HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 University Drive Pedestrian Improvements Master Planr·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
I
•
L_ ____ _
University Drive Pedestrian Improvements
Master Plan
March; 2007
Northgate Advisory Committee
Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc.
Townscape, Inc.
Innovative Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Skystone Ryan, Inc.
I
I
I
_J
1 ·······--··· ---····-·············---·····-·-·-· .. -·-· -.... -·----·-···-------·1
I
L_ _____ ··-····-------·--····-------····-·····------···-----···-···-····----------------. ·····----------------------------··-···---------------·-···· ----
Page I
Page2
1
Sectionl: Proiect Description
The Notthgate District of College Station is a diverse and heavily traveled area which suppotts traffic
from bicycles, buses, vehicles and pedestrians. The increasing population of not only College Station but
the adjacent university, Texas A&M, has made the Northgate District a place of great promise as well as a
district experiencing growing pains. Those growing pains will be identified in this report along with the
recommendations to make Northgate and University Drive a more walkable and safe environment that enhances
the viability of the businesses within its corridor. These recommendations will be the guiding standard for
development along University Drive as they are implemented through a master plan and phased development
I strategy. To accomplish this task, the team of Schrickel, Rollins and Associates , Inc. (SRA) and Townscape, Inc.
employed Innovative Transpottation Solutions , lnc. (ffS) to provide a traffic analysis and traffic engineering, and
The following goals were
estab li shed/or the project to
determine direction for the
master plan:
• Improve pedestrian safety
• Fac ilitate movement of all
traffic
• Become pedestrian fi'iendly
• Improve aesthetics
• Maintain/improve vehicular
traffic capacity
• Improve convenieru.:e und
Skystone Ryan, Inc. which led the stakeholder meetings. facilitation of activities
• Improve pedestrian signage
• Streetscape and landscape
The project consists of the entire University Drive corridor within the State-owned right-of-way, City-owned improvements
property, University-owned property, and property directly adjacent to the University Drive roadway bound by Developm ent of identity
South College Avenue on the east and Wellborn Road on the west. The recommendations for this document Consider economic impact
are to focus on making University Drive, also know as FM 60, a more walkable and safe environment through
I
. improved intersections, travel lanes and the design of a new streetscape, which is further explained in the master
plan section of this report.
--· -------·--·---·---------------------------------· ---.
• Address Northgate and
Texas A&M physical
relationship
Page 3
Figure I :
University Drive facing east
Figure 2:
Parallel parking along
University Drive
Figure 3:
View at corner of University
Drive and College Main
reports established that there is not a strong visual linkage between the Northgate District and the Texas
A&M University campus. This report will provide recommendations to develop a strong identity along the
I
I
I
I
i
____ _J
Page 4
Page5
Page6
Section 2: Northgate Heritage
In the 1930's the City of College Station had a rapid population growth thanks to the influx of Texas
A&M University students, professors and their families(l l. This expanding market and its demands
caught the interest of business owners for whom proximity to the Texas A&M campus would be the key I
to their success(2). Northgate became the first established business district in College Station, named for
the location and proximity to the north entrance or "north gate" of the campus. Some call Northgate
the "original downtown" of College Station because the city's first City Hall was located in an office
building in the Northgate District when the city was incorporated in 1938 which is now Cafe Eccell.
Today Northgate is an interesting mix of retail, restaurants, residential, and entertainment and is
well known for its live music scene and music festivals. Being located adjacent to Texas A&M, the
history ofNorthgate is intertwined with that of the University's culture, history and traditions. The
development of this master plan and the implementation of the redevelopment plan is one more phase
in the long history that this district has experienced. This master plan will draw from that rich heritage
to set an identity that honors the past and remains a destination place for
all those that have been here , and that are yet to come. For additional
information about the master planning of the Northgate District and its
future redevelopment implementation strategies, reference the Northgate
Redevelopment Implementation Plan, Spring 2003 .
I . htt p://e n.w 1k1ped ia .org/wiki /North gate%2C_ Texas "N Oi't hgate, Texas''.
2 . http ://e n.w ikipedia .o rg/w iki /Northgate%2C_Texas "Northgate, Texas".
Historic building on
College Main
Page 7
Page8
I Section 3: Criteria for Great Streets •
I I
I I The author Allan B. Jacobs of "Great Streets" describes his experiences with streets from around the
I world and the qualities they possess as well as the roles that great streets play in urban life. Following is
I an excerpt from his book:
I
I
Given the difficulty of pinpointing the physical qualities that make certain streets stand
out over others, and the fact that different people might come to the question differently,
it seems important to be reasonably clear as to what the practical criteria for such streets
might be. What is it that a great street should do?
First and foremost, a great street should help make community: should fucilitute
people acting and interacting to achieve in concert what they might not achieve alone.
Accordingly, streets that are accessible to all, easy to find and easy to get to, would be
better than those that are not. The best streets will be those where it is possible to see other
people and to meet them; all kinds of people, not just of one class or color or age. The
criterion would work at many geographic scales, from citywide to neighborhood, which
opens the possibility of types of great streets. Great neighborhood streets would be the foci
for people of a smaller geographic area than of a city, conceivably an area as small as the
street itself A great street should be a most desirable place to be, to spend time, to live,
to play, to work, at the same time that it markedly contributes to what a city should be.
I _____ ..I
Page9
r-
1
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
.
I
I
I
I
I
L.
Streets are settings for activities that bring people together. A great street is physically
comfortable and safe.
A great street might be cooler, more shady than another street on a hot summer day
and therefore more pleasant to be on. There would be no sudden, unexpected gusts of
wind ojfbuildings. If there are many people there should not be so many as to make
it difficult or uncomfortable to walk; it should not provoke a sense of corifmement.
Physical safety is another matter, and it can mean many things; but the general
concern is relatively straightforward One shouldn't have to worry about be ing hit
by a car or truck or about tripping on the pavement or about some other physical
thing built into the street being unsafe. Lurking human threats to safety? Robbers and
muggers? No , that is not the subject here: no recommendations for doing away with
trees or permittin~ only small trees to discourage molesters, no prohibition of set-
back entrywuys thut uun hide thieves . Light, by all means, to see the w~y and to see
others, and ramps rather than steps where helpful for the comfort and safety of the
handicapped and P.!derZv. but no sanitiz ing of streets to avoid societal misfits ...
The best streets are those that c;un be remembered They leave strong, long-continuing
positive impressions. Thinking of a city, including one :S own, might well think of a
particular street and have a desire to be there; such a street is memorable.
Finally, the truly great street is one that is representative: it is the epitome of a type; it can
stand.for others, it is the best. Tu have achieved that status, it will have been put together
well, artfully.
Determining criteria for the best streets is one thing. Knowing when they are present may
be anothe1'. Elements of comfort can be objectified more readily thun uthers, although
even that task is often difficult. The query, however, is worthwhile. The answer requires
a constant search for objectivity, both in the criteria and in the qualities that meet them.
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...... ·····-·····-·····-····-·····-····-····-____ J
Page JO
··---···--···-····-····-··--··--··--··--·------··-···-·-·--···---·--· .. ·-····-····-···--··-·-····-···-···--·--·-···-····-····-···-··--···-····-···-··1
It means relying on the judgments and opinions of others, experts and people who use
streets, and it includes comparisons of streets, made as objectively as possible. Ultimately,
large doses of experience and judgment are involved, and an understanding that the best
of the best are likely to involve some magic as well.
In "Placemaking and the Creative Class" (Landscape Architecture Magazine Feb. 2007), urban
designer and Townscape Inc. co-founder James Richards offers specific design recommendations for
lively pedestrian districts. In summary of this article, street infrastructure design should equitably
balance the needs of autos, transit users, cyclists and pedestrians, so that travelers in each mode feel
safe and comfortable.
I
l. I Streetscape at the City of
Southlake s Town Square
···-····--····--·-··--·····-··-····-···-------·------··-··------·-·--··----····-··--····-····-····-·····-···--····-···--···-····-··-------·-···-···-···-.. I
Page II
f
I
Rendering by James Richards
Townscape, Inc.
r·---------------·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on-street parking, supplemented by surface lots or structures at the middle or rear of the
block, should offer "park once" convenience. Sidewalk widths should be generous enough to
accommodate sidewalk tables or displays in retail/restaurant areas, and be separated from the street
by a continuous row of street trees that help calm traffic and create an "outdoor room" between the
trees and building faces . New buildings be should be sited at the sidewalk, with continuous retail
. uses at sidewalk level. The whole should be enlivened by color, texture, attractive wayfinding
\ and outdoor art with the ultimate goal of creating a walkable enclave that encourages informal
I encounters, chance conversations and a sense of community.
publt G -;;:Wf--
~\M\l'd (,\<;;~: v--d~?.Q,
~..,.. ve171Q
(~t-~
::Jh91\'.:><:.J'ov-t.:bo--
~W\h
I
I
I .___ _____________________________ __, ___ J
Page 12
--------------------------------------------··---·-------·-··1
I
L ------------··--------------------------------------------------------------·----------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo taken by James
Richards -Townscape,
Inc. -7th Street at
Chinatown/Gallery Place
in Washington D. C.
Page 13
Page 14
Section 4: Master Plan Process
The planning process began in the summer of
2005 with the project kick-off meeting between
the City of College Station staff and the team of
SRA and Townscape, Inc. During the kick-off
meeting, the project scope was discussed and
the goals for the master plan were defined. It
was determined that a critical component of
the master plan process was the involvement
of the previously formed Northgate Advisory
Committee, made up of representatives from
around the community who would champion
the goals developed during the master plan
process.
I
···-····-·····-.... ·····-·····-······-······-···· ·······-······-······ ·····-····-····-····-····-·····-····-····-···-·---···-····--···-····-····-·····-·····-·····-····---·-··-··--..=ol· J
Figure I and 2:
Stakeholder meeting and
group participation
Page 15
I
Figure I:
Ann Abbe with Skystone
Ryan, Inc. solicits
stakeholder input
Figures 2 and 3:
Site unulysis by design team
r-···-····-···-···-··-···-····-····-····-···-···-··-···-···---····-·--···-····-····-····-····-····-·····-· ··-···-····-···--······-···-···-·····-···-·····-···-·
I
I
I
I
i
:
i
I
It was also determined during the kick-off meeting that public input should include the use of focus I
I
groups. F ocus groups are a group of individual stakeholders that are interested in certain aspects I
of a project and how it might affect them as a user. These stakeholders were invited to participate I
in a guided discussion designed to elicit their perceptions, opinions, and priorities about future ;
improvements to University Drive . I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
····-·····-···-····-····-··-·····-····-·····-·····-····-··-··-····-··-··-····-·····-·····-··-···-····-···--····-··-····-····-·····-·-····-... _..!
Page 16
1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The different viewpoints expressed in focus groups are crucial to the master planning process because
they tap opinions or concepts that otherwise may have gone unnoticed by the design team. Ann Abbe,
managing partner of Skystone Ryan, Inc. facilitated the focus group meetings, and a report of her
findings is located in the appendix section of this document.
During the public input process, the design team began the inventory and analysis phase of the project,
outlining and documenting the existing conditions within the project area and adjacent property
that might be affected by improvements to University Drive . The process included a complete
photographic study of the traffic conditions: vehicular, bike, bus, and pedestrian. Previous planning
reports on the subject, the Northgate District and Texas A&M University were studied in the master
plan development process.
These reports were helpful to begin the process, but after detailed analysis of the project area, it was
determined that some of the findings
were inconsistent with existing
conditions. For example, previous
reports indicated the existing lanes
at College Main and University
Drive were 12' wide, and therefore,
recommended decreasing the width
of each lane by one foot to provide
more room for pedestrian walkways
adjacent to Loupot's. Upon careful
I:
Site analysis by design team
Page 17
Wellborn Road Tunnel.
This concept is one of the
"Big Idea" concepts that
would not work for the
University Drive location.
review of the existing conditions by the SRA/Townscape team, it was determined that the lanes
were actually 11' and 1 O' wide in some locations. This dramatically impacted the recommendations
from the previous reports and prompted the SRA/Townscape team to look for alternative methods to
expand the pedestrian realm.
A.fter analyzing the various forms of data collected, several conceptual master plans were produced
and presented to the Northgate Advisory
Committee. Northgate Advisory Committee
rt:vit:wt:<l tht: concepts which led to the
development of two draft master plans. These
plans were reviewed by the Texas A & M
University -Council for the Built Environment
(CBE) Board . The first draft master plan
conceptualized the realignment ofT Tnivcrsity
. Drive to alleviate pedestrian conflicts at
I
Loupot's and the businesses from College
Main to Boyett Street, and would require Texas
A & M University to dedicate approximately
one-half acre of university land for additional right-of-way to expand University Drive. This concept
was ultimately not acceptable to the CBE. The second draft master plan did not require any right-
I of-way dedication, which was acceptable to the CBE and ultimately approved by the Northgate
1 Advisory Committee. The approved draft master plan was then presented to the College Station City
I
I
I
I
... -·····-·····-·····-····-····-······-···J
I Council by city staff and is included in this report as a foldout in the appendix.
L .. ---·-·····--····-····-···-·····-····-·····-·····-····--····-······-····-····-····-····------·····-·····-····-····-····-····-···
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
I Section 5: Site Analysis
I
I The site analysis is a process of data collection and study which enables the design team to
experience the project area through the eyes of the users and stakeholders, assess opportunities and
I I constraints, and develops concepts for recommendations. The design team analyzed the site from
I the viewpoint of the automobile, bicycle commuter, and pedestrian. Each viewpoint is critical in
I collecting the data to provide a safer and more walkable environment along University Drive . A list
I of constraints and recommendations revealed during the analysis of existing conditions is discussed
I starting on page 27 .
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I_ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_J
Bicyclist tries to negotiate in
traffic on College Main.
Page 2 1
·.1
During the process of site analysis and study it was determim:<l that the No1ihgate District along
University Drive can be segmente<l into four distinct zones; each zone has unique constraints and
opportunities. A site analysis map with each zone represented by a color can be located in the
appendix. At each end of the study area is a rural interchange, designed for an earlier era with lower
traffic volumes and fewer pedestrians. These rural interchanges include the access and egress from
Wellborn Road and South College Avenue with their free right turns that allow motorists to turn
through the interchange at a continuous rate of speed. While this can be an advantage to traffic flow,
it is a major disadvantage to pedestrians safety. Pedestrians are forced to dart across the lanes due to
the lack of visibility from the curving approach lanes . If a vehicle fails to display a turn signal the
pedestrian might assume it is safe to cross only to find the vehicle barreling toward them at a high rate
of speed.
I The rural interchange design at Wellborn Road has also caused problems at the existing Texas A&M
northwest campus parking lot (Lot 30). Currently Lot 30 allows vehicles to turn left onto University
Drive across three lanes of oncoming traillc, across a center turn lane, and into the westbound traffic
toward West Campus. This vehicular conflict has been quite hazardous with the high speeds and
variable visibility through the interchange. Mixing in pedestrian and bike traffic creates more conflicts
and potential hazards.
Adjacent to this location is Boyett Street which also has a left turn capability onto University Drive
but it is not controlled by a traffic signal. The vehicles turning left at Uoyett Street cross tlu·ee lanes
of oncoming traffic and a center turn lane . Pedestrians often jay-walk to get across University Drive in
the proximity of Boyett Street. This is an unsafe condition for the driver and the pedestrian .
L ··-·····-····-···-·····-···· -·····-······-····-····-·····-·····-······ -······-·····-·····-·····-····-·····-····-······-·······-····-·····-·····-·····-·····-····-····-·····
Page 22
r-------··---·-···-····--·--····-····-····-···-····-····-····-····-····-···--····-····-···-·····-···--···--··-··-···-···-·--·-····-···---·-···-····-·--··-1
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I_ ____ ···-···--····-·····-··--····-·····-····-·-···-····-····-··---····-···-···-····-····-···-···--···-··-· ··-····-···-···-· ··-····-····-···-·····--··-····-···-···--··
Figures 1 and 2:
The stretch of road between
College Main and Wellborn
Road bridge has no safe
pedestrian crossings which
result in pedestrians jay-
walking across six lanes of
traffic and a center turn lane.
Page 23
.I
r------------------------------------------------------------------1
I Boyett Street is actually at the edge of another zone which was defined as the "Campus Village". I
I The Campus Village , shown in tan on the Site Analysis map, runs from the Deluxe Diner just west I
I of Boyett Street to Lodge Street. This zone is characterized by the following: I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
The majority of the parking for this area is in back of the businesses in a metered, shared parking
lot. The limited number of parking spaces in front of the merchant's shops are highly coveted.
These parallel spaces an: actually out of the TxUO'J' right-ot~way and are owned hy the merchants
(or property owners). Any modifications to this area will need to be coordinated with the
merchants due to the private ownership and sensitivity to their businesses.
The next zone to the east is labeled "Church Property" and posses a character distinct from the
adjacent commercial areas. The Church Property zone is characterized by the following:
Page 24
•
I
•
:
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The following zone to the east is the "Transition Zone'', characterized by:
The "Highway Commercial Zone" starts at Nagel Street and terminates at South College Avenue.
This zone is the least pedestrian friendly zone due to sparse landscaping, undersized sidewalks,
and multiple driveway crossings. Following are some of the characteristics that define this zone:
I_ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·--------------------------·----·-------------------------------------------.J
Page 25
I
1
l
r-····-·····-·····-·····-····-·····-······-···-····-····-····-···-·······-····-···-·····-···-··-·-·-···-··-··-····-····-·····-·····-···-····-···· ·····-····· ·····-····-····-·····-·1
I The final zone along University Drive is the campus edge of Texas A&M University. The campus j
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
has a distinctly different character than is seen on the north side of University Drive.
The team conducted an extensive field study of the complex traffic patlt:rns uf pt:<.lt:slrians ,
vehicles, bikes, and campus buses. The Site Analysis map illu strates some of Lht: an:as of highest
concentrated traffic flow. The study determined that College Main had the highest concentration
of pedestrian traffic with Nagel Street and Spence Sln:et dose behind . College Main also had a
lot of characteristics of a walkable street, though some safety measures can be implemented to
enhance the area.
The following are a series of constraints and recommendations to these various existing
conditions presenl in Lhe University Drive corridor:
Page 26
CONSTRAINTS
--···-·····-·····-····-····--····-·····---------------------------------
Figure 1:
Jay-walker caught in
center turn-lane. An unsafe
condition for pedestrians
I and drivers.
I Figure 2:
I View from South College
I Avenue which shows the
. , lack of landscaped median.
--··----·--· ----·---· --·----J
Page 27
Tree-lined street with
planted median
Page 28
CONSTRAINTS
I
I
There are very few street trees on the north side of University Drive. .
Photo taken from
I southside of
I University with the
northside shown in
the distance
I L ...... _. ··-···---····-····-·····-····-·····-····-·····-····-···--·····-····-······-···-·--·-····-····-······-····-····-···-···-·····-·--···-···-···-····-···-····--··-·····-··---··.i
Page 29
Dallas ' West -End tree -
Uned street and narrow
center median
r-·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
------,
I
Page 30
•
Figure I:
Wide drive approach at
campus parking garage
Figure 2:
Continuous drive approach
at the Deluxe Diner
Figures 3 and 4:
Wide drive approach at Shell
Station
Page 31
Fixure 1:
Drive approach at bunk
Figure 2:
Concept to add a cent<::r
refuge area tn provide a
safe break in the middle
of a wide drive uppruudt
Page 32
I
Figure I :
Bicyclist navigating thru
traffic at College Main
I Figure 2:
I
Narrow sidewalk adjacent to
. University Drive
I
I
Sections 3 and 4 :
I . Narrow sidewalks force
I
I J pedestrians dangerously
I close to vehicular traffic
! ___________________________________________ ---------····------------------------------------------··--··--···-····-····--····-··-···--·------···-···--------·------.J
Page 33
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
!
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figures 1and2: I
Concept sketches for i
proposed sidewalks !
-------------------------------------------------------------------1
Page 34
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I-······-····-------····-·····-·····-···-····-······-··-···-···--····-·····-·····-·····-·------·-·····-·····-····-------·····-······-······-····-·····-·····-·····-····-·····-···-·····-······-····-··
I
I
I
I
I Figure 1:
Lack of queuing space at
Nagel Street
Figures 2 and 3:
I Lack of queuing space at
College Main
Page 35
Page 36
CONS'FRAINTS
I
I I
I
I I Figures I thru 4:
i Time-lapse photography
I
I I showing the pedestrian and
I I
automobile interaction at the
I
wide drive approach located
J I at the north campus parking
i ' lot
'-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_____ ]
Page 3 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 1:
"lfaaded" left turn. Picture I
taken from top of north I
campus garage. I
I Figure 2: I
Al/aster plan demonstrating
the eliminated "huuded" lefti
turn and added center rejitg~.
area at the north campus I
parking garage drive I
approach f
Page 38
Originally, all of the traffic
signals were galvanized.
Now the signals have
been painted with a black
I
. I paint which helps tie the
traffic signals into the
I overall design vocabulary.
j Reference section 8 for
I
. further definition of design
vocabulary.
!-·····-· ··-····-······-····-·····-·····-····-····-·····-···--···-····-····-···-·····-···-····-····-·-·-····-···-··--···-··-····-······-····-····-·····-·····-···-····-·····-······-··
Page 39
-------1
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 40
CONSTRAINTS
I
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I I Figures I and 2:
I ! Queuing at College Main
'----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------________________________________________________________________________________ __]
Page 4 1
Figure I:
Existing crossi-valk at
Nugel Street
Figure 2:
Prupused auss1·vulk tu
be constructed ut Boyett
Street with designated
bike crosswalk parallel
to pedestrian crosswalk
RECOMMENDA1ilONS
Page 42
CONSTRAINTS
•
I
I
I
I
I Figure I:
lntersection at Nagle
I Figure 2 :
Existing Cobra Head street
lighting
I Figure 3:
I
View from South College
showing no center median
I lighting and no pedestrian
I lighting in the majority of
I the corridor
---------·------------------·-------------------------·-·----·----------------------------·---------------------------------·-------------------------------------·-----------J
Page 43
Figure I:
Southlake s 'J(lwn
Square is a good
example of sh·eet
lighting
Figure 2:
New Main Drive
on campus is a
~ood example of
pedestrian lighting
and stree t trees
together to form a
rhythm of streetscape
elements
r--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!_ ________________________________________________ ------------------·--------------------------------------------------------··----------------···-·--------------------------------------
Figure]:
Crosswalk at College Main
Figure 2:
Crosswalk at South College
Avenue
Page 45
I
I ..
l
I
.I
'.i
I
l
i
I
Figure 1: I
Crusswulk ut College I
Main I
Fi.Q,ure 2: J
Proposed crosswalk I
~esi~n a~ College Main · 1
mtersectwn .
I
Page 46
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
CONSTRAINTS ..
L ···-·····-····-···-·····-·····-····--···-· ··-····-····-···-··-------···-····-···-····-····-·····-····-··--·-·---···-··--·-····-·····-·····-····----·--·-···--···--··-···-·····-··
I
I
Figure 1:
I Four-foot wide sidewalk at
I Loupot's
I Figure 2:
Delivery vehicle stops traffic
in right-lane forcing vehicles
to change lanes without
warning
I Figures 3 -4:
I Other examples of narrow
s idewalks along Colleg e
Main intersection
Page 47
i -------------------------------------I
Figure I :
View of proposed
single north-bound ,
lane with pedestrian !
walkway extensions I
and adjacent bike-I
lanes ·
Figure 2;
View of existing
conditions at
College Nlain
I
Page 48
I
I I Figures 1 thru 5:
I
I I Various images of rural
I interchange at We llborn Road
I_ -----------------··----····---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------____________________________ )
Page 49
Proposed concept at
Wellborn Road ·with
added landscape
and monument in
center median V1dth
controlled riKht turns-1-frl~H~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~==~~
Page 50
' \
\
\
\
I
'
I
! Figures 1 thru 5:
I Various images which
I
show the disrepair and
I I inaccessible existing
I
sidewalks along the
. I University Drive corridor
I-····-·····---·--···--·---····-····-·----···---··-·-····-···-··-·····---···-····---·-····-····--··--·-·····----·--··-·-·····--···-····-···-····-····--···--··--··--·--···-··-·-····-·_J
Page 51
Figure 1:
Enhanced pavin~
in tum-lanes give
a tactile warning
to drivers to slnw-
drrwn du P. tn potential
interaction with
pedestrians
,------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------!
I
I
I
!
i
I
I
I
I
I I i/ I .
i./
/! , I
I I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
Page 52
f
/
I
I
i
I
CONSTRAINTS
I
I i --
I
Page 53
Page 54
Section 6: Master Plan
The following goals were established for the project to ascertain direction for the master plan:
• Improve pedestrian safety
• Facilitate movement of all traffic
Become pedestrian friendly
Improve aesthetics
• Maintain/improve vehicular traffic capacity
• Improve convenience and facilitation of activities
• Improve pedestrian signage
• Streetscape and landscape improvements
• Development of identity
• Consider economic impact
• Address Northgate and Texas A&M physical relationship
The master plan was developed using these goals as well as input from the public participation
process and the list of opportunities and constraints revealed during the site analysis process. The
master plan, located in the appendix, establishes the following initiatives:
• Enhance intersections at South College Avenue and College Main
Eliminate free right turns at South College Avenue and Wellborn Road and provide controlled
right turns within a designated turn lane
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_____________________________________________________ _J
Page 55
Figure I:
Monument at South College
Avenue
Figures 2 and 3:
Proposed South College
Avenue
Eliminate right turn lane from South College Avenue to Nagel
Street and replace with landscaped butter zone
• Provide a gateway structure/entry monument at South College
Avenue and Wellborn Road
Consolidate various drive approaches
Create refuge islands at various drive approaches
Create refuge islands in medians at intersection crosswalks
Widen the sidewalks throughout project area where space permits
" I J
Add street trees along the entire corridor
Create a controlled intersection at Boyett Street as a result of
the realignment of the driveway serving the parking lot on the
northwest side of campus
Page 56
--~--~-···-··--·-------------·---·--=--------------------=-------~---=-------------------·-·-------ii:--=-=~~Si
Add bike lane crossings at Nagel Street, College Main, and Boyett
Street
Modify College Main to one-way northbound between University
Drive and Patricia Street
Modify Tauber Street to one-way southbound between Church
Avenue and University Drive
Modify Stasney Street to one-way northbound between University
Drive and Church Avenue
Enhance all tum-lanes with stamped colored concrete
Add raised planted center medians along University Drive where
space permits
Eliminate "hooded" left turn into Texas A&M's north cmapus
parking garage
Figures 1 and 2:
Views of College Main
concept
Figure 3:
Stamped concrete in
intersection
Page 57
Figure I :
Refuge island at wide
drive approaches
Figure 2:
Proposed center median
with plantings and street
lighting
Figure 3:
Concept sketch of median
planting
Figure 4:
Proposed bulb-out created
at new Boyett Street
intersection
Add bulb-outs in selected areas of on-street parking
Add pedestrian lights along sidewalks on both sides of University
Drive with a maximum of fifty linear foot spacing
Enhance existing streetlights and add streetlights where needed
along sidewalks on both sides of University Drive and along the
center median
Page 58
Alternative concept in lieu of
additional green space between
street and sidewalk
Rendering by James Richards
Townscape, Inc.
Page 59
Page 60
Section 7: Phasing Plan
As part of the planning process, a phasing plan, located in the appendix, was developed to direct the
priority of construction for each of the master planned elements . The phasing plan was directed by the
Northgate Advisory Committee upon study of the needs and wants discussed by the Focus Groups as
follows:
I I l _______________________________ -----------------------------------------------_________________________________________________________________________________________ I
Page 6 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Phase I -shown in gre.en (We.llborn Road) includes:
• euuverl lift: 11 rural interchange" at Wellborn Road to an intersection with a designated right
turn lane, pedestrian crosswalks and raised planter at the center median.
Create a new signalized intersection at Boyett Street and reconfigure campus traffic and
parking.to align w.ith the new intersection.
Create an enhanced gateway intersection at College Main. This area also includes
modifications of the traffic patterns at College Main, Tauber Street, and Stasney Street.
Add a raised center median with planting and streetlights.
Add pedestrian lights.
Modify pedestrian walkways from Wellborn Road to College Main.
Add a gateway entry monument at Wellborn Road intersection center median.
Add enhanced paving at turn lanes.
Add gateway signs at the Boyett' Street intersection.
• Add bridge treatments to Wellborn Road bridges as gateway feature.
I
l ____ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
-------------------J
Page 62
Phase 11-shown in tan (College Main to South College Avenue) includes:
• Modify pedestrian walkways .
• Add street trees.
• Add pedestrian lights.
• Add site furnishings.
Phase Ill -shown in red (Tauber Street, Nagel Street, and Spence Street) includes:
• Add enhanced paving to intersections.
• Add custom signal poles to designated intersections or paint existing poles black.
Add bulb-out areas at intersection corners. l • Add site furnishings at bulb-outs.
-----------------------------·--··------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 63
r···-···-·····-······-·····-·····-·····-····-···-····-···· ... . ----·-·········8·--··-·····-..... ······-····-·--1
I
I
Phase IV -shown in purple
(South College Avenue
Intersection) Includes:
"lmpr0vernents/ellhancemcnts at ·
intersection.
·intersection.
• Add new custom signal poles or
paint existing poles black.
• Add new gateway signs.
• Add site furnishings.
Add pedestrian lights.
• Add street trees and plantings.
~ I
I
I
Phase V -shown In pink (College Main to South College) lntludes:
I
Add raised center medians.
• Add enhanced paving at turn lanes .
Add plantings and streetlights to center medians .
Add entry monument at South College intersection . . .. .. ' •· ' ' ' ..
Page 64
r--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
I The phasing plan is a fluid document that should change as the City's needs change. As with I
I any phased construction, the longer a project is phased, the more it will cost due to inflation,
mobilization, and complexity of coordination. The entire project built in five separate phases,
one phase per year, could cost up to $8 million dollars. However, there could be as much as a $1
million to $1.5 million dollars in savings through the course of the project if it were constructed
in one single phase. The phasing should be logical in its process so that work can be stopped in a
particular area without the corridor looking incomplete. The phasing for street work is somewhat
difficult due to the lane closures necessary to accomplish the task.
The original phasing plan had the construction of the medians as the second phase of the
project. This phase was shifted to the very end of the project due to the fact that any work on
the intersections would require lane closures, thus diverting traffic across the areas that would be
future median. By relocating the median phase to the end of the project all of the lane closures can
happen with more flexibility and without the risk of damaging finished construction.
I
l_ --. ---......... --.. --. -----------------j
Page 65
Page 66
!section 8: Streetscape Vocabulary
I
I In order to tie University Drive into the character ofNorthgate, this plan recommends creating a
distinct identity by drawing from recognizable features that exist in parts of the Texas A&M campus
I
I and the Northgate area and then further developing the enhancements to solidify the new "design
vocabulary".
I
I
I
"Design vocabulary" is a term used to describe a palette of shapes or forms, textures, colors, materials,
I and details that work together to create a cohesive image or theme. The images in this section apply
I
I to the master plan and form the basis of the components within the University Drive streetscape. This
plan cannot anticipate or detail every component encountered during the construction documents
· phase of the project but it can illustrate a foundation upon which new designs can be created within a
I complementary context of the "design vocabulary". The following vocabulary elements are stated to
I highlight their importance in creating a cohesive image of the corridor:
I
I
I ·
order and unity throughout the corridor.
Rhythmic repetition of site elements (light poles, street trees, enhanced paving) to instill a sense of
I I I • Simple geometric forms used in the intersection design. Overly ornate or complex patterns distract
i-···-··bo~.~~~~.?~~:~~~~~-~~d .. ~~~~c.~~~~~r.~f!'.1~_:_·-····-···-··--······-·-·-····-··--···-·····-·····-····-·····-···-····-····-··-.. _.J
Page 6 7
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,
I
I
Draw from the connection of Texas A & M University with its emphasis on tradition to
determine materials and detail. These should be classic elements that are timeless in their
1
I
I
I
urban setting. These items should be simple, not overly ornate and should be durable under
the heavy traffic and use. Materials such as brick, steel, enhanced concrete with earth tone
colors will always be classic.
I -
I
I
I
I
i
I
!
!
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
Other key features to the identity of a streetscape include: lighting -pedestrian scale and
streetlights; site furnishings -benches , litter receptacles, bollards, tree grates; architectural
elements -entry monuments, gateway signs, bridge treatments; and plantings -street trees,
median trees, and ornamental plantings such as shrubs and ground covers.
Following is a description of the different "Design Vocabulary" items and recommendations:
Lighting
The quality of light can greatly affect the character of a
streetscapc and the perceived sense of whether an area is safe or
unsafe. Lighting that is not properly desigm:d lu D.l lhe inlende<l
need can do much harm to a streetscape environment. Lighting
for pedestrians should be designed to avoid glare, giving the
pedestrian the a bility to see their immediate area as well as their
surroundings outside the lighted area. A well-lighted streetscape
with pedestrian lighting, attention to human scale and
appropriate light levels will invite more pedestrian traffic. With
Northgate's popular nightlife, the increased att.ention to lighting
will help pedestrians as well as drivers to avoid night conflicts.
It is recommended that pedestrian lights aml slreellighls
complement each other and the other site furnishings.
I
I
I
!
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L -------·-···----------------·--·---------------·-· --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·------------___ _I
Page 68
r---------------------------------------------_____________ ,, __ .. ___ .. _________________________________________ ,, ____________ ,, __________________________ !
I Recommended Lighting: I
I I I Pedestrian light poles -12' with banner arm
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
capabilities
Manufacturer: Architectural Area
Lighting -Promenade Series,
Fixture PRM3-PM, Pole -DB4-4R12
Street light poles
Manufacturer: Architectural Area
Lighting -Promenade Series,
Fixture PRMZ-PM, Pole -DB4-5R20
I I Site Furnishings I
1 I I Site furnishings are a major contributor to the walkability of a streetscape. Walkability is greatly .
I influenced by one's perceived level of comfort through the corridor. A comfortable place to sit or a I
I protective railing along a busy street enhances the level of comfort and perceived safety within the I
I I I streetscape. Street furnishings can also be a strong unifying element along the entire street. The color I
I should match or complement the other elements in the design vocabulary. The recommended color is I
I black due to its classic appearance and timeless appeal. I
I I
I I ! Recommended Site Furnishings : I
I 1' I Railing
I Manufacturer: TBD I
I Table Seating
1
1
i Manufacturer: Keystone Ridge -
1
1
, Courtyard Table and Chairs I Outdoor dining area at
I Southlake s Town Square L_ .. _ .... ______________ .. _________________________________________________ .. __________ .. __ ,, _____________ .... __ .... _______________ -------------------------------____ .. ______________ ,, __________ )
Page 69
Benches
Manufacturer: Landscape Forms-
Scarborough Collection
Tree Grates
Manufacturer: Ironsmith -
Starburst Series, 2 3/8" slots .
Tree Guard
Manufacturer: Victor Stanley -
Ironsite Series -S-6
Trash Receptacles
Landscape Forms -Scarborough Collection
Bike Bollards
Landscape Forms -Pi Bike Rack
Bollard
Urban Accessories -San Francisco Series
Street Signage
Union Metal -TBD
Other item ::> relating lo furnit>hings are traffic
signals and street signage . These items oan also
be customized to coordinate with site furnishings
to fuither unify the corridor auJ ::>t:l il apart with a
distinct identity.
Page 70
.I
/
r·-···-···-··-····-·····-····-··· -·····-·····-····-···-···--··-····-·····-····-·····-·····-···--····-··--··-·-···-··-···-····-····-····-····-····--·-·-
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
Recommended Traffic Signal:
Manufacturer: Union Metal-
Nostalgia Series
Entry Monuments
It is critical for the success of a distinct
corridor to have a strong beginning and
terminus as it sets the standard and identity for the streetscape as a visual icon . Entry
monuments typically do little to improve the safety along a streetscape, however this may not be
the case at the Wellborn Road location . The monument serves as a visual terminus to the traffic
accessing University Drive from Wellborn Road Lanes, and also clarifies that there is no cross
traffic at the intersection (no left turns allowed).
•
Figures I and 2:
This traffic signal being
a dominant f eature in o.
streetscape sets a distinct
identity. However, the
existing traffic signals
painted black will
also fit into the design
vocabulary
Figure 3:
Entry monument sketch
by James Richards,
Townscape , Inc .
Fu ge 71
.l
)1
'·
r------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,
I Enhanced Paving Treatments I
I Enhanced paving treatments are one of the key features in a design vocabulary to introduce color I
J and texture into the streetscape. It is also an important component in traffic calming which leads 1
1
·
I to a safer pedestrian walkway. As discussed earlier, the paving should be extremely durable due to
I the volume of traffic. TxDOT approval will determine what is acceptable and what limitations will I
1
1
: be given to the pavement treatments. Items that have been approved by previous TxDOT projects II
include colored stamped concrete, brick on a concrete base, and concrete pavers on a concrete
I I I base. These materials can be used to establish pedestrian priority. A change in texture will also
I ::l:~::::~ t::,:::;l:::::·~:s:::::s~:; :;::~::.:,~;p:::~The colors used should I
1 I
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
Various enhanced I
putterns pussible i
to be used in I
the intersection I
crosswalks and I
pedestrian areas ! L ---------
I
I
i
•
!
I
I
I
I
_ _i
Page 72
r-------------·-----------·-----·-----------------·---·--··------·-----.. ------·-----·-----------------------------·-------------·---·-----------··----------·-------,
i
I Entry Signs :
I The entry signs can play a reinforcing role
1
1.. and become visual indicators that one is
entering a distinct area.
I
Streetscape Trees and Plantings
businesses and along the corridor. Trees
that entirely obstruct business signage
should be avoided. Color should be
Shumard Red Oak
trees line a street
corridor
Page 73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·-1
Recommended Street Plantings :
Canopy Trees
Ornamental Trees
Shrubs
Ground Covers
Ornamental Grasses
Common N1t11n~
Cedar Elm
All ee Elm
Lac e Bark Elm
Chinese Pistache
Live Oak
Chinkapin Oak
Shumard Red Oak
Crape My1tle
Yaupon Holly
East Palatka Holly
Indian Hawthorn
Dwarf Buford Holly
DwarfYaupun Holly
New Gold Lantana
Purple Trailing Lantana
Harbor DwarfNandina
Asian Jasmine
'Big Blue' Liriope
'The Blues' Little Blue Stem
Dwarf Fountain Grass
Mexican Feathcrgrass
Lindheimer's Muhly
'Morning Light' Miscanthus
'Adagio ' Miscanthus
Scicutific N1tmc ·
Ulmus crassifolia
Ulmus parvifolia v. Erner II
Ulmus parvifolia
Pistacia chinensis
Quercus virginiana
Quercus muehlenbergia
Quercus shumardii
Lagerstroemia indica
Tlcx vomitoria
Ilex attenuata 'East Palatka '
Raphiolepsis indica
Ilex cornota 'Bufordii 'Nana'
Ilt:x vumiluria 'Nana'
Lantana 'NewGold'
Lantana montevidensis
Nandina domestica 'Harbor Dwarf'
Trachelospennwn asiaticwn
Liriope muscari
Schizachyrium scoparuim
Pcnnisetum alopercuroides 'Hamlen'
Stipa tcnuissima
Muhlenbergia lindheimeri
Miscanthus sinensis 'Morning Light'
Miscanthus sinensis 'Adagio'
!
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L_ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_____ _!
Page 74
r·------------.. -----·---------·----·--------·--------· ---·-··---·--------------------------·--····-···-----------------------------------------------------------------·---
1 •
I 11
I
I
I
I
I
! ____________________ -----·-----··--·····-·····---------------·-·------·---··----·-------·-----------·----------·---·---·--------------·-·---·---------···--------··--··-----·----------··-----------______ J
Figure 1:
Entry sign at College Main
Northgate. Sketch by James
Richards, Townscape, Inc.
Figure 2:
Concept sketch showing
typical sidewalk and
medians. Sketch by James
Richards, Townscape, Inc.
Page 75
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
!
I
i
I
Street plantings require a high level of commitment to maintain. A tremendous asset to the
corridor can become an eyesore without the proper maintenance and care. Periodic pruning and
trimming of the street trees will ensure that businesses are not obstructed and branches are safely
away from vehicular I pedestrian conflicts.
I
I
I
I
L_ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------____ J
Page 76
Tree lined boulevard
with center median
Page 77
Page 78
Section 9: Opinion of Probable
Costs
The following opinion of probable costs are divided into phases . Each phase includes a
progressive inflation rate of approximately 8 percent. The costs are based on the master plan with
the current prices (2007) for materials and labor. Each phase has an additional cost of inflation
percentage added to the total opinion of probable cost.
Page 79
,···-····-···~•'"'~ 01·.~~~•=on ='''·~ c~'~"''="' o,,,~··=·'"'" ~oo~•tlo:·····-····-····-··--····-··· op1n10~1 p,o•••I• co~'''~:u~.~~· •• :~.,~=.,~: .. ~ .. "=~·=•tions ···~
(Ooo s Not Include Profosslonal Services) 1-----------'(~Doo=• "'No.,,1.,,1n""'',."",_,•.,_P,,,m"'fo"°'"o,'o"in"''.,,se~ov"l'"''"'''----------I I Dato: December o, 2006 Dato: Docombor 20, 2006
!tum
1 LG
1 963.00 SY
1 LS
2000.00 ..!l!:_
1 LS
1,218.00 SF
ed Concrete with 8"
Lime Treated Subgrade) 1166.00 SF
7233.00 SF 14.00 s 101 262 Circular Bands (8" Colored Stamped Concrete
wilh 6" limo Trcalod Gub rade •l,29 1.00 ::;r-
3001.00 SF 12.00 s 36,012
lnter seclion (8" COiored Concrete with 8" Lime
Treated Su rado 8,229.00 SF
2,29!i.OO OF M.2!i 3 32,70,1 Crosswalks (Streetpavers on 8" Coocrete Base
with 8" Lime Treated Su rade 4102.00 SF
4 ,398.00 SF 14.25 62 672
9.00 EA 400.00 3,600
1,000.00 or 10.00 10000
1,000.00 SF 0.50 500
20% $
15.0% $
landsce e Trees 4.00 EA
'"" 631.00 SF
lrrination 63 1.00 SF
Gatewa Structure 1.00 LS
477,84 1 Subtotal
95,568 Contingency
71.676 General Contractor Overhead
Tul1:1I =
ans an "'" ancs
1127.00 SY 10.00 11,270
2.00 EA 5000.00 10 000
1 356.00 LF 20.00 27,120
2220.00 SF 12.00 26,640
11 .00 EA 400.00 4400
7 919.00 SF 0.50 3.960 4,217.00 SF
7,919 .00 SF 0.50 3,960
1.4 ~1 .00 SF
Conlingency 20% s 1.00 LS
General Contractor Overhead 15.0% s 5 .00 EA
Total= ----r,586.oo SF
3,586.00 SF
10.00 29770
3.fiOOoo 4fl000 r.nntino An;.y
5.00 29215 General Contractor Overhead
1.366.00 SF
20.00 EA
19579.00 SF
19,579.00 SF
College Main to Boyett St. Rodovelopmcnl of Pedestrian Parkway
Removal I Oemolit!on 1,756.00 SY
Pedestrian Li htin 50'sacin 22.00 EA
5 1,956
2 135.00 SF
Contingency
General Contractor Overhead
30,391 681.00 SF 22,793
?lifl7M RF
9.00 EA
1 LS R,7.1R M SF
1766.00 LF
4016.00 SF
lrri ation 8,736.00 SF
ubtolal
Contingency
16,943.00 SF 12.00 s 203316 General Contractor Overtlead
6141.00 SF 12.00 s 73,692
1 768.00 SF 12.00 2 1,2 16 ubtotal ·Vear 1 (2007)
25.00 EA 400.00 10 000 Miscellaneous Construction
1,3 13 .00 RF O!iO f\!>7
1,3 13.00 SF 0.50 657
·• 20% s
15.0% s
Total :::
14.25 s
14.2!i 3
14.00 s
12.00
400.00
0.50
0.50
50,000.00
5,000.00
10.00
2.00
5,000.00
20.00
12.00 s
12.00 s
20,000.00 s
400.00 s
0.50 s
0.50 s
10.00
3 ,500.00
5.00
16.00 $
11 no
400.00
050
0.50
16616
01,147
11 5.206
49.224
1 600
316
316
50.000
20% s
15.0 % s
Total "
5000
8670
262
5,000
34,740
50.604
17.172
20.000
2000
1,793
1.793
20% s
15.0% s
Total "
17,560
77,000
10,675
10,696
1? '.V'l4
3,600
4,368
4 ,368
20% s
1!>.0 % s
Total "'
5% $
10% s
10% $
350,933
70,187
52,640
147,034
29.407
22,055
Page 80
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: University Drive Pedestrian Renovations
(Does Not Include Professlonal Services)
Date: December 20, 2006
Year 2 (2008 -Redevelooment of Pedestrian P1rkwavs
Item I Quantity Units I Unit cost Amount I Subtotal
South Colleg& to Spence SL
~soaclnal 2 025.00 SY 10.00 $ 20 250
10.00 EA 3 500.00 $ 35000
14 096.00 SF 5.00 $ 70480
Landscane Trees 32.00 EA 400.00 $ 12 800
Turf 7 339.00 SF 0.50 :Ii 3 670
Irr! auon 7,339.00 SF 0.50 $ 3,670
Subtotal $ 145,869
Contingency 20% $ 29,174
General Contractor Overhead 15.0% $ 21,880
Total= $ 1H,923
~· 1 911.00 SY 10.00 $ 19110
soaclna) 20.00 EA 3 500.00 $ 70000
5 385.00 SF 5.00 $ 26 925
Landscaoe Trees 19.00 EA 400.00 $ 7 600
Turf 6 069.00 SF 0.50 $ 3 035
lrr!Qation 6,069.00 SF 0,50 $ 3,035
Subtotal $ 129,704
Contingency 20% $ 25,941
General Contractor Overhead 15.0% $ 19,458
Total= $ 178,100
Nagel St. to Tauber St.
•
789.00 SY 10.00 $ 7 890
soaclna1 14 .00 EA 3 500.00 $ 49000
3 861.00 SF 5.00 $ 19 305
2.00 EA 400.00 $ 800
299.00 SF 0.50 $ 150
299.00 SF 0.50 $ 150
$ 77,294
20% $ 15.459 y
verhead 15.0% $ 1ii!~ Total= $ Ill Main 808.00 SY 10.00 $ 8 080
sDaclnQ) 14.00 EA 3 500.00 $ 49000
4 004.00 SF 5.00 $ 20020
pavers on 8" Concrete
Base with 8" Lime Treated Subaradel 1 912.00 SF 12.00 • 22 944
Landscaoe Trees 1.00 EA 400.00 $ 400
Turf 119.00 SF 0.50 :Ii 60
lrriaallon 119.00 SF 0.50 $ 60
Subtotal $ 100,563
Contingency 20% $ 20,113
General Contractor Overhead 15.0% $ 15,084
Total= $ 135,780
Cubtotal -Yoar 2 • 812,131
IMlscellaneous Construction 5% $ 30,807
Barricades, Temp Signs, Traffic Control 10% $ 61,213
Mnhilin:1tlnn 10% ~ 61 213
Relocatlng Utllitles/Stonnsewers (Contingency) 2% $ 12,243
Cost of lnOatlon Per Year-2 {2008; 16% $ 97,941
Total-Year 2 • 878,3"7
Page81
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Oplnlono!P1
TauberSt.lnte1M.'CIJon
R111ou·..-.i11 Dcmomon
Contingency
General Coo1r~or Ove rhead
JuUvt .. l-'1'e.1 1J 2005
Misoelaoeous CO!'l511ueb0!1""
Ba rricades, TempSl!J"S, T!artlcControl
M~ .. Liuu
Rf:lnr.oltiflo l h1~l"'!'JS!iv1,_,.,,,.,11 fCnnhro•>rqJ
Cu)(vfl"""'""' P''<I' .,...,,. • ~12009"
ol<ll -Year (
I lS 10.000.00 s "000
1173.00 SY 10.00 ' 11730
"" ' I
3819.00 14.00 $ 534U6
1 0 1·1.00 M .2~ • 23000
4.5'17 .00 12.00 $ "·""
IOOOOOO s
1 155.00 SF S.00 $ 5775
63.00 "' 20.00 ' 1 260
14.00 $
1 t.S 10000.00 $ 100CXl
1482.00 SY 10.00 S 14820
40.00 l.f 20.00 $ 800
SF
~~
VIC"41 llY~i~AI)
Opinion or Probable Construction Cost: University Drive Pedestrian Renovations
{Doe s Not Include Professlonal Services)
Dalo: Oecembor 20, 2006
Item uuantity Umts ntcost Amount
~ 1 LG 15000.00 1!:.000
10,000.00 SY 10.00 100,000
1 LS -~ 200,000
1 LS 30000.00 30000
Concree
with 8" Um e Treated Sunnrade 7 160.00 SF 14.25 • 102030
Intersection (8" Colored Concrete with 8" Limo
Treated Sutvirade 27 463.00 SF 14.00 $ 384 482
Crosswalks (Stteetpavers on a· Conwite ljase
with 8" Ume Treated SubQradel 6,067.00 SF 12.00 ' 72,804
Median Nose (Strootpavers on 8"' Concrete Base
with 8" Ume T eated Svbaradel 541.00 SF 1?-00 s f\4!V
Turning Ume (Otreel pave r~ Ot\ o• Cu.1uele Dd~e
with 8" Lime Treated SubQradel 705.00 SF 12.00 8480
LAndSCAf)e Trees 16.00 EA -100.00 8100
Landscape Plantings 2 344.00 SF 10.00 ~ 23 440
T 9279.00 SF 0.50 • 4840
11 ,823.00 SF 0.50 s 5812
I> ,, 20% $
General Contractor Overhead 15.0 % $
::>ubtotal -Yea r 4 (2010)
Miscellaneous Conslruction ... $
Barricades, Temp Signs, Traffic Control 10% $
Mobilization 10% s
Relocating Utilities/Stormsewers (Contingency)
"' $ Cost of Inflation Per Year -4 (2010) 32% s
Total -Year 4 (2010)
:.ubtolal
959,559
191,912
143 934
64,770
129,540
129,540
25,908
414,529
2,059,693
I
I
I
i
J
Page 82
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: University Drive Pedestrian Renovations
(Does Not In clude Profess ional Services)
u ate: u ecember ;i:O, "uuu
earo,.v ,,. eveopmen o ans ana um Lanes
Item I Quantity I Un its un1tcost I Amount I Subtotal
1:;;outn t,;011ege to :;;p ence :;;t.
Traffic Control 1 LS 2 500.00 $ 2 500
Remova l I Demolition 1 086.00 SY 10.00 $ 10 860
Asohalt Reoair 1 004.00 SF 2.00 $ 2 008
Vehicular Street Uahtlna 1.00 EA 5 000.00 $ 5 000
Obelisk/Median Plantina 1.00 LS 80 000.00 $ 80 000
Concrete Curb & Gutter 2 083.00 LF 20.00 $ 41 660
11 urning Lane {~treet pavers on 8' 1_.;oncrete t:1ase
with 8" lime Treated Subarade) 3 607.00 SF 12.00 $ 43 284
Landscaoe Trees 10.00 EA 400.00 $ 4 000
Turf 5 782.00 SF 0.50 $ 2 891
lrrioat io n 5,782.00 SF 0.50 $ 2,891
!~UbtOt81 • 195,094
Contingency 20% $ 39,019
General Contractor Overhead 15.0% $ 29,284
Total= $ 283,377
1>:>pence :;t. to rtage1 ~t.
Traffic Control 1 LS 2 500.00 $ 2 500
Remova l I Dem olition 1 804.00 SY 10.00 $ 18 040
r 4195.00 SF 2.00 $ 8,390
1.00 EA 5 000.00 $ 5 000
2 229.00 LF 20.00 $ 44,580
1an ose pavers on 8 concrete Base
with 8" lime Treated SubQrade) 1 685.00 SF 12.00 $ 20 220
! 1 ummg Lane {~treet pavers on ts" voncrete t:1ase
with 8" lime Treated Subarade) 7 724.00 SF 12.00 $ 92 888
Landscaoe Trees 12.00 EA 400.00 $ 4,800
Turf 7 844.00 SF 0.50 $ 3 922
lrriaation 7,844 .00 SF 0.50 $ 3,922
1 ~ubtotal • 204,062
Contingency 20% $ 40,81 2
General Contractor Overhead 15.0% $ 30,609
Total= s 276,484
rtage1 >:>t. to 1 auner :;t.
Traffic Control 1 LS 2 500.00 $ 2 500
~lition 895.00 SY 10.00 $ 8 950
2109.00 SF 2.00 $ 4 218
Llohtino 1.00 EA 5 000.00 $ 5 000
Concrete Curb & Gutter 1 827.00 LF 20.00 $ 36 540
Meo1an Nose {Street pavers on 8' Concrete Base
with 8" lime Treated Suba rade) 352.00 SF 12.00 $ 4 224
1 urning Lane {~treet pave rs on 8" t.;oncrete t:1ase
with 8" lime Treated Subarade\ 2 355.00 SF 12.00 $ 28 260
Landscape Trees 12.00 EA 400.00 $ 4 800
Tu rt b ts\ll:i.UU &F o.~o ~ 2 648
lrriaation 5,696.00 SF 0.50 $ 2,848
Subtotal ~ 100,1RR
Contingency 20% $ 20,038
General Contractor Overhead 15.0% $ 15,028
Total= s "135,264
1 au Der :;;t. to t,;ouege Mam
Traffic Control 1 LS 3,000.00 $ 3,000
IS 386.00 SY 10.00 $ 3 860
1 243.00 SF 2.00 $ 2 486
552.00 LF 20.00 $ 11 040
pavers on ts-voncrete i:sase
with 8" lime Treated Suba rade) 3 473.00 SF 12 .00 $ 41,878
Site Fumishinos 1.00 LS 20 000.00 $ 20,000
Landscape Trees 1.00 EA 400.00 $ 400
Subtota l $ 82,462
Contingency 20% $ 16,492
Genera l Co ntractor Overhead 15.0% $ 12,389
Total= 11 . 111,324
:>ubtota 1 -Year 5 12011 l J too,436
Miscellaneous Construction 5% $ 39,272
Barricades, Temp Signs, Traffic Control 10% $ 78,544
Mobilization 10% $ 78,544
Relocating Utilities/Storm sewers (Contingency) 2% $ 15,709
Cost of Inflation Per year -5 (2011) 40% $ 314,175
1 ota1 -Year 5 <2011 J ~ 1 ,311,062
!Total 8,228,926 I
Page 83
!'age 84
I
Section 10: Ackno~ledge111ents
I
.
I City Council for College Station: The Northgate Advisory Committee:
Mayor: Ron Silvia Mary Miller -Texas A & M University
I Mayoc Pro Tern: Ben White Jessioa Jimmer.;on -Northgate District Association I
I
I John Happ John N. Raney -Texas Aggie Bookstore I
Ron Gay Thomas E. Kirkland -Tekmak Development Co . I
I Lynn Mcllhaney Bob Appleton, PE -TxDOT .
I Clrris Scotti Couneil on the Built Environmen" I
I David Ruesink Chair: William L. Perry I
I G . Kemble Bennett I
1,. College Station Staff: Rohert T. Risor TTT ,I'll
Troy Rother, PR -City Traffic Engineer Richard A. Chilcoat
.
I Mark Smith, PE -Director of Public Works H. Russell Cross II.
Clint W. Magill
I I David Parrott ·
I
I
I
Charles A. Sippial
Max D . Summers
Joel M. Wixson
I
I I
I ! ________ ···----------------------------------------------------·-----------------------------------------------------------------------·---·-------------------------------------------··---·---------... _ .. J
Page 8 5
Page 86
I
I
I
i
Section 11 : Appendix
Appendix Documents:
Report Bibliography
References
Analysis and Report of Three Community Focus Groups -Skystone Ryan, Inc.
Innovative Transportation Solutions Rep011
Preliminary Summary Analysis -Townscape, Inc.
Site Analysis
Master Plan
Phasing Plan
Report Bibliography
Historic Photograph: Cushings Library and Archives
References:
Page 87
Page 87
Pages 88 -115
Pages 117 -121
Pages 123 -125
126
127
128
Waton, Donald, Plattus, Allan, Shibley, Robert. "Time Saver Standards for Urban Design." Section:
Traffic Calming, pages 7.2-4. 2003.
Jacobs , Allan B . "Great Streets" page 8 -9 . 1995.
http:// en. wikipedia. org/wiki/N orthgate%2 C _Texas "N orthgate, Texas".
I __ .......... _ .... -... -.... ·-·· .. -·····-.. ···-·· .. -····-.... _ .... __ .... -.......... ·--·· .. ·-·· .. -····--.... -...... -.... ______ ..... -............ _ ..... _ ............. _ ..... _ .... ---·-.. -······-· .. ·--·· ... -...... _ .. .
Page 87
I
i
I
,,, ---_.,.. ...... -0 --w ...... .. -&CCL:: .. -
SKYSTONE RYAN
A World of Expertise
~·~· .. ""·Ill~• .. Sc hri c ke l, Ro llins and A ssoci at es, Inc .
I """,.'"!" /\H h 1u.:rru .; • r ,.,1 f l'lt',1••<<'1111" • 1•t.1 11nlnt',
Analysis and
Report of
Three Community
Focus Groups
Conducted
October 28, 2005
And
One Open
Community-wide
Meeting
Conducted
November 8, 2005
Prepared
November 30, 2005
Skystone Ryan Inc.
in association with
Schrickel, Rollins
and Associates, Inc.
Skys ton e Ryan Inc ., P.O. Box 201445, Arlington, Texas 76006 -214 .368.8010 or 800 .8 83.0801 -www .skystonervan.com
Schnckcl, Roll ms and Associates, In c., 11 6 1 Co rporate Drive West, Suite 200, Arlington, Texas 76006 -8 17 .649.32 16 -www.sradesign com
L ·--····-·····-·····-··· .. -~----------------------------------~
Page 88
r·-· ·-·····-····-······-····-
!
I
~
C JTY OF Cor.LEG E STAT ION
th t· Imm of the Remm:h Vi1Llcy
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
As the City of College Station prepared to create a safer environment for pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicular drivers along University Drive, particularly relative to crossing
University Drive from and to Texas A&M University, it contracted with Schrickel,
Rollins and Associates, Inc. (SRA) to prepare a plan that addressed issues and
solutions that could be implemented immediately . As part of that plan, SRA, with
Skystone Ryan Inc ., secured input from the community through three focus group
meetings, comprised of identifiable stakeholders within the city, as well as one
community-wide meeting that was open for all citizens to attend. This repott details
the findings from these meetings.
The primary goal of community meetings is to secure essential information about the
opinions and interests of the community about current and future needs in a spec ific
area. They can confirm assumptions held by organizational staff, and they can
uncover valuable perceptions that can be used to improve the quality and types of
serv ices provided in the future . Impmtantly, focus groups and community-wide
meetings can build good will between the community and citizens involved in the
meetings.
Focus groups differ from other types of community input in that they are comprised
of individuals who are selected to patticipate because they have a known interest in
an area of importance to the sponsoring organization. They are not statistically valid,
random samples and the data collected cannot be interpreted to apply to other gro up s
within a city. They can, however, be used to learn more in-depth rationale about
perceptions and reasons for holding those perceptions. Focus group data, then, is
qu alitative (belief, opinions, perceptions), rather than quantitative (statistical).
Community-wide meetings secure perceptions about community needs as well.
They differ from focus groups in that all citizens are invited , and when conducted
atter focus groups are facilitated, they can atllrm Information learnt!tl tlun11g Utt!
focus groups, as well as uncover additional information.
The focus groups and community meeting conducted for the City of College Station
were employed for the following purposes :
To secure perceptions and opinions of current community needs as related to
the University Drive/Northgate Corridor from Wellborn Ro ad to South
College Avenue, in relation to citizen safety in crossing University Drive,
To secure honest perceptions of future needs in that area,
To validate assumptions made by City staff, and
To build good will between the City and the community.
[_·-····-·-····-·--~-------~
Page 89
I -····--····-··· -~-----------------------------------,,
I
i
i
I
I
I
i
!
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
L ... ·-·····-·····-··
FOCUS GROUPS -O CTOBER 28, 2005
M ET HODOLO GY
C it y sta ff , in conjun cti on with Sc hric kc l Ro llin s a nd S kys ton c Ryan staff, determin ed
that three key g roup s of s takeho ld ers sho ul d parti c ipat e in foc us g roup sess ions:
me rcha nt s/ow ners of storefront s a lon g Univ e rs it y Dri ve in th e targe ted a rea : Texas
A&M Univers it y stud ent s ; nnd Tex a, A&M Uni ve rs it y fa cul ty/stalT. Th e foc us
group process in c lud ed:
Lett ers or in vit ati on se nt by th e C it y and Texa s A&M Uni ve rsit y to s pec ifi c
indi vidual s in each o f th e three stak eho ld er group s, with all enLion lo sec ur ing
a broad ran ge of peopl e with in each group (see Appendix A for sample /el/er ).
Foc us group qu es tion s we re pre pared by the cons ul ta nt/fa ci litator, rev ie wed
by Schri c ke l Ro ll in s a nd Coll ege Sta tion C it y staff and rev ised as nee ded by
con s ult ant (see Afifi endix B fnrft>rns g roup qu estions asked by.fi.1L'i litulur ).
Fac i I it alor asked th e sam e qu es ti ons o f each g roup.
Eac h foc us group was a'ked Lo ra te; th e.: sam e 14 broad iss ues alo ng
Uni ve rs it y Dri ve as we ll as 35 s pec ill c o pti o n ~ for in1p1u ve ment in ord er to
pro vid e a co mpari so n betwee n a nd amo ngs t gro up s. Each g roup wm, al so
all owe d tu add it s ow n areas o r conc ern al ong the Univ e rsi ty Drivc/North g:nc
Co rrid or (sec bro ad is.rn es and sp ec ijic 01itiu11s. as weli {/.\' response.1· {{lid
c:o111p ari so11.1· in A11p e11 dix C).
Fo cus group s we re co ndu c ted by co ns ultant/fa cil itat or M . Ann Abb e,
Managin g Panner, Skys tone Rya n In c.
Eac h sess io n was audio tap ed by th e fac il it alor who use d Lhi ' informati on to
prc p!lre thi :i re port. Part ic ipant s w ere g uara 11Lee<l a11 uny111 it y of s pec ifi c
co111m cnt s. The audi o lup es remain th e confid enti a l ptupcrty uf Skys1011 c
Rya n In c.
MOST CRITICAL FINDINGS
Merchants/Owners (see Appendix C f or co111p osi1 e dat a)
Uroad Issues
0 or 14 broad iss ues /d1a lh.:11 ges provide d 10 th e merc hant s/o wn ers loc us
gro up , eight o f e leve n all end ecs fe lt th at two iss ue area' ne eded th e mos t
improvement : (I ) perso nal safet y when cro ss in g Uni ve rs ity Dri ve. and
(2) parkin g.
o The third mo st critical iss ue th at ne ed ed impro veme nt. rec eivin g seve n o f
e leve n vot es . was pe des tr ian toaffi c n uw.
o On th e oth er e nd o f th e continuum . fi ve me rchant s/own ers fe lt "se nse of
pht ce/co mmunit y" was eith e r "exce llent " (I pe rso n) or "good" (4 p~uµh.:).
Page 90
,--------------------------.-----------------------------------------------..
'
o Importantly, because they are in the area every day of the week, the
merchants/owners focus group rated 50% of the 14 issues as merely "fair"
or "needs improvement." Only four issues received an "essential" vote
and each of those received only one vote each .
o Jn short, the merchant/owner group felt very strongly about the need for
improvement in the area.
Specific Options as Solutions
From Perception of Pedestrians
o Five of eighteen solutions that were provided by the facilitator were rated
as "essential": (1) providing wider crosswalks, (2) providing greater
visibility of crosswalks through special paving, (3) increasing the width
of sidewalks, (4) providing larger waiting areas near crosswalks, and
(5) creating refuge medians on which pedestrians and cyclists can stop.
o On the opposite end, 50% felt decreasing vehicular speed was "not
impmtant," and 73% felt increasing number of trees along the corridor
was "not important."
From Perception of Bicyclists
o Two of the nine solutions provided by the facilitator were rated as
"essential": (I) providing greater visibility of crosswalks through special
paving, (2) creating refuge medians on which pedestrians and cyclists can
stop.
o "Not impmtant" for merchants/owners was providing bike ways along the
corridor by widening the sidewalks.
From Perception of Vehicular Drive.-s
o 50% of the eight solutions provided by the facilitator were rated
"essential": (1) providing protected left-turn signal arrows, (2) increasing
lighting at intersections, (3) increasing safety zones between pedestrians
and automobiles, and (4) creating bicycle ways along the corridor.
o 44% of thos e who rated this solution indicated that decreasing speed of
drivers was "not importunt."
Comments Added by Merchanls/Owmirs Focus Grnup
o Nine of eleven felt it was "essential" that there be no reduction of parking
s paces in front of the storefronts.
o Ten of eleven felt it was "essential" to begin planning for a future over-
or underpass across University Drive .
Representative comments from participants:
o We need to funnel students into a few specific areas in order to cross
University Drive.
o Uneven and unsafe sidewalks force students into th e street.
··-·------------~---------------------------------------------~·
Page 91
r-----------
1
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o Delive1y trucks stopping on University Drive create traffic problems and
an unsafe environment_ }vfove them onto side streets .
o Th e fi1rther Wes t we go, th e darker it gets . We need better lighting.
Final advice to the City:
o Set a timeline to complete this project and then meet the timeline. We've
had enough studies.
o Enforce the laws that are already available regarding jaywalking, parking,
bi cycle access.
o Help the merchants and University educate students every semester,
particularly international students who may not know U.S. reg ulations.
o Make side streets one-way.
o Long-term, consider over or under crosswalk for pedestrians .
Texas A&M Faculty/Sfaff (see Appendix C for compos ite data)
Brnad Issues
o This group strongly felt that five areas , in patiicular, of the 14 issues
"needed improvement," with the followin g five iss ues re ceiving ten out of
twelve vote s: (1) maintenance of sidewalks and street, (2) accessibility ,
(3) pedestrian traffic flow, (4) bicycle traffic flow , and (5) overall
amenities .
o Fo llowing close.ly behind these five that needed improvement were
persuual safety when cross in g Univers ity Drive and maintenance and
upgrading of storefronts .
o On the other end of the continuum, six faculty/stafffelt "vehicular traffic
flow" was either "excellent" (2 patiicipants) or "good" (4 participants).
o When combining "fair" plus "needed improvement," all 14 issues
received a 50 % or more rating, indicating an even stronger desire than the
merchants/owners for improvement.
Specific Options as Solutions
From Perception of Pedestrians
o The three most "essential" so lutions from the faculty/staff were
( 1) increasing sidewalk width, (2) providing larger waiting areas near
crosswalks, and (3) increas ing space for wheelchairs along sidewalks
with wheelchair curb cuts. It is important to note that this group included
a wheel-chair bound member, who spoke about the difficulty of crossing
University Drive, whik lhe merchants/owners eroup and the. student
group had no such advocate.
n Closely behind these three solutions were (1) creating retiJge medians on
which pedestrians and cyc.lists can stop , and (2) decreasing speed of
vehicular traffic.
4
l_ ----------------------------~----------------------------------------------'
Page 92
r·------··------------------r---------------------------------------------~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
I
o In fact, eleven of the twelve participants felt decreasing speed of
vehicular traffic was "essential" (9) or "important" (2).
From Perception of Bicyclists
o Again, the faculty/staff group felt decreasing vehicular speed was
"essential," as well as increasing number of bicycle parking racks and
providing larger waiting areas near crosswalks.
o Ofleast importance was providing crosswalks with special paving for
greater visibility.
From Perception of Vehicular Drivers
o Of greatest importance was increasing safety zones between pedestrians
and vehicles, with eleven of the twelve responses as "essential."
o Decreasing speed of vehicles was also primarily "essential," with eleven
members rating this solution as "essential" (9) or "important" (2).
o Of least importance was providing additional parking spaces along the
corridor, with ten of twelve indicating "not important."
Comments Added by TAMU Faculty/Staff Focus Group
o This group added four solutions.
o Of most importance was to channel pedestrians into specific pathways in
order to cross University Drive by using medians and landscaping.
Secondly, to create a separation between the sidewalks and street curb.
Representative comments:
o We need to slow down traffic speed on University.
o Traffi c lights do not stay green long enough for a wheelchair bound
person lo safely cross University.
o Delive1y trucks are a problem. We should prohibit loading and
unloading on University.
o Reduce the speed and go lo four lanes.
o Keep the bicycles off the sidewalks.
o Ability to park at Northgate encourages people to make U-turns in the
middle oj the street. Kemuve the spw.:es.
o Use protected turn lanes only.
o Put a railing along the sidewalk in front of the bars at Northgate. It's
dangerous for intoxicated people to be so close to traffic.
o Buses create a problem for pedestrians and cyclists. Move th em along
more efficiently.
o Use hedges to discourage jaywalking and channel students into specific
areas.
o Please do not put bikes on the sidewalks. Bad design.
! ___________________ ..__ _________________________ ~
Page 93
r--------
1
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
Final advice to the City:
o Don't only li sten to the merchants. We are all citizens.
o Put as much emphasis NOW on safety of pedestrians as the City put on
vehicles in the past. Make pedestrians the priority, not the vehicles.
o You can't solve all the problems by just looking at University Drive.
o Come and experience it themselves .
Texas A&M Student Group (see Appendix C for composite data)
Broad Issues
o Seven students ranked the 14 broad issues related to the Corridor. Four
issues were found to need the most improvement by fow· of the seven
students: (I) maintenance of sidewalks and street, (2) accessibility,
(3) bicycle traffic flow , and (4) overall amenities.
o Pedestrian traffic flow was fuuml lube fair (71 %).
o Of most interest, not one student felt as if ove.-all security needed
improvement, and, in fact, students felt overall security was excellent,
the only issue marked as "excellent" by this group.
o Students agreed with the merchants/owners that sense of
place/community was gout! and they felt lighting was good.
Specific Options as Solutions
From Perception of Pedestrians
o Four solutions were the most imp01tant : (I) increas in g width of
sidewalks, (2) providing larger waiting areas near crosswalks,
(3) reducing clutter on sidewalks along storefronts, and ( 4) increasing
number of trees along corridor. Trees were important to provide
shad e for pedestrians as well as to provide better ambiance in the
geographic area.
o A second tier of importance was to (l) preserve vehicular-free zones and
(2) to better define outdoor public gathering s paces.
o Of least impo1tance to students was to decrease the speed of traffic, citing
that they would mo st likely not slow down regardless.
From Perception of Bicyclists
o Receiving the most "essential" ratings (five of seven patticipants) were
(!)providing bike way along the corridor by widening the sidewalks and
(2) providing larger waiting areas near crosswalks.
o These were followed closely by reducing clutter in front of sturefrunls
and increas ing the number of bicycle racks.
o Again, reducing traffic speed was "not impo1tant," as rated by four of
oev on partioipant3, the highc3t rating given to "not impo1 ta11l."
6
L ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 94
r-·-------
1
I
I
I
'
I
I
i
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
From Perception of Vehicular Drivers
o The solution rated "essential" most often was increasi ng safety zones
between pedestrians and vehicles, particularly important when
recognizing that students also felt that creating a bicycle way along the
corridor was "essential" (four) or '"'important" (three).
o As above, decreasing vehicular speed was not important.
Comments Added by TAMU Students
o Students added five solutions, as seen in Appendix C, Impressions of
Specific Solutions.
o Most importantly, four of six students found that resolving the dangerous
Wellborn Road merge/off-ramps problem was "essential" for pedestrians
and cyclists in particular.
o Secondly, students felt overall safety would be increased if access to
small parking lots off University Drive would be reduced, with access
from side streets.
Representative comments:
o There are no median refi1ges to use when crossing the street.
o Width ofsidewalks too narrow.
o We aren't interested in riding bicycles along University Drive with
current configuration. Too dangerous, so would ride on sidewalks. Need
zone without cars or barrier between cars and cyclists.
o Off-ramps from Wellborn to University make it difficult for pedestrians.
o Don 't slow down the vehicular traffic. We won't drive that slow anyway.
o Truck deliveries are a major problem for eve1yone.
o Push cars onto Church Street.
o If there were barrier medians on University Drive, we wouldn't jaywalk.
o We need an overpass.
Final advice to the City:
o Start now with long-term plan to build a pedestrian bridge.
o The area feel s too much like a highway . Give it a pedestrian atmosphere
-trees and landscaping, more like Bi zze ll Street thau Welluum Road .
o Don 't preserve old, ugly buildings.
COMMON THEMES AND DIFFERENCES ACROSS Focus GROUPS
While the broad issues presented to the focus groups by the facilitator were
identical, responses between the groups were divergent (see Appendix C). The
faculty/staff group appeared to identify both the strongest issues from the
merchants/owners group as well as from the student group.
7
L_ ----------------'-------------------------------------------~
Page 95
r-------------
1
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
The five overnll broad issues which received the highest percentage of"needs
improvement" include : ( l) personal safety when crossing University Drive -63%,
but only 28% from students ; (2) maintenance of sidewalks and streets -66%;
(3) pedestrian traffic flow -63%; (4) bicycle traffic flow -63%; (5) overall
amenities -G3%, but uuly 45% frum merchants .
In terms of Specific Solutions for University lJrive challenges in relation to
Pedestrians, the solutions given the greatest number of 'essential" ratings were:
• Increasing width of sidewalks (21)
Providing larger waiting areas near crosswalks (20)
• Increasing space for wheelchairs along sidewalks (16 , although highly
influenced by presence of wheel-chair bound participate in one group)
• Creating refuge medians (14)
When including "important" solutions to the "essential" solutions above, we futiher
include:
• Providing wider crosswalks (total 28)
• Providing auditory and visual cues for crossing at lights (total 26)
Reducing clutter along sidewalks (total 25)
When reviewing composite scores for safety for bicyclists, the same three solutions
emerged for hoth "c88cntiftl" and "essential" plus "important".
•
•
•
Providin g larger waiting areas near cross walks (total 28)
Reducing clutter along sidewalks (total 25)
Increasing number of bicycle racks (total 25)
Kelated tu vehicular drivers, one solution by far (2 5 of29 or 86%) received the
greater number of"essemlal" composite scores -increasing satety zones between
pedestrians and vehicles. When including those who rated this same solution
"Important," the percentage increases to lUU%.
Surprisingly, providing protected le fl-turn signal arrows is 96% when adding
"essential" and "impo1tant ."
We cannot draw comparisons between focus groups for the solutions added by
specific focu s group paiiicipants. Individual data added by each group is located in
Appendix C.
L _________________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 96
r·--------------------------
i
I
!
I
i
I
i
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
!
I
I
l
COMMUNITY-WIDE MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 2005
As stated earlier, all citizens were invited to participate in one community-wide meeting,
which was used to secure opinions and interests about current and future City needs, in
this case, citizen safety when crossing University Drive from Wellborn Road to South
College Avenue . Community meetings often confirm opinions learned during focus
groups, and may uncover perceptions about additional needs.
ATTENDEES
Approximately 26-28 people attended the community meeting, representing T AMU
students , Texas A&M faculty/staff, area drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists , city
administrators, and interested citizens. (Total number is approximate as people drifted
into the session throughout the I Y, hour meeting.) Four of the attendees had also
attended focus groups on October 28, 2005. The community meeting was held in
Northgate at the A&M Methodist Church. Two project committee members from
College Station attended to clarify information if needed. They are included in the total
numbers, while the facilitator and two Schrickel Rollins representatives are not included.
METHODOLOGY
Citizens were invited to attend the November 8, 2005 , community meeting by
City staff through severa l method s:
o Posting fliers about the meeting at storefronts along University
Dri ve/Northgate Corridor
o Posting fliers at the local churches and college faith-based groups in the
No1thgate area
o Po sting fliers at Tradition, the student hou si ng facility in No1thgate
o Posting fliers at the Northgate post office and at on-campus student housing
at Northgate
o Interviewing with local paper which lead to a1ticle in The Eagle prior to
meeting.
Facilitator led the group through a series of que stions, soliciting responses from
the audience to define the problem and then to suggest solutions to the problem
from the perspective of pedestrians, bicycli sts and vehicular drivers.
The community meeting was audio taped by the facilitator who used this
information to prepare this report.
9
Page 97
MOST CRITICAL FINDINGS
Audience Definition of the Problem:
o Pedestrian, cyclists and vehicular driver safety on University Drive along the
Northgate Corridor from Wellborn Road to South College.
Related Challenges (not in priority order):
o A.M . safety and P.M. safety may not be the same
o Need better signage at College Main turning right onto University Urive.
This is most congested area within the Corridor.
o Cyclists have same rights and regulations as vehicles, but that is iguun:<l
by vehicles
o Cyclists need better and more crossing areas
o No place for pedestrians to stand at Nagle St. & University Drive
o Sidewalk in front of the banks is unsafe and uneven . Sidewalks in general are
too narrow.
o Lack of comfmt: Unshaded (add trees & awnings)
o Area is a commercial zone that is hostile to pedestrians
o Wellborn Road is major unsafe area
too many lanes to cros s
no cross walks at off ramps
too dark at night
o University Drive has too many access points
o Speed too high along University Urive
o Bars are too close to traffic
o Set a schedule and adh ere to it wh en barricade Coll ege Main
o Not enough crosswalks
o Time to fix the problem . Enough studying.
Related Solutions (not in priority order):
FOR PEDESTRIANS
o Set timed light at busiest intersections during which only pedestrians can
cross during a specific time
o Add signage at Northgate -Pedestrian area
o Slow down traffic speed with "3chool zone" type urea
o Add protected crosswalk for pedestrians at Wellborn & EZ matt area
o Narrow streets in areas where it can be narrowed in order to add wider area
for sidewallrn and pedc3trian3
o Visual timer and audio message at crosswalks, patticularly at highest
pedestrian areas like College Main
o Continuou3 Jidewalk & marked sidewalk at 3outh College
u Ha vu <luli very lruck~ purk ut but:k or si<lt: ~trcct5, or only during nuu-pt::ak.
traffic homs; then enforce the rnles
IO
L. ···--···--··--·····-··· -~---------------------------------------------~·
Page 98
r-------------------------
!
I
I
I
i
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
o Better enforcement of traffic/pedestrian laws (jay walking)
o Create pedestrian area (protective barrier) on north side of University Drive
o Find a way to utilize Albe1tson's parking lot
o Remove on-street parking in front of storefronts ; or enforce meters
o Conve1t side roads to one-way and allow parking on both sides
o Create barrier/fence/wall/rail on edge of sidewalk in front ofNorthgate
storefronts/bars
o Create pedestrian-friendly mediums for safety haven
FOR CYCLISTS
o Paint staging box at University Drive and College Main
o Use electronic/automatic changing system at lights that recognize cyclists
o Funnel cyclists to cross Univ. Drive at Tauber Street or other cross street
o Create consistent accessibility of bike lane on University Drive
o Make wider sidewalks
o Provide better cyclists signage
o Enforce the laws -they allow for cyclists too
o Concentrate on improving "crossing" the street since 90% of collisions occur
when cyclist crossing, not along the street (per one cyclist in attendance)
o Improve conditions and permeability at every intersection
FOR DRIVERS
o Slow down speed limit
o No left [turn] when pedestrian/cyclists turning left
o Create consistent, limited and dedicated one-way turn lanes
o Elevate expressway or depress street and build bridge(s)
o Consider contra-flow of traffic at peak hours
o Add more signage: yield to pedestrians at crossing
o Use one-way or frontage roads
o No more lanes
o Need better lighting for visibility
o Separate pedestrians/cyclists from cars
FINAL ADVICE TO CITY
o Focus first on crossing University Drive, then along University Drive (Not a
consensus. Group wants both along the street and crossing the street.)
o Check out other universities with same problems
o Continually educate pedestrians, cyclists, drivers
o Long range goal -start work toward elevated highway or depressed street
and build bridges
II
I L_ ·-·--------·-··-·-····-·'--------------------------------------------------'
Page 99
r-------------
1
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
!
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
CONCLUSION
The collllllu11ity-wiut 111ttliug u11 Nuvtmbtr 8, 2005 , al'flrmed the Issues and potential
solutions learned during the three focus group meetings on October 28, 2005.
Pmticipunt3 at both were hclpfol and insightful, paiticularly the s tudt:uls wltu rt:<:ug11izt:d
the dangerousness of the off-ramps at Wellborn Road and the need to restrict access to
so lllany small µarkiug tuts off University Drive, regardless of the slight inconvenience
to students, patrons and drivers.
We thank the City of College Station for providing this opportunity to work with you
nnci .~tn nci r"'nrly t i) pmvide ~dr.litiunal insight as necessary .
12
II
L ------------------------~------------------------------------------~·
PagP. 100
r··-· ···-···-···-····-···
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
October 14, 2005
Name
Address
Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms .
Appendix A
Focus Group Letter of Invitation
As you may know, the City of College Station is in the planning stages of up-dating
University Drive between Wellborn and South College Avenue, which will address
safety , parking and other issues in that corridor.
It is vitally important that the opinions of our citizens, including those who frequently use
that corridor, be heard during thi s planning process. To that end, we will conduct several
focus groups and community meetings this Fall.
I would like to invite you to participate in a small focus group scheduled for October 28,
_(time) in Room ___ of Tradition, the student housing facility at No1ihgate . You
will join approximately 12 other colleagues for conversation and discussion about the
City's current and future needs for the Universi ty Drive corridor.
Consultant M. Ann Abbe will facilitate the focus group. Neither City staff nor City
Council members will attend. The focus group will , however, be audio taped so that the
facilitator can accurately convey opinions that need to be heard prior to finalizing the
University Drive corridor plan . Res ponses by specific participants will not be identified,
while patterns and trends will be conveyed.
Please call me at the City of College Station, at 979-764-3838 by Tuesday, October 25,
to indicate your pa1ticipation in this impo1tant meeting . Thank yn11 for tRkinp; time tn
make College Station a better place in which to live and work.
Sincerely,
Troy Rother
City Traffic Engineer
L. ..... ··-····--··-~----------------~'
Page 101
L
AppendixB
Focus Group Questions
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
NORTHGATE CORRIDOR
Between Wellborn Road and South College Avenue
Introduction
• Background
o Why are you here?
City of College project
Goal to improve pedestrian safety when crossing University Drive
between South College Avenue and Wellborn Rd
o About Schrickel Rollins
Focus Groups
o What are they?
o How do they work?
Warm-Up Questions
l. How long have you li ved in College Station and , in general , how often do you or your
family travel through or visit the Northgate Corridor?
1. A (For merchant group only) How long have you been a merchant at
Nurlhgale?
2 Do you maintain a close association with anyone who works at the City or sits on a
City board or Council?
3 . With whom? How frequent is your contact? Hus your overall relationship with the
city been positive or negative?
GENERIC QUESTIONS FOR ALL GROurs
J. What activities bring you or your family to the Northgate Corridor?
A. What was good about those experiences?
H. l s there anythmg that could have been improved about the experiences related to
gettmg to or leaving the area?
····-····-······-'----------------------------------------------"
Page 102
r·-···-··-···~·····-·····
2. Personal safety when crossing University Drive, overall security, maintenance of
sidewalks and street, maintenance and up-grading of storefronts, parking,
convenience, accessibility, lighting, vehicular traffic flow, pedestrian traffic flow,
sense of place/community, physical comfort, and overall amenities (trees,
landscaping, seating, special brick patterns, etc.) are typically important for corridors,
regardless of whether you are a pedestrian, a vehicular driver, or a bicyclist.
Handout of Grid with these Broad Issues. Answer "Excellent", "Good,"
"Fair ," or "Needs Improvement."
If you answered "needs improvement" on any of the above, what specifically needs
improving?
3. The City of College Station needs your opinions on specific and potential solutions to
the challenges you gave above:
Handout to participants. Please rate EACH as "essential," "i mportant,"
or "not imp01iant."
4. Are there more critical items you wish to add to each list above that relate specifica lly
to you as a student, a University employee, or a Notihgate merchant/owner?
5. Please rank the items above (from# 3 and# 4) in order of your priority. Create
separate ranking for each group (pedestrian, bicyclist, vehicular driver). Discuss.
6. What final words of advice would you give to the City regarding the Notihgate
Corridor?
I l---~-----~~~~~I
Page 103
-~----------'-""-----'---~~~~~~~~"'--"'---~~--~--~~~~.~··~~..;_~~-~~-~~~~~~---~~~~~--~---~~~-~~~--~~~~~~~~-~.
~ ~ .._
~
Broad Issues
f\orthgateCorridor
Colege Station, Texa$
11 MERCHANT SICWN ERS .l-i 12TAMUFACULTYISTAFFH --7TAMUSTUDENTS I--30TOTALPAP.TICIPANTS
f-------~i=1f=+pFf1 ?ifti --PFlp=?R'=l-PFf. PAI ??! i Ii Ii I 1 i I ~ i I i Ii I i I i I i I i I 1 i I 1 i Ii I , IP!""' check on~ 6NlC ___ _
Pedestrian
Bicyclist
Vehicular driver
No Res nse
TOTAL PARTICIPANTS" --
l-------------------+--+-:1-i-1l--+:1l-+l1---f}--1-j-~j-j--j-j-L-j-l-1 I I -, ; -i_Li-1---t--
1 :Exe 'Good 'Fair 0lmpfv iTot. As ~xc .'Gooc 'Fair 'lmpt 'ToLRs 'E)Cc 'Good .'Fai r 'lmpt 'Tot Rs 'Exe 'Good 'Fair I ~mpt -~ i?.="n""'~u,.<m_•~=~"'""'f''V"Wll.,,,""1'~,.?'l>un""'u~""'"'ul!'.Tmu,.1171,u"•m"' .. ,.,-"---~. -t--!:=i;oi·0r· =;;o~:r· °"3ff: =.a;tt-: =.1'11 r-~~l·!--2 ~ -~ -:. 12 : O : 3 • 2 • 2 • 7 • O • 3 : 8 :· 19 -~
OVERALL SECURITY ! -~ . 2 ! 3 ~ 5 ! 11 ~cr!s +s ! 4 : 12 ~ 1 • 2 -· 4 ~ 0 • 7 2 • 7 ! 12 ! 9 +--30 1--------------------·~'-+--•:---i·-!--1-~ ·, ·! ! ·!-·!--!-!--~ -! • ~ -: . . ! °' -~
MAINTENANCEOFSIDEWALKS&STREET • : a : 2 : 3• 6: 11 : at·!-(;·h ·:-ra ·:· 12 :o -!1 -:2 -h -~-ro -: 3 • 7•20~
1-------------------•:---t---:-' --+.;-: -tl-f-' ·: . : 1:--:--= :--·: -' ' -. ' ' . : . : !"""-
MAINTENANCE & UP-GRADI NG STOREFRONTS • 1 '. 2 : 4 ·: 4 '. 11 !o !---;: -:o -:-a ! 12 • 0 • 2 : 3 ! 2 , 7 -h i :---s -hl!°14 -!"°To 1==-====..c'---'==-="-"="-"=-'------·,..._-+-0·--'H --"+:·:--'I-· · i--r;---i--;--i . -· .
PARKING -~-: 1. 2, B . 11 p :p :p :h i 12 , 0 , 2 . 2 ! 3 7 -lo h ·hlh?-~
i====~-------------1---+-i--o+T--,+:1--+r-~tr-~1-r--; ·r--, h -· . -' 7 5 ' . 13 i-30
CONVENIENCE 0 . 1 , 4 , 6 , 11 -r--J·t--1 -r2 , 4. 12 , 0, 2 , 2 , 3 1, , 1\r--j--
ACCESSIBILITY : -h -r--i-1·1 -/i 3 1 11 i"oh 1 2 i 1 0
1
i 12 ·hH1 i 2 i .: 7 : o ·i 2i11 r11h
I I I I -1 I t I I I I I I I I I I -1 I I J-
i.,.l .. IG""H~T""IN--G----------------·-l -+--1.......,0+-l--1·°'1-4+.-1 _6,.._I -1-111--j 'Q (""< 15 -13 -I 12 I 0 I 5 -. 1 I 1 I 7 I 0 -I 10 I 10 I 10 I 30
VEHICULARTRAFFICFLOW o · J ' 5• 6 ' 11 i.2 ' £-. 2 · 4• 12 ·o _· 2 · 3 ' 1 s · 2i 6 i 10ii11 ' 29 I I _i::::::c:t:::· -~
. . . . . . ; ; .i.___IL.
PEDESTRIANTRAFFICFLOW 0 ' 1 ' 3 ° 7 ' 11 -~i..__5 Ll 0 10' 12 '0 0 Oto 5 ° 2 7 0 ' 1 .~i.i...!2 i.._2£
BICYCLE TRAFFIC FLOW : 0 • >' 4 • 5 ' 11 i-o-1---c -'2 : 10 : 12 : 0 ·!--o : 3 ' 4 7 0 ·: 2: 9 .: 19 ~ I"'-'-'-'=-'~~~'-"------------·'----+--!--~ --~ . -~ !-! , , ~ , -~ ! , . . -:--·-!-if-~
I _, ·' ·' !--f-:--: :-I I -!--: -!-~ -J.--.;: ! ... I
SENSE OF PLACE/COMMUNITY • 1 ; :i _: 2 -i~ ;___!.! -i--2f.i_! -~ ;__!i .;__23 _;_2 -~1_;_2 .;__! -i---Z -i-1-1-~ -i~ .:,_!2 ~
l===...,===-------------·;----1--;'--,,-1-'1---,,1-:'~-i-:: i~ -~~-i~ -i-z : i -in -' i : i--:: -i--i-c ·-~I~-~
PHYSICALCOMFORT : _;-.Q _i--2 1µ.j-2 .;_!.!_j-_2f-i__!-~ j 5 : 12 : O_j...-2 i 3 : 1 : 6 ' : O _f--?·-~t-i>-2 j~
l===~===-------------r---+--.·.......,1-'.---,,t;'~·i ' i---ej--i--: ' ' -· ' ' ' -' ' • i---:;;; ?u~E!!;/:;r~~ing,brickpatterns,etc.) • 1 • 2 • 3 • 5 , 11 +~lr--1' ;-! , 10, 12 , 0 , 1 , 2 , 4 7 1 , 4 , 6 ._ 19 , 30
Lon two occasions , participan:s did not com plete every response r IT---1 : I I I 11 I
Q
~
>§
c..,
~ (/_) b:;
::so l': ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .._ ~ ~ cj ~ ~
g tJ ~ c.., ~ c..,
B'
"ti ~ "' ..... c:
October 28 , 2005
Summary Data
Composite Scores
SPECIFIC OPTIONS
Nort hgate Corridor
Coll ege Station, Texas
APPENOI XC
Th ree Focus Group
1---------------+-+I ,-L__-_-_,--1,,_j ,';'M..,,ER.,.C..._H..,AN;;Tc-SIO=W..,N~E,RS :::::J -==-ffTAMUFACULT-YiSTAFF ___J -7,T AMU STU D ENT ~ • THREE GROUPS COMPOSITE I ,----II !! Ir I 1 Ii 11 I! i I l! I! Ii n r--1r n
I ; I! I! I ! I! I! I! I! I I ii II II IT n-n II
i Are you primarily a pedestrian, bicyclist,
vehicular driver i n t he Northqate Cor ridor?
Please check ONE only .
·otal
i i i l +
i i i ; ;
Pedest rian 3 O l -l l i-__,., 2 i ·E:!_Ji
Vehicular driver 20 To L _ -_ '_ _ '_ -J l-8 :
Bicvclist 5 o l ! ! ! -~ 1 !
NoResponse 2 1! ! ! __ ! 1 !
ITotal Parnrtfttlnts ~ 30 11 ! !-! -~ _ .. ::-.-12 ~.
H ;
~ ~;--'o: -L i:--H ' ' ' ' I L-!_j -I! F I I RF
! -! 7 ! ! ! ! -!
;~;
;
; i
i 6 i
l='=='="=======================i==!~-~~=--.?'_
i====:::;;::::;o=:=:=="================<==!=i=c -5;
; i 2 i i====~~========i==~i = 3 i ~ i 2 i !==='l=l===
1l i
oil
3
2
3
4j
--1 ;
F=~=======================i==!:=f-: : I _ ~ : ~ j 0Q i -_ ff=
.,d 3!
: --=s :=2: i===::=:;;=::==:=:=:================l==ol=l-;~ 7;
1'=:=::,=:===:=====e::•:to;;;•:•fr:o:nt=s ==o!=~l!.-= 1 i --
g===:==e:==:==:=====;=============l==~! ,-----"s~ ! ! 1 ! s! o
~~~~~~~~~~~~======l==!o*====1~jt,;~___,'lof--~--'·w-~11 1; 3;
Increasing space for wheelchai rs along sidewalks l ! ! ! ! -:-!-] ]
7! 16
12 ! 14
;
13 i 10 :
' ;
with wheelchair curb cuts i 3 i 6 i 1 i 10 _ 10 _ 2 _ 0 i _ 1£:Rl ===='3! i:l ==:::::'3=fi::l ===o'H====R====#====ti
Decreasing speed of vehicular traffic th rough -~ ~ --· ~ -_ __...:;__ -·
~school zones~
Better defininQ outdoor public-oatherinQ places
Providing outdoo r seating to encourage social
loroupinos in safe area
Increasing number of trees along Corridor
~
>§
v,
~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'S;
"l'] s::i (")
\:> ~
2 ti~
v, s::i ::::?-.
is-§
v,
~~I ; sii
1
if
}'~! ___ __s ! = •'= 3'
; i
_2! 3i
-3; -.8; !, '-*9 !--2~' t·! -12
h===±I' l T 'I ' 'T ~ 2:= .J := ~: 12Fi==2ti-=--2~1! 71 i ~1!
·_ ~;_ n _::_-:__~; -~:~I : T l ~F l l
~~~'--~~_.;..-...:.:::~...;;......:..:.;_~~_.;.,.:_.__~-=-~~--'....;_~ ·~·--'-~~~~-'-'--'-~~'--~---:~...;__~..;._..;...;._....__;__~---:__::._.:...........~~.:.....:..---~~....;._......:..:..:....
~ ~ "' ._
<::>
°'
October :28, 200!:
Summary Data
Compos i:e Sc•)res
SPECIF IC OPTIONS
Northgate Corridor
College Stati:>n, T~xas
APPEN:JIX C
Three Focus Group
1-------------+-+ir-" :FilSIOWNEls ,__..___g]AMU FA CU LlYIST AFE
fl II II II
7.T AMU STU DE NTS
11 -II II ·n TH Rf lE GR OUi 1s COMPlilTE
]T ---lT IT ii Ji !I
FORBICYCUSi'S !-~ _1 -~-!~I~ i~ !i'.~_.J!'•· !~-~ 1·i:.w.wz i-nc ~_froe.s-. EMnlll. j ..__ lNc:t--!TOlllRIG ~::~~~~w;~=~~;~~~~:corridor j 1l 4J 3J a ! 4! ~21 .~sl . 12 l sl .c:! ol 7 10 \ s! si 27
Providino cross'Malks with great:..r visibility through ! ! ! ! ! ! -• ! ! ..-! ! ! ! ! ! !
soecial Cavin c -! 5 f _ 5 1 J ! 10 ! 3 J_~·-2~ = ] l _ 12 l 3 ! ~ i 1 1 7 f 11 l 10 l 8 i 29
Providin o wide:r crosswalks ;_ 4 i 5 ; J ; __ 9 5; _ .. :4;~_ fa 2 ;.. 11 : ! -4; O ; z 12; 13; 2; 27 Providin o larcier\.l/ait i n:iareasn~arcrosswalks 5 ! 4 ! J !--9 .. 1 C -:~"""1 1=. ~ ~Qid:.7 ,_)2 ! ! .c: l O l 7 17l 11 l O ! 28
Creating refu ge r.iedian:s on which bicyclists :an l t i !--=" r-r-· -. .,,,. l t:·~ -T.. -i · ---=~--! i i i l i i !
stoo i § l 6 i . l J 11 FJ,. d~ __ -l W ? ~J.--~~ L,_J i 2 i 6 ~ i 10' 6 ' 29
Reducinaclut erfromsidewaJksaJonastoretronts 6; 3; 2; i1 a•·-s .--=4. -~ 3 ~·72 , ; 3 • o; 1 1s• 10 • s • 30 ~ . ' =C::lo"=-~ -~Flo '" : . . . . . '
Providinc vehi:ui3.r-free zones 4 ! 4 ! _ 2 ! _!__Q _ 4 ' . _.§' =.. ~l:k . !2 : 3 ! 2 ! 7 10 12 ! 7 ! 29
?ecreasi"lg s~ro of vehicular traffic through i ! i j --f = -~ ~ . r-. -r-j i j i
school.rones . . ; 4 '. 4 '. 2 '. 10 ~b __ :If-_._ ~l:i=-~2 '. 1 ' '. 4 '. 7 13 9 '. 7 '. 29
lncreasrran um~rofb1:vcleoark1nara:ks _ 5 ! _ 2! ___ 2 !--'----9 i.____7 1 __ 5 •_ .. ..._0 ! .. ._.;~"'~2 ~~-_4 _ .... ,!.,... • ....,1 ~~---7 16 9 ~ 3 ! 28,
FOR_ VEHI CULAR.DRI VERS_ -~-:---~-. --~ -_c'= µ~~ _ f ~~-.:;: , , , , , : -: ,
Prov1drnc orotect~ leU-tum sianal arrows 3 ; I O ; ~~~t -..:..;-' :4 ~ ;.._:._. O ~ _ ~11 ; 3; 3 ; 1 ; 7 ; 13; 13; 11 ; 27
Allowinaleft-tum:>atsianaJized:rafficlichtsonl 1 ! I 2 ! -91 * ::-11 ·: Ai° ~7" 1 ! -~' t 2 1 ! 4 ! 2 ! 7 ! 9! 14 ! Sil 28
lncreasirQ liqhtirQ at inlersections 4 L ! 1 ! 10 I 2 j -_ ~ ] ___ .~ ~ J 1 2 ! 3 '. 7 8 ! 11 ! 91 ! 28
l ncreasirg saf=ty zones between pedes1rians and ! l l l I ! ..... _ ---r-. l ~ ! ! ! ! ! ! !
automobles ! 8 l ~ l O i 10 I , .... 11 i ."'.'" ,1 t ••• _ O i ." 12 ! 6 ! 1 t 0 i 7 ! 25 ! 4 ! 29
Providini;;: addiliooal pc.rking spaces along corridor j ! j j I ! i · l i ! Ii
near sho.Js ! 4 ! 4 l _ 2 ! 1_0 0 ! _ 2 ! _ 10 l 12 ! 0 ! 1 i ' sd ' 71 i .i: 7d 17 29
Creating visually appealing streetscape (eye i i i ! r l ·-l ! l ! ~ i
..... no~t , t ·e.es , be1ches, etc.\ . ! ~ ! 4 1 2 1 11 ~ _ 4 ! ___ :~ 1=i 3 1 _ 1_2 1 3 1 4 1 oH 11 1 121 ! 141! 41 ! 30
CreatmQ.bicyclewavsal~nQtheComdcr. 2 ! E :b_. !! 1 1 Ft=-:-~~~_;_§_J--~3 !---~~J 2 4 ! 3 ! 01! 71 1 10! 161! 41i 30
DecreastiQsi:eejof-..etuclesabnQtheCorrdor 1 ! 4! 4 =f-_9 ! . ·'g!" 2! 1 ~ -.12 _1 ! 2! 41! 71 ! _11 ! 8~· 91! 28
J~ µ---·+--=-ti ' ' . ''
~H ~~~~:-__ -;::~~:~-¥r~~
SOL UTIONSAODEDB'i'PAR':"ICIPANT5·--· i ' 1-i --+i rt _µ ... H .
Do not alow deli\·el"\t trucks to load/un load on U.Dr. I ol 1 ol l o! l al ! oLl ~li . ;.;;; oLl
Wellborn Road JTerae lane I __ Q.[__ __ _gg._ ~-~· __ _9~ ..=:olJ ; OiJ -
Red uce access to small ""'""ina lots from Univ Dr. I : __, o: ! OI : o: i O] i O!i O!i 0\ !
No rinht tum on r~ l : 4rr--;-;---~Ff 10Ff -sn -sft -Ji
No reduction cf s:arefr.:mt ru1r1<ir:n I gh-1 • 11 ! !.!.Ll ~ :-:;: ~ ~ :~
FunneVfO'Ce i;edestrians to cross at specific J : : ; : l; ; r ;; ;; ; ;
locations f Ll ! l ! :== _ i r -=-sLl...n:s~Ll--=-21 j
10! i Od Oil Oil o; ; 7;; . .. 1W · 1; ' 20
""U ·~ ·Q!J ·-=. __ ·oii ____ =oLl -~_-9 !! g!! 1!!--,L!-.. a1
n---n--rr-m--r1---; ; i i ii i;~-·
Jo.!J ~-· .. a!!-._... ol t __ _ o1j_ _ o! i s! ~ 4Ll _ _$.; __ 1_0,
--------· --------------·-------------~
~
>§
i;.,
~~..0 ~ -\.,) "' Sl Ct. (I: ;:,, ("',
(I: ~ <.:::;.,:
"l"j ~ (S •
c ~ !""-. g ti ~
i;., ~ ~ s §
"" ~ '" ._
<::>
"
October 28 , 2005 BROAD ISSUES
Northgate Corridor
College Station, Texas
Excellent I Good
Total* Total · !Total I
Are you primarily a pedestrian, bicyclist, vehicular driver at l I 1
Northgate? i Oi i Oi j 0
Please check only ONE. :
Pedestrian : 1 Oi : Oi : 0
~icy~~t-·-----------------·-------j-• n
Vehicular driver I 2!!J--i-I PERSONAL SAFETY WHEN CROSSING UNIV DRIVE I 01 !_
OVERALL SECURITY • 1 :-
~NTENANCE OF SIDEWALKS & STREET :0
[ [ ______________________________________________________ ..._____..
nJ_J MAINTENANCE & UP-GRADING OF STOREFRONTS I _
--------------------------------------------~--
I ~B:~l~~=======================~--==========-----L-..:;I ~ CONVENIENCE
~
ACCESSIBILITY ! o r
I T
r1 LIGHTING
I
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC FLOW Q
c5
~ 0 I
[ BICYCLE TRAFFIC FLOW
SENSE OF PLACE/COMMUNITY
-------------------------·------------------·-------~ ---..
I of _ _.
ovEFiJ\i:i-AME-NrriEs--------------------------------------~~=::
such as trees , other landscaping , brick patterns, etc .)
·Totals in rows B13 throuqh B39 reflect respondent did NOT provide an answer
Skystone Ryan Inc. w~h
~~ ~ g
;::,.. ~
§ t;-
~ ~ ~~
;:s
~
I 31
2 . 3 :-
Oi
0
0
Oi
Oi
Needs
Total
I
:
!
l
Northgate Merchants/Owners
Focus Group
I Grand Total
-ITotal
I
0 0
:
~: 1 . 0
0 10 -I
I
8 11
!
5 11
:
6 ! 11
4 I 11
I
8 11 ---
11
10
6 J 11
_l
6 • -1. 11
··-'· 7 : 11
5 11
I
4 --l 11
_J
31 _J 11
fil --: 11 -r
~ ~
(\) ._
~
October 28 , 2005
~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~-""""'--·
IMFRESSIONS OF SPEC IFIC OP TIONS
Northgate Corridor
College Stati on, Texas
SUMMARY DATA
North gate Merchants/Owners
Focus Group
i ~ ITT !' I'
l I _ Esse ntial lmportant +t-Not Important ~Gra nd Total
Are you primarily a pedestrian, bicyclist, vehicular driver at Northgale?
Please check ONE only.
Pedestrian
Bicvclist
Vehicular driver
FOR PEDEST RIAN S -
Providing wider crosswalks
Providing crosswalks with greater vis ibility through special paving
Increasing width ·Jf sidewalks
Providing larger ....,,;ting areas near crosswalks
Limiting left-tu rn s to signalized traffic lights only when driving East
Providing bot h aud~ory and visual mechanisms to convey safety at street cnssi"l gs
Providing additional pathways to cross from campus to Northgate
Creating refuge medians on which pedestrians and cyclists can stop
Preserv ing ve hicular-free zones
Providing more emergency phones
Reducing clutter •Jn sidewalks along storefronts
Increasing number of light poles along Corridor particularly at crossvmlks
Increasing handicapp;ld parking spaces
Increasing space for wheelchairs along sidewalks ~h wheelchair curb cuts
Decreasing speed of '!ehicular traffic through "school zones"
Better defining oLtdoor public-gathering places
Providing outdoor sealing to encourage social groupings in safe area
Increasi ng number of trees along Corrido r
~ ;::::
(\:) ;;;
> V:i ~ ~~ ~ ...., (') ...., ~'Si~
!::) (') v,
;:::: -· ..... ,......._ 0 ,..,~;::::
"" ~ v, §«~
Total•
1
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
2
:To1al :Total :Total 0
0 0 0 : 1
: 0 : 0 : 0 : 0
I I I I
I 0 I 0 I O I 0
_I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 -: 0 : 0 : 0 : 9
-J : -. -.
i
I I
I 4 I 7 I 0 I 11 -
: 6 : 4 : 0 _: 10
--. I I
-' 5 I 5 : 0 I . 10
: 6 : 4 : 0 _: 10 -.
.J 1 : 6 : 3 : 11
I 3 I 5 I 2 : 10 -I
i 2 i 3 i 5 • I 10 -
I 2 I 8 I 1 I 11
I I I
3 6 2 • 11
: -: -
I 2 I 7 I i _! 10
: 5 -! 2 3 • 10
:
! 5 I 4 I 2 I 11
I I
_, 1 2 8 : 11
I 3 I 6 I ; I 10 -I I
.• 3 2 : 4 • -: 10
I 3 I 5 I 3 I 11
! I I
" 3 2 3 • 10 --'
I 0 I 3 I 5 I 10
·--------------
..,,
o%
"' .....
~
October 28 , 2005 IMPR ESS IONS OF SPECIFIC OPTIONS
Northgate Corridor
College Station, Texas
I I Essential Important
Total* ;rotal ;Total
FOR-BI CYCLI STS ' ~! .! ----~ -~ -~~
Providing bike way along Northgate Corridor (East/West) by ·Nidening sidewalks 2 I 1 I
! Providing crosswalks with greater visibility through special pcvi ng 1 6
Providing wider crosswalks 1 I 4 I
I I
Providing larger waiting areas near crosswalks 1 5 :
I
Creating refuge medians on which bicyclists can stop 0 I 4 I
Reducing clutter from sidewalks along storefronts 0 6
I I
Providing vehicular-free zones 0 I 4 I
Decreasing speed of vehicular traffic through "school zones· 0 4
I
Increasing number of bicycle parking racks 1 I 5 I
i FOR VEHI CULAR DRI VE RS I
-----. .
Providing protected left-turn signal arrows 0 : 4 :
-··' I
All owing left-turns at signalized traffic lig hts only 0 : 1 :
Increasing lighting at intersections 0 : 4 I
I I
Increasing safety zones between pedestrians and automobil•s 0 : 7
Providing addttional parking spaces along corridor near shops 0 I 4 I
I
Creating visually appealing streetscape (eye appeal, trees, 1:8nches, etc.) 1 : 4 ;
Creating bicyc le ways along the Co rridor 0 I 2 I
I
Decreasing speed of vehicles along the Corridor 0 2
I
No right turn on red 3 I 2 !
No reduction to storefront parking 3 1 I 6 ! I
-Over/under cross walks 3 1 I 5 1 I
i I _J_J
• Note -Numbers in rows 48, 138 throuqh 928 reflect that !he respandent did NOT provide answer fo r that particular question.
~
:::i
~
~
§:'.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (":) '.J ~'S;~ § (":) ~
~~ §'
:::t-i:...,
§"~
i:...,
4
4
5
4
6
2
4
4
2
7
7
5
3
4
4
8
4
I
5 ,
0 1
SUMMA RY DATA
Northgate Merchants /Owners
Focus Group
Not Important Grand l otal
;rotal 0
:
.! !
I 3 I 10
! I
0 : 11 .
I O I 10
I 0 : 10
I o I 10
2 • 10
I I
I 3 I 11
2 : 10
I I
I 2 I 10
~. -.
: 0 : 11
I I
i 2 ·: 10
·, 1 -, 10
I I
0 ·: 10
;
I 2 I 10
2 •
I 11
t 1 I 11
4 • 10
I i I -I 0 1 1 10
I 1 1·· 10
2 ---j I
0 1 1 10
I ~---+t-----
~
...... ......
<::>
r-
October 28, 2Q05 BROAD ISSU ES
Northgate Corridor
College Statio n, Texas
SUMMARY DATA
TAMU Facu lty/Staff
Focus Group
____________________ j_ ____ t --+-t -+~ u
_,, __ J ~-·-I I Needs I Excellent Good Fa ir Im rovement Grand Total
Total :Total ;Total •Total __ ;Tota l
Are yo u pri marily a pedestrian, bicyclist, vehicular driver at No rthgate? ! QI ! OI I Q Q it'o"''"' : ' : . : . ~ ! I ! I ?edeSman _ -~ i O j Q ! Q _ i Q ' 2
Bicyclist • 2 • O• Q• Q • Q• 2
IVehicijar driver , 8 ! O , Q ·~ : Q : 8
Q Q
+-1 i 1-1 I i I:
I
I I I I I I I I I
~SONAL SAFETY WHEN CROSSll'HrnNIV-DFff'lE-------!-2 -~ ' 12
OVER ALL SECUR ITY : Q -: 13 -------------==--==--=-======~=---=--=-___:_c=-I M AI NTENAN CE OF SIDEWALKS & STREET I Q I 13 1-------------------------------------·---------
~AI N TE N~!°l CE & _ _l!P ~~_!f_ol~QF~TOREF_~~~------------'--Q -~j ---+-12
PARKING
CON VEN I~NCE -~1· (• 6 12 5
I I I I ~ I
I : 21 : 51 I
41 I 12
I
~CCESSI B I LTTY
! Q ~: . Q 0 Q 2 12 1Q. __ , ______ I
LIGHTiiG -----------·---------------:--o1---: cl -: 41 r----51 --: 31 , 12
~ I I I I I I I I I I
12 VEHI CULAR TR AF FIC FLOW ~ I 21 ' 41 ~ I 51 1 I ~E~~~~F LOW _________ J-; _ _j C -! Q ~-! 9 "_j 12
--·---·----------------------------·----·------!---~::~~~::=~~==-=~~~~~~~~~=~~ $-! :1 ~--~! 1
:1 -1
PHYSICAL CO MFO RT
OVERALL AM ENITIES ; ~ . _
1
__
such a• t reEs, other landscapi ng, brick patt8ms , etc_) QI I Q I
~ S2 ~ ~ ~ 0 l:: $::)
~ ~
i)s t;-< ...... v., ~ l:: ~ ~
6 5
1Q
QI I QI I QI I
12
12
12
12
Q
~ ~ ..... ..... .....
! ·-·---· ··----
Are you orimarilv a pedestrian, bicyclist, vehicular driver at Northgate?
Please check ONE on ly.
Pedestrian
Bicvclist
Vehicular driver
FOR PEDESTRIANS
Providing wider crosswalks
Providing crosswalks with greater visibility through special paving
Increas ing width of sidewalks
Provid ing larger waiting areas near crosswalks
Limi ting left-turns to signalized traffic lights only when driving East
IMPRESSIONS OF SPECIFIC OPTIONS
Northgate Corridor
College Station, Texas
j I Esse ntial
Total" I Total
i 1 :
0 :
1 !
1 I
7 I
__ J
I
0
0 :
-· 0
0 I
I
0 I
I
0 :
;
Providing both aud itory and visual mechanisms to convey safet/ at st reet crossings 0 -!
Providing additional pathways to cross from campus to Northgc.te
Creating re fuge medians on which pedestrians and cyclists can stop
Pres ervi ng vehicular-free zones
Providing more emergency phones
Reduc in g clutter on sidewalks along storefronts
Inc reasing number of light pcles along Corridor particularly at c·osswc.lks
Increasing handicapped parking spaces
Increasing space for wheelchairs along sidewalks with wheelchair curb cuts
Decreasing speed of vehicular traffic through "school zones"
Better defining outdoor public-gathering places
Pro vi ding outdoor seating to encourage social groupings in sat.a area
Increasing number of trees along Corridor
~ C) t?
t:l ~ '"tj
("') -· ~ ~ c Cl)
........ ;:s ""' it ""' ~
S::.5 S2 §
t:l ""' ~~~
~
~
'Si
("')
--0
i
0 :
-' 0 I --I
0 --!
I
1 ;
0 -.
0
0 !
0 I
I
0 I -;
0
0
:
0
lmoortant Not important Grand Total
I Total I Total I
i i i
0 : 0 : 0 1
i : -0 ! 0 : 0 ! 1
0 I 0 I 0 I 1
0 I 0 I 0 I 7
-I I --1 i --i I
; ;
3 : 7 : 0 : 10
--· • I 4 2 4 • 10
: ..
9 I 1 I 0 --, 10
I I I
8 I 2 I 0 I 10 •. . ..
I I I
3 ; 6 ; 1 10
;
5 : 5 : 0 10
----i ,
7 3 : 0 10
8 : 2 : 0 : 10
I I I
4 I 4 I 2 I 10 .. ----I I I
2 I 4 I 4 __ , 10 ---. --. i I I
2 6 --' 1 10 ..
1 7 2 --10 ---{
1 4 5 10
0 I 0 I 0 I 0
9 I 1 I 0 I 10 --I I I
7 I 2 I 1 I 10
i i i
1 6 3 10
1 : 6 : 3 10
:
1 4 5 : 10
~ ..... .....
"'
IMPRESSIONS OF SPECIFIC a'TIONS
Northgate Corridor
Co ll ege Statio n, Texas
Essential Important Not important I r== j TotaJ• ~ l Total I l Total I l Total I j
Grand Total
FOR s1 cvcu s Ts oE! ol 1 ol ! ol 0
Providing bike wa1 along Ncrthfate :;orridor (EastN~est) by widen ing sidewalks O : 2 ; 2 ° 6 10
Providing crosswc.l~s with g·ea~r vislbility through spec ial paving 2 2 6 10
! I ! I ! I !
IProvidingwidercr:isswalks l -1J_____J ------41 I 3l I 21 I 10
I I I I
Providing larger waiting ar&.S r.aar crosswalks OI i 51 i 51 i OI i 10
!creating refuge medians on whZ;h a .:yclists can stop I at ·-; 01 -··: 01---: 41--: 10
I Reducing clutter from sideV13ik• along storefronts I 0 1 ~-: 41 -: 31 -i 31 --! 10
10
Providing vehicula--free zores 1 ! 31 ! 51 ! 21 ! 11 --! -! ! '
Decreasing speec of vehicular taffic through "schocl zores" o I 6 I 3 I 1 I
I I I I I I I
lricreasing numbe-of bicycle pc;.1<.in~ racks OI j 61 j 41 j 01 I 10 ,___ _________ __,_ !~=J--! I : 1 -~i _ __,
FO R VEHICULIAR DRIVERS 01 ; 0 0 0
Providing protectej left.turn 3igr:al arrows 11 : 3 10
Allowing left-turns at signal ized -raffi·~ lights only 0 5r -: 4 11 ! 10
! ! !
Increasing lighting at interse.:;tioos OI ·-i 31 --i 21 I 5r -, 10
Increasing safety Lones bet~ee1 ped:a3trians and automobiles 01 t 91 I 11 I 01 I 10
i I i I
Providing additiona l parking 3p&:;es along corrdor near s:i ops 0 0 2 81 i 10
I I I . I . I .
Creating visually appealing streEtsc~e (eye appeal , trees, benches, etc.) o : 4 : 4 ·: 2 ; 10
Creating bicycle ways along the Corrijor 0 3 10
Decreasing speed of vehicle> al:Jng -he Corridor ----~ J 81 --1 1 l.--1 1 I -1 101
No ri gh t turn on red 1t-i 21 ! s : 1 J 10
i I I I
Restrictingpedestri •n-forceatcros .... alk __ c[_T--71 : 31 I O 10
I I ! I I I
:;;;~~:;~~iiirows-~~mriirou9ils2BreifeCtih.ttiierespoii<ie.rtdidN6T-pr~f1s~er-10-,-ihatj?artfc~ar~ue5ti01L-----~l_~----------~ --~-----------~
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >B ~ (":> -'5; ~
"lj (":> t;
s::i a ;:;·
(":> ~ ~
:;: ...... "" ........ c:;· Cl ~~~ ,_
...__
i:,·
~
::::
'-"-
!
October 28, 2005 BROAD ISSUES
Northgate Corridor
College Station , Texas
-f-L .J_l
Excellent Good Fa ir
!Total• jTotal •Total :Total
[;;
e you primarily a pedestrian, bicyclist, vehicular driver at •
orthgate? I o
Please check oriiy-ONE.-------------------.----1 1 -----"'--
OI I
Pedestrian -J 0
Bicyclist I 31 ! 0
Vehicular driver 21 I I 0 I -I I
I -· I -
'oilERALL SECURITY
! I !
MAINTENANCE OF SIDEWALKS & STREET I OI I 0
lo;·;;:iin--C..)i}icE-& UP-GRADiifcrn·F STOREFRONTS------·-------~·-i 1 I ; . ~-. ~-·-~ :
PARKING 0
I I
n -~_l:!~~NIENCE ------------------------: OI --:-• -----
A-CCESSIBILlfY·---·--·-----------·-----·----·-r-m ! .
'VEHICULAR TRAFFIC FLOW ---·------··------···-----·------··-·-·-·-··--·-------· ; -~------...
PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FLOW I 01 I 0 ----
BICYCLE TRAFFIC FLOW 0 --------
SENSE OF PLACEiCOMMUNri'Y------------·----+-ot--·~:-----..-i !---, '
'PiiYSICAl COMFORT OI
OVERALL AMENITIES 0 i
Needs
Improvement
:Total
0 I
0
0
0 I -r
!
~
-t
3 I
I
2 I
1 I
2 -f
2 --r
__1
-r
2
I
2 I
.-!.
SUMMARY DATA
TAMU STUDENTS
Focus Group
Grand Total
•Total
0
I
0 --r -· 3
.! 2
..!
-i·
i
...!
-t 6
'l
6
6
6
6
-f
i 6
6 El --. 6
~
I 6
i
I t-:. 6
6
:~~-:r:~er landscaping , brick patterns, etc.) ! _l_j _____ __J i ___ , l _Jj _______ !_ ! ____________ I
•Total in Rob b13 throuah b39 reflects resoondent did NOT answer auest ion I I I 1-t n-I i i T
Skystone Ryan Inc. with
Schri ckel Roll ins and Assoc.
S2 tti ~i
V:i t;-
i2' ~
f} ~
:;:::
~
~ ~ ._ ._ ...
!
IMPRESElONS C1' SPECIFIC OPTIONS
\Jorthgate C.:midor
College Sta j (J n, Texas
-•-··-·-'-t-"Esse ntV -~I mpo rt~---~, lmoortant i--t-"Graro Total
Total"' i To~--' Total
Are ou rimar I a pedestrian, bic clist, 1ehicJlar dri•er at North ate? O ., ~ ... -1,_ ____ _,o'l-l->-----~-ic------'"
Please check OOE only. O ! o -
Total
r-----0
Pedestrian -1 11 I
!Bicyclist I 4 1 -~1 ___ __Ql_ __ l -.
Vehicular driver ~ I -----or _j ol :
IFORPEDESTRlANS I al ··!----zl --j-
Provicting wider ::rosswaJks ·:-----=1-i'
Providing cross....., alts wit h greater ·Jis ibili:y t1ro;g.'1 special :Ja..ing
., .. , .,
i 3 i
I I I I I
11ncre·a·s1ngwrcrtt-of sijewalks I 01 -i El j 21 --+:-----...o+
Providing largeiwarting areas near c rosswalks I "I !---+-: I . . ,__---1-_,, __ --1
Limiting left-turns tc ::igllalized t."Ef c lights ·Jnly v.hen d rhfog Eas1 1
I ·--:1 I
I I
OI I !
I
Providing both audiklry and visua l mechani~ms t= convey safety c.t str:et crossings
Providing additic·nal pattl'Nays :c cK>ss from ca"TI~us tc Nocth;iate o· i
-·.,~··;··~-... ~ .... """""·~ , i -fl 'I ! 'Ii I
Preservmg veh10Jla ·-tree zones 1 1 3 1 3 1 a 1 7
~ ~ -+ I I· roviding more eme-rgerc1 phore£ -----l OJ._;_ 3
I Reducing clutter on sidewvalks alcrg storefronts I 01 -i---~-· ...,
Increasing numter of light poles c::J.:ng Co rrijor pcrticula,1·1 at i:rosswalks O --~i ____ 4 J ~1 Hi 01 --'l------'-I
"1n"'c"re"a"si°"ng""'ha"n"'dc°"a">"·P°"ed""""oa"rk"'in"g"'"s;::a=c=e"s--------------+---,-1t--ef-----1
1 1 1
Increasing space fa -wheelchairs 3f :mg sidewaks with whe el=hai r curb cuts 3
Decreasing speed cf ·1eticular tra"'fc througt:i ~sell.Joi zone~· 0 -r~l 2
1 i ·I 1 ·I Better defining O<Jtdoor pJblic-gathenng places O --!---1 ··~!
Providi ng outdocr se ati ng m eooJu'3ge social 9rcJpin1;s in sae area ~! pncreasing numt:er of trees alo ng •.....orrido r I 0 1--t=--~ --: --
~~~ ~ ~ 'rj
c::: '5; ~ ~ i:;., ~ ~~ ~ § ~ ..... i:;.,
;:s 5 -~
::-+-:'.'I .
SUMMARYDrA
TAM U STUDE~ -s
Focus Group
? ._ ._
'""
,-----
IMPRESSIONS OF SPECIFIC OPIDNS
Northgate Corridor
College Station, Texas
---------~ --++E ssential L'
Totar Total
FOR BICY CLI STS
Provid ing bike way along Northgate Corridor (East/West) by widening sidewalks
--1
Pro vi ding crosswalks with greater visibility through special paving
Providing wider crosswalks ---.
1
!Providing larger waiting areas near crosswalks I nl---i
I
Creating refuge medians on which bicyclists can stop i
i
Reduci ng clutter from sidewalks along storefronts
I
I
i
I Providing vehicular-free zones I "I ; -I :
Decreas ing speed of veh icular traffic through "school zones"
Increasing numOei of bicycle parking racks
I
I
i
FOR VEHIC ULAR DRIV ERS
I Providing protected left-tum signal arrows I -1 --·;------=!
I
I
i
! Allowing left-turns at signalized traffic lights only
I
I
Increasing lighting at intersections ~-----=! ~ Increasing safety zones between pedestrians and automobiles
Providing additional parking spaces along corridor near shops
Creating visually appeal ing streetscape (eye appeal , trees , benches , etc .)
Creating bicycle ways along the COrridor
Decreasing speed of vehic les along the Corridor
Delivery trucks
I
I
21 I 31
-,
i
i
I
! --:·
-1
-1
i
i
::j
------._.,
_J __ k L _[
lmDOrtant Not lmoortant l' Grand Total
Total Total
2
I
i
T
i
~ .
"T
·-
I
l
i
-t
-~
-y
i
ti I
I
I
3 --l----
01 ·--~
I
i
I
lwellborn merge lane I 21 -· -•
Access to uni v. lots I 3! : 3
' I I I
• Note -Numbers in rows 48, 138 throuoh 928 reflect that the respondent did NOT provide answer for that particular ouestion .
~~~ > ~ 'rj ~~""ii c:: 'S, ~ ~ ~ ~
:::! ~ § ~-.. VJ
::s s· ~
c:;-~
' I
) I
I I
!
I
! ___________________ i
Page 116
r---------------------------------
1
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INNOVATIVE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS INC.
2701 Valley View Lane • Farmers Branch,Texas 75234 • (972) 484-2525 • (972) 484-4545
MEMORANDUM
TO: Victo1· Baxter
FROM: Dean Stuller, P.E.
DATE: October 5, 2005
RE: Northgate Redevelopment -Unive1·sity Drive
The following are suggested improvements on University Drive between the West Campus and
College Avenue:
West of Boyett Street
Widen the sidewalks between the West Campus and Boyett Street. (Recommend a
minimum width of 10 feet to provide a pedestrian I bike way.)
Close the existing driveway on the south side of University Drive serving campus
parking.
At Boyett Street
Ultimate improvement would be the realignments of both Boyett Street and the drive
serving the campus (Boyett Street shifted to the east and the drive shifted to the west)
Jntcrim improvomont would he to realign the campus drive with Bny"tt Strl'Ol'Ot .
Install a traffic signal nt the intcrnection for either improvement.
At College I Main Street
Due to northbound and southbound vehicular traffic on College I Main Street and the
heavy northbound I southbound bike volume, maintain the bike lanes north of the
intersection. (Will need to reconsider the location of the overhead gateway sign into the
Northgate area.) (The large northbound I southbound bike volume was verified by
manual traffic counts.)
L _________________ ,__ __________________________ __,,
Page 117
r---------------
1
I
I
I
!
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
Victor Baxte r
Oc tober 5, 200 '
Red uce the "cl utter" on th e north ('"" ,111d tllH'll1 wes l t:urn ers of th e int er,:cc ti o n to increase
th e pctlc stri an s pace by co mbinin g s ignal pll lcs with str ee t li ght pole s. r ~rn ov in g any
ncwspiip•'r "ands, tras h bin s, etc.
• Pro virk pedes tr ian signal hea ds with th e "tim er'' and the audib le signa l.
• Provide I' -foot wide crosswa lks ("C1111ti11rn tal " clesien typ ') un Uni vers it y Dr ive eas t
and we st o r th e intersec tion . (Dependin g nn th e typ e of pa ve ment trea tm ent use d, th e
crosswalk s can be painter! or a brick pattern o r sta mp ed concrete cn n be uc;c d.)
• In crease th e radiu s o n th e so uthwes t co rn er o r the intersec t ion . (Th e back tire o n bu ses
go up th e curb when makine rig ht turn ~.)
!:k l wee n Tm1b er I Asb ur y and Ireland I Na!!lc
• Do nut change th e on e-way traffi c fl ow direc ti o n on Asbury o r Ir eland . (Thi s keeps th e
predominant trn.ffic fl ow associated 11 ith th e parkin g ga rn gc us ri ght tu rn s in and ri ght
lllms out. If th e o ne-way flo w on th e two :;tr ccts were reve rsed as suggest<.:d in th e las t
mee ti ng , th e pn.:do min nnl acce ss rnt o the garage is left turn s in aml lc fl turn s out. In
addition , with the Oow reve rse d , ca nn o t rrovid c as mu ch westbo und left turn sto 1agc i11to
th e ca mpu s at i\sbur y a:; i:; currentl y pro l'idccl nt Nag le.)
• Rcmn vc the "hooded" we stlJU uml !el't tu rn into th e parking garage curr en tl y on Uni ve rsit y
Driv e. (T he ex istin g dri ve wi ll rema in with a ri ght in / ri ght o ut opera tio n.)
Rctwce n Ireland I Nagle a nd Spence
Option I -Closc th <' ful l med ian ope nin g se rv ing th o enmpu 3 parkin g lo t dr ive on th e
so uth sid e o f Uni ve rs it y Dri ve. (The dri ve will fun c ti on wi th ri ght in / ri ght out
ope rati o ns.)
Option 2 -Provid e a wes tbound "hoode d '' le ft turn lane int o th e campu s par kin g lot on
th e so uth side of Uni ve rs it y Drive. (Thi s des ign will nllo w left in , r ight in and rig ht out
mo vP.rn ent s.)
f'or eith er optio n, provide a driv e fr o m th e su ut l1 e11d of th e parkin g lo t to Ir eland. (If
Op ti on I is cho so n, th e ocec3 s to lrc lnnd is hi ghl y reco m111 emled.)
i\t Co ll cp,c St ree t
Remove th e swc ping 1ig l1t tu111 111 uvc 111 e11t s o n a ll lour ap proaches and rep lace wit h
cl r.di cmed right turn lane s ex tend ed up to the int ersec ti on. (T he trafli c s ig1wl <:<H1 bt·
up graded to provid e "ri e ht turn o erlap " pha ses f'or eac h dedica ted ri ght turn lnnc.)
L __________ L__ __________________________________ _,
Page 118
r·-· ···-·····-···-···-··
•
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\_···-···-···-
Victor Oax tcr
October 5. 200:"
General Pe d e s trian I rraffi c Flow
• Pe d estrian c ro ss in g s on Un iversity Dri 1.: 1t «~d to o nl y occur at s ignali ze d i111 c rscctions.
• The "tim er .. ty pe pedes trian s ig nal he ad n ~e d s 10 be in stall e d at a ll s igna li 1.ed
int e rsec ti o ns a lo ng Univers ity Drive s tartin g al Co ll ege Street and continuin g west to th e
proposed tra ni c s ig na l at Boyett e S tr eet
The use of' h r ick pave rs o r s tampe d conc rete s ho uld be con s idered fo r a ll c ro sswa lk s
(recomme nd ··contine ntal " t y pe) a nd s top bars o n University Drive in th e s tud y area.
(Need to be ca utiou s to make s ure th e pa vc rs o r s tamped concre te do no t creat e a ha zard
for di sab led pedestri a n s.)
Traffic Control Treatment o n the Unive rs it y Dri1c 1\ppro ach es to th e Study Area
Some ty pe o f warn in g s igns and possibl e fla s he rs sho uld be cons id e re d for traffic on
Uni versity Drive e ntering the study a rea. (Poss ible lo cations cou ld be cast of Co ll ege
Street fo r w estbound traffic and west of Welborn Street overpass for east bo und traffi c.)
Examp le:
C/\l lTIO N
l:N T E R!NG MULT IP LE C ROSS ING P EDESTRIA N ZON I·.
(It cou ld be a ca ntil evere d s ig n with two fl as he rs and a "3 0 MPH" advisory s peed limit.)
• /\se ri e s of "rumbl c s trip s" could be in s tall ed in th e area of the above cant il e ve re d s ig n o n
Un ivers it y Dri ve . (The "rumbl e strips" co uld be two o r three rows of s li g htl y ra ise d brick
pavers across th e approach la ne s to th e s tud y a rea.)
The pro posed improvem e nt s s ho uld improve traffic ll ow a nd sa fe ty on Univers it y Dri ve . With
th e proposed me di a n des ig n plan, a ll le ft turn s from Uni ve rs it y Drive a nd onto Uni ve rs it y Drive
occ:m Ma s ig na li zed intersection. (The one excep tion is th e Opti on 2 be tween Taubt:r I A s bury
a nd Irel and I Nagle w he re a westbound "hoode d " le ft turn is proposed .) Providing s ig nali zed
trarfic control for all le ft turn movi:rnent s a long U 11i v•,rsi1y Drive will i111prnvr. ni r. <af,,ty nf
mo torists as well as pedestri ans and bicycli sts.
Page 119
·1
r·--------------.======================-=----=----=--=----------,-----1
I
I
TO : Mr. Cli nt Wofford, R .L.A ., ASLA
FROM : J. Michael Starek , P.E.
RE: Uni versit y Drive
Modified C irculation Plan
Co ll ege S tat ions, Texas
\ ···:,.;:.·
'.··;;.,_
DATE: Se pt ember 7 , 2006
Innova tion Transportation Soluti ons, In c. has c.:ump leted a review of the various cross-
s tree t c ircu lat ion plan s fo r th e a rea bound ed b y Uni vers it y Drive on th e south , Coll ege Mai n
S treet o n th e wes t, Church S treet on th e nm1h , and Nagle S treet on the east in th e City of Coll ege
Stat ion , Texas. The followi ng recommendations are based upon fie ld observa ti o ns and studies,
periodic traffic cuu11t uata , s trct!t layo ut s, a1\d bus in ess access. The fo ll ow in g recom mend a tion s
arc s uggested:
Coll ege Main S tr eet shou ld be conve11ed to "one-way" no11hbound fr o m Un ivers it y
Drive to Pa tri cia S treet. Thi s convers ion wou ld a ll ow s id ewa lk widening in th e vicin ity
of Uni vers it y Drive a nd would re duc e potenti a l turnin g movement confli c ts at th e n a11uw
Universit y/Coll ege Main S treet int e rsecti on. The "two-way" sect ion of Coll ege Main
fr o m Patri c in 11011h wo ul d a ll ow so uthb ound traffi c to n egoti a te e ither a ri ght tu m o nt o
Patri c ia S treet or left turn o nt o Lodge S treet. Th is wou ld provide good area circulati on.
Tauber S treet should be con vc11 ed to a "one-way" southbound th orough fa re fro m C hurch
Street to Universi ty Drive. This o perat io 11 ul diu11g e would provide adequate a rea
c irc ul a ti on and ca p aci ty, a nd would a ll ow a s impl e 3-phase s ig nal operation a t
Univers ity/Tauher-Ash11ry Int ersecti o n . The convers ion of Tauber Stree t to "one-way"
so11thht1 l11td from C hurc h lo University provides good so uthbo und caµaci ly be tween
Co ll ege M"in and Nagle S tree t. T hi s de~ign ulso allows left turn move111.:11l s frmn lh e
cross-s tr eets to be controll ed by traffic s igna ls. T hi s rl es ig n nlso simplifies th e s ignal
pha si ng at Uni vcrsi tyf l'auber-As bury imersecti o n, th ereby in creasi ng int ersection
capaci ty.
Page 120
r·----------------
!
I
'
i
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I L __
Stasney S treet fro m Uni vers ity to Church Street sho uld be co nvert ed to "one-w ay"
northb o und . This des ign wo uld all ow "right -turn " access from Uni vers it y and could
possib ly all ow "l e ft-tum " access o nl y from Uni vers it y. A rea circul ati o n to th e sou th
fro m S tas ney co uld be att ai ned v ia Church Street to Nagle or Particia Street to Nagle .
The "one-way" northbound operati ons of Stasn ey from Univers it y wo uld provid e good
nmth bound circu lat io n and wou ld limit all le ft -turnin g movement s and crossin g
movt:rnent s to/from streets int ersectin g Uni vers it y to signal co nt ro ll ed int ersecti ons.
In summ ary , th e pro posed circula tion pl an wou ld in crease roadway ca pac ity along Uni vers ity
providi ng sign a l control at a ll inte rsecti o ns whe re left-turn movem e nt s a nd crossin g movements
are all owed, and provide add e d s id ewa lk wide nin g and ped es tri an signa l contro ls at all maj or
street int ersecti o ns. The proposed d es ig n also increases throu gh ca pacit y along Univers it y
between Co ll ege Ma in and Nagle Street by reducin g pot e llli al left-turn and crossing movem e nt s,
providing increased intersecti on ca pacit y and safety by allowin g left-tum and crossin g
m oveme nt s o n ly at sig na lized intersection s, and in creas in g Uni vers ity Drive ca pacity b y
red uci ng signal phases at the cross str eets.
····---·----------·L__-----------------------------~·
Page 12 1
Page 122
r·--------------------------------------------------,_-------------------------------------.,
i
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
Preliminary Summary Analysis Notes:
Northgate@ College Station
Townscape, Inc.
Primary Elements:
1. University Drive
a . Issues
Traffic speed
Width (as relates to speed and actual pedestrian crossing
distance/time)
Image
b. Potential Concepts
2. Intersections
a. Issues
Traffic calming + width reduction+ image upgrade
1. Minimal lane widths
2. Planted median
3. Planted parkways where possible (use of canopy street trees
in median and parkways will reduce perceived width,
create "visual friction" and enhance image)
4 . On-street parallel parking in conjunction w/ pedestrian
bulbouts where possible
5. Explore use of themed light standards for sense of scale and
consistency
6. Explore potential of vertical "gateway" elements at both
ends of study area
Lack of pedestrian stacking space at corners
• Physical obstructions at corners
Undersized crosswalks
Free right turn lanes pose conflicts
• No stmse of pedestrian realm at intersections
b. Potential Concepts
"High image" intersections that will enhance pedestrian safety
and visually cue drivers that this reach of University Drive is
pedestrian realm
1. Larger paved stacking areas at corners
2. Remove or relocate obstructions
3 . Wide (10 to 15 ft.) crosswalks with highly visible pattern
(consider wide horizontal stripes; save special paving for
"campus village" area).
4. Design medians as "pedestrian refuge" at crossings
5. Themed lighting/traffic arms
I_ --------------------------~~~~~~~·
Page 123
r-···-·····-·····-·····-·····-·····-·····-····-····-····-···
I
3. Campus Edge
a. Issues
6. Explore shrinking or removal of free right turn lanes at
South College Avenue
Calm traffic, accommodate pedestrian crossers and reinforce
image of pedestrian realm through frequency and rhythm of
intersections
1. Explore additional intersection/crossing at Boyetl (with
attendant design modifications on campus side)
Consistent image
Walkway placement relative to curb and trees
Comfort: consistent shade and possibly seating?
Wayfinding?
b. Potential Concepts
4. TownEdge
a. Issues
Fill gaps in street tre e planting for consistent shade and stronger
image
Assess sidewalk placement to determine if relocation would
result in safor, more comfortable walking conditions
Explore need for benches/waste receptacles at optimum locations
Five different zones with different issues
1. Highway Comm ercial Zon e : S. College to Na g le
a. Dedicated right turn lane
b . Individual commercial pad sites
c. Parking in front of buildings
d. Numerous wide driveways
e . Minimal walks
f . Minimal ornamental "landsc aping" a t each silt:
2. Transition Zone: Nagle to Tauber
a . Right turn lane reclaimed
b. Most parking behind buildings
c . Fewer driveway conflicts
d . Bike shop and credit union are at sidewalk; act as
"lynchpin" between old and new
3 . Church Property: Tauber to unnamed church alley
a. Attractive, refined character
b . Building set back from street and walk ("front
yard")
c. Mature shade trees
d . Brick walks
e . Begin parallel on-street parking
f. Antique street lights
4. Campus Village: Church alley to Wellborn interchange
a . Buildings at sidewalk (traditional development
profil e)
2
L_ ---·-------------------------------------~-------------------------------------'
Page 12 4
r·-------------------------------------------
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b. Continuous retail/restaurant/bar uses at sidewalk
c. On-street parallel parking (supplemented with lots
and garages behind buildings)
d. Ongoing "urban village" redevelopment with infill
buildings and major residential projects
5. Wellborn Interchange
a. Rural interchange design
b. High speeds
c. Lack of"gateway image"
Potential concepts: Blend or differentiate?
1. Strive for consistent character along town edge
2. OR, play up distinctiveness of zones
3. OR, a hybrid of the two (say, consolidating some zones but
having distinctive difference between newer commercial
area and "campus village" area
3
[ ____ ------------------------------------------------'---------------------------------~
Page 125
I
l~·--· ---·-
I
f
I
I
!
!
i
l
I
---J !_ __ ... i
--~:......c..-,,-----;....__~
\ .'-
"'---------.:...... .. ----
i _________ _
l
I
I
~
~
I E
f = J
1 _____ ,,..J j
. 1.
1
L-~-----~~ -·---------
J'ATRlCIA ST
...:....J:.tf_J_RY MONUIEl\IT~--'·----·----'c~---''"
CURBED MEDIAN Willi PLANTINGS
___ _:_______:.;_C URBED.~EDIAN Wl~NC
PROPOSED ON-STREET PARKING
CXISTING ON-STREET PARKl<fG
•
REMOVED FREE RIGHT TURN
GAINING ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE
PROVIDE SAFER PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
DAVIS.(;AAY
RESIDENCE
HALL
O:OCKl::K
RESIDENCE
HALL
MOORE
RESIDENCE
HAl.L
' 10' WIDE Sl~EWALK.----=,
:~~:~~~~~TES
I ' j I
!
1
MCINl-45
R!SIDCNCE
HALL
,,. ,,. ,,. ,,.
CHURCH AVE
' i
i
GATEWAY STRUCTURE --------,------,
·---~~.J?05S!BLE.-P_#\!L..::---. ·+-~· -~
.l'ATRlCIAST
~-EXISJ ING..OH-STP..EE-1-PARKINC
PROPOSED PAVED ISLAND
--------_______ I
,,. ,,. ,,.
,,. ,,.
UNIVF. R!iilTY DR -FM 60
,Se.: .,_ 1'' .r-·-.
eJ.ISTING WALKWAY TO RE~N
CLOSE EXISTING ENTRY DRIVE INTO
EXISTING PARtl.ING TO CREATE A
4-WAY SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
ATBOYETI ST.
ADJUST PARKING LOTTOACCOMODATE
NEW BOYETT INTERSECTION
SCHUHMACHER
RESIDENCE
HALL
WALTON
RESIDENCE
HALL
'
I
_,......_~---------'-~----·--------'
I
i
·----J
I c -------i:Ni:AR.GEo PEDfST~ QUEUING AREA
EXISTING ON-S11fEEl P~RKlfG
PROPOSED PLA ~TER l~LAND
I I
I i
POST
OFFICT
A&M
UNITED
METHOl:>IST
CHURCH
INCREASE PEDESTRIANWALKWAY
FROM 4•-10 10' AND REDUCE THE DRIVE
AT THE POST OFFICE LOADING AREA.
INCREASE PEDESTRIAN QUEUING
SPACE ON BOTH SIDES OF HOUSTON ST.
HOTARD
RESIDENCT
HALL
NEELEY
RESIDENCE
HAii
HOBl!.Y
RESIDENCT
HALL
i
I
I
r--
l
T
I
I
--·~j ' ----
l'ATRlCJASl'
INCREASE SIDEWALK BY J xTENDINGl -----
TO THE EXISTING STREET i.ANE j
' ' CURl51!D Ml!DIAN WrTH Pl.ANTftG ;
'
CUR.81!0 Sllll!WALK
TO REDUCE DRIVE WIDTH
BULB OUT AREA
A'DfXI
KINKOS
~ I ADD ISLAND TO REDUCE
~Q DRIVE WIDTH
11.1 SH ill
~ I PAPA SUBWA'Q-_J.
JOHN'S f-~-,; u-
1
REDUCED DR:IVE WICI'™ WITH
ADDIT ION OF AN ISLAND.
ISLAND GIVES A POINT OF
REFUGE FOR PEDESTRIANS.
NORTH SIDE
PARKING
GAR.AGE r ONE WAY DIRECTIONAL FLOW I TO REMAIN AS EXISTING
Nt\\' ST'
PHYSIO.l PLANT
ANN[}(
j
I
I
·l
I
I J
INCREJliSE PEDESTRIAN Qi.JEUI*> SPACE . ' . ANO REMOVE PEDESTRIAN IMPEDIMENTS
II :OFFICE
I
f. ~I LD I NG
!NOTES-N rQu OTE~
IZ 1~.S'
,,.
-11' .. 11'
.. Jr
,. 10" ,,. ,,.
l" 1T
CDURCU AVE
FIRST
M1ERICAN
BANK
ADD ISi.ANO TD REDUCE
DRIVEWDTH
REMOVE FREE RIGHT TURN
GAIN GREEN SPACE BUFFER
;! ..
DOUBLE LEFT TURNS TO REMAIN.
OECORATlllE PAVING SIGNIFY
LEFT TURN MOVEMENT
JOHN R.
BLOCKEll:
flUILDING
A•
1UTOIUNC
UNITED CUARRANTY
REALTY BANK
fAT
BURGER
REDUCE WIDE ENTRY DRIVE
CREATE POINT OF REFUGE
CURBED MEDIAN 1NITH PLANTING
BULB OUT AREA
EXISTlllG S!Dl!!WALK PAVING
TO REMAIN--------''o
JACK E BROWN
CHEMICAL ENQNEERING
BUILDING
LUEDECKE
BUI LDING
(CYUOTRON)
,---,
Ii. TACO
SEIJ_
' 1_ ___ 1
.i ~-'-'"'"-"'-"-':•
SCHLOTSKY'>j:
10' PROPOSED SICEWAU< ----,1 ="--~_)
14' PLANTING BUR'ER BETWEEN
Plr-DESTRi~S ANDVEHICLE3 ---~
REMOVED DRIVE: LANE ------,
MbooNAlD~
' INCREASE PEDESTRIAN QUELJING SPACE
c d:NSOLIDATE ENTRY DRIVES
I
•
"
12.~" ,,.
" " ,,.
"
DOUBLE TREE ROW
ENTRY MONUPIENT ------~
REMOVED FREE R:IGHTTI..IRN
GAINING AODITIONALCREEN SPACE
DECORATIVE PAVING AT
INTERSECTION CROSS WALKS
!.
LEGEND
1----1 EXISTING SIDEWALKS
D PROPOSED SIDFWALKS
II CROSSWALKS
D EXISTING ON-STREIT PARKINC
11 PR0P05ED ON-Slll.EfT f'AAKING
D DECORATIVE PAVING
II NEW GREEN SPACE
D TURN LAN[S
D PARKWAY CREEN SPACE
CA!vlPUS CREEN SPACE· J.28 ACW
ZACHRY
ENG IN EERING
CE NTE R City of College Station
University Drive Pedestrian Improvements 0 Master Plan
0 60 120 240 .... ~ .. ~ TO\\T NS<:l~\ V ii',, r ]';('. ... ·--
'±'~~~-~·~.'~·· ~-~"':~" _":,-!:'.';
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET PrJge127
·-1111
n-XAS A & M 8US CIRCULATION
VE HICULAR PAT H
CIJIJ~CllA\ll:
•••••••••••••••••••••
r •• • •• 1 ~-. • • -
E i ~-• • 3• •cHURCH ~_,,,,,,,~ • • • • PIDESTI<IANPATH r ~-. "CAMPUS VILLAGE" • i:: PROPERTY
~v -• • ;:f ATTRACTIV E. REFINEDCHARACTCR BUILDING AT SlOEWAU( 0 •
-
• CONTINUOUS RETAIURESTAURANTI BAR USES AT WALK I V -MATURE SHADE"TREES
PA'l 'RLCLAS-I ON-STR EET PARALLEL PARKING BR ICK WALLS
-
• ONGOING ""URBAN VI LLAGE"" REOEVELOP..:NT I I -ON -S TRE ET PARALLEL PARKING
ANTIQUE STREET LIGHTS -. . ........ -
? -· ·-
' iVACANT -· ~ ·-
PARKING LO T
I ' l a ~O --• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ §§ ~ ~ : : ~ o~ 0z~ g §
.,.; Z~ "' ~~ MIDNIGHT I E-Z ~ "" Q ~o-' :!l ~ ..: ~8 ~..: ~ ~2 Q ti: s~ -~ RURAL I ~ d~ ~ g~ RODEO ........ MART Fll7WIL1-Y'S ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~~ 8g ~ ....... u ~ 2~ 0~ ~ ~ [=l ==NT=ER=C=H~A==N~G~E~====~,====~~ ............. ~~~:....;:~~~~N ....... ~'~·~:.......---~.;,....!.... ........................................... ~.-..... ~ ....... a-~-<-~ .............. ·~ ..... ~..,..L -s ~•;:.....~ ...... ~-· ............................ __.
STRIPED Jl£01AN
DAVIS.GARY
KESIDl:NCI:.
HAU
lfl\1VERSIT\' DR-F;\l 6(1
~ '
CROCKER
RES IDENCE
HALI.
MOORE
RESIDENCE
HAll
MCINN IS
RESIDENCE
HALL
\
L WALL
• I •
I
• '
CONSISTENT CAMPUS EDGE
SCHUHM'\CH ER
RES ID ENCE
HALL
WALTON
RES IDENC E
HALL
~WALL
~• ~!!! g ---•
POST
Off ICE
HOlARD
RESIDENCE
HALL
NEELEY
RESIDENCE
HALL
HOBBY
RES ID ENCE
HALL
-·-· -I -I --I --.
CHURCH.AVE
"HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE"
DEDICATED RIGHT TURN LANE
A•
TUTORING
FAT
BURGER
-f----+--=+---"URBAN"
t; I
~I ~. -. . -. PARKING IN FRONT OF BUILDINGS
NUhEROUS 'MOE DRIVEWAYS
MINIMAL WALLS
.. • SCHLOTSICY"S
MM
VN ITED
hlETHOOIST
CHURCH
----
"TRANSITION ZONE"
TURN L O.NE RECLAIMED
PARKING BEHIND BUILDING
FEWER DRIVE WAY CONFLICTS
PATRll.l A ST
UNDERSIZED. ORNAMENTAL 'LANDSCAPING ' --·-· --~ 1
1 --
1
1 M~t~ : : ~N~o·s f'?";= /i GRAVEL UNRED GVARRANlY
Z
\
ARKING LOT CONCRETE REALTY BANK --
JUTS OUT INTO I -I OFFICE TACO
~~ j,; PEOES:~~PAT" :· --: ~ii~~ BUILDING : BELL : ( ATM~/,
§§ '.: l(tNKO S JOHN'S rJ''MDESIDEWALK • , ., ~
'U c 2· RAI S ED CONCRETE MEDIAN 2" RA ISED CONCRETE MEDIAN I T ~
-----------• .3 -' 1.1..1 FIDO'./ PAPA SUB WAY STRIPED fi'EDIAN CHIPOnE 2J
11.. ........ iiiiiiiiiii-!-i...-..-..-.. ... ~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii..liiiiiiiiiiii ....... :•..:1 \iia.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ... iiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiio/-~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-+~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiii~.!..iiiii .............. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii,.UmTmlCmlTmY•T·:.·~~RMER
• I \ • I I : RURAL INTERCHANGE
I (===~=====?7:::::~===c?:::::::====o~ .r UN IV ERS r r Y D H -l''M 00 ____ .L~=== I .l'I 8 .r ~ I G[ / ~~=~·~1.· • • -t:•
-
............_ PARKING GARAG! !:NTRYI EKIT
Z" RAISED CONCRETE lllEDIAN
NORTH SID E
PARKING
GAAAGE
~
•
I
-I ... -.. :
~
Q -~
~----: 111 t 1111111111 t 111• •
PHYSICAL PLANT
ANNEX
CONSISTENT CAMPUS EDGE
2 ~ RAISED CONCRETE W:DIAN
JOHN ~
BLOCKEK
BUILDING
JACK E. BROWN
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
BUILDI NG
LUEDECKE
BUILDING
(CYQ.OTROt-.1
• ••• . -. .. ... -1;;•
~ "• ~
~---•
BRICK MEDIAN
ZACH RY
ENQNEERJNG
<.:ENTER.
0
City of College Station
University Drive Pedestrian Improvements 0 Site Analysis
60 12 0 240 'lll\\.:\S('\l'lo:, 11'1 '. 1...•it• -.......... ~!.'!~.'!,!;~,;~~~'!'.~.:".'~C";.
GR AP HIC SCALE IN FEE T Page116
EXISTING FREE RIGHT
TO REMAIN
LA BOUl£A
l'ArRlCL.\ ST
ENTRY MONUMENT
CURBED MEDIAN WITH PLANTINGS
EXISTING ON.STREET PARKING
VACANT
DOUBLE TREE ROW
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
TO REMAIN ---'
REMOVED FREE RIGHTTlRN
GAi.MiNG ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE
PROVIDE SAFER PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
DAVIS-0\RY
RESIDENCE
HALL
'•
CURBED MEDIAN WITH PLANTING
PROPOSED ON-STREET PARKING
10' WIDE S10£WALK ---~
DECORATIVE PAVING
ARl!A WITH TREE GRATES
015 ~§ /'.110NtGllT
i::d-RODEO ' s; <-
" ff ,,
CROCKER
RESIDENCE
HAl.L
MCINNts
RESIDENCE
HALL
"' ,,,
/'.100RE
RESIO~NC~
HA.LL
CilURCll A YE
GATEWAY smucruRE ------------;
POS~BLERAIL------------;
11'AT RICIA5T
EXISTING ON-STREET PARKING -----.
PROPOSED PAVED ISLAND
'" ,,, ,,, ,,,
EXISTING WALKWAY TO REMAIN
Cl.DSE EXISTING ENTRY DRIVE INTO
EXISTING PARKING TO CREATE A
4-WAY StGNAl.IZl!!DINTl!!RSl!!CTION
AT BOYETT ST
-1<'M6D
ADJUST PARKING LOTTO ACCOMOOATE
NEW BOYETT INTERSECTION
SCHUH MACH El.
KE.SIDENCE
HALL
WALTON
RESIDENCE
HALL
"' ,,,
ff
'°'
l!!NLARGEO Pl!!Ol!!STRIAN QUl!!UING AR2A
EXISTING ON-STREET PARKING
PROPOSED PLANTER ISLAND
7' 11' ,,,
A&M
UNI Tf.D
MflHODITT
CHURCH
BULB OUT AREA
"' ~-1-,,--,,, ,,, ,,,
Dl!!:CORATfVI!!: PAVING JJ LE
INCREASE PEDESTRJANWALKWAY
fROM4" TC 111" AND REDUCE THE CRIVE
AT THE POST OFFICE LOADING AREA.
INCREASE PEDESTRIAN QUEUING
SPACE ON BOTH SIDES OF HOUSTON ST.
HOTARD
RES DENCE
HALL
NEELEY
RESIDENCE
HALL
HOllBY
RESIDENCE
HAU
!\EWST
T
~
w ,
c
INCREASE SIDEWALK BY EXTENCING
TO THE EXISTING STREET LANE
CURBED MEDIAN WITii PLANTING
BULB OUT AREA
l"ATRICIAST
CURBED S IDEWALK
TO REDUCE DRNEWIDTH
ADD ISLAND TO REDUCE
DRIVE WIDTH l
SHELL
" ,,, ,,,
" "' "' "
FEDEXI
KINK OS
PAPA SUBWAY
JOHN'S
REDUCED DRfVE WIDTtl WITH
ADDITION OF AN ISLAND..
ISLAND GIVES A POINT Of
REFUGE FOR PEDESTRIANS.
NORTH SIDE
PARKING
GARAGE
r ONE WAY DIRECTIONAL FLOW
TO REMAIN AS EXISTING
.NEl\-· ST
rl IYSICAf. PlAN1
ANNEX
0HE WA.Y
,,
'" '" " '"
I
I
~
w z
0
INCREASE PEDESTRIAN QlEUING SPACE
AND REMOVE PEDESTRIAN 1 .... EDIMEHTS
NOTES.I'<
QUOTE~
10.~·
,,,
"' ,,,
"' ,,, , ,,
OH-l CC
BUllDINC
C HURCH A\'l:
FIRST
M1ERICAN
'""'
ADD ISLAND TO REDUCE
DRIVE WIDTH
REMOVE FREE RIGHT TURN
GAIN GREEN SPACE BlJFFER.
llNfvt:RSTTYDR · F!'.f 6ll
DOUBLE LEFT TURNS TO REM/di.
DECORATIVE PAVING SIGNIFY
LEn TURN MOVEMENT
JOHN It
llLOCKER
BUILDING
A•
nJTORING
UNITEO GUARRANIT
REA LTY BANI<
REDUCE WIDE ENTRY DRIVI:
FAT
IJURGl:R
CREATE POINT OF REFUGE
CURBED MEDIAN Wnll PL.ANTING
BULB OUT AREA
" '" 11.~
"'
"'
EXISTING SIDEWALK PAVING
TO REMAIN--------
JACK l BROl/YN
CHEMICAL ENGINE[RfNG
BUILDING
LUEDECKE
BUILDING
{O'QOTRON)
IACO
BELL
LEGEND
ti] YEAR 1 (2009) -NEV\i INTERSECTION AT EIOYfTT ST. I R.EDEVELOPMENT OF WELBOR.N AND COLLEU .1,.VJN INlERS~Cl l ONS
D YEAR 2 (2010) -REDEVELOPMENT OF PEDESTRIAN PARKWAYS
0 YEAR J (2011J -REDEVaOf'MENT or 1:x1sr1~·c INT[RSCCTIONS
D YEAR 4 (2012} -RElJlVELQPMENT Of SOUTH CQillGE INTERSECTION
D YEAR 5 (2013) -REDEVE LOPMENT OF MEDIA/\.'$ AtV TURN LANES
fQ-ILOTSKY'S
fD' PROPOSED SIDEWALi{ ----~
14' PLANTING BUFFER BETWEEN
PEDESTRIANS II.ND VEHICLES ---~
REMOVEDDRNELANE -------,
ll.1CDONAlD'S
INCREASE Pf:OESTRJAN QUrutNG SPACE
CONSOLIDATE ENT~Y DRIVES
,,
" " "'
=>
11' VE FREE RIG TURN
17 GAIN QREENSPACE .,~--.. .• ,-,,,,,--
(
1~S
" ,, ,,
" "
DOUBLE TREE ROW
CURBED MED IAN WITH PLANTINGS
ENTRY MONUMENT -------'
REMOVED FREE RIGHT T\JRN
GAINING ADDITIONAL GRfEN SPACE
DECORATfVE PAVING AT
INTERSECTION CROSS WALKS
HOP
ATM
" " " "
" ,,
'" " "' ~ " ,.
/
(
ZACl lRY
ENONEERING
CENTER City of College Station
University Drive Pedestrian Improvements 0 Five Year Phasing Plan
0 L.•~~ _ ... , .. 60 120 240
:~~ '.;':;\, •: "~ ''. ,~,, c ::~:'..'-~ .":~!.~.
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET l'age 118