HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Memo 01.15.1987 1
•
. ,
=M. N_
--‘.
-,
--\
/
- .
. ..........
ell
1 .
)----\
1 _. -------
Lc,
•••z
1
. I
)
c , I
• ,
, ..._,...
,
7 J)
,
.._,,......,.....,
,...:, _ __ .-..ii, , ..
‘,_.„.:
•_, 4ke ;" .„._
(.\., .
• ‹..1-,x, - . ..-_,
11 .- 4 „........ , . --.-.. -••••••-ww...-
I C,
■ -L
&■." 1 r gill ■
■_11Isa
-try-
it y•, \
------ 11 ( . • r
( .
#‘.
llIV d ) '' • ;
1 j * 1111 1k14) --^- -
11:4EN !_ , ' • ,
s.
. . ..
---- 1--- \ d ,
-----. - ar a km.
Fallinir • i
-- '
: '■:____..,
{ 1
, [ I ll .. ..
, ,,
i l _ i :. , NU • AIM jthr . ....‘• - t
.N
; TArsiiiImmi .., ibbibir 1
q 7 . . : .• i _ „„..\... .
• . 7 „ /
) \ 1
•
--_____,___._
1
: ii I l a ,' ., ..... ' ._.; ,
.,,,
a " . ?I . •-_
1 - • 0 . . ... 1 :
1., ) ,
r . -
• • 1 • • • '
iv --4 1.1L
Q ,
. '
1 -.. • -,
../
. • -
7, ,\ \ '>=- • Vicr.; 1*
r 1 t„-- 1 1:: - - ._...,..11,, ,.:!..,_,..._,„,,..
/'•
r
,.,,,- 5 YOU . 1
• - -.; " .
it li .
k ,, f .
r _.
.._.• .,
\ .
\- ..._..4_ 1 . -- ,„ riti*" . --,,,..„,
- ' i 81111701;rr
- - ' 1 ' • I N VA 11 - ' ' 1 ■ 1 [ ._1 / -1 -------
' . ' 11 lila if:::::.•iiit 44■11. ft : --
.'
i
jiiiaiR _,,_. . Pl , it •
4
\ 11
it
.. 4111 I 6=1 ---••••
.,. ',", ...." dall--:. lit ri . .i • 1 i.
. ..
-7L
• .. V '-'7 - ...\>
17 1
\ . --- 1 :,-
'-- - - .
. - •
'‘... _
- .-
.....
- ■ .
r
1- i -• • -•-- --- tu
. • 0 . 40 1,»
.z.-
t,
L \H ,
L . _4 ... , 4
I
1_
. .
••
- ..
. .
• . . ,..
-1
.\'•
. .
:
• ,
• V
;
4. ).- ._ _ r - --,.___
....,
i ...
4 • L
..,
•
- • -
r
/
•
0
N r
-�� C
o!.r 3 ;
o D , r
...<_<0 _1 rri
rig
�O 73 >
VW
--
5 L L IN D QQ 1
p 9 g
z Z ■
4 '
ri
i
r
A — 1
r, v
iii J
5,4 ---- Ili II • 1
P '
1
L it
;Ia n
715 g
z
a
1 0.1
.
I D
I Z
I
I
1
\\
\
\
\ ttl 0% L 01
,...s.„, tJ ri co
rrl ‘o ilk II
v. �
y —
a 311 lai
4
rrt
0 Lil rrC ;
if
I
r
a�
L....- 4.
0 s
sty a
III. B. THE EXPANSION OF FM 2818 TO A FOUR LANE FACILITY FROM
SH 21 NORTH TO SH 6
EXISTING HIGHWAY: The existing highway is a two lane road with surfaced
shoulders. There is a grade separation over the Southern Pacific
Railroad. The road has an at grade intersection with FM 1687. The
right -of -way is sufficient to accommodate a four lane road with frontage
roads.
PROBLEM: The delegation is of the opinion that FM 2818 should be constructed
to uniform standards, four lane divided, for its entire length. Also,
this route is a direct connection to the TAMU campus from SH 6 north. It
is an access route for the Brazos Industrial Park located near the inter-
section of FM 2818 and SH 21 and provides access to the Bryan Industrial
Park north of FM 1687.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: A section of FM 2818 between FM 60 and FM 2154 is
currently under contract for expansion to a four lane divided facility.
When this contract is completed, all of FM 2818 from SH 21 to SH 6 Business
Route (south) will be a four lane divided facility. The majority of this
length will be constructed to a design of four travel lanes and a con-
tinuous left turn lane. Short sections within interchange areas will have
a nontraversable median. There are no current plans for adding lanes north
of SH 21. FM 2818 for its full length has sufficient right -of -way for a
four lane divided highway with frontage roads. Initially, a two lane road
was constructed and additional lanes have been added through the years as
warranted by traffic volumes.
TRAFFIC: The traffic volume on FM 2818 between SH 21 and SH 6 is currently
2,500 ADT. This volume is projected to increase to 3,750 in 10 years
and 5,000 in 20 years.
ESTIMATED COST:
Roadway 'from SH 21 to SH 6 north
(5.4 mi.) $4,800,000
No interchange cost is included in this estimate as an interchange at
SH 6 is included in the PDP as a part of state highway improvements.
There would be no right -of -way cost as all construction would be on
existing right -of -way.
LOCAL PARTICIPATION: No right -of -way would be required for the proposed
improvement. There have been no indications of any offers in local
participation in construction cost.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN INFORMATION: This project has not been considered
for improvement in the PDP because current and projected traffic volumes
make this improvement very low in priority.
5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION & COMMENT: The condition of the existing base and
pavement is poor. There are numerous areas of pavement distress.
The road was originally constructed with minimal depths of base and
pavement which were not adequate for the wheel loads that have developed
on the route. The District has obligated discretionary funds for a con-
tract to add additional base depth and resurface the road. It is antic-
ipated that this project will go to contract in the summer of 1987.
It is the District's recommendation that additional lanes not be autho-
rized for the section of FM 2818 between SH 21 and SH 6. Two lanes
provide adequate capacity for current and projected traffic volumes.
There is no apparent justification for additional lanes. Consideration
for future expansion may be considered when warranted by increased
traffic volt}mes.
•
6
III. C. THE REDESIGN, RECONSTRUCTION, OR CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE
INTERCHANGES ON FM 2818
EXISTING HIGHWAY: Two interchanges are currently in existence. These are at
SH 21 and FM 60. These are diamond type interchanges. Through traffic
movements are separated while turning movements between routes require
some left turns across opposing traffic. Two interchanges on FM 2818, at
the connections with SH 6 north and south, are authorized for construction
in the PDP. The Department's proposed design at these two sites is for
diamond type interchanges. The fifth interchange site is at FM 2818 and
FM 2154 (Wellborn Road). As this site is adjacent to the Southern Pacific -
Missouri Pacific Railroad, the most feasible design appears to be a half
cloverleaf interchange.
PROBLEM: The delegation is interested in providing access to TAMU facilities
by direct connections from all highway routes without requiring traffic
to make turns across opposing traffic or pass through signalized inter-
sections.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: FM 2818 has at grade intersections within four other
Farm to Market roads not mentioned in the delegation's preliminary agenda.
These are FM 1687, FM 1688, FM 2513, and FM 2347. The Department has no
plans for constructing grade separations or interchanges at any of these
four sites. The intersection of FM 2818 and FM 1688 is signalized and
traffic on FM 2818 is stop- and -go at this point. The intersection of
FM 2818 and Villa Maria Road (a Bryan Street) is also a signalized at
grade intersection.
TRAFFIC: Traffic volumes on each approach to the interchanges addressed by
the delegation are showa on she attached sketch map.
7
ESTIMATED COST: The concept of interchange design proposed by the delegation
has not been defined in sufficient detail to allow the preparation of
even the most preliminary cost estimates.
LOCAL PARTICIPATION: Additional right -of -way would be required for some of
the interchange redesign proposed by the delegation. There has been no
discussion of local participation in right -of -way or construction cost.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN INFORMATION: Two of the five interchanges identified
by the delegation are included in the PDP. The interchange of SH 6 south
and Greens Prairie Road is in the one year letting schedule. The inter-
change at FM 2818 and SH 6 north is in the four year letting schedule.
The other three interchanges were not included in the PDP update. The
interchange at FM 2818 and FM 2154 was considered but was not included
in the PDP. The comments in the PDP are: "Not selected - Projected
benefits of'separated traffic do not warrant cost at this time, will
consider in the future."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION & COMMENT: It appears that the delegation wants
uninterrupted movement of traffic from all major routes in the area
directly to the TAMU campus. This does not appear to be warranted
considering the volume of traffic to be served, the cost of con-
struction, and the technical problems of design.
The statement in the delegation's letter "Included within this project
is to fashion intersections with FM 2818 and certain key intersections
such that turn movements, when moving from one road to the other, will
not require turns across opposing traffic" is interpreted to be a request
for either full cloverleaf interchanges or full directional interchanges.
Cloverleaf i,tercldanges have certain inherent disadvintag -s:
Indirection of travel -
Excessive right -of -way requirements for moderate to
high speed turn movements -
Veiy slow travel speeds on turning ramps when the
interchange is designed to fit into a minimum
right-of-way.
Conversations with TAMU representatives indicate that the delegation is
probably considering some form of directional interchange to be the
desired solution. This would entail multilevel structures and /or multiple
grade separation structures to provide for all movements. This type
of construction is not warranted by current design standards. The only
instances where directional interchanges are warranted are at the inter-
section of two high volume freeways. SH 6 is being developed as a freeway.
FM 2818 is not now a freeway and there is no proposal to upgrade it to
a freeway design. Within the limits of FM 2818 under consideration, there
are intersections at grade with FM 1687, FM 1688, FM 2513 and FM 2347,
plus intersections with local roads and streets. There are two signalized
intersections; FM 1688 and Villa Maria Road (a Bryan street). A major
part of FM 2818 is or will be constructed as a four lane roadway with a
continuous left turn lane. This will allow left turns across opposing
traffic to enter intersecting public roads, commercial entrances and
private driveways. It is not consistent to construct directional
interchanges at a few locations along a route of this nature. If direc-
tional interchanges were warranted, full freeway design standards would
also be warranted for the roadway between interchanges.
8
l
The traffic volumes along FM 2818 vary considerably. This indicates
that only a small portion of the traffic is through traffic using the
entire route. Most of the traffic has an origin and /or destination
along FM 2818 or the intersecting routes. Construction of FM 2818 to
freeway standards could have an adverse impact on access to commercial
and industrial sites along the route.
It is the District's recommendaLion that no changes be made in the
existing or planned interchanges. Construction of the interchange and
railroad grade separation at FM 2818 and FM 2154 should be reevaluated.
If FM 2818 is to be extended southward as discussed in Section III A of
this report, the interchange will be a needed part of the facility.
III. D., UPGRADING OF THE INTERCHANGE AT FM 60 AND FM 2154
EXISTING HIGHWAY: FM 2154 is east of and parallel to the railroad passing
through the TAMU campus. It is a four lane roadway with a continuous
left turn lane. FM 60 is authorized for expansion under a safety program
to six travel lanes with a left turn lane from FM 2154 eastward. Both
routes are designed as urban roadways with curb and gutter. FM 60
crosses under the railroad and FM 2154. The interchange is a half
cloverleaf with all turning movements in the two east quadrants.
PROBLEM: The delegation objects to the fact that the design of the inter-
change requires that some traffic movements are left turns across
opposing traffic.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Traffic circulation on and around the TAMU campus
is a growing problem. The campus is served by four peripheral routes:
SH 6 Business Route, FM 2347, FM 2818 and FM 60. FM 2154 (Wellborn
Road) passes between the east and west campuses. There is limited
on- campus traffic circulation and closing of some streets on the campus
in recent years have added to traffic congestion on the perimeter. Not
only do the highway routes adjacent to the campus serve University
oriented traffic, they are also important arteries for the Bryan - College
Station Metropolitan Area. An east -west screen line drawn through the
TAMU campus intersects only four north -south arteries which must serve
the entire metropolitan area: SH 6 East Loop, SH 6 Business Route,
FM 2154, and FM 2818. Current and projected traffic volumes crossing
the screen line are:
SH 6 SH 6
East Loop Business Route FM 2154 FM 2818
Current ADT 19,400 24,000 25,000 9,700
10 Year ADT 33,990 34,080 37,575 17,170
20 Year ADT 48,580 44,160 50,152 24,640
9
Current and projected traffic volumes on FM 2154 are approximately 30%
of the total north -south movements. A popular local misconception is
that a substantial majority of the traffic on FM 2154 is to and from the
campus. The Department's best available estimate is that only 44% of
the traffic on FM 2154 is University oriented. FM 2154 is and will remain
an important north -south corridor.
The delegation would like to eliminate the traffic conflicts where inter-
change ramps intersect FM 2154. One solution would be the construction
of two additional cloverleaf quadrants west of FM 2154. This is not
possible as the railroad prevents expanding the interchange to the west.
If the railroad were to be relocated, this would be a viable solution.
In the past there has been an accident problem at the intersection of
the interchange ramps and FM 2154. This situation has been greatly
improved by'the installation of traffic signals under a traffic safety
contract.
In the past there has been considerable interest on the part of TAMU
officials in improving the traffic situation on FM 2154 all the way
across the campus. One alternate considered was the construction of
an elevated section of FM 2154 to reduce conflicts with vehicular and
pedestrian traffic between the east and west sides of the campus.
TRAFFIC: Traffic volumes on the four approaches to the interchange are:
FM 2154 FM 2154 FM 60 FM 60
North South East West
Current ADT 14,993 25,000 28,000 14,700
10 rear ADT 22,540 37,575 33,685 19,785
20 Year ADT 30,080 50,150 39,370 24,870
ESTIMATED COST: There is no apparent practical solution to the delegation's
specific request for elimination of left turns across traffic, therefore,
no cost'estimates have been made.
LOCAL PARTICIPATION: There have been no indications of local participation
in cost of requested interchange modifications.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN INFORMATION: Modifications of the interchange have
not been considered in the past and have not been included in the PDP.
The elevated section of FM 2154 was included in the PDP update, but was
not selected. The statement in the PDP is: "Adjacent system needs and
feasibility of development should be established prior to project selec-
tion."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION & COMMENT: The District recommends that no approval
be given to the redesign- reconstruction of the FM 2154 -FM 60 interchange.
The present interchange provides an acceptable level of service. The
railroad location prevents the construction of additional cloverleaf
quadrants. A full directional multilevel interchange is not warranted
and university - commercial use of abutting property makes right -of -way
acquisition difficult.
10
All of the matters to be discussed by the delegation are involved with access
to TAMU facilities with particular emphasis on research and development ac-
tivities. The need for transportation improvements is a community wide
concern, not restricted to TAMU.
The District has expressed negative comments on several of the delegation
proposals, not because problems do not exist, but because the solutions
offered had limited justification or did not address the underlying causes
of the problems. The delegation has expressed a desire for transportation
improvements and the District recognizes a need for improvements.
The delegation seems to be interested in the high speed delivery of traffic
to the perimeter of the campus. Not addressed are the problems associated
in unloading high speed -high volume highway facilities into a limited system
of campus streets and city streets. The District, the City of College Station,
and the Metropolitan Planning Organization have been attempting to address the
problems of traffic circulation in the campus area. A workable solution will
require joint efforts and cooperation of all involved agencies, including the
University.
It is the District's position that highways built to freeway standards feeding
directly into the TAMU campus may not be practical nor desirable. This approach
may require the compromise of too many other transportation needs in the com-
munity. Certainly if traffic movements to and from the campus are given pref-
erential treatment, some other movements of comparable volumes would have to
be given lower priority. The TAMU campus was originally located in a totally
rural euvirvument. The area population has grown and the land use has changed
so that today the campus is in an urban area. Perhaps the highest attainable
goal for access to an urban campus is to provide a high type highway facility,
comensurate with traffic volumes, to within a reasonable distance of the
campus. Traffic from around the State should be provided safe, efficient
routes to the'vicinity of the University campus; but the last mile or two,
from a major highway to the campus itself, might be over an urban type street
system.
One possible solution to a number of the delegation's concerns is a reevaluation
of the FM 2154 corridor. If a new route of FM 2818 from the present inter-
section of FM 2818 and FM 2154 southward to SH 6 is to be included in an overall
transportation plan, then further study of FM 2154 northward from this inter-
change is needed. Such a study would be appropriate even if no new extension
of FM 2818 is considered.
One possible alternative is the expansion of FM 2154 from a point approximately
0.8 mile north of FM 60, southward through the TAMU campus to FM 2818. A
second roadway could be built west of the railroad to carry southbound traffic
and the present FM 2154 roadway would be restricted to one -way traffic,
northbound. This would result in the railroad occupying the median of a
divided highway. The question of the FM 60 -FM 2154 interchange could be
resolved as two new cloverleaf quadrants could be constructed west of
FM 2154. In a similar manner, the turning movements at FM 2818 and FM 2154
would be simplified.
11
A further expansion of the same concept would be the extension of the road
on the west side of the railroad southward from FM 2818 approximately 2.5
miles. The southbound roadway could then be carried over the railroad to
join the northbound roadway on a new location to intersect with SH 6 at
Greens Prairie Road.
This alternative addresses a number of concerns of the TAMU officials.
It would work equally well with the r2t1road in its present position or
with the railroad relocated in the future. Interchange design at two loca-
tions would more nearly be in accordance with their request. Congestion in
the campus area would be somewhat decreased. Through traffic movement on
FM 2154 would be enhanced. All this would be possible with both roadways
for FM 2154 built at ground level through the campus. If FM 2154 were to
be built as an elevated section through the campus, there would be other
benefits. Through traffic would be completely separated from on- campus
vehicular and pedestrian movements. The area under the elevated structures
could be used for parking, recreation areas, service driveways, or other
purposes to benefit the University. Although the railroad would still
present some problems, FM 2154 would no longer interfere in any way with
circulation between the east and west portions of the campus.
It is the District's recommendation that a feasibility study be undertaken
on the FM 2154 corridor to determine what improvements might be made and to
develop estimates of cost for construction and right -of -way. This study
should be done with the input and cooperation of all agencies who are members
of the Metropolitan Planning Organization.
12
O O O7 n E
O 7
n -5 7 n CJ n V O
O m O N O rrL..2 �'OMWMWDDN C £.0ZZ3ZO n C
C MCL DE C 0 -7N C a rnnV7 7 VIDIDVVOmID 0 V
• - z11 rv, 7 o-,o 7 IT ECtCIDK V.+'V OOO'� V C I
rt r ..O 9 rt 0. r'G N rt n .477 n< m I I L .+•ID CrtO N r• . �,., ... �+. < mm 0/1.x V 7 1C
V O `•, < rV 7NX**M Dn N am0mX0IDID7 V r 1 C V
• tDD: 7 0 .,LL nVO, Nn1(rt V ‹,co C
me m o o o o ..o77 ,.1
. . O r•v� n
O o m o m 0 o a077 'r. 1-.7m- •••• r
.-p O to rt m 0 tD aV a7 rFID O r rt m m '9 7 V rV 0
✓ 7 V N V C n r V 7 rt <
I. rt r 3 M ID 0 ID 7 V O K m
r V C m M O 7c� M ► N . m V
el. `. V x 7 m . V r
0 f1 r -.
O 7 V ID
7 0
n
r.•
00 0 00 000000000000000000000 0000000 el. N N N NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N < n
W W N r 000000000 000000000000 000000 �"•
oO O 00 Orrrr O.rrOO— NN0 0r O rN00 000000 n r
Nr ...N V,NO X, WON 0 m.
rN W rW ONm0v1r.OTWVVrNr•OrmrONlJ1 0.
m N
V
r
m
N
V
7
N N - 4 Z a
N .... N N N N N N N 71D
N W W N N N r PU1 W N0NNNNN re,. C
P VV M rN N ITNN V r r N N
M NI r '-P r r V W r V W W VSO W r W r m
.D r N N . . N. . N . N . N. . N . . . . . . V n
N N - - r V0.W Nr0.U1Utm VO.O• .,U1U1r r 0.WVVrM MW -1 0
0' v N W ON •0 rNVrr00 98 V 0
T O.N N W [NM W N mmNMOrMrN.OVNOPrNOONrm N r•ID V C •
r r0 m W OW r rp.N010rmOlT Wj`OOr"'N OONO•O• 0 • • • • • •OV1 • O 7 rt
V v0 0, m 0,N r N.P0r0V.O0.00' 000.r'0NmV0• 0 7400VMPM art n
0• V OV 0 mV.OrOrO.ro.mW000•U1NO.000r O O
0 •00 1 r
O r
✓ mm
> no
n r 7
O N 0
1 0 MO
O 7 C
-0y mr
-,- (/1 Cr
N N 0.1. C IS O
N VN N O C 1 r
N W r 0 N N N N N N N N N N V r N N N N 7 r 3 r'
N O• V.0 0 rNNN U1NN V rNrNr 0 V N m r n
N �p r0. r mrrr p.rN V mrO.rN OW m rrwvrwr - . N. N . . . - - . - - m K
N N 0 0 NO: m Nrrr 0VmU1U1m U1r.DON WO V V f1
O• Os 00 Vi OVINWNOVWOrO.NNODOfN�OWNTr O) O.rVVrNN .71C - f1
P Pa 0 rO.rrrwr • 7 0
U7 U70 U7 W -.40 0• N40 04.7'r•DmNNOOmrO.000 .4 N m 7 0
: r0 o N MP 0 rj.O.ydOODONrON0000.Nr W NOU1rrPV
r rOOrr N rm0U1V Vr 7 C 7
r r0 N m .0.0. N 00MO0 '0rW0O0' m rt rt
'0 N
M
n
V
0
a
r m
.0 7
m a
N N -- V µ
N -N N 0 7
N W r W r N N N N r P0 W N0NNNNN - 0
r r V V U1 N N U1 N N V r r
.0 r NN m NP r rrN r Is V W rV W WV•OWrWr �� 0
N - . N - N .8 N - . N. . . - T1 0
N V, r N2•O•47U1m V0.0` rU1U1r r O. M J -J mO m m I
0, N W ON O 0 0
O• 0 N r OW r rO.NmOrmOOWrOOrrNOONO.O. 0 rrmOm.0U1 7 N
VO 0• m 0•N r N r U1r0 V. 00.00. r 000. r.0ONmV 0' 0 r0NU1r.0U1 m
X 00 0' V OV V1 mV.Or 0r0•r0•mW000.U1N0.0'Or o V
r
.0
M
N N -10•
N ✓ N N 0
N W r 0 N N N N N N NN N N ,O r NN
O. -.40 O rJNN 4NN V rNrNr N V
N CO r0. m rrr O.r OW
N V mrO•rN OW m rrwvrwr VOA
N r . N. N . • • V . . . . . U1m .013 r .L N. U1
N 0 0 NM m Nrrr 074MO 1m U1r.DON WO 0 m
T c 0• U10 U1 OUINODNOVW0r O`NNmmN.OWgO`r m 0 -VrNN 7
rt
1
U10 U1 W V0 O. N.D OD VOUI .•'•O OONNOOODrO`OOOmN N
rO.rrrWr
r0 O• N MP 0 r2•O.WOmON1•ON N N O 0 r r r V N
rm OOVVr
r r0 N m PP N OHO ODOOi•Nm'0 WOOF m
t
I �I I II 1 On m
I I r r 1 1 I .r N N r r r 7 V
r 0 I W r I r l I I r 0 N 00.mV0mO C? m
N NO .p T ON 0 wvrvlor.omov.•ooVrroV vr N
omrmo•�•o +m
0 0 r PP O• OWmOOVm00.0•W00•Or0Or ON 0 OMPO sr0 m m
0 U1 r VO• m O.Wrw0UlmVWrmOOV'W00' r0, W r , r
0 00 0 e: g e: _V
POST OFFICE BOX City of College Station
C 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77840 -2499
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: A.E. Van Dever, Jr., Assistant City Manager
FROM: Glenn Schroeder, Deputy Director of Finance. �.5
DATE: January 12, 1987
SUBJECT: Insurance Bids
As per our discussions of the insurance bid process, I have notified the
bidders of the following changes in the bid schedule. We have delayed
the opening of bids for the police liability coverages, public official
liability coverage and excess liability coverage until January 28, 1987.
This delay was necessary because several bidders would have been unable
to meet the first bid deadline. We will retain the January 13, 1987 opening
date for the general liability coverage, the auto liability coverage, the
auto physical damage, and the property coverage. The bidders indicated
that bids would be complete for those coverages by that date. Another
reason for retaining the original date for these coverages is that the
extensions granted for auto liability and physical damage coverages and
property coverage will expire on January 31, 1987. This will allow
the city to have continuous coverage in those areas. I plan to have
a recommendation on the coverages of the January 13 opening for the
council meeting on January 23, and the coverages of the January 28
opening for the council meeting of February 12, 1987.
If you have any questions pertaining to this matter, please call r:e.
. ,:,-
Bud Inc.
e
he Dealer with a Heart" Volkswagen - Porsche -Audi _
` 4 F ' AUDI
Phone: 409/693.3311 • 1912 Texas Ave. S. • College Station, Texas 77840 -'
-
January 12, 1987
Ms. Cathy Locke
City Attorney
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77840
Re: College Station Water Tower Project
'G & S Sandblasting & Painting Co.
Dear Ms. Locke;
The purpose of this letter is to notify your office of my concern over
damages my organization has sustained as a result of the above project
undertaken by the City of College Station.
I don't believe it necessary to go over all of the details, as I am sure
your office and all other concerned parties are aware of the inconven-
ience experienced, the damages sustained to vehicle inventory and custo-
mer vehicles, the lost business, and my general dissatisfaction with the
way the problems have been addressed. Phone calls, letters, and general
discussions have generated apologies, promises, and excuses, but no one
has re- imbursed us for our financial losses. If you read frustration
in this letter, believe me, it is here.
A meeting on Friday, January 9, 1987, with Mr. Ken Serfass of General
Adjustment Bureau, Conroe, Texas, who is representing G & S Sandblasting
Company's insurance company, was not very encouraging. First of all, he
could not believe the extent of damages we have sustained, nor did he
know if the proper insurance coverage was in place. Mr. Serfass advised
that he would have to visit with his supervisor and the insurance company
to determine if the proper coverage existed and how they would proceed.
Needless to say, this was not what I expected nor wanted to hear.
As of this date, I have expended a considerable amount of money on ve-
hicle,repairs that were necessary at the time, and have many other ve-
hicles on the premises in need of repairs which we are unable to sell
because of damages. We have customers who are complaining loudly be-
cause of damages to their vehicles, a damaged building, loss of business,
and more sand than Miami Beach.
All of this leads to the question of what position the City of College
Station is going to take in seeing that I am re- imbursed for my losses.
I have attempted to cooperate with all parties on your project and have
been let to believe that, short of some inconvenience, I would not suffer
a financial loss. Prompt re- imbursement was promised from the onstart.
This has not happened.
I am therefore requesting a meeting with your office and any other parties
involved, anyone who can give me the answers to my above stated problems.
I can no longer afford to listen to false promises.
Your anticipated prompt response will be appreciated.
Very my yours,
N.G. Ward
President
cc: Mr. E.R. McDow, Jr., P.E. •
1701 Southwest Parkway
College Station, TX 77840
Mr. King Cole
City Manager
City of College Station
1101 Texas Ave.
College Station, TX 77840
Mr. William Sojourner
G & S Sandblasting & Painting Co.
1401 E. Highway 80
Abilene, TX 79604
Ms. Julie Mae Young
Attorney at Law
Dillon, Lewis, Elmore & Smith
3833 Texas Ave., Suite 150
Bryan, TX 77801
for your information
to: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
from: RING COLE, CITY MANAGER J((
date:
JANUARY 15, 1987
subject: COUNCIL MEMO
1. BRYAN FORWARD REPORT
I am sure that you saw the news reports last week that the City
of Bryan has released their Bryan Forward! Report. Ernie Clark
has forwarded a copy of that report to me for distribution to the
Mayor, City Council and key department heads. A copy of that
report is included with this memo for your review and
information.
2. BRYAN MAYOR IN HOSPITAL
Bryan Mayor Marvin Tate has been in the hospital this week for a
bleeding ulcer. Ernie Clark informed me of this matter and I
asked Dian Jones to send a plant to Mayor Tate from the Mayor and
Council of College Station. Apparently Mayor Tate has a history
of ulcers. It is my understanding that he will be released from
the hospital this week.
3. HOTEL /MOTEL TAX
Last week we discussed the fact that the Ramada Inn Hotel and the
Inn at Chimney Hill were in arrears on their hotel /motel tax. I
have received a memo from the City Attorney indicating that she
has done some research on this matter and determined that those
taxes are collectible from subsequent owners of the
establishment. This gives us some comfort that the taxes will
eventually be collected. A copy of the City Attorney's memo is
included memo is included with this memo for your information.
4. BUDGET MANUAL
Included with this packet is a copy of the City of College
Station's Fiscal Year 1988 Budget Manual. Not everything in this
manual will be of interest to you but the first two pages do
include a calendar of budget events. I wanted to send a copy of
this to you so you would have that budget calendar and have a
good idea when key events, relating to the budget, are going to
occur.
5. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT PROJECT UPDATE
I have received a report from the Highway Department updating all
of the current and projected projects in Brazos County. Included
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
COUNCIL MEMO
JANUARY 15, 1987
PAGE 2
in this report are the following individual reports:
1. Projects Under Construction As Of January 1987
2. One -Year Letting Schedule
3. Four -Year Letting Schedule
4. Five -Year Development Schedule
5. Candidate Projects Not Yet Selected
Each one of these reports has a map attached that is coded in
color. As a result it is not possible to include the maps with
this report. If you are unfamiliar with the narrative
descriptions of the locations the maps are available in my office
for your review. I would point out to you, that a project of
extreme interest to College Station, is included in the Four -Year
Letting Schedule. This is the overpass at Southwest Parkway. I
have discussed this project with D. D. Williamson and he informs
me, that even though the project is on the Four -Year Letting
Schedule, we have the option of asking the Highway Department to
begin work on this project as soon as possible. This means that
the project can be brought forward to a possible One -Year
Letting.
6. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT MPO COMMITTEE MEETING
Last Wednesday the Highway Department held their MPO Committee
Meeting to review the proposal that Texas A &M University is
carrying to the Highway Commission during the month of January.
This proposal includes the extension of Highway 21 from the Texas
A &M Annex to the vicinity of Easterwood Airport and Highway 60.
This proposal also includes consideration of the extension of
FM 2818 from its intersection with Wellborn Road to intersect at
the overpass which will be constructed at Greens Prairie Road and
South Highway 6. This would be a new leg of FM 2818 that would
take traffic from the present FM 2818 route. There is also a
proposal for an upgrade of the intersection of University Drive
and Wellborn. This is a very complicated proposal because of the
physical constraints in the area. Any improvements to this
intersection would affect the Northgate area, the USDA building
on campus, and the present configuration and location of the
railway.
7. SALES TAX REPORT
We have received the Sales Tax Report from the State
Comptroller's office. This report indicates that it covers
receipts through January 2, 1987. Although this report would
appear to consider last December's sales, it does not. It is a
report that basically includes sales for November. The very
important December report will come next month. This report
shows that College Station sales for November 1986 are
approximately one -half of a percentage point above sales for the
COUNCIL MEMO
JANUARY 15, 1987
PAGE 3
same period during 1985. A copy of the report is included with
this report for your information.
8. INSURANCE BIDS
I think you know that we have had bids out for virtually all of
our liability coverage for some time. We are now starting to
receive some bids and it looks like we will even receive some
competitive bids for liability insurance. The Finance Office has
received a number of calls from insurance companies as they work
up their bids. We will be bringing those to the City Council for
your review probably the first meeting in February.
9. BUD WARD AUTO DEALERSHIP
Bud Ward is continuing to have difficulties in receiving
compensation for damages to his automobiles and facilities as a
result of the elevated storage tank repairs. The City Attorney's
office has been working with the contractor's insurance company
to help Bud Ward file his claims, but we are limited in what we
can do at this time. But, I will assure you that we will
continue to do what we can. A copy of a letter recently sent to
the City Attorney by Bud Ward is included with this memo for your
information.
RECEI'IEn A.N 1 ' i
u CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
P.O. BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 -9 9 60
(409) 764 -3515
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: King Cole, City Manager
FROM: Cathy Locke, City Attorney
DATE: January 13, 1987
RE: Ramada Inn Hotel /Motel
Occupancy Tax
I have determined that the post - petition Hotel /Motel
Occupancy Taxes are collectable from subsequent owners whether in
bankruptcy or not. One issue that concerns me is whether or not
our failure to pursue Ferreri now might jeopardize our ability to
collect from UnitedBank after conversion to Chapter 7. We should
have an answer on this issue by the end of the week.
CL:ba
SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 1 5.
BRAZOS COUNTY
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
(As of 1/87)
1 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 21
LIMITS: From TAMU Annex to Loop 158
LENGTH: 5.39 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Flex Base, Structures, and Asph. Conc. Pvmnt.
ESTIMATED COST: $1,551,763
LETTING DATE: June 1986
CONTRACTOR: Young Brothers, Inc
STATUS: 22% Complete
2 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 30
LIMITS: From Loop 507 thru SH 6 Interchange
LENGTH: 1.58 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Widen Existing Pavement and Curb and Gutter
ESTIMATED COST: $1,559,335
LETTING DATE: August 1985
CONTRACTOR: Holes, Inc.
STATUS: 81% Complete
3 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: OSR.
LIMITS: From FM 2223 to FM 46
LENGTH: 6.84 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Widen Structures, Add Base, and New Surtace
ESTIMATED COST: $1,040,287
LETTING DATE: August 1986
•
CONTRACTOR: Glenn Fuqua, Inc.
STATUS: ,; 5% Complete
4 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: FM 1688
LIMITS: Palasota Drive to Finfeather Road
LENGTH: 0.56 mile
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Widen Existing Road, Add Curb & Gutter and New
Surface
ESTIMATED COST: $675,948
LETTING DATE: November 1985
CONTRACTOR: Young Brothers, Inc.
STATUS: 67% Complete
5 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: CR 254
LIMITS: Hopes Creek
LENGTH: 0.15 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Replace Existing Bridge
ESTIMATED COST: $164,663
LETTING DATE: November 1986
CONTRACTOR: Fuqua Construction Co., Inc.
STATUS: 0% Complete
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION (CONT)
6 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 308
LIMITS: From FM 60 to Sulphur Springs Road
LENGTH: 1.34 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Repair Pavement and Proviae New Surface
ESTIMATED COST: $484,938
LETTING DATE: November 1986
CONTRACTOR: Young Brothers, Inc.
STATUS: 0% Complete
7 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: FM 2818
LIMITS: From 0.5 miles SE of FM 60 to FM 2154
LENGTH: 2.48 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Widen to a 4 Lane Section
ESTIMATED COST: $1,349,648.90
LETTING DATE: December 1986
CONTRACTOR: Young Brothers, Inc.
STATUS: 0% Complete
MINOR PROJECTS NOT SHOWN ON MAP
COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 6, etc.
LIMITS: District Wide
LENGTH: 156 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Seal Coat
ESTIMATEQ COST: $1,513,455
LETTING DATE: January 1986
CONTRACTOR: Brannan Paving Company, Inc.
STATUS: 95% Complete
COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 6
LIMITS: From 4 Miles N of Briarcrest Dr. to .3 Mile S of
University Drive
LENGTH: 2.47 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Landscape Planting
ESTIMATED COST: $89,808
LETTING DATE: October 1986
CONTRACTOR: Brazos Services
STATUS: 0% Complete
SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 2
(RED)
BRAZOS COUNTY
1 YEAR LETTING SCHEDULE
CATEGORY 3
1 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: FM 60
LIMITS: From Fed Mart Drive East to Hwy 6
LENGTH: 1.1 mile
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Widen to Five Lane Curb and Gutter Section
ESTIMATED COST: $1,234,396
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: July 1987
2 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 6
LIMITS: From 1.9 Miles NE of Loop 507 to 3.4 Miles South
LENGTH: 5.3 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Construct Four Lane Freeway with Frontage Roads -
3 Interchanges
ESTIMATED COST: $10,322,000
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: March 1987
CATAGORY 5
3 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: FM 1688
LIMITS: From FM 60 to FM 1688
LENGTH: 3.0 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Construct Farm to Market Road
ESTIMATED COST: $1,332,700
ESTIMATEO;LETTING DATE: June 1987
CATEGORY 7
(Minor Projects not shown on map)
COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 30
LIMITS: From Bird Pond Road to Grimes County Line
LENGTH: 4.037 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Overlay
ESTIMATED COST: $235,620
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: February 1987
CATEGORY 7 (CONT)
COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: OSR
LIMITS: From 4.8 Miles South of US 190 to US 190
LENGTH: 4.8 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Asphaltic Concrete Pavement Overlay
ESTIMATED COST: $171,360
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: February 1987
COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: FM 50
LIMITS: From SH 21 to FM 1687
LENGTH: 3.141 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Asphaltic Concrete Payment Overlay
ESTIMATED COST: $85,680
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: February 1987
CATEGORY 8
4 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: County Road 184
LIMITS: Carter Creek and Carter Creek Relief
LENGTH: 0.4 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridges and Approaches
ESTIMATED COST: $372,000
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: March 1987
5 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: County Road
LIMITS: At Wickson Creek
LENGTH: 0.4 mile
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Replace Bridge and Approaches
ESTIMATED COST: $267,000
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: June 1987
CATEGORY 9
6 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: FM 60
LIMITS: From Loop 507 to FM 2154
LENGTH: 1.2 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Widen to 6 Lane Curb and Gutter
ESTIMATED COST: $1,000,000
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: June 1987
CATEGORY 9 (CONT)
7 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: FM 2818
LIMITS: From SH 21 North to US 190
LENGTH: 5.0 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Add Base and Resurface
ESTIMATED COST: $1,050,000
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: May 1987
SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 2
(GREEN)
BRAZOS COUNTY
4 YEAR LETTING SCHEDULE
CATEGORY 3 •
8 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 6
LIMITS: SH 6 at SW Parkway Interchange
LENGTH: 0.9 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Complete Interchange Including Grade Separation
ESTIMATED COST: $2,000,000
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: September 1988
9 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 21
LIMITS: From Little Brazos River to Texas A &M Annex
LENGTH: 3.4 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Construct 4 Lane Divided Highway - Flush Median
ESTIMATED COST: $5,007,283
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: April 1988
10 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 30
LIMITS: From FM 158 Southeast to Bird Pond Road
LENGTH: 2.8 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Construct Four Lane Divided Highway
ESTIMATED COST: $2,500,000
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: October 1988
11 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: US 190
LIMITS: From Loop 507 NW to Robertson County Line
LENGTH: 3.0 miles
LAYMAN'SJESCRIPTION: Construct Four Lane Divided Highway
ESTIMATED COST: $7,151,000
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: July 1988
12 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: FM 60
LIMITS: Brazos River, NE to FM 2818
LENGTH: 4.6 miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Construct a 4 Lane Divided Highway - Flush Median
ESTIMATED COST: $3,926,753
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: October 1989
SEE ATTACHMENT No. 3
(RED)
BRAZOS COUNTY
5 YEAR DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
CATEGORY 3
1 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 6
LIMITS: From North of Alum Creek to South of FM 159
LENGTH: 4.7 Miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Widen to Four Lane Divided Freeway with Frontage Roads
ESTIMATED COST: $10,283,487
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: October 1991
2 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: US 190
LIMITS: From Coulter Field to Kurten
LENGTH: 6.4 Miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Widen to Four Lane Divided with Flush Median
ESTIMATED COST: $5,739,345
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: January 1992
3 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: FM 2347
LIMITS: From FM 2154 to FM 2818
LENGTH: 1.2 Miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Widen to Four Lane Divided Section with Flush Median
ESTIMATED COST: $1,213,328
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: June 1992
•
4 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: LP 507
LIMITS: From FM 60 South to Dominik Street
LENGTH: 1.0 Mile
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Widen to Six Lanes with Continuous Left Turn Lanes
ESTIMATED COST: $1,122,000
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: October 1992
5 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 21
LIMITS: From Loop 158, NE to Loop 507
LENGTH: 1.4 Miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Construct Five Lane Curb and Gutter and RR Underpass
ESTIMATED COST: $4,455,250
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: January 1993
CATEGORY 3 (CONT)
6 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 6
LIMITS: From South of FM 159 to Navasota River
LENGTH: 7.2 Miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Widen to Four Lane Divided Highway
ESTIMATED COST: $10,416,285
ESTIMATED LETTING DATE: August 1993
SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 3
(GREEN)
BRAZOS COUNTY
CANDIDATE PROJECTS NOT SELECTED
(Letting Dates are Not Shown)
CATEGORY 3
1 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: FM 2818
LIMITS: Interchange of FM 2818 -FM 2154 and SP Railroad
LENGTH: 0.7 Miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Combination Rail Highway Grade Separation at FM 2818
ESTIMATED COST: $4,400,000
2 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: FM 2154
LIMITS: From FM 2347 to FM 60
LENGTH: 1.0 Mile
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Construct Elevated Highway Structure
ESTIMATED COST: $12,000,000
3 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 21
LIMITS: From Loop 507 to SH 6 Urban
LENGTH: 0.9 Mile
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Construct 64' Curb and Gutter Section
ESTIMATED COST: $942,500
4 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 6
LIMITS: At Woodville Road and Reliance Road
LENGTH: 2.0 Miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Construct Ramps
ESTIMATED COST: $890,725
5 COUNTY: Brazos
HIGHWAY: SH 30
LIMITS: From SH 6 to FM 158
LENGHT: 2.3 Miles
LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION: Widen to Four Lane Divided Highway with Flush Median
ESTIMATED COST: $1,953,112
AGENDA
MPO MEETING - JANUARY 14, 1987
I. Review of Information to be Presented to the
Highway Commission
A. Proposed Direct Access Route from TAMU
Research Annex to TAMU Main Campus
B. Proposed Extension of FM 2818 From FM 2154
To SH 6
C. Proposed Expansion of FM 2818 to a 4 -Lane
Facility From SH 21 to SH 6
D. Proposed Redesign, Reconstruction, or
Construction of Five Interchanges on FM 2818
E. Proposed Upgrading of FM 60 and FM 2154
II. New Business
•
J
PUBLIC HEARING REPORT
DISTRICT: No. 17, Bryan
COUNTY: Brazos
CITY: Bryan - College Station
DELEGATION: A letter from Mr. James B. Bond, Deputy Chancellor, dated
December 18, 1986, outlines the presentation to be made to the
Commission. Mr. David Eller, Chairman of the Board of Regents, will
be the spokesman for the delegation. The subject material to be dis-
cussed does not address a single project but rather concerns a general
overview of transportation in the Bryan - College Station area and re-
quests for several specific projects.
The presentation will be:
I. General comments on a route from Bryan to Austin and
a road from the Bryan Research and Extension Center
to the TAMU campus.
II. A discussion of transportation funding in the
Bryan - College Station area.
III. General discussion of additional proposed projects.
A. The extension of FM 2818 from its inter-
section with FM 2154 south to SH 6.
B. The expansion of FM 2818 to a four lane
'` facility from SH 21 north to SH 6.
C. The redesign, reconstruction, or construction
of five interchanges on FM 2818.
D. Upgrading of the interchange at FM 60 and
FM 2154.
Each of the above identified items will be treated individually in the
remainder of this report.
I. ROUTE FROM BRYAN TO AUSTIN
EXISTING HIGHWAY: The route from Bryan to Austin follows SH 21 and US 290.
An alternate route is SH 21 and SH 71 via Bastrop. A portion of the
route is currently constructed as a four lane facility or is scheduled
in the PDP for upgrading to four lanes. There is a two lane section of
highway in Lee and Bastrop Counties (between US 77 and US 290) which is
not included in the PDP for expansion to four lanes.
PROBLEM: Access between Texas A&M University and the University of Texas
at Austin is considered to be essential to developing the research
and industrial potential of the two universities. A direct connection
between the Texas A &M University main campus and the Bryan Research
and Extension Center is considered to be a first phase of development
of the entire route and also an important link between TAMU facilities.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The TAMU delegation appeared before the Commission
on November 24 to discuss the needs for route improvement. The De-
partment is initiating a route study between Bryan and Austin. The
route between the TAMU campus and the Research Center is under con-
sideration by the Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION & COMMENT: The route study should develop information
relative to needs and proposed improvements for the route between Bryan
and Austin. The study is appropriate to address the concerns of the
University and the community. No specific improvements can be proposed
until the study is completed. The access route to the TAMU main campus
and the Research Center appears to have merit. The route would develop
an appreciable volume of traffic upon completion and would serve as a
means of relieving congestion on other routes in the area. This was
discussed in the report prepared for the Commission hearing on November
24.
II. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING IN THE BRYAN- COLLEGE STATION AREA
The District has not received an outline indicating specific points which
Mr. Eller will discuss. The indications are that he intends to make com-
parisons between the Bryan- College Station area and other cities of similar
size with respect to funding levels. For background information, congestion
maps are attached showing current level of service and projected levels of
service 10 and 20 years in the future. Also attached is a tabulation com-
paring Bryan - College Station to other cities with respect to number of travel
lanes per cedterline mile and average daily traffic per lane. State Rep-
resentative District 14 covers Brazos County. Copies of the Legislative
Briefing Book are attached to show work in progress and work planned in
Brazos County.
2
. 1
• 0 19
1900
CI 1000 ,
2200 - ,.. CD 4500 •
3600 ) • , - •
ni 8100
l
t 12,100
8900
itiO 32200 19,000
2300 9500 , 12,000 Gil
14,100 ' .
`'' 1100 . t5C0 .
3000 3500
290 •
® ' ® 440
•,000 4000
9600 N 6RYA 7500
® 11,000 20,000 5 7 CO 4500
0 ,58
"F '
. ► -
• • 3800 CO
MD 26 m . - 3100
r 513/ 2300
2900 4004 10,90'
•,400
• 13,000 ;3,400 08 •
80
24,000
-' 1700 13,000 .
•
t CCLLEGE -- " 23,000
; 14,i�— STATION 34,000
25,000 17 600
GM 8100 thil
_ �, 1 17,600
•
7600 9700 Er , 11,80
Lisa 11,300
• •00 10,400 12,900
• • • 2e18
• 2100 ' 12,400 0
4300
LEVEL OF SERVICE BRYAN - COLLEGE STATION
I •:_, A
I.Mil c_
ail E Cu RRENT L.O.S.
1 1EXCEEDS
CAPACITY
9200 <1059o> < 335o>
:se 1000 ,
/•• 0 4"'0 '
<327
3600 [14„ F , <6;05> '
EEO 55
8100 •
2700 /,2! X35
44°;:-'5> 1 12,10• 1425o>
8900 /.
4 470 k
cp 3 3 2 6.30 >
Y 19,000
• 1 14OO>
4 342.5> 9500 12,000 MEI
2300 ima 14 I ss>
2385> . zi 7i5>
1100 . 1E00 <4530>
1640 • 3000 < 6 g ^ 5 500
. <4320> 158 158 44v0
2900 < 90 ?o>
<;5935> 16000 < 11445�` 4300
• 9600 < < > BRYAN 7500
1 1,000 20,000 • 5700 00 < 7230
o SIO> . 35280> 1o45o> 4500
•
• 0 �.
<6o Io>
3800 • r' ‹ 31200> •
26,000 6o 3100
• “I50 0 J +513 :1728>> 2300
< 493o>
. 4 c 000 10,900 4546-
30
MCI < 5,66 > N
i� ; '10>
-, l��g
• 13,000 '13,400 �Oa : 33 ' -
< 23 - 2(.05 > 24,000
<1(c. 755 1700 13,000
< Z5?5> CCLLEG� • 37 2 35
<19 765> STATION 23,000
14,700 25,000 34,
j t 1 155> .) E
17,600 35 >
58 5 1 0 >
< 25 325
. _ 81•' , 07. f
11 0; 0> • 730 • 17,600 <' 2345
7600 9700 F , • 24745> 11,80• <19 990>
17170 11,300
•
845> ® 10,400 ,900
7000<rz < 21 130>
4 2100 7000
• 2,400 0
4300 <20'95>
<5975>
LEVEL OF SERVICE BRYAN - COLLEGE STATION{
{ ., .I A —B Exi siiNC SY5TW
�t #: C — O 10 YEAR L.0.5.
' ili E
1 EXCEEDS 5000 Cwuw T ADT
CAPACITY <9000> 10 Ye►R ADT
aSal
• Q 1900 10
axi 9200 <I57 • > <456o> 1000
2200 O 40 '
43 5o ��< 89 I v> '
3600 - <2Ioo . �� , •. ..•
MD 8
2700 ." < 31 1'70>
<53 5.0> i 12,100
- 9900
. e:-io ,i. < 19 6o v>
t' 32 - 19,000
4550> 13300> 12 46660>
2300 9500 <z•,910 SO
® <'3170> . 311'1332> - •
<9; 6v>
1100 >. 1600 /3000 • 3300
<5744) < 935o>
4400
16,000 <jg a
13: So>
<z 960 < 33 3 <
:.,:.:.;>. . BRYAN 7560 � ► 4800
960• • 11,000 20,000
30620 <
. 4 5056o> . ' �0 > 4500
• <8210 a
>
3800
m 26,000 r • 00
. am • <5400> < 36400> U> 0 4740>
,
236 - ` �s3o
• 2500 4000 10,900
< 7920>
' 19,400 '
13,000 13,400 6 ° <`* 0 > - -
<3453o> <36 32o> ._ 24,000 •
<44Ioo>
13,000 '' /1700
0> - <20510> 5147o> •
1; <24870> COLLEGE 23,000
700 25,000
14, STATION 34,000
4zlo> 17,600 83020>
tl
,o < 3305 6 >
8100 ��c.``' l 0.0
17,600 <2910o>
7600 9700 ® • 318c>> 11,8 2° 63c>
415700> 44 -i-0> 11,300
• six:21
' 18 690> 10,400 12,900
7000 <18690 29 3‘°>
so 2100 7000
12,400 Q
4300 ' • 39 j o>
<7‘,50>
LEVEL OF SERVICE BRYAN - COLLEGE STATION
1E A - EX15TING SYSTEM
= C - D
20 YEAR L. O. 5.
E
J EXCEEDS
CAPPACITY 5000 CURRENT ADT
t4000> 20 YEAR ADT
CONGESTION
SMSA COUNTY INDICATOR AVERAGE NO. LANES
Port Arthur Jefferson 3200 3.33
Beaumont Orange 2828 2 .9 8
Longview Gregg 2630 2.92
Tyler Smith 2269 2.56
Temple-Killeen , 2098 2.96
Bryan - College Sttion Brazos 2043 2.70
Waco McLennan 1968 3.06
Victoria Victoria 1822 2.60
Midland Midland 1741 3.26
Odessa Ector 1701 3.68
Texarkana Bowie 1676 2.55
Lubbock Lubbock 1623 3.18
Sherman- Dennison Grayson 1586 2.61
Amarillo Potter - Randall 1580 3.43
Wichita Falls Wichita 1536 3.04
Brownsville Cameron 1460 2.69
Harlingen Cameron 1460 2.69
Abilene Taylor 1374 3.04
Marshall Harrison 1363 2.67
San Angelo Tom Green 1205 2.58
Laredo Webb 1044 2.71
CONGESTION INDICATOR = DAILY VEHICLE MILES
,, LANE MILES
AVERAGE NO. OF LANES = LANE MILES
CENTERLINE MILES
Source DISCOS
III. A. THE EXTENSION OF FM 2818 FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH FM 2154
SOUTH TO SH 6
EXISTING HIGHWAY: New Location - Some of the route might follow a portion of
FM 2154 and a county road (Greens Prairie Road). FM 2154 is a two lane
road with narrow unsurfaced shoulders. Greens Prairie Road is a narrow
gravel road.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT: The delegation is requesting that a four lane divided
facility be built from the intersection of FM 2818 and FM 2154 southward
to SH 6 at a point near Greens Prairie Road.
PROBLEM: Currently there is no direct route from SH 6 south of College Station
leading to the TAMU campus. Traffic from SH 6 south is routed along SH 6
Business Route and FM 2818. There are a number of signalized intersections
along this route. Currently the level of service is A -B. Traffic projec-
tions indicate that the section along SH 6 Business Route will drop to a
level of service less than E in 10 years. The.section of FM 2818 between
FM 2154 and SH 6 Business Route will have a level of service E within
10 years.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: SH 6 Business Route and FM 2818 between FM 2154 and
SH 6 Business Route will apparently have congestion problems within the
foreseeable future. Adding capacity along the existing route will be
difficult due to development of abutting property and intersection capac-
ity constraints. The proposed new southern connection would provide an
alternate route for congestion relief.
TRAFFIC Estimates of traffic if the new facility were to be constructed are:
Current 20 Year Projection
From FM 2818 southward along FM 2154 5,000 ADT 9,000 ADT
From FM 2154 to SH 6 south 3,000 ADT 6,000 ADT
ESTIMATED COST:
Roadway from FM 2818 southward
along FM 2154 (2.0 mi.) $1,818,000
Roadway from FM 2154 to SH 6 south
(3.0 mi.) $3,000,000
Interchange at FM 2818 and FM 2154
including railroad grade separation $4,000,000
$8,818,000
These estimates do not include right -of -way costs. The type of con-
struction (freeway or four lane divided facility) and the possible
location are not well enough defined at this time to develop meaningful
right -of -way cost estimates.
3
LOCAL PARTICIPATION: As the proposed new route would be part of the
Farm to Market Road system, right -of -way and utility adjustment costs
would be borne by local governments.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN INFORMATION: This project is not included in the
PDP and was not considered in the recent PDP update. The project has
not been proposed in the past by any of the local governments or planning
authorities.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION & COMMENT: The project appears to have merit. The direct
connection between SH 6 and the TAM campus probably would be insufficient
justification for construction. The fact that if the project were con-
structed it would attract traffic from other congested routes makes it
worthy of coisideration. It would be a worthwhile addition to the trans-
portation network in the community.
4