Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1997-01-28 CC Work Session
City of Southlake,Texas 111 MEMORANDUM January 24, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest for City Council Work Session 1. City Council Work Session•- Staff Presentation on the Status of the Master Thoroughfare Plan Update - As noted on the agenda, the purpose of the work session is to kick off your consideration of the Master Thoroughfare Plan with a staff briefing on the status of the plan. Due to time constraints (the joint meeting with the Park Board will begin promptly at 7:00 p.m.),-this item will be for Council discussion only. The opportunity for public • comments and citizen participation will be provided at subsequent meetings. We have tried to get this word out to interested residents, but it will be in everyone's best interest to emphasize this again when the meeting begins. Your packet contains the plan reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, since time did not permit making those changes for this packet. To assist you in tracking the changes recommended by P&Z, staff has prepared a cover memo summarizing the Commission's recommendations. Note that the plan was approved by the Commission by a vote of 6-1. The dissenting Commissioner believed that the plan should not include the Continental connection to Highway 26. His reasoning was that it is misleading to approve the connection without simultaneously approving the ultimate roadway. It is my understanding that the other Commissioners believed that it was important to retain the connection, since it provides • an opportunity to address future traffic problems that could occur, depending on the development in this area of the city. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest • January 24, 1997 Page 2 2. Joint City Council and Park Board Work Session - The agenda was developed by the Park Board, and reflects issues of great importance to them. For the most part the agenda is straightforward, however, I offer the following points of clarification: Park Dedication Ordinance-Your packet contains a copy of the current ordinance, as well as a copy of the ordinance proposed by the Park Board. The proposed ordinance reorganizes the format. The redline text are additions that have been made to the original text. This has been an item of discussion by the Park Board for some time, and the proposal directly addresses their concerns regarding the equity of its implementation and the complexity of administering it. There are • several issues that have been raised by the Board, which will be discussed with you on Tuesday. The Park Board and staff have worked closely with Community Development staff to draft this ordinance at Park Board's direction. If you have any questions, please call Kim Lenoir at ext. 757, or Tom Elgin at ext. 753. Trail System/Sidewalks - The Park Board has discussed developing an ordinance that addresses the issue of providing sidewalks and their relationship to the Trail System Master Plan. They are planning to discuss their ideas regarding placement of sidewalks, size, and construction standards with you at the meeting. OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST 3. Attached to my memo are newspaper clippings from the Fort Worth Star Telegram and the Dallas Morning News regarding Thursday's Metroport Cities Partnership meeting. Mr. • Hawk had planned to discuss these issues with you at your next Council meeting, but given the tone of the FWST article, he felt that it was important to clarify some of the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest • January 24, 1997 Page 3 issues related to S.H. 114 and the Metroport Cities Partnership in this memo. We still plan to have a discussion item on the agenda. Mayor Stacy, Council member Moffat and Mr. Hawk attended the meeting on Thursday. The discussion was whether continuing efforts to ensure funding for S.H. 114 should remain with Metroport Cities Partnership (through the Metroport 114 Partnership, a committee of MCP) or with a newly formed group outside of Metroport which would be comprised of municipalities, businesses, etc. who have an interest in the project. The two issues discussed related to 1) control and 2) accountability. The position taken by Mr. Hawk,.the Mayor and Council member Moffat was that no new group was needed. • The success of the Metroport 114 Partnership was evident last summer when the group led the way to securing funding for the project from the Texas Transportation Commission. Mr. Hawk made the point during the meeting that other cities such as Fort Worth or Irving may wish to participate in the project and could do so under the existing structure by participating with the committee. This would allow them to "have their say, but not necessarily their way." In other words, forming an alliance with these parties could be beneficial but, as long as the project stays under the auspices of the Metroport Cities Partnership, efforts to fund the segment of roadway through the metroport cities would not be diluted by the needs of other communities to our east. The other issue is, of course, accountability. If another organization is formed, raises money and works to lobby the State, the City's ability to account for the funds and the actions of the new organization would be diminished. S Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest • January 24, 1997 Page 4 In short, staff, the Mayor, and Council member Moffat are in agreement on this issue. The Star Telegram article may have left you with the impression that this is not the case due to the way quotes were used. Mr. Hawk also believes that healthy debate in which the group engaged during the meeting was mischaracterized as "bickering." The bottom line is that the group has to determine where it needs to go next, and all players should have an opportunity to express their ideas and opinions. As mentioned, we will have this item on our next regular City Council meeting as a discussion item. Meanwhile, please feel free to call Mr. Hawk if you have further questions about the meeting or the project. 4. Don't forget the Employee Awards Banquet on Monday! • SKY • City of Southlake,Texas • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION: JANUARY 28, 1997 LOCATION: 667 North Carroll Avenue, Southlake, Texas City Council Chambers of City Hall WORK SESSION: 5:00 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. Call to order. 2. Discussion: Staff Presentation on the Status of the Master Thoroughfare Plan Update. Due to time constraints, this item will be for Council discussion only. The opportunity for public comments and citizen participation will be provided at subsequent meetings. 3. Meeting Adjourned. • CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at City Hall, 667 North Carroll Avenue, and the Administrative Offices, 1725 Fast Southlake Boulevard, Southlake, Texas, on Friday, January 24, at 5:00 p.m., pursuant to the Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. `toouuuupiii � � s 4,14144• % /1411 d in Sandra L. LeGrand 4 City Secretary \tat. If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs, please advise the City Secretary 48 hours in advance at 481-5581 extension 704, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. D:\WP-FILES\CC-1-28 •� City of Southlake,Texas MEMORANDUM January 22, 1997 TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager FROM: Tom Elgin, Comprehensive Planner II SUBJECT: Status of the Master Thoroughfare Plan (MTP) Update At their regularly scheduled meeting on January 23, the Planning &Zoning Commission completed their review and recommendation for the update of the Master Thoroughfare Plan(MTP.) P&Z's changes from the current MTP for the most part are denoted on the attached executive summary, "proposed"MTP text and "proposed" MTP map. However, because of time constraints, the following changes made last night have not been made in the proposed map and text: 1. Change Continental to a three-lane undivided 94' arterial from the "new" Carroll/Brumlow intersection east to the extension of"new"Kimball; 2. Change Carroll to a three-lane undivided 94' arterial from SH 114 to Dove; and 3. Add labels for"Kirkwood Boulevard" and"Byron Nelson Parkway"to the map. Also included in this packet are the map and text of the current MTP for comparison. Please forward this item to City Council for discussion at their next work session on January 28.If you have any questions or would like to forward comments prior to the meeting,please don't hesitate to call me at 481-5581, extension 753, or Chris Carpenter at extension 866. TE enc: Updated Executive Summary Proposed MTP Text Proposed MTP Map Current MTP Text Current MTP Map L:\WP-FILES\PROJECTS\MTP-96\MEMOS\01 24 97.WPD Executive Summary City of Southlake 1996 Master Thoroughfare Plan Update An amendment to the City Charter in January 21, 1995,instituted a required review of most master plan components every four years. The Master Thoroughfare Plan(MTP), adopted • in December of 1991, was the "oldest" of the master/plan components at the time and, therefore,was the first scheduled for review. In the fall of 1995,this process began,resulting in the selection of Lee Engineering,Inc., of Dallas to provide the Planning and Zoning Commission and city staff with transportation consulting services. Larry Hoffinan,P.E.,vice president of the firm,has since assisted in the analysis of land uses, traffic modeling, and level of service determinations necessary to produce the initial draft of the 1996 MTP update of the current December 1991 plan. The major difference between this plan and the current thoroughfare plan is the incorporation of the Trails System Master Plan, adopted in August of 1995. The trails plan calls for additional wider outside lanes for bicycles along thoroughfares and/or off-road trails parallel to one side of the thoroughfares. The other significant differences are the number of proposed lanes on certain thoroughfares. The thoroughfares with proposed increases in the number of lanes are: Brumlow Avenue (from 4 lanes to 5)and Kimball Avenue between FM 1709 and SH 114 (from 4 lanes to 6). The thoroughfares with proposed reductions in the number of lanes are: E. Bob Jones (4 lanes to 2), White Chapel north of Dove (from 4 lanes to 2),Kimball north of Dove(from 4 lanes to 2), Highland east of Carroll (from 4 lanes to 2), Highland west of Shady Oaks (from 4 lanes to 2),Peytonville from intersection of Peytonville&Southridge Lakes to Dove (from 4 lanes to 2),Peytonville south of high school(from 4 lanes to 2),Johnson Road(from 4 lanes to 2),Pearson south of FM 1709(from 4 lanes to 2),Union Church(from 5 lanes to 2), Southridge Lakes (from 4 lanes to 2), Carroll from SH 114 to Dove(from 5 lanes to 3), and Continental from Davis to "new"Kimball(from 5 lanes to 3). The roadways that are on the proposed plan but were not previously in the plan are: T.W. King north of Bob Jones(from local street to 2 lane),White Chapel north of Bob Jones(from local street to 2 lane) and Byron Nelson Parkway (4 lanes.) The roadways that were previously in the plan but are not on the proposed plan are:Ridgecrest(deleted entirely) and Walnut Drive(south and east of East Bob Jones). At a public hearing on January 23, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission completed their review and formal recommendation of the MTP. L:I WP-FILESIPROJECTSIMTP-961EXEC_SUM.WPD • • IIIF THOROUGHFARE PLAN. for CITY OF SOUTHLAICE SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS . • DECEMBER,1991 110 • Prepared By: Jack Hatchell & Associates Cheatham&Associates Consulting Engineers Consulting Engineers • P.O. Box 260119 1170 Corporate Dr. West, #207 Arlington, TX 76006 Plano, Texas 75026 • 214/424-1368 817/633-1023 - Metro 817/640-4329 • • . • • • • . . . . • . • • . : . • • TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR SO.UTHLAKE THOROUGHFARE PLAN Page I. Introduction 1 II. Review of Pertinent Material 3 III. Objections of Planning 4 IV. Study Purpose and Scope 5 V. Minimum Level of Service Determination 6 VI. Recommended Roadway Network . • . 8 VII. Roadway Classification System 9 VIII. . Recommended Roadway Sections 18 IX. Existing Deficiencies and Traffic Counts 29 • X. Forecasts/Projections 33 XI. Major Intersections 34 XII. Special Intersections 36 XIII. Construction Standards 46 XIV. Interim Streets 55 XV. Construction Cost Estimates 57 XVI. Corridor Controls and Development Regulations 60 1 I. INTRODUCTION • Southlake, in the midst of a national and state economic downturn, is showing significant residential development trends at the time this report is being prepared in 1991. Hundreds of acres of undeveloped land is either being turned into hundreds of residential lots or is on the subdivision drawing board. Substantial commercial and other types of non-residential development is sure to follow. The following are major contributors to Southlake's recent development trends: 1. The underlying,' long-term, good economic prospects for the Southwest; more particularly the Dallas-Fort Worth region. ' 2. Being very near to DFW International Airport. 3. Being adjacent to the 'IBM' development and Alliance Airport. 4. Many new and long-time residents will say that the rural openness and ether .'quality-of-life' attributes of the area are significant magnets for new residents. Especially rapid growth of suburbanizing areas creates strains on the supporting >• infrastructure, among other difficulties. Often most evident are the problems created by imposing dramatically increased vehicle traffic on older, rural type roadways. This is the point at which Southlake has found itself during the last few years. The classic dilemmas of: III - existing residents wanting to preserve the rural atmosphere; - wanting to keep the few, narrow country lanes; - wanting to avoid acquiring additional rights-of-way along existing roads and disrupting 'people-already-here'; - in the face of virtually inevitable development that will create traffic demands far in excess of the existing systems.capacity are here-and-now. - Numerous recent examples is this and other metropolitan areas have amply demonstrated the general futility of resisting the impetus to develop — without debating whether or not growth is beneficial. Cities have found that the regulatory authorities granted them by the state and federal governments are not sufficient to simply hold back development. It is generally conceded that the best a city can do for existing and future citizens is to plan for that growth. Planning for that growth does not necessarily mean to encourage it, but to make plans for accommodating the growth when it does occur. The consultants preparing this report believe this is the context for this planning effort. It is the collective objective of city officials that the city does the best it can in, (a) regulating and controlling growth, and (b) accommodating that which does occur. The following comments address several matters that are sometimes misunderstood or misconstrued. • 4.1 Traffic volume alone is not the determining factor in how wide the right-of- way is recommended to be, or how many lanes the street should have, or how wide the lanes should be, or whether a street should have a boulevard section or not. For example, in some very sparsely populated areas - an 18' wide, two-lane, unpaved road might be passible for the occasional car. But it will not accommodate emergency vehicles (both ways), parking, emergency parking, sight distances, turning room and a host of other safety and convenience related items. Especially in the case of streets with lower traffic volumes, these issues are behind the recommendations for minimum 31' wide residential streets, for example. 4.2 The right-of-way width recommendations are for what we believe will be the ultimate required. The street widths shown are for what will probably be required by year 2010 traffic volumes. The main intent here is that the city be able to acquire right-of-way for future street expansion through dedications at the time of platting. It does not mean that the city is anticipating near-future acquisition of property through purchase for street expansion except in very limited instances. 4.3 "Time is a trick by Mother Nature to keep everything from happening at once." This planning document must be viewed taking time into consideration. It will take many years to acquire the right-of-way and build the streets shown on the plan. For example, the city may be acquiring right-of-way through platting along a route sufficient for a four-lane street — knowing that a two- lane street (referred to in this case as an 'interim section'.) will probably be sufficient for the life of the pavement. The city is trying to be as efficient as possible by acquiring right-of-way through platting and by not building streets with more lanes than necessary for the expected life span of the paving. The consultants wish to thank staff, appointed and elected municipal officials for their sincere interest in this planning project and the many citizens for their ernest participation. 1 p II. REVIEW OF PERTINENT MATERIAL Relevant Documents Reviewed: 11) Southlake Subdivision Ordinance Southlake Ordinance 217, relating to streets and drainage Southlake Land Use Plan, including the thoroughfare element 'Mobility 2000' the regional transportation plan for North Central Texas - published by the North Central Texas Council of Governments City of Keller Thoroughfare Planning Documents City of Westlake Thoroughfare Planning Documents City of Grapevine Thoroughfare Planning Documents W City of Colleyville Thoroughfare Planning Documents Additionally, various other municipally produced materials such as corridor ordinances and design guide lines were reviewed. Also reviewed were recent texts on related matters such as material on urban travel estimation techniques. S • iio. . . • 1 III. OBJECTIVES OF PLANNING Some of the general underlying philosophical aims of this thoroughfare planning effort should S be briefly discussed. Some are obvious, some not. They should be mentioned at least so as to provide a common ground as to the basic motivations for undertaking thoroughfare planning. ' • It is obvious that the basic purpose to plan for a roadway network is that when built, it will ' allow people to go from one place to another (a 'trip'). The biggest generator of trips is going to and from work. Second is shopping. Thus the recommended network will be aimed at satisfying these basic demands. Another purpose is development of a data base to assist in decision making. Information regarding traffic and related issues is needed by elected, appointed, and staff officials. This information is frequently needed by citizen groups, developers, financial institutions and others. • i A • , 't IV. STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE 0 The general purpose of this report is to furnish a document that will be useful in making decisions about: - controlling upcoming development - - providing adequate roadways for existing and new development - handling traffic The study is primarily limited to highways, arterial and collector type roadways. Those will be defined later in the text. The report does not directly address issues regarding local or neighborhood streets - which are generally more about aesthetics than accommodating traffic. The scope of the report centers on the following specific tasks: 1. Development of an arterial (and to some extent - collector) roadway network aimed at accommodating existing and future traffic. This network takes into account regional and local development trends. ' 2. Development of recommendations for right-of-way widths for the various segments of the network. It is a premise of the study that even though the eventual full-width paved surface may not get built at this time - or even in the near future - the city should make plans to acquire the ultimate width of R.O.W. through platting where possible. 3. Development of a classification system for the roadways to be built within the community. The primary purpose is to provide a common nomenclature base • for official documents and discussions regarding roadway development. 4. Development of recommendations for interim and ultimate street sections. That is, how many lanes, how wide, boulevards or not,curbs or not, etc. 5. Development of per linear foot cost estimates for the various street sections 6. Make recommendations regarding correcting existing roadway traffic handling deficiencies 7. Make recommendations regarding traffic control at major and special intersections 8. Make recommendations for street construction minimum standards 9. Make recommendations for development regulations so as to maximize the opportunity to put arterial development on a 'pay-as-you-go' basis 10. Make recommendations regarding special corridor controls, i.e. S.H. 114, and other administrative controls 4 f -ir V. MINIMUM LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATION The term, 'level of service' refers to how well a roadway or intersection handles peak traffic le volumes. The following are the standard or commonly used level of service definitions. • LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE A & B No delays at intersections with Residential smooth progression of traffic. or rural Uncongested operations, all vehicles streets. clear in a single signal cycle. C Moderate delays at intersections with Urban satisfactory to good progression of streets traffic. Light congestion; occasional at off-peak — back-ups on critical approaches. hours. D Forty percent probability of delays of Secondary cycle or more at every intersection. No Central progression of traffic along the roadway Business with 90% probability of being stopped at District every intersection experiencing "D" at peak condition. Significant congestion on hours. critical approaches, but intersection functional. Vehicles required to wait S through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long standing lines formed. E Heavy traffic flow condition. Delays of Primary CBD two or more cycles probable. No streets at progression.One hundred percent peak hours. probability of stopping at mtersection. Limit of stable flow. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. F Unstable traffic flow. Heavy congestion. Central Traffic moves in forced flow condition. Expressway Three or more cycles to pass through in Dallas intersection. Total breakdown with during rush stop and go operation. hour. • 6 r e Level of service "D" is the most commonly used design level of service for urban and 40 suburban areas. This means that "D" conditions will be experienced during a.m. and/or p.m. rush hours, but "C" or better during other times. The dollar cost of providing a higher level of service for just those two periods is normally considered uneconomical. Thus, level of service "D" is the design level of service, where applicable, used in this report when making capacity recommendations. As a practical matter, "D" conditions will only occur at very few locations for short periods during the next several years and should not be a general concern. W • S III 7 1 v VI. RECOMMENDED ROADWAY NETWORK S A basic, understood, but not written policy, is that the network of roadways that is to be the framework of any future thoroughfare planning in Southlake is to essentially take place along existing routes. That is, there is not to be a wholesale designation of new roadway routes for arterials throughout the community. There are two sets of circumstances that might be considered as exceptions: 1. FM 1938 Extension. The cities involved and the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation informally have long considered extending FM 1938 straight north from FM 1709 to SH 114 to be logical and essential. 2. The recommended network shows collectors in specific locations only along existing roadways. Specific locations for new routes are not recommended. The reason being that the location of these roadways is a function of the design of the individual developments. It is impossible to predict what the design of these developments will be. The city'should continue with enforcement-of a general development policy that collector type streets be provided by new development at mid-points between arterials as a minimum. Otherwise, local shopping or similar trips will involve a 2 mile or longer one-way . • circumferential trip using arterials. Also, emergency, alternative routing for • residents and public safety vehicles will be diminished significantly, if collector streets are not constructed. Enclosed in this report is a map showing the recommended network of proposed roadways. The map shows recommended roadways down to the collector level. Again,_the location of minor collectors along new routes is not shown. 40 The network shown is that which is anticipated to be needed to'support ultimate development m ent in Southlake and the surrounding region. The R.O.W.s and roadway sections recommended are those necessary to support the ultimate development. The city should have a policy of obtaining R.O.W. for the ultimate need through the platting process, thereby preventing the necessity of having to buy the R.O.W. at a later date. Probably an interim roadway pavement section will be used within these R.O.W.s for five or more years. • 0 • • • 8 . t f VII. ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM The following is the recommended roadway classification system for Southlake. It is unique ir in that it addresses roadway nomenclature in a manner consistent with existing development policies and precedents. It is standard in that it is functionally consistent with classification systems used by other local, regional and state agencies. Following the outline of the classification system will be subsections on functional definitions and recommended design standards. These classifications are for the permanent or ultimate roadways. The city will acquire the full-width R.O.W. for arterials and collectors through platting. In many cases, developers will not build the facilities and the city will assume the responsibility of constructing or reconstructing the roadway. In a number of cases, the city will build a semi-permanent or interim street section. This section will generally have fewer lanes and will not have the same pavement section as the recommended permanent section. This interim section will be used for the life-cycle of the pavement or until traffic volume increases require construction of the ultimate.roadway section. w Those interim sections are included at the end of this section. . Developers constructing facilities within their development should be required to build the ultimate section(s) for facilities within their development. 0 it) 9 BASIC ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION • TYPES OF FACILITIES " STATE HIGHWAYS - PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS (FREEWAY) SH 114 FREEWAY SH 114 FREEWAY FRONTAGE ROADS FM 1709 FM 1938 ARTERIALS - DIVIDED & UNDIVIDED • COLLECTORS LOCAL STREETS • COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL STREET OR CUL-DE-SAC Not classified are urban expressways, access streets, park roads or other types of roadways that tend to be individually unique and should be treated individually. 10 . . . . ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION - DISCUSSION 111 CLASSIFICATION: Freeway FUNCTION: Carry high volumes of traffic regionally and inter- • regionally - Primary purpose is to accommodate what is normally considered through traffic TRIP LENGTH: Very long - generally.in excess of five miles SYSTEM CONTINUITY: Connects tb other freeways, urban expressways,'arterials and major collectors LAND USE INTERACTION: Should not penetrate neighborhoods or provide direct access from frontage roads • ACCESS MANAGEMENT: Access fully controlled INTERSECTION TREATMENT: Fully grade separated • MEDIAN TREATMENT: Barriers and/or generous median sections COMMENTS: • 11 . A ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION - DISCUSSION • ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Freeway Frontage Roads FUNCTION: The primary function is to provide a means of'connecting the local arterials to the freeways. They often perform two other functions -- often at odds with their primary function as a freeway service road. Those are: a. Arterial for local circulation. The drivers of many vehicles using the frontage roads have no intention of using the freeway, but are using the frontage road to go a short distance when a convenient city street does not exist. b. As a means of access to adjacent property.--This is often unavoidable in that it is the only access to the property immediately adjacent to the freeway. Development of the property with driveways is virtually inevitable. Frontage roads have been given their own category in order that they may be dealt with separately from freeways and other streets because of their unique nature. • TRIP LENGTH: Short SYSTEM CONTINUITY: Connects arterials and other streets to the freeway. LAND USE INTERACTION: Should not penetrate neighborhoods. May provide access to adjacent property. ACCESS MANAGEMENT: Limited access INTERSECTION TREATMENT: At-grade MEDIAN TREATMENT: None COMMENTS: 111. l2 . ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION - DISCUSSION • CLASSIFICATION: Arterials - Divided & Undivided FUNCTION: Serves regional and major traffic generators and specialized land uses. TRIP LENGTH: Long - one to five miles SYSTEM CONTINUITY: Connects to, freeways, other arterials, major and minor collectors LAND USE INTERACTION: Should not penetrate neighborhoods. Direct access-to adjacent land strictly controlled. ACCESS MANAGEMENT: Partially, but strictly controlled. Access spacing and design controls should be used to insure traffic flow and safety. INTERSECTION TREATMENT: At grade intersections with separate turning lanes. Traffic carrying capability should not be limited by ® overly-frequent spacing of traffic signals and intersection access. MEDIAN TREATMENT: Left-turn lanes or bays in medians COMMENTS: The intersection of two regional arterials may require grade separation to accommodate high traffic volumes. • . 1111 13 1 ,/ ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION - DISCUSSION • CLASSIFICATION: Collector FUNCTION: Serves regional, local major and minor traffic generators as well as specialized land uses. Forms connection with areas in adjacent suburban areas. TRIP LENGTH: Moderate to long, generally over one mile SYSTEM CONTINUITY: Connects to freeways, arterials, major and minor collectors with limited connection to local streets. Those connections should principally be non-residential. local minor arterials. LAND USE INTERACTION: Should not penetrate neighborhood - may form neighborhood boundary ACCESS MANAGEMENT: Control is limited. Design controls should be used to ensure safety. Can provide direct access to non- residential land uses. II INTERSECTION TREATMENT: At-grade MEDIAN TREATMENT: None. Right-of-way and street section should be widened at major intersections to allow for left-turn lanes with storage and deceleration lanes with free right-turn lanes. COMMENTS: . . . • . . 14 • ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION - DISCUSSION • CLASSIFICATION: Local Street - Commercial/Industrial FUNCTION: To provide access to adjacent property and to provide circulation within a non-residential development. Considers heavy truck use and considerable on-street parking of delivery vehicles. Some of these streets may be cul-de-sacs or related types. Those will have the same recommended R.O.W. and paving sections. TRIP LENGTH: Short, generally less than 1/2 mile SYSTEM CONTINUITY: Connects to collectors and arterials LAND USE INTERACTION: Provides direct access ACCESS MANAGEMENT: None INTERSECTION TREATMENT: At-grade MEDIAN TREATMENT: None COMMENTS: • • • II) • 15 • ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION DEFINITION - DISCUSSION • CLASSIFICATION: Local Street - Residential Street or Cul-de-sac FUNCTION: Provide direct access to residences and provide internal circulation within neighborhoods. Adjacent pedestrian movement should be considered. TRIP LENGTH: Short, generally 1/2 mile or less SYSTEM CONTINUITY: Should connect only to collectors. Direct connection between residential streets and arterials should be discouraged. • LAND USE INTERACTION: Provides direct access to adjacent property ACCESS MANAGEMENT: None INTERSECTION TREATMENT: None MEDIAN TREATMENT: None COMMENTS: • • • 16 -.' VIII. RECOMMENDED ROADWAY SECTIONS 41) The following schematic drawings depict the recommended roadway sections for the roadway classification system discussed in Chapter VII. III 17 • THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL FREEWAY (SH 114 FREEWAY) 4 3' BARRIER • 3 4 4 3 LANES LANES LANES LANES 1NROUGH LANES 300'-500' DESIGN ELEMENT RECOMMENDED STANDARD RIGHT-OF-WAY (FEET) 300 LANE_WIDTH (FEET) 12 NUMBER OF TRAFFIC LANES g: DESIGN SPEED (MPH) 55 GRADE (PERCENT) N/A MIN. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (I•tt1) N/A MIN. CENTERLINE RADIUS (I ttl) . N/A CAPACITY (VEHICLES PER DAY): NOTES: -SH 114 TO BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED BY THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. • 19 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL (PASU) (VIVI 1709 & FM 1938) Y ' PARKWAY 14' CONTINUOUS CENTER TURN LANE 7-&, DRAINAGE yIk11 iLlllelallefulrlulrlr•drlralrir, l I I ,1dull+lu01,111 111111MI[6dreltalA* UP TO 3 LANES 24'-36' TYP. .� 130' DESIGN ELEMENT RECOMMENDED STANDARD RIGHT-OF--WAY (FEET) 130 LANE WIDTH (I-ttI) 12 . NUMBER OF TRAFFIC LANES 476 411 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) 55 GRADE (PERCENT) 0.5-6 ' - MIN. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (M±I) 350 MIN. CENTERLINE RADIUS Ott!) 1000 CAPACITY (VEHICLES PER DAY): 42,000 NOTES: -FM 1709 & FM 1938 & EXTEN110N ARE ONLY FACILITIES OF THIS TYPE CONTEMPLATED -WILL BE DESIGNED BY STATE 20 ARTERIAL = DIVIDED (A4D) , • FOR MEDIAN OR TURN OAY • • \o.s. COH 25' COW- 19' CONC. _ 25' CONC. OS CONK 9' IBS/C 28' IN AC 4 1G 1111 C .428' iilsiC 9' 1611,C 90' • DESIGN ELEMENT RECOMMENDED STANDARD RIGHT—OF—WAY (FEET) 90 • • LANE WIDTH (I-ttt) 12 •NUMBER OF TRAFFIC LANES 4 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) 35 ;: SGRADE (PERCENT) 0.5-6 MIN. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (t-ttt) 300 MIN. CENTERLINE RADIUS (t tEt) 1a00 CAPACITY (VEHICLES PER DAY): 20,000-28,000 NOTES: —SEE SYSTEM MAP FOR RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS FOR THIS SECTION.- • —0N—STREET PARKING NOT ALLOWED OR DISCOURAGED. , —AT INTERSECTIONS: THE FLARING OF A 90' R.O.W. FOR A DMDED FOUR—LANE ARTERIAL TO 115' TO ACCOMODATE RIGHT TURN LANES OFF—OF AND ON—TO, THE ARTERIAL AND LEFT—TURNS OFF THE COLLECTOR FOR A DISTANCE. OF APPROXIMATELY 200'-400' MAY BE REQUIRED. • 21 . ARTERIAL - UNDIVIDED (5 LANES) (ASU) • 14' CONTINUOUS LEFT TURN LANE Ju�tdddcdr.d� 1 { a11s4tIoa11 f r 105' CONC 63' CANC. jto.s• CONCH 4_ 9' HUAC 66' 1WPC 9' HIM 84' • DESIGN ELEMENT RECOMMENDED STANDARD RIGHT—OF—WAY (FEET) 84 LANE. WIDTH (FEET) 12 NUMBER OF TRAFFIC LANES 5 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) 3-5 GRADE (PERCENT) 0.5-6 MIN. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (FEET) 300 MIN. CENTERLINE RADIUS (I tt1) 1000 CAPACITY (VEHICLES PER DAY): 24,000 NOTES: —THIS SECTION RECOMMENDED WHERE 84' R.O.W. CURRENTLY EXISTS — SUCH AS CONTINENTAL k WHITE CHAPLE. —ON—STREET PARKING NOT ALLOWED OR DISCOURAGED. —AT INTERSECTIONS: THE.FLARING OF A 84' R.O.W. FOR A DIVIDED FOUR—LANE ARTERIAL TO 96'-100' TO ACCOMODATE RIGHT TURN LANES OFF—OF AND ON—TO THE ARTERIAL; AND LEFT 1URNS OFF THE COLLECTOR FOR A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 150'-300' MAY BE REQUIRED. • 22 • ARTERIAL - UNDIVIDED (A4U) • gUl1MIIlINUaU� (� . 10.5' CONC. 49' CONC. 10.5' CONC. 9' NW C L 52' MAC 9' WC 70' DESIGN ELEMENT RECOMMENDED STANDARD RIGHT-OF-WAY (FEET) 70 • LANE WIDTH (FEET) 12 NUMBER OF TRAFFIC LANES 4 DESIGN SPEED (MPH) 35 • GRADE (PERCENT) 0.5-7 MIN. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (httt) 250 MIN. CENTERLINE RADIUS (FEET) 1000 CAPACITY (VEHICLES PER DAY): 18,000 NOTES: -ON-STREET PARKING NOT-ALLOWED OR OISCOURAGED. -AT INTERSECTIONS: THE FLARING OF A 70' R.O.W. FOR A DMDED FOUR-LANE ARTERIAL TO 94'-100' TO ACCOMODATE RIGHT TURN LANES OFF-OF AND ON-TO THE ARTERIAL AND LEFT-TURNS OFF THE FOR A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY' 150'-300' MAY BE REQUIRED. *COLLECTOR • 23 COLLECTOR (C2U) • MutiAl 11 S CONC. _37' CONC. 115' CONC. 10' HWIC 40' HWLC 10' HUAC 60' DESIGN ELEMENT - RECOMMENDED STANDARD RIGHT—OF—WAY (FEET) 60 LANE WIDTH (I-LEI) 12 NUMBER OF TRAFFIC LANES 2* DESIGN SPEED (MPH) 35 GRADE (PERCENT) 0.5-10 MIN. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE Ott() 250 MIN. CENTERLINE RADIUS (I-tt►) 400 CAPACITY (VEHICLES PER DAY): 8,000 NOTES: —PARKING ON BOTH SIDES OF STREET ANTICIPATED —PAVING THICKNESS FOR COLLECTORS DIFFERS ACCORDING TO USE—ie. COMMERCIAL vs RESIDERAL —SEE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR DEFINL11ON OF COLLECTOR • —ADDmONAL R.O.W. (UP TO 48') AT MAJOR INTERSECTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT AND LEFT 'TURN LANES MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE 150' — 200' LEADING INTO THE INTERSECTION. —« WITH PARKING LANES PROVIDED • • 24 INTERIM SECTION (70'-90' R.O .W.) DRAINAGE 0 K PnRKwnY \----0---- . 33' 24'-48' (OR LESS) 70'-90' -\ DESIGN ELEMENT RECOMMENDED STANDARD RIGHT-OF-WAY (t-ttt) 70 - 90 LANE WIDTH (t-ttt) 12 NUMBER OF TRAFFIC LANES 2-4 SDESIGN SPEED (MPH) 35 GRADE.(PERCENT) 0.5-6 MIN. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (1-ttt) 300 MIN. CENTERLINE RADIUS (ItEt) 1000 CAPACITY (VEHIctES PER DAY): 10,000 NOTES: -R.O.W. DEPEND ON ULTIMATE SECTION RECOMMENDED FOR SEGMENT -CITY WILL ACQUIRE. R.O.W. FOR ULTIMATE SECTION BUT WILL MAINTAIN OR CONSTRUCT THE INTERIM SECTIC FOR USE UNTIL TRAFFIC HAS INCREASED SUFFICIENTLY TO WARRANT CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LANES. -ON-STREET PARKING NOT ALLOWED OR DISCOURAGED. ADDITIONAL R.O.W. (UP TO 48') AT MMOR INTERSECTIONS FOR ADOIRONAL RIGHT AND LEFT TURN ' LANES MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE 200' - 400' LEADING. INTO THE INTERSECTION. INTERIM SECTION (70' OR LESS R.O.W.) • -25.5'-13.5'0-1 24 -48 70' DESIGN ELEMENT RECOMMENDED STANDARD RIGHT-OF-WAY (Ettt) 70 LANE WIDTH (Ft i) 12 NUMBER OF TRAFFIC LANES 2 4 • DESIGN SPEED (MPH) 5 3 GRADE (PERCENT) 0.5-7 MIN. STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (FEET) 250 M(N. CENTERUNE RADIUS (f-ttt). 600 CAPACITY (VEHICLES PER DAY): 10.000 NOTES: • -CITY WILL ACQUIRE R.O.W. FOR ULTIMATE SECTION BUT WILL MAINTAIN OR CONSTRUCT THE INTERIM SECTION FOR USE UNTIL TRAFFIC HAS INCREASED SUFFICIENTLY TO WARRANT CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LANES. -ON-STREET PARKING NOT ALLOWED OR DISCOURAGED. OfT10NAt. R.O.W.. (UP..TO_ 48') AT•MAJOR INTERSEO110NS. FOR ADDU1QNAL:RIGHT AND LEFT TURN . ES MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THE 15.0' - 300' LEADING INTO THE INTERSECTION. . . 27 . IX. EXISTING DEFICIENCIES • This section briefly discusses existing roadway deficiencies in two major categories. The first is capacity deficiency and the second is condition deficiency. The scope of this report limits this discussion to existing collectors and higher classifications. It is recognized that many local streets are in poor physical condition — but a listing and discussion of local streets is beyond the scope of this report. Traffic counts were taken at a number of intersections during the months of July and August. The results of these traffic counts are illustrated on Table 1 on the following pages. The traffic counts represent the volume of traffic at the location indicated during a 24 hour period. The following comments will address deficiencies in the existing roadways and proposed recommendations based upon the existing traffic volumes. 1. Capacity Deficiency The afternoon peak traffic period confirms several problem areas with respect to basic facility capacity. .- 1.1 The intersection of SH 114 at Kimball/FM-1709 1.2 FM 1709 While there are some inconveniences at other locations, they are not generally serious enough to warrant focus of expenditure of capital funds at this time. Existing traffic counts and traffic projections show that, with the exception of state highways, two lane roadway sections (of adequate design) are sufficient for existing • traffic volumes. The basic capacity deficiencies are well recognized by the Highway Department and plans are underway to correct these matters. Plans for upgrading SH 114 to a freeway are currently being reviewed by state and federal agencies. Actual construction may "begin within five years. Construction of improvements to FM 1709 is currently scheduled to begin not-later- than November, .1992. The construction and reconfiguration of intersections should greatly alleviate congestion on FM 1709 and at the SH 114/Kimball/FM 1709 intersection. 2. Condition Deficiency • Virtually every street in Southlake, excepting those in recently completed subdivisions, is a potential candidate for reconstruction for one of several reasons. a. The pavement and driving surface are in poor condition and in need of complete reconstruction vs. repair. b. The paving is so narrow as to make driving hazardous. This condition also results in damage to the outside edge of the paving. • • •" . . • 28 c. The right-of-way is so narrow and otherwise confining that there is not adequate room for safe curve radii and pavement widths. This is to say S .nothing about the lack of room for drainage improvements and installation of utilities. As this report is being prepared, a city task force is undertaking an effort to study-the condition of existing streets and to make recommendations for remedial action to the City Council. It is generally believed that,funding mechanisms will have to be developed to allow for interim reconstruction of the more heavily traveled routes, such as Peytonville north and south of FM 1709. Part of the reconstruction program will undoubtedly contain provisions for expanding the R.O.W. in some areas, as well as actual reconstruction of the paving. The existing traffic counts shown in Table 1 will likely be used to assist in determining priorities for reconstruction. .- S • • • • • •• .. 29 TABLE I • TRAFFIC COUNTS 7/21/91 THRU 8/12/91 TOTAL VEHICLES (BOTH WAYS) 1. Kimball Rd. - north of 114, south of Shady Ln. 4429 2. Kimball Rd. - north of Shady Ln., south of Dove 7891 3. Dove Rd. - west of Kimball Rd., east of Carroll 5139 4. Dove Rd. - west of Carroll, east of White Chapel 2810 5. Carroll - north of 1314, south of Dove 3241 6. Carroll - south of 114, north of F.M. 1709 -2587 7. Carroll - south of F.M. 1709, north of Continental - 2981 8. White Chapel - north of 114, south of Dove 1932 9. White Chapel - south of 114, south of F.M. 1709 4285 10. White Chapel - south of 1709, north of Continental 3907 Aik 11. White Chapel - south of Continental 3219 Ilr 12. Continental - east of Carroll, west of Brumlow 3859 13. Continental - west of Carroll, east of White Chapel 1754 14. Continental - west of White Chapel, east of Peytonville 2028 15. Highland - west of Kimball, east of Carroll 1497 16. Highland - east of White Chapel, west of 114- 1189 17. Highland - west of White Chapel, east of Shady Oaks 1943 18. Highland, west of White Chapel, east of Shady Ln. 805 19. Shady Oaks, north of Highland, south of Dove 315 20. Shady Oaks, south of Highland, north of 1709 313 21. Peytonville, south of 1709, north of Continental 525 22. Peytonville, north of 1709, south of Ten Bar : 1532 .30 • . Traffic Counts (Continued) • 23. Peytonville, north of Ten Bar, south of Woodbrook 926 24. Peytonville; north of Woodbrook, south of Dove 550 25. Dove, west of White Chapel, east of SH 114 • 575 26. Dove, west of SH 114, east of Peytonville - 1540 27. Dove, west of Peytonville, east of Randal Mill 1923 28. Randal Mill, north of Morgan, south of 1709 1605 29. Brumlow, north of Hwy. 26, south of Continental 1950 30. Continental, east of Brumlow, west of Kimball 1600 31. White Chapel, north of Dove, south of Bob Jones 870 32. Bob Jones, west of White Chapel, east of T.W. King 200 33. T.W. King, south of Bob Jones, north of S.H. 114 250 34. Lonesome Dove, north of Dove, south of Burney 625 35. Carroll, north of Dove, south of Burney 425 • • . • 31 .• • • • . X. FORECASTS/PROJECTIONS 40 1. Methodology A three-part level process was used to determine the projected traffic for the . forecasting g proposed network of freeways, arterials and collectors. First, a regional thoroughfare planning model was used to develop the basic forecast. This regional model uses commonly accepted projections of population and employment as a basis for traffic projections. The economic information is combined with other information about land use and roadway networks. The model is particularly useful in determining the total amount of expected traffic. This includes the amount of so-called through traffic that is not locally generated. There is justifiable concern that the amount of through.traffic may significantly affect the size of local thoroughfares. Sizing local arterials and collectors strictly on the amount of traffic generated locally could be overlooking a major source of traffic -- that from adjacent areas. The shortcoming of the regional model for use in a study of this nature is that the level of detail is coarse. It is not refined enough to consider local conditions important in a study of this nature. • • A second level of forecasting is needed to augment, or fill-in, the regional based projections. What is known about local land use, development activities, the character of certain roadways, special generators, local policies, etc. is used to add a satisfactory level of detail to the regional model, as well as some modifications. Thirdly, existing traffic volumes are taken into consideration and are projected consistent with • related growth rates as a cross-check. Existing traffic counts, in this particular case, are less significant that other factors considered in the development of the projections. Southlake is about 15 - 20% developed. This low percentage of development, and the resulting traffic volumes, cannot give a very accurate direction of future trends. What Southlake and the region will look like in 10 - 20 years has little to do with what it looks like today. It should be noted that the number of lanes is not, in all cases, strictly a function of the amount of traffic anticipated or forecasted. The use and character of the street sometimes requires, or.makes advisable, additional.width -= such as for short-term delivery vehicle on street parking. • The consultants have combined three sources of information available at this time with professional judgement to develop traffic projections on which decisions about numbers of lanes, etc. have been made. In five years more growth will have occurred and consequently, more accurate determinations can be made at that time. Enclosed in the appendix is a schematic diagram of the thoroughfare network showing projected year 2010 and ultimate traffic counts. Traffic counts at build-out (that point in time, whenever it occurs, when Southlake is considered fully-developed) are expected to be about twice the projected year 2010 counts. Also enclosed in the appendix is a second schematic diagram which illustrates the existing, 1996, and 2001 traffic volumes at specific intersections. • � • • • •• • 32. •• XI. MAJOR INTERSECTIONS 0 All intersections of SH 114 and arterials or collectors are planned to be grade-separated diamond interchanges when SH 114 is reconstructed. These will be noted on the thoroughfare plan. Two other intersections, FM 1938 at FM 1709, and FM 1709 at Kimball should also be considered major intersections. Both of these intersections should be grade separated in the future. . Intersections. involving the FM highways, arterials and major collectors will require additional R.O.W. near the intersections for dual left-turn lanes as well as free right-turn lanes. Developers and property owners should be made aware of the potential for additional requirements at these intersections. The State Department of Highways will be principally responsible for R.O.W. acquisition with respect to SH 114, FM 1709 and.FM 1938 , interchanges. The City will be responsible for additional R.O.W. required on city arterials and collectors primarily in conjunction with platting'activities adjacent to the intersections. Those cases where the R.O.W. of arterials and collectors should be flared at intersections will consist principally of: 1. Flaring a 90' R.O.W. for a divided four-lane arterial to 115' to accommodate right-turn lanes off-of and on-to the arterial and dual left turn lanes for a distance of approximately 200'-400'. 2. ' Flaring a 84' R.O.W. for an arterial undivided five-lane arterial to 96'-100' to ill accommodate right-turn lanes off-of and on-to the arterial and dual left-turns off the arterial for a distance of approximately 150'-300'. 3. Flaring a 70' R.O.W. for an arterial undivided to 94'-100' to accommodate right-turn lanes off-of and on-to the arterial and left turns off the collector for a distance of approximately 150'-300'. 4. Flaring a 60' R.O.W. for a collector to 70' to accommodate right-turn lanes off-of and on-to the arterial and left-turns off the collector for a distance of approximately 150'-200'. These are illustrated by the following Table 2. 33 S . . . . m ' O w w cc ARTERIAL STREET A / A I- 8 I- C -•! TABLE 2 • INTERSECTING STREET TYPE MINIMUM LENGTH(FEET) STREET A ' STREET B A B C D• ARTERIAL-DIVIDED PRINCIPAL ART. 450 150 150 50 ARTERIAL-DIVIDED ARTERIAL (ALL) 450 150 150 50 ARTERIAL-DIVIDED COLLECTOR 450 150 100 50 • • ARTERIAL-DIVIDED LOCAL/PRIVATE 450 150 . 60 50 •MINIMUM,OR STREET WIDTH PLUS IS'ON EACH SIDE,WHICHEVER IS GREATER • LEFT TURN STORAGE AREA WIDTH 12 FEET • MEDIAN WIDTH (See Geometric Design Standard for Principal Arterial and Arterial-Divided) MEDIAN DESIGN STANDARDS • • • •• 34 • . XII. SPECIAL INTERSECTIONS As part of the development of the Southlake Thoroughfare Plan, the consultant was asked to • study and make recommendations for improving nine existing intersections that currently have operating deficiencies. The majority of these nine intersections are offset in an east/west direction at their intersection with a major north/south roadway. Listed below are the nine special study intersections. -- Continental Blvd. & Kimball Ave. _ -- Continental Blvd. & White Chapel Blvd. -- Continental Blvd. & Peytonville Ave. -- Southlake Blvd. & Kimball Ave: -- Southlake Blvd. & Carroll Ave. -- Southlake Blvd. & Peytonville Ave. -- Dove St. & Kimball Ave. • • -- Dove St. & Carroll Ave. — Dove St. & White Chapel Blvd. Descriptions of existing conditions and recommendations for improvements for these nine special intersections, to include schematic drawings, are presented in the following pages of • this report. 35 . • INTERSECTION: Dove St. & Kimball Ave. • DISCUSSION: Dove St. intersects Kimball Ave. at a severe angle resulting in restricted sight distance. Dove is a two-lane roadway west of Kimball and widens to four lanes east of its intersection with Kimball. Kimball is a two-lane roadway. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL: Four-way stop. RECOMMENDATIONS: Existing buildings on the northeast, northwest and southwest corners of the intersection prohibit the opportunity to create a 90 degree intersection at any I reasonable cost. Future redevelopment of the northwest or southwest corners may provide the opportunity to realign the intersection to provide a less severe angle. As an interim improvement to the intersection, "stop sign ahead" signs are recommended on all four approaches to the intersection. It is also recommended that all four corners be kept clear of any obstructions to driver visibility such as tall brush and advertising signs. a ,-,/N• 'u. — 1 W ; IM 1 I . . u+ w .— IQ- II IWI+D• •!� — \. li IX( IN �,4 2 � `� f lei a IQ .—_--I 4 Q IX '! L 'fY " - IR . ---t� I ' r __ `IY 04 --) \ IS ;IJI ..�4 r • .� •� --� IZ 10 'I - .IEE2 IT I _ •.)t .j--1 IAA' I E ,.,'I 382 -- — - --- 3K V262 Nil 14 -6 C F� �,'% �� C) n U 1�, I 2C. 2K Itr �► SURV�" • : •T. N= 1 88 le )4 381 %4• ` l ��� 2L -- 3A4 r.,•/ Ac 2J r .flrrl- Pi 11111411 2D a - (t ( 1 291Ac ( J 2J1 H 2G►l .9S . C., �f; J ' . - 11. 6.54 A . �Op, ��� • 2F2A 21 2F1 14 ' S).. -3A1 2F31 2F4A. 2F4 . 011F14 k). I 2F 14 • 36 . • O . • INTERSECTION: Dove St. & Carroll Ave. DISCUSSION: This intersection is located in the southeast quadrant of the existing Carroll 0 High School. Dove crosses Carroll at an angle creating a slight visibility problem for drivers. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL: Four-way stop RECOMMENDATIONS: The northeast corner of this intersection is presently vacant. It appears that Dove could be realigned on the east side of Carroll in order to create a 90 degree intersection as shown below. This realignment of Dove may require the purchase of additional right-of-way, however, it is recommended in order to eliminate the angle intersection. As an interim improvement, it is recommended that "stop sign ahead" signs be placed on all approaches to the intersection. J A-�g Qj C V 1 ..— to b TO• OO G�G°� C ` / NSUR EY ABET. N' 348 . 2 .. URV Y ABST./N2 156 2c uxikkam. _f �. 20 l IIM: 10Ac. a , r CARROLL o P• . a a :_ H I SCHOOL 1111111 . ( DOVE ST. I ^ li 1421 pi IA I I IJ .- ____ • ` L9R 5AI 5A 5 4 IA IE11EIi !F ' 10 �ICI IC ( . 4A! 4 4 IA2 IAIA IA 4.14 A 67Ac, 418Ac. • 2 A A 1 I 519 5 A 2 IE MID 477 AG i i 3.95 At i 2�'3 4 4A • I - _ - - I I I i I 332AI • S .. : ' 37 • • ' . . . INTERSECTION: Dove St. & White Chapel Blvd. DISCUSSION: Dove is offset in a north/south direction at its intersection with White • Chapel. This situation impedes traffic that desires to travel on Dove through its intersection with White Chapel by forcing traffic to make two turns. The northwest corner of the intersection is owned by the City of Southlake and is occupied by a water tower. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL: Stop signs on Dove. RECOMMENDATIONS: It appears that it may be possible to align Dove west of White Chapel by using some of the city water tower property. Such a realignment may require additional right-of-way to the west of the water tower. Any potential realignment of Dove west of White Chapel cannot be accomplished to create a pure 90 degree intersection; however, it will eliminate the need to make two turns to continue through on Dove. It is recommended that a detailed engineering study be performed to investigate the potential for this realignment of Dove. a J _� IF I • VI 1 ICl IC ID i E _�2Ac. �, 3__ Ac. g 0I Q I _ IBI .. 9.03AC. w 43 Ac. I� 328 Ac: U IE ID 3 1 1 F1-► Ug.. • 1851 Ac. - . IE (Dl H I - r - lH I (BJul G l IF 1 z EAST DOVE STREET I"� Zl5 , 187 I 2 Ac. © --- _ - I 1 n �/ 1 ! , 1�1� I A3 j E -- 182 1 ' \pp WATER TOWER I T' i t , IE338 (Al I og I1334c. L.. etattp- 10Ac. 1 _ JAY .6 . 38 • INTERSECT[ON: Southlake Blvd. & Kimball Ave. DISCUSSION: Kimball currently does not exist between SH 114 and Southlake. The • intersection of Kimball and SH 114 is controlled by a traffic signal. On the south side of Southlake, Kimball intersects at a severe angle. RECOMMENDATIONS: An extension of Kimball between SH 114 and Southlake is proposed as shown below. This extension will provide a continuous alignment on Kimball. As a part of the F.M. 1709 realignment, the connection (Short Ave.) between SH 114 and Southlake be eliminated. NORTHWEST PARKWAY EAST ( S. H. / / 4 J 6 I 384.38 __J PROPOSED Si e: /5 KIMBALL NI j �. `"4 ie 4"N . IA g 1 1 .ce _ E , PO 3E3 -`� ��, iiM. /709 „good 138 �_ -J �` --- - -I 382 co _n) 182A i 182 1 16 .� -----1 ,� g `�_ `.~ � 1828 j ( 1 L 5, , 2C _ r 1 O u i t•r 28 ' l �j s SO( I • � g �'� �g 2 . •CgkE gc.V a - 2. . ---1 J ' i 2A IBI I -2-I 11lit_____j 2AIA 2 m . g 2A I I• . • . 39- •' ill . . . . INTERSECTION: Southlake Blvd. & Carroll Ave. DISCUSSION: Carroll is currently offset at its intersection with Southlake. This 4110 north/south offset creates a situation where traffic must make two turns to continue on Carroll north and south of Southlake. The offset penalizes traffic flow at this intersection, which is controlled by a traffic signal. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL: Traffic Signal • RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that Carroll be aligned north and south of Southlake as shown below. This proposed alignment will require the purchase of additional right-of-way in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. 6 15 Ac. 303A � 3031 3C I, 3Ac. -ill 301 _-J 3Ac. • 3021 l ' 30 ;F.M. 3Fl-�1709 13t)2A I , SOUTHLAKE BLVD. 3A 3AI 3C 38I 4G 7,A \\NTE 1—381_J \ \ \ , 2 3 Ac. 13 56Ac. 1 w� , Ac. 6�Ac. > w\po... 1 'Q 30 6 Ac. . V � � �� 301 I5 Ac. J CC ? ' _ a 30 302 v • I / /d) II A .a&' 1 • 40 • • . *, . . • • INTERSECTION: Southiake Blvd. & Peytonville Ave. DISCUSSION: Southlake and Peytonville currently intersect at a 90 degree angle. Both streets are currently two-lanes wide. Southlake (FM 1709) is scheduled to be widened in the 0 near future to five traffic lanes with the middle lane designated for left turns in both directions. The 1992 opening of the new Carroll High School, located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection, will increase traffic significantly on Southlake and somewhat on Peytonville. This additional traffic will add to traffic congestion at the intersection, particularly during the morning peak hour of traffic flow. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL: Traffic Light on F.M. 1709 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that Peytonville be widened north and south of its intersection with Southlake to provide a left-turn lane at its intersection with Southiake. This additional lane should extend to the south of the future football field parking lot to accommodate left turns from Peytonville into the parking lot. M lc _I . .._1-- --1 i Z . ` L. 1- —.—i:L�.1.1._i S 4OAc. 1 / LAW ID a F.M. 1709 SOUTHLAKE BLVD. I 30 : 3 1A.IAI i 3 , PROPOSED • \' AIBti � j ,.' WIDENING 15.5 Ac. r-ti'IA1 3C IAcIA I 3C1 E r--, 1MA j 3C2 1 i t— i 20 Ac. 3C2A i 1 2A 2 K A 20 Ac l i i t t t I 1 _ - - 3F • 1210,-qkc.T 3A _.... 41 • 0 • • INTERSECTION: Continental Blvd. & Kimball Ave. • DISCUSSION: Kimball currently extends south from Southlake and curves to the west and becomes Continental. Future plans call for the extension of Continental to the east. RECOMMENDATIONS: The proposed new alignment for Kimball is shown below. Also shown is the proposed future extension of Continental. As proposed, Kimball will be relocated to the east of its current alignment and intersect the extended Continental at a 90 degree angle. Also, as proposed, Kimball will terminate at Continental. t. 6, r,Gglriar'-'0 g ;t • p4`, a S.1?%. . 61Ac. CC 0 Bo M© CHAU:) , R�� A� t SURVEY BST. No 1013�" 1 1 ,mom' � � 0 13 i<-1i- cii • \v-, . .....-- Pp'•p14 ' >NENT� • 00' . , I I 1 - -�o4�.. i 81 PR )OPOSED 'N RIGHT-Or WAY \ \• • 9 (To 8E ABANDONED) ♦••`•.. DA S ` 15.6 Ac. %, • , * 26 i • _ ;4 • 3A 382 . I • t 2 181 1 -t B • • 42 INTERSECTION: Continental Blvd. & White Chapel Blvd. DISCUSSION: White Chapel currently intersects Continental on a curve, with White Chapel • having the right-of-way. Northbound White Chapel traffic has a difficult time seeing traffic on Continental due to the curve and brush that obstructs a driver's view. Development in the southeast quadrant prohibits realignment of White Chapel to create a 90 degree intersection. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL: Stop signs on Continental. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that this intersection be made a four-way stop in order to increase safety. "Stop sign ahead" signs should also be placed on all approaches to the intersection. It is also recommended that brush be cleared in the intersection corners in order to provide an unobstructed view of oncoming traffic. As the area develops, it is recommended that White Chapel be realigned-northwest of Continental to establish a 90 degree intersection. ICI - - 0 J 5C ' 10Ac. co J 50 I 5C1 W 4 Ac. t . a. I Q 2 � " U I w 1— , te 3 1ti �� 0r� IIIl 0 5A ; 5 1 5A1 5E IA l 1131--- IC H L' \'- 1 , r IIVJJ // � C0NI1INENTAL ill BLVD.i I ..,f—` 2A • r,„„_, \ 1 203 20 _ _ 2A 3C 3C r .. 202- 3A1205 1 1 2t)2A 12g i _ 1 2 B 29 A Ac. ' 2E • �, I S . 43 . . . . INTERSECTION: Continental Blvd. and Peytonville Ave. • DISCUSSION: Peytonville terminates on the north side of Continental and intersects 1110 Continental in a curve. Carroll Elementary School is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection. The curve on Continental makes it difficult for Peytonville traffic to observe westbound Continental traffic. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONTROL: Stop signs (3) on all approaches. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that Continental be realigned on school property and curved to create a 90.degree intersection with Peytonville as shown below. As an interim improvement, it is recommended that a "stop sign ahead" sign be placed on the westbound approach to the intersection. The remaining approaches currently have such signs. 1 - I SUR EY A BS-T: N + 50 SURVEY A BST. No1502 \ •\ I • , - I r - 2 A2 r ,;; W°00 7► r —Th W _. ' • 4—• V �u ----- 9.65 Ac Q _. I - - . '. _. 2A3 ir 2 A ; 01:i&•r:ia. -- Li 18 181A 7.86 Ac. 13 Ac. 1-- --- • (H 1 I— 0-Iv8 CONTINEN. AL BLVD. li\ N ---- . / . 1 . 1 \ ( / 4A 3 = ----4 . . • . . CARRbtL v • ELEMENTARY 19 Ac. ( .---P------Y Cr X... i •—r' • ill . . - • • 44 XIII. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS • The following are recommended standards for construction of streets within Southlake. Construction standards appearing in the North Central Texas Council of Governments and Southlake Ordinance 217 (both, as adopted and amended) are applicable. This plan implies and recommends some nomenclature changes and additions to Ord. 217 with respect to the roadway classification system. It is an objective of this report to consolidate standards and related matters appearing the Subdivision Ordinance (#283) and Ord. 217 (commonly referred to as the Street and Drainage Ordinance). Standard pavement widths and sections shall be constructed on prepared subgrade in accordance with the standard specifications. Pavement widths shall be measured from back of curb to back of curb for ultimate sections and from edge of pavement to edge of pavement for interim sections. O _. , , . . • . 0 . - 45 . . . - The following chart represents the minimum widths and the minimum thickness of the pavement. The Director of Public Works may adjust the thickness of pavement based upon Sengineering tests and analysis of the soils condition, expected wheel loading, and weight of vehicles. Prior to any ultimate streets being constructed, a considerable amount of engineering analysis should be performed to assure that the street will withstand the wheel loadings and will not require an unreasonable amount of maintenance for the expected life of the pavement. The City currently uses Ordinance No. 217 which was adopted several years ago. This Ordinance is not consistent with the recommendations of this report. We recommend that within the near future Ordinance No. 217 be completely reviewed and revised. Section 3 of the ordinance has definitions and classifications of streets which should be revised. Section 4 lists geometric design standards which should be revised to be in agreement with the street sections recommended in this report. Section 4 also lists pavement and sub-grade thickness. These should be revised also to reflect the thicknesses listed in the following table. Also, Section 8 discusses street construction by developers. This section is in direct conflict with current perimeter street policy of the City. In addition, Section 10 of Ordinance No. 217 illustrates "Standard Construction Details". This entire section needs to be revised. In general, the entire Ordinance No. 217.should be reviewed and revised so that the ordinance is in agreement with current city policy and also with this thoroughfare plan. The soils stabilization for street sub-grade will be based upon the recommendations of a soils engineering firm. Before streets are constructed, a soils firm will take soil samples and determine if lime, cement, or possibly nothing will be required to stabilize the street sub- grade, and also, the percentage or weight of the lime or cement which should-be applied to Sthe soil. The following pages will illustrate the recommended sections: Table 3 illustrates the recommended minimum pavement thickness and widths for the various roadway classifications. Table 4 graphically compares and illustrates the width of R.O.W., width of pavement, and parkway width for all proposed classifications. Also, this table shows how much the parkway vanes if hot mix streets are constructed as compared to reinforced concrete. The remaining illustrations indicate the detailed dimensions of each roadway classification section. - • . 46 TABLE 3 S Minimum Minimum Roadway Pavement Pavement Classification Width Thickness Arterial Divided Interim 24' - 48' 4 inches HMAC Arterial Divided Ultimate 56' 7 inches HMAC 50' 6 inches PCC Arterial Undivided .- Interim 24' - 48' 4 inches HMAC Arterial Undivided • • Ultimate 66' 7 inches HMAC 63' 6 inches PCC Collector - Comm/Ind Area 40' 7 inches HMAC 37' 6 inches PCC Collector - Residential Area 40' 6 inches HMAC 37' 5 inches PCC Local Street - Comm/Ind 40' 7 inches HMAC ' 37' 6 inches PCC Residential Street - • Res St. or 31' 6 inches HMAC Cul-De-Sac 31' 5 inches PCC PCC = Portland Cement Concrete HMAC = Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete II/ 47 o _ 410 . •• • TABLE 4 STREET/R.O.W. SUMMARY ASPHALT ASPHALT CONCRETE CONCRETE NO. LANE MEDIAN PAVEMENT PARKWAY PAVEMENT PARKWAY STREET TYPE SYMBOL R.O.W. LANES WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH Arterial-Divided A4D 90' 4 12' 16'/19' 2-28' 9' 2-25' 10.5' Arterial-Undivided A5U 84' 5 12'-14'* -- 66' - 9' 63' 10.5' Arterial-Undivided A4U 70' 4 12' -- 52' 9' 49' 10.5' Collector C2U 60' 2 12'** -- 40' 10' 37' 11.5' Residential Street R2U 50' 2 12'*** -- 31' 9.5' 31' 9.5' Note: All payment width dimensions are back-of-curb to back-of-curb(B/B) * Five lane Arterial(A5U)has a continuous center turn lane with a 14 foot width. ** Collector(60'R.O.W.)provides two 12'traffic lanes and parking along both sides. *** Residential street(50'R.O.W.)allows two-way traffic and parking on one side. - I f . • • • 90' 10.5' CONC. 25' CONC. 19' CONC. 25' CONC. 8' 9' HMAC 28 HMAC 16' HMAC 28' HMAC 12'-6n 12'-6" — -- 11' —. — 11' . 12'-6n ► -44 121-6" 3'6• 1 --•�. -� i...- 1' 1'-1111.... 4---1 • I/4' PER 1' I 4'PER 1' I 4'PER 1' �� II � •\\//\\//\�\\//\�\\�\\�\`//\� wwmr��w��«�r�.��.ma�i il//i\\\\//?\\\\/i\\//\\//\\//\\/i\\/i\\/i\�'��� \\ \\ \\ \ \ \.s i:::i:::i. :i.-.•:i:: i s i-..�i.-ri:.•:i:•ri::r \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ +�wfia�,�i.•:i•.•ow-.•ei.•.•�i.•.� :'�iM�:.=ate::i• \\\\\\\\\�\�• STABILIZED SUBGRADE PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (1YP) 7" 2' SAWED CONSTRUC110N (3,000 psi AT 28 DAYS) JOINT AT QUARTER POINTS ARTERIAL DIVIDED SECTION - A4D • • 6" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE • OR 7" HMAC '• • • 84' ► 10.5' CONC. 4.1 63' CONC. 10.5' CONC. -' 9' HMAC. 66' HMAC 9' HMAC —► 8' . 30'-6" 30'-6" ► 3'-6" —0 - ' 1' 1' -► '�-- 6" PARABOLIC CROWN 2" SAWED OR FORMED LONGITUDIAL JOINT 0 ADPE 1/4'PER 1'�_ STABILIZED SUBGRADE SEAL VOIDS (TYP) 7' PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 2" SAWED CONSTRUCTION (3,000 psi AT 28 DAYS) JOINT AT QUARTER POINTS t. ARTERIAL-UNDIVIDED (5-LANE) SECTION A5U 4 — 12'2; LANE 6 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE OR 7 HMAC 0 i 0 , . 70' 11,... 1 9' HMACC` 4592' CHMAC 10.5' CON C •'-*- 9' HMAC .--► -d- 9'-5' -.., 24'-6' ► 24'-6' -4— 3'-61' _am-' .4- 1' i' -4Iw- LINE,- 6. PARABOLIC CROWN 2' SAWED OR FORMED LONGTTUDIAL JOINT (i, StLPE 1/4' 1'�PER AL r ;4,4% %• / • STABILIZED SUBGRADE SEAL VOIDS 7' PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 2' SAWED CONSTRUCTION (3,000 psi AT 28 DAYS) JOINT AT QUARTER POINTS ARTERIAL-UNDIVIDED SECTION - A4U 6" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE OR 7" HMAC • • • • -.• • • 60' 11.5' CONC 37' CONC. 11.5' CONC —10' HMAC 40' HMAC — 10' HMAC 19'-6" r 19'-6" 3'-6' • �• �— 1' 1' -Ow. 1.- 6" PARABOLIC 2' SAWED CROWN CONSTRUCTION • JOINT AT N QUARTER POINTS • SLOPE 1/4 PFR1' STABILIZED SUBGRADE SEAL VOIDS CrYP) 7' PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE , 2' SAWED CONSTRUCTION (3,000 psi AT 28 DAYS) JOINT AT QUARTER POINTS • COLLECTOR - C2U 6" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE OR 7" HMAC • • • • ... 50' 9'—&' 31' OR ► 9'-6" - HMAC 6' —15'-6" 15'_6"—► 3'-6" —.-i —I— 1' r (3, ve PER t'. STABILIZED SUBGRADE S OYP)IDS 5" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE 2" SAWED CONSTRUCTION (3,000 psi AT 28 DAYS) JOINT AT QUARTER POINTS RESIDENTIAL STREET SECTION -. R2U - • 5" PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE OR 6" HMAC • • • • • 24'-30' 0' _ . 12'-15' . 12'-15' STANDARD CURB & GUTTER 2" OR 4" HMAC SURFACE COURCE • (MAY BE DELETED) PARABOLIC CROWN HMAC BINDER COURSE (VARIES) 1/4. PFR r 1/4' PER 5 CROWN-28' & 30' ROADWAY 6" CROWN-36' ROADWAY 6" STABILIZED SUBGRADE PRIME COAT EXCAVATION LIMITS EXCAVATION LIMITS TYPICAL INTERIM STREET SECTION • XIV. INTERIM STREETS • • The following exhibit, Page 56, shows the proposed interim street sections. These sections were derived by and presented to the City Council by the Citizen's Task Force. This Task Force is currently working on a list of prioritized streets to be reconstructed. It is proposed by the members of the Task Force, that the City reconstruct a vast majority of the City's streets according to the proposed interim sections. These streets will serve the general public for the next several years, but at some point will be necessary to construct the ultimate roadway sections as presented in this report. At that time, the interim streets will have served their purpose by providing a safe and comfortable driving surface until the streets are in need of a considerable amount of maintenance, or the traffic volumes will have increased to a point where the interim streets are no longer satisfactory. O • 40 55 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE o PROPOSED INTERIM STREET SECTIONS 4" ASPHALT PAVING(211 TYPE IBI a 211 TYPE 101) 51/CROWN RC-2 TACKCOAT .10 GAL S.Y. Tran-(12. .....vvc..zagF4Aok.„,_‘. Naft!F_Wlii,,,,,:\_:::1b,N7ILIbitiliVix....„.,A: 611 STABILIZED SUBGRAOE7 221-OU S SECTION A 211 ASPHALT PAVING (HMAC) MC-I PRIME COAT 511 CROWN II ill 1 - 611 STABILIZED SUBGRAOE 221-0" SECTION B S 56 .. w - XV. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES S This section contains per-linear-foot cost estimates for the construction of various roadways that may be constructed by the city or developers. These cost figures contain several assumptions and should be used judiciously. These cost estimates are for final and rough grading, sub-grade preparation, subgrade preparation, paving, curb& gutter, surveying and engineering costs only under average circumstances. They do not include costs for right-of- way, drainage improvements, utility relocations, unusual job conditions (such as rock excavation) or other costs. Thus these costs are the average minimum (in 1991 dollars) that could be expected under ordinary circumstances. Normally some R.O.W., utility relocation and drainage ' improvements costs are associated with street construction projects. These costs must be added to obtain a closer estimate of the actual costs. In the case of larger projects, financing and administrative costs — such as bond sale costs, interest, bond program administrative costs — should also be included for a truer estimate of the costs to taxpayers. Often the cost of a street is simply considered the cost of materials and labor provid l by a contractor. Engineering, surveying, right-of-way, and other so-called 'soft costs' add substantial costs to the price of public works projects. Costs for freeway and other state funded projects are not shown. S - • • 57 PER-LINEAR-FOOT COST ESTIMATES - IN 1991 DOLLARS • Roadway Cost Classification Per Linear Foot Arterial - Interim 24' Section No Curb & Gutter - 4" HMAC $ 28.00 Arterial - Interim 48' Section No Curb & Gutter - 4" HMAC $ 60.00 Arterial - Ultimate A4D Boulevard Section - With Curb & Gutter - 7" HMAC $ 125.00 Arterial - Ultimate A4D Boulevard Section - With Curb & Gutter - 6" PCC $ 150.00 Arterial - Ultimate A5U Undivided Section With Curb & Gutter - 6" PCC $ 195.00 Arterial - Ultimate A5U Undivided Section With Curb & Gutter - 7" HMAC $ 165,400 Arterial - Ultimate A4U Undivided Section - With Curb & Gutter - 7" HMAC $ 110.00 Arterial - Ultimate A4U Undivided Section - With Curb & Gutter - 6" PCC $ 140.00 Collector - Interim 24' Section No Curb & Gutter - 4" HMAC $ 28.00 Collector - Interim 48' Section No Curb & Gutter - 4" HMAC $ 60.00 Collector - Ultimate C2U Section With Curb & Gutter - 7" HMAC $ 90.00 Collector - Ultimate C2U Section With Curb & Gutter - 6" PCC $ 112.50 • 58 Roadway Cost CIassification Per Linear Foot • Residential Street - R2U Residential Street or Cul De Sac - 31' Section With Curb & Gutter - 6" HMAC $ 65.00 Residential Street - R2U Residential Street or Cul De Sac - 31' Section • With Curb & Gutter - 5" PCC $ 82.50 HMAC = Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete PCC = Portland Cement Concrete PLF = Per Linear Foot • • • 59 i. XVI. CORRIDOR CONTROLS AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS • It is recommended that Southlake consider adopting 'corridor controls' for SH 114, FM 1709 and FM 1938. Corridor controls refer to special development regulations that apply only to development within specific corridors along major vehicle routes. These controls generally regulate such development matters as building lines (i.e. building set-back from R.O.W.); building height (generally varies with set-back distance); driveway entrances, screening of parking, signs, reflectance of building materials, landscaping, and other site design matters. Many cities have found that the traditional controls found in the zoning, subdivision, landscaping and other general ordinances do not encourage the type of development desired by the city — as a policy statement. The general,ordinances establish minimums — and too often the results of development reflect the 'do-the-least-required.' This is detrimental to the city by damaging its appearance with a permanent eyesore along heavily travelled corridors. Not only is the development itself a distraction — the chance of getting high quality development on adjacent properties is greatly reduced. Additionally, adjacent property- owners with enlightened self-interest find that poorly regulated development adjacent to their property diminishes the value of their own property. It is recommended that Southlake review the ordinances, experiences and results of such . ordinances in other cities that have adopted such ordinances. Austin, Garland, and Rowlett, for example, have such ordinances. The city may also wish to adopt regulations requiring developers to submit traffic engineering studies when the proposed development will have a significant impact on traffic. Examples • from other communities in the area are readily available. • III - 60 1' • THOROUGHFARE PLAN • FOR CITY OF SOUTHLAKE SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS S JANUARY 1997 PREPARED BY: LEE ENGINEERING, INC. CHEATHAM & ASSOC. 5323 Spring Valley Road 1601 E. Lamar Blvd. Suite 230 Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75240 Arlington, Texas 76011 (972)701-9663 (817)548-0696 111 ti Table of Contents Page I Introduction 1 ti II Purpose of Master Thoroughfare Plan 2 III - Development of Thoroughfare Plan 3 / IV Level of Service Description 5 V Roadway Classification System 6 Basic Roadway Classification 7 Roadway Classification Definition - Discussion Freeway 8 Freeway Frontage Roads 9 Principal Arterials & Arterials - Divided & Undivided 10 Collector 11 Local Street - Commercial/Industrial 12 • Local Street- Residential Street or Cul-de-sac 13 VI Evaluation of Existing Street Capacities 14 VII Determination of Future Traffic 16 VIII Recommended Roadway Network 16 IX Major Intersections 18 Appendix List of Tables Table Eagc 1 Comparison of 1991 and 1995 or 1996 Traffic Volumes 15 S III I. Introduction Transportation is the circulatory system of a city and the lifeline of the economy that carries workers and shoppers, raw materials and finished products to their destinations within the urban environment. As Southlake experiences increasing residential and commercial growth, transportation facilities and internal movement become greater concerns. Our society is dependent upon wheeled vehicles for the movement of persons and goods. Accessibility to industrial and commercial areas, residential neighborhoods, recreation centers and other traffic generators is essential. Much planning and study is done to create a transportation system that will move goods, services and people efficiently, conveniently and safely. . In order to provide balance between related land-use activities, Southlake's transportation • infrastructure must be planned to anticipate future traffic demand, minimize unnecessary traffic movement and establish a transportation system which adds to rather than detracts from the quality of urban life. The direct relationship between land use and transportation is complex; different land uses generate varied intensities of traffic that influence the demand for transportation systems, and transportation systems influence the development of land use activities. Recognizing this inter-relationship, there must be a coordinated, continuing and comprehensive effort in planning transportation systems and land use. Southlake is showing significant residential development trends at the time this report is being • prepared in,1996. Hundreds of acres of undeveloped land are either being turned into hundreds of residential lots or are on the subdivision drawing board. Substantial commercial and other types of non-residential development are also planned or under development. Southlake, therefore, finds itself at a point where its rapid suburban growth is creating strains on the supporting infrastructure. One of the most evident stress-strain relationships is associated with the imposition of dramatically increasing vehicular traffic on older, narrow roadways. Southlake is faced with the classic dilemma of wanting to preserve the narrow, tree-lined country lanes and to avoid the disruptions associated with the acquisition of additional rights-of-way versus an ongoing need to acquire right-of-way to accommodate the construction of wider streets that will ultimately be required as the city develops. Without debating whether or not growth is beneficial or should be encouraged, it is generally accepted that cities should plan for accommodating growth when it does occur. O 1 • II. Purpose of Master Thoroughfare Plan According to "A Guide to Urban Planning in Texas Communities" published by The Texas American Planning Association Educational Foundation, the planning of thoroughfares is the process used by municipalities to assure development of the most appropriate and efficient street system to meet existing and future travel needs. The primary purpose is to ensure the orderly and progressive development of the urban street system to serve mobility and access needs of the public. Thoroughfare planning is interrelated with other components of the urban planning and development process. The thoroughfare plan is the municipality's adopted general plan for guiding thoroughfare system improvements, including the existing and planned extension of city streets and highways. The thoroughfare system is comprised of existing and planned freeways, expressways, and major streets and highways, which require wider or new rights-of-way and may ultimately be developed as four-lane, six-lane, or wider roadways. Roadway improvements may or may not include medians, depending on the city's thoroughfare development policies and standards. The primary objective of the thoroughfare plan is to ensure the reservation of adequate right-of-way on appropriate alignments and of sufficient width to allow the orderly and efficient expansion and improvement of the thoroughfare system to serve existing and future transportation needs. Some of the benefits provided by effective thoroughfare planning are itemized below: • • Reservation of adequate rights-of-way for future long-range transportation improvements; • Making efficient use of available resources by designating and recognizing the major streets that will likely require higher design of improvements; • Minimizing the amount of land required for street and highway purposes; • • Identifying the functional role that each street should be designed to serve in order to promote and maintain the stability of traffic and land use patterns; • Informing citizens of the streets that are intended to be developed as arterial and collector thoroughfares, so that private land use decisions can anticipate which streets will become major traffic facilities in the future; • Providing information on thoroughfare improvement needs which can be used to determine priorities and schedules in the city's capital improvement program and capital budget; and, • Minimizing the negative impacts of street widening and construction on neighborhood areas and the overall community, by recognizing where future improvements may be needed and incorporating thoroughfare needs in the city's comprehensive planning process. i 2 III. Development of Thoroughfare Plan • Outlined below is a summaryof theprocess used to developthe Master Thoroughfare Plan: • The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public meeting to discuss with interested citizens the purpose and content of the 1991 Thoroughfare Plan. Public input was solicited by the Commission regarding factors to be considered in the 1996 update of the Thoroughfare Plan. • In order to determine the short-term impacts on the thoroughfare system, an evaluation was completed regarding land uses that were rezoned since 1991. Changes that were made to the Land Use Plan since 1991 and further changes to the Land Use Plan that are being proposed were evaluated for their long-term impacts on the thoroughfare system. • Several of the City's planning and regulatory controls (especially the Trail System Master Plan and the Southlake Corridor Study) were examined to identify any revisions that should be made to the roadway sections or right-of-way requirements contained in the 1991 Thoroughfare Plan: The driveway ordinance was reviewed with an emphasis on the required spacing of driveways. • The Thoroughfare Plans for the surrounding communities of Keller, Westlake, Trophy Club, Grapevine and Colleyville were evaluated for the need to revise the 1991 Southlake Thoroughfare Plan to provide compatible street cross sections where the streets interface • at the city limits lines. • Traffic counts for 1995 and 1996 were examined to identify any congested street segments that required short-term mitigation measures. The traffic volumes were also used as input. to the travel demand forecasting model maintained and operated by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). • The NCTCOG model was run to obtain traffic projections on the city's major streets and highways for the year 2010. The 2010 volumes were then used to determine the projected traffic for the ultimate build-out (full development) of the city. Since the NCTCOG model is of a regional nature, some of the projected traffic volumes were modified slightly to reflect local knowledge about land use, development activities, the character of certain roadways, special traffic generators, and local policies. • Utilizing the traffic projections for the ultimate build-out of the city, the proposed roadway network was developed to accommodate the expected traffic. As a general rule, the required street cross sections and right-of-way requirements were developed to provide at least a level of service "D" for the volumes of projected traffic. The required street network was documented as the 1996 Thoroughfare Plan. • Upon completion of the initial draft, the proposed 1996 Thoroughfare Plan was presented at a city-wide, S.P.I.N.-sponsored meeting for public comments and input. r . 3 • The Planning &Zoning Commission conducted an initial public hearing on the proposed • 1996 Thoroughfare Plan. • In order to address certain concerns voiced by citizens at the initial public hearing, the Planning & Zoning.Commission held a special Work Session. • The Planning & Zoning Commission, after a second public hearing, made a formal recommendation to the City Council. • The City Council adopted the 1996 Thoroughfare Plan. • • 4 IV. Level of Service Descriptions The term "level of service" refers to how well 'a roadway or intersection handles peak traffic volumes. The following are the standard or commonly used level of service descriptins. Level of Service Description Example A & B No delays at intersections with smooth progression Residential of traffic. Uncongested operations, all vehicles or rural clear in a single signal cycle. streets. C Moderate delays at intersections with satisfactory Urban streets to good progression of traffic. Light congestion; at off-peak occasional back-ups on critical approaches. hours. D Forty percent probability of delays of one cycle or Secondary more at every intersection. No progression of Central traffic along the roadway with 90% probability Business of being stopped at every intersection experiencing District at "D" condition. Significant congestion on critical peak hours. approaches, but intersection functional. Vehicles required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long-standing lines formed. • E Heavy traffic flow condition. Delays of two or more Primary CBD cycles probable. No progression. One hundred streets at percent probability of stopping at intersection. Limit peak hours. of stable flow. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. F Unstable traffic flow. Heavy congestion. Traffic Central Expwy moves in forced flow condition. Three or more cycles in Dallas to pass through intersection. Total breakdown with during rush stop and go operation. hour. Level of service "D" is the most commonly used design level of service for urban and suburban; areas. This means that `D" conditions will be experienced during A.M. and/or P.M. rush hours, but "C" or better during other times. The cost of providing a higher level of service for just those two periods is normally considered uneconomical. Thus, level of service "D" is the design level of service used in this report when making recommendations regarding ultimate street widths. As a practical matter, "D" conditions will only occur at very few locations for short periods of time during the next several years and should not be a general concern. • 5 V. Roadway Classification System • The followingis the.recommended roadwayclassification system for Southlake. It is unique in that Y q it addresses roadway nomenclature in a manner consistent with existing development policies and precedents. It is standard in that it is functionally consistent with classification systems used by other local, regional and state agencies. Following the outline of the classification system will be subsections on functional definitions and recommended design standards. It is important to note that the classification system includes roadway facilities under City jurisdiction and facilities under Federal, State, and County jurisdiction. These classifications are for the permanent or ultimate roadways. The City will acquire the full- width rights-of-way for arterials and collectors through platting. In many cases, developers will not build the facilities and the city will assume the responsibility of constructing or reconstructing the roadway. In a number of cases, the City will build a semi-permanent or interim street section. This section will generally have fewer lanes and will not have the same pavement section as the recommended permanent section. This interim section will be used for the life-cycle of the pavement or until traffic volume increases require construction of the ultimate roadway section. Developers constructing facilities within their development should be required to build the ultimate section(s) for facilities within their development. • • 6 Basic Roadway Classification S Types of Facilities A. Federal/State/County Facilities / Freeways & Principal Arterials SH 114 Freeway SH 114 Freeway Frontage Roads FM 1709 FM 1938 B. City Facilities Arterials - Divided & Undivided Collectors • Local Streets Commercial/Industrial Residential Street or Cul-de-Sac Not classified are urban expressways, access streets, park roads or other types of roadways that tend to be individually unique and should be treated individually. • 7 Roadway Classification Definition - Discussion S Classification: Freeway Function: Carry high volumes of traffic regionally and interregionally - Primary purpose is to accommodate what is normally considered through traffic Trip Length: Very long - generally in excess of five miles System.Continuity: Connects to other freeways, urban expressways, arterials and major collectors Land Use Interaction: Should not penetrate neighborhoods or provide direct access from frontage roads Access Management: Access fully controlled • Intersection Treatment: Fully grade separated Median Treatment: Barriers and/or generous median sections • • 8 Roadway Classification Definition - Discussion Roadway Classification: Freeway Frontage Roads Function: The primary function is to provide a means of connecting the local arterials to the freeways. They often perform two other functions -- often at odds with their primary function as a freeway service road. Those are: a. Arterial for local circulation. The drivers of many vehicles using the frontage roads have no intention of using the freeway, but are using the frontage road to go a short distance when a convenient city street does not exist. b. As a means of access to adjacent property. This is often unavoidable in that it is the only access to the property immediately adjacent to the freeway. Development of the property with driveways is virtually inevitable. Frontage roads have been given their own category in order that they may be dealt with separately from freeways and other streets because of their unique nature. Trip Length: Short System Continuity: Connects arterials and other streets to the freeway. Land Use Interaction: Should not penetrate neighborhoods. May provide access to adjacent property. Access Management: Limited access Intersection Treatment: At-grade Median Treatment: None 9 Roadway Classification Definition - Discussion • Classification: Principal Arterials & Arterials - Divided & Undivided Function: Serves regional and major traffic generators and specialized land uses. Trip Length: Long - one to five miles System Continuity: Connects to freeways, other arterials, major and minor collectors. Land Use Interaction: Should not penetrate neighborhoods. Direct access to adjacent land strictly controlled. Access Management: Partially, but strictly controlled. Access spacing and design controls should be used to insure traffic flow and safety. Intersection Treatment: At grade intersections with separate turning lanes. Traffic carrying capability should not be limited by overly-frequent spacing of traffic signals and intersection access. • Median Treatment: Left-turn lanes or bays in medians Comments: The intersection of two' regional arterials may require .grade separation to accommodate high traffic volumes. • 10 Roadway Classification Definition - Discussion Classification: Collector Function: Serves local areas, minor traffic generators and neighborhoods. Forms connection with adjacent suburban areas. Trip Length: Generally under one mile System Continuity: Connects to freeways, arterials, and other collectors. May extend across arterials. Land Use Interaction: Penetrates neighborhoods Access Management: Limited regulation. Design. controls should be used to ensure safety. Can provide direct access to nonresidential land uses. Intersection Treatment: At-grade Median Treatment: None. Right-of-way and street section should be widened at major • intersections to allow for left-turn lanes with storage and deceleration lanes with free right-turn lanes. 1,4 11 Roadway Classification Definition - Discussion Classification: Local Street - Commercial/Industrial Function: To provide access to adjacent property and to provide circulation within a non-residential development. Considers heavy truck use and considerable on-street parking of delivery vehicles. Some of these streets may be cul-de-sacs or related types. Those will have the same recommended right-of-way and paving sections. Trip Length: Short, generally less than 'h mile System.Continuity: Connects to collectors and arterials , Land Use Interaction: Provides direct access Access Management: Design controls to ensure safety. Intersection Treatment: At-grade 111 Median Treatment: None • 12 Roadway Classification Definition - Discussion i Classification: Local Street- Residential Street or Cul-de-sac Function: Provide direct access to residences and provide internal circulation within neighborhoods. Adjacent pedestrian movement should be considered. / Trip Length: Short, generally lh mile or less System Continuity: Should connect only to collectors. Direct connection between residential streets and arterials should be discouraged. Land Use Interaction:. Provides direct access to adjacent property Access Management: Design controls to ensure safety. Intersection Treatment: None Median Treatment: None • i 13 VI. Evaluation of Existing Street Capacities Traffic volumes for 1991, 1995 and 1996 at thirty-four (34) locations within the city are listed in Table 1 on the following page. The 1991 volumes were obtained from the 1991 update of the Master Thoroughfare Plan. The source of the 1995 volumes was the City of Southlake's Traffic Count Book. The 1996 volumes were collected in April at locations for which there were no 1995 counts or there was a need to confirm the 1991 or 1995 counts. The 1991 volumes were compared to the 1995 or 1996 volumes to identify the short-term impacts of any major increases in traffic so that solutions could be recommended to mitigate the short-term impacts, if any. It is evident from the comparison that several locations have experienced significant increases in traffic during the evaluation period. From 1991 to 1995 or 1996, the traffic volumes at several locations increased by factors of two or three. However, the 1995 and 1996 traffic volumes on all of the streets are less than the theoretical capacity (10,500 vehicles per day) of a two-lane collector street in a suburban residential area. Furthermore, the 1995 and 1996 • volumes on all of the streets are lower than the level of service D service volume of 8,400 vehicles per day (vpd). Therefore, there are no short-term impacts that need to be mitigated at this time. • 14 • Table 1 Comparison of 1991 and 1995 or 1996 Traffic Volumes 24 - Hour Counts (Both Directions) 1991 1995 1996 1. Kimball Rd. - north of 114, south of Shady Ln. 4,429 5,994 2. Kimball Rd. - north of Shady Ln., south of Dove 7,891 * 6,250 3. Dove Rd. - west of Kimball Rd.., east of Carroll 5,139 3,428 4,162 4. Dove Rd. - west of Carroll, east of White Chapel 2,810 3,130 • 5. Carroll - north of 114, south of Dove 3,241 3,272 6. Carroll - south of 114, north of F.M.1709 2,587 3,881 7. Carroll - south of F.M. 1709, north of Continental 2,981 2,115 2,615 8. White Chapel - north of 114, south of Dove 1,932 2,330 9. White Chapel - south of 114, north of F.M. 1709 . 4,285 5,346 10. White Chapel - south of 1709, north of Continental 3,907 6,722 11. White Chapel - south of Continental 3,219 5,824 12. Continental - east of Carroll, west of Brumlow 3,859 * 4,889 13. Continental - west of Carroll, east of White Chapel 1,754 3,607 14. Continental - west of White Chapel, east of Peytonville 2,028 * 4,093 15. Highland - west of Kimball, east of Carroll 1,497 2,439 16. Highland - east of White Chapel, west of 114 1,189 2,524 17. Highland - west of White Chapel, east of Shady.Oak 1,943. * 1,149 18. Shady Oaks - north of Highland, south of Dove 315 496 19. Shady Oaks - south of Highland, north of 1709 313 962 20. Peytonville - south of 1709, north of Continental 525 1,809 21. Peytonville - north of 1709, south of Ten Bar . A,532 2,194 22. Peytonville - north of Ten Bar, south of Woodbrook 926 * 1,014 23. Peytonville - north of Woodbrook, south of Dove 550 1,538 24. Dove - west of White Chapel, east of SH 114 575 * 1,941 25. Dove _west of S.H. 114, east of Peytonville 1,540 3,408 26. Dove - west of Peytonville, east of Randol Mill 1,923 * 2,058 27. Randol Mill - north of 1709, south of Morgan 1,605 2,692 28. Brumlow - north of Hwy. 26, south of Continental 1,950 3,968 29. Continental - east of Brumlow, west of Kimball 1,600 * 4,224 30. White Chapel - north of Dove, south of Bob Jones 870 1,150 31. Bob Jones - west of White Chapel, east of T.W. King 200 32. T.W. King - south of Bob Jones, north of S.H. 114 250 547 33. Lonesome Dove - north of Dove, south of Burney 625 * 1,944 34. Carroll - north of Dove, south of Burney 425 4,870 3,358 • * City of Southlake 1995 Traffic Count Book contains no volume for this location. 15 VII. Determination of Future Traffic A three-phase forecasting process was used to determine the projected traffic for the proposed network of freeways, arterials and collectors. For the first phase, a regional travel demand forecasting model, which is maintained and operated by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) was used to develop the basic traffic forecast for year 2010. The NCTCOG regional model has the capability to generate, distribute, and assign trips, and provides a mechanism to evaluate alternative land use and transportation systems. The model includes parameters and assumptions relative to population and employment, roadway networks, trip generation rates, auto occupancy rates, and mode choice (transit use). Since the NCTCOG model forecasts travel demand on a regional basis, a second phase of the forecasting process is necessary to better represent local conditions. Knowledge of local land use, development activities, the characteristics of certain roadways, special traffic generators, and local policies was used to refine the regional traffic projections to account for the local conditions in Southlake. In a few instances, this "focusing" of the regional traffic projections involved slight modifications to the model output. The third phase of the forecasting process involved utilizing the 2010 traffic projections and demographic forecasts to develop ultimate traffic volumes that can reasonably be expected on the • streets of Southlake when the city is completely built-out, that is, fully developed. Recent estimates by the NCTCOG indicate that by 2010 the City of Southlake's population and employment figures will be about fifty percent(50%) of the numbers that are anticipated at build-out. Therefore, traffic volumes at build-out, whenever it occurs,.are estimated to be approximately twice the projected year 2010 volumes. Enclosed in the Appendix is a schematic traffic volume map showing existing, year 2010, and ultimate traffic volumes. VIII. Recommended Roadway Network A basic, understood, but not written policy is that the network of roadways that is to be the framework of any future thoroughfare planning in Southlake is to essentially take place along existing routes. That is, there is not to be a wholesale designation of new roadways on new alignments for arterials throughout the community. There are two sets of circumstances that might be considered as exceptions: 1. FM 1938. Extension. The cities involved and the Texas Department of Transportation 111 16 informally have long considered extending FM 1938 straight north from FM 1709 to SH 114 to be logical and essential. 2. The recommended network shows collectors in specific locations only along existing roadways. Specific locations for new routes are not recommended. The reason being that the location of these roadways is a function of the design of the individual developments. It is impossible to predict the design of these developments. The City should continue with enforcement of a general development policy that collector type streets be provided by new development at mid-points between arterials as a minimum. Otherwise, local shopping or similar trips will involve a two-mile or longer one-way, circumferential trip using arterials. Also, emergency, alternative routing for residents and public safety vehicles will be diminished significantly, if collector streets are not constructed. Enclosed in this report is a map showing_the recommended network of proposed roadways. The map shows recommended roadways down to the collector level. Again, the locations of collectors along new alignments are not shown. The network shown is that which is anticipated to be needed to support ultimate development in Southlake and the surrounding region. The right-of-way requirements and roadway sections recommended are those necessary to support the ultimate development. With one exception, the ultimate roadway sections depicted on the Thoroughfare Plan are of sufficient width to provide at least level of service `D" for the projected ultimate traffic volumes. The one exception involves Continental Boulevard between FM 1938 and Brumlow Avenue. The three-lane arterial proposed for this section of Continental Boulevard will operate at level of service "F" when the city is completely developed. However, sufficient right-of-way.(either 84' or 94') will be acquired to accommodate a five-lane arterial (A5U), which will provide at least level of service "D" for the ultimate traffic volumes. The City has a policy of obtaining right-of-way for the ultimate need through the platting process, thereby preventing the necessity of 4taving to buy the right-of-way at a later date. An interim roadway pavement section will probably be used within these rights-of-way for five or more years. The Thoroughfare Plan does not include a north-south arterial or collector in the area bounded by FM 1709, FM 1938, Union Church Road and Pearson Lane. However, when this area develops, a north-south street should be provided to connect FM 1709 to Union Church Road. The north south street should preferably be located approximately midway between FM 1938 and Pearson Lane. The new north-south street could be a typical residential street section (R2U) in a 50-foot right-of-way. • 17 410 IX. Major Intersections The Thoroughfare Plan depicts the basic number of lanes that should ultimately be provided on the various street segments throughout the city to accommodate the expected traffic volumes when the city is fully developed. However, major intersections involving the state highways, arterials and collectors will require additional right-of-way to provide left-turn lanes (single or dual) as well as right-turn-only lanes. The Texas Department of Transportation will be responsible for the acquisition of the additional right-of-way on the state highways, but the City will be responsible for securing the additional right-of-way on city arterials and collectors. The City's Subdivision Ordinance contains a provision whereby the City can require, at the time of platting of a subdivision, that this additional right-of-way be dedicated to alleviate existing or potential traffic congestion at intersections where adjacent property is zoned commercial, industrial or other high- intensity use. The five-lane undivided arterials (A5U) will consist of two traffic lanes for each direction of travel with a center, continuous two-way-left-turn lane (CTWLTL). At the intersection of two arterials, • the CTWLTL should be replaced with a raised median with a left-turn bay. In order to comply with the guidelines and recommendations contained in the Southlake Corridor Study, which was adopted in August 1995, the length of the raised median should be approximately 350 feet. Within the City of Southlake, there are several offset intersections (e.g., North White Chapel Blvd. • at East Dove Street and South Carroll Avenue at FM 1709). The City's Subdivision Ordinance contains a provision whereby the.City Engineer may require the dedication of additional right-of- way to eliminate these offset intersections. Existing conditions permitting, the first plat filed on one of the corners of an offset intersection should be required to dedicate the additional right-of-way required to eliminate the offset legs of the intersection. . Traffic signals will most likely be installed at the major interse&tions at some future time, when certain traffic conditions exist. These conditions, known as warrants, are defined in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. However, for intersections involving Federal, State, and/or County roadways, the ultimate decision for signalization resides with the respective jurisdiction. Minimal negative impacts on traffic flow can theoretically be achieved when the spacing of major intersections permits efficient signal timing for the progressive movement of traffic. As a general. rule, the optimal spacing of major signalized intersections should be one mile, one-half mile, or one-fourth mile. • 18 S APPENDIX Revisions to 1991 Thoroughfare Plan The City of Southlake's Master Thoroughfare Plan was updated in 1991. The process that was used to develop the 1996 update of the Master Thoroughfare Plan resulted in several revisions to the 1991 plan. The changes to the 1991 plan, and the reasons for these changes, are summarized on the following pages. • • A-1 • • REVISIONS TO 1991 litROUGHFARE PLAN 1991 1996 Street Segment Classification ,Classification Reasons for Revision Applicable Roadways N/A N/A Incorporated Trail System Master Plan T.W. King Rd. - A4U C2U Trophy Club has eliminated one connection to T.W. King, North of County Line resulting in reduced traffic projections. Bob Jones Rd. - East of A4U C2U Ultimate traffic projections show the need for only two White Chapel Blvd. lanes. White Chapel Blvd. - Dove A4U C2U Ultimate traffic projections show the need for only two Street to Bob Jones Rd. lanes. Reduced traffic is associated with the elimination of the Trophy Club connection to T.W. King. Ridgecrest Dr. - North of C2U No Ultimate traffic projections do not warrant collector Dove Street Classification status. Kimball Ave. - North of A4U C2U Grapevine upgraded Silvercrest from a two-lane street to a Dove Street four-lane street. Wider Silvercrest will reduce demand on Kimball. Two-lane collector is compatible with Grapevine's classification of Kimball. Randol Mill Ave. - FM1709 to A7U A5U Downsized to five-lane roadway pending extension of North City Limits FM1938 by TxDOT. Peytonville Ave. - Dove St. to A4U C2U The expansion of Randol Mill Ave. from FM1709 to Southridge Lakes Pkwy. SH114 to a five-lane roadway (as shown in this Plan) or a Southridge Lakes Pkwy. - A5U C2U seven-lane roadway (if FM 1938-is extended north of FM FM 1709 to Pecos Dr. North 1709) will reduce traffic demand on these three parallel Peytonville Ave. - Continental A4U C2U street segments. Blvd. to Carroll High School A-2 • • • 1991 1996 Street Segment Classification Classification Reasons for Revision Highland Street - Shady Oaks A4U C2U Ultimate traffic projections warrant only two lanes. Drive to White Chapel Blvd. Highland Street - Peytonville A4U Unclassified Highland Street was replaced with a curvilinear residential Ave. to Shady Oaks Drive street through the Coventry Addition. Highland Street - Carroll Ave. A4U C2U Proposed large mixed-use development south of Highland, to Kimball Ave. will provide a major internal roadway that will roughly parallel Highland and intersect Carroll between SH 114 and Highland. Kimball Ave. - SH114 to A5U •A6D Ultimate traffic projections on Kimball between SH114 FM 1709 freeway interchange and FM 1709 warrant a six-lane facility. Existing right-of-way will accommodate a six- lane street. Johnson Rd. - Pearson Lane to A4U C2U 1991 Thoroughfare Plan showed no traffic projections for Randol Mill Ave. Johnson Rd. Ultimate traffic projections for 1996 update show the need for only two lanes. Two-lane collector is compatible with Keller's classification of Johnson Rd. Pearson Lane - FM1709 to A4U C2U City of Keller revised their Thoroughfare Plan so that Union Church Rd. Bear Creek.Rd. will not tie into Union Church and Union Church Rd. - Pearson A5U C2U Pearson Lane will terminate at Union Church. These Lane to FM1938 revisions will create an L-shaped configuration for Pearson-Union Church for which two-lanes will be sufficient. A-3 1111 • 1991 1996 Street Segment Classification Classification Reasons for Revision Old Carrol Ave. - Continental A4U Unclassified New Carroll and Brumlow will align at Continental. Old Blvd. to New Carroll Ave. Carroll will form a "T" intersection with New Carroll north of Continental. Future traffic volumes on Old Carroll will be low; Old Carroll will function well as a local street. Byron Nelson Pkwy. - FM1709 Unclassified A4D Byron Nelson is a new north-south street located between to Continental Blvd. White Chapel and Carroll. Continental Blvd. - FM1938 to A5U A3U Public input resulted in the reclassification of Continental Brumlow Ave. from a five-lane roadway to a three-lane roadway. However, sufficient right-of-way will be acquired for a five-lane street, if future traffic volumes warrant five lanes. • A-4 • 6-Lane Divided Arterial (A6D) 110 2' On-Road Trails, 6' Off-Road Trail P T P CC,,T L L L C M C L L L TC P 1 '1 ,I f 12' 12' - 12' i _i f 12'; _I 12' 1 12' 1 I f a 22 2 2 22 af 4' 6' 5' 42'* 16' 0 42'* 9' 124' LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane,M=Median,P=Parkway,T=Trail * Please note that the above section is shown for asphalt paving with a 2'wide concrete curb and gutter.For concrete paving,the integral concrete curb width is 0.5',resulting in a 6'narrower • roadway section. • DESIGN ELEMENT - STANDARD Right-of-way width 124 ft. Traffic lane width 12 ft. Number of traffic lanes 6 Design speed 35 m.p.h. Grade 0.5% - 6.0% Minimum stopping sight distance 300 ft. Minimum centerline radius 1000 ft. Maximum Service Volume(Level of Service "D") 34,800 vpd i 5-Lane Undivided Arterial (A5U) 2' On-Road Trails, 6' Off-Road Trail PTPCT L L ,I 2�� 12' Cat 12' 2 �I� 14' c +� 12' c �_ 12' iT IC� P 22 4' J 5' 70'* .9' 94' LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane,M=Median, P=Parkway, T=Trail • * Please note that the above section is shown for asphalt paving with a 2'wide concrete curb and gutter. For concrete paving, the integral concrete curb width is 0.5',resulting in a 3'narrower • roadway section. DESIGN ELEMENT- =41 '- STANDARD Right-of-way width 96 ft. Traffic lane width 12 ft. Number of traffic lanes 5 Design speed 35 m.p.h. Grade 0.5% - 6.0% Minimum stopping sight distance 300 ft. Minimum centerline radius 1000 ft. Maximum Service Volume(Level of Service"D") 23,200 vpd • 5-Lane Undivided Arterial (A5U) • 2' On-Road Trails P CT L� �� L � oa L I L12' I _ L� 1TIC� P 2,�2, 12 12 14' 12 2,2' ArdrOd 9' __ 70' 9' 88' LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane,M=Median,P=Parkway,T=Trail • * Please note that the above section is shown for asphalt paving with a 2'wide concrete curb and gutter. For concrete paving,the integral concrete curb width is 0.5',resulting in a 3'narrower roadway section. DESIGN ELEMENT d -STANDARD Right-of-way width 90 ft. Traffic lane width 12 ft. Number of traffic lanes 5 Design speed 35 m.p.h. Grade 0.5%- 6.0% Minimum stopping sight distance 300 ft. Minimum centerline radius 1000 ft. Maximum Service Volume (Level of Service"D") 23,200 vpd 5-Lane Undivided Arterial (A5U) • Constrained R.O.W. - 2' On-Road Trails, 6' Off-Road Trail PT PCT L L L L L TCP 2,2, 12 12 14 12' 12' 2'2' Ar 2' 6' 3' 70' * 3' 84' LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane,M=Median,P=Parkway,T=Trail * Please note that the above section is shown for asphalt paving with a 2'wide concrete curb and gutter. For concrete paving,the integral concrete curb width is 0.5',resulting in a 3'narrower • roadway section. • • DESIGN ELEMENT - STANDARD Right-of-way width 84 ft. Traffic lane width 12 ft. Number of traffic lanes 5 Design speed 35 m.p.h. Grade 0.5%- 6.0% Minimum stopping sight distance 300 ft. Minimum centerline radius 1000 ft. Maximum Service Volume (Level of Service"D") 23,200 vpd S 4-Lane Divided Arterial (A4D) • 2' On-Road Trails, 6' Off-Road Trail PTPCT T I P �C TL. L L �C� M iC� L L___�TI2I P �2 2' 12' 12' 2' 2' 12 12 2 2 4' 6' 5' 30' * 16' 30' * 9' 100' LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane,M=Median,P=Parkway,T=Trail * Please note that the above section is shown for asphalt paving with a 2'wide concrete curb and • gutter. For concrete paving,the integral concrete curb width is 0.5',resulting in a 6'narrower roadway section. • DESIGN ELEMENT 14 - STANDARD Right-of-way width 100 ft. Traffic lane width 12 ft. Number of traffic lanes 4 Design speed 35 m.p.h. Grade 0.5% - 6.0% Minimum stopping sight distance 300 ft. Minimum centerline radius 1000 ft. Maximum Service Volume (Level of Service"D") 23,200 vpd • 4-Lane Divided Arterial (A4D) • 2' On-Road Trails P p+CIT� L `a L 1C M IC� L L , iTC P 2'2• 12 12 21 2' 12 12 2'2' 9' 30' * 16' 30'* 9' 94' O p" LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane,M=Median,P=Parkway,T=Trail * Please note that the above section is shown for asphalt paving with a 2'wide concrete curb and gutter.For concrete paving,the integral concrete curb width is 0.5',resulting in a 6'narrower • roadway section. • DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD Right-of-way width 94 ft. Traffic lane width 12 ft. Number of traffic lanes 4 Design speed 35 m.p.h. Grade 0.5% - 6.0% Minimum stopping sight distance 300 ft. Minimum centerline radius 1000 ft. Maximum Service Volume (Level of Service"D") 23,200 vpd • 4-Lane Undivided Arterial (A4U) • 2' On-Road Trails, 6' Off-Road Trail 2'2' 12 12 12 12 2'2' Axe 4' 6' 5, 56' 80' LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane,M=Median,P=Parkway,T=Trail * Please note that the above section is shown for asphalt paving with a 2'wide concrete curb and gutter. For concrete paving,theintegral concrete curb width is 0.5',resulting in a 3'narrower • roadway section. DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD Right-of-way width 80 ft. Traffic lane width 12 ft. Number of traffic lanes 4 Design speed 35 m.p.h. Grade 0.5% - 7.0% Minimum stopping sight distance 250 ft. Minimum centerline radius 1000 ft. Maximum Service Volume(Level of Service"D") 20,800 vpd • 4-Lane Undivided Arterial (A4U) • 2' On-Road Trails P CT L L L L TC P _ ,I ta 12' o-12 I� 1,�2' '7 12' ,� l 22 22 • 9' S61 9' 74' • LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane,M=Median,P=Parkway, T=Trail * Please note that the above section is shown for asphalt paving with a 2'wide concrete curb and gutter. For concrete paving, the integral concrete curb width is 0.5',resulting in a.3'narrower roadway section. DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD Right-of-way width 74 ft. Traffic lane width 12 ft. Number of traffic lanes 4 Design speed 35 m.p.h. Grade 0.5% - 7.0% Minimum stopping sight distance 250 ft. Minimum centerline radius 1000 ft. Maximum Service Volume(Level of Service"D") 20,800 vpd • 4-Lane Undivided Arterial (A4U) No Trails P I IL IL. IL P f 2, IC} 2' 12' 12' 12' 1 2 9' I,. 5 2' I 9' 70' LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane, M=Median, P=Parkway,T=Trail * Please note that the above section is shown for asphalt paving with a 2'wide concrete curb and gutter. For concrete paving,the integral concrete curb width is 0.5',resulting in a 3'narrower roadway section. DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD Right-of-way width 70 ft. Traffic lane width 12 ft. Number of traffic lanes 4 Design speed 35 m.p.h. Grade 0.5% - 7.0% Minimum stopping sight distance 250 ft. Minimum centerline radius 1000 ft. Maximum Service Volume (Level of Service"D") 20,800 vpd S 3-Lane Undivided Arterial (A3U) ® Constrained - 2' On-Road Trails and 6' Off-Road Trails P T P D PT L } L L TP D P T kP � � 121 12' I 14' I 12' 121 I 1 I 3' 6' 2' 8' 2 42' 2' 8' 2 6' 3' 84' LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane,M=Median, P=Parkway,T=Trail,D=Bar Ditch III • DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD Right-of-way width 84 ft. Traffic lane width 12 ft. Number of traffic lanes 3 Design speed 35 m.p.h. Grade 0.5% - 7.0% • Minimum stopping sight distance 250 ft. Minimum centerline radius 1000 ft. *Maximum Service Volume(Level of Service"F") 14,500 vpd * Please note Level of Service decrease from "D" to "F" for this section (Continental Blvd. 0 from Davis to New Carroll). 2-Lane Undivided Collector (C2U) II/ 2' On-Road Trails, 8' Off-Road Trail L L TC P P fQ T 1 P�CITfa 16' 1 16' -I 1 1- 2'2' 2' 2' [ ( fA 4' 8' 1 5' 40 9 * 1 9' 66' LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane,M=Median,P=Parkway, T=Trail III *Please note that the above section is shown for asphalt paving with a 2'wide concrete curb and • gutter. For concrete paving,theintegral concrete curb width is 0.5',resulting in a 3'narrower roadway section. DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD Right-of-way width 66 ft. Traffic lane width 16 ft. Number of traffic lanes 2 Design speed 35 m.p.h. • Grade 0.5% - 10.0% Minimum stopping sight distance 250 ft. Minimum centerline radius 400 ft. Maximum Service Volume (Level of Service"D") 8,400 vpd ill 2-Lane Undivided Collector (C2U) 2' On-Road Trails, 6' Off-Road Trail P ' T f P 1C�Tf L I L 1TiC P 2'2' 16' 16' 2'2' r Alp IWal FA 4. 4'Li S' 40'* 9' n a d 64' LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane,M=Median,P=Parkway,T=Trail * Please note that the above section is shown for asphalt paving with a 2'wide concrete curb and gutter. For concrete paving, the integral concrete curb width is 0.5',resulting in a 3'narrower roadway section. DESIGN ELEMENT • • STANDARD Right-of-way width 64 ft. Traffic lane width L, 16 ft. Number of traffic lanes 2 Design speed 35 m.p.h. Grade 0.5% - 10.0% Minimum stopping sight distance 250 ft. Minimum centerline radius 400 ft. Maximum Service Volume (Level of Service"D") 8,400 vpd 2-Lane Undivided Collector (C2U) 2' On-Road Trails P clC`T , Lct- L �TlCb P 2' 29 1 6' 16' 2' 2' • 09 40, * 9' 0 o v 58' LEGEND: C=Curb,L=Lane,M=Median,P=Parkway, T=Trail * Please note that the above section is shown for asphalt paving with a 2'•wide concrete curb and gutter. For concrete paving, the integral concrete curb width is 0.5',resulting in a 3'narrower roadway section. DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD Right-of-way width 60 ft. Traffic lane width 16 ft. Number of traffic lanes 2 Design speed 35 m.p.h. Grade 0.5% - 10.0% Minimum stopping sight distance 250 ft. Minimum centerline radius 400 ft. Maximum Service Volume(Level of Service"D") 8,400 vpd