The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010-2020 -- BPG Master PlanBicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways I* 11 Master Plan 201 0-2020 .V Revised June 10, 2010 CITY Or COLLEGE STATION Home of Texas A&M University® Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan a ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................................................... The following individuals and groups contributed to the preparation and adoption of this document along with citizens of the community: CITY COUNCIL Ben White, Mayor John Crompton, Place 1 James Massey, Place 2 Dennis Maloney, Place 3 Katy -Marie Lyles, Place 4 Lawrence Stewart, Place 5 David Ruesink, Place b FORMER CITY COUNCIL MEMBER Lynn Mclllhaney PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION John Nichols, Chair Mike Ashfield Paul Greer Scott Shafer Doug Slack Hugh Stearns Thomas Woodfin FORMER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS Noel Bauman Winnie Garner TECHNICAL TASK FORCE MEMBERS Loretta Mokry David Scott Scott Shafer Shawn Turner Jaime -Rae Walker Layne Westover Thomas Woodfin Acknowledgements 0/ /, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 71 ADMINISTRATION Glenn Brown, City Manager Kathy Merrill, Assistant City Manager David Neely, Assistant City Manager PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Bob Cowell, AICP, CNU-A, Director of Planning and Development Services Lance Simms, AICP, CBO, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager, Project Manager Mandi Alford, Staff Assistant Beth Boerboom, Planning Technician Brittany Caldwell, Administrativc Support Specialist Amber Carter, Staff Assistant Bridgette George, Development Coordinator Kristen Green, Staff Assistant Joe Guerra, AICP, PTP, Transportation Planning Coordinator Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner Molly Hitchcock, AICP, Planning Administrator Lauren Hovde, Staff Planner Lindsay Kramer, AICP, Senior Planner Barbara Moore, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Jennifer Prochazka, AICP, Senior Planner Matthew Robinson, Staff Planner Jason Schubert, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Trevino, GIS Technician PUBLIC WORKS Alan Gibbs, P.E., City Engineer Erika Bridges, Graduate Civil Engineer Carol Cotter, P.E., Senior Assistant City Engineer Josh Norton, P.E., Assistant City Engineer STAFF RESOURCE TEAM Brett Blankner, GIS Coordinator Danielle Charbonnet, Graduate Civil Engineer Calder Lively, Sergeant Mark McAuliffe, Land Agent Mary Ann Powell, First Assistant City Attorney Troy Rother, P.E., Assistant City Enginccr Mark Smith, P.E., Director of Public Works David Wood, Parks Planner Acknowledgements Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS ♦......................................................................................................................................................................... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................I TABLEOF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................IV CHAPTERI: INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................1-1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN.................................................................................................................1-1 PLANNINGAREA...........................................................................................................................1-2 PLAN DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................................................1-3 SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN...............................................................................1-4 PLANNINGHISTORY......................................................................................................................1-5 PROGRESSON PLANS...................................................................................................................1-6 RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS......................................................................................................1-9 TERMINOLOGY..............................................................................................................................1-9 CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS..............................................................................2-1 DEMOGRAPHICS...........................................................................................................................2-1 LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.................................................2-2 COMMUNITY DESTINATIONS AND ATTRACTIONS.....................................................................2-3 NATURALFEATURES.......................................................................................................................2-3 VEGETATIONAND WILDLIFE.........................................................................................................2-6 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM...........................................................................................................2-7 BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND GREENWAYS SYSTEM...................................................................2-8 MAP 2.1 : POPULATION DENSITY 2000 CENSUS................................................................... 2-13 MAP 2.2: PLATTED GROWTH..............................................................................................2-14 MAP 2.3: KEY DESTINATIONS..............................................................................................2-15 MAP2.4: ELEVATION........................................................................................................2-16 MAP 2.5: HYDROLOGY & FLOODPLAIN..............................................................................2-1 7 MAP2.6: EXISTING ROADS................................................................................................ 2-18 MAP 2.7: THOROUGHFARE PLAN.......................................................................................2-19 MAP 2.8: 2007 TRAFFIC VOLUMES..................................................................................... 2-20 MAP 2.9: EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES.................................................................................... 2-21 MAP 2.10: EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES & MULTIUSE PATHS.................................................2-22 MAP 2.1 1 : EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES........................................................................2-23 CHAPTER 3: NEEDS ASSESSMENT...................................................................................3-1 TYPESOF USERS..............................................................................................................................3-4 TYPESOF TRIPS................................................................................................................................3-5 EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY..........................................................................3-5 BICYCLEAND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.............................................................................................3-7 CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY..............................................................................................3-8 MAJORTHEMES...........................................................................................................................3-10 Table of Contents 0 Bicycle; Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan laifuPl.uil.i.e:iinuu:e L MAP 3.1 : 2000 CENSUS .TOURNEY TO WORK BICYCLE TRIPS................................................3-13 MAP 3.2: PEDESTRIAN CRASH DATA..................................................................................3-14 MAP 3.3: BICYCLE CRASH DATA.......................................................................................3-15 CHAPTER 4: GOALS AND STRATEGIES...........................................................................4-1 GOALS............................................................................................................................................4-2 STRATEGIES.....................................................................................................................................4-3 CHAPTER 5: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT............................................................................. 5-1 PLANNINGSCOPE.........................................................................................................................5-2 DESIGN............................................................................................................................................5-2 BICYCLE FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................5-3 PEDESTRIAN FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................5-13 GREENWAY RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................................5-15 GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................5-21 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................5-23 MAP 5.4: PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITIES............................................................................5-25 MAP 5.5: PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.......................................................................5-26 MAP5.6: GREENWAY TYPES..............................................................................................5-27 CHAPTER 6: SYSTEM MANAGEMENT............................................................................. 6-1 OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................6-2 LAND STEWARDSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................6-4 PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................6-10 MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................................6-15 SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................6-17 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................6-18 CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION..............................................................................................7-1 PRIORITIES....................................................................................................................... 7-1 COSTS............................................................................................................................ 7-2 IMPLEMENTATION METHODS............................................................................................. 7-3 ADMINISTRATION........................................................................................................... 7-1 1 EVALUATION................................................................................................................. 7-13 IMPLEMENTATION TASKS................................................................................................. 7-14 MAP 7.1 : PRIORITIES FOR PROPOSED BIKE LANES.................................................................7-1 6 MAP 7.2: PRIORITIES FOR PROPOSED BIKE ROUTES............................................................... 7-1 7 MAP 7.3: PRIORITIES FOR PROPOSED SIDEWALKS................................................................. 7-18 MAP 7. 4: PRIORITIES FOR PROPOSED MULTIUSE PATHS ........................................................ 7-1 9 APPENDICES......................................................................................................................A APPENDIX A: 1980 COLLEGE STATION BIKE PLAN ....................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B: 1994 COLLEGE STATION SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN ............................... B-1 APPENDIX C: PROGRESS ON PLANS............................................................................ C-1 Table of Contents APPENDIX D: 2006 BRYAN HIKE AND BIKE ACCESS PLAN .......................................... D-1 APPENDIX E: 2006 BRYAN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN .................................................... E-1 APPENDIX F: THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................. F-1 APPENDIX G: U. S. CENSUS JOURNEY TO WORK ........................................................ G-1 APPENDIX H: FOCUS GROUP SUMMARY.....................................................................H-1 APPENDIXI: SURVEY.......................................................................................................1-1 APPENDIX J: SURVEY RESULTS........................................................................................ J-1 APPENDIX K: PRIORITES.................................................................................................. K-1 APPENDIX L: FUNDING SOURCES.................................................................................. L-1 APPENDIX M: DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................M-1 BICYCLEPARKING.......................................................................................................... M-1 ON -ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES.........................................................................................M-3 INTERSECTIONS...............................................................................................................M-5 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.....................................................................................................M-7 COMBINED FACILITIES...................................................................................................M-10 Table of Contents 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................... The City of College Station recognizes the need to plan for an effective and safe bicycle, pedestrian, and greenways system as the City continues to experience change and growth over time. A community that provides opportunities to walk to a neighborhood park, jog down a meandering trail, or bicycle to work fosters and promotes a livable city. Planning for a more bikeable and walkable city while protecting open space and unique characteristics of an area strengthens a community and enriches its quality of life. An interwoven network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and greenways offers the benefits of providing alternate modes of transportation that can alleviate traffic congestion and maximize street volume capacity, encourage healthy living, and spur economic development. Other benefits of the system include creating opportunities for outdoor recreation activities and protecting the natural environment. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN This Plan is designed to provide guidance and a framework to implement the community's desire to create a bikeable, walkable, and environmentally aware and active City. This Plan is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted in May of 2009. The goals and strategies recommended in that planning process relative to the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenways system are echoed in this Plan. They reflect the desires of College Station residents and community leaders to "improve mobility through a safe, efficient, and well- connected multi -modal transportation syslerri designed to be sensitive to the surrounding land uses" as well as to "protect environmental assets, both for their ecological functions and as key elements of community character and livability."' This Plan updates and combines the following three previous Plans: the Sidewalk Master Plan adopted in 1994, the Greenways Master Plan adopted in 1999, and the Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan adopted in 2002. The update builds upon previous recommendations and implementation strategies but also improves the plans by refining recommended strategies and I Places, City of College Station Comprehensive Plan 2009 - 2030 (College Station, TX, 2009). Chapter l: Introduction utilizing current best practices as well as the most recent design guidelines to more effectively implement the system. This Plan also recognizes that each facility and types of users are different. Various planning approaches and strategies will be required to address these differences and needs. The City, however, also sees the value in planning for an interconnected system. An all-inclusive plan can help identify gaps in service that hinder connectivity and help present a complete vision and action plan for improving bicycling, walking, and the natural environment in which they interweave. PLANNING AREA The area evaluated as a part of this Plan includes the City limits of College Station and a five mile radius around the City, the future Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. The current (2010) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction is three and one-half miles beyond the current City limits but will extend out to five miles once College Station's population reaches 100,000, which is projected in the next five to ten years. A portion of the City's northern City limit line is shared with the City of Bryan. Opportunities to connect key access points between College Station and Bryan were explored and considered as part of this Plan. They are included as a part of the proposed facilities in Chapter 5: System Development. ROBERTSON _ �vPLANNING AREA COUNTY �' •1._.... ... � �''4i�•- f f ... f r , p y r r 1` ti N. a r, *j IW r�hu GURI E° 111 6vx5t w. COUTW 0 1 2 Chapter 1: Introduction e GRIMES COUNTY i PLAN DEVELOPMENT The City of College Station initiated this planning effort as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan (2009-2030). A variety of methods were used for involving the public, City staff, local agencies, and elected officials/appointed boards in the development of this Plan. Below is a brief summary of the roles of various groups. Staff Resource Team A Staff Resource Team consisted of representatives from various City departments that were instrumental in implementing the Plan. The Staff Resource Team's responsibilities included: o Identifying issues and concerns during the development of the Plan; o Identifying and solving potential problems during future implementation of the Plan; o Reviewing and proposing any needed modifications as necessary to recommendations presented in the Plan; o Gathering and disseminating information to and from various City departments; and o Serving as advocates and consensus builders during the planning process. Technical Task Force A Technical Task Force was comprised of citizens who could provide technical expertise, guidance, and critical feedback in the development of the Plan. Areas of expertise included transportation planning/engineering, recreation, environmental/ecological science, storm water/floodplain management, landscape architecture, and real estate. The Technical Task Force also included those with a special interest in bicycling both to commute and for recreation as well as a walker/runner. The Technical Task Force's responsibilities included: o Advising staff on opportunities, policy matters, and community issues relative to the creation of the Plan; o Providing best management practices related to the members' areas of expertise; o Reviewing and providing comments on draft chapters and reports of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan prepared by staff, and o Interacting with citizens and citizen groups to develop and promote interest and involvement in the planning process. Citizen Engagement Public participation is vital to creating a plan that meets the needs of a community. A variety of techniques were used to gain input from citizens including an on-line survey, community meetings, and focus group meetings. The City's Comprehensive Plan update also relied heavily on citizen involvement. Information gathered during that effort was utilized in the development of this Plan. A more detailed explanation of the citizen engagement process and a summary of findings are available in Chapter 3: Needs Assessment. Chapter 1: Introduction Elected Officials/Appointed Boards Updates were provided during the planning process to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council. Input was received to steer the planning process. Adoption of Plan Two public hearings were held in January 2010 for adoption of the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan. SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN This Plan provides goals, strategies, and action items for system development, management, and implementation over the next 10 years. These recommendations, however, also provide a long term vision that should be referenced to build and improve the system over the next few decades. This Plan includes the following major sections: o Introduction - Presents an explanation of the planning purpose, development, history, and progress made since the adoption of previous plans. o Existing Conditions - Provides an overview of the City of College Station, describes natural and manmade features, and describes the existing bicycle, pedestrian, and greenways system. l o Needs Assessment - Provides an overview of the benefits of the system, identifies types of users and their preferences, evaluates existing data on use and safety, and summarizes needs and preferences expressed through the citizen engagement process and other planning efforts. o Goals and Strategies - Presents the goals and strategies of the Plan. o System Development - Proposes the addition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and greenways needed for the future. This section also includes policy statements. o System Management - Provides recommendations on how to manage the system including operations, land stewardship, programs, maintenance, and safety. This section also includes policy statements. o Implementation - Outlines implementation methods; identifies funding sources and planning level costs; and prioritizes projects. o Appendices - Provides additional information related to the planning process and information that supports the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenways system. It also includes Design Considerations that will help update referenced standards for designing and constructing facilities. 4DChapter l: Introduction 2010 - 2020 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Adopted January2010 PLANNING HISTORY Bicycling in College Station In 1975, the Brazos Valley League of Women Voters, the Environmental Action Council, and the A&M Wheelman Club collected data that concluded that more than 10,000 bicycle trips were occurring on a daily basis to and from Texas A&M University campus.2 As a result of this study, the City began planning to develop bicycle routes in the Southside and Eastgate areas. By August of 1976, the proposed routes had been signed and the City applied for Federal funds to develop an improved system. Unfortunately, the funds never materialized. In 1980, City staff, along with members of the community, revised policies and developed the first City Bike Plan (refer to Appendix A). Many residents objected to the 24 hour parking restriction along the signed routes, so City officials only installed bike lanes on two streets - Jersey Street (now George Bush Drive [FM 2347]) and Southwest Parkway.3 It included bike lanes, signed bike routes, and some paths on Texas Avenue [BUS 61. The City also prohibited bicycle travel on a designated portion of Texas Avenue [BUS 61 (from Lincoln Avenue to Holleman Drive) and along Harvey Road [SH 30]. The Bike Plan created the foundation for subsequent plans that served to address the high volume of students commuting to and from Texas A&M University campus. The Greenway Concept In 1988, the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan was adopted to promote urban development, with Wolf Pen Creek as an amenity, by preserving as much of the creek's plants and wildlife as possible and by introducing multi -use paths for bicycling and walking. The Plan also sought to manage drainage in relation to storm water management and tried to prevent soil erosion along creek banks. The Wolf Pen Creek Zoning District tollowed with sluridards for trcatment of the creek and adjacent areas as developmenl occurred, it 1cluding regulations that enc- gaged private development oriented towards the creek. In the spring of 1997, the Brazos Greenways Council formed as a non-profit organization and was instrumental in developing partnerships and creating a vision for the community's greenway system. They asked the City to appoint a group of citizens to develop a master plan to address statements made in the City's 1997 Comprehensive Plan that referenced greenways and open 2 "Survey Provides Check of Traffic to Aid Bicyclists," The Eaale (Bryan -College Station, TX), 20 October 1975. 3 Ballew, Deborah L., Colleae Station 1938!1988. 4D Chapter 1: Introduction space. The Greenways Implementation Task Force was appointed in 1998 and that same year citizens approved $3.64 million in bond funds to acquire greenway property along floodplains. The Greenways Master Plan - "A Network of Greenways for College Station" was adopted in 1999. The Greenways Master Plan defined greenways for College Station and the surrounding areas; classified and prioritized greenway corridors; provided guidance on the development of greenway trails; and provided an implementation plan. Bicycling, Walking, and Greenways In 1992, the City of College Station updated the Bikeway Master Plan. This update identified not j only bicycle facilities but incorporated pedestrian facilities and multi -use paths in the form of sidewalks, side paths, and greenway trails. It called for approximately 40 miles of bike lanes, 50 miles of bike routes, and 30 miles of multi -use paths. That some year, the City's Subdivision Regulations were modified to include the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, specifically sidewalks and bikeways on collector and arterial streets. In 1994, the Sidewalk Master Plan (refer to Appendix B for map) was created with the help of a Sidewalk Commitlee. In 2002, the Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan Update was completed. It called for 20 miles in addition to 25 miles of existing bicycle lanes, 50 miles in addition to 59 miles of existing bicycle routes, and 40 miles in addition to 3 miles of existing multi -use paths. In 2003, the City of College Station was designated as a Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists. In 2005, the Hike and Bike Task Force was formulated to prioritize the multi -use paths defined in the 2002 Plan. PROGRESS ON PLANS The Greenways Master Plan and the Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan each identified implementation recommendations that pertained to acquisition; regulation; construction, maintenance, and operations; and education and encouragement. Appendix C provides a complete list of these recommendations with a status on progress or planning considerations for the system. Below are highlights on progress and planning considerations that are further pursued in the creation and implementation of this Plan. Due to the relationship between these two plans, there is some overlap in planning considerations. Greenways Master Plan Acquisition The City of College Station currently has over 500 acres of publically owned greenway property which follow stream corridors and their floodplain. The City has acquired 376 acres through fee simple acquisition and 125 acres through voluntary dedications. As acquisition funds become limited, new sources of funding will need to be identified, as well as methods to maximize available funds through other means such as matching grants. Greenway easements that may be 0 Chapter l: Introduction less costly should be considered, as well as allocating land acquisition funds in the scope of capital improvement projects for greenway trail development. In order to encourage voluntary protection and dedication of greenways by landowners, the creation of an advocacy group may be necessary to collaborate with the City on education, encouragement, and effective initiatives. Regulation Greenway property dedication is currently voluntary. The Parkland Dedication Ordinance does allow land in floodplains or designated greenways to be considered on a three for one basis where three acres of floodplain or greenway are equal to one acre of park. Regulations to protect greenways and provide right-of-way for trails may be necessary to implement the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan especially with limited funding sources and continued growth. Street layouts that maximize access, visibility, and connections to and within the greenway system should also be encouraged. Construction, Maintenance, and Operations Five miles of trails were constructed in the last ten years. This includes trails along Wolf Pen Creek, within Stephen C. Beachy Central Park, and along the perimeter of Texas A&M University's main campus. Maintenance costs for existing trails continue to be incorporated into various department budgets. The maintenance of greenway property, however, has not been the purview of a specific department. A Greenways Program Manager position was funded in 1999 to implement the Greenways Master Plan and develop a program to coordinate acquisition, development, and management of the system. Protecting and restoring greenway corridors will need to be further explored. Urbanization, which can lead to loss of open space along stream corridars (riparian areas), and storm water runoff create adverse impacts on greenways. These impacts include the removal of canopy cover, a decrease in surface water quality, an increase in soil erosion and an increase in flooding. The design of greenway trails within these corridors will require cognizance of the need for the greenway to handle flood water while preserving and restoring greenways as natural resources. Chapter l: Introduction 0 1 Education and Encouragement The greenways system currently does not have resources in place for education and encouragement beyond the Greenways Program Manager staff position. Additional resources will need to be allocated, as well as a means of advocacy established. Education about greenways and their benefits, as well as encouragement to help protect and maintain the system, are needed. Steps will need to be taken to maintain an inventory of wildlife, vegetation, wetlands, and other natural features that exist along stream corridors so that management of greenway property can best enhance wildlife and plant habitats. Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan Acquisition and Regulation Street projects continue to be the driving force behind the development of bike lanes, bike routes, and sidewalks. Through public and private investments, these facilities continue to expand as the City grows. The addition of right-of-way for the development of multi -use paths, however, is independent of these street projects and requires additional steps to achieve. Currently, regulations require the dedication of right of -way for a rriulli-use path with the platting of any proportional development. Additional regulations have been adopted to facilitate the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Improved bicycle and pedestrian circulation within private developments, however, is still needed through a change in size of access ways, street layouts, and block length requirements. Construction and Maintenance The addition of facilities and their maintenance continues to occur through public and private investments. Seven miles of bike lanes were added in the last 10 years as well as additional bike routes and sidewalks. Education and Encouragement Although bicycle awareness and education campaigns are occasionally conducted, additional efforts to educate and encourage citizens to bicycle and walk are needed. The bicycle and pedestrian system currently does not have resources in place for furthering education and encouragement. Resources will need to be allocated as well as a means of advocacy established. 0 Chapter l: Introduction 2010 - 2020 Adopted January 2010 RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS Other planning efforts were considered and have influenced the recommendations of this Plan. They include the following: o 2000-2020 Bryan Comprehensive Plan - A Hike and Bike Access Plan and Sidewalk Master Plan were referenced for connections between College Station and Bryan (refer to Appendix D and Q. o Texas A&M University - The Campus Access and Parking Plan - Completed in 2000, this Plan provides recommendations for bicycle facilities on campus including developing a campus - wide bicycle system that connects to the community's bicycle facilities. Vision 2020 - Adopted in 1999, this Plan provides goals that Texas A&M University would target over the next twenty years with the anticipated growth of the student population as well as the campus. TERMINOLOGY Definitions to key terms used in this Plan are provided below. Bicycle Facilities The City of College Station currently has a number of different facilities to accommodate the needs of bicyclists. They include bike lanes, bike routes, and multi -use paths as well as associated signage, signals, and bicycle parking. For the purpose of this Plan, all such facilities described below are referenced as bicycle facilities. Multi -use paths (side paths and greenway trails) are also considered. Bike Lane A designated part of the roadway, typically 5 feet wide, that is striped, signed, and has pavement markings to be used exclusively by bicyclists. Picture Source: www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden Bike Route A roadway that is shared by both bicycles and motor vehicles. Wide outside lanes and shoulders can serve as bike routes with signage. Picture Source: www.pedbikeimages.org/Dan Burden Chapter l: Introduction Side Path (Multi -use Path) A wider sidewalk (10-12 feet wide) alongside a road with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles. +,., rsi Greenway Trail (Multi -use Path) y All-weather and accessible paths for pedestrians and bicyclists. These are t ypically 10-12 feet in width. Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, ramps, and medians, as well as associated signage, shelters, and signals. Multi -use paths including side paths and greenway trails, as referenced above, are also pedestrian facilities. I Sidewalks Walkways alongside roads, typically five to eight feet wide, for pedestrians. Greenways Greenways include corridors along streams (and their floodplain and/or riparian area) that are designated for the protection of open space and greenway trails. Greenways Linear open space corridors that follow natural features such as creeks and rivers, and their floodplains, or humai fan -ma features such as utilitiy, road, or rail corridors. 0 Chapter l: Introduction I/ Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................... To determine and plan for future needs, it is important to consider existing factors that will influence and affect a successful bicycle, pedestrian, and greenways system. This chapter provides an overview of the City of College I ;'•, Station, a description of natural and manmade features, and the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway facilities that E E 1ATIdN., a - currently comprise fhe system. As a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update, an Existing Conditions report was formulated which gave an understanding of the current conditions in College Station. Included in this chapter are relevant findings from that report and other information that had implications for developing this Plan. DEMOGRAPHICS College Station has been growing at an average annual rate of 2.1 % since 1990. In 2009, the population was estimated to include approximately 93,149 people with a projected population increase of over 40,000 for a total of over 134,000 people by 2030. Population density for the City, based on Census 2000, can be seen in Map 2.1: Population Density. As home of Texas A&M University, one of the State's largest public institutions, College Station has a large number of college students living in the community. The student population is currently 48,787 (Fall 2009) and the University population has been increasing at a rate of 1% annually. The median age in the City of College Station is 21.9 years old, based on the 2000 Census, due mainly to the large number of college aged students that live in the City. 14.4% of College Station's population in 2000 was under the age of 18, 51.2% from 18 to 24 years of age, 21.3% from 25 to 44 years of age, and 9.4% from 45 to 64 years of age. Seniors (age 65 and older) made up just 3.6% of the City's population, a low number compared to 8% for the region and 10% for the State of Texas. Over the past decade, however, the City has seen an increase in the number of seniors living in the area. People aged 50 years and older are the fastest growing cohort in the City with an increase of 84% between 1990 l Chapter 2: Existing Conditions r and 2000. As the Baby Boomer generation continues to age, it is likely that the City of College Station will continue to see an increase in the population age 50 and older, while maintaining relatively stable school -aged and college -aged populations. As a City that will continue to serve a young, college -aged population and an aging population, providing an adequate and accessible bicycle and pedestrian system is fundamental to an effective transportation system. As population density increases, traffic congestion may increase resulting in the need for more alternatives to decrease auto -dependency. LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT The Land Use and Community Character chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan lays the foundation for the preferred pattern of land development that will occur over the next 20 years. Since 1990, development has continued to move south towards the southern City limits, beyond William D. Fitch Parkway [SH 40]. Between 2000 and 2007, the City processed 244 plats with 10/ of those being in the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, as shown in Map 2.2: Platted Growth. Areas with higher density and mixed -use developments are usually more conducive to walking and bicycling. Sprawling growth with low -density development and a limited mix of uses will decrease connectivity and the ability to bicycle and walk. According to the on-line survey conducted for this Plan, most citizens are willing to walk about one mile and bicycle about two to five miles to run errands or commute to work or school. As development continues to increase, the loss of open space will also increase. This will require the City to balance future growth and land development with the protection of greenways. The City will need to be strategic when planning for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as the greenway system, by considering the location of differing land uses and the intensity of development in order to create a successful system. The Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood, district, and corridor planning areas that will provide opportunities to identify and improve facilities that are outdated or introduce new ones. 0 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions COMMUNITY DESTINATIONS AND ATTRACTIONS Connecting people and places is an important component of this Plan. This section identifies destinations that individuals are likely to walk or bike to work, school, or for recreation. Map 2.3: Key Destinations identifies some community destinations and attractions around College Station that will be considered in this planning effort and some are provided below: o Major employers: Texas A&M University, College Station Independent School District, Reynolds and Reynolds, and the City of College Station. o Districts: Existing - Northgate and Wolf Pen Creek; Future - Spring Creek, Presidential Corridor Gateway, and Speedway. o Key Destinations: Shopping centers, grocery stores, Post Oak Mall, George Bush Presidential Library, College Station Conference Center, and the Lincoln Center. \ _ 1 o Parks: The College Station Parks and Recreation Department has 51 parks across the City totaling 1,316 acres of parkland - 34 neighborhood parks, 8 community parks, 7 mini - parks, 2 regional parks, and an arboretum. o Schools: The College Station Independent School District has 7 elementary schools, 2 intermediate schools, 2 middle schools, 1 alternative campus, and 1 high school. U NATURAL FEATURES College Station lies in the coastal plains region of Texas with a favorable climate that offers warm summers and mild winters. The topography is relatively flat to gently sloping with elevation ranging from 200 feet to 366 feet above sea level as demonstrated in Map 2.4: Elevation. These conditions make College Station an Ideal location for bicycling and walking throughout a considerable rarnount of the year. Hydrology and Floodplain Brazos County is made up of numerous streams that flow into the Navasota and Brazos River basins. Map 2.5: Hydrology and Floodplain illustrates the system that lies in and around the City of College Station and its floodplain. Bee Creek, Lick Creek, Wolf Pen Creek, and their tributaries (including Spring Creek and Alum Creek) flow into Carters Creek. Carters Creek and Peach Creek flow into the Navasota River, while White Creek flows into the Brazos River. Chapter 2: Existing Conditions I Floodplains Floodplains are flat or nearly flat land adjacent to streams or rivers that C-XperienCe Oc_CUSiarrcrl or periodic flooding. Regulatory boundaries of these floodplains have been categorized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to help preserve their flood c-nrryincd capacity. They include I00-year flood areas (i,e„ 1 % annual chance of n flood event or special flood hazard areas) and 500-year flood areas (i.e., 0.2 % annual chance of a flood event). There are approximately 3,962 acres of 100-year flood areas within the College Station City limits and an additional 235 acres of 500-year flood areas. Currently, 1,696 acres of 100-year flood areas are preserved through agricultural zoning and an additional 462 acres are owned by the City of College Station. The protection of floodplains is crucial in managing the dangers associated with flooding. Regulations for residential and non-residential structures currently limit allowable activities in ` special flood hazard areas designated by FEMA. It will be important to limit development in the floodplain except where necessary for such elements as road crossings, utility corridors and multi -use paths. Care and sensitivity will be needed as these areas are subjected to the impacts of urbanization. Tools such as the protection of riparian areas (described below) and the protection of these areas through the greenways program should be used. FEMA also offers a Community Rating System that reduces flood insurance rates in communities that protect greenways and other open spaces. The amount of reduction varies between 5-45% depending on the floodplain management activities of a city. The City of College Station's current floodplain management requirements do exceed FEMA minimum standards and expect to be accepted into the program in 2010 with an estimated 5-15% rate reduction. Riparian Areas Riparian areas are corridors of natural vegetntinn nlnng streams. They create transitional zones between streams and the impacts of development. The benefits of these areas include floodplain and storm water management; stream bank stabilization; water quality protection; 0 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions i Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 2010.2020 Adopted January 2010 and wildlife and aquatic habitat protection. If a riparian area is not protected, destruction of property can occur through the erosion of stream banks and increased flooding. The degradation of water quality; increased water temperature; and reduction in fish and wildlife diversity are detriments that may occur without the protection of this riparian area. Restoration of these areas will need to be explored in areas that have been degraded or disturbed and may include stream channel restoration and stream bank stabilization. Storm Water Urbanization can harm the quality of local water resources. It can degrade water quality and increase the amount of runoff and flooding that occurs due to the increase of impervious surfaces (e.g., rooftops, roads, and parking lots). Storm water runoff increases during precipitation events because it is not absorbed into the soil and, therefore, flows rapidly downstream. In order to manage and alleviate the occurrence of pollutants entering streams, the City of College Station is developing a Storm Water Management Plan. Under the regulation of the Clean Water Act of 1972 is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters," the City has begun implementing programs and practices to control polluted storm water runoff. The program intends to eliminate the discharge of pollutants to the maximum practicable extent; protect water quality; satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act; and manage storm water activities through the Storm Water Management Plan. The Plan includes public education; participation and outreach; pollution prevention; construction site runoff control; and post construction site runoff control. The highest and best function for our rivers and streams and their floodplains is the conveyance and temporary storage of floodwaters. Greenways serve to protect the flood control function of these floodplains and riparian areas. Limiting the placement of buildings and other impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, or even fill in these areas, can help reduce unnecessary flooding, manage storm water runoff, and decrease stream bank erosion that can affect the future health and effectiveness of our rivers and streams. Soils According to the 2002 Soil Survey of Brazos County, Texas, soils within the City include areas in the Post Oak Savannah with light and sandy soil with dense clay subsoil less that a foot under tho surface and prairie vegetation with dark looms and clays. Land around the floodplains is predominantly sandy and loamy, impacting the shrinking and swelling of the soil. The floodplains consist of loamy and clayey soils that drain poorly and are not considered desirable for urban development. When constructing multi -use paths, it will be important to find the most stable, well -draining soils which can bear the intended traffic. Although multi -use paths will be built within the floodplain, frequently flooded areas should be avoided to minimize silt and debris clean-up. Chapter 2: Existing Conditions VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Brazos County falls within the Post Oak Savannah and Blackland Prairie ecoregions. The Post Oak Savannah is dominated by native bunch grasses and fortis, scattered mainly with Post Oaks and Blackjack Oaks.4 According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Black Hickory, Cedar Elm, Sugarberry, and Eastern Red Cedar are also common. Understory of wooded areas typically includes Yaupon, American Beautyberry, and Greenbriar. Native grasses include Little Bluestem, Indiangrass, Switchgrass, and Texas Wintergrass. Post Oaks are high quality native trees that grow slowly, are sensitive to root damage, and are not easily replanted.5 They are also sensitive to environmental changes and to standing water, soil compaction, and other harsh conditions. Overwatering or soil compaction can fill air spaces in the soil which will suffocate the tree roots. The Blackland Prairies form parallel bands within the Post Oak Savannah. Canopy trees within this area include Live Oaks, Pecan, Cedar Elm, Eastern Red Cedar, various oaks, and American Elms. Grasses include Big Bluestem, Indiangrass, and Little Bluestem. According to the Soil Survey of Brazos County, the Post Oak Savannah provides more than half the wildlife habitat in the County. Within bottomland hardwoods, wildlife may include white-tailed deer, wild turkey, feral hogs, gray fox, and owls. Within wooded wetlands, wildlife may include ducks, great blue heron, green heron, beaver, and alligators. Within rangelands, wildlife may include white-tailed deer, red- tailed hawk, Harris sparrow, fox sparrow, bobcat, coyote, cottontail, and raccoon. Threatened and endangered species in the Brazos County are listed in Appendix F. The Red wolf, Houston toad, Interior Least Tern and the whooping crane are currently on the Federal list of endangered species for the Brazos County. A rare orchid, the Navasota Ladies' -tresses, is also a Federally endangered plant that can be found in the Post Oak Savannah region, 4 Texas forest Service. "Trees of Texas," 2008 <http://texastreeid,tamu.edf .i/content/texasEcoRegions/PostOukSavanah/>. 5 Sally Wasowski and Andy Wasowski, Native Texas Plants: Landscaoina Reaion by Reaion (Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company, 1997). 0 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions 2010 - 2020 7-Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Adopted January 2010 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The transportation system in College Station and its Extraterritorial Jurisdiction is made up of a road network and alternate modes of transportation through the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system, as well as transit. The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the transportation network needs for the next 20 years. Using projected population and employment growth figures based on the Future Land Use & Character map, a travel demand model of vehicle trips forecasted the need for significant investments in new and expanded streets and the bicycle, pedestrian and greenways system. It was determined that in order to prevent increased congestion and degradation of service levels in various locations around the City, transportation investments would need to be coupled with increases in transit ridership, a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, and increased bicycling and walking. The success of the transportation network is dependent upon multi -modal design of new roads and expansion of the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system. The existing road network in College Station consists of over 286 miles as illustrated in Map 2.6: Existing Roads. Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] and a majority of major arterials including Texas Avenue [BUS 6], University Drive [FM 60], and Harvey Road [SH 30] are part of the Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT's) highway system. The Thoroughfare Plan, an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, also consists of over 250 miles of future roads as shown in Map 2.7: Thoroughfare Plan. Traffic Volumes Since the late 1990s, traffic volumes have 479 decreased in some core areas of the City and increased ir1 southern Collcge Station as referenced in Map 2.8: Traffic Volumes. Some roads in the area that have had an increased in volume include Wellborn Road [FM 2154] just south of Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818] and University Drive [FM 601, east of Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6]. High volumes of motor vehicle traffic can create safety issues and diminish comfort levels for bicyclists and pedestrians, especially when approaching intersections and crossing major freeways. These barriers can hinder bicycling and walking. Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Bus Transit System Currently there are three different operators of bus transit in the College Station/Bryan area: o The District (formerly Brazos Valley Transit Authority) provides public bus services for seven counties including Burleson, Grimes and Brazos. o Texas A&M University Transportation Services provides bus services to and through campus. o College Station Independent School District (CSISD) provides bus services for students. Students who live within a two mile radius of the school they attend are not provided with bus service and are encouraged to bicycle and walk. Map 2.9: Existing Transit Routes portrays existing routes for The District and Texas A&M University but does not include CSISD routes. Providing adequate pedestrian crossings, shelters, and bicycle parking at bus stops and bicycle racks on the front of buses are a few options that could contribute to a functional multi -modal system. BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND GREENWAYS SYSTEM Since the adoption of the City's first Bicycle Master Plan in 1980, the City has developed approximately 33 miles of striped bicycle lanes and 59 miles of bicycle routes as shown on Map 2.10: Existing Bicycle Facilities. There are approximately 130 miles of sidewalks around the community and 8 miles of multi -use paths consisting of side paths and greenway trails as shown on Map 2.1 1: Existing Pedestrian Facilities. The greenways program also has acquired roughly 500 acres of property through fee simple acquisition, easements, and dedications. (Both maps referenced above provide a representation of greenway property around the City of College Station). There are an additional four miles of bike lanes, seven miles of sidewalks, and six miles of multi -use paths which have been funded and will be under design or construction in the next few years. These projects are also identified on the above maps, respectively. System Management Current Operations The current administrative structure is broken into the greenways program and the bicycle and pedestrian program as described below. 0 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions 2010 - 2026 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Adopted January2010 The greenways system is administered by the Greenways Program Manager position in the Planning and Development Services Department. This position serves as primary lead on managing various elements of the greenways system including planning, land stewardship, safety, and programs. The maintenance element is shared by the Parks and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. Maintenance is focused on trails and areas within greenways that serve as drainage ways. The Planning and Development Services Department has assumed the role of managing the various elements of the bicycle and pedestrian program. The Greenways Program Manager and the Transportation Planning Coordinator (also in the Planning and Development Services Department) share this role. The maintenance element is led by the Public Works Department. Figure 2.1: Current Lead and Supporting Departments by Element provides a breakdown of the departments that currently take the lead or support different elements of the system. This figure includes some supporting departments, although many others may play a role in each element. A number of elements currently have supporting departments but a lead department does not exist specifically for the bicycle and pedestrian portion. Lead Department Supporting Supporting Supporting Element Bike/Ped. Department Department Department Greenways � Planning P&DS P&DS P&R PW PW Design and CP CP P&DS P&R Construction Land P&DS N/A CP Stewardship Police PW H R Safety P&DS P&DS Fire/Police P&R Programs P&DS PW P&R Maintenance P&R (trails within PW parks) (bike lanes, and bike routes PW (properties that and sidewalks) serve as drainage ways and trails outside parks) * Capital Projects (CP); Human Resources (HR); Parks and Recreation (P&R); Planning and Development Services (P&DS); and Public Works (PW). FIGURE 2.1: CURRENT LEAD AND SUPPORTING DEPARTMENTS BY ELEMENT Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Current Maintenance Responsibility for maintaining the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenways system is currently shared by multiple departments. As outlined above in Figure 2.1, the Public Works Department maintains on -street facilities (bike lanes, bike routes and sidewalks), multi -use paths outside of parks, and some greenway property that serve as drainage ways. The Parks and Recreation Department maintains multi -use paths that are within parks. There currently is not a department that maintains greenway property except in the instance where there are drainage issues. Multi -use paths and sidewalks, most of which are concrete, are replaced as needed. Figure 2.2 provides a summary of the current types of maintenance performed by the City. T Greenway Multi -use On -Road ypes of Maintenance Property Paths Bicycle Pedestrian Facilities Facilities Crack Sealing and Other Surface Repairs - to prevent water incursion and extend the life of the road N/A N/A As needed N/A Drainage Contrnl As needed Erosion Control - stabilization As needed As needed N/A N/A Graffiti and Vandalism Control As needed As needed although 1 2 times the majority are Mowing, Mulching, and Edging As needed per month Once a month maintained privately Pavement Overlays - improve conditions by removing cracks, bumps, potholes, and ridges in the pavement N/A N/A As needed N/A 2-3 years for paint; 7 years for Repainting Pavement Markings N/A As needed thermoplastic N/A Replacing Dangerous Grates and Utility Covers N/A N/A As needed Seal Coating and Rejuvenation - Seal N/A coat process extends the life of the road, creates a new traffic surface, improves traction, and safety. An annual survey is performed to determine_ s+ree*� +„ �Gai coat. V� _ v,�u N/A N/A As needed N/A Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Zoe o - Zo2o Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Adopted January2010 Sign Replacement Hi -intensity sheeting every As needed As needed 7 years Sweeping - to remove debris such as N/A N/A loose gravel, sand, and garbage Trash and Debris Removal As needed Monthly Tree and Shrub Trimming FIGURE 2.2: MAINTENANCE BY FACILITY As needed Monthly; some areas twice a month N/A As needed As needed As needed Current Programming Efforts and Information A number of educational, encouragement, and enforcement programs as well as events currently exist in College Station, and a few are described below. Mayor's Council on Physical Fitness (City of College Station Effort on Encouragement) The Mayor's Council on Physical Fitness was established in June 2008. The Mayor's Council assists in the development and support of physical fitness awareness and other programs. It is designed to allow the City of College Station to interact further with the health and fitness community. Sample programs to increase physical activity levels have been developed and include a walking health fair and running and walking rally. Risk Watch (City of College Station Effort on Education) The College Station Fire Department offers Risk Watch, an injury prevention curriculum, to College Station Independent School District elementary schools. Risk Watch is a comprehensive curriculum that addresses topics including motor vehicle safety, fall prevention, and bicycle and pedestrian safety. Hard Hats for Little Heads6 (City of College Station and Community Effort on Education and Encouragement) Hard Hats for Little Heads was created by lire Texas Medical Association (TMA) to help reduce head injuries among Texas children. It is funded by a grant from the TMA Foundation, through a gift from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas and contributions from physicians and their families. They provide up to 50 Consumer Product Safety Commission certified helmets per event with a matching purchase for local giveaways. The number of head injuries in Texas (the most common cause of serious disability or death in bicycle crashes) can be reduced by 85% with proper use of dil Associates. "Hard Hats for Little Heads," 2009 < http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=217>. a The Texas Meca Chapter 2: Existing Conditions a helmet. TMA's Hard Hats for Little Heads encourages the use of helmets in all wheeled sports activities such as bicycling, skateboarding, inline skating, and riding a scooter. The City of College Station Police Department and local organizations have participated in this cause in the past. Some of these events have also included bicycle rodeos and educational events. Brazos Valley Injury Prevention Coalition (City of College Station and Community Effort on Education and Encouragement) This coalition was formed to help reduce injuries and deaths in the community. It is made up of citizens, parents, caregivers, medical providers, educators, and safety experts who collaborate on programs and distribute educational materials. Some programs they support include local health fairs and bicycle rodeos. Some of the organizations and agencies involved include College Station and Bryan Police and Fire Departments, the Texas Department of Public Safety, Brazos Health Department, the Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M Police Department, and the Brazos County Sheriff's Office. Keep Brazos Beautiful? (Community Effort on Education and Encouragement) The mission of Keep Brazos Beautiful, Inc. is to educate and build partnerships with citizens, civic organizations, businesses, and governmental agencies on the importance of beautifying the community, conserving resources, and protecting the environment. This is accomplished through beautification and litter abatement, public awareness (including more than 40 educational programs), waste minimization, and recycling. Every year Keep Brazos Beautiful, Inc organizes a community -wide litter cleanup, Don't Mess with Texas Trash -Off, where tons of litter and debris are removed from area neighborhoods, parks, streams, and school campuses in College Station and Bryan. Keep Brazos Beautiful. <http://keepbrazosbeautiful.org/>. Chapter 2: Existing Conditions JAW Population Density People Per Acre 10,66-19.73 5.93-10.66 3.38 - 5.93 1.25-3.38 0.01-1.25 Brazos Streets College Station City Limit F College Station 5 Mile ETJ N 0 0.5 1 Miles \"A -11 Sources: City of College Station, Brazos County Appraisal District, and 2000 U. S. Census. i MAP 2.1 Population Density 2000 Census 'Population numbers based on 2000 Census data Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Sources: City of College Station and Brazos County Appraisal District. /--- "// i a Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Lick Creek Park 2-15 4L .SO ip 44" 0 m m CL inL m m 2-16 ... . . . ..... ...... Sources: City of College Station, Brazos County Appraisal District, and Federal Emergency Management Agency. Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Sources: City of College Station and Brazos County Appraisal District. Chapter 2: Existing Conditions . rrl�� 'I Sources: City of College Station and Brazos County Appraisal District. �— MAP 2.7 Thoroughfare Plan Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Sources: City of College Station, Brazos County Appraisal District and Texas Department of Transportation. w� I 1 k— IIUPICI G. L-AI3111 IIJ L.UI i\-niiivi w Sources: City of College Station, Brazos County Appraisal District, Texas A&M University, and The District. Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Sources: City of College Station and Brazos County Appraisal District. I MAP 2.10 1 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions %. Sources: City of College Station and Brazos County Appraisal District. Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Crr-ui (n.ca=Srcnrm CHAPTER 3: NEEDS ASSESSMENT ............... ..................................... ..................... .......................... ..... ........ ................................. ....................... , A comprehensive bicycle, pedestrian, and greenways system can provide the community with a number of benefits and can support a variety of needs. The system can create a positive impact that contributes to the community's overall quality of life by creating transportation, recreation, health, environmental, and economic benefits. Identifying and evaluating the existing use of facilities, as well as preferences and safety concerns will help with the development and management of the system. This chapter provides an overview of the benefits described above, identifies types of users and their preferences, evaluates existing data on use and safety, and summarizes needs and preferences expressed through the citizen engagement process and other planning efforts. BENEFITS Transportation Well designed bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway facilities can play an important role in the overall transportation system. They provide opportunities to bicycle and walk short travel distances to work, school, or to run errands. A 2001 National Household Transportation Study found that almost half of all trips are less than three miles in length.$ With the right facilities in place, a destination one mile away would take on average 20 minutes by foot or b minutes by bicycle. Bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway facilities create alternative transportation choices that can minimize automobile dependency, reduce traffic congestion, and offer an affordable means of travel. For citizens who do not have an automobile or cannot drive, bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway facilities are a necessity. 8 National Transportation Household Survey. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, (Washington, D.C., 2001, <htto://nhts.ornl.aov/>. Chapter 3: Needs Assessment Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Maste=Plan Along with on -street facilities, multi -use paths along greenways create off-street corridors that connect users to various key destinations such as parks, work, schools, shopping centers, and neighborhoods without the need for an automobile. Healthy Living There is a correlation between the greater amount of time a person spends exercising and their improved health. Physical activity increases strength, flexibility, endurance, relieves stress, improves mood, and enhances psychological well-being9. Prevention and control of chronic conditions that lead to cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes can begin with physical activity. The U.S. Surgeon General recommends a daily amount of physical exercise of at least 30 minutes for adults and 60 minutes for children.10 A community that plans and develops a bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system provides residents with a safe environment that supports an active lifestyle. Studies have shown that people who exercise regularly have 14% lower claims against their medical insurance, 41 % fewer claims greater than $5,000, and spend 30% fewer days in the hospital. This can, in turn, reduce health care costs for an individual and their employer. Environmental Significant environmental benefits can result from a bicycle, pedestrian, and greenways system. The use of bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway facilities instead of an automobile can help improve air quality, minimize noise pollution, and reduce energy consump lion. Greenways along streams and rivers help with floodplain management; protect open space and riparian areas; maintain corridors for wildlife and plant habitat; and improve water quality. 9 Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Report: Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon Gonoral (Atlanta, GA, 1996). 10 U.S. Depat Irnent of Health and Human Services Office of the Surgeon General, <I-itlp://www.surgoongeneral.gov/toF)ic:s/obe.sity/calitoactinn/tact_adolescents.litm> I National Park Service, Report: Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors, <htta://www.nns.aov/pwro/rtco/ecnnR.ndf >. 0 Chapter 3: Needs Assessment Bicycling and walking reduce congestion on streets which, in effect helps reduce air pollution associated with vehicle exhaust emissions and fossil -fuel consumption. Greenways protect open space for their natural, cultural, and historical significance that would otherwise be lost to development. They also serve to prevent development from encroaching in flood prone areas that need to remain in their natural state to function properly and provide appropriate flood water storage capacity. This prevents flooding that can be costly to the property owner and can sometimes save peoples' lives. As the City expands and develops, additional impervious surfaces, such as building footprints, streets, and parking lots, create increased storm water runoff (precipitation that does not absorb into the soil) that carry pollutants (sediment, oil, gas, pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) into streams and can degrade water quality. Development also has an adverse impact on streams through possible stream channelization, tree canopy removal, and stream bank erosion from increased flows. Wildlife and plant habitats that receive food, shelter, and overall protection from open space are also affected. Greenways serve to mitigate these negative impacts by filtering pollutants in the water and air, retaining water to help prevent erosion, and sustaining their ecological importance for wildlife and plants. They also allow for the reclamation and restoration of degraded stream channels, provide vegetated buffers between different land uses, and create opportunities for environmental education. Economic The most successful communities - those most attractive to homebuyers, businesses, and tourists - offer easy access to outdoor recreation activities through bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway facilities. The National Parks Service reports that greenways can increase a community's local economic activity by enhancing property values, increasing the municipality's tax base, and attracting and retaining businesses to the area.12 Many communities have begun to see development of greenways and pedestrian facilities as a way to save money. Walking and bicycling versus using an automobile to commute to work and run errands results in significant personal cost savings. A decrease in traffic volumes also lowers 12 National Park Service, Report: Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors, <htto://www.nos.gov/owro/rtca/econ all.odf>. Chapter 3: Needs Assessment Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Cn rnCro ircr. Srai„ the costs that local municipalities must put towards maintenance and the repair of streets. Setting aside personal property for land conservation can also result in tax savings/credits for participating individuals. The community as a whole may indirectly profit from the development of multi -use paths along greenways. Studies have shown that residential neighborhoods, as well as commercial and office spaces, located adjacent to or near a greenway are considered more desirable and as a result have higher property values. Many businesses looking to relocate their operations are often looking for u currimunity that can provide their employees with these facilities. In 1992, a study of users and property owners along three multi -use paths in California, Florida, and Iowa estimated that the average economic activity was $1.2 to 1.8 million annually.13 Many cities have realized that a greenway system provides a cost effective alternative to expensive flood -control measures. When left in a natural state, except for the addition of multi- use paths, there is a reduction in flood damage to homes and other significant infrastructure. Finally, as mentioned in Chapter 2: Existing Conditions, FEMA offers the Community Rating System that reduces flood insurance rates in communities that already protect greenways and other open spaces. Other Benefits Getting outdoors and using available facilities also creates opportunities to recreate, strengthen ones social network of friends, and interact with neighbors. It creates a sense of place and a healthy, stable community atmosphere that contributes to an overall quality of life. Greenways also provide the ability to connect with nature, escape from the built environment, and create buffers between land uses. TYPES OF USERS Understanding the needs and preferences of bicyclists and pedestrians can affect how to plan for a system that will result in increased use. Below, different types of bicyclists and pedestrians are described. Bicyclists A bicyclist has the same rights on a street as a motorist and must abide by the same rules. Table 3.1: Bicyclist User Groups outlines three different types of bicycle users as identified by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASTHO). Most bicyclists or 13 The Impacts of Rail Trails, A Study of Users and Nearby Property Owners from Ihree Trails, National Park Service, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, 1992, <http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtco/helpfultools/impact_railtrail_final.pdf>. Chapter 3: Needs Assessment potential bicyclists will fall within Group B, adults who are basic or beginner riders may not prefer or have the confidence to use the street as a motorist. Special accommodations should be considered such as bike lanes or routes where there are lower amounts of traffic or no automobiles at all. In order to encourage ridership, facilities that meet the needs of each user group will require consideration in the system and this Plan. User Group Preferences Skill Level Group A - Adult - Fast, convenient, and direct route. Can ride on street with motor Advanced Facility type: Entire road lane or vehicles comfortably and under bicycle lane. most traffic conditions. Group B - Adult - Avoid roads with fast or busy motor Less confident of their ability to ride Basic/Beginner vehicle traffic. Facility type: Bicycle in traffic; unfamiliar with rules of the routes, bicycle lanes, or multi -use road; and may walk across paths away from traffic. intersections. Group C - Usually avoid using on -street facilities Limited bicycle handling skills. Children to avoid motorists. Facility type: Sidewalks and multi -use paths. TABLE 3.1: BICYCLIST USER GROUPSI4 Pedestrians All trips begin and end on foot as a pedestrian. Pedestrians include those that walk, jog, and run and range in age from toddlers to the elderly. There is a need to provide accommodations for all types of users including children, those using wheelchairs, and the visually impaired. Preferences include safe routes that are free from obstacles and gaps and buffered from motor vehicles. TYPES OF TRIPS Whether walking or bicycling, two main types of trips exist: utilitarian and recreation. A utilitarian trip is usually a commute to work and school or to run errands. Users typically want the shortest, most direct on street route. Users who are bicycling or walking for recreation are doing so for their leisure or health. They mostly preter off street multi -use paths that are scenic, wirldirig, provide shade, and perhaps create a luup. EXISTING BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY An awareness of the concentrations of bicycle and pedestrian activity in College Station is important to help determine the condition and demand of facilities. There is relatively little data on the amount of residents who bicycle and/or walk for transportation or recreation in College 14 American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, Guide: Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (Washington, D.C., 1999). i I Chapter 3: Needs Assessment Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Station. The two sources described below are utilitarian in nature. They are limited to data on adults traveling to and from work and students traveling to and from Texas A&M University campus. No data is available for recreational activity. Studying bicycle and pedestrian activity throughout the City will be important in determining how policy and facilities influence use. Journey to Work The U.S. Census Journey to Work survey is conducted every 10 years and captures the mode used to travel to work by participants 16 years and older within a one week period. One limitation in the survey was only information on the primary mode of transportation for traveling to work was requested which limits responses from users who may use more than one mode. FIGURE 3.1 - CITY OF COLLEGE STATION JOURNEY TO WORK - CENSUS 2000 Other Worked Means at home Bicycled 1 % V 3% Publi transport 1% Carpoolec 9% In 2000, the survey revealed that six percent of College Station residents commuted to work by walking and three percent commuted by bicycling, as shown in Figure 3.1. Appendix G provides summary tables for 1990 and 2000 data. These figures compare favorably with state (two percent walked and point twenty-four percent bicycled) and national (three percent walked and point thirty-eight percent bicycled) data. These percentages, however, are down from 1990 which showed that ten percent of College Station residents walked and five percent bicycled to work. The scale of the community, however, has changed in the last 10 years, which could play a factor in the difference. Growth continues to extend south while key destinations continue to be in the core part of College Station. Providing a greater number of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as encouraging mixed -use development, can help to change this historical trend. The percentage of bicyclists by census tracts across the City are illustrated in Map 3.1: 2000 Census Journey to Work - Bicycle Trips.15 The highest percenlage of commutes to work by bicycle occurred around Texas A&M University and older parts of College Station. 15 United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, 2000, <htto://census.aov/>. • Chapter 3: Needs Assessment :Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 2010 - 2020 Adopted January 2010 Bicycle Commutes to Texas A&M University Texas A&M University and surrounding neighborhoods have the largest amount of trip generation in the form of bicycle and pedestrian activity. In 2005, the Texas Transportation Institute conducted a study utilizing bicycle counts and surveys to evaluate existing conditions and bicycle activity to and from Texas A&M University. Key findings included the following: o Almost 2000 bicycle commuters enter campus every day; o The highest levels of bicycle traffic were on the southwest and north sides of campus; o A potential of an additional 500 students would commute if safe and direct routes to campus were available; o Bicycle commuters surveyed reported inadequate facilities, aggressive motorist behavior, and intersections as obstacles; and o Over 25% of non -bicycle commuters surveyed reported that improved facilities might encourage them to commute by bicycle.16 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities are of paramount importance to retaining users and encouraging increased activity. The survey responses collected for this Plan reinforced this statement with safety being of utmost concern. A number of factors can affect safety, including the physical condition and level of maintenance of facilities, comfort and experience levels of users, knowledge of and adherence to traffic laws, and weather conditions. In order to improve safety and use of facililies in College Station, these factors should be considered in maintenance, education, and enforcement. To assess the current level of safety, bicycle and pedestrian crash data were analyzed. This analysis, however, is limited to crashes that were reported to the City of College Station Police Department. This data included the type of crash and injury; location; and time and date of incident. 16 Texas Transportation Institute, Report: Evaluating Bicycling Commuter Experiences at Texas A&M University and Adjacent Areas in the City of College Station, Texas, (College Station, TX, 2005). Chapter 3: Needs Assessment 0 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Crry a= Cow;cr: J-rrn Between 2003 and 2008, there were 195 reported crashes involving a motor vehicle and a bicyclist or pedestrian. Findings and results of the analysis are summarized below: o Most crashes occurred in the core of the City and along the following major corridors, as illustrated in Map 3.2: Pedestrian Crash Data and Map 3.3: Bicycle Crash Data: • Pedestrian crashes - University Drive [FM 60], George Bush Drive [FM 23471, Harvey Road [SH 30], Southwest Parkway, and Welsh Avenue. • Bicycle crashes - University Drive [FM 60], George Bush Drive [FM 23471, Texas Avenue [BUS 6], University Oaks Boulevard, Southwest Parkway, and Welsh Avenue. o There was on average 20 pedestrian crashes and 15 bicyclist crashes reported each year. o There were three pedestrians and one bicyclist killed over the five year period. 0 44% of pedestrian crashes and 50% of bicycle crashes resulted in some sort of injury. o Crossing at intersections or crosswalks accounted for 46% of pedestrian crashes and 54% of bicycle crashes. o The highest number of pedestrian crashes (five) occurred at the intersection of College Main and University Drive [FM 601. o the highest number of bicycle crashes (three) occurred at the intersection of George Bush Drive [FM 2347] and Anderson Street. o For bicycle crashes, seven a.m., one p.m., and during the afternoon between four and six p.m. were the most common (eight or more crashes). o For pedestrian crashes, two a.m. and during the afternoon between four and six p.m. were the most common (eight or more crashes). Additional studies will be needed in the future to help determine factors contributing to these crashes. This will help the City improve the physical conditions of facilities and the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Public input was collected through a variety of methods during the planning process. Focus groups, an on line survey, three community meetings, and comrnenls by email helped iderflify opportunities and concerns of citizens, ihese comments and ideas were analyzed and used to create the recommendations in this Plan. 0 Chapter 3: Needs Assessment Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 2010 - 2020 Adopted January 2010 Focus Groups Five focus group meetings were conducted. Two meetings were offered for homeowners' association representatives, one for developers, one for students, and one for special interest groups. Approximately 22 people attended and input was received through the use of the nominal group technique. This allowed for the generation of ideas and comments that were then grouped by theme or category and prioritized. Appendix H provides a list of priorities by group that resulted from these meetings. Community Meetings Three community meetings were conducted where citizens had the opportunity to provide input and feedback on the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system. Project updates were provided, recommendations presented, and relevant mapping exercises performed by attendees. The first community meeting was held in February of 2009 and included about 40 people who were introduced to the planning process and were asked to provide comments, ideas, and issues through comment cards, group discussion, and mapping exercises. During break-out sessions, facilitators guided the participants through goal prioritization and mapping exercises which included the opportunity to identify favorite and least favorite open space areas and bicycle routes, as well as top destinations. Following the break-out sessions, each group provided a brief summary of their groups' discussion to the larger audience. The second community meeting was held in May of 2009 and was attended by about 30 citizens who provided input on the system development component of the Plan. This included the proposed location of additional bike lanes, bike routes, sidewalks, and multi -use paths. Comments, ideas, and issues were also collected at this meeting through comment cards, group discussion, and mapping exercises. Chapter 3: Needs Assessment The third and final community meeting was held in November of 2009 and was attended by about 50 citizens who provided input on system management and implementation. This included proposed priorities for each facility type. Comments cards, group discussion, and a mapping exercise were also a part of this meeting. On-line Survey An on-line survey, administered through SurveyMonkey.com, was available from March until May 2009. Outreach was achieved through the project website, radio, television, newspaper, Facebook, and email with over 260 responses. The survey contained 18 questions, including some on needed improvements for bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway facilities and some on what discourages bicycle and pedestrian activity. Appendix I and J provide the survey and results. MAJOR THEMES A number of themes emerged throughout this input process and were considered and analyzed in the development of the goals, strategies, and actions items presented in this Plan. They are representative of the desires of the residents of College Station. Some of these themes are listed below. Land Use and Streets There is a need for mixed -use developments that provide places within walking and bicycling distance and protect open space and natural features. Numerous corridors are currently limited where roads are designed exclusively for automobiles and carry lots of traffic. There is also a need to provide parking lots that are pedestrian friendly; greenway trails that follow streams; and trees that provide shade and create buffers between the sidewalk and the street. More Facilities Additional bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway facilities such as bike lanes, sidewalks (on both sides of streets), and multi -use paths should be added to the system. Increasing right-of-way widths, road diets (a technique used to reduce the number of lanes on a roadway for multi - modal travel) in the center of the City, bicycle boxes, signage, and grade separations should all be considered. Facilities should accommodate all types of users such as walkers, joggers, commuters, recreation cyclists, etc. Connectivity Some facilities are currently disjointed or do not connect to anything. There is a need and desire to connect key destinations, especially Texas A&M University, neighborhoods, schools, parks, commercial dovelopments, and the City of Bryan. East to wesl connections are also needed to cross Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 61. 0 Chapter 3: Needs Assessment i Safety Intersections were a major concern along a number of right-of-way corridors. Proper use of facilities and trash cans in bike lanes were also concerns. Multi -use paths are needed to allow students to reach schools without the need to cross intersections. Additional safety related issues are referenced in the education and management sections below. Education There is a need to educate users on where and how to bicycle and walk, legally and safely. Some bicyclists go the wrong way in bike lanes and ignore stop signs which can be dangerous for motorists and bicyclists. Motorists need to be educated on sharing the road to prevent aggressive behavior and parking in bike lanes. Potential users also need to be informed of the benefits (creating alternate modes of transportation, encouraging healthy living, and protecting the environment) of the system. Greater awareness and advocacy of greenways and greenway trails should also be established. Management Existing facilities need routine maintenance to prevent hazards. Bike routes and bike lanes need to be swept to clear debris such as broken glass, trash, and gravel. Other hazards include gutters filled with debris, pot holes, and fading bike lane striping. Some sidewalks are also deteriorating 1 and are in need of repair. Concerns in regards to greenways included the lack of vegetation (e.g., Bee Creek), sediment in creeks (e.g., Wolf Pen Creek), and the existing negative impacts of urbanization to wildlife and aquatic species. Right -of -Way A significant amount of response and discussion revolved around the following roads as were identified as either barriers and/or in need of improvements: o Barron Road, o Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6], o Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818], o Harvey Road [SH 30], o Holleman Drive, o Rock Prairie Road, o Southwest Parkway, o Texas Avenue [BUS 61, o University Drive [FM 601, o Wellborn Road [FM 21541, o Welsh Avenue, and o William D. Fitch Parkway [SH 40]. Chapter 3: Needs Assessment 0 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Pl;fiTY ov Cou.isca Srnrlo\ Input from Other Planning Efforts Other sources of information were used to form recommendations in this Plan, including the College Station Comprehensive Plan and the Parks and Recreation Department's City-wide Needs Assessment. The recent update to the City's Comprehensive Plan (2009-2030) was used as the foundation for the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan. It included a series of focus group meetings, a community meeting (Citizens Congress) and a City-wide survey that helped shape recommendations in this Plan. Chapter 5 - Parks, Greenways and the Arts and Chapter 6 - Transportation provide planning considerations, goals, and strategies that relate to the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system. In 2005, the City of College Station, in conjunction with the Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M University, conducted a City-wide Needs Assessment. It included a series of focus groups, a community meeting, and a City-wide survey. Relevant findings included the need or desire for "improving the frail network by adding additional trail infrastructure and 'connecting existing trails to each other, schools, residential neighborhoods, and businesses, us well as the need to concentrate on "greening the City" by increasing tree plantings, vegetation and color throughout the City.' Chapter 3: Needs Assessment Bicycle Ti by Censu .21 x Pei 16 1 Nu Lov - Hig CO I J Co' Brz �A Sources: City of College Station, Brazos County Appraisal District, and 2000 U. S. Census. AA AD '2 1 Chapter 3: Needs Assessment qR Sources: City of College Station and Brazos County Appraisal District. MAP 3.2 Pedestrian Crash Data rocWp��R�RD / Chapter 3: Needs Assessment / Sources: City of College Station and Brazos County Appraisal District. Chapter 3: Needs Assessment �� Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master PlanCHAPTER 4: GOALS AND STRATEGIES The goals and strategies outlined in this chapter provide a framework for the development of the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan and the system. They were formulated from the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan and the needs assessment described in Chapter 3. The citizen engagement process, which included community meetings, focus group meetings, and an on-line survey, played a significant role in the creation of the goals and strategies presented in this chapter. As a component of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan, adopted in May of 2009, this Plan is consistent with its vision, goals, and strategies. Figure 4.1 provides the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement, which is a reflection of the community's desires for the future. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies goals and strategies in the Transportation chapter and the Parks, Greenways, and the Arts chapter. Those goals include the need to "improve mobility through a safe, efficient and well connected multi -modal transportation system designed to be sensitive to the surrounding land uses," as well as attaining and maintaining "..greenways for leisure and recreation... to achieve a high quality of life." Other important themes and goals found in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the City Council's Strategic Plan, include the following: o Green College Station Initiative; • Preservation of the natural environment - riparian areas, floodplains, and greenways protection; • Public land acquisition - natural features and open space preservation; • Interconnected multi -modal transportation system - bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and greenway connections; • Dense mixed -use development in appropriate areas; • Natural resource stewardship - conservation, preservation, and restoration; and • Reduction in impacts of urban runoff. o Context Sensitive Solutions - providing flexibility in the application of the design of projects based on different standards and different transportation modes; o City-wide safety and security; o Destination place to live and work; o Diverse growing economy; and o Effective communications. Chapter 4: Goals and Strategies 0 (*-1'" ( . Cuwx:eSrern 7 7 0 1 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan City of College Station Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement College Station, the proud home of Texas A&M University and the heart of the Researc Valley, will remain a vibrant, forward -thinking, knowledge -based community which promotes the highest quality of life for its citizens by ... o Ensuring safe, tranquil, clean, and healthy neighborhoods with enduring character; o Increasing and maintaining the mobility of College Station citizens through a well planned and constructed inter -modal transportation system; ' o Expecting sensitive development and management of the built and natural environment; o Supporting well planned, quality, and sustainable growth; o Valuing and protecting our cultural and historical community resources, o Developing and maintaining quality cost-effective community facilities, infrastructure, and services which ensure our City is cohesive and well connected; and o Pro -actively creating and maintaining economic and educational opportunities for all citizens. College Station will continue to be among the friendliest and most responsive of communities and a demonstrated partner in maintaining and enhancing all that is good and celebrated in the Brazos Valley. It will continue to be a place where Texas and the world come to learn, live, and conduct business! FIGURE 4.1 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VISION STATEMENT GOALS This Plan consists of four primary goals, provided below, that will shape the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system. These goals are not organized by priority since they are of equal importance. Goal #1: Improve Connectivity and Accessibility A comprehensive system of bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway facilities that increases and improves connectivity for accessibility and mobility while accommodating all types of users. A continuous network for transportation and/or recreation that allows users to reach key destinations such as neighborhoods, parks, schools, the workplace, and shopping centers. 0 Chapter 4: Goals and Strategies Goal #2: Increase Safety A bicycle pedestrian, and greenway system and surrounding environment that is safe and secure for bicyclists and pedestrians to enjoy. Goal #3: Increase Bicycling and Walking Outdoors A bicycling and walking culture that motivates more people to utilize the system for its health, transportation, recreation, environmental, economic, and social benefits while reducing dependence on the automobile. Goal #4: Encourage Environmental Stewardship A network of open space and stream corridors including floodplain and riparian areas that is protected and restored to enhance the integrity of the natural environment and provide access for multi -use paths. As well as a reduction in man-made impacts of stream corridors to improve water quality and support wildlife and plan habitat through floodplain and storm water management. STRATEGIES Three strategies will be used to accomplish the goals described above. They include how the system will be developed, managed, and implemented. These strategies are organized into the remaining chapters of this Plan and are designed to accomplish each goal in some form. System Development - Physical Improvements (Chapter 5) o Determine the most effective, convenient, and safe locations for bicycle, pedestrian and greenway facilities that establish a connected and accessible network and close existing gaps. o Identify greenway corridors to be protected and restored for future enjoyment. o Develop a set of design recommendations that address bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway facilities to be used in updating the City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Bryan/College Station Unified Design Manual, etc. (See Appendix M: Design Considerations). System Management (Chapter 6) o Administrative Structure • Determine and establish roles and responsibilities of City departments and staff to successfully manage the system. o Safety Practices • Increase safety as well as identify policies and procedures that will reduce risk and liability. Chapter 4: Goals and Strategies I/ o Land Stewardship • Develop and implement a land acquisition and management plan and program for greenways protection and trail development. • Evaluate greenway corridors to determine the level of resource protection and potential for trail development. o Programs • Develop and implement community outreach programs that enhance public awareness, use of facilities, and safety through education, encouragement, and enforcement of the system. o Maintenance • Ensure the City's facilities and properties are well maintained, function properly, and are safe for all users. Implementation (Chapter 7) o Identify steps to achieve the Plan's goals over the next 10 years. o Determine mechanisms for funding, prioritizing, and implementing the bicycle, pedestrian and greenway system. o Identify inter -agency coordination and public -private partnerships that will support the development of the system. Chapter 4: Goals and Strategies -� Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Cfrr, n' Cuu t:or Srcn„ CHAPTER 5: SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................................................I................. This chapter includes recommendations for the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and the protection of greenways. The future growth of College Station's transportation system, as determined by the Comprehensive Plan, will require the multi -modal design of new streets and the expansion of the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system. Planning for a multi -modal system can help alleviate congestion and reduce dependence on the automobile. Providing a well connected, safe, and accessible system to reach key destinations, such as work, school and home, can encourage bicycling and walking in the community. This chapter is organized by facility type followed by a section on policy recommendations The horizon of this Plan is the next ten years. The study area evaluated includes the City limits of College Station and a five -mile radius around the City, known as the future Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. The projects proposed for implementation in the next ten years, however, are made up of a smaller study area, as described in Chapter 7: Implementation. Identifying facilities in the larger study area will help facilitate the long term success of the system. Recommendations came from the citizen engagement process, which included three community meetings, focus group meetings, and an on-line survey as described in Chapter 3: Needs Assessment. The Technical Task Force and Staff Resource Team further refined the proposed system. Other factors that played a role in the proposed physical location of facilities included a lack of connectivity, traffic volumes, right-of-way availability, and the location of key destinations (i.e., schools, parks, major employers, shopping centers, etc.). Fieldwork and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) were also utilized in developing and analyzing the recommendations. Chapter 5: System Development 0 7k„ Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenwa s Master Plan PLANNING SCOPE The proposed system development recommendations (physical location of facilities) identified in this Plan includes bike lanes, bike routes, sidewalks, multi -use paths, and grade separated crossings. The conditions of these facilities such as the need to restripe a bike lane or replace a sidewalk were not considered as a part of this Plan. They will be evaluated during the implementation of this Plan. Other components that will require more in-depth evaluation and analysis include the following: o Intersections (i.e., bicycle and pedestrian signalization and detection, ADA accessibility, crosswalks, curb ramps, etc.); • The termination of bike lanes before an intersection in some locations can be a hazard to bicyclists. These intersections will need to be identified and evaluated for improvements; o Bicycle Parking (i.e., locations and need); o Signage (i.e., locations and need for bicycle route signs, share the road signs, etc.); o Greenways (i.e., trail heads, health of stream corridors, etc.); and o Sidewalks (i.e., need for a sidewalk on more than one side of a street). The recommendations proposed in this Plan are only at a conceptual level and will require additional planning analysis and evaluation before they reach design and construction. This process is described in more detail in Chapter 7: Implementation. DESIGN The Transportation chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan has adopted the use of Context Sonsitive Solutions to rneel the Clty's transportation needs and support its land use and character objectives. It offers flexibility in designing facilities that are safe and effective for usors while considering community and environmental goals. It also calls for public involvement early on grid continuously throughout the planning and development process, which ensures that projects respond to the community's needs, values, and vision for the future. Context Sensitive Solutions considers tho long-term needs of the community and will be used when implementing the system development recommendations made in this chapter. 10 Chapter 5: System Development The design of facilities will conform to local, state, and national standards and guidelines. National standards have been established by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). AASHTO has documents that provide guidance for bicycle facilities (The Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities) and for pedestrian facilities (The Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities). These documents provide significant flexibility in accomplishing the goals identified in this Plan and the objective to use Context Sensitive Solutions in design. Local standards include the Unified Development Ordinance and the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Manual. Appendix M: Design Considerations provides additional information that will be referenced to update local standards and guidelines. A significant number of facilities are proposed in this Plan. The development of these facilities may be initiated by the City or triggered through private development. The development, costs and priorities of these facilities are discussed further in Chapter 7: Implementation. BICYCLE FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS Facilities for bicyclists can include bike lanes, bike routes, and multi -use paths (greenway trails or side paths.) Bike lanes and bike routes are described below. Multi -use paths are discussed under greenways recommendations. As mentioned previously, a bicyclist has the same rights as a motorist to use a street as determined by state law. There are, however, many bicyclists who are uncomfortable on the street and require special accommodations such as bike lanes or bike routes. A number of proposed street corridors will require additional evaluation and analysis before determining if a proposed facility can be accomplished. The addition of striping or signage may be all that is needed to achieve the proposed recommendations. Road diets, on the other hand, which involve reducing the number of travel lanes or lane widths to provide bike lanes, will need to be studied further. Additional information on road diets is available in Appendix M: Design Considerations. Chapter 5: System Development K Some streets requested through the citizen engagement process to have bicycle facilities have constrained right-of-way and may not be able to accommodate all types of bicyclists. Others will require additional evaluation and analysis to determine the best approach that is safe for motorists and bicyclists. Where possible, parallel routes were identified and proposed to alleviate this need. The evaluation and improvement of intersections along these corridors will also be weighed more heavily when determining intersection improvement priorities. As mentioned, this will be a separate process conducted through the implementation of this Plan. Some of these roads are under the control of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and will require a collaborative effort to become multi -modal. Below is a list of roads with constraints: o Harvey Road [SH 30 - TxDOT] - (Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities) Currently, there are no plans for reconstruction of this street and there may not be enough right-of-way to accommodate all types of bicyclists. This corridor, however, has high student population density and provides access to key destinations, including restaurants and shopping centers that bicyclists and pedestrians desire to reach safely and conveniently. Additional steps will need to be taken to further explore, evaluate, and analyze the possibilities available for this road. Sidewalks on both sides are proposed along this corridor. A bike route exists east of Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] and is proposed to the west to create a connection as described in the bike route portion of this chapter. Alternate bicycle facilities that are proposed (also referenced under its respective section) and will be important to implement for bicyclists to travel through and to this corridor are shown on Map 5.1 and include: • Multi -use Path Connector Facility Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] frontage road (Harvey Road [SH 30) to University Oaks Boulevard) Post Oak Mall (Harvey Road [SH 30] to Holleman Drive) Wolf Pen Creek (University Oaks Boulevard to Wolf Pen Creek Trail) • Bike Routes Harvey Road [SH 30] (Earl Rudder Freeway [SH6] to Scarlett O'Hara Drive) The multi -use path, proposed above, however, would be preferred over this bike route especially to accommodate less experienced bicyclists. Connector Facilities Scarlett O'Hara Drive (University Oaks Boulevard to Harvey Road [SH 30]) Rhett Butler Drive (University Oaks Boulevard to Harvey Road (SH301) • Bike Lanes Parallel Facilities Chapter 5: System Development 2010 - 2020 Adopted January 2010 University Oaks Boulevard (Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 61 frontage road to George Bush Drive [FM 2347] ) Dominik Drive (Munson Avenue to Texas Avenue [BUS 61) Connector Facilities Munson Avenue (Dominik Drive to Harvey Road [SH 30] ) Dartmouth Street (Harvey Road [SH 30]to Southwest Parkway) MAP 5.1 4♦ i� .♦♦ Harvey Road I I OLC�s ♦` ♦� ♦` r ♦ I t oya ''♦ '9,p� ��.� ♦ tc �� yOB Fi bGHa`6t Pv t` ♦♦'�♦♦ t'm�O♦♦ t>`n I' Harvey Connecters ,2 1 1 E3Me Lase Proposed ■ I 1 Me Rolle Proposed �_�.�.. tvLO•Use Path Proposed Road of Interest Bike Lane Fxlstlng .—. Me Lane Funded - - - Me Lane Proposed We Route Existing - - Me Route Proposed Mild -Use Path Bmtirg .—+ Md4Use Path Funded - • MrI6Use Path Proposed ---- Other Existing Paths Existing Glade Separatwn Funded Grade Separation Proposed Grade separation - Key Destinations College Station Oty Limits Duos sifelts 0 450 900 Feet rf �t ♦♦ P a♦♦ � r • 1-yV�� y�v • ♦♦ J �♦ rl, 1� Chapter 5: System Development Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan o University Drive [FM 60 - TxDOT] (Texas Avenue [BUS 6] to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH6]) - (Pedestrian Facilities on a small portion and Bicycle Facilities) Currently, there are no plans for reconstruction of this street and there may not be enough right-of-way to accommodate all types of bicyclists. However, it has been identified by the City's Comprehensive Plan as the Hospitality Corridor and provides access to key destinations, including hotels, restaurants, and shopping centers that bicyclists and pedestrians desire to reach safely and conveniently. The City also plans to develop a convention center along this corridor in the future. Additional steps will need to be taken to further explore, evaluate, and analyze the possibilities available for this street. Sidewalks exist on both sides for the majority of this street, except for a section closest to Texas Avenue [BUS 6] where a sidewalk is proposed. Alternate bicycle facilities that are proposed (also referenced under its respective section) and will be important to implement for bicyclists to travel through and to this corridor are shown on Map 5.2 and include: • Multi -use Path Connector Facilities Lincoln Avenue to University Town Center Eisenhower Street (Lincoln Avenue to Ash Street) Shady Drive (Shady Drive to University Drive [FM 60]) • Bike Routes Connector Facility Eisenhower Street (University Drive [FM 60) to Ash Street) Shady Drive (Francis Drive to Shady Drive Connector multi -use path) • Bike Lanes Parallel Facilities Lincoln Avenue (Eisenhower Street to Grand Oaks Circle) Spring Loop (Tarrow Street to University Drive [FM 60]) Connector Facility • Tarrow Street (Bryan City limits to Lincoln Avenue Chapter 5: System Development / BRYAN University Connecters I i BMe Lane Proposed ■ 1 Bike Route P OPMd 1' ■ ■ I NiAttuse Path Proposed =Road of Interest Sk. Lane Exnsbng �.- Bdce Lane Funded - - - [We Lane Proposed Eke Route Existing - - Bke Route PrOpa od MLIti Use Path Exnsling �—.- Milh-Use Path Funded - - - f.LluUse Path PTopeSed Olhe, Exnsang Paths Existing Grade Separation L ♦ Funded Grade Sepaauon Proposed Grade Separation Key Destinatlons C Ilege5tation ON Lon$ college Station 5 Mlo ETJ Brazos SOON 0 500 1.000 �A feet� 9A 44 4�� ( MAP 5.2 , University Ave 1♦ SPRINi��is�1„J♦♦ ICl ��tifs�� ♦1 F i L 7 1 ♦IygL � ° • Iiy " �♦1�0 C` 9 IIQ ♦♦♦� 4 ♦y E,`pc ♦♦1 ♦ �2 Op4��yti ♦♦♦♦♦♦ O♦♦L moH4t ' / Q ♦ O 5 P � o Rock Prairie Road (Wellborn Road [FM 21541 to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 61) - (Bicycle Facilities) Currently, there are no plans for reconstruction of this street and there may not be enough right-of-way to accommodate all types of bicyclists. Unless one or more of these factors change, this street will not be able to accomnlodale ull types of bicyclists. Chapter 5: System Development o Texas Avenue [BUS 6 - TxDOT] (George Bush Drive [FM 2347] to Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818]) - (Bicycle Facilities) Accommodations on this street were requested by many bicyclists. It was designed with a wide outside lane that could be utilized by bicyclists. Consideration will be given to creating a bicycle route on Texas Avenue [BUS 6] with the use of signage and sharrows. This corridor has a number of key destinations that are hard to reach through another route. Less experienced bicyclists, however, are encouraged to use other bicycle facilities due to the high traffic volume and speed limit. Alternate bicycle facilities that are proposed (also referenced under its respective section) and will be important to implement for bicyclists to travel through and to this corridor are shown on Map 5.3 and include: • Multi -use Paths Parallel Facility Eisenhower Street (Lincoln Avenue to Ash Street) Connector Facilities Wolf Pen Creek (Texas Avenue [BUS 6] to George Bush Drive East) Bee Creek (Texas Avenue [BUS 6] to Central Park) • Bike Routes Parallel Facilities Foster Avenue (Lincoln Avenue to George Bush Drive East) Eisenhower Street (University Drive [FM 601 to Ash Street) Connector Facility - Park Place (Anderson Street to Texas Avenue [BUS 6] ) • Bike Lanes Connector Facilities Brentwood Drive (Anderson Street to Dartmouth Street) Brothers Boulevard (Texas Avenue [BUS 6] to Anderson Street) Darlrnouth St (Texas Avenue [BUS 6] to Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818]) Dominik Drive (Munson Avenue to Texas Avenue [BUS 6] ) Francis Drive (Texas Avenue [BUS 61 to Puryear Drive) Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818] (Texas Avenue [BUS 61 to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6]) Holleman Drive (near Texas Avenue [BUS 6] to George Bush Drive [FM 2347]) Lincoln Avenue (Eisenhower Street to Grand Oaks Circle) • Grade Separated Crossing Bee Creek Wolf Pen Creek Chapter 5: System Development �RYAN ORoed of Interest Bke Lena Existing �. Bike Lane Funded - - • Bke Lane Proposed Bke Route Existing - - - Me Rate Proposed MulaUse Path Existing .---.• WjtaUse Path Funded - - • htlt Use Path Proposed Other Existing Paths OExisting Grade Separation Funded Grace Separation jProposed Grade Separation - Key Destinations College Station City Lmits Cdlege Station 5 We ETJ Brazos Shoals A 0 1.050 2,100 Feet •�P t I r t r MAP 5.3 Texas Ave I o Wellborn Road [FM 2154 - TxDOT] - (Pedestrian Facilities {some portions} and Bicycle Facilities {some portions)) A section of this street from Southwest Parkway to William D. Fitch Parkway [SH 40] is under construction and will have wide outside lanes and a sidewalk on the east side. This street, however, has a very few destinations along its corridor and has constrained right-of-way from Geoiye Bush Drive [FM 2347] to Southwest Parkway in some locations. For these reasons, bicyclists are encouraged to use alternate routes such as parallel facilities, including Welsh Avenue/Victoria Avenue or Anderson Street/Longmire Drive. These alternate routes will allow bicyclists to reach key destinations in a safer manner. It will not be considered for additional bicycle improvements, though sidewalks are proposed from Southwest Parkway to University Drive [FM 60]. Chapter 5: System Development Bike Lanes A bike lane is a designated bicycle facility on part of the street that is striped, signed, and has pavement markings for the exclusive or preferential use of bicyclists. Bicyclists need a place to travel that is safe and convenient. Although bicyclists have the right to use an entire travel lane, designating a bicycle lane c:rentes awareness for the motorist and reduces stress levels for the bicyclist. A study conducted in 2006 by the Center for Transportation Resenrc:h, University of Texas for the Texas Department of Transportation determined that on -street bicycle facilities (bike lanes) prevent over -correction by drivers, creating a safer environment for bicyclists and motorists. In 1996, over 2000 League of American Bicyclist members were surveyed about the crashes in which they were involved over the course of the previous year. From the information provided, a relative danger index was calculated which showed that streets with bike lanes were the safest places to ride, having a significantly lower crash rate then either major or minor streets without any bicycle facilities. There are currently 33 miles of bike lanes in College Station and four additional miles that are funded as shown on Map 2.10: Existing Bicycle Facilities. Some are listed below: a Anderson Street with a connection through Bee Creek Park (currently under development) and over Bee Creek with a bridge to Longmire Drive; o Arrington Road (Decatur Drive to William D. Fitch Parkway [SH 40] ); o College Main (University Drive [FM 60] to Bryan City limits); o George Bush Drive [FM 2347] (Texas Avenue [BUS 6] to Wellborn Road [FM 2154]); o Dartmouth (Southwest Parkway to Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818] ); o Deacon Drive(Wellborn Road [FM 2154] to Texas Avenue [BUS 6]); o Graham Road (Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] frontage road to Wellborn Road (FM 21541); o Holleman Drive (Carolina Street to Texas Avenue [BUS 6] - 700 fl before); o Marion Pugh Drive(George Bush Drive [FM 23471 to Holleman Drive); o Rio Grande Boulevard (Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818]to Rock Prairie Road); o Victoria Avenue(Barron Road to Rock Prairie Road); O Walton Drive (Tex.ns Avenue [BUS 6] fin Nunn Stroct); o William D. Fitch Parkway [SH 40] (Lakeway Drive to Pebble Creek Pnrkwny); and o Welsh Avenue (Holleman Drive to Rock Prairie Road). Chapter 5: System Development Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 2010 - 2020 Adopted January 2010 Proposed Bike Lanes This plan proposes an additional 130 miles of bike lanes as shown in Map 5.4: Proposed Bicycle Facilities. Some have been carried over from the 2002 Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan. Many create connections between existing facilities and others are proposed on future roads expected with growth and development. A number of corridors are referenced below: o Brentwood Drive (Anderson Street to Dartmouth Street); o Dartmouth Street (Harvey Road [SH 30]to Southwest Parkway); o Decatur Drive (Barron Road to Arrington Road - Anderson Street to Longmire Drive will continue to Arrington Road with the addition of bike lanes on Decatur Drive and Barron Road); o Dominik Drive (Munson Avenue to Texas Avenue [BUS 6] ); o Eagle Avenue (William D. Fitch Parkway [SH 40] to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] Frontage Road); o Foxfire Drive/Stonebrook Drive (Sebesta Road to Rock Prairie Road); o Glade Street (Park Place to Southwest Parkway); o Lincoln Avenue (Eisenhower Street to Grand Oaks Circle); o Nagle Street (Bryan City limits to University Drive [FM 60]); o Navarro Drive (Wellborn Road [FM 2154] to Welsh Avenue); o Newport Lane (Eagle Avenue to Southern Plantation Drive); o Spring Loop (Tarrow Street to University Drive [FM 601); o Southern Plantation Drive (Victoria Avenue to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] Frontage Road); and o Tarrow Street (Bryan City limits to Lincoln Avenue), Bike Routes A bike route is a street that is shared by both bicycles and motor vehicles. It is marked with appropriate signage and may have shared lane markings also called sharrows (see Figure 5.1). The City will consider introducing sharrows with some bike routes as described in Appendix M: Design Considerations through the implementation of this Plan. A bike route can include a street with wide outside lanes or a paved shoulder. It should provide connections to bike lanes and multi -use paths. Preferences for designating bike routes include low speed limits and low traffic volumes. These ideal Chapter 5: System Development ]I L conditions, however, are not always possible where a route is needed to provide a bicyclist with a connected system and may require the addition of some high speed limits and high traffic volume streets. There are currently 59 miles of bike routes, although a number of them are proposed to become bike lanes in this Plan which will change the number of bike routes miles to 32 upon build -out. Some are listed below: o Brothers Boulevard (Longmire Drive to Ponderosa Drive); o Dexter Drive (George Bush Drive [FM 2347]to Southwest Parkway); o Gilchrist Avenue (Texas Avenue [BUS 6] to Glenhaven Drive); o Haines Drive (Dexter Drive to Glade Street); o Langford Street (Haines Drive to Guadalupe Drive); and o Raintree Drive (Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] to Sumter Drive). Proposed Bike Routes This Plan proposes an additional 80 miles of bike routes as shown on Map 5.4: Proposed Bicycle Facilities. Some have been carried over from the 2002 Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan. Many create connections between existing facilities, while others are proposed urn future roads expected with growth and development in rural areas. A number of corridors are referenced below: o Cross Street (Nagle Street to College Main); o Foster Avenue (Lincoln Avenue to George Bush Drive East); o Frost Drive (Foxfire Drive to Bird Pond Road); o Harvey Road [SH 30 - TxDOT] (Scarlett O'Hara Drive to Associate Avenue); • This corridor has a number of key destinations that are hard to reach through another route. Less experienced bicyclists are encouraged to use other bicycle facilities if possible. o Park Place (Anderson Street to Texas Avenue [BUS 6] ); o Southwest Parkway (Wellborn Road [FM 21541 to Welsh Avenue and Anderson Street to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH6] Frontage Road); isChapter 5: System Development 2010 - 2020 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan AdoptedJanuary2010 lWith limited right-of-way and high traffic volumes, the street is constrained and not ideal as a bicycle route. It is, however, a corridor that is needed by bicyclists to reach key destinations. Less experienced bicyclists are encouraged to use other bicycle facilities. The addition of proposed bike lanes on Brentwood Drive (Anderson Street to Dartmouth Street), Colgate Drive (Dartmouth Street to Eastmark Drive), and Dartmouth Street (Harvey Road [SH 30] to Southwest Parkway) will be important. PEDESTRIAN FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks and multi -use paths (greenway trails and side paths). Sidewalks are described below and multi -use paths are discussed under greenways recommendations. A number of corridors will require additional evaluation and analysis before determining if a proposed facility can be accomplished. Constraints may include limited right-of-way, mature trees, or existing utilities, among other things, that would be too costly to relocate. If constrained rights -of -way exist, the use of a road diet may be considered on roadways with lower traffic volumes. Some of these roads are under the control of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and will require a collaborative effort to become multi -modal. Sidewalks A sidewalk is a paved walkway for pedestrians that is typically alongside a street. It is preferred that a landscaped buffer be placed between the sidewalk and street rather than only a curb, although both options currently exist. The buffer creates a separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles that creates a safe place to walk. The landscaping, however, should not obstruct views for safety and security reasons. Some streets or sections of streets only have a sidewalk on one side, which is less than desirable in most cases. Many are local subdivision streets while others are collectors and arterials. Sidewalks should be required on both sides of all new local subdivision streets. As mentioned previously, whether a sidewalk is located on one or both sides of a street was not addressed herein but collectors and arterials will be evaluated during the implementation of this Plan. Chapter 5: System Development There are currently 130 miles of sidewalks in College Station and 7 additional miles that are funded as shown on Map 2.10: Existing Bicycle Facilities. Some are listed below: o Alexandria Avenue (Deacon Drive (Wellborn Road [FM 2154] to Texas Avenue [BUS 61); o Eagle Avenue (William D. Fitch Parkway [SH 401 to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 61); o Emerald Parkway (Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 61 to Bent Oak Street); o Graham Road (Wellborn Road [FM 21541 to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 61 Frontage Road); o Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818] (Texas Avenue [BUS 61 to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6]); o Texas Avenue [BUS 61 (University Drive [FM 60) to Harvey Mitchell Parkway); o Rio Grande Boulevard (Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818] to Rock Prairie Road); o Rock Prairie Road (Wellborn Road [FM 2154] to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6]); o Southwest Parkway (Wellborn Road [FM 21541 to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6]); o University Drive [FM 60] (Agronomy Road to Earl Rudder Freeway (SH 61); o Victoria Avenue (Rock Prairie Road to Barron Road); and o Welsh Avenue (Holleman Drive to Rock Prairie Road). Proposed Sidewalks This plan proposes an additional 113 miles of sidewalks, as shown in Map 5.5: Proposed Pedestrian Facilities. Many create connections between existing facilities and others are proposed on future roads expected with growth and development. They, however, only encompass roads that are a part of the Thoroughfare Plan. Additional sidewalks will be built on local subdivision streets as new development occurs and are not a part of this Plan. A few of the corridors proposed are below: 5-74 o Fairview Avenue (George Bush Drive [FM 2347]to Luther Street); o Foxfire Drive (Sebesta Road to Timber Knoll Drive); o Guadalupe Drive (Nueces Drive to Langford Street); o Harvey Road [SH 301(Texas Avenue [BUS 6] to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] ) Although sections have a sidewalk on one side, this corridor has a number of key destinations and gaps that prevent connectivity. o Langford Street (Southwest Parkway to Guadalupe Drive) o Park Place (Dexter Drive to Texas Avenue [BUS 6]) o Pedernales Drive (Balcones Drive to Val Verde Drive) o Tarrow Street (Bryan City limits to Lincoln Avenue) o Todd Trail (Rio Grande Boulevard to Southwood Drive) Chapter 5: System Development 1 I/ GREENWAY RECOMMENDATIONS Greenways include open space or stream corridors and multi -use paths (greenway trails or side paths). Multi -use paths are described below. As referenced in Chapter 3: Needs Assessment, greenways have numerous benefits and accomplish multiple goals. They help protect the environment, can create an alternate mode of transportation, encourage healthy living, provide opportunities for recreation, and generate economic activity. A greenway may or may not have a multi -use path. Greenways Greenways currently include the stream corridors and other open Stream Corridor Acres space (e.g., utility corridors) within College Station City limits. This Alum Creek 54 includes Alum Creek, Bee Creek, Carters Creek, Lick Creek, Spring Bee Creek 78 Creek, Wolf Pen Creek, and their tributaries. Three different types of Carters Creek 10 greenways exist: urban, suburban, and rural and are described in Lick Creek 174 more detail below. College Station currently has about 500 acres of Spring Creek 164 publicly owned greenway property across the City which has been acquired through voluntary dedication/donation and fee simple Wolf Pen Creek 38 acquisition. Figure 5.2 provides a breakdown of acres by stream FIGURE 5.2: STREAM CORRIDORS BY ACRES corridor. Proposed Greenways Greenways should include all stream corridors and their floodplain as well as delineated riparian areas within the College Station City limits and the five -mile Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. The riparian area should begin along the length of a stream where the watershed diuirls 32 acres or more. The riparian area width will be dependent upon the objective to be achieved. Various objectives can be accomplished with a riparian area including stream bank stabilization; floodplain and storm water management; water quality protection; and wildlife and aquatic habitat protection. The riparian area width will be wider based on the objective. The minimum width should consider the need for stream bank stabilization. An acreage number for greenways is not proposed due to a number of factors that can affect how many acres can be protected. This includes land use changes, development, and costs for Chapter 5: System Development K Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan the property. Performances measures, however, will be established to strive to protect a set amount each year. Greenways are classified into three different types based on function: urban, suburban and rural. Characteristics include connectivity, access, corridor width, trail type, development inside the greenway, and development surrounding the greenway. A description of each is available below. Map 5.6: Greenways by Type provides the greenway type by stream corridor. Urban Greenways Urban greenways are in areas that have the most intense development activities. Their primary function is to provide for flood control, transportation, recreation, economic, and aesthetic purposes. Wildlife protection and service as a utility corridor are secondary functions. Urban greenways will provide connections between urban areas and surrounding areas with very intense development activities. The width of the corridor will be determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's designated special flood hazard areas (1% annual chance flood event or 100-year floodplain) and riparian area. Additional width needed will be dependent upon the health of the stream and need for additional right-of-way for trail development. The trail within the corridor will be designed to handle bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Highly visible access to greenway trails will occur at frequent intervals between the surrounding development and the corridor. It will be a 10 to 12 foot wide trail, having an all- weather and accessible surface. Urban greenways will be used quite intensively simply because of where they are located and the surrounding land uses. Improvements to the channel should occur only as needed using the least disruptive technique possible. Bridge structures should provide separation of grade to allow for safe and convenient passage of users. Development surrounding urban greenways will typically occur at the highest intensity, will be in close proximity to the edge of the corridor, and should be sensitive to the stream. This development will primarily include high -density apartments, duplexes, and townhomes, as well as general commercial, offices, businesses, and vertical mixed -use. An example of an urban greenway in College Station is Wolf Pen Creek. Figure 5.2 provides a table of this information for easy reference. • Chapter 5: System Development 7dJ 20 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 2010 Primary Function Secondary Function Connection Access Corridor Width Trail Type Development within the Greenway Development outside of the Greenway FIGURE 5.3: URBAN GREENWAYS Urban Greenways Flood Control Transportation Recreation Economics Aesthetics Protect Wildlife Utility Corridor Many connections between intense development areas Highly visible Variety of types FEMA special flood hazard areas and riparian area Additional width dependent upon health of stream and need for additional right-of-way for trail development All-weather and accessible surfaces Multi -use for bicyclists and pedestrians Transportation and recreation Highest intensity of use Channel improvements made only if necessary using the disruptive technique feasible Bridge structures should provide separation of grade to allow for safe and convenient passage of users Highest intensity use and in close proximity to the floodway Sensitive to the stream Primarily multi -family residential and general commercial uses, offices, and vertical mixed -use Chapter 5: System Development Suburban Greenways As with urban greenways, the primary functions served by suburban greenways will be to provide for flood control, recreation, and transportation, as well as to serve economic and aesthetic Put -poses. Wildlife protection and service as a utility corridor will be secondary functions. Suburban groonways will provide connections between neighborhoods and surrounding neighborhood commercial uses, offices, parks, and schools. There will be moderate to high levels of use. Access points will be prominent for easy visibility and may include lighting, signage, or picnic areas. The width of a suburban greenway should be the entire floodplain and riparian area, whichever is greater, or if surrounding development is present, that which can reasonably be obtained. The trails will serve a variety of recreational and transportation uses and will be relatively wide with an all- weather and accessible surface. Channel improvements should only be made if necessary, using the least disruptive techniques feasible. Bridge structures should provide grade separation for safe passage of users. Surrounding development will consist of high -density single-family residential uses, some townhomes and duplexes, as well as neighborhood commercial uses and offices. Examples of what could someday be suburban greenways in College Station are portions of Bee Creek and Wolf Pen Creek, west of Texas Avenue [BUS 6], and Lick Creek and Spring Creek from their beginnings to their confluence wilh Alum Creek. Suburban Greenways Primary Function Flood Control Transportation Recreation Economics Aesthetics Secondary Function Protect Wildlife Utility Corridor Connection Between user and destination Many connections between neighborhoods and surrounding neighborhood commercial uses, offices, parks, and schools. Access Prominent access points for easy visibility (may include lighting, signage, picnic areas, etc.) Chapter 5: System Development Corridor Width Entire floodplain and riparian area (or if surrounding development is present what can reasonably be obtained) Trail Type All-weather and accessible surface; multi -use for bicyclists and pedestrians; transportation and recreation Development within the Channel improvements made only if necessary using the least Greenway disruptive techniques feasible Bridge structures should provide separation of grade to allow for safe and convenient passage of users Development outside of the High -density single family Greenway Low- to medium -density multi -family Neighborhood commercial and office uses FIGURE 5.4 SUBURBAN GREENWAYS Rural Greenways The primary functions of rural greenways are to control flooding, protect wildlife, and increase aesthetic value. Recreation, transportation, economics, and service as a utility corridor will serve as secondary functions. This type of greenway would exist in a mostly "natural' state with connections made for wildlife movement and some trails developed for public use. Riparian areas would see very little, if any, modification. Greenway trails would be more primitive, designed for lower levels of use and may connect larger nature oriented parks or preserves. User amenities would be less common and found only at destination points. The corridor width would contain the entire floodplain and possibly rr iore in soma areas to include key natural or cultural areas, as well us riparian areas. There would be limited channel improvements allowed and bridge structures would be grade separated to allow safe passage of pedestrians and bicyclists. The surrounding land uses would be primarily rural and estate with ranches, farmsteads, and large -lot residential developments or low -density single-family residential. As it currently exists, much of the Carters Creek floodplain would be an example of this type of greenway. Chapter 5: System Development Rural Greenways Primary Function Protect Wildlife Flood Control Aesthetics Secondary Function Transportation Recreation Economics Utility Corridor Connection Limited connections to man-made features Strongest connections to natural features Developed with wildlife movement in mind Access Minimal access to allow for a low level of human use Corridor Width Entire floodplain and riparian area (possibly wider in some areas to include key natural and cultural areas) Trail Type Paved or Unpaved Dpvalnnm,Qnt wifhin the Limited trails developed either for connections or for access to Greenway and from destination points Some park -like amenities located at destination points (parking, picnic areas, interpretive facilities, restrooms, etc.) Development outside of the Rural and Estate Greenway Ranches, farmsteads, large -lot residential Low -density single-family residential FIGURE 5.5: RURAL GREENWAYS Multi -use Paths Multi -use paths consist of greenway trails and side paths. They are closed to motorized traffic and are designed for two-way travel by bicyclists and pedestrians. As described above, a multi -use path should be an all- weather surface and accessible within urban and suburban greenways. The minimum width is between 10 to 12 feet depending on anticipated use. Multi- use paths should also connect to regional paths wherever possible. Chapter 5: System Development Greenway trails are paths separated from the street, wherever possible, buffered by open space or stream corridors, as well as utility right-of-way or abandoned railroad right-of-way. A side path follows a road corridor. Side paths are only appropriate for bicyclists if there are a limited number of driveways and intersections. The multi -use paths proposed along streets were considered with this in mind. There are currently about eight miles of multi -use paths in the City of College Station and six additional miles that are funded. These include multi -use paths at the following locations: o Bee Creek Park; o Stephen C. Beachy Central Park; o Lemontree Park; o Lick Creek (from Creek View Elementary to Lick Creek Park) - Funded; o Wolf Pen Creek (from George Bush Drive [FM 2347]to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6]); and o Sidepaths. + Around Texas A&M Central Campus • Along Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 28181 - Under development Proposed Multi -use Paths This Plan proposes an additional 43 miles of multi -use paths, as shown on Map 5.4: Proposed Pedestrian Facilities. Some have been carried over from the 2002 Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan. Others create connections between existing facilities and many are proposed along stream corridors. A number of proposed multi -use paths will require additional evaluation and analysis before determining the specific alignment. A few of the corridors proposed include the following: o Alum Creek (Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] to Gulf States Utility Easement); o Bee Creek (Texas Avenue [BUS 6] to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH6] ); o Carters Creek (Bryan City limits to Lick Creek Park); o Gulf States Utility Easement (Bryan City limits to southern end of College Station City limits); o Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] (Wolf Pen Creek multi -use path to Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818]); o Spring Creek (Barron Road to Pebble Creek Parkway); and o William D. Fitch Parkway [SH 40] (Graham Road to Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6]). j GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 5: System Development A grade separated crossing is a structure over or under a barrier such as a street, railroad, or stream. The grade separation can consist of either an overpass (bridge) or underpass (mainly a culvert) that separates bicyclists and pedestrians from the barrier. It provides a safe, continuous crossing with fewer conflicts. Grade separated crossings can be costly to implement and should be planned well in advance. All current grade separated crossings exist in conjunction with either a street separated crossing along Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] or Wellborn Road [FM 2154] and are TOOT facilities. Some existing grade separated crossings are shown as proposed since they do not accommodate pedestrians and may be less than desirable for bicyclists. A list of those that currently accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians in some fashion include the following: o Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] and Barron Road - sidewalks on both sides and bike lanes on Barron Road (Currently under development); o Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] and Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818]/Emerald Parkway - sidewalks on both sides of Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818]; o Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] and Harvey Road [SH 30] - sidewalks on both sides of Harvey Road [SH 30]; o Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] and Southwest Parkway - sidewalk on one side of Southwest Parkway; o Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] and University Drive [FM 60] - sidewalks on both sides of University Drive [FM 60]; o Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] and William D. Fitch Parkway [SH 401 - sidewalk on one side of William D. Fitch Parkway; o Wellborn Road [FM 2154] and Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818] - sidewalk on one side of Wellborn Road (Currently under development); and o Wellborn Road [FM 2154] and University Drive [FM 60] - sidewalks on both sides of University Drive [FM 60]. Proposed Grade Separated Crossings This plan proposes an additional 1 1 grade separated crossings, as shown on Map 5.3 and 5.4. Most were carried over from the Thoroughfare Plan and will be developed in conjunction with improvements to the street with the exception of three stream crossings. As with other proposed facilities, they will require additional evaluation and analysis. The absence of sidewalks on existing grade separated crossings triggered their addition to this list. This, however, provides the opportunity to explore other bicycle facility accommodations for bicyclists who may be uncomfortable on the street and may need a designated facility. A few of the corridors proposed include the following: o Bee Creek at Texas Avenue [BUS 6]; Chapter 5: System Development o Carters Creek at University Drive [FM 60]; o Earl Rudder Freeway [SH 6] and Rock Prairie Road; o Wolf Pen Creek at George Bush Drive [FM 2347]. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS The following proposed policies are intended to ensure the effective accommodation and improved mobility of bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as the protection of greenways. They provide a framework through which the City of College Station can achieve the continued expansion of the system in the short and long term. o All facilities should be designed in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and other federal, state, and local applicable guidelines. o Context Sensitive Solutions should be employed as a part of the implementation of the proposed system. o All new and reconstructed collectors, arterials, and grade separated crossings should be planned and designed to ensure safe bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. Bicycle facilities on freeways and local subdivision streets may be considered based on context. Sidewalks should be required on both sides of all new local subdivision streets. o A bicycle and pedestrian circulation plan should be required for new development and redevelopment to provide appropriate bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. o On -street and off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities should connect to one another. o During street construction, requirements that ensure access and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians should be established to address disruptions and require detours with alternative routes. o Adequate funding for operations and maintenance should be identified and appropriated during iniliul funding for land acquisition and facility development. o Administrative and jurisdictional responsibilities, as well as maintenance schedules and standards, should be identified before land acquisition and during design of a facility. o Crime Prevention through Environmental Design guidelines should be utilized for greenways, which recommend strategies for the built environment, including natural surveillance, territorial reinforcement, and natural access control.17 This should be balanced with other development regulations. 17 Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, <http://www.cpted.net/> Chapter 5: System Development L-24 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 7 o The use of cul-de-sacs should be minimized by using a modified grid street system. Access ways should be provided for walking and bicycling where cul-de-sacs or dead end streets exist. o Mixed -use development should be encouraged to create density that fosters a pedestrian and bicycle friendly environment. o The greenway system should be expanded through the protection of floodplains, riparian areas, and other open spaces to connect neighborhoods, parks, schools, parks, transit and shopping centers. o Best management practices should be utilized in the protection of floodplains, riparian areas, and other open space vegetation (e.g., trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation) as well as the enhancement or restoration of impacted areas. o The City of College Station should work with transit operators to integrate bicycling into the local transit system, including bicycle racks on buses, bicycle lockers, and bicycle parking at bus stops. o The proposed system should reflect and be reflected in related planning documents by planning organizations at the local and state level to connect facilities into a regional system. Chapter 5: System Development Bike Lane Existing •--o— Bike Lane Funded 1 — — Bike Lane Proposed Bike Route Existing Bike Route Proposed J Multi -use Path Existing �--�— Multi -use Path Funded �— Multi-use Path Proposed Grade Separation Existing \ Grade Separation Funded 7r —♦) Grade Separation Proposed i1 Other Existing Paths 1 Brazos Streets ♦ . j CSISD Schools - College Station Greenway - College Station Parks - CSISD Property Easterwood Airport Texas A&M University College Station City Limits College Station 5 Mile ETJ Brazos County 0 0.5 1 Mile Sources: City of College Station and Brazos County Appraisal District. ♦ I i ` %,/ 1 ♦ I MAP 5.4 Proposed Bicycle Facilities Chapter 5: System Development 5 Sources: City of College Station and Brazos County Appraisal District. Chapter 5: System Development Wp1.F PEN `R� r t _` K CREEK )-. n 70 dtm M �—� Rural Greenway Suburban Greenway Urban Greenway Rivers & Streams (rf3j i -�, s Surface Water College Station City Limit College Station 5 Mile ETJ Brazos County C N 0 1 2 Miles Sources: City of College Station, Brazos County Appraisal District, and Federal Emergency Management Agency. MAP 5.6 Greenway Types Ib —w 4 ti aREEK SOU f H1 1U- W : - W CO Ir d m 1 `; rn t Chapter 5: System Development CHAPTER 6: SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................................................................... A comprehensive bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system should go beyond adding physical improvements as recommended in Chapter 5: System Development. Adding bike lanes to a street, or trails to a greenway are inarguably key components, but a successful system is not complete without considering how those improvements will be managed and utilized. To be a successful system, management should increase awareness and use, improve safety, and foster personal ownership of the system. This chapter will provide recommendations on how to manage the system in order to achieve the goals and strategies outlined in Chapter 4. The strategies related to this chapter are referenced hPlnw in Fiaure 6.1. They encompass a number of management elements including operations, land stewardship, programs, maintenance, and safety. This chapter is divided into five sections discussing each element followed by a section on policy recommendations. This chapter builds upon the existing management of the system to create a bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system that facilitates community, mobility, and increases utilization. Recommendations were developed based on public input (an on-line survey, focus groups, and community meetings), interagency collaboration, and research of successful systems from across the country. Operations -Determine and establish roles and responsibilities of City departments and staff to successfully manage the system. *Develop and implement a land acquisition and management plan Land Stewardship and program for greenway protection and trail construction. Evaluate greenway corridors to determine level of resource protection and potential for trail development. Chapter 6: System Management 0 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenwa s Master Plan • Develop and implement community outreach programs that Programs enhance public awareness, use of facilities, and safety through education, encouragement, and enforcement of the system. •Ensure the City's facilities and property are well maintained, Maintenance functioning properly, and safe for all users. Safety •Increase safety as well as Identify policies and procedures that will reduce risk and liability. FIGURE 6.1: SYSTEM MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS Administrative Structure In order to function operationally, the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system is comprised of various elements as described in this chapter and outlined in Figure 6.2, based on existing and proposed lead and supporting departments. Collaboration and coordination from every department within the City is needed to ensure ownership and commitment to the system's vision, goals, and strategies. The City should also work with external local and state agencies and organizations to enhance the system and reduce any possible duplication of efforts. The Planning and Development Services Department will continue to take the lead on the planning and land acquisition elements and will assume responsibility for safety and programs. This department will also serve as a single point of contact or liaison between departments and other agencies and organizations. The Capital Projects Department will continue project management for the design and construction of capital improvement projects. The Public Works Department and Parks and Recreation Department will continue to lead efforts to maintain the system. Some of the supporting departments are referenced in Figure 6.2, although many others are involved. 4DChapter 6: System Management The bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system has multiple facilities that should be given equal amounts of attention due to their unique nature. They all, however, have unifying goals that tie them together and should not be considered separately as the system grows. Also as the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system grows and the number of facilities increase, the addition and need to expand programming, maintenance responsibilities, and other elements will be necessary. For these reasons, additional staff resources will be needed to help support and implement the system. Lead Department Supporting Supporting Supporting Element Greenways Bike/Ped. Department Department Department Planning P&DS P&DS P&R PW Design and CP CP P&DS P&R PW Construction Land P&DS N/A CP Legal P&R Stewardship Safety P&DS P&DS Police PW HR Programs P&DS P&DS P&DS Fire/Police P&R Maintenance P&R(Trails PW (bike lanes, PW P&R within parks) bike routes and & sidewalks) PW (property that serves as drainage ways and trails C outside parks) FIGURE 6.2: PROPOSED LEAD AND SUPPORTING DEPARTMENTS BY ELEMENT * Capital Projects (CP); Human Resources (HR); Parks and Recreation (P&R); Planning and Development Services (P&DS); and Public Works (PW). Citizen Participation/Administrative Support A Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board should be established to provide general guidance and recommendations to City staff and elected officials on issues related to the development and management of the system. The board would assist in the implementation and updates to this Plan, make recommendations on policies, increase public: uwareness and be a liaison to the community. The number of representatives should be limited to eight to ten members. Different areas of expertise should include transportation planning/engineering; parks and recreation; environmental/ecological sciences; storm drainage and floodplain; landscape architecture; real estate; and special interest: a commuting bicyclist, recreation bicyclist, and walker/runner. They reflect the areas of expertise that comprised the Technical Task Force for this Plan. Chapter 6: System Management Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan (:rn_u-GSILI.GL.SLCPILlI:_ Greenways Operations Policies and procedures will need to be formulated as the greenway system continues to grow. This will include developing policies on the naming of greenways, hours of operation along greenway trails, and rules and regulations for using greenway trails. For example, providing a set of rules or etiquette for greenway trail use and safety would be beneficial for both bicyclists and pedestrians. This could include staying on the right side along a path and passing on the left. Action Items Allocate additional staff for the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system. Establish a Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board. Develop and expand operating procedures for the Greenways Program. LAND STEWARDSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS The City currently owns approximately 500 acres of greenways and continues to acquire property through different means to achieve two primary goals: protection of open space and the addition of trails as well as other secondary goals established in Chapter 4. This growing system will require a management plan that identifies methods for effective stewardship of property for the enjoyment of users now and in the future. The plan may include identifying existing resources and conditions of the corridor, determining methods for protecting its natural resources, defining maintenance based on greenway type (urban, suburban, and rural), and establishing security procedures. With the continued growth and development of College Station, it is important to determine the best methods to protect the diminishing amount of open space that exists. Public access for proposed trails will also be needed, although not every greenway corridor will have a trail. Depending on the desired goals, different types of property ownership and methods to achieve them are available as illustrated in Figure 6.3. If a greenway along a stream corridor is not designated to have a future trail, private ownership with protection through an easement or regulation will be sufficient. If a stream corridor has been designated to have a future trail, an easement (for protection and public access) or full public ownership will be required. Again, public ownership may not be necessary to accomplish the goals identified above. Finally, additional property that is acquired results in future costs for maintenance and management. 4DChapter 6: System Management 1 Private Ownership Goal Accomplished: Protection of Greenway Methods: • Regulation (Comprehensive Land Use, Zoning, Setback) • Conservation Easements FIGURE 6.3: TYPES OF OWNERSHIP Private Ownership/Public Access Goal Accomplished: Protection of Greenway and Public Access Methods: Easement by: • Purchase • Dedication/ Donation • Regulation Public Ownership Goal Accomplished: Protection of Greenway and Public Access Methods: • Purchase • Dedication/Donation • Regulation (Subdivision Regulation i.e., Parkland Dedication) • Condemnation Private Ownership Under private ownership, greenways can be protected through regulation or conservation easements. This protects the stream corridor by allowing channels and their floodplains to 1 perform their natural functions. Below is an explanation of regulation and voluntary conservation easements. Regulation Regulation is the government's ability to control the use and development of land as the City grows. It allows for the encouragement or prohibition of certain types of uses that can have an impact on the protection of open space. Land use, zoning, and subdivision regulations are three methods described below that can influence use and development under private ownership. o Land Use -The City of College Station Comprehensive Plan provides the preferred future land use of property in the City and the Extraterritorial .1wisdiction. The Natural Areas Reservcd land use, as described below, is one method currently used to protect greenways. • Natural Areas Reserved - The Natural Areas Reserved land use designation has been identified on the Future Land Use and Character Map of the Comprehensive Plan and is for areas that represent a constraint to development and should be preserved for their natural function or open space qualities. These areas include floodplains and riparian areas which represent a majority of greenways. i Chapter 6: System Management ' o Zoning - This regulation designates allowed land uses based on districts which separate one set of land uses from another through restrictions and development standards. There are a number of different zoning districts described below that can affect greenways. • Agricultural -Open District (A-O) - As areas are annexed into the City, they are given the Agricultural -Open designation. This district typically includes land that has not been subdivided and is relatively undeveloped. The intensity of development is limited to a minimum of five acre lots per dwelling unit. Due to the restrictive nature, only agricultural, very low -intensity residential or open space uses are allowed. This helps protect any greenway on the property from being developed. These properties are typically projected to convert into more intense urban uses at which time the future land use takes over in protecting the designated Natural Areas Reserved. • Planned Development District - Another type of district, the Planned Development District is intended, among other things, to promote and encourage innovative development that is sensitive to surrounding land uses and to the natural environment. This district creates opportunities for the City to work with the landowner to protect any greenway areas. • Overlay District - In addition to base zoning for an area, an Overlay District provides additional site restrictions. Common restrictions affect setbacks, density standards, vegetation requirements, and impervious surface reduction. This can be an effective method to controlling development along greenway corridors. • Design District - In a Design District, unique design criteria and permitted uses are designated for that specific area of development. Wolf Pen Creek (WPC) -This district is designed to promote development that is appropriate along Wolf Pen Creek which, upon creation, was a predominantly open and undeveloped area challenged by drainage, erosion, and flooding issues. Development proposals are designed to encourage the public and private use of Wolf Pen Creek and the development corridor as an active and passive recreational area while maintaining an appearance consistent with the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan that was adopted in 1998 and as amended over the years. o Subdivision Regulations - Subdivision design provides rules and standards for the subdivision of land. • Cluster Development - A cluster development is a residential subdivision in which the lots are allowed to be smaller (in area and width) than otherwise required for the underlying, base zoning district, but in which the overall density cannot exceed the 4DChapter 6: System Management maximum density limit for the underlying zoning district. Through the cluster development option, a subdivision can contain no more lots than would otherwise be allowed for a conventional subdivision in the same zoning district, but the individual lots within the development could be smaller than required in a conventional subdivision. Smaller lot sizes within a cluster development are required to be offset by a corresponding increase in open space. The common open space must be set aside and designated as an area where no development will occur other than project related recreational amenities or passive open space areas. Recommendations The protection of riparian areas is recommended as a means to retain the functions of the stream corridor as described in Chapter 2: Existing Conditions. This area should remain in a natural state except for the introduction of native vegetation and multi -use paths, among other things. The width of the riparian area may vary depending on the goals to be accomplished, however, at minimum a width that controls or prevents stream bank erosion. A wider width should be considered for floodplain and storm water management, water quality protection, and wildlife and aquatic habitat protection. Conservation Easement r- 1 A conservation easement is a legal agreement that establishes permanent limits on use and (\ J development or imposes certain restrictions such as protection of open space. Some easements when dedicated to a non-profit land trust or public agency can qualify for tax incentives. These are typically individually crafted to meet the needs of the landowner. Public access should be encouraged as a part of the agreement. Private Ownership/Public Access Under private ownership with public access, greenways can be protected through private ownership while also allowing for the development of greenway trails. This is mainly accomplished through the use of easements as described below. Easements An easement is less than full interest in a specified portion or entire parcel of land and can be used to protect the natural, cultural, and historical resources that may be present. The property owner retains all rights to the property except those established in the easement agreement. The easement would be transferable through change in ownership of the land and can be acquired through purchase, dedication/donation, or regulation. Public access easements are described below. Chapter 6: System Management • o Public Access Easement - A public access easement provides the general public with right of access and use. This type of easement, however, does not necessarily achieve the goal of protection as a part of the greenway program. Recommendations A greenway easement should be established. It would combine public access and the protection of land as part of the agreement. This would be a standard easement that would allow the City more open space protection parameters than the current public access easement. The easement would require the landowner to retain any maintenance responsibilities until or if a greenway trail was introduced. The City would need to craft easement language that could be used for all future conveyances with the ability to alter based on varying needs of the property owner. Public Ownership Under public ownership, the City would have the right to control use as well as provide public access and protect greenways. It may also be desirable to also place greenways in conservation easements to set additional restrictions that protect greenways for future generations. Below are different mcthods for obtaining public ownership including fee simple purchase, dedication/donation, and condemnation with additional tools to help with acquisition also mentioned: Fee Simple Purchase Fee simple purchase is the most common method used to achieve ownership by offering the land owner fair market value for their property. This method is always constrained due to the limited funds availablo for land acquisition. Dedication or Donation Through dedication or donation, full title of a parcel is given at little or no cost. Typically the donor is eligible to receive federal tax deductions/incentives. This may eliminate estate taxes. In some instances, a life estate may be a part of the donation where the individual or family members are allowed to remain on the property for the duration of their life. A donor should consult their tax advisor to learn more about implications related to a donation/dedication. Regulation o Subdivision Regulations • Park Land Dedication Land - The floodplains or designated greenways on a property can be proposed on a three for one basis as a part of the dedication of land. Three acres of floodplain or greenway will be equal to ono acre of parkland. 0 Chapter 6: System Management 1 �� i 7Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 2010 - 2020 Adopted January 2010 Recommendations The City should explore the required dedication of greenways (and possibly the construction of trails) during the subdivision of property. The dedication would need to be proportionate to the relationship between the impact of the subdivision on the community services and the percentage of land required for dedication - as defined by Federal and Texas case law. Condemnation Condemnation is the process of taking private property for public use through the power of eminent domain. Fair market value of the property is provided to the landowner. This should be considered as a last resort for the completion of greenway trails. Additional Tools o Reservation of Land - This allows for the reservation of greenways for up to 6 to 12 months in order to reach an agreement and allow the City time to acquire. It provides additional time to keep property free from development to possibly reach an agreement on the protection and transfer of certain property rights. o Right of First Refusal - A right of first refusal is an agreement that gives the holder the right to purchase a piece of property for the some price and conditions the land owner has received from someone else. This may be useful to provide time to acquire funds to j purchase the property or negotiate other ways to protect the greenway area. o Land Trusts - A land trust is a nonprofit organization that works directly with landowners to conserve land. Once the transaction has occurred, the land trust can convey the land to a public agency such as the City. Partnering with land trusts is a valuable method of protecting and acquiring greenways. o Private Land Managers - Private land managers could include other government agencies, utility or railroad companies that have fee simple property or easements. Trails could be built along existing utility corridors, rights -of -way, sewer easements, or rail -road rights -of -way. For example, the Gulf State Utility Easement is a utility corridor that is being proposed for a trail from the Bryan City limits to the College Station City limits near Lick Creek Park. Care must be taken to ensure the corridor is not obstructed for its primary purpose. o Wetland Mitigation Banking - Wetlands can be created, restored, or enhanced to compensate for impacts in other parts of the City or region. (. 1 Chapter 6: System Management I/ IfAL - k„Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan �„ 6-10 Action Itenx, Develop a Management Plan for greenway property. Secure the protection and public access of greenway property through the methods identified. Explore protection of riparian areas, greenway easements, and dedication through the subdivision regulations. PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS A diversity of programs should be offered to help educate and encourage the use and support of the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system as well as enforce laws to make the system safer. They should also promote the benefits of the system and teach users of all ages how to use and share a multi -modal system. Different methods can be used to convey these messages such as campaigns, training, and events with the use of electronic and print media such as television, radio, internet (e.g., College Station website, cable channel (CH 19), Facebook, Twitter, etc.), public service announcements, brochures (e.g., utility bill inserts), booklets, and maps. Programs considered below only represent examples of what can be done to begin efforts in the community. The level of expenditures and resources available will need to be evaluated in relation to effectiveness of the programs offered to determine what a comprehensive and successful program should entail. Chapter 6: System Management Education Programs An effective education and public awareness program should teach walking and bicycling skills, as well as safety, to adults and children. It should provide a basic understanding of existing federal, state, and local laws and an understanding of environmental stewardship. These efforts combined with physical improvements, encouragement, and enforcement can create a lasting effect and improve the community's quality of life. Some important partners in education programs should include the College Station Parks and Recreation, Police, and Fire Departments, businesses, hospitals, health related organizations, parents, College Station Independent School District, and Texas A&M University, among others. Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians should all be targeted differently based on user type and age. Below are recommendations and program examples to help expand the education component for the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system. Recommendations o Promote and help establish educational classes as well as electronic and print media that inform all ages of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians of local and state laws. Including safe behaviors, and skills for bicycling, walking, and proper driving techniques around bicyclists and pedestrians. Examples: • Coordinate with area League Cycling Instructors (LCI) who are certified through the League of American Bicyclists to teach classes in basic skills, commuting, motorist education, and certain classes specifically designed for children. • Coordinate with Texas A&M University to distribute information through on- and off - campus student services to target students riding within and commuting to campus. • Encourage the creation of campus tours given by bicycle to new students and staff. Basic bicycle laws and safety tips could be reviewed before the on -bicycle tour. o Increase motorists' awareness of bicyclists and pedestrians. Example: • Establish a "Share the Road" campaign that educates bicyclists and motorists about their rights and responsibilities in sharing roadway space. "Share the Road" signs should be placed along signed bicycle routes. I) THE ROAD IJ Chapter 6: System Management E Ef/T� ,/ Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 6-12 o Promote the greenway system as an environmental education resource. Examples: • Encourage and coordinate with local schools and Texas A&M University to use greenways as their outdoor classroom to include nature hikes and community gardens as well as to conduct environmental research projects that enhance the system. • Research and develop curriculum and educational materials about greenways and their benefit to water quality, watershed management, wildlife and plant habitat, maintenance costs, etc. Encouragement Programs Building a safe and healthy bicycle and pedestrian environment also requires motivating a community to bicycle and walk as well as become stewards of greenway property. Events, incentives, and campaigns should be initiated to encourage bicycling, walking, and the protection of natural resources in the community. Below are recommendations and program examples to help improve the encouragement component of the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system. Mon Recommendations o Promote the benefits of bicycling, walking, and the greenway system such as the positive social, health, economic, and environmental protection central to enhancing quality of life. Examples: • Develop and provide educational information on the City of College Station's website, in public service announcements, on Channel 19, through the City utility bill inserts and at health fairs, walks, runs, and other events. • Establish partnerships with health organizations to promote bicycling and walking as healthy modes of transportation. • Reestablish commitment to being a bicycle friendly community by reapplying for status through the League of American Bicyclists. Chapter 6: System Management • Provide yearly events along existing trails such as along the Wolf Pen Creek trail system. o Make bicycling and walking more convenient. Examples: • Evaluate the need for more crossing guards at schools to make students feel safe walking and bicycling. • Provide on-line trip planning tools for bicycle and pedestrian trips. • Create and distribute a bicycle map as well as a greenways map of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities to inform current and potential users of travel options to key destinations. o Establish and participate in local related events. Examples: • Create an "Adopt a Greenway" and/or an "Adopt a Stream" program to pick up litter similar to the "Adopt a Street" program. Training would be required for additional tasks, such as vegetation trimming and drainage way cleaning. • Establish a volunteer program that provides local organizations and individuals with the opportunity to help with clean up efforts, habitat restoration, and special event support for the bicycle, pedestrian and greenway system. j Encourage and participate in the following types of events: -a Bicycle rodeos - this would include bicycle safety training for area children; -1 Bike and Walk to School Day (May); -. National Bike Month (May); Bike to Work Week (May); -. National Trails Day (June); and -. Walking School Buses - a way for elementary children to walk to school under adult supervision. • Distribute helmets, pedometers, or other incentives with educational materials. • Conduct walkability and bikeability audits. As part of the City of College Station's Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans will be conducted which will include an existing conditions report with a more in depth analysis of the bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the neighborhood. City staff will engage residents and businesses in the neighborhood to participate and discuss specific improvements. f � Chapter 6: System Management I/ 1 Enforcement Programs Enforcement is critical to ensuring ca safe drlving, bicycling, and walking environment and reducing conflicts and crashes. The rights of bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists should be recognized through puhlic awareness and law enforcement. Evaluating traffic concerns such as speeding, disobeying signs, and signals as well as failure to yield right -of way requires determining how to change behaviors of bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. Promoting and enforcing safe travel through enforcement is vital. Below are recommendations and program examples to improve the enforcement component of the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system. Recommendations o Establish and maintain internal training. Examples: • Train law enforcement officers on bicycle and pedestrian rights and safe behaviors as well as common violations that cause bicycle and pedestrian crashes. • Ensure school crossing guards are trained on basic traffic laws, safety issues and limitations of children, and emergency procedures. o Review local laws to guarantee that they positively allow and enforce bicyclist and pedestrian mobility. Example: • Review and modify any local laws that may restrict multi -modal mobility in collaboration with the City of College Station Police Department and City Attorney. o Enforce regulations and laws that foster a safe bicycling and walking environment, especially by targeting areas with high numbers of reported crashes. Examples: • Establish speed enforcement in various school zones and active routes to school. Chapter 6: System Management • Enforce jaywalking laws. Make sure signals are timed properly to ensure safe crossings at intersections. • Enforce parking laws for illegally parked cars such as those in bike lanes and that block views. • Identify areas and time of day where speeding is most prevalent and utilize radar speed signs that show drivers how fast they are going to slow them down. • Analyze bicycle and pedestrian crash statistics to determine ways to reduce road hazards. Determine if crash reporting procedures could be improved to capture appropriate information to create change. City staff (transportation, engineering, and police) should meet regularly to discuss crashes, fatalities, and complaints involving bicyclists and pedestrians and recommend appropriate improvements. o Ensure proper use and safety of greenways especially as the system continues to grow. Examples: • Establish groups of volunteers who can monitor illegal activities such as the disposal of waste on greenways in their neighborhoods. • Establish groups of volunteers or police officers who patrol trails on bicycles, especially on days of heavy use, who could report suspicious or unlawful activity as well as help trail users. Action Items Establish educational programs to teach bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists the rules of the road and the protection of the greenways system. Develop programs that encourage use of the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system and its benefits. Develop enforcement programs that keep the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system safe. MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS The manner in which the system is maintained plays a significant role in the level of use, safety, and longevity of the system. A well maintained system should minimize road hazards; maximize public funds invested; promote safety and security; and create support and stewardship of the system. For bicyclists, the street edge is extremely hazardous. It can have cracks, uneven pavement and accumulated debris. For pedestrians, sidewalks and paths with overgrown vegetation or cracks can be a hindrance. Greenways can have areas that have had vegetation disturbance and removal or have accumulated trash and debris. Chapter 6: System Management 0 As outlined in Chapter 2: Existing Conditions, different types of maintenance by facility type are performed on a regular or as needed basis. This includes preventive and corrective maintenance of streets as well as rehabilitation of streets, sidewalks, and multi -use paths. Additional steps need to be taken to establish inventories for sidewalks, multi -use paths, bridges, and other amenities of the system that include visual inspections and routine maintenance. Below are a few recommendations to consider as the system grows: o Street sweeping should be increased on roads with bicycle facilities. o Trash and debris removal frequency in greenways and on multi -use paths should be based on use. o Trees and shrubs should be inspected for trimming needs along multi -use paths after major storm events and to maintain proper clearance heights. Currently, the focus of maintenance efforts within greenways has been on drainage issues and flood control. Greenways should be maintained and restored to maximize their ecological functions and health for water quality, wildlife and plant habitat, and visual appearance. This will require a maintenance plan to determine levels and standards of maintenance and to develop appropriate ways to care for the natural environment. This should be accomplished by greenway type (urban, suburban, and rural). An undeveloped greenway property, for example, located in the middle of a residential neighborhood (suburban) may require more maintenance than a property located adjacent to other undeveloped property or land uses (rural). Recommended efforts should include habitat restoration; soil erosion control; management of invasive species; introduction of native vegetation and its management; and water quality management. These additional measures as well as an increase in the number of miles of multi -use paths will require additional staff resources and funding if they are to be accomplished. Training of maintenance crews may be necessary to manage and maintain greenways with these additional efforts. Roles the community can play in helping with maintenance should be explored. A volunteer program as mentioned above such as "Adopt a Greenway" or "Adopt a Stream" may help supplement the use of maintenance crews. Large scale cleanups, light construction projects, as well as monitoring and reporting maintenance problems should be a part of the program. 0 Chapter 6: System Management Action Items Develop a maintenance plan for the system. Establish a volunteer program to support maintenance efforts of the system. -� is SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS Ensuring safety along facilities consists of maintenance, law enforcement, and education on user policies that promote safety and security. Additional ways to ensure safety are to create and implement an emergency response plan, risk management plan, and address security needs along greenway trails especially as they expand around the City. Each of these recommendations is described below. Emergency Response Plan - Citizens rely on police, fire, and emergency medical services (EMS) to respond when an emergency occurs. On any road with a bike lane or sidewalk, quick emergency access is available. On a greenway trail, however, access may not be as direct or easy to navigate due to the absence of streets or addresses. Appropriate measures should be taken in the development and management of these facilities to ensure quick emergency response. An emergency response plan in coordination with appropriate departments may include establishing trail access points and an address/location positioning system such as mile markers, determining design of trails and access roads to allow for emergency vehicles, and identifying where 911 emergency phones should be placed. Risk Management Plan - Creating safeguards to potential risks can increase safety of facilities for users. Although all risks cannot be foreseen or eliminated, a risk management plan can help reduce liability. A risk management plan should establish procedures for documenting regular inspections, conducting safety audits, establishing rules and regulations for the system, and analyzing reported crashes and crimes. Additional pieces may include waivers and agreements for use and management, staff training and development of procedures to assess and rank problems based on potential injury, and compliance with design standards. Overall user safety and security should also be explored including evaluating the patrol of trails with volunteers, creating a citizen watch program, and posting rules and regulations at trailheads. Chapter 6: System Management 0 J 6-18 /a'-' i,,,1,i1, i'i" Develop and implement an Emergency Response Plan. Develop and implement a Risk Management Plan. Evaluate strategies to increase safety and security. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS The following proposed management policies are intended to ensure the effective accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians as well as the protection of greenways. They provide a framework through which the City of College Station can achieve the continued expansion of the system in the short-term and long-term. o Work with inter -departmental and external partners in land acquisition and programming opportunities. o Periodically evaluate and improve the system through surveys, focus groups, user data, and demographic analysis. o Assure that greenway property is properly maintained and environmentally safe methods are used in maintenance. o Maintain all roads, sidewalks, and multi -use paths to meet reasonable safety standards while making immediate repairs to identified hazards. All ages and users of different skill levels should be accommodated. o Inform citizens on development, available programs, volunteer opportunities, user safety and accessibility to the system. o Perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment before the purchase or acceptance of a donation/dedication of greenways. Chapter 6: System Management lam_: Chapter 7: Implementati.on..................................................... ♦................................................................................................................. .. The long term success of the system requires the City's commitment to creating a bikeable and walkable community and the preservation of open space. This can only be accomplished through an understanding of what is required to implement and achieve all of the goals, strategies, and action items outlined in this Plan. This chapter sets the course for how to turn recommendations drawn from Chapter Five: System Development and Chapter Six: System Management into reality to generate change over the next 10 years. It outlines priorities and costs; implementation methods; administration of the system; and evaluation procedures for the system as the Plan progresses. PRIORITIES A proposed 130 miles of bicycle lanes, 80 miles of bike routes, 41 miles of trails and 114 miles of sidewalks were identified in Chapter 5: System Development, in addition to what exists as shown in Figure 7.1: Facility Miles. This section provides recommendations on priorities and phasing as well as the criteria and methodology used in reaching those recommendations. The proposed priorities will be reviewed and may be modified over time as a result of changes in land use, development, and transportation patterns as well as other opportunities or constraints. Facility Miles Proposed Total Near -term Existing, Funded, and Facility Existing Funded Short-term (10 years) and Proposed Long-term Bike Lanes 33 4 44 86 167 Bike Routes 59 0 18 62 118* Paths 8 6 6.4 34.4 55 Sidewalks 130 7 19 95 251 *There are currently 59 miles of bike routes, however, once build -out of proposed bike route facilities occurs many of the current bike routes will become bike lanes reducing the number of 2010 existing bike routes to 32 miles. FIGURE 7.1: FACILITY MILES l � Chapter 7: Implementation Criteria and Methodology Factors considered in prioritizing each facility type were compiled based on the goals established in this Plan; input from the general public; and input from the Technical Task Force and the Staff Resource Team. Some factors included connectivity to key destinations, population density, safety, and public requests. Ali facility types (bike lanes, bike routes, multi -use paths, and sidewalks) were analyzed. Other factors used included connectivity gaps; important east/west and north/south corridors; and the likelihood of a street being built or widened. Appendix K provides additional information on how priorities were established. Factors to determine land acquisition priorities include likelihood of development, zoning, and the presence of a proposed multi -use path; however, the analysis and results were not performed as part of this Plan but will in implementation. Once each proposed facility type was prioritized, they were placed into one of the following categories: Short-term (0-10 years), Near -term (1 1-20 years), and Long-term (21 + years) based on the analysis described in Appendix K. Proposed facilities were further prioritized by likelihood of the facility being built in conjunction with a street project; and finally by the location of the proposed facility (College Station City limits, potential annexation areas, and the five -mile Extraterritorial Jurisdiction). Although all of the proposed facilities are needed, the factors identified above influence the need of one project over the other. Maps 7.1: Priorities for Proposed Bike Lanes, 7.2: Priorities for Proposed Bike Routes, 7.3: Priorities for Proposed Sidewalks, and 7.4: Priorities for Proposed Multi -use Paths provide a depiction of these priorities. COSTS Costs were estimated for design and construction, maintenance; and programming of the bicycle, pedestrian and greenway system. These estimates should only be used as a preliminary guide and further study should be given to arrive at more concrete cost projections. Figure 7.2 provides costs for design and construction of facilities as well as maintenance of facilities. Costs associated with each facility are provided based on short-term and near -term and long-term priorities. Short-term priorities include inflation while near -term and long-term only include 2010 estimates. They do not, for the most part, consider any land acquisition that may be required or unforeseen design and construction issues. Estimated costs for bike lanes and sidewalks are only included if they are not already included with street construction to widen or construct a new street. Maintenance for greenway property is estimated to be $2,500 per mile per year. Chapter 7: Implementation Short-term (10 years) Near -term and Long-term Proposed Design and Proposed *2010 cost Facility Miles Construction Maintenance Miles estimates Bike Lanes 44 $680,000 **$1300 per year per mile 86 N/A ($572,000) Bike 18 $70,000 **$635 per year per mile 62 $190,000 Routes ($114,000) $5,000 per year per Paths 6.4 $14 million mile($320,000) 34.4 $61 million Replacement as needed ($750,000) Replacement 95 $2.8 million Sidewalks 19 $3.9 million of 5 miles per year 2900 *The 2010 cost estimates do not include inflation. **This cost is programmed into regular street maintenance. FIGURE 7.2: COSTS Additional analysis will be needed to guarantee that all factors and issues were considered �- --,1 before allocating funding for facilities, programs, staff, or other resources. Programs, for example, l could include funds for events, a grant program, maps, and educational materials; the total of which would be about $60,000 annually. IMPLEMENTATION METHODS The recommendations described in this Plan for development and management of the system will require various methods to progress from a concept into programs and constructed facilities. This section provides a description of phases a project might go through as a project progresses and funds are appropriated. They include the following phases: 1. Policy, Regulations, and Standards; 2. Plans and Studies; 3. Partnerships; 4. Funding; and 5. Facility Development and Management. Policies, Regulations, and Standards In order for the system to grow and be successful, adopting clear policies, regulations, and standards that support the addition of bicycling and walking infrastructure are vital to supplementing limited funding sources. As development occurs, zoning, land use, and subdivision regulations can have a positive and long lasting impact. Adopting and amending existing policies, subdivision regulations, and engineering standards will be necessary through the Unified Chapter 7: Implementation I/ Development Ordinance (UDO) and the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Manual in order to implement this Plan. Plans and Studies The City of College Station Comprehensive Plan identified the need for neighborhood, district, and corridor plans as a part of its implementation. These small area plans will focus on needs and opportunities of identified areas with the opportunity to also generate more detailed analysis in regards to bicycling, walking, and greenways. Neighborhood plans will aid in the development of actions that will address existing problems and identify enhancement actions within the area of the plan. District and corridor plans are intended for areas that exhibit, or could exhibit, opportunities for a mix of uses with an emphasis on walkability and a unique focus. Corridor planning areas further incorporate opportunities for resource protection or recreational activities. The Recreation, Park, and Open Space Master Plan, also an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, provides guidance on the community's parks and open space that this system will help connect to neighborhoods. The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan will need to take direction on where to put proposed facilities based on where future parks and open space are expected to be devoloped. Furthermore, greenway corridor analysis and evaluation should be prepared in order to plan for i identified trail corridors within the greenway system to generate a deeper level of analysis than the conceptual level of planning that is provided in this Plan. These studies could include a detailed existing conditions inventory and analysis, citizen engagement, possible routes for the trail, environmental factors, and preliminary cost estimates. The existing conditions inventory could include the following: site conditions and constraints; existing natural, cultural, or historical resources; and an inventory of existing wildlife and plants. Additional analysis would help determine the level and need for managing the corridor. If a trail is in the corridor, trail alignment options could be identified as well as preliminary cost estimates. Citizens should be engaged in this process and it should involve surrounding neighborhoods, including property owners of residences, businesses, etc. Partnerships Collaboration will need to occur on a number of levels in order to accomplish what is recommended in this Plan. This includes other government agencies as well as others in the community who are committed to the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system. Below, Figure 7.3 provides a matrix of potential partners and a variety of elements in which they may participate. Chapter 7: Implementation 1 ° '. 01 (C,A i �Lfi�dnv � if `-� lA fi i90 iTVti b Potential Partners Brazos County Bryan/College Station Metropolitan Planning Organization Builders/Developers City of Bryan Employers Home Owner or Neighborhood Associations Special Interest Groups or Organizations Texas A&M University Texas Department of Transportation The District FIGURE 7.3: PARTNERSHIPS >, C O C U) E � "- U _ O U O C O U O O U 111 N a O O N w £ a - a O 7 6 0 `0) w N 0 a) O O a X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Funding The availability of a secure and annual source of funding will play an integral role in the establishment, growth, and maintenance of the system. Implementation will require capital and operational funds for land acquisition, the development of facilities, and management of the system. Maximizing available funds will be essential and will require adopting strong policies and ordinances, leveraging local funds with state and federal sources, aria capitalizing on opportunities to develop facilities, as well as eslablish greenways as part of utility or street improvement and maintenance projects. This section identifies a variety of local, state, and federal sources as well as other types of funding sources. Appendix L: Funding Sources provides additional information on each source including additional sources of funding from private and non-profit sector sources to implement this Plan's recommendations. Local Sources Available funding sources at the local level for funding the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway ` system are comprised of the general fund and the capital projects fund, as described below. Chapter 7: Implementation Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan General Fund ThP most curnrrron source of funding for municipalities is through the General Fund. This fund consists of a collection of property taxes, sales lux, fines, and fees. This fund usually covers the day to day operational needs of the City such as salaries, supplies, etc. This fund would cover the additional staff resources needed and could also cover some of the programs referenced in Chapter 5: System Development creating a dedicated, annual allocation that currently does not exist. Capital Projects Fund Capital project funds typically help maintain, improve, or construct new infrastructure such as streets, parks, trails, other public facilities, and associated land acquisition, This fund typically consists of debt service funds (general obligation bonds) and special revenue funds (Tax Increment Financing Districts, Drainage Utility Fee and Parkland Development) as described below. All of the methods of funding described below are currently utilized by the City of College Station except for the proposed sidewalk fund. o General Obligation Bonds - This is a municipal bond approved by voter referendum that is secured through the taxing and borrowing power of a jurisdiction. It is repaid by levy through a municipal pledge. Bonds can be used for land acquisition and/or construction of facilities. Some communities pass referendums specifically for open space, watershed protection, and trail projects. Bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway projects are typically implemented through this funding source. o Drainage Utility District - The City currently uses the existing revenue from the drainage utility fee for capital construction projects that improve drainage. It is a flat fee system and can be used for acquisition and maintenance of floodways and floodplains in areas that are directly affected by drainage -related problems. Funds are currently used for minor unscheduled drainage projects that arise through the year. o Impact Fees -This is a fee collected on new development to help support the payment of portions of needed public amenities such as waterlines, sewer lines, and streets. The City currently has five impact fee areas (four sewer and one water). Consideration could be • Chapter 7: Implementation given to establishing and allocating impact fees to multi -modal transportation. Impact fees must meet the requirements outlined in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. o Tax Increment Financing Districts - These districts use taxes generated from redevelopment through private investment to finance public improvement projects. A recent example within the City is Wolf Pen Creek. As new districts are considered and created or implemented, emphasis should be placed on protecting greenways and developing trails. o Parkland Development -These funds are generated through land development for neighborhood and community parks in residential areas. Collaboration with the Parks and Recreation Department should include using a portion of these funds to construct greenway trails when they connect or go through a park that is being developed. o Sidewalk Fund -This potential fund would allow for funds that would otherwise go to the construction of a sidewalk in a developing area, where it may not be fully utilized by the public, to go instead into a fund for the maintenance or construction of sidewalks in other areas of the City. Federal and State Sources Funds are often available from federal and state sources through a variety of grant programs to finance projects. Typically a funding match is required. Primary sources available are referenced below but are not all inclusive. Additional information is available in Appendix L: Funding Sources. Federal Funding o Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - Funds are typically distributed through each state. (www.fhwa.dot.aov) The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) has provisions that support a number of programs that are typically distributed through each state. The latest federal transportation funding law replaced the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 St Century (TEA-21) in 2005 which was the successor to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) replaced in 1998. This legislation began in 1992 which allowed millions of dollars to become available for bicycle and pedestrian related facilities and programs. SAFETEA-LU authorized $244.1 billion in Federal motor fuel tax revenue along with other funds over the last six years and expired on September 30, 2009. Reauthorization of funds is currently underway. Some of the programs that have been created through this legislation are described below: Chapter 7: Implementation • Highway Safety Improvement Program - This program provides funding to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries on land adjacent to any highway on the National Highway System. Funds can be used to assist in bicycle and pedestrian safety. State Highway 6, Harvey Mitchell Parkway [FM 2818) and portions of University Drive [FM 60] are on the Federal Highway System. (htto://www.fhwa.dot.00v/r)lannina/nhs/mans/tx east/colleaestation tx.odf) • Safe Routes to Schools - This program is administered and implemented through the Texas Departmeri( or Transportation and is described below. • Surface Transportation Program - Funds from this program can be used for any Federal -aid highway and can include the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as well as non -construction projects such as educational materials. This program also provides funding for Transportation Enhancement Activities administered through the Texas Department of Transportation as described below. • Recreational Trails Program - This program is administered and implemented through the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and is described below. • Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - Funds from this program support public transportation in planning, facility construction, and other operations. This includes providing access for bicycles to transit facilities and installing racks or other equipment for transporting bicycles on transit vehicles. o Department of Interior: National Park Service • Land and Water Conservation Fund - This program is administered and implemented through The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and is described below. • Rivers, Trails and Water Conservation Assistance Program - Direct assistance is available to communities for natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation projects in order to conserve rivers and preserve open space. Funds may be used for greenway trails or watershed planning including developing concept plans or public outreach. �J Chapter 7: Implementation rAmck Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 2010 - 2020 Adopted January 2010 L__- - o Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Environmental Education Grants Program - This grant program provides support for environmental education projects to enhance awareness and understanding of issues affecting environmental quality. o Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) • Community Development Block Grant Program - This program provides funds for neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and improvements to community facilities and services in low and moderate -income areas. In some communities, funds have been used for trail development. o Department of Energy • Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant - This grant was funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Funds can be used to develop and implement projects for energy efficiency and to reduce energy use and fossil fuel emissions. Statewide Funding o Texas Department of Transportation • Safe Routes to Schools Program - This program encourages school age children to bicycle and walk to school by providing funding for the construction of facilities and programs within a two mile radius of primary and elementary schools. Its objectives include safety, a reduction in traffic congestion, and health and wellness. The City would need to work in conjunction with the College Station Independent School District to determine priorities and apply for the grant. • Transportation Enhancement Activities - Funding for 12 different activities are offered through this program, including pedestrian and bicycle facilities; safety and education activities; as well as conversion of abandoned railway corridors to trails; landscaping and scenic beautification; and environmental mitigation to maintain habitat connectivity. It is funded through SAFETEA-LU Surface Transportation Program. o Texas Parks and Wildlife Deparlrrieril • Recreational Trails Program - The dcvclopmcnt of non motorized and motorized recreation trail projects and related facilities for hiking and bicycling are supported through this program. Funds come through the Federal Highway Trust Fund from gas taxes paid on fuel for non -highway recreational vehicles. Monies can be used for the creation or improvement of trails, trailheads, or related facilities and land acquisition. �J Chapter 7: Implementation 0 • Land and Water Conservation Fund - This program provides matching grants for the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation areas and facilities such as trails. This funding is available if applying for an Indoor Grant, Outdoor Grant or Small Community Grant. Other Types of Funding Sources There are a number of other funding sources that can be explored to further the system including creating a local non-profit organization that could solicit donations or corporate sponsorships, recruit volunteers, build partnerships and encourage land dedications. In -kind donations of labor, materials and supplies are other private contributions that should be explored and encouraged. Land Trusts There are a number of land trusts that support the protection of land through conservation for their natural, recreational, and educational value in the Brazos Valley. The Texas Land Trust Council provides a directory of trusts on their website (www.texaslandtrust.ora). The City should develop a relationship with a trust to continue and broaden its efforts in protecting greenways. Action Items: Establish and ensure annual capital and operating funding sources necessary to undertake projects identified for the next 10 years. Seek alternative funding sources through grants and partnerships with local, state, and federal agencies, neighborhood,s and businesses to leverage existing funds. Facility Development and Management Facility development may include stream restoration, establishment of riparian areas, flood mitigation for greenways, as well as design and construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Design and construction could include land acquisition, a corridor/site inventory, and analysis, site planning, citizen engagement (described below), cost estimates, and construction. Land identification and acquisition of greenway corridors will require the identification of ownership interest and the potential need to pursue fee simple purchase or easements along the corridor if the City does not already have access along the preferred route. Design should include detailed construction documents and cost estimates. Responsible departments and associated funding sources for maintenance of a facility should be deerrnined when funds for the development of the facility are allocated. isChapter 7: Implementation rm Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Citizen Engagement An important part of implementation is the need to continue to engage citizens as the system grows and ensure that needs are met. This should include bringing all stakeholders such as property owners, neighborhoods, and the business and development community together to identify existing dynamics and circumstances that will play a role in the success of the project. During the design phase of a project, notification and public comments should be solicited at the conceptual (30% design) stage and may include input on alternative design methods or route alignments. If additional analysis and evaluation are needed along greenway corridors, public input will also be solicited. Engaging the community through programs for education, encouragement and enforcement, as well as to recruit volunteers to help with land stewardship (e.g., Adopt a Greenway) will also be fundamental. ADMINISTRATION Collaborative initiatives by various public and private partners will be required to create a supportive environment for bicycling and walking in College Station. As mentioned in this Plan, a number of components are involved in developing and managing the system and require a network of participants including city, state, and federal agencies; other municipalities; businesses; developers; and citizens. Each of these groups can play a role in creating change and enhancing the system. Below are the roles and responsibilities for City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Staff, and the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board recommended in this Plan. Figure 7.3 provides a matrix of potential partners and the roles they will play in implementing different components of this Plan. The City Council will take the lead in the following areas: o Adopt and amend the Plan by ordinance after receiving recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission; o Support and act as champions for the Plan; o Adopt new or amended ordinances and regulations to implement the Plan; o Approve inter -local agreements that implement the Plan; o Consider and approve the funding commitments that will be required to implement the Plan; o Provide final approval of projects and activities with associated costs during the budget process; o Adopt and amend policies that support and help implement the Plan; and o Provide policy direction to the Planning and Zoning Commission, other appointed City boards and commissions and City staff. Chapter 7: Implementation 0 The Planning and Zoning Commission will take the lead in the following areas: o Recommend changes in development code and the zoning ordinance to the City Council that reflects the Plan's goals, strategies, and action items; o Adopt, amend or modify the Plan for subsequent approval and adoption by the City Council; and o Review applications for consistency with this Plan and the Comprehensive Plan that reflect the Plan's goals and strategies. The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board will take the lead in the following areas: o Periodically obtain public input to keep the Plan up to date using a variety of community outreach, citizen and stakeholder involvement methods; o Guide in the implementation and integration of the Plan's goals, strategies and action items; o Monitor and evaluate the performance, implementation and effectiveness of this plan; o Advise the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council regarding the status of needs of the system annually during the consideration of the Capital Improvement Program and annual operating budget; o Establish overall action priorities and timeframes by which each action item identified in this Plan will be initiated and completed; o Provide guidance on various components of the system relevant to areas of expertise; o Provide advocacy, awareness, and promotion of the Plan; and o Develop partnerships with the network of private, public, and non-profit partners to encourage financial support, development, and maintenance of the system. City staff will take the lead in the following areas: o Manage day-to-day implementation of the Plan, including periodic coordination through an interdepartmental Plan implementation committee (similar to the Staff Resource Team, or SRT, used for the development of this Plan); o Support and carry out capital improvement project efforts and programming; o Manage the drafting of new or amended regulations and ordinances that further the goals of the Plan; o Conduct studies and develop additional plans; o Review development applications for consistency with this Plan and the Comprehensive Plan; o Negotiate the details of inter -local agreements; o Administer collaborative programs and ensure open channels of communication with various private, public, and non-profit implementation partners; and l Chapter 7: Implementation o Maintain an inventory of potential Plan amendments as suggested by City staff and others for consideration during annual and periodic Plan review and updates to the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council. EVALUATION An evaluation of the system's success and effectiveness should be conducted on a periodic basis. Establishing performance measures that reflect the goals established in this Plan is the first step in achieving them. Baseline data and target goals will also need to be established. The performance measures should address the following areas: o System Development - number of facilities/projects completed that have incorporated bicycle and pedestrian accommodations; number of linear miles of facilities; number of facilities that have bicycle parking or are accessible; number of projects that have been reviewed for bicycle and pedestrian circulation; o Safety - number of crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians; o Usage - number of people bicycling and walking; o Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement - number of people being educated including staff and citizens, number of bicyclists or pedestrians being ticketed; o Environment - water quality levels, number of acres preserved; o Maintenance - quality of facilities; and o Cost - amount of funding allocated to the bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway system. Additional resources may be required to generate some of these performance measures including funding, equipment, and additional staff. Utilizing volunteers, local organizations and developing relationships with professors and students at Texas A&M University to develop projects as a part of their classes will be essential. Once this Plan is adopted, annual progress reports will be needed as the Plan is implemented. A comprehensive update to the Plan will occur in five years. Interim amendments to the Plan will occur with changes, updates, or adoption of the following documents: the City's Comprehensive Plan; neighborhood, district, and corridor plans; and regional plans. Other considerations may include changes in circumstances such as population growth, land use, or unforeseen opportunities. i Chapter 7: Implementation Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Action Items Establish performance measures with target goals. �5y� a Develop procedures for collecting baseline data and performance measures. Review and update the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan in five years with consideration of changes from other Plans. Provide progress reports to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council. l IMPLEMENTATION TASKS The tasks/action items identified in this Plan are highlighted in Figure 7.4: Implementation Tasks. It includes the task; implementation schedule; implementation and coordination roles; and funding sources. Tasks provided relate to any action items or recommendations formulated through this planning process. Additional tasks will be needed and included in the City Department Business Plans updated yearly. The implementation schedule includes the next ten years and future build -out of the system. Implementation and coordination roles include the City of College Station departments and partners as identified in Figure 7.3: Potential Partners. Key City departments that will collaborate and help implement this Plan include the following: o Planning and Development Services Department (P&DS); o Public Works Department (PW); o Parks and Recreation Department (P&R); o Capital Projects Department (CP); o City Attorney (CA); o Fire Department; and o Police Department. Funding sources include standard methods to finance the implementation of this Plan by task. It includes the City's General Fund, capital budget, other government agencies, grants, and funding from corporations and businesses. Chapter 7: Implementation Strategy/ Chapter c N E a� rn a c a E 0 N V N �0 c 0 `c v E m o. E iM Section )JIMML Proposed Facilities Other Facilities Operations Land Stewardship for Greenways Programs: Education Programs: Encouragement Programs: Enforcement I Maintenance Safety Priorities Implementation Methods Evaluation 7.4 IMPLEMENTATION TASKS Task Typ< Implementation) Schedule LO N 7 O N N o -6 o C 5 0 o m N N Initiate additional evaluation and analysis Begin planning effort to evaluate condition of facilities Begin planning effort on intersections Begin planning effort on signage Begin planning effort on bicycle parking Begin additional planning efforts for greenways Secure additional staff resources Establish a Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board Develop and expand operating procedures for the Greenways Program Develop a management plan for greenway property Continue land acquisition Establish education classes Develop curriculum and education materials on bicycling, walking, and greenways Establish a "Share the Road" campaign Reapply for Bicycle Friendly status through the League of American Bicyclists Create and distribute a bicycle and pedestrian map Create an "Adopt a Greenway" program Encourage and participate in bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway events Conduct walkability and bikeability audits Establish and maintain internal training of laws and ordinances Analyze bicycle and pedestrian crash statistics on a regular basis Establish groups of volunteers to patrol multi -use paths Develop a maintenance plan for the system Establish a volunteer program to support maintenance efforts Develop and implement an Emergency Response Plan Evaluate strategies to increase safety and security Develop and implement a Risk Management Plan Develop Short-term priority facilities Develop Near Term priority facilities Develop Long Term priority facilities Update or revise ordinances, standards, and guidelines Coordinate and utilize other plans and studies Develop partnerships to facilitate system development and management Establish and ensure annual capital and operating funding sources Seek alternative funding sources through grants and partnerships Establish performance measures with target goals I Develop procedures for collecting baseline data and performance measures Review and update Plan in five years and through changes in other Plans Provide progress reports on an annual basis Implementation and Coordination Roles City of College Station P&DS - PW P&DS - PW P&DS - PW P&DS - PW P&DS P&DS P&DS - PW P&DS P&DS P&DS - PW - P&R P&DS - CP - CA P&DS P&DS P&DS - PW P&DS P&DS P&DS - PW - P&R P&DS - PW - P&R Police - Fire P&DS P&DS - Police P&DS - PW - Police P&DS - PW - P&R P&DS - PW P&DS - PW P&DS - PW - Police - Fire P&DS - PW - Police - Fire P&DS - PW - Police - Fire P&DS - CP - PW - P&R P&DS - CP - PW - P&R P&DS - CP - PW - P&R P&DS P&DS P&DS P&DS - PW P&DS - PW P&DS P&DS - PW P&DS P&DS Assistance External from a Partners Consultant X X X a X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Funding Sources � d c � c � v v E a N c c .Q > a O U O O U U O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X • X • X X Chapter 7: Implementation I Sources: City of College Station and Brazos County Appraisal District. Chapter 7: Implementationlw,� Proposed Bike Routes Priority ■� Short-term A Near -term i Long-term Bike Route Existing '` / /`` e, Bike Lane Existing Bike Lane Funded - - - Bike Lane Proposed r Multi -Use Path Existing �- �- Multi -Use Path Funded \ - - - Multi -Use Path Proposed O Grade Separation Existing Grade Separation Funded j ! Grade Separation Proposed Brazos Streets Easterwood Airport Brazos Streets Key Destinations College Station City Limit College Station 5 Mile ETJ Brazos County 0 0.5 1 A iiiiiiwo Miles J Sni ircae City of C'nll(.na Witinn nnrl Rrn7n, ('ni inty Ar)nrnisnl District r� ♦ MAP 7.2 Priorities for Proposed BIKE ROUTES Chapter 7: Implementation 1 i Chapter 7: Implementation ' Sni irnPe• City of (Alarm Stntinn and Rrrnne C.ni inty Annrnitnl I)ietrint Sources: City of College Station and Brazos County Appraisal District. �1 O ;O Is55IJ j0 i�—i k O AR-Q? Chapter 7: Implementation W) t Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 0-1 „-CuiII f Sr.ar, APPENDICES Appendices 0 APPENDIX A: 1980 COLLEGE STATION BIKE PLAN co N'I MUNS 1`i Ij � w c MARSTELLER ---^O/ �. V ASHBURN �. �a x� �n � ( r - v WILLIAMS /(/ aTARROW - 4 .N.•r.� - 1 /• 2 1 TI?r— PASIF WAL TON n x�i`U--A 'B HItt )A 0 Q 10 Q� AVAUfUR pURYEARmp KWAYIASStEIcARJHUR e cv - 7 HARRINGTON� Oz #`�_ S5 /z 'URYEANELI _ w c� f1�SEN H WEN AVf A Or MILNER -n }i .ram 1 1 !1 r t µF i E tl /. 1 1l li y JANE _ �� w Wca to TEXAS- • L41 V _ ` DowlANo i } ROSEMARY o Zi NE a� O �a \OGt1L 4.r' -s IDERSON jW SANDY p LoncArRfB:cc , NORMAND II4fr atr Y t fN� $ouFhwur Piek�+i r �/ �O ✓b �., a �\� Op4l �& POTOMAC `�4 AORIENNE `a bd made w' VO It��O� J ANDERSON w,..�- zc E(fMOh �O�O� / A�BVar �JENN;iER L, �P s .. z - +u v BEE CREfK .:. `Q`� CfLINDA ALL Phent P.y v > I URORA Q > '+� 1/ARLES TR U FiIM QoQ ¢` _ ~n�` ~�S H1 OODO2 J :tFI tK jq raa tYn u t%0 p(�ii �.�. 3 . ;•..�. - f �y� \� �o 1 "v �} �P j1 1 � 11 X-\ t AURA LAURA j J SP BrIIELC CA 2 .... ••... ,1�'" - I' A,yGFORp - I ay 7 �q� C� J p b ENCf ¢--`�'"`- `L tit �Ep� / is _ 1�. ` C e + )Gw000 11 !^s 2 V aatNE z f •, a. i TAUBER ASETURY / /1 NO / NO �Ck:. OZ rr ft NAGC f �+ nW` � ti Al x Source: City of College Station. r- LEE V ¢O �Cn Y 2 �/. SNErIAflpOAN PERSHING W `O m LAWY R O « ` A •urFuLx �—�- v � � 2 ft cauotu ta(N' t(PZA �� DEXrE'R Oc tHG a Ov r AND 5GU +SMI iH v s HDO Qm O /✓80 B/he P/on - College Si 0.�DEI(1EFt • a C I' a M. IN k�t OfXr DINA r J illlj W _-- VEREF RO LEONA ! C.la-5S - Puths O - {' Z --- WELCH O tfONA �, ! Y ! W iA1RV1EW C Y LOWSFONE� CCAPP( Y w / 2 a ��.``f�4� _j Ctoss J UWQy /Q%e) v, a AID C IR 0 r �� n v, - -� 'c �' �--_ a f rROJr, « E((A_ { W �- i, fQSS Il way /0 tic) �- - a NIGH Np a O�IROUN< f'AC/< ¢ �rgrl0_--1PIrO n -�-w- � A JC MARYEM = ERV a fNrx ! -•+.•• - ed . Routes H --- O w z Bi e6 Pfohibifed `• � Rq��Ro�o fllAn�h? \ � �_ lr' _ 1 _9� � or MI-8 S/g„ with n \ / \ OE Without CLiiCt. 1 i Q2 m 011-1 -8-ke RRooAte�'• ® RS -4 Appendix A: 1980 College Station Bike Plan APPENDIX B: 1994 COLLEGE STATION SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN (^1 q Source: City of College Station. V CITY OF COLLEGE STATION SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN / LEGEND: IX/S7II4G SIDEWALK \ PROPOSED S/DEWAIX —\ PRIORITIZED BY SIDEWALK COMM/ITEE •••••••••••••••• • CONSTRUCTED SIDEWALKS FROM SIDEWALK COMMITTEES UST • PARKS • INS1/TURON4VSCNOOLS Mop prepared by Development Services — Revised Sept 1994 Reprinted 0.-06-00 f9enome sideman—msWn_rv94.dn9 Appendix B: 1994 College Station Sidewalk Master Plan 1 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Crrs ci Cn.i.err: Srcru APPENDIX C: PROGRESS ON PLANS PROGRESS ON 1999 GREENWAYS MASTER PLAN The 1999 Greenways Master Plan began the development of a greenways program for the City of College Station. It recommended land acquisition; regulation; construction, maintenance, and operations; and coordination and promotion strategies. Below are goals and action items presented in the 1999 Plan with current progress status and issues to be addressed. Goal Action Items from 1999 Progress/issues to be Addressed Plan Acquisition 1. The City should accept • The City continues to accept dedications dedications that are through the platting of developments and consistent with the by separate instrument (i.e. warranty greenway characteristics deed). Dedication of 87 acres of specified in this Plan. greenway property has been accepted to date. 2. Encourage voluntary conservation, preservation, and dedication of greenways by landowners. The Brazos Greenways Council and other similar groups, in cooperation with the Cily should meet with local developers to educate and discuss the value and benefits of conservation and preservation to their particular property. Planning Consideration: The City should begin conducting a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment before accepting dedications. This will identify any potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities that would need to be addressed before acceptance. • This is an ongoing task that needs to include additional education and encouragement programs. Planning Consideration: The Brazos Greenways Council no longer exists. This non-profit organization was given a number of responsibilities in the implementation of this flan. An advocacy group will need to be formed to collaborate with the City and continue these efforts. Appendix C: Progress on Plans Acquisition 3. Develop a program for acquisition of greenways corresponding with the 5-year capital improvement program and the prioritization in this Plan. Coordinate this acquisition program with other City projects requiring acquisition, such as parks, streets, and utility projects. Ec- Appendix C: Progress on Plans • Funds are still available from the 1998 Bond for greenway property acquisition. The City has acquired 380 acres of greenway property through fee simple acquisition. • The priorities set in the Plan for acquisition have not been followed due to various circumstances including opportunity and willingness of landowners to sell. • The Parkland Dedication ordinance allows land in floodplains or designated greenways to be considered on a three for one basis. Three acres of floodplain or greenway will be equal to one acre of park. Planning Considerations: Available funds from the 1998 Bond for greenway acquisition will eventually diminish and new sources will need to be determined. Options for more successful alternatives to fee simple acquisition such as greenway easements or including land acquisition funds in the scope of capital improvement projects need fo be explored to stretch existing dollars. A methodology using GIS should be used to help develop a new set of priorities in pursuing property that may be in threat of immediate development. Efforts should also be made to acquire public access for greenway trails in coordination with street and utility projects. :�Bicycle,,Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 2010 - 2020 Adopted January 2010 Acquisition 4. Utilize City funding sources, including bond funds if necessary, to acquire land acquisition services. Preference should be given to funding a staff position for FY99-00 that could be supplemented with outside contracts for acquisition services, if necessary. S. Pursue and acquire external funding sources such as grants for continued greenway acquisition. 6. Develop guideline incentives that encourage developers to voluntarily dedicate lands that promote greenway connections between developments. • The Greenways Program Manager handles acquisition of fee simple and easements with help from the Capital Projects Department and the Legal Department. Planning Consideration: A land acquisition process needs to be identified for different methods of greenway acquisition, including fee simple, dedications, easements, and auctions. • This is an ongoing task. This Plan Update will provide an updated list of available funding sources to pursue. • Has not been completed. Appendix C: Progress on Plans 0 -I/ Regulation 1. Amend the City's subdivision regulations to include greenway definitions and classifications with reference to the Greenways Master Plan. Guidelines should encourage street layout to maximize access, visibility and connections to and within the greenway network. Develop guidelines for greenway preservation through land dedication, conservation easements and/or fee simple acquisition. C-4 2. Monitor the recently revised parkland dedication ordinance as it is used to determine if additional changes are necessary to support the Greenways Master Plan. Appendix C: Progress on Plans 1 • Acceptance language has been created and definitions and classifications of greenways are in the City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance. Additional guidelines are yet to be written. • In December of 2008, the Parkland Dedication Ordinance was amended from accepting two acres of floodplain or greenway for every acre of parkland to three for one (three acres of floodplain for one acre of parkland). Planning Consideration: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board tends to view greenways as a separate recreation amenity and not as part of the park system. It has been observed that the development community would like to dedicate and build greenway trails as a part of their parkland dedication requirement. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Regulation 3. Amend the City's drainage ordinance to reflect the greenways definition and classification in terms of corridor width and channel guidelines (level of alteration, structural/nonstructural). 4. Investigate overlay zones that aid in greenway protection and prepare zoning ordinance amendments if appropriate. 5. Amend the Zoning Ordinance (Ord. 1638) to reference the Greenways Master Plan in Planned Development Districts and elsewhere as appropriate. 6. Service Plans for future annexations should require dedication of greenway resources that are important to the overall greenways system. • Has not been completed. • Has not been completed. • Completed. A proposed Planned Development District that has greenway dedications must be reviewed by the Greenways Program Manager. • Has not been completed. Appendix C: Progress on Plans 0 (*- or-qq% 4 Construction, Maintenance, and Operations 1. Acquire adequate funding for greenway development from various sources. 2. Design and construct trails by following the development and maintenance guidelines outlined in Plan. 3. Develop a program for long term maintenance of publicly held green wa ys. • General Obligation Bond funds continue to be appropriated for the development of greenway trails. • Greenway trails that have been constructed to meet the Plan's guidelines, City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Bryan/College Station Unified Design Manual, the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. • Has not been accomplished. Long term maintenance will be discussed through the update of this Plan. 4. Incorporate Service level adjustments will need to be maintenance costs into submitted as greenway trails are built and budgets of future years. as greenway property is acquired or dedicated. 5. Design greenways in floodplains to handle flood water, while preserving other natural resources. Use the expertise of outside resources as well as City staff. • Appendix C: Progress on Plans • To be explored further through the implementation of this Plan. 1 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Coordination/ I Promotion Allocate additional resources for coordinating the Greenways Master Plan and its implementation. Preference should be given to funding a staff position for FY99-00 that could be supplemented with outside contracts for acquisition services, if necessary. • The Greenways Program Manager position was created and filled. Acquisition is done in-house. 2. Coordinate with other • This is an ongoing effort. Coordination with agencies when the City of Bryan, the Texas Department of greenways cut across Transportation, Texas A&M University, and jurisdictional boundaries. land trusts, etc. is vital to accomplishing and implementing this Plan. 3. Monitor and continue to The Brazos Greenway Council no longer advocate a greenways exists. Other avenues for advocacy will be system in College Station. needed. 4. Engage neighborhood This is an ongoing task. associations to promote greenways in currently developed areas and to assist with upkeep (by adoption) of those areas after designation. Appendix C: Progress on Plans Coordination/ 5 Promotion Encourage interested outside groups to develop and maintain a detailed inventory of the wildlife, vegetation, wetlands, and other important natural features that exist along area creeks so that creek based greenways can be designated and developed to enhance wildlife and plant habitats. 6. Provide for access to unique areas along greenways where people can enjoy and study natural processes. 7. Develop and maintain public information relative to greenways in College Station. Appendix C: Progress on Plans • An inventory has been developed but has not been updated in a number of years. This Plan will need to identify groups that can develop and maintain this inventory effort. Examples of such groups are may include Texas A&M University classes or volunteers through an Adopt-a-Greenway program. • Has not been accomplished. • This is an ongoing task. Information on the Greenways Program is on the City's website, however, additional information should be added to educate and inform. A map of greenway trails needs to be developed and distributed. E: Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan PROGRESS ON THE 2002 BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN The 2002 Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan continued efforts to improve upon the foundation established in the 1980s. It recommended acquisition; regulation; and construction, maintenance, and operation strategies. Below are goals and action items presented in the 2002 Plan with current progress status and issues to be addressed. Goal Acquisition The first step in the development of any bike/pedestrian way is the acquisition of right-of-way. While roadway projects are the driving forces behind the development of bike lanes and bike routes, the development of a shared use path is usually independent of any roadway project and therefore requires the acquisition of right-of-way independently. The actions stated provide a means to acquire the rights -of -way for bikeway and pedestrian projects that are not ancillary to roadway projects. Action Items from 2002 Plan 1. Accept dedications that are consistent with the planned bikeways and pedestrian connections specified in this plan. 2. Coordinate the priorities of this plan with the priorities of the greenways acquisition program where greenways are involved. 3. Develop guideline incentives that encourage developers to voluntarily dedicate lands that promote bikeway and pedestrian connections between developments. Progress/Issues to be Addressed • This is an ongoing task that is implemented with the platting of any development through public access easements and greenway dedications for trails and the addition of bike lanes and sidewalks on streets. • This is an ongoing task that could be formally addressed in the update of the Plan. • Non -voluntary dedications are in place through ordinance. Formal voluntary dedication guidelines are yet to be established. Appendix C: Progress on Plans E Goal Action Items from Progress/Issues to be 2002 Plan Addressed Regulation 1. Amend the City's • In October 2004, the City Subdivision Regulations Council passed and approved Although very little regulation is to provide guidelines Ordinance No. 2764 amending required once bike and on when pedestrian Chapter 12 of the Unified pedestrian ways are access ways should be Development Ordinance, constructed, some regulations required within a more specifically, Article 7, would facilitate the residential area or Section 7.9 Non-residential development of these access between residential Architectural Standards, Sub- ways when they are linked to a areas and pedestrian section I-4 Pedestrian/Bicycle private development. The ways. Circulation & Facilities for action stated provides 50,000 square feet or greater regulation for the development commercial development. of access ways within private Among the requirements were residential developments. pedestrian and bicycle traffic connections between primary buildings, the storing of eight bicycles, pedestrian walkways with a minimum of five feet in width, and ten foot wide sidewalks along the full frontage of the primary buildings. Construction, Maintenance, and Operations Once a bikeway and/or pedestrian project is planned, it only becomes a reality when funds are secured and the project is constructed. In addition, measures must be taken to ensure that the facilities are maintained and operated effectively. These action statements provide for construction and effective maintenance and operations of bikeway and pedestrian facilities. 1. Secure adequate • funding for the development (design and construction) of shared use paths through annual Service Level Adjustments, the Capital Improvement Program, and other possible funding sources. No Service Level Adjustment funds have been appropriated by Council. However, numerous projects (not street projects where multi -modal accommodations were included) were funded through CIP and General Bonds funding. Furthermore, voters approved a 2008 Bond referendum for the improvement of additional multimodal projects. i Appendix C: Progress on Plans Goal Action Items from Progress/Issues to be 2002 Plan Addressed Construction, 2. Survey the supply Maintenance, and and demand of bicycle parking in different A survey was conducted in Operations retail areas of College September of 2004 as part of Station. Identify grant bicycle parking initiative. appropriate methods A grant application was also of supplying bicycle created to be available for racks through public or utilization by the public in private funds. November of 2004. Funds however have been expended and additional sources of funding are 3. Implement Bikes -on- needed. Buses program on a limited number of • TAMU tried racks on their routes for TAMU and buses. The Brazos Valley Transit The District buses. District presently has no bicycle racks on their buses. 4. Develop alternatives for detecting bicyclists at signalized The City has installed intersections and pedestrian signal infrastructure deploy the best throughout the City. The technology at selected bicycle detection technology intersections. is still lagging behind compared to pedestrian signal technology. The City will continue to pursue the bicycle detection technology and deploy when funds become available. 5. Develop scheme for numbering bike routes or providing destination Bike route signage has been information along installed throughout the City in bikeways in College accordance with the on Station and deploy MUTCD regulations. However, along priority routes. the frequency and the number of signs are lacking. New bicycle signage standards are now available by MUTCD. A routing system has yet to be deployed. Appendix C: Progress on Plans Goal Action Items from 2002 Plan Education/Encouragement 1. Develop a bicycle awareness and After bike and pedestrian education campaign. projects are constructed, measures should be taken to encourage the public to use the system and to use it in a way that is safe for other bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as motor vehicle drivers. The action stated provides for this. C-12 Appendix C: Progress on Plans Progress/Issues to be Addressed • A bicycle awareness and education campaign was completed in the fall of 2003. Other campaigns should be scheduled. 1 � APPENDIX D: 2006 BRYAN HIKE AND BIKE ACCESS PLAN ♦ + ' /T `1/i' f e " , eam two a Qom naY Source: City of Bryan City of Bryan HIKE & BIKE ACCESS PLAN 2006 EXISTING BIKEIPED FACILITY • • PRO13RAMMED TRAIL �;'♦'1 BRYAN SCHOOLS ✓ SCFIoo MTHER PROPERTIES EXISTING PARKS i — PAS i 7, n OW th f . Appendix D: 2006 Bryan Hike and Bike Access Plan APPENDIX E: 2006 BRYAN SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN � Q ►�ntiutW3 ryuI [Arlo. 9 MLL+Y{OlN r' i y.11 wcK w — ••utre. awnotnul j t..0.o4 u.14 t5 ii awl wu ro y� �Kwlr�l lv�iRi �i t' Source: City of Bryan. City of Bryan 8 SIDEWALK MASTERPLAN MMt p1IW 2006 �'4+�eid ► iti.lr� ��w r s � I KLIM n 4 diV O !11 • a•wnMv awwsNa. aa Opp 11 r 00 w 1 w�w'fAV {1r,►� CYNItft ON r 3 +a+a 4 d S r+N Iwo, t i aiatwi+uwa� 8 !r .x�� raul.rN rou{iw rr i YFX 110N {O{O an f t AIOfIgO.l+ Q �1 a Ere uvhOW 7 1S tut► It QLAM hum lotn lm.. Q d"".oro4lt s 09e,t 4 nl{n.{{et ourroaxw � !' r, rirt ft / L6 Q I Chet /per +•i►i.AV "toi a a � OL•[I., 4.�. F 3 F it i .�w • "4cetN,rOe Legend R Future Sidewalks Long Distance Connectivty (Priority 5) Parks (Ptiority 4) Schools (Priority 3) fir. Short Distance Connectivity (Priority 2) f Thoroughfares (Priority t) r Usting Sidewalks Street Centerlines C1,13Bryan Chy Umils Do"•• {niM.w ltr Bryan City Limits Parks 1� Sehoots is JI.YR•M: � �� . rr it • .em ... Appendix E: 2006 Bryan Sidewalk Master Plan r- E Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan APPENDIX F: THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Brazos County List of Endangered Species Legend Federal State LE Formally endangered species Status Status E Endangered species Amphibians DL Previously listed species 00 Houston Toad LE E T Threatened species Birds LT Endangered or threatened species American Peregrine Falcon DL T C No file Arctic Peregrine Falcon DL Bald Eagle DL T Interior Least Tern LE E Peregrine Falcon DL T Whooping Crane LE E Wood Stork T Fishes Blue Sucker T Sharpnose Shiner C Smalleye Shiner C Mammals Louisiana Black Bear LT T Red Wolf LE E Reptiles Alligator Snapping Turtle T Texas Horned Lizard T Timber/Canebrake Rattlesnake T Plants Navasota Ladies' -Tresses LE E Appendix F: Threatened and Endangered Species i � I Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan (: nurCuu.rcd.Sncrn 1 , 2000 Census United Texas College Station Journey to Work States Total: 128,279,228 9,157,875 30,983 Bicycled 0.38% 0.24% 1,045 3.37% Walked 2.93% 1.90% 1,711 5.52% Car, truck, or van: 87.88% 92.18% 26,737 86.30% Drove alone 75.70% 77.70% 23,790 76.78% Carpooled 12.19% 14.48% 2,947 9.51 % Public transportation: 4.73% 1.86% 385 1.24% Bus or trolley bus 2.50% 1.71 % 365 1.18% Streetcar or trolley 0.06% 0.02% 20 0.06% car Subway or 1.47% 0.03% 0 0.00% elevated 0111111111111111110 Railroad 0.51 % 0.03% 0 0.00% Ferryboat 0.03% 0.01 % 0 0.00% Taxicab 0.16% 0.07% 0 0.00% I Motorcycle 0.1 1 % 0.13% 1,711 0.58% Other means 0.70% 0.95% 96 0.31% -_._- Worked at home 3.26% 2.75% 830 2.68% 1990 Census United Texas College Station Journey to Work States Total: 127,024,486 8,104,870 22,136 Bicycled 0.41 % 0.24% 1,099 4.96% Walked 3.90% 2.66% 2,100 9.49% Car, truck, or van: Drove alone 73.19% 76.49% 14,472 65.38% Carpooled 13.36% 14.90% 2,492 11.26% Public transportation: Bus or trolley bus 2.99% 2.1 1 % 846 3.82% Streetcar or trolley 0.07% 0.01 % -- 0.00% Subway or elevated 1.53% 0.01 % 6 0.03% Railroad 0.50% 0.00% -- 0.00% Ferryboat 0.03% 0.00% -- 0.00% Taxicab 0.16% 0.08% -- 0.00% Motorcycle 0.21 % 0.23% 391 1.77% Other means 0.70% 0.83% 73 0.33% Worked at home 2.96% 2.44% 657 2.97% Appendix G: U.S. Census Journey to Work Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Crncir Cuu.eer-Scorn w APPENDIX H: FOCUS GROUP SUMMARY Ranked Priorities by Focus Group Meeting Special Interest Group Meeting 1 Rank Category 1 Administrative 1 Safety 1 Bicycle flow 2 Land use/Design 3 Connectivity 3 Big picture 4 Greenway improvement Home Owners Association Group Meeting 1 Rank Category 1 Connectivity 2 Safety 3 Crossing main roads 4 University Drive [FM 60] 5 Future Highway 6 crossing Home Owners Association Group Meeting 2 Rank Category 1 Intersection crossings 2 Promotion/Education 3 Morc sidcwalks 4 Greenway landscaping 5 Enforcement 6 Access to Lick Creek from east neighborhoods 7 Development too close to greenways 8 New development affecting old development Special Interest Group Meeting 2 Rank Category 1 Safety 2 Connectivity 3 Intersection accommodations 4 Environmental 5 Sidewalks 6 Maintenance Developers Group Rank Category 1 Development of facilities 2 Class of facilities 3 Connectivity 4 Signage/Safety 5 Neighborhood concerns Students Group Rank Category 1 Intersections 2 Bike lanes 3 Distinction/Education between bikeways and sidewalks 4 Signage 5 Treatment/Construction 6 Maps 7 Maintenance 8 Safety 8 User convenience 8 Public transit 8 Bicycle racks Appendix H: Focus Group Summary 0 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan The City of College Station Is conducting this survey as a part of an effort to update Its Bicycle Pedestrian and Greenways Master Plan. We hope to gain input from you on bicycle and pedestrian facilities and greenways. The answers you provide will be Incorporated Into the plan that we will work from for the next five years. Thank you for your participation. What are Greenways? Greenways In College Station are linear open space corridors that follow natural features such as creeks and rivers and their floodplains or human -made features such as utility, road or rail corridors. Greenways serve to manage stormwater and floodplains, preserve natural areas and wildlife corridors, and connect the community with greenway trails that create a bicycle and pedestrian friendly network that promotes healthy active living. Appendix I: Survey 0 7,r Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan rc,r. 5r.eru i. Please rate the following benefits of planning for a bicycle, pedestrian and greenways system. Not Important Somewhat Important Very Important N/A Safety 01 Ol 01' 0Environmental protection of 0) 01 01 Connectivity of Oi Oi Oi Increased Ube and 0 �� , 01 awareness of facilities Alternative modes of 01 01 01 01 transportation Growth management 0i 01 Ol O' Open space 01 01 0 01 Minimization of flood 01 Oi 01 Oi damage Water quality protection Oi 01 0' Oi Wildlife and plant habitat 01 01 0i 01 4. Which of the following would improve College Station's bicycle, pedestrian and greenways system the most? 01 More bike lanes 01 More signed bike routes 01 More multi -use or greenway trails Oi More sidewalks 0 Awareness/Education Other (please specify) L __ 3. For transportation purposes, such as getting to work or school, or running errands, please rate the following modes used on a weekly basis: Never Occassionally Frequently N/A Walking 0! 01 01 0 Biking 0,' 01 Oi 0' Riding the bus 01 01 0' 0' Driving an automobile 01 0' 0'! 0' 0 Appendix I: Survey 1. How far would you be willing to bicycle to a destination (Assumption: 1 mile takes about 6-7 minutes)? Less than 2 miles 2-5 miles 5-10 miles 10+ miles Not an option For errands O 0 O' Oi OI For work or school 01 Oi Oj Ol O For health and wellness Oj OI Oi Oj 0 For recreation 0 OI OI Oj OI For social activities Oi O' O! D O! 2. What terms most describe your level of bicycling activity? Oj Regular recreational cyclist O; Bicycle occassionally on -road for fitness, recreation, or short trips Oj Bicycle commuter j Off -road moutain biker O O' Regularly bicycle to various transporation destinations O; Not a bicyclist 3. What are the two biggest factors that discourage bicycling activity? �, Bicycle unfriendly roadways �j Lack of nearby destinations �i Traffic �j Lack of showers at the workplace n; Aggressive motorist behavior �; Lack of time F1i Unsafe intersections �; Lack of interest �i Lack of greenway trails �j Weather �j Lack of bicycle parking Other (please specify) Click on this man to help answer Question 44 and #5. 4. What intersections and/or roadway segments cause problems for cyclists? 1.1 1 2. 1 3. 1 4. 1 �'J Appendix I: Survey 5. Where would you like to see bicycle facilities (bike lanes, bike routes, multi -use paths, etc.)? z. 3.� 4.1 Appendix I: Survey 1. How far would you be willing to walk to a destination (Assumption: 1 mile takes about 20 minutes)? Less than 1/2 a mile 1 mile 2 miles More than 2 miles Not an option For errands O O O O O For work or school O O O O O For health and wellness O O O O O For recreation 0 O O O O For social activities O O O O O 2. What are the two biggest factors that discourage walking? Lack of sidewalks Unsafe crossings Deficient sidewalks Aggressive motorist behavior Lack of greenway trails Lack of interest Pedestrian unfriendly streets and land uses Weather Traffic Other (please specify) Click on this map to help answer Question #3 and #4. 3. What intersections and/or roadway segments cause problems for walkers/runners? 1.1 1 2.1 1 3.1 1 4.1 1 4. Where would you like to see pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, multi -use paths, greenway trails, etc.)? 1.1 1 2.1 1 3.1 4.1 Appendix I: Survey 5. How did you find out about this survey? ONewspaper OTelevision ORadio OInternet OEmail OClub/Organization OMeeting OOther (please specify) 1 • Appendix I: Survey 1. If you have additional comments please add them here: Appendix I: Survey r 1. What is your gender? OMale OFemale 2. What is your age? OUnder 14 O 14-18 O 19-24 O 25-39 O 40-54 OOver 54 3.�What group best describes you? / t 1 Int-.r-.ct--d citizen OCollege student ODevelopment community OGovernmental agency OOther (please specify) 4. Where do you live? 0 College Station 0 Bryan OOutside City limits in Brazos County OOther (please specify) Appendix I: Survey W-- Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan APPENDIX J: SURVEY RESULTS 260 Respondents Age of Respondents 63% Male, 37% Female 0.0% - Under 14 0.4% - 14-18 23.2% - 19-24 38.4% - 25-39 22.3% - 40-54 15.6% - Over 54 1. Please rate the following benefits of planning for a bicycle, pedestrian and greenways system. Wildlife and plant habitat Water quality protection i_ Minimization of flood damage - Open space 136 I Growth management i Alternative modes of transportation Increased use and awareness of.. Connectivity Iplu�ii ' f'^ _�'IW1611VU Environmental protection Safety 22 i 0 50 100 150 200 250 Response Count 100 171 Not Important ❑ Somewhat Important ❑ Very Important 2. Which of the following would improve College Station's bicycle, pedestrian and greenways system the most? Other 12% Awareness/E cation 9% More sidewalks 7% Moi or trails 31% More bike lanes 33% Dre signed _ ike routes 8% Appendix J: Survey Results 0 3. For transportation purposes, such as getting to work or school, or running errands, please rate the following modes used on a weekly basis. Driving an automobile Riding the bus Biking Walking 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Response Count E Never ❑ Occassionally o Frequently 4. How far would you be willing to bicycle to a destination (Assumption: One mile takes about six to seven minutes)? For social activities 70 1 52 60 1 16J � I � For recreation Fl 42 I �41 i ® Less than 2 miles For hcalth and wellness 47- I 1;, � ❑ 2-5 miles For work or school 79 74 1 36 ❑ 5-10 miles For errands 1 8 _ 1 43 11 ❑ 10+ miles I 0 50 100 150 200 250 ❑ Not an option Response Count 5. What terms most describe your level of bicycling activity? 80 70 68 66 U 50 50 40 30 30 COL 20 17 10 5 0 Regular Bicycle Bicycle Off -road Regularly Not a bicyclist recreational occasionally commuter mountain bicycle to cyclist biker transportation destinations Appendix J: Survey Results Y What are the two biggest factors that discourage bicycling activity? 200 180 160 c 140 U 120 0 100 c88 80 a m 60 40 jF68 n 20 24 20 8 � 1- 0- ay'aay raJ\°� g,� zarS' a��°�� a��o, ��e �& �J apt °`0 1 `1 �a 7. What intersections and/or roadway segments cause problems for cyclists? I Wellborn Rd. [FM 2154] University Dr. [FM 601 Holleman Dr. & Texas Ave. [BUS 6] Texas Ave. [BUS 61 & University Dr. [FM 60] Rock Prairie Rd. & Longmire Dr. Rock Prairie Rd. & Longmire Dr. Rock Prairie Rd. & Earl Rudder Frwy. [SH 61 Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. [FM 2818] Barron Rd. George Bush Dr. [FM 23471 & Texas Ave. [BUS 6] U 26 23 19 17 14 14 13 12 11 11 Appendix J: Survey Results 8. Where would you like to see bicycle facilities (bike lanes, bike routes, multi -use paths, etc.)? Wellborn Rd. [FM 21541 38 University Dr. [FM 601 30 Rock Prairie Rd. 26 Southwest Pkwy. 17 Parks & floodplains 16 Harvcy Rd. [SH 301 14 As many places as possible 13 Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. [FM 28181 13 Earl Rudder Frwy.[SH 6] - Connect east side to west side and frontage 13 roads 9. How for would you be willing to walk to a destination (Assumption: 1 mile takes about 20 minutes)? For social activities 38 84 For recreation 1T=30:; 55 121 0 Less than 1/2 a mile For health and wellness 15 T ` 51 _j _ 128} ®1 mile For work or school 29 5 26 0 0 2 miles For errands 64.. 9f} 43— 15 0 More than 2 miles • o Not an option 0 50 100 150 200 250 Response Count l Appendix J: Survey Results Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan 1"� 10. What are the two biggest factors that discourage walking? Response Count 0 20 40 60 Lack of sidewalks T�I Pedestrian unfriendly IIIII IIII IIII Unsafe crossings I I I I I I I I I IIII 57 Lack of greenway trails I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 Traffic (IIII IIII 4 Deficient sidewalks I I I I I I I 1 3 Weather 2 Lack ofinterest I I I I I 1 1 3 Other !III I I 9 Aggressive motorist behavior I f J4 :ll 100 120 11. What intersections and/or roadway segments cause problems for walkers/runners? Texas Ave. [BUS 6] (specifically University Dr. [SH 60] (4) and Walton Dr. intersections) George Bush Dr. [FM 2347] (specifically Harvey Rd. [SH 30] (3), Marion Pugh Dr. , Texas Ave. [BUS 6] (5), Wellborn Rd. [FM 2154] (8), and Jones -Butler Rd. intersections) University Dr. [FM 60] (including intersections) Harvey Rd. [SH 30] (specifically Munson Ave. (3), Texas Ave. [BUS 6] (4), Earl Rudder Frwy. [SH 6]and creek crossing intersections) Harvey Mitchell Pkwy. [FM 2818] (specifically Southwood Dr. (2), Texas Ave. [BUS 6] (2), and Welsh Ave. inlerseclions) Holleman Dr. (specifically Texas Ave. [BUS 6] (5) and Winding Rd. intersections) Rock Prairie Rd. (specifically Earl Rudder Frwy. [SH 6] (7), Wellborn Rd. [FM 2154], and William D. Fitch Pkwy. [SH 40] intersections) Barron Rd. (specifically Earl Rudder Frwy. [SH 6] (2) and William D. Fitch Pkwy. [SH40] intersections) 28 19 18 15 12 III Appendix J: Survey Results J-5 ;I Longmire Dr. (specifically Rock Prairie Rd. (5) and Southwood Dr. 10 intersections) Wellborn Rd. [FM 2154] 10 12. Where would you like to see pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, multi -use paths, greenway trails, etc.)? Texas Ave. [BUS 6] - multi -use paths and crossings (specifically University Dr. [SH 60] (2) and George Bush Dr. 16 [Fm 2347] intersections) University Dr. [FM 60] including crossings 14 Holleman Dr. (specifically Texas Ave. [BUS 6] intersection and crossing 10 the railroad tracks) Rock Prairie Rd. 10 (specifically at Earl Rudder Frwy. [SH 6]) Harvey Rd [SH 30] 9 (specifically Munson and Texas [BUS 6] (2) intersections) Barron Rd. 8 William D. Fitch Pkwy. [SH 40] parallel routes and crossings 7 Earl Rudder Frwy. [SH 6] frontage and crossings 6 Wellborn Rd. [FM 2154) 6 Every street should have sidewalks on both sides 5 Floodplain and streams 5 Greenways and trails - Expansion and linkage with any trails 5 that exist. Parks 5 Appendix J: Survey Results Bicycle, Pedestriant and Greenways Master Plan APPENDIX K: PRIORITES Geographic Information Systems (GIS) was used to construct a model per facility type to objectively develop a list of priorities based on the factors mentioned in Chapter 7: Implementation. Each model included a matrix of scores that designated suitability and then a weight based on level of importance. Once the GIS analysis was complete additional factors that determined priorities included connectivity gaps; important east/west and north/south corridors; and the likelihood of a street being built or widened. Bike Lane Parameters (Factors Subfactors Criteria Points Weight Population Served 23 (Population Density) Greater density is more suitable Safety More crashes - higher 17 (Automobile/Bicycle Crashes) importance Public Requests More requests - higher 11 importance City limits 10 Annexation - Immediate Location (0-3 years) 5 8 Annexation - Near Term (3-10 years) 3 Student Population Density Greater density is more suitable 5 Proximity to Attractors 1/2 mile increments - Texas ABM University 8 closer is more suitable 1/2 mile increments - 8 Parks Existing closer is more suitable 1/2 mile increments - 2 Future closer is more suitable 1/2 mile increments - 8 Schools Existing closer is more suitable 1/2 mile increments - 2 Future closer is more suitable Other Key Destinations (Shopping Centers, Grocery 1/2 mile increments - 8 Stores, Major Employers) closer is more suitable subtotal proximity to attractors 36 TOTAL 100 Appendix K Priorities Bike Route Parameters (Factors Subfactors Criteria Points Weight Population Served Greater density - more (Population Density) suitable 24 Safety (Automobile/Bicycle Incidents) 15 More incidents -less suitable Public Requests More requests - higher 12 importance City limits 10 Annexation - Immediate Location (0-3 years) 5 8 Annexation - Near Term (3-10 years) 3 Student Population Density Greater density - more 5 suitable Proxi -nity to Attractors 1/2 mile increments - closer is Texas A&M University 8 more suitable 1/2 mile increments - Parks Existing closer is more suitable 8 1/2 mile increments - Future closer is more suitable 2 1/2 mile increments - Schools Existing closer is more suitable 8 1/2 mile increments - Future closer is more suitable 2 Other Key Destinations (Shopping Centers, Grocery 1/2 mile increments - 8 Stores, Major Employers) closer is more suitable subtotal proximity to attractors 36 TOTAL 100 Appendix K: Priorities 1 1 1 1 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan Adopted January 010 Sidewalk Parameters (Factors Subfactors Criteria Points Weight Population Served (Population 24 Density) Greater density is more suitable Safety (Automobile/Bicycle 18 Incidents) More incidents - less suitable More requests - higher Public Requests 11 importance City limits 10 Annexation - Immediate Location (0-3 years) 5 6 Annexation - Near Term (3-10 years) 3 Student Population Density Greater density is more suitable 3 I` Proximity to Attractors 1/4 mile increments - 7 Existing closer is more suitable Parks 1/4 mile increments - 2 Future closer is more suitable 1/4 mile increments - 7 Existing closer is more suitable Schools 1/4 mile increments - 2 Future closer is more suitable 1/4 mile increments - Texas A&M University closer is more suitable 7 Other Key Destinations (Shopping Centers, Grocery 1/4 mile increments - 7 Stores, Major Employers) closer is more suitable 1/4 mile increments - Bus Stops closer is more suitable 6 subtotal proximity to attractors 38 TOTAL 100 Appendix K: Priorities 0/ APPENDIX L: FUNDING SOURCES Organization Name U.S. Department of Transportation; Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation; Federal Highway Administration Grant Name Range of Awards Highway Safety Improvement $86,932,328 total apportioned for Texas for FY 2009 P rogra m Applicant Eligibility Match Required The Traffic Operations Div ision request proposed highway saftey projects from the districts through a statewide program call as funds 10% of project costs are available. must be covered Funding of projects under the Highway Safety Improvement Program will be focused on areas identified as having the greatest need by state or local in the most current Strategic Highway Safety Plan. participation Surface The Surface Transportation Program provides flexible funding that maybe used by States and localities for projects on any Federal - Transportation $554,869,337 total apportioned for aid highway, 20% - 0%based on Texas for FY 2009 g y, including the NHS, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intrcity and intercity bus terminals Program and facilities, project type The RTCA program provides technical assistance to its project partners. RTCAstaff help with building partnerships to achieve U.S. Department of the Rivers, Trails, and No grants offered; staff provided to community -defined goals, assessing resources, developing concept plans, engaging public participation, and identifying potential Interior; Consery ation give direction for a project up to sources of funding for consery ation and outdoor recreation projects. Assistance is prov ided for one year and may be renewed for a National Park Service Assistance Program two years second year, if warranted. Read a project example. Environmental Protection Agency Department of Health and Human Services; Administration for Children and Families U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Dopartmont of Energy; Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs U.S. Department of Transportation; Federal Highway Administration None Environmental Education Grants Program $15,000 - $25,000 The Grants Program sponsored by EPA's Environmental Education Division (EED), Office of Children's Health Protection and Environmental Education, supports environmental education projects that enhance the public's awareness, knowledge, and skills to help people make informed decisions that affect environmental quality. EPAawards grants each year based on funding appropriated by Congress. no matching requirements Community Services Block up to $800,000 for Community **For economic development projects, eligibility is restricted to private, locally -initiated, nonprofit community development Grant Discretionary Economic Development corporations (or affiliates) governed by a board consisting of residents of the community and business and civic leaders. For all other no matching Awards projects, grants may go to states, cities, counties and private, nonprofit organizations.** re uirements q Community HUD determines the amount of Development Block each grant by using a formula Cities in Metorpolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) designated by the Federal Office of Management and Budget as a central city of the no matching Grant (CDBG): comprised of sev era measures of MSA; other cities over 50,000 in MSA's and qualified urban counties of at least 200,000 requirements Entitlement Grants community need. Energy Ffficiency and Conservation Block Grant $5,000,000 - $75,000,000 Safe Routes to Up to $100,000 for Non - School Infrastructure projects; up to $500,000 for infrastructure projects. Through formula and competitive grants, the Program empowers local communities to make strategic investments to meet the nation's long-term goals for onorgy independence and leadership on climate ci urrcge. Funding for the EECBG Program under the no matching Recovery Act totals $3.2 billion. Of this amount, over $2.7 billion will be awarded through formula grants. In addition, up to $453.72 requirements million will be allocated through competitive grants, which will be awarded through this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). The remaining funds will be used to provide a suite of technical assistance tools to state, local, and tribal grantees. Projects eligible to receive funding under the SRTS program include those involving both infrastructure and non -infrastructure related activ ities. no matching Eligible SRTS infrastructure project sites must be within two miles of an existing eligible school. Eligible schools are public or priv ate requirements schools that contain any of the grades from K-8. Appendix L: Funding Sources _ ___ - . Organization Name Grant Name Range of Awards Applicant Eligibility Match Required $250,000 project minimum to $10 - million project TxDOT administers the federally funded Transportation Enhancement Program which provides opportunities for non-traditional Transportation transportation related activities. Projects should go above and beyond standard transportation activities and be integrated into the Texas Department of surrounding environment in a sensitive and creative manner that contributes to the livelihood of the communities, promotes the 20% project costs Enhancement Projects undertaken with d t of our environment, covered by • y nmen, anenhances the aesthetics of our roadways. Program enhancement funds are eligible for quality � reimbursement of up to 80 percent To be eligible for consideration, all projects must demonstrate a relationship to the surface transportation system and incorporate at applicant of allowable costs. least one of their 12 categories Local Park Grant Texas Parks and Wildlife • Program Cities, Counties, State Agencies, Other governmental bodies, Federal Land Managers, Private NPOs, Private Motorized Recreation Up to 80% of Department Recreation $4,000 - $200,000 g g g Recreational Trails Grants Branch: I Providers project cost Program w2%mp• , 50% of the actual • expenditures, up to ***Texas Parks and Wildlife Local Park Grant This program provides 50% matching grant funds to municipalities, counties, MUDS and other local units of government with a the support ceiling Department Recreation Program; Outdoor $0.00 - $500,000 population less than 500,000 to acquire and develop parkland or to renovate existing public recreation areas. Eligible applicants of the grant, will be Grants Branch: Recreation Grant include political subdivisions of the State of Texas legally responsible for providing public recreation services to their citizens including reimbursed during cities, counties, river authorities, municipal utility districts, and other special districts. the project period as bilings are submitted. • U.S. Department of the Land and Water TPWD administers the Texas apportionments of LWCF through the Texas Recreation Park Account. If you are applying for an Indoor i Interior; . Grant, Outdoor Grant, or Small Community Grant, TPWD may consider your application for LWCF fundingYou do riot need to submit Conservation Fund _ National Park Service a separate application. I Eligible recipients: States and public bodies are eligible designated recipients. Eligible subrecipients are private non-profit Job Access and organizations, State or local gov ernments, and operators of public transportation sery ices including priv ate operators of public 80% cost share for Reverse Commute transportation services. capital projects; Program 50% match Eligible Activities: Capital planning and operating expenses for projects that transport low income individuals to and from jobs and required for activities related to employment, and for reverse commute projects, operating costs • Urban Park and — -- Recreation Recov ery Section 1005(b) of the UPARR Act states that at the Secretary's discretion, up to 15 percent of the program funds annually may be (Prngram is granted to local gov ernments which do not meet eligibility criteria, but are located in Metropolitan Statistical Areas, provided that currently not these grants to general purpose gov ernments are in accord with the intent of the program. These gov ernments may apply for grants funded but funding under the program regardless of whether or not they are included on the list of eligible jurisdictions. may be reinstated in the future) Appendix L: Funding Sources }. t: Organization Name Grant Name Conservation Fund Kodak American Greenways Program Bikes Belong Bikes Belong Grants Program Active Living Policy and Activ e Living Policy and Environmental Environmental Studies Studies The Robert Wood Johnson I Childhood Obesity Foundation Grants The Robert Wood Johnson Vulnerable Foundation Populations Grants The William and Flora Hewett Foundation Environment Program Climate and Energy Range of Awards Applicant Eligibility The Program operated by The Conservation Fund invites land trusts, local governments, and other organizations to submit proposals for small greenway project grants. Funded projects typically adv ance one or more of the following Program goals: Catalyzing new greenway projects; Assisting grassroots greenway organizations; Leveraging additional money for conservation and greenway max award = $2,500 development; Promoting use and enjoyment of greenways. Grants may be used for activities such as: mapping, ecological assessments, surveying, conferences, and design activities; developing brochures, interpretative displays, audio-visual productions or public opinion surveys; hiring consultants, incorporating land trusts, building a foot bridge, planning a bike path, or other creative $1,200 to $50 million projects. For the facility category, Bikes Belong will accept applications from nonprofit organizations whose missions are bicycle and/or trail specific. We will also accept applications from public agencies and departments at the national, state, regional, and local lev els, howeverwe encourage these municipalities to align with a local bicycle advocacy group that will help develop and advance the project or program. Active Living Research supports research examining how environments and policies impact physical activity, especially among ethnic minorities and children living in low-income communities. Findings are expected to inform environmental and policy changes that will promote active living among children and families. RWJF funds efforts at the community, state and federal level to change public policies and local environments in ways that promote increased physical activity and improved nutrition for children —both of which are critical to reversing the childhood obesity epidemic. In particular, we focus on five broad approaches the evidence suggests will have We focus on advancing policy changes that the latest research suggests will result in children consuming more healthy foods and bev erages and fewer unhealthy foods and bev erages. At the same time, we encourage policies that result in increased physical activity in schools and communities and decreased sedentary time. There are four characteristics that we look for in prospectiv e grantees: 3. The vision to work in nontraditional environments to solve problems that affect health. By working outside the usual areas of health focus, in places as div erse as schools, streets and jails, our grantees go to where health starts to introduce change. Our programs giv e people who need it most the opportunity and the means to take personal responsibility for improving their health and the quality of $1,200 to $50 million their liv es. 4. The capacity to create immediate and lasting change. Our programs create immediate health improv ement for the vulnerable people directly touched by their efforts, and reach exponentially outward by seeding change within a field, ultimately offering the potential for long-term, sustainable and broad scale health improvement within entire communities and ideas that can foment change across the nation. The Env iron men t Program is committed to dramatically lowering global emissions of greenhouse gases and traditional pollutants worldwide. As it attempts to achiev e this goal, the Program pursues strategies in three areas: 1. Global Climate Policy 2. National Energy Policy 3. Sustainable Transportation V y Match Required no matching requirements American The Conservation Fund Greenways DuPont $250 - $2000 Left a message with Mr. Hall; the most current grant awarded appears to be in 1996 Grant Program Home Depot Up to $2,500 Grants, up to $2,500, are now available to registered 501(c) (3) nonprofit organizations, public schools or tax-exempt public service ( agencies in the U.S. who are using the power of volunteers to improve the physical health of their community. Appendix L: Funding Sources IJ APPENDIX M: DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Design for a successful walking and bicycling community begins with the design of its transportation network and the adjoining land uses. Street layout, block face lengths and perimeters as well as the overall nature of the built environment can encourage or discourage walking or bicycling. Local, state, and federal plans, standards, and guidelines should be used to guide the development and construction of facilities. Some of these include the following: o College Station Comprehensive Plan's Thoroughfare Plan; o College Station Unified Development Ordinance; o Bryan/College Station Unified Design Manual; o American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Design Guidelines for bicyclists and pedestrians; o Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design; and o Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Not all aspects of design are embraced by these guidelines and standards, and are the purview of the designer. All designs should meet or exceed the provisions contained within these documents, most of which contain a significant amount of design flexibility. The flexibility offerec in these documents should be fully explored by the designer to ensure that a facility design responds appropriately to its context and needs. To provide a safe and convenient system, this section provides considerations to assist in updating existing plans, standards, and guidelines that will further the goals, strategies, and action items identified in this Plan. BICYCLE PARKING Minimum Parking Spaces for Bicycle Racks Currently, the City requires that non-residential buildings of all sizes accommodate parking for at least four bicycles. Buildings or centers with more than 50,000 square feet are required to accommodate at least eight bicycles. Multi -family developments, churches, and industrial facilities nre currently exempt from these requirements. It is recommended that the parking requirements for non-residential buildings and centers remain as currently stated and that similar requirements be established for all multi -family developments, all industrial facilities, and churches in suburban and urban areas. It is recommended that requirements should increase and shift to reflect context and size. For example, a large mixed -use development within an urban context would have more bicycle parking than a mid -sized development in a general suburban context. Appendix M: Design Considerations 4D Bicycle Parking Racks Currently, the City requires a specific bicycle rack for the Northgate District (Super Cycloops Model #2175) to ensure both adequate facilities and a uniform appearance. Elsewhere in the City, no specific rack is required. Rather, the selection of racks is guided by a performance standard - "Bicycle facilities shall be constructed so as to enable the user to secure a bicycle by locking the frame and one wheel of each bicycle parked therein. Facilities must be usable with both U-locks and cable locks and support thewww.pedbikeimages.org/DanBurden bicycle frame at two points." There exists a vast variety of bicycle racks from which to choose including customized racks that promote a particular theme or design. In an effort to provide both more flexibility and consistency, it is recommended that a menu of acceptable bicycle racks be identified by the City. Use of these racks would be permitted "by - right". This menu should be further supplemented by language similar to that currently included in the UDO. It would be used to aid the Administrator in permitting alternatives when requested. Additional guidance should be taken from the bicycle parking recommendations created by Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Placement of Bicycle Racks Currently within the Northgate District, the City requires bicycle racks to be located near the main entrance of a building. In other locations, no direct location guidance is provided. Throughout the City, such facilities are required to encourage use and to avoid conflicts with vehicles and pedestrians. Specific language should be added to or revised in the City's ordinances requiring all bicycle parking facilities be located near (within 100 feet) and visible to the main entrance and ensures facilities do not interfere with vehicle operation or pedestrians. Showers and Locker Facilities A few communities in the United States have begun requiring or encouraging the provision of showers and locker facilities to encourage commuting by bicyclists. College Station does not currently require nor actively encourage such facilities. It is recommended that the City aclively encourage such facilities in developments that are large in scale (where more than 75 persons arc employed or over 100,000 square feet) or that are expected to attract a large number of bicycling commuters (e.g., educational facilities). Appendix M: Design Considerations Encouragement may come in the form of direct financial subsidy or a reduction in required vehicle parking spaces. Funding/Acquisition of Bicycle Racks Currently, the City provides bicycle racks at municipal buildings and in select areas of the Northgate District, The City does not have a program to provide racks at transit stops or within private developments. It is recommended that the City establish a program that shares the cost with private developers for the purchase and installation of racks in already established areas that would benefit from increased bicycling. This program could operate in a fashion similar to the City's current Strong & Sustainable Neighborhood Grant program. Further, as new districts are established in the City, efforts should continue that result in the purchase and installation of bicycle parking facilities. Incentives While an increasing number of developers and business operators recognize the value of encouraging bicycling for their employees and customers, it remains necessary for the City to directly encourage the provision of bicycle parking facilities. Currently, the City provides an incentive through a possible administrative reduction in the required number of parking spaces for the provisions of bicycle facilities beyond the required bicycle racks, such as showers, lockers, etc. It is recommended that the incentive ►anguage currently provided within the City's regulations be less discretionary and more explicit. Further, it is recommended that additional reductions in required vehicle parking be stated for the provision of bicycle parking spaces beyond the required minimum. ON -ROAD BICYCLE FACILITIES Bicycle Facility Types Within College Station, it is proposed that two on -road bicycle facility types be provided that are consistent with past practices. These types are a signed and striped bike lane and a signed bike route. There are a variety of ways that these bicycle facility types can be accommodated and signed or striped. These will be described in further detail elsewhere in this Appendix. Bike Lane Widths Currently, the City requires that bike lanes be striped to provide a minimum width of five feet, exclusive of the gutter or shoulder. Wider bike lanes are provided where appropriate. As with all of the guidelines discussed in this Appendix, AASHTO and MUTCD guidelines and requirements should be consulted. Where adjacent on -street parking exists, parking lanes adjacent to bike lanes should be wider to avoid conflicts with the opening of vehicle doors. Additional or unique striping may also be appropriate for areas where bike lanes are located adjacent to on -street Appendix M: Design Considerations parking. In certain circumstances, it may even be necessary or appropriate to alter the manner in which parking is accommodated (back -in parking versus parallel). Parking in Bike Lanes In general, the City prohibits parking in marked bike lanes. Parking is permitted in select areas for certain time periods or special events. It is recommended that this practice continue and that such areas continue to be clearly signed with the days and times such encroachments on the bike lanes are permitted. Bike Lane Markings The latest version of the MUTCD should be consulted for the appropriate manner to mark bike lanes as new construction occurs or during retrofits to existing facilities. As noted previously, it may occasionally be necessary to supplement these guidelines with additional markings or signage due to unique circumstances. Bike Lane Travel Direction Current City practices dictate that only one-way bike lanes be permitted. This is in contrast to multi -use paths which are located off -road and permit two-way travel. This is consistent with adopted guidelines and best practices found throughout the nation and are believed to provide the most predictable and safest bicycle operations. It is recommended that this practice IL4 continue. Bike Lane Surface Requirements Current City practices require that bike lanes be constructed of the same materials as the vehicular roadbed. This ensures a safe and predictable surface for bicyclists. It is recommended that this practice continues. Bike Routes Where it is not practical or desired to place bike lanes on the street, signed bike routes may be appropriate. Generally, these facilities are accommodated by signage indicating that the street is a dedicated bike route and that the street should be shared by motorists and bicyclists alike. Often these facilities include wider outside lanes to better accommodate sharing of the street. Paved shoulders may also be used. The location of routes is preferred in neighborhoods and where lower volumes of Appendix M: Design Considerations traffic exist. It is best to consider these routes as shared streets and it is recommended that signage, lane widths, pavement markings, etc. be provided in recognition of this sharing and as appropriate for the context of the street. Current practices in the City are to designate routes and to sign them. It is recommended that this practice continue. It is also recommended that where motor vehicle volumes are high and where right-of-way will accommodate bicyclists that wide outside lanes be provided (e.g., Texas Avenue [BUS 6] ). It is further recommended that such facilities be provided where on -street parking iswww.pedbikeimages.org/HeatherBowden allowed. This may serve as an alternative to wider parking stalls and bike lanes in such instances. It is further recommended that the use of on -pavement shared lane markings (also known as sharrows) be considered for high volume situations to help highlight to motorists that the street is to be shared with bicyclists. 1 Other Other considerations for bicycle facilities include taking steps to ensure that traffic control devices have been adjusted to accommodate bicyclists, that street parking will not obstruct a route for bicyclists, that a smooth surface is provided, that utility covers and inlets have been adjusted to accommodate bicyclists, and that the street is regularly kept free of accumulated debris. INTERSECTIONS Bike Lane Striping with Exclusive Right Turn Lanes and Colored Bike Lanes Conflicts between bicycles and motor vehicles are common at intersections when a bicyclist traveling in a bike lane or right lane wishes to continue traveling straight while the motor vehicle wishes to turn right. Currently, the City addresses this concern with striping and signing that encourages crossings in advance of the intersection. Bicyclists traveling straight through the intersection should have a separate through lane, to the right of the motor vehicle through lanes, but left of any designated motor vehicle right turn lane. Additional guidance on bicycle movements through an intersection is available through AASHTO. Appendix M: Design Considerations It is recommended that the City continue this practice and continue its efforts of retrofitting existing intersections to achieve this standard. Colored bike lanes should also be explored as a method to increase visibility of bicyclists. They are usually located at the conflict zone where motorists are trying to turn right and the bicyclist is going straight. Advanced Stop Lines or Bicycle Boxes Communities across the nation and other countries are addressing high bicycle - vehicle collision intersections with a variety of treatments to minimize conflicts and improve safety. Ono such treatment is the provision of an advanced stop line or bicycle box at designated areas for bicyclists ahead of the vehicular stop bar and behind the crosswalk. This location highlights the presence of bicyclists, gives them an advanced start when moving through the intersection, and allows for • a left turn. It is recommended that College SOURCE: HTYP://WWW.LIVABLESYREETS.COM/STREETSWIKI/BIKE-BO) Station explore the use such a treatment at intersections experiencing trends of high bicycle - motor vehicle collisions. Bicycle Signals and Detection Common concerns of bicyclists maneuvering through controlled intersections include whether there is sufficient time on the signal for them to successfully move through the intersection and adequate detection by the traffic control system of the presence of the bicycle. Critical to these concerns is assurance that the yellow light signal is as long as permissible. Signal activation 0 Appendix M: Design Considerations should not require bicyclists to dismount to activate a push-button signal or otherwise be forced to assume the role of a pedestrian. Current City policy indicates that "traffic signals responsive to the bicyclist shall be provided on streets where bike lanes are designated." In practice, the application of this requirement has been sporadic due to cost and the use of standardized equipment. It is recommended that all signalized intersections with a bicycle facility be analyzed to ensure that adequate yellow light time is provided. Intersections with bicycle facilities and high volumes of bicyclists should be equipped with detection systems and signs/pavement markings sufficient to accommodate bicyclists. ""lts. FIGURE M-G: SIDEWALK Source: www.pedL)ikeiniuyes.utg/DCIIIBui,deI"i PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Sidewalks In general, the City requires a five or six foot wide sidewalk along streets. Within the Northgate District, wider (eight to ten feet) sidewalks are required. Additionally, when sidewalks are placed adjacent to an arterial street, they are required to be no less than eight feet in width. Cul-de-sacs are not currently required to have sidewalks acid rnosl local subdivision streets are only required to have sidewalks on a single side. Slopes, cross -slopes, and other standards are all required by adopted national standards and guidelines. It is recommended that sidewalk width be determined by the land use context and thoroughfare type to which they are located adjacent. In general, it is recommended that where sidewalks cross driveways, the sidewalk should be designed with level landings and returned or rolled curbs, and follow ADA accessibility guidelines. Appendix M: Design Considerations 1\ Skewed Intersections Occasionally, skewed intersections are unavoidable. Such intersections, however, increase the travel distances for pedestrians and thus require special attention. If possible, the angle between intersecting streets should be as close to 90 degrees as possible. At such intersections, crosswalks should be placed at the expected locations. Accessible medians for pedestrian refuge may also be appropriate. Pedestrian Crossings and Striping The City provides crosswalks in appropriate locations, relying upon MUTC_'D for guidance in Iheir placement and marking. Crosswalk markings should be used in locations where pedestrian activity is significant (such as in the vicinity of a school). In gcncral, crossings at intersections are preferred, though it is not necessary or even desirable to place crosswalks at every intersection. Occasionally, mid -block crossings may be necessary. It is recommended that markings and other treatments be determined based on context. Crossings near schools should include high visibility markings (such as continental style markings) and appropriate warning signage. Multi -lane crossing may require high visibility markings as well as refuge islands and curb extensions. Such crossings may also warrant overhead warning signs, flashing beacons, etc. in areas where high traffic volumes are also anticipated. Certain crossings (such as at limited access highways or at multi-lane/high-volume locations) may need to be grade separated. In areas where decorative pavers care used to indicate crosswalks, it is required by MUTCD that the edges be marked with reflective white striping to clearly delineate the crosswalk to motorists. Appendix M: Design Considerations Pedestrian Signals The City relies upon MUTCD guidelines for the location and timing of pedestrian signals and it is recommended that the practice continue. An upcoming update to the MUTCD guidelines will require pedestrian countdown displays for all new installations of pedestrian signals for pedestrian safety. At intersections experiencing high volumes of pedestrians, it is recommended that timing for pedestrian clearance be adjusted to the highest extent practical. Pedestrian Signage The City also relies upon MUTCD guidelines for the location and type of pedestrian signs at intersections and it is recommended that the practice continue. Of particular note are several improvements in pedestrian signage being considered for adoption into an update of the MUTCD. It is recommended that once incorporated into the MUTCD, the City implement the new recommended practices and work to retrofit high pedestrian use areas as practical. Pedestrian Medians and Refuges The City relies upon MUTCD guidelines for the location and type of pedestrian medians and refuges, and it is recommended that the practice continue. Medians and refuges should be raised and wide enough to provide sufficient storage space and add to the sense of safety for the pedestrian. Additional measures, such as bollards, may be appropriate in certain situations to add additional safety for the pedestrian. Pedestrian Ramps The City relies on ADA Accessibility Guidelines for the location and design of pedestrian ramps and it is recommended that the practice continue. It is important that the placement and design of the ramps fully satisfy the unique needs of the disabled. Common mistakes include ramps that are off -set or ramps that lead into the center of the intersection rather than into the crosswalk. Care should be exercised to avoid such mistakes. Appendix M: Design Considerations 4D / Turning Radii The City relies upon AASHTO and MUTCD to determine the location and size of turning radii at intersections. While it is recommended that this practice continues it is vital that the tightest possible turning radii be used. Tighter turning radii slow turning traffic. The distance across the intersection should also be kept as short as possible. Both of these features are important considerations for the safe accommodation of pedestrians. These considerations are especially crucial in certain contexts, such as urban or mixed -use areas where walkability is critical to the success of a development. Other Efforts to promote walkability and to provide the safest possible environment for vehicles and pedestrians to co -exist require a full menu of treatments intended to calm traffic. In addition to the items identified earlier in this Appendix, these treatments include round- abouts, bulb -outs, and others. It is recommended that within land use contexts, where walkability is critical (in and around neighborhoods, within mixed -use and urban centers, etc.), that use of these treatments and use of the full flexibility in design afforded by AASHTO and MUTCD be used. COMBINED FACILITIES Multi -use Paths (also known as Greenway Trails or Side Paths) Multi -use paths are currently designed to accommodate the two way traffic of both pedestrians and bicyclists in accordance with AASHTO and MUTCD guidelines. It is recommended that this practice continue, though it is further recommended that the flexibility offered within these guidelines be fully used. For example, it is recommended that the lowest practical design speed (10 mph) be used in the design of facilities. This will have an effect on the width of the facility, the turn radii, etc. In general, these pathways should be ten to twelve feet in width with two foot graded areas on either side. Occasionally, it may be necessary to construct a pathway that is eight feet wide. While acceptable, an eight foot width should only be used under certain conditions and circumstances, as currently noted in the UDO. Appendix M: Design Considerations As with many of the other pedestrian and bicycle facilities, some of the design criteria are dependent upon context. The anticipated user and the purpose of the use (e.g., high speed commuting use versus lower speed recreational use,), along with the land use context (e.g., urban mixed -use areas versus rural or estate areas), should guide the designer in the proper use of the adopted standards and guidelines as well as appropriate surface materials. It is recommended that all-weather surfaces meeting all accessibility requirements be provided with multi -use paths. In general, this will likely be concrete or asphalt but alternative materials such as pervious pavement or crushed granite may be considered when appropriate or necessary for segments in particular contexts. It is generally recommended that the pathway materials be consistent through the entire corridor. Care should be exercised to avoid abrupt transitions in materials where variations are necessary. Under no circumstances should a pathway be constructed of materials that fail to provide full accessibility such as wood mulch, gravel, etc. The load bearing capacities of these facilities should also be designed to withstand maintenance and emergency vehicles where access by other means is not available. Boardwalks or bridges may also be necessary to cross streams in wetlands or poorly drained areas. It is recommended that lighting be kept to a minimum, but when provided for security reasons, it is pedestrian in scale. It is recommended that vegetative clearing be kept to a minimum with clearing only as necessary for construction or to achieve mandatory clear zones. In environmentally sensitive areas, it may be appropriate to selectively clear the pathway corridor rather than significantly clearing an area. It is recommended that all signage and markings for the pathways comply with AASHTO and MUTCD standards. Further, it may be appropriate to supplement these "regulatory" signs with entry signs, wayfinding signs, or informational kiosks to add to the usefulness and attractiveness of the facility. This may also include interpretive signs that explain the natural, historic, or cultural elements along the path. Where appropriate, trailheads should be provided. Ideally, these facilities should be placed to share parking with other uses such as schools, parks, etc. The facilities should be kept small and Appendix M: Design Considerations include informational signage and trail map kiosks. Where necessary the trailheads may include restrooms, drinking fountains, and other street furniture. Multi -use paths are best built in dry areas to minimize siltation and erosion damage. In many situations, multi -use paths will be built within the floodplain but outside of the floodway, except for the crossing of streams. In these areas, frequent flooding may occur and the use of a durable surface type such as concrete or boardwalks may be necessary. A vegetative buffer between the stream and path should stay intact or native vegetation should be introduced. A buffer between the path and residential homes should be coordinated with adjacent landowners for the integrity of the user's experience and the privacy of the landowner. Mitigation of any negative environmental impacts to the natural stream corridor should be considered. No negative impacts on flood control from the introduction of multi -use paths will be allowed. Road Diets Occasionally, it may be necessary or desired to reduce the amount of street dedicated to the motor vehicle to better accommodate bicyclists or pedestrians using a road diet. Such roads are often roads that carry moderate volumes of motor vehicles but are currently sized (width, number of lanes, etc.) to carry many more vehicles. Other considerations for candidate road diets include streets that have current safety issues; the presence of essential bicycle routes or links; and locations within a redevelopment area, mixed -use urban area or a special district oriented to a highly walkable context (such as an entertainment district). The most common techniques include reducing travel speeds, reducing lane widths, reducing the number of lanes, adding pedestrian refuges, adding bike lanes, creating wider sidewalks, increasing pedestrian buffers, adding on -street parking, or creating a pedestrian mall. Appendix M: Design Considerations It is recommended that streets which may be appropriate for such actions be considered as a part of the implementation of this Plan as well as when redevelopment plans, neighborhood plans, district plans, or corridor plans are developed by the City. Transit The interaction between pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit is a key consideration to the successful implementation of a multi - modal network. Essentially, all transit trips originate as a pedestrian trip; therefore, it is critical that safe and convenient pedestrian routes exist to move pedestrians to transit stops. Likewise, it is critical that transit adequately accommodate bicyclists that rely upon transit for a portion of their trip. Convenient and safe transit stops are critical. It is recommended that the City work closely with the transit providers to provide convenient and safe transit shelters. It is further recommended that the City work with transit providers to explore the need for bicycle parking at or near transit stops. Appendix M: Design Considerations ORDINANCE NO. 2010-3226 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN DATED OCTOBER 2002 AND NETWORK OF GREENWAYS FOR COLLEGE STATION DATED MAY 1999, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ORDINANCE 3186 AND ADOPTING THE BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND GREENWAYS MASTER PLAN AS SET OUT BELOW; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; DECLARING A PENALTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS: PART 1: That Part 1 of Ordinance 3186 adopting the "Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan" as adopted on May 28, 2009 shall remain in full force and effect. PART 2: That the College Station Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan dated October 2002 and Network of Greenways for College Station dated May 1999, adopted by the Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 3186, May 2009, are hereby repealed. PART 3: That a new "Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan" as set out in Exhibit "A" and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes, is hereby adopted and approved. PART 4: That if any provisions of any section of this ordinance shall be held to be void or unconstitutional, such holding shall in no way effect the validity of the remaining provisions or sections of this ordinance, which shall remain in full force and effect. PART 5: 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 -Eve 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. 2010-3226 PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 28th ATTEST: City Secretary APPROVED: Ci Attom ty day of January 2010. APPROVED: MAYOR Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2010-32Z6 EXHIBIT "A" Page 3 The City of College Station's Comprehensive Plan consists of the "Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan" as set out in Part 1, and the following documents that have been approved in Part 3 and previously approved and are adopted by this ordinance: o Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan as set out in Part.3 « The Northgate Redevelopment Plan dated November 1996 9 The Revised Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan dated 1998 o Northgate Redevelopment Implementation Plan dated July 2003 • East College Station Transportation Study dated May 2005 ® Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan dated May 2005 o Park Land Dedication Neighborhood Park Zones Map dated January 2009 Park Land Dedication Community Park Zones Map dated April 2009 All other documents previously adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan are repealed and superseded by the adoption of this ordinance. 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 Comprehensive Plan depicts generalized locations of proposed future land -uses, thoroughfares, bikeways, pedestrian ways, parks and greenways that are subject to modification by the City to fit local conditions and budget constraints. The Comprehensive Plan, in particular the Future Land Use Plan 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. The Comprehensive Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, and 'Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan", and any adopted amendments thereto, shall depict generalized locations of future thoroughfares, bikeways, greenways, and pedestrian ways that are subject to modifications by the City to fit local conditions, budget constraints, and right-of-way availability that warrant further refinement as development occurs. Bikeways, greenways, thoroughfares and pedestrian ways ORDINANCE NO. 2010-3226 Page 4 may be relocated by the City 1,000 feet from the locations set in the plan or map without requiring a plan amendment. Any subsequent plans or studies amending the Comprehensive Plan shall be adopted by ordinance and shall become part of the Official City of College Station Comprehensive Plan. Updates to the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan June 10, 2010 Ordinance #3247 - Central College Station Neighborhood Plan • Facilities o Sidewalks ■ Moved proposed sidewalk on Adrienne Drive to Normand Drive from Deacon Drive to Rock Prairie Road o Removed proposed sidewalk on Westchester Avenue (.03 miles) along cul-de-sac o Added a proposed sidewalk on: ■ Ponderosa Drive (.03 miles); Priority: Long-term ■ Todd Trail (.27 miles) between Brothers Boulevard and Longmire Drive ■ Alley along Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) (.14 miles); Priority: Near - term ■ Section of Fraternity Row - add to other side; Priority: Long-term ■ Section of Deacon Drive - add to other side in two sections; Priority: Long- term • Section of Navarro Drive - add to other side; Priority: Long-term o Improvements to: (changed from existing to proposed for improvements) ■ Section of West Ridge Drive; Priority: Short-term ■ Section of San Pedro Drive; Priority: Short-term o Multi -use Paths ■ From Bee Creek Tributary B South to Balcones Drive (.10 miles) to connect to Larry J. Ringer Library within Georgie Fitch Park o Bike Routes ■ Signage will be needed along all bicycle routes in this planning area - • Airline Drive • Balcones Drive • Brothers Boulevard • Longmire Drive • Ponderosa Drive • Southwood Drive • Todd Trail Priorities o Sidewalks ■ Brothers Boulevard: Short-term to Near -term ■ San Saba Drive: Short-term to Near -term ■ Val Verde Drive: Near -term to Short-term ■ Pedernales Drive: from Val Verde Drive to San Benito Drive - Short-term; from San Benito Drive to Balcones Drive - Near -term o Bicycle ■ Brothers Boulevard: Short-term to Near -term