additional design criteria are provided within the
City's Unified Development Ordinance and the Bryan-College Station
Unified Design Guidelines.
OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Context Transitions
When planning and designing a context sensitive transportation
network, there will be the need to transition between street designs,
from time to time. These transitions will most often involve a change in
the right-of-way width, number of lanes and the character treatments
found in the travelway or the roadside. Transitions may include
traditional geometric design changes such as smooth tapers where
lanes change and speed limit changes where design speeds change.
Transitions in a context sensitive environment extend beyond
geometric changes and include multi-modal considerations, as well as
visual cues to the change in context. Transitions of these types can
indicate that changes in the emphasis on pedestrians, the width of the
street, or entering or leaving a special district or corridor. Transitions
should, as with all other aspects of the context sensitive design, be
guided by the principles found in the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials "Green Book," Geometric Design
of Highways and Streets, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
and other approved design guides.
Intersections
In any street network the design and operation of intersections is
significant. In context sensitive design the design and operation of
intersections is critical. Multi-modal systems require the safe movement
of vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians through the intersection.
Intersection design encompasses the intersection itself and the
Page 21of45
Transportation I As Amended 12-10-15
approaches to the intersection, and may impact adjacent land uses.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, Context Sensitive
Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable
Communities, identifies the following principles for the design and
operation of intermodal intersections:
• Minimize conflicts between modes;
• Accommodate all modes with the appropriate levels of service
for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and motorists;
• Avoid elimination of any travel modes due to intersection
design;
• Provide good driver and non-driver visibility ;
• Minimize pedestrian exposure to moving traffic;
• Design for low speeds at critical pedestrian-vehicle conflict
points;
• Avoid extreme intersection angles and break up complex
intersections with pedestrian refuge islands; and,
• Ensure intersections are fully accessible to the disabled and the
hearing and sight impaired.
As with other design considerations in the context sensitive design
approach, accepted engineering guidelines should be used, with the
aforementioned principles employed.
Minimum Length and Additional Right-of Way for Turn Lanes at
Intersections
Figure 6.2 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 I
College Station Unified Design Standards and is based on NCHRP 780 -
Design Guidance For Intersection Auxiliary Lanes.
Right-turn lanes are anticipated to be required at all major
intersections. Roadway intersections with minor collectors and local
streets require engineering judgement 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.
Ordinance No. 2015-3729
As Amended 12-10-15 I Transportation
Figure 6.2
STREET '2'
'
\ -
Ec<:EO'RO>(IW><T MINIMUM LENGTH OF RIGHT TURN (Z')
Major Arterial 465 FT.
Minor Arterial 390FT. j INTERSE:,.ION ROW Z'
1�'1Hr'5£C110flROW Major Collector 255 FT.
Minor Collector 200 FT. ln:noti.rn:; u1o;i.
IU(.111 TVllU lf�"lt:}
-r-1-... local 200 FT.
Table 1
STREET ROW
REF: TABLE IV
REQUIRED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH AT IN TERSECTIONS· (X')
Major Arterial 144' 144' 144' 144' I 130' (144')
Minor Arterial 119' 119' 119' 119' '105 (119') STREET 'l' Major Collector 94' 94' 94' '80' (94') *80' (94')
Minor Collector 74' 74' '60' (74') '60' (94') '60' (94')
Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local
STREET '2'
•-STUDY TO DETERMINE IF A RIGHT TURN LANE IS REQUIRED. IF REQUIRED, AN ADDITIONAL 14' Of ROW WILL BE REQUIRED AS SHOWN IN ( ).
Table 2
Other Design Components
In context sensitive design, consideration should be given to a number
of design components that respond to the multi-modal nature
of the system. These include, but are not limited to, access
management and the placement and design of cross-walks,
bus stops, curb extensions, and pedestrian refuges. The
Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, Context
Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for
Walkable Communities, and the various American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidance
documents should be consulted tor the proper and safe
application of each of these components.
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 l O' beyond each streetside area may
be dedicated to allow for such utility installation.
Page 24 of 45
Transportation I As Amended 12-10-15
Rehabilitation Projects and Neighborhood Street Network
Much of this chapter has focused on the design and construction of
new streets. In a number of instances, improvements may be
necessary within established neighborhoods, involving either
rehabilitation projects or possibly even new street construction. While
the guidance provided in this chapter should serve as a foundation for
projects in established neighborhoods, it is necessary to recognize the
sensitivity of such projects. Projects in such areas often have to address
constrained rights-of-way, the presence of mature vegetation, and
resident preferences. It is proposed that, where possible, the
identification of and design for projects within established
neighborhoods be guided by the neighborhood plan and direct public
input unique to each project. A similar process is appropriate for the
districts and corridors identified in the Future Land Use & Character
map contained in this Plan.
Primary Mobility Corridors
The context sensitive solutions approach outlined in this chapter
focuses primarily on arterials and collectors, due to their role in the
transportation network and ability to serve multiple modes of travel.
Streets classified as freeways or expressways serve primarily to move
vehicles through the City and between distant locations within the City.
State Highway 6 and sections of Raymond Statzer Parkway (FM 60),
William D. Fitch (State Highway 40), and Harvey Mitchell Parkway
(FM 2818) are examples. For the purposes of this Plan, these streets are
considered primary mobility corridors. While it may be possible that
these corridors be designed to handle pedestrians and bicyclists, in
general they will be designed to accommodate high volumes of
vehicular traffic at high speeds (usually in excess of 45 mph). These
corridors can also carry transit vehicles, though they are not likely to
provide transit stops. Alternative parallel routes should be identified to
accommodate the modes of travel that the primary mobility corridors
cannot. The design of these corridors should be guided by their own
unique requirements (both mobility and access and other contextual
needs) and should include direct public input unique to each project.
Right-of-Way Constrained Projects
From time to time, the right-of-way for a public street project will be
constrained due to a natural constraint, such as floodplain, or because
of the proximity of existing development. In such instances, it is
necessary to evaluate what can and cannot be accommodated
within the available right-of-way. This evaluation should be guided
both by the vehicular needs and the context of the street. A uniform
process should be developed incorporating a "decision-matrix," such
as the example shown in Figure 6.3, College Station Context Sensitive
Design Process, will aid decision makers in implementing context
Ordinance No. 2015-3729
As Amended 12-10-15 I Transportation
sensitive solutions. In some contexts it may be appropriate to eliminate
parking lanes to accommodate wider sidewalks or planting areas. In
other contexts it may be appropriate to use narrower sidewalks to
accommodate both parking lanes and bicycle lanes. In still other
contexts it may be appropriate to eliminate a travel lane or alter the
design of travel lanes to accommodate parking lanes.
Identify Surroundi ng Context Zone
Some judgment may need to be used in transition areas
�
Select Appropriate Cross Section from the Available Options
If ROW is available, build from the Cross Section Guide
GOAL, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS
College Station strives for improved mobility through a safe, efficient,
and well-connected multi-modal transportation system designed to be
sensitive to the surrounding land uses. Five strategies have been
developed to progress toward this goal. Each strategy has a series of
action recommendations designed to implement the related strategy.
Strategy 1: Develop, implement and maintain, through regular review,
a mufti-modal transportation plan that supports the planned growth
and development pattern.
• Thoroughfare Plan. Adopt and implement the Thoroughfare
Plan.
• Future Planning. Amend the Thoroughfare Plan as necessary as
neighborhood, district, corridor, and master plans are adopted
by the City.
Page 25 of 45
Ordinance No. 2015-37 9 Page 26 of 45
Transportation I As Amended 12-10-15
• Project Programming. Maintain and amend as necessary the
City's various programs (Bryan-College Station Metropolitan
Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program,
Capital Improvements Program, etc.) used to fund projects.
• Monitor Trends. Continue to collect and monitor transportation
data including vehicle miles traveled, traffic counts, levels of
service, transit ridership, and pedestrian and bicycle facility
usage, crashes.
• Context Sensitive Solutions. Amend as necessary, the various
tools used to implement the Thoroughfare Plan to ensure
context sensitive solutions are employed. These include the
Unified Development Ordinance, the Bryan-College Station
Unified Design Guidelines, and the City's project development
process.
Strategy 2: Reduce and manage traffic congestion.
• Thoroughfare Plan. Adopt and implement the Thoroughfare
Plan.
• Monitor Trends. Continue to collect and monitor transportation
data including vehicle miles traveled, traffic counts, levels of
service, transit ridership, and pedestrian and bicycle facility
usage, crashes.
• Access Management. Promote access management strategies
where appropriate to preserve modal efficiency throughout the
thoroughfare system.
• Traffic Control Technology.
computerized traffic control
synchronization.
Install a state-of-the-art
system including signal
• Travel Demand Management. Develop and implement a travel
demand management program including real-time traffic
information, traffic incident alerts, ridesharing programs,
promotion of flexible work schedules, and encouragement of
dense mixed-use development.
• Intersection Improvements. Continue enhancements and
upgrades at intersections to improve multi-modal efficiency.
Strategy 3: Develop and implement context sensitive transportation
solutions.
• Thoroughfare Plan. Adopt and implement the Thoroughfare
Plan.
• Future Planning. Amend the Thoroughfare Plan as necessary as
neighborhood, district, corridor, and master plans are adopted
by the City.
• Context Sensitive Solutions. Amend, as necessary, the various
tools used to implement the Thoroughfare Plan to ensure
context sensitive solutions are employed. These include the
Unified Development . Ordinance, the Bryan-College Station
Ordinance No. 2015-3729
As Amended 12-10-15 I Transportation
Unified Design Guidelines, and the City's project development
process.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning. Amend and implement the
bicycle and pedestrian system master plans.
• Transit. Pursue opportunities with the current transit providers to
expand and enhance transit services within and between
activity centers and dense residential areas, concentrations of
student housing, etc.
• Project Programming. Maintain and amend as necessary the
City's various programs (Bryan-College Station Metropolitan
Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program,
and Capital Improvements Program) used to fund projects.
• Primary Mobility Corridors. Adopt and implement the context
sensitive approach identified in this Plan for identified primary
mobility corridors.
• Rehabilitation Projects. Adopt and implement the context
sensitive approach identified in this Plan for rehabilitation
projects located within established neighborhoods or districts.
• Right-of-way Constrained Projects. Adopt and implement a
context sensitive approach and decision matrix for City projects
where the available right-of-way is constrained.
Strategy 4: Promote and invest in alternative transportation options.
• Thoroughfare Plan. Adopt and implement the Thoroughfare
Plan.
• Future Planning. Amend the Thoroughfare Plan as necessary as
neighborhood, district, corridor, and master plans are adopted
by the City.
• Context Sensitive Solutions. Amend, as necessary, the various
tools used to implement the Thoroughfare Plan to ensure
context sensitive solutions are employed. These include the
Unified Development Ordinance, the Bryan-College Station
Unified Design Guidelines, and the City's project development
process.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian. Amend and implement the bicycle and
pedestrian system master plans.
• Transit. Pursue opportunities with the current transit providers to
expand and enhance transit services within and between
activity centers and dense residential areas, and
concentrations of student housing.
• Project Programming . Maintain and amend as necessary the
City's various programs (Bryan-College Station Metropolitan
Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program,
and Capital Improvements Program) used to fund projects.
• Commuter Rail. Continue to participate in the Texas High Speed
Rail Initiative and similar efforts to bring commuter rail services to
the City.
Ordinance No. 2015-37 9
I
Page 28 of 45
Transportation I As Amended 12-10-15
Strategy 5: Balance changes in land use with the capabilities of the
transportation system.
• Use of Future Land Use & Character Map. Adopt and implement
the Future Land Use & Character map contained in this Plan.
• Land Use and Development Review. Continue to evaluate the
capacity of the existing and proposed transportation system in
Comprehensive Plan amendments, rezoning requests, and site
plan reviews.
• Traffic Impact Analysis. Require traffic impact analyses for all
development proposals anticipated to generate significant
volumes of traffic.
• Monitor Trends. Continue to collect and monitor transportation
data including vehicle miles traveled, traffic counts, levels of
service, transit ridership, and bicycle and pedestrian facility
usage, crashes.
''--"\<;)
<��'j / .. \, \. /
':�� / ; '� i� �:-j" \-
·,, ....... '--�. I'·".
!' ......... >/
K("( ('
' 7 ·/ / /·,, . \ Xv'\
) ('•< ·�;-." -<.,; '\ \ '�·-..... , ·· .. ,"' :-..., \, \ ,.1. '\ y.____ _ _,�1 /'
� '-� _,/" --/'( L.P'�j ' r \
---�/� :t---' ' .
)
\ -� ' _A,, \..___ (
'-;/"._,
/\,// '\ I'\ ' \ \ \
,,
'-..,_
0 025 0.5
Mo"'s
'
Source: Kimley�Horn
;>f "';�·,.
"• ,_, ' -'., .... � -X .. ), -'·
.,.; ... ;�"., / >-.....--.....>-........__
/. ( \ '
.>�
...
.. '····-.....,," / '-, ..,. /''--.... "
? '·,, \__..;
r-
/) ,/ /'"'/' ..
'',.(J
.,, ... ,, ....... , .....
\ \
\
'' ....
"-....
..... , /
. .,,
'\ /\(""--!
\,\
�,
June 201
Map 6.1
Existing Traffic
Volumes
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
..r-':'J City Limits ""oJ
ETJ
-+--+ Railroad
Grr---
CJn-OF COLLEGE STATION
Kimley)» Horn
.1
('I
-0
a.
0
:E
··. •,G __
Cl>
u
·s: ....
Cl> CD
V) :a CD .i9 -:a
0 Q_ � CD " CD " j2 Cl> <{
>
Cl> .....
l.O .-
0 ('I
CD :a .i9
Q_ CD " 'E " 1J
ro ::::; 0
c � :::> .i':' 0 iii 0 "'
L. :, ...r +
..• ••• •••I()
�
�-.-----1�
ll)
M
0
N
c::
U)
Q)
c::
ca
...J
N 'i" <O
I I I
'E :::;
.c 0
L :., :...r
•••••••• .,.,, •• ,,,,,,,. .•••.•...... ,,,, •• ,,,, •••• ,, If)
iii
��,
!'"-. ---,, .
\.\ ....
""''>"/"\.,_ \ ,r·� \
' /' ' , /''< ·�;\.\
"'-, '•,, .,_, \\ \. ,:c.,. ,_.../ """,. l., \ � !< --:i_f---.., .• .. '
i\
....--_,..--,. ....... /
/ \ ' '
\ ("'
\......_ {\ '----y·,, /'�v/
\
,,/ \
\,\,'-
\
(I (I� l'.5 1 w -· '
Source: Kimley�Horn
\"-........
')
September 2015
Map 6.5
2035 Traffic Volumes
with Programmed
Projects
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
l "':°.i City Limits
� ..
ETJ
-+--+ Railroad
c.:r�
C!w OF COLLEGE STATION
Kimley)» Hom
> .. .,"-.../"-.,
>l�
'/ . ·�· 2 � "
! 11 �·�_/� . -�-� .. �-·""
, ··�·;· I I � .. /'4 WS�!8 I
Source: Kimley-Horn
Map 6.6
Functional
Classification
and Context Class
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
Context Zones
Context
-UrbanCore
-General Urban
Suburban
Rural
,.r-'] City Limits "'";.J
ETJ
-+-+ Railroad
c.:r--
Ctw OF COLLEGE STATION
Kimley)» Horn
'">
!..
\, //
r�· 0-, __ //
;/ (' �-
K , .... -,,,
"·�r·�
,,-...., ...
K"
'\
- ) ·--/\ \ \
\ �-
\�
/�\ '\.-/ \
"·\ ... ,\ ..
-....
Source: Kim!ey-Horn
'·.J
""·,j i
September 201
Map 6.7
Future Level of Service
-Acceptable
Tolerable
Unacceptable
,s'] Citylimits "":.1
ETJ
-+-+ Railroad
,r� •
CiW OF COLLEGE ST..\TION
Kimleyl>) Horn
Ordinance No. 2015-3729 EXHIBIT B Page 35 of 45
Thoroughfare Cross Sections
Typical Sections City of College Station
Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe.
•
Sidewalk
6'
Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane
12.5' 12' 12.5'
t------�37'--------<
Major Arterial
Median
21'
I_
Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane
12.5' 12' 12.5'
1-------37-' ------!
Shared-Use Path
12'
t----------------------130'---------------------1
Sidewalk
6'
Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane
6.5' 2' 12' 12.5'
f-------33'------{
Minor Arterial
Median
17'
Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane
12.5' 12' 2' 6.5'
1------33'--------<
Sidewalk
6'
1-------------------105'------------------!
••••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn
Ordinance No. 2015-3729 Page 36 of 45
Thoroughfare Cross Sections
Typical Sections City of College Station
Major Collector
•
Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Lane TWLTL Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk
6' 6'
Sidewalk
6'
2' 12' 14' 12'
54'
80'
Minor Collector
Bike Lane Travel Lane
7' 12'
Travel Lane Bike Lane
12' 7'
2'
1------�38'-----------<
6'
Sidewalk
6'
1----------�60'---------------i
Open Ditch
4:1 Slope
Maximum �
(_)
"'
0
-0
-0
______ .,.&:
28' 2'
Rural Collector
Travel Lane Travel Lane
16' 16'
-0
"'
(_)
"'
0
-0
-0
Open Ditch
4:1 Slope
Maximum
c;: _____ _
2' 28'
1-------36'----------<
1-------------90'------------------<
6'
••••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn
Ordinance No. 2015-3729 Page 37 of 45
Thoroughfare Cross Sections
Major Arterial City of College Station
Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe.
•
Sidewalk
6'
•
Sidewalk1
15'
Typical Section
'-·-"1
Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Median Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane
12.5' 12' 12.5' 21' 12.5' 12' 12.5'
37' 37'
130'
Urban Core
Bike Lanes, Wide Sidewalks
@ r..�.'1
Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane
6.5' 2' 11' 11.5'
>------31 -' -------<
Median
17'
--
•
Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane
11.5' 11' 2' 6.5'
t------31'--------l
Shared-Use Path
12'
•
Sidewalk1
15'
1---------------------1 20'1 ___________________ ___,
1) Sidewalk width to vary depending on available right-of-way.
••••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn
I I
I
I I
·1
Ordinance No. 2015-3729 Page 38 of 45
Thoroughfare Cross Sections
Major Arterial City of College Station
Sidewalk
6'
Wide Sidewalk
10'
Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane
11.5' 11' 11.5'
34'
Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane
11.5' 11' 11.5'
General Urban
Shared Use Path
Median
17'
130'
Suburban
Wide Sidewalks
Median
17'
1------34'-----�
Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane
11.5' 11' 11.5'
34'
--
,•--•,
Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane
11.5' 11' 11.5'
>------34'------l
Shared-Use Path
12'
Wide Sidewalk
10'
f----------------------130'---------------------l
••••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn
Ordinance No. 2015-3729 Page 39 of 45
Context-Sensitive Cross Sections
Minor Arterial City of College Station
Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe.
Sidewalk
6'
Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane
6.5' 2' 12' 12.5'
t---�--33'------i
Typical Section
Median
17'
tJrban Core
Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane
12.5' 12' 2' 6.5'
t------33'-------I
Bike Lanes, Wide Sidewalks
Median
orlWLTL
Sidewalk
6'
Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk
16.5'
Sidewalk
6'
6.5' 2' 10.5' 11' 12' 11' 10.5' 2' 6.5'
30' 30'
105'
General Urban
Bike ILanes
--
Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Turn Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane
6' 2' 11' 11' 12' 11' 11' 2' 6'
16.5'
•
Sidewalk
6'
t-------------72'-----------------<
t------------------105'-------------------i
••••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn
'-j ·1
Ordinance No. 2015-3729 Page 40 of 45
Context-Sensitive Cross Sections
Minor Arterial City of College Station
•
Sidewalk
6'
Sidewalk
6'
Travel Lane Travel Lane
11.5' 11.5'
General Urban/Suburban
Shared,.t.Jse Sidepath
Median
17'
Travel Lane Travel Lane
11.5' 11.5'
1----23'-----< 1----23'----<
Suburban
Bike Lanes
Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Median Travel Lane Travel Lane
5.5' 2' 11' 11.5' 17' 11.5' 11'
30' 30'
105'
Shared-Use Path
12'
Bike Lane Sidewalk
2' 5.5' 6'
••••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn
I
I
I
Ordinance No. 2015-3729 Page 41of45
Context-Sensitive Cross Sections
Major Collector City of College Station
Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe.
•
Sidewalk
6'
Bike Lane Travel Lane
6' 2' 12'
Typical Section
lWLTL
14'
Travel Lane Bike Lane
12' 2' 6'
1----------54'-----------I
Sidewalk
6'
1---------------80'---------------l
Sidewalk
14'
Urban Core
Bike Lanes, Parking
Bike Lane Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Bike Lane
5.5' 3' 7' 10.5' 10.5' 7' 3' 5.5'
t----------52'--------�
Sidewalk
14'
1---------------80'---------------l
Sidewalk
6'
Bike Lane Travel Lane
General Urban
Bike Lanes
lWLTL Travel Lane Bike Lane
6.5' 11' 11' 6.5' 14'
1---------49'--------i
Sidewalk
6'
t---------------80'--------------{
••••••••••••••••••••••••• Kirnley»>Horn
Ordinance No. 2015-3729 Page 42 of 45
Context-Sensitive Cross Sections
Major Collector City of College Station
Sidewalk
6'
Sidewalk
6'
General Urban/Suburban
Bike Lanes, Median
Bike Lane Travel Lane Median Travel Lane Bike Lane
5.5' 2' 11.5' 16' 11.5' 2' 5.5'
1----19'------1 1----19'-__ ___,
Suburban
Bike Lanes, Parking*
----
*Parking may be located on either side of bike lane
Bike Lane Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Bike Lane
5.5' 3' 7' 10.5' 10.5' 7' 3' 5.5'
1----------52'--------�
Sidewalk
8'
Sidewalk
6'
1-------------�80'--------------l
••••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn
Ordinance No. 2015-3729 Page 43 of 45
Context-Sensitive Cross Sections
Minor Collector City of College Station
Note: All dimensions measured from back-of-curb and center of stripe.
Typical Section
Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk
6' 7' 12' 12' 7' 6'
1--------38'---------l
1-----------60'------------l
Urban Core
Bike Lanes
t
Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk
12' 5.5' 2' 10.5' 10.5' 2' 5.5'
1-------36'-------l
12'
>------------60'-------------i
General Urban
Bike Lanes
Sidewalk Bike Lane Travel Lane Turn Lane Travel Lane Bike Lane Sidewalk
8' 12'
1--------�44'----------i
6' 10' 10' 6' 8'
1-----------60'-------------i
••••••••••••••••••••••••• Kimley»>Horn
Ordinance No. 2015-3729
60'
38'
12'
11'
S tandard
N/A
None
None
None
6'
7'
N/A
None
30
5'
Permitted
Minor Collector
60'
36'
10.5'
12'
Standard
N/A
None
None
None
10'
5.5'
N/A
2·
None
25
N/A
N/A
60'
44'
10'
8'
Standard
N/A
12'
None
None
6'
6'
N/A
None
25-30
N/A
NIA
60'
38'
12'
11'
Standard
N/A
None
Optional (7')
None
6'
7'
N/A
None
25-35
N/A
N/A
80'
54'
12'
13'
Standard
N/A
14'
None
None
6'
6'
2·
None
35
6-10'
Permitted
Minimum Geometric Design Criteria for New Construction
Major Collector
80' 80'
52' 49'
10.5' 11'
14' 15.5'
Standard Standard
N/A N/A
Optional (11 ') 14'
Optional (7') None
None None
10' 6'
5.5' 6.5'
N/A
3· Optional (2')
None None
25-30 25-30
6' 6-10'
Permitted Permitted
80'
38'
11.5'
13'
Standard
N/A
None
None
16'
6-8'
5.5'
2'
None
25-30
6-10'
Perrnined
80'
52'
10.5'
14'
Standard
N/A
None
Optional (7')
None
6'
5.5'
3'
None
25-30
5'
Permined
105'
66'
12'
11'
Standard
N/A
None
None
17'
6'
6.5'
2'
None
40
5'
Permitted
Minor Arterial
105'
60'
10.5'
16.5'
Standard
N/A
Optional (12')
Optional (7')
Optional (12')
10·
6.5'
2'
None
25-35
6'
Permitted
105'
72· Undivided
46' Divided
11'
16.5' Undivided
21' Divided
Standard
N/A
12'
None
Optional (17')
6'
6' Lanes
or 12· Sideoath
2·
12'
30-40
6-8'
Permitted
105'
60'
11'
14'
Standard
N/A
None
Optional (7')
17'
6'
5.5'
2·
None
30-40
6-8'
Permitted
Page 45 of 45
Major Arterial
130' 120· 130' 130'
74' 62' 68' 68'
12' 11' 11' 11'
17.5' 20.5' 22.5' 22.5'
Standard Standard Stan dard Standard
N/A N/A N/A N/A
None None None None
None Optional (7') None None
21' 17' 17' 17'
6' 10' 6' 6'
None 6.5' None None
N/A 2' N/A N/A
None None 10-12' 10-12'
45 30-35 40-45 40-45
6-8' 6-10' 6-12' 6-8'
Perrnined Permitted Permitted Permitted